# Sticky  OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread



## Isochroma




















This thread is for news about technological advancements in and commercial production of OLED TVs and OLED technology in general. It will be regularly updated with relevant news about leading-edge advancements.


Currently, it is the largest single repository in the world for OLED display news, device information and imagery.


Other threads in this group on the AVS Forum:
*▪* *LCD TVs: Fab News Thread* 
*▪* *LCD TVs: Market Price Stats Thread* 
*▪* *LCD TVs: Technology Advancements Thread* 
*▪* *Plasma TVs: Market Price Stats Thread* 
Background:
*▪* *Wikipedia: OLEDs* 
*▪* *History of OLED Technology* 
Video:
*▪ Sony Moves a Step Closer to OEL TV (11" & 27")* [ *Stream* / *AVI* / *MKV* : 6.6 MB ]
*▪ Epson 40" OLED Display* [ *MKV* : 0.8 MB ]
*▪ Wil Wheaton praises Sony's 1,000,000:1 Contrast OLED TVs* [ *Stream* / *AVI* / *MKV* : 5.2 MB ]

*▪ lemaroc.org: OLED Videos *
*▪ takatv.com: OLED Videos *
To start off, some recent and (surprisingly), not-so-recent news:

--------------------------------------

*Universal Display Corporation and Sony Corporation Announce Joint Development Agreement Aimed at Organic LED Television Monitors* 
*18 April 2001*


Universal Display Corporation (UDC) (Nasdaq: PANL PHLX: PNL) and Sony Corporation (NYSE: SNE) have announced a joint development agreement for high efficiency active matrix Organic LED (OLED) display devices for use in large area monitor applications. Under the Agreement, the parties will develop active matrix OLED displays with extremely high power efficiency combining UDC's proprietary high efficiency electrophosphorescent materials and Sony's proprietary low temperature poly silicon active matrix OLED technology (TAC: Top emission Adaptive Current drive).


Sony has developed a 13-inch active matrix OLED display using its novel TAC technology. That display is a little thicker than a credit card and has the potential to replace the bulky TV tube. UDC's portfolio of innovative OLED technologies include its world record high efficiency electrophosphorescent material system, which can be up to four times more power efficient than conventional OLED systems; transparent cathodes, and flexible plastic display technologies. It has the sole and exclusive licensing rights to over 380 issued and pending OLED patents worldwide.


"The opportunity to work with the Sony team is a very exciting event. We believe that their vision of a thin, lightweight OLED television monitor is a dramatic confirmation of the essential attributes of OLED technology and their position as a premier developer of high quality large area consumer electronic display products," stated Steven V. Abramson, President and Chief Operating Officer of UDC.


Tetsuo Urabe, General Manager of Sony's OLED development department stated "UDC and their research partners have been developing extraordinary and innovative OLED technologies for more than 7 years and the combination of Sony's advanced AM-OLED technology and UDC's high expertise in OLED research and development will accelerate the realization of this revolutionary flat panel display technology for large area applications."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology introduces world's largest polymer organic light-emitting diode display* 
*16 April 2002*











*Display:* Polymer Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display
*Size:* 17” diagonal
*Pixel count:* 1280 x 768 (XGA wide)
*Grayscale/Color:* 64 grayscale (6-bit RGB) / 262,144 colors
*Brightness:* 100-300 cd/m2
*Contrast:* 200:1 (dark room)


Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd. (TMD) today announced the world's first full-color 17-inch XGA wide polymer organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display, a breakthrough display achieved forming a light-emitting polymer film on low temperature polysilicon thin film transistor (TFT).


OLED display data via an organic light-emitting diode in pixels formed on a TFT array. The display itself emits light and has no need of the backlight required by LCDs, opening the way to thinner, lighter display panels that consume less power. OLED displays also offer the faster response time required for motion pictures and support a wider viewing angle.


The newly developed 17-inch XGA wide OLED display was made possible by breakthroughs in ink-jet printing and solvent-material technologies for depositing a polymer film. Both advances can be applied to the achievement of large size, high resolution displays and efficient mass production without any need for a vacuum environment. The resulting display is the largest OLED display yet achieved and offers the highest resolution, 1280 x 768 pixels.


TMD expects OLED displays to find their initial market in cellular phones and small- and medium-sized PDAs, but development of a 17-inch wide OLED confirms application as larger displays for audio-visual equipment, including TVs.


The new display is on exhibit at Electronic Display Forum 2002 held at Tokyo Big Site, Tokyo, Japan from April 16-18, 2002.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*At the Society for Information Display (SID) show in Baltimore, two manufacturers claim to have built the largest organic LED display ever seen* 
*29 May 2003*











*20-inch OLED*


Organic LED displays were much in evidence at last week’s Society for Information Display (SID) show in Baltimore, US, with two companies claiming to have built the largest yet.

International Display Technology (IDTech), a joint venture between Chi Mei Optoelectronics of Taiwan and IBM Japan , demonstrated a 20 inch display driven by what it calls ‘super amorphous silicon’ technology. Meanwhile, Sony showed off its 24 inch screen, which consists of a 2 x 2 tiled array of OLED displays.


Unlike most OLED displays, the device developed by IDTech is based on amorphous silicon transistors. According to the company, this enables much lower fabrication costs than the polycrystalline transistors generally used in OLED technology.


Amorphous silicon is already used in liquid-crystal display (LCD) manufacture, and IDTech says that its development makes commercial production of OLED displays with existing TFT-LCD manufacturing facilities possible.


“TFT-LCD companies can easily transform their products into OLED without massive investment in new facilities. This will result in a very competitive production cost for OLED displays,” said the company.


IDTech also claims that its display consumes half the power of a typical high-end LCD, has better color saturation and a wider viewing angle. It features WXGA resolution (1280x768 pixels) and draws 25W power at 300 cd/m2.


Although substantially bigger at 24.2 inches, the active-matrix OLED display developed by Sony is actually four separate displays. However, the company says that its tiling technology makes the join between each display appear seamless. However, the resolution of the Sony display is slightly less at 1024 x 768 pixels.


Both companies say that their developments open the door to OLED displays being used in televisions.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Epson Creates World's First Large Full-Color OLED Display Using Original Inkjet Technology* 
*PDF* 
*18 May 2004*






























Seiko Epson Corporation ("Epson") today announced that it has used its original inkjet printing technology to successfully develop the world's first large-screen (40-inch) full-color organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display prototype.


Self-luminescent OLED displays, which offer outstanding viewing characteristics, including high contrast, wide viewing angle, and fast response times, are widely seen as the leading candidate for the next generation of thin, lightweight displays. One of the major obstacles to their realization, however, has been the perceived difficulty of forming organic layers on large-sized TFT (thin film transistor) substrates. Thus the question of when fabrication processes for large-sized OLED flat panel displays would become technically feasible had been anyone's guess.


Epson has been actively working to develop and commercialize next-generation OLED displays. The company, long a leader in inkjet printers, has developed an original inkjet process for depositing organic layers on large-size TFT substrates. Using this adapted inkjet technology to form organic layers on large-size substrates in a simple process, Epson has now developed the world's largest (40-inch diagonal) full-color OLED display prototype.


By establishing an OLED display manufacturing system and process that can handle oversized substrates, Epson has beaten a path to large-size OLED displays, as well as to lower cost small- and medium-sized panels cut from larger TFT substrates.


Epson believes that the characteristics of OLED displays make them the ideal device for entertainment applications, whether in equipment for the road or living room. The company is thus gearing up towards commercialization in 2007.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*LG Philips lays claim to biggest OLED* 
*19 October 2004*




















The company, which manufactures thin-film-transistor, or TFT, LCD screens in South Korea, unveiled a prototype 20.1-inch active matrix OLED display at the FPD International trade show in Japan on Tuesday.


It is based on "low-temperature polysilicon," a technique also used in TFT-LCD production, where active components are integrated across the display glass. This lets the OLED display be made using modifications of existing techniques and production lines. Because OLED displays do not need a separate backlight, the power consumption of the finished unit should be lower than that of an LCD counterpart.


LG Philips, a joint venture between LG Electronics and Royal Philips Electronics, wasn't able to provide full technical details of the device at the time of writing. According to reports, the OLED display contains 3 million pixels, suggesting that it has a resolution of 2,028 pixels by 1,536 pixels.


Until now, Samsung had the honor of having created the largest OLED display. In May it announced a 17-inch active matrix OLED display with a resolution of 1,600 pixels by 1,200 pixels.


Other companies have announced OLED displays that are larger than 20.1 inches, but these have actually contained a number of smaller units stuck together.


Kodak and Sony have also shown interest in OLED production.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung Develops World's Largest 21" OLED Panel for Digital TV* 
*4 January 2005*













Competition is heating up as companies accelerate their moves to develop the next generation of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays.


OLED display responses are 1,000 times faster than liquid crystal displays (LCDs), thus enabling greater resolution. The display's ability to function perfectly without a backlight means that monitors can be produced with one-third the depth of their LCD rivals.


Samsung Electronics announced Tuesday that it has developed the world's largest active matrix-based (AM) OLED display panel for digital televisions. Souk Jun-hyung, senior vice president of the LCD research and development center, said that the 21-inch OLED display features the highest resolution at 6.22 million pixels.


Last October, LG Philips LDC developed a 20.1-inch OLED television in conjunction with LG Electronics, and last May, Samsung SDI released its own 17-inch OLED product. The two companies adopted low temperature poly-silicon (LTPS) for their products to ensure they have longer life spans and higher resolution.


At present, OLED displays are largely restricted to mobile phone use, but it is likely that large OLED-paneled televisions will replace PDP and LCD TVs in a few years.


According to a survey by Display Search, the global OLED market is expected to grow in scale from US$330 million (W343.8 billion) last year to $830 million in 2005 and $2.2 billion by 2008.


----------



## assJack1

10" and bigger with no top end listed implies to me that the biggest size intended will not be greater than 32" or so. Just a feeling. No inside info - just a surmise.


Also, could you please change your font, many folks including myself use a different background.


----------



## ahwig60

i liked his font it was easy on the eyes to read.


----------



## jksgvb

I had to highlight the font color to read it.


I realize that small OLED displays are used in some cell phones, PDAs, video cameras, etc., but I understand that lifetime for the blue organics is pretty short (~1000 hrs). I think OLED displays would make the ultimate TV or monitor if they can overcome that problem and the high cost of manufacture.


"How Stuff Works" has a good article on OLED displays.


----------



## Larry Hutchinson




> Quote:
> why should he change his font



Try setting to AVS White mode and try to read it.


----------



## Larry Hutchinson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jksgvb* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I realize that small OLED displays are used in some cell phones, PDAs, video cameras, etc., but I understand that lifetime for the blue organics is pretty short (~1000 hrs). I think OLED displays would make the ultimate TV or monitor if they can overcome that problem and the high cost of manufacture.



Of course, it was only a few years ago that the lifetimes were measured in seconds -- not years.


Still, even with all the recent progress, there is no certanty that OLED (or SED for that matter) will ever overcome their technical and manufacturing problems.


----------



## Isochroma

 *SAMSUNG Electronics Develops World’s First 40-inch a-Si-based OLED for Ultra-slim, Ultra-sharp Large TVs* 
*19 May 2005*








































Samsung Electronics, the leader in TFT-LCD technology, today announced that it has successfully developed the world's first single-sheet, 40-inch active matrix (AM) OLED (organic light-emitting diode) for emissive flat panel TV applications. The high-definition-compatible OLED prototype has a wide screen pixel format of 1280x800 (WXGA) driven by an amorphous silicon (a-Si) AM backplane to permit faster video response times with low power consumption.


Samsung's 40-inch OLED panel will be demonstrated for the first time at the world's largest display industry event, Society for Information Display (SID) 2005 International Symposium, Seminar and Exhibition in Boston, May 24– 27. .


Manufactured on Samsung's fourth generation (4G) production line with a mother-glass size of 730mm x 920mm, the new OLED prototype combines all of the traditional features of emissive OLED technology, including wide viewing angle, thin package size, no color filter and no backlight, with the enormous production infrastructure advantages of standard a-Si techniques. To date, AM OLED prototypes have used costly polysilicon approaches, which have limited production sizes.


Shattering traditional AM OLED size limitations, the new prototype offers a maximum screen brightness of 600 nits; a black-and-white contrast ratio of 5,000:1; and, a color gamut of 80 percent. Motion pictures with ultra-high quality images can be impeccably reproduced by skillfully employing OLED's rapid video response capabilities for image processing of HD-class resolution. The ultra-thin shape of the panels will allow future TV set designers to create televisions with a total thickness of only 3cm or less.


After launching its OLED development initiative in 2001 to secure leadership in next-generation display technologies, Samsung developed a 14.1” WXGA (1280x768) OLED panel in 2004, followed by the world's first 21” HD-class (1920x1080) OLED panel in January, 2005. This ambitious pace of innovation accelerated development of today's unusually large 40-inch OLED prototype, paving the way for large-size OLED TVs.


“Our development of a 40-inch OLED will provide a firm basis from which we can become the unassailable market leader in the flat panel display market of the future,” said Dr. Kyuha Chung, vice president of Samsung Electronics LCD R&D Center . “We're taking an early leadership position in the next-generation display market, building on Samsung Electronics' success in the TFT-LCD market.”


Samsung Electronics is the supervisory and lead research institution for detailed implementation of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Energy's (MOCIE) Next-Generation Growth Engine Industries Initiative. The latest round of development has been conducted as part of the project, “Development of Solution-Based AM OLED for Low-Cost 4G HDTVs using a-Si.”


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CDT Demonstrates Milestone in OLED Displays* 
*3 November 2005*











*14" P-OLED display ink jet printed @ CDT*



Cambridge Display Technology (CDT) [Nasdaq: OLED] has announced another important step in the development of polymer light emitting diode (P-OLED) display technology with the production of a number of 14 inch full color displays using ink jet printing. The displays were produced at CDT's Technology Development Centre in the UK, and feature a resolution of 1280 x 768 pixels x RGB, equivalent to almost three million sub-pixels, or over 30 million ink jet drops.


The active matrix panels use an amorphous silicon backplane, and were made using a multi-nozzle approach - up to 128 nozzles - with no interlacing, and are believed to be the first of their kind ever produced.


The development strengthens CDT's view that multi-nozzle ink jet printing is the best approach to achieving scaleability and a low TAC time in the manufacture of high quality P-OLED displays.


Earlier this year, CDT demonstrated several 5.5 inch displays, and the latest 14 inch displays are part of a continuing program to develop both the underlying P-OLED technology and the means of manufacture. The WXGA+ panels were produced using printers from the Litrex Corporation, a company in which CDT currently has a 50% holding.


For CDT, Dr David Fyfe, CEO commented: "We are delighted at the rate of progress being demonstrated by these latest displays. It is not easy to produce high quality products when manufacturing a display design for the first time and in very small quantities, so the evident viewing quality and freedom from major defects demonstrated by these panels is especially encouraging."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Idemitsu and Sony to jointly develop materials for OLED* 
*Agreement reached for mutual use of each company's OLED-related patents*
*29 November 2005*


Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. (hereafter Idemitsu) and Sony Corporation (hereafter Sony) have signed a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) on November 28, 2005 to jointly develop new superior Organic Light-Emitting Diode (hereafter OLED) luminous materials. And to promote the joint development, they have agreed to the mutual use of each company's OLED-related patents, i.e. material patents and component patents. The formal contract is expected to be signed at the end of January 2006.


OLED is a self-luminous display, which emits light by running an electric current through organic luminous materials. As a result of its simple structure, whereby the organic luminous layer is placed between two glass panels, no back-light system is required. This leads to a much thinner display. OLED is widely considered to be the most viable next-generation flat display, showing excellent color reproduction capability and high-speed response to moving images.


Idemitsu developed the world's brightest blue-light organic luminous material in 1997, based on their molecular engineering and organic synthesis technologies. Idemitsu has since continuously been developing new luminous materials for the mid-large size OLEDs. In addition to materials development, Idemitsu is aggressively working on new technologies such as combination technology for materials, OLED component technologies, etc.


Sony is developing various material and component technologies, and presented a 13 “OLED panel in February 2001 and a 24” OLED in January 2003, based on low temperature poly silicon TFT (Thin Film Transistor) technologies. Sony's mass-produced OLEDs were adopted in the company's PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) products from September 2004. And now, Sony is working on developing new technologies for the realization of a mid-large size OLED panel.


By sharing their complementary OLED related technologies, Idemitsu and Sony will develop new superior OLED luminous materials, boasting excellent features such as high luminescence efficiency for lower power consumption, high brightness and color reproduction for HD contents era, high response time for moving images, long durability, etc.


In addition, the agreement will grant mutual access to both companies' individual OLED-related patents. Sony will be able to use Idemitsu's OLED component related patents, whereby Idemitsu will be able to use Sony's OLED material related patents. As a result, the joint development will be accelerated, and Idemitsu and Sony are expected to expand their respective material and component businesses smoothly.


“As a materials manufacturer, we are delighted to have a strong relationship with Sony Corporation which positions OLED as the leading candidate to succeed as the next generation display" said Akihiko Tenbo, President, Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. "The complementary strengths of Sony's display technologies and Idemitsu's material technologies will positively drive OLED development.”


“We are very pleased to work on this joint development with Idemitsu, which has leading edge technology in many areas and especially in OLED material technologies.” said Ryoji Chubachi, President and Electronics CEO, Sony Corporation. “Sony is positioning OLED as the most important technology for the next generation flat display. Thanks to the development of new superior luminous materials through the joint efforts of the two companies, we will be able to accelerate the OLED development and will advance the materialization of our OLED applied products.”


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CDT reports new records for OLED display materials* 
*12 December 2005*


Cambridge Display Technology (CDT) has announced two major milestones in the development of long lifetime, high efficiency light emitting polymers for full color, video capable displays.


A phosphorescent red device has been produced by CDT and Sumitomo Chemical which has a lifetime [see footnote] of half a million hours from an initial luminance of 100 cd/m2; this is a record for lifetime of solution-processable materials of any color.


The efficiency is also improved at over 7cd/A. Red efficiency is especially important as this color consumes the largest share of power input in a color device, so improvements in red efficiency have important practical implications.


The second major milestone announced is a lifetime of 150,000 hours for a fluorescent blue device based on a new material developed by CDT, and now part of the Sumation™ portfolio. Just eighteen months ago, CDT announced the achievement of 30,000 hours lifetime for fluorescent blue. The efficiency is also the highest recorded for a blue polyfluorene material at 10cd/A.


The new blue material yields very good color values and efficiency. The OLED industry has come to regard progress on blue materials as a key indicator, since this performance dictates the range of full color applications which can be implemented. The progress announced today gives a strong indication that the technology is moving rapidly to satisfy the requirements for applications including large display screens.


These new materials are fully printable - a major advantage of polymer OLED technology over other OLED technologies. They are also compatible with each other and could be combined in the same device.


"The progress on red lifetime and efficiency is astonishingly rapid," said David Fyfe, CEO of CDT. "Increasingly, the progress on blue lifetime is building on the synergies arising from both the acquisition of Dow Chemical's P-OLED technology by Sumitomo, and the merging of CDT's and Sumitomo's know-how into Sumation. We are confident of further progress."

Footnote


Other data released are the lifetimes from higher initial luminance levels of 200, 300 and 400 cd/m2, which for the red material are as follows: 125,000 hours, 55,500 hours and 31,200 hours respectively, and for the blue: 37,500 hours, 16,700 hours and 9,400 hours. Efficiencies are quoted at over 7 cd/A and 10 cd/A for the red and blue respectively.


When "lifetime" is discussed here, it refers to the time taken for the display/pixel to fall to half its initial stated luminance. Lifetime estimates are based on accelerated testing of simple test devices at several very high initial luminance levels, and use of these data to calculate predicted lifetimes at lower brightness levels. Data are presented subject to experimental error.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CDT Sees Further Rapid Progress In Polymer Lifetime Development* 
*13 March 2006*


Cambridge Display Technology (CDT) [Nasdaq: OLED] welcomes the announcement by Sumation™ - its joint venture partner with Sumitomo Chemical - of rapid progress in the development of long lifetime, high efficiency light emitting polymers for full color, video capable P-OLED displays.


Following a previous announcement in December, CDT now reports the achievement of blue fluorescent devices (CIEx=0.14, y=0.21) with 12,500 hours lifetime(1) from an initial luminance of 400cd/m², and an efficiency of 9cd/A.


Also announced are solution processable red phosphorescent devices (CIEx=0.67, y=0.32) with 50,000 hours lifetime(2) and an efficiency of 11cd/A.


CDT also welcomes the announcement of a green material with color co-ordinates (CIEx=0.36, y=0.60), which represents a more saturated color than previously available from this class of material. Materials with strong colors are important in the design of full color displays with good efficiency and lifetime characteristics. Lifetime achieved for this material is 50,000 hours(3) with an efficiency of 16cd/A.


The increased performance demonstrated by these latest data has prompted a switch to reporting lifetimes extrapolated from the higher luminance of 400cd/m².


Comments CDT's CEO Dr David Fyfe: "We are delighted to see rapid progress being made by the team from Sumation™, our joint venture operation formed in 2005. We place a very high priority on continuing to improve the underlying capability of P-OLED technology and the range of applications it can satisfy. We expect to continue to report further progress going forward. These data demonstrate the very significant synergy achieved with the combination of two very experienced teams in Cambridge and Tokyo."

1. Lifetime data has hitherto been reported by CDT from an initial luminance of 100cd/m². On this basis, the blue fluorescent devices would have an extrapolated lifetime of 200,000 hours.

2. Equivalent to 800,000 hours from 100cd/m².

3. Equivalent to 600,000 hours from 100cd/m²


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung Confirms AMOLED Roll-out* 
*23 March 2006*


The projections for the huge market growth of OLED displays beginning in 2007 are staggering, and depend on the roll-out of active-matrix OLEDs (AMOLEDs) as the main display in lots and lots of cell phones.


Now, Lee Woo-Jong, vice president of Samsung SDI’s Mobile Display Business, has announced that the first manufacturing line of his company’s $450M AMOLED plant in Cheonan is scheduled to start producing displays by the end of the year with ramp-up in January '07, which is generally consistent with previous estimates. An EE Times story quotes Lee as saying that the plant will produce the equivalent of 20M 2- to 2.6-inch displays annually. The target application is "digital multimedia broadcasting-enabled phones."


"Initially, we will target the mobile TV phone market and then expand the territory to the 40-inch-level television market in two or three years," said Lee. "We plan to increase the annual AMOLED production capacity to 100M units by 2008 to meet an expected strong demand for higher-resolution displays for mobile TV phones. We have already been negotiating with several global mobile TV phone makers on design-in issues." Although Lee did not identify any potential customers, it is well known in the industry that Samsung Electronics will be a major customer. The AMOLEDs will compete with active-matrix TFTs in this premium end of the cell-phone market.


Samsung SDI will be making its AMOLEDs on a Gen 4 line, and claims its displays will be the first to use thin-film transistors made from low-temperature polysilicon (LTPS). Although this could be true for AMOLED displays intended for cell phones, Toshiba announced a 3.5-inch AMOLED using LTPS last October at FPD International.


Samsung SDI is known to be working with Universal Display Corp. (Ewing, NJ; www.universaldisplay.com ), whose phosphorescent small-molecule OLED materials permitted Samsung to build the first cell-phone AMOLED prototype that consumed less power than an equivalent TFT-LCD.


An editorial note: Lee’s stated intention to "expand the [OLED] territory to the 40-inch level television market in two or three years" should be approached with caution. We believe the company’s cell-phone display production will use the proven vacuum thermal evaporation process for depositing the OLED materials. While this is a reasonable initial approach for small displays fabricated on substrates no larger than Gen 4, it would not be suitable for the larger fab generations required to produce large TV panels economically. Furthermore, the largest LTPS deposition equipment in the world is currently Gen 4.


This means that TV-size AMOLED panels will require fundamentally different OLED deposition and backplane fabrication processes than the initial phone-panel product - or Samsung would have to undertake a major, expensive and time-consuming scale-up of LTPS processing. These considerations make volume production of 40-inch panels unlikely in a two- to three-year time frame, although RGB AMOLED prototypes in such sizes are a definite possibility. (Samsung has been showing a "color-by-white" 40-inch OLED demonstrator on the show circuit for some time, but acknowledges that this approach represents a technological dead end for large displays - in part because of its poor luminous efficiency.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLLA project reports OLED lighting milestones* 
*12 April 2006*


The European OLLA project has demonstrated white OLEDs with an efficacy of 10 lm/W, as well as green ITO-free devices.


Europe's OLLA project, which brings together a consortium of 24 partners to investigate OLEDs for lighting applications, has delivered its first milestone to the European Commission.











*Blue pin-type OLED*



The project deliverable is an advanced white OLED prototype light source, with an efficacy of more that 10 lm/W, emitting several thousand hours at 1000 cd/m2 brightness. This initial result makes use of PIN™ doping technology developed by Novaled, which enables increased efficiency with long lifetime at lower driving voltages.


"We have made substantial progress in nearly all working areas within the project," comments Peter Visser, project manager of the European integrated project OLLA. “New chemical compounds for OLEDs have been synthesized, characterized and transferred to other partners to be tested in OLED devices.


"Also, optical light out-coupling structures were investigated and our modeling activities helped us to get a much deeper understanding of the basic processes inside OLEDs. These results show our combined progress in view of large area lighting."

*ITO-free devices*


An indium tin oxide (ITO)-free OLED device has also been demonstrated within OLLA.











*An ITO-free 1x1 cm2 green OLED device with Baytron® PH500 as

injection material, opening a cheaper approach for OLED lighting applications.*



ITO is commonly used as the conductive anode material for OLEDs and liquid crystal display (LCD) panels. Due to the growing demand of flat-panel displays, the price of the rare metal indium has been driven sky-high from US$60 per kg in 2002 to nearly $1000/kg today.


As OLEDs gain more and more interest in the field of lighting applications, the consumption of indium is expected to further rise in the future. To replace ITO, a newly developed conductive polymer from H.C. Starck was employed by the OLLA project.


“Until now, our Baytron® material has been used on top of ITO anodes as a Hole Injection Layer (HIL) to improve brightness, lower the driving voltages, and to reduce the defect density of OLEDs,” said Andreas Elschner of H.C. Starck. “We have developed a new formulation of Baytron®, which is especially tailored to reach high conductivity and good optical properties for use in OLED applications.”


Baytron® PH500 is a new formulation of the conductive polymer poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) poly(styrenesulfonate), or PEDOT/PSS in short. It can be applied in solution by common spin-coating, printing or inkjet techniques.


In close cooperation with H.C. Starck, the TU Dresden-based Institut für Angewandte Photophysik (IAPP) has demonstrated a first 1.1 cm2 green OLED using the new Baytron® PH500 formulation instead of a normal ITO anode.


"We measured an efficiency of 18.7 lm/W at 1000 cd/m2 brightness, which is an amazingly high value," said IAPP’s Karsten Walzer. “We could even show that OLEDs on PH500 are more efficient than on ITO. This is due to their better matching optical properties within the OLED.” More detailed research results was disclosed during a presentation by IAPP on the SPIE Photonics Europe conference in Strasbourg.


“This encouraging result is one example of many steps we still have to make before commercializing OLEDs in Lighting applications becomes reality," comments Dietrich Bertram of Philips Lighting and technical coordinator of OLLA. "A possible elimination of the ITO layer is a very interesting option in developing this technology towards commercialization.”


“However, as the feasibility has only been shown on 1 cm2 so far, additional research has to be done on larger areas.”

*About the OLLA project*


OLLA (Organic LEDs for ICT & next generation Lighting Applications) is a joint research project on the development of white OLEDs for general lighting applications. The goal of the OLLA project is to demonstrate in 2008 high-brightness white OLED light tiles with a long lifetime and high energy efficiency.


The consortium has 24 partners in 8 European countries. OLLA is partially funded under the IST (Information Society Technologies) priority of the European Union’s 6th Framework Programme.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*DuPont Announces Breakthrough in Next Generation Flat Panel Displays Technology With High Performance Solution Processing of Small Molecule Materials* 
*26 April 2006*


DuPont — a leader in the development of organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays — today announced a significant technology breakthrough in its OLED technology, taking a significant step toward commercialization of this next generation flat panel display offering.


Using advanced materials, OLEDs produce low power, thin, high-performance flat panel displays. OLED panels are emissive, eliminating the need for backlights and simplifying display design compared to other display technologies, such as liquid crystal displays (LCDs).


DuPont’s latest technological achievement enables -- for the first time -- the combination of high performance and long lifetime of small molecule OLED materials with a printing process that is substantially lower cost and more scalable to larger display sizes than the industry incumbent processes, such as vapor deposition. Through a combination of innovative processing device architecture and new materials, DuPont has demonstrated printing of small molecule OLED materials from solution.


DuPont has achieved lifetimes of the three primary colors each exceeding 10,000 hours of white lifetime (or 40,000 hours for a typical video) at the brightnesses required for a 200 nit display. With this development, DuPont has demonstrated that OLEDs can be manufactured at high yields and low total cost.


"Our model shows that the total cost of OLEDs can be 30 percent less than LCDs," said Craig Naylor, group vice president - DuPont Electronic & Communication Technologies. "Our proprietary materials are also designed to use less power than LCDs. And OLED displays can be very thin -- less than 1mm. With this development, we expect OLEDs will become the next generation flat panel display technology. "


OLEDs are starting to penetrate key applications in small displays today, including cellular phones and MP3 players. With DuPont’s technology, OLEDs can compete in a larger range of products -- including PDAs, personal digital media players, industrial and consumer electronics and other applications where bright, colorful, high contrast, thin, video capable displays are required, including eventually large screen televisions.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Salmon DNA improves OLED performance* 
*PDF* 
*8 May 2006*











*Completed wafer with 4 devices on it.*











*Salmon DNA*



Incorporating salmon DNA into the structure of a conventional OLED makes it ten times more efficient and thirty times brighter, say researchers in the US.


Salmon DNA could hold the key to more efficient and brighter OLEDs, according to researchers in the US. By incorporating a thin layer of DNA into the OLED structure, the team says its BioLEDs are as much as ten times more efficient and thirty times brighter than their conventional counterparts. (Applied Physics Letters 88 171109)


The team's idea involves using the DNA as an electron-blocking layer. This improves the probability of electrons and holes recombining and emitting photons, which in turn enhances the device's luminance.


"It turns out that DNA has nearly ideal energy levels that allow hole transport to proceed unimpeded while it prevents electrons being transported too quickly," Andrew Steckl from the University of Cincinnati told optics.org. "This gives both electrons and holes a greater opportunity to recombine and emit photons."


Steckl and colleagues used DNA from Japan. "Salmon fishing is a very large industry in Hokkaido, Japan, some 200 000 tons per year," explained Steckl. "While the meat and eggs are edible, the male roe is normally a waste product but it is very rich in DNA."


DNA is normally soluble in water making it very difficult to process into thin films. To overcome this, the team used a reaction with a surfactant to convert the DNA into a water insoluble form, but soluble in selected alcohols. This allowed the group to spin coat a 20 nm thick electron blocking layer of DNA on top of the BioLED's hole injection layer.


The team tested a green- and blue-emitting BioLED against conventional OLEDs and found that the DNA electron blocking layer improved the luminance in both cases. For a current density of 200 mA/cm2, the green BioLED achieved 15000 cd/m2, whereas the baseline device reached just 4500 cd/m2. On the other hand, the blue BioLED had a luminance of 1500 cd/m2 at 200 mA/cm2, while the corresponding baseline device reached around 800 cd/m2.


Conventional OLEDs are renowned for having lifetime issues but Steckl and colleagues believe the DNA could also play a role here. "Our preliminary results show that the lifetime of the BioLEDs are significantly longer than that of equivalent OLEDs without the DNA layer," said Steckl. "We are working on understanding the difference in degradation mechanisms."


"We are trying to improve the control of the DNA layer thickness and properties," he continued. "We are also working on introducing lumophores in the DNA layer to obtain combined photoemission from multiple layers in the device. So far we have only used salmon DNA for BioLED fabrication, but are considering other sources of DNA such as mammalian and plant DNA."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Sony to Start Construction of Large OLED Development and Production Line Early in 2007* 
*19 May 2006*


Sony Corp. revealed its plan to build a pilot line that will be dedicated to developing and volume producing large-area organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) early next year.


The new facility will be located in the Shiga complex of ST-LCD, a joint venture between Sony and Toyota established in 2004. The company said it would focus on 10-inch and larger OLEDs at the new line, while developing OLED flat TVs and flexible displays. The new line construction is scheduled to begin in March 2007.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CDT ACHIEVES 100,000 HOUR BLUE POLYMER LIFETIME* 
*23 May 2006*


CAMBRIDGE, United Kingdom, 23rd May 2005 - Cambridge Display Technology (CDT) [Nasdaq: OLED] announces the achievement of another important milestone with the development of blue polymers for light emitting devices with 100,000 hours lifetime* from an initial luminance of 100cd/m².


This latest announcement is one of a series which CDT has made to enable the industry to chart its progress on this key parameter. Figures of 30,000, 70,000 and 80,000 hours (all from 100cd/m²) were published in May, October and December 2004.


Lifetime is one of the most important parameters which have governed the rate at which PLED technology is adopted commercially, and there is much industry interest in such figures. For this reason CDT has, for the first time, made available a wider range of data around its latest achievement, and included lifetime data for higher initial luminance levels.


Lifetimes for devices made using the new blue materials at 200cd/m², 300cd/m2 and 400cd/m² are greater than 25,000 hours, 10,000 hours and 6,000 hours respectively.


Higher lifetimes are already available with red and green polymers, and so this increased blue lifetime will allow yet more applications to be realized using PLED technology, including full colour displays for digital cameras, PDAs and DVD players. PLED display applications will ultimately include large flat panel televisions.


For CDT, Dr David Fyfe, CEO noted that the performance of materials in an actual display system will depend on a number of factors other than simply brightness to the viewer, such as whether the devices are top-emitting or bottom-emitting, the aperture ratio, the sub-pixel aperture ratio, average pixel brightness, choice of circular polarizer and so on. Fyfe says: "CDT intends to press for industry standards which reflect these realities and which will also allow calculations to be made of system performance at any level, enabling materials to be compared and the practical significance of quoted lifetimes to be exemplified.


"I am delighted to be reporting these new levels of blue lifetime, levels which are consistent with our rapid yet consistent progress over the last two years. We believe the disclosure of lifetime data at more challenging luminance levels will give additional meaning to these results and help designers and display makers to predict more accurately the performance of our technology in real life applications."

* Note to editors: When 'lifetime' is discussed here, it refers to the time taken for the display/pixel to fall to half its initial stated luminance. Lifetime estimates are based on accelerated testing of simple test devices at several very high initial luminance levels, and use of these data to calculate predicted lifetimes at lower brightness levels.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung SDI to Launch AM OLED Mass Production Three Months Ahead of Schedule* 
*24 May 2006*


The Electronics Times reported today that Samsung SDI (CEO Kim Soon-Taek) would embark on active matrix (AM) organic light emitting diode (OLED) mass production on October 1st this year, which is three months ahead of the original schedule in January 2007.


A top executive of the company yesterday expressed strong commitment to the early launch of volume production, saying, "At the end of June this year, when installation of major facilities including crystallization and photo equipment is completed, the framework for starting mass production will be about 70~80% completed." He also stated, "We intend to disclose our own AMOLED brand by announcing our AM OLED business strategy in November, after launching mass production of OLEDs on October 1st," and "We are working on brand setup."


It will opt for the fourth generation standard (730x920mm) as the glass substrate for mass production, and the maximum capacity will reach 20 million units per year (based on mobile handset applications).


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED materials specialist gets funds, adds CEO* 
*26 May 2006*


LONDON — OLED-T, a U.K. developer and manufacturer of organic light emitting diode (OLED) materials and device structures, has raised £3.8 million (around $7 million) in venture capital funding and started an executive recruitment drive.


OLED-T (Enfiield and Uxbridge, England) has been formed from the assets of ELAM-T which was formed in 1999 and had previously raised nearly £7 million in VC investment. The company says the change of name reflects the focus on the development and commercialization of OLED technology. Prof Poopathy Kathirgamanathan, who was Chair of Electronic Materials at London South Bank University where the OLED material research work was carried out from 1993 to 1998 and who founded ELAM-T, is CTO of the company.


OLED-T will use the investment to fund a new research and development (R&D) facility in the U.K. and to bolster its executive management team and has already recruited Myrddin Jones to be Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Jones was previously General Manager at Hitachi Europe’s Display Products Group where he had responsibility for implementing Hitachi’s display product strategy across Europe and has had over 25 years experience in research and development (R&D) and market development for display businesses.


"OLED is the hottest technology in the display industry now and in the immediate future, and OLED-T is the most exciting early stage company in the OLED market. My brief is to commercialize OLED-T’s world beating OLED material by engaging with display manufacturers”, said Jones.


At Hitachi Jones managed annual revenues of €100 million for the company's European Display Products Group and grew the company's European display sales to European mobile phone, industrial and automotive equipment manufacturers – some of the main application areas being targeted by OLEDs.


OLED-T develops, manufactures and licenses high efficiency, long life-time materials known as ELAMATES for OLED displays. The ELAMATE materials are said to provide efficiency improvements of up to 80 per cent over competitive materials, and lifetimes of as much as three times that of competitive OLED materials. The company designs three of the key materials used in OLED manufacture - the electron transport layer, organic emitters and hole injection layer. OLED-T says it has been successful in extending the display lifetime for blue to over 20,000 hours to match that of the red and green elements.













ELAMATES are suitable for use in both 'Passive Matrix' and 'Active Matrix' products. While the passive are today’s OLED technology, enabling small area, low resolution displays to be manufactured cost effectively for applications such as MP3 players, mobile phone sub-displays, active matrix is seen as tomorrow’s OLED technology, enabling large area, high resolution displays to be manufactured for applications such mobile phone main displays, PDAs, and GPS navigation units. Large area displays are set to significantly increase demand for materials.


The new investment will enable OLED-T to expand its existing U.K. research and development (R&D) operation by opening a new custom-built chemistry facility to enable it to scale up its material production. The company has already invested £1 million in advanced machinery for device development.


Display market research and consulting group, DisplaySearch, has reported that the OLED industry reached revenues of over $500 million in 2005 and forecast revenues of more than $4.6 billion in 2010 – around 10% of the component TAM values is for the materials.


OLED will be the fastest growing non-LCD display technology and is said to have several inherent advantages compared to LCDs. They are 50% of the thickness and 70% of the weight and provide a 20% reduction lower power consumption. They are visible from every direction with no color shift and have a 10x faster switching speed to provide improved moving image performance. They provide a 40% bigger color range resulting in stronger, more vivid colors with a contrast of greater that 1000:1 resulting in a vibrant display image with potential for millions of colors.


The company has filed over 60 patents in the area of OLED materials and device structures and sells its materials directly to OLED display manufacturers primarily in Asia. OLED-T are working with 11 global display manufacturers which have evaluated several of its materials in laboratory and production environments and pre-production with major companies in Japan, Korea and Taiwan is being implemented this year with full scale volume commercial adoption by the first customer planned for 2007. It has established relationships with two sub-contract manufacturers in the U.K. and one in the U.S. who can manufacture up to 100kg per month of its materials.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Universal Display, Mitsubishi team on OLED materials* 
*30 May 2006*


MANHASSET, N.Y. — Universal Display Corp. has signed an agreement with Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. and Mitsubishi Chemical Group Science and Technology Research Center to collaborate on developing materials for phosphorescent OLED displays accessible through ink-jet printing.


Universal Display (Ewing, N.J.) has been researching a variety of OLED technologies, including phosphorescent OLED technology—which the company said offers up to four times higher efficiency than conventional OLED technology.


"Collaborating with a world-class chemical company like Mitsubishi Chemical allows us to share ideas and help each other reach the next level of innovation for OLED materials based on our PHOLED phosphorescent OLED technology and Mitsubishi Chemical’s expertise in OLED chemicals and ink formulation," said Steven V. Abramson, president and chief operating officer of Universal Display, in a statement. “Mitsubishi Chemical’s commitment to printable phosphorescent OLEDs, which we call P2OLEDs, indicates that ink-jet printable PHOLED technology has real commercial potential.


Japan-based Mitsubishi Chemical announced at the end of last year it had built the highest-efficiency printable blue phosphorescent OLED. Mitsubishi Chemical expects to accelerate development of printable red, green and blue phosphorescent materials through the agreement.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED fabrication uses direct-photolithography process* 
*6 June 2006*


SAN FRANCISCO — Researchers from Germany’s University of Cologne have achieved what they say is the first high-resolution, full-color organic light-emitting diode display based on a direct photolithographic process.

The team reported on the OLED at the Society for Information Display (SID) symposium here.


The direct photolithography technique was developed in collaboration with Merck OLED Materials GmbH. Unlike other approaches such as inkjet printing, the technique does not require development of an entirely new process technology; rather, it relies chemical modification of the organic material.


"By adding oxetane side groups, our emissive polymers gain the properties of photoresists. Thin films of these smart resists can be patterned simply by exposure to ultraviolet light," said team leader Klaus Meerholz, a Cologne professor.


The group has used the method to fabricate fully operational true-color matrix displays that can display simple pictures and support video while reportedly consuming less power than most conventional displays.


During the fabrication process, spin coating is used to deposit the first polymer onto a transparent substrate. The polymer film is then irradiated with ultraviolet light through a shadow mask, causing the polymer to cross-link and to form an insoluble material. Material in the nonilluminated areas of the film is washed away with solvent.


Two other polymers are subsequently deposited in the same way to fabricate a pixelated device with three individually addressable colors.


Meerholz emphasized that the work is preliminary and that research is required before commercialization can be contemplated.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CDT, Litrex team for inkjet printing of polymer displays* 
*6 June 2006*


LONDON — Cambridge Display Technology (CDT) has teamed with Litrex Corporation on cost effective ways to manufacture high resolution polymer organic light emitting displays (P-OLED) through the development of an inkjet printing technique capable of producing the displays at up to 200 pixels per inch.

The work will cover both hardware and software enhancements, mainly to take place at Litrex, as well as process developments at CDT including plasma pre-treatment and film formation development. The work is expected to be completed by the second half of 2007.


Inkjet printing is currently the favored means of producing 200 ppi displays on the large substrate sizes necessary for cost competitiveness. ULVAC subsidiary Litrex (Pleasanton, CA) has already designed and delivered a variety of inkjet printers up to Gen 8 (2.4m x 2.4m glass size) to the display industry, but not for operation at such high resolutions.


"This program will allow us to extend our current inkjet manufacturing technology, using proven techniques and methods, to achieve OLED resolutions which are difficult to achieve by other patterning methods for direct-emissive display technologies," said David Orgill, President and CEO of Litrex.


The agreement comes amongst a flurry of deals announced by CDT Tuesday (June 6), including the sale of an inkjet printing system and associated know-how to the National University of Singapore (NUS). CDT said that it will also provide NUS with know-how based on extensive experience of inkjet printing for evaluation and pre-production of P-OLED displays.


The company also revealed it sold a sophisticated Eclipse display test system to Frankfurt, Germany-based Merck OLED Materials GmbH.


And CDT said its project with Japan’s Toppan Printing has yielded 5.5 inch full color active matrix polymer OLED (P-OLED) displays using a roll printing method. The companies are demonstrating the displays — which they say are the first of their type produced — at this week’s SID conference in San Francisco.


CDT and Toppan have been working on the project since February 2005. The technique is based on relief printing, already widely used for transferring soluble materials on to a range of substrates. Toppan has adapted the process to produce, with high accuracy, tiny patterned pixels that exhibit highly uniform distribution.


The companies say the process will be capable of scaling to large substrate sizes and very high resolution, potentially over 200 ppi.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Toppan, Cambridge Display advance roll print process* 
*6 June 2006*


MANHASSET, N.Y. — Toppan Printing and Cambridge Display Technology said they have entered the second phase of a joint program to explore alternative printing processes for fabricating displays based on light-emitting polymer (PLED) technology.


Phase one proved the feasibility of using a roll printing process to deposit light-emitting polymer materials onto a glass substrate. It was completed at the end of 2004.


Phase two will focus roll-printed display performance and will aim to produce displays with a lifetime, efficiency and color fidelity comparable to displays produced using ink-jet printing.


The partners said the aim is to produce over the next two years full-color demonstrations of 12-inch diagonal displays with VGA resolution.


David Fyfe, CEO of CDT (Cambridge, U.K.), said in a statement: "The combination of Toppan's skills in conventional printing processes and those of CDT in light-emitting polymer ink formulation and device structure, enhance the chances for success in this promising project to create very low cost displays".


CDT is a leader in polymer-OLEDs (organic light-emitting diode) for electronic displays.


Toppan Printing (Tokyo) will supply core technologies developed in its printing, packaging, security, electronics, digital imaging and optronics businesses.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED-T AT SID INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM* 
*6 June 2006*


London, UK – 6 June, 2006 – OLED-T, a developer and manufacturer of world-class organic light emitting diode (OLED) materials and device structures, today announced that it will demonstrate a series of OLED displays and present a paper at SID International Symposium, Seminar and Exhibition on 4 to 9 June, 2006.


On Poster Stand P202, OLED-T will be presenting a poster on their host (for red and green) and electron transporter (E246) and a hole injector (E9363) which are available in commercial quantities (100 kg) for OLED display manufacture.


Professor Poopathy Kathirgamanathan, founder and Chief Technology Officer (CTO) will present a paper reporting on the performance of OLED-T’s foundation materials used in the manufacture of display products.


OLED-T’s proprietary electron transporter (E246) reduces the display operating voltage and increases the efficiency and the lifetime of OLEDs made of fluorescent or phosphorescent systems, compared with other industry materials. OLED-T’s novel proprietary hole injector (E9363) reduces the operating voltage, increases the efficiency and doubles the lifetime compared with existing solutions.


“The search for stable and high efficiency electron transporters and hole injectors has become particularly intense over the last 12 months as OLED manufacturers. This has coincided with a period of rapid development for OLED-T. SID will provide an opportunity to update the display industry on our progress,” said Professor Poopathy Kathirgamanathan, founder and Chief Technology Officer (CTO).


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED manufacturers face pricing pressures* 
*9 June 2006*

*As competition intensifies in the small-to-medium display market, OLED manufacturers are working to introduce lower cost fabrication techniques.*


While displays based on organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) continue to dominate technical discussions at this year's Society of Information Display (SID) conference, analysts at iSuppli warn that OLED manufacturers must reduce prices to compete in the small to medium display market.


"Currently the battle is in active matrix devices," Paul Semenza, vice-president for display and consumer research at the US-based analyst firm, told optics.org. "Active matrix OLEDs carry a significant [a factor of two] premium over comparable TFT-LCDs."


Semenza concedes that OLED makers have made real progress in increasing production volumes, with unit shipments forecast to increase from 88 m in 2006 to 364 m in 2012. Revenues over the same time frame are predicted to increase from about $0.7 bn to $3.5 bn.


However, almost all OLED devices produced today are based on small-molecule technology and a passive-matrix design, which limits their use to simple displays in car dashboards and portable devices. The focus for OLED manufacturers now is to produce more sophisticated active-matrix devices, and to introduce polymer-based technology and new fabrication techniques to lower manufacturing costs.


For example, Cambridge Display Technology of the UK and Toppan Printing of Japan announced at the SID conference that they have exploited a novel roll-printing technique developed by Toppan to produce full-color active-matrix displays based on polymer OLEDs. Inkjet printing is currently the favored approach for OLED manufacture, but the two companies believe that roll printing offers a cheaper alternative that still achieves good uniformity and resolution.


Toppan's technique is based on relief printing, an established method for transferring soluble materials onto a range of substrates. But the Japanese firm has improved the precision of the technology to enable small-area pixels to be patterned with highly uniform distribution. The demonstrator displays measure 5.5 inches, but CDT and Toppan claim that the process could be scaled to larger substrate sizes and a resolution of 200 pixels per inch (ppi). In future, the process could also be suitable for producing flexible OLED displays.


DuPont has also developed a printing process for small-molecule OLED materials that it claims is cheaper and more scalable to large display sizes than techniques such as vapor deposition. Using this technique, DuPont has achieved lifetimes exceeding 10,000 hours for the three primary colors at the brightnesses required for a 200 nit display.


Craig Naylor, group vice president for electronic and communication technologies at DuPont, says that these early results demonstrate that OLEDs can be manufactured at high yields and low cost. "Our model shows that the total cost of OLEDs can be 30% less than LCDs. With this development, we expect OLEDs to become the next-generation flat-panel technology."


A joint research effort between Philips Lighting, Philips Research and Novaled has produced a white OLED with an efficacy of 32 lm/W at a brightness of 1000 cd/m2. The lifetime of the device was more than 20,000 hours, and had a colour-rendering index of 88. The companies claim that the device sets a record combination for lifetime and efficiency for a high-brightness white LED, and the researchers are now targeting 50 lm/W as the next benchmark.

*About the author*


Susan Curtis is editor of optics.org


----------



## wanders

Seems to me only a few months ago the OLED naysayers were (nay)saying that blue OLED lifetime was way too short to go to production. Now Samsung is saying that they are starting production later this year. So what breakthrough (other than salmon DNA!) did I miss in the news?


BTW, a *huge thanks* to Isochroma for collecting this information and putting it into a compact, coherent thread! Good work!


Regards to all,


Willie


----------



## tonydeluce

Wow - great information - thanks!


----------



## MUGEN

samsung had a 32" led or oled lcd awhile ago that did 110% ntsc color gamut, samsung has been showing these models off for awhile but still hasn't made one for the consumer.


i waited a hole year for the samsung 460D then got stuck with getting the qualia 005 well not anymore.


also i remember some article at digitimes showing 4 oled back-lighting(red, blue, yellow/green and green) to be used in some display in the future.


----------



## bri1270

Looks great on paper and with Prototypes...but then again so does SED...I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wanders* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Seems to me only a few months ago the OLED naysayers were (nay)saying that blue OLED lifetime was way too short to go to production. Now Samsung is saying that they are starting production later this year. So what breakthrough (other than salmon DNA!) did I miss in the news?



Near the end of the article they mention that the mass production numbers are for mobile handsets. At the moment the closest thing to a company planning to sell OLED TVs is Sony and they are only going to build a pilot line next year that is limited to smaller displays.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bri1270* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Looks great on paper and with Prototypes...but then again so does SED...I guess we'll just have to wait and see.



SED though was only being researched by two companies while OLED is being researched by many major CE companies. One big hurdle that remains for OLED though is that it needs to have blue polymers with a lifetime of at least 20,000 hours at 500 cd/m². When that is achieved in production displays we will see a lot of companies start producing OLED TVs.


----------



## bwclark

 http://optics.org/optics/Articles.do...ticle=6&page=1


----------



## dsmith901

If its better, cheaper, and reliable, I want it.


----------



## assJack1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsmith901* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If its better, cheaper, and reliable, I want it.



I fully agree with you. However life has taught me that these are all mutually exclusive.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Organic material from OLED-T has ten times carrier mobility* 
*9 June 2006*


A material with 10 times the carrier mobility and three times the lifetime of existing electron transport layers used in organic light emitting diode (OLED) devices has been developed by UK start-up OLED-T.


The company said the material, known as E246, is a drop-in alternative to aluminium quinolate, which was developed by Kodak. “It reduces operating voltage and gives you a more saturated colour,” said Professor Poopathy Kathirgamanathan, chief technology officer of OLED-T.


The firm’s intellectual property, developed by Kathirgamanathan, is in ‘small molecule’ OLED materials much like those from Kodak, in contrast to large molecule polymer emitters such as those used by Cambridge’s CDT.


E246 is being made in kilogramme quantities for OLED-T by an undisclosed European chemical company, and further refined at the company’s R&D lab on the Brunel Science Park.


Although he will not discuss detail, Kathirgamanathan told Electronics Weekly that OLED-T has moved away from very large metal atoms from the lanthanide series in its fluorescent emissive complexes, and gone over to comparatively lighter metal atoms.


“This gives us higher electron mobility,” he said. “High electron mobility with the right energy levels gives us lower operating voltage.”


Kathirgamanathan has also developed phosphorescent complexes containing a heavy metal atom surrounded by a ligand for red and green; a host for fluorescent blue; and a fluorescent blue dopant.


The blue host and dopant together “give a very dark colour with 0.15, 0.15 coordinates. In that, our only competitor is [Japanese firm] Idemitsu, that has the same coordinates,” he said.


In lifetime tests, OLED-T is claiming 160,000 hours from 100 to 50cd/m² for its fluorescent red and green, and what looks like a 10,000 hour half-life at 150cd/m² for its blue, although testing is not yet complete.


A second-generation of electron transport materials will, said Kathirgamanathan, yield a further 10-fold improvement in electron mobility, up to 10-3cm²/Vs. A second-generation blue emitter is also expected, doubling efficiency from 5 to 10cd/A, and “probably delivering 5-6lm/W”.


Qualification of the first emissive materials is underway with two customers, and is expected to take 16 to 20 months.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLEDs on the look-out for unique application* 
*10 June 2006*











*Worldwide OLED panel market, 2004-2012: TV could take off around 2010 if backed by major players.

Image: iSuppli Corp, Organic Light-Emitting Diode Displays, 1H 2006*











*The growth of the OLED market depends heavily on the success of active matrix OLED technology.

Image: iSuppli Corp, Organic Light-Emitting Diode Displays, 1H 2006*


*Analysts expect the OLED panel market to grow by more than $200 m in 2006 as the technology gathers momentum. Kimberly Allen of iSuppli looks at the prospects for passive and active OLEDs in the face of stiff competition from LCDs.*


Liquid-crystal displays (LCDs) are ubiquitous in everyday technology, from mobile phones and laptops to car stereos and coffee machines. But the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display is emerging as a credible flat-panel alternative thanks to some important advantages over LCDs.

*OLED panel market*


OLEDs possess the most fundamental feature needed in a display - they look great. As the name implies, OLEDs are diodes and function by injecting holes and electrons into a recombination region from which coloured light emerges. Different organic materials emit red, green, blue or other wavelengths of light, and come in small molecule and polymer form. Because they are emissive, OLEDs also have an excellent viewing angle, good contrast and high brightness.

*Market Growth*


Unlike an LCD, an OLED does not need a backlight, which means that the display panel can be thinner. This is an important advantage in mobile devices. OLEDs also offer the potential for lower power consumption compared with an LCD, which is always constrained by the power consumption of the backlight. OLEDs supply power only to the pixels illuminated in a given image. OLED materials and device structures are becoming so efficient that an active-matrix OLED (AMOLED) a few inches in diagonal, showing video (on average 30% of full brightness), consumes less power than an equivalent LCD. In addition, because OLEDs can operate at high speed - around 100 times faster than an LCD - devices can support video rates without blurring.

*Challenges*


OLEDs fall into two categories: passive matrix and active matrix. Active matrix means that every pixel is individually switched, as opposed to a passive matrix arrangement, where row and column electrodes are used to control the pixel at a given intersection.


Unfortunately for manufacturers, OLED driving schemes tend to be more complicated than LCD devices. The reason behind this is that OLEDs are current-driven and are sensitive to slight fluctuations in current. LCDs on the other hand are voltage-driven. Instead of needing one thin film transistor (TFT) per pixel in an active matrix scheme, OLEDs need between two to five, arranged in a compensation circuit.


However, the biggest hurdle facing OLED developers is short lifetime. Although OLED materials and device structures have improved greatly over the past few years, manufacturers can still only guarantee between 5000 and 15,000 h of operation before the brightness of the panel is reduced to half of its initial value. This performance is sufficient for mobile phones and other consumer electronics, but inadequate for television and more sophisticated products. The organic materials simply do not hold up well under the driving current or the exposure to other materials within the device. What's more, the cathode material is highly sensitive to air and even when sealed, the OLED performance degrades slowly over time.


Device lifetime is shortened not only by declining brightness, but also by colour drift. For example, if the red, green and blue emitters degrade at different rates, the display shifts in hue over time. Typically, colour OLEDs are made by patterning red, green and blue emitters into subpixels, although it is also possible to mix multiple emitters together to form a single "white" material and use a colour filter.


With a commercial history of just seven years, OLED manufacturing remains at an early stage, both in terms of technique and equipment. Small-molecule OLEDs are made using vapour deposition techniques, such as evaporation through a shadow mask. OLED materials are too delicate for photolithography. Polymer OLEDs are made by solution processing, either spin-on techniques (for monochrome) or inkjet printing (for colour), although the latter has not yet been commercialized. Yields are quite high for simple panels, but established processes have not been put in place for most types of colour panels. This means that OLEDs are still priced higher than equivalent LCDs.

*Early Success*


Despite the challenges involved, OLEDs have already reached the market in several key applications. The first commercial OLED product was a small-molecule, passive matrix monochrome car stereo display from Pioneer in 1999. Sold as an aftermarket device, the display was blue-green to resemble vacuum-fluorescent versions commonly in use. Since then, OLEDs have moved into mobile phones, MP3 players, a Kodak digital camera, various industrial and medical devices, and a few other consumer electronics.

*Market value*


The worldwide market for OLED panels was valued at $520 m (€400 m) in 2005, and is expected to reach $743 m in 2006, rising to $3.5 bn in 2012. This represents a compound annual growth rate of 29% from 2006 to 2012. Looking at the detail, the growing importance of portable media applications and mobile phone main displays is clear.


The biggest market for passive matrix OLEDs is subdisplays, followed by MP3 players. 2005 was a difficult year for OLED subdisplays with the number of units and value both declining in comparison to 2004. Colour subdisplays fared better than monochrome or area colour versions, showing a modest increase in units. However, even this category declined in value from $252 m to $206 m. The difficult subdisplay market was the result of the falling price of TFT-LCD panels (for main displays), which in turn forced down the price of colour super-twisted nematic (CSTN) LCD panels for both main displays and subdisplays. OLED manufacturers, unaccustomed to swift market changes and unwilling to greatly reduce prices because costs remained high, failed to keep up with the changes until later in the year. At that point, orders had already been placed for CSTN LCDs.


Simple OLEDs have been favoured in MP3 players, which are often used as fashion or status items by younger people, because an area colour OLED display is much more eye-catching than a monochrome LCD. MP3 players have played an important role in the PMOLED market over the past two years, leaping more than eight-fold in units between 2004 and 2005, and filling the gap in factory utilization during fluctuations in the subdisplay market. They have also provided an opportunity for smaller PMOLED makers to enter the market. Difficulties in the MP3 market include component shortages and an unstable base of OEMs. The OEMs making the MP3 players are largely Chinese, and shift suppliers readily, seeking the lowest price.


The OLED market is still heavily dominated by passive matrix panels, which are expected to account for 99% of value and more than 99% of units in 2006. But active matrix panels are poised for commercialization. A few products have already appeared, although full mass production at adequate yield has not yet been achieved.


Looking at the worldwide OLED display shipment value in terms of passive and active markets highlights the enormous changes that could soon occur within the industry. The PMOLED market is predicted to continue growing in units throughout the forecast period, but is expected to stagnate at a value of around $1 bn from 2008. This is due to the steep price competition already being seen with CSTN. It is worth noting that the PMLCD market has already stagnated and is now declining in value each year.

*An active market*


The growth of the OLED market depends heavily on the success of AMOLED. iSuppli believes that near-term commercialization is possible, and makes this assumption in its market forecast.


The first commercial AMOLED reached the market in April 2003. It was made by SK Display Corp - a manufacturing joint venture between Kodak and Sanyo - and was used in a Kodak EasyShare LS633 digital camera back display. The 174 (×RGB) × 218 pixel, 65,000-colour display measuring 2.2 inches has also been used by Ovideon and NeoSol for personal media players in 2005. However, SK Display folded in late 2005, primarily for financial reasons. In Japan, Sony released one model of its Clie PDA series fitted with an AMOLED during the first half of 2005 and is planning another AMOLED product, although no definite announcements have been made.


The most aggressive AMOLED company currently is Samsung SDI. It has invested heavily in building a factory and capital expenditures will reach $450 m. The plan is to release a mobile phone main display in early 2007 and samples are already shipping.


In the meantime, AU Optronics (AUO) has started selling a 2 inch AMOLED for a mobile phone. The OEM is BenQ-Siemens (which owns 40% of AUO), and the phone is being sold initially in Taiwan and then Europe. Other Taiwanese players are making definite plans. Chi Mei Electroluminescence (CMEL) was spun-off as a subsidiary of the Chi Mei Group in 2004 and plans to release both PMOLED and AMOLED panels in small sizes during 2006. Toppoly has built an AMOLED line and intends to release panels for a camera and a mobile phone near the end of 2006. Other players involved with AMOLED include Toshiba Matsushita Display, Hitachi, Samsung Electronics, LG.Philips LCD, RiTdisplay, Epson and Sharp.


The key application for AMOLED is the mobile phone main display. It offers the largest total available market (TAM), and is well-suited to the OLED's attractive image, low power consumption and thin profile. In addition, the increasing use of video on mobile devices also favours the OLED's fast speed. One challenge is the assurance of supply. Mobile handset makers need assurance from OLED panel suppliers that they can deliver at least 10,000 panels per month and often much more. Unfortunately, this figure is currently beyond the capability of most panel suppliers because of low yield and process development is continuing to improve manufacturing competence.


An interesting new idea is the possibility of area colour main displays for emerging markets such as India and South America. It is suggested that these markets could be like the MP3 market, where an inexpensive but attractive display is needed, so that area colour OLED is a superior choice to STN-LCD. However, it remains to be seen whether CSTN might actually emerge as the display of choice in these cases.

*Looking further ahead*


The ultimate dream of many OLED panel makers is to serve the large-screen television market. OLED is well suited to TV - it has fast speed, good colour, excellent viewing angle and high contrast ratio. TV does not require high resolution, so inkjet printing should be able to serve. The main challenges are the large size, long lifetime requirement (30,000 h), and low price point. Another hurdle is the competition from many other technologies, which is rarely acknowledged.


The TV market is already flooded with options: CRT, LCD, plasma, projection and the potential for a variety of novel technologies like SED and carbon-nanotube-based technology. Consumers, for the most part, do not care about the particular technology - they tend to look only at the picture quality and the price, followed by the size or depth. Having so many technology options makes it difficult to grab the attention of end-product OEMs and channel vendors, and display companies themselves may have to make strategic choices if they can offer multiple technologies.


Currently, OLEDs cannot be manufactured in large sizes. Even the more aggressive participants such as Samsung Electronics have announced that they plan to enter the market around 2008. More time is needed to establish manufacturing processes for large panels and to build equipment that can make such panels efficiently. Inkjet printers for large substrates are still in the beta phase.


Thus, it is likely that the first OLED TVs will be small, designed for novel locations such as the kitchen or bathroom. The TAM for this sort of TV is small, but OLEDs offer novelty. Later, as technical and manufacturing capabilities grow, OLEDs may move into more standard-sized TVs (20-30 inches, or even larger). This could happen around 2010, but only with continued investment and commitment from major players.


Beyond television lies the potential for OLED lighting. Some say that this application could be simpler because there is no need to pattern subpixels or provide a complex backplane to drive it. But the requirement for long lifetime remains, and so OLEDs must still grapple with the difficulties of organic material degradation and colour shift. These are exacerbated at the high brightness levels required for lighting applications.

*Finding a niche*


What OLEDs need most is a unique application that LCDs cannot serve. At this time, everything an OLED can do can also be done by an LCD - and for a lower price. Furthermore, most of the key companies developing OLEDs are also LCD players, and hence they are ramping up OLED products as part of a larger strategy that will not cannibalize their own LCD businesses.


One option for a unique product would be a flexible OLED. Flexible LCDs exist, but are less appealing than flexible OLEDs. The main difficulty with flexible LCDs is that the image quality is so strongly affected by the cell gap between the two substrates of the display. OLEDs have no cell gap challenge, although this advantage is balanced by the disadvantage of requiring a powerful barrier to protect against water in the air. While glass substrates provide such a barrier naturally, plastic allows too much water to pass and must have a barrier layer. Adequate barrier technology has not yet been developed.


Flexible OLEDs could be used in applications such as shop signage, electronic shelf labels, novel forms of advertising displays and even electronic books or paper. Most developers agree that even entry-level products are still at least 2-3 years away due to technical challenges, but this represents an important long-term option for OLEDs.

*About the author*


Kimberly Allen is director of display technology and strategy at iSuppli, a US-based group of market experts specializing in the semiconductor and display industries. For more information, see www.isuppli.com 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED firm invests in R&D facility* 
*14 June 2006*


OLED-T, the UK-based manufacturer of organic light emitting diode (OLED) materials, has invested $900,000 in an R&D facility on the Brunel University Science Park site, Uxbridge. Last month the firm raised $7m from venture funding.


The 2,000 square foot R&D facility is a chemistry laboratory which will support the production of its OLED materials known as ELAMATES and develop future

generations of materials.


According to Myrddin Jones, CEO of OLED-T, the company is a supplier OLED materials to display manufacturers in Korea, Japan and Taiwan. “The new facility will enable OLED-T to scale the production of its ELAMATE OLED materials to commercial quantities,” said Jones.


The firm also has a manufacturing and device test laboratory on the Innova Science Park in North London.


The OLED display market is predicted to grow from revenues of $500m in 2005 to more than $4.6bn by 2010.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Next-Generation TV Screens to Debut* 
*20 June 2006*


Samsung SDI and LG.Philips LCD will start mass producing the next-generation AM OLED TV screens this fall, as profits plummet in traditional LCD and PDP screen businesses.


AM OLED (active matrix organic light-emitting diode) is a thin film that emits light by using organic compounds. As it does not require a backlight to function, it is claimed to be more power- and cost-efficient than LCD (liquid crystal display) or PDP (plasma display panel) when mass-produced.


LG.Philips, the 50-50 joint venture of Korea’s LG Electronics and Philips Electronics of the Netherlands, said on Monday that it is working on an AM OLED manufacturing line in Kumi, North Kyongsang Province, and production will start in fourth quarter of the year.


“We have set the internal goal of operating the AM OLED line from the fourth quarter. There is no opposition on that,’’ the company’s public relations official Lee Sang-wook said by phone.


Samsung SDI also confirmed that it will start producing OLED panels of 2 to 2.6 inches from October in its manufacturing complex in Chonan, South Chungchong Province. Samsung SDI has invested 465 billion won in building the line.


It is believed that AM OLED will replace LCD because of its clear image, simple structure and faster response time. But so far, because of technological barriers, it has been used only for small screens used in mobile phones and other digital gadgets.


Since last year, both Samsung and LG have succeeded in developing OLED screens larger than 20 inches. Samsung Electronics even demonstrated a 40-inch OLED TV last year.


The early transition to OLED is mainly due to the lower-than-expected sales of the LCD and PDP panels. LG.Philips LCD last week halved its second quarter expectations, saying it will reduce production of LCD panels and will reconsider its future investment plans.


SDI also has seen its profit drop as the demands for traditional PDP and CRT displays slowed.


To create synergy, LG Group is expected to consolidate the OLED department in LG Electronics into LG.Philips LCD soon. “It is yet to be decided, but there are such opinions in the company,’’ said Lee of LG.Philips LCD.


The market for AM OLED is projected to grow from $831 million this year to $2 billion next year, and to $5.3 billion in 2009, according to market researcher Displaysearch.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Konica Minolta claims OLED breakthrough* 
*30 June 2006*













As well as giving Sony its D-SLR technology, the folks at KM have been busy with OLEDs. The company just announced a device with a 10,000 hour life at 64 lumens/watt, working out to a brightness of 1,000 candelas per square meter. But not only is it bright, it can also do white.


There are hints at applications coming (think cellphones), but the idea is that OLEDs are a step nearer to escaping their niche markets (for example, in the sub screen of your DAP). Or maybe not. A bit like with DMFC fuel cells vs. lithium-ion batteries, OLEDs are one of those technologies that have a lot of potential plusses over more standard competitors (read: LCDs), but there always seems to be a major glitch or two stopping them from becoming the next big thing next year.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*AUO and CMO said to give up on OLED* 
*18 July 2006*


Both AU Optronics (AUO) and Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) are giving up on OLED (organic light-emitting diode) development, with AUO already suspending R&D activities for the segment while CMO's wholly own subsidiary Chi Mei Electroluminescence (CMEL) is downsizing its workforce by two thirds, due to an uncertain outlook and low yields, according to the Chinese-language Apple Daily.


AUO said the report about it suspending OLED R&D activities was false. The company is still developing OLED technology and products while planning on recruiting more workforce for the segment, sources at the company said. However, AUO declined to comment on production and capacity detail for the OLED segment since it is now in a quiet period prior to the release of its second quarter financial results.


CMO was quoted by the paper as claiming CMEL is only undergoing personnel changes and will not give up on OLED production since OLED is another strategic product for CMO.


CMO confirmed that CMEL is downsizing but declined to comment further.


AUO started investing in OLED technology in 2002, with the company claiming to be the first to introduce a-Si (amorphous silicon)-based full color OLED technology. AUO has rolled out several active-matrix (AM) OLEDs through 2006 and the company currently has two OLED lines, one producing 200×200mm substrates while the other processes 370×470mm substrates.


CMEL was established in October 2004 with a capital of NT$900 million (US$27 million). The company said it currently focuses on small- to medium-size OLED applications and aims at developing OLED TVs in the future.


CMEL plans to volume produce 2.2-inch AM OLEDs in the third quarter of 2006. CMEL's AM OLED line is an adjusted 3.5G line from CMO and the substrate size is by far the largest among industry players, according to an earlier article. The OLED maker currently produces passive-matrix (PM) OLEDs, with monthly capacity at around two-million units and yields at 80-90%, the Apple Daily reported. PM OLED is less expensive to produce than AM OLED and is ideal for applications in consumer electronics such as mobile phone, PDA, portable game console, car-use display and electronic dictionaries.


AUO said it is aiming at applying AM OLED to full-color display applications that require high resolution such as PDAs, digital cameras, monitors, notebooks and TVs. However, the yields for AM OLEDs are still low and Taiwan-based OLED makers are still striving to lower their costs and improve yield.


The OLED market grew 65% in 2005, with Taiwan taking the lead with a surge in shipments from 11 million units in 2004 to 27 million in 2005, followed by South Korea, which increased shipments from 16 million units to 22 million, followed by Japan, which posted growth from seven million units to eight million, according to market research firm Displaybank.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Research Could Extend Life of OLEDs* 
*9 September 2006*


OLED-T has produced a material for “small-molecule” OLED displays that can extend life and improve efficiency.


“We expect at least 20 percent better lifetime and slightly better luminance efficiency,” company CEO Myrddin Jones told Electronics Weekly.


The material, dubbed EL-101 is an electron injection layer. “Ninety-nine percent of OLED displays use lithium fluoride for this layer,” said Jones. “It requires 600°C processing which has an impact on the lifetime of the other layers.”


This tops even the 400°C required to deposit the aluminum back contact. “A LiF electron injector represents the highest temperature process in the fabrication of the OLED,” said Jones.


EL-101 evaporates at 300°C. “It has less impact on lifetime, and throughput is higher because it is faster to ramp the machine up to 300 rather than 600°C,” said Jones.


The company will not disclose the make-up of EL-101 except to say it is an organic material available in powder form in kilogram quantities.


In it more expensive than the traditional electron injector. “LiF is a very cheap salt,” said Jones. “EL-101 is probably two to three times the price of LiF, but it is only used in nanometer thicknesses.”


El-101, claims Jones, like LiF, is universally applicable: “It can be used for single-color or multi-color; fluorescent or phosphorescent; active or passive matrix.”


Electron injectors are one of the layers used in OLEDs to improve efficiency. “If a device was fabricated with no electron injector layer then the drive voltage would be three times higher than with a LiF or EL-101 layer,” said Jones.


In June OLED-T introduced an electron transport layer called E246 and designed as a drop-in replacement for the incumbent aluminum quinolate but with 10 times the carrier mobility and three times the life. “It reduces operating voltage and gives you a more saturated color,” said company CTO Professor Poopathy Kathirgamanathan at the time.


A next-generation electron transport material exists in OLED-T’s labs which, said Kathirgamanathan, will yield a further 10-fold improvement in electron mobility, up to 10-3cm²/Vs. A second-generation blue emitter is also expected, doubling efficiency from 5 to 10cd/A, and “probably delivering 5-6lm/W”.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Further Significant Progress in Polymer OLED Lifetime Announced* 
*3 October 2006*

*High Efficiency Red Materials Reach Almost 100,000 Hours Lifetime*


CAMBRIDGE, England, October 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/


Following quickly behind the recent announcement by Cambridge Display Technology (CDT) [Nasdaq: OLED] and Sumation® of rapid progress in the development of longer lifetime blue light emitting polymers, comes this announcement of similarly impressive progress on red materials.


Data from devices produced using these latest, solution processable, phosphorescent materials show lifetime1 of 98,900 hours from an initial luminance of 400cd/msquared, equivalent to over 1.5 million hours from 100cd/msquared.


This represents almost a doubling of the lifetime results announced as recently as March of this year.


Production of video capable OLED displays requires a full color range of red, green and blue with long lifetime and good efficiency. The efficiency of this phosphorescent red material is approximately 9cd/A, and the color co-ordinates are: (CIEx=0.67, y=0.32).


"We are now seeing tremendous momentum in our development of the full range of P-OLED materials", commented Dr David Fyfe, CEO of CDT. "This latest result demonstrates that our rate of learning and discovery is really accelerating bringing many more applications for P-OLED technology within reach in a short timeframe."


The company will be exhibiting at FPD International in Yokohama, Japan from 18th to 20th October, and will be pleased to welcome visitors at its booth - no. 461.


Note to Editors:


When 'lifetime' is discussed here, it refers to the time taken for the display/pixel to fall to half its initial stated luminance. Lifetime estimates are based on accelerated testing of simple test devices at several very high initial luminance levels, and use of these data to calculate predicted lifetimes at lower brightness levels. Translation of this single pixel data into performance in an RGB display system depends on a number of factors and requires a complex calculation and knowledge of the precise system design parameters such as aperture ratio, brightness, ink formulation and relative pixel areas.


About CDT


Cambridge Display Technology is a pioneer in the development of polymer organic light emitting diodes (P-OLEDs) and their use in a wide range of electronic display products used for information management, communications and entertainment.


P-OLEDs are part of the family of OLEDs, which are thin, lightweight and power efficient devices that emit light when an electric current flows. P-OLEDs offer an enhanced visual experience and superior performance characteristics compared with other flat panel display technologies such as liquid crystal displays, and have the key advantage that they can be applied in solution using printing processes. Founded in 1992, the company is headquartered in Cambridge, UK and listed on the US NASDAQ National Market under the symbol 'OLED'. In 2005, CDT and Sumitomo Chemical established a joint venture called Sumation® which develops, manufactures and sells P-OLED materials to the display industry.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Outlook for OLED Market Dim in PMOLED, Rosy in AMOLED in 2007* 
*12 October 2006*


Displaybank (CEO Peter Kwon), a market research firm, says that the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) industry will observe clearly alternating joy and sorrow in 2006.


Many PMOLED manufacturers have announced their plan to reduce mass production or withdraw from the business sector due to their business downturn. Teco Optronics Co., Optotech Co. Ltd., Ness Display Co. Ltd. and Orion PDP Co. Ltd., excluding the top five to six players, have suffered deterioration in the business segment and eventually withdrew from the market. The PMOLED business seems to face the limitation in the near future without finding a new growth engine such as new clients. Therefore, the OLED industry is paying much attention to the time when AMOLEDs hit the market.


A set of withdrawal or indefinite delay news by AMOLED development specialists such as Pioneer and Sanyo have shed light on the negative outlook, but Samsung SDI and LG.Philips LCD (hereinafter called LPL) and CMEL, an OLED affiliate of CMO, are attracting attention by revealing their schedule for AMOLED mass production. Samsung SDI plans to invest 465.5 billion won ($486 million) to build an AMOLED production plant in Cheonan with the aim of launching mass production in October 2006. LPL unveiled its 2.4-inchQVGA AMOLED at the SID 2006 exhibition in the U.S. in June this year, and also announced it plan to commence mass production of AMOLEDs in the fourth quarter of 2006. In September, CMEL also disclosed its project of AMOLED mass production from the fourth quarter of this year.


The current status of PMOLEDs and AMOLEDs raises the predictions that the mainstay will migrate away from PMOLED toward AMOLED in 2007, with a slowdown in the PMOLED market and market entrance by AMOLEDs. However, there are a number of questions about the success feasibility of the AMOLED business.


Industry insiders agree with the possibility that AMOLED will dominate the next-generation display market, but they say that the time is uncertain. The success will rely on how many application manufacturers including mobile phone vendors will adopt AMOLEDs instead of TFT-LCDs, and when the AMOLED can make inroads into the 10-inch and larger panel market.


Given the circumstances, the worldwide industry is keeping an eye on whether or not the three frontrunners, Samsung SDI, LG.Philips LCD and CMEL, will ride on the stable track of AMOLED.


Whichever is right, it's doubtful that both companies' strategy for early mass production will be successful, but taking into account a variety of factors such as know-how in the FPD industry, technology accumulated through constant research, relations with demand, and all-out supports by corporations, both AMOLED makers seem to have a huge potential for growth in the market.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*12mm-thick 17-inch OLED TV* 
*17 October 2006*











































Samsung SDI presented a 17-inch AMOLED TV set at KES 2006. The panel is only 1.8mm thick and the TV set is just thin as 12mm. It features a brightness of 400 candela, a contrast ratio of 1,000:1 and 170 viewing angle.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CMEL and CMO develop 25-inch AM OLED TV panel* 
*18 October 2006*













Chi Mei EL Corporation (CMEL) announced that it has successfully employed the latest low temperature poly-silicon (LTPS) TFT LCD technology from Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) together with its own organic light-emitting diodes (OLED) equipment and technology to develop a full-function, full-color 25-inch OLED TV panel.


The OLED panel is currently the world's largest LTPS TFT active matrix (AM) OLED panel and features a slim panel, wide viewing angle, high contrast and fast response time, CMEL said.


CMEL's AM OLED products are about to enter the mass production stage. CMEL is also showing a variety of new AM OLED products with the new LTPS TFT technology, including 2.0- and 3.5-inch products, at FPD International 2006 in Japan (October 18-20) and expects to have these products in mass production starting in the first quarter of next year.


CMEL is also using its 25-inch panel technology to improve the production yield for its small- to medium-size panels for 3G and digital video products.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Analysis: OLED makers suffering under LCD competition* 
*24 November 2006*

*PESSIMISM: Unless an industry niche can be found, the outlook for this small but innovative sector is less than ideal*


By Lisa Wang

STAFF REPORTER


A decade ago, innovative Taiwanese flat panel display companies started investing in a cutting-edge and cost-saving organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology in an attempt to move beyond the slim profits associated with original equipment manufacturing.


Those companies, however, have all but given up hope as high technological barriers and cutthroat competition from cost-efficient liquid-crystal-display (LCD) makers have placed them deep in the red.


"Taiwanese companies hoped to make big money from manufacturing slimmer OLED displays at lower prices than LCD panels," said Roger Yu (游智超), a flat-panel industry analyst with Polaris Securities Co (寶來證券).


"But, the dream has not yet come true as progress in developing competitive products has been slow because of poor foundry yields and performance," Yu said, adding that most companies were still struggling to break even.


Low yields have prompted LCD panel makers AU Optronics Corp (友達光電) and Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp (奇美電子), which are also developing OLED technology, to cut their OLED staff numbers, according to market research DisplaySearch.


Heavy losses have driven many pure OLED manufacturers out of the market. Singapore's Ness Display closed its doors recently because it failed to attract enough capital amid falling prices to continue operations.


Back home, optical-disk maker Ritek Corp (錸德) on Wednesday was just the latest example of a firm that had chosen to opt out of the industry to concentrate on its core business. Opto Tech Corp (光磊) decided last week to close an unprofitable OLED plant citing immature market conditions and lackluster outlook. In August, home appliances maker Teco Electric & Machinery Co (東元) said it planned to move its OLED plant to China to form a joint venture with a Chinese company owned by the Sichuan government.


"Sharp price reductions and difficulties in cutting costs are the major challenges for OLED display makers," said Kevin Liao (廖顯杰), a flat-panel industry analyst with DisplaySearch.


Ritek said on Wednesday that it planned to sell an OLED manufacturing affiliate, Ritdisplay Corp (錸寶), to South Korean Kolon Industries Inc, after Ritdisplay, the world's No. 5 maker of OLED displays by revenue, had accumulated NT$4.8 billion (US$146 million) in losses since 2002.


"The deal will bring more resources for Ritdisplay and boost its core competitiveness as well as reduce financial reliance on the parent company," Ritek said in a statement.


DisplaySearch's Liao also said limited OLED equipment and component suppliers were behind slow improvements in the industry cost structure.


Technologically, OLED displays readily compete with LCDs in small-and-medium applications such as handset displays and MP3s palyers, but LCD makers are able to edge OLED suppliers out of the market by undercutting them on price.


Overall, OLED display shipments expanded by 15 percent to 16.1 million units in the second quarter of this year over last year, but revenues dropped 14 percent to US$112 million, according to a DisplaySearch tally.


"It's tough for Taiwanese companies to survive as they are smaller in scale than their rivals," Liao said.


Liao said those companies remaining in the industry were conservative about expansion plans.


Ritdisplay, established in 2000, has a capital value of NT$7.5 billion while local rival Univision Technology Inc (悠景) is worth just NT$1.8 billion.


On top of that, “the competition will intensify next year as more Chinese players are preparing to join the game,” Liao said.


Looking from a longer term perspective, Liao said there was still opportunity in the industry. To divert from direct competition with lower-priced LCD panels, OLED display manufacturers should target niche market segments such as Asian handset makers, he suggested.


But Polaris' analyst Yu said he would take a wait-and-see attitude about OLED stocks as he expected they would still have a long way to go before making significant gains.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Universal Display and Nippon Steel boost green OLED performance* 
*21 December 2006*


December 21, 2006, Tokyo, Japan and Ewing NJ--Nippon Steel Chemical Company (NSCC) and Universal Display today announced significant enhancement in the performance of green phosphorescent OLEDs resulting from their ongoing technical collaboration.


By combining Universal Display's green phosphorescent emitter, UDC-GD48, with NSCC's new green host material, the two companies have achieved record operational lifetime for a green phosphorescent OLED device. This green OLED offers 60,000 hours of operational lifetime at an initial luminance of 1,000 candelas per square meter (cd/m(2)). The device also exhibits a high luminous efficiency of 65 candela per ampere (cd/A) and an external quantum efficiency of 18%, at 1,000 cd/m(2), both characteristic features and benefits of phosphorescent OLED technology. The color coordinates for this device in a standard bottom-emission structure are C.I.E. (0.35, 0.61).


While these color and efficiency characteristics have previously been reported, obtaining this performance in conjunction with improved operational lifetime is an important milestone for Universal Display and NSCC. This represents more than a two-fold increase in operational stability, key for commercial success, as compared to previously reported performance. The device also incorporates Universal Display's proprietary blocking layer material to achieve the reported results. UDC-GD48 is currently available from Universal Display and NSCC's new green host material will soon be available from NSCC for evaluation and use in commercial production.


As a milestone of these collaborative development efforts, UDC and NSCC have now established material systems for red and green phosphorescent OLEDs. The companies are also collaborating on the development of blue phosphorescent materials.


For more information about NSCC's host materials, please contact Masamichi Fujii . For more information about Universal Display's PHOLED materials and technology, please contact Janice K. Mahon .


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Display makers to mass produce AM OLEDs* 
*3 January 2007*


From Samsung SDI Co. to LG.Philips LCD Co., the race to mass-produce the next-generation display device called "active-matrix organic light emitting diodes" or AM OLEDs will intensify this year, industry analysts said yesterday.

Samsung SDI will start rolling out AM OLEDs in the first half of this year, though the specific timetable has yet to be decided. It will mark the display panel's official debut on the global market, company officials said.


LG.Philips LCD, which deferred production of AM OLEDs at its Gumi plant late last year pending a management decision, is expected to shortly follow suit.


AM OLEDs need no backlighting and therefore consume less power. They offer a lightweight yet powerful display panels for small digital gadgets such as mobile phones, digital cameras and portable multimedia players. The display module offers a replacement for liquid crystal displays or LCDs currently in use.


"As OLEDs function with self-luminous organic materials, they are better than thin film transistor liquid crystal displays or TFT-LCDs in terms of response time. OLEDs' response time of 1 micro second is 1,000 times faster than TFT-LCDs' 1 milli second reaction time. This feature can help OLEDs realize perfect moving images," said Song Young, an official at Samsung SDI's public relations team.


Samsung SDI plans to roll out an array of QVGA-level AM OLEDs, ranging from 2.0 to 2.6 inches, in the first half of this year. The company aims to manufacture and supply over 100 million units per year beginning next year.


It has invested a combined 460 billion won for the display's production line at its Cheonan plant, located 40 minutes by car from Seoul. The company began a trial production of AM OLEDs in October last year.


Meanwhile, Taiwanese and Japanese manufacturers are taking a "wait-and-see" attitude despite their technical readiness, suggesting they will make a move after seeing Korean display makers start plowing money in the new cutting-edge display modules.


CMEL, an affiliate of Taiwan's CMO, plans to mass produce in the first half. Toppoly of Taiwan plans for the third quarter. TMD and Sony Corp. of Japan are known to have set the timing at the second half of this year.


Industry watchers say AM OLEDs and small-sized LCDs will inevitably compete against each other, signaling "a war without bullets" in the small- and mid-sized display sector.


AM OLEDs, at this early stage of production could be a rather costly option for its buyers, mobile-phone manufacturers. The price will be about 40 percent higher than that of LCDs.


Still, the industry is upbeat on the potential for this tiny screen technology as it offers many other advantages - lightness, better screen quality, higher power efficiencies, faster response time and no optical illusions when viewed from the side.


The U.S.-based market research firm DisplaySearch projects the production of AM OLEDs will literally soar from last year's 2.39 million units to 24.84 million this year, 95.88 million in 2008, and 200 million in 2010.


----------



## williamtassone

Well done Isochroma!!


----------



## venk

Today we argue Plasma vs LCD. In five years, will we be arguing SED vs OLED? One can only hope.


----------



## g55555sim




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wanders* /forum/post/0
> 
> Seems to me only a few months ago the OLED naysayers were (nay)saying that blue OLED lifetime was way too short to go to production. Now Samsung is saying that they are starting production later this year. So what breakthrough (other than salmon DNA!) did I miss in the news?
> 
> 
> Regards to all,
> 
> 
> Willie



yes - u did missed it ..



> Quote:
> The second major milestone announced is a lifetime of *150,000* hours for a fluorescent blue device based on a new material developed by CDT, and now part of the Sumation portfolio. Just eighteen months ago, CDT announced the achievement of 30,000 hours lifetime for fluorescent blue. The efficiency is also the highest recorded for a blue polyfluorene material at 10cd/A.


----------



## slb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thread Update:
> 
> *20 June 2006:* Next-Generation TV Screens to Debut



If that was supposed to be a link, it appears to be broken. If it's a teaser, you got me. I want more!










-Steve


----------



## madshi

Steve, just look a few posts ahead. Iso has added the article to one of his older posts.


----------



## slb

Oops, missed that. Thanks Madshi.


----------



## dsmith901




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *assJack1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I fully agree with you. However life has taught me that these are all mutually exclusive.



Not true, IMO. Perfect example - quartz watches, that are better, cheaper, and more reliable than most (if not all) mechanical watches. Ditto with computers, that today are far better, far cheaper, and far more reliable than any previous generation. In fact virtually all electronic devices made today are B,C+R than previous generations.


----------



## bwclark

 http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ma...ges=VL&seq=201 


"Both AU Optronics (AUO) and Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) are giving up on OLED (organic light-emitting diode) development, with AUO already suspending R&D activities for the segment while CMO's wholly own subsidiary Chi Mei Electroluminescence (CMEL) is downsizing its workforce by two thirds, due to an uncertain outlook and low yields, according to the Chinese-language Apple Daily."


----------



## Ethan Allen

Just my luck. I want one of these Samsung OLED televisions so bad I can taste it! The first time I saw the OLED screen I knew it would kill every technology eventually. But when is eventually?


I don't really care if the television only lasts three years or four years before the blue fades. This is the most beautiful picture anyone can imagine. It is like looking at real life. Plus the power usage is almost nothing (90%) of a normal set. Compared to the DLP I just bought tonight because I am tired of waiting for a train that never comes it is probably 95% less electric consumption. Add to that real time response, molecular resolution that could be virtually infinite, infinte color range, 10 mm thick screens and on and on.


What is there not to like? A perfect television you throw out every three years! No more explaining to the wife why you have to have the latest new set. Think of it. I have 15 year old televisons that refuse to die; I wish they would!


You know the story. The wife says, why do you need a new television set justt to set there and watch Da Bears, Da Eagles, Da Lions, Da Dolphins etc. "Darling there is all this great new stuff" just doesn't cut it in my house. But a blank screen after three years and she can't watch reruns of Dallas...now that is a dream machine. I don't want my new television to last. I want it to die when a niffty new technology comes out.


We need hitmen for televisions. Maybe someone should start a service. I'd pay.


----------



## rogo

This is a great compilation. Thanks.


That said, home-theater-sized OLEDs are not even contemplated for this decade.


----------



## MUGEN

samsung 12mm-thick 17-inch OLED TV
http://aving.net/usa/news/default.as...35&btb_num=232


----------



## Larry Hutchinson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thread Update:
> 
> *17 October 2006:* 12mm-thick 17-inch OLED TV[/b]



Wonder why only a 1000:1 CR? Leakage of the AM drivers, I suppose.


----------



## markrubin

sticky


----------



## hoodlum

This is an interesting article from June of this year. Here is a snippet.


"OLEDs fall into two categories: passive matrix and active matrix. Active matrix means that every pixel is individually switched, as opposed to a passive matrix arrangement, where row and column electrodes are used to control the pixel at a given intersection.


Unfortunately for manufacturers, OLED driving schemes tend to be more complicated than LCD devices. The reason behind this is that OLEDs are current-driven and are sensitive to slight fluctuations in current. LCDs on the other hand are voltage-driven. Instead of needing one thin film transistor (TFT) per pixel in an active matrix scheme, OLEDs need between two to five, arranged in a compensation circuit.


However, the biggest hurdle facing OLED developers is short lifetime. Although OLED materials and device structures have improved greatly over the past few years, manufacturers can still only guarantee between 5000 and 15,000 h of operation before the brightness of the panel is reduced to half of its initial value. This performance is sufficient for mobile phones and other consumer electronics, but inadequate for television and more sophisticated products. The organic materials simply do not hold up well under the driving current or the exposure to other materials within the device. What's more, the cathode material is highly sensitive to air and even when sealed, the OLED performance degrades slowly over time.


Device lifetime is shortened not only by declining brightness, but also by colour drift. For example, if the red, green and blue emitters degrade at different rates, the display shifts in hue over time. Typically, colour OLEDs are made by patterning red, green and blue emitters into subpixels, although it is also possible to mix multiple emitters together to form a single "white" material and use a colour filter.


With a commercial history of just seven years, OLED manufacturing remains at an early stage, both in terms of technique and equipment. Small-molecule OLEDs are made using vapour deposition techniques, such as evaporation through a shadow mask. OLED materials are too delicate for photolithography. Polymer OLEDs are made by solution processing, either spin-on techniques (for monochrome) or inkjet printing (for colour), although the latter has not yet been commercialized. Yields are quite high for simple panels, but established processes have not been put in place for most types of colour panels. This means that OLEDs are still priced higher than equivalent LCDs."

http://optics.org/cws/Articles/ViewA...rticleId=25148


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoodlum* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is an interesting article from June of this year. Here is a snippet.
> 
> 
> "OLEDs fall into two categories: passive matrix and active matrix. Active matrix means that every pixel is individually switched, as opposed to a passive matrix arrangement, where row and column electrodes are used to control the pixel at a given intersection.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for manufacturers, OLED driving schemes tend to be more complicated than LCD devices. The reason behind this is that OLEDs are current-driven and are sensitive to slight fluctuations in current. LCDs on the other hand are voltage-driven. Instead of needing one thin film transistor (TFT) per pixel in an active matrix scheme, OLEDs need between two to five, arranged in a compensation circuit.
> 
> 
> However, the biggest hurdle facing OLED developers is short lifetime. Although OLED materials and device structures have improved greatly over the past few years, manufacturers can still only guarantee between 5000 and 15,000 h of operation before the brightness of the panel is reduced to half of its initial value. This performance is sufficient for mobile phones and other consumer electronics, but inadequate for television and more sophisticated products. The organic materials simply do not hold up well under the driving current or the exposure to other materials within the device. What's more, the cathode material is highly sensitive to air and even when sealed, the OLED performance degrades slowly over time.
> 
> 
> Device lifetime is shortened not only by declining brightness, but also by colour drift. For example, if the red, green and blue emitters degrade at different rates, the display shifts in hue over time. Typically, colour OLEDs are made by patterning red, green and blue emitters into subpixels, although it is also possible to mix multiple emitters together to form a single "white" material and use a colour filter.
> 
> 
> With a commercial history of just seven years, OLED manufacturing remains at an early stage, both in terms of technique and equipment. Small-molecule OLEDs are made using vapour deposition techniques, such as evaporation through a shadow mask. OLED materials are too delicate for photolithography. Polymer OLEDs are made by solution processing, either spin-on techniques (for monochrome) or inkjet printing (for colour), although the latter has not yet been commercialized. Yields are quite high for simple panels, but established processes have not been put in place for most types of colour panels. This means that OLEDs are still priced higher than equivalent LCDs."
> 
> http://optics.org/cws/Articles/ViewA...rticleId=25148



Thanks for the informative post. Even if this article was archived previously, it is not really "old" news, and hence nice to get a refresher that's not buried. OLED seems very far away from any sort of credible development for average size flat panel displays, much less the larger variety gaining popularity in the Home Theater market. SED however DOES have working prototypes w/critical but limited reviews, as well as building production facilities as I type, and even this seems not enough to break into the competitive CE market. OLED appears to be at least a decade behind SED in these respects.


EDIT 1/17/2007 : Due to recent developments between now and when I first posted, SED seems to be headed in the wrong direction. There were no SED's at CES 2007 due to US litigation, Canon has since become the sole owner of SED Inc., and has since put the brakes on the proposed production plant in Japan. What does that spell for SED?...doom.


----------



## ddcobb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thread Update:
> 
> *3 January 2007:* Display makers to mass produce AM OLEDs




Source?


----------



## Blackraven

It's good to hear that the Red and Green OLED bulbs have gone past the 60,000 hour mark before 2006 ended.


If you do the math/maths (or mathematics), you would know that:


60000 hours/24 hours (in a day) = 2500 days


Now, 2500 days/365 days in a year = 6.84 years.


That's more than enough even for people who leave their TV on 24/7 non-stop.


But since majority of us (more than 90%) only use our HDTVs for 8-12 hours per day at max, then this numbers double to 12-13 year OR MORE.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


But I ask this question:


What about the Blue OLED bulbs?


It appears that it hasn't even reached the 30,000 year lifespan yet.


How's the status of the Blue OLED bulbs?


----------



## Blackraven

P.S.


Isochroma


Here's another article from Sony (just came out today) which made a debut of its prototype 27 inch OLED TV running at 1080p resolution and 120hz.


They also announce immediate plans for small-size OLED TV production this year with medium and larger sizes due for 2008-2009.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sony to Showcase Next Generation Displays (Prototype) at 2007 International CES - OLED TV, Laser Projection TV, and 82inch LCD TV



Tokyo, Japan, Jan 8, 2007 - (JCN Newswire) - Sony is exhibiting the following prototype TVs featuring newly developed technologies from January 7th 2007, at "2007 International CES", Las Vegas. This will broaden the possibilities for future next generation TVs.


OLED TV


Sony will be demonstrating extremely slim, approximately 3mm depth with 11inch and less than 10mm depth with 27inch (when thinnest part of the body is measured), next generation TV displays, with high contrast, wide color gamut, quick response time, incorporating OLED (organic light emitting diode) technology. There are two prototype models, 27inch TV with Full HD panel (resolution: 1920 x 1080) and 11inch TV with wide-SVGA panel (resolution: 1024 x 600). The prospect of mass production of the panels for smaller size OLED TVs is close to be cleared, and development on the panels for middle / larger-sized is currently under development.


82inch LCD TV


82inch large and full HD (resolution 1920 x 1080) screen that adopts 120Hz motion compensation technology and 10-bit panel. This delivers an increase in the television's gradation level, and effectively eliminates image blurring, for example when watching sports footage. In addition to the commonly acknowledged advantages of LCD TV, such as low power consumption and higher picture quality, the model adopts LED backlight which enables wider color gamut.


Laser Projection TV


Laser projection TV using SXRD display device that realizes wider color gamut and high contrast. Furthermore, due to the laser durability, customers are not required to exchange the light source over time. The model size is 55inch with a depth of just 273mm (monitor only), realizing full HD resolution (1920 x 1080). Sony will continue to pursue both design and technology development in seeking to further enhance its projection TVs lineup.


For more details on the Sony Electronics CES 2007 Virtual Press Kit, please visit www.sony.com/news .




About Sony


Sony Corporation is a leading manufacturer of audio, video, game, communications, key device and information technology products for the consumer and professional markets. With its music, pictures, computer entertainment and on-line businesses, Sony is uniquely positioned to be the leading personal broadband entertainment company in the world. Sony recorded consolidated annual sales of approximately $67 billion for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005. Sony Global Web Site: http://www.sony.net 


Contact:


Sony Corporation

George Boyd
[email protected] 

+81-3-5448-2111


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=13958


----------



## MUGEN

sony's oled tv pictures

http://www.engadget.com/photos/sonys...h-oled-hdtv-1/


----------



## Isochroma

 *Sony's 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio 27-inch OLED HDTV* 
*8 January 2007*





















































Some people need bigger and better LCDs, but we're just fine with the 27-inch prototype Sony mentioned during its press conference yesterday. With a contrast ratio of greater than 1,000,000:1 (not a misprint) to go with its 1080p resolution, and >100% NTSC color reproduction, we'll take this Organic LED great looks in a small package any day. We promised to hunt it down on the show floor and so we did, finding it hiding amongst a rookery of 11-inch displays. Take a look at the gallery for a few more shots of this HDTV and hope it hits shelves someday.


----------



## Shuley

Wonder if this will show up all the Sony haters....hmmm.


----------



## JosephShaw

That Sony set has me interested. I'd love a flat planel in the 40-50" range to go over the fireplace without have to resort to LCD or Plasma. I wonder if it's possible to use this technology for front projection?


----------



## MUGEN

even more of the sony's at ces 07


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OreoJoe* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> More Sony OLED photos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sony eyes OLED TVs January 8, 2007 4:17 PM PDT
> 
> Sony shows off its organic light-emitting diodes, or OLED, TV prototypes at CES. The big one in the middle measures 27 inches across, while the others measure about 11 inches across. OLEDs consume less power and are thinner than LCDs, but the challenge is making them cheaply. Sony's OLED TVs are thin, and they have a nice picture. "Brilliantly bright," says CEO Sir Howard Stringer. They may hit the market next year.



Shockingly insane!!!


But I have a question though?


The 27 inch model is so thin but it leads me to think........


Where is the power supply? what about the hardware board and chips, where are the inputs?


Can we actually store a hardware board on something as thin as that?


I know I'm an average noob but I can't even see where the power cord is?


Where are the buttons for the TV (channel, volume, menu)?


Or does it have an external tuner or box?


From simple looks and observation, the stand is like that of an average lampost but where's the power cord, where's the system hardware (or is Sony capable of making hardware the size of a DVD-case)?


Because to the ordinary person (like me), they can't even tell on how a super clear image is being displayed if there are no plugs or areas where the hardware produces the image?


It leads commoners to think that this is "magic".


Anyone care to explain to an uninformed tech person like I am?


EDIT:

Of course I see the circular/round base (below the stand)that supports it but......


----------



## Elemental1

I also wondered 'wow, that is soooo thin, where is the power source'.

I bet it's a block on the floor.







Some have a base also.

Very impressive pics but how is the motion?


----------



## bri1270




> Quote:
> Wonder if this will show up all the Sony haters....hmmm.



I'm a Sony hater, but I have to say, that 27" set looks very nice. It'll be interesting to see if OLED, laser, and or SED will go in to production anytime soon...I'm all for any one of them to take off.


----------



## gus738

it is inpressive as many people are thinking if this tech was even going to make it and all the sudden out of the blue sony says maybe next year .... nice but as everyone is thinking what is the price ? and i already noticed a flaw , if you look at post #41 where the car is (red car) look at that picture of that one compare to the other shot where its from a difrent viewing angle , now notice somehting? viewing angle is affected to this tv , and #37 on this one not so sure but the one with the lake and the moutain theirs a werid rainbow ....


----------



## Isochroma













In the photo above, note the LCD (left display) loses most of its contrast off-angle, while the OLED display (right) does not.


OLED displays don't suffer from the viewing angle problems of LCDs because they don't use a polarizer. LCDs need polarizers because the liquid crystals are sandwitched between two polarizers, and act as light valves by rotating the polarization of light.


Because OLEDs are direct-emission, they don't need a polarizer; you're seeing artifacts caused by the camera or other elements in the room.


If you're still not convinced, here are some references:

Universal Display: OLED Technology 

OLEDs can provide desirable advantages over today’s liquid crystal displays (LCDs), as well as benefits to product designers and end users. OLEDs feature:


▪ Vibrant colors

▪ High contrast

▪ Excellent grayscale

▪ Full-motion video

▪*Wide viewing angles from all directions*

▪ A wide range of pixel sizes

▪ Low power consumption

▪ Low operating voltages

▪ Wide operating temperature range

▪ Long operating lifetime

▪ A thin and lightweight form factor

▪ Cost-effective manufacturability
The Inquirer: The Pros and Cons of OLED displays 

In general, OLEDs deliver brighter images, higher contrast ratios,*wider viewing angles* and, without the need for a backlight, require less power to run.
oe magazine: brightness on display 

OLED is a viable flat-panel display technology because it has an important set of attractive attributes: high luminous efficiency, color,*wide viewing* angles, low drive voltage, fast response, and low process temperature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CES 2007: IGN: OLED FTW* 
*8 January 2007*











































Tucked against a small wall inside Korean electronics giant LG's massive CES booth, three little screens were causing an enormous stir. An easy twenty people were swarming a trio of tiny OLED screens, but even from the outskirts of the mob, a casual pair of eyes could pick out that some stunning tech was on display. LG's AM-OLED A220A screens, ready for use in mobile phones, produced images of such sterling clarity and brightness that it was hard to believe -- that is, until we got close enough to get our peepers a mere five inches from the screens themselves, and at the encouragement of a beaming LG representative.


The 2.2-inch A220A screens boast QVGA resolution (240 x 320) and 262,000 colors. The screens were flashing through a series of high-resolution photographs and video clips, including CG footage of a Final Fantasy-esque mage and a exotic rocketing down a freeway. Our pictures of these OLEDs do not do these little screens justice -- they are amazing, and we want them in our handsets (or portable gaming devices) now.


LG had OLED on display in their booth last year, but the screens were planted on a wall display. At this CES, LG -- which was a lot more open about letting people snap their own in-booth photos -- had the trio of screens on a small ledge where you could take a peek from the side to check out the impressive viewing angle and the ultra-thinness that would make them ideal for popular slim-line handsets.


Beautiful stuff, indeed, and hopefully en route to us.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CES 2007: Hardware Upgrade: OLED Technology* 
*12 January 2007*













OLED-based (Organic Light Emitting Diode) displays had a large appearance at CES this year. As they will be the next major technology upon which TVs are based, we decided to take a look at some of these displays. This year, many more manufacturers had OLED-based products on display compared to 2006. At the LG booth, we took pictures of the company’s three smallest OLED displays:













As is evident in the photo, the displays are extremely thin. The 2.2-inch displays display at resolutions of 240x320 and can show up to 262 million colors. The contrast ratio is 10000:1. They also have excellent visibility at angled shots.













Another very interesting OLED product was on display at Sony’s booth; a 27-inch OLED screen. As can be seen, it was sharp, bright, and very much viewable in a well-lit environment. It is also important to note that OLED products consumed far less energy than traditional LCD screens.













A sideshot shows just how thin the screens are. Sony is planning on creating even larger screens throughout the course of this year.













Sony also showed a number of smaller OLED displays. Although not meant for home theater rooms, they would prove to be particularly useful in laptops and small TVs.


----------



## gus738

well what ever it is i noticed the picture looks better from one viewing angle then the other.


ADDED: page 36 before the last picture ( 4th pix?) you posted it compare that one with the same (red car) but couple of post later


----------



## borf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elemental1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Very impressive pics but how is the motion?




my question also.


----------



## Blackraven

Using manufacturer-listed specs, it is LESS THAN 1 ms or in layman terms, is faster than 1 ms. It is in fact in the micron level.


Like the OLED PC monitor from Samsung SDI already listed sub-1ms response time.


And since we know that for flat-panel TVs the final version is always better than its prototype, it appears that ALL OLED flat panel TVs will have response time that is FASTER than 1 ms (or sub-1ms which means


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OLED too should push for >1,000 cd/m2 brightness ASAP in order to gain foot in this.



What would you need such a high brightness for? Are the sun glasses you must be wearing all day glued to your head?


----------



## slb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OLED too should push for >1,000 cd/m2 brightness ASAP in order to gain foot in this.



Good grief! Even at a 400 cd/m² peak, our current plasma has more brightness than needed, even for daytime viewing. 1000 cd/m² would be eyeball scorching.


----------



## Elemental1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gus738* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> well what ever it is i noticed the picture looks better from one viewing angle then the other.
> 
> 
> ADDED: page 36 before the last picture ( 4th pix?) you posted it compare that one with the same (red car) but couple of post later



I wonder if this is due to this TFT hybrid OLED tech of Sony's.









A glorified LCD.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gus738* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> well what ever it is i noticed the picture looks better from one viewing angle then the other.
> 
> 
> ADDED: page 36 before the last picture ( 4th pix?) you posted it compare that one with the same (red car) but couple of post later



My guess, after looking at the picture, was that the close up was taken without a flash, and the far away shot was taken with one. Also, in mentioning the rainbow, that one appears to have been taken with a flash as well, as you can see the same effect, but in a straight ahead shot that shows the flash reflection at the bottom of post #41


----------



## gus738

what seems inpressive to me is that oled was like a quiet technology almost never spoken and all the sudden its coming out its going to be great







question is how much for a decent size?


----------



## irkuck

The range of 20+" OLED displays Sony presented is ideal to productivization as high-end computer monitors for advanced applications. Even at high price there would be defnitely market for them.


Fact that Sony does not indicate commitment to this means that the technology is way off the prime time.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The range of 20+" OLED displays Sony presented is ideal to productivization as high-end computer monitors for advanced applications. Even at high price there would be defnitely market for them.
> 
> 
> Fact that Sony does not indicate commitment to this means that the technology is way off the prime time.



They're considering a 2008 release for OLED production for HDTV applications (which is one full year after Samsung SDI releases their OLED HDTV sets later this year).


Even Howard Stringer, "big boss" at Sony, says that they plan to enter OLED production next year.


Ask Isochroma about the press release for that.


----------



## etype2

When I first saw the Sony Trintron in 1969,my jaws dropped.


Now in 2007,I saw the Sony OLED's and they wowed me. So beautiful,so sexy,I can't wait.


I hope Sony is the first to market a OLED television. It will be like the Trinitron all over again.


----------



## Isochroma

 *CES 2007: Diamonds In The Rough* 
*16 January 2007*























Sony had a few tricks up their sleeve including a 52-inch laser-powered, rear-projection SXRD HDTV prototype, two new designs for their second-generation Blu-ray player, and an eye-catching exhibit of AM-OLED flat panel color HDTVs, with six 11-inch models and one 23-inch offering — none of them products at this time...


LG.Philips showcased small, widescreen (16:9) AM-OLEDs for handheld electronics...


----------



## naknak

Wow these displays even photograph really well. They must be stunning in person. Oled can't come out soon enough.


----------



## MUGEN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OreoJoe* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Large 1600x1200 pixels image of Sony OLED at CES
> http://www.techspot.com/newspics/200...CES2007075.jpg



i found a few more there


sony
http://www.techspot.com/newspics/200...CES2007071.jpg 
http://www.techspot.com/newspics/200...CES2007073.jpg 
http://www.techspot.com/newspics/200...CES2007074.jpg 


lg
http://www.techspot.com/newspics/200...CES2007062.jpg 
http://www.techspot.com/newspics/200...CES2007063.jpg


----------



## Isochroma













This image in particular struck me as illustrative of the excellently excessive contrast, impressive color purity & saturation, and of course high 1080p resolution these 27" displays can show.


Thanks MUGEN for the links!


----------



## Isochroma

 *DisplayBank: Will 2007 OLED Industry Remain Bright or Dim?* 
*8 January 2007*











*2005/2006 OLED Panel Shipment Ratio by Application*



Shipments of organic Light-emitting diode (OLED) panels surged by 19.7% from the preceding year to 730 million units in 2006, slightly lower than earlier expectations, according to the latest investigation by a market research institute, Displaybank (CEO Peter Kwon). The passive matrix (PM) OLED market has heavy dependence on the application market for use in mobile handset sub-displays and MP3 players, and there have been no new markets found. Displaybank pointed out that, for these reasons, the growth potential has been diluted, and therefore, the commercialization of AMOLEDs have been delayed from the previously proposed 2006 to this year.


The outlook for the major application markets such as mobile phone sub-displays and MP3 players also remains pessimistic. In the past, bright and clear PMOLEDs were mostly adopted in mobile phone sub-displays, while the latest mobile phone market trend is heading for higher specifications and larger main-displays in an effort to enhance functionality such as televisions and motion pictures and design capability, demand for PMOLED sub-displays has continued to weaken. Moreover, STN-LCD prices have dropped below those for PMOLEDs, creating hindrances to the adoption of PMOLEDs in low-end mobile phones, while PMOLEDs are lagging behind TFT-LCD in the high-end application market in terms of performance compared with prices. With regard to MP3 players, Displaybank predicts that, as mobile phones and mobile phone-use multimedia devices have trended to the combination of MP3 player functionality, the MP3 player application market also cannot avoid a negative outlook.


However, a number of companies are likely to plan to or decide to start mass production of AMOLEDs for 2007. The initial market for AMOLEDs will be created by mobile phone main displays, but we need to have more time to keep an eye on whether AMOLEDs could compete with LCDs in prices and functionality, because of very low yields at the current introductory stage. However, if yields will be improved at a rapid pace, and the price gap with TFT-LCDs will shrink to a certain price point, the AMOLED market will likely be on track to grow for 2007.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Korean giants push OLED TV forward* 
*21 February 2007*


LG is stepping up its investment in OLED display technology. Currently its Korean rival Samsung is the market leader in OLED screens, with a share of 21 per cent. New data from DisplaySearch reports that LG's OLED business grew by 179 per cent in 2006, after it doubled its production capacity to 2.4 million units, giving it a market share of 19.6 per cent.


OLED screens are capable of high definition display and can be just one centimeter thick, but a short life span has prevented the technology from being implemented in large-screen TV products. However, its supporters are becoming more bullish. Samsung has demonstrated a 30 inch prototype, while LG.Philips has shown screens up to 20 inches.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Cambridge Display Technology and Sumation Announce Strong Lifetime Improvements to P-OLED Material; Blue P-OLED Materials Hit 10,000 Hour Lifetime Milestone at 1,000 cd/sq.m* 
*27 March 2007*


CAMBRIDGE, United Kingdom, March 27, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Cambridge Display Technology (CDT) (NasdaqGM:OLED - News) and Sumation(r) are pleased to announce new growth in lifetime metrics for red, green, blue, and white P-OLED materials.


Data results from spin coated devices using a common cathode and solution processable materials developed in 2006 demonstrate that lifetimes(a) of 24,000, 35,000, 10,000, and 5,200 hours for red, green, blue, and white, respectively, have been achieved from an initial luminance of 1000 candelas per square meter, or cd/sq.m. This is equivalent(b) to over 150,000, 198,000, 62,000, and 27,000 hours from an operating brightness of 400cd/sq.m for these materials.


The latest figures represent a 5x, 11x, 6x, and 5x improvement for red, green, blue and white materials, respectively, compared to lifetimes reported at the end of 2005. In the case of blue, lifetime has been increased by 2.5x in the short time since the last announcement in November 2006.


David Fyfe, chief executive officer of CDT commented, "Since establishing the Sumation joint venture with Sumitomo in late 2005 we have achieved rapid progress in P-OLED material lifetimes, a critical component to commercial adoption. Given the results we have achieved, it now makes sense for us to quote lifetime data from 1000 cd/sq.m, as is becoming standard in the OLED industry. At current lifetime levels, P-OLED technology could meet the requirements for micro and small displays.''


Dr Susumu Miyazaki, chief executive officer of Sumation added, "We're very pleased with the progress we have made in increasing P-OLED lifetimes and are currently proceeding with production ramp-up of these materials. Commercial quantities of materials will be available to our customers in the near future.''


----------



## etype2

The above pics looks like the 11 inch,not the 27 inch.


----------



## L3thal80




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OreoJoe* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> A big disadvantage for OLED TV seems to be, similar to Plasma TV, reflections or glare in rooms with sunlight or electric lighting. Judging from the photographs of the prototype models, OLED may be fine for dark home theater, but for a bright room, LCD can be better.




I don't know about everybody else, but I would rather have a glass screen with a little bit of glare than I would the cheap plastic screens found on LCD and RPTV's..


1. It's more durable/scratch resistant

2. It produces a clearer picture

3. It's easy to clean


Also, LCD screens aren't entirely immune to glare...try placing one near an open window in the middle of the day.


That being said, I think OLED TV's have a lot of potential, and if they can get the cost down to an acceptable level and get them in the stores in the near future, I think they will do well.


----------



## dsmith901

I realize we can't tell too much from the pics here (thanks, however) but the colors seem to be almost incandescent, especially reds and greens. Pretty - but not entirely realistic. Maybe someone turned the color control up too much?


----------



## klawrence

I disagree. Imagine a sunny day at Waikiki and I think that's what it would look like!


----------



## Artwood

I've been to Waikiki and the OLED looks better than the real thing!


----------



## ResOGlas

Very nice source of material! Thanks!



So....Are these going to be very susceptible to image retention?


I view lots of static images.


----------



## slb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ResOGlas* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So....Are these going to be very susceptible to image retention?
> 
> 
> I view lots of static images.



I don't know about IR, but my guess is that they will be susceptible to burn-in. So far, the aging characteristics of the organic materials (in terms of light output) is similar to, or worse than, that of modern phosphors. Brighter images cause the materials to age faster, so this could create burn-in.


-Steve


----------



## Firestack

Hi, could someone please kindly tell me a list of companies out there who are OLED Inkjet process fabrication machine builders for tv displays for special needs and clients?


----------



## Blackraven

Here's an article from CNET group predicting the bright future for OLED technology.


Bright future for OLEDs, report predicts

By Candace Lombardi, CNET News.com

16/2/2007


OLEDs, which have only recently found their way from the lab to the Consumer Electronics Show floor, are poised to become a multibillion-dollar market.


The OLED market is predicted to hit US$10.9 billion by 2012 and grow to US$15.5 billion two years later, according to a report released Thursday from research firm NanoMarkets. The market is expected to reach US$1.4 billion this year.


OLEDs (organic light-emitting diodes) can be fashioned into thin sheets of polymer that emit bright light when an electrical current is applied. They are already used on the outer screen of many clamshell phones, a few MP3 players, an electric razor and a Kodak camera.


Kodak was one of the first to develop a specific kind of OLED technology. Now companies like Sony are touting OLEDs as the next big thing in flat-screen televisions and General Electric is using them to develop more energy-efficient lighting fixtures and windows. Their thinness and promise of low power consumption also make OLEDs ideal for signs, as well as computer and laptop monitors.


"The attraction for OLEDs in all of these areas--cell phones, signs or computer and television displays--is that, first of all, OLEDs are very bright and attractive to look at," said Lawrence Gasman, a senior analyst at NanoMarkets.


OLED displays require no backlighting, as LCDs (liquid crystal displays) do. In fact, OLEDs, which promise to be more energy-efficient, could be used to replace the power-eating fluorescent backlighting currently used for LCDs, according to Gasman.


Also, OLEDs may prove cheaper to manufacture. Currently, OLED displays are not as complicated to produce as LCD displays, though the processes are similar, said Gasman. Developing technology, however, will enable OLED displays to be printed on conventional or ink-jet printers. The new roll-to-roll process, similar in look to newspaper printing, will be much cheaper than the LCD manufacturing process, said Gasman.


Although, Sony has said that 2008 could see some OLED televisions available to consumers, don't expect to see OLED televisions become the norm overnight. Companies have invested heavily in LCD manufacturing plants, according to Gasman, and are unlikely to throw them out just to switch to OLEDs.


"It takes a long time for any new technology, however good, to take over in televisions. To state the obvious, people don't buy a new one after 18 months as they do with cell phones. The product life for televisions is longer," said Gasman.


OLED for billboards and signs?

Do expect to see OLEDs as the main screens on mobile phones. OLEDs have fast switching rates, which means they are good for video. That is a big motivator for main displays on cell phones, especially with mobile video becoming more popular.


"In theory, they also have very low power consumption overall. They don't drain the batteries as fast as LCDs do, and that is tied to the switching issue. You don't need as much power to change pictures and things," said Gasman.


"And power is probably the main constraint--apart from size issues--on what you can do on mobile phone or handheld gaming devices," he said.


For these reasons, it's expected that revenue for OLED displays used in mobile phones and handhelds will be about US$7.2 billion by 2014, according to NanoMarkets.


The report also noted the physical flexibility of OLEDs and the wide angle from which they can be seen as other attractive traits. Companies looking to offer detachable roll-up displays for cell phones and slimmer displays for commercial signs and notebook computers will make the switch to OLEDs. Large color displays, such as billboards, are not yet an option with current OLED technology. But medium-size OLED displays, like informational signs at kiosks, are ideal because they can be viewed from far angles, said the report.


OLEDs are also expected to have a significant impact on lighting, with the market for OLED-based lighting expected to exceed US$1 billion by 2014.


According to companies exploring the use of OLEDs in light fixtures, a 25-cm square panel of OLEDs can generate about 25 to 31 lumens per watt, compared with the 10 to 15 lumens per watt given off by an incandescent light bulb.


But OLEDs are not yet weather-resistant, so don't expect to see them as airport runway lights anytime soon.


One place you might see them, however, is in the airplane cabin. Gasman said OLEDs could be built into planes to offer lighting, as well as into the wall panels of homes. The lighting would be less expensive to run in terms of power than incandescent lighting.

http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/home_av...1990462,00.htm 
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/home_av...90462-2,00.htm


----------



## jksgvb

Much thanks for all the great links, gentlemen. The breakthroughs in LED technology in general, and OLED in particlular, in the last year alone have been stunning! Keep the good news coming.


----------



## HV10Sports

Has anyone personally seen the OLED in action?


Have you seen it display 60 fields per second of crystal clear source material (no blurring)??? It is supposed to have a quick response time.. but then so is SXRD...










Wondering if I should get my hopes up and start saving my pennies for true 1920x 1080 at rock solid 60 fields per second...


meh


----------



## Isochroma

Oh yes it will, the pixels switch 100 times faster than LCD. OLED is a truly solid-state display technology, unlike LCD which is liquid-state.


100x faster switching speeds means that you could get ten people watching ten different videos (frame interleaved) on the same display, using shutter glasses for each, synced to the different display times. Each person's display would be 10x faster than an LCD, ie. 600fps or maybe only 1/4 of that considering that LCD's real speed is about 15fps.


Alternately, you could omit the glasses and watch your video at 600fps, and it would still be more than 10x clearer than an LCD.


However, it's important to remember that OLED is still crappy technology compared to inorganic LED, whose switching time is measured in nanoseconds (5ns typ.). One thousand nanoseconds is one microsecond, so LEDs are 1000x faster than OLEDs, which are about 100x faster than LCD.


In other words, a true LED display (they can sometimes be seen in big billboards, etc.) can show 100,000 fps without smear. If 1000 people each with their own synced shutterglasses, were to watch one of these displays showing 1000 video streams frame interleaved, each could see their 'own' display running at 100Hz!


----------



## L3thal80

OLED's seem like the perfect technology. I'm just wondering if there are any more drawbacks to these that haven't been discussed. From what I can tell, the only things I see of concern are as follows:


1. Organic Lifetimes(which could possibly lead to image retention over time)

2. Possibly high cost of manufacturing(at least in the near future)

3. Screen sizes. Can they be made bigger...cheaply?( I recall reading about a 40" Samsung panel)

4. Easily damaged by water/moisture. Can't these be sealed up tight?


Also, any news on Sony's OLED plans?


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Alternately, you could omit the glasses and watch your video at 600fps, and it would still be more than 10x clearer than an LCD.
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> In other words, a true LED display (they can sometimes be seen in big billboards, etc.) can show 100,000 fps without smear.



I think you are not aware of the sample-and-hold effect. Are you? It affects OLED in the same way as LCD. Running a movie with 2400fps doesn't improve the clarity, if you just repeat each frame 100 times, because repeating frames doesn't have any visible effect on a sample-and-hold type display. The only way how 2400fps could have an advantage over 24fps with a sample-and-hold type display is if you calculate true intermediate frames in between the 24 original frames or if you show black frames in between. If you don't do that, you'll still see motion smear with OLED, as you do with all sample-and-hold type displays.


This kind of motion smear is not physically shown by the display (in reality there's never a time when the OLED shows smear), but the motion smear is created by the eye trying to track the motion on screen. Because of this problem LCD manufacturers are just now releasing 120Hz LCD displays, which are either calculating true intermediate frames or which show black intermediate frames in between. OLED will have to use similar techniques to work around the sample-and-hold effect.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This kind of motion smear is not physically shown by the display (in reality there's never a time when the OLED shows smear), but the motion smear is created by the eye trying to track the motion on screen. Because of this problem LCD manufacturers are just now releasing 120Hz LCD displays, which are either calculating true intermediate frames or which show black intermediate frames in between. OLED will have to use similar techniques to work around the sample-and-hold effect.



OLED displays will ALL have the 120hz refresh rates as well as the HDMI 1.3 once they get released. The Sony 27 inch prototype already had 120hz refresh rate support built-in it so applying 120hz to OLED displays won't be a problem.


However, I do have one question:


Of course ILED (Inorganic Light Emitting Diode) displays for HDTV application are the successors to OLED in the next decade but let's focus on shorter term here.


My question is: How will OLED TV perform against an LCD TV that uses LED backlighting?


CES 2007 has shown that the Sony prototype is KING of the response time (with its "microseconds" of response time unlike other display tech that use only "milliseconds" which is slower).


Question is: Can we claim this as a general fact/truth? Meaning that OLED TVs are still way faster than what LED-backlight LCD TVs are capable of?


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OLED displays will ALL have the 120hz refresh rates as well as the HDMI 1.3 once they get released. The Sony 27 inch prototype already had 120hz refresh rate support built-in it so applying 120hz to OLED displays won't be a problem.



I never said it would be. Actually it was my whole point that OLED would have to use the same techniques used by the latest 120Hz LCD displays to work against the sample-and-hold effect.


It's much too optimistic saying that OLED will automatically have 10x clearer motion than LCDs just because OLED can switch faster. The switching/response time is no longer the main problem, but the sample-and-hold effect is.


----------



## DIPHONIC

I see the Sony uses "Super Top Emission" which has brightness-limiting color filters like LCDs.


Does anyone know why domestic sized displays can't be fabricated with direct radiating filterless ILEDs ?


----------



## Larry Hutchinson

The filter does not limit the brightness.


If you take red light and pass it through a red filter, you can get 100% through.


The filter is to reduce ambient light.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry Hutchinson* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The filter does not limit the brightness.
> 
> 
> If you take red light and pass it through a red filter, you can get 100% through.
> 
> 
> The filter is to reduce ambient light.



The filter does reduce ambient light but it also cuts the target light output. The filter is there to improve color purity and reduce unwanted ambient light at the cost of reduced light output.

http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/c...eaturing39.pdf


----------



## Artwood

So how many years will it be before we have 65-inch OLED?


----------



## jgreen171

5-6 years, at the minimum.


----------



## TomSlick

I saw one last week at Sony's Road Show in Vegas. It has the best picture I have ever see on anything, although it was only a 10" picture, or so. A 27" set would be the first size available. Still gotta have one. They said it was very expensive to produce, so don't know what they will cost yet. Anybody heard any cost on this set? Tom.


----------



## HT-Naimee

Not really worth mentioning a screen that is only 10" big. Nor one with 27". I'm sorry, but at that size pretty much any display can look great.

Until they manage to show us a 50" screen prototype (minimum), the technology is not worth waiting for.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HT-Naimee* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Not really worth mentioning a screen that is only 10" big. Nor one with 27". I'm sorry, but at that size pretty much any display can look great.
> 
> Until they manage to show us a 50" screen prototype (minimum), the technology is not worth waiting for.



You do have a point on 50 inch (which is the starting for 1080p differentiation)


But I believe that at 40 inch, it would already have a sweet spot.


----------



## HT-Naimee

Below 50" is IMHO a dying market. That's a size people are looking at skipping nowadays and going for the bigger and now affordable 50" screens.


I don't know about the US, but over here in Germany I would say people have the room for bigger screens and want bigger screens.


So if this technology wants to cut in end of this year or maybe even not before next year, then 50" is the minimum.


----------



## slb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HT-Naimee* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Below 50" is IMHO a dying market. That's a size people are looking at skipping nowadays and going for the bigger and now affordable 50" screens.
> 
> 
> I don't know about the US, but over here in Germany I would say people have the room for bigger screens and want bigger screens.
> 
> 
> So if this technology wants to cut in end of this year or maybe even not before next year, then 50" is the minimum.




For the main display in a home, I agree that 50" is a good starting point. However, there is still a good market for smaller displays for use in a kitchen, bedrooms, etc. I personally would not want a display larger than about 40" for use in our current bedroom.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slb* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> For the main display in a home, I agree that 50" is a good starting point. However, there is still a good market for smaller displays for use in a kitchen, bedrooms, etc. I personally would not want a display larger than about 40" for use in our current bedroom.



The old house where I currently live-in is old and small so anything larger than 40 inches is still not possible. If we move to a new living place, then it's possible for 50 inch and above but it won't happen for us till the next four years.


For the current house, 40 inches is big enough for us. This is also considering that for developing countries, one is even lucky if he/she can get a 40 inch HDTV atm.


----------



## HT-Naimee

But would you seriously consider spending extra bucks on such a small screen for your bedroom or kitchen?

If they release this technology, they will probably want to charge something extra. If they cannot provide screen sizes which fully reveal the improvements brought to us by this technology, then I don't see that happening.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HT-Naimee* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> But would you seriously consider spending extra bucks on such a small screen for your bedroom or kitchen?
> 
> If they release this technology, they will probably want to charge something extra. If they cannot provide screen sizes which fully reveal the improvements brought to us by this technology, then I don't see that happening.



Are you comparing between current LCD and upcoming OLED???


Maybe there's slight confusion. I was referring to the LCD sets that are available now. Right now, I'm getting a 32inch Samsung Bordeaux set this month then after 6-9 months, I'm eyeing a higher-end Samsung 40 inch model (something with HDMI 1.3, LED backlight and 120hz refresh rate). I'm not eyeing anything above 40 inches for CURRENT LCD sets because anything above that is too heavy and is too expensive for the family. (developing country + small, old house)


As for OLED TV....well.....I have no concrete plans for OLED yet (either 2009 or 2011; before the end of the decade or after the start of the decade). Still have to see what they come out with first.


Whatever it is though, it could probably be a Sony with a round base (like something similar to the CES 2007 prototype)


----------



## Human Bass

What about non-organic LED displays? Philips seems to be working a lot under the curtains...


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Human Bass* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What about non-organic LED displays? Philips seems to be working a lot under the curtains...



You must be referring to ILED (Inorganic Light-Emitting Diode).


Isochroma mentioned this a few posts back and said that this was the successor after OLED gets launched. So by the year 2020, this would be the one to wipe out OLEDs.


He mentions that on response time ALONE, ILEDs have around 1-10 nanoseconds of response time. This is when compared to OLED TVs that would be launched with 1-10 microseconds.


Thus, ILED is 500-1000 TIMES FASTER than what OLED can achieve (which is already 100x faster than LCD technology even at 1 ms).


Still, this ILED technology won't even be available till like a decade or two so for upcoming tech, let's just wait for OLED.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S.


Isochroma...


Do you have anything else to share regarding ILED technology for HDTV applications?


----------



## Human Bass




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You must be referring to ILED (Inorganic Light-Emitting Diode).
> 
> 
> Isochroma mentioned this a few posts back and said that this was the successor after OLED gets launched. So by the year 2020, this would be the one to wipe out OLEDs.
> 
> 
> He mentions that on response time ALONE, ILEDs have around 1-10 nanoseconds of response time. This is when compared to OLED TVs that would be launched with 1-10 microseconds.
> 
> 
> Thus, ILED is 500-1000 TIMES FASTER than what OLED can achieve (which is already 100x faster than LCD technology even at 1 ms).
> 
> 
> Still, this ILED technology won't even be available till like a decade or two so for upcoming tech, let's just wait for OLED.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> P.S.
> 
> 
> Isochroma...
> 
> 
> Do you have anything else to share regarding ILED technology for HDTV applications?




Hummm...What are the differences between a LCD with LED as backlights and a only-LED display?


----------



## HV10Sports

LEDs make light.


LCDs block light.


----------



## hoodlum

Cambridge Display Technologies announces new OLED lifetimes.

http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/070327/116199.html


----------



## jgreen171

I'm no expert, but please don't take Cambridge Display Tech's announcements too seriously. Their intellectual property portfolio is far inferior to Universal Display Corporation, plus they have a tendency to lean towards hype and hyperbole in their press releases and corporate presentations. The lifetimes of blue emitters remains the most significant obstacle preventing the widespread mass manufacture of OLEDs, be they small molecule or polymeric. Hopefully, a usable blue phosophorescent material [aka a blue phosphorescent material with good enough color coordinates] will be discovered within the next 1-2 years, but it's impossible to predict these things.


disclosure: i have invested in Universal Display Corporation.


----------



## BIG ED




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HT-Naimee* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Not really worth mentioning a screen that is only 10" big. Nor one with 27". I'm sorry, but at that size pretty much any display can look great.
> 
> Until they manage to show us a 50" screen prototype (minimum), the technology is not worth waiting for.



For anyone,

Would this be true of "all" display technologies?

42" & 47" 1080p flat panels; are "not worth" it?

How about 32" HiDef direct view CRT's; are they "worth" it?


50" plasmas 'always' looked the 'best'. Maybe, there is something magical about 50(+)".


Then again, maybe its the all important viewing distance!


----------



## BIG ED

Newbie Q:

What's the largest OLED in the consumer market today?

What does it cost?

[if OLED's are only found in phones right now, can we at least assume a 1 1/2" OLED is cheaper than a 1 1/2" LCD?]

Thank you.


----------



## hoodlum

OLEDs are still only used in the handheld market. Once major advantage OLED has over LCD is lower power usage. OLED requires little to no power for static images which is very important for battery operated handheld devices. But OLED still costs at least 50% more than LCD.


Going to larger sizes is not straight forward as the requirements are much different for TVs and desktop monitors than for the handheld devices. The lifetime issue is one such problem. Displays larger than 2" also require going from Passive Matrix to Active Matrix. Active Matrix OLED is inherently more expensive to manufacturer than Passive Matrix due to lower yields and higher backplane costs. Each red/green/blue subpixel requires one or more transistor. Currently, a 2" Active Matrix panel is well over double the cost of a similar LCD panel. There are other issues as well.


Many OLED companies are working on these issues but it will be many years before all of these come together so that OLED can compete with the other large flat screen TVs that are currently available and continue to drop in price.


----------



## BIG ED




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoodlum* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OLEDs are still only used in the handheld market. Once major advantage OLED has over LCD is lower power usage. OLED requires little to no power for static images which is very important for battery operated handheld devices. But OLED still costs at least 50% more than LCD.
> 
> 
> Going to larger sizes is not straight forward as the requirements are much different for TVs and desktop monitors than for the handheld devices. The lifetime issue is one such problem. Displays larger than 2" also require going from Passive Matrix to Active Matrix. Active Matrix OLED is inherently more expensive to manufacturer than Passive Matrix due to lower yields and higher backplane costs. Each red/green/blue subpixel requires one or more transistor. Currently, a 2" Active Matrix panel is well over double the cost of a similar LCD panel. There are other issues as well.
> 
> 
> Many OLED companies are working on these issues but it will be many years before all of these come together so that OLED can compete with the other large flat screen TVs that are currently available and continue to drop in price.



Hood,

Thanks for getting me up to speed w/this new tech.

I'll not be waiting now for the '08 Super Bowl to buy OLED!









Became disillusioned w/LCD's issues & wanted to hear about what may be just down the road.

From what you posted, I'm thinking 2010-12 B4 50" OLED are out in mass.









Thanks for keeping it real in the hood.


----------



## jacksonian

Does anyone have any information on how long it will take for OLEDs to make it into things like PDA's and laptop screens? I was pretty sure Sony had made a Clie PDA a year or two ago that had an OLED screen but it was only released in Japan. Seems like the OLEDs would be great for PDA/smartphones, the new UMPCs, and laptops. But I wonder if they can be used in a touch-screen type application?


----------



## jgreen171

Jacksonian, the active matrix OLED on the Clie VZ-90 was fabulous. Unfortunately, Sony was unable to mass manufacture OLED displays in sufficient quantities to make a profit.


Since January 2007, Samsung SDI has slowly began to mass manufacture these displays. Right now their OLEDs can be found in 2.2" displays on the Clix2 mp3 player, and a kyocera cell phone. Over the next 9-12 months they will begin ramping up to larger sizes, such as 3" up to maybe 5". It will probably be 2-3 years before we see laptop-sized screens, and as much as 5 years before we see small HDTVs with OLEDs.


OLEDs are great for PDAs and smartphones, they are far more energy efficient and vibrant and attractive than LCDs. They can be used with touch-screen applications, since the touch-screen technology is applied in a different layer (IE, it is independent from the LCD or the OLED in the display).


----------



## jacksonian

Thanks for the info. Guess I'll have to be patient. The Clie screen had me thinking it was closer to reality than it is.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgreen171* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Jacksonian, the active matrix OLED on the Clie VZ-90 was fabulous. Unfortunately, Sony was unable to mass manufacture OLED displays in sufficient quantities to make a profit.
> 
> 
> Since January 2007, Samsung SDI has slowly began to mass manufacture these displays. Right now their OLEDs can be found in 2.2" displays on the Clix2 mp3 player, and a kyocera cell phone. Over the next 9-12 months they will begin ramping up to larger sizes, such as 3" up to maybe 5". It will probably be 2-3 years before we see laptop-sized screens, and as much as 5 years before we see small HDTVs with OLEDs.
> 
> 
> OLEDs are great for PDAs and smartphones, they are far more energy efficient and vibrant and attractive than LCDs. They can be used with touch-screen applications, since the touch-screen technology is applied in a different layer (IE, it is independent from the LCD or the OLED in the display).



From what I know (or heard) though:


Samsung SDI wants to launch their OLED TV in the last quarter of this year (which includes their 40 inch model AMOLED model).


Sony is considering joining OLED production next year starting off with their 27 inch model (like the one in CES 2007) and then going to 40 inches in the last quarter of 2008.


So it still looks like OLED is launching within this decade (unless something unfortunate happens).


----------



## hoodlum

Here are some more comments on the move to large OLED TVs.

http://displaydaily.com/2006/03/23/s...oled-roll-out/ 



"Lee's stated intention to "expand the [OLED] territory to the 40-inch level television market in two or three years" should be approached with caution. We believe the company's cell-phone display production will use the proven vacuum thermal evaporation process for depositing the OLED materials. While this is a reasonable initial approach for small displays fabricated on substrates no larger than Gen 4, it would not be suitable for the larger fab generations required to produce large TV panels economically. Furthermore, the largest LTPS deposition equipment in the world is currently Gen 4.


This means that TV-size AMOLED panels will require fundamentally different OLED deposition and backplane fabrication processes than the initial phone-panel product - or Samsung would have to undertake a major, expensive and time-consuming scale-up of LTPS processing. These considerations make volume production of 40-inch panels unlikely in a two- to three-year time frame, although RGB AMOLED prototypes in such sizes are a definite possibility."


----------



## jgreen171

BlackRaven, unfortunately your information is incorrect. There is no way that Samsung SDI will be able to mass manufacture 40" AMOLED tvs by the 4th quarter of 2007. Samsung is SLOWLY SLOWLY ramping up, from 2.2" now to 3-7" displays over the next 12 months. This information is coming directly from someone I know who works at Samsung SDI, in the investor relations department. It is also consistent with Samsung SDI's own statements at their conferences.


Sony hasn't issued a precise time-table in recent months, other than to have said at CES that "we will probably do something [with OLEDs] within the year". This is widely believed to refer to small screens, like Samsung SDI is doing. Just like Samsung SDI, Sony does not have the infrastructure to create large-sized screens in bulk.


I'm looking forward to their arrival, but LARGE amoled screens aren't coming any time soon. The very earliest they are likely to arrive is at the end of the decade, not 2007. In the meantime I will enjoy smaller screens. There is a rumor right now by some Prudential Equities analysts that the iPhone will have an AMOLED screen created by Samsung SDI. I tend to disbelieve this rumor, but quite likely AMOLEDs will be used in the second generation of the iphone, and in many other small consumer electronics very soon.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd. Introduces 20.8-inch Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display* 
*9 April 2007*






Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd. (TMD) has developed a 20.8-inch low-temperature poly-silicon (LTPS) organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panel to advance to the next-generation of flat-screen TV sets and monitors.


The newly developed panel demonstrates the world's largest screen size for polymer-type OLED display panels using LTPS technology, accomplished through the use of newly developed techniques for uniform coating of organic electroluminescent materials and the optimized combination of electrodes and organic materials.


TMD has been concentrating its efforts towards the development of LTPS technology and OLED technology. Since the development of a 17-inch OLED panel in April 2002, which then was the world's largest screen size among OLED displays, TMD has been developing 2.0-inch, 2.2-inch, 2.5-inch, 2.8-inch, and 3.5-inch OLED panels ideally suited for cellular phones and compact mobile equipment and has been in mass production of 3.5-inch OLED panels.


An OLED panel reproduces images from light emitted by the fine organic electroluminescent film formed on the glass substrate, thus it can provide high-contrast, clear images with ultra-fast response time for moving picture performance. In addition, the OLED panel features an ultra-wide viewing angle, a thinner profile due to the eliminated backlighting system and other peripheral elements, and energy conservation offering eco-friendly advantages.


The new 20.8-inch OLED display has been developed based on LTPS technology, which TMD has been continually refining, and an electroluminescent coating process, which is advantageous for larger display screen sizes. The three (RGB) color-emitting layers use polymer organic electroluminescent materials, and an ink-jet type coating process is adopted for coating of each color. These have contributed to achieving a large screen size of 20.8-inch and would enable the expansion of potential applications of large-size OLED panels, which have been conventionally limited to smaller size screens.


In addition to the adoption of a top emission structure, TMD is now managing light at the nanometer level in individual pixels to improve the efficiency of distributing light produced from the color-emitting layers. This has contributed to higher brightness and lower power consumption.


The newly developed panel will be exhibited in TMD's booth at the 3rd International FPD Expo (Display 2007) at Tokyo Big Sight from April 11 through April 13, 2007.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Toshiba, M'****a jv aims to sell TV-use OLED panels* 
*11 April 2007*


TOKYO (Reuters) - A joint venture between Toshiba Corp. (6502.T) and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. (6752.T) said on Wednesday it aimed to launch TV-use organic light-emitting diode (OLED) panels in three years, taking aim at a $35 billion market dominated by LCD and plasma panels.


Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co. Ltd., owned 60 percent by Toshiba and the rest by Panasonic maker Matsushita, aims to start commercial production of OLED panels for flat TVs by 2009, a spokesman for the venture said.


OLED panels are said to be energy-efficient, make thin and light displays, and have strength in showing fast-moving images.


Besides Toshiba Matsushita Display, Sony Corp (NYSE:SNE - news). (6758.T) develops OLED panels for TVs.


In 2007, the market for TV-use liquid crystal display (LCD) modules is expected to come to $27.4 billion, while demand for plasma panel modules will likely total $7.5 billion, according to research firm DisplaySearch.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Sony says to sell ultra-thin OLED TVs this year *
*11 April 2007*


TOKYO (Reuters) - Sony Corp. said on Thursday it planned to start selling ultra-thin TVs using organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology this year, likely becoming the first to market with a TV using the promising next-generation display.


Several companies are investing in OLED technology because it can produce bright, colorful images and does not require a backlight as do liquid crystal displays (LCD), allowing for a thinner panel. OLED panels are also said to be energy-efficient and good at reproducing fast-moving images.


OLED displays are already used in digital cameras, cellphones and other devices with relatively small panels. But cost and technology hurdles have so far prevented them from being mass produced for use in larger equipment such as TVs.


The new 11-inch OLED TV to be launched this year will be made by ST Liquid Crystal Display Corp., a joint venture between Sony and Toyota Industries Corp. , Sony spokesman Daiichi Yamafuji said, declining to give unit targets or a likely price.


"It won't be easy for OLED TVs to replace LCD TVs, but we would like to turn OLED TVs into a big new business," Sony Executive Deputy President Katsumi Ihara said in a speech at a display forum in Tokyo.


The Nikkei business daily reported earlier that Sony would begin by mass producing about 1,000 of the 11-inch OLED sets per month, and would aim to keep the TVs priced at within a few times of existing flat TVs.


That would be just a fraction of its LCD TV business.


Ihara said Sony slightly exceeded its target of selling 6 million LCD TVs in the business year ended last month, and reiterated a target to sell 10 million units this year.


Other companies investing in OLED displays include Seiko Epson Corp. , Canon Inc. , Samsung, and a joint venture between Toshiba Corp. and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. .


The venture, Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., announced on Wednesday it aimed to launch TV-use OLED panels in three years, taking aim at the $35 billion flat TV market, which is currently dominated by LCD and plasma display technology.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Sony: 1,000,000:1 OLED TV on sale in 2007 *
*12 April 2007*























Sony is once again showing off their beautiful OLED TVs we first peeped at CES . No surprise there, after all, we love to gawk at that incredible 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio just as often as possible. The real news is that Sony is finally ready to move an OLED TV into production. Sorry, not that bad-azz 27-inch model capable of Full HD 1080p. Nope, instead they'll be pushing out the 11-inch pup sometime "within 2007." We're talking 1024 x 600 pixels slathered across that wee 1M:1 contrast panel capable of 8-bit RGB color and covering more than 100% of the NTSC color gamut. Oh, and the display itself measures just 3-mm thick. Hot-freakin'-tastic. Unfortunately, it will likely suffer from a high price tag and short display life. Still, you'll be tempted, especially after seeing the set's razor-thin display in a profile shot after the break -- yeah, dramatic viewing angles too. Oh, Sony, why must you taunt us.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* LCD, Plasma... Now OLED In TV Picture *
*12 April 2007*


LCD is so yesterday.


Consumer electronics giant Sony (SNE) announced plans Thursday to produce televisions using organic light-emitting diodes by year's end. OLED displays boast ultrathin screens with much higher contrast and richer colors than today's liquid crystal display and plasma TVs.


But don't toss out your current flat-panel TV yet. OLED TVs are still in their infancy, so they're pretty small and very expensive.


Sony's first commercial OLED TV will be 11-inches wide. It hasn't set a price yet, but analysts say it could cost about $1,000 at first.


"It's going to be pricey," said Vinita Jakhanwal, an analyst with market research firm iSuppli. Sony will sell them initially to well-heeled consumers and business executives as "status symbols."

*Huge Hit At CES*


Sony likely put OLED TV production on the fast track after the vivid, eye-popping colors of prototypes displayed at January's big Consumer Electronics Show produced such a strong response.


"People were just going bananas over it," said Barry Young, an analyst at market research firm DisplaySearch. "They had no plans before that time to get this out."


The reaction of retailers at the show was "extremely positive," he said. Sony showed off 11-inch and 27-inch models at CES.


Sony's rapid move into OLED TV production suggests that the company learned a bitter lesson from several years ago when it was slow to get into the flat-panel TV market. It has since fought back with its Bravia line of LCD TVs. Last year, Sony was No. 1 worldwide in LCD TV revenue, beating out Samsung and Sharp, DisplaySearch says. It's not a player in plasma TVs.


OLED televisions have the potential to become the next generation of flat-panel TVs, analysts say. But they say the technology faces significant hurdles.


OLED displays today are mostly smaller screens for cell phones and portable media players. Companies making OLED screens are struggling just to make those 2-inch and 3-inch displays, Jakhanwal says. Larger displays will be even more of a problem, she says.


New production processes must be developed to improve capacity and quality, and lower costs, she says. "Manufacturing processes are still quite undeveloped right now," Jakhanwal said.


There's also the question of the life span. Today's OLED displays have 30,000 hours of life, compared with hundreds of thousands of hours for an LCD screen, she says.


OLED displays reproduce images using light emitted from the self-luminescent properties of some organic materials. But these materials can degrade over time, she says.


Still, OLED displays ultimately could be cheaper to make than LCD or plasma displays because they use less materials, analyst Young says. They don't require a backlight.


If OLED televisions can overcome their cost, size and lifetime issues, they could give LCD TVs a run for their money. They offer a sharp, vivid picture that makes other flat panels look dull by comparison. Plus, their ultrafast response time is ideal for sports and other quick moving pictures.


OLED TVs also have a much wider viewing angle. So as you move to the side of the set, the contrast ratio doesn't change like it does for LCD TVs.

*0.12-Inch Thick*


And for TV owners obsessed with thin sets, OLED offers the thinnest yet. The screen in Sony's planned 11-inch OLED TV will be 0.12-inch thick. It probably will be about a quarter-inch thick when housed in a protective frame, Young says.


"You could basically paste it on the wall," he said.


But Sony isn't alone in developing OLED, or what it calls organic electroluminescent, televisions. Samsung, LG Philips, (LPL) Toshiba Matsushita Display, AU Optronics (AUO) and others are working on this.


But Sony hopes to gain the first-mover edge. It will use production of the 11-inch display as a learning experience, Young says. It will try to boost production volumes and improve process designs. At the same time, it will work on the production of much larger TV displays.


This year, the OLED display market is expected to generate $833 million from the sale of 97 million units. TV displays, though, will account for only about 5,000 of those units, says iSuppli's Jakhanwal.


But iSuppli expects the OLED TV market to generate $690 million in sales by 2012.


Sony will make its OLED display panels at a plant operated by ST Liquid Crystal Display, a joint venture it has with Toyota Industries.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Commentary: OLED to be the next advanced technology for TVs *
*13 April 2007*


Customers will have even more choices for next-generation TVs, as Sony is eying organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology and plans to launch OLED TVs soon while Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology (TMDisplay) also schedules to volume produce OLED TV panels in the next few years.


Sony's OLED TV will be launched this year and the product will be made by ST Liquid Crystal Display (ST-LCD), a joint venture between Sony and Toyota Industries, Sony spokesman Daiichi Yamafuji said in a recent report from Reuters. The company, however, declined to give unit targets or price level for the segment, the report noted.


Sony demonstrated two slim OLED TV prototypes at CES 2007 in Las Vegas (January 8-11). The 11- and 27-inch TVs are about 3mm and less-than-10mm thin, respectively. The TVs both have a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1 while the panels used feature resolutions of 1,024×600 and 1,920×1,080, respectively, according to Sony.


The Japan-based company currently is focusing on LCD technology for TV application.


Sony started developing OLED panels in the early 90's and began mass production of full-color OLED displays in September 2004, according to the company. Sony's OLED production base at ST-LCD's production facility. ST-LCD mainly focuses on low-temperature poly-silicon (LTPS) panels.


After production commenced in April, 1999, ST-LCD sees accumulated shipments of LTPS panels reached 200 million pieces in August 2006, according to a company press release.


TMDisplay, a joint venture between Toshiba & Matsushita Electric Industrial, also aims to start mass production of OLED panels for flat-panel TVs by 2009, a spokesman said in another report from Reuters.


Early this month, the joint venture announced it has developed a 20.8-inch LTPS OLED panel for TVs and monitors. The company announced developments of a 17-inch OLED panel in April 2002.


Although OLED has been widely used in applications such as handsets, MP3 players and car-use devices, the technology has advantages in TV application over LCD. Firstly, OLED is a self-luminous, which means there is no need for backlighting. Also, OLED does not have the limited response time of TFT LCD. The response time of OLED displays is measured in microseconds, not the milliseconds associated with LCD displays. OLED display also features an excellent color reproduction, with most of them able to offer color gamut of over 100% NTSC standard.


Samsung SDI, LG Electronics (LGE), RiTdisplay, Pioneer and TDK were the top six OLED panel suppliers by revenues in 2006, according to DisplaySearch. Global OLED panel shipments totaled 72.1 million last year, up 29% from 2005, the research firm added.


Samsung Electronics unveiled a 40-inch active matrix (AM) OLED LCD TV in May 2005. Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) has worked with subsidiary Chi Mei Electroluminescence (CMEL) to develop AM OLED panels using LTPS technology from CMO and OLED equipment from CMEL. In the mean time, CMEL is also delivering samples of 25-inch OLED TV panels to clients, sources said this February. CMEL is currently focused on small- to medium-size OLED panel applications and is developing large-size OLED TVs.


Besides OLED, next-generation flat-panel technologies for TVs include field-emission display (FED) and surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Toshiba to Launch Organic EL TV in 2009, 30-Inch Class in View *
*13 April 2007*


Toshiba Corp. has revealed that it will release an organic EL (electroluminescence) TV product in 2009. Toshiba PR department commented on the screen size, "We have 30-inch class in consideration." Toshiba's President and CEO Atsutoshi Nishida announced this at a management policy meeting held on April 12. At this meeting, Nishida said, "We are certain now that we will be able to launch our first product in 2009," regarding the commercialization of the organic EL TV, which the company had projected in "2015 to 2016" before. As for the screen size, he said, "We plan larger size than those Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd. (TMD) have developed." Toshiba places a 30-inch class model in view, which is larger than the 21-inch prototype organic EL display that TMD announced on April 9 (related story from Tech-On!). "To prepare both the high-end and commodity models, we are currently developing panels made from polymer (organic EL) materials as well as low molecular weight materials," said Nishida.


Toshiba expects TMD to manufacture the panels that will be applied for its organic EL TV, according to the company's PR department. Toshiba, however, is yet to specify neither when the construction and operation of its organic EL panel plant will start nor the value of total investment at present. Commenting on the organic EL's competitiveness in the TV market, Nishida stated, "We don't expect that the organic EL can compete from the beginning on the equal footing with the LCD TV, which is released from many manufacturers across the world, but we believe its superiority will be recognized as production volume rises."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Sony VP Ihara Assures Market Release of Organic EL TV within 2007 *
*13 April 2007*


"Allow me to guarantee here that Sony will launch its first organic EL TV by the end of 2007." Katsumi Ihara, Executive Deputy President, President of TV and Video Business Group, Sony Corp., declared so at a display-related seminar held in Tokyo on April 12.


It is an 11-inch organic EL TV that Sony projects to launch within this year. The company showed its prototype at "2007 International CES" held in the US in January 2007. "We gained momentum from good reactions from people there," said Ihara. This prototype drew great attention and became the most focused item at the CES in January with the high quality of picture that only self-light emitting displays can render and yet only 3-mm thick slim body.


In his lecture, Ihara said, "We don't expect the organic EL TV to replace the LCD TV so easily. We consider proposing the organic EL TV as different from the LCD TV first and raising it big."


Following Sony's announcement, Toshiba Corp. also announced the release of a large organic EL TV product slated for 2009 in the afternoon on the day. Coverage on organic EL expanded in a scoop due to a series of announcements by presidents and executive officers of major electronics manufacturers. For organic EL, which is only at the beginning phase of the market after 10 years since the first commercial application was released, such trends are likely to work positively toward market expansion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Sony talks up next-gen TVs *
*13 April 2007*











*A visitor looks at Sony's 11-inch OLED TV at Display 2007 in Tokyo.*



Sony said on Thursday it planned to start selling ultra-thin TVs using organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology this year, aiming to become the first to market with a TV using the promising next-generation display.


Several companies are investing in OLED technology because it can produce bright, colourful images and does not require a backlight as do liquid crystal displays (LCDs), allowing for a thinner panel. OLED panels are also said to be energy-efficient and good at reproducing fast-moving images.


At a display forum in Tokyo, customers, suppliers and even rival TV makers turned their backs on 50-inch and bigger TVs to throng before Sony's tiny 11-inch OLED TVs.


"LCD and plasma displays look faded in comparison," said a Denso employee who declined to be named, fighting to take a picture of the new TVs.


OLED displays are already used in digital cameras, mobile phones and other devices with relatively small panels. But cost and technology hurdles have so far prevented them from being mass produced for use in larger equipment such as TVs.


The OLED TV to be launched this year will be made by ST Liquid Crystal Display, a joint venture between Sony and Toyota Industries, Sony spokesman Daiichi Yamafuji said, declining to give unit targets or a likely price.


Sony has invested aggressively in LCD technology and is now the world's largest player in the LCD TV market. It makes big LCD panels in a joint venture with South Korea's Samsung Electronics.


"It won't be easy for OLED TVs to replace LCD TVs, but we would like to turn OLED TVs into a big new business," Sony Executive Deputy President Katsumi Ihara said in a speech at the display forum.


The Nikkei business daily reported earlier that Sony would begin by mass-producing about 1,000 of the 11-inch OLED sets a month - a fraction of its LCD TV business - and would aim to keep their price within a few times that of existing flat TVs.


"OLED sets are very expensive, and we mean to begin first by marketing the TVs as a status symbol," said Sony's Kazuhiro Imai, a senior manager of the company's TV and Video business group. "We will see where the business goes from there."


Ihara said Sony slightly exceeded its target of selling 6 million LCD TVs in the business year ended last month, and reiterated a target to sell 10 million units this year.


Other companies investing in OLED displays include Seiko Epson Corp., Canon Inc., Samsung and a joint venture between Toshiba and Matsushita Electric.


Toshiba President Atsutoshi Nishida said on Thursday the company hoped to make larger TV-use OLED panels at the joint venture, Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology, by 2009, taking aim at the $US35 billion flat TV market, which is currently dominated by LCD and plasma display technology.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Sumitomo Chemical to produce OLED panels in 2008, says paper *
*14 April 2007*


Japan-based Sumitomo Chemical plans to produce organic light-emitting diode (OLED) panels in 2008, according to Japanese-language Nihon Keizai Shimbun. The company may invest 5 billion yen (US$42 million) to set up an OLED panel facility in Japan and may also parter with other electric machinery making companies in the future, the paper reported.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Nippon Steel, UDC Co-Develop Phosphorescent Organic EL Material with 5x Longer N Life *
*17 April 2007*


Nippon Steel Corp. and Universal Display Corp. (UDC) of the US have jointly developed a red phosphorescent material for organic EL panels, which has greatly improved lifecycle and luminance efficiency compared to existing materials. Its life, which represents the time before initial luminance of 1,000 cd/m2 halves, extends to 220,000 hours equivalent to five times that of the previous material. The material has also achieved luminance efficiency of 24 cd/A, 60% higher than that of the previous material. External quantum efficiency is 19% at 1,000 cd/m2 luminance, according to the companies.


Nippon Steel and UDC will focus on promoting the commercialization of the green phosphorescent material they developed in 2006 and developing a blue phosphorescent material. The two companies look to early form a lineup consisting of full color of phosphorescent materials by combining these green and blue phosphorescent materials with the aforementioned red one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Organic Displays Hit Global Market *
*20 April 2007*

*Korea Times*
_via NewsEdge Corporation_

By Cho Jin-seo


The fledgling technology of making ultra-thin displays using organic light-emitting diodes (OLED) is starting to bear fruit finally with Sony, Samsung SDI and other makers introducing new applications.


Sony yesterday said that it is going to sell 11-inch OLED TVs for the first time in the world this year. Korean firms such as Samsung Electronics, Samsung SDI, LG Electronics, LG.Philips LCD and Neoview Kolon are also investing in the technology, which should replace the current LCD and plasma panels in the long term, becoming the norm for digital displays.


Samsung Electronics Digital Media President Park Jong-woo said that organic displays can be a breakthrough in its TV business, as the competition for creating bigger screens now does not carry much meaning to consumers.


"No matter how better and bigger TVs get, people are not going to want a 100-inch TV in their bedrooms. So I think that Internet TVs or OLED TVs will be the product for creative management,'' Park said at a meeting with the press Tuesday.


OLED panels use certain organic compounds that emit red, green and blue lights in response to electric signals. Unlike LCD and plasma screens, OLED panels do not need an additional light source, or "backlight,'' so they are slimmer and more energy-efficient, and capable of showing clearer, fast-responding images.


Among the five Korean firms in the business, Samsung SDI is so far the most active in marketing its OLED products. The firm is selling small panels under 10 inches used in mobile phones, car stereos and other portable gadgets. One of the advanced models was adopted in a portable music player from Reigncom, iRiver Clix, which was launched with a fanfare in February.


For large TVs and monitors, Samsung Electronics has succeeded in making a prototype 40-inch panel but the high production cost and relatively short lifespan of the organic cells have stopped makers from mass-production.


"There are many technological issues to be solved for the mass production of the large OLED TVs. It will take some time for OLEDs to reach their full potential,'' said an official of LG.Philips LCD.


Industry insiders and market researchers say that it will take about a year for the OLED market to get into full bloom, because of difficulties in maintaining the panels' quality during manufacturing. According to a Samsung SDI insider, the yield in the manufacturing process for a 2.2-inch OLED - its main product - is only 40 percent, which means that only four out of 10 panels produced from the line are good enough to be sold.


"We will probably have to wait until next year to achieve an 80 percent yield,'' he said.


Market research firm Display Search also expects the OLED market will explode next year. It was a $491 million market last year and is expected to grow to $814 million this year. In 2008, it could expand to $2.3 billion, it predicts.


Samsung Electronics says that the firm has no illusions about the OLED market, and what Park said was just a long-term prospect.


"We have never have made a complete TV set with an OLED panel. Commercialization of OLED TVs is a long story for us. The cost is still too high,'' its public relations official said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* UDC and CMO affiliate sign contract for PHOLED materials and technology *
*24 April 2007*


Universal Display Corporation (UDC) and Chi Mei Electroluminescence (CMEL), an affiliate of Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) and subsidiary of the Chi Mei Group, announced on April 26 they have entered into an agreement for UDC to supply proprietary phosphorescent OLED (PHOLED) materials and technology to CMEL for use in CMEL's manufacture of commercial active-matrix (AM) OLED display products.


Through the use of UDC's proprietary PHOLED materials and technology, OLED displays can be significantly more power efficient than AM LCD displays and up to four times more efficient than those displays using conventional OLED technology. Higher-power efficiency translates into reduced power consumption - an important benefit to end users of today's battery-operated cell phones and other portable devices, as well as tomorrow's large-size TVs.


Financial terms of the agreement have not been disclosed, however, as is customary with these agreements, UDC will recognize commercial chemical sales and license fee revenues from its supply of this material to CMEL. The term of the agreement runs through December 31, 2008.


Over the past few years, UDC has announced a series of performance milestones for its red, green and blue PHOLED systems. UDC's PHOLED materials, manufactured by PPG Industries exclusively for UDC, are currently being evaluated and used in commercial production by a number of electronics manufacturers.


CMEL is currently focused on producing small- and medium-size OLED panel applications.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* A nanowire grid could help make large organic LED displays practical *
*26 April 2007*











*Metal mesh: A grid of 200-nanometer-thick metal wires could

be used as a flexible and robust transparent electrode

to light up flat-panel displays and organic LEDs*



Organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays are attractive because they are bright, efficient, and thin enough to be flexible. But they are currently limited to use in small displays, such as those in mobile phones. That's in part due to the failings of one piece of the device, a transparent electrode used to light up the display. Now researchers at the University of Michigan have developed a new type of electrode that could help clear the way for large, flexible OLED displays.


OLEDs consist of organic semiconductor layers sandwiched between two electrodes, one of which must be transparent to allow light to escape. Today's displays use a transparent film of indium tin oxide (ITO), but this material is expensive, fragile, and inflexible, which makes it unsuitable for large-area flexible displays. It can also degrade the organic light-emitting layers.


The new electrode is a grid of highly conductive metal wires so thin that they are essentially transparent. Electrical-engineering and computer-science professor L. Jay Guo says that the electrode should be more flexible and less expensive than ITO, while not degrading the organic materials. The researchers incorporated the grid into an OLED as the top electrode and observed no *visible difference in brightness between their LED's light emission and that of a conventional OLED made with an ITO electrode, although Guo says that he and his colleagues will need to do more-detailed optical measurements to see how the two compare. The work is described in an online paper in the journal Advanced Materials.


The researchers made grids of copper, gold, and silver, with wires 120 or 200 nanometers wide and separated by gaps of about 500 nanometers in one direction and by gaps of 10 micrometers in the perpendicular direction. The excellent conductivity of these metals and copper results in a resistance as small as five ohms, which is less than the average ITO layer's resistance.


The researchers use a technique called nanoimprint lithography, which allows them to make a grid of wires that can be transferred to any other surface, including a substrate for a flexible display. (See "10 Emerging Technologies That Will Change the World.")


By changing the width and height of the wires, the researchers can change the transparency and conductivity. Making the wires thinner makes the electrode more transparent, but at the same time, the thinner wires have higher resistance. So the researchers double the wires' height, which reduces the resistance by a factor of three but decreases the transparency by only 5 percent, Guo says. "There's great potential [to] play around with these parameters," he adds. "[There's] a lot of room to optimize the structure."


Jorma Peltola, who is a consultant with flat-panel display manufacturers, notes that while finding a robust, flexible alternative to ITO is a priority for the OLED-display industry, better organic materials and manufacturing methods will also be required before OLEDs can move into the marketplace for larger displays.


Also, the new technique faces a tough challenger: carbon nanotubes. Researchers are developing carbon-nanotube films that could replace ITO. Nanotube films presently have about three times higher resistance than the new metal grid for comparable transparency, but that difference is small and shrinking with new developments, says Andrew Rinzler, a physics professor at the University of Florida, who is studying carbon-nanotube films. Also, unlike the metal grid, nanotube layers contact every portion of the organic semiconductor layer that they are deposited on, which should increase device efficiency.


But as a first-time demonstration, the metal-grid idea is worth pursuing, Rinzler says. "The possible problems and competing technologies notwithstanding, this is a potentially viable technology that is well worth exploring."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* OLED sales to reach US$20 billion by 2017, says OIDA - Business Wire *
*30 April 2007*


TAIPEI, Taiwan--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The progress of Organic LEDs (OLEDs) beyond mobile displays was the topic of OIDA's Dr. Philip Wright's presentation at the OLEDs Asia conference last week. OIDA predicts that OLEDs will provide new levels of performance in display technology challenging other large format display technologies like Liquid Crystal Display (LCD), Electroluminescent (EL), and laser TV. In addition, OLED devices have the potential to provide outstanding lighting performance for certain applications.


OIDA believes 2007 will be a breakout year for OLEDs, said Dr. Wright, Our research shows that OLED sales will exceed $1B in 2008 growing to $20B annually by 2017. Among the developments highlighted in his talk were:
Recent announcements indicate that benchmark performance for large format flat panel displays presage the performance capabilities of these technologies.

OLEDs for solid state lighting are projected to deliver over 220 lumens/watt performance in the lab and production efficiency of 130 lumens/watt by 2017

OIDA is updating its OLED roadmap for display and lighting application, which will be published later this year.

Dr. Wright pointed out that recently several manufacturers announced displays with more than 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio, 1-2 orders of magnitude better than LCD technologies. In addition, the technologies for large displays is 2-3 times more energy efficient than LCD or EL technologies. Likewise, this emissive technology can be used for lighting taking advantage of the flexible substrate to offer unique and special purpose lighting with very high efficiency.

*About OIDA*


The Optoelectronics Industry Development Association (OIDA) is a Washington DC-based, not-for-profit association that serves as the nexus for vision, transformation, and growth of the optoelectronics industry. OIDA advances the competitiveness of its members by focusing on the business of technology, not just technology itself. OIDA members include the leading providers of optoelectronic components and systems enabled by optoelectronics, as well as universities and research institutions. OIDA provides roadmaps, reports, and market data for the optoelectronics industry, serves as the voice of industry to government and academia, acts as liaison with other optoelectronic industry associations worldwide, and provides a network for the exchange of ideas and information within the optoelectronics community. Learn more about OIDA at www.oida.org .


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Flat screen displays an organic evolution *
*1 May 2007*


For the average consumer, the minute differences between flat-screen liquid crystal display (LCD) televisions and plasma display TVs are near-impossible to detect with the naked eye.


But the next generation of flat-screen TVs are a breed apart. The clean, crisp images on Sony's 11in, 3mm thick organic light-emitting diode (OLED) TV are so arresting that the line between TV and reality becomes blurred. One journalist peering at a screen muttered that it was akin to looking out of a window.


Last year, flat-panel TV prices fell by 25 per cent and this year similar - if not greater - price declines are expected. Against this backdrop, Japanese consumer electronics makers are scrambling to gain a foothold in the next generation of flat-screen technology.


Sony is set to begin selling 11in OLED TVs by the end of the year, while Canon is aiming to sell its 55in surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED) TVs within roughly the same time. Toshiba, Sony's main rival, wants to launch a 21in OLED TV by 2009 along with Matsushita, its joint venture partner.


OLED technology, which is not exclusive to Sony, uses the ability of some organic chemicals to emit their own light when an electric current is applied. OLED screens require no backlight, so they can be as thin as 3mm and produce better quality pictures at a lower energy cost.


It will take a couple of years until we make a profit with OLED . . . there are a lot of issues to overcome, says Katsumi Ihara, Sony's executive deputy president.


We need to find a mass-production manufacturing process for the larger screen size. The current process requires too much money.


SED panels, meanwhile, provide very clear colour and do not require a back-light, reducing electricity usage and materials costs. Canon, however, is embroiled in a legal dispute in the US with a company called Nano-Proprietary over SED patents - a move that could delay the entry of its product into the crucial American market.


Analysts expect it will take at least another five years before next-generation TVs become commercially viable. The technology is still immature, and the biggest hurdle is the ability to mass produce larger panels.


After 2010, OLED is a promising technology, says Koya Tabata, a consumer electronics analyst at Credit Suisse in Tokyo.


Sony has been working on it for almost a decade. The problem with [Canon's] SED technology is that it is only to be used in TVs, whereas OLED can be used in separate applications, such as mobile phone displays, he says.


Elsewhere in Asia, industry executives are shunning the next generation of TV technology. In Taiwan, which surpassed South Korea last year as the world's largest production base for LCD panels, executives do not expect OLED to evolve as the future mainstream technology for flat-screen TVs.


It will be very difficult for this technology to survive, says Lee Kuen-yao, chairman of AU Optronics, the world's third largest LCD panel maker.


Sony has never bet on the right horse in display technology. Why should they be right this time?


Henry Wang, head of industry researcher WitsView, says that Korean and Taiwanese panel-makers will have to brace themselves if there are real breakthroughs in OLED in Japan.


The Taiwanese found that ramping OLED faces immense challenges, he says.


And in spite of Sony's recent noises, that still seems to be the case - even Sony can do no more than 1,000 panels a month.


In South Korea, Samsung's affiliate, Samsung SDI, has been more aggressive in entering the OLED market. The company has earmarked Won 466.5bn ($501m) as a first-stage investment in OLED panels between 2006 and 2007. It aims to produce 20m active matrix OLED panels this year and wants to increase output to 50m panels in 2008 to capture the high-end mobile phone market.


The company plans to mass produce small-size AM OLED panels in the third quarter. It has developed 2in and 4in AM Oled panels for mobile TVs and is currently testing the technology.


But even Sony executives admit that the battle over bigger LCD and PDP TVs will continue in the foreseeable future, in spite of the emergence of nascent technologies such as OLED and SED.


I do not think that LCD will last until the next century, but I also do not think that LCD will disappear next year, says Ryoji Chubachi, Sony's president.


It will remain the mainstay of televisions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* OLED Display Market Catches-up with Hype *
*3 May 2007*

*Outstanding display performance and low power consumption deliver rapid growth in mobile applications for OLED*


Confidence in the Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) display market was initially undermined by hype from vendors. During the infancy of the market it was predicted that OLED would replace LCD within a period of five years. Now, however, OLED is on the way to establishing a strong position in mobile applications where the combination of low power consumption and excellent optical performance gives real advantages to consumers. This is the view of Myrddin Jones, CEO, OLED-T speaking today at the Future Horizons International Electronics Forum in Athens, Greece.


"The OLED industry has spent the past few years trying to bring the amazing technology demonstrators to mass production. But the dominant incumbent technology, LCD, has had a 30 year start on the OLED industry with high yields and a mature infrastructure," said Myrddin Jones, CEO, OLED-T.


"The OLED industry was originally too optimistic about the speed of commercialisation of the technology. Only now, with new materials bringing improved lifetimes and with the establishment of dedicated active matrix production lines in Asia is the market becoming a reality."


OLED is gaining significant market share in the mobile product market in applications such as mobile phones, media players and digital cameras where its high performance and low power consumption benefits deliver improved product performance for mobile products, in particular with video.


OLED has numerous technical benefits that make it ideally suited to mobile applications compared with LCD including lower power consumption, faster switching speed, broader colour range, higher contrast, up to 30 per cent decrease in weight and 50 per cent decrease in thickness.


"OLED-T has a broad portfolio of OLED materials. It has developed a broad patent position and is well-placed in the industry as the market moves firmly into a stage a commercial development," said Craig Cruickshank, principal analyst, Cintelliq.


OLED is developing into an important market for the display industry as well as the chemical industry. Materials are estimated to make-up 20 per cent of the value of the OLED supply chain.


The worldwide flat panel display market was worth $70 billion in 2006 and is forecast to rise to $100 billion by 2010 according to major display analysts. OLED is the fastest growing non-LCD display technology and by 2010 it is predicted that it will be worth more than $2.5 billion.


OLED-T produces high performance OLED materials for use in the manufacture of OLED displays. The materials are suitable for both active and passive matrix OLED displays, and can also be used for lighting and flexible displays.

*About OLED-T*


OLED-T is leading the research, development and commercialisation of a pioneering class of organic light emitting diode (OLED) materials, called ELAMATES, for OLED displays.


OLED is a new generation of flat panel displays that exhibits numerous benefits over LCDs, particularly for portable applications. These benefits include faster switching speed, lower power consumption, higher contrast, lighter and thinner, and displays a perfect image from every direction.


Invented by OLED-T, the ELAMATES portfolio of materials offers significant advantages of cost, performance and large scale manufacturing capability to a flat panel display industry eager to reap the benefits of this new generation of display technology. The materials offer dramatic efficiency improvements of up to 80 per cent, and lifetimes of as much as three times that of competitive OLED materials.


OLED-T has over 60 patents in the area of OLED materials and device structures. It sells its materials directly to OLED display manufacturers primarily in Asia.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Samsung SDI eyes phones, TVs for AM-OLED screens *
*16 May 2007*


SEOUL (Reuters) - Samsung SDI Co., the world's top mobile display maker, expects prices of its next-generation flat screens to fall to the same level as liquid crystal displays by 2010, a senior executive said.


"By 2010, AM-OLED will become cost-competitive," Chung Ho-kyoon, Samsung SDI's chief technology officer, said on Tuesday at the Reuters Global Technology, Media and Telecoms Summit.


Chung was referring to a new display technology -- offering brighter screens and lower power use -- which Samsung SDI hopes to mass-produce from the third quarter of this year and, by 2009, to use in television sets.


At present, the price of an AM-OLED mobile display is roughly 60 percent higher than LCDs.


Sony Corp. said last month it planned to start selling ultra-thin TVs using OLED technology this year. A joint venture between Japan's Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. and Toshiba Corp. is also investing in OLED technology.


Local rival LG.Philips LCD Co. Ltd. is also expected to enter the market sooner or later.


AM-OLED screens -- standing for active-matrix organic light-emitting diode -- are seen as a promising display technology because they produce brighter images, respond faster and consume less power.


Makers were hoping the new display would quickly replace LCD on high-end multimedia mobile phones and portable media players, but demand has remained sluggish so far as handset makers, locked in a price battle, have been reluctant to buy the more expensive product.


AM-OLED display makers also face serious technical challenges in their efforts to expand the lifespan of their products -- a key requirement for a technology that wants to move from mobile phones to televisions.


"Currently, our technology is about 20,000 hours. It should have at least 50,000 hours or more for TV application," Chung said. "Our target is by 2009 we will meet this requirement."


Despite the technical and financial obstacles the slim, lightweight and energy efficient displays are seen as a candidate to make an ideal mobile TV, analysts say.


Further ahead, Chung said, AM-OLEDs could be used on flexible or transparent supports such as fabric and glass.


"That's when we will see real differentiation (with other display technologies)," Chung said.


Samsung SDI, which makes plasma displays and traditional cathode-ray tubes (CRT) for TVs, has been struggling with sliding prices and low shipments in the midst of intensifying competition with LCD screens.


Plasma makers appear to have no choice but to wait for consumer demand to move up to the 50-inch-and-bigger category, where PDPs are expected to remain cheaper than LCDs for the next two or three years.


"The display industry is going through a tough time," Chung said, "but people will always need display."


Asked about the prospects for PDPs, Chung said the technology still had a strong future.


"PDP still has a lot of room to bring down costs," he said, citing new processes that only use one layer of integrated circuits instead of two.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* LG.Philips LCD develops first full-color flexible AM OLED using a-Si technology *
*17 May 2007*













LG.Philips LCD has announced that it has developed the first full-color flexible active matrix (AM) OLED (organic light emitting diode) display that uses amorphous silicon (a-Si) technology. LG.Philips LCD has developed this display in cooperation with Universal Display Corporation (UDC), which holds the original patents for phosphorescent OLED (PH OLED) technology.


The 4-inch full-color flexible AM OLED display features 320×240 QVGA resolution and can reproduce 16.77 million colors. At 150μm, this display is barely thicker than a human hair. It uses a stainless metal foil substrate to ensure durability and protection against heat, which improves the manufacturing process and enhances product stability, noted LG.Philips LCD.


OLED technology is recognized as an optimal technology for use in flexible displays. It allows LG.Philips LCD to develop a flexible display with improved durability and reliability while delivering full-color and high-resolution. Most importantly, using a-Si backplane technology allows LG.Philips LCD to use its existing TFT LCD production line for these AM OLEDs, a major step toward demonstrating the commercial viability of such products. LG.Philips LCD is the first company to employ this technology, the maker said.


In 2006 the company revealed a 14.1-inch monochrome electronic paper (e-paper) display. In 2007, it became the first company to introduce a color version in the same size.


LG.Philips LCD will unveil the full-color flexible AM OLED display at SID 2007 in the US on May 20.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Novaled Achieving Groundbreaking Lifetimes For PIN OLEDs *
*21 May 2007*


DRESDEN, Germany, BUSINESS WIRE -- Novaled has achieved outstanding results in lifetime for both, top and bottom emission PIN OLEDs. More than one million hours at an initial brightness of 1,000 cd/sqm have been reached.


Novaled achieved unsurpassed lifetime results for top and bottom emitting red fluorescent devices. A red bottom emitting Novaled PIN OLED(TM) shows a luminance drop of only 4% after 6000 hours measurement at a starting brightness of 3,700 cd/sqm. The record top emitting red PIN OLED shows a luminance drop of even only 1% after 1,000 hours measurement at a starting brightness of 12,000 cd/sqm. Both OLEDs are down calculated to more than one million hours (corresponding to one century) at starting brightness of 1,000 cd/sqm.


Novaled has also reached significant achievements for blue fluorescent PIN OLEDs: 50,000 hours at 500 cd/sqm in bottom emission answering the request of RGB Active Matrix displays.


In addition, major lifetime improvements have been shown for green phosphorescent PIN OLEDs (100,000 hours at 500 cd/sqm for Ir(ppy)3 based top emission OLEDs). With this value Novaled has doubled its performance for Ir(ppy)3 based green OLED stacks during the last twelve months. "We are confident to reach one million hours lifetime with more performing phosphorescent emitting material", says Jan Blochwitz-Nimoth, CTO of the company.

*About Novaled*


Novaled AG is engaged in the research, development and commercialization of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technologies and proprietary materials. The company is a spin-off from the University of Dresden and the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. Main investors include Credit Agricole Private Equity, TechnoStart, TechFund Capital Europe and CDC Entreprises Innovation. Founded in 2001, Novaled experienced rapid growth, maturing into a world-class company. The enterprise commercializes its Novaled PIN OLED(TM) technology along with its proprietary OLED materials to display makers and lighting companies. The company has a strong IP position in OLED technology based on more than 220 patents granted or pending. www.novaled.com 

*About OLEDs*


OLEDs are semiconductors made from thin layers of organic material only a few nanometers thick, which emit light. In a fast growing market OLEDs are key parts of a revolution: the dream of paper-thin, flexible, highly efficient displays with brilliant colors and high contrast is becoming reality. OLEDs represent the future of ultra flat panel displays as well as a vast array of new lighting applications.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> *Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd. Introduces 20.8-inch Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display*
> *9 April 2007*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd. (TMD) has developed a 20.8-inch low-temperature poly-silicon (LTPS) organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panel to advance to the next-generation of flat-screen TV sets and monitors.
> 
> 
> The newly developed panel demonstrates the world's largest screen size for polymer-type OLED display panels using LTPS technology, accomplished through the use of newly developed techniques for uniform coating of organic electroluminescent materials and the optimized combination of electrodes and organic materials.
> 
> 
> TMD has been concentrating its efforts towards the development of LTPS technology and OLED technology. Since the development of a 17-inch OLED panel in April 2002, which then was the world's largest screen size among OLED displays, TMD has been developing 2.0-inch, 2.2-inch, 2.5-inch, 2.8-inch, and 3.5-inch OLED panels ideally suited for cellular phones and compact mobile equipment and has been in mass production of 3.5-inch OLED panels.
> 
> 
> An OLED panel reproduces images from light emitted by the fine organic electroluminescent film formed on the glass substrate, thus it can provide high-contrast, clear images with ultra-fast response time for moving picture performance. In addition, the OLED panel features an ultra-wide viewing angle, a thinner profile due to the eliminated backlighting system and other peripheral elements, and energy conservation offering eco-friendly advantages.
> 
> 
> The new 20.8-inch OLED display has been developed based on LTPS technology, which TMD has been continually refining, and an electroluminescent coating process, which is advantageous for larger display screen sizes. The three (RGB) color-emitting layers use polymer organic electroluminescent materials, and an ink-jet type coating process is adopted for coating of each color. These have contributed to achieving a large screen size of 20.8-inch and would enable the expansion of potential applications of large-size OLED panels, which have been conventionally limited to smaller size screens.
> 
> 
> In addition to the adoption of a top emission structure, TMD is now managing light at the nanometer level in individual pixels to improve the efficiency of distributing light produced from the color-emitting layers. This has contributed to higher brightness and lower power consumption.
> 
> 
> The newly developed panel will be exhibited in TMD's booth at the 3rd International FPD Expo (Display 2007) at Tokyo Big Sight from April 11 through April 13, 2007.



Wow that was quite fast.


Hmm...Toshiba and Matsushita are involved? If so, then maybe I can make a few guesses/assumptions:


Toshiba:

Since their SED business is full of problems and lawsuits, they (Toshiba) now at least have a back up plan by investing in OLED in-case their SED venture (with Canon) fails.


Matsushita:

If so, then Panasonic will indeed venture into OLED production for HDTV as their new business before the decade ends (aside from current plasma TV production which is their forte)


In any case, when will this new TV be released for sale to the public?


EDIT:

Apparently that set does look....weird.


It would be better off without that black casing thingy surrounding the main screen area.


----------



## navychop

_"...in-case their SED venture (with Canon) fails."_


Err, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but ........


----------



## pkeegan

 yahoo news posted an article. Expects OLED TVs 2009


----------



## hoodlum

This looks to be more hype than substance. Notice that they don't mention what size OLED TV they will produce in 2009.


Here are some comments from Toshiba's President from less than 4 months ago. I doubt much has changed.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...061225/125850/ 


"He cited the active matrix organic EL (electroluminescence) display as a potential successor to the SED. That is why Toshiba invests in the polycrystalline Si (p-Si) TFT line (at Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd.), he added. However, "The technology has only become applicable to a 3- or 4-inch display and it is impossible to create a 40-inch organic EL display in 2 to 3 years. It is even difficult to achieve it in 2015 to 2016. We will pursue the SED until then, but management requires to consider about 10, 20 years ahead," Nishida said."


----------



## MUGEN

sony showing off those oled display's from CES 07 again
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/do...1/display1.htm


----------



## jgreen171

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041102588.html 


Here is an interesting article. It claims that Sony that will mass-producing and then selling a couple thousand 11" OLED TVs during the 2nd half of 2007. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, neither Sony nor Samsung SDI has the capability to mass-manufacture these TVs in big enough quantities to really matter much. Sony for example is going to making 1,000 per month and they 'declined to estimate a price per unit'. That's japanese for 'realllllllllly realllllllly expensive'.


----------



## hoodlum

These small size OLED TVs will be very expensive. 40"+ competitive OLED TVs are still 5-10 years away.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070412/...ny_oel_tv_dc_3 


The Nikkei business daily reported earlier that Sony would begin by mass-producing about 1,000 of the 11-inch OLED sets a month -- a fraction of its LCD TV business -- and *would aim to keep their price within a few times that of existing flat TVs*.


"*OLED sets are very expensive, and we mean to begin first by marketing the TVs as a status symbol,*" said Sony's Kazuhiro Imai, a senior manager of the company's TV and Video business group. "We will see where the business goes from there."


----------



## navychop

Another log on the fire *here.*


----------



## MUGEN

*Toshiba to Launch Organic EL TV in 2009, 30-Inch Class in View*

Toshiba Corp. has revealed that it will release an organic EL (electroluminescence) TV product in 2009. Toshiba PR department commented on the screen size, "We have 30-inch class in consideration." Toshiba's President and CEO Atsutoshi Nishida announced this at a management policy meeting held on April 12. At this meeting, Nishida said, "We are certain now that we will be able to launch our first product in 2009," regarding the commercialization of the organic EL TV, which the company had projected in "2015 to 2016" before. As for the screen size, he said, "We plan larger size than those Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd. (TMD) have developed." Toshiba places a 30-inch class model in view, which is larger than the 21-inch prototype organic EL display that TMD announced on April 9 (related story from Tech-On!). "To prepare both the high-end and commodity models, we are currently developing panels made from polymer (organic EL) materials as well as low molecular weight materials," said Nishida.


Toshiba expects TMD to manufacture the panels that will be applied for its organic EL TV, according to the company's PR department. Toshiba, however, is yet to specify neither when the construction and operation of its organic EL panel plant will start nor the value of total investment at present. Commenting on the organic EL's competitiveness in the TV market, Nishida stated, "We don't expect that the organic EL can compete from the beginning on the equal footing with the LCD TV, which is released from many manufacturers across the world, but we believe its superiority will be recognized as production volume rises."
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...070413/130804/


----------



## HT-Naimee

i'm pro oled and new technology, but am i the only one who thinks that 30" in 2-3 years time is not really something to brag about?


it's tiny and seriously, who cares about the contrast on a 10-30" screen?

at that rate the first oleds worth mentioning won't be around until 2015, when we finally get 50-60", by when plasmas will hopefully be 70" and bigger at a fraction of the cost.


yes, work on it, but constant talking about it doesn't make it any more relevant today nor thsi year or as it seems, next year.


----------



## pkeegan

 Engadget also posted the news of a 30" Toshiba OLED TV in 2009. Now only if their forecast isn't as faulty as it has been for SED.

I would love to see a 30" OLED manufactured. I have a small living area and a 30" set would be great. For a number of years I had a 30" Loewe Aconda till it's system board failed and never felt the screen size was too small. So yes there is a market for 30" HDTVs.


----------



## navychop

Gee, I wonder what a 70" plasma would weigh?


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Gee, I wonder what a 70" plasma would weigh?



I'm more concerned about power consumption of plasma sets.


That's the only reason why I'm holding off any considerations on getting a Pioneer plasma set (like the upcoming 8th gen)


If they do impose a sharp drop in power consumption for the Pioneer 8th gen plasma, then I might reconsider.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Going back:


It's good to hear a lot of happenings are coming around for OLED.


----------



## rogo

"i'm pro oled and new technology, but am i the only one who thinks that 30" in 2-3 years time is not really something to brag about?"


Well, no, I mean it's profoundly irrelevant from a home-theater perspective to introduce a 30-inch set in 2009 or 2010. It's going to be pricey and LCDs will presumably be awfully good and $500 or so by then at 30 inches.


On the other hand, there won't be 50 and 60-inch and larger OLEDs until someone starts commercially mass producing smaller ones. So in that sense, it's very exciting news >>when


----------



## jgreen171

And you can't really have 30" TVs until you have smaller displays, which is why Sony and Samsung SDI are important. Sony's 11" displays, manufactured in tiny quantities such as 1,000 per month, and Samsung SDI which are much smaller in size 2.2" to 7", will whet the public's appetite for this beautiful technology and fuel innovation and investments.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgreen171* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> And you can't really have 30" TVs until you have smaller displays, which is why Sony and Samsung SDI are important. Sony's 11" displays, manufactured in tiny quantities such as 1,000 per month, and Samsung SDI which are much smaller in size 2.2" to 7", will whet the public's appetite for this beautiful technology and fuel innovation and investments.



Yup


In other words, start small but go bigger and better as time passes by.


Go OLED


----------



## The Deuce

Hmm, maybe they could use OLED to make lightweight 1080p virtual reality helmet TVs. That would give them an interesting little niche until they came in larger sizes.


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *The Deuce* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hmm, maybe they could use OLED to make lightweight 1080p virtual reality helmet TVs. That would give them an interesting little niche until they came in larger sizes.



I imagine just about any tiny/small screen application under the sun will be a prime candidate for OLED. The more the better, and the sooner the better as we'll begin to see an increase in their screen sizes.


----------



## flatpanel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *The Deuce* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> lightweight 1080p virtual reality helmet TVs



skip the helmet, just put an hdmi connector at the base of your skull. Although I'm

not sure anyone's brain stem would be 1.3 compliant yet.


----------



## Human Bass

I would love a 30" beauty any day of life!


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *flatpanel* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> skip the helmet, just put an hdmi connector at the base of your skull. Although I'm
> 
> not sure anyone's brain stem would be 1.3 compliant yet.



Ghost in the Shell style?


Nah I think I'll pass (I don't like to put any sort of electronics inside my brain







)


----------



## whiskerbiscuit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> "i'm pro oled and new technology, but am i the only one who thinks that 30" in 2-3 years time is not really something to brag about?"
> 
> 
> Well, no, I mean it's profoundly irrelevant from a home-theater perspective to introduce a 30-inch set in 2009 or 2010. It's going to be pricey and LCDs will presumably be awfully good and $500 or so by then at 30 inches.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, there won't be 50 and 60-inch and larger OLEDs until someone starts commercially mass producing smaller ones. So in that sense, it's very exciting news >>when


----------



## navychop

Personally, I like his post and would also like to see the reply. Some side comments are good.


There are enough "topic police" around.


----------



## ForeverZero

I wonder if oled tv's will scale down to standard definition well?


----------



## jgreen171

Everyone in the industry knows that Sony and LG's affiliate companies (LG Electronics and LG Philips LCD) are also licenees of UDC.


UDC, in case anyone is interested, is the single best choice for anyone who wants to invest in the OLED industry.







* Disclosure: I followed my own advice and have a large investment, relatively, in this company.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgreen171* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> * Disclosure: I followed my own advice and have a large investment, relatively, in this company.



You're a stockowner/shareholder of an OLED company? Cool


----------



## jgreen171

Well, it was cooler a month and a half ago, when the price per share started shooting from $12 all the way to $18.34 or so. Now it's less cool when the price shrinks from $18.34 down to $16. That's the hard thing about the stock market, it takes a strong stomach.


Still, I believe in the technology in the long term, so I am staying put. Even if the blue phosphorescent materials required for large HDTVs aren't invented for 10 years, there is still plenty of room for profit with smaller screens.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You're a stockowner/shareholder of an OLED company? Cool


----------



## huMptY DumPty

The 11-inch display looks amazing


----------



## Human Bass




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *huMptY DumPty* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The 11-inch display looks amazing


----------



## HT-Naimee

IF they manage to produce proper screen sizes without being ofertaken by laser TVs.


Sorry, but I am amazed at the hype you guys are making over a product which really has nothing to do with HT screens yet. Cellphones maybe. Or small monitors for notebooks. But that's about it.


----------



## Paul Bigelow

30" would suffice -- especially for a computer monitor. OLED is probably the only technology (other than failure) to get me to let go of a NEC FE1250+ -- outstanding black levels and color fidelity -- things I've come to appreciate in this "Dynamic Contrast Ratio" world.


----------



## jgreen171

HT, why should we restrict our conversation to technologies that are available now? OLED is an amazing HT technology that will be phenomenally successful in a few years. until that time, i will be happy to have OLEDs in my PDAs, mp3 players, portable DVD players, small laptop displays, etc.


----------



## HT-Naimee

No, feel free to hype it but I must say, unless manufacturers actually present a plan as to how and by when they will be able to produce significant quantities in screen sizes, that will actually make a difference and will be able to let the viewer fully appreciate the benefits, this technology is nothing else but a theoretical predecessor to Plasmas and LCD.


It's OK, feel free, but I am still waiting for actually interesting news. Being able to produce a 11" screen is really nothing that could make me become interested and a technology which won't be able to produce a minimum size of interest to me in the next two or three years is just not what I would call a revolution.


Anyhoo, enjoy and I sincerly hope that we will see some major technology advances. I don't cre whether it is OLED or laserTV or whatever gives best PQ.


----------



## Zues




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> "i'm pro oled and new technology, but am i the only one who thinks that 30" in 2-3 years time is not really something to brag about?"
> 
> 
> Well, no, I mean it's profoundly irrelevant from a home-theater perspective to introduce a 30-inch set in 2009 or 2010. It's going to be pricey and LCDs will presumably be awfully good and $500 or so by then at 30 inches.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, there won't be 50 and 60-inch and larger OLEDs until someone starts commercially mass producing smaller ones. So in that sense, it's very exciting news >>when


----------



## SXRDISBEST

Can you imagine the commercial potential of OLED signs. If you saw Minority Report then you can see how they would be used in malls, buildings and street signs when they become very very cheap to make. (2020 or later I would guess)


----------



## gamelover360

OLED TV's MAY be available in sizes of 40" and up in 35 years IF they figure an economically viable way to mass produce them. A lot of if's, but the interest would be there as people would love TV's that thin with PQ that amazing.


Another issue is that LCD's and Plasma TV's are just catching on with mainstream America. The average Joe will be happy with an HD LCD TV for the next 10 years. Plus the cable TV industry has to vastly change its' infasructure to actually deliver high quality HD content. OLED's are cool, but if you are watching Time warner cable with their ****** compressed HD feeds, it really doesn't matter.


----------



## jgreen171

35 years??? I want some of what you are smoking, LOL.


There is massive investment and infrastructure development going for active matrix OLEDs, there is no reason to think that large OLEDs are more than 4-6 years off. And the small displays (2.2" - 4") are so much more attractive than Liquid Crap Displays that they are sparking a lot of interest in all sectors of the display industry.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gamelover360* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OLED TV's MAY be available in sizes of 40" and up in 35 years IF they figure an economically viable way to mass produce them. A lot of if's, but the interest would be there as people would love TV's that thin with PQ that amazing.
> 
> 
> Another issue is that LCD's and Plasma TV's are just catching on with mainstream America. The average Joe will be happy with an HD LCD TV for the next 10 years. Plus the cable TV industry has to vastly change its' infasructure to actually deliver high quality HD content. OLED's are cool, but if you are watching Time warner cable with their ****** compressed HD feeds, it really doesn't matter.


----------



## gamelover360




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgreen171* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 35 years??? I want some of what you are smoking, LOL.
> 
> 
> There is massive investment and infrastructure development going for active matrix OLEDs, there is no reason to think that large OLEDs are more than 4-6 years off. And the small displays (2.2" - 4") are so much more attractive than Liquid Crap Displays that they are sparking a lot of interest in all sectors of the display industry.




I meant 3-5 years. Woops.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung SDI Develops 0.52mm AMOLED - Mass Production from 2H 2007* 
*17 May 2007*







































































































Samsung SDI has developed the world's first 2.2-inch active matrix (AM) organic light emitting diode (OLED), which is only business card-thick (0.52mm). The new super-thin 2.2-inch AM OLED features a one-third thickness of the conventional TFT-LCD modules that are 1.7mm thick.


The new display delivers a resolution of QVGA (240x320), 260,000 colors, a contrast ratio of 10,000:1, and color reproduction of 100%. It is scheduled that the new AM OLED is to be revealed at the SID exhibition to be held from 22 through 24 May in Long Beach, California, U.S.A., along with a 2.6-inch QVGA (240x320) AM OLED and a 2.8-inch LQVGA (240x400) AM OLED.


The Korean company aims to commence mass production from the second half of this year and boost its annual capacity of AM OLEDs from 15 million units this year to more than 100 million units by 2008.


----------



## navychop

Take *THAT*, SED!


----------



## Isochroma

 *Sony Sees Its Way Clear to Develop Larger OLED Panels for Televisions with New Production Technique* 
*24 May 2007*











*Conceptual diagram of LIPS*











*Enhanced productivity with laser units arranged in parallel*



On the first day of the SID 2007 symposium, a lecture given by Sony Corp. attracted the largest audience, other than the keynote speech. The place was so crowded that many people had to stand, in spite that the largest hall was prepared. In its lecture, Sony unveiled the production technique of 27.3-inch OLED display panels for use in televisions which was presented at 2007 International CES. The panel features a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1 and a gamut of over 100% NTSC. A TV set incorporating the panel can be extremely thin, i.e. 10 mm in thickness. The announcement is of great significance in that the company sees its way clear to manufacture larger size panels with the adoption of the new production technique. The company also set development policies to enhance production efficiency.


The panel has the top emission structure in which light is emitted to the opposite direction from the TFT formed on the glass substrate. With this structure, it is possible to exclude a sealed glass while assuring a high aperture ratio. In addition, colors can be adjusted by controlling the width of a luminescence material. Sony calls the structure Super Top Emission.


The luminescence material used in the prototype panel is described as the low-molecular type. Sony decided to employ this type of material because it can be applied in a vacuum atmosphere, thereby avoiding water or hydrogen that can cause degradation from being mixed in the material. In general, a low-molecular OLED panel is obtained by defining the film deposition area with a shadow mask, followed by vacuum deposition pattering. This time, the company has employed a laser transfer technology called Laser Induced Pattern wise Sublimation (LIPS) to deposit the luminescence material. A donor substrate is prepared by applying the luminescence material on the entire surface of the glass substrate. Then, the substrate is selectively irradiated with a laser beam so as to form the film deposition areas respectively corresponding to red, green, and blue lights by patterning without using a mask.


With the adoption of this method, degradation in patterning precision resulting from the deformation of the shadow mask, which has been the bottleneck in the production of large size panels, can be prevented. Organic materials such as hole and electron transport materials, which need to be applied on the entire surface of the substrate without patterning, are subjected to deposition as usual. Meanwhile, Sony has also prototyped an 11-inch OLED panel and presented a TV set using it at 2007 International CES. All organic materials used in this panel are applied by deposition.


There is a laser transfer technology known as LITI which is developed by 3M Co. as with the LIPS. Since a luminescence material is transferred in the atmosphere during the LITI process, this technology involves a problem of possible degradation factors being mixed in. In contrast, during the LIPS process, the donor substrate and a substrate formed with TFT are bonded together in a vacuum. Then, a portion called PDL surrounded by exterior walls on the TFT substrate is brought into a vacuum state. In this way, the laser transfer process itself is carried out in the atmosphere while placing the portion with which the material is applied in a vacuum.


In the TFT production process, the company has employed rapid thermal anneal process called diode laser thermal anneal (dLTA) which uses an infrared laser diode to improve crystallinity. As a result, the TFT mobility is enhanced to 5-10 cm2/Vs, thereby increasing the amount of current flowing in the luminescence material and boosting the luminance. Similar method was employed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea although Samsung called the crystals after annealing "Nanocrystal Si" while they are referred to as "Microcrystal Si" by Sony. As indicated by names, Sony's grain is larger than that of Samsung's. Further details of dLTA were unveiled on May 24, 2007.


Sony used laser units in both luminescence material transfer and TFT annealing processes. The company says that the laser process is a matured, highly reliable technique. It is also possible to increase production throughput by the adoption of a multi-gun setup with laser units arranged in parallel. In fact, the company used the equipment provided with multiple laser units, although the density of alignment is yet to be specified. The wavelength of the laser used is 800 nm.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Kodak cross licenses OLED technology with CMO and CMEL* 
*24 May 2007*


Eastman Kodak, a specialist in organic light emitting diode technology (OLED), recently announced a cross licensing agreement with Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) and Chi Mei EL (CMEL). CMEL plans to incorporate Kodak's active matrix OLED display technology in small panel, mobile displays.


The license, which is royalty bearing to Kodak, enables CMEL to use Kodak technology for active matrix OLED modules in a variety of small- to medium-size display applications such as mobile phones, digital cameras and portable media players. The agreement also enables CMEL to purchase Kodak's patented OLED materials for use in manufacturing displays.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Worldwide OLED TV Shipments to Surpass 1.1 Million Units in 2012: iSuppli* 
*29 May 2007*













According to iSuppli Corp. of the US, worldwide shipments of TVs using organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays will increase at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 170.6% and reach around 1.2 million units in 2012, up from 8,000 units in 2007. Shipment value is expected to reach $690.6 million (USD) in 2012, rising from less than $1 million in 2007.


iSuppli explains interest in OLED TVs has been stimulated by Sony's recent announcement that it will "release an OLED TV by the end of 2007." In response to Sony's announcement, Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd. also announced a 20.8-inch active matrix OLED panel for TVs.

*Active matrix OLED panels are suitable for use in televisions*


iSuppli said active matrix OLED panels are suitable for television in many respects. OLED panels feature fast response time, vivid color display, wide viewing angles, high brightness and high contrast ratios. Moreover, since the technology needs no backlight, manufacturers can make a panel slimmer than existing flat panel displays on the market. iSuppli forecasts a 20-inch or larger OLED TV will be launched by 2012. The company also predicts large OLED TVs will be manufactured by applying polymer LED (PLED) materials on the substrate using inkjet printing technique, while small OLED TVs will use vacuum deposition processing technology.


OLED panels are, however, facing challenges such as poor yields, limited lifetimes and pricing that are preventing them from being adopted to TVs. Manufacturers are currently developing process technology for active matrix OLED panels using small 2.0- or 2.4-inch models. Considering there are many challenges even when processing small panels, it takes a longer time to establish a process technology for large panels, iSuppli predicted. Furthermore, inkjet printers that produce 4G substrates for OLED panels are still at a pretest phase.


Based on these circumstances, iSuppli considers the market's first OLED TV is likely to be a compact model for use in the kitchen or bathroom, for example. However, the market for such small OLED TVs is small. iSuppli analyzes a more standard 20-inch or larger OLED TV will be released around 2012 if OLED panel manufacturers continue to invest in the technology. However, manufacturing cost for OLED panels is likely to remain high even at that time with an OLED TV panel costing double the price for an LCD TV panel in 2011, according to iSuppli.

*Many rival technologies compete with OLED in the TV industry*


Another challenge is OLED has many rival technologies such as CRT, LCD, plasma, SED and FED panels in the TV market, said iSuppli. Most consumers do not give first priority to the display technology when purchasing TVs. They give first priority to image quality and pricing, and second priority to the screen size and the depth of the product. iSuppli warns the many options in TV display technologies may make it difficult for OLED TVs to attract consumers and manufacturers. That is why iSuppli forecasts worldwide OLED TV shipments will fall below 0.5% of 242.7 million-unit overall TV shipments estimated for 2011.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED Displays Break Out of Slump; Units Up 71% and Revenues Up 56% Y/Y; Pioneer Replaces Samsung SDI as Revenue Leader According to DisplaySearch* 
*4 June 2007*


DisplaySearch, the worldwide leader in display market research and consulting, revealed in its latest Quarterly OLED Shipment and Forecast Report that Q1'07 OLED shipments were 19.1M, up 71%Y/Y and revenues were $121M, up 56% Y/Y, as the ASP dropped by only 9% Y/Y. Shipments and revenue were down Q/Q, 14% and 13%, respectively, due to seasonality. OLED displays compete with LCDs in small/medium applications such as mobile phone main displays and sub-displays, MP3s, and automotive consoles. The top five suppliers, shown in Table 1, had a market share of 85.4% as the industry continued to consolidate.


Active matrix OLEDs displays continued volume shipments with Samsung SDI, Kodak, Sony and eMagin shipping 335K displays in Q1'07. By Q2'07, the volume is expected to grow to 685K displays. Applications include MP3s, mobile phones and near eye.


Overall, RiTdisplay led in units, with 5.1M closely followed by Pioneer, also at 5.1M, Samsung SDI at 3.7M, LGE at 3.1M and TDK at 1.5M. Univision, which had shut down due to financial problems has restarted production and shipped 900K units in Q1'07 and is expected to grow volume to 1.5M units next quarter, recovering to a leadership position.


Sub-displays and MP3 player displays combined to account for about 87% of shipments at 12.6M and 4.0M, respectively. Of the remaining applications, main displays and industrial applications showed strong growth, but volume remained low as shown in Table 2:


Sub-display volume is very strong in Japan and is the major cause of the growth in the category. Main display growth is primarily due to the Kyocera cell phone which uses the Samsung SDI 2.4" QVGA AMOLED panel. Kodak found a home for its remaining inventory created by the now defunct joint venture with Sanyo.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Organic LEDs brighten up* 
*4 July 2007*


http://optics.org/cws/article/research/30471/1/image1 









*CoFe nanoparticles on substrates*


*Magnetic nanoparticles could boost the efficiency of an organic light-emitting device by more than 30%, say US researchers.*


Jian Shen of the Oak Ridge National Lab and colleagues used the magnetic nanoparticles to dope the structure of a polymer-based organic light-emitting diode (OLED). The technique not only opens up a way to get more light out of an OLED, but also allows the OLED intensity to be controlled by an external magnetic field.


CoFe nanoparticles on substratesA typical polymer-based OLED structure contains three layers: a thin light-emitting layer held between a hole-transport layer and an electron-transport layer. The emissive layer should be thin enough to allow the electrons and holes from the transport layers to meet and recombine.


Shen and colleagues fabricated their device by using an ultrasound method to mix cobalt ferrite (CoFe) nanodots into chloroform solutions of polymers. The researchers spin-cast the CoFe-doped polymers onto a conducting glass substrate to form the OLED. They then measured the electroluminescence intensity of the doped OLED and compared it with that of a non-doped OLED.


The team found that the quantum efficiency of the OLED increased by 27% for an OLED that was doped with 0.1% of nanoparticles - a figure that rose to 32% when an external magnetic field was applied. According to the researchers, these improvements can be attributed to two simultaneous effects: an increase in the number of excitons among the total number of charge carriers, and an increase in the fraction of singlets among the total number of excitons. Singlets are electron-hole pairs with opposite spins, so that the total spin equals zero.


The high efficiency of OLEDs enhanced by doping with CoFe nanoparticles could play an important role in accelerating the commercialization of OLEDs for other applications, such as magnetic-field sensors, explained Shen. Moreover, the magnetic tuneability implies that the new OLED can be controlled via a non-contact method (an external magnetic field).


The researchers are now trying to optimize their process to further enhance the quantum efficiency of the OLED. They will do this by adjusting the doping concentration and also by making more uniform magnetic nanoparticles.


The work was published in _Applied Physics Letters_.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*New generation of lighter displays to take on LCDs* 
*4 July 2007*


TAIPEI/SEOUL (Reuters) - A new generation of super-thin, power-sipping displays is making its way to the market, stretching battery lives to new limits and perhaps one day posing a challenge to heavier, energy-gobbling LCDs.


New screens that glow on their own are taking on their clunkier liquid crystal display rivals -- which require powerful backlighting -- by producing sharper video images for smartphones, game consoles and portable media players.


But industry watchers say it will be years before a clear winner -- if any -- emerges with the clout to outdo LCDs.


Organic light-emitting diode (OLED) and bi-stable technologies are the most likely challengers to LCDs.


An OLED screen uses as much as 40 percent less power than a comparable LCD and could be twice as thin because it does not need backlighting.


These technologies are already being used in some smaller portable devices, such as music players from Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Reigncom Ltd. and a thin mobile phone from Kyocera.


And Sony Corp. plans to sell small-sized TVs using the OLED technology later this year.


"In hand-held devices, display consumes power most. It's all about power and then maybe brightness," said Lehman Brothers analyst James Kim in South Korea.


Analysts reckon Apple's iPhone, which launched in the United States on Friday, may end up using more energy-efficient screens, such as OLED, given the short battery life of its pilot models with LCD screens.


"It makes sense (for Apple) to move to OLED screens. They are working to improve the battery issue," said Kim Woon-ho, an analyst at Prudential Investment & Securities.


"OLED makers have some expectations for Apple's switch, too, although there's no firm plan yet."


Apple was not available for comment.

*IN ON THE ACT*


The commercial for these new display types has caught the eye of some LCD makers, like Samsung SDI Co. and Sony, given that LCD prices have plunged by a third in the last year.


Samsung SDI is already making OLED screens, while Taiwan's Chi Mei EL Corp. (CMEL) -- an pure OLED maker owned by LCD company Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. -- is running at full capacity.


The market for low-power forms of OLED and low power LCD displays is set to grow rapidly, reaching $24 billion in sales by 2012, rising at an annual growth rate of 27 percent from $6 billion in 2007, according to market researcher iSuppli Corp.


Developing new technology is costly, so some LCD producers like LG.Philips LCD Co. Ltd. are improving existing LCDs -- using new power control technology and optical sensors for backlight units.


"LCD companies are working to improve LCD panels," Prudential's Kim said. "It may take years for the (OLED) market to grow if the trend continues."


But some industry experts reckon OLED technology -- which began life powering car radios -- may end up on large televisions.


OLED producers will have to improve the organic material used between the two electrodes which illuminate the screen, and costs will have to come down before OLEDs become widely used in cellphones, PCs and flat-screen TVs.


"The price of an OLED display is 1.7 to 1.8 times higher than that of a LCD and it won't become more competitive until after the price falls sharply," CMEL President Peter Chen said.


A rival to OLED technology are bi-stable displays, which retain images without power, making them suitable for public displays and sub-screens on devices, although bi-stable displays have image quality issues.


Another product is color flexible OLED display. LG.Philips LCD recently unveiled a 4-inch full-color flexible OLED display, although the size is still too small for handheld e-books.


And that's just the beginning. One day, versions of newspapers and magazines that are updated wirelessly might be rolled up or folded, and carried like a piece of paper, for instance.


"That's when we will see real differentiation (with other display technologies)," said Chung Ho-kyoon, Samsung SDI's chief technology officer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Novaled reports record green PIN phosphorescent OLED lifetimes and lowest driving voltages* 
*6 July 2007*


Novaled recently presented its latest achievements of PIN OLED (organic light-emitting diode) development at IDMC 2007 in Taipei, Taiwan, among of which is strong results in lifetime for green bottom emission PIN OLEDs with more than 200,000 hours at an initial brightness of 1,000 cd/sqm and low driving voltages.


The achievement of a green PIN phosphorescent OLED device in bottom-emission geometry with a CIE of (0.36, 0.61) of above 200,000 hours were attained by combining Universal Display Corporation (UDC)'s high-efficiency PHOLED materials with low-voltage Novaled PIN-OLED technology and doped transport materials, noted Novaled.


Novaled expects that very low driving voltages below 2.6V, already achieved for Ir(ppy)3, can also be obtained for other phosphorescent green emitters, noted Jan Birnstock, vice president of Technology Transfer, Novaled.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Magnetic doping brightens OLEDs* 
*16 July 2007*


PORTLAND, Ore. Efficiency is the name of the game for flat-panel display technologies. This is especially important for extending the battery life of cellphones, digital cameras, personal digital assistants and other portable devices that use organic LED displays.


Now, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) claims it can make OLEDs 30 percent more efficient by doping them with magnetic nanoparticles. As a bonus, the introduction of magnetism into the OLED material enables brightness to be controlled without the addition of electrical contacts.


"What we did was to enhance the lighting efficiency of an OLED by doping the organic polymers with a very low concentration of magnetic nanoparticles," said ORNL senior researcher Jian Shen. "Doping also allows us to control the OLED-s intensity with a magnetic field, whereas conventional OLED intensity is tuned by an electric field, which needs [electrical] contacts."


Conventional OLEDs are nonmagnetic, depending only on electrical fields to create excitons (electron-hole pairs), the recombination of which emits the photons that make an OLED glow. By mixing magnetic nanoparticles into the polymer matrix (at concentrations of less than one-tenth of 1 percent) Shen's team found they could increase OLED efficiency by 27 percent. And by applying an external magnetic field to the doped OLEDs, an additional 5 percent was achieved, for a total increase in efficiency of 32 percent over conventional OLEDs, Shen said.


Light emission in solid-state LEDs occurs when high-energy injected electrons and holes recombine, dropping their energy levels and causing a single photon to be emitted to compensate. An LED with 100 percent efficiency would recombine every single injected electron and hole. In real devices, 100 percent efficiency is never achieved, but by confining them in a small region, designers can achieve the greatest efficiency possible, Shen said.


When electrons and holes pair up, but before they recombine, they are called excitons. Ordinarily, the magnetic spin of each member of an exciton is random, accounting for their variable efficiency in recombining. To increase the efficiency of recombination, Shen's group doped the organic LED's polymer with nanoparticles made magnetic with cobalt and iron (CoFe). In the presence of the magnetic nanoparticles, a larger number of excitons with opposite spins accumulate, called singlet excitons. Oppositely polarized charge carriers are much more likely to recombine, accounting for the higher efficiency of the magnetically doped OLEDs, Shen said.


"The presence of CoFe magnetic nanoparticles enhances the efficiency of electro luminescence, their fluorescence, by increasing the fraction of the so-called singlet excitons among the total excitons," said Shen.


Next, Shen's group will experiment with different doping levels and methods of mixing the magnetic nanoparticles with polymers to achieve ultra uniform concentrations, in hopes of further enhancing efficiency.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLEDs Will Be EverywhereEven The Shirt On Your Back* 
*19 July 2007*


A self-powered display thin, flexible, and durable enough to be incorporated into clothingis one of the goals of a $1.7 million international research project that aims to bring organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) to the mass market. The research consortium, known as Modecom (for Modeling Electroactive Conjugated Materials at the Multiscale), includes 13 engineering teams from nine universities and two companies.


Over the next three years, the researchers plan to improve the science behind OLEDs, making them powerful, reliable, and efficient enough to be used in an array of business and consumer products. OLEDs are already a part of some portable gadgets, such as mobile phones and MP3 players. But Modecom wants to make it practical for the devices to be used in large-screen applications, such as televisions and computer displays.


Increasing the size of OLEDs would also open the door to cutting-edge applications, like clothing-based displays, next-generation lighting systems, and portable solar power panels, explains project coordinator Alison Walker, a senior lecturer in the physics department at England's University of Bath ( Fig. 1 ).


The biggest problem with current OLEDs is reliability. Gadget-sized OLEDs work well enough, but larger versions designed for use in TVs and desktop displaystend to fail quickly, often within months. Walker says the consortium is aiming for an improved understanding of how OLEDs work, which will aid in the design of longer lasting OLEDs.


"We are trying to link how they are made with how they perform, a very ambitious task but one in which we expect at least partial success," she says.


Modecom is focusing on two specific types of OLEDs: small molecule devices, developed in the U.S. and Japan by firms including DuPont subsidiary Uniax, and polymer OLEDs (P-OLEDs), pioneered in Europe by Cambridge Display Technology, a Modecom partner, Philips, and several other firms ( Fig. 2 ).


"Small molecule OLED devices are further [along] in development, but are more expensive to make as they can not be made by inkjet printing," Walker says. She also predicts that large OLEDs will reach the market in less than five years.


At that point, she expects clothing vendors to weave OLED strips, running off of solar power, into garments. The strips could change color at the press of button or be used to display electronic messages. "They are cheap to make, are flexible, are bright," Walker says. "Polymers are inherently compatible with clothing, unlike their competitors in the display market such as liquid crystal displays."


Walker expects OLEDs to begin replacing incandescent, fluorescent, and even conventional LED lights within the same five years and to someday become the leading artificial lighting technology.


Walker notes that Modecom's molecular- and device-level research will also help expand the understanding of polymer materials used in plastic electronics for applications such as electronic paper and intelligent labels ( Fig. 3 ). "OLEDs would not have advanced to their present stage, nor would have any hope of getting further, unless the science is understood," she says.


John Edwards


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Normal-size phones set for fuel cells and touchscreens* 
*19 July 2007*











The Wireless Japan exhibition near Tokyo this week has seen plenty of demonstrations of existing and future technologies, but there's one that we're still not sure how to categorize - fuel cells.




As well as the DMFC gear, Toshiba displayed some very thin screens it has developed with Matsushita for use in phones and similar devices. These range from 2.4 to 2.8in and are just 0.99mm thick.


The OLED displays offer WQVGA resolution of 432 x 240 pixels and employ circuitry built into the glass and are all touch-sensitive. This is achieved without a touch-panel module by using an optical sensor to follow the shadow a finger makes onscreen.


Given the current trend towards touch-sensitivity in larger-screened devices, it's clearly only a matter of time before even smaller phones and PDAs sport the technology. Toshiba Matsushita hasn't specified a date for mass production.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*LG Electronics Moves into AM OLED Mass Production* 
*20 July 2007*


At its IR session for the second quarter, LG Electronics said that it has moved into mass production of active matrix (AM) organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs), which are emerging as the next-generation display. On the other hand, the Korean giant will also phase out the production of the conventional passive matrix (PM) OLEDs. The company started volume production of AM OLED panels at Plant E, Gumi, North Gyeongsang province, and will soon launch two to three new mobile phones incorporating its AMOLED panels. In addition, the Korean vendor is also in close talks with LG.Philips LCD for the AM OLED business direction such as production of AM OLED panels using LG.Philips LCD's fourth-generation low temperature poly-silicon (LTPS) LCD glass substrates.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Sony rolls out OLED prototype for Aussie retailers* 
*26 July 2007*


SYDNEY: For the first time in Australia, Sony is showing off working samples of its OLED flat panel TV at the Sony Experience More trade show, giving retailers a window into the future of the brand's flat panel TV business.


Sony made a big splash at CES in Las Vegas earlier this year when it demonstrated two working OLED TV samples, and the company has again rolled out the cutting-edge technology to wow Australian retailers at its trade-only event being held in Sydney this week.


Sony is making no secret of its desire to see OLED one day replace LCD as its premium flat screen technology, with the brand's prototype OLEDs already reaching 27 inches and boasting a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1.


We consider OLED as the most powerful technology for future displays, such as TV, said Sony Australia senior product manager - visual displays, Graham Keogh.


Key features, such as its slimness, high contrast, high brightness level and quick response time will be fully maximised and adopted in products.


Sony's OLED display comprises Super Top Emission technology, which according to the company generates even better levels of brightness and high-resolution. The ultra-slim display is just 3mm thick at its slimmest part.


OLED offers significant picture quality advantages over both LCD and plasma flat panel displays, and is already being incorporated into portable devices including mobile phones and mp3 players because of its low power consumption.


According to Samsung, OLED is likely to be introduced in the PC monitor market first before making its way through to big-screen TVs.


Companies not typically associated with displays are also working on OLED, including Kodak and Hewlett Packard - such is the variety of products that will one day incorporate OLED displays.


Sony said earlier this year it plans to release the first 11-inch OLED television in Japan in the fourth quarter 2007.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Sumitomo Chemical Company to Acquire Cambridge Display Technology for $12 Per Share* 
*31 July 2007*


TOKYO and CAMBRIDGE, United Kingdom, July 31, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Sumitomo Chemical Company (Sumitomo Chemical) and Cambridge Display Technology (Nasdaq:OLED) (CDT) today jointly announced that they have entered into a definitive merger agreement whereby Sumitomo Chemical will acquire CDT, a developer of technologies based on polymer organic light emitting diodes (P-OLEDs). Under the merger agreement, Sumitomo Chemical will acquire all outstanding shares of CDT common stock at a price of $12 per share in cash, for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $285 million. The merger consideration represents a 107 percent premium over CDT's 90-day average closing share price and a 95 percent premium over CDT's closing share price of $6.15 on July 30.


In connection with the merger agreement, Kelso and Company and certain of its affiliates and certain members of CDT's senior management, holding in the aggregate approximately 43% of the outstanding shares of common stock of CDT, have entered into several agreements with Sumitomo Chemical under which they have agreed to vote all of their shares of CDT common stock in favor of the transaction.


David Fyfe, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CDT, said: "I am delighted to recommend this merger to our stockholders, as is the entire board of directors. I believe that the acquisition of CDT by Sumitomo Chemical will significantly enhance the prospects for P-OLED technology adoption, especially as P-OLED is looking ever more likely to become the next mainstream display technology. CDT and Sumitomo Chemical have developed a more integrated and closer relationship since Sumitomo acquired a license to certain IP from CDT in 2001, culminating in the formation of a 50/50 joint venture in 2005 to develop, manufacture and sell P-OLED materials to CDT licensees and others. We have admired the long term commitment of Sumitomo Chemical to the development of this very important technology and believe this merger is not only in the best interest of our shareholders but also of our employees and the global display industry."


Hiromasa Yonekura, President of Sumitomo Chemical, said: "In recent years, Sumitomo Chemical has positioned its display materials business as one of its strategically important business areas and an area of focus for our business resources. OLEDs are expected to see considerable market growth in the future as next-generation materials for flat panel displays and lighting applications, and our company is actively engaged in the development of new materials and the improvement of device technologies. We have built a close cooperative relationship with CDT up to this point, and the complete integration of both companies' technological and intellectual assets through this acquisition will make it possible to greatly accelerate development. We are very grateful for the support of the CDT board of directors and major shareholders, and I am pleased to extend a warm welcome to all our colleagues at CDT on behalf of Sumitomo Chemical."


Completion of the merger is subject to CDT stockholder approval and other customary closing conditions. The acquisition is expected to close during the third or fourth quarter of 2007.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Still waiting for OLED TVs* 
*21 August 2007*

*OLED televisions are going to be a boon for picture quality and energy efficiency--someday, if you can afford them.*


We've been hearing about the potential for OLED (organic light-emitting diode) TVs for several years now and Sony, Samsung and Seiko Epson have demonstrated the ability to make a prototype OLED panel.


So when will TV manufacturers actually start selling OLED TVs and, more importantly, will those TVs cost way too much for the average consumer? So far, Sony has indicated that it will be the first out of the gate with an OLED TV sometime next year, and the panels will likely be small, in the range of 11 to 27 inches wide. No one is saying how much it will cost, but some pundits think that little TV could cost somewhere between $800 and $1,000. Toshiba is expected to start selling 30-inch OLEDs in 2009.


"OLED TVs at the moment essentially don't exist," said Lawrence Gasman, principal analyst at Nano Markets. "If you go to an (industry) conference you'll see some beautiful prototypes, which are very impressive, but you can't actually buy one yet."


There's another problem: unlike LCD (liquid crystal display) and plasma, which were completely new display technologies compared with cathode ray tubes when they first debuted, OLED TVs are a variation on the ingredients and manufacturing process used to make LCD panels. The fact that it's not a drastically new technology could mean a more difficult time gaining a foothold with consumers, particularly when the price for a new OLED TV will be so high, at least initially.


"Any tech coming into the TV market now has to be many steps ahead of where existing plasma and LCDs are at. The technology has to be substantially better and (have) comparable prices," said Riddhi Patel, an analyst with iSuppli. And right now, that's simply not the case.


Another major issue that's holding up OLED TVs is the reliability factor. It's "fair" to consider that organic materials used in OLEDs need further advances to be realistic for the TV market, said Janice Mahon, vice president of technology commercialization for Universal Display, an OLED research company. The OLEDs currently used in cell phone displays are lasting 5,000 to 10,000 hours while TV manufacturers generally need OLEDs that won't peter out until 30,000 to 50,000 hours of use.


Nonetheless, the market for OLED TVs could be big. According to a forecast by Nano Markets, the OLED TV market should be worth about $42 million in 2008, $436 million in 2009, and $1.2 billion by 2010.


That leaves time for OLED companies like Universal Display and Cambridge Display Technology to tinker with manufacturing processes and dream up more innovative ways to use smaller OLED screens, such as in flexible displays. This technology is being deployed in some cell phones and portable media players.


The key to OLED TVs is the series of thin organic films that give off light when an electrical current is applied. TVs can be simpler to make with OLEDs than LCD panels mainly because there are fewer parts in OLED TVs. Specifically, there's no back light, which makes OLED TVs potentially thinner and able to reduce the power consumption of the display by a factor of four, according to Universal Display, which works on several different OLED technologies.


There are other issues, of course. One of the biggest is differential aging, meaning the red, green and blue diodes degrade at different rates, which results in a distorted picture. But that's changing.


"Over the past two years this problem has begun to disappear as the result of technical improvements in OLEDs," said Gasman of Nano Markets. "Cambridge Display has, for example, announced that it has achieved lifetimes of 80,000 hours for blue OLEDs and blue polymers for OLEDs with 100,000 hours of life."


The manufacturing process is also experiencing growing pains. Right now, OLED manufacturers can produce a sizable amount of smaller displays for cell phones, but increasing the glass size at large volumes necessary for TVs could be a challenge--but one that could be solved, said Mahon of Universal Display. "It's no different for what's had to be done for LCD and plasma panels. It's simply part of the maturation of a technology."


And then there's price. Considering the rate at which LCD television prices are falling, which is making high-definition viewing accessible to a larger subset of consumers, OLEDs will be far out of the price range of the average TV shopper whenever they do land on store shelves.


To put it bluntly, "Right now OLED cannot come in at a competitive price," said iSuppli's Patel. "We are anticipating OLEDs by the end of this year from Sony, an 11-inch for $800 to $1,000. For a $1,000, you can get a 40-inch plasma."


Plus there's a choice that major LCD manufacturers have to make: they're right in the thick of a battle over LCD market share. LCD is a technology that many consumers are only recently embracing, so it could make less sense for some to spend resources on something like OLED.


At some point, when parts become more plentiful and manufacturing efficiency increases, OLEDs will likely be cheaper to produce than LCDs. But that point could still be a few years off. "An OLED may cost 60 to 70 percent of a comparable LCD. Intrinsically, there will be a cost advantage in making an OLED (TV)," Mahon said. "The question is how quickly (they'll get there)."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Cambridge Display Technology and Sumation Announce Further Improved Performance of Green and Red P-OLED Materials* 
*28 August 2007*


CAMBRIDGE, England, Aug. 27, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Cambridge Display Technology (CDT) (Nasdaq:OLED) and Sumation(r) are pleased to announce substantially improved lifetime data for green and red P-OLED materials.


Data from spin coated devices using a common cathode and interlayer material demonstrate lifetimes(1) for recently developed solution-processable green and red P-OLED materials of 78,000 hours and 67,000 hours, respectively, from an initial luminance of 1000 candelas per square meter, or cd/m2. This is equivalent(2) to approximately 445,000 hours and 420,000 hours from an operating brightness of 400cd/m2 for these materials. These latest lifetimes represent a 60% and 280% increase in performance for green and red materials over results that were announced in May and March of this year, respectively.


Chief Executive Officer of CDT, Dr. David Fyfe commented, "Once again, we are reporting tremendous progress on materials developed at Sumation and tested at CDT's facilities. Rapid material development continues unabated and is a testament to the excellent collaboration between Sumation's research centers in the U.K. and Japan."


President and Chief Executive Officer of Sumation, Susumu Miyazaki added, "We continue to make rapid progress on all colors and these results are the latest in a series of accomplishments that we anticipate will continue for the foreseeable future."


Notes to editors:


1) When 'lifetime' is discussed here, it refers to the time taken for the display/pixel to fall to half its initial stated luminance. Lifetime estimates are based on accelerated testing of simple test devices at several very high initial luminance levels, and use of these data to calculate predicted lifetimes at lower brightness levels. Translation of this single pixel data into performance in a full color display system depends on a number of factors and requires a complex calculation and knowledge of the precise system design parameters such as aperture ratio, brightness, ink formulation and relative pixel areas.


2) Acceleration factors to convert lifetime from one brightness to another have been determined for green and red materials using various initial luminances between 6000 cd/m2 and 800 cd/m2 and found to be equal to 1.9 for green and 2 for red. These acceleration factors were used to predict lifetimes at 400 cd/m2. It should be noted that due to the long lifetimes at 400 cd/m2, lifetime predictions at this brightness are susceptible to greater errors than the lifetimes quoted at 1,000 cd/m2


----------



## hoodlum

 OLED technology to make minor inroads into TV market 


OLED (organic light-emitting diode) display technology is set to make minor inroads into the TV market during the next few years, iSuppli predicts.


Now mainly relegated to handset displays, OLED TV shipments will rise at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 170.6% to reach 1.2 million units in 2012, up from 8,000 in 2007. Sales revenue for OLED TVs will increase to US$691 million in 2012, rising from less than US$1 million in 2007, iSuppli forecasts.

*Sony spurs OLED TV talk*


"Interest in OLED TVs has been stimulated by Sony's recent announcement that it will offer a product using the technology by the end of the year," said Vinita Jakhanwal, principal analyst for mobile displays at iSuppli. "Sony cited OLEDs' ultra-thin form factor and higher contrast and richer colors compared to conventional LCD TVs."


In response to Sony's announcement, Toshiba Matsushita Display (TMDisplay), the display arm of the con*sumer-electronics giant Matsushita, also announced acceler*ated availability of 20.8-inch active-natrix OLED (AM OLED) panels for OLED TVs, Jakhanwal added.

*TV suitability*


Indeed, AM OLED technology is suitable for TV in many regards, iSuppli believes. OLEDs offer fast response time, good color, high brightness, excellent viewing angles and high contrast ratios. Furthermore, OLEDs don't need backlights, making them potentially thinner than the alternative flat-panel technologies on the market.


Moreover, the resolutions needed in the TV market are attainable with OLEDs. OLED TVs in larger sizes, i.e. greater than 20-inches, could be sold by the 2012 timeframe. Most likely, these TVs will use polymer panels made by inkjet printing in the largest sizes, but small-molecule OLEDs made by evaporation techniques also could be used in TVs.


However, there are shortcomings to OLED technology that will prevent wider adoption in the TV market. The main challenges are poor manufacturing yields, limited lifetimes and pricing.
*

OLEDs get active*


Manufacturing processes for AM OLEDs now are being tested for small sizes like two and 2.4 inches. Manufacturing these small-sized panels is proving to be a challenge. Producing AM OLEDs in larger sizes will be an even greater challenge. More time is needed to establish manufacturing processes for large panels, and to build equipment that can make such panels efficiently. Inkjet printers for fourth-generation (4G) substrates are still in the beta-testing phase.


Thus, it is likely that the first OLED TVs will be small and designed for novel locations such as kitchens or bathrooms. The total available market for this sort of TV is small.


Later, as technical and manufacturing capabilities grow, OLEDs may move into more standard-size TVs at dimensions of 20 inches or larger. This will happen near the end of the forecast, but only with continued investments and commitments from major polymer OLED suppliers.


Due to high manufacturing costs, AM OLEDs are expected to be considerably more expensive than LCD panels for the foreseeable future. OLED TV panels are expected to be twice as expensive as LCD TV panels in 2011.

*Crowded market*


Another challenge for OLEDs in the television market is the large number of competitive technologies vying for a share of sales. The TV market already is flooded with options: CRT, LCD, PDP (plasma display panel), four types of projection systems and the potential for a variety of novel technologies like surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED) and carbon-nanotube field emission display (FED).


Consumers, for the most part, do not care about particular technologies. Instead they tend to look only at the picture quality and the price, and secondarily at the size and depth. This may make it difficult for OLEDs to gain consumer awareness.


The plethora of technologies also may make it hard for OLED TV to attract the attention of end-product OEMs and channel vendors.


Because of this, OLED will be limited to less than half of 1% of the 242.7 million unit worldwide TV market in 2011, according to iSuppli.


----------



## inky blacks

OLED was touted as being a cheaper and thinner alternative to LCD and plasma. If it is more expensive than either, then who needs it? Rear projection is getting better and better and cheaper and cheaper. Is it that much of a problem to have a TV that is 10" deep? That is where RPTVs are headed, with lifespans of 30,000 hours and more. Plasma keeps getting better and cheaper. There is hardly a need for SED or OLED. I would not invest in these new technologies.


IB


----------



## phtnhappy

OLED _will_ get both bigger and cheaper, and at some point may be a very worthy competitor for LCD and PDP if they can break through the 40" barrier.


Believe it or not, it IS "...that much a problem to have a TV that is 10" deep...", particularly in markets outside North America where RPTV has never really taken off. Yes, people in Europe dealt with deep CRT, but never adopted RPTV due to overall size of the cabinet, among other things. As flat panel displays come down in price as they go up in size, RPTV is eventually an endagerred species outside of specialty products and markets.


----------



## inky blacks




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phtnhappy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OLED _will_ get both bigger and cheaper, and at some point may be a very worthy competitor for LCD and PDP if they can break through the 40" barrier.
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, it IS "...that much a problem to have a TV that is 10" deep...", particularly in markets outside North America where RPTV has never really taken off. Yes, people in Europe dealt with deep CRT, but never adopted RPTV due to overall size of the cabinet, among other things. As flat panel displays come down in price as they go up in size, RPTV is eventually an endagerred species outside of specialty products and markets.




All of the true flat panel technologies have burn-in problems. LCD flat panels are not in the same true flat category as plasma, OLED, and SED, because the panel itself does not provide any light source. LCD is a form of rear projection. The true flat technologies will burn-in and there is no hope to fix that problem on the horizon. I think RPTV will be around for a long time, because they keep getting cheaper, lighter, better looking, and longer lasting, and at a lower price point. You get the added bonus of no burn-in, thus you can hook them up to your computer with no worries.


IB


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inky blacks* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> All of the true flat panel technologies have burn-in problems. LCD flat panels are not in the same true flat category as plasma, OLED, and SED, because the panel itself does not provide any light source. LCD is a form of rear projection. The true flat technologies will burn-in and there is no hope to fix that problem on the horizon. I think RPTV will be around for a long time, because they keep getting cheaper, lighter, better looking, and longer lasting, and at a lower price point. You get the added bonus of no burn-in, thus you can hook them up to your computer with no worries.
> 
> 
> IB



The horrible off-angle viewing from RPTV & LCD is deal breaker for me, and will never own one unless something dramatically changes. Also, I much prefer a self-illuminating direct view display as opposed to a "reflected-view". Presently, top-tier plasma displays offer the very best PQ, and the latest Pioneer 8G's that are soon to be released will make a big leap in black levels & contrast. The "burn-in" issue for the newer Plasmas is a red herring, and w/pixel shift and other advancements makes burn-in a pretty much non-issue. I don't leave my TV's on 24/7 and take pretty good care of my electronics so I would not be concerned. OLED's are poised to be the next big video tech to breakout as a real competitor in the marketplace. Competition is good for us consumers, and all will benefit from increased PQ & decreased pricing.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inky blacks* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OLED was touted as being a cheaper and thinner alternative to LCD and plasma. If it is more expensive than either, then who needs it? Rear projection is getting better and better and cheaper and cheaper. Is it that much of a problem to have a TV that is 10" deep? That is where RPTVs are headed, with lifespans of 30,000 hours and more. Plasma keeps getting better and cheaper. There is hardly a need for SED or OLED. I would not invest in these new technologies.
> 
> 
> IB



RPTV needs to shave its huge ass further though (though Laser TVs are trying to fix that part).


So atm, my choice would be OLED. Why you ask? Simply from the aspect of contrast ratio and motion speed, OLED wins hands down. Where can you even find any display tech that can reach speeds of ONE MICROSECOND OR LESS. (CRT =1-2 ms; plasma & RPTV = 2-3 ms; LCD 4-8 ms avg.).


Also, OLED wins on the aspects of power consumption, weight and display thickness (being just 1 cm or less in depth)


And the lifespan of OLED materials are increasing rapidly. Latest report indicates that Red and Green OLED bulbs/materials have gone past the 60,000 hour lifespan stage @ 1000 cd/m2 brightness (as of March 2007 from CDT). Blue though still is only at 20k @ 1000 cd/m2 brightness......although work is constantly being done in order for that target to be reached before year-end.


So that sums it up as to why OLED is gonna come out strong even before this decade ends


----------



## hoodlum




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So that sums it up as to why OLED is gonna come out strong even before this decade ends



Unfortunately, you won't see a 30" OLED by then. And what will be produced will cost more than double a similiar sized LCD. HT sized OLED is still more than 5 years away and will still cost more than double LCD at that time.


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoodlum* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you won't see a 30" OLED by then. And what will be produced will cost more than double a similiar sized LCD. HT sized OLED is still more than 5 years away and will still cost more than double LCD at that time.



An even then, you must be a willing "early adopter" and all that it entails...not me, my friends. Only tried, true & blue video tech for my hard earned bucks. We're talking around 2015 time frame.


----------



## phtnhappy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inky blacks* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> All of the true flat panel technologies have burn-in problems. LCD flat panels are not in the same true flat category as plasma, OLED, and SED, because the panel itself does not provide any light source.



Sorry, not true. You are describing the difference between emissive panels (e.g. PDP and OLED) and tansmissive panels (LCD). Both, however, are generally considered to be "FPD" or Flat Panel Displays in the jargon of the display industry.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inky blacks* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> LCD is a form of rear projection.



It is when the LCD panels are "microdisplays" of the type used in both front and rear projectors as well as other display applications. NOT true when the panel is used in, say, your computer or laptop monitor, an "HT" sized display, an industrial process monitor, a front panel display or literally thousands of other display applications.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inky blacks* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The true flat technologies will burn-in and there is no hope to fix that problem on the horizon.



Yes, if it is an emmisive display with a phosphor-based screen, again like a PDP. LCDs are flat panel display technologies. They may occasionally exhibit "dead" or "stuck" pixel cells, but that is different from phosphor burn. Whether a product may "burn in" or not is something I have never seen as being part of what defines a flat panel'; it is simply an artifact of the display's technology.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inky blacks* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think RPTV will be around for a long time, because they keep getting cheaper, lighter, better looking, and longer lasting, and at a lower price point. You get the added bonus of no burn-in, thus you can hook them up to your computer with no worries.



You ignore the fact that RPTV was once based on CRT and thus prone to burn-in. That's gone now, with LCD, LCoS and DLP/MEMS type light valves used as the heart of the projection engines. And, yes, illumination is moving from UHP bulbs to LED and laser sources, but in the long run it is shaping up to be a flat panel world in anything much below 50"W.


I guess only time will tell.


----------



## navychop

Flat panels will grow ever larger in market share because people want to hang their TV on the wall. I own, and am quite happy with, an RPTV. But it will be an ever decreasing share of the market as the price difference narrows.


I suspect we *WILL* see a 30" OLED sooner than anticipated. Too many companies chiming in right now, too many pieces seem to be falling in to place. And it may start off more expensive, but it has the potential to become *VERY* cheap to make- probably even cheaper than CRTs today. They may one day crank them out with ink jet technology, in a vacuum or inert gas room.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Flat panels will grow ever larger in market share because people want to hang their TV on the wall. I own, and am quite happy with, an RPTV. But it will be an ever decreasing share of the market as the price difference narrows.
> 
> 
> I suspect we *WILL* see a 30" OLED sooner than anticipated. Too many companies chiming in right now, too many pieces seem to be falling in to place. And it may start off more expensive, but it has the potential to become *VERY* cheap to make- probably even cheaper than CRTs today. They may one day crank them out with ink jet technology, in a vacuum or inert gas room.



Good point.


With so much R&D, investment and of course even more $$$ going into OLED TV production, I won't be surprised that sets such as the 27-inch 1080p prototype from Sony would appear on the market even before the end of this decade (ie. before year 2010).


Heck, I'm even surprised that CDT and the OLED materials producers are on an R&D blitz to ramp-up lifetimes for blue OLED materials (which have reached an all-time high). With the pace that their going, I think that they will be capable of producing blue OLED bulbs that break the 60k hour limit.


Although it will be a niche/early adopter tech within the current decade, it does seem something that is going to come out strong and become a potential tech.


It's still wishful thinking though but the potential is clearly visible


----------



## phtnhappy

If half the stuff shown in the display area and talked about in the papers at SID last week come to fruition, we'll be there with big OLEDs soon (before 2009) than later.


----------



## jgreen171

CDT is far from the dominant force in the OLED R&D industry, you should focus more on Universal Display Corporation [ticker symbol PANL]. They are the ones who are developing the small molecule PHOLEDS that will be used by Sony, LG, Samsung, etc.


I wouldn't trust CDT's lifetime data either, as they love to hype and misrepresent their findings. Currently the lifetime for blue PHOLEDs with the color coordinates for a consumer display are more like 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> 
> Heck, I'm even surprised that CDT and the OLED materials producers are on an R&D blitz to ramp-up lifetimes for blue OLED materials (which have reached an all-time high). With the pace that their going, I think that they will be capable of producing blue OLED bulbs that break the 60k hour limit.
> 
> 
> Although it will be a niche/early adopter tech within the current decade, it does seem something that is going to come out strong and become a potential tech.
> 
> 
> It's still wishful thinking though but the potential is clearly visible


----------



## Planet HDTV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I suspect we *WILL* see a 30" OLED sooner than anticipated.



I agree. It only takes one advancement to turn everything around










Also, Apple's new laptops and the iPhone will have an OLED display


----------



## moreHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Planet HDTV* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Apple's new laptops and the iPhone will have an OLED display



Laptops with OLED, or rather LED-LCD?


If, indeed, the iPhone has OLED display, what is the screen resolution? Active or passive matrix?


----------



## Planet HDTV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moreHD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Laptops with OLED, or rather LED-LCD?



OLED











> Quote:
> If, indeed, the iPhone has OLED display, what is the screen resolution?



No other information at this time, just that the first series of iPhones wouldn't have it, but then it would sometime early next year.


----------



## jgreen171

thats a reasonable guess, Planet HDTV, but you shouldn't just make up rumors like that. earlier in the year there was a silly rumor being circulated that the first generation of iphones would have OLED displays but most of the members of the OLED-related message board i subscribe to thought this was highly unlikely since Samsung SDI is still unable to mass manufacture sizes larger than 2.2" in bulk. However, by early next year they probably will be able to make iphone-display sizes in sufficient quantities.


As for the Apple laptop with an OLED screen, I HIGHLY doubt it. The big OLED manufacturers like LG and Samsung SDI are nowhere near capable of pumping out enough laptop-sized screens yet. And Sony has promised its 11" OLED will be for sale by year end, but this is hotly contested, and furthermore its price would be prohibitive to be used as a laptop display.


----------



## Planet HDTV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgreen171* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> thats a reasonable guess



It's not a rumor or a guess







Pickup the new MacLife magazine







It is well known that Steve Jobs wants to be the first company to do this.



> Quote:
> most of the members of the OLED-related message board i subscribe to *thought* this was highly unlikely



So they're just 'guessing' then huh?







Weird.


Looks like we'll find out who's right soon enough











> Quote:
> However, by early next year they probably will be able to make iphone-display sizes in sufficient quantities.



Hello, McFly... that's what I said










"_No other information at this time, just that the first series of iPhones wouldn't have it, but then it would *sometime early next year*._"


----------



## jgreen171

hi planet hdtv


"It's not a rumor or a guess Pickup the new MacLife magazine"


Do you mind quoting the exact article or dialogue you are referring to? I highly doubt that an Apple spokesman or Steve Jobs said anything as specific as "We plan to use active matrix OLEDs in our second generation iphone". Had he said that, I would have heard about it, since the OLED world is pretty small and an apple product with OLED would be BIG news.


"It is well known that Steve Jobs wants to be the first company to do this. "


First company to do what? There are already cell phones and mp3 players with active matrix OLED displays. By the time early next year rolls around, there will be even more.


What is your source for the rumor about OLED-display laptops, might I ask?


"Looks like we'll find out who's right soon enough"


Oh, I wouldn't bet against you. It seems quite possible the next generation of iphones would have an OLED. Like i said before, by quarter 1 or 2 of 2008, samsung SDI will be able to make enough displays for the huge orders that apple requires.


----------



## jgreen171

Well I read the article you were referring to, and it was interesting, but.....


There was noone at Apple that was quoted as saying they planned to put OLEDs in the second, third, etc, generation of iphones. In fact, there was noone at Apple who was quoted at all. The only thing the article said about iphones, was that it was doubtful that OLEDs would appear in the first generation iphone, and theoretically possible they would appear in the second generation. WELL, THAT IS OBVIOUS. I could have told you that.


The article DID NOT SAY that Apple loved OLED. The article also did not say that Apple was postponing its use of OLEDs as a result of their high price. The article DID NOT SAY that apple was planning on using OLEDs in their laptops, or anything of the sort.


You must have been referring to a different article, or just making stuff up. The one i saw was a list of 5 or so technologies that something to look for in the near future.


----------



## Guyute




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Planet HDTV* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that they were quoting Apple? You can either read what is _written_ or you can read what you want to see. Looks like you read what you want to see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many other sources for this information too. One was an open letter by Steve Jobs where he wrote about making Apple more green in the future and using these and other new technologies, but I guess you know more than him about what Apple wants to do. Glad you read the one article though. As mentioned before, in time we'll see who was correct. I'm not worried. Have a nice day



You're confusing OLED with LED-backlit displays. The open letter by Steve Jobs refers to the just-released LED-backlit Macbook Pros and other upcoming LED-backlit displays. This is in response to recent criticism of Apple's environmental practices. Nowhere in the letter is there a mention of OLED products. Before you resort to condescension, you might want to read what you're quoting.


----------



## jgreen171

Wit? Class?


Those are unsubstantiated rumours with no credibility, one is from 2006 and doesn't cite a source, the other is from two months ago and is *lready* partially inaccurate merely because it claimed we would see a Macbook with an OLED display by June. None of the OLED manufacturers are at the stage where they could mass manufacture macbook-sized displays. Or if they did, the price would be astronomical.


Over the years, there have been 10-15 different rumours involving OLEDs and Apple, all of them turning out to be false.


----------



## markrubin

moderator


deleted some posts: please do not bash or insult fellow members if you wish to continue posting here


----------



## moreHD

Please tell me about passive matrix OLEDs! Do they exist outside a lab?


----------



## Isochroma

PMOLEDs are the past; the industry is rapidly converting its PMOLED lines to AMOLED. Google is your friend, here's a link to start:

http://displayblog.wordpress.com/tag/pmoled/


----------



## moreHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> PMOLEDs are the past; the industry is rapidly converting its PMOLED lines to AMOLED



Thank you! There is something very important I want to know. OLEDs have a "response time" of 0.01 ms which is fantastic. However, there's an aspect of motion handling called "sample-and-hold effect" and that is what makes me see motion blur on LCDs. Now, I've been told that with PMOLED the sample-and-hold would not be an issue, but with AMOLEDs it would make OLEDs have motion blur like on LCDs. Based on that I want PMOLED. Are there any PMOLED screens I could buy to watch my HD sports and movies on? Could anyone explain this to me?


----------



## Isochroma

There won't likely be any PMOLEDs for such screen sizes. Rather, to eliminate the SAH affect, AMOLEDs will be strobed @ 120 Hz. or whatever frequency they decide is cool. This will achieve the same effect, while also having the benefits of active-matrix transistorized switching.


----------



## jgreen171

yeah, PMOLED is a dying technology, and is being replaced by AMOLED.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> There won't likely be any PMOLEDs for such screen sizes. Rather, to eliminate the SAH affect, AMOLEDs will be strobed @ 120 Hz. or whatever frequency they decide is cool. This will achieve the same effect, while also having the benefits of active-matrix transistorized switching.



This bugs me. Claiming that OLED screens will be much faster than even CRTs and then claiming they must use active matrix is counterintuitive. The two cannot exist together. Active-matrix = SAH effect even with faster refresh rates and PWM or strobbing or whatever.


The only way to get CRT speed is to use a single short impulse of light per frame. And to my knowledge CRT and SED are the technologies capable of this. PMOLED promised even faster but the lifetimes are just too short when using the high currents required for passive matrix. So now they want to use active matrix and along with it will come motion blurring from the SAH effect.


Also, this thread has multiple mentions of breakthroughs for Blue lifetimes for OLED materials from companies like CDT. This is very misleading as these long life blue materials have very poor spectral emmission purity. In fact the blue looks more like blue-white. Pure blue emitting materials still have extremely short lifetimes. There is still a lot of work to be done.


----------



## Isochroma

Perhaps you should learn some basic electronics before posting such comments. Transistors such as those used behind each active-matrix cell can switch millions of times per second.


OLEDs can use any emission-cycle length desired to achieve specific visual effects. They can, like a CRT, activate cells for only a brief duration of the nominal frame-time, eliminating the SAH effect far better than CRT can (no phosphor decay time).


The only disadvantage of using shorter emission times, for both active- and passive-matrix, is the emitter material must be driven harder in inverse proportion to the emission-time in order to maintain a given brightness. This is true for CRT (refresh rate), plasma, the beloved SED, as well as ILED matrix-displays.


Short-duration high peak emission driving regimes will age OLED, ILED and phosphor emission materials significantly faster. The manufacturer must decide during the design phase how to compromise between lifetime and motion-rendering based on the power vs. luminance depreciation characteristics of the emitter material.


To conclude, the issue of active- and passive-matrix driving methods is an important, but not sole, determinant of such design decisions. In order to reach large sizes, all low-voltage displays must implement active-matrix designs in order to minimize I^2R losses in the ITO conductor planes, and minimize the current-carrying requirement for the matrix driver circuitry.


Plasma has the unique advantage that its gas cells ionize at relatively high voltage, minimizing current and thus I^2R ITO losses on glass and current in silicon (cost, size) - therefore allowing direct-drive passive designs. Depending on operating voltage, SED may also share this useful feature.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should learn some basic electronics before posting such comments. Transistors such as those used behind each active-matrix cell can switch millions of times per second.



I wasn't trying to be nasty but if you want to belittle me that's fine. If you can't handle people questioning your info then at least try and act a little more civil and get your facts straight.


AM in OLEDs is used to maximize lifetime by minimizing current desity through the EL material. Switching from PM to AM and maintaining the same brightness fundamentally requires a "LONGER" emission time. Do you agree?


The longer the emission time the more the percieved motion blurring. Agree?


In OLEDs lifetime is the limiting parameter. This in turn limits current density through the EL material. This combined with luminous efficiency determines the hold time required to get a targeted brightness. With current technology (luminouse efficiency) they must use AM or PWM to get a long enough hold times to achieve high enough brightness with a usuable lifetime.


PM can be used to get ultra short hold times in the micro second range thanks to the ultra fast EL decay rate but to get a useable brightness you need to pump a lot of current through the device which kills the lifetimes.


Look at some actual OLED research papers regarding the SAH effect and AM. Using 120Hz and PWM really improves things but there is no possible way they can achieve shorter emmision times than a CRT and have any usuable brightness and lifetime.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Transistors such as those used behind each active-matrix cell can switch millions of times per second.



Ask yourself how an AM panel is addressed and controlled. Why the transistors are there and why SAH is synonymous with AM. Furthermore, why LCDs use AM (which is not the same reason why OLED is using them) and how SAH,PM,AM relate to emission time and how emission time relates to motion blurring. If you can answer all of that you'll see why an AM OLED will not have better motion handling than a CRT.


Of course when longer lifetimes and higher luminous efficiencies are produced then large OLED TVs will be able to take advantage of the short decay rates that EL materials produce.


----------



## xrox

Since emisssion time per frame determines motion blurring you can easily rate technology on motion handling by the emission times.


1) - OLED (passive matrix) - micro seconds

2) - CRT - 1-2 milliseconds due to phosphor decay

3) - SED (passive matrix) - same as CRT

4) - OLED (PWM) (several milliseconds)

5) - Plasma - 4-6 milliseconds

6) - OLED (active matrix 120 Hz) 8.33333 milliseconds

7) - LCD (active matrix 120Hz) 8.3333 milliseconds plus slow response times

8) - LCD (active matrix 60Hz) 16.7 milliseconds plus slow response times


----------



## Isochroma

Indeed, I replied a bit too harshly, probably because your latest comments brought to mind your previous comments along the same line. In them I could clearly hear the whine of an idealist: personally, I'm not opposed to such philosophical bents, but am first and foremost a pragmatist. Cost and feasability are foremost on my mind in this area.


Your comments seem to be phrased as a kind of argument for a particular design, or perhaps the lament of one who senses that no design in existence can provide the sought-after ideal qualities. In this you are most certainly correct.


Passive-matrix driving schemes do not inherently require short-duration high-power operation. Rather, such a scheme is chosen to minimize the driver circuitry cost - remember that passive-matrix driver circuits are more costly because the switching elements must carry the full drive current. To minimize the cost, underpowered switching elements are used, but only carry current for a portion of a frametime, thus allowing them to dissipate heat which, if run continuously, would overheat devices of such density.


The practical implementation of this method is frequently row-at-once or column-at-once drive, ie. alternate rows or columns are activated sequentially. At low frequency, this can sometimes give the visual impression of an interlaced display.


As far as the technology of passive-matrix driver design, if circuit cost is no object it can be made to drive the entire panel at once, but it is still limited to small displays, due to I^2R losses in the ITO conductors connecting each pixel. These losses increase with both panel size and resolution (longer and thinner traces, respectively).


All large low-voltage displays use active-matrix, for both cost and technical reasons as I outlined previously. It can be guaranteed that this will not be changing in the future. So if we are talking about TV-sized displays, the discussion ends there: no passive-matrix will ever be used at such sizes. As for smaller devices, they're out of the purview of the thread's topic, which is OLED TVs (nominally, devices of 20" and larger).


Regarding emission times and lifetime, as noted previously, it is up to manufacturers to determine how to compromise between on/off ratio and lifetime. Perhaps you may be able to have some influence on their plans if you can design a regime which shows advantageous performance over current ones.


To finish on a positive note, driving schemes can enjoy significantly enhanced flexibility compared to those for plasma cells, due to the unnecessary sustain and priming pulses, and the need to use PWM to simulate n-bit grayscale emission levels. The nonlinear property of gas ionization requires on-off switching, at least in the plasma display cell.


SED, LCD and OLED can all be driven using continuously-variable voltage or current sources, which is a boon to those who are disturbed by the visual impression of noise generated by plasma PWM. This effect is particularly evident at the viewing distance required for the immersion effect (30 degree FOV or greater), and worse in darker scenes than lighter.


----------



## Isochroma

After carefully re-reading your last post, I'm mystified as to where you get the 'several milliseconds' for OLED response time. From drive circuit to emission, the switching time should be no more than a handfull of microseconds.


I think you're confusing sample-and-hold motion smear with other properties of the circuit.
_"Ask yourself how an AM panel is addressed and controlled. Why the transistors are there and why SAH is synonymous with AM. Furthermore, why LCDs use AM (which is not the same reason why OLED is using them)"_
Rather than ask myself, I'll ask you instead (since I've already provided the technical explanation for why transistors are there). Liquid crystals require less power to hold in a particular position than emissive OLED cells require to emit; the primary reason for active-matrix in LCD is cheaper drive circuitry. Still, trace resistance is a significant issue in large panels of both types.


Regarding the on-off ratio per unit time that manufacturers may use in standalone OLED displays, that has yet to be decided as none are in production. Depending on manufacturer decisions, initial panels may have either shorter or longer on-times than CRT; they may very well have continuous emission. This will probably change with time, as newer OLED emitter materials are introduced, assuming the market for such devices does succeed.


Finally, my statement regarding OLED response time being better than CRT (and any other display device currently in existence, excepting ILED) was not speaking about motion smear or the sample-and-hold effect. I was speaking about response time in the normal sense of the word, which is the time taken for a pixel to reach requested brightness after the signal has been received.
_"This bugs me. Claiming that OLED screens will be much faster than even CRTs and then claiming they must use active matrix is counterintuitive. The two cannot exist together. Active-matrix = SAH effect even with faster refresh rates and PWM or strobbing or whatever."_
The two cannot exist together? Is there something about transistor-gated power supply you perhaps are unclear about? There is nothing preventing active-matrix designs from using any switching scheme you can devise. The transistors under each cell can switch as fast as the transistors in the driver circuitry of a passive-matrix design.


You could build an active-matrix panel which used short-duration high-intensity activations, precisely emulating the (economically-driven) effect found in passive-matrix devices. Just for the fun of it you could activate alternate rows sequentially, for a neato psuedo-interlace visual effect. There would be no need to do so however, because the cheaper low-power drive circuit would allow you to address all the pixels simultaneously, unlike such passive-matrix designs. Thus the entire panel could be strobed in temporal sync, or each pixel could be strobed in checkerboard fashion, or whatever.


Hell, you could even drive it somewhat like a plasma, using full on-off PWM, but at much higher frequency (Khz.), thus avoiding the visual 'noise' of temporal dithering.


It seems such schemes are unlikely to be used, because they are perceived (correctly) by the industry to be unnecessary.


Following is a simple, easy-to-understand description of the basic differences between an active-matrix and a passive-matrix design.


Passive-matrix switches the cells in a driver circuit located on a PCB behind the glass. Power to twist the liquid crystals or glow the OLED emitter is sent through individual ITO traces to each pixel.


Active-matrix uses very low-power switching transistors (in an integrated circuit) on the PCB to send signal-level voltages through the ITO traces to the base pins of power transistors on the glass, which switch power from on-glass ITO power planes into the cell.


The net effect of active-matrix is we are only running the tiniest of currents through the individual pixel traces, instead of power to supply the cell. Also, the power transistors are photolith'd onto the glass instead of living within the driver circuit. The only time lost is we are now switching on two transistors instead of one, but that is incredibly tiny.


The advantages of active-matrix switching are so great that it is even making inroads into smaller devices. If you read the latest stories in this thread, you'll note that the industry (correctly) sees a dim future for passive-matrix devices.


----------



## xrox

Iso, rather than get angry and argue I'd rather attempt to settle this with technical information. From the following quote from you I think I can see why we are not on the same page.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Finally, my statement regarding OLED response time being better than CRT (and any other display device currently in existence, excepting ILED) was not speaking about motion smear or the sample-and-hold effect. I was speaking about response time in the normal sense of the word, which is the time taken for a pixel to reach requested brightness after the signal has been received.



I never once referred to response time which as we know is ultra-short in OLEDs and will not contribute to any motion video artifacts that AMOLED might have. What I was referring to is hold time. The SAH effect refers to how long each pixel is emitting light per frame period. The rating of technology I posted above refers to this "HOLD" time. It has been scientifically proven that "HOLD" time is the greatest contributor to motion blurring in display technology.

see link 

*Active Matrix and Passive Matrix*: Do you agree that PM is an impulse display method with one very short pulse of light? This pulse length is determined by the addressing time since each line of pixels is addressed individually. Since there is so little time to emit light the current must be very high to get enough intensity out of the EL material.


Do you agree that AM is a hold type of display method with an extended duration of light emission? Since the amount of time for light emission is much longer the current can be much lower and our eyes integrate the light output over time to get a high brightness. The problem is we also see blurring due to retinal persistence.


Now, if you still disagree then just do a quick google search for AMOLED and you'll get plenty of articles telling you how AMOLEDs hold the image on the screen for the entire refresh cycle.

link 1 
link 2 
*As a result, the AMOLED operates at all times (i.e., for the entire frame scan), avoiding the need for the very high currents required for passive matrix operation.*


And if you want to read actual research papers that describe how AMOLEDs suffer from image blurring just like LCDs for the exact same reason as LCDs (SAH effect) and how they plan on fixing the problem (120Hz, BFI, interpolation) just like LCDs then you can read the following and also search the journals yourself
link 3


----------



## xrox

Also, just to be thorough: The number one reason LCDs use AM is to give the liquid crystal enough time to transition to the desired state. PMLCDs activate each cell for such a short period ot time there was no way the LC could transition properly. This gave poor brightness and severe ghosting.


AM solved this by holding the voltage at each cell for the entire frame scan. At 60Hz this gave a full 16.7ms for the cell to transition properly. The result is high brightness and better ghosting performance. The problem is the SAH effect.


OLED on the other hand does not have a response time problem so the driving force for AM is due to "LIFETIME". Using AM significantly reduces power consumption and increases lifetime of the EL material. The problem is the SAH effect.


----------



## xrox

Also from the same link

*OLED displays are activated through a current driving method that relies on either a passive-matrix (PM) or an active-matrix (AM) scheme. In a PMOLED display, a matrix of electrically-conducting rows and columns forms a two-dimensional array of picture elements called pixels. Sandwiched between the orthogonal column and row lines, thin films of organic material are activated to emit light by applying electrical signals to designated row and column lines. The more current that is applied, the brighter the pixel becomes. For a full image, each row of the display must be charged for 1/N of the frame time needed to scan the entire display, where N is the number of rows in the display. For example, to achieve a 100-row display image with brightness of 100 nits, the pixels must be driven to the equivalent of an instantaneous brightness of 10,000 nits for 1/100 of the entire frame time.*


So what happens when you have 1080 lines of resolution ?? Even with multiplexing you can see that you would have to literally blast the EL material with current and fry the lifetime and power consumption to get any usable brightness.


This is why AM is used as I've said about 10 times now. The only way to use PM in large TV OLEDs is to greatly increase the EL material luminous efficiency.


----------



## xrox

Another paper from Science and Technical Research Laboratories in Japan:

link 


First paragraph states as follows : *Moving images displayed on active matrix displays such as AMLCD and AMOLED are essentially blurred because hold type displays use active matrix driving.*


As I said above, AM is synonymous with SAH effect. 120Hz, BFI, interpolation reduce the SAH effect but do not eliminate it.


----------



## madshi

It's well known that OLED should suffer from the sample-and-hold effect. What I'm wondering about is why there should be a change between passive and active? I mean isn't the OLED picture "on" all the time either way?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It's well known that OLED should suffer from the sample-and-hold effect. What I'm wondering about is why there should be a change between passive and active? I mean isn't the OLED picture "on" all the time either way?



In general Flat panel pixel based displays address the pixels in line by line fashion (multiplexing can be used but I'll keep this simple). Active matrix has a TFT and capacitor behind each pixel which allows the cell to be "on" even when not being addressed. So the pixels can actually be addressed line by line and then all turned on at once and held on for the full frame period.


With Passive Matrix there is no switch or capacitor behind each pixel. This means that when the panel addresses the pixels line by line that the pixels actually activate when addressed and de-activate when not. This is similar to a CRT and SED. So at any given moment only one row of pixels is actually on. And the time that the pixels are on is determined by the addressing speed.


Take 1080 lines as an example:


60Hz addressing = 16.7ms of time per frame to address all the 1080 lines

1/1080 * 16.7 = .015 milliseconds of time per line of pixels


This means using passive matrix each pixel can emit light for only .015ms. This is plenty of time for OLEDs but the problem is that to get a usable brightness in .015ms would require a massive amount of current during that .015ms. This would quickly burn out the OLED and kill the lifetime and power consumption.


This is why small screens can use Passive matrix as they have few pixels and less stringent brightness, lifetime requirements.


Large TVs with 6 million pixels just won't work with Passive matrix and current EL materials as the emission times are too short and power consumption to high along with extremely short lifetimes.


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> In general Flat panel pixel based displays address the pixels in line by line fashion (multiplexing can be used but I'll keep this simple). Active matrix has a TFT and capacitor behind each pixel which allows the cell to be "on" even when not being addressed. So the pixels can actually be addressed line by line and then all turned on at once and held on for the full frame period.
> 
> 
> With Passive Matrix there is no switch or capacitor behind each pixel. This means that when the panel addresses the pixels line by line that the pixels actually activate when addressed and de-activate when not. This is similar to a CRT and SED. So at any given moment only one row of pixels is actually on. And the time that the pixels are on is determined by the addressing speed.
> 
> 
> Take 1080 lines as an example:
> 
> 
> 60Hz addressing = 16.7ms of time per frame to address all the 1080 lines
> 
> 1/1080 * 16.7 = .015 milliseconds of time per line of pixels
> 
> 
> This means using passive matrix each pixel can emit light for only .015ms. This is plenty of time for OLEDs but the problem is that to get a usable brightness in .015ms would require a massive amount of current during that .015ms. This would quickly burn out the OLED and kill the lifetime and power consumption.
> 
> 
> This is why small screens can use Passive matrix as they have few pixels and less stringent brightness, lifetime requirements.
> 
> 
> Large TVs with 6 million pixels just won't work with Passive matrix and current EL materials as the emission times are too short and power consumption to high along with extremely short lifetimes.



Thank you - good post!!


----------



## Isochroma

Capacitors are only used with LCD










And they are used because it is a constant potential which holds the liquid crystals in a particular position. The electrical leakage through the LC, while significant, is small enough that its voltage can be maintained by a parallel capacitor.


OLEDs are not at all the same: as energy-consuming devices, they must be supplied with current at all times (they are constant-current devices). There is no capacitor behind an OLED pixel. Thus there is no minimum 'hold time' as there is in an AM LCD design.


----------



## Isochroma

To elaborate on my previous post, the liquid crystals in an LCD themselves act as a small capacitance (albiet with significant leakage).


The amount of twist that the liquid crystal experiences is proportional to the static electric field between the electrodes. Little current flows from one side to the other; the potential difference (voltage) between the two electrodes creates the electric field.


By coupling a capacitor in parallel, the particular potential last applied (by either the on-glass or on-PCB transistor) can be held (for a while), despite the small leakage current. However, to change the potential, the capacitor must be charged/discharged by the difference in potentials between the current state and the requested state. Larger transitions will be slower, adding a minimum 'hold time' which varies depending on the requested transition and the current state.


Plasma and OLED pixels are very different: they are energy-dissipating devices. Plasma cells are short-circuits of ionized gases, while OLED pixels are diodes with such minimal forward resistance that they are basically short-circuits also.


Such devices require a constant-current energy supply. They have minimal capacitance and there is no particular value in placing a parallel capacitor; it would be drained of all charge at the moment the transistor was deactivated.


----------



## xrox

Iso, seriously, if you would read the links I provided you'd see that even though the AMOLED is constant current you need a capacitor to supply the current "AFTER" the addressing is complete. Otherwise there is no reason to use Active matrix.


Direct Quote *"The TFT array continuously controls the current that flows to the pixels, signaling to each pixel how brightly to shine. Typically, this continuous current flow is controlled by at least two TFTs at each pixel, one to start and stop the charging of a storage capacitor and the second to provide a voltage source at the level needed to create a constant current to the pixel. As a result, the AMOLED operates at all times (i.e., for the entire frame scan), avoiding the need for the very high currents required for passive matrix operation."*


Even better, go to google and type in AMOLED and capacitor.


----------



## xrox

Check out the schematics for AMLCD and AMOLED. LCD is constant voltage and OLED is constant current. Both require a storage capacitor after the addressing TFT. OLED requires a second TFT to provide a voltage source to maintain contant current through the OLED.


----------



## Isochroma

The capacitor in an OLED circuit is not used to provide energy to the OLED. Rather, it is used to maintain base bias on the control transistor. There is a big difference.


Because the base of the transistor has virtually no leakage current, the base-capacitor's value (microfarads) is very tiny; it need only maintain a very small bias voltage to keep the power transistor open. Thus it takes virtually no time to drain its charge, unlike the capacitor which is directly parallel to a liquid crystal.


The roles of the two capacitors are very different, and so too is their performance. One is a high-value device which pisses charge into a leaky liquid-crystal solution, the other is a small-value device that keeps a pool of electrons swimming in the almost leak-proof base region of a FET or non-FET transistor.


The base-bias capacitor's value is no obstacle to switching the pixel at microsecond rates.


I was expecting you'd raise this point, but I knew to wait for you to further exposit your rationale so we could completely clear up this aspect of circuit design.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was expecting you'd raise this point, but I knew to wait for you to further exposit your rationale so we could completely clear up this aspect of circuit design.



Nice







First you say there is no SAH effect in OLEDs then you say there is no capacitor in OLEDS, then when you're totally proven wrong you belittle the person providing the correct info. I don't recall that I have questioned your intelligence or belittled you in any way. All I did was question your information and this is how you act. Please control your pride.



> Quote:
> The roles of the two capacitors are very different, and so is the performance. One is a high-value device which pisses charge into a leaky liquid-crystal solution, the other is a small-value device that keeps a pool of electrons swimming in the almost leak-proof base region of a FET or non-FET transistor.



Regarding SAH effect the roles of the two capacitors are identical. That is to hold the pixel "ON" well past the addressing period. Think about it, the data line charges the storage capacitor to the desired value. In LCDs this value "holds" the LC at a certain orientation to emit light. In OLEDs this value "holds" open the gate in the 2nd TFT allowing current to flow from Vdd to ground well "after" the addressing has passed by.


One thing I don't get is how they change the Cs value the next cycle. Maybe you can inform me on this as I am always willing to learn










Do you agree that AMOLED will have SAH?? If so that is enough for me to be satisfied. If not for the love of god please read the links I provided and comment on why they say that AMOLED suffers from SAH. Maybe the links are wrong but some of them are full university research projects.


----------



## Isochroma












Perhaps you don't remember that the caps have values which differ by at least an order of magnitude. Think! The diagram omits the cap values because it's intended as a basic structural exposition; it's assumed that the viewer has an understanding of basic analog circuits. It is also assumed the viewer will be cognizant of the vastly different values of the two caps, considering their places in the circuit.


One only has to hold a charge on the base pin of a transistor, the other has to have sufficient charge to piss into a leaky LC for a frame. Do you have any idea how much energy-holding difference that is?


As for SAH, I've already told you that the driver circuit design is responsible for its presence. That is independent of OLED technology. It occurs whenever you keep pixels at the requested value for an entire frame.


What I'm saying is that OLED emitters and their active-matrix driver circuits don't have to do so. Unlike LCD active-matrix drivers, the hold caps do not place a reasonable limit on pixel transition rates, due to a different circuit design that removes the need for them to hold large quantities of charge by placing them at the base pin of the transistor rather than in parallel.


OLED active-matrix driver circuits can be built to run high-amplitude short-duration or long-duration low-amplitude mode, or anything in-between. Any display that uses long-duration low-amplitude driving mode will 'hold' the image, so generate SAH visual artifacts. There is no need to even discuss that. I've pointed out since my first post in our little discussion that the driving mode is determinate of hold-time.
*For LCD, the minimum hold-time is the largest of the liquid-crystal rotation time and the hold cap charge/discharge time.


For OLED, the minimum hold-time is the time taken to suck the minute charge out of the switch-transistor's base-pin holding cap (whose value is very very tiny).*
Depending on target emitter lifetime, OLEDs can be driven any which way you like. The studies you quote look at _specific implementations_ of OLED, _specific driver circuit implementations_ in particular.


How any particular manufacturer chooses to implement its driver circuit is not my business.


The implementation-independant characteristics of OLED are my business. It is those characteristics that differentiate each display technology, and it is there that the ultimate limits of each can be found.


----------



## Isochroma

Even in an LCD, the limiting factor is the liquid crystal rotation time, not the hold cap's discharge rate. It is because of the slow LC that backlight strobing is required to achieve impulse-like performance.


There isn't even sufficient time in a frame for the LC to reach the requested rotation value, never mind to get there from full-block and back again. In contrast, the OLED emitter material is plenty fast enough to do so, providing the AM driver tells it to. And if the driver is told to, it has plenty of speed to make that happen, with room left over for fun










Thus, if you prefer the impulse-characteristic, then the correct approach is to lobby the soon-to-be manufacturers to design their driver circuits in that way. And if you're partial to the hold-type characteristic, then too you may be able to influence their decisions.


Remember though, that it is the flexibility of the emitter material which allows manufacturers the luxury of choosing their driving regime with such latitude. That speed consitutes one of the implementation-independent attributes of OLED which grant it a natural advantage over all other display types. Whether it is made use of will depend on many factors, which only the future will reveal in its own time.


----------



## Isochroma












Let's take another look at this circuit










On the left, we'll note that the transistor supplies voltage to the combined capacitance Cs and Clc. To answer xrox's question about why Clc changes: when liquid crystals rotate, their capacitance changes. Now, the capacitance of Clc is pretty small in any state of rotation, and its leakage rate is fairly high.


That is why we need Cs. Cs is a capacitor of much higher value. It provides a source of charge at the voltage level TFT provided when it was on. Because Clc is leaky, charge drains out of Cs into Clc during the time TFT is off.


The problem with the specific circuit pictured above is that in order to keep the voltage across Clc reasonable during TFT's off-time, Cs has to be fairly large, due to Clc's high leakage.


Assuming that Clc is really fast (which it isn't, but let's just assume it is so we can look at the limitations of the other portion of the circuit), we can crank the voltage to maximum across Cs and Clc quickly by activating TFT fully.


The problem comes when we want to bring the voltage across CsClc down to zero quickly. This is because while TFT can provide charge, it cannot be used to remove charge. All we can do is wait for Cs to drain through Clc, which takes a while due to its large capacity.


The process can be sped up by inserting a new TFT, called here TFT2, across CsClc. This second transistor short-circuits CsClc when its base is activated, dissipating the charge in CsClc as heat.


Unfortunately, adding TFT2 means requiring a third connection, Data line 2, in order to activate its base. Even worse, each added transistor makes photolith more complex and prone to defects. Adding a third data line is unfeasible as well.


A third data line can be avoided but this requires making the circuit more complex by adding more components behind each pixel, increasing the failure rate and cost even more.


All of these procedures will speed up the non-LC portion of the circuit (TFT and Cs), but won't help with the slow rotation-rate of Clc's liquid crystal.


Turning to the right circuit (OLED), we see that as soon as TFT2 is turned off, the OLED extinguishes immediately. There is no need to wait for stored charge to deplete, or slow liquid crystals to rotate to their relaxed position. The OLED's excitation-de-excitation times are in the microsecond range.


The slowest component in the OLED circuit is Cs, whose value is low enough that it can be charged and discharged many thousands of times per second. We can make Cs small because TFT2, being a transistor, has extremely minimal leakage current between its base pin and source/drain pins; better electron retention means less reserve is needed to maintain pressure during TFT1's off phase.


Back to the LCD circuit: if we increase the leakage through Clc, or put a resistor in parallel with it, then Cs will be discharged quicker. Unfortunately, we will need a larger value of Cs to hold sufficient charge between TFT on-cycles. The larger value of Cs will precisely eliminate any gains to be had by its faster discharge.


To sum up, liquid crystal operation is a messy compromise. There are methods that may marginally improve performance of the purely electrical portion of its action, but such improvements are small and come at high material cost - not to mention being negated by LC's slow response. Thus, they are not implemented in commercial products.


Due to its different nature, the OLED emitter doesn't require such compromises, and thus naturally achieves higher performance. The one extra cost is the second transistor, needed because diodes require a constant-current source, rather than LC's constant-voltage.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Perhaps you don't remember that the caps have values which differ by at least an order of magnitude. Think! The diagram omits the cap values because it's intended as a basic structural exposition; it's assumed that the viewer has an understanding of basic analog circuits. It is also assumed the viewer will be cognizant of the vastly different values of the two caps, considering their places in the circuit.



Not only did I not say they did I also don't need to use such condescending attitudes







You really need to stop that.



> Quote:
> As for SAH, I've already told you that the driver circuit design is responsible for its presence. That is independent of OLED technology. It occurs whenever you keep pixels at the requested value for an entire frame..........



So after saying there is no hold time issue in AMOLED you go and say that the driving scheme causes the hold time







Of course it does, I've told you ten times. Active matrix is a driving scheme!! I've posted more than enough confirmed proof that AMOLED suffers from SAH and why.


Then you say there is no way a capacitor is in AMOLED and that is just my lack of knowledge. But alas when I point out using actual proof that there is a capacitor you say Oh! of course but tell me all about it's technical purpose (which I already told you) rather then saying you were wrong about that.



> Quote:
> Even in an LCD, the limiting factor is the liquid crystal rotation time, not the hold cap's discharge rate. It is because of the slow LC that backlight strobing is required to achieve impulse-like performance.



How can you say this when I've posted scientific evidence that directly contradicts this assumption of yours. Throughout your argument not once have you posted any sort of confirmed information. Just your thoughts which I have questioned. I on the other hand have posted many technical papers which totally contradict what you believe.


This is not my thoughts versus your thoughts. This is your thoughts versus what actually exists in scientific papers and journals. Did you read the paper that studied motion blurring on SAH displays and determined that even in current LCDs SAH is by far the major cause of motion blurring.


So answer me this: How can a large area TV OLED (AM or PM) using current materials achieve impulse like performance with high brightness and long lifetime. If it can't be done what must they do to fix the problem?


Better yet state simply why you think OLED needs to use AM? (number one reason)


What about LCD - why did they need to use AM? (number one reason), hint look a few post up


----------



## xrox

Rather than continue with this I must just choose to ignore Iso's misinformation about certain things. Overall, this thread is a great resource thanks to Iso himself. I just cannot agree on this one topic as I actually have proof to the contrary. I don't know what else to do.


So in summary the actual facts are:


-PM has very short high current emission times that are not feasable in large area displays with many pixels and long lifetime requirements.


-AM has much longer lower current emission times that allow for use in large area displays with many pixels and long lifetime requirements.


This is due to the simple facts that OLEDs lifetime is inversly proportional to current through the device. AM is used to extend lifetime while maintaining high brightness.


If you won't take my word for it just google AMOLED versus PMOLED

http://www.onestopdisplays.net/FAQ/FAQ_AMvPM.pdf 
http://www.universaldisplay.com/passive.htm 
http://www.universaldisplay.com/active.htm 


The one problem with AMOLED is that just like LCDs it will suffer from motion blurring from the sample and hold effect (not the same as response time).


120Hz refresh, Black Frame insertion, or pulse width modulation are all concepts to solve the problem.

link 3 


An ideal solution would be to produce a high luminous efficiency OLED that requires very little power to achieve high brightness in very short pulses with long lifetimes. That is what research is still focusing on.


----------



## Isochroma

You are confusing AM driving schemes with OLED. Neither OLED itself nor the various driving schemes require either long or short hold times, on a purely technical basis.

"So after saying there is no hold time issue in AMOLED you go and say that the driving scheme causes the hold time Of course it does, I've told you ten times. Active matrix is a driving scheme!! I've posted more than enough confirmed proof that AMOLED suffers from SAH and why."
It is not active matrix which 'causes' hold time. Both passive-matrix and active-matrix can run OLED emitters continuously or in pulsed operation. It is not economical to run passive-matrix in continuous operation, so that is not done. It is economical to run AM in either pulsed or continuous mode.

"This is not my thoughts versus your thoughts. This is your thoughts versus what actually exists in scientific papers and journals. Did you read the paper that studied motion blurring on SAH displays and determined that even in current LCDs SAH is by far the major cause of motion blurring."
And in my previous post I explained why LCDs always operate in hold mode. And SAH is of course the cause of motion blurring. And SAH itself is unavoidable with liquid crystals because of their limited rotation rate. Limited rotation rate creates both undesireable intermediate values and prevents pulsed operation. Barring any major breakthrough in liquid crystal formulation, it looks like we're stuck with only small improvements in that area.

Then you say there is no way a capacitor is in AMOLED and that is just my lack of knowledge. But alas when I point out using actual proof that there is a capacitor you say Oh! of course but tell me all about it's technical purpose (which I already told you) rather then saying you were wrong about that.
Context! My fault was to not specify where the cap is located, and its purpose (if it is used). You found one design which uses caps to hold the TFT base pin's voltage, so that the PCB drive circuitry's cost can be reduced by driving only one or a set of rows/columns at one time. That method is one implementation of active matrix, and is neither a performance constraining one nor characteristic of all implementations.


Regardless, in LCD passive- or active-matrix circuits, the cap is not the limiting factor preventing faster switching speed. In OLED circuits, due to the extremely fast response of the emitter, cap drain speed may very well be the limiting factor, but it is still orders of magnitude faster than any LCD, and well within the cycle rate necessary for visual strobing.

"The one problem with AMOLED is that just like LCDs it will suffer from motion blurring from the sample and hold effect (not the same as response time)."
The 'problem' is neither active matrix nor OLED, it is the driver design. Because you've found one company with a particular design which runs in continuous emission mode, doesn't mean that other AM designs won't run in pulsed mode. Active-matrix does not imply continuous emission any more than passive-matrix implies pulsed operation. In the case of passive-matrix, for economic feasibility pulsed-mode operation is used, but it is not _required_ in a technical sense.


Active matrix means there's one or more transistors or other 'active' components under the pixel. These 'active' components allow voltage to be switched into the cell from ITO power planes via a low-current control signal. Active-matrix does not specifically require either constant-on or impulse operational modes. _It can accomodate either one, depending on design - which is largely driven by economics._ And when I say economics, I mean both the cost of on-PCB drive circuitry and the 'price' of burning out OLED emitters quicker using high peak driving schemes.


It is up to manufacturers to decide which mode they prefer. Whichever they use, it will be with active-matrix circuits for large displays.


There will be no end to this discussion until you understand how basic electronics works, at which point you'll be able to answer these questions yourself.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You are confusing AM driving schemes with OLED. Neither OLED itself nor the various driving schemes require either long or short hold times, on a purely technical basis.



LOL, I am not confusing anything Iso. I am just regurgitating what is in the posted literature. Believe what you will but the facts are straightforward and for all to see in the literature. You sure are stubborn and wrong, a bad combination. Stick to posting actual articles and scientific information as you have in the past. It is a very usefull thread.


Cheers


----------



## Isochroma


You sure are stubborn and wrong, a bad combination. Stick to posting actual articles and scientific information as you have in the past. It is a very usefull thread.
I've run an electronics lab for over a decade. I've built analog and digital circuits, high and low voltage. If you have a better understanding of the electrical characteristics of driver circuits, you are encouraged to post specifics. As for my statements, I believe them to be correct and will continue to do so until you can refute them.


Having read "A new driving method introducing a display period for AMOLEDs", I'm not particularly suprised to find that their driving method is similar in some respects to plasma.


Though it solves the motion blur problem by lighting each pixel for only a portion of the frametime, it introduces some other problems, which heretofore have been characteristic of plasma. In particular, I'm disappointed to see the "Peak luminance" plan. It means that, just like plasma, bright scenes will have lower pixel luminance than dark ones. Whites will look 'dirty' just like with plasma.


The primary goal of their 'peak luminance' scheme is to reduce the cost of drive circuitry by making it too weak to power the entire display fully. Instead, total power will be constrained such that the product of the total number of pixels times their intensity will be a constant.


It is sad to see the potentials of such nice emitters being sabotaged before they can really shine. However, these plans may very well never come to fruition.


Strobing can be achieved without peak luminance limitation under a power * area curve, with only a minor increase in driver circuit cost.


Regarding this discussion, we can continue as long as you wish. Perhaps we may even provide this thread's many other observers with both education and entertainment, while we await substantive news from the manufacturers.


Since you're interested in strobing to overcome the SAH effect, and I've said that it can be accomplished with active-matrix circuitry, we both have good news to give one another. It's really good news because large displays both require active-matrix and also show SAH artifacting (with more pronounced visiblity than small displays).


So, I propose that between us, we develop a homegrown driving scheme for OLED pixels that allows both intraframe off-times and excludes the undesireable limitations of plasma drive circuitry, such as APL limiting. Thus we may grow sweet crops from the fertile soil of argumentation.


----------



## Isochroma

Reading your link on active-matrix displays, I've pinpointed some areas which can be clarified. The following quote is from that article.

"As a result, the AMOLED operates at all times (i.e., for the entire*frame scan*), avoiding the need for the very high currents required for passive matrix operation."
It's important to understand that like the PM design, the AM design's on-PCB driver circuit operates in line-by-line or column-by-column scan mode. The main difference is that the AM design allows each pixel to hold its value continuously, rather than strobe at high intensity for a portion of the frametime.


This 'scan' mode is not necessitated by either AM or PM in particular, but is used by both designs to save money by using fewer components in the driver circuitry. 'Scan' mode is cheaper because you only need componentry to address one row/column at a time.


Both AM and PM can be run in 'scanless' or totally-addressed mode. This is where each pixel's addressing is handled separately from others. It costs more, but can be done. It is not likely to be commercially available due to economic reasons, regrettably.


We are thus left with active-matrix and scanning for large displays.


The active-matrix scanned mode can be used to achieve strobe action by increasing the scan speed such that there is time for two transitions per frame, instead of one. The first transition is from discharged to charged (with the charge voltage determined by requested brightness). The second transition is from charged to discharged (black).


The paper referenced in my previous post posits one of many methods to achieve such a device. There's plenty of room for new proposals.


The good news for you is that what you seem to want out of OLED - a reduction or total elimination of the SAH artifact, can be achieved at reasonable economic cost by using high-speed active-matrix scanning with two transitions per frametime, or equivalent methods using various mutations of the basic AM driver circuit.


Whether manufacturers will decide to use one of these methods in their products, is a question only the future will answer.


At this point I'm done with what needs to be said, and over the volume of material we've posted, I think we both have a good idea that what is wanted can be achieved, within technical and economic constraints. Personally, I hope that we can both find a resolution of our concerns in this positive outcome and return to our usual pursuits.


Waiting is hard, especially for those whose ideals are crushed by the current devices on the market. Expectations and projections can be tossed back and forth for eternities, but in the end only patience and time will deliver answers to those questions. In the meantime, my busy life will take me away from this subject once more, for periods of time unpredictable.


Before I go, I'd like to invite anyone observing this discussion, who is qualified by electronics experience to provide their input about the statements that have been made. It is always helpful to have third parties who can lend their voice to the exposition. In particular, I'm thinking about bringing some electronics professionals here to provide their advice on the subject.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Having read "A new driving method introducing a display period for AMOLEDs", I'm not particularly suprised to find that their driving method is similar in some respects to plasma.



I've posted for the last 24 hours that SAH is a problem with AMOLED and once you finally read this paper you say your not surprised ?


Anyway, at least you finally agree with the literature







Did you happen to see what *Conventional* driving schemes are for AMOLED. This is what I've been saying from the very beginning, and several literature sources back me up.



> Quote:
> Though it solves the motion blur problem by lighting each pixel for only a portion of the frametime



It does not solve it at all. It only reduces it. Look at the ratings I posted a while back. In order to reach CRT levels you need emission times shorter than 2ms per frame period. SAH effect is purely persistence of vision. The shorter the emission time per frame the crisper the motion. And this driving scheme at best will match Plasma at an average 4-6ms.



> Quote:
> Since you're interested in strobing to overcome the SAH effect, and I've said that it can be accomplished with active-matrix circuitry, we both have good news to give one another. It's really good news because large displays both require active-matrix and also show SAH artifacting (with more pronounced visiblity than small displays).
> 
> 
> So, I propose that between us, we develop a homegrown driving scheme for OLED pixels that allows both intraframe off-times and excludes the undesireable limitations of plasma drive circuitry, such as APL limiting. Thus we may grow sweet crops from the fertile soil of argumentation.



I personally think that to " fully" overcome SAH using AM or PM circuitry will require different EL materials at the least. Specifically higher luminous efficiency and lifetimes. This will give loads of lattitude when it comes to current driving and emission times.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Reading your link on active-matrix displays, I've pinpointed some areas which can be clarified. The following quote is from that article.
> 
> "As a result, the AMOLED operates at all times (i.e., for the entire*frame scan*), avoiding the need for the very high currents required for passive matrix operation."
> It's important to understand that like the PM design, the AM design's on-PCB driver circuit operates in line-by-line or column-by-column scan mode. The main difference is that the AM design allows each pixel to hold its value continuously, rather than strobe at high intensity for a portion of the frametime.



Explained this 10 times already (look back)



> Quote:
> The active-matrix scanned mode can be used to achieve strobe action by increasing the scan speed such that there is time for two transitions per frame, instead of one. The first transition is from discharged to charged (with the charge voltage determined by requested brightness). The second transition is from charged to discharged (black).
> 
> 
> The paper referenced in my previous post posits one of many methods to achieve such a device. There's plenty of room for new proposals.



Yes but all proposals are limited by the material lifetime issues. There is no way to get high enough brightness in microseconds without cranking up the current to lifetime killing levels, this is why we need higher efficiency materials with longer lifetimes.



> Quote:
> The good news for you is that what you seem to want out of OLED - a reduction or total elimination of the SAH artifact, can be achieved at reasonable economic cost by using high-speed active-matrix scanning with two transitions per frametime, or equivalent methods using various mutations of the basic AM driver circuit.
> 
> 
> Whether manufacturers will decide to use one of these methods in their products, is a question only the future will answer.
> 
> 
> At this point I'm done with what needs to be said, and over the volume of material we've posted, I think we both have a good idea that what is wanted can be achieved, within technical and economic constraints. Personally, I hope that we can both find a resolution of our concerns in this positive outcome and return to our usual pursuits.



I think OLEDs is a great technology and I think this thread is a great resource but I know that large AMOLEDs will not achieve CRT motion performance unless better materials are used.



> Quote:
> Before I go, I'd like to invite anyone observing this discussion, who is qualified by electronics experience to provide their input about the statements that have been made. It is always helpful to have third parties who can lend their voice to the exposition. In particular, I'm thinking about bringing some electronics professionals here to provide their advice on the subject.



Aside from this just do a search of SID or IDW display journals on AMOLEDs and how the SAH effect is being dealt with.


----------



## Isochroma

Considering the high peak brightness and short on-times you quote, you are correct in that the primary problem to be solved if manufacturers decide that SAH warrants their attentions, is the emission material.


The OLED emission material would have to withstand significantly higher peak currents than it currently can to achieve such high-peak short emission times.


A large determinant of power-delivery schedule of the active-matrix driving circuitry in the first discrete OLED displays on the market, will be the lifetime vs. power density characteristic achieved by OLED forumulation at that time.


It may be the case that in order to save costs, manufacturers could use continuous-emission mode in their first models. This may be a horror to you, but a large fraction of the population is not disturbed by SAH artifacting; personally, I can barely notice it in LCDs fed 60 fps (interlaced) video.


Manufactureres may decide that other attributes of their OLED devices will be sufficient for buyers to pay its premium price: perfect black level, high color purity, high resolution, light weight, low power consumption, thinness.


SAH is but one attribute in a larger mix, in a market that is under very rapid change.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Considering the high peak brightness and short on-times you quote, you are correct in that the primary problem to be solved if manufacturers decide that SAH warrants their attentions, is the emission material.
> 
> 
> The OLED emission material would have to withstand significantly higher peak currents than it currently can to achieve such high-peak short emission times.
> 
> 
> A large determinant of power-delivery schedule of the active-matrix driving circuitry in the first discrete OLED displays on the market, will be the lifetime vs. power density characteristic achieved by OLED forumulation at that time.
> 
> 
> It may be that, in order to save costs, manufacturers could use continuous-emission mode in their first models. This may be a horror to you, but a large fraction of the population is not disturbed by SAH artifacting; personally, I can barely notice it in LCDs fed 30 fps. video.
> 
> 
> Manufactureres may decide that other attributes of their OLED devices will be sufficient for buyers to pay its premium price: perfect black level, high color purity, high resolution, light weight, low power consumption, thinness, etc.



The funny thing is, and you may laugh at me for this, that I have extremely fast retinal persistence and thus do not see much motion blurring even on LCDs. I don't even see those plasma rainbows people complain about but I know they exist. I am more interested in the science than anything else as that is what I do for a living.


----------



## Isochroma

A final horror which I sometimes ponder: even with the lowest-cost circuitry and panel componentry, AMOLED may never displace LCD from the TV-size market, or it may take longer than the decade so optimistically forecast by certain analysts (see stories). The picture in my head is of us struggling to make a better chair arrangement on the Titanic's deck, as it slowly sinks below the waves.


It's not outside the bounds of probability that I may not be able to buy a 40"-class OLED TV inside my lifetime, though I certainly hope and believe that this won't be the case.


OLED is having a slow and complex birth process; right now the key to economic success is mass production on a big scale, and material cost reduction too. I'd be really happy to get any TV-sized OLED and, personally, wouldn't be too mad if it didn't have strobing. Others will have different priorities, I know.


----------



## Isochroma

On the topic of SAH vs. impulse displays, some personal observations of myself and friends. I get headaches after a few hours of using my PC CRT at 88hz. I can't watch plasmas in the local store for more than a few minutes without eyestrain & the beginning of headaches.


LCD however, does not cause me such problems, even under extensive viewing. Two of my friends won't buy anything but LCD, despite my encouragement to get a good CRT. One of them gets terrible headaches from any kind of CRT.


Because of these problems, I will not purchase any display product that uses impulse operation. When my savings are sufficient, the CRT will be replaced with an LCD or OLED display, which uses the SAH driving method.


Both SAH and impulse modes have certain advantages, and certain disadvantages. Since we probably know well the advantages of impulse for motion rendering, maybe it's time to mention that a good portion of the population is sick of living so long with interlaced, flickering CRTs.


The problem of flicker (interlaced and non-interlaced {strobe}) and the health problems it causes in a significant fraction of the general population will drive them to pay the high cost of new display technologies only if they offer relief from the pain. A pain that gets worse as the display size increases and APL rises.


LCD has already given them the taste of a stable, flicker-free image. Some will notice and be displeased by motion smear on SAH displays, but at least as many and probably more will find the eased eyestrain and vanished headaches to be of greater value.


Considering the pressure to get OLED displays onto the market ASAP at a price and with a lifetime that have some hope of competing with LCD, manufacturers may decide that not only is impulse operation unworthy of inclusion due to panel lifetime degeneration, but that it is an active liability for their first products, where eyestrain considerations will be paramount: PC displays.


Now I'm not privy to these manufacturers' internal decision-making processes, but if I was in their board rooms casting a vote and giving a reason for it, I would make a logical argument against the impulsive driving method for at least first-generation products, for the reasons outlined above.


I would further add to that argument that if impulsive driving were to be implemented, it ought to be added to the top end of the product mix as a premium feature: for only those whose concern with motion rendering stands above all other priorities.


The rationale for this argument is that OLED's small (projected) market is already priced out of sight of such a large fraction of the population, that its production costs will be difficult enough to recoup as is, without further fragmenting or alienating its (prospective) toehold in the market by introducing a feature which decreases panel lifetime significantly (from the already limited OLED lifetime) and alienates potential customers who are affected by flicker sensitivity.


The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that it is suicide for an aspiring OLED display manufacturer to even attempt introducing their product with this 'feature', given that it is short lifetime that has kept OLED off the market for so long.


Their products will have significantly shorter lifetime than competitors' SAH products, and they will have to wait longer than their competitors for sufficient emitter material advancement to enable the release of a product with acceptable lifetime and color-shift (differential aging). The marginally higher price they (may) be able to get for it will not be sufficient compensation for delayed introduction and smaller market (flicker-sensitive segment).


----------



## Blackraven

So Ischroma, does this mean that OLED HDTV sets (when it launches after this decade) would be faster than all other display tech including CRT (not sure about Laser TV....but we'll see







)???


Will it still hold the title as "SPEED KING" in the world of consumer display tech???


----------



## Isochroma

That depends on how manufacturers choose to implement the driving circuitry. The OLED emitter itself has the capability to be as fast as the drive circuitry's designed to drive it. There is a price to pay in terms of lifetime, when using the impulse driving method. Manufacturers will decide whether that 'price' is worth the extra returns they may get by pricing the product higher.


The material cost to implement impulsive drive, apart from accelerated emitter aging, is very low. I'll be posting some schematics later which show how to achieve impulse driving using standard active-matrix scan circuitry, without the excessive complexity of other designs.


----------



## Isochroma

Ah, the heat & humidity plus chores kept me away for a while, but on with the show!












The circuit above I drafted this morning, as a modification to the one posted previously. It allows the standard row-scanning on-PCB circuit to be adapted to impulse operation.


R1's value is chosen to drain C such that the voltage drop across Z keeps it in the breakdown region for the desired operation time. When the voltage across Z falls to breakdown, Z becomes nonconducting. The high-value (megohm) resistor R2 then pulls the base of TFT2 down, shutting it off and extinguishing OLED.


The circuit does not, at OLED, generate the ideal square-wave source. It does, however, suffice to provide sufficient impulsivity without the requirement for more transistors.


Transistor budget is at most three on mass-produced glass-photolith'd planes, due to defects. Even the single transistor behind LCD LCs is frequently defective, causing 'stuck' pixels. This is one reason why the previous design, while an excellent demonstration of good technique, will not be feasible in a mass-production scenario.


This circuit is a crude first approximation of something which can do the job. There are undoubtedly other implementations which perform better and stay within a three-transistor budget.


----------



## navychop

Too late. OLED is surpassed by *IOD (Iron Oxide Display).* 


Seriously, think of all the research being done on displays, especially over the last 10 to 15 years. Whatever displays are available 10 to 15 years from now, I'll bet they'll be very good, very light, very thin and very cheap.


----------



## Isochroma

Your efforts are appreciated but there is a problem with your post, namely that it is off-topic. The topic of this thread is "OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread".


Your post has absolutely nothing to do with OLED TVs. If you feel this technology's applications warrant the attention of viewers, please start a new thread with a topic of the appropriate title.


----------



## jgreen171

I don't agree, competing technologies are related to OLEDs simply because they are competitors. It is hardly off topic. If I was to talk about how awesome Oberweis's butter pecan ice cream is, that would be off topic. Also, to do so would be unethical because that flavor of ice cream has 26 grams of fat per cup. Unforgivable.


In this case, the "rusty" technology that Navychop has linked to is certainly NOT a replacement for OLEDs. It appears to be an inferior type of display, since it is limited to tiiiiiny sizes and also appears to lack the self-emissive quality that OLEDs possess, although I don't doubt it probably has some legitimate uses.


----------



## Isochroma

There's plenty of room up one level, in the sub-forum where this thread exists. It is called:


"Flat Panel General & New FP Tech"


Note the "New FP Tech" part of the title. That means iron TVs, etc.


Now as for the off-topic post, it is not "hardly off topic" it is "completely off topic". The topic of this thread is not "new FP tech" or "OLED tech & other tech" or "OLED tech & iron TVs" it is "OLED tech". The "New FP Tech" is one level up from here, and that is where such posts belong. How is anyone going to know how great the new iron TVs will be if the post is hidden in the hole down here?


----------



## jgreen171

I suspect that your explanatory post, recounting to us why navychop's post is off-topic, is itself off-topic and therefore mildly ironic.


People who are interested in OLED tech are HIGHLY LIKELY to be interested in competing/related technologies and therefore such technologies can legitimately be discussed in a thread that focuses on OLEDs. If he had wishes to discuss iron oxide Tvs, and failed to connect them to OLEDs as a potential competitor, then indeed he should post his comments to a new thread in FP General & New FP


----------



## jgreen171

PS...does anyone want to bet on whether Sony will make good on their promise to mass manufacture 1000 11" OLEDs by the end of 2007? I personally doubt they will be able to, even though they keep assuring us they got the right stuff.


I think Samsung SDI's initiatives with small-size OLEDs are more promising, it will allow them to hone their manufacturing techniques to improve production yields, etc, which will finally allow OLEDs to become mainstream devices.


----------



## Isochroma

Indeed, Samsung probably has the lead, especially considering how early they demonstrated their 40" OLED TV. Undoubtedly they will be one of the biggest players in the coming OLED market, starting with handhelds.


As for Sony, they seem to have some excellent tech and will probably be following closed behind.


----------



## navychop

Note the use of the word "Seriously."


The point is that OLED, and any other technology, must move to market quickly. There are many other hounds nipping at their heels.


----------



## Larry Hutchinson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thread Update (links go to original articles; see the end of my previous post for archived stories)



I'd appreciate it if you were to include a link to your previous post.


----------



## Isochroma

I'd love to do it, but the pages generated by this forum only include anchors at the top of each post. So if I linked to the last post I made (which includes this story), the page would load it with the top showing. You'd still have to scroll all the way to the bottom of that post to see the last story. Maybe there's some way to add anchor code in posts, to allow linking to say the bottom of a post...


I'm considering posting stories individually with each update, then moving them to the archive-post on the next update. The idea has so far been to avoid fragmentation by putting all stories in one post, limited only by the 10-picture-per-post maximum.


----------



## Larry Hutchinson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'd love to do it, but the pages generated by this forum only include anchors at the top of each post. So if I linked to the last post I made (which includes this story), the page would load it with the top showing. You'd still have to scroll all the way to the bottom of that post to see the last story.



That would be fine.


It would at least put you in the general area. As it is, I have just been clicking on your link to the original article and that is fine also, so no biggie.


----------



## Isochroma

I'll probably start doing that with new items.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Too late. OLED is surpassed by *IOD (Iron Oxide Display).*



Unfortunately, this is just a small prototype. They would first need a big company to get them to recognition (unlike OLED which already has Sony and Samsung working hard in and releasing prototypes).


So atm, it hasn't surpassed OLED in terms of which tech will come out first.


----------



## HisHeirness23

I told my professor about [OLED flat panels] since he worked in the industry with Philips in OLED development. He was explaining to me that there were people that made OLEDs out of peanut butter or bananas. Something edible. I showed him some articles taken from magazines about Sony at CES with their OLED display. I am seriously considering taking his lab in which we design and create a functioning OLED display. Cal Poly is really following through with their mission statement of "learn by doing." I will refer him to this link!


----------



## hoodlum

According to the following report the first OLED from Sony will cost 7x the LCD equivalent.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...070725/136757/ 


"The company projected a cost of Sony's 11-inch organic EL panel will be around $700 (USD). That is equivalent to the cost of a 40-inch class LCD panel, while the costs of current 10-inch class LCD panels are about $100 per panel."


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoodlum* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> According to the following report the first OLED from Sony will cost 7x the LCD equivalent.
> 
> http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...070725/136757/
> 
> 
> "The company projected a cost of Sony's 11-inch organic EL panel will be around $700 (USD). That is equivalent to the cost of a 40-inch class LCD panel, while the costs of current 10-inch class LCD panels are about $100 per panel."



Aww that sucks.


But this is still normal. Just like any first-gen technology, it will cost very high. I think this is expected.


Hopefully, there will be a reduction every year. Ie. If OLED costs 7x LCD price this year, then it should be 6x the LCD by next year. 5x the year after. 4x LCD by year 2010......and so on.........I hope.


Good thing though is that the more OLED TV tech matures (along with its price drops), the more it improves.


Prototype OLED TV tech is atm capable of around less than one millisecond or faster (


----------



## jgreen171

What a waste of money, IMHO. The far superior company is Universal Display Corporation, they are the ones who own the IP for phosphorescent OLEDs....the tech that will be in displays by Sony, Samsung SDI, LG Philips LCD, LG electronics, Chi Mei, and other major manufacturers.


----------



## navychop

I don't care if Satan owns it, just somebody bring it to market!


----------



## Blackraven

Any new updates about OLED???


----------



## williamtassone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I don't care if Satan owns it,


----------



## erik1974

Hi i found a interesting article about the release of OLED-Tvs at:
release-of-oled-tvs


----------



## rrhomes

Well that whole artical is just a rehash of the current standing of OLED, every thing thats been being said for the last 4 years.


If though there is a buyable unit on the retail shelf next year or even 09 then it's showing someone beleaves it will eventually be a big player and that it can compete in a price/features war eventually. I don't care if its here in 5 years I just don't want it to die off because of cost. I would buy a 1980 x 1200 computer display for over a $1,000 in a heartbeat if it looks like i beleave it will. I can see a path where it could start with graphic artist then move on to main stream retail.


----------



## Blackraven

Same here.


----------



## Isochroma

*OLED Videos*
*▪ Sony Moves a Step Closer to OEL TV (11" & 27")* [ *Stream* / *AVI* / *MKV* : 6.6 MB ]
*▪ Epson 40" OLED Display* [ *MKV* : 0.8 MB ]
*▪ Wil Wheaton praises Sony's 1,000,000:1 Contrast OLED TVs* [ *Stream* / *AVI* / *MKV* : 5.2 MB ]

*▪ lemaroc.org: OLED Videos *
*▪ takatv.com: OLED Videos *


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/11451873
> 
> 
> Thread Update (links go to original articles; see the end of my previous post for archived stories):
> 
> *28 August 2007:* Cambridge Display Technology and Sumation Announce Further Improved Performance of Green and Red P-OLED Materials



That's superb news indeed.


Hopefully, there will be new announcements on lifespan improvement to Blue OLED materials within the year.


Can't wait for those to come out


----------



## lexx_kun

Only slightly off-topic:


Is it just me or is Wil Wheaton getting a lot of props & plugs in the geek news world these days? Dude's a has-been child sci-fi actor. We shouldn't be celebrating him, we should be ignoring him to the dustheap of society, just like Mark Hammil.


*sigh* the geek world's doomed when an aging Wesley Crusher's our idol...


----------



## jgreen171

Blackraven, the news isn't particularly superb at all. Those improvements are to polymeric LED (POLED) materials, not PHOLEDs, which are the type of OLED that is currently expected to appear in OLED TVs. You should watch for news from Universal Display Corporation, they are the ones whose research is likely to usher in the age of OLED televisions. Currently, it is anyone's guess when long lasting blue PHOLED materials will be created. It requires a dramatic improvement over today's levels. In the meantime, blue fluourescent material can be substituted (that is what Sony, toshiba, Samsung) etc are doing. This has its own advantages and disadvantages.


Lexx, are you basically saying that the geek world should shun Wil Wheaton because he is basically a geek? Should we look for someone cooler?


----------



## lexx_kun

Carmack, Romero, Kutaragi, Miyamoto, Molyneux, Meier, Wright...all better examples of the "gods" of gaming.


If I'm going to idolize someone, it better be someone amazing. If, as a geek, I'm going to idolize someone, it'll be a notable creator. Wheaton's just a 30-something adult geek with a family and a blog - not exactly amazing or accomplished. The only thing making him notable is his former role as Wesley Crusher, and that doesn't make him awesome, it makes him LAME.


For the same reason I think Dustin Diamond is lame and doesn't deserve the spotlight he occasionally receives these days.


----------



## Blackraven

Any new updates?


----------



## Isochroma

 *OLEDs enjoy growing demand* 
*12 September 2007*


Dubbed next-generation displays in the industry, organic light-emitting diodes are flourishing in the display market, at least in terms of revenue and shipments, a report said yesterday.


According to the quarterly OLED shipment and forecast report by the market research group DisplaySearch, the OLED market grew 24 percent in the second quarter from a year ago, hitting the 19.8 million mark in total shipments.


The combined revenue from OLEDs reached $123.4 million in the second quarter, up 13 percent from a year ago, the report showed.


"As OLED displays become more prevalent in key small and medium display applications like mobile phones, main displays and sub-displays, MP3s and automotive consoles, they become increasingly competitive in comparison with LCDs," said DisplaySearch senior vice president Barry Young in a statement.


OLEDs produce brighter colors, higher contrast ratios and have a broader viewing angle than LCDs. OLED pixels directly emit light whereas LCDs have to use backlights.


"Over the next year, we are expecting revenues to grow by 117 percent due to the introduction of AMOLED (active matrix OLED) displays for mobile phones and digital cameras, plus the added number of suppliers including TPO, LG.Philips LCD and Casio," Young said.


The report said that AMOLEDs are beginning to impact the market as Samsung SDI, the world's top OLED manufacturer, becomes the first company to reach full production of AMOLEDs.


"We have completed the preparation for mass production of 2-inch class AMOLEDs. We cannot disclose the exact date but it is going to be very soon," said Samsung SDI spokesman Seo Hae-soo.


Also, Sony previously had announced that the Japanese electronics giant will mass-produce 11-inch AMOLED TV displays.


AMOLEDs perform much better in video pictures than typical OLEDs.


Separately, Samsung Electronics president of its digital media business, Park Jong-woo, said Samsung is developing 30-inch OLED TVs and plans to release them by 2010, during the consumer electronics trade fair IFA 2007 in Berlin last week.


Regarding any plans to produce OLED displays, an LG.Philips LCD official said the company had previously reviewed the matter but has not come up with a specific plan yet.


"The reason we are still reviewing the matter has nothing to do with technology. We are still closely watching market movements," the officials said, asking not to be named.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Sharp says Pioneer deal a ’strategic alliance’* 
*20 September 2007*


Mikio Katayama, president and COO of Sharp describes his shock deal with Pioneer as a “strategic business alliance,” citing rapid changes in technology and harsh global competition as a reason for the move. Katayama says: “it is not an exaggeration to say that we cannot predict one year ahead, or half a year, or even three months ahead.”


The two have announced that they will jointly develop OLED display technology, and co-develop mobile technology products. Sharp currently depends on LCD for more than 70 percent of its profit, but such dependency makes it vulnerable to changes in the LCD market. With Pioneer's expertise, it plans on broadening its range and diversifying. Sharp is now the top shareholder in Pioneer.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED-T Green OLED Emitter Offers World Class Efficiency Performance* 
*25 September 2007*


OLED-T today announced a green phosphorescent OLED material with world class efficiency performance.

The new material called E255a has a high colour saturation making it ideal for a broad range of product applications in single colour and full colour displays. The material also has a very high efficiency delivering high brightness at low power making it ideal for mobile product applications with either passive matrix or active matrix driving.


The University of Hong Kong has manufactured OLED demonstrators using E255a and has reported a device efficiency of 40 cd/A at 1000 cdm-2 with a very saturated green colour coordinate of (0.28, 0.64) which is wider than commercially available LCD products.


E225a will be available for customer sampling from January 2008 and can be deposited onto any desired substrate by vacuum coating methods.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLEDs storm consumer space* 
*9 October 2007*


Sony and Samsung are both making moves to bring OLED displays to a larger commercial audience. In Sony's case, the target is the television. In Samsung's, it's portable devices.


Sony Corp. will launch an 11-inch ultrathin flat TV with an organic LED display in Japan in December. The model is purported to be the first TV to employ OLED technology. It will vie for a share of an $82 billion market dominated by LCD and plasma panels.


Meanwhile Samsung SDI this week will announce its intention to produce the world's first 3-inch WVGA (480 x 800) active-matrix (AM) OLED panel, using PenTile subpixel rendering technology from Clairvoyante Inc.


Sony's OLED TV will be a commercial breakthrough. The technology's characteristics of energy efficiency, thin size and light weight amount to a crisp picture that Sony said is now suitable for showing fast-moving images from sports events and action movies.


"I want the world's first OLED TV to be the symbol of the revival of Sony's technological prowess. I want this to be the flag under which we charge forward to turn our fortunes around," Sony president Ryoji Chubachi said at a news conference at the company's headquarters, in Tokyo.


But size is still a limitation for OLED technology.


"It seems like it is more about technological leadership than something that can actually have an impact on the TV market," said Paul Semenza, vice president for displays at market research firm iSuppli Corp. Semenza said Sony caused a stir at the International Consumer Electronics Show in January when it showed an OLED prototype display, "which is truly stunning. But in 2007, 11 inches is not a TV; it is a mobile device."


Sony, the world's second-largest maker of LCD TVs (behind Samsung), expects the 11-inch OLED TV to sell for $1,700--almost as high as retail prices of some of its own 40-inch LCD models.


Large-OLED-panel manufacturing is difficult, which limits OLED's appeal as a common display for next-generation TVs. LCD panels dominate, and TV makers are showing LCD and plasma prototypes with much larger panels than OLEDs have achieved to date. Matsushita is even offering 103-inch plasma TVs, while LCD TV makers are offering 40-inch sets, moving up from the predominant 30-inch models.


"I don't think OLED TVs will replace LCD TVs overnight. But I do believe this is a type of technology with very high potential, something that will come after LCD TVs," Sony executive deputy president Katsumi Ihara told reporters at the Tokyo announcement, which was made just before the opening of Ceatec (the Combined Exhibition of Advanced Technologies Providing Images, Information and Communications), Asia's largest annual electronics and communications industry event.


Ihara said he set the price tag of about $1,700 without paying much attention to profitability, suggesting perhaps that Sony is willing to take a loss on each set it sells, at least initially. The TV will go on sale in Japan Dec. 1.

*Worth the price?*


The set's life span of about 30,000 hours of viewing is roughly half that of Sony's LCD TVs, but long enough to allow eight hours of daily use for 10 years, according to the company. Sony will limit monthly production to 2,000 units, compared with its plans to sell 10 million units of LCD TVs in the year through next March.


"The price is obviously an issue, and the fact that they might not be making a profit on a $1,700 11-inch display says a lot about how far they have to go on cost competitiveness," said iSuppli's Semenza. He pointed out that the lifetime of 30,000 hours could be viewed as considerable "if it was the point at which users started to notice degrading brightness or color shifts." However, he said, Sony could be quoting the set's total useful lifetime, "which suggests that consumers might start to notice changes within 10,000 or 20,000 hours, which is not so good."


"The biggest limitation that active matrix OLED has is the lack of maturity in the manufacturing process and the very limited manufacturing capacity overall," Semenza said. By contrast, the LCD industry has multiple sixth-, seventh- and soon eighth-generation fabs, each of which can produce millions of 30-, 40- and 50-inch TV panels per year. A small number of pilot and fourth-generation lines exist for AM OLEDs. These lines can have an impact on mobile phones and PMPs, but not on TVs, Semenza said.

*Samsung's clear choice*


In partnering with Clairvoyante--the other 800-pound gorilla in the OLED space--Samsung hopes to overcome performance and manufacturing challenges typical of high-resolution OLED panels.


By incorporating Clairvoyante's PenTile RGB technology, Samsung intends to develop the first handheld WVGA RGB OLED panel. To date, OLED displays for portable computers and mobile devices have been available only in formats up to QVGA (240 x 320). PenTile technology makes it possible to attain WVGA performance by eliminating one-third of the subpixels while maintaining the same display resolution.


Anticipating a strong demand for OLED technology, Samsung recently invested in additional capacity. Industry research group Display Search predicts that the AM OLED market will grow to $5.58 billion by 2011, up from $220.5 million in 2007. Samsung has been fabricating OLED panels since August 2002 for applications in car audio systems, electronic games, MP3 players and, now, cell phones.


"Our partnership with Clairvoyante will create a PenTile OLED panel that will lead the handheld market with a power-efficient, high-resolution OLED panel that supports continued innovation in emerging handheld applications," said Sung-Chul Kim, vice president of Samsung SDI.


Samples of the Samsung panels will be available in the first quarter of 2008, with mass production slated for the third quarter. The new module will be demonstrated later this month at Flat Panel Display International in Yokohama, Japan.


"Samsung SDI's commitment to supporting the growing OLED market will result in small/medium displays that are increasingly competitive with LCDs," said Joel Pollack, president and CEO of Clairvoyante. "Using PenTile technology, Samsung SDI can more quickly capitalize on this market growth by overcoming production hurdles to create high-resolution displays."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung SDI Starts Mass-Producing AMOLED Displays* 
*11 October 2007*











*Samsung SDI has succeeded in mass-producing AMOLED displays.*



Samsung SDI has won the race to start mass-producing a next-generation display screen using active-matrix light-emitting diodes or AMOLED. AMOLED is clearer than the LCD or PDP formats currently used for display screens to a point where the display screen remains clear even under direct sunlight. Electronics companies all over the world have been racing to mass-produce it.


Now South Korean electronics companies can outdistance their Japanese or American rivals. At present, LG Philips LCD, Sony and Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology (TMD) are shaping up to mass-produce AMOLED screens, touted as the future of mobile displays. The size of the market is expected to reach US$3.6 billion (about W3.4 trillion) by 2011.


In a press conference at Samsung SDI's Cheonan Plant, a company spokesman said, "We've received orders from manufacturers of mobile phones or video gadgets for up to 90 percent of next year's production.” Samsung SDI already supplies the product to domestic MP3 player maker Reigncom and has reportedly signed a supply contract with the world's top mobile phone maker Nokia.


Kim Jae-wook, the head of Samsung SDI's display business, said the firm plans to increase its monthly 2-inch AMOLED screen production capacity from the current 1.5 million units to 3 million in 2008. A Samsung SDI spokesman claimed the company has made “a new breakthrough” after sluggish performance in the cathode ray and PDP TV business.


The company’s mass production of AMOLED displays has spurred domestic and foreign display manufacturers to gain a slice of the market. Sony, overtaken by Korean firms in the market for PDP and LCD display screens, has recently produced digital TVs using AMOLED in what looked like an attempt to retrieve its reputation. Despite being only an 11-inch prototype, Sony's product is attracting attention from the industry, and the firm has announced it will produce and sell 1,000 units per month from the end of the year.


TMD is also busy preparing to mass-produce AMOLED. The LG Group has recently put LG Philips LCD in sole charge of the AMOLED project earlier carried out jointly by LG Electronics and LG Philips LCD.


But if AMOLED manufacturers are to take the initiative in the display market, they need to make at least 20-inch monitor screens and 30 to 40-inch screens for digital TVs at affordable prices. The industry predicts that the day will come in four to five years.


Samsung SDI's Kim Jae-wook said, "We've already finished development of AMOLED for 17-inch TVs. The question is whether we can supply them at a competitive price or earn profits, so we'll decide whether to advance into the AMOLED TV market in earnest after studying the market situation."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The OLED gold rush begins* 
*13 October 2007*


The great OLED gold rush is on. With both Sony and Samsung SDI making the running with the next generation display technology, other panel-makers are keen to play catch-up. The world’s second-biggest maker of panels, joint-venture company LG.Philips is negotiating with LG Electronics to acquire its OLED division. Kwon Young-soo, CEO of LG.Philips, says he expects to obtain the operation early 2008.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seiko Epson to enter ultra-thin panel business* 
*14 October 2007*


TOKYO: Japan's Seiko Epson Corp plans to make ultra-thin flat displays based on organic light-emitting diode technology (OLED) after it expanded the lifespan of the panels, a daily said on Sunday.


The electronics maker has a production line at its Nagano plant and aims to take orders for OLED panels by the end of the year. The plant is capable of manufacturing several thousand OLED panels a year, the daily said.


The company has expanded the life span of OLED panels to more than 50,000 hours compared with the maximum life of standard OLED devices, which is typically 30,000 hours, Nikkei said.


OLED panels, which emit light when an electrical charge is passed through the surface, are lighter and thinner than existing LCD panels or plasma displays, and boast higher contrast pictures, but are also more expensive.


The company plans to start making an eight-inch business-use OLED monitor that is 2.8 millimetre thick at its thinnest part. The production line is also capable of manufacturing larger models of up to 21 inches, the daily said.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seiko Epson set to enter OEL panel battleground* 
*15 October 2007*


Seiko Epson Corp plans to enter the organic electroluminescent (OEL) panels business in a move seen as increasing already severe competition in the flat-panel display sector, a report said yesterday.


Seiko Epson was seeking to take orders for the panels by the end of the year, as it has succeeded in extending the life span of OEL panels to compete with liquid-crystal-display (LCD) and plasma displays, the Nikkei Shimbun said, citing unnamed company sources.


OEL display panels use less power and offer brighter images and wider viewing angles than liquid crystal display panels.


However, the maximum life span of standard OEL devices is typically 30,000 hours, far fewer than the 60,000 hours for LCD and standard plasma displays.


Seiko Epson has now found a way to nearly double the life span of OEL panels to more than 50,000 hours, it said.


The company plans to start its OEL production with an eight-inch business-use monitor that is 2.8mm-thick at its thinnest part in its plant in Nagano Prefecture, the report said.


The company anticipates demand from stores and other commercial facilities as well as for use as monitors in car navigation systems, it said.


Rivalry over the booming global demand for flat-screen TVs has been intensifying among Japanese companies.


Electronics giant Sony Corp has said it plans to begin selling the world's first OEL television in December at a price of ¥200,000 (US$1,700).


Sony's next generation TV has a screen with a thickness of just 3mm, which was made possible because the organic display is self-luminescent and does not require a backlight.


Sharp Corp, the world's largest maker of LCD displays, said in August it had developed a 52-inch LCD TV that is just 2cm thick.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*[FPD International] Epson Develops Long-Life OLED Display System; Produces "Ultimate Black"* 
*16 October 2007*













Seiko Epson Corp has developed an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display system said to be capable of producing "the ultimate black". The light emitting capabilities of OLED displays make possible such features as high contrast, wide viewing angles, and fast response times. In addition, the display can be made very thin and lightweight.


To realize the high-quality representation of textures, Epson has been uncompromising in its efforts to achieve "ultimate black" since it is black that holds the key to overall image quality. Furthermore, the problem of early stage brightness deterioration, until now the major obstacle to extending the life of the device, was solved by improving the light-emitting materials and through the development of the company's own original element structure. As a result, the life of the device is lengthened to more than 50,000 hours, a level appropriate for practical application.


Epson has already installed and commenced operations of a development and manufacturing line that is capable of small-scale production at its Fujimi Plant in Nagano prefecture, Japan.


The company will showcase the OLED panel as a reference exhibit at FPD International 2007, which will open Oct 24, 2007, in Yokohama City, Japan.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*[FPD International] Tokki, GE Co-develop Film Sealing Equipment for Organic EL Devices* 
*23 October 2007*











*Samples made with the film sealing equipment. The luminous layer is about

1 × 1cm. Sealing films cover the luminous layers. Transparent ITO electrodes look

like crossing at right angles on the luminous layers.
*



Tokki Corp prototyped a plasma CVD (chemical vapor deposition) film sealing equipment for organic EL devices and confirmed its ability by sealing some organic EL layers. The company has been developing the equipment with GE Global Research, central laboratory of General Electric Co of the US.


By improving the productivity of the equipment, Tokki aims to release sealing equipments for mass production of organic EL devices within 2008. Compared with glass sealing, which is currently used, film sealing enables to reduce the number of parts and devices and can be applied to flexible panels, the company said.


The prototype of the equipment will be exhibited at FPD International 2007 from Oct 24, 2007, at Pacifico Yokohama, Yokohama City, Japan.


The newly-developed sealing equipment can be used for the fourth-generation glass substrates (730 × 920mm), which the company's other organic EL device manufacturing equipments can deal with. The verification of the technology was conducted with a 200 × 200mm glass substrate.


An Alq3 organic EL layer, which is about 1 × 1cm and sandwiched between transparent ITO electrodes, was formed on the glass substrate. Then, thin sealing films of several nanometers thick were accumulated on the layer.


The sealing films were developed by GE Global Research. Several organic and inorganic layers are piled up to form a barrier film that prevents a luminous layer from deteriorating by protecting it from humidity and gases.


Compositions of the organic and inorganic layers are gradually changed to form a film so that the degree of adhesion between layers increases. And the high degree of adhesion will help to prevent cracks on the film when it is used for flexible substrates in the future, the company said. Its gas barrier ability is in the level of 10-6g/m2 per day.


Film sealing does not need sealing glass, adhesive, desiccant agent and others. Also, film sealing enables to make thinner devices because it does not require glass.


Glass sealing requires about five processes such as cleaning sealing glass and vacuum degassing in addition to automated transportation systems between those processes. In film sealing, only one process, vacuum chamber, is needed.


"We want to cut the price of the equipment by half (compared with glass sealing equipments)," said Osamu Oshinden, senior manager of the corporate planning department in Tokki.


To achieve this goal, in the second stage of the joint development, settings will be adjusted to improve productivity by reducing takt time and using larger substrates, he said. The first target will be OLED panels, but flexible OLED panels and OLED lamps will be the next targets, he added.


Tokki and GE announced in January 2007 that they launched a one-year joint development project toward the practical use of film sealing technologies for organic EL devices.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CMEL to expand OLED production* 
*25 October 2007*











*CMEL exhibits a 25-inch AMOLED panel at the ongoing FPD International 2007 in Japan*



Chi Mei EL Corporation (CMEL), a subsidiary of Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO), has announced that the company will invest NT$1 billion (US$30.6 million) to expand to a second OLED production line. Volume production is slated for 2008, said CMO president Chao-Yang Ho.


As present order amount at the company is higher than its available capacity, CMEL thus decided to expand its OLED panel production, and plans to begin volume production at the expansion in the third quarter of 2008. The second line will house a monthly capacity of 700,000 2-inch equivalent panels, Ho detailed. CMEL currently mainly produces OLED panels at 2.4- and 2.8-inch with yields averaging above 65%. Handset vendors from China and Korea are key customers of the company.


Besides the planned expansion, Ho said CMEL will introduce a 4.3-inch OLED panel during the first quarter of 2008. Another OLED panel sized at 7.6-inch will be launched in the second quarter, he added. Ho further noted that when the second OLED production line starts operation, CMEL will also introduce 11- and 12-inch panel production and *expects to offer 32-inch AMOLED panels during 2010*.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*At Flat Panel Display International 2007, It is Not Business as Usual* 
*25 October 2007*


I am writing this in Yokohama, where Flat Panel Display International (FPDI) 2007 is in full swing. There is more than the usual level of excitement here, and that’s not only because the flat-panel display industry is rapidly growing and (finally) highly profitable. There is also the sense that exciting technical changes are afoot. In short, this is not just evolutionary business as usual.


For one thing, there are lots of active-matrix OLEDs here, with Samsung SDI and CMEL presenting a range of small AMOLEDs that are in volume production now. CMEL’s displays are being made with a non-laser annealing process for making the low-temperature polysilicon (LTPS) backplane, which is a very significant development because it offers a clear path to shattering one half of Gen 4 limitation that currently afflicts AMOLED manufacturing and keeps costs higher than those for roughly equivalent LCDs. LG.Philips LCD was also showing a display fabricated with a furnace-based crystallization process that will not heat standard display glass beyond its yield point. Unlike CMEL, LPL’s process does not use a catalyst, but LPL is still in the demonstration phase. We may see some furnace-based LPL product next year.


--- CUT (non-OLED-related material) ---


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*[FPD International] Samsung SDI VP Indicates OLED Panel Roadmap in Keynote Session* 
*29 October 2007*











*Samsung SDI's OLED Products roadmap*



"It is Samsung SDI that is supplying OLED panel products now," said Ho Kyoon Chung, executive vice president and CTO, Corporate R&D Center, Samsung SDI Co Ltd of Korea, in the FPD Summit (keynote session) at the "FPD International 2007 Forum" October 24.


He presented the company's OLED panel roadmap and said, "OLED panels have opened the new era of organic optoelectronics. Not only displays but also new applications such as OLED lighting systems, organic electro-luminescent power generators and organic sensors will emerge in the near future."


"In the mobile display industry, the shift from monochrome to color displays formed the first wave, the realization of high-resolution TFT panels made the second wave and active matrix OLED panels will be the third wave," Chung said. "The OLED panel market will grow to US$3.7 billion in 2010."


Regarding the company's production scale, "We initiated OLED panel volume production in September 2007 and our current output is 1.5 million units per month on a 2-inch panel basis," he said. "The output will reach 3 million units per month in 2008.".


Explaining the company's product development roadmap, Chung said, "Following small panels used in 2007, 3.5- to 7-inch panels including 4.1-inch panels will be applied to ultra mobile PCs, for example, in 2008. Then we will realize 14-, 15- and 21-inch panels in 2009 and large 40- to 42-inch full HD (high definition) OLED TVs in 2010."


"We will provide a flexible OLED display by 2012 at the latest," he added.


As for OLED lighting systems, Chung said, "It won't be long before we commercialize them," because the OLED's light emitting efficiency is currently doubling every year. The company currently achieves 50lm/W luminance, a life of 20,000 hours till the initial luminance halves and a color rendering property of more than 80 colors.


"Our cost goal is 1 euro cent per lumen," said Chung.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Sony OLED HDTVs May Come to America This Year* 
*2 November 2007*

*Sony says OLED HDTVs could see America stores this year depending on Japanese demand*


Many home theater enthusiasts have high hopes for OLED technology -- hopes that not only will OLED HDTV sets require less power but that they also will be significantly thinner and provide better color reproduction and image quality.


Engadget is reporting that Sony Electronics President Stan Glasgow revealed in talks this morning with journalists at the Sony Club in New York that, “OLED could come (to the U.S.) before the end of the year." The catch is that OLED HDTVs coming to America is dependent on the demand in Japan and panel supply. In other words if Sony’s OLED XEL-1 is a big hit in Japan, we won’t be seeing them this year in America.


Sony announced its 3mm thick XEL-1 OLED HDTV almost exactly one month ago to lustful stares from home theater fans around the world. The screen size was small at 11-inches and the price was high at about $1744 USD. The Sony XEL-1 OLED TV left many outside Japan reaching for their wallets only to be told the TV wasn’t available outside Japan.


There have been several other announcements in the OLED arena recently with Toshiba announcing that it would have 30-inch OLED HDTVs on the market by 2009. Toshiba, however, stated that the problem with OLED technology was that the method for producing the OLED panels was immature accounting for the increased cost and longer lead times before panels were available.


Just last week Samsung’s Executive Vice President and CTO, Ho Kyoon Chung, unveiled its roadmap for OLED products. Samsung expects to have 40 to 42-inch OLED panels on the market by 2010.


While Toshiba and Samsung make promises to get OLED HDTVs into the hands of consumers, Sony is actually doing it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*UPDATE 2-Canon to take majority stake in Tokki for $69 mln* 
*13 November 2007*


TOKYO, Nov 13 (Reuters) - Canon Inc said it aims to take a majority stake in Tokki Corp, a supplier of flat panel-making equipment, for $69 million or more to speed development of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) panels.


Canon has been developing OLED panels in a bid to replace liquid crystal display (LCD) panels, which it now procures from outside suppliers for digital camera, camcorder and printer displays.


Canon is the world's largest digital camera maker competing with Sony Corp and Olympus Corp, while Tokki is the world's No.1 maker of tools used to make OLED displays.


Canon will offer 556 yen per share in a tender offer planned for 20 working days between Nov. 14 and Dec. 12, aiming to buy at least 3.07 million shares. The offer price is at a 22 percent premium over Tokki's closing price on Tuesday.


The Tokyo-based company also plans to buy 14.2 million new Tokki shares in a third-party allocation, paying 417 yen per share.


In total, Canon aims to take at least a 51 stake in Tokki for 7.6 billion yen ($69 million) or more.


OLED displays use organic, or carbon-containing, compounds that emit light when electricity is applied. Unlike LCD panels, they do not need backlighting, making OLED panels slimmer and more energy-efficient.


OLED panels also offer bright colours and images that are easy to see outdoors, an ideal trait for camera displays.


Canon said it may offer small-sized flat TVs using OLED displays in the future.


For the large-sized TV market, Canon has been developing another type of flat panel TVs based on surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED) technology.


Ahead of the announcement, shares in Canon closed down 1.3 percent at 5,360 yen, while Tokki was down 1.5 percent at 456 yen, underperforming the Nikkei average, which fell 0.5 percent. ($1=110.09 Yen)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Sony's XEL-1 OLED TV pre-sales begin in Japan* 
*14 November 2007*


While it's not scheduled for release until December 1st, Sony is now taking pre-orders for its super-slim XEL-1 OLED TV. Japan only, though we're hopeful for a US release too. Sure, it costs ¥200,000 (about $1,800) for 11-inches of set that will only last about 30,000 hours -- less than that of an LCD. Still, that's only $0.0018 per unit of its 1M:1 contrast ratio. See, affordable.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED chemists have a bright idea* 
*23 November 2007*











*A pixel made from the new material, which can emit red,

green and blue light, allows OLED devices to comprise only two layers*



Organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) can be made more cheaply and easily thanks to a new molecule made by Chinese chemists. OLEDs use less power than liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and can be made much thinner, so making them cheaper and longer-lasting is important for the electronics industry.


Most OLED materials need several layers to provide a flow of electrons and 'holes', or spaces where electrons can move into, and other layers to stop the flow of electrons or holes in the right places. But the new molecule improves on current OLED designs by performing several necessary electronic functions in just one layer. It can also be treated to emit all the colours required for laptop and mobile phone displays.


The new molecule comprises a quinoxaline group, which accepts electrons very readily, and bulky polyphenyl groups, which stop the molecules sticking together and losing energy by nonradiative pathways - this means it can take the place of several layers in the OLED.


The work provides 'a simple and effective approach to construct[ing] highly efficient and multicoloured OLEDs,' the researchers say. One of the authors of the paper, Yunqi Liu of the Beijing National Laboratory for Molecular Sciences, Beijing, told Chemistry World: 'Our research opens a way for designing and applying multifunctional materials in OLEDs to simplify the fabrication process.'


But John de Mello, senior lecturer in nanomaterials at Imperial College London, UK, suggests the material isn't ready to use on a commercial basis. 'This is a very interesting approach to colour tuning in organic light-emitting diodes, although one that may require further optimisation for practical use,' he said. 'The devices appear to have rather high current and voltage demands, which suggests alternative materials systems may be needed to achieve adequate power efficiencies.'


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Toshiba shelves plan to sell OLED TVs in 2009/10* 
*10 December 2007*


TOKYO, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Japan's Toshiba Corp said on Tuesday it has shelved plans to sell ultra-thin OLED (organic light-emitting diode) TVs in 2009/10 because of the cost of mass production.

Toshiba will stick to its plans to make OLED displays for mobile phones and will see if making OLED TVs is financially viable later, Toshiba spokesman Keisuke Ohmori said. (Reporting by Mayumi Negishi)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Is there room for OLED technology in the TV market?* 
*11 December 2007*











*Source: iSuppli, compiled by Digitimes, December 2007*



After examining Sony's 11-inch OLED (organic light emitting diode) TV exhibited at iSuppli's Flat Information Displays (FID) 2007 conference last week, there is no denying how stunning the picture is. But because the OLED TV market is still in its infancy, with the Sony set being the first to be manufactured and sold to consumers, it's unreasonable to expect it to compete effectively with LCD or PDP (plasma display panel) TVs at this time, according to research firm iSuppli.


However, this begs the question: Will OLED TV ever be able to match up with LCD and PDP TVs?


"It will be a challenge for OLED to catch up, given the investments that have been put into the other technologies," said Paul Semenza, vice president of displays at iSuppli, speaking at FID 2007 last week. "But there is no doubt about its performance and there is a lot of potential for the display technology, maybe in mobile applications."


With Sony being the first to throw its hat into the OLED TV ring, due to its introduction of the 11-inch set this month in Japan at a price of US$1,800, shipment volumes are expected to be very small, targeting a small niche of well-heeled, tech-savvy consumers.


And even at such a high price, Sony indicated that it is taking a loss on the sale of each OLED set, according to Vinita Jakhanwal, principal analyst for mobile displays at iSuppli.


A few more brands are likely to enter the OLED TV market in 2009, including Toshiba and Panasonic. The major motivation for these companies' entrance into the market is to make a statement to the industry that they are capable of producing OLED TVs, Jakhanwal added.

*OLED problems and benefits*


Semenza stressed that despite the obstacles, iSuppli does not discount the prospects and potential of OLED technology. However, there are a number of fundamental technology and market challenges that must be resolved before OLEDs can make a real impact in the market.


One of these challenges is the fact that active-matrix OLED (AMOLED) panel manufacturing is still an inefficient process, Jakhanwal said. As the size of OLED displays becomes larger, the yields and manufacturing losses also get larger.


"As a result, AMOLED products are going to be small-sized displays, for applications such as mobile phones and personal media players (PMPs) for a few more years," Jakhanwal said. "OLED suppliers still are struggling with improving yield rates and low manufacturing efficiencies for small-sized displays."


Furthermore, OLED material lifetimes are still an issue for products that require long lifetimes such as televisions. Add to this the fact that AMOLED suppliers cannot guarantee high volumes because the technology is coming from a single source.


However, OLED TV has a number of great upsides, including: OLED TVs use no backlights, so they offer potential power-savings benefits compared to other technologies. Because they have no backlights and use only a single glass substrate, OLED TVs can be very thin.


The response time for OLED TVs is very fast, so there is no motion blur while watching television. OLED TVs have a much richer color gamut than competing display technologies.


iSuppli forecasts the global OLED TV market will reach 2.8 million units by 2013, managing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 212.3% from just 3,000 units in 2007. In terms of global revenue, OLED TV will hit US$1.4 billion by 2013, increasing at a CAGR of 206.8% from US$2 million in 2007.

*Potential is everything*


Because OLEDs already serve as small panels for mobile handsets, PMPs and other small handheld devices, it is safe to assume OLED TVs could be a natural fit for automotive infotainment, mobile television, kitchen televisions or other consumer electronics devices that want to add small-screen sets.


The main challenge for the OLED TV industry is making large-enough panels that could be sold at reasonable prices in order to compete against the other television technologies.


Still, iSuppli believes that OLED TV is promising in the long term. Reducing power consumption, extending lifetimes, achieving larger sizes and attaining reasonable pricing eventually will help OLED TV to be competitive, but in the meantime, it will find a place in applications that require small sets.


----------



## Blackraven

Thanks for the updates


----------



## ____












Sony XEL-1 Next generation Display


*World first OLED TV.

*Natural color

*Wide color gamut

*High contrast

*High speed response

*Low energy consumption

*Soon


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *____* /forum/post/11755924
> 
> 
> Sony XEL-1 Next generation Display



Maybe.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/...-Ceatec_1.html


----------



## ____




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms* /forum/post/11762205
> 
> 
> Maybe.
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/...-Ceatec_1.html



It's on Sony.jp webstore, so we are talking about actual product here.

http://www.sony.jp/event/special/ 


"coming soon"


Check that page's source and translate it to English.


----------



## ____

Now it's official: story .











Price ~$1750.


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *____* /forum/post/11775770
> 
> 
> Now it's official:



You were right.


It's so tiny, yet so expensive. I would buy a 27" for $1K, though.


----------



## HiDef Bob

I certainly will be following Sony's development of the OLED with interest. At least they have made a start. For now I will buy a Pioneer Plasma (Pro-150FD) ... but my next TV my well be a Sony OLED if they can advance to large screens (60") at a competitive price.


----------



## elmalloc

its not too bad, i was expecting sony to unveil technology around 10K for no reason.

http://www.i4u.com/article11857.html


----------



## inky blacks

"Other stunning performance indicators include a dramatic 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio and a low 45W power consumption."


It sounds like a great technology, but has Sony solved the lifespan problem? How long will these things last? If they last 20,000. hours or more, that's OK. If it is less, then few will want to pay those high prices, no matter how good the contrast is.


Myself, I would like a 110" OLED screen, and at some future date that may be possible.


IB


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inky blacks* /forum/post/11784295
> 
> 
> It sounds like a great technology, but has Sony solved the lifespan problem? How long will these things last? If they last 20,000. hours or more, that's OK. If it is less, then few will want to pay those high prices, no matter how good the contrast is.



Sony has quoted a lifetime of 30,000 hours for the unit. I think the ultimate goal is 50,000 hours for OLED TV's, but this is pretty good for a first gen product.


Slacker


----------



## hoodlum




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/11787545
> 
> 
> Sony has quoted a lifetime of 30,000 hours for the unit. I think the ultimate goal is 50,000 hours for OLED TV's, but this is pretty good for a first gen product.
> 
> 
> Slacker



Is that for half-life? And at what brightness? Blues haven't reached the 30k hours at acceptable brightness yet so I would be very hesitant to accept this without having all of the information. Also, Active Matrix OLEDs will have the same "sample and hold" effect that LCD exhibit and based on the motion tests of 120hz LCDs, more work still needs to be done on this.


----------



## ____




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoodlum* /forum/post/11788227
> 
> 
> Also, Active Matrix OLEDs will have the same "sample and hold" effect that LCD exhibit and based on the motion tests of 120hz LCDs, more work still needs to be done on this.



Will they? What kind of work? Image interpolation and scanning are separate techs. Look at those scanlines.


----------



## slacker711

The 30,000 hours is the half-life for the luminance....overall brightness starts at 600 cd/m2.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...071002/140088/ 



Slacker


----------



## inky blacks

45 watts for a 5" tall by 10" wide (11" diagonal) screen is not efficient at all. That comes to 45 watts for 50 square inches, which means .9 watts per square inch of screen. Just imagine a 73" diagonal OLED screen which will have 2,304 square inches. Multiply that by .9 watts and you have impossible power consumption.


Am I missing something?


IB


----------



## ____




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inky blacks* /forum/post/11792890
> 
> 
> Am I missing something?



Most of those watts go to image processing circuits and that 45W rating is peak consumption(full white screen) afaik.


----------



## navychop

Yep. That 73 incher might only consume 60W.


----------



## HiDef Bob

Toshiba Corp. just announced plans to begin selling televisions with OLED screens as soon as panels are ready, according to a company spokeswoman. The first Toshiba OLED television sets should hit the market in 2009.


----------



## greenland

Same meaningless line of production promises that Toshiba made frequently about when they would deliver SED to consumers. Fool me once; well you know how the rest of it goes!


----------



## inky blacks




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HiDef Bob* /forum/post/11793752
> 
> 
> Toshiba Corp. just announced plans to begin selling televisions with OLED screens as soon as panels are ready



I am going to start selling viable dinosaur eggs and time machines as soon as my DNA and space-time research in complete. Would you like to make a deposit for a pre-order?


IB


----------



## dlp755




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HiDef Bob* /forum/post/11793752
> 
> 
> Toshiba Corp. just announced plans to begin selling televisions with OLED screens as soon as panels are ready, according to a company spokeswoman. The first Toshiba OLED television sets should hit the market in 2009.


 http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...v/article.html


----------



## maximum360

I'll check back in 3-4 years. Hopefully Sony or one of their competitors will have a 60" version ready and it won't be "Ferrari" priced. My 60" XBR2 is great for PQ and CR but black levels are only decent.


----------



## Karmilla

bump.


----------



## hoodlum

As expected OLED response time has a long way to go yet.

CEATEC 2007 Highlights 


"Viewing the set at CEATEC revealed a very high contrast image. Sony claims high motion resolution, however, based my viewing of Sony’s demo material on the XEL-1, the motion resolution was quite poor. One scene showed a yellow taxicab. When it was still, the writing on the cab’s door was very sharp, but once the taxi started moving, the image blurred considerably, to the point where the writing was totally illegible."


----------



## Isochroma

Implementation, implementation! The actual emitters run very fast, it's the driver circuit design which causes blurring.


----------



## echinatl

Epson develops long-life OLED panel.

http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20071015PR201.html


----------



## andystj




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/11891160
> 
> 
> Implementation, implementation! The actual emitters run very fast, it's the driver circuit design which causes blurring.



Or it could even be the source material.


----------



## Stew4msu

I started a thread on this in another forum, but nobody responded.


If you live in the San Antonio area, Bjorns is debuting their "room within a room" this weekend dedicated to Sony products. They'll have Sony reps on hand Friday, Saturday and Sunday to answer questions.


They'll also have an OLED TV on display.


If anyone goes, can you report back? Also, can you ask the reps about the Sony 70XBR5 (release date, weight, MSRP, etc.)?


----------



## Karmilla

bump.


----------



## Artwood

When will OLED break the 27-inch barrier?


----------



## slacker711

A Samsung SDI OLED roadmap shows a 40/42" full HD display slated for production in 2010. That's a bit later than Toshiba's schedule but that fact that they have spent $500 million in building an OLED plant lends their schedule a bit of credibility.


Oops, turns out I cant post links. You can copy and paste the following URL...

techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20071029/141477/ 



Slacker


----------



## navychop

Well, looks like OLED will *not* be my next TV. But maybe the TV after that.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/11966409
> 
> 
> When will OLED break the 27-inch barrier?



Some say Sony should release one within this decade (last report says that they'll have production model sometime in year 2009).


I just hope that there are no more delays for this 1080p model and that lifespan (esp. for blues and whites) should at least be at 60k hours by then. According to Sony Japan, their XEL-1 OLED TV is rated at 30k hours. So I guess there is progress being made so hopefully that 60k mark would come before year 2010.


Nevertheless, the 27-incher will definitely come from Sony. As for a 30-incher OLED TV, I guess Toshiba would be doing it (as they don't seem that keen on their SED TV project due to the lawsuits and stuff) while 40-inchers and above would most definitely be handled by Samsung SDI.


In anycase, my personal stand is that my primary bets are on OLED and that I have lost faith in SED. Heck, I'd rather put my secondary and teritiary bets on Laser TV and/or FED TV instead. I'm really disappointed in that the SED camp hasn't mentioned anything at all recently. Heck, the last thing that they said was regarding the court/patent battle and the sale of Toshiba's SEDTV assets to Canon but that's it. Heck, the SED camp wasn't even at CEATEC 2007 or at FPD International 2007 or even at CEDIA 2007 either.


So I don't need to explain further in that my bets go to OLED TV (then followed by Laser TV and FED TV).







SED TV has lost my vote in the next-gen display battle.










Heck, I now feel that I don't want SED TV to even come in to the market anymore. At the moment, I long for it to die a natural death instead for I feel that with what's going on with it, it rather not exist.


P.S.

Whoa, I didn't Samsung revealed a new roadmap for OLED a few days ago. This is without a doubt good news for OLED TV technology.


----------



## Auditor55




> Quote:
> SED TV has lost my vote in the next-gen display battle.



I did know a ballot was open


----------



## Auditor55




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/12109126
> 
> 
> Well, looks like OLED will *not* be my next TV. But maybe the TV after that.



That is why I think the display manufacturers need to be get behind SED. Both SED and OLED are vastly superior to what we have today, but with SED we at least have a 55 inch prototype.


I would love to see both SED and OLED. OLED to take over from LCD and SED to take over from Plasma.


----------



## greenland

Canon shifts focus from SED to OLED

http://www.displaydaily.com/index.php 




SED ends, Not with a Bang but a Whimper

November 15th, 2007


Yesterday, Daniel den Engelsen (of Southeast University, Nanjing, and ABINFO, Brazil, among other affiliations) delivered a closely reasoned, highly entertaining, and exceedingly well-informed presentation at LatinDisplay 2007 here. His topic? "The Temptation of FEDs." His conclusion? That although several aspects of FEDs are tempting in principle, all who yielded to those temptations over the last 25 years failed to produce a commercially viable display and lost a lot of money - and that pattern is unlikely to change. Daan worked on FEDs at Philips and knows whereof he speaks.


Ken Werner

Senior Analyst and Editor


Before, during, and after Daan’s talk there was lively speculation about the fate of Canon’s SED program. Unknown to most of the people engaged in those discussions, Canon had just made an announcement that probably marks the end of its SED program.


In a November 13th press release issued in Tokyo, Canon announced that its Board of Directors had agreed to acquire a majority interest of Tokki Corporation and make Tokki a consolidated subsidiary of Canon. One of Tokki’s businesses is the development, design, manufacturing and marketing of production equipment for organic LED displays (as well as thin-film solar panels).


The press release quotes Canon’s global corporation plan, launched in 2006, which says that, in addition to "securing the overwhelming number one position worldwide in all current core businesses, Canon is focusing on the launching of display operations as a new business. As one of the initiatives in these efforts, the company is diligently working to develop organic LED elements and process technologies targeting the application of an organic LED display product."

HDTV Expert


Tokki has lost money for the last three years, and is "in financially challenging circumstances," according to Canon. But Canon thinks that adding Tokki to the corporate stable will allow Canon to significantly speed up development of OLED displays, and create synergy with Canon subsidiary Canon ANELVA, which manufactures vacuum and thin-film processing equipment.


Tokki has agreed to Canon’s tender offer, and the two companies signed a capital alliance agreement on the 13th.


In past discussions of displays by Canon, it was SED that was front and center. In Wednesday’s release, SED wasn’t even mentioned. Talk about going out with a whimper. But this whimper is long overdue.


As far as OLEDs are concerned, at least we know it’s possible to make them in quantity, unlike SEDs. Whether Canon can make and sell a competitive product remains to be seen, but we can be sure Canon Chairman and CEO Fujio Mitarai will not be satisfied with making 2-inch cell-phone displays. His dream for SEDs was to include them in Canon-branded TV sets. The display technology may have changed, but I will bet you a martini to a peanut that Mitarai-san’s dream of a Canon TV has not.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Auditor55* /forum/post/12234745
> 
> 
> I did know a ballot was open



It was figure of speech.


I guess you've taken my post way beyond context (but I won't blame you for that







)


You can blame Canon though for its announcement that they may consider reducing funding for their SED program and contribute more money/investment/capital into OLED TV instead.


Read the article posted by 'greenland' to find out why.


----------



## Auditor55




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/12242471
> 
> 
> It was figure of speech.
> 
> 
> I guess you've taken my post way beyond context (but I won't blame you for that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> You can blame Canon though for its announcement that they may consider reducing funding for their SED program and contribute more money/investment/capital into OLED TV instead.
> 
> 
> Read the article posted by 'greenland' to find out why.



You notice in that article there isn't one quote from Canon saying that they have officially ended plans to manufacturer SED TV's.


That article was obviously written by some SED hater, who probably have stocks in Pioneer.


----------



## Elemental1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Auditor55* /forum/post/12261747
> 
> 
> You notice in that article there isn't one quote from Canon saying that they have officially ended plans to manufacturer SED TV's.
> 
> 
> That article was obviously written by some SED hater, who probably have stocks in Pioneer.



Nah that was another post by Greenland.









That great big plasma tout.










Be careful..I hear he carries a big lamp.


----------



## hoodlum

 OLED display revenues disappoint in Q3 2007 


"In what was expected to be a strong quarter with Samsung SDI reaching their full production goal of 1.5 million (M) AMOLED displays per month, the company barely reached the 100K mark down from 350K in Q2'07 as reported in DisplaySearch's latest Quarterly OLED Shipment and Forecast Report. The low production level left the OLED display industry with revenues of only US$78.3M in Q3'07 down 38% Y/Y and 31% Q/Q. Shipments were 15.5M for the quarter, down 32% Y/Y and 22% Q/Q."


----------



## Triaxtremec

Sony was at the store I work at and brought its new OLED panel with it. The thing was sweet as all hell. I talked to Sony's marketing rep of North America and he said they hope to have the 27" out withing 5 years but it would retail roughly around $1800. They just have to find a way to make it cheap.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Triaxtremec* /forum/post/12334964
> 
> 
> Sony was at the store I work at and brought its new OLED panel with it. The thing was sweet as all hell. I talked to Sony's marketing rep of North America and he said they hope to have the 27" out withing 5 years but it would retail roughly around $1800. They just have to find a way to make it cheap.



You know what. If they price that 27 incher at 1800-2000 American dollars, then I think that it is a pretty solid deal already. For a TV that uses tech that is relatively new for HDTV use, I think that is already a plus in my book.


Not to mention that by that time, overall lifespan would go way beyond the 60,000 hour lifespan (esp. with blues and whites reaching record lifespans) so this would be cool to see IMHO.


----------



## navychop

In 5 years, who's going to be buying 27" TVs? I'll bet the average TV sold by then will be closer to 40", probably in the 36"-42" range.


----------



## dsurkin

navychop:

It depends upon available space. My wife's cherished teak wall unit, holding the TV in our den, can only accommodate a 26" or 27" widescreen TV. The WAF thus ruled out anything larger.


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsurkin* /forum/post/12403634
> 
> 
> navychop:
> 
> It depends upon available space. My wife's cherished teak wall unit, holding the TV in our den, can only accommodate a 26" or 27" widescreen TV. The WAF thus ruled out anything larger.



Well, you could find some other place for wall unit...maybe an office room or a bedroom.


In this day & age, w/the ability to watch great movies at home, whether on HDTV, or DVD, or HD-DVD/BluRay you should consider upgrading to a screen size that would benefit from these new video technologies and provide you a more Home Theater environment.


Back in late December 2002, I upgraded to HDTV from a 27" Sony XBR to a 40" Sony XBR. This upgrade increased my viewing screen size by 119% ( www.cavecreations.com ), and I can't stress enough how great the impact this TV upgrade provided me. The term "night & day" when comparing against my older 27"XBR does not even seem adequate enough to describe the super effects & enjoyment this upgrade has given me over the past 5 years. My next TV Upgrade will be in the 60+" screen size, which after learning more & more about HT, I feel is the best screen size for my viewing distance. This will increase my present screen size 50% for 4:3, and about 166% for 16:9 movies.


Maybe you could get your wife onboard w/this upgrade by taking her along to demo TV's and letting her read some Home Theater magazine articles, etc. I definitely would not let a piece of furniture designed attractively for the purpose to hold/display stuff to deter me from achieving an HT experience in my home. No offense, but I can guarantee you that you both will benefit so much more and in so many ways from a good Home Theater A/V system than you are presently getting from a teak wall unit.


----------



## greenland

Here is a link to a site that has purchased the new Sony OLED display and have taken it apart to examine the internal components.


There is also a Windows Media video clip on the site showing them taking the display apart. Enjoy.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...071127/143111/ 




*[Breaking Down OLED TV] We Got Sony's OLED TV
*


----------



## CMRA

FWIW, I saw one (11 inch) Sony at SonyStyle yesterday. I'm planning a return trip back with a few BDs to 'ckeck it out'.


----------



## SephirothXR

I'm buying a new TV, a 58" plasma. Will Oleds get this big, or is it already hard enough for them to get to even 40? What about 50? Would we see 50"+ Oleds by the end of this year?


----------



## greenland

Sony says that they are losing money on each 11 inch OLED panel that they sell.

http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20071211PR200.html 









Is there room for OLED technology in the TV market?

Press release, December 11; Emily Chuang, DIGITIMES [Tuesday 11 December 2007]









After examining Sony's 11-inch OLED (organic light emitting diode) TV exhibited at iSuppli's Flat Information Displays (FID) 2007 conference last week, there is no denying how stunning the picture is. But because the OLED TV market is still in its infancy, with the Sony set being the first to be manufactured and sold to consumers, it's unreasonable to expect it to compete effectively with LCD or PDP (plasma display panel) TVs at this time, according to research firm iSuppli.

However, this begs the question: Will OLED TV ever be able to match up with LCD and PDP TVs?

"It will be a challenge for OLED to catch up, given the investments that have been put into the other technologies," said Paul Semenza, vice president of displays at iSuppli, speaking at FID 2007 last week. "But there is no doubt about its performance and there is a lot of potential for the display technology, maybe in mobile applications."

With Sony being the first to throw its hat into the OLED TV ring, due to its introduction of the 11-inch set this month in Japan at a price of US$1,800, shipment volumes are expected to be very small, targeting a small niche of well-heeled, tech-savvy consumers.

And even at such a high price, Sony indicated that it is taking a loss on the sale of each OLED set, according to Vinita Jakhanwal, principal analyst for mobile displays at iSuppli.

A few more brands are likely to enter the OLED TV market in 2009, including Toshiba and Panasonic. The major motivation for these companies' entrance into the market is to make a statement to the industry that they are capable of producing OLED TVs, Jakhanwal added.

OLED problems and benefits

Semenza stressed that despite the obstacles, iSuppli does not discount the prospects and potential of OLED technology. However, there are a number of fundamental technology and market challenges that must be resolved before OLEDs can make a real impact in the market.

One of these challenges is the fact that active-matrix OLED (AMOLED) panel manufacturing is still an inefficient process, Jakhanwal said. As the size of OLED displays becomes larger, the yields and manufacturing losses also get larger.

"As a result, AMOLED products are going to be small-sized displays, for applications such as mobile phones and personal media players (PMPs) for a few more years," Jakhanwal said. "OLED suppliers still are struggling with improving yield rates and low manufacturing efficiencies for small-sized displays."

Furthermore, OLED material lifetimes are still an issue for products that require long lifetimes such as televisions. Add to this the fact that AMOLED suppliers cannot guarantee high volumes because the technology is coming from a single source.

However, OLED TV has a number of great upsides, including: OLED TVs use no backlights, so they offer potential power-savings benefits compared to other technologies. Because they have no backlights and use only a single glass substrate, OLED TVs can be very thin.

The response time for OLED TVs is very fast, so there is no motion blur while watching television. OLED TVs have a much richer color gamut than competing display technologies.

iSuppli forecasts the global OLED TV market will reach 2.8 million units by 2013, managing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 212.3% from just 3,000 units in 2007. In terms of global revenue, OLED TV will hit US$1.4 billion by 2013, increasing at a CAGR of 206.8% from US$2 million in 2007.

Potential is everything

Because OLEDs already serve as small panels for mobile handsets, PMPs and other small handheld devices, it is safe to assume OLED TVs could be a natural fit for automotive infotainment, mobile television, kitchen televisions or other consumer electronics devices that want to add small-screen sets.

The main challenge for the OLED TV industry is making large-enough panels that could be sold at reasonable prices in order to compete against the other television technologies.

Still, iSuppli believes that OLED TV is promising in the long term. Reducing power consumption, extending lifetimes, achieving larger sizes and attaining reasonable pricing eventually will help OLED TV to be competitive, but in the meantime, it will find a place in applications that require small sets.









Source: iSuppli, compiled by Digitime


----------



## hoodlum

 Toshiba shelves plan to sell 30" OLED TV in 2009/10


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SephirothXR* /forum/post/12420067
> 
> 
> I'm buying a new TV, a 58" plasma. Will Oleds get this big, or is it already hard enough for them to get to even 40? What about 50? Would we see 50"+ Oleds by the end of this year?



Maybe by the end of 2012. But I wouldn't bet on it.


----------



## pkeegan

EngadgetHD is reporting that Samsung is going to show a 31" OLED at CES.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/13...led-tv-at-ces/


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pkeegan* /forum/post/12484838
> 
> 
> EngadgetHD is reporting that Samsung is going to show a 31" OLED at CES.
> http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/13...led-tv-at-ces/



Perhaps; but Engadget appears to be not fully sure of what it is reporting. Here is their headline. Notice their use of a question mark. That reads like they are asking if it really can be believed.
*Samsung to show 31-inch OLED TV at CES?*


----------



## navychop

Perhaps the key is *"A"* 31 incher. A demo unit. Wouldn't even need to have a half life of more than a few hundred hours.


----------



## vtms

 http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...071213/144198/ 



> Quote:
> "The problem is power consumption." Katsuji Fujita, president of Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co Ltd, explained the challenges that need to be overcome before the commercialization of OLED panels for TV applications at a Toshiba Corp press get together in Tokyo Dec 12, 2007.
> 
> 
> Toshiba had declared that it would release a 30-inch class OLED TV in 2009. However, the company indicated a plan to postpone the schedule. TMD is the company that is developing a panel for this OLED TV.
> 
> 
> Explaining why commercialization has been postponed from the initial schedule, TMD's President Fujita commented, "On a 30-inch class basis, an OLED panel's power consumption is two to three times larger than that of an LCD panel under current circumstances. We must lower the power requirement to make it less than an LCD. It will take a little more time."
> 
> 
> Fujita further said that, as well as the power reduction, TMD must establish a lower-cost production technology, which is expected to become available for practical application around 2010.


----------



## hoodlum

Now we can add power consumption to blue longevity and manufacturing costs that need to be resolved before OLED can scale. Like I have said many time we are still 5+ years away from a 40"+ OLED that is even close to the price of existing flat panel technologies.


Meanwhile LCD and Plasma will continue to advance.


----------



## dianaudio

What about computer displays? What are the chances of Sony, Samsung et al releasing desktop computer monitors that use OLED technology?


They might be expensive but certain section of consumers will buy given larger color gamut, reduced motion blur etc.


Are there some factors that make OLED displays inherently unsuited or inferior to LCD display panels in the market today?


----------



## navychop

I suspect computer monitors will be the first big market for them, especially for graphic designers and retailers that use displays to make sales to consumers.


OLED has the potential to become very cheap- about as cheap as CRTs were in their dying days, maybe cheaper. They have the potential to be made using ink jet technology, be flexible, and to use little power.


However, today they still use quite a bit of power, and their lifespan, especially for blue, needs work. Manufacturing hasn't caught up with theory, and better materials are still under development. Scaling them up is still quite difficult. And they are, and probably always will be, susceptible to water damage. So they'll need to be sealed. But hey, we've sealed CRT tubes in a vacuum for decades.


Joined July 2005 and just now making your first post? Must be real excited about OLED! Great!


----------



## dlp755

Technobabble: The ultimate last-minute gift


Earlier this year, Sony announced that the OLED TVs introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show in January would hit shelves in some form this December. They stuck to that promise. Released on December 1, the XEL-1 is an 11" model that sells for roughly $1,750. Sony is touting a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio, 940 x 540 resolution, and a total weight of—get this—3.3 pounds. The catch? It’s currently only available in Japan.


If you're not familiar with OLED, it's short for organic light-emitting diode. OLED is made of thin sheets of organic compound attached to an electrode. When electricity is applied to the film, it creates light. As with a plasma or LCD display, the amount of light created depends on the amount of voltage applied. OLEDs are capable of producing brighter, crisper images than regular LEDs or LCDs and also consume much less power. Better yet, the screens are far thinner than flat-panel TVs on the market today. The XEL-1’s screen is 3mm thick—less than 1/8 of an inch. If engineered properly, an OLED could be hung on your wall like a picture.


If you want one, you'll have to hurry. Sony has only released 2,000 of these, so you better get on the horn with your friends in Japan ASAP. But wait until they're awake. You know, with the time difference and all.


For those of you without an extra ¥200,000, the HDTVs on the market in the U.S. are definitely the next best thing.


—Matthew West



http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/genericContent.do?oid=198863&WT.mc_n=681040&WT.mc_t=U&cm_ven=EMAIL&cm_cat=EPSILON-TRIGGER&cm_pla=EMA_CITYLIFE_200712- >BODY&cm_ite=263848%20CITY%20LIFE%20DECEMBER&cm_keycode=681040


At least they know to start teasing us already.


----------



## Isochroma

Top: Witchblade ep. 20 frame 2920

Bottom: Sony XEL-1 

 

 


The Witchblade design is superior - with a handle for easy movement, rotation (to show people in front of the desk, etc.) The series finished airing on September 21, 2006. The similarities in design reflect the Japanese way, but it is saddening to see the first design such a poor match compared to the Witchblade version.


----------



## CaseCom

Toshiba said Friday it's abandoning plans to develop OLED sets and will instead focus on next-gen LED technology as part of a deal with Sharp:

Link


----------



## LL3HD

Nothing in this article that folks here don't know. I find it interesting to see OLED is now getting mainstream coverage.

*NY Times*


December 23, 2007

NOVELTIES

*The Television Screen, Sliced Ever Thinner
*

By ANNE EISENBERG

IMAGINE a television set so thin that you could roll it up and carry it in your briefcase. It's not as far off as you might think.


The Sony Corporation is now selling a futuristic TV in Japan that is only about one-eighth of an inch thick that's one notch on a tailor's tape measure.


The new televisions, which began arriving in Japanese stores this month , have an 11-inch screen and cost 200,000 yen (almost $1,800), said Jon Reilly, a product marketing manager at Sony Electronics.


The sets replace the bulky backlighting of typical LCD televisions with a thin film that glows with colors even when viewed from the side. In January, Sony will announce the United States release date and pricing, Mr. Reilly said.


The Sony TV, called the XEL-1, owes its saturated colors and superlative slimness to the emerging technology of organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs.


OLED (pronounced OH-led) displays are produced not by the fluorescent bulbs of LCDs, but by organic chemicals deposited on film that shine brilliantly when a current passes through them.


The Sony sets are the first mass-produced flat-panel TVs in the world to use this technology, said Paul Semenza, vice president for display research at iSuppli, a market research firm in El Segundo, Calif. Other companies have shown prototypes of TVs. Smaller OLED panels are in use in some cellphones and portable video players.


OLEDs can produce extraordinary displays, Mr. Semenza said. The thinness and visual quality are stunning, he said.


But OLEDs pose no imminent threat to the increasing popularity of LCD televisions. LCD manufacturers have tens of billions of dollars invested in the current process, he said, and that money can lead to LCDs with thinner profiles and crisper images that crowd out OLED competitors.


LCDs are growing fast, and basically taking over the market, he said. About 76 million LCD televisions will be sold worldwide this year, and about 99 million next year, iSupply predicts. By 2011, sales of 165 million LCD sets are forecast. In contrast, he said, only about 13,000 of the new OLED televisions will be sold in 2008.


Consumers can buy a 50-inch LCD television for roughly the same price as the much smaller Sony OLED, he said, largely because of economies of scale.


But OLEDs may gradually become more popular, said Paul Gagnon, an analyst at DisplaySearch, a market research firm in Austin, Tex. There's speculation that beyond 2015, OLEDs could advance to become a creditable threat to the LCD flat-panel business, he said.


OLEDs have some technical advantages. LCDs typically use white light that is filtered into primary colors and remixed. You lose some of the breadth of the color spectrum that you see in the natural world, Mr. Semenza said of the process. But OLEDs, depending on the materials and processes, produce highly saturated individual colors that are then combined to make this broad color spectrum and wide viewing angle.


OLEDs also have the potential to be produced cheaply.


The materials emit their own light, he said, so you don't need the back or side lights of LCDs, or theoretically all of the color filters.


Small OLED panels are already starting to catch on in mobile displays in Asia, said Chris Chinnock, president of Insight Media, a market research firm in Norwalk, Conn. The OLED displays on mobile phones have the same advantages as the TV wide viewing angles, great colors and thinness, he said. All of those factors are very attractive if you are going to run TV and video on cellphones.


The semiconductor technology of light-emitting diodes is traditionally based on inorganic materials like silicon. In the new, parallel electronic universe of OLEDs, though, carbon-based organic materials provide the glow. Pioneering work in the technology was done in the 1950s by Martin Pope, now an emeritus chemistry professor at New York University. Sony displayed one of the new televisions at a recent symposium in honor of Professor Pope's classic work. I was amazed, he said. I couldn't believe that engineers could do that from my experiments with little jars and bottles.


ANOTHER pioneer in the field, Alan Heeger , a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who with others won a Nobel prize in chemistry in 2000 for work on plastics that can conduct electricity, was also delighted with the new TVs. He's looking forward to yet more development, when we can have the thin films of today on a flexible substrate rather than the present glass substrates, so that the TVs can be rolled up and tucked into a backpack.


When that happens, pocket TVs could become as ubiquitous as P.D.A.'s.


E-mail: [email protected] .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...ss&oref=slogin


----------



## vtms

 http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...123_16260.html 










> Quote:
> By Kim Yoo-chul
> 
> Staff Reporter
> 
> 
> Samsung SDI, a leading manufacturer of organic light-emitting diodes (OLED), is flexing its muscle with the successful development of a 31-inch flat panel ― the largest ever developed by panel makers ― for pricey OLED televisions.
> 
> 
> Samsung SDI said Thursday that it has successfully developed the panel by using advanced active matrix organic light-emitting diode (AM OLED) technology and a low temperature poly-silicon (LTPS) manufacturing process for the first time in the world.
> 
> 
> In 2005, Samsung Electronics' LCD division stunned the global panel industry by developing a 40-inch AM OLED panel by applying a less advanced amorphous Silicon (a-Si) process but failed to equip the panel for OLED TVs.
> 
> 
> Despite power and life-span advantages compared to the a-Si method, the LTPS process has widely been considered a much tougher method to make larger-sized panels, resulting in wide adaptation to smaller electronic gadgets such as car navigation and high-end cell phones.
> 
> 
> ``Talks are under way to set the specific timing for mass-production but we are positive about its prospects,'' Yoo Eui-jin, vice president of Samsung SDI's AM OLED Supervision, told reporters at a press conference held in central Seoul. ``We will develop 40- and 42-inch full high-definition AM OLED panels in 2010.''
> 
> 
> Separately, Samsung SDI plans to mass-produce 14-inch AM OLED panels probably from the first-half of next year to meet growing demand for profitable IT-related products, including notebooks.
> 
> 
> ``The suggested retail price for the 14-inch AM OLED TV is likely to be around 3 million won, when it is commercialized,'' Yoo said.
> 
> 
> Both 31-inch and 14-inch panels will be exhibited at the Consumer Electronics Show to be held in Las Vegas from Jan. 7-10.
> 
> 
> Industry experts say competition between Samsung Electronics' LCD division and Samsung SDI will be getting fiercer as the latter has clarified its strong will for the development of large-sized AM OLED panels.
> 
> 
> ``To create synergy in the business, one of the two should take full responsibility for the OLED sector,'' a Samsung Electronics official said, asking not to be identified.
> 
> 
> LG.Philips LCD, the world's second largest maker of LCDs, is reportedly finalizing its acquisition talks with LG Electronics over its OLED division for higher profits.
> 
> 
> Compared to a flat-panel LCD television with a known contrast ratio of 1,000:1 or a plasma TV with 20,000:1, an AM OLED TV is said to have more than a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio. Moreover, the displays can handle fast motion, such as the movement in video games, very smoothly.
> 
> 
> According to iSuppli, a market research firm, OLED TV shipments are expected to reach an annual 1.2 million in 2012 from 8,000 this year.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Panel makers becoming passionate again about OLED* 
*27 December 2007*


Following Sony finally making an OLED TV a commercial reality in the TV market this month, many makers including Taiwan-, Korea, as well as Japan-based players are changing their minds about betting only just on LCD or PDP (plasma display panel) technologies and are now viewing OLED as an alternative technology for larger-size TV solutions.

*Big changes in the Taiwan OLED market*


In October, Chi Mei EL (CMEL), a subsidiary of Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO), announced that the company would invest NT$1 billion (US$30.6 million) to expand to a second OLED production line. Volume production is slated for 2008. CMO president Chao-Yang Ho explained that the company would continue to invest in OLEDs because of breakthroughs in OLED material technology and that orders and demand for small- to medium-size OLED products are good.


CMEL volume produces 2.4- and 2.8-inch active-matrix (AM) OLED panels and expects a 4.3-inch OLED panel and a 7.6-inch panel will be available in the first and second quarter of 2008, respectively. The Taiwan player will also introduce 11- and 12-inch panel production and expects to offer 32-inch AM OLED panels during 2010.


Several Taiwan-based OLED suppliers decided to phase out of the market due to strong competition from TFT LCD technology last year. Although RiTdisplay and Univision Technology, two Taiwan-based OLED panel makers, had more than 10% of the global OLED panel market in 2006, they are facing serious losses. Opto Tech closed down its OLED business earlier in 2007 and during the middle of 2006, AU Optronics (AUO) was reportedly to give up on OLED. During FPD International 2007 in October, HB Chen, vice chairman of AUO said the company has no plan to continue investing in the OLED panel market in the short term.


RiTdisplay seems to have improved its performance this year. According to a survey from DisplaySearch, RiTdisplay had a record quarter with revenues of US$31 million and shipments of 6.4 million units in the third quarter of 2007 in the worldwide OLED market.

*New OLED alliance in Japan*


While Hitachi, Canon and Matsushita Electric Industrial yesterday in a press release announced an alliance to strengthen their LCD panel businesses and technologies, the three Japan-based companies have also decided to work on OLED technology together.


Canon aims to accelerate ongoing development of OLED displays by teaming up with Hitachi through Hitachi's wholly-owned subsidiary, Hitachi Displays.


Matsushita said it is planning to construct a next-generation plant at IPS Alpha Technology (IPS Alpha), a joint venture held by companies including Matsushita and Canon. Matsushita sees the new IPS Alpha plant as a possible future base for production of OLED displays, according to the press release.


Seiko Epson announced it has developed an 8-inch OLED panel, according to the company in October. Epson was successful in lengthening the life of the device to more than 50,000 hours, a level appropriate for practical applications, the company claimed.


Despite three leading panel makers showing interests in OLED development. During the middle of December, Toshiba said it would postpone the release a 30-inch OLED TV which was scheduled to come out in 2009. The problem is power consumption, stressed Katsuji Fujita, president of Toshiba Matsushita Display (TMD), when explaining the challenges that need to be overcome before the commercialization of OLED panels for TV applications, according to a report from the website Tech-On, which is owned by Nikkei Business Publications.


TMD is the company that is developing a panel for this OLED TV.

*Korea stands firm in OLED development*


Samsung SDI now is producing OLED panels at its fourth-generation (4G) lines, using low temperature polysilicon (LTPS) backplane. Optimistic about the medium-size OLED panel market, the company plans to adopt 5G substrates for larger OLED panel production in 2009, according to sources.


Samsung SDI will start developing 5-inch-and-above AM OLED panels, the maker estimated in May, indicating that it aims to boost the monthly capacity of AM OLED panels to 4.5 million units in the third quarter of 2008, up from 1.5 million in the second half of 2007.


Samsung Electronics is also developing OLED panels with the company exhibiting a 14-inch AM OLED panel at FPD International 2007, in Yokohama, Japan (October 24-26). Samsung Electronics unveiled a 40-inch AM OLED LCD TV in May 2005.


LG.Philips LCD (LPL) will acquire LG Electronics's (LGE)'s OLED business division as of January 1, 2008, according to a report from Displaybank in early December. LPL has recently agreed with LEG to acquire its two second-generation (2G) AM OLED lines in Gumi and most of the 150 employees working in the OLED business division.


LGE has two AM OLED lines with an annual capacity of 2.4 million units, said the report.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung Unveils 31-inch OLED Screen* 
*27 December 2007*

*Samsung 31-inch OLED screen prototype to be displayed at CES 2008*


OLED panels are the next big thing when it comes to TVs and other consumer electronics from cameras to cell phones. The OLED screen promises more compact dimensions, less power consumption and brighter images.


Small OLED screens are currently found on some cell phones and LCD TV makers are looking for larger OLED screens to use in HDTVs. Reuters reports that Samsung recently unveiled a 31-inch active-matrix OLED screen. Samsung says it will have a 31-inch OLED prototype TV on display at CES 2008 in January.


Samsung declined to comment on the commercial availability of TVs using the 31-inch OLED panel stating that the panel being available for retail purchase would depend on TV makers' plans. With the very high cost of the Sony XEL-1, the first commercially available OLED TV retailing for over $1,700 USD, the price for a 31-inch Samsung panel equipped OLED TV is a frightening thought for many. Samsung didn't comment on potential pricing for TVs using its 31-inch OLED panel.


Samsung says its new 31-inch OLED panel is only 4.3mm thick and uses less than half the power required of a typical 32-inch TV. The panel's lifespan is 35,000 hours, which is the best lifespan of existing AM-OLED panels.


Exactly how many of the panels Samsung will be able to produce is unknown. Sony is limited to 2,000 of its XEL-1 11-inch OLED TVs per month because of production limits for the OLED panels.


Toshiba announced in December of 2007 that it would not be bringing its similarly sized OLED panel to market citing production cost concerns.


----------



## Sisyphus

Sony's OLED is now available on ebay. Search SONY XEL-1. Any takers?










Not sure about compatible U.S. inputs though. Looks like you would also need a voltage converter.


----------



## blklacker

Sony Oled TV's sold out in Japan.


----------



## ewitte

Lol even if it was really good I wouldn't pay $2k for a 11" screen. I wouldn't even buy a 11" screen at this point.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sisyphus* /forum/post/12657755
> 
> 
> Sony's OLED is now available on ebay. Search SONY XEL-1. Any takers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure about compatible U.S. inputs though. Looks like you would also need a voltage converter.



Just to add to this from the sounds of this article besides a Japanese satellite tuner the only video input on the display is an HDMI input. The good thing about that is that the HDMI standards are universal so it should work with any 60 Hz HDMI device.


----------



## Isochroma

 *OLEDs: First Sony televisions sold out in Japan* 
*3 January 2008*


The world's first OLED televisions. manufactured by Sony, were sold out almost as soon as they hit retailers' shelves in Japan. By 23 November 2007, only a day after delivery started, the first month's entire supply of 1,300 OLED TVs had changed hands at a price of just over EUR 1,200 each. A further 700 XEL-1 televisions were displayed in store windows, although the next batch would not be on sale for another three weeks. The new ultra-thin TV sets are not even making it to the stores in other countries.


----------



## slacker711

You can check out the 11" Sony OLED TV at any Sony Style store. They arent selling them but they have a display model sitting out (usually showing the movie Cars).


The display is so small that it looks like a toy, but the screen looks absolutely beautiful to me. I cant say I have a discerning eye, but it definitely looked better than the various other LCD's displayed around the store. I'd be curious on the other people's opinions if they get a chance to see one.


Of course, Sony has their CES press conference on Sunday, so this 11" display might only be state of the art for two more days







.


Slacker


----------



## MUGEN










*SONY DEBUTS FIRST OLED TELEVISION IN THE UNITED STATES (available now at sony style stores)*


LAS VEGAS (CES BOOTH 14200), January 6, 2008 – Sony today announced the availability of the industry’s first Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) television in the United States.


The 11-inch (measured diagonally) XEL-1 model is just about 3 millimeters thin and offers picture quality with extremely high contrast, outstanding brightness, exceptional color reproduction, and a rapid response time.


“The launch of an OLED TV is one of the most important industry landmarks,” said Randy Waynick, senior vice president of Sony Electronics’ Home Products Division. “Not only does the technology change the form factor of television, it delivers flawless picture quality that will soon become the standard against which all TVs are measured.”


Under development for more than 10 years, Waynick said OLED displays not only offer a striking form factor, they deliver “unmatched performance” in key picture quality categories. With its light-emitting structure, OLED displays can prevent light emission when reproducing shades of black, resulting in very deep blacks and a contrast ratio of over 1,000,000:1. The lack of a backlight allows the device to control all phases of light emission from zero to peak brightness. The innovative technology delivers exceptional color expression and detail without wasting power, so it is an exceptional energy-saver.


The OLED display panel uses extremely low power levels since the light-emitting structure of the panel eliminates the need for a separate light source. As a result, OLED panels can be up to 40 percent more efficient per panel inch compared with a conventional 20-inch LCD panel. Additionally, since OLED displays create their own light, any mercury associated with traditional backlighting is eliminated.


Sony’s unique “Super Top Emission” technology features a wide aperture ratio producing high brightness and efficiency allowing the TV to deliver an accurate picture. The device’s proprietary color filter and micro cavity structure allow it to reproduce natural colors -- even in darker scenes -- and more faithfully recreate the colors that were originally intended.


Since OLED technology can spontaneously turn the light emitted from the organic materials layer on and off when an electric current is applied, it features rapid response times for smooth, natural reproduction of fast-moving content like sports and action scenes in movies.


Sony’s new OLED TV features the latest connectivity options, including two HDMI inputs and a Memory Stick® slot for viewing high-resolution photos.


The inaugural model is also DMeX compatible so consumers can add BRAVIA Internet Video Link service (as well as other modules under development). Using a broadband connection, the module streams select Internet video for no charge from content providers directly to the television without a computer. Current BRAVIA Internet Video Link content partners include CBS and FEARnet.com -- which were announced today -- Yahoo!, AOL, Crackle, CondéNet, Sports Illustrated, blip.tv, and Sony Pictures.


The XEL-1 OLED TV is now available for about $2,500. Initially, it will be in limited supply at Sony Style® retail stores nationwide.


----------



## Jigen

GO OLED


Can anyone comment if the blue compounds do still degrade faster, and how much faster?


11 inches is too small for me, but I'd accept anything 27 inches or more (but that still is probably a little ways off).


Honestly, this is the only display tech that to me is going to have decent image quality. Finally a replacement for my CRT that won't be a downgrade!


----------



## space2001

sony 27 inch OLED on display at CES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTEt5o_jt30


----------



## slacker711

The fact that blue will degrade faster should be part of the 35,000 lifetime estimate. They can actually make reds that last well over a hundred thousand hours (green is somewhere in between).


I'm looking forward to hearing comparisons about the display quality between the Samsung displays and the Sony displays. They are made using different processes and, in theory, the Samsung process should be closer to commercialization.


Slacker


----------



## MUGEN

SONY XEL-1 at sonystyle
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/...52921665327724 


operating instructions
http://www.docs.sony.com/release/XEL1.pdf


----------



## Isochroma

 *Picture fuzzy for organic thin TVs* 
*8 January 2008*

*LAS VEGAS--Thin TVs made with organic light-emitting diodes could become a big hit with consumers, but not any time soon, according to Toshihiro Sakamoto, president of the Panasonic AVC Networks company.*


"It will start to grow as a market in 2015," he said during an interview at the Consumer Electronics Show taking place here this week. "You won't be able to beat the cost and price performance of LCD and plasma for a long time."


OLED TVs are thin--measuring about 3 millimeters, or the width of three credit cards--and sport contrast ratios that far exceed standard LCDs (liquid crystal displays) or plasmas. The manufacture of curved displays is also possible with OLEDs. In some senses, OLEDs are similar to LCDs. The base of the panel is the same, but the upper half of the panel consists of different chemicals that emit their own light. LCDs, in contrast, need a backlight.


Sony has captured a tremendous amount of buzz at CES this week with its OLED TV that's been on sale in Japan since October and just came to the U.S.


However, other makers are taking more time to debut OLED TVs. Both Panasonic and Samsung are showing off OLED TV prototypes this week at CES and both companies are "committed to the technology," a phrase that typically means a company plans to sink millions into research and development in hopes of bringing a product to market.


Samsung might launch OLED TVs in two or three years, said S.I. Lee, senior vice president of marketing for digital media at the company.


Hitachi is in the same boat. The company likes the technology, saying that it's the TV technology of choice for the future, but won't likely come out with OLED TVs until 2105 at the earliest. That's when it could be possible to make a 33-inch OLED TV economically, according to the company.


"The contrast and picture quality is good," said Makato Ebata, CEO of the consumer business group at Hitachi. "How can it be done economically? That is the big question. The cost competitiveness of LCD and plasma are incredible."


Sharp Electronics is in wait-and-see mode, too, a company representative said.


Why the wait? Right now, OLED TVs cost a lot--Sony's sells for $2,500--and they are far smaller than the 40-plus-inch TVs consumers are buying. Sony's TV measures 11 inches in diameter. Manufacturers also continue to find ways to drop the manufacturing cost, and hence retail price, of TVs based around the existing technologies.


"We want to make TVs for more than 0.001 percent of the market," Lee said.


Manufacturing OLEDs also remains an art more than a science. Sony execs acknowledged that the reason their initial OLED TV is so small is that it is tough to make large-screen versions. (Today, OLEDs are mostly used as screens in cell phones.)


"The difficult challenge with the larger screen sizes is improving the yields. There are a lot of complications, many more than with LCD," said Katsumi Ihara, executive deputy president and the head of Sony's Consumer Products Group. "The yields tend to be low. That is the biggest challenge."


The basic technology also needs some work, added Sakamoto. Unlike plasmas or LCDs, moisture can penetrate OLED screens, which can damage them.


"At the moment, there are also no equipment manufacturers for the upper half of the panel," Sakamoto said. "I'm very positive. It is a very promising display for post-plasma and post-LCD, but it will take time."


Durability is also an issue. No one really knows how long OLED TVs will last. Sony's Ihara, though, said his company has conquered a lot of the problems. If you watched TV for eight hours a day, Sony's OLED TV would last for ten years, Ihara said.


Still, the promise is there.


"OLED has the capability to be cost-competitive with LCD or better," Ebata said. "And the picture quality is better and the energy consumption is far lower. There are not too many people that deny the future of OLED."


----------



## jmdajr

I hope my Sony HDTV CRT lasts until this is affordable!


----------



## turbe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jmdajr* /forum/post/12738806
> 
> 
> I hope my Sony HDTV CRT lasts until this is affordable!










LOL


----------



## Jigen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jmdajr* /forum/post/12738806
> 
> 
> I hope my Sony HDTV CRT lasts until this is affordable!



Define affordable, the 11 inch didn't debut at as bad of a price as I thought it would, and right now it's at the very uber tip of high end (for the size), so I suspect it will drop fast.


I'm in your same situation, while I still want to be 100% sure the other factors are OK (like at all these videos from trade shows I only ever see still shots being displayed on OLED TVs), the resolution is pretty low on that 11 incher, not anywhere near 720p even, and stuff like that.


----------



## ghettofab

Says in the manual that OLED may have permanent Image Rentention!?! What the heck, I thought OLED was supposed to be the next greatest thing. What causes IR on OLEDs?


----------



## pkeegan

 http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/09...that/#comments 


picture of Samsung OLED unit at CES


another picture, this one the 31" http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20080109PR210.html


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ghettofab* /forum/post/12748126
> 
> 
> Says in the manual that OLED may have permanent Image Rentention!?! What the heck, I thought OLED was supposed to be the next greatest thing. What causes IR on OLEDs?



The materials are organic they're using... And it's the 1st generation of Sony's OLED TV technology.


Everyone has a different approach as to what organic materials to use; so far no two companies are using the same materials. You probably want to just wait and see what the end results are from all of the OLED players before deciding that all OLED designs will be subject to permanent image retention.


Being that it's organic and each pixel produces it's own light I can see how it's possible to get uneven wear. I bet once they fine tune the organic materials this won't be an issue...


But who knows...


In the meantime go buy a Kuro plasma and wait out OLED...


----------



## Blackraven

Did Sony add updates/revisions to the 27 inch model prototype..............or was this the exact same unit from last year's event?


----------



## Isochroma

 *CES 2008: Samsung OLED TVs coming in 2010* 
*10 January 2008*











*Samsung full HD OLED TV (SDI panel)*



Samsung Electronics is showcasing two (14.1-and 31-inch) organic light-emitting diode (OLED) TVs in addition to an ultra-slim 52-inch LCD TV and quadruple full-HD LCD TV at CES 20087, with Samsung stating it will begin commercial production of mid- to large-sized OLED TVs around 2010.


Dr. Jongwoo Park, president of Digital Media business, Samsung Electronics commented that OLED is seen as a contender to be at the center of the future display market mainstream given its very high resolution, and light weight.


The OLED TVs employ AM OLED panels developed by Samsung SDI. The finished products weigh some 40% less than other LCD TVs of the same size while boasting a contrast ratio of 1 million to one, color gamut of 107% and brightness of 550nit.


Samsung is also demonstrating a 52-inch LCD TV with a 50,000:1 contrast ratio and 550nit brightness. Mass production of this model is scheduled to begin in 2009.


Samsung is also unveiling a quadruple full-high definition (QFHD) TV with a resolution of 3,840×2,160 pixels, which is four times greater than that for a typical high-definition display. Samsung will unveil the world's largest 82-inch QFHD LCD TV to date.


Finally, Samsung is introducing a 57-inch 570DXN LCD monitor that can recognize a user's motions even when the user is a short distance away from the monitor. The monitor takes advantage of a 3D motion sensing solution developed by interactive media company Reactrix Systems. Samsung plans to commercialize this monitor in 2008 and will target it for commercial (B2B) advertising applications.


----------



## impala454

I thought OLEDs were supposed to be mega cheap? What's with the 11 incher for $2500?


----------



## Jigen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *impala454* /forum/post/12770667
> 
> 
> I thought OLEDs were supposed to be mega cheap? What's with the 11 incher for $2500?



New tech...


----------



## impala454

Even so... 11" for $2500? I hope this isn't a sign of how the larger displays will price when these things come to the market. All of the talk back in the day on this OLED stuff was how they'll be able to print them in large rolls and have huge flexible displays, etc etc.


----------



## ewitte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *impala454* /forum/post/12770667
> 
> 
> I thought OLEDs were supposed to be mega cheap? What's with the 11 incher for $2500?



R&D. Prices usually drop real quick after they get R&D costs back. Rembember back to how horrible LCD was and the prices back when they first came out.


----------



## impala454

Yeah but it was never to the point of $2,500 for 11". Maybe $1,000 for 15". Oh well hopefully that will be the case. It would just suck IMHO if the things ended up costing 1/4th of what LCDs cost to make, but still cost us all multiple thousands of dollars for a nice set, just because they already know people will pay it. They know J6P will think that super thin = super $$.


----------



## Jigen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *impala454* /forum/post/12778309
> 
> 
> Yeah but it was never to the point of $2,500 for 11". Maybe $1,000 for 15". Oh well hopefully that will be the case. It would just suck IMHO if the things ended up costing 1/4th of what LCDs cost to make, but still cost us all multiple thousands of dollars for a nice set, just because they already know people will pay it. They know J6P will think that super thin = super $$.



Didn't plasmas start at like $20k for 42 or so though?


----------



## inky blacks

 http://lifestyle.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=11112 


OLEDs were supposed to be cheap and as easy to make as printing paper. The hype overinflated expectations. Will they ever be able to make a 120" diagonal OLED TV that does not weigh a ton?


I hope so.


IB


----------



## navychop

They are taking a loss on every 11 incher sold.


They know in theory that the processes lend themselves to cost reductions. First, they'll improve the OLED materials and decide upon which formulations to use. Then they'll work on manufacturability, scaling it up and cost reductions.


In theory, they can one day build these things with something like an inkjet printer. I think they will. After all, millions of small OLED screens have been sold. We're into engineering improvements, not science.


However: In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.


----------



## impala454

Right, I'd imagine we (or at least I) had our expectations a little high with all the hype.


I for one am getting tired of these stupid-high contrast ratio numbers being advertised though. I mean there's no backlight, so the pixel can be essentially turned off. They could probably call it a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000:1 CR if they wanted.


----------



## Cobraphx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jigen* /forum/post/12781874
> 
> 
> Didn't plasmas start at like $20k for 42 or so though?



Well in 1997 Fujitsu debuted it's first commercial Plasma display the Plasmavision 42. I can't find a direct review of that model, but here is a quote from a review of it's replacement, the Plasmavision 42EP. The 42EP debuted at CES 1998. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...mascreens.html and [ http://web.archive.org/web/199812030...mav/plstit.htm 


> Quote:
> These things are expensive too! The current Fujitsu model, the 42EP, retails for $10,999. In context, though, it’s cheaper than the previous model, the 42, at $14,000, with better contrast - 400:1 vs. 70:1.



Quite a ways from a 1,000,000:1



> Quote:
> Also, since the screen resolution is 852 pixels wide and 480 pixels high (16x9 aspect ratio), there are a lot of pixels (e.g., x,y coordinates 398,460) which may not take at manufacturing. Since manufacturing QC allows up to three dysfunctional pixels, if you look close enough, it may look like you’ve got a couple specs of dust on your screen. At the same time, once made, pixels do not fail.



852 x 480, not too bad, and a couple dead pixels. The Xel-1's resolution isn't too shabby at 960 x 450 on an 11" diagonal screen. Pretty sure screen door is nonexistent there, not so for the Plasmavision.


I'm not saying the Sony XEL-1 is going to be a commercial success, but I'm sure that first Plasmavision set; 42", 70:1, 852 x 480, 120 cd/m2 brightness, and 30,000 hours (most MFg's were stating 20,000 hours until 2002) for $14,000 wasn't a commercial success either. And ten years later Plasma is getting to be very very good.


The real question is... Are these XEL-1's images good enough to generate the excitement and anticipation to drive the market to make the investments needed to get manufacturing hurdles for large size straightened out? keep in mind, they will get better as the technology matures. Obviously they can be price competitive at smaller sizes. It was only 4-5 years ago when LCD was said to not be cost competitive at larger sizes (40"+). There is certainly enough promise to be hopeful, probably not enough to bet a paycheck on at this point.


----------



## jgreen171




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cobraphx* /forum/post/12783541
> 
> 
> The real question is... Are these XEL-1's images good enough to generate the excitement and anticipation to drive the market to make the investments needed to get manufacturing hurdles for large size straightened out? keep in mind, they will get better as the technology matures. Obviously they can be price competitive at smaller sizes. It was only 4-5 years ago when LCD was said to not be cost competitive at larger sizes (40"+). There is certainly enough promise to be hopeful, probably not enough to bet a paycheck on at this point.



I have read more than two dozen reviews of the XEL-1, and all of them were gushingly and overwhelmingly positive. Most people who have seen the tiny OLED screen were wowed by the contrast rate, color saturation, etc etc. People who look at the XEL 1 at the Sony Style stores around the country have been saying that it puts the other TVs there for sale, to shame. So yeah, I definitely think the image quality will be enough to create hype and excitement around OLED tech.


Where OLEDs will really thrive in the next two years is in the small display category, 2.8 inches to about 7". Cell phones, pmp players, mp3 players, portable dvd players, and hundreds of other personal electronic devices will benefit greatly from having a small screen that is much more energy efficient and also more aesthetically pleasing than the underwhelming LCDs.


----------



## Cobraphx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgreen171* /forum/post/12784694
> 
> 
> Where OLEDs will really thrive in the next two years is in the small display category, 2.8 inches to about 7". Cell phones, pmp players, mp3 players, portable dvd players, and hundreds of other personal electronic devices will benefit greatly from having a small screen that is much more energy efficient and also more aesthetically pleasing than the underwhelming LCDs.



The biggest problem with this as it relates to large screen development, is that virtually no one knows or cares what kind of screen is in those devices. Consumers have heard DLP, Plasma, LCD when it comes to TV. But Probably 90% don't know if their cell has a LCD, Plasma or OLED screen. Not me, I bought my
Motorola Timeport P8767 mostly because of the OLED display. But most people don't know there is any difference between LCD in their device and OLED. So even though plenty of people already own a device with OLED I'd wager most of them have no idea. If people were informed, and you heard regularly "Boy I wish my flat panel TV was as nice as the OLED display on my xxxxx.", the larger panels would get to market faster. Hopefully the XEL-1 generates enough interest to get Samsung to throw it's hat in the ring and start selling some OLED TV's. Get a few 27" or 30" OLED's out for $10,000-20,000 each, and get them to be used on Rides in a build, or on Cribs, and generate some hype. If Snoop Dog is talking about the amazing picture the OLED screen in his ride provides, it will generate demand.


I was also thinking about the 35,000 hours of life for the initial OLED displays. There are plenty of us out there that bought the D4 and D5 based LCD front projectors. And out of us quite a few (myself included) have had one or more of our LCD microdisplay panels begin to deteriorate in 3000 to 5000 hours. In my case, the blue panle got so bad as to be really not worth watching after 3400 hours (Of course it was outside the warranty by then). But despite these problems LCD projector sales are stronger than ever. So, I don't think 30,000 hours is in any way a deal breaker to launch a new display product. Especially if it has a stunning image.


----------



## vtms

 http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20080111PR200.html 


> Quote:
> Saint-Gobain and Novaled have demonstrated the feasibility of large-size organic light-emitting diode (OLED), based on a new high-performance metallic anode and Saint-Gobain Recherche (SGR) technology and Novaled OLED proprietary developments, according to the companies.
> 
> 
> The goal of a two-year research cooperation program between both partners has been to develop basic technologies for white OLEDs. Researchers at SGR have created a highly conductive transparent electrode "Silverduct", bringing up to 10 times better surface conductivity than traditional indium tin oxide (ITO), the companies claimed. Thanks to the Novaled PIN OLED technology for OLEDs, samples were successfully manufactured on large area surfaces. SGR and Novaled now see the possibility to produce homogeneous OLED devices up to 100 square centimeters which will ease the manufacturing of large OLED lighting products, they said.
> 
> 
> Traditional ITO coated glass impedes the race to large size OLED due to its limited ability to carry current over distances longer than a couple of centimeters. Therefore, for large size OLEDs, the ITO layer must be topped with a thick metallic grid to prevent a gradient of light emission caused by the sheet resistance of ITO alone (typically 30 Ohm/sq), detailed the companies. The new anode Silverduct has a sheet resistance of less than four Ohm/sq, thus enabling large size OLEDs without additional metal grids. This is an important step especially for transparent and bottom emission OLEDs in which the metal grid is visible. Additionally, by eliminating the metal grid Silverduct offers significant potential for reducing manufacturing costs, highlighted the companies.


----------



## fanta

If OLEDs have a response time of a micro second and are a thousand times faster than an LCD, why is it that some impressions of the 11" model report really bad motion processing?


And I heard the Sony OLEDs at CES were only displaying still images...


The technology has the sample and hold effect but so do LCDs as far as I know, and the impressions sound like the OLEDs aren't even up to the current LCDs in terms of motion processing.


----------



## Isochroma

Well, here's some Samsung prime beefsteak OLEDs, sizzlin' on da grill. Images are full-size and are linked to source article.


----------



## blklacker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fanta* /forum/post/12794841
> 
> 
> If OLEDs have a response time of a micro second and are a thousand times faster than an LCD, why is it that some impressions of the 11" model report really bad motion processing?
> 
> 
> And I heard the Sony OLEDs at CES were only displaying still images...
> 
> 
> The technology has the sample and hold effect but so do LCDs as far as I know, and the impressions sound like the OLEDs aren't even up to the current LCDs in terms of motion processing.




Question?? Could you please post some of these bad motion reviews you have been hearing about. The only reviews and response I get from people that have actually spent time with this TV gush all over them seriously reviews and such have been blown away. I assume since OLED is new tech one would think its not perfect, who knows maybe their is a motion issue, but I think everyone would agree that any image issues like this will be corrected by the time larger displays come to the market so is this really something worth mentioning. I will not buy another TV until larger Oled come to the market. Pio and plasma promoters can quote the best plasma specs all they want from what I heard and seen no other technology is out on the market can Match what oled is doing. This years CES made me rethink my kuro purchase.


----------



## Isochroma

 *[Breaking Down OLED TV] 2 TFTs Used per Subpixel? [Part 9]* 
*26 December 2007*











*The image of the pixel structure observed: The structure differs

for R, G and B. The description in the photo is based on our estimation.
*



The Nikkei Electronics Breakdown Team finished measuring the display properties of Sony's OLED TV. Next, we moved on to observe the pixel structure in detail with the help from a panel engineer.


An active matrix OLED panel generally uses a TFT in the drive circuit. In contrast to an LCD panel that uses a TFT only as a switch, an OLED panel uses a TFT as an analog device to control the luminance. Thus, the variation in TFT properties is directly related to the unevenness of the luminance.


Panel manufacturers proposed a various kinds of ingenious drive circuits to cope with the problem of uneven luminance resulting from the variation in TFT properties. Many of them proposed to use three to four TFTs in each subpixel to build a correction circuit.


The latest OLED TV was highly valued by the panel engineer for its "extremely low luminance variation." What kind of pixel structure is employed in the panel?


The observation revealed that two TFTs seemed to be used per subpixel. They were believed to be provided as switching and driving devices, constituting the simplest structure. Does the TV correct the luminance variation outside the panel?


Because the TV only uses two TFTs, it has a higher pixel aperture ratio over the product using more TFTs. The Nikkei Electronics Breakdown Team estimated that the latest panel has an aperture ratio of about 75%, which is considerably high. It is likely that Sony prioritized the enhancement of aperture ratio in the designing to fully utilize the emitting material whose life is not adequately long.


----------



## fanta




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blklacker* /forum/post/12801230
> 
> 
> Question?? Could you please post some of these bad motion reviews you have been hearing about.


 http://hdguru.com/195/195/


----------



## Isochroma

 *Sony said to be seeking strategic partners to produce and sell OLED panels* 
*23 January 2008*


In order to expand the OLED TV market, Sony, which released the world's first OLED TV last year, is looking for strategic partners to cooperate in the production and sales of OLED panels, according to a Chinese-language Commercial Times report.


The report also cited Taiwan-based Topology Research Institute (TRI) as saying shipments of OLED TVs will rise from nearly 4,000 units in 2007 to 3.75 million units in 2012. While Digitimes Research recently estimated that shipments of OLED TVs will grow from 2,000 units in 2007 to 18,000 units in 2008, while further shooting up to 50,000 units in 2009 and 120,000 units in 2010.


During the recently completed CES 2008 show in Las Vegas, Samsung Electronics also showcased two (14.1-and 31-inch) OLED TV models, with the company stating it will begin commercial production of mid- to large-sized OLED TVs around 2010.


----------



## Triaxtremec

We're selling the 11inch at my work for $2300. The thing is damn amazing looking.


----------



## impala454

It better be amazing looking for $2300


----------



## greenland

*Toshiba and Panasonic double OLED lifespan -- exceeds LCDs*


[
While we love the low power consumption and ultra-high contrast achieved by OLEDs, there's one thing we hate: OLED's short lifespan. Toshiba and Panasonic are looking to change the game by announcing a new technology today that doubles the life of OLED displays. We're talking a bump from the stated 30,000-hour lifespan of Sony's XEL-1 TV to somewhere beyond that of your typical 50,000-hour LCD panel. Tosh and Panny's trick is to use a new metal membrane inside a prototype 20.8-inch panel to move light more efficiently. Let's see if this new development brings forth Toshiba's timeline for an OLED TV any.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/25/t...-exceeds-lcds/


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *impala454* /forum/post/12917030
> 
> 
> It better be amazing looking for $2300



OOOOuch! Yeah, an 11"er display at that price should be able to do a "Pleasantville" act on anyone viewing.










Still, it's exciting to see OLED progressing as a future contender in the video tech arena. Looking better & better...


----------



## Suhaib

As much as I love my plasma display, I'm looking forward to advancements in this display type. I'm satisfied with plasma display technology 80-90%, but who doesn't want really black blacks and improved color saturation or brightness. I'd be happy with a new Kuro upgrade until these displays mature if they are going to be better by a big margin.


----------



## work permit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Triaxtremec* /forum/post/12911932
> 
> 
> We're selling the 11inch at my work for $2300. The thing is damn amazing looking.




I'd love to buy one, just for the heck of it. But I can't figure out what I could possibly do with an 11 inch screen. Use it as a preview monitor for the home theater? Install it in the car (does it come with a 12 volt adapter)? I could use it as a touchscreen for my HTPC, but the resitive overlay panel would probably ruin the image.


----------



## chmilar

I just saw the Sony 11" set at a local retailer yesterday (Audio and Video Center, Santa Monica). I have to admit that it is a fantastic-looking display: deep blacks, very saturated colors. Too bad it is so small and expensive!


One day, this tech might take over, but it looks like that is still a few years away. I think that the 10-lumen-per-watt plasma will reign as king of the displays for a few years (starting late-2009), before being displaced by something else.


----------



## Isochroma

Your 10-lumen-per-watt plasma tech doesn't yet exist, while OLED does. I've noticed that there is a constant stream of talk about it on this forum, yet if you read carefully the announcements of plasma manufacturers, it is a dream on their future timelines; it is what they hope for. Not what physics says you can actually get out of a UV-excited phosphor.


Personally, I don't think they will get that kind of efficiency; even if they do, it will not dispose of the flicker or PWM artifacting, or burn-in. It is a stalling tactic to try to stem the tide of the market's broad acceptance and uptake of LCD and potentially, OLED products.


Turning back again to the PDP manufacturers' development of these technologies: most are unlikely to reach production stage, because they increase the display cost. Right now PDP costs cannot compete with LCD and thus PDP is losing market share. Why would manufacturers even think of widening the loss gap by increasing their costs? Only Pioneer has done so; they have made themselves into a shining example for their fellow PDP makers on how to commit economic suicide. A review of their latest financial data will easily substantiate this statement.


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12980019
> 
> 
> Your 10-lumen-per-watt plasma tech doesn't yet exist, while OLED does. I've noticed that there is a constant stream of talk about it on this forum, yet if you read carefully the announcements of plasma manufacturers, it is a dream on their future timelines; it is what they hope for. Not what physics says you can actually get out of a UV-excited phosphor.
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't think they will get that kind of efficiency; even if they do, it will not dispose of the flicker or PWM artifacting, or burn-in. It is a stalling tactic to try to stem the tide of the market's broad acceptance and uptake of LCD and potentially, OLED products.
> 
> 
> Turning back again to the PDP manufacturers' development of these technologies: most are unlikely to reach production stage, because they increase the display cost. Right now PDP costs cannot compete with LCD and thus PDP is losing market share. Why would manufacturers even think of widening the loss gap by increasing their costs? Only Pioneer has done so; they have made themselves into a shining example for their fellow PDP makers on how to commit economic suicide. A review of their latest financial data will easily substantiate this statement.



Sorry, This isn't "my 10-Lumen Tech", and can not take credit or patent fees on this nice piece of video tech. Yes, it does exist, and has been demoed at 2008 CES...just like many OLED prototypes have been demoed. Yes, Sony is producing & selling its $2500 OLED 11"er (at a loss according to Sony), and I'm sure we are only seeing the very beginning of their long climb to OLED marketshare. Still, why not applaud both video techs for their accomplishments? Competition is good for all of us mere consumers who will be forking out our hard-earned devalued American dollars on the new latest greatest. Have you purchased your Sony 11"er yet?


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12980019
> 
> 
> Your 10-lumen-per-watt plasma tech doesn't yet exist, while OLED does.



So we don't have 10 lm/w plasma tech yet. But also don't have OLED in useful screen sizes yet. Both will hopefully come. So what?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12980019
> 
> 
> I've noticed that there is a constant stream of talk about it on this forum, yet if you read carefully the announcements of plasma manufacturers, it is a dream on their future timelines; it is what they hope for. Not what physics says you can actually get out of a UV-excited phosphor.



They have already developed technologies which are supposed to make 10 lm/w work. You make it sound as if they had no idea how to realize it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12980019
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't think they will get that kind of efficiency; even if they do, it will not dispose of the flicker or PWM artifacting



Have you ever heard of the sample-and-hold effect? If so, you will hopefully know that it affects OLED, too. So how are you going to get rid of the sample-and-hold effect with OLED? Or don't you want OLED to compete with plasma in terms of "image resolution during motion"?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12980019
> 
> 
> Turning back again to the PDP manufacturers' development of these technologies: most are unlikely to reach production stage



Ah, so because you're saying it, it must be true?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12980019
> 
> 
> because they increase the display cost.



Funny. That's exactly the opposite of what DisplaySearch is saying:

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasoni...Plasma_TVs.pdf 


This is a research paper about plasma technology including 5 lm/w and 10 lm/w technology written by "Ross Young, Founder and President, DisplaySearch and YS Chung, Director of FPD Material and Technology Analyst, DisplaySearch."


You don't need to bash plasma technology, it's really not necessary. We're all looking forward to OLED, hoping that it will be the next big thing. But it doesn't harm if there's a backup plan. And for sure it doesn't harm if there's a technology which could force OLED makers to drop prices sooner than they'd like. So let's be happy that plasma technology is improving instead of bashing it. Competition is good for us consumers, you know?


----------



## Isochroma

Of course the paper you linked to is Panasonic propaganda; though it does have some interesting information, using it as a reference guide for future market predictions would be unwise.


Indeed competition is good, but that's not going to stop me from stating my opinion on PDP technology. I believe that PDP as an economic product is doomed; first by LCD and next by the subject of this thread, OLED. The advantages of OLED are too many, and its potential easily great enough to surpass PDP.


PDP is just an absurdly inefficient way of doing what OLED does directly. The inherent quantum inefficiency of indirect stimulation (electrons -> gas -> UV -> phosphor) cannot even today compete with the efficiency of OLED (electrons -> light). Worse still, the high voltage necessary to ionize gas will forever be a hobble to PDPs as it rquires expensive, high-energy circuitry to run. I could go on but this post is about more than just the deadfalls of PDPs.


And if you think 10 Lu/W is efficient, remember that a 100W incandescent (those bulbs that are getting restricted and soon to be banned in some countries due to their gross inefficiency) gets 16 Lu/W, and 4' T8 triphosphor fluorescent 80-90 Lu/W, and metal halide 100+. In other words, PDP is less efficient than the lowliest of illuminants, a blackbody radiator (tungsten filament). Even if they could double the efficiency, it would still be miles from what OLED can achieve, and will likely fall below LCD technology of the same time frame.


The major limitation on LCD efficiency is the polarizer, which rejects 50% or more of the light. Unless a method is developed to efficiently rotate light's polarization within a small space, that is unlikely to change. One possible solution is to develop BLU LEDs which emit polarized light, eliminating the need for a polarizer.


Here is a link to polarized LED information:

* POLARIZED LED *


----------



## Isochroma

Regarding SAH, it is not a defect but a positive attribute; flicker causes headaches, and a significant fraction of individuals can see it. Both fully held and short duty-cycle and schemes in-between have their values, depending on the use. However, not all technologies can support these different modulation schemes.


The pixels' temporal duty cycle can be varied between a very small value and completely on with OLED. PDP cannot, as it is currently designed, support continuous discharge because gas ionization is nonlinear, which is why it uses on/off PWM to obtain grayscales. That is an inherent defect of the technology, which is based on its fundamental construction and thus cannot be removed. Gas ionization works a certain way, and all the wishing in the universe won't change that.


It is possible to pulse the PDP's PWM faster to make the flicker less visible (or even invisible) but running circuits at all three: high voltage, high frequency, and high power, is a guarantee that you'll also get the other three: high cost, short life, high operating temperature.


- High cost is infeasible (see Pioneer) because of LCD competition (direct and indirect);


- Short life is infeasible because lifetimes are already too short and LCDs last longer;


- Hotter electronics can't be done because the electronics already run too hot and have a relatively high failure rate, much higher than LCD.


There is no leeway for making the situation any worse in any of these three points, because LCD has it beat in all of them.


The OLED emitter runs at low voltage, meaning electronics that are cheap, low-voltage, and low-energy (like LCD). This means low operating temperature, and thus long lifetimes and high reliability.


Depending on its design, OLED can be fully held like LCD or flicker at 60 Hz. like PDP, or anywhere in-between. OLED emitters don't have the nonlinear characteristic of PDP's gas-fill.


Finally, OLED can do something neither LCD nor PDP can: it can run at hundreds or thousands of frames per second, since the emitter has a response time in the microsecond range. This allows a third alternative, rather than the duality of SAH/flicker: using interpolation or a high-speed external signal, it can show flicker-free silky smooth motion.


----------



## Isochroma

Today while thinking on the subject, I realized that if all the work that has been put into patching PDP and LCD with band-aids to mitigate their inherent defects, had instead been spent on OLED development, we would probably be able to buy 32" or larger OLEDs today.


This is not to say that such work has been a total waste, but both roads are dead-ends so the massive fixed infrastructure investment was likely ill-advised, unless it can be cheaply converted for future display production. At the moment LCD fabs are likely to be able to make OLEDs, but PDP production is just too different to make a retrofit economically feasible. The PDP makers are truly alone right now, as they have no other road to travel but the one they are on; one that ends in a clearing not too far away.


----------



## xrox

Isochroma, large OLED screens are definitely going to happen and I personally am looking forward to that. They do offer significant advantages over PDP and LCD. But the garbage you post about PDP is really tiring. You are the Auditor55 of OLEDS











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Your 10-lumen-per-watt plasma tech doesn't yet exist, while OLED does. Not what physics says you can actually get out of a UV-excited phosphor.



10, even 15 lumens per watt has been demonstrated and prototyped in several different configurations. As for physics (LOL) how did you even come up with that one











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ….but that's not going to stop me from stating my opinion on PDP technology.



We all know about your vocal anti-plasma opinion. But that won’t stop us from correcting you whenever you post misinformation











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The advantages of OLED are too many, and its potential easily great enough to surpass PDP.



The list of OLED advantages is shrinking every year they tack on to its ever growing TTM. What will the current products be like when OLED is “finally” released in HT size displays? Maybe we should follow your style and go over OLED problems and start spouting out doom and gloom for OLED? Fact is that all technologies have some issues that others don’t (including OLED). Both OLED and SED are not perfect by any means.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> PDP is just an absurdly inefficient …….blah, blah, blah……
> 
> remember that a 100W incandescent gets 16 Lu/W, and 4' T8 triphosphor fluorescent 80-90 Lu/W, and metal halide 100+…..blah, blah, blah



The efficiency of a light bulb and that of a pixel can not be compared. A PDP pixel is essentially a tiny fluorescent bulb. Using your logic it should be 80-90 lumens per watt







Same goes for OLED pixels verses OLED lights.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Regarding SAH, it is not a defect but a positive attribute; flicker causes headaches, and a significant fraction of individuals can see it. Both fully held and short duty-cycle and schemes in-between have their values, depending on the use. However, not all technologies can support these different modulation schemes.



You didn’t even consider OLED-SAH until I pointed it out to you, now you are twisting into an attribute. The main reason SAH is used in OLEDs is to extend lifetime. This comes at the expense of motion blur. Improve lifetime and then you can tune the duty cycle.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> PDP cannot, as it is currently designed, support continuous discharge because gas ionization is nonlinear, which is why it uses on/off PWM to obtain grayscales.



What are you talking about? Gas discharge is quenched as the dielectric layers become charged. Then the polarity is reversed and the discharge is repeated. Learn how AC-PDPs work before you speak.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That is an inherent defect of the technology, which is based on its fundamental construction and thus cannot be removed.



It is the principal of PDP operation, not a defect ??



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It is possible to pulse the PDP's PWM faster to make the flicker less visible (or even invisible) but running circuits at all three: high voltage, high frequency, and high power, is a guarantee that you'll also get the other three: high cost, short life, high operating temperature….. Hotter electronics can't be done because the electronics already run too hot and have a relatively high failure rate, much higher than LCD



How is life reduced by increasing the addressing speed? And you may not realize this but addressing speed has been increasing every year in PDPs. Panasonic already has a 1080 line (16 subfield) 100Hz addressing speed on the market. So again, according to you this can’t be done (LOL)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Depending on its design, OLED can be fully held like LCD or flicker at 60 Hz. like PDP, or anywhere in-between. OLED emitters don't have the nonlinear characteristic of PDP's gas-fill.



Too bad it is limited by the lifetime, and BTW OLED emission is very non uniform and thus leads to severe mura.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Finally, OLED can do something neither LCD nor PDP can: it can run at hundreds or thousands of frames per second, since the emitter has a response time in the microsecond range. This allows a third alternative, rather than the duality of SAH/flicker: using interpolation or a high-speed external signal, it can show flicker-free silky smooth motion.



Which will just add to the already high cost and many people don’t even like the interpolation effect (including me)


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12985192
> 
> 
> Today while thinking on the subject, I realized that if all the work that has been put into patching PDP and LCD with band-aids to mitigate their inherent defects, had instead been spent on OLED development, we would probably be able to buy 32" or larger OLEDs today..



Let's rephrase...."Today while thinking on the subject, I realized that if all the work that has been put into patching PDP and LCD with band-aids to mitigate their inherent defects, had instead been spent on *fixing OLEDs inherent defects*, we would probably be able to buy 32" or larger OLEDs today."


Point is that a lot of "band-aid" solutions are being applied to OLED to combat lifetime, mura, differential aging, charge trapping (IR), Burn-in


Your hatred for PDP goes pretty deep. What happened?


----------



## greenland




xrox;12988881
You didn’t even consider OLED-SAH until I pointed it out to you said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Xrox.
> 
> 
> I was wondering if you had noticed this recent announcement, and if you think that such an approach will allow them to tune the OLED duty cycle?
> 
> *Toshiba and Panasonic double OLED lifespan -- exceeds LCDs*
> 
> 
> [
> While we love the low power consumption and ultra-high contrast achieved by OLEDs, there's one thing we hate: OLED's short lifespan. Toshiba and Panasonic are looking to change the game by announcing a new technology today that doubles the life of OLED displays. We're talking a bump from the stated 30,000-hour lifespan of Sony's XEL-1 TV to somewhere beyond that of your typical 50,000-hour LCD panel. Tosh and Panny's trick is to use a new metal membrane inside a prototype 20.8-inch panel to move light more efficiently. Let's see if this new development brings forth Toshiba's timeline for an OLED TV any.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/25/t...-exceeds-lcds/


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> While we love the low power consumption and ultra-high contrast achieved by OLEDs, there's one thing we hate: OLED's short lifespan. Toshiba and Panasonic are looking to change the game by announcing a new technology today that doubles the life of OLED displays. We're talking a bump from the stated 30,000-hour lifespan of Sony's XEL-1 TV to somewhere beyond that of your typical 50,000-hour LCD panel. Tosh and Panny's trick is to use a new metal membrane inside a prototype 20.8-inch panel to move light more efficiently. Let's see if this new development brings forth Toshiba's



Yes I've read a technical paper on this design. They have put a ribbed metal layer on the back of the OLED that scatters light and increases the light extraction efficiency of the pixel. This does not change the intrinsic lifetime of the EL material. What it does is allow them to lower the current density to the pixel and get the same brightness thus increasing lifetime. But they cannot "also" reduce the duty cycle. If they want to keep the same lifetime then yes they can reduce duty cycle.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/12990018
> 
> 
> Yes I've read a technical paper on this design. They have put a ribbed metal layer on the back of the OLED that scatters light and increases the light extraction efficiency of the pixel. This does not change the intrinsic lifetime of the EL material. What it does is allow them to lower the current density to the pixel and get the same brightness thus increasing lifetime. But they cannot "also" reduce the duty cycle. If they want to keep the same lifetime then yes they can reduce duty cycle.



Thanks for the insights. At least the increased lifetime aspect, is a step in the right direction.

It is good to see OLED, LCD, and Plasma, continuing to make breakthroughs. Competition is always good.


A monopoly only benefits the monopolists.


The more competition, the better it is for all consumers. Plasmaphobia is a self defeating affliction.


----------



## Isochroma

xrox: regarding your last point: all I'm saying is that OLED will be CAPABLE of this, while PDP and LCD are NOT. Whether interpolation is used, or a direct signal providing the true framerate, is another issue altogether. Don't lump them together into some kind of criticism of OLED, because they aren't.


And the one attribute which LCD has both PDP and OLED beat is lifetime. At least for now, LCD is the longest-lived display technology, and may be for the forseeable future. However, there is also a significant chance that OLED emitters will reach much longer lifetimes, even surpassing LCD's cold-cathode and maybe even equalling LED backlights.


----------



## Isochroma

"Your hatred for PDP goes pretty deep. What happened?"


xrox: the statement you quote references LCD as well as PDP, so don't be coming to any quick conclusions. I don't hate PDP, I hate flicker, and I can see it on all PDPs. I also hate dithering, and the low aperture ratio that makes PDPs look grainy up close, unlike LCDs.


Aside from its visual attributes, I also dislike its heavy weight, high power consumption, phosphor burn-in, high-voltage short-lived electronics, etc. They are all just more reasons that I will never support the PDP industry with a dollar of my money, and am enjoying watching it die as it is today.


You might think that I watch my display too close, but I'm just within the 30-degree FOV required for the 'immersion effect' (4' from my 32" LCD). Watching PDP from that distance is an annoyance too terrible for mere words, though I could try.


OLED will have a high aperture ratio and resolution, so it can be viewed up close to obtain the full immersion effect, without annoying pixel grain becoming evident, and without the flicker which becomes more visible in proportion to the brightness of the image and the closeness of the viewer.


----------



## Isochroma

Regarding the recent discussion of LCD and in particular PDP in this thread, I believe that it is important to contrast the fundamentals of PDP, LCD and OLED here to illustrate the areas where OLED's improvements will lead it to future market share.


It is vital to understand the attributes of OLED in comparison to its two competitors because its success in the marketplace is directly related to these differences.


I believe that OLED, if it succeeds, will do so by initially stealing market share from PDP, because it will emulate the positive attributes of PDP and omit the negative. Thus those who would have purchased PDP because of its motion rendering, black levels, or wide viewing angle, will instead buy OLED because of these and will get the additional benefits of light weight, longer life, better reliability, less motion blur, no dithering, higher efficiency, etc.


However, I would measure its true success as the percent marketshare that can be stolen from LCD, which is truly the Asian tiger of the display world.


----------



## greenland

Blah Blah Blah. Who care what you believe about what might happen. That is not reporting on current OLED developments, and resembles more the product of The Psychic Network Hotline, and even they never saw their bankruptcy coming.










You keep throwing in that longer life claim, but that is still one of the biggest problems with the current OLED panels, so for you to jump out and make the claim that it's longer life attributes is going to be one of the big reasons for people to switch from plasmas is patently absurd. You are starting to sound more and more like our resident SED fanatic.


----------



## Isochroma

Your impoliteness would warrant removal of your account from this forum, if I were an administrator. Thank you luck that I am not.


Regarding lifetime, that is still under development and is improving rapidly. There is no way to predict the future, but why are you insulting me for stating my opinion, which is allowed on this forum? There is every evidence that lifetimes will continue to increase; you are welcome to substantiate your views, but your last post contains not a drop of technical information, just opinion.


Also note, that none of my posts contain insults to other users; you would do well to emulate such behaviour if you plan on staying here much longer. If you don't care what I believe then don't respond; your response indicates you are threatened but doesn't contain anything that would help the forum community, thus it is detrimental.


I created this thread from pure vision, and will continue to maintain it; unlike SED, OLED is a shipping product. Regardless of its future, it will remain a topic covered by my family of technology and market threads.


----------



## greenland

Here is a prime example of your so called polite, helping the forum community out. They are your exact words, so get of your high horse. You have being on a long standing anti plasma crusade, but now you want to be treated like a purer that Cesar's wife, objective poster.


The following words from you reveal that you are not.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post10890912 



Plasma yo outta da house!

Like da common kitchen louse!


Plasma's out without a doubt

the words spill out in racous shout

you may say i'm just a lout

but LCD will live to route

the beastly plasma without a doubt!


----------



## Isochroma

I like rhymes, but do you see any personal insults in that quote? I don't. Perhaps you should re-read the forum rules :
*3. Thou shalt remember that polite queries will elicit polite and helpful responses, likewise, that ranting and raving, bashing, and insults will prompt commensurate responses. Ye shall reap what ye sow.*
Using the phrase "*Blah Blah Blah. Who care what you believe about what might happen.*" to refer to my opinions is a personal attack; rhymes about technology are not. Differing opinions are allowed on this forum, but not personal attack. Read the rules.


Now how about making your next post about some substantive issue related to the topic of this thread, OLED, which we can actually debate about? That would really help avert the attention of the moderators, who are probably starting to eye this thread.


If you disagree with any of my opinions, bring forward some evidence (do you have any?). We can chat all you like about the issues of OLED, but please leave the personal attacks behind.


While my like for OLED and dislike for PDP and certain aspects of LCD are personal, and my motivation for creating and posting in these threads is also personal, the content of my posts is directed at the technology and my opinions of it, not against other users.


This forum is not a place for people to fight each other, but rather a place where each person can bring out the best of what information they have, and their opinions regarding the thread topic. Thus a big collection of relevant information can be formed, and on-topic debates may generate from them. All to the advancement of general public education, among other results.


----------



## greenland

So your defense of your crusade against plasma technology is you like rhymes. I will take that as you have no defense for the content of what you said in your rhymes. I saw another one on your hit and run rhymes on a plasma forum thread about the next generation of the Pioneers plasmas. Recall that one, where you said that their ad person should be shot. Who do you think you are fooling with your faux above the fray protestations.


----------



## Isochroma

I don't need to 'defend' my 'crusade' because it is not contrary to any rules on the forum. My opinions regarding PDP or any other technology are not a personal attack, and are thus compliant with forum rules (and also my own set of values regarding how I post about stuff like this). I love rhymes, and will not hesitate to express my opinion of various technologies using them. That is my right on this forum, as it is yours also. However you do it, this forum is about discussing technology, both fact and opinion. It is not, however, a place to attack other users for their opinions.


In order to maintain the coherency of this thread I will only be responding to on-topic questions from you and others. If you wish to continue with non-topical discussion, you are welcome to use the private message system to discuss with me; it was created for this purpose, among others.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Saint-Gobain and Novaled announce a breakthrough in glass substrates for OLED* 
*11 January 2008*


Saint-Gobain and Novaled have demonstrated the feasibility of large area OLEDs, based on a new high-performance metallic anode, with Saint-Gobain Recherche technology and Novaled OLED proprietary developments.


The goal of a two-year research cooperation programme between both partners has been to develop basic technologies for high-performance white OLEDs. Researchers at Saint-Gobain Recherche (SGR) have created a highly conductive transparent electrode “Silverduct™”, bringing up to 10 times better surface conductivity than traditional ITO (Indium Tin Oxide). Thanks to Novaled PIN OLED™ technology for high efficiency OLEDs, samples were successfully manufactured on large area surfaces. SGR and Novaled now see the possibility to produce homogeneous OLED devices up to 100 cm² which will ease the manufacturing of large OLED lighting products.


Traditional ITO coated glass impedes the race to large area OLED, due to its limited ability to carry current over distances longer than a couple of centimetres. Therefore, for large area OLEDs, the ITO layer must be topped with a thick metallic grid to prevent gradient of light emission caused by the sheet resistance of ITO alone (typically 30 Ohm/sq). The new anode Silverduct™ has a sheet resistance of less than 4 Ohm/sq, thus enabling large area OLEDs without additional metal grids. This is an important step especially for transparent and bottom emission OLEDs in which the metal grid is visible. Additionally, by eliminating the metal grid Silverduct™ offers significant potential for reducing manufacturing costs.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Sony said to be seeking strategic partners to produce and sell OLED panels* 
*23 January 2008*


In order to expand the OLED TV market, Sony, which released the world's first OLED TV last year, is looking for strategic partners to cooperate in the production and sales of OLED panels, according to a Chinese-language Commercial Times report.


The report also cited Taiwan-based Topology Research Institute (TRI) as saying shipments of OLED TVs will rise from nearly 4,000 units in 2007 to 3.75 million units in 2012. While Digitimes Research recently estimated that shipments of OLED TVs will grow from 2,000 units in 2007 to 18,000 units in 2008, while further shooting up to 50,000 units in 2009 and 120,000 units in 2010.


During the recently completed CES 2008 show in Las Vegas, Samsung Electronics also showcased two (14.1-and 31-inch) OLED TV models, with the company stating it will begin commercial production of mid- to large-sized OLED TVs around 2010.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED-T green OLED emitter offers world class efficiency performance* 
*25 January 2008*


OLED-T, a developer and manufacturer of world-class organic light emitting diode (OLED) materials and device structures, today announced a green phosphorescent OLED material with world class efficiency performance.


The new material called E255a has a high colour saturation making it ideal for a broad range of product applications in single colour and full colour displays. The material also has a very high efficiency delivering high brightness at low power making it ideal for mobile product applications with either passive matrix or active matrix driving.


OLED-T has already established a world class materials and technology portfolio in the charge injection, transportation and host areas and the new material expands this line-up into the emitter area. OLED-T is also developing phosphorescent red and fluorescent blue materials in order to offer manufacturers a single source of all the materials required to manufacture an OLED display.


“OLED-T is well positioned to take advantage of the growing market of OLED displays through its portfolio of materials for OLED displays. The new green material exceeds the requirements for consumer applications. These performance results are impressive and a tribute to the research and development team at OLED-T,” said Myrddin Jones, CEO, OLED-T..


“The combination of high efficiency and high colour saturation are very hard to achieve and they firmly position the company as a world-class provider of materials for OLED displays,” added Jones.said Myrddin Jones, CEO, OLED-T.


The University of Hong Kong has manufactured OLED demonstrators using E255a and has reported a device efficiency of 40 cd/A at 1000 cdm-2 with a very saturated green colour coordinate of (0.28, 0.64) which is wider than commercially available LCD products.


OLED is developing into an important market for the display industry as well as the chemical industry. Materials are estimated to make-up 20 per cent of the value of the OLED supply chain.


The worldwide flat panel display market was worth $70 billion in 2006 and is forecast to rise to $100 billion by 2010 according to display industry analysts. OLED is the fastest growing non-LCD display technology and by 2010 it is predicted that the sector will be worth more than $2.5 billion.


E225a will be available for customer sampling from January 2008 and can be deposited onto any desired substrate by vacuum coating methods.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12992069
> 
> 
> I don't need to 'defend' my 'crusade' because it is not contrary to any rules on the forum. My opinions regarding PDP or any other technology are not a personal attack, and are thus compliant with forum rules (and also my own set of values regarding how I post about stuff like this). I love rhymes, and will not hesitate to express my opinion of various technologies using them. That is my right on this forum, as it is yours also. However you do it, this forum is about discussing technology, both fact and opinion. It is not, however, a place to attack other users for their opinions.
> 
> 
> In order to maintain the coherency of this thread I will only be responding to on-topic questions from you and others. If you wish to continue with non-topical discussion, you are welcome to use the private message system to discuss with me; it was created for this purpose, among others.



I have no problem with your OLED thread. In fact, if you look back, I have posted a few articles about it, that I came across. I recently posted the one about Toshiba/Panasonic finding a way to extend the life span of the panels, and I re quoted it today. I want it to mature into something great, but I do not appreciate your agenda that all you want to see it do is kill off plasmas. No one is going to hold a gun to your head and make you buy a plasma. I do not care that you choose to speak in rhyme, so that is a straw man that you have set up. I do object to your perpetual harping on your desire to see an end to plasma. As I said on a post to day, I want LCD, Plasma and OLED to flourish, In fact I started a thread to track if FED nanocarbon tubes might mature into something worthwhile. I want as many different great technologies to be developed as possible, and that will give me far more options to choose from. Just because I will opt for one, does not mean that I should root against the survival and improvement of the other types of displays, which others might prefer. That is my big problem with your anti plasma crusade. Just because it is not for you, you want it destroyed.


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12983930
> 
> 
> Of course the paper you linked to is Panasonic propaganda; though it does have some interesting information, using it as a reference guide for future market predictions would be unwise.



So you're saying that the founder and president of DisplaySearch is doing Panasonic propaganda disguised as a research paper - for which they normally ask thousands of dollars for people to read?











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12983930
> 
> 
> Indeed competition is good, but that's not going to stop me from stating my opinion on PDP technology. I believe that PDP as an economic product is doomed; first by LCD and next by the subject of this thread, OLED. The advantages of OLED are too many, and its potential easily great enough to surpass PDP.



Nobody of us would mind if OLED developed into the next big thing. But it will take a while until OLED will be able to offer screens big enough to be useful for reasonable prices. In the meanwhile Pioneer is constantly improving plasma technology and prices are lowering all the time. So let's wait and see how everything plays out before jumping to conclusions...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12983930
> 
> 
> And if you think 10 Lu/W is efficient, remember that a 100W incandescent (those bulbs that are getting restricted and soon to be banned in some countries due to their gross inefficiency) gets 16 Lu/W, and 4' T8 triphosphor fluorescent 80-90 Lu/W, and metal halide 100+. In other words, PDP is less efficient than the lowliest of illuminants



Which goes to show how much potential for effiecency improvement there might still be in store for plasma!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12984092
> 
> 
> Regarding SAH, it is not a defect but a positive attribute



I was not talking about sample and hold, I was talking about the sample and hold effect. Do you know what it is? Are you aware that SAH creates motion blur? Is motion blur suddenly a positive attribute for you?


Funny enough the best bet to reduce/remove the sample and hold effect is to introduce artificial flickering (like Sony is offering in their latest and greatest home cinema projector). So where again had OLED advantages over plasma?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12984092
> 
> 
> It is possible to pulse the PDP's PWM faster to make the flicker less visible (or even invisible) but running circuits at all three: high voltage, high frequency, and high power, is a guarantee that you'll also get the other three: high cost, short life, high operating temperature.



That's just nonsense, sorry. See xrox posts...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12984092
> 
> 
> - Short life is infeasible because lifetimes are already too short and LCDs last longer;



Sorry? Panasonic's new plasma models are rated 100.000 hours...







Of course some electronic part of the display will break long before half life time is reached. Same as with any LCD display or future OLED display. Lifetime has long stopped to be a problem with any good LCD or plasma display.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12984092
> 
> 
> Hotter electronics can't be done because the electronics already run too hot



Sorry? Have you read the DisplaySearch paper I've posted in my previous comment? Seemingly not. As plasmas moves to 10 lm/w power consumption will noticably drop, voltages also and heat, too, even very noticably so. DisplaySearch even mentiones that they expect that heat protection filters will be dropped in newer plasma models because the heat will be noticably lower than with current models.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12984092
> 
> 
> Depending on its design, OLED can be fully held like LCD or flicker at 60 Hz.



For home cinema usage flickering will likely be the way to go, which means there'll be no difference between plasma and OLED in this aspect.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12984092
> 
> 
> Finally, OLED can do something neither LCD nor PDP can: it can run at hundreds or thousands of frames per second, since the emitter has a response time in the microsecond range. This allows a third alternative, rather than the duality of SAH/flicker: using interpolation or a high-speed external signal, it can show flicker-free silky smooth motion.



There's no plan in Hollywood (not even a plan of a plan) to increase frame rates to anything more than max 60Hz - if at all. So forget about high-speed external signals for home cinema use in the next 20 years. Sure, interpolation is technically possible. But if you read through the forums, all current implementations plain right suck.


----------



## hoodlum




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12980019
> 
> 
> Right now PDP costs cannot compete with LCD and thus PDP is losing market share.



Isochroma,


Your analysis on PDP's demise is far from reality.

Worldwide PDP shipments surge more than 42% in 4Q07 to record levels 


"PDP pricing was better than LCD, with 42-inch HD PDP panels 20% less than comparable LCDs. PDP pricing is also falling faster on quarter than comparable LCD panel sizes."




And the largest PDP manufacturer (36% of the PDP Market) is very profitable.

Matsushita profit up 22 percent, outlook unchanged


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12991804
> 
> *3. Thou shalt remember that polite queries will elicit polite and helpful responses, likewise, that ranting and raving, bashing, and insults will prompt commensurate responses. Ye shall reap what ye sow.*
> If you disagree with any of my opinions, bring forward some evidence (do you have any?). We can chat all you like about the issues of OLED, but please leave the personal attacks behind.



Isochroma, I don't think anyone on AVS is not looking forward to OLED HT displays (it is an exciting thought). But as the above forum rule states, if you "rant and rave and bash" technologies in what seems like a troll like manner, you can expect responses like you have gotten. Your technical threads are great resources but your troll like attitude towards other technologies is not helpfull at all, and in many cases is not even accurate.


It really is too bad that you didn't start a Plasma Technology Advancement thread as well as I would have liked that.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

madshi...only problem is that you are rude to plasma owners without directly pointing them out.

Not to mention, let me know when OLED makes it to the stores, I can get one that is 'at least' 50", and doesn't cost as much as a car.

Sounds great and I'm extremely hopeful for it....but it is a long ways away from mainstream adoption, no?


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *E-A-G-L-E-S* /forum/post/13009010
> 
> 
> madshi...only problem is that you are rude to plasma owners without directly pointing them out.
> 
> Not to mention, let me know when OLED makes it to the stores, I can get one that is 'at least' 50", and doesn't cost as much as a car.
> 
> Sounds great and I'm extremely hopeful for it....but it is a long ways away from mainstream adoption, no?



Pardon me, but I do not think it is "Madshi" that is rude to plasma owners. I think you had better re-read his posts. You got the guy totally wrong.


----------



## littlebitstrouds

Why is this a argument thread? I just wanna read hard facts about advancements... Can you guys keep it somewhere else?


----------



## Isochroma

I agree; the discussion should be limited to OLED. Off-topic discussion can be done in other threads or via Private Message.


----------



## MJM3000

I'm so excited and I just can't hide it

I'm about to lose control and I think I like it.


----------



## moreHD

What are whites like on OLED compared to LCD? There's nothing better than LCD whites, right?


----------



## Isochroma

That will depend on the implementation, but at minimum you can expect something far superior to the feeble whites on PDP, whose market (if it succeeds) OLED will consume first. Here's what we have and what's coming in the near future:

* Sony develops little'n'large OLED TV panels *
_"Its all-white brightness is *200cdm²*, peaking at more than *600cdm²*"_
* Dai Nippon Printing to commercialize OLEDs for sign displays in 2008 *
_"Jointly with a research institute, the Japanese vendor plans to develop technology to extend the lifespan of panels by ten times that of conventional products to 10,000 hours, with a brightness at *1,000 cd/m2*, the company said._"
Previous stories posted in this thread contain more data on individual emitters.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/13038225
> 
> 
> I agree; the discussion should be limited to OLED. Off-topic discussion can be done in other threads or via Private Message.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/13058307
> 
> 
> That will depend on the implementation, but at minimum you can expect something far superior to the feeble whites on PDP, whose market (if it succeeds) OLED will consume first. Here's what we have and what's coming in the near future:



What a hypocrite you are. You keep on claiming that this this thread should be limited to OLED discussions only, and then you follow up with a post that brings your Plasmaphobia to the thread once more.


----------



## Isochroma

I'm comparing the brightness characteristic of OLED to PDP, nothing more. Interest has been expressed in the brightness attribute; other than comparison with existing technologies and posting some know values, how else can I help form an image of what it will look like?


Regarding brightness, OLED may or may not be brighter than LCD is now or at the time of its deployment, but will far exceed that of today's PDP and likely tomorrow's too, for some specific technical reasons.


Comparisons between OLED and other technologies are relevant, as I have said before in this thread. The differences between OLED and LCD/PDP are the key to its future success or failure, as they will differentiate it in future markets and provide value to offset its initially higher expected cost. Thus a close examination of these differences will provide much insight into future market prospects.


The personal attacks were the primary target of my previous comments regarding off-topic posts. This is a forum to post both facts and opinions, but not to fight with other users over personal preferences, which are all different. It is not my place to question your display preferences, as your situation is different than mine.


Rather, the technical and financial aspects covered in posts on this thread highlight the bigger world picture, and at the same time inform visitors with timely news as well as providing a space for opinion. Perhaps we can hear your opinion regarding the last poster's brightness question. The more people speak up with topical questions/comments/notes/stories, the better this thread can become.


----------



## HDPeeT

 http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hdt...-the-lead.html


----------



## Isochroma

Thanks!


Though I believe OLED will exceed PDP in almost every quality measure, I am concerned about one which PDP may be superior to OLED in: differential RGB ageing, in particular the rapid decline in blue OLED brightness relative to red and green.


PDP's RGB phosphors don't age exactly in sync and neither do CRT's, but they sync far closer than OLED's, thus less color shift is observed over the display's lifetime. The future of OLED emitters is unwritten, but at present differential ageing must be considered a negative relative to PDP, LCD and CRT.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Sony 27-inch OLED TV Prototype* 
*10 January 2008*













[CES 2008] The 11-inch OLED TV is the first commercial OLED TV and it looks great in pictures, but it is simply too small to be really interesting in a home. This 27” OLED TV prototype is much more compelling and I can tell you that the image quality is nothing short of formidable. We are a couple of years from large OLED displays, according to industry insiders and we cannot wait to get our hands on one.


----------



## Isochroma

After some consideration, I've realized that we owe Sony a debt of gratitude for releasing the 11" OLED TV when they did.


Why? By doing so, they've captured the small market of those willing to pay a grievous price for a small OLED TV. Thus, other manufacturers will be forced to release their OLED TVs at a significantly larger size if they hope to sell any. Sony's XEL-1 is likely to be the only non-portable TV-purpose unit in this size range.


Also, the quick sellout of the Sony unit has shown other manufacturers that they too can expect a chance to sell well, provided the price per diagonal inch isn't greater than the XEL-1's. Maybe this is called 'breaking the ice' in marketspeak, if 'breaking the bank' is too harsh.


Despite Sony's intimate knowledge of their home market (Japan), they and many analysts were taken by suprise at the quick sellout. It is this initial uncertainty regarding market acceptance of a new, high-expense technology in a hostile competitive environment, that the XEL-1 sales have abolished. Thus, other manufacturers and Sony themselves can now reassure their boards and investors that further expenditures are justifiable because the product not only has advantages over existing in-market units, but also has real sales potential, despite its high manufacturing cost and attendant price.


In fact the very purpose of selling such a small unit at a high price, may have been to demonstrate such feasibility, as well as for corporate honor, as other observers have pointed out. It may have been necessary to prevent the board from nixing the entire project. So they decided or were forced by order or deadline to prove the corporate investments of value, which they did with style at a high risk to the entire project, by releasing such a small unit.


----------



## blklacker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/13060298
> 
> 
> After some consideration, I've realized that we owe Sony a debt of gratitude for releasing the 11" OLED TV when they did.
> 
> 
> Why? By doing so, they've captured the small market of those willing to pay a grievous price for a small OLED TV. Thus, other manufacturers will be forced to release their OLED TVs at a significantly larger size if they hope to sell any. Sony's XEL-1 is likely to be the only non-portable TV-purpose unit in this size range.
> 
> 
> Also, the quick sellout of the Sony unit has shown other manufacturers that they too can expect a chance to sell well, provided the price per diagonal inch isn't greater than the XEL-1's. Maybe this is called 'breaking the ice' in marketspeak, if 'breaking the bank' is too harsh.
> 
> 
> Despite Sony's intimate knowledge of their home market (Japan), they and many analysts were taken by suprise at the quick sellout. It is this initial uncertainty regarding market acceptance of a new, high-expense technology in a hostile competitive environment, that the XEL-1 sales have abolished. Thus, other manufacturers and Sony themselves can now reassure their boards and investors that further expenditures are justifiable because the product not only has advantages over existing in-market units, but also has real sales potential, despite its high manufacturing cost and attendant price.
> 
> 
> In fact the very purpose of selling such a small unit at a high price, may have been to demonstrate such feasibility, as well as for corporate honor, as other observers have pointed out. It may have been necessary to prevent the board from nixing the entire project. So they decided or were forced by order or deadline to prove the corporate investments of value, which they did with style at a high risk to the entire project, by releasing such a small unit.



Good statement


----------



## Isochroma

Because of their excellent sales, there remains only one leg on Sony's problem: manufacturing cost. If, as they claim, they produce each unit at a loss, then they will have to rework the design/implementation and/or upscale the process in order to achieve target cost efficiency, or raise the price, or both.


I'd be sweating raising the XEL-1's price; nobody wants to drive away customers, yet overpricing can be a valuable lesson to show exactly where the buyer's ceiling is. It is not acceptable to raise prices at the OEM level in this case, so they must remain or drop if future production is to be economically sustainable.


I believe that the 27", if it or an OLED of similar dimension is released as second product, it will use at least one substantially different production technique, fab scale, or emitter material; among other possible cost reductions. A large drop in the cost per diagonal inch in necessary because buyers have psychological and financial maximum absolute ceilings for prices.


There would (likely?) be few who could afford a 27" OLED if it was priced on a diagonal-inch equal ratio with the 11" (2.45x more expensive). Considering the additional panel losses due to higher defect rate on larger size units, I'd say that they would be at least three times more costly to make, possibly much more depending on the variation of defect rate with size.


Perhaps I'm wrong about that market, at least in Japan, which still retains much wealth and has a large well-paid consumerate forever itching for the latest and greatest tech gadgets. They might actually sell out 27" OLED TVs at equal per-inch pricing. But I don't think the board at Sony or anyone else would actually try something that foolish.


So they will tread water for a while making 11" units and down-costing manufacturing, preparing for the next upsize.


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/13058307
> 
> 
> That will depend on the implementation, but at minimum you can expect something far superior to the feeble whites on PDP, whose market (if it succeeds) OLED will consume first.



(1) We don't know how good OLED whites will be because lifetime goes down when OLED has to produce a lot of light. OLED whites will not differ between small window white and full screen whites, as it is the case with current PDP's, but the overall brightness may very well be rather low. At least compared to LCD. It may happen that OLEDs will be less bright on a white window compared to today's plasmas, but brighter on a white full screen. Obviously OLED lifetime improves all the time, so as time goes on, OLED may develop to be able to show as bright whites as current LCDs are.


(2) If we talk about OLED displays in useful sizes for home cinema usage, we are obviously talking about the future. So we should not compare OLED to current generation PDPs, but to future PDPs. The one and only reason why PDPs are lacking in full screen white brightness is that the power supply is not able to power a full screen white in full brightness. This problem will go away automatically, as soon as PDP reaches higher efficiency, which improves every year, but which is projected to jump noticably in 2009 or at the latest in 2010. It is expected by some insiders that the best 2009 PDP models will be able to hold their own ground compared to LCDs in full white screen brightness.


(3) Speculating about which market OLED might consume first is very subjective and doesn't belong into this thread at all. My personal opinion is that if OLED proves to be the next big thing it might eat LCD first and PDP afterwards because most LCD companies are also investing in OLED research and because PDPs are projected to improve their cost advantage over LCD in the near future. If OLED will reign in the image quality department it will first eat the most expensive technologies and then work its way down to the cheapest competition. Since PDP is cheaper to produce than LCD I'd say that it's probable that OLED will eat LCD first.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/13061559
> 
> 
> OLED whites will not differ between small window white and full screen whites, as it is the case with current PDP's, but the overall brightness may very well be rather low.



OLED, CRT, and PDP are all power on demand devices. Since CRT and PDP both require an ABL circuit (which is the source of the varying white levels with window size) I would not rule out OLED to do the same.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/13061559
> 
> 
> The one and only reason why PDPs are lacking in full screen white brightness is that the power supply is not able to power a full screen white in full brightness. This problem will go away automatically, as soon as PDP reaches higher efficiency



The ABL circuit stabalizes the peak power. Increasing the efficiency will only eliminate the ABL circuit if 100% APL draws peak power numbers of todays PDPs. If not there are 4 options.

*1 - No adjustment of ABL circuit*

- No change in average or peak power

- Small window and full screen whites will increase

*2 - Adjust ABL circuit to lower Power*

- Both Average and Peak power will be dropped

- No change in small or full screen brightness

*3 - Adjust ABL circuit to increase APL threshold*

- No change in peak power

- Large drop in average power

- Full screen brightness will increase

- Small screen brightness will decrease

*4 - Combination of 2 and 3*



Note, in reading recent OLED technical papers it is surprising to find out that one of the major hurdles for LARGE screen OLEDs at the moment (apart from manufacturing and lifetime) is power consumption.


----------



## Isochroma

Very interesting... the future has more questions that answers for OLED.


----------



## SuperVision2010











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/13060298
> 
> 
> Also, the quick sellout of the Sony unit has shown other manufacturers that they too can expect a chance to sell well, provided the price per diagonal inch isn't greater than the XEL-1's. Maybe this is called 'breaking the ice' in marketspeak, if 'breaking the bank' is too harsh.
> 
> 
> Despite Sony's intimate knowledge of their home market (Japan), they and many analysts were taken by suprise at the quick sellout.



*HUH?* Quick sellout,you say?


Not in the high-tech. area of Boston.


The only Sony Style store here lies on Rte.128 in Burlington and they still have all 4 XEL-1's they were allotted.

That's right, none have sold yet.

One is a demo unit (looked great but comes with a very skimpy warranty) and the other three are still on a shelf in the store room.When I inquired about display lifetime a lot of hemming and hawing ensued.

"Not ready for primetime" is what I took away from that.

Not sure where you got your sales figures.


----------



## Isochroma

Markets, markets. The Japanese market, as I said, sold out (in one day, nontheless). They have higher incomes and different cultural factors. Remember that they only intended to sell them in the Japanese market anyway. Some were sold elsewhere, but the majority were for the home market.

* Sony Introduces Country's First OLED TV: Live @ CES 2008 (With Video) *

"LAS VEGAS, January 6 — Sony's been selling OLED TVs for awhile—*just not the US*. In fact, despite their massive price tag and puny screen size, *Sony quickly sold out their entire Japanese stock*. *Maybe that's what motivated them to give the product a shot over here*."
* OLEDs: First Sony televisions sold out in Japan *

The world’s first OLED televisions. manufactured by Sony,*were sold out almost as soon as they hit retailers’ shelves in Japan*. By 23 November 2007, only a day after delivery started, the first month’s entire supply of 1,300 OLED TVs had changed hands at a price of just over EUR 1,200 each. A further 700 “XEL-1” televisions were displayed in store windows, although the next batch would not be on sale for another three weeks. The new ultra-thin TV sets are not even making it to the stores in other countries.
After they sold out in Japan, they sent a few to other countries' stores to give those markets a test. Looks like the dynamics were very different in your country. It wasn't the original plan.


Don't expect the next OLED TV from any manufacturer to sell at the same per-inch price; its primary market may or may not be Japan and the sales plan will likely be different from the XEL-1's.


----------



## greenland

Sony claims that they lost money on every one of the eleven inch OLED displays that were sold for over $2.000.00 each.


----------



## Isochroma

Correct. But it was a hell of a show, was it not?


----------



## greenland

I posted this at an earlier date, but I though people might be interested in the details about how the 11 inch Sony panels are constructed.Here is a link to a site that has purchased the new Sony OLED display and have taken it apart to examine the internal components.


There is also a Windows Media video clip on the site showing them taking the display apart. Enjoy.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...071127/143111/ 




*[Breaking Down OLED TV] We Got Sony's OLED TV*


----------



## greenland

Here is a link to Sound and Visions detail test report of the Sony 11" OLED set.


They give it a very positive review.


Go to the link to read the entire review.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hdt...s-oled-tv.html


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/13124019
> 
> 
> Here is a link to Sound and Visions detail test report of the Sony 11" OLED set.
> 
> 
> They give it a very positive review.
> 
> 
> Go to the link to read the entire review.
> 
> http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hdt...s-oled-tv.html



Hmm.....


Is there a difference between the Japanese version to the ones sold at Sony Style stores in America? (apart from the former having a BS-110 Hi-vision tuner)


----------



## Isochroma

 *Makers to Sharpen Organic ‘Dream Displays’* 
*17 February 2008*


Display manufacturers such as Samsung SDI and LG.Philips LCD (LPL) have been locking horns for the expansion of investment into the active-matrix organic light emitting diodes (AM OLED) industry, called “dream displays.’’


Samsung SDI said on Sunday it is engaged in the second phase of investment to sharpen its AM OLED lines.


“The move is intended to double monthly production capacity to 3 million units this year from the current 1.5 million by cutting costs,’’ a Samsung SDI spokesperson said.


Samsung SDI had invested some 477.5 billion won in its AM OLED plant in Cheonan, South Chungcheong Province, and said in October last year that it would double monthly output capacity of the displays this year.


Flat screen manufacturers anticipate that AM OLED displays will replace the currently dominating LCD panels on multimedia gadgets such as mobile phones.


Despite the high error rates in production of larger size panels, the biggest obstacle in price competition, AM OLEDs are widely regarded as “dream displays’’ due to their advantages in color, brightness, response time and thickness than conventional liquid crystal displays.


Inspired by rising demand for high-end multimedia devices, local and overseas display makers including Sony are pouring billions of dollars into research and development of the next-generation displays to grab an opportunity to charge premium prices.


While experts claim that the technology is still in an initial stage and mass production of larger panels will take at least five years, the market will grow to 70 million units or $2.5 billion worth by 2010 from some 3 million units amounting to $130 million in sales.


LPL, which recently merged AM OLED lines from LG Electronics, also plans to confirm its investment in AM OLEDs in the first half.


“We are considering building a new plant for AM OLEDs. The announcement will be made no later than June,’’ a spokesperson from LPL said.


“A recent decision to change the company name to LG Displays reflects our goals for a bigger presence in the next-generation display market,’’ the official said.


Samsung Electronics has joined the trend by establishing the test line for AM OLED television panels with the mass production date slated for 2009.


“As previously declared, we will focus on the 20-inch AM OLED panel. The test line aims to review the possibility in the larger size panel before the mass production,’’ a spokesperson from Samsung Electronics said.


----------



## IncraTL




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slb* /forum/post/10007040
> 
> 
> For the main display in a home, I agree that 50" is a good starting point. However, there is still a good market for smaller displays for use in a kitchen, bedrooms, etc. I personally would not want a display larger than about 40" for use in our current bedroom.



I agree. It depends what you are doing while watching the display. For me, when I'm working out on the Elliptical cross trainer, an 11" display would be perfect.


----------



## greenland

Sony to invest approximately 22 billion yen to strengthen OLED panel technology

Press release, February 19; Emily Chuang, DIGITIMES [Tuesday 19 February 2008]









Sony has announced plans to invest approximately 22 billion yen (US$204 million) to strengthen its OLED panel production technology. With the investment, Sony intends to accelerate the shift to medium- to large-size OLED panels.

Sony began researching OLED technology in 1994, and has since positioned OLED as a future-generation display technology. In December 2007, Sony launched the world's first OLED TV, "XEL-1" in Japan.

In order to advance the shift towards medium- to large-size OLED panels, Sony has decided to invest towards the further development of production technologies starting from the second half of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009. Sony will reinforce its TFT and EL (electroluminescent) layer coating processing facilities at Sony Mobile Display's Higashiura factory, and plans to implement this production technology during the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Sony bets $200 million on large screen OLED TVs* 
*19 February 2008*


LCD TV sales are booming thanks to the digital transition in the United States. With incredible adoption rates, prices are plumetting and LCD manufacturers are ramping up production to meet consumer demands.


Sony is looking to the future of the thin TV segment and announced today it will spend $200 million on technology needed to develop medium to large size OLED panels. In October of 2007, Sony was first to market with an OLED TV .


Typical LCD substrate factories run billions of dollars; Samsung and Sony poured more than $2 billion into their 7th generation LCD facility capable of producing 50,000 panels per month. OLED carries a considerably lower production cost, though only a few companies worldwide possess the intellectual property and design patents to build OLED monitors and televisions.


The Sony XEL-1 was a small TV with a screen size of 11-inches and it sported a super thin profile of only 3mm thick. The other promises OLED panels give to TV fans are brighter colors and less power consumption thanks to no need for a backlight.


The catch with the Sony XEL-1 was the price; the tiny TV set retailed for around $1,700. In addition to the high cost Sony was only able to produce about 2000 of the TVs each month because of the difficult and costly manufacturing process the OLED panels require.


Other large LCD TV makers are also looking to get into production of larger OLED TVs. Samsung unveiled a 31-inch OLED TV at CES 2008 . Toshiba had promised to bring large screen OLED TVs to market, then had a change of heart and announced it would not be bringing OLED TVs of larger screen sizes to market after all .


----------



## MrEastSide

I understand that these things produce amazing pictures and have other benefits as well. But, why are so many people hung up on being so excited over how thin they are? Is it really a hassle or unattractive where we're at now, having LCDs and plasmas that are 3-4 inches thin? lol! I mean, really. It's cool that OLEDs can be so thin, but I don't think that should be something everyone should be so major excited about. I think at 3 inches or so most TVs now are pretty awesome depth-wise.


----------



## willyolio

because thinness sells. you barely even have to advertise it. just put it down somewhere, and 95% of the people who walk by will instantly think "oh my god it's so thin i want it."


i mean, look at the Macbook Air. it has crap for functionality, crap for performance, horrible price, and yet people who see it simply want it.


on the manufacturing side, OLED should scale much better than LCD and eventually become much cheaper to mass-produce.


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrEastSide* /forum/post/13163833
> 
> 
> I understand that these things produce amazing pictures and have other benefits as well. But, why are so many people hung up on being so excited over how thin they are? Is it really a hassle or unattractive where we're at now, having LCDs and plasmas that are 3-4 inches thin? lol! I mean, really. It's cool that OLEDs can be so thin, but I don't think that should be something everyone should be so major excited about. I think at 3 inches or so most TVs now are pretty awesome depth-wise.



It's not really the "thickness" of the OLED display that excites so many people (although that is a nice benefit), but rather it is the OLED video technology itself, and what OLED will or can be in the near future.


----------



## the_gunner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrEastSide* /forum/post/13163833
> 
> 
> I understand that these things produce amazing pictures and have other benefits as well. But, why are so many people hung up on being so excited over how thin they are?



The idea of one day being able to hang up a 100" flexible OLED display that's 1mm thin and only weighs 5 lb is very appealing to me, and I would pay a pretty penny for it.


----------



## nx211

Last Sunday night I was near the *Sony building* on Madison Avenue in *NYC* so I stopped in to check out their new little *OLED* display. I was only able to spend a few minutes with it but that was more than enough time to figure out that this *OLED* technology is the flat panel technology for those looking for a display technology that *has the potential* to be the *true quality successor* to the *aperture grill*.


*Blacks*

Noticeably superior to most LCD panels currently made. Black is comparable/equal to black generated on either of my two Sony CRT XBR models that I have, notably, the better of the two, my Sony 34XBR970. Black is pretty much black as black can possibly be.

*Response Time*

I saw absolutely no *pixel/image delay* whatsoever. The moving images *appeared to be comparable to CRT technology* as well. Man, I can still remember the very first time that I saw a movie playing on a LCD screen, (It was a laptop). It was during the PC Expo that used to be held annually in NYC. It was about 10 or so years ago. It was a *horrific experience* to say the least! I believe those first panels had a response time of something like 40ms. I thought to myself how can anybody *be so blind* and tolerate putting up with watching a movie on a display like this. The delay *was horrible* compared to that of an electron beam painting the image on even the least expensive CRT sets available. Granted, today's LCD panels have much improved pixel response times, but the problem is still there. At least I can still notice it.

*Color Accuracy*

Due to the very short time I had with the display, I was unable to really determine how well the color spectrum compares to that of the better CRTs out there. On first blush, the colors did look good, in fact, they looked very good to excellent. But I would have to reserve final judgment on this until I can spend some more time with the display.



All that being said, I would still like to see how well this technology holds up with a much larger sized display. Additionally, another performance metric that I would be anxious to compare to that of a quality CRT display, is to see what digitized film grain looks like on a *large* OLED display. I feel this is another area that large LCD panels fall far short in when compared to a quality analogue CRT display. Perhaps due to a LCD's relatively long pixel response time, digitized film grain looks pretty bad on current large LCD panels, *I wonder* if this would be improved upon with OLED technology? When walking into a TV retailer, ever notice that most of the time the flat panel displays are showing animated video or brightly shot high-def imagery. Seldom do you see a digitized film playing (especially an older film), in its entirety on LCD panels in showrooms, unless it's a loop of exceptionally clean, carefully selected, noise free scenes. Digitized film grain on large Hi-Def displays isn't pretty. Even on my somewhat smallish 34XBR970, you can see the limitations of the display imposed by *digitized film grain* carried along a *digital 1080i video signal*, *but* it looks a whole lot better than any LCD panel I've ever seen.


I'm glad to see that the men at *the helm of Sony* are *pursuing* a display technology that has the potential of being *the true quality successor* to the *aperture grill* and something that *Akio Morita* would be proud of to put the Sony name on - not settling for *electrifying some crystal nonsense flipping around in a chemical emulsion* with lighting provided by *florescent tubes* - passed off to blind people (with more money than brains) as display technology.


Way to go Sony.



nx211


----------



## Isochroma

Your report confirms that the units are certainly impressive. Undoubtedly, and as they trickle into the hands of reviewers, more definitive and, in particular, quantitative results will be published.


In general the review is excellently written with good attributional insight; in short, an excellent contribution to the thread.


I believe that if you ever get an OLED into a blackroom, you'll fine its black to be as invisible as the walls that surround, or the floor evermore.


What's less certain is the reflectivity; the Sony units so far seem to have fairly reflective glass surface. It won't be a problem for those like me, who only watch at night, in a completely dark room.


Those unlucky enough to use such a unit in daylight, esp. sunny conditions, will find that like PDP, specular reflections will be produced. This is assuming that no manufacturer makes a matte screen OLED. However, OLED in this case will have one advantage: PDP's phosphor reflectance adds to the panel's total reflectivity significantly; its diffuse reflectance makes it impossible to avoid by changing viewer-screen placement. OLED has a much lower internal reflectance as it lacks the oxide phosphor powder that is inevitably white or gray.


If I needed a matte screen, I'd just have it custom coated or polished. It would be a small investment on such expensive units, possibly for a long time dependant on the product cost decline (hopefully) curve.


----------



## johnnybrulez

Can you use this as a monitor? :-D


----------



## ad72

Considering manufacturers have issues with making large size OLED's, it will be LCDs market share that OLEDs will take over not plasma's. If manufacturers had issues with making small OLEDs and could only make big ones (50"+), then the plasma market share would be affected first.


If OLEDs come in 32" to 42" sizes, that's not going to deter would be plasma buyers looking for a 50"+ screen. The only tvs in the 32" to 42" range are LCDs (besides the 42" Panasonic pdp).


----------



## Isochroma

It seems you are probably correct, at least to start. If OLED succeeds at upscaling its size beyond 42" then the threat will come knocking on PDP's door. Do remember, however, that a large portion of today's PDP market is at 42"; 58% in 2007, predicted to be 42% in 2008 .


In other words, there will be casualties in both camps, right off the bat.


----------



## greenland

Provided that they can introduce a 42inch OLED at a price level that is not beyond the budget level of most consumers!.


----------



## cpc

I saw a Sony guy on the local news station showing off the 11" Sony OLED TV. Has there been any developments lately that indicate that the OLED technology could be used in front projectors in the future?


----------



## navychop

It's a self-luminous direct view technology.


----------



## Tectonic

As a gamer in refusal to switch to LCD due to blurring and low refresh rates (I still use CRT, and I love 1024x768 at 140hz with vsync), I'm really interested in what OLED could bring to the desktop PC as well as laptop screens. Sadly, I'm also hooked on a 21" screen with 1600x1200 resolution, so I expect it will be a while before OLED will meet all my desires in a monitor.


Are there hopes for seeing high-resolution (1024x768 or 1280x1024 or 1600x1200) OLED monitors (17", 19", 21") within a couple years? When discussing the difficulty in creating large OLED panels, is it due to the size of the pixel, the resolution of the screen, or both?


----------



## navychop

I believe it is difficult at this time to build large sheets defect free.


----------



## pchemist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12990692
> 
> 
> The Nikkei Electronics Breakdown Team finished measuring the display properties of Sony's OLED TV. Next, we moved on to observe the pixel structure in detail with the help from a panel engineer. . . . Because the TV only uses two TFTs, it has a higher pixel aperture ratio over the product using more TFTs. The Nikkei Electronics Breakdown Team estimated that the latest panel has an aperture ratio of about 75%, which is considerably high. It is likely that Sony prioritized the enhancement of aperture ratio in the designing to fully utilize the emitting material whose life is not adequately long.
> 
> .





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/12990692
> 
> 
> I also hate ... the low aperture ratio that makes PDPs look grainy up close, unlike LCDs.




I agree completely. For me, aperture ratio is critical -- which is why I'd love to see some actual numbers; that would make the comparison among OLED, plasma, and LCD flat panel displays more precise. Do you have aperture ratios for plasma and LCD flat panel displays? I've not been able to find them. Including what you posted above, here's what I've uncovered thus far:


APERTURE RATIOS, FLAT PANEL TECHNOLOGIES:


OLED (UXGA): 75%

Plasma (UXGA): ??

Plasma (XGA): ??

LCD (UXGA): ??

LCD (XGA): ??



APERTURE RATIOS, PROJECTION TECHNOLOGIES:


3LCD, current generation (Epson D7, UXGA): ??

3LCD, current generation (Epson D7, XGA): 79%**

3LCD, last generation (XGA): 65%*


DILA/LCOS (UXGA): 92-93%


DLP, current generation (UXGA): 95%***

DLP, last generation: 91%*


* http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/1001...number=1505648 

** http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/20...s_20080131.htm 

*** http://www.dlp.com/projectors/1080p.aspx


----------



## Isochroma

PDP has low aperture ratio due to the gas cells requiring sturdy walls to maintain structural integrity with existing pressure difference. These walls separate pixels on the horizontal and vertical. In some designs, the horizontal walls are so thick they are easily visible as wide spaces between visible emission rectangles. I've seen this many times before in my up-close examinations of PDP.


As for OLED, its builders have, as the _Nikkei_ mentions, more flexibility in their design. I'm willing to bet quite a sum that the lowest aperture ratio of any commercial design will be nicely larger than any existing or future PDP. LCD, being much more similar in layout design, also has the same high AR.


Slightly off-topic but still quite relevant, the panel closest to OLED which sells commerically at present (apart from the 11" Sony unit), is the Pioneer Kuro line of PDPs. Unfortunately, they are divesting their manufacturing operations.


----------



## pchemist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/13297397
> 
> 
> PDP has low aperture ratio due to the gas cells requiring sturdy walls to maintain structural integrity with existing pressure difference. These walls separate pixels on the horizontal and vertical. In some designs, the horizontal walls are so thick they are easily visible as wide spaces between visible emission rectangles. I've seen this many times before in my up-close examinations of PDP.
> 
> 
> As for OLED, its builders have, as the _Nikkei_ mentions, more flexibility in their design. I'm willing to bet quite a sum that the lowest aperture ratio of any commercial design will be nicely larger than any existing or future PDP. LCD, being much more similar in layout design, also has the same high AR.
> 
> 
> Slightly off-topic but still quite relevant, the panel closest to OLED which sells commerically at present (apart from the 11" Sony unit), is the Pioneer Kuro line of PDPs. Unfortunately, they are divesting their manufacturing operations.



Yup, I see the same thick ribbing you do on PDPs -- but I'd still be very interested to see some comparative _numbers_ for aperture ratios for plasma and LCD flat panels. For me, it makes the comparison more solid.


As an aside, I find the Pioneer's visible ribs more bothersome than those on the Fujitsu PDPs. It may be that Fujitsu has a higher aperture ratio than Pioneer. But again, it would be nice to have the actual numbers. Perhaps Pioneer made thicker ribs to get higher ANSI contrast numbers. Fujitsu, by comparison, may have been willing to sacrifice ANSI contrast to get something they (and I) value even more: a less fatiguing, smoother, less digital and more natural image. In fact, I recall the Fujitsu white paper also said that they actually wanted some bleed between the pixels. It lowers the ANSI contrast, but makes for, overall, a better picture. Too bad Fujitsu couldn't match the Kuros' blacks.


----------



## xrox

You guys shoud take some pictures like this of all the different techs (it would be interesting):

LINK 


Note that for PDP, bus over rib designs and thin rib technology is possible.


----------



## borf

Samsung unveils 31 inch OLED at CeBIT.

My french is bad but they seem to be excited.

Quick review 
Quick Video - viewing angles 













_For the little amount of time we saw it, the TV in question was :

very bright and contrasted,
*particularly reactive* and with rendering superior to current LCD TVs, according to our eyes,

is extremely thin,

has almost perfect viewing angles_


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung SDI's AMOLEDs reach volume production in 2007, says DisplaySearch* 
*6 March 2008*


Sony got all the attention in the fourth quarter of 2007 with the release of its 11-inch XEL-1 TV, but Samsung SDI drove the market, pushing shipments to 20.2 million units, which was up 30% sequentially but down 9% on year. For the year, total revenues grew 6% to US$493.9 million units and total shipments grew 8% to 74.7 million units, according to DisplaySearch. The shipment mix is changing, as AMOLEDs had a 9.7% share of total revenues in the third quarter of 2007, which jumped to 41% in fourth quarter of 2007.


By the first quarter of 2008, AMOLEDs will represent 55.6% of total revenues as LG Display enters the AMOLED market and Chi Mei Electronics, Samsung SDI and Sony continue to ramp up, noted Barry Young, senior advisor, DisplaySearch.


Sony shipped 2,000 11-inch displays for use in the XEL-1 last December and is expected to ship 6,000 panels in the first quarter of 2008. Chi Mei Electronics increased its production of AMOLED panels, shipping 6,000 units in the fourth quarter of 2007 up from 1,600 in the third quarter of 2007. LG Display, formerly LG. Philips LCD, took over LGE's PMOLED fab and is expected to ship 150,000 AMOLED panels for use in the recently announced LG-SH150A in the first quarter of 2008.


AMOLEDs are beginning to hit their stride in the small/medium market with Nokia, Samsung, LG and Sony Ericsson all releasing products in the fourth quarter of 2007, Young stated. Multiple product introductions in the next two quarters may appear, and the panel size will jump to 2.6-inch and larger compared to previously announced 2.2-to 2.4-inch models, he added.


Due to a strong fourth quarter, total OLED 2007 revenues reached US$493.9M, a new record, led by Samsung SDI, RiTdisplay and Pioneer. Showing strong results in microdisplays, eMagin slipped into the top five for the first time.


----------



## Zoo

Well... It's a start! Moving these 11" sets will generate some good press for Sony and allow them to work out some manufacturing bugs on the sets. It will be cool when you can get a 27"-32" 720p or 1080p set for around the same $2500. That would make a great bedroom set for me!


Also, it will be cool if some manufacturers start to do 20"-24" sizes that are suited for computer use.


Either way the tech seems pretty exciting and while my next set will probably be an LCD I can see an OLED in my future (55" and up sets will probably not be readily available or affordable for at least another 5-7 years).


----------



## chmilar

This has just started hitting all of the news outlets:

http://www.oled-info.com/ge/ge_demon...factured_oleds 


Some GE researchers have devised a much cheaper way to manufacture OLEDs. It sounds like they are targetting "efficient lighting", not televisions.


----------



## pwang8

 http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ing-tweak.html


----------



## bgosselin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/13213339
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that if you ever get an OLED into a blackroom, you'll fine its black to be as invisible as the walls that surround, or the floor evermore.



I have the small Oled Sony TV at home since sunday night. I have to give it back next friday.


I try to mesured contrast ratio but it turn out to be impossible. In my theater room with black walls, ceilling and black carpet I don't see any light coming out of the screen when I display a 0IRE frame. Not even after a few minute. It just look like the TV is off. I try with my extech meter but it can detect any light either. That is better than my 27inch CRT TV for sure. I would quote infinite contraste ratio buy looking at this thing.


TV is very impressive. Dark scenes are gorgeous. The image remind me of my Pio plasma (6th generation) but with better shadow details. Image as a lot of punch. You can watch the TV an any angle without any picture degradation (contrary to LCD tv)


I do mesure closer to 6500k with the Warm2 setting. The expand colors setting provide with a larger gamut than the rec709 standard. It's similar to the color you get from an RS1 for example. Probably more saturated even. Normal colors seem to be better but I didn't measure the primaries and secondaries with that mode (measured were taken with a CA6X probe and the Progressive labs software)


I didn't experiment with the noise reduction or any other gadget. The excellent black could actually be annoying. I check Equilibrium on DVD. The first scene involving the cleric has him running into a dark room. The image stay black for a few seconds. On the OLED TV I could see all the bad compression artifacts. I had to crush black reducing brightness to it's 50 settings (I found 51 to be a better level with test pattern). It amazing how that notch is visible on that technology. Maybe 50 was the exact level. But my point is that a simple mistake in brightness adjustment make compression default very visible. That what you get from a 1000000:1 contrast display.


Don't know when this will be available in 50 inches size. But I'm sure it could sell even at 4 or 5 time plasma prices. This thing is tiny. It's amazing, the quality you get by looking at something that when turn off, just look like a thin piece of shinny plastic.


Bruno


----------



## Zoo

Wow! Thanks for your impressions.


It sure sound like the killer type of tech that many have been waiting for. As I said earlier a 27"-32" 16x9 would be a great set for my bedroom as would a 22"-24" widescreen computer monitor.


Hopefully one day these things will be at 55" or so with a price tag in the $4000 price range. While this might sound overly optimistic just look at what plasmas have done in the past decade. OLED will go the same route and sets will get larger and less expensive.


----------



## Isochroma

Your detailed review of the Sony unit is much apreciated, and vindicates my statement as quoted. As larger OLED TVs & monitors become commercially available, they will decimate both LCD and PDP on virtually all measures of image quality.


----------



## borf

Here's to that but black detail is more important for me - sounds good in both areas from that.


----------



## madshi

@Bruno, have you tried checking out how motion is handled? Does the Sony OLED does anything to counter the sample-and-hold effect like e.g. using black frame insertion or anything like that?


----------



## navychop

Yes, your comments are most appreciated. Merci.


----------



## CRT_Nooob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/13367231
> 
> 
> @Bruno, have you tried checking out how motion is handled? Does the Sony OLED does anything to counter the sample-and-hold effect like e.g. using black frame insertion or anything like that?



I second that. On paper, it looks like it will handle motion like LCD. Waiting for viewers input to confirm.


----------



## bgosselin

I'm keeping the OLED for another 5 days. So I will have more time to play with it.


Gamma on the standard mode and the setting at off is at 2.1.


Good grayscale tracking but the very low IRE like 5-10-and 15 all have a pinkish grey. I don't have access to any gain or offset for individual colors so it can't be corrected. I didn't see any effect on dark scene just yet.


The Screen performs like plasma. If I take the lux reading with an IRE window I read 505 lux. If I take the same measure, but with a full field white instead, it goes down to 300 lux. I know it's the new big thing but in real time viewing it's not a problem to my eyes.

Audio sync with HDMI is really bad. Every time you change menu or change source you ear a squeaking noise. Analog audio perform way better.


It does handle 1080p24 very well. I robot via my PS3 was really fluid.


Maybe you can tell me how I can test the sample-and-hold effect. My personal feeling is that it does perform like an LCD on that regard but it is fast. No motion blur or anything.


I have a cartoon call "Reboot» I used a test screen were a green character pass in front of the screen from right to left then back. I used this shot first to check my Optoma H77 panning performance back then. But I now use it on a regular basis to evaluate how fast and accurate panning is handle with different displays. I used that scene last night on the Sony and the character was display in its full glory. The best I have seen so far. I do have the impression that I’m looking at a bunch of picture being quickly swap in front of my face. Probably because of that "sample and hold effect" you are talking about. I would like to confirm that with a more scientific method.


There is not much difference between a DVD and its HD version on that screen. Obviously the lower resolution is causing this. I also don't feel the 3D effect as much as with my plasma. But that is probably cause by the lower resolution and the size of the screen.


Dark scenes are very impressive. I check Star Wars Attack of the Clone and I never saw so many stars.


The noise reduction is very impressive. With an HQV HD DVD demo disk I ran the noise screen and the Sony internal processing eliminate them perfectly. I have the feeling it's as good if not better than a mosquito Algolith in that regard. I never use that feature usually because it soften the image. But it is still a nice feature when needed.


Bruno


----------



## Isochroma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CRT_Nooob* /forum/post/13376494
> 
> 
> I second that. On paper, it looks like it will handle motion like LCD. Waiting for viewers input to confirm.



Paper is so yesterday... how about some reviews to unconfirm?

*ZDNet Sonly XEL-1 OLED TV Review & Comparison* :
_"The Sony XEL-1 evinced *no smearing or blurring in motion even with difficult test material*, which helps back up Sony's claim regarding OLED's fast response times."_
In other words, it handles motion nothing like an LCD; predicting device characteristics from paper is not as reliable as it may seem.


----------



## borf

I wonder how it handles sample-and-hold.


----------



## willyolio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bgosselin* /forum/post/13378975
> 
> 
> I have a cartoon call "Reboot»



really? that was the most amazing part of your review.


man, i loved that show.


----------



## notreally

refresh rate measured in nanoseconds. Competitive larger sizes in 2-3 years.


----------



## 8IronBob

Yeah... For the short term, OLED may be a joke, but after 2009/2010, or so, then we'll most certainly be adopting that or even SED into our homes sooner than later. (SED should be another technology to keep our eyes on).


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8IronBob* /forum/post/13390794
> 
> 
> Yeah... For the short term, OLED may be a joke, but after 2009/2010, or so, then we'll most certainly be adopting that or even SED into our homes sooner than later. (SED should be another technology to keep our eyes on).



SED is pretty much finished for good. This video tech has been deemed moot as video tech gains in Plasma & LCD tech along w/low pricing has made SED still-born. Also, the advancements in OLED has leapfrogged SED, which put the final nail in SED's coffin. Doubt seriously if we'll ever see a SED re-born, but who knows...there's been stranger things happen in the CE world.


----------



## Isochroma

Agreed. OLED is superior to SED in several characteristics.


----------



## navychop

SED has risen from the grave before. It now has a silver bullet and a stake in it. And worst of all, now a bunch of lawyers standing on it's grave to ensure dead stays Dead.


No more SED fantasies. Some of us want to believe it was the best, and we'll all be deprived of it due to (fill in the conspiracy blank). It only had marketing claims and limited demos. No proof of longevity or even PQ claims under independent conditions.


Other technologies are "more than good enough" for most people, and are further along the development/manufacturing/cost cutting curve for SED to ever catch up. They missed their window, even for professional use. Worse, new technologies like OLED have developed faster than expected, and have far greater potential for great cost reductions while delivering excellent PQ.


I stand by my claim: Years from now, displays will become cheap again, about as cheap as CRTs were when they died out (adjusting for inflation).


----------



## 8IronBob

Yeah, you're right about HDTVs matching up with CRT SDTV pricing. Right now, your 720p LCD HDTVs are all there already. Won't be too long until 1080p replaces those 720p first-gen HDTVs that most of us already have or had. That's only the first phase in the HDTV development. Definitely gonna see if OLED will even go beyond 1080p. We may expect 1280p or 1600p out of these. Dunno if they're gonna go THAT high in resolution, but just saying.


EDIT: After seeing the Cnet review on the 11" Sony OLED, I'd have to say, even David Katzmaier (the guy who made the video review) said that it was a joke that Sony is up to their old game. He said that it was nice, BUT...it's far too overpriced, and hardly a good size for a TV for the average consumer, and it's not even an HDTV, it's only at most an EDTV, if even that... I mean, unless Sony can come up with at least a 42" 1080p OLED for that same price tag, I'm not really gonna give this tech too much thought.


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bgosselin* /forum/post/13378975
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell me how I can test the sample-and-hold effect. My personal feeling is that it does perform like an LCD on that regard but it is fast. No motion blur or anything.



If it performed like an LCD that you would have motion blur...










The sample-and-hold effect is an effect which is produced by our brain/eyes. Basically when displays are "always on" and then show moving images, our eyes try to follow the motion. But the images only move in 24fps (movie content) or 60fps (video content). Basically each frame sits still for a while and then suddenly jumps to the next position. There's no fluid change from one frame to another. Our eyes/brain don't like this approach. As a result we see the image smear a bit, although in reality the display doesn't really show any smearing. CRTs don't have this problem cause they are impulse displays. So our eyes see "black" most of the time and only once in a while a real frame. This can cause flickering. But the image stays very sharp during motion.


Ok, so how to measure this? Please check out the paragraph "Static and Motion Resolution" here:

http://hdguru.com/?p=187


----------



## whityfrd

oled is only compared to lcd because it has no glass. thats it.


----------



## 8IronBob

Yeah... Shame about SED, tho. At least that looked more promising being 55", and 1080p Full HD, iirc. At least that most certainly would've been in the consumers' best interest. 11" EDTV for that price tag is a joke, imho. I'd expect to see a 42" 1080p from another brand and a technology with the same results for a price tag like that, but Sony is Sony, what are you gonna do?


Just lemme know when Sony finally gets into more comfortable price ranges and bigger screen sizes, and Full HD.


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8IronBob* /forum/post/13398699
> 
> 
> 
> Just lemme know when Sony finally gets into more comfortable price ranges and bigger screen sizes, and Full HD.



Okay, we'll contact you sometime in 2015.


----------



## pchemist

From smarthouse.com: The high energy consumption of OLED TV's (2-3x that for LCD of same size) may prevent them from being sold in many markets, b/c of upcoming government requirements for energy efficiency of consumer electronic devices.

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And...ED_TV/Q9C5R6T2


----------



## Isochroma

 *Osram claims new levels of efficiency and lifetime for OLEDs* 
*18 March 2008*











*Orasm OLED*



Osram claims it has achieved record values of efficiency and lifetime while maintaining the brightness of warm white organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs). For the first time, laboratory researchers have demonstrated it is possible to improve two crucial OLED characteristics simultaneously: efficiency and lifetime, according to the company. Up to now, higher efficiency meant shorter life, and vice-versa.


Karsten Heuser, director of OLED Lighting Technology at Osram Opto Semiconductors, said, "Our development team has reached a real milestone for warm white OLEDs with efficiency of 46lm/W and a 5,000-hour lifetime, at a brightness of 1,000 cd/m². With these significant increases, flat OLED light sources are approaching the values of conventional lighting solutions and are therefore becoming attractive for a wide variety of applications."


The color rendering index (CRI) of the almost 100cm² prototype is 80. By March 2009, Osram researchers expect that a demonstrator for an energy-saving flat OLED light module comprising several tiles will be able to deliver an overall luminous flux of 500 lm from a power consumption of less than 10W.


----------



## 8IronBob

Now that I see it, Sony does have a 27" 1080p OLED, but who knows when that's expected to come to market? I mean, that 11" was a joke, imho, 27" is more like it.


----------



## yanxuanjun

Sony does have a 27" 1080p OLED,but maybe only have ONE,the high energy consumption may prevent it from market(the energy consumption of the Sony 11" OLED-TV is about 45w,but the standard consumption of 40" LCD-TV is less than 250w).But I don't understand why OLED-TV is less efficient than LCD-TV?


----------



## daltonlanny

Dang it.

And I thought OLED was supposed to be way more efficient than either plasma or LCD.

At least thats what I read somewhere.

I also read somewhere that OLED's may have burn-in issues as well.

All this is very disappointing.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daltonlanny* /forum/post/13465275
> 
> 
> Dang it.
> 
> And I thought OLED was supposed to be way more efficient than either plasma or LCD.
> 
> At least thats what I read somewhere.




The reason for the confusion is that there are different types of materials used to create OLED's. OLED's created using phosphorescent materials (PHOLED's) are substantially more energy efficient than those made using fluorescent materials. It gets even more complicated because some OLED's use a red PHOLED combined with a green and blue fluorescent material (this results in some energy savings versus an LCD or plasma).


This split is why you see energy consumption estimates that are all over the place. Toshiba was trying to create an OLED using all fluorescent materials, but as the recent quotes make clear, they now realize that the energy consumption would have been prohibitive. Other companies, such as Samsung SDI, are using PHOLED's and should be able to create TV's that use less energy. The key obstacle is increasing the lifetime of the blue and green materials (red is ready to go). That will also reduce the chances of burn-in.


Slacker


----------



## 8IronBob

Yeah, I'd much rather have Samsung's LED backlit LCD panels if Sony let us down like that. At least they lead to more efficiency over a flourescent light tube. As far as how much more efficient that is over OLED, tho, tha's another thing.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/13465801
> 
> 
> The reason for the confusion is that there are different types of materials used to create OLED's. OLED's created using phosphorescent materials (PHOLED's) are substantially more energy efficient than those made using fluorescent materials. It gets even more complicated because some OLED's use a red PHOLED combined with a green and blue fluorescent material (this results in some energy savings versus an LCD or plasma).
> 
> 
> This split is why you see energy consumption estimates that are all over the place. Toshiba was trying to create an OLED using all fluorescent materials, but as the recent quotes make clear, they now realize that the energy consumption would have been prohibitive. Other companies, such as Samsung SDI, are using PHOLED's and should be able to create TV's that use less energy. The key obstacle is increasing the lifetime of the blue and green materials (red is ready to go). That will also reduce the chances of burn-in.
> 
> 
> Slacker



While this may be true, it seems the biggest issue with OLED power consumption has to do with the low light extraction efficiency and loss in the electronics.


----------



## 8IronBob

As I said, now that Samsung has had experience in LED technology with television, I'd like to think that they should be the ones that come out with something more innovative than Sony did, imho. After all, they've been using it as a backlight technology for the better part of the last three years, iirc. Now, having that same technology become the standard, well, that should be Sammy's bag, not Sony.


Don't get me wrong. I mean, you see Samsung using LED backlight in their higher-end LCD flat panels and DLP projection TVs, so it's only fitting that they come out with something that will actually redefine what this new LED technology can do with more efficiency. Even tho it may not be as efficient as "O" LED, but it does, however, lead to be more superior in PQ to traditional flourescent tubes and bulbs. So we'll need to see how well this will evolve.


----------



## navychop

OLED, in theory, and in the future, can be more efficient than other display technologies, and cheaper to make.


We'll see how things actually turn out.


----------



## yanxuanjun

Thanks for everyone's discussion,the main reason for the enery consumption of the OLED is the enery loss in the electronics.many reports tell the OLED cell is more efficient than TFT-LCD cell,but in the OLED-TV,the energy consumption increase much more,so Toshiba has relayed OLED-TV production. The large cool plate in Sony's 11'OLED -TV ialso indicate the main reason of consumption is due to loss of electronic circuits but not display.


----------



## slacker711

I cant claim to be an expert, but I have trouble understanding why the chips driving the OLED display would need more energy when they are driving a display that requires less power. I can say with certainty that small scale (2 to 3") OLED's are using less power than their equivalent sized LCD's. These are created using red PHOLED's and green/blue fluorescent's.


FWIW, here is the most dramatic example that I know of showing the difference between OLED power consumption and LCD's. Of course, it is from a trade show so you have to take it with a grain of salt, but I do think it is directionally accurate. CMEL has generally used PHOLED's for their display and I assume that is the case here.


http://image.itmedia.co.jp/l/im/life..._ts_fpd015.jpg 

http://image.itmedia.co.jp/l/im/life..._ts_fpd016.jpg 


Slacker


----------



## Isochroma

Please fix your links, they are both dead.


----------



## slacker711

Sorry about that, I guess I cant link directly to the pictures. Here is the article...if anybody speaks Japanese, I'd love to hear a translation of the text, but the pictures showing the comparative power draw speaks for itself.

http://plusd.itmedia.co.jp/lifestyle...news089_2.html 


Like I said, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but I think this gives you some idea of at least the theoretical magnitude of the power savings. When we eventually get to all PHOLED OLED displays, the energy efficiency should be a significant advantage over comparable LCD's (and an even bigger advantage over Plasma's).


Slacker


----------



## yanxuanjun

We know all the light from displayer are all transformed from electric energy, so the energy consumption of TFT-LCD or AM-OLED are determined by the conversion efficiency and light extraction efficiency. conversion efficiency include loss in electronic circuits and light emitting material (to TFT-LCD is backlight),light extraction efficiency for AM-OLED is about 45%,including transmission of ITO and polar(to TFT-LCD is about 6%).But how we calculate the loss of electronic circuits? Of course, the electronic loss of OLED is larger than tft_LCD,for AM-OLED is current control display device,but the TFT-LCD is voltage control display device.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yanxuanjun* /forum/post/13482445
> 
> 
> We know all the light from displayer are all transformed from electric energy, so the energy consumption of TFT-LCD or AM-OLED are determined by the conversion efficiency and light extraction efficiency. conversion efficiency include loss in electronic circuits and light emitting material (to TFT-LCD is backlight),light extraction efficiency for AM-OLED is about 45%,including transmission of ITO and polar(to TFT-LCD is about 6%).But how we calculate the loss of electronic circuits? Of course, the electronic loss of OLED is larger than tft_LCD,for AM-OLED is current control display device,but the TFT-LCD is voltage control display device.



Aside from the fact that I've stated this in post 459, it must also be said that there is a lot more going on than just conversion and light extraction. The overall efficiency of the display depends on a multiple of loss mechanisms (I'll post on this later). Also, if I'm not mistaken 45% extraction efficiency is not normal for OLEDs. This was achieved through a special TFT design if I recall (Isochroma can confirm).


----------



## xrox

This data is a few years old but you can see that very little energy is converted into light output. I would assume the numbers to be better at present time but the trend will be similar.


----------



## Isochroma

That table is just abysmal and depressing too. I'm hoping that the percents are for each loss, not total energy remaining at each step.


----------



## yanxuanjun

I'm sorry about the clerical error on light extraction efficiency,if include all factors ,the light extraction efficiency is only about 20%. All of this is based on the assumption that the color filter is not used, or else another 1/3 should be added.

Maybe I misunderstand your post above,if the percents are the total energy remaining after each step? Does the Drive TFT photo mismatch mearn the loss due to inbalance injectinon of n-type and p-type carriers?


----------



## Artwood

When will OLED break the 70-inch barrier?


----------



## borf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/13493384
> 
> 
> When will OLED break the 70-inch barrier?



Any day now.


----------



## Riot Nrrrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/13475549
> 
> 
> Sorry about that, I guess I cant link directly to the pictures. Here is the article...if anybody speaks Japanese, I'd love to hear a translation of the text, but the pictures showing the comparative power draw speaks for itself.
> 
> http://plusd.itmedia.co.jp/lifestyle...news089_2.html



Go to this URL:

http://www.excite.co.jp/world/english/web/ 


Enter your itmedia URL in the box.


Underneath the URL box, there are two radio buttons. Choose the right one, not the (default) left one. Next to the radio button is a pull-down menu; choose the bottommost entry. Then click on the button in the orange border.


You'll get this back:

_On the other hand, Seiko Epson had exhibited the organic LED display of eight inches that had been announced on October 15 (article related to →).


The spec is 100,000 by 800×480 pixels compared with 200 candelas and the contrasts: 1 or more.


50,000 hours or more (Until brightness is reduced by half) have been achieved by developing the improvement of the luminescence material and the original element structure.


The advantage of excelling in black reproducibility was made the best use of, and the demonstration image that the black of bezel integrates with backing of the image was thrown.


The background and bezel are integrated by using "Ultimateness and black".


It finished it up in the display for a fashionable shop.



Sample (left) that television and portable DVD player, etc. seem to be able to use and vehicle prototype


Eight inches both of the screen size though the example of applying three kinds of had been exhibited in this company.


It is said that this is because the vehicle was made assumption, and the development production line for small-scale mass production has already operated.


The mass production shipment is "Will examine it in two years. "


CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS（CMO)


The person of dissatisfying it in the size in Samsung and Epson wants you to peep into Taiwanese CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS (CMO) booth.


The AMOLED television of 25-inch size has been exhibited, though they are 1366×768 pixels.



25-inch organic EL panel of CMO.


Low power consumption is a big feature.


The spec is 10,000 compared with the contrast: 1 and brightness is 350 candelas.


Practical use is being examined around the television usage as understood from the use of the movie to the demonstration image.


In this company, it is said that it will aim for mass production in about 2010 on the assumption of the size of 25 inches or more.


The holding period of "FPD International 2007" until Friday, the 26th (10:00-17:00).


The admission fee is 2000 yen._


----------



## avdesign

i have a question i like oled tech but if we have rbg leds already as a backlight source for lcds then why not just shirink said leds small enough for displays because i am concerned about the organic part of oled instead display manufactures should use non-organic led tech which is better in the long run


----------



## yanxuanjun

I heard someone said, many europe Companies have given up their plan to develop OLED for display device,but focus on white OLED light(OLLA project),such as Philips, H.C. Starck and Novaled. Is that true?


----------



## The Deuce

Man, those efficiency numbers are... disappointing to say the least. Seems to me that mainstream OLED production is farther off than a lot of us were hoping. Doesn't look to me like there's any obvious "big new thing" on the horizon as far as TV technology goes. As much as I enjoy Auditor55's misery, I think that SED still has an window of opportunity, if Canon could get their act together (although that seems about as likely as affordable 50" OLEDs in the next 5 years).


----------



## Zoo

I'm hopeful for the future of OLED. I suspect it won't be my next set though. In another 3-5 years when I want to replace my 50" RPTV (720p) it will probably be with a 52"-55" LCD (due to the amount of gaming and ambient lighting in my viewing room). I suspect OLED will not be ready at 55" or so sizes in a few years.


----------



## yanxuanjun

why has everyone not anticipated in this forum for more than a week? Is there other forum we could talk on ?


----------



## Isochroma

The news has been quiet lately. I check it everyday and will post anything I find.


----------



## moreHD

Does SHARP have plans to release OLED tv's? This company is kind of futuristic, in my opinion. Could they quickly convert production lines for OLEDs?


Which manufacturer ,you think will be selling 32" OLED tv's for xmas this year?


----------



## navychop

*No, no, and none*


----------



## moreHD

OK, In the news today.

2008 will be a break-out year for OLED with SAMSUNG, LG and SONY producing 17 million displays. Can't they make a tv set from now till december?


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moreHD* /forum/post/13635054
> 
> 
> OK, In the news today.
> 
> 2008 will be a break-out year for OLED with SAMSUNG, LG and SONY producing 17 million displays. Can't they make a tv set from now till december?



Those displays are going in to cellphones and PDAs. They can't even mass produce OLEDs large enough to use in laptops yet, let alone TVs.


----------



## jgreen171

You are absolutely correct, but I would like to add that the cellphones and PDAs that receive the AMOLED displays will look pretty damn good!!! As a geek who walks around with PDAs, cell phone, an mp3 player, etc, it will be nice to have a display that is superior in energy efficiency and appearance to the liquid crap displays being manufactured now. I give props to Samsung SDI, LG Display, and Chi Mei for ushering in a new world of displays. In 2 years they will be manufacturing laptop-sized OLEDs, and in 4 years there will be nice sized OLED televisions.


----------



## Isochroma

That's the spirit!


----------



## jgreen171

"Could they quickly convert production lines for OLEDs?"


Considering that AMOLED is a cutting edge high tech type of display, and the manufacturing process is fraught with problems of cost and yield rates, Im going to guess that no, they cannot quickly convert anything to make AMOLED screens.


"Which manufacturer ,you think will be selling 32" OLED tv's for xmas this year?"


If you pay enough money, I am sure Samsung SDI could hook you up. It may cost upwards of $500,000 though since they dont have a lot of functional prototypes at that size.


----------



## VarmintCong




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgreen171* /forum/post/13639804
> 
> 
> "Could they quickly convert production lines for OLEDs?"
> 
> 
> Considering that AMOLED is a cutting edge high tech type of display, and the manufacturing process is fraught with problems of cost and yield rates, Im going to guess that no, they cannot quickly convert anything to make AMOLED screens.
> 
> 
> "Which manufacturer ,you think will be selling 32" OLED tv's for xmas this year?"



I don't think the holdup for OLED is manufacturing - since they can use amorphous silicon processing, much like LCDs. I think the holdup is lifetime - no one wants to sell a TV that die in a few years, and become discolored sooner than that. And trying to reproduce a Blu-Ray movie in 40 inches probably needs a ton of current, especially if they're gonna crank up the brightness to compete with LCD. There goes your efficiency advantage.


I think we might see SED big-screen TVs before OLED. Seriously.


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VarmintCong* /forum/post/13647737
> 
> 
> I don't think the holdup for OLED is manufacturing - since they can use amorphous silicon processing, much like LCDs. I think the holdup is lifetime - no one wants to sell a TV that die in a few years, and become discolored sooner than that. And trying to reproduce a Blu-Ray movie in 40 inches probably needs a ton of current, especially if they're gonna crank up the brightness to compete with LCD. There goes your efficiency advantage.



Yeah, light output is the enemy of OLED. The more you get out of them the more the organic polymers start to break down. Not many people would buy a large, nice looking, thin, energy efficient OLED display if it could only put out 30cdm2 of brightness.



> Quote:
> I think we might see SED big-screen TVs before OLED. Seriously.



Unfortunately for SED, plasma and LCD are only a year or three from matching it in picture quality. If they don't sort out the legal wrangling soon the boat is going to leave without them.


----------



## VarmintCong




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Carled* /forum/post/13648234
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for SED, plasma and LCD are only a year or three from matching it in picture quality. If they don't sort out the legal wrangling soon the boat is going to leave without them.



Yeah, when LCD gets reliable LED backlighting, and plasma gets the new low-energy panels in 2009, it's gonna make SED and OLED kind of pointless. Any new panel tech will need to unzip your fly for you in order to get noticed.


At least Laser is hitting the market this year - they'll have a chance, since LED LCDs will still be expensive.


----------



## navychop

New horror movie, out next year: "The attack of the SED, the display fantasy that will not die!"


----------



## borf

Well I thought SED was dead too but Canon has always insisted that they continue to work on it, litagation be damned.

SED TV


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VarmintCong* /forum/post/13648654
> 
> 
> Yeah, when LCD gets reliable LED backlighting, and plasma gets the new low-energy panels in 2009, it's gonna make SED and OLED kind of pointless. Any new panel tech will need to unzip your fly for you in order to get noticed.



OLED is different in that it has the potential to become very cheap (it's just different kinds of hydrocarbons wedged between electrodes, far simpler than trying to contain a high voltage phasma in a vacuum or trying to get a extremely flat and consistant layer of liquid crystals), there's just a lot more engineering required before they get there. SED is just another phosphor based tech like CRTs and plasmas that's selling point was superior picture quality.



> Quote:
> At least Laser is hitting the market this year - they'll have a chance, since LED LCDs will still be expensive.



Laser is more interesting in front projection applications given that rear projection is, for better or worse, a dying catagory. They have awesome colour gamuts, but that's basically wasted when you're displaying material mastered for bt.709. A much better use would be for digital cinema applications which use the XYZ colour space; 50% more colours than 35mm film.


----------



## jgreen171




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VarmintCong* /forum/post/13648654
> 
> 
> Yeah, when LCD gets reliable LED backlighting, and plasma gets the new low-energy panels in 2009, it's gonna make SED and OLED kind of pointless. Any new panel tech will need to unzip your fly for you in order to get noticed.
> 
> 
> At least Laser is hitting the market this year - they'll have a chance, since LED LCDs will still be expensive.



In my non-expert opinion, people are being short-sighted when they say that the latest model of plasma or the newest innovation in LCD or the current research in SED is going to somehow make OLED irrelevant. It wont. People should keep in mind the huge laundry list of theoretical advantages OLED possesses, advantages that are being brought out of theory and into practice as we speak:


1) Superior image quality - this is perhaps the MOST likely advantage to disappear, but that is ultimately irrelevant, because of...

2) Price - Right now OLED is very expensive. However AMOLEDs, especially if produced roll 2 roll or solution processed, are capable of being dramatically cheaper than LCD or plasma because their architecture is so much simpler. Structurally they are much more efficient devices.

3) Energy efficiency - have you seen how freaking expensive oil is lately? Energy efficiency is getting increasily important. AMOLED televisions using PHOLEDs will be MUCH MUCH more efficient than plasmas or LCDs. But where OLEDs will really shine is in mobile devices and laptops where battery lifetimes are essential and displays are the biggest power hogs.

4) Cool tricks: AMOLEDs potentially can be transparent, or flexible, and thin as heck. Dont underestimate the new applications and novel uses for displays that are flexible, thin or transparent. They are limitless.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgreen171* /forum/post/13660848
> 
> 
> In my non-expert opinion, people are being short-sighted when they say that the latest model of plasma or the newest innovation in LCD or the current research in SED is going to somehow make OLED irrelevant. It wont. People should keep in mind the huge laundry list of theoretical advantages OLED possesses, advantages that are being brought out of theory and into practice as we speak:
> 
> 
> 1) Superior image quality - this is perhaps the MOST likely advantage to disappear, but that is ultimately irrelevant, because of...
> 
> 2) Price - Right now OLED is very expensive. However AMOLEDs, especially if produced roll 2 roll or solution processed, are capable of being dramatically cheaper than LCD or plasma because their architecture is so much simpler. Structurally they are much more efficient devices.
> 
> 3) Energy efficiency - have you seen how freaking expensive oil is lately? Energy efficiency is getting increasily important. AMOLED televisions using PHOLEDs will be MUCH MUCH more efficient than plasmas or LCDs. But where OLEDs will really shine is in mobile devices and laptops where battery lifetimes are essential and displays are the biggest power hogs.
> 
> 4) Cool tricks: AMOLEDs potentially can be transparent, or flexible, and thin as heck. Dont underestimate the new applications and novel uses for displays that are flexible, thin or transparent. They are limitless.



My company worked on OLED research for many years. From the beginning the laundry list of OLED benefits was formidably large. But as the years passed I've seen that list dwindle as LCD and Plasma have greatly improved while OLED flounders around in the research stage. In the end, TTM (time to market) is OLEDs worst enemy. No one predicted that LCD and Plasma could do what they have performance wise, and cost wise.


Oh and BTW, energy efficiency is one of the greatest "problems" with large area OLEDs, even though it was always touted as a benefit. And come to think of it, every one of your benefits is suspect when you also consider LCD,PDP research in the mix.


IMO LED-HDR-LCD, 10-lumen PDP (ECC), and OLEDs will be competeing techs in the future. In other words, OLEDs will not be a clear winner.


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/13661039
> 
> 
> IMO LED-HDR-LCD, 10-lumen PDP (ECC), and OLEDs will be competeing techs in the future. In other words, OLEDs will not be a clear winner.



In the medium term, definately. In the long term, plasmas and LCDs have too many parts and too much engineering complexity. That's not to say OLED will be the one which delivers the deathblow, it could be another as yet non existant technology, but plasma and LCD will follow CRT and rear projection eventually.


----------



## slacker711

This is 1/10th the thickness of the XEL1....about the thickness of 3 pieces of paper.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/16/s...9-inches-thin/


----------



## VarmintCong




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgreen171* /forum/post/13660848
> 
> 
> In my non-expert opinion, people are being short-sighted when they say that the latest model of plasma or the newest innovation in LCD or the current research in SED is going to somehow make OLED irrelevant. It wont. People should keep in mind the huge laundry list of theoretical advantages OLED possesses, advantages that are being brought out of theory and into practice as we speak:
> 
> 
> 1) Superior image quality - this is perhaps the MOST likely advantage to disappear, but that is ultimately irrelevant, because of...
> 
> 2) Price - Right now OLED is very expensive. However AMOLEDs, especially if produced roll 2 roll or solution processed, are capable of being dramatically cheaper than LCD or plasma because their architecture is so much simpler. Structurally they are much more efficient devices.
> 
> 3) Energy efficiency - have you seen how freaking expensive oil is lately? Energy efficiency is getting increasily important. AMOLED televisions using PHOLEDs will be MUCH MUCH more efficient than plasmas or LCDs. But where OLEDs will really shine is in mobile devices and laptops where battery lifetimes are essential and displays are the biggest power hogs.
> 
> 4) Cool tricks: AMOLEDs potentially can be transparent, or flexible, and thin as heck. Dont underestimate the new applications and novel uses for displays that are flexible, thin or transparent. They are limitless.



I work in semiconductor manufacturing. The #1 thing to remember is that everything is a trade-off. You can get great image quality, ultra-thin, and low-energy from OLED. But you cannot get all 3 at once. Maybe not even 2 at once.


This is why we're still looking at 11" OLED TVs.


----------



## greenland

 http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=243 

* Sony XEL-1 OLED TV Teardown *




Clickable high resolution images, and detailed technical descriptions of all the OLED panel's internal components.


A very fascinating look at the Sony OLED panel. Give it a read.


----------



## jgreen171




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VarmintCong* /forum/post/13665361
> 
> 
> I work in semiconductor manufacturing. The #1 thing to remember is that everything is a trade-off. You can get great image quality, ultra-thin, and low-energy from OLED. But you cannot get all 3 at once. Maybe not even 2 at once.
> 
> 
> This is why we're still looking at 11" OLED TVs.



Well, sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too. When a new technology is invented, it can possibly offer all the existing advantages of an established tech, and new ones too.


Make no mistake, OLEDs are already great image quality and ultra thin (at sizes up to 27") and theoretically they have the potential to be highly energy efficient too. As long as they use PHOLEDs.


----------



## Isochroma

It's been mentioned before in this thread, possibly by xrox, that PHOLEDs are not only highly efficient, but also have poorer spectral purity than the regular type. However, it shouldn't be too hard to shift their output spectra into the usable zone, but that may entail a loss of efficiency.


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/13678330
> 
> 
> It's been mentioned before in this thread, possibly by xrox, that PHOLEDs are not only highly efficient, but also have poorer spectral purity than the regular type. However, it shouldn't be too hard to shift their output spectra into the usable zone, but that may entail a loss of efficiency.



That's what Sony did with the "blue" panel on the XEL-1. The problem is that the people who don't mind dirty tricks like that are not the same people who would pay $2500 for an 11" screen.


----------



## moreHD

In OLED display manufacturing they use small "sheets of substrate", I read.

So, are those sheets big emough for a 17"-er?


Who, do you think will be next with an OLED tv in shops in sizes 14" - 19"? And when (month/year)?


----------



## jgreen171

My prediction, if you are talking about mass manufacturing and not the "small potatoes" stuff that Sony is doing, is that Samsung SDI will be the first to mass produce 14" screens and I suspect that Q1 or Q2 of 2009 will be the date.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moreHD* /forum/post/13679812
> 
> 
> In OLED display manufacturing they use small "sheets of substrate", I read.
> 
> So, are those sheets big emough for a 17"-er?
> 
> 
> Who, do you think will be next with an OLED tv in shops in sizes 14" - 19"? And when (month/year)?


----------



## jgreen171

What dirty tricks are you referring to? Sony didnt even use PHOLEDs, they did use microcavities to change the emissive spectrum on their fluorescent displays, but in the end people who pay $2500 are paying for the sexy image quality. Not the engineering feats. And the TV looks terrific.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Carled* /forum/post/13679273
> 
> 
> That's what Sony did with the "blue" panel on the XEL-1. The problem is that the people who don't mind dirty tricks like that are not the same people who would pay $2500 for an 11" screen.


----------



## jgreen171

Actually manufacturing is one of the hold-ups, but lifetimes arent right yet either. Yield rates at every one of the mass manufacturers of AMOLEDs are too low to mass manufacture even small screens (such as 3.5 inches) at a profitable rate, never mind television-sized displays. Will they solve the manufacturing obstacles? I am sure that with time, they will. According to rumours Samsung SDI is already making great strides improving the still-difficult manucturing process.


Lifetimes are already terrific for red PHOLEDs, almost fine for green PHOLEDs, and still have a long way to go for blue PHOLEDs. However, it isnt essential to use blue PHOLEDs just to have a phosphorescent AMOLED display. They can and do make hybrid displays that use PHOLED red and green and fluorescent blue (made by Idemitsu). These displays have a lifetime that wont die in a few years.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VarmintCong* /forum/post/13647737
> 
> 
> I don't think the holdup for OLED is manufacturing - since they can use amorphous silicon processing, much like LCDs. I think the holdup is lifetime - no one wants to sell a TV that die in a few years, and become discolored sooner than that. And trying to reproduce a Blu-Ray movie in 40 inches probably needs a ton of current, especially if they're gonna crank up the brightness to compete with LCD. There goes your efficiency advantage.
> 
> 
> I think we might see SED big-screen TVs before OLED. Seriously.


----------



## VarmintCong




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgreen171* /forum/post/13678262
> 
> 
> Well, sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too. When a new technology is invented, it can possibly offer all the existing advantages of an established tech, and new ones too.



In marketing maybe, but not in engineering. There are always disadvantages to a new technology.


----------



## WilliamR

 http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/y...ns-of-oled-tv/ 


Sony XEL-1: Our impressions of OLED TV

The first OLED TV to hit the stores is stunning but expensive

from ConsumerReports.org


Remember the first time you saw a plasma TV, the first television without a big caboose behind the screen? You were probably wondering, "Where's the rest of the set?" You might have the same reaction when you see the new Sony XEL-1.


This 11-inch widescreen television is wafer-thin, just 1/8th of an inch deep, a fraction of the depth of even the slimmest LCD or plasma sets. The XEL-1 uses a new panel technology called OLED (Organic Light-Emitting Diode), which offers stunning picture quality. The catch is the steep price: $2,500 for this small screen, which is half the size of some computer displays.


If the slim, stylish display panel, which comes mounted to a sleek-looking stand, isn't enough to get your attention, its picture quality surely will. This TV gets high marks on all fronts, with picture quality that is simply amazing. It displays the deepest blacks we've seen, better than even the best plasma or CRT sets we've tested. At the same time, images are bright, with high contrast, yielding a picture that looks great in both a bright or darkened room. On dark scenes containing black areas, no light is visible from this panel, even when viewed in a dark room. Colors look accurate and are richly saturated.


While the display's native resolution maxes out at 960x540 (about one-quarter the resolution of 1080p HD, but better than DVD resolution), we saw very impressive detail from typical HD programming. That's because the screen is so small that there are still enough pixels per square inch to render satisfying detail. DVDs also looked terrific.


This TV can accept image format resolutions from 480i up to 1080p. The less-than-HD resolution will not leave you wanting for detail in this screen size, and if you have a high-quality HD video source, this little TV will deliver.


In addition, it has a virtually unlimited viewing angle, so there's no problem with off-center viewing, as there is with most LCD sets. Sound is also quite good, better than you might expect given the small size of the set.


It's not perfect, though. The $2,500 price tag is extremely steep, considering the tiny screen size. But prices for OLED screens should drop over time as they did for LCD and plasma TVs, which were far more costly a few years back than they are today.


Also, given its smallish 11-inch screen, this TV is not suitable as a primary set; it's best used for very up-close viewing, say on a kitchen counter while you're preparing dinner or on a desk as you're working (though you need to take care not to scratch the specially coated screen). Models with larger screens are in the works; at CES, Sony showed a prototype of a 27-inch model, and Samsung had a 31-inch prototype, but didn't have information about when they might be available, or for how much.


The lack of analog inputs could also be an issue. Although this TV has two HDMI inputs and an antenna jack (and NTSC, QAM and ATSC tuners that will allow it to receive free over-the-air analog and digital broadcasts, plus analog and digital cable signals), it has no component-video, S-video or composite-video inputs, which you'll still find on many DVD players and cable and satellite receivers). That could limit the use of the TV with some older components.


Please visit our Video Hub on ConsumerReports.org to find the link to our free online video report on the XEL-1 OLED TV.


But if you're in the market for a top-performing, small widescreen TV, be sure to put this Sony at the top of your list-provided, of course, that money is no object. With its steep price of $2,500, this little 11-incher costs more than many of our top-rated big-screen plasma and LCD sets. All things considered, if Sony's new OLED TV is any example of what this new technology can deliver, we can't wait to see more.


----------



## Tectonic

Hope nobody's posted this yet...


"Samsung says OLED monitors coming next year"

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9925605-7.html?tag=bl 


Original text: Only allowed URLs after I have 3 posts....I promise I'm not spamming...trying to post a big news item.

Edit: It let me edit in the url


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung says OLED monitors coming next year* 
*22 April 2008*


Sony's teased us for a bit with its impossibly thin, 11-inch organic light-emitting diode (OLED) TV, and finally brought it to the U.S. this year. Now it looks like there will be more to choose from in OLED TVs next year. Samsung SDI says that by 2009, not only will it have OLED panels for larger TVs, but also for monitors and notebook displays, according to a report in Digitimes.


The report quotes Samsung SDI's VP of mobile display marketing, Woo-Jong Lee, who says that Samsung SDI will be able to produce 3 million panels in 2009, which is double what they can crank out now. Lee said the company anticipates doubling its capacity again by the close of 2010.


The liquid crystal display (LCD) industry probably doesn't have much to worry about yet. OLED panels are incredibly expensive to produce right now, and, yes, they're awfully pretty. (Sony's 11-inch display achieves a 1 million-to-1 contrast ratio, which is by far the best available for a TV.) But even as production increases from one manufacturer, it doesn't necessarily mean the prices will drop down to where flat panels have sunk. The 11-inch OLED TV from Sony costs $2,500. For that price you could also get a 50-inch Pioneer Kuro, generally regarded as the best plasma TV on the market.


Though Samsung has previously discussed making OLED TVs, the company still has yet to release one. A year ago Toshiba also said it's planning on investing in OLED panels. Sony is betting on OLED's eventual domination of the display market, but it's also heavily invested in LCD.


However, Panasonic, which owns the plasma TV market, doesn't anticipate LCD or plasma TVs fading out anytime soon.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung SDI says its AMOLED production to reach economies of scale in 2009* 
*22 April 2008*


While active matrix (AM) OLED panels are currently implemented mostly in small- to medium-size display applications, more medium and large-size applications – such as for monitor, notebook and TV – will adopt AMOLED panels in 2009, and in 2010, flexible display applications will also adopt AMOLED panels as well, according to Woo-Jong Lee, vice president, mobile display marketing team, Samsung SDI.


Currently the biggest issue with mass-producing AMOLED panels is production costs, but Lee explained once a capacity of three million units can be achieved, economies of scale are reached and production costs become more manageable. Lee pointed out that Samsung SDI will achieve a production capacity of three million panels in 2009, up from a current capacity of 1.5 million panels. The company also expects to double its capacity again by the end of 2010.


Another issue AMOLED technology faces as it looks to compete with LCD and PDP technology in larges size applicaitons such as TVs is power consumption, according to Korea based market research firm Displaybank. Currently OLED's driving voltage is determined by two processes – injecting and transferring an electric charge – both of which should be improved to improve the driving voltage for OLEDs, Display indicated.


However, according to DisplaySearch, sales of OLED displays are expected to surge 69% this year to more than US$826.5 million, and then grow by 83% in 2009 and 53% in 2010 as AMOLED displays become mainstream. Samsung SDI, LG Display, Sony and CMEL will deliver almost 17 million OLED displays this year, up over 380% compared to 2007.


Samsung SDI began producing small-to medium-size AMOLED panels in 2007.


----------



## pchemist

GE's new roll-to-roll OLED panel production process

http://displaydaily.com/2008/04/22/i...a-large-pixel/


----------



## Isochroma

 *Singapore Team Solves Last Nagging Problem for OLEDs, Solar Panels* 
*30 April 2008*


The fledgling OLED market hold incredible promise in terms of brightness, color, and efficiency, as well as the possibility of flexible displays . Seeing one of these displays, such as Sony's XEL-1 (the first commercial OLED tv/monitor) in action the difference is noticeable. Unfortunately the displays are plagued with lifetime issues. While much of this has been resolved with better designed blue phosphors , traditionally the weakest link, the major problem of water damage remains.


When exposed to water and oxygen, the organic materials in OLEDs corrode quickly. Even water vapor can ruin an OLED display over time. Manufacturers have come up with complex sealing processes, but have only been moderately successful in holding back the damage. Now, researchers have developed a new nanomaterial that may allow for optimal protection for OLEDs , clearing one of the last major roadblocks to their adoption.


Researchers at the Singapore A*STAR’s Institute of Materials Research and Engineering (IMRE) developed a thin nanofilm which promises to protect not only OLEDs, but also components such as solar cells, with a moisture protection level of over 1,000 times anything currently on the market.


The UK Centre for Process Innovation analyzed the barrier and verified that it had the highest reported water vapor barrier performance to date. The new barrier promises to revolutionize the plastic electronics industry. Within five years the plastic electronics industry is expected to grow to a $23B USD market worldwide.


Current films typically have a water vapor transmission rate of around 10-3g/m2 at 25°C and 90% relative humidity (RH). Ideally barriers to organic electronic devices need to be much lower, around a millionth of a gram per square meter per day (10-6g/m2), at a slightly higher temperature of 39°C. The problems with current materials arise when pinholes, cracks and grain boundaries occur in the thin oxide barrier films deposited on the plastic, leading to ‘pore effects’ which allow water and oxygen molecules to penetrated the barrier plastic.


The current best solution to the pore problem is to alternate layers of organic and inorganic deposited on the plastic. This causes the pores to be misaligned, creating a "torturous path" for the damaging water and oxygen molecules. While this approach is reasonably effective, it increases production cost and complexity. The IMRE researchers instead looked to a novel approach to solving the problem, plugging the holes with nanoparticles. This reduces the complex multilayer barrier down to a simple, more efficient two layer barrier, with a barrier oxide layer and a nanoparticlulate sealant layer.


The handy nanoparticles used in the seal not only block the path of moisture and oxygen, but they also trap it and react with it, further decreasing transmission. The barrier let less than 10-6g/m2 of moisture in under testing. Further the lag time, or the time it took for water to penetrate the barrier, was an astounding 2300 hours (approximately 96 days) at 60°C and 90% RH. Senthil Ramadas, principal investigator of the IMRE project states, "With a level of protection that surpasses the ideal requirements for such films to date, manufacturers now have the opportunity to extend the lifetime of plastic electronic devices by leaps and bounds!"


One problem the team faced is exactly how to measure permeation of an extremely low permeation barrier. The team devised an improved water and oxygen pentetration measurement device, that can detect levels of less than 10-8g/m2. The new test has already been put to use in various service industry projects. Says Senthil, "Together with our expertise in encapsulation processes and permeation measurement technologies we are also able to provide a total solution package for industries such as flexible solar cells and OLED displays producers."


The research has been funded by Exploit Technologies Pte Ltd (ETPL), the commercialization branch of A*Star, due to its promise. Boon Swan Foo, the Executive Chairman of ETPL states, “Exploit Technologies sees commercial potential in A*STAR IMRE’s breakthrough barrier film technology. It has excellent promise for enabling the fast growing plastic electronics industry. We want to take this technology from the lab to the market.”


The IMRE research team is already in talks with solar cell, lighting industry, and flexible display manufacturers, it says. The center has already signed agreements with a number of companies to commercialize the technology, including a collaboration agreement with G24Innovations, a major thin film solar cell company, as well as an agreement with Asian electronics manufacture KISCO.


----------



## slacker711

A review of the XEL1 from David Pogue of the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/te...ef=todayspaper 



> Quote:
> At a cooperative Best Buy store, I did a little test. I set the XEL-1 up next to state-of-the-art plasmas and L.C.D. sets all hooked up to the same video signal for easy comparison and recorded the reactions of shoppers and employees. Their adjectives for this picture included astonishing, astounding, incredible (twice) and amazing (five times).
> 
> 
> They were right. The XEL-1's picture is so colorful, vibrant, rich, lifelike and high in contrast, you catch your breath. It's like looking out a window. With the glass missing.
> 
> 
> Name a drawback of plasma or L.C.D. motion blur, uneven lighting across the panel, blacks that aren't quite black, whites that aren't quite white, limited viewing angle, color that isn't quite true, brightness that washes out in bright rooms, screen-door effect up close and this TV overcomes it.


----------



## Isochroma

 *LG Display to start 8G panel production sooner than Taiwan-based rivals* 
*24 April 2008*


With equipment move-in for its 8G line (P8) slated to for mid 2008, LG Display's plant at Paju, Korea, is expected to take a faster pace than plants belonging to rivals in Taiwan in terms of 8G panel availability.


With construction of the fab shell already completed, LG Display schedules to begin volume production by March 2009. P8 will initially focus on 32-, 47-, 52- and 57-inch LCD TV panels on a glass substrate size of 2,200mm×2,500mm. In contrast to 8G lines traditionally being utilized for 50-inch and above production, growing flexibility means there is potential to produce 32-inch panels at 8G lines also, highlighted LG Display. Actual capacity distribution will depend on demand, the company noted.


LG Display's rivals including S-LCD, AU Optronics (AUO) and Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO), all have plants for 2,200×2,500mm glass substrate production. Among these players, S-LCD has already started volume production, whereas AUO and CMO will only start equipment installation in late 2008. Based on LG Display's equipment move-in schedule, the Korea-based panel maker is expected to have its 8G panels available 2-3 quarters ahead of its Taiwan rivals.

*In addition to investment in next-generation production lines, LG Display has also deployed into the development of AMOLED panels. Despite that AMOLED is mostly applied in small-size panels, LG Display said it would continue investing in the large-size segment, with volume production of 32-inch OLED TVs scheduled for 2011.*


Regarding worries about LCD TV sales amid the sub-prime crisis, LG Display's TV division sales and marketing vice president said first-quarter sales met expectations implying the LCD TV market is not as disappointing as some industry players believe, although sales trends for the second quarter are hard to forecast.


In related news, commenting on speculation about a possible partnership with Amtran Technology and HannStar Display for a new production plant, LG Display pointed out that it currently only has investment at HannStar, but stressed it has no plans to jointly build a 7.5G line with HannStar. The company added in saying that both parties have not discussed any plant construction plans.


----------



## Isochroma

 *DisplaySearch Characterizes the AMOLED Display in the Sony XEL-1 TV and Calculates Video Lifetime to be ~17,000 Hours* 
*7 May 2008*










*Figure 1: Normalized Luminance vs. Time*



Austin, Texas, May 7, 2008—DisplaySearch, the worldwide leader in display market research and consulting, has released the new OLED Characterization Report: Sony XEL-1. The characterization report includes a description of the sub-pixel architecture, micro cavity, the compensation circuits and the top emission OLED device, and includes measurements of lifetime by color and image, power consumption differential aging, burn-in, contrast ratio and luminance. In “TV Images to Dazzle the Jaded” on May 1, the technology editor of the NY Times described a little experiment:


At a cooperative Best Buy store, I did a little test. I set the XEL-1 up next to state-of-the-art plasmas and LCD sets—all hooked up to the same video signal for easy comparison—and recorded the reactions of shoppers and employees. Their adjectives for this picture included “astonishing,” “astounding,” “incredible” (twice) and “amazing” (five times). They were right. The XEL-1’s picture is so colorful, vibrant, rich, lifelike and high in contrast, you catch your breath. It’s like looking out a window. With the glass missing.


The consumers love the display, but how good is it? DisplaySearch takes the mystery out of the design and the performance over time. The architecture is described as well as the organic material, including thicknesses. The RGB architecture is very sensitive to the image and has a 5,000 hour lifetime for white and a 17,000 hour lifetime for the typical video image, well below the published specifications of Sony. Moreover the panel suffers from differential aging: After 1,000 hours the blue luminance degraded by 12%, the red by 7% and the green by 8%. The normalized luminance change by color and video mode is shown in the next figure.


----------



## greenland

*DuPont, Dainippon buddy up to develop OLED displays

http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/09/d...oled-displays/ 
*



For those with ridiculously sharp memories, you'll easily recall that DuPont has been dabbling in OLED technology for years . Now, however, the company famous for showcasing the miracles of science has formed a strategic alliance with Dainippon Screen Manufacturing to "develop integrated manufacturing equipment for printed OLED displays." Furthermore, the duo has agreed to "bring together the elements needed -- materials, technology and equipment -- to mass produce OLED displays." In essence, the two are hoping to produce higher-quality units at a lower cost than what's currently available , and we can happily say we hope they succeed. Now, if only we knew when some product would emerge from this here wedding...


----------



## Isochroma

 *DuPont, Dainippon Screen Partner on OLED Technology* 
*8 May 2008*










*4.3" diagonal full-color OLED made with DuPont materials and Dainippon equipment.*



DuPont and Dainippon Screen Manufacturing Co., Ltd., are forming a strategic alliance to develop integrated manufacturing equipment for printed organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays. The companies also have signed an agreement relating to their intention to bring together the elements needed – materials, technology and equipment – to mass produce OLED displays, delivering higher performance at a lower cost.


OLEDs are displays in which pixels are created using thin films made of emissive organic materials. Compared with liquid crystal displays (LCDs), OLEDs can have much higher contrast ratios, lower power consumption (because pixels draw power only when they are in use), faster response time, and eliminate the need for the backlight and color filter. Small-size active matrix OLED displays have recently become available from several manufacturers, but the current high-cost of manufacturing limits market adoption, and constrains OLED manufacturing for large size displays.


"The flat panel display market is about USD 100 billion annually and growing. DuPont is applying its science to make possible more vivid displays that are lower cost than current LCD displays,” said Dave Miller, group vice president, DuPont Electronic & Communication Technologies. “We are excited to combine our strengths with Dainippon Screen’s unique printing technology to bring to market the core technology that will enable improved high definition televisions and other flat panel displays."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Toshiba to ship small/medium OLED displays in autumn, postponing the launch of larger OLED TVs* 
*8 May 2008*


Japanese electronics maker Toshiba Corp said on Thursday it plans to ship small-to-medium size organic light-emitting diode displays for mobile devices in the autumn, adding that it had postponed its launch of larger OLED TVs (originally planned for 2009)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CeBIT 2008: OLED Displays from Samsung* 
*5 March 2008*













At CeBIT, display manufacturer Samsung is showing OLED TVs with a screen diagonal of 31". One of the first thing that catches your eye, quite literally, is the excellent colour rendition.


Samsung's OLED display has a screen diagonal of 31".

The other advantages of the technology are equally compelling - since OLED displays are based on organic light-emitting diodes, they don't need a backlight and are thus extremely flat, allowing them to be used in a wide variety of scenarios. Their response time is also very low, in the micro-second scale, which gamers will be very appreciative of.


----------



## moreHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/13836973
> 
> *DuPont, Dainippon Screen Partner on OLED Technology*
> *8 May 2008*
> 
> 
> *Toshiba to ship small/medium OLED displays in autumn, postponing the launch of larger OLED TVs*
> *8 May 2008*
> 
> 
> Japanese electronics maker Toshiba Corp said on Thursday it plans to ship small-to-medium size organic light-emitting diode displays for mobile devices in the autumn, adding that it had postponed its launch of larger OLED TVs (originally planned for 2009)




Hi,

What is small/medium OLED sizes? What is that in inches? Thanks.


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moreHD* /forum/post/13842454
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> What is small/medium OLED sizes? What is that in inches? Thanks.



Stuff for cellphones and PDAs.


----------



## moreHD

Sumitomo chemicals co. revealed plans to ink-jet print 40" and larger OLEDs in 2009. It's in the news. Are they closely related to Hitachi? Could there be a breakthrough?


----------



## moreHD

Sumitomo Chemicals Co. bought out Cambridge Display Technology (CDT) in July 2007. CDT were into P-OLED. Is Sony's XEL-1 a P-OLED?

Is Sumitomo's strategy much different to Samsung's and Sony's?


----------



## navychop

I wonder how likely it is that we will see 40" in 2009. Or 2010.


----------



## jgreen171




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moreHD* /forum/post/13847534
> 
> 
> Sumitomo Chemicals Co. bought out Cambridge Display Technology (CDT) in July 2007. CDT were into P-OLED. Is Sony's XEL-1 a P-OLED?
> 
> Is Sumitomo's strategy much different to Samsung's and Sony's?



Sonys XEL-1 is a fluorescent small-molecule AMOLED display, created with a white oled and color filters. It also uses microcavities. In other words, its an entirely different approach that Sumitomo. As you mentioned, Sumitomo is working on polymeric AMOLEDs.


Many speculate that eventually Sony will switch to a hybrid display that uses PHOLEDs and fluourescents, because all-fluorescent displays are power hogs.


----------



## jgreen171




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/13852144
> 
> 
> I wonder how likely it is that we will see 40" in 2009. Or 2010.



2009? Wouldnt bet on it. 2010? Pretty likely, although I suspect they will be in small quantities, not millions/month.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Sumitomo Chemical to Launch Large Organic EL Panels in 2009* 
*9 May 2008*


Tokyo, May 9, 2008 (Jiji Press) - Sumitomo Chemical Co. said Friday that in 2009, it plans to launch the production and sales of large-screen organic electroluminescence display panels for use in televisions of 40 inches or larger.


President Hiromasa Yonekura said his company is considering forming alliances for the development of such organic panels. EL panels are thinner than liquid display panels and consume less power.


Sumitomo Chemical is developing so-called macromolecule-type organic EL panels. Because these can be produced through an ink-jet printing process, it is possible to lower production costs and make large displays, a company spokesman said.


----------



## wco81

So burn-in, short life, energy-intensive?


They've been talking about being able to print OLED displays, on flexible material, for like 10 years.


The more closely a technology is examined, the more warts it has.


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/13870937
> 
> 
> The more closely a technology is examined, the more warts it has.



The warts have been there all along, and will still be there for quite some time. What makes OLED different from other problematic technologies is that all the problems are foreseeably fixable. But we've still got a long long way to go.


----------



## navychop

It appears that maybe OLED is no longer developing in the scientific field. It seems to have moved on to technological development. IOW, the scientific principles and proof of concept have been done. It's now just in the refinement stage, where they make lifespan and manufacturability improvements, etc. Maybe nothing of a major breakthru sort of thing is coming, just steady refinement and application of known ideas and methods to improve the product.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Carled* /forum/post/13871690
> 
> 
> The warts have been there all along



Not according to the OLED researchers I've talked to recently. Power consumption, mura, charge trapping, light extraction.....etc are much worse that originally thought. The big surprise is power consumption. If you are referring to lifetime then yes of course, it has always been there.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It appears that maybe OLED is no longer developing in the scientific field. It seems to have moved on to technological development. IOW, the scientific principles and proof of concept have been done. It's now just in the refinement stage, where they make lifespan and manufacturability improvements, etc. Maybe nothing of a major breakthru sort of thing is coming, just steady refinement and application of known ideas and methods to improve the product.



Plasma, LCD, and especially OLEDs are still undergoing serious development in the scientific field. I even think that 1 or 2 CRT researchers are still out there










Cheers


----------



## ferro

* Samsung's 12.1-inch OLED laptop concept makes us swoon *











As much as we would loath typing on that touch-sensitive, rigid keyboard, we're definitely geek-smitten by this ultra-thin, AMOLED laptop concept from Samsung SDI -- Sammy's display division. 12.1-inches and 1,280 x 768 resolution with infinite contrast? We'll take two... just as soon as someone can explain the extra panel around back. With Samsung projecting 14- to 15.4-inch OLED laptops in 2009, this might come sooner than you think.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/13885819
> 
> 
> ... I even think that 1 or 2 CRT researchers are still out there



Round up the villagers. I'll bring the torches.


----------



## nanomatrix




> Quote:
> Round up the villagers. I'll bring the torches.



Now is this any way to treat an endangered species?


----------



## HDPeeT

 http://hdguru.com/sony-xel-1-finally...al-review/242/


----------



## wco81

Slate had a layman's review of the XE1 last week.


Described it as looking out a small window with the glass open.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nanomatrix* /forum/post/13908679
> 
> 
> Now is this any way to treat an endangered species?


----------



## Reizah

 *Sony plans "medium to large" OLED panels in FY2009 -- Samsung trembles* 
*22 May 2008*











Competition: so beautiful in its simplicity, so effective in its execution. Sony just authorized an additional ¥22 billion ($210 million) as it aims to produce "medium-to-large sized OLED panels" in fiscal 2009. For Sony, that's the year spread from April 2009 to March 2010. Not coincidentally, that's the same production timeline that Samsung is on. Oh, the OLED game is so on.


----------



## Reizah

 *Sony to go ahead with OLED investment* 
*22 May 2008*


Sony will go ahead with plans to invest approximately 22 billion yen (US$210 million) to strengthen its lead in the production of medium- to large-size OLED panels in the second half of 2008, according to Yoshito Shiraishi, general manager, e-products and business development department of TV business group, Sony.


The company will expand its capacity at Sony Mobile Display, enabling the plant to turn out even larger size OLED panels in fiscal 2009 (April 2009-March 2010), Shiraishi said in a keynote speech delivered at the Society for Information Display (SID) 2008 electronic display trade show in Los Angeles.


Sony expects its shipments of LCD TVs to top 17 million units in 2008 compared to 10.6 million units shipped in 2007, Shiraishi said.


----------



## moreHD

Sony and Idemitsu announced luminous efficiency breakthrough in OLEDS.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Idemitsu, Sony Develop Blue OLED w/ 28.5% Internal Quantum Efficiency* 
*22 May 2008*


Idemitsu Kosan Co Ltd and Sony Corp announced May 19, 2008, that they jointly developed a blue OLED device and confirmed an internal quantum efficiency of 28.5% and an emission lifetime of more than 30,000 hours.


The new device is the world's highest level of luminous efficiency for a fluorescent light-emitting material, the companies said. It will be presented at the Society for Information Display (SID2008), which is currently taking place in Los Angeles.


According to the companies, the latest achievement is a result of combining Idemitsu's luminescence and other OLED materials, and Sony's proprietary device structure called "Super Top Emission." The light emitted from the new device has the CIE chromaticity of (0.137, 0.065). The device reportedly emits blue light, which is deeper than that of the NTSC standard, (0.14, 0.08).


After conducting a continuous emission test in an environment at a temperature of 50°C with the initial luminance set to 200cd/m2, the companies discovered that the emission lifetime (luminous half decay time) of the latest device substantially exceeds 30,000 hours. The luminance per unit current is 3.9cd/A.


The technology is expected to reduce the power consumption of blue OLEDs, the most energy-intensive of the three primary RGB colors, contributing to the future development of medium- to large-size OLED TVs.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*[SID] Sony: OLED Superior to LCD* 
*22 May 2008*




*Yoshito Shiraishi, general manager of E-Products and

Business Development Department, TV Business Group of Sony*




*Sony developed a new prototype every three months.*




*Power comparisons between its "XEL-1" OLED TV and Sony's "BRAVIA" LCD TV*



Yoshito Shiraishi, general manager of E-Products and Business Development Department, TV Business Group, Sony Corp, delivered his keynote speech titled "Sony's Challenge to be the First Out with OLED TVs" and discussed history, performance and future prospects of Sony's OLED panel development at "SID 2008."


Sony launched its "XEL-1," the world's first 11-inch OLED TV, in December 2007 ( See related article 1 ). Revealing that Sony "came up with a new prototype every three months" when developing the OLED TV, Shiraishi introduced some episodes that illustrate that Sony continuously updated the specifications over a short period of time.


He used a number of slides to show comparisons of performances including contrast ratio, gamma characteristics, power consumption between LCD and OLED panels. As for power consumption, he made a comparison with Sony's "BRAVIA" LCD TV. Presenting detailed values of power consumption by content category, such as news, dramas and variety programs, he highlighted the superiority of OLED, saying, "OLED has many advantages over LCD."


He concluded his speech with future plans for Sony's OLED business. Sony announced a capital investment of approximately ¥22 billion (US$213 million) in volume production of 20-inch OLED panels on Feb 19, 2008 ( See related article 2 ). While mentioning this, he said Sony will pursue the development of products that can propose new lifestyles through the sophisticated interior designs, for example.


----------



## wco81

Is 30,000 hours a lot?


How does that compare with the backlights of LCD and plasma?


----------



## Isochroma

If you watched 5 hours of TV a day, the blue phosphor would reach half brightness at 16 years of age, if you ran it at full brightness during those five hours (100% luminance white, aqua or blue signal).


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung 12.1-inch WXGA AMOLED panel using MOS-TFT technology* 
*27 May 2008*













At SID 2008, Samsung concentrated on displaying AMOLED applications including a 31-inch full HDTV, 14-inch HDTV, 3D display panel and several other AMOLED applications.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung 12.1-inch WXGA AMOLED panel using MOS-TFT technology* 
*28 May 2008*













Samsung displayed a 12.1-inch WXGA AMOLED panel using new MOS-TFT technology at the recent SID 2008 electronic display trade show.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Sony's Stringer Promises 27-inch OLED TV 'fairly Soon'* 
*28 May 2008*











*Sony 27” OLED Prototype*



Sony plans to launch a much larger version of its impressive OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) television within the next year, CEO Howard Stringer said Wednesday.


Sony launched its first OLED TV, an 11-inch model, in late 2007. The set, which also has the distinction of being the first commercial OLED TV in the world, won great acclaim thanks to the smoother, sharper and more richly colored images it offered over today's LCD (liquid crystal display) and PDP (plasma display panel) technologies.


At the same time Sony began showing a prototype 27-inch OLED screen and last month in Tokyo showed an OLED screen that was just 0.3 millimeters thick. Stringer, speaking at The Wall Street Journal's "D: All Things Digital" conference in Carlsbad, California, on Wednesday, introduced the thin prototype and talked about commercialization.


"This is 0.3 millimeters wide, it's a glass, we can produce this in plastic and you can wrap it around your arm, we're not quite sure why you would want to," Stringer told Walt Mossberg, a columnist for the newspaper and co-host of the event. "We're looking for applications for the next generation of the plastic version but this will come out in a 27-inch version fairly soon."


"Within the next 12 months, we haven't given a date," he said when asked to be more specific on timing.


Stringer didn't give much away when it came to pricing. The 11-inch model, which Sony calls the XEL-1, carries a relatively high price-tag of US$2,500.


"It's a complicated process and obviously we are working very hard to find out how to mass-produce it but until then it's very expensive," said Stringer.


Stringer's reference to a plastic OLED panel was to a prototype announced by the company in May 2007. Then it showed a small 2.5-inch OLED manufactured on a plastic substrate. The screen has a resolution of 160 pixels by 120 pixels and showed full-motion video while being bent and rolled.


Sony hasn't announced any sales targets for its OLED televisions but said earlier this month that it plans to sell 17 million LCD televisions in the fiscal year from April. That's a jump of about 7 million sets on the previous year. Sony hopes to achieve this by producing more models for the mid-market based on panels it will procure from Sharp. High-end sets will continue to feature panels produced by S-LCD, the LCD panel manufacturing joint venture it has with Samsung Electronics.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Sony CEO Howard Stringer: Look At Our Awesome, Expensive, Money-Losing TVs!* 
*28 May 2008*













Sony (SNE) CEO Howard Stringer uses his D6 stage time to show off his tiny, expensive OLED screens. We're told they're amazing, but that's hard to tell from a distance. We do know they're expensive: The model that's for sale is $2,500, and Howard won't venture a price for the new card-thin model. But unless you live in a very very fancy neighborhood, your neighbor won't have one anytime soon.


Transcript follows:


A couple of years ago Howard Stringer had high hopes for his e-reader. But Jeff Bezos Kindle has stolen that thunder, and we assume we might hear about that when Walt Mossberg chats with him. We definitely know we're about to see a very, very thin TV.


Howard comes out to "Turning Japanese" (do the D6 folks know what that song is supposedly about?).


So Sir Howard, how are things going? "We're coming on, I think... culturally the word "profit" is not high on anybody's agenda in Japan. We're turning that around... there's a sort of sense that we're climbing the mountain. We're nowhere near the top, we're about halfway up."


But TVs are doing well, right? Yeah, but we're not making any money: "If we have any more success we'll be bankrupt". Why can't you make money? It's a commoditzed business. Lots of overhead from old biz we've exited, and race for market share puts pressure on prices.


What's next, beyond the LCD? LCD has had a good run, has plenty of life in it. But now getting excited about OLED. Very expensive at the moment, but is in the market. $2,500 for an 11" screen. DreamWorks guys like it a lot. I have one on my desk. It's really, really bright. Time to see the demo:


As we worried, it's really really hard to get a sense of what an OLED screen looks like when you're looking at on stage. But, as predicted, here comes the 0.3 mm thick OLED, thickness of a playing card. Will come out in 27-inch version fairly soon. Not at mass market quantity, and it will be "quite expensive... the only people who can buy one are in this room."


Do you believe that this will supplant LCD? "I'm biased. I have mine on my desk, and I haven't turned on the wall screen since I've had it. It's a perfect television companion."


Making these panels yourself? Yes. Very technologically sophisticated. Can't outsource.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Oxide Semiconductors: Potential Revolutionary AMOLED Fabrication Technology* 
*3 June 2008*











*IGZO based 12.1″ WXGA AMOLED*



SID, the display industry's leading annual academic conference, is always a great source of information on R&D into future display technologies. Crystallization of a-Si to p-Si and its application to AMOLED fabrication have been a favorite topic of the symposium for several years now. However, looking over the proceedings of this year's recently held conference, there anecdotally seems to be shift in focus; I could only find one paper on LTPS crystallization for AMOLED backplanes. Instead, a variety of papers promote using oxide semiconductors as a panacea to technical and cost issues that continue to restrict the growth of the AMOLED industry.


Samsung SDI's development of a 12.1″ WXGA AMOLED (see Figure 1) highlighted the potential of this technology. The company used amorphous indium-gallium-zinc-oxide (a-IGZO) to replace silicon as the semiconducting layer of the TFT backplane.


A staggered gate and etch stop layer TFT design (see Figure 2) was employed to prevent degradation of the subthreshold gate swing and uniformity of the threshold voltage.











*Staggered gate and etch stop layer TFT design*



Although IGZO TFTs have much lower mobility than p-Si based TFTs formed by ELA (Excimer Laser Annealing), at around 10 cm2/V-sec, mobility is greater than 10X that of a-Si TFTs and more than sufficient to drive OLEDs.


Advantages of IGZO compared to conventional p-Si TFTs include
Deposited by PVD at low temperatures that might enable use of flexible or low-cost soda lime substrates
Can be fabricated on conventional a-Si TFT lines at relatively low cost and scaled to large substrates (i.e., Gen 7 or larger)
The smooth surface morphology of IGZO enables a clean interface with the gate insulator to provide a higher breakdown field
Transparency
Good uniformity and stability
TFT characteristics are controllable by the metal composition and deposition parameters

In other words, oxide semiconductors are potentially a revolutionary technology that would negate the need for Si crystallization and enable large size, high quality, low-cost AMOLED displays.


Whether or not this will actually happen is still to be determined. Oxide semiconductor technology for display applications is not a mature technology and repeatability is said to be a significant issue. Currently all AMOLEDs in mass production are fabricated with some version of ELA or solid phase crystallization. Sony is investing in a dTLA (Diode Thermal Laser Annealing) pilot line to prove the manufacturability of its µc-Si technology. Others pursuing direct deposit p-Si, RTA (Rapid Thermal Annealing) and other techniques to overcome the continued uniformity, cost and scaling problems related to ELA. But, at least, the strong interest by the SID paper selection committee and the impressive results shown by Samsung SDI and others, suggest that oxide semiconductors are a technology to keep a close eye on when evaluating future AMOLED opportunity.


----------



## dmbphan041

So, I can get a 50'' OLED TV when? 2012?


----------



## Isochroma

 *LG Display shows 15-inch XGA OLED TV* 
*20 May 2008*


LG Display one of the world’s leading TFT-LCD manufacturers, today announced its plans to showcase its latest next-generation displays at SID’s Display Week 2008 (May 18-23 in Los Angeles, Calif.).


“LG Display continues to pave the way for the future of displays through its leadership and unrivaled technical advances. We recently announced our elliptical and circular shaped LCDs, and there are many additional, exciting demonstrations to see at our booth this year,” noted Mr. In Jae Jeung, LG Display’s Chief Technology Officer and Vice President.


LG Display shows a a-Si AMOLED panel with 15 inch and XGA resolution, with an contrast ratio from 10.000:1, and a 4-inch qVGA flexible AMOLED display on metal foil with increased flexibility and durability.


LG Display’s expert team will also present 12 technical papers and 10 posters on topics including 15-inch TFT LCDs produced with TFT and color filter substrates via roll-to-roll printing and a-Si 15-inch AM OLED.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*LG Display Dual-plate OLED Display (DOD) at SID 2008* 
*24 May 2008*













OLED displays are marvelous, at least the prototypes that I have seen at SID 2008. OLEDs are super thin, colors are brilliant and black levels are truly kuro! But there are many challenges to OLED displays becoming the next display standard. A LOT. One challenge is the short lifetimes of the OLED materials that lasts, at most, about 30,000 hours (Sony’s claim for its XEL-1 OLED TV’s lifetime). Another challenge is differential aging where brightness is lost at different rates leading to discoloration of the OLED display.


Another challenge is that in most cases OLED has to use a TFT backplane made from a Low Temperature Poly-Silicon (LTPS) process due to the need for higher electron mobility leading to faster performance. Well LTPS is a difficult process that has lower than wanted yields and is rather expensive.













LG Display showcased a concept called Dual-plate OLED (DOD) that uses the encapsulation glass as a OLED substrate and connects to an a-Si TFT backplane via a contact spacer. The contact spacer has a dual role: it is used as a spacer but also as a contact between the TFT backplane and the top OLED substrate. This allows for use of a-Si based backplane that is easier, more affordable and has high yields. The DOD prototype was rather large at 15″. Cheaper and larger OLEDs, I’m all for that! But I’m not holding my breath.


----------



## Isochroma

 *CMEL AMOLED panel yield expected to reach 85% by end of 2008* 
*12 June 2008*


Chi Mei EL (CMEL), a fully owned subsidiary of Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO), expects its yield for AMOLED panels rise to 85% by the end of 2008 from the present 70%, and the company is mulling installing a new production line (5G or 5.5G) for the segment sometime in the future, according to company president Douglas Park.


CMEL, which is the only Taiwan-based company that has started volume production of AMOLED panels, currently offers a range of panels sized at 2-inch QCIF+, 2.4-inch QVGA, 2.8-inch QVGA, 3.4-inch WQVGA, and 4.3-inch WQVGA. It is also developing a 7.6-inch WVGA panel, which will be volume produced in the fourth quarter this year, Park revealed.


Park said the company's second production line, which is being constructed, will become operational in October. Total output from the two lines will reach 800,000 units (2.8-inch equivalent) per month, he added.


CMEL is aiming to enter the large-size segment in 2010, Park said. The company is showcasing a 25-inch AMOLED panel at Display Taiwan 2008.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*LG Display Launches OLED Production Line* 
*13 June 2008*


LG Display formally launched an organic light emitting diode (OLED) division at its Gumi plant in North Gyeongsang Province on Thursday.


OLED is touted as a driving force in the next-generation display field, and companies like Sony and Samsung Electronics have already entered the business. Because it does not require additional backlight, OLED panels can be made thinner than 1 millimeter.


LG Display will first focus on developing and producing small products but expand business to producing medium-sized to large televisions, the company said.


LG Display developed an active-matrix OLED (AMOLED) for a 20.1-inch television in 2004, and was the first in the world to produce a 4-inch flexible OLED in May 2007.


----------



## wco81

Wait, even small OLED panels only have 70% yields?


Haven't they been making small OLEDs for cell phones and other small devices for years?


----------



## 10th St.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dmbphan041* /forum/post/14023150
> 
> 
> So, I can get a 50'' OLED TV when? 2012?




Just a guess. . .


Lets see - a 27" but priced out of range in 2009.


Maybe a 42" very very expensive model by 2010.


Might see units in 50" range by 2012 - but start saving your pennies. I'll bet it'll be closer to 2015 before mere mortals wil be able to afford them in the 50" range.


Maybe - An affordable one by 2015 (if something doesn't come around in the meantime. . .)


In otherwords - OLED is still way too speculative at this point - Both LCD and Plasma will continue to improve and get cheaper. . . I think they'll have those black levels pretty well nailed down by then, also brighter more effecient displays, full implementation of 10 lumen technology in plasmas, LED backlighting in LCDs and thin form factors in both. . . I don't know what OLED will really offer at that point to make it worth the extra Xthousand dollars. . .


Anyway, I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## L3thal80




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *10th St.* /forum/post/14082551
> 
> 
> Just a guess. . .
> 
> 
> Lets see - a 27" but priced out of range in 2009.
> 
> 
> Maybe a 42" very very expensive model by 2010.
> 
> 
> Might see units in 50" range by 2012 - but start saving your pennies. I'll bet it'll be closer to 2015 before mere mortals wil be able to afford them in the 50" range.
> 
> 
> Maybe - An affordable one by 2015 (if something doesn't come around in the meantime. . .)
> 
> 
> In otherwords - OLED is still way too speculative at this point - Both LCD and Plasma will continue to improve and get cheaper. . . I think they'll have those black levels pretty well nailed down by then, also brighter more effecient displays, full implementation of 10 lumen technology in plasmas, LED backlighting in LCDs and thin form factors in both. . . I don't know what OLED will really offer at that point to make it worth the extra Xthousand dollars. . .
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'm not holding my breath.



I agree with you. If they keep stringing this out, its gonna be in the same boat as SED. If it lives or dies, it doesn't matter, because either way, it is good for consumers...better competition drives better improvements in existing technology.


----------



## dlp755




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *10th St.* /forum/post/14082551
> 
> 
> Just a guess. . .
> 
> 
> Lets see - a 27" but priced out of range in 2009.
> 
> 
> Maybe a 42" very very expensive model by 2010.
> 
> 
> Might see units in 50" range by 2012 - but start saving your pennies. I'll bet it'll be closer to 2015 before mere mortals wil be able to afford them in the 50" range.
> 
> 
> Maybe - An affordable one by 2015 (if something doesn't come around in the meantime. . .)
> 
> 
> In otherwords - OLED is still way too speculative at this point - Both LCD and Plasma will continue to improve and get cheaper. . . I think they'll have those black levels pretty well nailed down by then, also brighter more effecient displays, full implementation of 10 lumen technology in plasmas, LED backlighting in LCDs and thin form factors in both. . . I don't know what OLED will really offer at that point to make it worth the extra Xthousand dollars. . .
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'm not holding my breath.




Well there are a few issues where LCD (even LED-backlit) and Plasma still mostly fall short:


*Motion Resolution


Viewing Angles*


In both these areas lcd and plasma still fall short of the performance enjoyed for years (really for _generations_) in CRTs.


I have a nice 42" lcd, but am thinking of picking up a used 40" Sony HD-capable CRT, because I watch a lot of sports, usually with with several friends over, and the lcds and plasmas I have/my friends have just don't cut it on either motion handling or viewing angles.


----------



## maxdog03




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dlp755* /forum/post/14108876
> 
> 
> Well there are a few issues where LCD (even LED-backlit) and Plasma still mostly fall short:
> 
> 
> *Motion Resolution
> 
> 
> Viewing Angles*
> 
> 
> In both these areas lcd and plasma still fall short of the performance enjoyed for years (really for _generations_) in CRTs.
> 
> 
> I have a nice 42" lcd, but am thinking of picking up a used 40" Sony HD-capable CRT, because I watch a lot of sports, usually with with several friends over, and the lcds and plasmas I have/my friends have just don't cut it on either motion handling or viewing angles.



Plasmas have motion and viewing angle problems? Which plasmas have you been viewing as my off axis picture is very good and fast motion sports are awesome as I've been watching a lot of soccer and car racing and you don't get much more motion than that, oh and I've been doing it on a 50" set.

No way would I ever go back to a weigh a ton elephant like the 40" Sony.


----------



## Jim Boden

Plasmas don't have viewing angle problems, but LCD's do.


I second Maxdog's comment. I used to have a Sony HD 32" CRT and dumped it for a 50" plasma 6 years ago. I'd never look at a CRT again. They're pretty well extinct now anyway.


----------



## moreHD

I used to have a Sony HD 32" CRT and dumped it for a 50" plasma 6 years ago. I'd never look at a CRT again. They're pretty well extinct now anyway.[/quote]



I sure would look back at a crt if there was a 42" full 1080p crt tv. Besides, quality weighs.


----------



## nmaynan

I find I like the CRTs a lot better than Plasmas. LCDs I find horrible for TV. they just don't cut it as a home theater monitor.


----------



## xb1032

That 27" Sony looks nice. However, until there is a 60"+ affordable one this won't mean much to me.


However, something to keep in mind when talking price on these is to consider Sony's first SXRD. The first SXRD, the Qualia, ran about $12k. The second gen SXRD came out in less than a years time(the 60XBR1) and retailed for $5k. You never know.


----------



## 8IronBob

Now if only they'd give SED a second chance, then we'd have something to compare OLED against when it came to better display technology. Most certainly would've been a heck of a lot cheaper.


----------



## nmaynan

I'm surprised LCD is so prominent. The lack of screen uniformity and poor viewing angle makes it a horrible choice in my opinion for home theater. It would have made more sense to me to stick with CRT for 20-27" sets and go with Plasma for anything larger than that.


LCD as a TV I find to be not even a reasonable option for my home theater. Perhaps as a kitchen TV or something that is not home theater I can see though. But I don't understand why people would spend lots of money for an LCD home theater TV with the limitations it has.


----------



## gedalneil

Interesting feature here from Kevin Miller who just visited the Sony plant regarding OLED. http://www.tweaktv.com/the-miller-ch...nel-hdtvs.html


----------



## S. Hiller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nmaynan* /forum/post/14115838
> 
> 
> I'm surprised LCD is so prominent. The lack of screen uniformity and poor viewing angle makes it a horrible choice in my opinion for home theater. It would have made more sense to me to stick with CRT for 20-27" sets and go with Plasma for anything larger than that.
> 
> 
> LCD as a TV I find to be not even a reasonable option for my home theater. Perhaps as a kitchen TV or something that is not home theater I can see though. But I don't understand why people would spend lots of money for an LCD home theater TV with the limitations it has.



But CRT isn't flat and is so heavy! (I'm being sarcastic of course. BTW: Even plasma had poor PQ compared to CRT until recently, so maybe in that ideal world we could use CRTs up to 34" and start plasmas at 50"...a gap in between as it would have taken a lot more inches before plasma started to look more competive in PQ. Of course now though we have Kuro and even LCDs at least look better than they did...)


----------



## jayhawk11

Possibly big news out of Panasonic: http://gizmodo.com/5019072/panasonic...n-sale-by-2011 



That could be sweet. If true, of course.


----------



## creemail

 Panasonic working on 37-inch OLED TV? They'd better be. 


Chris


----------



## 10th St.

And Gizmodo is reporting a price of only $1400 or so for that size. If so, that's a lot sooner than I expected given Sony's pace. . .If true - this may be a serious contender in 5 years from now for both the plasma and lcd markets (though 5 years from now I also imagine the technology in those two display technologies will be quite impressive even as compared with the latest models available today).


----------



## 10th St.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jayhawk11* /forum/post/14148467
> 
> 
> Possibly big news out of Panasonic: http://gizmodo.com/5019072/panasonic...n-sale-by-2011
> 
> 
> 
> That could be sweet. If true, of course.



If true -this is the first realistic price point to make major inroads into the market. . .


Let me know when the 60" OLEDs are selling for $2000.00


----------



## Stroonzo

I bought my Panasonic 50" 10UKA just a few months ago. One of the main reasons I chose this display was the ridiculously low price of a 50" plasma panel of this quality AND the fact I know my next TV purchase will be an OLED. I mean, Kuro this and Kuro that, but everything I read on OLED makes it sound like the greatest thing since..... you guessed it..... sliced bread.


So I am very much anxious to see these displays becoming main-stream.


----------



## creemail

Yes this is some good info.


Chris


----------



## johnnylighton

Do we know whether OLED technology has developed to the point where it would make a great TV, as opposed to having incredible wow factor? Do images look realistic? Does motion? Is it pleasant to watch a movie on an OLED?


Sorry for being out of the loop on this stuff.


----------



## tsb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnnylighton* /forum/post/14153220
> 
> 
> Do we know whether OLED technology has developed to the point where it would make a great TV, as opposed to having incredible wow factor? Do images look realistic? Does motion? Is it pleasant to watch a movie on an OLED?
> 
> 
> Sorry for being out of the loop on this stuff.



Until i saw Sony's unit all the OLED demo sets I've seen at shows looked like crap. Sony's looked amazing and did everything you mentioned beautifully. It is a tiny screen though of course, so I still need to see a 50"+ OLED before I'll be sure it's the holy grail.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Matsushita Planning 37-inch OLED TVs?* 
*24 June 2008*

*Reports have Japan's Matsushita aiming to mass-produce 37-inch OLED televisions within three years, potentially jump-starting the OLED market.*


According to the Japanese trade daily Sankei Shimbun, electronics giant Matsushita—still in the process of transitioning its corporate identity to its better-known sub-brand Panasonic—is putting the finishing touches on plans to mass-produce 37-inch OLED televisions within three years. If the plans bear out, it would make Matsushita the first manufacturer producing OLED televisions over 30 inches in size, and could enable Matsushita to challenge Samsung for the top spot in the flat-screen television market.


According to the report, Matsushita is considering initial prices around 150,000 Yen (roughly $1,400), although Matsushita itself said only that the company is working on commercializing OLED televisions at some point in the future.


Sony launched an 11-inch OLED television in late 2007, bringing it to the United States early this year. Japan's Toshiba and South Korea's Samsung are also developing OLED televisions, although so far Matsushita's proposed 37-inch size would be the largest of the bunch. OLED panels are considerably slimmer than traditional LCDs and use less energy since they don't require backlighting.


Late last year, Toshiba and Matsushita ditched a joint effort to enter the OLED television market with a 30-inch unit, following difficulties getting the system from research to production. They had planned to offer the 30-inch set in 2009.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CMEL expects to volume produce AMOLED TV panels in next two to three years* 
*25 June 2008*


Chi Mei EL (CMEL) expects that its AMOLED TV-panel technologies, which are being developed with help from Kodak and DuPont, will see a breakthrough next year, and volume production may start in 2010 or 2011, according to company vice chairman Peter Chen.


When the technology is ready, CMEL –a subsidiary of Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) – will then be able to work out a timetable for constructing its third production line to be dedicated to volume producing AMOLED TV panels, he said.


CMEL's yield for AMOLED panels has reached 70%, and is expected go up to 85% by the end of 2008, Chen said.


The company's second production line, which is under construction, will come online in October this year, and by then the company's monthly capacity will reach 800,000 units (2.8-inch equivalent), he added.


While CMEL demonstrated a 25-inch AMOLED panel at Display Taiwan 2008 earlier this month, Chen said that may not necessarily be the size that the company will volume produce.


As TV panels will have to be produced at 5G or above lines in order to be cost effective, CMEL is still assessing the panel size that it will make, Chen said.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Panasonic, CMEL Anticipate Volume Production of Large AMOLED-TVs in 2010 – 2011* 
*26 June 2008*


At $227 per diagonal inch (in the U.S.), Sony’s XEL-1 11-inch AMOLED TV set is a combination of technological stake in the sand, early adopter’s toy, and public relations coup. And, with a lifetime that is, according to tests supervised by Barry Young at DisplaySearch, much shorter than that claimed by Sony, the XEL-1 can also be viewed as a premature delivery.


Since the XEL-1 is clearly a triumph of public relations over sound product development, I’m only inclined to give it one-and-a-half cheers. But it does look beautiful, and the enthusiastic response people have to its screen images clearly show that AMOLED-TV will be a product category to threaten both LCDs and PDPs — but only when the technology matures a bit, screen sizes grow, and prices fall.


So when will that be? At least since last October’s FPD International in Yokohama, LG Display and CMEL have had 32-inch AMOLED-TVs on their roadmaps for late 2009 or early 2010. CMEL has been showing a 25-inch prototype and Samsung has been showing a handsome 31-inch FHD prototype, although nobody, understandably, was talking about price or volume.


The media’s recent focus on Matsushita has been on its taking over Pioneer’s plasma panel research, development, and manufacturing activities and on its assuming control of IPS Alpha, the LCD-panel manufacturer jointly owned by Matsushita, Hitachi, and Toshiba. But if you looked at the corporate fine print, you could see references to Matsushita intending to do OLED development at one of IPS Alpha’s facilities.


Still, it came as a surprise yesterday when Japan’s Sankei newspaper reported Matsushita has finalized plans to mass-produce 37-inch AMOLED-TVs within 3 years. Matsushita spokesperson Akira Kadota said his company plans to sell the 37-incher for the equivalent of $1,390.


Now, $1,390 is certainly not cheap for a 37-inch TV. Today, you can buy a Sharp LC-37D64U FHD LCD-TV for $1099 on-line from J and R, or a Sony KDL-37L4000 HD LCD-TV for $889, and equivalent sets will surely be cheaper in 2011. But it’s also not crazy to expect early adopters and demanding videophiles to buy this kind of set in significant quantities at such a price.


Also yesterday, CMEL VP Peter Chen said his company anticipates the mass production of TV-use AMOLED panels in 2010 or 2011, as reported in Digitimes. The TV panels will be made at a new third production OLED line, Chan said.


And what conclusions about CMEL’s initial volume-produced product should we draw from that 25-inch prototype we’ve seen so much of? Not much. Chen said CMEL would not mass produce that size.


So real AMOLED-TVs are coming. Not rich men’s toys, but real TVs in reasonable sizes at rational price premiums. You’ll just have to wait a couple of years.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung invests over $500 million to boost OLED production* 
*30 June 2008*


Samsung SDI said today that it will be spending over $500 million USD to boost production of next-generation OLED displays to six times its current level by mid-2009.


This latest move comes as panel makers try to get bigger shares of the growing market for OLED displays, which offer better contrast ratio, slimmer designs and better energy efficiency than current LCD or plasma displays.


Currently, however, production costs are still high, too high to make OLED TVs available to the masses.


Samsung currently produces small-sized AM-OLED screens used in watches and other handheld devices and there was no word on whether this large new investment will be to increase production of small OLED screens or for all OLED production including TVs.


Using 2-inch screens as a basis, the new investment should raise capacity from 1.5 million units a month to over 9 million by mid-2009.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung SDI to invest $529 million to up OLED output* 
*30 June 2008*


SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korean display maker Samsung SDI Co (006400.KS: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Monday it would boost production of next-generation organic displays to six times the current level by mid-2009, spending $529 million.


The move comes as leading panel makers try to grab a piece of the fast-growing market for active-matrix organic light-emitting diode (AM-OLED) displays, which make better-quality, slimmer and more energy-efficient screens than liquid crystal displays.


But makers need to clear hurdles such as cutting production costs and maximizing screen size in order to see an adoption in a wider range of applications.


Samsung SDI, which produces small-sized AM-OLED screens used in handheld devices, said in a filing with the local exchange that it would invest 551.8 billion won ($528.6 million) until mid-2009 to expand its AM-OLED output.


When the investment is completed, its production capacity will reach 9 million units a month in 2-inch screen terms, compared with 1.5 million currently, the company said.


Other makers are also moving fast to launch OLED products and build scale. Japan's Sony Corp (6758.T: Quote, Profile, Research) last November started selling small-sized TVs using OLED technology and Toshiba Corp (6502.T: Quote, Profile, Research) plans to ship small-to-medium-size OLED screens for mobile devices in the autumn.


Last week, Japan's Sankei Shimbun daily reported Matsushita Electric Industrial Co (6752.T: Quote, Profile, Research) is finalizing plans to mass-produce 37-inch OLED TVs in three years.


Market researcher iSuppli said in May it expected global shipments of AM-OLED panels to nearly quadruple in 2008 to 10.2 million units, with revenue reaching $225 million.


Shares in Samsung SDI ended up 0.12 percent at 83,600 won, outperforming the wider market's 0.57 percent loss.


($1=1043.8 Won)


----------



## BIG ED




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dmbphan041* /forum/post/14023150
> 
> 
> So, I can get a 50'' OLED TV when? 2012?



I don't know; butt Pana say's a *37"* in 2015.
http://www.electronista.com/articles...enies.oled.tv/


----------



## Isochroma

 *Sony - we are "awfully" close to selling 27" OLED TVs* 
*3 July 2008*


Stan Glasgow (president and COO of Sony Electronics) says that Sony is making progress on moving to larger OLED screen sizes. At the moment, Sony sells an 11-inch OLED TV for $2,500, which means it is hardly a mass market product. The next step, he says, will be a 27-inch version, followed by a 40-inch version. He says they are “awfully close” to selling a 27-inch OLED version commercially. The key for Sony is to find ways to automate the production of the OLED screens, which right now require significant amounts of labor.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Panasonic Comments on Alleged 37-inch OLED TV Production* 
*25 June 2008*


Some media sources reported June 24, 2008, that Matsushita Electric Industrial Co Ltd are making final adjustments to start volume production of a 37-inch OLED TV in fiscal 2011.


Matsushita responded to our interview and commented on 14:00, June 24, on the news, saying, "We are currently advancing research and development in view of OLED production at IPS Alpha's Himeji Plant for the future, but nothing specific has yet been decided on the commercialization of our OLED TV at the moment."


According to some reports, Matsushita is planning to mass-produce OLED panels on the new lines to be installed and dedicated to OLED panel production at the Mobara and Himeji plants (which is slated to begin operating in January 2010) of its subsidiary IPS Alpha Technology Ltd and assemble them into TVs at its plants both inside and outside Japan.


It has been reported that Matsushita will take six 37-inch OLED panels from a sixth-generation glass substrate at Mobara Plant, while taking 10 panels from an eighth-generation glass substrate at Himeji Plant.


Matsushita feels that the era of the OLED TV is fast approaching. At its management policy meeting in January 2008, President Fumio Otsubo said, "Large OLED TVs will start replacing the existing TVs from about 2015, I expect."


Matsushita made IPS Alpha its subsidiary with a view to maintaining the vertical integration of its TV business in the era of not only LCD TVs but also OLED TVs.


It is easy to imagine that Matsushita, which always advocates the idea that "TVs are the face of home electronics manufacturers," is scrambling to move up the schedule from "2015," the year indicated by President Otsubo.


----------



## wco81

What happened to being able to print OLED screens?


Why so labor-intensive? Were the speculated cost-advantages just myth?


----------



## chmilar

 http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/07...fund_oled_rnd/ 



> Quote:
> _Sony, Sharp, Toshiba and other Japanese consumer electronics giants are to get government cash to help fund the development of big-screen OLED TVs._


----------



## Isochroma

 *Japan to fund creation of 40W, 40in OLED TV* 
*10 July 2008*











*Sony's XEL-1: groundbreaking*



Sony, Sharp, Toshiba and other Japanese consumer electronics giants are to get government cash to help fund the development of big-screen OLED TVs.


In total, ¥700m ($6.6m/£3.3m/4.2m) will be made available to the companies, all of it from NEDO, a Japanese government agency that fuels the development of emerging technologies. The funding will be provided over the next five years to March 2013.


NEDO clearly views OLED as a key advance in cutting the amount of electrical power the world consumes. The funding is geared toward the development of a 40in 1080p screen that consumes less than 40W and can be manufactured in volume.


Sony launched the first commercially available OLED TV, the XEL-1, in September 2007. But it's just 11in in the diagonal and costs more than most much larger LCD TVs. Sony has already pledged to produce a 27in version within 12 months, and has earmarked ¥22bn ($206m/£104m/131m) for its OLED efforts.


But it's not alone: Korea's LG and Samsung are both keenly pursuing OLED technology, and NEDO's funding is arguably as much about ensure Japan doesn't lose out to Korea in the OLED race as it did with LCD technology.


----------



## Blackraven

What's the status again on lifetimes of 'blue' materials/components.


Highest I've heard I think (latest report from Sony) is around 30k hours.


In any case, if they can get it to 48k-60k hours, then it's smooth sailing all the way (in terms of production aspect)


----------



## Isochroma

 *NEDO Announces Consignees for OLED Display Project* 
*11 July 2008*


A Japanese independent administrative institution decided the consignees that will undertake the "Development of Fundamental Technologies for Next-generation Large-screen OLED Displays (the Green IT project)" for fiscal 2008.


The New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) made this announcement July 10, 2008.


The consignees are Sony Corp, Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co Ltd, Sharp Corp, Sumitomo Chemical Co Ltd, Idemitsu Kosan Co Ltd, Choshu Industry Co Ltd, JSR Corp, Shimadzu Corp, Dainippon Screen Mfg Co Ltd, Hitachi Zosen Corp and Japan's National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.


The 10 companies and one organization submitted a joint proposal to NEDO. The project will be conducted for five years from fiscal 2008 to 2012. Although not finalized, the annual expenses for the project will total approximately ¥700 million (US$6.53 million).


The goals are to realize an energy-saving technology that enables full-HD (1920 x 1080p) panels with a power consumption of 40W or lower and to develop the following three fundamental technologies targeted for mass-production in the sixth-generation panels (panel size: 1,500 x 1,850mm) and onward.


They are (1) material and manufacturing process technologies for the formation of large electrodes with minimum damage to the organic film, (2) transparent encapsulation technology for large displays and (3) formation technology for large organic films. NEDO invited public applications for the project from April 11 to May 20, 2008.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED TV, Mini-Note Panels Lead Flat Panel Shipments, Says DisplaySearch* 
*14 July 2008*


A DisplaySearch report forecasts a 167% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for shipments of OLED panels from 2007 to 2015. The CAGR of shipments for mini-note PC applications may be 74% over the coming eight years.


"OLED TV and mini-note PC applications are the next big opportunity for flat panel suppliers," explained David Barnes, VP of Strategic Analysis for DisplaySearch. He added, "Last year, we identified the potential for digital picture frame demand to lead unit growth. That application is still growing strong but these two applications will be even stronger."


Shipments of flat panels for all applications decreased 12% from Q4 2007 to 881.7 million units on normal seasonal weakness in Q1 2008. Compared to Q1 2007, shipments increased 15%, led by demand for mini-note PC, digital picture frames and portable navigation devices.


On a unit share basis, mobile phone applications consumed 45.8% of all flat panels in Q1 2008. By comparison, the next largest consumption came from conventional PC applications for desktop and laptop displays, which used 9.1% of the flat panels shipped. Panels for LCD TV and plasma TV sets comprised 3.5% of shipments. On a display area basis, TFT LCD technology provided 88.6% of total FPD area in Q1 2008. PDP technology delivered 9.4% and OLED delivered 0.1% of the total.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED: towards a mature industry - interview with Gildas Sorin, CEO of Novaled AG* 
*18 July 2008*


In July 2008, I had the chance of interviewing Gildas Sorin, Novaled's CEO. Novaled is engaged in the commercialization of the new generation of OLEDs. The company has developed an innovative doping technology (Novaled PIN OLED) enabling large area OLED display and lighting.


Novaled claims to deliver the highest power efficiencies in combination with longest lifetimes and holds several OLED world records.


Novaled, established 5 years ago, is located in Dresden, Germany. Dresden city is becoming the biggest European organic electronic centre with a network of university, R&D centers and companies acting in the organic fields.


Gildas Sorin is Novaled's CEO since since August 2003. Previously he was with Philips Electronics for five years as vice president of the Display Division and, in parallel, general manager of the Philips Plasma Displays group. Prior to that, he served at Thomson Multimedia for 20 years in various executive and management roles. Mr. Sorin attended Thomson University and holds a degree in senior management.

*Hello Gildas, thanks for agreeing to do this interview. Recently there is a lot of hype about OLEDs. We are hearing of large investments by Sony, Samsung and LG, and plans for OLED TVs are stated. Do you think this time it is for real? or will we see more delays?*

Every year in the past the message was “OLED business is starting next year”. This was said for several years, but now it is real indeed. The OLED industry is entering its mature phase; OLED technology has reached a performance level acceptable for the market in display and lighting to start. The time to make only the “noisy” announcements is over as the industry requires real performances. Different parameters have to be combined for a successful market entry. Therefore Novaled is striving continuously for the best combination of power efficiency together with the necessary lifetime.
*You guys are working closely on P-OLEDs with CDT/Sumation, and also on PHOLEDs with UDC and Ciba. What do you think about these two kinds of OLEDs? Which one is closer to commercialization?*

Until recently OLED was split between small molecule deposited with vacuum tools on the one hand and polymer using printing technologies on the other hand. These two approaches start to converge with the goal to have the most appropriate production process for the application.


Novaled is working on a hybrid approach with CDT/Sumitomo Chemicals mixing the Sumation polymer emitting material together with the small molecule material of Novaled. This will bring more efficient polymer OLED in top emission mode.
*Can you give some more information about your collaboration with UDC?*

Novaled’s technology provides better power efficiency to all OLED structures and for this reason Novaled is cooperating with the main emitting material makers. One of them is UDC which develops efficient green and red OLED emitter material. By using Novaled PIN OLED TM structure and materials the UDC performance is doubled.
*In the beginning of 2008 you announced a collaboration with Ciba, on long-lifetime PHOLEDs. Any news in that area?*

Ciba, like other key organic material players, develops phosphorescent emitting material specially dedicated to the Novaled PIN OLED TM structure. The PIN technology is necessary to reach highest power efficiency and is expected to play an important role in industry standards.
*The OLLA project (which you were involved in) was just concluded, and a new project has been announced - OLED100.eu. Can you give us more details about your role in those projects?*

The European lighting industry supported by the European Union launched a program called OLLA in 2004 to develop the OLED technology for lighting applications. Due to its freedom of design, OLED lighting technology offers many possibilities for new lighting applications whilst achieving substantial energy savings. OLLA was a consortium of 24 companies from 8 European countries such as Philips, OSRAM and of course Novaled, with funding of 12M€ from the EU.


Novaled has been the centre of this program providing the necessary power efficiency with its PIN OLED TM technology. A device with an efficacy of 50.7 lumens per watt and lifetime of 10.000 hours was delivered by the end of the program in June 2008.


The new program OLED100.eu is now launched with the mission to reach 100 lm/W and a lifetime of 100.000 h. This program is centered on Novaled technology as well.
*One of the main objectives of OLED100.eu is 100 lm/W, in 3 years. UDC already claims to have 102lm/W today. So why will it take 3 years for you guys to achieve that?*

The time of laboratory announcements is over. Performance of 100 lm/W with no lifetime can not be seen as an industrial result. Novaled already announced an OLED with 160 lm/W last year. We are now committed to real performance which can be used for commercial products, having the best compromise between lifetime and efficiency.
*Konica Minolta plans to launch OLED lighting products in 2011. Is that realistic?*

We expect the first lighting products from the key lighting makers in Europe and Japan next year already.
*OSRAM is showing beautiful OLED lamp prototypes. What do you think about those? When will be able to actually buy them, do you think?*

OSRAM has made a clever move to show the potential of the OLED technology for lighting through its bringing two first products on the market.


It is necessary to show to consumers, not yet aware of the OLED advantages, the benefit of the real product. We are confident that the OLED business in lighting will take off in 2009.
*Another interesting development in white-light OLEDs in Lumiotec, the new Japanese JV. Are you involved with this new company?*

The creation of Lumiotec illustrates the revolution in the lighting industry currently moving from vacuum (lamps, neons) toward solid state (LED and now OLED products).


This radical change of technology will bring new players into the lighting field.


We are in permanent contact with Prof. Kido, supporter of the PIN OLED technology, who is driving the technical development of Lumiotec.
*Are there any products that currently use OLEDs with your IP inside?*

The OLED display and lighting industry is now in the starting phase. We are working with several key players in both fields but currently under NDA.
*You are also licensing your tech for Solar cells. Any news in that front?*

You can imagine that Novaled technology capable of highest power efficiently structure for emitting light can also provide power efficiency advantages to organic structures absorbing light and for creating energy.


Dresden, Germany, is the biggest European center for organic electronics. One sister company of Novaled, Heliatek, is making significant progress in solar cells using Novaled technology.


Novaled is working with other partners in this organic solar cell field as well.
*What are the major challenges still facing OLEDs?*

We are just entering the industrial phase of this technology. Performance and lifetime are now at an acceptable level. Further progress requires the increase of cooperation among the actors: technology and material providers, equipment and device makers. The time for solo working is over.
*When do you think we'll be able to actually buy a commercial OLED TV?*

The first Sony OLED TV is available in Japan since end of last year. We are confident that the product offer in the display market will be extended starting next year with the arrival of additional key players.
*Where do you see the display market in 5 years?*

OLED is the natural evolution of the LCD. It brings much better picture performance (even better than Plasma) and new design opportunities, while reusing the major part of the LCD panel: the active matrix (TFT). To some extent OLED is an LCD display.


Having passed the necessary learning phase, OLED displays will be cheaper than current LCDs and enable more appealing products. It’s a win-win situation for both LCD makers and consumers.
*Gildas, thank you for this interview. I wish both you and Novaled success, and I'm sure we'll be hearing more of your technology soon.*


----------



## wco81

Interesting that most of the development is being done in Japan, the EU and other countries but not the US.


If this thing hits, another missed opportunity for American business.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/14343364
> 
> 
> Interesting that most of the development is being done in Japan, the EU and other countries but not the US.
> 
> 
> If this thing hits, another missed opportunity for American business.



^^^

Err......there's Kodak right (a bigtime in this whole OLED enchalada).


So there are American companies involved. It's just as to whether they're putting any major investment or not.


----------



## wco81

Kodak has the patents but are they actually developing product?


----------



## Isochroma

 *More-Efficient OLED Lighting* 
*23 July 2008*











*Beam me up: A new OLED design could help the devices emit far more light.

Electron microscope images show the top of the OLED with organic

and aluminum layers (top) and an organic grid before depositing the

organic and aluminum layers (middle). The bottom image shows polymer

micro lenses on the surface of the glass substrate.

Credit: University of Michigan/Nature Photonics*



Energy efficiency and flexible lighting applications have long been the promise of organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs). The technology hasn't lived up to its promise, however, because in typical OLEDs, only 20 percent of the light generated is released from the device. That means that most light is trapped inside the bulb, making it highly inefficient.


Researchers at the University of Michigan and Princeton University believe that they're on to a way to break the OLED-efficiency logjam. The scientists have designed an OLED that boosts illumination by 60 percent using a combination of an organic grid working in tandem with small micro lenses that guide the trapped light out of the device.


Stephen Forrest, a professor of electrical engineering and physics at Michigan, and Yuri Sun, from Princeton University, described the work in the August issue of Nature Photonics.


In OLEDs, white light is generated by using electricity to send an electron into nanometer-thick layers of organic materials that behave like semiconductor materials. Typically, the light in the substrate is internally reflected and runs parallel and not perpendicular. That's the crux of the problem because the light can't escape in the vertical direction without some coaxing. In Forrest's devices, the grids refract the trapped light, sending it to the five micrometers dome-shaped micro lenses. The light is sent off in a vertical orientation that helps release the trapped rays.


Forrest and his coworkers report that the technology emits about 70 lumens from a watt of power. In comparison, incandescent lightbulbs emit 15 lumens per watt. Fluorescent lights put out roughly 90 lumens of light per watt but have liabilities: they produce harsh light, lack longevity, and use environment-damaging substances like mercury.


Forrest says that the next step in the research is to use OLEDs that are more efficient than those the team used in the current project. Looking beyond the research lab work on these OLEDs, he is cautiously optimistic that it should be possible to scale up the manufacturing of the devices, and that production costs for manufacturing the new OLEDs will be competitive.


Today, an estimated 22 percent of the electricity produced goes to lighting buildings. A highly efficient form of OLED lighting could significantly reduce the electricity demand and boost savings. Another factor influencing broad adoption of LEDs is the fact that they outlast incandescent bulbs. Over the next 20 years, the rapid adoption of LED lighting in the United States could reduce electricity demands by 62 percent and thus eliminate 258 million metric tons of carbon emissions, according to the Department of Energy.


It will take several years to replace current lighting in office buildings and homes with OLEDs. But the continued progress in increasing the efficiencies of the devices is encouraging to researchers. "Luckily, OLEDs are the light that just keeps giving," says Forrest, who has spent much of his professional research career focused on OLEDs. "There is so much to be done and so much that's been done, but this is nonetheless a quite exciting advancement."


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14351247
> 
> *More-Efficient OLED Lighting*
> *23 July 2008*
> 
> 
> Today, an estimated 22 percent of the electricity produced goes to lighting buildings. A highly efficient form of OLED lighting could significantly reduce the electricity demand and boost savings. Another factor influencing broad adoption of LEDs is the fact that they outlast incandescent bulbs. Over the next 20 years, the rapid adoption of LED lighting in the United States could reduce electricity demands by 62 percent and thus eliminate 258 million metric tons of carbon emissions, according to the Department of Energy.



If only 22% of electricity "goes to lighting buildings" how can rapid adoption of LED lighting reduce electricity demands by 62%? Surely they meant 62% of the electricity required for lighting. Maybe.


I've been a big proponent of compact florescent bulbs for many years. Yet there is a big drawback (besides not fitting in many fixtures). You can't use them in dimmable, or even often electronically controlled, circuits. Never mind the ads, they're wrong. I've tried. That needs to be addressed, both for CFs and for OLEDs. Hopefully it's not an OLED problem.


BTW, I've seen *ONE* CF fixture on a dimming circuit that actually works. I tried to find out about the fixture. All I could learn is that it was from Germany.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Japan's Matsushita Electric to release 40-inch OEL TVs in 2011 - report* 
*28 July 2008*


Matsushita Electric Industrial Co, the world's largest consumer electronics maker, plans to start selling OEL (organic electroluminescent) television sets with a screen size of 40 inches or so as early as 2011, the Nikkei reported on Tuesday, without citing sources.


OEL is seen as the most promising technology for next-generation TVs because it offers a higher image quality than LCDs and plasma panels, the business daily said.


By investing several dozen billion yen, the company plans to build a prototype production line for OEL panels 20 inches and larger and to start operating it next spring, the report said.


It also plans to double the personnel involved in development of large-screen OEL TVs to around 200.


The firm plans to set up an OEL panel mass production line at an LCD panel plant it intends to start operating in 2010 in Himeji, Hyogo Prefecture, the report said.


This line is expected to begin manufacturing OEL panels for screens of up to 40 inches as early as 2011.


Total investment in the OEL panel mass production facility is estimated at around 100 billion yen ($930.4 million), the Nikkei said.


($1=107.48 yen)


----------



## Reizah

sounds like panasonic is going to be a major player in the OLED HDTV market in the coming years.


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, Samsung SDI has talked about a $4 billion investment into a Gen 6 OLED plant. I think that would be capable of making 37" screens.


Only problem is that I havent heard a timeframe on the investment.


Slacker


----------



## Isochroma

 *How TVs Will Get Much, Much Flatter* 
*29 July 2008*












*A paper-thin HDTV that covers a whole wall? Believe it. OLEDs are coming--not quickly, but when they do, LCD and plasma are doomed.*


Plasma is dead. Front and rear projection? Fuggeddaboutit. LCD has a few good years left, and then it's sayonara, baby. TV technology's future lies in tiny phosphorescent molecules.


Organic light-emitting diodes--OLEDs--employ a thin layer of organic material that emits light when electricity passes through it. OLED displays need no backlight, so they're ultrathin and flexible. They are also brighter, cheaper to manufacture, and more environmentally friendly than plasma displays or LCDs. Over the next few years, OLED will be coming to a boob tube near you, and later maybe to the walls of your house, or even the windshield of your car.

*Thin and Rich*


When Sony showed off its 27-inch active-matrix OLED flat panel at last January's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, you could hear jaws dropping. A contrast ratio of a million to one, with pure blacks, blinding whites, and brilliant colors; no problems with viewing angles or ambient light; faster response times than LCDs; and low energy consumption--all on a pane of glass thinner than a Bic pen.


"OLEDs...reproduce the exact colors a movie maker intended," says Barry Young, OLED expert for DisplaySearch. "LCDs [and plasmas] can't produce 100 percent of the grayscales in the original image...; OLEDs can."


Right now, only one model is available: Sony's XEL-1, which measures 11 inches diagonally, costs $2500, and has a short useful-life span.


But the XEL-1 is mostly a proof-of-concept item, says Young. OLEDs using newer materials are proving more robust, and eventually they'll long outlast plasma and LCD sets, he adds.


This year, the flat-panel industry woke up and smelled the diodes. Samsung SDI--the world's largest maker of OLEDs for cell phones and portable media players--is pumping half a billion dollars into new manufacturing plants. Epson, LG, Toshiba, and other major manufacturers of OLEDs are following suit.


Janice Mahone, vice president of technology commercialization for Universal Display, says that consumers should start to see OLED panels in the 20-to-30-inch range in 2009. But it's likely to be two years or more before OLEDs can compete with LCDs on price.

*A Flat Future*


OLED isn't the only promising new TV technology. Micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS)--LED-powered displays that employ millions of microscopic shutters to control light passing through them--use less power than OLEDs, but they trail OLEDs in development.


Mahone admits that LCDs have lots of life left, and manufacturers--who are loath to cannibalize their LCD sales--will likely try to keep OLED prices high for several years. In the long run, though, OLED sets will become cheaper to produce, thanks to having less electronics.


"You could have a paper-thin, wall-size OLED that displays video, shows photographs, or provides ambient light with a flick of a switch," says Mahone. Transparent OLED technology could provide the same instant control for the windows in your room or for a heads-up display on the windshield of your car.


If you're planning on buying a big-screen TV set this year, it won't be an OLED. But your next TV after that one very well could be--if it isn't built into the walls of your next house.


----------



## agustus

Woooow.


----------



## ferro

 Sony will bring OLED tv's to Europe next year .


Google Translation...


AMSTERDAM - next year appear in Europe for the first time ultrathin television based on oled-technology (organic light emitting diode) on the market. Sony that introduced the apparatus earlier in Japan and the United States says bring the technology in 2009, to Europe.


OLED TV its thinner and lower-energy than lcd or plasma, which comes among others because there is no backlight necessary for a good visible picture. THE OLED TV are thus considered as the new generation flat TV.


Disadvantage is that the OLED technology at present still a piece is more expensive than the LCD and plasma technology. Also the life span would be more limited.


Sony has sold worldly firstly OLED TV since December 2007 in Japan and since beginning this year in the US. 11-inch the model is only 3 mm thick and has a price of approximately €1250.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/14214140
> 
> 
> What happened to being able to print OLED screens?
> 
> 
> Why so labor-intensive? Were the speculated cost-advantages just myth?



I don't see the article listed above your comment as speculating on labor intensive or any description of how the panels are manufactured/processed.


What you are refering to is the difference between regular lithography and a inkjet or other similar type of printing method. Typical lithography methods involve up to 5 or 6 steps where a print method is normally just one or two. Money is saved by th fact that normal litho processes use expensive chemicals and equipment for each step, also there is the production plant foot print that is made larger by having more process equipment. While this printing method is currently in use for several stages of production in both LCD and Plasma sets there are some manufacturing processes where it can't be used or is not scaleable to the larger glass sizes.


The glass will always be large and cut up into individual sets. The economy of scale ditates that what you can do on a single 37" panel can be done on a gen 6 size panel or gen 8 size and then cut up into several 37" panels.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/14315147
> 
> 
> What's the status again on lifetimes of 'blue' materials/components.
> 
> 
> Highest I've heard I think (latest report from Sony) is around 30k hours.
> 
> 
> In any case, if they can get it to 48k-60k hours, then it's smooth sailing all the way (in terms of production aspect)



I have seen allot of claims of high lifetime materials in several publications (especially for Blue OLED). Problem is that when you take the numbers quoted for the brightness you find that it is not sutible for a FPD application.


Once you reasearch most of them you find that at a brigtness level that would be needed for a FPD they have very short lifetimes.


The latest I have seen is something from Cambridge (?) that says it has a high lifetime. Haven't looked at it to check, but it might be a little better. Mostly the blue lifetime has been an incremental thing, small gains over time.


----------



## Isochroma

 *LCD is King; Long Live the King - Maybe* 
*15 August 2008*


Few doubt that LCDs rule the display world from cell phones to large-sized TVs. The technology has vanquished all comers and even entrenched technologies in its bid for hegemony. But challengers remain in the wings, ready to unseat the reigning king.


Japan led the LCD revolution, but the mass production lead is now shared with Korea, Taiwan and China. While Japan still supplies many of the key components and materials, even this will be compromised in short order.


So what are the Japanese to do? Find new display technologies to champion, apparently. For bigger screens, FEDs are in contention as are OLEDs, but even SED might make a come back.


In the last few days, we have seen advancements on all these fronts. For example, Field Emission Technologies, which is partly owned by Sony, says it is planning to begin mass production of 26-inch FED panels by the end of 2009. FEDs offer flat CRT-like performance, but have proved devilishly hard to mass-produce (remember how much money Sony lost in its Candescent FED venture?). But FET claims to have a way to actually get there this time.


In the Candescent approach, tiny cone emitters, called Spindt cathodes, were constructed to generate electrons to energize a phosphor. FET uses these same Spindt structures, but instead of forming one Spindt cathode per pixel, it fabricates 1400 per pixel. This overcomes the uniformity problems that resulted from the former approach, while also improving lifetime and lowering currents. In addition, the company developed transparent insulating spacers to maintain the proper gap.


To help meet its mass-production deadline, FET will acquire Pioneer's Kagoshima plant by the end of 2008 and will invest from $183 million to $274 million in Gen4 manufacturing equipment. It will target the high-end reference monitor market to start.


News about SED also surfaced this week regarding the patent lawsuit between Canon and Nano-Proprietary. Apparently, the US Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of Canon, in part reversing the rulings of the district court.


At issue was whether the SED technology license granted to Canon by Nano-Proprietary was valid. The validity came into question when Canon formed a joint venture agreement with Toshiba to commercialize SED technology. The initial ruling favored Nano-Proprietary, which contended the license was violated with the JV, but the Appeals court said the JV license was ok. Does this mean SED has new life? Not necessarily.


But the technology most likely to unseat LCD is OLED. Currently, there is much interest in the ability of OLED to scale to the sizes needed to compete with LCDs in the monitor and TV segments.


This week we learned that Panasonic is confirming its intentions to mass-produce OLED TVs. According to industry reports, the company intends to use its R&D center in Kyoto to make 20-inch prototype OLED TVs by early 2009. Then, a new $2.8B plant would start production in 2010, with mass production of 40-inch OLED TVs scheduled for 2011.


And, according to a report in Digitimes, AU Optronics (AUO) is considering re-opening its OLED production line, which it shut down in 2006. AUO was making small-sized OLEDs, but has continued development efforts with larger-sized substrates. No time frame was set, but it is yet another indicator of growing interest.


Can any of these technologies really displace LCDs in the TV market? OLEDs have the best chance, but it is likely to be some time before LCD panel, monitor and TV makers feel threatened. But on the other hand, OLED may be a way for non-competitive LCD fabs to retool old plants and get back in the game. Stay tuned.


----------



## 8IronBob

Right, I'd still see OLED first taking off as a PC monitor technology before I'd see it becoming an HDTV, tho. That's how LCD started, and I don't expect OLED to be any different. I mean, yeah, Sony may have made theirs a television, but it wasn't HD, and it certainly didn't have quite a lot to justify that hefty price tag. For now, just having a good 20 - 30" PC monitor with OLED technology at the 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 would be a pretty good start, imo.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8IronBob* /forum/post/14457671
> 
> 
> Right, I'd still see OLED first taking off as a PC monitor technology before I'd see it becoming an HDTV, tho. That's how LCD started, and I don't expect OLED to be any different.



The problem is that OLED's work very differently than LCD's. The power consumption of an OLED display is directly related to the image that is displayed (unlike LCD). An image which is predominantly white, like those on most laptops, might actually use more energy than an equivalent LCD display. This is obviously a non-starter when you talk about laptops. Another possible problem is burn-in as various portions of a PC display almost never change.


I believe that Samsung SDI has mentioned laptop displays but I have yet to see them demonstrate a model incorporating an OLED. JMO, but I think that we may see 30 to 40 inch TV's before we see them used widely in PC's.


Slacker


----------



## wco81

OLED has burn-in?


What about those small devices using OLED screens? Don't they have menus and stuff drawn all the time?


----------



## Isochroma

Like cell phones and PDAs? Such devices are expected to fail or be replaced in a short time period, before the display shows burn-in. TVs and monitors are a different story altogether; people expect TVs to last decades.


----------



## wco81

Is it that they burn in or the material loses the ability to light up over time?


----------



## Isochroma

Electrical stimulation causes permanent degradative changes in the light-producing materials, which cause them to emit less light over time.


----------



## wco81

So it's more burn-out than burn-in?


----------



## Isochroma

Rather than trying to match some abstract term, just realize the end result which is all that matters. Pixels get dimmer with use. The more they're used, the quicker they get dimmer. Same as PDP.


----------



## wco81

Is it worse than PDP or CRT?


If they are going to charge a premium, the PQ advantage better be really obvious for people to put up with the high price and the uncertain life of the materials.


----------



## Isochroma

I'm not involved in the making of any of these products. I don't know. It will depend on the product. There are many ways of making OLED. There are no simple answers. So just wait.


----------



## agustus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14458757
> 
> 
> Like cell phones and PDAs? Such devices are expected to fail or be replaced in a short time period, before the display shows burn-in. TVs and monitors are a different story altogether; people expect TVs to last decades.



Go to youtube and type in CES 2008. According to the Samsung rep, he said that the OLED wouldn't suffer from burn in.


----------



## Isochroma

You're confusing PR with reality. Do some investigation of the actual technology before you put up some media link like that. OLED has always been subject to emitter wear. Which means if you use it unevenly then it will show. End of story.


Electric current causes changes in the emitter material which degrade its conversion efficiency. There is no known OLED emission material in existence that does not have a steady loss of conversion efficiency with cumulative use. Thus by simple logic, there can be no OLED display that does not have degraded brightness with cumulative use. And if its pixels are not all used the same amount, then the uneven use will result in uneven conversion efficiency, thus uneven brightness, aka. 'burn-in'.


For PDP, the phosphor solarizes due to UV exposure, which is also its method of operation. The process of life kills it. In addition the electrodes wear due to sputtering, though it may not be a significant contributor to actual brightness loss.


For FED/SED, various processes contribute to panel aging and emitter aging. Leakage of atmospheric gases and also gases trapped on inner surfaces into the vacuum space between emitters and phosphors provides the contaminants which both absorb electrons and also degrade emitters and/or phosphors. Emitters can lose particles (sputtering) or have structural rearrangement, and can also react with gases to form coatings that don't emit electrons efficiently. And the phosphor ages due to electron impacts causing structural/chemical changes.


----------



## agustus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14459888
> 
> 
> You're confusing PR with reality. Do some investigation of the actual technology before you put up some media link like that. OLED has always been subject to emitter wear. Which means if you use it unevenly then it will show. End of story.
> 
> 
> Electric current causes changes in the emitter material which degrade its conversion efficiency. There is no known OLED emission material in existence that does not have a steady loss of conversion efficiency with cumulative use. Thus by simple logic, there can be no OLED display that does not have degraded brightness with cumulative use. And if its pixels are not all used the same amount, then the uneven use will result in uneven conversion efficiency, thus uneven brightness, aka. 'burn-in'.
> 
> 
> For PDP, the phosphor solarizes due to UV exposure, which is also its method of operation. The process of life kills it. In addition the electrodes wear due to sputtering, though it may not be a significant contributor to actual brightness loss.
> 
> 
> For FED/SED, various processes contribute to panel aging and emitter aging. Leakage of atmospheric gases and also gases trapped on inner surfaces into the vacuum space between emitters and phosphors provides the contaminants which both absorb electrons and also degrade emitters and/or phosphors. Emitters can lose particles (sputtering) or have structural rearrangement, and can also react with gases to form coatings that don't emit electrons efficiently. And the phosphor ages due to electron impacts causing structural/chemical changes.



Whoa, easy there cupcake. I was just trying to be helpful.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14459888
> 
> 
> Electric current causes changes in the emitter material which degrade its conversion efficiency. There is no known OLED emission material in existence that does not have a steady loss of conversion efficiency with cumulative use. Thus by simple logic, there can be no OLED display that does not have degraded brightness with cumulative use. And if its pixels are not all used the same amount, then the uneven use will result in uneven conversion efficiency, thus uneven brightness, aka. 'burn-in'.
> 
> 
> For PDP, the phosphor solarizes due to UV exposure, which is also its method of operation. The process of life kills it. In addition the electrodes wear due to sputtering, though it may not be a significant contributor to actual brightness loss.



Obviously OLED suffers for uneven aging. I think I read blue component was aging faster on the XEL-1 tv. This is something the tv makers must adress, but i don't think it should be considered "burn-in".


Afaik, pdp suffers from two different effects. One is the aging of the phosphors, that may be even or uneven depending of what you show in the tv in the long term, but also the short term burn-in (which has been almost eradicated from the newer panels) which completely destroys the tv.


A single white section in a PDP panel may destroy the panel in several hours, while an equivalent and cumulative use would only show barely noticeable uneven aging. The first doesn't apply to oled, the second, obviously does.


I may be wrong anyway.


----------



## williamtassone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14458757
> 
> 
> people expect TVs to last decades.



they do, but those those days are long gone


----------



## Isochroma

 *AMOLED shipments to hit 185 million by 2014, says iSuppli* 
*19 August 2008*











*Source: iSuppli, August 2008*



Although many display suppliers have discontinued their Active Matrix Organic Light Emitting Diode (AMOLED) businesses, the technology continues to advance, with mass production starting in 2007, along with the rollout of multiple displays from multiple vendors, according to iSuppli.


"The stunning image quality produced by AMOLEDS has never been in question. However, there is continuing debate over when the AMOLED will become a commercially viable technology in the display industry and how effectively it will be able to compete against the current industry heavyweight: Thin-Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Displays (TFT-LCDs)," said Vinita Jakhanwal, principal analyst for mobile displays for iSuppli. "Regardless of this debate, the AMOLED market is set for strong growth over the next few years, although volume shipments will be tiny compared to TFT-LCDs."


The worldwide AMOLED market will grow to 185.2 million units by 2014, rising at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 84.2%, up from 2.6 million units in 2007, according to iSuppli. Revenue is expected to grow in concert, expanding to US$4.6 billion by 2014, up at a CAGR of 83.3% from US$67 million in 2007.


AM technology provides major improvements to OLED quality, providing images that are comparable to LCD TVs. The most compelling example of this was Sony's AMOLED television, whose image quality has achieved wide acclaim.


In order to accelerate the process of migrating AMOLED technology from niche to mass market, multiple suppliers must add to their manufacturing resources and ramp up production quickly, Jakhanwal advised. "While mobile handsets are the obvious main target for the technology, these phones require multiple sources of suppliers with sufficient volumes to meet demand. It's unlikely that a single company will be able to fulfill this demand in the short term because no supplier presently has sufficient capacity."


Furthermore, instead of focusing on the entire mobile handset market, suppliers initially should target only high-end wireless phones because this will allow them to justify producing products with superior images that command higher Average Selling Prices (ASPs) than other displays. High-end QVGA resolution handsets could generate high-volume demand for AM-LCDs. However, the ASPs of AMOLEDs must decline in order to compete with TFT-LCDs.


In general, Jakhanwal advises AMOLED suppliers to play to their specific strengths when considering which markets to address.


Suppliers also should work on slimming down the form factor and cutting the power consumption of AMOLEDs. These attributes have always been a strong suit for OLED technology. However, the TFT-LCD industry is not standing still, as it continues to cut the thickness and power usage of its panels. "If AMOLED makers want to stave off TFT-LCDs advance in this arena, they must continue to press their advantage on these fronts," Jakhanwal said.


Finally, aggressively improving manufacturing yields and efficiency is a must for AMOLED suppliers in order to reduce the costs of their products. These issues have plagued the AMOLED business since its inception. iSuppli believes AMOLED equipment, Intellectual Property (IP), material and panel companies should collaborate to overcome these manufacturing challenges. This will help build on each company's strengths and avoid duplication of effort.


----------



## moreHD

Hi all,


Are there any 4", 5", 6" AMOLED monitors or devices that accept external video/audio, that I could buy and use (experiment with) instead of buying 11" Sony? Thanks in advance.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moreHD* /forum/post/14518690
> 
> 
> Are there any 4", 5", 6" AMOLED monitors or devices that accept external video/audio, that I could buy and use (experiment with) instead of buying 11" Sony?



Will 2.6" do?


----------



## vtms

 http://www.techradar.com/news/televi...es-2009-461446


----------



## agustus

Good work vtms. Samsung is a pretty aggressive company. Hopefully once they get that seperate company that's just dedicated to oled up and running, they can start pushing out bigger sized oleds.


----------



## agustus

Damn, so does that mean that 31 inch oled won't come out in 2009?


----------



## Isochroma

 *Vitex and Novaled to cooperate on OLED thin-film encapsulation* 
*28 August 2008*

_*The companies will combine thin-film technology and doping technology and materials to produce high-efficiency OLED products.*_


Vitex Systems, San Jose, CA, producer of thin film encapsulation technology, and Novaled, known for its organic LED technology, plan to combine advantages of the Vitex Barix thin-film technology with the Novaled doping technology and materials, targeting very thin and high-efficiency long-lifetime OLED products.


OLED technology continues to evolve in the display market in applications from mobile phones to TVs. OLEDs also hold promise in lighting, where it enables innovative design, as well as energy saving from the power-efficient Novaled PIN OLED technology.


The majority of OLEDs are currently processed on glass substrates and encapsulated with glass for protection against air and moisture. The glass represents more than 90% of the device thickness. Vitex has developed an innovative thin-film encapsulation targeting ultra-thin OLED devices.


"Novaled is famous for its highly efficient OLED technology," says Jack Saltich, Vitex CEO. "Vitex Barix thin-film encapsulation not only offers superior encapsulation properties but also enables innovative and ultra-thin product design that conventional technology can not provide."


"Our strategy is to provide complete OLED solutions around our Novaled PIN OLED technology", states Gildas Sorin, Novaled CEO. "The cooperation with Vitex illustrates our company approach. Novaled customers will benefit from the Vitex technology for their advanced design."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Sony readying 27-inch OLED this year?* 
*28 August 2008*


TechRadar loves to poke its nose about a bit when large companies make press announcements, and having got bored of the 11-inch OLED, we decided to see when bigger screens are coming out.


According to an insider, it's believed Sony will be releasing the 27-inch OLED TV to the Asian markets even before the year is out, with a worldwide release in the next year.

*Acceleration*


This is ahead of the other rumours, which broke earlier this year, stating that the screen will debut by the end of 2009.


The insider also said he believed the next size screen, rumoured to be around 40-inch wide, is not too much further down the line, but couldn't give any exact dates.


However, the next screen is likely to cost well in excess of the current £1,000 price tag on the 11-inch OLED Sony will be bringing to Europe, so it may be a case of all show and no sales for the short term at least.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung to launch OLED TVs at CES 2009* 
*29 August 2008*


Samsung has revealed it will release 14.1 inch OLED TVs at CES 2009 in a bid to keep Sony from running away with the nascent market.


Young Joong Noh, developer of OLED parts at Samsung, confirmed to TechRadar the sets will be coming next year, with a similar £1,000 plus price tag.


However, he was keen to point out the superior panel the Koreans will be releasing:


"Sony's TV is only standard definition; in our case we'll have a HD OLED TV with 120Hz capability," he said.


"Our plan is to try and release it at CES 2009."

*Bigger and better future*


Noh also claimed the technology was well in place for the larger sized screens, like the 31-inch OLED screen on display at the Samsung stand, but the amount of TVs that make it through production is too low, as the larger size means they contain too many defects.


As reported earlier this year, Samsung is going to create a new company that will exclusively develop OLED displays, and Noh believes this will be announced as a new entity at the end of the year.


"When we make OLEDs, we have to modify existing LCD lines," he said. "The company is now developing production lines just for OLED, which will cater for mobile to the larger sizes we provide for LCD.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*AUO using a-Si to develop OLED panels* 
*29 August 2008*


AU Optronics (AUO) plans on basing its OLED development using a-Si technology, and the company estimates it will enter into mass production in 2011.


CT Liu, vice-president and general manager of consumer product display business group of AUO indicated that AUO is going to start developing OLED again in the fourth quarter of this year and concentrate on commercializing small-sized panels.


Liu mentioned that OLED panels have a higher contrast ratio, lower power consumption and are much thinner compared to the thin film transistor (TFT) LCD panels. And as OLED technology matured, costs will drop below than of TFT. AUO will also focus its development on efficient OLED manufacturing processes. Liu explained that a-Si technology is more suited for OLED panel making because a-Si has better yield rates and more stable circuits compare to LTPS technology.


Although Liu noted that the panel maker has made several breakthroughs concerning materials and equipment recently, AUO estimates that it will take at least three years for the technology to be mature enough for mass production. Hence AUO plans to mass product small- to medium-size OLED panel in 2011, and then larger-sized panels in another 3-5 years.


In related news, the Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) OLED subsidiary Chi Mei EL (CMEL) estimates that its second vapor deposition line will go online early in 2009 and the company plans to use its 5G or 5.5G low-temperature polysilicon (LTPS) panel production to produce large-size OLED panels. CMEL noted that it will start mass producing 7.6-inch OLED panels in the second half of this year.


----------



## S. Hiller

I guess by HD, they mean 1920 by 1080, at least by their implication vs. the Sony...


----------



## Blackraven

Does anyone have pics of the Samsung 31 incher OLED TV (the one from IFA Berlin 2008)???


----------



## Daviii

What's the point of 120Hz OLED displays? Ok, at least the technology is proved to deliver fast refresh rates...


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung to sell mass produced OLED within two years* 
*31 August 2008*


BERLIN: Samsung Electronics has not only released the world’s largest OLED television at the IFA exhibition in Berlin, but it has committed itself to commercial production of mid to large screens by 2010.


At IFA, Samsung displayed two organic light emitting diode (OLED) screens – a 14.1-inch model and a 31-inch model, whereas its arch rival and LCD business partner Sony had the XEL-1 which will be the first OLED introduced to Europe and a 27-inch prototype which was introduced at the CES in Las Vegas earlier this year.


“Samsung will begin commercial production of mid- and large-sized OLED televisions around 2010. OLED is seen as a powerful contender for the future display market mainstream, given it is very high resolution, has a svelte profile and is extremely lightweight,” Samsung said in a statement.


“Electronics manufacturers have already begun exhibiting these next generation displays at major trade shows. However, Samsung is going a step further at IFA 2008, presenting the OLED as a finished TV product that features an elegant, optimised design. Samsung’s OLED TVs represent greater technology innovation and set a new standard for TV sophistication.”


Samsung claims its OLED televisions weigh 40 per cent less than other LCD TVs of the same size while boasting a contrast ratio of 1 million to one, colour gamut of 107 per cent and brightness of 550 cd/m2.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*More fantastic pictures from Samsungs OLED TVs from the IFA-2008 event* 
*1 September 2008*











































Thanks to Samsung, we have some great pictures from the AMOLED TV Panels. The lineup at the Samsung booth will include two (14.1” and 31”) organic light-emitting diode (OLED) TVs.


The OLED is seen as a powerful contender for the future display market mainstream, given its very high resolution, svelte profile and extremely lightweight. Electronics manufacturers have already begun exhibiting these next-generation displays at major trade shows. However, Samsung is going a step further at IFA 2008, presenting the OLED as a finished TV product that features an elegant, optimized design. Samsung’s OLED TVs represent greater technology innovation and set a new standard for TV sophistication.


These chic, ultra-slim OLED TVs employ OLED panels developed by Samsung SDI (the affiliate dedicated to display production). The finished products weigh forty percent less than other LCD TVs of the same size while boasting a contrast ratio of 1 million to one, color gamut of 107% and brightness of 550 cd/m2. Samsung will begin commercial production of mid-/large- sized OLED TVs around 2010.


----------



## Daviii

"However, Samsung is going a step further at IFA 2008, presenting the OLED as a finished TV product that features an elegant, optimized design. Samsung's OLED TVs represent greater technology innovation and set a new standard for TV sophistication."


Ok exactly where is the step further when Sony has been selling on the stores an AMOLED TV for months?


Anyway, I declare the war open! (Yay!!)


----------



## dlp755




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/14566991
> 
> 
> What's the point of 120Hz OLED displays? Ok, at least the technology is proved to deliver fast refresh rates...





All of the Sony & Smsung deevlopment of OLED panels for sale in the near term appear to be AMOLED (Active Matrix OLED).


However, it is the PMOLED (Passive Matrix OLED) that has the amazing response times.


So why are they not developing PMOLED ?


----------



## agustus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dlp755* /forum/post/14572819
> 
> 
> All of the Sony & Smsung deevlopment of OLED panels for sale in the near term appear to be AMOLED (Active Matrix OLED).
> 
> 
> However, it is the PMOLED (Passive Matrix OLED) that has the amazing response times.
> 
> 
> So why are they not developing PMOLED ?



Why? These friggin companys love to milk things and drag things out. I'm no expert but I wouldn't be surprised if they could easily devolope PMOLED. They'll come out with AMOLED first and then say, "hey we have a new breakthrough in OLED tech". Then they will come out with PMOLED. BASTARDS!!! Sorry for the anger.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *agustus* /forum/post/14572875
> 
> 
> Why? These friggin companys love to milk things and drag things out. I'm no expert but I wouldn't be surprised if they could easily devolope PMOLED. They'll come out with AMOLED first and then say, "hey we have a new breakthrough in OLED tech". Then they will come out with PMOLED. BASTARDS!!! Sorry for the anger.



There are many reasons why. The most important IMO is that PMOLED requires much higher current to get a useable brightness. This is because the duty cycle is so short. This destroys the EM material and kills the lifetime. By using AMOLED the duty cycle can be extended (to 100% for current products I think) and the current can be drastically reduced and liftime increased to acceptable levels. But then you get the drawback of SAH.


----------



## Daviii

But... As far as I know the amazing response times of OLED has nothing to do with Passive or Active matrix but for the quicker emitter the technology inherently contains. Then, if the implementation defines continuous mode or pulsed mode is another story...


In that regard you have opened my eyes, and maybe Samsung defines 120Hz amoled TV's just in order to be able to execute a pulsed mode and eliminate SAH while reducing flicker. It's just a matter of how bright they can get the emitters to be on the long term...


We'll see. Anyway, OLED tv's, no matter the implementation, should have far less blur than LCD's even with the same SAH issue, due to their own nature. And if they define 120Hz and interpolate frames in OLED... bah, I don't like frame interpolation, but that would completely destroy blur even in continuous mode.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/14578842
> 
> 
> But... As far as I know the amazing response times of OLED has nothing to do with Passive or Active matrix but for the quicker emitter the technology inherently contains. Then, if the implementation defines continuous mode or pulsed mode is another story...



Yes the response of the emitter material is in the microseconds (rise and fall I believe)




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/14578842
> 
> 
> OLED tv's, no matter the implementation, should have far less blur than LCD's even with the same SAH issue, due to their own nature.



~30% improvement over current LCD is possible. But SAH will remain dominent in both.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/14578842
> 
> 
> And if they define 120Hz and interpolate frames in OLED... bah, I don't like frame interpolation, but that would completely destroy blur even in continuous mode.



120Hz = 8ms hold time. Still not as good as plasma and still nowhere near CRT in this regard. This is one reason some companies are pushing 200+ Hz this year. They wan the hold time at ~4ms or less (equal to plasma)


----------



## xrox

Just an observation (my opinion/preference only) : Samsung really has to change the bezel design on all sets (LCD/Plasma/OLED). Even the OLEDs in post 616 look fisher price warpy plastic crap to me. Even the screen is warped on the laptop.


----------



## wco81

What is SAH?


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/14579674
> 
> 
> 120Hz = 8ms hold time. Still not as good as plasma and still nowhere near CRT in this regard. This is one reason some companies are pushing 200+ Hz this year. They wan the hold time at ~4ms or less (equal to plasma)



True, but we are talking about subjetive visuals here. Plasma may have a faster response time, and no SAH effect, but it still blurs like crazy to my eyes due to the phosphor lag. So who cares about SAH?


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/14579789
> 
> 
> What is SAH?



Sample And Hold


LCD TVs are always emitting light, and your brain transform that in "blur" because it expects the movement to go on instead of being "still".


Plasmas or CRTs display in a pulse mode, so they have an ON/OFF status that cheats your brain, as cinema projectors do, therefore they have no sample and hold, because the image is not held in the screen.


SAH is the cause of part of the motion blur seen on the LCD's. OLED TV's operating in continuous mode have the same SAH effect than the LCD's, but the pixel response time (Color1->color2 time) is much faster on the OLED screens.


Theorically the OLED screens could run in pulse mode as the plasmas or CRTs, but you need a very bright emitters in order to accomplish this, because the lesser the time you held the image on the screen, the dimmer it gets.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/14579804
> 
> 
> True, but we are talking about subjetive visuals here. Plasma may have a faster response time, and no SAH effect, but it still blurs like crazy to my eyes due to the phosphor lag. So who cares about SAH?



You are seeing blur due to the hold time which is a combination of phosphor decay and PWM duty cycle. Minus the subjectivity (perception and persistence) all displays have a hold time including CRT. CRTs hold time cannot go below the phosphor decay rate (~1.5ms). Plasma hold time including the phosphor decay rate is ~4-6ms due to the PWM having an effective duty cycle. AMLCD and AMOLED are true SAH (sample and hold) and have a 100% duty cycle.


----------



## vili

Is it just me or do the OLEDs in the pictures have horrible glare? I know that they aren't being shown in a model home or anything, but to me they look almost like a mirror....hopefully they do something about that.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/14579953
> 
> 
> You are seeing blur due to the hold time which is a combination of phosphor decay and PWM duty cycle. Minus the subjectivity (perception and persistence) all displays have a hold time including CRT. CRTs hold time cannot go below the phosphor decay rate (~1.5ms). Plasma hold time including the phosphor decay rate is ~4-6ms due to the PWM having an effective duty cycle. AMLCD and AMOLED are true SAH (sample and hold) and have a 100% duty cycle.



Is AMOLED limited in any way for which it can't avoid the SAH approach? In my opinion, theorically, AMOLED could work in a pulse mode, if they find bright enough emitters, and then OLED "decay rate" is faster than plasma afaik, and at the end, the problem with plasmas is the uneven decay rate of their phosphors, that's why they blur...


All the current amoled approaches use SAH, but that doesn't mean it's mandatory. Is it?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/14586448
> 
> 
> Is AMOLED limited in any way for which it can't avoid the SAH approach? In my opinion, theorically, AMOLED could work in a pulse mode, if they find bright enough emitters, and then OLED "decay rate" is faster than plasma afaik, and at the end, the problem with plasmas is the uneven decay rate of their phosphors, that's why they blur...
> 
> 
> All the current amoled approaches use SAH, but that doesn't mean it's mandatory. Is it?



Correct. PMOLED essentially would be pulse mode. And since OLED uses current to drive the pixels a two TFT approach in AMOLED can actually have a duty cycle below 100%. But this requires long lasting EM materials or at least much more efficient materials.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung: Blu-ray has 5 Years Left, OLED HD on the Way* 
*7 September 2008*












*Andy Griffiths, director of consumer electronics at Samsung forsees a short future for Blu-ray*


Blu-ray has 5 years left before it is replaced by a new technology or format according to Samsung. Andy Griffiths, director of consumer electronics at Samsung UK told gadget news site Pocket-lint "I think it [Blu-ray] has 5 years left, I certainly wouldn't give it 10".


Griffiths believes that 2008 will be the Blu-ray format's prime year. "It's going to be huge", he told Pocket-lint. "We are heavily back-ordered at the moment." With the move to offer cheaper players and one clear choice following the Blu-ray/HD DVD battle, Griffiths says the format will be a short term winner.


In the article, Griffiths also mentions that Samsung is putting its faith in its OLED HD technology. The new technology is almost ready, but is being held back by high manufacturing costs. "We will launch the OLED technology when it's at a price that will be appealing to the consumer, unfortunately that's not yet."


Griffiths, predicts by 2010 OLED technology will become mainstream and that it will replace LCD. "It's gonna be big, but at the moment it's a great story, not commercial, product," said Griffiths


Samsung previewed two OLED screen televisions at IFA in Berlin earlier in the month, introducing larger models than Sony. Coming in at 14-inch and 31-inch models, the screens are incredibly thin, and produce vivid contrasts and colors. Sony settled for second place with 9-inch and 27-inch models.


Griffiths believes a completely HD future is around the corner, "In 2012 we will be in a true HD world. Everything from your television to your camcorder will be offering you pictures in high-definition, and we plan to offer you that HD world from all angles." From Griffiths’ perspective, this future may not include Blu-ray.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung: "Blu-ray has 5 years left"* 
*3 September 2008*
 Pocket-lint: VIDEO: Samsung OLED TV 

 YouTube: Speaking with Ernie Block at the SONY stand, CES 2008 

 YouTube: Sony OLEDs @ CES 2008 

 YouTube: [CES 2008] SONY OLED TV 

 YouTube: Amazon.com at CES 2008 - Samsung OLED and 3-D Plasma 

 YouTube: [CES 2008] CES 2008 Sony to unveil its 27-inch OLED TV Aving 

 YouTube: [CES 2008] Samsung OLED TV 

 YouTube: CES 2008 Samsung Organic LED Television 

 YouTube: CES 2008 - SONY OLED TV

Samsung has said that it sees the Blu-ray format only lasting a further 5 years before it is replaced by another format or technology.


"I think it [Blu-ray] has 5 years left, I certainly wouldn't give it 10", Andy Griffiths, director of consumer electronics at Samsung UK told Pocket-lint in an interview.


Hoping to capitalise before it's too late, Griffiths believes that 2008 is the format's year.


"It's going to be huge", he told Pocket-lint. "We are heavily back-ordered at the moment."


Citing online rental sites like LoveFilm's adoption of Blu-ray titles, the move to offer cheaper players and a now clear path to adoption following the Blu-ray HD DVD battle, Griffith says the format will be a winner, although not for long.


Instead Samsung is putting its faith in its OLED technology. The new technology, which is "ready to rock", is being held back at the moment due to high manufacturing costs.


"We will launch the OLED technology when it's at a price that will be appealing to the consumer, unfortunately that's not yet."


Griffiths, citing 2010 as a possible date for your calendar, told us he believes that when the technology becomes mainstream it will replace LCD.


"It's gonna be big, but at the moment it's a great story, not commercial, product."


Samsung previewed two OLED screen televisions at IFA in Berlin earlier in the month, out-manoeuvring Sony to be the largest models on show at the show.


Coming in 14- and 31-inch models, the screens that are incredibly thin, produce vivid contrasts and colours.


Sony settled for second place with a 9- and 27-inch models, but it wasn't the only area that Samsung claimed a "world's first" over their Far East rivals.


The company has recently announced it's partnered with Yahoo to offer widgets on its internet connected televisions as it tries to turn the television into an information hub of the home rather than the PC.


"The content has to be relevant, but once it is it will make the TV more than a TV", said Griffiths.


So where next? Griffiths is clearly thinking about the future citing more focus on rolling out LED backlighting in the range as well as improving the quality of the offering.


But it seems the Olympics is on the man and the company's minds.


"In 2012 we will be in a true HD world. Everything from your television to your camcorder will be offering you pictures in high-definition, and we plan to offer you that HD world from all angles."


With 4 years to go, the prospect sounds exciting, but by then Blu-ray will be, if Samsung are to be believed, on its last legs.


----------



## avnstf

given what's available TODAY (2008) in terms of OLED screens, it's hard to take seriously a statement that it will be mainstream in 2010, 2 years from now...or maybe he means at 5 times the cost of LCD!


----------



## Isochroma

*OLED Videos From IFA 2008*
*8 September 2008*
 Youtube: Sony 27 OLED 

 Youtube: Sony IFA 2008 HDTVPolska.com OLED


----------



## agustus

Hey Isochroma, you trashed me for mentioning this video (second one from the bottom). You said, "do some investigation of the actual technology before you put up some media link like that." So if you thought it was nonsense, why post it up?


----------



## moreHD

Hi all,


How likely is it for Toshiba to start OLED tv's production? I am asking this b/c to me they seem a perfect candidate. They shouldn't like Sony because of (Blu-ray) so they could hurt sony rgb led lcd tvs. And Toshiba itself; they don't make plasmas, don't make LED LCD's, so what are they waiting for?


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moreHD* /forum/post/14647576
> 
> 
> How likely is it for Toshiba to start OLED tv's production? I am asking this b/c to me they seem a perfect candidate. They shouldn't like Sony because of (Blu-ray) so they could hurt sony rgb led lcd tvs. And Toshiba itself; they don't make plasmas, don't make LED LCD's, so what are they waiting for?



I heard that Toshiba shelved their plans for selling OLED TVs and it looks like the two main CE companies that have production plans for OLED TVs are Samsung and Sony.


----------



## H_Prestige

How is the response time on OLED? Is it comparable to CRT or is it like LCD?


----------



## Reizah




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H_Prestige* /forum/post/14663740
> 
> 
> How is the response time on OLED? Is it comparable to CRT or is it like LCD?



its under 1ms which is very fast, no blur whatsoever


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Reizah* /forum/post/14664034
> 
> 
> its under 1ms which is very fast, no blur whatsoever



No blur due to response time. But the sample-and-hold-effect could still apply, depending on how the picture is "drawn"...


----------



## H_Prestige

I was always under the impression that OLED worked a lot like plasma, but better. I had no idea the motion resolution was on par with LCD. In that case I would say plasma is the much better tech.


----------



## madshi

Who said that OLED motion resolution was on par with LCD?


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H_Prestige* /forum/post/14667026
> 
> 
> I was always under the impression that OLED worked a lot like plasma, but better. I had no idea the motion resolution was on par with LCD. In that case I would say plasma is the much better tech.



That's not true. Current OLED Tv's are like a plasma on steroids working like an LCD because the emitters are not bright enough.


That doesn't mean the motion resolution is on par with LCD's, in fact the motion resolution of the XEL-1 TV, the first an only OLED consumer model ever is 960 lines. With a 960 lines panel, I must say.


Motion resolution and emmiter response time are near perfect on OLED tv's, but as there's no pulse on the displayed picture, but sample and hold, that is, as the current tv's work like LCDs and not like plasmas, your brain may get

"cheated" and think about blur.

*Current* OLEDs = Blur equivalent to


----------



## rgb32

+1 to Daviii's post.


For all of the nay sayers (e.g. Kuro Fans), locate a SonyStyle store and check out the XEL-1! It's worth the trip!


Larger displays will be available within the next 6 months.... so there'll be a product to replace your CRT or LCD computer monitor (27" XEL-2).


Also, the GP2X Wiz will be available in November, making it the first hand-held video game system to incorporate an OLED screen (@ $179 for the system package)! Fun stuff!










OLED is here to stay... even if there are companies that cannot compete right now...


----------



## Jim Hef




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/14672858
> 
> 
> ...Larger displays will be available within the next 6 months....



Granted, this is an exciting technology, but for a usefully sized TV, we can only dream about it. And, what will that 27" monitor cost when it's introduced. Right now, some very good LCD monitors exist at around $5-600 in that size, with decent contrast, brightness and response time.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/14671815
> 
> *Current* OLEDs = Blur equivalent to


----------



## H_Prestige

So future OLEDs will have perfect motion resolution and not use sample and hold like LCD? Why are they using it right now? Is it because they haven't sorted out the kinks yet? I saw the OLED at sonystyle and it was impressive, but I did see a lot of blur. I just hope it's better than plasma in EVERY way, not just better in some ways and then introduce LCD flaws in others. The black levels were very good, although the screen itself seemed to have some green coating on it, so while the blacks were definitely much darker than anything I've seen they also had a slight green tint to them. But I don't think black levels will be the selling point for OLED since Pioneer will have their ultimate black panels next year and the rest of the 5 lumen plasmas from Panasonic will be so black it won't even matter. Unless of course OLED has a very good ansi contrast.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H_Prestige* /forum/post/14673237
> 
> 
> So future OLEDs will have perfect motion resolution and not use sample and hold like LCD? Why are they using it right now? Is it because they haven't sorted out the kinks yet? I saw the OLED at sonystyle and it was impressive, but I did see a lot of blur. I just hope it's better than plasma in EVERY way, not just better in some ways and then introduce LCD flaws in others. The black levels were very good, although the screen itself seemed to have some green coating on it, so while the blacks were definitely much darker than anything I've seen they also had a slight green tint to them. But I don't think black levels will be the selling point for OLED since Pioneer will have their ultimate black panels next year and the rest of the 5 lumen plasmas from Panasonic will be so black it won't even matter. Unless of course OLED has a very good ansi contrast.



They use sample and hold to increase lifetime (by using less current) but still maintain brightness. Right now, even with sample and hold, the lifetime is ~ 1/3 to 1/5 of current plasmas and LCDs. Also, burn-in is much easier than Plasma.


Another issue that needs resolving is uneven color aging.


----------



## Isochroma

OLED has INFINITE contrast, however you want to measure it. Besides SED, it is the ONLY display type that can provide a true 'window' onto reality. The OFF pixels are completely OFF, unlike plasma which must maintain gas ionization.


Also, OLED does not require Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) in order to provide variable luminance at the emitter level, also unlike plasma, which will forever be plagued by dithering, and flicker. Dither and flicker are most visible when the Field of View (FOV) is larger (30 degrees plus) which is required for the HDTV Immersion Effect, as found by pioneering Japanese researchers. Anyone would get a headache sitting close enough to a PDP to get that field of view, just due to flicker, never mind dithering which produces especially ugly 'noise' artifacts in the low-luminance areas of the picture, just the kind that show lots in the movies PDP proponents love to use against LCD.


Plasma's Lame Ass is its Gas. The gas needs high voltage to ionize (expensive hot circuits), and has to be kept ionized to maintain conductivity (imperfect blacks). Worse, its brightness is too difficult to control except by flashing it on and off [PWM] (dither 'noise'). Finally, by using gas as an intermediary energy interconverter to change electric charge into UV, a terrible loss of efficiency is obtained. The gas will continue to be a perpetual hobble until this nasty system is put out of its misery by the easily superior OLED, which directly converts charge into light, bypassing all the gassy stupidities of the PDP system.


Both LCD and PDP are deeply flawed display systems and both will be on the way out shortly. The next generation will look back with incredulity at the cost and horrible quality of previous displays, never mind their weight and power consumption, both of which are currently atrocious.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14673278
> 
> 
> OLED has INFINITE contrast, however you want to measure it. Besides SED, it is the ONLY display type that can provide a true 'window' onto reality.



Completely off plasma pixels are coming soon. I don't think LD-LCD will ever reach infinite (except dynamic which they do now). As it stands, OLED has the advantage. But like I said, by the time you can buy a large one, it will have to compete in almost every department.


You are correct that I don't see Plasma moving away from dithering.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung to unveil its 14.1- and 31-inch OLED TVs* 
*30 August 2008*













BERLIN, Germany (AVING Special Report on 'IFA 2008') -- Samsung Electronics is offering visitors to this year's IFA in Berlin a glimpse at where the TV is headed. The lineup at the Samsung booth included two (14.1- and 31-inch) OLED TVs.


The OLED is seen as a powerful contender for the future display market mainstream, given its very high resolution, svelte profile and extremely lightweight. Electronics manufacturers have already begun exhibiting these next-generation displays at major trade shows. However, Samsung is going a step further at IFA 2008, presenting the OLED as a finished TV product that features an elegant, optimized design. Samsung's OLED TVs represent greater technology innovation and set a new standard for TV sophistication.


These chic, ultra-slim OLED TVs employ OLED panels developed by Samsung SDI (the affiliate dedicated to display production). The finished products weigh forty percent less than other LCD TVs of the same size while boasting a contrast ratio of 1 million to one, color gamut of 107% and brightness of 550 cd/m2. Samsung will begin commercial production of mid-/large- sized OLED TVs around 2010.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14673278
> 
> 
> Plasma's Lame Ass is its Gas. The gas needs high voltage to ionize (expensive hot circuits), and has to be kept ionized to maintain conductivity (imperfect blacks). Worse, its brightness is too difficult to control except by flashing it on and off [PWM] (dither 'noise'). Finally, by using gas as an intermediary energy interconverter to change electric charge into UV, a terrible loss of efficiency is obtained. The gas will continue to be a perpetual hobble until this nasty system is put out of its misery by the easily superior OLED, which directly converts charge into light, bypassing all the gassy stupidities of the PDP system.
> 
> 
> Both LCD and PDP are deeply flawed display systems and both will be on the way out shortly. The next generation will look back with incredulity at the cost and horrible quality of previous displays, never mind their weight and power consumption, both of which are currently atrocious.



High lumen plasma will "self-prime" the pixels allowing for them to be completely "off" and thus have infinite contrast just like OLED. Also, high lumen plasma will require much lower voltages to discharge and thus require less robust electronics.


On the flip side, OLEDs pixel extraction efficiency is extremely low at the moment which is the main contributer to the massive power consumption of large area OLEDs. This and lifetime issues are what is keeping them off the market. If you would like I could post numbers on OLEDs true efficiency.


----------



## Isochroma

xrox: Completely off PDP pixels are NEVER coming. Time to re-check your physics. There is not a word anywhere that I have found about such a beast, except from you. There is no evidence either in research or product that such a thing has or will ever happen, because it is totally against the dynamics of gas ionization.


Of course even if such fairy tales do come true, there's a ****load of other junk hobbling this soon-to-be-retired technology.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14673529
> 
> 
> xrox: Completely off PDP pixels are NEVER coming. Time to re-check your physics. There is not a word anywhere that I have found about such a beast, except from you. There is no evidence either in research or product that such a thing has or will ever happen, because it is totally against the dynamics of gas ionization.
> 
> 
> Of course even if such fairy tales do come true, there's a ****load of other junk hobbling this soon-to-be-retired technology.



Would you like if I posted info on this or should I do it through PM as to not contaminate the OLED thread with PDP stuff.


Cheers


----------



## Isochroma

There's really no point in discussing other display technologies except as they relate to OLED in this thread. I leave it up to you to decide if the material is relevant to OLED characteristics.


I am firmly convinced that it is time for the entire industry and its watchers to quit pouring energy into dead avenues and instead, redirect it into the creation of NEW life.


Samsung, Sony and others are busy doing that. They have Deep Vision into the future and can see beyond tomorrow's profit/loss. A tomorrow that is direct-activation and chromatically pure. A future that is totally flat and even flexible.


If you look at the first page of this thread, I reported several groundbreaking stories about the greatest visionaries, who already had 40-inch printed OLED displays in 2004 (Epson), and Samsung in May 2005 (amorphous silicon).


These guys are my pride and joy, and one of them (Samsung) has already moved far ahead to win the present and future race to market with mainstream-size OLED TVs.


Remember, the mainstream size is 32" in the HDTV market space. That size by far dominates all others in sales, and has even increased its dominance in the last few months.


All this means that when 27" and 31/32" OLED TVs are released, they will have already reached the market's pinnacle. Further expansion will merely be the picking of the topmost fruits, which of their own accord will in time fall to the ground, luscious and ripely delicious.


----------



## Jim Hef




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14673576
> 
> 
> ...Remember, the mainstream size is 32" in the HDTV market space. That size by far dominates all others in sales, and has even increased its dominance in the last few months....



I think this could be true due to the decreasing cost of this sized panel, and folks wanting to jump into high def viewing are now finding them more affordable. The price of the upcoming OLED in that size will decide if they are successful or not within a reasonable timeframe after they are introduced. How many folks are jumping on the tiny Sony???


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14673576
> 
> 
> There's really no point in discussing other display technologies except as they relate to OLED in this thread.



I fully agree with that. But you should really leave your plasma bashing out of this thread then, too. Thanks.


----------



## gus738

Wow I never thought I would post here this soon, rgb32 kuro fans comment well kuro is here







oled is not and even if it was the oled 11" (xel 1) is $2,500 I can get a 8g elite or a 9g non elite for that price in 50" and is still more better in motion and other areas of PQ.


while I agree oled does seem to have a future its NOT READY yet for consumers ~ and what i mean by this is that its not in large volumes and not in big size and not out at all.


for the time being it will seem that oled still has motion issues close to lcd due to the sample and hold but motion resolution seems to be the highest in flat screens (960 lines I belive)


Oled is seem to be the next big thing, lets see if I post in regards to this technology in the future



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/14672858
> 
> 
> +1 to Daviii's post.
> 
> 
> For all of the nay sayers (e.g. Kuro Fans), locate a SonyStyle store and check out the XEL-1! It's worth the trip!
> 
> 
> Larger displays will be available within the next 6 months.... so there'll be a product to replace your CRT or LCD computer monitor (27" XEL-2).
> 
> 
> Also, the GP2X Wiz will be available in November, making it the first hand-held video game system to incorporate an OLED screen (@ $179 for the system package)! Fun stuff!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED is here to stay... even if there are companies that cannot compete right now...


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/14673339
> 
> 
> Completely off plasma pixels are coming soon...
> 
> .....High lumen plasma will "self-prime" the pixels allowing for them to be completely "off" and thus have infinite contrast just like OLED......



Please post here (or send me a PM) a link about how this is possible. I recall reading part of an article explaining in technical terms why PDPs would always require a minimum amount of gas ionization and thus never reach complete blacks/max contrast. Can't say I understood it. But the idea of a rise time from zero to activate the plasma being longer than the rise from some low level seems easy to understand.


Of course, 4 or 5 years ago, who would have thought the blacks of the Kuro series would be achieved, never mind the cost. Or even the blacks of the Sammy A650 series, etc, for LCD. So we may still have a bit to learn.


However, I suspect PDPs will disappear a bit quicker than LCDs, (Kuro may have saved them from an early oblivion) and OLEDs, MEMs or some other technology will dispense with LCD and any other players on the field.


One day, 10-20 years from now, we'll see displays as cheap as CRTs were when they died out.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gus738* /forum/post/14674797
> 
> 
> Wow I never thought I would post here this soon, rgb32 kuro fans comment well kuro is here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oled is not and even if it was the oled 11" (xel 1) is $2,500 I can get a 8g elite or a 9g non elite for that price in 50" and is still more better in motion and other areas of PQ.



Did you buy your first plasma yesterday?


Have you ever seen the Sony OLED set? Probably not. You probably should beleive Iso when he says that LCD and plasma are gone if this gets to larger screens and decent prices.


With plasma and LCD you can debate the merits of blacks, detail, blur, tell you are blue in the face, but really despite what you think they really aren't all that different.


After seeing an a movie on a OLED, it is much different than both of the leading FPD's. You can see it on just the 11" screen that it is MUCH visibly better.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/14673163
> 
> 
> I admire your enthusiasm but you shouldn't have said "current"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If so you'll have to remove power consumption because large OLEDs (TV size) are power hogs. Also, mura on large OLEDs is also an issue. And since there are no Plasmas that are 11" it is tough to compare PQ/Sharpness isn't it



Yes. You're right. Some of my points were not so accurate. I'm sorry.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/14673163
> 
> 
> Yes the future of OLEDs holds a lot of promise. Problem is that promise was made 20 years ago and has yet to be realized. And the first OLEDs better look amazing or it would be a lost cause.
> 
> 
> By the time large area OLEDs (>35") are on the market, super thin and light LD-LCD and high lumen ECC plasmas will also be there. I think they will all be able to compete in terms of performance. Sounds exciting to me.
> 
> 
> I'm getting the 141FD right now and hope to be able to upgrade in about 5 years



My point is that the first LCDs and plasmas were TVs, say it, with "a lot of improvement margin"(*), while the first OLEDs, besides the size, are TVs that equal or surpass most of the mature panels on the market.


Plasmas and LCD had needed many years to achieve a high enough maturity level, and for decades, they have been unable to show a PQ similar to the existing old technologies, while OLED is amazing on its very first and "alpha" appearance.


That's how I define "promising". OLED looks much more promising for me than LCDs and plasmas, that after tenths of generations of panels still have serious issues nobody knows how to adress. OLED panels are just newborn and already know how to make a rocket. Let them go to school and you'll see...


(*) = Crap


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gus738* /forum/post/14674797
> 
> 
> for the time being it will seem that oled still has motion issues close to lcd due to the sample and hold but motion resolution seems to be the highest in flat screens (960 lines I belive)
> 
> 
> Oled is seem to be the next big thing, lets see if I post in regards to this technology in the future



Quote from HDTV Guru's review of the XEL-1:


> Quote:
> As for picture quality, unlike a prototype I saw in Japan last year, this production sample had superb motion resolution. Measurements using my FPD test disc indicated that the set could resolve all 540 lines (per picture height) in the moving Monoscope Pattern test.
> 
> 
> This set's ability to reproduce motion without resolution loss (albeit currently at ¼ full HD with the XEL-1) creates the potential for (hopefully) future large screen versions to jump to the head of the class in this important performance benchmark. Currently plasmas have the best motion resolution, (generally) followed by 120 Hz LCD, with normal 60 Hz LCD HDTVs creating the most motion blur.


 http://hdguru.com/sony-xel-1-finally...al-review/242/ 

-AND from CNET-


> Quote:
> The Sony XEL-1 evinced no smearing or blurring in motion even with difficult test material, which helps back up Sony's claim regarding OLED's fast response times.


 http://reviews.cnet.com/oled/sony-xe...-32815284.html 


So, his review backs up what I saw with my own eye's!







Hence, please do not spread mis-information about the XEL-1!


Sure, OLED isn't a mass consumer item yet (duh), but the first gen product from Sony (XEL-1) is very exciting! Do you recall what plasma's looked like when they were in their infantcy? I do! Back in '98, I went to a HDTV presentation by a local news company. The room contained a CRT RPTV, and a 37~42" NEC brand plasma. When the lights turned down, and no signal sent to the plasma, the picture was not black by any means, it exhibited a glowing green picture (instead of black... like where we "almost" are today with the "best" plasmas).


Compare that to the XEL-1 (from CNET):


> Quote:
> Those black levels make a pretty good case for OLED's eventual supremacy in the picture quality arena. The only display we've seen that comes close to the XEL-1 is Pioneer's "Extreme Contrast Concept" plasma, demonstrated at CES 2008, and we expect OLED to battle that technology for flat-panel bragging rights in the years to come.


 http://reviews.cnet.com/oled/sony-xe...-32815284.html 


Give OLED a break










I'm looking forward picking up the GP2X Wiz in November (game system with OLED screen).
http://www.oled-info.com/


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/14679043
> 
> 
> That's how I define "promising". OLED looks much more promising for me than LCDs and plasmas, that after tenths of generations of panels still have serious issues nobody knows how to adress. OLED panels are just newborn and already know how to make a rocket. Let them go to school and you'll see...(*) = Crap



I too think that OLEDs has tremendous potential. I want to own a 60" OLED if I can.


But you have to admit that it has taken far far too long to come to market. They really have missed several opportunistic windows to enter the market. I talk to OLED researchers and they too are disappointed in the snail pace of OLED development. It was totally unexpected in the research community. They figured that OLED lifetime would have been licked 5 years ago. And they agree that the slow pace has allowed the prolific take over of LCD and PDP. And there have been some serious setbacks as well. The high power consumption and low pixel extraction efficiency were not expected.


----------



## gus738

navy the 10g kuros can already do this (zero idle lumes) total blackness thats one way of putting pdp inproving.


im sure its quite the oppisite plasma will remain more longer then lcd due to better PQ and less flaws. we'll see




> Quote:
> Please post here (or send me a PM) a link about how this is possible. I recall reading part of an article explaining in technical terms why PDPs would always require a minimum amount of gas ionization and thus never reach complete blacks/max contrast. Can't say I understood it. But the idea of a rise time from zero to activate the plasma being longer than the rise from some low level seems easy to understand.
> 
> 
> Of course, 4 or 5 years ago, who would have thought the blacks of the Kuro series would be achieved, never mind the cost. Or even the blacks of the Sammy A650 series, etc, for LCD. So we may still have a bit to learn.
> 
> 
> However, I suspect PDPs will disappear a bit quicker than LCDs, (Kuro may have saved them from an early oblivion) and OLEDs, MEMs or some other technology will dispense with LCD and any other players on the field.
> 
> 
> One day, 10-20 years from now, we'll see displays as cheap as CRTs were when they died out.[/




TNG your not getting my point, for this oled to be this advance at this early stage is truely great news! but when it comes to play would you buy this tiny tiny 11" oled and bring your friends to a game night?










thats my point, oled is not ready yet as i said earlier and for the cost i would want a super awesome display like the 50" kuro rather then the small but awesome 11" oled.


oh and i know at first when plasma came out it wasnt so good but the statement is diffrent here



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/14678340
> 
> Did you buy your first plasma yesterday?
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen the Sony OLED set? Probably not. You probably should beleive Iso when he says that LCD and plasma are gone if this gets to larger screens and decent prices.
> 
> 
> With plasma and LCD you can debate the merits of blacks, detail, blur, tell you are blue in the face, but really despite what you think they really aren't all that different.
> 
> 
> After seeing an a movie on a OLED, it is much different than both of the leading FPD's. You can see it on just the 11" screen that it is MUCH visibly better.



RGB i never said oled suck you dont need to put all these links i know its great at this early stage as i said before!! but again like i said you wouldnt buy an oled 11" insted of a pioneer kuro 50" would you? ( since both are around the same cost) $2,500 a 2007 kuro 50" vs 11" sony oled










oh and i noticed the only thing that i argued against was the motion speed/resolution due to the sample and hold, and as far as PQ well ......


lets just see what the future brings us




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/14680448
> 
> Quote from HDTV Guru's review of the XEL-1:
> 
> http://hdguru.com/sony-xel-1-finally...al-review/242/
> 
> -AND from CNET-
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/oled/sony-xe...-32815284.html
> 
> 
> So, his review backs up what I saw with my own eye's!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, please do not spread mis-information about the XEL-1!
> 
> 
> Sure, OLED isn't a mass consumer item yet (duh), but the first gen product from Sony (XEL-1) is very exciting! Do you recall what plasma's looked like when they were in their infantcy? I do! Back in '98, I went to a HDTV presentation by a local news company. The room contained a CRT RPTV, and a 37~42" NEC brand plasma. When the lights turned down, and no signal sent to the plasma, the picture was not black by any means, it exhibited a glowing green picture (instead of black... like where we "almost" are today with the "best" plasmas).
> 
> 
> Compare that to the XEL-1 (from CNET):
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/oled/sony-xe...-32815284.html
> 
> 
> Give OLED a break
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking forward picking up the GP2X Wiz in November (game system with OLED screen).
> http://www.oled-info.com/


----------



## navychop

Well, although I'm not in the market anymore, I'll be watching. Maybe PDPs will be long term winners after all. Regardless of what we may expect, the next 10 years are going to be very interesting.


----------



## MikeBiker

All the technologies should be improving with time. I'm sure that the best set today will be considered mediocre in 5 years. I have no idea which technology will have the best displays in 5 years.


----------



## ferro

 *Kodak Debuts World's First OLED Wireless Frame* 

Unmatched Image Quality from Any Viewing Angle Delivered by Kodak-Invented OLED Technology









ROCHESTER, N.Y., September 17 -- Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE:EK) has introduced the world's first consumer-available wireless picture frame featuring innovative Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) technology, a Kodak invention that produces exceptionally sharp and vivid image quality. OLED technology generates greater color depth and saturation than other displays, on panels that are substantially thinner, resulting in a sleek, low-profile design.


The frame will be on display at the Kodak booth (Hall 5.2) during Photokina, the world's largest photo and imaging trade fair, which runs Sept. 23-28 in Cologne, Germany.


Kodak is a worldwide market and technology leader in digital picture frames, and OLED technology was created by Kodak, making us uniquely positioned to bring the benefits of OLED to consumers, says Pete Jameson, general manager, Digital Devices Group, Eastman Kodak Company. We're tremendously proud to introduce this exciting new picture frame.


The new KODAK OLED Wireless Frame features built-in Wi-Fi technology that enables the display of pictures as well as access to videos and music stored on a PC elsewhere in the home. The wireless feature also enables connectivity to online photo and video sharing sites and Internet content portals for news, weather, sports and more.


In addition to spectacular image quality, the new frame's Wi-Fi connectivity delivers a richer experience to the consumer, enabling them to connect to their favorite social sites and view their personalized content online, Jameson adds.


At the heart of the new KODAK OLED Wireless Frame is an ultra-thin, 7.6-inch diagonal digital panel that produces stunning image detail regardless of viewing angle. The viewing experience is further enhanced by Kodak Perfect Touch Technology, which automatically processes images to improve exposure, brightness and color, and KODAK Image Science, which optimizes image quality for display on OLED panels.


Kodak's extensive achievements in OLED development and innovation were recently recognized by a 2008 Technology Leadership Award from business consulting firm Frost & Sullivan.


The KODAK OLED Wireless Frame requires no backlighting, and incorporates an ambient light sensor that optimizes the viewing experience by adjusting display brightness based on the surrounding light. Kodak has also designed a premium audio system into the frame, providing outstanding sound reproduction for videos, digital music and online content.


People want their images to look their best, says Jameson. Our new OLED frame foreshadows a dynamic future of an exciting new generation of KODAK products that deliver unsurpassed image quality and unprecedented clarity and color for capturing and reliving life's moments.

*Benefits delivered by the KODAK OLED Wireless Frame:*
Enjoy spectacularly crisp images and videos on a 7.6-inch diagonal OLED screen, with 180° viewing angle.
Experience extraordinary color, rich details and vivid image depth from the high-contrast luminous display (white to black ratio = >30,000:1).
Achieve high-quality, lifelike video playback with sharp, seamless motion.
Upload images and videos to the frame from digital cameras, memory cards, USB drives, or wirelessly from personal computers and the Internet via built-in Wi-Fi capability.
Transfer pictures from a PC to a KODAK OLED Wireless Frame effortlessly with the new KODAK EASYSHARE Digital Display Software. In addition to organizing and editing pictures, this software makes it easy to move favorite pictures, slideshows, videos and music wirelessly from a computer directly to the frame. Digital Display Software also enables access to exciting Internet content available at KODAK Gallery and Kodak partners Flickr and FrameChannel.
Store up to 10,000 images on the frame's 2 GB of built-in internal memory (actual storage capacity will vary based on image content).
Enjoy pictures and videos from many sources with built-in memory card reader and USB port.
Wide screen display with 16:9 aspect ratio and 800x480 resolution.
*Pricing and Availability*


The KODAK OLED Wireless Frame will retail for US $999 (MSRP) and will be available at kodak.com from November 2008, with additional online and retail distribution to be announced later in the year.


----------



## MikeBiker

Wow, a 7.6" screen for less than $1000, and it only displays static images!


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/14728808
> 
> 
> Wow, a 7.6" screen for less than $1000, and it only displays static images!



Yes. Now we have a $2,500 11" OLED TV, and $999 7.6" OLED frame







. The frame also plays video though.


----------



## Sem-

sigh..... when can i buy a 20-22inch OLED Monitor


----------



## avdesign

I think oled tech will show up first as desk top replacements for lcd monitors and as they begin to scale sizes tv's to replace both lcd and plasma as it occured for crt computer monitors and then crt tube tv's and large rear pj's!!! I hope that by the time oled is firmly established we need a new std for hdtv where source material should be at least 1080p at min of 60 fps or next gen hdtv2 where the res is 2k at mabye 85 fps so we could enjoy oled panels with 36 bit color natively ffrom the sourcce material!!! I sti;; do not understand why even digital movies are shot at 24 fps when the tech is able to do much better than that I dont understand the film makers and studios!!! I hope oled comes to us consumers sooner than later I wish it was here right now I know it is wishful thinking


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sem-* /forum/post/14733630
> 
> 
> sigh..... when can i buy a 20-22inch OLED Monitor



From the progress so far, my hypothesis is next Fall (Oct. 2009). AVDesign makes a good point as to the potential parallels between the LCD phase out of CRTs (computer monitors in particular), and the phase out of LCDs with OLEDs...


The waiting game sure is fun, as I'd really like to replace my Mitsu DP900u (19" CRT) with a 24~27" OLED monitor!


----------



## Shawn1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sem-* /forum/post/14733630
> 
> 
> sigh..... when can i buy a 20-22inch OLED Monitor



I will be in heaven the day I can buy an affordable OLED monitor no bigger than 24 inches. Mmm... perfect blacks.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/14736890
> 
> 
> From the progress so far, my hypothesis is next Fall (Oct. 2009).



I have a gut feeling larger size (20 - 24-inches) OLED PC monitors won't be on the market until sometime in 2010.










I will be really happy if they come out next year.


----------



## Sem-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/14736890
> 
> 
> From the progress so far, my hypothesis is next Fall (Oct. 2009). AVDesign makes a good point as to the potential parallels between the LCD phase out of CRTs (computer monitors in particular), and the phase out of LCDs with OLEDs...
> 
> 
> The waiting game sure is fun, as I'd really like to replace my Mitsu DP900u (19" CRT) with a 24~27" OLED monitor!



im in a similar situation i badly want to replace my Mitsubishi 19ich DP930SB

the monitor has served me well but after 5 years the blurry text, small screen size and imperfect geometry are really getting on my nerves


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shawn1* /forum/post/14738609
> 
> 
> I will be in heaven the day I can buy an affordable OLED monitor no bigger than 24 inches. Mmm... perfect blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gut feeling larger size (20 - 24-inches) OLED PC monitors won't be on the market until sometime in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be really happy if they come out next year.



The Sony XEL-2 should be popping up in retail any month now...


----------



## xrox

I've mentioned a few times here about OLEDs slow development and how this slow TTM has caused them to miss a golden opportunity to quickly dominate the market. When you combine slow TTM with solidly imroving competition you are risking disaster.


Imagine if super thin, light, super bright, power efficient ECC-plasmas and LED-LCDs are available when finally OLED large area is avialable. Now imaging the price difference.


Something like


50" OLED - 10,000$


50" ECC plasma - 3000$


52" LED-LCD - 3000$


It seems like OLED would be doomed to fail. But if the PQ is truly superb (for whatever reason) I wonder how many of us would consider it?


Note: TTM definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_to_market


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/14766142
> 
> 
> Imagine if super thin, light, super bright, power efficient ECC-plasmas and LED-LCDs are available when finally OLED large area is avialable. Now imaging the price difference.
> 
> 
> Something like
> 
> 
> 50" OLED - 10,000$
> 
> 
> 50" ECC plasma - 3000$
> 
> 
> 52" LED-LCD - 3000$
> 
> 
> It seems like OLED would be doomed to fail.



OLED is the new SED. It's just too expensive to produce and even more expensive for bigger sizes. Non-videophiles will always choose a cheaper TV over a panel with a slightly better PQ at x10 the price. 50" OLED won't even exist before 2012-2013 even though competing technologies will provide comparable performance at much lower cost before 2012. There's very little hope for OLED at this point.


----------



## MikeBiker

OLED might be used for computer monitors before making much headway in the TV market.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/14766142
> 
> 
> I've mentioned a few times here about OLEDs slow development and how this slow TTM has caused them to miss a golden opportunity to quickly dominate the market.
> 
> ...



Excluding CRT how many major display technologies have ever quickly dominated the display market? Also I think that LCD shows that you can start with small displays and still be very successful.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms* /forum/post/14766943
> 
> 
> OLED is the new SED.



For someone that promotes TMOS, a display technology that hasn't even been released, you sure have a negative opinion of OLED. After all OLED has been sold in millions of small devices and is currently being mass manufactured in displays up to 11". That is far more than SED ever did.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/14769579
> 
> 
> OLED might be used for computer monitors before making much headway in the TV market.



From what I have read Samsung is planning to release laptops with OLED displays next year.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/14770688
> 
> 
> Excluding CRT how many major display technologies have ever quickly dominated the display market? Also I think that LCD shows that you can start with small displays and still be very successful.



LCD vs CRT was completely different as it was flat panel vs giant cube. TTM was irrelevant for this one IMO.


LCD vs PDP was also different. During the development phase of large area LCD, PDP was already in the market but at massive price points. And when finally large area LCD reached the market PDP was at a flat point with little improvements happening, still brutally expensive, and a lot of bad press to boot.


Another thought is now that consumers have started to replace aging CRTs with affordable flat panels you can expect that when large area OLED finally arrives it will have to expect consumers to replace thier LCDs and PDPs which they paid thousands for. I expect at that point, modern PDPs and LCDs will perform fairly awesome themselves and at ~1/3 the price.


----------



## xrox

Oh, and just so Isochroma doesn't yell at me again here is some articles for him to re-post.

http://www.informationdisplay.org/ar...e=08&file=art8 
http://www.informationdisplay.org/ne...ewsArt=news345


----------



## Isochroma

 *OLEDs Shift Up a Gear as Developers Get Creative* 
*August 2008*

_The impressive array of OLED displays and prototypes at Display Week 2008 speak to the increasing acceptance of the technology as a legitimate display format. Developers are getting more creative with their offerings, and discussions are shifting from issues such as lifetime to overall performance._


HISTORY MAY WELL JUDGE 2008 to have been a pivotal year for the evolution of organic-light-emitting-diode (OLED) technology commercialization, and Display Week 2008 certainly played a key role in bringing this to the attention of the display community. Technical progress in OLED displays was quite rapid in the 12 months leading up to Display Week 2008, with key advances in materials, device architecture, optical performance, and manufacturing processes, all coming to the fore this year, along with a serious attempt to prove that broad commercialization is finally close at hand. Certainly, the amount of money being invested in product development and manufacturing infrastructure for OLEDs is increasing faster than ever before, and the impact can be seen in the growing maturity of demonstrators and increasing focus on applications rather than the technology itself.











*Fig. 1: Among the most talked-about OLED displays at the Samsung SDI booth was its

31-in.-diagonal full-high-definition (FHD) AMOLED, a 1920 x 1080-pixel display that

utilized the company's super microcavity bottom-emission technology.*



The consistent message from the likes of Sony, Samsung, and Seiko Epson was clear – the active-matrix OLED (AMOLED) is being positioned as a high-end display for applications that demand superior image quality. Display Week 2008 featured numerous demonstrations of large-sized full-HD OLED-television formats as well as many innovative smaller-sized OLED prototypes in applications such as notebook computers, PDAs, electronic passports, and even wearable displays. The breadth of OLED products at Display Week 2008 was particularly impressive, ranging from large-area (31-in. on the diagonal) displays and smaller displays suitable for portable and mobile products, to microdisplays for head-up displays and viewfinders, to digital signage/lighting for information and illumination.


Another sign of growing industry confidence in OLED technology at Display Week 2008 was the notable shift away from debate over OLED lifetimes toward discussions of the look and feel of the actual OLED displays. With that in mind, here is a look at the most significant OLED developments at Display Week 2008.

*Samsung SDI* showed a wide range of OLED displays this year, from very small to very large displays. Its largest display was a 31-in.-diagonal full-high-definition (FHD) AMOLED, a 1920 x 1080-pixel display that utilized the company's Super Microcavity Bottom Emission technology (Fig. 1). This display attracted a great deal of attention and buzz on the show floor because the overall quality of the display was simply stunning. The marriage of OLED displays and high-definition (HD) content creates an incredible viewing experience. OLED displays offer unique crispness and warmth not found in technologies such as LCD or plasma, while HD provides image detail beyond what most viewers have experienced. An attendee who was looking at the Samsung SDI display said it best: "It's like looking through a window that does not have any glass."


In addition to the large FHD display, Samsung SDI also showed several "concept applications" that used OLED displays in a novel way, including
A rather stylish notebook computer (Fig. 2) featuring a 5-in. WVGA 800 x 480-pixel OLED display having a thickness of just 1.21 mm and power consumption of 828 mW (250 cd/m2 at 30% on).


A laptop with a 12.1-in. 1280 x 768-pixel AMOLED display (Fig. 3).


A high-tech golf glove featuring a 3.1-in. WVGA (800 x 480) OLED display that consumes 434 mW of power (Fig. 4).


An electronic passport concept developed in partnership with the Bundesdruckerei in Germany, featuring a 2-in. QVGA AMOLED display (Fig. 5).
*LG Display* showed a 15-in. XGA (1024 x 768) AMOLED display that utilized a novel manufacturing process known as Dual-Plate technology, whereby the OLED display is made on the surface of the encapsulation glass and the a-Si active-matrix backplane is fabricated on the other glass substrate (Fig. 6). The two dependent parts are then joined together via contact spacers.


LG Display anticipates that the Dual-Plate technology will lead to an overall reduction in manufacturing costs for two reasons: it uses lower cost backplane technology and it increases yields. LG Display said that this technique is specifically for large-area displays and is not expected to be adopted for manufacturing small- and medium-sized displays. LG Display officials offered no confirmation on if or when this technique would be deployed in practice.


At Display Week 2008, the *Cambridge Display Technology (CDT)* booth had fewer displays than in previous years; however, two exhibits that caught my attention were the Add Vision fully screen-printed displays (see below) and the OSRAM OLED lighting tiles (Fig. 7). The fact that the OSRAM product was showcased at the CDT booth means that it is made of a polymer-based OLED (P-OLED).











*Fig. 2: Samsung SDI showed several concept applications featuring OLED displays,

including this stylish notebook computer featuring a 5-in. WVGA 800 x 480-pixel

OLED display with a thickness of just 1.21 mm.*











*Fig. 3: Samsung SDI showed several concept applications featuring OLED displays,

including this laptop with a 12.1-in. 1280 x 768-pixel AMOLED display.*



CDT CEO David Fyfe stated during the investor conference that the recent OSRAM "future wave" OLED lighting demonstrator was based on polymer materials – an interesting development. Does that now mean that polymer-OLED (P-OLED) technology will soon be hitting the market in OLED lighting? Perhaps not just yet, as the recently announced OSRAM OLED lighting product "early wave" is, according to OSRAM literature, based on small-molecule materials and not polymer. Given the rapid performance improvement of P-OLED technology over the past few years, it may not be long before P-OLED lighting products are commercially available. CDT was actively promoting its total matrix addressing (TMA) and top-emission P-OLED technology.


While most OLED displays at the show were of high quality, made on glass and expected to last several years, it is not the only option available. CDT's Add-Vision (Fig. 8) offers flexible screen-printed P-OLED displays for low-resolution and specialty-lighting applications. These fully printed segmented displays have an impressive high-quality look and feel about them, especially considering that they are not expected to last long.


DuPont Display finally announced and presented its novel deposition technique known as the "Nozzle" printing process (a combination of coating and printing), which it developed in partnership with Dai Nippon Screen. This certainly generated lively discussion among attendees on the pros and cons of this novel deposition technique. DuPont's philosophy is to achieve superior performance at low cost via the close matching of materials and process – in this case, phosphorescent solution-processed materials and nozzle printing. Displays produced by this novel deposition technique seem to be of high quality (Fig. 9). DuPont plans to make the materials, process, and equipment available as a complete package commencing in 2010. DuPont Display will be installing Dai Nippon Screen Gen 4 equipment at the company's pilot-line facility in Santa Barbara, California.











*Fig. 4: This golf-glove concept from Samsung SDI shows one potential use for AMOLED displays.*











*Fig. 5: Samsung SDI's electronic-passport concept featured a 2-in. QVGA AMOLED display.*











*Fig. 6: A schematic of how LG Display's Dual-Plate manufacturing process works.*



The OLED displays shown by Seiko Epson featured what can only be described as superb contrast. Seiko Epson believes that achieving such high-contrast images is vital for positioning OLEDs in consumers' minds as the must-have display technology. The company describes this contrast as the "Ultimate Black." The OLED displays shown at its booth were 8 in. on the diagonal with a resolution of 800 x 400 pixels, a luminance of 200 cd/m2, and a contrast ratio of >100,000:1. The company plans to accelerate efforts to develop uses for OLEDdisplays that benefit from superior image quality.


Seiko Epson started research and development of OLED technology way back in the mid-1990s. The company has been a long-term advocate of polymer solution-processing, but the displays on show were fabricated by vacuum deposition. Furthermore, Seiko Epson reports that it has successfully achieved OLED lifetimes (T50) in excess of 50,000 hours. The device architecture consisted of a white emissive layer coupled with a RGB color filter.


The company has already installed and commenced operation of a development and manufacturing facility in Nagano, Japan, capable of small-scale production. A Seiko Epson spokesperson said that the company might enter the market in a year's time, most likely using solution-processing as its production technology.


*Kodak* showed a portable AMOLED TV known as the EliTe Vision KTEL-30W. Currently available only in Japan and Brazil, this product, having a 3.0-in. QVGA AMOLED display, is a great example of the potential of OLED displays in consumer products (Fig. 10).


Flexible OLED displays, OLED lighting, and transparent OLED displays could all be found at the Universal Display Corp. (UDC) booth this year. The top-emitting flexible display, made in collaboration with LG Display, was fabricated on a metal-foil substrate and was shown on a rotating fixture, convincingly showcasing many of OLED's strongest attributes: thinness, viewing angle, and no color shift. UDC also reported progress with printable phosphorescent materials in Paper 22.2, presented in conjunction with Seiko Epson Corp. In terms of material performance, UDC continues to improve lifetime, efficiency, and color of its printable phosphorescent materials. Lifetimes of red (100,000 hours at 500 cd/m2) and blue (6000 hours at 500 cd/m2) have doubled since last year, and green is now 63,000 hours at 1000 cd/m2. However, the long-life blue material has not yet reached a suitable "deep blue" as required for commercial adoption.


OLED lighting also featured prominently at the UDC booth. The company presented performance data on two white OLED devices achieved by optimizing materials and device structures and including outcoupling. The first device achieved 30 lm/W, at a luminance of 1000 cd/m2 with more than 200,000 hours of lifetime and appeared as a "warm" white (0.45, 0.46). According to UDC, this performance is suitable for market entry of simple lighting products. The second device achieved higher efficiency – 72 lm/W at the same luminance (1000 cd/m2), although at a different and unspecified lifetime. *LG Chem* supplied both transport and injection materials.











*Fig. 7: OSRAM's P-OLED lighting tiles at the CDT booth.*



OLED microdisplays also appear in both flavors: small-molecule and polymer versions. MicroEmissive Displays (MED) showed a range of headsets having Eyescreen™ P-OLED microdisplays. These QVGA 6-mm-diagonal microdisplays use silicon active-matrix backplanes with a white P-OLED emitter and color filters and require less than 25 mW of power. MED reported it has now shipped 60,000 units for use in the Estar headsets. At the time of the show, these headsets were only available in Asia.


In contrast to MED, eMagin Corp. offers higher-resolution small-molecule active-matrix OLED microdisplay technology. eMagin announced its SXGA OLED-XL micro-display, requiring less than 200 mW under typical operation. This 0.77-in.-diagonal display has a resolution of 1280 x 1024 pixels.

*Ignis Innovation* has positioned itself as an independent open-source provider of active-matrix-backplane technology for the emerging AMOLED market. The company has developed in-pixel compensation circuit technology coupled with pixel drivers that reduce the "image sticking," improves lifetimes, and eliminates brightness variations – "mura" was experienced by both LTPS or a-Si backplane technologies. The company envisages that such an open-source approach effectively eliminates the need for a vertical structure manufacturing approach, opening up the market for AMOLED displays. No longer are manufacturers reliant on the need to build their own active-matrix capacity; instead, they can purchase active-matrix backplanes via Ignis Innovation partners.











*Fig. 8: CDT's Add-Vision offers flexible screen-printed P-OLED displays

for low-resolution and specialty-lighting applications.*











*Fig. 9: This AMOLED display from DuPont Displays utilizes a

Chi Mei Optoelectronics LTPS backplane.*











*Fig. 10: Kodak's EliTe Vision KTEL-30W portable TV, currently available in Japan

and Brazil, features a 3.0-in. QVGA AMOLED display.*


*Conclusion*


Display Week 2008 once again provided attendees with the latest developments in OLED displays. The products on the exhibition floor and the papers presented at the symposium continue to demonstrate that there is growing confidence that developers of OLED displays understand the basic technology, understand it nuances, and are beginning to master the process of creative design. The opening speaker at the Business Conference was Gildas Sorin, CEO of Novaled, who said that "OLEDs are the new LCDs." Looking at the products at the show, I would tend to agree. Sorin also made the statement that the OLED industry would benefit from greater cooperation among the major OLED developers. The launch of the OLED Association is clearly a move toward creating the necessary framework for collaboration. I am already looking forward to next year's show to see what progress the next 12 months brings in terms of OLED display development.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*DisplaySearch: AMOLED Revenues Up 327% Y/Y in Q2 '08, But Down 27% Q/Q* 
*29 September 2008*


AUSTIN, TEXAS - Samsung SDI , the leading supplier of AMOLED displays, had lower than expected shipments in Q2'08, which set a negative tone for the quarter, according to DisplaySearch's Quarterly OLED Shipment and Forecast Report, which was released on September 23. Instead of growing volume by a forecasted 12%, Samsung SDI's shipments actually contracted by 22% due to slowing demand from Japanese mobile-phone suppliers and from Nokia.


As a result, overall AMOLED revenue was $53.8 million, down 27% Q/Q but up 327% Y/Y, and shipments measured 1.7 million, down 18% Q/Q, but up 302% Y/Y. The Y/Y comparisons are misleading since Samsung SDI started mass production of AMOLEDs in Q4'07.


Main display shipments, which were expected to drive the growth in OLED displays, were 1.6 million, down 500,000 or 33%, due to the poor performance by Samsung SDI.


Surprisingly, PMOLED shipments were 20.3 million, up 17% Q/Q and 4% Y/Y. PMOLED shipments had been down Y/Y for three straight quarters. The growth was driven by increases in both MP3 players and sub-displays. PMOLEDs now represent almost 60% of the total MP3 market and 23% of all sub-display shipments.


Other key findings in released by DisplaySearch include:
RiTdisplay had a record quarter with revenues of $33.8 million.


Pioneer maintained its shipment volume of 4.4 million, most of which were monochrome displays.


Chi Mei EL (CMEL) also reported AMOLED revenues of only $7.6 million, down from $12.8 million last quarter.

The slowdown in AMOLED displays is expected to continue in Q3'08, because it is taking longer for mobile phone makers to understand the market for products with high-end displays, DisplaySearch reported. However, new products by Nokia and Sony Ericsson could improve the situation, as will the recent announcement by CMEL and Kodak on the release of a new 7.6-inch display for digital photo frames.


Sub-displays and MP3 player displays accounted for over 80% of OLED shipments at 14.2 million and 3.4 million, respectively. Of the remaining applications, industrial applications showed strong growth, but main displays fell for the third straight quarter.


DisplaySearch's Quarterly OLED Shipment and Forecast Report includes shipments, revenues and ASPs by application, material type, driver technology and supplier. It also shows capacity plans by supplier and has a comprehensive supply/demand forecast.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CMEL shifting AMOLED focus to medium- and large-size panels* 
*30 September 2008*


Chi Mei El (CMEL) is adjusting its AMOLED focus to medium- and large-size panels as result of pricing pressure from TFT LCD in the small- to medium-size segment, according to company chairman Jau-Yang Ho.


Ho said AMOLED offers stunning colors and picture quality, but CMEL is coming under strong pressure from small- to medium-size TFT LCD whose prices are falling fast. The production costs for AMOLED are relatively higher and it takes more time to lower the production costs for AMOLED, compared to TFT LCD, Ho explained.


Therefore, CMEL is shifting its focus to medium- and large-size panels, Ho said. Apart from developing a 7.6-inch AMOLED panel for Kodak, CMEL will head for the 10-inch and larger segment. CMEL expects to volume produce AMOLED TV panels in 2010 or 2011.


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/14770688
> 
> 
> For someone that promotes TMOS, a display technology that hasn't even been released, you sure have a negative opinion of OLED. After all OLED has been sold in millions of small devices and is currently being mass manufactured in displays up to 11". That is far more than SED ever did.



Canon at least had SED 50" prototypes. Nobody is even talking about plans for 50" OLED prototypes at this point. We'll be very lucky if someone releases >20" OLED for


----------



## moreHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14771567
> 
> 
> Surprisingly, PMOLED shipments were 20.3 million, up 17% Q/Q and 4% Y/Y. PMOLED shipments had been down Y/Y for three straight quarters. The growth was driven by increases in both MP3 players and sub-displays. PMOLEDs now represent almost 60% of the total MP3 market and 23% of all sub-display shipments.



I am only interested in PMOLED, because of superior motion handling, motion resolution and no motion blur. Are there any PMOLED prototypes or products over 5" ??? I don't care at all if I have to replace my PMOLED tv every 18 months.


----------



## Jim Hef

_Electronic House_ just had a small article on OLED making its inroads into the display market. They stated that manufacturers are trying to get this technology into full swing as a 40" set in the year 2015! This thread may be very early in its appearance! I would figure by that time we'd have some consumer priced very large flat panels that will blow away today's versions.


----------



## Isochroma

 *The Outstanding Potential of OLED Displays for TV Applications* 
*September 2008*

_Despite all the buzz surrounding Sony's launch of the first commercial OLED TV in December 2007, the company is not resting on its laurels. This article details the company's approach to developing and manufacturing large-sized AMOLED TVs._


DURING THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, organic-light-emitting-diode (OLED) technology has drawn increasing attention as the next-generation display platform (along with its potential as a source for general illumination). One of the main reasons is its "all solid state" nature, which provides myriad opportunity for further evolution in a variety of aspects.


The first stage of this evolution occurred in the 10–15 years since C. Tang's pioneering work on OLEDs at Kodak in 1988. Even in this initial stage, it is likely that OLED researchers recognized its great potential for display devices; however, it's passive-matrix drive limited OLEDs great potential. Consequently, in the second stage of OLED commercialization, which has taken place during the past 10 years, R&D activities have focused on active-matrix OLEDs. Great progress has been made in this decade, not only for the driving scheme including the design of the TFT pixel circuit, but also in the OLED device and materials. Sony has developed the "Super Top Emission" device structure, which enhances color gamut and efficiency, both of which are critical for TV-quality displays. Idemitsu and Sony jointly developed long-lifetime and highly efficient OLED materials sufficient for such displays. Further reduction on power consumption can be achieved by employing phosphorescent materials.


In this article, the advantage of OLED displays in terms of image quality is described – and it is this superior image quality that gives OLED displays the potential to become the premier displays for TV applications.











*Fig. 1: A comparison of brightness vs. signal level and window

size for OLEDs, LCDs, and CRTs.*


*Extraordinary Picture Quality*


One of the great advantages of an emissive display such as an OLED display is that the dynamic range of the brightness can be controlled pixel by pixel. Figure 1 shows brightness vs. signal level and window size. The maximum brightness of a liquid-crystal display (LCD) is basically equivalent to the fixed backlight brightness, which means that it is impossible to accurately display an image that contains an extremely bright local area. This is a very important feature for TV applications because the capability of strong peak luminance would improve the impact of images dramatically – for example, a scene of fireworks at night or strong reflection of sunlight from glass could be displayed much more realistically by an OLED display.


Extremely high contrast ratio is another advantage of OLED Displays. LCDs struggle to achieve "real black," since an LCD basically works as the shutter that modulates the polarization of transmitted light from the backlight unit – this makes it extremely difficult to curtail light leakage, which in turn limits the contrast ratio. Even a tiny amount of light leakage causes considerable image degradation for some scenes in TV pictures. Imagine a forest scene during a very cloudy day; the picture level of this TV signal is very low. Under this condition, color reproduction of the deep green color of the forest on an LCD screen is degraded by a very small amount of light leakage from blue and red subpixels. However, the same scene would be much richer in color when displayed on an OLED display, in which the off-state of each subpixel is completely black – the "off" state corresponds to a non-emissive state, which means there is no light leakage. Figure 2 shows the color gamut of an OLED display and an LCD plotted vs. picture level. A wide color gamut throughout all picture levels is extremely desirable for the display of TV images. Because an OLED display is an emissive display, similar to a CRT display, its light output can be easily managed, allowing for high contrast ratios over wide viewing angles.


Moving-picture quality, another critical factor for TV performance, is evaluated by moving-picture response time (MPRT). For active-matrix displays, the MPRT is limited by the hold-type driving scheme. Recently, LCDs have overcome this problem via a high frame-rate drive (120 Hz). OLED displays can take the same approach; however, there are other ways to solve this problem. The pixel circuit of an OLED display could be designed to turn off the emission at any time in the middle of a single frame, which reduces the motion blur originated in a hold-type driving scheme, though this would result in lower overall luminance.

*OLED Process for Large-Screen Displays*


Sony began to sell the world's first OLED TV, the XEL-1, in December 2007 (Fig. 3). The XEL-1's 11-in. screen size is relatively small, yet it still demonstrates the outstanding picture quality promised by OLED technology, to the point where Sony believes that the potential of OLED TV is now widely recognized. So, the next question is, how large can OLED TVs be?











*Fig. 2: The color gamut of OLED displays, LCDs, and CRT displays plotted vs. picture level.*











*Fig. 3: Sony's XEL-1 became the first commercially available OLED TV when it hit stores in December 2007.*



The XEL-1 employs vacuum evaporation of small molecules by using a metal-mask process and low-temperature polysilicon (LTPS) TFTs for the backplane. It is well recognized these technologies cannot be applied for large glass substrates; therefore, we have to develop the new technologies both for the OLED and TFT processes.


Various approaches have been proposed to achieve large-screen OLED displays. They are classified into three categories: (1) patterning by using RGB subpixels, (2) white emission plus the use of a color filter, and (3) blue emission plus color conversion. There has been vigorous debate over which type is best for large-screen-sized OLED displays.


When trying to decide which approach to take, Sony first had to determine the best way to industrialize OLED TV, for which there are really two options. The first option is to start the business with low-cost device and process technologies, followed by the improvement of performance (with the according price increases). The second is to start a business with high-performance device and process technologies (even at high costs), followed by reductions in cost. High-quality LCD and plasma TVs already permeate the market, so the next-generation TV must have superior image quality than existing flat-screen TVs. This has led Sony to the conclusion that we should choose a technology that gives us the best performance, including image quality.


A white-emission plus color-filter device has the simplest structure, so the production cost is estimated to be the lowest among these three options. Since the patterning process of the OLED layer is not required in this case, use of a metal mask is not necessary. However, power consumption is a real problem because more than two-thirds of the energy of the white emission from an OLED is absorbed by the color filter. Furthermore, this type of device gives rise to a severe tradeoff between color gamut and brightness. Adding a white subpixel (RGBW color filter) is a potentially smart way to compensate for the transmission loss caused by the RGB color filter. However, a polarizer and quarter-wavelength plate must be put on the panel to eliminate the reflection caused by the white subpixel, once again resulting in a power loss of more than 50%.


A blue-emission plus color-conversion device is better in terms of energy efficiency because basically there is no transmission loss via the color filter, providing that color conversion efficiency is 100%. For this purpose, color-conversion materials with high conversion efficiency and low-light-scattering characteristics need to be developed.


Based on these considerations, it is concluded that an RGB-patterned-type device should be the best choice for a TV display because of its excellent image quality. For example, the XEL-1 offers a color gamut of more than 100% NTSC, a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1, etc. So the next question is, how do we get an RGB-patterned device without using a metal-mask process in order to be able to use large motherglass, such as Gen 6 or Gen 7? An attempt to employ a solution process has been actively undertaken in a variety of methods, including polymer materials and small molecules. This seemed very attractive, and we expected this process would be realized. However, we could not achieve long lifetime with pure blue using a solution process, and this is crucial for TV application.


The concept of Sony's approach is to keep the existing device structure and vacuum-evaporation process, which has been proven to yield good enough performance and lifetimes for TV applications, and omit the metal-mask process. Figure 4 shows the cross-sectional view of the newly developed laser-transfer process that we named Laser Induced Pattern-wise Sublimation (LIPS). In this case, only the emission layer is processed by LIPS, while the other layers (hole-transport layer, electron-transport layer, etc.) are formed by using a current vapor-evaporation process. It could be thought that the metal layer on donor glass is equivalent to the heat source of the conventional vacuum-evaporation process.

*TFT Backplane for Large-Screen OLED Displays*


Amorphous-silicon TFT (a-Si TFT) backplanes are now widely used for active-matrix LCDs, and the manufacturing infrastructure is now well established. It is desirable to make use of a-Si TFTs as the backplane for active-matrix OLED displays. However, the threshold-voltage shifts of a-Si TFTs caused by the bias stress voltage is a serious problem for OLED displays. Compensating for the threshold-voltage shift by using driving scheme has been investigated, but it is not yet good enough to apply to TV displays; accordingly, a new TFT with a small enough threshold-voltage shift has to be developed. LTPS, which is now widely used as the backplane for OLED displays, has a very high electron mobility and extremely small threshold-voltage shift. It turns out, though, that such a high electron mobility is not really required to drive OLED displays. Microcrystalline-silicon TFTs, which have a considerably small shift in the threshold voltage and an electron mobility of 1–10 cm2/V-sec, is considered to be a good choice. The question is, what kind of process is the most appropriate to obtain microcrystalline-silicon TFTs? It is quite obvious that an as-deposited process is desirable in terms of production cost. There are many ways to conduct the as-deposited process, but none of them are available for mass production at this time. As a practical method, we developed a thermal annealing process using a high-power diode laser and named it diode Laser Thermal Anneal (dLTA). One reason we chose diode lasers is that the output laser light is very stable and controllable. When compared with eximer lasers, which are commonly used for the LTPS process, the advantage of this technology is scalability. The design of the annealing equipment is described in Fig. 5. There should not be any limit in motherglass size. We could increase the number of laser heads to improve tact time. By using this technology, we obtained an electron mobility of 2–3 cm2/V-sec and a threshold-voltage shift of ~2 V (after 100,000 hours under the bias conditions of Ids = 10 μA, 50°C), which is good enough as the backplane TFT for active-matrix OLED displays.











*Fig. 4: A cross-sectional view of Sony's newly developed

laser transfer process named Laser Induced Pattern-wise Sublimation (LIPS).*


*Conclusion: A New Technology Prototype*


In order to realize the feasibility of this new technology as described above, Sony has developed a 27-in. OLED-display prototype (Fig. 6) with full-HD resolution (1920 x 1080 RGB). Newly developed microcrystalline-silicon TFTs and LIPS yields a picture that is just as vivid as that for the XEL-1, which makes us confident enough to employ these new technologies for manufacturing displays on larger motherglass. The significance of the 27-in. prototype is to demonstrate the possibility of large-screen OLED TVs without sacrificing picture quality. We recognize that there must be myriad different approaches in addition to ours, and we welcome the attempts that will be made to find better ways to develop high-quality low-cost OLED manufacturing technology. Those challenges will certainly improve the technological level of OLED TV and stimulate the OLED industry.











*Fig. 5: A schematic of Sony's new thermal annealing process

using a high-power diode laser, which it has named diode Laser Thermal Anneal (dLTA).*











*Fig. 6: Sony developed a 27-in. full-HD OLED TV prototype to test its new manufacturing technologies.*


----------



## vtms

 http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10054183-1.html 


> Quote:
> CHIBA, Japan--Already skeptical about the ability of OLED to uproot the TV technology dominance of plasma and LCD in the next few years, Panasonic cast even more doubt on the opening day of Ceatec 2008.
> 
> 
> Speaking to a group of reporters, Panasonic AVC Networks President Toshihiro Sakamoto reiterated that OLED (organic light-emitting diode) TVs will not be made in sizes of 30 inches or greater for now, and it's still not suitable for mass manufacturing. Currently, Panasonic does not have an OLED product on the market, but Sony does: it makes and 11-inch OLED TV, and is working on a 27-inch model.
> 
> 
> Though Panasonic is working on making its own OLED set, Sakamoto said "we may have to redefine the market position of OLED."
> 
> 
> His quasi-cryptic comments indicate that LCD and plasma are here to stay for a while, and that the mass production of OLED TVs could be even further off than his previously stated estimate of 2015.
> 
> 
> It's also not clear that we need OLED TVs before then. They're still prohibitively expensive, small, and LCD and plasma are continuing to make great gains. Here at Ceatec, for example, several major TV makers like Sharp, Toshiba, Sony, and Panasonic are showing off incredibly thin TVs as well as those with decreased power consumption, both features of OLED.


----------



## Jim Hef

Those comments lead me to believe that the 2015 date before we can get to a 40" set is probably correct, and "rethink the market" means computer monitors rather than TVs, although it could be a dual use product. They need to produce these things is some form to take advantage of their research, and not throw it away as we've seen with SED.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jim Hef* /forum/post/14784111
> 
> 
> Those comments lead me to believe that the 2015 date before we can get to a 40" set is probably correct, and "rethink the market" means computer monitors rather than TVs, although it could be a dual use product. They need to produce these things is some form to take advantage of their research, and not throw it away as we've seen with SED.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms* /forum/post/14783344
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10054183-1.html



Or perhaps Matsushita is heavily vested in PDP manufacturing (all eggs in the PDP basket)... they promote themselves in TV commercials as the #1 mfg of plasma HDTVs after all!










It's certainly a contrast from Sony, who abandoned PDP for LCD. If OLED is the successor to LCD, the positions of Sony and Matsushita make sense.


----------



## Isochroma

vtms: I refrained from posting the Panasonic article because:

1. It has no new OLED news


2. It is pure self-serving propaganda by Panasonic, clearly and blatantly pro-PDP and anti-OLED.
That kind of 'news' will never make it to this thread; I have no love of brainwashing. Furthermore, this 'news' by Panasonic is the final shrill call of an opponent who, having failed to rout his competitor by the usual means of making a better product, is reduced to a war of words and slurs.


In contrast, the article "*The Outstanding Potential of OLED Displays for TV Applications*" just posted, shows how Sony is working hard - and succeeding - to develop the new processes which allow large-screen OLED TVs to be made. They have my love for being dedicated and smart with their research.


----------



## hrlyboy1

Here's some new fodder for digestion guys. Not sure of the ramifications, but interesting never the less. http://www.physorg.com/news142140073.html


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14787195
> 
> 
> vtms: I refrained from posting the Panasonic article because:
> 
> 1. It has no new OLED news
> 
> 
> 2. It is pure self-serving propaganda by Panasonic, clearly and blatantly pro-PDP and anti-OLED.
> That kind of 'news' will never make it to this thread; I have no love of brainwashing. Furthermore, this 'news' by Panasonic is the final shrill call of an opponent who, having failed to rout his competitor by the usual means of making a better product, is reduced to a war of words and slurs.
> 
> 
> In contrast, the article "*The Outstanding Potential of OLED Displays for TV Applications*" just posted, shows how Sony is working hard - and succeeding - to develop the new processes which allow large-screen OLED TVs to be made. They have my love for being dedicated and smart with their research.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/14786848
> 
> 
> Or perhaps Matsushita is heavily vested in PDP manufacturing (all eggs in the PDP basket)... they promote themselves in TV commercials as the #1 mfg of plasma HDTVs after all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly a contrast from Sony, who abandoned PDP for LCD. If OLED is the successor to LCD, the positions of Sony and Matsushita make sense.



Two thumbs up.


People who say "It can't be done!" fall into 2 categories:

-Those that can't do it themselves.

-Those that don't want it done.


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14787195
> 
> 
> vtms: I refrained from posting the Panasonic article because:
> 
> 1. It has no new OLED news
> 
> 2. It is pure self-serving propaganda by Panasonic, clearly and blatantly pro-PDP and anti-OLED.



Hmm, I was under impression Panasonic had big plans for OLED. The fact they are delaying their plans is certainly news, but yeah, since this thread is strategically titled "technological advancements", bad news will always be out of place here so I'll leave this thread alone.


----------



## xrox

Well since there is no OLED "discussion" thread I choose to respond to this.


The same grossly overstated OLED dreams have been in the news for 15 years with barely anything to show for it. Now someone actually steps back and starts talking 'reality' and being somewhat honest and they are the ones accused of lying???? Wow, just wow!! Whenever I read new articles like the Sony one I can't help but say to myself (yeah...right! I'll believe it when I see it). Sorry for my jaded attitude but there is a history behind it.


If you aren't familiar with my history, I worked with OLEDs for a couple years (00,01) and back then I was super excited about the technology. Watching what has happened behind the scenes over the years has really dissapointed me and opened my eyes to science versus marketing. One of the best things I learned was that forming a set of claims and promises about a technology based on some samples (devices) made in a lab is very shady. But the display industry is ripe with this practice.


I think OLEDs is the future and would love a 60" er on my wall but forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of promises. If Sony starts to live up to some promises it could go a long way to restoring some excitement.


----------



## JazzGuyy

How much progress has been made toward solving the problem of the uneven primary color aging? That has always struck me as the Achilles's heel of OLED, other than the high cost. If that problem can't really be solved, I just don't see OLED ever being successful.


----------



## Human Bass




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy* /forum/post/14792203
> 
> 
> How much progress has been made toward solving the problem of the uneven primary color aging? That has always struck me as the Achilles's heel of OLED, other than the high cost. If that problem can't really be solved, I just don't see OLED ever being successful.



It will be always uneven. But as long the weakest link is strong enough (last at least 60K hours), it will be no big deal at all.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/14789514
> 
> 
> The same grossly overstated OLED dreams have been in the news for 15 years with barely anything to show for it.



Considering millions of OLED displays in small devices to be "barely anything" seems a bit harsh considering that the vast majority of display technologies never get to mass production.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/14789514
> 
> 
> If you aren't familiar with my history, I worked with OLEDs for a couple years (00,01) and back then I was super excited about the technology.



Just curious but which company did you work for and what did you do?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/14808150
> 
> 
> Considering millions of OLED displays in small devices to be "barely anything" seems a bit harsh considering that the vast majority of display technologies never get to mass production.
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious but which company did you work for and what did you do?



Barely anything relative to the promises that have been continually overstated. In fact, many of the promises have turned out to be false. It is fresh to see some more realistic statements about OLEDs.



And I worked briefly with OLED SM materials development (long life blue).


----------



## wojtek

The current economic crisis does not bode well for OLED.


Research dollars (pardon me, yens) will be scarce.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung previews OLED TV screens* 
*4 October 2008*













Samsung have shaken up the world of OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) technology by previewing 14.1in and 31in panels. Previously, Sony had been capturing all of the OLED headlines with the introduction of a commercially available screen.


While Sony have stolen a march on the industry, their OLED screen is only 10.6in while the 31in Samsung brings with it the tantalizing possibility that OLED could soon become the technology of choice, eventually replacing LCD and Plasma.


The exciting thing for followers of OLED technology is that Samsung are talking about a launch date sometime in 2010.


OLED pixels generate their own light which brings a whole host of technological advantages. Every OLED prototype we have seen produces brighter, sharper images while using less power than any plasma or LCD TV. Samsung's 31in prototype uses less than half the power of a standard 32in TV, with the Full HD panel just a shade over 4.3mm thick.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Sony's Latest OLED TV Prototype Is 1 Millimeter Thin* 
*5 October 2008*


Sony has unveiled a prototype OLED (organic light emitting diode) television that's less than a millimeter thin -- that's one third the thickness of its current OLED television and a tenth that of its thinnest LCD (liquid crystal display) set.


The TV measures just 0.9mm and is based on a prototype 0.3mm screen that Sony first showed earlier this year. The prototype set was on show at the Ceatec 2008 electronics expo in Japan and attracted a steady stream of curious attendees, with many of them snapping pictures of it.


OLED is an emerging flat-panel display technology that uses an organic material that emits its own light, so no backlight is needed and that means displays are much thinner. The screens also consume less power than competing technologies, handle fast-moving images better and offer good color reproduction.


Sony's first OLED TV, the XEL-1, was launched at Ceatec 2007 and instantly became one of the most talked-about products at the show thanks to its bright and vibrant picture and thinness of just 3mm. The 11-inch set, which was also the first commercial OLED TV from any manufacturer, was accompanied on Sony's Ceatec 2007 stand by a prototype 27-inch screen that was back again at Ceatec 2008.


Sony still faces production problems in making larger screens, so there's no word on when the larger TV set will be launched.


The 0.3mm panel is based on the same screen that's used in the XEL-1. By carefully grinding down the glass substrate the panel is made thinner but also much more brittle. There were also no details of when the even-thinner 11-inch set might hit the market.


----------



## Auditor55




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wojtek* /forum/post/14812975
> 
> 
> The current economic crisis does not bode well for OLED.
> 
> 
> Research dollars (pardon me, yens) will be scarce.



Does it bode well for 7-8k plasmas and LCD's?


----------



## Jim Hef




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14813077
> 
> 
> ...Samsung have shaken up the world of OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) technology by previewing 14.1in and 31in panels....



The perfect size for a laptop, and a useful size for a desktop monitor. Samsung manufacturers most of the better LCD monitors, so I would expect to see this for lighter laptops and for higher res, more detailed screens in the imaging fields before it would happen as a competitive TV.


----------



## navychop

Just as LCDs progressed thru laptops & desktop PC displays on their way to TV land.


----------



## Jim Hef

Agreed, but waiting for 8-10 years for a "useful" high def screen size is not what we really wanted to hear. Our present stuff is now very affordable across the board, so take that into account also. I look forward to the Samsung introduction though...it will be interesting to see this type panel in a larger size, even if that only mimics an early '90s screen size!


----------



## Isochroma

"mimics an early '90s screen size"?


The vast majority of the FPD display market is at 32", and will always be there for various reasons, so they may end up not going to any larger sizes than the proposed 31". In economic terms such a move would be well-justified.


----------



## vili

I got to see the XEL-1 at BB this past weekend and it was amazing. I have never seen such color, deep blacks, and just amazing overall PQ from a set. I wish it was 100" already and less than 5k .


----------



## law1777

less than 5k? xel-1 so small its already $2499.99 how u want the 100" to be 5k? lolzz.. since those organics in the tv might rot and its sensitive to water, by mean we cannot place it in an aircond room or what?? too bad..


----------



## vili

You can place it in an air conditioned room just fine. How are you supposed to have electricity if you don't put the TV in your house unless you want burglars to steal your $2500 tv sitting on your back porch? lol!


----------



## Jim Hef




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14825609
> 
> 
> ...The vast majority of the FPD display market is at 32"....



But, until recently, flat panels have been relatively expensive, so the smaller sizes were first to come down in price. That, and so many people, myself included, had furniture or cabinetry geared to old CRT sizes, and the most that would fit would be the smaller panels. I think that's all changing now, and in another 5 years, a 32" for a small bedroom will seem skimpy!


----------



## S. Hiller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14825609
> 
> 
> "...The vast majority of the FPD display market is at 32...




Wow...that's a depressing note, given the late CRT's overwhelming superior at that size...


(Agree with Jim though on the future...)


----------



## Isochroma

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Printing Tech Could Bring Down The Price of OLED TVs* 
*9 October 2008*


Those super thin, but still futuristic, OLED TVs may get a lot cheaper thanks to manufacturing technology from a team of MIT grads.


Called organic light-emitting-diode displays, the thin, extremely clear displays made a big splash last year at the Consumer Electronics Show, but price has been a major obstacle to consumer adoption. For example Sony Corp. showed off an 11-inch OLED TV that sells for $2,500. A 15-inch LCD display can cost under $200.


But TJet Technologies, the Menlo Park, Calif., start-up thinks its technology could bring the price of OLED TVs down, in line with LCD panels, by using ink jet type printers to manufacture the screens. The company is betting its equipment will enable OLEDs to be made at half the cost of LCDs.


The biggest problem for OLEDs is manufacturing, said Conor Madigan, Co-Founder and Chief Executive of TJet. Even though OLEDs look better and have better performance consumers aren't going to pay a lot more.


OLED TVs burst on the scene around 2000, but weren't able to gain traction until a couple of years ago. Before the technology could get the backing of major corporations like Sony, Toshiba and Samsung, technical glitches such as display life had to be overcome.


With the technical problems addressed, the last barrier to a mass market roll out and adoption, said Madigan is manufacturing. The current manufacturing process is complicated and costly, which has resulted in premium prices for the few TVs on the market, he said. Sony is selling its 11 inch display while other manufactures are gearing up to launch their products next year. There are companies making OLED displays for Mp3 players and cell phones but the biggest market is expected to be in TVs.


Madigan and a team of engineers who have been working on printer technology for OLEDs at MIT said being able to use printers to put the material on the glass is very inexpensive and is a big driver for the printed electronics market. About a year ago, Madigan and the team decided to take their work at M.I.T and create TJet. The goal is to make the production equipment for companies like Sony and Samsung.


Basically the printer splits down the material on a thin film glass sheet which can be the size of a king-sized bed. While many companies had looked at this way of manufacturing before, TJet discovered that ink jet printing isn't ideal because when the ink jet printer spits out the material it's a wet liquid that damages the underlying layers. What TJet came up with is a trick to spit the ink on a device that sits between the jet head and the glass. The device takes the ink, dries it and heats up the material until it's hot enough to turn to gas. The gas flows evenly on the glass.


Currently the company is working on feasibility machines and at the same time is building a larger system to do pilot production. The feasibility machines will print in areas the size of a piece of paper, while the pilot systems will print on areas that is roughly 1m by 1m.


TJet is already working with a couple of Japanese companies to demonstrate the technology and is getting feedback on how they would use the technology in their next manufacturing lines.


Today OLED TVs are too pricey for the average consumer, but the industry is putting a lot of money behind it. According to DisplaySearch, the Austin, Texas market research company, shipments of OLED displays will see compounded annual growth of 167% from 2007 to 2015.


----------



## chadmak09

 Cool new article


----------



## Isochroma

 *Visionox and Tsinghua University starts OLED production* 
*10 October 2008*


Visionox and Tsinghua University began manufacturing screens on China's first organic light emitting diode (OLED) production line in Kunshan, Jiangsu province on Wednesday, reports Cena.com.cn. The partners spent RMB 500 million on the line and plan to make 12 million small screens annually. Visionox expects to begin construction on its next OLED line in the second half of 2009. Visionox was founded by Tsinghua University and other investors in 2001.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung Shows Off 7.9mm-thick 40-inch LCD TV* 
*15 October 2008*











*A 19-inch OLED panel exhibited by LG Display*











*A 14-inch HD OLED panel exhibited by Samsung Electronics*



...[CUT]...


As for OLED panels, Samsung Electronics displayed a 14-inch HD panel, a 31-inch full-HD panel and a 5-inch Wide VGA panel. And LG Display showcased a 19-inch OLED panel driven by amorphous Si TFT.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/14789514
> 
> 
> The same grossly overstated OLED dreams have been in the news for 15 years with barely anything to show for it. Now someone actually steps back and starts talking 'reality' and being somewhat honest and they are the ones accused of lying???? Wow, just wow!!



It's not like they are "lying". They are just controlling the damage. Those overstated OLED dreams are about to be ready to be mass produced, yes, at last, and they have no fork to take their piece of cake. So they just control the damage.


Companies don't lie. Ever. All the press releases and statements are fine tuned and expected to have a consequence. Talking about oled 15 years ago was intented to say "hey we are the best at R&D", launching the first oled mass-produced TV has the same meaning, and saying "oled is just a promise and won't deliver in the short-medium term" is just damage controlling and a way to advertise a product (Be it LCD or Plasma)


Of course saying "Next year we will deliver the perfect OLED TV at 46 inches" is vaporware.


It's just up to everyone as an individual to think twice which statement is reliable and which one has an obscure intention. But things are not white nor black. OLED is not a wonderful present technology, but plasma and LCDs are doomed in the mid term.


----------



## ferro

At least some serious OLED cell phones are now showing up: the Nokia N85 and the Samsung I7110 . Both feature a 2.6" OLED display. Granted, it's not TV-size yet, but at least we are getting somewhere with OLED.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung Electronics unveils TVs of the future at GITEX Technology Week 2008* 
*20 October 2008*

*Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd is offering visitors to this year’s GITEX Technology Week 2008 in Dubai a glimpse at where the TV is headed.*


The lineup at the Samsung booth will include two (14.1” and 31”) organic light-emitting diode (OLED) TVs, slimmest 52” LCD TV, quadruple full-HD LCD TV and a 200 Hz LCD TV.


The OLED is seen as a powerful contender for the future display market mainstream, given its very high resolution, svelte profile and extremely lightweight.


“Electronics manufacturers have already begun exhibiting these next-generation displays at major trade shows. However, Samsung is going a step further at Gitex, presenting the OLED as a finished TV product that features an elegant, optimized design”, said Bo Joong Kim, General Manager, AV division, Samsung Gulf Electronics. “Samsung’s OLED TVs represent greater technology innovation and set a new standard for TV sophistication”, added Kim.


These chic, ultra-slim OLED TVs employ OLED panels developed by Samsung SDI (the affiliate dedicated to display production). The finished products weigh forty percent less than other LCD TVs of the same size while boasting a contrast ratio of 1 million to one, color gamut of 107% and brightness of 550 cd/m2. Samsung will begin commercial production of mid-/large- sized OLED TVs around 2010.


[CUT]


----------



## Richard Paul

* New Kodak Material Boosts OLED Performance and Energy Efficiency

Green Dopant Material Enables Low-Power, Full-Color, Long-Life OLED Displays *



> Quote:
> Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE:EK), a pioneer in organic light emitting diode technology (OLED), today announced the introduction of a highly efficient OLED material that will enable low-power, full-color displays with outstanding lifetimes. The new material, trademarked KODAK OLED Material EK-GD403, utilizes green dopant technology to deliver a new level of OLED display performance and reliability.
> 
> 
> Green dopants are materials that control color output and boost efficiency.
> 
> ...
> 
> Kodak has continued to make greater than 50 percent year-over-year improvements in OLED luminance efficiencies over the past few years, and we will continue to fill the pipeline with new innovation to ensure that Kodak OLED materials are ready for use in emerging large-market applications, said Corey Hewitt, Operations Manager and Vice President, Kodak OLED Systems.
> 
> ...
> 
> KODAK OLED Material EK-GD403, used in combination with Kodak OLED Material EK-BH109, provides low-voltage green OLEDs with luminous efficiencies greater than 31 cd/A and lifetimes in excess of 65,000 hours (from an initial luminance of 1,000 cd/m2) and results in an external quantum efficiency of 8.7%.


----------



## Human Bass

the 60K barrie was broken!! yay!


----------



## MikeBiker

So they, maybe, fixed green. What about the other colors?


----------



## inky blacks

 http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...=pressreleases 


When Kodak says they have "green dopant technology", I assume their use of the word "GREEN" refers to the environmental definition. If they have *RED*, *BLUE*, and *GREEN* OLED chemicals that can last over 65,000 hours to half life, from an initial luminance of 1,000 cd/m2, then OLED will be a major hit. They will still have a burn-in issue, however, which must be addressed. I for one would like a Federal law prohibiting those obnoxious network insignias pasted on TV shows. I would also like stations to use a high tech method to stretch all 3 by 4 TV shows to 9 by 16 for replay.


IB


----------



## avnstf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inky blacks* /forum/post/14941934
> 
> 
> I would also like stations to use a high tech method to stretch all 3 by 4 TV shows to 9 by 16 for replay.
> 
> IB



?why would anybody with a high PQ unit want to watch anything that's stretched?


----------



## inky blacks

Some sat channels stretch 3 by 4 material with expensive, hi tech methods that are much better than the stretch modes built into televisions.


IB


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/14941868
> 
> 
> So they, maybe, fixed green. What about the other colors?



This is all positive news


However


I hope they're also doing something about BLUE materials and chemicals (because these are the worst performers))


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-

Is this burn in OLED problem something people have dreamt up because OLED material burns up, though very slowly, or is it an actual concern?


If OLED has a half life of 60000 hours then burn in should be just as much a problem as it was in high quality CRT televisions, in other words no problem what so ever.


----------



## coltsfreak18




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/14944481
> 
> 
> Is this burn in OLED problem something people have dreamt up because OLED material burns up, though very slowly, or is it an actual concern?
> 
> 
> If OLED has a half life of 60000 hours then burn in should be just as much a problem as it was in high quality CRT televisions, in other words no problem what so ever.



OR the same (or less) as plasmas nowadays with 100,000 hours (half-life). People still believe that burn-in is a big problem, when it really isn't. There was an article published about 2 years ago that said that burn-in on plasmas was reduced to the level of a CRT.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/14941868
> 
> 
> So they, maybe, fixed green. What about the other colors?



It sounds like the improvement is for all colors and the reason they mentioned green OLEDs is probably due to it having the longest lifespan.


----------



## chucky2

I wish someone would partner with someone (i.e. I don't care who it is) and produce either a 14.1" or 15.4" notebook using an OLED display. Coupled with a Blu-ray drive and a GM45, 780M, or the new 9x00 series from nVidia, that'd be one nice media notebook (not to mention all around notebook).


Seems like a perfect way to start making revenue on the OLED investment if you're an OLED manufacturer, and a perfect way to offer something the competition doesn't have if you're a notebook manufacturer...


Chuck


----------



## navychop

Sounds good to me.


----------



## Isochroma

 *TU Dresden research group raises OLED efficiency* 
*28 October 2008*


A research group of the Dresden Technical University has achieved record energy efficiencies for OLEDs. The achievement brings the organic LED technology closer to industrial volume production.


The research team achieved an efficiency of 26, 22 and 3.1 percent for red, green and blue organic LEDs which combined form a white light source. The low efficiency for blue results of physical differences — while red and green OELDs are phosphorescent light sources, their blue counterpart is a fluorescent one, resulting in lower light emission. The difference, however, can be compensated for by increasing the active size of the blue light emitter as well as sending a higher current through it, explained research group member Rico Meerheim.


In any case, the efficiency achieved is significantly higher than what was hitherto possible, in particular for the red light source. The OLED created by the Dresden team achieved a light intensity of 81, 101 and 4 lumen per watt.


The research was conducted in cooperation with Dresden-based OLED technology provider Novaled AG. A company spokesperson said the research results advances the OLED technology significantly. In comparison with silicon-based LEDs, Novaled claims OLEDs offer better displays with higher contrast, better color intensity, lower energy consumption, and an extreme viewing angle. In addition, OLEDs allow designers to build ultra-thin displays. Currently, only Japanese consumer electronics vendor Sony Corp. commercializes large OLED displays in a TV screen.


----------



## Superman07

Looks like Samsung is showing off some new OLED devices of their own. First, they are trumping Sony's 0.3mm unit with a 0.05mm unit (impressive). Second, they are showing a semi-transparent display (nice!).


Pictures and details: http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/29/s...apping-oled-p/


----------



## erik1974

Wow the FPD international bring some major OLED news!


Samsung shows alongside the 14-inch and 31 inch OLED Panels a new OLED TV prototype a 40 inch FULL HD OLED Television.


Samsung SDI has been working on its prototype 40-inch OLED screen, already the largest OLED screen yet seen, and the latest model now offers full high definition.

http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-...ull-hd-oled-tv 



CMEL aTaiwanese display maker has developed a 25-inch screen that's less than a millimeter thick at the FPD INternational.

The screen has a resolution of 1,366 pixels by 768 pixels (WXGA) and can display 16.7 million colors.


http://www.oled-display.net/cmel-sho...llimeter-thick


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Superman07* /forum/post/14963108
> 
> 
> Looks like Samsung is showing off some new OLED devices of their own. First, they are trumping Sony's 0.3mm unit with a 0.05mm unit (impressive). Second, they are showing a semi-transparent display (nice!).
> 
> 
> Pictures and details: http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/29/s...apping-oled-p/



That is some crazy cool [email protected]!!


----------



## Isochroma

 *LG Display showcases new AMOLED prototypes* 
*29 October 2008*













LG Display Showcases also new OLED Prototypes at FPD International 2008

LG Display will reveal its differentiated technology centering on the themes of ‘environment friendly’, ‘distinctive design’ and ‘AMOLED’.


LG Display announce some new AMOLED products which are receiving the spotlight as the next-generation display.
4-inch flexible AMOLED with qVGA resolution
Small- and mid-size AMOLED products in the 3-inch to 4.3-inch range
15-inch and 19-inch AMOLED products

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung shows 40 inch FULL HD OLED TV* 
*29 October 2008*













Samsung shows alongside the 14-inch and 31 inch OLED Panels a new OLED TV prototype a 40 inch FULL HD OLED Television.


Samsung SDI has been working on its prototype 40-inch OLED screen, already the largest OLED screen yet seen, and the latest model now offers full high definition.


Sporting a sign proclaiming "The world's 1st, world's largest," the display caught the eye of many show attendees and there was often a small crowd gathered around the family of prototypes.


Samsung first announced development of a 40-inch OLED panel in 2005. At that time the screen had a 1,280 pixel by 800 pixel resolution but the new panel has full high-def 1,920 pixels by 1,080 pixels, which in addition to being higher resolution than the previous model is also a TV panel resolution while the previous screen was a computer panel resolution.


Another change between the two models is a big jump in contrast ratio, from 5,000:1 on the previous prototype to 1 million:1 on the new screen.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung SDI VP Indicates OLED Panel Roadmap in Keynote Session* 
*29 October 2008*













"It is Samsung SDI that is supplying OLED panel products now," said Ho Kyoon Chung, executive vice president and CTO, Corporate R&D Center, Samsung SDI Co Ltd of Korea, in the FPD Summit (keynote session) at the "FPD International 2007 Forum" October 24.


He presented the company's OLED panel roadmap and said, "OLED panels have opened the new era of organic optoelectronics. Not only displays but also new applications such as OLED lighting systems, organic electro-luminescent power generators and organic sensors will emerge in the near future."


"In the mobile display industry, the shift from monochrome to color displays formed the first wave, the realization of high-resolution TFT panels made the second wave and active matrix OLED panels will be the third wave," Chung said. "The OLED panel market will grow to US$3.7 billion in 2010."


Regarding the company's production scale, "We initiated OLED panel volume production in September 2007 and our current output is 1.5 million units per month on a 2-inch panel basis," he said. "The output will reach 3 million units per month in 2008.".


Explaining the company's product development roadmap, Chung said, "Following small panels used in 2007, 3.5- to 7-inch panels including 4.1-inch panels will be applied to ultra mobile PCs, for example, in 2008. Then we will realize 14-, 15- and 21-inch panels in 2009 and *large 40- to 42-inch full HD (high definition) OLED TVs in 2010*."


"We will provide a flexible OLED display by 2012 at the latest," he added.


As for OLED lighting systems, Chung said, "It won't be long before we commercialize them," because the OLED's light emitting efficiency is currently doubling every year. The company currently achieves 50lm/W luminance, a life of 20,000 hours till the initial luminance halves and a color rendering property of more than 80 colors.


"Our cost goal is 1 euro cent per lumen," said Chung.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CMEL shows 25-inch OLED Display that's less than a millimeter thick* 
*29 October 2008*













CMEL, a Taiwanese display maker has developed a 25-inch screen that's less than a millimeter thick at the FPD International.


The screen has a resolution of 1,366 pixels by 768 pixels (WXGA) and can display 16.7 million colors.


Chi Mei EL's previous thinnest prototype was 3 mm thick but the company managed to slim this down by adopting a new production method, said Leonard Fu, a product manager with the company.


Chi Mei EL is a display off-shoot from Taiwan's Chi Mei Optoelectronics. It was formed in 2004 to develop OLED displays and the company already sells a number of small-size panels for use in portable electronics devices.


Dainippon Screen MFG Co Ltd developed an integrated manufacturing system to produce large OLED panels through coating processes.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Dainippon Screen Employs Coating Process to Roll Large OLED Panels* 
*29 October 2008*























Dainippon Screen MFG Co Ltd developed an integrated manufacturing system to produce large OLED panels through coating processes.


Dainippon Screen and E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co (DuPont) jointly established a new OLED manufacturing process based on the "multi-nozzle printing method," which uses DuPont's soluble low-molecular-weight organic EL material. And the companies employed this process for the new manufacturing system.


The system is applicable to the sizes of the fourth generation and later substrates. It is equipped with functions to feed and clean substrate, form a multilayer film with a linear coater, selectively coat portions of a substrate by nozzle-printing to form a light emitting layer and dry the resultant substrate.


The system has a monthly throughput of 10,000 panels per line. Dainippon Screen plans to put the system on the market by the end of fiscal 2009.


In May 2008, Dainippon Screen and DuPont signed an agreement to jointly develop a technology to manufacture large OLED panels at a low cost. And, since then, they have adavnced the joint development of a coating process for low-molecular-weight organic materials. The latest integrated manufacturing system features a high material utilization efficiency and is capable of mass-producing large OLED panels at a low cost.


In the coating processing according to the nozzle printing method, the nozzle is brought closer to a substrate and moved at a high speed while continuously ejecting a solution; as a result, linear patterns of the light emitting layer are formed on the substrate.


The system is designed to achieve a uniform film thickness and effectively use materials. It allows high-speed coating at a takt time of three minutes per fourth-generation substrate.


Dainippon Screen will present the outline of the system and exhibit a 4.3-inch (480 x 272) OLED panel manufactured by the related technology at FPD International 2008, which runs from Oct 29 to 31, 2008 in Yokohama, Japan.


Meanwhile, the backplane was manufactured by Chi Mei EL Corp of Taiwan.


----------



## vtms

 http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20081029/fpd1.htm


----------



## MikeBiker

All the OLED displays are showing lots of red and a little blue. Why no green?


----------



## Isochroma

 *“FPD International 2008” commencement − Samsung SDI exhibiting 40" type organic EL and 4K PDP etc* 
*29 October 2008*











*Samsung 40" OLED*











*1,000,000:1 Contrast Ratio*











*8.9mm Depth*











*Super Grain Silicon*











*Super MicroCavity Bottom Emission structure*











*FMM evaporation technology*



Samsung SDI exhibiting 40 type full HD organic EL displays. 40 types become world's largest as organic EL. As for resolution 1,920x1,080 dot. As for contrast ratio 1,000,000:1, as for brightness 200 cd/m2. As for depth 8.9mm.


Without using the laser, actualizing enlargement SGS which does crystallization (Super Grain Silicon) making use of technology. In addition, the bottom emission structure that was improved, improvement of brightness and color reappearance is difficult, to adopt Super MicroCavity Bottom Emission structure, with improvement of luminous efficiency improvement color reproducibility. You say that 107% color reappearance was made possible at NTSC ratio.


In addition, low also with the adoption and the like of resistant wiring process electric power consumption conversion actualizes low. It installs also the pixel control technology which controls unevenness. FMM (Fine Metal Mask) you adopt evaporation technology to film manufacture, correspond to large picture conversion.


It exhibits also the full HD panel of 31" types and the organic EL panel of 14" type 1,366x768 dots in addition to 40" types/full HD as organic EL for the television. As for 31" types as for Super MicroCavity Bottom Emission structure and 14" types with top emission structure, together as for contrast ratio 1,000,000:1, as for brightness 200 cd/m2. But as for mass production schedule undecided, as for development we assume that consecutively it keeps advancing.


In addition, for portable equipment such as 5" type 800x480 dots and 3.7" type 800x480 dots large number it exhibits also the organic EL panel.


Furthermore, the super thin-shaped organic EL display, “Flapping Display” 0.05mm the reference exhibition. The kind of scantness which flutters in the wind with is a special feature, as for size 4" types. As for resolution 480x272 dot, as for contrast 100,000:1, as for brightness 200 cd/m2. It displays bending possible organic EL “Foldable Display”. You say that from the fact that it is bent to half utilization by portable telephone and the like is developed in consideration.


The object of the display rear being transparent, it is visible, it displays also “Transparent AMOLED”. By the adoption and the like of top emission structure, being able to guarantee the transmissivity of 30%, or more being able to verify also “the far side” of display is a special feature. Application with the car and the interior and military use is supposed. As for resolution 320×240 dot.

*Displaying also LG and CHE MEI organic EL. PDP road map*































*LG 19" OLED*



With the booth of CHE MEI, displaying organic EL of thickness 0.9mm with 25" types. As for resolution 1,366x768 dot, as for contrast ratio 10,000:1 or more, by comparison with the existing liquid crystal television, scantness is appealed on the front.


With the booth of LG DISPLAY, the technical exhibition of the full HD liquid crystal television, thickness 11.8mm with 47 types is done. Is actualized super thin-shaped conversion with such as the side LED and device of LED arrangement. Furthermore, it displays also organic EL display in addition to the demonstration of 240Hz drive and LED back light.


As for the maximum size of organic EL of the same company with 19" types, as for resolution 1,024x768 dot. As for contrast 100,000:1 or more, as for brightness 200 cd/m2. In addition, you line up also 4.3" type / 3.7" type wide QVGA and the like for the portable player.


----------



## Superman07

I'll take one of each please.










I'm curious what the prices on these would be. Probably back to the $8k level for a 40"? Assuming the technology sticks it will probably be 4-5 years before the pricing comes down to todays levels for comprable sized sets.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14966398



The 31" OLED TV that they have been showing off does not appear on their products roadmap. Apparently we are headed directly toward 40"/42".


----------



## wco81

Briefly scanned the Engadget entry about the 40-inch Samsung.


Said something like the PQ wasn't that great (despite 1,000,000:1 CR and 107% NTSC color gamut), but made it sound like it's to be expected at this stage.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/14973685
> 
> 
> Briefly scanned the Engadget entry about the 40-inch Samsung.
> 
> 
> Said something like the PQ wasn't that great (despite 1,000,000:1 CR and 107% NTSC color gamut), but made it sound like it's to be expected at this stage.



Well... from the road map, a 40" model won't be shipping for another 2 years, so I'm sure there is time to make improvements.







Not sure if I want to wait that long to buy one though.







Only one more year till I can replace my CRT computer monitor with an OLED!


----------



## Isochroma

 *'40-inch OLED Panel Is Largest Size Possible,' Samsung Says* 
*30 October 2008*











*Samsung SDI's 40-inch OLED panel*











*It is 8.9mm thick.*



Samsung SDI Co Ltd exhibited a 40-inch OLED panel that features a full HD resolution of 1920 x 1080, a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1, a color gamut of 107% NTSC and a luminance of 200 cd/m2 (peak luminance of 600 cd/m2) at FPD International 2008.


Though there were some vertical line defects, the panel appeared to have a luminance peculiar to OLED displays.


The driver board is a low-temperature poly-Si TFT, and it is made by the super grain silicon (SGS) technology to grow crystals without using a laser.


"Our low temperature poly-Si TFT mass-production line cannot make panels larger than 31 inches," a Samsung staffer said. "This 40-inch TFT panel is the largest size that can be made on our pilot line, and it cannot be mass-produced right away."


The RGB organic light emitting materials were formed by vapor deposition. The company used a fine metal mask (FMM). Fluorescent materials are used for red and green, while a phosphorescent material is used for blue, the staffer said.


"In order to reduce variations in luminance, the panel incorporates a circuit that equalizes the current in the screen," the staffer said.


It is a bottom emission type display with a microcavity structure employed to improve the color gamut.


----------



## chadmak09

So my guess is it will be some time before a 50-60 inch OLED will hit the shelves huh?


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chadmak09* /forum/post/14975874
> 
> 
> So my guess is it will be some time before a 50-60 inch OLED will hit the shelves huh?



If we extrapolate the roadmap (sizes double each year between 2007 and 2010), I would say 2011







.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chadmak09* /forum/post/14975874
> 
> 
> So my guess is it will be some time before a 50-60 inch OLED will hit the shelves huh?



It will be much longer time before a 50-60 inch TV is a mainstream product. Take that into account







In the same way, OLED market will begin on the small gadgets, then will move to laptops and then to desktop monitors, before it even hits the mass produced televisions. Later big televisions will be developed once the mass production of such panels is profitable. An identical roadmap to the LCD one.


So... yes, youre right. But I felt obligated to take the sarcasm away.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung 40-inch Full-HD OLED display unveiled* 
*29 October 2008*























Samsung’s flexible OLED panel isn’t the only display the company has been showing off this week; they’ve also wheeled out a 40-inch OLED screen capable of full 1920 x 1080 high-definition resolution. The new panel also has a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio.


The prototype is an update of a previous 40-inch OLED display, which Samsung first began developing in 2005. That first screen, while the same size, had a resolution of just 1,280 x 800 and a 5,000:1 contrast ratio. Samsung demonstrated the latest model alongside the 14-inch and 31-inch prototypes it recently unveiled at IMID in Korea.


At 40-inches full-HD, the panel is a world-first. Samsung has given no indication of if or when this specific display will be commercialized, but the company has previously claimed that AMOLED screens will become economically feasible in 2009.


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14999730
> 
> *Samsung 40-inch Full-HD OLED display unveiled*
> *29 October 2008*


 http://lifestyle.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10175 


Year ago, Samsung was advertising their new thin LCD prototype WITH THE SAME PICTURES. Now they are recycling the same images to demonstrate new OLEDs.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/14977973
> 
> 
> An identical roadmap to the LCD one.



Computer monitors and laptop screens are a given IMO. The roadmap shows the 40"-42" size range because that is where the largest volume of sales are at the moment. If that size moves to 50", I am sure they will change along with it.


Note that the article said the "pilot line" was maxed out at 40", which means that after the proof of production and development is done on that line, they will still have to set up other production lines for anything bigger. That next line could just as easily be running 46", 50" or 55".


When 2010 finally gets here (just 2 short years before the doom of 2012, ha) who knows what the biggest selling size will be for FPD's, that will determine the size that Samsung will ultimately produce.


----------



## stepmback

I have a comment to make or rather an observation about the quest for a thin (in mm) OLED tv. While thin is nice, there is a limit to the true functionality of thin. Aren't these TVs going to require cable inputs (HDMI or component) which will more than likely make them fatter? I can see a thin 1 mm tv on the wall with some external wired device (hub) for the inputs, but what good is that?


Unless they can truely integrate inputs and make them wireless (not even close for prime time) then the fact that the TV is 1 mm thick does make much difference to me if it is fat in other areas that are designed to allow for inputs.


Give me a color accurate, bright, incredible contrast, large (60 + incheds) AFFORABLE OLED (in 4 K range) this is 1 inch think and I am sold. I could care less if it is .5 inches thick or 1 mm thick.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stepmback* /forum/post/15010204
> 
> 
> I have a comment to make or rather an observation about the quest for a thin (in mm) OLED tv. While thin is nice, there is a limit to the true functionality of thin. Aren't these TVs going to require cable inputs (HDMI or component) which will more than likely make them fatter? I can see a thin 1 mm tv on the wall with some external wired device (hub) for the inputs, but what good is that?
> 
> 
> Unless they can truely integrate inputs and make them wireless (not even close for prime time) then the fact that the TV is 1 mm thick does make much difference to me if it is fat in other areas that are designed to allow for inputs.
> 
> 
> Give me a color accurate, bright, incredible contrast, large (60 + incheds) AFFORABLE OLED (in 4 K range) this is 1 inch think and I am sold. I could care less if it is .5 inches thick or 1 mm thick.



This has been brought up before and it is a valid question.


The ability to hook up cables and at least power is one thing, but what would provide the structural stiffness the panel would require at 1mm, 3mm, or even 6mm thick? Something has to keep the panel itself from flexing and causing damage.


----------



## chadmak09




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/15010751
> 
> 
> This has been brought up before and it is a valid question.
> 
> 
> The ability to hook up cables and at least power is one thing, but what would provide the structural stiffness the panel would require at 1mm, 3mm, or even 6mm thick? Something has to keep the panel itself from flexing and causing damage.




I have been wondering about this also.

IMO once you get to a certain point with thin-ness (1-2 inches), the rest is kinda pointless.

Whats the point of having a paper thin display?

Sure its cool but thats about it.

And how does a regular monitor power cord plug into a 1mm display??

Maybe it as a special type of cord?


----------



## Isochroma

Just like the current Sony, the display is attached via dedicated internal connections. The base is where power, video, USB, etc. plug in. All new ultrathin LCDs and PDPs will also have base-plugs only, also by necessity.


And about stiffness, ever seen an airplane wing? Plenty thin and plenty strong. Less than a foot thick usually, and carries multiple tons of fuselage and cargo. Carbon-fibre composites, etc. already on the market provide more than enough stiffness for large-size thin OLEDs.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/14999730
> 
> *Samsung 40-inch Full-HD OLED display unveiled*
> *29 October 2008*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms* /forum/post/15000213
> 
> http://lifestyle.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10175
> 
> 
> Year ago, Samsung was advertising their new thin LCD prototype WITH THE SAME PICTURES. Now they are recycling the same images to demonstrate new OLEDs.



slashgear reused that LCD picture for their OLED article but I doubt that Samsung had anything to do with that.


----------



## wco81

My guess is it's initially about style.


But one of the possibilities of OLED is flexible displays, which you could roll up and take elsewhere, isn't it?


----------



## Isochroma

Rollups would work at certain size ranges, but I suspect it would be harder to make the surface stay flat and wrinkle-free bigger than 32". Perhaps little weights could be hung from the two lower corners. Deployment systems could be borrowed from projector screens too: roll-down displays! With wall-mounted clip-on tensioners at the bottom.


----------



## stepmback

My gut tells me that the industry wants displays to have the style of wallpaper. Displays that are virtually flush with the wall. We already have items hanging on our walls that are an inch thick and I do not hear people complaining... they are called picture frames and I have about 20 of them throughout my house.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Global and China OLED Market Report* 
*6 November 2008*


Researchinchina.com a new Global and China OLED Market Report 2007-2012


As the development trend of next generation display technology, OLED is still highly concerned.


In the year of 2007, influenced by shipment reduction of Samsung and LG in 2007Q3, growth rate of global OLED shipment was just 11.7%, and growth rate of shipment value was 7.6%.


Global OLED production capacity mainly distributes in Korea, Japan and China Taiwan; shipment of the top five manufacturers accounts for 98.7% of global total. However, occident companies hold core production technology of OLED such as Kodak and CDT. Although Japan possesses relevant production strength, due to the high cost, the OLED development momentum in Japan is not as good as in Korea.


OLED is mainly applied in mobile phone sub-screen and MP3 player, and the shipment for those two applications was 53.59 million and 25.22million respectively in 2007, together accounted for 85.0% of total shipment. With the maturity of OLED technology, more OLED applications will drive the industry to develop rapidly.


OLED technology is moving towards AMOLED. For example, Samsung had expanded its AMOLED production capacity; LG has turned to AMOLED from PMOLED.


China is a key mobile phone and MP3 manufacturing country in the world, it has a great demand on OLED. However, China still relies on OLED import.


Global OLED industry is still on its initial stage, OLED technologies are highly self-protected.


Compared with TFTLCD, OLED has relative simple production process and less investment (about US$10 million, which is only 1/10 of TFTLCD).


In China, more and more potential investors from home appliance, communication and LCD sectors are keep an eye on OLED, so far china has over 30 OLED manufacturers.


OLED production line of Beijing Visionox Technology Co., Ltd will be put into mass production in the second half of 2008.


----------



## moreHD

Hey there,


What comes next after the 11 inch sony, and when?

Anything in Q1 and Q2 of 2009?


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/15011513
> 
> 
> And about stiffness, ever seen an airplane wing? Plenty thin and plenty strong. Less than a foot thick usually, and carries multiple tons of fuselage and cargo. Carbon-fibre composites, etc. already on the market provide more than enough stiffness for large-size thin OLEDs.



Yes but the wing on a B747-400 will flex up during flight over 30 feet from its original position. The components of the wing and the structure of the wing are made with this in mind. Carbon Fiber components will flex even more. Most comercial planes are built this way.


I am just saying that your analogy is not very good. In the short term at least, OLED will still be made on .7mm glass substrates. In the airplane wing example, a 42" screen would have to be able to flex ~7" from one end to the other. I for one can say that I am not comfortable with that.


On the other hand a very thin display with the tuners and other inputs in a separate box makes service of everything but the screen just that much easier. It also eliminates a large number of cables that have to be ran through the wall as well to just 2, power and display.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moreHD* /forum/post/15047423
> 
> 
> Hey there,
> 
> 
> What comes next after the 11 inch sony, and when?
> 
> Anything in Q1 and Q2 of 2009?



Sony spoke of having a 27" model by Q2 of 2009 (XEL-2?). CES 2009 is in January, so more info on potential OLED TVs will likely be unveiled there.


----------



## borf

I thought carbon fiber/epoxy laminate is just about the stiffest, most brittle material known to man.


----------



## rykerabel

laminating does make the carbon epoxy sheets stiffer... than sheets (which are not stiff at all).


carbon is brittle, epoxy is not, together they can be made with a very wide range of brittleness/maleability.


compare to a composite bow (archery) that laminates wood to make it stiffer and less brittle than wood alone. This make for extremely powerful bows, but they do still flex.


----------



## ferro

Another OLED achievement: high pixel density. Apparently MICROOLED and CEA-LETI have designed a 0.38" display with a resolution of 560,000 pixels (1.7 million subpixels). According to their press release this is 2 to 4 times more than other emissive technologies, and 4 times more power efficient.


----------



## rykerabel

OLED still has competition in FED:
http://www.sonyinsider.com/2008/11/1...a-fed-display/


----------



## ferro

 *South Korean scientists claim to develop 'true blue' for OLED screen* 


South Korean scientists claimed Sunday to have developed an efficient "true blue" material that can accelerate the development of next-generation organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays.

The development was announced by Pusan National University chemistry professor Jin Sung-Ho, who has led a joint state-funded project with Seoul National University engineers.


South Korea, the world's largest producer of liquid crystal displays (LCDs), is trying hard to develop more efficient OLED screens.


OLEDs must be made to mix green, red and blue lights. Scientists have developed efficient green and red OLED materials but they have had problems making a true blue OLED material.


Jin said his discovery would allow the creation of "energy efficient" OLED displays. Compared to LCDs, OLEDs offer a greater field of vision, better colour quality and require less power.


----------



## Brimstone-1

If I'm understanding Kodak, they believe all white oled using color filters is the best way to build large sized OLED TVs (WRGB).


If that is the case, the lifespan of Red, Green, and Blue OLED materials aren't going to matter for the companies building TVs with the Kodak method.


----------



## ferro

* Samsung Expects Larger OLED Panels on Mobile Devices, VP Says *

Dec 2, 2008 20:57

Masao Oonishi, Nikkei Microdevices


"The warranty period against image burn-in for active-matrix OLED panels is expected to exceed 2,000 hours in 2010, and these panels will be available for laptops," said Woo Jong Lee, vice president of the Mobile Display Marketing Team of Samsung SDI Co Ltd.


He made this comment in the keynote speech for the 3rd TSR Seminar (hosted by Techno Systems Research Co Ltd), which took place in Tokyo, Nov 27, 2008.


In the speech, Lee explained about the future availability of active-matrix OLED panels in mobile devices. First, he pointed out their advantages such as a wide operating temperature range, an excellent compatibility with touch screens, a low environmental load at disposal and a high recyclability. Then, he said that OLED panels meeting the demands of product assembly manufacturers will be used in laptops, which have the most demanding requirements, as early as 2010.


Because OLED panels are all-semiconductor devices, a revolution in the area of, for example, flexible displays will happen once again, Lee said. He claimed that touch-screens will be the standard in mobile devices and that OLED panels have a higher noise resistance than TFT LCD panels because they are driven by DC power.


"Though the ultimate form is in-cell touch panel, capacitance touch-screen will be the mainstream for the next five or six years," he said.


Lee pointed out that entertainment content, especially videos, will be killer applications due to the increase in wireless communication speed. Under such circumstances, OLED panels will be available for use in smartphones and small mobile PCs equipped with larger screens.


"We are expecting 5-inch or larger OLED panels to be the mainstream in 2009 or 2010," he said.


Also, Lee forecast that OLED panels will be priced at about 1.1 times the price of LED panels by 2015 and that 28% of all laptops will feature an OLED panel. Samsung is promoting various kinds of projects utilizing a paper-thin OLED panel embeddable in passports and cards, a car navigation system with a transparent OLED panel installed on the vehicle windshield and so forth.


"Samsung will be ready to offer a greater diversity of applications in about two to three years," he said.


In the keynote speech, Lee introduced himself as the vice president of Samsung Mobile Display Co Ltd. Samsung Mobile Display is a joint venture between Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung SDI and slated for launch in January 2009. The venture company will specialize in the production and development of small- to medium-size panels. Lee said that he is already working under the new company's name.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Worldwide OLED Revenues Up 60% Y/Y in Q3'08, But Still Face Strong Price Competition from LCDs; RiTdisplay #1 in OLED Shipments, Passing Samsung SDI* 
*10 December 2008*


AUSTIN, TEXAS, December 10, 2008In its latest Q4'08 Quarterly OLED Shipment and Forecast Report, DisplaySearch reported that the worldwide OLED display revenue in Q3'08 was US$141 million, down 11% Q/Q but up 60% Y/Y.


Chi Mei EL, the #2 supplier of AMOLED displays, posted record high shipments in Q3'08, while the leading AMOLED supplier Samsung SDIwhich will merge with Samsung Electronics' small/medium business to form Samsung Mobile Display in Januaryexperienced lower shipments Q/Q. As a result, AMOLED shipments increased only slightly compared to Q2'08, reaching 1.7 million units.


After a strong Q2, PMOLED shipments were affected by reductions in mobile phone sub-display orders, so shipments fell 22% Q/Q. However, most of the shipment reduction was in monochrome PMOLED, while area color and full color PMOLED gained popularity. This led to an increase in average selling price for OLEDs in Q3'08.


OLED displays have very attractive performance: wide viewing angle, wide color gamut at all gray scales, fast response time, low power consumption, thin/light weight and wide operating temperature. Lifetime has improved dramatically in recent years, and red and green lifetimes are long enough for many consumer electronic applications. Despite this, OLEDs still face strong price competition from TFT LCDs and PM LCDs, said Jennifer Colegrove, PhD, Director of Display Technologies at DisplaySearch.


The OLED display industry is changing rapidly, with new companies entering the business, existing companies expanding capacity or exiting the market, and other companies changing their application focus, added Dr. Colegrove.


In its latest Q4'08 Quarterly OLED Shipment and Forecast Report, DisplaySearch analyzes the dynamic of OLED display industry: shipments by each supplier; AMOLED vs. PMOLED; small molecule vs. polymer; monochrome vs. area color vs. full color; and shipments by application, such as mobile phone main display, sub-display, MP3, auto console, car audio, digital still camera, near-eye, TV and others.


RiTdisplay passed Samsung SDI to take the lead in total OLED shipments with 36% market share. Samsung SDI is #2 in shipments, but still the leader in total OLED revenues thanks to its AMOLED shipments. TDK passed Pioneer to become #3 in shipments at 17%, while Pioneer fell to the #4 position at 12%; Univision was #5. The top five suppliers accounted for over 95% of total OLED shipments in Q3'08, as shown in the following table.


----------



## Isochroma

 *2008 is almost over...what will 2009 hold for OLEDs?* 
*19 December 2008*

*2008, the year of the OLED?*


When 2008 began we thought that this will finally be the 'year of the OLED'. Sony, Samsung, CMEL and LG geared up to start making AMOLEDs, which huge investments (over 1 Billion dollars, in total). Other companies such as Toshiba and Panasonic also joined the OLED camp.


We saw the first bunch of gadgets using the new 2" to 4" AMOLED displays (most of them made by Samsung SDI) - mobile phones (such as the Nokia N85), A/V players from iRiver and Cowon and other devices.


In the OLED light world, we had the world's first OLED lamp released by OSRAM, and advancements were announced almost every week - from OSRAM, GE, Kodak, Konica-Minolta, Philips, UDC and more. Companies predicted they will start selling OLED lamp products in 2009-2011 - Philips even started shipping product samples to 'designers'.


Towards the end of 2008, the tone was less enthusiastic. The economy is shaken, and companies are less optimistic - Samsung are not so sure about OLED TVs any more, LG and Panasonic seem to be more 'cautious', Samsung SDI's AMOLED sales has dropped and a couple of companies have been closed (MED, OLED-T).

*So what will 2009 hold?*


Our guess is that the small 'mobile' AMOLEDs will continue to grow strong. It is most likely that we'll see dozens of new A/V players, mobile phones and digital cameras that include such displays. The biggest market is probably mobile phones, and hopefully Nokia and Samsung will continue to introduce new models with AMOLEDs, with other companies will have to start doing the same - Sony Ericsson, Motorola and LG. We're all still waiting for Apple to make an OLED iPod or iPhone - who knows, they might finally try it in 2009...


At the end of 2009 CMEL introduced the largest available AMOLED - 7.6", as used in Kodak's 999$ photo frame. The price of these panels (currently very high) will probably drop quickly, and in 2009 we'll see more devices using those panels.


In May 2008 Sony announced that they'll release a 27" OLED TV (the XEL-2?) within 12 months - which means by May 2009. Samsung are working on 14.1" and 31" displays. The 14.1" ones are for laptops, which will enjoy the power efficiency and might accept the higer prices of the OLEDs. Samsung said these will be officialy announced at CES 2009 (January), and will be available by 2010. They might be able to even make them in 2009...


In 2008 we saw some pretty cool new OLED prototypes - flexible thin displays, foldable phones, transparent 'windows' with embedded OLEDs, and even a 40" High-Def OLED TV by Samsung. Even though these are exciting, it's hard to believe that any flexible displays will become available in 2009 - it will take several more years for this technology to mature.

*2009 - OLED lighting year?*


We predict that the most exciting news will come from the field of white-light OLEDs. Hopefully the quick advances in OLED white light efficiency will continue during 2009. If Philips will hold true to their word, they will start selling products in 2009, with GE following suit at 2010.


So is it likely that real, commercially priced OLED lamps will be available? Will 2009 be the year of the OLED light bulb? Our bet is to wait till 2010... but we'll be happy to be wrong on that one.

*What are your own predictions?*


We'd love to hear your own predictions - tell us what you think will happen in 2009!


----------



## pengilly

exciting news for sure....I really enjoyed reading this thread!!


----------



## hoodlum

Looks like Sony won't be producing 27" OLEDs in 2009 due to slowing LCD TV sales. I suspect Samsung and others will follow.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/rss/nb20081220a3.html 


"Referring to its next-generation thin TVs equipped with organic light-emitting diode displays, Sony will "accelerate development for OLED TVs as planned," Chubachi said, adding, however, that the company has to postpone investment for the mass production of them in view of slowing LCD TV sales."


----------



## moreHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/15340551
> 
> *What are your own predictions?*



My prediction is: 23" Samsung OLED tv - $ 5,000. in November 2009.

Nothing from Sony.


----------



## greenland

Researchers at University of Florida claim big efficiency gains in Blue OLED.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/23/r...of-blue-oleds/ 


Excerpt:


"Reportedly, a gaggle of whiz-kids from the University of Florida have "achieved a new record in efficiency of blue organic light-emitting diodes, and because blue is essential to white light, the advance helps overcome a hurdle to lighting that is much more efficient than compact fluorescents." Franky So (pictured) and his diligent crew were able to reach a peak blue OLED efficiency of 50 lumens per watt, which is halfway to his goal of at least 100 lumens per watt."


----------



## Artwood

Will OLED make it past 50-inches by 2015?


----------



## S. Hiller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/15370692
> 
> 
> Will OLED make it past 50-inches by 2015?



Yes.


----------



## wco81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/15370692
> 
> 
> Will OLED make it past 50-inches by 2015?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *S. Hiller* /forum/post/15370773
> 
> 
> Yes.



Will it do so before SED or some other tech?


----------



## Artwood

Exactly when will OLED break the 50-inch barrier?


----------



## S. Hiller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/15374617
> 
> 
> Exactly when will OLED break the 50-inch barrier?



April 17, 2011.


(Joking, but of course it will by 2015, unless the tech does an SED. And maybe a 50" at the next CES courtesy of Samsung, according to some of the rumors...)


----------



## navychop

I like that: "does an SED."


Hope not, but it's a catchy expression, for those in the know, and not living on de Nile.


----------



## neo1022




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *S. Hiller* /forum/post/15374744
> 
> 
> April 17, 2011.



You mean April 1, 2011?


----------



## rgb32

Well... only 11 more days till CES 2009. Maybe SED will rise from the dead!


----------



## navychop

I'll bring the silver bullets, you bring the wooden stake.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Cheaper OLED TV on the horizon* 
*22 December 2008*




*Upper Left: Flexible TFT using Amorphous Oxide Semiconductor

Upper Right: Prototype of Flexible Electronic Paper Display

Bottom: Close-up of Prototype using Amorphous Oxide Semiconductor TFT (on glass substrate)*



Samsung has developed an improved manufacturing process for the manufacture of OLED TV's which is set to dramatically cut the cost of their production.


OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) technology is based on organic materials which emit light naturally after an electrical charge is passed through them. OLED pixels generate their own light which brings a whole host of technological advantages. Every OLED prototype we have seen produces brighter, sharper images while using less power than any plasma or LCD TV.


OLED and LCD TV's use the same fundamental technology to create an image. A set of transistors (TFT) instruct the pixels which colour to display in order to create the image.


Previously, the set of transistors in OLED/LCD TV's have been made of amorphous silicon which is not only expensive to produce but prone to failure. Samsung have developed amorphous oxide TFTs, which are much more cost effective and reliable.


The new technology can actually be applied to LCD, AM OLED, thin film solar cell and LED. Amorphous Oxide TFT's can integrate into current LCD panel mass production processes and potentially lower manufacturing cost significantly.


----------



## navychop

More good news. Things really seem to be happening faster and faster.


----------



## ferro

 OQO's Next UMPC Will Include OLED Touchscreen 

BY: Ed Hardy, Brighthand.com Editor

PUBLISHED: 1/1/2009


OQO is set to unveil an updated version of it Ultra Mobile PC. Like its predecessors, this will be a tiny PC running the regular version of Windows, but the upcoming model will add some new features, including an OLED touchscreen.











OQO's current UMPC, the model 2, looks like a slightly larger than normal handheld, but runs either Windows XP or Vista.


The current version uses a track stick pointing device to control a cursor, but the next edition -- the OQO model 2+ -- will add a touchscreen. Rather than this being a standard LED, this will be an organic LED, which should use less power.


But this won't be the only change. The upcoming model will be based on a 1.86 GHz Intel Atom processor, rather than a slightly slower one from VIA as the current model does.


Also, OQO says the model 2+ will sport "worldwide 3G capability," which almost certainly means it will have HSDPA, and possible HSUPA, too. EV-DO Rev A is an option for its predecessor.


This pre-announcement information comes directly from OQO, who says the model 2+ will be unveiled at CES in mid-January.


There's no word yet on what this UMPC will cost, but the current version starts at $1,300.


----------



## Blackraven

CES 2009 expo is only a few days away......


Can't wait for more OLED news and updates here


----------



## Tommy3141

Just read a PC World report that says the 50 inch OLED at CES is a Sony. Earlier video from CNet says its a Sammy. Guess we have to wait and see. The 11 inch Sony OLED TV is just wonderful to behold. Wish I could have made it to CES this year.. maybe next.


Below is a hotlinnk and quote from the PC World article.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/15638...spotlight.html 



"Sony is rumored to show off a 50-inch OLED TV prototype. That's a big jump from its shipping 11-inch XEL-1 model. We also expect abuse of the phrase "You can't be too rich or too thin" when it comes to discussing HDTVs at this year's CES."


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung teases with 50-inch OLED TV for CES, scolds us for caring* 
*3 December 2008*


When SED development hit the brakes a few years ago, OLED technology quickly stepped in to fill the emptiness felt by our fickle hearts' desire for the blackest of blacks. Up until now, prototype OLED panels have been limited to a max size of about 40-inches. But these won't be available for consumers until 2010 or so. For now, we're "stuck with" Sony's little 11-inch XEL-1 if anyone actually wants to purchase an OLED TV for their living room kitchen. Samsung's vice president of flat panel development, HS Kim, says that Sammy "may demonstrate" a 50-inch OLED TV at CES in January but quickly tempers any enthusiasm with a crushing blow of reality,
_"I'm sure that if we marketed such a set at ten times the price of current LCD TVs, which is what it would be now, no-one would buy it."_
Kim then shifts into sales-mode by pointing out that Samsung's more power-efficient 240Hz LCDs and Plasmas with highly-reflective black panels and LED edge-lighting are quickly cutting into any advantage offered by OLEDs -- including thinness if you factor in the additional electronics you'd have to slap onto the back of those 3-mm thick OLED panels to create a TV. Of course, manufacturers can also dump all that tech into a display-side box much like Sony does with it's XEL-1, but hey, he's on a roll. When the interview with What Hi-Fi ended, Kim presumably kicked a puppy just to drive his points home.


----------



## navychop

vicious puppy!


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/15479280
> 
> *Samsung teases with 50-inch OLED TV for CES, scolds us for caring*
> *3 December 2008*
> _"I'm sure that if we marketed such a set at ten times the price of current LCD TVs, which is what it would be now, no-one would buy it."_
> Kim then shifts into sales-mode by pointing out that Samsung's more power-efficient 240Hz LCDs and Plasmas with highly-reflective black panels and LED edge-lighting are quickly cutting into any advantage offered by OLEDs -- including thinness if you factor in the additional electronics you'd have to slap onto the back of those 3-mm thick OLED panels to create a TV. Of course, manufacturers can also dump all that tech into a display-side box much like Sony does with it's XEL-1, but hey, he's on a roll. When the interview with What Hi-Fi ended, Kim presumably kicked a puppy just to drive his points home.



Just like what we've been saying here for 2 years now.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Eyes on with LG's near-production 15-inch OLED TV: come on summer* 
*7 January 2009*



























































































































While Sony's OLED TV is little more than a beautiful, 11-inch novelty, LG is swaggering dangerously close to a respectable kitchen TV with this 15-inch AMOLED TV prototype. On display here at CES and planned for a production run sometime this summer, the image is absolutely stunning -- every bit as impressive as the Sony's XEL-1. Nothing else compares to the incredible contrast achieved by these OLED displays. Have a look in the gallery -- we've got the prototype pictured with and without its chubby TV bezel. It's credit-card thin (0.8-mm) and only on Engadget.


----------



## moreHD

15-inch LG oled is as beautiful as Sony's 11".


My biggest hope is that Phillips is going to pioneer oled tv mass production together with LG.

Sony, Samsung, Panasonic want to continue selling lcds and plasmas forever. They get no respect from me.


----------



## MaXPL

phillips? they make awful stuff so i dont know why you'd want them to mass produce new tech. your biggest hope? hahaha.


anyhow, i came here to ask about OLED announcements from Samsung and Sony.


why havent they announced anything? i was expecting 32 inch OLEDs this year...


----------



## avnstf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MaXPL* /forum/post/15524873
> 
> 
> phillips? they make awful stuff so i dont know why you'd want them to mass produce new tech. your biggest hope? hahaha.
> 
> 
> anyhow, i came here to ask about OLED announcements from Samsung and Sony.
> 
> 
> why havent they announced anything? i was expecting 32 inch OLEDs this year...



hahaha


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MaXPL* /forum/post/15524873
> 
> 
> phillips? they make awful stuff so i dont know why you'd want them to mass produce new tech. your biggest hope? hahaha.
> 
> 
> anyhow, i came here to ask about OLED announcements from Samsung and Sony.
> 
> 
> why havent they announced anything? i was expecting 32 inch OLEDs this year...



All it would take is one company even phillips to take the lead. Others would then panic and come to market to not be left out.


The reason the others are so stubborn and sitting on their hands with OLED is that they want to milk their LCD plasma factories as much as they can. It is all about money.


----------



## Daviii

Has it been long since Philips forgot about making awesome High-end LCD TV's and started making "awful stuff"? haha


----------



## navychop

Do I hear black helicopters?


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/15541496
> 
> 
> Has it been long since Philips forgot about making awesome High-end LCD TV's and started making "awful stuff"? haha



Like this Cinema 21:9 LCD TV ? Hahaha.


----------



## beagle five

I love oled ever since I got to see the little sony ( man its good! ) and even if they are small I would buy one as soon as the price is at least affordable, what ever that is...


----------



## beagle five




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/15541496
> 
> 
> Has it been long since Philips forgot about making awesome High-end LCD TV's and started making "awful stuff"? haha



I am a bit in love with a new philips right now actually! one of the best tvs I have ever seen is the new LED lCD they have, its fantastic! the only thing i dont like is the scroll wheel on the remote.

its got the brightness of a LCD but the blacks of a kuro ( even better maybe!).


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/15538909
> 
> 
> All it would take is one company even phillips to take the lead. Others would then panic and come to market to not be left out.
> 
> 
> The reason the others are so stubborn and sitting on their hands with OLED is that they want to milk their LCD plasma factories as much as they can. It is all about money.



That 2500$ 11" OLED from SONY didn't induce any mass panics in the industry. It seems the economic woes sweeping through the world of electronics has hampered any and all enthusiasm for OLED technology. In that interview with the Samsung guy it is clear that their company policy has shifted from promoting OLED to talking it down as an expensive novelty in favour of talking up their current LCD offerings, such as the upcoming LED backlight Luxia line. Why would Samsung want to wet the appetites of potential customers with the holy grail of display technology still many years off when the sales of their bread and butter LCD's are about to hit a roof?


SONY is set to post more than 1 billion operating loss for this fiscal year come this march 31st and has scheduled a more than 10.000 heads being shortened and separated from their company as a result. Maybe we can hope that SONY has more vision than Samsung and will continue to invest money in bringing OLED to the market faster than everyone else. But with their economic problems, the PS3 being in the third place and sales of their LCD line going down and loosing ground to Samsung I'd say I wouldn't blame them if they mothball the whole OLED thing until all those things have been taken care off, which won't be anytime soon.


As it stands the 11" SONY OLED coming to the market so soon seems more and more like it was a just a fluke and not the beginning of the OLED floodgates being opened on the market. I was hoping to see a 40" OLED by the end of 2009 back in the beginning of 2008 but now it seems 2010 or later is a more likely date for that to happen. Meanwhile I have to cringe every time I see the subpar quality on my current inferior LCD display technology. As it stand I can't imagine I will be able to stand my current display for more than a year, unfortunately by then there still will not be a OLED TV for me to replace it with. Can't a videophile catch a break?


----------



## twinbee

After all the stuff I've read on OLED (including in this very thread), there's an issue which has only been mentioned once (it was from a single post at Slashdot who saw the Sony 11").


Flicker.


Apparently, the Sony 11" flickers like the old CRTs did. What's going on? I though these new OLEDs shone the pixel for a full 60th of a second, until the next 60th of a second, and then changed it (or switched off to black).


If this is true, then assuming a supposedly 'constant' white pixel, how much of the pixel remains white, and how much black? Is it 50/50?


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/15579676
> 
> 
> That 2500$ 11" OLED from SONY didn't induce any mass panics in the industry. It seems the economic woes sweeping through the world of electronics has hampered any and all enthusiasm for OLED technology. In that interview with the Samsung guy it is clear that their company policy has shifted from promoting OLED to talking it down as an expensive novelty in favour of talking up their current LCD offerings, such as the upcoming LED backlight Luxia line. Why would Samsung want to wet the appetites of potential customers with the holy grail of display technology still many years off when the sales of their bread and butter LCD's are about to hit a roof?
> 
> 
> SONY is set to post more than 1 billion operating loss for this fiscal year come this march 31st and has scheduled a more than 10.000 heads being shortened and separated from their company as a result. Maybe we can hope that SONY has more vision than Samsung and will continue to invest money in bringing OLED to the market faster than everyone else. But with their economic problems, the PS3 being in the third place and sales of their LCD line going down and loosing ground to Samsung I'd say I wouldn't blame them if they mothball the whole OLED thing until all those things have been taken care off, which won't be anytime soon.
> 
> 
> As it stands the 11" SONY OLED coming to the market so soon seems more and more like it was a just a fluke and not the beginning of the OLED floodgates being opened on the market. I was hoping to see a 40" OLED by the end of 2009 back in the beginning of 2008 but now it seems 2010 or later is a more likely date for that to happen. Meanwhile I have to cringe every time I see the subpar quality on my current inferior LCD display technology. As it stand I can't imagine I will be able to stand my current display for more than a year, unfortunately by then there still will not be a OLED TV for me to replace it with. Can't a videophile catch a break?



I guess I should have said "As soon as a company produces the *first decent sized and affordable* OLED then the rest will follow". That Sony OLED was pointless. It is too small, too expensive, and too low resolution to make an impact. If they would have come out with at least a 32" set at least true 720P resolution and cost $1800 it would have been a bit different.


The problem is that most of the time good is good enough for the masses. People aren't dumping their DVDs in favor of blu-ray en masse either. DVD for most people is good enough. It just isn't worth the extra cost to upgrade all af their equipment for a picture that is "a little crisper". They will just say "My old DVD player still works, and I don't notice much difference or don't care"


The same goes for TVs. Their LCD or PDP is good enough. The masses just aren't bothered much by black levels, brightness , viewing angle, response time, etc. The thing driving OLED right now is small devices where thickness and power consumption are most important.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15589475
> 
> 
> After all the stuff I've read on OLED (including in this very thread), there's an issue which has only been mentioned once (it was from a single post at Slashdot who saw the Sony 11").
> 
> 
> Flicker.
> 
> 
> Apparently, the Sony 11" flickers like the old CRTs did. What's going on? I though these new OLEDs shone the pixel for a full 60th of a second, until the next 60th of a second, and then changed it (or switched off to black).
> 
> 
> If this is true, then assuming a supposedly 'constant' white pixel, how much of the pixel remains white, and how much black? Is it 50/50?



There have been many posts on this subject. The flicker is there to prevent hold-type blurring which LCDs suffer from because they use a 100% duty cycle. The problem is that in this mode of operation the panel must increase the current through the OLED material which degrades the lifetime. I'm not sure what duty cycle the XEL-1 uses but it definitely flickers similar to a CRT.


----------



## twinbee

Interesting - thanks, obviously I haven't read enough. Is it possible for future OLED tech to avoid this? Can certain types of OLED (such as TOLED, POLED, PHOLED etc.) avoid this flickering?


Also, do you know in what proportion of black to white. Is it something like: on for 1/120th of a second, then off for a further 120th?


I think I read earlier that simply increasing the refresh rate to 120 or 240hz would prevent it too, similar to what the latest LCDs do.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15589807
> 
> 
> Interesting - thanks, obviously I haven't read enough. Is it possible for future OLED tech to avoid this? Can certain types of OLED (such as TOLED, POLED, PHOLED etc.) avoid this flickering?
> 
> 
> Also, do you know in what proportion of black to white. Is it something like: on for 1/120th of a second, then off for a further 120th?
> 
> 
> I think I read earlier that simply increasing the refresh rate to 120 or 240hz would prevent it too, similar to what the latest LCDs do.



It is far more likely that OLED will use zero flicker, 100% duty cycle type systems as this maximizes lifetime. However, at 60Hz there is considerable blur associated with this type of system. Yes, 120 or 240Hz driving can overcome the blur and still keep 100% duty cycle but you will have to get used to interpolated frame type look of the image (similar to Samsung's AMP)


----------



## neo1022




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15589807
> 
> 
> Interesting - thanks, obviously I haven't read enough. Is it possible for future OLED tech to avoid this? Can certain types of OLED (such as TOLED, POLED, PHOLED etc.) avoid this flickering?
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> I think I read earlier that simply increasing the refresh rate to 120 or 240hz would prevent it too, similar to what the latest LCDs do.



Ideally, you do not want to eliminate the actual flickering because that will cause "sample and hold" blur. Ideally, I think having the pixels scan on and off with a 120Hz or 240Hz frequency will get you the best of both worlds - no perceptible flicker and no sample and hold blur.


----------



## twinbee

Good to know that OLED can at least potentially overcome this.



> Quote:
> but you will have to get used to interpolated frame type look of the image



No interpolation if you just repeat each frame again. a, a, b, b, c, c etc..



> Quote:
> Ideally, you do not want to eliminate the actual flickering because that will cause "sample and hold" blur.



I assume you mean in the case of OLED that this holds. Intrinsically, eliminating flicker is a 'Good Thing' and doesn't necessarily lead to blur, except in the case of OLED, LCD etc where a side effect is unfortunately produced.


Am I still right in saying that no OLED type (PHOLED, TOLED etc.) will allow this holy grail then where the pixel is lit for the entirety of the 1/60th of a second, and then only (potentially) changes once that 1/60th second is complete?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15590302
> 
> 
> No interpolation if you just repeat each frame again. a, a, b, b, c, c etc..



Repeating frames has no benefit regarding blur unless duty cycle is reduced.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15590302
> 
> 
> I assume you mean in the case of OLED that this holds. Intrinsically, eliminating flicker is a 'Good Thing' and doesn't necessarily lead to blur, except in the case of OLED, LCD etc where a side effect is unfortunately produced.



Hold type blur is created on your retina irrespective of display type or technology.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15590302
> 
> 
> IAm I still right in saying that no OLED type (PHOLED, TOLED etc.) will allow this holy grail then where the pixel is lit for the entirety of the 1/60th of a second, and then only (potentially) changes once that 1/60th second is complete?



You are not right. In fact, the holy grail you speak of is actually a tradeoff that OLED needs to employ to improve lifetime. And more specifically to your question, OLED is entirely capable of 100% duty cycle (ie - lit for the entire 1/60th of second)


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15590302
> 
> 
> I assume you mean in the case of OLED that this holds. Intrinsically, eliminating flicker is a 'Good Thing' and doesn't necessarily lead to blur, except in the case of OLED, LCD etc where a side effect is unfortunately produced.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/15590484
> 
> 
> Hold type blur is created on your retina irrespective of display type or technology.



As Xrox says, the blur is caused by they way the retina reacts to an image with an 100% duty cycle. If someone designed a new type of plasma display that didn't use PWM and had an 100% duty cycle, it would also have motion artifacts.


Flicker is neither a "Good Thing" nor a "Bad Thing" intrinsically. Designers need to balance factors like flicker, blur, light output and product lifespan when deciding on the duty cycle it uses.


----------



## twinbee

Wow. Just wow.


If you guys are right, then I don't think I've been more wrong about something - this assumption I made about movement turns out to based on a faulty premise. I've often disliked 30fps refresh rates, and I suppose that seemed blurry to me, but I always thought the move to 60fps (even with full duty cycle) would remove blur completely (how wrong was I).


This is probably not the right thread to discuss this, so I may take the discussion elsewhere, but my mind is bursting with questions (of course). I'll just ask two for now:


Q1: Just to make sure we're speaking on the same wavelength, just confirm this will produce blurry motion:

(KEY: T=time in 1/60ths of a second; P1=pixel 1; P2=pixel 2 (just to the right of P1); P3=Pixel 3 (right of P2); P4=pixel 4 (right of P3) )


T p1 p2 p3 p4

0 on off off off

1 off on off off

2 off off on off

3 off off off on


That will simply show a pixel moving from left to right. So just to double check, I assume it will blur then if those measurements are followed exactly.


Q2: Will it still blur if the last fraction of a fraction (say 1/500th of a second) is pitch black? Or is something like 50%/50% better? Or perhaps mostly black is even better still where the pixel is on for a very very short time (say one tenth of 1/60th sec), and most of it remains off (nine tenths of 1/60th sec). In that last case, although the flicker is at its worst, the motion blur will be minimised almost completely I'm guessing.


It would seem the 'holy grail' has now turned into where everything is shot at 500 fps and shown at that rate too. Maybe wait another 50 years for that to develop ;D


----------



## borf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Carled* /forum/post/15591157
> 
> 
> Designers need to balance factors like flicker, blur, light output and product lifespan when deciding on the duty cycle it uses.



This is why i think some day frame rates will be raised (at the source) and these problems go away.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15591660
> 
> 
> Q1: Just to make sure we're speaking on the same wavelength, just confirm this will produce blurry motion:
> 
> T=time in 1/60ths of a second; P1=pixel 1; P2=pixel 2 (just to the right of P1); P3=Pixel 3 (right of P2); P4=pixel 4 (right of P3)
> 
> 
> T p1 p2 p3 p4
> 
> 0 on off off off
> 
> 1 off on off off
> 
> 2 off off on off
> 
> 3 off off off on
> 
> 
> That will simply show a pixel moving from left to right. So just to double check, I assume it will blur then if those measurements are followed exactly.
> 
> 
> Q2: Will it still blur if the last fraction of a fraction (say 1/500th of a second) is pitch black? Or is something like 50%/50% better? Or perhaps mostly black is even better still where the pixel is on for a very very short time (say one tenth of 1/60th sec), and most of it remains off (nine tenths of 1/60th sec). In that last case, although the flicker is at its worst, the motion blur will be minimised almost completely I'm guessing.
> 
> 
> It would seem the 'holy grail' has now turned into where everything is shot at 500 fps and shown at that rate too. Maybe wait another 50 years for that to develop ;D



You got it perfectly right. The anwer is yes to all.


Using your example think of it this way. Your eye tracks/follows that "on" pixel as it moves. Where the problem occurs is your eye tracks/follows it in a continuous analog fashion while the pixel is stationary at each location (each frame). Therefore the pixel literally draws a line on your retina in the direction your eye is moving. Ideally the pixel needs to emit light for the shortest possible time at each location to avoid drawing this line on your moving retina. Ideally the pixel should draw a dot onto your moving retina (pulse).


Simply put hold type blurring is the conflict between the continuous analog type movement of your eye with the sequential still frame of a display.


----------



## Carled

Right, the first example you gave would have retinal blur if it was done on a display with an 100% duty cycle. If it was just one pixel of an entire display that was moving, I doubt it would be very severe, though, unless it was a lot brighter than the background.


Yes, a 99.08% duty cycle would result in more blur than a 50% duty cycle. By the time you get to about ~50% problems with retinal image retention would be pretty minor at normal viewing brightness levels. A 0.17% duty cycle would have negligable blur, but quite bad flicker (ie. worse than CRT).


A high frame rate (eg. 500Hz in your example) will improve temporal resolution, but is far less important to flicker and blur than duty cycle is.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15590302
> 
> 
> No interpolation if you just repeat each frame again. a, a, b, b, c, c etc..



That is useless for SAH displays! Just note that if the duty cicle is 100%, a,a,b,b,c,c at 120Hz = a,b,c at 60Hz. The displayed picture is ALWAYS the same because there is no "off" between the frames.


If you repeat the frames on a PDP panel, for example, you get the same motion handling with less flicker. Kinda 1080p24 displayed at 72Hz on a PDP, or movies displayed at 48Hz on the cinema. That happens because you avoid SAH with a


----------



## twinbee




> Quote:
> This is why i think some day frame rates will be raised (at the source) and these problems go away.



Yes, it'd be great to have stuff shot at say 75fps or more, and then we can emulate the CRT flicker (whatever duty cycle it uses at that rate) for brilliant video. The fact that LCD makers have gone up to 120hz or more sets a good precedent for video shooters to follow.


Actually, it would be a nice idea for TV/monitor makers to allow the duty cycle to be custom, so those who prefer non-blur at the cost of flicker can have it that way and vice versa.


I'll ask just one more question, since this probably isn't the best thread for the topic:

What would appear subjectively less blurry (assume a theoretical 0 second shutter speed for the camera, and 0 ms response rate for the display in each case):


a: 120fps with 100% duty cycle (shot at 120fps and displayed at 120fps)

b: 60fps with 50% duty cycle (shot at 60fps and displayed at 60fps)



> Quote:
> I'd like to see a movie recorded and displayed at 240Hz.



Too right. I'd love to see that too. If worst comes to worst, one can always artifically add motion blur or similar if the final result isn't satisfactory (or simply chop 9/10 frames out of course and run it at 24fps). Actually, maybe the artificial motion blur on 240fps would look even more 'film-like'.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15594069
> 
> 
> Yes, it'd be great to have stuff shot at say 75fps or more, and then we can emulate the CRT flicker (whatever duty cycle it uses at that rate) for brilliant video. The fact that LCD makers have gone up to 120hz or more sets a good precedent for video shooters to follow.
> 
> 
> Actually, it would be a nice idea for TV/monitor makers to allow the duty cycle to be custom, so those who prefer non-blur at the cost of flicker can have it that way and vice versa.
> 
> 
> I'll ask just one more question, since this probably isn't the best thread for the topic:
> 
> What would appear subjectively less blurry (assume 0 ms response rate in each case):
> 
> 
> a: 120fps with 100% duty cycle
> 
> b: 60fps with 50% duty cycle
> 
> 
> 
> Too right. I'd love to see that too. If worst comes to worst, one can always artifically add motion blur or similar if the final result isn't satisfactory (or simply chop 9/10 frames out of course and run it at 24fps). Actually, maybe the artificial motion blur on 240fps would look even more 'film-like'.



Recording video a higher frame rates has a huge advantage regarding motion blur. This is because not only is the hold time shorter but also the shutter time is shorter as well. So hold type blur is reduces and source blur (inherent to the signal) is also reduced.


Your question about which is less blurry cannot be answered unless you specify what signal is being displayed and if interpolation is used or not. It can get quite complicated.


----------



## twinbee

Oh right, I forget to mention that in the 120fps case, the source is also shot at that speed, as well as being displayed at 120fps (so that no interpolation is necessary). Sames goes for the 60fps case (shot at 60, displayed at 60)


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-

Couldn't you have low duty cycle and eliminate flicker by having a higher frame rate, but without interpolation. Say ABC -> AABBCC?


----------



## borf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/15592440
> 
> 
> 
> If you repeat the frames on a PDP panel, for example, you get the same motion handling with less flicker. That happens because you avoid SAH with a


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15594357
> 
> 
> Oh right, I forget to mention that in the 120fps case, the source is also shot at that speed, as well as being displayed at 120fps (so that no interpolation is necessary). Sames goes for the 60fps case (shot at 60, displayed at 60)



This would be an interesting test. Very interesting.........


Since both displays will have the exact same hold time:


a - 1/120=8.33ms

b - 1/60x0.5=8.33ms


This can be equated to comparing a 120Hz LCD with interpolation to a 120Hz LCD with BFI. Except the source frames in display "a" are shot at higher fps making them intrinsically clearer with motion.


I suspect that both displays will have very close degree of display induced blur with display "b" having a slight edge due to its blanking period. Display "a" will look kinda funny due to the higher intrinsic fps (similar to the AMP look).


However, because display "a" has a higher intrinsic fps source it should have much less source blur and be the winner.


Note: regarding blanking versus interpolating please study the following graphic. It shows that both methods improve blur perception but blanking is slightly better.


----------



## twinbee




> Quote:
> would 75hz work i wonder.



I think I recall hearing that for flicker, there's a power of 4 law involved where higher refresh rates get subjectively better, more quickly higher up (perhaps assuming a constant duty cycle - say 50%). Still, 100fps should be a safer bet


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/15595826
> 
> 
> Since both displays will have the exact same hold time:
> 
> 
> a - 1/120=8.33ms
> 
> b - 1/60x0.5=8.33ms
> 
> 
> This can be equated to comparing a 120Hz LCD with interpolation to a 120Hz LCD with BFI.



Except that BFI changes the duty cycle, whereas temporal interpolation and frame doubling do not.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Carled* /forum/post/15596653
> 
> 
> Except that BFI changes the duty cycle, whereas temporal interpolation and frame doubling do not.



Hence, the 0.5 factor. His original question already specified this. I am equating 16.7ms refresh time with 50% duty cycle to a panel with 8.333ms refresh with BFI.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-

Ok, so OLED has, as I understand it, the fastest raw response rate of any display, right. Couldn't it utilise that extremely high response rate to emulate how plasma cells charge up and down and thereby avoid both flicker and blurring? LCD's can do 240hz updates now, and the electronics driving LCD's is the same active matrix that will drive OLED, so it should be possible, anyone?


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/15599310
> 
> 
> Ok, so OLED has, as I understand it, the fastest raw response rate of any display, right. Couldn't it utilise that extremely high response rate to emulate how plasma cells charge up and down and thereby avoid both flicker and blurring? LCD's can do 240hz updates now, and the electronics driving LCD's is the same active matrix that will drive OLED, so it should be possible, anyone?



I take it you mean pulse width modulation. That's very easy to do with LEDs. The only problem is that pulsing organic LEDs makes them degrade faster.


My view is that increasing refresh rates very quickly runs into diminshing returns unless the source material itself happens to have greater temporal resolution. I'm sure it's quite possible to make a 2400Hz display using current technology, but aside from something to put on the spec sheets, there is little meaningful to gain from doing so. You'd be much better served by lobbying the film industry to start filming in 48Hz or something.


----------



## Tobbeo

about that.. (Emulate a CRT to remove motion blur.)

I found this patent document that sounds promising, any news on progress?


Variable driving voltage to replace the "always on" with a triangle form.


~p.17 shows the method... (and p.8 for differences)
https://publications.european-patent...=1873746&ki=A1 

02.01.2008(2006)


----------



## Tele-TV

I didn't know Kodak developed OLED [over 30 years ago]. I was watching The Science Channel HD special, "CES 2009," and at the very end of the show they had a lengthy segment about the inner workings of OLED.







It was very interesting.


1. Sorry for the dumb question, but can anyone hazzard a guess for me in regards to when the blue dye part of OLED, when they will get that to last just about as long as the red and green dyes?


Thank-you for your help. I feel inferior to your guys OLED knowledge.


P.S.


Might have more questions coming later.


1. [Blue dye > (my PS3 layer went out 4 months! after I bought it).]


2. Heard water/condesation is not good for OLED.


----------



## Human Bass

The blue doesnt need to last as long as the green or red, it just needs to last long enough, 50k hours or more.


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tele-TV* /forum/post/15617839
> 
> 
> 1. Sorry for the dumb question, but can anyone hazzard a guess for me in regards to when the blue dye part of OLED, when they will get that to last just about as long as the red and green dyes?



Never. Blue OLED lifespans are increasing, but so are red and green ones.


Well, I guess if you extend the time axis indefinately, given the greater R&D budgets going to the blue OLED, that they would occlude eventually, but certainly not in the medium term.


But, as Human Bass says, for consumer electronics uses it only needs to last long enough to be commercially viable. Maybe 35k-40k hours. The industry certainly won't try too hard to make the displays last forever as they want to lock you into a cycle of buying new TVs much more regularly than you need to.


For uses outside of consumer electronics and lighting (OLED lasers, for example) the life spans will need to be expanded by orders of magnitude, so research will continue long after they've cracked the OLED television nut.


----------



## MikeBiker

All the three OLED colors should decay at approximately the same rate or the display will show a color shift with time.


----------



## Tele-TV

^^ Thank-u! Human Bass, Carled, and Mike Baker for your input. I can't wait to visit this thread more often and read-up on OLED.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/15622453
> 
> 
> All the three OLED colors should decay at approximately the same rate or the display will show a color shift with time.



Yep. That's the most important- age at the same rate. For the first 40,000 hours or so, anyway.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/15627235
> 
> 
> Yep. That's the most important- age at the same rate. For the first 40,000 hours or so, anyway.



Which is near impossible for devices that emit light. Even plasma doesn't age the same hense the chroma shift during break in. Some colors wear out faster, always will. Most of the time it will be blue that goes first. Blue is higher fequency light and needs more juice pumped through it to get the brightness to match the others. Because there is more juice needed more heat is generated and the more heat the faster it wil fade.


There have been some good advancements with the efficiency of the blue emitter and that will continue for some time. (there was a time when regular blue LEDs didn't exist at all. Now they exist and fitting they need more voltage than the other colors to work).


What will happen is over time the OLED display will shift towards the yellow. This isn't as big a problem as you think. There is circuitry that monitors the hours and brightness on the blue emmitters and dim the other colors according to the lifetime curve of the blue. What will happen is the set will just get dimmer over time like any CRT or plasma. Because the electronics may not predict exactly and you still may get color shift a simple menu with RGB sliders should be available. A quick tweak of the sliders and you are good to go for thousands of hours more.


----------



## Isochroma

When blue becomes the best it can, it will be time to make crappier red and green. To balance a stool, just cut off the two long legs if the short one can't be made longer.


----------



## twinbee




> Quote:
> When blue becomes the best it can, it will be time to make crappier red and green. To balance a stool, just cut off the two long legs if the short one can't be made longer.



Quick question. Because the saturation of green is so awful on CRT and especially LCD, why does an equal mix with the relatively good red and blue produce grey (when one might expect greyish magenta)? Am I right is saying the display automatically dulls the red and blue elements to compensate?


If that's the case, then you don't need to make the green and red elements worse, but instead just perform on the fly calcs which make them more dull sometimes whilst in use. But maybe that's what you mean anyway.


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15628341
> 
> 
> Quick question. Because the saturation of green is so awful on CRT and especially LCD, why does an equal mix with the relatively good red and blue produce grey (when one might expect greyish magenta)? Am I right is saying the display automatically dulls the red and blue elements to compensate?
> 
> 
> If that's the case, then you don't need to make the green and red elements worse, but instead just perform on the fly calcs which make them more dull sometimes whilst in use. But maybe that's what you mean anyway.



Two things:


1. The colour points used in the HDTV standard (BT.709) are based on phosphor colour points, so any display, CRT/CCFL LCD/plasma or otherwise, calibrated to the standard will have equal colourometry.


2. The grey point selected by the standard (D65) is located in a place where it won't have a magenta or green cast.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/15627739
> 
> 
> Which is near impossible for devices that emit light. Even plasma doesn't age the same hence the chroma shift during break in. Some colors wear out faster, always will. Most of the time it will be blue that goes first. Blue is higher frequency light and needs more juice pumped through it to get the brightness to match the others. Because there is more juice needed more heat is generated and the more heat the faster it will fade.
> 
> 
> There have been some good advancements with the efficiency of the blue emitter and that will continue for some time. (there was a time when regular blue LEDs didn't exist at all. Now they exist and fitting they need more voltage than the other colors to work).
> 
> 
> What will happen is over time the OLED display will shift towards the yellow. This isn't as big a problem as you think. There is circuitry that monitors the hours and brightness on the blue emitters and dim the other colors according to the lifetime curve of the blue. What will happen is the set will just get dimmer over time like any CRT or plasma. Because the electronics may not predict exactly and you still may get color shift a simple menu with RGB sliders should be available. A quick tweak of the sliders and you are good to go for thousands of hours more.



Thank you. Nice post. Nice to know there is some adjustment. I suspect some sort of reading of the actual decay would be more accurate, but I suppose monitoring hours may work rather well, assuming good modeling. Yes, a bit of home calibrating should work quite well.


----------



## Tobbeo

So no news on it then (#826), dang.


----------



## mark_1080p




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/15513728
> 
> *Eyes on with LG's near-production 15-inch OLED TV: come on summer*
> *7 January 2009*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On display here at CES and planned for a production run sometime this summer, the image is absolutely stunning -- every bit as impressive as the Sony's XEL-1.


*Horrors upon horrors, the nightmare scenario!!*


I have seen the OLED by Sony, and *the pics here are even worse*.


What good is any flat panel technology if the engineers do not have the intelligence to realize that *room reflections destroy the image*?


These are not concept cars, has this world lost its mind???

*Ridiculous.*


----------



## Isochroma

Sounds like it's time for you to get in touch with Thomas Ricker . Ask him about attending CES 2010.


Then we can have some better-quality photos of this amazing new technology.


----------



## mark_1080p

I don't think there is a problem with the photos, just the screen surface.


Geez, I never imagined that the gloss issue would arise in this technology, I had assumed that matte would be the way to go and that you have all the benefits of high CR and limited room reflections.


... makes me wonder whether the glossy finish is added for no real reason other than to make the thing look sexy ...


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/15627739
> 
> 
> There have been some good advancements with the efficiency of the blue emitter and that will continue for some time. (there was a time when regular blue LEDs didn't exist at all. Now they exist and fitting they need more voltage than the other colors to work).



From the Journal of the SID and a paper published about the lifetimes of OLED. As of the last data that the authors were able to gather around 2007


At 1000cd/m2, Polymer-OEL materials

Phosphorescent Red Lifetime 67000 hours

Phosphorescent Green Lifetime 78000 hours

Phosphorescent Blue Lifetime 10000 hours


Even accounting for the last year and a half in development, there still is some ways to go on the blue. The flourescent small-molecule OEL materials are even worse when it comes to blue lifetimes.


----------



## S. Hiller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mark_1080p* /forum/post/15658168
> 
> 
> I don't think there is a problem with the photos, just the screen surface.
> 
> 
> Geez, I never imagined that the gloss issue would arise in this technology, I had assumed that matte would be the way to go and that you have all the benefits of high CR and limited room reflections.
> 
> 
> ... makes me wonder whether the glossy finish is added for no real reason other than to make the thing look sexy ...



But don't matte coatings introduce their own issues. Some of them I've seen, anyway, have kind of an ugly, rough, look to them...


----------



## navychop

Can't win, either way. I prefer less reflections.


----------



## Tele-TV

Does anyone here own the Sony OLED TV? Thanks. I can't! wait to get mind in the mail this week.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/15658890
> 
> 
> From the Journal of the SID and a paper published about the lifetimes of OLED. As of the last data that the authors were able to gather around 2007
> 
> 
> At 1000cd/m2, Polymer-OEL materials
> 
> Phosphorescent Red Lifetime 67000 hours
> 
> Phosphorescent Green Lifetime 78000 hours
> 
> Phosphorescent Blue Lifetime 10000 hours
> 
> 
> Even accounting for the last year and a half in development, there still is some ways to go on the blue. The flourescent small-molecule OEL materials are even worse when it comes to blue lifetimes.



Yes but a year and a half is a long time when breakthroughs are happenning all of the time.


Look at how much other tech can improve like LCD or plasma in that time. Then consider breakthroughs happen pretty fast in the beginning when much research is going on.


----------



## mark_1080p




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *S. Hiller* /forum/post/15659104
> 
> 
> But don't matte coatings introduce their own issues. Some of them I've seen, anyway, have kind of an ugly, rough, look to them...





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/15659732
> 
> 
> Can't win, either way. I prefer less reflections.



To some extent it is preference. Matte does scatter diffuse and point source room light into your viewing field, but I was assuming that organic molecules could be better absorbers of room light then lcd crystals. Based on those pictures that assumption seems invalid.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/15661828
> 
> 
> Yes but a year and a half is a long time when breakthroughs are happenning all of the time.
> 
> 
> Look at how much other tech can improve like LCD or plasma in that time. Then consider breakthroughs happen pretty fast in the beginning when much research is going on.



Yes but this was the last line in the table that showed the progression of development. I seriously doubt that between the conclusion of the research and publication that the blue lifetime has made a X6 jump to make it a feasible material for use in a large mass produced display.


Edit: To address another point here, when you say breakthroughs happen fast in the beginning. I just posted the the latest data from a table in the article, the last year shown in the table is 2007, but the table has data that goes all the way back to 2000. There was evidently more data from before that, that the authors deemed not relevant to current discussions of the subject. So this is not a new thing that just popped up with the little Sony set, people have been working on this for over a decade and this is where we sit.


----------



## hoodlum

Sony's 11" OLED now available in Europe for ~$4,900. I guess they aren't getting cheaper to make.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/01..._xel1_blighty/


----------



## S. Hiller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoodlum* /forum/post/15675510
> 
> 
> Sony's 11" OLED now available in Europe for ~$4,900. I guess they aren't getting cheaper to make.
> 
> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/01..._xel1_blighty/



They're small, so you'll probably want at least a couple...


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *S. Hiller* /forum/post/15659104
> 
> 
> But don't matte coatings introduce their own issues. Some of them I've seen, anyway, have kind of an ugly, rough, look to them...



You have a choice of seeing a reflection with a gloss surface or seeing a bright blob with a matte surface. For most people this is a personal preference, but I prefer matte.


With my old CRT I could watch my wife in the kitchen at night making dinner and it was very distracting. Now with a matte screen I just see a light blob area where the kitchen lights are and that I can ignore.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/15661828
> 
> 
> Yes but a year and a half is a long time when breakthroughs are happenning all of the time.
> 
> 
> Look at how much other tech can improve like LCD or plasma in that time. Then consider breakthroughs happen pretty fast in the beginning when much research is going on.



It's superb news that they're making progress to improve blue materials and their lifespans.


However, I personally would like to know where we are right now. It's been a year or more since that journal entry was published so if possible, I (and perhaps many here) would like to know what's the current lifespan range of blue materials. I know they've improved beyond the 10k hours......but I'd like to know as to how much was improved.


P.S.

Personally IMHO, once they hit 48k-60k hours, then they've hit the sweet spot for blue materials.


----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/15683356
> 
> 
> With my old CRT I could watch my wife in the kitchen at night making dinner and it was very distracting. Now with a matte screen I just see a light blob area where the kitchen lights are and that I can ignore.



What, exactly, does your wife do in the kitchen that is so distracting?


----------



## navychop




----------



## Human Bass




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/15658890
> 
> 
> From the Journal of the SID and a paper published about the lifetimes of OLED. As of the last data that the authors were able to gather around 2007
> 
> 
> At 1000cd/m2, Polymer-OEL materials
> 
> Phosphorescent Red Lifetime 67000 hours
> 
> Phosphorescent Green Lifetime 78000 hours
> 
> Phosphorescent Blue Lifetime 10000 hours
> 
> 
> Even accounting for the last year and a half in development, there still is some ways to go on the blue. The flourescent small-molecule OEL materials are even worse when it comes to blue lifetimes.



I believe this data is quite outdated fortunetaly.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *S. Hiller* /forum/post/15659104
> 
> 
> But don't matte coatings introduce their own issues. Some of them I've seen, anyway, have kind of an ugly, rough, look to them...



Ok...


Glossy:

- Reflects the light and kills your retina


Matte:

- Takes that reflection and difracts it, making the blacks look less black with ambient light, and softening the image



Glossy is much better where the ambient light is controlled and no reflections take place, since the image is crisper and the CR is higher.


Matte is much better where ambient light is heavy, or there's a lot of sunlight in front of the TV, it makes the TV actually watchable.



Sooo: Controlled ambient light => Glossy, Lots of windows and halogens => matte


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Human Bass* /forum/post/15689965
> 
> 
> I believe this data is quite outdated fortunetaly.



From Journal of the SID, from October-December 2008. The paper itself was published in that time frame and submited for peer review.


The paper what is happeneing in the industry and how it will apply to realistic uses for OLED displays in all applications. Again, yes the info stated may be outdated, but I do trust the source and I doubt that the X6 gain in the lifetime of the blue has been acheived in a year.


Also please note that the listed brightness is a much more realistic level than I have seen from any company that is touting it's own blue material lifetimes.


----------



## mark_1080p




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/15691983
> 
> 
> Glossy:
> 
> - *Reflects* the light and kills your retina
> 
> 
> Matte:
> 
> - Takes that reflection and *diffracts* it, making the blacks look less black with ambient light, and softening the image



There is something missing here, *absorption* of room light by the panel. I had hoped that the organic molecules that emit would be good absorbers of radiation as well.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mark_1080p* /forum/post/15652016
> 
> *Horrors upon horrors, the nightmare scenario!!*
> 
> 
> I have seen the OLED by Sony, and *the pics here are even worse*.
> 
> 
> What good is any flat panel technology if the engineers do not have the intelligence to realize that *room reflections destroy the image*?
> 
> 
> These are not concept cars, has this world lost its mind???
> 
> *Ridiculous.*



LOL. Gloss is good.


I haven't seen any of your posts since you posted in the LCD forums about matte vs gloss over and over and over. So when I saw your post in this thread here we go again.










I'm sorry I just couldn't resist. Don't take it personal, I just got a kick out of your post.


I wouldn't fret too much about this. Plasma screens have been glass for some time and newer screens still retain a semi-glossy look yet they reflections are much better than what they were years ago. It'll be years before we see OLED in normal screen sizes anyway and I'd bet it will be much better.


----------



## mark_1080p




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/15697629
> 
> 
> LOL. Gloss is good.
> 
> 
> I haven't seen any of your posts since you posted in the LCD forums about matte vs gloss over and over and over. So when I saw your post in this thread here we go again.



Since Samsung came out with the 550 and 630 series, I have been mollified, hence the dimunition (but not extinction) of activity on this topic. I had heard reports of OLED screens being fully matte, and never expected this issue to arise in this technology. Then I viewed the shocking pictures above. But, yea, here we go again.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mark_1080p* /forum/post/15700142
> 
> 
> Since Samsung came out with the 550 and 630 series, I have been mollified, hence the dimunition (but not extinction) of activity on this topic. I had heard reports of OLED screens being fully matte, and never expected this issue to arise in this technology. Then I viewed the shocking pictures above. But, yea, here we go again.



Yeah I think that TVs trying to emulate mirrors is a very BAD IDEA.


Who the hell wants to see the room reflected in your TV? Who designs this crap? Don't they TEST these things?


----------



## twinbee

DaveC19,


I for one enjoy the reflective look. It makes it look more 'shiny' and modern. Would you honestly buy a car that didn't have any shine to the paint coating? (the thought of it...). Also, CD cases would look cheap and tacky without some reflection.


Not just me - everyone I know prefers the expensive glossy look over the matte look any day, even at the cost of picture quality. ppl who come to visit think the TV's worth more etc. Also, sometimes I LIKE to see what's going on behind me. E.g. when someone enters a room etc., it gives me a chance to say hello. Hell, until 3D screens become the norm, a certain amount of reflection even adds a textured/gradient look to the screen, and makes it seem less 'one dimensional' looking.


Perhaps it's you who needs to reevaluate that there's room for glossy, reflective screens AND ones with slightly 'better' picture quality - let ppl decide which one to go for. I think even if they solved the problem of OLED absorbing more/all of the light for 'perfect' quality (which is subjective anyway), I'd still go for the glossy screen (say 50% reflective screen to make it half mirror-like would be best).


Mmmmmmmm, glossy.....



Btw, you may also be pleased to hear this is a fake post, and yes I was joking


----------



## S. Hiller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/15700197
> 
> 
> Yeah I think that TVs trying to emulate mirrors is a very BAD IDEA.
> 
> 
> Who the hell wants to see the room reflected in your TV? Who designs this crap? Don't they TEST these things?



Both approaches have their downsides as reflected in the conversation above.


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/15658890
> 
> 
> From the Journal of the SID and a paper published about the lifetimes of OLED. As of the last data that the authors were able to gather around 2007
> 
> 
> At 1000cd/m2, Polymer-OEL materials
> 
> Phosphorescent Red Lifetime 67000 hours
> 
> Phosphorescent Green Lifetime 78000 hours
> 
> Phosphorescent Blue Lifetime 10000 hours
> 
> 
> Even accounting for the last year and a half in development, there still is some ways to go on the blue. The flourescent small-molecule OEL materials are even worse when it comes to blue lifetimes.



You're a little behind in your reading/research. Blue emitters today can last a lot longer. News changes so fast with OLED you have to read articles from the past 60 days to be current really.


Another approach is to just use a white OLED bulb and use a color filter for the primary colors. So to make a blue OLED, you use a white bulb with a blue filter on it. I'm sure you'll find more about this in your reading/research when you dig a bit deeper...


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/15718318
> 
> 
> You're a little behind in your reading/research. Blue emitters today can last a lot longer. News changes so fast with OLED you have to read articles from the past 60 days to be current really.
> 
> 
> Another approach is to just use a white OLED bulb and use a color filter for the primary colors. So to make a blue OLED, you use a white bulb with a blue filter on it. I'm sure you'll find more about this in your reading/research when you dig a bit deeper...



Actually it is quite a confusing disaster how OLED researchers report lifetime advances. Searching through the most recent papers (2008 and 2009) is just so confusing. The problem seems to be mostly due to measurement conditions. Numbers from 9,000 hours up to 100,000 hours can be found for blue emitters. In the past the grossly inflated lifetimes were suspect due to the low purity of the blue. But now it seems that measurement conditions are the issue.


The paper TNG refers to is one of only a few that tries to summarize multiple results from multiple sources. The data is good up to 2007 only according to the paper.


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/15718460
> 
> 
> Actually it is quite a confusing disaster how OLED researchers report lifetime advances. Searching through the most recent papers (2008 and 2009) is just so confusing. The problem seems to be mostly due to measurement conditions. Numbers from 9,000 hours up to 100,000 hours can be found for blue emitters. In the past the grossly inflated lifetimes were suspect due to the low purity of the blue. But now it seems that measurement conditions are the issue.
> 
> 
> The paper TNG refers to is one of only a few that tries to summarize multiple results from multiple sources. The data is good up to 2007 only according to the paper.



That seems logical; I haven't been scrutinizing that myself when reading either. I'll have to start; I wonder how many tech articles actually point out the testing procedures used though. This makes all of the info I've read useless without a baseline/testing procedures to go on... very frustrating.


Not much different than the audio industry I guess... Lots of numbers; but no clue on how they actually tested to come up with them...







Thus making them worthless... (or simply marketing tools)


----------



## Isochroma

I'd like to take a moment to thank all the folks who've viewed and posted in this thread. It seems to have taken on a life of its own.


Each day I still go through the OLED news but lately, perhaps due to the economic malaise, relevant news has dried up.


Even if large (32"+) OLED TVs never make it to market, it has been a fun ride. Lately I've been a bit saddened that my hoped-for 32" OLED TV/monitor may never materialize, even with the better income that lies ahead in my future years.


It is sometimes hard to maintain that delicate balance between hard realism and soft dreamism that brings the best of both worlds together as one.


CES 2009 was, as noted in many news outlets, a disappointment as so many were hoping for those large OLED displays to finally materialize as consumer products, rather than just technology demonstrators.


The minus news continues with Sony losing money and even LCD producers who already have large fabs cutting back on capital expenditures. Their suppliers are doing so as well, and even a cursory examination of display-news sites such as DigiTimes brings plenty of gloom.


Such an arid sales and investment environment that necessitates pruning of even tough old trees means certain death to baby seedlings. Perhaps in some future time, the rains will return and with them strange new seeds will once again sprout.


----------



## Isochroma

As a counterpoint to the above post, I was thinking about one of what seems, at least to me, to be the primary obstacles to large-area OLED displays.


That is, the defect rate. It seems that making low-defect or defect-free large-area OLED panels is at the moment expensive. Not because the emitters or other elements are costly, but the reject ratio.


My suggestion to the industry is to accept the defects and sell 'defective' large-area OLED panels. Personally, I'd rather have a dozen dead pixels on a 1366x768 32" OLED than have my (current) defect-free LCD with poor black level. _All the pixels_ on my LCD have a kind of ugliness, a certain 'defect' if you will. They are _collectively and uniformly dysfunctional_, so the industry calls such a panel 'perfect'. Perhaps they are so obsessed with the 'collective' and 'uniform' in the formula that they missed out on the 'dysfunctional' qualifier.


Luckily, I don't think the average person would make that mistake, and that is the key point.


Using some yet-unwritten formula, could a better technology be just as 'equal' per price unit to a buyer, even with more defects? In other words, would I pay the same or a bit more for a display with a majority of far superior pixels, plus some 'bad' ones?


Rather than even argue the point, would any manufacturer dare to find out by selling a few to see how the end-user market values them? I think it would be an interesting test.


The nasty factor is clustered defects, which are really visible even from a typical seating distance. So if effort was made to subtly alter the production process - not to produce fewer defects (which is hard right now) - but to keep them dispersed (not visible from an average viewing distance), then many people would buy them for their other attributes, which are by now well-known and well-loved.


Being able to keep a majority of the throw-away panels would lower the cost easier than any other single change could, at the moment. It would probably mean 32" OLEDs next year or even this year.


By moving away from a reductionist, perfectionist way of looking at OLED production and sales, and moving toward judging the devices in a wholistic way compared to what is now available (LCD and PDP), the industry could make an impossible situation workable and keep the production machinery running - ensuring not only that the 'lights don't go out' on the production lines, but also bringing a superior technology to mass acceptance through not only incremental-size advancements, but also incremental-quality improvements.


The key point to favoring incremental-quality improvements over incremental-size advancements is that size increases mean high-cost investment in new fab lines, while quality improvements mean tinkering with existing lines, which costs much less.


I say make those large-area fabs and turn out non-perfect panels, then improve production quality over time. Making the case to business decision-makers takes more, though. That's where consumer sentiment might tip the scale in favor of such a plan, and that's where I leave you, readers - with a question whose results might, if favorable, be passed to those suits for careful consideration.


The question: if it meant you could buy an OLED TV today, what is the maximum number of defective pixels you'd be willing to tolerate on an OLED with the same size, resolution, and cost as your current display? State your current resolution and display size/type, as well as the number of defective pixels on your current unit (if any).


----------



## Isochroma

Here's my stats and what I'd tolerate in an OLED of the same price, size and resolution if I could buy it today:


Display: LCD

Size: 32"

Resolution: 1366x768

Defective Pixels: 0

Price: $1500 USD (at the time)


OLED Defective Pixels: 12 (no more than 2 adjacent)


So for me, at the same cost, size and resolution, I'd sacrifice twelve pixels for the better overall quality of OLED.


----------



## Tectonic

Display: LCD (computer monitor)

Size: 22"

Resolution: 1680x1050

Defective Pixels: 0

Price: $220


OLED Defective Pixels: 8 (none adjacent - I sit close)


Display: LCD

Size: 32"

Resolution: 1366x768

Defective Pixels: 0

Price: $450


OLED Defective Pixels: 12 (2 adjacent)


I would say good riddance on the spot if this were available. Replacing my computer monitor would have higher priority.


----------



## ferro

There are dead pixels (always off) and stuck pixels (always on). There are defective pixels (R + G + B) and defective subpixels (R or G or B). Dead subpixels are no issue for a TV application. Dead pixels will usually not be noticeable either, depending on resolution and viewing distance. Stuck pixels and subpixels will ruin any dark scene though.


----------



## navychop

I wouldn't be so gloomy. A year or two's delay, that's all.


----------



## hoodlum

Looks like OLED will get delayed further. I suspect we will see more of this in 2009.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/04/news...n=money_latest 


As a result of the economic environment, the company plans to cut costs, including investment in growth areas, such as Image Sensor Solutions, its Kodak Gallery online service, Electrophotographic Printing in GCG, and Organic Light Emitting Diodes (OLED).


----------



## S. Hiller

Let's just go ahead and declare that there will be a new iPhone in June.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Next-gen...news-3426.html 


And that the more substantial upgrade rumoured at in the article is in fact an OLED screen...


----------



## Blackraven

Well on the bright side:


They showed a Sony OLED Walkman (NWZ-X1000) with touch screen and capacities ranging from 16 GB to 32 GB. I'm definitely gonna check this out within the year and I hope to get one before Xmas


----------



## twinbee

Dead pixel thing is a great question, (and free market research for Sony etc. too







)


For a 15" OLED screen @ 1024x768 for the same price as an LCD, and using for a laptop, I'd tolerate:


Pixel type: dead

Defective Pixels: 40 (non adjacent)


Pixel type: stuck

Defective Pixels: 10 (non adjacent)


I do quite a bit of graphics work, so I'd probably be more tolerant otherwise. I find it interesting that a white pixel on black is much more noticable than vice versa. Maybe it's because the eye is overwhelmed with the latter, but I bet LCD's crapness has something to do with it as well










If someone has an OLED display, try out this test, and see if the black pixel on a white background is more noticable with OLED - be very interested to see.


----------



## twinbee

There's just been an article posted at Slashdot which speaks about a relatively unheard of issue - something which OLED should immediately eliminate. It's known as 'input lagging'.


Apparently, it's used to reduce blurring on LCD (at least of the PVA/MVA type), and is also associated with the term 'overdrive'. By storing the last few frames, the LCD will somehow use this infomration to better present the frames that proceed.


But of course the lagging is a great source of irritance to people (myself included) who would find that fast reaction games play worse, and how generally such displays are more soupy (dragging windows around, moving cursors). I wonder if anyone here has noticed this effect.


Here's the article "The Dark Side of Overdrive":
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/mon...of-overdrive/1


----------



## S. Hiller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15756180
> 
> 
> There's just been an article posted at Slashdot which speaks about a relatively unheard of issue - something which OLED should immediately eliminate. It's known as 'input lagging'.
> 
> 
> Apparently, it's used to reduce blurring on LCD (at least of the PVA/MVA type), and is also associated with the term 'overdrive'. By storing the last few frames, the LCD will somehow use this infomration to better present the frames that proceed.
> 
> 
> But of course the lagging is a great source of irritance to people (myself included) who would find that fast reaction games play worse, and how generally such displays are more soupy (dragging windows around, moving cursors). I wonder if anyone here has noticed this effect.
> 
> 
> Here's the article "The Dark Side of Overdrive":
> http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/mon...of-overdrive/1



There is a lot of discussion about input lag at this site and elsewhere. Input lag can be found across all of the LCD panel technologies and OLED will also suffer from it, unless manufacturers provide a mode with minimal video processing...


----------



## Tele-TV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tele-TV* /forum/post/15661118
> 
> 
> Does anyone here own the Sony OLED TV? Thanks. I can't! wait to get mind in the mail this week.



I got my OLED







TV. Its obviously nice! I just wished it was 1920x1080. Instead of 980x540. Anyways...


I have not seen HD animated programming on my set yet, but tonight I have a recording set for South Park HD (2008). I saw some Sponge Bob in 4:3 (NICK HD) and it looked beautiful. And my TV was not even in VIVID mode.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *S. Hiller* /forum/post/15756558
> 
> 
> There is a lot of discussion about input lag at this site and elsewhere. Input lag can be found across all of the LCD panel technologies and OLED will also suffer from it, unless manufacturers provide a mode with minimal video processing...



Where did you get the idea that overdrive is used on OLED HDTVs? Hence, how "will" the XEL-1 suffer from it?


----------



## twinbee

Tele-TV, Congrats! Hope you find it as good as everyone has promised. I'm actually jealous










Do you know if it's less flickery than a CRT? How's the saturation on it compared to CRT/LCD? If you can connect it to computer, then you could try the below URLs, and then compare that to LCD/CRT. I bet the green and cyan is wonderful in comparison.


Try this primary/secondary colour thing:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...px-RGB.svg.png 


Also try my own testcard on it:
http://www.skytopia.com/stuff/index.html


----------



## S. Hiller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/15778287
> 
> 
> Where did you get the idea that overdrive is used on OLED HDTVs? Hence, how "will" the XEL-1 suffer from it?



No, I haven't heard such a thing.


My response was towards the general issue of input lag. Video processing can require additional cycles, which can create the lag regardless of panel type. That's all I meant...


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/15718318
> 
> 
> You're a little behind in your reading/research. Blue emitters today can last a lot longer. News changes so fast with OLED you have to read articles from the past 60 days to be current really.



I really don't get my news off of the internet like most people do, I read the trade journals that I subscribe to, so I may be behind the times a little, however the info seemed relevant to the discussion here. The SID Journal has the best research papers from this area. Also please pay attention to what the brightness levels that are talked about in some companies claims of blue lifetimes. If the level is anything below 1000cd/m2 then it is not usable for a display of this type.


XROX is quite right when he says that it is confusing. The paper that I quoted from states that there are to many approaches used now by multiple companies to state the brightness level, lifetime, etc... This is a area where there are no standards like SEMI has put forth in the semiconductor field.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/15718318
> 
> 
> Another approach is to just use a white OLED bulb and use a color filter for the primary colors. So to make a blue OLED, you use a white bulb with a blue filter on it. I'm sure you'll find more about this in your reading/research when you dig a bit deeper...



I am familiar with the idea of using a "White Light" approach to this and it may come to that.


----------



## navychop

I believe that is the approach Kodak took. And now they've slowed or suspended their OLED work.


----------



## Tele-TV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15778299
> 
> 
> Tele-TV, Congrats! Hope you find it as good as everyone has promised. I'm actually jealous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know if it's less flickery than a CRT? How's the saturation on it compared to CRT/LCD? If you can connect it to computer, then you could try the below URLs, and then compare that to LCD/CRT. I bet the green and cyan is wonderful in comparison.
> 
> 
> Try this primary/secondary colour thing:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...px-RGB.svg.png
> 
> 
> Also try my own testcard on it:
> http://www.skytopia.com/stuff/index.html



Thanks twinbee. Do you have one too? I was hoping to share/experience the TV together with someone here. I'm not an expert like you guys. I still need to buy the official Sony OLED ($107)














remote because the auction guy said someone spilled water on the remote at his party any broke. The TV is working grreat/fine though.


Plus he didn't tell me it did not come with the manual. So I got to order that. My dream is an XBR8. I have the money right now, but with the economy, you know the story.


Flickering? or you talking about like when there somebody wearing a tie on the screen type thing and you see shimmiering/flickering? I have to check on that. I'm off tomorrow. I'm going to try your tests. I'll be checking in this thread frequently. You took the time to ask me how I like it.










The color saturation is unbelievable. The great Sony reds and green. The black level is insane!


I'll post my settings later.

*I'LL BE STARTING THE XEL1 OWNER'S THREAD SO I DON'T CLOG UP THIS THREAD.*


PS - My other TV is a 34" Philips Matchline/Pixel Plus WideScreen from 2003.


----------



## Tele-TV

Back when CES was going on and Sony had there press conference, I called my brother from work to ask if they released any pricing on the 27" OLED. And there was a *misunderstanding* and he said its $2,500 for the 27". He didn't realize the price was for the 11" OLED. So I was thinking no way I would ever pay that because I got my 34" HD tubef or that price.


Anyways...

*Would anyone be willing to pay $2,500 for a 27" Sony OLED if they came out with one now?* I know I would.


I would probably got no interst financing on that and paid cash for an XBR8. I'll always worry if I play games on my XBR8 when I get one hopefully soon, that I will somehow f* it up.


I'll stop talking now.


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tele-TV* /forum/post/15838464
> 
> *Would anyone be willing to pay $2,500 for a 27" Sony OLED if they came out with one now?* I know I would.



A lot of professionals and pro gamers would probably love one for a computer monitor. CRT accuracy + LCD form factor. Probably still too small for most people to be happy with for HT use, though.



> Quote:
> I'll always worry if I play games on my XBR8 when I get one hopefully soon, that I will somehow f* it up.



How? I can't see any obvious failure mode for an XBR8 getting damaged from gaming.


----------



## S. Hiller

Would love one for computer use...


----------



## Tele-TV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Carled* /forum/post/15838809
> 
> 
> A lot of professionals and pro gamers would probably love one for a computer monitor. CRT accuracy + LCD form factor. Probably still too small for most people to be happy with for HT use, though.
> 
> 
> How? I can't see any obvious failure mode for an XBR8 getting damaged from gaming.



That's cool that OLED has CRT accuracy. I didn't know that. Do you mean in regards into gaming lag as well, Carled?


I know about the XBR8. I'm just a paranoid wierdo.







Sometimes I read on a RARE occasion, on here, that someone will think their IR (image retention) will not go away. In fact I think there was someone in the LCD forum that posted not that long ago. A couple weeks ago.


----------



## Tele-TV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *S. Hiller* /forum/post/15838869
> 
> 
> Would love one for computer use...



Thanks S. Hiller. Really. I'm going to hook up my laptop to my OLED tonight, well if there is no cautionary thing I need to worry about.

Is there any cautionary thing I need to worry about guys?


I'm SO! glad I got my laptopm with an HDMI port and did not choose the silly route of not getting it because I didn't really care for the color. I actually like the color of my laptop now.


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tele-TV* /forum/post/15838955
> 
> 
> That's cool that OLED has CRT accuracy. I didn't know that. Do you mean in regards into gaming lag as well, Carled?



Well, potential accuracy. How the design is executed, how the set is calibrated, what the usage environment is like are all things that will effect how it performs in reality.



> Quote:
> I know about the XBR8. I'm just a paranoid wierdo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes I read on a RARE occasion, on here, that someone will think their IR (image retention) will not go away. In fact I think there was someone in the LCD forum that posted not that long ago. A couple weeks ago.



I think you're about as likely to win the lottery as you are to have an LCD having an entire screen of perminant image retention. Hopefully the two will cancel each other out.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tele-TV* /forum/post/15838980
> 
> Is there any cautionary thing I need to worry about guys?



In terms of potential harm, no.


For optimum image sharpness, use a program like Powerstrip to set the output resolution to 960x540. Hopefully your Sony can accept its native resolution.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tele-TV* /forum/post/15838980
> 
> 
> Thanks S. Hiller. Really. I'm going to hook up my laptop to my OLED tonight, well if there is no cautionary thing I need to worry about.
> 
> Is there any cautionary thing I need to worry about guys?



Like every other self emitting pixel display, the XEL-1 is prone to burn-in with static images. And from the data I've read suggesting a true lifetime of 17,000 hours to half brightness (in flicker mode)n I would be a little carefull.


----------



## Tele-TV

^^ Thanks for the reminder about static images. Damn! Only appx. 17,000 hours to half brightness.







That seems so little compared to like LCD's [and Plasmas] which are around 60,000. I should have did my research. And I should stop leaving the TV on for no reason.


I don't regret buying it. I just read a little snipped from an article that Sony was or is still quoting appx. 30,000 hours to half brightness. Its some research firm that did a test.


----------



## Carled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tele-TV* /forum/post/15840149
> 
> 
> ^^ Thanks for the reminder about static images. Damn! Only appx. 17,000 hours to half brightness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems so little compared to like LCD's [and Plasmas] which are around 60,000. I should have did my research. And I should stop leaving the TV on for no reason.
> 
> 
> I don't regret buying it. I just read a little snipped from an article that Sony was or is still quoting appx. 30,000 hours to half brightness. Its some research firm that did a test.



Sony flimflamming their specifications? Surely not!


OLEDs will have much lower lifespans than LCD and plasma for many years yet.


----------



## S. Hiller

Yes...FWIW...definitely use a screensaver...


----------



## xrox

It all depends on measurement conditions. 30,000 hours was obtained using very low APL and low brightness settings. For instance, a full white screen would have only a 5000 hour lifetime on the XEL-1 while a typical video image yields ~17000 hours.


http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News...x?NewsId=23197 

http://www.oled-info.com/sony/displa...t_17_000_hours


----------



## twinbee




> Quote:
> Thanks twinbee. Do you have one too?



Heh, wish I did! I just hope the LCDs don't get good enough, quick enough, to prevent the OLEDs from trying to make it in the marketplace.



> Quote:
> Flickering? or you talking about like when there somebody wearing a tie on the screen type thing and you see shimmiering/flickering?



Well the effect I'm thinking of is possibly best seen when you're not viewing the screen directly. Make sure a bright scene is on the screen, and then view the TV out of the corner of your eye without directly looking at it (try it with a CRT first if poss). Some people can't see it, but others are irritated by it - plus it gives them headaches.


Look forward to your findings! Maybe take a photo of that 6-colour circle thing next to a CRT/LCD with the same image. The camera should compensate, and we may get to see the relative difference between the saturation of a CRT/LCD and of the OLED!










Here's one such comparison, but it's only a phone:
http://www.symbian-guru.com/welcome/...ifference.html


----------



## SuperVision2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Carled* /forum/post/15839127
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're about as likely to win the lottery as you are to have an LCD having an entire screen of perminant image retention. Hopefully the two will cancel each other out.
> 
> 
> 
> .



Well, we had an LCD at work develop permanent image retention after 6 months. It was dispaying an instrument set-up screen at a moderate light level. So it can happen.


----------



## Tele-TV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15850057
> 
> 
> Heh, wish I did! I just hope the LCDs don't get good enough, quick enough, to prevent the OLEDs from trying to make it in the marketplace.
> 
> 
> Well the effect I'm thinking of is possibly best seen when you're not viewing the screen directly. Make sure a bright scene is on the screen, and then view the TV out of the corner of your eye without directly looking at it (try it with a CRT first if poss). Some people can't see it, but others are irritated by it - plus it gives them headaches.
> 
> 
> Look forward to your findings! Maybe take a photo of that 6-colour circle thing next to a CRT/LCD with the same image. The camera should compensate, and we may get to see the relative difference between the saturation of a CRT/LCD and of the OLED!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one such comparison, but it's only a phone:
> http://www.symbian-guru.com/welcome/...ifference.html



Okay will do. I swear! (by this Saturday). I got my OLED right next to my "cheapy" Philips HD Tube. I got at least 2 digital cameras to choose from. I just will need to find out hot to post pics to AVS. I'm glad to help out a fellow member with my findings.


When you guys started talking about half brightness, I sturned to the option to make the Signal Luminance brighter, to its lowest setting from high. Gamma from high to low. I will do it right and the get the actual option names. Thanks for your understanding.


Black corrector I have on High. Noise reduction (non mpeg), its either low or on auto (i'll double check). I know with the XBR8 with too much processing on, picture gets noisy. I have cinemotion on?, low?. I just threw on Ratatouille for a few seconds.


----------



## Isochroma










_Three exposures of the same image._









_The end result (image after HDR)._


Use all your exposures (lowest to highest) at each camera position.


By using multiple exposures at stepped intervals, and keeping eV set to manual, you will be able to capture a dynamic range far in excess of both your camera and a human eye.


Only such a high dynamic range photoset will have a chance of capturing OLED's true characteristic.


Please read: Wikipedia: High Dynamic Range Imaging 


Of course you'll need to keep static content on the display(s) while taking the exposure set.


----------



## Isochroma

 *OLED Q&A with Dr. Udo Heider - VP of OLED unit at Merck* 
*17 February 2008*


Merck is a global pharmaceutical and chemical company based in Germany. The company designs, develops and manufactures a wide range of specialised materials including high performance light emitting materials for OLEDs. The OLED business belongs to Mercks' Liquid-Crystal (LC) unit.


I managed to conduct an interview with Dr. Udo Heider, the VP of the LC business unit at Merck (it's called the LC/OLED unit) about their OLED program.

*Q: Hello Dr. Heider, and thank you for this interview. Can you describe your range of OLED products in more detail? Are you just into OLED materials, or other IPs as well?*


First of all Merck's business is materials.


Merck is approaching the OLED market with both a short-term and a long-term perspective.


The current OLED market is centered around small-molecule evaporable materials. Here the electron and hole transport materials are the basis for long lifetime and high-efficiency (product) device performance and Merck considers these materials as the essential building blocks in our development and commercial portfolio. For the emitting layers, Merck has a leading market position in blue singlet materials and a strong focus on the strategic development of the highly efficient emitting materials for the next generation of OLED products.


For the long term, OLED device manufacturers are indicating a strong need for wet-processable, i.e. ink-jet OLED materials. In cooperation with key customers Merck is developing the materials that will give its customers the potential to significantly reduce factory process and equipment costs.

*Q: What are the advantages of your OLED materials? Can you give us some technical details? (efficiency, lifetime, etc.)*


As indicated in the above question, regarding the commercial materials Merck believes that the OLED market urgently needs lifetime and efficiency to be competitive with incumbent technologies. Commercialized Merck materials fulfill those requirements for lifetime and efficiency needed for device application.

*Q: You have just announced that you will buy OLED-T's IP assets... Can you give us more info on this? How will OLED-T's material complement your own portfolio?*


OLED-T based its long-term development on the close interaction with OLED customers: It has an interesting IP and material portfolio that perfectly complements Merck's IP and material product range in this field.

This deal will enable Merck to broaden its range of products on offer as well as its IP base for ongoing material developments.

*Q: OLED-T has developed phosphorescent OLEDs. Some say that Universal Display owns the basic phosphorescent-OLED patents. So if someone wants to use these materials, does he need to license from UDC as well?*


Whether the OLED-T phosphorescent patents will yield phosphorescent materials that can be commercialized is currently under investigation at Merck. Therefore the question on IP dependence and/or the need for a license from another company cannot be answered at this point in time.

*Q: Can you name some companies that are already using your materials or IPs? Are there any products on the market that have OLEDs that are "Merck Inside"?*


Basically all Merck commercial OLED activities are covered by NDAs, therefore it is not possible to disclose details and company names here.


Merck can confirm that it considers having control of marketing and sales of OLED materials as very important to understand the customers and market requirements. These are absolutely essential for us, to have the development focus exactly on those points that will enable the OLED market to grow and prosper in future.


So, Merck is participating actively with its materials in the OLED market but cannot comment further.

*Q: We are taking a special interest in OLED for lighting - which you are working on. Any updates in this regard?*


Merck also considers the lighting market as an additional feature and benefit that OLEDs bring to the table. Merck is both addressing this market with evaporable small-molecule materials as well as in its strategic soluble-material developments.


Here again, Merck is actively involved with materials for this developing market.
*

Q: Your CEO recently said that "OLEDs will not replace LCDs till 2030". Do you guys still hold this view? If so, why invest in OLED materials now?*


Merck is a material supplier: Our focus is on developing materials that have the ability to enable OLEDs to be used in different products. The product-development roadmaps and timelines are in the hands of our customers.


As history shows, it can take a very long time for a new technology to fully replace an incumbent technology, i.e. there is still a market for CRT TVs. On the other hand you can see the first small OLED-TVs like the SONY XEL-1 already on the market.

*Q: What do you think are the main challenges still ahead for the OLED industry?*


For any new technology to replace an incumbent technology some elementary points have to be addressed.


A new technology has to bring key values to the end customer as well as to the device manufacturer. While the key values for the end customer of OLEDs are sufficiently clear to the broad community, the manufacturing yield and processes will drive the ultimate cost of the OLED product. Merck is addressing these needs from the material perspective.

*Q: Where do you see Merck's OLED business five years from now?*


The business is growing and most likely will continue to do so.

We will be among the top players in OLED materials.

*Q: It seems like OLED prototypes were very strong in CES, but no new OLED TVs. I wonder what you guys think of that as well.*


A host of very interesting OLED displays for portable media applications were promoted at CES, demonstrating the striking key features of OLEDs. This shows that OLEDs are continuing to find their way into products. To specifically comment on why OLED TVs were not so prominent at the CES would be difficult for Merck to say as we are not a device manufacturer. As you of course know, in order to successfully launch new technology products, timing and investment are the key, but it also necessary that the technology is ready to be supplied in quantities (at a reasonable cost value), with the quality of material, components, process and process technology also playing essential roles. Merck, as a material supplier, sees its role as working in close cooperation with key customers to deliver continuous material improvements that enable our customers to achieve their product roadmap targets.

*Dr. Heider - thank you again for this interview. I wish you and Merck OLED unit great success in the coming years...*


----------



## twinbee




> Quote:
> Okay will do. I swear! (by this Saturday). I got my OLED right next to my "cheapy" Philips HD Tube. I got at least 2 digital cameras to choose from. I just will need to find out hot to post pics to AVS. I'm glad to help out a fellow member with my findings.



Great - look forward to the results!


I updated my 'testcard', and it's now at the native resolution of the Sony XEL-1







Also added 0-255 greyscale (each of the 256 greys is 3 pixels wide). Dunno how good it really is - I'm sure somehow here may find think of improvements/faults to it. Maybe there's a better "testcard" out there?
http://www.skytopia.com/stuff


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tele-TV* /forum/post/15770444
> 
> 
> I got my OLED
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TV. Its obviously nice! I just wished it was 1920x1080. Instead of 980x540. Anyways...
> 
> 
> I have not seen HD animated programming on my set yet, but tonight I have a recording set for South Park HD (2008). I saw some Sponge Bob in 4:3 (NICK HD) and it looked beautiful. And my TV was not even in VIVID mode.



Sounds nice. It is cool for a first attempt but I think Sony blew it in a number of ways. It is small yes but that is not the main thing to me. The resolution is weird and means everything must be scaled. Scaling ruins sharpness and for a set trying to show off sharpness it doesn't make sense to me. They should have at LEAST tried for 720P if they couldn't muster a full 1080.


The inputs are too limited. No VGA for PCs? Why?


Other than that the PQ from what I saw was stunning. Their next set should be interesting. I dream of a 32" at least 720P set with PC input. My Xbox 360 connected via VGA to it would be amazing. I would pay $ 4000 for one even in this terrible economy.


----------



## neo1022

Forget the OLED TVs for now. Bring on the PC monitors where consumers will accept the smaller size and love the increased PQ.


----------



## ferro

 New Samsung TL320 Camera Boasts Three-Inch AMOLED for Enhanced Viewing and Energy Efficiency 









The new TL320 goes above and beyond traditional compact point-and-shoot digital cameras, offering an impressive list of features that set the camera apart from the competition. The TL320 features a Schneider lens, renowned for quality and trusted by professionals worldwide, and offers consumers a more versatile 24mm ultra-wide angle focal length paired with a powerful 5x optical zoom.


Utilizing the same advanced technologies found in its revolutionary AMOLED televisions, Samsung was able to incorporate a three-inch, 460,000-dot HVGA AMOLED screen in the new TL320, the largest AMOLED screen on a digital camera to date. In comparison to a traditional TFT-LCD screen, the TL320's AMOLED consumes less power and offers a higher contrast ratio of 10,000:1, producing darker black levels, more vibrant colors, and a brighter display which can easily be viewed outdoors and even in direct sunlight. Additionally, unlike a TFT-LCD, the TL320's AMOLED screen has the ability to display images that can be reviewed at any angle, while fully maintaining the same color gamut.


----------



## hoodlum

 http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...090223/166150/ 


Eiji Shikoh, an assistant professor at the Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, developed an OLED device that emits circularly polarized light in the visible light range.


It is a basic technology to enable 3D representation on OLED and electronic paper displays. To produce the circularly polarized light in the visible light range, the spin state during the light emission process is controlled by injecting a spin-polarized carrier from the ferromagnetic negative electrode into the emission layer.


For the future, Shikoh intends to increase the degree of circular polarization so that two components, the right and left circularly polarized light, may be clearly differentiated. Through this method, he aims to realize 3D display by producing parallax images that have different information in each component.


In general, OLED devices use a nonmagnetic material such as aluminum (Al) for their negative electrodes. But the new technology uses a ferromagnetic material such as iron (Fe) for the negative electrode in order to inject spin-polarized electrons from the ferromagnetic negative electrode into the emission layer.


As a result, light emission with a circular polarization degree of about 0.5% was observed when a magnetic field intensity of 3,000Oe is applied at room temperature, Shikoh said.


It has been known that GaAs-based inorganic LEDs produce circularly polarized light by the spin injection into the emission layer. However, those LEDs cannot be used for displays, etc because they emit light in the infrared range. Moreover, the base material has to be changed in order to precisely control the colors of light emitted by inorganic light emitting devices.


With organic molecules, it is possible to precisely control the emission color by changing the functional group, Shikoh said.


----------



## slacker711

Samsung Mobile Display has their new website up. Some specs are available on their various OLED displays....plus this little snippet from their FAQ.

http://samsungsmd.com/kor/main.html 


Q When will AM OLED TV panels be commercially available?


A Televisions adopting AM OLED were put out in the market in 2008 by a Japanese company. Samsung Mobile Display is planning to release a small number of them in 2009, and is planning a full-scale release in 2010.


----------



## 8IronBob

Makes me wonder if OLED will find its way into PC displays in the near future. I know that there are LED-backlit LCD PC monitors, but whether or not OLED will be the next thing for the higher-end displays for laptops and desktop monitors, I'm wondering if they'll be doing that this year at all.


EDIT: Oops, Neo1022 beat me to that one. Sorry about that one. Maybe Dell's next UltraSharp line may start doing this?


----------



## slacker711

Asus is considering putting an OLED into a netbook.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/03...ebit_keyboard/ 


Slacker


----------



## twinbee

Videos on OLED were scant even a few months ago. Now they're cropping up like rabbits. Despite this, there are no vids which actually put *side by side* the picture quality next to a lesser LCD/plasma TV.


Apart from one.


A bonus if you can understand German, but otherwise, it's quite awesome to see the difference. Especially at 2:15.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu1-pO54FMQ 

Also...
http://webtv.comon.dk/index.php/video/id=862 (same vid, but better quality)


Note the increased gamut and ace contrast ratio of course. I'm not sure what LCD/plasma they're using, but I'm guessing it's fairly typical... (say 1000~2000 : 1 contrast?)


Also notice the slight flicker on the OLED at that point which helps prove that the sample and hold duty cycle is not quite 100%







There's even a use for which nobody could have imagined, but is shown at the very end of the vid. That's almost worth the $2500 alone. =)


----------



## Richard Paul

Note that PC Magazine has some of the lowest contrast ratio numbers I have seen since they test the average contrast ratio of a calibrated display and that contrast ratio tests based only on dynamic contrast ratio would give higher contrast ratio numbers. In the PC Magazine reviews the Panasonic TH-46PZ85U had a contrast ratio of 1,408:1, the Samsung LN52A750 had a contrast ratio of 3,725:1, the Pioneer KURO PDP-5020FD had a contrast ratio of 8,809:1, and the Sony XEL-1 OLED Digital TV had a contrast ratio of 23,132:1.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15999599
> 
> 
> Also notice the slight flicker on the OLED at that point which helps prove that the sample and hold duty cycle is not quite 100%



That would explain why the Sony XEL-1 OLED Digital TV was able to get a perfect motion resolution score. The HD Guru review said that "this production sample had superb motion resolution. Measurements using my FPD test disc indicated that the set could resolve all 540 lines (per picture height) in the moving Monoscope Pattern test."


----------



## Daviii

In those videos I think its pretty clear the sony OLED works in pulsed mode, it shows a plasma grade ammount of flicker. Everything we've heard about SAH and OLED is just BS.


I'm much more optimistic about OLED being "the next thing" after seeing this video. Once they manage to get long-lasting emmitters and production of big panel sizes, I really see OLED as the future! It's like plasma, but much more efficent and without phosphor trailing.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/16000451
> 
> 
> In those videos I think its pretty clear the sony OLED works in pulsed mode, it shows a plasma grade ammount of flicker. Everything we've heard about SAH and OLED is just BS.
> 
> 
> I'm much more optimistic about OLED being "the next thing" after seeing this video. Once they manage to get long-lasting emmitters and production of big panel sizes, I really see OLED as the future! It's like plasma, but much more efficent and without phosphor trailing.



I've already posted numerous times that the XEL-1 has a less than 100% duty cycle. This is not news?


And what are you talking about when you say SAH and OLED is just BS? Please explain


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15999599
> 
> 
> A bonus if you can understand German, but otherwise, it's quite awesome to see the difference. Especially at 2:15.



I understand German, but he has a bit of a Danish accent







.


----------



## twinbee




> Quote:
> understand German, but he has a bit of a Danish accent



Haha, late night last night - I thought it didn't seem *quite* German...



> Quote:
> And what are you talking about when you say SAH and OLED is just BS?



I think I recall that one or two mentioned how they experienced blur with the Sony XEL. I have a sneaking suspicion that the pre-production model at trade shows was like this (but I could be wrong).


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16000595
> 
> 
> I've already posted numerous times that the XEL-1 has a less than 100% duty cycle. This is not news?



It is one thing to read posts about it and another to see a video that shows it. As such I would personally consider a video that shows it to be news.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16000595
> 
> 
> And what are you talking about when you say SAH and OLED is just BS? Please explain



I think he is referring to posts such as this , this , this , this , this , and others like them. In other words some people would not have predicted that the first OLED TV on the market would have perfect motion resolution. That is very impressive if you think about it since the only other display that HD Guru has reviewed that had perfect motion resolution was the Samsung LN-46A950 and it used both a sequential LED backlight and motion interpolation.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/16006063
> 
> 
> It is one thing to read posts about it and another to see a video that shows it. As such I would personally consider a video that shows it to be news.
> 
> 
> 
> I think he is referring to posts such as this , this , this , this , this , and others like them. In other words some people would not have predicted that the first OLED TV on the market would have perfect motion resolution. That is very impressive if you think about it since the only other display that HD Guru has reviewed that had perfect motion resolution was the Samsung LN-46A950 and it used both a sequential LED backlight and motion interpolation.



IMO the prediciton was that OLED would require 100% duty cycles in order to get respectable lifetime numbers. If it used a less than 100% duty cycle to gain motion resolution it would take a hit in an already short lifetime. Seems that prediciton is correct.


When the XEL-1 came out touting 30K hours I was really suspect and assumed they must have used a long duty cycle. Turns out the thing flickers and has a short lifetime (5000 hours white and 17000 hours RGB) and burns in quickly.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/15999599
> 
> 
> Also notice the slight flicker on the OLED at that point which helps prove that the sample and hold duty cycle is not quite 100%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's even a use for which nobody could have imagined, but is shown at the very end of the vid. That's almost worth the $2500 alone. =)



I have seen this set in person and it doesn't flicker anywhere near as bad as this video would suggest. Most of the time you don't notice any, it mostly shows up with bright whites. You are mostly seeing the camera and TV not syncing exactly causing this. It is like when people try to take a video of a CRT, it flickers like mad.


----------



## twinbee




> Quote:
> You are mostly seeing the camera and TV not syncing exactly causing this.



Oh I know, yes. Just like with the CRTs. Perhaps the effect can't be seen in most vids showcasing OLED because of the cheaper video camera equipment others use to film - which 'smears' out the flicker so it's not noticable.


Any idea if the OLED flickers less than an equivalent refresh rate CRT when seeing it in person?


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16006401
> 
> 
> IMO the prediciton was that OLED would require 100% duty cycles in order to get respectable lifetime numbers.



Which post(s) that I linked to are you referring to or are you referring to a past prediction that you made?




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16006401
> 
> 
> When the XEL-1 came out touting 30K hours I was really suspect and assumed they must have used a long duty cycle. Turns out the thing flickers and has a short lifetime (5000 hours white and 17000 hours RGB) and burns in quickly.



Those calculated lifetime numbers are from DisplaySearch and Sony has said that they are wrong.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/16007042
> 
> 
> Which post(s) that I linked to are you referring to or are you referring to a past prediction that you made?



Not referring to a post. I'm just stating where the SAH-OLED connection comes from scientifically speaking. I went through this stuff years ago in this very thread.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/16007042
> 
> 
> Those URL=" http://www.twice.com/article/CA6558309.html"]calculated lifetime numbers are from DisplaySearch[/url] and Sony has said that they are wrong.



I would love to know how Sony came up with that 30K number. At least display search documented the testing procedure and results. Based on historical marketing do you honestly want to believe Sony?


IMO Sony arrived at the 30K number through either a 100% duty cycle or very low APL. I notice that the XEL-1 has an auto-dimming feature. Maybe they used this to reach 30K?


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16006401
> 
> 
> IMO the prediciton was that OLED would require 100% duty cycles in order to get respectable lifetime numbers. If it used a less than 100% duty cycle to gain motion resolution it would take a hit in an already short lifetime. Seems that prediciton is correct.
> 
> 
> When the XEL-1 came out touting 30K hours I was really suspect and assumed they must have used a long duty cycle. Turns out the thing flickers and has a short lifetime (5000 hours white and 17000 hours RGB) and burns in quickly.



I'm not talking about predictions, I'm talking about people repeating like parrots that OLED would suffer SAH forever, and that the XEL-1 showed blur due to SAH, which is even worse in my opinion since it is not a wrong prediction, but a fanboyish lie.


Predictions use to be wrong for the TV market 99% of the time, facts are always valid. Fact is XEL-1 has perfect motion resolution. Fact is XEL-1 degrades faster than plasma. Everything else is just playing nostradamus.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/16009452
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about predictions, I'm talking about people repeating like parrots that *OLED would suffer SAH forever*



Well I hope I never said that because that would be wrong. What I have said is that in order to maximize lifetime OLED will have to use SAH until they make longer lived more efficient materials. Which is correct based on facts.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/16009452
> 
> 
> ....., and that the XEL-1 showed blur due to SAH, which is even worse in my opinion since it is not a wrong prediction, but a fanboyish lie.



LOL, fanboy of what? You sound a little worked up over this? Are you ok?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/16009452
> 
> 
> Predictions use to be wrong for the TV market 99% of the time, facts are always valid. Fact is XEL-1 has perfect motion resolution. Fact is XEL-1 degrades faster than plasma. Everything else is just playing nostradamus.



LOL, not only was the prediction correct (really not a "prediction", bad word on my part) but you just agreed with it by stating the XEL-1 has great motion resolution but poor lifetime. Thank you


----------



## navychop

I daresay this is all a short term argument. It's "more than good enough" right now, if they could *produce* them. The advancements clearly seem to be trending toward a high quality display, with adequate lifespan, by the time they can produce 40" plus sizes in quantity. 5 years? Think how perfected the technology may be in 10 years.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16007296
> 
> 
> I would love to know how Sony came up with that 30K number. At least display search documented the testing procedure and results. Based on historical marketing do you honestly want to believe Sony?
> 
> 
> IMO Sony arrived at the 30K number through either a 100% duty cycle or very low APL. I notice that the XEL-1 has an auto-dimming feature. Maybe they used this to reach 30K?



I don't know how CE companies get lifetime numbers for displays. Since DisplaySearch based their lifetime numbers on calculations, and might have used different picture setting than Sony, I simply thought it was fair to mention both sides of the story.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16009677
> 
> 
> What I have said is that in order to maximize lifetime OLED will have to use SAH until they make longer lived more efficient materials.



What kind of duty cycle do you need with an OLED display to make it so it has perfect motion resolution and how much does that affect the lifetime?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/16014372
> 
> 
> I don't know how CE companies get lifetime numbers for displays. Since DisplaySearch based their lifetime numbers on calculations, and might have used different picture setting than Sony, I simply thought it was fair to mention both sides of the story.



When you say "calculated" do you mean accelerated? If so, I think every all OLED materials or panels use accelerated measurements. When my company measured OLED material lifetimes they could do it in one day if I remember correctly.


Problem is that to compare results you need to match measurement parameters exactly. No one seems to do this. It is quite a mess reading through research papers on lifetimes. I read Display Search's method and it seems pretty good to me.




> Quote:
> What kind of duty cycle do you need with an OLED display to make it so it has perfect motion resolution and how much does that affect the lifetime?



Who knows? Motion resolution measurement is a total disaster. I can't even begin to tell you what a mess it is. There seems to be hundreds of different ways to measure it and none of them can be compared. And, there is no such thing as perfect motion resolution since all displays have a hold time, even CRT.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16015048
> 
> 
> When you say "calculated" do you mean accelerated?



In the twice article they refer to it as "a calculated panel lifespan".




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16015048
> 
> 
> Who knows? Motion resolution measurement is a total disaster. I can't even begin to tell you what a mess it is. There seems to be hundreds of different ways to measure it and none of them can be compared.



There is the FPD benchmark test which was made by a few Plasma companies (Hitachi, Panasonic, and Pioneer) and is the motion resolution test used by several reviewers including HD Guru.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16015048
> 
> 
> And, there is no such thing as perfect motion resolution since all displays have a hold time, even CRT.



True, though it is possible to get a perfect motion resolution score on the FPD benchmark. As such what kind of duty cycle do you need with an OLED display to make it so it has a perfect motion resolution score on the FDP benchmark and how much does that affect the lifetime?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/16015637
> 
> 
> In the twice article they refer to it as "a calculated panel lifespan".



Dsiplay Search's method looks to be extrapolated.......
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News...x?NewsId=23197 
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/05...rch_sony_oled/ 


And even HDGuru suggests what I have suggested. Essentially that Sony measures lifetime at lower average pixel levels. The XEL-1 not only has an ABL circuit but also an auto dimming circuit it seems.

http://hdguru.com/sony-xel-1-finally...al-review/242/ 




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> There is the FPD benchmark test which was made by a few Plasma companies (Hitachi, Panasonic, and Pioneer) and is the motion resolution test used by several reviewers including HD Guru.



This test is almost useless IMO. The Adavnced PDP Development Corporation has the most accurate method to measure motion resolution that I've read about yet these reviewers will not adopt it because it is too expensive. Standard moving test patterns must be measured using a tracking camera with standard parameters such as distance, speed...etc.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> True, though it is possible to get a perfect motion resolution score on the FPD benchmark. As such what kind of duty cycle do you need with an OLED display to make it so it has a perfect motion resolution score on the FDP benchmark and how much does that affect the lifetime?



Even with the APDC method you can get a perfect score as long as the test pattern velocity is slow enough. This is why there needs to be standards.


Richard you are a smart guy who understands display measurement so think about the following: how can you measure the motion resolution of an 11" screen and compare it to the motion resolution of a 50" or 60" screen using the same test. APDC figured it out, HD Guru did not


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16017191
> 
> 
> This test is almost useless IMO.



The FPD benchmark test is somewhat subjective since it is based on human perception, which varies from individual to individual, but it the closest thing we have to a standard motion resolution test used by third party reviewers. It is also a motion resolution test developed and used by some of the largest CE companies in the world. Panasonic has used the FPD benchmark test , which is the same test used by HD Guru , to promote their new Plasma displays coming out this year.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16017191
> 
> 
> Richard you are a smart guy who understands display measurement so think about the following: how can you measure the motion resolution of an 11" screen and compare it to the motion resolution of a 50" or 60" screen using the same test.



Well excluding other potential variables you could watch all the displays with the same viewing angle. That way the movement across your field of view for the test is the same regardless of whether it is 11" display or a 110" display.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16017191
> 
> 
> APDC figured it out, HD Guru did not



Do you know what the FPD benchmark has in terms of instructions for how to measure the motion resolution of a display?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/16023491
> 
> 
> The FPD benchmark test is somewhat subjective since it is based on human perception, which varies from individual to individual, but it the closest thing we have to a standard motion resolution test used by third party reviewers. It is also a motion resolution test developed and used by some of the largest CE companies in the world. Panasonic has used the FPD benchmark test , which is the same test used by HD Guru , to promote their new Plasma displays coming out this year.



I would have thought that Panasonic used the APDC method since they are part of APDC













> Quote:
> Well excluding other potential variables you could watch all the displays with the same viewing angle. That way the movement across your field of view for the test is the same regardless of whether it is 11" display or a 110" display.



You cannot measure something accurately by "watching it". You need a tracking camera with standardized parameters. To compare different sized screens the paramaters have to be normalized (velocity of test pattern....etc)




> Quote:
> Do you know what the FPD benchmark has in terms of instructions for how to measure the motion resolution of a display?



From what I read, the FPD benchmark disc was made by APDC and is the test patterns used in their method involving the tracking camera system. Using just your naked eye to read the pattern would eliminate all the standard parameters. Seems like a poor method IMO.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16023582
> 
> 
> I would have thought that Panasonic used the APDC method since they are part of APDC


 Panasonic was one of the companies that made the APDC which created the FPD benchmark and from what I read they used the same test material in their demonstrations that HD Guru uses. As such it does sound like Panasonic used the FPD benchmark in their demonstration though I do not know if they used a tracking camera system with it.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16023582
> 
> 
> You cannot measure something accurately by "watching it".



The results of the FPD benchmark do not need to be 100% accurate to be useful. As such I would disagree with your opinion that without a tracking camera system the results of the FPD benchmark are "almost useless".




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16023582
> 
> 
> From what I read, the FPD benchmark disc was made by APDC and is the test patterns used in their method involving the tracking camera system. Using just your naked eye to read the pattern would eliminate all the standard parameters. Seems like a poor method IMO.



xrox, where did you read that the FPD benchmark was designed only to be used with a tracking camera system? Also does the APDC provide instructions for using the FPD benchmark without the use of a tracking camera system? It just think you should know that before you state that HD Guru and other reviewers are incorrectly using the FPD benchmark. Also note that the FPD benchmark was mailed out in in the Japanese AV Review magazine as a "necessary item for the AV fan".


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Panasonic was one of the companies that made the APDC which created the FPD benchmark and from what I read they used the same test material in their demonstrations that HD Guru uses. As such it does sound like Panasonic used the FPD benchmark in their demonstration though I do not know if they used a tracking camera system with it.



I actually have the journals by APDC and Panasonic and many other researchers on motion resolution measurements. Panasonic has used both the visual (subjective) test and the APDC pursuit camera (objective) test. This photo shows Panasonic measuring a 65 Vierra using the APDC method with a pursuit camera.












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The results of the FPD benchmark do not need to be 100% accurate to be useful. As such I would disagree with your opinion that without a tracking camera system the results of the FPD benchmark are "almost useless".



Well then we disagree. Note that I also disagree with Panasonic conclusion that the visual motion resolution test is accurate and robust. Poor science IMO. To get at least some accuracy in the visual test there needs to be a standard viewing distance in an attempt to equalize perceived scroll speed since the SAH effect depends on retinal velocity. Also, there needs to be numerous viewers and the data needs to be averaged. For instance each measurement should be taken at 1H distance (H=height of screen) to ensure perceived scroll speed normalization. There is a paper on this very topic. IMO the APDC method is far more robust and eliminates subjectivity making it possible to compare results from various sources and various screen sizes and resolutions. It essentially mimics human visual system perception without the subjective variations. Far better test IMO.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> xrox, where did you read that the FPD benchmark was designed only to be used with a tracking camera system? Also does the APDC provide instructions for using the FPD benchmark without the use of a tracking camera system? It just think you should know that before you state that HD Guru and other reviewers are incorrectly using the FPD benchmark. Also note that the FPD benchmark was mailed out in in the Japanese AV Review magazine as a "necessary item for the AV fan".



I don't recall that I said as such. What I said is using your naked eye is a poor method IMO. Actually further reading seems to suggest that the FPD patterns on the benchmark disk were produced by ITE (electronics industry association) and not APDC. The scroll burst patterns are used by APDC along with the pursuit camera. For an interesting read check out the following presentation that goes over MPRT and motion resolution.

http://www.semi.org/cms/groups/publi...ctr_026932.pdf 


Cheers


----------



## hoodlum

 The 32" OLED TV: a possible new downturn victim 


"For a more realistic sense of where OLED is, you have to look to Samsung's forthcoming 14.1" OLED, which the company plans to introduce in the second half of this year for laptops and TVs. There is no pricing information yet on the Samsung panel, but the fact that the display maker intends it for the laptop market strongly suggests that its price will be more or less on the high side of what you'd pay for a premium LED-backlit LCD. It could be that by the end of this year (and this is my own inference, not Young's), an OLED screen is the display equivalent of what an SSD was at the start of this year—a luxury that some users will pay a sizable, but not exorbitant, premium to obtain.


But the 14.1" panel size represents something of a brick wall, and to get over it will require a combination of innovation and capital expenditures on brand-new plants. It's via this latter factor—the capital expenditures required for plants that can build larger panels—that the downturn could throw up a serious roadblock to the march of display progress.


It would be nice if existing display manufacturing facilities could be easily and cheaply converted to OLED fabrication, but they can't. Young and I discussed a few major reasons why this is the case, but choice of backplane material stood out as a particularly important issue.


Right now, Young told me, amorphous silicon is the "backplane of choice" for display fabrication. About 95 percent of all LCD fabs are equipped for amorphous silicon, but the problem with amorphous silicon is that it's very susceptible to heat. The circuit design for driving pixels on OLEDs is such that one critical transistor with a very high duty cycle bears the burden of switching the voltage that dictates the pixel's grayscale, and as the display is kept on and heat builds up in the backplane material, that transistor's threshold voltage starts to slip, which means that the color would start to shift.


For OLED displays, polysilicon's higher electron mobility and superior thermal properties under load make it more ideal than amorphous silicon for OLED display backplanes. But right now, there are very few polysilicon fabs, and none that can produce panels beyond a relatively small size.


"So the question is what do you do here," Young told me. "Do you take polysilicon and make it bigger, which means you have to have some new fab equipment that's never been built before, or do you figure out how to work with amorphous silicon?"


Right now, researchers from different companies are actively pursuing the latter option, while other groups are contemplating the former.


Building a new generation of polysilicon fabs around new and untested equipment is not only a gamble, but a capital-intensive one that presumes the existence of sufficient consumer demand to make the fabs pay for themselves. Given the demand destruction that all corners of the PC and consumer electronics markets—including displays—have suffered in the global downturn, there isn't much appetite for ambitious new manufacturing capacity build-outs anywhere at the moment.


"The downturn is likely to delay the kind of things [we talked about] here," Young told me. "This is all new capital investment. It's likely that companies that have excess display capacity will be conservative about making new investments; they're already doing that. Most of the 2009 fabs that were supposed to be fairly significant have either been cancelled or pushed out."


When I asked him specifically about Samsung's planned 32" OLED TV, he replied, "How soon Samsung will do their next generation will be affected by the downturn."


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16026009
> 
> 
> Well then we disagree. Note that I also disagree with Panasonic conclusion that the visual motion resolution test is accurate and robust.



I understand your position. I simply believe that it is better to have a subjective motion resolution test than having no motion resolution test at all. For third party reviewers that looks to be the current choice since I have yet to hear of any who have bought the equipment needed for the APDC method.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16026009
> 
> 
> What I said is using your naked eye is a poor method IMO.



I agree that viewing the FPD benchmark would not be as accurate as the APDC method but if detailed instructions are included it could reduce the number of subjective variables. That is why I am curious to know what, if any, instructions are included with the FPD benchmark.


----------



## creemail

 OLED market set to skyrocket in 2011, says DisplaySearch 











You've seen the prototypes tucked away in trade show corners, and you've seen the demise of existing generation technologies -- it doesn't take an industry expert to realize that the door is wide open for OLED to walk through. According to a new report from -- who else? -- industry experts, the OLED lighting market is set to boom in 2011, with OLED revenues expected to surpass PMOLED displays in the 2013 / 2014 time frame. Specifically in the OLED TV market, manufacturers are scrambling to assemble large-screen OLED TVs that are even close to affordable, and estimates we've personally heard put those on the market just after the next decade begins. Clearly, the biggest hindrance from OLED domination right now is the prohibitive pricing, but once those XEL-1s are given away inside King Size cereal boxes, we'll really be onto something.


Chris


----------



## creemail

Xrox...


Break this video down for us regarding PMOLED...

http://www.oled-display.net/what-is-pmoled 


Chris


----------



## hoodlum




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *creemail* /forum/post/16048699
> 
> OLED market set to skyrocket in 2011, says DisplaySearch



That article title is misleading as the original article that it references is only referring to OLED lighting. The article makes no mention of OLED TVs. The blogger is just adding his own comments.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *creemail* /forum/post/16048737
> 
> 
> Xrox...
> 
> 
> Break this video down for us regarding PMOLED...
> 
> http://www.oled-display.net/what-is-pmoled
> 
> 
> Chris



That video does not describe PMOLED (passive matrix OLED) but rather P-OLED (polymer OLED). The field of polymer OLEDs has developed rapidly in the last two years or so thanks to lifetime improvements. Polymer OLED has the obvious manufacturing advantage of being solution processable. Therefore it can be solution coated or printed into pixels for displays or panels for lighting in a mass manufacturing type environment.


PMOLED (passive matrix) describes a method for driving the pixels where there is no TFT behind the pixels but rather just a cathode and an anode that energize the pixels row by row or multiple rows at a time (TMA). The advantage of PMOLED is that it is cheaper and easier to manufacture and provides excellent motion rendering. Disadvantage is it required high current and power which greatly limits the lifetime of the EL material.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung: AMOLED laptop displays in 2009, flexibles in 2010* 
*26 February 2009*













Samsung has publicly declared its goal of doubling AMOLED production in 2009, with a further doubling in 2010. According to Daniel Lamberti, brand manager at Samsung Mobile, AMOLED will reach economy of scale sometime this year, with TVs, laptops and monitors all commercially viable.


Come 2010, and we’ll see flexible Samsung AMOLED displays become commercially viable too. Samsung SDI currently has a manufacturing capacity of two million units per year; by the end of 2010, that should have reached eight million.


Predicted sales of OLED-based panels are expected to jump by two-thirds in 2009; three of Samsung’s headline cellphones at Mobile World Congress this year used AMOLED displays. According to Lamberti, manufacturing costs are now the limiting factor in AMOLED, but that will be addressed before the year is out.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CMEL and UDC renew their material supply agreement* 
*18 March 2009*











*CMEL 7.6" AMOLED module*


UDC has announced today that CMEL has renewed their 'commercial supply' agreement. UDC are providing CMEL with materials to use in their AMOLED displays. The new agreement will run through 31th of December 2009.


CMEL are making AMOLED displays, and are currently shipping the largest display available (beside Sony's XEL-1 11" TV ) - a 7.6" OLED panel , as used in Kodak's digital photo frame .


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*NEW Apple OLED Notebook & iPhone Confirmed By LG* 
*19 March 2009*

*Apple is set to launch new OLED notebooks and flat panel monitors along with a new OLED iPhone claim sources at LG in Korea.*


It's also believed that a new iPhone and iPod Touch due later this year will include an OLED screen made by LG who last year scored a multibillion dollar deal to manufacture display screens for Apple.


One source that SmartHouse has spoken to claims that Apple already have working prototype of a new Netbook which will be manufactured in Taiwan with the OLED screen supplied by LG.


LG have also said that they intend to increase their R&D investment by 25% with significant investments going into OLED solar and new battery technology. The Company has told ChannelNews that they will invest over $3B into R&D over the next 18 months and that recently Apple paid the Company over $500M US dollars up front to work on new monitor and display technology.


Sources in Taiwan told ChannelNews last month that Apple were looking at an OLED based notebook that will also incorporate new touch screen technology. Now sources in Korea are saying that this information is correct and that one area where LG has been testing OLED panels is in the area of touch sensitivity and "leave behind finger marks".


The sources claim that in recent testing OLED screens used on a notebook attracted "body oils and sweat" when a finger was constantly used on a screen. LG believe that by adding a layer in the manufacturing process that they can eliminate "finger marking".


Smarthouse was also told that Apple is looking at a wafer thin OLED screen made by LG that will link with a wireless content device similar to the current Apple TV box.


----------



## Isochroma

 *LG pick Kodak OLED tech for future devices* 
*19 March 2009*













LG and Kodak have signed a deal that will see the latter’s OLED technology used in upcoming LG products, including TVs, cellphone displays and digital photo frames. The first LG devices using Kodak OLED systems are expected to reach the market by the end of 2009, according to Andrew Sculley, GM and VP of Kodak’s Display Group.


Update: Kodak have clarified that the deal was in fact signed in 2008, and that the claim of commercial products “by the end of the year” is unconfirmed.


Full details of the deal have not been revealed, and nor are we certain of which exact technologies have been licensed. Kodak already sells one OLED product, its Wireless OLED Picture Frame , a 7.6-inch panel which retails for a massive $999. The panel itself is believed to be sourced from Chi Mei EL .


Kodak has discussed producing OLED panels larger than 20-inches, mass-scale production of which has up until now proved financially unfeasible. The first LG/Kodak products are likely to be digital picture frames and small TVs to take on the Sony XEL-1 .


----------



## Blackraven

Cool updates











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/16081779
> 
> *NEW Apple OLED Notebook & iPhone Confirmed By LG*
> *19 March 2009*
> 
> *Apple is set to launch new OLED notebooks and flat panel monitors along with a new OLED iPhone claim sources at LG in Korea.*
> 
> 
> It's also believed that a new iPhone and iPod Touch due later this year will include an OLED screen made by LG who last year scored a multibillion dollar deal to manufacture display screens for Apple.
> 
> 
> One source that SmartHouse has spoken to claims that Apple already have working prototype of a new Netbook which will be manufactured in Taiwan with the OLED screen supplied by LG.
> 
> 
> LG have also said that they intend to increase their R&D investment by 25% with significant investments going into OLED solar and new battery technology. The Company has told ChannelNews that they will invest over $3B into R&D over the next 18 months and that recently Apple paid the Company over $500M US dollars up front to work on new monitor and display technology.
> 
> 
> Sources in Taiwan told ChannelNews last month that Apple were looking at an OLED based notebook that will also incorporate new touch screen technology. Now sources in Korea are saying that this information is correct and that one area where LG has been testing OLED panels is in the area of touch sensitivity and "leave behind finger marks".
> 
> 
> The sources claim that in recent testing OLED screens used on a notebook attracted "body oils and sweat" when a finger was constantly used on a screen. LG believe that by adding a layer in the manufacturing process that they can eliminate "finger marking".
> 
> 
> Smarthouse was also told that Apple is looking at a wafer thin OLED screen made by LG that will link with a wireless content device similar to the current Apple TV box.



Oh so this is something like what Sony did with their X1000 series Walkman.


Btw, how does an OLED touch screen work anyway? (in a technical sense....)


----------



## Isochroma

 *Sony: 'Our focus is not on OLED'* 
*26 March 2009*


TechRadar spoke to Darren Ambridge, Sony's Group Product Manager for TVs, this week and we were interested in how the company's first OLED TV, the XEL-1 was faring in the UK.


"I'm not going to lie to you and say that it is flying off the shelves, but we never saw the XEL-1 as a mass-market product. We really made it just to prove that we could make it," he told us.


The XEL-1 launched in the UK back in January for a street price of £3,500, which puts the 11-inch telly firmly out of reach price-wise for your average consumer.


And considering you can purchase the TV for around $2,500 in the US, it's easy to see why UK TV buying public, no matter the size of their wallets, weren't flocking to buy the television.

*Focused on big-screen tech*


Ambridge wasn't discarding OLED screens altogether, but did explain that we probably won't be seeing another OLED TV anytime soon.


"Sony is focused more on big-screen technology at the moment," he explained.


"OLED tech is certainly still important and you can see some stunning OLED screens in our upcoming Walkman [NWZ-X1000] series of media players."


To read more about Sony's HDTV range and the full interview with Darren Ambridge, click here .


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/16128866
> 
> 
> Cool updates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so this is something like what Sony did with their X1000 series Walkman.
> 
> 
> Btw, how does an OLED touch screen work anyway? (in a technical sense....)



A touch sensitive membrane overlayed over the OLED screen? This is how most all others work.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Japanese Researchers Double Green Phosphorescent OLED Efficiency* 
*3 April 2009*











*The high-efficiency, green light-emitting OLED device developed by

the Mikami Lab at the Kanazawa Institute of Technology*



A Japanese research group succeeded in making an OLED device using a green light-emitting phosphor material and achieving a very high light-emitting efficiency of 210lm/W.


The research group, which is led by professor Akiyoshi Mikami of the Advanced Optical Electro Magnetic Field Science Lab, the Kanazawa Institute of Technology, boosted the light-extraction efficiency to 56.9%, more than twice that of existing OLED devices. The group made this announcement at the JSAP (Japan Society of Applied Physics) 56th Spring Meeting, 2009, which took place at Tsukuba University in Japan, from March 30 to April 2, 2009.


It has been regarded as a big challenge for OLED devices to enhance their low light-extraction efficiency of slightly less than 30%. Using the new technology, it is possible that the light-emitting efficiencies of OLED displays and lamps will sharply increase.


The OLED device developed by the research group has the bottom emission type structure, which extracts light through a substrate made with transparent electrodes. In addition, a 0.7mm-thick glass plate with a refraction index as high as 2.03 is bonded to the substrate. The surface of this glass plate is processed to have a structure of about 0.3mm-pitch optical lens array.


The material for the device's light-emitting layer is a host material called "CBP" added with an iridium complex, "Ir(ppy)3." Its light emission peak lies in the range of wavelengths between 500 and 550nm, which corresponds to green color.


When emitting light at a luminance of 10cd/m2, it has a light-emitting efficiency of 210lm/W and a light-extraction efficiency of 56.9%. On the other hand, when emitting light without the high-refractive glass plate, its light-emitting efficiency is only 94.3lm/W. This means the glass plate boosted the light-extraction efficiency by 2.3 times.

*Developed through detailed theoretical analysis*


The research group made the achievement by developing "FROLED," software that theoretically calculates optical behaviors, and by "conducting a detailed analysis on light-extraction efficiency for the first time in Japan," Mikami said.


The glass plate results in higher light-extraction efficiency because "the high-refractive glass plate strongly attracts the optical energy, which usually remains inside the thin film and the substrate of an OLED at a ratio of about 1:1, to the side of the substrate," Mikami said. And the lens array structure formed on the surface of the glass plate enables to extract light that is otherwise trapped in the substrate and the glass plate, he said.


"The light-extraction efficiency is theoretically calculated to be 75%, which is three times higher than before," Mikami said. "We might be able to realize it by improving the device manufacturing technology."


----------



## rgb32

Finally Sony shows a new OLED "prototype". Looks great!







No price or release date yet.

http://www.oled-display.net/sony-sho...n-display-2009 


Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwqp-xHhqBM 


JP Link:
http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/n...15_125433.html


----------



## sharpbandaid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/16292520
> 
> 
> No price or release date yet.



Sony has announced it will release a new OLED TV by May 2009. LG will release a 32" mass production OLED TV next year.


----------



## Blackraven

^^

That's cool news and updates.


Thankfully, at least (though very slowly), OLED is starting to take shape and hopefully, it improves on previous and current gen OLED tech (esp. in fixing its flaws). It's starting to take off finally.


Oh SED, where art thou now?


----------



## wco81

Little early to be crowing, no?


----------



## twinbee




> Quote:
> Thankfully, at least (though very slowly), OLED is starting to take shape



OLED has taken a while to gather momentum, but I have this feeling that if the state of OLED technology was just a couple of years behind what it is now, it would have taken *much* longer to 'arrive' in the end, due to advancements in white LED backlighting for LCDs etc.


I'm happy now


----------



## rgb32

Exciting rumors! (from oled-info , gizmodo , and Korean Times )


There are rumors (from Industry insiders...) that Sony will be unveiling their 2nd generation OLED TVs at IFA 2009 - on the 4th of September.










Sony 27 OLED prototype (2008)


The XEL-2 (that's what we'll call it until Sony gives us an official name) might be a 27" model, as promised by Sony a year ago, or it might be the 21" displays shown just last week. We'll have to wait and see!


----------



## wco81

If it's 21-inch, don't even bother.


----------



## dav65mus

I can't wait to see the pricing on these from $ony.... probably double or more the price of a 55" xbr8.



We will have to wait probably 5 or more years for this tech to reach any decent size or price point that the average consumer can afford.


It is encouraging that some new tech is being developed..... I remember first gen plasma t.v.'s that cost $10k-$20k about 10 years ago.... and most people would not use them as a door stop today. Today a sub $1k 720p plasma will blow them away


----------



## danieloneil01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dav65mus* /forum/post/16298154
> 
> 
> I can't wait to see the pricing on these from $ony.... *probably double or more the price of a 55" xbr8.*
> 
> 
> 
> We will have to wait probably 5 or more years for this tech to reach any decent size or price point that the average consumer can afford.
> 
> 
> It is encouraging that some new tech is being developed..... I remember first gen plasma t.v.'s that cost $10k-$20k about 10 years ago.... and most people would not use them as a door stop today. Today a sub $1k 720p plasma will blow them away



I say quadruple.


----------



## dhp1675

Pricing on the upcoming 2G XEL-1 is the proverbial million dollar question here. The price will depend on whether Sony believes that the panel is mass-marketable enough, which in turn, will depend (at least in the US) on the economic climate.


Personally, I think Sony made a huge error in their XBR8 pricing and has undoubtedly left the door open for Samsung to eventually overtake them with their current/future LEDs. Yes, the XBR8 is better than the 950, but was it $3000 better? This spells a doom strategy in pricing, go ask Pioneer










I would like to believe Sony would not make this same mistake twice with their follow-up OLED _if_ they release a 27" panel, because if they do, I guarantee that LG would be more than happy to capitalize on their mistake. Of course, the question is moot with a 21" since it will still be a mostly nonviable size for most interested in a flat panel.


I would like to see the price be


----------



## mvcathey

This technology is great! I believe someday it will be the norm and LCD technology will be wain. We have worked with OLED's before to take advantage of the superior viewing angle over LCD (at the time). But we need a larger size. Now, however, the size is not an issue for us. It lighter, requires less power, etc. and has much more usage than LCD. We've seen a prototype of a flexible OLED panel. It looked extremely sharp and the material looked like a sheet of mylar.


----------



## Daviii

You should expect premium prices for OLED TVs until several brands are able to compete in the >32" range. Once that size is achieved by diferent manufacturers, we can expect the technology to get mainstream. Until then, which is IMO far away, we can expect mainstream OLED smartphones first, and mainstream laptop screens later. But not TVs in the short term.


----------



## rgb32

*LG: OLED displays in two months, OLED TVs by the end of the year, will cost twice as much as LCDs*

04/20/2009 LG OLED TV
http://www.oled-info.com/lg-oled-dis...wice-much-lcds 


LG says that they will launch OLED products in two months. This might be the 15" OLED monitors/laptop-displays.


LG also plans to release OLED TVs by the end of 2009. Interestingly they say that an OLED TV will cost 2.1 times the cost of an LCD TV (while LED-based LCDs costs 1.6 the times of normal LCDs). Maybe LG has already decided on the price of those new televisions?











LG 15 OLED at CES 2009


There were rumors before of 32" OLEDs by 2010. So are they planning to release these TVs sooner? Will LG release the first large-size commercial OLED TV?


Via the Hindu Business Line (and OLED-Info.com)


----------



## sharpbandaid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/16303061
> 
> 
> There were rumors before of 32" OLEDs by 2010. So are they planning to release these TVs sooner? Will LG release the first large-size commercial OLED TV?



15" trial product 2009

32" mass market 2010.


2x cost would be a bargain.


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharpbandaid* /forum/post/16303168
> 
> 
> 15" trial product 2009
> 
> 32" mass market 2010.
> 
> 
> 2x cost would be a bargain.



Affordable (

I'm so happy with my new LCD right now!










bye

Benny42


----------



## rgb32

 http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And...ED_TV/S5K3G4D9 


LG Set To Steal Sony's OLED Advantage

By David Richards | Wednesday | 22/04/2009



LG is set to steal Sony's OLED advantage with Company insiders in Korea telling SmartHouse that the Korean Company will have a 15" for sale by Xmas and a 32" in mid 2010.
*It is tipped that the company is working towards delivering their 32" OLED TV by June 2010 at a price of around $3,999* and their 15" by Xmas.


A senior executive at LG Display who has been closely involved in the development of display technology for Apple said "The early models will be double, if not triple, the price of an LCD panel however, over time they will fall".


The new 15" LG OLED display panel is tipped to be shown for the first time in a brand new Apple notebook in June and later in the year it will appear as a standalone TV/monitor. Recently LG Display snared a multi billion dollar dislay contract with Apple with $500US being paid upfront.


Currently Sony Australia is selling an 11" OLED TV for $6,999. The exact same TV is selling in Best Buy in the US for US$2,499 (A$3,519).


Warren Kim, Marketing Manager for LG Display in Australia, said "There is a market for everything. We will have to look at the pricing. One big issue in bringing OLED into the market is education. Currently we have plasma, LCD and educating consumers on the different display options is difficult".


Also set to roll out OLED display screens this year are Samsung who earlier this month launched a new range of LED TV's which Sony are arguing are simply backlight LCD TV's.


Currently LG are selling an HD 32inch LCD TV for $1,499.


----------



## sharpbandaid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/16322185
> 
> *It is tipped that the company is working towards delivering their 32" OLED TV by June 2010 at a price of around $3,999*



This is great news. That would be 2 900 in USD?


----------



## jpoints

Does anyone else think OLED will fail and Plasma production will come to an end leaving us stuck with LCD?


----------



## Artwood

The ultimate horror story nightmare would be ONLY LCD!


----------



## ferro

Not TV related, but still an OLED technology advancement: Philips introduces its Lumiblade OLED lighting technology .

















*Lumiblade - the cutting edge of light*


Lumiblade is an all-in-one lighting system complete with built-in reflectors and diffusers. Add in a potential lifetime of several 10,000s of hours, an excellent energy efficiency and it's clear why many see Lumiblade as a fit-and-forget solution that's good for the lifetime of an object or interior design.

*Energy efficient*


Lumiblade has the potential of reaching energy efficiencies of up to 140 lum/W, 15 times higher than conventional light bulbs. That makes it an energy-efficient light source for today's regulations and budgets. Long term, Lumiblade is a good alternative to fluorescent lighting.


However, today's performance is still limited and allows for small, decorative purposes only. Philips offers today already a range of components to experiment with

*Product performance (2009)*


* up to 20 lm/W in different shades of white and RGB

* 1,000 cd/m² brightness

* 10,000 hours lifetime (at 50% initial brightness)

* 1.8 mm thin

*


----------



## Isochroma

Incandescent 100W bulbs get 16 Lu/W. There's not much to be said for Philips' technology othe than it will be expensive and niche - and of course not saleable in North America, where it doesn't meet EPACT standards for efficiency.


----------



## ferro

And fluorescent lamps are about 60 lm/W, so they have quite a way to go. If they can reach their projected 140 lm/W, they have a winner though.


----------



## Isochroma

Don't forget the EPACT minimum CRI of 75 as well. No general-purpose lighting can be sold in USA or Canada that doesn't meet both efficiency and CRI minimums. Which is why you can no longer buy the old 40W cool-white and warm-white fluorescent tubes anymore.


----------



## twinbee




> Quote:
> No general-purpose lighting can be sold in USA or Canada that doesn't meet both efficiency and CRI minimums.



And that's why I hate 'knee-jerk' laws like this, because they don't give leeway to new/niche technologies, or to techs which can eventually grow to much better efficiencies.


The free market can naturally pick the cheaper/better techs without law having to enforce things


----------



## greenland

*OLED microdisplay with superhigh resolution*

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1240467762 



"Offering better comfort to users of point-and-shoot digital cameras, and new designs for video glasses with the highest resolution ever, Microoled and the CEA-Leti have targeted these and many other potential applications with the announcement of the yet most efficient silicon-based OLED microdisplay out there.


Microoled and CEA-Leti announce the OLED microdisplay with the finest pixel pitch (more than 1.7 million sub-pixels, 2 to 4 times more than the other emissive technologies) and the lowest power consumption reported to date (4 times more efficient).

This very compact 0.38” WVGA microdisplay from Microoled is based on the OLED technology licensed from Thomson and CEA, and integrates technologies developed by Microoled and CEA-Leti. This display is targeted for camcorder and digital still camera eye-pieces as well as for video or interactive eyeglasses.



The small OLED panel has a stunning resolution of 873x500 pixels on a 0.38” surface."


----------



## johnmistar

LG also plan to announce 15-inch and 32-inch OLED panels soon: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1240817166


----------



## Dan P.

Any conjecture on when we'll see a 50" OLED, or bigger, for less than $10K?


My old panny 50" plasma needs an upgrade. I just got a new 42" panny for the family room and it looks great -- far better CR than my old 50 incher.


But, I want a much bigger screen for the HT if I'm going to upgrade, which has me thinking about PJ (JVC or Sony LCOS). However, if 65" or bigger OLEDs are 3 to 5 years away, I'll wait.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan P.* /forum/post/16363886
> 
> 
> Any *conjecture* on when we'll see a 50" OLED, or bigger, for less than $10K?
> 
> ...
> 
> However, if 65" or bigger OLEDs are 3 to 5 years away, I'll wait.



Based off of recent information (like the post below), it's unlikely we will see an OLED display larger than 37" in the next 24 months. But we should see OLED monitors suitable as CRT/LCD computer monitor replacements in the next 24 months!


----------



## rgb32

Submitted by admin on Wed, 04/29/2009 - 06:52.

37-inch | Oled-TV | panasonic | pioneer | toshiba
http://www.oled-display.net/panasoni...v-in-18-months 











There are new rumors that Panasonic want to introduce a 37 inch OLED Television device within 18 months to 2 years.


This information comes from the Senior Panasonic executive which were in Australia. He said that Panasonic is currently researching HD OLED Televisions.


Thats a surprise because at the Ces-2009 Panasonic they hat not talked about an Oled-Tv, one of the reason are the production costs and the lifespan so the main message from Panasonic for a few months.

*Now Panasonic want with the help from Pioneer engineers which are changing to Panasonic they are able to deliver new technology that expanded the lifespan Oled screen from 30,000 hours to 50,000 hours.


Toshiba are announcing that they are working with Panasonic to move the OLED technology forward.


The first OLED TV from Panasonic are tipped to be a 37 inch panel. This organic light emitting diode panel will be produced at the new IPS Alpha factory.*via Smarthouse


----------



## twinbee

It all looks like the point of no return. OLED: here... we... come!


----------



## Daviii

Hell yeah!


A 37" oled from panny would be a nice bedroom-wall-tv


----------



## wco81

I wonder how much OLED is in the public consciousness.


When big-screen OLEDs appear in showrooms, I guess people will see the benefits.


There are rumors of an iPhone with an OLED screen. Such a high-profile product may help raise awareness of the technology.


----------



## navychop

Yes, there are LCoS FPTVs still available. Sadly, the LCoS RPTVs are gone.


----------



## dsurkin

Some bad news about Sony's plans:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...s-oled-tellies


----------



## sharpbandaid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsurkin* /forum/post/16377253
> 
> 
> Some bad news about Sony's plans:
> 
> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...s-oled-tellies



You mean bad speculation?

Sony denies abandoning OLED TV market 



> Quote:
> My post from Thursday night about the state of OLED TV development struck a nerve, as it detailed a report that suggested Sony had lost interest in building bigger sets than its 11-inch XEL-1 (including a quote from Sony spokesman that the company only built the XEL-1 as essentially a proof of concept). A U.S. Sony Electronics spokesperson contacted me and vehemently denied that the company was abandoning development of OLED TVs and that it was fully committed to the technology. He pointed to Sony's recent 22-billion-yen investment in increasing production capacity for larger OLED screens and its showcasing of bigger sets at this year's CES as proof of the electronics giant's commitment to OLED. There's still no official word on when Sony will release a larger follow-up to the XEL-1, but it does appear that there will be a follow-up after all.


----------



## dsurkin

Sharpbandaid:


I'm glad to hear it. I've been looking forward to seeing a mid-sized Sony OLED screen.


----------



## sharpbandaid

Panasonic teams up with Sumitomo for OLED TVs



> Quote:
> TOKYO, May 8 (Reuters) - Japan's Panasonic Corp (6752.T) said it was developing advanced display panels based on organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology with Sumitomo Chemical Co (4005.T), in a bid to stay in the race in the next-generation TV market.
> 
> 
> The Nikkei business daily said Panasonic and Sumitomo Chemical were aiming to set up a joint venture to develop and manufacture 40-inch or bigger OLED panels by 2010.


 http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssC...14339520090508


----------



## H_Prestige

Panasonic 37" OLED TV = win


----------



## Isochroma

 *40-inch OEL screens on way* 
*8 May 2009*

*Sumitomo and Panasonic are to join forces to make a 40-inch OEL (organic electroluminescent) panel by 2010.*


According to nikkei.net, the two firms will start production lines at Panasonic's LCD plant in Japan.


That, according to the report, is only the start of a further series of product releases including a 40-inch OEL TV that will only consume 40 watts, be three millimetres thick, and 20 times brighter than plasma based TVs.


Sumitomo owns UK firm Cambridge Display Technology which had expertise in developing polymer organic LEDs.


If the joint venture is successful, Panasonic will make LCD, OEL and plasma flat panels, and even though Samsung has already released an 11-inch OEL TV some time ago, that technology won't scale, it appears.


You can find the nikkei.net report here (subscription needed)


----------



## gary cornell

Has anyone announced a 19" or 20" OLED? The LCD models in this size are totally inaccurate.


----------



## Human Bass

40" consuming only 40 watts?! Thats nice!


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/16426274
> 
> *40-inch OEL screens on way*
> *8 May 2009*
> 
> *Sumitomo and Panasonic are to join forces to make a 40-inch OEL (organic electroluminescent) panel by 2010.*
> 
> 
> According to nikkei.net, the two firms will start production lines at Panasonic's LCD plant in Japan.
> 
> 
> That, according to the report, is only the start of a further series of product releases including a 40-inch OEL TV that will only consume 40 watts, be three millimetres thick, and 20 times brighter than plasma based TVs.
> 
> 
> Sumitomo owns UK firm Cambridge Display Technology which had expertise in developing polymer organic LEDs.
> 
> 
> If the joint venture is successful, Panasonic will make LCD, OEL and plasma flat panels, and even though Samsung has already released an 11-inch OEL TV some time ago, that technology won't scale, it appears.
> 
> 
> You can find the nikkei.net report here (subscription needed)



Wow interesting stuff.


However, I read that this is an OEL TV and it does look like it is different from the OLED TV that we are talking about.


So if I may ask: What is OEL TV and what are the differences and/or similarities between OLED TVs???


----------



## Isochroma

Different word for the same thing. OEL = Organic ElectroLuminescent


----------



## dsmith901

If 40" is doable in 2010 then 50" can't be that far behind. Just keep in mind OLED is new technology and look how long it took plasma and LCD to get it right (~10 years?). OLED probably won't take 10 years to perfect, but early adopters should beware that the first models are sure to have issues, especially about short life-span of some colors. So if you want an affordable and reliable FP 50" or bigger for the next 5 years, I think plasma is still the way to go, especially at today's prices.


----------



## twinbee

I wonder how much harder it is to produce bigger OLED panels compared to smaller ones. Is the cost of the manufacturing equipment something like linear to the (area) size, and do different techniques have to be used for the larger TVs? I'm guessing the amount of materials used would be linear to cost in any case...


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsmith901* /forum/post/16444157
> 
> 
> If 40" is doable in 2010 then 50" can't be that far behind..



Probably a couple of years, if that.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsmith901* /forum/post/16444157
> 
> 
> OLED probably won't take 10 years to perfect, but early adopters should beware that the first models are sure to have issues, especially about short life-span of some colors..



Remember that OLED has been around for a long time and the blue lifespan issue has taken at least 7 years to get to a usable state. Isochroma started this thread 3 years ago and despite all of the prototypes out there we still have seen only one OLED TV on the market.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsmith901* /forum/post/16444157
> 
> 
> So if you want an affordable and reliable FP 50" or bigger for the next 5 years, I think plasma is still the way to go, especially at today's prices.



Agreed


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/16442831
> 
> 
> Different word for the same thing. OEL = Organic ElectroLuminescent



Oh I see. They are the same then (OLED = OEL).


Well if that case, if Panasonic can get their 40 inch OEL/OLED TV by year 2010 (or even after year 2010; I'm a patient guy hehe), then that would be awesome.


40 inch TV that only consumes 40 watts. ONE WATT PER INCH


I like that very much haha


----------



## Isochroma

 *Sony: OLED is 'the next display technology'* 
*8 May 2009*

*Company still committed to next-gen screen tech*


Sony is still completely committed to producing OLED screens, according to the company.


In a statement released to TechRadar, Sony mentioned it is to "steadily cultivate" its investment into OLED as it sees it as being "the next display technology".


Sony wanted to cement its stance on OLED, after an interview with us last month muddied the waters of what the company was doing with the technology.

*OLED shows the best promise*


Although Sony mentioned at a recent 2009 TV line-up showcase that its focus was on "big-screen technology" like LCD, it seems that OLED is still very much part of its TV business plans.


"The OLED TV market will not surpass the LCD TV market within the next few years," the statement explained.


"Rather, we think it is necessary to steadily cultivate OLED so that we can deliver new lifestyle ideas and applications that make full use of OLED technology.


"BRAVIA LCD TVs will continue to be the core part of our TV business, while OLED shows the best promise as the next display technology. Our plans for OLED are still unchanged as of now."

*Bigger OLED?*


And to prove Sony is true to its word, there's been much rumour and speculation that the company is to unveil a bigger OLED screen at this year's IFA trade show in Berlin.


So far Sony is the first and only manufacturer to release an OLED TV – the 11-inch XEL-1.


The Korean Times , however, has noted that its potential successor, the XEL-2, will be above 21-inches in size. If this is true, then it will be interesting to see what sort of price point the company will go for, as the XEL-1 is retailing for a whopping £3,500


----------



## jonLavs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/16450430
> 
> 
> Oh I see. They are the same then (OLED = OEL).
> 
> 
> Well if that case, if Panasonic can get their 40 inch OEL/OLED TV by year 2010 (or even after year 2010; I'm a patient guy hehe), then that would be awesome.
> 
> 
> 40 inch TV that only consumes 40 watts. ONE WATT PER INCH
> 
> 
> I like that very much haha



But does it have clouding or flashlighting? 


Seriously though, when OLED arrives, I think we will hit a wall as far as TV tech goes. It will be the end all and be all of TV tech. After that, we will be going into holographic/3D TVs of some sort. Once they get OLEDs to have a lifespan that is equivalent to today's LED LCDs, then there is really nothing better than that. Contrast ratios and colors will be the best possible and will be aesthetically pleasing as well due to their thin size.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonLavs* /forum/post/16457732
> 
> 
> But does it have clouding or flashlighting?
> 
> 
> Seriously though, when OLED arrives, I think we will hit a wall as far as TV tech goes. It will be the end all and be all of TV tech. After that, we will be going into holographic/3D TVs of some sort. Once they get OLEDs to have a lifespan that is equivalent to today's LED LCDs, then there is really nothing better than that. Contrast ratios and colors will be the best possible and will be aesthetically pleasing as well due to their thin size.



Well, after OLED begins to trickle in, researchers are already thinking long-term and state that the next big thing after OLED will be..............ILED.


Inorganic Light Emitting Diode (or something like that). They claim it can exceed OLED lolz. So if you think OLED is perfect, then ILED is..........beyond perfect hahaha










Coming not earlier than year 2020 mwahahahaha.


----------



## twinbee




> Quote:
> They claim it can exceed OLED



"They claim": Love to see an article or source somewhere about that and ILED.


----------



## brainox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/16359774
> 
> *OLED microdisplay with superhigh resolution*
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1240467762
> 
> 
> 
> "Offering better comfort to users of point-and-shoot digital cameras, and new designs for video glasses with the highest resolution ever, Microoled and the CEA-Leti have targeted these and many other potential applications with the announcement of the yet most efficient silicon-based OLED microdisplay out there."



that's so cool. even though it's very small i can see that the image is very crisp and detailed.. i hope they will be releasing it soon and i hope that video glasses like these would use the similar technology.. but ofcourse and a much cheaper price


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/16474744
> 
> 
> "They claim": Love to see an article or source somewhere about that and ILED.



Well that's what they said.........but it will only happen years after OLED starts kicking in.


With regards to the ILED stuff, well......you can ask Isochroma about it hehe


----------



## greenjp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonLavs* /forum/post/16457732
> 
> 
> Seriously though, when OLED arrives, I think we will hit a wall as far as TV tech goes. It will be the end all and be all of TV tech.



I believe you've made numerous posts that the fear of burn in is enough to scare you away from plasma. OLED has the same "issue". In fact it's a lot worse at the present due to OLED's shorter half-brightness life - Sony claims 30k hours (independant test estimated 17k) vs. 100k for plasma. Back to the drawing board










jeff


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenjp* /forum/post/16482615
> 
> 
> I believe you've made numerous posts that the fear of burn in is enough to scare you away from plasma. OLED has the same "issue". In fact it's a lot worse at the present due to OLED's shorter half-brightness life - Sony claims 30k hours (independant test estimated 17k) vs. 100k for plasma. Back to the drawing board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeff



True


While current-gen OLED possess superb characteristics in terms of PQ and energy efficiency, it is not without major drawbacks (mainly on the uber-low lifespan of Blue materials)


The key here is to continue with R&D in order to improve on its superb characteristics and reduce its drawbacks.


----------



## jonLavs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/16472100
> 
> 
> Well, after OLED begins to trickle in, researchers are already thinking long-term and state that the next big thing after OLED will be..............ILED.
> 
> 
> Inorganic Light Emitting Diode (or something like that). They claim it can exceed OLED lolz. So if you think OLED is perfect, then ILED is..........beyond perfect hahaha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming not earlier than year 2020 mwahahahaha.



Well, isn't LCD inorganic as it is now? So if I'm assuming ILEDs are essentially man-made chemicals that can light up when a current is passed through them? Well, that's the first time I've heard of it. What are the advantages over OLED?


----------



## bluebay112

i liked his font it was easy on the eyes to read.


----------



## Daviii

What people should notice is that the unever aging issue may be an issue for several people out there but I can't imagine being a problem for me.


100.000h for plasma and "only" 30.000 for OLED? Are we crazy? At my current peak rate of 2h of TV usage every day, it would took 137 years for plasma and 41 years for oled to reach half brightness. Let's put an EXTREME case on the table. Let's say 6h every day. In this case it would take 45 and 14 years respectively.


What's even better is than most people in this forum that complain about OLED's short lifespan are not holding their sets at home more than two or three years. I accept the short lifespan point for my mother, whose tvs last 20 years, but not for the supa-freaks here, always with cutting-edge technology in the living room.


Let's accept it, most of the people in this forum only care about tvs lifespan when they need something to complain about.


----------



## jonLavs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/16487942
> 
> 
> What people should notice is that the unever aging issue may be an issue for several people out there but I can't imagine being a problem for me.
> 
> 
> 100.000h for plasma and "only" 30.000 for OLED? Are we crazy? At my current peak rate of 2h of TV usage every day, it would took 137 years for plasma and 41 years for oled to reach half brightness. Let's put an EXTREME case on the table. Let's say 6h every day. In this case it would take 45 and 14 years respectively.
> 
> 
> What's even better is than most people in this forum that complain about OLED's short lifespan are not holding their sets at home more than two or three years. I accept the short lifespan point for my mother, whose tvs last 20 years, but not for the supa-freaks here, always with cutting-edge technology in the living room.
> 
> 
> Let's accept it, most of the people in this forum only care about tvs lifespan when they need something to complain about.



Yes I totally agree. I made a point about this in another thread discussing the difference between plasma and LED TV life. Basically, the plasma people were saying that 50000 for LEDs is shorter than the 100000 for plasma. I mean, 50K hrs is like 17yrs @ 8hrs/day viewing. That is way more than enough as like you said people don't even keep TVs that long on this site.


----------



## sharpbandaid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonLavs* /forum/post/16487953
> 
> 
> Yes I totally agree. I made a point about this in another thread discussing the difference between plasma and LED TV life. Basically, the plasma people were saying that 50000 for LEDs is shorter than the 100000 for plasma. I mean, 50K hrs is like 17yrs @ 8hrs/day viewing. That is way more than enough as like you said people don't even keep TVs that long on this site.



LED at 50000 hours will be brighter than Plasma at 0 hours, so those time to half brightness values can be quite misleading.


----------



## maxdog03




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharpbandaid* /forum/post/16489530
> 
> 
> LED at 50000 hours will be brighter than Plasma at 0 hours, so those time to half brightness values can be quite misleading.



Once properly adjusted and calibrated the difference is minimal as far as brightness goes. For the few that enjoy torch mode, retina burn will effect the picture more than half brightness will.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maxdog03* /forum/post/16489961
> 
> 
> Once properly adjusted and calibrated the difference is minimal as far as brightness goes. For the few that enjoy torch mode, retina burn will effect the picture more than half brightness will.



Mwhahaha burning eyes of doom










In any case, people generally hunting for 100k hour lifespan (or more) are probably those who leave their TV on for 24 hours a day straight.


At that rate (24 hrs.x365 days), it will take 10-11 years to reach that mark........though that is just half-brightness (and doesn't mean that the TV will automatically become disfunctional).


Well, different strokes for different folks but for me (in my personal case), I don't think I've ever even reached a case where the TV was on for more than 8 hours at any given time.


So if OLED were at 24000 hours and I divide that at 8 hours a day, then the TV would last me for more than 8 years..........if I decided to buy an OLED now.


Just a theoretical example (though this obviously varies between individuals)


----------



## sharpbandaid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maxdog03* /forum/post/16489961
> 
> 
> Once properly adjusted and calibrated the difference is minimal as far as brightness goes.



Both displays calibrated for bright room viewing:


Pioneer KURO new 20fTL, after 60k hours 10fTL. (Pioneer has 60k hours lifetime)

LED new 150fTL, after 60k hours 75fTL.


There's almost eightfold difference in brightness.


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonLavs* /forum/post/16487953
> 
> 
> Yes I totally agree. I made a point about this in another thread discussing the difference between plasma and LED TV life. Basically, the plasma people were saying that 50000 for LEDs is shorter than the 100000 for plasma. I mean, 50K hrs is like 17yrs @ 8hrs/day viewing. That is way more than enough as like you said people don't even keep TVs that long on this site.



It's apparently a d*ck comparison of some kind so don't take it too seriously.


I'd also be thankful if anyone could point me to some confirmation on the 100.000 hrs the plasma makers claim. I've only seen statements from the companies themselves and they are the ones wanting to sell us their products.


bye

Benny42


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonLavs* /forum/post/16485628
> 
> 
> Well, isn't LCD inorganic as it is now? So if I'm assuming ILEDs are essentially man-made chemicals that can light up when a current is passed through them?



It is counterintuitive thanks to the food and agricultural industries but the term 'organic' with regards to materials science usually means it is man-made. It is more likely that 'inorganic' materials are naturally occurring substances.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/16487942
> 
> 
> What people should notice is that the unever aging issue may be an issue for several people out there but I can't imagine being a problem for me.
> 
> 
> 100.000h for plasma and "only" 30.000 for OLED? Are we crazy? At my current peak rate of 2h of TV usage every day, it would took 137 years for plasma and 41 years for oled to reach half brightness. Let's put an EXTREME case on the table. Let's say 6h every day. In this case it would take 45 and 14 years respectively.
> 
> 
> What's even better is than most people in this forum that complain about OLED's short lifespan are not holding their sets at home more than two or three years. I accept the short lifespan point for my mother, whose tvs last 20 years, but not for the supa-freaks here, always with cutting-edge technology in the living room.
> 
> 
> Let's accept it, most of the people in this forum only care about tvs lifespan when they need something to complain about.



Knowing the operatioin mechanism of PDP or OLED makes the lifespan number usefull at predicting burn-in susceptibility. For those who complain about Plasma burn-in there is little chance of them embracing OLED as the next gen display IMO.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonLavs* /forum/post/16487953
> 
> 
> Yes I totally agree. I made a point about this in another thread discussing the difference between plasma and LED TV life. Basically, the plasma people were saying that 50000 for LEDs is shorter than the 100000 for plasma. I mean, 50K hrs is like 17yrs @ 8hrs/day viewing. That is way more than enough as like you said people don't even keep TVs that long on this site.



If you are going to dismiss any and all lifetime numbers as irrelevant than you should also dismiss any discussions on burn-in as well. Which is reasonable IMO.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16490453
> 
> 
> It is counterintuitive thanks to the food and agricultural industries but the term 'organic' with regards to materials science usually means it is man-made. It is more likely that 'inorganic' materials are naturally occurring substances.



Actually "organic" just means that is is a compound containing carbon. That is it. It has nothing to do with "man-made" or "natural".


OLED is basically light emitting plastic that contains carbon chains. It doesn't mean that the TVs are grown on special trees or something.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16490581
> 
> 
> If you are going to dismiss any and all lifetime numbers as irrelevant than you should also dismiss any discussions on burn-in as well. Which is reasonable IMO.



Sure. I don't consider the liftime numbers when I buy a TV, I know it's probable something else breaks before the panel gets too dim so I don't care, and we all should not care 


Discussions on burn-in should have finished long time ago since current plasmas does not suffer from burn-in at all.


For me the dealbreaker is the upscaling, the color accuracy, the motion handling and the phosphor trails. Everything else may be a pro or a con, but I can live with them all.


To sum up: The perfect TV doesn't exist, and certainly there are aspects much more decisive than the lifetime figures.


----------



## jonLavs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharpbandaid* /forum/post/16490276
> 
> 
> Both displays calibrated for bright room viewing:
> 
> 
> Pioneer KURO new 20fTL, after 60k hours 10fTL. (Pioneer has 60k hours lifetime)
> 
> LED new 150fTL, after 60k hours 75fTL.
> 
> 
> There's almost eightfold difference in brightness.



And it's funny how plasma people like to stress that blacks are more important than brightness/colors. I mean, seriously, I like good black levels, but if your TV is not vibrant with lively colors and brightness, it will suck. I don't recall ever seeing a movie that is one black frame to the next. So if your colors are dull, what's the point of the awesome black levels?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/16494408
> 
> 
> Actually "organic" just means that is is a compound containing carbon. That is it. It has nothing to do with "man-made" or "natural".
> 
> 
> OLED is basically light emitting plastic that contains carbon chains. It doesn't mean that the TVs are grown on special trees or something.



Yes of course, I was mearly addressing the posters comment with regards to "man-made". And there is no arguing that the vast majority of organic compounds in materials science are in fact "man-made" even though marketing of the term "organic" tends to suggest it is natural.


And no, OLED does not have to be a plastic. SM OLED is not plastic? Do you think all organics are polymers?


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16495821
> 
> 
> OLED does not have to be a plastic. SM OLED is not plastic? Do you think all organics are polymers?



If you have ever been in a fab that produces semiconductors or LCD panels it is hard to think of anything there as "Organic". I think the term itself has been co-opted by advertisers to mean green. If you go with the traditional meaning, gasoline is organic.


----------



## duvetyne




> Quote:
> Inorganic Light Emitting Diode (or something like that).



We have them, they're called LED's, silicon based...invented by the russians in the late 50's.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16495821
> 
> 
> . SM OLED is not plastic? Do you think all organics are polymers?



No.


Speaking of OLED devices an OLED screened portable game player was just released:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/14/g...able-for-real/


----------



## maxdog03




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharpbandaid* /forum/post/16490276
> 
> 
> Both displays calibrated for bright room viewing:
> 
> 
> Pioneer KURO new 20fTL, after 60k hours 10fTL. (Pioneer has 60k hours lifetime)
> 
> LED new 150fTL, after 60k hours 75fTL.
> 
> 
> There's almost eightfold difference in brightness.



Hmmm, that's about 27 years for my plasma. Guess I only have 24 more years to enjoy it.


Will you be using an spf of 40 or 50 with that 150ftl? Just make sure you don;t lose the Ray Bans










Bottom line is that very few if any will ever reach that stage and have replaced the set long before it ever becomes an issue.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/16501587
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> Speaking of OLED devices an OLED screened portable game player was just released:
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/14/g...able-for-real/



Oh no! I forgot to order the GP2X Wiz (2.8" QVGA OLED)!!!





















My first OLED display must be obtained! Time to see what all the old retro console games look like on an OLED!


----------



## Isochroma

It's a small unit but also has a small price-tag. A good way to preview the optical characteristics of a larger OLED screen.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/16502781
> 
> 
> Oh no! I forgot to order the GP2X Wiz (2.8" QVGA OLED)!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first OLED display must be obtained! Time to see what all the old retro console games look like on an OLED!



I just got a Wiz.


It has perfect emulators of Genesis and Sega CD and MAME acrade emu (up to a point mostly 80s and early 90s games, it won't play Ridge Racer or Virtua Fighter), and very good SNES.


The old arcade titles like Pac-Man etc have alot of black in them so it is a good test. I can say this, it is like having an arcade machine in your pocket. The black level is amazing, all that you see are the graphics, no lousy LCD backlight glow that would wash out. In a dark room I can't tell where the screen stops and the bezel begins, true bezel blacks. While the DS is nice and everything for retro this Wiz screen looks fantastic!


Vector games (Asteroids, Tempest Defender etc) look better On the Wiz than I am used to seeing in years. They look just like you are playing them on a mini RGB CRT. I have played those vector games on handhelds with LCDs and they always tended to get drowned out by the LCD backlight glow. On the Wiz the vectors seem to pop out of the screen. Starfields in games now look incredible. Of course there is no ghosting or smearing like on an LCD either. The only negative is that in solid colors you see what looks like fine grain. It is not real bad and I imagine it is due to the fact that they aren't going to put a $300.00 top tier screen in a pocket game.


I have to admit, if they perfect OLED, LCD is dead. I really hope they start producing some decent sized OLED TVs. I will never look at an LCD or plasma again.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/16508007
> 
> 
> ....I have to admit, if they perfect OLED, LCD is dead....



As much as I look forward to OLED, I must disagree with this statement (maybe). For the vast majority of people, the current crop of LCD TVs is quite sufficient. They won't discern any improvements, or pay for them. So they'll buy mostly on price.


However, if by "perfect" you mean they also undercut the LCD price, then I'm all with you.


Sad day. But hopefully enough of us will be willing to pay for quality, they'll be able to keep higher end HDTVs in production.


----------



## neo1022




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/16520543
> 
> 
> For the vast majority of people, the current crop of LCD TVs is quite sufficient. They won't discern any improvements, or pay for them. So they'll buy mostly on price.



Even the average Joe will notice that LCDs have viewing angle problems that OLED sets do not. Whether they will be willing to pay the price premium for that is another matter.


----------



## Daviii

The average joe may be kind of ignorant but it's not blind. Unless budget is the ONLY factor when buying a TV, once OLED have competitive prices, it's going to destroy the market for both LCD and plasma.


We don't know WHEN it's going to happen, but we know it's going to happen eventually.


----------



## mlaun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neo1022* /forum/post/16522309
> 
> 
> Even the average Joe will notice that LCDs have viewing angle problems that OLED sets do not. Whether they will be willing to pay the price premium for that is another matter.



Hmmmm... the only very few reports i have read of people actualy seeing sonys oled TV were quite disapointed with the viewing angles.


----------



## kriktsemaj99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlaun* /forum/post/16523032
> 
> 
> Hmmmm... the only very few reports i have read of people actualy seeing sonys oled TV were quite disapointed with the viewing angles.



I think you're mistaken. I've looked at the XEL-1 from all angles and it doesn't drop off at all. CNET and other reviews agree: http://reviews.cnet.com/oled/sony-xe...-32815284.html


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kriktsemaj99* /forum/post/16523258
> 
> 
> I think you're mistaken. I've looked at the XEL-1 from all angles and it doesn't drop off at all. CNET and other reviews agree: http://reviews.cnet.com/oled/sony-xe...-32815284.html



The "HDGuru" placed the XEL-1 under excessive scrutiny (over critical) to try and find whatever "flaws" he could. One of the things mentioned was that his equipment read that the light level appears to decrease on extreme off angles... not that the color inverts or does other nasty things like LCD... However, from my several hours with the XEL-1, viewing angle concerns over this first to market OLED HDTV are no greater than any PDP.


Anyways, small devices that use LCD displays, such as the next iPhone, GP2X, next PSP, PMPs, and many other phones are already being replaced by OLEDs... TVs will follow, it's just a matter of time.


----------



## navychop

I have a 52" Samsung LCD (650) with probably better viewing angles than my CRTs. And a small Sharp LCD with viewing angles almost as good.

*SOME* LCD TVs have been built with good viewing angles. But you pay for such.


I'm just as eager for OLED as the next fellow, but I suspect most folks just aren't that picky. Unless OLED is close to LCD prices, it won't replace LCD. I just sure hope it'll be a major presence in the market.


----------



## twinbee

One of the things I'm worried about after reading that HDGuru review is that OLED TV producers may be tempted to artifically limit the saturation of the colour green, if it looks 'unnatural'. I'm not much of an expert on these things, but it would seem that instead of limiting the capability of how saturated the green could get for OLED, it would make FAR more sense to tone down the green component in the *original picture information*.


Of course, content providers need to make their content look decent on TVs with less colour saturation capability (e.g. LCD). But that in turn will hurt the potential for displays that are capable of more saturation.


Does this post make sense?


----------



## Isochroma

It makes sense but if it doesn't make dollars they'll ignore your hollers.


----------



## twinbee

I suppose the same can be said for the refresh rate too.


It seems like the classic chicken and egg scenario - the content needs the hardware to support genuine 100fps rates before the content uses it too, and the hardware needs the content to genuinely run at that rate before they bother going to the expense of making the hardware capable.


Still, I suppose the same goes for HD content over SD, and that worked out okay, so there is hope. Just gotta make people aware of higher refresh rates (gradually working its way into the public mind), and now, higher saturation capability.


----------



## vtms

 http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news...+OLED+TVs.html 

*Seiko Epson Enables Uniform Light Emission for Big-Screen OLED TVs*



> Quote:
> 37 OLED TV soon a reality! Seiko Epson successfully establish an inkjet technology enabling a uniform deposit of Organic material in order to build up large OLED Panel.
> 
> 
> Seiko Epson Corporation ("Epson", TSE: 6724) today announced it has established inkjet technology that enables the uniform deposition of organic material in the production of large-screen organic light-emitting diode (OLED) televisions. The new technology represents a major step toward the realization of 37-inch and larger full-HD OLED TVs by resolving the uneven layering that had previously been an issue with the inkjet method.
> 
> 
> OLED televisions are the odds-on favorite to supplant current technologies as the next generation display. Offering outstanding viewing characteristics, including high contrast, wide viewing angle and fast response time, OLED TVs are also lightweight, ultra-thin, and have low power requirements. A major roadblock preventing mass production of large-screen OLED TVs has been the lack of a technology capable of reliably forming uniform organic layers on large substrates. Vacuum thermal evaporation (VTE), currently the most widely used method of depositing organic materials, is surrounded by technical hurdles that have prevented it from solving the layer uniformity issue and making the jump to mass production of large panels. An inkjet process that deposits organic material in liquid form has long been viewed as the ideal alternative.
> 
> 
> Epson has recently developed the long-awaited solution in the form of an OLED display fabrication process that leverages the company's proprietary Micro Piezo inkjet technology to achieve markedly greater accuracy in organic material deposition than the conventional technology. The process has been used in trial production to fabricate a highly uniform prototype panel. Extremely uniform layers (volume error
> 
> "Large-screen OLED TVs are the future of displays, and Epson is committed to contributing to the transition to volume production through research and development projects involving inkjet fabrication technologies," stated Satoru Miyashita, General Manager of Epson's OLED Development Center.
> 
> 
> Details about this technology will be presented at SID 2009, the Society for Information Display's international symposium, seminar and exhibition, to be held in San Antonio, Texas from June 2. Epson will exhibit a 14-inch OLED display having resolution equivalent to a 37-inch full-HD display. The prototype display was trial-manufactured using Epson's inkjet process.


----------



## Daviii

That's very big news in the oled world. It's the very first step towards cheap oled manufacturing. In fact, it's predicted that once this inkjet technology is performing well and accurately, the manufacturing costs of OLED will be lower than LCD or Plasma.


----------



## rgb32

Great post vtms!


So, only another week until new OLED products/prototypes are shown at SID '09?










@twinbee - re: green... There are many R&D companies involved with development of materials used for OLED displays, such as Universal Display Corp. Point being that the display tech has plenty of room to evolve (e.g. use of phosphorescent OLED materials for R, G, and B). So, I'd imaging that the XEL-1 will be bested by new OLED displays in the coming years.


----------



## davidjschenk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms* /forum/post/16527396
> 
> http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news...+OLED+TVs.html
> 
> *Seiko Epson Enables Uniform Light Emission for Big-Screen OLED TVs*



Great post vtms,


I saw this on Anandtech this morning and the first thing I thought of was the likely reaction at AVSForum. I was gonna post the link, but you totally beat me to it.


As I haven't done much reading on OLED here lately, I have a related but probably noobish (nebbish???) question: has any progess been made on improving the life expectancy of these things? Last I heard, they didn't last anywhere near as long as plasma, LCD, et al. Anyone know?


Yours,


David


----------



## Isochroma

I'm suprised to see that Epson chose a 14" display to demonstrate the uniformity of their inkjet process. Lack of brightness uniformity is more easily visible on large displays. Perhaps they decided that proof of the small droplet size enabling high-resolution was more important.


I would have produced two displays, one small, the other large, to show both advantages of their system.


----------



## kriktsemaj99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/16529644
> 
> 
> I'm suprised to see that Epson chose a 14" display to demonstrate the uniformity of their inkjet process.



Could be intended for a laptop display. I'd pay quite a bit extra for that, as nearly all current laptops have absolutely terrible viewing angles.


----------



## Isochroma

Then again, the wide VA of OLED will decrease privacy. Those terrible viewing angles help to keep that guy next to you from seeing your pr0n


----------



## Isochroma

 *OEL breakthrough could slash panel costs* 
*25 May 2009*

*Tokyo, Japan - The price of organic electroluminescent looks set to fall after a research team based at the University of Tokyo revealed a method for making them more cheaply.*


However, as with so many of these Japanese developments, practical applications are way down the line - it could be as long as five years before the method reaches volume manufacture.


OEL panels save energy, the colors are displayed faithfully and use organic materials that light up when current is applied. According to nikkei.net, the breakthrough made by professors Eihi Nakamura and Hayato Tsuji, have developed a new highly conductive organic material that could cut costs of manufacture by as much as 50 percent.


The prototype device the professors have created is tiny, according to nikkei.net, being only 2mm by 2mm square and 100-150mm thick. The prototype only has three layers, compared with current technology which can use as many as eight layers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Forget plasma and LCDs: How the 3mm-thick, eco-friendly OLED is the TV of the future* 
*26 May 2009*


Once they were a must-have for every living room. But LCD and plasma TVs could be about to go the way of the cathode ray tube.


A new generation of super-slim screens will revolutionise home entertainment, according to the makers.


The OLED sets boast the thinnest TV screen created. At its narrowest point it is the width of a pound coin. And technological advances make the image far sharper than on LCD and plasma screens.











*The Sony XEL-1 is currently the only OLED TV on the market

and priced at £3,500. The screen is just 3mm thick*



The Organic Light-Emitting Diode TVs have a contrast rating of 1,000,000 to 1, about ten times sharper than most LCD screens.


The first OLED TV to reach consumers was Sony's 11in £3,489 Bravia XEL, which went on sale this year.


Sony recently unveiled a new Walkman music and video player using an OLED screen to take on Apple's iTouch, while large-screen TVs, priced at £5,000, could be in shops by Christmas.


Panasonic is expected to launch a 40in OLED television next year and, according to online speculation, Apple will make a 15in Oled notebook on which users will be able to download movies.











*The Orgacon prototype is a flexible OLED lighting panel.

Companies such as Japan's NHK are working on creating bendy TVs*



Apple is also rumoured to be planning to include an OLED screen in the next generation of iTouch and iPhone devices, which could be unveiled within days.


The OLED TV uses display technology based on organic materials which emit light naturally, once an electric charge is passed through them, rather than being back-lit as in LCD and Plasma screens.


This means the screens are much thinner and use up to 40 per cent less energy.


Dark areas appear black rather than dark grey because the relevant cells are simply switched off.











*OLED screens have a contrast rating of 1,000,000 to 1,

producing remarkably sharp images*



Jim Clark, of retail analyst Mintel, predicted that OLED televisions would become the dominant television from 2012, when cheaper models arrive in the shops in time for the World Cup.


However, the screens have a limited lifespan. An OLED set will last 30,000 hours, about ten years for someone using the TV eight hours a day.


By contrast, a Sony LCD TV lasts twice that long.











*An OLED (organic light emitting diode) is 200 times smaller than a human hair.

Two layers of organic material are sandwiched between two conductors.

When a current passes from the cathode to the anode a bright light is

produced by the organic material*


*RESEARCHERS* at Japan's public broadcaster NHK have developed a flexible OLED display that's 5.8in and can display moving images in colour.


The screen could one day be used as a light-weight television that could be rolled up after use.


It is currently in the early stages of development and the prototype on show at DHK shows lines that are stuck on one colour. This is because connections are vulnerable to breaking due to the flexible screen.


----------



## Brimstone-1

Seiko Epson doesn't expect mass production until 2015.



> Quote:
> The company is currently eyeing small scale sample production of OLED screens using the new technology in around 2012 and mass production about three years after that. With next week's presentation at the SID conference it hopes to begin working with other companies in the industry to push the technology forward.


 article link


----------



## ferro

 Microsofts Zune HD will use an OLED display 


"Get quick and instant access to your content with multi-touch navigation. With a 3.3 inch screen and vivid 16:9 OLED display (480x272 resolution), premium entertainment is at your fingertips."


----------



## thedumbhead

Hello!









I'm sorry, I'm sure this information has come out before, but this is a very long thread and I just wasn't able to find it - and probably wouldn't without spending quite a lot of time. So I hope you don't mind my asking:


Will OLED offer significant advantages in terms of motion resolution over both LCD and plasma? Is OLED completely equal to CRT in terms of black level? Which is to ask - phrasing it more precisely - even though OLED can, I gather, display a true black like CRT can, can the pixels comprising the display go from lit to black and back again as quickly as CRT, or is there a delay like there is with LCD?


Thank you!


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thedumbhead* /forum/post/16535224
> 
> 
> Hello!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will OLED offer significant advantages in terms of motion resolution over both LCD and plasma? Is OLED completely equal to CRT in terms of black level? Which is to ask - phrasing it more precisely - even though OLED can, I gather, display a true black like CRT can, can the pixels comprising the display go from lit to black and back again as quickly as CRT, or is there a delay like there is with LCD?



- Black levels in OLED are just black. Zero light.

- Response times of pixels are below 1ms which is faster than CRT (CRT had phosphor lag too! )


In picture quality, just imagine an OLED as a flat panel CRT. Besides the fixed resolution and the deinterlacing necessary for interlaced sources, both are comparable.


It's just that OLED weights about 7382518923879 times less and consumes 712385575892 times less at the same resolution.


Anyway... it's still a long way to go


----------



## sharpbandaid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/16535458
> 
> 
> Besides the fixed resolution and the deinterlacing necessary for interlaced sources, both are comparable.



You can make OLED act as an interlaced TV, thus no deinterlacing required.


----------



## Brimstone-1

OLED response time is measured in microseconds.


Current generation LCD is measured in milliseconds.


Next-Gen LCD (Blue Phase) is measured in microseconds.


But these numbers aren't addressing the real issue which is hold times for active matrix displays.




OLED TV's will be active matrix just like LCD. Each frame will have a hold time. So far OLED displays like the Sony XEL-1 have a hold time the same as a 120hz LCD panel.


For good motion handling on a active matrix display low hold times are needed. Of course if you lower the hold time the brightness of the panel will decrease because each frame is being shown for a shorter duration. With LED rear lit LCD displays they can just double the amount of LED light clusters to make up for the lower hold times.


As OLED technology improves it'll get brighter allowing them to lower the hold times.


LCD with rear lit LED will probably be the "active matrix" speed kings for a while.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/16534828
> 
> Microsofts Zune HD will use an OLED display
> 
> 
> "Get quick and instant access to your content with multi-touch navigation. With a 3.3 inch screen and vivid 16:9 OLED display (480x272 resolution), premium entertainment is at your fingertips."



Maybe that is when I dump the iPod touch. I like it but the black level on the Apple LCD is abysmal. The best it can to is a medium hazy grey.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brimstone-1* /forum/post/16536587
> 
> 
> OLED response time is measured in microseconds.
> 
> 
> Current generation LCD is measured in milliseconds.
> 
> 
> Next-Gen LCD (Blue Phase) is measured in microseconds.
> 
> 
> But these numbers aren't addressing the real issue which is hold times for active matrix displays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED TV's will be active matrix just like LCD. Each frame will have a hold time. So far OLED displays like the Sony XEL-1 have a hold time the same as a 120hz LCD panel.
> 
> 
> For good motion handling on a active matrix display low hold times are needed. Of course if you lower the hold time the brightness of the panel will decrease because each frame is being shown for a shorter duration. With LED rear lit LCD displays they can just double the amount of LED light clusters to make up for the lower hold times.
> 
> 
> As OLED technology improves it'll get brighter allowing them to lower the hold times.
> 
> 
> LCD with rear lit LED will probably be the "active matrix" speed kings for a while.



But... I saw a videoreview of a XEL-1 and there was visible flicker on the screen, so hold times can not be that long...


----------



## Brimstone-1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/16539858
> 
> 
> But... I saw a videoreview of a XEL-1 and there was visible flicker on the screen, so hold times can not be that long...




According to Tech-On regarding the XEL-1



> Quote:
> Pseudo-Impulse Drive
> 
> Another innovation to make it easier to utilize OLED panels in the TV is the adoption of a pseudo-impulse drive. *Our analysis showed that a black screen 6ms to 7ms long is inserted into every frame (about 16.7ms).*
> 
> 
> Pseudo-impulse drive is a technique to simulate an impulse drive, like that used in cathode ray tube (CRT) TVs. It helps relieve the retinal afterimage causing blurriness in human eyes, improving apparent motion display performance. It is becoming widely used in liquid crystal display (LCD) TVs where motion display is a problem.


 http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article...080226/148048/ 



If the screen is black for "6ms to 7ms", the hold time is 10ms - 9ms. A 120hz LCD has a hold time of 8.1ms which is better than the XEL-1.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brimstone-1* /forum/post/16540039
> 
> 
> If the screen is black for "6ms to 7ms", the hold time is 10ms - 9ms. A 120hz LCD has a hold time of 8.1ms which is better than the XEL-1.



That depends. How long is the screen black for a 120Hz LCD cycle? I guess it needs to do frame interpolation from 60 to 120 Hz to get an artificially shorter hold time, but frame interpolation introduces a whole new set of problems/artifacts (there are enough topics about that).


----------



## rgb32

ferro, Brimstone-1, and Daviii...


The XEL-1 does not have 120Hz frame interpolation (i.e. no MotionFlow).


Anyways, you guys should really track down a XEL-1 on display and play with the picture settings. The XEL-1 is a remarkable display! All of the Sony Style stores should have them on display as well as Best Buy locations with Magnolia Home Theatre sections. The Lynnwood, WA Best Buy has one on display connected to their QAM cable setup (used by most TVs in the store), looks superb even with 480i OTA channels.


I like the psuedo impluse drive on the XEL-1... I wish black frame insertion was enabled for game modes on LCDs... maybe in '10 on the larger OLEDs


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/16541049
> 
> 
> ferro, Brimstone-1, and Daviii...
> 
> 
> The XEL-1 does not have 120Hz frame interpolation (i.e. no MotionFlow).



Of course not, I was talking about how a 120Hz LCD can artificially decrease hold times by using frame interpolation.


----------



## Brimstone-1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/16540457
> 
> 
> That depends. How long is the screen black for a 120Hz LCD cycle? I guess it needs to do frame interpolation from 60 to 120 Hz to get an artificially shorter hold time, but frame interpolation introduces a whole new set of problems/artifacts (there are enough topics about that).



Black Frame Insertion and Frame Interpolation are different things.


Black Frame Insertion is helping reduce the hold time. It is just turning to frame black.


Frame Interpolation is designed for 24p material and adding new frames to make the material look like it was filmed at a higher frame rate.



Hence even plasma display (with 72hz) can have Frame Interpolation for 24p Blu-Ray movies, but it won't do anything to reduce the hold time. Although Plasma isn't a active-matrix technology like LCD.



There is no reason why an OLED display like the XEL-1 can't have Frame Interpolation if they want to include the processors to do it.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brimstone-1* /forum/post/16543593
> 
> 
> Black Frame Insertion and Frame Interpolation are different things.



You mentioned 120Hz LCD. Black Frame Insertion and 120Hz LCD are different things.


----------



## Tazishere

Seiko Epson has made a nice inkjet deposition breakthrough for OLED TV's larger than 37 inch screens. This is what they do best anyway.

http://www.dailytech.com/Seiko+Epson...ticle15231.htm


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brimstone-1* /forum/post/16540039
> 
> 
> If the screen is black for "6ms to 7ms", the hold time is 10ms - 9ms. A 120hz LCD has a hold time of 8.1ms which is better than the XEL-1.



Yes and no! The hold time in a 120Hz LCD is shorter, but the XEL-1 is still better. If the black frame insertion makes the SAH blur dissapear in the OLED display (which is reasonable giving "6ms to 7ms" per frame is > 30% of the display time) the pixel response time makes the OLED to have no blur at all while the LCD will be a bit blurry which ANY refresh ratio because of its own nature, and of course it will need motion interpolation, which makes the image to look unnatural while the OLED delivers perfect motion handling keeping the original look and feel.


OLED displays with an accurate black frame insertion are technically the best solution for clarity and motion handling. It's like plasma but without phosphor lag. Which is pretty close to perfection IMO.


----------



## rgb32

 http://www.oled-info.com/engadget-th...utely-stunning 


> Quote:
> The team over at Engadget gets to play around with a pre-production Zune HD, and they actually love the device. Here's what they say about the display: "The OLED screen looks absolutely stunning -- even at severe viewing angles, colors were super bright, edges were crisp, and text looked beautiful."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Microsoft Zune HD
> The Zune HD is set for a fall release.


----------



## borf

black frame insertion and interpolation both cut hold time in an effort to reduce motion blur (its their main purpose). you can either erase the frame or add new frames. either way any single frame doesn't linger on the retina too long (the cause of hold type motion blur).

Oled will not be able to use black frame insertion in bigger sizes (lcd already tried this) so it will be interesting to see if interpolation comes along. you have to reduce the hold time and do it without flicker.


----------



## Brimstone-1

Motion Interpolation on low frame rate material like 24 fps DVD & Blu-Ray discs and 30 fps broadcasts helps prevent the same frame being repeated. Instead of repeating a frame, the technology creates an artifical frame that is an average between two frames.



If a frame is repeated that is the fault of the source material. That isn't a reflection on the hold time of the display technology.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *borf* /forum/post/16549369
> 
> 
> Oled will not be able to use black frame insertion in bigger sizes (lcd already tried this) so it will be interesting to see if interpolation comes along. you have to reduce the hold time and do it without flicker.



From what I have read LCD backlight scanning works well and some of the high end LCDs coming out this year will use it (such as the Toshiba ZV650 series ). Also using a duty cycle under 100% worked well with the Sony XEL-1 OLED Digital TV .


----------



## Jeremy112









wow!


I have learned so much just by reading this thread on OLED TV's. You guys defenitely know what your talking about!


Keep it up


----------



## borf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/16551711
> 
> 
> From what I have read LCD backlight scanning works well and some of the high end LCDs coming out this year will use it (such as the Toshiba ZV650 series ). Also using a duty cycle under 100% worked well with the Sony XEL-1 OLED Digital TV .



afaik all lcds with backlight scanning must use it in tandem with 120hz interpolation because the higher frame rate is needed to avoid scanning flicker which occurs at normal frame rates. the first lcds using backlight scanning alone had very bad flicker mentioned in their reviews. advancements since then have moved to scanning + 120hz (to avoid flicker is a good assumption).


even though the XEL-1 using BFI (or scanning?) has noticeable flicker, i think sony got away with it because of the small viewing area. it should be a different story though with larger sets - wider viewing angles and increased brightness should make flicker painful just as with lcd unless minimal scanning is used (i.e. minimal blur reduction) or 120hz interpolation to raise the frame rate.


so that's my take, you either have flicker or hold type blur as long as the frame rate stays low. i don't think the fastest pixel response in the world can change that.


----------



## rgb32

I'm confident that more advanced pseudo-impulse drive implementations will be used in newer and larger OLEDs to elimate any observable flicker and still preserve full motion resolution. So, perhaps Sony's next OLED display will feature *Impulse Drive 240Hz* as part of the *Bravia Engine XEL*!!!


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/16558845
> 
> 
> I'm confident that more advanced pseudo-impulse drive implementations will be used in newer and larger OLEDs to elimate any observable flicker and still preserve full motion resolution. So, perhaps Sony's next OLED display will feature *Impulse Drive 240Hz* as part of the *Bravia Engine XEL*!!!



I am not sure what they are doing but the GP2X Wiz OLED has no flicker at all. I have the device so I can tell you first hand.


Maybe because the screen is small they can get away with it somehow?


----------



## williamtassone

Improved Half Lives

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...090529/170944/


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *williamtassone* /forum/post/16562413
> 
> 
> Improved Half Lives
> 
> http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...090529/170944/



Nice nice. Keep 'em coming


----------



## rgb32

 http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-ann...nd-31-oled-tvs 

06/01/2009


OLED HDTV OLED monitor OLED production OLED TV Samsung

Samsung Mobile Displays announced 14.1" and 31" OLED TV panels, using what they call Fine Metal Mask (FMM) technology. Those panels are 'ready for production'.


The 14.1" WXGA is aimed for laptop computers. It's got a 1366x768 resolution, 200cd brightness, color gamut of 107% NTSC and a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio. The whole panel is just 2.7mm thick.



The 31" FHD (1920x1080) TV panel is using LTPS, and also has 200cd brightness, color gamut of 107% NTSC and a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio. The panel is thicker at 8.9mm.


The last display is a 40" FHD OLED TV, with pretty much the same features as the 31" TV. This one is not 'ready for production', yet.

* SMD has updated their web site *, with lot's of details on the new panels, and also other AMOLED (smaller ones for mobile displays), as well as 'future OLEDs' - flexible and transparent ones.


----------



## Tectonic

Awesome to see close-to-production news like this coming along after having dreamed of replacing my CRT (PC) monitors with OLED tech for years. I've mainly been a lurker here, so thanks to everyone that has and continues to update this thread with relevant news and discussions!


I can't wait for my first match of Quake 3 on an OLED screen sometime in the next couple years, hopefully!


----------



## Isochroma

 *Large OLED TV's by the end of 2009* 
*25 May 2009*


With Sony expected to launch a large OLED TV by the end of the year, followed shortly afterwards by Samsung's own 40in version early in the new year, 2010 is set to signal takeoff for this exciting new technology.


Looking like the first serious rival to Plasma and LCD technology, Sony have demonstrated an HD ready 21in OLED TV at the Flat Panel Display expo in Japan. The same screen is likely to be widely available to consumers by the end of this year.


OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) technology is based on organic materials which emit light naturally after an electrical charge is passed through them. OLED pixels generate their own light which brings a whole host of technological advantages. Every OLED prototype we have seen produces brighter, sharper images while using less power than any plasma or LCD TV.


Unlike Sony's existing 11in XEL-1 (960 x 540 resolution), their 21in OLED comes with an HD ready (1366 x 768) spec. Both screens share a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio, although the 21in panel has an integrated tuner rather than the separate media box of the XEL-1. Despite the integrated tuner, the prototype panel comes in at an impressive 1cm deep.


The Korean electronics giant, Samsung, plan to offer a commercially available large OLED screen by 2010. The first OLED screens from Samsung are likely to be 14.1in and 31in or 40in models also demonstrated recently. Panasonic have recently announced that they will be producing a commercially available 40in OLED by 2011.


Sony's existing 11in Bravia XEL OLED TV is already on sale for £3,489 with their 21in offering likely to be a much more reasonable £5000 when it goes on sale at the end of the year.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung announced production-ready 14.1" OLEDs for Laptops and 31" OLED TVs* 
*1 June 2009*













Talk of 14.1 and 31-inch OLED TVs from Samsung has been going on for some time now, but decent-sized units have not materialized on store shelves thus far. Hopefully, that will change soon as Samsung deems these new AM OLED sets "production ready."


The 31-incher is the first OLED display to boast full HD resolution (1920 x 1080). It also features a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1, a color gamut of over 100% NTSC and a ultra-slim design of only 8.9mm. That's all well and good, but I will hold off on any enthusiasm until it transitions from "production ready" to plain "production." [ BusinessWire via OLED Display ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung announced production-ready 14.1" OLEDs for Laptops and 31" OLED TVs* 
*1 June 2009*


Samsung Mobile Displays announced 14.1" and 31" OLED TV panels, using what they call Fine Metal Mask (FMM) technology. Those panels are 'ready for production'.


The 14.1" WXGA is aimed for laptop computers. It's got a 1366x768 resolution, 200cd brightness, color gamut of 107% NTSC and a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio. The whole panel is just 2.7mm thick.


The 31" FHD (1920x1080) TV panel is using LTPS, and also has 200cd brightness, color gamut of 107% NTSC and a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio. The panel is thicker at 8.9mm.


The last display is a 40" FHD OLED TV, with pretty much the same features as the 31" TV. This one is not 'ready for production', yet.


SMD has updated their web site , with lot's of details on the new panels, and also other AMOLED (smaller ones for mobile displays), as well as 'future OLEDs' - flexible and transparent ones.


----------



## jf10928347

On OLEDs and motion blur: I've watched a 60 fps video of Doom II (using ZDoom, which allows for 60 fps) on my Cowon S9's AMOLED screen and *I see motion blur*. The movement of (totally unfiltered and close to the FP view) textures across the screen that are sharp on my CRT are blurred on the S9. However, the blur does not appear to be as bad as on my low-end Hanns-G JW199D 19 inch monitor. So, for those hoping (like me) that OLED would be the end of motion blur, this is bad news (assuming my senses are correct and the S9 is indicative of all AMOLED at 60 hz). And before anyone asks, yes, I am virtually (since I cannot verify it beyond my senses) 100% sure that the Cowon S9 can display 60 fps. As for my ability to tell the difference, I can easily tell if a media is around 60 fps or around 30 fps blindly (like with random commercials) and I've tried other 60 fps videos on the S9 of which I had a harder time seeing blur (up until I saw the Doom II video, I was thinking that perhaps the S9's AMOLED screen did not have motion blur).


However, aside from the motion blur, the screen on the S9 it is extremely high quality. Skin tones look very natural. Color overall looks great and covers the spectrum much better than standard LCD displays. Black levels are awesome, also - seeing all kinds of details in a really dark area of the screen is great, and having pure black be an absence of light is obviously ideal. I also love the uniformity of the screen due to the great viewing angles and no backlight (my LCD monitor has a painful amount of light bleed and crap viewing angles).


I'm still looking forward to OLED, but I'm no longer willing to pay as high a price for an AMOLED monitor (I play PC games a lot and don't watch much TV) if the S9's motion blur is indicative of what bigger screens will have. It will still be utterly superior to LCD, but CRT will continue to be the only display technology I know of that doesn't blur in motion - to my eyes, at least (I see plasma phosphor trails).


If AMOLED does indeed have motion blur problems, then hopefully manufacturers will make high-refresh-rate AMOLED TVs and monitors. They have obviously been doing so for a while with LCD TVs, but are just starting to with LCD monitors - there are 120 hz monitors made for 3D glasses, but they can be viewed in normal 2D mode in 120 hz. 120 hz is not enough, though, at least for LCD (yes, I realize LG has made a 240 hz and is making a 480 hz - I'd like to see both in person).


Maybe Laser TV is going to be "it."


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jf10928347* /forum/post/16568711
> 
> 
> On OLEDs and motion blur: I've watched a 60 fps video of Doom II (using ZDoom, which allows for 60 fps) on my Cowon S9's AMOLED screen and *I see motion blur*. The movement of (totally unfiltered and close to the FP view) textures across the screen that are sharp on my CRT are blurred on the S9. However, the blur does not appear to be as bad as on my low-end Hanns-G JW199D 19 inch monitor



Is it possible that the S9 is able to dislplay 60fps but it's not able to fully resolve all the resolution at that rate? Have you tried the same video at 30fps? If it looks fine at 30fps, it's a problem of the S9.


----------



## Tectonic

jf10928347, I don't mean to be insulting, but it sounds like you don't really know what you're talking about on a technical level. I'm not an expert on OLED, but from everything I've read on this thread and elsewhere, OLED will or will not suffer from motion blur based on its circuitry implementation specific to each screen model. I'm sure someone will elaborate, as you've taken a pretty broad, I think unjustified, shot at OLED tech.


----------



## twinbee

jf10928347,


That was an interesting post actually. Like you, I originally thought that the frame rate and response rate was the be all and end all for defining blurring/smoothness, but as Tectonic is implying, there's another variable known as "sample and hold" where some black between each frame actually HELPS decrease blur, even though flicker is introduced (CRTs operate like this). Even if LCDs had an instant response rate (0ms) and ran at 60fps, motion blur would still be visible for this reason.


So I'm guessing (unless Davii has a point with the resolving of the resolution) that Cowon S9's AMOLED screen has basically no 'physical' motion blur, but has a 100% SAH rate (no black between each frame) - which is why there's 'subjective' blurring.


The good thing is though, is that not all OLED displays will have a 100% SAH rate (e.g. Sony's 11" TV has black insertion [similar to a CRT], so that's got no motion blur at all, though a little flicker is apparent as a result).


The only solution which would end flicker and motion blur forever more is for the display *and* source material (either through interpolation or inherently [preferable] ) to operate at more than 60fps.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tectonic* /forum/post/16569563
> 
> 
> jf10928347, I don't mean to be insulting, but it sounds like you don't really know what you're talking about on a technical level. I'm not an expert on OLED, but from everything I've read on this thread and elsewhere, OLED will or will not suffer from motion blur based on its circuitry implementation specific to each screen model. I'm sure someone will elaborate, as you've taken a pretty broad, I think unjustified, shot at OLED tech.



It is well known in the literature that AMOLED is a sample and hold technology that exhibits the same hold type motion blur problem that LCD does. The sample and hold nature is there to extend the lifetime of the display while maximizing brightness. The XEL-1 implements a shorter duty cycle to try and overcome this blur effect but at the expense of lifetime and flicker.


Here is a little snippet from a Samsung paper on OLED technology.


Hanfeng Chen, Taehyeun Ha, Junho Sung, and Baikhee Han

SID Symposium Digest 39 472 (2008)











Note: There is a simple way to mimick the blur performance of AMOLED using an LCD. Using a block scroll pattern where the identical pattern is continually replaced in each block location creates a motion tracking vector without any component of response time blur. 100% of the blur you observe is therefore created on your retina due to the sample and hold nature of the display.


----------



## rgb32

Here's a great white paper by Charles Poynton:
http://www.poynton.com/PDFs/Motion_portrayal.pdf 


It's not the newest, but the info is still relavent!


----------



## Tectonic

I stand partially corrected.


I think what we'll see is the implementation adjusting to market desires. CRT-like black frame insertion is ideal to me as a (hopeful) PC user. I would ideally run an OLED panel at 85hz+ (120+ would be nice) with black frame insertion between each frame to try to mimic a CRT's motion. The problem, if I've understood correctly, is that to the eye, brightness decreases as the "on" frame is made shorter in attempt to decrease the SAH effect. The actual brightness of the "on" frames has to be increased in order to be as bright as a constant-on implementation, which sacrifices lifespan. Also, if the source material is less than the refresh rate, there's really no point and you get an effect similar to SAH anyway. In the case of PC usage and gaming, I don't think this will be an issue, as many games (or at least the ones I care about) will output as many frames as your hardware is capable of rendering.


I know it gets old explaining things over and over again, but do I have a decent understanding here?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tectonic* /forum/post/16570161
> 
> 
> I stand partially corrected.
> 
> 
> I think what we'll see is the implementation adjusting to market desires. CRT-like black frame insertion is ideal to me as a (hopeful) PC user. I would ideally run an OLED panel at 85hz+ (120+ would be nice) with black frame insertion between each frame to try to mimic a CRT's motion. The problem, if I've understood correctly, is that to the eye, brightness decreases as the "on" frame is made shorter in attempt to decrease the SAH effect. The actual brightness of the "on" frames has to be increased in order to be as bright as a constant-on implementation, which sacrifices lifespan. Also, if the source material is less than the refresh rate, there's really no point and you get an effect similar to SAH anyway. In the case of PC usage and gaming, I don't think this will be an issue, as many games (or at least the ones I care about) will output as many frames as your hardware is capable of rendering.
> 
> 
> I know it gets old explaining things over and over again, but do I have a decent understanding here?



IMO Yes...


Note that black frame insertion (BFI) essentially shortens the effective duty cycle and therefore makes it very susceptible to flicker even at 120Hz. A 120Hz display with BFI acts like a 60Hz display with a 50% duty cycle. Both will flicker similar to current plasma displays which have an effective duty cycle of 35-50% at 60Hz.


IMO OLED will take the route of LCD and use frame interpolation. Maybe they will have BFI and frame interpolation as switchable options.


----------



## mahlerfan999




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tectonic* /forum/post/16570161
> 
> 
> CRT-like black frame insertion is ideal to me as a (hopeful) PC user.



CRT flicker is awful! Why would you want to recreate that experience?


----------



## Isochroma

The worst of CRT flicker is the interlacing. A progressive image switched on and off (like motion picture film) doesn't look nearly as bad.


----------



## borf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/16569806
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution which would end flicker and motion blur forever more is for the display *and* source material (either through interpolation or inherently [preferable] ) to operate at more than 60fps.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tectonic* /forum/post/16570161
> 
> 
> I would ideally run an OLED panel at 85hz+ (120+ would be nice) with black frame insertion between each frame to try to mimic a CRT's motion.




i'd like to see that passive matrix Oled monitor with high frame rate pc inputs (75-85hz min).


----------



## Tectonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mahlerfan999* /forum/post/16570923
> 
> 
> CRT flicker is awful! Why would you want to recreate that experience?



I can't really see any flicker in a CRT at 120hz. Barely even at 85hz. I'm impressed if you can. Usually I play Quake 3 at 140hz with vertical sync on and it's the smoothest gaming experience I've ever seen.


----------



## Daviii

Would it be possible a 240Hz OLED with 75% duty cicle? IMO it would be high enough to eliminate flicker, but I'm not sure if it would be low enough to avoid blur... Any words on where the threshold for no-flicker+no-blur is?


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/16576398
> 
> 
> Would it be possible a 240Hz OLED with 75% duty cicle? IMO it would be high enough to eliminate flicker, but I'm not sure if it would be low enough to avoid blur... Any words on where the threshold for no-flicker+no-blur is?



I believe we'll find out the real threshold once manufacturers start releasing new OLED TVs (not theory).







So, it looks like CEDIA will be the next electronics show where more details in terms of when the next OLED TVs will be released, and if they flicker or blur.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/16576398
> 
> 
> Would it be possible a 240Hz OLED with 75% duty cicle? IMO it would be high enough to eliminate flicker, but I'm not sure if it would be low enough to avoid blur... Any words on where the threshold for no-flicker+no-blur is?



This is good thinking. Instead of BFI, just shorten the intrinsic duty cycle at 120Hz or 240Hz and you improve motion handling. The problem is that as you increase the refresh rate you decrease the effective duty cycle.


For example, 240Hz with a duty cycle of 75% without any interpolation will produce an effective duty cycle close to 100% which does not help sample and hold blur all that much.


Assuming long life, very bright EL materials I would suggest the following drive methods


120Hz with


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16577358
> 
> 
> This is good thinking. Instead of BFI, just shorten the intrinsic duty cycle at 120Hz or 240Hz and you improve motion handling. The problem is that as you increase the refresh rate you decrease the effective duty cycle.
> 
> 
> For example, 240Hz with a duty cycle of 75% without any interpolation will produce an effective duty cycle close to 100% which does not help sample and hold blur all that much.
> 
> 
> Assuming long life, very bright EL materials I would suggest the following drive methods
> 
> 
> 120Hz with


----------



## borf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16577358
> 
> 
> The problem is that as you increase the refresh rate you *decrease* the effective duty cycle.



you lost me on that one...did you mean increasing refresh without interpoaltion increases sample and hold?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/16577857
> 
> 
> Question though: What about for PAL-centric systems which are multiple of 50 (like 100hz and 200 hz)???



I would assume that to be the case.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *borf* /forum/post/16578841
> 
> 
> you lost me on that one...did you mean increasing refresh without interpoaltion increases sample and hold?



Sort of. I was trying to explain that increasing the refresh of a display that has a short duty cycle per refresh actually increases the effective duty cycle due to repetition of the frames.


60Hz display

75% duty cycle per refresh

60Hz signal
*= effective duty cycle of 75%*
*= 60Hz flicker*


120Hz display

75% duty cycle per refresh

60Hz signal

no interpolation
*= effective duty cycle of 88%*
*= 120Hz flicker*


240Hz display

75% duty cycle per refresh

60Hz signal

no interpolation
*= effective duty cycle of 94%*
*= 240Hz flicker*


If however you combine this idea with BFI


240Hz display

75% duty cycle per refresh

60Hz signal

no interpolation

BFI every second refresh (refresh-black-refresh-black = 1 60Hz frame)
*= effective duty cycle of 69%*
*= 120 Hz flicker*


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16579252
> 
> 
> 240Hz display
> 
> 75% duty cycle per refresh
> 
> 60Hz signal
> 
> no interpolation
> 
> BFI every second refresh (refresh-black-refresh-black = 1 60Hz frame)
> *= effective duty cycle of 69%*
> *= 120 Hz flicker*



So, even in theory, OLEDs can have full motion resolution with a flicker/refresh that is well beyond human perception (120Hz refresh on my DP900u CRT gives absolutely no perceivable flicker).


----------



## Isochroma

OLED attains the vast reaches of a visual heaven heretofore beyond the eyes of today's J6P.


It's truly better than sliced bread and tastier too. OLED's got the slim and sexy shape that your wife/girlfriend could never attain - even with liposuction again!


The only detractors are secret LCD contractors... If your living room is a field of dreams, then an OLED TV is a home run!


It's truly worth any price to own something so perfectly nice.


----------



## flyers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/16579781
> 
> 
> OLED attains the vast reaches of a visual heaven heretofore beyond the eyes of today's J6P.
> 
> 
> It's truly better than sliced bread and tastier too.
> 
> 
> The only detractors are secret LCD contractors...
> 
> 
> If your living room is a field of dreams, then an OLED TV is a home run!
> 
> 
> It's truly worth any price to own something so perfectly nice.



I agree. And I'm sure at least the TV manufactures would like it because the manufacturing process is cheaper than any other technology used today and they will still charge more than they should and have a better profit margin than they do today.


The only downfall I see though, is that how will they make improvements in a great TV? I'm sure they don't like this aspect of it but OLED does offer many more solutions and possibilities.


----------



## scorrpio

Manufaturing cost of new tech is fairly minor compared to the cost of recouping the R&D and production line setup expenses - which is why new tech - even if it *should* be cheaper - always comes at a premium. Once initial expenditure of bringing the tech to market is more or less recouped, only then can customers really see the benefit of a cheaper manufacturing process.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/16577857
> 
> 
> Interesting stuff.
> 
> 
> Question though: You mention it using 120hz/240hz (multiples of 60)
> 
> 
> What about for PAL-centric systems which are multiple of 50 (like 100hz and 200 hz)???



Would that even apply in the HD world? Doesn't the rest of the world clock their HDTVs at 60, regardless of line frequency? And is there even a "50" Blu-ray spec?


----------



## borf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/16579252
> 
> 
> Sort of. I was trying to explain that increasing the refresh of a display that has a short duty cycle per refresh actually increases the effective duty cycle due to repetition of the frames.
> 
> 
> 60Hz display
> 
> 75% duty cycle per refresh
> 
> 60Hz signal
> *= effective duty cycle of 75%*
> *= 60Hz flicker*
> 
> 
> 120Hz display
> 
> 75% duty cycle per refresh
> 
> 60Hz signal
> 
> no interpolation
> *= effective duty cycle of 88%*
> *= 120Hz flicker*
> 
> 
> 240Hz display
> 
> 75% duty cycle per refresh
> 
> 60Hz signal
> 
> no interpolation
> *= effective duty cycle of 94%*
> *= 240Hz flicker*
> 
> 
> If however you combine this idea with BFI
> 
> 
> 240Hz display
> 
> 75% duty cycle per refresh
> 
> 60Hz signal
> 
> no interpolation
> 
> BFI every second refresh (refresh-black-refresh-black = 1 60Hz frame)
> *= effective duty cycle of 69%*
> *= 120 Hz flicker*



yes that's what i've seen.

i know those numbers are theoretical, but to add my own experience, motion resolution even at 50% duty cycle (120hz interpolated lcd) is still far cry from crt imo.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *borf* /forum/post/16581382
> 
> 
> yes that's what i've seen.
> 
> i know those numbers are theoretical, but to add my own experience, motion resolution even at 50% duty cycle (120hz interpolated lcd) is still far cry from crt imo.



Perhaps Phosphorescent OLEDs can eventually reach a CRT-like experience. Maybe a luminance of 1,000 or even 3,000 cd/m2 can allow for a reduced hold time?


----------



## borf

that might allow liberal use of black frame insertion (by off-setting the diminished lifetime and brightness issues). but then what do you do about BFI flicker. we run in circles without raising the frame rate. i don't believe working within the current frame rate system will show Oled's potential in motion handeling. it held back crt, plasma (and now LCD) and it will hold back Oled - so waiting for my Oled pc monitor.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Universal Display and Samsung Present Advances in Highly Efficient, Long Lifetime Green PH-OLEDs* 
*4 June 2009*


Universal Display and Samsung Mobile Displays present advances in green Phosphorescent OLEDs at SID. This new material will be used in both hand-held devices and OLED TVs, extending lifetime and efficiency. UDC's red materials are already used in Samsung's AMOLED displays, and it's likely that we'll see Samsung use their green materials as well.


The companies showed a highly-efficient, green UniversalPHOLED material that has been used in a top-emission PHOLED device architecture. Using this approach, they achieved two milestones. A green PHOLED with NTSC color at CIE(0.20, 0.73), high luminous efficiency of 110 candelas per Ampere (cd/A), and a low voltage of 3.6 V at 3,000 candelas per square meter (cd/m2) was achieved.


A second device structure using this green PHOLED material system also achieved an ultra-high luminous efficiency of 160 cd/A along with CIE(0.28, 0.69) and low voltage of 3.8 V at 3,000 cd/m2. These compare to a standard bottom-emission device with CIE(0.33, 0.62) and 52 cd/A using this same green PHOLED material system. Replacing the green fluorescent OLED material typically used today in an AMOLED with this new green PHOLED can result in a significant 37% power savings.


The operational lifetime for this green PHOLED material system is also very good. A bottom-emission device using this material system offers > 300,000 hours to 50% (extrapolated) and 15,000 hours to 90% of the initial luminance of 1000 cd/m2 (defined as LT90). With these top-emission devices, the LT90 lifetime is 28,000 hours and 6,400 hours, respectively, for the 110 cd/A and 160 cd/A devices.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/16580921
> 
> 
> Would that even apply in the HD world? Doesn't the rest of the world clock their HDTVs at 60, regardless of line frequency? And is there even a "50" Blu-ray spec?



I dunno


But I think some Euro-broadcasters (like BBC HD use 50 fps in their broadcasts). I'm just wondering if the 10 fps/hertz difference would be a cause of any concern (or not). Maybe xrox can answer this....


P.S.

Kudos to improvements to OLED technology from Uni/Samsung SDI










EDIT:

Oops, I guess xrox already answered that a while ago. My bad


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *borf* /forum/post/16584904
> 
> 
> that might allow liberal use of black frame insertion (by off-setting the diminished lifetime and brightness issues). but then what do you do about BFI flicker. we run in circles without raising the frame rate. i don't believe working within the current frame rate system will show Oled's potential in motion handeling. it held back crt, plasma (and now LCD) and it will hold back Oled - so waiting for my Oled pc monitor.



Flicker can be eliminated by repeating the same frame at a higher refresh rate (e.g. 120 HZ), or by adding interpolated frames. I would guess it's just a question of materials: develop the Red and Blue PHOLED materials with enough brightness and lifetime, and together with the Green PHOLED material referenced above you have the perfect display.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Ambipolar Organic Semiconductor Material Claims High Charge Mobility* 
*28 May 2009*











*The benzodifuran derivative

announced in 2007 (left) and the

structure of new ambipolar CZBDF*











*The voltage and external quantum efficiency

characteristics (graph on the left) of homojunction OLED

devices with the intermediate layer doped with a dye, and

the emission of the device (picture on the lower right)*



A Japanese research group claimed that it developed a new ambipolar organic semiconductor material with the "highest level" charge mobility as an amorphous material.


The material, "CZBDF," was developed based on a derivative announced by the research group, which is led by Tokyo University and the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), in 2007. The derivative has a mother nucleus of "benzodifuran," an annulated π-conjugated compound containing oxygen atoms. The benzodifuran derivative is an amorphous thin film p-type semiconductor material with a high hole mobility.


This time, the research group replaced the "amine" portion in the benzodifuran derivative with "carbazole" and realized the CZBDF ambipolar material with high charge mobility. Also, the group produced a homojunction OLED device with the use of CZBDF and succeeded in achieving EL emission by using both fluorescence and phosphorescence, as well as EL emission of three primary colors of blue, green and red.


The CZBDF amorphous thin film has a hole charge mobility of 3.7 x 10-3cm2/Vs and an electron charge mobility of 4.4 x 10-3cm2/Vs. Both has a high mobility and exhibited well-balanced values, the group said. These values were measured by using the time-of-flight (TOF) method (at a field intensity of 2.5 x 105V/cm).


Furthermore, the research group produced a homojunction OLED device by vacuum vapor deposition with the use of the newly developed ambipolar material CZBDF. Specifically, indium tin oxide (ITO) on a glass substrate is used as the positive electrode, and a 150-200nm-thick organic thin film and an aluminum (Al) metal (negative electrode) are sequentially formed on the positive electrode by vacuum vapor deposition.


Using CZBDF as a single host material, the organic thin film was subjected to p-type doping in the range of 30nm from the positive electrode by co-deposition with vanadium pentoxide (V2O5), which is an inorganic oxidant. Meanwhile, an area in the range of 20nm from the negative electrode is subjected to n-type doping by co-deposition with a reductant (metal cesium). This facilitated the charge injection and transport from the electrodes to CZBDF, the research group said.


To generate three primary colors, an intermediate layer (thickness: 50-100nm), which was doped with no oxidant or reductant, was doped with a blue or green fluorescent dye, or a red phosphorescent dye. The green fluorescent dye showed a high external quantum efficiency of 4.2% at a luminance of 60,000cd/m2.


According to the research group, the following characteristics of CZBDF were believed to have contributed to the emission of three primary colors by the newly developed OLED device and its high luminous efficiency. (1) It is an ambipolar material with high balance and mobility. (2) It is a wide gap semiconductor material that has a sufficiently high energy gap (approximately 3eV) between the highest occupied molecular orbital (****) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO). (3) It can effectively capture electric charges into the emitting dyes.


Thus far, OLED devices with a heterojunction structure composed of organic thin film layers made of five or six different types of materials have been pervasive. The research group achieved the emission of three primary colors and a high luminous efficiency by using an OLED device with a simple homojunction structure.


It expects that this achievement leads to the development of low-cost, highly-efficient OLED displays and lighting equipment. Also, the group intends to apply the new material to organic thin-film solar cells with a multilayer structure like OLEDs.


The achievement was published in the online version of German scientific magazine "Advanced Materials" May 25, 2009.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*SMD unveils production ready OLED-Tvs and AMOLEDs at SID 2009* 
*1 June 2009*













Samsung Mobile Display (SMD), exhibit an extensive range of OLED and mobile LCD displays at the SID-2009 Display Week 2009.

*Production-ready AM OLED-TV*


SMD is exhibiting 14.1-inch and 31-inch diagonal OLED TV panels. The 31-inch is the world's first OLED display that features full HD resolution (1920 x 1080), a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1, a color gamut of over 100% NTSC and a ultra-slim design of only 8.9mm – providing outstanding brightness and exceptional image quality. The OLED TV panels can be mass produced through the use of Fine Metal Mask (FMM) technology.

*Active Matrix AMOLED for the Future*


SMD is showing the world’s thinnest “flapping” OLED panel, one that can flutter in a breeze. The super-thin panel is only 0.05mm thin, about one tenth the thickness of OLED panels with a normal glass substrate. It features a high contrast ratio, is polarizer-free and has a pixel resolution of 480 x 272.


SMD also is showing 4.82-inch and 12.1-inch transparent, foldable and ID card displays as well.

*AM OLED for Mobile*


OLEDs have become an important consideration in mobile design as set makers require smarter displays to accommodate multi-functions.


SMD will exhibit a full line up of mobile displays from a 3.2-inch “real” WVGA to a 7-inch WSVGA. The 3.2-inch WVGA on exhibit is the world’s first OLED-Display with 310ppi. (pixels per inch).


Check out also the new Samsung Mobile Display Website about AMOLED.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Cheaper Big-Screen OLEDs* 
*5 June 2009*











*Longer life: DuPont has developed

longer-lasting OLED materials that can be printed

using cheap, simple techniques to make displays

like this one. Credit: DuPont*


*New organic display materials can be printed with ink-jets.*


High-end displays made from organic materials are lightweight, energy efficient, and crisp--but it has proved difficult to manufacture them cheaply and durably.


Now the chemical giant DuPont is reporting the development of long-lasting organic-display materials that can be printed cheaply over large areas, much like ink. DuPont says that these materials can be used to make cheaper high-end displays with existing equipment, and the company says that it is in talks with display manufacturers to bring them to market.


Each pixel in an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) is made up of materials that emit red, green, and blue light in response to electrical stimulation via a thin-film transistor backplane.


OLED displays on the market today are made by depositing organic materials in a vapor through a mask. This setup ensures that differently colored subpixels are properly aligned, but the process is expensive, because some material inevitably gets lost, and difficult to do over large areas. For this reason, OLEDs have so far found their way into only a few products, including a Sony television and some Samsung cell phones.


An alternative approach is solution deposition, which involves printing liquid organic materials onto a surface. Several companies and university research groups have been trying to develop such printable OLED materials, but it's difficult to make light-emitting materials that last long enough to bring them to market: the display quality tends to degrade too quickly.


"If one could get high performance from solution-deposition methods, it would be very attractive: it would solve the scaling issues" associated with making these displays, says Nick Colaneri , director of the Flexible Display Center at Arizona State University, in Tempe. "Now DuPont claims to have solved that problem."


This week at the Society for Information Display (SID) Symposium , in San Antonio, DuPont is presenting OLED materials that can be printed in solution and that make longer-lasting displays. DuPont is disclosing not the composition of the materials or how they are printed. However, the lifetimes of the materials, which the company has disclosed, "are indeed impressive," says Samson Jenekhe , a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Washington, Seattle. For example, the lifetime of the green material involved is more than a million hours, which DuPont says is a record. The efficiency and color purity of the materials, says Jenekhe, are comparable to those of the state-of-the-art organic displays on the market.

Vladimir Bulović , an associate professor of electrical engineering at MIT and a cofounder of QD Vision , a startup company that makes lighting and displays using quantum dots, says, "Since they aim to produce displays, the key will be to understand the deposition and pixelation method they intend to use." DuPont says that the materials are laid down using a high-speed nozzle printer developed with Dainippon Screen , a Kyoto electronics company.


Colaneri adds that, to his knowledge, no solution-printed OLED displays are currently on the market. But other companies are also trying to tackle the problem. Indeed, Sumitomo executives reported at the SID event that they have been shipping solution-printable polymers for displays. Sumitomo also recently acquired U.K. company Cambridge Display Technologies , which makes polymer-based displays. And Universal Display Corporation of Ewing, NJ, is also reporting long-lifetime green display materials at the conference.


William Feehery, global business director of DuPont OLED Displays says that DuPont is currently in discussions with several display companies interested in commercializing its new OLED materials. "They already have the manufacturing infrastructure to make these on glass," he says. The company also plans to look into making flexible displays using the technology.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Corning shows Silicon-On-Glass (SiOG) tech to enable cheaper, larger OLEDs* 
*5 June 2009*











*Corning SiOG prototype*



Corning is showing their latest Silicon-On-Glass (SiOG) technology. SiOG is used to transfer a thin-film of silicon into a display substrate. SiOG is scalable, and currently Corning can make it on a Gen2 substrate, Gen4 by the end of the year.


The SiOG process would permit the fabrication of stable OLED pixel switches with higher yield and much greater performance than LTPS, and on larger substrates. Corning claims that costs will be lower, because this enables manufacturers to integrate the circuitry on the display substrate easily.


Some panel makers are already trying this out, and hopefully we'll see prototype OLED displays based on SiOG by the end of 2009.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Scientists eliminate precise doping limits from the OLED manufacturing process* 
*5 June 2009*


Scientists from the RIKEN Advanced Science Institute in Wako have developed a way to eliminate precise doping limits from the OLED manufacturing process. By using a metal dopant containing molecular groups that block the self-quenching interactions, the scientists have, for the first time, fabricated high-efficiency OLEDs with a wide range of doping concentrations.


Hou and colleagues modified a phosphorescent iridium metal complex with a class of molecules known as amidinates. These molecules bind to iridium through a nitrogen atom that localizes electrons near the center of the metal complex. Bulky carbon groups on the edges of the complex are inert and prevent the materials from attaching and self-quenching their phosphorescence.


----------



## Blackraven

Wow, nice all positive news containing improvements and announcements.


This is superb stuff for OLED


----------



## Superbilski

Wow thanks for the details!. There is more here then most sites that are selling these!

[URL='http:/blog/see.GIF%5B/img']http://www.****************/blog/see.GIF[/img[/URL] ]

Great post


----------



## Isochroma

 *[SID] LG Display Develops 'OLED Panel Able to Withstand Hammer Strikes'* 
*8 June 2009*











*The OLED panel was repeatedly

being hit with a mallet, which

made a huge noise in the

demonstration movie.*



LG Display Co Ltd of Korea exhibited a 15-inch OLED panel at SID Display Week 2009. To highlight its toughness, the company showed a demonstration video of the panel being hammered with a mallet.


The OLED panel has a thin profile, measuring only 347.94 x 209.80 x 0.85mm. It has 1,366 x RGB x 768 pixels with a resolution of 105 pixels per inch (ppi). The average luminance is 200cd/m2, and the contrast ratio is 100,000:1. The frame frequency is 120Hz.


What surprised visitors most is that the panel was repeatedly being hit with a mallet in the demonstration movie.


"We formed an OLED layer on a glass substrate and provided a steel sheet on its back side and a resin sealing layer on the front, making the panel durable to shock," LG Display said.


However, the panel is not flexible because of the glass substrate, the company said.


The terms "rugged" and "ruggedized," which mean tough or less breakable, were ones of the keywords at this year's SID. They will probably become more familiar words as more and more displays are becoming flexible.


----------



## sharpbandaid




----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharpbandaid* /forum/post/16622055



Amazing lifetime numbers for green. Acceptable for blue (100% duty time though)


The main problem I see here is that a TV using those materials should be re-calibrated quite often.


----------



## Daviii

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FICAHsE_enE


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/16626374
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FICAHsE_enE



That's a great show of OLED strengths. OLED is very suitable for camera applications.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/16627652
> 
> 
> That's a great show of OLED strengths. OLED is very suitable for camera applications.



Ohh!







Perhaps the Samsung TL320 will be my first digital camera IF it is capable of taking high "enough" quality pictures!


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/16626374
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FICAHsE_enE



Truly an eye opener. Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Blackraven

More good news (yummy)

-reliability/durability of certain OLED panels

I could see its potential usage in the near future for outdoor and extreme use (especially in heavy-duty applications such as military and law enforcement)

-lifetime improvements

In the case of the DuPont products, those are indeed convincing finds. Personally though, here's what I think: Green is unbelievable (should last for decades if run at 24/7 non-stop); Red has broken through the 60k threshold (of ideal) HDTV lifespan; Blue seems to be improving (almost there at 38k); Now DuPont is using a Deep Blue (not sure what to say about this Deep Blue thing......but whatever works, then bring it on







)


Indeed, superb news in the forefront of OLED technology and it doesn't stop there. Amazing indeed


----------



## twinbee

Quick question. Is it possible for OLED (or any display tech for that matter) to theoretically completely eliminate screen glare/reflection from bright sources such as windows/bulbs etc.? In theory. i.e. Can there be any materials used for displays that are even potentially capable of this?


----------



## scorrpio

The key is the coating on top of screen. It must be an amazing material that can absorb, without reflecting or passing through, outside light, and it must pass light from inside completely unhindered. Does not exist yet. You either have coatings that result in a glossy screen - those provide superior transmission of display's light to the viewer, but reflections/glare problems abount. And you have antiglare matte coatings which mostly still reflect light,, but diffuse it - no reflection/glare, but can still 'wash out' in bright light - but the problem is these tend to take a bite out of display's brightness. The solution is to increase brightness of pixels, which leads to higher energy consumption, and more component wear. And in case of LCDs where it is the backlight you have to bighten, this can really wash out the blacks. This is why OLEDs look better in the sun - they can be put under a much more aggressive antiglare coat.


----------



## Richard Paul

 Samsung Jet - Smarter Than A Smartphone 



> Quote:
> ...
> 
> The Jet's pioneering 16M WVGA AMOLED display (3.1) offers vivid and colorful full touch mobile experience available; the WVGA AMOLED screen provides a resolution that is four times higher than a WQVGA screen. The 800MHz application processor delivers breathtaking speed and stunning performance, making Jet the fastest full touch handset on the market today.
> 
> ...


----------



## Human Bass




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/16656980
> 
> Samsung Jet - Smarter Than A Smartphone



What impressed was the processor! 800mhz! This is more than twice a PS2.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/16646628
> 
> 
> Now DuPont is using a Deep Blue (not sure what to say about this Deep Blue thing......but whatever works, then bring it on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



If I understand well, Deep blue material is just a blue component which is able to show a wider ammount of blue tones towards black. That means richer, more accurate colors on dark scenes.


OLED green components are already delivering an impressive gamut at useable lifespans and power efficency. This new blue material delivers extraordinary blue performance at a cost: Lower efficency and questionable lifespan.


----------



## rgb32

 http://www.oled-info.com/interview-l...d-marketing-vp 


Very interesting interview. Looks like Sony stands to loose some OLED ground if they don't release their 21" 1366x768 OLED before LG releases their 15"!











> Quote:
> Q: You have been showing a 15" OLED TV prototype since the beginning of 2009... and you said it can begin production by June 2009. Which is now.. will you start making these panels? Or are you still waiting for a customer?
> *During the period of Dec 2009-Jan 2010, our customer will launch 15" OLED TV in Korean market. Thereafter global roll-out follows.*


----------



## Isochroma

 *LG, Samsung Set to Storm Onto OLED Market with 14", 15", 31" Displays* 
*17 June 2009*











*LG has announced a launch window for its 15-inch

OLED TV. It will be shipping the set in

December. (Source: Engadget)*











*Samsung is also hoping for a launch late this year

or early next, though no official shipping plans have

been announced. It says its 31-inch set is "ready for

production". It also has a 14.1-inch set geared for

the laptop market (Source: OLED-Info)*


*LG, Samsung try to one up competitor Sony*


OLED technology has been hailed for a couple years now as the future of digital display. OLED and its various derivatives have managed to live up to some of this hype in the mobile electronics market , but in the TV and display market they remain a rare and seldom seen species. In fact, to date only one manufacturer -- Sony -- has launched an OLED TV. And Sony's 11-inch XEL-1 was a wallet-breaker priced at $2,500.


Now LG is set to also jump into the nascent OLED market. It may also manage to steal the size crown from Sony, unleashing a 15" OLED set onto the market. The set will begin shipping in December, according to an interview with Won Kim, LG's VP of OLED sales and marketing.


The set is expected to match the capabilities of the prototype unit, first unveiled in January. The prototype sported a fancy 1,000,000:1 contrast (same as XEL1), a 1,366 x 768 pixel resolution (better than XEL1), and a 30,000-hour shelf life (much better than XEL1, which degrades after 1,000 hours). It is also expected to be ultra-thin (the XEL1 is just 3mm thin).


The set will first launch in LG's home nation -- South Korea. Then it will slowly make its way to Japan and possibly the U.S., though no official launch date has been aired for these nations. The price is expected to be very high. There's also no word yet on the production numbers (Sony's XEL1 production has been relatively low with production, in the thousands).


However, LG isn't the only competitor with OLED launch plans for late this year or early next. Samsung says it has 14.1" and 31" displays "ready for production". The displays use a Fine Metal Mask (FMM) technology to achieve larger sizes or better character in smaller displays.


The 14.1" display is aimed at the laptop market and offers 1366x768 resolution, 200cd brightness, color gamut of 107% NTSC and a 1,000,000:1 contrast. It'd be perfect for pricey high-end laptops like the Voodoo Envy or the MacBook Air as it's only 2.7mm wide and likely will be ridiculously expensive to boot.


The 31" set is set to enter the TV sector and will likely be even more expensive. Similar to its prototype showcased over a year ago, it is a bit thicker at 8.9mm. It offers an impressive FHD (1920x1080) image, 200cd brightness, color gamut of 107% NTSC and a 1,000,000:1 contrast.


Samsung, however, has offered no clue when the upcoming "production" might start or when it will actually be arriving on the market. LG may be able to get the jump on Samsung, but look for Samsung to storm in early next year or even surprise with a launch late this year. Another X-factor is Sony. Sony has said it also is ready to produce larger sets , and has speculated in the past that it will launch them late this year or early next.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*LG 15-inch OLED TV on sale in December* 
*17 June 2009*























We knew that LG's 15-inch OLED TV was entering into production this summer, now we've got a ship date: December. This according to an interview with Won Kim, LG's VP of OLED sales and marketing. While 15-inches is small, it easily trumps the world's first production OLED TV, Sony's $2,500 11-inch XEL-1 , and is a reasonable size for the bedroom (if you must) or kitchen counter. No word on specs but we expect the production set to offer the same million:1 contrast, 1,366 x 768 pixel resolution, and 30,000-hour shelf life as the prototype unveiled in January. The TV will launch first in Korea for an undisclosed price that is bound to be punishingly expensive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Interview with LG Display's OLED sales and marketing VP* 
*17 June 2009*











*LG 15-inch OLED at CES 2009*











*LG 15-inch OLED at CES 2009*











*UDC Flexible OLED Display Concept photo

from CES 2009*



LG Display is one of the leaders in OLEDs, but they have recently sent some mixed messages - great OLED TV prototypes, promises of new OLED TV products soon, no AMOLED phones plans... Mr Won Kim, Vice Presideont of OLED Sales and Marketing from LG Display has agreed to answer a few questions we had, and set things straight.


Mr Won Kim ha sas BA in business management from Korea University, and has been working for LG since 1984. Now he's VP of OLED sales and marketing (since 2005).

*Q: What kind of OLED products are LG currently selling? What is your current capacity for OLED production?*

Mobile phone only. Current capacity is 7k sheets (365 x 460) per month, which is equivalent to 200k pcs of 3" size.
*Q: Can you name some products that use your OLED displays?*

So far two mobile phones tailored to SKT in Korea.
*Q: You have been showing a 15" OLED TV prototype since the beginning of 2009... and you said it can begin production by June 2009. Which is now.. will you start making these panels? Or are you still waiting for a customer?*

During the period of Dec 2009-Jan 2010, our customer will launch 15" OLED TV in Korean market. Thereafter global roll-out follows.
*Q: LG has allocated more money to OLEDs in the beginning of the year. Are you increasing production?*

Production facilities are being installed in Paju. New setup will commence production next year alongside incumbent one in Gumi.
*Q: We know that you're working with UDC on Flexible OLEDs . You have commented in the past that you see flexible OLED products in the future. Is this still on? what kind of products do you envision?*

Flexible OLED project is still on. Flexible display would offer free hands to designers and brand-new applications are enabled, however main technical constraints still keep the technology immature for commercial deployment. Target for UDC is as you know military application, where we have no further information.
*Q: Your phone division recently said that they're not going to launch an OLED phone. Can you give more info on that decision? What has to happen in order for you to incorporate OLEDs in your phone?*

OLED could not offer high resolution above 230ppi in the past. And cost was very high. They are main reasons for no acceleration. Things are being changed. Our phone division is mulling over OLEDs in every aspects. Leveraging just one of three key attributes of OLED, vivid picture quality, slim form factor especially integrated touch and eco-friendly power savings, OLED phones will not only survive entrenched LCD ones but position as a premium segment.
*Q: You have started to work on OLED deposition equipment together with Samsung. How is this coming along? Should we expect more cooperation in OLED programs?*

Bigger size OLED equipment development programs are there. It's not that direct cooperation between two companies. But no reason to disregard cooperation in OLED with Samsung. Cooperation partner is not confined to Korean companies.
*Q: What are the main challenges still ahead for OLEDs?*

Main challenges are depending on what sort of application OLED is destined to. For example, image sticking is more critical to Notebook. Overall higher cost than LCD mainly stemmed from unreached economy of scale is the key challenge.
*Q: Samsung have recently joined the OLED lighting race. Do you have plans to do OLED Lighting too?*
OLED lighting is an interesting business area, but no plan yet.
*Q: Where do you see the Display market in 5 years? Where will OLEDs be?*

Two different perspectives coexist for a while.


OLED's current acceleration in growth is based on mobile handsets, where it is arguably better looking and more power-efficient that LCDs, but those are incremental improvements. Most mobile handsets use LCDs, where they perform very effectively. We could argue that the reason OLED has grown so slowly (until now) is because they were "nice" rather than "necessary," while costing more than the incumbent display (of course).


Or,


As you can see OLED confers massive advantages, the main problem is in productionising the technology. They are starting with small screens, just as LCD did, and then gradually working their way up. But already they can be found in a number of production devices. So every LCD device will become obsolete, as the features and benefits of OLED devices are so overwhelmingly superior. And games will look so much better.
*Thank you Won, thanks for the interview, I wish you good luck, and we're all waiting to see your 15" OLED TVs by the end of the year!*


----------



## mjrgamer

Can't wait for this tech, it's so thin it should take up an entire wall.


----------



## ferro

 New DuPont “Gen-3” OLED Displays Technology Achieves Record 1 Million Hours Lifetime 


Performance Paves the Way for Commercial OLED Displays in TVs, Mobile Devices


Wilmington, Del., June 22, 2009 - DuPont today announced the development of its new, proprietary “Gen-3” solution-based organic light emitting diode (OLED) materials technology that can last a record lifetime of more than 1 million hours – equivalent to over 100 years of constant use.


The milestone achievement for the Gen-3 green OLED material has led to substantial performance gains for printable OLED light-emitting materials, while two new Gen-3 solution blue materials also have been developed that set new standards for longevity and color. These OLED materials can meet or exceed the performance of today’s vapor deposited materials, and are paving the way for manufacturers to develop future low-cost OLED displays for use in mobile devices, notebook PCs and televisions.


“Printing OLEDs significantly lowers the cost to manufacture displays, and with our advances in material technology, display manufacturers can see the material lifetimes and performance required for commercialization,” said William Feehery, global business director -- DuPont OLED Displays. “With lifetime five times better than just a couple years ago, these new materials will allow solution OLEDs to be used in mobile displays, and also to begin to penetrate the television and general lighting markets at a lower cost than today's evaporated OLED technology.”











Although green material lifetimes already exceed those of red and blue, the significance is that in a display, green contributes more to the white brightness. The longer lifetime also can lead to an increase in total display lifetime.


Historically, performance of blue light-emitting materials has been the most challenging, however, DuPont Gen 3 solution blue materials are demonstrating significant performance gains. One of the blue materials has demonstrated a lifetime of 38,000 hours, which is one of the longest blue OLED material lifetimes publicly reported. A second material has been developed with exceptionally deep blue color coordinates, with a lifetime of approximately 41,000 hours. As commonly reported in the industry, materials lifetimes refers to the time for the luminance to decrease to half the initial value starting from 1,000 cd/m2, as estimated from accelerated tests.


According to DisplaySearch, the total OLED display market is forecasted to grow to $5.5 billion by 2015, from $600 million in 2008, with a compound annual growth rate of 37 percent. DisplaySearch also forecasts that in 2015, televisions will pass mobile phone main displays to become the highest-revenue application at $1.92 billion.


----------



## Isochroma

 *IGNIS shows new AMOLED prototype using its MaxLife backlane tech* 
*21 June 2009*


IGNIS Innovation unveiled a prototype display using its backplane technology called MaxLife. The MaxLife solution compensates not only for the thin film transistor (TFT) degradation, but also for OLED as well.


IGNIS showed its prototype of a cutout of a 32 1080p HDTV, with an operating device lifetime of 75,000 hrs and no image burn-in over that period, which is equivalent to 20 years when watching for 10hrs/day.


The growth of the AMOLED industry has been constrained due to the technological hurdles associated with achieving a truly reliable, uniform and scalable TFT backplane. Our MaxLife platform now enables our customers, the display manufacturers, to accelerate their market introduction of large, visually stunning and affordable AMOLED HDTVs and other large area applications in the very near future, said Paul Arsenault, President and CEO of IGNIS.


Because our technology is based on electrical feedback only, this means we don't use expensive and unreliable components such as a photodiode to achieve compensation. Best of all, MaxLife(TM) technology can be used with any OLED material type (small molecule or polymer) and any kind of TFT (LTPS, amorphous silicon, etc), added Corbin Church, Vice President. We will show our demo using an amorphous silicon backplane, which can easily scale up to Generation 10 size while enjoying high reliability and low unit manufacturing costs


----------



## navychop

Now *THAT'S* very interesting. Might just kick the OLED onto the market, and in larger sizes.


----------



## Human Bass

Sounds way too good to be completely true. But in case it is completely true...game, set, match.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Seiko Epson sees 37" (and larger) inkjet-printed OLED TVs in 2012* 
*23 June 2009*











*Espon 14-inch Inkjet processed OLED*



Last month Seiko Epson has unveiled a new inkjet-printing technology for OLEDs, suitable for large sized panels. We have talked to Satoru Miyashita, General Manager of Seiko Epson's Core Technology Development Center about this new technology and their plans for OLED production.

*Q: You have shown a new ink-jet based OLED technology. You say it will enable 37" or larger HD-OLED TVs. Do you have any plans to actually make such TVs? When do you think products can be made with this new tech?*

Epson is currently considering a variety of options regarding the commercialization of this technology, but at this point no specific announcements have been made about plans. We see 2012 as being the year that 37"+ OLED TVs will be launched by various makers, and 2015 as the year that sales will really take off for this market.
*Q: Will the new printing technology also allow OLED lighting panels? Or is it just for displays?*

This technology was designed specifically with displays in mind. It may be possible to apply it to the production of lighting panels too, but there may not be many benefits to using the inkjet process as OLED lighting uses a single color.
*Q: Back in 2004, you signed an agreement with Universal-Display to co-develop inkjet OLED printing. Is the new tech part of this agreement? Are you using PHOLED materials or IP?*

Epson's relationship with UDC is still strong and research is ongoing, and we published a paper at SID 2009 on P2OLED small molecule systems with UDC's assistance.


This paper is about the status of Printed OLEDs. Epson says that the biggest issues with printed OLEDs has been significantly improved. They give examples of a polymer-based OLED device with 45,000 hours lifetime, and a phosphorescent small-molecule system that has 40 cd/A efficiency.
*Q: In 2007 you said you will begin to make OLED panels (the aim there was to make large 8" panels). Is this still on track? Will Seiko-Epson be making medium sized panels? When?*

Epson does have the capability to produce these panels, and also demonstrated them last year at a display exhibitions in Japan. Research about commercialization continues, but at this point no announcements have been made about suitable applications for such products. As with larger panels, cost/benefit issues remain.










*Epson 8-inch OLED for automotive applications*


*Q: Are you working on other OLED technologies? or are you focusing on Inkjet printing?*

This inkjet technology was designed with large-size panels in mind. R&D continues on other methods and technologies for other applications too.
*Mr Satoru, Thank you very much! I hope we'll see large sized OLED TVs by Epson soon, maybe even before 2012...*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*LG Display enlists Japan's Idemitsu in OLED race* 
*24 June 2009*













SEOUL, June 24 (Reuters) - LG Display (034220.KS), the world's No. 2 maker of LCD screens, said on Wednesday it formed an alliance with Japan's Idemitsu Kosan (5019.T) in its drive to compete in the OLED (organic light emitting diode) market.


"The agreement enables LG Display to secure a stable source of OLED materials," the South Korean company said in a press release. "This will accelerate the growth of LG Display's OLED business, which is emerging as a new growth engine."


LG Display decined to disclose further information on the size and specific details of the agreement.


Idemitsu Kosan is an oil refiner active in OLED materials development.


OLED screens, increasingly used in premium mobile phones, use organic compounds that emit light when electricity is applied. Because they do not need backlighting, OLED panels are slimmer and more energy efficient than liquid crystal display panels.


But production costs and difficulties with larger screen sizes have so far held back the technology's commercial prospects.


LG Display, citing market research firm DisplaySearch, said the global OLED market is forecast to grow from $1.05 billion in 2009 to $3.33 billion by the end of 2010.


LG Display is planning to start mass producing OLED screens in 2010.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Kodak OLED technology on Green Magazine TV* 
*24 June 2009*


YouTube: Kodak OLED technology on Green Magazine TV 

{video won't embed due to forum coding problem}
Kodak OLED technology will be featured on Green Magazine TV, a show produced by WDCC TV and airing on major networks.


The show is about companies that are leading the way to a more sustainable future. Kodak's continued innovations in OLED technology will make the world a better place, with applications in both flat panel display and solid-state lighting. Kodak's compelling OLED "Green" impact will ultimately result in panels having fewer sub-components for ease of recycling, absence of heavy metals requiring special handling (such as mercury), and lower energy consumption.


We are proud to know that all OLED products will use Kodak's invention of OLED technology. Kodak's leadership role in OLED technology represents what

Kodak is all about ... "Making the World a Better Place" for many generations to come.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Universal Display and Seiko Epson achieves new efficient red and green inkjet printable OLEDs* 
*26 June 2009*

Universal Display and Seiko Epson have been working on their inkjet printable, phosphorescent OLED technology and materials for quite some time... They have now announced new advances in performace:

•A red P2OLED with CIE (0.67, 0.33), an efficiency of 10 candela per ampere (cd/A) and an operating lifetime of 20,000 hours, to 50% of initial luminance of 1,000 nits


•A green P2OLED with CIE (0.33, 0.62), an efficiency of 34 cd/A and an operating lifetime of 25,000 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*In the spotlight: OLEDs in a final push to market* 
*26 June 2009*

PDF Version 

*Organic light-emitting devices (OLEDs) are making waves in the displays and lighting markets. Stefan Grabowski tells Marie Freebody about the milestones that need to be reached before the technology finds widespread commercialization.*


Stefan Grabowski works at Philips Research Laboratories, Germany, where his focus is on device physics and OLED stack development. Grabowski is also the project manager of OLED100.eu, an EU-funded R&D collaboration that aims to realize efficient OLED products for the European lighting industry. Funded under the seventh Framework programme, the project comprises 14 partners from six countries.

*Can you explain how OLEDs work?*

OLEDs are solid-state lighting devices that work in a similar way to their inorganic cousins. A typical OLED is composed of two layers of organic material deposited on a transparent substrate, sandwiched between an anode and a cathode terminal. One of the layers is emissive and transports electrons from the cathode; the other layer is conductive and transports holes from the anode. When a current is passed through these layers, light is emitted via electron-hole pair recombination.


Unlike their inorganic counterparts, OLEDs can be easily structured to show patterns of colour or homogeneous white light and the layers that make up the device can be deposited on large areas.
*Why is OLED research important?*

OLEDs have the potential to become even more efficient than energy-saving bulbs. More than a quarter of electricity consumption in the EU is due to lighting, so an energy-efficient substitute is an important area of research. One of the targets of the OLED100.eu project is to build OLEDs with an efficacy value of 100 lm/W.


When efficient OLEDs are available at mass-production costs, they can be used for a multitude of applications in lighting. OLEDs offer new design options and integration possibilities because they could be built to cover large areas, they are extremely thin and they can be made transparent or flexible. The brightness and colour of OLEDs are fully adjustable, which creates a new way of decorating and personalizing people's surroundings.


What are the main applications and on what timescales will they occur?

There are two main application areas: displays and lighting. Small OLED displays already enjoy widespread application in portable devices such as mobile phones, MP3 players and personal digital assistants. Larger display devices are beginning to emerge on the market. For example, Sony has announced a 27 inch OLED television scheduled to hit the market in 2009.


OLEDs for lighting applications have completely different requirements. These OLEDs do not consist of many small pixels, but of one large emitting area. As a result, the device efficiency must be much higher. At first OLED lighting will appear in niche applications, but more sophisticated products will appear over time.


The vision is to have OLED tiles mounted on walls or ceilings to give a large uniform emitting area. Transparent OLEDs could also be incorporated into windows, which allow daylight to pass through during the day and emit light at night.
*How well do you expect OLEDs to penetrate the lighting market?*

OLED lighting is on the verge of commercialization. There is an OLED lamp available from the designer Ingo Maurer in Germany (it's based on Osram OLEDs) and Philips offers a technology kit that contains several OLEDs in various shapes and colours along with an electrical driver for a plug-and-play solution. These are not yet mass products but they indicate that OLED lighting is ready for the market. As the technology progresses, so too will the range of applications: from room and office lighting through to decorative and design-oriented lighting.


What is the most important recent advance and what hurdles remain?

The increase in efficiency of white OLEDs to a level that is comparable to that of a compact fluorescent lamp means that OLEDs are now much more efficient than halogen lamps and incandescent bulbs. The lifetime of OLEDs has also increased drastically to values of greater than 10,000 hours, making OLEDs appealing candidates for certain niche lighting applications.


But for general lighting purposes, OLED efficiency as well as lifetime must be improved further. In addition, the size of the emitting area has to be increased in order to fully utilize this unique feature. Therefore, production processes and device architectures are needed to enable uniform current distribution over the complete area as well as high reliability. From a commercialization point of view, mass-manufacturing equipment and processes have to be installed and developed.
*What will the next breakthrough be?*

A breakthrough is hard to predict. The OLED100.eu project is working to develop OLED technology further so that we will reach efficacy values of 100 lm/W, lifetime values of 100,000 hours and an OLED size of 100 × 100 cm. A breakthrough in the field of blue efficient phosphorescent emitters with a long lifetime would help us on that journey.
For more information about the OLED100.eu project, visit www.oled100.eu/homepage.asp .


• This article originally appeared in the June 2009 issue of Optics & Laser Europe magazine.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Light soon to shine on OLED screens* 
*2 July 2009*


DALLAS - -- It's not yet lights-out for LCD and plasma, but OLED displays could push those technologies out of the limelight.


Organic light-emitting diode screens and televisions have been around for a few years, and Sony's introduction last year of its small 11-inch OLED television for $2,500 seemed more like a bad joke than a real product.


But OLED -- with its larger color range, ability to show true black and high refresh rate compared with LCD; and low power consumption and physical thinness compared with plasma -- is finally ready to go mainstream.


Janice Mahon, vice president of technology commercialization at New Jersey-based Universal Display Corp., said affordable OLED displays are almost here.


"We're not that far from TVs being in the marketplace," she said.


Indeed, OLED televisions probably would be trickling out onto Best Buy and Wal-Mart shelves already if the recession hadn't discouraged so many electronics companies from ramping up their planned investments in OLED manufacturing, Mahon said.


"Sony, Samsung and LG all have efforts in this area," she said. "I would think that within the next year or two, the next technical hurdles that need to be addressed will be addressed."


Samsung already has said that its 14.1-inch and 31-inch OLED sets are "production ready." And LG confirmed that its 15-inch OLED television will start shipping in either December or January.


On a smaller scale, Microsoft Corp.'s new Zune HD portable media player will ship this fall with a 3.3-inch OLED touch screen, expanding the existing market of mobile devices with OLED displays.


While Apple Inc. opted to use traditional LCD screens on its new iPhone 3GS, it's possible that OLED could find its way into the company's iPod Touch media player devices before the end of the year.


On the TV side, the really good news is that, despite what Sony is charging for its 11-incher, prices for OLED TVs are expected to be lower than what consumers have been paying for LCD televisions.


Mahon said OLEDs are built with far fewer components than LCD sets.


"OLEDs will be less expensive than LCDs are today," Mahon said, adding that it takes about 100 steps in a manufacturing plant to build an LCD television, compared with 86 for an OLED.


A few years down the road, some really wild stuff is coming in the form of "flexible OLED." Flexible OLED displays are just what they sound like: paper-thin video displays made out of tough plastic that can be bent and rolled.


The application that has received the most attention so far is for the military, in a sort of wrist band communicator/display for troops in the field.


"I think the military is a wonderful early adopter and is, through funding, helping us with some of these [technical] problems," Mahon said. "But I think consumer applications are going to dwarf those of the military."


One of the neatest devices that Mahon envisions is a smart phone that rolls up into a pen.


When you need the screen, just unfurl it like a digital scroll.


----------



## Bushman4

With all the articles and speculation around it seems that OLED will be here sooner rather than later. Price will be prohibitive, as is the case with all new technology..

It seems as though the companies are looking at smaller size and flexible displays as their priority as opposed to larget size big screen TVs. The reason why I say this is that OLED will capture the market in these categories I mentioned rather than share them with large lcd and Plasma co.


----------



## rgb32

 *DisplaySearch: OLED revenue to grow to 7B$ in 2016, we might see new OLED TVs by Sony, Samsung and LG in 2009* 



> Quote:
> 07/14/2009 DisplaysearchLGMarket reportsOLED productionOLED TVRitDisplaySamsungSony
> 
> DisplaySearch has released a new edition of their Quarterly OLED Shipment and Forecast report.
> 
> 
> The report says that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED display revenue will grow to 7.1B$ by 2016.
> 
> AMOLED has passed PMOLEDs in Q1 2009
> 
> Samsung Mobile Displays still #1 in OLED shipments, with a 37% market share. RiTdisplay is #2.
> 
> Worldwide OLED display revenue in Q1'09 was $143 million, down 8% Q/Q. AMOLED revenues were up 17% Q/Q.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the report, *several manufacturers are planning OLED TV panels in 2009*. LG will debut their 15" AMOLED TV by the end of the year. DisplaySearch estimate that *it's likely (they give it 70%) that Sony will release their 27" OLED TV this year*. It's a bit uncertain because of Sony's financial situation.
> 
> 
> Samsung might (DisplaySearch gives it 40% chance) release their 14.1" OLED TV - but there's no announcement yet.



I hope to replace my CRT computer monitor soon!


----------



## TRT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twinbee* /forum/post/16646808
> 
> 
> Quick question. Is it possible for OLED (or any display tech for that matter) to theoretically completely eliminate screen glare/reflection from bright sources such as windows/bulbs etc.? In theory. i.e. Can there be any materials used for displays that are even potentially capable of this?



Probably not. A new transparent screen material will need to be introduced.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Development of Thin-film Electroluminescent Device Using Inorganic Oxides* 
*28 May 2009*











*Light emission from an inorganic EL device with perovskite oxides*



Hiroshi Takashima (Senior Research Scientist) and coworkers of the Superconducting Devices Group (Leader: Satoshi Kohjiro) of the Nanoelectronics Research Institute (Director: Seigo Kanemaru), National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) (President: Tamotsu Nomakuchi) have developed red electroluminescent (EL) devices using thin-films of chemically stable perovskite oxides.


The thin-film EL devices use perovskite oxides, typified by barium titanate (BaTiO3), which has long been used as capacitor material for electronic circuits. With an emission starting voltage of ≈10 V AC, the power source can be downsized due to low voltage operation of the device. A wide viewing angle is obtained by means of plane emission through the entire surface of the transparent electrode. There are no resource constraints due to the global abundance of required materials for the emitting and insulator layers. As all layers including the emitting layer are made of chemically stable inorganic materials, characteristic degradation due to oxidation or heat is unlikely to occur and thus a sealing process can be simplified. Hence, energy will be saved in a manufacturing process. Such applications as lighting, optical sources and displays will become feasible if higher brightness and polychromatic radiation are achieved in the years to come.


The results of this study will be published in the German scientific journal, "Advanced Materials."


----------



## Benny42

*LG slips 30-inch OLED panel production into 2012*


Via Engadget 

by Thomas Ricker, posted Jul 17th 2009 at 1:52AM:


With LG's 15-inch OLED TV coming to stores in December it can't be long until LG's mid-sized TV's start showing up for retail right? After all, Samsung and Sony are on record with claims of producing mid-sized OLEDs as early as this year and no later than mid-2010. Not so fast, literally. Although LG had previously targetted 2011 for the mass production of its 32-inch OLED TV, CEO Kwon Young Soo now says that LG plans on producing 30-inch OLED panels for TVs in 2012. Of course, all those earlier OLED projections were made before the global economic meltdown so delays have to be expected, however upsetting it may be.


---

bye

Benny42


----------



## Isochroma

 *OLED Emission efficiency improved by 75% from a Korean research team* 
*15 July 2009*


A KAIST research team led by Prof. Kyung-Cheol Choi of the School of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science discovered the surface plasmon-enhanced spontaneous emission based on an organic light-emitting device (OLED), a finding expected to improve OLED's emission efficiency, KAIST authorities said on Thursday (July 9).


For surface plasmon localization, silver nanoparticles were thermally deposited in a high vacuum on cathode. Since plasmons provide a strong oscillator decay channel, time-resolved photoluminescence (PL) results displayed a 1.75-fold increased emission rate, and continuous wave PL results showed a twofold enhanced intensity.


"The method using surface plasmon represents a new technology to enhance the emission efficiency of OLED. It is expected to greatly contribute to the development of new technologies in OLED and flexible display, as well as securing original technology," Prof. Choi said.


The finding was published in the April issue of Applied Physics Letters and the June 25 issue of Optics Express. It will be also featured as the research highlight of the August issue of Nature Photonics and Virtual Journal of Ultrafast Science.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*LG Display plan to produce 32-inch OLED TVs in 2012* 
*17 July 2009*













LG Display aims to produce 32-inch OLED televisions in 2012 in an effort to find a new source of revenue, the LG Display CEO Kwon Young Soo said Friday in an meeting.


The CEO Kwon Young Soo said:

"_We plan to produce 32-inch OLED panels for TVs in 2012. The commercial success of OLEDs hinges on how it shows its superiority compared to LCD technologies._"
At the question why LG Display doesn't want to produce smaller OLED panels the LG CEO said:

"_We will focus on TV panels rather than cell phone panels because the larger the display, the more efficient the OLED technology._"
LG Display's investment in OLED is huge, so plans the company to hiring 1700 people this year.


Look at this amazing videos and than you can not wait until 2012:


Youtube: * Objet AMOLED TV from LG Electronics at CES 2009 * *[ HD Version ]*

Youtube: * LG 15" OLED TV Prototype *


----------



## mjrgamer

I want a 100" OLED screen. Hurry up someone, stop these tiny screen sizes at once.


----------



## Blackraven

Nice updates. Keep them coming


----------



## Isochroma

 *Interview with David Fyfe, CDT's Chariman and CEO* 
*19 July 2009*

CDT is one of the leaders in OLED research, focusing on Polymer-based OLEDs. While these OLEDs are lagging behind small-molecule OLEDs in current products (all AMOLEDs today are based on SM-OLEDs), some companies believe that P-OLEDs are actually the better tech for the future.


CDT's CEO, David Fyfe has agreed to answer a few questions we had on CDT's technology. David joined CDT in 2000 as Chairman and CEO. David saw CDT go public in 2004, and then negotiated the sale of CDT to Sumitomo for $285 million (in September 2007). David is also a director of Soligie, an electronics printing company, Acal Energy, a fuel cell technology developer and the Plastic Electronics Foundation.

*Q: David - thanks for agreeing to do this interview. Since the Sumitomo acquisition, CDT has been rather quiet... can you give us an update on where's the company now, and where's it is headed?*

Since the merger of CDT into Sumitomo Chemical in September 2007, CDT has grown substantially and received considerable capital investment to enable it to remain a leading developer of P-OLED technology. It works very closely with SCC laboratories in Japan and most recently has been transferring manufacturing process knowhow to SCC's own P-OLED manufacturing development line, recently commissioned at Ehime on Shikoku, Japan.


CDT in partnership with SCC has made large strides in materials lifetimes and efficiencies. SCC prefers to take a lower profile in announcing these advances since its business model is to work with selected display maker partners in a collaborative, confidential relationship. We have also made big strides in the development of top emitting structures and in printing P-OLED displays. SCC's strategy is that CDT will continue to be its leading development center for P-OLED technology with Ehime scaling process technology to a yielding process status. CDT is also working very closely with Semprius of North Carolina, USA to develop single crystal silicon TFT structures on which P-OLED devices can be deposited and driven – using Semprius’ proprietary stamping technology.










*CDT 14" OLED prototype November 2005*


*Q: It seems that OLED displays are finally entering the mainstream - we hear of new devices (mainly by Samsung, but also from Sony, Microsoft, LG and others) almost daily. What are your thoughts on this? what are the challenges that still exist for OLEDs?*

Sony broke the logjam of resistance to the adoption of OLED in large displays by major display makers with the introduction of its XEL-1 11” OLED TV in 2007. Samsung SDI’s investment in small screen OLED production in 2007, based on LTPS backplanes was another major impetus. Since then, Chi Mei has brought on small OLED screen capacity, TMD (now wholly owned by Toshiba) has built an OLED line to manufacture small screens, LG Display will start up their Gen 3.5 line late this year and if press reports are to be believed, Toppoly will commission their capacity with Nokia as a lead customer and Panasonic have a major OLED development program for large OLED displays.


Samsung has rationalised the OLED interests of Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI by the formation of Samsung Mobile Displays. In other words the major players are staking out an OLED future, some in small screens and some first in small and then targeting large screens (TVs).


Most recently, Seiko Epson has announced that it has “cracked” the issues around inkjet printing of OLED displays and is moving now to commercialise that technology in a business model that is not altogether clear but may well involve partnerships with other display makers.










*Espon 14" Inkjet processed OLED*



The barriers that face OLEDs are as follows:
Small molecule OLED materials performance seems to now be at a level that satisfies the majors BUT it is clear to most of them that while vacuum deposition of these materials thru’ shadow masks is OK up to Gen 4 substrate size, beyond Gen 4 it is impractical (indeed Samsung Mobile Displays, Chi Mei and LG are or will process using ½ cut Gen 3.5 or Gen 4 i.e masking the substrate in two separate operations. Nothing could more clearly show the limits of shadow masking. Thus display makers who aspire to make TVs from substrates of Gen 5.5 and larger are looking at printed solutions.


While lifetimes and efficiencies for P-OLED are now sufficient for handheld device performance and both red and green lifetimes and efficiencies are fully acceptable for TV performance, blue still lags requirements in lifetime for TV. Given the current rate of progress this is expected to be no longer an issue within the next two years.


There has been skepticism regarding the development status of inkjet printing equipment and print heads and fitness for large scale manufacturing. However, this is evaporating as experience grows of inkjet printing color filters in a number of display makers and Epson’s announcement at SID has kindled considerable interest. Dupont claims success with nozzle printing in partnership with Dai Nippon Screen.

Given the very superior characteristics of OLEDs compared to LCD and Plasma, I expect it only to be a matter of a couple of years before we see OLED TVs being offered by a number of industry players.
*Q: You say that inkjet-printing OLEDs is the future, and printing SM-OLEDs is more difficult than printing P-OLEDs. Why is that?*

Our view has always been that polymer bridging units would be essential to long life and high efficiency of emitters which dry from PRINTED droplets. We at CDT have spent the last three years bringing the lifetimes of inkjet printed P-OLEDs to the same level as spin coated P-OLEDs. Virtually all the data that is public for solution processed SMOLEDs is from spin coated data and what data is available from printed SMOLEDs suggests Dupont (and we have information - UDC also) is struggling with the same issue as we first addressed three years ago.
*Q: UDC claims that 'virtually-all' AMOLEDs use their tech . When will we also see AMOLED based on your P-OLED tech?*

All the commercial OLED at the moment is small molecule. UDC have been supplying the red material to Samsung, LG and maybe Chi Mei but not I believe to Sony. Rumor has it that their green material is finally acceptable (suffered from instability prior to this) and that Samsung will adopt to further benefit power consumption. Sumation has red and green polymer based material which is every bit as good as UDC 's vacuum deposited performance so it is just a question as to when the printing technology is deemed fit for mass manufacturing.
*Q: Panasonic announced that they are teaming up with Sumitomo for OLED TVs . Will these be using P-OLEDs? When can we except a P-OLED TV on the market?*

Panasonic officially denies that the press release was theirs but detail in it suggests it was.


Note - according to Nikkei.com, Panasonic has an extensive inkjet-printing PLED program. They aim to release PLED TVs at around 2012.
*Q: TMDisplay is now focusing on OLEDs, after Toshiba bought out Matsushita's part. Are they working on P-OLEDs still?*

Toshiba/TMD will be working on both SMOLED and PLED technologies. The Toshiba influence in TMD was always pro-PLED but I have not seen them since the demerger from Panasonic so am not up to date with the Toshiba strategy.
*Q: Any updates on the Semprious JV on printing tech?*

Semprius – making excellent progress in this technology of printing the TFTs (TFTs patterned on Si wafer then released by etching and lifted from mother wafer and stamped onto the OLED display substrate resulting in single crystal TFTs – ideal for OLED driving.
*Q: I wonder what are your thoughts on OLED lighting - it seems like a very exciting application for OLEDs. Will CDT be a player in this market?*

OLED lighting – yes we are putting substantial effort into materials development for this application (PLED white for example but also the RGB approach is being pursued by some lighting companies). Efficiency is the issue and in my view so will processing technology. Some believe that you cannot get the economics good enough with high-vacuum processing to compete in mass lighting markets – back to the same issue as confronts small molecule in the display field.
Thanks David for this interesting interview... I wish you and CDT good luck!


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung SDI sees solid demand for AMOLED displays* 
*22 July 2009*


Samsung SDI posted good financial results yesterday - a 17% increase in profits. They say that demand for AMOLED displays "is looking solid".


Just last month Samsung said that they got 2M pre-orders for the JET phone, and over 1.8M pre-orders for the ultra-touch .


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Gravure Printing Technology application to Make OLED Panel* 
*27 July 2009*













Dai Nippon Printing (DNP) Co. Ltd. succeeded in making a passive matrix OLED panel by using gravure printing technology. DNP has been developing a manufacturing technology based on a high-accuracy gravure printing technology that uses a polymer organic EL material and can easily make ink-like liquid from organic materials. The company modeled an OLED panel by using its dedicated gravure printer and special ink made from a polymer organic EL material on a glass substrate that measures 300 x 300 x 0.7mm.


The company prototyped the OLED panel in two sizes, 192 x 32 x 1.4mm and 110 x 37 x 1.4mm. The pixel pitches are 1.0 and 1.15mm. DNP plans to develop OLED products by utilizing the new printing technology, aiming at commercialization in 2010 and sales of about ¥1.2 billion (approx US$12.7 million) this 2012.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Advantech to build a pilot line for roll-to-roll OLED fabrication at "exceptionally low cost"* 
*27 July 2009*











*Advantech 4" monochrome AMOLED*



Advantech has got a 15M$ investment to build a pilot line for their roll-to-roll OLED fabrication technology. Advantech will use the line to produce OLED TV backplanes, and Electronic Shelf Labels backplanes. They say their new technology will enable fabrication at "exceptionally low cost". Advantech already produced 4" monochrome AMOLED panels (shown above).


Advantech was founded by Dr. T. Peter Brody, inventor of the Active-Matrix, and they hope to revolutionize the OLED market. The current investment round comes from the Pan family (12M$) and from Shanghai Ventures (2.1M$). The Pan family has already invested 12M$ in previous rounds.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Solterra Signs Exclusive Licensing Agreement with University of Arizona for Printed OLEDs tech* 
*27 July 2009*


Solterra Renewable Technologies (wholly owned subsidiary of Hague Corp) today announced an exclusive worldwide licensing agreement with the University of Arizona for the patented, intellectual property covering screen-printing techniques for OLED fabrication. Solterra's CEO Stephen Squires says that there are essential similarities between the screen-printing techniques to fabricate LEDs and the screen printing technology that Solterra is currently optimizing to print quantum dots to make thin-film solar cells.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Showa Denko develops efficient phosphorescent-polymer-based OLED devices* 
*28 July 2009*











*SDK coated phosphorescent-polymer-based OLED*



Showa Denko K.K. (SDK) has developed new, efficient, coated phosphorescent-polymer-based OLEDs. The new devices achieved about 40% in light output (the quantity of light emitted from light source, divided by electric power consumed.) - which they claim is the highest level in the world. The efficiency is 30 lm/W, and the lifetime is approximately 10,000 hours.


SDK says that OLED made by coating is attracting keen attention because it consists of a few layers formed by coating polymer without the use of vacuum, providing the opportunity for substantial cost reductions and for the production of large area-emission panels in the future.


While the conventional-type device has a structure of cathode, emitter, anode, and glass substrate, the new structure has introduced a layer of dielectric/heat conductor that adjusts reflection of light. The new layer helps reduce the percentage of light trapped in the device, improving the light output. The dielectric/heat conductor layer, having high heat dissipation efficiency, prevents heat deterioration of the emitter, prolonging the device life.


SDK is working with SRI International, a non-profit US research organization and Itochu Plastics, of Japan, to promote the development of coated phosphorescent-polymer-based OLEDs for early commercialization in the OLED lighting market.


----------



## navychop

Sadly, it looks like OLED lighting won't be here soon enough for me. I am about to (within 6-12 months) remodel our kitchen and need under cabinet lighting. Since OLED is not on the market, I'll have to chose between fluorescent and LED. LED costs more, lasts longer, uses less energy, but doesn't really put out as much light as we'd like. I may go with fluorescent for a few years (unhappy experience with that) and then upgrade to OLED, if I can use the same wiring. If I go with LED, it'll be for life.


Come faster, OLED!


----------



## Isochroma

For lighting purposes, fluorescent is at the moment superior to OLED. Fluorescent is cheap, available in a wide variety of colours and CRIs, and is efficient and long-lasting. More efficient than either LED or OLED lighting, and higher CRI than either too.


----------



## optivity

When are 60" (+/-) OLEDs anticipated to "hit" the consumer market?


----------



## scorrpio

In my experience, the biggest question asked by mainstream consumer when considering purchase of a new expensive device is: how reliable is this thing. A TV that delivers a slightly worse picture quality but still works and looks like new after 5 years of service will be a whole lot more welcome than something that delivers phenomenal picture but borks out in a couple of years. Early adoters are cool, but they are relatively scarce and they don't make the weather. Generic consumer is not likely to spend upwards of a grand on unproven tech. Smaller TVs (about 20-30") in $400-500 are a much easier sell. Also, mobile devices make perfect fron-runners since consumer is primarily interested in other features of a mobile, screen taking a backstage. Many will pick up AMOLED screen units without a second thought. Yet further on, it'll give manufaturers ammo for proving OLED viability.

Anyway, OLED TVs will need to establish a proper track record as smaller/cheaper units before consumer if confident enough to buy bigger units at bigger prices. I say about 4-5 years - whcih manufacturers are likely to put to good use to recoup their investments in existing plasma/LCD lines.

So, if 20-30" OLEDs are expected around 2012, I'd say 2016-17 for consumer-targeted 55"+ units. But very likely, there will be options a la XEL-1 to buy a large OLED at a ludicrous price as early as 2013.


----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *optivity* /forum/post/16912475
> 
> 
> When are 60" (+/-) OLEDs anticipated to "hit" the consumer market?



I have never seen any indication that very large screen OLED panels are being considered at this time.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/16911317
> 
> 
> For lighting purposes, fluorescent is at the moment superior to OLED. Fluorescent is cheap, available in a wide variety of colours and CRIs, and is efficient and long-lasting. More efficient than either LED or OLED lighting, and higher CRI than either too.



Thank you. But I must note, getting the thin, under cabinet lighting restricts your choices greatly. And finding well built, high quality ones - well, we've been at this for years, and are still looking.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/16898764
> 
> *Samsung SDI sees solid demand for AMOLED displays*
> *22 July 2009*
> 
> 
> Samsung SDI posted good financial results yesterday - a 17% increase in profits. They say that demand for AMOLED displays "is looking solid".
> 
> 
> Just last month Samsung said that they got 2M pre-orders for the JET phone, and over 1.8M pre-orders for the ultra-touch .



And they will also have the Omnia II, Omnia Pro, and Pixon 12 phones available shortly, all with 800x480 AMOLED. As well as the Omnia HD, which is already available and has a 640x360 AMOLED.


----------



## scorrpio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/16914005
> 
> 
> I have never seen any indication that very large screen OLED panels are being considered at this time.



EVERYTHING is being considered at this time. Including quantum computing, sustained fusion and interstellar spaceflight.


Technologies being developed today to build 20-30" rigid OLEDs within next 2-3 years all have an eye toward larger sizes, flexible substrates and higher resolutions. There is no definite time to market, but don't think those things aren't on the roadmap.


----------



## Isochroma

 *SDK develops polymer-type OLEDs with 30 lm/W efficiency* 
*29 July 2009*
































*A new phosphorescent polymer-type device structure improves light output and heat conduction.*


Showa Denko K.K. (SDK) has developed a new OLED emitter structure that has enabled an efficiency of 30 lm/W, which is claimed to be the highest level announced for phosphorescent-polymer-based OLEDs.


SDK will continue working with SRI International, a non-profit research organization based in California, U.S.A., and Itochu Plastics Inc. (CIPS), of Japan, to promote the development of coated phosphorescent-polymer-based organic EL devices for early commercialization.


Small-molecule OLEDs are manufactured using deposition processes under vacuum. The technology is well-established but costs are high and there are many issues to be solved in producing a large area-emission panel based on this device.


However, the alternative approach being pursued by Showa Denko (and others) involves coating polymer layers without the use of vacuum, providing the opportunity for substantial cost reductions and for the production of large area-emission panels in the future.


Although fluorescent-type OLEDs have longer life, and are already used in displays of mobile phones, the alternative phosphorescent-type materials can theoretically have a four-times higher emission efficiency than the fluorescent type.


The new structure of Showa Denko’s OLED device features a layer of dielectric/heat conductor that helps to reflect light out of the structure, improving the light output, and also prevents heat deterioration of the emitter, prolonging the device life.


SDK has already achieved a luminance half life of approximately 10,000 hours for white lighting through improvements in the phosphorescent-polymer materials. SDK will continue developing organic EL devices with longer life based on the successful development of the new device structure.


SDK says it will work with SRI International and CIPS to improve the design of device structure and start selling samples on a full scale in 2010 for use in the general lighting market. The three parties will also work to improve coating property of the phosphorescent polymer and prolong the device life, aiming to achieve a 150 lm/W emissive efficiency and a luminance half life of approximately 50,000 hours for white lighting by 2015.


SDK is planning to commercialize its coated phosphorescent-polymer-based organic EL devices for general lighting by achieving high levels of performance exceeding that of fluorescent lamps.


----------



## Isochroma

 *LG Display begins work on new AMOLED fab* 
*12 August 2009*


LG Display are working on their new AMOLED (LTPS) fab. As we reported earlier, LG Display invested 79M$ on this new 3.5g plant (730x460mm glass substrates). It is scheduled to begin mass production in 1H 2010, and will reach a monthly capacity of 8,000 input sheets by the end of 2010.


LG Display are hoping to sign a deal to supply OLED panels to Nokia. They are also working on larger panels with plans to release 15" OLED TVs in Korea by the end of 2009, and later on introducing 32" OLED TVs in 2012.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-

You know the funny thing about this thread?

I've been coming to it on and off ever since people were raving about new "upcoming" holy grail technologies just around the corner, like SED and OLED.


And here the bitter sweet part, three years ago, reading this thread, I got the same optimistic impression of when I could expect to purchase these products in all their fully commercial glory. They were exactly two years off, three years ago as well as they seem to be now.


Its so depressing, SED never showed at the promised summer 2008, in fact it never showed up at all. And OLED is just getting pushed further and further back. Talking about maybe farting out at most a 37" in 2012, I mean, crap on a stick, that is far too little and entirely too late.


I hate the current LCD's, the current Plasma's seem only to impress when discussed by enthusiastic owners here and leave a lot to be desired when observed first hand.


I want to shed myself of these two techs and their respective short comings. I want OLED damn it, and I want it now, not in two years for x4 the price and half the size.


You know, if it were now I would actually consider x4 the price and half the size, but certainly not after more than 2 years of waiting, shouldn't I at least get something out of the torturous wait? All these so called breakthroughs reported here on a daily basis for more than 3 years and what is there to show for it? Tiny sub 20" useless prototypes with vague half hearted commitments to when they'll actually be available for purchase.


And SONY, don't get me started on those guys, jumping the gun with their stamp sized wonder and then nothing else for two whole years, what the hell does that tell you? Damn teases.


I wish I had a hard boot and access to the collective asses of persons responsible for this proverbial dragging of feet, because they sure seem to need some good old hard kicking.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/16993635
> 
> 
> I want to shed myself of these two techs and their respective short comings. I want OLED damn it, and I want it now, not in two years for x4 the price and half the size.
> 
> 
> You know, if it were now I would actually consider x4 the price and half the size, but certainly not after more than 2 years of waiting, shouldn't I at least get something out of the torturous wait? All these so called breakthroughs reported here on a daily basis for more than 3 years and what is there to show for it? Tiny sub 20" useless prototypes with vague half hearted commitments to when they'll actually be available for purchase.
> 
> 
> And SONY, don't get me started on those guys, jumping the gun with their stamp sized wonder and then nothing else for two whole years, what the hell does that tell you? Damn teases.



Boo hoo.... Sounds like you haven't seen the XEL-1 in person??? I think the XEL-1's picture is kind of a back to the future experience.... So what if Sony jumped the gun with releasing an OLED TV... it's PQ is awesome!


The number devices containing OLED displays is increasing over time. Sony just released their X-Series Walkman, Microsoft will be releasing the Zune HD next month. The fact that OLED displays are shipping in products seems to indicate that OLED TVs are just a matter of time (unlike FED/SED which are currently never going to happen). So, just be happy that OLED is gaining ground, even if it isn't as fast as you'd like.

















Also, I believe it is likely that we will hear actual product announcements for OLED TVs in 3 weeks at the IFA 2009 in Berlin (key word is likely).


----------



## Xavier1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/16993635
> 
> 
> You know the funny thing about this thread?
> 
> I've been coming to it on and off ever since people were raving about new "upcoming" holy grail technologies just around the corner, like SED and OLED.
> 
> 
> And here the bitter sweet part, three years ago, reading this thread, I got the same optimistic impression of when I could expect to purchase these products in all their fully commercial glory. They were exactly two years off, three years ago as well as they seem to be now.
> 
> 
> Its so depressing, SED never showed at the promised summer 2008, in fact it never showed up at all. And OLED is just getting pushed further and further back. Talking about maybe farting out at most a 37" in 2012, I mean, crap on a stick, that is far too little and entirely too late.
> 
> 
> I hate the current LCD's, the current Plasma's seem only to impress when discussed by enthusiastic owners here and leave a lot to be desired when observed first hand.
> 
> 
> I want to shed myself of these two techs and their respective short comings. I want OLED damn it, and I want it now, not in two years for x4 the price and half the size.
> 
> 
> You know, if it were now I would actually consider x4 the price and half the size, but certainly not after more than 2 years of waiting, shouldn't I at least get something out of the torturous wait? All these so called breakthroughs reported here on a daily basis for more than 3 years and what is there to show for it? Tiny sub 20" useless prototypes with vague half hearted commitments to when they'll actually be available for purchase.
> 
> 
> And SONY, don't get me started on those guys, jumping the gun with their stamp sized wonder and then nothing else for two whole years, what the hell does that tell you? Damn teases.
> 
> 
> I wish I had a hard boot and access to the collective asses of persons responsible for this proverbial dragging of feet, because they sure seem to need some good old hard kicking.



This post seriously made me laugh! I was feeling the same frustration with OLED when I clicked this thread. By 2012, Panasonic will probably produce perfect or near perfect blacks, since they bought all the Kuro patents. By then, if the price of the OLEDs is not on par, it might die just like SED.


I mean, why would anyone spend 5k for a 50" OLED with perfect blacks, when you could buy a Panasonic 50" for 2k with equally perfect blacks (if they make good on the future Kuro tech)?


----------



## H_Prestige




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xavier1* /forum/post/16994605
> 
> 
> This post seriously made me laugh! I was feeling the same frustration with OLED when I clicked this thread. By 2012, Panasonic will probably produce perfect or near perfect blacks, since they bought all the Kuro patents. By then, if the price of the OLEDs is not on par, it might die just like SED.
> 
> 
> I mean, why would anyone spend 5k for a 50" OLED with perfect blacks, when you could buy a Panasonic 50" for 2k with equally perfect blacks (if they make good on the future Kuro tech)?



This. By the time OLED is in large sizes and affordable, plasma will already by razor thin and produce perfect or near perfect blacks all at very affordable prices. You won't be able to bend it but who cares.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-

I would be interested in any OLED display equal to or larger than 40" for any price premium over any future plasma technology. Both plasma and LCD tech have matured enough that I have a fairly good idea which aspect of each are going to be improved upon going forward.


I doubt any of my gripes with LCD and Plasma will have been dealt with by 2012, specially with Plasma technology most of my reservations seem to be inherent in the way the technology works and are not fixable. And I doubt the blacks on LCD's will ever be able to satisfy me bearing in mind how little they've improved thus far.


There might not be many like me, but I want OLED, and I want it now, I am tired of waiting. Presently I would be willing to pay a significant premium for a 32-37" OLED set and I would throw my 46" LCD to the curb and stomp on it a few times for good measure.


----------



## Xavier1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/16995360
> 
> 
> I would be interested in any OLED display equal to or larger than 40" for any price premium over any future plasma technology. Both plasma and LCD tech have matured enough that I have a fairly good idea which aspect of each are going to be improved upon going forward.
> 
> 
> I doubt any of my gripes with LCD and Plasma will have been dealt with by 2012, specially with Plasma technology most of my reservations seem to be inherent in the way the technology works and are not fixable. And I doubt the blacks on LCD's will ever be able to satisfy me bearing in mind how little they've improved thus far.
> 
> 
> There might not be many like me, but I want OLED, and I want it now, I am tired of waiting. Presently I would be willing to pay a significant premium for a 32-37" OLED set and I would throw my 46" LCD to the curb and stomp on it a few times for good measure.



May I ask what bothers you about plasma? Just curious, don't own one, but from viewing them at a friends, they don't seem to have any glaring flaws. I own a Sony SXRD 50" myself that I love.


With OLED, what exactly is its superiority to PDPs other than absolute blacks? I can't think of any. Infact, OLEDs problems/flaws will only really start to surface once it hits the mass market.


----------



## Isochroma

OLED has true shades of colors - unlike plasma which switches pixels on and off to get greyscales. Switching pixels to get greyscales causes motion artifacts, and can even be seen on still images in dark areas due to low duty cycle. These effects are often called dither or 'noise', though they are not noise in the normal sense of the word, but switching artifacts also known as temporal aliasing.


OLED emitters can have a much wider color gamut (better purity) than plasma phosphors.


OLED doesn't flicker like plasma because it doesn't require PWM switching to obtain greyscales. Distinct and present in addition to 'noise' or temporal aliasing as mentioned above, the entire display strobes at one or more frequencies (usually 60Hz. in North America). This artifact is more visible in bright images from all distances and can causes headache and eyestrain.


OLED uses much less power than plasma because unlike plasma it does not require high voltage to ionize gas. Converting wall current to high voltage uses expensive, heavy and failure-prone circuits that waste energy during the conversion process. Plasma also uses many different high voltages, further complicating the conversion circuitry.


OLED is safer than plasma because the unit contains less high-voltage circuitry. In case of accident like water infiltration, etc. it is less likely to cause electrocution. A plasma steps up the 110-120V wall current to 600V to activate its pixels, while OLED converts its input voltage _down_ to 12V or lower. 12V or lower cannot cause electrocution and is safe. The only dangerous circuitry in a wall-powered OLED is the small portion before and inside the step-down converter - all the rest runs at or below 12V. For OLEDs used in laptops, cellphones, and other battery-powered devices there is no dangerous voltage at all. Even compared to LCD - the majority of today's LCD small-device displays use cold-cathode high-voltage miniature fluorescent tubes for backlights and therefore also present a shock or electrocution hazard.


OLED drive circuitry lasts longer than plasma drive circuitry because its power usage and voltage are much lower, and its circuits are less complex with far fewer high-power handling components which are usually the first to fail. This means less heat generated in its circuits, lower circuit cost and fewer components to fail, thus a longer life and cheaper price than plasma drive circuitry.


OLED is lighter than plasma and can be printed on sheets 1/3mm thick. Not only sheets of glass, but sheets of plastic. Plasma being a vacuum technology requires heavy, hard glass to keep atmospheric pressure from collapsing its vacuum cells. This means lower shipping costs and therefore lower prices for OLED. As fossil fuel runs out in the coming years, shipping costs will make up more and more of the price of finished goods, therefore weight will matter more and more as part of the total cost of a display.


OLED pixels can be made in any size, from the superfine dots of a laptop display to the large pixels of a 50" TV, and thus unlike plasma can be made in all sizes from cellphone to supergiant TV. The minimum size of plasma pixels limits its market to TVs.


OLED pixels retain their efficiency no matter the size, while plasma pixels get less efficient as their size is reduced, often dramatically so, due to wall losses which de-ionize the gas and which depends on its pixels' surface area / volume ratio. A cellphone OLED display can be just as bright and efficient as a 50" OLED-TV.


Though each of these differences between OLED and plasma may seem small, taken together they add up to a significant overall difference between displays, as the many people who have seen live OLED displays can attest.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/16996199
> 
> 
> OLED has true shades of colors - unlike plasma which switches pixels on and off to get greyscales. Switching pixels to get greyscales causes motion artifacts, and can even be seen on still images in dark areas due to low duty cycle. These effects are often called dither or 'noise', though they are not noise in the normal sense of the word, but switching artifacts also known as temporal aliasing.
> 
> 
> OLED emitters can have a much wider color gamut (better purity) than plasma phosphors.
> 
> 
> OLED doesn't flicker like plasma because it doesn't require PWM switching to obtain greyscales. Distinct and present in addition to 'noise' or temporal aliasing as mentioned above, the entire display strobes at one or more frequencies (usually 60Hz. in North America). This artifact is more visible in bright images from all distances and can causes headache and eyestrain.
> 
> 
> OLED uses much less power than plasma because unlike plasma it does not require high voltage to ionize gas. Converting wall current to high voltage uses expensive, heavy and failure-prone circuits that waste energy during the conversion process. Plasma also uses many different high voltages, further complicating the conversion circuitry.
> 
> 
> OLED is safer than plasma because the unit contains less high-voltage circuitry. In case of accident like water infiltration, etc. it is less likely to cause electrocution. A plasma steps up the 110-120V wall current to 600V to activate its pixels, while OLED converts its input voltage _down_ to 12V or lower. 12V or lower cannot cause electrocution and is safe. The only dangerous circuitry in a wall-powered OLED is the small portion before and inside the step-down converter - all the rest runs at or below 12V. For OLEDs used in laptops, cellphones, and other battery-powered devices there is no dangerous voltage at all. Even compared to LCD - the majority of today's LCD small-device displays use cold-cathode high-voltage miniature fluorescent tubes for backlights and therefore also present a shock or electrocution hazard.
> 
> 
> OLED drive circuitry lasts longer than plasma drive circuitry because its power usage and voltage are much lower, and its circuits are less complex with far fewer high-power handling components which are usually the first to fail. This means less heat generated in its circuits, lower circuit cost and fewer components to fail, thus a longer life and cheaper price than plasma drive circuitry.
> 
> 
> OLED is lighter than plasma and can be printed on sheets 1/3mm thick. Not only sheets of glass, but sheets of plastic. Plasma being a vacuum technology requires heavy, hard glass to keep atmospheric pressure from collapsing its vacuum cells. This means lower shipping costs and therefore lower prices for OLED. As fossil fuel runs out in the coming years, shipping costs will make up more and more of the price of finished goods, therefore weight will matter more and more as part of the total cost of a display.
> 
> 
> OLED pixels can be made in any size, from the superfine dots of a laptop display to the large pixels of a 50" TV, and thus unlike plasma can be made in all sizes from cellphone to supergiant TV. The minimum size of plasma pixels limits its market to TVs.
> 
> 
> OLED pixels retain their efficiency no matter the size, while plasma pixels get less efficient as their size is reduced, often dramatically so, due to wall losses which de-ionize the gas and which depends on its pixels' surface area / volume ratio. A cellphone OLED display can be just as bright and efficient as a 50" OLED-TV.
> 
> 
> Though each of these differences between OLED and plasma may seem small, taken together they add up to a significant overall difference between displays, as the many people who have seen live OLED displays can attest.



WOW! This certainly is worthy of slapping the face of plasma fanboys! Isochroma has certainly won points in my book!


----------



## aim120

oled can show far better blacks i.e 0.0 cd/m2 and can show far brighter whites which plasmas can only dream about.

OLED don't suffer from phoshor trailing,they also look way sharper and 3d like compared to the blury traditional picture of the plasma.


----------



## sharpbandaid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/16997275
> 
> 
> WOW! This certainly is worthy of slapping the face of plasma fanboys! Isochroma has certainly won points in my book!



Resistance is futile. TV sizes will come after economies of scales hit the sweet spot(Samsung) or someone jumps the gun(Sony).


----------



## like.no.other.

My Cowon S9 which uses AMOLED at 480x272 beats the best PDP, LCD, CRT,

LCoS, DLP, or LED TV out there in performance. No burn in, no phosphor trails,

blacks are *black* (not dark shade of gray or illuminated black), better

colors, no motion blur, less power hungry, etc. It will eat up and and spit out

the Pioneer Kuro Elite. Just watching the credits on this thing makes it 100x

better. Floating text anyone? This is God's answer to every cons on a television

and then some.


I used a Blu-Ray, DVD, and UMD ripped at resize to 480x272 to test with this screen

using MPEG-4.


----------



## greenjp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/16997275
> 
> 
> WOW! This certainly is worthy of slapping the face of plasma fanboys! Isochroma has certainly won points in my book!



Plasma fanboys will continue to enjoy their big plasma sets for many years before OLED is a viable tech.


And besides, doesn't everything Isochroma posted also point to OLED's superiority over LCD? Doesn't the fact that the first real application of OLED is in small displays (see upcoming Zune HD) point to OLED first displacing LCD for small devices, then small TVs? If I was a weird LCD fan I'd be more worried about it doing away with LCD than happy about what it may eventually do to plasma.


jeff


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xavier1* /forum/post/16996151
> 
> 
> May I ask what bothers you about plasma? Just curious, don't own one, but from viewing them at a friends, they don't seem to have any glaring flaws. I own a Sony SXRD 50" myself that I love.
> 
> 
> With OLED, what exactly is its superiority to PDPs other than absolute blacks? I can't think of any. Infact, OLEDs problems/flaws will only really start to surface once it hits the mass market.



Well, to me personally, the things that bothered me enough on my previous PDP display enough to make want to try LCD when I had to upgrade were the following.


The most annoying things were reflections, because in the daylight my Plasma was unwatchable, since it faced a window. That is why I bought the SONY semi-matte LCD's which are excellent in that regard and I doubt I will ever be able to go back to glossy, even if they do deliver better colours unfortunately. So that is one chalked up for the fact that there are no matte displays in the Plasma world, even though they do have AR coating.


Now, that might actually be fixable on Plasma in the future if NeoPDP delivers in its promises of much brighter whites, which it has not as of yet as I understand.


Now the second most annoying thing and one I doubt will be able to go away completely ever is image retention. The fact that static images will leave a trace behind if displayed for a while, which is quite annoying because I game a game a lot and every time I see IR I cringe and am reminded of a display shortcoming until it fades away.


Thirdly, and this is a personal thing, we have not so much phosphor trails but an effect that they cause which I have not seen discussed here much. It is specially visible to me in games where I can turn the camera at will and though Plasma is suppose to handle motion better I suspect because of the different rate with which different colours turn off on plasma motion such at panning seems strangely jerky to me whereas on LCD is seems uniform and I find that I don't mind the LCD blur for some reason.


Then there is one last thing, one that basically prevented me from getting a Kuro and which shocked me when I finally managed to observe one in a store after hearing so much raving about them in the Plasma board. When I witnissed the 5020 in a store, hooked up to a Blu-ray player I was dumbfounded by how terribly grey and glowing the blacks were.


It was so contrary to what I had been led to believe that I asked for the remote and played with all the settings, and even ended up turning everything (brightness, contrast, picture mode) down as far as it could go but the blacks remained abysmal.


I suspect the terrible blacks were caused by the Plasma cells catching and reflecting ambient light so as to appear grey, where for an example in a completely dark room there might only be left the actual glow of the display, never the less, after so much raving and not mention of this effect and remembering all the other above flaws that I had to suffer through with Plasma I basically changed my mind and went with an Z series SONY LCD, hoping to tie me over until CES 2009 had SONY and others announced forthcoming OLED's.


The lo and behold the entire industry just side stepped OLED come CES due to changed plans because of the changing economy. Now I am stuck with a LCD I know cannot tie me over longer that it has, because I hate its blacks, and not much else to take its place.


I am going to sell my LCD off cheap in the coming days and then I'll wait for that trade show to see if anyone announces a release date for above 30" sets and then I'll get the largest from either SONY or Samsung. If nothing shows, as I suspect I guess I'll just get an XBR8 and hope its blacks are better enough to tie me over at least a year or two more, because it seems to me the display industry is now in the process of rolling back over quality in the upcoming year.


----------



## oldcband




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/16999032
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to sell my LCD off cheap in the coming days and then I'll wait for that trade show to see if anyone announces a release date for above 30" sets and then I'll get the largest from either SONY or Samsung. If nothing shows, as I suspect I guess I'll just get an XBR8 and hope its blacks are better enough to tie me over at least a year or two more, because it seems to me the display industry is now in the process of rolling back over quality in the upcoming year.



Money is relative (some have alot more than others) but IMO why would anyone want to upgrade.


As much as members hate to hear Auditor's stuff he's right on. The current technologies won't cut it.


I'm waiting for some new tech.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oldcband* /forum/post/16999110
> 
> 
> Money is relative (some have alot more than others) but IMO why would anyone want to upgrade.
> 
> 
> As much as members hate to hear Auditor's stuff he's right on. The current technologies won't cut it.
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for some new tech.



I want to upgrade because I cant stand my current LCD and I know there is something better available for purchase. I really cant see myself suffering through the glowing blue blacks of the Z series longer, they bothered me from day one and though the XBR8, like anything else out there, produces something a far cry from absolute black I have observed it to do better than the Z at least, and not by little.


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/16997275
> 
> 
> WOW! This certainly is worthy of slapping the face of plasma fanboys! Isochroma has certainly won points in my book!



No need to think OLED is disliked by Plasma owners. In fact, the reverse is true. Plasma owners in general are "videophiles" and want the very best PQ no matter what the video technology is named. OLED seems to be what the future holds, and am looking forward to seeing its full development and implementation. If anything, it is LCD Mfg'ers that should be worried about OLED, as this will be their main competitor in the near future. Once OLED gets ramped up, LCD will no longer be the desired video tech for cellphones, PDA's, laptops, or anything with smaller screen sizes under 50". So in fact, it is OLED that will kill off LCD in the market, not Plasma large screen TV's.


----------



## sodaboy581

Although now I'm using (or will be using after I pick it up from the store tonight) a Plasma, I don't feel bad about it because OLED isn't out.


I'll definitely get an OLED, if it really does turn out to be the Holy Grail of picture technologies, once it comes in a decent size and has a decent price. (Yes, I'm aware it'll probably be a couple of years after they come out with decent sizes that the prices will go down... but good things come to those who wait!! Or maybe I'll just blow my money and be an early adopter, if they're THAT good, LOL..







)


----------



## aim120

well plasma owners complain about the 3d like sharp crisp image of a lcd,if anyone here have seen Oled displays they give the same effect,with quite lot more contrast.


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aim120* /forum/post/17000938
> 
> 
> well plasma owners complain about the 3d like sharp crisp image of a lcd,if anyone here have seen Oled displays they give the same effect,with quite lot more contrast.



Well, I guess once OLED kills off LCD in the marketplace, it'll still be nice to have a choice of different video technologies & pricing. The OLED displays will most probably be the "top tier" displays, and the less expensive displays would be Plasma TV's in the 50+" size. The larger screen sizes for OLED will be the last frontier, and their initial market dominance will begin in small screen sizes, which is the primary market for LCD at this time. For LCD, the end is near.


----------



## H_Prestige




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aim120* /forum/post/17000938
> 
> 
> well plasma owners complain about the 3d like sharp crisp image of a lcd,if anyone here have seen Oled displays they give the same effect,with quite lot more contrast.



What? I like plasma much more than LCD, and to me OLED gives off the same impression as a good plasma display, only better.


----------



## aim120




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cajieboy* /forum/post/17001188
> 
> 
> Well, I guess once OLED kills off LCD in the marketplace, it'll still be nice to have a choice of different video technologies & pricing. The OLED displays will most probably be the "top tier" displays, and the less expensive displays would be Plasma TV's in the 50+" size. The larger screen sizes for OLED will be the last frontier, and their initial market dominance will begin in small screen sizes, which is the primary market for LCD at this time. For LCD, the end is near.



well going by the decling sales of plasmas,it will be EOL sooner then OLED becomes mainstream,my guess is lcds will sell beyond 2020.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H_Prestige* /forum/post/17001245
> 
> 
> What? I like plasma much more than LCD, and to me OLED gives off the same impression as a good plasma display, only better.



OLED certainly has deep blacks like a plasma,actualy much better blacks,but it does look more 3d like then plasmas,just like lcds.


----------



## sharpbandaid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cajieboy* /forum/post/17001188
> 
> 
> The OLED displays will most probably be the "top tier" displays, and the less expensive displays would be Plasma TV's in the 50+" size.


 Plasma Panel Shipment Growth Decelerates, Says iSuppli 


Mar 25, 2009


> Quote:
> "For now, the sweet spot for plasma has moved to the 50-inch and larger market, where the cost benefits of choosing plasma give it an advantage over LCDs," Patel said. "But, just as in the 42-inch size, this advantage eventually will evaporate."



OLED isn't going to kill LCD anytime soon. Maybe within 15-20 years OLED will exceed LCD shipments.


----------



## H_Prestige




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aim120* /forum/post/17003532
> 
> 
> well going by the decling sales of plasmas,it will be EOL sooner then OLED becomes mainstream,my guess is lcds will sell beyond 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED certainly has deep blacks like a plasma,actualy much better blacks,but it does look more 3d like then plasmas,just like lcds.



What do you mean by 3d?


----------



## tbird8450

OLED will hurt LCD far before even a single plasma sale is disrupted by its presence. LCD cameras, camcorders, cell phones, PDAs etc are already beginning to transition to OLED. PC/laptop screens will follow, and then small screen TVs. All of these are currently the domain of LCD.


Big screen LCD exists in large part because of the technology's dominating presence in the small screen market. Once OLED gobbles up significant small screen marketshare, the future of LCD televisions will be scarcely brighter than that of plasmas.


----------



## tbird8450




> Quote:
> oled can show far better blacks i.e 0.0 cd/m2 and can show far brighter whites which plasmas can only dream about.



Plasma has already achieved 0.0 cd/m2 blacks.



> Quote:
> OLED don't suffer from phoshor trailing,they also *look way sharper* and 3d like compared to the blury traditional picture of the plasma.



So you've seen a 50"+ 1080p OLED in person? Or are you basing this on the miniscule 11" XEL-1 that's in many stores?


----------



## sharpbandaid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbird8450* /forum/post/17005553
> 
> 
> Plasma has already achieved 0.0 cd/m2 blacks.



I'm pretty sure that these claimed 0 cd/m² plasmas have mis/nonfire problems.


PDP will always look hazy because of dithering.


----------



## tbird8450




> Quote:
> I'm pretty sure that these claimed 0 cd/m² plasmas have mis/nonfire problems.



And patent applications were already filed containing workarounds for this problem.



> Quote:
> PDP will always look hazy because of dithering.


----------



## sharpbandaid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbird8450* /forum/post/17005723
> 
> 
> And patent applications were already filed containing workarounds for this problem.



So it basically confirms it. Just like dithering is a "workaround".


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharpbandaid* /forum/post/17003654
> 
> Plasma Panel Shipment Growth Decelerates, Says iSuppli
> 
> 
> Mar 25, 2009
> 
> 
> 
> OLED isn't going to kill LCD anytime soon. Maybe within 15-20 years OLED will exceed LCD shipments.



You better get a grip. Who do you think makes all those itty bitty video screens? LCD, that's who..and just who do you think will be losing all that marketshare when OLED replaces them?...LCD, that's who. Dude, Wake up and smell the frack'in coffee! LCD is doomed, and their time is near at end.


----------



## tbird8450




> Quote:
> So it basically confirms it. Just like dithering is a "workaround".



Yes, it's exactly the same.


Perhaps you could actually read the patent applications and educate yourself instead of spouting unbridled nonsense.


----------



## sharpbandaid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cajieboy* /forum/post/17005754
> 
> 
> You better get a grip. Who do you think makes all those itty bitty video screens? LCD, that's who..and just who do you think will be losing all that marketshare when OLED replaces them?...LCD, that's who. Dude, Wake up and smell the frack'in coffee! LCD is doomed, and their time is near at end.



LCD market is huge. There's no OLED capacity to kill LCD.


----------



## aim120




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbird8450* /forum/post/17005553
> 
> 
> Plasma has already achieved 0.0 cd/m2 blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've seen a 50"+ 1080p OLED in person? Or are you basing this on the miniscule 11" XEL-1 that's in many stores?



well plasma including the KURO cannot show 0.0cdm/2.


well i have seen a 27" OLED ,apart from the 11",they certainly look better then a similar sized lcd i.e with blacker blacks,better viewing angles,but they sure looked more sharp and 3d like ,unlike plasma.


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aim120* /forum/post/17005812
> 
> 
> well plasma including the KURO cannot show 0.0cdm/2.
> 
> 
> well i have seen a 27" OLED ,apart from the 11",they certainly look better then a similar sized lcd i.e with blacker blacks,better viewing angles,but they sure looked more sharp and 3d like ,unlike plasma.



Hey that's great, and look forward to seeing them replace LCD's in the marketplace. About time we had a decent small screen TV to buy.


----------



## tbird8450




> Quote:
> well plasma including the KURO cannot show 0.0cdm/2.



Pioneer achieved it. It just didn't make it to market before they exited the business.


----------



## tbird8450




> Quote:
> they sure looked more sharp



So you've seen it next to a 27" plasma?


Sharpness comparisons are worthless unless you're comparing equal size and resolution.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbird8450* /forum/post/17005954
> 
> 
> So you've seen it next to a 27" plasma?
> 
> 
> Sharpness comparisons are worthless unless you're comparing equal size and resolution.



I've seen similar sized Plasma and LCD next to each other and as anyone will say LCD certainly look sharper than Plasma, that is just how reality plays out. Now, I have not seen an actual OLED, but I image the person whose seen the 27" OLED knows what a LCD of similar size looks like and I think he could vouch for it looking, if not better, then at least equally sharp as an LCD. That train of deduction leads us to the conclusion of OLED having the characteristic of a sharper looking image than Plasma.


But who cares in the end, I don't think anyone is in here who isn't anticipating OLED so they can quit current technologies such as LCD and Plasma, at least I know I am.


----------



## tbird8450




> Quote:
> I've seen similar sized Plasma and LCD next to each other and as anyone will say LCD certainly look sharper than Plasma, that is just how reality plays out.



This is not my experience when both are properly adjusted to defeat edge enhancement (sharpness). It's also model dependant.


----------



## sharpbandaid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbird8450* /forum/post/17006148
> 
> 
> This is not my experience when both are properly adjusted to defeat edge enhancement (sharpness). It's also model dependant.



Who cares. When you are adding noise=dithering to the image there's no possibility for image to be as clear, sharp or 3d-like as without the added noise.


----------



## tbird8450

I don't see any dithering effects from beyond 7' on my screen. It looks as clear as when I'm using my LCD.


----------



## Bushman4

when OLED finally gets to market with the PQ, black levels etc. that everybody is waiting for the price will kill it at first.

This has happened with every new technology that has ever hit the market. Unfortunately the PRICE MAKES IT PROHIBITVE AT FIRST.



BOTTOM LINE: Between the perfection of the technology & the anticipated opening high price, OLED is a few years away


----------



## aim120




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbird8450* /forum/post/17005954
> 
> 
> So you've seen it next to a 27" plasma?
> 
> 
> Sharpness comparisons are worthless unless you're comparing equal size and resolution.



well rhe OLED looks sharper then a similar sized lcd,we know that lcds looks sharper then a similar sized plasma,hence a similar sized 50" OLED will look even sharper then a lcds which in turn looks way sharper then a plasma.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-

I was searching google when I stumbled upon this , look at the date, its from 6 years ago, really puts things in perspective relative to the sluggish nature of OLED technology advancement.


----------



## Tazishere




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cajieboy* /forum/post/17005754
> 
> 
> You better get a grip. Who do you think makes all those itty bitty video screens? LCD, that's who..and just who do you think will be losing all that marketshare when OLED replaces them?...LCD, that's who. Dude, Wake up and smell the frack'in coffee! LCD is doomed, and their time is near at end.



I'm glad. LCD is bad idea that needs to go away. It reminds me of the story of the empreror who pretended to have beautiful clothes, when he didn't. It always needs a new "band-aid" workaround to problems, while other technologies like plasma have no problem with, without a promise of to fix the problem without giving up some other desirable trait. Right now, LCD technology can either give you rapid response OR wide viewing angle, for example. Take your pick, just remember you can't have it all. Afterall, it's LCD.


----------



## Tazishere




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/17009245
> 
> 
> I was searching google when I stumbled upon this , look at the date, its from 6 years ago, really puts things in perspective relative to the sluggish nature of OLED technology advancement.



OLED is a victim of the bad economy the last few years. Sony was losing money on the Playstation 3 since at least 2006, not including the expensive development costs involved for it. Now maybe Sony can concentrate on the OLED development more, and re-establish their priorities.


----------



## aim120




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tazishere* /forum/post/17009612
> 
> 
> I'm glad. LCD is bad idea that needs to go away. It reminds me of the story of the empreror who pretended to have beautiful clothes, when he didn't. It always needs a new "band-aid" workaround to problems, while other technologies like plasma have no problem with, without a promise of to fix the problem without giving up some other desirable trait. Right now, LCD technology can either give you rapid response OR wide viewing angle, for example. Take your pick, just remember you can't have it all. Afterall, it's LCD.



too bad plasmas don't have any problems and lcds outsell plasmas by a huge margin.


----------



## powertoold

OLED is the perfect display technology: flexible, lightweight, perfect PQ, energy efficient, perfect viewing angles, thin, everything... Plasma cannot compare. The only advantage of a plasma is perfect PQ; otherwise, they are large and heavy space heaters that are prone to problems and failure over time.


I wouldn't be surprised if OLEDs are used for decades to come. I predict that OLED display glasses will be made since they can have dense pixel pitch. It'd be great to one day watch a perfect 100" TV through some glasses.


At this point, I guess the only setback is the short lifespan of the emitters.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/16996199
> 
> 
> OLED has true shades of colors - unlike plasma which switches pixels on and off to get greyscales. Switching pixels to get greyscales causes motion artifacts, and can even be seen on still images in dark areas due to low duty cycle. These effects are often called dither or 'noise', though they are not noise in the normal sense of the word, but switching artifacts also known as temporal aliasing.
> 
> 
> OLED emitters can have a much wider color gamut (better purity) than plasma phosphors.
> 
> 
> OLED doesn't flicker like plasma because it doesn't require PWM switching to obtain greyscales. Distinct and present in addition to 'noise' or temporal aliasing as mentioned above, the entire display strobes at one or more frequencies (usually 60Hz. in North America). This artifact is more visible in bright images from all distances and can causes headache and eyestrain.
> 
> 
> OLED uses much less power than plasma because unlike plasma it does not require high voltage to ionize gas. Converting wall current to high voltage uses expensive, heavy and failure-prone circuits that waste energy during the conversion process. Plasma also uses many different high voltages, further complicating the conversion circuitry.
> 
> 
> OLED is safer than plasma because the unit contains less high-voltage circuitry. In case of accident like water infiltration, etc. it is less likely to cause electrocution. A plasma steps up the 110-120V wall current to 600V to activate its pixels, while OLED converts its input voltage _down_ to 12V or lower. 12V or lower cannot cause electrocution and is safe. The only dangerous circuitry in a wall-powered OLED is the small portion before and inside the step-down converter - all the rest runs at or below 12V. For OLEDs used in laptops, cellphones, and other battery-powered devices there is no dangerous voltage at all. Even compared to LCD - the majority of today's LCD small-device displays use cold-cathode high-voltage miniature fluorescent tubes for backlights and therefore also present a shock or electrocution hazard.
> 
> 
> OLED drive circuitry lasts longer than plasma drive circuitry because its power usage and voltage are much lower, and its circuits are less complex with far fewer high-power handling components which are usually the first to fail. This means less heat generated in its circuits, lower circuit cost and fewer components to fail, thus a longer life and cheaper price than plasma drive circuitry.
> 
> 
> OLED is lighter than plasma and can be printed on sheets 1/3mm thick. Not only sheets of glass, but sheets of plastic. Plasma being a vacuum technology requires heavy, hard glass to keep atmospheric pressure from collapsing its vacuum cells. This means lower shipping costs and therefore lower prices for OLED. As fossil fuel runs out in the coming years, shipping costs will make up more and more of the price of finished goods, therefore weight will matter more and more as part of the total cost of a display.
> 
> 
> OLED pixels can be made in any size, from the superfine dots of a laptop display to the large pixels of a 50" TV, and thus unlike plasma can be made in all sizes from cellphone to supergiant TV. The minimum size of plasma pixels limits its market to TVs.
> 
> 
> OLED pixels retain their efficiency no matter the size, while plasma pixels get less efficient as their size is reduced, often dramatically so, due to wall losses which de-ionize the gas and which depends on its pixels' surface area / volume ratio. A cellphone OLED display can be just as bright and efficient as a 50" OLED-TV.
> 
> 
> Though each of these differences between OLED and plasma may seem small, taken together they add up to a significant overall difference between displays, as the many people who have seen live OLED displays can attest.



Thank you. Great post. Of course, how dare you interrupt some folk's emotionally held beliefs with FACTS!


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenjp* /forum/post/16998943
> 
> 
> Plasma fanboys will continue to enjoy their big plasma sets for many years before OLED is a viable tech....



Viable? How about the millions of OLED screens on cell phones, PDAs, etc?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oldcband* /forum/post/16999110
> 
> 
> ...As much as members hate to hear Auditor's stuff he's right on.....



You mean about how he insists SED is coming? OLED is probably *IT*, folks. It works *today*, it only needs scaling up. More of a technology issue than a scientific one. Plasma has been declining. OLED is easier to see in daylight than plasma. Eventually, based on cost/performance, LCD will decline and maybe disappear.


On to the holosuite!


----------



## jmhumr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/17010937
> 
> 
> You mean about how he insists SED is coming? OLED is probably *IT*, folks. It works *today*, it only needs scaling up. More of a technology issue than a scientific one. Plasma has been declining. OLED is easier to see in daylight than plasma. *Eventually, based on cost/performance, LCD will decline and maybe disappear.*
> 
> 
> On to the holosuite!



I'm confused, is there someone out there who thinks LCD -- or any technology -- will last forever?


----------



## Isochroma

 *Liquid-OLED Offers More Light-Emitting Possibilities* 
*14 August 2009*











*The new liquid-OLED has a liquid semiconducting

layer made of EHCz doped with rubrene.

Liquid-OLEDs could offer improved device reliability

and greater flexibility*



As organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) are poised to go mainstream in the near future, scientists continue to explore new twists on the technology. Recently, researchers have fabricated a "liquid-OLED" - an OLED that uses a liquid organic semiconducting layer to transport charge.


The scientists, Denghui Xu and Chihaya Adachi from the Center for Future Chemistry at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, have reported the liquid-OLED in a recent issue of Applied Physics Letters. As they explain, the novel design is based on a liquid-emitting layer, and could have advantages for flexible displays and other organic electronics applications.


Usually, OLED displays use solid-state organic films that give off light when an electric current is applied. One significant benefit of OLED displays compared to traditional liquid crystal displays (LCDs) is that OLEDs do not require a backlight. For this reason, OLEDs can be made very thin and flexible, as well as use less power, enabling them to run longer on a single battery charge.


The new liquid-OLED could achieve these same benefits, but by using a liquid organic semiconductor instead of the solid-state films. Other than a few previous studies that have investigated using polymer solutions as the semiconducting layer, this is the first time that researchers have attempted to fabricate a practical liquid semiconductor for OLEDs.


As Xu and Adachi explain, their device uses ethylhexyl carbazole (EHCz) as the liquid semiconducting layer due to its high hole mobility, which is associated with good electrical conductivity. The scientists doped the EHCz with solid rubrene, which has a high photoluminescence efficiency. They then prepared a substrate with this liquid mixture placed in between an anode and cathode, which in turn were sandwiched by glass layers. When testing the device, the researchers observed electroluminescence from rubrene with the naked eye.


“Since EHCz provides hole transport and rubrene does electron transport and emitting functions, the combination leads to electroluminescence,” Adachi told PhysOrg.com.


The researchers hope that, by taking advantage of the new device’s unique liquid properties, they can make further improvements in OLED technology. For instance, liquid semiconductors could easily fill the space between two electrodes in curved structures without cracking or shortage problems. The researchers also suggest that the liquid semiconductors could be circulated or refilled into the active emitting layer. This constant, fresh supply of semiconductors could improve device reliability and reduce degradation.


“This is quite a new concept, realizing truly flexible and degradation-free OLEDs,” Adachi said. “Although the electroluminescence efficiency is still low level, we can surely improve it by optimizing the device parameters and organic semiconductors.”


More information: Denghui Xu and Chihaya Adachi. “ Organic light-emitting diode with liquid emitting layer ” Applied Physics Letters 95, 053304 (2009).


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharpbandaid* /forum/post/17005777
> 
> 
> LCD market is huge. There's no OLED capacity to kill LCD.



Not for long...best get ready for the onslaught. There will be NO market for LCD once OLED gets ramped up. Everything that uses an LCD today, will be OLED tomorrow. Good riddance, and looking forward to those OLED displays!


----------



## xb1032

The problem that OLED is going to have at first is pricing. And Samsung noted in one of their press releases that consumers may not buy in to OLED if they can't see a big difference between current flat panels and OLED on those bright showroom floors. Many of us know that LCDs flaws don't show up until you get them in typical home environments.


Both LCD and plasma have flaws. I'd be glad to see OLED make it as well (at an affordable price though







).


----------



## rgb32

Uh oh... looks like this thread needs to be split out... as many of the posts lately are off topic with this thread:
*OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread*









Speaking to the demise of LCD and Plasma isn't an OLED TV Advancement... but now that I word it like that...


----------



## hoodlum

 Sony, Stung by Losses, Delays Thin TV 


Sony will delay the launch of its next organic light emitting diode, or OLED, television because mass producing the new displays would exacerbate losses at its TV division, according to people familiar with the matter.


The company had been targeting a 2009 release for a larger successor to a model with an 11-inch screen released in late 2007, which is the first and only OLED TV to reach stores so far. That model's screen is three millimeters thick. But Sony has decided to push back the new model until at least next year, these people said.


The challenge thus far has been driving down manufacturing costs, because materials are hard to procure and production systems remain a work in progress.


Research firm DisplaySearch estimates Sony's production yield for its 11-inch OLED panel is below 60%, meaning at least four of every 10 panels its factories produce aren't up to par and can't be sold. Larger panels would likely introduce more difficulties.


----------



## hoodlum

I apoligize if this has already been posted but I thought it gives a good idea on power requirements for OLED. I wonder if the whites will be scaled back on OLED (probably still brighter than Plasma) in order to keep the power requirements low.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoodlum* /forum/post/17019011
> 
> 
> I apoligize if this has already been posted but I thought it gives a good idea on power requirements for OLED. I wonder if the whites will be scaled back on OLED (probably still brighter than Plasma) in order to keep the power requirements low.



Why? Its not like people spend a lot of time watching full white screens. Besides, I've seen the page you got those measurements from and they are taken off of cheap inferior tiny OEM OLED modules that often can only display 64k colours and still suffer from burn in/image retention.


The stuff SONY and Samsung are working on are on a whole other level, I am sure they are much more efficient as well since they are many generations ahead.


----------



## hoodlum




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/17019300
> 
> 
> Why? Its not like people spend a lot of time watching full white screens. Besides, I've seen the page you got those measurements from and they are taken off of cheap inferior tiny OEM OLED modules that often can only display 64k colours and still suffer from burn in/image retention.
> 
> 
> The stuff SONY and Samsung are working on are on a whole other level, I am sure they are much more efficient as well since they are many generations ahead.



I am sure the small LCD screens cannot compare to the large LCD TVs as well. One of the complaints for plasmas is that brightness is reduced in scenes with a lot of whites (ie. hockey & snow scenes). The same could apply to OLED due to the same limitations. It is not an issue for me (I own a plasma) but for others it is make or break. It all depends on how OLED is implemented for TVs and what emphasis is place on performance vs energy efficiency.


----------



## Brimstone-1

OLED power consumption increases with moving video. On a Cellphone most of the time a static image is being shown.



The Sony XEL-1 has very high power consumption compared to LCD displays, and it isn't even full HD.



I'm sure eventually OLED will get into parity with LCD, but that is going to be a few years down the road.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-

If that is true then its almost comical because all the so called lauded advantages of OLED seem to be all imaginary in practice. Lets run thought the list shall we, they were supposed to be cheaper, and easier to manufacture. This has so far proven to be so false that in the past 4-5 years actual OLED products have consistently been pushed back and the current single only OLED TV on the market costs a few orders of magnitudes more than a comparable LCD product.


They were supposed to be more energy efficient, but that also seems to leave a lot to be desired in implementation so far. Longevity? Well we all know about the so called Blue LED life time problem. Better motion resolution? well I remember there being talk of that maybe not being true either, at least not in AMOLEDS due to the way the circusy firing the pixels work, which does so in a similar manner to LCD.


Better color gamut? Well, if we are looking at a 2012-2015 launch date I shudder to think how closely LCD and Plasma manufacturers might have closed the gap. This is starting to remind me of SED, the technology was good but when they got around to maybe selling them the competing tech had gotten so much cheaper, and improved so much that it was not economically viable any longer


I think OLED might end up the same way with all these damn delays.


----------



## navychop

Yes, all along it has been the expectation that OLED will eventually be cheaper than LCD and easier to manufacture. Basically on a sorta ink jet process. They know in theory this can be done, and over the years no doubt will be. Developing and fine tuning manufacturing processes will take time.


But think how much faster display technologies seem to be developing today, compared to the progress of CRTs during their development process.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-

I think you miss my point, I know that all the lauded benefits can be brought out if OLED is allowed as much time as, say, LCD, to mature. But, like SED, due to the constant delays it seems the windows of opportunity has already passed it by.


Only the accelerated development through mass production could have advance OLED enough to reach saturation in terms of maturity. But since OLED has been largely side stepped for many years while LCD has gone full steam ahead any manufacturer that 4-5 years ago was looking at the long term advantages of OLED and pouring millions of dollars of into its research now has to take a long hard look and be faced with the fact that for the millions invested OLED has hardly progressed while LCD is already well on its way to delivering on most of those advantages, already has a proven track record, properly set up and working infrastructure etc. etc.


I am worried that at this rate big screen OLED TV's might continue being vaporware for a long, long time to come of not for ever. Think about it, say Samsung launches their 31-32" LED series this year or next with a hefty premium, are they going to sell any?


I doubt it, the people who are the bread and butter of companies like Samsung are a different breed than us AV enthusiasts who know the benefits unseen and would line up in a sec. At this point, with most people thinking LED backlight LCD's being OLED for all they care and doubting if untrained eyes can even spot a major difference between a LED backlight LCD and a OLED set in a store environment they'll hardly sell any.


They waited too long, I think its too late now. At best we can hope for they find a niche in the handset and perhaps laptop screen arena within the next 2 years.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/17023382
> 
> 
> Only the accelerated development through mass production could have advance OLED enough to reach saturation in terms of maturity. But since OLED has been largely side stepped for many years while LCD has gone full steam ahead(...)



C'mon, OLED has not been largely side stepped for many years. Big OLED panels' schedule seems to have been delayed, better, predictions of where big OLED panels would be available have been "revised". It doesn't mean that smaller production oled screens will stop growing exponentially, as they have been doing...


I know this is basically a "TVs" forum, but OLED hasn't been side stepped at all. It's just that OLED is going to get mature in smaller panels (Which is something we already KNEW)


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/17025537
> 
> 
> C'mon, OLED has not been largely side stepped for many years. Big OLED panels' schedule seems to have been delayed, better, predictions of where big OLED panels would be available have been "revised". It doesn't mean that smaller production oled screens will stop growing exponentially, as they have been doing...
> 
> 
> I know this is basically a "TVs" forum, but OLED hasn't been side stepped at all. It's just that OLED is going to get mature in smaller panels (Which is something we already KNEW)



I am not so convinced that mobile phone sized panel production is helping TV sized ones at all. As if that were true it already would have. Small screen productions aren't anywhere they should be either. I think when Apple starts using them in their iPods and iPhones then we are moving in the right direction. Then maybe MacBooks would be next and those sizes are close enough to help TV productions. But so far only a few low selling obscure devices with OLED screens.


----------



## rgb32

_08/19/2009_


DisplaySearch has released a new report ( small/medium TFT LCD and AMOLED product roadmap ). They give an interesting chart showing AMOLED roadmap from all players:











There is a lot of interesting information in there:


•It seems that LG are working on 13.3" wide panels for laptops, to be released at the end of 2009. LG Display themselves say they are working on 15" panels.

•*The next Sony OLED TV (XEL-2?) will have a 30" panel, and not 27" or 21" as previously assumed.* We already know that Sony are delaying their new TV, and DisplaySearch think they will launch it at the second half of 2010.

•In the second half of 2010, DisplaySearch sees LG Display shipping a 17" wide panel for laptops, Sony with a 30" LTPS OLED TV, and CMEL with a 11" notebook panel and 20"-30" OLED TVs.

•According to this table, Samsung will not launch a large OLED panel - not until 2012 at least. This is strange as they claim they have production-ready 14.1" and 32" OLED TVs.

•In 2010 we'll see several new companies working on OLED for mobile devices - TPO, TM Display, AUO. This is great news and will probably lower prices and create a bigger demand for OLEDs.


via OLED-Info.com


----------



## notreally

Nasty rumor about larger Sony OLED display, It will not come out Q4 this year as projected, because it would place too much stress on Sony's TV division (which is already having profit problems).


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-

Hmmmm, 13.3" eh? That is the same size as my crappy MacBook screen, I hope a ultra expensive screen option is about to show up on Apple's order page. I know I would ditch my current Laptop in favour of such an upgrade.


----------



## sharpbandaid

It's probably for MacBook Air at first.


----------



## navychop

To some of us, OLEDs, esp larger sizes, seem to be coming on FASTER than expected.


----------



## Isochroma

The table shows SMD, which is Samsung Mobile Devices. They are a separate unit from the one that will make the big displays. The table conveniently omits Samsung's main display unit entirely, which accounts for the missing 14.1" and 32" OLED TVs. Of course since an exact date hasn't been announced, even for planning purposes, the authors have an excuse for not including it.


----------



## Blackraven

After year 2010, we can expect even more OLED improvements as well as releases.


Go OLED!!!!!


----------



## Isochroma

 *OLED, E-paper Displays Come a Step Closer to 3D* 
*24 February 2009*













Eiji Shikoh, an assistant professor at the Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, developed an OLED device that emits circularly polarized light in the visible light range.


It is a basic technology to enable 3D representation on OLED and electronic paper displays. To produce the circularly polarized light in the visible light range, the spin state during the light emission process is controlled by injecting a spin-polarized carrier from the ferromagnetic negative electrode into the emission layer.


For the future, Shikoh intends to increase the degree of circular polarization so that two components, the right and left circularly polarized light, may be clearly differentiated. Through this method, he aims to realize 3D display by producing parallax images that have different information in each component.


In general, OLED devices use a nonmagnetic material such as aluminum (Al) for their negative electrodes. But the new technology uses a ferromagnetic material such as iron (Fe) for the negative electrode in order to inject spin-polarized electrons from the ferromagnetic negative electrode into the emission layer.


As a result, light emission with a circular polarization degree of about 0.5% was observed when a magnetic field intensity of 3,000Oe is applied at room temperature, Shikoh said.


It has been known that GaAs-based inorganic LEDs produce circularly polarized light by the spin injection into the emission layer. However, those LEDs cannot be used for displays, etc because they emit light in the infrared range. Moreover, the base material has to be changed in order to precisely control the colors of light emitted by inorganic light emitting devices.


With organic molecules, it is possible to precisely control the emission color by changing the functional group, Shikoh said.


The research was conducted as part of the Industrial Technology Research Grant Program promoted by Japan's New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung and LG Display show AMOLED TVs at IFA-2009* 
*24 August 2009*


















*Left: Samsung 31" OLED (Side View)

Right: Samsung 31" OLED (Front View)*











*LG 15" OLED*











*LG 15" OLED*











*LG 15" OLED*











*LG 15" OLED Thickness*



The chic, ultra-slim OLED TVs employ AM OLED panels developed by Samsung SDI, a Samsung affiliate dedicated to display production. The finished products weigh some 40 percent less than other LCD TVs of the same size while boasting a contrast ratio of 1 million to one, color gamut of 107% and brightness of 550nit. Samsung will begin commercial production of mid- to large-sized OLED TVs around 2010.


The 15-inch screen from the LG-AMOLED TV is just 0.8 millimeters and has a 1,366 pixel by 768 pixel resolution and has a lifetime of 30,000 hours.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Panasonic to Build up 3-D with “Avatar and OLED”* 
*25 August 2009*













A stunning and extraordinary exposition this fall by Panasonic will give us a full blast of the technology playing the movie in very distinctively designed trailer vans in the United States as well in Europe. Panasonic was hoping that they can use this newest technology in James Cameron's upcoming film Avatar with all its glint Interest. The electronics company has made a deal with 20th Century Fox to guarantor the said movie according to twice. Panasonic will use the film which will invade movie theaters on December 18th. It is indeed their opportunity to promote televisions and Blu-Ray disc players to support 3-D.


Today’s 3-D technology uses a stereoscopic OLED display to create two alternating images with different angles. In this case, the viewer will wear a special set of glasses that blocks out one of the images from each eye, creating the illusion that the movie is popping out of the screen. It is indeed fascinating how technology focus on working with OLED not just in small gadgets but in big screens as well. So, I'm pretty sure that there will be a lot more to follow with OLED technology. In the meantime, fasten your seat-belt to be the first one to experience this!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Matsushita Enters Mass Production of OLED TV in 2012* 
*25 August 2009*













Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. from Japan wants to join forces for OLED Technology. Matsushita is already coming up with the plan for mass production of large 37 inch OLED TV by 2012. With their own line of OLED TVs it will be a tough competition to other flat screen TV manufacturers. Based on my information, Matsushita will be the first company to enter mass production of OLED-TV and to challenge Samsung in acquiring the highest share in the global flat TV market. According to Akira Kadota, spokeperson of Matsushita they have been quoted the aim of commercializing OLED TVs. At this point in time, Matsushita planned to launch the OLED TVs soon. Another much awaited OLED technology for us in the future. And let us hope for more...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED TV lifespan doubled by new build tech* 
*25 August 2009*













The new breed of OLED televisions are, without a doubt, wondrous to behold, but the use of organic materials that degrade gives them a lifespan that's around 40 per cent less than a standard LCD screen. That, however, is no longer a concern - providing you buy a TV from Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology.


The joint venture between the two electronics heavyweights has come up with a new display that doubles the life of OLED screens by increasing the efficiency of the way they use emitted light.

*Efficient emissions*


A metal membrane inside the prototype 20.8-inch screen helps deliver light from polymers in the substrate out through the glass surface more efficiently than current OLEDs can manage.


The end result means the brightness can be halved while maintaining the same picture quality, which adds up to doubling the lifespan of screens using the new method.


An OLED TV like Sony's XEL-1 is rated at 30,000 hours - or eight hours a day for ten years - so it's clear that the Toshiba Matsushita approach will eliminate concern for all but the most thrifty of telly addicts.


----------



## funkyman

 http://www.oled-display.net/15-inch-...iew-and-photos 

http://www.oled-display.net/sony-to-...t-the-ifa-2009 

http://www.oled-display.net/no-xel-2...ny-at-ifa-2009


----------



## Isochroma

 *Smoothing the way to superior OLED displays* 
*28 August 2009*











*Fig. 1*



Electrospray-deposited polymer films can be used to make organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) with better characteristics than those made from spin-coated films, according to Yutaka Yamagata of the RIKEN Center for Intellectual Property Strategies, Wako, and colleagues. These researchers have used a novel dual-solvent concept to make the electrospray-deposited films smoother than before, thereby enabling the superior devices to be built (" Thin-Film Fabrication Method for Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Using Electrospray Deposition ").


Organic light-emitting diodes are now entering the market place as screens for mobile phones and televisions (Fig. 1), and mass-production techniques are needed to simplify the manufacturing process and reduce costs and wastage.


Previous attempts to use the electrospray-deposition technique for OLED fabrication have failed to produce polymer films that compete with other fabrication techniques. Yamagata and colleagues decided to use a combination of two solvents to improve this technique, which uses a thin glass capillary with the polymer solution stored inside and a conductive wire inserted in it. When a high voltage is applied between this conductive wire and the OLED electrodes on the substrate, the solution sprays out of the capillary end as atomized droplets that are attracted to the substrate by electrostatic force. This means there is little solution wastage as the spray is highly directed.


They found that the first solvent evaporated rapidly after the atomization of the solution, leaving a small amount of the second solvent, which has a higher boiling point, in the droplets. When the polymer concentrations were finely tuned, the carefully chosen second solvent enabled the not-quite-dry atomized droplets to form a smooth, continuous film of high quality over the OLED electrode. Because the films dry quickly on the surface, it should be easy to fabricate multilayer devices without mixing of materials between layers.


From a series of comparative experiments, the researchers found that devices fabricated from electrospray-deposited films turned on at lower voltages and could support higher current densities than ones made from spin-coated films. At low voltages, the electrospray deposition also enabled higher pixel intensity.


“We have discovered a range of conditions using a two-solvent method that can make extremely smooth thin films using electrospray deposition,” says Yamagata. “Using this technology these devices could be manufactured as inexpensively as printing newspapers.”


Yamagata also notes that: “The advantage of using electrospray deposition is that we can fabricate both smooth films and nanostructured film using the same technology.” In the future he believes that this advantage “will also be useful in controlling the structure of organic semiconductor junctions for organic solar cells.”


----------



## sharpbandaid

 
__
https://flic.kr/p/3863903197
​ 15" OLED Flick photostream[/URL] 











LG has added some pictures to their flickr photostream, go check them out.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-

According to Oled-Info the LG 15" OLED television will be up for sale in November and LG is promising a 40" version 'soon', the damn teases.


Looks like with SONY and Samsung side stepping OLED for now LG has surprised everyone by taking up their slack. Well, they certainly have one customer already. If the 15" is up to snuff I might pick it up for use as a monitor at work and I'll definitely be in line for a 40" whenever it should arrive.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/17089275
> 
> 
> According to Oled-Info the LG 15" OLED television will be up for sale in November and LG is promising a 40" version 'soon', the damn teases.
> 
> 
> Looks like with SONY and Samsung side stepping OLED for now LG has surprised everyone by taking up their slack. Well, they certainly have one customer already. If the 15" is up to snuff I might pick it up for use as a monitor at work and I'll definitely be in line for a 40" whenever it should arrive.



Samsung has a "production ready" 14" display, I don't know how is that considered "side stepping"...


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/17093254
> 
> 
> Samsung has a "production ready" 14" display, I don't know how is that considered "side stepping"...



Production ready OLED products are a dime a dozen, I am sure SONY had their own 21"-30" production ready OLED all lined up for 2009 before economic pressure forced them to scrap their long drawn out plans for releasing it. I call it sidestepping when no matter how production ready a given OLED is deemed to be when never the less no actual product is ever produced and offered up for sale. What, after all, is the big difference for consumers between production ready and prototype when neither net tangible products for sale.


In 2007 there was the SONY 11" XEL-1, an actual purchasable product and now, two years later there is going to be the 4 inches larger LG 15" in Korea come november, those are the only two instances where OLED TV's were not sidestepped if you will. Both SONY and Samsung have products now at least on par with the LG but both have chosen to yet again side step them by not releasing them for an additional year because they deem them hard to sell.


It is particularly pathetic I think that SONY got everyones hopes up two years ago but the true successor to the XEL-1 is just only going to be released in a few months and by LG of all things.


----------



## rgb32

I can't wait to see the 15" LG OLED!!! I wouldn't be surprised if this model will sell for less than the Sony XEL-1...







I wonder which B&M retailers will actually sell this set in the states early next year (Magnolia AV & Best Buy)??? Perhaps the LG unit is a sign that other manufacturers will announce OLED TV *products* at IFA in a few days?


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-

According to Oled-Info LG now has a specs page for the 15" here and they do not look too good, in fact given my expectations they look pretty run of the mill. Not even over 100% NTSC gamut, which is strange, this looks like a second rate OLED product at least on paper that is.


Resolution: 1366 x 768

Width: 1.7 mm

16.7 million colors

Luminence: 200 cd/m2, peak: 440 cd/m2

Contrast: larger than 100,000 : 1.

Color Gamut (NTSC%) : larger than 87%

Response time : smaller than 0.01 msec

Interface : LVDS


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/17101392
> 
> 
> According to Oled-Info LG now has a specs page for the 15" here and they do not look too good, in fact given my expectations they look pretty run of the mill. Not even over 100% NTSC gamut, which is strange, this looks like a second rate OLED product at least on paper that is.
> 
> 
> Resolution: 1366 x 768
> 
> Width: 1.7 mm
> 
> 16.7 million colors
> 
> Luminence: 200 cd/m2, peak: 440 cd/m2
> 
> Contrast: larger than 100,000 : 1.
> 
> Color Gamut (NTSC%) : larger than 87%
> 
> Response time : smaller than 0.01 msec
> 
> Interface : LVDS



If those numbers are real I don't find anything wrong there. That color gamut is >100% sRGB, and certainly 100,000:1 of REAL contrast would be orders of magnitude better than any tv on the market.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/17106267
> 
> 
> If those numbers are real I don't find anything wrong there. That color gamut is >100% sRGB, and certainly 100,000:1 of REAL contrast would be orders of magnitude better than any tv on the market.



Don't forget that LG is marketing this as a television, not a monitor, so sRGB does not make sense to quote. In fact, most TV's, due to the way they process the image, make for terrible monitors, thought perhaps LG is going to be smart enough to realize that this thing is most likely going to be used for and focuses on those aspects of that display.


That being said it is going to be a cold day in hell a manufacturer is going to quote realistic contrast rations, if the norm today is 1.000.000:1 for the best LED backlight televisions then LG would no doubt rate a superior OLED display far above even that, but they chose a number being thrown around two years ago. Like I said, on paper it is not looking good.


----------



## lovswr

This company, Riken Research, claims that they have a very cheap way of producing OLED's . What do you experts here think.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovswr* /forum/post/17107897
> 
> 
> This company, Riken Research, claims that they have a very cheap way of producing OLED's . What do you experts here think.



Claims similar to that have been made almost non stop for the last 4 or so years and yet all that is to show for it so far is a 2500$ 11" TV by SONY. Recommendations are to administer a healthy dose of salt with any OLED advancement tidbit.


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/17107578
> 
> 
> Don't forget that LG is marketing this as a television, not a monitor, so sRGB does not make sense to quote. In fact, most TV's, due to the way they process the image, make for terrible monitors, thought perhaps LG is going to be smart enough to realize that this thing is most likely going to be used for and focuses on those aspects of that display.
> 
> 
> That being said it is going to be a cold day in hell a manufacturer is going to quote realistic contrast rations, if the norm today is 1.000.000:1 for the best LED backlight televisions then LG would no doubt rate a superior OLED display far above even that, but they chose a number being thrown around two years ago. Like I said, on paper it is not looking good.



Panasonic gives those 30k to 1 and 40k to 1 ratios, so they'd be the other company that does it. And those tv's don't even come close to that. Let's just see if the thing can do absolute black like the xel-1.


----------



## sharpbandaid

It says more than 100k:1. The number could be limited by measurement accuracy. Who cares, it will be the best 15" flat panel anyway.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharpbandaid* /forum/post/17109116
> 
> 
> It says more than 100k:1. The number could be limited by measurement accuracy. Who cares, it will be the best 15" flat panel anyway.



Way to go Sampo.


So it will make it a wonderful center piece, in a home theater system; for a family of Lilliputians, and of course their off axis viewing will be great.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/17107578
> 
> 
> Don't forget that LG is marketing this as a television, not a monitor, so sRGB does not make sense to quote. In fact, most TV's, due to the way they process the image, make for terrible monitors, thought perhaps LG is going to be smart enough to realize that this thing is most likely going to be used for and focuses on those aspects of that display.
> 
> 
> That being said it is going to be a cold day in hell a manufacturer is going to quote realistic contrast rations, if the norm today is 1.000.000:1 for the best LED backlight televisions then LG would no doubt rate a superior OLED display far above even that, but they chose a number being thrown around two years ago. Like I said, on paper it is not looking good.



I still find 89% NTSC an acceptable color range for a new TV, specially taking into account that an OLED panel should be able to show any gradiation of color in the screen at the same time, regardless of the backlight... Note that some LCDs, may be able to display wider gamuts, that is, each pixel is able to do that, but once put together the color gamut and contrast relies on the backlight being applied at the moment, so effectively that color gamut numbers are quite unreal.


And, of course, contrast numbers can not be compared between LCD's and OLEDs. OLED is able to display a pitch black pixel next to a pitch white pixel so I don't know where those numbers came from, but I'm certainly sure the blacks will be better than in any other television of the market, regardless of the technology.


Sony XEL-1 has already been measured to have INFINITE contrast in a completely dark room, since the black is just a switched off pixel which emits zero light. So I don't see why this tv should be different.


----------



## sharpbandaid

Rec. 709(HD) represent only 72% of NTSC. Rec. 601(SD,DVD) is very similar. Both consumer standards have undersaturated colors when compared to film or digital cinema.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/17109200
> 
> 
> Way to go Sampo.
> 
> 
> So it will make it a wonderful center piece, in a home theater system; for a family of Lilliputians, and of course their off axis viewing will be great.



Ugg... you should know better than to make sarcastic remarks like that... Go back to your plasma worship!


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-

The IFA exhibit starts today folks. Anyone got a lead of the best site to go to for quality coverage of everything? Should be good for a thrill or two while we twiddle our thumbs for a few more years.


----------



## sharpbandaid

 Eyes-on LG's 15-inch OLED TV makes us want to punch an LCD 


"_Oh, and LG tells us that its 32- and 42-inch OLED panels are on schedule and due to be released sometime in 2010. Yes, 2010. No word on price but it's going to be tres, tres expensive._"


Engadget has the 15" Eyes-on. 42" OLED next year.


----------



## Isochroma

 *First impressions: LG 15-inch OLED TV* 
*3 September 2009*





















































The fact that LG was to display its exciting new 15-inch OLED TV at IFA this year was one of the worst kept secrets in tech.


Currently the only OLED TV available is Sony's XEL 1 11-inch OLED TV which is both brilliant and hyper expensive.


So how does the 15-inch LG OLED TV compare? It's fair to say that LG's OLED TV is jaw droppingly pretty.


It's amazingly bright and rich with colour, and the contrast ratio looks miles better than any other 15-inch TV we have ever seen.


Unfortunately, there were absolutely no details given at the stand - and even in the LG press conference this afternoon there was absolutely no mention of OLED technology at all.


LG preferred to focus on its brand new LH9000 LED-backlit LCD TVs which have a stated contrast ratio of 3,000,000 to 1.


We managed to corner LG engineer, Jeong Woo Choi, on the stand and he told us that the 15-inch OLED TV has a tentative release date of December 2009.


We are very excited by this TV as it really is a fantastic bit of kit. It's impossibly thin as well – we didn't have a ruler and LG wouldn't tell us the exact thickness but it couldn't have been more than a two or three millimetres


And the most exciting thing of all is the fact that this 15-inch model is just a stepping stone to LG releasing a 32-inch model next year.


As proof of tech then, the 15-inch OLED is brilliant. But it doesn't do much to dispel the problem that the Sony TV has – it's just too small to be worthwhile.


The price, too, is likely to be even more extravagant than the Sony one. So unless you see one of these at a show or in a store you're unlikely to see one… ever.


However, the 32-inch model may be another story and we wait for it with heightened anticipation.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung show only 14-inch and 31-inch sizes OLED-TV at IFA-2009* 
*3 September 2009*













Samsung will show only the two prototype OLED TVs, which come in 14-inch and 31-inch sizes.

The 31-inch panel which come also with a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1.

*Technical Details*

Samsung 14.1 inch WXGA

Resolution: 1366x768 pixel

Brigthness: 200cd

Color Gamut: NTSC 107%

Contrast Ratio: 1,000,000:1

Number of Colors: 1073M

Viewing Angle: Free

Thickness: 2.7mm
Samsung 31.1 inch FULL HD

Resolution: 1920x1080 pixel

Brigthness: 200cd

Color Gamut: NTSC 107%

Contrast Ratio: 1,000,000:1

Number of Colors: 16 Million

Viewing Angle: Free

Thickness: 8.9mm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Interview with Sony about the development and mass production of OLED-TV* 
*3 September 2009*























Sony first became involved in OLED research around 1994. A growing number of organizations had established OLED R&D projects after the publication of a paper in 1987 describing a thin-film OLED device fabricated using vapor deposition. In this sense, Sony was a latecomer to this field. At the time, Trinitron was still Sony's core technology for display devices. Of course, the Company was also working on the development of next-generation flat-panel display devices and had established parallel projects focusing on various types of devices, including the Plasmatron (plasma addressed liquid crystal) and field emission display (FED) systems.


“Various systems were being tried at that time. It was as if they were in competition with each other. There was extensive debate on which technology would be the winner.”


Not everyone thought that OLED was likely to become a major future display technology, and the development of display devices based on OLED technology did not begin in earnest until 1998. Tetsuo Urabe was a member of the OLED display development team established that year.


Technology had already been developed to create light using OLED. However, Sony wanted to develop an OLED display for TV use. This achievement would necessitate the creation of a screen made up of large numbers of picture elements. Sony decided to use an active matrix system based on thin-film transistor (TFT) technology, which is also used in LCD panels. The consensus view at the time was that it would be very difficult to apply this technology to the development of an OLED display. However, Urabe and his colleagues began to develop an active matrix driver for an OLED-based system.


“There was growing interest in the concept of an OLED system with an active matrix driver. It was seen as a technology for the future. Sony was a latecomer to OLED R&D, but we were among the first to start developing the technology for use as a television display device.”

*Successful Development of 13-inch OLED Display in 2001*


The first problem in using an active matrix system to drive an OLED display was variation in pixel brightness. This variation results from differences in the characteristics of the TFTs positioned in each pixel.


“In an OLED display, the TFTs drive the luminescence themselves. This means that any variation in TFT characteristics end up as variations in the brightness of individual pixels.”


Since creating TFTs with identical characteristics is virtually impossible, Urabe's team decided to focus instead on the development of a method to compensate for this. After studying several possible solutions, they decided to use current mirror circuits.


Current mirror circuits consist of two circuits that are mirror images of each other. When a current flows in one of the circuits, the same exact current will flow through the other one. These circuits were attached to neighboring pixels. Provided both pixels in each pair have the same TFT characteristics, there will be no variation in pixel brightness between them. Using this concept, Urabe's team was able to overcome the brightness variation problem by arranging large numbers of pixels symmetrically. In 2001, they succeeded in developing the world's first 13-inch active matrix OLED display. At the time, it was the largest in the world.

*Challenges in Establishing Mass-production Technology*


Sony had developed a 13-inch OLED display, but it was still only a prototype. The first challenge on the path to commercialization would be to extend the life of the product. When first developed, the display was completely useless as a commercial product since its brightness declined dramatically in just two or three days. There were countless additional challenges, including the choice of organic materials and drive system and the method used to stack thin organic layers. The development team also had to consider the structure of the organic layers, and the method used to isolate the materials from the external environment. Urabe and his team solved each of these problems in turn by conducting a massive program of testing and evaluation. The work was so intense that team members sometimes fought over access to larger pieces of testing equipment.


The next challenge was the establishment of production technology. Before OLED products could be launched commercially, Sony needed a production technology able to mass-produce panels without any loss of quality. One of the most difficult tasks was reducing the number of defective pixels. The organic film in an OLED panel is only a few hundred nanometers thick. This extremely thin layer is sandwiched between electrodes, and the presence of even a minute particle of dust can prevent the current from flowing to the organic film, resulting in a dead pixel. To prevent dead pixels, it's necessary to eliminate dust, so the team began to remove all possible sources of dust from the production line. They also sought to minimize the effects of dust by increasing the thickness of the film as much as possible without compromising its characteristics. Another solution involved the use of lasers to repair any dead pixels discovered after production.


This process culminated in 2004 with the launch of the Courier PEG-VZ90, the first PDA with an OLED panel.

*Enhancing Japan’s Competitiveness with OLED*


The XEL-1, the world’s first OLED television, was launched on schedule in December 2007. Urabe recalls the supreme happiness he felt at the shipment ceremony at Sony EMCS Corporation’s Inazawa TEC, where the XEL-1 is manufactured.


“People from various departments were involved in the XEL-1 project. They were all at the facility for the shipment ceremony. That was our greatest moment, because all of us felt the satisfaction of having created a new product that was a world’s first.”













This is the first time in 12 years that Sony has won an Okochi Memorial Award. According to Urabe, the real significance of the award will only become apparent when OLED technology matures into a key product category for Sony and a driving force for Japan’s competitiveness.


Sony is still developing OLED technology. Current goals are to create large-screen OLED televisions at a commercially viable cost.

*Super Top Emission Microcavity Structure*


In addition to the unique OLED panel structure described above, Sony's Super Top Emission technology (Fig. 4) utilizes a microcavity structure and color filters to simultaneously enhance color purity, attain higher contrast and achieve lower power consumption.


The microcavity structure utilizes light resonance effects between the two electrodes. Red, Green and Blue all have different light wavelengths. Therefore the thickness of the organic film corresponding to each color is adjusted to produce the spectral peak wavelength (the optimum light) for each color. Only light that possesses the same wavelength as the distance between the "cathode electrode semitransparent film" and the "anode electrode reflective film" resonates. Light wavelengths that do not match are weakened. As a result, the spectrum of the extracted light is sharpened while brightness and color purity are enhanced. This ensures the strongest light from each color.


In conventional panels, a circular polarizer (retardation film and polarizer) is installed on the panel surface to prevent the reflection of ambient light. However this structure also reduces the amount of electroluminescent light emitted by less than half. Sony rejected the circular polarizer and instead created a microcavity structure combined with color filters. This both prevents the reflection of ambient light and enhances color purity. The results are lower power consumption with longer life and advanced picture quality.


Figure 6 shows the effects of reducing ambient light achieved by the microcavity structure and the color filters. When the organic layer optical path length is matched to the wavelength of green electroluminescent light, the internally generated green light is strengthened, while the green component of the ambient reflected light is cut. At the same time, the color filter removes non-green colors from the ambient reflected light. High contrast can therefore be achieved without using a circular polarizer, and power consumption is reduced by half.

































Thanks to Sony.net for this information!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*LG to release 32-inch OLED TVs in 2010* 
*3 September 2009*











*TINY TELLIES: LG's 15-inch OLED TVs on show at IFA*



LG will launch a 32 inch OLED TV as early as 2010. The electronics manufacturer also confirmed a release date for the much mooted 15-inch OLED TV which is on display at this year's IFA show in Berlin.


At the LG stand, LGs Korean Engineer Jeong Woo Choi told TechRadar that LG is not too far from putting 32-inch OLED TVs into production, and that they would go on sale in Europe in 2010.


"The 15-inch OLED is to be put on sale in December this year," said Choi, "and we aim to launch our 32-inch model at some point next year".


It had previously been reported that LG had decided 2012 would be the year for 32 inch OLED screens while Digitimes reported in April that LG was planning 32 inch OLED TVs for 2010, but this seems to have now been confirmed by LG itself.


OLED technology offers an alternative to LED backlit LCD TVs. While the the screens are brighter and thinner than current LCD TVs, no manufacturer has been able to make large sized OLED panels with high enough yields to make them economical.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*A biological process holds the key to future OLED TVs* 
*3 September 2009*











*Peptronics green OLED prototype*


Peptronics is an Israeli company, working on Polymer OLED materials. Their idea is to use a biological-based method to make the OLEDs. In the human body, we have 20 amino acids, used as building blocks for proteins. In the same way, they have made several "OLED building blocks", which can be used to create OLED materials, using Peptronic's peptide based technology.


There are two types of OLEDs today: Small Molecules and Polymer based. Small Molecules are efficient and relatively easy to make, and are used in small displays today. But it is difficult to print them, and it is not easy to create a large panel using other methods. Polymer OLEDs are easily printable, and thus can be used to make large TVs - but their lifetime is short and they are less efficient.

* YouTube: Peptronics OLED prototype *


Peptronics say that it will be possible to print cheap, large OLED TVs using their materials - which in fact will be printable (because they are polymer based), but also efficient - so it is the best of both worlds. The new materials can also be used for OLED lighting.


Peptronics are currently working on the finding the best "building-blocks" and creating numerous polymers from these building blocks using high throughput parallel synthesis. They then hope to sell their materials (or material-making systems).


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*10 things you need to know about OLED* 
*3 September 2009*











*OLED technology is destined to replace LCD*



The appearance of LG's 15-inch OLED TV at IFA 2009 is a small (but significant) step on the road to replacing LCD, LED and plasma technology.


It's still early days, but thinner, crisper, brighter and more energy efficient TV screens are closer than you think.


Not sure what OLED is? Wondering why you'd want an OLED TV when all the chatter at IFA is about LED and 3D TV? Here's OLED explained...

*1. What is OLED?*


Pioneered by Kodak back in the 1980s, Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) technology is poised to oust LCD just as LCD stuck the knife into the CRT.


An OLED panel consists of a layer of organic, light-emitting material sandwiched between two conductors (an anode and a cathode). This diode layer emits light when an electric current is passed through it. A TV panel features thousands of OLED pixels mounted in rows and columns onto a TFT array. This is referred to as an Active Matrix OLED or AMOLED display.

*2. No backlighting required*


Because the organic material used in an OLED panel emits its own light when charged, there's no need for a separate backlight. In comparison, LG's newly announced LH9000 LED TV relies on backlighting technology that "uses hundreds of LED elements to individually brighten and dim the image on the screen."

*3. OLED outperforms LCD and LED*













OLED TVs have several advantages over traditional LCD televisions. For starters, the lack of a backlight means that OLED TVs can be extraordinarily thin – the Sony XEL-1, for example, is only 3mm thick; Sony's prototype 21-inch OLED TV is a mere 1.4mm.


OLED pixels can also be turned on and off much quicker, giving OLED TVs a faster refresh rate, greatly improved contrast and unparalleled brightness. OLED panels are also far more energy efficient.

*4. Sony, LG and Samsung love OLED*


Some of the biggest consumer electronics manufacturers have jumped onto the OLED bandwagon. The Sony XEL-1 was the first OLED TV to become commercially available and Sony had a 27-inch prototype at this year's CES.


LG has quietly unveiled its own 15-inch model (reportedly available in December), while Samsung has also shown some love for the technology – it has already demoed a 31-inch model and a 40-inch screen.

*5. OLED is available now (albeit in small sizes)*


While the XEL-1 is currently the only OLED TV available, OLED technology is already being used in mobile phones, media players and digital cameras.


You'll find an AMOLED display in the Samsung Jet, the new Sony Ericsson Xperia X2 and X-Series Walkman, the Sansa Clip+, Nikon Coolpix S70, the OQO Model 2+ and forthcoming Zune HD. There's even an OLED keyboard – the OCZ Sabre OLED Keyboard has 9 programmable OLED keys.

*6. OLED is expensive*


Consider this: instead of plunking down £2,500 for an 11-inch Sony XEL-1, you could buy a 42-inch Philips 42PFL9664 or a classy Pioneer PDP-5090 and still have change for accessories.


Manufacturing costs are the main reason why we're only seeing commercial OLED displays in small sizes. Is this why Sony is delaying its own OLED launches?


The worry for OLED is that the delay in producing decent-sized TVs gives LED technology more time to bed into the public consciousness. Worse still, the current buzz around Full HD 3D TV could also dilute OLED's advantages.

*7. OLED can be 'flexible'*













Dubbed FOLED (Flexible OLED), Sony and Samsung both demoed a bendy version of the technology in 2008. FOLED displays could be wrapped around pillars in shopping malls or used to add bigger, roll-up screens to mobile phones. Kodak has also shown off a flexible OLED prototype, with the added advantage that it can be used underwater.

*8. OLED can be 'transparent'*


Yes, there's also an acronym for this – TOLED. Boffins have envisaged that transparent OLED panels could be used to add TV screens to windows, as HUDs in future cars and to create stylish, sci-fi displays that look like sheets of glass.


There are also military applications to consider. Defence Update suggests lightweight PDAs and wearable "display sleeves". Other applications, they say, could include "automotive instrument panels, windshield displays and visor mounted displays".

*9. There are other types of OLED*


There are other variations of OLED technology. AMOLED (Active Matrix OLED) is the most commonly used OLED technology in high resolution panels. PMOLED (Passive Matrix OLED) offers a lower resolution and is better suited to displaying text and icons.


The glow provided by PhOLED (Phosphorescent OLED) device could provide an eco-friendly alternative to traditional lighting. While SOLED (Stacked OLED) uses a revolutionary new pixel layout that literally 'stacks' the red, green, and blue subpixels on top of one another. The result? Even better colour depth.

*10. The disadvantages of OLED*


OLED is viewed as the natural successor to LCD, but that's not to say it's a perfect technology. OLED displays are expensive to manufacture, especially in large sizes. Decent-sized OLED TVs aren't expected to be on sale until late 2010 or 2011.


There are also concerns about the lifespan of OLED displays. This perceived lack of reliability combined with sky-high price tags could mean that we might not see an affordable OLED TV before 2015. But we'd love to be proved wrong.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Eyes-on LG's 15-inch OLED TV makes us want to punch an LCD* 
*3 September 2009*













What can we say -- it's a near final build of LG's 15-inch OLED TV that's set to go production in Korea before the baby New Year can suckle at the big one-oh. We could say it's beautiful, that even motion looked good pushing genuine blacks on this razor thin panel. But we wouldn't want to rub your noses in the fact that we're at IFA and you're not. Perhaps this will make you feel better: by the time it makes it Stateside in February or March it'll be carrying a price tag right around $2,500. Really, but it's Wireless TV-capable and that's gotta be worth something.


Oh, and LG tells us that its 32- and 42-inch OLED panels are on schedule and due to be released sometime in 2010. Yes, 2010. No word on price but it's going to be tres, tres expensive.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Groups partner for OLED printing materials* 
*8 September 2009*


LONDON — OLED specialist Novaled AG (Dresden, Germany) and Plextronics (Pittsburgh, PA.), which focuses on conductive organic inks, are teaming to develop doped and solution processed organic materials for high performance printing of OLED devices.


Plextronics organic conductive ink technology -- dubbed Plexcore OC-- will be combined with Novaled's organic dopant technology to develop advanced Hole Injection Layer (HIL) technology for OLEDs.


The companies will target these materials for use with solution processed polymer and small molecule emitters, as well as with vacuum deposited small molecule emitters.


They aim to offer a solution processed HIL with the same performance as a Novaled doped small molecule HIL deposited in a vacuum process.


The Novaled doped HIL is part of the Novaled PIN OLED technology, which has demonstrated some of the highest power efficiency together with a long lifetime.


The companies will co-market the Plexcore OC inks that result from the partnership.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Novaled and Plextronics announcing partnership to develop OLED materials* 
*8 September 2009*


Novaled AG, a leader in energy saving and long living OLEDs (Organic Light Emitting Diodes), and Plextronics, Inc., an international company that specializes in conductive organic inks for printed lighting, solar and other electronics, announced today that they have agreed to jointly develop doped and solution processed organic materials for OLED applications. OLED technology is expected to become a major ingredient of flat displays and drive a new era lighting innovation with its flexible design and energy efficiency advantages.


The collaboration agreement specifies that the companies will combine their respective technologies to develop an advanced solution processible Hole Injection Layer (HIL) technology for OLEDs. By leveraging Plextronics’ organic conductive ink technology and Novaled’s organic dopant technology, the companies will target these advanced HIL materials for use with solution processed polymer and small molecule emitters, as well as with vacuum deposited small molecule emitters. Novaled and Plextronics aim to offer a solution processed HIL with the same performance as a Novaled doped small molecule HIL deposited in a vacuum process. The Novaled doped HIL is part of the Novaled PIN OLED® technology, which has demonstrated some of the highest power efficiency together with a long lifetime.


Plextronics and Novaled will co-market Plexcore® OC inks that incorporate Novaled dopant materials.


“Novaled is well-known for its power efficient OLED technology and is considered to be a world leading supplier of doping material,” says Andrew Hannah, President and CEO of Plextronics. “We expect that the combination of Plextronics’ conductive ink for OLED – Plexcore® OC – and Novaled’s doping technologies will enable the high performance printing of OLED devices.”


“Plextronics is an international leader in organic ink”, adds Gildas Sorin, CEO of Novaled. “It is Novaled’s strategy to partner with key industry players, like Plextronics, in order to enlarge our business offering for customers. Together with Plextronics, we are able to introduce the Novaled PIN OLED® technology to the world of printed electronics.”


----------



## Isochroma

* YouTube: LG 15" OLED TV at IFA 2009 video *


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/17148824
> 
> * YouTube: LG 15" OLED TV at IFA 2009 video *



I haven't seen any good review of the LG 15" OLED yet? Has anybody said something about motion handling, trails or any flaw?


As I see this TV has a 100% duty cicle unless XEL-1 since no flicker is seen in the video recordings, am I right?


----------



## Isochroma

 *OLED TVs off to a Slower Than Expected Start* 
*10 September 2009*


When Sony launched the world's first OLED (organic light emitting diode) television in late 2007 it seemed like a new era in flat-panel TV was beginning. True wall-hanging TVs just a few millimeters thick would finally be realized and those TVs would deliver crisp, colorful pictures that made current LCDs look almost dull by comparison.


Never mind that the 11-inch TV cost over US$2,000 -- new technology is always expensive at first and gets cheaper, right? Pushing the feeling that technology was quickly progressing, Sony also showed a 27-inch prototype at the same time, and within a few months Samsung took the wraps off prototypes of its own.


Sony CEO Howard Stringer, on stage in the U.S. in May 2008, got caught up in excitement for the coming OLED age and promised the launch of the 27-inch model commercially within a year. It's now been a year and three months since Stringer made his prediction but there have been no new OLED TVs from Sony.


The absence of a new model has highlighted not just Sony's slipping schedule but that of the industry as a whole. Samsung has yet to launch its OLED TV and all eyes are now on LG Display, which had a 15-inch prototype at this year's CES and said it would ship about now.


OLED screen makers are facing a couple of challenges,said Jim Masuda, director of display market research at iSuppli in Tokyo. The first is technical.


Sony launched an 11-inch OLED TV not because the market was demanding a small television but because mass production at typical TV sizes, those between 20 inches and 50 inches, is still difficult with OLED. The screen technology has proved difficult to scale so while it's in common use in cell phones and music players it isn't being mass-produced at larger sizes.


Screen life is also an issue.


"Companies are now looking at large-size OLEDs of around 40 inches but it's uncertain how they will produce them," said Masuda. One hurdle is applying the organic material from which light is emitted in an even manner across the screen. An uneven coating will mean differences in display brightness and that's obviously no good for a television.


The companies are experimenting with several competing material application technologies, including vapor deposition and ink-jet printing. There are also different organic compounds that can be used and a lot of work is going into studying those. Sony and LG are both working with Japan's Idemitsu while Panasonic has tied up with Sumitomo Chemical.


Even when the technical problems are solved, there's the issue of making the screens cheap enough to compete with LCD.


"After [Sony] introduced the 11-inch OLED all of the TV makers were researching how to make larger sets," said Masuda. "In the meantime LCD prices were dropping drastically and if an OLED TV is introduced it must be price competitive."


Oversupply has been affecting LCD panel prices for most of the last year and the problem was compounded by lower demand from TV makers after consumers cut back on spending due to the global recession. The average price of a 32-inch LCD panel fell from US$335 in January 2008 to around $200 at the end of the year, according to DisplaySearch.


Sony's first set was able to command a high price because its OLED TV was first to market and found customers among early adopters, companies and retailers looking to impress visitors and curious competitors in the TV business.


But it was never destined for the mass market. The production line can only handle up to 2,000 sets per month and hasn't been expanded since. Sony won't comment on actual production although only around 1,000 OLED TVs were sold in the last three months of 2008, according to an estimate from DisplaySearch.


However LCD panel prices have recently begun to rise, reducing some of the pricing pressure for the time being.


There were no new OLED TVs at last week's IFA electronics fair in Berlin, so the next major OLED TV announcement could come in October at Tokyo's Ceatec fair. Sony used that show in 2007 to launch its XEL-1. Another possible OLED TV launchpad could be CES 2010 in Las Vegas in January, when the world's major consumer electronics makers come together.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Has a Startup Cracked the OLED Problem?* 
*11 September 2009*













Liquid to solid to gas and back to solid.


If startup Kateeva is correct, a more elaborate version of that recipe might transform organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) from a niche market into a mainstream technology for TVs, computer screens and lights.


The company has devised a method for depositing the light-emitting organic materials with inkjet printers and a micro-dryer called a T Jet (for thermal jet) along with proprietary inks that effectively will let manufacturers employ Gen 8.5 and larger substrates – which measure more than 6 feet a side – to produce OLEDs.


OLEDs are currently made on Gen 3.5 substrates, which measure 61 centimeters by 72 centimeters, hardly big enough for that 50-inch screen.


In four years or more, OLED TVs made on Kateeva's formulas could cost about 70 percent of what it would cost to build a standard LCD TV and even less than an LCD-LED TV, asserted Conor Madigan, a co-founder and the CEO. Such TVs would use a fraction of the power and contain half of the components.


"By 2013, OLEDs will really be established at a volume manufacturing level. They [TV manufacturers] see a market where small margins rule and higher costs lose," he said. "The technology scales gracefully."


Like algae biodiesel, carbon nanotubes and electric cars, OLEDs are miracle items that more people read about than actually own. OLEDs are thin, flexible sheets of materials that emit their own light . Researchers at USC and Princeton have published reports stating that OLEDs can conceivably convert nearly 100 percent of the power injected into them into light.


In the end, that could mean TVs or lights a few millimeters thick that weigh a fraction of their contemporaries, cost less and don't sport bulbs that generate heat and break. OLED TVs and lights could even be transparent, so homeowners could replace windows with them.


Nokia, Dell, General Electric, Sylvania and others have all pledge to adopt them. Proponents say it could be a $100 billion market in a few years with $4.5 billion coming from lighting alone .


But, oops, reality. Producing OLEDs remains expensive and problematic. Sony released the first OLED TV, the XEL-1, in 2007. It measured 11-inches in diameter and sold for $2,500. Two years later, the XEL-1 still measures 11-inches across and sells for $2,500. Panasonic, Sharp, Hitachi and others have said they want to produce OLED TVs, but in the hazy future when manufacturing issues can be resolved. LG will release an OLED TV soon, but it measures only 15 inches.


"It will be a while. All of the same issues that have existed for the last couple of years-stability of manufacturing, scaling to large size-still exist," said David Steel, senior vice president of marketing at Samsung Electronics.


Sylvania sells an OLED lamp, for $10,000. The only mass market for OLEDs right now is for screens for high-end phones.


The dilemma arises largely from how OLEDs are manufactured. A substrate inside of a vacuum deposition chamber is covered with an intricately patterned mask. Chemical gases injected into the chamber coat the exposed portions of the substrate and, when they solidify, become circuits. After several mask layers, the light emitting pixels come into being.


Unfortunately, the mask can only get so big. The further away a mask feature is from the source of the gas, the odds increase that the pixel will contain defects. The z dimension, or thickness, of the mask can also distort.


To this end, some companies have tried lasers and inkjet printing . While inkjets allow the source of materials to be placed in close proximity to mask features, inkjets can be inaccurate for electronics printing and one layer can bleed into the next.


"Each layer has to be insoluble to the next," Madigan said.


Kateeva gets around this problem with the T Jet, which sits between the inkjet nozzles and the substrate. The material is first heated to 100 Celsius to evaporate the carrier liquids. The remaining solids then get heated to 300 Celsius, turned into a gas, and deposited onto the substrate, where it solidifies.


In a sense, it's similar to conventional OLED manufacturing, but the material is deposited in closer proximity. Larger substrates mean cheaper (and larger) TVs and other products because more displays essentially get manufactured at the same time.


Although the company will sell equipment, approximately 70 percent of its revenue could come from the inks, according to Sass Somekh, a former chip equipment exec turned VC at Musea Ventures. (Somekh co-founded Kateeva and invested in it along with Sigma Partners and Varian.) Each customer will likely demand its own nuanced tweak on the materials, but that's how the TV industry works today: Most manufacturers buy their liquid crystal from Merck. Some of the company's employees hail from Applied Materials and other equipment vendors.


The first big test will come in the second quarter when Kateeva ships prototype systems for processing Gen 3.5 substrates. Bigger ones will follow.


----------



## videoray

Maybe OLED won't make it to large screens. Maybe it will be too expensive to make. Maybe it can't find its longevity. Maybe this will happen:

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/23294/ 

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22810/


----------



## navychop

Sounds like more good news to me.


----------



## Isochroma

 *The LG 15" OLED TV will cost around 2,500$-3,000$* 
*15 September 2009*













We got word from a senior manager from LG Electronics that says that while the 15" OLED TV's price hasn't been decided yet, it will be in the range of 2,500$-3,000$ in Korea (due to launch in November).


Obviously this is a lot of money for a 15" TV. But it's about the same as Sony's 11" XEL-1 (which still costs 2,500$ in the US), so you get almost 40% more screen for the same money. Also this is the price for Korea, hopefully it will be lower when it launches worldwide in 2010.


The 15" OLED TV will have a 1366x768 resolution, 100,000:1 contrast ratio and it'll be only 1.7mm thick.


----------



## pcdo

How long do you guys think it'll take for OLED to increase in size and come down in price enough to actually compete with LCDs and plasmas? I'd guess it'd be several more years, but I wanted to see everyone else's opinion.


----------



## powertoold




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pcdo* /forum/post/17206861
> 
> 
> How long do you guys think it'll take for OLED to increase in size and come down in price enough to actually compete with LCDs and plasmas? I'd guess it'd be several more years, but I wanted to see everyone else's opinion.



4.5 years for a $3000 50" OLED


----------



## wco81

Maybe never for all we know.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pcdo* /forum/post/17206861
> 
> 
> How long do you guys think it'll take for OLED to increase in size and come down in price enough to actually compete with LCDs and plasmas? I'd guess it'd be several more years, but I wanted to see everyone else's opinion.



We should have better info to predict "how long" after CES 2010. I think we'll see a 27"/30" OLED TV out by the end of 2010... based off of the last DisplaySearch road map. So I'm guessing 3 more years till we get to a ~46" size...


----------



## nnarum23

OLED is becoming SED...


----------



## powertoold




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nnarum23* /forum/post/17211440
> 
> 
> OLED is becoming SED...



No it isn't. There isn't a single consumer SED product in the market - compare that with the many OLED phones, PMPs, and coming TVs.


OLED is here to stay, at least for portable devices.


SED is a horribly inefficient technology. A bunch of CRT tubes? Really?


----------



## nnarum23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *powertoold* /forum/post/17211512
> 
> 
> No it isn't. There isn't a single consumer SED product in the market - compare that with the many OLED phones, PMPs, and coming TVs.
> 
> 
> OLED is here to stay, at least for portable devices.
> 
> 
> SED is a horribly inefficient technology. A bunch of CRT tubes? Really?



It's too expensive, and *we haven't really seen it*. Sure it's available in 15", but who really wants a set that size?


And for clarification, I'm not interested in how it works for phones and portable media players.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nnarum23* /forum/post/17211616
> 
> 
> It's too expensive, and *we haven't really seen it*. Sure it's available in 15", but who really wants a set that size?
> 
> 
> And for clarification, I'm not interested in how it works for phones and portable media players.



But unlike SED, at least OLED has an actual product available. Still a very small step, but at least they've something.


Meanwhile, in the SED camp.......well you already know it by now


----------



## Human Bass




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nnarum23* /forum/post/17211616
> 
> 
> It's too expensive, and *we haven't really seen it*. Sure it's available in 15", but who really wants a set that size?
> 
> *And for clarification, I'm not interested in how it works for phones and portable media players.*



That's funny, since LCD basically started monochormatic in digital watchers and portable game devices. While OLED already started showing incredible colour quality and contrast ratio.


----------



## Brimstone-1




> Quote:
> SED is a horribly inefficient technology. A bunch of CRT tubes? Really?



SED is more effficient than OLED in certain ways.


A potential large screen SED display wouldn't be "active matrix". It is more akin to impulse CRT technology. Motion on a SED display will look liquid smooth. AM-OLED on the other hand has a hold time just like LCD.


SED is very power efficient.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Human Bass* /forum/post/17215964
> 
> 
> That's funny, since LCD basically started monochormatic in digital watchers and portable game devices. While OLED already started showing incredible colour quality and contrast ratio.



+1. We're in the very early years of OLED displays. It has taken several decades for LCDs to reach the large sizes that are currently available for purchase (70"+). Perhaps OLED won't take as long as LCD, but we're still years out. A 15" OLED TV from LG means OLED TVs are getting larger (i.e. progress is being made).


To the SED bit. While Canon's SED and Sony's FED looked to be amazing display tech, we really haven't seen anything going on with either - other than Canon stating recently that SED was still in R&D. Who knows where the R&D went from Sony's FED... perhaps a complete loss. I sure would like to have that FED demo... FED monitor displaying a 240 FPS source at 240Hz refresh (no motion interpolation)!


Anyways, I saw the Zune HD this weekend, and the OLED display in that unit is incredible! Great appetizer for larger OLED displays!


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brimstone-1* /forum/post/17217292
> 
> 
> .....SED is very power efficient.



VaporWare always is.


----------



## johnnysd

They will unquestionably figure out the problems associated with OLED and it will become a huge mainstream product. There is just too much money in it and the problems are not insurmountable. Technology is ALWAYS like that.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Kodak OLED updates* 
*23 September 2009*


In June 2008, I interviewed Corey Hewitt and Dr. James Buntaine from Kodak OLED Systems .


Mr. Corey Hewitt is the co-general manager, operations manager and VP of Kodak OLED Systems. Dr. James Buntaine is the second co-general manager, and also the CTO and VP.


They were kind enough to send us an update on Kodak's OLED program and market outlook:

*Kodak OLED Technology Update & Advancements*


Kodak expertise and experience lies in material discovery, organic layer design, mechanistic understanding, image science, panel/module design, and manufacturing technology. These key value drivers associated with the Kodak technology, know-how and patents, maintain Kodak as an industry leader in enabling both the OLED flat-panel display and OLED solid-state lighting industries. Provided below are selected key areas technology and Kodak accomplishments:

*• Increase in efficiency:*
Low voltage materials (6.2V with 2-stack tandem)
Novel dopants (50% year on year efficiency with long lifetime)
Molecular modeling abilities with numerous OLED molecules per year being produced
*• Property optimization:*
Intra-layer material formulation with chemical optimization of material combinations


Fundamental optics modeling provides rapid design of organic stacks to meet new panel specs


Inter-layer architecture design allows for simultaneous property optimization of spectral, power, lifetime, yielding 50% year on year improvements
*• Scientific knowledge:*
Degradation mechanism understanding drives new molecule design from fundamental science, saves years of empirical research


Triplet exciton harvesting efficiency is closing the theoretical performance gaps
*• Image quality enhancement:*
Color-power mgt 25+% power reduction
Automatic brightness limiting manages peak current requirements
Tone scale optimization provides for ideal scene reproduction
Pseudo resolution boost: e.g. QHD to HD using quad subpixels
*• Advanced design characteristics:*
Achieving world’s best light extraction with minimal thickness
Pixel circuit design compensates for non-uniform, unstable TFT
Printed chiplet panel design creates novel advanced designs for non-TFT AMOLED
SSL design manages IR/luminance drop across a panel
*• Yield improvement:*
Vapor Injection Source Technology (VIST): demonstrates material utilization of >70% and uniformity of


----------



## Brimstone-1

The 89% NTSC color of the LG 15" is probably a result of using the Kodak RGBW system, where only white OLED is used. To get color they use a filter for Red, Green, and Blue.


----------



## -diVe-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nnarum23* /forum/post/17211440
> 
> 
> OLED is becoming SED...



OLED is a proven technology. For example, OLED products actually exist in the marketplace to be purchased. SED was never brought to the market. The future of TVs will be Plasma vs. OLED. LCDs will be phased out like CRTs.


----------



## vtms

With all these advancements, investments and press, where are the large OLEDs? What are remaining obstacles that keep this technology from mainstream TV market? My fear is that the technology is probably ready but the greedy companies will want to milk the LCD market dry by endlessly introducing small incremental improvements to LCD technology until there's nothing left to improve, artificially delaying arrival of large and cheap OLEDs.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-diVe-* /forum/post/17252381
> 
> 
> ...The future of TVs will be Plasma vs. OLED. LCDs will be phased out like CRTs.



Some of us think plasmas will go away before LCDs. And considering the reduction in the number of companies actually still manufacturing plasmas.....


----------



## KidHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms* /forum/post/17252502
> 
> 
> With all these advancements, investments and press, where are the large OLEDs? What are remaining obstacles that keep this technology from mainstream TV market? My fear is that the technology is probably ready but the greedy companies will want to milk the LCD market dry by endlessly introducing small incremental improvements to LCD technology until there's nothing left to improve, artificially delaying arrival of large and cheap OLEDs.



The problem is not being able to create large flawless panels. This is the same thing with LCDs and plasma's. They start out small and get larger over time as manufacturing kinks get ironed out. It's not that they can't create large OLED screens, it's that the manufacturing failure rate is too high to make them commercially viable.


One thing manufacturers absolutely have to avoid is selling a lot of OLED TVs and then having them returned or recalled because of problems. They have to be very careful.


----------



## Isochroma

 *AMOLED revenue has set a new record in Q2 2009* 
*28 September 2009*













Displaysearch reported that the worldwide OLED revenue has set a new record, 192 Million Dollars in the second quarter 2009. This is more about 32% as in the first quarter 2009, and 22 % more then in 2008.


The global OLED market in 2016 is about 6.2 billion dollars. OLED TV will be the second largest application, with revenues of about $2 billion in 2016.


This year the AMOLED shipments grew due to strong mobile phone main display shipments. 15 mobile phones from Samsung, Nokia, Sony Ericsson were released in 2009.


Samsung Mobile Display (SMD) had a strong Q2’09, and as a result, it maintained the #1 position in shipments with 38% market share, followed by RiTdisplay at #2.


As we reported many companies strengthened their OLED business, and there are about 20 new or upgraded AMOLED production lines installed or upgraded worldwide in the next three years.


The next step for OLED is the Netbook and Notebook market. Notebooks are an attractive area starting in mid 2010, with netbooks expected to be in production by end of 2010. 20-29” OLED TVs will enter market by the end of 2010, with 30” and larger TVs forecast to enter the market in late 2011.


Full Report: Displaysearch


----------



## Isochroma

 *OLED TV makers look to shift out of neutral* 
*30 September 2009*











*LG's 15-inch OLED TV, which is set to go on sale in Korea by December.*



Though LG's eye-popping OLED (organic light-emitting diode) display wowed audiences in Berlin last month, it's best not to get too excited. There's not going to be more where that came from, at least for a while.


The industry is still at least three years away from churning out standard-size televisions of 32 inches or larger at something approaching acceptable prices. And though Sony grabbed all the attention in early 2008 with its $2,500 11-inch OLED, it's faded into the background when it comes to nudging the technology forward. Initially promising to follow up with 21-inch and 27-inch models, Sony's deferred those plans while battling bigger problems with its TV business.


With Sony on the sidelines, it seemed like we were witnessing yet another false start for a technology that's been intent on challenging existing TV standards like LCD and plasma for almost half a decade now.


Beset by the standard issues that come with bringing a new technology into the mainstream, like the exorbitantly high cost of development, OLED TVs might be on the verge of shifting out of neutral as new standard bearers for the technology emerge. The ones to watch now are Samsung and LG Electronics, which have each signaled that they're ready to make larger investments in OLED technology for TVs.


At the OLEDs World Summit 2009 in San Francisco on Wednesday, still most of the hope surrounding this nascent branch of the display industry was focused on energy efficient lighting and smaller displays for cell phones and MP3 players, since that's where the money is coming from right now.


DisplaySearch analyst Jennifer Colegrove said that the second quarter of 2009 was the best quarter yet for the OLED industry, with revenues reaching $190 million worldwide. It's good--and perhaps unexpected--news for a burgeoning technology that was just beginning to ramp up right when the recession hit.


But while they're finding success putting OLED in smartphones, these companies are still trying to figure out how to prove that the desirable properties of OLED--ultrathin displays, brighter, crisper images, and improved energy efficiency--can be produced efficiently on a large scale. The reason they're extra cautious: the factories needed to stamp out 30- and 40-inch TVs cost at least $1 billion to build and equip. "They need to prove it will scale before making a huge investment," noted Barry Young, managing director of the OLED Association.


For now, these 11- and 15-inch TVs are coming off production lines intended to make 2-inch and 3-inch displays. It works, but only as a temporary solution; they can't produce the amount of displays per year necessary to be profitable or meet demand.


LG says it plans to start selling its 15-inch OLED in South Korea by the end of the year. But for now, it only has the capacity to make 200,000 per month, or 2.4 million per year. Compare that to Samsung and its more advanced infrastructure for OLED displays for cell phones and MP3 players. On Wednesday Ho-Kyoon Chung, advisor to Samsung Mobile Display, said by next year its factories will be pumping out 10 million displays per month smaller than 15 inches.


LG won't be able to expand past 200,000 per month until at least 2010. But the two highly competitive Korean companies watch each other closely ("They're like two brothers that fight. One always has to do what the other is doing," is how one industry analyst put it). The competition's effect could push OLED TVs closer to the mainstream, both in screen size and in price.


The cost of OLED TVs at retail is still laughably unrealistic for most. "Price points on these displays are very steep," noted iSuppli's Jakhanwal. "The 11-inch Sony is still $2,500. The LG (OLED TV) might be in the same range." Though larger size OLED TVs might start appearing in three years, pricing is harder to predict now.


There's also a wild card in this deck: Apple. A whirlwind of speculation has surrounded the company's plans (or lack thereof) for building a tablet computer. Some in the industry have wondered if the screen will be an OLED, though Jakhanwal said that's less likely. "I feel they're more likely to start using OLEDs for iPods rather than launching straight away to a tablet. Apple's strategy has always been to use current, existing technology for its products, and work on (getting the) pricing down," she said.


Though that could be tough for suppliers because Apple has a way of getting prices to "unbelievable levels," as she noted, it could be a boon to retail shoppers. If Apple were to drive down the prices of smaller OLEDs, even for iPods or iPhones someday, it could shift pricing of larger displays for notebooks and TVs as well. And cheaper components mean more vendors will buy them and more choice for consumers.


In the meantime, "Price continues to be an issue," said Jakhanwal. "High premiums (are) not acceptable in the market."


----------



## milk

OLED demonstration Video from MIT associate professor Vladimir Bulovic:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/10/02...gor/#continued


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milk* /forum/post/17285437
> 
> 
> OLED demonstration Video from MIT associate professor Vladimir Bulovic:
> 
> http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/10/02...gor/#continued



LOL! Saw that yesterday. Looks like Sony's XEL-3..


















Sizzlin'!


----------



## pkeegan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milk* /forum/post/17285437
> 
> 
> OLED demonstration Video from MIT associate professor Vladimir Bulovic:
> 
> http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/10/02...gor/#continued



I use pickle lights throughout my house. It's just the smell I can't stand


----------



## milk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pkeegan* /forum/post/17286904
> 
> 
> I use pickle lights throughout my house. It's just the smell I can't stand



Yep, I do the same; but I just turn them into relish once they start to stink.










LOL, nice one RGB! Sony's new plywood backed Kosher-XBR200


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/17283392
> 
> *OLED TV makers look to shift out of neutral*
> *30 September 2009*
> 
> 
> There's also a wild card in this deck: Apple. A whirlwind of speculation has surrounded the company's plans (or lack thereof) for building a tablet computer. Some in the industry have wondered if the screen will be an OLED, though Jakhanwal said that's less likely. "I feel they're more likely to start using OLEDs for iPods rather than launching straight away to a tablet. Apple's strategy has always been to use current, existing technology for its products, and work on (getting the) pricing down," she said.



I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Apple. They could have put an OLED in the iphone or Touch but they didn't because they wanted to make sure the devices were visible in direct sunlight. Now they use a transreflective LCD that is visible in direct sun.


Right now the Zune HD is an alternative to the ipod if you want OLED.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/17285683
> 
> 
> LOL! Saw that yesterday. Looks like Sony's XEL-3..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sizzlin'!



Hmm interesting, look out OLED, SED, and LCD behold the prototype LEP (Light Emitting Pickle) display.


----------



## pcdo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/17289899
> 
> 
> Hmm interesting, look out OLED, SED, and LCD behold the prototype LEP (Light Emitting Pickle) display.



That's it. I'm buying a couple jars of Vlasic pickles and building me a 100" display.


----------



## Isochroma

 *A technique for multi-line addressing in OLED displays* 
*5 October 2009*

_Organic light emitting diodes have unique drive challenges; this circuit uses the TFT at each active matrix display or the OLED diode in a passive OLED display as a demodulator to detect OFDM carriers._


Multi-line addressing is a method of driving one or more lines simultaneously in a display to increase frame rate without increasing line rate and in the case of OLED displays, multi-line addressing can reduce power consumption, improve lifetime and generally give active-matrix capabilities to passive OLED displays (Reference 1).


Because passive OLED displays have a truly active device (an Organic Light-Emitting Diode) at each pixel, this diode can act as a demodulator for amplitude-modulated orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) carriers on the rows and columns of the display. Although this may seem at first like an unnecessarily complicated approach to addressing pixels in a display (after all, we just turn rows and columns high or low for most displays), Figure 1 shows that any use of binary (digital) signals cannot simultaneously address pixels on more than one line without inadvertently addressing pixels on other lines. As shown in the figure, an attempt to digitally control two pixels in different lines (pixel 1 and pixel 8 in this case) results in turning on two more unintended pixels, pixels 1 and 7 which are the mirror of pixels 2 and 8.


http://i.cmpnet.com/planetanalog/2009/10/C0426-Figure1.gif 









*Figure 1: Problems with digital multi-line addressing

(Click on image to enlarge)*



Because of the digital control problems, methods of multi-line addressing are inherently analog at the pixel level. Image data is still manipulated digitally in processors where methods of image decomposition are used to break an image into row and column data, which are then converted to analog signals by digital/analog converters (DACs). The analog row and column signals are basically OFDM carriers, where each frequency component in the row and column signals represents the control of a single pixel in the display.


The current POLED displays that implement multi-line addressing (and work in any active-matrix display without using Walsh functions such as in active addressing used for only passive LCDs) was initially described in Patent 5644340 filed in 1995 (Reference 2). In this method, each column signal in the display is a separate reference frequency (the same as a local oscillator) and each row is a linear combination of all the column reference frequencies with a given amplitude.


The intersection of each row and column signal then maps the frequency control of each pixel (the same frequency exists on each column, but is different on each row). Each pixel contains a simple demodulator circuit, which demodulates the incoming row and column signals to produce a signal-amplitude that controls the brightness of the pixel (Figure 2). In this way, all pixels can be controlled simultaneously with varying brightness.


http://i.cmpnet.com/planetanalog/2009/10/C0426-Figure2.gif 









*Figure 2: Pixel cell architecture

(Click on image to enlarge)*



Each pixel has exactly the same circuit: a demodulator for frequency discrimination of the row and column frequencies and a low-pass filter for producing a DC-amplitude control of the pixel. The frequency discrimination and low-pass filter characteristics in Figure 2 determine how close row and column frequencies can be spaced and what the highest frequency is required for a given display resolution.


As seen in Figure 3, a 1920×1080 HDTV display can be realized with a maximum line frequency of 385 kHz, assuming 200 Hz frequency discrimination. The frequency discrimination and frame rate of the display is controlled by the cut-off frequency of the low-pass filter at each pixel in Figure 2. The same maximum frequency of 385 kHz drives each line at the same time, reducing the need for a much faster line-by-line clock. With the low-frequency requirements of the display in Figure 3, power consumption is reduced for the same pixel brightness when compared to a display using a single, high frequency dot-clock.


http://i.cmpnet.com/planetanalog/2009/10/C0426-Figure3.gif 









*Figure 3: Maximum frequency for HDTV

(Click on image to enlarge)*



In a flashback to the days of crystal radio, it has been found that the OLED diode in the passive OLED display can act as both a demodulator and low-pass filter of row and column signals (Reference 3) [Editor's note: if you are unfamiliar with the diode and the basic, passive crystal radio, which was the first mass-market "electronic" circuit, you need to do some basic research--and even build one!] With the anode connected to the row and cathode to the column (or reversed if the polarity of the signals is taken into account), the OLED demodulator produces the characteristic sum and difference frequencies which when appropriately filtered with the LPF generated the intended DC control of the pixel. A thin-film transistor in an AMOLED display works just as well if not better as a demodulator when properly biased (with the source connected to a column signal and the gate to a row signal, for instance).


With the price of active matrix OLED displays (AMOLED) dropping rapidly, the advantage of multi-line addressing in OLED displays may seemed short-lived, but even AMOLEDs may be able to benefit from the reduced frequency and power requirements of multi-line addressing. The bigger advantages of multi-line addressing may come in the bandwidth savings in driving data to a display, as the lower pixel frequencies allow more bandwidth for increased frame rate based on the fastest OLED response time. Also, larger display resolutions such as UXGA can be developed that will run at high frame rates without taxing the OLED pixel response. With high-resolution and high-bandwidth display applications on the horizon, architectures that utilize multi-line addressing are likely to be considered.

References

 Cambridge Display Technology Press Release 
 "Frequency Mixing for Controlling Individual Pixels in a Display," 
 "Transient response of passive matrix polymer LED displays,"
About the author


Michael Harney is an Electrical Engineer working in industrial and vehicle electronics. He is the holder of four patents and has a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Utah State University


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED Display Technology and Capabilities* 
*6 October 2009*


The organic light emitting diode (OLED) display is becoming more and more popular, especially for mobile phones, media player and small entry level TVs. Contrary to a standard liquid crystal display, the OLED pixel is driven by a current source. To understand how and why the OLED power supply impacts the display picture quality, it is key to understand the OLED display technology and power supply requirements. This article explains the latest OLED display technology and discusses the main power supply requirements and solutions. A novel power supply architecture tailored to the OLED power supply requirements is also presented here.

*Market environment*


All major mobile phone companies by now offer one or more models featuring an OLED display. Sony has the first OLED TV in mass production and many other companies show first prototypes. The OLED display offers wide color gamut, contrast ratio, viewing angle and fast response time. This makes the display ideal for multimedia applications. The self-emitting OLED technology doesn’t require a backlight and the power consumption depends on the display content. Power consumption can be much lower compared to a LCD using backlight. With a larger panel size the superior image quality of an OLED becomes more noticeable. Therefore, more and more OLED panels being used have a display size >3” and the ultimate application in the future still might be the TV panel. Another market for the OLED display is certainly the flexible display. Currently, the OLED and electrophoretic display technology look most promising. The electrophoretic or bi-stable display being used for electronic reader applications needs to be improved in color quality. On the other hand, currently OLED display is not ready for mass production when using fully-flexible materials. This depends mainly on the backplane technology.

*Backplane technology enables flexible displays*


High-resolution color active matrix organic light emitting diode (AMOLED) displays require an active matrix backplane using an active switch to turn each pixel on and off. The liquid crystal (LC) display amorphous silicon process is mature and provides a low-cost active matrix backplane, and used for OLEDs as well. For flexible displays companies are working with an organic thin film transistor (OTFT) backplane process. This process also can be used for an OLED display to realize flexible, full color displays. Whether a standard or flexible OLED is being used the same power supply and driving mythology needs to be applied. To understand the OLED technology, capabilities and its interaction with the power supply, a closer look into this technology is given. The OLED display itself is a self-emitting display technology and doesn’t require any backlight. The material for the OLED belongs to the category of organic materials due to its chemical structure.

*OLED technology requires a current control driving method*


A simplified circuit, representing one pixel, is shown in Figure 1. The OLED has electrical characteristics very similar to a standard light emitting diode (LED) where brightness depends on the LED current. To turn the OLED on and off and to control the OLED current a control circuit, thin film transistors (TFTs) are being used.













In Figure 1, transistor T2 is the pixel control transistor turning each pixel on and off. This is similar to any other active matrix liquid crystal display topology. A T1 is used as a current source, and the current is given by its gate source voltage. The storage capacitor is Cs, which holds the gate voltage of T1 stable and clamps the current until the pixel is addressed again. The simple single transistor current source in Figure 1 has a major cost advantage since only two transistors are required. The disadvantage of the simple circuit is a variation in current depending on process variations and voltage variation of Vdd. The OLED power supply circuit usually provides two voltage rails: Vdd and Vss. The voltage rail, Vdd, needs to have very tight regulation to achieve best picture quality and to avoid image flicker. The voltage regulation accuracy of Vss, which usually is a negative voltage, can be less accurate since it has a minor effect on the LED current. The effect of voltage fluctuations on Vdd to the OLED display is shown in Figure 2.













As the voltage supply Vdd changes, OLED brightness changes as well. Any superimposed voltage ripple on Vdd, can cause horizontal bars on the image due to different brightness levels. Depending on the display, a voltage ripple larger than 20mV already can cause such a phenomena. The visibility of the horizontal bars depends on amplitude and frequency of the superimposed voltage ripple. As soon as the frequency interferes with the frame frequency the bars appear. Under a normal laboratory environment the superimposed voltage ripple on Vdd is usually smaller than 20mV. The problem appears as the display and power supply are integrated into a system. As soon as any sub-circuit in the system draws pulsating current from the system power supply a voltage ripple appears, common to all circuits connected to the system power supply. Typical sub-circuits drawing pulsating current are the GSM power amplifier in a mobile phone, motor driver, audio power amplifier or similar. In such systems, the system supply rail has a superimposed voltage ripple. If the AMOLED power supply doesn’t reject this ripple, it will appear on its output as well causing the discussed visible image distortion. To avoid this, the AMOLED power supply needs to have a very high-power supply rejection ration and line transient response.


For the AMOLED power supply a boost converter is required for the positive voltage rail, Vdd, and a buck-boost or inverter for the negative voltage rail, Vss. This puts the challenge to the IC manufacturer providing a suitable power supply IC providing a very accurate positive voltage rail, Vdd, and negative voltage rail, Vss, achieving minimum component height and smallest solution size.


To meet all these requirements a novel power supply topology is chosen to provide both positive and negative output voltage rails from a Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery using just a single inductor.

*SIMO regulator technology enables best-in-class picture quality*













Figure 3 shows the typical application circuit using the TPS65136, a device with single-inductor multiple-output (SIMO) regulator technology. The device operates with a four-switch buck-boost converter topology. SIMO technology features best-in-class line transient regulation, buck-boost mode for both outputs and highest efficiency over the entire load current range.

*Advanced power save mode enables highest efficiency*


As with any battery-powered equipment, long battery standby time is only achieved when the converter operates at highest efficiency over the entire load current range. This is especially important for an OLED display. The OLED display consumes its maximum power when the display is fully white, and much lower current for any other display color. This is because only the white color requires all the sub-pixels red, green and blue to be fully turned on. For example, a 2.7 inch display requires 80mA current for a fully white picture and only 5mA current when icons or graphics are displayed. Therefore, the OLED power supply needs to provide high converter efficiency at all load currents. This is achieved by using an advanced power save mode technology reducing the converter switching frequency as the load current decreases. Since this is done using a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO), possible EMI problems are minimized and the minimum switching frequency is controlled to be outside the audio range of typically at 40kHz. This avoids possible audible noise caused by ceramic input or output capacitors. This is especially important when using the device in a mobile phone application and simplifies the design process.

*Conclusion*


Since OLED display technology is just emerging, there is still a lot of room to conserve power, increase OLED efficiency and minimize the total solution size. As OLED becomes more mature, it is also possible to use OLED for architectural lighting or as backlight for LC Displays. Both opportunities allow lower power consumption and higher design flexibility compared to traditional lighting solutions. For OLED technology, the future seems to be very bright.

References


To download a datasheet on the TPS65136, visit: www.ti.com/tps65136-ca .

To learn more about this and other power solutions from TI, visit: www.ti.com/power-ca .

Author


Oliver Nachbaur is a member of the Technical Staff at Texas Instrument in Germany where he is a System Engineering Manager for the Display Power Converter group. Oliver has over a decade of experience in the semiconductor industry working as an Applications Engineer and System Engineer on Power Management Products. Oliver received a degree in Electrical Engineering in Ravensburg, Germany. He can be reached at: [email protected] .


----------



## inky blacks

 http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/1...114-years.aspx 


Now that they have the short lifespan problem solved, OLED should finally start to show up in BIG TVs.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inky blacks* /forum/post/17311424
> 
> http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/1...114-years.aspx
> 
> 
> Now that they have the short lifespan problem solved, OLED should finally start to show up in BIG TVs.



They are getting closer and here are the latest OLED lifetime numbers from DuPont (from this press release and this press release ):


Green: over 1,000,000 hours at 1,000 cd/m2 with a current efficiency of 25 cd/A and color coordinates of (0.26, 0.65).


Red: 62,000 hours at 1,000 cd/m2 with a current efficiency of 13 cd/A and color coordinates of (0.68, 0.32).


Blue: 38,000 hours at 1,000 cd/m2 with a current efficiency of 6.0 cd/A and color coordinates of (0.14, 0.12).


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/17311548
> 
> 
> They are getting closer and here are the latest OLED lifetime numbers from DuPont (from this press release and this press release ):
> 
> 
> Green: over 1,000,000 hours at 1,000 cd/m2 with a current efficiency of 25 cd/A and color coordinates of (0.26, 0.65).
> 
> 
> Red: 62,000 hours at 1,000 cd/m2 with a current efficiency of 13 cd/A and color coordinates of (0.68, 0.32).
> 
> 
> Blue: 38,000 hours at 1,000 cd/m2 with a current efficiency of 6.0 cd/A and color coordinates of (0.14, 0.12).



Waaah, fantastic updates there.


I mean, if this already amazing enough, then what more with future upgrades and improvements.


With that said, this is really positive developments in OLED (and thus we could even see more updates on this after year 2010).


Exciting times indeed


----------



## wco81

So 38,000 hours is about 4 years 4 months if you keep it on 24 hours a day.


Of course people aren't going to do that but will it maintain the same brightness as when brand new for 4 years, through all the on/off cycles?


Or will it degrade as it approaches the end of life for blue?


----------



## xrox

 Disruptive Factors in the OLED Business Ecosystem 

- includes discussion regarding OLED burn-in

OLEDs - Promises, Myths, and TVs 

- not entirely accurate but OLED lovers should like this article

Emerging Technologies for the Commercialization of AMOLED TVs


----------



## inky blacks

DuPont's OLED secrets stolen already!

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...?taxonomyId=82 

*Former DuPont researcher hit with federal data theft charges

Meng accused of wrongfully accessing a company computer*


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/17312660
> 
> 
> So 38,000 hours is about 4 years 4 months if you keep it on 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> Of course people aren't going to do that but will it maintain the same brightness as when brand new for 4 years, through all the on/off cycles?
> 
> 
> Or will it degrade as it approaches the end of life for blue?



The OLED lifetime is how long it takes for the luminance to decrease to half of the initial brightness.


----------



## rgb32

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnGdhZfP0E


----------



## sharpbandaid

It's made of small passive matrix oled tiles, nothing special.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Report on the Global and Chinese OLED Industry* 
*14 October 2009*

_Research and Markets has announced the addition of the "Global and China OLED Industry Report, 2009" report to their offering._


Compared with TFT-LCD, cost on raw materials of OLED is at least 70% lower; because OLED needs not polarizing plate, backlight module or color filter. However, OLED is still in a dilemma. In 2009, Active Matrix OLED emerged, and OLED TV also made its debut. The growth of OLED speeds up, but bottleneck still exists.


OLED has very weak anti-oxidation ability, which restricts its development. Moreover, OLED equipment has to be driven by high electric current; therefore LTPS-TFT substrate is a must for it.


LTPS keeps cost of OLED at a high level. At present, OLED suffers losses in business. Most TFT-LCD manufactures have finished amortization of old production lines. LTPS TFT is controlled by a few large-sized TFT-LCD manufactures; therefore their attitude towards OLED is a key for development of OLED. Unless they have a full command of OLED production techniques, they will not involve in OLED production. In consequence, OLED is currently controlled by few giants such as Samsung; which is unfavorable for OELD industry.


OLED must break away from LTPS TFT substrate, and also improve resolution for competing with traditional TFT-LCD. With the same size, resolution of OLED is much weaker than that of TFT-LCD. Therefore, OLED fits for large-sized screen (above 3 inches), yet, the bigger size is, the more cost will be.


SMD monopolizes the small-sized OLED market; therefore other producers try to develop large-sized OLED market, but LTPS technology is not suitably employed to large-sized OLED. Even LTPS technology gets improved even high up to sixth generation or seventh generation, it is still rather poor in cost efficiency.


SMD controls most resources, so OLED display market is also dominated by Samsung. Small-sized AM OLED will not see greater development in the future. As a mobile phone producer Samsung doesn't possess upstream resources of AM OLED. Due to higher cost of OLED, it is forecasted that mobile phone with OLED display will just account for 5% market share.


Sony 11-inch and LG 15-inch OLED TV have been commercialized, but their prices are extremely high due to their low rate of finished products (below 30%); while rate of TFT-LCD finished products can reach above 99%. Just a few TFT-LCD giants can produce OLED TV sets. However, they will not be completely involved in OLED TV production until they take back all investment.


At present, only TOKKI and ULVAC produce OLED equipments. TOKKI is an important one, its largest glass substrate size is 370mm*470mm. DuPont, BASF and IDEMITSU KOSAN are the key producers of luminescent materials, but these chemical giants are not interested in this market, just 1% of TFT-LCD market.


75% cost of TFT-LCD originates from raw materials, while cost of OLED on raw materials just accounts for less than 25%. TFT-LCD has had no means to reduce cost efficiently today; once the rate of finished OLED products improves to 70%, there will be no room for TFT-LCD in the future. Therefore, OLED industry has a bright future.


----------



## greenland

Video clip of Samsung demonstrating how tough it's flexible OLED is, by beating on it with a hammer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8S8t...layer_embedded


----------



## surap

Haha..that was great!







In the future you cant destroy your television when you get mad at it.


Is this product commercial already?


----------



## navychop

All together now: iPhone 4G!


----------



## slacker711

This article states that Samsung Mobile Displays is planning on spending $1.7 billion in capex for AMOLED's in 2010.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...123_53899.html 


The size of the investment leads me to believe that they are moving up the ladder in terms of substrate size. Their current production is in a Gen 4 equivalent fab (which cost far less than $1.7 billion), but I think it is possible that they could be planning on building either a Gen 5 or Gen 6 fab.


If so, this is the kind of announcement that means that we really are getting closer to TV sized OLED's at a semi-reasonable price. I believe that Gen 6 LCD fabs brought 32" LCD's into the mainstream.


Just speculation though...it is possible that all of this money is destined for capacity destined for the portable segment.


Slacker


----------



## NetGod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/17312660
> 
> 
> So 38,000 hours is about 4 years 4 months if you keep it on 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> Of course people aren't going to do that but will it maintain the same brightness as when brand new for 4 years, through all the on/off cycles?
> 
> 
> Or will it degrade as it approaches the end of life for blue?



LOL! 38,000 hours would last me 21 years!


----------



## Saturn94




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NetGod* /forum/post/17402125
> 
> 
> LOL! 38,000 hours would last me 21 years!



28 years here!










I figure by the time I'm ready to replace my Pio plasma (not anytime soon!) OLED should have matured a bit and be very affordable.


----------



## Dingane Walker

Oled's are going to completely massacre LCD's & Plasmas!


----------



## Blackraven

It won't happen now but in the next few years approaching year 2020, this could happen (especially when manufacturing improves, costs start to drop, size availability increases and when lifespan improves).


Either way, it should be interesting


----------



## rgb32












Auo show Innovative Display Technologies at FPD Intl 2009

Presenting new 3-Dimensional Display and a 14 inch OLED TV panel with Full HD resolution.

The 14" OLED TV panel with FHD resolution, a 100,000:1 contrast ratio, and 16 million colors.


[Via OLED-Display.net ]


----------



## Isochroma

 *IGNIS demonstrates breakthroughs in AMOLED backplane technology* 
*27 October 2009*


IGNIS Innovation Inc., a world leader in the design and development of thin film transistor circuits and driver algorithms for AMOLED, will demonstrate important breakthroughs in the field of AMOLED image compensation technology at its booth at the FPD International Exhibition in Pacifico Yokohama from 28th ~ 30th October 2009.


In partnership with Kodak and Prime View International, Inc, (PVI), IGNIS has developed a 5” segment of a 32” 1080p HDTV AMOLED display using industry standard amorphous silicon thin film transistors. This prototype uses IGNIS’ MaxLife solution, which compensates separately for both the TFT and OLED degradation using only an electrical feedback – an industry first. No unreliable optical sensors are used which have been tried unsuccessfully in the past by others. *The MaxLife(TM) prototype has an operating device lifetime of 20 years when watching for 12hrs/day*, even under the most demanding TV content conditions, including subtitles and station logos. Additionally, *there is no image burn-in over this time since the MaxLife technology keeps differential aging to 3% or less, which is imperceptible to the human eye*. The MaxLife(TM) prototype was *built using an amorphous silicon backplane from PVI using their standard a-Si LCD mass production process* while the frontplane uses Kodak’s long life and low power RGBW technology that delivers a vivid and outstanding viewing experience. The combination of both the amorphous silicon backplane together with the RGBW technology provide for the first time a reliable, low cost and truly scalable architecture that can *finally push AMOLED into the mainstream class of TV sizes that consumers demand and expect.*


For portable displays, IGNIS will exhibit a high resolution 2.2” QVGA (181ppi) demo of its AdMo(TM) (Advanced Mobile) compensation platform. In extensive in-house lifetime testing, IGNIS has demonstrated device lifetimes of over 50,000hrs , making them suitable for any mobile or handheld application, such as smartphones and A/V players. In addition, AdMo(TM) displays have been proven to operate over a large temperature range, from -30C to 80C, which is suitable for automotive applications. The sophisticated compensation technology is built entirely in-pixel, meaning low-cost driver ICs are used, lending itself to a simple ‘drop-in’ display that is easily swappable into devices using legacy LCDs. The AdMoTM prototype use an amorphous silicon backplane, the standard TFT of the LCD industry that has traditionally been regarded as unusable for AMOLED displays. However, through its patented technology IGNIS is able compensate for the low mobility and instabilities of amorphous silicon, and as a result, *for no additional capital investment costs, enables the manufacture of AMOLED backplanes at existing TFT plants.*


“The growth of the AMOLED industry has been constrained due to the technological hurdles associated with achieving a truly reliable, uniform and scalable TFT backplane. With our MaxLife(TM) & AdMo(TM) platforms, this is now possible, and we expect will enable our customers, the display manufacturers, to accelerate the introduction of visually stunning and affordable AMOLED displays to the market in the very near future.” said Paul Arsenault, President and CEO of IGNIS.


“Traditional approaches to OLED compensation has been to use photodiodes, however these are both unreliable and expensive. IGNIS’ electrical feedback solution used in our MaxLife(TM) platform eliminates these problems and represents a major breakthrough. On the other hand, the sophistication of the AdMo(TM) circuit solution means that a simple driver IC can be used and this is essential for maintaining the cost saving promise of AMOLED in handhelds” added Corbin Church, Vice President. “Both demo platforms that we will be showing use an amorphous silicon backplane, which can easily scale up to Generation 10 size while enjoying high reliability and low manufacturing unit costs.”


----------



## DaveC19

Plasma in trouble!


----------



## Brimstone-1

That OLED technology is using an all white oled light source that has to go thru a color filter. It is using the Kodak RGBW technology, so the color gamut won't be high.



They haven't solved the differential aging problem if a display uses Red, Green, and Blue organic materials.


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brimstone-1* /forum/post/17432107
> 
> 
> They haven't solved the differential aging problem if a display uses Red, Green, and Blue organic materials, *yet*.



Now it's correct.










bye

Benny


----------



## rgb32

* Samsung's 30-inch 3D AMOLED TV won't make you dizzy *
*2009-10-28*


3D TV without dizziness










"Getting rid of dizziness that had 3D TV"


Samsung mobile display (ganghomun president), the world's first Full HD grade dizziness removed 30 inches AMOLED 3D (stereoscopic) TV said it had developed 27 days.


This product 'luminous' AMOLED do not need a backlight to the characteristics of a 30-inch large screen size, but the panel thickness is 2.5mm thin (超博形) 2 Ahead of the 100-won coin thin.











Samsung mobile display developed a unique patented SEAV (Simultaneous Emission with Active Voltage: simultaneous light-driven), techniques applied in 3D TV Crosstalk (Crosstalk: left and right images overlap) to eliminate symptoms completely eliminates eye fatigue and dizziness has succeeded in reducing significantly.


3D TV a real dimension of the principle of polarized glasses to try to alternate between left and right eye images will make a difference to deliver an optical illusion, cross-Sat Kranjcar 3D TV watching to the left eye and right eye images show each other seen as overlapping symptoms, dizziness dropping a given dimension in 3D TV commercial has been pointed out as one of the biggest issues.


Original TV (CRT, LCD, PDP) consisting of the pixels along the horizontal lines from top to bottom of the screen is switched sequentially driven Being polarized glasses with the left and right 3D implementation of structural variation was limited.


The response time of LCD, the LCD left and right images because the conversion rate to keep up with brilliant 3D implementation was impossible.


Full HD, but the level of 30 inches AMOLED 3D TV at the same time running a full screen if the "SEAV (simultaneous light-driven)," Technology that essentially eliminates crosstalk has implemented more vivid 3D images.


In addition, the illusion of 3D TV to take effect for a 2D TV screen brightness to remove the disadvantages which falls over, AMOLED the device (素子) the amount of current flowing through a fine screen brightness can be controlled by the structural advantages that the problem was resolved.


SS Kim, vice president of Samsung mobile display (Research Institute), the "AMOLED viewers with 3D stereoscopic images sharper than they actually enjoy the feeling of the experience will be like," said "that will lead the next generation AMOLED TV technology," he said.

*The developed world's first Full HD level 30 inches AMOLED 3D TV is coming October 28 to 30 held in Yokohama, Japan on display at the FPD International 2009 in general will be released first.*

*also found on EngadgetHD *


----------



## spyboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dingane Walker* /forum/post/17412479
> 
> 
> Oled's are going to completely massacre LCD's & Plasmas!




OLED is so NOT HAPPENING for the middle class, it is pathetic.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spyboy* /forum/post/17435409
> 
> 
> OLED is so NOT HAPPENING for the middle class, it is pathetic.



It's already happening. In cell phones, PDAs and other small screen devices. By the millions.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brimstone-1* /forum/post/17432107
> 
> 
> ....They haven't solved the differential aging problem if a display uses Red, Green, and Blue organic materials.



They don't have to get them to age at the same rate. They only need them to age at a predictable rate, and can compensate. Lifetimes seem to be adequate now. Looks like they're almost ready to start scaling up for mass production of larger sizes.


----------



## maxdog03




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/17431462
> 
> 
> Plasma in trouble!



LCD is likely in more trouble than plasma when OLED comes to market and is what it's reported to be. It will move into the small panel market first and then expand as it matures. LCD owns the small panel and computer panel market and that's likely OLED's first splash.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maxdog03* /forum/post/17437519
> 
> 
> LCD is likely in more trouble than plasma when OLED comes to market and is what it's reported to be. It will move into the small panel market first and then expand as it matures. LCD owns the small panel and computer panel market and that's likely OLED's first splash.



Absolutely. OLED will move from small sizes to big sizes. Smartphones first, then laptops, later on computer monitors... Like LCD did.


Plasma killer, if any, will be LCD, not OLED.


----------



## hoodlum

Samsung is usually a little optomistic with their future projections so you may need to add a couple of years to this.

http://www.i4u.com/article27989.html


----------



## wco81

4-5 years to reach 40-50 inch sizes or 4-5 years before 40-50 inch OLED TVs are price-competitive with LCD TVs of that size?


If the former, then they might as well not bother because how much longer to bring down prices to under $1500?


----------



## sharpbandaid

 [FPDI] AUO Ready to Roll 14-inch Full-HD OLED Panel 

Oct 30, 2009 10:26 Shinya Saeki, Nikkei Electronics



> Quote:
> AUO's 14-inch full-HD OLED panel
> 
> 
> AU Optronics Corp (AUO) of Taiwan developed a 14-inch OLED panel with a pixel count of 1,920 x 1,080 (full HD) and a resolution of 157ppi and exhibited it at FPD International 2009.
> 
> 
> "Technically, we can now start volume production of it," the company said. "If there is user demand for it, we will do that."
> 
> 
> For the driver elements of the panel, AUO employed a low-temperature polycrystal Si-TFT (LTPS). Two transistors and one capacitor (2T1C) are used for each pixel.
> 
> 
> The panel is a bottom emission type. Organic electroluminescent (EL) materials for RGB colors are applied by an evaporation method using a metal stencil mask.
> 
> 
> The maximum screen luminance with an all-white signal is 200cd/m2. The contrast ratio of the panel is 100,000:1. It is capable of displaying 16 million colors and 72% of the NTSC color gamut. It supports a drive frequency of 120Hz.


 [FPDI] LG Display Plans to Release 40-inch OLED Panel in 2012 

Oct 30, 2009 17:38 Shinya Saeki, Nikkei Electronics



> Quote:
> LG Display Co Ltd announced its roadmap for developing and releasing large-size OLED panels at FPD International 2009, which takes place from Oct 28 to 30, 2009, at Pacifico Yokohama, Yokohama City, Japan.
> 
> 
> Won Kim, LG Display's OLED sales and marketing VP, took the podium.
> 
> 
> LG Electronics Inc plans to release a 15-inch OLED TV with a panel developed by LG Display at the end of 2009. The panel has a pixel count of 1,366 x 768 and a resolution of 105ppi. Its maximum screen luminance with an all-white signal and an all-black signal are 200cd/m2 and 0.01cd/m2, respectively. The peak luminance is 450cd/m2.
> 
> 
> The panel is a bottom emission type and uses low-temperature polycrystal Si-TFTs that are crystallized by a high-temperature process (solid phase crystallization or SPC) as driver elements. Those specifications were announced at IMID 2009, a trade show that took place in October 2009 in Korea.
> 
> 
> After the 15-inch panel, LG Display plans to release 20-inch and larger OLED panels in 2010, 30-inch and larger panels in 2011 and 40-inch and larger panels in 2012.
> 
> 
> "Forty-inch and larger OLED panels will be fairly expensive in 2012, but they will be available in the market," Kim said.
> 
> 
> 'OLED panels will cost less than LCD panels in 2016'
> 
> 
> In regard to technical challenges to stably supplying large-size OLED panels at low cost, Kim mentioned (1) driver elements (TFTs), (2) organic EL materials and film forming processes and (3) sealing processes.
> 
> 
> Driver element
> 
> 
> As for driver elements, LG Display will probably employ a TFT based on a low-temperature polycrystal silicon (and SPC method) or an oxide semiconductor such as IGZO (In-Ga-Zn-O), he said. However, he also said that TFTs based on those materials have some problems.
> 
> 
> "We will be able to use a low-temperature polycrystal silicon with the sixth-generation size glass substrate," Kim said. "However, for 40-inch and larger panels, we have to use the eighth-generation size glass substrate. Therefore, we have to develop equipment that can deal with an SPC process at a temperature of more than 700°C."
> 
> 
> As for oxide semiconductor, he said that it is one of the candidate materials to be used for large panels. But it has low reproducibility because of variation among lots, he said.
> 
> 
> Organic EL material / Sealing process
> 
> 
> LG Display plans to use fluorescent materials until 2011 and phosphorescent materials thereafter. Also, as film forming processes, the company is considering using printing technologies, starting from an evaporation method with a metal stencil mask.
> 
> 
> "In regard to sealing process, we believe that solid sealing is desirable for TV panels," Kim said.
> 
> 
> With those measures, LG Display aims to achieve a 50% higher material cost and a 30% lower yield than those of LCD panels in 2012 and a 20-30% lower material cost and an equivalent yield in 2016.
> 
> 
> At the exhibition site, the company exhibited the 15-inch OLED display, which was unveiled at IMID 2009, for the first time in Japan.


----------



## mtbdudex

My family room Feb-2005 Sony 42" 720p better hold up until 2016 (11 years old then....).

I'm tired of being frontline and paying for all the upfront R&D/D&D that is amortized on the early units. Been there, done it too many times.


btw, the pict on that is still sweet 5 years later......no problems.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharpbandaid* /forum/post/17445045
> 
> [FPDI] AUO Ready to Roll 14-inch Full-HD OLED Panel
> 
> Oct 30, 2009 10:26 Shinya Saeki, Nikkei Electronics





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharpbandaid* /forum/post/17445045
> 
> [FPDI] LG Display Plans to Release 40-inch OLED Panel in 2012
> 
> Oct 30, 2009 17:38 Shinya Saeki, Nikkei Electronics



I'm excited to see and possibly purchase either the 15" or 20" LG OLED next year! Progress is being made... just takes a while.


The biggest bit of info I found interesting was that LG seems to think that OLED TVs will reach the same price points of LCDs in 6 years. I would imagine in that time the price of LCD HDTVs would continue to drop (depending upon inflation). Fun stuff!


----------



## hoodlum




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/17444271
> 
> 
> 4-5 years to reach 40-50 inch sizes or 4-5 years before 40-50 inch OLED TVs are price-competitive with LCD TVs of that size?
> 
> 
> If the former, then they might as well not bother because how much longer to bring down prices to under $1500?



The challenge for OLED is that LCD/Plasma keep getting better and cheaper. In 4-5 years, today's $1500 TV will be well under $1000 with many improvements.


----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/17446141
> 
> 
> I
> 
> The biggest bit of info I found interesting was that LG seems to think that OLED TVs will reach the same price points of LCDs in 6 years. I would imagine in that time the price of LCD HDTVs would continue to drop (depending upon inflation). Fun stuff!



LG make LCD TVs, so they would be aware of what LC prices they are expecting in 6 years. Once the OLEDs get past the development problems, they should be cheaper to produce than the same size LCD.


----------



## sharpbandaid

Sony & Samsung have been pretty quiet about real TV products. Maybe they are saving big guns for CES? Something between 24-30" would be more than enough for desktop usage.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lizaofei* /forum/post/17460381
> 
> 
> CMEL OLED Supplier:neowindows.com. good goods for your money.



Oooh... looks like they make a 4.3" OLED display with a resolution of 480x272... perhaps this item could be used to replace the LCD found in the PSP X000 series! Or perhaps Sony will release a PSP with this OLED screen... the PSP-4000 series! Whoa!



















Name043WALC-T
Category:NWS008 


Hmm... doesn't look like a drop in replacment though...


----------



## pcdo

I'm hoping they're going to make some nice OLED digital picture frames. I bought an LCD digital picture frame a few years ago and really didn't look all that great.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/17461240
> 
> 
> Oooh... looks like they make a 4.3" OLED display with a resolution of 480x272... perhaps this item could be used to replace the LCD found in the PSP X000 series! Or perhaps Sony will release a PSP with this OLED screen... the PSP-4000 series! Whoa!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name043WALC-T
> Category:NWS008
> 
> 
> Hmm... doesn't look like a drop in replacment though...



That would be cool. If Sony did this I would upgrade instantly.


For now I have the GP2X Wiz that has an OLED screen. It is only good for old PC ports (Doom, Quake) and emulators (SNES, Genesis, NeoGeo etc) and not any newer games but is still good to get your OLED gaming fix.


----------



## ewitte

Already have one device with OLED screen. The picture is awesome. I can not wait for these things to become mainstream.


----------



## Rick46

Don't know if this has been posted.

http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2009/05...ch-tv-by-2010/


----------



## integra1972

OLED is not going to be main stream for many years 2016 if we are lucky. I can't imagine replacing my 50 or 58 plasma with OLED until then or later. I just don't see the cost coming down to what the average consumer is willing to pay until then or some time after. The first plasma I seen was a Marantz 42in way back in 98 and is was 15K. And I just bought my first plasma in 2008. I really don't see OLED doing much until 2016. We are all spoiled with are 50+ tv's and when OLED gets down to 2K for 50+ then maybe people will start buying and replacing their current lcd's and plasmas.


----------



## 8:13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rick46* /forum/post/17490789
> 
> 
> Don't know if this has been posted.
> 
> http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2009/05...ch-tv-by-2010/



3D oled tv from Panasonic, 40"? Wow...I wonder what that would look like.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8:13* /forum/post/17491618
> 
> 
> 3D oled tv from Panasonic, 40"? Wow...I wonder what that would look like.



Holy crap, they're already planning a huge size OLED set by next year??? Wow that's fast.


Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see if they can deliver (but I hope they do).


Speaking of which, has anyone heard of the news regarding a proposal for a 40 inch OLED TV that only consumes 40 watts (@ 1 watt per inch)???


Does anyone remember the news article on that?


----------



## powertoold




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *integra1972* /forum/post/17491170
> 
> 
> OLED is not going to be main stream for many years 2016 if we are lucky. I can't imagine replacing my 50 or 58 plasma with OLED until then or later. I just don't see the cost coming down to what the average consumer is willing to pay until then or some time after. The first plasma I seen was a Marantz 42in way back in 98 and is was 15K. And I just bought my first plasma in 2008. I really don't see OLED doing much until 2016. We are all spoiled with are 50+ tv's and when OLED gets down to 2K for 50+ then maybe people will start buying and replacing their current lcd's and plasmas.



Technology growth isn't always linear. When flat panel TVs first came out, they had more problems to tackle than they do now. Now, we just need to overcome a few hurdles, and the plants that are required to make OLEDs are already in place.


----------



## integra1972

powertoold, I wish they would give us some idea what the starting price was going to be on the 40in OLED coming out. I'm debating buying a new plasma 63 sammy or 65 panny for my bedroom. If I thought OLED would hit 2-3K in the next 3 years for 50+ I would just buy a entry level sammy/panny Plasma or a LG 55LH90 to get my by until then.


----------



## 8:13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *integra1972* /forum/post/17499516
> 
> 
> powertoold, I wish they would give us some idea what the starting price was going to be on the 40in OLED coming out.



That would be nice.


----------



## rgb32

 LG Display debut the 15 inch OLED-Tv in Korea this week for $2,500 USD 
*11/09/2009*











LG Display roll out the 15-inch OLED-Television device this week in Korea. This 15-inch panel is the largest commercial available OLED Display.

LG Display sell the 15-inch Panel in South Korea for 3 million won per unit that are about 2,500- Dollar.


LG electronics plans also like Samsung mobile display to build a new fabrication line. The 5.5 generation line can be installed in Paju in the first half of 2011.


They can roll out 40,000 sheets per months.

LG Display will invest more in organic displays. But the timing is dependent on how the market finds an uprising momentum," an LG Display spokesman said. LG Display is currently led by CEO Kwon Young-soo.


Source: Korea Times


----------



## integra1972

wow! that's not a good sign for us 50+ crowed I cant see it reaching decent price until 2016. I think I will go ahead and buy a nice panny 65v10 since I cant see OLED Coming into is own until 4+ years if we are lucky.


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *integra1972* /forum/post/17502442
> 
> 
> wow! that's not a good sign for us 50+ crowed I cant see it reaching decent price until 2016. I think I will go ahead and buy a nice panny 65v10 since I cant see OLED Coming into is own until 4+ years if we are lucky.




Confucius says:
_The bigger you buy now the longer you'll have to wait for OLED as you won't step down in size._


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *integra1972* /forum/post/17502442
> 
> 
> wow! that's not a good sign for us 50+ crowed I cant see it reaching decent price until 2016. I think I will go ahead and buy a nice panny 65v10 since I cant see OLED Coming into is own until 4+ years if we are lucky.



The premise of your post is quite naive! Were you actually expecting to hold out for a year or two and purchase a 50+" OLED HDTV for a relatively reasonable price?







I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're being sarcastic.










We're within a year or so of decent sized computer monitors... getting closer!


The "crowed"... off went a pack of crows...


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Benny42* /forum/post/17503388
> 
> 
> Confucius says:
> _The bigger you buy now the longer you'll have to wait for OLED as you won't step down in size._



Lotta truth in that.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Benny42* /forum/post/17503388
> 
> 
> Confucius says:
> _The bigger you buy now the longer you'll have to wait for OLED as you won't step down in size._



LOL... Good one Benny!


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/17501743
> 
> LG Display debut the 15 inch OLED-Tv in Korea this week for $2,500 USD
> *11/09/2009*
> 
> 
> LG Display roll out the 15-inch OLED-Television device this week in Korea. This 15-inch panel is the largest commercial available OLED Display.
> 
> LG Display sell the 15-inch Panel in South Korea for 3 million won per unit that are about 2,500- Dollar.
> 
> 
> LG electronics plans also like Samsung mobile display to build a new fabrication line. The 5.5 generation line can be installed in Paju in the first half of 2011.
> 
> 
> They can roll out 40,000 sheets per months.
> 
> LG Display will invest more in organic displays. But the timing is dependent on how the market finds an uprising momentum," an LG Display spokesman said. LG Display is currently led by CEO Kwon Young-soo.
> 
> 
> Source: Korea Times





15" ?


That is small even for laptop screens these days. Still better than the Sony, higher resolution slightly bigger and the same price.


I wonder if it has a VGA input?


----------



## sharpbandaid

13-15" is perfectly fine for a portable laptop, or are you talking about those silly desktop replacement monsters? The LG OLED doesn't have VGA input.


----------



## rgb32

Looks like Sony might be releasing new OLED TVs under the KDL-ZX Series name.... unless this image is a hoax... or the proposal falls through


----------



## integra1972

If OLED is that much better than our current LED and Plasma will it show us how crappy our video sources truly are from our sat/cable and could it make blue ray look worse than it currently does on todays t.v's. Kinda like back in the day when I bought my first big screen and it showed how crappy everything was by showing every flaw in the video source (crap in crap out).


----------



## wco81

Well if Blu Ray looked worse, it would still be better than anything else out there or the digital streaming/downloads which are suppose to take over.


So they shouldn't try to improve display tech. because video sources are going to be more constricted (like digital audio has become)?


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *integra1972* /forum/post/17513467
> 
> 
> If OLED is that much better than our current LED and Plasma will it show us how crappy our video sources truly are from our sat/cable and could it make blue ray look worse than it currently does on todays t.v's. Kinda like back in the day when I bought my first big screen and it showed how crappy everything was by showing every flaw in the video source (crap in crap out).



Well... Like I've stated before, watch a Sony XEL-1 for at least 5 minutes. For a 2 year old product, I'm still stunned by its incredible picture quality, regardless of source material. I think the analogy of SD RPTVs is a bit of a stretch, as OLED displays won't out grow modern source content (HDTV broadcasts, Blu-ray, HD gaming, ect) in terms of visible screen size for quite some time.


The XEL-1 has incredible contrast, perfect black level, rich color, and silky smooth motion without the use of frame interpolation (like a non-interlaced CRT). Hence, OLED displays allow the user to see sources in a *better light* (pun intended), and are not analogous to old RPTVs...


----------



## integra1972

wco81 and rgb32, I agree with you, i'm sure it will look good with blue-ray and HD. I suppose I was just thinking how directv and Dish network and most cable companies are compressing most video they have now just to get by. I'm worried that most the SD material will not look good on a OLED. If I watch SD material/dvd I prefer to go back to my old 55 rptv, I think it pulls it off better than my Plasma. I bought my first HDTV in 1999 and it was horrible, HD material was very limited to few shows a week. It took 2-3 years to feel like it was worth while owning a hdtv. wco81, I'm not saying they shouldn't improve display tech, I just think most HD out there is crap HD to be honest it looks ok at best. Excluding blue ray most hd is not that good, one of the few channels that looks good most of the time is Food Network. I don't know what they do but most of the material they have looks excellent to very good. When the other channels look good like they do on a daily basis then I feel OLED would be worth it.


----------



## (W)KRP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *integra1972* /forum/post/17516612
> 
> 
> one of the few channels that looks good most of the time is Food Network. I don't know what they do but most of the material they have looks excellent to very good.



The food is not moving very fast by the time it gets to the Food Network. Lack of motion artifacts and subchannels broadcasting local weather, etc.


----------



## navychop

Food Network stretches - *A LOT*.


----------



## integra1972

my point about Food Network was strictly with the colors and how well most of their new footage they shoot looks very accurate and detailed. It shows off how well todays technology can look. A lot of other HD channels look washed out and just plain suck. My point with OLED is it will show every flaw in the video source much more than PLASMA AND LED/LCD but it will also show off how well it can be when it has a good video source to bad most video sources are not that good.


----------



## ewitte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *(W)KRP* /forum/post/17519494
> 
> 
> The food is not moving very fast by the time it gets to the Food Network.



lol


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *integra1972* /forum/post/17533214
> 
> 
> my point about Food Network was strictly with the colors and how well most of their new footage they shoot looks very accurate and detailed. It shows off how well todays technology can look. A lot of other HD channels look washed out and just plain suck. My point with OLED is it will show every flaw in the video source much more than PLASMA AND LED/LCD but it will also show off how well it can be when it has a good video source to bad most video sources are not that good.



Don't know Food Network since I'm from Spain. Nevertheless, the big difference in PQ is always the type of content that is being broadcasted. A news broadcast looks way better than a soccer match, or an action movie since it's using the same bitrate to encode just the face of a guy speaking.


----------



## remush

Some new info on Sony's OLED panels and CES

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And...ED_TV/M8S5Q6T9


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush* /forum/post/17552772
> 
> 
> Some new info on Sony's OLED panels and CES
> 
> http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And...ED_TV/M8S5Q6T9



Looks interesting. If Sony will release a 27" 1080p OLED HDTV, it would make an awesome computer monitor!


Perhaps the two models (per the article) to be shown at CES 2010 will be the 21" and the 27". I'm thinking that the 27" will retail for atleast $4,000.... gulp...


----------



## borf

for those knowing market trends,


will the debut and increased revenue of these first oled TVs exponentiate oled's time to market.

in development for 20-30 years, as they say but how is future growth predicted at this point.


----------



## Isochroma

 *LG Display and Samsung Mobile show transparent OLEDs* 
*28 October 2009*













The actual benefits of transparent displays are yet to be explained - beyond the sheer cool factor, of course - but that isn't stopping manufacturers from announcing them. Both LG Display and Samsung Mobile Display have been flaunting their respective transparent OLEDs, the former having a full 15-inch OLED panel ideal for notebooks, while the latter has a 2-inch OLED panel intended for cellphones.













Each replaces what would usually be the black portion of the display with transparency instead. Where OLED displays usually emit light either from the positive or negative electrodes - e.g. viewable from a single side - these new panels emit light from both electrodes simultaneously, and are encapsulated in a transparent sheath.


Transmittance for both is 30-percent; it's unclear what resolution the LG Display OLED is running at, but the Samsung Mobile Display OLED offers 176 x 220 with 144ppi. No word from either company as to when we might see commercial releases of the transparent OLEDs.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*AUO 14-inch OLED production imminent; LG Display 40-inch AMOLED in 2012* 
*30 October 2009*













Could we soon be looking at large(ish) scale, reasonably priced OLED and AMOLED displays? Probably not, at least when it comes to the pricing part, but both LG Display and AUO have announced mass production plans for their OLED and AMOLED panels, LG expecting to kick-start production in 2011 while AUO claims to be ready to start now .


The AUO plant will be pumping out 14-inch OLED displays, running at Full HD resolution and 157ppi density. Each display boasts a 100,000:1 contrast ratio and 200cd/m2 brightness, and is capable of 16m colors. They cover 72-percent of the NTSC color gamut and run at 120Hz. No news on whether AUO are positioning the OLEDs for TV or laptop use, but we'd quite like to whip out an OLED ultraportable in our local Starbucks.


As for LG Display, they're planning to begin AMOLED mass production at their new 5G plant in the second half of 2011. The company will produce 30-inch and above displays in 2011, before shifting to 40-inch AMOLED production in 2012 .


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Sony's 2010/2011 OLED and flagship XBR series LCD roadmap leaked?* 
*13 November 2009*













Ready to dig deep, really deep, for a tiny but magnificent OLED television? You'd better be 'cause some purportedly leaked Sony documents are showing a new "KDL-ZX Series OLED" on the 2010 / 2011 roadmap. All the sets are listed as prototypes so they may or may not make it to market for retail. But with Sony's two year old, 11-inch XEL-1 OLED TV now dwarfed by LG's new 15-inch OLED TV and a 20-incher promised for 2010, well, we expect Sony will want to regain its leadership in the new year. The docs also show updates to Sony's flagship XBR series with the XBR11 LED W-backlit LCD and XBR12 Advanced LED RGB-backlit LCD sets coming in sizes from 32- to 60-inches featuring 240Hz Motionflow, a new Bravia Engine 3 PRO with HD Video processor, and UV2A panel technology. Unfortunately, some of the XBR information (the most important, presumably) is blacked-out and we're only looking at 2 of what appear to be 24 pages of leaked content. Boy would we love to peak behind that curtain. XBR11 spec sheet on display after the break.























Source: hdtvlounge.net 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*New Cost-efficient production process for OLEDs with micro-scale conductor paths* 
*17 November, 2009*













In cooperation with Philips, the Fraunhofer Institute for Laser Technology ILT is developing an innovative, cost-efficient process for applying conductor paths to OLEDs.


Organic light-emitting diodes are highly efficient light sources based on organic materials. They achieve high luminous intensity while consuming little energy. OLEDs consist of one or several active organic layers which are energized by two large-area electrodes. The initiated current flow leads to electron-hole recombinations in the organic layer. This produces photons which radiate into the half-space through the conductive, transparent anode - consisting of indium tin oxide (ITO) or similar materials. To distribute the electrical energy evenly over the entire surface of the OLEDs, metallic conductor paths are applied to the ITO layer. The size of the conductor paths plays an important role here: if they are too wide the paths can affect the luminous homogeneity of the light source. In addition to reducing manufacturing costs for OLEDs, the lighting industry is also very keen to produce tiny geometries. A process is required with which narrow metallic conductor paths can be produced efficiently, resulting in savings of energy and resources.


The Fraunhofer ILT is now developing a laser technique to apply micro-scale conductor paths for the industrial partner Philips. A mask foil is placed on the surface of the conductor which represents the negative to the conductor path geometry later required. This is then covered by a donor foil whose material will constitute the conductor path, for example aluminum or copper. The assembly is fixed in place and hit with laser radiation traveling at a speed of up to 2.5 m/s along the mask geometry. A mixture of melt drops and vapor forms, which is transferred from the donor foil to the substrate. The solidified mixture produces the conductor path, whose geometry is determined by the mask. As the process takes place in the ambient atmosphere an expensive process chamber is not required. There is no material loss because the residual material of the donor foil can be re-used.













This enables us to produce narrow metallic paths with adjustable widths between 40 and 100 µm. They exhibit variable thicknesses between 3 and 15 µm and a resistance of 

Conductor paths are used wherever electrical energy needs to be conducted over non-conductive surfaces made of glass, silicon or other materials. Further applications derive from the innovative process, including heated windows in cars and other vehicles as well the production of semiconductors for use in solar cells. Considerable demand exists in these sectors for micro-scale conductor paths because wide conductor paths restrict vision in motor vehicles and cause shading which reduces the efficiency of photovoltaic systems.


----------



## Daviii




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/17560772
> 
> 
> The actual benefits of transparent displays are yet to be explained - beyond the sheer cool factor, of course - but that isn't stopping manufacturers from announcing them. Both LG Display and Samsung Mobile Display have been flaunting their respective transparent OLEDs, the former having a full 15-inch OLED panel ideal for notebooks, while the latter has a 2-inch OLED panel intended for cellphones.



C'mon. It's pretty obvious that you can put a transparent OLED layer over a eInk display to get the ultimate handheld device.


If it is not THAT obvious let me check out the patent office because I'm gonna be rich


----------



## gvera




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daviii* /forum/post/17562733
> 
> 
> C'mon. It's pretty obvious that you can put a transparent OLED layer over a eInk display to get the ultimate handheld device.
> 
> 
> If it is not THAT obvious let me check out the patent office because I'm gonna be rich



What about a contact lens display? contact-lenses-to-get-builtin-virtual-graphics


----------



## jond14

 Sony KDL-ZX 27 inch OLED TV to be released at CES 2010


If this is true then this will be the biggest OLED display that'll be available in the market. I'm sure it'll come with an extremely expensive price tag. I read in CNET that OLED TVs will be affordable in 2010. I hope this is true, my plasma is starting to give up on me.


----------



## letMeIn

OLED is much better than current LCD and Plasma when it comes to colors. Resolution is still the same, so I don't understand why it would make Bluray or Cable Tv image worse ?


When HDTVs first came out, especially in large sizes, they made everything nonHD look bad because of the Resolution differences.


Bluray will look fantastic on OLED, and Cable and Sat will still be compressed Crap.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *integra1972* /forum/post/17513467
> 
> 
> If OLED is that much better than our current LED and Plasma will it show us how crappy our video sources truly are from our sat/cable and could it make blue ray look worse than it currently does on todays t.v's. Kinda like back in the day when I bought my first big screen and it showed how crappy everything was by showing every flaw in the video source (crap in crap out).


----------



## Isochroma

 *Are OLED-TVs on Track?* 
*10 Novembr 2009*


Question: When is a 15-inch diagonal size considered a legitimate TV? Simple, when you add the four letters O L E D in front. In fact, Sony has done this for a couple of years now with its 11-inch XEL-1 "OLED-TV" and, at 3mm, it is considered the world’s "thinnest" TV in production. It is also the most expensive consumer TV (OK under 85-inches) on a per-inch basis, with a selling price of $2,499 or $227/inch.)


Back in January at CES, LG showed its version of the mini-giant in a 15-inch package and gained the distinction to be the first native HD OLED-TV with a resolution of 1366 x 768 (the Sony is only 960 x 540 pixels.) Now LG is making good on their promise of delivering the 15-inch display in 2009 by announcing it is shipping (in Korea only) and claiming the world’s thinnest TV in production title with a new 1.7mm thin display-cutting the old record almost in half. That thickness level has grown from the 0.8mm prototype 15-inch panel shown at CES, by the way. Other specs on this display technology for the next decade include 100K:1 contrast and a 3M Korean Won ($2580) price tag that lets Sony keep the highest price per inch crown in the consumer category. (Truth be told, Panny actually holds the title with its $53K 103-inch behemoth that originally sold for $70K, a whopping $680/inch.)


At CES we learned the LG prototype panel was driven at 120Hz, and while watching an LG engineer make some adjustments, we noticed some signal noise that suggested the panel was being driven by two sets of vertical drivers (left and right). LG said the plan at the time was to manufacture the panels in mass production at Fab line 1 in Gumi, Korea. The engineer (wanting to go unnamed at the show) told us they would be in production "for sure" by the second half of 2009 and it looks like he was spot-on with that prediction.


In fact, OLED manufacturing is gaining traction in Korea, even while some Japanese manufacturers are dropping out. OLED-info.com recently reported that Samsung is mulling a Gen 5.5 OLED production line capable of delivering 1320mm x 1500mm (about 52- x 60-inch) substrates, which can be used to efficiently produce 30-inch OLED-TVs. This would require a total investment of $1.3B from the Samsung Mobile Display - the group who popularized small and medium sized OLED panels in digital cameras, cell phones and other mobile devices.


There was also a report that "several Korean firms" including Samsung, LG and "others" signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to develop OLED manufacturing equipment to produce large-sized AMOLED panels. The group is looking to usurp Japan as the major supplier of the tools to manufacture the next generation OLED panels-particularly targeting domestic Korea production. The news came on top of a May-09 agreement between Samsung and LG to develop such equipment, as reported by Chosun Ilbo.


But one Japan manufacturer, Kyocera, is moving the other way. The company recently reported closing down their OLED subsidiary that was working with UDC to manufacturer PHOLED panels for cell phones and other smaller mobile devices.


Perhaps above all, the news suggests that the move to large OLED displays is proving far more complex and investment heavy than previously thought. LCDs are a moving target in both price and display performance (plus the cool thinness factor), so OLEDs are continually challenged to deliver an ever growing set of parameters that are higher, better, and yes-cheaper than the status quo, even before mass production begins.


Is the technology (or rather the concentrated human thought) up to the challenge? Our best guess-yes, as long as the money holds out. Put another way-as long as belief in OLED meeting the challenge and delivering the goods holds out by those stakeholders who are leading the charge. You can’t help but cheer them on-for the world loves an underdog. - Steve Sechrist


----------



## robortwillys

I'm no expert, but please don't take Cambridge Display Tech's announcements too seriously. Their intellectual property portfolio is far inferior to Universal Display Corporation, plus they have a tendency to lean towards hype and hyperbole in their press releases and corporate presentations. The lifetimes of blue emitters remains the most significant obstacle preventing the widespread mass manufacture of OLEDs, be they small molecule or polymeric. Hopefully, a usable blue phosophorescent material [aka a blue phosphorescent material with good enough color coordinates] will be discovered within the next 1-2 years, but it's impossible to predict these things.


disclosure: i have invested in Universal Display Corporation.


----------



## wco81

More and more you get the sense that LCD and plasma will survive all challengers, including OLED.


They've knocked out all the previous contenders -- LCOS, SED, DLP, etc.


----------



## navychop

Nah. Just a matter of developing the technology. No show stoppers.


----------



## wco81

You can engineer anything. The problem isn't the technology or the lack of some breakthrough.


It's whether it can be produced at cost/price competitive levels to compete with the entrenched products.


Mass market won't pay a premium for quality. As MP3 shows, people will settle for "good enough" and affordable over quality.


OLED like many other techs. theoretically can be produced very cheaply. But it's been in development for how long now?


----------



## Artwood

OLED will be rinky dink size forever!


OLED is anti-HOME THEATER!


----------



## 8:13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/17707058
> 
> 
> OLED will be rinky dink size forever!
> 
> 
> OLED is anti-HOME THEATER!



Good point: By 2016 there still won't be 40"-50" oled for sub $2000.00.


----------



## Isochroma

 *LG Display’s AMOLED Panel Development Trend* 
*11 November 2009*










*LG Display’s 15-inch AMOLED TV & its specification*



LG Display showcased various AMOLED panels at the IMID 2009 and the FPD International 2009, expressing its clear intention to engage in AMOLED business.


Its most eye-catching panel was a 15-inch AMOLED panel which will be used in LG Electronics’ TV products later this year. LG Display emphasized that the TV equipped with its 15-inch AMOLED display is the largest-ever AMOLED TV introduced so far and is the first to be released since Sony’s 11-inch AMOLED TV.










*LG Display’s 15-inch RGBW AMOLED panel & its specification*



The company also exhibited a 15-inch RGBW AMOLED panel. In the existing R,G,B vapor deposition method for AMOLED, each of R, G, B is manufactured separately, allowing the optimization of color display and efficiency. However, the method has the disadvantage of using shadow mask for realizing R, G, B pixels, making it difficult to achieve high resolution and to be applicable to large-area panels. To solve these problems, the RGBW method using white light was used. The method does not require shadow mask so that a large-area OLED can be formed without the sagging of a mask plate of the shadow mask.


At FPD International 2009, LG Display showcased a 20.7-inch medical AMOLED panel for the first time. The panel features QSVGA (2560 x 2048) 5M pixel resolution and a contrast ratio of higher than 100,000:1, proving that it satisfied high resolution and high contrast ratio criteria required for medical display.










*LG Display’s 15-inch transparent AMOLED (left) and 20.7-inch medical AMOLED (right)*



At the event, LG Display also displayed a 15-inch transparent AMOLED panel for the first time. According to the company, it is the first time that a transparent AMOLED panel with such a big size is exhibited although a number of small-size ones have been developed and displayed before. The panel has a 30 percent transparency and used the paste seal technology for encapsulation.










*LG Display’s 4.3-inch flexible AMOLED & its specification*



As for small-sized panels, the firm displayed a 4.3-inch flexible AMOLED panel, a 4.3-inch AMOLED panel for mobile phones using image improvement technology, and a 2.7-inch AMOLED display for delta-structure digital cameras. LG Display reportedly plans to mass produce 4.3-inch and 2.7-inch AMOLED panels in the first half of next year.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED at IWFPE 2009* 
*25 November 2009*










*Scenes of keynote speech delivery (left) and exhibition booths

(right) at IWFPE 2009*



The International Workshop on Flexible & Printable Electronics (IWFPE) 2009 was held on November 18-19 at Muju Resort in North Jeolla Province, Korea. The event was hosted by the Korean Ministry of Knowledge Economy and attended by some 500 business leaders and industry figures.


In the keynote speech titled 'Printable Displays with Two faces,’ Jun-hyung Seok, managing director of Samsung Electronics, talked about the upsides and downsides of printable display, based on the experience Samsung accumulated for several years in its printing process application efforts.


The international workshop consisted of 63 invited talk sessions and 66 poster presentations encompassing areas of printable/flexible electronics, solar cell, organic TFT, e-paper, lighting, and thin film battery. Also, 10 companies, such as LG Display and Unijet, showcased e-paper, flexible AMOLED panels, and inkjet equipment at their exhibition booths.










*Frounhofer IPMS’s roll-to-roll coater for metal strip*



In the area of OLED, professor Kim Jang-ju from Seoul National University and professor Park Jong-uk from Catholic University of Korea gave presentations on soluble materials for printing, and Frounhofer IPMS introduced roll-to-roll process and equipment. IAPP which is in cooperation with Novaled talked about improvement of white device efficiency, and Dr. Jeong-ik Lee from ETRI spoke about development of transparent white OLED devices.


Frounhofer IPMS announced a plan to set up roll-to-roll equipment for 30cm-wide metal foil substrate within the fourth quarter of this year. The equipment is top-down linear source (9ea organic, 2ea metal) and allows films to be formed continuously. However, Frounhofer IPMS does not have encapsulation equipment yet, and thus, the substrates after the film formation process have to be transferred in inert atmosphere shuttle for encapsulation process. It is assumed that Frounhofer IPMS has not yet figured out what is the best encapsulation structure.


ETRI talked about transparent white OLED device structure. It introduced the results of its research that achieved more than 20lm/W efficiency in the hybrid structure of fluorescent blue and phosphorescent green and red, by inserting an interlayer or optimizing device structure, such as electrode structure.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*LG buys Kodak's OLED unit* 
*6 December 2009*


Kodak announced today that they have sold all their OLED related assets to a group of LG companies. Kodak will still have access to the technology to use in its own product.


Kodak is doing this to strengthen their financial situation. They also recognize that in order to realize the full value of the OLED business, it needs a significant investment.


This is a sad day for Kodak I think - they have invented OLEDs in 1970 and have been working on the technology for 40 years now (!). It'll be interesting to see what LG will do with Kodak's IP (which is mostly about Fluorescent OLEDs and manufacturing equipment). In any case, LG is showing that they are truly committed to OLEDs.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Sumitomo and Idemitsu Kotsan say that 2012 will be the year when OLED finally takes off* 
*11 December 2009*


In an interesting article by the Financial Times , both Idemitsu Kotsan and Sumitomo executives estimate that "2012 will be the year when OLEDs hits the big times".


Idemitsu Kotsan also says that they are working on a new way to 'spray' small-molecule OLED materials. The new method should be ready by 2015. Spraying OLEDs (instead of using vapor-deposition) will mean less material loss, and thus cheaper displays. It will also make it easier to fabricate large panels.


Sumitomo is focusing on blue lifetime, and say that they will reach 50,000-60,000 hours by March 2010.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/17700787
> 
> 
> More and more you get the sense that LCD and plasma will survive all challengers, including OLED.
> 
> 
> They've knocked out all the previous contenders -- LCOS, SED, DLP, etc.



Probably but LCD still sucks, even with all of the gimmicks such as local dimming etc.


I own a Bravia XBR LCD and the black levels, viewing angle and un-even brightness across the set make for a sub-par picture. I have never seen an LCd set that looks tht great. And plasma has it's own set of problems and the black levels on those aren't perfect either.


I also own a couple of OLED products (Zune HD, GP2X Wiz) and the PQ on those is great. Too bad they can't get the costs down. For me having only the choice between plasma and LCD is a choice of bad and worse.


----------



## Isochroma

 *LG's 15-inch Transparent AMOLED Display Concept* 
*20 October 2009*













The FPD (Flat Display Panel) show has kicked off over in Japan, so expect to see some cool display concepts this morning. First up: this transparent number, plus a few other AMOLED concepts in the video after the jump.


Akihabara News' video below also shows LG's 47-inch LED backlit TV concept, and a mulit-touch notebook display. No real information is given, but it looks like they're all AMOLED-based. [ Akihabara News ]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Samsung OLED-TV can compete against LCD in 2013-2014* 
*29 October 2009*













At FPD International in Japan the vice president Kim from Samsung spoke about the future of OLED-Television. Kim thinks that OLED panels in the size from 40 to 50 inch can compete against LCD technology in 4 to 5 years.













Samsung mobile display produce AMOLED in the 4th generation production line. The next step is to enter the Netbook and Notebook market with OLED Displays.


The production lines does have a manufacturing quality of 90 percent, and the life times from the new AMOLED displays are about 50,000 hours.

Source


----------



## Brimstone-1

It is very possible that Quantum Dot displays will beat OLED. Who really knows?


----------



## comedygirl24

Great thread, any updates on dates?


----------



## j3ff86




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/17707058
> 
> 
> OLED will be rinky dink size forever!
> 
> 
> OLED is anti-HOME THEATER!



I'm starting to think that for affordable OLED's. 2009 we have the 3.3" OLED screens (cowon s9, zune hd), 2010 we'll see 4.5", and so on.


----------



## navychop

Shame Kodak had to sell. At least they kept rights for their own products. Looks like OLED will be all offshore.


----------



## david437

I dont think OLED will be an Plasma Killer in the near future...

Plasma will be capable of producing 0 cd/m² blacks. Brightness and Motion issues will be improved.

Panasonic has shown a 8,8 mm Prototyp with infinitv black (zero Illuminance), decreased power consumption and of course 3D, which panasonic is willing to bring forward to mainstream.

I dont need OLED when Plasma is nearly perfect... There wont be big diffrence in picture quality. Plasma only needs the last finish.

Not OLED is the next big think in picture quality, rather 3D...


ps: sry for my bad english^^


----------



## powertoold

The phosphor trails on plasmas still bug me, so OLED is my last resort.


Even if you can't see the phosphor trails, motion pictures don't look as they should. They have a certain cast / tint that degrades the quality.


----------



## navychop

I suspect OLED will be better for daytime viewing than plasma.


----------



## gedalneil




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *david437* /forum/post/17784656
> 
> 
> I dont think OLED will be an Plasma Killer in the near future...
> 
> Plasma will be capable of producing 0 cd/m² blacks. Brightness and Motion issues will be improved.
> 
> Panasonic has shown a 8,8 mm Prototyp with infinitv black (zero Illuminance), decreased power consumption and of course 3D, which panasonic is willing to bring forward to mainstream.
> 
> I dont need OLED when Plasma is nearly perfect... There wont be big diffrence in picture quality. Plasma only needs the last finish.
> 
> Not OLED is the next big think in picture quality, rather 3D...
> 
> 
> ps: sry for my bad english^^



Yes, but specs do not win, production plants do. I am a plasma loyalist and never want see them go , but they will. LCD's, then laser and OLED. Sorry.


----------



## navychop

Can only make those glass tubes so tiny.


----------



## Isochroma

 *LG Targets Cheap OLED TVs By 2016* 
*30 October 2009*










*LG 15" OLED Prototype*


Yokohama City, Japan. - LG Display is using the FPD International 2009 show here this week to reveal plans for marketing its first organic light emitting diode (OLED) TVs, according to a Nikkei report.


First on tap is a 15-inch OLED TV with an LG developed panel slated for market introduction by the end of 2009, the report said. Possible U.S. introduction panels were not mentioned.


Panel resolution was listed as 1,366-by-768.


Maximum screen luminance with an all-white signal and an all-black signal are 200cd/m2 and 0.01cd/m2, respectively, according to Nikkei. Peak luminance was said to be 450cd/m2.


The report said the panel was first unveiled last month in Korea and features "a bottom emission design using low-temperature polycrystal Si-TFTs that are crystallized by a high-temperature process (solid phase crystallization or SPC) as driver elements."


Next year, LG said it is planning to introduce 20-inch and larger OLED panels, moving to 30-inch and larger panels in 2011 and 40-inch and larger panels in 2012.


The 40-inch and larger models will be "fairly expensive" in 2012 a company representative reportedly said, but the company's goal is to reduce OLED panel cost to levels less than equivalent LCD panels in 2016.


LG Display said it is targeting a migration path with a 50 percent higher material cost and a 30 percent lower yield than those of LCD panels in 2012 and a 20-30 percent lower material cost and an equivalent yield in 2016.


Remaining technical challenges to achieving volume production of larger screen OLED panels reportedly include optimizing: driver elements (TFTs), organic EL materials and film forming processes and sealing processes.


At the show, LG is showing OLED products ranging in size from 2.67- to 20.7-inches, including a 14.1-inch panel for notebook PCs with a privacy protection function, the company said.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*OLED Shipments Explode in Q3'09, Bringing in More Than $250M in Revenues* 
*21 December 2009*










*Quarterly OLED Display Revenues*










*Q3'09 OLED Market Revenue Share*


In its latest Quarterly OLED Shipment and Forecast Report, DisplaySearch reported that worldwide OLED revenues shattered its previous record, reaching $252 million in revenue for Q3'09, up 31% Q/Q. In addition, Q3'09 OLED shipments were 21.7 million, up 19% Q/Q.


*Despite the state of the economy, increased demand in high-end mobile and smart phones has driven growth, partially due to Samsung Telecom's continued heavy promotion efforts of AMOLED smart phone high-performance benefits.


Samsung Mobile Displays (SMD) maintained its strong lead in OLED shipments and also captured a 73% market share in AMOLED revenues, while RiTdisplay ranked second with a 12% share. LG Display has also announced plans to start production of 15" AMOLED TV displays in Q3'09.


"While the mobile phone industry continues to suffer as a result of the economy, Samsung's marketing initiatives have propelled high-end AMOLED mobile phone demand to new heights," noted Hiroshi Hayase, DisplaySearch Director of Small/Medium Displays. "The company is forecast to maintain its lead in mobile displays in 2010."


While the AMOLED market has increased in both shipments and revenues, PMOLED did not grow from 2008 to 2009, as a result of the shift from clam-shell style phones that use PMOLED to high-end mobile smart phones. Despite this, PMOLED demand is increasing in automotive applications adopted by Mercedes Benz and Lexus. As a result, PMOLED shipments for automotive applications have increased to 427K in Q3'09, up 19% Q/Q and 22% Y/Y.


The OLED market has also witnessed market consolidation this past quarter, with Eastman Kodak Co. selling its OLED display business to LG Electronics, as well as InnoLux acquiring CMO and TPO, including their OLED production.


----------



## wco81

2016?


They must be kidding.


----------



## powertoold

Well, considering LCD prices are constantly dropping, by 2016, a 50" LCD may cost ~$400, so a 50" OLED will be around $500 too, which is crazy cheap. You can always buy an OLED TV before 2016, but it'd be like $2000.


----------



## Isochroma

 *LG 15-inch OLED TV Sony rival on sale now* 
*4 January 2010*










*LG's OLED TV on sale in Korea { Video }*


LG's long awaited OLED TV has finally launched, although it doesn't have a name yet and will only be available in Korea for now.


It will cost the equivalent of £1,500, which is cheaper than Sony's XEL-1 OLED TV, and has a four inch larger screen size at 15-inch.


The TV has been given its own promotional push in Korea, where it's just giving it the title "OLED TV", so this could be only a test run for the big push, although it did confirm it would be releasing the 15-inch version in December 2009.

*On the radar*


But the company has been showing off OLED TVs since CES last year, and in September confirmed to TechRadar that it will be looking at larger OLED TVs soon too.


Either way, it's a long time coming - Sony was the first to the OLED TV game back in 2007 and nobody has stepped up to the plate to offer an alternative as yet, with most citing the high cost of production as a barrier.


Check out the video to see the TV in action in a store in Seoul.


----------



## Isochroma

*More Photos of LG's 15" OLED TV*
*4 January 2010*


----------



## Isochroma

*Videos of LG's 15" OLED TV*
*4 January 2010*


Each picture is linked to its video on YouTube. First two are real HD, rest are SD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0JoDFlRLXo&fmt=22 









*LG 15" AMOLED screens
HD 1280 x 720*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WulSgrzpEI&fmt=22 









*[eNuri.com] LG 15" OLED
HD 1280 x 720*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkVDUEzH4ug&fmt=35 









*IFA 2009: LG OLED looks stunning
SD 854 x 480*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POFo-mAUzlw&fmt=35 









*Which?: LG's 15 inch OLED TV and autumn 09 TV lineup
SD 854 x 480*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YmUsCbzgn8&fmt=35 









*IFA 09: Preview Lg OLED 15"
SD 640 x 480*


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung Mobile Display show 14-inch qFHD 3D OLED at CES-2010* 
*5 January 2010*


Samsung Mobile Display (SMD) will be demonstrating three leading-edge, next generation OLED displays at Pepcom’s Digital Experience!

We are at the Digital Experience so stay tuned for exclusive pictures and videos!

*1. A 14-inch qFHD 3D OLED prototype: ‘Crosstalk Free’*


This 14-inch 3D panel is the world's first OLED display that features qFHD resolution (960x 540), a contrast ratio of 100,000:1, a color gamut of over 100% NTSC and a ultra-slim design with a panel thickness of only 1.6mm – providing outstanding brightness and exceptional image quality.


Image switching on this prototype panel is fast enough to eliminate optical crosstalk between the two 3D images.

*2. A 14-inch qFHD Transparent OLED for Note PCs: World's first and largest*


SMD is showing the world’s first and largest transparent OLED panel prototype, designed for use in applications from smartphones, MP3s and Note PCs to ‘head-up’ displays for vehicles, and advertisement displays that are interactive and eye-catching.


When the screen is off, the prototype has up to a 40% transparency. The average amount of transparency in the industry is below 25 percent.


As SMD’s transparent OLED for Note PCs represents the highest resolution on the largest screen with high transparency, it should soon be used to display actual transparent products.

*3. A 2-inch Electronic-ID OLED operated by RF Power:*


An electronic ID card prototype featuring a new chip that stores personal information like an identification number.


RF-powered AMOLED (Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode) technology is used for the enhanced electronic ID cards, taking security to a higher level. It can also securely store biographical information and digital imagery in the card.


The screen requires no additional battery power, and instead can draw power from a nearby RF-powered source that is AMOLED adapted.


Some potential applications for the prototype include:

ID document – e-ID; eVisa on passport; driver’s licenses

Dynamic security feature for banking & e-commerce – online transactions; credit cards

Travel & Transport – vehicle registration cards
Source: Samsung 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Yu Precision to supply AUO with $29 billion worth of AMOLED Manufacturing Equipment* 
*5 January 2010*










*AUO 14" OLED panel prototype*


Taiwan's Yu Precision signed a contract with AUO (AU Optronics Corp) to supply 33 billion worth of active matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED) manufacturing equipment.


This deal is a huge step in the two companies' history. Yu Precision will enable AUO to reach their goal of becoming the world leader in the OLED market.


AU Optronics had planned to produce OLED panels and released a 14" OLED HDTV last year.


----------



## 8mile13

ISOCHROMA,


i hope that i can buy a 1500$ 40inch good working,long lasting OLED in 2015.

Is that realistic in your opinion?


----------



## Bushman4

I wouldn't be surprised to see APPLE put an OLED screen on their upcoming TABLET. While this is one of the stories going around it is possible and would make the TABLET a game changer for viewing TV etc.


----------



## wco81

A 10-inch OLED would make it very expensive. Plus it's questionable how much benefit OLED would provide right now. It's worse in battery life than LCD for web applications or where all the pixels have to light up for text. Or reading outside.


They'd have to really be emphasizing video to make OLED worthwhile.


Google's Nexus One announced yesterday has a 3.7-inch AMOLED. But distribution is limited to the web and to a couple of countries, with only US sales at start. It could be that the screen can't be produced in high-enough volumes for Google to try to move iPhone-levels of volume.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/17860916
> 
> 
> A 10-inch OLED would make it very expensive. Plus it's questionable how much benefit OLED would provide right now. It's worse in battery life than LCD for web applications or where all the pixels have to light up for text. Or reading outside.
> 
> 
> They'd have to really be emphasizing video to make OLED worthwhile.
> 
> 
> Google's Nexus One announced yesterday has a 3.7-inch AMOLED. But distribution is limited to the web and to a couple of countries, with only US sales at start. It could be that the screen can't be produced in high-enough volumes for Google to try to move iPhone-levels of volume.



Ahh, perhaps that's one of the reasons why Apple is delaying the use of an OLED screen in the iPhone. Hopefully the next iteration (beyond the 3GS) will have an OLED screen!


----------



## wco81

Apple has to ship tens of millions of iPods and iPod Touches.


The Nexus One is shipping a fraction of that, because of high price and the 3G radio only works on T-Mobile US network. They're going to ship in the UK and Hong Kong too and then other countries later. They're ramping up slowly.


It may help scale up AMOLED production and reduce costs as they get more efficient at manufacturing in volume.


I read a report by an industry watcher, quoted earlier in this thread, that it won't be until about 2012 where OLED will be more efficient across the board than LCDs and better for viewing in sunlight as well.


----------



## moreHD




Isochroma;17855982AU Optronics had planned to produce OLED panels and released a 14" OLED HDTV last year.[/QUOTE said:


> AUO 14" OLED was a 1080p prototype and it has not been released for the consumer market. But AUO as a manufacturer, provides displays for Samsung. Does anybody know if we can expect Samsung 14" 1080p OLED tv/ or PC monitor to hit the shops this year?


----------



## rgb32

Looks like LG's 15" OLED TV will be released in the US this summer! No price announced though. At least we finally have a model number!









http://www.oled-display.net/lg-displ...tv-at-ces-2010 
















The perfect bathroom TV will soon be here!


----------



## Isochroma

 *LG Display introduces EL9500 15-inch OLED-Tv at CES-2010* 
*7 January 2010*










http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBCXOMjKAfM&fmt=35 









*YouTube: LG Display EL9500 OLED TV at CES-2010*



LG Display introduce the EL9500 it is an 15 inch OLED TV Panel


LG Display told us that the Panel is a Water resistant Display. Water resistant display opens up new posibilities of TV usage. LG Display want to introduce the EL9500 in the United States in the summer 2010. At the moment there is no date for the european market.
Cutting Edge Picture Quality
Quick Response time for Moving picture
Vivid Picture Quality by OLED
Mega Contrast Ratio
New Paradigm Ratio
Ultra Slim Depth
Light as a Feather
Convenient to use
Flexible us as both Wall mount & Stand type
Water repellent


----------



## vinnie97

Now let's here it for the 20" announcements.


----------



## Superman07

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the 24.5" panel that Sony showed off.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/s...3d-tv-eyes-on/ 











Perfect size for a computer monitor!







Too bad it would probably cost as much as a 65" LCD or plasma.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Superman07* /forum/post/17878204
> 
> 
> I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the 24.5" panel that Sony showed off.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/s...3d-tv-eyes-on/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect size for a computer monitor!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad it would probably cost as much as a 65" LCD or plasma.



Perhaps Sony will release a production version of this 24.5" OLED display by the end of the year... Sony is long overdue for releasing a successor to the XEL-1!







If they did release a production version, I guess it'd cost over $5k!







I wonder if this panel is fully PHOLED or not (UDC)?


----------



## Isochroma

 *Samsung shows new 3D AMOLED Displays at CES-2010* 
*7 January 2010*











Samsung showed a new 3D AMOLED-TV prototype at CES-2010. This is the newest and biggest 3D AMOLED from Samsung. At the moment we have no more technical details, the Samsung guys do not have any information yet. We think the size is also more than 20 inch. Delight your Senses!


Stay tuned.
































































*Videos*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2PuZHi-Z00&fmt=35 









*YouTube: Samsung 3D AMOLED at CES-2010*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O64QVNnO5pw&fmt=35 









*YouTube: 3D OLED-Television from Samsung at CES-2010*


----------



## oceansunfish




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/15589674
> 
> 
> I guess I should have said "As soon as a company produces the *first decent sized and affordable* OLED then the rest will follow". That Sony OLED was pointless. It is too small, too expensive, and too low resolution to make an impact. If they would have come out with at least a 32" set at least true 720P resolution and cost $1800 it would have been a bit different.
> 
> 
> The problem is that most of the time good is good enough for the masses. People aren't dumping their DVDs in favor of blu-ray en masse either. DVD for most people is good enough. It just isn't worth the extra cost to upgrade all af their equipment for a picture that is "a little crisper". They will just say "My old DVD player still works, and I don't notice much difference or don't care"
> 
> 
> The same goes for TVs. Their LCD or PDP is good enough. The masses just aren't bothered much by black levels, brightness , viewing angle, response time, etc. *The thing driving OLED right now is small devices where thickness and power consumption are most important.*



I have to agree. OLED has a greater upside in iPhone or other smart phone devices as well as the shrinking notebook computers. Both devices will gain significantly if cost is reduced via OLED screens. The business objective now is to get an iPhone in everyone's pocket with price being the major drawback right now.


I need to get my family room updated/completed with cabinetry, audio, and video devices. I can't put my life on hold due to something I cannot control; that being when OLED TVs will be manufactured in greater than 58" sizes at an acceptable basic consumer price point. I know a V10 Plasma is a "gas hog" compared to the OLED, but I gotta move forward.


----------



## navychop

The bar has now been raised. Looks like OLED will need to have a 3D version, too.


----------



## ferro

 Dell Studio XPS 16 OLED concept laptop 

_"Beautiful viewing angle and legitimately wide viewing angle, the Studio XPS 16 OLED concept laptop was on hand and turning heads at Dell's CES suite. It's definitely a beaut, claiming a super-thin 2mm screen, a 0.004ms response time, and a contrast ratio "exceeding 10,000:1." The big catch here, as you can see in some of the images below (the giant "Please Do Not Touch" sign deterred us from fixing ourselves) is that the ultra-glossy wrist panel is a beacon for dust. Feast your eyes below!"
_


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/17912158
> 
> 
> The bar has now been raised. Looks like OLED will need to have a 3D version, too.



Yeh, do you find it odd that they are promoting 3D OLED when they haven't even released a standard OLED yet? What is the point really, get a decent sized standard set out there before you start with the 3D thing.


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/17916323
> 
> 
> Yeh, do you find it odd that they are promoting 3D OLED when they haven't even released a standard OLED yet? What is the point really, get a decent sized standard set out there before you start with the 3D thing.



No - they had to demonstrate it with 3D or it would've been drowned on CES.


How does this sound: "LCD had fabulous 3D while OLED couldn't do it!"?


We know that this isn't true (and that OLED may be the best display tech to feature 3D because it's so fast) but you know the media and lobbyists.


----------



## Bushman4

As we can conclude CES 2010, the manufacturers are wetting our appetite for OLED. Until finally everyone is so hungry for OLED that the market develops itself.


----------



## DaveC19

Until then there is this:

http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics...7/?cpg=froogle 


A unit with an OLED screen for only $179. Ok the screen is a bit small to watch movies on but at least it isn't $2500.00


----------



## rgb32

No...









http://www.sonyinsider.com/2010/01/1...ectronics-usa/ 



> Quote:
> We're working on all sorts of prototypes, but *I don't see production of product in 2010*. There's a wonderful 3D OLED prototype here at CES; that's the real way to do 3D and TV - because you've got direct transmission, rather than back lighting and all the other reflective ways of doing it. *But getting it to be commercially reasonable in price, we've got a long way to go. That's the whole problem in OLED, great technology, great feature set, but it's really hard to get the costs down.* Smaller form-factors are easy to do.


----------



## slacker711

LG has confirmed plans for gen 5.5 OLED fab for next year. At that glass size, 30" OLED's will be a commercial reality and may even start showing up at the local Best Buy. They'll be expensive (my WAG is in the $2000-$2500) price range.


One other guess....Samsung Mobile Display will get their next gen fab up first. The two companies are way too competitive for Samsung to allow LG to pass them in a market that they started.

http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSI...1001220053.asp 



> Quote:
> He also said LG Display plans to start the production of OLED TV panels as early as next year. To that end, the company eyes a 5.5-generation LCD plant that is optimized for 30-inch panels, he added.
> 
> 
> OLED displays, short for organic light-emitting diode displays, are thinner than LCDs, and have better picture quality and consume less power than LCDs.
> 
> 
> TV makers see OLED TVs as the next big thing, but they are cautious about introducing the new products because of expensive production costs. Currently, OLED screens are mainly used in small-size devices such as mobile phones and cameras.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Barry Young updates us on OLEDs at Samsung, Sony, LG and the rumored Apple device* 
*20 January 2010*


There's a very interesting discussion over at ArsTechnica about OLEDs and Apple's upcoming new device . They are talking to Barry Young from the OLED-Assocation, and he says that no one is making any 10" OLED panels, so it's not possible that Apple are 'hoarding' up all the available panels ....


Barry says that Samsung, the most advanced OLED manufacturer, can produce about fourteen 10.1-inch panels per substrate. That means that they could produce around 150,000 10.1" panels a month, but they currently cannot meet their small-panel demand , so it's not likely they are producing any larg displays.


LG is even less likely, as they have 10%-15% of Samsung's capacity. LG has a new plant that's coming online later in 2010 , but Barry says that it'll be mostly dedicated to their own 15" TV panels . LG would have to hurt their own TV business in order to supply panels to Apple.


"The best case is that if Apple announces an AMOLED with a 10.1-inch display, it would have much higher price and have very low volumes," Young concluded. Maybe Apple will announce an OLED device that will only be available much alter in 2010.


Barry says that the future for OLEDs look bright. Samsung are preparing a new 8G fab that can produce both LCDs and AMOLEDs. This can be used to 42" OLEDs. Samsung has doubled their capacity in 2009 and will do so again in 2010 . The only bad news come from Sony - who has gone back to an R&D phase .


----------



## greenland

What ever happened to Panasonic's intentions to bring a 40inch OLED display to market in 2010?

http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/08/p...-game-big-scr/ 


"
*Panasonic and Sumitomo see eye to eye in this OLED game, big screens due in 2010*


May 8th 2009 4:21AM




Ready with the proper retort to all those rumors , false starts and misquotations , the _Nikkei_ is reporting that Panasonic and Sumitomo are zeroed in and have the tunnel vision to deliver the 40-inch plus OLED HDTVs we've been waiting for within fiscal 2010"


----------



## DocuMaker

What's so enticing about these OLED's as TV's anyway?


1) Pioneer already demoed a Plasma around 1/3 of an inch thick two years ago. Panasonic demoed one a year ago. So we know PDP's can get real thin, even if not quite as thin as OLED.

2) PDP's already have extremely wide viewing angles

3) Pioneer already long-ago demoed ECC (Extreme Contrast Concept), so we know that "Infinite Blacks" are not impossible for PDP.

4) Panasonic is talking of a 2010 model 42 inch PDP that consumes only 95 watts. Samsung is talking of a 2010 model 50 inch that consumes 150 watts. So every year power consumption becomes less and less of an issue for PDP.

5) PDP's already have fast response time and pretty good motion, save for the phposphor lag which Panasonic is touting has been reduced by 1/3 for the offending colors.

6) PDP's are generally rated for 100,000 hours these days. Not much in the way of longevity issues.

7) Each year people seem to crave ever-larger sized panels. Many people are craving sizes even greater than 60-65 inches now. It will probably be several years before OLED tech will progress to the point of offering very large sized panels for anything close to a reasonable price. One would assume during this several year waiting period, that PDP technology will continue to progress and plasmas will be even thinner, lighter, brighter, more efficient, with near-perfect blacks, less IR issues, less phosphor lag issues, etc.


I'm trying to understand what will be the main draw for people to want to pay really high prices for HT sized OLED displays.


----------



## powertoold

Phosphor lag and dithering will alway be problems!


----------



## david437

I dont even see phosphor lag, like most people, and dithering is only visible at very short distance. How can you know, that this issues cant be solved ?


OLED will be interesting for small displays, used in mobile phones etc. or for PC Monitors... but Plasma will be the future technologie for big Home Theater Televisions for the next 7 years...


----------



## david437

OLED is still years away from being as cheap as Plasma. Plasma is a good, solid Display technologie which is very similiar to OLED. There is still room for improvements on Plasma and I think when OLED becomes attractive, there wont be much difference to Plasma.

I mean, why buy a 32" OLED that cost 3000-4000 Dollar, when I can get a 70" Plasma for 2000-3000 Dollar.

Oled is a great technologie without any doubt but Oled isnt that much ahead to say: thats gone revolutionise the hole market...


In the near future we gone see infinitv black sets from panasonic. Plasma is getting brigther, thinner and cheaper... LCD cant compare on that level. If you want a thin LCD you have to make a compromise in PQ. You cant have both on a LCD and I dont see that changing soon.


----------



## greenland

OLED Developments thread, folks. Stop hijacking the OP's dedicated OLED thread to argue about the merits of Plasma. There are plenty of other threads where that is covered. Thanks.


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/17992373
> 
> 
> OLED Developments thread, folks. Stop hijacking the OP's dedicated OLED thread to argue about the merits of Plasma. There are plenty of other threads where that is covered. Thanks.



Agreed.


Anyways, it looks like I'm predicting that if Panasonic starts pursuing OLED, then they may not focus as much on LCD TV anymore (just Plasma and OLED).


Just my two cents.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/17992373
> 
> 
> OLED Developments thread, folks. Stop hijacking the OP's dedicated OLED thread to argue about the merits of Plasma. There are plenty of other threads where that is covered. Thanks.



agree


----------



## rgb32

 http://www.photographyblog.com/news/samsung_700z/ 












Samsung Electronics America has introduced the Samsung 700Z Digital Photo Frame, its slimmest frame yet for displaying high-quality images. The frame’s foldable “L” stand design and ultra slim active matrix (AM) OLED panel makes the Samsung 700Z a multi-purpose device. The AMOLED self-luminescent screen delivers bright, high contrast images at a 1024x600 resolution both in dark and bright atmospheres. In addition to its high-quality display and decorative frame function, the 9x6.6x4.6 inch Samsung 700Z can also be used as a secondary home or office monitor by simply connecting it to a PC through a USB cable. A recipient of a Consumer Electronics Show 2010 Innovation Award, the *Samsung 700Z has a suggested retail price of $300* and will be available *in stores March 2010*.

*Samsung Press Release


SAMSUNG INTRODUCES 700Z DIGITAL PHOTO FRAME WITH AWARD-WINNING SLEEK DESIGN AND SLIM DISPLAY*


New multimedia display device is recognized at Consumer Electronics Show for innovative design and dual performance capabilities


Las Vegas, January 6, 2009 – Samsung Electronics America, Inc. today introduced the Samsung 700Z Digital Photo Frame, its slimmest frame yet for displaying high quality images. The photo frame, a recipient of a Consumer Electronics Show 2010 Innovation Award, expands Samsung’s role as a leader in digital technology design and function.

_“The 700Z is a representation of Samsung’s goal to offer design and performance simultaneously,” said Young Bae, director Display Marketing, Samsung Information Technology Division. “In addition to its sleek aesthetics for photo display, this frame also serves as a monitor for small desk spaces and home offices.”_

*Combining Design and Functionality*


Crafted for home and office use, the frame’s foldable “L” stand design and ultra slim active matrix (AM) OLED panel makes the Samsung 700Z a multi-purpose device. The device uses DLNA licensed technology to sync with other home and/or mobile photo and video devices making sharing content easy. In addition to its high-quality display and decorative frame function, the 9x6.6x4.6 inch Samsung 700Z can also be used as a secondary home or office monitor by simply connecting it to a PC through a USB cable. The 700Z is ideal for consumers looking to add secondary monitor and high-quality family photos into a tight office space, using one device.

*Energy-Efficient Design*


The quality of the Samsung 700Z design is matched by its excellent performance. It has an eco-sensitive AMOLED screen rather than a backlight which makes it not only thin, but also very energy efficient. The screen minimizes the user’s power consumption and simultaneously creates cost savings.

*High Quality Images in all Environments*


The AMOLED self-luminescent screen delivers bright, high contrast images at a 1024x600 resolution both in dark and bright atmospheres. It also has a wide viewing angle which ensures the picture quality even from 180 degree angles. The AMOLED also has a 0.01mS response time that gives the Samsung 700Z the ability to deliver moving images such as movies or television programs as well.

Bluetooth connectivity features allows Samsung 700Z users to share multimedia content across devices wirelessly, including uploading mobile photos and sharing pictures across multiple 700Z frames.

*The Samsung 700Z has a suggested retail price of $300 and will be available in stores March 2010.*


----------



## Blackraven












Damn that's superb news..........however, I also am highly interested in the display on the right. What is that thing? A new Syncmaster monitor?


----------



## Tobbeo

Goofed picture.









Looking at and holding the wrong display.. come on.


----------



## Isochroma

 *AUO to start OLED production in 2011, says CEO* 
*29 January 2010*


AU Optronics (AUO) expects its OLED line to complete equipment installation by the end of 2010 and start production in 2011, according to company president and CEO, LJ Chen.


Chen said its clients are eager to see OLED products and AUO's OLED panels will definitely come out next year, chiefly for small- to medium-size applications. AUO will use its 3.5G LTPS line to produce OLED, he added.


Chen said AUO is venturing into other technologies and fields, such as OLED and solar energy, as it has realized that capacity expansion and migration to higher-generation production for LCD panels are no longer the most important goals for the company.


AUO has recently acquired FED (field emission displays) technology from Sony's affiliate Field Emission Technologies (FET) and FET Japan (FETJ), and expects to start producing FED products in 2011-2012, Chen said.


AUO was one of the makers that started OLED production in Taiwan, but later suspended it because at the time materials and equipment were not mature, he said.


----------



## pkeegan

 http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/29/m...ch-oled-tv-at/ 


Mitsubishi to showcase 149" OLED TV


----------



## steel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/18029549
> 
> *AUO to start OLED production in 2011, says CEO*
> *29 January 2010*
> 
> 
> AU Optronics (AUO) expects its OLED line to complete equipment installation by the end of 2010 and start production in 2011, according to company president and CEO, LJ Chen.
> 
> 
> Chen said its clients are eager to see OLED products and AUO's OLED panels will definitely come out next year, chiefly for small- to medium-size applications. AUO will use its 3.5G LTPS line to produce OLED, he added.
> 
> 
> Chen said AUO is venturing into other technologies and fields, such as OLED and solar energy, as it has realized that capacity expansion and migration to higher-generation production for LCD panels are no longer the most important goals for the company.
> 
> 
> AUO has recently acquired FED (field emission displays) technology from Sony's affiliate Field Emission Technologies (FET) and FET Japan (FETJ), and expects to start producing FED products in 2011-2012, Chen said.
> 
> 
> AUO was one of the makers that started OLED production in Taiwan, but later suspended it because at the time materials and equipment were not mature, he said.



This is pretty interesting, especially the part about small-medium size displays. I recently read that AUO is supplying the IPS LCD panels for the new ipad - perhaps they're gearing up for a long-lasting relationship with Apple, supplying future mobile devices, such as laptops, or a newer ipad, with OELD displays?


----------



## slacker711

Long article on OLED's with a pretty definitive quote from LG. The difference between this and previous speculation is that LG is actually building a fab that will be able to commercialize displays in these sizes.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article...=english_PRINT 



> Quote:
> Building on this foundation, LG Display announced it would volume-produce 20-inch class large-size OLED panels in 2010, 30-inch class in 2011, and 40-inch class in 2012. Vice President Won Kim, in charge of OLED Sales & Marketing at the firm, is confident: "They may be expensive, but it will be possible to buy a 40-inch class OLED TV in 2012."


----------



## vinnie97

40" in 2012...what a joke. Plasma should have reached true zero luminance by that point (should it still be around).


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/18051610
> 
> 
> 40" in 2012...what a joke. Plasma should have reached true zero luminance by that point (should it still be around).



That's why it's an early technology which continues to progress as time passes.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/18048503
> 
> 
> Long article on OLED's with a pretty definitive quote from LG. The difference between this and previous speculation is that LG is actually building a fab that will be able to commercialize displays in these sizes.
> 
> http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article...=english_PRINT



The 20" OLED cost is 3 000 000 Korean won which is about 2600$.

This is far from any market impact.


----------



## CptBeaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/18054482
> 
> 
> The 20" OLED cost is 3 000 000 Korean won which is about 2600$.
> 
> This is far from any market impact.



It really wasn't very long ago that that was the price for a 32" LCD TV. Personally, I am impressed that it is already that inexpensive. I think cheap OLED PC monitors by 2015 might be a reality.


----------



## Isochroma

 *OLED Panels: The Way to Larger Screens* 
*1 February 2010*

_The market for organic LED panels continues to grow, for small panels in mobile phones and similar devices, as well as in lighting. The trend is accelerating as the possibilities for large OLED panels open up, and a new market for 20-inch and larger OLED TVs may emerge in 2010 or beyond. Development of technologies for larger screens at lower cost is surging ahead. This article probes the shape of the next generation of flat screen TVs._


The OLED panel boasts phenomenal performance, including displays that surpass those of CRT, superlative blacks, and ultra-thin bodies only a few millimeters thick. They have been called the ultimate display panel for flat screen TVs. Sony Corp. became the first in the world to volume-produce an 11-inch OLED TV in October 2007, but the technology never took off. At the time, television manufacturers like Toshiba Corp. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. announced plans to volume-produce OLED TVs, but as of the end of 2009, at least, neither company shows any signs of shipping.

*LG Electronics Aggressively Pursuing Larger Screens*


Development in large-size OLED panels has seemed stagnant for some time, but all of a sudden it has picked up speed again.


One of the most active firms is the LG Group: LG Electronics, Inc. announced a 15-inch OLED TV in August 2009, releasing it to the Korean market in December of the same year for three million won.


The OLED panel was manufactured by LG Display Co., Ltd., another group firm, and delivers a peak brightness of 450cd/m2, a contrast ratio of at least 100,000:1 and a color reproducibility range of 98% of the NTSC standard. The TFT drive device uses poly-silicon crystallized in a high-temperature process known as solid-phase crystallization (SPC). Each of the red, green, and blue OLED-emitting films is created by vacuum-depositing material via a shadow mask. A cavity structure (multiple reflection interference) is used to expand the range of color reproducibility.


LG Display is already working on a small OLED panel for mobile phones. The company announced plans to ramp up a new OLED panel manufacturing line in the first quarter of 2010, and has continues to boost production scale. In June 2009 it entered into a tie-up with Idemitsu Kosan Co. Ltd., securing OLED material supplies, and in December 2009 it announced the acquisition of the OLED business of OLED panel pioneer Eastman Kodak Co.: LG Display is clearly strengthening its R&D capabilities.


Building on this foundation, LG Display announced it would volume-produce 20-inch class large-size OLED panels in 2010, 30-inch class in 2011, and 40-inch class in 2012. Vice President Won Kim, in charge of OLED Sales & Marketing at the firm, is confident: "They may be expensive, but it will be possible to buy a 40-inch class OLED TV in 2012."

*Healthy Growth in Small Panel Market*


Part of the reason behind the LG Group's eagerness is strong growth in small OLED panels. OLED panels are becoming the display of choice in many portable electronic products, including mobile phones, smartphones, media players, and digital cameras (Fig. 1). For mobile products like these that handle imagery, according to Hiroshi Hayase, Director of DisplaySearch in Japan, "The excellent display performance of OLED panels is something that can be immediately appreciated by the user." More and more manufacturers are entering the market, such as Casio Computer Co., Ltd. and Toppan Printing Co., Ltd. Toppan announced the establishment of a new company to volume-produce small OLED panels for digital cameras and similar applications in November 2009.











*OLEDs are achieving full-scale adoption in several markets,

primarily mobile phones and smartphones. They are having

a tough time penetrating the home electronics market, but

larger displays are expected in 2010 or beyond.*



Display market research firm DisplaySearch forecasts that total OLED panel shipment value in 2009 will reach about US$845 million (Fig. 2). Of this, says the firm, mobile phone main screen displays will account for about US$521 million or about 61% of the total. Main screen display shipment value is expected to rise at least five times by 2016, hitting about US$2,820 million.


As volume production rises, manufacturing yield at industry leader Samsung Mobile Display Co., Ltd. (SMD) is improving, reaching 60% for VGA (640 pixels × 480 pixels), and 80% for quarter VGA (QVGA; 320 pixels × 240 pixels) screens, according to DisplaySearch's Hayase. It seems clear that the firm is steadily accumulating expertise in volume production.











*[Fig. 2 Mobile Phones and Smartphones Drive the Market]

A forecast of OLED shipment value broken down by application type.

Mobile phone (and smartphone) main displays will be the primary

growth driver through 2011, but TVs are expected to show

gradual growth from 2011.*


*Another Push from Lighting Applications*


The emergence of the OLED lighting market is adding more wind to the sails. OLED panels offer a variety of characteristics including surface emission, transparency, thinness, and light weight, opening up potential in a host of markets that existing light sources (fluorescent, incandescent, white LED) can't touch. And that is luring a host of new companies into the market.


Manufacturers are ramping up volume production of OLED lighting. In Japan, Lumiotec Inc. plans to begin volume production in January 2010, while Konica Minolta Holdings, Inc. announced in November 2009 that it would invest 3.5 billion yen into a prototype line. Overseas, Royal Philips Electronics NV, General Electric Co., and others are planning volume production. DisplaySearch believes that the OLED lighting market will begin to take off in 2010, growing to about US$2.838 billion in 2016.


Expanding production levels for small OLED panels and increasing adoption of OLED lighting will no doubt further accelerate the development of practical large-size OLED panels. They have a number of points in common, including materials and device architecture, not to mention that expertise is being accumulated now on how to boost manufacturing yield in volume production.

*Tapping into the Power of the "Eco Boom"?*


Characteristics such as saving energy and ecologically sound design emerged as major dimensions for competition in flat screen TVs at the start of 2009, and this trend as well is contributing to the early commercialization of large OLED panels. In January 2009, for example, Sony announced the BRAVIA VE5 series of LCD TVs, trumpeting a 40% reduction in energy consumption from the prior model. In September 2009 Sharp Corp. released the LED AQUOS LX series with white LED backlights, emphasizing image quality and low energy consumption. Considering rising interest in the environment, it is likely this trend will continue.


One Japanese LCD engineer explains that one reason OLED panels are so hot is that "energy consumption in LCD panels has been cut about as low as it can go, due to limitations imposed by the structure itself." LCD panels use voltage to control the liquid crystal polymer, blocking the backlight light or allowing it to shine through, and making tonal display possible. The LCD has a complex structure, consisting of TFT, liquid crystal layer, color filters, two polarizer sheets, and two glass sheets, just to name the larger components, and each one increases total backlight light loss. The LCD engineer quoted above adds, "only about 5% of the backlight light actually passes through an LCD panel, and it is incredibly difficult to increase that number."


OLED panels are self-emitting devices, and have low loss because of their principle of operation. Many engineers working with them agree that a material delivering higher light emission efficiency would make it easier to reduce OLED panel power consumption, and that OLEDs will at least match the low power consumption of LCD panels, if not beat it.


Recognizing this situation, manufacturers are once again developing large OLED panels for televisions. In addition to the above-mentioned LG Display, Sony revealed in its business overview in November 2009 that it will continue to invest into developing its own displays, including OLEDs.


Samsung Electronics, the largest TV manufacturer in the world, has not disclosed plans to volume-produce large OLED panels, but subsidiary SMD is the largest company in manufacturing small OLED panels, and essentially monopolizes the active matrix OLED panel manufacturing field. In short, it probably has more knowledge about manufacturing OLED panels than anyone in the industry. Several analysts familiar with the TV field predict Samsung Electronics will modify its existing fifth-generation LCD panel line to make OLED panels for TVs.

*Simple Upsizing Not the Solution*


There are a number of problems that will have to be resolved before large OLED panels can be made, though, one of which is establishing volume-production technology capable of producing large panels cheaply. The lack of such a technology is the major reason why manufacturers worldwide have never shown more than prototypes when it comes to OLED panels or TVs of over 20 inches (Fig. 3). The TFTs, film growth process, etc., used in small and medium OLED panels cannot be used directly in manufacturing large OLED panels, although (as mentioned below) a few ways around the problem are emerging.











*[Fig. 3 Prototypes Only for 20-Inch and Larger OLED TVs]

TV, panel and other manufacturers have shown a variety of prototypes

for 20-inch and larger TVs at society meetings, exhibitions, etc., but

thus far the only volume-production models on the market are the

11-inch from Sony and the 15-inch from LG Electronics.
*



The biggest obstacle to large OLED panels is the rapid improvement in the performance of competing LCD panels, along with dropping cost and a few other factors. An engineer in the OLED field explains, "That's why it is so difficult for OLED panels to demonstrate superiority over LCD TVs with their strong points alone: image quality, thinness, etc."


Since 2007, when the push to develop large screens and high resolution (1920 pixels × 1080 pixels) tapered off, LCD panels have made significant progress in image quality, thinness, and other characteristics. Conventional cold-cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL) backlights are being replaced by LEDs, bringing display performance up to par with that of OLED panels.


For example, most LCD TVs with direct-illumination LED backlights offer a contrast ratio of one million-to-one and color reproducibility of 100% or better of NTSC. This performance beats the 15-inch OLED TV from LG Electronics mentioned above. Using an edge light LED backlight, the thinnest part is no more than 20mm thick. While OLED TVs could offer even better specs (image quality, thinness, etc.), it is difficult to make the difference significant to potential buyers.


This is why it seems likely large OLED panels will, for now, aim at applications where they can avoid competing with LCD panels. At FPD International 2009 in October 2009, a number of such panel prototypes were exhibited (Fig. 4). LG Display and SMD jointly developed a "transparent display" that can be seen through. Transparent materials were used for both cathode and anode, and light is emitted from both sides of the panel. A staffer at LG Display explained it was intended for public applications such as digital signage.











*[Fig. 4 LG Display and SMD Pioneering New Applications

Just for OLEDs] LG Display and SMD are developing bendable OLED

panels, transparent designs, and more. Such applications are based

on the unique advantages of OLED panels and are difficult to handle

with LCD panels.*



LG Display also showed a display designed for medical applications, with high readability and an excellent contrast ratio. SMD had a smart card display, only 50µm thick and bendable. Volume production dates were not announced for either display, but considering the unique advantages of OLED panels, they seem almost certain to be commercialized.

*Steady Development of Technologies for Larger Displays at Lower Cost*


Technology development for larger OLED panels is also forging ahead. According to Takatoshi Tsujimura, Senior Director, OLED Systems at Kodak Japan, Ltd., panel manufacturers are "not only pursuing display performance, but also selecting technologies that are expected to achieve the highest manufacturing yield in volume production."


The keys to larger displays are TFTs that can be used to drive OLEDs and can handle the larger display area, and film growth technology capable of forming organic electroluminescent light-emitting layers at low cost and over large areas (Fig. 5).











*[Fig. 5 Two Major Technological Obstacles to Larger Size,

Lower Cost] There are a number of technical obstacles to achieving

larger OLED panel size at lower cost. In particular, TFT materials that

can be used with larger glass substrates and OLED device multi-layer

process technologies will have to be developed.*



LG Display, already aiming to volume-produce a 40-inch display in 2012, has provided some indices for OLED panel manufacturing, relative to LCD panels of the same size. The company's Kim explains, "We plan to use fifth- and sixth-generation glass substrate in 2012, yielding two to four 40-inch panel sheets each. That should mean material costs hit 150%, with a yield of about 70%. In 2016 we'll probably use 10th-generation substrates, taking 18 40-inch sheets apiece, just like LCD panels, dropping our material costs to 70% or 80% for about the same yield."

*Wide Variety of TFT Candidates*


Let's take a closer look at possible ways to improve TFTs. In order to achieve reduced cost, TFTs will have to be manufactured on glass substrates the same size as the liquid crystal panels used for TVs. It is difficult to use the amorphous silicon TFTs of large LCD panels, or the low-temperature poly-silicon (LTPS) of small and medium LCD panels without some changes, though. The manufacturing process for large OLED panels is therefore being reviewed, with the most promising solutions including polycrystalline silicon TFTs made without laser annealing, and amorphous oxide semiconductor TFTs.


There are two reasons why amorphous silicon TFTs cannot be used―first, carrier mobility is only about 1cm2/Vs, making it impossible to attain satisfactory brightness. The second is that threshold voltage drifts over time, causing display variations.


LTPS TFTs, on the other hand, have a high carrier mobility of about 100cm2/Vs, and a threshold voltage drift only about one-tenth that of amorphous silicon TFTs. This is why SMD uses them in the small and medium OLED panels now in volume production, and in its 31-inch prototype. The problem with LTPS TFTs is the difficulty in making larger glass substrates. After the amorphous silicon film is formed, it must be crystallized using laser annealing, and that can increase the variation in transistor characteristics. In LCD panels, third-generation glass is the largest used.


This situation has forced panel manufacturers to move ahead with the development of new TFT materials and manufacturing processes. Concretely, they are improving the silicon TFT manufacturing process and adopting amorphous oxide semiconductors, among other things.

*Sixth-Generation Glass with Silicon TFTs*


The manufacturing process is being improved by finding a way to crystallize amorphous silicon without using laser annealing.


For example, the 15-inch volume-production design from LG Display, introduced above, uses a special process called solid-phase crystallization (SPC). Amorphous silicon is heated to about 700°C to create polycrystalline silicon. Carrier mobility is about 20cm2/Vs, and the threshold voltage drift is about the same as LTPS. Heat treatment does present a problem in the form of glass substrate shrinkage, but LG Display's Kim reveals they can already handle up to sixth-generation glass. This means that the firm has established volume-production technology up through about 30-inch displays. The problem now is finding a way to use eighth-generation substrates: Kim states the only way will be to develop new manufacturing equipment.


SMD, meanwhile, is developing a polycrystalline silicon TFT called super-grain silicon (SGS). A trace amount of nickel is coated onto the amorphous silicon substrate to serve as nuclei for crystal growth, and then polycrystalline silicon is formed at elevated temperatures. The company used this SGS process in a 40-inch prototype first disclosed in October 2008.

*Repeatability Issues in Oxide Semiconductors*


Of the amorphous semiconductors, In-Ga-Zn-O (IGZO) is thought to be the most promising TFT material for large OLEDs. IGZO TFT carrier mobility is about 10cm2/Vs, and threshold voltage drift about equal. It can be manufactured by sputtering, which is attractive because it means no major changes would be needed to make it on existing LCD panel lines. In the future, it could well be made through a coating process rather than sputtering, which would lower costs even more.


Manufacturers in Korea and Taiwan are especially interested in developing oxide semiconductor TFTs, and a number of firms showed prototype OLED panels, LCD panels, and other items at FPD International 2009. The largest screen was a 19-inch design from SMD. LG Display and AU Optronics Corp. have disclosed that they are using amorphous IGZO. The Samsung Group has not revealed what type of oxide semiconductors it is using, but has announced a number of IGZO TFT prototypes in the past and is likely to still be using IGZO.


The biggest problem with oxide semiconductors is the poor repeatability of the manufacturing process. LG Display's Kim, however, points out, "We expect the situation to improve a bit when we use heat treatment after film deposition."

*White OLEDs, Front and Center*


Another key to larger displays is the deposition process used for light-emitting devices. In general, there are two possibilities here: coating phosphors independently emitting red, green, and blue (RGB), or using white material with three (again, RGB) color filters.


In the small and medium OLED panels in volume production now, low-molecular phosphors are formed by vacuum deposition using a shadow mask. However, it is extremely difficult to ensure sub-pixel alignment with shadow masks. As a result, most people in the industry feel the approach cannot be used on substrates larger than fourth-generation. In addition, material utilization efficiency is low, raising costs.


Developers are now eyeing a combination of white light emitters and color filters as a way to easily obtain larger panels. Eastman Kodak Co. has been using this approach for some time now, and LG Display is also making prototypes as it prepares to acquire the firm.


In general, color filters make it unnecessary to coat phosphors, so it is much easier to increase substrate size. The only way to expand the color reproducibility range, however, is by increasing the thickness of each of the RGB layers. Color filters increase the amount of light absorbed, stealing some of the panel brightness that is such an advantage for OLEDs. The only way to ensure brightness on a par with coated designs is to boost the brightness of the white light emitted, which means higher power consumption and shorter service life. There is a trade-off between a wider color reproduction range and lower power consumption.


The 8.1-inch prototype produced by Eastman Kodak claims to have found a way around this problem while achieving a wider color reproducibility range: 100% of NTSC. Power consumption is, according to Kodak Japan's Tsujimura, "no more than 2W for the 8.1-inch display, using the latest white emitters. An LCD panel of the same size would consume about 2W to 4W, making this quite competitive." The device is a bottom emission design, with light emitted from the TFT side, so the color filters must be formed above the TFT substrate.


These performance improvements are due to two major reasons. The first is that the emission efficiency of the white material has been improved dramatically, supported by development for lighting applications. The material used by Eastman Kodak has a current conversion efficiency of about 50cd/A, which Kodak Japan's Tsujimura says represents an annual rise of 50% since 2007.


The other reason is the use of the firm's proprietary W-RGBW sub-pixel array, coupled with a modified drive scheme. Compared to the conventional design using three color filters (RGB), it delivers superior color reproducibility at lower power.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*An Outlook on 2010!! (Technology Reviews)* 
*2 February 2010*













It was 27 years ago when Ching Tang of Eastman Kodak introduced an organic electroluminescent device using Alq3 in 1983 to trigger OLED studies. Kodak, since then, has collaborated with Sanyo, Japan to develop digital cameras and displays for mobile products and to commercialize AMOLED under the name of SK display, in 2001 for the first time in the world; a few products were introduced yet had faded away from the market, only IP-related licenses and R&D efforts have been maintained. Some suggested that the cause of OLED’s struggle in the industry during 2000s could be royalty issues with Kodak while others suggested LCD’s invincibility. In 2009 last year, Kodak handed OLED-related business over to LG Display. Technologies that are still yet to be commercialized had to be buried along with hundreds of patents. Will LG Display be able to grow OLED business with its recent major takeover? The impact is not exclusive to LG Display, it seems. Unlike Kodak running other businesses, companies running both OLED and LCD business are linked together in patent chain, which causes indirect impact on all companies in the chain.


With the world economy stagnation still in effect, the three major players in the display industry-Korea, Japan and Taiwan-went through difficult times and now are getting ready for the new year, 2010, in their own ways. In Korea, both Samsung and LG secured solid positions in the market and reached the highest LCD sales, which led to more investment on AMOLED and extension of the existing lines; the companies are planning for additional investment in 2010. Samsung Mobile Display(SMD) also contributed to introducing AMOLED to the general public through AMOLED phone marketing and LG Display(LGD) stated its plan to reach the top in TV business after taking over Kodak. Taiwan, on the other hand, suffered in LCD industry to secure competitive power only with M&As to get bigger. As Innolux took over TPO and merged CMO, AMOLED business had to be compromised in the process and it is still uncertain whether the situation turns to something positive. In Japan, SONY, the pioneer of AMOLED TV, couldn’t keep its promise for the production and no future plans have been released yet while other companies haven’t confirmed their production plans, either. The United States and Europe with no TFT base make efforts for OLED light source development hosted by the governments; existing lighting companies including GE, Philips and Osram are now actively involved in the development.


One thing that is certain in OLED business is that there is no such thing as a perfect technology. The key is how to supplement the weakness and enhance the strengths. In retrospect, there have been two dilemmas in OLED business: device performance and competitive price/larger OLEDs. There are low molecule and polymer in OLED and LTPS and a-Si in TFT; current production was made possible by the combination of low molecule and LTPS in terms of device performance. However, since major companies announced their TV production by 2012, competitive price and larger size issues have to be resolved to compete with LCD, the giant in the market, in order not to repeat SONY’s XEL. The biggest issues in OLED industry in 2010 would be development of alternative for the existing FMM method(LITI, White+CF, Printing etc), larger devices and larger TFT crystallization devices.


The functions of mobile display have been switched from audio/video play to internet access as smart phone and netbook were introduced to the market, which generated demands for displays that enable various web contents. Most of these contents are created with resolutions of VGA or higher, which requires the resolutions of the same level on mobile devices, and LCD has no problem in realizing such resolutions in small devices. OLED, on the other hand, uses fine metal mask(FMM) to realize RGB and this method is difficult to achieve VGA level resolution in 3-inch devices. According to SMD’s report, LTPS+ LCD in small applications is expected to be replaced for LTPS + OLED by 2012. To achieve high end product premium, AMOLED should focus on the above applications and the main issue is how to achieve high resolutions.


OLED development for light source is relatively flexible than other applications in terms of technology; however, due to the nature of the applications, it has to achieve two goals-efficiency and cost better than those of LED-if the focus is to develop regular light source instead of seeking smaller, more specified markets. Like larger TVs, the problem is to apply materials and processes at competitive prices and achieve sufficient efficiency. GE and Dupont suggest solution materials and web process are the only ways to have competitive prices. One can expect that SMD could enter light source market with relatively strong competitive power by its various cost-saving tips with its low molecular deposition technology since the company shows yield that is close to 100%.


Many companies made announcements last year on extension of mobile product market and TV/lighting product production in 2011~2012. Milestones that seemed so far away are now about to come true; how to operate which strategies during this 1~2-year time will be the key to success. Overall success, not limited to that of one specific company, is the only way to secure solid position in the competition with LCD and LED. Therefore year 2010 will be an important year for all OLED companies to make decisions and growth.


----------



## Spleen

Mitsubishi Chemical and Pioneer disclosed Tuesday that they have entered into a technology and capital alliance on their OLED lighting businesses, which will strengthen their company relations. Read about it here: http://www.twice.com/article/448393-...hp?rssid=20312 


I assume that OLED TVs will come out of this alliance.


----------



## Kaldskryke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Spleen* /forum/post/18108398
> 
> 
> I assume that OLED TVs will come out of this alliance.



The article talks exclusively about OLED lighting appliances and nothing about display devices. It's about using Mitsubishi's fabrication process at Pioneer's fabricating plants, making tons of panels and splitting the profits. OLED displays are a fair bit more complicated than OLED lights, too...


----------



## Corent

 technologyreview.com/computing/24520/?a=f 


> Quote:
> *Making OLED Displays Cheaper*
> *February 11, 2010*
> 
> 
> A startup in Menlo Park, CA, hopes to bring down the cost of these high-performance displays by making equipment for printing them on a large scale. Kateeva is testing a prototype large-area OLED printer that it will send to display manufacturers for testing next year. According to the company, its equipment can be used to print OLED displays for 60 percent of the cost of LCDs.


*Video*: technologyreview.com/video/?vid=525 


New user here. Links won't work yet...


----------



## navychop

I, for one, look forward with great anticipation the arrival of OLED lighting. I'd LOVE to use it for under counter lighting when we redo our kitchen.


----------



## biggiE48

Sony says to end OLED TV sales in Japan

Saw this article and I wonder what does this mean for the US market ..

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...pe=marketsNews


----------



## pehgrif

Well, it doesn't surprise me that there's no demand for a $2200 11" screen, no matter how good it might be.


----------



## wco81

Maybe they decided better to let Samsung and LG burn money trying to make it happen.


Price rules quality so if OLED can't be price/cost competitive, quality is moot.


----------



## vinnie97

All the more reason to have a Kuro 9th Gen for the foreseeable future. OLED looks to be on shaky ground.


----------



## pkeegan

endgadgetHD reports LG 15" OLED to begin shipping in May to Europe and this summer to US http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/28/l...-scheduled-to/


----------



## hdGamerDude

who wants to spend 2200 on an 11" display that doesnt support HD?


so when will the 20" be hitting us? ive been wating forever for SED and now it seems like OLED is slowing down.


----------



## rgb32

03/04/2010

OLEDNet has published an OLED market forecast for 2010-2016. Basically the say that during 2010, Samsung will introduce 5" and 7" AMOLEDs, and LG Display will produce 2.7" AMOLED for digital cameras, 3.5" WVGA for mobile phones and 4.3" OLEDs for portable TVS. Toshiba Mobile Displays (TMD) will begin AMOLED small panel production during 2010 as well.











Toshiba, Matsushita and Hitachi are all expected to introduce 20"-40" OLED TV panels as early as 2011. AUO will begin mass production in 2011, too.

via OLED-Info 
Source OLEDNet


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hdGamerDude* /forum/post/18226058
> 
> 
> who wants to spend 2200 on an 11" display that doesnt support HD?
> 
> 
> so when will the 20" be hitting us? ive been wating forever for SED and now it seems like OLED is slowing down.



From the chart above, >20" OLED TVs might be released next year!







It looks like 55" OLED TVs might start shipping in 5 years!







So, still away off...


----------



## wco81

Some website compared a Nexus One and an iPhone and the N1 had horrible banding on some images.


Before they move to bigger screen sizes, they have to at least improve the image quality and power consumption of OLEDs.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/18248938
> 
> 
> Some website compared a Nexus One and an iPhone and the N1 had horrible banding on some images.
> 
> 
> Before they move to bigger screen sizes, they have to at least improve the image quality and power consumption of OLEDs.



The *PenTile* pixel structure of the OLED display inside the Nexus One is not representative of all OLED displays:










http://www.displayblog.com/2009/03/2...-oled-display/ 

http://www.displayblog.com/2010/01/2...-oled-display/ 











The banding and pixel structure issues were not a problem for the XEL-1:
http://reviews.cnet.com/oled/sony-xe...-32815284.html 

http://hdguru.com/sony-xel-1-finally...al-review/242/ 


We'll see how the LG 15EL9500 looks when it is released later this year!







Perhaps Sony will finally release their 1080p 27" model in 2011!


----------



## Dunedain

Hey guys, I have a tech question about OLED. One of the biggest problems with LCD computer monitors, and yet it rarely gets mentioned, I guess because most computer users (game players particularly) are unaware what an impact it has on them, is that it's my understanding that an LCD computer monitor has to be run at it's maximum (native) resolution all the time. Or else there are visual artifacts (defects) of one sort or the other that are introduced to the image if you try to run at a lower resolution than the monitor's full native resolution, is that correct?


If so, that's one great thing about a CRT monitor, you can choose any resolution you like (not just the maximum res the monitor supports) and they all look great, no visual artifacts in the image, the only thing that changes (obviously) is the resolution available on the screen depending on which res you choose to run the monitor at. This helps a lot when you are running games, as you take a huge frames-per-second performance hit in games when you run at very high resolutions (like with an LCD monitor). This means you have to upgrade your computer much more often to keep the frame rates in the latest most graphically intense games running smoothly at these very high resolutions. And that costs a lot of money needlessly.


I see that the first laptop OLED computer monitors are due out this year. I think they will be around 15 or 17 inches. And that means that desktop models will not be far behind, that's what I'm looking forward to, the larger desktop models. And this brings me to the OLED technical question. I don't think I've ever seen definite confirmation on this yet. Can an OLED computer monitor be used at a resolution lower than it's maximum (native) resolution while keeping the on-screen image free from any visual defects?


Like, for example, let's say the OLED monitor is a 19 inch 4:3 model and it has a maximum (native) resolution of 1600x1200. Could I run this OLED monitor at 1024x768 or 1280x960 if I wanted to and games would still look perfect (no visual artifact penalty for not running the games at 1600x1200)? You can do this easily on a CRT monitor, what about an OLED monitor?


Also, what's the latest word on when these desktop OLED monitors might be available? Will they all be 16x9 widescreen or maybe also some 4:3 models?


Thanks for any info.


----------



## chucky2

Dunedain,


That's a very good question, I'd like to know the answer also if anyone knows.


Chuck


----------



## walt73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dunedain* /forum/post/18305627
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Like, for example, let's say the OLED monitor is a 19 inch 4:3 model and it has a maximum (native) resolution of 1600x1200. Could I run this OLED monitor at 1024x768 or 1280x960 if I wanted to and games would still look perfect (no visual artifact penalty for not running the games at 1600x1200)? You can do this easily on a CRT monitor, what about an OLED monitor?
> 
> ...



You seem to be asking whether OLEDs are fixed-pixel displays, is that right?


If so the answer is a definite yes.


----------



## Dunedain

walt73: Well, they may technically be fixed-pixel displays, and I think LCD's are also considered this type of display, but you don't *have* to run LCD's at full native resolution all the time. But I've heard there are artifacts if you don't run them at their full res.


The question is, have OLED monitors overcome this problem, can you run an OLED computer monitor at less than it's full resolution without visual defects being introduced into the image? Are they capable of this like a CRT monitor is?


----------



## Daviii

OLED has a continuous pixel count just like LCD and Plasma. Please, forget the CRT days as far as resolution fexibility is concerned.


If OLED or LCD or Plasma look bad when fed with a non-std resolution, get a better scaler, but keep in mind that a scaler, no matter how good it may be, can not even approach to the crispness of a perfect non-scaled feed.


Crap pc monitors have crap scalers, thus the typical gaming problem when rendering at lower resolutions (Blurryness)


----------



## Dunedain

Daviii: That's certainly bad news, makes one wish that SED monitors would come out.







So you're saying that a high-end LCD or SED computer monitor will be able to scale a game actually running at less than the monitor's maximum resolution up to the monitor's native resolution without blurring artifacts and so on?


Any 19 inch LCD monitors out there that meet this standard of quality scaler (very fast response time also mandatory for games)?


----------



## moreHD

The forcast table in post no. 1428 shows CMEL 7.6" amoled as having been in mass production since late 2008. Is it a photo frame? How is it branded? Can I turn a photo frame into a portable tv? Thank you in advanve.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Nanometer Graphene can be used to make better and cheaper large-area OLEDs* 
*11 March 2010*










*Graphene OLED*











*Graphene OLED*



Researchers at Stanford University have successfully developed a brand new concept of OLEDs with a few nanometer of graphene as transparent conductor. This paved the way for inexpensive mass production of OLEDs on large-area low-cost flexible plastic substrate, which could be rolled up like wallpaper and virtually applied to anywhere you want. The researchers say that Graphene has the potential to be transparent, high-performance, highly conductive and cheaper by several orders of magnitude than current ITO based solutions. Interestingly just a few weeks ago we reported that Graphene can be used to make organic lighting devices , too.


Traditionally, indium tin oxide (ITO) is used in OLEDs, but indium is rare, expensive and difficult to recycle. Scientists have been actively searching for an alternative candidate.


The next generation of optoelectronic devices requires transparent conductive electrodes to be lightweight, flexible, cheap, environmental attractive, and compatible with large-scale manufacturing methods. Graphene (a single layer of graphite) is becoming a very promising candidate due to its unique electrical and optical properties. Very recently, Junbo Wu et al., researchers at Stanford University, successfully demonstrated the application of graphene in OLEDs for the first time.


Junbo Wu, leading researcher of the development, said that they achieved OLEDs on graphene with performance similar to a control device on conventional ITO transparent anodes, which is very exciting and promising for real-world applications. Because graphene is only a couple of nanometers thick, it can give device designers more freedom.


For detailed information on this research, please refer to: _Organic Light-Emitting Diodes on Solution-Processed Graphene Transparent Electrodes_


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dunedain* /forum/post/18314899
> 
> 
> Daviii: That's certainly bad news, makes one wish that SED monitors would come out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that a high-end LCD or SED computer monitor will be able to scale a game actually running at less than the monitor's maximum resolution up to the monitor's native resolution without blurring artifacts and so on?
> 
> 
> Any 19 inch LCD monitors out there that meet this standard of quality scaler (very fast response time also mandatory for games)?



No, all scaling will reduce image quality especially for games. This is because it is fractional. You can't really have 1.5 pixels only 2 or 1 for example so images are blended across pixels which causes a bit of fuzzyness. Movies don't suffer as bad as they aren't as sharp as games.


----------



## Dunedain

DaveC19: One partial solution might be to run a wide-screen LCD or OLED monitor in 4:3 mode, running with black pillars down both sides.


For example, take a 24 inch LCD (or OLED, when they become available) with a native res of 1920x1200. Then run it in 4:3 mode, where only the central 1600x1200 pixels are used for displaying images. Then you can run a game at 1600x1200, with no up-scaling of the image necessary, because the monitor knows to only use the middle 1600x1200 pixels of the panel for the image, which is exactly what the game is outputting to the monitor, 1600x1200.


This has several benefits. One is that if the game was designed to run in 4:3 mode, you don't have to deal with any ugly horizontal stretching of the image. Secondly, since you are running the game at 1600x1200, as opposed to 1920x1200, you should get a nice boost in frame-rate. And because 1600x1200 res is high, but within reason, you can probably get away with running the game at this 4:3 virtual native resolution and still get decent frame-rates. And thus you don't have to resort to running the game at lower than 1600x1200 res to get higher frame-rates and then suffering with these up-scaling artifacts.


Can you run a 24 inch 1920x1200 LCD like this, in 4:3 mode (monitor does not use the 160 pixels on the left and right sides of the monitor, they are off/black all the time, only sends images to be displayed within the central 1600x1200 pixels, and all games run at 1600x1200 need no up-scaling)?


----------



## irkuck

OLED should not be unknowingly worshipped but its PQ looked with sober, cold head. In the evaluation of smartphone screens OLED were showing significant weaknesses, giving up to the LCD in the overall score. Here is the glaring list of weaknesses:

_instead of delivering accurate, natural colors, oversaturates them, resulting in glaring color tint problems and inaccurate color reproduction. For example, red could possibly be confused with orange. Also, false contouring is apparent, lending evidence to a lack of 24-bit color support, and the extreme outdoor reflectance makes it difficult to operate on sunny days. Though some may prefer the screen's ability to make colors pop in games and its high contrast ratio, don't expect any natural color reproduction._

_Plagued by various color inaccuracies, oversaturation, color tint problems, and an inability to legibly display gray and white text on a black background,_


With such impressive list of problems there is a loong way for OLED to compete with LCD just on PQ, without even mentioning the price. Yeah, OLED black level is like a black hole, but anything brighter is unreal


----------



## wco81

Could it be that some panels were rushed out, to ride the hype and capitalize on the mobile devices market, despite the problems with PQ, power consumption, poor daylight visibility?


Or it's more than a problem of immature technology, rather inherent flaws in OLED which are now coming to the surface?


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/18375307
> 
> 
> Could it be that some panels were rushed out, to ride the hype and capitalize on the mobile devices market, despite the problems with PQ, power consumption, poor daylight visibility?
> 
> 
> Or it's more than a problem of immature technology, rather inherent flaws in OLED which are now coming to the surface?



The Nexus One seems to be an example of "keepin' it OLED goes wrong". The pentile OLED seems like a bad idea, and other sources have already indicated that the OLED implementation (HW and drivers) were sub-standard. It seems Samsung Super AMOLED screens should be greatly improved, especially when it's speculated that Apple might source Samsungs Super AMOLED screens for the next iteration of the iPhone...


----------



## steel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/18375246
> 
> 
> OLED should not be unknowingly worshipped but its PQ looked with sober, cold head. In the evaluation of smartphone screens OLED were showing significant weaknesses, giving up to the LCD in the overall score. Here is the glaring list of weaknesses:
> 
> _instead of delivering accurate, natural colors, oversaturates them, resulting in glaring color tint problems and inaccurate color reproduction. For example, red could possibly be confused with orange. Also, false contouring is apparent, lending evidence to a lack of 24-bit color support, and the extreme outdoor reflectance makes it difficult to operate on sunny days. Though some may prefer the screen's ability to make colors pop in games and its high contrast ratio, don't expect any natural color reproduction._
> 
> _Plagued by various color inaccuracies, oversaturation, color tint problems, and an inability to legibly display gray and white text on a black background,_
> 
> 
> With such impressive list of problems there is a loong way for OLED to compete with LCD just on PQ, without even mentioning the price. Yeah, OLED black level is like a black hole, but anything brighter is unreal



HTC Nexus One by Google 800x480 pixels

225 cd/M2 (At most) 0.0049cd/m2 (At Least) 46,000:1


Do you know what I see here? I see contrast like I've never seen before, on any display.


Color inaccuracies should be an easy fix. Contrast ratio? Look to Plasma and LCD tech, and you'll see that isn't so easy










The CR on the 3GS is laughable compared to the Droid, though.


----------



## wco81

Video may look much better on a smart phone with an AMOLED screen (unless you're out in the sunlight apparently) but for text and viewing the web or running other computer graphics, current smart phones with AMOLED seem to fall short of smart phones with LCD.


It was posted earlier in this thread that it won't be until 2012 where AMOLED catches up to LCD on power consumption, for instance.


----------



## deliriumus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/18381798
> 
> 
> Video may look much better on a smart phone with an AMOLED screen (unless you're out in the sunlight apparently) but for text and viewing the web or running other computer graphics, current smart phones with AMOLED seem to fall short of smart phones with LCD.



You speak as if there's hardly any pq-difference among OLED displays.


Here's a brightness comparison between Samsung's new AMOLED screen and the one used in Nexus One.


----------



## navychop

Wow.


----------



## Artwood

What's the biggest OLED set currently being sold to real people in the real world?


What will be the biggest OLED set sold to real people in the real world come Christmas 2010?


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/18388507
> 
> 
> What's the biggest OLED set currently being sold to real people in the real world?



The LG 15EL9500.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/18388507
> 
> 
> What will be the biggest OLED set sold to real people in the real world come Christmas 2010?



Unless LG, Sony, or Samsung decide to surprise us, the LG 15EL9500.


I'm always baffled by the "but when is it going to be this big for this price" type of questions. Are you not excited by the different developments with this display tech? Unless handset mfgs decide to switch BACK to LCD displays (obsurd - not happening), the OLED tech as a whole will continue to evolve and improve (e.g. Super AMOLED pwns previous gen pentile AMOLED).


What will the main trend for TVs at CES 2011? If it's not 3D TV part 2, it might very well be OLED TVs.... two years too late IMO...


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deliriumus* /forum/post/18384822
> 
> 
> You speak as if there's hardly any pq-difference among OLED displays.
> 
> 
> Here's a brightness comparison between Samsung's new AMOLED screen and the one used in Nexus One.



+1. People don't seem to understand... though if Apple does use the Super AMOLED display in the iPhone 4G, perception should be corrected.


----------



## rgb32

 AUO will start installing new OLED production equipment in 3Q 2010 


03/24/2010

*AU Optronics is on track to start mass-producing small and medium AMOLED panels in 2011*, and will start installing new production equipment in 3Q 2010. The OLED line will be remodeled from the company's idle 3.5G LTPS (low-temperature polysilicon) equipment. AUO has already announced plans to recuit new employees for the OLED production plant.









*AUO 14-inch OLED prototype*


Source _Digitimes_


via _OLED-Info_


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/18375246
> 
> 
> OLED should not be unknowingly worshipped but its PQ looked with sober, cold head. In the evaluation of smartphone screens OLED were showing significant weaknesses, giving up to the LCD in the overall score. Here is the glaring list of weaknesses:
> 
> _instead of delivering accurate, natural colors, oversaturates them, resulting in glaring color tint problems and inaccurate color reproduction. For example, red could possibly be confused with orange. Also, false contouring is apparent, lending evidence to a lack of 24-bit color support, and the extreme outdoor reflectance makes it difficult to operate on sunny days. Though some may prefer the screen's ability to make colors pop in games and its high contrast ratio, don't expect any natural color reproduction._
> 
> _Plagued by various color inaccuracies, oversaturation, color tint problems, and an inability to legibly display gray and white text on a black background,_
> 
> 
> With such impressive list of problems there is a loong way for OLED to compete with LCD just on PQ, without even mentioning the price. Yeah, OLED black level is like a black hole, but anything brighter is unreal



Nonsense.


OLED is just a series of red, green, and blue emmiters. It is up to the electronics to produce an accurate image. The only color problem I could see is with the relatively weak blue emmiters. So blue may not be as deep as on an LCD. That wasn't mentioned though.


LCDs don't display well in the direct sun either unless they are transreflective. If they are transreflective their black level, color saturation, and contrast suck (look at an iPhone).


I have seen the Sony OLEd and it had none of those problems.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/18401347
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> ...
> 
> I have seen the Sony OLED and it had none of those problems.



Yeah, it's hard for people to appreciate OLED if they haven't spent some time with the XEL-1.







Superb motion (>PDP/LCD), colors that truly pop (even if they are not Rec 709 accurate), and uncanny black level - all of which have been noted in every review I've found. Too bad the size and price are prohibitive for most. Not to say everything was perfect, but that this pilot line of OLED TV does not have the problems that LCDs and PDPs have been struggling to improve from year to year (black level, motion, ect).


----------



## Artwood

I don't think size questions are unreasonable. Until OLED can get above 50-inches and people can buy it--who cares?


How about this question: What will be the largest OLED that someone can buy and watch the 2012 Olympics on?


Will OLED break the 50-inch barrier by the 2016 Olympics?


How about by the 2014 winter olympics?


When will OLED not be pie in the sky?


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/18404254
> 
> 
> I don't think size questions are unreasonable. Until OLED can get above 50-inches and people can buy it--who cares?



You seem to care! Keep checking back and your size concerns will be answered in time.


----------



## rgb32

LG Display 15 inch 15el9500 ready for pre-order at Amazon.de

March 29, 2010

http://www.oled-display.net/lg-displ...er-at-amazonde 











The 15 inch OLED-Television from LG 15EL9500

is now ready to pre-order at Amazon.de . The device ist shipment ready in 2-3 weeks and costs 1.999,00 Euros.


The LG EL9500 has a 15" OLED panel with 1366x768 resolution, 100,000:1 contrast and a response time that is lower than 0.01 msec. It's only 1.7mm thick.


The AMOLED-TV does have a amazing picture quality.


----------



## magillagorilla

bumping this thread back to life


----------



## Artwood

Bump OLED screen size up to life and then maybe someone will care.


----------



## rgb32

 http://www.amazon.co.uk/15-9500-HDre...0856342&sr=8-1 


£1,746.50 -> ~$1,750 USD!


Can't wait..!


----------



## spyboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *magillagorilla* /forum/post/18459746
> 
> 
> bumping this thread back to life



By the time an affordable 55 inch OLED is available (if ever), 55 inch LCDs will be under $1,000.


9 out of 10 TVs sold now are LCDs, with most of the rest being Plasma. Prices are still going down on LCDs and the huge number of LCD panels shipped is only going to continue to bring down the price of LCD.


Maybe 10 years from now, we will be able to get a 55 inch OLED for less than $4,000.


----------



## 8:13

oled tv is not for sale as lcd/reflective tv is the way agreed upon on. oled is a direct transmission technology and that is not marketed right now, reflective technology in displays is marketed.


they have the technology but they say too much to build fabs. same foe sed, too much money. more like sed is too much a diret transmission tech making reflective tech look like a childs toy.


----------



## Dunedain




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dunedain* /forum/post/18319735
> 
> 
> DaveC19: One partial solution might be to run a wide-screen LCD or OLED monitor in 4:3 mode, running with black pillars down both sides.
> 
> 
> For example, take a 24 inch LCD (or OLED, when they become available) with a native res of 1920x1200. Then run it in 4:3 mode, where only the central 1600x1200 pixels are used for displaying images. Then you can run a game at 1600x1200, with no up-scaling of the image necessary, because the monitor knows to only use the middle 1600x1200 pixels of the panel for the image, which is exactly what the game is outputting to the monitor, 1600x1200.
> 
> 
> This has several benefits. One is that if the game was designed to run in 4:3 mode, you don't have to deal with any ugly horizontal stretching of the image. Secondly, since you are running the game at 1600x1200, as opposed to 1920x1200, you should get a nice boost in frame-rate. And because 1600x1200 res is high, but within reason, you can probably get away with running the game at this 4:3 virtual native resolution and still get decent frame-rates. And thus you don't have to resort to running the game at lower than 1600x1200 res to get higher frame-rates and then suffering with these up-scaling artifacts.
> 
> 
> Can you run a 24 inch 1920x1200 LCD like this, in 4:3 mode (monitor does not use the 160 pixels on the left and right sides of the monitor, they are off/black all the time, only sends images to be displayed within the central 1600x1200 pixels, and all games run at 1600x1200 need no up-scaling)?




Hmm, a question even the t.v./monitor techies at AVS don't know the answer to? Surely not!


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8:13* /forum/post/18469832
> 
> 
> oled tv is not for sale as lcd/reflective tv is the way agreed upon on. oled is a direct transmission technology and that is not marketed right now, reflective technology in displays is marketed.
> 
> 
> they have the technology but they say too much to build fabs. same foe sed, too much money. more like sed is too much a diret transmission tech making reflective tech look like a childs toy.



Actually, I believe OLED sales are in the millions. They're just used for small screens today, say 1"-4". Ramping up to larger sizes is in progress; technology marches on, perhaps a bit slowly.


----------



## rgb32

 NAB: Sony Debuts $3,850 Professional 7.4-inch OLED Monitor 

April 12th, 2010











Product Page:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-PVM740/ 



> Quote:
> The PVM 740 is another leap in Sony imaging technology. Using the new OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) technology, blacks are black. Contrast is mesmerizing and your picture never looked so good. Incorporating Sony’s “STE” (Super Top Emission) structure, the PVM 740 can display extremely wide gamut colors and repel panel glare so that "on set" or "in the field" viewing is simple and accurate. The PVM 740 also includes other features that make it the favorite for view and framing camera images. The new “Flip” feature can swap the image horizontally, vertically, or combined so that over and under 3D rig viewing is a simple push of a button. The SD/HD/3G input is not an option so even display of HD 60P images is a snap.
> 
> 
> The chassis is made of cast aluminum for durable in field use and includes a protection panel for the OLED so that rough handling has no effect on performance. The small size of the PVM 740 allows usage in various applications including ENG/EFP, OB Van, Editing Systems, and Monitor Walls. By employing a 960 x 540 16:9 OLED panel, *contrast is as never seen before* and *image lag is a thing of the past*. Picture quality is excellent both indoors and outdoors. Additionally the PVM 740 incorporates Sony’s ChromaTru color processing which allows the *PVM 740 to accurately display images as SMPTE, EBU or ITU-R BT709 color standards*. The PVM 740 comes standard with one composite, one auto detecting SDI/HDSDI/3G input. One HDMI input, internal waveform monitor, AC power adapter, and ¼ and 3/8 holes for camera mounting.



PVM-740 Brochure:
http://ws.sel.sony.com/PIPWebService...rochure_V1.pdf 



> Quote:
> *Quick Response with Blur-free Motion*
> 
> Because the OLED electroluminescent layer inherently responds to any electrical current input, it emits light immediately. By this mechanism, excellent quick response characteristics can be achieved in fast-motion images. This effi cient blur-free, fast response benefi ts a variety of applications and scenes, e.g., in sports broadcasting, monitoring of camera panning, and text scrolling.
> 
> ...
> *Detachable AR (anti-refl ection) -coated Protection Panel*
> 
> AR-coated protection panel keeps the LCD panel surface from scratch. Added to this, the AR coating has two unique characteristics: it provides a high transmission rate of the internal light source to keep the picture as bright as possible, and it keeps refl ection from ambient light to a minimum. As a result, when used in bright lighting conditions, high contrast is still maintained even in dark areas of the picture.
> 
> ...
> *Sophisticated I/P Conversion*
> 
> PVM-740 uses a motion-adaptive I/P-conversion process to achieve conversion results that are optimized to the picture content – whether the image is static or dynamic. Highly accurate I/P conversion of both HD and SD inputs is provided regardless of signal resolution.
> 
> *I/P Mode Selection*
> 
> PVM-740 provides three I/P modes so that users can select
> 
> the most suitable mode for each purpose:
> *INTER-FIELD:* This mode interpolates images between fields.
> 
> This is used for picture quality precedence (e.g., to reduce
> 
> jagged effect on moving pictures).
> *FIELD MERGE:* This mode combines lines alternately in odd
> 
> and even fields, regardless of picture movements. This is
> 
> used for PsF (Progressive Segmented Frames) processing
> 
> and still image monitoring.
> *LINE DOUBLER:* This mode interpolates by repeating
> 
> each line. This is used for editing and monitoring fastmoving
> 
> images, and checking line flicker. *The minimum
> 
> processing time is less than one field (0.5 frames)*.



Press Release:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/Broa.../pr_pvm740.pdf 



> Quote:
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> 
> SONY UNVEILS FIRST OLED PROFESSIONAL FIELD MONITOR
> 
> LAS VEGAS (NAB Booth C11001) April 11, 2010 – Sony is bringing the stunning technology that revolutionized consumer displays to its line of professional monitors. The new PVM-740 is the first field display to use an Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) display panel with Sony’s unique Super Top Emission™ technology to efficiently deliver superb high contrast, high color images, even in ambient light.
> 
> 
> The 7.4-inch high-resolution (960 x 540 pixels) portable monitor can fit a range of professional monitoring applications, including studio editing, ENG and EFT production, OB trucks, and even research and development. The versatile new monitor is also ideal for use in 3D camera rigs with its flip mode.
> 
> The display panel creates smooth gradation from the dark to the bright portions of scenes such as a sunrise or a sunset. The PVM-740 offers outstanding high-contrast images – for example, the deep black of a night scene can be accurately displayed and the black portion of an image is not raised even in a low-illumination edit suite. Its blur-free, quick response to fast motion is perfect for sports or camera monitoring during panning and text scrolling.
> 
> 
> The monitor can flip a picture horizontally or vertically without frame delay. This feature is useful during 3D image acquisition using a 3D rig camera with a pair of 2D monitors. The monitor can be connected to the camera systems directly without need for an external signal converter, making system integration simpler.
> 
> 
> Its picture contrast is greater than a CRT display, is less affected by ambient light, allowing clear images to be viewed even in strong sunlight. For further protection, the optional VF-510 ENG kit provides a viewing hood, carrying handle, and connector protector.
> 
> 
> An AR coating provides protection from scratches and enables a high transmission rate of the internal light source to keep the picture as bright as possible, while keeping reflection from ambient light to a minimum. As a result, when used in bright lighting conditions, high contrast is still maintained even in dark areas of the picture.
> 
> 
> Sony’s unique 10-bit panel driver and ChromaTRU™ technologies work effectively to emulate colors and gammas of CRT monitors, and to support broadcast standards (SMPTE-C, EBU, and ITU-R BT.709).
> 
> The new monitor also adds DC/AC operations, a convenient control panel with luminous and assignable buttons, a camera focus function, a wave form monitor, 8-channel audio level meter, a variety marker setting, and native scanning capabilities.
> 
> 
> The PVM-740 monitor is also equipped with a Sony’s unique feed-back circuit system. This system works to monitor the emitted lights all the time, and feed the monitor-result back and adjust the white balance. It also ensures color and gamma stability.
> 
> 
> The PVM-740 is 3.8U high and half-rack wide. Using the optional MB-531 mounting bracket with a 10-degree-forward and 10-degree-backward nonstop-tilt capability, two units can be installed side by side in a 19-inch EIA standard rack. With 3/8-inch and 1/4-inch screw holes on its base, the PVM-740 can be installed in a camera system on a pedestal, for example.
> 
> The PVM-740 can display a center marker and aspect markers, and the brightness of these markers can be selected from either gray or dark gray levels. Users can also select a gray matte to fill the outer area of the aspect markers.
> 
> 
> A unique native scan function reproduces images without changing the input signal’s pixel count – mapping the pixel of the input signal on the panel pixel-to-pixel. For example, when an SD signal is input, the monitor reproduces the image at picture sizes of 646 x 487 pixels in 480i and 480p, and 768 x 540 pixels in 575i and 576p. When an HD signal is input, the PVM-740 displays a center portion of the HD image.
> 
> 
> The PVM-740 is equipped with standard interface connectors: a composite video, a 3G/HD/SD-SDI, and an HDMI interface.
> 
> 
> It accepts most SD or HD video formats. For extra mobility, it incorporates various video interfaces as standard, including composite, SDI interface for SD-SDI, HD-SDI, 3G-SDI, and HDMI interface. With the 3G-SDI interface, it accepts 1080/50p and 1080/60p formats, which is compliant with the SMPTE 425 standard, transmitting up to 4:2:2/10-bit 1080/60p and 1080/50p video data using one SDI cable. As sports and live production move toward a 1080p system, this single-link 3G-SDI system can be an ideal solution.
> 
> 
> HDMI connectivity further expands the monitor’s potential applications. For example, the PVM-740 monitor can connect with professional video systems such as Sony’s XDCAM HD®, XDCAM EX™, NXCAM™, and HDV™ series. Consumer video products such as Blu-ray Disc™ and digital cameras can also be connected, ideal for Blu-ray video authoring or digital photo image previews.
> 
> 
> The new monitor is planned to be available in April, at a suggested list price of *$3,850*.


----------



## Kaldskryke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dunedain* /forum/post/18471434
> 
> 
> Hmm, a question even the t.v./monitor techies at AVS don't know the answer to? Surely not!



Dunedain... yes, you can. Even my little 1024x600 netbook has no qualms about running its display at 800x600.


While this can often be done on a monitor's OSD menu, more often people will use their video drivers to determine how scaling is to be performed. Not sure about ATi cards, but my old Nvidia card would let you pick between full-screen scaling, fixed-aspect-ratio scaling, and no scaling where the game's image would be centered on the screen regardless of resolution. I haven't really bothered trying to do this on my ATi card because it doesn't really have trouble rendering at 1920x1200 


Also, you mentioned earlier that you thought SED would be able to scale content perfectly, but this isn't the case. Every display that has a fixed number of pixels (LCD, plasma, OLED, SED, etc) will be forced to scale content that's not at the display's native resolution. CRTs escaped this problem by sweeping an electron beam across a phosphor screen and didn't have individual pixels, per se, and could adapt to any resolution... but that came at a price (geometry issues, etc).


----------



## Isochroma

 *CDT kicks ITO off OLED substrates* 
*7 April 2010*


OLED firm Cambridge Display Technology (CDT) has eliminated expensive indium tin oxide (ITO) from organic lighting panels, replacing it with a fine copper mesh.


"This demonstration has shown the potential for patterned metal tracking using electroless metal deposition as a replacement for both ITO and traditional sputtered tracking," said CDT. "ITO is widely used as a transparent conductor in the displays, lighting and photovoltaics industries, but is in short supply and expensive."


ITO is also brittle and prone to cracking, particularly on flexible substrates


The copper mesh is not etched, but deposited using a process developed by Conductive Inkjet Technology (CIT), a subsidiary of optics firm Carclo.


CIT prints a pattern of catalyst on the substrate, which causes copper to be laid-down when it is immersed in a metal-containing solution.


Copper tracks under 10µm have been deposited on glass "resulting in a highly transparent, highly conductive surface without the voltage drops of ITO-based technologies," claimed CDT. "By applying a conductive polymer to these grids, a true ITO replacement has been demonstrated."


Jim Veninger is general manager at CDT.


"While further development is required, I can see CIT's technology supporting processes for OLED lighting in the near future," he said.


The results have come from a project called Nomad, which includes both CDT and CIT, and is part-funded by the Government's Technology Strategy Board.


"We are extremely happy with the progress made in this project, and to see that this new approach may soon be ready for commercial exploitation in OLED lighting. This is yet another great example of world class businesses coming together in the UK to develop innovative technology with global market potential," said the TSB's lead electronics technologist Mike Biddle.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Carclo unit and CDT demonstrate ITO-free lighting panel* 
*7 April 2010*


Cambridge Display Technology has produced an innovative OLED lighting product using technology by Carclo's Conductive Inkjet Technology subsidiary.


CDT has produced an ITO-free P-OLED lighting device using a fine copper mesh.


The work was enabled by its work with Conductive Inkjet Technology and their joint 'NOMAD' project funded by the government-backed Technology Strategy Board.


NOMAD started in 2007 with the aim of developing technology for the next generation of low-cost OLED devices by combining advanced manufacturing methods with state-of-the-art polymer OLED materials (P-OLEDs).


The demonstration has shown the potential for patterned metal tracking using electroless metal deposition as a replacement for both Indium Tin Oxide and traditional sputtered tracking.


ITO is widely used as a transparent conductor in the displays, lighting and photovoltaics industries, but is in short supply and expensive.


----------



## johnmistar

Samsung has confirmed that they're building a 5.5G OLED plant with 1300x1500 mm substrates. This supports much larger OLED panels than the current 3.5G plant.


Operational from January 2011.


More info: Samsung confirms 5.5G OLED plant, larger OLED


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnmistar* /forum/post/18510716
> 
> 
> Samsung has confirmed that they're building a 5.5G OLED plant with 1300x1500 mm substrates. This supports much larger OLED panels than the current 3.5G plant.
> 
> 
> Operational from January 2011.
> 
> 
> More info: Samsung confirms 5.5G OLED plant, larger OLED



Nice. Hopefully we'll see some real progress early next year (tablets, notebooks, 32" TV's?). At the moment OLED seems to be stuck at 3.x" phones.


----------



## Swiggs

Speaking of AMOLED technology in cell phones, the HTC Incredible from Verizon hits the market at the end of the month and it too, has an OLED screen. I'll be pre-ordering mine tomorrow. Based on the reviews that I have read, the screen on the HTC Incredible is more impressive than that of the Nexus One. That is definitely promising considering how shameful the Nexus One screen performs when compared with the Samsung. Only time will tell. I'll have my HTC Incredible April 29th.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Swiggs* /forum/post/18514892
> 
> 
> Speaking of AMOLED technology in cell phones, the HTC Incredible from Verizon hits the market at the end of the month and it too, has an OLED screen. I'll be pre-ordering mine tomorrow. Based on the reviews that I have read, the screen on the HTC Incredible is more impressive than that of the Nexus One. That is definitely promising considering how shameful the Nexus One screen performs when compared with the Samsung. Only time will tell. I'll have my HTC Incredible April 29th.



From the reviews I've seen, the AMOLED display in the Incredible is the same as the Nexus One.


----------



## Swiggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/18516475
> 
> 
> From the reviews I've seen, the AMOLED display in the Incredible is the same as the Nexus One.



Based on the CNET review , the Incredible's screen displays "more vibrant colors" than the Nexus One, which is encouraging. I'll know more when I get it next week. I know I've read a couple other items that have mentioned that the Incredible seems to out duel the Nexus One in terms of it's screen, but I can't track them down at the moment.


----------



## navychop

I wonder if the next iPhone has OLED. Apple lost one to the "wild" and it's been written up as having a better screen than the 3GS.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/18519557
> 
> 
> I wonder if the next iPhone has OLED. Apple lost one to the "wild" and it's been written up as having a better screen than the 3GS.



Well, here's a comparison of the Apple iPhone to the Samsung S8500 (LCD vs Super AMOLED):







So, I really hope the iPhone 4G/HD uses the Samsung Super AMOLED screen!







It didn't seem like the Engadget guys commented as to whether or not that prototype has an OLED screen... hmm...


----------



## Swiggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/18522117
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't seem like the Engadget guys commented as to whether or not that prototype has an OLED screen... hmm...



I think it was hard for them to tell considering that Apple remotely erased the phone before it came into their possession. They couldn't get a real good look at the screen without it being turned on.


----------



## navychop

Wasn't it on the first few hours they had it? Commented on resolution. I wonder why they did not open it. Or admit they did. Probably the only way they could know for sure.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/18524941
> 
> 
> Wasn't it on the first few hours they had it? Commented on resolution. I wonder why they did not open it. Or admit they did. Probably the only way they could know for sure.



Well, regardless of what was in that prototype, we'll know for sure when Apple shows the final version on June 22nd! If it does indeed have the Samsung Super OLED... I'll be buying one!


----------



## 8mile13

I like the sony OLED monitor.


----------



## ferro

* Samsung's Android-powered S-Pad tablet with 7-inch Super AMOLED in August? *


By Thomas Ricker posted May 4th 2010 1:53AM


Know what's hot like 2001? Tablet computers. Just like that a product category has been reborn and proven viable as a money making machine. Now the scramble is on to fill the void by companies big and small.


Samsung, a big name in the UMPC debacle (that's the Q1 to the right) with its own confirmed tablet ambitions, looks prepped to deliver product this summer if Korean pub Etnews is to be believed. First up, the OS: Android. Samsung's so-called "S-Pad" (the tentative name spawned under its S-Project initiative) will display Google's smartphone OS on a supposed 7-inch Super AMOLED display with WiFi and 3G data connectivity -- the latter supplied by SK Telecom who will supposedly help distribute the device. It'll also bring an iPad-esque USB dock and content from Kyobo books (Korea's largest bookstore) and Samsung's own Samsung Apps application store.


If true, we should expect to see Samsung's S-Pad launch in August. While no price has been given you can expect the cost to be exorbitant thanks to that extra large Super AMOLED display unless SK Telecom can push it down through ample subsidies.


----------



## Canonazo

Didn't see this posted on this thread but displaymate performed a review on the Nexus one oled display.




http://www.displaymate.com/Nexus_One_ShootOut.htm


----------



## wco81

I think it's being dismissed as a problem specific to Pentile OLEDs. But there was another study cited earlier that power consumption and readability in daylight lag behind LCD and is expected to do so until about 2012.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/18594400
> 
> 
> I think it's being dismissed as a problem specific to Pentile OLEDs. But there was another study cited earlier that power consumption and readability in daylight lag behind LCD and is expected to do so until about 2012.



2012? What about 2010?








Samsung Super AMOLED screen reportedly has much better ambient light characteristics. Don't OLEDs typically use less power than LCDs when displaying a black image?


----------



## fanta




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/18403700
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's hard for people to appreciate OLED if they haven't spent some time with the XEL-1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Superb motion (>PDP/LCD),



That's interesting, OLED has better motion than plasmas? Really?


I remember someone on another forum posting his impressions saying the OLED display he saw had really bad motion. Maybe my memory's not accurate here or he was wrong, I don't know. Didn't Sony only have still/slow changing images on their OLEDs at CES? I haven't kept up with the latest CESes so my info could be out of date.


I've also read of a 'sample-and-hold effect' or something. Basically the nature of LCD displays means they'll have some blur no matter how fast they are so they'll never be as good as CRT. Of course LCDs have been getting better, and will continue to do so, maybe even with this effect they still still reach a point where motion is good enough, I don't know. What you're saying though is that OLEDs are already there. I'm not sure if the sample and hold effect applies to plasmas, if it does then I guess it's not an impediment to good motion since plasmas are already good at that.


To go off topic for a bit, I've read on this forum a comment saying that by the time OLED get here 'cell tech' would have also arrived. The poster was basically saying that there's not point in being excited about OLEDs as even if they're viable and will come to market it will take too long and this 'cell tech' would either be its equal or surpass it. I thought posters here, in a thread about a future technology, might know what that guy was referring to? Google is of no help.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/18404254
> 
> 
> I don't think size questions are unreasonable. Until OLED can get above 50-inches and people can buy it--who cares?



I'd care at 32 (and smaller, for laptop/computers/etc..) and 40 inches. Many people don't need 50 inch TVs.


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fanta* /forum/post/18598505
> 
> 
> That's interesting, OLED has better motion than plasmas? Really?
> 
> 
> I remember someone on another forum posting his impressions saying the OLED display he saw had really bad motion. Maybe my memory's not accurate here or he was wrong, I don't know.



You seem pretty hung on the fact that they have bad motion...



> Quote:
> production sample had superb motion resolution


 http://hdguru.com/sony-xel-1-finally...al-review/242/ 



google search...?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Sony+...+resolution%22


----------



## fanta




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/18599422
> 
> 
> You seem pretty hung on the fact that they have bad motion...
> 
> 
> 
> http://hdguru.com/sony-xel-1-finally...al-review/242/



Well, from that review:



> Quote:
> As for the picture quality, unlike a prototype I saw in Japan last year, this production sample had superb motion resolution.



I guess the impressions I read were of those earlier models...


----------



## navychop

I can't help but wonder what OLED devices will be available in a couple of years. I'm beginning to wonder if OLED laptops will be common then.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/18604485
> 
> 
> I can't help but wonder what OLED devices will be available in a couple of years. I'm beginning to wonder if OLED laptops will be common then.



Well... from CES '10 I was expecting that Samsung's 7" OLED photo frame would be available by now ($300 MSRP)! Perhaps the 700Z has slipped to later this year!? We should also have LG's 15LE9500 in a few months!







I still need to order a GP2x Wiz (2.8" OLED).


----------



## rgb32

 http://www.sid.org/conf/sid2010/sid2010.html 


$25 for a 3 day expo hall pass!







There will be quite a few companies with OLED demos. I can't wait to see LG's 15EL9500, and other larger OLED displays!







Only 13 more days!


----------



## DocuMaker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/18623328
> 
> http://www.sid.org/conf/sid2010/sid2010.html
> 
> 
> $25 for a 3 day expo hall pass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be quite a few companies with OLED demos. I can't wait to see LG's 15EL9500, and other larger OLED displays!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only 13 more days!



The site says you must register by May 7th or the price goes up an additional $75. Does that include people who simply want to attend the exhibits, or is that only for those who want to attend seminars? Can you walk up and pay $25 or must you register ahead of time?


----------



## pkeegan

maybe 2012 http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/14/s...-if-3d-doesnt/


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DocuMaker* /forum/post/18627731
> 
> 
> Can you walk up and pay $25 or must you register ahead of time?



The +$75 applies to the seminars/tracks, not the $25 expo only pass. Not sure about day of sales, but it looks like they'll have registration during all days of the show:

http://www.sid.org/conf/sid2010/registration.html 



> Quote:
> Registration Hours
> 
> Sunday, May 23: 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM
> 
> Monday, May 24: 7:00 AM - 6:30 PM
> 
> Tuesday, May 25: 7:00 AM - 6:30 PM
> 
> Wednesday, May 26: 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM
> 
> Thursday, May 27: 7:00 AM - 2:00 PM
> 
> Friday, May 28: 7:00 AM - 12:00 PM



so, I would imagine you could pay day of show... but you'd have to check with SID for certain. You can still purchase a 3 day expo pass on their site... get to it!


----------



## geese

What are you talking about.. arsenal have been strong all season.. fabregas has been strong all season.. van persie will not leave for yet another two season.. united fans will newver accept others to win the league.. alex ferguson is currupt in the buttom.. the league matches we have been without 5-6 players in many weeks.. u cant stand that the fact that others win the league.. get used to it.. because you wont win it again. You

are the most deluded of all.. liverpool is a bigger club then united.. fergusons trophies are all bought by his labour part connection.


----------



## Isochroma

 *AMOLED, is now 5.5 generations - Samsung SMD's monopoly will continue* 
*12 May 2010*


Samsung SMD who secured the world's leading AMOLED technology started ordering equipments for 5.5 generation (1500 x 1100mm) line. They already have 4 generation's (PCB 730 x 920mm) LTPS line and 4 units of 3.5 generation's evaporator (730 x 460mm) using 4.5 generation's glasses and by the 3rd quarters of this year, Samsung SMD completes to adopt the 3.5 generation's evaporator.


Samsung SMD will be in full 5.5 generation's system by the 1st half of 2011 with the completion of orders for 5.5 generation's evaporator. It is for getting firm stance in mobile display market and in a more robust large-area AMOLED TV market.


The newly adopted 5.5 generation's evaporator of Samsung SMD can increase the mobile display production volume up to two times, which is currently manufactured by 4 units of 3.5 generation's evaporator and also can produce 42 inches of AMOLED. It can produce 4 sheets of 30 inches' AMOLED which is introduced in the exhibition by Samsung SMD recently.


Samsung SMD's full investment on AMOLED has already foreseen by the rapid promotion of Managing Director Mr. Seong Cheol Kim, who is responsible for developing AMOLED TV. He was in charge of developing AMOLED TV of Samsung SMD and has led the introduction of 2 generation's PMOLED lines, and also 3.5 generation's AMOLED with a successful mass production so that he was awarded top technical prize to best engineer by Samsung Group.


With the order of Samsung SMD's 5.5 generation's equipment, Domestic equipment companies also have started to develop the equipment to produce and examine the 42 inches AMOLED TV.


If the installation of 5.5 generation's equipment is completed successfully in the first half of 2011, it is expected to be possible to make trial production of the 42 inches AMOLED TV by the end of the year.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Dupont reports new record lifetime performance for printed OLEDs, enough for OLED TVs* 
*13 May 2010*


Dupont announced new record lifetime performance in printed OLEDs for displays. They say that this is sufficient for OLED TVs. The new Gen 3 solution-processable OLEDs offer 29,000 hours for red, 110,000 for green and 34,000 for blue (at typical TV brightness levels). This is enough for 8 hours per day over 15 years...


Back in 2009, Dupont reported even better lifetime for OLEDs. But these new materials can be used in a printing process, which should make it cheaper and easier to produce OLED TV displays. DuPont has produced some test devices with the new materials and will show them at SID.


----------



## Norde

An expanded version of the above post. Sounds good - on display at SID>
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/25337/?a=f


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/18522117
> 
> 
> Well, here's a comparison of the Apple iPhone to the Samsung S8500 (LCD vs Super AMOLED)



Nice, really shows the difference.


----------



## TNG

"If the installation of 5.5 generation's equipment is completed successfully in the first half of 2011, it is expected to be possible to make trial production of the 42 inches AMOLED TV by the end of the year."

So......


In 2012 we can expect something larger than a smartphone screen?


----------



## dlplover

IMO, that sounds like 2013 to me if it'll take till roughly the end of 2011 to start trial production.


----------



## slytrans69

How will I ever replace my KURO if it ever wears out?


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slytrans69* /forum/post/18669013
> 
> 
> How will I ever replace my KURO if it ever wears out?



Check here:
http://.craigslist.org 


By that time, people will have moved on to better displays... they even exist today!


----------



## moreHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/18669505
> 
> 
> By that time, people will have moved on to better displays... they even exist today!



I can only think of two better tvs than Kuro. Toshiba Cell Regza in Japan and HDR lcd from Dolby? What else is there?


----------



## navychop

Holosuite.


----------



## walt73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slytrans69* /forum/post/18669013
> 
> 
> How will I ever replace my KURO if it ever wears out?



From what I gather re: OLED ETA, next step up from Kuro PQ/performance-wise will be plasma (again) in 2010-11, years and years before OLED makes it to 50" -60".


----------



## rgb32

Here are pictures from DuPont's OLED booth at SID 2010:



























_Dead subpixels caused by backplane... :S_


----------



## slacker711

Samsung says 1 billion OLED's by 2015 is possible. They are projecting that it will be the main stream tech for TV's.

http://blogs.pcmag.com/miller/2010/0...llion_oled.php 


Slacker


----------



## slacker711

Great pics! Anything else you can get from SID on OLED's would be much appreciated.


Slacker


----------



## rgb32




----------



## rgb32

Perhaps these new LEDs will be the next generation of the Triluminos RGB backlighting system! Each RGB chip contains 300 LEDs - 15 rows of 20 LEDs (5 rows per R, G, B interleaved). If these RGB chips were to be retro fitted for a 55" XBR8, that would be 33,600 LEDs in total! A newer display would have more than the 112 zones/modules on the XBR8...







Also, the 300 LED RGB chips are literally eye searing... I was warned by one of the exhibitors not to look directly at the module! lol....


----------



## Norde

Flexible OLED screen, with video.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ed-pencil.html


----------



## 8mile13

I found only one photo of a transparent laptop in this *thread*,here are some more and a short video.


*transparent Oled laptops*.





























*Push this Button*


----------



## Neceo

i would find the see through monitor annoying


----------



## MaXPL

can someone explain to me the difference between OLED and traditional LED tvs? or point me to a link wih the comparison?


i'm wondering what the difference between the two is when compared to plasma. are OLEDs similar to plasma in that each pixel is lit independently?


----------



## pkeegan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MaXPL* /forum/post/18713175
> 
> 
> can someone explain to me the difference between OLED and traditional LED tvs? or point me to a link wih the comparison?
> 
> 
> i'm wondering what the difference between the two is when compared to plasma. are OLEDs similar to plasma in that each pixel is lit independently?



Most LED TVs are not LED at all. They are LCD with an LED backlight or sidelights as the LCD TV cannot produce visible light on it's own. The LCD panel acts as a color filter where the desired color is allowed to let light pass through its blue, red or green pixel. In the UK it's my understanding that they have declared the description of LCD TVs as LED TVs to be false and deceptive advertising, unfortunately this has not been done in the US. Prior to LED backlighting/sidelights fluorescent sidelights were used. Note: LCD TVs were never advertised as fluorescent TVs.


When a backlight or sidelight is used on an LCD TV light leakage is bound to happen and contrast ratio suffers . This has plagued LCD TVs so the manufacturers came up with the marketing scheme of dynamic contrast ratio.


OLED does not require a backlighting/sidelighting as it can produce visible light on its own. Thus it can have a very high contrast ratio.


OLEDs are more like an LCD than a Plasma TV.


There are other differences but this is the main difference in my opinion.


----------



## Artwood

How many years til OLED breaks the 50-inch barrier at a cheaper price than LCD and plasma?


----------



## rgb32

Perhaps this would be the XEL-2's panel had Sony kept selling OLED TVs. Supposedly shown at SID 2010, but I missed it...





















So I am unable to draw actual comparisons to the XEL-1.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...100531/183076/ 









_The 11.7-inch OLED panel developed by Sony_



> Quote:
> *SID 2010 - Sony Develops 11.7-inch Oxide Semiconductor TFT-driven OLED Panel*
> 
> 
> Sony Corp developed a 11.7-inch OLED panel by using oxide semiconductor TFTs as its driver elements and exhibited it at SID 2010, an international conference on display technologies, in Seattle, the US.
> 
> 
> By reducing the property degradation of the oxide semiconductor TFT, the company ensured a lifetime of 10 years or more, which is required for OLED TVs, it said.
> 
> 
> The oxide semiconductor TFT used for the OLED panel has an etch stopper structure, and its channel material is amorphous IGZO (In-Ga-Zn-O). The TFT element has a gate width of 22μm and a gate length of 8μm. Its carrier mobility, threshold voltage, subthreshold swing (S) value are 11.5cm2/Vs, 0.27V and 0.3V/decade, respectively.
> 
> 
> To reduce the property degradation of the amorphous IGZO TFT, Sony made the following three improvements. First, the company prevents the oxidation of the electrode by changing the structure of the source/drain electrode from the commonly-used Ti/Al/Ti three-layer structure to Ti/Al/Mo structure (Mo is in contact with the amorphous IGZO).
> 
> 
> Second, for the passivation film, Sony used Al2O3, which has a high protection performance, instead of SiNx or SiOx. And the passivation film is formed by the DC sputtering method. Third, the company employed a TFT structure in which the amorphous IGZO is completely covered by the passivation film, the etch stopper film and the source/drain electrode.
> 
> 
> This time, Sony announced a 11.7-inch OLED panel that was made at the company's research laboratory located Atsugi City, Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. The panel has a resolution of 960 x 540 pixels, a peak brightness of 600cd/m2 or more, a contrast ratio of 1,000,000: 1 or more, and 100% or higher color gamut vs NTSC. The maximum screen luminance with an all-white signal is 200cd/m2.
> 
> 
> The device structure of the organic EL element is a top emission type, which extracts light from the side opposite to the TFT substrate. Compared with the "XEL-1," an OLED TV released by Sony in December 2007, the light emitting device of the new OLED panel is made with materials that have better properties such as color gamut and lifetime, the company said.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/18717088
> 
> 
> How many years til OLED breaks the 50-inch barrier at a cheaper price than LCD and plasma?



Infinitely sooner than SED.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/18717906
> 
> 
> Infinitely sooner than SED.



:ROFL:... Good answer!


----------



## Artwood

Is 2016 a reasonable guess?


----------



## Tazishere

One would need a cystal ball to answer that question properly.


----------



## navychop

I'd hope earlier than 2016, but who knows? No one.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/18767429
> 
> 
> I'd hope earlier than 2016, but who knows? No one.



We'll hear for certain what OLED TV/Monitors will be available for sale in 2011 @ CES 2011. Realistically, CES 2011 will likely be 3D Part 2 and 4k panels (higher DPI). While 3D seems to have no issues with the 3D OLED prototype displays shown at CES 2010. Perhaps the trend for higher DPI (thanks to Apple's marketing of the iPhone 4) will push OLED displays further into the future. :S










OT, the Super AMOLED in the Samsung Galaxy S has a DPI of around 233 DPI, whereas the LCD for the iPhone 4 is around 329... hmm...


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/18773910
> 
> 
> OT, the Super AMOLED in the Samsung Galaxy S has a DPI of around 233 DPI, whereas the LCD for the iPhone 4 is around 329... hmm...



For reference: a computer display has about 100 DPI. I think it will be difficult to see pixels or aliasing at > 200 DPI. I recently saw an HTC Desire (AMOLED 252 DPI), and I cannot imagine the need for more dots per inch.


----------



## slacker711

Lots of comparisons between the 15" LG OLED TV and a couple of LCD screens.

http://www.oled-display.net/oled-tv-...tft-technology 


Slacker


----------



## chandra.hp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/18818087
> 
> 
> Lots of comparisons between the 15" LG OLED TV and a couple of LCD screens.
> 
> http://www.oled-display.net/oled-tv-...tft-technology
> 
> 
> Slacker



Wow... Sony, Samsung and LG need to hurry up and get some 42+" OLEDs out ASAP. Preferably at a sub $4k cost!


----------



## slacker711

Some more info on Samsung's Gen 5.5 OLED plant. They will be able to produce 6 32" panels per substrate (or 2 57" panels).

http://www.olednet.com/focus/focus_b...398&mem_stat=0 


Slacker


----------



## rgb32

PVM-740 -> $3,850 MSRP!!!

















Same resolution as the XEL-1, but smaller! If you divide the MSRP by 3, you get the consumer grade equivalent MSRP...







That's how all of the previous PVM monitors (CRTs) have been priced.










http://www.cepro.com/slideshow/image/6632/ 



> Quote:
> Sony says its new PVM-740 is the first professional field display to use an Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) display panel with Sony's unique Super Top Emission technology.
> 
> 
> The 7.4-inch high-resolution (960 x 540 pixels) portable monitor can fit a range of professional monitoring applications, including studio editing, ENG and EFT production, OB trucks, and even research and development. The versatile new monitor is also ideal for use in 3D camera rigs with its flip mode, according to Sony.
> 
> 
> The new monitor is available at a suggested list price of $3,850.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Neceo* /forum/post/18697264
> 
> 
> i would find the see through monitor annoying



It should be possible to disable transparency using method other than LCD


Anyway, transparent displays have many applications including designer glasses with stereoscopic vision built-in or contact lenses with display imprinted on the surface



I wrote this on the previous thread, but may also serve a purpose here



"In truth, when it comes to S3D, only true holographic can compete with close non-contact/contact systems (e.g. HMD). Devices like HMDs are akin to headphones in a sense that they feed information directly to the corresponding eyes. Since the displays are situated within centimeters from the retina, the effect of 3D would appear natural and close to reality. If the technology is based on direct contact, then the distance can be reduce to mere millimeters thus enabling simulation level S3D experience. For full immersive 3D experience, the image can be projected onto the retina, which eliminates distance altogether. Unfortunately, VRDs are at the very early stages of development and needs to combat several health risks. There's even talk of enhancing the retina itself and tapping into the visual cortex to feed information directly to the brain. After all, the human eyes are just pair of 2D analogue cameras that convert photons into electrons.


In order for non-contact/contact systems to become mainstream, advancements in TOLED needs to increase. Samsung is currently leading with better transparency but it's just one of many factors. Higher pixel yield and elimination of pixel pitch are major obstacles as we need to find a way to fit millions of pixels into a small surface with maximum efficiency.



If everything goes according to plan, then we should have early prototypes within the next 5-6 years"


PS: This is quite interesting

http://awanbank.blogspot.com/2009/06...-eyeglass.html


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/18690926
> 
> 
> Samsung says 1 billion OLED's by 2015 is possible. They are projecting that it will be the main stream tech for TV's.
> 
> http://blogs.pcmag.com/miller/2010/0...llion_oled.php
> 
> 
> Slacker




They have to


Getting 3D to work on a standard AM-LCD is next to impossible at the moment


----------



## rgb32

 http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-soo...er-consumption 



> Quote:
> 07/02/2010
> 
> LifetimeOLED productionOLED TVPower consumptionSamsungTechnical / Research
> 
> 
> Samsung is aiming to improve their AMOLEDs in the near future. They claim they will double the efficiency (from 20cd/A to 40cd/A), the lifetime (*from 50,000 to 100,000 hours*) and the power consumption (*from 62W to less than 30W*). Samsung will use advanced color pattern methods to overcome the current FMM method large-size limitation. They will also move from glass encapsulation to thin-film, and apply Oxide substrate. *They will also use only triplet OLED emitters instead of using both singlets and triplets.*
> 
> 
> Samsung has recently began to construct their new 5.5-Gen AMOLED plant, which will start production in July 2011. Samsung plans to invest $2.2 billion on that plant that will have 3 production lines (1300X1500mm). Having a larger wafer size results in better efficiencies for both small and large panels (such as 30" or 40" OLED TV panels). Samsung did not say whether the new methods will apply in the new plant only, or also in the current one.
> 
> 
> It's good to see that Samsung is able to improve their AMOLEDs so drastically. OLEDs are still in very early stages, and we're likely to keep seeing big improvements in the coming years.



YES! Samsung seems to be moving away from the pentile structure!


----------



## rgb32

 DisplaySearch expects at least 20 new AMOLED production lines in 3 years 


07/12/2010


Jennifer Colegrove, director of display technologies at DisplaySearch, is *optimistic about AMOLED production capacity*: "I expect in the next three years for *at least 20 new AMOLED production lines to open up*... This is the future of the display technology on smartphones and you'll see a lot of companies investing money to enter".


We already know of a few production lines that are expected in the coming years: *Samsung* has begun working on their 5.5-Gen Plant (that'll have 3 lines, a $2.2 billion investment), *LG* is also investing heavily in new lines, *TPO* is expected to launch products soon, *AUO* will soon start building their AMOLED line and *Visionox* has a pilot line ready.




via IBTimes


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pkeegan* /forum/post/18713398
> 
> 
> Most LED TVs are not LED at all. OLED does not require a backlighting/sidelighting as it can produce visible light on its own. Thus it can have a very high contrast ratio.
> 
> 
> OLEDs are more like an LCD than a Plasma TV.



Actually no, not "most" LED TVs are really LCD ALL LED TVs are LCD. There is no such thing at a TV with pixels made of LEDs unless you count those advertizing billboards of super low resolution.


OLEDs are actually more like PLASMA not LCD.


Like plasma, OLEDs have pixels that emit light. Like plasma when a pixel is dark it is off. Like a plasma OLEDs have faster response times. Like plasma OLEDs have a better viewing angle . Unfortunatly OLEDs and plasma are also more susceptable to burn-in.


LCDs BLOCK light coming from a backlight, the opposite of OLED. LCDs also have lower response time, black level, and viewing angle.


----------



## Xavier1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/18917844
> 
> 
> Actually no, not "most" LED TVs are really LCD ALL LED TVs are LCD. There is no such thing at a TV with pixels made of LEDs unless you count those advertizing billboards of super low resolution.
> 
> 
> OLEDs are actually more like PLASMA not LCD.
> 
> 
> Like plasma, OLEDs have pixels that emit light. Like plasma when a pixel is dark it is off. Like a plasma OLEDs have faster response times. Like plasma OLEDs have a better viewing angle . Unfortunatly OLEDs and plasma are also more susceptable to burn-in.
> 
> 
> LCDs BLOCK light coming from a backlight, the opposite of OLED. LCDs also have lower response time, black level, and viewing angle.



Plasma does not go off when it is dark, the cells have to stay "alive", this is unlike OLED. Thats why even a 9g Kuro will glow in a completely dark room. OLED is black, like CRT black, unmeasurable black levels.


OLED also has a stable, always on picture, no dithering or flickering like a Plasma. Response time is 10s of times faster than an LCD, so no motion blur.


If this tech ever becomes affordable at large sizes, it will destroy any Plasma or LCD ever made.


----------



## Nielo TM

Certain plasmas do switch the pixel off if there's no incoming data


----------



## Isochroma

No they do not. The pixel must be kept ionized in order to fire in the future. There is a sustain current that maintains that ionization.


----------



## powertoold




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/18920350
> 
> 
> No they do not. The pixel must be kept ionized in order to fire in the future. There is a sustain current that maintains that ionization.



Actually, this happens with my Pioneer KRP-500m. If there's no input signal, then it will go into a state (after 2-3 minutes) where there's basically no light / very little heat output. It is basically "off" but the power LED is still on.


But I guess Nielo TM is still wrong because plasmas can't turn off individual pixels.


----------



## spyboy

The honchos are talking about OLED panels *no larger* than 55 inches by 2015. Meanwhile LCD makers are well aware of OLED and are continuing to refine and enlarge LCD panels.


I speculate that by 2015 we will be able to get 3rd generation 72 inch 3D LCDs for $2,000.


The fact that much of the production of OLED is going to be for cell phones is also not really inspiring.


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spyboy* /forum/post/18922546
> 
> 
> The honchos are talking about OLED panels *no larger* than 55 inches by 2015. Meanwhile LCD makers are well aware of OLED and are continuing to refine and enlarge LCD panels.
> 
> 
> I speculate that by 2015 we will be able to get 3rd generation 72 inch 3D LCDs for $2,000.
> 
> 
> The fact that much of the production of OLED is going to be for cell phones is also not really inspiring.



It's used there to test & refine the tech and most cell phone users/buyers don't mind the color drift as they throw the phones away after two years anyway.

When it's ready for prime time the "LCD makers" will *happily* sell you OLED - as they are the same companies that are doing the R&D on OLED.


Samsung's CEO, for example, said that there'll be no OLED-TV market unless the manufacturers create one - and they will do exactly do that if it is profitable for them.


Right now they are consolidating themselves after the financial crisis, however, and they are not willing to do big experiments in 2010 and 2011. That's one reason you still see many CCFL-sets, a lot of edge-lit LED-LCDs, less full-LED LCDs with local dimming (more expensive to produce) and 3D as a by-product in sets with a fast enough panel (which are basically on the market since 2008).


I'm not even convinced that OLED will hit the mass market in 2015. Perhaps the enthusiast lines with sets above $3000 (for 46+") will be switched to OLED?


----------



## rgb32

Existing OLED displays are built using LCD style backplanes... so despite the phosphorescent materials used in some OLEDs, they are akin to LCDs.


@Benny


Well... IFA 2010 in September, and CES 2011 in January, and other trade shows will show where the trends are...


----------



## rgb32

* http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...D_Monitor.html *


I know no price talk but... any takers?














If I had $3k to burn, I would!


----------



## Nielo TM

Oh wow


----------



## rgb32











Samsung's Super-AMOLED "key engineer" now works for LG, companies in legal battle 


07/18/2010

One of Samsung's "key engineers", who was involved with the development of Super-AMOLED displays is now working to LG. Samsung is suing him - one of the terms of his employment was that he can't work for a rival company for 2 years after he leaves Samsung.


via the KoreaTimes


----------



## coltsfreak18




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/18918498
> 
> 
> Certain plasmas do switch the pixel off if there's no incoming data





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/18920350
> 
> 
> No they do not. The pixel must be kept ionized in order to fire in the future. There is a sustain current that maintains that ionization.



Technically, you both are correct. The 9G kuros (without a signal) eventually will shut off the pixels after about 30 or so seconds.


----------



## Nielo TM

I don't know how long I can tolerate PDP and LCDs. Everywhere I look, all I see are problems.


----------



## 6632568

Also the life of the pizels is a prob they need to work around i carnt see oleds being mainstream to 2018 - 2020


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/18973837
> 
> 
> I don't know how long I can tolerate PDP and LCDs. Everywhere I look, all I see are problems.



You are looking to hard then, sit back and enjoy what is available until OLED comes out, if it ever does. Seen to many predictions about how LCD and PDP will become obsolete when SED or OLED hits and we all know what happened to SED.....


While OLED is a better bet than SED, IMO there are still to many issues with the lifetimes of the materials (blue especially) to put them out there in a mass commercial release. Otherwise it would have happened already.


----------



## Nielo TM

Since I review TVs during my spare time, it's very difficult for me not to be analytical. Sometimes ignorance is bliss


----------



## navychop

From earlier posts in this thread, it seems to me that there has been a lot of progress on the blue lifespan problem.


My guess is that the iPhone released in 2011 or 2012 will have an OLED screen. Based on nothing but pulling it outta
thin air.


----------



## wco81

Doubtful, the OLED production capacity isn't there.


As it is, they can't produce enough iPhone 4s.


They're not going to bet their next model on a component which has immature manufacturing technology.


----------



## Nielo TM

Hopefully someone will announce a breakthrough in printing soon


----------



## navychop

Progress marches on. And Apple money might be quite an incentive. Talk about kick starting investment, to have your product touted in millions upon millions of iPhones.


Anyway, they are producing very large numbers of OLEDs today. Some, I hear, went into PDAs as well as cell phones, so they can certainly already produce the size required. And certainly there will be further advances.


----------



## rgb32









Had a feeling this might happen:



> Quote:
> Nanomarkets say that if *OLED will provide an alternative backlighting technology for LCDs*, these alone could generate further $1.4 billion by 2015.


 http://www.oled-info.com/nanomarkets...n-revenue-2015


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/19025926
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had a feeling this might happen:
> 
> 
> Nanomarkets say that if OLED will provide an alternative backlighting technology for LCDs, these alone could generate further $1.4 billion by 2015.



And thus even the term "OLED TV" will become ambiguous. We'll have LCD TV's, LCD LED TV's, LCD OLED TV's, and "real" OLED TV's. I pity the uninformed consumer in 2015.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You are looking to hard then, sit back and enjoy what is available until OLED comes out, if it ever does. Seen to many predictions about how LCD and PDP will become obsolete when SED or OLED hits and we all know what happened to SED.....
> 
> 
> While OLED is a better bet than SED, IMO there are still to many issues with the lifetimes of the materials (blue especially) to put them out there in a mass commercial release. Otherwise it would have happened already.



OLED died like 5 years ago. Old Flip phones with 2 screens ie one on top most likely was an OLED on top.


AMOLED have a nice comeback. I think commercially the first priority would be to capture the handset and notebook market before we talk about TVs. These 2 are more energy conscience and subject to uncontrollable ambient lighting


In tech nothing is certain about its future. But without marketing and pricing, certainly u are nothing


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19046894
> 
> 
> OLED died like 5 years ago. Old Flip phones with 2 screens ie one on top most likely was an OLED on top.



I think you meant PMOLED is dead


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19047159
> 
> 
> I think you meant PMOLED is dead



Or did you mean PMPDP.... PM being the only kind....


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I think you meant PMOLED is dead



Yes it was simply called OLED in the past. Only samsung SDI persisted with the technology and developed AMOLED. Now it is a JV with Samsung Electronics to share the capex. Samsung Electronics is using AMOLED as a differentiation in the handset market and there are shortages now. Even HTC need to switch back to TFT. with their capex plans it is unlikely that TV will be commercialized for the MASS market in the next 5 years


----------



## moreHD

Hi folks,


On "ngadgit hd" there's info that LG is showing a 31" OLED tv at IFA Berlin fair.

The 31" tv looks exactly like LG's 15 -incher. I hope it means that the 31-incher will hit stores this December in South Korea and the rest of the world in May/June next year.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moreHD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> 
> On "ngadgit hd" there's info that LG is showing a 31" OLED tv at IFA Berlin fair.
> 
> The 31" tv looks exactly like LG's 15 -incher. I hope it means that the 31-incher will hit stores this December in South Korea and the rest of the world in May/June next year.



LG Display just started OLED production with low yield. Don't keep your hopes too high on prototypes







Samsung Mobile Display just started ramping their new 5.5G fab 2 months earlier than schedule for 30m per month capacity in 2H11 vs 3m currently due to high demand. but I think even a 10" panel would be at least $2000 still hence not likely the next ipad will be OLED.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Samsung Mobile Display just started ramping their new 5.5G fab 2 months earlier than schedule for 30m per month capacity in 2H11 vs 3m currently due to high demand. but I think even a 10" panel would be at least $2000 still hence not likely the next ipad will be OLED.



The rumors are that the 7" Samsung Tablet will feature an AMOLED screen and this should be out in the next few months at a competitive price. A 5.5G fab should certainly be able to sell a 10" (and likely even something in the 15" range) for a decent price. The only question is when Samsung will devote capacity to larger displays when they still have so much unfilled demand in the handset market.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> The rumors are that the 7" Samsung Tablet will feature an AMOLED screen and this should be out in the next few months at a competitive price. A 5.5G fab should certainly be able to sell a 10" (and likely even something in the 15" range) for a decent price. The only question is when Samsung will devote capacity to larger displays when they still have so much unfilled demand in the handset market.
> 
> 
> Slacker



Based on chi mei innolux's only 5.5G TFT fab in the industry, the optimal size possible is 32". Let's see the pricing for samsung"s tablet and specs since everyone now are ipad wannabes







laptops are natural progression from handsets nonethess and years before desktop adoption, not to mention TVs.


----------



## powertoold




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/19093477
> 
> 
> The rumors are that the 7" Samsung Tablet will feature an AMOLED screen and this should be out in the next few months at a competitive price. A 5.5G fab should certainly be able to sell a 10" (and likely even something in the 15" range) for a decent price. The only question is when Samsung will devote capacity to larger displays when they still have so much unfilled demand in the handset market.
> 
> 
> Slacker



Very unlikely (0.01%!) for the Samsung Galaxy Tab to have a 7" OLED screen. If so, they'd be handcuffing themselves in terms of supply. Also, they wouldn't be able to make it cost under $1000.


----------



## moreHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19091184
> 
> 
> LG Display just started OLED production with low yield. Don't keep your hopes too high on prototypes



Yes it is a prototype, as much of a prototype as the 15-incher was half a year before it landed in shops in South Korea.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moreHD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is a prototype, as much of a prototype as the 15-incher was half a year before it landed in shops in South Korea.



Hi any links for this? I have never heard that OLED monitors are commercially available in shops


----------



## Wilt

 http://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-Electroni...sr=8-1-catcorr 


Been available in Korea since December 2009 and March in the UK.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wilt* /forum/post/19103586
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-Electroni...sr=8-1-catcorr
> 
> 
> Been available in Korea since December 2009 and March in the UK.



I saw the Korean version in person earlier this year and liked what I saw...







even if the set was in it's Vivid mode. Unfortunately I did not take the opportunity to play with the picture settings...














(edge enhancement, overscan and color temp were items I was wanting to adjust). Perhaps LG will release a new model state side later this year if the conditions are right?


----------



## specuvestor

Cool stuff. Frankly I didn't even know they are commercially available. But of course 15" is more like NB/monitor size than TV. Biggest wonder is where they get the OLED panel. Doubt samsung will sell it to them










Just met LG's OLED driver manufacturer Silicon Works. Said Industrial OLED TV coming in 4Q in small amounts but I'm skeptical. Let's see how LG Display ramp goes.


----------



## Nielo TM

LG designed and manufactured the panel themselves.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Very unlikely (0.01%!) for the Samsung Galaxy Tab to have a 7" OLED screen. If so, they'd be handcuffing themselves in terms of supply. Also, they wouldn't be able to make it cost under $1000.



You are right that supply is a concern. Comments from the Korean press indicate that Samsung is only able to supply about half of industry demand right now. It likely makes more sense to try and fulfill demand from the handset industry before releasing an OLED based tablet.


However, you are wrong about the pricing. The pricing of the LG and Sony OLED TV's have no relation to Samsung's cost structure. LG and Sony have been using tiny R&D fabs with little capacity to produce those TV's versus the Samsung commercial 4.5G fab which is running full tilt right now at good yields. The pricing still wont be equivalent to LCD pricing, but we are no longer talking about a 10x price premium. Samsung is selling millions of 4" Super AMOLED screens in their Galaxy smartphones and the move to a 7" display wouldnt be much of a stretch.


Imagine the price of a car if GM could only produce 20 a year. That is the equivalent of what LG and Sony have been doing.


Slacker


----------



## powertoold




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/19113270
> 
> 
> You are right that supply is a concern. Comments from the Korean press indicate that Samsung is only able to supply about half of industry demand right now. It likely makes more sense to try and fulfill demand from the handset industry before releasing an OLED based tablet.
> 
> 
> However, you are wrong about the pricing. The pricing of the LG and Sony OLED TV's have no relation to Samsung's cost structure. LG and Sony have been using tiny R&D fabs with little capacity to produce those TV's versus the Samsung commercial 4.5G fab which is running full tilt right now at good yields. The pricing still wont be equivalent to LCD pricing, but we are no longer talking about a 10x price premium. Samsung is selling millions of 4" Super AMOLED screens in their Galaxy smartphones and the move to a 7" display wouldnt be much of a stretch.
> 
> 
> Imagine the price of a car if GM could only produce 20 a year. That is the equivalent of what LG and Sony have been doing.
> 
> 
> Slacker



I believe the yields decrease exponentially as you increase screen size.


Although 4" to 7" seems like a "small" jump, you have to realize that a 7" screen is _four times_ larger than a 3.5" screen.


I remember reading somewhere in this thread that a fab can have a 90% yield on a 2-3" screen but 25% yield on a 7" screen. Along with increased material costs, large screens aren't cost beneficial by any means.


You may be right. If Samsung uses OLED, then the tablet may cost less than $1000, but it'd still be around $600-800, which isn't competitive at all, considering the iPad has established itself as a great product. I think the proper price for the Samsung tablet is $450 or less.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *powertoold* /forum/post/19114060
> 
> 
> I believe the yields decrease exponentially as you increase screen size.
> 
> 
> Although 4" to 7" seems like a "small" jump, you have to realize that a 7" screen is _four times_ larger than a 3.5" screen.
> 
> 
> I remember reading somewhere in this thread that a fab can have a 90% yield on a 2-3" screen but 25% yield on a 7" screen. Along with increased material costs, large screens aren't cost beneficial by any means.
> 
> 
> You may be right. If Samsung uses OLED, then the tablet may cost less than $1000, but it'd still be around $600-800, which isn't competitive at all, considering the iPad has established itself as a great product. I think the proper price for the Samsung tablet is $450 or less.




FWIW, I did a little bit of math and the move from a 4" OLED costing $30 with 100% yields to a 7" OLED at 25% yields would mean that the latter display would cost $360.


Of course I dont believe that SMD would think about producing 7" displays for a flagship product if the yields were at 25%. I would note two things though. One is the move from ~2.6" production to 4" production over the last year. The second is that the total production from Samsung's fab has stabalized at about 3 million 3" equivalents for the last nine months. Both datapoints suggest that yields have become very good on existing displays.


I will say thought that it would seem to make more sense to launch a large display on a less visible product. They dont have much capacity to devote to larger displays and they could work out any potential problems before launching something like an Android tablet.


IFA should be interesting. We'll likely get both the Samsung tablet as well as the LG large screen OLED....though the latter definitely wont be for commercial production in the near future.


Slacker


----------



## Nielo TM

LG's 31" OLED












http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/30/l...e-through-ifa/


----------



## Patrick.

Looks like it would make a nice computer monitor










Too bad it's just a prototype, I wonder how much the retail version would cost.


----------



## navychop

1 arm + 1 leg + first issue of DNA co-mingling


----------



## Ant99

That LG 31" is a beauty. Amazing how thin that monitor is incredible. I would love to own it for PC use!


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19093815
> 
> 
> Based on chi mei innolux's only 5.5G TFT fab in the industry, the optimal size possible is 32". Let's see the pricing for samsung"s tablet and specs since everyone now are ipad wannabes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> laptops are natural progression from handsets nonethess and years before desktop adoption, not to mention TVs.



Hence the speculation ends:


Samsung GALAXY Tab (GT-P1000) Product Specifications


Network

2.5G (GSM/ GPRS/ EDGE) : 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 MHz


3G (HSUPA 5.76Mbps, HSDPA7.2 Mbps) : 900 / 1900 / 2100 MHz


OS

Android 2.2 (Froyo)


Display

7.0 inch TFT-LCD, WSVGA (1024 x 600)


Processor

Cortex A8 1.0GHz Application Processor with PowerVR SGX540


----------



## remush

These 31 inch LG sets look really good, I would love to see them in person

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnRYScqogF0


----------



## slacker711

This is the first report I have seen of an actual price and shipment date for the 31" OLED from LG....March 2011 and around $9000.

http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/09...arch-for-6000/ 


LG's fab is simply too small to support large scale OLED TV production. Nor do they have the experience that SMD has in improving yields in large scale commercial production.


Slacker


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/19139599
> 
> 
> This is the first report I have seen of an actual price and shipment date for the 31" OLED from LG....March 2011 and around $9000.
> 
> http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/09...arch-for-6000/
> 
> 
> LG's fab is simply too small to support large scale OLED TV production. Nor do they have the experience that SMD has in improving yields in large scale commercial production.
> 
> 
> Slacker



Looks like they are planning on using their 5.5 gen plant to produce these, if it goes online in 2011 we might see larger (37-50 inch) production panels in 2012 or 2013

http://www.oled-display.net/lg-elect...ed-in-mid-2011


----------



## pkeegan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/19139599
> 
> 
> This is the first report I have seen of an actual price and shipment date for the 31" OLED from LG....March 2011 and around $9000.
> 
> Slacker



Guess I best start saving now.


----------



## Nielo TM

Any progress regarding printable OLED tech?


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pkeegan* /forum/post/19146431
> 
> 
> Guess I best start saving now.



ROFL.... Me too!







Though if it's £6,000, and LG decides to sell in the US, I'm sure it would be $6,000 or less. Sony's XEL-1 sold for $2,500 here, and at least £2,500 in the UK.... It would likely cost $9,000 if one imported from the UK!







100Hz anyone!










EDIT:

Sounds like the 31" should be priced at about $3,999. In which case, I will be buying one in May 2011!


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush* /forum/post/19140395
> 
> 
> Looks like they are planning on using their 5.5 gen plant to produce these, if it goes online in 2011 we might see larger (37-50 inch) production panels in 2012 or 2013
> 
> http://www.oled-display.net/lg-elect...ed-in-mid-2011



If I hear it correctly then at 0:55 in this IFA video , George Mead (TV Marketing Manager at LG Electronics) says something like "50 inch by this time next year". It's hard to understand what exactly he is saying though.


Also interesting: the 31" OLED TV can be used with passive 3D glasses!


----------



## deadman

I would not be an early adopter of this kind of display. The technology has inherent risks involved for the buyer that are impossible to control by the manufacturers at this point. The red, green, and blue segments of the display wear at different rates and cut lumens at unpredictable rates and will result in both color saturation problems and wicked burn in issues. This is very very bad for both TV and PC uses. If for instance a relatively cost effective display at $3000 loses 50% of it's brightness over 5 years and the blue segment loses at 150% speed the red at 100% and green at 120% then conceivably you would have to recalibrate your display pretty much all the time. After the elements hit 50% loss at 5 years do they nose dive at that point? At 7yrs do you hit 25% of the lumens you had at year one? I don't think these questions have been answered very well yet if at all.

Manufacturers wouldn't mind though since they can just sell you another TV after 5 years and be happy. (and rich)

I believe the attempts to even out the bightness degradation of the different color elements by building in size differences and controlling lumen output independently per color is like throwing a dart at a dartboard and hoping to get close to a target.

I think realistically manufacturers will come to better solve these issues as we near 2015 but in 2011-2012 on the brand new 40"+ TV's people will be throwing their money in the garbage IMHO. But please do buy one and let me know how bad the burn in is after a couple years and how shot to hell the "3d" effect becomes xD


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/19148128
> 
> 
> 
> Also interesting: the 31" OLED TV can be used with passive 3D glasses!



It just has a polarizer at the front




In any case, OLED is the ideal choice for 3D due to the absence of cross-talk


----------



## powertoold

Here's the real future of HT displays!

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/06/c...sion-still-no/ 


Imagine an "80 inch" 1080p OLED display right in front of your eyes!


----------



## Nielo TM

Glad to see they have implemented it



I'm actually looking forward to S3D enabled designer eyewear with embedded transparent OLED (TOLED) with stacked RGB sub-pixels. Better yet, contact lenses with TOLED layer.

http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thu...-margiela.jpeg 

http://www.instablogsimages.com/imag...AQUOt_1333.jpg


----------



## navychop

IIRC, CRTs were rated at 7 years to half brightness (at which point they were considered EOL), although in my experience that certainly was a pessimistic estimate. And certainly, uneven wear of phosphors/light elements is not new to OLED. It can be compensated for.


Regardless, it is a product *in development.* We should not expect immediate perfection, nothing is put on the market in its most mature form. To point out that it has flaws is the same as pointing out that early TV was crude and only in B&W. Improvements will come. *I think the main thing is, manufacturers can see that the technology holds promise for eventual low cost, low power consumption and great performance.*


I suspect in 10-20 years, the main space lighting technology will be LED and OLED.


----------



## Nielo TM

Actually when OLED is released, it'll be superior to its predecessors from day one, which PDP and LCD failed to do.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19153886
> 
> 
> Actually when OLED is released, it'll be superior to its predecessors from day one, which PDP and LCD failed to do.



You haven't forgotten about Sony's XEL-1 already have you?







That product has the best black level and motion of any consumer flat panel to date (save for the PVM-740). If you can't find a XEL-1, you could always pick up the professional PVM-740 for a cool $3,300!


----------



## rgb32

* Samsung updates on AMOLED displays *


Samsung (or actually Lee Woo-Jong, SMD's marketing VP) is giving us some interesting updates on their AMOLED displays and production plants. So first of all, they expect the new 5.5-Gen plant to start mass producing in July 2011. The new plant will increase Samsung's AMOLED capacity ten-fold: from 3 million displays a month to 30 million (assuming all displays made in the new plant will be around 3").









_OLED production at SMD photo_


Samsung also says that they now expect AMOLED screens shipments to reach 700 million by 2015 ( in May, they said it'll be 600 ).


Samsung also said that any maker can use Super-AMOLED displays - they're not exclusive to Samsung Electronics, as reported before. In fact, Samsung claims that even the Galaxy S does not get priority over other customers and it was also effected by the shortage in displays. *Samsung couldn't even provide Galaxy S phones to their own employees.* This is somewhat strange as we know that Samsung managed to ship over a million Galaxy S phones in only 45 days, while HTC had major supply issues...


Source WSJ 

via OLED-Info


----------



## rogo

It's confirmed that the Galaxy Tab is using an LCD display, and not an AMOLED.


As for the LG prototype and such, it's pretty exciting, but it should go without saying that sales will be infinitesimal at those prices, which aligns well with production capacity.


Before we get excited about a 50-inch display, ask yourself if you're willing to pay $15,000 for one in 2012. Because that's pretty much what you'd be looking at. A good 50-inch LCD or plasma is already well under 10% of that.


OLED is _supposed_ to be cheaper than existing stuff in some theoretical future. But _that_ future really feels closer to 10 years away. And I say that in light of the LG announcement.


----------



## slacker711

Here is an article that describes Samsung's plans with respect to OLED TV development.

http://www.olednet.com/focus/focus_b...398&mem_stat=0 


I think this table is of particular interest. You can see why a 31" TV in a 4.5G fab makes little economic sense. The yields would have to be 100% to even get two TV panels per substrate. Any defects in the substrate and that immediately falls to just one panel per substrate while you could instead produce nearly 150 3" displays for the handset market (at ~$15 a piece).











Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

Yes samsung galaxy S probably the most profitable smartphone now after iPhone. 5.5G is also versatile enough to make NB, monitor and up to 32" as per the LCD experience


----------



## specuvestor

Folks, does Mitsubishi make their own OLED???


(Source: SlashGear.)

Mitsubishi is planning on selling a 100-inch OLED TV later this month. Yes, that sounds jaw dropping at first, but sadly this isn't the HDTV that we're waiting for. In fact, it's not really HD at all.


This Diamond Vision model at 100-inches has pixels that measure around 3mm in size. Viewers will have to view the displays from at least a couple of meters away to get a decent image. The sets will get even bigger, perhaps to the 155-inch model that Mitsubishi prototyped. This massive size was accomplished by putting together multiple OLED modules, all of which add up to 17.6 pounds in weight and 15.1 inches think.


These Diamond Vision models have a maximum brightness of 1,200cd/m2, which is twice as bright as the company’s current LED-backlit LCD TVs.


The 100-inch model goes on sale later this month. Price has not been announced.


----------



## Dunedain




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kaldskryke* /forum/post/18489951
> 
> 
> Dunedain... yes, you can. Even my little 1024x600 netbook has no qualms about running its display at 800x600.
> 
> 
> While this can often be done on a monitor's OSD menu, more often people will use their video drivers to determine how scaling is to be performed. Not sure about ATi cards, but my old Nvidia card would let you pick between full-screen scaling, fixed-aspect-ratio scaling, and no scaling where the game's image would be centered on the screen regardless of resolution. I haven't really bothered trying to do this on my ATi card because it doesn't really have trouble rendering at 1920x1200
> 
> 
> Also, you mentioned earlier that you thought SED would be able to scale content perfectly, but this isn't the case. Every display that has a fixed number of pixels (LCD, plasma, OLED, SED, etc) will be forced to scale content that's not at the display's native resolution. CRTs escaped this problem by sweeping an electron beam across a phosphor screen and didn't have individual pixels, per se, and could adapt to any resolution... but that came at a price (geometry issues, etc).





But you don't have to scale the image at all if you are only using the central 1600x1200 pixels on the monitor, leaving the others completely turned off (black vertical pillars on the left and right sides). In effect, the monitor is being used as a 1600x1200 4:3 monitor, the other pixels are ignored. So a 1600x1200 image being sent by the graphics card would be displayed at the "native" resolution of the central part of the screen, which is exactly 1600x1200, therefore there is no scaling going on, and therefore there are no scaling artifacts on the monitor when running a game at 1600x1200. Wouldn't that be correct? Do you fellows agree this is technically right?


----------



## specuvestor

In order not to scale your input resolution must be equal (this is optimal) or less than your display resolution. Most TVs and monitors max output is 1080 nowadays (unless u got a professional range) and not 1200


----------



## Dunedain

I'm talking about using the central 1600x1200 pixels of a 1920x1200 monitor. The other pixels on the left and right side are turned off, not used at all (either through the monitor's controls or through a setting in the graphics card's driver control panel). This would mean when you are playing a game at 1600x1200, you are playing at the native res of the portion of the screen that is in use, because you are only using 1600x1200 pixels on the screen, no scaling required at all.


According to Kaldskryke, this is possible to do.


----------



## specuvestor

Yes that's possible when u output 1200 from the graphics card. Sometimes u may need to configure the monitor


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/19159985
> 
> 
> Here is an article that describes Samsung's plans with respect to OLED TV development.
> 
> http://www.olednet.com/focus/focus_b...398&mem_stat=0
> 
> 
> I think this table is of particular interest. You can see why a 31" TV in a 4.5G fab makes little economic sense. The yields would have to be 100% to even get two TV panels per substrate. Any defects in the substrate and that immediately falls to just one panel per substrate while you could instead produce nearly 150 3" displays for the handset market (at ~$15 a piece).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slacker



Hmm.....based on this chart, it looks like once Samsung gets to this Gen 5.5 process, then the chances that the next-gen Galaxy Tab would have an OLED screen will increase dramatically.......


Two cents


----------



## rogo

More signs of OLED not really gaining traction among manufacturers -- for TVs, of course:


Toshiba scraps plans for OLED panel mass production


*

* Twitter Tweet This

* LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

* Facebook Share on Facebook


Related News


* Fujitsu to make CMOS image sensors for Sony -Nikkei

Thu, Sep 30 2010

* UPDATE 1-Toshiba scraps plans for OEL display mass production

Thu, Sep 30 2010

* UPDATE 1-Hitachi, Canon agree to continue panel alliance

Thu, Sep 30 2010

* Nikkei set for biggest monthly gain in 6 months

Wed, Sep 29 2010

* Toshiba eyes over 10 pct of lithium-ion battery mkt

Wed, Sep 29 2010


Related Topics


* Cyclical Consumer Goods »

* Industrials »


Stocks


TOSHIBA CORPORATION

6502.T

¥411

+0.00+0.00%

12:00am PDT


Panasonic Corporation

6752.T

¥1,124

+0.00+0.00%

12:00am PDT


TOKYO | Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:18pm EDT


TOKYO Oct 1 (Reuters) - Toshiba Corp (6502.T) plans to scrap plans to mass-produce organic electroluminescence (OLED) panels at its unit Toshiba Mobile Display and focus on high-demand LCD panels instead.


"The plan (for mass-production) is currently frozen. We'll review the production plan again from scratch," Toshiba Mobile Display spokesman Masahiro Kume said.


Toshiba Mobile Display, a joint venture between Toshiba and Panasonic Corp (6752.T), had invested some 16 billion yen ($191.6 million) in 2008 to install an OLED production line at its plant in Ishikawa Prefecture in northern Japan with plans to to churn out 1.5 million cell phone OLED panels a month, the Nikkei business daily said. [ID:nSGE68T0K8]


(Reporting by Mariko Katsumura)


Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTKZ00656520101001


----------



## Nielo TM

thankfully we have Samsung and LG. I can't wait to see the first 40-50" TOLED with either smart-glass or simple on/off LCD layer behind the panel.


----------



## Ant99

From the looks of it, it appears that LG might be that company to go full force with OLED. That 30inch model they displayed is incredibly GORGEOUS. Still drool when I see it on the youtube video. Imagine in person.


Toshiba strikes me as a company that should put more focus on what they currently have and try to better it.


----------



## Nielo TM

The last display Toshiba produced was CRT. They may have have aided the production of SED, but as all know, it was never commercialized. So I'm not surprised that Toshiba gave up. Then again, they could contract the panel from OEM as they do correctly and focus on other key areas.


PS: I wonder how other companies are progressing (especially with printable OLED). It can go directly in competition with low-end LCDs.


----------



## Tobbeo

(June 30 but anyway)


MBraun
Manufacturer Claims OLED Scaling Issue Solved; 42" Displays in 2011 


HMMM


----------



## Brimstone-1

I expect LG to emerge the early leader in OLED HDTV displays. LG bought the Kodak white oled technology which should work out well. They can make an all white oled panel and use color filters (WRGB). There is no need to worry about color aging because white is so stable, and it'll probably be easier to manufacture (better yields).



I think it would be wiser for LG OLED displays to operate at 180hz (5.5ms hold time) rather than 120hz (8.3ms hold time). They are going to be sold at a higher cost, at least make the hold time lower than LCDs. It would be a stong selling point to combine with wide viewing angles and deep blacks.


----------



## specuvestor

Don't hold your breath for LG. Samsung makes >90% of AMOLED now and has plans for 5.5G ramp 3Q11. Haven't heard anything concrete from LG yet.


Think the main purpose of White OLED is for lighting and LCD backlight.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I read AMOLED can refresh at much higher rate than 240Hz. And I don't think they need hold time like LCD or is that inherent in the matrix structure?


I really believe the future is AMOLED with both TFT and plasma characteristics. LCD made Samsung major TV player but AMOLED gonna help it break away from the pack.


----------



## Nielo TM

The future is TOLED with stacked RGB sub-pixels.


As for the matrix design, AM is hold-type by default. However, there are techniques that can help to eliminate hold time, which isn't possible on the LCD due to nonuniformed pixel response.


----------



## Brimstone-1

The LG white oled will last over 100,000 hours. There won't be color shift and should be easier to scale up to larger screen sizes.


A Samsung RGB OLED will have the concern of differential aging. Blue in paticular has a shorter lifetime.


I doubt Samsung will have large OLED TVs available at a lower cost than LG, but time will tell. Also LG deserves some credit for having a OLED TV available for sale today even if it is small.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The future is TOLED with stacked RGB sub-pixels.
> 
> 
> As for the matrix design, AM is hold-type by default. However, there are techniques that can help to eliminate hold time, which isn't possible on the LCD due to nonuniformed pixel response.



Is AMOLED not pulse based like LED that u can switch on/off pixel by pixel? Who will commercialize TOLED first u think?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brimstone-1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The LG white oled will last over 100,000 hours. There won't be color shift and should be easier to scale up to larger screen sizes.



Not sure I understand this. U mean white OLED with color filter? Else how to produce RGB?


----------



## rogo

Obviously if you use white OLED, you will need to use color filters. I think his point is that you won't have differential aging of the three primaries (which currently is a very real problem with OLED longevity).


Honestly, I'm not really sure that a full white substrate is a huge win as it would require literally having 3x the pixel density, which is an awkward number. But who knows what they are planning? Nothing important is shipping in 2011 anyway.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19289478
> 
> 
> Is AMOLED not pulse based like LED that u can switch on/off pixel by pixel? Who will commercialize TOLED first u think?



AM addresses line by line using TFT substrate with a capacitor to hold charge. With PM, you can address pixel by pixel, but we haven't found a solution to eliminate cross-contamination, which was why we never say large PM-LCD or PM-OLED.


As for TOLED, both Samsung and LG have prototypes, which they have demonstrated (so do a few other reach institutes). TOLED has far more border application than standard OLED and it is much more appealing to consumer because when powered the down, the panel will be completely transparent. So large panels wouldn't dwarf the room.


TOLED can also be used in eyewear , providing immersive 3D experience with practical applications


TOLED also has medical application. To state one; it can be used help those with S.A.D (Seasonal affective disorder) by displaying various images on windows and patio doors fitted with TOLED.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19289919
> 
> 
> Obviously if you use white OLED, you will need to use color filters. I think his point is that you won't have differential aging of the three primaries (which currently is a very real problem with OLED longevity).
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'm not really sure that a full white substrate is a huge win as it would require literally having 3x the pixel density, which is an awkward number. But who knows what they are planning? Nothing important is shipping in 2011 anyway.



It also consumes more power therefore reduces efficiency.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Obviously if you use white OLED, you will need to use color filters. I think his point is that you won't have differential aging of the three primaries (which currently is a very real problem with OLED longevity).
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'm not really sure that a full white substrate is a huge win as it would require literally having 3x the pixel density, which is an awkward number. But who knows what they are planning? Nothing important is shipping in 2011 anyway.



Yes hence from what I read White OLED is for backlight and lighting. I wouldn't hold my breath for THIS cost curve










Think TOLED also helps in addressing the blue OLED uneven aging.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> AM addresses line by line using TFT substrate with a capacitor to hold charge. With PM, you can address pixel by pixel, but we haven't found a solution to eliminate cross-contamination, which was why we never say large PM-LCD or PM-OLED.



The mitsubishi-pioneer 100" Diamond Vision OLED display is PMOLED with horrific resolution though


----------



## Nielo TM

it is actually composed of 3" tiles


----------



## XxHoosierdaddy

Does OLED have Image Retention?


----------



## Isochroma

OLED pixels get dimmer over time, like CRT and plasma pixels. However, like CRT and unlike plasma, OLED pixels dim slowly over time. Plasma is susceptible to 'image retention' which can take place fairly rapidly. For OLED and CRT, a visible area of 'wear' would not appear for many years.


Plasma's image retention is _not the same as CRT & OLED pixel wear_. Wear is the permanent decrease in brightness of a pixel due to use over time. Image retention is peculiar to plasma due to the way pixels are built. It's a kind of bias in the gas discharge cell that alters the brightness of the discharge. In some cases it can be reversed:
Wikipedia : _"Plasma displays also exhibit another image retention issue which is sometimes confused with screen burn-in damage. In this mode, when a group of pixels are run at high brightness (when displaying white, for example) for an extended period of time, a charge build-up in the pixel structure occurs and a ghost image can be seen. However, unlike burn-in, this charge build-up is transient and self corrects after the image condition that caused the effect has been removed and a long enough period of time has passed (with the display either off or on)."_
The loss of brightness in CRT and OLED pixels cannot be reversed. It is a permanent one-way degradation in the emitter, but occurs slowly and predictably.


Compared to plasma, CRT and OLED are much tougher and less likely to show such symptoms with normal use.


----------



## rogo

Given that the lifespan of OLEDs is much shorter than, say, plasmas, it's actually fairly likely they are susceptible to permanent burn-in. In fact, this is almost certainly one of the many reasons they aren't being pushed right now, since they are both expensive and relatively short lived.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19290231
> 
> 
> Yes hence from what I read White OLED is for backlight and lighting. I wouldn't hold my breath for THIS cost curve



Yes it could be like local dimming on a per pixel level if they made the "backlight" an OLED pixel matrix.


The problem is that you still have the typical LCD issues (except bad black level) like poor response times, bad viewing angle etc.


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/19310717
> 
> 
> Yes it could be like local dimming on a per pixel level if they made the "backlight" an OLED pixel matrix.
> 
> 
> The problem is that you still have the typical LCD issues (except bad black level) like poor response times, bad viewing angle etc.



An lcd with true per pixel backlighting and an advanced IPS panel would pretty much be the best flat panel on the market.


Response times would be an issue, but it's an issue that I've never really noticed on my lcds.


----------



## Chronoptimist

I doubt you would get per-pixel with white OLED backlighting but perhaps a significantly higher number of zones than LEDs.


Per pixel seems like there would be a lot of alignment issues and still very expensive.


----------



## Nielo TM

why would you need a LCD layer when you just apply RGB color filter?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19313295
> 
> 
> why would you need a LCD layer when you just apply RGB color filter?



Thats why I think it will be used for maybe 2000 zone OLED backlit LCD first then white OLED displays when its cheaper.


----------



## Nielo TM

Simply increasing the number of zones doesn't actually improve performance due to cross contamination. But if individual zones can be isolated, then it should be possible.


Thankfully VA LCDs are quickly catching upto to high-end PDPs. For an example, the S-PVA panel embedded within my 40C580 (LTF400HM01) can produce 0.03 cd/m2 black with peak luminance of 130 cs/m2 (natively). When dimmed, the black drops to 0.02, which is identical to G20 NeoPDP, which costs twice as much.


In addition the AMVA5 is set to match if not exceed the VT20's black level performance (natively).


----------



## specuvestor

I cannot understand how OLED backlit TFT makes commercial sense when LED chips will be readily available in 12 months time given the shortage ended earlier than expected.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19317186
> 
> 
> Simply increasing the number of zones doesn't actually improve performance due to cross contamination. But if individual zones can be isolated, then it should be possible.
> 
> 
> Thankfully VA LCDs are quickly catching upto to high-end PDPs. For an example, the S-PVA panel embedded within my 40C580 (LTF400HM01) can produce 0.03 cd/m2 black with peak luminance of 130 cs/m2 (natively). When dimmed, the black drops to 0.02, which is identical to G20 NeoPDP, which costs twice as much.
> 
> 
> In addition the AMVA5 is set to match if not exceed the VT20's black level performance (natively).



I assumed they would use less diffusion when increasing the number of zones.


Contrast on VA might be good but viewing angle and motion handling is still poor.


OLED would be much thinner than traditional LED backlighting allows, specuvestor.


----------



## specuvestor

OIC hopefully thin will still sell after the race to thinnest using edge lit.


I am reminded of the race to the smallest handphone in 2000 when i vaguely remember motorola had one that's slightly larger than the size of the thumb. In retrospect we see how ridiculous that was.


----------



## rogo

One could make an OLED backlight with many 1000s of zones and therefore reduce many of the issues of local dimming.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> One could make an OLED backlight with many 1000s of zones and therefore reduce many of the issues of local dimming.



How does using OLED vs LED make a diff in zones and local dimming assuming TFT?


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/19317785
> 
> 
> I assumed they would use less diffusion when increasing the number of zones.
> 
> 
> Contrast on VA might be good but viewing angle and motion handling is still poor.
> 
> 
> OLED would be much thinner than traditional LED backlighting allows, specuvestor.



AMVA has faster pixel response than S-PVA and I think AMVA5 has better viewing angles. It may not be as good as IPS or PDP, but it should be better than UV2A.


Side note, viewing angles depends on the type or polarizer and it's not impossible to increase the range. But the main factor is cost


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19318186
> 
> 
> AMVA has faster pixel response than S-PVA and I think AMVA5 has better viewing angles. It may not be as good as IPS or PDP, but it should be better than UV2A.
> 
> 
> Side note, viewing angles depends on the type or polarizer and it's not impossible to increase the range. But the main factor is cost



Any ideas as to when AMVA5 is coming out, in which panels, etc?


They were quoting 16,000:1 static contrast.


I had a Sony AMVA3 panel when I owned the V5100, it was an excellent panel.


----------



## Nielo TM

We don't who managed to secure the contract. So like the rest of us, you'll have to wait and see.










PS: AUO also released an A-MVA panel to compete against e-IPS and c-PVA, which atm is the cheapest alternative to TN and features LED backlight as standard. ATM, e-IPS, c-PVA and the unknown A-MVA panels are limited to monitors only.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19317848
> 
> 
> How does using OLED vs LED make a diff in zones and local dimming assuming TFT?



Unless someone has figured out a way to fabricate an array of some crude resolution (say 600 x 300) of LEDs then I'd say manufacturability. It seems plausible that techniques to fabricate large, ridiculously thin arrays of OLEDs for use as backlights is more than plausible.


Samsung apparently agrees with me.


----------



## specuvestor

I'll check with samsung then. Even if OLED is plausible it does not sound like a smart use of OLED resource. From what I understand, array of LED is not an issue to manufacture, it is the heat that's causing quality and durability issue


----------



## rogo

First of all, the OLED panel will likely generate far less heat than an inorganic LED array.


Second of all, I'm not at all sure how arrays of inorganic LEDs are being built, but I suspect there would be manufacturing efficiency in building a single panel light source, which sounds like what they are doing with OLEDs.


----------



## Hyrax

I just watched the current HDNation episode where they claim OLED TV development has essentially been abandoned because it just costs too much. Is this true?


----------



## Nielo TM

Far from the truth


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hyrax* /forum/post/19341778
> 
> 
> I just watched the current HDNation episode where they claim OLED TV development has essentially been abandoned because it just costs too much. Is this true?



Toshiba recently abandoned OLED development I think.


----------



## Xavier1

Also, the economic woes don't help. Pioneer Kuro was the best TV ever made, and is still easily the best yet its 2 years old. It couldn't survive because it was too expensive to produce.


What would provide some hope is if there was even just a 40" set available or announced, even if it cost $10,000, just so it was only a matter of time for the price to come down. Plasma was available in large sizes from the get-go, and that is what differentiates it from OLED in its infancy.


I have a 50" set, but I'm starting to find it small, I'm looking at 60" +, and I think a lot of people are in a similar position.


----------



## Plex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hyrax* /forum/post/19341778
> 
> 
> I just watched the current HDNation episode where they claim OLED TV development has essentially been abandoned because it just costs too much. Is this true?



Hope not, otherwise I'm out of a job


----------



## Plex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19322824
> 
> 
> I'll check with samsung then. Even if OLED is plausible it does not sound like a smart use of OLED resource. From what I understand, array of LED is not an issue to manufacture, it is the heat that's causing quality and durability issue



Just wondering what other ways OLED could be used, diaplays is a biggie and lighting is coming on strong also.


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hyrax* /forum/post/19341778
> 
> 
> I just watched the current HDNation episode where they claim OLED TV development has essentially been abandoned because it just costs too much. Is this true?



It's been true for a long time.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post14837951


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Toshiba recently abandoned OLED development I think.



So has Sony but the ones to watch are LG and Samsung. If they ever abandon OLED then we press the panic button. Similarly if panny stop investing in plasma then plasma has reached it's end and will die slowly and naturally. You need to know who to look at.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It's been true for a long time.
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post14837951



Samsung building 5.5G plant and ramping 3Q11 if not earlier as the component suppliers are beginning to get prepared. They are putting money where their mouth is. Taiwanese CMI looking into OLED as well, likely from Apple's prompting.

LG as usual is clueless with their spanky new 31" OLED TV but new LCD optimus smartphones.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xavier1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Also, the economic woes don't help. Pioneer Kuro was the best TV ever made, and is still easily the best yet its 2 years old. It couldn't survive because it was too expensive to produce.
> 
> 
> What would provide some hope is if there was even just a 40" set available or announced, even if it cost $10,000, just so it was only a matter of time for the price to come down. Plasma was available in large sizes from the get-go, and that is what differentiates it from OLED in its infancy.



In tech expensive is not an issue. Every new tech I know started from expensive for eg CDROM at $1000 and IBM PC XT at $3000. The key is scalability. For some reason or another, the manufacturing process of pio was too difficult which is probably the reason why panny did not buy the pio fab.


LCD started from small size as well and this was the model that won as it can use profits in NB and monitors to invest in R&D while plasma was doing just TV and waiting for mass adoption. When that time came LCD was already ready for TV. OLED will go the LCD path.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Plex* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering what other ways OLED could be used, diaplays is a biggie and lighting is coming on strong also.



As far as the cost curve I can see, I cannot foresee it will be cheaper than LED in next 10 years for these lighting applications as I think the strength of OLED is color vs LED which is not critical in these applications.

Just curious: what do u do for OLED and what OLED TV timeline u see?


----------



## Xavier1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19343044
> 
> 
> In tech expensive is not an issue. Every new tech I know started from expensive for eg CDROM at $1000 and IBM PC XT at $3000. The key is scalability. For some reason or another, the manufacturing process of pio was too difficult which is probably the reason why panny did not buy the pio fab.
> 
> 
> LCD started from small size as well and this was the model that won as it can use profits in NB and monitors to invest in R&D while plasma was doing just TV and waiting for mass adoption. When that time came LCD was already ready for TV. OLED will go the LCD path.



You made some really good points. However, I don't feel that the path is easy for OLED. LCD was driven by laptops, because what else was there? LCD is now established, so OLED has to unseat it and that's looking like it will be hard to do on a mass scale.


----------



## Nielo TM

3D is one of the driving force of OLED. But OLED's potential far outways all the past and present display tech combined.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xavier1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> You made some really good points. However, I don't feel that the path is easy for OLED. LCD was driven by laptops, because what else was there? LCD is now established, so OLED has to unseat it and that's looking like it will be hard to do on a mass scale.



The next samsung tablet will be OLED based in 2H11. I think you will see OLED based NB next 3 years.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> But OLED's potential far outways all the past and present display tech combined.



An 'incredible' statement, one that I will usually ignore, but Nielo KNOWS what he is talking about. Trust him


----------



## Nielo TM

To give a few examples:

The gap between individual pixels and sub-pixels can be either drastically reduced or eliminated by stacking RGB sub-pixels, which allows us to embedded millions of pixels within a small substrate, which can be used to create low-profile designer eyewear with native 3D capability. Better yet, it maybe possible to embed such device into contact lenses. http://www.lumus-optical.com/index.p...id=9&Itemid=15 

BHFO | Contact Lens Display System - BHFO 


Thanks to TOLED, consumers may start to brake the 40" barrier as the display will blend into the background when inactive. And we may even see TOLED windows and mood altering displays (e.g. active wallpaper).


TOLEDs can be used in labs and hospital as a type of overlay display


TOLED can be used in metropolitan city to convey information without obstructing the beauty of the city. TOLED devices can also be embedded with in transportation systems as well.


It also has many application that will no doubt benefit the consumer sector and so forth. OLED also has potential in the lighting industry and can be produced in variety of designs and shapes.




PS: The current standard OLED (e.g. Sony's 11" and LG's 30") is the perfect choice for active/passive 3D and auto-stereoscopic 3D due to the wide viewing angles and perfect pixel response across the entire gray scale. IT is even possible to produce multi-layered OLED so that each eye is provided with full res image.


----------



## Nielo TM

Samsung, LG, Epson, Philips etc. all realize the potential of OLED and are actively developing the technology.


I was truly amazed when I first saw the Samsung's TOLED. I wasn't expecting to see a prototype so soon.


----------



## Plex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19343044
> 
> 
> As far as the cost curve I can see, I cannot foresee it will be cheaper than LED in next 10 years for these lighting applications as I think the strength of OLED is color vs LED which is not critical in these applications.
> 
> Just curious: what do u do for OLED and what OLED TV timeline u see?



How many [HDTV] TV's does most people have in there house, one, two or three, now how many light bulbs do you have in your house. OLED TV time line, IMHO is closer to 5 years before you'll see afordable units, but this all depends on the comsumer's wants.


So, what do you do or how do you know about all this OLED stuff?


----------



## specuvestor

We could possibly see mass adoption of LED lightings next 5 years after talking about it for past 5 years, hence unless OLED cost curve comes down faster than expected it will not be cost effective vs LED. Based on LCD experience I think OLED will not likely be mass adopted in TV so soon, but I think NB and monitor would be a big enough pie for them next 5 years.


I invest in stocks, and am now very keen in those that has OLED exposure. I hope you didn't see my curious question as a "challenge" as I am seriously keen to know if you had any insights to the developments in the industry.


----------



## Xavier1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19349292
> 
> 
> We could possibly see mass adoption of LED lightings next 5 years after talking about it for past 5 years, hence unless OLED cost curve comes down faster than expected it will not be cost effective vs LED. Based on LCD experience I think OLED will not likely be mass adopted in TV so soon, but I think NB and monitor would be a big enough pie for them next 5 years.
> 
> 
> I invest in stocks, and am now very keen in those that has OLED exposure. I hope you didn't see my curious question as a "challenge" as I am seriously keen to know if you had any insights to the developments in the industry.



Yes, that seems quite reasonable. And I would agree that such goals are achievable.


Generally speaking, we should take all the hype and 'potential' stuff with a grain of salt.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xavier1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, we should take all the hype and 'potential' stuff with a grain of salt.



Yes my job requires me to differentiate hype and what works. For eg I think 3D is hype until we get a mass market glassless solution.


Very seldom we get companies that survive on niche products for long eg RIMM aka blackberry. Inability to mass market will kill them in the rapidly evolving tech world where new tech is old tech in just 3 years. That's what in short happened to pio and looks like happening to RIMM. I enjoy AVSers passion but I'm also on the ground with what J6P wants that will ultimately matter.


OLED looks very promising to me because of Samsung Galaxy S which could possibly be one of the most successful Samsung phone ever. I am aware of SED, FED or even pio 10G tech with panny, but until it can be implemented, they are dreams. OLED has shown it is not a dream after resurrected from PMOLED.


----------



## xrox

The same OLED discussions on this thread and others on AVS go repeated year after year. Nothing really seems to be significantly changing.


Having a 15+ year TTM is just fine as long as the existing technology is mature and the new tech has true and visible advantages to the consumer. In OLEDs case they truly promised such advantages. The problem obviously was the existing technology (LCD and PDP) was not mature (not in the least).


Like I and others have said countless times, the laundry list of advantages between OLED and current tech has and will continue to shrink. Add to that the fact that a couple of the core advantages OLED promised so many years ago are turning out to be much less of an advantage than originally thought.


I want a 60” OLED but I have fears. I’ve recently met with OLED researchers and they too are very worried about the future. I think OLED will make it though. It will just take some strong marketing and a quick reduction in cost to the consumer once on the market.

*A suggestion to manufacturers*: Make sure that the ABL is set accordingly (average brightness is higher than PDP) and you'll have a good chance of making it


----------



## specuvestor

Can u discuss further what was the researchers' concerns? Is it just cost curve, blue half life or something more?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19350570
> 
> 
> Can u discuss further what was the researchers' concerns? Is it just cost curve, blue half life or something more?



Nothing much to discuss. They just expressed concerns similar to what I posted. Cost, competition (LCD,PDP), disapointing performance of large area panels (uniformity, power consumption).


They are just a couple of friends and are lab rats. Not industry experts. One guy researches QD-OLED and the other materials for SM-OLED.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Nothing much to discuss. They just expressed concerns similar to what I posted. Cost, competition (LCD,PDP), disapointing performance of large area panels (uniformity, power consumption).
> 
> 
> They are just a couple of friends and are lab rats. Not industry experts. One guy researches QD-OLED and the other materials for SM-OLED.



Understood thanks. Strange there is uniformity issue when using TFT active matrix with no backlight.


Rats are known to run first before calamity strikes. Don't underestimate them


----------



## Nielo TM

I think he meant luminance uniformity


There's also addressing uniformity, which can be solved by refreshing the pixels at 480Hz


----------



## rogo

Specuvestor, large screen OLED is a dream. The success of HTC Inredible and Samsung Galaxy S proves you can make OLED screens for mass market cell phones. Whether you can make them for big TVs is still a legitimate area of discussion to argue about.


Xrox, well put. We've been on this topic for years here. OLED was "going to do this and going to do that." Important things it was going to do were (a) prove to be easily manufactured and (b) cost less than LCD. As I (and probably you) said here years ago, "cost less" was and is a pointless claim. Never mind the fact that OLED doesn't cost less than LCD circa 2005 to manufacture (and it doesn't, of course), the reality is that was never relevant or important. The OLED (and Toshiba/Canon SED venture) folks always used this canard of "costs less" without ever specifying the real target.


To wit: The price you need to cost less than is the one when you are on the market at volume. And this is where the bar for OLED is more or less nearly impossible to jump over. There are so many TFT LCD parts made every year -- including big ones -- already that they are insanely cheap to make. And at the largest sizes, I suspect, can still get somewhat cheaper. If, for example, 60-inch LCDs were available at panel prices of $200-300 (I have no idea what they cost today, I suspect it's somewhat higher, but already under $500), one's "cheaper" technology has to be awfully cheap.


But how will OLED ever get that cheap at 60 inches? It won't barring some discontinuous breakthrough in manufacturing technology. Read that again (and no I'm not suggesting Xrox doesn't get this; I suspect he does better than most). OLED will never be as cheap as TFT-LCD at the large sizes because TFT is already too cheap. (Again, this could change, but it's not very likely it will because the breakthrough in OLED manufacturing could, for example, instead be yet another breakthrough in TFT manufacturing that allows for cheaper this, faster assembly, whatever).


So if OLED is not going to be cheaper and is obviously not easier to manufacture in large sizes -- a fact that is not rebuttable -- what's the plan here? Well the plan is to sell it as a premium priced product in a market where the mainstream product of today is so much better than the premium product of yesteryear it's not even funny. With advances in image processing, filters, backlight localization, etc., it's pretty reasonable to guess that LCD come 2015 (and plasma assuming Panasonic and Samsung stay in the market) will be much better products than they are today.


That further circumscribes the market for large-screen OLEDs. And while it's assumed that large-screen OLEDs are going to have some kind of amazing picture because a completely meaningless comparison is being drawn from a 15-inch Sony that was sold briefly (when the new 6.6" Sharp "retina display" is made into a tablet, tell me HD doesn't look totally amazing on it), will the picture really be that much more amazing? I suspect that's going to be very difficult to achieve.


Keep in mind also that things like 4k resolution LCDs are trivial to build if manufacturers perceive a need for a new feature. Whether they'll be good or not remains to be seen, but we've learned that over time image processing can eventually make pixels useful irrespective of source (see the mania around upscaling DVD here a few years ago).


----------



## specuvestor

I would think large screen OLED is a faraway dream if not for the 31" LG display. Frankly I have not seen the real thing but if it doesn't suck and priced at $8000 using just a 4.5G fab then I think we have a great cost curve going forward.


I understand the birth pangs for new tech. Solid state drives has been a concept for >20 years because the benefits were obvious. Before NAND flash people were playing with idea of EPROM to store data. Only recently do we see traction and even so most NB nowadays are still not SSD fitted. But trust me, it will.


So what are the keys? Like I posted above, it is scalability to reduce cost BUT there is another most important aspect: perceived difference. Point to note is perception can also be molded by marketing for eg Samsung's oversaturated colors. But consumers MUST perceive there is a difference, whether in SSD or in perceived picture quality. Whether AVSers think plasma is better or not is not important to J6P. He must perceive, and in some cases, trained to by marketing, a difference in his user experience. (he can see for eg better black on pio but does not perceive it important enough to pay the premium) And Apple is a master in this as Steve Job was a veteran who went through the baptism of fire in the 90s. Apple doesn't compete on price or hardware spec. It competes on user experience which it achieve by 1) it just work 2) ecosystem which old Macintosh lacked.


Hence if OLED is just competing on cost then you are right. It will not win. Similarly if LCD were competing on cost with CRT 5 years back, LCD would be lost. The key was consumers were able to see and perceive diff between LCD and CRT, whether in size or in sharpness or resolution or thinness (to a ludicrous level nowadays, but very perceivable and easily measurable by J6P). As far as I read, I think OLED has absolute PERCEIVABLE comparative advantage over LCD at this point of time, unless of course u disagree. Nonetheless tech is dynamic, who knows LCD may solve backlight issue, hold effect, and gives much better contrast and viewing angle 5 years from now, then the playing field would be different. But as of now, the LCD guys like Sammy and LG does not seem to think so.


----------



## gmarceau

What are the main picture quality differences that set OLED apart from plasma?


Is it just black level?


----------



## Isochroma

Speed. No motion trails on OLED. Microsecond response rate.


Perfect blacks and brilliant bright whites - even full-field, which can't be obtained on PDP.


----------



## gmarceau

So, there's the possibility of an infinite ANSI contrast ratio.


Plasma is working towards reducing phosphor trailing, which I'm hoping makes it into more models next year.


Any thoughts on CES? Possibly some announced 30"+ models with release dates?


----------



## Isochroma

Infinite contrast ratio is more than a possibility: it's a fact on every OLED display made. That's because when an OLED pixel is off, it is not emitting any light at all. OLED is the only type of screen for sale that maintains perfect blackness; even CRTs emit some light due to stray electrons leaking from their high-voltage power supplies.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/19355843
> 
> 
> Infinite contrast ratio is more than a possibility: it's a fact on every OLED display made. That's because when an OLED pixel is off, it is not emitting any light at all.



And there is no light bleed or loss of contrast on ANSI tests?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> As far as I read, I think OLED has absolute PERCEIVABLE comparative advantage over LCD at this point of time



I would put 3d on the list of potential OLED advantages. Everything I have read points to the fact that the 3D OLED demonstrations have been significantly better than their LCD counterparts.


Slacker


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/19356252
> 
> 
> And there is no light bleed or loss of contrast on ANSI tests?



No bleed what so ever.


----------



## rogo

"As far as I read, I think OLED has absolute PERCEIVABLE comparative advantage over LCD at this point of time, unless of course u disagree. Nonetheless tech is dynamic, who knows LCD may solve backlight issue, hold effect, and gives much better contrast and viewing angle 5 years from now, then the playing field would be different. But as of now, the LCD guys like Sammy and LG does not seem to think so."


Is the difference perceptible today? Yes. Unfortunately, you can't buy a relevant OLED today.


The difference with SSD, for example, is that regardless of whether consumers felt it was worth a huge premium, enterprise did (as did some consumers). SSD gets cheaper, but gets nowhere near as cheap as hard drives. But it offers things hard drives don't and captures a tiny portion of the storage market. It's a nice little business. Of course, it really just leverages off flash production, a many-billion-dollar ecosystem, and just has to develop controllers and packages.


OLED cannot leverage off the flash industry or any industry. In fact, there is nothing currently manufacturing OLEDs or even some critical component of OLEDs. Nearly all LED research is in inorganic LEDs, used for lighting, backlights in TVs, etc. etc.


And the point is, it doesn't matter one bit that OLED is "better" now -- assuming again there is some OLED that's actually the same size as an LCD or plasma TV -- it matters that it's "better" when it's on the market. It's not on or close to the market. It's not proved to actually be manufacturable at any reasonable price or any reasonable screen size.


Let's just go with 2015, $1200 60-inch LCDs, 360Hz refresh, full local dimming with 10,000 "zones", super black backplanes and darker-than-ever filters yet brightness peaks that exceed today's LCDs thanks to better lumens/watt on 2015 LEDs. Let's throw in 4k x 2k resolution, improved color reproduction, 1/2 the power consumption of today's TVs, 1.5-inch think sets at this price. For giggles, how about 2000:1 ANSI, 100,000:1 real on-off (100 million:1 on the spec sheet







)


Now, does anyone really doubt those developments? I mean we can quibble on whether $1200 is too low (or too high). We can quibble on some of those details, but fundamentally that's the bar.


Now, consider that virtually nothing has ever actually made it to market in flat panel display history and the only way anyone can actually bring OLED to market -- for real -- is to be prepared to make millions both to bring costs down and also to justify building fabs in the first place.


Honestly, the whole thing feels a lot like a fantasy. It seems a lot more likely someone will make an OLED backlight with 100,000 zones and couple it to an LCD TV. That would provide much of the benefit of OLED without much of the complexity of trying to make them. But even if that never happens, the LCD I described above should exist, should be demonstrably better than today's, and might be good enough that you couldn't sell OLED period, unless it was literally cheaper. And it realistically can't be cheaper anytime this decade.


----------



## johnmistar

This should be interesting... LG 15-inch OLED technology review with measurements and calibration reports coming up on flatpanelshd: LG 15-inch OLED-TV received


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19362235
> 
> 
> "As far as I read, I think OLED has absolute PERCEIVABLE comparative advantage over LCD at this point of time, unless of course u disagree. Nonetheless tech is dynamic, who knows LCD may solve backlight issue, hold effect, and gives much better contrast and viewing angle 5 years from now, then the playing field would be different. But as of now, the LCD guys like Sammy and LG does not seem to think so."
> 
> 
> Is the difference perceptible today? Yes. Unfortunately, you can't buy a relevant OLED today.
> 
> 
> The difference with SSD, for example, is that regardless of whether consumers felt it was worth a huge premium, enterprise did (as did some consumers). SSD gets cheaper, but gets nowhere near as cheap as hard drives. But it offers things hard drives don't and captures a tiny portion of the storage market. It's a nice little business. Of course, it really just leverages off flash production, a many-billion-dollar ecosystem, and just has to develop controllers and packages.
> 
> 
> OLED cannot leverage off the flash industry or any industry. In fact, there is nothing currently manufacturing OLEDs or even some critical component of OLEDs. Nearly all LED research is in inorganic LEDs, used for lighting, backlights in TVs, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> And the point is, it doesn't matter one bit that OLED is "better" now -- assuming again there is some OLED that's actually the same size as an LCD or plasma TV -- it matters that it's "better" when it's on the market. It's not on or close to the market. It's not proved to actually be manufacturable at any reasonable price or any reasonable screen size.
> 
> 
> Let's just go with 2015, $1200 60-inch LCDs, 360Hz refresh, full local dimming with 10,000 "zones", super black backplanes and darker-than-ever filters yet brightness peaks that exceed today's LCDs thanks to better lumens/watt on 2015 LEDs. Let's throw in 4k x 2k resolution, improved color reproduction, 1/2 the power consumption of today's TVs, 1.5-inch think sets at this price. For giggles, how about 2000:1 ANSI, 100,000:1 real on-off (100 million:1 on the spec sheet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> Now, does anyone really doubt those developments? I mean we can quibble on whether $1200 is too low (or too high). We can quibble on some of those details, but fundamentally that's the bar.
> 
> 
> Now, consider that virtually nothing has ever actually made it to market in flat panel display history and the only way anyone can actually bring OLED to market -- for real -- is to be prepared to make millions both to bring costs down and also to justify building fabs in the first place.
> 
> 
> Honestly, the whole thing feels a lot like a fantasy. It seems a lot more likely someone will make an OLED backlight with 100,000 zones and couple it to an LCD TV. That would provide much of the benefit of OLED without much of the complexity of trying to make them. But even if that never happens, the LCD I described above should exist, should be demonstrably better than today's, and might be good enough that you couldn't sell OLED period, unless it was literally cheaper. And it realistically can't be cheaper anytime this decade.



Rogo, didn't LCD and Plasma have to go through the same uphill battle as OLED to get to big screen sizes?


Those two technologies couldn't compete with RP CRT or DLP when first introduced, were overly expensive, and didn't have the best picture quality.


I'm just curious why you think that OLED won't take the same path as those two technologies did.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19362235
> 
> 
> Is the difference perceptible today? Yes. Unfortunately, you can't buy a relevant OLED today.
> 
> 
> Now, consider that virtually nothing has ever actually made it to market in flat panel display history and the only way anyone can actually bring OLED to market -- for real -- is to be prepared to make millions both to bring costs down and also to justify building fabs in the first place.
> 
> 
> Honestly, the whole thing feels a lot like a fantasy. It seems a lot more likely someone will make an OLED backlight with 100,000 zones and couple it to an LCD TV. That would provide much of the benefit of OLED without much of the complexity of trying to make them. But even if that never happens, the LCD I described above should exist, should be demonstrably better than today's, and might be good enough that you couldn't sell OLED period, unless it was literally cheaper. And it realistically can't be cheaper anytime this decade.



Actually the 31" OLED TV from LG will be available next year at $9000 as per I posted.

http://www.kokeytechnology.com/gadge...rice-revealed/ 


And highly regarded Nomura ex Lehman analyst James Kim wrote in his 24 September report: "Although the share prices of the LED companies seem to be approaching fair value, we think they will stagnate at the current level on negative sentiment surrounding the new display device, OLED TV. We believe OLED TV will raise big questions over whether LED TVs will continue to exist in the long term, as OLED TVs do not require LED BLUs (backlight units) and will be positioned in the mainstream TV segment. We expect OLED TVs to be available from next summer, and will most likely be launched by SEC."


As of now $9000 OLED TV is >10X the price of a 32" LCD TV. But you and I have been in the industry long enough to have heard this tune many times over. I think OLED TV may be coming to the shops sooner than we expected. Not mainstream or mass market, but niche enough like Pio for us to make a comparison.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnmistar* /forum/post/19362600
> 
> 
> This should be interesting... LG 15-inch OLED technology review with measurements and calibration reports coming up on flatpanelshd: LG 15-inch OLED-TV received



Hopefully they have upgraded the colorimeter. But even then I don't think it will register the blacks.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/19362669
> 
> 
> Rogo, didn't LCD and Plasma have to go through the same uphill battle as OLED to get to big screen sizes?
> 
> 
> Those two technologies couldn't compete with RP CRT or DLP when first introduced, were overly expensive, and didn't have the best picture quality.
> 
> 
> I'm just curious why you think that OLED won't take the same path as those two technologies did.



Plasma had no uphill battle for large screen sizes. The Pioneer 50-inch was one of the first commercially available plasmas back in the mid/late 1990s.


LCD had issues getting big, but there was scale economics boosting LCD thanks to nearly 100% penetration in notebook computers, which eventually led to nearly 100% penetration in PC monitors, which led to televisions, which led to bigger televisions.


Yes, OLED has some small portion of the smartphone market and yes that portion is growing. But there are two huge differences at play here:


1) LCD is not standing still so there is no real chance OLED will get 100% of the smartphone market or even any majority of it. OLED won't be taking over notebooks or monitors, both of which have ASPs that are -- inflation adjusted -- about 1/4 of what they were in the 1990s. So adding premium-priced components is a marketing impossibility. Without scale, OLED will have a tough time ever being produced affordably and ever scaling up in size the way LCD did. And it took LCD roughly 20 years from the invention of TFT to get to 60 inches. It took plasma arguably longer (although much of the time after invention was wasted in not actually learning how to build them).


2) LCD was able to take over _from CRT_. LCD's flaws in contrast, off-angle viewing, etc. were meaningless compared to it's advantages in thinness, brightness, size, weight. Today, we have flat panels. New flat panels don't provide exceptional new advantages, even though today it would seem LCD is weak enough in contrast and off-axis contrast (aka viewing angle) especially to allow some opening. OLEDs are a marginal improvement over today's LCDs (you might consider that a big "margin", but it's evolution, not revolution like CRT to flat panels).


In fact, today's OLEDs have significant issues that are keeping their expansion even in mobile phones:


* Cost

* Sunlight viewing (they are the worst sunlight screens on smartphones in this regard)

* Pixel density (Apple's retina display is LCD)

* Continued evolution of better and better LCDs


And if Mirasol or Pixel Qi catches on at all, it will further circumscribe the theoretical growth of OLED -- i.e. the opportunity to grow is lessened. That makes scale economics more and more difficult to reach.


I'm not saying never; I'm saying the challenge is severe enough given the market conditions that never is a possible outcome for large-screen OLED.


Finally, I'd like to address Specuvestor's comments.


1) I do not consider 31 inches a home-theater-sized TV. If you do, I'd consider you in error. Very few living room TVs are going to be that small in the 2010s. I do not believe that a $9000 31-inch TV will sell even 10,000 units globally. Anyone who actually cares about picture quality is not watching a 31-inch screen. I don't have the slightest idea who would even buy this TV except for people who want to demonstrate their possession of too much money.


2) If you consider the presence of an astronomically price 31-inch model in 2012 as somehow significant, we should put it in perspective. I'd say it's more than 15x the price of an LCD. If the price of the OLED fell 30% per year for 5 years, it'd be about $1500 in 2017. So it'll still be 6-7x the price of an LCD. This is not a "Pioneer niche" it's more of a "Aston Martin niche".


If we are speculating on when 31 inches will become 50 and when 50 will become 60, I'll go with 50 inches in 2016 and 60 in 2017. Even if I'm wrong and the 50 inch set arrives in late 2013, that's 3 more years of LCD improvement and the mainstreaming of 70+" LCD.


My guess is that a fantastic 60-inch LCD for $1500 is a flat out given in 3 years. Compare that to a $7500 50-inch OLED. There just is not a market. Drop the OLED to $4500 and there still isn't. And these are pie-in-the-sky, overly aggressive dream projections for OLED. Don't you think 2013's LCD is going to be much closer in picture quality to today's OLED than today's LCD? Don't you think 2015's LCD is going to be that much better still?


I tend to think that 2015's LCD will be hard to distinguish picture-quality-wise from next year's 31-inch OLED. Analysts statements like "Hey, OLED won't need a BLU" don't mean much. The consumer doesn't care so long as the picture is there. And it mostly will be.


----------



## navychop

I think a high PQ OLED of 31" at almost any price would sell around Hollywood, where some in the TV/movie industry MUST have the latest and greatest. Even if it will be tossed in 2 years. There's at least a thousand there, probably more if it's really good.


Drop in the bucket, but I think OLED will make it for TVs and lighting. Just not very quickly. It will not be another SED.


----------



## Ant99

[email protected]$9000 wow nobody is buying that only rich folks that burn cash. I wouldn't even shell $2000. But I will take it for $800










By the way I think LG is smart releasing these sets just to test the waters on how far they will go. I would also love to find out the stability of these sets, if they hold up well in 5yrs.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19365930
> 
> 
> 1) LCD is not standing still so there is no real chance OLED will get 100% of the smartphone market or even any majority of it. OLED won't be taking over notebooks or monitors, both of which have ASPs that are -- inflation adjusted -- about 1/4 of what they were in the 1990s. So adding premium-priced components is a marketing impossibility. Without scale, OLED will have a tough time ever being produced affordably and ever scaling up in size the way LCD did. And it took LCD roughly 20 years from the invention of TFT to get to 60 inches. It took plasma arguably longer (although much of the time after invention was wasted in not actually learning how to build them).
> 
> 
> 2) LCD was able to take over _from CRT_. LCD's flaws in contrast, off-angle viewing, etc. were meaningless compared to it's advantages in thinness, brightness, size, weight. Today, we have flat panels. New flat panels don't provide exceptional new advantages, even though today it would seem LCD is weak enough in contrast and off-axis contrast (aka viewing angle) especially to allow some opening. OLEDs are a marginal improvement over today's LCDs (you might consider that a big "margin", but it's evolution, not revolution like CRT to flat panels).
> 
> 
> In fact, today's OLEDs have significant issues that are keeping their expansion even in mobile phones:
> 
> 
> * Cost
> 
> * Sunlight viewing (they are the worst sunlight screens on smartphones in this regard)
> 
> * Pixel density (Apple's retina display is LCD)
> 
> * Continued evolution of better and better LCDs
> 
> 
> And if Mirasol or Pixel Qi catches on at all, it will further circumscribe the theoretical growth of OLED -- i.e. the opportunity to grow is lessened. That makes scale economics more and more difficult to reach.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying never; I'm saying the challenge is severe enough given the market conditions that never is a possible outcome for large-screen OLED.
> 
> 
> Finally, I'd like to address Specuvestor's comments.
> 
> 
> 1) I do not consider 31 inches a home-theater-sized TV. If you do, I'd consider you in error. Very few living room TVs are going to be that small in the 2010s. I do not believe that a $9000 31-inch TV will sell even 10,000 units globally. Anyone who actually cares about picture quality is not watching a 31-inch screen. I don't have the slightest idea who would even buy this TV except for people who want to demonstrate their possession of too much money.
> 
> 
> 2) If you consider the presence of an astronomically price 31-inch model in 2012 as somehow significant, we should put it in perspective. I'd say it's more than 15x the price of an LCD. If the price of the OLED fell 30% per year for 5 years, it'd be about $1500 in 2017. So it'll still be 6-7x the price of an LCD. This is not a "Pioneer niche" it's more of a "Aston Martin niche".
> 
> 
> If we are speculating on when 31 inches will become 50 and when 50 will become 60, I'll go with 50 inches in 2016 and 60 in 2017. Even if I'm wrong and the 50 inch set arrives in late 2013, that's 3 more years of LCD improvement and the mainstreaming of 70+" LCD.



I think your argument is based on 2 premises 1) That LCD is way too cheap for competitors to catch up and 2) LCD Tech will improve rapidly over next 5 years over OLED's small margin of improvement.


If 1) is right you are basically assuming no other technology or competitors will be able to enter the TV space in next 5 or 10 years and beyond, because they will always have the established cost advantage. That was what the CRT makers LG, Sony, Phillips thought. TO be fair, it is a viable commercial strategy but it does not always work when environment, especially technology, changes.


As for 2) I would look for LCD to beat Plasma in contrast and viewing angle first for a START (not to mention Hold effect and 3D) before assuming LCD can be on par with OLED. I think the key is contrast, which the eye is more perceptible to.


31" is a start. But it shows it can be done commercially, that's the more important part. I will not argue on the 10X/15X cost curve thing even though we have seen it so many times, the current arguments being LED vs incandescent lighting, SSD vs HDD, solar vs grid power, etc. OLED will not stay in mobile phones... it will be in tablet, notebooks and possibly monitors next. (we wont have to wait too long, the next Samsung tablet in 2H11 will be OLED) That's where their profit will come from to fund the R&D for large TV.


The major diff between you and me is that I believe history will repeat itself, may not be exact but it rhymes, if the tech is COMMERCIALLY viable, which is essential what gmarceau is saying as well.


One point I am bewildered: You said OLED is bad under sunlight viewing? I thought the higher OLED contrast was the Samsung galaxy S selling point and screen looks great (to me and reviewers at least) vs washed out TFT when viewed under sunlight?


P.S> BTW just saw MacBook Air will be fully SSD. Nothing new under the sun.


----------



## rogo

1) The OLED screen in Nexus One/Droid Incredible is invisible in sunlight. iPhone4 may be bad, but it's nowhere near Droid Incredible bad.


2) LCD hasn't beaten all aspects of plasma image quality, obviously, but it has trajectory on its side. Not to mention a much larger universe of people interested in improving it. Not to mention 80% or somesuch of the flat-panel TV market.


3) You keep pretending costs don't matter. They do. Do you think $40 LED light bulbs are going to sell outside of the "green at any cost" early adopters? They won't. They fail on ROI metrics and you risk losing your $40 investment if yours dies early.


You keep claiming that we are on the cusp of some kind of OLED revolution. But a 7-inch Samsung tablet shipping a year from now is not feeling like a revolution to me.


4) Sorry, but if history repeats itself, OLED will never be used for TVs. We are talking 40 years of trying, endless FED and other emissive display failures, endless promises about OLED manufacturing. Exactly 2 new technologies have ever made it to market. Ever.


5) MacBook Air is nifty, but my lord Apple... A 4-year-old microprocessor? Are they kidding? Why can't I buy it with a Core i3 for $100 more? As is often the case in computers, they limit their market share with decisions like this. Oh, and yes, Apple is far and away the largest flash memory customer on earth. So their ability to do all SSD is real. And in fairness, the prices are not unreasonable given that. Alas, the microprocessor is 4 years old.


And, again, SSD is not remotely competitive with rotating disks on a cost/GB basis. But rotating drives hit a bottom price below which manufacturers won't sell. Therefore, SSDs are a not unreasonble multiple of that price _given that they provide compelling advantages in computing_ including much more instant on, better read/write speeds, much better shock resistance, etc. These are things that sell laptops.[/i]


If we are drawring a parallel to OLED, we'd better have some amazing OLED specs to sell vs. the competition they will face when they are actually available in 2014-2017. Not some nonsense now in a $9k 31-inch set. I mean really. Yes, I admit the Lamgorghini has more hp than my Acura. But Lambo is not exactly taking share from Acura today.


6) I think you continue to miss my point. I'm not saying, "OMG OLED IS DEAD". I'm saying that OLED hype remains best on the same false hope that every pretender to the display throne has exhibited to date: It targets today, not the time when it's viable. OLED has been 5 years away for the past 10 years. In that time, TFT-LCD and plasma have gotten stupidly cheap and dramatically better.


We could make a case that OLED is now only 4 years away. Let's not pretend a $9000 31-inch TV coming out in 2011 augurs in a new era where time will suddenly accelerate. Let's also not pretend that OLED has any advantages in inexpensive manufacturing, which is something we were promised over and over that proved to be patently false. We don't even hear that the 4-inch ones are cheap to make; in fact they apparently cost more than TFTs of the same size.


Since we can basically limited 2011 to one overpriced tiny TV, we can plot a trajectory pretty reliably. That trajectory is that 50 inch sets won't be out before 2013 and will still be astronomically expensive. It tells us that by the time 60-inch sets are out and are only ridiculously expensive, we might be looking at LCDs better than the ones I posited and costing under $1000.


I don't know how to put this, but OLED picture quality is not some real holy grail. There are serious issues of uniformity that will have to be resolved, serious issues around uneven aging of the three primaries.... And even if OLEDs are demonstrably and visibly better than the generation of TFTs they meet in the market come 2015 -- a "fact" that may never materialize -- they will cost much more to make and to buy. There is not a lot of evidence that people are going to buy TVs that are 2-4x more money even in the quantity people buy BMWs.


If the market's appetite for TVs priced like BMWs is more like the quantity sold of Rolls Royces, then there is no OLED. It will have such terrible economics it will end when it begins.


There is no evidence that large-size OLEDs can be manufactured at reasonable yield and cost and then sold at reasonable prices. The presence of small OLEDs in expensive cell phone (expensive before carrier subsidies, please don't tell me how they are giving the Galaxy S away, the phone costs carriers $500ish) does not prove that large size OLEDs can be manufactured at reasonable yield at cost.


Of course, it doesn't prove they can't be either. But pretending they are hitting the market in the next 2 years remains silly. And since they aren't, no one is making money selling them. So what exactly are you investing in? Samsung? Based on OLEDs? The mobile phone division will have more impact on profitability for the better part of this decade. Same for LG.


----------



## specuvestor

I didn't know that about Nexus/Droid. Will check out on that and why is it so different from Galaxy S when they come out of same fab. May have something to do with Samsung using in cell touch screen ie Super AMOLED.


Core 2 Duo has the best performance/ power consumption ratio. It single handedly destroyed AMD64's 30% market share momentum. Apple is focusing on usage time in a slim form factor where fat batteries probably can't make it.


I'm invested in korean companies investing and providing OLED materials to Samsung. OLED manufacturing is not an endless promise. Real money has been put on the table, not some R&D hubris. Taiwanese are looking at it now, waiting for Samsung to provide the beachhead. The birth pangs for this tech is coming to an end. Now a question of scale.


Samsung handset profit has not been spectacular past 12 months with less than 10% OP margins except for Galaxy S which should be good for 3Q. LG been making losses and in the dumps for handsets past 18 months. But to be fair no one had it easy with iPhone except maybe HTC.


P.S> Did you change your mind on 60" TV selling


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19367634
> 
> 
> 1) The OLED screen in Nexus One/Droid Incredible is invisible in sunlight. iPhone4 may be bad, but it's nowhere near Droid Incredible bad.



There are lower quality screens of all types. Some newer OLED tech has no issues in sunlight. These are first generation screens for mobile devices.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19367634
> 
> 
> 4) Sorry, but if history repeats itself, OLED will never be used for TVs. We are talking 40 years of trying, endless FED and other emissive display failures, endless promises about OLED manufacturing. Exactly 2 new technologies have ever made it to market. Ever.



There are already two OLED televisions on the market with at least one more announced for 2011. Its a slow start but it is a start. Far more than SED FED or other techs that never made it off the ground.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19367634
> 
> 
> 5) MacBook Air is nifty, but my lord Apple... A 4-year-old microprocessor? Are they kidding? Why can't I buy it with a Core i3 for $100 more?



If they used a Core i3 chip (are there ULV Core-i chips yet?) they would then have to use Intel's HD graphics rather than the Geforce 320M they are using now because Intel do not allow Nvidia to make integrated graphics chips for the Core-i series of CPUs.


Core2 ULV plus Geforce 320M is a better overall system than Core i3 plus Intel HD.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19367634
> 
> 
> So their ability to do all SSD is real. And in fairness, the prices are not unreasonable given that. Alas, the microprocessor is 4 years old.
> 
> 
> And, again, SSD is not remotely competitive with rotating disks on a cost/GB basis. But rotating drives hit a bottom price below which manufacturers won't sell. Therefore, SSDs are a not unreasonble multiple of that price _given that they provide compelling advantages in computing_ including much more instant on, better read/write speeds, much better shock resistance, etc. These are things that sell laptops.[/i]



It is not an SSD. It is flash storage that they claim to be 2x the performance of the old 1.8" hard drive in the MacBook Air. That is not especially fast. A 2.5" SSD is typically over 100x the speed of the fastest 10,000 rpm desktop hard drives.


----------



## specuvestor

Interesting point on the Intel's HD graphics.


But I think you are mistaken on the 100X faster... If I remember correctly that is for random seek. On average normal usage should be about 2-3X faster considering SSD uses the same SATA-2 connection. You call them flash storage but they are just on board "SSD" that probably uses the PCIe bus instead. SSD is also NAND flash based.


But we digress


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/19367671
> 
> 
> There are already two OLED televisions on the market with at least one more announced for 2011. Its a slow start but it is a start. Far more than SED FED or other techs that never made it off the ground.



We all could've been enjoying the third or forth gen SED if it weren't for the legal battle


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19367684
> 
> 
> Interesting point on the Intel's HD graphics.
> 
> 
> But I think you are mistaken on the 100X faster... If I remember correctly that is for random seek. On average normal usage should be about 2-3X faster considering SSD uses the same SATA-2 connection. You call them flash storage but they are just on board "SSD" that probably uses the PCIe bus instead. SSD is also NAND flash based.
> 
> 
> But we digress



Well yes it depends on what you test. A standard laptop drive is about 30MB/s read on large files, not sure about the 1.8" drives used in the MBA, probably 20MB/s?


An SSD will max out the SATA bus at 270MB/s read so at least 10x faster instead of 2x. I have seen app launch tests with the new MBA compared to a MBP using a hard drive and the MBP won some of them. If it were a real SSD it would have no chance.


Small random reads are what is most indicative of real-world performance in my opinion. Thats where the most noticeable difference is with an SSD. (I replaced my MacBooks drive with a proper SSD a while ago)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19367715
> 
> 
> We all could've been enjoying the third or forth gen SED if it weren't for the legal battle



A terrible loss for all of us.


----------



## specuvestor

Not sure what drive does MBA uses but here is a nice chart to see:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...nd,2741-4.html 


I'm not surprised that MBP beat MBA. MBP uses a Core i7 processor. MBA is more energy efficient does not mean it is faster. We always have to look at the TOTAL system. Intuitively MBP will always win in a CPU intensive application like video encoding.


Anyway back to the thread: LG Display 3Q conference call just ended and they expect 2013 to launch large size OLED TV, they are still deciding whether to build a new fab or to convert their existing TFT fab. TFT blended ASP dropped 10% QoQ while like-on-like dropped 14% QoQ.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/19367792
> 
> 
> Well yes it depends on what you test. A standard laptop drive is about 30MB/s read on large files, not sure about the 1.8" drives used in the MBA, probably 20MB/s?
> 
> 
> An SSD will max out the SATA bus at 270MB/s read so at least 10x faster instead of 2x. I have seen app launch tests with the new MBA compared to a MBP using a hard drive and the MBP won some of them. If it were a real SSD it would have no chance.


----------



## vinnie97

Hopefully, those expectations become reality. 2013, the year the Kuro is surpassed?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/19369519
> 
> 
> Hopefully, those expectations become reality. 2013, the year the Kuro is surpassed?



I think you mean 2013 the year CRT is finally surpassed.







(though I would say a 31" screen next year is big enough for that, the current 15" is too small)


----------



## Isochroma

Regarding those "$40 LED light bulbs", I've been looking at them too on eBay. Way too pricey for the light output - and worse - lower efficiency than cheap compact fluorescent.


Another interesting example of a new technology that took over a large market is the compact fluorescent. When they first came out they were very bulky, flickered and were expensive. It was only when the price came down and they started dominating the shelves in every store that the tide shifted. Now I can buy packs of them for dirt cheap, and they're the logical choice because they're 4x more efficient than incandescents.


It seems that lately new technologies have become exponentially more expensive than those they seek to replace, and worse - their price comes down much slower than older 'tech revolutionaries' did. I don't expect OLED lighting or LED lighting to ever be affordable, at least not in the next twenty years.


This might also apply to OLED displays, unfortunately. LCD has improved enormously, and I still enjoy my 32" LCD each night for movies. I'd pay at most $2000 for a 32" OLED. Remember too the economy is not doing well right now, and the future looks stormy. If OLED TVs sell, it will be in small volume to very rich customers for the forseeable future.


----------



## vinnie97

Well, Chrono, probably right, though I'm sure the Kuro improved upon CRT in some areas of PQ (I just can't enumerate them right now), if not in contrast ratio/black levels.







It's certainly the pinnacle of flat panel PQ.


Oh, and Pioneer Plasma is still better than LCD in overall PQ, 2 years after manufacturing ended. Watching Robin Hood on my 50" Elite this week was jaw-dropping...it's a shame I may have to let it go (a move, financial problems, etc). Given the aforementioned economy, I wonder if/when the current flat panel PQ king will be dethroned.


----------



## Plex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/19350386
> 
> 
> The same OLED discussions on this thread and others on AVS go repeated year after year. Nothing really seems to be significantly changing.
> 
> 
> Having a 15+ year TTM is just fine as long as the existing technology is mature and the new tech has true and visible advantages to the consumer. In OLEDs case they truly promised such advantages. The problem obviously was the existing technology (LCD and PDP) was not mature (not in the least).
> 
> 
> Like I and others have said countless times, the laundry list of advantages between OLED and current tech has and will continue to shrink. Add to that the fact that a couple of the core advantages OLED promised so many years ago are turning out to be much less of an advantage than originally thought.
> 
> 
> I want a 60? OLED but I have fears. I?ve recently met with OLED researchers and they too are very worried about the future. I think OLED will make it though. It will just take some strong marketing and a quick reduction in cost to the consumer once on the market.
> 
> *A suggestion to manufacturers*: Make sure that the ABL is set accordingly (average brightness is higher than PDP) and you'll have a good chance of making it



What company were these R&D people from, the market doesn't show a pull back its more like a push forward. I also want that 60" but i think mine will be printed on a roll up screen at ~ 0.5mm thick, lets see LED-LCD do that


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Plex* /forum/post/19372041
> 
> 
> What company were these R&D people from, the market doesn't show a pull back its more like a push forward. I also want that 60" but i think mine will be printed on a roll up screen at ~ 0.5mm thick, lets see LED-LCD do that



Both are academics.


----------



## rogo

@Plex, "What company were these R&D people from, the market doesn't show a pull back its more like a push forward. I also want that 60" but i think mine will be printed on a roll up screen at ~ 0.5mm thick, lets see LED-LCD do that...."


Um, Toshiba just canceled its OLED plans. Sony has more or less dropped out of seriously pushing OLED forward. Samsung seems to be more interested in backlights than full on displays.


@Specuvestor, I haven't really changed by mind at all. That said, I am pretty confident 60 inch TVs will be cheaper than the $2000 they are now. I don't want to say that $1000 is impossible, but from a name brand, unlikely. I think we can agree that since they are $2000 now (some) that sub $1500 is more than doable.


@Chronop, it's an interesting point you make about the combo. I guess the question for me is: Can it play World of Warcraft Cataclysm without choking in a raid? If so, it will meet my performance needs. That said, the storage is an SSD. It's just a custom SSD without an enclosure. But it's a controller + flash -- the very definition of an SSD. Apple, the world's largest flash memory user, can afford to build its own SSDs for specific products, and that's what they have done. I have never seen a single benchmark where and SSD outperforms a rotating drive by a factor of 100x; but the fact that Apple might be using a slow SSD is doubtless more a function of not engineering the system for drive performance than anything.


That said, boot times on the Macbook Air and wake-from-sleep times are best of any laptop out there. Those are the "benchmarks" an ultraportable user are likely to care about.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/19370995
> 
> 
> Regarding those "$40 LED light bulbs", I've been looking at them too on eBay. Way too pricey for the light output - and worse - lower efficiency than cheap compact fluorescent.



I am surprised at the poor efficiency. My problem with LED bulbs is that they are all focused on recreating the orange look of a 3000K incandescent.


I want a daylight bulb (5000K or 6500K) with a high CRI. High CRI fluorescents are not too difficult to find though they are quite a bit more expensive than the cheap bulbs most people would buy.



More on-topic, I cannot wait until larger OLED screens are affordable. I actually have the money for that 31" LG OLED saved up in my HT budget, but I would rather spend that kind of money on something like a high end JVC projector.


31" is small but would be suitable for my needs and would also make a great PC monitor. It's just too expensive. Disappointing that its 3x the cost of their 15" per-inch.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19372535
> 
> 
> @Chronop, it's an interesting point you make about the combo. I guess the question for me is: Can it play World of Warcraft Cataclysm without choking in a raid? If so, it will meet my performance needs. That said, the storage is an SSD. It's just a custom SSD without an enclosure. But it's a controller + flash -- the very definition of an SSD. Apple, the world's largest flash memory user, can afford to build its own SSDs for specific products, and that's what they have done. I have never seen a single benchmark where and SSD outperforms a rotating drive by a factor of 100x; but the fact that Apple might be using a slow SSD is doubtless more a function of not engineering the system for drive performance than anything.
> 
> 
> That said, boot times on the Macbook Air and wake-from-sleep times are best of any laptop out there. Those are the "benchmarks" an ultraportable user are likely to care about.



It is technically an SSD inside the MBA but even Apple are careful to not call it one. A USB thumbdrive is technically a solid-state drive but I would not call it an SSD because they are typically very slow. (and not because of the USB interface)


The best performing SSD, an Intel SSD (most reliable) and a WD Velociraptor one of the fastest HDDs on the market compared: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD/78?i=137.126.182 


Apple only claimed 2x the performance of the 1.8" HDD in the old MBA which will have been very slow due to its form factor and power consumption. The MBA uses flash memory for storage and is faster than the old MBA HDD but its nowhere close to the performance of a true modern SSD.


Their instant-on claims only apply to standby. Boot times are still slow due to the other processes a PC has to go through. (I have a high performance SSD and it still takes a while to boot up)


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/19371790
> 
> 
> Well, Chrono, probably right, though I'm sure the Kuro improved upon CRT in some areas of PQ (I just can't enumerate them right now), if not in contrast ratio/black levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly the pinnacle of flat panel PQ.....



I think geometry was the downfall of CRT in terms of PQ. All the flat & thins beat CRT in that respect. Of course, weight, depth, and heat production all hurt CRT as well.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/19372540
> 
> 
> Their instant-on claims only apply to standby. Boot times are still slow due to the other processes a PC has to go through. (I have a high performance SSD and it still takes a while to boot up)



Right, but the Macbook Air can go on standby for 30-days -- without a power cord attached. Which is amazing.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19365930
> 
> 
> Yes, OLED has some small portion of the smartphone market and yes that portion is growing. But there are two huge differences at play here:
> 
> 
> 1) LCD is not standing still so there is no real chance OLED will get 100% of the smartphone market or even any majority of it.



Obviously there is a great deal of speculation and extrapolation needed when you are talking about OLED TV's. We are still in the very early days and there are still technical hurdles that need to be surmounted.


However, the handset OLED display market is real and growing exponentially right now. There is every reason to believe that OLED's actually will take over the vast majority of the smartphone market. Nokia and Samsung have both shown a heavy commitment to OLED's and the only reason we arent seeing even more handsets with the displays is capacity constraints. That changes as Samsung's Gen 5.5 fab (and others) begin to ramp. The Samsung fab alone will have a capacity of 30 million 3" units a month.


Apple will likely be last to switch but even they are likely to make the change when power consumption drops below LCD's when showing predominantly white images. That can and will happen as the materials continue to improve. Note that there is no discontinuous innovation needed here....simply continued R&D and time.


Slacker


----------



## navychop

How much more can LCDs improve, and how much more can OLEDs improve?


Price is important, as in "good enough." But "better" and "best" can garner a portion of the market, as they develop into less expensive variants.


----------



## rogo




slacker711;19379916
However said:


> I do not even slightly agree with the above. Given the quality of the latest LCDs and their nearly 100% yields and low prices, I think you might be accurate if you said: "Perhaps someday OLED will talk over the smartphone market from LCD." Right now, LCD is doing just great there. So great in fact, the Incredible just displaced the OLED being used on it because, well, they could get LCD screens of similar quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Nokia and Samsung have both shown a heavy commitment to OLED's and the only reason we arent seeing even more handsets with the displays is capacity constraints. That changes as Samsung's Gen 5.5 fab (and others) begin to ramp. The Samsung fab alone will have a capacity of 30 million 3" units a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are capacity constraints. Not sure what the purpose of talking about 3" screens is when the market and Samsung are moving to 4" screens. Regardless, I'm not seeing this heavy commitment being one of those "Wow, we can't wait to stop using LCD" moments. I'm seeing it as part of the smartphone market overall.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Apple will likely be last to switch but even they are likely to make the change when power consumption drops below LCD's when showing predominantly white images. That can and will happen as the materials continue to improve. Note that there is no discontinuous innovation needed here....simply continued R&D and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You again seem to assume LCDs are not moving forward. On the contrary, he various technologies like IPS, et al. are making LCD get better and better every year. Also, LCD has proved to be easily built at much higher pixel density (see iPhone 4), forcing OLED to play catch up yet again.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying a discontinuous change needs to happen for OLED to take over the smartphone market, but a lot of change still needs to happen. And 4" displays have about as much to do with the future of TVs as Smart cars have to do with the future of Bentleys. There are relationships, but let's not overstate them.
> 
> 
> Fundamentally, just because OLED theoretically could be used in volume large-screen TVs doesn't actually mean it ever will. It's not some kind of forgone conclusion.
Click to expand...


----------



## Nielo TM

I wonder if TOLED can be used as volumetric display


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19380898
> 
> 
> So great in fact, the Incredible just displaced the OLED being used on it because, well, they could get LCD screens of similar quality.
> 
> 
> Yes, there are capacity constraints.



You make it sound like HTC had a choice to change.


You literally couldnt find an Incredible on the market during much of June and July because HTC couldnt get AMOLED screens. It isnt like there was a small shortage, Samsung Mobile Displays was only fulfilling 50% of their orders. Naturally, they chose to supply Samsung Electronics rather than HTC. Samsung has since ramped supply, but not surprisingly the units are going to Nokia and Samsung rather than a small volume manufacturer like HTC.



> Quote:
> Not sure what the purpose of talking about 3" screens is when the market and Samsung are moving to 4" screens.



It is a measure of fab capacity. Combine the Gen 5.5 and Gen 4 that Samsung will have built and they will have capacity north of 35 million 3" a month. Those two fabs alone will be able to supply way over half of the smartphone market.


and it isnt like Samsung is alone. LG has a Gen 4 fab ramping with a Gen 5.5 fab planned. AUO has a Gen 3 and Gen 4 fabs coming in 2011. There are more than a few different Chinese suppliers that are planning to build lines in the next year or so. The key is that Samsung has shown that OLED's can be built with sufficient yields to insure profitability. There is going to be a flood of capacity coming to this market that will bring down prices and drive up volumes.



> Quote:
> You again seem to assume LCDs are not moving forward. On the contrary, he various technologies like IPS, et al. are making LCD get better and better every year. Also, LCD has proved to be easily built at much higher pixel density (see iPhone 4), forcing OLED to play catch up yet again.



Of course, LCD's will move forward, but there is nothing on their roadmap that is going to make dramatic changes to power consumption. That isnt true for OLED's. The screens you see now only use a red phosphorescent material. As green is added, power consumption will drop well below LCD's. Right now, LG is the only one using green and red (for their 15" TV's) but Samsung will eventually make the switch as well. If/when a blue material is created with sufficient lifetime and coordinates, LCD's will become a non-starter in most mobile devices.


Your comment about pixel density is why I see Apple being the last to switch. There are ways to increase the pixel density on OLED's, but I have a feeling most manufacturers will see 250ppi or so to be sufficient for most handsets.


When predicting when a technology is really going to take off, the key is to watch the capacity plans of the manufacturers. We still have nothing concrete for TV's which is why any predictions are so speculative. The handset market is very different.


Slacker


----------



## Nielo TM

Although IPS mode is superior to VA and TN in terms of viewing angles, MVA is ultimately the superior technology. It is also evolving faster than IPS, cheaper than IPS and more efficient than IPS.


----------



## specuvestor

Slacker, which chinese company doing OLED? I know CMI is doing it and Wintek is looking into it and both are Apple supply chain so they may have been coerced. But some say it is HTC asking for it.


LGD paid (fact) for Hydis AFFS technology to incorp into retina display (rumored) but Apple never mention about AFFS. Anyone can confirm if retina display is actually AFFS IPS?


How does AFFS IPS compare with MVA?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Although IPS mode is superior to VA and TN in terms of viewing angles, MVA is ultimately the superior technology. It is also evolving faster than IPS, cheaper than IPS and more efficient than IPS.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19381521
> 
> 
> Slacker, which chinese company doing OLED? I know CMI is doing it and Wintek is looking into it and both are Apple supply chain so they may have been coerced. But some say it is HTC asking for it.



The Taiwanese LCD manufacturers are definitely getting into the field but I was speaking of the mainland Chinese manufacturers as well. I wont claim any indepth knowledge of their capabilties but there have been a number of articles talking about their production plans.


Here is one talking about Visionox and their pilot production line.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20100602PD223.html 


Another talking about Shanghai Tianma having plans for a Gen 4.5 fab with production capacity of 1000 substrates a month.

http://www.oled-info.com/shanghai-ti...+and+resources )


I dont anticipate the Chinese becoming a major force for years, but I do think that their plans indicate the way the industry is going. TV's may be an open question, but I dont think the same is true for mobile displays.


Slacker


----------



## Nielo TM

From what I understand, AFFS IPS has one major advantage and that is extremely wide viewing angles. But I'm not aware of any large AFFS IPS LCDs.


A-MVA however has average viewing angles but it has extremely good blacks, fast pixel response (after warm-up) and low input lag.


Also, the AMVA5 is set to match the current VT20, which has absolute black level of 0.009cd/m2.




PS: IT's shame that there's very little progress made on F-LCD and Blue Phase LCD


----------



## Chronoptimist

The other advantage of IPS is that it has a very uniform pixel response time. Most/all other LCD technologies have different response times depending on the color of the pixels.

http://panasonic.net/avc/viera/techn...lcd/index.html 


http://imgur.com/749H4.jpg%5B/IMG%5D



http://imgur.com/TLpse.jpg%5B/IMG%5D




I wonder if we will see Panasonics Neo-LCD used next year.


----------



## Nielo TM

Yes, IPS does has excellent pixel response but AMVA is right next to it. After the initial warm-up, it doesn't produce any slow-pixel artifact.


PS: I have no hope for NeoLCD as it has been delayed twice and Panasonic's IPS alpha is still isn't ready to produce LED-LCDs. NeoLCD was supposed to be released late 2009 and we still have no info regarding the ETA. On the other hand, LG has already have an super-slim IPS with local dimming capability.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19382100
> 
> 
> PS: I have no hope for NeoLCD as it has been delayed twice and Panasonic's IPS alpha is still isn't ready to produce LED-LCDs.



Are none of the current LED models IPS Alpha?


----------



## Nielo TM

Nope. Panasonic have been contracting LG's Edge-LED AS-IPS

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panas...0100910848.htm 



Only CCFL panels are from IPS alpha, but they seems have deteriorated in quality. Personally, I would never touch Panasonic LCDs anymore.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19382151
> 
> 
> Nope. Panasonic have been contracting LG's Edge-LED AS-IPS
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panas...0100910848.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Only CCFL panels are from IPS alpha, but they seems have deteriorated in quality. Personally, I would never touch Panasonic LCDs anymore.



Oh dear. They are very behind right now but IPS-A panels do still have some advantages over others. The sets are generally overpriced and do underperform for things like contrast though.


Panasonic seem to be doing quite badly recently. Their approach to making TVs seems to be to do the least amount possible to have them sell and now their getting leapfrogged by other manufacturers.


Maybe theyre taking this extra time to get NeoLCD right first time?


----------



## Nielo TM

That's what I thought, but I don't see it happening . Not to mention we already have locally dimming AS-IPS; and AMVA5 is on its way. I'm sure Samsung has another LCD mode to compete against AMVA5 next year.


Even if Panasonic manage to optimize NeoLCD, I don't know if it'll be limited to one flagship model or series of models that only vary by feature. Price vs performance is also another issue (and a serious one at that).


IMO, they are better off closing shop and focus just on the PDP and iron-out all the issues that's echoing around the forums.


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19381763
> 
> 
> From what I understand, AFFS IPS has one major advantage and that is extremely wide viewing angles. But I'm not aware of any large AFFS IPS LCDs.
> 
> 
> A-MVA however has average viewing angles but it has extremely good blacks, fast pixel response (after warm-up) and low input lag.
> 
> 
> Also, the AMVA5 is set to match the current VT20, which has absolute black level of 0.009cd/m2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: IT's shame that there's very little progress made on F-LCD and Blue Phase LCD



I heard that Hitachi is using AFFS IPS for their lcds? It could be possible, since their blacks from last year's model hit .007 ft/L, while they also claim wide viewing angles on their product page.


----------



## Brimstone-1

Panasonic recently purchased almost all of the Hitachi shares of IPS Alpha for just over $700 million. Panasonic is planning of spending over two billion dollars increasing LCD output over the next several years.


----------



## Isochroma

 *LG's CEO: Our goal is to introduce OLED-TV in 2013 and to build small panels in 2011* 
*24 October 2010*













The CEO of LG Electronics spoke in a bulletin about the future of OLED for the Korean company: _"My last challenge is to introduce OLED-TV into the market and the goal is that LG will be the leading company for that amazing technology."_


Mr. Young Soo Kwon says that OLED-TV can enter the mass market in 2013. LG plans to ramp up an 8-Gen OLED production line for that goal. Only the 8-Gen manufacturing line can produce cost effective OLED-Television devices. At IFA-2010 LG showed a new 3D 31 inch panel.


The 4.5-Gen production line in Paju is production ready in the next months. It already has customers and the technology is ready. LG says that they also plan a new 5.5-Gen AMOLED plant but this plant is also only for the mobile market (Smartphones, Tablets, Netbooks etc). LG delivers at the moment Apple with IPS-LCD technology, but Apple want AMOLED for the Iphone and Ipads.


Source: Etnews


----------



## specuvestor

As per the conference call but they never did announce an 8G plan. Sammy did hint on 8G after 5.5G


Funny they dare mention Apple pushing for OLED, since Jobs had been saying retina display is better than samsung's OLED. Even Taiwanese are mum or ambiguous.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Anyway back to the thread: LG Display 3Q conference call just ended and they expect 2013 to launch large size OLED TV, they are still deciding whether to build a new fab or to convert their existing TFT fab. TFT blended ASP dropped 10% QoQ while like-on-like dropped 14% QoQ.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/19381330
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, LCD's will move forward, but there is nothing on their roadmap that is going to make dramatic changes to power consumption.



I can't tell if you're kidding, trolling, or just unaware. LCDs will increasingly be powered by LED backlights. LEDs have improved luminous efficiency per watt by approximately an order of magnitude this millenium. I'm not aware of anyone in LED stating they are done yet. Are you?


> Quote:
> That isnt true for OLED's. The screens you see now only use a red phosphorescent material. As green is added, power consumption will drop well below LCD's. Right now, LG is the only one using green and red (for their 15" TV's) but Samsung will eventually make the switch as well. If/when a blue material is created with sufficient lifetime and coordinates, LCD's will become a non-starter in most mobile devices.



So if something is invented that hasn't yet been, OLEDs will take over. This sounds familiar. For 10 years.


> Quote:
> Your comment about pixel density is why I see Apple being the last to switch. There are ways to increase the pixel density on OLED's, but I have a feeling most manufacturers will see 250ppi or so to be sufficient for most handsets.



Is any high volume OLED anywhere near 250 ppi?


> Quote:
> When predicting when a technology is really going to take off, the key is to watch the capacity plans of the manufacturers. We still have nothing concrete for TV's which is why any predictions are so speculative. The handset market is very different.



We in fact know that there is no production capacity for TVs and no one is planning any for several years.


What LG means by "large screen" is not 50 inches and up, by the way. They probably are using old LCD-industry terminology there which although I don't remember, starts in the low double digits.


So as we return to the purpose of this thread vis a vis AVS readers, we again should focus on 2015 type dates and beyond.


----------



## specuvestor

LCD terminology for large size is 10" and above. But I would assume when LG say "large size OLED TV" it would mean larger than the current 31".


If they are building 8G fab, as per Etnews reported, then there is no doubt that it will be for TVs. To make it for 2013 production, they will need to include the 8G into the 2011 capex announcement. So we will actually know relatively soon.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> As per the conference call but they never did announce an 8G plan. Sammy did hint on 8G after 5.5G


----------



## Nielo TM

Although LCD's power consumption has improved over the years thanks to increased transmittance, OLED is likely surpass LCDs in terms of lumen per watt.


PS: LED backlight did help to reduce power consumption, but only a fraction of photons exit the display.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19393893
> 
> 
> LCD terminology for large size is 10" and above. But I would assume when LG say "large size OLED TV" it would mean larger than the current 31".
> 
> 
> If they are building 8G fab, as per Etnews reported, then there is no doubt that it will be for TVs. To make it for 2013 production, they will need to include the 8G into the 2011 capex announcement. So we will actually know relatively soon.



If anyone can, it has to be either LG and Samsung (or both). After all, both have all the resources at their disposal.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19394330
> 
> 
> If anyone can, it has to be either LG and Samsung (or both). After all, both have all the resources at their disposal.



Technically it is much trickier for Samsung as Samsung SDI owns 1/2 of SMD and it has no money. If SMD request a capital injection either through rights or share placements, Samsung SDI share price would collapse.


Anyway just saying this is not a wayward 2013/15 projection that no one will remember in time to come, like some other rumour threads, but that we will actually know quite soon.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19393725
> 
> 
> I can't tell if you're kidding, trolling, or just unaware. LCDs will increasingly be powered by LED backlights. LEDs have improved luminous efficiency per watt by approximately an order of magnitude this millenium. I'm not aware of anyone in LED stating they are done yet. Are you?



Increasingly? No, that's the TV market. The transition to LED's happened years ago in the handset display market. You are right that there has been an order of magnitude increase in efficiency in LED's and handset LCD displays have already seen the fruits of those gains. It is far easier to capture the theoretical luminous efficiency when you are driving the LED's with mA's of current. Going forward, we arent going to see anywhere near the kinds of gains that we have seen in the past. Just the nature of the beast...and yes, there are theoretical limits to the efficiency of LED's (I've read figures in the 350 lumens per watt area).


If you have seen any proposed LCD's that will drop the power consumption for a 3.5" display to below 100-150mW, I'd love to read about it.



> Quote:
> Is any high volume OLED anywhere near 250 ppi?



Yes. The N8 is something like 208ppi and the Galaxy S is around 233ppi.



> Quote:
> So if something is invented that hasn't yet been, OLEDs will take over. This sounds familiar. For 10 years.



Blue would be a bonus. Red and green both have commercial specs and are more than enough to bring the power consumption to levels far enough below LCD's that consumers will see real world differences.


Not ten years from now, next year.


I dont know why you ended with a rant about TV's. I agreed with you that all of the projections on OLED TV's are still speculative. The television market is going to need Gen 8 fabs which will likely require something other than vacuum deposition to lay down the materials. There is a ton of R&D being done but until they solve the problem nothing is assured.


OTOH, handset sized displays require no such discontinuous innovation. The primary problem there is capacity which is something that can be solved fairly quickly.


Slacker


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19393893
> 
> 
> If they are building 8G fab, as per Etnews reported, then there is no doubt that it will be for TVs. To make it for 2013 production, they will need to include the 8G into the 2011 capex announcement. So we will actually know relatively soon.



You know that a public target of 2013 production likely means that they are just hoping to start ramping by the end of the year. That would like mean capex beginning in 2012...and that is only if they overcome the various technical hurdles that still stand in their way.


The real question for LG Display is when they commit dollars to a Gen 5.5 facility. That should be a 2011 target and they have yet to give anything concrete with regards to dollars. If they dont announce anything by the end of the year, you will have a pretty good idea that they are having trouble duplicating Samsung's successful manufacturing practices at Gen 4.5.


You arent going to get 60" TV's out of a Gen 5.5 but you could at least get some premium priced 20" to 30" displays....assuming that is what the vendor wants to sell.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

They won't ramp end 2013, usually they will ramp to fulfill 2H seasonality demand. Hence Samsung 5.5G to be in time for 2H11. If 5.5G takes about 12 months I am guesstimating 8G will take 18 months. 5.5G is optimal 32" and below.


Capex plans won't be out end this year. Koreans will announce next Jan when they announce 4Q results. Taiwanese on the other hand will only talk more post CNY as their 4Q submission date is end Feb. This is excluding rumours and leaks of course


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19394321
> 
> 
> Although LCD's power consumption has improved over the years thanks to increased transmittance, OLED is likely surpass LCDs in terms of lumen per watt.
> 
> 
> PS: LED backlight did help to reduce power consumption, but only a fraction of photons exit the display.



There's a huge difference between "OLED is likely to surpass LCDs in lumens per what" and the aforementioned "LCDs can't improve" claim.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/19394990
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> I dont know why you ended with a rant about TV's. I agreed with you that all of the projections on OLED TV's are still speculative. The television market is going to need Gen 8 fabs which will likely require something other than vacuum deposition to lay down the materials. There is a ton of R&D being done but until they solve the problem nothing is assured.



Because this is a home-theater focused forum. And because it has a recurring theme where OLED is coming soon for TVs. And it hasn't. And I'm suggesting it probably won't really in the medium term -- if ever.


As for phones, I could honestly care less. Phones already have enough image quality for phones. If OLED lets my battery run longer, go for it. I'm just not convinced the people making phone LCDs plan on rolling over and giving up.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19394563
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway just saying this is not a wayward 2013/15 projection that no one will remember in time to come, like some other rumour threads, but that we will actually know quite soon.



I have been known to pull out my old predictions here years later to make myself feel smart -- or stupid, depending.


----------



## specuvestor

Following through is certainly one quality I can respect










As for me I hope to be proven wrong here with a bruised ego (or whatever that's left), rather than a bruised wallet in the markets. They are extremely good in reminding.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19395266
> 
> 
> There's a huge difference between "OLED is likely to surpass LCDs in lumens per what" and the aforementioned "LCDs can't improve" claim.



and there is a big difference between saying "LCD's cant improve" and saying that I didnt see "dramatic changes to power consumption". If you disagree, fine, but at least disagree with what I actually said....and remember I was talking about mobile displays.



> Quote:
> As for phones, I could honestly care less. Phones already have enough image quality for phones. If OLED lets my battery run longer, go for it. I'm just not convinced the people making phone LCDs plan on rolling over and giving up.



Well if you dont care, then I would advice against making claims like OLED's wont ever be used in half of smartphones which is what started the discussion. BTW, I dont expect LCD's to roll over and play dead. The IPS-LCD in the iPhone 4 is simply awesome....as is the Super AMOLED in the Galaxy S. I simply think that AMOLED's are earlier in their production curve and have significantly more room for near term improvements. One of the big critiques from last year, significantly worse performance in sunlight, is already gone in next-gen OLED displays.


As for the relation of this argument to TV's, the fabs used to make mobile displays will be capable of making sub 30" TV's and many of the improvements to materials/processes will be capable of being used in larger sized fabs. There is still a ways to go before you see a 50-60" OLED television, but the progress on the mobile side does make it more likely we will eventually see something on the TV side.


Slacker


----------



## xrox

Convincing the population to replace their CRT with a flat panel was relatively easy. Convincing them to replace their flat panel with another flat panel will not be.


If OLED somehow manages to succeed in HT sizes I still believe it is more likely to appeal to PDP users than to LCD users. I'm talking general public here, not AVS types. Like I've said many times, no single display technology can be the best in every parameter and that includes OLED.


Large size OLED will still most likely have an ABL and suffer from burn-in and possibly even image retention. Sounds just like the issues that PDP detractors (LCD people) bring up all the time. That is why I feel that in order to succeed HT OLED must make sure at the very least that the average brightness is comparable to most LCDs in the retail environment.


And don't even mention life expectancy as we all know reputations can be set in stone very quickly.


----------



## Nielo TM

Ditto. It will be very difficult especially now thanks to LED and the use of LED as marketing term. Most people believe the LED backlit LCDs are in fact new type of display. Adding organic in front maybe seen as marketing attempt (oh the irony).


I believe the biggest selling points of OLEDs are complete transparency and glass-free 3D (auto-stereoscopic). Most people don't like the fact that large TVs dominate the room when in active so they opt for a smaller set. When a display is completely transparent, it will be blend with the environment when inactive.


Also, because OLEDs can be transparent, two layers can be used to enable stereo depth


* http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Scienc...p?NewsNum=2146 *


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19398855
> 
> 
> Ditto. It will be very difficult especially now thanks to LED and the use of LED as marketing term. Most people believe the LED backlit LCDs are in fact new type of display. Adding organic in front maybe seen as marketing attempt (oh the irony).
> 
> 
> I believe the biggest selling points of OLEDs are complete transparency and glass-free 3D (auto-stereoscopic). Most people don't like the fact that large TVs dominate the room when in active so they opt for a smaller set. When a display is completely transparent, it will be blend with the environment when inactive.
> 
> 
> Also, because OLEDs can be transparent, two layers can be used to enable stereo depth
> 
> 
> * http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Scienc...p?NewsNum=2146 *



I'm not sure what the biggest selling point of OLED will be to the general public. I know for me it will simply be that it is not a light valve display (eg - LCD) and hence will fundamentally show solid uniformity at all angles with awesome blacks.


Speaking of transparent, this paper caught my eye. Seems silly to me.


----------



## Nielo TM

Very interesting


Thanks for the link



PS: I want a 4K TOLED eyewear.


----------



## rogo

@xrox, I do agree that emissive > transmissive. And I hope OLED delivers. That said, the first models are likely to have relatively short quoted life and almost certain to have the ability to be burned in (and possibly short-term image retention as well).


@slacker, I do in fact see major decreases in LCD power consumption. I believe you massively underestimate the R&D in LCD and the orders of magnitude volume production vs. competing technologies.


----------



## Nielo TM

Yes definitely


The new c-PVA, e-IPS and A-MVA all have increased transmittance value hence the low price tag. Standard S-PVA, IPS and MVA have also improved, but I don't know the exact figure.


----------



## specuvestor

OLED TV is like thin plasma with deeper black, better contrast, and possibly transparency. Would guess not too far from 10G pio







I think much better contrast especially under brightly lit room will be big selling point.


SDI results conf yesterday revealed SMD operating margin near 10%. As a business it is working. Capacity will jump 40% in 4Q.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19400079
> 
> 
> OLED TV is like thin plasma with deeper black, better contrast, and possibly transparency. Would guess not too far from 10G pio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think much better contrast especially under brightly lit room will be big selling point.
> 
> .




That combined with no loss of contrast off axis, yes.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19400079
> 
> 
> SDI results conf yesterday revealed SMD operating margin near 10%. As a business it is working. Capacity will jump 40% in 4Q.



Do you happen to have a link? I would like to listen first hand to their comments but couldnt find anything on their website.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

Slacker, the website doesn't get updated so efficiently. Think it was a Korean conf. Will PM u the broker"s summary later. Unsurprisingly they refuse to comment on SMD 2011 plans.


AUO said converting 3.5G fab to 7k glass input OLED with mass production 2Q11. TFT ASP down 6% QoQ down 9% QoQ like on like.


Results season full swing now. I am most interested in CMI comment on OLED tomorrow.


----------



## DocuMaker

I hope folks don't mind if I chime in. All this techno talk and market analysis is above my pretty little head.


I only know that when I bought my first flat panel TV for the living room, it was 50 inches, because a 50 inch 768p plazzy was the best bang for the buck at the time.


Then I focused on upgrading the picture quality. I wanted a better looking 50 inch display with 1080p resolution. Accomplished that.


Then I learned about the importance of black levels, so I ended up with a 50 inch Kuro (500M).


Sorry to say, but as beautiful as the Kuro was, then I got bored with only 50 inches. It was perfect for the bedroom. I can squeeze 50 inches in there, and not much more. But not enough for the living room from 10-12 feet (or more) away. For a time I got used to pulling up my chair and sitting closer to the screen (at least when company was not around). That held me over for a while.


So then I started trying 55 inch LED and 58 inch plazzys. I'm addicted to the greater screen size now, and 50 inches (for the living room) just doesn't quite cut the mustard. I'm loving my 58C550, because it has around 0.007 fL blacks, that with a strong bias light gives off the look of 8G Kuro blacks. Not bad for just over one Grover Cleveland out the door.


I can already envision getting the itch again, lusting after a 63 or 65 incher.


By the time large OLED screens get to the 60 inch plus range, I might be wanting 72 inches or perhaps even more.


If Pioneer could demonstrate ECC nearly 3 years ago, and locally-dimmed LED's are rapidly closing in on matching or even surpassing plasma black levels, I am having a hard time comprehending what the massive appeal of an OLED will be.


They can already make LCD's and PDP's less than an inch thick. Pioneer already demonstrated close to infinite blacks. (were they truly infinite, or just very low? I never saw one).


The two largest complaints I have with plasmas are very simple to identify.


1) Plasmas are not efficient enough to have very dark light-absorption fiters, like those jet-black ones we see on Sammy LED's, to maintain deep blacks in bright daylight. My 500M Kuro had pretty nice blacks in the evening after the sun went down, but washed out horribly during brighter portions of the day, and a quality Samsung LED simply maintained better contrast and looked better during the day. I could get jet-blacks on the LED all day long. However, as the sun began to set, the Pioneer asserted its superiority and handily beat the Samsung B8500/C8000 without much problem.


2) Phosphor lag. Samsung and Panasonic have made strides in reducing it this year, (although it still remains), so there is hope that in 3-5 years it will be a total non-issue.


If I had to add a third, I would say the buzzing is the other main drawback to plasmas.


ABL is becoming less of an issue. My Panny G25 can put forth some very bright whites with higher-APL scenes. Panasonic has made some nice progress in this area, and has lept ahead of Samsung (and the discontinued Pioneers) in this area. So in 3-5 years this should also not be much of an issue.


As for LCD's, the 3 largest complaints I have when it comes to them are simple.


1) Viewing angles. This by far the largest drawback. LG proved that they could release a locally-dimmed LED with very respectable viewing angles (good enough) and very good black levels. The problem with their LE8500/LX9500 is the ridiculously reflective screen, and the banding.


2) Screen uniformity/blooming. All they need to do is develop faster processors for cheap so they can up the zone count a great deal, and get closer to individual dimming of each LED. Also, hopefully this nano-tech that LG is touting will help reduce any clouding and other mura.


3) Motion blur/resolution. The best 240hz Samsung and Sonys are already getting very good on this front, albeit nowhere near perfect. It is especially useful now that Samsung allows you to increase the motion resolution without being forced to use de-judder. Of course, improvements could always be made in this area, just like with black levels. But plasmas are not perfect in the motion area either, and people still manage to enjoy them.


So the only thing that OLED could really do to wow me would be to provide a 60 inch screen that had LED like blacks all day long, and way better than Kuro blacks at night, with perfect viewing angles and (near) perfect motion, all at a very reasonable price. What are the odds of that happening in 3-5 years?


The fact of the matter is, in 3-5 years, the blacks on the best plasmas will easily have surpassed the 9G Kuros, and the plasmas will be plenty thin enough, and one would imagine the phosphor lag bugaboo will be largely licked. And one would expect that all of this will be dirt cheap. Like under $1500 for 60 inches. The ONLY thing that is up in the air will be whether or not they can get the filters dark enough on plasmas to compete well during the day with an LED.


LED-backlit LCD's will have blacks deeper than Kuros in 3-5 years too. One imagines that the motion will have advanced to the point that it will be a total non-issue.


I imagine advances in local-dimming will make screen-uniformity largely a non-issue as well.


So I just can't see paying several thousand dollars for a 60 inch OLED 5 years from now.


I will probably be able to get a 60 inch LCD or PDP for one grand that will be close enough that I won't care about having an OLED.


----------



## specuvestor

No one is saying 60" OLED TV in 3-5 years. I am saying we may have larger than 31" OLED TV in 3-5 years. The target market is not going to be J6P but the pio elite buyers. Whether it will be another pio flop COMMERCIALLY or another Samsung LCD story will depend on perceived difference & scalability (and marketing, oh dear oh dear). As previously posted I think there is enough perceived utility for a change, IF the price is right (not cheap), as it has both the plasma and LCD advantages. As usual, cash rich early adopters will decide if OLED TV will have a beachhead.


If the base argument is always LCD is cheaper then we should not expect new display tech for next century. No new tech will launch at similar price point. That is just not how I see tech work in past 30 years.


In any case the FIRST battle field is NOT TV, if you misread me. It will be mobile display, NB, and "pads"







If this battle is lost then the war is lost before it even started. However if OLED can take market share there despite being more expensive, then I think skeptics need to review their assumptions. And I am pretty much a skeptic most of the time


----------



## rogo

@Docu, there won't be massive appeal. You have correctly identified the problem. If you can get a 60-inch TV for $1000 that is dramatically better than today's -- say 30-80% better picture quality (and that seems a given, while I'm still not sold the price will be quite that low) -- the opportunity for Rolls Royce-type OLEDs is not going to be at $10,000.


There is simply no real market at 10x the price of good TVs for really good TVs... But....


@specu, if they can introduce the OLED TV at a Kuro-esque price premium, they can help build the market -- whether that's 3 years, 5 years, 7 years. If they can't, there will, in fact, never be a market. And that's the point I think you might be missing: The road to "new revolutionary display technology" is paved with corpses of never was technologies. Exactly two direct-view technologies have ever made it (three if you include CRT). One, PDP, was rather quickly shoved out of all but a narrow size band. The other, TFT, has shown the most rapid declines in price and improvements in performance of any display technology -- including projection -- ever.


I do tend to believe that OLED will not disappear from small panel use. I do tend to be highly skeptical it will displace LCD from those small devices. I'm not sure that many of the claims about how it will inevitably be better at this or that are different from previous claims about other technologies


Even if OLED does completely win the smart phone market, it seems highly unlikely it will achieve the kind of scale economics required to go mass market for big TVs. So many would-be technology revolutions plan on happening because they ignore the technology revolution that is already going on.


Sometimes -- like flash storage -- a decade after they were supposed to win they actually start to establish a beach head and announce their plans for ultimate triumph. (Although, it should be noted that it's going to be something other than flash memory -- e.g. MRAM -- that ultimately replaces hard drives as flash is hitting a scaling wall it can't by it's very nature climb over).


But again, flash -- no moving parts, much much less power, etc. -- has compelling things that rotating drives don't have. It also has the advantage that hard drive scaling no longer matters in mobile. Most people don't need 5TB in their laptop so a 128GB flash drive will do for lots of them.


And that's where the prospects for big OLED TVs are most troubled. LCD is still improving. And we are just at the beginning of the LED era and the LED backlighting era. By the time anyone can even produce a 50-inch OLED TV at any price imaginable, the LCD TV will be so good and so cheap that there will be nearly no imaginable selling point. Yes, it might be better than everything on the market. And so it might be something you could sell for a premium. How much of a premium? 2x? 3x? 3x sounds insane to be honest.


I'll reiterate this, it might never be possible to sell enough really big OLEDs at a price anyone would pay to allow the scale economics to make them affordable for many people to pay them. In other words, if the cheapest anyone can introduce a 50-inch OLED at is $5000, they would sell nearly zero. In selling nearly zero, they would not create any learning-curve effects or scale economics to drive prices down meaningfully below $5000 and with a 50-inch LCD at, say, $700 and really good... well, you do the math.


Some will argue that the mere presence of 7G fabs making, say, 10-inch OLEDs for the iPad5 (or whatever product is hip in 2014) guarantees that someone can make a 50-inch OLED for $1500. Time will tell if that's true.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> I'll reiterate this, it might never be possible to sell enough really big OLEDs at a price anyone would pay to allow the scale economics to make them affordable for many people to pay them. In other words, if the cheapest anyone can introduce a 50-inch OLED at is $5000, they would sell nearly zero. In selling nearly zero, they would not create any learning-curve effects or scale economics to drive prices down meaningfully below $5000 and with a 50-inch LCD at, say, $700 and really good... well, you do the math.



Does anybody actually disagree with you? I dont think you are going out on much of a limb by saying that sales of a $5000 50" device will be near zero. There might be a couple of people on these forums who would buy one, but that is about it.


If they can get a Gen 8 fab built with decent yields, the prices should be far below $5000 for a 50" device. If they cant, then OLED's will never be a mass market technology. I dont expect this to happen in 2013 despite what LG Display has said.


Slacker


----------



## erik1974

@Isochroma If you copy a article so please insert the Link of the source! Its: http://www.oled-display.net 


Thank you

Erik


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DocuMaker* /forum/post/19400602
> 
> 
> So then I started trying 55 inch LED and 58 inch plazzys. I'm addicted to the greater screen size now, and 50 inches (for the living room) just doesn't quite cut the mustard. I'm loving my 58C550, because it has around 0.007 fL blacks, that with a strong bias light gives off the look of 8G Kuro blacks. Not bad for just over one Grover Cleveland out the door.
> 
> 
> I can already envision getting the itch again, lusting after a 63 or 65 incher.
> 
> 
> By the time large OLED screens get to the 60 inch plus range, I might be wanting 72 inches or perhaps even more.



It sounds like you want a projector. One of the new JVCs will give you contrast greater than a Kuro at much larger sizes with 3D support. Get an LED set for daytime viewing and use the projector at night.


I plan on getting a Sony HX9 local-dimming LED screen now and will buy a JVC as soon as they switch from using bulbs to solid-state lighting. Then when OLED is affordable upgrade the LED set.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DocuMaker* /forum/post/19400602
> 
> 
> If Pioneer could demonstrate ECC nearly 3 years ago, and locally-dimmed LED's are rapidly closing in on matching or even surpassing plasma black levels, I am having a hard time comprehending what the massive appeal of an OLED will be.



Black level is important but plasma has other serious image quality problems that OLED fixes. (even LCD)


The pixels can only be on or off so the panels will always be susceptible to image retention/burn and "phosphor lag" will never go away as a result. They all have a grainy picture compared to LCD and flicker. As efficiency increases they can reduce the ABL and put dark daylight filters over the front but that then cancels out the efficiency benefits and with all this Eco/Green stuff lately I dont think they will do it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DocuMaker* /forum/post/19400602
> 
> 
> So the only thing that OLED could really do to wow me would be to provide a 60 inch screen that had LED like blacks all day long, and way better than Kuro blacks at night, with perfect viewing angles and (near) perfect motion, all at a very reasonable price. What are the odds of that happening in 3-5 years?



OLED brings perfect blacks, extremely good motion, great viewing angles, good daylight viewing, thin screens, high image quality (pixels can be set to discrete values like LCD) high image retention/burn resistance, good efficiency, thin and light screens. Layered TOLED displays will have full color pixels increasing sharpness a lot.


I dont see big sizes being cheap soon though. _Maybe_ five years at a push. But then no-one expected to be able to buy 1080p native screens at the prices they're at now this soon.



There will definitely be benefits to OLED over other screen technologies. Other than being extremely thin, and possibly having better power consumption, I dont think the mass market will be able to see those advantages though. Until they can get the prices down to 1.5-2x what a current screen costs I dont see them taking off at all.


I do hope that it does get to the point where OLED is competitive with LCD/Plasma on a large scale, as both those technologies have serious issues that OLED fixes.


----------



## Ant99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/19402027
> 
> 
> Other than being extremely thin, and possibly having better power consumption, I dont think the mass market will be able to see those advantages though.



The one thing I noticed about OLED that stood out the most (on youtube videos the LG 31inch model) was the color reproduction. The colors look so rich compared to plasma or LED/LCD. I seen tons of Plasma/LCD videos and the OLED LG displayed colors that really stunned me. I think that is one major strength of OLED or am I just nuts and seeing things?


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/19402027
> 
> 
> The pixels can only be on or off so the panels will always be susceptible to image retention/burn and "phosphor lag" will never go away as a result. They all have a grainy picture compared to LCD and flicker. As efficiency increases they can reduce the ABL and put dark daylight filters over the front but that then cancels out the efficiency benefits and with all this Eco/Green stuff lately I dont think they will do it.



Meh, the majority (like myself) are not susceptible to phosphor lag, and that is another area that is constantly being improved. Image retention and burn-in are also largely fears from the past. The "grainy picture" is from dithering (I don't detect flickering either), which is entirely nonvisible from the recommended seating distance. Until you've sat down with a 9th Gen Kuro and watched reference video, you don't know how amazing it can be (this coming from a prior LCD owner).


OLED's arrival @ sizes of 50" and greater is but a pipedream at this point, sadly.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/19404492
> 
> 
> Meh, the majority (like myself) are not susceptible to phosphor lag, and that is another area that is constantly being improved. Image retention and burn-in are also largely fears from the past. The "grainy picture" is from dithering (I don't detect flickering either), which is entirely nonvisible from the recommended seating distance. Until you've sat down with a 9th Gen Kuro and watched reference video, you don't know how amazing it can be (this coming from a prior LCD owner).



I have owned one and couldnt stand to watch it for long.


I dont know what you consider "recommended" seating distances but it was visible well past 10ft on my 50" Kuro. THX recommends almost half that.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DocuMaker* /forum/post/19400602
> 
> 
> 1) Plasmas are not efficient enough to have very dark light-absorption fiters, like those jet-black ones we see on Sammy LED's, to maintain deep blacks in bright daylight. My 500M Kuro had pretty nice blacks in the evening after the sun went down, but washed out horribly during brighter portions of the day, and a quality Samsung LED simply maintained better contrast and looked better during the day. I could get jet-blacks on the LED all day long. However, as the sun began to set, the Pioneer asserted its superiority and handily beat the Samsung B8500/C8000 without much problem.



Here is what I propose (feel free to patent). When PDP efficiency is high enough (Weber expects 50lm/W) place seperate R-G-B color filters on top of each pixel. And on top of the barrier ribs place black ink or pigment. If the light output is high enough also include a ND filter glass.


This is already patented for SED but you can still get an application patent for PDP










This is more plausible than my earlier idea of using electrochromic glass as the substrate. The glass would turn black during each addressing period (in between subfields)


----------



## vinnie97

You must have the vision of a Hawk, Chrono.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19395278
> 
> 
> I have been known to pull out my old predictions here years later to make myself feel smart -- or stupid, depending.



Yeah, me too. Some years ago I predicted that LCoS, esp JVC DiLA, would hit 30% of the market. Some guy shot me down, rained all over my parade. AND, he committed the unpardonable sin - he was right! Some guy named Rogo.....


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ant99* /forum/post/19403816
> 
> 
> The one thing I noticed about OLED that stood out the most (on youtube videos the LG 31inch model) was the color reproduction. The colors look so rich compared to plasma or LED/LCD. I seen tons of Plasma/LCD videos and the OLED LG displayed colors that really stunned me. I think that is one major strength of OLED or am I just nuts and seeing things?



Err, uhhh, ahhh, how do I put this?


You were watching on a display, not in person. Therefore, you could only see the PQ of your display, not the OLED display being shown.


But we ain't doin' bad, when our displays are good enough that we forget things like that!


Or are you saying you watched youtube videos in person on the OLED? With all the limitations of youtube PQ, to start with?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/19405269
> 
> 
> You must have the vision of a Hawk, Chrono.













The way I see it, if you cant see the dithering, you also cant see 1080p.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/19405243
> 
> 
> Here is what I propose (feel free to patent). When PDP efficiency is high enough (Weber expects 50lm/W) place seperate R-G-B color filters on top of each pixel. And on top of the barrier ribs place black ink or pigment. If the light output is high enough also include a ND filter glass.
> 
> 
> This is already patented for SED but you can still get an application patent for PDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is more plausible than my earlier idea of using electrochromic glass as the substrate. The glass would turn black during each addressing period (in between subfields)



Surely with all the emphasis on green/eco displays now they would use that efficiency to lower the power consumption instead?


----------



## vinnie97

I can see it, but not from >5 feet out.


----------



## specuvestor

Chrono is just too used to sharp static images







Like Buffett's vice chairman Charlie Munger always say: "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". I constantly remind myself of that.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/19405554
> 
> 
> Yeah, me too. Some years ago I predicted that LCoS, esp JVC DiLA, would hit 30% of the market. Some guy shot me down, rained all over my parade. AND, he committed the unpardonable sin - he was right! Some guy named Rogo.....



Not being hindside bias but optics is not easy. Took Taiwanese 10 years just to move from VGA lens to 2MP. I'm a pragmatist, I only follow where the money goes despite all the flamboyant rah rah new tech every other year. I like plasma, but I will not invest a single cent in it. And there are tech which is just ridiculous like Kinect.


Only Taiwanese and Koreans can mass market Tech. If they are not doing it you can forget about it. So watch them closely on their OLED investment. Neither do I see money going into SED, FED or whatever.


----------



## rogo

@Chron, you make a lot of good points, however, "But then no-one expected to be able to buy 1080p native screens at the prices they're at now this soon" is something I take issue with. The AVS archives would show I and others expected this to happen. Not that I'm not happy it has










@ Navy, I really LOL-ed when I read your post. Let's hope I'm wrong on OLED.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19406808
> 
> 
> @Chron, you make a lot of good points, however, "But then no-one expected to be able to buy 1080p native screens at the prices they're at now this soon" is something I take issue with. The AVS archives would show I and others expected this to happen. Not that I'm not happy it has
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @ Navy, I really LOL-ed when I read your post. Let's hope I'm wrong on OLED.



While the video of the LG 31" is being viewed on a non-OLED screen, I can attest that OLEDs have an incredible pop/color rendition that is unique to the technology. The Galaxy S/Super AMOLED screens are awesome (black is black), but would be more like a TV if it had discrete RGB tripplets (pixels) instead of the RGBG pentile matrix - most of the sub pixels are green, so the picture looks a little bit on the green side in some scenarios (kind like the RGGB-LED (Triluminos) backlight modules on my XBR8).


Sony's XEL-1 has the most intense colors, and LG's 15EL9500 is sublime! I've spent time with both of these displays, and yes, even youtube videos can convey their awesomeness!







I'm fairly certain I will literally drool when I get the opportunity to check out the 31" in person!


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19406394
> 
> 
> CNeither do I see money going into SED, FED or whatever.



AUO now owns FED tech, which they bought from Sony. But it is likely to be limited to the professional market


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/19407531
> 
> 
> I've spent time with both of these displays, and yes, even youtube videos can convey their awesomeness!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain I will literally drool when I get the opportunity to check out the 31" in person!



Can you drool $6000? If so, you should be in luck.


----------



## rgb32

*UDC extends their OLED license agreement with Samsung for another 3 months*
_11/02/2010_










Universal Display and Samsung announced another extension (till December 31, 2010) to their license agreement (that was announced back in 2005). Samsung will continue to use UDC's PHOLED materials (*red*, and soon *green*) in their AMOLED products.


The original agreement expired and the companies are still negotiating a new agreement - and in the mean time they keep extending the existing agreement .


via OLED-Info.com


----------



## Isochroma

 *Fraunhofer and Philips to develop a new process for making OLEDs bigger and cheaper* 
*November 2, 2010*











The Fraunhofer Institute for Laser Technology ILT in AAchen, Germany, are working together with Philips to develop a process for making OLED lighting panels distinctly bigger and cheaper.


Normally the conductor paths are applied by energy-intensive evaporation and structuring processes, while only a maximum of ten percent of the luminous area may be covered by conductor paths. “The large remainder including the chemical etchant has to be recycled in a complicated process,“ explains Christian Vedder. This is different in the new process from the researchers from the Fraunhofer Institute for Laser Technology. Instead of depositing a lot of material by evaporation and removing most of it again, the scientists only apply precisely the amount of metal required. First of all they lay a mask foie on the surface of the ITO electrode. The mask has micrometer slits where later the conductive paths are supposed to be. On this mask the researchers deposit a thin film of metal made of aluminum, copper or silver – the metal the conductor path is supposed to be made of. Subsequently a laser passes over the conductor path pattern at a speed of several meters per second.


The metal melts and evaporates while the vapor pressure makes sure that the melt drops are pressed through the fine slits in the masks on to the ITO electrode. The result are extremely fine conductor paths. At up to 40 micrometers, they are distinctly narrower than the 100 micrometer conductor paths which can be produced with conventional technology. “We have already been able to demonstrate that our methods works in the laboratory,” says Christian Vedder. “The next step is implementing this method in industrial practice together with our partner Philips and developing a plant technology for inexpensively applying the conductor paths on a large scale.” The new laser process could be ready for practical application in two to three years.


An OLED consists of a sandwich layer structure: a flat electrode at the bottom, several intermediate layers on top as well as the actual luminescent layer consisting of organic molecules. The final layer is a second electrode made of a special material called ITO (indium tin oxide). Together with the lower electrode, the ITO layer has the job of supplying the OLED molecules with current and causing them to light up. The problem is, however, that the ITO electrode is not conductive enough to distribute the current uniformly across a larger surface. The consequence: Instead of a homogeneous fluorescent pattern, the brightness visibly decreases in the center of the surface luminaire. “In order to compensate, additional conductor paths are attached to the ITO layer,“ says Christian Vedder, project manager at the Fraunhofer Institute for Laser Technology. ”These conductor paths consist of metal and distribute the current uniformly across the surface so that the lamp is lit homogenously.”


Source: Fraunhofer


----------



## rogo

Samsung info on a 7-inch OLED, with rumors associating it with the next gen Galaxy Tab... Lots of maybes, but a development so worth linking.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Samsu...t-164573.shtml


----------



## Isochroma

I feel it important to make a note on the story I posted above. It focuses on large-area OLED lighting but the implications are crucial to large-size OLED TVs. Reason being, that both large-size light panels and display panels will benefit - indeed may require - this technique to distribute charge evenly.


Since OLED runs at such a low voltage, it needs heavy current to supply power. This becomes a problem in large displays and lights, because at these sizes the ITO layer cannot by itself supply the needed heavy current (amps) due to its resistance over long distances. Low voltage circuits need high amps (I) to deliver high power (W, Watts = Volts x Amps). But conductors get hot due to amps (I) according to the formula: I^2xR (current squared times resistance). Beyond a certain size the ITO conductor will just burn up due to the heavy current needed to supply a large panel.


In contrast, plasma uses high voltage to spark its gas cells so does not require high current. Thus its traces can be thin and without special added conductors to even out the power distribution - even in large sizes. OLED is a high-current low-voltage display, while plasma is a low-current high-voltage display.


They are two very opposite animals. Plasma's Achilles' heel is making the high voltage. That means expensive, failure-prone high-voltage circuits. OLED runs at low voltage so doesn't need high-voltage circuits, but has problems distributing the high current needed to deliver reasonable power to the panel with such a low voltage. Those problems become major issues as the panel size is scaled up.


This is why power lines that supply houses are high-voltage - it's the current (I) that causes heating and power loss on those long wires. Even inside the house, 110, 120 or 220V allow reasonable-thickness cables to carry over a thousand watts of power to a single outlet. This would not be economic with lower voltage - at 12V the current would be 10x higher and wires would have to be 10x thicker to deliver the same power. It would take 83 amps of current to supply 1000W to an outlet at 12V. Normal in-wall conductors at 120V are only 14-gauge and supply maximum 15A - that would only deliver maximum 180 watts at 12V.


So by doubling the voltage current can be cut in half and heating loss to one-quarter. Tripling the voltage cuts heating loss to one-ninth (1/9). That's the power of squares. OLED is at a big disadvantage because it runs at only some few volts, which means heavy currents & lots of heating in conductors. ITO is only a very thin layer - not intended for heavy-duty current. Making it thicker would mean loss of transparency - impossible for both displays and lights. ITO conductors work great for switching transistors & such but couldn't be used to heat your bed.


Thus we see the importance of the Philips-Fraunhofer discovery. For even if other obstacles such as defect rate, lifetime and cost are overcome, large-size (42"+) OLED TVs will be impossible without the ability to distribute unprecedentedly large currents long distances to the center of the panel - the place furthest from the edges where charge can be injected. The problem gets much worse as the panel is enlarged. If no mitigation is in place, the TV will be dimmer in the center or wherever is the furthest from the current source due to voltage drop in the conductor.


Two ways around this besides the conductor are to make a single OLED layer run at higher voltage (different chemistry) and/or stack layers to obtain higher voltage - just like AA cells are stacked in series to get higher voltage. Even just doubling the voltage will cut ITO losses to one-quarter due to the squared effect.


Minimizing current-induced heat in the conductor backplane is crucial because repeated on/off cycles will cause thermal cycling (heat/cool/heat/cool) which can crack the glass backplane. Worse, heat from the ITO will accelerate the degradation of the OLED emitters. Overpowered ITO traces or planes can also melt, delaminate from the substrate or suffer electrochemical and/or electrothermal reactions which cause degradation in conductivity or total destruction. To see this effect just place a CD or DVD in a microwave. The microwaves cause heavy currents in the thin metallic reflective layer (deposited just like ITO) which quickly cause melting & delamination.


The problems facing large-size (32"+) OLEDs for lighting and TVs are very different from the much smaller ones dogging tiny displays. For small OLEDs there is no need to worry about large currents, high power, or low yield. Uniformity is less important too. In big displays or lights it becomes painfully obvious when the color or brightness isn't uniform. The price of these large panels is bad enough by itself, but without uniformity and reasonably small energy loss & heating due to conductor resistance, large-size OLED TV or lighting will never be sold.


----------



## rogo

Thanks for your detailed amplification both of the possible breakthrough above (at least with respect to lighting) and also it's implications for TVs (if this is applicable).


You have gone through a scientific explanation of what I've written here many times: Although large-size OLED TVs are theoretically possible, they might never be good enough, manufacturable enough or affordable enough to exist. That doesn't mean they won't; I'd love to see them. But it's by no means given that just because small ones are becoming successful that large ones ever will be.


----------



## vinnie97

That's why I hope Plasma tech is not abandoned and sacrificed at the altar of the almighty LCD anytime soon, but I fear the worst (partly due to my nature). That was a fascinating (and worrisome) read, Iso.


----------



## specuvestor

Thanks Iso for the interesting read. I thought ITO were only used for touch screens. Are all OLED powered by ITO and how does that fit into AMOLED matrix structure?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19410022
> 
> 
> Can you drool $6000? If so, you should be in luck.



Are you sure it will be that cheap? In europe, where we already have Sonys 11" and LGs 15" screens it is planned to be £5000 ($8000)


I am seriously tempted to start putting money aside for it. I have been disappointed with both the best LCDs and Plasmas and I was thinking of buying a 52HX909 to hold me over but cant get hold of one as its been discontinued.


31" is small but would be suitable as a monitor. The only problem is that in 2-3 years a 31" screen will probably be available at 1/3 the price.


I can afford the screen but dont know that I can afford to throw away $5000 or so. (assuming $8000 msrp)


Cant see anything else worth buying this year now that Sony only offer edge lit models. The other LED backlit options are not very good. If that Toshiba Cell TV with 512 zones was available outside of Japan I might have bought one of them.




And great post isochroma. Very interesting.


----------



## Isochroma












specuvestor: ITO supplies all the power to run an OLED screen. It's the light grey (cathode) layer in the picture above. It's a transparent conductor that is deposited onto the front glass. It's only transparent when it is coated thinly though. And a thin layer can only carry a small current, which works fine for small screens but doesn't work well for big ones - the distance means too much power gets lost as heat, because ITO doesn't conduct nearly as well as copper or aluminium.


A 60" OLED panel - just the panel - could use 200W of power. If the OLED emitter ran at 5V, that would be 40 amps of current that must be conducted through a layer of ITO thinner than a hair.


If the resistance of say 30" of ITO (corner to center of panel) is only 1 ohm, then the heating loss would be 1600W. Since that's unacceptable, say it was only 0.1 ohm resistance. Then heating loss would only be 160W, which if distributed evenly over a 60" panel would be OK, at least for the ITO layer.


Even the 0.1-ohm 'better case' is pretty bad because almost half the power delivered to the panel is turned to heat before it even reaches the OLED emitter! From a total of 360W, 200W goes to the OLED emitters (56%) and 160W (44%) goes to heating the ITO conductors. That doesn't count other losses either.


Worst, the 160W ITO-heater is cooking the life out of the OLED emitters while it adds to your power bill. Talk about killing two birds with one electron...


----------



## navychop

I must be at the center of a large OLED panel - because my hope is dimming.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/19437887
> 
> 
> I must be at the center of a large OLED panel - because my hope is dimming.



Yes, this is all very disheartening.


----------



## Isochroma

For the depressed, read back a couple pages and you'll find news stories I've posted. They're about various alternatives to ITO which have been discovered. The impetus was mostly the cost of Indium, which is exploding - but some of the new materials have much better conductivity. So the situation isn't so hopeless.


Also note, Samsung has already demonstrated a 40" OLED with no problems; that was way back in 2005: see the first page of this thread for the story and a nice picture.


That means at least 32" won't require a new conductor design. The problems crop up in displays larger than 40". The biggest problem that multiplies ITO's limited current-handling capability is that as a display gets bigger, its power usage climbs by the square while its edges only increase a bit in length.


So the 60" diagonal 200W panel uses as much power as four 30" panels, but its edges are only twice as long. Power (amps) can only be supplied from the edges and has to 'fan out' to cover the entire panel like a film of water over the surface. The bigger a panel, the more 'fanning out' the current has to do as it travels from the edges to the center, because the _ratio of panel area to edge length_ gets higher as the panel gets larger. This generates hot areas where the current density is higher. The ITO layer can't be made any thicker so it has an absolute limit on how much current can be carried.


LCD and plasma can be made absolutely gigantic because the former only uses the ITO conductors to provide a small bit of power to flip liquid crystals (the light is made by a separate backlight). The latter does use the ITO conductors to power its pixels but the voltage is high - hundreds of volts - so the current is very small.


The amount of current having to pass thru ITO film for a 60" OLED could run a 1000" plasma.


----------



## Nielo TM

Ditto


There are new materials that are discovered and some are artificially made with better conductive proprieties.



I still have high hopes for OLED and I'm sure manufactures will find solutions to overcome the problems.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/19438017
> 
> 
> For the depressed, read back a couple pages and you'll find news stories I've posted. They're about various alternatives to ITO which have been discovered. The impetus was mostly the cost of Indium, which is exploding - but some of the new materials have much better conductivity. So the situation isn't so hopeless.
> 
> 
> Also note, Samsung has already demonstrated a 40" OLED with no problems; that was way back in 2005: see the first page of this thread for the story and a nice picture.
> 
> 
> That means at least 32" won't require a new conductor design. The problems crop up in displays larger than 40". The biggest problem that multiplies ITO's limited current-handling capability is that as a display gets bigger, its power usage climbs by the square while its edges only increase a bit in length.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/19437545
> 
> 
> 
> 
> specuvestor: ITO supplies all the power to run an OLED screen. It's the light grey (cathode) layer in the picture above. It's a transparent conductor that is deposited onto the front glass. It's only transparent when it is coated thinly though. And a thin layer can only carry a small current, which works fine for small screens but doesn't work well for big ones - the distance means too much power gets lost as heat, because ITO doesn't conduct nearly as well as copper or aluminium.
> 
> 
> A 60" OLED panel - just the panel - could use 200W of power. If the OLED emitter ran at 5V, that would be 40 amps of current that must be conducted through a layer of ITO thinner than a hair.
> 
> 
> If the resistance of say 30" of ITO (corner to center of panel) is only 1 ohm, then the heating loss would be 1600W. Since that's unacceptable, say it was only 0.1 ohm resistance. Then heating loss would only be 160W, which if distributed evenly over a 60" panel would be OK, at least for the ITO layer.
> 
> 
> Even the 0.1-ohm 'better case' is pretty bad because almost half the power delivered to the panel is turned to heat before it even reaches the OLED emitter! From a total of 360W, 200W goes to the OLED emitters (56%) and 160W (44%) goes to heating the ITO conductors. That doesn't count other losses either.
> 
> 
> Worst, the 160W ITO-heater is cooking the life out of the OLED emitters while it adds to your power bill. Talk about killing two birds with one electron...​





Iso thanks for the clarification. I always thought the matrix supply the power  But I can't reconcile your 2 statements. Firstly it seems that sizes above 30" cannot be made due to ITO voltage constraints, but later you mention 40" Samsung OLED and we know there's a 31" LG OLED coming out... so what gives? Do these 2 models use ITO as cathode as well? I don't think the LG 31" uses 360W with 160W heat dissipation would be actually quite hot which none of those who saw it seemed to pick up.


Interesting you mention aluminium and copper cause we could actually use semicon process to power the OLED? But that would also mean no more transparent screens then....


Another solution is to make them into different "zones" instead for eg 4 zones or sub-panels of 31" panels making up a 62" OLED TV.​


----------



## rogo

There is no screen without the transparent electrodes. This has become a serious problem. And alternatives to ITO have proved to either be not at all conductive (ITO is barely) or not transparent enough (decimating light output).


You can't run 4 panels as one without seams of some kind. I don't really see that changing.


----------



## Plex

 http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/04/p...bigger-better/ 


Solution processing, One step closer


----------



## wojtek

rogo, good to have you back.


Isochroma - technical posts like yours are what makes me come back to this fascinating thread.


Thanks.


----------



## Isochroma

Tiling is the other mitigation strategy; current can be injected along the extra edges, relieving the power problems. It's already been shown in a 100" OLED (previous story). But tiles have edges and edges show unless the audience is far enough away. Thus tiles are only expected in 100"+ sizes. There are about as many issues with tiled OLED as it resolves. I'd hope to see a consumer-level tiled OLED but am not expecting it due to the complications.


As for specuvestor's question regarding what size the nasties start kicking in, my statements are ballpark guesstimates. What we do have is some working monolithic devices at 40" so the problem is with sizes larger than that. I would guess that making a 60" OLED with 32" or 40" conductor technology would yield unacceptable devices.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Flexible displays: A silver lining* 
*September 27, 2010*











*Photograph of a transparent and conductive film

consisting of a silver nanowire film embedded in PVA.*


*Silver nanowire films buried in a polymer matrix perform better than commercial indium tin oxide as transparent electrodes for flexible displays.*


A fundamental component of flexible electronic displays is a highly conductive electrode, which supplies electrons to the light-emitting component while at the same time being transparent enough to allow the emitted light to shine through. The material most commonly used for transparent electrodes is indium tin oxide (ITO), but ITO has been around for some time and there is a need for materials that are more suitable for flexible electronics applications. Scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Fuzhou1 have now demonstrated that embedding a film of silver nanowires in a polymer matrix affords a flexible transparent electrode that rivals the performance of ITO in optoelectronic applications.


Silver nanowire films, together with similar materials like carbon nanotube films, graphene and other metallic nanowire meshes, have previously been considered as candidates to replace ITO. The step forward made by Can-Zhong Lu and his co-workers was the embedding of the film in a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) matrix, which yields a transparent conductive film that is much smoother that the bare nanowire film and is more resistant to separation from the substrate.


The team prepared their transparent conductive films by immersing a silver nanowire film in a PVA solution, which filled the pores between the silver wires. Once dried, the surface of the film was many times smoother than that of the of the bare silver nanowire film, with a corresponding improvement in transparency. The polymer-nanowire film not only displayed excellent electrical conduction and optical transmission properties, it could also be folded over several times with very little degradation an essential feature for flexible electrodes.


To demonstrate the potential of the film in practical applications, Lu and his colleagues tested an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) deposited on one of the films _the OLED had higher power efficiency compared with a similar OLED deposited on a commercial ITO electrode_. Compared with ITO, silver nanowire films can also be easily obtained under mild processing conditions, says Lu. Because of their good electrical properties, silver nanowire films could play an important role in organic optoelectronics and will certainly make up a share of the commercial market one day.


----------



## Isochroma

 *Conductor grid optimization for luminance loss reduction in organic light emitting diodes* 
*May 12, 2008*










*Fig. 3 (Color online) Simulated lateral variation of the electrode

voltage Vb(x,y) for a square OLED device with two different

metal grids: triangular grid (left) and hexagonal grid (right).*

_This paper deals with the arrangement of current-supplementing wires that can be added to the ITO or other type of electrode in an OLED. It's posted here because I was looking for some pretty visuals to show how the charge distribution looks and it had them. The entire paper (PDF) is linked in the title and can be downloaded for free. Below is excerpted just the conclusion.


PS. The paper omits to study an important aspect of the geometric layout of such wires: that even if each wire is thin enough to be invisible, a regular array of such wires can cause aliasing (periodic interference which shows as colored fringes) with the pixels themselves. As the paper's subject is lighting - which has no pixels - interference is not a problem. However, the same technique may be needed for large OLED displays which do have pixels, so it then becomes an appropriate question to ask._
*Conclusion*


In this paper, we studied the voltage variation in a transparent electrode, containing a regular metallic grid, of an OLED. The differential equation was used to determine the average voltage loss in grid elements with different shapes: triangular, square, or hexagonal. It is found that grids with identical line width and apothem have the same conductivity and transmissivity. For such equivalent grids, the _hexagonal grid has the lowest average voltage loss_, which is 6% lower than for the square grid.


An approximate analytical expression for the different loss mechanisms (loss in the grid, loss in the grid elements, and loss in transmission) is developed and an optimization algorithm for the apothem, using a fixed electrode width, is described. The results provide a simple means to estimate and optimize the different loss mechanisms in OLEDs with a metallic grid below the transparent conductor.


----------



## slacker711

 In the Leadand Trying to Stay There

Samsung is placing its bets on cutting-edge display technology 



By JUNG-AH LEE


A decade ago, Samsung Electronics Co. was jostling in the pack of young technology companies chasing the likes of Hewlett-Packard Co. and Sony Corp.


Journal Report


Read the complete South Korea report .


Now it's the biggest technology company in the world.


The rapid ascent of Samsung, founded in 1969 as a contract maker of black-and-white televisions for Japanese companies, was driven by a game plan familiar in Japan: Copy what you can, and invest the profits in speeding up technology upgrades.


But Samsung faces a new challenge now: defending its position at the front of the pack, while trying to set technology standards in new markets.


Success Stories

Success has landed a number of recently ascended South Korean titans in a similar spot: companies like LG Electronics Co., steelmaker Posco and Hyundai Heavy Industries Inc. Each has made huge strides over the past decade and now strives daily both to shed its former underdog image and to build on its technology and market lead.


View Full Image


Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Visitors try out Samsung's 'Galaxy Tab' tablet.


LG has its sights set on television sets that serve up Web-based video as easily as cable or satellite programming. Hyundai Motor plans to roll out hybrid cars as part of an overall global push into the increasingly lucrative green auto market.


Samsung, for its part, recently has invested heavily in such high-end niche spots as displays for the flat-panel-TV and cellphone markets. Earlier bets in semiconductors, mobile phones and liquid crystal displays paid off handsomely as digital broadcasting technology replaced analog, and as smartphones and LCD TVs became must-have items. But the company knows it has to continue to innovate to stay ahead of the field.


Its latest bet is on screens that use a cutting-edge display technology. Screens with organic light emitting diodes, or OLED, have a thin layer of organic material that glow, creating the screen's backlighting. OLED screens require less power than LCD screens. They also have clearer picture quality and a faster response time than conventional LCDs.


World Domination

Samsung Mobile Display, a joint venture of Samsung Electronics and sister company Samsung SDI Co., currently dominates the market for OLED screens used in mobile phones, with more than a 95% share. Samsung's Galaxy S smartphone, and Taiwan-based HTC Corp.'s Droid Incredible and Evo 4G all have OLED screens.


View Full Image


Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The company has invested heavily in flat-panel TV displays.


But Samsung's goal is to make OLED for products with bigger screens, such as tablet PCs and televisionsthe latter being a very lucrative market.


The major stumbling block: Large OLED displays are costly and technically difficult to make. Sony pulled out of the OLED TV business in its domestic market early this year due to sluggish demand for the pricey sets and high production costs.


Screen Shot

But that's where Samsung, with its deep pockets, is hoping its investment in OLED technology will pay off. If it can mass produce televisions using commercially viable OLED technology, those sets should yield higher profits than TVs with LCDs. The latter currently make up more than 50% of the global TV market, but LCD prices have fallen sharply, eating into margins.


Bigger Displays

Lee Woo-jong, vice president of marketing at Samsung Mobile Display, says Samsung is "the only company that has succeeded in mass production of active-matrix OLED displays," a technology using a thin-film transistor to switch individual pixels on and off, making higher resolution and larger displays possible.


"Considering the advantages," Mr. Lee says, "we expect OLED TVs will receive a strong response from the market."


In the race to make the technology commercially viable, Samsung will probably face the strongest challenge from fellow South Korean giant, LG.


A group of LG companies bought U.S.-based Eastman Kodak Co.'s OLED business in December. LG Display Co., a sister company of LG Electronics Inc. and the No. 2 maker of flat panels after Samsung Electronics, said in April that it would invest $223 million to expand its existing OLED line, which will mostly produce devices used for smartphones and hand-held devices, and may target production of OLED TVs in the second half of 2011.


Champ Shin, vice president of the strategy and marketing center of LG Display, says it may take seven or eight years for the total volume of OLEDs to match current shipments of LCDs.


However, he expects consumer interest to pick up from around 2013, when he predicts the price gap between OLED TVs and LCD TVs will narrow to around 30%.


Hefty Subsidy

To keep South Korea ahead in the display business, the national government is also playing a part.


In May, it announced a five-year, government and private-sector plan to invest roughly $18.5 billion in local equipment and parts makers of both next-generation LCD and large OLED displays.


Other competition may come from Japanese and Taiwanese companies. For example, Sony continues to work on more commercially viable OLED TVs. And Taiwan's AU Optronics Corp., the world's third-largest flat-panel maker, plans to mass produce OLEDs in 2011 for mobile devices while also aiming to develop displays for TVs and tablet computers.


But, for now, the race appears to be Samsung's to lose.


"In the LCD business, we quickly caught up and became the leader," says Samsung Mobile Display's Mr. Lee. "But active-matrix OLED is a completely different technology from LCD," he says. "And since no one has succeeded in this technology yet, it sure is tough to be a leader."


----------



## surap

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Isochroma* 
*Conductor grid optimization for luminance loss reduction in organic light emitting diodes* 
*May 12, 2008*










*Fig. 3 (Color online) Simulated lateral variation of the electrode

voltage Vb(x,y) for a square OLED device with two different

metal grids: triangular grid (left) and hexagonal grid (right).*

_This paper deals with the arrangement of current-supplementing wires that can be added to the ITO or other type of electrode in an OLED. It's posted here because I was looking for some pretty visuals to show how the charge distribution looks and it had them. The entire paper (PDF) is linked in the title and can be downloaded for free. Below is excerpted just the conclusion.


PS. The paper omits to study an important aspect of the geometric layout of such wires: that even if each wire is thin enough to be invisible, a regular array of such wires can cause aliasing (periodic interference which shows as colored fringes) with the pixels themselves. As the paper's subject is lighting - which has no pixels - interference is not a problem. However, the same technique may be needed for large OLED displays which do have pixels, so it then becomes an appropriate question to ask._
*Conclusion*


In this paper, we studied the voltage variation in a transparent electrode, containing a regular metallic grid, of an OLED. The differential equation was used to determine the average voltage loss in grid elements with different shapes: triangular, square, or hexagonal. It is found that grids with identical line width and apothem have the same conductivity and transmissivity. For such equivalent grids, the _hexagonal grid has the lowest average voltage loss_, which is 6% lower than for the square grid.


An approximate analytical expression for the different loss mechanisms (loss in the grid, loss in the grid elements, and loss in transmission) is developed and an optimization algorithm for the apothem, using a fixed electrode width, is described. The results provide a simple means to estimate and optimize the different loss mechanisms in OLEDs with a metallic grid below the transparent conductor.
I wonder if hexagonal cells would minimize *Screen Door Effect* or *stairstepping*..?


----------



## slacker711

It sounds like Samsung has announced that they plan on building a Gen 8 pilot line capable of building 4,000 55" TV's a month. It is scheduled to be built in the 2nd half of next year.


Article is in Korean (I'm using Google translate).

http://www.etnews.co.kr/news/detail....d=201011090122 


This is pretty big news. There are definitely some technical hurdles related to a Gen 8 fab but the fact that they are willing to go ahead with a pilot line means that they are reasonably confident in their solutions. If they can hit this schedule, a mass market ramp by 2014 would seem like a real possibility.


Of course, for those who cant wait, a $10,000 55" OLED TV might be a possibility in early 2012....though I'm not sure I'd want to be a guinea pig for that kind of money







.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

You saw that too. Still a rumour at this stage.


----------



## slacker711

Good point. The article does say "industry insiders".


FPD International starts tomorrow in Japan so we'll see if there are any formal announcements.


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/19459170
> 
> 
> Of course, for those who cant wait, a $10,000 55" OLED TV might be a possibility in early 2012....though I'm not sure I'd want to be a guinea pig for that kind of money
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



So I'd put the probability of such a TV at 1% chance.


And the probability of that price in 2012 (assuming the TV exists) at 0%.


----------



## slacker711

Everything depends on glass size. If Samsung has a Gen 8 pilot line up and running, we will...if not, we wont. I would guess we'll hear more about Samsung's 2011 OLED capex plans in the next two months or so.



Slacker


----------



## rogo

Not everything depends on glass size. There is no real precedent in the history of flat panel displays for a technology that has yet to scale to 15 inches in a mass-produceable form to suddenly appear at 55 inches.


Due to things like yield, even if the glass allows for 55-inch OLEDs (which it might, but I'm more than a little skeptical), the factory will instead turn out smaller displays so that they don't end up with single-digit yields.


----------



## slacker711

You are right that yields would be abysmal and like Sony with their $2000 11" OLED, I would expect Samsung to be losing money on any 55" televisions. That's ok for a pilot line. The point is to prove out the process/product before spending the billions for a commercial fab. I dont see them using a small pilot line to churn out mobile sized displays.


We'll see though, still need to hear something formal from Samsung that they are even targeting a Gen 8 pilot line.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

Smallest optimal size for 8G is 40", which is why S-LCD is the only one making 40" TV vs 42" for others. Motherglass price increase exponential with fab size so it is not optimal to make smaller sizes. So far the only time that rule been broken was in 06/07 (LG Phillip aka LG Display almost went broke while Phillips refused to inject capital) when LPL made monitor panels using their 7.5G fab.


8G is so far a rumour which is why I did not alert here until they can show me the $







But I think slacker's projection is too optimistic even if 8G true and rogo's probability ratio probably right in that time frame.


----------



## Chronoptimist

What would be a more realistic prediction, seeing new 31" sized screens in 2012 at much lower prices? (say 1/3 the 2011 screen?)


I am tempted just to buy one but its basically throwing money away as an early adopter because the price will come down so much and I am sure quality will improve as well.


----------



## specuvestor

$6000 LG 31" in 2012 is realistic vs $9000 LG 31" in 2011


----------



## slacker711

I would note that my projections for the 55" TV are based on extrapolations from the building of the pilot line. We'll see if that happens or not.


OTOH, I'll go on record saying that there will be a 31" OLED from either Samsung or LG for sub $5000 in 2012. A 31" TV isnt the sweet spot for a Gen 5.5 fab, but I think that they will have sufficient capacity/yields to get down to that price point sometime in 2012. With 6 32" panels per substrate, they dont even need to get particularly high yields to justify the switch from mobile sized displays.


Slacker


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *surap* /forum/post/19454978
> 
> 
> I wonder if hexagonal cells would minimize *Screen Door Effect* or *stairstepping*..?



Seems to me you'd get a softer picture since pixels would no longer be rectangular. Yes, aliasing would be reduced, but you'd be trading it for a different pixel structure (and it's artifacts).


----------



## Ant99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/19464062
> 
> 
> 
> I am tempted just to buy one but its basically throwing money away as an early adopter because the price will come down so much and I am sure quality will improve as well.



If you got the money to burn go for it. I cannot spend that much on a 31inch tv (unless I was rich) but that's just me.


You already know prices will come down as few years go by, remember how expensive plasma used to be? Now look how cheap it is.


----------



## Tbyrne




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ant99* /forum/post/19466081
> 
> 
> If you got the money to burn go for it. I cannot spend that much on a 31inch tv (unless I was rich) but that's just me.
> 
> 
> You already know prices will come down as few years go by, remember how expensive plasma used to be? Now look how cheap it is.



I will buy an OLED HDTV when they have a 60" for around $2000.00. I know I'll be waiting for quite a while!


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ant99* /forum/post/19466081
> 
> 
> If you got the money to burn go for it. I cannot spend that much on a 31inch tv (unless I was rich) but that's just me.
> 
> 
> You already know prices will come down as few years go by, remember how expensive plasma used to be? Now look how cheap it is.



That's the problem. I am not rich, but I do have savings set aside for a HT budget. The problem is that I am completely dissatisfied with all current display technology and have been waiting for years for a large size OLED screen to be made available. 31" is clearly not a 'large' display but it is big enough to be usable and suitable for use as a monitor when larger sizes are available at affordable prices.


----------



## bc2000y

A glowing review from FlatpanelsHD

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.p...&id=1289487180


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bc2000y* /forum/post/19472256
> 
> 
> A glowing review from FlatpanelsHD
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.p...&id=1289487180



I absolutely love the black level demo










I wonder what will be available first?:


- a 50+ inch OLED


- a PDP with zero black level


I must say I am surprised that zero black PDP did not happen sooner even though Pioneer left the business. LG is still actively researching it as well as Panasonic.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/19473008
> 
> 
> I absolutely love the black level demo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what will be available first?:
> 
> 
> - a 50+ inch OLED
> 
> 
> - a PDP with zero black level
> 
> 
> I must say I am surprised that zero black PDP did not happen sooner even though Pioneer left the business. LG is still actively researching it as well as Panasonic.



The plasma may come first but it still does not ehelp eliminate things like dithering, posterization, banding, abl, low light output.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/19473323
> 
> 
> The plasma may come first but it still does not ehelp eliminate things like dithering, posterization, banding, abl, low light output.



I expect large area OLED will fully implement an ABL and have nowhere near the average light output of LED-LCD. As for banding and posterization, a contiguous driving scheme easily eliminates this dynamic artifact, and as a static artifact dithering eliminates it. Not sure you understand this.


Anyway you may want to focus your anti-PDP sentiment in the "other" thread


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/19473382
> 
> 
> I expect large area OLED will fully implement an ABL and have nowhere near the average light output of LED-LCD. As for banding and posterization, a contiguous driving scheme easily eliminates this dynamic artifact, and as a static artifact dithering eliminates it. Not sure you understand this.



Very disappointing if true about the ABL on OLED. I hoped the much reduced power consumption would have avoided it.


Contiguous driving is what the Kuros were using isnt it? They did not suffer from dynamic false contouring but had significantly more dither than other plasmas as a result.


----------



## Nielo TM

*Samsung AMOLED Showcase - FPD 2010*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY_ADCTBKVE


----------



## Nielo TM

Yes I've just discovered that.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/19473556
> 
> 
> Very disappointing if true about the ABL on OLED. I hoped the much reduced power consumption would have avoided it.
> 
> 
> Contiguous driving is what the Kuros were using isnt it? They did not suffer from dynamic false contouring but had significantly more dither than other plasmas as a result.



Yes, correct. Except the Kuro produced a 4 times darker lowest subfield than conventional making the low APL dither the best in class.


Having a halftone/dither free picture is something PDP will never have IMO. Luckily it does not bother me for HT type displays.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19473562
> 
> *Samsung AMOLED Showcase - FPD 2010*
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY_ADCTBKVE



Great video. As with everything OLED so far though, I'm left wishing that all the screens were just a little bit bigger.


15" is too small even as a small bedroom/kitchen television or as a monitor. If it was just a few inches bigger it would be suitable. (though not ideal)


7" is too small for a good tablet like the iPad, if it was just a bit bigger it would be perfect.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/19473759
> 
> 
> Having a halftone/dither free picture is something PDP will never have IMO. Luckily it does not bother me for HT type displays.



It is certainly less objectionable with video content but completely unacceptable with computer/game use in my opinion. 60Hz was tolerable but 72/75/100Hz was terrible. (100Hz especially)


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/19473991
> 
> 
> Great video. As with everything OLED so far though, I'm left wishing that all the screens were just a little bit bigger.
> 
> 
> 15" is too small even as a small bedroom/kitchen television or as a monitor. If it was just a few inches bigger it would be suitable. (though not ideal)
> 
> 
> 7" is too small for a good tablet like the iPad, if it was just a bit bigger it would be perfect.



Personally I have no interest in large OLED displays



I just want my 4K TOLED eyewear with native 3D support


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19473562
> 
> *Samsung AMOLED Showcase - FPD 2010*
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY_ADCTBKVE



No big screens unfortunately and we can see how reflective it is. I think the proof of the pudding is how well it will look in terms of contrast if it uses a matt/ non-reflective screen. Worst case will differentiate the best out.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19474123
> 
> 
> Personally I have no interest in large OLED displays
> 
> 
> 
> I just want my 4K TOLED eyewear with native 3D support



My guess is by the time it happens, we won't need glasses for 3D


----------



## 8:13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19474123
> 
> 
> Personally I have no interest in large OLED displays
> 
> 
> 
> I just want my 4K TOLED eyewear with native 3D support


 Time Parallel 3D 


Shutter glasses are active polarized, Time Parallel 3D would use passive polarized glasses.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19475249
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is by the time it happens, we won't need glasses for 3D



I meant eyewears with color TOLED's built-in.


----------



## Tbyrne

When will they start production of OLED HDTV's? Anyone have a guestimate?


----------



## Ant99

Does anyone know if OLED suffers from bad pixels like Plasma and LCD where a few pixels die out and you see tiny dots very up close? Does OLED have that problem?


----------



## Tbyrne

No! OLED's will not have those problems. I can't wait!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tbyrne* /forum/post/19477743
> 
> 
> When will they start production of OLED HDTV's? Anyone have a guestimate?



2016 or so.


----------



## xrox

Just read the OLED issue of ID. Lots of great stuff. One really great article from Barry Young called "When Can I Get My AMOLED TV?". Took with a grain of salt (very pro OLED) but still gave me some optimism.


I can't post because SID has become very strict with copyright (don't mess with them) but the law allows small quotes or summaries like


-- LG projects AMOLED TVs to be 3x the cost of TFT-LCDs in 2013, 1.5x the cost in 2015, and 1x the cost in 2017.


-- improve the yields from 70% of that of LCDs in 2010 to 100% in 2017


-- reduce the component costs from 150% of that of TFT-LCDs to 60% by 2017


-- scale the process from Gen 4 to Gen 8, and reduce the capital costs from 5x that of LCDs to 150% of that of a same-sized LCD fab


SID Informatino Display

October 2010 Vol. 26, No. 10

OLED Issue

Barry Young


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tbyrne* /forum/post/19478233
> 
> 
> No! OLED's will not have those problems. I can't wait!!!!!!!!!!



Are you sure? Many of the screens on display in the past have exhibited dead/stuck pixels.


----------



## rogo

@xrox, so OLED is more or less 5 years away, as it has been for the past decade.










Seriously, though, I think that the problem with the optimism is you have to actually star moving displays in the 2013 period for the 2017 projection to come true. And I don't see displays moving in 2013 at 3x LCD prices (also, I hope they are using 2013 LCD production costs, but color me very skeptical they are projecting those correctly, even though they are LG and know the numbers).


If we contemplate the $700 LCD in 2013 for a 50-inch set of good quality, we are talking $2000 for an OLED. While there are members of the AVS crowd that would pony up, I doubt anyone not self-identifying as a videophile would. Possible market size for a 3x-the-price TV is probably significant under 1% share. That's pretty lousy scale economics and learning curve effects.


If we take a more sober view of the fact that "all of this takes longer than people hope it will" and extrapolate out over a longer period and assume that TFT-LCD TV prices and production costs actually hit bottom by 2015 or so, it might indeed turn out that OLEDs could begin making real strides in the second half of the decade.


But all that said, it's probably closer to 2020 before the effect is very important.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19479470
> 
> 
> @xrox, so OLED is more or less 5 years away, as it has been for the past decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, though, I think that the problem with the optimism is you have to actually star moving displays in the 2013 period for the 2017 projection to come true. And I don't see displays moving in 2013 at 3x LCD prices (also, I hope they are using 2013 LCD production costs, but color me very skeptical they are projecting those correctly, even though they are LG and know the numbers).
> 
> 
> If we contemplate the $700 LCD in 2013 for a 50-inch set of good quality, we are talking $2000 for an OLED. While there are members of the AVS crowd that would pony up, I doubt anyone not self-identifying as a videophile would. Possible market size for a 3x-the-price TV is probably significant under 1% share. That's pretty lousy scale economics and learning curve effects.
> 
> 
> If we take a more sober view of the fact that "all of this takes longer than people hope it will" and extrapolate out over a longer period and assume that TFT-LCD TV prices and production costs actually hit bottom by 2015 or so, it might indeed turn out that OLEDs could begin making real strides in the second half of the decade.
> 
> 
> But all that said, it's probably closer to 2020 before the effect is very important.



Completely agree. I usually read such articles and say "whatever







"


----------



## specuvestor

Whether LG timeframe is right or rogo is right will depend on when LG and Samsung starts their rumoured 8G fab. LG will be right IMHO if 8G capex starts on or before 2012.


OLED materials are made mainly by the Japanese now. It will be more economical when the Koreans led by Cheil Industries and LG Chemical, and Taiwanese led by unlisted Chi Mei Group, which is actually a chemical company, starts to ramp.


----------



## m-heat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ant99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if OLED suffers from bad pixels like Plasma and LCD where a few pixels die out and you see tiny dots very up close? Does OLED have that problem?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tbyrne* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> No! OLED's will not have those problems. I can't wait!!!!!!!!!!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Are you sure? Many of the screens on display in the past have exhibited dead/stuck pixels.



We were selling the Sony OLED and yes you can get stuck/dead pixels on them. Intact for quite a while when showing them they had to have several to replace at regular intervals due to just that. It's an emerging technology so stuff happens but hopefully everything will be worked out prior to mass release.


We all expect that right? I mean look at how well 3D and HDMI-CEC work...


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/19478955
> 
> 
> -- LG projects AMOLED TVs to be 3x the cost of TFT-LCDs in 2013, 1.5x the cost in 2015, and 1x the cost in 2017.
> 
> 
> -- improve the yields from 70% of that of LCDs in 2010 to 100% in 2017
> 
> 
> -- reduce the component costs from 150% of that of TFT-LCDs to 60% by 2017
> 
> 
> -- scale the process from Gen 4 to Gen 8, and reduce the capital costs from 5x that of LCDs to 150% of that of a same-sized LCD fab
> 
> 
> SID Informatino Display
> 
> October 2010 Vol. 26, No. 10
> 
> OLED Issue
> 
> Barry Young



Looking at all this, it seems that when OLED does appear in larger sizes in broader markets, it will be about the same to produce as LCD, so that leaves a question.


Will manufacturers like LG price the sets comparably to LCD or have a higher markup due to it being the "New Must Have"?


----------



## Tbyrne

More likely they'll be marked up when they first come out and then as they become more available, the price will drop. I can't wait!!!!!!


----------



## rogo

@TNG, even reading that optimistic forecast, it appears production-cost-parity is 7 years away. Are you worried about the pricing of your 2017 TV?


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19492735
> 
> 
> @TNG, even reading that optimistic forecast, it appears production-cost-parity is 7 years away. Are you worried about the pricing of your 2017 TV?



LOL. Yeh.....


Well really just thinking about all of the early news, even here on this thread that there were going to be all of these "New Processes" such as forms of ink jet printing that would make OLED cheap as buying a cell phone. The manufacturing cost would be so low as to drive LCD and PDP out of the market.


As someone who works in flat panel lithography for a living, it is interesting to see that the good old TFT backplane glass has not been replaced yet. People keep trying though.


----------



## rogo

"Well really just thinking about all of the early news, even here on this thread that there were going to be all of these "New Processes" such as forms of ink jet printing that would make OLED cheap as buying a cell phone. The manufacturing cost would be so low as to drive LCD and PDP out of the market."


Right, but all that proved -- as it always does -- to be mythology, not reality. Let's hope they can at least get there by 2017.. as opposed it being "5 years away" even come the middle of the decade.


----------



## gmarceau

Are we all interested in OLED mainly because of the infinite contrast ratio and, secondarily, color saturation? That's what I care about.


If Panasonic can achieve a level of black approaching infinite contrast and a better color filter system, continues to reduce phosphor trailing, does anyone care about OLED anymore?


Not an attack on the technology, just curious.


----------



## Tbyrne

Yes people will care as OLED screens will roughly be only 1/4 inch thick.


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tbyrne* /forum/post/19494237
> 
> 
> Yes people will care as OLED screens will roughly be only 1/4 inch thick.



This is something that plasma can do, as well.


----------



## specuvestor

Check out the samsung galaxy s under the sun and let me know your thoughts vs TFT



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Are we all interested in OLED mainly because of the infinite contrast ratio and, secondarily, color saturation? That's what I care about.
> 
> 
> If Panasonic can achieve a level of black approaching infinite contrast and a better color filter system, continues to reduce phosphor trailing, does anyone care about OLED anymore?
> 
> 
> Not an attack on the technology, just curious.


----------



## Tbyrne

Where can I go and see a Plasma with a 1/4 inch thick screen?


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tbyrne* /forum/post/19495769
> 
> 
> Where can I go and see a Plasma with a 1/4 inch thick screen?



You can't. There was a tech demo done by Panasonic at CES '09, I believe, showing a 1/3 inch thick plasma. Pioneer was showing similar innovations, as well.


As of now, you can't get either technology in the size of a television with a panel that thin.


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19494633
> 
> 
> Check out the samsung galaxy s under the sun and let me know your thoughts vs TFT



I wasn't comparing oled to lcd. No idea when I'll be able to view a samsung galaxy s to an lcd phone.


Do you have a link?


----------



## dpak2005

Couple points here. #1) OLED is the future. No question, no doubt. It is so infinitely superior in everyway to current technology that at some point it will be the only display technology. I mean taking one look at the flexible displays, the transparent displays, and the black levels alone will tell you that.


#2) All of this talk about OLED TVs is quite amusing to me. Do you all not realize how this all works? These technologies start off in smaller devices. First cell phones, then tablets, then laptops, then finally they will reach economies of scale and reach the TV. Now the glorious part about OLED is that it has already reached the cell phone stage. Millions of Samsung Galaxy S AMOLED phones are already out there now. 10 times as many will go out next year when Samsung opens up its next gen AMOLED plant.


What's most striking to me is that for the first time in a while, we clearly have superior display technology on our phones than we do on our televisions. We can enjoy the deep inky blacks, etc today on cell phones and next year on tablets before we can ever enjoy them on our TVs. This combined with things like Netflix streaming to mobile devices, etc means a semi revolution in the way we watch things. I find myself more and more holding my 10 inch iPad 1 foot in front of my face and watching a movie streaming rather than powering up the home theater.


----------



## dpak2005




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/19496436
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing oled to lcd. No idea when I'll be able to view a samsung galaxy s to an lcd phone.
> 
> 
> Do you have a link?



Ok not to be mean, but you should get off the computer once in a while. Galaxy S phones are available on every major cell carrier and in any Retail store that carries cell phones. All of the Galaxy S phones (Vibrant, Captivate, etc) have Super AMOLED screens. Go look at one compared to any LCD phone in person. Don't look for videos for everything. You realize that you're viewing your web content and videos about OLED on an LCD right? How do you think that will turn out?


Like I said, not trying to be mean. But my first experience actually seeing a Super Amoled screen 8 months ago in person convinced me that no LCD will ever compare. Talking about those blacks are one thing, seeing AMOLED in person is something else. Nothing ever impresses me in person, I'm not easily impressed. But this did.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/19494186
> 
> 
> Are we all interested in OLED mainly because of the infinite contrast ratio and, secondarily, color saturation? That's what I care about.
> 
> 
> If Panasonic can achieve a level of black approaching infinite contrast and a better color filter system, continues to reduce phosphor trailing, does anyone care about OLED anymore?



I am more of a technology junkie at heart. I want OLED to succeed because I want to see a competing technology 10 years from now that will drive innovation forward.


It can be said that PDP panels did progress allot between the time they were introduced and when LCD hit the market, but only with LCD as competition did they really start with real improvements in mass production and new and novel ways to better the technology.


PDP will always be around, but if you look at the last couple of years, the rate of improvement of LCD has slowed down some. Yes the economy is partially to blame and of course all of the low hanging fruit has been harvested, but it seems to me that LCD has said that "We are King" and are no longer pushing as hard as they did to improve the product. My opinion only. If OLED comes out and LCD takes a market hit, maybe that will drive a new round of intense development for LCD. IMO we all win.


----------



## Tbyrne

^^^^^

Perfectly stated!


----------



## dpak2005




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/19497264
> 
> 
> I am more of a technology junkie at heart. I want OLED to succeed because I want to see a competing technology 10 years from now that will drive innovation forward.
> 
> 
> It can be said that PDP panels did progress allot between the time they were introduced and when LCD hit the market, but only with LCD as competition did they really start with real improvements in mass production and new and novel ways to better the technology.
> 
> 
> PDP will always be around, but if you look at the last couple of years, the rate of improvement of LCD has slowed down some. Yes the economy is partially to blame and of course all of the low hanging fruit has been harvested, but it seems to me that LCD has said that "We are King" and are no longer pushing as hard as they did to improve the product. My opinion only. If OLED comes out and LCD takes a market hit, maybe that will drive a new round of intense development for LCD. IMO we all win.



I disagree with one point. PDP will not always be around. Energy efficiency is key from this point into the future. Even with advancement, once more strict energy guidelines go into place (in places like California, etc), plasma is dead. Even LCD faces a dramatic disadvantage compared to OLED because it requires a backlight. Granted LEDs are now being used as backlights, but let me ask you something. In a world of equal production (which will happen some time in the future) why would anyone expect LCD technology with more parts, a backlight requirement, to survive against a technology that can be printed onto a screen?


Oh by the way, the new California TV regulations kick in on January 1st (2 months from now). A 42 inch TV can only use 115 watts next year and only 81 watts on January 1st, 2013 when Phase II kicks in. How many plasmas are going to survive that you think?


----------



## Nielo TM

IMO, LCDs are improving faster than ever. The 2010 budget S-PVA from Samsung can produce black level deeper than most plasmas (0.03 cd/m2 native - 0.02 cd.m2 dimmed). Also, it is much cheaper to produce in comparison to a PDP equivalent. The 40C580 can be had for £400 where the 42G20 is £250 more.


AUO is also massively investing in fifth generation AMVA and I'm sure Samsung is developing a mode to match or to exceed AMVA5



What's interesting is that LCD is in competition with itself and not just PDP. There's rivalry between different *mode*s (e.g. AMVA, SPVA, UV2A etc) and between the manufactures to secure contract. So we'll continue to see LCDs improve in terms of performance and also in terms of cost.



PS: LGD, Samsung and AUO have all released 8-bit LCD mode (VA, IPS) to match the TN in terms of cost, which is a massive breakthrough.


----------



## dpak2005




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19497453
> 
> 
> IMO, LCDs are improving faster than ever. The 2010 budget S-PVA from Samsung can produce black level deeper than most plasmas (0.03 cd/m2 native - 0.02 cd.m2 dimmed). Also, it is much cheaper to produce in comparison to a PDP equivalent. The 40C580 can be had for £400 where the 42G20 is £250 more.
> 
> 
> AUO is also massively investing in fifth generation AMVA and I'm sure Samsung is developing a mode to match or to exceed AMVA5
> 
> 
> 
> What's interesting is that LCD is in competition with itself and not just PDP. There's rivalry between different *mode*s (e.g. AMVA, SPVA, UV2A etc) and between the manufactures to secure contract. So we'll continue to see LCDs improve in terms of performance and also in terms of cost.
> 
> 
> 
> PS: LGD, Samsung and AUO have all released 8-bit LCD mode (VA, IPS) to match the TN in terms of cost, which is a massive breakthrough.



I am absolutely convinced that what brought upon that LCD sub-technology competition was the threat posed by OLED. IPS, etc were previously reserved for very niche high end products such as larger, super expensive LCD monitors used by graphic design professionals. What brought upon this current mainstreaming of that improved LCD tech is that production of AMOLED in mobile devices wasn't yet sufficient to meet the massive demand in smartphones and tablets. HTC originally started out using AMOLED in its high end Android phones, but only switched to IPS Super-LCD tech because Samsung had run out of AMOLED capacity thanks to its own uses. (A problem which should be highly mitigated next year with the new Samsung plant). Apple was almost forced to use its high res IPS retina LCD tech in its iPhone 4 because it couldn't get OLED in enough supply, and it knew it had to compete with equally high end display tech for the time being. It is now not even question of if, but when Apple will go AMOLED on its mobile device lineup. Production obviously has to catch up. Having said all of that, I have both a super LCD display with me now and an AMOLED, and it's clearly obvious to me which is the better technology despite the advancement of the LCD.


----------



## Tbyrne

What is the difference, if any, with AMOLED and OLED?


----------



## Nielo TM

OLED is the display technology and AM is the driving method (Active Matrix)


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dpak2005* /forum/post/19497558
> 
> 
> I am absolutely convinced that what brought upon that LCD sub-technology competition was the threat posed by OLED. IPS, etc were previously reserved for very niche high end products such as larger, super expensive LCD monitors used by graphic design professionals. What brought upon this current mainstreaming of that improved LCD tech is that production of AMOLED in mobile devices wasn't yet sufficient to meet the massive demand in smartphones and tablets. HTC originally started out using AMOLED in its high end Android phones, but only switched to IPS Super-LCD tech because Samsung had run out of AMOLED capacity thanks to its own uses. (A problem which should be highly mitigated next year with the new Samsung plant). Apple was almost forced to use its high res IPS retina LCD tech in its iPhone 4 because it couldn't get OLED in enough supply, and it knew it had to compete with equally high end display tech for the time being. It is now not even question of if, but when Apple will go AMOLED on its mobile device lineup. Production obviously has to catch up. Having said all of that, I have both a super LCD display with me now and an AMOLED, and it's clearly obvious to me which is the better technology despite the advancement of the LCD.



LCD sub-category formed a very long time ago because LCD failed to provide "one size fits all" solution. IPS was the first performance grade mode to be developed by Hitachi, but it had poor black level, which rendered it useless for TVs. Fuji later (1998) created the MVA as a compromise between TN and IPS, which had much better black level. Sharp produced VA based LCD using their own tech and rained supremacy until Samsung obtained VA and developed S-PVA and AUO and CMI developed MVA.


Hitachi no longer produce IPS, but they do provide services to OEMs (e.g. LG and IPS alpha). IPS panels have evolved considerably but not to the extend of VA based panels. After all IPS still hasn't broken the 1000:1 ANSI CR barrier.


----------



## Tbyrne

You have a lot of good information. Thanks for the info.


----------



## gmarceau

"AUO is also massively investing in fifth generation AMVA and I'm sure Samsung is developing a mode to match or to exceed AMVA5"


Any idea if AMVA5 shows up in panels in 2011? Those 16,000:1 contrast numbers can be achieved with a ccfl backlight, right?


----------



## Brimstone-1

Quote:

Originally Posted by *dpak2005* 
I disagree with one point. PDP will not always be around. Energy efficiency is key from this point into the future. Even with advancement, once more strict energy guidelines go into place (in places like California, etc), plasma is dead. Even LCD faces a dramatic disadvantage compared to OLED because it requires a backlight. Granted LEDs are now being used as backlights, but let me ask you something. In a world of equal production (which will happen some time in the future) why would anyone expect LCD technology with more parts, a backlight requirement, to survive against a technology that can be printed onto a screen?


Oh by the way, the new California TV regulations kick in on January 1st (2 months from now). A 42 inch TV can only use 115 watts next year and only 81 watts on January 1st, 2013 when Phase II kicks in. How many plasmas are going to survive that you think?
OLED consumes a lot of power. Over the long term it has great potential to be low power.



Here is an older article on the Sony XEL-1.

Quote:

Power Consumption

While some issues were resolved through modifications to the drive, we found others that still need to be addressed - specifically, power consumption and viewing angle.


A look at power consumption showed that the self-emitting design exhibits about a 10W difference between all-white and all-black states. The average power consumption for all white is 28.4W, and for all black (no emissions) 18.3W. This is the total power consumption for the entire TV, including components other than panel drive; *but even so, the TV engineer was surprised at how high it was, considering this is an 11-inch set. We also discovered a slight difference in white and green hues depending on viewing angle (Fig 2).*

*Sony said from the start that reducing power consumption would be the next development challenge,* said Yoshito Shiraishi, general manager in the E Products & Business Development Department of the TV Business Group at Sony. *One of the reasons why Toshiba Corp of Japan delayed release of its 30-inch class OLED TV originally slated for 2009 is also thought to have been high power consumption.* According to president and chief executive officer (CEO) Katsuji Fujita of Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co Ltd, *"OLEDs of 30 inches or more consume two to three times more power than LCDs. It will take a little more time to drop this to at least the level of LCDs."*

 http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article...080226/148048/ 


Keep in mind the Sony XEL-1 wasn't even Full HD, that would have increased the power consumption.



And here is Sharp (obviously biased towards LCD but...) talking about the pros and cons of OLED.

Quote:

Negative OLED Characteristics:

*Dynamic display efficiency. While you can write a few lines of static text with great efficiency, video requires more power than an LCD. OLEDs are more efficient for small graphics or text because they only consume power in the area where they are addressed.*


To date, the reliability has not come up to the levels of LCDs.


It is particularly difficult to drive the blue colors where the luminance efficiency is very low. As a consequence, the lifetime is reduced, and burn-in is also an issue.

 http://www.sharpsme.com/Page.aspx/am...8-7a52cae8fa1e 



The Gerson Lehrman Group even recently pointed out the "power consumption" challenge ahead for OLED as it competes with LCD displays with LED lighting.

Quote:

CMO's 31.5" LCD TV panel according to this news consumes only 16W for normal images and consumes 32W for full screen white with its LCD luminance of 450 cd/m2. Comparing this with the current 15" OLED TV, the power consumption of AM-OLED employed in 15" OLED TV is 13 W for normal images and 32.5W for full screen white with a luminance of 220 cd/m2. OLED faces a big challenge to compete with LCD TV in terms of power consumption. In this example the comparison is for twice the diagonal size of LCD. A rough comparison can be made for equal size of 15" diagonal between LCD for Notebook of the same resolution and luminance level of 15" OLED TV. Samsung's 15.5" Notebook panel has a power consumption of 3W for full white screen with a luminance of 220 cd/m2. It can be seen that AM-OLED panel for 15" OLED TV consumes 32.5W with a luminance of 200 cd/m2. OLED TV has a long way to go to approach the power consumption level of LCD TV.
 http://www.glgroup.com/News/LCD-TV-p...rch-44666.html 



Plasma will continue to improve when it comes to energy consumption and in other aspects such as picture quality. The more demanding California laws are just going to make things harder for large sized OLED.


----------



## rogo

At the end of the day, Brim and others point out yet more reasons that this stuff may never come to market in home-theater sizes. Which is the larger point some of us have been getting at.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brimstone-1* /forum/post/19499189
> 
> 
> OLED consumes a lot of power. Over the long term it has great potential to be low power.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an older article on the Sony XEL-1.
> 
> 
> 
> http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article...080226/148048/
> 
> 
> Keep in mind the Sony XEL-1 wasn't even Full HD, that would have increased the power consumption.
> 
> 
> 
> And here is Sharp (obviously biased towards LCD but...) talking about the pros and cons of OLED.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.sharpsme.com/Page.aspx/am...8-7a52cae8fa1e
> 
> 
> 
> The Gerson Lehrman Group even recently pointed out the "power consumption" challenge ahead for OLED as it competes with LCD displays with LED lighting.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.glgroup.com/News/LCD-TV-p...rch-44666.html
> 
> 
> 
> Plasma will continue to improve when it comes to energy consumption and in other aspects such as picture quality. The more demanding California laws are just going to make things harder for large sized OLED.



Start reading post #1755 from Isochroma which is quite interesting. As per the review, people are wondering why AMOLED consumes so much power. My guess it is the delivery of the power itself rather than OLED intrinsically. Just like Super AMOLED brings out the best of OLED due to incell touch screen while HTC's solution does not make OLED outstanding due to the touch layer.


So power consumption as a SYSTEM is likely to decline when the system becomes more efficient. OLED is intrinsically low power.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Keep in mind the Sony XEL-1 wasn't even Full HD, that would have increased the power consumption.



The power consumption of the XEL-1 has little to no relation to the numbers for OLED TV's that we will see in the future. OLED displays use two types of emitting materials to generate the red, green, and blue colors....fluorescent and phosphorescent emitters. The fluorescent materials use substantially more energy than the phosphorescent materials and an all fluorescent display will have a higher energy consumption than a LCD. The XEL-1 was an all fluorescent display.


OTOH, the LG 15" OLED is a hybrid (fluorescent/phosphorescent) display. The power consumption listed by Gerson is for 32.5 watts while showing an all white image. I just did a quick search on a few 15" televisions (without built-in DVD players) and all had power consumption numbers listed of at least 30 watts. Note that the LG number is a worst case scenario....normal television programming is unlikely to have a vast expanse of white. A normal tv show or movie will use far less than the listed 32.5 watts.



Slacker


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/19498318
> 
> 
> "AUO is also massively investing in fifth generation AMVA and I'm sure Samsung is developing a mode to match or to exceed AMVA5"
> 
> 
> Any idea if AMVA5 shows up in panels in 2011? Those 16,000:1 contrast numbers can be achieved with a ccfl backlight, right?



I think AUO is in the process of securing deals with major (performance) manufactures.


I doubt the backlight will be CCFL, but they are quoting native CR (non-dimming)


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19501044
> 
> 
> I think AUO is in the process of securing deals with major (performance) manufactures.
> 
> 
> I doubt the backlight will be CCFL, but they are quoting native CR (non-dimming)



I looked on AUO's website last night, and they've completely updated it from when I checked a few weeks back. AMVA 5 is simply AMVA in description with the quoted 16,000 to 1 contrast ratio.


On their lcd product page, though, their ccfl models are listing at 4,000:1. While the LED backlit designs are all receiving a Mega Dynamic Contrast Ratio listing.


The sizes they are making the panels in might help consumers figure out if they get an AUO panel, since they make 37" (something we don't have in the US), 42", 46", 55", 65" in LED and 46", 55" in 240hz LED.


It might make it into many panels from Sony and Samsung. Hopefully, Sammy has something good to compete with OLED, as well.


----------



## Nielo TM

the new layout much better than the old one ^_^



Unfortunately AUO do not list their entire range and some are exclusive to certain brands. Hopefully we can get our hands on one soon.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dpak2005* /forum/post/19497345
> 
> 
> Oh by the way, the new California TV regulations kick in on January 1st (2 months from now). A 42 inch TV can only use 115 watts next year and only 81 watts on January 1st, 2013 when Phase II kicks in. How many plasmas are going to survive that you think?



It really depends on how many states or even countries go the way CA is going.


If more states in the US enact this type of legislation (mostly to make themselves feel good, IMO) then you could be right. I have always been a fan of LCD over PDP, but I don't want to see this. PDP still has allot of future potential improvement in PQ as well as LCD. On the political side it is just one more thing that is eroding our freedom as well, IMO.


----------



## Nielo TM

Just got the ZTE Slate (Orange San Francisco) and loving the 3.5" OLED. It seem the pixel structure isn't stripped, so there is a bit fringing.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19499643
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, Brim and others point out yet more reasons that this stuff may never come to market in home-theater sizes. Which is the larger point some of us have been getting at.



I find it hard to believe that we will settle down to just LCD TVs, or perhaps a choice of LCD or PDP TVs, like we settled for CRTs for decades. If not OLED, maybe MEMs, or something else on the horizon. I don't think display glasses will replace wall TVs, either.


----------



## Nielo TM

The OLED embedded within the blade can't seem to produce absolute black. Could it be due to the type of OLED or does deliberately to improve aging etc.?


----------



## gmarceau

If AMVA or S-PVA LCD panels can hit 9G or greater Kuro type blacks - idle luminance at .0005-.001 ft/L, along with solving off angle washout to a greater extent, OLED won't have much to offer out of the gate 3 years from now.


----------



## gmarceau

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* 
The OLED embedded within the blade can't seem to produce absolute black. Could it be due to leakage or ...?
When I viewed an XEL-1 last year, it didn't seem to be doing absolute black, either, although I know that this is a model capable of doing such. Not sure why that was the case.


There isn't a brightness setting for the display, is there?


----------



## Isochroma

The XEL-1 - like most displays sold today - actually has a brightness control.


----------



## gmarceau

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Isochroma* 
The XEL-1 - like most displays sold today - actually has a brightness control.
Thanks, was talking about the cell phone


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/19510660
> 
> 
> I find it hard to believe that we will settle down to just LCD TVs, or perhaps a choice of LCD or PDP TVs, like we settled for CRTs for decades. If not OLED, maybe MEMs, or something else on the horizon. I don't think display glasses will replace wall TVs, either.



Chop, I'm not so much saying we will, as saying the economics of competing may make it LCD for a long, long time (perhaps with a continued plasma presence as well).


Mature technologies sitting at the bottom of their cost curves are very very hard to move out of the market. You need to offer something truly compelling (a flat TV vs. a deep CRT TV, a storage "disk" with no moving parts, a car that runs on electricity) to get people to pay more for the "new thing".


The only other way the "new thing" reaches the market is that it's actually cheaper to build (think transistors vs. vacuum tubes).


OLED might well produce a picture that LCD and PDP can never produce. But as we've discussed, it might either failure to do that or it might do it only marginally. And as we've seen on the manufacturing side, it's already true OLED is hard to make in large sizes and due to things like the current / electrode problems, it might prove very very difficult to make in truly large sizes even if the manufacturing issues are resolved.


We might look back at this 10 years from now and if OLED has indeed carved out, say, 30% of the market, laugh at how pessimistic we were about this. This is assuming things like silver nano-wires and "printable" OLEDs go from lab-provable to real. We might also be sitting here in 2020 looking to some kind of carbon nanotube or MEMS or some other hypothetical display technology actually being touted as the next thing and still 5 years away.


What's fascinating about display technology is that quite literally billions of dollars have gone into technologies that are not CRT, LCD and PDP and none has ever really reached the market. Both PDP and LCD very nearly never made it. They "didn't work" they were "too expensive" etc. But the latter two "arrived" at the right moment -- the onset of the HD era -- and offered this amazing thinness that literally allowed rooms to be redesigned, large screens to fit in smaller spaces, etc.


Will there be another catalyst for a revolution? Probably not. That makes the challenge of the challengers that much greater: They need to invent a reason for themselves to exist and then fill that reason. To that end, I find OLED a very promising technology. It can be ridiculously thin, it's emissive instead of transmissive, it can offer outstanding picture quality.


It's also true that it's been "5 years away" for more than a decade. And the history of technologies like that is that they have an awfully tough time being the new, new thing.


----------



## moreHD

Hi,


I have only one simple question. When will we be able to walk into a store and buy a full HD oled tv off the shelf, like 17, 19, 22, 23"? I am not interested in home theatre sizes. Please note that LG 15-inch oled is not full hd. And a few more questions- do we have to wait until Samsung, AUO, or Chei Mei build new factories? How long is the wait?

Is any oled factory being built in Japan, for a change?


To me both lcd and plasma have unacceptable flaws. I have witnessed an 11" sony and 15"lg: I am in love with oled. Thank you in advance for your insights.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19512099
> 
> 
> Chop, I'm not so much saying we will, as saying the economics of competing may make it LCD for a long, long time (perhaps with a continued plasma presence as well).
> 
> 
> Mature technologies sitting at the bottom of their cost curves are very very hard to move out of the market. You need to offer something truly compelling (a flat TV vs. a deep CRT TV, a storage "disk" with no moving parts, a car that runs on electricity) to get people to pay more for the "new thing".
> 
> 
> The only other way the "new thing" reaches the market is that it's actually cheaper to build (think transistors vs. vacuum tubes).
> 
> 
> OLED might well produce a picture that LCD and PDP can never produce. But as we've discussed, it might either failure to do that or it might do it only marginally. And as we've seen on the manufacturing side, it's already true OLED is hard to make in large sizes and due to things like the current / electrode problems, it might prove very very difficult to make in truly large sizes even if the manufacturing issues are resolved.
> 
> 
> We might look back at this 10 years from now and if OLED has indeed carved out, say, 30% of the market, laugh at how pessimistic we were about this. This is assuming things like silver nano-wires and "printable" OLEDs go from lab-provable to real. We might also be sitting here in 2020 looking to some kind of carbon nanotube or MEMS or some other hypothetical display technology actually being touted as the next thing and still 5 years away.
> 
> 
> What's fascinating about display technology is that quite literally billions of dollars have gone into technologies that are not CRT, LCD and PDP and none has ever really reached the market. Both PDP and LCD very nearly never made it. They "didn't work" they were "too expensive" etc. But the latter two "arrived" at the right moment -- the onset of the HD era -- and offered this amazing thinness that literally allowed rooms to be redesigned, large screens to fit in smaller spaces, etc.
> 
> 
> Will there be another catalyst for a revolution? Probably not. That makes the challenge of the challengers that much greater: They need to invent a reason for themselves to exist and then fill that reason. To that end, I find OLED a very promising technology. It can be ridiculously thin, it's emissive instead of transmissive, it can offer outstanding picture quality.
> 
> 
> It's also true that it's been "5 years away" for more than a decade. And the history of technologies like that is that they have an awfully tough time being the new, new thing.



You make a compelling argument. I'm just venting my frustration.


moreHD, I don't see much value in HD in those sizes. It would be hard to notice the difference.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/19516340
> 
> 
> You make a compelling argument. I'm just venting my frustration.
> 
> 
> moreHD, I don't see much value in HD in those sizes. It would be hard to notice the difference.



Honestly, navy, vent away. We are this small minority that is demanding the best of the best in picture quality. If we keep demanding it, eventually someone will deliver it with some technology.


If everything gets to be "good enough" TVs will wind up like other appliances.... unless some people show they'll pay more to get more.


----------



## slacker711

I'm not sure if he is referring to Samsung's Gen 5.5 fab or the mythical 8th Gen fab. If it is the 5.5, it is an odd way to phrase it.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2374...ript?find=oled 



> Quote:
> Jagadish Iyer - Arete Research
> 
> 
> I have a quick follow-up, Mike, this is the first time you talked about a little bit on OLED equipment. Can you give us some color on what the offering is and how this market can grow potentially please?
> 
> 
> Mike Splinter
> 
> 
> Well, traditionally, OLED has been for smaller form factor, screens for smartphones, cell phones and those kinds of applications. So, most of the factories are Gen4 or Gen5. So, we're seeing a number of - quite a few orders of upgrades of factories in that space. The one - there's one major panel manufacturer that's making a much larger factory for OLEDs for TVs. So, that's really the beginning of getting the large size glass on to OLED. So, that's the exciting - that's the big exciting opportunity along with some other upgrade businesses to the smaller size factories.


----------



## specuvestor

That's a good catch. The equipment makers will be first to know on show-me-the-money










MoreHD the power of FHD is insignificant to the power of contrast, to paraphrase Darth Vader


----------



## laststop311




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/19370995
> 
> 
> Regarding those "$40 LED light bulbs", I've been looking at them too on eBay. Way too pricey for the light output - and worse - lower efficiency than cheap compact fluorescent.
> 
> 
> Another interesting example of a new technology that took over a large market is the compact fluorescent. When they first came out they were very bulky, flickered and were expensive. It was only when the price came down and they started dominating the shelves in every store that the tide shifted. Now I can buy packs of them for dirt cheap, and they're the logical choice because they're 4x more efficient than incandescents.
> 
> 
> It seems that lately new technologies have become exponentially more expensive than those they seek to replace, and worse - their price comes down much slower than older 'tech revolutionaries' did. I don't expect OLED lighting or LED lighting to ever be affordable, at least not in the next twenty years.



those compact florescent bulbs i remember home depot offered free ones if u gave em an incandescent bulb they exchanged you out for free. That all OLED has to do trade ur lcd/plasma and get a free oled of same size.


----------



## Kei Clark

If price is no object for your home theater:

http://www.dailydooh.com/archives/37045


----------



## laststop311

eww look what it says "Built from any number of standard 128 x 128 pixel OLED modules, each measuring 384mm square and weighing just eight kilograms, the Diamond Vision OLED is fully scalable and can be used to create an endless variety of screen sizes or shapes, even against rounded surfaces. "



its not 1 solid screen its a buncha small screen put together. Lame suckage


----------



## bentradio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *laststop311* /forum/post/19525536
> 
> 
> those compact florescent bulbs i remember home depot offered free ones if u gave em an incandescent bulb they exchanged you out for free. That all OLED has to do trade ur lcd/plasma and get a free oled of same size.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/19370995
> 
> 
> Regarding those "$40 LED light bulbs", I've been looking at them too on eBay. Way too pricey for the light output - and worse - lower efficiency than cheap compact fluorescent.
> 
> 
> Another interesting example of a new technology that took over a large market is the compact fluorescent. When they first came out they were very bulky, flickered and were expensive. It was only when the price came down and they started dominating the shelves in every store that the tide shifted. Now I can buy packs of them for dirt cheap, and they're the logical choice because they're 4x more efficient than incandescents.
> 
> 
> It seems that lately new technologies have become exponentially more expensive than those they seek to replace, and worse - their price comes down much slower than older 'tech revolutionaries' did. I don't expect OLED lighting or LED lighting to ever be affordable, at least not in the next twenty years.
> 
> 
> This might also apply to OLED displays, unfortunately. LCD has improved enormously, and I still enjoy my 32" LCD each night for movies. I'd pay at most $2000 for a 32" OLED. Remember too the economy is not doing well right now, and the future looks stormy. If OLED TVs sell, it will be in small volume to very rich customers for the forseeable future.



Don't want to get too off subject, but I have a kitchen and bathroom lit with only Cree LR4 LED lighting. It is, in a word, fantastic. It's bright, dimmable, comes on immediately, has excellent color rendering properties, makes no heat and barely consumes any power. The light quality literally makes the rooms look better. CFLs are still cost effective, but they look terrible. I have those in a couple of locations where I didn't want to spend the money on the LEDs, and I wish I'd just splurged for even more of them. Somehow the lumens from the LED lights seem brighter than what they are listed at. I can't explain that, but I have halogens in other rooms that should be brighter, but it really doesn't seem that they are.


I'm just waiting on similar quality LED bulbs for standard Edison bases to get cheaper, and I'll be switching out the rest of my lights as well.


----------



## Isochroma

Your LR4 probably cost a pretty penny, is only availble in two color temperatures, and worst yet puts out only 540 Lumens of light while using 11 watts of power. That works out to only 49 lumens per watt - an efficiency that was left behind by fluorescent and all other lighting technologies save incandescent (16 Lu/W) _half a century ago_. If that's what passes for advancement I'm not buying.


My cheap 6500K compact fluorescent uses 23W and puts out 1600 lumens, running at 65 lumens/watt. It's available in the full range of color temperatures too - all with the same efficiency. Virtually all compact fluorescent run at about 60-75 lumens/watt and are available in 2700K, 3000K, 3500K, 4100K, 5000K and 6500K at stores all over the place - for cheap.


The instant-on feature is the only 'extra' for the LR4 and most people wouldn't pay the price and lose access to all but two color temperatures: 2700K and 3500K. Perhaps the CRI of 94 might sway the vote a bit but your example is a prime demonstration that the assertion you quoted from me regarding the devolution of economic advances in recent years is indeed true.


In short, you may as a niche buyer (and wealthier than most, a skewed demographic on the AVS Forum) may find it aesthetically and economically attractive - but a niche buyer does not a mass market make. The Cree LR4 series sells for $100+ USD (for a single 11W downlight outputting 540 Lumens).


For me that's a bit too rich: 22nd Century pricing, 21st Century technology and 19th Century efficiency.


----------



## Xavier1

Some pictures of the LG 31" beauty...

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1290699072


----------



## Isochroma

Excellent work. I'll post the pictures here since the original articles are often taken down or images removed.

*Future display technology exhibited in Japan* 
*November 25, 2010*










*LG had brought a range of new technologies to FPD, and

the first one we want to highlight is their amazing 31-inch OLED-TV

that also handled 3D using cheap, passive 3D glasses. We have

commented on this OLED-TV before but it's still quite cool.*











*LG's passive 3D glasses*











*Samsung also exhibited an even more interesting

30-inch OLED panel with 3D. No concrete plans have been

made to mass produce it, however.*











*Samsung 19-inch transparent OLED*


----------



## specuvestor

CMI response to questions:


"*Do you expect to see shortage in LTPS?

Yes, in the next couple of years when various brands continue to ask for such

type of substrate for higher resolution display


*What's OLED with IGZO about at 5.5G?

IGZO is a new kind of substrate ideal for larger-size OLED display (5.5G and

above), because LTPS substrate (limited to 4.5G and below) faces equipment

constraints when going bigger-size."


As per Isochroma the voltage is a concern for larger sized AMOLED... does this IGZO (which I never heard before but google search looks like a semicon-like process) solve the problem with ITO?


----------



## Isochroma

IGZO means InGaZnO4. It's a process publicized in 2008 which is different from the usual amorphous TFT, used in LCD and OLED backplanes. Sony's 11" OLED uses this process ; they helped to develop it, along with a process that uses a laser to etch the substrate. The story is on the early pages of this thread.


The largest benefit of IGZO for OLED seems to be size - pardon the pun, but it's a very large benefit. High carrier mobility and low transistor voltage (1.5V, 1/3 of normal TFTs) are key advantages.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*[IEDM] Samsung, Hitachi Announce IGZO-based TFTs* 
*December 17, 2008*










*The structure of the IGZO-based high-speed TFT developed by Samsung*



Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Hitachi Ltd respectively made presentations about TFTs and memory structures prototyped by using amorphous oxide semiconductors composed of indium, gallium and zinc (IGZO) at IEDM 2008.


In particular, Samsung expressed their strong commitment to IGZO, giving three presentations.


As a material for semiconductor layers such as TFT, IGZO has a higher carrier mobility than amorphous Si, and a lower characteristics variation than low-temperature polysilicon. Thus, it has been attracting attention as a TFT material for next-generation panels. In addition, it is highlighted as an electronics technology applicable to flexible substrates because it can be formed into TFT at relatively low temperatures.


Samsung Electronics and its research laboratory, Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology (SAIT), unveiled IGZO-based prototypes including a high performance TFT, a five-stage high speed ring oscillator (RO) and a three-dimensional (3D) resistance RAM (RRAM) with an integrated memory reading circuit.


The high performance transistor has a double layer structure composed of an InZnO or ITO layer and an IGZO layer as semiconductor layers. It has a high carrier mobility of 104cm2/Vs.


The RO has a delay of 0.94ns per stage, which is "75 times faster than previously reported," according to SAIT. The 3D RRAM has the potential to "make the footprint smaller than that of a 3D RRAM with a readout circuit arranged around the memory, according to SAIT and others.


The Central Research Laboratory of Hitachi announced a various kinds of IGZO-based TFTs, which the company prototyped in an effort to commercialize a wearable computer, etc. The TFTs can be driven with a voltage as low as 1.5V because the threshold slope value is only 1/3 that of the existing TFTs, the company said.


Hitachi also unveiled a TFT formed on a PET substrate. It is the first time that the company has made a presentation about IGZO-based transistors, it said.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*High Performance Thin-film Transistor(TFT) with Amorphous InGaZnO4 Semiconductor*


----------



## specuvestor

Isochroma sorry I'm a bit dense on details to say the least







but so does IGZO solve the voltage and power problem of ITO delivering power over large screens? I'm seeing conflicting pictures in the schematics and remarks that you posted...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/19537339
> 
> 
> Your LR4 probably cost a pretty penny, is only availble in two color temperatures, and worst yet puts out only 540 Lumens of light while using 11 watts of power. That works out to only 49 lumens per watt - an efficiency that was left behind by fluorescent and all other lighting technologies save incandescent (16 Lu/W) _half a century ago_. If that's what passes for advancement I'm not buying.
> 
> 
> For me that's a bit too rich: 22nd Century pricing, 21st Century technology and 19th Century efficiency.



Just met a Korean LED maker who makes high brightness LED. The IR claimed that they are targeting 150lumens per watt next year and that 2 firms have already achieved that.


She also acknowledged the problem with phosphor aging faster than expected but talk about they having 0.7% color shift because they use Cree solution vs other competitors with 2% color shift. Not sure if she understands my question or avoiding my question as I said the light output seems to drop dramatically and much faster than what they expected. But suffice to say I think they are aware of this phosphor issue though technically they are correct to say LED chips last 10 years


----------



## Isochroma

As for IGZO, I don't know enough to comment. As for LEDs, I found 100+Lu/W single LEDs at least a year ago, for sale on the web and quoted in some benchmarks & promotionals.


The funny thing is, those decently efficient LEDs have not since then made their way into something resembling a lightbulb, that can be screwed into a socket and bought at a local store, or even on eBay. Likely because the cost is even higher than the ripoff LR4-class profit-vehicles.


LED lighting - like large-size OLED displays - is currently in the milk-the-richest-0.1% stage of economization. Neither technology may emerge from that stage, for various reasons.


----------



## specuvestor

I've actually seen LED lightbulbs that the IR showed, which they claim they are one of the few that can do A/C LED and not just rely on D/C.


I've also seen a taiwanese company make a fluorescent tube look-alike LED that you can just plug into a fluorescent socket. They unscrewed it from their conference room ceiling to show me. Much heavier with aluminium casing with a plastic cover but otherwise I didn't even noticed it was LED.


But I do agree commercialising for mass markets will take more time, maybe another 3 years to reach the top 20% of society. To me the phosphor decay is a real problem and they need to fix that before it can be industrial use. Cost saving from lesser maintenance cost would vaporise if the half life is only 5 years or so.


But with LED headlamps and LED spotlights I would think it would be soon general lighting will be LED with cost per lumens going down by 30-50% a year. That's the cost down expected when semicon is involved.


Sometimes it is surreal to see how a 40 year old invention is considered high tech in marketing speak.


----------



## david437

does plasma provide better motion than OLED ?


----------



## specuvestor

Something new but not totally unexpected given the OLED properties... but finally a use for curve screen being implemented on a mobile phone


"Samsung and Google today announced the Nexus S, the world's first handset to ship with the latest version of Google's Android platform – 2.3 or otherwise known as Gingerbread.


"Google is excited to co-develop Nexus S with Samsung, ensuring solid integration of hardware and software to deliver the lead device for the latest version of Android, Gingerbread," said Andy Rubin, Vice President of Engineering at Google.


Nexus S has Samsung's brilliant Super AMOLED in a 4-inch Contour Display that's curved for an "ergonomic style and feel when held to the user's face."


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *david437* /forum/post/19606477
> 
> 
> does plasma provide better motion than OLED ?



Yes and no


AM-OLEDs are susceptible to hold-time blur, but can be eliminated


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/19432405
> 
> 
> Thus we see the importance of the Philips-Fraunhofer discovery. For even if other obstacles such as defect rate, lifetime and cost are overcome, large-size (42"+) OLED TVs will be impossible without the ability to distribute unprecedentedly large currents long distances to the center of the panel - the place furthest from the edges where charge can be injected. The problem gets much worse as the panel is enlarged. If no mitigation is in place, the TV will be dimmer in the center or wherever is the furthest from the current source due to voltage drop in the conductor.
> 
> 
> Minimizing current-induced heat in the conductor backplane is crucial because repeated on/off cycles will cause thermal cycling (heat/cool/heat/cool) which can crack the glass backplane. Worse, heat from the ITO will accelerate the degradation of the OLED emitters. Overpowered ITO traces or planes can also melt, delaminate from the substrate or suffer electrochemical and/or electrothermal reactions which cause degradation in conductivity or total destruction. To see this effect just place a CD or DVD in a microwave. The microwaves cause heavy currents in the thin metallic reflective layer (deposited just like ITO) which quickly cause melting & delamination.
> 
> 
> The problems facing large-size (32"+) OLEDs for lighting and TVs are very different from the much smaller ones dogging tiny displays. For small OLEDs there is no need to worry about large currents, high power, or low yield.



Then what do you think about replacing ITO with graphene for large OLEDs?


----------



## david437

one question: are matt oled displays possible or will they only be avaible with a glossy filter because the technologie requieres it ?


Another question: when do you guys expect oled netbooks/notebooks comming to market ? Is there a chance that 2011 we could see some oled notebooks ?


----------



## specuvestor

Samsung galaxy pad will be OLED in 3Q11


The rest will depend largely on the ramp up schedule and demand of galaxy


----------



## andrewfee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19607047
> 
> 
> Something new but not totally unexpected given the OLED properties... but finally a use for curve screen being implemented on a mobile phone
> 
> 
> "Samsung and Google today announced the Nexus S, the world's first handset to ship with the latest version of Google's Android platform – 2.3 or otherwise known as Gingerbread.
> 
> 
> "Google is excited to co-develop Nexus S with Samsung, ensuring solid integration of hardware and software to deliver the lead device for the latest version of Android, Gingerbread," said Andy Rubin, Vice President of Engineering at Google.
> 
> 
> Nexus S has Samsung's brilliant Super AMOLED in a 4-inch Contour Display that's curved for an "ergonomic style and feel when held to the user's face."



Unfortunately it's just a flat OLED screen with a curved sheet of glass on top of it.


----------



## specuvestor

Really? Why would they do that? It wouldn't be super AMOLED and will have bad reflections.


I've yet to see the product, have you?


----------



## andrewfee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19668261
> 
> 
> Really? Why would they do that? It wouldn't be super AMOLED and will have bad reflections.
> 
> 
> I've yet to see the product, have you?



I have to apologise, there should have been an "unfortunately" in front of that, I didn't mean to be rude with my post. (reading it back, it looks that way to me)


I haven't seen one in person, but have read that people are noticing distortion at the ends.


From iFixit's teardown :


http://imgur.com/R52h7.jpg%5B/IMG%5D


----------



## GG386




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/19572293
> 
> 
> As for IGZO, I don't know enough to comment. As for LEDs, I found 100+Lu/W single LEDs at least a year ago, for sale on the web and quoted in some benchmarks & promotionals.
> 
> 
> The funny thing is, those decently efficient LEDs have not since then made their way into something resembling a lightbulb, that can be screwed into a socket and bought at a local store, or even on eBay. Likely because the cost is even higher than the ripoff LR4-class profit-vehicles.
> 
> 
> LED lighting - like large-size OLED displays - is currently in the milk-the-richest-0.1% stage of economization. Neither technology may emerge from that stage, for various reasons.



This led company may interest you


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andrewfee* /forum/post/19668720
> 
> 
> I haven't seen one in person, but have read that people are noticing distortion at the ends.
> 
> 
> From iFixit's teardown :



Thanks for the link... ifixit is really fast







Strange that they use Sandisk NAND rather than Samsung.


This is quite disappointing in terms of using AMOLED capability.


----------



## specuvestor

We shall see:


"According to our channel checks, SEC plans to run its first 5.5G OLED line in 1H11F

and first 8G line in 1H12F via SMD, a 50:50 joint venture between Samsung SDI and

SEC. LGD has relatively small size G4.5 and expects its first products for a global

handset maker in 2Q11F. LGD is also mulling over the timing of new 5.5G and 8G

OLED lines. We estimate LGD is still behind SEC by at least two years.

We expect SEC and LGD to collectively have about six 8G OLED fabs and seven 5G-

6G fabs by 2015F. More specifically, we believe SEC will increase input into OLED

from 2011F onwards and add an 8G OLED line every year from 2012F to 2015F,

similar to its previous investments into LCD. For LGD, its entry into OLED stands at

least one year behind SEC, we believe, given that its OLED technology still lags that of

SEC and it has invested heavily into LCD. LGD’s first 8G OLED line should be

available by end-2013F and it may add one more line by 2015F. As such, we expect a

total of six OLED lines at SEC and LGD."

-Nomura report dated 3 Jan 2011


----------



## specuvestor

WOW no one seemed surprised by the SIX 8G OLED fab forecast?










For one, I am skeptical that the analyst is too optimistic. Companies don't bet the farm on untested technology.


----------



## specuvestor

The question about whether there will be >32" OLED TV has been answered:


Samsung Group announced 2011 investment plan. (capex investment of W29.9tr, R&D

of W12.1tr) Looking at details of capex...


* Semiconductor of W10.3tr from W12tr in 2010.

* LCD of KRW5.4tr from KRW4.0tr in 2010.

* Consumer electronics of KRW800bn from KRW1.2tr in 2010.

* AMOLED of KRW5.4tr from KRW2.0tr in 2010.

* LED of KRW700bn from KRW500bn in 2010.


----------



## slacker711

Follow the money!


$4.8 billion in capex pretty much has to be a Gen 8 fab. I have been as bullish as anybody and this is earlier than I had expected. They must have made some real technical breakthroughs to commit that kind of money this quickly.


Slacker


----------



## moreHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/19766474
> 
> 
> Follow the money!
> 
> 
> $4.8 billion in capex pretty much has to be a Gen 8 fab.



Hi,


What is a Gen 8 fab.? When will 37" + OLED hit the stores at reasonable prices?


----------



## specuvestor

Gen 8 fab were mainly used to make 40" and 46" Sony and Samsung LCD. So we can approximate that will be the size of OLED TV that Samsung is targeting.


Define "reasonable" in your context. Twice the price of same size top end LCD? That would be probably around 2015 Christmas.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19759588
> 
> 
> WOW no one seemed surprised by the SIX 8G OLED fab forecast?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one, I am skeptical that the analyst is too optimistic. Companies don't bet the farm on untested technology.



Probably wont happen.


I work for a company that sells equipment to the semi and FPD industries and have seen plenty of forecasts by companies over the years that weren't worth the time they took to write them.


I have watched companies actually build the fabs only to let them sit without buying equipment to put into them and later tear them down. I have seen forecasts from Samsung of "the next fab will be started next year", next year came and went, as well as 11 more before the second fab was built.


Seriously, it is all just hot air until the equipment starts arriving......


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moreHD* /forum/post/19771701
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> What is a Gen 8 fab.? When will 37" + OLED hit the stores at reasonable prices?



A Gen 8 fab is trade industry speak for a FABrication facility that uses Generation 8 size glass. Gen 8 size glass is 2.5 meters by 3 meters (?) and typically .7mm thick. Each generation size gets bigger, so more individual devices can be made on the surface of it, so larger sizes yield more screens and allow a facility to produce more with each piece of glass.


----------



## rogo

So CES 2011, the only OLED being demoed is a 31" from LG that (a) might well not ship this year (b) if it does will be $8000 or so. (Oh, the $1800 15" model is here of course as well from LG).


I will note the lack of mind boggling beauty of the display, although it looks nice.


----------



## vtms

If this isn't getting super-close to offering the "holy grail" of video-watching experience, I don't know what will. Just make these things look like Ray-bans and I'll no longer have any reason to ever buy another TV set again.
http://www.sonyinsider.com/2011/01/0...-oled-glasses/


----------



## mark_1080p




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isochroma* /forum/post/19537339
> 
> 
> Your LR4 probably cost a pretty penny, is only availble in two color temperatures, and worst yet puts out only 540 Lumens of light while using 11 watts of power. That works out to only 49 lumens per watt - an efficiency that was left behind by fluorescent and all other lighting technologies save incandescent (16 Lu/W) _half a century ago_. If that's what passes for advancement I'm not buying.
> 
> 
> My cheap 6500K compact fluorescent uses 23W and puts out 1600 lumens, running at 65 lumens/watt. It's available in the full range of color temperatures too - all with the same efficiency. Virtually all compact fluorescent run at about 60-75 lumens/watt and are available in 2700K, 3000K, 3500K, 4100K, 5000K and 6500K at stores all over the place - for cheap.
> 
> 
> The instant-on feature is the only 'extra' for the LR4 and most people wouldn't pay the price and lose access to all but two color temperatures: 2700K and 3500K. Perhaps the CRI of 94 might sway the vote a bit but your example is a prime demonstration that the assertion you quoted from me regarding the devolution of economic advances in recent years is indeed true.
> 
> 
> In short, you may as a niche buyer (and wealthier than most, a skewed demographic on the AVS Forum) may find it aesthetically and economically attractive - but a niche buyer does not a mass market make. The Cree LR4 series sells for $100+ USD (for a single 11W downlight outputting 540 Lumens).
> 
> 
> For me that's a bit too rich: 22nd Century pricing, 21st Century technology and 19th Century efficiency.



Notes on LED bulbs:


The new Philips LED bulbs (40/60 Watt) at Home Depot are terrific. Yes they are still expensive ($20/$40) but:

1. 800 Lumens and 64 Lumens/Watt for the 60W

2. No hum (some of my CFL's do), instant full on

3. Dimmable, Mercury free

4. 25,000 hour life

5. Nice 2700K spectrum, looks like incandescent

6. Excellent dispersion pattern
I have many CFL's, GE bulbs with the warmest spectrum (2700K soft white) available, but they look harsh compared to the LED (the CFL's must deviate from 2700K in the blue or red tails). The CFL's also seriously degrade over time, putting out far less lumens after a year or so of use. I just replaced a CFL 75W with an LED 60W and the replacement appears brighter.


I compared the LED's and CFL's to an incandescent with identical lamps and shades. It was no contest, the LED's are very much like incandescent bulbs in appearance to my eye. The CFL's look harsh like the cool white fluorescent bulbs used in basements, albeit with a warmer spectrum.


So all I see as a negative right now is price, all else is as good or an improvement. Spending a few hundred replacing at least the most frequently used lights should not be a big deal for most of us, and as prices decline we will be saving much more energy due to their longer life, slightly higher efficiency assuming they do not significantly degrade, keep Mercury out of production, and give us more pleasant lighting. Quality, efficient lighting is an important aspect of our lifestyle IMO, not a place to be a cheapskate.


Lastly, we do NOT need 100 Watt bulbs, get rid of them and your eyes will adapt. Using 40's and 60's is not depressing, our house is well lit and fun to live in.


----------



## XxHoosierdaddy

How will someone wall mount OLED tvs in the future? Their stands hold the circuitry in them. How can someone mount it on a wall?


----------



## navychop

I look forward to 75W equivalent LED bulbs. Older eyes, you see.


----------



## Ant99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19781028
> 
> 
> So CES 2011, the only OLED being demoed is a 31" from LG that (a) might well not ship this year (b) if it does will be $8000 or so. (Oh, the $1800 15" model is here of course as well from LG).
> 
> 
> I will note the lack of mind boggling beauty of the display, although it looks nice.



I read somewhere in a recent article in 2012 the LG 31" will be released. I thought it would be 2011 release but I don't think it will.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *XxHoosierdaddy* /forum/post/19788407
> 
> 
> How will someone wall mount OLED tvs in the future? Their stands hold the circuitry in them. How can someone mount it on a wall?



They will make them with the circuitry in the back panel.


----------



## 8mile13

OLED CES Las Vegas 2011










*OLED* photo's 
__
https://flic.kr/p/5331530578
​


*OLED* lighting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMFu0hgOmN8 

*OLED* transparent Samsung 19 inch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NArlgPLpTg */* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwCYLSPO0aY 

*OLED* glasses free 3D Sony 24.5 inch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvvLnOmufyU */* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76ddBFijTpY 

*OLED* glasses free 3D LG 31 inch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNK0h2pzLgc */* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7ysNiqoRts


----------



## XxHoosierdaddy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ant99* /forum/post/19790823
> 
> 
> I read somewhere in a recent article in 2012 the LG 31" will be released. I thought it would be 2011 release but I don't think it will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will make them with the circuitry in the back panel.



Thanks. One more question...can current OLEDS suffer from burn -in like plasma?


----------



## Ant99

I read on various sites that OLED is prone to burn-in just like plasma. I would like to think that burn-in is less than an issue compared to plasma.







I guess time will tell perhaps there is an OLED expert here with solid information about burn-in.


----------



## andy2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ant99* /forum/post/19792887
> 
> 
> I read on various sites that OLED is prone to burn-in just like plasma. I would like to think that burn-in is less than an issue compared to plasma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess time will tell perhaps there is an OLED expert here with solid information about burn-in.



Burn in (which is really uneven wear) is directly related to panel life. As they improve panel life, the burn in problem will improve with it.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

Oled 3d tv really using glasses-free tech or using polarized cheaper glasses? Because it seems like glasses are still used in the articles I've read. Maybe that was for another LG tv though.


That Sony HMD would be AWESOME for FPV rc helicopter flying in HD. Now if only Wimax modules / modems would be available for long distance 720p wireless video transmission, we'll be all set.


----------



## Nielo TM

Where's my Transparent 1080p X 2 OLED HMD/Eyewear?


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So CES 2011, the only OLED being demoed is a 31" from LG that (a) might well not ship this year (b) if it does will be $8000 or so. (Oh, the $1800 15" model is here of course as well from LG).



I think this is pretty much expected in this thread.


We will see more TV in 2012 CES when Samsung's 5.5G is completed and first 8G is ramping. And no this is not another panasonic-kuro type hopeful prediction







the $ has spoken.


This however would be a good example of panasonic-kuro type hopeful prediction:


"LG is on course to launch a 55inch 3D OLED TV in 2012. The revelation was made by the head of LG Display during this week’s CES show. Sister company LG Electronics has long expressed an interest in OLED, picking up a leadership position in the advanced display technology after Sony walked away from further development, citing costs as too prohibitive."


----------



## rogo

OLED can certainly be burned in -- and much more so than plasma currently because OLED lifespan is quoted at 30k hours. The shorter the lifespan, the greater the chance that a run of static-ish content will stay "permanent". That said, by the time mainstream models are out, I'd expect lifespan to improve and burn-in risk to be low.


As for a 55-inch in 2012, "launch" is an odd word at LG. The 15-inch was "launched" 2 years before anyone could buy it and it sits at $1800 -- a roughly 10x multiple to other 15-inch sets. The 31-inch at this point had no clear part number (maybe it existed), certainly no SRP/MAP, and no real delivery date. Is that launched? I'd say no, but I bet LG would say yes.


Honestly, if LG delivers a sub-$10k 55-inch in 2014 it'll be about 10x their mid-range 55 at that point and 4-5x their high-end 55-inch. Is this possible? Yes it's possible they can make a few 1000 at that size at that time. And because it'll priced out of nearly everyone's range, they won't have to worry that production caps out at low volume.


Color me continued skeptical, but I don't believe a consumer model at 50+ is due before 2015. And I don't believe an affordable 50+ is due before 2017. Certainly the fact that we will arguably make very tepid progress this year doesn't suggest I am terribly wrong. I'd love to be terribly wrong, LCDs are still not doing it for me and plasmas are still too reflective.


----------



## rgb32

Looks like the Super AMOLED Plus displays are using the standard RGB triplet structure instead of Pentile! That's definitely cool for future OLED displays in smart phones!

http://www.oled-info.com/super-amoled-plus-updates


----------



## Isochroma

Pentile is junk. Why compromise the colour quality of OLED? Might as well just use LCD, then.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/19864957
> 
> 
> Looks like the Super AMOLED Plus displays are using the standard RGB triplet structure instead of Pentile! That's definitely cool for future OLED displays in smart phones!
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/super-amoled-plus-updates



I'm just curious if that site is actually supposed to be written in English. Because the last part of the item you link is certainly not in a version of English I am familiar with.


----------



## navychop

Actually, there is *another* market for OLED displays, particularly if they get the power consumption down. Military. Not just aircraft use displays. If the gov't found the display desirable, it could pay the early top dollars to get the tech working better for the rest of us.


----------



## Nielo TM

That's already in progress, but it's mostly small displays


----------



## specuvestor

Broker summary of LG's comment on OLED capex during conf call:

"* Not aggressive on AM OLED. LGD, unlike Samsung, is not aggressive on AM OLED capex and believes that commercial production of AM OLED TV will start from 2013E. Meanwhile, its IPS LCD panel will be good enough to meet demand from tablet PC and mobile phones. LGD touted the advantages of its FPR (film-type pattern retarder) 3D technology over Samsung's shutter-glass 3D TV."


As expected it is hazardous hoping for LG


----------



## vinnie97

Samdung, our only hope. Say it ain't so!


----------



## specuvestor

As Yoda said, "no, there is another"










Unfortunately I can't see it yet. Maybe CMI


----------



## moreHD

Is AUO from Taiwan a capable manufacturer or only a laboratory? They showed in past years that full HD 14" OLED TV.


----------



## slacker711

I think Apple's decisions are driving LG's comments and capex, and Apple seems set to stick with LCD's for a while.


FWIW, LG Display indicated that they would be spending a mid-teens percentage of their capex on OLED's. That works out to about $700 million. My guess is that they will be a 2nd source for mobile OLED's and put out a small number of ~30" TV's in 2012.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

IMHO LGD will be spending OLED capex for TV. For some weird corporate reasons, LGE will not make handsets with AMOLED for 2011


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19879446
> 
> 
> IMHO LGD will be spending OLED capex for TV. For some weird corporate reasons, LGE will not make handsets with AMOLED for 2011



I know that is their rhetoric, but how are they going to sell out their production capacity? They will be producing 12,000 substrates a month which are capable of producing 2 30" TV's each. Their yields will be terrible but could they sell even 6000 30" TV's a month at $5000 a unit?


Why forgo the easy cash that they could make selling 3"-4" units as a 2nd source. Nokia and the rest of the industry will come knocking on their door as they ramp up their capacity.


Of course, maybe I am underestimating the size of the early adopter market.


Slacker


----------



## XxHoosierdaddy

The Sony PSP2 is reportedly going to have an OLED touch screen!

http://psp.ign.com/articles/114/1145577p1.html


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I know that is their rhetoric, but how are they going to sell out their production capacity? They will be producing 12,000 substrates a month which are capable of producing 2 30" TV's each. Their yields will be terrible but could they sell even 6000 30" TV's a month at $5000 a unit?
> 
> 
> Why forgo the easy cash that they could make selling 3"-4" units as a 2nd source. Nokia and the rest of the industry will come knocking on their door as they ramp up their capacity.
> 
> 
> Of course, maybe I am underestimating the size of the early adopter market.
> 
> 
> Slacker



In my experience, I find it difficult to talk logic with LG







somehow they manage to be always one step behind.


The new IR was transferred from strategic planning. Based on how I see their past 2 years strategy, speaks volume to me


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moreHD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is AUO from Taiwan a capable manufacturer or only a laboratory? They showed in past years that full HD 14" OLED TV.



AUO is a major LCD panel manufacturer that has been consistently performing and disciplined. However they don't make sets so still depends on set makers to deliver their products. I've not heard much on their OLED development though.


----------



## XxHoosierdaddy

Its official now. Sony Just held a press conference and unveiled the PSP2.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6287014...ent_news;img;1 


Confirmed to have a 5" AMOLED touch screen. Can't wait. I can finally have a high res AMOLED screen for an affordable price!


----------



## rgb32












As posted above, the PSP2 will have an OLED screen:

http://psp.ign.com/articles/114/1146358p1.html 


> Quote:
> Screen:
> 
> 
> (Touch screen) *5 inches* (16:9), *960 x 544*, Approx. 16 million colors, OLED Multi touch screen (capacitive type)



The original PSP systems have a 480x272 screen resolution. So, the new screen is 4x the resolution of the original! The PSP2 screen resolution is almost identical to Sony's XEL-1 OLED TV (960x54*0*)! Perhaps there will be a glasses free (or passive) 3D mode as well.


I wonder who Sony will be sourcing these OLED display modules from? AUO? Sony must be manufacturing some OLED displays for the PVM-740 !


----------



## bway

 http://5magazine.files.wordpress.com...cm_lcd_111.jpg 


The prospect of more affordable large screen OLED TVs has taken another step towards becoming reality with the announcement by DuPont that it has developed a manufacturing process that can be used to print large, high-performance OLED TVs cost effectively. The announcement could see OLED TVs become more widespread and affordable than the pint-sized and prohibitively-priced offerings that we have been restricted to until now. OLEDs have attracted much attention as the next big thing in display technology with their ability to provide high contrast and bright displays with high response times and wide viewing angles while remaining extremely thin and energy efficient. Because they don’t rely on backlighting they eliminate the need for many of the LCD components, such as backlights and color filters. Until now, consumer products sporting OLED displays have been limited to mobile devices such as cell phones or small screen TVs like the Sony’s 11-inch XEL-1 and LG’s EL9500 which, at 15 inches, is the largest OLED TV on the market. Such products rely on a technique called shadow-mask evaporation to pattern the light-emitting organic molecules that make up the pixels on these displays, which is expensive and limited to small-scale displays. DuPont says that using its proprietary DuPont Gen 3 solution OLED materials will enable the manufacture of larger screen TVs as it allows larger OLEDs to be printed at cost-effective volumes while delivering the performance and lifetime that has so many people excited about the new technology. “OLED displays in portable devices are available in the market today, but the current high cost of manufacturing with evaporated materials has limited market adoption and constrained OLED manufacturing for larger size displays,” said David Miller, president DuPont Electronics & Communications. “Now, with DuPont printed OLED materials and process technology, fabrication costs can be significantly reduced, and manufacturing can be scaled to accommodate TV-size displays.” The new process DuPont developed along with Dainippon Screen uses a multi-nozzle printer that works like a garden hose to deposit inks that contain active molecules that are insoluble in adjacent layers. It prints the ink in a continuous stream, rather than droplets, and moves over a surface at rates of 4-5m per second while patterning a display. There have also been concerns about the longevity of OLED materials, but DuPont says its red, green and blue OLED materials can produce displays that can be operational for eight hours a day and last 15 years – surely long enough to survive until the next, next big thing in display technology hits the shelves.


----------



## grexeo




> Quote:
> As posted above, the PSP2 will have an OLED screen



Smartphones have had OLED screens with similar resolutions and sizes for over a year now, the PSP2 (which is still over 9 months away) is hardly a breakthrough that can be linked to OLED TV production.



> Quote:
> http://5magazine.files.wordpress.com...cm_lcd_111.jpg



That's a photo of a Samsung 1cm thick LCD screen.


Where did you paste that press release from?


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bway* /forum/post/19903985
> 
> http://5magazine.files.wordpress.com...cm_lcd_111.jpg
> 
> 
> The prospect of more affordable large screen OLED TVs has taken another step towards becoming reality with the announcement by DuPont that it has developed a manufacturing process that can be used to print large, high-performance OLED TVs cost effectively. The announcement could see OLED TVs become more widespread and affordable than the pint-sized and prohibitively-priced offerings that we have been restricted to until now. OLEDs have attracted much attention as the next big thing in display technology with their ability to provide high contrast and bright displays with high response times and wide viewing angles while remaining extremely thin and energy efficient. Because they don't rely on backlighting they eliminate the need for many of the LCD components, such as backlights and color filters. Until now, consumer products sporting OLED displays have been limited to mobile devices such as cell phones or small screen TVs like the Sony's 11-inch XEL-1 and LG's EL9500 which, at 15 inches, is the largest OLED TV on the market. Such products rely on a technique called shadow-mask evaporation to pattern the light-emitting organic molecules that make up the pixels on these displays, which is expensive and limited to small-scale displays. DuPont says that using its proprietary DuPont Gen 3 solution OLED materials will enable the manufacture of larger screen TVs as it allows larger OLEDs to be printed at cost-effective volumes while delivering the performance and lifetime that has so many people excited about the new technology. OLED displays in portable devices are available in the market today, but the current high cost of manufacturing with evaporated materials has limited market adoption and constrained OLED manufacturing for larger size displays, said David Miller, president DuPont Electronics & Communications. Now, with DuPont printed OLED materials and process technology, fabrication costs can be significantly reduced, and manufacturing can be scaled to accommodate TV-size displays. The new process DuPont developed along with Dainippon Screen uses a multi-nozzle printer that works like a garden hose to deposit inks that contain active molecules that are insoluble in adjacent layers. It prints the ink in a continuous stream, rather than droplets, and moves over a surface at rates of 4-5m per second while patterning a display. There have also been concerns about the longevity of OLED materials, but DuPont says its red, green and blue OLED materials can produce displays that can be operational for eight hours a day and last 15 years - surely long enough to survive until the next, next big thing in display technology hits the shelves.




Hopefully we will see reasonably priced 60 inch OLED screen by 2014


----------



## grexeo

This is old news; that press release was released back in May last year - http://www2.dupont.com/Displays/en_U...e20100512.html


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> As posted above, the PSP2 will have an OLED screen:
> 
> http://psp.ign.com/articles/114/1146358p1.html
> 
> 
> The original PSP systems have a 480x272 screen resolution. So, the new screen is 4x the resolution of the original! The PSP2 screen resolution is almost identical to Sony's XEL-1 OLED TV (960x540)! Perhaps there will be a glasses free (or passive) 3D mode as well.
> 
> 
> I wonder who Sony will be sourcing these OLED display modules from? AUO? Sony must be manufacturing some OLED displays for the PVM-740 !



Samsung tablet will likely be 7" OLED around the same time.


Sony did manufacture OLED in the past. Not sure if they are resurrecting it. But this PVM 740 is really horrendous. Not surprise why it didn't sell


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grexeo* /forum/post/19905954
> 
> 
> This is old news; that press release was released back in May last year - http://www2.dupont.com/Displays/en_U...e20100512.html



LG Electronics showcase at the CES-2011 the world slimmest OLED-Television with an bezel of 2.9 mm. LG Electronics told us that this 31 inch OLED-Television will be ready for the market in 2011 also in the United states.

http://www.oled-display.net/lg-show-...-united-states


----------



## rogo

And, again, it's an >if

Otherwise, let's jump up and down.


As for the above posted, 2014 for a 60-inch that's affordable? No chance at all. 2014 for a 50-inch that's only slightly insane? Maybe. If you really want a large-screen OLED TV, assume 5 years. Anything less and you will be facing either astronomical prices or small sizes. I know LG is talking up 2013, but their track record is, ahem, yeah. When the best LCD makers in the world can't deliver on their LCD promises in terms of large sizes, assume their OLED promises are that much more suspect.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19912458
> 
> 
> If you really want a large-screen OLED TV, assume 5 years.



Our youngest son is an engineer at a startup that hopes to provide OLED manufacturing equipment. When I ask him how soon I might be able to swap my 60" Kuro for an OLED of the same size, he thought it would be at least five years.


----------



## specuvestor

With 8G we will likely get 40" at $5k by 2013 Christmas. We now have $4b capex plan, now to confirm the timing with equipment orders.


----------



## powertoold

I think OLED displays have great mass appeal, based on the successful Samsung Galaxy S phones. There are many phones similar to the Galaxy S in terms of specs, but very few phones have the Super AMOLED display.


Based on Engadget, Samsung sold 80 million phones just in Q4 2010... that's huge.


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, I am on record projecting a ~30" TV at sub $5000 by the end of 2012.


I would consider projecting something even cheaper, but I have a feeling that tablets are going to suck up quite a bit of the supply that is coming on line from Samsung over the next year.


Slacker


----------



## Artwood

Will Joe Six Pack buy OLED at Wal-Mart in 2015?


----------



## XxHoosierdaddy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/19916682
> 
> 
> Will Joe Six Pack buy OLED at Wal-Mart in 2015?



Probably not Walmart. Walmart only carries bottom of the barrel tvs. Walmart wont carry OLED until is is VERY cheap. I will buy my first OLED tv when there is a 40" for $2000, when do you guys think this will be?


----------



## specuvestor

You can roughly extrapolate with 30% price reduction every year.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> With 8G we will likely get 40" at $5k by 2013 Christmas. We now have $4b capex plan, now to confirm the timing with equipment orders.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *powertoold* /forum/post/19913473
> 
> 
> I think OLED displays have great mass appeal, based on the successful Samsung Galaxy S phones. There are many phones similar to the Galaxy S in terms of specs, but very few phones have the Super AMOLED display.
> 
> 
> Based on Engadget, Samsung sold 80 million phones just in Q4 2010... that's huge.



They didn't sell 80 million Galaxy S phones, however. They haven't yet sold close to 80 million Galaxy S phones (although they will). And if the logic is "the phone is popular, therefore the display is popular", then LCD -- used in the iPhone -- is destined for big things.


----------



## lovswr

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rogo* 
They didn't sell 80 million Galaxy S phones, however. They haven't yet sold close to 80 million Galaxy S phones (although they will). And if the logic is "the phone is popular, therefore the display is popular", then LCD -- used in the iPhone -- is destined for big things.


Good grief, dude, how in the world did you find the time to have 24,000 + posts.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovswr* /forum/post/19931416
> 
> 
> Good grief, dude, how in the world did you find the time to have 24,000 + posts.



Rogo types fast and over time has been interested in a wide range of topics. He taught me most of what I've since forgotten.


----------



## rogo

Rogo also joined AVS 12 years ago. And hello old friend, htwaits, good to come across you.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *htwaits* /forum/post/19933442
> 
> 
> Rogo types fast and over time has been interested in a wide range of topics. He taught me most of what I've since forgotten.



Two thumbs up!


----------



## powertoold




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19929329
> 
> 
> They didn't sell 80 million Galaxy S phones, however. They haven't yet sold close to 80 million Galaxy S phones (although they will). And if the logic is "the phone is popular, therefore the display is popular", then LCD -- used in the iPhone -- is destined for big things.



I understand. I was just pointing out that OLED has mass appeal as a display technology, especially since Samsung Android phones aren't much better spec-wise than other manufacturers. Whereas other phone manufacturers are struggling, Samsung had a record breaking Q4 2010, a lot of which can be attributed to their increasing phone sales.


Mass appeal may have little to do with how good the display technology is. However, we all know that OLED is a great technology, and seeing that the masses also like it is a great thing.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19933630
> 
> 
> Rogo also joined AVS 12 years ago. And hello old friend, htwaits, good to come across you.



I'm here somewhere, almost every day, doing almost nothing.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/19934634
> 
> 
> Two thumbs up!



Did you ever own a DLP RPTV?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *powertoold* /forum/post/19934868
> 
> 
> I understand. I was just pointing out that OLED has mass appeal as a display technology, especially since Samsung Android phones aren't much better spec-wise than other manufacturers. Whereas other phone manufacturers are struggling, Samsung had a record breaking Q4 2010, a lot of which can be attributed to their increasing phone sales.
> 
> 
> Mass appeal may have little to do with how good the display technology is. However, we all know that OLED is a great technology, and seeing that the masses also like it is a great thing.



We really really really need to separate reality from fantasy. I don't wish to be rude, but I have to tell you that you made a gigantic, fallacious conclusion here.


Samsung phones outsell other Android phones because they are made by Samsung, one of the greatest brands on earth today. It is not because they have AMOLED screens. "Samsung had a record breaking quarter". Yes, they did. 90% of the phones they sold were not Galaxy phones and did not have AMOLED screens.


HTC had AMOLED screens for a long while in Droid Incredible. Google had AMOLED screens in Nexus. AMOLED screens are nice. People like them. Samsung is now replacing AMOLED with LCD in the rev to Galaxy S as they plan on attempting to keep the newer model on AMOLED -- supply permitting. Note that the lower-priced Galaxy rev is headed for first-world markets like Germany, among others.


Again, the appeal of AMOLED is real. But please stop citing things that are just not true about Galaxy phones, Samsung, etc. as proof of anything. Go out and walk up to Galaxy S owners and ask them if they even know what type of screen their phone has (most won't) and why they bought it (Android, Samsung brand, salesman recommendation would be more or less the top 3 reasons).


To me -- and this is me personally -- the best looking smartphone screen is the one on iPhone 4. It's LCD, but man it looks amazing.


----------



## Tazishere




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/19916682
> 
> 
> Will Joe Six Pack buy OLED at Wal-Mart in 2015?



I predict Walmart will have a line of OLED TV's in the year 2020. Get ready for Christmas!


----------



## Nielo TM

There's is a possibility that we may never see affordable large-size OLED panels.


----------



## Ant99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19967746
> 
> 
> There's is a possibility that we may never see affordable large-size OLED panels.



Why not? When plasma first came out it was extremely costly.


Electronics always go down in price sometime in their lifetime.


----------



## Nielo TM

OLED thus far have been full of broken promises. Manufacturing is still expensive and no one have managed to develop the inject manufacturing process.


Meanwhile, LCDs are becoming ever closer to OLED's characteristics and I fear that in 5 years, most average users may not be able to distinguish between OLED and LCD. But if 3D were to become a success, then that will definitely give OLED an huge advantage (*providing LCD's pixel response doesn't dramatically improve*).


In 10 years, we may see a few alternative display technologies that could threaten OLED's future. For an example, LG's QLED seems promising atm.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ant99* /forum/post/19968985
> 
> 
> Why not? When plasma first came out it was extremely costly.
> 
> 
> Electronics always go down in price sometime in their lifetime.



Read earlier in the thread. There are posts about some "natural" roadblocks to scaling up OLEDs. Something about power distribution, IIRC. Not necessarily show killers, but real obstacles to be mastered.


----------



## specuvestor

Just met a samsung OLED supplier that say ITO power distribution is not an issue for large size. 5 organic layers will be reduced to 3 but there is still no solution to Blue half-life



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OLED thus far have been full of broken promises. Manufacturing is still expensive and no one have managed to develop the inject manufacturing process.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, LCDs are becoming ever closer to OLED's characteristics and I fear that in 5 years, most average users may not be able to distinguish between OLED and LCD. But if 3D were to become a success, then that will definitely give OLED an huge advantage (providing LCD's pixel response doesn't dramatically improve).
> 
> 
> In 10 years, we may see a few alternative display technologies that could threaten OLED's future. For an example, LG's QLED seems promising atm.



The "promise" stage is over. Now is the execution stage. OLED is reality, question is how big.


As previously posted, if LCD can reach OLED's ANSI contrast then it is dead.


As in another thread, QLED as backlight sounds credible, but I wouldn't hold my breath for LG to execute a full fledge QLED display


----------



## Noah




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19975272
> 
> 
> there is still no solution to Blue half-life



You say the question is "how big?" I might say it's "how long will it last?"


Cue up the that's what she said jokes.


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19975272
> 
> 
> 
> The "promise" stage is over. Now is the execution stage. OLED is reality, question is how big.



Will we see a 65 inch prototype next year from Samsung??
http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-dev...-55-substrates


----------



## festa_freak

I can't wait for these new technologies! The future is so bright (ugh!). Can't wait to get a job and start researching all this new stuff!


----------



## rgb32

























http://www.oled-info.com/sony-unveil...nitor-hpa-2011 











Getting closer!










Or perhaps since it's a BVM, it should be considered a "Critical Evaluation Monitor"!!!


----------



## specuvestor

Sony is hopeless











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Will we see a 65 inch prototype next year from Samsung??
> http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-dev...-55-substrates



Firstly let's see some huge LCD TV from them first.


Secondly 65" is one 5.5G motherglass which is ramping 2H11. I would give them another year to come up with a 65" prototype, not that I care about prototypes










Thirdly let's hope for strong demand for 5.5G products, especially 7". With strong demand we will likely see 8G pilot run next year else bets are off again


----------



## steel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19975272
> 
> 
> As previously posted, if LCD can reach OLED's ANSI contrast then it is dead.



I don't see this happening as the best we see on the best PVA panels is around 3,000:1, compared to nearly infinite or measurements that come out to 60,000:1 or higher on even small pentile-matrix AMOLED panels.


LCD tech is progressing at a snail's pace at the moment. With S/C-PVA, you have viewing angle issues, contrast shifting, and input lag/response time issues (especially gray to gray pixel response). With IPS (and Samsung's new PLS?), you have off-angle corner glow, although lower input lag and pixel response issues, and even worse contrast than *VA panel displays.


Even if (and that's a big if) LCD tech could somehow compete with AMOLED on ANSI contrast alone, when average buyers walk into the store, every single bright, vivid AMOLED display will *pop* from any direction compared to other displays due to it's superior viewing angles.


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/19980435
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/sony-unveil...nitor-hpa-2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting closer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or perhaps since it's a BVM, it should be considered a "Critical Evaluation Monitor"!!!



It's official...
http://translate.google.com/translat...02%2F11-021%2F


----------



## specuvestor

Sintek used to be the only 5.5G color filter supplier to CMO who has the only 5.5G TFT plant. Then it tried to make touch panels for Apple as an alternative to TPK. And now this... wonder if it is OLED manufacturing or just the touch panel?


Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Sintek Photronic Corp. and Samsung

Mobile Display Co. agreed to jointly manufacture and supply

display panels, Tainan, Taiwan-based Sintek said in a statement

to the Taiwan stock exchange yesterday.

Sintek will build a 5.5-generation low temperature

polysilicon factory to begin supplying Samsung with organic

light-emitting diode touch-panels from the fourth quarter, the

statement said.


----------



## grexeo

More of the same, but I nice video nonetheless: http://www.pcworld.com/article/21981..._monitors.html


----------



## slacker711

Samsung is rumored to be moving to Laser Induced Thermal Imaging (LITI) for OLED's. If true, that would increase the PPI for small displays and possibly allow for larger screen sizes.

http://www.oled-info.com/super-amole...urther-details 


Perhaps this is what is causing the Gen 8 fab talk.


Slacker


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/19940085
> 
> 
> We really really really need to separate reality from fantasy. I don't wish to be rude, but I have to tell you that you made a gigantic, fallacious conclusion here.
> 
> 
> Samsung phones outsell other Android phones because they are made by Samsung, one of the greatest brands on earth today. It is not because they have AMOLED screens. "Samsung had a record breaking quarter". Yes, they did. 90% of the phones they sold were not Galaxy phones and did not have AMOLED screens.
> 
> 
> HTC had AMOLED screens for a long while in Droid Incredible. Google had AMOLED screens in Nexus. AMOLED screens are nice. People like them. Samsung is now replacing AMOLED with LCD in the rev to Galaxy S as they plan on attempting to keep the newer model on AMOLED -- supply permitting. Note that the lower-priced Galaxy rev is headed for first-world markets like Germany, among others.



That's not right - Galaxy S2 is using a Super AMOLED Plus screen.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ant99* /forum/post/19968985
> 
> 
> Why not? When plasma first came out it was extremely costly.
> 
> 
> Electronics always go down in price sometime in their lifetime.



Exactly - Luddites are always pessimists on new tech. OLEDs are going to be CHEAPER than LCDs are by 2015. The production of them is cheaper if for no other reason than they don't need backlighting which reduces materials used and makes production less complicated.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/19969815
> 
> 
> OLED thus far have been full of broken promises. Manufacturing is still expensive and no one have managed to develop the inject manufacturing process.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, LCDs are becoming ever closer to OLED's characteristics and I fear that in 5 years, most average users may not be able to distinguish between OLED and LCD. But if 3D were to become a success, then that will definitely give OLED an huge advantage (*providing LCD's pixel response doesn't dramatically improve*).
> 
> 
> In 10 years, we may see a few alternative display technologies that could threaten OLED's future. For an example, LG's QLED seems promising atm.



What a joke - LCDs are not improving; they've been improved as much as they can be. They're 15 year-old technology that's been milked as far as it can. And an LCD can NEVER compete with OLED for the simple reason that LCDs are too slow and always need backlighting which will limit their color and contrast.


----------



## Artwood

What is the latest on micro size TV?


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/19975272
> 
> 
> Just met a samsung OLED supplier that say ITO power distribution is not an issue for large size. 5 organic layers will be reduced to 3 but there is still no solution to Blue half-life
> 
> 
> 
> The "promise" stage is over. Now is the execution stage. OLED is reality, question is how big.
> 
> 
> As previously posted, if LCD can reach OLED's ANSI contrast then it is dead.
> 
> 
> As in another thread, QLED as backlight sounds credible, but I wouldn't hold my breath for LG to execute a full fledge QLED display



First off, it's flatly impossible for LCD to ever come even close to the contrast ratio of OLED, since LCDs require backlighting, which will always compromise their contrast ability.


Unless anyone believes that Samsung invested 6.9 BILLION over the last 12 months into factories to produce OLED displays for no reason/market, I see no way for LCD to stay around.


Further there are so many things OLEDs can do that LCDs or any other display tech cannot (including white lighting), I see nothing but huge rampup for OLED. In fact when Samsung's new gen 5.5 OLED factory opens in about 3 months (May 2011) they will be ramping from 3 million OLED displays/month to 30 million/month.


Look at all the various uses for OLEDs below, including transparent, curved and other flexible displays. Imagine a projector screen TV in your house (the kind that rolls up into the ceiling when not in use), but instead of being a projector it's an actual OLED full-res panel. No washout from ambient lighting, no expensive bulbs to replace, and with 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio. And takes up zero space (electronics can be in the ceiling or a closet).

http://powerusers.info/modules.php?o...rder=0&thold=0


----------



## navychop

It's great to get some good news.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20030905
> 
> 
> First off, it's flatly impossible for LCD to ever come even close to the contrast ratio of OLED, since LCDs require backlighting, which will always compromise their contrast ability.



Local Dimming LCD can match OLED for contrast.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20046338
> 
> 
> Local Dimming LCD can match OLED for contrast.



LCDs require a light diffuser to give a usable degree of backlight uniformity. The presence of the diffuser combined with intrinsic light leakage through the LC material means the black level of locally dimmed LCDs will never be zero when a signal is shown on the screen.


Even the now dead SED and CRT technology could not maintain a zero black level when a signal was displayed (CRT was probably closest).


AFAIK only OLED and PDP have been shown to be capable of zero black level.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/20046441
> 
> 
> LCDs require a light diffuser to give a usable degree of backlight uniformity. The presence of the diffuser combined with intrinsic light leakage through the LC material means the black level of locally dimmed LCDs will never be zero when a signal is shown on the screen.
> 
> 
> Even the now dead SED and CRT technology could not maintain a zero black level when a signal was displayed (CRT was probably closest).
> 
> 
> AFAIK only OLED and PDP have been shown to be capable of zero black level.



Plasma doesn't display true black.


Local dimming array sets will not have light from one zone showing up 4 zones away.


----------



## wco81

Yeah but are they still producing LCDs with big local dimming arrays any more?


After Sony came out with the real pricey one, I haven't heard of any other improvements in that area. Price was so high, it was a niche market.


----------



## HDPeeT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20046812
> 
> 
> Plasma doesn't display true black.



He was refering to Pioneer's Extreme Contrast Concept plasma prototype demostrated at CES in 2008. They WERE capable of displaying true black, unfortunately we all know what happened to Pioneer's plasma business..........










You can read up about this stuff in the thread he started here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1291382 



> Quote:
> Local dimming array sets will not have light from one zone showing up 4 zones away.



There may be certain types of image content that would really bring out those deep blacks from a local dimming set (small amount of white text in the center of a black screen maybe...), but imagine it trying to display a starfield or a fireworks display, every zone would have to be lit up or you'd just have a black screen with no stars or fireworks.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20046812
> 
> 
> Local dimming array sets will not have light from one zone showing up 4 zones away.



Some degree of light will spread throughout the entire light diffuser. This creates a phenomenon of variable black level (both spatial and temporal) depending on the signal APL and shape. Below is a graphic from NXP describing the phenomenon for both backlit local dimming and edgelit local dimming.











I have many more graphics from Samsung describing the variable contrast (spatial and temporal) inherent with local dimming.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/20047339
> 
> 
> Some degree of light will spread throughout the entire light diffuser. This creates a phenomenon of variable black level (both spatial and temporal) depending on the signal APL and shape. Below is a graphic from NXP describing the phenomenon for both backlit local dimming and edgelit local dimming.



Well that is sure entertaining(looks like marketing trying to sell inferior edge lit).


But Digitial Versus tested the LG 55lx9500 (Full Array LD) and found that the Black levels were too low to measure.

http://www.digitalversus.com/lg-55lx..._10346_35.html 


So, while I do see issues with the transition zone (AKA blooming) outside of that black is essentially true black for all practical purposes. More (and smaller) zones will make blooming less of an issue.


----------



## DocuMaker

What a crock. I had an LX9500, and the black levels were nothing special. I could see the black bars glow. My Kuro was darker. The banding and the blooming were horrible, and the screen was ridiculously reflective. They really need to refine their local-dimming algorithms. My B8500 was a lot better than the LX9500.


LG stands for Lotsa Glare™ and Low Grade™.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> But Digitial Versus tested the LG 55lx9500 (Full Array LD) and found that the Black levels were too low to measure.
> 
> http://www.digitalversus.com/lg-55lx..._10346_35.html



D-Nice spent $20k just to get a meter to measure low MLL. Pretty certain black in lx9500 is not zero. It's just that they need to spend serious dough to satisfy people's curiosity due to diminishing returns on ansi contrast >1000


----------



## greenland

Some additional information on the new Sony OLED professional monitors.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1298277198 


*25 and 17 Sony OLEDs*


Sony has announced two new OLED monitors in their Trimaster EL professional range. The new OLED monitors are aimed for video studios such as the broadcast industry.


Sony says that both models have a Full HD OLED panel with 10-bit drivers and 100 cd/m2 brightness. The viewing angles are 178 degrees and the monitor also come equipped with a range of inputs such as HDMI, DisplayPort and SDI used in professional studios.


The two monitors are called BVM-E250 and BVM-E170 and will cost $28900 and $15710."


There is a video clip demonstration of the monitors, so use the link, if you wish to view it.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20048523
> 
> 
> Well that is sure entertaining(looks like marketing trying to sell inferior edge lit).



The reference is listed. It is a technical paper submitted to SID. There are many more from Samsung and LG describing the same phenomenon. Take some time to read them and be open to the possibility you are misinformed.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20048523
> 
> 
> But Digitial Versus tested the LG 55lx9500 (Full Array LD) and found that the Black levels were too low to measure.



You complain about marketing and then reveal your basing your poor assumptions on a website review ????



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20048523
> 
> 
> So, while I do see issues with the transition zone (AKA blooming) outside of that black is essentially true black for all practical purposes. More (and smaller) zones will make blooming less of an issue.



In reality the black level is not even close to zero (especially at high APL). Variable spatial and temporal black levels are inherent to LD-LCD. It is ubiquitous throughout the literature.


OLED on the other hand has stable true zero blacks. Your original statement about LD-LCD is just a poor assumption on your part.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/20049817
> 
> 
> You complain about marketing and then reveal your basing your poor assumptions on a website review ????
> 
> 
> In reality the black level is not even close to zero (especially at high APL). Variable spatial and temporal black levels are inherent to LD-LCD. It is ubiquitous throughout the literature.



I am basing on multiple sources, not all LD sets work the same way, as you can see in this review by Chad:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=103 


The older LG zones blended together, indicating a common diffuser. But the newer sets have much more defined zones which causes some uniformity issues, as the zones don't blend together as well, indicating a diffuser that doesn't propagate light across the zones as easily.


But it also allows for total black(quote from Chads review):
*"The screen can be totally black in areas that are not displaying a picture*. "


I don't give a rats behind about theoretical papers or black levels that still exist when measured by $20000 lab equipment.


If it appears totally black, and normal equipment measures it as totally black then for all *practical viewing purposes* is totally black.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20050166
> 
> 
> I am basing on multiple sources, not all LD sets work the same way, as you can see in this review by Chad:



Again you form concrete opinions and assumptions from reviews? Is Chad stating scientific facts or his impressions? Maybe the LD architecture is different and I'd love to read about it. Please send me some info confirming and describing this technology (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really interested







).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20050166
> 
> 
> I don't give a rats behind about theoretical papers or black levels that still exist when measured by $20000 lab equipment.



Actually the papers use measured values. One paper even confirms that at large spatial distances from a small active LD zone the BL cannot be measured accurately but is definitely still visible to the eye.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20050166
> 
> 
> If it appears totally black, and normal equipment measures it as totally black then for all *practical viewing purposes* is totally black.



My plasma has black levels that are also extremely difficult to measure and yet it glows significantly at low APL. Should I then come here and state it is capable of zero black??


You have formed an opinion based on reviews and you are incapable of entertaining any scientifically backed discussion against that opinion. Now that we realize this we should maybe get back on the OLED topic


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> But it also allows for total black(quote from Chads review):
> 
> "The screen can be totally black in areas that are not displaying a picture. "



not sure if you realize in essence you are a supporter of dynamic contrast of a zillion to one.


----------



## hughh

*Samsung develops world's first full-color display using quantum dots*

2011-02-23 10:27


Samsung Electronics Co. said Wednesday that it has succeeded in developing the world's first full-color display using quantum dots, paving the way for producing large displays that are brighter, cheaper and more advanced.  The South Korean tech giant said that its researchers made a prototype of a four-inch, full-color display through a new way of display patterning, which will enable producing a large scale display using quantum dots.  ** The result was published in science journal Nature Photonics this week.   ** Displays using quantum dots, a form of semiconductor, are seen as the next generation of display technology that will improve brightness, visibility and power efficiency of organic light-emitting display (OLED) materials found in electronic gadgets.


The breakthrough follows Samsung's development of mono-color display using quantum dots in 2009.   ** "The research is meaningful in that it showed the potential for developing large-scale displays using quantum dots," said Kim Jong-min, who led the research team.   ** Samsung is the world's largest maker of computer memory chips and flat-screen display panels.

(Yonhap News)*
http://www.koreaherald.com/business/...20110223000398


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/20049675
> 
> 
> Some additional information on the new Sony OLED professional monitors.
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1298277198
> 
> 
> *25 and 17 Sony OLEDs*
> 
> 
> Sony has announced two new OLED monitors in their Trimaster EL professional range. The new OLED monitors are aimed for video studios such as the broadcast industry.
> 
> 
> Sony says that both models have a Full HD OLED panel with 10-bit drivers and 100 cd/m2 brightness. The viewing angles are 178 degrees and the monitor also come equipped with a range of inputs such as HDMI, DisplayPort and SDI used in professional studios.
> 
> 
> The two monitors are called BVM-E250 and BVM-E170 and will cost $28900 and $15710."
> 
> 
> There is a video clip demonstration of the monitors, so use the link, if you wish to view it.



Here you will find the *BVM-E250* Technical Specifications _Overview_Features_Assessories.



Here you will find the *BVM-E170* Technical Specifications _Overview_Features_Assessories.


----------



## vinnie97

Ax Xrox already mentioned, Panasonic could produce ZERO black PDPs if they had the will (thanks to Pioneer patents), thus making OLED less attractive. They could surely price a 50" less than either of those Sony monitors. ;-)


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/20051738
> 
> 
> Ax Xrox already mentioned, Panasonic could produce ZERO black PDPs if they had the will (thanks to Pioneer patents), thus making OLED less attractive. They could surely price a 50" less than either of those Sony monitors. ;-)



If OLED is able to be ramped up to the consumer market, it should have a significant price advantage over plasma and LCD of equal size. The current Sony OLED displays are meaningless in that discussion. MSTS


----------



## vinnie97

But of course, we are both dealing with conditional statements and hypotheses.







I realize those are on the high end given they are coined "professional" monitors. What's the lowest priced, largest OLED we've seen offered in the marketplace yet? 32"?


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/20051738
> 
> 
> Ax Xrox already mentioned, Panasonic could produce ZERO black PDPs if they had the will (thanks to Pioneer patents), thus making OLED less attractive.



It seems unlikely that those patents are trouble free when making the leap from the theoretical to the practical.


If it could be reasonably done, they would do it for the significant advantage it would give them against all current technologies. Since it hasn't been done there are clearly significant roadblocks against a real world implementation.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> But of course, we are both dealing with conditional statements and hypotheses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize those are on the high end given they are coined "professional" monitors. What's the lowest priced, largest OLED we've seen offered in the marketplace yet? 32"?



LG supposed to be producing $9k 31" this year, but I'll rather wait to see a $5k 32" from Sammy next year.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/20051738
> 
> 
> Ax Xrox already mentioned, Panasonic could produce ZERO black PDPs if they had the will (thanks to Pioneer patents), thus making OLED less attractive. They could surely price a 50" less than either of those Sony monitors. ;-)



Those Sony OLED monitors are only 10% more than the LCDs they're replacing.


And OLEDs will, in the end (by 2015 or so), be cheaper to produce than LCD.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20052654
> 
> 
> LG supposed to be producing $9k 31" this year, but I'll rather wait to see a $5k 32" from Sammy next year.



Certainly.


Given Pioneer had a prototype back @ CES 2008 (likely developed in 2007), Panasonic could have spent the last 3 years incorporating the tech if they cared enough or thought the ROI would be worthwhile. 2015 is still another 4 years away.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20052302
> 
> 
> It seems unlikely that those patents are trouble free when making the leap from the theoretical to the practical.
> 
> 
> If it could be reasonably done, they would do it for the significant advantage it would give them against all current technologies. Since it hasn't been done there are clearly significant roadblocks against a real world implementation.



Starting about 6-7 years ago Pioneer considered black level its top priority and aggressively researched exoemission for many years. The result was CEL followed by KURO and then the ECC.


Panasonic considers efficiency and 3D its top priority and is focusing research efforts on these technologies. They do not seem interested in ECC technology and they do not seem to feel black level is as important as Pioneer once did. Also, there is also some indication (not confirmed) that KURO and ECC technology are not very compatible with NeoPDP technology.


I personally feel this is why ECC is not actively being developed anymore AFAIK.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/20053397
> 
> 
> I personally feel this is why ECC is not actively being developed anymore AFAIK.



Kind of sad that Pioneer gave up just after achieving prototype stage. Pure black should be a massive market differentiator. Then Canon had SED with essentially pure black, then gave up.


The curse of pure black?


----------



## vinnie97

hehe, must be...like being sucked into a fiscally inescapable black hole. Panasonic's push into 3D and finite decreases in power consumption have been the bane of the videophile since 2008.


----------



## vtms

Quote:

Originally Posted by *guidryp* 
Kind of sad that Pioneer gave up just after achieving prototype stage. Pure black should be a massive market differentiator. Then Canon had SED with essentially pure black, then gave up.


The curse of pure black?
Once they stared into the abyss of pure black, it messed them up so much that they became clueless about how to bring it to market at affordable prices.


----------



## walt73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/20053397
> 
> 
> Panasonic considers efficiency and 3D its top priority and is focusing research efforts on these technologies. They do not seem interested in ECC technology and they do not seem to feel black level is as important as Pioneer once did. Also, there is also some indication (not confirmed) that KURO and ECC technology are not very compatible with NeoPDP technology.
> 
> 
> I personally feel this is why ECC is not actively being developed anymore AFAIK.




Very depressing post. I hope it's not true.


What I want to know is, WTH are Panasonic PDP engineers doing with their time if not working on improving black level? Are those dozens of highly paid ex-Pioneer experts doing nothing all day but trying to squeeze out a little extra brightness per watt?


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20050711
> 
> *Samsung develops world's first full-color display using quantum dots*
> 
> 2011-02-23 10:27
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics Co. said Wednesday that it has succeeded in developing the world's first full-color display using quantum dots, paving the way for producing large displays that are brighter, cheaper and more advanced.  The South Korean tech giant said that its researchers made a prototype of a four-inch, full-color display through a new way of display patterning, which will enable producing a large scale display using quantum dots.  ** The result was published in science journal Nature Photonics this week.   ** Displays using quantum dots, a form of semiconductor, are seen as the next generation of display technology that will improve brightness, visibility and power efficiency of organic light-emitting display (OLED) materials found in electronic gadgets.
> 
> 
> The breakthrough follows Samsung's development of mono-color display using quantum dots in 2009.   ** "The research is meaningful in that it showed the potential for developing large-scale displays using quantum dots," said Kim Jong-min, who led the research team.   ** Samsung is the world's largest maker of computer memory chips and flat-screen display panels.
> 
> (Yonhap News)*
> http://www.koreaherald.com/business/...20110223000398



I'll look for qdots as a competitor starting in about 5-7 years. Especially considering this is the first successful attempt to even generate a full-color (as opposed to monochrome) display.


----------



## mr. wally

sorry if i'm off topic a bit here, but last night i saw 4 commercials

for funai display devices. they certainly were emphasizing how fantastic

the displays were. not televisions but more like smart phone and ipad

like devices.


does anyone know if the screens on these are oled?


i'm guessing they're probably just lcds, but not sure.


----------



## slacker711

Both Samsung and LG have plans to build a Gen 8 fab in the next year.

http://displaydaily.com/2011/03/17/a...coming-really/


----------



## specuvestor

It all depends if the 5.5G fab ramps smoothly and profitably in 2Q. And we'll probably see a 32" AMOLED from Samsung at $5k next year.


But with the earthquake in japan, not even sure if 2Q will be realistic as Japan provides 2/3 OLED layers needed. People forget that the nuclear plant provides at least 1/3 of Japan's power and they are having power ration now. This will be a structural problem for some time.


----------



## navychop

I'd say OLED just got kicked back a few years, unless they think it's so close they can pull it off and make some big bucks quickly.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20167809
> 
> 
> It all depends if the 5.5G fab ramps smoothly and profitably in 2Q. And we'll probably see a 32" AMOLED from Samsung at $5k next year.
> 
> 
> But with the earthquake in japan, not even sure if 2Q will be realistic as Japan provides 2/3 OLED layers needed. People forget that the nuclear plant provides at least 1/3 of Japan's power and they are having power ration now. This will be a structural problem for some time.



You are right that the problems in Japan could impact the supply of fluorescent OLED materials from Idemitsu Kosan. I would say though that the amount of materials needed for displays is tiny. These would be very small batch jobs for a chemical plant.


I honestly would be surprised by a long-term disruption, but then again that is just my WAG. I have no idea the status of Idemitsu's plants nor whether they have the ability to produce the materials at multiple plants.


Slacker


----------



## Nobl3

Alright I have come to accept the fact that OLED won't reach large sizes for atleast 15 years. There have been absolutely hardly ANY progress for years. Sony stopping selling OLED in Japan, probably US also, in the future, shows how this tech is not catching on.



I am not paying attention to this tech anymore, I am tired of year to year- 0 progress.


----------



## gmarceau

If OLED does come out in larger display sizes and they heavily advertise those displays as having absolute black compared to plasma- then MAYBE Panasonic will catch up with Pioneer.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nobl3* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Alright I have come to accept the fact that OLED won't reach large sizes for atleast 15 years. There have been absolutely hardly ANY progress for years. Sony stopping selling OLED in Japan, probably US also, in the future, shows how this tech is not catching on.
> 
> 
> I am not paying attention to this tech anymore, I am tired of year to year- 0 progress.



I wouldn't say that. Maybe delayed due to japan earthquake but not indefinite (or 15 years) in the bigger scheme of things. This just out:


SAMSUNG MOBILE DISPLAY RIGHTS ISSUE


* SEC & SAMSUNG SDI to participate W1.7tn & W300bn respectively for SMD w3.4tn rights issue @ W71,881/shr.

- SEC & SDI may participate further w1.4tn in 2H11

- SEC will now have 64%, SDI 36% vs previous 50:50.


"AMOLED TV displays will leap-frog to 55” from 32” while LCD TVs has patiently made its way from the 20” levels throughout to 50”. SMD and LGD are both preparing for 8G fabs to produce large AMOLED panels used for TVs. An 8G glass substrate is the most efficient size for 32” and 55” panel production. Although their 8G fabs will adopt *different technologies*, the size of TV panels should be the same at 32” and 55” to make the best use of glass substrate input and increase productivity at the initial stage." -Korea Investment & Securities 21 Mar 2011


----------



## rogo

While I've been a pretty big skeptic of large-size OLED TVs and nothing that has come to market or been announced a product changes that, I am little more sanguine than "it's still 15 years away". That said, it has been "5 years away" for about a decade.


I've been especially skeptical of the endless claims from proponents that it will be "cheaper to produce than LCD". That claim was very questionable in 2005 and seems pretty ridiculous in 2011. LCD pricing has seen something like a 30% annual cost-reduction curve on the production -- and retail -- side. While LCD production costs are bottoming out (unfortunately), the notion that OLED is going to somehow be cheaper than something that is both mature (the first TFTs date to the 1980s, the first full-color ones to the early/mid 1990s) and manufactured in the billion+ unit-per-year range is quite honestly ridiculous.


There is no precedent I can think of where some replacement technology comes along and is by virtue of its immature production processes and smaller volumes cheaper to make. I'm sure there are examples of technologies that get a lot cheaper over time -- for example rotating magnetic storage, multiple kinds of memory -- but it'd be interesting to identify those that _don't_ benefit from Moore's Law-type effects or the benefits of automation coming to non-automated processes. My guess is the examples list would be short.


By definition, OLED TVs of similar size are of similar size, so glass, backplanes, power, logistics are all going to approximate the cost of LCDs. What it comes down to is that somehow, producing pixels -- the physical manifestation of them -- would need to be cheaper than doing so for LCD. And it appears that despite the amazing complexity of LCD televisions, the cost of producing pixels is approaching zero. (I don't literally mean zero, but if you include the color filters, the backlight, the LCD material, and the transistor backplane, et. al, you are talking something that even on a 60-inch set is vanishingly small, and with the cost of producing LEDs falling rapidly and their power efficiency rising, it's getting that much smaller).


The hope around OLED being cheaper is based on it being, therefore, so much inherently less complex to manufacture that a generation's worth of learning-curve effects, process improvements, etc. can be superseded in some shorter period of time, say the 5 years from 2013-2018. During that time, something approximating 10 billion LCD screens will be produced for TVs, tablets, computers, etc. While the number of OLED screens is rising proportionally faster than LED, the number being produced is not changing by the same raw amount as LCD. (In other words, LCD is still outgrowing OLED in total units added year over year).


There has been much hype around OLED being "printed" like with an inkjet, but the reality is that making OLEDs appears to be at least as complex as making LCDs and is by no means clearly easier. Of the scores of companies that were pursuing low-cost manufacturing methods for OLED in the previous decade, many are no longer remotely involved in trying to bring it to market. In fact, early leading proponents like Sony appear to have virtually no interest in pursuing the technology and Matsushita has also shown little interest.


Basically, the future of this technology for television is in the hands of the world's two-largest LCD makers who also happen to be two of the largest plasma makers. It strains the imagination to believe OLED will be anything more than a premium-priced TV product for the foreseeable future. It's also hard to imagine a $5000 32-inch TV to attract more than single-digit 1000 sales globally.


While I am well aware of the growth of OLED in the smartphone market, I am not convinced most people are seeing it as dramatically outperforming LCD. And the world's driving force for thinness, power consumption, etc. in mobile (Apple) has yet to tip its market driving power toward OLED, while doing insanely cool things with LCD. (Pick up an iPad2, marvel at its thinness, boggle as the fact that most of the height is the enclosure and the battery, not the screen).


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20183309
> 
> 
> While I am well aware of the growth of OLED in the smartphone market, I am not convinced most people are seeing it as dramatically outperforming LCD. And the world's driving force for thinness, power consumption, etc. in mobile (Apple) has yet to tip its market driving power toward OLED, while doing insanely cool things with LCD. (Pick up an iPad2, marvel at its thinness, boggle as the fact that most of the height is the enclosure and the battery, not the screen).



Agreed on just about everything in your post.


I will also add that when Samsung (leading supplier of mobile OLEDs) built their 7" tablet they went LCD and indicated that LCD was better for power consumption. Also I am always reading about supply issues for mobile OLED screens, which clearly points to manufacturing issues and that is on tiny screens.


I think we are finally reaching the point where OLEDs might really be 5 years in our TV future(50"+ under $10000), but I expect it will be 10-15 years till they undercut LCD. LCD is mature and most of the patents are expiring, OLED is new, and patents on the OLED chemistry will be a minefield.


----------



## specuvestor

The fact that they jumped generations straight to 8G should indicate somewhat about their strategy. They do not think OLED is competitive in the highly commoditised 11-30" PC space. However the corollary is also true that it will be competitive in the TV space for the perceived value in PQ and aesthetic improvements, especially in the premium space as rogo indicated, even if it may very well never be cheaper than LCD TV.


But just as it is possible to ship 10m >60" TV ie 5% market eventually, IMHO it is also likely that 10m OLED TV is not far fetch. Which is also why I don't think there is no room for plasma to exist in the next 10 years. The assumption of winner takes all is probably incorrect in the medium term.


PS on Apple using LCD, it is not a question of whether it thinks LCD with retina resolution is superior. It is a question of whether it has a choice in the first place.


----------



## hughh

*

Korea gets momentum in AM-OLED*

By Kim Yoo-chul  Korean companies may have secured momentum in their bid for leadership in the active-matrix organic light-emitting diode (AM OLED) sector of the premium flat-panel industry as a crucial patent in the industry has been invalidated.   Universal Display Corporation (UDC) of the United States recently lost a lawsuit in Japan regarding a key material used for such panels.   Princeton University and the University of Southern California initially filed a patent on phosphorescent materials that was accepted in the United States, while UDC earned the right to charge royalties on licensees.   The patent at issue has been a stumbling block for Korean AM OLED manufacturers such as Samsung Mobile Display and LG Display in their attempts to preempt the global market.   Phosphorescent materials help enhance the brightness of such panels as well as offering savings in energy consumption, although they are somewhat pricey compared to conventional fluorescent materials.   It is not known whether UDC will try to overturn the ruling as UDC representatives in Korea were not available for comment. If they accept it, Korea will not have to pay royalties for using the unpatented materials.   The ruling in the Japanese court is significant because the trade and use of the phosphorescent materials take place mostly in Japan, experts pointed out.   ``The situation is becoming favorable for Korea's AM OLED makers and related materials suppliers thanks to the court decision,'' a top-ranking industry executive said Sunday while asking not to be named.   When contacted, both Samsung Mobile Display and LG Display refused to comment on the issues.   Samsung Mobile Display is currently the leader in the global OLED market, followed by LG Display. The former, which was set up through collaboration of Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI, is struggling to meet demand for AM OLED panels for use in advanced products such as handsets and tablet PCs.*  AM OLED is considered the next-generation flat screen _ touted as far better than today's norm of liquid crystal displays.  The use of the panels, however, is currently limited to smaller-sized devices such as smartphones and tablets due to the higher cost and technology-related matters.*  Samsung Electronics, which is the runner-up to Nokia in the handset industry, is a strong backer of AM OLED panels as it uses the screens in its strategic Galaxy S smartphones, and plans to introduce an AM OLED Galaxy Tab, very soon.


----------



## slacker711

It doesnt sound like the issues in Japan have had much of an impact on OLED material supplies.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110322PD205.html


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> I've been especially skeptical of the endless claims from proponents that it will be "cheaper to produce than LCD".



JMO, but I dont think that the relevant question is whether OLED's will be cheaper than LCD's, but rather whether they can at least approach LCD prices. The Gen 4.5 OLED fab has allowed Samsung to do precisely that with mobile displays and the result is supply shortages.


My understanding is that Samsung is using basically the same manufacturing processes for their Gen 5.5 fab as their Gen 4.5 fab. If they can then duplicate the yields, it would seem likely that we should see prices drop to within range of LCD's for even larger sizes. If they can manage to do that, the Gen 8 fab and TV sized displays would be next. It will likely take longer to bring the yields up on the Gen 8 fab since the manufacturing process is likely to be different but the principle is the same.



> Quote:
> During that time, something approximating 10 billion LCD screens will be produced for TVs, tablets, computers, etc. While the number of OLED screens is rising proportionally faster than LED, the number being produced is not changing by the same raw amount as LCD. (In other words, LCD is still outgrowing OLED in total units added year over year).



You are putting the cart before the horse. Of course LCD's will outsell OLED's during that time period. The first thing we need to see is shifts in capex spending. That has happened at Samsung as they will spend the same on OLED's as they are spending on LCD's this year. LG will likely follow next year with the rest of the industry trailing. Shifts in revenue will happen next as OLED's grab the premium portion of the market. It will take a very long time (if ever) for OLED's to actually grab the unit lead. That is where OLED's would need to actually live up to the hype that you cite and deliver displays that are actually cheaper than LCD's. You are right that inkjet printing of OLED's is a long long way from happening.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

There may still be significant operational risk in ramping 8G as the technology used is incrementally different from 4.5/5.5G, according to KIS. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone following this thread.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I will also add that when Samsung (leading supplier of mobile OLEDs) built their 7" tablet they went LCD and indicated that LCD was better for power consumption. Also I am always reading about supply issues for mobile OLED screens, which clearly points to manufacturing issues and that is on tiny screens.



Not true. They had wanted to launch 7" AMOLED tablet, which is another consideration why the size was 7" instead of 9.7" like the iPad. Hence the coming galaxy tablet 2 will be 10" LCD.


The real reason was samsung galaxy s handset was selling much better than anyone expected, and capacity was used up. In fact it single handedly raised Samsung's handset operating margins back to 10%.


If 5.5G ramps on schedule we will see AMOLED samsung tablet by this Christmas.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20191350
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. They had wanted to launch 7" AMOLED tablet, which is another consideration why the size was 7" instead of 9.7" like the iPad. Hence the coming galaxy tablet 2 will be 10" LCD.



What is not true? Do I need to provide the quote from Samsung where they state the power consumption is lower for LCD??


Edit:

Here is a Samsung exec stating they went with LCD for price and power consumption, both of which were better with LCD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRVrvXmhIUU


----------



## specuvestor

I think I've sat with enough samsung exec to read critically what they do rather than what they say







They said 7" was better than 10" just 6 months before announcing tablet 2 ie they were developing the 10" while saying straight to my face 7" is better.


Nonetheless price and power consumption are probably valid "excuse" at this point of time. However if that's REALLY their strategy and what they believe then they shouldn't bother with an AMOLED tablet.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20191774
> 
> 
> I think I've sat with enough samsung exec to read critically what they do rather than what they say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They said 7" was better than 10" just 6 months before announcing tablet 2 ie they were developing the 10" while saying straight to my face 7" is better.



Well it is nice that you are now calling Samsung execs liars instead of me.


----------



## specuvestor

That was never my intention. You believed their word. Honestly misled like WMD is not lying







but nonetheless untrue.


Neither are the samsung exec lying per se. Like I said it is perfectly valid excuse. But they have their own constraints. Life is not so simple and straight forward.


Anyway sidetrack on this issue here's a snippet out yesterday... so which exec is "lying"?:


SEOUL, March 22 (Yonhap) -- LG Display Co. recently requested that Samsung Electronics Co. confirm news reports that one of its senior executives publicly insulted LG engineers, sources said Tuesday, raising worries that intensifying market competition between the two South Korean electronics rivals might develop into a court battle.


The move comes after Kim Hyun-suk, vice president of Samsung's digital media business, reportedly derided LG engineers by using a swear word during a meeting with reporters on March 8. The remark was made as he explained to reporters the differences in the 3-D TV technologies of the two rival companies.


"It is true that we sent the letter (to confirm the incident)," an LG Display official said. "Though we are competing with each other over 3-D TV technology standards, there are business ethics and manners that we have to observe."


Samsung and LG Electronics Inc, the world's No. 1 and No. 2 flat-panel TV makers, have been engaged in a war of words over whose 3-D TV technology is more advanced. LG Display supplies display panels to LG Electronics.


The battle flared up further after LG Electronics unveiled a new 3-D TV lineup last month using the film-type patterned retarder technology, claiming that its TVs are more advanced than those made by Samsung.


In an unusually harsh rhetoric, Samsung recently lashed out at its smaller rival for launching "dishonest" marketing campaigns about their 3-D TV technologies.


LG Display said the company sent the letter to Samsung in order to confirm the situation, adding that if the report of the alleged remark turns out to be true, the company might consider taking legal action against the Samsung executive for damaging the reputation of its engineers.


"If it is true that an executive member of such a respected global company insulted a rival company's workers, it is disappointing and also unacceptable," the LG official added.


Meanwhile, a Samsung official confirmed that Kim made an "inappropriate" remark, saying that he expressed regret for it. The official said that Samsung plans to keep as low of a profile as possible, fearing that a protracted fight between the world's leading TV manufacturers might tarnish its corporate image in the global market.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20184567
> 
> 
> The fact that they jumped generations straight to 8G should indicate somewhat about their strategy. They do not think OLED is competitive in the highly commoditised 11-30" PC space. However the corollary is also true that it will be competitive in the TV space for the perceived value in PQ and aesthetic improvements, especially in the premium space as rogo indicated, even if it may very well never be cheaper than LCD TV.
> 
> 
> But just as it is possible to ship 10m >60" TV ie 5% market eventually, IMHO it is also likely that 10m OLED TV is not far fetch. Which is also why I don't think there is no room for plasma to exist in the next 10 years. The assumption of winner takes all is probably incorrect in the medium term.
> 
> 
> PS on Apple using LCD, it is not a question of whether it thinks LCD with retina resolution is superior. It is a question of whether it has a choice in the first place.



I'm reasonably sure that 60-inch+ TVs will eventually comprise somewhere between 3 and 10% of the market. As for 10 million OLED TVs, perhaps by decade's end. Maybe five years? Sooner than that? Not a chance.


Re: Apple. If they wanted a 4-5 inch OLED display for an iPhone, it would likely exist. One thing that drives markets is people stepping up to buy the product. The volumes Apple pushes would allow manufacturers to justify the investment in production. I will agree that no one on earth could make enough 10" OLEDs for the iPad at this time. If you are saying that Apple couldn't have gotten enough screens for iPhones that were OLED, then I can say the only possible reason is that no one could make them.


Until Galaxy S, Samsung itself could not have outbid Apple for displays from Samsung as they'd have nothing to put them in. And, again, if Apple told LG they wanted 100 million 4-5" OLEDs 2 years from now for iPhone, they could back that up with a pre-payment. Call me when someone else can do that.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20187660
> 
> 
> JMO, but I dont think that the relevant question is whether OLED's will be cheaper than LCD's, but rather whether they can at least approach LCD prices. ....
> 
> 
> You are putting the cart before the horse. Of course LCD's will outsell OLED's during that time period. The first thing we need to see is shifts in capex spending.



So the topic is about OLED in the context of televisions. Just because Asian media can say they will "leapfrog from 32 to 55 inch" doesn't mean I have to buy it.


There is no such precedent really. No one has been able to produce a remotely affordable OLED over 7 inches. We know that drive voltages are a serious issue as screen size ramps and that in any fab, the production costs of larger displays cut from the same motherglass are higher _unless yields are very very high_. I have no idea what the yield is for the 7-inch displays, but I'm going to guess it's not near the LCD yield. I'm also going to guess that issues with scaling to larger sizes are pushing down yields at, say, LG, even more than the normal yield depression you get from bigger cuts.


I don't see a chance in hell of a 55-inch OLED TV shipping at any price next year and I see the chance as very small for a high-priced one to ship in 2013. I base this on the fact that even a 15-inch will be a bridge too far in 2011 (the LG will exist, be hard to find, cost an astronomical sum, and, oh, be hard to find). I base the future predictions not on some high-minded cap ex numbers, which are driven almost 100% by mobile phones and tablets, but on the utter lack of historical precedent. Thing being made in tiny sizes doesn't suddenly become thing made in giant sizes when the history of said thing has been its very slow ramp up from even tinier sizes (the first full color OLED in a practical CE device was used on a digital camera I'm fairly sure).


I'm curious what dates spec would put on the various TV sizes.


----------



## specuvestor

Do you think we'll see 32" OLED TV next Christmas, probably $5000? That's as precise as I can get







agree we won't see 55" next year but no one's saying that either. It will have to wait for 8G, if ever.


I have to disagree on Apple getting supplies. LG either couldn't make them on handsets for reasons unknown to me, or they are incoherent in their strategy. I think it is the latter and they are really clueless after all these years and make sense they will always be second fiddle.


Samsung wouldn't sell any OLED to Apple just as it stopped selling to HTC after a short while because galaxy S were selling so well! At least I see Sammy being coherent in strategy. To be honest, even if apple gave prepayment they won't get OLED from Sammy. Capacity doesn't appear overnight even if you have the dough, which sammy is not lacking either. They are as much on a collision course as Apple with Google, despite Sammy as Apple's foundry.


NB strategically if you were Sammy what would you do if you control 90% of a market that differentiates your product? That's what Bill Gates did in Microsoft. Comparatively Balmer is a joke and belongs to LG's league.


----------



## rogo

My point about Samsung and Apple is that Apple could've made the deal 2 years ago. At that point, Galaxy S was probably not even a sketch in product design. The guys who sell displays would've taken the billions 2 years ago, not waited for Samsung to maybe produce a competitive phone.


Similarly, if Apple showed up on LG's doorstep tomorrow with $5 billion toward 10" OLED displays for the 2012 iPad, I believe it could happen. But Apple from what I can detect sees no strategic advantage in OLED. Most people consider the Retina Display the best phone display on the market (and even experts who do side by side testing find it "one of the best"). Apple is doubtless more interested in a Retina Display iPad than in OLED per se. Of course, if/when Apple goes OLED, they will tell us they more or less invented it.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> I base the future predictions not on some high-minded cap ex numbers, which are driven almost 100% by mobile phones and tablets,



I am not sure what you mean by "high-minded". Following the historical precedents makes sense to me right up until you start seeing dollars spent to upend that historical model.


We still dont have an official announcement of a Gen 8 fab, but if we do get one, you can be sure that they arent building it with 7" tablets in mind. That size fab only makes sense for television sized displays.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

FWIW it is rumored that Apple asked CMI to develop OLED which made me excited about this sleepy stock. Unfortunately I had to relearn AGAIN the importance of TIMING.










And I totally agree Apple would be able to publicise OLED as if they invented it, just like IPS or gorilla glass


----------



## navychop

So what percent of today's TV market is held by 60"+ TVs?


----------



## specuvestor

should be around 1% or 2mio new sales annual (not installed base) including RPTV


----------



## navychop

I'm surprised. I thought it was more common. I have a 61" JVC RPTV and would find it difficult to go any smaller.


----------



## specuvestor

Think probably 5-10% if 50"+. This stat is hard to come by as large display in the industry is defined as anything >10"










But RPTV is 0.1% as in 4Q10


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20196702
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by "high-minded". Following the historical precedents makes sense to me right up until you start seeing dollars spent to upend that historical model.
> 
> 
> We still dont have an official announcement of a Gen 8 fab, but if we do get one, you can be sure that they arent building it with 7" tablets in mind. That size fab only makes sense for television sized displays.



First of all, 7" tablets are going to seem like a curiosity compared to the volumes of 10" tablets sold. Apple is the dominant tablet maker and doesn't currently even offer a 7" model. Samsung and Motorola are both coming out with 10" models.


Second of all, there is absolutely no reason why a giant fab doesn't make sense to make 10" panels. Cycle times on fabs and fabbing equipment are improved through the use of larger substrates _regardless of the ultimate number of panels those are cut into_ . Imagine a machine that takes the glass in and "processes" it. The machine can be built large enough to handle larger substrates, but due to tolerances, the need for precision, etc. it can only hold one piece of glass at a time.


It doesn't much matter whether you are making 5" screens or 85" screens, you want the piece of glad place into said "processing machine" to be as large as possible. They make 32" panels on giant LCD fabs, which by your logic would "make no sense".


I'm not saying that Samsung isn't gearing up to make OLED TVs. But I sure am skeptical that they are. They haven't done so to date. They are dominant in LCD and ridiculously strong in plasma. They need a third TV technology like Jay Leno needs another car. Let's use Specuvestor's prediction as the one that intrigues me for the moment:


2012, Christmas, $5000, 32-inch OLED TV


I'm betting against; I think he's betting on for.


I hope he's correct.


(note: either way, an OLED TV that should interest any of us here is 2+ years away -- minimum.)


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20204725
> 
> 
> Second of all, there is absolutely no reason why a giant fab doesn't make sense to make 10" panels. Cycle times on fabs and fabbing equipment are improved through the use of larger substrates _regardless of the ultimate number of panels those are cut into_ . Imagine a machine that takes the glass in and "processes" it. The machine can be built large enough to handle larger substrates, but due to tolerances, the need for precision, etc. it can only hold one piece of glass at a time.
> 
> 
> It doesn't much matter whether you are making 5" screens or 85" screens, you want the piece of glad place into said "processing machine" to be as large as possible. They make 32" panels on giant LCD fabs, which by your logic would "make no sense".



Yes, but the efficiency gains of using larger sizes of glass go way down when you are building smaller than optimal displays. It becomes much harder to justify the increased capex and that is particularly true for a Gen 8 OLED fab since it will require new processes and will likely have much lower yields than the Gen 4 and Gen 5.5 fabs.


Here is a table from Samsung illustrating that point for the Gen 5.5 plant.











Considering the move to new processes, and thus lower yields, a Gen 8 fab used for mobile displays would likely have higher per unit costs than those produced at a Gen 4 and Gen 5.5.


FWIW, I have been on record for quite a while saying that we'll see a sub-$5000 32" TV in 2012. I actually think there is a decent chance we'll get well below that price point. If I'm wrong, I'll be here to take my lumps.


Slacker


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20204725
> 
> 
> 2012, Christmas, $5000, 32-inch OLED TV
> 
> 
> I'm betting against; I think he's betting on for.



LG 30"+ should drop this year. When LG laid out future OLED plans in 2009 and claimed(outlandishly) they would have have comparable to LCD priced OLEDs in 2015, they also announced a 30"+ in 2010, which they obviously failed to deliver on. Slips at the beginning compound near on longer term plans.


But the price rumors I saw for the LG 31" was £6000 (> $9000 USD).


I think $5000 USD 32" for 2012 might be a close one, so you need to define terms of any bet precisely. Does 31" count? Which currency/country delivered?


----------



## rogo

Guidryp, to clarify, $5000 USD MSRP. And, yes, I'll give Spec the inch to allow for the LG.


By the way, I don't believe that LG will be available for purchase in the U.S. if it ships this year in Korea. I do believe the $9000 price.


Again, I don't really want to be right.


----------



## guidryp

Yeah, I don't think there is high chance of 31"+ $5000 USD shipping in the USA by the the end of 2012, unless it is a black friday sale.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes, but the efficiency gains of using larger sizes of glass go way down when you are building smaller than optimal displays. It becomes much harder to justify the increased capex and that is particularly true for a Gen 8 OLED fab since it will require new processes and will likely have much lower yields than the Gen 4 and Gen 5.5 fabs.
> 
> 
> Here is a table from Samsung illustrating that point for the Gen 5.5 plant.
> 
> 
> Considering the move to new processes, and thus lower yields, a Gen 8 fab used for mobile displays would likely have higher per unit costs than those produced at a Gen 4 and Gen 5.5.



yes the maths for slacker is right, in particular higher depreciation and motherglass cost. In addition your selling price ASP for smaller size is also much lower ie lower price and higher cost is double whammy.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 8G is not profitable for 32" mainly due to glass and manufacturing cost plus non cash depreciation for the fab. Cost is not linear per m2 as motherglass size increases. We know this because LGD tried making 32" with their 7.5G plant in 2006 just to fill up capacity.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Guidryp, to clarify, $5000 USD MSRP. And, yes, I'll give Spec the inch to allow for the LG.
> 
> 
> By the way, I don't believe that LG will be available for purchase in the U.S. if it ships this year in Korea. I do believe the $9000 price.
> 
> 
> Again, I don't really want to be right.



It's ok. I'm in the business of approximately right than absolutely wrong










I don't trust LG in innovation implementation.


----------



## PedroDaGr8

 http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-...-believed.html 


Greater quantum efficiency of blue OLEDs. Now up to 10% QY.


----------



## rgb32

 http://www.oled-info.com/sony-pvm-1741-pvm-2541 


The PVM-1741 and PVM-2541 are professional OLED monitors aimed towards TV, advertising and movie productions. These monitors use the same 16.5" and 24.5" OLED panels used in the higher-end BVM-E170/BVM-E250. Both monitors offer Full-HD (1080p) support, 89-degrees viewing angle, 10-bit drivers and a 1W mono speaker. Inputs include two 3G-SDI, HDMI, composite and Ethernet.











Both monitors will be released in Q2 2011 in Japan. The PVM-1741 will cost ¥417,900 ($4,900) and the PVM-2541 will cost ¥627,900 ($7,400). That's much cheaper then the BVM monitors (which cost $15,000 and $30,000).


----------



## hughh

Next flat-screens arriving


Another noticeable thing in this year’s NAB is that organic LED or OLED screens ― which are the next-generation flat-screen technology after the conventional plasma and the industry’s current mainstream of LCD screens ― are becoming more affordable.


OLED screens have clearer images than LCD ones, however, cost still matters. The screens are currently being used for smaller high-end devices such as handsets.


Although the top TV maker Samsung is developing OLED televisions for first-mover advantage, it’s expected that the market for advanced and premium TVs is still 7 years away, according to market watchers and analysts.


Sony, which already commercialized 11-inch OLED TV and the prototype of its 27-inch OLED set, has released 17-inch and 25-inch OLED monitors for professional use.


``It’s been crucial to open the market. 3D images require clearer viewing and we will do more starting from professional use,’’ said Yang Woo-jin, general manager for the Planning and Marketing Division.


But Yang declined to unveil the name of its new customers for OLED monitors, though the monitors are expected to be shipped just right after NAB.


``This year will see more 3D films and programs by film makers and broadcasters, which means 3D-capable equipment is more than crucial. That’s a new but very attractive market,’’ said another participant at the show.


``Chances are that Sony could strengthen its lead in 3D-equipment for professional use because of lower costs and improved functionality.’’
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...129_84988.html


----------



## rogo

"Although the top TV maker Samsung is developing OLED televisions for first-mover advantage, it’s expected that the market for advanced and premium TVs is still 7 years away, according to market watchers and analysts."


And that says it all. Thanks for the links, good stuff.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> The PVM-1741 will cost ¥417,900 ($4,900) and the PVM-2541 will cost ¥627,900 ($7,400). That's much cheaper then the BVM monitors (which cost $15,000 and $30,000).



Personally, I think this says quite a bit. A 25" non-consumer OLED that is likely produced on a tiny experimental line will be available for $7400 in Q2.


The prediction for sub-$5000 30" OLED's by the end of 2012 is looking safer all the time.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

Korea launch, any increase in resolution will be good news, in preparation of tablet launch:


"SEC will launch Galaxy S2 on Apr. 25th instead of June to preempt Apple's iPhone 5 launch in 3Q11.


Specs:

- 4.3" Super AMOLED panel.

- 1.2GHz dual-core CPU

- 8.7mm thin

- HSPA+, 2X faster N/W than 3G

- High-speed Bluetooth 3.0+HS

- Gingerbread Android OS 2.3

- 8 Megapixel camera

- 16/32GB available

- W900,000 (US$820) or W200,000 (US$180) with 2-year plan"


----------



## rogo

Quote:

Originally Posted by *slacker711* 
Personally, I think this says quite a bit. A 25" non-consumer OLED that is likely produced on a tiny experimental line will be available for $7400 in Q2.


The prediction for sub-$5000 30" OLED's by the end of 2012 is looking safer all the time.
The Sony broadcast unit has an 89-degree viewing angle? That sounds awful for an emissive display. Do they mean 178 degree?


Regardless, I'm glad you think the prediction is safe. Call me when someone ships a model that meets the criteria and I can buy it from Best Buy.


----------



## rogo

Quote:

Originally Posted by *specuvestor* 
Korea launch, any increase in resolution will be good news, in preparation of tablet launch:


"SEC will launch Galaxy S2 on Apr. 25th instead of June to preempt Apple's iPhone 5 launch in 3Q11.


Specs:

- 4.3" Super AMOLED panel.
How many pixels do you think the phone will have?


----------



## specuvestor

I have no info on this, but I hope SVGA 800X600 will be good step and closer to retina display, 1280X720 on the tablet will be ideal


PS Nokia new OLED phone X7 is disappointingly just 360 x 640, though probably correlated with their 680Mhz ARM.


----------



## slacker711

The Galaxy s2 has a 800x480 display. My understanding is that Samsung wont be able to match the iPhone pixel density while using their current manufacturing process (shadow mask with vacuum deposition). They are limited to something like 250ppi.


If the Gen 8 rumors are true, both LG and Samsung likely have a new process in mind. The shadow mask is unlikely to be able to scale to those substrate sizes.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

800 x 480 would be the same as the original galaxy s and shouldn't be too hopeful on the OLED tablet resolution then


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20297840
> 
> 
> 800 x 480 would be the same as the original galaxy s and shouldn't be too hopeful on the OLED tablet resolution then



They increased the number of pixels on the Galaxy S2 by getting rid of the pentile display, but that still doesnt get them to iPhone 4 quality. If the rumors are true, LG would be able to achieve a "retina" display using their WRGB scheme in their rumored Gen 8 fab....but that is still a long way off.


As for tablets, the Xoom has a 1280x800 10" display and that translates to around 160ppi. Samsung should be able to achieve that using their current manufacturing process. The hold up to OLED tablets is going to be capacity and perhaps yields on the Gen 5.5 fab.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

Yes I am using pixel density in smart phones to estimate the resolution that tablets could possibly achieve. Hence iPad 2 was disappointing in this aspect as retina display on TFT were already mass produced.


----------



## tvted

This might be positvie with respect to cost and presentation:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-...echnology.html 


tt


----------



## rogo

That's interesting Ted, but I'd put in a long category of 1000s of improvements over >10 years that have yet to produce 1 interesting television. There are so many articles about breakthroughs lowering OLED production costs, when will be see OLEDs based on these breakthroughs?


----------



## Timothy91

Color me a bit worried that the major manufacturers will find a way to take what should be a picture perfect technology and 'gimp' it with oversaturated color, etc on it's "presets" and make it so that you can't tune a 'perfect' picture even though you should be able to.


----------



## tvted




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20305771
> 
> 
> There are so many articles about breakthroughs lowering OLED production costs, when will be see OLEDs based on these breakthroughs?



The cynic in me tends to believe that this might be the current generation SED. I would like it to be within my affordability lifetime which grows shorter daily.










tt


----------



## specuvestor

Quote:

Originally Posted by *specuvestor* 
It all depends if the 5.5G fab ramps smoothly and profitably in 2Q. And we'll probably see a 32" AMOLED from Samsung at $5k next year.


But with the earthquake in japan, not even sure if 2Q will be realistic as Japan provides 2/3 OLED layers needed. People forget that the nuclear plant provides at least 1/3 of Japan's power and they are having power ration now. This will be a structural problem for some time.
"According to ET News, a Korean online newspaper, SMD seems to be facing

difficulty to procure equipments for its 5.5G OLED capacity ram-up.


SMD has set the full ramp-up of the 5.5G by year end, and was set in four

phases. As of now, 5.5G A1 line is in operation (24k units/month), and the

loading of the equipments for the A2 line has been already completed. The

problem seems to be stemming from its A3 and A4 lines, which SMD is looking to

complete ramp-up by the end of this year. SMD expects about 1 month delay in

phase 3 capacity expansion. The problems arose as Nikkon's Lithography

equipment has problems being shipped to Korea, while Toki's Evaporation

facility has problems due to component misses, making SMD difficult to start

the phase 3 ramp-up."


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvted* /forum/post/20306434
> 
> 
> The cynic in me tends to believe that this might be the current generation SED. I would like it to be within my affordability lifetime which grows shorter daily.



horntoot

I explained for a couple of years here why SED would never reach the market during the alleged build up to production by Toshiba / Canon. I was largely mocked and sometimes ignored. I don't think OLED is quite that grim, but it's again worth noting that one of the central advantages of "the TV technology you cannot buy" is that it's "cheaper than existing technology".


Some people here are pretty convinced 60 inch LCD is going to reach $1000 in the next year or two. If that happens, I don't see anyone following through on Spec's reports of CapEx spending to make TV-sized OLEDs. It'd be a half decade before they got production costs down to a profitable level. And when they can already make money selling TVs, it just won't make sense.


Again, I'm still hopeful/sanguine OLED TVs will reach the market and be somewhat affordable someday. I was never that sanguine about SED.


----------



## specuvestor

Your premise has always been it has to be price competitive with LCD. IMHO it would be competitive if it sells at twice of LCD price, as long as there is perceivable difference between LCD and AMOLED.


The biggest risk IMHO is not pricing but rather LCD improving contrast amd technology as much as Nielo expects. That is why an AMOLED tablet launch will be an important milestone: it will determine if it is competitive in the mid size market.


----------



## rogo

"Your premise has always been it has to be price competitive with LCD. IMHO it would be competitive if it sells at twice of LCD price, as long as there is perceivable difference between LCD and AMOLED."


My premise is more nuanced than you shorthand it to be.


It either has to be price competitive or it has to be "really clearly superior" to sell for anywhere near 2x the price. And that kind of superiority is simply not a given.


But furthermore, the ability to bring it to market at anywhere near as low as 2x LCD is also hardly a given. And LCD is a moving target on price and picture quality. It's moving down the learning curve, it's getting improvements almost annually, etc. etc. OLED is still a mostly theoretical product for TV. Time is marching on and OLED has to be competitive with 2015-16 LCDs.


----------



## specuvestor

Transcript from LGD results:

: Oh, LCD fab. And lastly just on OLEDs, can you give us an update on what the status is of your OLED production facilities?

: For now, we already started small sized OLED production at end of first quarter this year and the capacity is around 4K in terms of [indiscernible] (19:52) input and it will be increased to 12K in the middle of this year, that's over our capacity growth, our plan for small sized OLED fab. And then we will also - we also have planned to eighth-generation OLED fab ramp-up maybe in the middle of year 2013. So that's our - just planning for our ramp-up schedule for TV OLED. So it means this year we will test our suitable technology for eighth generation OLED. If we decide to choose one suitable solution maybe at the end of this year, we will announce CapEx investment made next year.

: Got it. And the 4K to 12K ramp that you're doing now is in which generation facility?

 : 4.5 generation.



: Hello. Thank you for you presentation. I wanted to ask about AMOLED. I had heard from an analyst that very, very recently you had sold 7,000 or 8,000 AMOLED panels to Nokia. This may or may not be true. Did you sell AMOLED panels to Nokia? And why Nokia instead of LG Electronics? Question number two, on the same subject, is I noticed here that you've got IPS in the upper-right corner of your presentation. Is there a view internally that the IPS solution, which is in the Retina Display as I understand it, is somehow equal to or even superior to AMOLED in -especially in text reading - for text reading purposes?

 : For your first question, as I mentioned before, we already started the production of our small-size OLED fab in first quarter this year. It means we already start provide our small size OLED panel to a major global customer. The major global customer, we cannot disclose their direct name, but we think you might be right. And in the middle of this year, we also have a plan to provide our small-size OLED panel to our local customer, LG Electronics.


And for your second question, IPS technology, actually if you look at iPhone or iPad, although this is our - this iPhone uses IPS technology, we are main suppliers. Actually if you look at iPhone, although that's not OLED display you can easily see the text message because of our sophisticated high resolution characteristics. This kind of sophisticated resolution technology is driven by IPS technology. Is it okay, for your answer?

: So just then you're saying that the company has strong belief in the IPS technology relative to OLED technology; not necessarily better. And you do confirm that you have sold AMOLED panels globally, but I guess I - the question is why did you not sell AMOLED panels for the Optimus?

 : Why - actually, that's not our - that's not our issue; actually, it is related to our customer's product line up and product line up schedules. So we already have a plan to provide our OLED and IPS panel to our customers; that's customer's product line up and schedule issue.

: Okay. Your customer is, of course, your largest shareholder. But in any case, thank you for answering my question.


Mr Seggerman's question is the same one I asked LG last year around this time. That is why I say LG is incoherent and will continue to be 2nd fiddle. If OLED TV is to be, it will be a Samsung. Sony has to resolve her schizophrenia first  Sony could spin off its multiple divisions and no one would have noticed a difference.


----------



## rogo

Incoherent is a great description of that snippet. "Oh, yes, you are asking about LCD panels so we will talk a little bit about LCD panels even though you think you are asking about OLED panels."


At least they are ramping from 4k somethingorothers to 12k somethingorothers.


As an aside, if iPad is indeed not a fad and the next great computing platform (and I believe it is), all theoretical future OLED capacity at this point could be absorbed solely by tablets and phones for the next decade if those form factors migrated to OLED.


----------



## DeanSheen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20324649
> 
> 
> As an aside, if iPad is indeed not a fad and the next great computing platform (and I believe it is)



Ahh Rogo. Standup in the morning!


I thought that psyorg article from last week about the energy savings from the thin film coating was an excellent indicator of progress. Will that breakthrough all for these panels to scale cheaply enough to be seen in sizes of at least 50" by the end of the decade?


----------



## rogo

That PhysOrg article was one of 200+ articles on OLED over the past decade that purported to offer some breakthrough that makes OLED manufacturing viable/cheap/whatever. It's not clear any of the developments described in any of the articles have ever been implemented on an OLED production line.


And, yes, I'd bet on a 50-inch by the end of the decade. But I wouldn't bet my entire life savings on it.


----------



## DeanSheen




> Quote:
> It's not clear any of the developments described in any of the articles have ever been implemented on an OLED production line.



Yeah, that reminds me of a man I heard on NPR a month or two back who was involved in trying to bring scientific discoveries out of the lab and onto the market. He was talking about how there is a lot of time, money, and effort put into discovering new things but there are no clear channels for introducing these breakthroughs into the market as a product.


I recall him making some mention of organizational inefficiencies but I suppose we could talk about that topic for another 6 pages.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20324649
> 
> 
> As an aside, if iPad is indeed not a fad and the next great computing platform (and I believe it is), all theoretical future OLED capacity at this point could be absorbed solely by tablets and phones for the next decade if those form factors migrated to OLED.



Yes IMHO Samsung strategy is right... go with smaller sizes before TV, like LCD used to do. LG on the other hand is trying to do TV first??? They trying to compete first to market with SED??







But for sure 4.5G and 5.5G is ramping more or less +/- 6 months according to schedule.


Incoherent because LG develop a differentiating product just to sell to... their competitor??  At least Samsung sell scraps to HTC and now to Nokia... if there are scraps. LG mobile can't even put it on their phones but Nokia can?? I can't believe the stupidity until I remember CIA bought drugs from Columbia and sells in US to fund their operations in Columbia. Then I can be less harsh on LG.


And yes Tablet is here to stay (can't say the same for 3D). I doubt it will be dominated by Apple in 5 years' time but that is pertinent on how long Jobs gonna be on the job







The disastrous Newton was just ahead of its time.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20311125
> 
> 
> Your premise has always been it has to be price competitive with LCD. IMHO it would be competitive if it sells at twice of LCD price, as long as there is perceivable difference between LCD and AMOLED.



Exactly - and there is a huge and obviously-perceivable positive difference of OLED over LCD (and in fact all other display types). Also, it's not very fair to compare OLED HDTVs to the cheapest LCD (for those discussing $1000 60-inch LCD TVs). The proper comparison would be the price of high-end LCDs compared to OLEDs as even high-end LCDs will be put to shame by OLED.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20312362
> 
> 
> "Your premise has always been it has to be price competitive with LCD. IMHO it would be competitive if it sells at twice of LCD price, as long as there is perceivable difference between LCD and AMOLED."
> 
> 
> My premise is more nuanced than you shorthand it to be.
> 
> 
> It either has to be price competitive or it has to be "really clearly superior" to sell for anywhere near 2x the price. And that kind of superiority is simply not a given.
> 
> 
> But furthermore, the ability to bring it to market at anywhere near as low as 2x LCD is also hardly a given. And LCD is a moving target on price and picture quality. It's moving down the learning curve, it's getting improvements almost annually, etc. etc. OLED is still a mostly theoretical product for TV. Time is marching on and OLED has to be competitive with 2015-16 LCDs.



By then OLED will be as cheap or cheaper to produce than LCD (no backlighting being one factor) and it's already better quality by far. I would expect it to be even more so by that time.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DeanSheen* /forum/post/20325342
> 
> 
> Ahh Rogo. Standup in the morning!
> 
> 
> I thought that psyorg article from last week about the energy savings from the thin film coating was an excellent indicator of progress. Will that breakthrough all for these panels to scale cheaply enough to be seen in sizes of at least 50" by the end of the decade?



What's this about 8 years? Samsung has a gen 8 plant underway starting this year that will be producing 55" and smaller OLED HDTVs likely within 18-24 months from now.

http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-inv...ion-oleds-2011 



> Quote:
> We already know that Samsung is committed to a $2.2 billion 5.5-Gen AMOLED plant which will go online in July 2011, but now Samsung announced further investments in 2011. A couple of months ago there were reports that Samsung plans a Gen-8 pilot line for OLED TVs that will produce 4000 55" OLED TVs monthly. Perhaps Samsung will indeed build this plant during 2011.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20204725
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that Samsung isn't gearing up to make OLED TVs. But I sure am skeptical that they are. They haven't done so to date. They are dominant in LCD and ridiculously strong in plasma. They need a third TV technology like Jay Leno needs another car.



By that logic Samsung wouldn't be producing OLED for cellphones either. But they are, big time.


----------



## rogo

Except there is no such plant that is making these TVs. There is a plan to make a plant that might be used for TV at some point. That has so little to do with actually making TVs.


And, you're quite frankly wrong about phones/tablets. They didn't have 2 phone-screen technologies, they had one (LCD) and they aren't nearly as dominant there. It's also true that making small OLED displays can be done. It can even be done in reasonable quantity -- although no one is arguing they are cost competitive with LCD yet and they might never be.


TV is not mobile phones. The technological challenges of making very large OLED displays with reasonable power supply requirements have not been solved. The ability to produce a high yield on large panels is not proved. The possibility of marketing meaningful amounts of TVs at 2x - 5x the price of LCDs and plasmas is not a given.


Again, I'm not saying Samsung will never produce OLED TVs. I am, however, saying, that no matter what you read at OLED fanboy sites, they have not committed to do any such thing and there is almost no reason to believe any plant capable of producing 55-inch TVs will be online in 2011.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20338385
> 
> 
> Except there is no such plant that is making these TVs. There is a plan to make a plant that might be used for TV at some point. That has so little to do with actually making TVs.



How do you figure investing US $4.8 Billion in a gen 8 OLED factory has "little to do" with making OLED HDTVs? That's the only purpose of a gen 8 factory.



> Quote:
> And, you're quite frankly wrong about phones/tablets. They didn't have 2 phone-screen technologies, they had one (LCD) and they aren't nearly as dominant there. It's also true that making small OLED displays can be done. It can even be done in reasonable quantity -- although no one is arguing they are cost competitive with LCD yet and they might never be.



OLED screens on cellphones are ALREADY cost-effective against LCD, which is why they're being ramped so quickly. They barely cost more than LCDs to make and sell at a premium.



> Quote:
> TV is not mobile phones. The technological challenges of making very large OLED displays with reasonable power supply requirements have not been solved. The ability to produce a high yield on large panels is not proved. The possibility of marketing meaningful amounts of TVs at 2x - 5x the price of LCDs and plasmas is not a given.



LCDs and plasmas cost a lot when they released too. But neither had OLED's advantages in display quality and low cost of construction/materials.



> Quote:
> Again, I'm not saying Samsung will never produce OLED TVs. I am, however, saying, that no matter what you read at OLED fanboy sites, they have not committed to do any such thing and there is almost no reason to believe any plant capable of producing 55-inch TVs will be online in 2011.



Is this a "fanboy" site too?

http://www.displaysearchblog.com/200...ents-in-china/


----------



## guidryp

Quote:

Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* 
Exactly - and there is a huge and obviously-perceivable positive difference of OLED over LCD (and in fact all other display types). Also, it's not very fair to compare OLED HDTVs to the cheapest LCD (for those discussing $1000 60-inch LCD TVs). The proper comparison would be the price of high-end LCDs compared to OLEDs as even high-end LCDs will be put to shame by OLED.


By that argument, Plasma should be winning out over LCD. It has similar advantages. Superior viewing angles, better blacks, better response time.


LCD being only a little cheaper pulled ahead massively.


You haven't heard of the concept of "good enough".


Sure I would like pure blacks, but until it is under $2000, I really don't care, because I really don't notice once I am watching a movie on my LCD.


We are probably looking at 2 or 3 years until a reasonable size (40" +) OLED TV shows up and another 5 years on top of that until it is reasonably priced.


So yeah, the future is probably OLED. I will probably be shopping for one in 2018.


But it doesn't really matter much today.


----------



## vinnie97

Quote:

Originally Posted by *guidryp* 
Sure I would like pure blacks, but until it is under $2000, I really don't care, because I really don't notice once I am watching a movie on my LCD.
What about in dark scenes when the finer detail is washed out by a poor contrast ratio? Even my Kuro isn't deep enough to prevent this completely.


----------



## pdoherty972

Quote:

Originally Posted by *vinnie97* 
What about in dark scenes when the finer detail is washed out by a poor contrast ratio? Even my Kuro isn't deep enough to prevent this completely.
Exactly. And what about having a TV set that's 2mm thin? Or how about 3D performance for movies and gaming? Only OLED is fast enough to do it properly. And what about rollup screens that look like the projector screens of today, only they aren't projectors but rather OLED screens that rollup when you're not using them? Also something only OLED can do.


Thinking that a comparison of plasma to LCD is any way analogous to a comparison with OLED isn't considering enough, IMO.


----------



## vinnie97

Well, thinness and rollup capability don't affect PQ one iota (the latter being 10 years away if not more, I have little doubt). I was only focusing on the most important aspect of PQ, which OLED seems poised to be more than capable in performance. On the other side of the coin, though, there are also other considerations like the lifetime of OLED panels, which I don't think measure up to present-day Plasma/LCD.


----------



## guidryp

Quote:

Originally Posted by *vinnie97* 
What about in dark scenes when the finer detail is washed out by a poor contrast ratio? Even my Kuro isn't deep enough to prevent this completely.
You mean black crush? that sounds like a calibration issue to me.


----------



## vinnie97

No, I do not. My 111FD was procalibrated by David Abrams of Avical. There is a limit to how much detail can be perceived on all flat panels when it pertains to scenes with low light.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20352614
> 
> 
> How do you figure investing US $4.8 Billion in a gen 8 OLED factory has "little to do" with making OLED HDTVs? That's the only purpose of a gen 8 factory.



Call me when it's built. Then call when it's producing panels. Until then, it's an announcement, which doesn't mean anything.



> Quote:
> OLED screens on cellphones are ALREADY cost-effective against LCD, which is why they're being ramped so quickly. They barely cost more than LCDs to make and sell at a premium.



They cost more. They last for less time. Oh, and they cost more.


> Quote:
> LCDs and plasmas cost a lot when they released too. But neither had OLED's advantages in display quality and low cost of construction/materials.



Ok, this is the worst of the canards. LCD and plasma cost more 10-20 years ago than they do know, yes. But now they are dirt cheap. When they came into being, they faced no competition. Now, there is competition from them. This competition is why there is not OLED TV. And I'm sorry, but OLED just flat out does not have "low cost of construction/materials". If it did, it would be cheaper than LCD. It isn't.


> Quote:
> Is this a "fanboy" site too?
> 
> http://www.displaysearchblog.com/200...ents-in-china/



Wow, did you even read that article? First of all, it says nothing about building an OLED factory anyway. Perhaps you zeroed in on this one sentence and mis-read it: "The Samsung and LG groups will continue investment in Korea, especially AMOLED and the Gen 8+ fabs."


What that sentence is actually about is that Samsung and LG both want to invest in building plants in China -- for LCD (and perhaps plasma). But the Korean government wants them also to keep domestic mfg. strong. So they are basically promising the Chinese new plants, investments, jobs, etc. and also promising the Korean gov't that they will not stop investing domestically. The reference to Gen 8+ fabs is about LCD, not OLED. The reference about AMOLED is about investing in AMOLED. I'm sure a strained reading of that sentence out of context could lead one to believe they are committed to Gen 8+ fabs for OLED, but that's certainly not what's being said.


Furthermore, it should be obvious that Samsung is still committed to OLED for its phones and eventually its tablets, assuming that business ever really takes off for them. I'm also sure they'll eventually sell those displays to Apple, et al. Concluding from that there is any inevitability to OLED TVs is akin to concluding that because lawnmowers are powered by lawnmower engines there will eventually be cars powered by them. It might happen, but it's not a foregone conclusion.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/20354008
> 
> 
> Well, thinness and rollup capability don't affect PQ one iota (the latter being 10 years away if not more, I have little doubt). I was only focusing on the most important aspect of PQ, which OLED seems poised to be more than capable in performance. On the other side of the coin, though, there are also other considerations like the lifetime of OLED panels, which I don't think measure up to present-day Plasma/LCD.



The phosphorescent red and green material that Universal Display provides to manufacturers like Samsung have lifetimes over 100,000 hours. I'd say that's plenty for a TV (that's 11 YEARS of 100% time on). As for blue they use the less-efficient fluorescent blue which also has a long lifetime.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20354787
> 
> 
> They cost more. They last for less time. Oh, and they cost more.



Here are the facts (as opposed to your generalized "they cost more" comments):










(source Gabelli and iSuppli)


As for lifetimes, the red/green materials being used for today's OLED displays has lifetimes of over 100,000 hours. More on that below:

http://www.universaldisplay.com/defa...?contentID=604


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20354787
> 
> 
> Ok, this is the worst of the canards. LCD and plasma cost more 10-20 years ago than they do know, yes. But now they are dirt cheap. When they came into being, they faced no competition. Now, there is competition from them. This competition is why there is not OLED TV. And I'm sorry, but OLED just flat out does not have "low cost of construction/materials". If it did, it would be cheaper than LCD. It isn't



I don't see how you can say that. OLEDs can be (and will be) printed like newspaper, onto plastics or metal film (roll-to-roll printing). No backlighting or other extra supporting devices are needed. That fact alone shows they will be cheaper. They also use no hazardous metals or other materials like the mercury found in the backlighting of an LCD screen that uses fluorescent tubes.


----------



## vinnie97

9000 hours isn't a "long" lifetime in relation to the others.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20353189
> 
> 
> By that argument, Plasma should be winning out over LCD. It has similar advantages. Superior viewing angles, better blacks, better response time.
> 
> 
> LCD being only a little cheaper pulled ahead massively....



There are other factors. For example, LCDs are generally easier to watch in brightly lit rooms. So there will be a list of factors to determine OLED success, of which price may be the most important or nearly so.


----------



## specuvestor

IMHO lifetime of blue is the most important issue of OLED TV commercializing (niche) within next 12 months. The degradation is likely noticeable even within a 3 years timeframe. I've yet to see people complain about their year old OLED galaxy s phones though.


However taking ref from the past 30 years these kind of technical issues are likely not insurmountable in the longer run. (Maybe a blue color filter will help?) Problem is the trade off with time-to-market.


----------



## specuvestor

From Display Search:


"All leading LCD and AMOLED producers have been working on oxide semiconductor TFTs (typically a-IGZO). IGZO offers the potential of low cost and electron mobilities of 10-30X those of a-Si. Higher electron mobility can be used to reduce device size and increase aperture ratio, enhance electronic device integration on to the glass, increase TFT speed, ultra high definition (UD) displays like 4K × 2K at 240 Hz, and is sufficient to drive AMOLED pixels. It is unclear exactly when Sharp started research on oxide semiconductors for TFT LCD, but in December 2009 Sharp presented a paper at IDW Japan suggesting that it had resolved all major issues inhibiting IGZO FPD mass production.


After months of silence, Sharp’s recent announcement stated that it will begin production on its Gen 8 Kameyama line by the end of 2011. The company implied production will target small and medium LCDs, presumably including tablet displays. This implies the potential for a huge amount of production volume: DisplaySearch calculates that if Sharp uses 25% of Kameyama G8 capacity to make tablet panels, it could produce about 33 million panels per year.


Mass production of oxide semiconductor based FPDs would be a major milestone for the industry. Sharp has made many manufacturing breakthroughs, including the first Gen 6, Gen 8 and Gen 10 fabs and UV²A optical alignment. Now it looks like Sharp may become the world’s first commercial producer of oxide semiconductor-based LCDs.


If Sharp is successful with IGZO, it will be another notch in its technology portfolio. But it is unclear if it offers enough benefit to small/medium displays to gain significant market share, and it is unclear how big the near term market for UD displays is. Oxide semiconductors in themselves may not be big enough to overcome high production costs in Japan, heavy reliance on the Japanese market, and increasing global competition. *Unless Sharp can rapidly develop AMOLEDs, which gain the most from IGZO*, it may find once again that the best way to capitalize on its technical prowess is to license it to another manufacturer."


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/20359964
> 
> 
> 9000 hours isn't a "long" lifetime in relation to the others.



You didn't read what I wrote then. I said the red and green were above 100,000 hours and the FLUORESCENT blue that's being used (which isn't the more-desirable and more-efficient phosphorescent blue shown on UDC's page) also has a long lifetime.


----------



## rogo

@Pdoherty, all your chart proves is what I already said: They cost more and you can't get big ones. And none of this "printing like newspaper" exists despite a decade of hype. "That fact alone shows they will be cheaper," you wrote. Except it isn't a "fact", it's a theory. And it has no current empirical evidence backing it.


@Spec, because of power saving tech, phone displays are actually rarely on. Also, phones tend to have a somewhat short replacement cycle. I doubt OLED lifetime is a real issue on phones. TVs, on the other hand, are on 6-12 hours a day in many homes. And it's the heavy users that really determine the importance of lifetime in the TV segment. My suspicion is that the heaviest phone users have the display actually on for 2-4 hours per day or so.


Sharp is rumored to be in line for a major, major chunk of iPad 3 screen production.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20365083
> 
> 
> @Pdoherty, all your chart proves is what I already said: They cost more and you can't get big ones. And none of this "printing like newspaper" exists despite a decade of hype. "That fact alone shows they will be cheaper," you wrote. Except it isn't a "fact", it's a theory. And it has no current empirical evidence backing it.



It's a fact that every OLED display out now and in the future do not need backlighting like LCDs do, so that's an entire piece of the design and manufacture that is missing when compared to LCD. So all things being equal it gives OLED a cost to manufacture advantage.


LCD/plasma's days are numbered... learn to accept it.


----------



## CruelInventions

Yikes, a little too ideologue for me. You may end up being right, you may end up being wrong. One thing I have learned from experience, however, is to never bet against rogo when it comes to the display technology prediction game.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> @Spec, because of power saving tech, phone displays are actually rarely on. Also, phones tend to have a somewhat short replacement cycle. I doubt OLED lifetime is a real issue on phones. TVs, on the other hand, are on 6-12 hours a day in many homes. And it's the heavy users that really determine the importance of lifetime in the TV segment. My suspicion is that the heaviest phone users have the display actually on for 2-4 hours per day or so.



good point though I suspect smartphones are on closer to 4 hours a day. I know mine does










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It's a fact that every OLED display out now and in the future do not need backlighting like LCDs do, so that's an entire piece of the design and manufacture that is missing when compared to LCD. So all things being equal it gives OLED a cost to manufacture advantage.



Theoretically you are right. BLU accounts for roughly 25% of a LCD selling price. However you are right IF AND ONLY IF OLED scales in production. Without scale at 5.5G it is unlikely that OLED will be cheaper than LCD in the TV space.


Even with an 8G I would think OLED will be similarly priced with LCD only after 2018 when their depreciation cost drops off.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions* /forum/post/20365853
> 
> 
> Yikes, a little too ideologue for me. You may end up being right, you may end up being wrong. One thing I have learned from experience, however, is to never bet against rogo when it comes to the display technology prediction game.


*Ain't it the truth.*


-JVC D-ILA owner.


----------



## slacker711

I dont think that lifetimes will be a huge concern by the time we get commercial TV's. The current lifetime of an Idemitsu fluorescent blue is supposed to be in the range of 25,000 to 50,000 hours and they are presenting a new version in few weeks at SID 2011.


I would also note that the LG 15" OLED televisions already on the market are listed with a 30,000 hours.


OTOH, I dont expect OLED's to match LCD prices for a long time. As with handset displays, OLED's may be able to close the gap enough to sell in volume but that is very different than actually beating LCD's. Whatever inherent advantages OLED's might have, the economies of scale will be on the side of LCD's for quite a few years.


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20365441
> 
> 
> It's a fact that every OLED display out now and in the future do not need backlighting like LCDs do, so that's an entire piece of the design and manufacture that is missing when compared to LCD. So all things being equal it gives OLED a cost to manufacture advantage.
> 
> 
> LCD/plasma's days are numbered... learn to accept it.



OK, seriously, stop. Now.


OLEDs don't need backlight units. That's factually true. It in no way proves they are cheaper, will be cheaper, or have a cost-to-produce advantage of any kind. What? How do I know this?


Logic 101: The removal of an arbitrary component from the cost of manufacturing A is not related to the cost of manufacturing B. Example: Some laptops come without optical drives. They are "cheaper" if we look at them only with respect to the optical drive cost. Said laptops often contain SSDs however, which cost more. If we conclude, "laptops without optical drives are cheaper to produce than those with them because they lack optical drives" we would be wrong. This could even be cheap if optical-drive free laptops didn't have SSDs but tended to require more expensive materials to accommodate for their lightweight while maintaining rigidity. Or any of 10 billion other reasons.


When OLEDs are made exactly like LCDs are made, but lack the backlight units, your conclusion will be valid. Since OLEDs are not made even remotely like LCDs are made, your conclusion is not valid. And no re-spinning of it is going to make your conclusion any more valid. On the other hand, the higher voltages that are currently required to even make larger-size OLED TVs remotely possible (see the discussion earlier on AVS, maybe this thread about the need for said voltages) mean OLEDs will likely be more expensive to make indefinitely. But that's really a small factor. The billions and billions of LCDs that have been produced to date mean LCD production is fantastically mature and optimized and will continue to gain further optimization.


And therefore, LCDs will be less expensive to make than OLEDs for as far as the eye can see. And this will only change if one of two things happens (1) There is actually a discontinuous innovation in the production of OLEDs along the lines of the things you read about which don't see the light of day (2) OLEDs are eventually produced in similar volumes to LCDs.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20367253
> 
> 
> When OLEDs are made exactly like LCDs are made, but lack the backlight units, your conclusion will be valid. Since OLEDs are not made even remotely like LCDs are made, your conclusion is not valid. And no re-spinning of it is going to make your conclusion any more valid. On the other hand, the higher voltages that are currently required to even make larger-size OLED TVs remotely possible (see the discussion earlier on AVS, maybe this thread about the need for said voltages) mean OLEDs will likely be more expensive to make indefinitely.



AMOLED uses Active Matrix which is similar to TFT Array as far as I understand it. Otherwise they are quite different and distinct against LCD or Plasma.


Yes the voltage issue was discussed here in this thread. But also the reason why I posted the news on IGZO by Sharp. That supposedly will help the voltage issue as we discussed. Experts do correct me if my understanding is wrong.


And I wouldn't say indefinitely though







But quite certainly OLED will not be cheaper than LCD before 2018, assuming G8 ramp in 2013


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20364987
> 
> 
> You didn't read what I wrote then. I said the red and green were above 100,000 hours and the FLUORESCENT blue that's being used (which isn't the more-desirable and more-efficient phosphorescent blue shown on UDC's page) also has a long lifetime.



The graph was the most telling...you said nothing of the blue LEDs in the post where you embedded the graph. And a "long lifetime" is rather relative. 20,000 hours? 50,000?


----------



## guidryp

Quote:

Originally Posted by *specuvestor* 
And I wouldn't say indefinitely though







But quite certainly OLED will not be cheaper than LCD before 2018, assuming G8 ramp in 2013
The future is hard to predict. We were supposed to have 50" SED TVs in 2008...


To make it in Television, OLED needs have durability, correct color spectrum, a reliable/economic way to deposit OLED material in large panels, and seal it from environmental contamination. None of this matters that much in mobiles where they current reside.


If someone does put together the secret sauce of practical OLED material that has all the right characteristics it will be patented and the license cost will be high for years to come.


When they will actually match LCD on price? Who knows, but it is in a timeframe that is completely irrelevant today. I figure my current set is good for a few more years. After that I will almost certaly get another LCD, then maybe the set after that (~2020?) OLED will be the obvious choice.


----------



## MikeBiker

Quote:

Originally Posted by *guidryp* 
The future is hard to predict. We were supposed to have 50" SED TVs in 2008...


To make it in Television, OLED needs have durability, correct color spectrum, a reliable/economic way to deposit OLED material in large panels, and seal it from environmental contamination. None of this matters that much in mobiles where they current reside.


If someone does put together the secret sauce of practical OLED material that has all the right characteristics it will be patented and the license cost will be high for years to come.


When they will actually match LCD on price? Who knows, but it is in a timeframe that is completely irrelevant today. I figure my current set is good for a few more years. After that I will almost certaly get another LCD, then maybe the set after that (~2020?) OLED will be the obvious choice.
This thread started 5 years a go. In the very first post is this statement. "At present, OLED displays are largely restricted to mobile phone use, but it is likely that large OLED-paneled televisions will replace PDP and LCD TVs in a few years." I don't see large OLED TVs any closer to production now than 5 years ago.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20365083
> 
> 
> @Pdoherty, all your chart proves is what I already said: They cost more and you can't get big ones.



If you actually look at the chart you'd see that the iPhone 4 screen costs $29 to make while the same size OLED screen on the Nokia N8 costs $27. Which is LESS not more. And the even LARGER 3.7" OLED screens on the HTC Droid and Google Nexus cost even LESS at $24.


So where are you getting that OLED is more expensive from that chart?


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions* /forum/post/20365853
> 
> 
> Yikes, a little too ideologue for me. You may end up being right, you may end up being wrong. One thing I have learned from experience, however, is to never bet against rogo when it comes to the display technology prediction game.



Well, rogo apparently can't even read the chart since he said the chart proves that OLED screens are more expensive than LCD but the charts shows the opposite.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20365943
> 
> 
> good point though I suspect smartphones are on closer to 4 hours a day. I know mine does
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theoretically you are right. BLU accounts for roughly 25% of a LCD selling price. However you are right IF AND ONLY IF OLED scales in production. Without scale at 5.5G it is unlikely that OLED will be cheaper than LCD in the TV space.
> 
> 
> Even with an 8G I would think OLED will be similarly priced with LCD only after 2018 when their depreciation cost drops off.




And Samsung is producing 3 million cellphone-sized AMOLEDs per month now and the already-paid-for and newly-built gen 5.5 factory is coming online in the next two months and will be ramping that production by a factor of 10 (with slight delays from the Japan earthquake/tsunami since some needed equipment shipments are delayed). So they'll be making 30 million/month. And that's just Samsung, not counting LG, AUO, etc who are also in the OLED game.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20366892
> 
> 
> OTOH, I dont expect OLED's to match LCD prices for a long time. As with handset displays, OLED's may be able to close the gap enough to sell in volume but that is very different than actually beating LCD's. Whatever inherent advantages OLED's might have, the economies of scale will be on the side of LCD's for quite a few years.



True, but even with that consumers are already willing to pay the premium to get an OLED screen because they're better. That's why they can't make the OLED screens fast enough. It's become a major differentiating factor in cellphones.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20367416
> 
> 
> AMOLED uses Active Matrix which is similar to TFT Array as far as I understand it. Otherwise they are quite different and distinct against LCD or Plasma.
> 
> 
> Yes the voltage issue was discussed here in this thread. But also the reason why I posted the news on IGZO by Sharp. That supposedly will help the voltage issue as we discussed. Experts do correct me if my understanding is wrong.
> 
> 
> And I wouldn't say indefinitely though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But quite certainly OLED will not be cheaper than LCD before 2018, assuming G8 ramp in 2013



Most sources disagree with your pessimistic outlook on timeframe for cost-competitveness (and, as I've mentioned many consumers are willing to pay a premium for OLED (for obvious reasons)).


LG says it will happen by 2016 (5 years from now):

http://hd.engadget.com/2009/10/30/lg...an-lcd-panels/ 


Samsung says by 2013-2014:

http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-...d-in-2013-2014


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20368306
> 
> 
> The future is hard to predict. We were supposed to have 50" SED TVs in 2008...
> 
> 
> To make it in Television, OLED needs have durability, correct color spectrum, a reliable/economic way to deposit OLED material in large panels, and seal it from environmental contamination. None of this matters that much in mobiles where they current reside.



I find it slightly funny that you think sealing the screen from environmental contaminants (including water) is MORE relevant in a TV than in a mobile phone, which is much harsher environments in its lifetime.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/20368436
> 
> 
> This thread started 5 years a go. In the very first post is this statement. "At present, OLED displays are largely restricted to mobile phone use, but it is likely that large OLED-paneled televisions will replace PDP and LCD TVs in a few years." I don't see large OLED TVs any closer to production now than 5 years ago.



Really? No closer than 5 years ago? I think you haven't been paying attention then, since both LG and Samsung are ramping gen 8 factories as fast as they can to build OLED HDTVs.


LG, in fact, just displayed this 31" (2.9mm thin) beauty at CES, which I heard they intend to put into production (cost $9000).

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/l...ld-lcd-hearts/


----------



## pdoherty972

And on this note, Sony and Samsung are REDUCING capital expenditures on LCD (presumably to allow for increased investment in OLED).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7FP0E620110425 



> Quote:
> S-LCD, a flat screen joint venture between Sony Corp and Samsung Electronics , said it would reduce capital by $555 million, as Sony struggles with perennial losses from its TV business and Samsung seeks to shift to a new type of display.
> 
> 
> The global liquid crystal display (LCD) market is struggling with faltering demand, with some analysts forecasting the $100 billion LCD TV industry had already peaked last year and would shrink by 3-4 percent annually, as consumers in advanced countries have already traded their bulky tube TV sets to flat screens.
> 
> 
> LCD is widely expected to give way to new displays such as energy-efficient active matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED), which is increasingly used in high-end smartphones and tablets and touted as a future large-sized TV display.
> 
> 
> In a statement on Monday, S-LCD, which supplies panels to Samsung and Sony, said the move was aimed at improving its capital structure.
> 
> 
> The 50-50 LCD joint venture announced its first capital reduction of 600 billion won ($555 million) after more than tripling its capital to 3.9 trillion won since Sony and Samsung formed the venture in 2004 with 1.26 trillion won to ensure smooth supply of flat screens for Sony.
> 
> 
> "The decision reflects shrinking demand from Sony after the devastating earthquake in Japan last month and the sector's overall shift in focus to OLED display," said Kim Sung-in, an analyst at Kiwoom Securities.


----------



## specuvestor

^^reducing capital is not the same as reducing capital expenditure. The JV has made enough profits which is why they can extract capital rather than dividends which usually does not attract tax. The JV doesn't need funds for expansion as it has been stagnant ever since relationship between Samsung and Sony soured. capital expenditure for the JV has been almost non existent, except for maintenance capex, for past 4 years or so.


Samsung had announced $4b capex each for both LCD and OLED, an increase YoY even for LCD. Samsung has also announced that they have also started their JV fab in China.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Really? No closer than 5 years ago? I think you haven't been paying attention then, since both LG and Samsung are ramping gen 8 factories as fast as they can to build OLED HDTVs.
> 
> 
> LG, in fact, just displayed this 31" (2.9mm thin) beauty at CES, which I heard they intend to put into production (cost $9000).
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/l...ld-lcd-hearts/



5 years ago OLED was PMOLED and that was a flop. OLED actually died and revived again with AMOLED about 2 years ago.


You are obviously an OLED fan, which I am one, but you also obviously have not been reading much of this thread, even the recent ones, to make such posts. I suggest you read up abit more on the issue to piece the puzzle rather than just focus on snippets here and there or what the companies said, especially LG. Engadget seems to agree with my pessimism with LG.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> LG says it will happen by 2016 (5 years from now):
> 
> http://hd.engadget.com/2009/10/30/lg...an-lcd-panels/
> 
> 
> Samsung says by 2013-2014:
> 
> http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-...d-in-2013-2014



BTW Samsung did not say it will be PRICE competitive. OLED has a good chance of competing in TV with 200% premium in 2014, looking at the 2011 TV model pricing structure.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20369899
> 
> 
> Well, rogo apparently can't even read the chart since he said the chart proves that OLED screens are more expensive than LCD but the charts shows the opposite.



I have an HTC Droid (same screen as Nexus One). If you think those screens are remotely in league with the iPhone 4 screen, I have a bridge to sell you.



> Quote:
> Really? No closer than 5 years ago? I think you haven't been paying attention then, since both LG and Samsung are ramping gen 8 factories as fast as they can to build OLED HDTVs.



No they aren't. They are maybe building Gen 8 factories to maybe produce OLED TVs. Samsung has, in fact, announced no plans to build OLED TVs at all. LG has mumbled about producing their 31" this year for a ton of money. I'll believe it when I can buy it.


> Quote:
> And on this note, Sony and Samsung are REDUCING capital expenditures on LCD (presumably to allow for increased investment in OLED).



They are taking profits from the JV instead of leaving money in there. Sony is most assuredly not moving to invest in OLED production. Samsung is maybe toying with that. The proof will be when they do it, not when they talk about it.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20371014
> 
> 
> I have an HTC Droid (same screen as Nexus One). If you think those screens are remotely in league with the iPhone 4 screen, I have a bridge to sell you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't. They are maybe building Gen 8 factories to maybe produce OLED TVs. Samsung has, in fact, announced no plans to build OLED TVs at all. LG has mumbled about producing their 31" this year for a ton of money. I'll believe it when I can buy it.



Yeah, because lots of companies build and outfit 5 billion-dollar factories for producing OLED and then never make them. Why can't you simply admit that today's outlook for OLED isn't the same as it was 5 years ago? I suggest you read the Gabelli investment report on Universal Display with stock price targets of $75 this year, $95 for 2012, and $120 for 2013. All of those recommendations are based on the ramping predictions of OLED over that time, and affect Universal Display directly since they own almost all of the patents around OLED and the phosphoresent materials.




> Quote:
> They are taking profits from the JV instead of leaving money in there. Sony is most assuredly not moving to invest in OLED production. Samsung is maybe toying with that. The proof will be when they do it, not when they talk about it.



So I guess the 2.2 Billion they spent last year to build the new gen 5.5 OLED plant that's coming online in the next two months (that will ramp monthly OLED screens of cellphone size by a factor of 10) doesn't count as "doing it"?


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20371014
> 
> 
> I have an HTC Droid (same screen as Nexus One). If you think those screens are remotely in league with the iPhone 4 screen, I have a bridge to sell you.



Now you're modifying your argument. You initially stated that OLEDs were more expensive than LCDs and now when shown to be incorrect, you suggest they're not comparable (even though they're the same size screens on cellphones). If I dig up pricing on the new Samsung Galaxy S2's screen (that Engadget just said is one of the best displays they've ever seen), and the pricing is comparable will you stop dissembling and backtracking on your positions?


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/20368436
> 
> 
> This thread started 5 years a go. In the very first post is this statement. "At present, OLED displays are largely restricted to mobile phone use, but it is likely that large OLED-paneled televisions will replace PDP and LCD TVs in a few years." I don't see large OLED TVs any closer to production now than 5 years ago.



It's funny because it's true.










OLED TV is one of those things perpetually 4 or 5 years in the future until it eventually shows up or doesn't, like SED.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20370543
> 
> 
> BTW Samsung did not say it will be PRICE competitive. OLED has a good chance of competing in TV with 200% premium in 2014, looking at the 2011 TV model pricing structure.



What else would they have been referring to? OLEDs are ALREADY better than LCD so what other than price competition could they have meant? And the other link I provided had LG predicting OLEDs would be cheaper than LCD.


----------



## pdoherty972

For those interested, here is the Engadget review of the Samsung Galaxy S2, a new phone that uses an SAMOLED+ OLED screen.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/28/s...y-s-ii-review/ 


A snippet from it:



> Quote:
> The Galaxy S II's screen is nothing short of spectacular. Blacks are impenetrable, colors pop out at you, and viewing angles are supreme. This would usually be the part where we'd point out that qHD (960 x 540) resolution is fast becoming the norm among top-tier smartphones and that the GSII's 800 x 480 is therefore a bit behind the curve, but frankly, we don't care. With a screen as beautiful as this, such things pale into insignificance. And we use that verb advisedly -- whereas the majority of LCDs quickly lose their luster when you tilt them away from center, color saturation and vibrancy on the Galaxy S II remain undiminished. It is only at extreme angles that you'll notice some discoloration, but that's only if you're looking for it and takes nothing away from the awe-inspiring experience of simply using this device.
> 
> 
> Whether you're pushing it to its limits with movie watching or just tamely browsing the web, the Super AMOLED Plus panel inside the Galaxy S II never fails to remind you that it's simply better than almost everything else that's out there. For an instructive example of the contrast on offer here, take a look at our recent post regarding the LG Optimus Big's upcoming launch in Korea. The pattern on that handset's white back was so subtle on our desktop monitor that we completely missed it, whereas when we looked at the same image on the GSII, it looked clear as day. Maybe that doesn't speak too highly of the monitors we're working with, but it underlines the supremacy of the display Samsung has squeezed into the Galaxy S II.
> 
> 
> We'd even go so far as to say it's better than the iPhone 4's screen, purely because, at 4.3 inches, it gives us so much more room to work with. It's almost impossible to split the two up in terms of quality of output, they're both top notch. Notably, however, that was also true of Samsung's original Super AMOLED display, the one that graced the 4-inch Galaxy S, and by now you must be wondering if there's actually anything significant enough in the new S-AMOLED technology to justify appending that "Plus" to its name. The short answer is yes, and it's all in the pixels.


----------



## GSDTrainer

So when can I expect to buy a 55" for $1500?


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GSDTrainer* /forum/post/20374750
> 
> 
> So when can I expect to buy a 55" for $1500?



My guess is 2015.


----------



## specuvestor

How do you do that projection with G5.5 ramping up only now and LG's supposedly 31" screen at $9000 in 2011? Do you know what is the annual cost down or optimal cut of G8 or G5.5? Or you're just saying it because u couldn't care less when 2015 is here? I don't even think we'll get 70" LCD at $1500 in 2015 even when sharp's G10 selling one at $3000 TODAY


BTW I have a gentleman bet with rogo that we will see $5000 32" next Christmas. We will likely be able to remind each other in 18 months







I can tell u how I get that projection.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What else would they have been referring to? OLEDs are ALREADY better than LCD so what other than price competition could they have meant? And the other link I provided had LG predicting OLEDs would be cheaper than LCD.



So your basis is that in order to be competitive it must be cheaper? And you stay in high cost US? (I don't) Just from you believing LG's word so unreservely we can already guess you are probably 25 or below


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20375023
> 
> 
> My guess is 2015.



My borderline certain is "not a chance in the universe of that happening in 2015."


That said, I look forward to seeing this Galaxy II S display. It sounds awesome.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20375023
> 
> 
> My guess is 2015.



That isn't a guess, it is pure wishful thinking.


It is dubious if we will even have 55" OLED in 2015. If we do, it will certainly be $5000+.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20377188
> 
> 
> That isn't a guess, it is pure wishful thinking.
> 
> 
> It is dubious if we will even have 55" OLED in 2015. If we do, it will certainly be $5000+.



For wishful thinking it seems a lot of people are similarly-minded to me.

http://www.google.com/search?q=oled+...&client=safari 


Including Barry Young:

http://www.oled-tv.asia/when-can-ole...ft-technology/


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20377748
> 
> 
> For wishful thinking it seems a lot of people are similarly-minded to me.
> 
> 
> Including Barry Young:
> 
> http://www.oled-tv.asia/when-can-ole...ft-technology/



So? He doesn't work for anyone producing OLED TV's. He is just a promoter parroting other info. Promoters always give optimistic projections.


The manufacturers making predictions 5 years ago, predicted OLED TVs common in 5 years. *If their predictions were correct, we would already have OLED TVs.*


LGs famous quote for 2016 also said they would have a 20"+ TV in 2010.


They failed to deliver on that. If they can't even predict one year in the future what makes you think they can nail estimates 5 or 6 years in the future?


Absolutely none of the past estimates have worked out, things like SED get pushed for years, only to collapse. OLED won't collapse because multiple companies are working on it. But it really isn't even on the market yet in real TVs.


To go from not on the market to priced at $1500 for 55" in 4 years isn't just wishful thinking, it is being completely out of touch with reality.


First they have to make it to market, then they price can start coming down at a reasonable rate. Expect similar to they Plasma dropped in price over time. It wasn't 2 years from hitting the market to $2000, it was more like 5 years.


It looks like 2012 will be the first year for 40" OLED TVS to hit the marke, count on 5 more years to semi competitive.. So maybe a 55" for $1500 in 2018...


I would like to have a OLED TV, the characteristics are great for a TV, but wishing won't making it appear faster. It will get here when it gets hear and the track record for these things indicate we always get optimistic projections from the manufacturers. *Just ask Canon about SED.*


----------



## specuvestor

Quote:

Originally Posted by *pdoherty972*
Including Barry Young:

http://www.oled-tv.asia/when-can-ole...ft-technology/
So I guess u are misled by this guy Barry Young. This is a name I will remember 18 months later for misleading "marketing" info.


It is more likely that we will see 10m OLED tablet than 2m OLED TV next year. And 10m OLED tablet is already a stretch. 5.5G fab is more suitable for 32" TV. I'm hopeful for 2012 ramp of 8G but mass production of >32" TV is definitely unlikely in next 18 months.


----------



## 8mile13

The Olympus XZ-1 photo-camera *- review -* has a 3inch OLED monitor, *Click* for larger imago and other views.


----------



## pdoherty972

Nice-looking camera... OLEDs are going to be in pretty much everything.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20379050
> 
> 
> So I guess u are misled by this guy Barry Young. This is a name I will remember 18 months later for misleading "marketing" info.
> 
> 
> It is more likely that we will see 10m OLED tablet than 2m OLED TV next year. And 10m OLED tablet is already a stretch. 5.5G fab is more suitable for 32" TV. I'm hopeful for 2012 ramp of 8G but mass production of >32" TV is definitely unlikely in next 18 months.



I think the 5.5 gen fabs are going to be used primarily for cellphone and tablet-sized screens, but I agree they could be used for some smaller TVs as well. The gen 8 fabs coming from LG and Samsung are where the TVs will come into play I think, starting mid to late next year.


----------



## pdoherty972

More on this discussion, an article from June last year:

http://www.plusplasticelectronics.co...011-14912.aspx 

Quote:

MBraun, a supplier of processing tools to leading display firms, reveals that recent orders suggest its customers are on track to deliver commercial OLED televisions to the market in 2011.


The German company provides automation and production tools to OLED display makers including Samsung and LG, which have reportedly been ramping up production for OLEDs recently, as covered in +Plastic Electronics Volume 2, issue 6.


Announced scale-up plans have been for smaller screens though, suitable for smartphones and cameras. Samsung announcing its new facilities will be able to produce 30 million 3-inch screens per month, for instance.


However, MBraun's orders from the electronics manufacturers suggest that they have television manufacturing in mind.



Scale-up solved


One of the barriers to the television market has been increasing screen sizes in production. Display makers have been reticent about revealing how this has been overcome. However, MBraun sales manager for flat panel applications, Daniel Karecovsky, says that the solutions have been found.


Karecovsky remarks: 'The job of scaling up is one for our customers, which they are adapting to currently available equipment. These steps have already been taken, to produce screens up to 42" in size.'


LG is increasing the availability of its 15EL 9500, a 15-inch display (already available in some parts of Europe) in 2010, while Samsung is believed to be ahead of its South Korean competitor in terms of commercial OLED development.


And Karecovsky suggests that the firms will be ready to sustain significant manufacturing for OLED televisions next year too.


'We know that they're currently putting they're[sic] systems in place to manufacture televisions on a large scale, although there are still some improvements to be made,' he adds.


----------



## rogo

"MBraun, a supplier of processing tools to leading display firms, reveals that recent orders suggest its customers are on track to deliver commercial OLED televisions to the market in 2011."


What's significant about this is that no one is on track to deliver commercial OLED televisions in 2010. And that's significant because this is the kind of hype suppliers always put out, but almost never yields any reality.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I think the 5.5 gen fabs are going to be used primarily for cellphone and tablet-sized screens, but I agree they could be used for some smaller TVs as well. The gen 8 fabs coming from LG and Samsung are where the TVs will come into play I think, starting mid to late next year.



Yes but 8G fab won't be online until AT LEAST 2H12 for Samsung. And that is ONLY if the 5.5G fab is a success. 8G is not a certainty though it is likely IMHO.


As for LG, though it talks alot but the fact is that it has a 3.5G fab and supposedly ramping 4.5G, but Samsung has >90% market share. Go figure.


Industry promoters etc can claim 100" OLED for all I care but if the fabs are not pumping, they will have to spew screens out of their a**







I hope Barry Young has a big a**


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20385544
> 
> 
> Yes but 8G fab won't be online until AT LEAST 2H12 for Samsung. And that is ONLY if the 5.5G fab is a success. 8G is not a certainty though it is likely IMHO.




I don't think the 5.5 gen is even close to being in doubt. Samsung is already selling as many cellphone-sized OLEDs as they can make and the demand is still far outstripping supply.


----------



## specuvestor

You answered your own question here. Samsung is not going to sell 360m OLED mobile display next year.


So OLED tablet success will be important unless Samsung want to try selling quantity $5000 32" TV











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> And Samsung is producing 3 million cellphone-sized AMOLEDs per month now and the already-paid-for and newly-built gen 5.5 factory is coming online in the next two months and will be ramping that production by a factor of 10 (with slight delays from the Japan earthquake/tsunami since some needed equipment shipments are delayed). So they'll be making 30 million/month. And that's just Samsung, not counting LG, AUO, etc who are also in the OLED game.


----------



## pdoherty972

I didn't realize I asked a question in the section you quoted. 


But, be that as it may, what cellphone manufacturers wouldn't switch to OLED if given the chance (by Samsung's (and LG's) large ramping of gen 5.5 OLED)? I'd think any increase in production will be snatched up as greedily as it is now. And I agree tablets will need to start using OLEDs as well (which I believe they will).


----------



## mr. wally

well the first couple generations of cosumer sized oled television

screens ain't going to be cheap.


remember when plasmas first came out, they were $15-20k


that's where the waiting comes in, when does the price drop

low enough that most people can afford them


crazy people on this forum will be the only ones willing to spend that kind of dough


----------



## kache

Probably a ridiculous question at this point, but can we expect 56" 3840x2160 panels soon, or the OLED technology still has problems with very big screens?


----------



## estoniankid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kache* /forum/post/20409951
> 
> 
> Probably a ridiculous question at this point, but can we expect 56" 3840x2160 panels soon, or the OLED technology still has problems with very big screens?




Ya totally ridiculous, but it did make me stop and think.


+1


----------



## tory40

I hope its not ridiculous.


+3


----------



## pdoherty972

I see that the resolution he's asking for is a 2x2 1920x1080 screen (Four 1080 HD signals on the same screen). I guess I'm wondering the following:


1) What use is it as a TV if no one broadcasts in that resolution?


2) Do any monitors do that resolution now, and if so what are they used for (broadcast television production, etc)?


----------



## CatBus

3840x2160 would have potential value right now for gaming or as a dual-use PC monitor. The resolution would ensure that lower resolution 1080P content could scale easily--just treat a 2x2 pixel square as a single pixel.


In the longer term, I believe HDMI 1.4 works with 3840x2160, so devices that display static images in a slideshow could take advantage of the extra resolution (and static images are where it'd be most noticeable). It's even possible that 1080P content could be upscaled to 3840x2160 in much the same manner 480i DVD content is upscaled to 1080P right now.


That said, it'd be a pretty niche product at best.


----------



## rogo

Displays that show off higher resolutions than existing video sources are already useful today. It's not a massive gain, but it's a gain with the right scaling electronics. And for passive 3-D, the potential is gigantic.


----------



## mr. wally

could movies be recorded or transferred like br to this resolution?


----------



## navychop

See the *Red One* movie camera.


----------



## specuvestor

Check out this thread for quad HD:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post19879679


----------



## rogo

From the WSJ 5/17/2011:


"So far, researchers haven't figured out a way to deposit the organic material over the large surface of a TV-sized screen with the speed required to build millions of units. "That is the most critical issue for OLED TV mass production," Mr. Ro said.


In the 1990s, display industry researchers were grappling with a similar problem in LCDs. At that time, the only way to evenly disperse liquid crystal was to let it seep in vapor form between two sealed pieces of glass, a time-consuming process.


At the 2001 SID meeting, International Business Machines Corp. researchers unveiled a dispersal method for liquid crystal that became known as "one drop fill." The idea revolutionized LCD production and, coupled with advances in the size of glass, made possible cost-efficient production of large-sized LCD-TVs.


The search for a similar advance to produce bigger OLED screens faces a major technical constraint. While only one coating of liquid crystal is needed in an LCD, an OLED screen actually takes three organic materials, one each for red, green and blue, the colors from which all other colors are formed on video displays.


The difficulty lies in aligning the OLED material so that colors are accurate across a large area. Just like liquid crystal was back in the 1990s, OLED material today is deposited in vapor form in a vacuum across a substrate and masks are used to align the three layers of material.


That technique works fine on screens the size of cellphones, but the masks tend to sag unevenly when pulled across larger surfaces. The result is that the OLED material is distributed imprecisely, creating mashed up colors or dead spots on a screen. "Everybody is working on this, all the big names," Mr. Ro says.


Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...#ixzz1Mad2jaHo (subscription required)


So it's a newspaper article, and it's wholly and highly incomplete. He notes this is "the biggest problem" but it's obviously not the only problem. We've discussed the voltage problem as well. it's important to understand -- no matter how much you want this technology to become real -- that until these manufacturing issues are solved, *there will not be large OLED TVs*. And while we'd all like the problems to be solved soon, they might not be solved for years, if ever. FED technology had manufacturing issues that were always right around the corner until decades of research and billions of dollars were just abandoned. Plasmas nearly suffered a similar fate (less investment, but very close to 'never happening').


It's also true that absent the aforementioned revolutionary idea in 2001, maybe giant LCD TVs don't happen. Or they don't happen for somewhat more years.


Not every engineering problem is solvable. And one thing that's clear from this article, is that whoever the reporter talked to didn't even bother mentioning nonsense like "ink jet style printing" of large OLEDs which has been much hyped and never developed into anything.


What I am saying -- as I've said before -- is that you need to actually hear about the breakthrough in manufacturing or else you're not going to see the big OLED TVs. And seeing a billion OLED screens for cell phones is not some kind of indicator that the TVs are coming.


----------



## slacker711

I think most on this thread understand that there are engineering problems to be solved before we see large screen TV's. However, the big difference between your projections and mine are the implications if Samsung or LG start building a Gen 8 fab. You seem to think they might build a fab of that size for tablet sized displays while I think that such a fab only makes sense if they have solved the problems for large screen TV's.


We'll see...nobody has yet announced a Gen 8 fab, though both LG and Samsung have hinted strongly that they expect to make a decision by the end of the year.


Slacker


----------



## rogo

I'm actually slightly more correct here. They will build a fab for tablet-sized displays that uses the largest substrates they can figure out workflow for. I'm not saying that's "Gen 8"-sized glass per se, but it's larger than what they have now. The reason I know this is because current fabs are inadequate to meet the demand for phone/tablet screens already and the potential demand is something on the order of 10x what's currently being consumed (obviously, OLED can take some share in phones, and obviously the tablet market is growing massively and OLED has zero share currently).


I'm not sitting there with the operational engineering group, so I am not privy to what the magic substrate size is, but it's not some 5.5G piece because there are steps to manufacturing that could be done on larger substrates (especially for 10-inch tablet displays) and handling more and more small pieces of glass hasn't proved to be a winner even when, for example, the substrate could match the size of a finished product 1:1 (as it could with some old substrate sizes and some current LCD TVs).


And, yes, if Samsung announces a Gen 8 fab and actually breaks ground, I'll perk up a bit. If LG announces a Gen 8 fab, I'll probably laugh. LG, I believe, shows off these TVs to keep up R&D and posture. But I doubt very much they have any plans at all to mass manufacture OLED TVs before 2015.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20450753
> 
> 
> And, yes, if Samsung announces a Gen 8 fab and actually breaks ground, I'll perk up a bit.



Start perking.

http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-inv...ion-oleds-2011 



> Quote:
> Samsung says that they will invest 5.4 trillion won ($4.8 billion) on OLED factories this year.





> Quote:
> A couple of months ago there were reports that Samsung plans a Gen-8 pilot line for OLED TVs that will produce 4000 55" OLED TVs monthly.


 http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-pla...-line-oled-tvs 



> Quote:
> Samsung plans to build a Gen-8 pilot production line for OLED TVs, according to recent reports from Korea. They want to produce 55" OLED panels, and the pilot line will be able to produce 4,000 such panels monthly. Samsung will use the same building as used in their upcoming 5.5-Gen production plant.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20463974
> 
> 
> Start perking.
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-inv...ion-oleds-2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-pla...-line-oled-tvs



From your link:


"*Perhaps* Samsung will indeed build this plant during 2011."


It may be a little early for perking.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *htwaits* /forum/post/20464620
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> 
> "*Perhaps* Samsung will indeed build this plant during 2011."
> 
> 
> It may be a little early for perking.



No building of a plant is required, apparently, as they are using the same new gen 5.5 that came online this month and is already producing screen (two months early, in fact).



> Quote:
> They want to produce 55" OLED panels, and the pilot line will be able to produce 4,000 such panels monthly. *Samsung will use the same building as used in their upcoming 5.5-Gen production plant.*


----------



## slacker711

Everything about Gen 8 is still rumors. Samsung and LG have confirmed nothing.


Slacker


----------



## rogo

Please stop linking OLED hypester sites as source of news. I know they are excited and you are excited. But they are hypesters. I know there are rumors of Samsung starting an 8G production line. And I know there are proto rumors of LG doing that. But this is currently nothing but smoke. When there is a press release or an announcement associated with earnings that our man Specuvestor parses, let me know, until then this is more and more hype. And OLED has a decade of hype, and to date,


----------



## tory40




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20466609
> 
> 
> And OLED has a decade of hype, and to date,


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tory40* /forum/post/20467019
> 
> 
> An Engadget article claimed that Sony execs were "surprised" that the 11" didn't sell so well and I thought REALLY???! Your surprised? Apparently i'd make a better Sony executive than that guy, I would NOT have even produced it. I'd go with a 37" TV with a disclaimer that it is new technology and i bet it would sell.



Yeah, it's shocking that a $2500 11-inch TV didn't sell at all, especially given the general market for 11 inch TVs is so freaking robust, huh? Never mind the fact that $2500 was buying a good 50-inch TV by then. It's a wonder that company doesn't make money hand over fist, isn't it?


----------



## work permit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tory40* /forum/post/20467019
> 
> 
> An Engadget article claimed that Sony execs were "surprised" that the 11" didn't sell so well and I thought REALLY???! Your surprised? Apparently i'd make a better Sony executive than that guy, I would NOT have even produced it. I'd go with a 37" TV with a disclaimer that it is new technology and i bet it would sell.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20467540
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's shocking that a $2500 11-inch TV didn't sell at all, especially given the general market for 11 inch TVs is so freaking robust, huh? Never mind the fact that $2500 was buying a good 50-inch TV by then. It's a wonder that company doesn't make money hand over fist, isn't it?



Hey, they're at it again, this time with 9.9 inch model ! Seriousy, I couldn't make this up if I tried


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *work permit* /forum/post/20483843
> 
> 
> Hey, they're at it again, this time with 9.9 inch model ! Seriousy, I couldn't make this up if I tried



In fairness to Sony, this was some sort of technology demo. I admit, though, I don't get the purpose of showing off a small, low resolution display as a proof of concept of anything. Maybe if it could fold up and fit in a pants pocket and cost $10 to manufacture. But otherwise, not so much.


----------



## work permit

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rogo* 
In fairness to Sony, this was some sort of technology demo. I admit, though, I don't get the purpose of showing off a small, low resolution display as a proof of concept of anything. Maybe if it could fold up and fit in a pants pocket and cost $10 to manufacture. But otherwise, not so much.
I thought the 11 inch model they brought out 3 years ago for $2500 was a technology demo. But why bring out a 10 inch model now? They already showed that they could manufacture something nobody would want 3 years ago.


If they want to show off, why not create something that a few rich videophiles would actually buy? Like a 55" IPS or super-LCD backlit with 5,000 led's and an equal number of local-dimmable zones?


----------



## pdoherty972

Interesting update, even if it doesn't directly relate to OLED on TVs:


Apple COO (interim CEO) in talks with Samsung to acquire AMOLED for new iPad:

http://my.news.yahoo.com/apple-samsu...104003917.html 


And if Apple wants it (and can make it cost-effective) at iPad sizes that also would help explain why the iPhone 5 was delayed a few months - to give Samsung's new gen 5.5 OLED factory time to ramp up (which it did - it came online early this month) to use AMOLED on the iPhone 5 as well.


----------



## specuvestor

This has been talked about back in march.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> FWIW it is rumored that Apple asked CMI to develop OLED which made me excited about this sleepy stock. Unfortunately I had to relearn AGAIN the importance of TIMING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I totally agree Apple would be able to publicise OLED as if they invented it, just like IPS or gorilla glass



There are a few dynamics at play:


1) samsung delayed full 5.5G ramp by 2 quarters. Japan earthquake affecting raw materials supply or demand weak?


2) Talks of curved glass for new iPhone


3) comparative advantage if samsung tablet using AMOLED as well


4) speaks badly of LG and CMI ramp of OLED


In the article it says "Apple is known for its low-price policies". That is not true. It is MARGINS low as apple demand specs much more difficult to produce. This made me skeptical how "insider" this article is.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *work permit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the 11 inch model they brought out 3 years ago for $2500 was a technology demo. But why bring out a 10 inch model now? They already showed that they could manufacture something nobody would want 3 years ago.
> 
> 
> If they want to show off, why not create something that a few rich videophiles would actually buy? Like a 55" IPS or super-LCD backlit with 5,000 led's and an equal number of local-dimmable zones?



Like I commented in another thread, Howard Stringer is now more Japanese than Japanese themselves. Kind of sad in that it reinforces Japan Inc's idea that foreign talents aren't a good idea.


Sony has lost its way big time. Doing everything but no coherence. The latest results probably use the earthquake for kitchen sinking:


"May 23, 2011 (SmarTrend(R) News Watch via COMTEX) --

Sony Corp (NYSE:SNE) revised its forecast for the full fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 today, now expecting to a report a loss of $260 billion yen, compared to its earlier forecast released in February 2011 for net profit of $70 billion yen.


The company decided to set aside reserves of $360 billion yen in the quarter to cover certain deferred tax assets in Japan. The company said that three straight years of net losses, combined with the uncertain business outlook in Japan following the March 11 disaster, prompted the decision to cover the deferred tax assets, which are credits that can be used to offset taxes in future periods.


The company said the natural disaster would subtract $22 billion yen from its sales and $17 billion yen from its operating profit for the year."


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20486062
> 
> 
> Interesting update, even if it doesn't directly relate to OLED on TVs:
> 
> 
> Apple COO (interim CEO) in talks with Samsung to acquire AMOLED for new iPad:
> 
> http://my.news.yahoo.com/apple-samsu...104003917.html



A very weak rumor. Samsung has now released or announced tablets at 7", 8.9" and 10". None are OLED.


Right now everyone is looks for a competitive edge to stand out in the tablet space, if it was feasible, Samsung would be using OLED for that edge. It simply can't be done cost competitively at tablet sizes yet.


I would expect the first OLED tablet will be a Samsung at about 7".


Also if you read the original source it says:

"A Samsung Mobile Display spokesperson said he had not heard of such discussions with Apple."


An anonymous rumor that just makes no sense... It goes on the scrap heap with all the other anonymous rumors.


----------



## rogo

Ok, first of all, whatever is in iPhone 5 (or iPhone 4S as it might be called) has been locked in for months or more). It's not being discussed now. That's not how it works -- at all.


And while Apple might be discussing something for iPad 3, they are discussing several things, including much more advanced LCDs than are in iPad 2. One issue: You need to be able to promise 50+ million int he first year. If not, then thanks for playing. So I'd say OLED is not on the table, articles notwitstanding.


Work permit (unrelated to what I've written so far in this post), you are missing the point, the thing they just showed off at SID will never be manufactured. It was a demonstration of something specific. The 11" they sold was a real product, just not an interesting one. It was a "demonstration" in some really broad definition of that term, but the thing at SID was literally a technology demonstration, not something that will see the light of day. The size was probably not chosen for any reason other than ease of demonstrating the concept.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20488184
> 
> 
> Ok, first of all, whatever is in iPhone 5 (or iPhone 4S as it might be called) has been locked in for months or more). It's not being discussed now. That's not how it works -- at all.
> 
> 
> And while Apple might be discussing something for iPad 3, they are discussing several things, including much more advanced LCDs than are in iPad 2. One issue: You need to be able to promise 50+ million int he first year. If not, then thanks for playing. So I'd say OLED is not on the table, articles notwithstanding



Samsung's current production capabilities are 6-8 million screens a month and by the end of this year will be more than 10 million OLED displays per month. No problem hitting 50 million per year. And this time next year they will be at 30-40 million per month. All part of the gen 5.5 4-production-line ramp they've been planning and paying for since last year.


----------



## work permit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20488184
> 
> 
> Work permit (unrelated to what I've written so far in this post), you are missing the point, the thing they just showed off at SID will never be manufactured. It was a demonstration of something specific. The 11" they sold was a real product, just not an interesting one. It was a "demonstration" in some really broad definition of that term, but the thing at SID was literally a technology demonstration, not something that will see the light of day. The size was probably not chosen for any reason other than ease of demonstrating the concept.



Got it. You mean, for example, they have been able to develop an oled using "self aligned top gate" technology which may be exciting because with this technology the channel length of TFT becomes short, making it easy to deal with large screen size. Hope I was wrong and they don't actually try to sell one.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20488266
> 
> 
> Samsung's current production capabilities are 6-8 million screens a month and by the end of this year will be more than 10 million OLED displays per month. No problem hitting 50 million per year. And this time next year they will be at 30-40 million per month. All part of the gen 5.5 4-production-line ramp they've been planning and paying for since last year.



You are confusing two things. iPad3 cannot use phone-sized screens, it needs 10-inch screens. Samsung's ability to make 400 million OLED screens for phones per year -- which I find highly unlikely by the way as that would satisfy something on the order of 100% of the entire smartphone market -- is irrelevant to making 10" OLED screens for iPad3.


That said, I can see how my post was completely unclear on the fact I was discussing two separate issues (1) the speculation around whether Apple was in discussions regarding a part for iPhone 5 -- which they could not be as that part has been sourced months ago and is not an OLED screen in all likelihood and (2) the speculation around whether iPad 3 would use an OLED screen -- which it almost certain cannot since Apple will need a minimum of 50 million such screens commencing in March of 2012 and perhaps as many as 100 million and no one has shown the capability of producing even 100,000 of such a screen.


----------



## wco81

I'd like to see OLED TVs just as much as everyone but for mobile, OLED still saps battery faster than LCD for web applications, does it not?


For iPad3, more interested in "Retina Display" resolution than OLED.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20488768
> 
> 
> You are confusing two things. iPad3 cannot use phone-sized screens, it needs 10-inch screens. Samsung's ability to make 400 million OLED screens for phones per year -- which I find highly unlikely by the way as that would satisfy something on the order of 100% of the entire smartphone market -- is irrelevant to making 10" OLED screens for iPad3.



The same size substrate can be used to make 10" displays.



> Quote:
> That said, I can see how my post was completely unclear on the fact I was discussing two separate issues (1) the speculation around whether Apple was in discussions regarding a part for iPhone 5 -- which they could not be as that part has been sourced months ago and is not an OLED screen in all likelihood and (2) the speculation around whether iPad 3 would use an OLED screen -- which it almost certain cannot since Apple will need a minimum of 50 million such screens commencing in March of 2012 and perhaps as many as 100 million and no one has shown the capability of producing even 100,000 of such a screen.



They don't need that many at the outset. They'll sell that many over a few YEARS. They just need steady production that can keep up with demand. Hell, Apple has only sold about 15 million iPads TOTAL over the last two years since it was introduced, and about 50 million iPhones over their entire sales history. So where do you get this idea that they need 50-100 million devices already produced to even start selling?

http://www.tipb.com/2010/04/08/50-mi...ne-os-devices/


----------



## rogo

iPad 3 will sell 50 million devices in the first 12 months easily. Probably more.


----------



## guidryp

Quote:

Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* 
The same size substrate can be used to make 10" displays.


They don't need that many at the outset. They'll sell that many over a few YEARS. They just need steady production that can keep up with demand. Hell, Apple has only sold about 15 million iPads TOTAL over the last two years since it was introduced, and about 50 million iPhones over their entire sales history. So where do you get this idea that they need 50-100 million devices already produced to even start selling?
It is a completely silly rumor and your are really grasping at straws trying to rationalize it.


iPad numbers were and still are supply constrained.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110406PD206.html 

"Based on a conservative estimate, Apple is likely to take delivery of 4-4.3 million units a month, or a total of over 12 million units, of iPad 2 tablets in the second quarter, said the sources."


If they weren't supply contrained, 50 Millions appears to be an easily achieved number annually for iPads.


In case the simple math isn't obvious. *A 9.7" iPad screen is about 9 TIMES the physical area of a 3.5" cell phone screen*.


So 50 million iPad x 9 = as much *substrate as 450 Million cell phones*.


When Samsung has OLED capacity of about 500 million cellphone screens then you can consider iPads as a *remote* possibility if Samsung wants to forget the rest of the industry including its own phones...


Apple is most likely to try OLED on the iPhone first where the substrate volumed needed is much lower and it would be much less risky.


If Apple is interested in Anything from Samsung for the next iPad it would be second source for LCD screens like the new PLS alternative to IPS.


----------



## TNG

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rogo* 
The search for a similar advance to produce bigger OLED screens faces a major technical constraint. While only one coating of liquid crystal is needed in an LCD, an OLED screen actually takes three organic materials, one each for red, green and blue, the colors from which all other colors are formed on video displays.


The difficulty lies in aligning the OLED material so that colors are accurate across a large area. Just like liquid crystal was back in the 1990s, OLED material today is deposited in vapor form in a vacuum across a substrate and masks are used to align the three layers of material.
OK, I don't get this are they looking for cost reduction so much that they have ignored traditional lithography?


After all LCD screens use Red resist, green resist, blue resist, plus a black matrix resist and they have very few issues. Yes typical resist processes are messy, the equipment is expensive, but wouldn't it make more sense than trying to reinvent the wheel?


----------



## mr. wally

from what i've read, it sounds more likely we will have ipads with qled screens

before we'll have any oled ipads


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It is a completely silly rumor and your are really grasping at straws trying to rationalize it.
> 
> 
> iPad numbers were and still are supply constrained.
> 
> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110406PD206.html
> 
> "Based on a conservative estimate, Apple is likely to take delivery of 4-4.3 million units a month, or a total of over 12 million units, of iPad 2 tablets in the second quarter, said the sources."
> 
> 
> If they weren't supply contrained, 50 Millions appears to be an easily achieved number annually for iPads.
> 
> 
> In case the simple math isn't obvious. A 9.7" iPad screen is about 9 TIMES the physical area of a 3.5" cell phone screen.
> 
> 
> So 50 million iPad x 9 = as much substrate as 450 Million cell phones.
> 
> 
> When Samsung has OLED capacity of about 500 million cellphone screens then you can consider iPads as a remote possibility if Samsung wants to forget the rest of the industry including its own phones...
> 
> 
> Apple is most likely to try OLED on the iPhone first where the substrate volumed needed is much lower and it would be much less risky.
> 
> 
> If Apple is interested in Anything from Samsung for the next iPad it would be second source for LCD screens like the new PLS alternative to IPS.



I am actually skeptical of the 50m iPads annual projection. Reminds me of the netbook projection not so long ago







2Q is launch of ipad2 so the SELL-IN figure (for inventory stocking) will be very high. I think more realistic is 50m tablets over the next 12 months considering that PC volume peaked at 200m and notebook growth slowed at over 100m, vs handset volume peaking at 1.2b


That said I agree the most probable outcome will be LCD iPads and OLED iPhone over next 12 months, if ever. Samsung will have OLED tablet. The RUMORED schedule shipment is a bit puzzling this year with ipad3 and iPhone 4S / 5 both coming end of year. I would think iPhone 4S launch later this year with 4G LTE launch next year make most sense and ipad3 make a normal refresh cycle next year as well, considering supply chain constraints.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20491914
> 
> 
> The RUMORED schedule shipment is a bit puzzling this year with *ipad3* and iPhone 4S / 5 both coming end of year. I would think iPhone 4S launch later this year with 4G LTE launch next year make most sense and *ipad3* make a normal refresh cycle next year as well, considering supply chain constraints.



That iPad3 one, is just the rumor mongers packing together weak rumors, that one was originally a zero source (and zero sense) guess by John Gruber.

http://daringfireball.net/2011/02/the_next_six_months 


Gruber has some decent sources, so when he mentions something from his sources, it is pretty accurate, but this time, he was guessing based on nothing but a whim and people picked it up as a serious rumor.


I agree that is another nonsense rumor. Ipad 3 will be an early 2012 release.


----------



## rogo

"I am actually skeptical of the 50m iPads annual projection."


Be skeptical.


But it's going to happen.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ maybe for ipad3 but not next 12 months IMHO, especially with ipad2 being an intermediate upgrade and supply chain issue.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That iPad3 one, is just the rumor mongers packing together weak rumors, that one was originally a zero source (and zero sense) guess by John Gruber.
> 
> http://daringfireball.net/2011/02/the_next_six_months
> 
> 
> Gruber has some decent sources, so when he mentions something from his sources, it is pretty accurate, but this time, he was guessing based on nothing but a whim and people picked it up as a serious rumor.
> 
> 
> I agree that is another nonsense rumor. Ipad 3 will be an early 2012 release.



my info/rumor comes from Taiwanese and Korean supply chain. But I usually take it with a pinch of salt, especially for apple. They are the only one infamous for NOT ramping production before launch, so as to ensure secrecy.


----------



## rogo

I am discussing iPad 3, which will ship a minimum of 50 million units in its first year.


----------



## wco81

Well you would think the competition would heat up later this year and beyond.


Apple would also have to offer compelling reason for a lot of iPad 2 owners to upgrade, to get those kinds of volumes.


Not saying it won't happen but the tablet market is still taking shape.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/20493220
> 
> 
> Well you would think the competition would heat up later this year and beyond.
> 
> 
> Apple would also have to offer compelling reason for a lot of iPad 2 owners to upgrade, to get those kinds of volumes.



The double resolution LCD that many are expecting will drive a lot of upgrades.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/20491841
> 
> 
> from what i've read, it sounds more likely we will have ipads with qled screens
> 
> before we'll have any oled ipads



Is that because you've seen so many full-color QLED screens? There aren't any, outside of a tiny 4" prototype in Samsung's lab, that was just created a few months ago and is the first full-color QLED (and looks horrid). QLEDs also have no lifetime to speak of, and there is zero production capacity in place for it as it's still being developed and nowhere close to manufacturing. The time from the lab to production is many years. It's been 10 or more for OLED and will be the same for QLED if it ever happens.


One reason it may not ever happen is that QLEDs use toxic metals like cadmium. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them when the industry has invested more than 10 Billion on OLED production, which is green and uses no toxic materials at all, and is already on millions of devices. And is rapidly ramping into white lighting as well as displays.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20490559
> 
> 
> iPad 3 will sell 50 million devices in the first 12 months easily. Probably more.



How do you make such a prediction when the first and second iPads have sold 15 million in almost 2 years?


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/20489607
> 
> 
> I'd like to see OLED TVs just as much as everyone but for mobile, OLED still saps battery faster than LCD for web applications, does it not?



Depends on background/colors used, and whether they're using the phosphorescent OLED materials or not.


----------



## rogo

@pdoherty, your sources of information suck.


"By the release of the iPad 2 in March 2011, more than 15 million iPads had been sold". That was one year, well less. April 3, 2010 to March 13, 2011 with a staggered global rollout -- i.e. slow -- and no 3G models at launch.


The first full quarter of iPad 2 sales has been constrained by overwhelming demand, the product is not available in many countries, there was a massive earthquake/tsunami in Japan that affected the supply chain and it's safe to conclude that sales will be *well north of 5 million iPads this quarter and probably approaching 10 million*. Please check back with me in July for the accuracy of this as Apple's quarter ends in June.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20497112
> 
> 
> @pdoherty, your sources of information suck.
> 
> 
> "By the release of the iPad 2 in March 2011, more than 15 million iPads had been sold". That was one year, well less. April 3, 2010 to March 13, 2011 with a staggered global rollout -- i.e. slow -- and no 3G models at launch.
> 
> 
> The first full quarter of iPad 2 sales has been constrained by overwhelming demand, the product is not available in many countries, there was a massive earthquake/tsunami in Japan that affected the supply chain and it's safe to conclude that sales will be *well north of 5 million iPads this quarter and probably approaching 10 million*. Please check back with me in July for the accuracy of this as Apple's quarter ends in June.



And how does even 5 million iPads in a quarter (3 months) spell a need for 5 millions screens a month?


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20498867
> 
> 
> And how does even 5 million iPads in a quarter (3 months) spell a need for 5 millions screens a month?



More than one person has already mentioned they are supply constrained. Do you know that means? It means they could sell many more if they could build them. They haven't even finished introducing it all countries yet because they simply can't build enough.


Why do you have so much invested in the silly OLED iPad rumor? It is just a false rumor and you treat it like gospel, trying to rationalize it at every step.


iPad 3 will be LCD, no ifs,ands or buts. It will be LCD. Drop it and bring the topic back to something actually related to OLEDs.


----------



## rogo

I'm sort of done explaining this to you because I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but I'll give you one last go...


It's May of 2011. This is the first full quarter of *iPad 2* sales. iPad sales have been growing every quarter since the launch of iPad (with the notable mention that all Apple products tend to spike in the Christmas quarter and fall back in the first calendar quarter and Apple is no different here, so I'm talking about trend lines in the context of other tech products and Apple products), with a growth rate that might be described as superb.


The low end of analyst estimates for this quarter is above 5 million, but since I'm not a professional Apple watcher, I can't tell you for example whether the more accurate forecasts are those at 7-8 million or those farther north. I can tell you they sold 4.7 million iPads last quarter, iPad2 was not for sale across most of the globe, Apple describe its inability to meet demand as "the mother of all backlogs" and there is not a shred of evidence that the device has gotten much easier to acquire this quarter despite many more countries of availability. Apple stores still sell out shipments on the day they are received often and Apple employees still can't buy at the discounted price.


Let us simply conclude that if nothing different occurs than is already happening, that the second year of iPad -- the one that commenced approximately around iPad's launch -- will result in 25-30 million shipments. This is the kind of straight-line, not overly bold extrapolation that a kid with 6th-grade math skills could produce. There is no guarantee that such sales will in fact result, but just comparing the first quarter's 3+ million sales to the almost certainty of 100% year-over-year growth this quarter will represent, *the notion of year two doing 30 million iPads is not far fetched at all*.


Since we are discussing iPad 3, we are discussing the 3rd year of the device and while, again, growth may stall organically, competition may dent growth, any number of things might happen, Apple is not going to sit here and plan for anything other than *continued growth of iPad sales into 2012 and beyond*. Because of this, they are likely forecasting a minimum of 25 million iPads to be sold in it's second year and a minimum of 40 million in its third year. The way Apple buys and sources components, however, is not based on minimums. It's based on a series of scenarios and if you can't meet *all of the scenarios*, you are not chosen as a supplier.


Since there are any number of scenarios involving iPad 3 sales of 50 million units -- or more -- and since, in fact, those scenarios are likely, any screen suppliers for iPad 3 will be required to demonstrate the capability to source 5 million screens per month to get a contract as the iPad's screen supplier. While the contract may be divided between multiple suppliers -- in fact, it almost certainly will be -- it will not likely be divided across multiple technologies since Apple would then have to sell iPads with different screens for different dollar amounts and that seems an unlikely point of differentiation on a product that already suffers from SKU proliferation.


----------



## specuvestor

As discussed previously I think the financial constraints of SDI is a main issue for SMD ramp up of OLED. I think it is likely that Sammy will be taking over more control of SMD from SDI:


"Samsung SDI is down 10% today on rumors that SDI may consider divestment of SMD

stake to raise capital to be used for CAPEX of the solar business it acquired from Sammy last Friday.


While my analyst believes the likelihood of SMD stake sale within this year to be unlikely, as Sammy did NOT take the unsubscribed shares during the rights offering in March, allowing SDI to remain a significant shareholder with more than 30% ownership in SMD (current pro-forma SDI shareholding 36%), while SMD's internal cash-in-flow (EBITDA) will be W1.7 tril this year, and the 8G ramp-up will take more time, reducing the required capital for CAPEX.


Remember, Samsung announced total of W5.4 tril in OLED this year."


----------



## rogo

Some PhoneArena item today implies the 5.5G OLED line is open ahead of schedule

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsu...siness_id19213 


Well, more than implies, it says it's open and ahead of schedule and phone customers should be delighted.


The implications for TV continue to not exist, but I'm sure fanboys and girls will find them anyway. Anyway, it's good news for Galaxy II S hopefuls. That phone seems very very hot.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> The implications for TV continue to not exist,



One step at a time. We were never going to get a Gen 8 fab before we got a Gen 5.5 fab so this is just another in a chain of events that needs to happens before a TV becomes reality.


Next up is getting sufficient yields to make tablet and larger sized displays a reality.


Slacker


----------



## rogo

Slacker, that's a fair point.


----------



## work permit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20509835
> 
> 
> Some PhoneArena item today implies the 5.5G OLED line is open ahead of schedule
> 
> http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsu...siness_id19213
> 
> 
> Well, more than implies, it says it's open and ahead of schedule and phone customers should be delighted.
> 
> 
> The implications for TV continue to not exist, but I'm sure fanboys and girls will find them anyway. Anyway, it's good news for Galaxy II S hopefuls. That phone seems very very hot.



Seems samsung is having some qc problems with their Galaxy II s AMOLED tinted yellow on one side . And they get blue-tinted when viewed at an angle. Its a useful reminder that there are kinks to be worked out even with a 4.3-inch screen size.


----------



## rogo

Yet more speculation -- probably informed -- that iPad 3 will not use OLED.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._gen_ipad.html


----------



## slacker711

The only way the iPad 3 gets an OLED display is if we start hearing about another Gen 5.5 plant from Samsung....and construction would need to start now.


Slacker


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20496620
> 
> 
> Is that because you've seen so many full-color QLED screens? There aren't any, outside of a tiny 4" prototype in Samsung's lab, that was just created a few months ago and is the first full-color QLED (and looks horrid). QLEDs also have no lifetime to speak of, and there is zero production capacity in place for it as it's still being developed and nowhere close to manufacturing. The time from the lab to production is many years. It's been 10 or more for OLED and will be the same for QLED if it ever happens.
> 
> 
> One reason it may not ever happen is that QLEDs use toxic metals like cadmium. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them when the industry has invested more than 10 Billion on OLED production, which is green and uses no toxic materials at all, and is already on millions of devices. And is rapidly ramping into white lighting as well as displays.



well optimists like you on the qled thread have a different opinion. ipad size oled screens, which i would love to have, are at least 5 years out. manufacturing process for qleds sounds less complicated and according to pedro, there has been a lot of r & d already done with this technology.


----------



## rogo

Further commentary backing my post above. Honestly, the below is not affirmative enough on the topic, but it should more or less prove the point.


From Digitimes:

iPad 3 unlikely to adopt AMOLED panels

Rebecca Kuo, Tainan; Jackie Chang, DIGITIMES [Wednesday 1 June 2011]


Market rumors that Apple hopes to use AMOLED panels for iPad 3 have been dismissed by industry sources as the capacity of AMOLED panels is still too low. Hence it would be unlikely for firms to meet the large demand from Apple. South-Korea based Samsung Mobile Display (SMD) announced its 5.5G facility will begin operations for AMOLED panels two months ahead of schedule, according to industry sources.


Taiwan-based panel makers pointed out that Samsung brand tablet PCs have not all adopted AMOLED panels. Only its Galaxy S II smartphones feature AMOLED panels, hence, it is unlikely for iPad 3 to adopt AMOLED panels. Industry observers indicated that demand for small- to medium-size AMOLED panels has been increasing, therefore, causing a shortage. The production might not catch up with the schedule of Apple's iPad 3. It is more likely for Apple to adopt AMOLED panels in products after iPad 3.


In addition, SMD current dominates the AMOLED market with advanced technology. It is unlikely for Apple to adopt AMOLED panels when there is only one supplier since Apple usually prefers more than one source.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ipad size oled screens, which i would love to have, are at least 5 years out.



you would see Samsung tablet with 7" or 10" OLED screen next 12 months. But I agree capacity ramp will still be too small for iPad3 next 12 months. Anyone's guess after ipad3 though considering the politics involved as well.


----------



## rogo

My sense is that the pissing contest over mobile phone patents between Apple and Samsung will be resolved one way or the other. But regardless, Apple spends something on the order of $10 billion annually with Samsung and I find it hard to believe that Samsung wants anything other than to grow that business in any and every way possible.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/20513734
> 
> 
> well optimists like you on the qled thread have a different opinion. *ipad size oled screens, which i would love to have, are at least 5 years out.* manufacturing process for qleds sounds less complicated and according to pedro, there has been a lot of r & d already done with this technology.



You're *WAY* off, IMO (on section I bolded above). In fact, in TODAY's updated report on PANL (Universal Display) from Gabelli analysts, they believe we'll be seeing tablet OLED displays by 2012. (source: Gabelli analysts, June 2nd report on Universal Display)


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/20513734
> 
> 
> well optimists like you on the qled thread have a different opinion. ipad size oled screens, which i would love to have, are at least 5 years out. manufacturing process for qleds sounds less complicated and according to pedro, there has been a lot of r & d already done with this technology.



The other thing you're not addressing is that qleds have almost no lifetime to speak of, use toxic materials and are not even past the drawing stage yet. If you thought (I corrected you in my last post) tablet-sized OLED screens were 5 years out you must believe qled screens are at least 10 out.


----------



## rogo

No one is planning on mass producing QLEDs, so it's kind of irrelevant -- as usual -- what the claims around them are. This is the same story over and over.


As for OLEDs in tablets, if the figures in the excerpt pdoherty linked are to be believed, it fully explains that there was never a chance iPad 3 would use an OLED display because even Samsung + LG could only theoretically supply the necessary quantity of displays and that's if Samsung decided not to use OLEDs in its own Galaxy Tab line, which was not going to happen -- giving the stuff to Apple first.


If we see Samsung successfully double capacity in 2012 to the point where they can make 65 million 10" displays (note that it's listed as "either/or" which is another problem) and LG reaches 10 million 10" display capacity in 2012, the notion of OLED for iPad 4 in 2013 gets less far fetched. That's assuming, of course, those OLEDs do something that the equivalent 2014 LCDs don't do in terms of battery life, brightness, contrast, resolution, et al. Something Apple can market.


I suspect iPad 3 will have a meaningful bump in display quality via LCD. But time will tell. In the meantime, again, all this is amazing news for those who want OLEDs in their phones and means that regardless, Samsung should not hit constraints supplying itself for Galaxy II S. Samsung has to start actually selling decent numbers of tablets for the rest of that story to get more interesting.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20518694
> 
> 
> You're *WAY* off, IMO (on section I bolded above). In fact, in TODAY's updated report on PANL (Universal Display) from Gabelli analysts, they believe we'll be seeing tablet OLED displays by 2012. (source: Gabelli analysts, June 2nd report on Universal Display)





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20518704
> 
> 
> The other thing you're not addressing is that qleds have almost no lifetime to speak of, use toxic materials and are not even past the drawing stage yet. If you thought (I corrected you in my last post) tablet-sized OLED screens were 5 years out you must believe qled screens are at least 10 out.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20518976
> 
> 
> No one is planning on mass producing QLEDs, so it's kind of irrelevant -- as usual -- what the claims around them are. This is the same story over and over.
> 
> 
> As for OLEDs in tablets, if the figures in the excerpt pdoherty linked are to be believed, it fully explains that there was never a chance iPad 3 would use an OLED display because even Samsung + LG could only theoretically supply the necessary quantity of displays and that's if Samsung decided not to use OLEDs in its own Galaxy Tab line, which was not going to happen -- giving the stuff to Apple first.
> 
> 
> If we see Samsung successfully double capacity in 2012 to the point where they can make 65 million 10" displays (note that it's listed as "either/or" which is another problem) and LG reaches 10 million 10" display capacity in 2012, the notion of OLED for iPad 4 in 2013 gets less far fetched. That's assuming, of course, those OLEDs do something that the equivalent 2014 LCDs don't do in terms of battery life, brightness, contrast, resolution, et al. Something Apple can market.
> 
> 
> I suspect iPad 3 will have a meaningful bump in display quality via LCD. But time will tell. In the meantime, again, all this is amazing news for those who want OLEDs in their phones and means that regardless, Samsung should not hit constraints supplying itself for Galaxy II S. Samsung has to start actually selling decent numbers of tablets for the rest of that story to get more interesting.





well all i was doing was posting what i read on the qled thread. i am certainly no expert in this field. i would love to have oled ipads in a year but

there is so much conflicting info about what samsung is or is not doing with

their next gen oled fab that i don't know who is correct.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/20513734
> 
> 
> well optimists like you on the qled thread have a different opinion. ipad size oled screens, which i would love to have, are at least 5 years out. manufacturing process for qleds sounds less complicated and according to pedro, there has been a lot of r & d already done with this technology.



Maybe they are optimistic, but for qled to succeed in a wider market than just Korea or the US they have to get rid of toxic heavy metals like cadmium.


Didn't know this until recently, but cadmium is illegal in Japan and several other countries. You can't make a product that can't be imported to major markets like that.


----------



## rogo

"...there is so much conflicting info about what samsung is or is not doing with

their next gen oled fab that i don't know who is correct..."


There is conflicting information about what Samsung is doing. None of that changes the fact that any iPad introduced in 2012 simply cannot be based on OLED.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20496630
> 
> 
> How do you make such a prediction when the first and second iPads have sold 15 million in almost 2 years?



Apple released some numbers at WWDC:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...s_quarter.html 


25 Million in 14 months. On track for an 8 Million quarter.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20536689
> 
> 
> Apple released some numbers at WWDC:
> 
> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...s_quarter.html
> 
> 
> 25 Million in 14 months. On track for an 8 Million quarter.



Yep, and while there is plenty of time for this tendline to decelerate, it's also possible that iPad (and other tablet) infrastructure is going to catch up over the next quarters and years (e.g. iCloud, other iOS features, OnLive, AirPlay) to keep this phenomenon accelerating.


I'm one of those who believe tablet computing is beginning to crowd out desktop computing. That doesn't mean it's eliminating it -- by no means will that happen in the next 10 years. But it's going to be the "good enough and often better" substitute for millions of people in the coming years.


Shall we take bets on whether iPad 4 has an OLED display? Because that's actually a somewhat interesting bet.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20538187
> 
> 
> Shall we take bets on whether iPad 4 has an OLED display? Because that's actually a somewhat interesting bet.



Very low odds of it happening even for iPad4.


Apple doesn't change screens on a annual basis. The pay big bucks up front to make sure the tooling/assembly lines are ready to roll in volumes, it really doesn't make sense to do this for a single model year.


Which is why when everyone was saying HD screen for iPad 2, I said not going to happen.


I think there is chance that next year sticks with the current resolution, if that happens I guess iPad4 could be OLED but I doubt it.


Ipad3 could be the double res LCD screen (2048x1536) and if it is, I am certain they will carry that same screen over to iPad4.


Ipad5 maybe??


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20538686
> 
> 
> Very low odds of it happening even for iPad4.
> 
> 
> Apple doesn't change screens on a annual basis. The pay big bucks up front to make sure the tooling/assembly lines are ready to roll in volumes, it really doesn't make sense to do this for a single model year.
> 
> 
> Which is why when everyone was saying HD screen for iPad 2, I said not going to happen.
> 
> 
> I think there is chance that next year sticks with the current resolution, if that happens I guess iPad4 could be OLED but I doubt it.
> 
> 
> Ipad3 could be the double res LCD screen (2048x1536) and if it is, I am certain they will carry that same screen over to iPad4.
> 
> 
> Ipad5 maybe??





i bet not going to happen. my most optomistic prediction is that we're still 2-3 years out from oled tablet screens. and why would sammy let apple have it first if they are the only manufacturer?


----------



## rogo

@guidry, good point, it does seem almost certain iPad 3 will have some sort of Retina Display. That makes iPad 4 a very unlikely candidate for a big display change.


@wally, I was more thinking that by 2013 Samsung and LG could possibly supply both Samsung and Apple. But that could still be beyond the capacity of both if the tablet market grows as predicted. Maybe iPad 5.


----------



## mr. wally

looks like this has a better chance of being on ipad like devices by next year rather than oled



Now this is pixel density... .8-inch 1280 x 1024 LCD panels and a 2048 x 1536 panel in the works that the company claims can deliver visuals nigh-indistinguishable from the real world.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/08/r...-powered-by-p/


----------



## specuvestor

More info on SMD ramp and with 8G pilot


"- Utilization rate for 5.5G A2 line in Jun: 70% with a capacity of 16,000 sheets per month


- SMD to increase 5.5G A2 line capacity to 72,000 sheets per month until 4Q11


- SMD to additionally expand 5.5G A2 line capacity to 96,000 sheets per month until 2Q12


- SMD to start a pilot production in 8G V1 line from 4Q11"


----------



## rogo

What's interesting, I guess, Spec, is that 100% of that 5.5G capacity seems directed to phones.


----------



## specuvestor

Though I think samsung galaxy s will be best selling android model, but 100k per month of mother glass is a lot







I do think the ramp up includes tablet demand for samsung


----------



## rogo

I don't. Unless they plan on not really selling tablets. You can't sort of have enough screens for your tablet but sort of not.


There ought to be about 200 mobile phone screens per 5.5g substrate. At ~100k substrates per month, you are looking at 2MM mobile phone screens per month, or 25MM annually. Samsung might be able to absorb that product _on its own_ for Galaxy II S/Galaxy III S. And even if not, they will have no problem finding customers at HTC and ZTE, looking to demonstrate high-end models.


Keep in mind Galaxy S sold 10 million units in just 7 months. I just don't see where you find tablet capacity in this 5.5G production. Again, unless you assume they aren't really selling any tablets. And I don't buy that as Samsung's business plan.


----------



## powertoold

The Playstation Vita is a 5" OLED. 7" OLED tablets will come soon.


----------



## slacker711

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rogo* 
I don't. Unless they plan on not really selling tablets. You can't sort of have enough screens for your tablet but sort of not.


There ought to be about 200 mobile phone screens per 5.5g substrate. At ~100k substrates per month, you are looking at 2MM mobile phone screens per month, or 25MM annually. Samsung might be able to absorb that product _on its own_ for Galaxy II S/Galaxy III S. And even if not, they will have no problem finding customers at HTC and ZTE, looking to demonstrate high-end models.


Keep in mind Galaxy S sold 10 million units in just 7 months. I just don't see where you find tablet capacity in this 5.5G production. Again, unless you assume they aren't really selling any tablets. And I don't buy that as Samsung's business plan.
You are off by an order of magnitude. 200 screens per substrate x 100K is 20 million handset displays a month. Add in another 3-4 million a month from current Samsung capacity and you end up with capacity for well over 250 million 4.3" AMOLED displays a year. That is more than enough capacity for the smartphone market in early 2012.


In addition to specuvestor's listed capacity, it has been rumored that Samsung plans a second Gen 5.5 fab (A3) that would begin its ramp in 2012.


One thing we do agree on is that the potential tablet market is huge. However, I also think it is very price sensitive. IMO, the first round of non-Apple tablets missed this point entirely and it is only now that we are seeing competitive offerings that have any chance of selling. The fact that $499 is basically a price ceiling for a tablet is going to impact the introduction of AMOLED's in tablets....there is likely going to be a premium even when SMD ramps up their yields.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

I missed rogo's iPad3 volume projection as ipad2 and he missed a zero. We're square










Good point on the OLED tablet price which would likely be at least 50% more expensive I guess.


I think the A3 line is part of the ramp phase and not a new fab per se.


----------



## slacker711

Quote:

Originally Posted by *specuvestor* 
I think the A3 line is part of the ramp phase and not a new fab per se.
Oops, I must have misinterpreted some of the info. Are they using A3 to refer to capacity beyond the 100,000 substrates currently planned?


The Gen 8 fab though is still the big one though. Hopefully, we'll soon hear what approach Samsung plans to get around the various problems with large OLED displays/substrates.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

I think so. IMHO $2.5b must be a really huge 5.5G fab







IIRC there should be 4 lines.


Again it will depend on the demand take up of the fab. If a premium priced tablet is unsuccessful then I think the 5.5G ramp and 8G plan will be up in air. IMHO the next 12 months will be critical to whether OLED can make it mainstream, or a costly samsung mistake.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20545868
> 
> 
> You are off by an order of magnitude. 200 screens per substrate x 100K is 20 million handset displays a month. Add in another 3-4 million a month from current Samsung capacity and you end up with capacity for well over 250 million 4.3" AMOLED displays a year. That is more than enough capacity for the smartphone market in early 2012.



There you go Slacker, good catch.


Rogo now believes Samsung is ramping up OLED production for the Galaxy tablet line, but also to allow it to sell OLED phone screens to companies like HTC, ZTE, etc.


It's going to be more than a little ironic, however, if Samsung is like "we have OLED tablets" and Apple is like "we have Retina Display tablets". And I wouldn't rule that out completely.


----------



## barry728

Buy Alert: Universal Display (Nasdaq: PANL)

Another Winner in the OLED Revolution



In the April issue of The Sovereign Individual, I told you about the new, disruptive technology known at organic light-emitting diodes, or OLED. The revolutionary lighting technology has already begun a process that will usher in a radically new television experience, and then flood through all manner of consumer electronics, automotive electronics and even outdoor signage.


I've been keeping up with what's happening in OLED. And just recently, Universal Display, an OLED company I've been watching intently, has seen its shares fall by nearly half.


That's our opportunity to jump into the shares of what will clearly be a company that wins big in this technology revolution.


Action to take: BUY Universal Display (Nasdaq: PANL) up to $40 a share.


Universal is a technology leader in OLED - with licenses for more than 1,000 issued or pending patents - and it holds a critical position within the industry. It is a primary supplier of the material that allows OLEDs to display colors.


All displays, whether they're LED, LCD or OLED, rely on the combination of the primary colors red, blue and green to make all the colors that go into an electronic picture. Universal is particularly adept at the color green, making it a key cog in the process of fabricating an OLED display panel.


As you might recall from the April issue, the key difference between LED, LCD and OLED is that the first two require a light source behind the colors to make an image visible. OLEDs generate their own light. That negates the need for an independent light source, cutting the weight and power consumption of a device, and allowing display-makers to make displays that, literally, could be paper thin in the not-too-distant future.


But display makers need Universal in the mix.


The company's phosphorescent colors - particularly green - are multiple times more efficient than competing fluorescent technologies, and the efficiency gives OLEDs made with phosphorescent technology longer life which, in turn, brings down the price of making OLED which, in turn, will increase demand for the technology.


Universal is tied to every major player in OLED today, including LG Display, the company we already own in the TSI portfolio for its exposure to the burgeoning OLED market.


Most importantly, it's tied to Samsung Mobile Display, which effectively owns the market at the moment. Samsung Mobile is a private company, so owing Universal is one of the purest ways to gain exposure.


Universal and Samsung Mobile are currently in contractual talks about license renewal. Those negotiations have been going on for a while, and have hit some sticking points, likely related to royalty rates and such.


But an agreement will be reached. Industry reports indicate Samsung Mobile will launch a production line later this year to build 65-inch OLED TV screens - and in doing so it has reportedly designed phosphorescent green into the production. That would clearly benefit Universal.


Aside from Samsung Mobile, activity is increasing among a variety of tech companies in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and China that are building OLED fabrication plants. I expect we'll see a number of contracts with Universal come from those efforts over the remaining course of the years.


In recent weeks, investors have taken down Universal's shares on concerns that some patent litigation in Japan could potentially impact patents the company holds in other countries. However, investors are misreading the results of that litigation.


But that has given us the opportunity to buy into a technology leader at a good price. As the Samsung Mobile contract reaches fruition, and as additional display-makers sign on with Universal, this company's stock should rebound strongly back towards the $60 range, at least.


For those reasons, and because I recognize that OLED will usher in such a revolutionary change to our everyday lives, I'm adding Universal Display (PANL) to our TSI portfolio. The stock trades right at $37.


Action to take: BUY Universal Display (Nasdaq: PANL) up to $40 a share.


Until next time, stay Sovereign 


Jeff D. Opdyke

Editor, The Sovereign Individual




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sovereign Society Members-Only Website
http://www.sovereignsociety.com


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barry728* /forum/post/20550106
> 
> 
> Buy Alert: Universal Display (Nasdaq: PANL)
> 
> Another Winner in the OLED Revolution
> 
> 
> I’ve been keeping up with what’s happening in OLED. And just recently, Universal Display, an OLED company I’ve been watching intently, has seen its shares fall by nearly half.





> Quote:
> *That’s our opportunity to jump into the shares of what will clearly be a company that wins big in this technology revolution.*





> Quote:
> All displays, whether they’re LED, LCD or OLED...





> Quote:
> As you might recall from the April issue, the key difference between LED, LCD and OLED is that the *first two require a light source* behind the colors to make an image visible.



I've got an idea. Why not back light a LCD display with a LED light source.































I couldn't read any more. The author seems to be getting his understanding of LCD technology from Best Buy advertisements. What amazing things must he know about OLED.


----------



## rogo

I also laughed that the stock is down by half apparently, but I'm only supposed to buy it till it appreciates another 7% or so. Sounds like a real powerhouse!


----------



## MikeBiker

It is rare for a major company to make a commitment to a sole source for any component for a product that has high volumn. Until there are two or more sources that are in volumn production, Apple will not want only Samsung.


----------



## specuvestor

Think IPS. Or power pc cpu by motorola for those old enough.


Sometimes they got no choice, sometimes it's politics, sometimes it's alliance like Wintel or Dell/intel in the past.


Strategic decisions in business can make or break.


----------



## rogo

All true, spec, but Apple won't be single sourcing the iPad screen at this point. They have no competitive need to and billions of reasons not to.


----------



## specuvestor

They've been single sourcing from LGD and now moving to CMI and Sharp. Similarly they are trying to nurture CMI for OLED because for obvious reasons Sammy will fulfill their internal OLED demand first.


I actually think it is possible that the next iPad may be 2 screens technology, maybe retina black and OLED white iPad or iPhones.


But again depends on next 12 months how the market accept premium priced OLED devices.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20554722
> 
> 
> They've been single sourcing from LGD and now moving to CMI and Sharp. Similarly they are trying to nurture CMI for OLED because for obvious reasons Sammy will fulfill their internal OLED demand first.
> 
> 
> I actually think it is possible that the next iPad may be 2 screens technology, maybe retina black and OLED white iPad or iPhones.



I can't believe people are still flogging that brain dead rumor.


No way in hell will any iPad 3 have an OLED screen, *iPad 5 at the earliest*.


Also you clearly don't understand how Apple works, if you think they are going to have different types of screens in white ipads.


----------



## greenland

"Sony & Toshiba to merge LCD & OLED divisions"

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1307629091 

*09 Jun 2011
*













"According to Japanese Nikkei the two electronics manufacturers, Toshiba and Sony, are planning to merge their LCD and OLED production divisions to focus on production of LCD and in particularly OLED displays. The companies have not confirmed the rumor but Nikkei claims to have details......................."


----------



## rogo

@Guidry, I agree with you completely. There isn't any chance that the black and white iPads will have different screens. And there just isn't any chance at all iPad 3 will have an OLED screen. If Spec was referring back to iPad 3 there, he's thinking wishfully or mis-speaking. I fairly well showed that mathematically iPad 3 cannot have OLED screens (and that math was done more correctly). And the fact is, there would literally be one source on the planet at that point -- which after Fukushima is not happening.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

hope Apple fans pay through their noses for the Oled screens sooner rather than later, for the same reason I'm glad Ipod made nand flash cheap as dirt for the rest of us, who buy mp3 players from e.g. samsung and pay 1/4 of the price for the same thing.


Actually, better, since my samsung sansa clip has been through the washing machine 5 times and still works...not to mention plays .Flac and acts as a USB thumb drive...no BS software necessary


In terms of Oled, let's hope Apple picks it up in one of their new toys so the mass production cost +quality issues can be fixed. Then the rest of us can enjoy quality tech and not be gouged for all our disposable income, and we can chuckle while we put our money into some good scotch and enjoy the deep blacks


----------



## rogo

I find it funny that Apple made flash cheaper for Samsung when they buy from Samsung....


But I think you mean Sandisk.










You are correct that if Apple adopts OLED at any point, it'll get cheaper for everyone. So to that end, it'd be a good thing for sure.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ I have no inside info but I think it is PLAUSIBLE to produce 1 mio OLED iPhones or even iPads white a month, depending on a lot of dynamics like demand for galaxy s products, yield rate etc. and not forgetting LG and CMI furiously trying to get into the bandwagen. Nonetheless the majority >80% will be LCD for sure. Apple has always been at the forefront of technology adoption, and sometimes too early in fact







Personally IMHO these failures are why Jobs is competitive rather than idealistic now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *guidryp*
I can't believe people are still flogging that brain dead rumor.


No way in hell will any iPad 3 have an OLED screen, iPad 5 at the earliest.


Also you clearly don't understand how Apple works, if you think they are going to have different types of screens in white ipads.








just to clarify: are you saying Apple never differentiate their white and black devices?


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20561467
> 
> 
> just to clarify: are you saying Apple never differentiate their white and black devices?



Apple is all about simplifying choice and supply chain, not making it more complex.


OLED for Apple will almost certainly start on the iPhone and it will be the whole lineup, not case color determining screen type.


I see iPhone 6 as the first OLED possability and iPad 5 as the earliest iPad possability.


But I would rather be talking about TVs than phones/tablets where I really don't care about OLED.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20562321
> 
> 
> Apple is all about simplifying choice and supply chain, not making it more complex.
> 
> 
> OLED for Apple will almost certainly start on the iPhone and it will be the whole lineup, not case color determining screen type.
> 
> 
> I see iPhone 6 as the first OLED possability and iPad 5 as the earliest iPad possability.
> 
> 
> But I would rather be talking about TVs than phones/tablets where I really don't care about OLED.



well oled will certainly come to phones and tablet displays before it

it's available as a retail tv screen. It's still several years out, but at this point in time, oled stiil appears to be the next great display tech for sets and other display devices. certainly with more legs than sed ever got.


----------



## rogo

I am giggling only because OLED has been 5 years away for TVs for the past 10 years. And everything we write seems to suggest the same... Let's hope Samsung does something ridiculous and makes some ludicrously overprice 50" TV so at least we can see if it even lives up to the hype. Cause right now I'm not sure it will, but I am sure that the plasma/LCD forces can't seem to take us over the last few hurdles with their technology. So my TV for the 2020s could really use some new technology.


----------



## specuvestor

Quote:

Originally Posted by *guidryp*
Apple is all about simplifying choice and supply chain, not making it more complex.
Simplifying choice for the consumers is right. But not true if you are the supplier. One of the main reason Apple don't have numerous suppliers is because their components are difficult to manufacture. Their ASP is high but margin is excruciatingly low. Ask wintek, foxconn, catcher, LGD, etc. IMHO apple white has become a sub-brand itself so I'm not surprised if they differentiate it as a premium product.


I will take note of your forecast. Like rogo I tend to have pretty long memory


----------



## rogo

iPad2 had a simultaneous intro in black and white at identical prices. I suspect we'll see same with iPhone 5 (which is likely to be called 4S, but that's another matter).


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20566035
> 
> 
> Simplifying choice for the consumers is right. But not true if you are the supplier. One of the main reason Apple don't have numerous suppliers is because their components are difficult to manufacture. Their ASP is high but margin is excruciatingly low. Ask wintek, foxconn, catcher, LGD, etc. IMHO apple white has become a sub-brand itself so I'm not surprised if they differentiate it as a premium product.
> 
> 
> I will take note of your forecast. Like rogo I tend to have pretty long memory



Having only one type of screen is also a simplification on the supply side for Apple. I also enables multiple sources for the same products. I read multiple rumors about Samsung becoming a second source for LCDs, which makes a lot more sense.


Having one type of screen simplifies the choice for the consumer, simplifies Apples advertising message, simplifies and makes the supply chain more robust.


It would be idiotic and anti-apple to split screen type based on color.


----------



## navychop

What I'd really like to see is reasonably priced OLED lighting. I'm redoing my kitchen and installing LED under cabinet lights. I suspect the OLED version, when it comes, will be thinner and the source of light more widespread across the fixture.


----------



## moreHD

Hi,


Are there any 7 or 8 inch OLED digital photo frames available? I'm asking here because I don't monitor photography websites. Thank you in advance.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moreHD* /forum/post/20644563
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> Are there any 7 or 8 inch OLED digital photo frames available? I'm asking here because I don't monitor photography websites. Thank you in advance.



No. There is no full-resolution OLED of that size in any consumer product yet.


----------



## estoniankid

Just went back east for a week to visit my sister. She just bought

a Verizon, Sammy phone that she says has an amoled screen. About 4.5"

screen size. It looked good but not sure if it was an oled screen.


If it is an oled screen, don't think it will be more than 12-18 mos before it appears on an ipad.


----------



## rogo

If it's a Verizon phone, it could have an OLED. But we've explained several times why the 12-18 month time horizon for an iPad to have one is unlikely. iPad 3 can't possibly be OLED. iPad 4 in theory could, but the relationship between Samsung phones and iPad screens is tenuous at best, especially with Apple currently attempting to avoid buying anything and everything it can from Samsung.


----------



## irfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *estoniankid* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just went back east for a week to visit my sister. She just bought
> 
> a Verizon, Sammy phone that she says has an amoled screen. About 4.5"
> 
> screen size. It looked good but not sure if it was an oled screen.
> 
> 
> If it is an oled screen, don't think it will be more than 12-18 mos before it appears on an ipad.



if its a galaxy phone then its super amoled (which is oled) . those screens are amazing.


----------



## estoniankid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irfan* /forum/post/20651759
> 
> 
> if its a galaxy phone then its super amoled (which is oled) . those screens are amazing.




Yeah it looked real good. I could read it from 5' away.


these oled developments are pretty exciting.


----------



## rgb32

I'd love to pick one of these up when they start shipping in September:

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-PVM2541/ 










http://translate.googleusercontent.c...0MV30zfcKbsHDA 


Being able to display sources using the panels native (expanded) color gamut looks like a fun feature!


----------



## rogo

The PR on them suggested a sub-90-degree viewing angle,. Fine for a broadcast booth (I guess, not exactly ideal even there), but not that exciting in your house. Although maybe at 25" you'll be so close it wouldn't matter. $6100 seems rich for 25". You could buy two Sharp 70s.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20656832
> 
> 
> The PR on them suggested a *sub-90-degree viewing angle*,. Fine for a broadcast booth (I guess, not exactly ideal even there), but not that exciting in your house. Although maybe at 25" you'll be so close it wouldn't matter. $6100 seems rich for 25". You could buy two Sharp 70s.












http://www.sony.jp/pro/products/PVM-...C_PVM-2541.pdf 



> Quote:
> Viewing Angle (with panel)
> 
> (Up, Down, Left, Right): 89 degrees, 89 degrees, 89 degrees, 89 degrees (contrast> 10:1, the Typical)



So, horizontal viewing angle would be 89+89 = 178 and the vertical viewing angle would be 178 as well (from the spec sheet).


----------



## rogo

I've never, ever seen a viewing angle defined that way. I speculated it might be when they announced this thing, but you've confirmed that. It's a _genuinely bizarre_ way of defining it in an industry that uses terms like 178-degree viewing angle -- accurately -- for most displays.


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20646199
> 
> 
> No. There is no full-resolution OLED of that size in any consumer product yet.



Rogo,


There's talk Samsung will bring a "full sized" OLED tv within the next 3 yrs or so. This excerpt is from an article I saw a couple of weeks ago in the Korean press:



From a previous article:


Samsung is building a $3 billion LCD plant in southern China with production expected to begin in early 2013 as China is set to become the world's biggest consumer electronics market, nudging past countries in North America.


``*But the bottom line is that Samsung intends to tap into a large-sized OLED market eventually for TVs within the next three years.* Its LCD business and facility in China will be tasked to meet local demand in China. That's the strategy,'' a fund manager in Seoul said.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20657346
> 
> 
> I've never, ever seen a viewing angle defined that way. I speculated it might be when they announced this thing, but you've confirmed that. It's a _genuinely bizarre_ way of defining it in an industry that uses terms like 178-degree viewing angle -- accurately -- for most displays.



I have seen it both ways a number of times and it is NOT very accurate for LCDs. IPS/VA LCDS both have the same meanigless rating and they don't behave the same and neither is as good as plasma/crt or OLED.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20661174
> 
> 
> Rogo,
> 
> 
> There's talk Samsung will bring a "full sized" OLED tv within the next 3 yrs or so. This excerpt is from an article I saw a couple of weeks ago in the Korean press:
> 
> 
> 
> From a previous article:
> 
> 
> Samsung is building a $3 billion LCD plant in southern China with production expected to begin in early 2013 as China is set to become the world's biggest consumer electronics market, nudging past countries in North America.
> 
> 
> ``*But the bottom line is that Samsung intends to tap into a large-sized OLED market eventually for TVs within the next three years.* Its LCD business and facility in China will be tasked to meet local demand in China. That's the strategy,'' a fund manager in Seoul said.



I'll believe it when I can buy it. No offense to some South Korean mutual fund manager, but the track record of those kind of predictions is terrible.


To date, there has been absolutely no commercially available OLED TV other than an 11" Sony that cost $2500. This... speaks.. volumes...


----------



## estoniankid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20661621
> 
> 
> I'll believe it when I can buy it. No offense to some South Korean mutual fund manager, but the track record of those kind of predictions is terrible.
> 
> 
> To date, there has been absolutely no commercially available OLED TV other than an 11" Sony that cost $2500. This... speaks.. volumes...




When will the sed displays be available?


----------



## walt73

Too right. I seem to remember LG promising a 15" OLED for Q4 2009 (!!). And then there's that 30-incher which is always 9 months in the future. Flying car.


----------



## rogo

Walt, at least you can buy the flying car!

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transp...-fly-and-drive 


That puts it ahead of the LG OLEDs.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walt73* /forum/post/20684877
> 
> 
> Too right. I seem to remember LG promising a 15" OLED for Q4 2009 (!!). And then there's that 30-incher which is always 9 months in the future. Flying car.



Not exactly a flying car...


The 15EL9500 was released in South Korea and Europe, but was not released in North America.


The 31" model was only released in South Korea? So, now you know where to go buy a flying car!










Also, the 25" 1080p Sony PVM-2541 will be available for purchase in September 2011!


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/20685956
> 
> 
> The 31" model was only released in South Korea? So, now you know where to go buy a flying car!



Do you mind showing a link with that info. I never read that the 31" was released anywhere, I am pretty sure that would have been big news on all the tech sites I read.


----------



## rogo

I am struggling to find any indications that the 31" has been released in South Korea or anywhere.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20686331
> 
> 
> I am struggling to find any indications that the 31" has been released in South Korea or anywhere.



Yeah, I double checked and can't seem to find any either... So, I guess it's just been a model LG has been showing at trade shows for a while but hasn't actually released.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20687297
> 
> 
> @Spec, funny thing is, I'm not trying to buy a videophile set this year. Too many bugs, glitches, etc. from _every manufacturer_ and the videophile sets so far are either just a little better (Pansonic) or not better (Samsung). So I'm looking for something in the $2000-3000 range that I can buy and hang out with for 2-3 years. Samsung's stupid OLED plant allegedly can make 65" panels! This could tide me over if they ever get serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (And if they don't, I would get a 65 or 70 in 2-3 years that's better than whatever's out today, costs less, and hopefully is less glitchy.)



If you look at what SLCD 8G plant has been cutting, then we can have a rough guesstimate what the OLED 8G (if it ever gets confirm) can cut optimally in future with approximately 120" diagonal.


----------



## specuvestor

Remembering our last discussion on IGZO, I have relatively long memory like I said







, IGZO is real with Sharp using it for small/mid size panels probably for Apple's retina display

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post19560365


----------



## rogo

I have no doubt Apple is working on a Retina Display iPad (although I'm skeptical about the 2011 rumors). I will say that the notion of Apple using Samsung OLEDs for any iPad, ever, seems pretty remote. By all accounts, Apple is trying to take it's $6 billion in Samsung component buying and reduce that as close to zero as possible.


----------



## walt73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20685939
> 
> 
> Walt, at least you can buy the flying car!
> 
> http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transp...-fly-and-drive
> 
> 
> That puts it ahead of the LG OLEDs.



I stand corrected.










rgb32: I didn't know the 15" was released in Asia; I stand corrected there too.


Given that it's a studio monitor aimed at pro broadcasting / authoring, $6K for the 26" doesn't sound all that outrageous. Still beyond consumer pricing though.


----------



## rogo

It's tangential, but TSMC just taped out samples of Apple's next gen SOC for iPads/iPhones. This suggests that Apple is deadly serious about dropping Samsung as a supplier for everything. Whether it can pull that off or not remains to be seen, but it does mean that iPad will almost certainly not be going OLED until someone not named Samsung can produce enough OLED displays. That's a 2014 at the earliest kind of situation.


It also means that Samsung is finding its way out of $8 billion worth of component sales and while some of those will be replaced by other companies, this is really bad for business in the big picture. Someone at Samsung is probably mathing out the value of Galaxy phones vs. all this business vs. settling their patent disputes with Apple.


I would expect there to be a big move toward settling this at Samsung because they stood to double that business with Apple over the next 3-5 years in large LCD panels, OLED panels, continued growth in NAND flash, SOC fabbing, etc. As profitable as Galaxy phones are, they can afford to find some common ground with Apple on this to preserve a relationship worth north of $100 billion over the next decade.


----------



## hughh

This is part of an article I saw in the Korea Times a few days ago:


Samsung is fighting Apple in eight different courts in six countries, although it partially dropped the lawsuit against Apple in California.


Apple had sued Samsung in April, alleging that Samsung had copied the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad.


The iPhone maker had also filed for a preliminary injunction that would block the sale of Samsung’s products while the case is being resolved.


``The one clear point is that Samsung is firm about getting royalties from Apple in return for using our various telecom-related technologies,’’ said another source, asking not to be identified citing sensitivity of the issue.


``Although Apple is diversifying its procurement channels for key parts such as telecommunication chips, flat-screens and mobile applications to Taiwan and Japan-based firms, Samsung is still a very crucial supplier for Apple that Apple should not lose,’’ said a top-ranking industry executive.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...129_90641.html


----------



## specuvestor

Just hope it don't turn into Apple-Adobe relationship  but stay as a love-hate relationship like Apple-Google, Apple-Microsoft which is good for consumers


----------



## hughh



07-18-2011 16:52

Apple, Samsung, LG work on new LCD


Kwon Oh-hyun, Samsung president for chips, LCDs

By Kim Yoo-chul


Samsung Electronics and LG Display, the world's two largest makers of liquid crystal displays (LCDs), are close to securing big orders from Apple, industry sources said.


Apple is looking to order advanced screens for the next version of its immensely popular tablet computers.


The deal comes as Apple has been looking to reduce its dependence on Samsung to provide key components such as flash memory chips, processors and LCDs.


Samsung, which enjoys a dual strength in parts and finished products, doubles as a friend and foe for Apple. The latter has filed a patent infringement suit against the former for allegedly copying the look and feel of its iPhones and iPads in its own offerings.


Apple has started quality testing Samsung and LG’s LCDs at one of its laboratories in China. Samsung and LG were required to produce screens with better picture quality and density, according to sources, who anticipate the testing process will be completed during the third quarter.


``*Apple’s upcoming iPad 3 will feature an improved display to support quad extended graphics (QXGA), a display resolution of 2048×1536 pixels with a 4:3 aspect ratio to provide full high definition (HD) viewing experience,’’ said a source close to the talks.*


``Apple has traditionally preferred to use the same providers of the same parts for the same device, even as they evolve to different versions. I don’t see any fundamental change to that approach.’’

A possible letdown for Samsung is that Apple appears to have no interest in using its flat screens based on organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs).

*Although Samsung has been investing heavily in related technology, electronics makers have been reluctant to embrace OLEDs, which have shorter life spans and are easily contaminated.*


Although OLEDS are starting to be used in some digital products, most of them are small devices with five-inch screens or smaller.


``*Another drawback is the current OLED technology is not at the level to realize a full HD viewing experience, which is important for tablets,’’ said the source.*


The imminent deals would assure that Samsung and LG continue to be the biggest providers of flat screens to Apple for the foreseeable future.


Samsung and LG are two of the few LCD makers that are at ease with highly-advanced LCD screens.


The companies are both capable of providing high-resolution *QXGA screens* up to 9.7 inches, thanks to *advanced production technology based on the use of low temperature polysilicon.*


``Pixel density, a barometer for viewing quality, should be increased to over 280 pixels-per-inch (PPI) to meet Apple’s stiff requirement for screen viewing,’’ said another source, who predicts that Taiwanese LCD giant CMI will see smaller orders from Apple than its Korean rivals.


Gary Sohn, head of LG Display’s public relations office, and Song Chul-gyu, a Samsung PR officer, both declined to comment.


``Apple will be looking to boost the shipments of its upcoming iPad to distance itself further from tablet rivals like Samsung,’’ said Kim Byeong-ki, an analyst at Kium Securities.


LCD makers have been struggling to cope with falling panel prices due to the slow recovery of the global economy, which has depressed demand for electronics products such as flat-screen televisions.


Samsung and LG have been cutting their LCD output by more than 15 percent to prevent further prices falls, according to company officials.

*Apple's complicated strategies*


While Apple and Samsung continue to maintain a close relationship in screens, chips are a different story.


Apple has been buying a staggering amount of DRAM, NAND flash and other components from Samsung, which also makes Apple-designed A4 and A5 processors on a foundry basis.


However, Apple is recently shifting much of its memory chip orders to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC).

*Apple is currently testing its future iPhones and iPads with processors manufactured by TSMC, which is also the world’s largest contract chipmaker, much to Samsung’s dismay.*


Samsung officials insist the chances are ``very low’’ that Apple’s deteriorating link with Samsung in chips will eventually affect its appetite for Samsung screens.


Things are less complicated for LG, which is euphoric about the increasing number of major handset vendors becoming LCD customers.


``We aren’t affected significantly by Apple’s changing approach. *Apple is first and foremost about product quality, and while it may find other manufacturers to provide customized chips for its new products, the same can’t be said about LCDs,’’* said a senior Samsung executive, asking not to be named.


----------



## Leon!




> Quote:
> A possible letdown for Samsung is that Apple appears to have no interest in using its flat screens based on organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs).
> 
> 
> Although Samsung has been investing heavily in related technology, electronics makers have been reluctant to embrace OLEDs, which *have shorter life spans* and are easily contaminated.




That should actually work out perfectly apple. You're supposed to be upgrading all your i-devices every (or twice per?) year anyway!


----------



## rogo

"``Another drawback is the current OLED technology is not at the level to realize a full HD viewing experience, which is important for tablets,’’ said the source. "


The source is an idiot. The pixel pitch of the Galaxy S II screen is almost precisely correct for a 2048×1536 9.7" screen used on a hypothetical iPad. That's like 3rd grade math, so I'm not sure what they are even supposedly saying.


The reality is until or unless Samsung writes a big patent infringement check to Apple over phone patents, Apple will be distancing itself from Samsung. And therefore, it won't be going OLED anytime soon, which would all but require it will sole sourcing displays from its "frenemy".


I expect Samsung management to eventually tell its lawyers that the patent matter is killing Samsung's component business, as I've said before. Everyone in mobile is paying everyone to license patents; it's unclear why Samsung shouldn't just join the party. HTC is blustering at Apple right now, while agreeing to Microsoft for its use of Google's "free" OS. Look for continued patent battles and continued settlements.


Don't look for an OLED iPad in 2012 however.


----------



## specuvestor

One thing for certain: I would expect a Samsung OLED tablet first before an OLED iPad


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20717297
> 
> 
> One thing for certain: I would expect a Samsung OLED tablet first before an OLED iPad



No kidding...


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20712556
> 
> 
> ...it's unclear why Samsung shouldn't just join the party. HTC is blustering at Apple right now...



If you have read the patents that Apple is suing HTC over you realize that Apple is suing over nothing. The patents are very broad in nature, one of them in fact could apply to any device that uses a CPU, one describes a patent on a rectangular device that has a touch screen and is black in color, one describes buttons on a touch screen that are square, etc......


Google came out publicly this week in support of HTC, also look for Apple to file even more lawsuits against Samsung and also Motorola. Apple is now looking at the fact that world wide they are loosing market share to the Android OS and are trying to force the handset makers out of business instead of competing.


They could use a OLED screen in their next phone, I know people who did not buy the IP4 because it didn't have one. Apple products are expensive for what they are and many of my friends looked at the value of an OLED screen over a standard LCD, when the IP4 came out without the OLED they went to Android.


----------



## hughh

I am guessing you don't like Apple...right? Well, to each it's own.


Personally, I could care less what type of screen Apple decides to use on their phones.

Most customers don't have any idea what the heck is a OLED. I certainly don't know anyone outside of this thread who knows or cares. As long as the screen is sharp and colorful, and the OLED is, but so is the pixel density screen of the iPhone.


However, that will not be a deal breaker to me. Right now I am still using an old (6 yr) Motorola small phone. I am waiting on the new iPhone and after I evaluate it, I might purchase it, if it meets my needs. Why, you might ask? Almost everyone in my family has iPhones and they all love it. Even my wife who always had a mental block against any new technology will not leave her iPhone behind. If, when the new Samsung is offered by ATT and I feel is more user friendly and offers a better product for the money than Apple, then I'll have a decision to make.


As for the Samsung vs. Apple conflict, Samsung will capitulate. It's just too much lo$$ of business for Samsung. Just my uneducated opinion.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20717868
> 
> 
> I am guessing you don't like Apple...right? Well, to each it's own.



Well I used to until they started suing people for what amounted to BS. You would hope that Apple would have higher standards and I for one thought that they did, evidently not. I can't fault them for their marketing, product fit and finish, but suing with patents that amount to a broad brush that covers allot of existing and pre-existing technology gives me a bad opinion of them.


I would like to say that this is not the first time that I have seen this happen either.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20717868
> 
> 
> As for the Samsung vs. Apple conflict, Samsung will capitulate. It's just too much lo$$ of business for Samsung. Just my uneducated opinion.



Don't think Samsung will give in on this one. Samsung has much more experience fighting patent infringement lawsuits than Apple has filing them and both companies know that Samsung could cut Apple off for component supplies and that would be bad for Apple. It seems really that Samsung is playing very nice right now and that is not really a characteristic that I would associate with Samsung, they really are not a "Warm and Fuzzy" company.


----------



## hughh

Samsung is playing "nice"??? You've got to be kidding, no? After all, they are suing Apple in six or seven different countries! Meanwhile LG and several Taiwanese companies such as TSMC are licking their chops. Samsung's loss is their gain.


----------



## TNG

Quote:

Originally Posted by *hughh* 
Samsung is playing "nice"??? You've got to be kidding, no? After all, they are suing Apple in six or seven different countries! Meanwhile LG and several Taiwanese companies such as TSMC are licking their chops. Samsung's loss is their gain.
Yeah, nice.... so far. I have worked with and for Samsung in several locations over the years, trust me they are being nice.


If Apple is successful with eliminating HTC, Samsung and MSI (Moto) from the Android handset business, trust me they will go after the second tier of manufacturers like LG. Really for LG it all depends on how much money they make from Android smartphone sales vs LCD panel sales. They probably are hoping that Samsung wins the battle because then they will get to keep making smartphones and Apple will probably want to diversify their suppliers as well choosing LG as a backup.


----------



## hughh

Quote:

Originally Posted by *TNG* 
Yeah, nice.... so far. I have worked with and for Samsung in several locations over the years, trust me they are being nice.
I am sure whatever Samsung legal decisions will be made will not be made where you used to work with them and/or by the people you used to work with!


BTW, I have noting against Samsung. I just purchased a beautiful new camera for my wife at Costco. It has the best touch screen I have ever seen, gigantic 3.5" in such a small and thin camera. Instead of menus, it has touch icons just like an iPhone and the lens is a 12X zoom and is SHARP (not the brand). It's the WB210...


----------



## rogo

Ok, this is moronic. Apple is not even remotely interested in eliminating anyone from the handset business. They are merely following in the footsteps of Microsoft, Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Qualcomm, countless others: You want to use something we invented, pay us for the privilege. You want to rip off our designs? No. I'm sorry that bothers some of you who want a world of copycat, ripoff products for no money.


Apple just recently signed a licensing deal that involves paying Nokia a fortune. Microsoft is going to earn $1 billion+ in 2012 from Android makers on a per phone license fee. Apple wants it rightfully earned piece of the pie. I'm sorry you don't like their patents. They are valid for the time being.


Apple is not a known patent troll. That said, Apple once upon a time made a very very bad deal with Microsoft that cost it leadership of the PC industry and nearly bankrupted it. They clearly don't intend to repeat that mistake.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20720056
> 
> 
> Ok, this is moronic. Apple is not even remotely interested in eliminating anyone from the handset business.... You want to use something we invented, pay us for the privilege....



No they are not interested in eliminating the handset makers, they want to get rid of Android since they are now being loosing 2 to 1 in sales to that OS. The easy thing to do is to attack the people who make the handsets instead of Google.

Also Apple is not interested in negotiating for royalties for patents, they have asked the courts to stop shipments of all of HTC handsets into the US. They don't want their share, they want HTC out of business and a large portion of the Android market with it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20720056
> 
> 
> Apple is not a known patent troll.



Didn't used to be a patent troll, now they are getting to be about like Rambus. By the way, have you read the patents? REALLY, have you? What they are suing for are patents worded with a very vague, broad meanings that could apply any way you choose to see it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20720056
> 
> 
> That said, Apple once upon a time made a very very bad deal with Microsoft that cost it leadership of the PC industry and nearly bankrupted it. They clearly don't intend to repeat that mistake.



Made a bad deal or just didn't know what they were doing? Really IMO you can't equate Apple and MS. MS started as and still is a software company while Apple started as and still is a hardware company. Each strays a little into the other side, but for the most part they do separate things.


----------



## Airmax

Apple makes 50% of the profits in the smartphone market, you think they're worried about Android outselling them "2 to 1" when the majority of their sales are from buy one get one free? The reason they go after the OEM's and not Google is because the OS is free and the OEM's are the ones profiting (or losing money depending on the OEM). Have you actually seen the phone(s) in the lawsuit? They're blatant ripoffs of the iPhone (look and feel). The fact is Apple changed the whole market regarding smartphones now everyone wants to copy them instead of innovating with new and different ideas. Apple was granted these patents and anyone in violation should pay up just like how Apple did with Nokia.


----------



## hughh

"They're blatant ripoffs of the iPhone (look and feel)"

The same with the iPad!


----------



## estoniankid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airmax* /forum/post/20723775
> 
> 
> Apple makes 50% of the profits in the smartphone market, you think they're worried about Android outselling them "2 to 1" when the majority of their sales are from buy one get one free? The reason they go after the OEM's and not Google is because the OS is free and the OEM's are the ones profiting (or losing money depending on the OEM). Have you actually seen the phone(s) in the lawsuit? They're blatant ripoffs of the iPhone (look and feel). The fact is Apple changed the whole market regarding smartphones now everyone wants to copy them instead of innovating with new and different ideas. Apple was granted these patents and anyone in violation should pay up just like how Apple did with Nokia.





Naive question here, google doesn't sell but gives away for free android os for smartphones?


How does that business model work?


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20719312
> 
> 
> Samsung is playing "nice"??? You've got to be kidding, no? After all, they are suing Apple in six or seven different countries! Meanwhile LG and several Taiwanese companies such as TSMC are licking their chops. Samsung's loss is their gain.



I just saw the following post in another post:


"Samsung is one of the most sued companies out there for Patent Infringement. Do you think that Samsung got into the Plasma and LCD TV business by developing their own designs? No, they copied Pioneer plasmas and Sharp LCD designs and sold massive quantities of them. By the time they are found out, they pay a relatively small sum in royalties for the offense, but have gained a huge amount of market share."


"After having worked at and with Samsung extensively in the past, I can say that stealing IP, patented designs and the like is something ingrained in the company culture there, and encouraged."


Well said, TNG!


----------



## Airmax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *estoniankid* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Naive question here, google doesn't sell but gives away for free android os for smartphones?
> 
> 
> How does that business model work?



The Android OS is open source and free (though the nature and extent of it being open source has come into question recently). The Google apps are not free (Mail, Google Maps, etc.). Google's business is selling ads and the best way to profit from it is with targeted ads and as many eyeballs as you can get. So they give away the OS to get the marketshare and now they have access to your info (what you search, your habits, etc.) and they now know what ads to display on your phone that helps get them more clicks. Android might be "free" but it does come at a price... your privacy.


----------



## hughh

Another example of Samsung "stealing" from Apple:


"Samsung has hastily dumped a third-party accessory for the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 after realising it's a blatant rip-off of an Apple product. The Anymode Smart Case, a laughably obvious clone of the iPad 2 Smart Cover, was quickly yanked from sale, *but will still provide Apple with ammunition in the legal battle between the two technology giants."*


"The timing couldn't be worse for Samsung, currently embroiled in a legal spat with Apple over claims the Korean company has been copying Apple's products. *The fruit-flavoured phone flinger reckons Samsung's Galaxy range of phones and tablets rips off the iPhone and iPad, right down to the design of the packaging.*"


----------



## specuvestor

@TNG Apple has never been a pure hardware company. They have been developing both hardware and software all the time. They were well known for the closed architecture. The difference between Apple now and in the 80s is that Apple allowed the ecosystem to expand much larger than just a niche, with cheaper prices nowadays which they never competed on. Steve Jobs obviously learnt his lesson from his past failure while his old nemesis are gone, Wintel alliance, Bill Gates, Scott McNealy, etc. He's THE veteran left and no one else to stop him.


And people keep saying android is no 1 market share, but forget that it consists of scores of models and products. There's essentially only one iOS product.


----------



## guidryp

Really guys this is Way, Way off topic.


Lets get back to finding OLED TV news or at least something related to displays...


OLED-info.com has a TV section that has all current/past OLED TVs and future expected models:
http://www.oled-info.com/oled-tv 

A snippet:

OLED TV status



> Quote:
> Sony is currently focused on professional OLED monitors (such as the $30,000 25" BVM-E250), and has no plans to start producing consumer TVs
> 
> LG are currently selling the 15" EL9500. They plan to start offering 31" OLED TVs towards the end of 2011, with mass production of OLED TV panels beginning in 2012 or 2013
> 
> Samsung plans to build a pilot OLED TV fab that will begin mass production at 2012 or 2013
> 
> Panasonic have teamed up with Sumitomo to work on 40" or larger OLED TV sets, but are awfully quiet lately
> 
> Seiko Epson are working on inkjet printable OLED TV panels, but we do not know the state of that research either



For small devices, Samsung is currently limited to about 200 PPI:
http://www.oled-info.com/super-amole...urther-details 


> Quote:
> Today we learned that Samsung plans to move from Fine-Metal-Mask (FMM) technology to laser-induced thermal imaging (LITI). This will enable them to achieve much higher resolutions. We do not know when they plan to actually start using LITI, but when they do they'll be able to produce displays with much higher resolutions (on par with Apple's Retina-Display).
> 
> 
> FMM uses a Shadow Mask and is actually a very expensive method but up till now it's been the only available method for AMOLEDs. It limits the resolution to 200ppi as it has a printing accuracy of about 15 micro meters. LITI uses laser and has a printing accuracy of about 2.5 micro meters - so it can achieve over 300ppi, while being cheaper than FMM, too.


----------



## vtms

The only realistic and exciting OLED display in the works is Sony 3D OLED head-mounted display whose prototype was on display at CES 2011. And when they add head tracking to it--and it's been confirmed Sony is working on it--this will mean Virtual Reality and a revolution in the way people watch anything.


----------



## rogo

TNG, you thoroughly misinterpret Apple's actions. They are asking for HTC's device to be stopped at import because all discussions on licensing/ceasing infringement have failed to go anywhere. The next step is to ask the courts to stop the infringing devices.


This is so completely unlikely Rambus -- which never built a single damn thing ever and largely made its money not even off RDRAM but off other DRAM products because of their utter misrepresentations at JEDEC -- that I find that comparison offensive. I used to spit out my car window when I drove past Rambus HQ.


I can promise you Apple does not expect Android to go away nor does it expect HTC to stop making Android headsets. Furthermore, as noted above, given their profit share in smartphones, I doubt they are much worried about it. I think it's more this notion about innovation vs. blatant copying. My understanding is that the Samsung case with Apple relies on design patents and seems clear on the merits to me. I am less familiar with the HTC case's details, to be honest.


----------



## specuvestor

+1 on Rambus. I have never felt so strongly against or disgusted by a company.


Back to the topic: Next thursday we probably can get better picture on Sammy's 5.5G OLED ramp during SDI conference call. We should be watching 5.5G closely if we hope to have a future for OLED


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20725018
> 
> 
> Really guys this is Way, Way off topic.



Oh, so true. I used to think Samsung was bad until I read the patents that Apple has and are trying to sue over.... but that is another thread, and more blood pressure treatments....


Here is something that I find interesting.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20725018
> 
> 
> LITI uses laser and has a printing accuracy of about 2.5 micro meters....



Really that is the smallest it will do? Even my customers line width is not super amazing (unlike the sub 100nm that modern processors are pushing), but 2.5 microns? Even my customers here in the US are using sub micron (most of the time) line width. I guess that 1080 resolution even on a 32" screen does not require ultra small features, but I am disappointed that this is being held up as maybe the latest and greatest in manufacturing when modern steppers for exposure can focus well below sub micron.


----------



## Wilt

 http://www.techradar.com/news/televi...in-2012-981875 


Yeah right. I hope it happens.


----------



## guidryp

Couldn't resist another kick at the cat?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/20726495
> 
> 
> Oh, so true. I used to think Samsung was bad until I read the patents that Apple has and are trying to sue over....



Really, you read all 20 of these patents in detail?
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/a...ent-breakdown/ 


Exactly what did you find problematic about all of them.


Apple is the victim of more patent lawsuits than just about anyone else in the industry right now and they also are the victims of more blatant cloning than anyone else. Bad enough that China has been full of iPhone clones for years (now they even have fake Apple stores) but to actually face blatant cloning from supposedly legitimate market players like Samsung.











I don't really know why HTC decided to pay Microsoft (perhaps MS cut them a deal on WinPhone7) and fight Apple, but it is essentially the same thing and Microsoft seems to be going after all Android players. They even went after the Nook book reader.


Microsoft has certainly been more successful getting settlements out of Android vendors. Reports are they are making more money from Android than their own phone OS. Now that's some fine patent trolling...


Or look at Nokia, the only bright spot in earnings was the hundreds of millions it managed to get out of Apple in it's patent lawsuit.


Do you really expect Apple to just passively get reamed on patent lawsuits while others are cloning their tech and do nothing?


This patent mess is unfortunately what we are stuck with.


----------



## wco81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms* /forum/post/20726010
> 
> 
> The only realistic and exciting OLED display in the works is Sony 3D OLED head-mounted display whose prototype was on display at CES 2011. And when they add head tracking to it--and it's been confirmed Sony is working on it--this will mean Virtual Reality and a revolution in the way people watch anything.



Really, VR?


Didn't VR flame out in the '80s when people realized that using those things disoriented people and there were liability concerns?


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20726728
> 
> 
> Couldn't resist another kick at the cat?
> 
> Exactly what did you find problematic about all of them.



Really just found them very generic, mostly not specifically worded for phones and many of them subject to prior art. I had some time on my hands lately and decided to look at them.










While I apprieciate the image and how close the two phones look, what should it look like? Is LG suing Apple since it obviously copied the LG Prada? Was LG sued by Kyocera because the Prada looked like a model they come out with earlier? I could go on....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20726728
> 
> 
> I don't really know why HTC decided to pay Microsoft (perhaps MS cut them a deal on WinPhone7) and fight Apple, but it is essentially the same thing and Microsoft seems to be going after all Android players. They even went after the Nook book reader.
> 
> 
> Microsoft has certainly been more successful getting settlements out of Android vendors. Reports are they are making more money from Android than their own phone OS. Now that's some fine patent trolling...



All well and true, but MS has come at it from a different angle and their patents are much more specific. Really Apple has a patent on CPU instruction sets and power consumption? Before Apple filed that patent, Intel and AMD had no less than 15 patents for the very same thing, all in much more detail.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20726728
> 
> 
> Do you really expect Apple to just passively get reamed on patent lawsuits while others are cloning their tech and do nothing?.



Apple cloned the tech to begin with. Do you think the Ipad was original? No, Apple just put it in a pretty box and marketed it as Magical... Tablets have been out there for years, one from Fujitsu comes to mind, Apple just gave the market traction.


----------



## Artwood

Can you get the Home Theater experience from OLED if you're 1 inch away from the screen?


----------



## Airmax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Really just found them very generic, mostly not specifically worded for phones and many of them subject to prior art. I had some time on my hands lately and decided to look at them.
> 
> 
> While I apprieciate the image and how close the two phones look, what should it look like? Is LG suing Apple since it obviously copied the LG Prada? Was LG sued by Kyocera because the Prada looked like a model they come out with earlier? I could go on....
> 
> 
> All well and true, but MS has come at it from a different angle and their patents are much more specific. Really Apple has a patent on CPU instruction sets and power consumption? Before Apple filed that patent, Intel and AMD had no less than 15 patents for the very same thing, all in much more detail.
> 
> 
> Apple cloned the tech to begin with. Do you think the Ipad was original? No, Apple just put it in a pretty box and marketed it as Magical... Tablets have been out there for years, one from Fujitsu comes to mind, Apple just gave the market traction.



No one is saying Apple "invented" the tablet. But there's a reason there was never a market for tablets before the iPad... they all sucked. Apple spent the time and money to make a product and patented the design and style. The success of the iPhone and iPad isn't some overnight success or blatant copying like these company's that can't come up with a good idea if their life depended on it. It started with iTunes and the iPod. Companies thought the iPhone wouldn't work and gain any marketshare and now they all copy the iPhone. Same thing with the iPad. Its pretty clear they're stealing when a Samsung VP says their Galaxy Tab is inadequate after the iPad 2 is announced. Samsung quickly trashes the design and comes up with something similar to the iPad 2. These companies just want a free ride at the expense of Apple. It's time for them to pay up. And with $76 billion in cash (Apple) these lawsuits aren't even about money really, but for the blatant copying to stop.


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/20726751
> 
> 
> Really, VR?
> 
> 
> Didn't VR flame out in the '80s when people realized that using those things disoriented people and there were liability concerns?



Flame out? Whatever that was, it wasn't VR. It was a cartoon marketed as VR.


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/20727275
> 
> 
> Can you get the Home Theater experience from OLED if you're 1 inch away from the screen?



No, something much more immersive and compelling. First, it's OLED displays so it doesn't get any better than that as far as video specs go. Then, you're getting a separate display for each eye for an ideal implementation of 3D. Then head-tracking. Can you imagine 3D gaming or watching sports with this thing? Everyone will want this.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/20727153
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I apprieciate the image and how close the two phones look, what should it look like? Is LG suing Apple since it obviously copied the LG Prada?



Here is the Prada. Compared to the two above. Which ones look like twins and which is very different? The Samsung is a blatant clone, you don't make that much of a copy by accident. Really, who do you think you are fooling here. Only yourself if you actually believe what you are typing.











Not only that, but you do realize that the iPhone was announced BEFORE the Prada. True there was a leaked image of the Prada a couple of weeks before the iPhone was announced. So Apple made a better version of the Prada in 2 weeks based off a leaked picture on the internet??? Again who do you think you are fooling?



> Quote:
> All well and true, but MS has come at it from a different angle and their patents are much more specific.



Really? Please show us those much more specific Microsoft patents. It looks a lot more like you just making it up as you go along. Also it doesn't sound like you even glanced at the Apple patents. There are several touch interface patents that are quite specific.


Now can you please take you Apple hate nonsense to a more appropriate forum.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wilt* /forum/post/20726516
> 
> http://www.techradar.com/news/televi...in-2012-981875
> 
> 
> Yeah right. I hope it happens.


 This is the original store on What Hi-Fi. It would be great if this becomes reality. Especially if LG can add their passive 3D technology.


----------



## guidryp

Quote:

Originally Posted by *ferro* 
This is the original store on What Hi-Fi. It would be great if this becomes reality. Especially if LG can add their passive 3D technology.
Good link, though I think they pretty much dropped the ball on mobile OLED and Samsung won that business already.


If they really do get 55" OLED out next year it will probably nudge their competition to follow. Hope they actually deliver.


----------



## hughh

This is from an article in today's KoreaTimes:


Samsung’s LCD chief Chang Won-kie was stripped from his position due to sluggish performances and even LG’s biggest local rival fired executives at its LCD business in a follow-up measure.


``*That’s because Samsung’s top management reached a consensus over the need to migrate to the next flat-screen displays such as OLED and flexible displays for new business momentum,’’* said a senior Samsung executive.


LG spokesman Gary Son denied market rumors that the world’s second-biggest LCD maker will conduct a large-scale reshuffle of its top management.


For confidence in the market, Kwon recently bought 10,000 company shares, but even the good-will gesture wasn’t welcomed. LG Display shares were trapped in box-trading.


Officials and stock analysts point out the sluggish stock price moves were mostly due to LG’s passive response to its ``next products.’’

*While Samsung is investing heavily in OLEDs and flexible displays, LG Display is still passive on the faster migration of next-generation displays saying LCDs with better viewing quality are good enough to attract big firms such as Apple, Dell and Hewlett-Packard (HP).
*

LG is supplying its ``Retina Displays’’ to Apple and it’s been in talks with the company to produce picture-quality enhanced LCD displays for its upcoming iPad 3.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...129_91341.html


----------



## Artwood

What's the biggest OLED TV you can currently buy?


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/20732356
> 
> 
> What's the biggest OLED TV you can currently buy?



15"
http://www.gizmag.com/lg-15-oled-tv/13727/ 


If you live in the right part of the world and can find one. It is essentially an expensive novelty item.


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20732408
> 
> 
> 15"
> http://www.gizmag.com/lg-15-oled-tv/13727/
> 
> 
> If you live in the right part of the world and can find one. It is essentially an expensive novelty item.



Or, he can wait a couple of months and purchase the Galaxy S II with a 4.2 inch screen.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20733333
> 
> 
> Or, he can wait a couple of months and purchase the Galaxy S II with a 4.2 inch screen.



He was asking for the biggest OLED TV you can buy.


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20733434
> 
> 
> He was asking for the biggest OLED TV you can buy.



Is there anything bigger on sale to the public right now?


LG promises 55-inch OLED TV in 2012, just in time the next b’ak’tun

http://www.citruscomputers.com/2011/...e-next-baktun/ 


As they say, seeing is believing!


----------



## specuvestor

We're supposed to see LG 31" THIS YEAR. I don't like shifting goal posts.


But again neither do I hold my breath for market leadership from LG though.


----------



## hughh

*LG Display fires salvo at Samsung*

*Kwon says he is readjusting focus of OLED business*


By Kim Yoo-chul


LG Display says it plans to break rival Samsung Electronics' hold on advanced displays in their stiff competition for supremacy in 3D televisions.


LG said it has no intention of follow Samsung into developing organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays for smaller portable devices.


``Samsung is misleading the market because OLED displays are not suitable in terms of picture quality, response time, energy consumption and contrast ratios for smartphones and tablets,'' said Kwon Young-soo, chief executive of LG Display in a meeting with reporters, late Thursday.

*Kwon said LG will put more focus on investing in OLED displays for large-sized TVs as it believes the technology could offer a better response time in these.*

*``LG Display may release a 55-inch OLED TV set sometime in the latter half of next year,'' he added.*


He said more smartphone manufacturers will release new models employing LG's ``Retina Display'' that has been used in iPhones and iPads.


Kwon's remarks come following talks with Apple to supply picture quality-enhanced Retina Displays for the upcoming iPad 3.


Samsung is heavily pushing its OLED technology for mobile devices. Its Galaxy S has an OLED screen and it is also considering releasing OLED-embedded notebooks and laptops this year.


OLED displays offer more vivid picture images and have the advantage of not needing a backlight to function, making it possible to realize thinner and lighter models.

*Although OLED panels are capable of displaying deeper black levels and naturally achieve high contrast ratios, the displays are expensive and easily contaminated as they use organic materials.
*

``It's true OLED is a next-generation display technology, but it might not be the alternative in small-sized digital devices,'' said Kwon.


LG reported its third consecutive quarterly loss but declined to provide an outlook for the future, citing mounting economic uncertainty.


``TV demand will definitely improve as we move into the August and September period because TV makers prepare for holiday sales in China and elsewhere but how strongly demand will pick up is open to question,'' the CEO said.


By reiterating his optimism for the TV market in the upcoming quarters, Kwon said LG's in-house FPR 3D tech could be top in terms of global market share by the end of this year as *it's set to launch aggressive promotions in Europe and North America.*


``*We will cut the cost of FPR 3D televisions for market expansion.* We have been in talks with many TV makers to provide our 3D technology, though it is too early to give more details,'' stressed Kwon.


Demand for large-sized displays including TV screens and computer monitors, which together account for around 70 percent of LG's revenue, is also taking a hit as consumers opt for smaller smartphones and tablets.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...133_91412.html


----------



## specuvestor

^^ Translation: don't expect LG OLED handsets as LGD can't/won't produce it for LGE.


----------



## hughh

Quote:

Originally Posted by *specuvestor* 
^^ Translation: don't expect LG OLED handsets as LGD can't/won't produce it for LGE.
Obviously! They have a big contract with Apple for the Retina Displays. It appears they might be cheaper and less complicated to produce.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ I'm not just talking about LGD supply to Apple. I'm talking about LGD's OLED ambition (or daydreaming, depends how you look at it). BTW Sharp and CMI are going for Retina display as well so it may get "cheaper" faster than LGD is prepared.


Another news snippet:

"A recently published patent filing reveals that Apple envisions two transparent *OLED*s as well as a background LCD to be used for a 3D display that can deliver limited depth by separating content. At least one processor will be used to control the separation and the interaction of content, while the patent describes a scenario in which one GPU is controlling all displays and another in which individual GPUs are tied to individual displays.


The desired effect is more depth to elements on a screen. Apple notes that such 3D display devices can include everything from desktop displays to portable devices, which we imagine could also include the iPad. This thought is especially interesting since we have heard a wave of rumors that the next iPad could integrate a 3D display. With this patent application we think a 3D iPad is entirely possible, especially since this patent was filed already back in January of 2010."


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20728959
> 
> 
> Here is the Prada. Compared to the two above. Which ones look like twins and which is very different? The Samsung is a blatant clone, you don't make that much of a copy by accident. Really, who do you think you are fooling here. Only yourself if you actually believe what you are typing.



Really do you really think that placing a patent on a rectangular phone with a touch screen and 4X3 buttons with rounded corners is a valid patent? That is what is at the heart of the blatant copy issue in your mind. Maybe Chevy should sue Toyota, after all their cars have wheels after all. Just what is a touch screen phone supposed to look like?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20728959
> 
> 
> Now can you please take you Apple hate nonsense to a more appropriate forum.



I think that someone needs a cuddle from Steve







Oh would it surprise you to find out that I agree with you? Yes I do think that Samsung did probably copy direct from the Iphone. It would not be the first time that they have done it. I disagree with Apples patents of tech that is currently in use and then suing because they have not introduced a new product for a year and now are falling behind.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20736186
> 
> 
> Obviously! They have a big contract with Apple for the Retina Displays. It appears they might be cheaper and less complicated to produce.



Or they have signed a deal with Apple to not put the OLED into their own Android phones so Apple will not have to compete with them.


----------



## Airmax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Really do you really think that placing a patent on a rectangular phone with a touch screen and 4X3 buttons with rounded corners is a valid patent? That is what is at the heart of the blatant copy issue in your mind. Maybe Chevy should sue Toyota, after all their cars have wheels after all. Just what is a touch screen phone supposed to look like?



Depends if you're asking before or after the iPhone was introduced. The fact is, no smartphone even remotely resembled the iPhone before it was introduced. The iPhone gets released and everyone copies it and all of a sudden that's how a smartphone is "supposed" to look like. No ****, after the fact and millions of iPhones sold. If smartphones are supposed to look like that why weren't these companies making them BEFORE the iPhone? Because they're copying instead of thinking of their own great idea.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/20737505
> 
> 
> I think that someone needs a cuddle from Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh would it surprise you to find out that I agree with you? Yes I do think that Samsung did probably copy direct from the Iphone. It would not be the first time that they have done it. I disagree with Apples patents of tech that is currently in use and then suing because they have not introduced a new product for a year and now are falling behind.



I have never owned a single Apple product in my life. I am just tired of clueless haters trying to stir this same crap up everywhere. You are so biased with this hater nonsense that you have lost touch with reality.


Apple suing because they are falling behind? Seriously? Did you miss the news any time in the last year. Apple now pulls in more smartphone revenue than everyone else combined. You want to know who is suing to because they are falling behind, check Nokia, their business has fallen off a cliff, they only bright spot they had in their earnings calls was the hundreds of millions they got from suing Apple. Or Microsoft who won't even talk about how WinPhone7 is doing and is going around strong arming revenues out of all the Android players, to the point where they make more money from Android than WP7.


I have really had it with your nonsense, take your anti-Apple trolling elsewhere and let the rest of discuss OLED TVs.


----------



## Airmax

Back on topic, has anyone seen any of OLED TV's in person?


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20737617
> 
> 
> You are so biased with this hater nonsense that you have lost touch with reality.



While I do currently own Apple products, have never expressed any hate for Apple, only a disagreement about the way they have chosen to compete. You however act like you hate me for some unknown reason... I am sorry that you feel that way.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20737617
> 
> 
> I have really had it with your nonsense, take your anti-Apple trolling elsewhere and let the rest of discuss OLED TVs.



And you say that I am a hater.......


At least Airmax is polite and civilized. And in answer to him, yes I think that the Prada does look like the Iphone and all of the others since, rectangular, touch screen, etc....


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airmax* /forum/post/20737650
> 
> 
> Back on topic, has anyone seen any of OLED TV's in person?



Just the Sony set at a Sony Store.


Yeah, it looked good, but the screen was small and really you need something bigger than that to compare to the 52" at home IMO.


----------



## rogo

An 11" LCD looks amazing to me, too, is the problem. The 11" Sony OLED looked great, but it was never that incredible, except in thinness.


As for LG and it's useless claims of shipping OLED TVs, call us when you have something LG. The 15" is still not for sale in the U.S. anywhere I can detect despite them assuring me you can purchase it at Best Buy (none in the Silicon Valley have ever carried it or heard of it). The 31" is "supposed to ship this year" and yet as of nearly August there is no SKU or price that I've heard of anywhere. Call us when it's in store and for sale OK?


And this 55" drivel is, well, drivel. Pure drivel. Stop announcing stuff and build something. Put it on sale. Price it reasonably. That's interesting. These press releases and quotes are not interesting and make LG look and sound nothing short of stupid. I'd say it stands for Looking Goofy, but goofy is way too kind. They should just remain themselves Vaporware Inc. because that'd be an accurate name for the company at this point.


Oh, I did see the 31" prototype at CES and honestly it was not that amazing. It just wasn't. I don't see why they'd even build it unless the picture quality was jaw droppingly stunning and certainly the prototype wasn't that.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20740250
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I did see the 31" prototype at CES and honestly it was not that amazing. It just wasn't. I don't see why they'd even build it unless the picture quality was jaw droppingly stunning and certainly the prototype wasn't that.



Exactly what would be the characteristics of jaw dropping display?


OLED corrects almost every LCD complaint. That will make them near about as good as a display can be:


Absolute black/infinite contrast. Now this really won't matter all that much in a well lit room, but if you like to watch movies in the dark, it is a big deal.


No backlight bleeds, no flashlighting. Again not a huge deal in the daytime with a good LCD.


No viewing angle anomalies, again not a big issue if you only sit in the sweet spot.


Instantaneous response times. Again not a huge issue if you think LCD is good enough.


Bottom line it potentially fixes every Visual issue with LCDs. If you already think LCD is good enough, then I guess none of that will matter. I really would like the absolute black because I like watching movies in the dark.


----------



## hughh

I'll believe it when I see it. Then again, due to my age, I may not see it if and when it ever hits the market.


----------



## specuvestor

Have you seen the Samsung Galaxy S2?


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20733679
> 
> 
> We're supposed to see LG 31" THIS YEAR. I don't like shifting goal posts.
> 
> 
> But again neither do I hold my breath for market leadership from LG though.



"LGD has slashed 2011 capex from KRW5.5t to KRW4.5t, and is working to further reduce it to KRW4t. The new P9-8 fab will start in end-4Q11 for 9.7" tablet production for Apple, but the capacity for high-end monitors (IPS) will be pushed back. The capex cut may be an inevitable choice given LGD's cash flow and market situation, but we believe the scrapping of the OLED fab is a big setback as LGD won't have a commercial 4.5G OLED fab to accumulate valuable knowledge and experience that would help it better prepare for the planned 8G OLED fab in 2013." -BNP 25 July 2011


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20741187
> 
> 
> Have you seen the Samsung Galaxy S2?



I was referring to big screen tv's. As for the Galaxy S2, I have seen photos and heard rumors that it's coming to the USA.


----------



## specuvestor

yes but that will give u a taste of whether OLED TV is hype or real perceivable benefit.


And it's being mass produced, not vaporware.


----------



## Lessard




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20740250
> 
> 
> Oh, I did see the 31" prototype at CES and honestly it was not that amazing. It just wasn't. I don't see why they'd even build it unless the picture quality was jaw droppingly stunning and certainly the prototype wasn't that.



That's your opinion (and i respect it) ... some strongly disagree with yours however

http://www.techradar.com/news/televi...-review-714233 



> Quote:
> The differences between this larger OLED screen and the LCD and plasma efforts around it are immediately obvious. It's just so bright and vibrant. Full HD source material looks simply stunning


----------



## Lessard




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20741386
> 
> 
> yes but that will give u a taste of whether OLED TV is hype or real perceivable benefit.
> 
> 
> And it's being mass produced, not vaporware.



I have it and it's gorgeous









One thing which surprises me : the screen can become really hot if we set the brighness to the max. If set to the middle, can become "warm" though ... (at first i thought the heat came from the 1.2 ghz processor)


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lessard* /forum/post/20741527
> 
> 
> I have it and it's gorgeous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing which surprises me : the screen can become really hot if we set the brighness to the max. If set to the middle, can become "warm" though ... (at first i thought the heat came from the 1.2 ghz processor)



Yes one thing they overpromised on OLED was low power usage.


OLED acutally uses more power with bright backgrounds mostly lit screen. It is only with dark, mostly unlit screens that it uses less power.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20740250
> 
> 
> Oh, I did see the 31" prototype at CES and honestly it was not that amazing. It just wasn't. I don't see why they'd even build it unless the picture quality was jaw droppingly stunning and certainly the prototype wasn't that.



That makes me want to ask, what if even the best OLED is not any better than some of the panels that are already out there?


I want to believe that OLED is great, but they announce this and that, then nothing. Could it be that their best efforts are only as good as current LCD/PDP? So they pull the product and try to make it better?


Just a thought. I have read enough in the SID journal to know that lifetimes of OLED materials are still not good enough to have a panel that will last as long (in theory) as a LCD/PDP, so the PQ from the OLED panels has to be great to attract buyers in the end.


----------



## Airmax

Since I've never seen one in person I can't really comment for or against OLED's. But from all these "announcements" one starts to assume that they're either aren't that great or just too expensive or problematic to make in large sizes or quantities. Maybe both.


----------



## mr. wally

saw an oled screen on my friends smartphone. very bright. looked cool.

but it was only 4".


can't tell from that size whether it will make amazing displays at large sizes.


seems so far more hype than product


----------



## tory40

I've started using my OLED Samsung Vibrant as a frame of reference for color quality. Holding up to my NX711 Sony reveals that the Tv's color reproduction is sorely lacking. Even my new LE835, which has far better colors than the NX711 isn't quite there. The viewing angles are amazing. I don't notice much of any change, all the way to 90 degrees off. If the pixel response time is as low as they claim, it should deliver crosstalk free 3D too.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lessard* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I have it and it's gorgeous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing which surprises me : the screen can become really hot if we set the brighness to the max. If set to the middle, can become "warm" though ... (at first i thought the heat came from the 1.2 ghz processor)





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes one thing they overpromised on OLED was low power usage.
> 
> 
> OLED acutally uses more power with bright backgrounds mostly lit screen. It is only with dark, mostly unlit screens that it uses less power.



Not sure if the touch screen technology (hence the "super" moniker) has anything to do with it, but as a system the power consumption is certainly above expectation. Nonetheless no one should expect LED comparable power efficiency as technically it's not going to happen ie it's definitely going to consume more power than LED LCD screens.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tory40* /forum/post/20744407
> 
> 
> I've started using my OLED Samsung Vibrant as a frame of reference for color quality. Holding up to my NX711 Sony reveals that the Tv's color reproduction is sorely lacking.



You really have that backwards. Your TV certainly has much more accurate color than your phone.


Phones tend to have quite inaccurate color. OLEDs especially have over-saturated and wider gamuts to make them stand out. OLED phones have been tested by displaymate and have some of *the most inaccurate color* of just about any display on anything on the market. Using this as a reference makes no sense.


This is not what most people want in a TV. I certainly don't. Most Good TVs will be attempting to do accurate Rec. 709 color, not over saturated, over wide gamuts.


When they get around to doing a serious OLED TV, they better offer standard gamut and accurate colors, not Disney on Acid...


----------



## specuvestor

IMHO this is certainly what most people WANT from a TV. Samsung and LCD proved it. Bright and "dynamic" colors catches the consumers' eyes.


That's not what videophiles want though.


----------



## slacker711

The power consumption for an OLED is going to depend on the content. The problem in smartphones/tablets is that so much of the usage is web browsing with its predominantly white background. This is much less of a problem for televisions and under most scenarios, OLED's should provide a reduction in power consumption.


Nokia took a look at the power consumption of a small OLED based on various content. The absolute numbers wont be accurate anymore but the relative numbers should give you an idea about how much power consumption will vary based on what you are watching.


Page 13.

http://research.nokia.com/files/berg...hee_070222.pdf 


I have no idea how they will rate power consumption for OLED televisions as there will be huge variance based on the assumptions. Another thing to note is that an OLED television will appear brighter at an equivalent light output (due to the greater contrast).


Slacker


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20744711
> 
> 
> IMHO this is certainly what most people WANT from a TV. Samsung and LCD proved it. Bright and "dynamic" colors catches the consumers' eyes.
> 
> 
> That's not what videophiles want though.



I have a Samsung LCD TV. I also have a calibration device and I checked it and the colors are actually very close to Rec. 709. No out of spec wide gamut or excess saturation.


I really don't think most people want TVs where everyone looks sun burned.


It is trivial to do wide gamuts and have outlandish colors, if that is what people wanted, that is what every TV would look like and they don't.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20744862
> 
> 
> I have a Samsung LCD TV. I also have a calibration device and I checked it and the colors are actually very close to Rec. 709. No out of spec wide gamut or excess saturation.



If you are willing to go through calibration, OLED's are perfectly capable of producing an accurate color gamut.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.p...&id=1289487180 



> Quote:
> Therefore I quickly moved on to calibrate EL9500 in order to get correct and natural picture quality from the OLED-TV which also makes me able to compare it to our reference TVs and monitors in our testing facilities. Below you see the result.
> 
> 
> I don't wont' to elaborate much but just interject that gamma, color temperature and the color gamut is now perfect. Color deviations are low and stable (by stable I mean that the colors don't change the next time I turn on the TV) and I have reduced brightness intensity to 93 cd/m2 by lowering the setting option called Light in the screen menu.
> 
> 93 cd/m2 is more pleasant for all-round usage and I used EL9500 as a PC secondary monitor a few days.
> 
> 
> As said before, it's a matter of calibration and the OLED technology is perfectly capable of reproducing accurate and correct colors and pictures in general. And in essence that's my point here. I don't want to make this test too much of a product review but instead look at the characteristics of the OLED technology.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20744907
> 
> 
> If you are willing to go through calibration, OLED's are perfectly capable of producing an accurate color gamut.



You can't really calibrate away an extra wide gamut(like OLED portables have), but if you actually look at the link you provided. That TV has nearly perfect gamut right out of the box. *In fact that is best matched primaries I have ever seen.* Gamut measurement is shown in review by the Black triangle-monitor and Orange triangle-sRGB (Same primaries as Rec 709). They overlap near perfect, again, the best match I have ever seen.


This is a great sign that LG will, as I hoped, be producing TVs with Rec 709 color primaries, not the outlandish primaries of portable devices.


Thanks for the review link.


IMO with Proper primaries like this, this is essentially as close to visual perfection as you can get.

Perfect blacks

Infinite Contrast

Perfect viewing angles

Ultrafast response time.

Accurate color.

*If these displays don't impress you, no display ever will*, because quite simply there really is nothing else to fix on the visual side of the equation once OLED arrives.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20744831
> 
> 
> The power consumption for an OLED is going to depend on the content. The problem in smartphones/tablets is that so much of the usage is web browsing with its predominantly white background. This is much less of a problem for televisions and under most scenarios, OLED's should provide a reduction in power consumption.
> 
> 
> Nokia took a look at the power consumption of a small OLED based on various content. The absolute numbers wont be accurate anymore but the relative numbers should give you an idea about how much power consumption will vary based on what you are watching.
> 
> 
> Page 13.
> 
> http://research.nokia.com/files/berg...hee_070222.pdf
> 
> 
> I have no idea how they will rate power consumption for OLED televisions as there will be huge variance based on the assumptions. Another thing to note is that an OLED television will appear brighter at an equivalent light output (due to the greater contrast).
> 
> 
> Slacker



Hi Slacker OLED power consumption PATTERN will be similar to Plasma while LED backlighting is quite constant. But again with local dimming gaining acceptance, LED may not be that constant after all







IIRC LED already can do 100-150 cd/A


Point is that the proof of the pudding ie Samsung S1 & S2 shows OLED is not as power efficient as we hope it will be. It will be more efficient than plasma but I doubt will be better than LED. I'm realistic











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20744862
> 
> 
> I have a Samsung LCD TV. I also have a calibration device and I checked it and the colors are actually very close to Rec. 709. No out of spec wide gamut or excess saturation.
> 
> 
> I really don't think most people want TVs where everyone looks sun burned.
> 
> 
> It is trivial to do wide gamuts and have outlandish colors, if that is what people wanted, that is what every TV would look like and they don't.



I'm quite confident that 99 out of 100 buyers in a Best Buy doesn't know what is a TV calibration device and what is Rec 709










What I am interested in is someone measure OLED black level using a Klein probe... not many calibrators/ reviewers have it.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20744862
> 
> 
> I have a Samsung LCD TV. I also have a calibration device...



What device exactly?


The reason I ask is that I also have a Samsung LCD and it is by far the most difficult set I have ever seen to get right. What makes it difficult is that it has way to many knobs that can be turned for color, instead of having just a gamma temp and RGB adjustments.


One of the things that really annoys me about it is what I call the "Blue Eye Effect". On some DVD, and TV shows the whites of the actors eyes show up as a light blue. This does not happen on the other 3 sets that I own (all LCD, 2 Sharps, 1 Toshiba) with the same movies.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20744711
> 
> 
> IMHO this is certainly what most people WANT from a TV. Samsung and LCD proved it. Bright and "dynamic" colors catches the consumers' eyes.
> 
> 
> That's not what videophiles want though.



There are certain specifics when it comes to what videophiles want. Your average shopper wants something that looks at least lifelike, but really wants larger than life. Videophiles want Directors Intent to be carried through and often DI has nothing to do with real life. I have seen in PQ arguments the true videophile will retreat to DI as the all encompassing test (on a properly calibrated set).


Me I want lifelike. I typically look at allot of the lighting, coloring and other tricks that directors force into a scene as spoiling a good movie. If a OLED is capable of just being lifelike, then it is OK for me, but maybe not with the average person who wants "Bright and dynamic".


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20745518
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident that 99 out of 100 buyers in a Best Buy doesn't know what is a TV calibration device and what is Rec 709



I wouldn't disagree, but a lot of them probably read reviews and even though they might impressed with showroom floor mode (Max bright, Max Contrast, Max Saturation) enough of them will stay away from TVs that are reviewed as problematic and unable to produce natural colors. Factor in more and more TVs being sold by mail order like Amazon and reviews become even more critical, to the point that manufacturers thankfully still try to give us natural color capabilities.




> Quote:
> What I am interested in is someone measure OLED black level using a Klein probe... not many calibrators/ reviewers have it.



Why? For scientific purposes? Black is so low that it can't be measured by colorimeters, can't be seen by human eyes in a dark room. What more do you need?


This isn't something to really be suspicious of. The cells need power to produce light, no power, no light, no light = pure black.


This is fundamental to the way OLED works. LCDs have essentially always on backlights so they have weak blacks. Plasma needs bias current that produce some residual light. But OLED is completely off, there is no bias current needed, there are no backlights. Black is Black with OLED.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/20745983
> 
> 
> What device exactly?
> 
> 
> The reason I ask is that I also have a Samsung LCD and it is by far the most difficult set I have ever seen to get right. What makes it difficult is that it has way to many knobs that can be turned for color, instead of having just a gamma temp and RGB adjustments.
> 
> 
> One of the things that really annoys me about it is what I call the "Blue Eye Effect". On some DVD, and TV shows the whites of the actors eyes show up as a light blue. This does not happen on the other 3 sets that I own (all LCD, 2 Sharps, 1 Toshiba) with the same movies.




I am not saying the colors were bang on out of the box on my Samsung. Only that it did not have outlandish color primaries (which are largely uncorrectable).


I have an Xrite i1-d2 that I have for computer calibration. It takes a lot of tweaking, but really the in TV controls allow more fine tuning than typical computer monitors.


I also do most of my movie watching through an HTPC and I can do final calibration in the computers video card LUT with automated calibration software, but that will only helps when using the HTPC, so I did a lot of manual set tweaking (With Xrite and HCFR) the get the PQ to a decent lifelike image for all uses.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20740468
> 
> 
> Absolute black/infinite contrast. Now this really won't matter all that much in a well lit room, but if you like to watch movies in the dark, it is a big deal.



For some people infinite contrast would be great, but it is unlikely that most can tell the the difference between infinite and good enough without specialized instruments. On the dark room watching, without the glow from the screen, how will I see my popcorn?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20740468
> 
> 
> No backlight bleeds, no flashlighting. Again not a huge deal in the daytime with a good LCD.



Most of my watching is still done in day or lit rooms, so....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20740468
> 
> 
> No viewing angle anomalies, again not a big issue if you only sit in the sweet spot.



I think that this is an overblown issue IMO, but it could not hurt to have better viewing angles.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20740468
> 
> 
> Instantaneous response times. Again not a huge issue if you think LCD is good enough.



Well some LCD's are good enough. Some are really bothersome with response times and it is very noticeable. I think that some people are more sensitive to this than others.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20740468
> 
> 
> Bottom line it potentially fixes every Visual issue with LCDs. If you already think LCD is good enough, then I guess none of that will matter. I really would like the absolute black because I like watching movies in the dark.



It does fix almost every issue, but it will introduce others surely. What I have found out is that there is no magic bullet.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/20746306
> 
> 
> 
> It does fix almost every issue, but it will introduce others surely. What I have found out is that there is no magic bullet.



Enough people have tested the 11" and 15" OLED screens to realize there really are no new visual issues. This is essentially near the limits of what a flat panel display can do.


There are however the very real durability issues to consider. Contamination of the organic goop, burn in, and differential wear (similar to burn in, but happens even when showing average video signals). Couple high cost with the low durability and OLED TVs won't be a value product.


Power usage is also like to be on the high side.


----------



## hughh

Enough people have tested the 11" and 15" OLED screens to realize there really are no new visual issues. This is essentially near the limits of what a flat panel display can do.>>>


Unless they have been tested by enough AVS members, they haven't a clue of what the OLED screen limits are and how many flaws, real and imagined, the AVS customers/members can find.


----------



## guidryp

Quote:

Originally Posted by *hughh* 
Unless they have been tested by enough AVS members, they haven't a clue of what the OLED screen limits are and how many flaws, real and *imagined*, the AVS customers/members can find.
I have highlighted the part that I have no doubts about.


If they hold to proper primaries, I expect the main complaints will be about initial calibration and difficulties in tweaking for a proper calibration, but that will happen for EVERY technology and is not a symptom of the underlying tech.


The underlying tech is essentially the holy grail of flat panel visuals.


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20747501
> 
> 
> I have highlighted the part that I have no doubts about.
> 
> 
> If they hold to proper primaries, I expect the main complaints will be about initial calibration and difficulties in tweaking for a proper calibration, but that will happen for EVERY technology and is not a symptom of the underlying tech.
> 
> 
> The underlying tech is essentially the holy grail of flat panel visuals.



Guidry - The tech might very well be the holy grail, as you say. But if the whole package fails in other ways, then it doesn't mean a darn thing. Betamax anyone?


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20747642
> 
> 
> Guidry - The tech might very well be the holy grail, as you say. But if the whole package fails in other ways, then it doesn't mean a darn thing. Betamax anyone?



I never indicated otherwise. Which is why I keep saying that is the Visual holy grail, but indicate there are durability and cost issues.


Betamax isn't a very good example. It was nearly the same as VHS, had a shorter recording time, and more restrictive licensing.


SED is a better example. Hundreds of millions of dollars spent and eventually Canon just folded because it figured it could never produce them economically.


OLED has the advantage over SED in that there is more than one player and it also looks like eventually the economics could potentially be *VERY good*.


----------



## hughh

Well, must people don't have any idea what SED is. I'd like to propose the infamous Sony

XBR1 (I have one) as a sample of what we mean. A new technique...thought to be at the time "the holy grail" and sold in pretty good numbers, reason I'm not holding my breath, inspite of all the announcement by LG -


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Why? For scientific purposes? Black is so low that it can't be measured by colorimeters, can't be seen by human eyes in a dark room. What more do you need?
> 
> 
> This isn't something to really be suspicious of. The cells need power to produce light, no power, no light, no light = pure black.
> 
> 
> This is fundamental to the way OLED works. LCDs have essentially always on backlights so they have weak blacks. Plasma needs bias current that produce some residual light. But OLED is completely off, there is no bias current needed, there are no backlights. Black is Black with OLED.



Because without a Klein probe everyone is guessing how black it is, just like perpetually guessing panny will be blacker than Kuro.


Theoretically plasma can also be totally black with no power but practically it needs to be primed constantly hence your bias current. As discussed previously on this thread, OLED has voltage issue on incrementally larger screens, so theory and practice may not always concur. The devil is in the detail.


Not to mention plasma's infamous grey/green look when under the light as the cell structures gets reflected under the light. Theoretically OLED should not have the issue either but I always believe the proof is in the pudding. HTC OLED implementation early last year was dismal to say the least vs Super AMOLED. A lot of engineering factors are at play which may compromise power,contrast, black,etc


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20748389
> 
> 
> Well, must people don't have any idea what SED is. I'd like to propose the infamous Sony
> 
> XBR1 (I have one) as a sample of what we mean. A new technique...thought to be at the time "the holy grail" and sold in pretty good numbers, reason I'm not holding my breath, inspite of all the announcement by LG -



New products don't close down before launch because no one knows what it is, it hadn't even launched, so of course no one knows much about it. It closed up exactly for the reason I stated. It couldn't be done economically.


I don't see how SXRD is a good example either. It was rear-projection TV, when the world was switching to flat panels. Just like "laser" TV, which was doomed the day it was announced. People just aren't interested in rear-projection TV in significant numbers.


SED is a reasonable example of good technology never even making it to market despite hundreds of millions in R&D, and multiple impressive demos.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20748633
> 
> 
> I don't see how SXRD is a good example either. It was rear-projection TV, when the world was switching to flat panels.



The Sony SXRD is not a good example for your point. SXRD had a lot of customers, including a bunch for it's $10K super version. It's failure initially was a failure of the SXRD technology, then the market moved on to big flat panels. There are still a lot of RPTV sets out there, but Sony has been exchanging most of their SXRD displays for flat panels. I've seen reports of those exchanges going on even this year. They're not doing that because the market moved in another direction.


----------



## guidryp

The point was yes, OLED tech can crumble for reasons other than visuals. Personally in displays I do think SED is the best example. It was wowing people at demos, and had announced dates, it did have lawsuit setback but that was short lived and decided in Canons favor. In the end the tech was just too expensive.


OLED seems to have similarly wowed in Demos has some announced dates an will likely be extremely expensive (and have durability issues).


IMO OLED won't fail because there are multiple players to keep it going. If someone drops the ball, someone else will pick it up. OLED also holds the promise of being very inexpensive (someday), that will spur on development.


I am very dubious of LGs 2012 55" claim. What will that cost $10K? How long before it shows burn in?


I am thinking OLED is inevitable, but it might be 2017 before it hits mainstream TV pricing/availability.


Edit: AUO VP says 2014 the earliest:
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110728PD207.html


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *htwaits* /forum/post/20749229
> 
> 
> The Sony SXRD is not a good example for your point. SXRD had a lot of customers, including a bunch for it's $10K super version. It's failure initially was a failure of the SXRD technology, then the market moved on to big flat panels. There are still a lot of RPTV sets out there, but Sony has been exchanging most of their SXRD displays for flat panels. I've seen reports of those exchanges going on even this year. They're not doing that because the market moved in another direction.



sony' sxrd sets fell out of the marketplace because they failed after 2-3 years of use. the pq was better than any lcd/led i've seen, but when your display

starts presenting everything with a green or magenta tint or blob, consumers

obviously found it to be unacceptable


i know the ex700 i got for my defective sxrd is not in the same league in terms

of pq and color accuracy.


----------



## navychop

JVC got their LCoS RPTV working well. Mine is still going strong, lo these 6 years or so. They beat out Sony, in this technology. I'd love to buy a 70" LCoS RPTV. But they just aren't there anymore. You're right, the masses have moved to "hang it on the wall."


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/20752673
> 
> 
> sony' sxrd sets fell out of the marketplace because they failed after 2-3 years of use. the pq was better than any lcd/led i've seen, but when your display
> 
> starts presenting everything with a green or magenta tint or blob, consumers
> 
> obviously found it to be unacceptable
> 
> 
> i know the ex700 i got for my defective sxrd is not in the same league in terms
> 
> of pq and color accuracy.



Well, no one here seems to remember that the SXRD1 was at the time, the first tv able to display 1080p. Never mind that we still didn't have anything 1080p commercially available.


I don't know about yours, but my 60EX700 show a vastly superior pq over my XBR1.


----------



## nx211

Would that be the 34" CRT XBR1 from the late '90's?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20750222
> 
> 
> The point was yes, OLED tech can crumble for reasons other than visuals. Personally in displays I do think SED is the best example. It was wowing people at demos, and had announced dates, it did have lawsuit setback but that was short lived and decided in Canons favor. In the end the tech was just too expensive.
> 
> 
> OLED seems to have similarly wowed in Demos has some announced dates an will likely be extremely expensive (and have durability issues).



I am struggling to remember the last time (the first time?) where a large OLED was shown off and the objective picture quality was wow-factor material. I do recall everyone camped around the Sony 11" display. But then I recall proving that unless you jammed your face up against it, it wasn't really much more impressive than the Sony laptop displays across the Sony pavilion area.


I mean, it was better and it was remarkable for its thinness, but it was 11 inches. The Samsung Galaxy has a great 4" screen, too. But we hardly sit around going, "Wow, I can't wait to have that cell phone in my home theater."


The SED demo -- and it was basically fiction in that they were never close to building SED TVs, it was nothing more than a prototype -- was at least a 50-something display (I forget the precise size). People were in awe of a mainstream size display which was _that good_. It's like the way we felt when we first walked into the Kuro display where there was pitch darkness next to what was obviously a TV. Then it came on. Then you realized that the black floor had been dropped to zero on _the TV you hadn't even realized was there before_.


That's a "WOW!" demo.


If anyone visited LG at CES -- the only one showing an OLED of any meaningful size -- and came away with a reaction of "Wow!" I missed that. I saw what that had and it looked alright. It didn't look amazing. It didn't look like some kind of revolutionary TV in the making.


I'm not suggesting OLED TVs can't or won't be revolutionary; but so far I'm not sure they are going to be "all that". If you compare on cell phones the Galaxy's display to iPhone 4, for example, they are awfully close in "goodness". Neither is world's better than the other.


There are so many problems with OLED right now as "the next big thing" that I'm not of the opinion _any_ price premium is clearly warranted. But certainly a huge price premium is not warranted at all. The chicken/egg problem is going to come home to roost here. "They are too expensive until they make more. But they can't make more until they sell more. But they can't sell more because they are too expensive."


No offense, but it's hard to believe LG of the astronomically priced 72" LCD is going to be the one to change this equation by pricing their OLED aggressively to stimulate demand and work their way down the learning curve* to lower costs.


I'm not much of the opinion that AUO is that company either.


* check Wikipedia or Google for more


----------



## 3reach

Just came here to drop this off







Article from 2008

http://gear.ign.com/articles/895/895002p1.html 


" Today, the Associated Press reports that Japanese outlet Nikkei Daily reported that Panasonic (Matsushita) is leading the OLED pack and may beat competitors to market with large-screen OLED displays. Thanks to the rapid construction of a $2.8-billion manufacturing plant, Panasonic expects to have 40-inch OLED panels coming off the production line in 2010, with full commercialization by 2011. Such a plan would put Panasonic in the lead against Sony and Sharp, companies that so far have cited 2012 or later for the launch of similarly sized OLED displays. "


What a joke. Were in the same position right now 4 years later.


----------



## specuvestor

Similar to my opinion on LG, I wouldn't hold my breath for Sony either. They don't have the funds to develop OLED for greater purposes.


" Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Howard Stringer, who has overseen a 50 percent decline in Sony Corp.'s value, may cost shareholders a 70 percent gain by clinging to its television business.

Japan's largest exporter of electronics slashed its profit forecast after saying last week its TV division will lose money for an eighth straight year. Once worth more than $100 billion,

Sony has lost half its market capitalization since Stringer became its first non-Japanese chief executive officer in 2005. The Tokyo-based company is now valued at $25 billion, less than

a quarter the size of South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co.

While analysts say Sony may climb 36 percent as sales of its PlayStation game consoles and Cyber-shot digital cameras bolster profit this year, stripping out losses at the TV

business from the rest of the company would boost its equity to $43 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. By selling the TV division, Sony would exit a business that is forecast to lose almost a billion dollars this year as consumers unwilling to pay for its Bravia flat-screen TVs turn to cheaper brands."


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20762533
> 
> 
> I am struggling to remember the last time (the first time?) where a large OLED was shown off and the objective picture quality was wow-factor material.



Perhaps you have just become extremely jaded. I have said it before, *if you aren't wowed by OLED, you simply can't be wowed by display technology anymore.* It essentially has ideal picture characteristics, this is nothing left to improve after OLED. There are no more wows coming from flat panels.


The biggest problem with wowing people with showmanship is you only get one crack at that and OLEDs have been appearing for years as prototypes so they have no surprises left for us.


Sony was showing a 27" OLED at CES in 2007 that Wowed people. Some quotes from a few members here who actually saw it at CES 2007:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=783761 





> Quote:
> *I saw it this afternoon, and was floored.*
> 
> 
> Imagine the best LCD panel you've ever seen. And then picture it with the blackest blacks, the whitest whites, and the highest resolution you've ever seen. That sums up this display.
> 
> 
> The size of the display is just icing on the cake.
> 
> 
> This may sound like hyperbole, *but after seeing this display, every single plasma and LCD at the show looked like yesterday's news.* I thought the picture below was particularly impressive, and I can attest that it looked far more realistic in person.





> Quote:
> I have to chime in here. I just got back from CES, *having seen these displays. It is almost like Alien technology*. These panels were simply unreal. I have never in my life seen a cleaner more real image. *It was dizzying. These were in the true sense of the word: a window on the source. Not a single person with a bias to any technology, could stand in front of the display and not be floored in person. There was not a criticism to be invented when scrutinizing the picture.* 1080P native 1,000,000:1 contrast. Seriously guys; this thing is beyond a dream. oh, and as thin as 2 sticks of chewing gum to boot. Holy cow!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20765055
> 
> 
> Perhaps you have just become extremely jaded. I have said it before, *if you aren't wowed by OLED, you simply can't be wowed by display technology anymore.* It essentially has ideal picture characteristics, this is nothing left to improve after OLED. There are no more wows coming from flat panels.
> 
> 
> The biggest problem with wowing people with showmanship is you only get one crack at that and OLEDs have been appearing for years as prototypes so they have no surprises left for us.
> 
> 
> Sony was showing a 27" OLED at CES in 2007 that Wowed people. Some quotes from a few members here who actually saw it at CES 2007:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=783761



Guidry, you kind of make my point. I don't think I'm jaded, just perhaps forgetful. CES 2007 was _four and a half years ago_. It's very very possible that was the last truly wow OLED moment. I do recall that display, it was quite impressive _in a way that LG's 2011 CES display wasn't_. Is that because LCD has gotten so much better (and plasma too)? Or is it because LG's prototype wasn't nearly as amazing? Hard to say. But the fact is LG had something to show at CES 2011 and people didn't come back oohing and ahhing.


I'm not the only person, so I doubt it's me being "jaded".


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20750222
> 
> 
> The point was yes, OLED tech can crumble for reasons other than visuals. Personally in displays I do think SED is the best example. It was wowing people at demos, and had announced dates, it did have lawsuit setback but that was short lived and decided in Canons favor. In the end the tech was just too expensive.
> 
> 
> OLED seems to have similarly wowed in Demos has some announced dates an will likely be extremely expensive (and have durability issues).
> 
> 
> IMO OLED won't fail because there are multiple players to keep it going. If someone drops the ball, someone else will pick it up. OLED also holds the promise of being very inexpensive (someday), that will spur on development.
> 
> 
> I am very dubious of LGs 2012 55" claim. What will that cost $10K? How long before it shows burn in?
> 
> 
> I am thinking OLED is inevitable, but it might be 2017 before it hits mainstream TV pricing/availability.
> 
> 
> Edit: AUO VP says 2014 the earliest:
> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110728PD207.html



LG's 55" HDTV will use white-color OLED and color filters. So not really an OLED display as most think of them.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20750222
> 
> 
> Edit: AUO VP says 2014 the earliest:
> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110728PD207.html



AUO is referring to the timeframe that OLED is similarly-priced to LCD, I believe. Until then they'll be expensive, which is no different than every other new tech that's ever been introduced; they are always more expensive than existing technologies, if for no other reason than the expenditures of capital required to ramp them into production. Case in point: All the LCD plants have long since been paid for, but Samsung has sunk US $7 Billion into new OLED factories just in the last 18 months and will need to recoup that investment and depreciate the cost to manufacture.


Early adopters don't care whether they're expensive or not. To be able to purchase a .02 ms pixel response, 600Hz refresh rate, 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio OLED HDTV that's less than 3 mm thick is enough.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20762533
> 
> 
> I am struggling to remember the last time (the first time?) where a large OLED was shown off and the objective picture quality was wow-factor material. I do recall everyone camped around the Sony 11" display. But then I recall proving that unless you jammed your face up against it, it wasn't really much more impressive than the Sony laptop displays across the Sony pavilion area.
> 
> 
> I mean, it was better and it was remarkable for its thinness, but it was 11 inches. The Samsung Galaxy has a great 4" screen, too. But we hardly sit around going, "Wow, I can't wait to have that cell phone in my home theater."
> 
> 
> The SED demo -- and it was basically fiction in that they were never close to building SED TVs, it was nothing more than a prototype -- was at least a 50-something display (I forget the precise size). People were in awe of a mainstream size display which was _that good_. It's like the way we felt when we first walked into the Kuro display where there was pitch darkness next to what was obviously a TV. Then it came on. Then you realized that the black floor had been dropped to zero on _the TV you hadn't even realized was there before_.
> 
> 
> That's a "WOW!" demo.



You don't consider this to be a ""WOW!"demo? (watch the video halfway down)

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/l...ld-lcd-hearts/


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20762533
> 
> 
> There are so many problems with OLED right now as "the next big thing" that I'm not of the opinion _any_ price premium is clearly warranted. But certainly a huge price premium is not warranted at all. The chicken/egg problem is going to come home to roost here. "They are too expensive until they make more. But they can't make more until they sell more. But they can't sell more because they are too expensive."



I don't see this and wonder if you are aware of the fact that OLEDs are, and have been, in massive need of supply; Samsung is selling them as fast as they can make them and there's more demand than they can meet, even WITH their new gen 5.5 online now and ramping quickly to TEN-FOLD production (previously 3 million smartphone OLEDs per month, ramping to 30 million per month).


It doesn't seem there's a "chicken and egg problem" here...


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20765055
> 
> 
> Perhaps you have just become extremely jaded. I have said it before, *if you aren't wowed by OLED, you simply can't be wowed by display technology anymore.* It essentially has ideal picture characteristics, this is nothing left to improve after OLED. There are no more wows coming from flat panels.



Exactly so. When you have supreme speed, perfect contrast ratio, super slimness, and flexible or transparent what else is there? OLED is the best display tech ever.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20741618
> 
> 
> Yes one thing they overpromised on OLED was low power usage.
> 
> 
> OLED acutally uses more power with bright backgrounds mostly lit screen. It is only with dark, mostly unlit screens that it uses less power.



That's only because Samsung is using only Universal Display's red PHOLED (phosphorescent OLED) material so far; once they add in green, likely later this year (and eventually blue), OLEDs will be far and away more efficient than LCDs.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20744711
> 
> 
> IMHO this is certainly what most people WANT from a TV. Samsung and LCD proved it. Bright and "dynamic" colors catches the consumers' eyes.
> 
> 
> That's not what videophiles want though.



Are you assuming you can't tweak your OLED HDTV? Why would you assume that?


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20745518
> 
> 
> Hi Slacker OLED power consumption PATTERN will be similar to Plasma while LED backlighting is quite constant. But again with local dimming gaining acceptance, LED may not be that constant after all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IIRC LED already can do 100-150 cd/A
> 
> 
> Point is that the proof of the pudding ie Samsung S1 & S2 shows OLED is not as power efficient as we hope it will be.



Samsung uses red PHOLED and fluorescent green and blue. The green and blue are what is consuming most of the power; the red PHOLED is the efficient color. Once Samsung starts using green PHOLED, which is imminent, expect to see power consumption decline accordingly.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20766968
> 
> 
> You don't consider this to be a ""WOW!"demo? (watch the video halfway down)
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/l...ld-lcd-hearts/



I saw it live, not on some YouTube video. I sat around the LG booth for about an hour. I was underwhelmed. So was just about everyone else who came by. Most comments were on the order of "it looks pretty nice". People were impressed by the thinness (not an important attribute of picture quality).


It was a 31" TV showing animation. Honestly, from straight on, it looked like a really, really nice LCD. From the sides, the viewing angles were great.


I'm completely confounded by your comments in the other posts. Are you saying their "OLED TV" is really a 55" LCD TV with an OLED backlight? Or are you saying it has 6 million white OLED sub-pixels that are color filtered?


The latter seems bizarre. The former seems like something semi-believable, although I'd then note it's basically a full-array, locally dimmed LED-backlit LCD with potentially an awfully high number of "zones".


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20661621
> 
> 
> I'll believe it when I can buy it. No offense to some South Korean mutual fund manager, but the track record of those kind of predictions is terrible.
> 
> 
> To date, there has been absolutely no commercially available OLED TV other than an 11" Sony that cost $2500. This... speaks.. volumes...



It might speak volumes if there weren't already millions of OLED displays on smartphones, cameras and various other devices. As well as lighting coming on strong. Anyone trying to call OLED vapor is kidding themselves.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20697344
> 
> 
> It's tangential, but TSMC just taped out samples of Apple's next gen SOC for iPads/iPhones. This suggests that Apple is deadly serious about dropping Samsung as a supplier for everything. Whether it can pull that off or not remains to be seen, but it does mean that iPad will almost certainly not be going OLED until someone not named Samsung can produce enough OLED displays. That's a 2014 at the earliest kind of situation.



Seems it's more complex than that; apple doesn't want to be stuck using LCD for the next three years. They're already feeling that pain NOW in 2011. They need OLED to remain competitive.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/20538793
> 
> 
> i bet not going to happen. my most optomistic prediction is that we're still 2-3 years out from oled tablet screens. and why would sammy let apple have it first if they are the only manufacturer?



Article I saw this week suggests Samsung will have an OLED tablet (7") out before the end of this year.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/20538793
> 
> 
> i bet not going to happen. my most optomistic prediction is that we're still 2-3 years out from oled tablet screens. and why would sammy let apple have it first if they are the only manufacturer?



I think you're way too pessimistic. This image below is from the Goldman Sachs report on Universal Display (who provides the IP and materials for Samsung's OLED production). Just look at the difference in estimates of OLED production from Q4 2009 to Q4 2011.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20545371
> 
> 
> I don't. Unless they plan on not really selling tablets. You can't sort of have enough screens for your tablet but sort of not.
> 
> 
> There ought to be about 200 mobile phone screens per 5.5g substrate. At ~100k substrates per month, you are looking at 2MM mobile phone screens per month, or 25MM annually. Samsung might be able to absorb that product _on its own_ for Galaxy II S/Galaxy III S. And even if not, they will have no problem finding customers at HTC and ZTE, looking to demonstrate high-end models.



Where are you getting these numbers? Samsung was producing 3 million smartphone-size screens per month BEFORE the new gen 5.5 came online a few months ago. The result of that ramping is going to be a ten-fold increase to 30 million per month. They're likely around 8 million per month already.


----------



## hughh

Is that the same Goldman Sachs that was predicting $200 barrel of oil for this summer a couple of yrs ago???


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20554722
> 
> 
> They've been single sourcing from LGD and now moving to CMI and Sharp. Similarly they are trying to nurture CMI for OLED because for obvious reasons Sammy will fulfill their internal OLED demand first.
> 
> 
> I actually think it is possible that the next iPad may be 2 screens technology, maybe retina black and OLED white iPad or iPhones.
> 
> 
> But again depends on next 12 months how the market accept premium priced OLED devices.



How much of a price premium do you imagine is needed? The below image is from the Gabelli investment report on Universal Display from around March this year, and shows OLED to be very price competitive.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20767223
> 
> 
> I saw it live, not on some YouTube video. I sat around the LG booth for about an hour. I was underwhelmed. So was just about everyone else who came by. Most comments were on the order of "it looks pretty nice". People were impressed by the thinness (not an important attribute of picture quality).
> 
> 
> It was a 31" TV showing animation. Honestly, from straight on, it looked like a really, really nice LCD. From the sides, the viewing angles were great.
> 
> 
> I'm completely confounded by your comments in the other posts. Are you saying their "OLED TV" is really a 55" LCD TV with an OLED backlight? Or are you saying it has 6 million white OLED sub-pixels that are color filtered?
> 
> 
> The latter seems bizarre. The former seems like something semi-believable, although I'd then note it's basically a full-array, locally dimmed LED-backlit LCD with potentially an awfully high number of "zones".


 http://www.oled-info.com/lgs-8-gen-l...-true-oled-tvs 



> Quote:
> Update: It's not clear whether LGD's architecture will use a white OLED as a backlighting unit for an LCD display like the article suggests, or whether they plan to use Kodak's method of color-filtering white subpixels (LG now owns those Kodak OLED technologies).


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20767896
> 
> 
> Is that the same Goldman Sachs that was predicting $200 barrel of oil for this summer a couple of yrs ago???



If you don't like their opinion check any of the others including Gabelli, Oppenheimer, Canaccord, Cowen...


There's a reason Universal Display's stock is now 64% owned by institutional investors...


You might also note that the chart doesn't come from Goldman; it comes from DisplaySearch.


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20768017
> 
> 
> If you don't like their opinion check any of the others including Gabelli, Oppenheimer, Canaccord, Cowen...
> 
> 
> There's a reason Universal Display's stock is now 64% owned by institutional investors...



Yep, their specialty, increasing the price of stock...no matter if it's a worthy product or not.

As long as they make $$$ who cares about the rest...


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20766936
> 
> 
> LG's 55" HDTV will use white-color OLED and color filters. So not really an OLED display as most think of them.



Those guys at OLED-Info have just revealed themselves to be idiots if they think LG is releasing and OLED backlit LCD.


WOLED with filters is true OLED. It is nothing more than a minor implementation detail that will not effect behavior. The difference is irrelevant except in terms of a small efficiency loss.


If they can't get the chemistry perfect for a specific primary a color filter on top will be common. This is especially likely to get around problems with premature blue aging. You may see OLEDs that use Red/Green unfiltered and Blue that is white or pale blue with a Darker Blue filter. Using Filters on all three might solve differential aging from a standard video signal (which is fairly average color wise). It wont' solve burn from patterns on screen, but at least the screen will be less like to change tint as it ages faster on one color. So filtered white OLED might even be the better solution.


Putting on color filters won't be anything like the multiple layers for LCDs, it is trivial in comparison and will not affect contrast/black levels/viewing angle/response time or any of the other goodness that is OLED.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20768028
> 
> 
> Yep, their specialty, increasing the price of stock...no matter if it's a worthy product or not.
> 
> As long as they make $$$ who cares about the rest...



What? They can pick any stocks they want to. They intentionally pick ones they think are going to go up in price; that's kind of their job.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20766950
> 
> 
> AUO is referring to the timeframe that OLED is similarly-priced to LCD, I believe.



He was saying yields were too low for commercial viability, they can't produce them at any marketable price; forget price parity. They are obviously going to be much more expensive than LCD for years beyond 2014. I wouldn't expect LCD parity before 2020.


Either LG is way ahead of AUO, or they are blowing smoke. I don't expect 55" from LG next year. They didn't deliver on the 31" they mentioned in 2009.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20768058
> 
> 
> Putting on color filters won't be anything like the multiple layers for LCDs, it is trivial in comparison and will not affect contrast/black levels/viewing angle/response time or any of the other goodness that is OLED.



Agree it is trivial in comparison, but is chromacity as good as native RGB? The holy grail of LCD is to have RGB LED 1-1 backlighting *without* color filter.


Nonetheless OLED with color filter at least sounds more plausible than white OLED as pure backlight with TFT LCD array.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20767838
> 
> 
> Article I saw this week suggests Samsung will have an OLED tablet (7") out before the end of this year.



7" tablet is 1 year late but excusable as demand for their OLED phones were much stronger than expected. I am hopeful that we will see a Sammy 7" tablet soon. We just need to look at Sammy capacity ramp. As for LG 55" we also just need to look at their OLED ramp (or non-ramp). Prototype possible, but even for trophy productions we would like to see the 31" first












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20717297
> 
> 
> One thing for certain: I would expect a Samsung OLED tablet first before an OLED iPad


----------



## rogo

Pdoherty, your questions were addressed weeks ago:


1) Apple does not need OLED to remain competitive. That's nonsense. I don't know what sources you have that believe that, but the iPhone Retina Display is considered comparable to the AMOLED in the Galaxy S II. Not quite as good, but comparable. The iPhone 4 is already 16 months old. Apple is fine.


2) I made one major math error, since corrected. That said, there remains a zero percent chance that Samsung can supply Apple with OLEDs for iPad in 2012. Zero percent. And regardless, Apple needs two sources of every part. There is no backup source. At this point, the question is whether it's even plausible to offer an OLED iPad in 2013 given Apple's ways of doing business. The answer is maybe.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20768156
> 
> 
> He was saying yields were too low for commercial viability, they can't produce them at any marketable price; forget price parity. They are obviously going to be much more expensive than LCD for years beyond 2014. I wouldn't expect LCD parity before 2020.
> 
> 
> Either LG is way ahead of AUO, or they are blowing smoke. I don't expect 55" from LG next year. They didn't deliver on the 31" they mentioned in 2009.



Barry Young of the OLED Association thinks price parity with LCD is in 2015.

http://www.oled-tv.asia/when-can-ole...ft-technology/


----------



## specuvestor

You quoting Barry Young again??  Parity will not be reached in next 5 years. Frankly I think this is quite brainless. It's like saying Sharp 70" will hit $1000 by 2015. Depreciation schedule itself last 5 years.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20768196
> 
> 
> 1) Apple does not need OLED to remain competitive. That's nonsense. I don't know what sources you have that believe that, but the iPhone Retina Display is considered comparable to the AMOLED in the Galaxy S II. Not quite as good, but comparable. The iPhone 4 is already 16 months old. Apple is fine.
> 
> 
> 2) I made one major math error, since corrected. That said, there remains a zero percent chance that Samsung can supply Apple with OLEDs for iPad in 2012. Zero percent. And regardless, Apple needs two sources of every part. There is no backup source. At this point, the question is whether it's even plausible to offer an OLED iPad in 2013 given Apple's ways of doing business. The answer is maybe.



1) We'll know for sure when OLED tablet comes out







What I find intriguing is why retina display is not implemented in LG phones earlier.


2) Not necessarily true but of course optimal for Apple. For eg Foxconn was exclusive for many Apple products ramp, TPK for their touch screen and LGD for their IPS and retina displays. Only after ramp do they try to migrate the technology to "lesser" players


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20768196
> 
> 
> Pdoherty, your questions were addressed weeks ago:
> 
> 
> 1) Apple does not need OLED to remain competitive. That's nonsense. I don't know what sources you have that believe that, but the iPhone Retina Display is considered comparable to the AMOLED in the Galaxy S II. Not quite as good, but comparable. The iPhone 4 is already 16 months old. Apple is fine.
> 
> 
> 2) I made one major math error, since corrected. That said, there remains a zero percent chance that Samsung can supply Apple with OLEDs for iPad in 2012. Zero percent. And regardless, Apple needs two sources of every part. There is no backup source. At this point, the question is whether it's even plausible to offer an OLED iPad in 2013 given Apple's ways of doing business. The answer is maybe.



Consumers like OLED. And Apple is already falling behind. Within the next several months Android will surpass them and Apple will forever be behind them. LCD screens like the iPhone 4 uses are not as good as OLED, and more critically are not as thin, meaning phones using OLED can (and will) be in a more attractive form factor. Not to mention that when Samsung begins using PHOLED green they will be handily beating LCDs in power consumption, too.


As for your suggestion that there is zero chance of an OLED iPad I think you're basing that on the common factoid that Apple likes two suppliers for each component, but I don't think that's been true of their so-called 'Retina' LCDs which all came from LG. Why does that rule apply now that OLED has arrived? If your concern is on production capacity Samsung should have more than enough by March of next year with the gen 5.5 in full production.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20768178
> 
> 
> The holy grail of LCD is to have RGB LED 1-1 backlighting *without* color filter.



If you are saying that the holy grail of LCD is to have one LED baclight for each pixel, that is nonsense. When you get to that density, you have a full LED Array, that can display a picture on its own. Sticking an LCD in front of it would only degrade the picture. Once you have a full array of emitters, LCD is irrelevant waste.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20768241
> 
> 
> Consumers like OLED. And Apple is already falling behind.



Most consumers don't know the difference. Apple falling behind who? Everyone else in the market combined? They just passed Nokia to become the worlds number 1 smartphone vendor. Geez Apple better do something before they go out of business!










While I would like and pay more for an OLED screen on my TV, I wouldn't pay a penny more for one on a phone. If there is one place I don't give a rats behind about perfect blacks it is on phone screen.


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20768117
> 
> 
> What? They can pick any stocks they want to. They intentionally pick ones they think are going to go up in price; that's kind of their job.



What I was referring is the "spin" they put out in order to artificially increase value and attract investors. They are not the only ones. One example is the electric car company Tesla. They haven't turned a dime profit in what,four years. However, due to the spin doctors, they not only get government $$ but increase their stock value as well through new investors.


In other words, take their publicity with a grain of salt.


----------



## hughh

Yeah Guidry, I guess some people don't read the news. The headlines the other day was that Apple actually has more cash than the Fed.


----------



## agogley




> Quote:
> Consumers like OLED. And Apple is already falling behind. Within the next several months Android will surpass them and Apple will forever be behind them. LCD screens like the iPhone 4 uses are not as good as OLED, and more critically are not as thin, meaning phones using OLED can (and will) be in a more attractive form factor. Not to mention that when Samsung begins using PHOLED green they will be handily beating LCDs in power consumption, too.



I'm sure Apple is trembling. They could probably delay any new product annoucements for more than a year and they'd still be dominating the market.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20768282
> 
> 
> If you are saying that the holy grail of LCD is to have one LED baclight for each pixel, that is nonsense. When you get to that density, you have a full LED Array, that can display a picture on its own. Sticking an LCD in front of it would only degrade the picture. Once you have a full array of emitters, LCD is irrelevant waste.



That's why it is called holy grail







it is the "perfect" solution but that seems to be what the Japanese are researching on, and the Koreans told me so that they can remove the CF layer.


For starters I think you still need to polarise the light and not sure if respond time of emitters can be as uniform or fast as LCD as the LED need to have display drivers rather than simply TFT.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20768241
> 
> 
> And Apple is already falling behind. Within the next several months Android will surpass them and Apple will forever be behind them.



This is a common Android marketing gimmick. How many models of Android devices are there vs essentially ONE iPhone and ONE iPad?


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20768385
> 
> 
> That's why it is called holy grail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is the "perfect" solution but that seems to be what the Japanese are researching on, and the Koreans told me so that they can remove the CF layer.
> 
> 
> For starters I think you still need to polarise the light and not sure if respond time of emitters can be as uniform or fast as LCD as the LED need to have display drivers rather than simply TFT.



Again that is simply nonsense. You need polarizing layer in a LCD because you are using Liquid Crystal that itself modulating and polarize light. You are modulating because you don't have one emitter per pixel.


If you have do have one emitter per cell, it would be beyond senseless to stick an LCD in front of it.


This is utter and complete nonsense. Either you misinterpreted, or you were misinformed.


It sounds like you are mixing this up with the way MEMs display works, with cycling R,G,B backlight and no color filters at the pixels. The pixel essentially open/shuts to let the right amount of R,G,B light in as the backlight cycles(functionally similar to DLP). I think I have heard of someone trying something similar with LCD. But you would need a very fast switching LCD to pull it off.


Nothing anywhere makes any sense using LCD if you have a full pixel array backlight. That isn't the holy grail of LCD, that is OLED, that is a reason to throw your LCD in the trash.


----------



## specuvestor

So I gather you think RGB LED backlight for LCD in future is rubbish or I misread?


I remembered distinctively 3 years back that Japanese were trying to do high end LED LCD while Samsung opted for Edge lit. This may be one of the model but I admit I'm not sure of the models as I don't follow these premium products close enough:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/Sharp-...D-TV_TV_review 


You do make interesting points so I need to find out more and ask the Koreans eg SEMCO for more details.


----------



## rogo

Apple is making 2/3 of the mobile industry's profits and about 90% of the tablet industry's profits. If this is falling behind, I want to be falling behind.


There is currently one major AMOLED phone and zero AMOLED tablets. The one major AMOLED phone is a huge hit (Samsung Galaxy S II) but it's not currently outselling the 14-month-old iPhone 4.


While I don't doubt Samsung could produce a 7" OLED tablet this year, I will note that Samsung has already deprecated the 7" tablet form factor in favor of the larger form factors, esp. the 10.1".


And, with regards to Spec's comment, yes Apple does single source a few components. But the trend is moving away from that. And certainly the notion of sole sourcing the main display of a product at this point seems completely and utterly absurd. The new Macbook Air has dual-sourced displays and dual-sourced SSDs and the volumes are a small fraction of what iPad volume is, let alone iPhone.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20768514
> 
> 
> So I gather you think RGB LED backlight for LCD in future is rubbish or I misread?



RGB Backlight have been used for a while in high end TVs and monitors since they are good for fine tuning spectrum. I have seen a few of these in stores. No magic here.


But that has nothing to do with One LED per pixel. They are still in big clusters, running through light spreaders to cover a great many pixels. It just produces and better spectrum than WLEDS.


Meanwhile WLEDS must be improving because it seems most sets have switched to WLEDs even array lit locally dimmed sets. I haven't checked every set, do you know if anyone is still doing R,G,B LED backlighting in a TV in 2011?


All I was saying you will never see a 1:1 LED to Pixel ratio in an LED backlight set, as it is entirely without merit.


A 1:1 ratio is the same as an OLED panel. Can you imagine sticking an LCD in front of 1920x1080 OLED panel. That would be a travesty.


----------



## specuvestor

Agree on OLED as backlight. I've said that it made no sense. So does these available RGB LED require color filter then?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20744336
> 
> 
> Using OLED as backlight totally make no sense to me. It's a better but much more expensive mousetrap. LGD just said last Thursday that OLED plans will be delayed as capex cut. There's no more 4.5G but they will reach 8G in a single bound. Right.



There is no supply of RGB LCD just as there were no supply of full array LED last year. The LEDs were too expensive and there are patent issues with Blue LED. However I wouldn't be surprised if they make a comeback next year with lower LED cost.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *agogley* /forum/post/20768378
> 
> 
> I'm sure Apple is trembling. They could probably delay any new product annoucements for more than a year and they'd still be dominating the market.



This site has an informative chart showing who has what share.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/1889...report-con.htm


----------



## hughh

China will replace North America and Western Europe to become the largest market of TV sales with shipments reaching 46 million.

In addition the market share of LCD TVs will continue to increase. The current rate is 84%. Shipments of LCD TVS will increase from 192 million units in 2010 to 210 million units in 2011. New technologies such as LED-backlit and 3D have been helping to stabilize LCD TV prices. The percentage of LED-backlit TVs in total TV shipments will reach 46% and 3D TV will reach 8% in 2011.


While Plasma TV is still a technology in the flat screen TV market its time has passed. The market share is likely to drop from 7% in 2011 to 5% in 2015. *A new technology is emerging though, in OLED. OLED TVs will likely join the fight in market of 40-inch and larger in second half of 2012. The market estimates the market share of OLED TVs to reach 2% in the 40-inch and larger category.* Furthermore, emerging markets such as China, Asia Pacific, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa will bring strong growth to the TV market. The average growth in the next four years will be 17%.

The shipments of 3D TVs in 2011 will reach 20 million units and will likely exceed 100 million units in 2015. The percentage TVs with 3D functions in the 40-inch and larger category is expected to grow to 84% in 2015.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110801PD221.html


----------



## hughh

1 August 2011
*Apple becomes number one smartphone vendor in Q2/2011**

http://www.semiconductor-today.com/n...SA_010811.html


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20768715
> 
> 
> Agree on OLED as backlight. I've said that it made no sense. So does these available RGB LED require color filter then?



Yes they still need color filter. I think RGB LED LCD is pretty much going away,as they really just use the RGB LEDs to make white light that still passes through the color filters in the LCD. The only advantage of RGB LED is better color spectrum and I don't think anyone has actually noticed that.


Think about it. If you have R,G,B LEDS (not one/per pixel as that removes any need for an LCD in the first place) providing R, G, B light, how would you possible get only the blu light to 2 Milllion blue sub pixels, only the Red light to the 2 million Red sub pixels, and only the green light to the 2 million green subpixels.


What kind of mechanical monstrosity could actually route light to 6 million individual pixels without crossing them??? 6 Million fiber optic cables.


Whatever you can imagine is hideously more expensive and complex than simply putting the same white light to all the pixels and putting filters for each color on each pixel.


The only way I can imagine doing a LCD without color filters is to do a cycling backlight like I mentioned for MEMs in my previous post. There are no R,G,B sub pixels at all. It is just a full color pixel that grabs the colors from the backlight as it is cycling. (again this is not related to any per pixel arrangement, it uses big light speader conduits).


Here is a video of how that works for MEMs, it would be the same idea for LCD without CFs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXav...eature=related 


Previously I mentioned that I thought I read about someone trying this with LCD, though I was dubious that LCD would have the needed switching speed.

Samsung claimed to have done this years ago and that they would be shipping such panels in 2006!
http://www.physorg.com/pdf7308.pdf 


The problem is that MEM switches very fast and can pull off cycling backlight. LCD, really switches too slow.


Edit: Thinking about it some more, I realize LCD wouldn't have to switch as fast as MEMs because it has modulation of levels. So in theory a frame for a light cycling backlight LCD could be just 3 big time slices of R,G,B so for a 60Hz frame about 5.6 ms each, within the capability of the fastest LCDs. Though I still think this ideas is largely DOA as slow backlight cycling would almost certain leave this prone to rainbows like a first generation DLP projector.


This is entirely off topic as it is pure LCD speculation and nothing to do with OLED.


----------



## Brimstone-1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20768514
> 
> 
> So I gather you think RGB LED backlight for LCD in future is rubbish or I misread?
> 
> 
> I remembered distinctively 3 years back that Japanese were trying to do high end LED LCD while Samsung opted for Edge lit. This may be one of the model but I admit I'm not sure of the models as I don't follow these premium products close enough:
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/Sharp-...D-TV_TV_review
> 
> 
> You do make interesting points so I need to find out more and ask the Koreans eg SEMCO for more details.




I think you might be thinking of Blue-Phase LCD using Field Sequential Color. There would be no need for the RGB sub-pixels.



> Quote:
> The University of Central Florida is quite active with several projects including a design that electronically moves the switchable lens laterally as well as a new design for a switchable lens using Blue-Phase liquid crystal. You will be hearing more about Blue-Phase LCs because they have the capability for very fast switching, potentially allowing field sequential LCDs. That means panel makers can triple resolution (no spatial color filter matrix) and reduce costs. The University is very active in this area and commercialization of products now seems 2-3 years off.


 http://displaydaily.com/2011/05/18/s...ention-at-sid/


----------



## rogo

@huggh, Digitimes is notorious for reporting things that make no sense. While it's undoubtedly true that China and other countries will buy more TVs and therefore the market will expand, that will -- if anything -- drive the market toward cheaper TVs, not advanced technologies. While 3-D will eventually become borderline free to add on, and LED backlighting will reach cost parity with CCFL (or become cheaper most likely at least for edge-lit designs), OLED won't -- for years.


An expanding market means slower OLED penetration as a portion of the whole, no matter how much one believes in OLED. (For the math challenged -- not hughh -- I am questioning the percentages and not unit growth.) Cheap plasmas would like fare well if the market is indeed growing like this, slowing their market demise somewhat.


The OLED conversations are going to be much more interesting in 2015 than they will be in 2012, where they will remain as boring as they were in 2005 (although I suppose we'll possibly be able to pick apart one single model from one single mfr. next year that is astronomically pricey and virtually unavailable for purchase anywhere... if one finds that small possibility exciting than so be it.. I doubt it's even happening and nothing in the LG "announcement" has really changed my opinion there.)


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20752949
> 
> 
> Well, no one here seems to remember that the SXRD1 was at the time, the first tv able to display 1080p. Never mind that we still didn't have anything 1080p commercially available.
> 
> 
> I don't know about yours, but my 60EX700 show a vastly superior pq over my XBR1.



well i've spent hours trying to dial my in and it still is mediocre pq


you're welcome to come to calif and improve my ex700. i'll even buy dinner for you.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brimstone-1* /forum/post/20770640
> 
> 
> I think you might be thinking of Blue-Phase LCD using Field Sequential Color. There would be no need for the RGB sub-pixels.



I wouldn't hold your breath on anything out of the Samsung Labs. They are into everything. They were showing a sequential color LCD back in 2005, with production slated for 2006 (PDF I linked above) before there was any talk of blue phase. AFAIK, they never did put any sequential color LCD into production.


In 2008 Samsung was talking up Blue Phase but for it's speed to allow 240Hz TVs. No mention of sequential color then.


Samsung was also working with some MEMs company on MEMs sequential color displays.


I do think sequential color LCDs will go nowhere for TV because they will be prone to the Rainbow Effect like DLP and no real visual advantages, it is mainly a cost savings/power efficiency advantage, not a visual one. It might work on portables where visual tradeoffs for power/cost savings might make sense.


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/20771096
> 
> 
> well i've spent hours trying to dial my in and it still is mediocre pq
> 
> 
> you're welcome to come to calif and improve my ex700. i'll even by dinner for you.



I've been using serialmike's settings from the EX500 thread. His 60EX500 uses the same Sharp panel has my 60EX700. He calibrates with instruments and even 'tho my tv and his are not the same, the settings are close enough that it gives me a chance at improving my set's pq with some minor alterations to his settings.


I still enjoy the pq of my 60SXRD in the bedroom, but when I compare it to the 60EX700 in the living room I have to cringe.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20771135
> 
> 
> I've been using serialmike's settings from the EX500 thread. His 60EX500 uses the same Sharp panel has my 60EX700. He calibrates with instruments and even 'tho my tv and his are not the same, the settings are close enough that it gives me a chance at improving my set's pq with some minor alterations to his settings.
> 
> 
> I still enjoy the pq of my 60SXRD in the bedroom, but when I compare it to the 60EX700 in the living room I have to cringe.



i actually used serialmikes settings and was not pleased. I ended up using someone elses setting from the ex700 thread and tweaked it from there.


it's pretty good, but still not as good as my now deceased xbr2


----------



## hughh

serial mike has been changing his settings as he improves his technical expertise. He just posted new settings about a week ago or so.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20771492
> 
> 
> serial mike has been changing his settings as he improves his technical expertise. He just posted new settings about a week ago or so.



thanks i'll have to check them out. better stop these posts before we are disciplined by a mod.


----------



## Airmax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> This site has an informative chart showing who has what share.
> 
> http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/1889...report-con.htm



The link you posted is for MARKETSHARE. Marketshare is irrelevant to Apple when their PROFITSHARE is 2/3rd's of the entire mobile phone industry. Apple doesn't need an AMOLED or Super AMOLED screen on the next iPhone or iPad to be successful. And they're certainly not falling behind anyone in the mobile or tablet market.


----------



## hughh

*Survey: iPhone retention 94% vs. Android*47%*

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/...vs-android-47/


----------



## specuvestor

Quote:

Originally Posted by *guidryp* 
Yes they still need color filter. I think RGB LED LCD is pretty much going away,as they really just use the RGB LEDs to make white light that still passes through the color filters in the LCD. The only advantage of RGB LED is better color spectrum and I don't think anyone has actually noticed that.


Think about it. If you have R,G,B LEDS (not one/per pixel as that removes any need for an LCD in the first place) providing R, G, B light, how would you possible get only the blu light to 2 Milllion blue sub pixels, only the Red light to the 2 million Red sub pixels, and only the green light to the 2 million green subpixels.


What kind of mechanical monstrosity could actually route light to 6 million individual pixels without crossing them??? 6 Million fiber optic cables.


Whatever you can imagine is hideously more expensive and complex than simply putting the same white light to all the pixels and putting filters for each color on each pixel.


The only way I can imagine doing a LCD without color filters is to do a cycling backlight like I mentioned for MEMs in my previous post. There are no R,G,B sub pixels at all. It is just a full color pixel that grabs the colors from the backlight as it is cycling. (again this is not related to any per pixel arrangement, it uses big light speader conduits).


Here is a video of how that works for MEMs, it would be the same idea for LCD without CFs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXav...eature=related 


Previously I mentioned that I thought I read about someone trying this with LCD, though I was dubious that LCD would have the needed switching speed.

Samsung claimed to have done this years ago and that they would be shipping such panels in 2006!
http://www.physorg.com/pdf7308.pdf 


The problem is that MEM switches very fast and can pull off cycling backlight. LCD, really switches too slow.


Edit: Thinking about it some more, I realize LCD wouldn't have to switch as fast as MEMs because it has modulation of levels. So in theory a frame for a light cycling backlight LCD could be just 3 big time slices of R,G,B so for a 60Hz frame about 5.6 ms each, within the capability of the fastest LCDs. Though I still think this ideas is largely DOA as slow backlight cycling would almost certain leave this prone to rainbows like a first generation DLP projector.


This is entirely off topic as it is pure LCD speculation and nothing to do with OLED.
Just to digress a bit: I think what RGB LED is trying to do is to remove the color filter first to further cut down cost and simplify structure assuming LED cost continues to decline 30% YoY. The idea of cycling RGB make sense for RGB to work without a color filter. Thanks for pointing that out


I think this concept is also important to understanding using OLED with a CF.


PS Thanks Brimstone-1 for the article as well.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20777631
> 
> 
> Just to digress a bit: I think what RGB LED is trying to do is to remove the color filter first to further cut down cost.
> 
> 
> I think this concept is also important to understanding using OLED with a CF.



The color filter is trivial and inexpensive. Nothing compared to TFT layer, glass base layers, the Liquid crsytal itself, polarizers etc...


Removing tiny color filters and swapping WLED with with more expensive RGB LEDs will likely drive up the price and likely introduce visual artifacts (mainly Rainbow Effect ).


This is never coming to TVs IMO. Maybe mobile where some efficiency savings over-ride the visual artifacts for better battery life.


This really doesn't relate to OLED/CF. There is no sequential color issues here either way. There are still 3 (RGB) subpixels. In fact there are no visual differences.


OLED CF downside: Loss in efficiency (though if white is more efficient to start with you gain back)

OLED CF Upside: Solves differential color aging (esp fragile blue) and fine tunes color.


Really W-OLED with filters strikes me as a superior solution. Anyone who says this isn't true OLED is mistaken.


----------



## specuvestor

yes CF cost is trivial but seems like execution is key. That's why they were all in-sourced after being outsourced in the early LCD cycles 10 years ago


----------



## specuvestor

Why, unlike LG, Sammy OLED ramp is not BS: because the suppliers say so


"Today, she raises her price target from W28k to W32,500 ahead of its 2q

earnings result (August 12).


She is looking for Duksan to show 35% QoQ OP growth and 48% QoQ sales growth at

its AMOLED material division, a prime beneficiary of the faster-t-expected ramp

up of Samsung Mobile Display's AMOLED lines. And, Duksan's earnings momentum

should continue into 3Q as well, with 33% OP growth, due to higher margins and

higher market share." - HSBC 5 Aug


----------



## 8mile13

For those interested, i stumbled upon a engineering search engine, lots of OLED related stuff

GLOBALSPEC



Search 300 million+ technical/engineering Web pages:


Products & Services

Company by name

Part Number

Engineering Web

More

Application Notes

Material Properties

Patents

Standards

Engineering News

Product Announcements


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20774899
> 
> *Survey: iPhone retention 94% vs. Android*47%*
> 
> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/...vs-android-47/



Throwing out a line to see if anyone would bite? Thought we were through with this crap......


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20777697
> 
> 
> The color filter is trivial and inexpensive.
> 
> 
> Really W-OLED with filters strikes me as a superior solution. Anyone who says this isn't true OLED is mistaken.



CFR processing is as complex as the TFT layers, just not as many of them. It is also typically done on the same equipment with the same litho processes (with the exception of the resist type).


I think that you are right, WOLED with CF has some promise, but there is no guaranty that there will not be color drift in the WOLED. You would still need the color wavelengths that would be needed with a RGB setup, and that would mean using current or similar materials.


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/20823335
> 
> 
> Throwing out a line to see if anyone would bite? Thought we were through with this crap......



Yeah, you are about two weeks late!


----------



## Artwood

How long will it be before we see OLED 65-inch?


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/20825638
> 
> 
> How long will it be before we see OLED 65-inch?



Long before 65" SED.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/20825638
> 
> 
> How long will it be before we see OLED 65-inch?



My guess is there is zero chance before 2016. And there is some chance of not before 2020.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20826927
> 
> 
> My guess is there is zero chance before 2016. And there is some chance of not before 2020.



LG is putting up a gen 8.5 OLED factory to produce 55-inch OLED HDTVs for next year, so I'm not sure where you get that prediction. Also, DisplaySearch and iSupply both predict far sooner than you (and this report was from before LG announced 55-inch OLED TVs for next year). To wit:


*source: Goldman Sachs and DisplaySearch (report on PANL from March 2011)*


















*As the second chart shows, OLED is growing far faster than anyone predicted, even just a year ago.*


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20828074
> 
> 
> LG is putting up a gen 8.5 OLED factory to produce 55-inch OLED HDTVs for next year, so I'm not sure where you get that prediction. Also, DisplaySearch and iSupply both predict far sooner than you (and this report was from before LG announced 55-inch OLED TVs for next year). To wit:



Did you miss where LG told us we would have a 20"+ OLED last year.

Did you miss where LG told us we would have a 30"+ OLED This year.


Where are they??


LG is like the little boy who cried wolf...


At this point I will believe LG are shipping something AFTER I see it in stores.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20828143
> 
> 
> Did you miss where LG told us we would have a 20"+ OLED last year.
> 
> Did you miss where LG told us we would have a 30"+ OLED This year.
> 
> 
> Where are they??
> 
> 
> LG is like the little boy who cried wolf...
> 
> 
> At this point I will believe LG are shipping something AFTER I see it in stores.



Point taken. But given that they are skipping further investment in mobile OLEDs and they've announced a gen 8.5 OLED facility I feel better about them. Granted, I'll feel even better when they announce the capex for the facility is spent.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20828143
> 
> 
> Did you miss where LG told us we would have a 20"+ OLED last year.
> 
> Did you miss where LG told us we would have a 30"+ OLED This year.
> 
> 
> Where are they??
> 
> 
> LG is like the little boy who cried wolf...
> 
> 
> At this point I will believe LG are shipping something AFTER I see it in stores.



At least Sony will be shipping their 25" OLED monitor next month!









http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-mon...oduct-PVM2541/


----------



## DAB

well for a 25'' @ $6K-- it is going to be interesting. Commercial graphic artist might purchase one but not many homeowners. They are getting spoiled with 61" LED for $1600.

ymmv-

db


----------



## pdoherty972

Also, let's not forget it's not just LG doing OLED TVs. Samsung has already committed US $5 Billion this year to build a gen 8 OLED factory for OLED HDTVs, too. I assume this is already under construction.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DAB* /forum/post/20828288
> 
> 
> well for a 25'' @ $6K-- it is going to be interesting.



Hmm interesting. Rogo looks like I'm bit ahead on our 31" OLED at $5k next Christmas bet


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DAB* /forum/post/20828288
> 
> 
> well for a 25'' @ $6K-- it is going to be interesting. Commercial graphic artist might purchase one but not many homeowners. They are getting spoiled with 61" LED for $1600.
> 
> ymmv-
> 
> db



Probably not a good choice for graphics artist either. These are video monitors, not really computer monitors. The static images of a computer monitor would likely burn in pretty fast.


They are essentially going to sell to the intended market. Professional Video production.


Still it does look like a start. How do we know these will be available next month?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20828074
> 
> 
> LG is putting up a gen 8.5 OLED factory to produce 55-inch OLED HDTVs for next year, so I'm not sure where you get that prediction. Also, DisplaySearch and iSupply both predict far sooner than you (and this report was from before LG announced 55-inch OLED TVs for next year). *As the second chart shows, OLED is growing far faster than anyone predicted, even just a year ago.*[/size]



Pdoherty, Art's question was about a *65-inch* TV. If they are building a fab to make 55-inch TVs, we can be as close to metaphysically certain as possible that it won't be making 65-inch sets anytime soon.


And I don't know how to be clearer on this, but they will not be selling any 55-inch OLED TVs next year. Their own people have backed off this nonsensical claim.


From HDGuru: "Last week LG Display's chief executive stated LG Display may release a 55-inch OLED TV set sometime in the latter half of next year. This was widely reported as LG to bring 55-Inch OLED to market in 2012.


LG _has announced_ 15 and 31-inch sets that you could never buy. Now they are saying "maybe" on a 55? Let's just assume that maybe is a less committal statement and rule that out shall we?


And 55 is not 65. And this fab has no committed dollars behind it yet. And for it to produce TVs next year it needs to be built within less than a year from now. So the notion they can actually produce any OLED TVs in 2012 from an 8.5G fab they haven't committed capital to yet is pretty ludicrous.


Let's just pretend LG -- which has largely been exactly what guidry called them -- actually does build this fab and does, in fact, start selling OLED TVs in 2013-14. The economies of LCD and plasma manufacturing at that point will have 60" TVs running at $1000-2000 max. OLED will be _simply unable to compete at anywhere near those prices_. I really don't care what ridiculous responses are going to come to that statement. OLED will be unable to compete. So at best, you are looking at a premium-priced product that sells in relatively small volumes.


Now, to get a 65-inch TV, you need a new fab. Off of your small-volume business that is not maxing capacity at your 8.5G fab. Even if you buy into the Exhibit 11 chart (which is probably optimistic, almost certainly not pessimistic, but a prediction we can work with), the 2015 forecast is for less than $1.5 billion in OLED TVs. You want an ASP of $1000? So we are talking 1.5 million units. If every single TV was produced by LG and every single TV was a 55" unit, they could all be produced by a single 8.5G fab (assume 35K substrates per month, 200K TVs per month) without the fab working especially hard. So why is LG working on a new fab?


Therefore, like I said, why is there a 65" OLED before 2016? And if these OLED forecasts are overly optimistic (And HDGuru is with me in suggesting they might well be. "Other than seeing a halo, low production, very high-priced showcase product, we do not believe a viable large screen OLED competitor to plasma or LED LCD will appear for years, if ever. ") that's why I threw 2020 out there.


Spec, as for our bet, you'll need Sony to produce a larger model and lower the price for broadcast, which seems unlikely, or for another company to enter the market with a consumer model. I'm not sweating... yet.


----------



## mr. wally

i haven't read anything definitive about burn in on oleds.


is that a documented issue like early plasmas?


my take has always been that we'll see oled screen touch pads

before we see any commercially viable oled television displays, but

if the burn in issue makes them incompatible with a computer display,

then i guess i need to change my analysis.


and yes, if a 55" oled is going to sell for 3k-5k more than a similar size

plasma/lcd, well only the videophiles on this forum would be willing

to pay that premium. look what happened to pioneer with a similar

marketing strategy.


----------



## Goo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> i haven't read anything definitive about burn in on oleds.
> 
> 
> is that a documented issue like early plasmas?
> 
> 
> my take has always been that we'll see oled screen touch pads
> 
> before we see any commercially viable oled television displays, but
> 
> if the burn in issue makes them incompatible with a computer display,
> 
> then i guess i need to change my analysis.



I have read some reports that nexus one phones that use oled type displays have some image retention of the status bar at the top of the screen. So I guess static content can degrade the pixels enough to show burn in.


When displaying only video it would not be as much of an issue, but who knows until we get such a display. I have a phone with an amoled and I have not seen any burn in yet.


----------



## rogo

OLEDs will absolutely be vulnerable to burn in. Whether this is important as a practical matter is harder to say. But the pixels do age and don't last "forever enough" for burn in to be a non issue.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20831642
> 
> 
> OLEDs will absolutely be vulnerable to burn in. Whether this is important as a practical matter is harder to say. But the pixels do age and don't last "forever enough" for burn in to be a non issue.



well that is discouraging. seems like this really limits oled applications to display devices.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/20834511
> 
> 
> well that is discouraging. seems like this really limits oled applications to display devices.



For displaying content that is largely static (like desktop computer monitor) definitely this is problematic.


For Video which is a very averaged signal over time, not too much problem (except black bars).


----------



## rogo

There's another really, really dumb article at GigaOM touting Samsung's OLED plans. It's dumb because it's hyping 5-6" smartphone screens (markets that don't exist and won't really exist) and 7" tablet screens (a market that doesn't really exist).


Don't get me wrong, it's really good news that Samsung appears committed to more OLED screen production. But if they're committed to building these completely uninteresting sizes, it's not bullish for making production available to TV. It does seem at this point that making 4.3" screens for Galaxy S II phones is approaching trivial at Samsung. So that's some kind of milestone in AMOLED progress, given how hot that phone is.


----------



## 3reach

Lets say Panny magically releases a Kuro killer tommorow with absolute black. Does OLED have any other PQ advantages over plasma? Would plasma still have PQ advantages over OLED?


----------



## specuvestor

Read this first to understand why absolute black in Plasma is difficult:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1291382


----------



## specuvestor

More "daily news rehash" for anyone keen on analysis:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20491914
> 
> 
> The RUMORED schedule shipment is a bit puzzling this year with ipad3 and iPhone 4S / 5 both coming end of year. I would think iPhone 4S launch later this year with 4G LTE launch next year make most sense and ipad3 make a normal refresh cycle next year as well, considering supply chain constraints.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post20491914 


"Yesterday the Apple supply chain was hit hard. J.P.Morgan checks suggest iPad 2 Pro (like i-Phone 4GS so an interim product between i-Pad2 and i-Pad3) is very likely to get delayed to 2012 (vs. original expectation of 4Q11 launch).

Apparently, iPad 2 Pro is delayed by at least one stage (3 weeks) and is still not resolved yet. Issue is apparently on the panel side from LGD and Samsung. Apparently, there is light leakage - other vendors would use metal frame but Apple does not, and then - as my analysts tell me - when it comes to retina display, the light is stronger, and there are 2 lines of light rays at the side. 4Q11 iPad orders was revised down by 5-6 mn as a result - and now pointing to be a potential down quarter for 4Q.


Previous expectations (JPM)

iPad 2 Pro - Sep/ Oct launch ,

iPhone 4S - Sep launch ,


Current expectations (JPM)

iPad 2 Pro - likely 1Q11

iPhone 4S - same Sep launch ( no change)"


" Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Poor LCD display and touch panel yields, as well as performance deficiencies in microprocessor chips may have caused delay, Economic Daily News reports, citing unidentified Apple suppliers in Taiwan.

• Earlier this week, Digitimes reports Apple unexpectedly scrapped plans to launch iPad 3 in 2H, due to production bottlenecks for display-related parts

• Apple had aimed to introduce next-generation iPad for peak Christmas demand season: EDN

• Component orders for iPad 3 seem lower now vs what mkt had anticipated few mos. ago, Yuanta analyst wrote in Aug. 16 note to investors

• Display chip makers confirmed chip shipments for iPad 3 have been postponed to Oct. at earliest from Aug.; prev. shipment target was 2m-3m chips per mo. in 3Q: Yuanta "


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DAB* /forum/post/20828288
> 
> 
> well for a 25'' @ $6K-- it is going to be interesting. Commercial graphic artist might purchase one but not many homeowners. They are getting spoiled with 61" LED for $1600.
> 
> ymmv-
> 
> db



They're pro-level monitors for TV studios, I believe. If they're the Sony's I'm thinking of there's a 17" and a 25".


Here they are (with video):

http://www.oled-display.net/sony-sho...rison-with-lcd


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20829570
> 
> 
> Let's just pretend LG -- which has largely been exactly what guidry called them -- actually does build this fab and does, in fact, start selling OLED TVs in 2013-14. The economies of LCD and plasma manufacturing at that point will have 60" TVs running at $1000-2000 max. OLED will be simply unable to compete at anywhere near those prices. I really don't care what ridiculous responses are going to come to that statement. OLED will be unable to compete. So at best, you are looking at a premium-priced product that sells in relatively small volumes.



No one said they would be in large quantity or price competitive at that point. ALL new techs are more expensive and in short supply when they come into the market. Didn't stop LCD, plasma, or DLP from coming to market, and it won't stop OLED. In fact I wonder why it's ever even brought up as it's obvious?


----------



## walt73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20837376
> 
> 
> No one said they would be in large quantity or price competitive at that point. ALL new techs are more expensive and in short supply when they come into the market. Didn't stop LCD, plasma, or DLP from coming to market, and it won't stop OLED. In fact I wonder why it's ever even brought up as it's obvious?



Gimme a break. As of now LG haven't been able to build even a single 55" OLED. There isn't even a prototype. How can they be in production at all next calendar year?.


And the talk of the new OLED fab puts me in mind of a similar promise -- broken of course -- by Samsung say 12-18 mo. ago IIRC. They say a new mfcturing facility is "coming next year" then they just change their minds.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walt73* /forum/post/20837447
> 
> 
> Gimme a break. As of now LG haven't been able to build even a single 55" OLED. There isn't even a prototype. How can they be in production at all next calendar year?.
> 
> 
> And the talk of the new OLED fab puts me in mind of a similar promise -- broken of course -- by Samsung say 12-18 mo. ago IIRC. They say a new mfcturing facility is "coming next year" then they just change their minds.



Where did you hear/see that about Samsung? They promised a gen 5.5 OLED factory and it was built and online two months early. This year they committed another US $5 billion for a gen 8 OLED factory and as far as I know it's under construction. Where did they promise one and not deliver?


----------



## walt73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20837548
> 
> 
> Where did you hear/see that about Samsung? They promised a gen 5.5 OLED factory and it was built and online two months early. This year they committed another US $5 billion for a gen 8 OLED factory and as far as I know it's under construction. Where did they promise one and not deliver?



We were talking about it in these forums a year or two ago ... can anyone help me out here? I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. Then again, I wouldn't take LG's word re: the new OLED capability either.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20836460
> 
> 
> More "daily news rehash" for anyone keen on analysis:
> 
> Previous expectations (JPM)
> 
> iPad 2 Pro - Sep/ Oct launch ,
> 
> 
> Current expectations (JPM)
> 
> iPad 2 Pro - likely 1Q11



More pointless rumors that have nothing to do with OLED tvs. But I will comment.


This is just BS rumors. Nothing more.


There never was any reasonable expectation of iPad3/2Pro this year. It is just something bandied about by rumor mongers. Now that the drop dead date gets close, they make up a new rumor to cover their behinds on the old rumor.


It never made sense for Apple, that can barely meet demand on iPad was going to launch a second more complex version only 6 months later in the same year. This was always nonsense. It isn't delayed because it never was planned.


Also to drive 4x the pixels it always made sense to wait for the next generation silicon A6, which was never planned to release before 2012.


There will be no new iPad until 2012, and there was never a new iPad planned before then.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walt73* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> We were talking about it in these forums a year or two ago ... can anyone help me out here? I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. Then again, I wouldn't take LG's word re: the new OLED capability either.



I think you are referring to this:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> "LGD has slashed 2011 capex from KRW5.5t to KRW4.5t, and is working to further reduce it to KRW4t. The new P9-8 fab will start in end-4Q11 for 9.7" tablet production for Apple, but the capacity for high-end monitors (IPS) will be pushed back. The capex cut may be an inevitable choice given LGD's cash flow and market situation, but we believe the scrapping of the OLED fab is a big setback as LGD won't have a commercial 4.5G OLED fab to accumulate valuable knowledge and experience that would help it better prepare for the planned 8G OLED fab in 2013." -BNP 25 July 2011



Sammy so far has been more or less inline with their OLED schedule. But talks now is that the 8G ramp will be delayed till 1H13 rather than 2H12 due to bad TV demand.


LGD on the other hand has been smoking pot. I doubt they have the funds to build the 8G fab, much less ramping it.


PS


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> There will be no new iPad until 2012, and there was never a new iPad planned before then.



I am following up on the PREVIOUS Ipad3 discussion because that was when i didn't find u obnoxious. I assume u are referring to Jul 2012 and not Jan 2012. I have also said prima facie it doesn't make sense. But I follow the chain not the mouth. I assume the analysts at JP Morgan would know the chain better to put "rumor" in black and white and incorporate it in their sales projection. We'll see.


----------



## rogo

@guidry, correct, the iPad3 was never, ever on this year's roadmap. Just because idiots at Digitimes and JP Morgan think it was doesn't make them right. It absolutely never was.


@spec, I'm just telling you in this case, there was no "Retina Display" iPad3 on Apple's 2011 roadmap. Ever. It wasn't happening. It'd have been so un-Apple-like, it's not even funny. And with no real competition to iPad this holiday season, more than unnecessary. No sources here in the Valley believe there was a chance this product was ever intended for 2011; I'll leave it at that.


@pdoherty, the world that plasma, LCD and DLP entered is _light years removed_ from the world OLED entered. Plasma could intro at $25,000. LCD TVs could ship at $10,000 for the big sizes. DLP could come along with greater brightness and smaller cabinets than CRTs could ever dream of (it also sat utterly stillborn when it first came to RPTV with a foolish attempt to price it many times higher than CRT... pretty much zero sales).


The world OLED TV hopes to enter is one of $1000-2000 flat panels. Nothing left to be compelling about simply by being flat. The perceived weaknesses of LCD aren't stopping it from flat out selling to nearly everyone, everywhere. _RPTV couldn't come close to doing that_. This is not the same world. Basically two new TV technologies, ever, have had lasted inroads into the CRT market: LCD and PDP. It took each decades to get established and they offered world-changing features vs. CRT.


OLED still doesn't.


The fact is that if Spec is hearing chatter that Samsung is delaying 8G OLED till 2013, we can almost be 100% assured it's already delayed till 2013. *Why would they be investing in a tiny, niche market for high end sets given how bad the TV market is right now to try to make this real for next year?* They almost certainly wouldn't. So we're back to the point where:


* LG can't actually fund volume production of OLED TVs and therefore any claims by them are almost automatically to be ignored. An affordable 50"+ OLED from LG is _still 5 years or more away_.


* Samsung timetable for market entry into OLED TV is _back to a minimum of 2+ years from now_. Plant spent in 1H13, first sampling in 2H13... First real TVs? Late 2014? First affordable 50+" OLED TVs? Sounds like 5 years away. In 5 years, high performance 60" LCDs will routinely be available for $1000 or less. How OLED is going to compete with this is not clear.


It's when you get back into this chicken-and-egg trap that you begin to understand why OLED TV can easily never reach fruition. But even if you believe that someone will spend billions on the leap of faith, you can't really believe you are buying one for 5 years or so. And we've been saying that for close to a decade now. That should tell you something.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20838394
> 
> 
> @guidry, correct, the iPad3 was never, ever on this year's roadmap. Just because idiots at Digitimes and JP Morgan think it was doesn't make them right. It absolutely never was.



Also that didn't look anything like a quote from a JP Morgan PR anyway.


As far as digitimes, they have less credibility than the town drunk. They use bogus rumors to drive traffic, chances are none of us would have heard of them without their regular rumor appearances.


In 2010 digitimes sourced an endless variety of mini-ipad rumors usually with claims that it was from suppliers/supply chain. Clearly they are either making just stuff up or someone else is making it up and feeding it to them because they are always completely out to lunch.


Rumor from digitimes that 5" -7" Ipads are coming in early 2011, citing supplier info. (original link blocked or erased now by digitimes)
http://gizmodo.com/5512324/mini-ipad...says-digitimes 


Rumor that 5.6" and 7" *OLED* ipads are coming in early 2011:
_"The sources noted that Apple has recently placed new iPad orders to Taiwan-based component makers for the fourth quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011 with 9.7-inch, 5.6-inch and 7-inch models all included."_
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20100713PD207.html 


Rumor of 7" ipad with 1024x768 resolution screen in 2011:
_"the company will also launch a 7-inch iPad using the Cortex-A9 processor and an IPS panel with a resolution of 1024×768, according to Digitimes Research senior analyst Mingchi Kuo."_
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20100809VL202.html 


As far as I am concerned Digitimes is a complete garbage site responsible for starting most of these bogus rumors.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20838394
> 
> 
> \\
> 
> 
> * Samsung timetable for market entry into OLED TV is _back to a minimum of 2+ years from now_. Plant spent in 1H13, first sampling in 2H13... First real TVs? Late 2014? First affordable 50+" OLED TVs? Sounds like 5 years away. In 5 years, high performance 60" LCDs will routinely be available for $1000 or less. How OLED is going to compete with this is not clear.



Unless spec has something dramatically new, Samsung is still supposed to start up a pilot Gen 8 fab in 2012. The capex for that fab will be spent in the 2nd half of this year. My understanding is that this will fab will have a considerable capacity for a pilot line. This wont be like the pilot line making $3000 11" OLED's for Sony. That fab would pretty much guarantee that spec and I end up on the right side of the 30" for $5000 debate.


Assuming things go well, and that obviously isnt a given, the commercial version of the Gen 8 fab would start construction next winter. That would be the fab that would bring 50" OLED TV's to Best Buy at somewhat reasonable prices.


Slacker


----------



## rogo

Slacker, I'm just curious about something. And I mean this sincerely, in what universe do you think there is a market for a premium-priced 30" TV? Who is buying that and what are they doing with it?


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Unless spec has something dramatically new, Samsung is still supposed to start up a pilot Gen 8 fab in 2012. The capex for that fab will be spent in the 2nd half of this year. My understanding is that this will fab will have a considerable capacity for a pilot line. This wont be like the pilot line making $3000 11" OLED's for Sony. That fab would pretty much guarantee that spec and I end up on the right side of the 30" for $5000 debate.
> 
> 
> Assuming things go well, and that obviously isnt a given, the commercial version of the Gen 8 fab would start construction next winter. That would be the fab that would bring 50" OLED TV's to Best Buy at somewhat reasonable prices.
> 
> 
> Slacker



Yes the delay to 1H13 is for the RAMP. They will likely continue the investment before that, albeit at slower pace. So Rogo's timeline of 2 years delay is incorrect. Reason why ramp is important is because that is when u need to start depreciation.


31" does not depend on 8G. 5.5G more than suffice for $5k price point IF utilization is relatively high. Market for this will be the same market as Sharp Elite buyers










PS


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Also that didn't look anything like a quote from a JP Morgan PR anyway.



Nope of course not. JP Morgan PR talks about JP Morgan stock.


Digitime on its own is not credible but I've heard multiple chatters. I get a dozen rumours every week and I only post one last year that sounds remotely plausible.


----------



## rogo

1) I'm not suggesting there is a 2-year delay. I'm suggesting that late 2014 sounds right for 50+" OLED TVs to come from a plant that they are not yet constructing. Since we both agree no 50+" TV is coming next year, we seem to be quibbling over whether it's coming in 2013 or 2014.


2) "31" does not depend on 8G. 5.5G more than suffice for $5k price point IF utilization is relatively high. Market for this will be the same market as Sharp Elite buyers "


No, Spec, they are not the same buyers. The Sharp Elite buyers are looking for big screens, 60 and 70 inchers. The only reason there is even a 60-inch Elite is the rather loud acknowledgement that some folks wouldn't consider a 70-inch but want impeccable picture quality.


A 31" display caters to no serious videophile for any space I can imagine. It's too small to even sit at the foot of a bed for most people, way too small for a family room. It'd be nice for a home-office TV (although most people don't have TVs in those rooms and can watch on their computers) which hardly tends to be videophile zone.


The 31" OLED is such a bizarre product it's hard to imagine much of anyone wanting it if the price was good. Since the price will be bad, we are again talking about a worldwide demand in the single-digit thousands. I don't see Samsung making such a thing now or ever to be completely honest. At least I can imagine a market for whatever comes out of the 8G fab. In the meantime, the existing fab can be kept plenty busy on the cellphone and tablet markets.


----------



## specuvestor

The proof of the pudding is you can get 31" at $5k next Christmas if you want to ie not vaporware like LG.


Honestly like I posted before, 8G is still uncertain based primarily on 5.5G utilization and premium product demand, which is a function of global economy. So for those keen on a 50+" OLED just hope OLED tablet and handset sell well


----------



## slacker711

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rogo* 
Slacker, I'm just curious about something. And I mean this sincerely, in what universe do you think there is a market for a premium-priced 30" TV? Who is buying that and what are they doing with it?
Two points.


1) Bringing out a premium priced ~30" (or 4x") television is all part of the process of commercialization. These arent meant for volume sales but to help prove the manufacturing methods to justify further capex. Sales arent going to be large, but they will be orders of magnitude above what Sony and LG delivered.


2) I think you ignore the importance of fab size in this debate. OLED's and LCD's meant for the smartphone market are produced on the same sized substrates and the price premium is fairly small (~20%). There is simply nothing fundamental to the manufacturing of OLED's that makes them priced astronomically. It is all about the yields and the size of the fab. The prices of the LG and Sony televisions mean precisely nothing when you are talking about the ultimate prices of OLED televisions.


We are either going to see televisions next year from Samsung's commercial Gen 5.5 fab or from a pilot Gen 8 fab. Both are capable of producing 30" televisions for far below $5000. I dont expect good yields at that point from the Gen 8 fab, but assuming that they can ramp them over time, a Gen 8 fab is perfectly capable of delivering competitively priced 30" to 50" televisions.


I should reiterate though that while I am confident about the ramp in yields at the Gen 5.5, the Gen 8 fab is an unknown. They are going to be using new processes in that fab so we'll probably need to wait a while to make concrete predictions on 50" televisions.


Slacker


----------



## kriktsemaj99

Any idea when we might at least see 15" OLED laptops? (from the major manufacturers, with a price premium of less than $1000 dollars).


----------



## specuvestor

@slacker if you've been reading the 70"+ thread, you'll see i discussed size of glass is not exactly the reason for cost down as it is not exactly a semicon process. The bigger motherglass is more expensive per sq m. It is a CONVENIENT understanding. Key is the VOLUME to drive cost down; so u can have 20G or whatever but with no volume u cannot cost down. So OLED adoption or utilization would be key.


Though I'm not so well verse with OLED process to say if the cash cost of similar LCD size OLED will only be 20% more, but as we discussed, the CAPEX is much higher.


----------



## rogo

@Slacker, I understand your point that it's "part of the process of commercialization". It's an incredible dead end however. And while I agree that the price premium on smartphone screens is fairly small, a significant reason for that is _they've already made millions of smartphone AMOLED screens_. Whatever learning curve effects, volume efficiencies, etc. that can be wrung out there have been.


While it's true that a Gen 8 fab can probably produce reasonably priced 30 to 50" televisions, it's simply not true that they'll priced like LCD televisions. There'll be a premium -- probably a multiple -- for years. And, regardless, in TV the cost of the panel can't be hidden inside a phone that gets subsidized by a carrier into a completely fake retail price (flagship phones get subsidized more by both the carrier _and_ the phone manufacturer).


@Krik, no one seems to be planning on doing that. 2014-15 seems possible though.


@Spec, weird things are happening with motherglass vs. end products. For a while, mfrs. were in the business of claiming that really big glass was not especially useful for really small screens -- you and someone I believe showed me some link about diminishing or even negative returns from doing this. Yet, we here reports that Sharp is converting one of its newer plants (or at least a production line in one) to smartphone or tablet production which presumably is at least 8G glass.


Anyway, I'm not persuaded that there was any business case for really expensive, not especially amazing OLED TVs next year before the recent bad economic news (despite how great small OLEDs are, there is reason to believe that the first very large ones are not going to be especially bright). The case for them now is a lot less clear. I still hope you're both right and still think I'm looking at 2016 before I can even begin to contemplate buying one in a size of any interest.


----------



## specuvestor

Someone else







Logic is simple because smaller panels have generally lower ASP per m2


But retina display has higher ASP per m2 than even TV. That's why it make sense for Sharp in THIS environment and why LGD results has been relatively stronger than peers. I have also not posted talks that Apple will inject $1b into Sharp as not sure under what form of "capital" will that be, maybe just pre-payment like hynix? So that would be a great incentive for Sharp to make the bet.


----------



## rogo

It sounds like Apple is definitely doing this in some fashion as they have in the past with others (to the tune of almost $4 billion at other times). I kind of wonder if they aren't getting small ownership stakes in some of these operations.


I do hear what you're saying: Higher res, small displays are more valuable than lower rez ones making the bet more interesting. But there was some other analysis that seemed to imply that large motherglass loses its appeal as a substrate for lots and lots of little displays. Like you wouldn't make phone displays on a 10G fab, no matter what, because the economics actually turn against you at some point. Maybe that's because cutting becomes a cost/risk part of the equation eventually? Or because the small amounts of inter-panel waste start to add up when you start making 50 on a substrate? I don't know.


----------



## walford

The medical imaging industry and the graphic image and editing industry both use digital displays with greater then 1080p resoloution today such as the WQXGA (2560×1600) displays described in the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic...ay_resolutions


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20842204
> 
> 
> @slacker if you've been reading the 70"+ thread, you'll see i discussed size of glass is not exactly the reason for cost down as it is not exactly a semicon process. The bigger motherglass is more expensive per sq m. It is a CONVENIENT understanding. Key is the VOLUME to drive cost down; so u can have 20G or whatever but with no volume u cannot cost down. So OLED adoption or utilization would be key.
> 
> 
> Though I'm not so well verse with OLED process to say if the cash cost of similar LCD size OLED will only be 20% more, but as we discussed, the CAPEX is much higher.



Are you talking about the actual cash cost per square meter for the mother glass? Do you have a source? I'd be interested in seeing the numbers.


Regardless, my point about moving to larger sized glass has rested on the gains in efficiencies. The move from Gen 4 to Gen 5.5 glass gave something like a 2.9x increase in glass size, but Samsung estimates a 6.3x increase in the number of 10" displays that can be cut from the glass.


My comment about the 20% premium for OLED's is based on the estimated prices that SMD is charging versus the prices for similar sized smartphone LCD's. They are profitable at that price and it should include the amortization of the enormous capex costs. My WAG would be that the cash cost for the mobile OLED's may be equivalent or even lower than the cash cost for the LCD.


The way I look at it is that SMD has proven that given equivalent glass size and reasonable yields that OLED's are capable of competing with LCD's. The Gen 5.5 fab should give us similar competition for tablet sized displays and a Gen 8 fab should get us there for televisions.


Slacker


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kriktsemaj99* /forum/post/20842012
> 
> 
> Any idea when we might at least see 15" OLED laptops? (from the major manufacturers, with a price premium of less than $1000 dollars).



No target date here.


The problem is two-fold. The constant white background for the vast majority of PC usage drives up the power consumption and that usage pattern also increases the possibility of burn-in. They probably arent far away from solving the energy consumption problem but I have a feeling that burn-in is going to take a while. It is a much worse problem for laptops than for handsets or televisions.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

@rogo key is ASP and VOLUME. An 8G probably is 10 4G plant (I'm using memory here) with a one size motherglass. You need consistent volume of one size panel over relatively long product cycle to make sense. Most products' volume drop off after like 6 months. No one else has done it except Apple.


That said I think Sharp 8G should be focused on retina iPad rather than retina iPhone. The output would be huge even for iPhones and LGD is still making those.


@slacker Probably have to check Corning or Asahi on that, and I have to take some time doing the digging in midst of this turbulent stock market  The detailed logic has been discussed many years back with analysts and panel makers. But it is heuristically easier to market the concept of bigger is better to majority when they were ramping up the 7.5/8/8.5G. As per your Sammy example, it is certainly more efficient but underlying key factor is IF the volume ie utilization is high. The horse is the volume, efficiency or cost down is the cart. People been assuming that volume is a given when it is a bet from the manufacturer's point of view.


Valid point on SMD but the 4.5G fab should be fully depreciated by now and I still don't know if 5.5G is profitable. They have been pretty opaque in this even from SDI which is disappointing.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20843214
> 
> 
> @Slacker, I understand your point that it's "part of the process of commercialization". It's an incredible dead end however. And while I agree that the price premium on smartphone screens is fairly small, a significant reason for that is _they've already made millions of smartphone AMOLED screens_. Whatever learning curve effects, volume efficiencies, etc. that can be wrung out there have been.



I dont understand this criticism. They didnt start out making millions of units a month. I believe that SMD first started out making something like 500,000 2.2" units a month. The yields were terrible and they put them into expensive niche handsets destined for certain regions (like Korea only handsets). My guess is that SMD's cost per display on these units was ridiculously high.


As yields improved, management committed more and more capex to increase Gen 4 capacity and that opened up the mass market.


The pilot Gen 8 fab will likely be using new manufacturing methods and will likely follow the same learning curve. Get the yields up to prove out the process and then commit the capex to make it a mass market technology.


How else is this supposed to work? I really feel like I must be missing something with your criticism here.


Slacker


----------



## rogo

Quote:

Originally Posted by *slacker711* 
I dont understand this criticism. They didnt start out making millions of units a month. I believe that SMD first started out making something like 500,000 2.2" units a month. The yields were terrible and they put them into expensive niche handsets destined for certain regions (like Korea only handsets). My guess is that SMD's cost per display on these units was ridiculously high.


As yields improved, management committed more and more capex to increase Gen 4 capacity and that opened up the mass market.


The pilot Gen 8 fab will likely be using new manufacturing methods and will likely follow the same learning curve. Get the yields up to prove out the process and then commit the capex to make it a mass market technology.


How else is this supposed to work? I really feel like I must be missing something with your criticism here.
My criticism is that the theoretical market for premium 30" TVs does not exist. They should not waste any time on it at all. If they want to make premium TVs, they might as well make them in a size that's saleable.


If they don't, it doesn't matter what the yields are. They won't sell 10,000 30" OLED TVs worldwide at $5,000.


The smartphone displays went into expensive smartphones at first and now go into "premium" smartphones. What they don't do is go into all of Samsung's smartphones. And having seen the 2012 roadmap, it's crystal clear that LCD is still cheaper than OLED. All the lower-end phones use LCD, while the higher end ones use OLED.


That's after 10s of millions of OLEDs have been made in equivalent sizes. Building some amount of 30s is purposeless if your goal is to build a robust business of 50+" premium televisions. I can imagine it for some limited amount of ramp up, but for an actual product? It'd be as useless as trying to sell smartphones with 2.2" screens is now.


----------



## specuvestor

Rogo I hear your point but I also think it should be progressive. If your assessment is right then u are indirectly saying LG is right. That's why I don't believe in LGD's 3.5G to 8G dream.


For completeness, LGD still could but would only be much later (assuming they have the funds), after Sammy's 8G stabilize and mature.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20845199
> 
> 
> My criticism is that the theoretical market for premium 30" TVs does not exist. They should not waste any time on it at all. If they want to make premium TVs, they might as well make them in a size that's saleable.
> 
> 
> If they don't, it doesn't matter what the yields are. They won't sell 10,000 30" OLED TVs worldwide at $5,000.



First of all, you make it sound like a 30" television for $5000 has been set in stone. That was just an over/under bar that we have been using for the debate. I would expect Samsung to be able to produce a 30" television on their Gen 5.5 for less than that...and that number wont even be in the ballpark for Gen 8 production.


Second, you are paying way too much attention to potential sales for any televisions in 2012. Samsung could take the television production from their pilot Gen 8 fab next year and sell it for a million dollars a piece, give it away for free, or simply set it on fire and it wouldnt make one iota of difference to the ultimate market for OLED televisions. Anything they sell next year is ancillary to the real questions surrounding the progress in ramping production at the fab itself.


They could sell a 30" television for $1500 next year and be considered a mild success from a sales standpoint but be a failure if they hit some sort of ceiling on yields. In a way, we actually agree. I dont think that there is a market for OLED televisions that sell at 5x the price of LCD's either. My question is whether they can make enough progress in 2012 for me to believe that they are ultimately going to be in the price ballpark of LCD's....and that is all about the total capex and the yields.


Slacker


----------



## 8mile13

 http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-mon...oduct-PVM2541/ 


The sony 25inch OLED monitor costs $6.100,00 so a 30inch OLED TV would at least cost ya $3.000,00 (up to $5.000,00).


----------



## rogo

Slacker, in a way we completely agree. My bigger point is that if one has a goal in mind at the end, one ought to drive toward the goal is a specific, relevant manner.


I don't believe 30" televisions drives toward that goal. It might serve them well to set those on fire to be completely honest. It actually might serve them well to put them in some kind of technology kiosks and spread those across the world to show off Samsung AMOLED. What I don't see serving them well is selling them for something around $5000.


I am not of the opinion that they can't make progress next year by the way on developing their 8G fab. I'm more of skepticism that they actually will do it.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20838394
> 
> 
> @pdoherty, the world that plasma, LCD and DLP entered is _light years removed_ from the world OLED entered. Plasma could intro at $25,000. LCD TVs could ship at $10,000 for the big sizes. DLP could come along with greater brightness and smaller cabinets than CRTs could ever dream of (it also sat utterly stillborn when it first came to RPTV with a foolish attempt to price it many times higher than CRT... pretty much zero sales).
> 
> 
> The world OLED TV hopes to enter is one of $1000-2000 flat panels. Nothing left to be compelling about simply by being flat. The perceived weaknesses of LCD aren't stopping it from flat out selling to nearly everyone, everywhere. _RPTV couldn't come close to doing that_. This is not the same world. Basically two new TV technologies, ever, have had lasted inroads into the CRT market: LCD and PDP. It took each decades to get established and they offered world-changing features vs. CRT.
> 
> 
> OLED still doesn't.
> 
> 
> The fact is that if Spec is hearing chatter that Samsung is delaying 8G OLED till 2013, we can almost be 100% assured it's already delayed till 2013. *Why would they be investing in a tiny, niche market for high end sets given how bad the TV market is right now to try to make this real for next year?* They almost certainly wouldn't. So we're back to the point where:
> 
> 
> * LG can't actually fund volume production of OLED TVs and therefore any claims by them are almost automatically to be ignored. An affordable 50"+ OLED from LG is _still 5 years or more away_.
> 
> 
> * Samsung timetable for market entry into OLED TV is _back to a minimum of 2+ years from now_. Plant spent in 1H13, first sampling in 2H13... First real TVs? Late 2014? First affordable 50+" OLED TVs? Sounds like 5 years away. In 5 years, high performance 60" LCDs will routinely be available for $1000 or less. How OLED is going to compete with this is not clear.
> 
> 
> It's when you get back into this chicken-and-egg trap that you begin to understand why OLED TV can easily never reach fruition. But even if you believe that someone will spend billions on the leap of faith, you can't really believe you are buying one for 5 years or so. And we've been saying that for close to a decade now. That should tell you something.



The thing you leave out is that OLED will be CHEAPER to produce than LCD inside of 5 years. So when it's cheaper and far better in performance (it already is, and will be even more so by then) how does that fit into your calculations?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20849637
> 
> 
> The thing you leave out is that OLED will be CHEAPER to produce than LCD inside of 5 years. So when it's cheaper and far better in performance (it already is, and will be even more so by then) how does that fit into your calculations?



I'm sorry, but what do you base this on exactly?


And if it's true, why hasn't Samsung announced plans (and LG for that matter) to begin phasing out LCD in favor of OLED). These guys want to make money and if OLED were actually going to be cheaper to produce they could make more of them, sell them for less, and crush their competition.


Heck, if this were true, why haven't the Chinese announced plans for multiple OLED plants?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20849936
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but what do you base this on exactly?
> 
> 
> And if it's true, why hasn't Samsung announced plans (and LG for that matter) to begin phasing out LCD in favor of OLED). These guys want to make money and if OLED were actually going to be cheaper to produce they could make more of them, sell them for less, and crush their competition.
> 
> 
> Heck, if this were true, why haven't the Chinese announced plans for multiple OLED plants?



What pdoherty is posting as fact is still potential. The industry seems to be making progress on the various "printing" manufacturing methods but who knows if/when they will solve all of them. Certainly though, OLED's have a simpler structure and do have the potential to be lower cost. Of course, as specuvestor likes to point out, the upfront capex is quite a bit higher.


Samsung hasnt announced any plans to phase out LCD, but follow the dollars to see where they think the industry is going. The latest cuts to LCD capex means that they are going to spend quite a bit more on OLED capex than on LCD this year and the estimates for next year are that the LCD capex will be cut even further.


They are the first but I doubt they will be alone in spending more on OLED's than LCD's in 2013/14.


Slacker


----------



## rogo

The various "printing" methods are not used in any of the current AMOLED production. It's likely that the 8G Samsung is going to look an awful lot like the current Samsung AMOLED, not based on some theoretical OLED manufacturing techniques that have yet to pan out in the real world.


As for reducing LCD capex, that's not because of OLED. It's because TV sales are coming in 20% below forecasts and PC sales are also down. I mean it's certainly possible that someday LCD capex is going to affected by the growth that OLED. But that someday is not today.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20851780
> 
> 
> 
> As for reducing LCD capex, that's not because of OLED. It's because TV sales are coming in 20% below forecasts and PC sales are also down. I mean it's certainly possible that someday LCD capex is going to affected by the growth that OLED. But that someday is not today.



My point was specifically about Samsung, and yes, I do think that OLED capex is impacting LCD capex with them.


I think that the rest of the industry will follow, we'll see whether that happens.


Regardless of the reasons though, the current LCD capex cuts are so drastic that they are going to impact price reductions and innovations in a few years. The estimates I have seen indicate that LCD capex is going to be almost down to 2009 levels in 2011 and that we might see another 40% cut next year. If Samsung raises their OLED capex from $5 billion next year, they might match the LCD capex of the entire industry combined.


Slacker


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20849936
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but what do you base this on exactly?



I thought the fact that OLEDs would be cheaper to produce was common knowledge?


I base it partly on the fact that OLED screens are far simpler to make and have less components involved. There are no backlights, and no color filters (in true OLED) for two reasons. Also there are less layers which reduces complexity of construction and cost.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/20853357
> 
> 
> I thought the fact that OLEDs would be cheaper to produce was common knowledge?
> 
> 
> I base it partly on the fact that OLED screens are far simpler to make and have less components involved. There are no backlights, and no color filters (in true OLED) for two reasons. Also there are less layers which reduces complexity of construction and cost.



OLED has the potential to be cheaper eventually but I doubt they will leap from todays, "Too expensive to build in TV sizes", to cheaper than LCDs in a mere 5 years.


Economical TV sized OLED manufacturing remains a hurdle as the methods for producing cell phone OLEDs do not scale to TVs.


TV sized OLED have to get here first before we can make any prediction beyond too far away.


----------



## hughh

*LG denies deal with Apple for OLED TV*


￼

Kwon Young-soo

LG Display CEO

By Kim Yoo-chul


With a firm belief in its domination of the smartphone and tablet markets, Apple, the U.S.-based consumer electronics firm, has shifted its sights to the tentatively named "Apple TV."


But possibilities are currently very low that the iPhone maker will use an advanced and brighter display that could eventually replace the current liquid crystal display (LCD) screens on its upcoming televisions, sources directly involved with the matter said, Monday.


“It’s true that Apple has keen interest in TV, allowing users to stream music, videos and TV shows via iTunes, though that needs some iPhone and iPad integration, however, Apple is still pessimistic about using OLED displays,” said one source.


“Because Apple is worried over higher costs and technology-related issues linking to large-sized OLED displays, it is groundless that Apple has asked LG Display to supply its OLED screens for its upcoming televisions,” added the source.


OLED allows display manufacturers to produce exceptionally thin TVs without hurting picture quality. But the screen is still not suitable for TVs due to pending issues.

Limited life span, color balance-related issues, an efficiency of blue OLED _ vital for the success of OLED replacing LED and screen burn-in are regarded the headaches, making Apple hesitate to use the displays on Apple TV.

The sources claimed Apple may use picture quality-enhanced and tech-sharpened LCD displays for its televisions, as there are minor differences between OLEDs and LCDs at least to general consumers who don’t have much knowledge of displays.


``Apple has a track record of sticking to proven technology in its products and it’s unlikely that Apple will change the years-long stance for televisions,’’ said another source who was only identified as a high-ranking industry executive.


Not surprisingly, Apple didn’t comment, while LG Display spokesman Frank Lee declined to confirm whether it has held discussions with Apple on the issue.

Apple and LG Display were said to have had discussions about access to a new 55-inch LG OLED panel that will be used in Apple TV after LG chief executive Kwon Young-soo said the Korean display-making giant plans to launch such a display sometime in mid-2012.


LG Display is Apple’s most critical partner. Apple CEO Steve Jobs praised LG’s so-called ``Retina Display,’’ used in iPhones and LG has been in the process of supplying advanced LCD screens for Apple’s upcoming tablet _ the iPad 3.


Woori Investment & Securities, a leading local brokerage, has predicted that Apple’s portion of LG Display’s operating profit for this year will soar to 45.1 percent, while the Apple contribution to LG’s total revenues for 2011 was estimated at 18.3 percent.


Park Young-joo, an analyst from the brokerage, said in a report to clients that LG Display is still the biggest display supplier to Apple.


Apple’s contribution to LG’s annual revenue and operating profit last year was 12 percent and 26.9 percent, respectively, Park said in the report.


Despite Apple’s reluctance to adopt LG OLED TV technology, market analysts and LG officials say that wouldn’t be a further blow to LG Display, which was struggling amid the drastic downturn in the global LCD market.

*Because yields of 55-inch OLED will be significantly lower and prices will be astronomical during the ramp-up, only a few technology geeks may pay big premiums to buy the set, according to officials.*

“Apple has no interest in using OLED screens on its popular devices. The upcoming iPad 3 will also adopt picture quality-enhanced LCD screens, while the next iPhone will follow suit. Three or four more years will be needed to see OLED-embedded digital devices from Apple,” said a top-level executive from one of Apple’s suppliers.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...133_93261.html


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20853794
> 
> 
> OLED has the potential to be cheaper eventually but I doubt they will leap from todays, "Too expensive to build in TV sizes", to cheaper than LCDs in a mere 5 years.
> 
> 
> Economical TV sized OLED manufacturing remains a hurdle as the methods for producing cell phone OLEDs do not scale to TVs.
> 
> 
> TV sized OLED have to get here first before we can make any prediction beyond too far away.



So well put.


It's worth noting, also, that just because something is simpler, doesn't mean it will be cheaper.


And quite frankly, we'll see how the cost curves pan out once the TVs actually do arrive. If the average cost to manufacture does decline on a much steeper slope and there are no showstoppers, we might be able to project 2-3 years into OLED TV development how many more years out it will be before OLED TVs catch up with LCD TVs on manufacturing cost.


I doubt LCD TV manufacturing cost has hit rock bottom however. And I doubt we've seen the last of the innovations in that regard. For the moment, it's a given that edge light is cheaper because (and I'm guessing here), it's using less wiring and allowing the creation of very similar light modules to be combined with plastic light guides for TV illumination. It also might use slightly fewer LEDs because an LED can be "borrowed" for anywhere along the horizontal, say, which can't be achieved in a full array set.


It's possible to imagine a future design with a backplane that includes pre-wired LEDs and a layer of whatever brightness enhancing films already pre-laminated on. (I suppose this design could apply to edge lighting too, the backplane would include the light guides.) That would cut out several assembly steps but also make manufacturing tolerances much tighter. If I can imagine a change like this, you can bet people who do this for a living have imagine 100 for future LCD production.


For what it's worth, although LCD panels are already exceptionally cheap, I don't believe the mfrs. have given up on getting them at least somewhat cheap. Annual declines of 20-30% are probably quite over. But raw 60-inch panels appear to be down in the universe of $400 (again, guessing, based on what is knowable as consumer with an understanding of markups) maybe it's a bit higher or lower. Is $200 possible? I really don't know. Is it completely impossible? I'm not willing to state that either.


----------



## Sunidrem

@hughh

That Korea Times author is a notorious shill for all things that LG or Samsung want to have reported as "news"


5 months ago he was spouting on about some supposedly key OLED patents that were invalidated, and how OLED is going to be far better than LCD:

(url deleted b/c first time poster)


And 2 months ago he assured investors that Samsung SDI won't sell their lucrative investments in OLED: (url deleted b/c first time poster)


@rogo


Considering that the Samsung 8G is a pilot line, and the 4.5G uses FMM, which apparently won't work for 8G, it seems silly to say the 8G will likely use the same methods already in use (with the caveat that it's unclear what method is being used at the 5.5G)


----------



## hughh

Well, here's another article, but nothing new to add:

*No OLED Apple devices until “three or four more years”*, market sources warn


Christian Zibreg Apple Inc Discussion (5)

August 22, 2011 at 6:20 am


A report from July by notoriously unreliable Smarthouse that Apple may be partnering with LG on a rumored 55-inch Apple television has been debunked by LG Display CEO Kwon Young-Soo. The exeuctive denied the alleged partnership as “Apple is still pessimistic about using OLED displays”, per an OLED-Display.net story.


Likewise, a Korea Times article from this morning cited market sources underscoring “currently very low” chances of Apple tapping OLED displays over cost concerns.


Complete article:
http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/22/no-ole...-sources-warn/


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/20854488
> 
> 
> 
> @rogo
> 
> 
> Considering that the Samsung 8G is a pilot line, and the 4.5G uses FMM, which apparently won't work for 8G, it seems silly to say the 8G will likely use the same methods already in use (with the caveat that it's unclear what method is being used at the 5.5G)



The first line of the 5.5G fab is using FMM. SMD is supposedly going to start up a 5.5G LITI line in the next six months but I dont think the company itself has ever confirmed it.


One sign of LITI might be the rumors about a >300ppi AMOLED display. That isnt supposed to be possible using FMM,


Everything I have read about the 8G fab seems like complete speculation.


Slacker


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20854536
> 
> 
> The first line of the 5.5G fab is using FMM. SMD is supposedly going to start up a 5.5G LITI line in the next six months but I dont think the company itself has ever confirmed it.
> 
> 
> One sign of LITI might be the rumors about a >300ppi AMOLED display. That isnt supposed to be possible using FMM,
> 
> 
> Everything I have read about the 8G fab seems like complete speculation.
> 
> 
> Slacker



I've heard the same LITI rumors (not that it's an accomplishment to hear a rumor), and it would be nice to have LITI confirmed so the glass ceiling supposedly at 5.5G can be broken through - "supposedly" b/c 2G was supposed to be the FMM limit.


(as an aside, I've heard that 8G won't work for FMM because gravity distorts the substrate too much, but I've never heard a comment one way or the other that explicitly addresses whether that same distortion will affect LITI. Given the presumably miniscule tolerances involved with holding a depositing medium so close to a substrate, it seems at least possible that LITI would have the same problem)


----------



## hughh

Just saw this article...


High costs hampering OLED TV prospects


Siu Han, Taipei; Joy Wan, DIGITIMES [Monday 22 August 2011]


OLED TV's manufacturing cost and retail price will decide whether it can rise to popularity among consumers, according to players in Taiwan's LCD panel industry.


LG Display (LGD) is said to be starting volume production of OLED TV panels in second-half 2012, with a monthly output of 30,000 units. LGD reportedly plans to introduce 55-inch OLED TV panels in 2012.


OLED's applications in large-area displays have been talk of the industry for several years, said sources from backlight unit (BLU) maker Coretronic. But the manufacturing cost of OLED TVs will be difficult to cut down if large-size OLED panels fail to overcome hurdles in manufacturing capacity and in technology, the sources said.


Lextar Electronics chairman David Su said the rise of OLED TVs will not pose an overnight threat to the existing LCD TVs because it will take time for OLED TVs to reduce market prices. Lextar said panel makers would need to change their manufacturing processes for OLED applications, and OLED production would be slow to yield return on investment. So OLED TVs are expected to be sold with hefty prices, said Su.


AU Optronics (AUO) vice president Paul Peng said that large-area OLED panels still face difficulties in mass production, adding that the yield rate is low and manufacturing processes are yet to be standardized. He noted that large-area OLED panels will not be able to rival LCD ones before 2014 because of cost issues, and he also has doubts about large-area OLED panels entering mass production prior to 2014.
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110822PD200.html


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/20854488
> 
> 
> @rogo
> 
> 
> Considering that the Samsung 8G is a pilot line, and the 4.5G uses FMM, which apparently won't work for 8G, it seems silly to say the 8G will likely use the same methods already in use (with the caveat that it's unclear what method is being used at the 5.5G)



Sunidrem, fair point, I stand corrected. My suspicion is that they will use the same production techniques on both the 5.5G and 8G fabs. If they do not, the notion that the 8G fab will have volume production anytime soon is nothing short of fanciful, however (read: pre-2014).


----------



## specuvestor

I'm not familiar with the tech involved, but analysts assure me 8G process is different from 4.5G. Which all the more make sense SMD use 5.5G as transition, and LGD being delusional on jumping from 3.5G->8G. If 5.5G utilisation is good we likely will have 8G ramp in 1H13, which means we will have large size 40" TV (at premium price) by Christmas 2013.


We spoke at length on LGD smoking pot and Sony half-hearted interest in OLED. Suffice to say there is only one game in town, that is SMD. Watch SMD rather than what the others say, from CMI to LGD. It is easy for them to talk and criticise, but the proof is always in the pudding.


I think technically OLED production at reasonable yield should be cheaper than LCD. But the problem is the capex is more than just "a bit higher" when a 5.5G plant cost $2.5b, which is something I don't understand fully and probably process and "scarcity" related which I will need to find out more. OLED will likely remain higher priced for the next 5 years at least until depreciation finishes, as businesses don't just look at EBITDA cashflow but also payback period for their ROI, which certainly includes capex.


----------



## rogo

I get the distinct impression that Chi Mei intends to follow Samsung to market, leveraging off whatever they are doing. Presumably a fair amount of the equipment used will come from third parties and they'll be able to watch what Samsung does and perhaps learn a trick or two along the way. They made it fairly clear they are in no hurry nor do they believe it's especially viable to jump in anytime soon (for them).


Overall, whatever inputs are needed to build this stuff that are unique to OLED are going to get a lot cheaper when it's LG, CMI and Samsung as opposed to just one of them. One telling thing to look out for, I suppose, would be a lack of investment in next-gen LCD fabs from some of these folks in favor of OLED fabs. That would be the single most predictive statement about the future.


It sounds to me that building the first 5.5G fab is astronomically expensive probably because whatever processes they are using are new and so they are building first of their kind production lines. Furthermore, yields are likely quite a bit worse for quite some time than whatever Samsung is now used to from the older fab. Obviously, time and production will correct that, but expect it to repeat it again as the 8G ramps.


----------



## specuvestor

Learning curve will have to be reset again if the process is different but having an existing fab always help.


The reason why subsequent ramp by competitors are usually easier because the *equipment makers* transfer the experience... It's not as if SMD will share their experience with competitors











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20856393
> 
> 
> I get the distinct impression that Chi Mei intends to follow Samsung to market, leveraging off whatever they are doing. Presumably a fair amount of the equipment used will come from third parties and they'll be able to watch what Samsung does and perhaps learn a trick or two along the way. They made it fairly clear they are in no hurry nor do they believe it's especially viable to jump in anytime soon (for them).



If you recall, CMI had cost me ever since I know ahead they are doing pilot OLED and LCD for Apple. And now after almost 1 year later they are finally doing LCD for Apple. I'm not holding my breath for OLED from them.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20856438
> 
> 
> Learning curve will have to be reset again if the process is different but having an existing fab always help.



Yes, understood.


> Quote:
> The reason why subsequent ramp by competitors are usually easier because the *equipment makers* transfer the experience... It's not as if SMD will share their experience with competitors



That's precisely what I was getting at.


> Quote:
> If you recall, CMI had cost me ever since I know ahead they are doing pilot OLED and LCD for Apple. And now after almost 1 year later they are finally doing LCD for Apple. I'm not holding my breath for OLED from them.



Nor am I; I just expect it to trail behind Samsung a year or two.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20856393
> 
> 
> It sounds to me that building the first 5.5G fab is astronomically expensive probably because whatever processes they are using are new and so they are building first of their kind production lines. Furthermore, yields are likely quite a bit worse for quite some time than whatever Samsung is now used to from the older fab. Obviously, time and production will correct that, but expect it to repeat it again as the 8G ramps.



I cant comment on every step of the process but every source I have read indicates that the main processes for the initial ramp for the 5.5G fab are the same. Samsung is again using vacuum thermal deposition with a fine metal mask (FMM). I expect yields to ramp quickly.


OTOH, you are right that the Gen 8 fab is a whole new ballgame. That is why the first 5.5G fab has a huge production capacity while the first Gen 8 fab is a pilot facility.


Slacker


----------



## rogo

I really need to see some functional diagrams of OLED to even begin to understand what's going on, slacker. I imagine it's basically a backplane not horribly dissimilar (of course not the same either) from TFT LCD but instead of the generic transistors you wind up with one of the three OLEDs. If you know of any nifty internet diagrams let me know.


----------



## rogo

Totally unrelated, the cool kids at Digitimes are reporting that Apple is using Samsung, LG and Sharp for the Retina iPad3 display with LG in the #1 slot and Sharp being given a chance to overtake Samsung as #2. Obviously, it's Digitimes so take it all with a grain of salt.


Given the proximity to A6 production and the fact that absolutely everyone has been wrong about how soon iPhone 5 (probably iPhone 4S) was/is going to ship, I am quite skeptical iPad 3 is shipping before Q2 and without an A6. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the need for the better microprocessor/SOC there, but moving 4x as many pixels seems like exactly why you'd want it.


Put me in the camp of iPad 3 in April/May.


----------



## guidryp

Quote:

Originally Posted by *slacker711* 
I cant comment on every step of the process but every source I have read indicates that the main processes for the initial ramp for the 5.5G fab are the same. Samsung is again using vacuum thermal deposition with a fine metal mask (FMM). I expect yields to ramp quickly.
FMM/Shadow Mask is one of the major hurdles to production. There are problems with accuracy in large size masks.

http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/12...eady-tv-market 
_The challenge is with deposition equipment, however; no deposition equipment that could use 5.5th generation of glass substrate has been developed yet. It is possible to build such equipment, but the technology that uses shadow mask is a critical bottleneck in deposing the emitting materials._


----------



## rogo

The minimal I got from that horrible Korean to English translation is: work needs to be done.


----------



## hughh

*Samsung wins OLED licensing deal*


￼

Cho Soo-in, right, Samsung Mobile Display chief executive, shakes hands with UDC CEO Steven Abramson at a Seoul hotel, Tuesday, after the companies formed an alliance for OLED screens. / Courtesy of Samsung Mobile Display


By Kim Yoo-chul


Korea's industrial powerhouse Samsung has secured a good springboard for faster growth and development of next-gen displays after its flat-screen affiliate was entering a licensing period over some patents with a U.S.-based company.


On Tuesday, Samsung Mobile Display (SMD) said it has inked a comprehensive patent-licensing deal with Universal Display Corp (UDC). SMD is a joint venture with Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI.


The agreement is more than crucial for Samsung Mobile Display because the Nasdaq-listed UDC was holding more than 1,000 patents in phosphorescent materials, which are vital for organic LED or OLED screens.


Because the materials could boost the brightness and energy efficiency for OLED screens, which are expected to increasingly supplant LCD displays, Samsung has no choice but to pay royalties to the American company.


"With the technology support from UDC, SMD will develop advanced and quality-improved OLED products further, and it's also been expected for a cost-saving thanks to the deal," said senior SMD spokesman Kim Ho-jeong.


But Kim declined to unveil further financial details, citing the sensitivity of the issue.


OLED screens are regarded as the next-generation displays that will eventually replace the current LCD screens. *OLEDs are much brighter and thinner than LCDs, however their higher price is still regarded as the biggest drawback over market expansion*.

*SMD is the industry's biggest OLED manufacturer that mostly supplies the screens to Samsung Electronics. The Galaxy S smartphone variants are using OLED screens.*

Amid the saturation of the current LCD market, Samsung is heavily pushing OLED business as an apparent strategy to enjoy more of a "first-mover advantage" in the growing and very lucrative market.


Although SMD is ideally positioned to boost its OLED business, the joint venture has been paying "millions of dollars" to UDC in return for using UDC-patented PH materials.


"The developments could allow firms based in Asia, such as Samsung and LG, to manufacture OLEDs without having to pay royalties to UDC for materials used," said a fund manager from a U.S.-based top-level investment bank in Seoul.


SMD is expanding its output of OLED screens to meet the rising demand from local and overseas clients. This year's investment projection from SMD was 5.4 trillion won ― a record amount on an annual basis.


The licensing deal comes months after The Korea Times exclusively reported that three UDC patents were invalidated in Japan and that these patents were also being challenged in Korea by Duksan Hi-Metal and in Europe.


Duksan Hi-Metal was still taking legal action as the local materials-producing company has been blocked from manufacturing phosphorescent materials as a result of the patents held by UDC.


In response to the report, UDC CEO Steven Abramson then said that their patents were under challenge in several areas, and they had expected it to remain so in the future, this is part of the game.


"UDC also welcomed the decision," said Kim from SMD.


The global market in OLEDs in terms of total revenue will rise to $13 billion by 2013, from an estimated $4.1 billion, according to data from DisplaySearch, a market research firm. SMD was dominating the market.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...129_93313.html


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20858653
> 
> 
> Given the proximity to A6 production and the fact that absolutely everyone has been wrong about how soon iPhone 5 (probably iPhone 4S) was/is going to ship, I am quite skeptical iPad 3 is shipping before Q2 and without an A6. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the need for the better microprocessor/SOC there, but moving 4x as many pixels seems like exactly why you'd want it.
> 
> 
> Put me in the camp of iPad 3 in April/May.



A6 is sampling at TSMC. iPad supply chain is starting to ramp up. Jan launch & shipping is totally possible.


What is peculiar to me, independent of the market news, is that Apple usually don't launch products close to Christmas (while competitors like to launch around Sep-Oct) due to operational bottle neck. Now we see iPhone coming Oct launch and iPad3 ramping.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20860206
> 
> 
> A6 is sampling at TSMC. iPad supply chain is starting to ramp up. Jan launch & shipping is totally possible.
> 
> 
> What is peculiar to me, independent of the market news, is that Apple usually don't launch products close to Christmas (while competitors like to launch around Sep-Oct) due to operational bottle neck. Now we see iPhone coming Oct launch and iPad3 ramping.



iPad3 is definitely not launching January. Even if announced in January, it won't ship till February. And I still find that unlikely.


My confusion around A6 is that every media report on it sampling at TSMC says "production in Q2 of next year". I would presume it could come sooner than that, but the reports are all consistent.


----------



## specuvestor

*SEC announced today that it will shift its business strategy from the current 'Fast-Follower' strategy (quickly incorporating advanced economy technologies) to a 'First-Mover' strategy (developing leading technologies ahead of advanced economies and creating new markets). It is highlighting that the co' will not fall behind the 'speed' competition with cos' such as Google and HP recently undergoing M&A activities. With criticisms of Korea's no.1 image of 'high-speed' fading due to the opening of the wireless-era, SEC is taking this challenge head-on and expects to spill-over change+innovation- led competition to other companies going forward.


*First-Mover strategy will kick-off with its upcoming LTE premium smartphones where it incorporates world's first HD-AMOLED dispay in its 2 models to be released in September and October. Furthermore, it will apply AMOLED displays on its upcoming Smart-Pad products where the mkt is expected to accelerate from 18mn units sold in 2010 to 59mn (2011) and 150mn (2015): rise of 53% per annum with Apple and SEC already formed as the 2 major players.

-Woori Investment


----------



## 3reach

When will a 40" OLED come for under $3k?


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *3reach* /forum/post/20861023
> 
> 
> When will a 40" OLED come for under $3k?



June 17, 2014.


On a more serious note, not much time has passed yet, but I was kind of expecting Samsung to announce more OLED capex after they got their deal done with UDC. Or maybe they're waiting on good news from (1) the 8G pilot and/or (2) 5.5G LITI, before sinking more into OLED.


----------



## specuvestor

That would be late Jan next year when they announce their annual capex plan. $4b budget this year is more than enough for them to juggle around.


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20863798
> 
> 
> That would be late Jan next year ...



Yep, at first I thought that was your 40" $3k OLED prediction.


----------



## Larry Hutchinson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20858638
> 
> 
> I really need to see some functional diagrams of OLED to even begin to understand what's going on, slacker. I imagine it's basically a backplane not horribly dissimilar (of course not the same either) from TFT LCD but instead of the generic transistors you wind up with one of the three OLEDs. If you know of any nifty internet diagrams let me know.



Sorry, no diagram, but from memory (always dangerous) I believe there are at least 3 TF Transistors per cell to drive an OLED because OLED (as with any LED) is current based. This is more complex than LCD which is voltage based and needs just one transistor.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20858653
> 
> 
> Totally unrelated, the cool kids at Digitimes are reporting that Apple is using Samsung, LG and Sharp for the Retina iPad3 display with LG in the #1 slot and Sharp being given a chance to overtake Samsung as #2. Obviously, it's Digitimes so take it all with a grain of salt.
> 
> 
> Given the proximity to A6 production and the fact that absolutely everyone has been wrong about how soon iPhone 5 (probably iPhone 4S) was/is going to ship, I am quite skeptical iPad 3 is shipping before Q2 and without an A6. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the need for the better microprocessor/SOC there, but moving 4x as many pixels seems like exactly why you'd want it.
> 
> 
> Put me in the camp of iPad 3 in April/May.



And then there is this from yesterday's Forbes...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabet...-display-deal/ 



> Quote:
> Analyst: iPhone Could Get OLED Screen With Samsung/Universal Display Deal
> 
> 
> A new deal between Korean electronics giant Samsung and display maker Universal Display could bring advanced screens to a much broader swathe of mobile devices, including Apple's iPhone, says analyst Jamie Townsend of TownHall Investment Research.
> 
> 
> The technology in question is called OLED, short for organic light emitting diode. Compared to other display technologies, OLED was designed to be thinner, lighter and more energy-efficient and deliver brighter colors and sharper images.
> 
> 
> Due to some unique advantages, including ownership of its own display manufacturing unit and access to stockpiles of necessary materials, Samsung has largely monopolized mobile OLED displays for more than two years. The company's enormous appetite for the displays - Samsung is the largest provider of cellphones in the U.S. and the second-largest globally - has meant other gadget makers had to do without. HTC was reportedly forced to switch from Samsung-supplied OLED screens to Sony displays in 2010 after a Samsung OLED shortage threatened HTC phone production and sales.
> 
> 
> Townsend says Samsung's August 23rd deal with New Jersey-based Universal Display should make OLED technology easier to obtain. The agreement, which involves Samsung's Mobile Display company, calls for the licensing of Universal Display's technologies and the sale of its proprietary materials to Samsung through the end of 2017.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20860189
> 
> 
> Although SMD is ideally positioned to boost its OLED business, the joint venture has been paying "millions of dollars" to UDC in return for using UDC-patented PH materials.
> 
> 
> "The developments could allow firms based in Asia, such as Samsung and LG, to manufacture OLEDs without having to pay royalties to UDC for materials used," said a fund manager from a U.S.-based top-level investment bank in Seoul.



No chance. Samsung just inked what will likely be the boilerplate for every company that wants to produce OLED displays and lighting with Universal Display Tuesday this week. The deal gets Universal flat license fees for access to all their IP and then sells the materials as well. Deal good through 2017. Look for LGD, AUO, et al to join the party RSN.


----------



## rogo

The Forbes report goes again all other recent reports. Regardless, there remains a 0% chance of OLED in iPhone 5 and iPad3. Obviously, iPhone 6 and iPad 4 are possible, but the math suggests that not even Samsung could come close to supplying iPad 4 as well as its own needs, so that still seems nigh impossible.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20858653
> 
> 
> Totally unrelated, the cool kids at Digitimes are reporting that Apple is using Samsung, LG and Sharp for the Retina iPad3 display with LG in the #1 slot and Sharp being given a chance to overtake Samsung as #2. Obviously, it's Digitimes so take it all with a grain of salt.
> 
> 
> Given the proximity to A6 production and the fact that absolutely everyone has been wrong about how soon iPhone 5 (probably iPhone 4S) was/is going to ship, I am quite skeptical iPad 3 is shipping before Q2 and without an A6. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the need for the better microprocessor/SOC there, but moving 4x as many pixels seems like exactly why you'd want it.
> 
> 
> Put me in the camp of iPad 3 in April/May.



From Cnet/Macrumors:


CNET now reports, however, that Linley Group analyst Kevin Krewell has issued a research note claiming that full production of the A6 won't begin before the second quarter of 2012, pushing the release of any A6-based hardware out to at least June.


"A final version of the chip will enter production in 2Q12 'at the earliest'... We believe this timing makes sense," Krewell said. "This pace would make the A6 one of the first 28 [nanometer] mobile processors (along with Qualcomm's MSM8960) to enter production. This schedule, however, breaks Apple's annual processor-upgrade cycle and will delay any products using the A6 until at least June 2012."


Krewell suggests that Apple could release an A5-powered iPad 3 at that time, relying on the upgraded display to drive customer demand. An A6-powered iPad would then come later, although it seems unlikely that Apple would want to wait until 2013 to release an iPad based on the chip.

*Draw your own conclusions, but I don't believe iPad3 is shipping with a 4x resolution display and the same processor as today. Especially not without anything taking market share from it. I presume they will just "delay" it till summer. But since they've known about the timetable for probably a year, I doubt this is actually a delay of any kind. It's certainly possible that the iPad3 will ship with the old processor much sooner and I'll be wrong, but I can't imagine what would motivate them to do that and reduce the user experience. June/July seems fine. Two iPads next year seems very unlikely. No A6 seems very unlikely.*


----------



## tory40

What does it mean by A6?


...and what are 5.5 and 8.8 fabs (or something like that).


----------



## rogo

A6 is the next generation CPU / System on a Chip used by Apple iOS products (iPhone, iPad, etc.). The current iPad uses the A5 chip and the current iPhone uses the older A4 (the iPhone due in October should use A5).


The generation of fabs refers to how big a piece of glass they can process at once. A Gen 5.5 fab uses 1300 x 1500mm sheets of glass. A generation 8 fab uses 2200 x 2500 mm sheets of glass.


----------



## Holy bear

 http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Pr...97E/index.html 


Introducing World’s First 3D Compatible Head Mounted Display Equipped With High Definition OLED Panel


It's white OLED with CF , not STE AMOLED , because it is easier to get high DPI,


----------



## powertoold

This, my friends, is a 7.7 inch 1280 x 800 OLED tablet: much sooner than I thought:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/01/s...ands-on-video/ 


Wow, I'm really excited. Maybe just another year and I'll have my dream tablet, a 1080p 10" OLED!


----------



## ramintop

This 7.7" samsung tablet is blowing my mind!







even the size is perfect imo, only the camera resolution and back design is ok, and of course the price wont be too perfect either lol but I'm still 99.9% buying it!


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *powertoold* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This, my friends, is a 7.7 inch 1280 x 800 OLED tablet: much sooner than I thought



Have you been following this thread?


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ramintop* /forum/post/20893036
> 
> 
> This 7.7" samsung tablet is blowing my mind!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> even the size is perfect imo, only the camera resolution and back design is ok, and of course the price wont be too perfect either lol but I'm still 99.9% buying it!



99.9% without knowing the price? That Samsung would be first with an OLED tablet only makes sense. But I think there will be some sticker shock on this one.


----------



## ramintop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20893465
> 
> 
> 99.9% without knowing the price? That Samsung would be first with an OLED tablet only makes sense. But I think there will be some sticker shock on this one.



Well its just that I've been holding back on buying a tablet for a long time because none of the new ones really impressed me, until this masterpiece! The price will be a bit high at first but it will go down quickly as samsung is still nowhere near as popular as apple in the tablet market so they'll have to be competitive, hopefully!










edit: I noticed in a picture from the trustedreview first look that the "design is subject to change", maybe the back design will be changed like the tab 10.1? interesting...


----------



## Mikazaru




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ramintop* /forum/post/20893036
> 
> 
> This 7.7" samsung tablet is blowing my mind!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> even the size is perfect imo, only the camera resolution and back design is ok, and of course the price wont be too perfect either lol but I'm still 99.9% buying it!



Samsung is also following an unfortunate trend in that the company specifies the microSD card slot is for "direct media files transfer" only. Sony's new Tablet S is the same. This is a big negative for me.


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ramintop* /forum/post/20893940
> 
> 
> Well its just that I've been holding back on buying a tablet for a long time because none of the new ones really impressed me, until this masterpiece! The price will be a bit high at first but it will go down quickly as samsung is still nowhere near as popular as apple in the tablet market so they'll have to be competitive, hopefully!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit: I noticed in a picture from the trustedreview first look that the "design is subject to change", maybe the back design will be changed like the tab 10.1? interesting...



Geez, that's almost like purchasing a bottle of wine because of the pretty label. How can you or anyone label this thing as a "masterpiece" without even judging it's functionality or even seeing it in person? Only on AVS!!!


----------



## ramintop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20894093
> 
> 
> Geez, that's almost like purchasing a bottle of wine because of the pretty label. How can you or anyone label this thing as a "masterpiece" without even judging it's functionality or even seeing it in person? Only on AVS!!!



Becauuuuse I have the galaxy S and have seen the galaxy S2 and the screens are downright stunning, so thinking about a 7.7" screen of the same quality to watch movies on or play games etc. is alone enough to convince me to give away my money lol (besides I'm supporting the technology), then the size as I said is perfect for me, the tab 10.1 is getting rave reviews so I dont think this will be any worse, it shares the same excellent dual core processor in the galaxy S2 & ipad 2 only overclocked to 1.4ghz (better than nvidia tegra), 7.8mm thinness, metal back, android 3.2 etc. need I say more?


----------



## rogo

I have a couple of observations...


1) I do love those screens, a 7.7" version should be stunning. That said, tablets in that size have proven to be oddball tweeners so far, I doubt this will change that. Too small to get real work done on and less that ideal for consuming media. The one thing you gain is more portability, but not enough portability that you can actually pocket the thing. I'd want one, but I wouldn't actually buy it, if you know what I mean.


2) Android 3.2? Really? Android tablets are crying out for 4.0. Let's hope this actually ships with that instead.


----------



## ramintop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20894227
> 
> 
> I have a couple of observations...
> 
> 
> 1) I do love those screens, a 7.7" version should be stunning. That said, tablets in that size have proven to be oddball tweeners so far, I doubt this will change that. Too small to get real work done on and less that ideal for consuming media. The one thing you gain is more portability, but not enough portability that you can actually pocket the thing. I'd want one, but I wouldn't actually buy it, if you know what I mean.
> 
> 
> 2) Android 3.2? Really? Android tablets are crying out for 4.0. Let's hope this actually ships with that instead.



1) Did you see the new samsung series 7 slate? its a windows 7 tablet with a core i5 processor and 11.6" screen and can be transformed into a laptop.


2) there's no android 4.0.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20894227
> 
> 
> 1) I do love those screens, a 7.7" version should be stunning. That said, tablets in that size have proven to be oddball tweeners so far, I doubt this will change that. Too small to get real work done on and less that ideal for consuming media. The one thing you gain is more portability, but not enough portability that you can actually pocket the thing. I'd want one, but I wouldn't actually buy it, if you know what I mean.




For a mini-tablet/PMP/text reader I would actually prefer something like the new 5.3" Galaxy note. That looks like a nice handy size that will still fit in a pocket. But I don't want to pay outrageous prices.


7" isn't my thing, but I don't think that will hurt sales, I think price will. I expect it will be contract only $500+, or $700+ off contract.


----------



## rogo

I'm not really going to discuss tablets much more here because it's not the place, but:


1) No 7" tablet has sold for squat. People clearly have spoken loudly that if they want a tablet, they want something bigger.


2) Do you seriously think anyone wants a Windows 7 tablet that can be transformed into a laptop? Please.


3) Android 4.0 will ship before you can buy this new 7.7" Galaxy.


4) If a 7.7" tablet is $500, it will not move any units at all. I don't care how pretty the screen is.


----------



## ramintop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20894354
> 
> 
> I'm not really going to discuss tablets much more here because it's not the place, but:
> 
> 
> 1) No 7" tablet has sold for squat. People clearly have spoken loudly that if they want a tablet, they want something bigger.
> 
> 
> 2) Do you seriously think anyone wants a Windows 7 tablet that can be transformed into a laptop? Please.
> 
> 
> 3) Android 4.0 will ship before you can buy this new 7.7" Galaxy.
> 
> 
> 4) If a 7.7" tablet is $500, it will not move any units at all. I don't care how pretty the screen is.



I was just trying to help, why so serious?







I thought members here in avsforum would be excited about such a product like me, clearly thats not the case lol.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ramintop* /forum/post/20894413
> 
> 
> I was just trying to help, why so serious?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought members here in avsforum would be excited about such a product like me, clearly thats not the case lol.



It certainly bears mentioning as it was the first bigger than average OLED screen on anything in some time. Certainly better info than the pointless (and clearly wrong) speculation about OLED ipads.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20894354
> 
> 
> 4) If a 7.7" tablet is $500, it will not move any units at all. I don't care how pretty the screen is.



I think that at best case, that is the minimum price when they release a Wifi-only version 6 months later.


My take is this will be a low volume, high price, Halo product.


----------



## gmarceau

If Samsung makes a 10" version of this thing and it can play movies, that'll be my mini hdtv- I'm about ready to call it a day on OLED. That or an OLED laptop with a blu ray drive


----------



## rogo

@guidry, good point. It's a bigger OLED screen. Period. That's worth noting. It's also worth noting that 7+" is a far cry from filling my living-room needs, but still....







If you're right that it's a halo product, that's fine, but it's more a self-fulfilling prophecy for it not selling. Again, I keep hearing OLED is price competitive to make. So let's see the proof at retail.


@gmarceau, my guess is a 10" version of the Galaxy Tab is a 2013 product. Possibly a very late 2012 intro, but a 2013 product almost for sure.


@ramintop, I don't share your enthusiasm for a product whose category has proved to be an abject failure several times over. Sorry. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be excited or you shouldn't buy one. If you want one badly, buy one. I mean there are literally fanboys for Windows 8. How there can be fanboys for a Microsoft OS is something I really can't even understand. At least I can understand your excitement over this Samsung mini-tablet.


----------



## specuvestor

As I posted before, the original samsung 7" tablet was supposed to be OLED last year this time but there were not enough capacity as OLED phones were selling better than expected. As of now they have absolute advantage of having a tablet display that no one has so starting from 7" pocket size is not that big a deal.


I would think it will be priced competitively if they want to ramp their 5.5G. And 10" wouldn't be far away but timing will likely be based on how the 7" is received, but late 2012 is not impossible.


The question of an OLED iPad, as I posted months ago, is whether Apple wants to buy from Samsung. That's where CMI supposed to come in.


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, my WAG on the pricing for the 7" tablet would be $399 for the WiFi version and $499 for the 3G version. As for the 10" screen, I think 2012 is a sure thing. Samsung has a huge amount of capacity coming on-line in 2012 and are going to need markets beyond smartphones.


The OLED in the Samsung Note is also interesting. The resolution is 285ppi which is the highest yet on an OLED. It might mean that Samsung is using LITI.


Slacker


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20895174
> 
> 
> @gmarceau, my guess is a 10" version of the Galaxy Tab is a 2013 product. Possibly a very late 2012 intro, but a 2013 product almost for sure.



Did they talk about the 7" one being aimed for the holiday season or 2012?


Listen, I'm in this for the infinite blacks and that's it. I don't know what the hell everyone else is so excited about










Funny enough, my experience with the XEL-1 was underwhelming at a Magnolia store and from what I've seen on Ebay, it didn't seem worth the risk of purchase.


----------



## rogo

"The question of an OLED iPad, as I posted months ago, is whether Apple wants to buy from Samsung. That's where CMI supposed to come in."


No, the questions are:


1) Can there be two sources of screens, not just one?


2) Can there be 100 million screens supplied for it in 2013? Apple is going to do 20 million iPads in Q4. If the suppliers can't do 100 million screens in 2013, it's a complete non-starter.


By the way, I believe Apple will invest in OLED production capacity within 12 months. Whether you hear about this publicly when it happens or not is another matter; the dollars will be immaterial to a company the size of Apple. Companies are not required to disclose their specific capital investments and Apple will be approaching $100 billion in cash after this holiday season.


----------



## Chronoptimist

Unless you only plan on using it as a portable video player, why would anyone buy an Android tablet, regardless of the screen?


E-ink is still better for reading, and all the best apps are on the iPad. (games too, if you care about that)


Resolution is the first hurdle these devices need to overcome (to make them better reading devices) _then_ they need to focus on screen quality. At least the iPad also happens to have the best tablet display out there right now, even if it is still an LCD. Some of the screens on these Android tablets are shockingly bad.


But then I don't really have much of a need for portable video, and if I did, I'd be looking into that Zeiss Cinemizer OLED hooked up to my phone rather than a tablet.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Unless you only plan on using it as a portable video player, why would anyone buy an Android tablet, regardless of the screen?
> 
> 
> E-ink is still better for reading, and all the best apps are on the iPad. (games too, if you care about that)
> 
> 
> Resolution is the first hurdle these devices need to overcome (to make them better reading devices)



why bother with android phones then I guess?










What is the resolution of E-Ink aka Prime View devices again?


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20896102
> 
> 
> "The question of an OLED iPad, as I posted months ago, is whether Apple wants to buy from Samsung. That's where CMI supposed to come in."
> 
> 
> No, the questions are:
> 
> 
> 1) Can there be two sources of screens, not just one?
> 
> 
> 2) Can there be 100 million screens supplied for it in 2013? Apple is going to do 20 million iPads in Q4. If the suppliers can't do 100 million screens in 2013, it's a complete non-starter.
> 
> 
> By the way, I believe Apple will invest in OLED production capacity within 12 months. Whether you hear about this publicly when it happens or not is another matter; the dollars will be immaterial to a company the size of Apple. Companies are not required to disclose their specific capital investments and Apple will be approaching $100 billion in cash after this holiday season.



100 million？That's crazy.....


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/20896176
> 
> 
> Unless you only plan on using it as a portable video player, why would anyone buy an Android tablet, regardless of the screen?



Apple haters, and/or cheap tablets that undercut Apple pricing ($399 Asus Transformer is #1 Android), and/or easier to pirate software.


Lots of reasons.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20896102
> 
> 
> By the way, I believe Apple will invest in OLED production capacity within 12 months. Whether you hear about this publicly when it happens or not is another matter; the dollars will be immaterial to a company the size of Apple. Companies are not required to disclose their specific capital investments and Apple will be approaching $100 billion in cash after this holiday season.



So Apple won't buy Sony TV division which includes OLED patents but will invest in OLED production? And I think you said Apple got retina display with higher resolution, they don't need OLED










Not disputing this but find this a bit inconsistent. Hopefully it will be investing in CMI though. But pretty sure when they do, it will be all over the newswire.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20896359
> 
> 
> why bother with android phones then I guess?



They're cheap. Everyone I know with an Android phone, even the people that like to tweak everything, have said they would never buy another Android phone after owning one.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20896359
> 
> 
> What is the resolution of E-Ink aka Prime View devices again?



it's actually lower resolution. I think the kindle 3 is 600x800. But the screen type is still easier on the eyes for reading, partially because it is monochrome.


Here's a great comparison between the kindle screen, an iPad and print:
http://www.bit-101.com/blog/?p=2722


----------



## specuvestor

^^ what I mean is that your quote on resolution contradicts the notion that kindle is better.


But I agree Kindle is better for the eyes as the tech behind E-Ink is like static print. But J6P wants color and motion. Frankly I dunno if E-Ink will last another 3 years with Amazon coming out with a 10" tablet early next year.


Disclaimer: I actually know the Prime View CEO pretty well as an investor.


----------



## guidryp

It looks like the 7.7" OLED isn't coming to the USA. It does seem like Samsung wanted to (again) only offer these through carriers with a long term contract to subsidize them and no carriers were interested (likely after getting stuck with excess galaxy tabs the first time).

http://androidcommunity.com/samsung-...e-us-20110902/


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20897033
> 
> 
> ^^ what I mean is that your quote on resolution contradicts the notion that kindle is better.



Sure, but due to the monochrome nature of the screen, they can get away with lower resolution while still being easier to read. The biggest difference is the lack of a pixel grid. (very obvious on my iPad)


RGB displays like LCD and OLED need to be much higher resolution to match that kind of legibility, regardless of how the text is actually rendered. Aliasing is only one aspect of it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20897033
> 
> 
> But I agree Kindle is better for the eyes as E-Ink is like static print. But J6P wants color and motion. Frankly I dunno if E-Ink will last another 3 years with Amazon coming out with a 10" tablet early next year.



Unless e-ink response dramatically improves, or cost gets down lower, I'm not sure how much longer it will be around. It's much clearer for reading text, but once we get high resolution displays for the iPad etc, most of that advantage will disappear. It's far better for reading outdoors, but too slow to use for anything else, and single-purpose devices like that are disappearing. The e-reader will be heading the way of the mp3 player in a few years time.


Personally, I would still want a low cost e-ink reader, something you can take to the beach without being too worried about it, and that is clearly legible outdoors, but like you, I'm concerned about their future.


For all my complaints, I must admit that reading on the iPad is not as bad as I was expecting. I find myself turning the font size up and holding it further away to make up for the resolution though.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20896102
> 
> 
> Companies are not required to disclose their specific capital investments and Apple will be approaching $100 billion in cash after this holiday season.



Apple may or may not put it into a filing since you could argue whether it was material.


OTOH, it will certainly be material to the company receiving the funds. That would require a filing by any public company with ADR's in the US. It would probably be required overseas as well but that would vary by geography.


Slacker


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/20897100
> 
> 
> It's far better for reading outdoors, but too slow to use for anything else, and single-purpose devices like that are disappearing. The e-reader will be heading the way of the mp3 player in a few years time.



I thought the same thing when the iPad was launched but I think the drastic price drops we've seen on e-readers have made them viable over the long-term. The advantages with outdoor reading and battery life are significant and they are cheap enough that they I think people will buy them in addition to tablets. A $99 Kindle isnt tough to justify if you read much at all.


Slacker


----------



## rogo

Slacker, good point on the receipt of funds. You will learn of it from that end if/when it happens.


As for dedicated Kindles, I very very very very much doubt they are going away anytime soon. The 7" Amazon tablet is going to debut at $249 with pretty much zero profit at that price. The Kindle is going to be $99 pretty soon. Eventually, the Kindle should be able to get down to $69 or so. A tablet at $149 seems pretty far distant. They can co-exist nicely.


----------



## eat meat

rumors on revision tv say apples tv is gonna be small 22inch based on one of the monitors.
http://revision3.com/technobuffalo/r...undup-20110902


----------



## specuvestor

Spoil-sport 


Samsung Electronics Co. is halting promotion of its latest tablet computer in Germany after Apple Inc. (AAPL) won a second injunction blocking Galaxy Tab sales there as one of the world’s largest electronics shows gets under way.


Samsung, Apple’s closest rival in tablet computers, pulled the just-unveiled Galaxy Tab 7.7 out of the IFA consumer- electronics show in Berlin after a Dusseldorf court on Sept. 2 granted Apple’s request to ban sales and marketing of the product, James Chung, a Seoul-based spokesman for Samsung, said by telephone today. Chung couldn’t confirm if Samsung has received the court order, while Steve Park, a Seoul-based spokesman for Apple, couldn’t immediately comment on the ruling.


“Samsung respects the court’s decision,” Chung said, adding that the company believes it “severely limits consumer choice in Germany.” Samsung will pursue all available options, including legal action, to defend its intellectual property rights, he said.


Samsung and Apple, maker of the iPad, are involved in legal disputes across three continents, as Apple -- also one of the biggest customers for the South Korean manufacturer’s chips and displays -- claims the Galaxy devices copied its iPhone and iPad. Last month, the Dusseldorf Regional Court granted Apple a temporary sales ban on the earlier Galaxy Tab 10.1 model in 26 of the 27 European Union member countries.


The August ruling, scaled back to only Germany on jurisdictional grounds, could have cost Samsung sales of as many as half a million units this year, according to an estimate by Strategy Analytics. -Bloomberg


----------



## Blackraven

Wow, 7.7 inch version Galaxy Tab gets an OLED screen. Nice nice.


Now that Samsung has mentioned, it shouldn't be too long till the flagship version (i.e. the 10.1) will get an OLED screen as well.


GO OLED!!!!


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/20911037
> 
> 
> Wow, 7.7 inch version Galaxy Tab gets an OLED screen. Nice nice.
> 
> 
> Now that Samsung has mentioned, it shouldn't be too long till the flagship version (i.e. the 10.1) will get an OLED screen as well.
> 
> 
> GO OLED!!!!



Photos available here:
http://avaxnews.com/appealing/IFA_20...rade_Fair.html


----------



## hughh

Samsung Tab 7.7

*Super AMOLED Plus screen*


The display looks absolutely brilliant. This is a Super AMOLED Plus screen, which is the same tech employed in the gorgeous Samsung Galaxy S2 smart phone. It's eyeball-searingly colourful, and looks extremely striking. The screen has a resolution of 1,280x800 pixels, which we reckon will be sharp enough to keep your photos and hi-res video looking good.


We're yet to see a Honeycomb tablet with a display to rival that of the iPad 2, so we've got our fingers, toes, arms, legs and eyeballs crossed that this is the tablet to change that.
http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/ipad-and-t...view-50004956/


----------



## hughh

*Haier's transparent organic TV eyes-on* (video
http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/04/h...eyes-on-video/


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20911774
> 
> 
> Samsung Tab 7.7
> 
> *Super AMOLED Plus screen*
> 
> 
> The display looks absolutely brilliant. This is a Super AMOLED Plus screen, which is the same tech employed in the gorgeous Samsung Galaxy S2 smart phone. It's eyeball-searingly colourful, and looks extremely striking. The screen has a resolution of 1,280x800 pixels, which we reckon will be sharp enough to keep your photos and hi-res video looking good.
> 
> 
> We're yet to see a Honeycomb tablet with a display to rival that of the iPad 2, so we've got our fingers, toes, arms, legs and eyeballs crossed that this is the tablet to change that.
> http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/ipad-and-t...view-50004956/



The main take away for me is that the PPI was much better than we had expected


----------



## rogo

Isn't there a 1280 x 720 OLED in the 5.3"? I'd read a Samsung roadmap more than a month ago about that and already assumed PPI wasn't a concern at these sizes.


----------



## specuvestor

I believe we were saying a few months back that at bigger sizes PPI will be affected due to the current/ voltage transport (ITO) constraint, same logic on why it could be a show stopper for >30" 1080p TV.


I'm just tasting the pudding


----------



## gmarceau

Anyone have an idea about the improvements of Super AMOLED Plus over the original OLED tech used in the Sony XEL-1? I was curious what technical aspects of the OLED display has changed and if Super AMOLED Plus would work for televisions. This is solely Samsung's OLED tech but does LG have any technical data on their OLEDs?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20919480
> 
> 
> I believe we were saying a few months back that at bigger sizes PPI will be affected due to the current/ voltage transport (ITO) constraint, same logic on why it could be a show stopper for >30" 1080p TV.
> 
> 
> I'm just tasting the pudding



Gotcha. I guess I'm not seeing this as a "bigger size" quite yet. Also, we really don't need this crazy PPI at those sizes do we? Even if we wanted 4K at a home theater size, seems like ~100ppi is plenty.


----------



## specuvestor

yes but apparently the transport affects both the PPI and size. So if it works at 7.7" I would guess 1080p on 10" and 30" should not be a problem.


Pudding for the 50" is probably still in the baking


----------



## tory40




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/20913900
> 
> *Haier's transparent organic TV eyes-on* (video
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/04/h...eyes-on-video/



"What's the worst thing about your TV? If you said "opaqueness," boy have we got the set from you."


lol


----------



## walt73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tory40* /forum/post/20920630
> 
> 
> "What's the worst thing about your TV? If you said "opaqueness," boy have we got the set from you."
> 
> 
> lol



lol is right. The much more usual word is "opacity".


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/20920201
> 
> 
> Anyone have an idea about the improvements of Super AMOLED Plus over the original OLED tech used in the Sony XEL-1? I was curious what technical aspects of the OLED display has changed and if Super AMOLED Plus would work for televisions. This is solely Samsung's OLED tech but does LG have any technical data on their OLEDs?



Samsung's panel it's called "Super AMOLED plus" because it is optimised for using under direct sunlight.


In terms of other aspects i.e contrast ratio , colour reproduction they are about the same and Sony's panel may even be better. (Yes I'm a Sony fanboy)


If you think "Super" is better , you may want to check LG's new "ULTRA AMOLED"......


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Holy bear* /forum/post/20920829
> 
> 
> Samsung's panel it's called "Super AMOLED plus" because it is optimised for using under direct sunlight.



No, the real difference with the "plus" OLEDs is that they are NOT pentile, but full RGB array.


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/20922893
> 
> 
> No, the real difference with the "plus" OLEDs is that they are NOT pentile, but full RGB array.



Yes if you are talking about the differences between Samsung's own "Super AMOLED" and "Super AMOLED plus" . But if you are talking about Sony's OLED then no - Sony's OLED also uses "normal" RGB array.


----------



## gmarceau

Why did the Sony XEL-1's brightness begin fading off axis?


----------



## rgb32

 http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_ro...ase/60813.html 



> Quote:
> *SONY INTRODUCES THE WORLDS FIRST PERSONAL 3D VIEWER*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Equipped With Twin OLED Panels- Head-Mounted Display Delivers Immersive 3D/HD Viewing Experience_
> 
> 
> INDIANAPOLIS, Sept. 7, 2011 (CEDIA Booth #1803) - Sony Electronics today announced the launch of HMZ-T1, Personal 3D Viewer. The head mounted display is a device that offers a one of a kind style viewing of both 2D and 3D content. Simply slip the device onto your head to experience the movie theater-like virtual screen and surround sound.
> 
> 
> Equipped with two newly-developed 0.7-inch (diagonal) Ultra-Small High Definition Color OLED Panels, the Personal 3D Viewer leverages Sony's expertise in both OLED display and semiconductor drive technologies. The HMZ-T1 achieves HD picture (1280 x 720) quality that makes full use of the OLED display's high contrast, wide color gamut, and fast refresh rate. In addition, the device adopts the dual panel 3D method which displays an independent HD picture to each eye in order to achieve a more natural 3D image. The viewer enjoys a bright 3D picture that is crosstalk-free.
> 
> 
> Viewers enjoy an immersive experience which is similar to watching video on a large screen approximating 150-inches from 12-feet away (750-inch virtual screen, virtual viewing distance approximately 65-feet away). Sony has also adapted its original virtual surround signal processing technology to deliver powerful acoustical equivalent of a 5.1 channel surround-sound system.
> 
> 
> Sony is the leader in bringing 3D to the home. From the Lens to the Living Room' - professional production technology to home viewing on 3D BRAVIA® HDTVs- Sony 3D gear sets the standard. This year, 3D got personal with the delivery of VAIO models and PlayStation®3 3D titles. Handycam® and Cybershot® cameras are also capable of capturing and playing back 3D memories. Now, the HMZ-T1 brings a whole new concept to 3D viewing, further expanding Sony's 3D world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Personal 3D Viewer will be arriving in the Unites States in November and is priced around $799.*


----------



## powertoold

I'll buy a head mounted display once they are 1080p. It'll be fantastic for gaming and solo movie time! Maybe if it doesn't cause too much eye strain, I'd use it for surfing the net too, but I'm sure it'd cause a lot of eye strain, especially when the display is 2 inches in front...


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20920355
> 
> 
> yes but apparently the transport affects both the PPI and size. So if it works at 7.7" I would guess 1080p on 10" and 30" should not be a problem.
> 
> 
> Pudding for the 50" is probably still in the baking





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Holy bear* /forum/post/20925052
> 
> 
> Yes if you are talking about the differences between Samsung's own "Super AMOLED" and "Super AMOLED plus" . But if you are talking about Sony's OLED then no - Sony's OLED also uses "normal" RGB array.



Interesting info. Looks like resolution should not be an issue.


"Samsung showed off an impressively hi-res screen at Display Week in Los Angeles back in May. The 2560x1600 panel made for tablets measures 10.1” and offers lower power consumption than typical LCDs. Why? Samsung’s PenTile technology used in AMOLED screens, developed in partnership with Nouvoyance, contains fewer sub-pixels than the average RGB LCD display."

http://www.tested.com/news/how-penti...s-better/2446/


----------



## xrox

I've completed another technology trend analysis for work on OLED/TFT/Solar Cell and was interested in what some of you have to say (who follow this thread and OLED tech) regarding the direction research is going over the last 2 years.


In other words, in your opinion what is the hot topic(s) of OLED research over the last two years?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *powertoold* /forum/post/20941247
> 
> 
> I'll buy a head mounted display once they are 1080p. It'll be fantastic for gaming and solo movie time! Maybe if it doesn't cause too much eye strain, I'd use it for surfing the net too, but I'm sure it'd cause a lot of eye strain, especially when the display is 2 inches in front...



Console gaming is all 720p. 3D from a PC is limited to 720p via HDMI.


1080p would only be advantageous for Blu-ray. 720p is actually _better_ for gaming.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20941491
> 
> 
> Interesting info. Looks like resolution should not be an issue.
> 
> 
> "Samsung showed off an impressively hi-res screen at Display Week in Los Angeles back in May. The 2560x1600 panel made for tablets measures 10.1 and offers lower power consumption than typical LCDs. Why? Samsung's PenTile technology used in AMOLED screens, developed in partnership with Nouvoyance, contains fewer sub-pixels than the average RGB LCD display."
> 
> http://www.tested.com/news/how-penti...s-better/2446/



They need to stop with Pentile, since it sucks.


----------



## Sunidrem

I understand that Sony is only putting out very small volumes of their OLED TVs, but I still find it odd that there is nothing about what fab they're using. For all the talk about Samsung's fabs, and all the talk about LG's grandiose talk about future fabs, Sony somehow seems to escape general notice.


In essence, above is a plea for minimal education. I'm sure that there's a bunch of stuff I'm missing in OLED, but this is a kind of big thing to be missing.


----------



## specuvestor

Not sure if LED backlit can be considered as LED display just as OLED backlit can be considered as OLED display. LGD probably need 4 3.5G substrate to make one 55" but higher tolerance for backlight quality I would think.


"- Both SMD and LGD developed 55" OLED TV


(1) SMD: SMS (small mask scanning) method


(2) LGD: W-OLED (White OLED) method


- SMD and LGD to announce the 55" OLED TV at FPD Japan Conference in Oct


- 8G AMOLED new lines to start production from 2012, earlier than expected" - Hyundai Securities



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> In other words, in your opinion what is the hot topic(s) of OLED research over the last two years?



The new manufacturing process of 8G plants and blue OLED half-life?


----------



## slacker711

Finally.


I had becoming a little disturbed by the lack of prototypes at the various shows. This lends some more credence to the various reports of the experimental Gen 8 fabs being built within the next year.


It will be interesting to hear about the comparative visual quality of the two approaches.


Slacker


----------



## slacker711

An in-depth look at the OLED industry from a Korean brokerage. There is quite a bit of information on possible manufacturing methods and the planned capacity expansion.

http://www.oled-info.com/files/Displ...08_final_1.pdf 


Slacker


----------



## Chronoptimist

I seem to have missed this comment last time I visited.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20895351
> 
> 
> The resolution is 285ppi which is the highest yet on an OLED. It might mean that Samsung is using LITI.



Sony are using 2560 PPI OLED screens in their new SLR viewfinders. (white OLED with RGB color filters) The screens are 0.5" with a 1024x768 resolution.


The new HMZ-T1 OLED panels (also white OLED with RGB color filters) are 0.7" 1280x720, which is 2098 PPI.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20967752
> 
> 
> Not sure if LED backlit can be considered as LED display just as OLED backlit can be considered as OLED display. LGD probably need 4 3.5G substrate to make one 55" but higher tolerance for backlight quality I would think.



If I am understanding your post correctly, you consider white OLED displays to be "OLED Backlit" ?


White OLED with RGB color filters actually eliminates a lot of the issues that RGB OLED has (such as uneven wear and response times) and should be easier to manufacture. They won't have as wide a gamut as RGB OLED, but should still cover Rec 709 without any problems.


They are still true OLED displays and not "OLED backlit" however, as each subpixel has its own white OLED pixel and there is not going to be any light bleeding between cells as you have with LED backlit displays where spreaders are required and they only have a fraction of zones compared to pixels. (e.g. 300 zones on a 2MP display with the new Elite LCDs)


----------



## specuvestor

^^ Correct, but I am not too sure if they can remove the TFT altogether and control each pixel independently due to the electric current issue we discussed many months back, on large screens. Nonetheless you can see the difference between the approach by Sammy and LG. As different as their approach in 3D










So now we know what LG mean when they say they will launch a 55" OLED TV next year. Like I said, the quality of OLED for "backlighting" should be less stringent than what Sammy is trying to do. But the positive should be that LG solution, like their 3D, should be cheaper.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20967752
> 
> 
> The new manufacturing process of 8G plants and blue OLED half-life?



Thanks for responding. Seems correct as I've collected as many papers as I can and so far I would list the following in order of focus:


1 - Scale up manufacturing (focus on lighting)

2 - Coating technologies

3 - Materials (focus on phosphorescent for lighting)


----------



## specuvestor

What coating technology for OLED are you referring to?


See slacker's link on KIS report which is a good summary for idiot investors like me










There is a change in manufacturing tech for 8G, and different approach to OLED TV by LG and Sammy. As per what we discussed, there is an electric current issue for large size OLED so you may be able to shed some insight on that











Frankly I am skeptical that 8G capex for Oxide+FMM is KRW4tr as per the KIS report when 5.5G is already >KRW2.5tr IIRC.


----------



## rogo

Slacker's link is interesting, although it contains an unbelievable amount of sell-side analyst drivel. There is so much hand waving past real problems, that one can only real the report as having been heavily influenced by the very companies they are promoting.


And they continue to make insane claims about the cost of OLED vs. LCD that are borne out in no reality. They presume LCD is a stationary cost picture and OLED is some completed, learning-curve-based cost down the road that is significantly lower.


They also make the idiotic claim that TV is "10x bigger market by area than mobile". While that might be true (I'm not going to actually sit and math it out, I'll accept it), it's not remotely true on value.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ yes it's a good *summary* and source for newsflow but korean reports are not known to be mathematically sensible










With a new product like OLED, I tend to just focus on the technology.


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/20963120
> 
> 
> I understand that Sony is only putting out very small volumes of their OLED TVs, but I still find it odd that there is nothing about what fab they're using. For all the talk about Samsung's fabs, and all the talk about LG's grandiose talk about future fabs, Sony somehow seems to escape general notice.
> 
> 
> In essence, above is a plea for minimal education. I'm sure that there's a bunch of stuff I'm missing in OLED, but this is a kind of big thing to be missing.



I'm not sure but I think Sony's panels are either manufactured by "Sony Mobile Display" (it has a G3.5 fab) or some labs.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20973448
> 
> 
> They also make the idiotic claim that TV is "10x bigger market by area than mobile". While that might be true (I'm not going to actually sit and math it out, I'll accept it), it's not remotely true on value.



The total markets by value arent 10x but the television market does dwarf the mobile handset display market. It is probably in the area of $100 billion to $15 billion.


Slacker


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20973514
> 
> 
> ^^ yes it's a good *summary* and source for newsflow but korean reports are not known to be mathematically sensible



Perhaps I should have caveated the post, brokerage reports as a whole tend to be drivel. You have to be able to pick and choose the information. I found the talk about the technology paths interesting as well the chart forecasting the near-term production capacity increases. Those are the kinds of things that a report can get right, but like you, I dont put much weight on their forecast of costs.


Slacker


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20973211
> 
> 
> What coating technology for OLED are you referring to?



OVPD, high volume evaporation, hybrid (solution+evaporation), solution coating, ink-jet....etc



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20973211
> 
> 
> See slacker's link on KIS report which is a good summary for idiot investors like me



I'm looking more for research activity trends and that link seemed more about market/product trends. I'll take another look. I do like the comparison between oxide-TFT and LTPS.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20973211
> 
> 
> There is a change in manufacturing tech for 8G, and different approach to OLED TV by LG and Sammy. As per what we discussed, there is an electric current issue for large size OLED so you may be able to shed some insight on that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly I am skeptical that 8G capex for Oxide+FMM is KRW4tr as per the KIS report when 5.5G is already >KRW2.5tr IIRC.



LOL, you guys are light years ahead of me on this topic. That is why I asked


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20973211
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly I am skeptical that 8G capex for Oxide+FMM is KRW4tr as per the KIS report when 5.5G is already >KRW2.5tr IIRC.



The big cost savings from Oxide-TFT is supposed to come from the fact that you would be able to reuse existing LCD equipment/lines. I tend to be skeptical of technologies that say they are just a simple "upgrade" from existing equipment. Those claims seem to rarely work out.


OTOH, they are supposed to solve the problems associated with large-area OLED's.


FWIW, an article on Oxide-TFT's.

http://displaydaily.com/2011/04/28/s...ground-shifts/ 


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20974405
> 
> 
> The big cost savings from Oxide-TFT is supposed to come from the fact that you would be able to reuse existing LCD equipment/lines.



Yes that was the gist of KIS report. They are assuming a low capex migration from LCD to OLED, yet oxide-TFT OLED has never been produced, hence I remain skeptical of their capex numbers.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20974405
> 
> 
> FWIW, an article on Oxide-TFT's.
> 
> http://displaydaily.com/2011/04/28/s...ground-shifts/



Think I posted this few months back as I remembered it was discussed way back with the thread starter Isochroma on (again) electric current transmission. But I didn't know IGZO is the same as Oxide TFT


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20974950
> 
> 
> Yes that was the gist of KIS report. They are assuming a low capex migration from LCD to OLED, yet oxide-TFT OLED has never been produced, hence I remain skeptical of their capex numbers.


 http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...100531/183076/ 

[SID] Sony Develops 11.7-inch Oxide Semiconductor TFT-driven OLED Panel


Just some extra information...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20973783
> 
> 
> The total markets by value arent 10x but the television market does dwarf the mobile handset display market. It is probably in the area of $100 billion to $15 billion.



Well, the global TV market is very approximately 200 million units. The value of the panels is them certainly skews toward small and given that 32-inch panels are running around $135 right now, I'm going to take a seriously wild guess and say that TV panels overall sell for an average of not more than $350. It's not likely that high, but that puts the value of the TV panel market at $70 billion.


It's hard to get much clarity on the value of smartphone screens, but most iSuppli teardowns put them at $20-23 depending on the screen and generation. Given the moves by Apple (resolution) and Samsung (AMOLED), the cost/value of those has actually been rising in recent years. The expectations were for around 470 million smartphones to ship this year. Let's just use $20 and we get $9 billion.


Of course, there is also the tablet market and the laptop market, which the report somehow ignores as not important -- a very odd decision. Sort of like deciding to compares automobiles to only unicycles, not also bicycles. Anyway, figure 40 million tablets this year conservatively with $65 display cost on average. That's another $2.6 billion this year.


Needless to say, if we add laptops as potential users of OLED, we'd get another several billion. But just looking at phones and tablets and considering their growth potential from this year's nearly $12 billion, that should reach a $20 billion year possible market by 2015 easily. TV is likely to remain at $70 billion, possibly creeping upwards to $75-80 billion. Keep in mind that TV growth is almost entirely predicated on emerging markets and the low end otherwise it will stay flat or shrink.


None of this renders slacker's point invalid; I just refined his guesstimates into slightly better math. But it renders the claim of the report pretty stupid as the actual ratio is 6:1 or so and declining not the 10:1 they claim. And furthermore, the opportunities for OLED in mobile are actually real. In TV, they are entirely theoretical right now.


----------



## mr. wally

it's official, just like rogo and i predicted, no ipad 3 in 2011.








actually i never predicted that, just rogo


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20974950
> 
> 
> Yes that was the gist of KIS report. They are assuming a low capex migration from LCD to OLED, yet oxide-TFT OLED has never been produced, hence I remain skeptical of their capex numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think I posted this few months back as I remembered it was discussed way back with the thread starter Isochroma on (again) electric current transmission. But I didn't know IGZO is the same as Oxide TFT



The problem with analyst reports like that is, again, they use terminology _they_ don't even understand. And then they abuse it.


IGZO has basically not been used in mass production. Yet a bunch of analysts in a white-collar office in Seoul have concluded it's going to be cheaper than all other TFT-LCD production used to date. Production which has 15 years of learning curve benefits behind it.


This kind of magic-bullet thinking is an embarrassment. It would be one thing if they describe all of this as possible. But instead, they more or less describe it as done.


Finally, there is something amazingly tantalizing in the article linked:


"Although oxide TFTs will certainly benefit very large LCD panels and LCD panels of any size with high pixel densities, they appear to be an essential enabling technology for AMOLED displays of medium (that is, tablet) and larger sizes. That means Sharp may not be the greatest beneficiary of its own technology, but that would be nothing new in the history of display development."


Sharp might not be pursuing OLED on its own. But then again, Sharp wasn't pursuing 10" tablet screens either. Then Apple came along. Now suddenly, Sharp is not only pursuing the latter, but also using it as a catalyst to make IGZO real.


Apple can't move to OLED unless there is someone else besides Samsung supplying a sufficient number of OLED panels (because they need two sources, not because of the legal wrangling). But Apple could invest whatever was needed into Sharp to get OLED production to happen. If, of course, it wanted such a thing.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> it's official, just like rogo and i predicted, no ipad 3 in 2011.
> 
> 
> actually i never predicted that, just rogo



FWIW I'm gunning for January announcement of ipad3. Bit ambitious (there's talks of VCM camera issue) but not impossible with TSMC sampling A6 as second source ramping 1Q.


Incidentally rumour of a low price iPhone been around past 6 months and looks high chance happening next 3 weeks. We just need to consider which rumour makes sense.


----------



## rogo

TSMC is the sole source of the A6. Samsung has been fired from chip making for Apple.


The iPad3 has almost no chance of being announced in January. I expect it around one year after iPad2.


And, yes, a cheap iPhone + the more expensive iPhone 5 seems all-but certain at this point.


The fascinating Apple 2012 variable actually is this: When will the LTE iPhone ship? Someone with insight on the Qualcomm lower-power baseband parts might help us out there. I recognize Samsung is doing thin 4G phones _now_, but I've seen and held one. First of all, they are in fact huge. Second of all, I doubt they'd meet Apple's battery-life requirements.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20976647
> 
> 
> Well, the global TV market is very approximately 200 million units. The value of the panels is them certainly skews toward small and given that 32-inch panels are running around $135 right now, I'm going to take a seriously wild guess and say that TV panels overall sell for an average of not more than $350. It's not likely that high, but that puts the value of the TV panel market at $70 billion.



The latest estimate for units is 250 million from DisplaySearch.

http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde...t_forecast.asp 


I couldnt find a revenue number but the television market was $100 billion in '09 and I dont think it has shrunk since then.



Slacker


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> TSMC is the sole source of the A6. Samsung has been fired from chip making for Apple.



Now THIS is unexpected news







AFAIK Sammy will still be doing the A5 and 70% of A6.


Apple would be taking huge risk with TSMC ramp. Volume of iPhone is not what it was 5 years ago with Samsung as sole foundry.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20977443
> 
> 
> Someone with insight on the Qualcomm lower-power baseband parts might help us out there. I recognize Samsung is doing thin 4G phones _now_, but I've seen and held one. First of all, they are in fact huge. Second of all, I doubt they'd meet Apple's battery-life requirements.



A baseband only 28nm LTE chip from Qualcomm is expected to sample later this year. I would expect it could show up in an iPhone launched in the 3rd quarter of next year.


The lack of LTE will be a bit of a problem for Apple in the US in 2012, but the rest of the world is way behind in terms of a broad roll-out. Apple can afford to wait.


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20977586
> 
> 
> The latest estimate for units is 250 million from DisplaySearch.
> 
> http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde...t_forecast.asp
> 
> 
> I couldnt find a revenue number but the television market was $100 billion in '09 and I dont think it has shrunk since then.
> 
> 
> 
> Slacker



That DisplaySearch item is from July and is seriously seriously out of date. LG and others have slashed the heck out of forecasts since then.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...reaking12.html 


If LG and others are slashing by 20%, then 250 million turns into 200 million.


Note please that my $70 billion figure is for TV panels, not TVs. It doesn't matter what TVs are worth, it matters what the panels are worth. The market for TV panels is not $100 billion. There is no math that can get it that high, even using 250 million TVs that would assume $400 ASP per panel, which is insanely off at this point.


----------



## rogo

Spec, every article on the A6 looks like this one:

http://venturebeat.com/2011/08/12/ap...oduction-tsmc/ 


or this one

http://www.intomobile.com/2011/09/19...a7-processors/ 


The clear statements are that Samsung is out and TSMC is in.


They could all but wrong, but they are pretty definitive.


----------



## specuvestor

They are right that TSMC is in, but I frankly can't see how you conclude that this means Sammy is out for A6? Marginalised yes, but out? They are not mutually exclusive and if Apple wants to dump Sammy it will likely be another 2 years to move them from primary to secondary source and then zilch. The links are in fact inline with why I think Jan launch of iPad2 is possible.


We had a discussion way back when the duo's legal battle just started that I said the biggest obstacle to OLED iPhones is the conflict of interest between the 2 and you said Sammy will not let it deteriorate as Apple is $10b of their revenue. I remember this because I actually went to check the $10b figure







So it is a bit ironic now that I think the duo's rocky relationship will continue for some time due to their mutual interest, while you're now on the other side










In fact Samsung LSI was a nobody foundry until Apple. And the talks is that because Samsung was a major shareholder of the semicon company that Apple bought (PA Semi?) that made ARM designs, and part of the agreement is that Samsung be made the foundry (probably for an unknown period of time but 3-5 years sounds probable). This made more sense when I asked Sammy last year why wouldn't Apple protest that they put an A8 processor in their tablet which rolls out from the same foundry.


----------



## Frank Benign

55" OLED. Really?
http://flatpanelshd.com/news.php?sub...&id=1316601940


----------



## DAB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Frank Benign* /forum/post/20979430
> 
> 
> 55" OLED. Really?
> http://flatpanelshd.com/news.php?sub...&id=1316601940



SAM & LG I want one.......

db


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Frank Benign* /forum/post/20979430
> 
> 
> 55" OLED. Really?
> http://flatpanelshd.com/news.php?sub...&id=1316601940



Is their 31" screen available yet? They said mid-2011 at CES.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ LG is having amnesia over the 31"










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Frank Benign* /forum/post/20979430
> 
> 
> 55" OLED. Really?
> http://flatpanelshd.com/news.php?sub...&id=1316601940



But as we discussed, LG and Sammy's 55" OLED TV implementation are very different

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post20967752 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20967752
> 
> 
> "- Both SMD and LGD developed 55" OLED TV
> 
> 
> (1) SMD: SMS (small mask scanning) method
> 
> 
> (2) LGD: W-OLED (White OLED) method
> 
> 
> - SMD and LGD to announce the 55" OLED TV at FPD Japan Conference in Oct
> 
> 
> - 8G AMOLED new lines to start production from 2012, earlier than expected" - Hyundai Securities


----------



## rogo

Spec, I concluded that Samsung was out because the articles all seemed to be written that way. But I went back to the Digitimes source and confess that even they don't write it that way. So perhaps it's being dual sourced. That actually makes sense on many levels given that Apple could need ~200 million of them over 12 months as they are massively expanding the iPhone market and the iPad market is still growing nicely.


As to LG and 55" OLEDs in 2012, if anyone is interested in that, I am also selling a steel suspension structure over New York's East River, built in the 1800s but still in remarkably good shape. Please send me a PM if you are interested in purchasing.


----------



## barry728

The Future of Display Technology

By the Casey Research Technology Team


The basic technology involved in delivering information in visual format (i.e., display technology) remained essentially unchanged for decades. Up until about the year 2000, whether you wanted to watch Monday Night Football on your TV or play SimCity on your PC, chances are you depended on a cathode ray tube (CRT). But in addition to being big, bulky power guzzlers, CRTs may also be deleterious to your general health. So consumers called for a revolution... and they got one.


In recent years, computer and TV screens have been reinvented over and over again at a dizzying speed. They've been made huge enough to serve a stadium full of football fans, and shrunk to the width of a cellphone. They give you better, sharper, more natural pictures, and they're more energy efficient. Chances are you have at least one flat-panel TV in your house.


First came plasma display panels (PDPs), the patent for which actually dates back to 1939, and then liquid crystal displays (LCDs), which quickly kicked their predecessor aside and came to dominate the display landscape. But PDPs and LCDs were only the beginning. And while those technologies are still improving (with 3D plasma TVs and LED backlit LCDs - also with 3D capabilities), it might not be long before they go the way of CRTs. Today, new technologies are poised to leapfrog the current standard with the promise of even thinner, lighter, more mobile, and more energy-efficient displays.


Organic Light-Emitting Diodes - OLEDs


As the name indicates, OLEDs derive their luminescence from organic molecules. Typically, the individual diode (a form of solid-state semiconductor) consists of two organic layers - one conductive, one emissive - sandwiched between the cathode and anode, with the whole package printed onto a suitable substrate that keeps the thing from falling apart.


The diodes in OLEDs are vanishingly small, between 100 and 500 nanometers in thickness (a human hair is 50,000 to 100,000 nanometers thick). But there's a lot - red, green, and blue light sources - packed in there.


Originally, OLEDs were created using small organic molecules, and this required an expensive manufacturing process called vacuum deposition. Since the early '90s, large organic molecules have usually been used. With these, the layers can quickly and easily be sprayed onto the substrate, in rows or columns, by an inkjet-like printer.


The result is a screen that can be scaled down to a thickness of a few millimeters. You'll be able to hang it on your wall and barely know it's there... or even stick it in your pocket.


No joke. OLEDs' ability to use a wide variety of materials for the substrate means that we're no longer going to be constrained by the limitations of glass. A flexible plastic screen could quite literally be rolled up and transported anywhere. And the multi-thumbed can take heart: Drop it and it doesn't shatter into a million pieces.




Sony's Prototype Vaio Notebook with Flexible OLED Screen


A further advantage is that - unlike LCDs - OLEDs don't require a backlight. This means they're more energy efficient (most of an LCD's power consumption goes into the backlight) and can render true deep blacks. They can achieve much higher contrast ratios, about 1,000,000:1. The refresh rate is 1,000 times quicker than with an LCD, making even the fastest motion blur-free. Distortion-free viewing angles are much greater. And eventually, bendable, transparent OLED screens could be stacked to produce 3D images.


One can even envision the newspaper of the future: an OLED that refreshes constantly with the latest news in real time. You could get the morning report on the ride to work (complete with visuals, of course, and audio - if it didn't overly annoy your seatmate), then you could fold it up and carry it around throughout the day in your briefcase, or slip it into your jacket pocket. Consult it whenever you like, wherever you happen to be. And get an end-of-day wrap-up on your way home.


OLEDs have been around for more than a decade but have only taken off within the past couple years. According to market research firm DisplaySearch, over 40 million active-matrix OLED phones shipped in 2010. And the technology is making its way into TVs too. Released in 2008, the Sony XEL-1 was the world's first OLED television. With the XEL-1 you got an 11-inch screen that's only 3 mm thick priced at around $2,500. It's still quite expensive to produce large screen OLEDs. But LG promises a 55-inch OLED TV in 2012. There's no word on how expensive this model might be but since the 31-inch model that is supposed to be released this year is rumored to be priced at $9,000, we wouldn't expect anything less than $15k for the 55-inch model.


Pico Projectors


One hot new display technology takes the issues of screen thickness and material composition out of the equation. It's a battery-powered, fully functional projector, capable of producing an image anywhere from 10 inches to 100 inches on a wall, ceiling, refrigerator door, or your forehead.


Dubbed Pico Projectors for their diminutive size (a picometer is 10^-12 or one-trillionth of a meter) compared to the common projectors of today, one of them will set you back anywhere from $100-$400. They can connect to a laptop, DVD player, video camera, still camera, smart phone, or iPad, and can decode all the popular formats, such as MPEG, JPEG, AVI, etc.


The first ones employed DLP technology with an LED light source replacing the high-intensity bulbs of larger projectors, but they suffered from low resolution, lack of brightness, mediocre color, and fuzziness in direct proportion to image size.


LCoS (liquid crystal on silicon) brought some improvements. But the laser-based projectors - like Microvision's SHOWWX+ - provide better colors and sharper, always-in-focus images. In the future, these projectors will come embedded directly into your smartphone, negating the need for another physical device.


On the Horizon


These aren't the only new display technologies on the horizon. In startups and research labs around the world, scientists are continuing to develop entirely new, cheaper, smaller, faster, brighter, and more energy-efficient ways to display information. These include quantum-dot displays (QDLEDs), which combine the best of organic and inorganic LEDS; and laser phosphor displays (LPDs), which could represent the next generation of large-format digital displays thanks to their efficiency and low cost of ownership.


Advertisement



Of course, the future of display technology also includes multitouch functionality in all devices, or some other sensing technology that interprets how you want to interact with the information you're given. For a couple ideas of where we're headed, here's a demonstration by Pattie Maes and Pranav Mistry from MIT displaying what their group calls "SixthSense." Lastly, just for fun, here's one more video about the future of display called A Day Made of Glass made possible by Corning. Obviously, it will take some time to get there, but the future of display does look exciting.


[Technology's expansion knows no bounds... but its profits do. Invest in the wrong company, or even the right company at the wrong time, and you could miss the boat completely. Don't let that happen to you; put our experts to work for you by subscribing now to Casey Extraordinary Technology. A ninety-day trial subscription is absolutely risk-free.]


----------



## slacker711

You have to take this with a large grain of salt since it is a Sony marketing video but it is still interesting to hear video professionals talk about OLED's versus their current CRT standard.

http://www.plusplasticelectronics.co...ews-39000.aspx 


Anybody with some big bucks want to step up and be the first on the block with a 25" OLED TV? Only $5500....awesome image quality, but you are definitely not getting the thinnest TV in the world.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...e_Monitor.html 


We are already getting close to 30" for sub-$5000 .


Slacker


----------



## slacker711

Oops, missed this one....a 17" OLED for $3650.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...e_Monitor.html 


Slacker


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20983578
> 
> 
> You have to take this with a large grain of salt since it is a Sony marketing video but it is still interesting to hear video professionals talk about OLED's versus their current CRT standard.
> 
> http://www.plusplasticelectronics.co...ews-39000.aspx
> 
> 
> Anybody with some big bucks want to step up and be the first on the block with a 25" OLED TV? Only $5500....awesome image quality, but you are definitely not getting the thinnest TV in the world.



I think if it had been out this time last year, I would have bought one of these instead of my HX900, despite being a quarter the size.


Interesting video too, thanks.



I can't wait for the HMZ-T1 to come out. Sony are the only company out there actually manufacturing OLED displays for high quality video reproduction (rather than just something for phones) and it is probably going to be the cheapest way to get a large OLED viewing experience at a reasonable cost any time in the next five years.


I'm not confident at all that LG will deliver on their 55" set in 2012, and if they do I'm sure that the cost will be exorbitant.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/20983807
> 
> 
> I can't wait for the HMZ-T1 to come out. Sony are the only company out there actually manufacturing OLED displays for high quality video reproduction (rather than just something for phones) and it is probably going to be the cheapest way to get a large OLED viewing experience at a reasonable cost any time in the next five years.
> 
> 
> I'm not confident at all that LG will deliver on their 55" set in 2012, and if they do I'm sure that the cost will be exorbitant.



There are a couple of conferences coming up where I think Sony will outline their approach to OLED's. This will be interesting to hear because they are hitting these prices on absolutely tiny volumes and without a commercial sized fab.


It bodes well for what Samsung may be able to do when they do ramp up a Gen 8 fab....and despite these prices, I still expect Samsung to be the key driver in televisions. That wont change until we hear that Sony is stepping up to spend the billions necessary for a fab.


Slacker


----------



## rogo

"A further advantage is that - unlike LCDs - OLEDs don't require a backlight."


True!


"This means they're more energy efficient"


Does not automatically follow. Why does crap like this continue to be written? The energy consumption on modern LCDs is ridiculously tiny (check the Energy Guide sticker on the 70" Sharp). Can OLED do better? Perhaps. Are the Samsung Galaxy S phones obliterating their completition's battery life? No.


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20984182
> 
> 
> There are a couple of conferences coming up where I think Sony will outline their approach to OLED's. This will be interesting to hear because they are hitting these prices on absolutely tiny volumes and without a commercial sized fab.
> 
> 
> It bodes well for what Samsung may be able to do when they do ramp up a Gen 8 fab....and despite these prices, I still expect Samsung to be the key driver in televisions. That wont change until we hear that Sony is stepping up to spend the billions necessary for a fab.
> 
> 
> Slacker



Ahh, great point re: Sony's prices being without using a commercial fab. Makes me excited again about this happening soon (I'll leave "soon" undefined so it's easier to meet that goal).


----------



## lovswr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barry728* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> One can even envision the newspaper of the future: an OLED that refreshes constantly with the latest news in real time. You could get the morning report on the ride to work



So this would be like the paper in the Harry Potter movies correct? Once again, any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.


----------



## rogo

I really don't see Sony going into fabbing OLED. Of course, they have no strategic plan for remaining relevant, so I could see them changing course. Here, again, Apple as sugar daddy would be interesting. Sony has spent 10 years chasing Apple and has gotten, well, absolutely positively nowhere.


The many billion-dollar question is whether anyone is really going to invest in this technology for TV. It remains an open-ended question, but the fact that Sharp has opened the door a crack to interesting ways in is intriguing.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20984918
> 
> 
> "A further advantage is that - unlike LCDs - OLEDs don't require a backlight."
> 
> 
> True!
> 
> 
> "This means they're more energy efficient"
> 
> 
> Does not automatically follow. Why does crap like this continue to be written? The energy consumption on modern LCDs is ridiculously tiny (check the Energy Guide sticker on the 70" Sharp). Can OLED do better? Perhaps. Are the Samsung Galaxy S phones obliterating their completition's battery life? No.



Content matters.


Yes, an OLED will do better than LCD's when showing most movies. That is particularly true now as Samsung is moving from a green fluorescent to phosphorescent material.


Another factor that may also impact the power consumption on a day to day basis is the fact that an OLED will appear brighter than a LCD even at the same given brightness. Something about how the eye perceives brightness is correlated with the contrast ratio of the display.


Slacker


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20985714
> 
> 
> The many billion-dollar question is whether anyone is really going to invest in this technology for TV. It remains an open-ended question, but the fact that Sharp has opened the door a crack to interesting ways in is intriguing.



Well, Samsung is making a Gen 8 pilot line. "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money."


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20984918
> 
> 
> "A further advantage is that - unlike LCDs - OLEDs don't require a backlight."
> 
> 
> True!
> 
> 
> "This means they're more energy efficient"
> 
> 
> Does not automatically follow. Why does crap like this continue to be written? The energy consumption on modern LCDs is ridiculously tiny (check the Energy Guide sticker on the 70" Sharp). Can OLED do better? Perhaps. Are the Samsung Galaxy S phones obliterating their completition's battery life? No.



Backlighting produces a lot of light because much of it gets blocked by layers. That's the nature of the beast. For the "pure" OLED, light is produced directly, and presumably little is lost thru blocking layers. That of course does not guarantee energy savings (less light produced, but other factors apply), but it certainly is a tantalizing thought.


Or am I all wet here?


----------



## rogo

@Slacker, it matters but not enough. On a 55" TV, the power consumption of an LCD TV is fairly negligible already. No one is making OLEDs allegedly lower power consumption a selling point when the Energy Guide on the LCD is $20 per year. And on the mobile phones, it's not showing up on anyone's battery-life testing, suggesting there is much more to life than the display. Again, not saying it doesn't matter, but it's not some "OMG" advantage.


@Sun, yes, a pilot line. One they could easily use to satisfy tablet production if "this TV thing doesn't pan out".


@Navy, Here's the thing, yes, to an extent. If the organic LED was as light efficient as the inorganic LED it would be a much bigger differential in favor of OLED. But it isn't. And there's two things eating power, the TFTs and the LEDs. Unfortunately, there are current-loss issues with OLED that don't exist on LED-backlit TFTs, not the mention lower luminous efficiency overall (partly because you have to illuminate every pixel separately on "true" OLED, on LCD, you illuminate the whole panel from a few sources on the display edge -- or a few spread out over the backplane).


I'm not saying OLED isn't technologically elegant in some ways. It's just technologically hideous in other ways. And part of that hideousness is why it currently exists on Samsung mobile phones, and pretty much nowhere else.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/20986467
> 
> 
> Backlighting produces a lot of light because much of it gets blocked by layers. That's the nature of the beast. For the "pure" OLED, light is produced directly, and presumably little is lost thru blocking layers. That of course does not guarantee energy savings (less light produced, but other factors apply), but it certainly is a tantalizing thought.
> 
> 
> Or am I all wet here?



IIRC light extraction in OLED displays was awful a few years ago and researches were focusing on ways to improve it (e.g. -reflective and patterned backplanes). Not sure on the current situation.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20986561
> 
> 
> @Slacker, it matters but not enough. On a 55" TV, the power consumption of an LCD TV is fairly negligible already. No one is making OLEDs allegedly lower power consumption a selling point when the Energy Guide on the LCD is $20 per year. And on the mobile phones, it's not showing up on anyone's battery-life testing, suggesting there is much more to life than the display. Again, not saying it doesn't matter, but it's not some "OMG" advantage.



I agree that power consumption isnt going to be a big factor in consumer TV buying decision.


That being said, it will be an advantage for OLED's (at least those without white/color filters). There is a huge variation in power consumption between watching an "average" movie and doing something like surfing the net.


Slacker


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20985714
> 
> 
> I really don't see Sony going into fabbing OLED. Of course, they have no strategic plan for remaining relevant, so I could see them changing course. Here, again, Apple as sugar daddy would be interesting. Sony has spent 10 years chasing Apple and has gotten, well, absolutely positively nowhere.
> 
> 
> The many billion-dollar question is whether anyone is really going to invest in this technology for TV. It remains an open-ended question, but the fact that Sharp has opened the door a crack to interesting ways in is intriguing.



I think it's a mistake to write off Sony, especially when you consider some of the things they have accomplished in recent years.


About five years ago, Sony decided to get into the DSLR market, determined to get to the number one position. Now that hasn't quite happened yet, but in the last year or two they have really shaken up the market with their unique SLT and NEX cameras. There is nothing else like these anywhere else in the camera world, and this year they have taken in user feedback (something none of the big camera makers typically do) and have made significant improvements to these products again, including high resolution OLED viewfinders compared to the crap low resolution LCD or single-chip SXRD viewfinders other cameras have.


They are firmly in the number three position worldwide (if I recall correctly) and have already overtaken Nikon for the number two spot in many markets, and the NEX cameras are doing extremely well in the Asian markets.


It's really amazing what they have accomplished in such a short time, because they were determined to do so.



In other markets, like the PC market, there is nothing like the Vaio Z series of notebooks, and once again they are bringing a big change by adding an optional external GPU for when you dock the machine at homesomething else that no-one else is doing.



They have shown commitment to OLED and now have the largest commercially available OLED displays with their new broadcast monitors, after releasing the first OLED TV back in 2008 and using OLED displays in their Walkman products long before they started showing up in phones.


For a couple of years, they were the only ones making LED backlit (rather than edge-lit) displays. They have always taken risks to provide unique experiences with things like the Qualia range.


After failed attempts in the past from other companies and themselves, they are returning to trying to bring HMDs to a mass-market now that the technology seems to have finally caught up to the idea. You never see companies like Samsung, LG or others willing to take a risk with things like this. You can bet that if it's even halfway successful that those companies will bring out clones within a year or two though.



Not everything they try succeeds, but they're one of the few companies out there that still seems to be trying new things and taking big risks.


I think it's a mistake to bet against them.


----------



## Holy bear

Sony is not going into OLED ? Sony is all in...at least the R&D power.


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/20984182
> 
> 
> There are a couple of conferences coming up where I think Sony will outline their approach to OLED's. This will be interesting to hear because they are hitting these prices on absolutely tiny volumes and without a commercial sized fab.
> 
> 
> It bodes well for what Samsung may be able to do when they do ramp up a Gen 8 fab....and despite these prices, I still expect Samsung to be the key driver in televisions. That wont change until we hear that Sony is stepping up to spend the billions necessary for a fab.
> 
> 
> Slacker



The panels used in Sony's HMD and new EVFs are manufactured by Sony Mobile Display at Higashiura Office , there is a G3.5 line there (back in 2008 Sony announced that it would invest 20billion yen to make the line capable of producing 20inch OLED panels , I assume it has been done) .
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...110830/197833/


----------



## specuvestor

This is my post in the 4k thread that sums up what Chronoptimist is saying:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Japanese has been starting products that they cannot push in the past 20 years. I wouldn't hold my breath for them.
> 
> 
> It will be some time before the Koreans and Taiwanese get into this band wagon when huge screens are more prevalent



I think it's a mistake to bet against Japanese innovations, but I will surely bet against their ability to mass adopt. Sony will be No 3 for a lot of things. That was not how I remember them when I was younger.


PS laptop docking station was the rage back during the dot com days and I think makes a lot of sense, with larger keyboard and display, while charging at the same time. I've been wondering why no one been doing that now nor why it isn't implemented for tablets. Maybe it makes too much sense


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/20987448
> 
> 
> I think it's a mistake to write off Sony, especially when you consider some of the things they have accomplished in recent years.



OK, you must be joking right?


> Quote:
> About five years ago, Sony decided to get into the DSLR market, determined to get to the number one position. Now that hasn't quite happened yet, but in the last year or two they have really shaken up the market with their unique SLT and NEX cameras.... They are firmly in the number three position worldwide.



So 5 years ago they decided to get into a tiny, niche market where being good at high-end gear matters. And... they aren't dominating it. So, wait, this means you weren't kidding. Wow.


> Quote:
> It's really amazing what they have accomplished in such a short time, because they were determined to do so.



In 5 years, HTC has gone from non-entity to bigger than Nokia and RIM. In 5 years, Google has gone from search-engine company to No. 1 global supplier of smartphone operating systems. In 5 years, Facebook has gone from about 20 million to 800 million users.


You are right, it's amazing what Sony has accomplished in 5 years.











> Quote:
> In other markets, like the PC market, there is nothing like the Vaio Z series of notebooks, and once again they are bringing a big change by adding an optional external GPU for when you dock the machine at home—something else that no-one else is doing.



And something the market could care less about. Sony is a non-entity in PCs. Has been since they entered the market. Newsflash: Separate GPUs are T.Rex and a comet is headed for the Yucatan. Yes, yes, they have a tiny niche market in gaming. And it's getting tinier.


> Quote:
> They have shown commitment to OLED and now have the largest commercially available OLED displays with their new broadcast monitors,



Outside of the broadcast division, they have shown no such commitment.


> Quote:
> ... after releasing the first OLED TV back in 2008



... after that, they appear to have ended their OLED TV efforts.



> Quote:
> For a couple of years, they were the only ones making LED backlit (rather than edge-lit) displays. They have always taken risks to provide unique experiences with things like the Qualia range.



So long as the risks don't actually involve making panels and actually pushing the technology. Oh, wait, LCOS, they pushed that. Then they abandoned it. Couldn't even supply spare parts (at least they made good for all the owners of Qualia TVs, in fairness).


> Quote:
> After failed attempts in the past from other companies and themselves, they are returning to trying to bring HMDs to a mass-market now that the technology seems to have finally caught up to the idea.



The idea is still bad and that product will fail like every head-mounted display before it. The vast majority of people can't wear HMDs for more than a few minutes and a vaster majority don't even want to try.



> Quote:
> You never see companies like Samsung, LG or others willing to take a risk with things like this.



Samsung is singlehandedly pushing AMOLED right now. They are the whole enchilada. If AMOLED is to make it to TVs this decade, _it will be thanks to Samsung_.


> Quote:
> You can bet that if it's even halfway successful that those companies will bring out clones within a year or two though.



(a) It won't be successful and (b) so what? Sony's last great product was, um, Walkman? Original PlayStation? Look, I'm no Sony hater, but get real. They are driving nothing in consumer electronics and haven't this millennium. Oh, wait, that's unfair, they gave us BluRay. But nothing about Sony's BluRay players is special, except the PS3, which is versatile and plays games. But it has the worst motion control of the 3 consoles (non-native like Wii, non-amazing like Kinect) and is really "just another console" in the era where consoles are going away.


And don't get me started on PSP Vita, which is about to be the most stillborn gaming launch since... oh, wait, PSP Go.




> Quote:
> Not everything they try succeeds, but they're one of the few companies out there that still seems to be trying new things and taking big risks.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to bet against them.



Sorry, again, I have to assume you are being funny here. First of all, nothing they try succeeds. Second of all, here are some risk takers: Apple does nothing but take big risks. Sharp just bet the entire display division on 70" displays when the other leading LCD makers couldn't manage (and still can't) to ship 65" in volume. Again, Samsung is basically doing OLED on their own. Microsoft is not often successful, but they did Kinect (fairly big risk), Windows Phone 7/Nokia deal (giant risk), Windows 8 (huge, huge risk). Third of all, the mistake is betting on Sony. The turnaround has been due for a decade.


(Disclaimer: I own a PS3, the only BluRay player I've ever used, which is also my Netflix player and my Vudu player. I game on it occasionally. I also use an HDMI-based Sony AVR, which has an annoying UI, but has served me very well and is getting replaced this year only because it is literally out of ports and doesn't overlay volume on the HDMI output, which is surprisingly annoying. I also had a 65HX929 on order and would doubtless have been happy with it, but I am concerned based on when I ordered it wouldn't come till 2012, so I canceled the order. So please don't waste your time calling me "biased against Sony".)


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20988040
> 
> 
> So 5 years ago they decided to get into a tiny, niche market where being good at high-end gear matters. And... they aren't dominating it. So, wait, this means you weren't kidding. Wow.



With 140 million sales in 2010, the camera market isn't that small. Sony have gained significant ground on well-established companies, taking third place worldwide and overtaking Nikon for the #2 spot in many individual markets. You can't expect them to enter a market where the major players have been there for over 50 years and take the #1 spot overnight.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20988040
> 
> http://i1105.photobucket.com/albums/.../Sony5year.jpg



Taking risks and releasing innovative products does not guarantee good sales. I'm much happier with someone willing to _try_ at least.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20988040
> 
> 
> And something the market could care less about. Sony is a non-entity in PCs. Has been since they entered the market. Newsflash: Separate GPUs are T.Rex and a comet is headed for the Yucatan. Yes, yes, they have a tiny niche market in gaming. And it's getting tinier.



Integrated GPUs are still useless for just about anything other than 2D content. Notebooks are moving towards smaller and lighter form-factors that rely on the integrated GPUs. The CPU power is still relatively good in machines like the MacBook Air, but the GPU is useless. Even if you aren't playing games, GPUs are used for many other tasks these days now with their compute abilities. With an external GPU, something like the MacBook Air could replace the need for a desktop machine to get more demanding tasks done for a lot of people.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20988040
> 
> 
> Outside of the broadcast division, they have shown no such commitment.



Broadcast or not, they're still the only company putting out OLED displays of that size.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20988040
> 
> 
> So long as the risks don't actually involve making panels and actually pushing the technology. Oh, wait, LCOS, they pushed that. Then they abandoned it. Couldn't even supply spare parts (at least they made good for all the owners of Qualia TVs, in fairness).



LCoS is still big in projection, both in the consumer and professional markets. RPTVs are a dead market. (and never took off outside USA)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20988040
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> is really "just another console" in the era where consoles are going away.



Consoles are going away, GPUs are dead? Gaming is a pretty big market that isn't just going to disappear.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20988040
> 
> 
> the mistake is betting on Sony. The turnaround has been due for a decade.



I never said to "bet on Sony" but Sony have been driving innovation in the display markets for decades and whether they're successful or not is immaterial.


The Qualia line may have failed, but they were the best displays you could buy if you had the money, and that technology trickled down into consumer displays a few years later.


They may only have larger OLED screens in the broadcast market right now, but it's more than anyone else has and it seems better for them to start out proving they can make high quality OLED displays than focusing on making them as cheaply as possible. (obviously getting the cost down is important for mass-market adoption though)


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/20988204
> 
> 
> With 140 million sales in 2010, the camera market isn't that small.



The digital SLR market is small, sir. The vast, vast, vast majority of digital cameras are not digital SLRs. And, by the way, Sony has competing in digital cameras since the beginning of the digital camera era. But let's focus on those SLRs for a second.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ra-models.html 
http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2011...are-yir-6.html 


"In the market for cameras with interchangeable lens, or single lens reflex cameras, Canon controlled 44.5 percent of the market, followed by Nikon with 29.8 percent and Sony with 11.9 percent, according to the data."


So in the 5 years you claim Sony has been focusing on the DSLR market, they have grabbed a _stunning_ 12 percent share. (In all digicams, Sony sits at #2 with a 17.9 percent share.)


Impressed? Well consider this.....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a1tNArNUlcUU 


"Aug. 24, 2006 (Bloomberg) -- Sony Corp., the world's second- biggest consumer electronics maker, won more than a fifth of Japan's digital single-lens reflex camera market in its debut month, claiming third place after Canon Inc. and Nikon Corp., a market researcher said."


And from August 2010:


"Furthermore, Sony enjoys around 20% market share in the SLR Japanese market in August 2010."


So in the first 4 years in Japan, they gained... zero share!


Just to be clear, I failed at Google-ing an accurate figure for 2010 DSLR sales, but it appears to be ~11 million.

http://bythom.com/2010predictions.htm 


So 5 years, 12% share, and this is helping Sony sell an amazing total of about 1.5 million cameras per year. It's a nice, little business that doesn't probably amount to $1 billion on their income statement.



> Quote:
> Integrated GPUs are still useless for just about anything other than 2D content.



Anandtech and everyone else disagrees with you. Running at lower settings they can play modern games just fine. Discrete GPUs are much better and are totally required for serious gamers. Serious gamers represent ~1% of the market.



> Quote:
> Notebooks are moving towards smaller and lighter form-factors that rely on the integrated GPUs. The CPU power is still relatively good in machines like the MacBook Air, but the GPU is useless. Even if you aren't playing games, GPUs are used for many other tasks these days now with their compute abilities.



I use a Macbook Air. I also have an integrated GPU HTPC. I also know a fair amount about GPU co-processing. The vast, vast majority of computers are built without a discrete GPU. And guess what? _The percentage is rising_. Plus, if Intel is to be believed, Ivy Bridge will add another 50+% to graphics performance.



> Quote:
> With an external GPU, something like the MacBook Air could replace the need for a desktop machine to get more demanding tasks done for a lot of people.



Guess what? Without it, it's already replacing the desktop machine. You are caught in John C. Dvorak's 1990s vision of computing, where everyone needs giant amounts of processing power. News flash: Almost no one does. Oh, also, Apple makes Macbook Pros with discrete GPUs that are equivalent to desktop cards from 2009 or so. Those meet the needs of about 80-90% of the people who "need" a GPU. And none of those GPUs in Macbook Airs (or HP Envys, or Toshiba Qosmios) are built into docking stations. Sony's solution is desperately searching for a problem.


> Quote:
> Broadcast or not, they're still the only company putting out OLED displays of that size.



Yes, and that's the only product on their OLED roadmap. It's not a consumer product. It's not being fabbed on a line that allows them to convert it into a commercial product. They have no announced or speculated-on plans to be in the OLED panel business for TV. It would take 2-3 years from now to change their mind _if they chose to and had the capital to_. They don't have the capital. They also don't have a TFT line to convert to IGZO and use for substrates.



> Quote:
> LCoS is still big in projection, both in the consumer and professional markets. RPTVs are a dead market. (and never took off outside USA)



Yes, Sony backed yet another dead end -- projection TV -- and blew up manufacturing both plasma and LCD. Good move, forward thinking. LCoS is "big" in projection if you mean "dwarfed by like 50:1 by DLP". If that's your definition of big then yes, it's big. It has 0% share in office projection, 0% share in education/corporate, 0% share in the low end, some share in home theater (much less than DLP), some share in commercial theater (less than DLP).


> Quote:
> Consoles are going away, GPUs are dead? Gaming is a pretty big market that isn't just going to disappear.



Funny, I don't recall suggesting gaming was going away. Again, your arguments would be persuasive if you paid attention to the market. Here are the facts from reality on the sad state of discrete GPUs. For example:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphic..._Analysts.html 
http://www.guru3d.com/news/nvidia-st...te-gpu-market/ 
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphic...ics_Cards.html 


"Jon Peddie Research's report also suggests the discrete GPU market as a whole is shrinking. Discrete graphics shipments slipped from 19.01 million units in the first quarter to 16.1 million in the second, and JPR expects total revenue from discrete graphics to be 33% lower this year than the last. JPR blames increasingly speedy integrated graphics, specifically those built into AMD's and Intel's latest CPUs, for the shift."


"Advanced Micro Devices has admitted inevitable: the decease of the market of graphics processing units as a result of high-performance offered by accelerated processing units (APUs) with built-in graphics engines. In the long run, parts of [graphics cards] business will be cannibalized and the low-end discrete GPUs will be replaced with Fusion-type products."


I'd call 33% lower revenue a market in free fall. What do you think is going to happen next year when Ivy Bridge comes out and the successors to Llano are out at AMD (I forget the code name)? Hint: It ain't going to cause people to want more discrete GPUs.


And your theory that most people can use a GPU, whatever merit is has, is pretty much ignored at AMD and Intel. They are basically both saying: High end GPUs? Sure, if you need 'em. Otherwise, we have you covered. The market agrees.


> Quote:
> "I never said to "bet on Sony" but Sony have been driving innovation in the display markets for decades and whether they're successful or not is immaterial."



No, this is just false. False false false. Sony drove innovation with the Trinitron. They did not drive innovation with RPTV. They did not drive innovation with microdisplay RPTV (see below on Qualia). They did not drive innovation on flat panels of either type. They had a couple of really nice products. So did Optoma. We don't call them a "driver of the industry". And it's not immaterial. By the same logic, you ought to credit Toshiba for its foolish SED venture and its more foolish attempt to win with HD-DVD. Gee, they tried! Toshiba will be gone from the CE landscape soon. Many believe Sony won't survive the decade at current rates.


> Quote:
> The Qualia line may have failed, but they were the best displays you could buy if you had the money, and that technology trickled down into consumer displays a few years later.



OK, this is ridiculous. By the time the RPTVs were out, DLP already owned the RPTV market and said market was dying to flat panels, which Sony punted on. By the time Sony had an affordable LED-backlit LCD, everyone did. Sony has had some nice LCDs. Until recently, with the HX929, I don't recall anyone thinking they had an industry-leading product in flat panels. And before they could even ship the HX929 65" flagship, Sharp outflanked them with a set this is bigger and apparently at least as good / comparable / possibly better.


> Quote:
> They may only have larger OLED screens in the broadcast market right now, but it's more than anyone else has and it seems better for them to start out proving they can make high quality OLED displays than focusing on making them as cheaply as possible. (obviously getting the cost down is important for mass-market adoption though)



That'd be relevant if they intended to do anything with their lead like build an 8G fab and make TVs. They don't have any intention of doing that. So who cares? There's a guy who can make D/IF synthetic white diamonds. He doesn't actually do it. Instead he makes yellows. The fact that he can make the valuable whites is irrelevant. Sony can't actually make OLED TVs even though it can make the equivalent of a few of those white D/IF diamonds.


(By the way, the diamond guy doesn't do it because DeBeers and the other diamond cartels would shoot him dead. Or his family. Or his partners and their families. Sony's problem is different. They lack any ambition to actually own the next generation of flat panels. And they lack the capital to do anything about that lack of ambition.)


Let me say, every round of this, I cite facts, data, etc. to back up my points. You then make sweeping, opinionated claims that the facts actually demonstrate are false or -- in the best case -- are merely unsupported. I'm getting fatigued so at some point, you'll get the last word. Please don't interpret that as me agreeing with you.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20988317
> 
> 
> Here are the facts from reality on the sad state of discrete GPUs. For example:
> 
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphic..._Analysts.html
> http://www.guru3d.com/news/nvidia-st...te-gpu-market/
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphic...ics_Cards.html
> 
> 
> "Jon Peddie Research's report also suggests the discrete GPU market as a whole is shrinking. Discrete graphics shipments slipped from 19.01 million units in the first quarter to 16.1 million in the second, and JPR expects total revenue from discrete graphics to be 33% lower this year than the last. JPR blames increasingly speedy integrated graphics, specifically those built into AMD's and Intel's latest CPUs, for the shift."



You may not be aware of this, but Intel sued Nvidia and they are no longer allowed to produce chipsets for their processors beyond the Core2 series. This is why Apple stuck with Core2Duo processors for so long in the smaller MacBooks, because it was the only way to get half-decent GPU performance. No low-end machine or smaller portables are going to have dedicated GPUs now because Intel has basically made it impossible. _That_ is why they are disappearing.


After almost a year, the 2011 MacBook Pro revision brought _worse_ GPU performance in modern titles. A 50% increase in GPU performance with Ivy Bridge is still terrible performance compared to modern GPUs. (Apple has a habit of being a generation or so behind everyone else) At least they will finally support OpenCL next year.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by * http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/18 * /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> this is the first Apple portable with Intel graphics in over two years. What does this mean for graphics performance?
> 
> 
> Bad things. See, when Jarred looked at HD 3000 in our SNB mobile testbed, he found that it was a bit faster than the 320M at low settings, and a little bit slower at medium settings. The i5-2415M has the same specs as our testbed, with 12 execution units with a max clock speed of 1300MHz. Given the gaming performance from our Sandy Bridge review, I was actually pretty optimistic that the new 13" MacBook Pro's graphics weren't actually worse than the outgoing models.
> 
> 
> Oh how I wish I wasn't wrong. 3DMark scores go down about 20% relative to the SNB testbed and stay within 10% of the old MBP. So far, so mediocre.



---



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20988317
> 
> 
> They did not drive innovation on flat panels of either type.



The first RGB LED backlit LCD way back in 2004, long before everyone else.

The first wide gamut LCD TVs with BRAVIA in 2005 when other TVs couldn't even reach Rec 709.

The first local-dimming LCDs with the XBR8 in 2008.

The first (I believe) edge-lit LCD with the XBR9.

They developed a new UV-curing optical elasticity resin suitable for large displays to eliminate the air gap between the front of the LCD panel and edge-to-edge glass, eliminating internal reflections and the contrast reduction they cause with the HX/LX900. (Opticontrast) Virtually any other display which has another surface over it, whether it's your watch, digital camera, iPad, MacBook, iMac or the TVs that the likes of LG and Panasonic make, have nothing between the front surface of the display and the glass, reducing display quality considerably. (the iPhone 4 is possibly the only exception to this as it is bonded to the digitiser & screen.)


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/20988516
> 
> 
> You may not be aware of this, but Intel sued Nvidia and they are no longer allowed to produce chipsets for their processors beyond the Core2 series. This is why Apple stuck with Core2Duo processors for so long in the smaller MacBooks, because it was the only way to get half-decent GPU performance. No low-end machine or smaller portables are going to have dedicated GPUs now because Intel has basically made it impossible. _That_ is why they are disappearing.



I am well aware of that. Sandy Bridge Macbook Airs, however, play fairly recent games at OK FPS with middling settings. _They are not for hardcore gamers_ but your implied claim they can't be used for games is false. Don't believe me? Read Anandtech.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4528/t...-13inch-review 


"At 1280 x 720, the HD 3000 is fast enough for *today's* Mac games:"


45+ fps on HalfLife 2 test, 40+ fps on the GPU bench test on Starcraft, ~30 on Portal 2


"While gaming is possible on both Air models, it's far from ideal. Apple definitely fixed the CPU performance with the new Air, but through no fault of its own failed to address GPU performance. Intel seems committed to taking GPU performance seriously, let's hope we actually see that in the coming years."


So, add in 50+% for Ivy Bridge and, well, voila, you have a pretty decent gaming platform. Again, *I am in no way suggesting this will be sufficient for hardcore gamers*, not in 2012, 2013 or 2014. There is a a market for dedicated GPUs, just like there is a small -- but real -- market for DSLRs among the giant camera market.


It's funny, by the way, you cited the camera market stats of ~140 million, which we've established is about 11 million DSLR. The real camera market is around 400 million, as most smartphones are used as cameras occasionally. The dedicated camera market is shrinking at this point; but the DSLR market will probably remain _about that size_ for several years to come. People who want the high end form important niches of the business, but they are niches.



> Quote:
> The first RGB LED backlit LCD way back in 2004, long before everyone else.
> 
> The first wide gamut LCD TVs with BRAVIA in 2005 when other TVs couldn't even reach Rec 709.
> 
> The first local-dimming LCDs with the XBR8 in 2008.
> 
> The first (I believe) edge-lit LCD with the XBR9.
> 
> They developed a new UV-curing optical elasticity resin suitable for large displays to eliminate the air gap between the front of the LCD panel and edge-to-edge glass, eliminating internal reflections and the contrast reduction they cause with the HX/LX900. (Opticontrast) Virtually any other display which has another surface over it, whether it's your watch, digital camera, iPad, MacBook, iMac or the TVs that the likes of LG and Panasonic make, have nothing between the front surface of the display and the glass, reducing display quality considerably. (the iPhone 4 is possibly the only exception to this as it is bonded to the digitiser & screen.)



This sounds like an impressive list. I still will tell you no one considers Sony a driver of the display industry on the consumer side, save Sony fanboys like yourself.


I can't speak to many of those, but a few. Sony's first backlit LCD was a disaster. It used obscene amount of power, it didn't use white LEDs (if memory serves), it was ridiculously expensive (like $13000?). And while you credit them for somehow being important here, _they abandoned the product and the product line almost as fast as it came to market_. In your world, that's an innovation driver and someone "not to count out". In the business world, they are a combo of a has been, a poser, and a failure.


Sony does apparently get credit for edge-lit LCDs, which has to be the worst innovation in TV in the HD era. You like bad uniformity? Thank edge lighting. Flashlighting? Thank edge lighting. Clouding? Thank edge lighting. And what do we get in return? Well, they aren't really much cheaper -- look at how cheap a full array 70" set can be (Sharp 73x series). They are maybe slightly thinner -- but is anyone complaining about how fat the HX929 is?!? Like, um, wow Sony. Thanks for edge lighting. Woot.


Let's pretend your point about them having the first local-dimming set is true (I don't dispute it, I'm just not sure). So that was 2008. Local dimming rocks. Now let's compare a real company to Sony.


Real company: We have this cool technology on the high end; let's make it less expensive so we can roll it out across more products and give ourselves a competitive advantage.


Sony: Let's keep this technology limited to like 1 expensive model / line per year so almost no one even knows it exists or is beneficial.


I mean you're saying they had one of these out 3 years ago? And in 2011, the best they can do is the HX929 series _only_. And they fail to ship the flagship model of said TV before Thanksgiving? Yep, they are driving the industry -- right off a cliff.


People don't love this Opticontrast thing as much as you appear to. Some people like it a lot, some people don't like it a lot. Is it new? Yes. Does it have problems? The infamous "crease" for example? Some people thinking there are reflectivity/glare issues? Check, check and check.


Find me some industry trade references about Sony driving the TV industry and I'll acknowledge that there are people who still believe this. Given they were/are:


1) Late to flat panels and pass on making panels of all techs (including OLED)

2) Doing nothing special in 3-D, which is expected to be a major catalyst for the industry this decade (even though I may personally hate it)

3) Unable to demonstrate their products have meaningful competitive advantages at almost any point on the price/value curve (55HX929 with the much lower pricing is probably the exception)

4) Losing market share

5) Considering outsourcing more and more of their production and even design


... the notion they are important to the TV industry is patently ridiculous.


----------



## mr. wally

methinks your faith in sony misplaced it is.


sony is floundering. they've lost money on their display division for 8 straight years. they had the #1 gaming console and now it is #3. they used to dominate music listening formats but that is long gone. they're not aggressively pursuing oled, even though they should be. their vaio computers are too expensive to make up much of the pc market and do they have a table out yet? their smart phones are non-competitive compared to what apple, htc, and sammy offer. they only make lcd/led tvs when their major competitors sell pdp in addition to lcds and are apparantly willing to invest billions to develop oled. sony is only treading water in all these consumer product fields, and if anything, they are slowly falling further behind.


their only 2 stable business lines is their professional equipment and sony/columbia studios.


so no i would bet on apple, google, and samsung before ever considering wagering on sony's future.


----------



## Lord Humongous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/20988516
> 
> 
> You may not be aware of this, but Intel sued Nvidia and they are no longer allowed to produce chipsets for their processors beyond the Core2 series. This is why Apple stuck with Core2Duo processors for so long in the smaller MacBooks, because it was the only way to get half-decent GPU performance. No low-end machine or smaller portables are going to have dedicated GPUs now because Intel has basically made it impossible. _That_ is why they are disappearing.



Ahem. It just means that any portable machine will have AMD graphics. AMD's integrated chipsets have always had way better graphics performance than Intels truly awful GMA series (where much of the "GPU" actually consists of software running on the CPU!). Today the integrated chipset is on its way out since GPUs are now integrated on the CPU die. As before, AMD's products are faster than Intels.


The thing that kills external GPUs in portables is power consumption, portables have to live off battery power and even low to lower middle range desktop GPUs like the 6770/450 consume about 100 watt. And modern CPUs intended for portables have the equvivalent to a bottom range GPU integrated on the die. So there is just no point unless you are designing a portable machine intended to be used connected to the power grid.


----------



## dsinger




rogo said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/20988516
> 
> 
> You may not be aware of this, but Intel sued Nvidia and they are no longer allowed to produce chipsets for their processors beyond the Core2 series. This is why Apple stuck with Core2Duo processors for so long in the smaller MacBooks, because it was the only way to get half-decent GPU performance. No low-end machine or smaller portables are going to have dedicated GPUs now because Intel has basically made it impossible. _That_ is why they are disappearing.
> 
> 
> This sounds like an impressive list. I still will tell you no one considers Sony a driver of the display industry on the consumer side, save Sony fanboys like yourself.
> 
> 
> I can't speak to many of those, but a few. Sony's first backlit LCD was a disaster. It used obscene amount of power, it didn't use white LEDs (if memory serves), it was ridiculously expensive (like $13000?). And while you credit them for somehow being important here, _they abandoned the product and the product line almost as fast as it came to market_. In your world, that's an innovation driver and someone "not to count out". In the business world, they are a combo of a has been, a poser, and a failure.
> 
> 
> Sony does apparently get credit for edge-lit LCDs, which has to be the worst innovation in TV in the HD era. You like bad uniformity? Thank edge lighting. Flashlighting? Thank edge lighting. Clouding? Thank edge lighting. And what do we get in return? Well, they aren't really much cheaper -- look at how cheap a full array 70" set can be (Sharp 73x series). They are maybe slightly thinner -- but is anyone complaining about how fat the HX929 is?!? Like, um, wow Sony. Thanks for edge lighting. Woot.
> 
> 
> Let's pretend your point about them having the first local-dimming set is true (I don't dispute it, I'm just not sure). So that was 2008. Local dimming rocks. Now let's compare a real company to Sony.
> 
> 
> Real company: We have this cool technology on the high end; let's make it less expensive so we can roll it out across more products and give ourselves a competitive advantage.
> 
> 
> Sony: Let's keep this technology limited to like 1 expensive model / line per year so almost no one even knows it exists or is beneficial.
> 
> 
> I mean you're saying they had one of these out 3 years ago? And in 2011, the best they can do is the HX929 series _only_. And they fail to ship the flagship model of said TV before Thanksgiving? Yep, they are driving the industry -- right off a cliff.
> 
> 
> People don't love this Opticontrast thing as much as you appear to. Some people like it a lot, some people don't like it a lot. Is it new? Yes. Does it have problems? The infamous "crease" for example? Some people thinking there are reflectivity/glare issues? Check, check and check.
> 
> 
> Find me some industry trade references about Sony driving the TV industry and I'll acknowledge that there are people who still believe this. Given they were/are:
> 
> 
> 1) Late to flat panels and pass on making panels of all techs (including OLED)
> 
> 2) Doing nothing special in 3-D, which is expected to be a major catalyst for the industry this decade (even though I may personally hate it)
> 
> 3) Unable to demonstrate their products have meaningful competitive advantages at almost any point on the price/value curve (55HX929 with the much lower pricing is probably the exception)
> 
> 4) Losing market share
> 
> 5) Considering outsourcing more and more of their production and even design
> 
> 
> ... the notion they are important to the TV industry is patently ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we take it you do not hold Sony in high regard?
Click to expand...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger* /forum/post/20990824
> 
> 
> 
> Can we take it you do not hold Sony in high regard?



You clearly missed my disclaimer in a previous post. I'll re-include it here:


"(Disclaimer: I own a PS3, the only BluRay player I've ever used, which is also my Netflix player and my Vudu player. I game on it occasionally. I also use an HDMI-based Sony AVR, which has an annoying UI, but has served me very well and is getting replaced this year only because it is literally out of ports and doesn't overlay volume on the HDMI output, which is surprisingly annoying. I also had a 65HX929 on order and would doubtless have been happy with it, but I am concerned based on when I ordered it wouldn't come till 2012, so I canceled the order. So please don't waste your time calling me "biased against Sony".)"


I am speaking _very objectively_ about Sony. People who love Sony because it was once a great company have a tough time acknowledging reality. But Sony is no longer a great company. It's a once-great company that is struggling to stay alive, leading no segment of the industry, losing brand equity with an entire generation. This is reality. Grim, hard reality.


Clearly, my continued purchases and use of Sony goods should tell you something about my hope that Sony remains around and finds it way again. That my next TV appears _not_ to be a Sony due to these delays, however, speaks volumes. Had Sony actually been a panel manufacturer, they'd control the supply chain, they'd have 65" TVs, I'd already be watching my new 65HX929, etc. etc.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20990342
> 
> 
> "At 1280 x 720, the HD 3000 is fast enough for *today's* Mac games:"
> 
> 
> 45+ fps on HalfLife 2 test, 40+ fps on the GPU bench test on Starcraft, ~30 on Portal 2



Wow, it can play a 7 year old game at 45 fps on low settings at a resolution that no Mac uses. very impressive.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20990342
> 
> 
> I can't speak to many of those, but a few. Sony's first backlit LCD was a disaster. It used obscene amount of power, it didn't use white LEDs (if memory serves), it was ridiculously expensive (like $13000?). And while you credit them for somehow being important here, _they abandoned the product and the product line almost as fast as it came to market_. In your world, that's an innovation driver and someone "not to count out". In the business world, they are a combo of a has been, a poser, and a failure.



Qualia was shuttered in 2006 in USA, the KDX-46Q005 was launched mid-2004. As I have been saying all along, Sony were there first, and have been driving innovation with their high-end products. That says nothing about their success. If anything, what Sony has proven time and time again is that there isn't much in the way of a high end market for AV. That does not mean the products were bad.


If you can't see the impact that Sony's high end products have had, despite their innovations trickling down into other products, and being copied by other manufacturers, then I don't know what to say.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20990342
> 
> 
> Real company: We have this cool technology on the high end; let's make it less expensive so we can roll it out across more products and give ourselves a competitive advantage.
> 
> 
> Sony: Let's keep this technology limited to like 1 expensive model / line per year so almost no one even knows it exists or is beneficial.



What you fail to grasp, is that Sony is one of the few companies out there that still offers a high-end range of products for those that can afford them, when companies like Samsung and LG are simply in a race to the bottom.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20990342
> 
> 
> People don't love this Opticontrast thing as much as you appear to. Some people like it a lot, some people don't like it a lot. Is it new? Yes. Does it have problems? The infamous "crease" for example?



This is a result of the 929 being a cost-reduced 909 and the introduction of Corning's Gorilla Glass.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20990342
> 
> 
> 1) Late to flat panels and pass on making panels of all techs (including OLED)



Late to OLED, despite having the first OLED TV on the market, the largest OLED products currently for sale, and being the first to use OLED on portable media players with their Walkmans.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20990342
> 
> 
> 2) Doing nothing special in 3-D, which is expected to be a major catalyst for the industry this decade (even though I may personally hate it)



Being a content producer, making projectors used in theatres, making broadcast monitors for content to be produced on, having the brightest active shutter system last year with their uniue single-polarised glasses system, creating and encouraging 3D content with games on their PlayStation console. Nope, not doing anything for 3D.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lord Humongous* /forum/post/20990610
> 
> 
> Ahem. It just means that any portable machine will have AMD graphics. AMD's integrated chipsets have always had way better graphics performance than Intels truly awful GMA series (where much of the "GPU" actually consists of software running on the CPU!). Today the integrated chipset is on its way out since GPUs are now integrated on the CPU die. As before, AMD's products are faster than Intels.



AMD are busy with their own CPUs, they don't make chipsets for Intel's processor platforms. That's why we're now moving backwards—the GPU used in Apple's 2010 MacBook Pros was already out of date, and this year performance stood still. Next year, we might see a 50% performance increase on an outdated platform, fantastic.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lord Humongous* /forum/post/20990610
> 
> 
> The thing that kills external GPUs in portables is power consumption, portables have to live off battery power and even low to lower middle range desktop GPUs like the 6770/450 consume about 100 watt. And modern CPUs intended for portables have the equvivalent to a bottom range GPU integrated on the die. So there is just no point unless you are designing a portable machine intended to be used connected to the power grid.



…and the whole point of the external GPU is that you dock the machine when you get home and are plugged into the wall, having the power of a 200W GPU at your disposal rather than a 10W one that isn't much good for anything. This is just an extension of what Apple are pushing with their Thunderbolt display.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/20991718
> 
> 
> Wow, it can play a 7 year old game at 45 fps on low settings at a resolution that no Mac uses. very impressive.



I like the way you selectively ignored the fact that the _leading_ online publication evaluating computers said it can play modern games. So I'll repeat it for your trollbait: ""At 1280 x 720, the HD 3000 is fast enough for *today's* Mac games""


> Quote:
> Qualia was shuttered in 2006 in USA, the KDX-46Q005 was launched mid-2004. As I have been saying all along, Sony were there first, and have been driving innovation with their high-end products. That says nothing about their success. If anything, what Sony has proven time and time again is that there isn't much in the way of a high end market for AV. That does not mean the products were bad.



Post hoc, ergo propter hoc again, eh? They _were_ there first. They have not been "driving innovation" since. You are finally correct in something, however. They have proved there isn't much in the way of a high-end market. To the extent there is one, they don't capture much of it. Their market share is bad in projectors, their market share in infinitesimal in high-end audio.


> Quote:
> If you can't see the impact that Sony's high end products have had, despite their innovations trickling down into other products, and being copied by other manufacturers, then I don't know what to say.



You presume inaccurately that people are copying Sony. And, yes, again, you've made an accurate point: You don't know what to say. I've made like 100 points in this discussions, you've refuted maybe 5. You claim Sony is an innovator and driving force, *but no one covering the industry agrees with you*.


> Quote:
> What you fail to grasp, is that Sony is one of the few companies out there that still offers a high-end range of products for those that can afford them, when companies like Samsung and LG are simply in a race to the bottom.



I see. Sony being in Costco and outsourcing all their TV production is unimportant proves they aren't in the race to the bottom huh? Sony shutting down Qualia 5 years ago shows they're not in the race? It's a shame I don't use drugs, I'd ask you what you were smoking. Sony is losing the race to the bottom. But they are very much in it.


As for the high end, I suggest you look at their non-presence in audio, their minimal impact on projectors, their loss of the high-end panel market to Sharp by failing to deliver the 65" in a timely fashion. Add up their presence in the high end and you can get a pile of nothing. Except, of course, for your vaunted low-double-digit share of DSLR and 3rd place!.


> Quote:
> Late to OLED, despite having the first OLED TV on the market, the largest OLED products currently for sale, and being the first to use OLED on portable media players with their Walkmans.



See this is where you don't get it. They _already_ have given up on OLED. They're out. No fab. No plans for one. No research of any meaning. Samsung owns AMOLED. Period. If it's in TV you can buy in 2015, thank Samsung. Not Sony.


> Quote:
> Being a content producer, making projectors used in theatres, making broadcast monitors for content to be produced on, having the brightest active shutter system last year with their uniue single-polarised glasses system, creating and encouraging 3D content with games on their PlayStation console. Nope, not doing anything for 3D.



This year, they apparently lead the market in crosstalk on their 3D. Awesome. They are doing nothing to bring passive to market, unlike Samsung and LG, who understand passive is the future. The fact they have a studio is, well, another matter. I'm all for Sony Pictures, but let's not pretend there is some magic synergy between Sony Pictures and Sony Electronics. There never has been much.


> Quote:
> AMD are busy with their own CPUs, they don't make chipsets for Intel's processor platforms. That's why we're now moving backwardsthe GPU used in Apple's 2010 MacBook Pros was already out of date, and this year performance stood still. Next year, we might see a 50% performance increase on an outdated platform, fantastic.



You are clueless. The future is performance per watt, not useless 3DMark benchmarks that benefit 1% of the market. The high-end is already served just fine by the discrete GPU market. They are also a rare breed, a tiny part of the business. _That part of the business is not driving the rest of the business anymore than DSLR is driving the improvement in cellphone cameras_.


Get over it.


> Quote:
> and the whole point of the external GPU is that you dock the machine when you get home and are plugged into the wall, having the power of a 200W GPU at your disposal rather than a 10W one that isn't much good for anything. This is just an extension of what Apple are pushing with their Thunderbolt display.



I've seen the solution you are talking about. It will never sell 1 million units, cumulatively. Ever. Worldwide. Do you understand that? And every year, the integrated GPUs get better, shrinking the % of the market that wants discrete from tiny to tinier to tinier still. There is no chance the discrete GPU market will ever grow again as a percentage of the total. Do you grasp that? That's reality.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20991939
> 
> 
> I like the way you selectively ignored the fact that the _leading_ online publication evaluating computers said it can play modern games. So I'll repeat it for your trollbait: ""At 1280 x 720, the HD 3000 is fast enough for *today's* Mac games""



And there are no Macs with 1280x720 screens. The MacBook Air, Apple's entry-level notebook, starts at 1366x768, almost 15% more resolution.


The Half-Life 2 Source engine (which both HL2 and Portal run on) is seven years old.

Blizzard specifically build their games for older computers with Starcraft II. If anything they are going backwards as the upcoming Diablo III looks worse than Starcraft II. Hardly taxing the system.


I personally had one of the 2010 MBPs with the Nvidia 330M graphics (faster than the HD3000 by all accounts) and it absolutely could not run any modern games, so I don't see how the slower 3000 could.


No modern game is going to run well on those notebooks, and will look _terrible_ on the lowest settings. A 50% increase is not nearly enough to fix that.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20991939
> 
> 
> See this is where you don't get it. They _already_ have given up on OLED. They're out. No fab. No plans for one. No research of any meaning. Samsung owns AMOLED. Period. If it's in TV you can buy in 2015, thank Samsung. Not Sony.



As the only company out there releasing products that are not cell phones using OLED screens, it seems a strange thing to say that they have given up on OLED.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20991939
> 
> 
> You are clueless. The future is performance per watt, not useless 3DMark benchmarks that benefit 1% of the market.



Of course performance per watt is important, but desktop parts still beat notebook parts in that metric. And as good as performance per watt gets, a 10W notebook part is never going to compete with a 200W desktop part.


If the future is having an ultraportable notebook that you dock to a large display when you get home, an external GPU is part of that. Whether Sony have that right yet, is beside the point, my point was that it's another first from them, and they are willing to _try_.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20991939
> 
> _That part of the business is not driving the rest of the business anymore than DSLR is driving the improvement in cellphone cameras_.



Oh, and who is driving innovation in the cellphone camera business with their back-illuminated CMOS sensors for mobile phones? They also make all the sensors used in Nikon SLRs as well as many others such as Pentax.


Even aside from their own cameras, Sony is huge in the camera sensor business too. Guess who is supplying the camera module for the iPhone 5.


----------



## rogo

OK, stop. Seriously. Stop.


Anandtech says you can run modern games. You don't. Point? Anandtech. Not you.


Sony has no plans to build an OLED fab for TV. They are not researching the technologies needed to manufacturer OLED TVs. Period. Samsung is. LG is (to a lesser extent). Sony is not. Point me.


The future is 10w parts, period. There will not be 200w parts, except in some tiny niches of the market. That's the future. There is no future for GPUs in docking stations. No one has ever used docking stations. They are a technogeek product that has been theoretical desirable for close to 15 years and has never exhibited good sales. Even port replicators have a tough time selling these days. Just stop. Sony will never sell 1 million GPU-equipped docking stations. Ever. Point me.


Bravo, Sony's CMOS division is doing a great job. Point you.


Score, me 1 million, Anandtech 10 million, you, 5. Game over. Congratulations you were not shut out.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20992644
> 
> 
> Anandtech says you can run modern games. You don't. Point? Anandtech. Not you.



None of the benchmarks they do at the display's native resolution are at playable framerates.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20992644
> 
> 
> No one has ever used docking stations. They are a technogeek product that has been theoretical desirable for close to 15 years and has never exhibited good sales. Even port replicators have a tough time selling these days.


 Yep, terrible idea. It'll never catch on.


----------



## rogo

Things like the Apple display are _further proof_ that add-on docking stations -- like the "innovative" Sony product you tout -- are 100% dead on arrival.


No one is going to buy a docking station to put between their Air and their Thunderbolt monitor. Especially when like 1-5% of buyers are ever going to care about the graphics horsepower being an issue. And whatever that percentage really is (I suspect it's closer to 1% based on how few Windows laptops have discrete GPUs and how laptops thoroughly obliterate desktop sales in markets where people get to choose), it's going _down every single year from now until the end of time_.


There will never be a year when (the number of people demanding / requiring / buying a discrete GPU-based system + more ludicrously, an add-on GPU that you plug in through a port) will = a higher % of the market than it was the year before. That's real.


New score update, me 1 million and 1, you 4, for making ridiculous comparisons to Sony's GPU dock and Apple's monitor. I have retired you from this competition at a deficit of 999,997. Thank you for playing.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> See this is where you don't get it. They already have given up on OLED. They're out. No fab. No plans for one. No research of any meaning. Samsung owns AMOLED. Period. If it's in TV you can buy in 2015, thank Samsung. Not Sony.



Now here you are going way too far. They dont have any announced plans for a fab but they are doing heavy research into exactly the areas that would be necessary to build a fab. They have also clearly made some progress. I know neither of us predicted that they would have a 25" OLED televsion for $5500 in 2011.


Check out their presentations at FPD International in October.

http://expo.nikkeibp.co.jp/fpd/2011/english/forum/B/ 


There are far fewer leaks out of Japan than Korea so we dont have a clear picture on how well Sony is doing and what their plans are for a commercial fab. Hell, we dont even know what processes/fabs they are using for their professional televisions.


I dont expect them to be first, but I do think they are pursuing plans to ultimately have an OLED fab. Whether they will be successful or not is an open question.


Slacker


----------



## Holy bear

No fab. No plans for one. No research of any meaning.


Sony has a Gen 3.5 line......


Sony announces new OLED panels almost every year (rollable oled in 2010 , Vacuum deposition/print hybrid oled in 2011 )....


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/20990394
> 
> 
> they're not aggressively pursuing oled



Sony is not making OLED panels for smart phones and tablets does not mean it is not pursuing OLED. Sony's goal was to make OLED TVs from the very start of its OLED research (back in the 90s) while Samsung's strategy is start by making small panels and then move to the big ones. Now it seems Samsung's strategy is a lot better.


Sony's semiconductor business (CMOS sensors) and Digital imaging business (DC/DV/NEX/SLT) are also quite stable.


----------



## JMarat




> Quote:
> None of the benchmarks they do at the display's native resolution are at playable framerates.



I really don't think you know what playable frame rates means, anything over 30fps is considered very playable. But as of now you're just speculating at what the frame rates are going to be.



Points: Me - over 9000 You - 0


----------



## rogo

Sony is not even a position to build an OLED fab financially and has announced no interest in doing so. More accurately, they have hinted at leaving the TV business entirely. I mean, anything is possible, but where Sony is getting billions to re-enter the TV-making business -- a business they've been out of for a decade, buying panels from others since -- is completely unclear. Why is less clear.


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20995367
> 
> 
> Sony is not even a position to build an OLED fab financially and has announced no interest in doing so. More accurately, they have hinted at leaving the TV business entirely. I mean, anything is possible, but where Sony is getting billions to re-enter the TV-making business -- a business they've been out of for a decade, buying panels from others since -- is completely unclear. Why is less clear.



Well, recently the governments of both Taiwan and Japan invested in display technology, Taiwan explicitly into OLED, Japan possibly so:


Japan: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_943091.html 


Taiwan: http://www.oled-info.com/taiwan-want...ed-rd-alliance 


(caveat: the Japanese thing may indeed be to consolidate LCD, as all the articles' headlines state, but yet still somehow every article about it mentions that the "new display company will focus on developing next-generation displays, including thinner organic light-emitting diode displays with higher resolution, the three firms said." Very selective reading and interpretation on my part to be sure, but this is a possible opening for Sony/Japan, especially since Sony alone in the world has experience putting out 25" OLEDs.)


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20995367
> 
> 
> Sony is not even a position to build an OLED fab financially and has announced no interest in doing so. More accurately, they have hinted at leaving the TV business entirely. I mean, anything is possible, but where Sony is getting billions to re-enter the TV-making business -- a business they've been out of for a decade, buying panels from others since -- is completely unclear. Why is less clear.



When did Sony say that "We will never build a OLED fab" ? Yes , Sony said nothing about building a fab ,but Sony said nothing about "not" building a fab either. The truth is : Sony has an OLED fab and Sony's R&D power is focused on OLED ,you could say Samsung/LG puts more resources there , but you can not ignore Sony.


About leaving the tv business...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...d-tablets.html 


"Sir Howard’s right-hand man and executive vice president was clear, however: “We are not leaving the TV business, we are not thinking of leaving the TV business, we are not talking about it either”


----------



## rogo

Holy bear, those comments were after they conducted a strategic review where they decided -- for now -- to remain in the business. It was technically a true statement.


Sunidrem, it's possible they'll do something. What's not possible is that Japanese OLED TVs are coming to market anytime soon. And this notion that because Sony is shipping an infinitesimal number of 25" OLEDs to broadcast channels means they can somehow translate this into something else is wrong; the technology to fab larger TVs is almost entirely different.


----------



## Airion

I think Rogo got attached to the idea that Sony is on the way out and will defend that no matter what. He's nothing if not sure of his predictions.


I was particularly struck by the suggestion that Sony isn't doing anything for 3D. The PS3 was turned into a 3D Blu-ray player with a firmware update. Sony has been pushing 3D in their games: Killzone 3, Ico/Shadow of the Colossus, Uncharted 3. Unless you have a ton of money to buy a powerful gaming PC, the PS3 is the place to be for 3D gaming right now (handhelds excluded). Faced with the heads up about Sony's involvement in 3D, Rogo moves the goal posts to say that they're doing nothing with passive 3D, which he declares is the future (actually, that's another debate).


Sony's Playstation 3 is 3rd worldwide right now, but how's Nintendo doing at number 1? Well, they're facing financial troubles because their Wii no longer sells. Meanwhile Xbox and PS3 are doing just fine. It's never so simple is it?


Yes, it's correct to say Sony is having big problems. But it's a mistake to count them out.



And just a note on style:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20992759
> 
> 
> New score update, me 1 million and 1, you 4, for making ridiculous comparisons to Sony's GPU dock and Apple's monitor. I have retired you from this competition at a deficit of 999,997. Thank you for playing.



This sort of thing adds nothing to the discussion. It doesn't make you look good either.


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20996044
> 
> 
> Sony is shipping an infinitesimal number of 25" OLEDs to broadcast channels means they can somehow translate this into something else is wrong; the technology to fab larger TVs is almost entirely different.



In that case Samsung and LG are in an worse position , they even can not manufacture 25 inch OLED panels now.


I do agree with you that Sony does not have enough $$ to push OLED further , but I don't agree with you that Sony is abandoning OLED/TV business.


----------



## rogo

@Airion, Sony is not driving 3-D adoption. They are doing nothing important to get full-resolution passive into your house nor anything as aggressive as Toshiba's glasses-free effort.


And, no, I don't have it in my head that they are on their way out. I have facts suggesting they are a slowly dying company. Most people agree with me. They haven't had a hit in forever. I love my PS3, but it's a bust. Wii made motion controlling real. Xbox Live is much bigger than PSN and Kinect took motion to the logical conclusion. Yes, PS3 is one of the all-time great BluRay players -- you can read my posts on that very subject on AVS over and over and over -- but so what?


@Holy Bear, Samsung has made 10 million AMOLED panels for Galaxy S II in


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21000084
> 
> 
> @Airion, Sony is not driving 3-D adoption.
> 
> 
> I love my PS3, but it's a bust. Wii made motion controlling real. Xbox Live is much bigger than PSN and Kinect took motion to the logical conclusion



The PS3 is providing badly needed 3D content. If people are gaming on their new 3DTV, then they're most likely doing it on the PS3. (Xbox 360 has a handful of options, but only in half-resolution side by side format.) The PS3 and PS3 games continue to sell: how is that bust? The Wii had its day but it's gone bust now and Nintendo is struggling to sell stuff.


You seem to be using arbitrary metrics to evaluate the health of the company. PS3 3D support, doesn't matter because they're not making passive TVs. PS3 as a system, bust because you don't like its motion control offerings.


----------



## specuvestor

Interesting that they actually been mentioning 8.5G rather than 8G. And large size non-vapourware coming faster than any of us thought. Looks like IGZO implementation is real... the companies must have "whispered". I highly doubt LG will have 8.5G fab though... like I posted, for "white LED backlighting" they can likely array 4 pieces of 3.5G into one.


"55-inch OLED TV panel marketing to begin with London Olympic Games


Samsung Mobile Display (SMD) and LG Display recently succeeded in the

development of 55-inch OLED TV panels, which are expected to premier in Jan

2012 Consumer Electronics Show CES). The two companies are expected to begin

the production of OLED TV panels in a small scale in their 8.5G lines (pilot

lines included) ahead of the 2012 London Olympic Games (Jul 27 - Aug 12) in

order to secure early mover advantages in OLED TV market.


Various 8G OLED technologies to be applied

The core technologies for the development of large-size OLED panels concern

thin-film transistor (TFT) and color patterning, among others. In order to cut

costs while increasing the panel size, the two companies are expected to apply

various TFT technologies (involving low-temperature polysilicon, oxides,

printing, etc.) and pixel technologies (involving fine metal masks, laser-

induced thermal imaging, white OLED, etc.)." - Hyundai Sec 22 Sept



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/20973084
> 
> 
> ^^ Correct, but I am not too sure if they can remove the TFT altogether and control each pixel independently due to the electric current issue we discussed many months back, on large screens. Nonetheless you can see the difference between the approach by Sammy and LG. As different as their approach in 3D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now we know what LG mean when they say they will launch a 55" OLED TV next year. Like I said, the quality of OLED for "backlighting" should be less stringent than what Sammy is trying to do. But the positive should be that LG solution, like their 3D, should be cheaper.


----------



## rogo

So I'm supposed to watch marketing for a TV I can't purchase in concert with the Olympics? Who comes up with these brilliant ideas?


----------



## gmarceau

I am impressed that there is a 5k 25" OLED monitor, especially since Sony is doing such low volume on OLED. This means that a consumer/commercial model would logically be less. Small progress, I guess, but I was expecting those to go for at least twice as much.


I think we may see an announcement of a smaller OLED screen size for 2012- smaller than 55" which I still think is such a crock of s#$%.


----------



## outdatedtech

I would buy it but 5k for a 25 inch oled no way. just wait intil they have bigger displays.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21002547
> 
> 
> So I'm supposed to watch marketing for a TV I can't purchase in concert with the Olympics? Who comes up with these brilliant ideas?



I think you can. It will not be vapourware.


But I doubt it's gonna be reasonably priced. LG's solution should be cheaper than Sammy. Even so I doubt the 55" will be


----------



## Sunidrem

OT-ish:


Back in 1999 I had a job at a software company. Not a dot com company with frilly HTML, but fun stuff: C on Unix/Linux/Solaris. Needless to say, a bunch of nerds worked there. One day at lunch two of the guys were all excited about the new "high definition TV" they got. Being the nerds the rest of us were, we quickly recognized that a high-def TV is useless unless the signal is also being broadcast in HD. Not to worry, we were told. For one hour a day, the local TV station broadcasts the 10pm news in HD.


I remember thinking what an absolute waste of money it was to buy an HD TV just so you can watch the nightly news in HD for one hour a day. Just googled and found an article that said the price of those TVs was $7k to $8k
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...ec98/hdtv.html 

(this is from late 1998, but close enough)


Seems to have strong parallels, hopefully, to where we are right now with OLED TVs.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21004706
> 
> 
> I think you can. It will not be vapourware.
> 
> 
> But I doubt it's gonna be reasonably priced. LG's solution should be cheaper than Sammy. Even so I doubt the 55" will be



I'm sorry, so now you believe the TV will actually be out _before_ the Olympics? Forgive me, that just strains the imagination. The games start in 10 months. Do you have a guess as to how many they'll ship by, say, June 1 -- enough time to get them to Europe at least so people can buy them and watch them? Are we talking 10? 100? 1000? 10,000?


I just really don't believe anything LG says -- and with good reason.


----------



## slacker711

The original post was about both LG and Samsung.


Who knows how many they would sell? Like I said before, who cares? Any production would be incidental to working on the yields. They'll price them at a huge premium that will have no relation to the ultimate price for a 55" TV from a Gen 8 fab and advertise them to get some attention for the brand.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

Yes it's both LG AND Sammy. Both may be showcasing in Japan next month earliest or CES next year. If LG is making an AMOLED TV by next year I would think they are smoking pot, as I've been saying past 3 months or so.


But looks like it will be white OLED with IGZO implementation. Not exactly what I thought an OLED TV should be, but technically LG didn't say it's an AMOLED TV










Point is it is not vaporware. Like LG 72" it may not ship to US but you can get it if you really want it.


----------



## rogo

Sun, I paid $5000+ for my first HD set. Worth it to me. There's a gigantic difference however. The resolution of the best HD broadcasts is about 6x NTSC and there's more color info to boot. It's like night and day. I urge some sports fan to go try to watch non-HD sports these days. It's so terrible, it's a wonder how we ever put up with it.


Nothing OLED does is going to be more than incremental to the best TVs out there.


I recognize there are people who will disagree with the above statement, but they're wrong. Most of the problems of picture quality have been solved. A properly executed OLED TV could well be better than anything on the market, but it's going to be better on the margins. Maybe a touch better with motion. Maybe a touch better with simultaneous contrast. Certainly better at off-axis viewing versus LCD, but not really possible to do better in that regard than plasma. Effectively, LCD and plasma both offer reference color and greyscale already. The former offers enough brightness to turn night into day.


Slacker, it's not a given that production of these TVs is going to happen. I get that all of you think it is. It's even less of a given that LG will invest in trying to produce them. They talk about it a _lot_. They just don't do much about it. So when spec tells me they are going to actually have a TV for sale in 9 months, I am curious what he thinks the production will look like.


Samsung has a more intriguing story around OLED right now. They are shoveling out mediocre LCDs by the containerload. They are arguably proving the techynology is bad (it isn't, but you'd never really know it from them). And since they are locked out of full-array LCD for the time being, there are limits to how much better they can make their LCDs. Their problem is that they also can't make big LCDs apparently, and it's not really clear an 8G OLED fab is going to change their math problem in that regard.


(To be clear, they can make big LCDs right now with 8G, just not very efficiently. In fact, the best I can guess is that their putative 75" TV is actually coming off their 7-2 line at Tangjeong in a method similar to how Sharp is making the 80s. It doesn't make any sense to make the 75s on an 8G line at Samsung unless they are willing to waste a lot of glass. The "strip" on the edge is too small to make anything valuable at a fab that is normally dedicated to larger displays.)


8G glass is typically 2200 x 2500mm, which yields a 2x3 cut of 55" displays. That's why you keep hearing about 55" OLEDs. The problem is, it doesn't cut well into sizes above 60" at all. 8G doesn't even make for especially great cuts into 60". You'd really want about 2300 x 2700mm for a pure 60" cut with minimal waste. (Note, the 8G cut would have waste even if you used mixed cuts on the single sheet. Oddly, most references to 8.5G fabs refer to 2200 x 2500mm glass, which is 8G in Samsung/Sony speak. This could be because Samsung just didn't want to use the 8.5G nomenclature.)


One of the reasons as a home-theater aficionado I'm so unexcited about what's going on right now is I expect that even these 55" OLEDs will be incrementally better but astronomically more expensive. And yet there is no path to get them up into the 65-70 range. There's a _reason_ Samsung is so terrible at making 65" LCDs using 8G glass. And I don't believe there is a market for premium 55" displays or -- more specifically -- not much of one. The 60" displays are getting cheap and yet there are premium options that are in the $5K range. This whole thing feels like a fiasco in the making to be completely honest.


We have heard a song and dance about how OLED is going to be cheaper than LCD. The problem with that nonsense is that it requires massive volume to even possibly be true. At some point Samsung might just have to start replacing LCD production with OLED to make it true because this marketing strategy does not have a chance of working. Even though some of you think it does.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/20999689
> 
> 
> I think Rogo got attached to the idea that Sony is on the way out and will defend that no matter what. He's nothing if not sure of his predictions.......



Trust me. ROGO's predictions over the years have been *exceedingly* accurate. He can detach what we want to see from what we'll likely see.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> it's not a given that production of these TVs is going to happen. I get that all of you think it is.



Spec posted a rumor from a brokerage. Nothing more, nothing less. I add it as a data point to everything else that has been posted and have zero certainty that it will actually happen. OTOH, it does add to the weight of the evidence that LG and Samsung believe that they are making progress on large screen OLED's and are likely to announce capex for their 8G fabs in the near future.


Perhaps you will be right that OLED's dont provide enough of an advantage over LCD's....but we have exactly one comprehensive view of an OLED television and it is overwhelmingly positive.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.p...&id=1289487180 




> Quote:
> Conclusion
> 
> 
> So, what is OLED? In short OLED is small light emitting diodes that does magic! OLED has been integrated in a few handheld devices in 2010 but is not yet ready for larger monitors and TVs. LG’s 15-inch EL9500 is currently the largest OLED-TV but in this test we were interesting in looking at the OLED technology from a critical point of view and thus commenting on the potential for this new display technology.
> 
> 
> And we’re convinced that OLED is the new bright future of display technology. The OLED technology enables perfect black levels – even from extreme angles. Response time is lightning fast and viewing angles are extremely wide. Color reproduction is fantastic too, with amazing color detailing. But this is also largely a matter of proper calibration by the TV manufacturers.
> 
> 
> OLED panels are extremely thin – down to a few millimeters – and we experienced no problems with either buzzing or inhomogeneous backlight. EL9500 was also able to provide enough brightness to ensure great picture in even brightly lit environments and at the same time maintaining the deep black levels. Shadow detailing was great, too, and the OLED technology has no problems reproducing darker grey tones.
> 
> 
> OLED is without doubt superior to both LCD and plasma. It combines the best from both worlds and has none of the major downsides. It not only raises that upper bar but also the lower bar, enabling even cheap manufacturers to create great picture quality because of the stunning OLED picture characteristics.
> 
> The only downside of the OLED technology at the moment is the price. But really, that’s just a matter of putting it into mass production. And manufacturers are currently ramping up production of OLED panels so we hope that in a few years we see more realistic pricing on these wonders. Seriously, if this display was just 7-10 inches larger it would have replaced my current desktop monitor instantaneously…



The first professional Sony OLED's are now being shipped (per twitter) so I am hoping it wont be long before we get a real review. This will be particularly interesting since the competition will be the best of breed CRT's and LCD's on the market.


Slacker


----------



## Sunidrem

rogo - Is it fair to assume you've seen an OLED TV? The Sony 11" or otherwise. Because, for me at least, seeing the Sony 11" was what made me excited about OLED - very similar to the first time I saw NFL on HD. Are you that positive that the general public won't notice/care about the difference?


Edit: Slacker's quote of a review says it all.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Spec posted a rumor from a brokerage. Nothing more, nothing less.



To be correct, I don't just post rumour. I post those with constant newsflow from the chain and sound plausible. So I'll like to think it is "more"










As u know in our line we can't be dogmatic. I thought large size will come in 2013 as well, most of us think so. But I'm not a career prophet, I'm a career pragmatist and this is what the chain seemed to be saying. Though from the recent JPM contradiction on iPad shipment we have a feel of how difficult sometimes it can be. So hopefully it shows we finance guys do make some analysis rather than sell derivatives and wreck the world


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21008834
> 
> 
> rogo - Is it fair to assume you've seen an OLED TV? The Sony 11" or otherwise. Because, for me at least, seeing the Sony 11" was what made me excited about OLED - very similar to the first time I saw NFL on HD. Are you that positive that the general public won't notice/care about the difference?



Sun, I've seen the Sony 11", the larger Sony prototype shown at the same CES, the LG prototype 15" and the larger LG prototype shown at CES 2011. My profound observation is this: Each time, the performance of the OLED relative to the other TVs currently available was less incrementally impressive.


This is what, honestly, I think the 'fanboys' don't get (not at all suggesting you are are a fanboy). Technology does not exist in a vacuum. OLED development has more or less set some bar without moving said bar since the Sony. LCD and plasma keep moving their own bars (LCD has moved its bar relatively more since then, in larger part because the last Kuros were so ridiculously good).


If you read the reviews of the Samsung Galaxy S II, they provide the most objective comments on this. The display is considered -- by some -- the best on the market. Others still find the iPhone 4's displays a bit more satisfying. This is telling in my mind.


Also, there was a time when existing flat panels were failing at one or more dimensions of picture quality pretty badly. That's just no longer true. It's worth looking at the list of picture quality attributes and considering how much better an OLED could be. I'd be happy to edit this post per user comments:

*Static Resolution*

Static resolution is done right now. If/when 4k arrives, it will arrive first on LCD. There is much debate after if/whether this is going to happen _en masse_. So far, OLED is not showing itself to be particularly easy to adapt to the highest pixel resolutions anyway.
_Possible improvement: None_

*Motion resolution*

Those of you that understand video know that still resolving all 1080 lines of a moving image can be tricky. Plasma solved this years ago. LCD has done so as of 2010/2011 with the Sonys and, apparently, the Elites. LCD still has some minor weirdness due to interpolation and backlight strobing being imperfect. I would label this an area where LCD could improve given the comments we read here and the need to shut off many of the enhancement circuits on LCDs, but keep in mind, the 2013 models will almost certainly be better than 2011 models.
_Possible improvement: Minor_

*Greyscale and gamma*

Done on both existing technology. Ruler flat D65 is achievable. It's also possible to dial in perfectly satisfactory gamma on both techs. Not clear OLED has any advantage here and might actually be worse at first.
_Possible improvement: None_

*Reference color*

Rec. 709 gamut and the ability to dial it in has more or less been achieved on both plasma and LCD. Do individual models have issues? Yes. That said, OLED is not going to be free of model-to-model issues. There are still concerns about the specific wavelengths being output by given colors of OLED and their performance changing over time. Could OLED be better? Maybe, but color does not appear to be a real problem with existing technology.
_Possible improvement: Very very very minimal_

*On/off or sequential contrast*

How black can black be in dark scenes? Very on current plasmas and exceptionally on current locally dimmed LCDs. Could this be improved? Infinitesimally, perhaps. Local dimming needs some work to eliminate halos / blooming. Plasma still needs to get back to Kuro levels. More zones will come to LCD. Maybe Panasonic will finally bring out its own Kuro killer plasma. Again, though, we are splitting hairs. There is room here, but there is not much room. The Sony/Elite are ridiculously good in this metric.
_Possible improvement: Minimal but it does exist_

*ANSI or simultaneous contrast*

The ability to show bright and dark at once. With local dimming, LCD is now an order of magnitude better than it once was. Plasma was always decent here, never amazing. For what it's worth, CRT was never amazing here, yet it was "reference" for years. OLED will be better. Will this improve picture quality? Marginally at most. Are LCD and plasma standing still here? No. In fact, plasma's biggest weakness -- light output -- goes away on mixed content and allows for small areas of very bright output.
_Possible improvement: Minimal and the importance is minimal_

*Response times and pixel shenanigans*

Plasmas are already ridiculous fast, but some small number of people see phosphor trails. Some of you also can see dithering used to produce intermediate shades. Some of you never see either. The former is uncommon, the latter somewhat common. LCDs don't really have the quoted response times, but really are fast enough to refresh at 120Hz most of the time from grey-to-grey. Interpolated frames are weird sometimes, but that's really back to the motion topic. OLED will refresh as fast as plasma and should be able to skip the dithering. Whether it can entirely skip the persistence effect some of you see with phosphor trailing remains to be seen. Still, OLED is a best of both worlds here, which is nice.
_Possible improvement: Small, but real; many might not see it, some with really like it_

*Pixel fill ratio*

Plasmas exhibit some amount of screen-door effect really close up, none at normal viewing distances. LCDs exhibit some really really close up, none at even somewhat abnormal viewing distances. OLED is better. OK, fair enough.
_Possible improvement: OLED will be an improvement for people who sit very close_

*Raw brightness*

Not important at all. LCD already needs to be dialed down to avoid blinding people -- seriously. Plasma is weaker here in part because 1000w TVs are not socially acceptable in an age of scarce energy (contrary to popular belief, they are not illegal). OLED at first won't be exceptionally brighter than LCD and won't actually try to be in the long run.
_Possible improvement: None over LCD_

*Viewing angle*

LCD's weakness. Vertically it drops off a lot, horizontally, brightness and contrast drop off at 20-40 degrees depending on model. This matters a ton to some people and not at all to others. Plasma? No horizontal viewing angle issues. Vertically? Some plasmas have a new filter that limits vertical viewing in exchange for reduced reflections from overhead lighting. Not much of a factor though. OLED will have plasma like viewing angles, but might also get filtered like plasma.
_Possible improvement: None over plasma_

*Reflections*

Every technology is going to suffer from this so long as there is a glass front. It's going to be worse if the glass front is "pure" or glossy. OLED has no secrets here except that it will hopefully use thinner glass like most LCDs do. But let's not kid ourselves, the new super-thin bezel Samsungs are like mirrors. The only reason they are tolerable is that most of the time the picture overpowers the reflections. Nothing about OLED is going to change this, sadly.
_Possible improvement: None_


Imagine if we had made that list 10 years ago. Seriously, they were talking about OLED back then being


----------



## tory40

I thought it cost much much less to manufacture, enabling them to retain or improve their bottom-lines?


Can't wait to see a ghosting test done with OLEDs!


----------



## powertoold

I've only seen OLED on a Samsung phone, and something about it was much better than any other display I've seen: contrast, colors, vibrance, viewing angles, etc. I've seen and used the iPhone 4 and have an iPad 2. They don't produce the same level of eye candy.


However, LCDs have gone a long way... I saw the Sharp Elite for a few minutes, and it looked great.


----------



## specuvestor

rogo, what was said 5 years ago about OLED is like SED or FED. It is quite irrelevant now. PMOLED was not able to produce moving pictures, just as E-Ink now. It will not be a display tech.


About a year ago I started to discuss in this thread on OLED and your reaction was just as "aggressive"







Past 12 months we see that OLED is actually a viable technology.


Reason for my thinking 12 months ago is the same as now: 1) Sammy putting money where their mouth is and 2) Contrast, which is what the eye is MOST sensitive to.


Like I said before, if LCD can achieve OLED contrast under the sunlight then I think OLED is lost. Your comparison above is true in so many aspects but it is exclusive, when AMOLED incorporates the middle road for both LCD and Plasma. It can be more black than plasma, yet as bright as LCD, at slightly higher power usage than LCD. That's why their contrast is excellent if IMPLEMENTED correctly.


We can argue till the cows come home whether huge size >=70" TVs will be viable or there is a market for Elites, but ultimately Sharp put their $ where their mouth is. So has Sammy on OLED. Past arguments that OLED is vapourware has been struck down and then now large size OLED is vaporware is coming to roost. So question is at what point we will re-examine and allow OLED to mature as per all emerging tech and hopefully be competitive IN FUTURE with current tech.


They are not going to sell millions of OLED TV next year, but if Sammy builds the 8G plant, they *THINK* they will sell millions in 2013-14. Will it be too early as Sharp has done with the 10G plant? Only time will tell but their battleplans have been laid out, and it's up to the industry to dismiss it, like Plasma towards LCD TV some 6 years ago, or to react to it strategically. My feel is that you are doing the former.


----------



## Chronoptimist

Rogo, I think you are grossly overstating how much other flat panel technology has improved in recent years, underestimate just how much better OLED screens are, and are missing out key factors of image quality such as gradation.



As for Samsung's AMOLED screens vs the iPhone LCD, the main differences there are resolution—217 PPI is considerably lower than the 330 PPI of the iPhone 4 (the new Galaxy SII LTE HD screen is much closer at 316 PPI, but it is only available in Korea) and brightness—300 nits compared to almost 600 nits with the iPhone 4 screen.


Color gamut, contrast ratio, motion handling etc. all matters considerably less for a screen on a mobile phone compared to a HT display.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> I should add that I don't believe AMOLED will be cheaper to produce than TFT-LCD anytime this decade if ever. These kind of claims are often made by upstarts in mature industries but almost never realized. The upstart fails to understand that the existing technology has so more room to get cheaper than they can hope to comprehend and has economies of scale that they can only dream about. The report recently linked to here contains so many *absurd assumptions* about the cost of making displays, it's laughable.



The funny part is the number of "absurd assumptions" that you need to make to get to your claim that AMOLED's will NEVER be cheaper to produce. You absolutely know that all of that R&D that is going into ink-jet printing will never ever work out. That must reflect a fairly impressive grasp of the technology and the various roadblocks in getting to market.


and before you post otherwise, I am not claiming that I know that it will....simply that it is an open question and that any certainty on either side is ridiculous.


You are missing two very big points in your comparisons between the iPhone and the Galaxy S2 display. One is that the iPhone LCD is a LTPS display. It is much higher quality than any of the large screen LCD's. The fact that Apple used LTPS means that the two displays are actually cost competitive. Notice that nobody plans on bringing a 55" LTPS LCD to market.


The second point that you are missing is that the Galaxy S2 isnt reflective of AMOLED's ultimate visual capabilities. Samsung made various choices (such as oversaturation) for either cost or perception reasons. I guess that is why you use that as your reference rather than the LG review that I keep posting.


Slacker


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21009051
> 
> 
> *Static Resolution*
> 
> Static resolution is done right now. If/when 4k arrives, it will arrive first on LCD. There is much debate after if/whether this is going to happen _en masse_. So far, OLED is not showing itself to be particularly easy to adapt to the highest pixel resolutions anyway.
> _Possible improvement: None_



Sony's 0.5inch XGA OLED EVF and the 0.7inch HD panel used in the HMD have very high PPI


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *powertoold* /forum/post/21009333
> 
> 
> I've only seen OLED on a Samsung phone, and something about it was much better than any other display I've seen: contrast, colors, vibrance, viewing angles, etc. I've seen and used the iPhone 4 and have an iPad 2. They don't produce the same level of eye candy.
> 
> 
> However, LCDs have gone a long way... I saw the Sharp Elite for a few minutes, and it looked great.



seen both the galaxy and iphone screens, and subjectively, the amoleds looked brighter, sharper, more color contrast, and just more pleasing to the eye.


don't know if this will play out with larger displays, but it is certainly one of the

reasons people are excited about the possibility of large oled displays.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21009907
> 
> 
> They are not going to sell millions of OLED TV next year, but if Sammy builds the 8G plant, they *THINK* they will sell millions in 2013-14. Will it be too early as Sharp has done with the 10G plant? Only time will tell but their battleplans have been laid out, and it's up to the industry to dismiss it, like Plasma towards LCD TV some 6 years ago, or to react to it strategically. My feel is that you are doing the former.



We disagree that plasma "dismissed" LCD. There was nothing they could do stop it. The gigantic economies of scale that were generated from the PC industry were brought to bear, slowly but surely, on TV. And the results speak for itself. The fact that plasma was not very easy to make cost effectively in smaller sizes and could not easily be made into 1080p in the 42" sizes did not help.


And besides, the picture quality of today's LCDs and plasmas is so much better than what out 10 years ago, it's not even funny. I suggest if anyone can, they go find one from the early part of the millennium and try to watch a movie. It's really quite awful. Now? It's really quite good. This hand waving that is so popular at AVS belies the fact that *the world has absorbed somewhere around a billion HDTVs*. Most of them are not in dire need of replacement because _they are freaking HDTVs_. Compare this to 1999 when basically every single TV on the planet needed to be replaced to enjoy HDTV.


As for this contrast business, I don't know what your experience has been Spec, but I urge you to do two things:


1) See an Elite or Sony HX when you can. They are quite quite amazing. Nothing in a "home theater" setting is going to be an order of magnitude better.


2) In a day-lit room, hang out with a Samsung D8000 LCD. I find that product to be generally "bad" in many ways. In a day-lit room., however, it's almost without compromise.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21010053
> 
> 
> The funny part is the number of "absurd assumptions" that you need to make to get to your claim that AMOLED's will NEVER be cheaper to produce. You absolutely know that all of that R&D that is going into ink-jet printing will never ever work out. That must reflect a fairly impressive grasp of the technology and the various roadblocks in getting to market.



The funny part is that they are not absurd. First of all, "ink-jet printing" is not being used to make AMOLEDs. The fantasy of giant rolls of substrate being run off like so many Xeroxes is not happening anywhere. Second of all, TFT backplanes are still required for OLED displays. You know how they plan on making those? _The way they plan on making them for LCD TVs (using IGZO)_. It's patently obvious you know nothing about learning curves and manufacturing efficiencies. I'm not going to apologize that I do. (When I say that AMOLED won't be cheaper to produce this decade than TFT-LCD, I should add, I'm specifically referring to large televisions -- I have no opinions about or interest in small cell-phone screens.) LCD yields are currently nearly 100% at television fabs. Why? Because production processes are so mature at every stage of manufacture.


No OLED TV has ever been mass produced save an 11" model that sold, who knows, 20,000 units and a broadcast model that sells something similar over a few years. And the company making those is sharing its learning with neither of the companies pursuing OLED TV. The idiotic analyst report is the one that makes all sorts of nutty assumptions. "Some factory that hasn't been built yet that has a cost we can only somewhat guess at will buy a line whose tools we don't know the price of. Said tools will produce yields of some predictable amount with input costs of some other predictable amount per square meter of display area. We can already tell you this is meaningfully lower than the cost of patterning/masking/filtering an LCD display of the same area because we are privy to the internal specifics of every bit of the cost structure of those fabs (even though we aren't but, hey, go with it)." This kind of drivel is exactly what Canon and Toshiba did around SED. You set up a fake argument -- called a straw man -- about the competition and then you beat it. _Even before you produce a single display_.


If and when Samsung is producing millions of OLED TVs -- and I'm sorry Spec, but millions of OLED TVs in 2013?!?!? that very much strains the imagination -- they will begin to work down the learning curve and gain manufacturing efficiencies. Until then, they are not getting any better at making OLED TVs. It's all hypothetical.


> Quote:
> and before you post otherwise, I am not claiming that I know that it will....simply that it is an open question and that any certainty on either side is ridiculous.



I expressed no certainty. I expressed significant doubt that OLED will be cheaper than TFT this decade -- if ever.


> Quote:
> The second point that you are missing is that the Galaxy S2 isnt reflective of AMOLED's ultimate visual capabilities. Samsung made various choices (such as oversaturation) for either cost or perception reasons. I guess that is why you use that as your reference rather than the LG review that I keep posting.



No you ignoramus. I keep bringing up the Samsung because it's *the only mass-produced AMOLED product on the market*. An LG TV prototype of a model that never shipped is not very interesting. (Especially when the reviewer was drooling over having access to.) That review contains nonsense the reviewer cannot know. If I may paraphrase, "Even bad OLED TVs will be really really good". That's marketing nonsense from LG, not the expert opinion of the reviewer. Call me when someone ships a TV and I'll use that as comparison. Until then, the phone vs. phone is the valid comparison.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21009921
> 
> 
> Rogo, I think you are grossly overstating how much other flat panel technology has improved in recent years, underestimate just how much better OLED screens are, and are missing out key factors of image quality such as gradation.



I think you grossly didn't read my post. You can't improve on nearly every picture quality metric. Several are quite literally done. How do you plan on improving on "ruler flat gamma"? Impossible to do. Reference color? Not possible. Full 1080-line motion resolution? Not doable. As dark as the dark room black? Can't be topped. You are talking about marginal improvments and conflating them with revolution. This is done often by techno junkies on the internet. It's why people think Galaxy Tabs and Motorola Xooms will suddenly take market share from iPads.


Also, I love how these OLED screens that don't exist are somehow so much better. I saw the last 31" LG prototype. No one was being blown away by it at CES (I believe it was 31", someone can correct me). I spent about an hour there. In 2005, it probably would've attracted crowds. Now, not so much.


This notion that some large number of people are waiting for some big leap in picture quality along these fairly subtle dimension is wrong. It's always been wrong, so when I say it's wrong now, I don't have to worry about this prediction proving shaky.


> Quote:
> As for Samsung's AMOLED screens vs the iPhone LCD, the main differences there are resolution217 PPI is considerably lower than the 330 PPI of the iPhone 4 (the new Galaxy SII LTE HD screen is much closer at 316 PPI, but it is only available in Korea) and brightness300 nits compared to almost 600 nits with the iPhone 4 screen.



Yes, it should be nice to see that. NBA players are very excited by the new Samsung phones in particular.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *powertoold* /forum/post/21009333
> 
> 
> I've only seen OLED on a Samsung phone, and something about it was much better than any other display I've seen: contrast, colors, vibrance, viewing angles, etc. I've seen and used the iPhone 4 and have an iPad 2. They don't produce the same level of eye candy.
> 
> 
> However, LCDs have gone a long way... I saw the Sharp Elite for a few minutes, and it looked great.



Power, I don't doubt your experience. I, too, am impressed by the Samsung phone displays. That said, I've read more or less every decent review of the Galaxy S II. While many reviewers call it the best mobile phone screen they've seen, _not all of them do_. And virtually none of them call it a revolutionary screen. *That's very very important*. When the Pioneer Kuro plasma shipped, a lot of people called it revolutionary yet _many people couldn't understand what the fuss was about_.


The Elite engenders a similar notion. It's so much freaking better than pretty much every other display in the room at MHT (although I'd say the VT30, D8000 Samsung plasma and Sony HX929 are not horribly far away) and yet people can walk by it without even noticing. Are they dumb? No, it's that there really aren't many terrible displays left. That's a huge, huge change in the past 5 years.


And if we fast forward to 2014-2015, around when this 55" OLED is in Magnolia for under $10,000 (even if you believe it's 2013, the situation doesn't change much), there's a problem here. Really nice $1000-1500 60" LCD TVs.... Even nicer $10,000 55" OLED TVs. Um, yeah, good luck. The most expensive LCD and plasmas will be sub $5000 -- and probably sub $3000 in 2013 to be honest.


Samsung has a viable alternative for all that screen capacity if they and Apple are not suing each other by then. That's even if they actually build out a full 8G fab. What they don't have is a path to 60" TVs from it. And even more absurd than selling $10,000 55" TVs is selling smaller, premium-priced TVs. So forget that, OK?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21012650
> 
> 
> 1) See an Elite or Sony HX when you can. They are quite quite amazing. Nothing in a "home theater" setting is going to be an order of magnitude better.



I own a Sony HX900 and love it dearly, but there is definitely room for an order of magnitude improvement there. It's foolish to think that there isn't, just like people were asking how anyone could improve upon the original Kuros when they were so ahead of other flat panels at the time, and then the next generation literally improved the black level by an order of magnitude. (they went from 3,333:1 to 33,333:1 when calibrated)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21012650
> 
> 
> No you ignoramus.



There's no need to resort to name calling.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21012650
> 
> 
> I think you grossly didn't read my post. You can't improve on nearly every picture quality metric. Several are quite literally done. How do you plan on improving on "ruler flat gamma"? Impossible to do. Reference color? Not possible.



No consumer display currently on the market has a completely ruler flat gamma all the way down to black with good gradation, or reference colour all the way down to black.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21012650
> 
> 
> Full 1080-line motion resolution? Not doable.



The tests used for this are tailored to the displays. Panasonic claims their plasmas resolve 1080 lines each year, while simultaneously downgrading the previous year's model as they have increased the speed of the test to the limit of the new displays.


No flat panel out there currently can maintain full motion resolution with fast movement without artefacts.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21012650
> 
> 
> As dark as the dark room black? Can't be topped.



No plasma can do this at all. No LCD can do this when there is other content on the screen simultaneously. OLED can.



Plasmas might do well on viewing angle tests, but the gradation and bright room handling sucks.

LCDs might do well on gradation (OLED will be better) and handle bright rooms well, but the viewing angle sucks, motion handling still isn't great without interpolation.

There are numerous other issues with both technologies aside from the main ones mentioned here that OLED aims to fix.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21012650
> 
> 
> Also, I love how these OLED screens that don't exist are somehow so much better. I saw the last 31" LG prototype. No one was being blown away by it at CES (I believe it was 31", someone can correct me). I spent about an hour there. In 2005, it probably would've attracted crowds. Now, not so much.



It's the same as anything really. OLED is just a technology, what matters is doing it right. Sony has illustrated with their displays (especially the BVM-Es) that when it is done right, OLED surpasses any display made to date at any price. I have never seen any LG product that I have impressed with. The same thing goes for Samsung. They make products where the design might look nice at a distance, but get up close and you see that it's cheap and poorly put together. The specs might be good but the image quality doesn't live up to it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21012650
> 
> 
> This notion that some large number of people are waiting for some big leap in picture quality along these fairly subtle dimension is wrong. It's always been wrong, so when I say it's wrong now, I don't have to worry about this prediction proving shaky.



Most people are happy to buy the cheapest LCD, but that's not why we're here. We're all here because we care about image quality and want the best. OLED offers that. There is a market for it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21012650
> 
> 
> Yes, it should be nice to see that. NBA players are very excited by the new Samsung phones in particular.



What?


----------



## rogo

Seriously, I want to respond to your post with "blah blah blah blah blah". As a courtesy, I won't. You are like the guy who argues his AMG Mercedes is "clearly superior" because it goes from 0-60 in 4.5 seconds while the other guy can only do it in 5.0 seconds. So what? The other guy generally doesn't give a rat's rear end.


This is like splitting hairs of hairs that have already been split.


You are presuming -- wrongly -- that there is some set of generally observable differences that are coming down the pike from this theoretical OLED TV that you cannot buy. And let's just pretend that the math you listed above matters. Whatever observable difference existed when the move occurred from 3k:1 to 30k:1 contrast was probably noticeable to _some_ people. Now, how many are going to notice the move from 30k:1 to 300k:1? 1/10th as many? 1/100th as many? 1/1000th as many? This is why the remaining improvements are slight.


It's the proverbial tree in the proverbial forest without the actual camcorder to confirm there was indeed a tree falling. Stuff normal people can't detect may as well not be happening. At least when you buy your AMG Mercedes, people are impressed. And you get psychic benefit out of it every time you slide inside and turn it on. Will that apply to OLED TVs? Maybe. But unfortunately, the panel fabrication business does not work the way niche automobiles do. Well, it kind of does. You can make relatively small numbers of "superior" cars / displays but only at much higher prices.


And OLED as currently conceived cannot cross the chasm to mass market for the multitude of reasons I've already explained. _I get you are not choosing to understand the cycle of production --> pricing --> sales --> production --> pricing --> sales_. I no longer care. (You should be happy I chose ignoramus; my original word selection was, um...) It is certainly possible that someone like Samsung will change the equation and I, in fact, have never said otherwise. As home-theater aficionados, we really should stop caring at this point. If the best display _ever_ was comparably priced and 55 inches diagonal, *I would not care, nor would anyone who has a decent sized room and really wants to enjoy movies and sports in said room*.


I find it amusing that the multitude of trolling at AVS loves to have it both ways: First, everyone is going to buy a 70-80 inch TV. Then, everyone is going to accept a 55-inch TV because they will all have such discerning vision they'll see the superiority of these 55-inch TVs over everything else ever made. So where are the enthusiasts going exactly? Big? Small but "better? You can't have your early adopter pool out doing everything you want it to do. It just doesn't work that way. And quite frankly, every one of them that buys a Sharp 70 or 80 or even a Panasonic 65 _has almost zero chance of buying a 55-inch anything_ -- especially one that costs more money. That's reality. Drink a cup.


(Since the NBA reference was lost there, the Galaxy S II phones are huge and getting bigger still with 4.5" screens and even a ridiculous 5.3" screen in the Galaxy Note. NBA players tend to be large men with huge hands. Ask your wife or girlfriend to hold a Galaxy S II sometime -- well, ask someone with a wife or girlfriend -- as it's kind of amusing.)


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21012650
> 
> 
> We disagree that plasma "dismissed" LCD. There was nothing they could do stop it. The gigantic economies of scale that were generated from the PC industry were brought to bear, slowly but surely, on TV. And the results speak for itself. The fact that plasma was not very easy to make cost effectively in smaller sizes and could not easily be made into 1080p in the 42" sizes did not help.
> 
> 
> And besides, the picture quality of today's LCDs and plasmas is so much better than what out 10 years ago, it's not even funny. I suggest if anyone can, they go find one from the early part of the millennium and try to watch a movie. It's really quite awful. Now? It's really quite good. This hand waving that is so popular at AVS belies the fact that *the world has absorbed somewhere around a billion HDTVs*. Most of them are not in dire need of replacement because _they are freaking HDTVs_. Compare this to 1999 when basically every single TV on the planet needed to be replaced to enjoy HDTV.
> 
> 
> As for this contrast business, I don't know what your experience has been Spec, but I urge you to do two things:
> 
> 
> 1) See an Elite or Sony HX when you can. They are quite quite amazing. Nothing in a "home theater" setting is going to be an order of magnitude better.
> 
> 
> 2) In a day-lit room, hang out with a Samsung D8000 LCD. I find that product to be generally "bad" in many ways. In a day-lit room., however, it's almost without compromise.
> 
> 
> --snip--
> 
> 
> If and when Samsung is producing millions of OLED TVs -- and I'm sorry Spec, but millions of OLED TVs in 2013?!?!? that very much strains the imagination -- they will begin to work down the learning curve and gain manufacturing efficiencies. Until then, they are not getting any better at making OLED TVs. It's all hypothetical.
> 
> 
> 
> I expressed no certainty. I expressed significant doubt that OLED will be cheaper than TFT this decade -- if ever.



Not from my experience talking with the plasma guys. They have been saying they are so far ahead of the cost curve that LCD can only compete in the


----------



## rogo

I am more or less tired of this circular argument. So I give up.


OLED will win everything. No other technology stands a chance. It is clearly superior. It is clearly cheaper to build. It will clearly be manufactured by everyone, including companies that have demonstrated no wherewithal to manufacture it, it's just a matter of time. Whatever size it is built in will be the size the market demands because it will be just be so darned great, no one will be able to resist the greatness.


I hope you are all satisfied. You have won.


(I am going to watch my actual TV that's in my living room, which I plan on replacing very soon with another actual TV I can buy. It will be better. I doubt my wife or friends will notice anything other than that it was bigger. But I will sleep easier at night knowing that soon enough the great OLED monster will come and be better still. Smaller, but better. And I will feel inferior. But still OK. Because I will have already lost the argument. Today. 9/28/2011.)


(Edit: Also, spec, I like you. And I respect your thinking, but, um: "But a lot of people say there is no market for 70." Where did they say this? Can you show me? That's a new meme here that is used to set up a straw man argument. I've love to see the source quotes.)


----------



## specuvestor

I posted the link in another thread which you might have missed:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post21009941 


I remember well because we were in the discussion as well, especially the large nose and the 7 feet Korean lady










BTW again to be factually right, no one is saying OLED will win everything. I think the market is big enough for the 3 tech, or at least this decade







Constant argument about plasma vs LCD is tiring. This is not a thread for that either. It is whether it is VIABLE. References to other tech is to this end. I seriously think all 3 can co-exist in different segments. OLED will have to go for the


----------



## xrox

Rogo,


I think we discussed this before but I remember seeing a presentation years ago when flat panels (LCD/PDP) were taking over CRT on how the flat panel sales/growth were being driven by replacements (ie - consumers replacing old bulky CRTs for new amazing hang on the wall flat panels). I've always wondered if by the time OLED is available in HT sizes will the consumer be wowed enough to want to replace one flat panel with another nearly identical looking flat panel. The "perceived" leap in technology just isn't as wide as CRT to LCD/PDP was. Any thoughts?


----------



## powertoold




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21013718
> 
> 
> Rogo,
> 
> 
> I think we discussed this before but I remember seeing a presentation years ago when flat panels (LCD/PDP) were taking over CRT on how the flat panel sales/growth were being driven by replacements (ie - consumers replacing old bulky CRTs for new amazing hang on the wall flat panels). I've always wondered if by the time OLED is available in HT sizes will the consumer be wowed enough to want to replace one flat panel with another nearly identical looking flat panel. The "perceived" leap in technology just isn't as wide as CRT to LCD/PDP was. Any thoughts?



Well if the OLED TV is like 5mm thick, has great 3D with its response time, and has perfect viewing angles, I'm sure it'll move a few sets.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21013540
> 
> 
> I posted the link in another thread which you might have missed:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post21009941
> 
> 
> I remember well because we were in the discussion as well, especially the large nose and the 7 feet Korean lady
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW again to be factually right, no one is saying OLED will win everything. I think the market is big enough for the 3 tech, or at least this decade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constant argument about plasma vs LCD is tiring. This is not a thread for that either. It is whether it is VIABLE. References to other tech is to this end. I seriously think all 3 can co-exist in different segments. OLED will have to go for the


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21013718
> 
> 
> Rogo,
> 
> 
> I think we discussed this before but I remember seeing a presentation years ago when flat panels (LCD/PDP) were taking over CRT on how the flat panel sales/growth were being driven by replacements (ie - consumers replacing old bulky CRTs for new amazing hang on the wall flat panels). I've always wondered if by the time OLED is available in HT sizes will the consumer be wowed enough to want to replace one flat panel with another nearly identical looking flat panel. The "perceived" leap in technology just isn't as wide as CRT to LCD/PDP was. Any thoughts?



Xrox, I personally fail to see how anything OLED could even theoretically do would rise to the level of what plasma and LCD did to CRT. TVs used to be:


1) Effectively limited to 27"-31" unless you went with projection, which was really room dominating and gigantic.

2) Standard definition and interlaced

3) Almost 2 feet thick and often 150 lbs.


To me, it's ridiculous to compare a somewhat better flat panel's impact to the impact that plasma and LCD had. And what OLED is -- on its best possible day -- is a somewhat better flat panel. It's not just a matter of perceived technological leaps here. I mean it really won't be "flatter" and the importance of moving from 1.5" thick sets to 0.5" thick sets is pretty meaningless. It won't be ushering in the HD era either.


And, quite frankly, as I've outlined in excruciating detail, today's LCDs and plasmas are not those of 2005. So between you and me -- and really I urge most of the rest of the people posting in this thread to just move on, you've won, I promise -- I find the most optimistic pronouncements or assumptions around OLED absurd. In fact, it's actually more complex than that because the very customers who would ostensibly be most intrigued by something better are on their 2nd or 3rd HDTVs already.


What you really have to consider is a thought experiment, I think, of taking the worst 40" flat panel on the market and comparing it to the last 32" standard definition CRT. It'd be the equivalent of introducing a horse-drawn carriage owner to an automobile. Sure, both can get you from point A to point B, but they don't otherwise share much in common. _The car would be mind bogglingly awesome_. Pretty much everyone would want to trade in their carriage for a car. And once the car came down in price to Model T levels, _pretty much everyone did_.


Now, compare that to a situation where a Toyota Camry owner is introduced to a Maybach. Sure, it's nicer. It's spiffier. It's faster. But, you know, it's a lot more expensive. And on a day-to-day basis, it doesn't do much that the Camry doesn't do in terms of getting you to and from the office, or the market, or your kid's soccer practice. While a lot of people would cover the Maybach, not everyone would commit to owning one (in fact, few people actually seem to want them). Now, we're talking Camry owners here, so they know from Lexus. Maybe that Maybach is Lexus priced (and performing) and everyone wants to trade up. But a lot of people don't value the difference enough to make the trade. Such, in fact, is the Lexus/Toyota relationship today. Toyota vastly outsells Lexus yet there is certainly a market for Lexus vehicles.


Well, what if Lexus cut all their prices down to -- or even below -- Toyota levels? Every comparable Toyota would probably disappear and Lexus models would replace them. I can't imagine why on earth Toyota would do this, _but if they did, then yes, it would work_. OLED, initially, is the Maybach here. It will quite literally cost a ratio to the cheapest 50-55" LCD or plasma that is Maybach:Camry. And honestly, I believe the performance feature-set differences will be more like Lexus:Totoya. (Again, if you are otherwise pre-disposed to this ridiculous pro-OLED construct espoused in this thread, please pass by this post and understand you are right. OLED will rule the universe, everyone will agree its 10x better than LCD, etc. etc. No doubt about it.)


It is my opinion that flat panel:standard def CRT is more like Maybach:horse than Maybach:Camry. And further, you'd have to set up an entirely fake comparison to get OLED to even by Maybach:Camry. And than even if you set up that fake comparison (it's fake because you have to disregard every dimension of picture quality where the LCD is really very good and only focus on the ones where the OLED is demonstrably better so it looks like the score is OLED 5, LCD 0, when the real score is more like 10 ties, 3 very small wins, 2 larger wins), the reality is Maybach:Camry is what I suggested above -- not the rout it first appears to be.


If we are to believe that it's plausible for production of these sets to begin ramping in the 2nd half of 2012 -- assuming some fab gets greenlighted in the beginning of 2012 -- then you'll forgive me for not believing that real volume production will be established until sometime in 2013. Between now and then, competing products will again get better and again get cheaper. I think that further shrinks the perception of how good the new kid in town is when he finally shows up.


----------



## Airion

I think if OLED comes out and it looks better than the LCDs and plasmas available at any given time, then there will be demand for OLED even if the difference in picture quality isn't very noticeable. Videophiles will notice (or think the notice). Regular people might not notice a difference, but they'll think they notice. If it gets into the mainstream that OLED is the new, superior technology, then people will want it.


I remember about seven years ago reading a TV buyer's guide on some news site which claimed that LCDs, being the newer technology, provided better colors and contrast than CRTs. If people think it's better, then they think it's better, whether it is nor not (or noticeable or not.) Well I knew better, and went on to buy a HD CRT.


Of course price matters greatly and OLEDs we may never see a day with affordable OLEDs. Even if they do become affordable then that would be far enough in the future that LCD or plasma may meet or beat OLED picture quality by that point. But if the argument is OLEDs won't sell because they won't look that much better than LCD or plasma, I don't buy it.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/21014694
> 
> 
> I think if OLED comes out and it looks better than the LCDs and plasmas available at any given time, then there will be demand for OLED even if the difference in picture quality isn't very noticeable. Videophiles will notice (or think the notice). Regular people might not notice a difference, but they'll think they notice. If it gets into the mainstream that OLED is the new, superior technology, then people will want it.



Of course, I've never suggested otherwise.



> Quote:
> . But if the argument is OLEDs won't sell because they won't look that much better than LCD or plasma, I don't buy it.



And, again, I've never suggested otherwise. People seem to wish to read otherwise, but the text is actually there and that's not in fact what it says at all. It suggests it will be very difficult to sell many millions at premium prices based on some small superiority. And absent selling many millions it will be impossible to drive the price down. And absent driving the price down, it will be impossible to sell many millions. And we are back to square one.


Again, I urge people with their own preconceived notions to just move on. You are right, everyone will be watching a Samsung or LG 55" OLED in just a few years and no other TVs will even be on the market because those OLEDs will not only be the best TVs _ever_ they will be the cheapest TVs ever.


Anyway, back to this "square one" thing. I've followed technology for 35 years or so. All sorts of things have been "givens" or "just around the corner" or "certain to happen" for as long as I can remember. And, remarkably, many of them never happen. And the reason is that a lot of them can't solve some of these "square one loops".


It has been speculated here that Sharp's 70-inch displays have been sold "below cost" because they are not properly amortizing their cost of the Sakai plant on a per-unit basis into each display. I personally find this kind of logic specious because it presumes that the lifetime of the plant is some kind of fixed value and they are required to plug in an amortization value per unit _now_ that is essentially equal to [ total present value cost of plant * (size adjustment value / total units the plant will produce )].


The denominator is basically all the displays the plant will ever might but might plug in 1.2 for a 70" display and 0.8 for a 50" display to get a bigger cost associated with the bigger display. Sample math: $5 billion * (1.2 / 25 million) = 240. Here's the thing though. What if you change that to 30 million displays instead of 25 million? It now only costs $200 per display in amortization. And here's the thing about Sakai, Sharp really doesn't know precisely how long it will operate, but they can rest easy knowing a couple of things:


(1) Demand for LCD TVs will be robust as far as the eye can see.

(2) It's fairly unlikely the plant will become functionally obsolete since it uses 10G substrates when the rest of the industry is still stuck with 8G substrates (and there are logistical reasons why much larger substrates will never exist as they are actually not possible to transport).


Now there are legitimate arguments to be raised about how amortization is typically charged. For example, is it normally billed higher earlier? (I have no idea). For example, did they claim the output would be 25 million over 10 years originally and then decide later that ouptut would be 30 million over 12 years? (Again, I have no idea). This kind of moving the bar is financial shenanigans and would make me question whether I'd want to buy stock in Sharp. But unless the assumptions surrounding the lifetime of the plant or the ultimate output are outside the realm of reasonable, they don't make me think Sharp is using unreasonable amortization expense as an input in their display pricing decisions.


Now, after that long-winded explanation, let's compare that to Samsung and OLED. What if they build a $3 billion 8G OLED line and they claim it's going to produce 25 million 55" OLED TVs. Is anyone worried? I am. Not only do they have to amortize the fab at $120 per display but they also have to cover the variable cost per unit. Oh, and they have to probably do this over 10 years at like 2.5 million per year producing about 40,000 substrates per month.


So what worries me here is:


1) No one has ever produced that many OLED substrates per month.

2) There is no proven demand for OLED TVs.

3) There might not be any demand for premium-priced 55" TVs by the time these ship.

4) The variable cost for producing OLEDs -- at least initially -- will likely far exceed what Samsung's display division can recoup in wholesale pricing unless they price the early units very very high.

5) High pricing will dampen demand.

6) Low demand will not lead to higher utilization.

7) Large-area OLED displays have never been produced period, so I don't even know what yields will look like and that might lead to even higher variable costs per unit (it will for the first several years, guaranteed)

8) My masking/patterning method might not work

9) By fostering the developing of IGZO I might make for even better/cheaper LCD TVs and create stronger competition for OLED

10) IGZO might not be better / cheaper and OLEDs might remain more expensive indefinitely

11) LGs patterning / masking might be cheaper or better than mine and I might not be able to compete or switch to their method

12) Apple or Google might buy a ton of OLED displays from someone else given them a leg up on developing OLED technology and they might do something differently than me and might be to market with a better/faster/cheaper development and I might not be able to compete having invested in an inferior method

13) Global economics might cause consumers to only seek cheaper alternatives and I might find next to zero market acceptance of premium products

14) Insert another 5000 possible issues here


So you see, it's very challenging to basically invent an entirely new technology and bring it to market. It was another thing entirely to dip the toes in slowly and make the Galaxy phones real and even there, Samsung still sells LCD phones despite having the production wherewithal to drop them from their product portfolio.


One significant way to cut the risk of building an 8G OLED fab would be to have a supply contract with a tablet maker (specifically Apple) to purchase a large quantity of 10" OLED screens for tablet use in 2013 and beyond. That would ensure the investment would be successful _even if the TV thing didn't pan out_. Unfortunately, those two companies are not getting along very well right now. Perhaps the winds will shift in that regard.


----------



## slacker711

I'll leave most of your rant alone because at this point we are just talking past each other. However, I do want to address this quote.



> Quote:
> If and when Samsung is producing millions of OLED TVs -- and I'm sorry Spec, but millions of OLED TVs in 2013?!?!? that very much strains the imagination -- they will begin to work down the learning curve and gain manufacturing efficiencies. Until then, they are not getting any better at making OLED TVs. It's all hypothetical.



Yes, it is all hypotheticals. That is the nature of ALL predictions about the future.


I'm not a AV geek, I'm an investor. If you want to boil it down, forecasting the future of technology adoption is pretty much what I do for a living. So back in 2006/7, even though every single attempt to bring AMOLED's to market had failed and there were doubts about the ability of shadowmasks to scale to Gen 4 fabs, I believed that Samsung was on the right track to bringing the technology to the cellphone market. There were quite a few roadblocks but the preponderance of evidence pointed towards progress and most off all Samsung's financial commitment to OLED's convinced me that at least they believed that they could bring the technology to market.


It turns out that they could and did....and it was all based on hypotheticals.


Slacker


----------



## slacker711

Unfortunately, if you live in the UK, you can no longer be first on your block with a professional Sony OLED TV ;-).

​


> Quote:
> in geek news we've just had a sony OLED broadcast monitor delivered, first in the country apparently. It's mighty fine.



Slacker


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21014936
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, again, I've never suggested otherwise. People seem to wish to read otherwise, but the text is actually there and that's not in fact what it says at all. It suggests it will be very difficult to sell many millions at premium prices based on some small superiority. And absent selling many millions it will be impossible to drive the price down. And absent driving the price down, it will be impossible to sell many millions. And we are back to square one.



You've made a very strong case, even if I may quibble in relatively small areas. OLED has a very challenging road ahead, at least in larger panel sizes.


Reading this thread, it's becoming clear that there are a few in here who are vying to be this decades OLED version of Auditor55.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21014610
> 
> 
> Xrox, I personally fail to see how anything OLED could even theoretically do would rise to the level of what plasma and LCD did to CRT. TVs used to be:
> 
> 
> 1) Effectively limited to 27"-31" unless you went with projection, which was really room dominating and gigantic.
> 
> 2) Standard definition and interlaced
> 
> 3) Almost 2 feet thick and often 150 lbs.
> 
> 
> To me, it's ridiculous to compare a somewhat better flat panel's impact to the impact that plasma and LCD had. And what OLED is -- on its best possible day -- is a somewhat better flat panel. It's not just a matter of perceived technological leaps here. I mean it really won't be "flatter" and the importance of moving from 1.5" thick sets to 0.5" thick sets is pretty meaningless. It won't be ushering in the HD era either.
> 
> 
> And, quite frankly, as I've outlined in excruciating detail, today's LCDs and plasmas are not those of 2005. So between you and me -- and really I urge most of the rest of the people posting in this thread to just move on, you've won, I promise -- I find the most optimistic pronouncements or assumptions around OLED absurd. In fact, it's actually more complex than that because the very customers who would ostensibly be most intrigued by something better are on their 2nd or 3rd HDTVs already.
> 
> 
> What you really have to consider is a thought experiment, I think, of taking the worst 40" flat panel on the market and comparing it to the last 32" standard definition CRT. It'd be the equivalent of introducing a horse-drawn carriage owner to an automobile. Sure, both can get you from point A to point B, but they don't otherwise share much in common. _The car would be mind bogglingly awesome_. Pretty much everyone would want to trade in their carriage for a car. And once the car came down in price to Model T levels, _pretty much everyone did_.
> 
> 
> Now, compare that to a situation where a Toyota Camry owner is introduced to a Maybach. Sure, it's nicer. It's spiffier. It's faster. But, you know, it's a lot more expensive. And on a day-to-day basis, it doesn't do much that the Camry doesn't do in terms of getting you to and from the office, or the market, or your kid's soccer practice. While a lot of people would cover the Maybach, not everyone would commit to owning one (in fact, few people actually seem to want them). Now, we're talking Camry owners here, so they know from Lexus. Maybe that Maybach is Lexus priced (and performing) and everyone wants to trade up. But a lot of people don't value the difference enough to make the trade. Such, in fact, is the Lexus/Toyota relationship today. Toyota vastly outsells Lexus yet there is certainly a market for Lexus vehicles.
> 
> 
> Well, what if Lexus cut all their prices down to -- or even below -- Toyota levels? Every comparable Toyota would probably disappear and Lexus models would replace them. I can't imagine why on earth Toyota would do this, _but if they did, then yes, it would work_. OLED, initially, is the Maybach here. It will quite literally cost a ratio to the cheapest 50-55" LCD or plasma that is Maybach:Camry. And honestly, I believe the performance feature-set differences will be more like Lexus:Totoya. (Again, if you are otherwise pre-disposed to this ridiculous pro-OLED construct espoused in this thread, please pass by this post and understand you are right. OLED will rule the universe, everyone will agree its 10x better than LCD, etc. etc. No doubt about it.)
> 
> 
> It is my opinion that flat panel:standard def CRT is more like Maybach:horse than Maybach:Camry. And further, you'd have to set up an entirely fake comparison to get OLED to even by Maybach:Camry. And than even if you set up that fake comparison (it's fake because you have to disregard every dimension of picture quality where the LCD is really very good and only focus on the ones where the OLED is demonstrably better so it looks like the score is OLED 5, LCD 0, when the real score is more like 10 ties, 3 very small wins, 2 larger wins), the reality is Maybach:Camry is what I suggested above -- not the rout it first appears to be.
> 
> 
> If we are to believe that it's plausible for production of these sets to begin ramping in the 2nd half of 2012 -- assuming some fab gets greenlighted in the beginning of 2012 -- then you'll forgive me for not believing that real volume production will be established until sometime in 2013. Between now and then, competing products will again get better and again get cheaper. I think that further shrinks the perception of how good the new kid in town is when he finally shows up.



LOL - My question was purposefully restrained and conservative relative to my view but I agree completely. Unlike handheld devices which are replaced constantly it is going to be extremely difficult to convince the average consumer to replace thier current LCD/PDP.


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21014936
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think if OLED comes out and it looks better than the LCDs and plasmas available at any given time, then there will be demand for OLED even if the difference in picture quality isn't very noticeable. Videophiles will notice (or think the notice). Regular people might not notice a difference, but they'll think they notice. If it gets into the mainstream that OLED is the new, superior technology, then people will want it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I've never suggested otherwise.Of course, I've never suggested otherwise.
Click to expand...


I thought that was the point of your earlier post, which took you some time you said, where you point by point minimized the potential advantages of OLED. I won't quote all of it, but here's a snippet:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21009051
> 
> 
> So, yes, back to Sun's question, I am quite positive the general public won't notice or care about the difference. Some people will see the OLED TV as superior the same way some people see the Elite as superior.



Reread my post. I think they won't be able to truly notice, but they will perceive a difference and care. The whole point of your detailed post there was that OLED doesn't provide a significant improvement. Early LCD provided a negative improvement, and yet people bought it believing it was the superior technology with advanced picture quality, despite a actual significant backtrack in contrast, viewing angle, etc. LCD moved on to sell millions of units and drive the price down, despite not beating HD CRTs in picture quality. Plasma too bloomed, despite being less HD than LCD, on the public perception that they provided a better picture. If HD and picture quality was all that mattered, HD CRT would have won. If HD was all that mattered and contrast didn't, we wouldn't have plasma. If form factor was all that mattered, we never would have had RPTVs or perhaps 50" plus flat panels. It's all muddied by marketing and public perception, and it always has been.


I appreciate your objective look at the limited benefits of OLED and I think you're right. (In fact, I wouldn't take a 50" OLED for free because I've already got a superior image right now. Size matters and my Mitsubushi HC3800 on a 90" high gain screen cannot be beaten by a 50" anything for me.







) The point is, most of the public won't read your post. They'll buy the hype as they have before.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions* /forum/post/21015161
> 
> 
> Reading this thread, it's becoming clear that there are a few in here who are vying to be this decades OLED version of Auditor55.



Auditor55! What memories!


----------



## mr. wally

well i don't know about others, but audi and me are both enjoying the outstanding pq of our sed displays


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21014999
> 
> 
> I'll leave most of your rant alone because at this point we are just talking past each other.



Let's just be honest, OK. You leave it alone and call it a rant because most of it can't really be refuted. So you go and attack me in an attempt to pretend it's not actually a well constructed argument. I mean, let's be honest, OK.


> Quote:
> It turns out that they could and did....and it was all based on hypotheticals.



Stop pretending you are breaking down my argument when you aren't reading it. It's really offensive. There's actually a point when I note that there is no manufacturing efficiency absent production and no current production nor any evidence of production nor any evidence of demand to drive that production. You can state that the chicken-and-egg problem will be solved if you wish because you believe Samsung will simply start producing milions of TV and sell them below cost or because you are quite certain demand for high-end-but-not-very-large-TVs will exist.


What you can't do is conclude that the problem doesn't exist because it's hypothetical. It's real. If you are some sort of wizard investor, you ought to know how blue-sky manufacturing works and how the cost of production won't even begin to fall for quite some time -- probably years. You should be rejecting the Korean report out of hand because of its naivete.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/21015651
> 
> 
> Reread my post. I think they won't be able to truly notice, but they will perceive a difference and care. The whole point of your detailed post there was that OLED doesn't provide a significant improvement. Early LCD provided a negative improvement, and yet people bought it believing it was the superior technology with advanced picture quality, despite a actual significant backtrack in contrast, viewing angle, etc. LCD moved on to sell millions of units and drive the price down, despite not beating HD CRTs in picture quality. Plasma too bloomed, despite being less HD than LCD, on the public perception that they provided a better picture. If HD and picture quality was all that mattered, HD CRT would have won. If HD was all that mattered and contrast didn't, we wouldn't have plasma. If form factor was all that mattered, we never would have had RPTVs or perhaps 50" plus flat panels. It's all muddied by marketing and public perception, and it always has been.
> 
> 
> I appreciate your objective look at the limited benefits of OLED and I think you're right. The point is, most of the public won't read your post. They'll buy the hype as they have before.



Sorry, Airion, let me clarify. When I say the general public won't care, I mean "most people". When I say "some people" will care/notice, I mean some people. And the comparisons to LCD/plasma fail. Those were the first flat panels. People desperately wanted to have them in their homes. They got over all the weaknesses you correctly identify to just "OMG gotta have" one.


Do I think some people will believe the hype? Of course. But the potential market is not "greenfield" anymore. It's people who already own plasmas and LCDs or projectors like you. When people were talking themselves out of getting an HD CRT in 2002, that was one thing. When they were talking themselves into replacing an SD CRT, it was easy. When they are talking themselves into getting a new OLED that's not especially large to replace an already existing 2009 LCD or plasma (or projector)? Please. It's just now the same decision, as people like you more than prove. Thanks for your insight.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21015297
> 
> 
> LOL - My question was purposefully restrained and conservative relative to my view but I agree completely. Unlike handheld devices which are replaced constantly it is going to be extremely difficult to convince the average consumer to replace thier current LCD/PDP.



I tried to create a layperson's analogy to both answer your question and provide another angle for someone perhaps visiting this thread for the first time. I imagine you sense my frustration at this point not that people don't agree with me (quite frankly I don't actually care about that), but rather that some people refuse to construct an argument -- or deconstruct one. Thus I keep littering my posts with disclaimers. Which reminds me: OLED believers, if you have gotten here, please understand, OLED will win and remove every trace of competing technologies from existence. It will be like the dinosaurs, plasma and LCD will be basically left to nothing more than a fossil record.


Anyway, back to the larger point. It's so freaking obvious to me that the decision to replace a 27" SD CRT with a flat panel or even a 42" plasma with a 60" LCD is radically different from replacing a 70" LCD with a 55" OLED, I don't feel like I need any of my education or knowledge to draw on to understand those differences (including a business degree from a small California school with a decent program). I don't feel like I need any of my decades of following markets and companies to understand that. It's obvious.


"Honey, check this out. Our 200 lb. TV is gone, the new one is going to hang on the wall." The amount of WAF of TVs sold in the 2000s is basically off the charts. WAF killed projection TVs completely, despite the availability of highly affordable, good quality microdisplay sets that were bigger and cheaper than plasmas/LCDs.


Ironically, there is some WAF in replacing the new Sharp 70" you just bought with a 55" TV, but let's be real, _who is doing that_? And given that 60" sets are already routinely sold for $1500 and will almost certainly be $1000 by Christmas 2013 -- a fact I was skeptical about I think less than a year ago and then certain of by early summer -- how many more people who want big will wind up with big?


I'm not really sure what the distribution of sales is by price, but if we group, say all the TVs from 50 to 60 inches, we'd probably get a bell curve type distribution. If we look at the distribution of sales by sizes, it's noteworthy that in the best data I could find:


1) Half of the sales last year were 40-42 inch LCD (for LCD alone, far and away the largest category, "40- to 42-inch models accounted for 50 percent of the Q2 LCD TV category" -- Twice, 8/30/2010)

2) The average retail price in July for an LCD TV in the United States was $1,136 -- Twice, 8/30/2010


So it's hard to guess what this all means, but let's just say that it leaves at most 1/3 of the market for 50-60". (Everything below 40" still exists. Everything in the mid 40s still exists and while the gravitational pull of size from the 40-42 range will be real, that 50% share will likely move to the mid 40s over the next year or two, no higher. Everything over 60" still exists). So now if we distribute all the sales in the 50-60 range across our bell and we consider that the average selling price in that category was $1500 last year, but will likely be $1000 next year, what do you figure is the portion of sales that belongs to the $3000-5000 slice of that market?


I admit this is crude, but it's safe to say that looking out at 2013, we are seeing something like this: 50-60" = maximum of 40% of the market in the U.S. (high, but whatever, I'll allow it). $3000 and up category = maximum of 5% of that. So the entire category in which these TVs could sell represents 2% of the business. _And every other plasma and LCD that's premium priced and 50-60" is in it_.


Worldwide, this slice of the market is actually


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21017442
> 
> 
> Let's just be honest, OK. You leave it alone and call it a rant because most of it can't really be refuted. So you go and attack me in an attempt to pretend it's not actually a well constructed argument. I mean, let's be honest, OK.



No need to pretend, it isnt a well constructed argument. It is an argument based on your notions of the ultimate price of OLED's. Yes, I absolutely agree that if OLED's are order of magnitude more expensive than LCD's that they wont sell. There arent enough advantages for OLED's to overcome that kind of price premium.


Happy?


Of course, we have very different ideas on where the ultimate price of OLED's will be.



> Quote:
> It's really offensive. There's actually a point when I note that there is no manufacturing efficiency absent production and no current production nor any evidence of production nor any evidence of demand to drive that production. You can state that the chicken-and-egg problem will be solved if you wish because you believe Samsung will simply start producing milions of TV and sell them below cost or because you are quite certain demand for high-end-but-not-very-large-TVs will exist.



I particularly love this part of the argument. As if this isnt the problem faced by nearly every new technology when it comes to market. It is amazing that we ever see new technologies ever manage to overcome it. Samsung must have waved a magic wand to solve this gordion knot and become profitable in cellphone sized OLED's.


Here's the thing. There's no secret to being right the majority of the time in arguments about new technologies. Simply take the side against it ever coming to market. You will be right the majority of the time. The real trick is figuring out when a technology can overcome the myriad obstacles that are an inevitable part of commercialization. I think there is increasing evidence that OLED televisions are doing exactly that.


By the way, I'm not married to this position. If Samsung doesnt announce a significant OLED capex budget in 2012, I'll reevaluate where the market is going. I do wonder what you will do though. Will you simply double down on your vociferous opposition or will you take the new data and start to soften a bit?


I guess we'll find out soon.


Slacker


----------



## Sunidrem

So, the reason people won't buy 55" OLED TVs for $5k in 2014 (or whenever) is because no one was buying 55" TVs for $5k last year?


If you believe OLED is a minor/non-existent upgrade, then yeah, what you're saying makes sense - OLED will never reach production efficiencies that lower the price. As for the rest of us that believe OLED will be a substantial upgrade, the chicken/egg cycle will be broken by early adopters and/or aggressive production schedules.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21017916
> 
> 
> So, the reason people won't buy 55" OLED TVs for $5k in 2014 (or whenever) is because no one was buying 55" TVs for $5k last year?



I actually agree with him. There is no mass market for a $5000 55" OLED TV either now or in 2014.


and Samsung wont build a Gen 8 fab if that is the price that is necessary to be profitable either.


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21017916
> 
> 
> So, the reason people won't buy 55" OLED TVs for $5k in 2014 (or whenever) is because no one was buying 55" TVs for $5k last year?



I actually used entirely different price bands. And I actually never said no one would buy them. But thanks for again boiling an hour's worth of work into 30 seconds of either not reading or an intentionally misleading "sound bite".



> Quote:
> If you believe OLED is a minor/non-existent upgrade, then yeah, what you're saying makes sense - OLED will never reach production efficiencies that lower the price.



Again, not what I said. I said, more or less, "too small for most people to notice" and "not remotely equivalent to the upgrade from SD CRT to flat panel HDTV". The former is almost irrefutable: people rarely pay for quality. The latter is inarguable, except by morons. And I'm not saying you're a moron. Far from it.



> Quote:
> As for the rest of us that believe OLED will be a substantial upgrade, the chicken/egg cycle will be broken by early adopters and/or aggressive production schedules.



Early adopters cannot break the chicken/egg problem. It requires _chasm crossing_ at some point to do this. The bet that Samsung has to place involves betting billions that the chasm can be crossed. They have to take the losses up front either way, but then they still need to find a price where the ongoing losses are tolerable. And quite frankly, it's a huge company, but not an infinitely wealthy one.


----------



## gmarceau

Rogo, 5 years from now, if you could choose between buying an lcd, plasma, or oled and they were all the same price, which one would you go with?


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

"On/off or sequential contrast

How black can black be in dark scenes? Very on current plasmas and exceptionally on current locally dimmed LCDs. Could this be improved? Infinitesimally, perhaps. Local dimming needs some work to eliminate halos / blooming. Plasma still needs to get back to Kuro levels. More zones will come to LCD. Maybe Panasonic will finally bring out its own Kuro killer plasma. Again, though, we are splitting hairs. There is room here, but there is not much room. The Sony/Elite are ridiculously good in this metric.

Possible improvement: Minimal but it does exist


ANSI or simultaneous contrast

The ability to show bright and dark at once. With local dimming, LCD is now an order of magnitude better than it once was. Plasma was always decent here, never amazing. For what it's worth, CRT was never amazing here, yet it was "reference" for years. OLED will be better. Will this improve picture quality? Marginally at most. Are LCD and plasma standing still here? No. In fact, plasma's biggest weakness -- light output -- goes away on mixed content and allows for small areas of very bright output.

Possible improvement: Minimal and the importance is minimal"


Rogo, everybody who looks at OLED other than you seems to think the differences are much larger, subjectively. I look at LCDs at the shop once in a while and don't see major improvements off-angle to justify buying a new TV. I have a 2008 panasonic plasma that's just fine, and when OLED comes along I'll upgrade. I'm never buying another LCD in my life.


If you hate OLED so much and think LCD will own the universe for the foreseeable future, well good luck with that. You will be exceedingly wrong, IMO. What does my opinion count for? Well, for one, when people's jaws drop to the floor each time they see an OLED, they will pay the money to upgrade. Also, Apple will push it down the line anyway so there is no chance LCD will maintain its dominance forever. OLED is the superior tech, and the differences are not minimal. People held onto their CRTs for years because LCDs had sucky contrast and motion. What makes you think the inverse is so implausible? I would gladly pay 5k for a 55 inch OLED next year. In fact, I probably will. I've waited 4 years to upgrade, and make a good salary. Nothing has been worthwhile to upgrade to, except a Pio, and I had just bought a plasma.



Anyway, this is the internetz, who cares if your predictions are right or wrong, I certainly don't. You sound so confident of yourself but don't realize that others see through it. Our eyes are no less golden than yours. I'm a 3D programmer for a major video game company.


Guess what display tech we use to show our games on ? Plasma. NOT LCD. Yes, even now, in 2011. Contrast, black levels and motion are the most important things to us when selecting displays.


You really think an LCD with terrible off-angle grey washed out colour is going to cut it in a board-room presentation when you've spent 6 million dollars making a AAA title and people are standing all over the place? I don't sit right in the middle of my TV's sweet spot in my loft, I move around, I cook, I have guests over. When OLED gets here, I will upgrade, because I use my TV as a computer monitor and watch a lot of dark sci-fi movies and fantasy. Do you really expect me to believe LCDs can compete here? I go over to my friend's place who has an LCD that cost double my plasma, and it SUCKS.


Read every single review of those OLEDs, people almost universally were awed. The iphone LCD is only good because of its pixel pitch. Apple will get rid of LCD soon enough, and then this "debate" will be moot and your predictions will be long-forgotten.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21017825
> 
> 
> No need to pretend, it isnt a well constructed argument. It is an argument based on your notions of the ultimate price of OLED's. Yes, I absolutely agree that if OLED's are order of magnitude more expensive than LCD's that they wont sell. There arent enough advantages for OLED's to overcome that kind of price premium.
> 
> 
> Happy?



Let's be honest. You used ad hominem again there, it was just softpedaled. And let's be further honest, you again pulled what I'd call "Limbaugh Logic" except I don't really want to associate it with a particular political belief but rather a particular kind of intellectual dishonesty. I described a framework where competing TVs are around $1000 and the first OLEDs are in a band of $3000 and up. I actually left it open ended where in that band they were. Perhaps Samsung goes so far down the learning-curve pricing, they open at $3000. I suggested that at $5000 there is no path to volume and that _even at $3000_ they'd have to capture the entire segment to hit full utilization on the plant.


The reader paying attention would've understood what this means: Either they find a way below $3000 pretty darned quick or they don't bother. Simply opening at $5000 and moving to $3000 doesn't get it done. There is no way Samsung takes 100% of the segment -- especially because the closer they get the more competition simply moves the segment to $2000 and recaptures share of "premiums" at a lower price band. But instead you "Limbaughed" me there. You took one strand of the argument and you extrapolated to claim I didn't really make an argument. Bravo.



> Quote:
> Of course, we have very different ideas on where the ultimate price of OLED's will be.



You don't even know what mine are, other than me stating that it's nearly impossible they will catch TFT-LCD costs this decade, no matter what a bunch of Korean i-bank analysts seem to think.


> Quote:
> I particularly love this part of the argument. As if this isnt the problem faced by nearly every new technology when it comes to market. It is amazing that we ever see new technologies ever manage to overcome it. Samsung must have waved a magic wand to solve this gordion knot and become profitable in cellphone sized OLED's.



We don't see new technologies come to market very often. In display it has happened twice since Zworykin. Each -- plasma and LCD -- took about 30 years to commercialize (I am leaving out projection-based technologies as none has ever sold 10 million units in a year and none are currently selling even half that, including office projectors... also, DLP took its own sweet time). We see packaging of existing technologies come to market regularly -- iPhone is an amazing example. We don't see new forms of memory displacing flash, despite reading about that since the 1990s and flash hitting numerous "walls" since then. We don't see the x86 architecture getting displaced on the desktop or in servers despite basically not increasing in clock speeds for years.


Generally, new technologies don't overcome the hurdles or the "Gordian Knot" as you put it. And when the "ante" is $3 billion or more, the problem is that much trickier. It explains why _virtuallly everyone researching OLED has already bailed on pursuing it commercially_, including Sony (blah blah blah, Sony broadcast monitors, blah blah blah... Show me a TV fab and we can talk about Sony pursuing it, until then, _they aren't pursuing it). All the hype from Epson, Kodak, duPont, yada yada about roll-to-roll printable OLEDs with flexible backing... Dates back to the Y2K era. And ... yet... nothing.


You global warming deniers ought to look at the pictures of Greenland ice in 2000 vs. 2011 and then the list of promises about OLED TVs in 2000 vs. 2011. It's pretty amazing to actually see the ice gone. And to actually see the OLED TV promises coming from fewer places, with still no products to buy (oh, accept for that Sony broadcast monitor.... pop that baby in your home theater).



Quote:
Here's the thing. There's no secret to being right the majority of the time in arguments about new technologies. Simply take the side against it ever coming to market. You will be right the majority of the time. The real trick is figuring out when a technology can overcome the myriad obstacles that are an inevitable part of commercialization. I think there is increasing evidence that OLED televisions are doing exactly that.

Click to expand...


When Samsung builds a fab, there will be evidence of it.



Quote:
By the way, I'm not married to this position. If Samsung doesnt announce a significant OLED capex budget in 2012, I'll reevaluate where the market is going. I do wonder what you will do though. Will you simply double down on your vociferous opposition or will you take the new data and start to soften a bit?

Click to expand...


If they announce a fab, I'll be excited. I want this stuff to make it. I wish they weren't so damn stupid about making them on a Gen 8 fab that basically can't ever make a size that true videophiles want. The fact they are positioning this as some sort of mainstream product actually makes me wonder what the selling proposition is going to be. To be honest, for me, a 65" would do. A 70" would do. I think I'm like a lot of people in that regard. Heck, I might tolerate a 60" if it was the best thing ever. 55" is already too small. And Sharp is getting people who really love TV/home theater rapidly accustomed to that notion. I think everything about Samsung's business plan is fail. And I want them to succeed. I have no opposition to anything.


I doubt they are announcing this capex in the middle of this global economic [email protected]#$. But more power to them if they do. I believe that it's a bet as much on the tablet market as it is on any certainty the TV business plan is viable._


----------



## GmanAVS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *htwaits* /forum/post/21017158
> 
> 
> Auditor55! What memories!


*SED* is still dead


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21018104
> 
> 
> I actually used entirely different price bands. And I actually never said no one would buy them. But thanks for again boiling an hour's worth of work into 30 seconds of either not reading or an intentionally misleading "sound bite".



Incidentally, since that is the second time you referenced how long it took you to write your response, someone asked Abraham Lincoln how long it takes him to write a speech and you may find his response illuminating: "Two weeks for a 20-minute speech. One week for a 40-minute speech; and I can give a rambling two-hour talk right now.""


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21017584
> 
> 
> When they are talking themselves into getting a new OLED that's not especially large to replace an already existing 2009 LCD or plasma (or projector)? Please.



You're focusing on people upgrading from recent and large sets, but that's only a part of the equation isn't it? How about people shopping to replace their 2005 LCD? Or people shopping to replace a broken display? Or people shopping for a display that isn't a replacement?


I agree the arrival of OLED is nothing like the arrival of flat panels. I don't think OLED will explode. I don't think it necessarily has to.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I tried to create a layperson's analogy to both answer your question and provide another angle for someone perhaps visiting this thread for the first time. I imagine you sense my frustration at this point not that people don't agree with me (quite frankly I don't actually care about that), but rather that some people refuse to construct an argument -- or deconstruct one. Thus I keep littering my posts with disclaimers. Which reminds me: OLED believers, if you have gotten here, please understand, OLED will win and remove every trace of competing technologies from existence. It will be like the dinosaurs, plasma and LCD will be basically left to nothing more than a fossil record.



rogo u know I respect your opinion but why do you keep saying this when no one else is?? Frankly this does qualify as a rant










You have your opinion and I have mine but the beauty is that it will not be a decade wait but next 6 months. I will not rehash my same points but we will revisit the VIABILITY then and examine the pudding. What is clear though is OLED on tablet has yet to progressively convince you after a year of skepticism. I'm wondering by your logic does OLED has to be in EVERY tablet or handset to finally prove viability?


PS I'm not sure why u keep deviating to Global warming but here's my post for your consideration:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here's the recent boo-boo on global warming. If you look at the picture it looks credible. But devil is always in the details. I'm not saying global warming does not exist. But environment changes is a complicated global ecosystem phenomenon, and balance can be destroyed by a myriad of not so obvious derivative factors. My point is science is not as obvious or convenient as many of us wants to believe, or choose to take the time AND effort to understand PROPERLY. People nowadays just want fast and quick answers that appeals heuristically, hence why there's a market for 1" thick TVs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-greenland-map
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-m...ional-ice-melt


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post21013642 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You've made a very strong case, even if I may quibble in relatively small areas. OLED has a very challenging road ahead, at least in larger panel sizes.
> 
> 
> Reading this thread, it's becoming clear that there are a few in here who are vying to be this decades OLED version of Auditor55.



Obviously you have not been reading this thread and don't know non vaporware OLED TV is coming while I have yet to hear any hint of SED being resurrected. Whether most of us can actually afford to buy one in next 3 years is another matter altogether.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> LOL - My question was purposefully restrained and conservative relative to my view but I agree completely. Unlike handheld devices which are replaced constantly it is going to be extremely difficult to convince the average consumer to replace thier current LCD/PDP.



With all due respect xrox, if u are right then I should be shorting TFT stocks, not to mention OLED stocks







BTW CRT TV are still being sold in emerging markets. Sammy's CRT division is lasting longer than Auditor55's forecast of PDP death


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> I described a framework where competing TVs are around $1000 and the first OLEDs are in a band of $3000 and up. I actually left it open ended where in that band they were. Perhaps Samsung goes so far down the learning-curve pricing, they open at $3000. I suggested that at $5000 there is no path to volume and that even at $3000 they'd have to capture the entire segment to hit full utilization on the plant.



I dont care where the opening price for OLED televisions is set. It is irrelevant to me whether Samsung sells the first 55" OLED TV at $15000 or $7500 or, as I have said before, they simply set them on fire. The question I have is the price point where a Gen 8 fab is capable of producing a 55" TV when they hit commercial yields. That is going to determine the success or failure of the fab and Samsung isnt going to approve a fab where that price is $5000 or even $3000.


We are in absolute agreement that the market for >$3000 55" televisions is going to be limited. They are going to need to get in the range of $2000 to make this a mass market item that can justify the necessary capex and R&D.



> Quote:
> I doubt they are announcing this capex in the middle of this global economic [email protected]#$. But more power to them if they do. I believe that it's a bet as much on the tablet market as it is on any certainty the TV business plan is viable.



The '08 credit crisis set back the capacity expansion for the Gen 4 fab by at least a year. A meltdown in Europe would definitely have an impact on any potential Gen 8 fab.


As for tablets, the market outside of Apple is tiny. Samsung is likely going to have capacity for 10 million 10" OLED screens a month just from their Gen 5.5 capacity in 2013. The idea that they are going to build a Gen 8 fab that requires new processes and technologies to add 16K wafers (~3 million 10" screens) makes very little sense to me.


but as spec just said, the wait isnt long. Six months from now we should have a far better idea about the industry's plans for OLED televisions.


Slacker


----------



## slacker711

and just for the record, the 15" OLED from LG did sell commercially in Europe. You can buy one for $1450.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-Electroni...7343066&sr=1-1 


The only person that I have ever found that bought the TV used it for gaming...and loved it. Of course, he had to sit 3' away from the thing







.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1586235&page=4 



> Quote:
> I have that LG Oled tv. I use it only for the PS3.... and yes gaming is amazing on it. There is zero blur, the blacks are so black that playing in pitch black the eyes can not make out if its on or off.
> 
> 
> Been playing Super Sf4 and MK on it... its been a real pleasure for sure( no input lag!!) and labeling the input as PC correctly handles the 4:4:4 chroma! Very sharp!. I am probably the only person using it for gaming but coming from a Pioneer Elite pro 111 tv to this... just wow!
> 
> 
> I was at first very skeptical of the size and the resolution of the tv, but after getting it and using those concerns have gone away. I can sit up to 3 ft away from it and enjoy it, the clarity is WAY clearer then lcd, the way the Oled pixels are arranges the screen honestly looks like looking at a magazine, its that clear!!
> 
> 
> If you have the $ grabbing one is def worth it for gaming, the console games look INSANE on this panel And this is coming from someone that used to have a Sony FW900 24 inch CRT monitor that I used 360 with vga cable on. The LG Oled destroys that monitor in clarity and contract and color. I need to put some pics of it in action with games on here.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21018577
> 
> 
> rogo u know I respect your opinion but why do you keep saying this when no one else is?? Frankly this does qualify as a rant



Because I want you OLED believers to know you have won. You are right. OLED will take over and rule the earth. If anything, your belief in OLED is pessimistic. It's obviously cheaper to make and better. How can it not just totally rule?


> Quote:
> You have your opinion and I have mine but the beauty is that it will not be a decade wait but next 6 months.



I'm sure I heard that like 6 months ago. But hey, what do I know. I was so clearly wrong about OLEDs inevitable takeover.



> Quote:
> I will not rehash my same points but we will revisit the VIABILITY then and examine the pudding. What is clear though is OLED on tablet has yet to progressively convince you after a year of skepticism.



There is no shipping tablet with OLED. There is one announced, 7+" tablet. That market, which to date has shipped an infinitesimal number of units. is about to dominated by Amazon, with an LCD-based tablet. What am I supposed to be convinced of? That Samsung can deliver a 7+" OLED screen? Never doubted that, sorry. That Samsung can sell millions of those tablets? Definitely not happening anytime soon. So not sure what point you are proving.



> Quote:
> I'm wondering by your logic does OLED has to be in EVERY tablet or handset to finally prove viability?



I've stated who knows how many times that it's viable in phones, despite it being basically in one phone from one company. That phone is a runaway hit and I have no doubt that if Apple wanted an OLED display for iPhone 6 and went asking Samsung for one, they could supply it. I've never stated it's not viable in the small end of the market. Quite frankly, after I made that one math error on the 5.5G fab output, I stated it was viable for iPad, except that without a second source and a better relationship between Apple and Samsung, it wasn't coming to iPad. That's not a statement on its viability; it's a statement on the business relationship between the two companies and Apple's obvious policy of multi-sourcing components at this point.


> Quote:
> PS I'm not sure why u keep deviating to Global warming but here's my post for your consideration:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post21013642



I'm curious if you've seen any of the millions of pictures from around the globe that show gigantic retreats of ice sheets, record-breaking pieces falling off ice shelves, etc. The fact that Harper Collins -- not a well-known climate-science organization -- made an error printing a Greenland map doesn't change how much ice is melting around the globe. This is where science deniers drive me flat out insane. Just because there are small errors doesn't change the underlying science. Huge amounts of permanent ice has disappear since I've been alive. Since my grandparents birth? The amounts are that much greater. There are minimal sources global of new permanent ice. You folks can keep pretending that's not happening. Pretend until the ocean is in your living room for all I care. Seriously. Don't you live someplace that qualifies as coastal lowlands? I'd move to a higher floor just in case. And get a boat.


> Quote:
> With all due respect xrox, if u are right then I should be shorting TFT stocks, not to mention OLED stocks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW CRT TV are still being sold in emerging markets. Sammy's CRT division is lasting longer than Auditor55's forecast of PDP death



8 million CRTs out of about 220 million TVs. It exists, but barely. And most of them go to China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan for not many yuan.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21018615
> 
> 
> The question I have is the price point where a Gen 8 fab is capable of producing a 55" TV when they hit commercial yields. That is going to determine the success or failure of the fab and Samsung isnt going to approve a fab where that price is $5000 or even $3000.
> 
> 
> We are in absolute agreement that the market for >$3000 55" televisions is going to be limited. They are going to need to get in the range of $2000 to make this a mass market item that can justify the necessary capex and R&D.



Right, so I've spent about 100,000 words basically explaining that there are scenarios by which it's entirely realistic that never happens. I've never once said it can't happen. I've never once said it definitely won't happen. I've basically laid out a very detailed argument on why it might well not happen, which includes market forces, competitive forces, etc. And most of your response has been, more or less, "you're just not especially intelligent". I'd have a response to that, but there are rules against it here that I'll adhere to.


> Quote:
> The '08 credit crisis set back the capacity expansion for the Gen 4 fab by at least a year. A meltdown in Europe would definitely have an impact on any potential Gen 8 fab.
> 
> 
> As for tablets, the market outside of Apple is tiny. Samsung is likely going to have capacity for 10 million 10" OLED screens a month just from their Gen 5.5 capacity in 2013. The idea that they are going to build a Gen 8 fab that requires new processes and technologies to add 16K wafers (~3 million 10" screens) makes very little sense to me.



You have to remind me again what the substrate size is / substrates per month is for the Gen 5.5 fab. I presume Samsung is going to make a huge move to try to get their AMOLED screens on a lot more cellphones in 2012 and 2013, including those of competitors. It seems to me the smartphone market is likely to be about 500 million screens in 2013 and they could realistically be hoping to capture 200 million of that (again, the interests of the display group and corporate vis a vis Apple are so horribly mis-aligned). I imagine a lot of the future capacity in the phone/tablet market gets absorbed if peace is made with Cupertino and some of it never gets used otherwise.


> Quote:
> but as spec just said, the wait isnt long. Six months from now we should have a far better idea about the industry's plans for OLED televisions.



So we're waiting till the end of March then? More or less Q2, not really Q1.


----------



## specuvestor

rogo I will rest it here for now. I frankly don't think you are rational discussing this right now. I think we know why there is no 7" OLED tablet shipping to US currently and we also remember Sammy has a 7" LCD tablet. We also remember that Apple does not need OLED because retina LCD is better. We will discuss again when the OLED TV comes out.


And no, no one here saying global warming is not true. It is too obvious such that this is another rant. BTW the second article ends up with anecdotal evidence that ice is melting for a rounded view. But the reason and observation is far more complicated than you suggest that simple "science" can explain (chaos dynamics) when the community at large cannot agree.


And disagreement is fine when it makes us think. Less useful when it degrades to who's right or wrong.


----------



## rogo

The Samsung tablet is not shipping anywhere. It's not available outside the U.S. either. So far, the global market has massively rejected 7" Android tablets. I'm sure you can explain to me why that's going to change thanks to OLED. Or Ice Cream Sandwich. Or unicorns. But the actual facts are (1) The tablet is not shipping anywhere (2) The 7" Galaxy Tab was pushed into channels everywhere; sell through was horrendous and Samsung more or less dropped it quietly (3) No one has sold many 7" tablets anywhere (4) Whatever market opportunity existed for 7" tablets is about to almost entirely absorbed by Amazon -- at least in the U.S.


The global scientific community agrees the global climate is changing by the way. The only dispute comes from the denier community, which uses fake parameters to suggest the consensus is nowhere near as strong as it actually is. There are people who also still deny the Holocaust. They too have to be argued against (see Mill, J.S. "On Liberty" for an explanation as to why) even though their arguments are equally ludicrous.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21018831
> 
> 
> You have to remind me again what the substrate size is / substrates per month is for the Gen 5.5 fab. I presume Samsung is going to make a huge move to try to get their AMOLED screens on a lot more cellphones in 2012 and 2013, including those of competitors. It seems to me the smartphone market is likely to be about 500 million screens in 2013 and they could realistically be hoping to capture 200 million of that (again, the interests of the display group and corporate vis a vis Apple are so horribly mis-aligned). I imagine a lot of the future capacity in the phone/tablet market gets absorbed if peace is made with Cupertino and some of it never gets used otherwise.



The estimate is for 196,000 Gen 5.5 (1320mm x 1500mm) substrates a month by sometime in 2013. Each substrate is capable of producing either 264 4.3" or 50 10" displays. Taking your estimate of 200 million OLED enabled smartphones in 2013 would use ~63,000 substrates a month leaving another 133,000 substrates for the tablet market. That means Samsung would have a yearly capacity of 80 million 10" tablet displays.


I am an absolutely huge bull on the tablet market and you have it exactly right. Apple is grabbing the top end of the market and everybody else is going to have to compete on price. I think Samsung may have trouble finding a home for all of their Gen 5.5 capacity much less building a Gen 8 facility to add even more capacity that will likely be at a premium due to the necessary R&D and capex.


So unless you believe that Samsung has a secret agreement with Apple to supply them with OLED's, the most logical explanation for a Gen 8 fab is going to be televisions.



> Quote:
> So we're waiting till the end of March then? More or less Q2, not really Q1.



Samsung and LG will announce their capex budgets near the end of January. So we'll get some concrete details in four months.


I was about to write a response to your initial comments, but why bother.


Slacker


----------



## tory40

OLED with a .001 pixel response time = no crosstalk right? Soooooo...basically amazing 3D. With super bright leds along side perfect black and perfect high viewing angles?


Roll your own wall sized screens...


fold your own 46" Tv for the flight?


Case closed, bring OLED on.


Lets get back to the "*technology* advancements" talk eh?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21019087
> 
> 
> The estimate is for 196,000 Gen 5.5 (1320mm x 1500mm) substrates a month by sometime in 2013. Each substrate is capable of producing either 264 4.3" or 50 10" displays. Taking your estimate of 200 million OLED enabled smartphones in 2013 would use ~63,000 substrates a month leaving another 133,000 substrates for the tablet market. That means Samsung would have a yearly capacity of 80 million 10" tablet displays.
> 
> 
> I am an absolutely huge bull on the tablet market and you have it exactly right. Apple is grabbing the top end of the market and everybody else is going to have to compete on price. I think Samsung may have trouble finding a home for all of their Gen 5.5 capacity much less building a Gen 8 facility to add even more capacity that will likely be at a premium due to the necessary R&D and capex.
> 
> 
> So unless you believe that Samsung has a secret agreement with Apple to supply them with OLED's, the most logical explanation for a Gen 8 fab is going to be televisions.



Thanks for the rundown.


----------



## gmarceau

Got to agree here with tory40. While the ins and outs of whether or not OLED will make it as a viable alternative to LCD and Plasma is exciting, I wouldn't mind some more posting on links to technology advancements. Regardless, it has been fascinating to see this debate go on.


And since we're going that way, I can't help myself...


The insider over at Panasonic who is now on a posting hiatus has mentioned that the largest selling market is lcds in the 30-40" range. Don't quote me on this, but he basically laughed at Sharp's attempts to capture a small segment of the market with their 70" and now 80" sets, as it is basically non-existent.


I think we should probably also take into account that globally, US tv sizes are larger than those in other countries, as evidenced by Panasonic's flagship tv being available in a 42" size. Just one example, but...


There could be a mass market appeal to OLED since it will appeal to many other countries where consumers are completely satisfied with a 40" set if, as we've mentioned here before, prices are closer to reality from the beginning.


----------



## rogo

The mainstream LCD currently is a 40", I'm fairly sure globally. In the U.S., I believe it's now a 46". (It's certainly possible that it's a bit smaller in some places, but if you look at what the major producers are building, the move appears to be away from stuff much smaller than 40 inches these days, which isn't to say it doesn't exist. I think, though, even in Japan 40" is more prevalent than 32" and if I'm wrong on that, someone will probably tell me.)


What's interesting, gmarceau, is that it's clear the TV effort is focus on a particular size right now, which is 55" _and not some smaller size_. I have a strong suspicion it's because they know full well that 3000 euro ain't going to cut it for 32", even if there's still a market for 32" high-end TVs in Europe (is there?). The fact is premium product needs at least some size to go with it. There is probably another cut to make from the 8G fab, but I'm skeptical will see it even if the 55s reach market according to the more optimistic plans. You'd be looking at awfully expensive sub-40" TVs. That seems like a really, really tough sell.


As for laughing at Sharp, all I can say is, they weren't making any money at all in mainstream sizes but they had a very very underutilized 10G fab. Now they are making some money producing screens _no one on earth_ besides them can currently make. And the interesting thing about that is with current trends, it's fairly unlikely anyone is going to build a 10G or 11G fab anytime soon to compete with that effort. That puts Samsung and LG in a bit of a box. They can go _larger_ than 70 inches on their older fabs in small volumes. But they are pretty bad at 65" and they are very bad at 70". _So Sharp owns that slice of the market_.


Now. today that slice of the market is very, very small. But Sharp has shown you can reach retail at $3000 for 70", which, incidentally was a decent price for a 40" HDTV not that many years ago. The notion they can grow that one size to, say 3% of the market over the next couple of years doesn't seem completely ridiculous. That would put it at north of 6 million units annually or 1 million substrates. Sakai currently can manage about 850,000 substrates annually. So -- and don't quote me on this -- if they were to get the market to demand that many 70s, they'd be doing just fine.


If I may loop this back to OLED, this in fact probably explains why (a) no one else is trying to build a 10G fab right now -- Sharp can supply the global market itself and (b) the OLED efforts are not targeting that big a display. First of all, the market is _much larger_ at 55" than 70". If I had to guess, it's currently 10x larger. Second of all, at 70", any putative OLED would face one potentially very irrational competitor. At 55", it faces an entire market. The actions of the irrational competitor are effectively drowned out by the larger marketplace, which is to say they do matter, but they don't become the entire conversation.


The reality is, OLED would be unequivocally more appealing if you could somehow just erase the price premium -- or at least cut it to about 20% -- versus LCD. Most new technologies that enter the market at much higher prices take years to become ingrained and have ecosystems that support them along the way (or else they just fade). A good example is SSD, which is "ridiculously" priced vs. rotating magnetic drives, but is supported by the gigantic flash memory industry. It's also amazingly compelling technology. Ironically, mobile phones were a tremendous catalyst to supporting the growth of flash memory as far back as the 1990s when digital cell phones first became real. Now, OLED is being ushered into reality by mobile phones... We'll see if it does as well as the SSD.


----------



## gmarceau

Interestingly, on Sony's webpage for their new OLED studio monitors, black levels are quoted with comparisons between lcd, crt, and oled. Sony lists their lcd monitors mll at .1 cd/m2, crt monitors at .01 cd/m2, and OLED at .00001 cd/m2 or near that based on their chart. I thought they would have listed it as absolute black. Since the 500m measures around .0015 cd/m2, I guess the OLED measurement would look as though it were infinite contrast.


----------



## powertoold




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21026340
> 
> 
> Interestingly, on Sony's webpage for their new OLED studio monitors, black levels are quoted with comparisons between lcd, crt, and oled. Sony lists their lcd monitors mll at .1 cd/m2, crt monitors at .01 cd/m2, and OLED at .00001 cd/m2 or near that based on their chart. I thought they would have listed it as absolute black. Since the 500m measures around .0015 cd/m2, I guess the OLED measurement would look as though it were infinite contrast.



Well even if you could slightly see the OLED in pitch darkness with a blank screen, at 0.00001, even the most minute content on screen would cause everything else to be "absolute" black.


With a blank screen, my 500m is not even close to being absolute black, but with content, I perceive it to be fairly close to absolute black.


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *powertoold* /forum/post/21026498
> 
> 
> Well even if you could slightly see the OLED in pitch darkness with a blank screen, at 0.00001, even the most minute content on screen would cause everything else to be "absolute" black.
> 
> 
> With a blank screen, my 500m is not even close to being absolute black, but with content, I perceive it to be fairly close to absolute black.



I completely agree. With any content, even low APL content, this is a non issue. I don't know what the actual contrast ratio would be then but I'm guessing it would be closer to hundreds of thousands to one.


This is just news to me since everyone who has been championing OLED was saying it was attaining absolute black or 0 candelas per square meter/foots lambert.


Those old SED pictures of 100,000 contrast made the screen and the bezel indistinguishable with dark content, so to get even blacker than that, or to hit the pioneer ecc level of black is amazing. I'm not even sure pioneer was really claiming 0 ft/L either with that demo, but it was the closest possible for the technology.


----------



## rogo

I just want to thank whoever deleted all the posts that they deleted without a word. It's sure awesome to have all that hours of mental energy erased as if they never existed. Yes, yes, I can imagine why you did it and I don't even totally disagreed. But, you know, a warning to have a higher amount of "on topic" content would've been nice. Fact is, every post I made efforted to link back to the topic at hand.


I see the same was done in the "black bar" thread, where I used the very same technique of always having posts refer to the topic in some important manner. So that's about 10 hours of contribution and intellectual energy. Goodbye.


----------



## SuperVision2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21034990
> 
> 
> I just want to thank whoever deleted all the posts that they deleted without a word. It's sure awesome to have all that hours of mental energy erased as if they never existed. Yes, yes, I can imagine why you did it and I don't even totally disagreed. But, you know, a warning to have a higher amount of "on topic" content would've been nice. Fact is, every post I made efforted to link back to the topic at hand.
> 
> 
> I see the same was done in the "black bar" thread, where I used the very same technique of always having posts refer to the topic in some important manner. So that's about 10 hours of contribution and intellectual energy. Goodbye.




Hopefully Mr. Rogo, you will continue to offer your thoughtful insights here.

I, for one, have a great respect for your expert knowledge and willingness to share. Sorry for the outrageous treatment...


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuperVision2010* /forum/post/21035036
> 
> 
> Hopefully Mr. Rogo, you will continue to offer your thoughtful insights here.
> 
> I, for one, have a great respect for your expert knowledge and willingness to share. Sorry for the outrageous treatment...



Agreed. I always enjoy rogo's informed and thoughtful posts, they help balance out some of the standard zealots around here.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21034990
> 
> 
> It's sure awesome to have all that hours of mental energy erased as if they never existed. I can imagine why you did it and I don't even totally disagreed. But, you know, a warning to have a higher amount of "on topic" content would've been nice. Fact is, every post I made efforted to link back to the topic at hand.



Agreed. I have also made every effort to make sure my post is as correct as possible to my personal knowledge, with edits after edits.


This only incentivises us to post shallow 1 liners instead of thorough discourses. And our discussion was in relation to what people construed as "science" in their discussion when it may not actually be what it seems, under the guise of AV SCIENCE.


----------



## vinnie97

Well, I don't think people come here for global warming propaganda from either side, and that was probably their motivation for deletion. Yes, it would be great if they would only delete the parts that veer off-topic, but that is not how the administration rolls here (as I have learned from personal experience).


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21035194
> 
> 
> Agreed. I always enjoy rogo's informed and thoughtful posts, they help balance out some of the standard zealots around here.



Agree 100% with both comments. Despite fanboy interruptions, this is one of the most thoughtful and informative threads on the entire site. Shame on whoever deleted Rogo's posts.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I just want to thank whoever deleted all the posts that they deleted without a word. It's sure awesome to have all that hours of mental energy erased as if they never existed. Yes, yes, I can imagine why you did it and I don't even totally disagreed. But, you know, a warning to have a higher amount of "on topic" content would've been nice. Fact is, every post I made efforted to link back to the topic at hand.
> 
> 
> I see the same was done in the "black bar" thread, where I used the very same technique of always having posts refer to the topic in some important manner. So that's about 10 hours of contribution and intellectual energy. Goodbye.



I was happy with the quality of the ''bb'' *thread*, they should have left it the way it was.


----------



## easysoul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21018122
> 
> 
> Rogo, 5 years from now, if you could choose between buying an lcd, plasma, or oled and they were all the same price, which one would you go with?



That's a fictitious argument because they won't all be the same price.

Also; anyone ignoring world economics does so at their peril. The metrics of supply/demand indicate that the market is maturing and will soon reach a saturation point.


Unless several 3rd world countries climb out of the basement AND the current, crippled economies regain growth, then it doesn't matter if they offer the oleds for a dime a dozen.


Yes, from everything I've read, the technology is really good, but five years given current economic conditions looks to be a stretch.


Also, don't forget that beta ran circles around vhs technology-wise. And we know who won that battle more over price and perception than anything else.


----------



## mr. wally

some mod deleted rogo's posts?

at least i got a chance to read them.


rogo is as knowledgeable as any member on this thread and to

subjectively delete posts that one person unilaterally decides

is "off topic" is censorship!


back off mods!


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *easysoul* /forum/post/21038799
> 
> 
> That's a fictitious argument because they won't all be the same price.
> 
> Also; anyone ignoring world economics does so at their peril. The metrics of supply/demand indicate that the market is maturing and will soon reach a saturation point.
> 
> 
> Unless several 3rd world countries climb out of the basement AND the current, crippled economies regain growth, then it doesn't matter if they offer the oleds for a dime a dozen.
> 
> 
> Yes, from everything I've read, the technology is really good, but five years given current economic conditions looks to be a stretch.
> 
> 
> Also, don't forget that beta ran circles around vhs technology-wise. And we know who won that battle more over price and perception than anything else.



It's supposed to be fictitious, as it hasn't occurred yet and I didn't say "when" it will happen, only "if". Your post is actually more off topic than anything I've seen here as of late.


I was trying to gauge rogo's interest in OLED tv a little more thoroughly.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *easysoul* /forum/post/21038799
> 
> 
> That's a fictitious argument because they won't all be the same price.
> 
> Also; anyone ignoring world economics does so at their peril. The metrics of supply/demand indicate that the market is maturing and will soon reach a saturation point.
> 
> 
> Unless several 3rd world countries climb out of the basement AND the current, crippled economies regain growth, then it doesn't matter if they offer the oleds for a dime a dozen.
> 
> 
> Yes, from everything I've read, the technology is really good, but five years given current economic conditions looks to be a stretch.
> 
> 
> Also, don't forget that beta ran circles around vhs technology-wise. And we know who won that battle more over price and perception than anything else.



well the opposite happened with hi-def dvd players


----------



## easysoul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21039231
> 
> 
> It's supposed to be fictitious, as it hasn't occurred yet and I didn't say "when" it will happen, only "if". Your post is actually more off topic than anything I've seen here as of late.
> 
> 
> I was trying to gauge rogo's interest in OLED tv a little more thoroughly.



Actually, you missed the point of what I was saying; but to each his own. I'm still right with the situations I posted.

And it's not fictitious as it is happening now as we blog back and forth.

All the factors I mentioned are real as applied to OLED; just as they were when applied to any developing technology.


It's not an attempt to diss anyone or disagree with them. It's bringing some common sense into the discussion.


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *easysoul* /forum/post/21044168
> 
> 
> Actually, you missed the point of what I was saying; but to each his own. I'm still right with the situations I posted.
> 
> And it's not fictitious as it is happening now as we blog back and forth.
> 
> All the factors I mentioned are real as applied to OLED; just as they were when applied to any developing technology.
> 
> 
> It's not an attempt to diss anyone or disagree with them. It's bringing some common sense into the discussion.



I'm not against your posts, I'd just appreciate not being used in your discussion in the future.


BTW, you said it was fictitious and I was agreeing with you...


----------



## specuvestor

With the passing of Steve Jobs and the dismal launch of 4S, the biggest winner looks to be S2.


I'm sad because Jobs has done so much good to the tech world and he could have done so much more. No one else I know in history has recovered from such great depth to the top of the world in a lifetime, except for the great Genghis Khan.


He is truly extraordinary.


----------



## hughh

One of the greatest fertile minds has left our country and our lives.

*R.I.P. Steve Jobs*...


----------



## hughh

How to Live Before You Die

Steve Jobs delivered the commencement address at Stanford in 2005. In his own words, he told the graduating class both how to live and how to face death. The full transcript is here.


Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary. …

Stay hungry. Stay foolish.

full transcript below:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/j...bs-061505.html


----------



## easysoul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21044254
> 
> 
> I'm not against your posts, I'd just appreciate not being used in your discussion in the future.
> 
> 
> BTW, you said it was fictitious and I was agreeing with you...



My bad...I misunderstood. Sorry.


And I hope OLED does take off. I love technology. I'm just doubting the economics can support it and sustain it right now.


----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *easysoul* /forum/post/21038799
> 
> 
> Also, don't forget that beta ran circles around vhs technology-wise. And we know who won that battle more over price and perception than anything else.



Beta failed because Sony kept it sole source while VHS was being sold by all the other competitors. Sony learned from that and used the knowledge to win with Bluray.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> With the passing of Steve Jobs and the dismal launch of 4S, the biggest winner looks to be S2.
> 
> 
> I'm sad because Jobs has done so much good to the tech world and he could have done so much more. No one else I know in history has recovered from such great depth to the top of the world in a lifetime, except for the great Genghis Khan.
> 
> 
> He is truly extraordinary.



WOW, you just compared Jobs with a brutal conqueror who slaughtered millions (20.000.000/40.000.000) of peope in 12 century Asia.


----------



## SuperVision2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21044553
> 
> 
> With the passing of Steve Jobs and the dismal launch of 4S, the biggest winner looks to be S2.



S2? Please excuse my ignorance.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuperVision2010* /forum/post/21046496
> 
> 
> S2? Please excuse my ignorance.


 Samsung GALAXY S II


----------



## slacker711

An explanation from the OLED Association of the likely approaches for Samsung and LG to Gen 8 OLED manufacturing. This is the first explanation that I have read of Small Mask Scanning (SMS).

http://www.oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=744 


They also claim that Samsung will stick with LTPS substrates for their initial Gen 8 production while LG will go with Oxide-TFT's.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> WOW, you just compared Jobs with a brutal conqueror who slaughtered millions (20.000.000/40.000.000) of peope in 12 century Asia.



Somehow I knew someone will bring this up without grasping the context. I meant as a compliment. At his lowest point Temujin was left with just him and his mother with his enemies threatening to kill him when he's taller than a cart's wheel. He became the ruler of the largest land empire ever.


Get the right historical perspective on historical greats. And I'm Chinese. Bloodshed is terrible but so were the many empires and civil wars. America had it's fair share as well with relatively short 400 years.


And yes I think S2 has a good chance of grabbing market share next 6 months at least. Sammy is having another announcement next week for a curved handset so I hope it could be a google phone with OLED.


This just out:

Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Samsung Electronics Co., the world's second-largest maker of mobile phones, reported profit that beat analysts' estimates as demand for Galaxy smartphones outweighed slumping sales of displays and semiconductors.


Operating profit in the three months ended September was 4.2 trillion won ($3.6 billion), the Suwon, South Korea-based company said in a statement today, 3.7 trillion won average of 28 analysts' estimates compiled by Bloomberg. A year ago, the company had a profit of 4.86 trillion won a year ago.


The shares rose to a three-month high after the company joined HTC Corp. in benefiting from the popularity of mobile devices running Google Inc.'s Android software. The gains in smartphones, where Samsung is second only to Apple Inc., helped offset falling profit from the biggest business of selling memory chips and flat-screen panels.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Somehow I knew someone will bring this up without grasping the context. I meant as a compliment. At his lowest point Temujin was left with just him and his mother with his enemies threatening to kill him when he's taller than a cart's wheel. He became the ruler of the largest land empire ever.
> 
> 
> Get the right historical perspective on historical greats.



Jobs was a buddhist, i'm pretty shure he does not wants to be associated with a guy like that.


----------



## slacker711

Samsung's strong results help alleviate at least some of the worry that the global economy could impact the timing of a possible pilot Gen 8 fab. Hopefully, an analyst asks about their plans during the Q3 conference call.



Slacker


----------



## mr. wally

wow this thread has died since the mods chased rogo off this forum.


I guesss we will just have to wait until 2015 to see if we get 55" oled displays


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21076215
> 
> 
> wow this thread has died since the mods chased rogo off this forum.
> 
> 
> I guesss we will just have to wait until 2015 to see if we get 55" oled displays



What? They chased Rogo??? For what and for how long?


Hate to see the guy go. He's always with great information for us "dumb" members. Always looked forward to his posts...


----------



## dsinger

^Totally agree. Mod with severe case of rectocranial impaction.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/21076329
> 
> 
> What? They chased Rogo??? For what and for how long?
> 
> 
> Hate to see the guy go. He's always with great information for us "dumb" members. Always looked forward to his posts...



It wasn't a ban. It was me being pissed off at having 10+ hours of posts wiped out without a warning, a PM, a chance to move them, whatever. I was pissed, I am pissed, and so I pretty much don't post on AVS anymore.


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21077722
> 
> 
> It wasn't a ban. It was me being pissed off at having 10+ hours of posts wiped out without a warning, a PM, a chance to move them, whatever. I was pissed, I am pissed, and so I pretty much don't post on AVS anymore.



Screw the guys, Rogo! Keep checking out all the other posts and helping us all!


----------



## Otto Pylot

^^^^ agreed! I've always learned a lot from his posts even when I wasn't sure what he was talking about








Stay with us.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/20963120
> 
> 
> I understand that Sony is only putting out very small volumes of their OLED TVs, but I still find it odd that there is nothing about what fab they're using. For all the talk about Samsung's fabs, and all the talk about LG's grandiose talk about future fabs, Sony somehow seems to escape general notice.
> 
> 
> In essence, above is a plea for minimal education. I'm sure that there's a bunch of stuff I'm missing in OLED, but this is a kind of big thing to be missing.



Would this be because Sony is using inferior power-hungry fluorescent OLED and not PHOLED? At least I think they are, except on the PS Vita.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20984918
> 
> 
> "A further advantage is that - unlike LCDs - OLEDs don't require a backlight."
> 
> 
> True!
> 
> 
> "This means they're more energy efficient"
> 
> 
> Does not automatically follow. Why does crap like this continue to be written? The energy consumption on modern LCDs is ridiculously tiny (check the Energy Guide sticker on the 70" Sharp). Can OLED do better? Perhaps. Are the Samsung Galaxy S phones obliterating their completition's battery life? No.



Only because the Samsung OLED screens are currently using green and blue fluorescent OLED material and only one PHOLED one (red). Green is beginning to be used now and will increase the power efficiency significantly.

http://www.universaldisplay.com/defa...?contentID=605


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20986561
> 
> 
> @Slacker, it matters but not enough. On a 55" TV, the power consumption of an LCD TV is fairly negligible already.



Some HDTVs consume 500 watts. I'm not sure that's "negligible".

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/t...umption-chart/ 


Any power savings is good news, IMO... also means less heat for the A/C system to have to deal with.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/20988204
> 
> 
> Consoles are going away, GPUs are dead? Gaming is a pretty big market that isn't just going to disappear.



Indeed. Gaming has surpassed Hollywood in terms of revenue.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21080803
> 
> 
> Indeed. Gaming has surpassed Hollywood in terms of revenue.



really? please provide references. i would think that revenues from movies and tv shows far surpass the revenues from the gaming industry.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21080655
> 
> 
> Some HDTVs consume 500 watts. I'm not sure that's "negligible".
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/t...umption-chart/
> 
> 
> Any power savings is good news, IMO... also means less heat for the A/C system to have to deal with.



For argument's sake, let's assume you have a plasma that consumes 300 watts calibrated and an LED LCD that consumes 100 watts calibrated (these numbers came from CNET and were the average measured power consumption for each technology). The national average cost of electricity in 2011 has been $0.11/kwh, and the average person watches about 4 hours of TV/day (let's say 6 to be conservative, although I think that is extreme).


This means someone our plasma owner would spend 300*6/1000*30*0.11 = $5.94 on electricity per month to watch TV, whereas our LCD owner would spend 100*6/1000*30*0.11 = $1.98/month. In other words, the plasma owner will spend $3.96 more/month or $47.52 more/year than the LCD owner on electricity. From a cost standpoint, we're talking small potatoes.


Of course, if you're looking to save energy, sure an LED LCD will be more efficient, but I'm not sure how much savings that would generate as compared to other items in the house.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21008599
> 
> 
> One of the reasons as a home-theater aficionado I'm so unexcited about what's going on right now is I expect that even these 55" OLEDs will be incrementally better but astronomically more expensive. And yet there is no path to get them up into the 65-70 range. There's a _reason_ Samsung is so terrible at making 65" LCDs using 8G glass. And I don't believe there is a market for premium 55" displays or -- more specifically -- not much of one. The 60" displays are getting cheap and yet there are premium options that are in the $5K range. This whole thing feels like a fiasco in the making to be completely honest.



I don't get your point - on the one hand you say OLED can't command a price premium but then you go on to make reference to fact that there are premium HDTVs with current antiquated technologies that sell for 5K (which is likely where OLED sets will be a year or two after initial rampup).


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21008816
> 
> 
> Spec posted a rumor from a brokerage. Nothing more, nothing less. I add it as a data point to everything else that has been posted and have zero certainty that it will actually happen. OTOH, it does add to the weight of the evidence that LG and Samsung believe that they are making progress on large screen OLED's and are likely to announce capex for their 8G fabs in the near future.



Samsung already announced US $4.8 billion capex for their 8G plant something like February this year, didn't they?

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...to-fall-in--11 



> Quote:
> This week, Samsung tipped its capital spending plans. As reported, Samsung provided its capex forecasts for 2011, including 10.3 trillion won ($9.2 billion) for the semiconductors, 5.4 trillion won ($4.8 billion) for LCDs, and 5.4 trillion won for OLEDs.





> Quote:
> LCD spending is down. ''Samsung's calendar 2010 spending in LCD of 4 trillion won fell below management's prior guide of 5 trillion won ($4.4 billion). However, having secured approval for their China LCD fab, management's outlook for 5.4 trillion won capex in calendar 2011 exceeded our expectations of 3.8 trillion won ($3.4 billion), highlighting the importance of the China market for the top tier panel makers,'' he said. ''We anticipate the majority of 2011 spending to flow to the China fab, with perhaps a third of the budget targeting Gen 8-2 fab expansion.''


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21010053
> 
> 
> The funny part is the number of "absurd assumptions" that you need to make to get to your claim that AMOLED's will NEVER be cheaper to produce. You absolutely know that all of that R&D that is going into ink-jet printing will never ever work out. That must reflect a fairly impressive grasp of the technology and the various roadblocks in getting to market.
> 
> 
> and before you post otherwise, I am not claiming that I know that it will....simply that it is an open question and that any certainty on either side is ridiculous.



Agreed - in fact, have a look at this news from two days ago:

http://www.plusplasticelectronics.co...eds-39665.aspx 



> Quote:
> US research group creates scalable printing process for OLEDs
> 
> 
> US researchers led by OLED expert Stephen Forrest, vice president for research at the University of Michigan's materials science and engineering department, have developed a printing process for depositing OLED materials.
> 
> 
> Stephen Forrest was also a founder of Universal Display.
> 
> 
> The Organic Vapour Jet Deposition process could simplify the manufacturing of OLEDs for displays and lighting, which could also reduce costs.
> 
> 
> Forrest presented the research at the Plastic Electronics 2011 event taking place today in Dresden, Germany.
> 
> 
> The scalable process could pattern a 60-inch OLED television display in 25 seconds, according to Forrest.
> 
> 
> The quality of the patterned display is also better than needed for current applications, he adds.
> 
> 
> Resolution
> 
> 
> Forrest remarked in his presentation: 'The ultra-high resolution is far more than is needed. It can do 1-1.5µ patterning for a display, even micro display requirements.'
> 
> 
> The research team is speaking to a number of companies and working on commercialising the device, Forrest explained.
> 
> 
> Organic Vapour Jet Deposition print heads consist of a nozzle plate that receives the red, green and blue materials through gas flow vents. The 200µ x 20µ nozzle array then deposits the materials on a substrate, which can be passed in front of it in a roll-to-roll process.
> 
> 
> Forrest says of its scalability: 'Arrays of 3,000 nozzles would be feasible.
> 
> 
> 'We know the basic fluid dynamics and we know how far it can go. It's more a matter of moving the substrate quickly.'
> 
> 
> Forrest's presentation was part of the opening plenary session at the Plastic Electronics 2011 show, which runs from 11-13 October 2011.



Wasn't rogo just saying that roll-to-roll wasn't happening anywhere? Why yes he did:



> Quote:
> The funny part is that they are not absurd. First of all, "ink-jet printing" is not being used to make AMOLEDs. The fantasy of giant rolls of substrate being run off like so many Xeroxes is not happening anywhere.



By that I assume he didn't just mean in production fabs, but anywhere. So he's wrong.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21013274
> 
> 
> You are presuming -- wrongly -- that there is some set of generally observable differences that are coming down the pike from this theoretical OLED TV that you cannot buy. And let's just pretend that the math you listed above matters. Whatever observable difference existed when the move occurred from 3k:1 to 30k:1 contrast was probably noticeable to _some_ people. Now, how many are going to notice the move from 30k:1 to 300k:1? 1/10th as many? 1/100th as many? 1/1000th as many? This is why the remaining improvements are slight.



Even if I agreed with you, you must certainly appreciate that LCD's time has passed, with its horrible backlighting issues, slow pixel response and slow refresh rate. OLED is the heir apparent and no manufacturer will be investing any more in LCD (we've already seen drops in LCD investment this year). The HDTVs of the future will be OLED, whether that's because consumers see them and love them (likely a part of it) or whether manufactirers acknowledge the benefits of the newer technology and gradually move that way (and in the end see prices of production drop as OLEDs inherent simpler structures pay off).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Seriously, I want to respond to your post with "blah blah blah blah blah". As a courtesy, I won't. You are like the guy who argues his AMG Mercedes is "clearly superior" because it goes from 0-60 in 4.5 seconds while the other guy can only do it in 5.0 seconds. So what? The other guy generally doesn't give a rat's rear end.
> 
> 
> This is like splitting hairs of hairs that have already been split.
> 
> 
> You are presuming -- wrongly -- that there is some set of generally observable differences that are coming down the pike from this theoretical OLED TV that you cannot buy. And let's just pretend that the math you listed above matters. Whatever observable difference existed when the move occurred from 3k:1 to 30k:1 contrast was probably noticeable to some people. Now, how many are going to notice the move from 30k:1 to 300k:1? 1/10th as many? 1/100th as many? 1/1000th as many? This is why the remaining improvements are slight.
> 
> 
> It's the proverbial tree in the proverbial forest without the actual camcorder to confirm there was indeed a tree falling. Stuff normal people can't detect may as well not be happening. At least when you buy your AMG Mercedes, people are impressed. And you get psychic benefit out of it every time you slide inside and turn it on. Will that apply to OLED TVs? Maybe. But unfortunately, the panel fabrication business does not work the way niche automobiles do. Well, it kind of does. You can make relatively small numbers of "superior" cars / displays but only at much higher prices.
> 
> 
> And OLED as currently conceived cannot cross the chasm to mass market for the multitude of reasons I've already explained. I get you are not choosing to understand the cycle of production --> pricing --> sales --> production --> pricing --> sales. I no longer care. (You should be happy I chose ignoramus; my original word selection was, um...) It is certainly possible that someone like Samsung will change the equation and I, in fact, have never said otherwise. As home-theater aficionados, we really should stop caring at this point. If the best display ever was comparably priced and 55 inches diagonal, I would not care, nor would anyone who has a decent sized room and really wants to enjoy movies and sports in said room.
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that the multitude of trolling at AVS loves to have it both ways: First, everyone is going to buy a 70-80 inch TV. Then, everyone is going to accept a 55-inch TV because they will all have such discerning vision they'll see the superiority of these 55-inch TVs over everything else ever made. So where are the enthusiasts going exactly? Big? Small but "better? You can't have your early adopter pool out doing everything you want it to do. It just doesn't work that way. And quite frankly, every one of them that buys a Sharp 70 or 80 or even a Panasonic 65 has almost zero chance of buying a 55-inch anything -- especially one that costs more money. That's reality. Drink a cup.
> 
> 
> (Since the NBA reference was lost there, the Galaxy S II phones are huge and getting bigger still with 4.5" screens and even a ridiculous 5.3" screen in the Galaxy Note. NBA players tend to be large men with huge hands. Ask your wife or girlfriend to hold a Galaxy S II sometime -- well, ask someone with a wife or girlfriend -- as it's kind of amusing.)



What will you be saying when you have a projector screen that you can roll up or down for use, but it's not a projector, but rather an OLED display? No daylight issues, takes up zero space, and has all the benefits of OLED including contrast/speed/etc? Something no other tech can even consider doing.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21014610
> 
> 
> Xrox, I personally fail to see how anything OLED could even theoretically do would rise to the level of what plasma and LCD did to CRT. TVs used to be:
> 
> 
> 1) Effectively limited to 27"-31" unless you went with projection, which was really room dominating and gigantic.
> 
> 2) Standard definition and interlaced
> 
> 3) Almost 2 feet thick and often 150 lbs.
> 
> 
> To me, it's ridiculous to compare a somewhat better flat panel's impact to the impact that plasma and LCD had. And what OLED is -- on its best possible day -- is a somewhat better flat panel. It's not just a matter of perceived technological leaps here. I mean it really won't be "flatter" and the importance of moving from 1.5" thick sets to 0.5" thick sets is pretty meaningless. It won't be ushering in the HD era either.



You're completely overlooking the things OLED can do that other displays can't - like be literally as thin as a sheet of paper. Or be made flexible.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It is my opinion that flat panel:standard def CRT is more like Maybach:horse than Maybach:Camry. And further, you'd have to set up an entirely fake comparison to get OLED to even by Maybach:Camry. And than even if you set up that fake comparison (it's fake because you have to disregard every dimension of picture quality where the LCD is really very good and only focus on the ones where the OLED is demonstrably better so it looks like the score is OLED 5, LCD 0, when the real score is more like 10 ties, 3 very small wins, 2 larger wins), the reality is Maybach:Camry is what I suggested above -- not the rout it first appears to be.



Not sure what a "Maybach" is, but it only costs 2-3 times what a Camry costs? Because that's where OLED will be selling (LCDs 1500-5000 and OLEDs 5000-15000), right?



> Quote:
> And, again, I've never suggested otherwise. People seem to wish to read otherwise, but the text is actually there and that's not in fact what it says at all. It suggests it will be very difficult to sell many millions at premium prices based on some small superiority. And absent selling many millions it will be impossible to drive the price down. And absent driving the price down, it will be impossible to sell many millions. And we are back to square one.



If that argument was anywhere near valid don't you think it would have stopped all the various HDTV display types we've seen (DLP, plasma, LCD, etc)? Because, according to that logic none of those displays were "enough better" that anyone would pay a premium for, so how did they ever get past the loop you describe above? But in fact they DID get past it and did the same way OLED will; by being better enough that some people will be willing to pay the premium to have it and eventually drive the costs down.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21080655
> 
> 
> Some HDTVs consume 500 watts. I'm not sure that's "negligible".
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/t...umption-chart/
> 
> 
> Any power savings is good news, IMO... also means less heat for the A/C system to have to deal with.



Seriously, what?


The current Energy Star maximum is 108 watts. You pick a chart with TVs as old as 3 years old to try to make a point... Against TVs that you won't be able to buy till next year?


My _valid_ point was that LC TVs are not going to be meaningfully eclipsed by OLED TVs. And since Sharp can get 70" TVs into the 108-watt Energy Star budget, I imagine that 55" TVs will comfortably be running around 80 watts by the time you are buying your OLED TVs. If you believe the OLED is going to make more than a negligible difference vs. LCD, you are wrong.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21081587
> 
> 
> I don't get your point - on the one hand you say OLED can't command a price premium but then you go on to make reference to fact that there are premium HDTVs with current antiquated technologies that sell for 5K (which is likely where OLED sets will be a year or two after initial rampup).



Uh huh, I don't get your point. It's 2011. The only TVs that sell for $5K are hardly "antiquated". They use local dimming LCD technology that has basically just now become readily available. They are out now.


In 3 years -- when you are talking about these OLED being $5K (they ship 1-2 years from now in your theory, they become $5K 1-2 years after that) -- the current premium TVs' technology is available for under $3000. So basically, this amazing picture quality that today people will pay some premium for in small numbers vs. a $3000 TV is then itself $3000. While the $3000 TV moves to $1500. The room left for $5000 TVs? Not much -- if any.


There used to be room for $10,000 TVs. There isn't anymore. It's a moving target. Never stops moving waiting for something that isn't out to get there. The OLED needs to hit $3000 to have a chance to go mainstream, $5000 isn't relevant.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21081654
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't rogo just saying that roll-to-roll wasn't happening anywhere? Why yes he did:



I meant production, not some fantasy demo. There have been dozens of fantasy demos... And the number of OLED production facilities on earth using them? None. The number of them planning to use this technique? None.


> Quote:
> By that I assume he didn't just mean in production fabs, but anywhere. So he's wrong.



You know what that say about assuming.


> Quote:
> Even if I agreed with you, you must certainly appreciate that LCD's time has passed, with its horrible backlighting issues, slow pixel response and slow refresh rate. OLED is the heir apparent and no manufacturer will be investing any more in LCD (we've already seen drops in LCD investment this year). The HDTVs of the future will be OLED, whether that's because consumers see them and love them (likely a part of it) or whether manufactirers acknowledge the benefits of the newer technology and gradually move that way (and in the end see prices of production drop as OLEDs inherent simpler structures pay off).



I acknowledge your opinions on this. They are largely irrelevant and the vast majority of smartphones, tablets, laptops and TVs will be LCD certainly at mid decade and quite possibly at decade's end. Certainly, we can conclude that LCD:OLED ratios for TVs will be a minimum of 10:1 in 2015 and probably much higher.


> Quote:
> What will you be saying when you have a projector screen that you can roll up or down for use, but it's not a projector, but rather an OLED display? No daylight issues, takes up zero space, and has all the benefits of OLED including contrast/speed/etc? Something no other tech can even consider doing.



I will tell you that such a screen has absolutely no chance of reaching the market this decade and that no one is even considering building such a thing. It's a fantasy. Rollable, retractable OLEDs are very much like the flying car: You'll see the demos for a long time, you'll see the viable products... maybe someday. I mean it's nice that you believe the hype, but the reality is that such a product is absolutely nowhere near reality there is no such thing as a screen that can be repeatedly rolled and unrolled, it's not actually clear there is any demand for such a product at the price it would cost to deliver it even if it could be manufactured, there are scores of issues before manufacturing it is even remotely realistic, and the odds are even a decade from now, it won't be realistic or available.


You want to talk to me about OLED tiles that that can be joined together with rear-mounted connectors to form an arbitrarily large display with almost no visible seams? Fine. You want to talk about a single display from an 8G fab within 5-8 years? OK, fine. You want to talk fantasy? I'm sure there are plenty of Lord of the Rings forums for that.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21080911
> 
> 
> really? please provide references. i would think that revenues from movies and tv shows far surpass the revenues from the gaming industry.


 http://games.slashdot.org/story/04/1...Than-Hollywood 



> Quote:
> The $10 billion video game industry, which generates more revenue than Hollywood, has never released so many highly anticipated blockbuster titles in a single season.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21082112
> 
> 
> Uh huh, I don't get your point. It's 2011. The only TVs that sell for $5K are hardly "antiquated". They use local dimming LCD technology that has basically just now become readily available. They are out now.
> 
> 
> In 3 years -- when you are talking about these OLED being $5K (they ship 1-2 years from now in your theory, they become $5K 1-2 years after that) -- the current premium TVs' technology is available for under $3000. So basically, this amazing picture quality that today people will pay some premium for in small numbers vs. a $3000 TV is then itself $3000. While the $3000 TV moves to $1500. The room left for $5000 TVs? Not much -- if any.
> 
> 
> There used to be room for $10,000 TVs. There isn't anymore. It's a moving target. Never stops moving waiting for something that isn't out to get there. The OLED needs to hit $3000 to have a chance to go mainstream, $5000 isn't relevant.



They're antiquated in that they're LCDs.


I think the failing on your side of the debate is that you guys are trying to compare OLED using only the form factor LCDs and plasmas can function in, when OLED can and will be much more than that. Try Googling for "Samsung skin" for an idea of what I'm referring to. There are applications that people haven't even come up with yet and all you can imagine about OLED to measure its value is as a square box that sits in your living room.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21081654
> 
> 
> Not sure what a "Maybach" is, but it only costs 2-3 times what a Camry costs? Because that's where OLED will be selling (LCDs 1500-5000 and OLEDs 5000-15000), right?



Not sure how the cost ratio applies. Actually, I'm sure the cost ratio doesn't apply! A Maybach is about 10x the cost of a Camry more or less, but it doesn't matter. Because the ratio is irrelevant. There are some tiny number of people that want snob-appeal autos (and by the way, I'm not judging them negatively, more power to them). There are some tiny number of people that want snob-appeal TVs. The difference is, production economics support the former, not the latter.



> Quote:
> If that argument was anywhere near valid don't you think it would have stopped all the various HDTV display types we've seen (DLP, plasma, LCD, etc)? Because, according to that logic none of those displays were "enough better" that anyone would pay a premium for, so how did they ever get past the loop you describe above? But in fact they DID get past it and did the same way OLED will; by being better enough that some people will be willing to pay the premium to have it and eventually drive the costs down.



Again, I've explained this probably 1000 times. When there was no flat panel, flat panels were pretty much the most compelling thing ever. When you had a 31" CRT, a large screen was pretty much the most compelling thing ever. When people had SD, HD was pretty much the most compelling thing ever. Guess what? Everyone who wants a flat panel has one. Everyone who wants HD has it. Everyone who wants a large screen has one.


The economics necessary to support a new entrant don't exist anymore. You can't sell $10,000 plasmas anymore. You can't sell $10,000 DLP RPTVs. You can't sell a 40-inch LCD for $8000 (yep, it launched for about that much in 2002). When everything came before, there was an awful lot of greenfield out there to build on. _There just isn't anymore_.


To build a new market now, you have to quite literally obliterate an existing market. TV sales are not meaningfully growing at all. In fact, TV sales in the upper end are probably going to shrink for most of the 2010s (emerging market sales will grow, but it's unlikely that first-world sales will even remain level in terms of total units sold as the decade progresses).


You, like many here, fundamentally underestimate how difficult it's going to be to maintain the existing market for televisions, let alone introduce an entirely new technology, bring it to scale, drive it down the cost curve, and turn a profit doing so. All this while the first world sits in the longest economic downturn since the 1930s and the performance of existing television technology is so freaking good that professional experts selected a sub $2000 59" Samsung plasma as the best choice on the market in a recent "shootout" of the year's top TVs.


Somehow you think that flexible OLEDs with some hypothetical applications relate to whether or not we'll have OLED TVs. _They don't_. And all due respect, nonsense like "Samsung skin" has been hyped and touted for a decade. None of it has come to market or even been announced as a product. Roll-to-roll OLED manufacturing, ink-jet printing, flexible substrates, etc. They all date to a time when the Twin Towers cast a shadow over Lower Manhattan. None exist.


There are lots and lots of technologies like this: Things that could be but are not. Holographic storage comes to mind. It's been "just around the corner" since when I plugged in my first hard drive. No viable holographic storage technology has ever come to market and it's unlikely any ever will.


Mankind imagines a lot of things. Mankind produces a few of them. Every generation some of those stick for a combination of reasons. Generally they are not the very best technologies on the market, but for whatever the combination of reasons, they are the ones that stick. The gasoline-powered internal combustion engine (about 30% efficient). The tungsten-filament incandescent light bulb (about 90% of the power goes to heat). VHS (LOL). MP3 (LOLOL). TFT-LCD (mediocre viewing angles, etc. etc.)


If someone can solve the problem of producing a 55" OLED for $3000 when a high-end 55" LCD is still $2500, then great, there exists a chance. If the high-end LCD is $1500, however, the high-end OLED will probably have to be closer to $2000. If the premium is much more than $500, the volumes will never happen. If the volumes never happen, then the experiment is a footnote and that's it. Period.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21081179
> 
> 
> For argument's sake, let's assume you have a plasma that consumes 300 watts calibrated and an LED LCD that consumes 100 watts calibrated (these numbers came from CNET and were the average measured power consumption for each technology). The national average cost of electricity in 2011 has been $0.11/kwh, and the average person watches about 4 hours of TV/day (let's say 6 to be conservative, although I think that is extreme).
> 
> 
> This means someone our plasma owner would spend 300*6/1000*30*0.11 = $5.94 on electricity per month to watch TV, whereas our LCD owner would spend 100*6/1000*30*0.11 = $1.98/month. In other words, the plasma owner will spend $3.96 more/month or $47.52 more/year than the LCD owner on electricity. From a cost standpoint, we're talking small potatoes.



Now multiply the savings by a billion... and then include the savings that will come from using OLED white lighting consuming far less energy than existing lighting (a far larger market than displays) and the savings in energy consumption and cost will skyrocket.

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/8/2/7 



> Quote:
> OLED is one of several emerging lighting technologies that could significantly reduce energy consumption and carbon emission. According to Moser Baer and Universal, OLED lighting could account for $20 billion in global energy savings by 2016 and the reduction of 9 million metric tons of carbon emissions in the US alone.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21082161
> 
> 
> I meant production, not some fantasy demo. There have been dozens of fantasy demos... And the number of OLED production facilities on earth using them? None. The number of them planning to use this technique? None.



Are you really going to suggest you knew about what I posted before it even happened? It's break-through in an area you basically said was fantasy and something OLED fans shouldn't even be hoping for. You said:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> All the hype from Epson, Kodak, duPont, yada yada about roll-to-roll printable OLEDs with flexible backing... Dates back to the Y2K era. And ... yet... nothing.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The economics necessary to support a new entrant don't exist anymore. You can't sell $10,000 plasmas anymore. You can't sell $10,000 DLP RPTVs. You can't sell a 40-inch LCD for $8000 (yep, it launched for about that much in 2002). When everything came before, there was an awful lot of greenfield out there to build on. There just isn't anymore.



That assumes the OLED will come out adding nothing new to the equation but perfect image quality (which I think even you will agree is better than any tech prior to it). What if the new OLED sets are flexible and roll up into your ceiling when not in use? Or are paper thin and can be literally stuck to a wall? Those won't command a premium?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Somehow you think that flexible OLEDs with some hypothetical applications relate to whether or not we'll have OLED TVs. They don't. And all due respect, nonsense like "Samsung skin" has been hyped and touted for a decade. None of it has come to market or even been announced as a product.



I wouldn't be so sure about that, if I were you... the Luddites never win in the end.

http://www.phonegadgetnews.com/samsu...n-in-2012.html 



> Quote:
> Samsung Will Launch Galaxy Skin In 2012
> 
> 
> This futuristic screens are made using Graphene material, which will allow the screen folded, even shock-resistant and relatively hard impact. For thickness, the Galaxy Skin will be similar to the Galaxy S II, but the screen will be longer if not folded. According to rumors, the Galaxy Skin will operate on Jelly Bean, the successor Ice Cream Sandwich.
> 
> 
> For specifications, there has been no official statement but it is expected have a 1.2 Ghz processor, 1GB RAM, 16GB/32GB of storage, 8MP camera, 1500 mAh battery capacity, and screen resolution of 800×480 Flexible AMOLED.


 http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/18/u...id-2011-video/ 



> Quote:
> UDC shows off serpentine OLED lamp concept at SID 2011 (video)
> 
> 
> We've seen flexible OLEDs and OLED lighting solutions before, but none of them conjured our sweaty club-hopping fantasies quite like this concept from Universal Display Corporation (UDC). The flexible OLED makers weren't particularly forthcoming on the specs for this color-changing apparatus, but we can tell you that it uncoils and recoils with the help of a motion sensor, and requires very little energy to power -- note that tiny wire supplying 100 percent of the required juice.



(cool video of the device at the link above also)


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21082910
> 
> 
> Again, I've explained this probably 1000 times. When there was no flat panel, flat panels were pretty much the most compelling thing ever. When you had a 31" CRT, a large screen was pretty much the most compelling thing ever.



Right - so, according to your logic, once the first HD sets were out any HD set of a different technology that came out after them would have faced the Catch 22 you described and not overcome it, and thus wouldn't have "made it". And the positive differences between OLED and what's out now are massive (IMO) compared to the differences of LCD, plasma, DLP (as differentials to what was out at the time) when they came out.


I know you were just exaggerating for effect, but we actually have a GOOD technology for displays (OLED) that fixes all the things that were wrong about the preceding ones and all you can do is pooh-pooh it as if it doesn't matter when it actually does matter.


----------



## navychop

"Breakthroughs" are announced all the time. Few actually are, or ever make it to market. How many medical "breakthroughs" have you heard of in your lifetime? How many miracle drugs?


Been around too long not to get a bit jaded. I was hoping to put OLED lighting in my kitchen renovation. Putting up LED instead. I certainly hope some of the hype for OLED comes true. I still hope that one day they really will be produced cheaply. But when my almost 7 year old 61" JVC LCoS RPTV goes, I doubt I'll be able to buy OLED.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21083232
> 
> 
> Now multiply the savings by a billion... and then include the savings that will come from using OLED white lighting consuming far less energy than existing lighting (a far larger market than displays) and the savings in energy consumption and cost will skyrocket.
> 
> http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/8/2/7



Stop. Just stop. There aren't a billion plasma TVs. There isn't OLED white lighting. Regular LED lighting is coming along just fine and has already taken a decade to get this far. By the time your mythic OLED lighting exists, most of the world's lighting will be LED. End of game.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21083260
> 
> 
> Right - so, according to your logic, once the first HD sets were out any HD set of a different technology that came out after them would have faced the Catch 22 you described and not overcome it, and thus wouldn't have "made it". And the positive differences between OLED and what's out now are massive (IMO) compared to the differences of LCD, plasma, DLP (as differentials to what was out at the time) when they came out.
> 
> 
> I know you were just exaggerating for effect, but we actually have a GOOD technology for displays (OLED) that fixes all the things that were wrong about the preceding ones and all you can do is pooh-pooh it as if it doesn't matter when it actually does matter.



No, I am not exaggerating for effect. At all.


The first generation of HD displays replaced small, bulky, SD sets. The next generation of HD displays was a bit bigger, a bit better. The next generation was a bit bigger, a bit better. Now, bigness is kind of ending in the mainstream (although growing on the "tail) and better is kind of "done" for 95% of people.


Only in Fantasyland is some OLED going to be perceived as much better by a lot of people. Perception is reality. Virtually no one is going to perceive these OLED TVs as better the same way virtually no one sees the value in the Elite LCD. The only reason the Elite LCD is viable is that it comes off the same fab as a TV costing


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21083249
> 
> 
> Are you really going to suggest you knew about what I posted before it even happened? It's break-through in an area you basically said was fantasy and something OLED fans shouldn't even be hoping for. You said:



You lost me.



> Quote:
> That assumes the OLED will come out adding nothing new to the equation but perfect image quality (which I think even you will agree is better than any tech prior to it). What if the new OLED sets are flexible and roll up into your ceiling when not in use? Or are paper thin and can be literally stuck to a wall? Those won't command a premium?



100% chance that OLED TVs will not be flexible and will not roll up. In 2020, maybe this changes, but we're not talking about 2020. We're talking about 2012-14 Samsungs and LGs. 0% chance those will be flexible or roll out. By 0% chance I mean not 0.00001%, but 0%.


> Quote:
> I wouldn't be so sure about that, if I were you... the Luddites never win in the end.



OK, I admit I had no idea what a Samsung skin was, but there is no chance at all Samsung is shipping a phone with a folding screen in 2012. And quite frankly, why would they? It has no utility whatsoever. Some idiotic form factor screen? Yay? And it folds? Why? This is an idea without purpose.


I don't think you know what Luddite means by the way. I'm most definitely not opposed to technological advancement and its impact on labor. I just don't eat up every phony blog post like you do.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21085913
> 
> 
> Stop. Just stop. There aren't a billion plasma TVs. There isn't OLED white lighting. Regular LED lighting is coming along just fine and has already taken a decade to get this far. By the time your mythic OLED lighting exists, most of the world's lighting will be LED. End of game.



I didn't say a billion plasmas.


LED lighting is nearly useless since its a point source only (not planar). It also uses toxic metals, which OLED does not.


OLED white lighting most certainly does exist; it's already for sale in the market, by multiple manufacturers. Here's one:

http://www.oled-info.com/files/Phili...Plus-flyer.pdf 


And Universal Display just inked two long-term licensing and materials contracts with two of the biggest Japanese manufacturers, Pioneer and Panasonic, both for OLED white lighting.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21085938
> 
> 
> You lost me.



I posted about a breakthrough in roll-to-roll OLED printing that happened *this week*. Your post pooh-poohing the idea was from before that. And I notice you've had nothing to say about what I posted.




> Quote:
> OK, I admit I had no idea what a Samsung skin was, but there is no chance at all Samsung is shipping a phone with a folding screen in 2012. And quite frankly, why would they? It has no utility whatsoever. Some idiotic form factor screen? Yay? And it folds? Why? This is an idea without purpose.



You can wear it as a wristwatch when not making calls. You can bend it and stand it up as a GPS when driving. You can fold it and keep the phone hung on a pocket of your pants instead of needing a belt clip or case. It opens up possibilities and also makes the screen virtually indestructible, something cellphones sorely need.


----------



## GmanAVS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21086952
> 
> 
> I posted about a breakthrough in roll-to-roll OLED printing that happened *this week*. Your post pooh-poohing the idea was from before that. And I notice you've had nothing to say about what I posted..



Interesting that 92/93 of your posts come from this thread, do we know you from somewhere else?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21086952
> 
> 
> You can wear it as a wristwatch when not making calls. You can bend it and stand it up as a GPS when driving. You can fold it and keep the phone hung on a pocket of your pants instead of needing a belt clip or case. It opens up possibilities and also makes the screen virtually indestructible, something cellphones sorely need.



wow, and when may these fantastic applications of OLED come to the mass market?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21086933
> 
> 
> I didn't say a billion plasmas.



Except you did.


Post #2754. Talking about energy savings vs. plasma. You said multiply that by a billion. Thus you were talking about plasma. Nice try.


> Quote:
> LED lighting is nearly useless since its a point source only (not planar). It also uses toxic metals, which OLED does not.



Oh lord, the toxic material canard. First, we heard this nonsense about CFs and mercury (so recycle them properly). Now, it's about LED lights which are going to last 25 years. Tell me what toxic boogeyman I should fear, please.


> Quote:
> OLED white lighting most certainly does exist; it's already for sale in the market, by multiple manufacturers. Here's one:
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/files/Phili...Plus-flyer.pdf



I went to Home Depot. There were incandescents, halogens, CFs, LEDs. No OLEDs. I checked to see if anyone was developing a practical OLED for the billions of Edison sockets in use on earth. Nope. Oh well. Nice try, though.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21082910
> 
> 
> Not sure how the cost ratio applies. Actually, I'm sure the cost ratio doesn't apply! A Maybach is about 10x the cost of a Camry more or less, but it doesn't matter. Because the ratio is irrelevant. There are some tiny number of people that want snob-appeal autos (and by the way, I'm not judging them negatively, more power to them). There are some tiny number of people that want snob-appeal TVs. The difference is, production economics support the former, not the latter.



The ratio in the analogy matters quite a bit. There's a wide chasm of difference between a snob willing to spend 10 TIMES the cost of the lesser product and one willing to spend 1.5 times the cost of the lesser product.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21085928
> 
> 
> No, I am not exaggerating for effect. At all.
> 
> 
> The first generation of HD displays replaced small, bulky, SD sets. The next generation of HD displays was a bit bigger, a bit better. The next generation was a bit bigger, a bit better. Now, bigness is kind of ending in the mainstream (although growing on the "tail) and better is kind of "done" for 95% of people.



What you're missing is that in each instance of a new TYPE of HD tech coming out, despite them being only "slightly" better, people were willing to pay a price premium in order to obtain that slight betterment. So now when OLED is in the same position (but actually bests them ALL) you suggest the formula no longer works?


----------



## xrox

With regards to OLED lighting there are plenty of pro and con articles out there but recently there has been an uptick in the negative articles thanks to an analysis by Lux Research. Below are a couple articles:

Expectations Dim For Oled Lighting 

Organic LED lighting: only a niche market by 2020


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GmanAVS* /forum/post/21088962
> 
> 
> Interesting that 92/93 of your posts come from this thread, do we know you from somewhere else?
> 
> 
> 
> wow, and when may these fantastic applications of OLED come to the mass market?



According to PC World and other sites next year. If it comes 6-12 months later will it be useless?

http://www.pcworld.in/news/samsung-g...asses-55562011 



> Quote:
> "AMOLED is already the mobile screen technology to beat, so if it's as good as promised, flexible AMOLED could put an end to smashed smartphone displays and tablets, which are even more fragile," Will Findlater, editor of Stuff magazine, told the Daily Mail which first reported the story about the phone being available in spring 2012.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21089207
> 
> 
> Except you did.
> 
> 
> Post #2754. Talking about energy savings vs. plasma. You said multiply that by a billion. Thus you were talking about plasma. Nice try.



No, actually I said power savings of an individual against existing HDTV technologies and said multiply that times a billion. Maybe he was being specific about plasma but I wasn't. My original point was power savings of OLED over all existing technologies.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21089207
> 
> 
> Except you did.
> 
> 
> Post #2754. Talking about energy savings vs. plasma. You said multiply that by a billion. Thus you were talking about plasma. Nice try.
> 
> 
> Oh lord, the toxic material canard. First, we heard this nonsense about CFs and mercury (so recycle them properly). Now, it's about LED lights which are going to last 25 years. Tell me what toxic boogeyman I should fear, please.



Why are you guys incapable of using web search engines to find information?

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/8/2/13 



> Quote:
> Study looks at toxic metal content of LEDs
> 
> 
> A recently-published journal paper suggests that many LEDs should be classified as hazardous waste, but the sample size is very small and some of the conclusions drawn could easily be described as scaremongering.


 http://www.gizmag.com/led-bulbs-foun...-metals/17876/ 



> Quote:
> LED bulbs not as eco-friendly as some might think
> 
> 
> LED light bulbs are becoming increasingly popular with designers and consumers of green technology, as they use less electricity, last longer, and emit more light on a pound-for-pound basis than traditional incandescent bulbs. However, while it may be tempting to look at them as having solved the problem of environmentally-unfriendly lighting, researchers from the University of California would advise against such thinking.
> 
> 
> Scientists from UC Irvine and UC Davis pulverized multicolored LED Christmas lights, traffic signal lights, and automobile head and brake lights, allowed residue to leach from them, and then analyzed its chemical content. They discovered that low-intensity red LEDs contained up to eight times the amount of lead allowed under California law, although generally brighter bulbs tended to contain the most contaminants. While white bulbs had a lower lead content than their colored counterparts, they still had high levels of nickel.
> 
> 
> Besides the lead and nickel, the bulbs and their associated parts were also found to contain arsenic, copper, and other metals that have been linked to different cancers, neurological damage, kidney disease, hypertension, skin rashes and other illnesses in humans, and to ecological damage in waterways. UC Irvine's Oladele Ogunseitan said that while breaking a single bulb and breathing its fumes would not automatically cause cancer, it could be the tipping point for an individual regularly exposed to another carcinogen.
> 
> 
> The study found that the production, use and disposal of LEDs all present health risks, which the public should be made aware of. It suggests that a special broom, gloves and mask should be used when cleaning up broken bulbs, and that crews attending to car accidents or broken traffic lights should be required to wear protective gear, and treat the material as hazardous waste.
> 
> 
> LEDs are currently not classified as toxic, and are disposed of in conventional landfills.
> 
> 
> Ogunseitan blames the situation on a lack of proper product testing before LEDs were presented as a more efficient replacement for incandescent bulbs - which are now being phased out around the world. Although a law requiring more stringent testing for such products was scheduled to begin on January 1st in California, it was opposed by industry groups, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger put it on hold before leaving office.
> 
> 
> Every day we don't have a law that says you cannot replace an unsafe product with another unsafe product, we're putting people's lives at risk, said Ogunseitan. And it's a preventable risk.
> 
> 
> Incandescent bulbs, incidentally, contain very high levels of lead and mercury, while compact fluorescents are also high in mercury.



OLEDs have NONE of these issues and are power-efficient and green.




> Quote:
> I went to Home Depot. There were incandescents, halogens, CFs, LEDs. No OLEDs. I checked to see if anyone was developing a practical OLED for the billions of Edison sockets in use on earth. Nope. Oh well. Nice try, though.



Nice try yourself. Since when is Home Depot the definition of on the market? Is everyone on this forum as intellectually dishonest as you?


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21089214
> 
> 
> Finally, you seem not to understand that you can't wrap the phone around your wrist or any such thing. Electronics are not bendable. Batteries are not bendable.



Speaking of people who don't know much, you didn't even know what the Samsung Skin was and now you're going to tell me what it can't do? The battery and electronics/CPU/etc are in the base. The screen is the part that bends and makes up the majority of the length of the device.


----------



## greenland

OLED TV advancements. Isn't that what the thread topic is supposed to be dedicated to?


Why has it turned into endless arguments about OLED telephones and Light Bulbs?


Why should people have to wade through page after page of that stuff, just to see if there has been any news about OLED TV developments posted?


----------



## rgb32

 http://www.oled-info.com/auo-start-a...-device-makers 


There are reports that AUO has started to ship AMOLED panel samples to smartphone makers - and the company plans to start mass production in 2012. We're not sure what kind of panels these are, but back in March 2011 they added a 3.5" AMOLED 360x640 panel to their product line , so these may be the same panels samples being shipped now.


AUO actually planned to start mass production back in Q2 2011, but the company faced technology issues and had to delay to Q3/Q4 2011, and now we hear of further delays to 2012. AUO will use their Taiwanese Gen-3.5 fab for these panels, most likely (the company is also working towards converting its 4.5-Gen LTPS line in Singapore to AMOLED production).


Source
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111013PD214.html 


> Quote:
> AUO poised to start AMOLED production
> 
> 
> Yenting Chen, Taipei; Adam Hwang, DIGITIMES [Friday 14 October 2011]
> 
> 
> 
> AU Optronics (AUO) has sent sample AMOLED panels to smartphone vendors and ODMs and plans to kick off volume production in 2012, according to the company.
> 
> 
> AUO started development of AMOLED concurrently with Samsung Electronics in 2001 and was technologically capable of making such panels in 2002. Because adoption of AMOLED was minimal among small- to medium-sized panels, AUO later suspended AMOLED business plans for 1-2 years. Viewing that AMOLED has become an increasingly important trend in panel technological development, AUO has therefore resumed development.
> 
> 
> However, AUO faces three challenges: Samsung has gained the global leading status in the application of AMOLED with the most patents; Taiwan's AMOLED supply chain has not developed soundly; and many China-based makers have aggressively stepped into AMOLED production, according to industry sources.
> 
> 
> With support from the China government, BOE Technology has begun AMOLED production at 4.5G and 5.5G lines. Meanwhile, Sichuan CCD Display Technology has begun production at it 4.5G line, Visionox at 2.5G and 4.5G, Xiamen Tianma Micro-Electronics at 5.5G and Irico at two 4.5G lines, the sources indicated.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OLED TV advancements. Isn't that what the thread topic is supposed to be dedicated to?
> 
> 
> Why has it turned into endless arguments about OLED telephones and Light Bulbs?
> 
> 
> Why should people have to wade through page after page of that stuff, just to see if there has been any news about OLED TV developments posted?



Apart from the 55 inch rumours there is very little OLED TV news, the guys keeping this important *thread* alive.


Once there are larger sized OLEDs out there OLED will get its own Forum (and a OLED telephones & light bulbs sub-Forum







).


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21090158
> 
> 
> With regards to OLED lighting there are plenty of pro and con articles out there but recently there has been an uptick in the negative articles thanks to an analysis by Lux Research. Below are a couple articles:
> 
> Expectations Dim For Oled Lighting



Your own article contradicts its predictions by citing experts and supply chain folks who estimate the market to be 100 times larger than the Lux study would suggest. Further, its suggestion of OLED white lighting lifetimes is off by a lot - they suggest 8000 hours, but UDC showed panels a few months ago that are doing 30,000 hours to 70% of initial brightness. That's around 7 years of 12-hour/day lighting to 70% of initial brightness. They could likely be used at least a decade before replacing them.

http://www.universaldisplay.com/down...2011%20SID.pdf 



> Quote:
> UNIVERSAL DISPLAY ANNOUNCES ALL-PHOSPHORESCENT
> 
> WHITE OLED LIGHTING PANEL WITH 58 LUMENS PER WATT
> 
> AND 30,000 HOURS OF OPERATING LIFETIME AT 2011 SID



And I leave you with these tidbits:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...lighting.ars/2 



> Quote:
> Last year, 50 percent of both GE and Osram's R&D budget was put into LED and OLED tech. This year, in Osram's case, that figure is "more than 60 percent" according to spokesperson Dryden. The investment in both LED and OLED is telling. They're widely regarded as complimentary technologies with different strengths: diffuse ambient lighting with OLEDs, intense points of light with LEDs. So for solid-state to displace fluorescents lighting in commercial interiors, we aren't reliant on LED efficacy tumbling until LEDs can out-muscle fluorescents; OLED is a technology altogether better suited to the task.



And GE's own video on OLED lighting:

http://www.efactormedia.com/archive/ge_oled/index.html 




> NanoMarkets Announces Release of Latest Global OLED Lighting Market Forecasts, Sees $4.8 billion Market in 2016
> 
> 
> - It sees $4.8 billion OLED lighting market in 2016
> 
> - Expects "mass market" OLED lighting on the market in the 2013-2014 period and revenues generated by OLED-based general illumination products are expected to reach $2.7 billion in 2016
> 
> - Sees architectural applications of OLED lighting generating more than $950 million by 2016
> 
> - Expects automotive segment to generate $805 million in OLED lighting revenues by 2016


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21090142
> 
> 
> The ratio in the analogy matters quite a bit. There's a wide chasm of difference between a snob willing to spend 10 TIMES the cost of the lesser product and one willing to spend 1.5 times the cost of the lesser product.



No it doesn't. You presume to understand consumer preference on some theoretical product that doesn't exist. There are cars at $20,000, $25,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, 70,000, 100,000, 200,000, etc. etc. etc. Every tier up sells less. But every one of them has snob appeal. The TV has virtually no snob appeal. You pretty much have to love it or be able to show someone it's 4mm thin (which it won't be since it needs electronics).


Already, there are reports at AVS of people not buying a single Elite at some Best Buys. That's a problem.


The other thing you keep sweeping under the rug is this: They can make 300 Maybachs a year, 1000 Bentleys, 10,000 M5s and 500,000 Camrys. They have to make millions of OLEDs or zero. So the market has to be huge. It's either huge or zero. Period.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21090153
> 
> 
> What you're missing is that in each instance of a new TYPE of HD tech coming out, despite them being only "slightly" better, people were willing to pay a price premium in order to obtain that slight betterment. So now when OLED is in the same position (but actually bests them ALL) you suggest the formula no longer works?



No, they weren't. That's where you remain confused.


And, yes, the formula will break.


Pretend a billion people needed HDTVs. When Gen 1 came out 200 million bought them. When Gen 2 came out 200 million bought them and the installed based was 375 million (25 million replaced their Gen 1s). When Gen 3 came out 200 million bought them and the installed base hit 525 million. When Gen 4 came out, the installed base hit 675 million. When Gen 6 came out, it hit 800 million. Assume each "generation" sold about 200 million total sets and the ones not adding to the base when to early adopters replacing. Let's just say by the end of next year, before the first OLED TV, we hit a shipment total of 1.5 billion HDTVs, an installed base of 1 billion, and 500 million into early adopter homes as second or third sets.


There is no mechanic like the one you wish existed. It's already gone. Most of the market that exists now is replacement sets, small size upgrades, etc. Existing TVs are *more than good enough* for 95% of the marketplace and _everyone who wants an HDTV flat screen has an HDTV flat screen_.


There is no "greenfield" to sell into. This is a huge, huge problem for a new technology that LCD and plasma simply do not have. If I make an improvement to my LCD or plasma, so long as I can produce on an existing line, I can sell tens of thousands and try to mainstream the improvement or sell it as a niche product -- like Sharp's Elite. Maybe I succeed, maybe I fail, but the economics work at tens of thousands. Same 10G Sakai fab as I'm using for my mainstream 70" and I can run said fab near capacity at this point (at least on one line).


Panasonic, similarly, can mainstream an 85" on their 42" lines.


OLED? No.


To make OLED work, Samsung needs to sell *millions* of them. They can't sell tens of thousands for 3-4 years and declare victory. It has to ramp within 24 months or it fails. If this was a no brainer, they'd already have invested the money and started the fab. _It's not surprising they've dithered over this decision for so long_.


Traditional learning-curve economics are not going to do it here. If they release at $5000, the market is vanishingly small *and will never get big enough to pay off their investment*. (I should be clear, there will be some test production that is going to reel in suckers who must have new ga-ga-goo-goo technology and those people will pay $5000 and so there might be an initial $5000 period. To me, that's a red herring; intro is when they state their plans to be in "retailers everywhere".)


The mass intro needs to be at or below $3000. Why? Because high-end 55" displays will be around $2000 by that point. And even $3000 is going to be a very very tough sell. So tough it could easily fail. Above $3000 is automatic failure. How do I know? Because I do. You don't like that? I don't care. Invest in your OLED component makers betting on this success and lose a fortune. People believed all the hype around LCD a few years ago and how it was going to make them money. I watched the announcement said "overcapacity incoming, look out below" and saw margins plummeting before it happened. There is no mass market television above $3000 anymore. *That ship sailed a long time ago*. There is no greenfield. Everyone has an HDTV. This isn't the same as previous technological improvement. The OLED isn't even available as a mass market product until 2013 at the earliest. LCD and plasma aren't sitting still. If I type the next sentence, you'll press report post and get me another infraction so consider it redacted.


----------



## rogo

LED lighting is going to win the market:


"By 2020, nearly half (46 percent) of the $4.4 billion commercial lighting business will be given over to LED lighting, according to a Pike Research report released Wednesday, "Energy Efficient Lighting for Commercial Markets."


Because of their energy-frugal characteristics, LEDs (light-emitting diodes) have always had the potential to save commercial properties a significant amount of money on their electricity bills. However, the initial expense of the lighting systems have made LEDs cost-prohibitive in many situations. Not so anymore, according to Pike Research.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20004182-54.html 


LED lights are going in everywhere. Today. Not in some future. Today. They save money now. They work now. They last a generation. No one is tearing them out. Call me when you start getting your data from people that don't have a stake in the outcome.


----------



## pdoherty972

And there's also this:


Raise your hand if you think GE, Philip, Panasonic, Pioneer, Konica-Minola, Novaled and the rest are scrambling as fast as possible to build out OLED lighting infrastructure to capture a percentage of a 58 million dollar annual market? That's far less than most of them are spending on the infrastructure to make them.


Far more likely is this estimate for OLED white lighting - US $4.8 billion by 2016

http://nanomarkets.net/news/article/...arket_in_2016/


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21091725
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. You presume to understand consumer preference on some theoretical product that doesn't exist. There are cars at $20,000, $25,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, 70,000, 100,000, 200,000, etc. etc. etc. Every tier up sells less. But every one of them has snob appeal. The TV has virtually no snob appeal. You pretty much have to love it or be able to show someone it's 4mm thin (which it won't be since it needs electronics).



LG showed a 31" OLED display a year ago that was 2.9mm thin. It is possible to separate the main electronics from the screen.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/l...ld-lcd-hearts/


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> It has to ramp within 24 months or it fails. If this was a no brainer, they'd already have invested the money and started the fab. It's not surprising they've dithered over this decision for so long.



They just finished their Gen 5.5 plant in May.


So you wanted a June announcement for Gen 8 or now they are dithering?


and just to fend off the endless litany, we are in absolute agreement about the market for high-end televisions. A Gen 8.5 fab has to be able to build 50" televisions for sub-$2000 or there will be no market.


Slacker


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/21090848
> 
> 
> Apart from the 55 inch rumours there is very little OLED TV news, the guys keeping this important *thread* alive.
> 
> 
> Once there are larger sized OLEDs out there OLED will get its own Forum (and a OLED telephones & light bulbs sub-Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



The thread was surviving before they hijacked it with their endless blather about telephones etc. If they want to argue about that stuff, then why not start a thread about it? Very little news about OLED HDTV is actually a form of realistic news that readers can grasp.


Hiding that fact under an avalanche of ego driven arguments about other devices, is counter productive.


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21092002
> 
> 
> They just finished their Gen 5.5 plant in May.
> 
> 
> So you wanted a June announcement for Gen 8 or now they are dithering?
> 
> 
> Slacker



I was hoping that Samsung would commit big(ger) to OLED after they got their deal with UDC done, so I'm kinda disappointed by their "dithering" (great word by the way, isn't used often enough).


----------



## navychop

My "super LED" kitchen under cabinet lighting is working quite well, thank you. I wanted OLED, but couldn't seem to find any. *Anywhere.* And I've been looking for years. Oh, there was somebody out there *claiming* to provide samples to "developers." But Joe Six Pack is NOT able to buy OLED lighting or (reasonably sized) TVs.


I look forward to OLEDs. Certainly for lighting, maybe for TVs. But it'll be a lot longer coming than we'd like. It already has been.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21092766
> 
> 
> I was hoping that Samsung would commit big(ger) to OLED after they got their deal with UDC done, so I'm kinda disappointed by their "dithering" (great word by the way, isn't used often enough).



Samsung committed US $4.8 Billion for gen 8 OLED fab several months ago


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21093261
> 
> 
> Samsung committed US $4.8 Billion for gen 8 OLED fab several months ago



That was their OLED capex budget for 2011. Samsung has yet to make any commitment to a Gen 8 fab. The hope/belief is that they will do so when they announce their 2012 capex budget.


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21091921
> 
> 
> LG showed a 31" OLED display a year ago that was 2.9mm thin. It is possible to separate the main electronics from the screen.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/l...ld-lcd-hearts/



Showed. Promised to build and sell. Never released. And also, TVs with electronics in the base suck. Badly. Can't be wall mounted. Suck. Fail in the market. Did I mention how badly they suck? No soup for them. Next!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21092002
> 
> 
> They just finished their Gen 5.5 plant in May.
> 
> 
> So you wanted a June announcement for Gen 8 or now they are dithering?
> 
> 
> and just to fend off the endless litany, we are in absolute agreement about the market for high-end televisions. A Gen 8.5 fab has to be able to build 50" televisions for sub-$2000 or there will be no market.



No, Slacker, they've been dithering over the decision whether to build TVs for years. No question they've committed to building the screens for phones (and now, clearly, tablets). I think they'll decide on the Gen 8 or they won't. I also think the decision doesn't prove they will succeed; it proves they will _try_ to make it work.


Sometimes you have to bet billions of dollars. Sometimes the bet doesn't pay off. If they choose to build the fab, whether the bet pays off will be decided probably 2-4 years down the road.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21093524
> 
> 
> No, Slacker, they've been dithering over the decision whether to build TVs for years. No question they've committed to building the screens for phones (and now, clearly, tablets). I think they'll decide on the Gen 8 or they won't. I also think the decision doesn't prove they will succeed; it proves they will _try_ to make it work.



The reason that Sony and LG dont have any credibility is that they have yet to build any OLED's of any size in commercial quantities. OTOH, Samsung takes the interim steps and you say that they are dithering? Damned if you do, damned if you dont.


I agree that a capex commitment by Samsung doesnt come with any guarantees. However, at a minimum, it means that Samsung believe it has overcome the technical challenges of a Gen 8 fab and they believe that they can manufacture them at a reasonable price. They could be wrong, but they are certainly in a better position to make an educated guess on the matter than you or I.


For those on the board, a capex commitment should at least mean that a 55" OLED TV will be available at some price in the next year or two. The price might be obscene but I have a feeling that wont stop at least a couple of people.


Slacker


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21093509
> 
> 
> Showed. Promised to build and sell. Never released. And also, TVs with electronics in the base suck. Badly. Can't be wall mounted. Suck. Fail in the market. Did I mention how badly they suck? No soup for them. Next!



What sucks about separating the electronics from the screen? You could wall-mount an OLED display and have the electronics in a closet if you wanted.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21093572
> 
> 
> The reason that Sony and LG dont have any credibility is that they have yet to build any OLED's of any size in commercial quantities.



Well... What about the PS Vita? Does anyone know how Sony will be able to ship all of those hand helds with a 5" OLED screen? I would imagine that the OLED displays on the PS Vita are part of the reason why they've delayed the release date?


----------



## rgb32

 http://provideocoalition.com/index.p...ere.._finally/ 


Worth checking out!


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21094769
> 
> 
> Well... What about the PS Vita? Does anyone know how Sony will be able to ship all of those hand helds with a 5" OLED screen? I would imagine that the OLED displays on the PS Vita are part of the reason why they've delayed the release date?



I would wager quite a bit that the OLED's in the PS Vita are built by Samsung. The potential volumes are too high for a small pilot line and I just dont see how or why Sony would have built a "secret" commercial Gen 4 or larger fab. If nothing else, we would have heard about equipment sales from their suppliers.


BTW, thanks for the Sony PVM review. I have been looking all over trying to find one. Sounds like Sony has a good chance of winning this market.


Slacker


----------



## wjchan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21094904
> 
> http://provideocoalition.com/index.p...ere.._finally/
> 
> 
> Worth checking out!



I got mine on Saturday and have watched a few Blu-ray movies on it. Sure, it's better than any LCD or plasma in terms of color, black-level, and contrast but it didn't exactly blow me away. I'm guessing joe-consumers wouldn't pay more than a 20% premium over plasma/LCD of equal size. If it were 4mm thick perhaps it could fetch a 50%-100% premium.


I also did a bit of sleuthing. Based on the cargo tracking info and the weight of the monitor, Sony shipped 100 of these monitors to their San Jose distribution center at the end of September. That's not exactly high volume. My serial number is 288.


My background: I am a display technology enthusiast and have owned the VPL-VW100, VPL-VW200, IBM T210, T221.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ which model did you get?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/0
> 
> http://provideocoalition.com/index.p...ere.._finally/
> 
> 
> Worth checking out!



Thanks for the link. 2 things stand out: OLED more energy efficient than LED, and poor OLED viewing angle. Both doesn't make sense.


I'm just waiting for Japan FPD event in a week to see if the rumoured Korean 55" will really be out.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21094769
> 
> 
> Well... What about the PS Vita? Does anyone know how Sony will be able to ship all of those hand helds with a 5" OLED screen? I would imagine that the OLED displays on the PS Vita are part of the reason why they've delayed the release date?



I think those Vita screens are Samsung OLED screens.


----------



## wjchan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21095259
> 
> 
> ^^ which model did you get?



Besides the uber-expensive BVM-E250, only the PVM-2541 is available currently. The 17" will start shipping later. I got the PVM.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21095259
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link. 2 things stand out: OLED more energy efficient than LED, and poor OLED viewing angle. Both doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> I'm just waiting for Japan FPD event in a week to see if the rumoured Korean 55" will really be out.



Could the viewing angle due to Sony's use of microcavity structure and/or color filter? http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technol...me/oel_01.html


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wjchan* /forum/post/21095361
> 
> 
> Besides the uber-expensive BVM-E250, only the PVM-2541 is available currently. The 17" will start shipping later. I got the PVM.
> 
> 
> Could the viewing angle due to Sony's use of microcavity structure and/or color filter? http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technol...me/oel_01.html



I am fairly sure that a drop in viewing angles is one of the drawbacks to a microcavity architecture.


Slacker


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21095108
> 
> 
> I would wager quite a bit that the OLED's in the PS Vita are built by Samsung. The potential volumes are too high for a small pilot line and I just dont see how or why Sony would have built a "secret" commercial Gen 4 or larger fab. If nothing else, we would have heard about equipment sales from their suppliers.
> 
> 
> BTW, thanks for the Sony PVM review. I have been looking all over trying to find one. Sounds like Sony has a good chance of winning this market.
> 
> 
> Slacker



Agreed - the other reason is I don't think Sony could build the Vita screen using phosphorescent OLED without Universal Display being involved. And they certainly couldn't build a portable device's screen using fluorescent OLED material as the battery hit would be tremendous.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21083232
> 
> 
> Now multiply the savings by a billion... and then include the savings that will come from using OLED white lighting consuming far less energy than existing lighting (a far larger market than displays) and the savings in energy consumption and cost will skyrocket.
> 
> http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/8/2/7



You made a comment about some HDTVs consuming 500 watts. My reply to you was that, unless you're concerned about saving energy for the sake of saving energy, the monetary difference between operating a plasma vs an LCD is negligible. I showed this with some hard numbers. With the efficiency of LED LCDs where they're currently at, you're approaching a point of diminishing returns when trying to improve upon those numbers.


Given the context of those comments, I'm highly confused where your "billion" figure comes from, since as rogo already pointed out there aren't a billion plasmas out there to replace in the first place. If you're including other items in that figure - light sources, phones, etc. - then you'd need to provide separate comparative metrics for each of those categories as well.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21095885
> 
> 
> You made a comment about some HDTVs consuming 500 watts. My reply to you was that, unless you're concerned about saving energy for the sake of saving energy, the monetary difference between operating a plasma vs an LCD is negligible. I showed this with some hard numbers. With the efficiency of LED LCDs where they're currently at, you're approaching a point of diminishing returns when trying to improve upon those numbers.
> 
> 
> Given the context of those comments, I'm highly confused where your "billion" figure comes from, since as rogo already pointed out there aren't a billion plasmas out there to replace in the first place. If you're including other items in that figure - light sources, phones, etc. - then you'd need to provide separate comparative metrics for each of those categories as well.



I was referring to all display types combined. And yes, my interest is in power savings, period. Not for $ savings per individual consumer.

http://www.whathifi.com/news/growth-...ation-increase 



> Quote:
> But forecasts from market analysts DisplaySearch suggest that the 18% growth year on year seen in 2010, which reflected total shipments of some 248m TVs worldwide, will fall to just a 4% growth this year.
> 
> 
> Falling TV prices stabilising
> 
> And while sales of flatscreen TVs were up 32% in 2010, this year is expected to see increases of just 12%: in many established markets consumers have made the big move from a CRT TV to a flatscreen model, and the falling prices of TVs show signs of stabilising.
> 
> 
> DisplaySearch Director of North American TV Research Paul Gagnon says that 'As the household installed base for flat panel TVs increases above 50-60%, the growth rate slows, which is currently the situation in Japan, Western Europe, and North America.
> 
> 
> 'Emerging markets, however, are still ripe for sustained growth due to a low level of household flat panel TV penetration.'
> 
> 
> LCD remains the dominant TV type, and is expected to account for around 84% of all sets sold in 2011: worldwide shipments will rise 13% this year, to almost 217m units, and it's thought sales will hit 270m by 2014.



Doesn't seem hard at all to believe there is 1 billion flatscreen TVs out there, with shipments of between 200 and 300 million every year.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21093077
> 
> 
> My "super LED" kitchen under cabinet lighting is working quite well, thank you. I wanted OLED, but couldn't seem to find any. *Anywhere.* And I've been looking for years. Oh, there was somebody out there *claiming* to provide samples to "developers." But Joe Six Pack is NOT able to buy OLED lighting or TVs.
> 
> 
> I look forward to OLEDs. Certainly for lighting, maybe for TVs. But it'll be a lot longer coming than we'd like. It already has been.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21093524
> 
> 
> No, Slacker, they've been dithering over the decision whether to build TVs for years. No question they've committed to building the screens for phones (and now, clearly, tablets). I think they'll decide on the Gen 8 or they won't. I also think the decision doesn't prove they will succeed; it proves they will _try_ to make it work.
> 
> 
> Sometimes you have to bet billions of dollars. Sometimes the bet doesn't pay off. If they choose to build the fab, whether the bet pays off will be decided probably 2-4 years down the road.




well first smart phone displays, next pad displays, then monitors, possibly large size displays. we can hope. there is some room for optimism given oleds are already on electronic devices including the new motorola droid razrs.


much more tangible progress than we ever saw from sed, and oled certainly

will prove economical in small dispays, but whether i will ever be able to watch nfl games on a large, reasonably affordable, oled display remains a question that no one knows the answer to right now


----------



## walford

Will large Passive OLED displays be avalable at the same time as active 3D displays?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21096378
> 
> 
> I was referring to all display types combined. And yes, my interest is in power savings, period. Not for $ savings per individual consumer.



Okay, assuming there are a billion flat panel TVs out there, how much energy savings would we realize by magically switching every single one of them to a OLED of equal size?


----------



## Sunidrem

 http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-del...eir-amoled-fab 



> Quote:
> There are reports from Korea that Samsung Mobile Display may delay their 5.5-Gen AMOLED fab expansion. The reports claim that SMD already postponed equipment orders for the third phase, and they will also delay expansion of the second line.



Therein lies some dithering.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wjchan* /forum/post/21095361
> 
> 
> Besides the uber-expensive BVM-E250, only the PVM-2541 is available currently. The 17" will start shipping later. I got the PVM.
> 
> 
> Could the viewing angle due to Sony's use of microcavity structure and/or color filter? http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technol...me/oel_01.html



You are probably the only one I know in this forum that has a set







Thanks for the review. Why do you think it is not outstanding? Is it the screen size or motion handling? This monitor is more suited for static images right? I read the spec and it doesn't sound like it's designed as a TV with VP capabilities lacking.


Thanks for the info on microcavity. That's a weird AR implementation







but probably make sense for a single user monitor rather than as a TV.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21095395
> 
> 
> I am fairly sure that a drop in viewing angles is one of the drawbacks to a microcavity architecture.
> 
> 
> Slacker





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21097500
> 
> 
> Okay, assuming there are a billion flat panel TVs out there, how much energy savings would we realize by magically switching every single one of them to a OLED of equal size?



Frankly I agree on the diminishing return and power consumption is not a big issue to individuals, but it is to governments. 1bio multiply by 100W is a big number. But if I am the government I will look at PC power consumption as well. White box consumer products has been under scrutiny but funny 400W PCs are not.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21048745
> 
> 
> And yes I think S2 has a good chance of grabbing market share next 6 months at least. Sammy is having another announcement next week for a curved handset so I hope it could be a google phone with OLED.



After delaying the launch slated for 11 Oct out of respect for Jobs, this just out:


"As with all Nexus phones, the Galaxy Nexus boasts some impressive specifications. The smartphone features a 1.2 gigahertz dual-core processor, a 4.65-inch Super AMOLED HD screen with a resolution of 1280x720 pixels, 1GB of RAM, 32GB of storage, and a pronounced curved shape that is intended to cradle the face. There's a a 5-megapixel camera, a 1.3-megapixel front-facing camera for video chats, and support for 1080p HD video capture and playback. Samsung says that its camera experiences zero shutter lag.


The body of the HSPA+ version is a svelte 8.9 millimeters thick (Neither Google nor Samsung specificed the thickness of the LTE version in their presentation.) The Nexus S also featured a subtle curve in its design, in keeping with the original curve of the Samsung Nexus S.


The Galaxy Nexus will launch in November in the U.S., Europe, and Asia (including China and Japan). Although no pricing has been announced, Samsung did mention that NTT DoCoMo will be the Japanese carrier." -CNET


----------



## rogo

Virtually all LCDs are going to be 100w or less within 24 months. It's doubtful OLEDs will be much less. Power savings are a bogus reason to switch to OLED. Sorry.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21094766
> 
> 
> What sucks about separating the electronics from the screen? You could wall-mount an OLED display and have the electronics in a closet if you wanted.



You've obviously never owned a TV like this. It sucks. Consumers hate it. They used to do it. People hate it. They will never bring back this terrible idea because people hate it because it sucks. Again, sorry I know more about the history of TVs than you do.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Virtually all LCDs are going to be 100w or less within 24 months. It's doubtful OLEDs will be much less. Power savings are a bogus reason to switch to OLED. Sorry.



Agree I find it difficult to understand technically how OLED can be more efficient than local dimming LED.


I'm saying generally governments has incentives to minimize energy consumption though it may matter little to consumers. The corollary is that if OLED consumes much more power than LED then it would be a no go in the first place.


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21098386
> 
> 
> You've obviously never owned a TV like this. It sucks. Consumers hate it. They used to do it. People hate it. They will never bring back this terrible idea because people hate it because it sucks. Again, sorry I know more about the history of TVs than you do.



I suggest you try to make your case with more substance than this. "It sucks" because "I know more" than you is a level of argument that I'm disappointed to see on these forums. Condescending jabs are never constructive nor ever earned.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21098001
> 
> 
> Frankly I agree on the diminishing return and power consumption is not a big issue to individuals, but it is to governments. 1bio multiply by 100W is a big number. But if I am the government I will look at PC power consumption as well. White box consumer products has been under scrutiny but funny 400W PCs are not.



Sure, a 100W difference would be a big deal spread across that many sets. However for the last several years LED LCDs have been in the 150-100W calibrated range. So my question was, given the distribution of technology out there (with LCDs being dominant by a large margin), how much power savings would we actually see by switching to OLED? It's easy to throw some bogus numbers around like pdoherty, but in reality the savings would most likely be significantly smaller. Of course I don't have any power consumption figures for OLEDs, so it's hard to come up with something concrete when you don't even know half of the equation. Because OLED doesn't exist yet in large display formats, comparing it to current techs is useless; rather, comparing it to the state of LCD and plasma once it came to market would be what we need to look at.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21098381
> 
> 
> Virtually all LCDs are going to be 100w or less within 24 months. It's doubtful OLEDs will be much less. Power savings are a bogus reason to switch to OLED. Sorry.



I suspected as much, which is why I pressed pdoherty for some actual numbers, rather than his BS 100W*10^9.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21096378
> 
> 
> I was referring to all display types combined. And yes, my interest is in power savings, period. Not for $ savings per individual consumer.



Governments are not going to create regulations that outlaw the average LCD and most consumers are very unlikely to care about the power savings. There is a point of diminishing returns and we are hitting it with respect to power consumption on a television.


Also, rollable displays are way way out there. OLED's are going to have to sell based on image quality. If the image quality isnt enough to justify the cost, none of the rest is going to matter.


Slacker


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21096891
> 
> 
> well first smart phone displays, next pad displays, then monitors, possibly large size displays. we can hope. there is some room for optimism given oleds are already on electronic devices including the new motorola droid razrs.
> 
> 
> much more tangible progress than we ever saw from sed, and oled certainly
> 
> will prove economical in small dispays, but whether i will ever be able to watch nfl games on a large, reasonably affordable, oled display remains a question that no one knows the answer to right now



OLED is on a ton of stuff - here's a good link that shows many of them, from many manufacturers:

http://www.oled-info.com/devices


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21097500
> 
> 
> Okay, assuming there are a billion flat panel TVs out there, how much energy savings would we realize by magically switching every single one of them to a OLED of equal size?



Haven't tried to calculate it, but you could simply multiple the savings rogo was calculating by a billion as I suggested. Now that Samsung is using PHOLED red and green together the OLEDs will be beating LCD in power efficiency (where before they were simply equaling it).


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21098697
> 
> 
> Sure, a 100W difference would be a big deal spread across that many sets. However for the last several years LED LCDs have been in the 150-100W calibrated range. So my question was, given the distribution of technology out there (with LCDs being dominant by a large margin), how much power savings would we actually see by switching to OLED? It's easy to throw some bogus numbers around like pdoherty





> Quote:
> I suspected as much, which is why I pressed pdoherty for some actual numbers, rather than his BS 100W*10^9.



I never gave any numbers. And your assumption that people's sets are calibrated when comparing power consumption is beyond ludicrous. The vast majority of people pull their TVs out of the box and barely tweak brightness and contrast. Only techno freaks like reside here will bother to even use something like Video Essentials to setup their TV, much less bring in better equipment to get it done right.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21098772
> 
> 
> Governments are not going to create regulations that outlaw the average LCD and most consumers are very unlikely to care about the power savings. There is a point of diminishing returns and we are hitting it with respect to power consumption on a television.
> 
> 
> Also, rollable displays are way way out there. OLED's are going to have to sell based on image quality. If the image quality isnt enough to justify the cost, none of the rest is going to matter.
> 
> 
> Slacker



Good thing OLED already bests every display tech out there on every metric you care to name then...


----------



## greenjp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21099017
> 
> 
> Good thing OLED already bests every display tech out there on every metric you care to name then...



Except available screen size, cost/in^2, rated lifetime...


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenjp* /forum/post/21099067
> 
> 
> Except available screen size, cost/in^2, rated lifetime...



For large HT screens add to that:
Uniformity
Burn-in (related to EL lifetime) and IR (related to TFT)


Also realize a few of the other metrics such as power consumption are not sure things at the moment. Remember that before PHOLED the PR machine was still spouting how OLED would be so much more power efficient than LCD and that turned out the be completely false for large sized OLED for a few "unforseen" reasons.


Also realize that some of the OLED properties will be tradeoffs:
OLED is power on demand and HT displays may utilize an ABL

OLED has to optimize flicker, hold-time, and brightness (the Sony 11" display is a flicker machine)

Reflection and Glare optimization (Polarizers and color filter designs may impact viewing angles somewhat)


I've always been of the opinion that no display is the best at every parameter. In theory OLED might one day, many years from now, possibly come close.


----------



## mr. wally

i would really like to see oled match all the hype, but as someone who has followed display tech for a while, most of the great, newest and best techs

never prove successful for large displays. so some skepticism must remain

especially from those using oled promoting web sites to prove that oled tvs are a given.


then the comments about that sony oled monitor were disturbing. poor off angle viewing and ir. sounds like the worst of lcd and plasma combined.


i would love for oled to attain the predictions and expectations of its proponents, but lets face it, the 2 large display techs currently in use have been around for more than a decade. no new tech has been able to trump either of those for a long time, so banking on owning a large oled display is iffy at best.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21094904
> 
> http://provideocoalition.com/index.p...ere.._finally/
> 
> 
> Worth checking out!



Thank you, I enjoyed that very much.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21096891
> 
> 
> well first smart phone displays, next pad displays, then monitors, possibly large size displays. we can hope. there is some room for optimism given oleds are already on electronic devices including the new motorola droid razrs.
> 
> 
> much more tangible progress than we ever saw from sed, and oled certainly
> 
> will prove economical in small dispays, but whether i will ever be able to watch nfl games on a large, reasonably affordable, oled display remains a question that no one knows the answer to right now



I certainly agree. I look forward with hope to seeing OLED "make it."


I've just come to realize it'll be much longer in making it to the lighting market, and the 50"+ TV market. I just don't see much chance that we'll see 50"+ TVs at a price I could even consider in 2012. Maybe 2015? We really don't know. I'm just hoping that a year from now we'll have more of a basis to make estimates.


And I very much hope this won't be another "nuclear power will be too cheap to meter."


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21099015
> 
> 
> I never gave any numbers.



Um, yes you did. I quoted the difference between average plasma and LED LCD power consumption, and you said "now multiply that by a billion." The result is a very real and concrete number.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21099015
> 
> 
> And your assumption that people's sets are calibrated when comparing power consumption is beyond ludicrous. The vast majority of people pull their TVs out of the box and barely tweak brightness and contrast. Only techno freaks like reside here will bother to even use something like Video Essentials to setup their TV, much less bring in better equipment to get it done right.



Okay, use uncalibrated power consumption, I don't care. But yet again, you claim massive power savings for OLED over plasma or LED LCD, but you have yet to provide a single data point to back up your claim. Continually trumpeting "power savings" and "green tech" in relation to OLED doesn't make it so, especially in the absence of any meaningful data.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> [*]OLED is power on demand and HT displays may utilize an ABL
> 
> [*]OLED has to optimize flicker, hold-time, and brightness (the Sony 11" display is a flicker machine)



I thought ABL is due to plasma inefficient 6lumens tech? Will OLED be that inefficient?


As to flicker, is that an inherent OLED issue or Sony circuit issue?


----------



## pdoherty972

Thought you guys might enjoy this video. A multi-drop test of the iPhone 4S and the Samsung Galaxy S2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKxg...layer_embedded


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21102252
> 
> 
> Um, yes you did. I quoted the difference between average plasma and LED LCD power consumption, and you said "now multiply that by a billion." The result is a very real and concrete number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, use uncalibrated power consumption, I don't care. But yet again, you claim massive power savings for OLED over plasma or LED LCD, but you have yet to provide a single data point to back up your claim. Continually trumpeting "power savings" and "green tech" in relation to OLED doesn't make it so, especially in the absence of any meaningful data.




You people are crazy. I never made any massive claim for the power savings of OLED. I said take whatever savings there are and multiply them by the number of displays out there.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21098386
> 
> 
> You've obviously never owned a TV like this. It sucks. Consumers hate it. They used to do it. People hate it. They will never bring back this terrible idea because people hate it because it sucks. Again, sorry I know more about the history of TVs than you do.



Do you realise that the base of those LG OLED displays folded up and was what mounted the display to the wall?


As the kind of person that wants to minimise cable clutter, putting the inputs in the base rather than on the back of the display helps a _lot_ if you aren't putting it on the wall, _and_ it helps make the displays far more stable by moving most of the weight in the base, compared to how unstable most TVs are these days.


With wireless HDMI, having a separate input box makes wall-mounting a TV considerably easier than it is now. (and OLED's thin profile and low weight helps even more)


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21102379
> 
> 
> I thought ABL is due to plasma inefficient 6lumens tech? Will OLED be that inefficient?



ABL is standard on both CRT and PDP because it not only keeps peak power in check but also dramatically lengthens lifetime depending on usage. I would be very surprised if OLED does not use some form of limiter (current limiter or something). I've seen a chart from Sony showing the XEL-1 does have an ABL. Without a limiter the XEL-1 would have more than double the peak power consumption (white screen) of an LCD IIRC.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21102379
> 
> 
> As to flicker, is that an inherent OLED issue or Sony circuit issue?



OLED is similar to LCD that it is TFT controlled and thus can sample and hold to maximize brightness (CRT and PDP cannot do this). Sony chose to reduce the hold time and introduce flicker to maximize motion resolution AFAIK. Other OLED products in the future may choose to use full hold + interpolation instead.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21102416
> 
> 
> You people are crazy. I never made any massive claim for the power savings of OLED. I said take whatever savings there are and multiply them by the number of displays out there.



Then at best, your reply to my original statement was poorly phrased, at best.


Once again, exactly what (if any) power savings would we see from OLED? Do you have any figures at all? Or are you just going to insist it is so and leave it at that? Given the rate that my OLED display on my Samsung Fascinate ate my battery (and generated heat) at usable daytime light output settings, forgive me if I'm not quick to jump on the low power consumption OLED train.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21102574
> 
> 
> ABL is standard on both CRT and PDP because it not only keeps peak power in check but also dramatically lengthens lifetime depending on usage. I would be very surprised if OLED does not use some form of limiter (current limiter or something). I've seen a chart from Sony showing the XEL-1 does have an ABL. Without a limiter the XEL-1 would have more than double the peak power consumption (white screen) of an LCD IIRC.



The Sony would have been an all-fluorescent OLED display. No relation to the OLED displays being made now with PHOLED red and/or green.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21102600
> 
> 
> Then at best, your reply to my original statement was poorly phrased, at best.
> 
> 
> Once again, exactly what (if any) power savings would we see from OLED? Do you have any figures at all? Or are you just going to insist it is so and leave it at that? Given the rate that my OLED display on my Samsung Fascinate ate my battery (and generated heat) at usable daytime light output settings, forgive me if I'm not quick to jump on the low power consumption OLED train.



I already posted this - did you care to rebut its data? Why wouldn't these savings apply to large-screen OLED as they do to small screen OLED?

http://www.universaldisplay.com/defa...?contentID=605


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/21104137
> 
> 
> Until an actual large OLED display is released with power usage stats provided, which can be confirmed by Independent reviews, isn't all this back and forth about how much energy they will save, just a waste of time.
> 
> 
> They will use the amount of energy that they will use, when they are actually released, and until that time comes................................



That's my entire point - pdoherty is claiming something he can't provide data for. Maybe OLEDs will provide an improvement in power consumption, maybe it won't. LED LCD tech is evolving every year and getting more energy efficient...by the time OLED comes to market as a viable, affordable commercial display solution, we have no idea how the two techs will compare in terms of power consumption.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21105721
> 
> 
> I already posted this - did you care to rebut its data? Why wouldn't these savings apply to large-screen OLED as they do to small screen OLED?
> 
> http://www.universaldisplay.com/defa...?contentID=605



That company was founded in 1993 and conducts research into OLED tech for use by other companies. Can you name a single display - of any size - that uses all (or ANY) of the tech that you specifically quoted in the chart above? I can't find any information that would indicate that these are more than tech demos - certainly not techs that are mature for commercial, large-scale production. You're comparing a tech that is currently in production to one that isn't anywhere near. It's an absolutely worthless comparison. You might as well include potential figures SED or 20w/lumen tech for plasma.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's my entire point - pdoherty is claiming something he can't provide data for. Maybe OLEDs will provide an improvement in power consumption, maybe it won't. LED LCD tech is evolving every year and getting more energy efficient...by the time OLED comes to market as a viable, affordable commercial display solution, we have no idea how the two techs will compare in terms of power consumption.



I just gave you the data in the chart above. That data directly applies to the current OLED displays being made and sold. (see below)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21106161
> 
> 
> That company was founded in 1993 and conducts research into OLED tech for use by other companies. Can you name a single display - of any size - that uses all (or ANY) of the tech that you specifically quoted in the chart above? I can't find any information that would indicate that these are more than tech demos - certainly not techs that are mature for commercial, large-scale production. You're comparing a tech that is currently in production to one that isn't anywhere near. It's an absolutely worthless comparison. You might as well include SED or 20w/lumen tech for plasma.



You couldn't be more wrong. That company (Universal Display) owns over 1200 patents on OLED and is the source of the screen technology Samsung has in every one of their OLED displays, including the Galaxy S phones and dozens of others. Samsung is currently using PHOLED red and gave the PHOLED green the go-ahead and the new phones this year and next will have both PHOLED red *and* green in them.


So you can DIRECTLY pull the numbers from the chart I showed you and those are the power savings with OLED displays since every OLED display that uses phosphoresent OLEDs is using Universal Display's PHOLED materials and tech/IP.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21106172
> 
> 
> Samsung is currently using PHOLED red and gave the PHOLED green the go-ahead and the new phones this year and next will have both PHOLED red *and* green in them.



Do you have a source for this?


**Edit: Just Googling " Samsung OLED Universal " turns up a BUNCH of press releases from 23 August, 2011 that indicate that Samsung and Universal just entered into a contract allowing Samsung to license patents and techs developed by Universal. I can't find anything indicating that Samsung has used Universal tech prior to this date. If that's the case, I find it had to believe that Samsung has already implemented any of Universal's PHOLED tech in any of their displays. If you have an agreement or example of Samsung's use of this tech that predates what I found - and supports what you said above - I'd be happy to take a look.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21106212
> 
> 
> Do you have a source for this?
> 
> 
> **Edit: Just Googling " Samsung OLED Universal " turns up a BUNCH of press releases from 23 August, 2011 that indicate that Samsung and Universal just entered into a contract allowing Samsung to license patents and techs developed by Universal. I can't find anything indicating that Samsung has used Universal tech prior to this date. If that's the case, I find it had to believe that Samsung has already implemented any of Universal's PHOLED tech in any of their displays. If you have an agreement or example of Samsung's use of this tech that predates what I found - and supports what you said above - I'd be happy to take a look.



Samsung has been licensing and using UDC's tech since 2006. Their initial contract expired in June/July of 2010 and they've been doing 3-month extensions since then until the long-term contract was signed in August as you found.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21102574
> 
> 
> ABL is standard on both CRT and PDP because it not only keeps peak power in check but also dramatically lengthens lifetime depending on usage. I would be very surprised if OLED does not use some form of limiter (current limiter or something). I've seen a chart from Sony showing the XEL-1 does have an ABL. Without a limiter the XEL-1 would have more than double the peak power consumption (white screen) of an LCD IIRC.



Can you explain why the end result of ABL on a CRT is quite a bit different than that of PDPs? I've noticed that ABL on PDPs is tends to be more aggressive than on CRTs.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21102574
> 
> 
> OLED is similar to LCD that it is TFT controlled and thus can sample and hold to maximize brightness (CRT and PDP cannot do this). Sony chose to reduce the hold time and introduce flicker to maximize motion resolution AFAIK. Other OLED products in the future may choose to use full hold + interpolation instead.



I recall that the XEL-1 used black frame insertion (BFI) to improve motion resolution. From the time I spent viewing the XEL-1, "flicker" on the the XEL-1 was non-existent compared to a PDP of that model year or a CRT monitor optimized for >60Hz refresh.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21106796
> 
> 
> Can you explain why the end result of ABL on a CRT is quite a bit different than that of PDPs? I've noticed that ABL on PDPs is tends to be more aggressive than on CRTs.



Most comparison plots are normalized showing the same or similar average brightness profile. I would speculate that the CRT raw data average brightness is just higher than PDP but I have no data.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21106796
> 
> 
> I recall that the XEL-1 used black frame insertion (BFI) to improve motion resolution. From the time I spent viewing the XEL-1, "flicker" on the the XEL-1 was non-existent compared to a PDP of that model year or a CRT monitor optimized for >60Hz refresh.



I had the opposite experience comparing my PDP to an XEL-1 side by side.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21105709
> 
> 
> The Sony would have been an all-fluorescent OLED display. No relation to the OLED displays being made now with PHOLED red and/or green.



No relation other than the use of blue and/or green fluorescent EL materials LOL.


As for your Universal Display data I would love some detailed info on the measurements taken. The link is not clear if this data model is phophetic or not. OLED industry loves to model data based on lab devices and write PR as if it applies to all future OLED products.


Also, even if this data you keep posting is somehow true for scaled up HT sized displays (I very highly doubt) I still don't find it all that significant. It tells me that a full white screen may still have very high power consumption vs AMLCD without a limiter. And comparing similar sized OLED to a LED-LD-LCD I don't see how OLED could be that much lower power based on this data.


I'm starting to think you may own Universal Display stock







JMO but over the last 11 years at my job I've watched Universal and Cambridge display flood the media with OLED PR. It took me a few years to realize the vast majority of it was fluff.


That being said the recent scientific literature is showing UD and PHOLED making some great and exciting progress.


Also realize that I am very much pro OLED but I try to remain realistic and avoid the irrational exuberence a few posters seem to have about OLED, SED....etc


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21107032
> 
> 
> Also, even if this data you keep posting is somehow true for scaled up HT sized displays (I very highly doubt) I still don't find it all that significant.



Why would you doubt it? If OLED is better in power consumption with PHOLED red and green on a small screen why would scaling the screen size matter? The LCD is scaled too to that size too. What makes the comparison invalid?


----------



## walford

The following quote:
*Power consumption* While an OLED will consume around 40% of the power of an LCD displaying an image which is primarily black, for the majority of images it will consume 60–80% of the power of an LCD: however it can use *over three times as much powe*r to display an image with a white background such as a document or website.[70] This can lead to reduced real-world battery life in mobile devices

is from the following link:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic...emitting_diode *

points out that LCD and OLED display power consumption can not be compared based 0n s9ze since OLED power consumption is also content dependent.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/21098551
> 
> 
> I suggest you try to make your case with more substance than this. "It sucks" because "I know more" than you is a level of argument that I'm disappointed to see on these forums. Condescending jabs are never constructive nor ever earned.



I made my case. TVs with separate electronics were tried a dozen times. They are gone because they suck and consumers hated them. The point of saying "I know more than you" is I actually remember this happening. I don't have to speculate about it like some mindless drone suggesting it could happen.* It can't happen because consumers won't buy it in 2015 any more than they'd buy it in 2005 -- not at all.


Integrated TVs have eliminated non-integrated TVs from the market. There is simply no chance of the latter making a comeback just because they have some new screen technology. You are entitled to believe this will change as much as you are entitled to believe in the tooth fairy. Neither is real.


* This comment is directed at no specific post or individual, just generic pie-in-the-sky comments that parrot material coming out of press releases or "papers" from manufacturers citing technological "advances" no one wants.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21102416
> 
> 
> You people are crazy. I never made any massive claim for the power savings of OLED. I said take whatever savings there are and multiply them by the number of displays out there.



You actually made an implied claim that displays based on OLED would save "hundreds of watts" times "one billion". The actual savings is more like single-digit watts times whatever OLEDs displace whatever LCDs would have been sold, but no matter. The saving exist, I am pro savings, savings are good. The advantage of OLED over LCD, however, in the real world is very very small. Sorry.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21102548
> 
> 
> Do you realise that the base of those LG OLED displays folded up and was what mounted the display to the wall?



Which eliminates any thinness advantage. So why bother.


> Quote:
> As the kind of person that wants to minimise cable clutter, putting the inputs in the base rather than on the back of the display helps a _lot_ if you aren't putting it on the wall, _and_ it helps make the displays far more stable by moving most of the weight in the base, compared to how unstable most TVs are these days.



And yet, no manufacturer agrees with you.


> Quote:
> With wireless HDMI, having a separate input box makes wall-mounting a TV considerably easier than it is now. (and OLED's thin profile and low weight helps even more)



Wireless HDMI is terrible, has been promised for 5+ years, and is expected to remain terrible. When it ceases to be terrible, let us know when you figure out wireless 110v and wireless 220v and give us a call since the cabling and connectors for that is much thicker and larger than HDMI. Until then, these points remain irrelevant.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21100411
> 
> 
> i would really like to see oled match all the hype, but as someone who has followed display tech for a while, most of the great, newest and best techs
> 
> never prove successful for large displays. so some skepticism must remain
> 
> especially from those using oled promoting web sites to prove that oled tvs are a given.
> 
> 
> then the comments about that sony oled monitor were disturbing. poor off angle viewing and ir. sounds like the worst of lcd and plasma combined.
> 
> 
> i would love for oled to attain the predictions and expectations of its proponents, but lets face it, the 2 large display techs currently in use have been around for more than a decade. no new tech has been able to trump either of those for a long time, so banking on owning a large oled display is iffy at best.



You are making too much sense for AVS Forum. I may have to report this post for "logic".


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21111356
> 
> 
> Wireless HDMI is terrible, has been promised for 5+ years, and is expected to remain terrible. When it ceases to be terrible, let us know when you figure out wireless 110v and wireless 220v and give us a call since the cabling and connectors for that is much thicker and larger than HDMI. Until then, these points remain irrelevant.



WHDI boxes have been on the on the market for a while now. Uncompresed 1080p with 1ms latency.


There are displays on the market already that have wireless video built in to make wall-mounting hassle-free.


Haier just unveiled a completely wireless TV last month which uses WHDI for video _and_ is powered wirelessly.



This is the future. In 10-20 years, people will look back and wonder how any of us put up with all the cable clutter between devices.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/21110390
> 
> 
> The following quote:
> *Power consumption* While an OLED will consume around 40% of the power of an LCD displaying an image which is primarily black, for the majority of images it will consume 60–80% of the power of an LCD: however it can use *over three times as much powe*r to display an image with a white background such as a document or website.[70] This can lead to reduced real-world battery life in mobile devices
> 
> is from the following link:
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic...emitting_diode *
> 
> points out that LCD and OLED display power consumption can not be compared based 0n s9ze since OLED power consumption is also content dependent.



Phones with OLED screens using at least PHOLED red are already comparing quite favorably in terms of battery consumption with phones with LCD. Considering phones are used for displaying images with white backgrounds far more than any TV ever would it stands to reason that large TVs with OLED vs LCD would compare even more favorably since they show white background images far less.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> WHDI boxes have been on the on the market for a while now. Uncompresed 1080p with 1ms latency.
> 
> 
> There are displays on the market already that have wireless video built in to make wall-mounting hassle-free.
> 
> 
> Haier just unveiled a completely wireless TV last month which uses WHDI for video _and_ is powered wirelessly.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the future. In 10-20 years, people will look back and wonder how any of us put up with all the cable clutter between devices.



There was a Build in Wireless *thread* not that long ago, most people said No or (it has to be $10-$100) Cheap http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1293810 . I do not like wireless, to me its a GIRLY 'thing' so i voted NO.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21111687
> 
> 
> WHDI boxes have been on the on the market for a while now. Uncompresed 1080p with 1ms latency.
> 
> 
> There are displays on the market already that have wireless video built in to make wall-mounting hassle-free.
> 
> 
> Haier just unveiled a completely wireless TV last month which uses WHDI for video _and_ is powered wirelessly.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the future. In 10–20 years, people will look back and wonder how any of us put up with all the cable clutter between devices.



Have you used one of these WHDI boxes? They suck. And they aren't uncompressed 1080p in most cases. Also, call me when they send power too. It'll be far more amazing to eliminate one source cable when it also eliminates the one power cable. Until then, it's un-mazing. And the degradation in video quality is more un-mazing. I do agree in 10-20 years it might well be common.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/21113160
> 
> 
> There was a Build in Wireless *thread* not that long ago, most people said No or (it has to be $10-$100) Cheap http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1293810 . I do not like wireless, to me its a GIRLY 'thing' so i voted NO.



It's a "girly" thing to be wireless?


After recently putting up a wall mount bracket (one of the thinnest available, 15mm, which still sticks out too far once the TV is up there) then cutting a channel in a brick wall, putting in trunking, spending a fair bit of money on in-wall rated cabling, a 15m HDMI from my PC to the TV (the skirting board was also replaced with trunking) plastering over it and repainting a wall, I don't particularly care if it's "girly" to have a 3mm thin TV that goes almost flush on the wall with some picture hooks and is powered wirelessly, with all my devices either being wired into a receiver box (which can be up to 60ft away with line-of-sight) or going wireless straight into the TV. Is it also a "girly" thing to look after your personal appearance or keep a tidy home?


Cables are an eyesore, and a real nuisance to deal with if you're trying to hide them away properly.


While they're hidden away successfully, I now have to change one of the cables going to the TV, and I am not looking forward to that job at all.


Right now, wireless HDMI boxes are a bit of an inconvenience because they aren't built into the TV (though there are a few higher-end displays that do have it built in, but nothing mainstream yet) but in a few years, the costs will have come down enough that it will just become a standard feature in all mid-range TVs and up, similar to how only the cheapest LCDs are CCFL backlit anymore, how all laptops now have WiFi built in etc.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21114716
> 
> 
> Have you used one of these WHDI boxes? They suck. And they aren't uncompressed 1080p in most cases. Also, call me when they send power too. It'll be far more amazing to eliminate one source cable when it also eliminates the one power cable. Until then, it's un-mazing. And the degradation in video quality is more un-mazing. I do agree in 10-20 years it might well be common.



I have some experience with the ASUS WHDI boxes. I agree that it isn't perfect yet, but it's getting there and clearly shows that it's feasible.


Apple also has wireless display mirroring built into the iPad 2 and iPhone 4S, though I don't have any experience with what that's like. I have heard good things though. With iOS 5 they have just removed the need to ever connect up your device to your PC with a USB cable ever again. In a year or two, I bet they will have eliminated the USB cable for charging the device too. (and it can be done right now with third-party cases )


In the future, just about everything will be wireless, and it's already begun.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21112255
> 
> 
> Phones with OLED screens using at least PHOLED red are already comparing quite favorably in terms of battery consumption with phones with LCD. Considering phones are used for displaying images with white backgrounds far more than any TV ever would it stands to reason that large TVs with OLED vs LCD would compare even more favorably since they show white background images far less.



If what you said is correct about Samsung's use of PHOLED red, my Samsung Fascinate had it. When the brightness was set to full (which was the only way to see it outside in full daylight), it would chew through my batter in around an hour, and after a lot of experimenting I found that the only way to have a usable battery life was to put the screen on its dimmest mode. My iPhone 4S lasts 5-8x as long in full brightness; the two phones seem to put out a similar amount of light when compared side by side in full bright mode. Based on personal experience, I have yet to be sold on the supposed power-saving benefits of OLED.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21115364
> 
> 
> If what you said is correct about Samsung's use of PHOLED red, my Samsung Fascinate had it. When the brightness was set to full (which was the only way to see it outside in full daylight), it would chew through my batter in around an hour, and after a lot of experimenting I found that the only way to have a usable battery life was to put the screen on its dimmest mode. My iPhone 4S lasts 5-8x as long in full brightness; the two phones seem to put out a similar amount of light when compared side by side in full bright mode. Based on personal experience, I have yet to be sold on the supposed power-saving benefits of OLED.


 http://www.displaymate.com/Smartphone_ShootOut_1.htm 


iPhone 4 at 229cd/m2: 0.19 watts

Galaxy S at 229cd/m2: 0.72 watts


iPhone 4 peak brightness (541cd/m2) 0.42 watts

Galaxy S peak brightness (305cd/m2) 1.13 watts


Power consumption is considerably higher in most use-cases with OLED, it only wins out with dark images. This is why Android has a dark interface. (all the reference phones use Pentile AMOLED displays)


Samsung also shifts the white balance as brightness increases, making the image bluer to give the appearance of being brighter than it is.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21114779
> 
> 
> It's a "girly" thing to be wireless?



Woman do not like cables, a lot of men do not seem to care.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21114779
> 
> 
> etc.
> 
> 
> I have some experience with the ASUS WHDI boxes. I agree that it isn't perfect yet, but it's getting there and clearly shows that it's feasible.
> 
> 
> Apple also has wireless display mirroring built into the iPad 2 and iPhone 4S, though I don't have any experience with what that's like. I have heard good things though. With iOS 5 they have just removed the need to ever connect up your device to your PC with a USB cable ever again. In a year or two, I bet they will have eliminated the USB cable for charging the device too. (and it can be done right now with third-party cases )
> 
> 
> In the future, just about everything will be wireless, and it's already begun.



The iPad "thing" is nowhere near HDTV 1080p quality. Again, I'm not saying this isn't coming. It's not here however. Will it be here soon? Yes. Will it be ubiquitous in a decade? Yes. Will TVs be powered wireless in a decade? Not any chance at all. Even if TV power consumption moves down to 80 watts average -- and that's a fairly big "if" assuming average sizes continue to rise -- things like inductive charging are not really going to help you. You need to use microwave power transmission which honestly I doubt anyone is contemplating due to the enormous cost and liability issues.


You can't -- with any current or contemplated technology -- build a 5-10 watt television of, say 60 inches diagonally. When and if you can, perhaps someone will contemplate a way to power it wirelessly. Until then, I'd focus more on signal transmission, where the goal line is in sight.


----------



## specuvestor

I'm actually quite uncomfortable sitting 10' from a device 4 hours a day transmitting 100-300W wirelessly, or sitting in front of an operating microwave oven.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21116527
> 
> 
> You can't -- with any current or contemplated technology -- build a 5-10 watt television of, say 60 inches diagonally. When and if you can, perhaps someone will contemplate a way to power it wirelessly. Until then, I'd focus more on signal transmission, where the goal line is in sight.



Haier announced a 55" wireless (audio, video & power) 3DTV last month at IFA, using MIT-developed Magnetic Resonant Energy Transfer.


I believe it is using the "WiTricity" technology that was demonstrated at TED in 2009:
http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_giler_...ectricity.html 


Current LED backlit LCDs are well under 100W now. My 46" HX900 uses 40-60W depending on picture content. (full black/white screen values posted)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21117317
> 
> 
> I'm actually quite uncomfortable sitting 10' from a device 4 hours a day transmitting 100-300W wirelessly, or sitting in front of an operating microwave oven.



It is a non-radiative transfer, using magnetic fields that are safe for people and animals.


----------



## Holy bear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21093572
> 
> 
> The reason that Sony and LG dont have any credibility is that they have yet to build any OLED's of any size in commercial quantities.
> 
> Slacker



Isn't Nokia using LG's OLED panels ?


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21118128
> 
> 
> "electro-" magnetic fields that are safe



Not sure if this is an oxymoron







especially at 100-200W. Certainly have to read up more on this.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21118842
> 
> 
> Not sure if this is an oxymoron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> especially at 100-200W. Certainly have to read up more on this.



Check the TED presentation for a quick overview of the technology. (and spend a while exploring the site if you haven't visited it before)


This isn't just for televisions, they have used it to charge electric cars, which is considerably more energy than 200W. (several kilowatts)


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21109872
> 
> 
> Why would you doubt it? If OLED is better in power consumption with PHOLED red and green on a small screen why would scaling the screen size matter? The LCD is scaled too to that size too. What makes the comparison invalid?



IIRC the main disconnect was light extraction problems. But assuming UD's small PHOLED display has a typical light extraction value that a HT display would have then there still could be a non-linear increase in power due to resistive loss using larger/longer electrodes in a current driven display. Isochroma knows more about this possibility IIRC.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21118128
> 
> 
> Current LED backlit LCDs are well under 100W now. My 46" HX900 uses 40-60W depending on picture content. (full black/white screen values posted)



For comparison the Samsung 30" OLED at SID 2011 was measured at 40.7 watts while playing a movie in standard mode. Scale that up to 46" and I think the LED wins.


----------



## chexi1

Enough talk about displays. Let's talk about the thing we really care about... Oled-based Predator suits.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21120053
> 
> 
> For comparison the Samsung 30" OLED at SID 2011 was measured at 40.7 watts while playing a movie in standard mode. Scale that up to 46" and I think the LED wins.



That would have been using PHOLED red at most. When they go to red and green PHOLED then you'd see additional power savings.


----------



## rogo

No one is arguing that there aren't sub 100w displays that are sub 50". I have, in fact, said there are 70" displays that use about 110w. That said, this wireless power solution you want to power these TVs will have to support on the order of 100w, continuous, across substantial distances. This has almost no chance of becoming a mainstream product in the U.S. or EU. Sorry.


We have morons in California -- where much of the good technology is invented -- who believe "smart" electric meters are killing them with their transmissions. This in a state where everyone is exposed to endless 2.4GHz and typically 5 cellular networks at 850MHz/1.9GHz simultaneous 24/7.


Beaming ~100w -- or even 50w -- 5 feet to avoid running a power cable is not very likely to catch on even if it were free and proved safe. It won't be free and with the nutjobs nothing can ever be proved anymore. "Evolution is just an idea, one of many" can apparently get you into the White House.... So, yeah, um...


As for electric cars and inductive charging under the vehicle, those distances are in the single-digit-inch range. It's an entirely different problem to solve.


----------



## specuvestor

Why I said I'm uncomfortable is I learn from the tobacco/ asbestos industry case studies, and their so-called "science". I'm not prepared to take face value without understanding detailed implications.


As specuvestor I learn to approximate upside potential and downside risk. Upside seems to be aesthetics and downside is urmmmm.... I'm not willing to risk the chance that 10 years down the road "science" claimed to find side effects from long term exposure to close proximity unshielded high voltage electromagnetic wave transmission. OTOH if you pay me $10m to adopt the technology to compensate the upside, the risk/ reward may look better










I've seen handphone charging wirelessly and I think that's cool. But the distance and power is much different from what we're talking here. I can imagine the first companies willing to adopt this would be audio companies selling surround speakers


----------



## navychop

It's not a religion, folks. I hope OLED "makes it" for both lighting and large TVs. But I acknowledge that maybe it won't happen. It's not much past SED now. Progress will be slower than we want.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21121305
> 
> 
> We have morons in California -- where much of the good technology is invented -- who believe "smart" electric meters are killing them with their transmissions. This in a state where everyone is exposed to endless 2.4GHz and typically 5 cellular networks at 850MHz/1.9GHz simultaneous 24/7.



This is a _*non-radiative*_ transfer method using specifically tuned magnetic resonant frequencies. We live in a giant magnetic field . There has been talk of using this technology in implanted medical devices.


I realise that you have significant education problems over there in USA, but that doesn't stop progress. I don't particularly care if anyone scared of radio signals doesn't buy into this. They're probably not the kind of person that wants an OLED television either.


----------



## rogo

Seriously, Chronoptimist, if you want to believe TVs are going to be wirlessly powered, you're entitled to it. They've been showing wireless charging for cellphones and other portable electronics at every CES since about 1998. It's still used by, um, less than 1% of cell phones. It's not coming to TVs at any faster rate and because it's orders of magnitude more complicated to power TVs than to charge cellphones -- 100w or more sustained vs. 2-5w trickle -- it's quite likely not coming at all. Nevermind that this solves a problem most people aren't remotely aware they have.


I actually doubt very much that people are valuing existing 1 1/4 inch TVs much more than they value 3" TVs but even if the future is 1/4" thick TVs (and eventually I suspect it will be), the likelihood is power flowing through connectors that are nearly invisible in the wall rather than elaborate Rube Goldberg physics to beam power across the room.


Specuvestor, there is a big difference between science and fake science. And quite frankly, I'm tired of this notion that scientific fact is "just another opinion" in the marketplace of ideas. It isn't. It doesn't have to make its case against the random opinions of people. Scientific fact is scientific fact. If you want to reopen the discussion of how science is just a thing and let the din of various people's meaningless opinions have an equal platform, I'll return to non-posting mode.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21122855
> 
> 
> This is a _*non-radiative*_ transfer method using specifically tuned magnetic resonant frequencies. We live in a giant magnetic field . There has been talk of using this technology in implanted medical devices.
> 
> 
> I realise that you have significant education problems over there in USA, but that doesn't stop progress. I don't particularly care if anyone scared of radio signals doesn't buy into this. They're probably not the kind of person that wants an OLED television either.



All xenophobia aside re: that generalizing statement itself ("significant education problems"), but that is in spite of the US being the biggest spender in the arena (one would hope it would spark a clue in big govt. types...sadly, the answer is usually spend more). And I'm also rather confident there are a proportionate number of folks in the UK who at least have a healthy skepticism regarding targeted electromagnetic radiation (none of whose fears are entirely unfounded unless we ignore all studies that raise questions). Even some scientists have a "significant education problem" (or the tinfoil is on too tight): http://electromagnetichealth.org/ele...-study-flawed/


----------



## specuvestor

^^ frankly no one can guarantee if this will not be another tobacco fiasco (though unlikely at that magnitude IMHO) decades down the road, or whether this is science or fake science when there are so many stakeholders' interest interacting. It's always clearer on hindside. But as far as Wall Street and CEOs are concerned, they don't care as long as they make their quarterly numbers. But as Andy Grove say:"Only the paranoid survive" -I'm partial evolutionist too











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21122966
> 
> 
> Specuvestor, there is a big difference between science and fake science. And quite frankly, I'm tired of this notion that scientific fact is "just another opinion" in the marketplace of ideas. It isn't. It doesn't have to make its case against the random opinions of people. Scientific fact is scientific fact. If you want to reopen the discussion of how science is just a thing and let the din of various people's meaningless opinions have an equal platform, I'll return to non-posting mode.



I will just say you still have Newtonian deterministic view of science.


Even in AVS we see input lag as "science" with people claiming about to sense difference in 33ms. It is certainly scientific in the strictest sense as being measurable and reproducible, but IMHO doesn't make sense.


It is one thing to have a great new display like OLED, but quite another to sit near an electromagnetic wave of sizable voltage for considerable *period of time* at *close proximity*. As to earth's magentism:

"The intensity of the field is greatest near the poles and weaker near the Equator. It is generally reported in nanoteslas (nT) or gauss, with 1 gauss = 100,000 nT. It ranges from about 25,000–65,000 nT, or 0.25–0.65 gauss.By comparison, a strong refrigerator magnet has a field of about 100 gauss"


I would be keen to know how many gauss are these devices when they are COMMERCIALLY available.


And based on my rusty memory decades back on why it is called ElectroMagnetic waves, it is because they are interchangeable. So the notion that it is JUST a magnetic wave doesn't bring me much comfort.

"Electromagnetism manifests as both electric fields and magnetic fields. Both fields are simply different aspects of electromagnetism, and hence are intrinsically related. Thus, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field; conversely a changing magnetic field generates an electric field. This effect is called electromagnetic induction, and is the basis of operation for electrical generators, induction motors, and transformers"


We should always put things into context and not be overly excited.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21122855
> 
> 
> This is a _*non-radiative*_ transfer method using specifically tuned magnetic resonant frequencies. We live in a giant magnetic field . There has been talk of using this technology in implanted medical devices.
> 
> 
> I realise that you have significant education problems over there in USA, but that doesn't stop progress. I don't particularly care if anyone scared of radio signals doesn't buy into this. They're probably not the kind of person that wants an OLED television either.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21122966
> 
> 
> Seriously, Chronoptimist, if you want to believe TVs are going to be wirlessly powered, you're entitled to it.








Definitely not going to happen, it's just too complicated to work.


(and before you say anything, that rippling is the camera, it's nothing to do with the wireless technology)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21122966
> 
> 
> They've been showing wireless charging for cellphones and other portable electronics at every CES since about 1998. It's still used by, um, less than 1% of cell phones.



Right, that's been the same kind of inductive charging used by electric toothbrushes, which isn't really the same as this.


If HP hadn't closed Palm, there would be a lot more devices with wireless charging out thereall their latest tablets and phones used it.

There is now an official standard for low-power devices. (Qi)


You _will_ be seeing more devices using wireless power in the next few years.

Once Apple does it, every new portable device will adopt wireless power.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21122966
> 
> 
> It's not coming to TVs at any faster rate and because it's orders of magnitude more complicated to power TVs than to charge cellphones -- 100w or more sustained vs. 2-5w trickle -- it's quite likely not coming at all. Nevermind that this solves a problem most people aren't remotely aware they have.



Have you had a look at that TED presentation yet? Read anything about this technology? You talk about this like the technology doesn't exist and I'm just wishing that it happens. They already have working devices that operate within regulatory limits.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21123070
> 
> 
> Even in AVS we see input lag as "science" with people claiming about to sense difference in 33ms. It is certainly scientific in the strictest sense as being measurable and reproducible, but IMHO doesn't make sense.



If you played games, you would understand. There is a _massive_ difference between the 33ms delay in game mode on my TV compared to the 100ms of film mode. With 33ms of lag, the LCD is noticeably more sluggish than gaming on a CRT.


----------



## specuvestor

Just to be clear: I have no issue with *low power* device charging wirelessly.


Korean professional gamers do >200 Actions Per Minute (APM). That's 300ms per action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=YbpCLqryN-Q 


I have repeatedly say I do believe there is lag. But for the lag to be *noticeable* it has to be somewhere else along the chain... it could be synchronisation issue between device and TV on clock rates which induces wait states. Science has to be sensible. That's how we progress to greatness and not devolve into technical mumbo jumbo. Steve Jobs demonstrated it well with respect to tech implementation.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21123141
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly say I do believe there is lag. But for the lag to be *noticeable* it has to be somewhere else along the chain... it could be synchronisation issue between device and TV on clock rates which induces wait states.



I'm not really sure I understand what you think could be the problem.


There is a very noticeable difference on my TV between game mode (33ms) and film mode (100ms) and I can switch between the two with a single button press.


Even just on the Windows desktop, the mouse cursor feels sluggish and I will often over-shoot where I was trying to move the cursor to if it's in film mode. Without knowing what state it was in, I can easily tell if the TV is in game/film mode just from that.


I would love to leave it in film mode, as that helps sharpen motion handling (scanning backlight) synchronises the local dimming array with the LCD panel, and significantly improves contrast. (panel on its own is about 2,000:1, game mode with local dimming is about 3,000:1 and film mode is "infinite")


33ms is about the most I can tolerate when gaming, and many would say that's far too high. (120Hz gaming monitors are under 8ms)


It isn't just a gaming problem though, lip-sync error with films is just as easy to notice, and was a real problem before HDMI lip-sync correction was introduced and automatically adjusted based on refresh rate & picture settings.


----------



## rogo

Yeah, I'm done again. Science is not a cigarette company hiding data so it can slowly kill off its customers to make a profit. And that's exactly my point. So long as people here keep conflating things business interests, religious agendas, etc. with science, I have no desire to discuss the topic. Good luck with that.


I will say Chronoptimist, I don't fear this TV you have linked to. I think people will fear it. I also think it will cost a fair amount of money to implement and solves a problem nearly no one has. For that reason, I don't believe there will be any meaningful move toward wirelessly powered displays in this decade and quite possibly not in the next.


Good luck to the rest of you; let me know when someone is shipping an OLED TV.


----------



## slacker711

LG Display talked quite a bit about their OLED plans during their recent quarterly conference call. They confirm that they plan on rolling out OLED televisions using oxide backplanes in the 2nd half of next year.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3008...oled&all=false 


We'll find out Samsung has to say on Friday.


Slacker


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21125414
> 
> 
> Yeah,
> 
> I will say Chronoptimist, I don't fear this TV you have linked to. I think people will fear it. I also think it will cost a fair amount of money to implement and solves a problem nearly no one has. For that reason, I don't believe there will be any meaningful move toward wirelessly powered displays in this decade and quite possibly not in the next.



*AT&T U-verse set-tops go wireless, free you to herniate yourself moving your HDTV around*


Chances are, you put your TV in the most convenient spot based on where the requisite cables are feeding into your abode. And putting a set in a new room usually means someone is breaking out a drill. Well, starting October 31st, AT&T U-verse customers will no longer be constrained by wires! (*Besides HDMI and power cords, that is*.) The company's new wireless receiver pairs with your AT&T-issued residential gateway and pulls in broadcasts over WiFi. What the provider claims is the first consumer wireless receiver of its type should simplify installation and free customers from the worry of running coax around their homes. You could even drag your big screen out to the patio and try to enjoy the "big game" under the glare of the sun. Just don't make lugging your 42-incher around a habit -- hernias aren't covered by the warranty. The receivers will be available to order on Monday for a one-time fee of $49 and a $7-a-month rental fee there after. Check out the (bizarre) demo video and PR after the break.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/25/a...iate-yourself/


----------



## byancey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wjchan* /forum/post/21095361
> 
> 
> Besides the uber-expensive BVM-E250, only the PVM-2541 is available currently. The 17" will start shipping later. I got the PVM.



wjchan,


Since you have one of these new Sony PVM OLEDs, and also seem to have some insite on what has shipped and what has not, I have a few quick questions for you (or anyone else who has some insight, feel free to comment).


A little background first. I'm an avid Home Theater enthusiast, but LASIK surgery several years back made it pretty difficult for me to enjoy movies on the front-projection setup in my dedicated home theater. I won't go into the details, but in short, watching a big-screen in the dark at any distance doesn't work for me, but watching a smaller screen up close works pretty well. As such, I've installed a 22" 1080p display for one of the seats in the theater. Family and guests watch the big screen...I watch the small screen.


The setup works fairly well, but my choices are pretty limited when it comes to displays. At the viewing distances I'm working with, 1080p is a must, as pixel structure becomes pretty obvious with 720p displays. Unfortunately, there simply aren't a lot of 1080p options available in the sub-30" display category. There are absolutely no plasmas available in this size, and the LCD displays that are available have a lot of hot-spotting and light bleed issues in a completely dark environment. In addition, smaller models tend not to include any of the features that larger sets include to address LCD deficiencies (such as local dimming). In terms of picture quality, my little display doesn’t quite stack up to what’s available in larger TVs or a front projector. Needless to say, I’ve been watching OLED technology closely for the last several years, patiently (well, actually rather impatiently) waiting for an actual purchasable product to emerge.


In the consumer market, it looks like I may still have quite a wait in front of me, and this past summer when the BVM series was announced, I drooled a lot…but there was simply no way I could justify those prices. Now I see that the PVM-1741 is actually priced at a level that wouldn’t require me to take out a second mortgage on my home to pay for it. In fact, the price is in line with what you would expect to pay for a top of the line projector…which is exactly the niche this small display would fill for me.


So, with that in mind, here are my questions:

Although this is a professional monitor, with lots of bells and whistles I will pay for, but almost certainly never use, is there otherwise any reason this monitor wouldn’t be suitable to just hook up to my Bluray player and watch movies? I notice it has some internal fans…what kind of noise do these put out when the monitor is powered up? Can you think of any other reason why this display wouldn’t be suitable for just watching movies in my home theater?
You indicated in your post that the 17” version would be shipping “later”. Any idea how much later? I’ve seen them listed on a number of pro-AV sites…but no one has yet received any actual shipments. I'm hoping to get my hands on one before the holiday's (but not necessarily optimistic). I have found a few of the 25” PMVs available, but they are a tad too large and heavy for my specific application.


Thanks!


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21120574
> 
> 
> That would have been using PHOLED red at most. When they go to red and green PHOLED then you'd see additional power savings.



So are you going to post any numbers? It seems that the marketing material/speculation you alluded to earlier has yet to be validated on a TV-sized OLED at all. I have yet to see any concrete phone display power savings numbers for that matter, aside from the ones that Chronoptomist posted, and those were hardly a compelling case for OLED. Anything at all?


----------



## specuvestor

@Chronoptimist as I don't want to be too off topic, just think of the difference between a TV and a "true" monitor


And no a monitor is not a TV without a tuner, though this seems to be more and more the case nowadays. A "true" monitor displays AV as it is. So theoretically if you view a 480 source on a 1080 monitor you should get a small image in the centre.


For lowest lag always use a "true" monitor because it skips VP processing like chroma sampling, gamma/ color temperature adjustments, cadence detections, scaling, etc. That explains why there's a game mode in TVs.


And there is also the difference between real time rendering and offline playback where sometimes there are buffer frames which of course will introduce lag.


And 60Hz is not exactly 60Hz for all content so there could be wait states introduced for synchronization of on-the-fly communication. Plus there are other frequencies from graphics cards. In short myriad of factors that ADDS UP and probably much more significant than 33ms lag. I'm not claiming I know the answer but blaming all on the display lag sounds like a heuristically convenient exercise.


The anecdotal evidence is this: if 33ms is significant then AVS would have been full of people complaining about Black Frame Insertion (BFI) technique in LCDs.


----------



## mr. wally

does the quantum dot tech described in the nanosys thread here delay the development of oled, as if the articles are accurate, they would significantly improve the color range and accuracy of current lcds with tech that could be ready for large displays by next year?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21129391
> 
> 
> And 60Hz is not exactly 60Hz for all content so there could be wait states introduced for synchronization of on-the-fly communication. Plus there are other frequencies from graphics cards. In short myriad of factors that ADDS UP and probably much more significant than 33ms lag. I'm not claiming I know the answer but blaming all on the display lag sounds like a heuristically convenient exercise.



Am I understanding your post correctly, and you just don't believe that the delay numbers are accurate?


I have verified the delay numbers for my own set through various different methods, including but not limited to, high-speed photography comparing it and a reference CRT (1/4000s, 8fps) and measuring the audio delay introduced by the display for synchronisation. (changes with picture settings and matches other results)


Switching between game and theatre modes has an immediately noticeable impact on controlling games. Even if you don't believe that the measured results for game mode are accurate (the 33ms delay) the relative difference between game/theatre is.


For what it's worth, the difference between game mode and theatre is that it switches to 4:4:4 chroma rather than 4:2:2, drops to 60Hz from 480Hz and decouples the local-dimming array from the picture. (lags a frame or two behind the panel) The contrast is lowered to compensate for this. (only dims zones down to 3,000:1 rather than "infinite" black level)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21129391
> 
> 
> The anecdotal evidence is this: if 33ms is significant then AVS would have been full of people complaining about Black Frame Insertion (BFI) technique in LCDs.



Not sure I follow what you mean here, BFI does _not_ operate at 30Hz. With my set, there is a subtle but noticeable flicker introduced when enabling 480Hz backlight scanning if you're looking for it. (and a very obvious drop in brightness)


Tests have shown that pilots can identify an aircraft from a single image flashed at 1/220s. (approx 4ms)




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21129565
> 
> 
> does the quantum dot tech described in the nanosys thread here delay the development of oled, as if the articles are accurate, they would significantly improve the color range and accuracy of current lcds with tech that could be ready for large displays by next year?



The best LCDs already cover the HD spec, increasing the gamut further is actually detrimental to image quality.


QDLED displays (rather than QD backlit LCDs) could prove to be an interesting alternative to OLED but I don't expect to see them for a number of years yet.


----------



## wjchan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *byancey* /forum/post/21126391
> 
> 
> So, with that in mind, here are my questions:
> 
> Although this is a professional monitor, with lots of bells and whistles I will pay for, but almost certainly never use, is there otherwise any reason this monitor wouldn't be suitable to just hook up to my Bluray player and watch movies? I notice it has some internal fanswhat kind of noise do these put out when the monitor is powered up? Can you think of any other reason why this display wouldn't be suitable for just watching movies in my home theater?



The fans in the PVM-2541 are thermostatically controlled. So far the maximum amount of time I've used the monitor in 1 continuous setting has been about 45 minutes. During that time I wasn't able to hear the fans at all. In terms of bells and whistles, the PVM is actually fairly bare when compared to a consumer LCD. You can set the gamma, the color LUT, deinterlace mode and that's about it. The BVM has a lot more features.


While the picture is one of the best I've ever seen, there might be a few reasons why it's not great for a your HT environment.


1. The contrast is extremely high and the monitor can get very bright. If you have eye issues due to Lasik, you might experience discomfort.


2. Burn-in is real even though I have not experienced it yet. Be careful if you watch a lot of non-16:9 content.


3. Screensaver is very aggressive. It kicked in while I was editing a home movie with a hummingbird feeding her babies. The content displayed was about 80% static and the screensaver kicked in after 10 minutes.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *byancey* /forum/post/21126391
> 
> 
> You indicated in your post that the 17 version would be shipping later. Any idea how much later? I've seen them listed on a number of pro-AV sitesbut no one has yet received any actual shipments. I'm hoping to get my hands on one before the holiday's (but not necessarily optimistic). I have found a few of the 25 PMVs available, but they are a tad too large and heavy for my specific application.



I believe the PVM-1741 is supposed to start shipping in November. These OLED displays are in very high demand. If you want to get your hands on one quickly, I suggest you contact a Sony Pro dealer ASAP. Thinking that the Hollywood-based dealers would get the most allocation, I put down a deposit with a Sony Pro dealer in the Burbank area. I was lucky enough to get a monitor in one of the first shipments.


I have not done this yet but one fun thing you can do with this monitor is to pair it with a eeColor box . With the Large Color Gamut Add-On Pack, you can do quite a bit of tweaking with the color.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21129806
> 
> 
> Am I understanding your post correctly, and you just don't believe that the delay numbers are accurate?
> 
> 
> I have verified the delay numbers for my own set through various different methods, including but not limited to, high-speed photography comparing it and a reference CRT (1/4000s, 8fps) and measuring the audio delay introduced by the display for synchronisation. (changes with picture settings and matches other results)
> 
> 
> Switching between game and theatre modes has an immediately noticeable impact on controlling games. Even if you don't believe that the measured results for game mode are accurate (the 33ms delay) the relative difference between game/theatre is.
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, the difference between game mode and theatre is that it switches to 4:4:4 chroma rather than 4:2:2, drops to 60Hz from 480Hz and decouples the local-dimming array from the picture. (lags a frame or two behind the panel) The contrast is lowered to compensate for this. (only dims zones down to 3,000:1 rather than "infinite" black level)
> 
> Not sure I follow what you mean here, BFI does _not_ operate at 30Hz. With my set, there is a subtle but noticeable flicker introduced when enabling 480Hz backlight scanning if you're looking for it. (and a very obvious drop in brightness)
> 
> 
> Tests have shown that pilots can identify an aircraft from a single image flashed at 1/220s. (approx 4ms)
> 
> 
> 
> The best LCDs already cover the HD spec, increasing the gamut further is actually detrimental to image quality.
> 
> 
> QDLED displays (rather than QD backlit LCDs) could prove to be an interesting alternative to OLED but I don't expect to see them for a number of years yet.




i raised the same question about qleds here a while back and got shot down by some stating their toxicity precludes widespread adoption. now we learn oleds have some toxic issues as well, so i'm not sure where we are.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Am I understanding your post correctly, and you just don't believe that the delay numbers are accurate?
> 
> 
> I have verified the delay numbers for my own set through various different methods, including but not limited to, high-speed photography comparing it and a reference CRT (1/4000s, 8fps) and measuring the audio delay introduced by the display for synchronisation. (changes with picture settings and matches other results)
> 
> 
> Switching between game and theatre modes has an immediately noticeable impact on controlling games. Even if you don't believe that the measured results for game mode are accurate (the 33ms delay) the relative difference between game/theatre is.
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, the difference between game mode and theatre is that it switches to 4:4:4 chroma rather than 4:2:2, drops to 60Hz from 480Hz and decouples the local-dimming array from the picture. (lags a frame or two behind the panel) The contrast is lowered to compensate for this. (only dims zones down to 3,000:1 rather than "infinite" black level)
> 
> Not sure I follow what you mean here, BFI does not operate at 30Hz. With my set, there is a subtle but noticeable flicker introduced when enabling 480Hz backlight scanning if you're looking for it. (and a very obvious drop in brightness)
> 
> 
> Tests have shown that pilots can identify an aircraft from a single image flashed at 1/220s. (approx 4ms)



Like I said I believe in display lag, but I don't believe it is the TOTAL delay introduced. As a PC guy, when we debottleneck we do it along the whole chain and find the weakest link instead of focusing on one singular component.


BFI is not backlight scanning. It is obsolete now and were used years ago to reduce LCD hold time.


You are a gamer. There are sites that test your reaction time. You can go verify your reaction time and see what order of magnitude it is to 33ms. As to the oft quoted pilots' test, it is another case of skewed "science". Firstly you can see in a plain screen but can you react fast enough? Secondly I doubt anyone can see if the single flash happens in CoD. That's how the brain works heuristically: it focuses on what we deem important and ignores details. A single flash in a myriad of complex environment is not important to the brain.


----------



## byancey

Thanks for the quick response! If you don't mind, I have a few follow-up questions.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wjchan* /forum/post/21130887
> 
> 
> In terms of bells and whistles, the PVM is actually fairly bare when compared to a consumer LCD. You can set the gamma, the color LUT, deinterlace mode and that's about it. The BVM has a lot more features.



Hmmm. That actually surprises me a bit. I assumed it would be bare with regard to "pro" features...but I also assumed that it's features would be a superset of commonly available consumer features. So are you saying that the PVM is missing standard picture controls such as Brightness, Contrast and Color and Tint?



> Quote:
> 1. The contrast is extremely high and the monitor can get very bright. If you have eye issues due to Lasik, you might experience discomfort.



So again, no brightness setting? I'll be using the display in a dark environment, so if the picture is too bright and can't be toned down, that's a concern. I use my current LCD with the backlight set pretty close to it's lowest value.



> Quote:
> 2. Burn-in is real even though I have not experienced it yet. Be careful if you watch a lot of non-16:9 content.



I know OLED is susceptible to burn-in, and I certainly do watch a lot of movies in scope format, but I won't be watching TV on the thing. Only movies at most a few times a week. I figured that kind of usage probably pales in comparison to a professional using the thing 8 hours a day.



> Quote:
> 3. Screensaver is very aggressive. It kicked in while I was editing a home movie with a hummingbird feeding her babies. The content displayed was about 80% static and the screensaver kicked in after 10 minutes.



I assume this can't be turned-off then? It would be annoying having a screen-saver kick in during a slow, fairly static scene.




> Quote:
> I believe the PVM-1741 is supposed to start shipping in November. These OLED displays are in very high demand. If you want to get your hands on one quickly, I suggest you contact a Sony Pro dealer ASAP. Thinking that the Hollywood-based dealers would get the most allocation, I put down a deposit with a Sony Pro dealer in the Burbank area. I was lucky enough to get a monitor in one of the first shipments.
> 
> 
> I have not done this yet but one fun thing you can do with this monitor is to pair it with a eeColor box . With the Large Color Gamut Add-On Pack, you can do quite a bit of tweaking with the color.



Thanks for the heads-up. Based on your responses, I'll have to give some serious thought to whether or not this display addresses my needs.


Thanks!


----------



## wjchan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *byancey* /forum/post/21131424
> 
> 
> Thanks for the quick response! If you don't mind, I have a few follow-up questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm. That actually surprises me a bit. I assumed it would be bare with regard to "pro" features...but I also assumed that it's features would be a superset of commonly available consumer features. So are you saying that the PVM is missing standard picture controls such as Brightness, Contrast and Color and Tint?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So again, no brightness setting? I'll be using the display in a dark environment, so if the picture is too bright and can't be toned down, that's a concern. I use my current LCD with the backlight set pretty close to it's lowest value.



It has all the basics but not the fancy dark-frame insertion, mosquito noise reduction, etc. You can create a login and download the full manual from the UK Sony site. 


One more thing. 24FPS flickers quite a bit. You can always convert 24FPS to 60FPS using an external scaler. 1080p48 isn't officially supported and I haven't tried that yet.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21131262
> 
> 
> Like I said I believe in display lag, but I don't believe it is the TOTAL delay introduced. As a PC guy, when we debottleneck we do it along the whole chain and find the weakest link instead of focusing on one singular component.



When there are multiple different ways to measure the lag (compare to reference display, measure audio delay, measure time from key press to action being displayed etc) its not that difficult to figure out how much delay is caused by the display.


When the only variable that changes is a picture mode on the display, you _know_ exactly how much delay is introduced, and the cause. Adding 67ms is very noticeably less responsive wih my current screen.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21131262
> 
> 
> You are a gamer. There are sites that test your reaction time. You can go verify your reaction time and see what order of magnitude it is to 33ms. As to the oft quoted pilots' test, it is another case of skewed "science". Firstly you can see in a plain screen but can you react fast enough? Secondly I doubt anyone can see if the single flash happens in CoD. That's how the brain works heuristically: it focuses on what we deem important and ignores details. A single flash in a myriad of complex environment is not important to the brain.



This is not about your reaction times. It is about the display reacting to your inputs.


When there is more than about 33ms, there is a noticeable disconnect between moving my arm (to control the mouse) and my view changing in-game. (or the mouse cursor moving) It starts to feel like I'm dragging my view around, rather than controlling my view directly with the mouse.


It's not about how quickly I can react to what the screen is showing me (though if you are up against someone else, you want to remove as many disadvantages as possible) it's primarily about removing the disconnect between my actions in the real world showing up on the screen.


I would prefer lower if I could get it, but the only option other than gaming LCD monitors (which are small and low quality) are Plasmas (Panasonic have had some with a 16ms delay) which are not really suitable for long periods of gaming, and give me headaches from the flickering, or broadcast monitors (particularly the new OLED ones from Sony) which are also small, and way out of my budget.


I'm hoping that the new HMZ-T1 will be 16ms or lower as it is also OLED, but it is a consumer device, rather than broadcast, so it's probably less of a priority.



John Carmack has recently been testing head mounted displays and head tracking, and concluded that 60fps tracking (16ms) isn't enough, and that for him, 120 fps (8ms) was necessary.


> Quote:
> I re-did 60/120/180 fps tests recently. I think 120 is critical for truly believable head tracking


----------



## specuvestor

^^ I've said what logic and sense tells me that 33ms cannot be noticeable. If it is noticeable (which I agree based on user feedback) then the TOTAL lag must be much longer. So I'll just leave this together with other issues like whether CD is right to cut off at 20kHz










On other developments, this just out from Nokia:

"The Lumia 800 features an outer design that's much shared with the MeeGo-based N9. Instead of the 3.9-inch on the N9, the Lumia 800 has to make room for Windows Phone buttons, so instead there's a *3.7-inch AMOLED ClearBlack curved display*. It also packs a 1.4 GHz Qualcomm processor with hardware acceleration and graphics. The 8 MP Carl Zeiss optics with dual LED flash is activated with a dedicated camera button – something that the N9 doesn't have. It however, gives up a front-facing camera from the N9 in exchange for a status LED. It has 16GB of internal user memory and 25GB of free SkyDrive storage for storing images and music. For memory, the Lumia 800 has 512MB, down from the 1GB in the N9. The estimated retail price for the Nokia Lumia 800 will be approximately 420 EUR ($480), excluding taxes and subsidies – also down from the 600 EUR ($830) N9. Pick from cyan, magenta and black."


----------



## rogo

The display is not curved. The glass that wraps around the phone is slightly curved. Period.


----------



## pdoherty972

Why PHOLEDs are far better in power efficiency than fluorescent OLEDs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phospho...emitting_diode 



> Quote:
> Like all types of OLED, phosphorescent OLEDs emit light due to the electroluminescence of an organic semiconductor layer in an electric current. Electrons and holes are injected into the organic layer at the electrodes and form excitons, a bound state of the electron and hole.
> 
> 
> Electrons and holes are both fermions with half integer spin. An exciton formed by the recombination of two such particles may either be in a singlet state or a triplet state, depending on how the spins have been combined. Statistically, there is a 25% probability of forming a singlet state and 75% probability of forming a triplet state.[2][3] Decay of the excitons results in the production of light through spontaneous emission.
> 
> 
> In OLEDs using fluorescent organic molecules only, the decay of triplet excitons is quantum mechanically forbidden by selection rules, meaning that the lifetime of triplet excitons is long and phosphorescence is not readily observed. Hence it would be expected that in fluorescent OLEDs only the formation of singlet excitons results in the emission of useful radiation, placing a theoretical limit on the internal quantum efficiency (the percentage of excitons formed that result in emission of a photon) of 25%.[4]
> 
> 
> However, phosphorescent OLEDs generate light from both triplet and singlet excitons, allowing the internal quantum efficiency of such devices to reach nearly 100%.



If anyone has access, this IEEE article directly covers what we're discussing:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...hDecision=-203 



> Quote:
> We model and analyze the power consumption and resulting temperature rise in active-matrix organic-light-emitting device (AMOLED) displays as a function of the OLED efficiency, display resolution and display size. Power consumption is a critical issue for mobile display applications as it directly impacts battery requirements, and it is also very important for large area applications where it affects the display temperature rise, which directly impacts the panel lifetime. *Phosphorescent OLEDs (PHOLEDs) are shown to offer significant advantage as compared to conventional fluorescent OLEDs due to high luminous efficiency resulting in lower pixel currents, reducing both the power consumed in the OLED devices and the series connected driving thin-film transistor (TFT).* The power consumption and temperature rise of OLED displays are calculated as a function of the device efficiency, display size, display luminance and the type of backplane technology employed. The impact of using top-emission OLEDs is also discussed.



So, absent any direct comparisons of 2011 OLED displays that use only PHOLED red vs those that will be using both red and green PHOLED it stands to reason that we should expect the types of savings Universal Display's website suggests, all other things being equal.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21044553
> 
> 
> With the passing of Steve Jobs and the dismal launch of 4S, the biggest winner looks to be S2.



Looks to be gaining even more momentum, though the caveat below is that Sammy sells many more models than Apple.


"Sammy overtook Apple in 3Q to become the world's largest smart

phone seller. Sammy shipped 27.8mn units in 3Q, taking 23.8%

of the market. vs. 3.7% M/S in 2009

#1 Sammy sold 27.8mn units, 23.8% M/S

#2 Apple 17.1mn 14.6% M/S

#3 Nokia 16.8mn 14.0% M/S

Sammy's telecommunication div posted the largest ever earnings

mainly due to Galaxy S2 sales

REV 14.9wtn (+22% QoQ, +37% YoY)

OP 2.52wtn (1st time to reach W2tn lvl)

OPM 16.9% (beats Semicon div OPM of 16.8% for the 1st time)"


----------



## slacker711

They didnt give much info on future OLED plans on the English call but one thing is for sure, mobile OLED's are very profitable right now. It is the only thing saving SMD. They didnt give any details, but they made it pretty clear that they plan on being less reliant on LCD's going forward as they transition from smartphones to tablets to televisions.


Also interesting to hear that they will sell flexible displays in handsets next year.


Slacker


----------



## rogo

"....the dismal launch of 4S"


The most successful phone launch ever, you must be referring to. 4 million in less than 1 week.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20...first-weekend/ 


That's compared to 10 million Galaxy S II phones in 5 months.

http://www.electronista.com/articles....s.10m.record/ 


The Samsung "kitchen sink" approach combined with a later launch that expected certainly did propel Samsung past Apple in Q3. You want to make that bet again for Q4?


----------



## specuvestor

Lest we forget we were expecting iPhone 5. Versus the expectation it was dismal.


I'll give the new Apple team the benefit of doubt but I would say Galaxy S would be gaining market share (not top selling) in 4Q as well. Like I said the caveat is that it refers to multiple Samsung models.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21136106
> 
> 
> If anyone has access, this IEEE article directly covers what we're discussing:
> 
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...hDecision=-203



I have ordered it but I think most of the information has been updated in recent Universal Display papers 2010-2011 from SID which I already have.


Here is a chart from a 2010 paper from Universal Display with projections on future PHOLED displays vs future LCD displays.


----------



## bluescreen

Yeah, but the guy who led that study is a Hack.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21131214
> 
> 
> now we learn oleds have some toxic issues as well, so i'm not sure where we are.



Where did you learn that? That would be news to me, and GE as well. who made this video on OLED white lighting.

http://www.efactormedia.com/archive/ge_oled/index.html


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21137269
> 
> 
> Lest we forget we were expecting iPhone 5. Versus the expectation it was dismal.



Only in Apple land is the greatest smart phone launch in history dismal. People wanted a radically new model on the internet; in the real world *this is the fastest selling phone ever*. Period.


> Quote:
> I'll give the new Apple team the benefit of doubt but I would say Galaxy S would be gaining market share (not top selling) in 4Q as well. Like I said the caveat is that it refers to multiple Samsung models.



Samsung has a lot of models so they will probably outship Apple even in Q4. It does appear Apple cares a bit and is slowly expanding its portfolio, but I imagine any significant regaining of marketshare will take time.


Man, I'm a sucker for bad reporting... While I still believe Samsung outsold Apple in Q3, it's very much worth reading this:

http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/10/2...phone-numbers/ 


Q4 will be much closer -- in reality, not fake shipment numbers -- than this fake 10 million unit advantage would have you believe.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21138369
> 
> 
> I have ordered it but I think most of the information has been updated in recent Universal Display papers 2010-2011 from SID which I already have.
> 
> 
> Here is a chart from a 2010 paper from Universal Display with projections on future PHOLED displays vs future LCD displays.



Entire 32" TVs will use under 15w just 2 years from now? That's quite frankly amazing.


If you take 4 of those displays and slam them together, it would seem you get the following power consumption for a 65" display in 2016:


LCD -- 22w (4 x 4 for display + 6 for electronics)

OLED -- 10w (4 x 2 for display + 2 for electronics)


Part of me finds these forecasts entirely unbelievable, which is different from me saying "no way in hell". If this is remotely true, it should end the debate as to whether OLED is going to be able to sold on power consumption: *There isn't any chance of that*. While people like me will look to find 10w here or there, that's beneath the noise threshold from a cost perspective, a reasonable "greening" of one's house perspective, etc.


A 12-watt difference is _less than what you'd save by replacing a single incandescent bulb of 40w or above with any other bulb technology, quite likely including improved halogens_. Since the average TV is not going to be 65" or replaced anytime soon, even if we multiple this by "a billion", we'd save about 6 billion watts x 2500 hours or 15 trillion watt/hours or in more commonly used terms or 15 million megawatt / hours.


In 2008, the world consumed about 17 billion megawatt/hours. The amount that replacing every TV in the world with an OLED TV would save vs. using an LCD TV would cut that consumption by less than 1/1000th! (Hint: We should focus on the light bulbs.) Because building TVs is energy intensive, focusing on replacing TVs is a bad idea anyway. There are other replacement items where the cost to build them is covered int the first year or two of operations (e.g. solar panels). TVs that are using 500w are probably worthy of being replaced for energy reasons alone. TVs using


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21139162
> 
> 
> 15 trillion watt/hours or in more commonly used terms 15 megawatt/hours annually (the size of a fraction of a power plant).



Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't 15 trillion watt/hours equal 15 million megawatt hours, or 15 terawatt hours? I follow your math that this would be 1/8760th of the world's energy consumption (i.e. one hour worth), just wondering about the conversion from w/h to mw/h.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21137269
> 
> 
> Lest we forget we were expecting iPhone 5. Versus the expectation it was dismal.



New CPU & GPU outperforming the 4 considerably. ( twice the CPU power , 8x the GPU power , fastest phone on the market by a huge margin )

New camera with higher pixel count, lower noise, and considerably improved optics.

New dual antenna design. (avoids potential signal problems of 4, now a "world phone")

New operating system.

New "assistant" feature.

Larger battery.


Aside from the external appearance, which is still the best industrial design out there by some margin, it _is_ a completely new phone.


The only people that seem to be disappointed was anyone that wanted a low resolution device that isn't pocketable or able to be operated with one hand.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21139162
> 
> 
> Entire 32" TVs will use under 15w just 2 years from now? That's quite frankly amazing.



It's really exciting just how efficient products are getting these days now that companies are really pushing for it.


I have two Sony LCDs here, both 2010 models, one is the highest-end HX900 and the other is a lower end model. Both are the same size, and the local-dimmed HX900, which puts out a _much_ better picture uses about 1/3 to 1/4 the power of the lower-end CCFL backlit screen.


We're just about to try switching to LED lighting, and while I'm yet to be convinced about the quality of light from those bulbs, the power savings are massive, going from about 200W in one fixture to 20W. Due to rising costs and the amount of use this particular fixture sees, the bulbs should pay for themselves in two years.


Hopefully OLED lighting will be available in a few years at lower prices with improved light quality and higher efficiency.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21139303
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't 15 trillion watt/hours equal 15 million megawatt hours, or 15 terawatt hours? I follow your math that this would be 1/8760th of the world's energy consumption (i.e. one hour worth), just wondering about the conversion from w/h to mw/h.



Oh lord, did I cheat again. I divided the 15 trillion hours by a million to get 15 million and then just discarded the million... [ /wristslap] Let me go fix that.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21139162
> 
> 
> In 2008, the world consumed about 17 billion megawatt/hours. The amount that replacing every TV in the world with an OLED TV would save vs. using an LCD TV would cut that consumption by less than 1/1000th! (Hint: We should focus on the light bulbs.)



Luckily, OLED used for white lighting will be doing that as well (has already begun - see GE video I posted a few posts back or the commerical offerings of Konica, Minolta, Philips, Novaled, etc).


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21139667
> 
> 
> New CPU & GPU outperforming the 4 considerably. ( twice the CPU power , 8x the GPU power , fastest phone on the market by a huge margin )



Most of the tests (like the one from CNET below) show the S2 to be faster (and don't forget the USA T-Mobile S2 is a 1.5Ghz CPU, not 1.2Ghz like the international one). And we already know it's far faster on the cell network, being a 4G phone.



CNET - Samsung Galaxy S2 vs iPhone 4S:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXhjAgRDhT8


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21140336
> 
> 
> Luckily, OLED used for white lighting will be doing that as well (has already begun - see GE video I posted a few posts back or the commerical offerings of Konica, Minolta, Philips, Novaled, etc).



OLED lighting, in any meaningful quantity, is a long long way off. It is awesome that big name companies are working on commercializing lighting but it is only going to be applicable to niche areas for quite a while.


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21140336
> 
> 
> Luckily, OLED used for white lighting will be doing that as well (has already begun - see GE video I posted a few posts back or the commerical offerings of Konica, Minolta, Philips, Novaled, etc).



As I've stated, LED lighting will absolutely obliterate OLED lighting in the marketplace for at least the balance of this decade, probably longer. The niche applications for OLED lighting will cover the small fraction of the market it will capture and that's about it.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21139676
> 
> 
> Oh lord, did I cheat again. I divided the 15 trillion hours by a million to get 15 million and then just discarded the million... [ /wristslap] Let me go fix that.



The end result is the same - i.e. best case scenario, miniscule power savings. Just wanted to make sure I was doing my conversions correctly.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21140360
> 
> 
> Most of the tests (like the one from CNET below) show the S2 to be faster (and don't forget the USA T-Mobile S2 is a 1.5Ghz CPU, not 1.2Ghz like the international one). And we already know it's far faster on the cell network, being a 4G phone.
> 
> 
> 
> CNET - Samsung Galaxy S2 vs iPhone 4S:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXhjAgRDhT8



That video is an iPhone 4 compared to the HTC Evo 4G, not the new iPhone *4S*.


Despite the 800MHz clockspeed, the iPhone 4S still beats the 1.5GHz Galaxy SII in tests.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21141515
> 
> 
> That video is an iPhone 4 compared to the HTC Evo 4G, not the new iPhone *4S*.
> 
> 
> Despite the 800MHz clockspeed, the iPhone 4S still beats the 1.5GHz Galaxy SII in tests.



Yeah, looks like the video was mislabeled. And I didn't notice they only showed iPhone 4 in the summary at the end.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21139667
> 
> 
> New CPU & GPU outperforming the 4 considerably.
> 
> ... stuff about iPhone...
> 
> 
> New operating system.
> 
> New "assistant" feature.
> 
> Larger battery.
> 
> 
> Aside from the external appearance, which is still the best industrial design out there by some margin, it _is_ a completely new phone.
> 
> 
> The only people that seem to be disappointed was anyone that wanted a low resolution device that isn't pocketable or able to be operated with one hand.



This is terrifying and I have some calls in to Lucifer asking about ice forming in Hades but: *I agree with all of this*. That said, I did play with a Galaxy and unless you hold it jammed into your thumb/forefinger joint, you can operate it with one hand for many many things with "average sized" hands. Most importantly, though, you, me, and the marketplace seem to agree. Tech fanboys and some analysts are the only people on the other side of the fence.


> Quote:
> It's really exciting just how efficient products are getting these days now that companies are really pushing for it.
> 
> 
> I have two Sony LCDs here, both 2010 models, one is the highest-end HX900 and the other is a lower end model. Both are the same size, and the local-dimmed HX900, which puts out a _much_ better picture uses about 1/3 to 1/4 the power of the lower-end CCFL backlit screen.
> 
> 
> We're just about to try switching to LED lighting, and while I'm yet to be convinced about the quality of light from those bulbs, the power savings are massive, going from about 200W in one fixture to 20W. Due to rising costs and the amount of use this particular fixture sees, the bulbs should pay for themselves in two years.
> 
> 
> Hopefully OLED lighting will be available in a few years at lower prices with improved light quality and higher efficiency.



I follow the green blogs fairly closely. I haven't seen one iota of evidence that OLED lighting is going to be used in the next 5 years as drop-in replacements for the billions of light bulbs in use. LED on the other hand _is_. If you are patient and wait for the new Switch Lighting bulbs and compare those to the Philips, I think you'll find nice options. The light quality from what I've seen looks pretty good.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21143008
> 
> 
> I follow the green blogs fairly closely. I haven't seen one iota of evidence that OLED lighting is going to be used in the next 5 years as drop-in replacements for the billions of light bulbs in use. LED on the other hand _is_. If you are patient and wait for the new Switch Lighting bulbs and compare those to the Philips, I think you'll find nice options. The light quality from what I've seen looks pretty good.



OLED lighting isn't destined for the light bulb replacement market. The first mass markets will depend on new installations, such as new office buildings choosing OLED ceiling tiles rather than fluorescent tube lighting. I could also see somebody choosing to use OLED's rather than downlighting when finishing a basement. The diffuse lightwould help eliminate dark areas. Of course everything depends on eventually commercializing roll to roll manufacturing so they can bring down the costs.



Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21143242
> 
> 
> OLED lighting isn't destined for the light bulb replacement market. The first mass markets will depend on new installations, such as new office buildings choosing OLED ceiling tiles rather than fluorescent tube lighting.



Right, that makes perfect sense. This means as a practical matter it would be limited to single-digit percentages of the new office-building lighting market for the foreseeable future. This makes bullish forecasts associated with OLED lighting completely bizarre.



> Quote:
> I could also see somebody choosing to use OLED's rather than downlighting when finishing a basement. The diffuse lightwould help eliminate dark areas.



If and when it's reasonably affordable.



> Quote:
> Of course everything depends on eventually commercializing roll to roll manufacturing so they can bring down the costs.



Which, of course, hasn't happened yet.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21139085
> 
> 
> Only in Apple land is the greatest smart phone launch in history dismal. People wanted a radically new model on the internet; in the real world *this is the fastest selling phone ever*. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung has a lot of models so they will probably outship Apple even in Q4. It does appear Apple cares a bit and is slowly expanding its portfolio, but I imagine any significant regaining of marketshare will take time.
> 
> 
> Man, I'm a sucker for bad reporting... While I still believe Samsung outsold Apple in Q3, it's very much worth reading this:
> 
> http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/10/2...phone-numbers/
> 
> 
> Q4 will be much closer -- in reality, not fake shipment numbers -- than this fake 10 million unit advantage would have you believe.



Rogo I have to say you are creating a straw man. I'm not even saying Galaxy S will sell better than iPhone. I'm saying it will gain market share. But I do think it will be THE Android phone. Despite what Samsung said, I doubt they will supply their main competitor HTC with adequate OLED supply anytime soon. Despite what LG said, I do think OLED will be the differentiating factor for Android platform going forward. I don't even think Galaxy S will outsell iPhone anytime soon, but with the passing of Jobs, Samsung certainly will be cut some slack. Jobs' drive and vision is irreplaceable. But Samsung's culture is no less demanding.


BTW your link doesn't work.


I am a bit discouraged about the discussion on the technical specs on 4S here. Since iMac a decade ago, Jobs has been emphasizing that tech doesn't matter... it is the usability of tech and the experience that matters, while their competitors are still talking about innards. This spec based paradigm is sticky because it is so easy to compare on numbers. That's why the first 2G iPhone was easily dismissed based on numbers by some commentators/ competitors for those who stilll remembers. Hence it is not surprising why they didn't even talk about the tech upgrades in details for 4S. When people talk about why iPhone has a low quality VGA front camera vs their competitors, you know they don't have a clue.


And yes Chronoptimist I had read about the specs as well. The dismal was that market was expecting a new iPhone 5 (and a scaled down mass market iPhone 4S which has been rumoured for months) rather than just an upgrade like 3GS. I don't suffer from hindside bias. Does it make iPhone 4S a worse product? Not at all. But if anything that Jobs would be proud of, it would be that antennagate is over, rather than the processor is faster per se.


If retina display does not enhance the experience nor is it perceptible, Apple wouldn't have bothered. Similarly they wouldn't be bothered with OLED if it does not help with the experience. They are certainly not going to pump up their processing power for bragging rights just so they can support a bloated interface or useless bells/whistles which is what we have been seeing in the PC space.


I think you guys know I am a follower of Apple but I am not a fan. I'm unlikely to be a fan of anything except a fan of what-makes-sense. Science and tech has to make sense, and Apple made a lot of sense under Jobs. Now it's Cook's turn to show which path he will take.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21147730
> 
> 
> Rogo I have to say you are creating a straw man.



I'm not sure I'm making an argument, let alone creating a straw man.


It's pretty clear the Galaxy S II is the top Android phone and Samsung's "kitchen sink" approach has helped them gain incremental market share on top of that.


Try this link, the language filter didn't care for the URL on the previous one:

http://goo.gl/7wd1Y 


> Quote:
> I am a bit discouraged about the discussion on the technical specs on 4S here. Since iMac a decade ago, Jobs has been emphasizing that tech doesn't matter... it is the usability of tech and the experience that matters, while their competitors are still talking about innards. This spec based paradigm is sticky because it is so easy to compare on numbers.



Part of the magic of iPhone is that the experience is actually better. Part of that is the hardware, part of that is the software. But it really is better. I say that as an Android phone owner.


A lot of the magic of iPhone 4S is that the camera is really great. The specs? I couldn't tell you them. But I've seen the pictures; they are really great. Apple doesn't tell you the CPU speed, but they do tell you it's their newest chip. They don't tell you it's got a lag-free UI, they let the reviewers carry that baggage.



> Quote:
> The dismal was that market was expecting a new iPhone 5 (and a scaled down mass market iPhone 4S which has been rumoured for months) rather than just an upgrade like 3GS. I don't suffer from hindside bias. Does it make iPhone 4S a worse product? Not at all. But if anything that Jobs would be proud of, it would be that antennagate is over, rather than the processor is faster per se.



Dismal is just a weird, weird word choice given iPhone 4S has had the most successful launch of any ... smartphone... ever.... period.


It disappointed the tech press. And the fanboys. It hasn't disappointed customers. It's selling like crazy.


> Quote:
> If retina display does not enhance the experience nor is it perceptible, Apple wouldn't have bothered. Similarly they wouldn't be bothered with OLED if it does not help with the experience. They are certainly not going to pump up their processing power for bragging rights just so they can support a bloated interface or useless bells/whistles which is what we have been seeing in the PC space.



Right, Apple delivers tech when they think it will benefits users, not spec sheets. They are also the most valuable company on earth. Coincidence? I think not.


> Quote:
> I think you guys know I am a follower of Apple but I am not a fan. I'm unlikely to be a fan of anything except a fan of what-makes-sense. Science and tech has to make sense, and Apple made a lot of sense under Jobs. Now it's Cook's turn to show which path he will take.



Cook is going to do fine. He's the guy who built the supply chain that dominates the industry. He gets the product side. I doubt very much he's going to be anything but a great steward of that. Apple's "problem" going forward is having invented iPod, iPhone, iPad in 10 years, it's going to be nearly impossible to have an encore that's half as impressive. Good news for Apple is with the opportunities globally, they might not need one.


----------



## wco81

Don't know why iPhone is getting dredged up repeatedly in this thread.


But one of the tech reporters at the NY Times had a blog post last week about Apple doing a Siri-based TV, following the widely-reported quote that Jobs told Issacson the biographer that he had "cracked" the TV product, suggesting he found a product/business model for an Apple-branded product.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ because way back we talked about possibility of OLED iPhone before the lawsuits between Sammy & Apple turned ugly










As for Apple TV we already talked about it here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post20761581 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1368958 


@rogo, I see you woke up on the right side of bed







We agree except on Cook. Cook like you said is an Ops guy. The vision and tech usuability part is Jonathan Ive. How they going to work together would be interesting.


----------



## hrlyboy1

I went back a few pages, but didn't see this information posted as of yet. Thought some of you might fine this article a little interesting.

http://http://www.physorg.com/news/2...d-plastic.html 


I'm not sure if the above link is posting correctly, but it's on today's physorg.com news releases.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrlyboy1* /forum/post/21149320
> 
> 
> I went back a few pages, but didn't see this information posted as of yet. Thought some of you might fine this article a little interesting.
> 
> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-...d-plastic.html
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if the above link is posting correctly, but it's on today's physorg.com news releases.


 Fixed link .


More OLED research is always good, but I will not support plastic-based OLEDs/displays, particularly if they are thinking of wallpaper applications.


I don't care if it's cheaper, the environmental impact is too great.


----------



## mentalnova

This will obviously be the next format. Plasma owners will want something skinny while keeping the vibrant colors and deep blacks and OLED is the only solution. Makers could market to them as the early adopters.


----------



## tory40




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21149710
> 
> Fixed link .
> 
> 
> More OLED research is always good, but I will not support plastic-based OLEDs/displays, particularly if they are thinking of wallpaper applications.
> 
> 
> I don't care if it's cheaper, the environmental impact is too great.



I'd be interested in this too, but isnt plastic recyclable now? Doesnt glass take tons of heat to work with?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21147929
> 
> 
> We agree except on Cook. Cook like you said is an Ops guy. The vision and tech usuability part is Jonathan Ive. How they going to work together would be interesting.



First of all, I've heard and seen nothing that indicates Cook is going to get in the way of great design. Second of all, I doubt the design/usability genius that is Apple was really as shallow as Jobs + Ive that you read about in the media. There are probably a bunch of guys (and women) with a bunch of great ideas. Yes, there needs to be an arbiter of those who has Jobs' eye for making the tough choices. Good news is right now Ive is there. Good news is that if you're a pro in that field _what company would you want to work for more_?


----------



## slacker711

Sony is reorganizing their television unit into three divisions....LCD TV's, outsourcing, and "next-gen" televisions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79U1NE20111031 


The announcement is expected tomorrow with an earnings call on Wednesday so I would assume that we'll hear shortly how they define "next-gen" televisions.


Slacker


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tory40* /forum/post/21149947
> 
> 
> I'd be interested in this too, but isnt plastic recyclable now? Doesnt glass take tons of heat to work with?



Glass and metal can be purified by melting them down, plastic can not.


The majority of "recycled plastic" products use 50% or less recycled plastic, and very little of what is sent to be recycled is actually reused, most of it ends up in the ocean or in landfills. It doesn't biodegrade, it just becomes brittle and breaks into smaller fragments which end up being eaten by wildlife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_P..._Garbage_Patch 
http://www.ted.com/talks/capt_charle...f_plastic.html 


It's almost impossible to avoid plastic these days, but I try to avoid as much as possible, especially when it is unnecessary.


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21150112
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_P..._Garbage_Patch
> http://www.ted.com/talks/capt_charle...f_plastic.html
> 
> 
> It's almost impossible to avoid plastic these days, but I try to avoid as much as possible, especially when it is unnecessary.



I was already familiar with this info. Depressing as hell. It's on my mind every time I use (and have to discard) plastic.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21150086
> 
> 
> Sony is reorganizing their television unit into three divisions....LCD TV's, outsourcing, and "next-gen" televisions.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79U1NE20111031
> 
> 
> The announcement is expected tomorrow with an earnings call on Wednesday so I would assume that we'll hear shortly how they define "next-gen" televisions.
> 
> 
> Slacker



trying to perfect lcos sets


----------



## hughh

*OLED deal*


Analysts say LG is likely to sign a contract with Sony for ultra-thin, next-generation OLED displays in the wake of the fragile Samsung-Sony partnership.


LG has recently decided that it will launch super-size, organically-powered OLED panels and is going to introduce a 55-inch OLED-equipped flat-screen TV in 2012.


LG Display chief executive Kwon Young-soo believes that its IPS technology is better suited for mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones, which is a worry to its rival Samsung which uses OLED displays in its Galaxy variants.


``LG is interested in a partnership with Sony, which plans to expand outsourcing of even OLED panels and we will approach the firm sometime next year,'' said the source.


OLED panels are more expensive than the current LCD panels as they don't use backlights. But television majors are migrating to OLED-equipped TVs to find their next revenue source.


Samsung plans to exhibit a 55-inch OLED TV in the upcoming International Consumer Electronics Show (ICES) in Las Vegas in January next year, and it will heavily promote them ahead of the London Olympics the same year.


Although LG CEO Kwon publicized the talks with Sony to sell his firm's film patterned retarder (FPR) 3D screens early this year, LG has yet to do so, according to officials.


Chief financial officer Jeong Ho-young said the company will release a large-sized OLED panel late next year and investment decisions will follow after analyzing the market response.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...133_97705.html


----------



## mentalnova

Do OLEDs bloom (prominent when black meets bright light) like local-dimming LED TVs do? Any review of LG's 15EL9500 that says so or not?


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Sony is reorganizing their television unit into three divisions....LCD TV's, outsourcing, and "next-gen" televisions.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79U1NE20111031
> 
> 
> The announcement is expected tomorrow with an earnings call on Wednesday so I would assume that we'll hear shortly how they define "next-gen" televisions.
> 
> 
> Slacker



I've heard of procurement unit but outsourcing as a division??? Sony innovation at its best?










I still think it makes a lot of sense for Apple to buy or invest in the other 2.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Second of all, I doubt the design/usability genius that is Apple was really as shallow as Jobs + Ive that you read about in the media. There are probably a bunch of guys (and women) with a bunch of great ideas. Yes, there needs to be an arbiter of those who has Jobs' eye for making the tough choices. Good news is right now Ive is there. Good news is that if you're a pro in that field what company would you want to work for more?



For sure. Talents attract talents. Jobs is the front man but it's delusional to think he made all these happen. He was the architect and glue but a lot of grinding was done by his team. And it was not easy to work under him and in his reality distortion field. What was your idea could turn out to be his days later


----------



## rogo

@Metal, there shouldn't be blooming issues. The reason that occurs on zone-backlit LCD is because the zone that gets an illumination adjustment is a light layer behind the screen that gets turned up severely without adjacent areas receiving much (or any) illumination. OLEDs individually illuminate each pixel as needed on the surface layer. They should suffer no more blooming issues than plasmas.


@hugh, LG is a bunch of blabbering idiots. I hope their execution is better than their bluster. "LG Display chief executive Kwon Young-soo believes that its IPS technology is better suited for mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones, which is a worry to its rival Samsung which uses OLED displays in its Galaxy variants." I fail to see how this should worry Samsung. Customers love the Samsung phones and screens (despite some very minor flaws). Who cares if some manufacturers don't use them? That "worries" Samsung in no fashion. Dumb comment from a dumb reporter who is mouthpiece-ing for a dumb company that is executing on zero cylinders.


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21151601
> 
> 
> @hugh, LG is a bunch of blabbering idiots. I hope their execution is better than their bluster. "LG Display chief executive Kwon Young-soo believes that its IPS technology is better suited for mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones, which is a worry to its rival Samsung which uses OLED displays in its Galaxy variants." I fail to see how this should worry Samsung. Customers love the Samsung phones and screens (despite some very minor flaws). Who cares if some manufacturers don't use them? That "worries" Samsung in no fashion. Dumb comment from a dumb reporter who is mouthpiece-ing for a dumb company that is executing on zero cylinders.



It's kind of a wonder that LG bothers to make OLED announcements anymore. What with Samsung actually selling OLED screens, I would have thought that by now LG realized very little stock is put in their mere announcements.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21151905
> 
> 
> It's kind of a wonder that LG bothers to make OLED announcements anymore. What with Samsung actually selling OLED screens, I would have thought that by now LG realized very little stock is put in their mere announcements.



I guess they feel they have to announce they are making OLED TVs because Samsung has announced it. But let's face it. After announcing two models of OLED TVs and shipping just one (and that one maybe 1000 units total), they have the credibility of the kid jabbering about the wolf. Essentially, I'll believe almost none of this until the TV is on the shelf at Best Buy. Why? Because until then, it's just talk. Even Samsung is fantastic at promising stuff they fail to deliver.


----------



## surap

Maybe it raises their stocks, promising exiting new tech like that..


----------



## Corent

I searched and was surprised to see this not posted yet. Apologies if this indeed has been posted somewhere already.


Nokia Kinetic device demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-vIG2NU2E


Nokia's concept/prototype phone that you can twist and bend. Is also operated by twisting and bending. Uses a flexible AMOLED screen. Well, at least I got that impression out of the Nokia demo guy in the background.


Related...


Transparent and flexible Lithium-Ion battery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5boywxr8ot4


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *surap* /forum/post/21154884
> 
> 
> Maybe it raises their stocks, promising exiting new tech like that..



It doesn't seem to. If anything, their long track record of bogus announcements makes anything they say less credible over time, which has the effect of hurting the stock price even on good news.


It's more of a pathological disorder I believe.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> After announcing two models of OLED TVs and shipping just one (and that one maybe 1000 units total



Here in Europe we can still buy the 15EL9500. So it seems to be much more than 1000 units...

LG announced the 55" OLED-TV for 2012 before Samsung:

http://hcc.techradar.com/blogs/team-...-2012-09-01-11


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA* /forum/post/21156821
> 
> 
> Here in Europe we can still buy the 15EL9500. So it seems to be much more than 1000 units...
> 
> LG announced the 55" OLED-TV for 2012 before Samsung:



Your assumption that many have been sold is, I believe, highly in error.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> Your assumption that many have been sold is, I believe, highly in error.



Why?


He alone uses 3 and is very satisfied









http://www.hifi-forum.de/index.php?a...stID=1047#1047 

http://www.hifi-forum.de/index.php?a...stID=1054#1054 


For a short time period in Germany the 15EL9500 was sold for 450€ at Amazon.de. List Price is 2500€. We can get it online for 800€ new.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21155625
> 
> 
> It doesn't seem to. If anything, their long track record of bogus announcements makes anything they say less credible over time, which has the effect of hurting the stock price even on good news.
> 
> 
> It's more of a pathological disorder I believe.



Most investors neither knew nor cared about LG Display's (or anybody else's) various OLED roadmaps or the fact that they missed the promised dates. Everything had been focused on LCD's and I dont think there were questions about OLED's during quarterly calls or investor presentations until sometime in 2010.


The difference now is that LCD growth has slowed and Samsung Mobile Displays is just about the display manufacturer that is doing well. So now, questions on a company's OLED strategy are routine and the stock/management will be held to their answers. The scale of each company's commitment will be revealed when they start giving 2012 capex numbers.


FWIW, Sony's press release today used the phrase the "legacy LCD TV business". That pretty much tells you everything about how LCD's are viewed by investors.


Slacker


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA* /forum/post/21156986
> 
> 
> For a short time period in Germany the 15EL9500 was sold for 450 at Amazon.de. List Price is 2500. We can get it online for 800 new.



Wow, wish I had seen that. I would have picked up at least one or possibly two at that price.


I actually have a need for a small 15" or so screen that can be hooked up to a Blu-ray player. All the LCDs in that size are _awful_, far worse than the CRT in use just now, but obviously that's only connected to a DVD player and I can't use Blu-rays with itwhich is becoming a problem as they're all I've been buying the last five years, and many DVDs have now been replaced with them.


----------



## slacker711

Odd that Sony didnt talk directly about their technology for their next generation televisions.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3044...next&all=false 



> Quote:
> There will come a time when a next generation panel will take the place of LCD panels. So, that we can lead the industry in this transition, we have accelerated the development of our next-generation TV. Due to competitive reasons, I cannot discuss today what type of technology we are focusing on.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA* /forum/post/21156986
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> He alone uses 3 and is very satisfied
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.hifi-forum.de/index.php?a...stID=1047#1047
> 
> http://www.hifi-forum.de/index.php?a...stID=1054#1054
> 
> 
> For a short time period in Germany the 15EL9500 was sold for 450 at Amazon.de. List Price is 2500. We can get it online for 800 new.



A good clue is the fact that the list price was 2500 euro and you can get one (of the long ago discontinued production) for 800 euro. That's a very good clue.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21157074
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, Sony's press release today used the phrase the "legacy LCD TV business". That pretty much tells you everything about how LCD's are viewed by investors.



That "legacy" business is still like 90% of the market. It's a very weird term for "everything that is made by everyone pretty much".


I still believe there is fundamental misapprehension that replacing LCDs with anything else is going to change the industry dynamics. The notion that consumer purchases are going to be measurably altered by more expensive TVs that happen to use a newer technology which is basically the same resolution, etc. as existing technology is idiotic. I get why they want to move on -- especially if they think someday they can build it cheaper -- but this is no magic bullet to changing industry dynamics.


Consumers rejected TV buying in droves in 2011 due to the economy and an utter lack of compelling reasons to upgrade. TVs are a mature category. Very very mature. OLED doesn't "de-mature" the category. What they really need is a compelling story around "smart" TV/3D/etc. or something else new. Otherwise, expect more terrible numbers around the TV business for years to come.


As for Sony actually having something to talk about, they have got to be kidding with this proprietary crap. It takes years to go from idea to factory. If they are actually working on something, they can talk about it. If they "can't talk about it", it's basically so far from being baked, they have nothing to say.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21158880
> 
> 
> Consumers rejected TV buying in droves in 2011 due to the economy and an utter lack of *compelling reasons to upgrade*.



I've never felt the slightest compulsion to upgrade to 3D. Is it reasonable to surmise that 3D hasn't been a lasting shot in the arm for TV sales?


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21158880
> 
> 
> That "legacy" business is still like 90% of the market. It's a very weird term for "everything that is made by everyone pretty much".
> 
> 
> I still believe there is fundamental misapprehension that replacing LCDs with anything else is going to change the industry dynamics. The notion that consumer purchases are going to be measurably altered by more expensive TVs that happen to use a newer technology which is basically the same resolution, etc. as existing technology is idiotic. I get why they want to move on -- especially if they think someday they can build it cheaper -- but this is no magic bullet to changing industry dynamics.
> 
> 
> Consumers rejected TV buying in droves in 2011 due to the economy and an utter lack of compelling reasons to upgrade. TVs are a mature category. Very very mature. OLED doesn't "de-mature" the category. What they really need is a compelling story around "smart" TV/3D/etc. or something else new. Otherwise, expect more terrible numbers around the TV business for years to come.
> 
> 
> As for Sony actually having something to talk about, they have got to be kidding with this proprietary crap. It takes years to go from idea to factory. If they are actually working on something, they can talk about it. If they "can't talk about it", it's basically so far from being baked, they have nothing to say.





sony hasn't developed any proprietary display tech since they introduced lcos sets in 2005, and that tech didn't work out to well for them.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21158880
> 
> 
> I still believe there is fundamental misapprehension that replacing LCDs with anything else is going to change the industry dynamics. The notion that consumer purchases are going to be measurably altered by more expensive TVs that happen to use a newer technology which is basically the same resolution, etc. as existing technology is idiotic. I get why they want to move on -- especially if they think someday they can build it cheaper -- but this is no magic bullet to changing industry dynamics.



You might be right about this. However the use of that word "legacy" is a clear indication to their shareholders that they are going to be shifting their R&D and capex to something new. They will run their LCD to maximize cash flow and investments will dwindle pretty dramatically.


Sony was the most clear about this but I think that both LG and Samsung were signaling something similar. I dont know if they will get a return justifying the expenditures but from a consumer standpoint it increases the likelihood of seeing OLED televisions in Best Buy in the near to medium term.


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *htwaits* /forum/post/21158931
> 
> 
> I've never felt the slightest compulsion to upgrade to 3D. Is it reasonable to surmise that 3D hasn't been a lasting shot in the arm for TV sales?



The failure of 3-D in the marketplace is a huge reason everyone overestimated their TV sales. The satisfaction with existing HD sets is also a huge problem for the industry.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21159127
> 
> 
> You might be right about this. However the use of that word "legacy" is a clear indication to their shareholders that they are going to be shifting their R&D and capex to something new. They will run their LCD to maximize cash flow and investments will dwindle pretty dramatically.



I don't disagree with you. It's worth noting, however, that the sum total of Sony's cap ex is half a JV with Samsung. They haven't been in the panel business in the current millennium. The fact they have no profits in TVs in 8 years is _not coincidental_. The investment in S-LCD was almost an afterthought when it became apparent to Sony that if they wanted good panels on even remotely favorable terms they had to buy into to someone's fab. Everyone was overinvesting in fabs at that point; they were strategic.


So I'm just saying they talk big for people who long ago actually got very small. They pretend to be an important part of the TV business because of their retail distribution. But really, they are Vizio with a nicer brand new.


> Quote:
> Sony was the most clear about this but I think that both LG and Samsung were signaling something similar. I dont know if they will get a return justifying the expenditures but from a consumer standpoint it increases the likelihood of seeing OLED televisions in Best Buy in the near to medium term.



And, again, this is possible. The thing about the Koreans you have to be wary of though is that they signal a lot of stuff about what they intend to do... and then often don't actually follow through. Look, if Samsung builds an 8G OLED fab, I'm sure they will produce large-size OLED TVs from it. I'm not sure they'll make any money doing it. I'm not sure they won't write down billions of won from having to price way way below cost for years because of their failure to actually drive costs down but their need to drive prices down. But I agree, if they build the fab, the TVs will follow.


That said, these are the very same companies that have postured about their LCD capabilities for years and over and over have failed to deliver on their state-of-the-art claims. Samsung's track record dates back to 3 years of promising 40-inch LCDs before actually delivering them. It's that old.


There is no doubt that times change and companies change. LG seems less reliable and believable than ever. Samsung has some credibility in mobile phones and mobile displays, but little in televisions, where it has played a bizarre hand that has earned it market share, but nothing else. The price-decline trend has in no way been arrested and -- if anything -- Samsung has signaled to the consumer that quality is utterly unimportant. In short, they are a very very poor choice to bring a premium TV segment to market at this point.


I think the future of high-end TV has never been bleaker and that paints a hideous picture for OLED. You'll keep me posted if they actually build this 8G fab, but honestly, I can't see why they would. Greater Samsung has some serious issues still looming and is playing a very bizarre dangerous game with Apple right now vis a vis litigation (Samsung is suing Apple on grounds that more or less don't exist -- patent double-dipping, ignorance of generally accepted FRAND terms -- because it understands Apple doesn't want to license certain patents at all). And Apple remains greater Samsung's most important customer at the moment.


But, again, we'll see how this breaks down soon enough on their investments.


Slacker[/quote]


----------



## Chronoptimist

Most people buy a TV and keep it for 10-20 yearshowever long it lasts basically.

In recent years, there wasn incentive to upgrade to increasingly thin displays, but really once you go from something two to three feet thick, to one under half a foot thick, most people don't see much of an advantage of going any thinner than that.


Hell, the only reason my parents got an HDTV was because they moved. They would have stuck with their CRT until it died otherwise.



Manufacturers then got some extra sales from people upgrading from "720p" screens to 1080p (tech-savvy consumers) or extra-thin edge LED screens. (style conscious customers)


Most people are pretty happy with their TVs now, and there isn't much manufacturers can do to make everyone want to upgrade again in the next 5-10 years.



They were hoping that 3D might do it, but it's largely been rejected. People will buy a 3DTV or 3D-capable Blu-ray player if they need a new one, but if they already own a flat panel, there's no real incentive to upgrade. (all current forms of 3D at home are pretty bad, let's be honest)


Going thinner with OLED, having much better image quality matters to _us_, but not the mass market. They will see some of the benefits (mainly the thinness) but aren't about to throw out the old set for one.


Going to 4K or 8K displays will look amazing, but only to us videophiles, or anyone that also uses their TV as a monitor.


Display manufacturers thought they had a chance at turning TVs into "throwaway" devices like cell phones, netbooks etc. but the global financial crisis removed any chance of that happening. (as if it ever had a chance to begin with)



TVs aren't about an immersive cinematic experience for most people, they're for putting on sports or watching the latest soaps/dramas and switching your brain off after a hard day's work.



I think most display manufacturers seem to have grossly over-estimated the number of TVs they were going to sell, even if the GFC had not happened. The public just doesn't care about upgrading to the latest thing.


----------



## mentalnova

OLEDs will not die thanks to mobile devices (smartphones/laptops/netbooks) where battery life is now more important than speed and once consumers realize the vivid colors then they'll demand larger screens for home.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21159692
> 
> 
> Most people are pretty happy with their TVs now, and there isn't much manufacturers can do to make everyone want to upgrade again in the next 5-10 years.



I have checked the thermometer and it definitely is reading 31 degrees in hell right now. This post is so incredibly accurate and well put (that's not the shocking part; Chronoptimist is no dummy... the shocking part is our agreement on so many points).


> Quote:
> They were hoping that 3D might do it, but it's largely been rejected. People will buy a 3DTV or 3D-capable Blu-ray player if they need a new one, but if they already own a flat panel, there's no real incentive to upgrade. (all current forms of 3D at home are pretty bad, let's be honest)



Fact is: People don't even love 3-D at the movies. Part of that is quality, part of it is the "whatever" factor. Many movies do less than half their ticket sales in 3-D despite the 3-D tix costing more. Essentially, 3-D will be in about 1/2 U.S. homes by mid-decade. It'll be passive in half of U.S. homes by decade's end. It'll have a chance at a comeback, but it's not gotten anyone off the couch to go buy it -- with very very few exceptions.


> Quote:
> Going thinner with OLED, having much better image quality matters to _us_, but not the mass market. They will see some of the benefits (mainly the thinness) but aren't about to throw out the old set for one.



And to be honest, it's freaking wasteful anyway. Not throwing perfectly useful stuff away is a good trend.


> Quote:
> Going to 4K or 8K displays will look amazing, but only to us videophiles, or anyone that also uses their TV as a monitor.



When the Sharp 100" ships, I hope that's 4K.










> Quote:
> Display manufacturers thought they had a chance at turning TVs into "throwaway" devices like cell phones, netbooks etc. but the global financial crisis removed any chance of that happening. (as if it ever had a chance to begin with)



Never did, but you're so, so right. Any chance has washed away like a CDO.


> Quote:
> TVs aren't about an immersive cinematic experience for most people, they're for putting on sports or watching the latest soaps/dramas and switching your brain off after a hard day's work.



I believe that someday, a really cheap wallpaper-like TV will eventually exist. It will show soaps, sports, movies all in the appropriate size and immersiveness. I also believe, however, that it's not really based on a framed-box TV. And to that end, the first-generation of OLED TVs do nothing important to change the equation. This is why the market will largely yawn.


> Quote:
> I think most display manufacturers seem to have grossly over-estimated the number of TVs they were going to sell, even if the GFC had not happened. The public just doesn't care about upgrading to the latest thing.



Apparently, everyone in the business was 20-30% over for 2011 alone. That speaks volumes given the recession started in 2007-08. They kept believing in an upgrade cycle that never came. The PC business has seen lesser versions of this and is going to get a really nasty version of it soon. The digital camera business has already seen it happen as has the portable GPS business. Eventually, you become a mature technology. Funny thing is: TV always kind of was. It had this one decade and people thought it was different.


If anything, the disruption in TV is toward mobility, individual screens, etc. It's about delivery, not the living-room set. It's more Amazon and Apple, less Samsung and Sony.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21159528
> 
> 
> The failure of 3-D in the marketplace is a huge reason everyone overestimated their TV sales. The satisfaction with existing HD sets is also a huge problem for the industry.



Then I'm part of the problem, not part of the solution. How sweet it is!


----------



## slacker711

Dupont announced today that they have licensed their solution processed OLED technology to a leading Asian manufacturer of AMOLED displays.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...133095973.html 


This technology would allow for the "printing" of OLED displays. Speculation is that the company is Samsung.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

"Samsung Mobile Display announced that site preparation had been completed for its 5.5G line A3 plant, and that the facility would be completed by end-2012, with operations due to start from 2013. The actual investment amount (W7.0tn) is substantial higher than our initial 2012 capex forecast of W5~6tn (based on 2010 and 2011 OLED capex plans). We expect the company's larger-than-expected capex plans to benefit equipment makers such as SFA, AP System, Wonik IPS, ICD, Terasemicon, and SNU." -Woori


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21159692
> 
> 
> Most people are pretty happy with their TVs now, and there isn't much manufacturers can do to make everyone want to upgrade again in the next 5–10 years.
> 
> 
> They were hoping that 3D might do it, but it's largely been rejected. People will buy a 3DTV or 3D-capable Blu-ray player if they need a new one, but if they already own a flat panel, there's no real incentive to upgrade. (all current forms of 3D at home are pretty bad, let's be honest)



Most People in US. Average size of Chinese demand is about 32". Not to mention installed base in India or Indonesia. Consumer Electronics will be increasingly being driven by Asian demand. And in developed markets, though purchasing power is eroding, I suspect people will still want to upsize their display if they could. Like I've been saying for the past year, I suspect 80" is the pragmatic and reasonable cap in size.


Been saying that 3D will not pick up till they have glassless solution and been accused of older folks like us not able to keep up with advances







Difference is I have vivid memories of 3D "fad" for past 30 years. My conclusion is it doesn't make sense until it is glassless and have a reasonable viewing area for the family.


Similarly it doesn't make sense for Smart TV when I can do HTPC or just attach a Mac mini and essentially do the same thing. And none of the company can answer this question except say it is more "convenient". Obviously they have not made an objective comparison







They are still focusing on the tech rather than the usability. That's exactly why Jobs thinks Apple has a competitive edge.


Hence 3D/Smart TV is just wishful thinking for the industry that wants to continuously launch "features" after exhausting the 1080p, thinness, and latest LED contrast improvements. What makes sense heuristically to people are contrast, resolution, thinness and size; things that are easily perceptible rather than come to AVS







I can't say the lack of demand for these "features" are totally unexpected.


But is the demand saturated? I would think not for the next 5 years. Is it still a strong growth industry? Certainly not, especially in this economy. But annual 10% unit growth this decade is not impossible.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21155625
> 
> 
> It doesn't seem to. If anything, their long track record of bogus announcements makes anything they say less credible over time, which has the effect of hurting the stock price even on good news.
> 
> 
> It's more of a pathological disorder I believe.



Looks like they are finally cashing in on their premature announcements










"SEOULLG Electronics Inc., South Korea's second-largest electronics maker by revenue after Samsung Electronics Co., plans to raise at least 1 trillion Korean won (US$884 million) through a rights offer, a person familiar with the matter told Dow Jones Newswires on Thursday.


"The money will most likely be for capital expenditure for 2012," said the person, who declined to be named.


LG, the world's second-biggest liquid crystal display TV maker by sales after Samsung Electronics Co., said in late October that it swung to a third-quarter net loss and its struggling handset business has been weighing on the company's overall earnings since the second quarter of last year."


----------



## hughh

"LG has since returned to ownership control after marketing expert Nam Yong resigned from the top post to take responsibility for failing in the smartphone arena."


"Samsung was also slow to respond to the smartphone evolution but a prompt decision-making structure and advantages in manufacturing resulted in a Galaxy of smartphones."


"As for its television business ― another caterpillar in earnings along with its semiconductors ― Samsung is trying hard to gain more first-mover advantage in the growing market for Internet-enabled and 3D-functioning electronics."


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21161191
> 
> 
> "Samsung Mobile Display announced that site preparation had been completed for its 5.5G line A3 plant, and that the facility would be completed by end-2012, with operations due to start from 2013. The actual investment amount (W7.0tn) is substantial higher than our initial 2012 capex forecast of W5~6tn (based on 2010 and 2011 OLED capex plans). We expect the company's larger-than-expected capex plans to benefit equipment makers such as SFA, AP System, Wonik IPS, ICD, Terasemicon, and SNU." -Woori



So this is the 5.5G line and it's not going operational till 2013.


Can we now end the fantasy that an 8G line is beginning production in 2012? Or do I have to wait till you hear someone say "I AM NOT STARTING OPERATIONS ON A FAB I HAVE NOT BEGUN CONSTRUCTION ON" before we can do that?


----------



## specuvestor

It ain't over till the fat lady sings







She sings end Jan 2012 during the results conference call.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21161206
> 
> 
> Most People in US. Average size of Chinese demand is about 32". Not to mention installed base in India or Indonesia. Consumer Electronics will be increasingly being driven by Asian demand. And in developed markets, though purchasing power is eroding, I suspect people will still want to upsize their display if they could. Like I've been saying for the past year, I suspect 80" is the pragmatic and reasonable cap in size.
> 
> 
> Been saying that 3D will not pick up till they have glassless solution and been accused of older folks like us not able to keep up with advances
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Difference is I have vivid memories of 3D "fad" for past 30 years. My conclusion is it doesn't make sense until it is glassless and have a reasonable viewing area for the family.
> 
> 
> Similarly it doesn't make sense for Smart TV when I can do HTPC or just attach a Mac mini and essentially do the same thing. And none of the company can answer this question except say it is more "convenient". Obviously they have not made an objective comparison
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are still focusing on the tech rather than the usability. That's exactly why Jobs thinks Apple has a competitive edge.
> 
> 
> Hence 3D/Smart TV is just wishful thinking for the industry that wants to continuously launch "features" after exhausting the 1080p, thinness, and latest LED contrast improvements. What makes sense heuristically to people are contrast, resolution, thinness and size; things that are easily perceptible rather than come to AVS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say the lack of demand for these "features" are totally unexpected.
> 
> 
> But is the demand saturated? I would think not for the next 5 years. Is it still a strong growth industry? Certainly not, especially in this economy. But annual 10% unit growth this decade is not impossible.



I'm not sure how you're concluding from the apparently max-ing of mainstream U.S. demand below 50" (yes, the size mix will continue to rise, but in the replacement market today, people are still passing on the biggest sizes regularly) that demand is going to ultimately reach 80".


But regardless, it's totally reasonable to conclude from 2011's horrendous numbers that 10% unit growth will be achievable for the next few years. It's also totally believable that there will be unit declines in the second half of the decade.


The replacement rate for televisions is likely to decline to once per decade if it hasn't already done so. Even if we assume growth out of China, Indonesia and India, the middle classes there are still finite and living quarters are often much tighter than what's common in the U.S.


None of this is especially bullish for multiple TV homes or giant TVs. Does this mean there is no market for giant TVs or high-end TVs? No, but the picture looks bleaker than it has because catalysts for investment have been removed from the reaction in a major way.


One of the things that has sustained mobile phone growth over the past 20 years has been the disposable nature of the product, the ability of households to consume many, and things like subsidized purchasing. So long as most or all of those remain in place, selling a billion phones a year will remain realistic. The mistake the TV industry made was assuming it was somehow related to the phone industry. It isn't.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21161266
> 
> 
> So this is the 5.5G line and it's not going operational till 2013.
> 
> 
> Can we now end the fantasy that an 8G line is beginning production in 2012? Or do I have to wait till you hear someone say "I AM NOT STARTING OPERATIONS ON A FAB I HAVE NOT BEGUN CONSTRUCTION ON" before we can do that?



The roadmap has always been a 3 phase expansion of the first Gen 5.5 fab (A2), the construction of a second Gen 5.5 fab (A3), AND the construction of a pilot Gen 8 fab (v1).


Neither the construction of A3 or the capex precludes a Gen 8 fab. Samsung is planning for a gigantic increase in their OLED capacity over the next 2 years or so. They are quite literally betting their future in displays on the technology.


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21161655
> 
> 
> The roadmap has always been a 3 phase expansion of the first Gen 5.5 fab (A2), the construction of a second Gen 5.5 fab (A3), AND the construction of a pilot Gen 8 fab (v1).
> 
> 
> Neither the construction of A3 or the capex precludes a Gen 8 fab. Samsung is planning for a gigantic increase in their OLED capacity over the next 2 years or so. They are quite literally betting their future in displays on the technology.



I'm not saying they are never building the Gen 8 fab. You people kept telling me they were going to ramp production of huge TVs by the middle of next year, which I claimed was a fantasy. It's obviously not happening, let's just move on.


They aren't conjuring 55" TVs that people are going to be able to find on store shelves within 9 months from a "pilot fab" that doesn't exist yet.


It's certainly still interesting to note whether they plan on building their Gen 8 fab next year at all (or at some point in the future or perhaps never), but let's just wrap our heads around reality: Production can't come off a fab next year that doesn't remotely exist yet as this year nearly ends.


----------



## slacker711

The one concrete prediction I have made is that there will be a ~30" OLED TV for sub $5000 next year. You disagreed. We'll find out in the next 14 months who was right.


Beyond that, I put quite a bit of weight in the various rumors on Samsung building a pilot Gen 8 fab being built in 2012 but am waiting for the January conference call for confirmation. I dont claim to know the timing of the ramp. There was an article talking about LG and Samsung aiming for the Olympics but who knows? That seems like a quick build to me as well but I have no idea about the time needed to set up a pilot fab and I also have no idea if they have already started.


The next concrete sign of Samsung's plans is going to be at CES. If there is no 55" OLED television revealed then I think that would also give us an answer on the likelihood of anything happening in 2012.


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21163998
> 
> 
> The one concrete prediction I have made is that there will be a ~30" OLED TV for sub $5000 next year. You disagreed. We'll find out in the next 14 months who was right.



I still hope you are.



> Quote:
> Beyond that, I put quite a bit of weight in the various rumors on Samsung building a pilot Gen 8 fab being built in 2012 but am waiting for the January conference call for confirmation. I dont claim to know the timing of the ramp. There was an article talking about LG and Samsung aiming for the Olympics but who knows? That seems like a quick build to me as well but I have no idea about the time needed to set up a pilot fab and I also have no idea if they have already started.



The notion of 55" OLED TVs shipping before the Olympics seems as likely as someone breaking Flo Jo's 100m record.


> Quote:
> The next concrete sign of Samsung's plans is going to be at CES. If there is no 55" OLED television revealed then I think that would also give us an answer on the likelihood of anything happening in 2012.



Yes, although I'll add Samsung is great at showing stuff at CES and not shipping it.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21158936
> 
> 
> sony hasn't developed any proprietary display tech since they introduced lcos sets in 2005, and that tech didn't work out to well for them.



I must point out that JVC and others had LCoS HDTVs on the market well before Sony. JVC made much better sets than Sony. I'm approaching 7 years on my 61" JVC DiLA (LCoS) HDTV. I only planned on keeping it for 5.


JVC was successful in the technology. Sony wasn't. JVC still uses it for FPTVs. Sadly, the market for RPTVs dwindled as folks wanted super thin sets. Mine is only about 18" thick, but that became "too thick" years ago.


----------



## specuvestor

IIRC 5.5G makes 55" cuts


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21165389
> 
> 
> IIRC 5.5G makes 55" cuts



That is true though I believe that the A2 Gen 5.5 fab is cutting the substrates into 4 pieces so we'll have to wait for the A3 Gen 5.5 fab to get the capability to produce large screen televisions.


They would be outrageously expensive though. We need Gen 8 to have any chance of a product that is more than a showpiece.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

We've never said the 55" will be cheap. We've said the 30" will be


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21165389
> 
> 
> IIRC 5.5G makes 55" cuts



What's the substrate size? It's easy enough to math out from that info.


----------



## specuvestor

Should be similar to Chi Mei 5.5G of 1300*1500mm. I think CMO used to say their optimal cut is 32" and 55".


----------



## rogo

Looks like you can make a 2-up 55" on a 5G line then, without too much waste.


You can make 3x2 of 32" if you go 'the long way'.


----------



## pdoherty972

 http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...-to-know-.aspx 



> Quote:
> So what: Other alternative lighting experts also soared today: Veeco Instruments (Nasdaq: VECO ) gained as much as 19.5%, OLED guru Universal Display (Nasdaq: PANL ) notched a 17.4% top, and microcap SemiLEDS (Nasdaq: LEDS ) crushed 'em all with a 41% jump. Why all this alt-light enthusiasm? Because China plans to ban incandescent light bulbs over the next five years, thus creating a ginormous market for replacements. Conversely, light bulb giants Philips (NYSE: PHG ) , Siemens (NYSE: SI ) , and General Electric (NYSE: GE ) all fell 3% or more today.
> 
> 
> Now what: In particular, these Westerners are jumping for joy because China's local LED industry is several years behind the technology curve according to industry analysts. Regular old 100-watt bulbs will be banned from sale in China less than a year from now, with steps down the power scale to outlaw 15-watt bulbs in 2016. America already has a similar plan going on, but China is simply a much larger market.


----------



## rogo

Glad to see you now agree that LED lighting will obliterate OLED lighting for the foreseeable future.


----------



## pdoherty972

Where did you see me agree to that? UDC saw a 17% jump today, and not based on this news. OLED is just better for lighting all around and when its prices are equal to or lower than LEDs watch out.


-No toxic metals

-Long life

-Little to no heat

-Planar and can be built in any shape or size (including in ballasts to replace fluorescents in offices and buildings)


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21169184
> 
> 
> Where did you see me agree to that? UDC saw a 17% jump today, and not based on this news. OLED is just better for lighting all around and when its prices are equal to or lower than LEDs watch out.
> 
> 
> -No toxic metals
> 
> -Long life
> 
> -Little to no heat
> 
> -Planar and can be built in any shape or size (including in ballasts to replace fluorescents in offices and buildings)



OLED lighting doesn't exist. No one is making it into light bulbs. Light bulbs are the vast majority of the lighting market.


I'm not sure what your point is about UDC's stock jumping. Dumb speculators are dumb? Congrats to them!


By the time your precious OLED lighting is ready, the world will have replaced its lighting with LED, which has a two-decade life or so. OLED lighting will be constrained to a tiny fraction of the market.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ I find it hard to believe there is a sizable segment for "premium" lighting beyond LED.


I've heard the marketing pitch >5 years back when it was said "no incandescent = LED rules". Only much later did I realize that they conveniently forgot fluorescent.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21169039
> 
> 
> Glad to see you now agree that LED lighting will obliterate OLED lighting for the foreseeable future.



It's a shame, as LED lighting is somewhat disappointing right now.


As I mentioned recently, I just switched 4x50W halogens with 4x4W LED bulbs.

These are the latest Philips "MasterLED" bulbs, and were supposedly 35W equivalent. (40 degree spot)

On the upside, they're actually brighter than the 50W bulbs they replaced (at least in this fixture/room) and the advertised 3000K temperature (haven't verified this myself) produces a very nice color of light that is a pleasing white. There's no orange tone like the Halogens it replaces, and my 5000K daylight CFLs look rather blue now.


The problem is CRI though. Halogens are obviously 100 CRI (as are incandescents) though with the low color temperature (2700K) the light is too orange for that to really matter.


You can get 4000-5000K halogens, but they're very inefficient, and rather expensive for a bulb that's only going to last 2000 hours if you're lucky.


My CFLs are higher-end bulbs with 96CRI, and so color rendition under them is very good as well, especially with the whiter light.


The LED bulbs put out a light that appears whitest to the eye (at night, anyway) but they're only 80 CRI (if I remember correctly) so color rendition isn't all that great under them. I knew this before purchasing, so I only replaced bulbs where that wouldn't really matter, but it's disappointing to see.



All LED development seems to be focused on smarter design with regard to driving the bulbs (allowing them to work in dimmers correctly, and efficiently) heatsink design, properly diffusing the lights, and reaching a pleasing color temperature. I would say that they have been successful in all of these aspects so far, but I haven't seen any talk of high CRI LED bulb development.


There are a number of lights here that I would love to replace with LEDs, but it just isn't possible as a result right now.



I'm fairly sure that I've read articles on OLED lighting saying that the CRI is much higher on them than traditional LED bulbs, so it's disappointing if they aren't going to be taking off any time soon.


----------



## rogo

Chronoptimist, there is a ton of work being done on LED bulbs right now. I cannot promise that CRI will improve in the next 12 months, but it might. It seems Osram and others are well aware of the need for improvement and I suspect it's going to filter through the value chain over time.


Also, the L-prize winner had a 90 CRI. http://www.usa.lighting.philips.com/...lprizeinfo.wpd 


Not all incandescents have a 100 CRI, that's really not true. Check this out: http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...-test#fbIndex1 


The GE reveal has an 80 actually (for certain reasons, I'm sure). There are already a couple of LEDs on the market at 90. I suspect you'll see LEDs in the middle 90s by 2013 the latest.


----------



## hughh

Here comes another efficient light that trumps LED with low price:


Vu1 enters $15 bulb in efficient-lighting race


Vu1 said today the first in its line of efficient light bulbs will be available at retailer Lowes, pitting one more technology against the aging incandescent bulb.

The company's first product is an R30 bulb designed to replace a 65-watt incandescent flood light, which uses about 19.5 watts of power. Vu1 (pronounced "view one") plans to introduce a classic Edison A19 shape bulb as well in Europe and the U.S.

The R30 is less efficient than a comparable compact fluorescent bulb, which uses about 13 watts, but it does not have mercury and has full light instantly. Priced at $14.95, it's less expensive than comparable LEDs. Compared to halogens, Vu1 says its bulbs are more energy efficient and will last longer--about 11,000 hours.


The color rendering index, which is a measure of light quality, is 85 CRI and the color temperature is warm at 2800 Kelvin.

The company calls the technology behind the bulb electronically stimulated luminescence (ESL), a technique that produces the same light quality as traditional incandescent lamps. Like a cathode ray tube, electrons are fired at glass coated with phosphors that are excited to give off light. The technology has been around for years but never fully pursued for lighting, according to the company.
http://www.vu1corporation.com/technology/


----------



## rogo

We'll see if it really trumps LED when we can actually get our hands on them. The fact that it's a floodlight, means limited applications for now.


For what it's worth, LED bulbs are going to have such high volumes they'll be under $10 in the next couple of years and 20,000 hour life is already real for LED bulbs. I'm not saying Vu1 doesn't have a future, but a CRI of 85, a 11k life, floodlight design, $15 price doesn't add up to a revolution. It's a development worth watching.


----------



## coolscan

Looks like DuPont is entering the AMOLED television business.


Press release;



> Quote:
> *DuPont Signs Technology Agreement for Large AMOLED Television Displays*
> 
> 
> WILMINGTON, Del., Nov. 2, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- DuPont announced today that it has signed a technology licensing agreement with a leading Asian manufacturer of Active Matrix Organic Light Emitting Diode (AMOLED) display products. The agreement will enable process technology developed by DuPont to be used in the company's production of large AMOLED television displays. The DuPont AMOLED process technology enables large displays to be produced at significantly lower cost than alternative technologies. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.
> 
> 
> "AMOLED televisions clearly represent the future. They are preferred by consumers for their superior performance, they are more energy efficient and the process technology we're licensing allows them to be manufactured much more cost effectively," said David B. Miller, president, DuPont Electronics & Communications. "We look forward to helping make the promise of AMOLED television a commercial reality at a price point that is within reach for the mass consumer market."
> 
> 
> AMOLED displays deliver vivid color, higher contrast, faster response and a wider viewing angle than traditional Liquid Crystal Displays, while consuming less power. AMOLED technology has been well received for small size displays such as in mobile phones, but cost has been a major barrier to the adoption of AMOLED technology for televisions up to this point.
> 
> 
> DuPont has developed a proprietary solution-based printing technology that efficiently dispenses liquid OLED materials that it has developed to optimize display yields and performance. The process is designed to significantly cut production costs for television-sized displays when compared to the current methods of producing AMOLED or LCD displays.
> 
> 
> "Over the last several years, DuPont has used its substantial resources as a market-driven science company to solve significant technical challenges associated with the cost-effective manufacture of AMOLED displays. As a result, DuPont has developed a unique manufacturing process and innovative materials tailored to work with it," said William F. Feehery, global business director, DuPont Electronics & Communications. "By licensing display manufacturers to make AMOLED displays using DuPont process technology, we will also build a business selling proprietary DuPont OLED materials."
> 
> 
> Based on industry estimates, the AMOLED television market is projected to grow to over $5 billion by 2017.
> 
> 
> For more information on DuPont AMOLED technologies, please visit http://oled.dupont.com .


----------



## rgb32

 http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...111103/200393/ 



> Quote:
> AU Optronics (AUO) Corp exhibited a prototyped 32-inch TV equipped with IGZO (In-Ga-Zn-O) TFT-driven OLED panel at FPD International 2011, which took place from Oct 26 to 28, 2011, in Yokohama, Japan.
> 
> 
> It is one of the largest IGZO TFT-driven OLED panels. IGZO is an oxide semiconductor.
> 
> 
> The pixel count, brightness and contrast ratio of the new panel are 1,920 x 1,080, 200cd/m2 and 100,000:1, respectively. It has a 72% color gamut on NTSC standards, a response speed of 0.01ms and a thickness of 3mm.
> 
> 
> AUO declined to disclose the structure, manufacturing process and carrier mobility of the IGZO TFT. The device structure of the OLED element is a bottom emission type. The OLED materials for red, green and blue colors were applied in a deposition process by using a metal mask.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21158880
> 
> 
> That "legacy" business is still like 90% of the market. It's a very weird term for "everything that is made by everyone pretty much".
> 
> 
> I still believe there is fundamental misapprehension that replacing LCDs with anything else is going to change the industry dynamics. The notion that consumer purchases are going to be measurably altered by more expensive TVs that happen to use a newer technology which is basically the same resolution, etc. as existing technology is idiotic.



Funny you should say that...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7A81LA20111109 



> Quote:
> SEOUL | Wed Nov 9, 2011 2:00am EST
> 
> 
> The world's top memory chip maker plans to spend around 15 trillion won in its chip business next year, out of which about 8 trillion won will be used in the system LSI business, the report said.
> 
> 
> The report also said Samsung, a leading flat-screen maker, *plans to boost investment on OLED displays to 7 trillion won and halve its investment in liquid crystal display (LCD) facilities to 2 trillion won next year.*


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21171098
> 
> 
> It's a shame, as LED lighting is somewhat disappointing right now.
> 
> 
> As I mentioned recently, I just switched 4x50W halogens with 4x4W LED bulbs.
> 
> These are the latest Philips "MasterLED" bulbs, and were supposedly 35W equivalent. (40 degree spot)
> 
> On the upside, they're actually brighter than the 50W bulbs they replaced (at least in this fixture/room) and the advertised 3000K temperature (haven't verified this myself) produces a very nice color of light that is a pleasing white. There's no orange tone like the Halogens it replaces, and my 5000K daylight CFLs look rather blue now.
> 
> 
> The problem is CRI though. Halogens are obviously 100 CRI (as are incandescents) though with the low color temperature (2700K) the light is too orange for that to really matter.
> 
> 
> You can get 4000-5000K halogens, but they're very inefficient, and rather expensive for a bulb that's only going to last 2000 hours if you're lucky.
> 
> 
> My CFLs are higher-end bulbs with 96CRI, and so color rendition under them is very good as well, especially with the whiter light.
> 
> 
> The LED bulbs put out a light that appears whitest to the eye (at night, anyway) but they're only 80 CRI (if I remember correctly) so color rendition isn't all that great under them. I knew this before purchasing, so I only replaced bulbs where that wouldn't really matter, but it's disappointing to see.
> 
> 
> 
> All LED development seems to be focused on smarter design with regard to driving the bulbs (allowing them to work in dimmers correctly, and efficiently) heatsink design, properly diffusing the lights, and reaching a pleasing color temperature. I would say that they have been successful in all of these aspects so far, but I haven't seen any talk of high CRI LED bulb development.
> 
> 
> There are a number of lights here that I would love to replace with LEDs, but it just isn't possible as a result right now.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly sure that I've read articles on OLED lighting saying that the CRI is much higher on them than traditional LED bulbs, so it's disappointing if they aren't going to be taking off any time soon.



Here's a new OLED lamp from Blackbody called the V-Lux - expensive at the moment but more telling is the power consumption - 2.8 watts.

http://www.oled-info.com/blackody-v-...p-hands-review


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21188422
> 
> 
> Here's a new OLED lamp from Blackbody called the V-Lux - expensive at the moment but more telling is the power consumption - 2.8 watts.
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/blackody-v-...p-hands-review



Too bad he didn't include any output measurements so we know how much light we actually get for those 2.8 watts.


He did say this though:


"The light itself is very soft and nice *but it's not very bright* and it's directed downwards - which means it will light the desk beneath it, but it won't light up an entire room."


----------



## greenjp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21188653
> 
> 
> Too bad he didn't include any output measurements so we know how much light we actually get for those 2.8 watts.
> 
> 
> He did say this though:
> 
> 
> "The light itself is very soft and nice *but it's not very bright* and it's directed downwards - which means it will light the desk beneath it, but it won't light up an entire room."



Bingo. We need an LM-79 report or similar in order to judge what the 2.8 watts means in practice. Even now, many LED products fall short of flourescent when you look at lumens/watt. Sure they use less energy but they're also putting out less light. If you're interested in reading up on this stuff, I highly recommend checking out the Department of Energy's "Caliper" program.


jeff


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21188407
> 
> 
> Funny you should say that...
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7A81LA20111109



So a bunch of people who are not Samsung state something that might or might not be true and you use this to prove what? That they can already make LCDs in the quantity they need after the TV market basically collapsed in 2011 (all manufacturers slashing production by 20-30%)? That they are investing in their OLED production for their mobile business?


Call me when there is news. This... is not news.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21190400
> 
> 
> Call me when there is news. This... is not news.



Well, I think it's news and I'm glad it was posted.


----------



## Sunidrem

@rogo $6.25B is a lot of money: not only a 30% increase on last year's OLED capex, but yet another instance of OLED capex being higher than projections. This will be $11B towards OLED in two years from Samsung alone. And lest you forget about the oft-referenced Gen 8 pilot line, not all of the $6.2B is going for mobile device screens.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21188653
> 
> 
> Too bad he didn't include any output measurements so we know how much light we actually get for those 2.8 watts.
> 
> 
> He did say this though:
> 
> 
> "The light itself is very soft and nice *but it's not very bright* and it's directed downwards - which means it will light the desk beneath it, but it won't light up an entire room."



Well it IS a desk lamp and isn't intended to light up a whole room. I suspect these would be the 60 lumens/watt panels that have been commercially released. The 100-150 lumens/watt panels are working their way from the lab to the factory and have been shown at several shows over the last 6 months.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21191417
> 
> 
> Well it IS a desk lamp and isn't intended to light up a whole room. I suspect these would be the 60 lumens/watt panels that have been commercially released. The 100-150 lumens/watt panels are working their way from the lab to the factory and have been shown at several shows over the last 6 months.



Your suspicions are inconsequential to this discussion. The fact that this light consumes only 2.8 watts is meaningless without knowing how much light it generates.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson* /forum/post/21190458
> 
> 
> Well, I think it's news and I'm glad it was posted.




the only problem is that in the past, companies make these pr announcements which get picked up by the media and published as fact. lg is probably the biggest gamer in this regard.


i don't believe anything in that reuters report until i actually see proof that samsung spends that kind of dough on oled development and we see construction of the 8g lab


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson* /forum/post/21190458
> 
> 
> Well, I think it's news and I'm glad it was posted.



It's news when it's stated by Samsung, not some "industry officials".



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21191291
> 
> 
> @rogo $6.25B is a lot of money: not only a 30% increase on last year's OLED capex, but yet another instance of OLED capex being higher than projections. This will be $11B towards OLED in two years from Samsung alone. And lest you forget about the oft-referenced Gen 8 pilot line, not all of the $6.2B is going for mobile device screens.



Again, when Samsung announces it, it's news. Until then, it's people hyping something that maybe is happening because they have an agenda. And regardless of what you think is happening, the vast vast majority of it is indeed going for mobile screens.


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21191910
> 
> 
> Again, when Samsung announces it, it's news. Until then, it's people hyping something that maybe is happening because they have an agenda. And regardless of what you think is happening, the vast vast majority of it is indeed going for mobile screens.



I'd be curious to know your source for "the *vast vast* majority of it is indeed going for mobile screens." Not just the majority, but the vast vast majority. Sounds like you believe a couple more Gen 5.5s might be going up (only $2.2B/copy).


However, it is true this is merely an apparently leaked report and so of questionably accuracy - would be nice if true though.


----------



## specuvestor

Patience... what is 2 more months in the grand scheme of things











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21161269
> 
> 
> It ain't over till the fat lady sings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She sings end Jan 2012 during the results conference call.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21192108
> 
> 
> I'd be curious to know your source for "the *vast vast* majority of it is indeed going for mobile screens." Not just the majority, but the vast vast majority. Sounds like you believe a couple more Gen 5.5s might be going up (only $2.2B/copy).
> 
> 
> However, it is true this is merely an apparently leaked report and so of questionably accuracy - would be nice if true though.



I know that Samsung intends to transition its mobile phones almost entirely to OLED (they aren't there yet, contrary to what people think). I know they are looking to begin to transition tablets as well.


What I don't know -- and what I believe Samsung doesn't know -- is whether they can afford to transition TVs while LCD pricing continues to fall. Regardless, the production in 2012? The vast, vast majority is mobile. Period.


----------



## mentalnova

Sony's looking into a new kind of TV (doesn't say which). But they literally lose money with every HDTV they sell currently (funny since theirs are the most expensive side-by-side). Not like they can sell at a lost like they could with PS3 because they made it back with selling games and licenses to make games on it.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/11/...kind-of-tv-set 


But haven't analysts said that OLED will be the cheapest to make once it's mass produced? Not to mention the savings on shipping costs alone.


----------



## tory40

Dupont just licenced its OLED printing meathod to a "leading Asian manufacturer". "believed to be Samsung".

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1320761315


----------



## hughh

*OLEDs: Osram, EU flexible-OLED project*, NanoMarkets, OSA

15 Nov 2011

Osram has announced a record-breaking flexible OLED, while a EU-funded group headed up by Imec will also pursue flexible OLEDs with built-in intelligence. NanoMarkets has published an OLED materials market report and the OSA has published a volume of OLED research papers.

Osram achieves record efficiency using for OLEDs

Researchers from Osram have developed a flexible OLED technology which reached an efficiency of 32 lm/W - a record value according to the company.

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/8/1...November162011


----------



## hughh

*NanoMarkets report forecasts substantial growth in OLED materials*

Analysts for NanoMarkets have projected that *2014* will be the year that OLED lighting begins to generate significant revenues for suppliers of OLED lighting materials. NanoMarkets, a market research firm based in Glen Allen, VA, has announced the release of its latest market report entitled, OLED lighting materials markets: 2012. In 2015, the analysts expect the total market for OLED lighting materials to reach $1 billion.


The report contains volume and revenue forecasts for materials used for OLED lighting, broken out by material type and functionality in the OLED stack, as well as by OLED fabrication method - solution processing vs. vapor deposition, and small molecules vs. polymeric materials. NanoMarkets estimates that revenues from emissive layer materials are expected to top $375 million by 2015, and over 90% of this will come from sales of vapor-deposited small-molecule materials.


The report also looks at the strategies of OLED lighting manufacturers including Philips, Osram, Lumiotec, and Visionox.

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/8/1...November162011


----------



## Sunidrem

While it's fun to learn that Japan Inc. is apparently going to make a Gen 6 OLED fab, for me the interesting part of the article was finally finding out that Sony has a Gen 3 fab (presumably from which their products have been coming). As this info was casually mentioned it looks like I may be the last person "in the know", but it is nice to finally have this question answered.

http://www.oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=751 


Edit: And supposedly Sony's professional monitors are "so popular they are on back order." To be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21190400
> 
> 
> Call me when there is news. This... is not news.



Exactly, Samsung does not need to invest more in LCD.....


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/21235655
> 
> 
> Exactly, Samsung does not need to invest more in LCD.....



From what it seems, they might never invest in LCD again. That's assuming they are successful transitioning to OLED, of course.


----------



## specuvestor

*If* 8G investment goes on schedule, US$6b OLED capex in 2012 will be more than the TOTAL capex for the LCD industry.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21238294
> 
> *If* 8G investment goes on schedule, US$6b OLED capex in 2012 will be more than the TOTAL capex for the LCD industry.



Why would Samsung invest that much in display given the sorry state of the TV industry? I ask this question independent of any technology. It seems like a horrible business decision for a company that is not especially cash rich.


----------



## specuvestor

They had been investing in DRAM and NAND at the bottom of the cycle as well. Their investment strategy past 10 years had been quite countercyclical. Samsung generated about $19b cash last year.


Definitely gutsy but so far had worked


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> The newspaper Nikkei and reuters are reporting that Sumitomo Chemicals has developed a technology that suggest cheaper mass production ready large OLED-Television devices.
> 
> 
> To reach this goal Sumitomo chemicals uses macro-molecule materials as the main component instead of low molecular materials.
> 
> 
> With this new material the production costs can be reduced up to 50 percent!
> 
> *The japanese company want to ramp up a production facility for that kind of material end of 2011. This fab should be production ready in the first quarter 2012.
> 
> 
> Sumitomo Chemicals want to reach a output for the production of four to five million OLED-Tv with a size of 40 inches.
> 
> The material will be delivered to the television maker to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.*
> 
> 
> So a 55 inch OLED-Tv which we will see at the CES-2012 with a cheap price comes closer.



http://www.oled-display.net/sumitomo...-breakthrough/


----------



## ferro

55" OLED TV's from Samsung and LG before the 2012 Olympics?

http://www.etnews.com/news/detail.html?id=201111180213


----------



## ALMA

In English...

http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/21/2...-inch-oled-ces


----------



## Wilt

Where is that 32" oled I saw at IFA Berlin 2010 that was suppose to launch this year?


Check back this time next year, and you'll see that there is still no large screen oled tv on sale anywhere.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> *Yoon also said Samsung plans to unveil TVs featuring next-generation OLED displays at the upcoming CES to be held in January in Las Vegas.
> 
> 
> OLED displays produce crisp images and do not need backlighting, making them slimmer and more energy-efficient than LCDs, the most popular type of flat TVs.*


 http://www.reuters.c...dUSTRE7AL05820111122 


There will be an large OLED-TV next year, believe it or not.


----------



## rogo

I'm going to go with "not" if believing it means the part where I can actually buy one at Best Buy.


----------



## Spizz

Yep more info here-

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And...ED_TV/D2K8G9M5 


Looks like LG is going to join them as well. $2k premium over LCD/Plasma?


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21243254
> 
> 
> I'm going to go with "not" if believing it means the part where I can actually buy one at Best Buy.



Well... you might have to go to a Best Buy with a Magnolia Home Theater!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21244319
> 
> 
> Well... you might have to go to a Best Buy with a Magnolia Home Theater!


----------



## mr. wally

hard to believe that in less than a year both sammy and lg will have 55" oled

televisions when they haven't even built the fabs necessary to produce them.


sammy right now can't even build an oled screen for its pad. while i think oled tvs are on their way to the consumer market, hard to imagine them pulling all this together in 9 months


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21245852
> 
> 
> hard to believe that in less than a year both sammy and lg will have 55" oled
> 
> televisions when they haven't even built the fabs necessary to produce them.
> 
> 
> sammy right now can't even build an oled screen for its pad. while i think oled tvs are on their way to the consumer market, hard to imagine them pulling all this together in 9 months



Which is what I've been saying all along. Somehow, the bulls claim this is all already in place/happening and it's just a matter of them announcing they'll be spending the money come January.


I'm remaining of the opinion that even if the investments are made, the products are slated for real availability in 2013. Token availability at astronomical prices is not especially interesting nor is especially relevant -- unless it actually comes from the new production facilities.


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21246342
> 
> 
> Which is what I've been saying all along. Somehow, the bulls claim this is all already in place/happening and it's just a matter of them announcing they'll be spending the money come January.
> 
> 
> I'm remaining of the opinion that even if the investments are made, the products are slated for real availability in 2013. Token availability at astronomical prices is not especially interesting nor is especially relevant -- unless it actually comes from the new production facilities.



Wow. Until now I was thinking that, assuming the investments are made, real availability in 2014 was optimistic, but that's fantastic that you think 2013 is in play. Let's hope so.


----------



## specuvestor

Sammy's 5.5G can make 55". LG is smoking pot unless they are doing backlit OLED, which is not exactly what we are saying when we say OLED TV, but that makes their somewhat nonsensical claim more plausible.


Like rogo say it will be token availability. But that's not zero unlike FED or SED or whatever vapourware. It also shows it CAN be done. So we'll just have to wait for the proof of the pudding. Hope we won't be disappointed in CES again as Japan FPD did not come out with these displays.


----------



## Ant99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21246342
> 
> 
> I'm remaining of the opinion that even if the investments are made, the products are slated for real availability in 2013.



That's exactly the same thing I thought when reading this topic and those OLED links.


I think that 2012 is too soon.


----------



## rogo

@Sun, if Samsung builds it's 8G fab in 2012, I do believe 2013 is viable. Samsung has proved it can mass produce OLED displays -- the first company ever to do so. Yes, TVs are bigger. And, yes, Samsung's track record on big LCDs is horrendous. But I think if they start the fab work in 2012, the latter part of 2013 is viable.


@Spec, yes, they can make some on 5.5G, but I don't see what it buys them. If they are testing a new patterning/masking technique for the OLED material, fine, that's worth doing. Otherwise, it doesn't achieve much. They will rapidly go broke making 55" TVs on a 5.5.G line. So I mean, obviously that's not a real plan.


LG is obviously not making OLED TVs in the meaningful sense in 2012 or 2013 for that matter. I presume they are going to work toward white OLED + color filters as their plan anyway. That's presumably a much simpler design that we would call OLED -- unlike an OLED-backlit TV that we would call "marketing hype".


@Ant, exactly.


----------



## specuvestor

I would think 4X 3.5G motherglass for 55" white OLED with color filter (ie the ultimate local dimming in LCD nomenclature) would have a lot of dark regions along the connecting joints between the OLED panels, and possibly unintended light leakage; unlike a much simpler OLED local dimming aka nanotech whatever with a standard TFT LCD overlay. Let's see how LG can defeat this.


----------



## barry728

Accelerating Growth in the OLED Market...

By Ray Blanco

November 22, 2011


OLED (organic light-emitting diode) technology is hitting the sharp upward bend in the adoption curve. Production of the breakthrough display and lighting technology will rapidly ramp up from here... OLED is a far superior technology to the current commercial LCD (liquid crystal display) standard. It is the next generation display technology and will eventually replace LCD.


First developed by Kodak in 1987, OLEDs are a revolutionary display technology. OLEDs use organic (carbon-based) thin films sandwiched between conductive layers. When an electric current is applied across the organic film, it emits light.


Since the individual display elements in OLED screens emit light, they do not need a separate lighting source like LCD screens do.


Getting rid of the need for a separate light makes OLED displays very energy efficient and thin. It also makes OLEDs an energy- efficient technology for other applications, like lighting.


OLED displays are already becoming widespread in mobile phones...


Earlier this year, the world's No. 1 mobile phone manufacturer, Samsung, signed a multiyear licensing deal with one OLED manufacturer that includes the purchase of emitter materials used to create OLED displays. Emitter materials refers to organometallic materials that light up when excited by electricity.


Samsung is still building out new OLED manufacturing capacity in order to supply OLED displays for its mobile phones. Samsung will also be supplying OLED technology for mobile phones from other phone brands, such as Google and, it also appears, HTC and Motorola.


Mobile phone displays, however, are just the beginning for OLED technology. This technology will eventually move into much larger, and more lucrative, tablet and television displays. LG, AU Optronics, Samsung and others are working on developing the manufacturing technology and facilities for what will eventually replace LCD and plasma as the display technology of choice.


Royal Philips Electronics has announced that it plans to make OLED a mainstream lighting technology by the end of next year. Philips' latest OLED products use lighting panels developed by Universal Display licensee Konica Minolta. Konica Minolta claims the world's highest lighting efficiencies for its all-phosphorescent OLED technology.


OLED is proving to be an excellent technology for use in energy- efficient, pleasant lighting. This is a huge potential market that hasn't hit the exponential growth phase yet. It is, however, beginning to accelerate. Double-digit growth in OLED display technology is forecast for years to come. OLED lighting could become a multibillion-dollar industry in the next few years...


Ad lucrum per scientia (toward wealth through science),


Ray Blanco


----------



## Lawrence875

Steve, just look a few posts ahead. Iso has added the article to one of his older posts.


----------



## 8mile13

according to Osamu Miura, managing director Sony Gulf


Sony is poised to launch comercially in the next three to four years, glasses-free 3D TV's, Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) TV's and 4K technology consumer products http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topic...6&parent_id=16


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/21249860
> 
> 
> according to Osamu Miura, managing director Sony Gulf
> 
> 
> Sony is poised to launch comercially in the next three to four years, glasses-free 3D TV's, Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) TV's and 4K technology consumer products http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topic...6&parent_id=16




well that assumes sony will still be in the tv business in 3-4 years. no sure thing given 8 straight years of losses.


----------



## rogo

That assumes Sony will still be in business period in 3-4 years.


I'd love to know how Sony is launching OLED TVs without a fab and not having the exact same problems it had with LCD and plasma -- no margins -- repeat themselves over again.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21250599
> 
> 
> That assumes Sony will still be in business period in 3-4 years.
> 
> 
> I'd love to know how Sony is launching OLED TVs without a fab and not having the exact same problems it had with LCD and plasma -- no margins -- repeat themselves over again.



sony will be in business in 3-4 years unless they are bought out. sony's viability as an electronics company is marginal at best, they lost control of portable music, music content, and their consumer a/v gear is mediocre and expensive compared to the competition. the only thing sony has is their movie studio, their insurance/finance biz and their professional grade a/v equipment.


like you said before, why would apple or any other growing tech/internet company want to buy them unless facebook or amazon

want to go into the movie biz.


----------



## specuvestor

Why would anyone buy has-beens like motorola, thinkpad, yahoo, Phillips TV...


----------



## tory40




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21251482
> 
> 
> Why would anyone buy has-beens like motorola, thinkpad, yahoo, Phillips TV...



Phillips probably has the best 3D TV as this very moment.


----------



## rogo

"sony will be in business in 3-4 years unless they are bought out."


Probably, but reading the Business Week article made me wonder how a company that fails to grow earnings for more than a decade and dominates nothing still even exists. Arguably, nothing outside of recorded music/movies and whatever the hell they do in financial services has any justifiable reason to exist.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tory40* /forum/post/21252118
> 
> 
> Phillips probably has the best 3D TV as this very moment.



And they are selling the TV business to what was once their EMS provider- TPV technology.


----------



## gmarceau

Suddenly this thread got really interesting again. Thanks for all the new info guys!


Rogo, you're almost on the bandwagon


----------



## rogo

I'm not sure which bandwagon I'm on, but let me be clear on where I stand:


1) Samsung has some credibility in things they do. They have always been terrible about making very large screen anythings. They have proved, however, they are good at mass-producing small OLED screens. If they announce plans to build medium-ish ones (to me 55" is really a weird/interesting choice), they'll eventually achieve that. This is not to say I believe this is a financially sound idea.


2) LG has no credibility in anything. They announce stuff constantly and don't produce it or produce infinitesimal quantities and then pretend it was in mass production.


3) Sony produces nothing in TVs, save for a few hundred broadcast monitors per month. Their future plans are irrelevant unless they find $3-5 billion to actually build capability.


----------



## gmarceau

I had you *almost* on the bandwagon of OLED tvs in mass production hanging out at the Magnolia store.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21260568
> 
> 
> I had you *almost* on the bandwagon of OLED tvs in mass production hanging out at the Magnolia store.


----------



## 440forpower

Anyone really think we will be able to buy a 55 inch OLED by the end of 2012? I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on a Sharp Elite. But would be really upset if an OLED came to market the same year.


----------



## wco81

I just ordered a Panny plasma, under $1000 delivered.


Even if OLED came out, it would be several times in price of what I just paid.


I can wait a couple of years for the tech to be refined and the prices to come down.


That is if it came out next year.


----------



## specuvestor

IMHO Samsung OLED would be at least triple the price of the Elite 60". So u might be in the minority missing out if price is not an issue










LG "OLED" should be much cheaper though.


----------



## Corent

 ignisinnovation.com/archives/announcements/ignis-has-developed-technologies-for-300ppi-amoled-display 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IGNIS* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> IGNIS has developed techniques to push the conventional manufacturing techniques to >300 ppi AMOLED with true RGB pixels. Also, it has developed pixel circuit and driving scheme to compensate for the non-uniformity and enhance the lifetime of such a high-ppi display.
> 
> 
> These techniques can make AMOLED displays with similar resolution as IPS displays but with much better color quality, higher contrast ratio, and wider viewing angle.


----------



## hughh

This is from FlatsPanels Newsletter:


Sharp to produce displays for iPhone, iPad & HDTV

By Rasmus Larsen - 24 Nov 2011

The analyst claims to know that Sharp will produce displays for the coming iPad 3, iPhone 5 and possibly Apple’s coming HDTV. He says that Apple has invested between 500 million and 1 billion U.S. dollars in production equipment at one of Sharp's sixth generation LCD plants. A 6G plant is optimized for displays in handheld devices.


Last week it was reported that Sharp has produced and shipped high-res LCD panels for iPad 3. Apple and Sharp will use a so-called *IGZO* (indium, gallium, zinc) production method that allow them to produce high-resolution LCD panels that are slimmer and more energy efficient than current panels.


Peter Misek also says that his industry checks indicate that Apple and Sharp will develop and mass produce OLED displays for future Apple iPhones and iPads. *They will use an inkjet printing production method combined with a daisy wheel. Dupont is already using inkjet technology for OLED panel production.*

The analyst believes that Apple is unlikely to launch an OLED-TV until 2015, but he thinks that a LCD-TV from Apple could ship as early as the summer of 2012.

To produce panels for the Apple HDTV, Sharp and Apple plan to utilize Sharp’s 10G Sakai plant, according to a report. The Sakai 10G plant is the world’s largest LCD factory, and Sharp is already mass-producing 80-inch LCD-TV with low production costs.


Peter Misek concludes by saying that other TV manufacturers are “scrambling” to find out what Apple is up to. Sony’s CEO recently said that he is sure that Apple’s HDTV is coming.


Sources: WSJ and Jefferies


----------



## gmarceau

5K msrp for the supposed 55" 2012 korean oled panels? More? Less?


Sharp has the balls to charge $5500 for their 60" Elite line, so I wonder how much money is saved with inkjet printing or with just using a color filter on white OLED, as LG is supposedly planning.


Based on the Flatpanelshd newsletter, these are being made now- or it's just being confirmed that this will indeed be used by another source? Those guys are not always the most accurate.


----------



## rogo

"Based on the Flatpanelshd newsletter, these are being made now..."


I promise you nothing is in production right now.


Let's see what prototypes are shown off in 6 weeks and then we can really get to speculating.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21275228
> 
> 
> "Based on the Flatpanelshd newsletter, these are being made now..."
> 
> 
> I promise you nothing is in production right now.
> 
> 
> Let's see what prototypes are shown off in 6 weeks and then we can really get to speculating.



oh yeah?

come to my house and you can watch my new 55" oled televsion lg promised to ship to me by next week!


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21277093
> 
> 
> oh yeah?
> 
> come to my house and you can watch my new 55" oled televsion lg promised to ship to me by next week!



Like so many people ask when someone is getting a new TV...post photos


----------



## gmarceau

At this point, I could go for an oled *laptop* at Bestbuy.


It may not be a huge difference, but there is so much low apl content that looks like grey fog on my Panny that I am excited to see what it looks like on an oled anything.


mid or high apl looks great on my plasma, but low level stuff gets killed on a regular basis from the movies I watch.


My old xbr960 crt was able to make less than reference blu rays look good, actually great. The Panny shows what is there, unfortunately. I'm thinking that an oled can duplicate the xbr960 stuff and then some. I regret getting rid of that tv sometimes


----------



## grexeo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21281026
> 
> 
> At this point, I could go for an oled *laptop* at Bestbuy.
> 
> 
> It may not be a huge difference, but there is so much low apl content that looks like grey fog on my Panny that I am excited to see what it looks like on an oled anything.
> 
> 
> mid or high apl looks great on my plasma, but low level stuff gets killed on a regular basis from the movies I watch.
> 
> 
> My old xbr960 crt was able to make less than reference blu rays look good, actually great. The Panny shows what is there, unfortunately. I'm thinking that an oled can duplicate the xbr960 stuff and then some. I regret getting rid of that tv sometimes



I hear you loud and clear.


I made "the jump" to my first flat panel, a Panasonic plasma, almost a year ago. I've been regretting it ever since, at least in terms of PQ. I really miss my Sony CRT.


----------



## vinnie97

Ouch, guys, I hate to say the obvious but....shoulda' nabbed yourselves a Kuro. ;-)


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/21274222
> 
> 
> This is from FlatsPanels Newsletter:
> 
> 
> 
> The analyst believes that Apple is unlikely to launch an OLED-TV until 2015, but he thinks that a LCD-TV from Apple could ship as early as the summer of 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sources: WSJ and Jefferies



My guess is Sharp/Apple announce a 55"-60" 4K LCD panel for a late 2012/early 2013 release and then transition into OLED in 2015-2016 as mass production ramps up and cost come down.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/21288740
> 
> 
> Ouch, guys, I hate to say the obvious but....shoulda' nabbed yourselves a Kuro. ;-)



I disagree. The Kuro produces a very "digital" image that is not CRT-like at all. It has a very noisy image (dithering) with an obvious pixel grid, black is dark grey (or dark red to be more accurate) the ABL is considerably more aggressive than any _good_ CRT I've ever used, gradation is poor at anything other than 60Hz (discolouration in dark scenes) phosphor trails/flashes are a constant distraction, and a high ANSI contrast does not look CRT-like at all.


Most people's expectation is the opposite until they see it, but my calibrated Sony HX900 full-array LED backlit LCD has a _far_ more CRT-like image.


It is totally black in a dark room. On-off contrast is infinite, ANSI contrast is less. There is a slight "floating black level" in high contrast, low APL scenes and minor blooming is visible from time-to-time. (it is rare in actual film content) These are all traits that CRTs exhibited, though they are less apparent with the LCD. Motion generally does not exhibit any bright trails or flashes of colour like the Kuros. The ABL is entirely optional (in my opinion any ABL is a bad thing) and the options that are available are far less drastic. (more CRT-like) The screen has an edge-to-edge glass panel over the front of it, which adds a richness and depth to the image that is lacking on many flat panels. (but due to Sony's Opticontrast technology, it does not make it unwatchable during the day) Gradations are the smoothest I have seen from a flat panel to date, though still not on par with a CRT. Flicker from the screen in 480Hz mode is essentially invisible compared to the flicker on the Kuros which is more obvious than a CRT. (and no flicker at all at 60/240Hz) The viewing angle is terrible on it though, as with all LCDs, but that is of no concern to me.



OLED is basically a step in-between the two. From using the HMZ-T1 OLED head mounted display yesterday, I would say that the best OLED can achieve is looking like a _really good_ LCD. Motion handling is essentially perfect (and this turns out to be a bad thing for 24p film without interpolation, in my opinion, though it's great for 60fps gaming) and viewing angle should be very good with flat panels. (but due to the deep cell structure many displays use, it will not be perfect)


Colour and gradation have the potential to be good, but colour depends almost entirely on the CMS software (it wasn't great in the HMZ-T1) and gradation was very disappointing when it is supposed to be a true 8-bit display using Sony's 14-bit Super Bit Mapping technology, as there was very obvious banding compared to my HX900.


Black level was good, but the panel is specified at 10,000:1 with 200 nit peak white, which I would say seemed accurate. (better than a first gen Kuro, but not second, black would be 0.02nits compared to 0.03nits)

ANSI contrast should in theory be able to remain the same as on-off contrast, but there was noticeable crosstalk and power limiting in use with these displays where power consumption is hardly an issue, as the whole thing uses less than 20W. When I say crosstalk, I mean artefacts like ​ as seen on PDPs. (the dark/light bands shouldn't be there)


I must say that it has me somewhat concerned about the future of OLED displays. It seems like they will be a step forward in many areas (motion handling in particular, and hopefully contrast) but also another step back from what LCD is capable of, inheriting some similar traits to PDPs.



As flawed as phosphor technology is, and the lack of sharpness that comes from the scanned image of a CRT compared to a fixed-pixel display, there's still something about a CRT image that I find appealing, which I don't think OLED is going to achieve, even if the image is more accurate. Maybe it's just a nostalgia thing.


Certainly though, I can't wait for 4K displays, and even better, if we manage to get layered TOLED displays with full RGB pixels rather than using subpixels, but that seems like a long way off.


Maybe seeing a large OLED flat panel will change things, but I'm now feeling like I would not want to pay a significant premium for an OLED display (say 2-3x the price) compared to my full-array LED backlit LCD, and in all likelihood, the initial premium for such displays will be even greater than 2-3x.


I do think it's a shame that there basically aren't going to be any more scanned display technologies in the foreseeable future, as there's still a lot of SD content out there that isn't available in HD, and even the best upscaling just doesn't compare to running it natively on a CRT. (the best stuff available on the consumer side I've seen is a HTPC running madVR )


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/21288740
> 
> 
> Ouch, guys, I hate to say the obvious but....shoulda' nabbed yourselves a Kuro. ;-)



Don't I know it, haha. Didn't think it was going to take this long for something better.


The 960 had some strengths past the 9G Kuro. Deeper black and better color accuracy and this was from Chad b. There was a setting in the service menu to increase the black depth or improve the ANSI in a way. It gave a much more 3 dimensional look to the picture. That thing, all 200 pounds of it, was amazing.


I'm a sucker for something new


----------



## gmarceau

Chronoptimist, you would have been at home with an SED


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21294754
> 
> 
> Chronoptimist, you would have been at home with an SED



It was not without issues either: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post21114681 


I think OLED was probably the better of the two technologies.


----------



## vinnie97

That's nice, Chrono. We know your long-held stance. I've had my fill of LCD (would never ever touch a Sony panel...maybe 20 years ago)...when something comes along to unseat the crown of the Kuro (OLED we can hope), I'll jump on it. Dithering, gradation and, especially phosphor trails, aren't even on my radar from a suitable seating distance. If I could complain, it would be the DSE on vertical pans.


----------



## coolscan

LOL! Samsung transparent OLED display concept. Coming in 2012 they say;


----------



## rogo

The technology in that video is coming in maybe 20 years. Nevermind the fact that it's actually not especially useful.


----------



## estoniankid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21303639
> 
> 
> The technology in that video is coming in maybe 20 years. Nevermind the fact that it's actually not especially useful.



Where would you put something like that if it actually existed in the real world?

would you fold it and put in your pocket? Can the surface be scratched?



Not a very practical device at all.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21303639
> 
> 
> The technology in that video is coming in maybe 20 years. Nevermind the fact that it's actually not especially useful.



It's as useful as a transparent monitor that looks so cool in sci-fi


Not so cool when everyone sees you surfing AVS during office hours


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21306018
> 
> 
> It's as useful as a transparent monitor that looks so cool in sci-fi
> 
> 
> Not so cool when everyone sees you surfing AVS during office hours



Yeah, it's theoretically useful in some augmented-reality apps. It's just a bad demo reel. No one is going to walk around like that -- even in Korea where they are sometimes ahead of the curve technologically -- and this folding nonsense is, well, nonsense.


I don't know how to put this gently, but folding screens don't actually make sense. I know, I know you're going to all explain to me how they do, but they don't. Non-rigid screens are nearly impossible to interact with or use as display devices. If the screen needs a support to be held open, it's no longer so magically portable and will still suck as a touch screen. This doesn't even begin to address the problems with actually making a retractable / foldable screen. There is a bigger gap from slightly flexible screens to fully foldable screens than there is from where we are to slightly flexible screens. And _no one is actually planning on bringing flexible screens to mass-market devices anytime soon_.


Existing engineering prototypes of flexible rollup or folding screens have been designed to retract or fold handfuls of times, not the thousands you would need to actually use such a thing. And, again, it's not as if anyone is seriously planning on solving this problem. Why? Because the use case for the device is not real.


Anyway, call me in a few decades and let me know how your origami computer screen is doing.


----------



## specuvestor

^^^ yeah cool but unpragmatic


Like I always say: technology must make sense.


----------



## slacker711

I absolutely agree on the utility of transparent and flexible/bendable screens, but foldable? The idea seems both simple and useful....increase the total screen area without increasing the footprint of the device.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtN_TkZUOt4 


I doubt that this is close to commercialization though.


Slacker


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21306018
> 
> 
> It's as useful as a transparent monitor that looks so cool in sci-fi
> 
> 
> Not so cool when everyone sees you surfing AVS during office hours



Privacy issues aside, I can already think of some examples where a transparent display would be usefulproviding they can get the contrast up. They would be much better suited for an open-plan space for example.


When your TV is off, do you really _want_ a large black slab sitting in your living room or on the wall?


With mobile displays, why use a lot of power trying to compete with daylight, rather than using daylight to your advantage?



I agree about the usefulness of flexible displays as a tablet/mobile phone etc, but what about a wrist-based device? What if your new TV was a 100" screen that was simply transported rolled up in a tube?


Folding displays also have some usefulness with mobile devices, as shown above.


----------



## rogo

There are times when a transparent display would be useful. I mentioned one, in fact. As a general purpose device? It's useless. Period.


You can't have your cake and eat it too, by the way. The display can't use daylight to it's advantage from the backside and magically have high contrast.


As for transporting a 100" TV in a tube, why is this good? Logistics, once. Now, why is it bad? The TV needs to be fully flexible for this one trip. Um, ok, 1000x more complex for transport, never useful again. Oh, and it's going to try to roll itself up again instead of laying flat. Bad.


My TV on the wall turning transparent is great in theory, but then I'm looking at what, wallpaper behind it? It had better be black by the way. Once I turn the TV on, I'm looking through the TV again and if the wall is something not black, it's kind of ruining my TV viewing experience. Nice idea, Chron, not practical. And please, don't engineer in another layer that creates a backplane. Now I'm paying for two TVs so that when I shut it off, it can go clear? No. Nor do people want to roll up their TVs by the way. People want to sit on the couch and start watching.


Slacker, the problem is in using the bigger screen. How/where/when do you unfold it. Again, is there some special purpose device where this makes sense? Yes, there is. I can think of battlefield uses for example. But on a normal mobile phone or tablet? I'm pulling and tugging and then having this non-rigid screen? When am I using that? To watch a movie? Am I paying 4x as much for my mobile phone to watch a movie on a somewhat bigger screen? I don't see this happening.


There is a real problem with foldable displays in that the odds of any technology actually allowing 1000s of folds and unfolds this century is fairly unlikely. I don't really believe anyone is going to try even though I am certain you'll see flexible electronics in the next decade or so. The latter problem is much easier to solve than fully folding displays -- the stresses on the electrodes/wires are absolutely massive -- and the benefits are much more real. Flexible displays would be usable where breakability mattered (think tablets for kids, warehouses, cell phones dropped on subway platforms someday). Fully folding displays? It's harder to imagine the benefits given the impracticality. Keep in mind that microprojection technology will advance somewhat from here and allow larger images when a surface is available. Perhaps a foldable, uh, projection screen? All that technology is available now and could be much better in 5 years. It would require nothing in terms of a foldable OLED screen to be invented, just a slightly better microprojector.


----------



## coolscan

Somebody used the word Foldable, and then everybody is on the "Foldable wagon". I am on the "roll up wagon".









The Samsung concept of future transparent screens was meant a little humoristic from Samsung, for those that didn't get that.










I want a 100" Incjet printed OLED screen in the future (if I live that long







), minimum a 300PPI screen.

How do I get it into my house.

It will come rolled up in a protective tube, unrolled and hung on the wall, just like any other projector screen today. And of course it will not be transparent.


But does flexible and/or transparent screens have any use in the future?

Futuristic conceptual designer think so.


Bring it on, I'm ready!


----------



## rogo

Again, while I'm sure you really do want a rollable screen, I'm equally sure most people don't. Either it's going to stay open all the time, in which case it's pointless, or it's going to have to unroll and re-roll all the time, which is going to greatly increase the amount of time from when you press "on" to when you are watching TV.


It's worth noting that "rollable" electronics are significantly less complex than foldable ones, but still significantly more complex than anything that exists today. The stresses of repeatedly rolling and unrolling the wiring / electrodes would be extraordinary, nevermind that the technology to mass produce this doesn't exist. Perhaps someday.


----------



## Chronoptimist

Have you ever seen those 100" Plasmas being moved around? It is not a trivial job. For one thing, they won't fit through doorways.

If you live in a flat? http://www.techdigest.tv/2007/07/how_do_you_get.html 

As screens get ever thinner, something that size is even more difficult to move around due to their fragility, if they are rigid glass.


Being able to roll up a screen that size and then tension the screen once it's in the room you want it would make things _significantly_ easier.


A projector screen of that size is a relatively easy thing to have delivered and set up yourself, a rigid television that size is anything but.


----------



## rogo

Yes, I get all this. I mean, I don't want to be critical, but thanks for stating the obvious.


That doesn't change the fact that:


1) Most people don't care about having a 100" TV.

2) Most people that do will find a way to get it into their room.

3) Engineering a roll up screen to solve the problems associated with (2) is not something mankind does.


It'd be like shipping Ikea furniture pre-assembled because of the difficulty most people have with assembling it (high). Would this be nice? For most people yes. Is it doable technologically? Yes. Cost effective? No. Your roll-up TV is not doable technologically nor cost effective. And the problem it solves is one most people will never have. The problem with people in love with technology is they fail to grasp why most things that maybe could be real never become real: *the costs don't justify the results*. Civil aviation is not supersonic even though the technology to allow it is 40+ years old. Roll-up televisions are currently technologically impossible. Even if they someday aren't, is there going to be enough reason to ever make them? I'll tell you this. The ability to fit them through a doorway is never going to be part of that justification. Not when there are 100" TVs already on yachts (and there are).


----------



## Airion

All this rollable screen speculation is really interesting. I definitely think the physical size of large flat panels is a barrier for many. We already know these things matter, as it helped people turn away from large bulky CRTs (among many other reasons of course). If you're a homeowner and expect to live there the rest of your life, then the job of moving a large display once in and eventually once out isn't a big deal. If you're renting or expect to move sometime in the next five years, then you know that you're buying a giant headache with that giant plasma.


I don't think we even have to be talking about 100" displays. a 50" rollable OLED screen would be quite nice too. Smaller footprint when not in use. Motorize it and there's no hassle in turning it on or off. Put electronics and speakers in the case. With a few extra moving parts, I imagine they could engineer it to roll up rather than down, so you could just set the thing on a stand, making it all the more user friendly.


Cost is a concern as always, but considering this thing doesn't exist yet, I'm not going place any bets on retail prices 20 years down the line.


----------



## navychop

I cannot help but think of the wives that have come thru my house for dinners or parties, and looked at my 61" HDTV, and said sarcastically "That TV big enough for you?" I suspect they were trying to preempt their husbands wanting one. I, not being particularly sociable, immediately stated on each occasion, that if I had known the 70" version was going out of production, I would have bought one of those. That shut their pie holes.


Fact is, industry sees the "sweet spot" of HDTVs settling in at around 40 some inches. The market for larger drops off pretty fast past 60", it seems. The market for large projection or any 80" plus size, will remain quite small. A profitable niche, perhaps, but still rather small. And most of the world has little use for large screen TVs, given their smaller abodes.


----------



## navychop

I will add, that smaller size roll ups don't make sense. If you're going to have an electronics cabinet anyway, you might as well just set the TV on top, or have a solid TV rise up from the cabinet while in use, like they do on some RVs.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> But on a normal mobile phone or tablet? I'm pulling and tugging and then having this non-rigid screen? When am I using that? To watch a movie? Am I paying 4x as much for my mobile phone to watch a movie on a somewhat bigger screen? I don't see this happening.



FWIW, I found an article talking about how Samsung is implementing the foldable OLED display. This isnt a non-rigid screen.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-...le-crease.html 


Doubling the screen area would be useful for just about anything you might do on your handset...movies, apps, web browsing, reading etc. As usual, cost is everything but I do think that this would find a market if they managed to commercialize it.


We actually agree about the "rollable" TV. It is a niche application that is a long long way away.


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21317036
> 
> 
> FWIW, I found an article talking about how Samsung is implementing the foldable OLED display. This isnt a non-rigid screen.
> 
> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-...le-crease.html
> 
> 
> Doubling the screen area would be useful for just about anything you might do on your handset...movies, apps, web browsing, reading etc. As usual, cost is everything but I do think that this would find a market if they managed to commercialize it.
> 
> 
> We actually agree about the "rollable" TV. It is a niche application that is a long long way away.



Slacker, cool article and cool tech. The problem of non-rigidity remains very real, however. If the folding section lacks a rigid bezel, it can't be used as a touchscreen without a table or wall behind it -- virtually no one is using phones or tablets like that today for very good reasons.


I'm not saying it wouldn't be useful to have more screen real estate by the way. Quite the contrary. I'm saying it wouldn't be especially useful enough to justify the trouble and expense of having this unfurling going on all the time. Will there be a use for this? Yes. Will some application justify manufacturing it? I'm a lot less persuaded.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21316555
> 
> 
> Fact is, industry sees the "sweet spot" of HDTVs settling in at around 40 some inches. The market for larger drops off pretty fast past 60", it seems. The market for large projection or any 80" plus size, will remain quite small. A profitable niche, perhaps, but still rather small. And most of the world has little use for large screen TVs, given their smaller abodes.



I think a lot of that probably has to do with cost, the hassle of moving a display that size, and how much of an eyesore a massive TV is in anything other than a dedicated "video room" or "home theatre room" which is not that common.


Assuming that costs are brought down, having a display that size which is transparent when off, boosts the "acceptance factor" considerably. Aside from a base with the other electronics in it, it only has an impact on the room when it's on.


In an open-plan space, I can envision things being set up in such a way that your TV area is nice and open when the display is off, but the display itself sections off the room when turned on and becomes (mostly?) opaque.



The same argument could be made for a massive rollable display that either rises from a motorised base, or drops down from the ceiling like a projection screenwithout the need for a large, hot and loud projector that needs constant maintenance and frequent bulb changes, or needing to have the room completely blacked out to get even a halfway good picture. (and even still, projected images are low contrast unless you have ideal conditions to avoid room reflections)


Or simply a rollable display that is fixed into a rigid frame once you get home with it. It would still have the impact on the room that any large display does (though it could be thinner) but it avoids potential stress on the display from constantly rolling/unrolling it and makes it far easier to deal with for anyone that rents or moves houses more frequently than they change displays. Even with smaller screens in the 40-50" range, there are people who simply sell the display along with the house because they don't want to go through the hassle of moving it. (this is typically wall-mounted)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21316562
> 
> 
> I will add, that smaller size roll ups don't make sense. If you're going to have an electronics cabinet anyway, you might as well just set the TV on top, or have a solid TV rise up from the cabinet while in use, like they do on some RVs.



That assumes you want an electronics cabinet. The only HT-related hardware in my room is the wall-mounted display. There is trunking buried in the walls and a 50ft HDMI cable going through it to a HTPC (now my only source) located in the corner of another room to keep the heat, noise and sight of it out of the way.


Even with a cabinet though, and assuming you can have a rollable display that is durable enough to last hundreds of thousands of activations, I can definitely see people wanting them in smaller sizes. It doesn't have to be about enabling large screen sizes, you can have a TV that simply rolls up into a stylish base that is unobtrusive when it's turned off, and makes it considerably easier to transport.


Specialised furniture that hides a TV is often as expensive as the display itself, and most of it is pretty oversized and ugly from what I've seen.


Why buy more furniture when you can just have a small bar that sits on top of whatever you've got in place of the TV.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21317216
> 
> 
> If the folding section lacks a rigid bezel, it can't be used as a touchscreen without a table or wall behind it -- virtually no one is using phones or tablets like that today for very good reasons.



Compared to everything else they would have to do to make a folding tablet, for example, it would be trivial for it to have a sprung locking mechanism that stops it from moving once it's fully opened.


----------



## rogo

It would be trivial to have a spring-loaded mechanism except that it would add weight and moving parts. I'd like you to go look at the current iPhone 4S and the current Galaxy S II phones and count the moving parts. I'd like you to ask yourself why there are so few of them.


As for this ridiculous idea of transparent displays when off that become opaque when on, the only way this could possibly work is to have an entire layer behind the illumination layer that can morph from transparent to opaque. This is so ridiculously Rube Goldberg to solve a problem that doesn't exist, never mind the cost. Knock yourself out dreaming about it; there's a reason even on Star Trek the portable displays had bezels and backplanes.


----------



## Chronoptimist

I personally don't think that the folding displays or rollable displays are something that I would want, for those very reasons, but that's not to say that such a product couldn't conceivably exist, and that there aren't people out there that do want such a thing.



Off the top of my head, couldn't you have a transparent LCD panel bonded to a TOLED display to turn black? It wouldn't need any pixels at all, just a large single pixel LCD that turns black. (similar to how 3D glasses currently use a large "single pixel" LCD for example)


Of course you are lowering the contrast of the display and missing out on the "perfect" black level that OLED is theoretically capable of, but I'm sure there are a large number of people that would be willing to make that compromise.


That's without putting any thought into it whatsoever (as I'm sure you can tell) but if I can come up with a solution like that off the top of my head, I'm sure that the people making the displays can come up with a far better solution.



Every year there are more developments being made with transparent OLEDs and LCD displays, so clearly display manufacturers think there's something interesting there.


----------



## rogo

Every year there are demonstration products involving LCDs and OLEDs that are transparent. Occasionally, there is something involving a bathroom mirror or somesuch that maybe is actually real. But for TV, where this conversation started? No.


And as for your idea. Yes, you could have a crude a panel bonded to the back. If said panel is transparent normally, it's not going to be black when the LC material is twisted. It can't be one giant pixel, but it could be a crude array (one giant pixel would be impossible to twist, but the way the privacy glass type LC stuff works hybridized with a really crude TV.... yeah). And this is so I can see through my TV? No, this is not happening.


Look, this isn't saying there won't be transparent LCDs -- we all agree the opposite. Augmented reality apps are real and strongly benefit from them. But giant TVs that are transparent when off? More expensive, less good... and why?


This goes to the heart of all these "could be" developments. There needs to be a compelling "why" if mass production is to happen. If not, you're looking into a niche or a quite possibly never-going-to-happen. The jet pack comes to mind.


----------



## specuvestor

Hey the jet pack is real cause I saw it on Kick-Ass







Great flick with lousy title BTW


Seriously I can't see how transparent displays are anything but niche. Our eyes are contrast based so we see well with black background for light source and white background for pigments


----------



## slacker711

Panasonic is setting up a Gen 8.5 R&D line for OLED's.

http://www.oled-info.com/panasonic-b...oduction-plant 


I dont see a capex or R&D number so it is impossible to determine the level of commitment, but I think it is safe to say that companies want to be ready if the OLED television market does take off.


Slacker


----------



## rogo

More on Slacker's item (per Barron's):


Shares of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology maker Universal Display (PANL) are up $2.50, or 6.4%, at $41.46 today after some upbeat remarks by Goldman Sachs’s Brian Lee, who maintains a Buy rating on the shares.


The crux is that Panasonic (PC) is apparently building what Lee brands as Japan’s first 8th-generation factory for making OLED-based displays for television sets, something Lee didn’t expect would happen until 2013, “at the earliest.”


Now, Panasonic is not known to have any agreements with Universal for TV displays, but it would not be hard, Lee argues, for Panasonic to extend an agreement already signed with Universal back in August for lighting products.


“Given the expected timing for capacity ramp, we see news of another agreement with Panasonic serving as a potential positive catalyst for PANL shares in the near term,” writes Lee.


----------



## Brimstone-1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21294275
> 
> 
> OLED is basically a step in-between the two. From using the HMZ-T1 OLED head mounted display yesterday, I would say that the best OLED can achieve is looking like a _really good_ LCD. Motion handling is essentially perfect (and this turns out to be a bad thing for 24p film without interpolation, in my opinion, though it's great for 60fps gaming) and viewing angle should be very good with flat panels. (but due to the deep cell structure many displays use, it will not be perfect)
> 
> 
> Colour and gradation have the potential to be good, but colour depends almost entirely on the CMS software (it wasn't great in the HMZ-T1) and gradation was very disappointing when it is supposed to be a true 8-bit display using Sony's 14-bit Super Bit Mapping technology, as there was very obvious banding compared to my HX900.
> 
> 
> Black level was good, but the panel is specified at 10,000:1 with 200 nit peak white, which I would say seemed accurate. (better than a first gen Kuro, but not second, black would be 0.02nits compared to 0.03nits)
> 
> ANSI contrast should in theory be able to remain the same as on-off contrast, but there was noticeable crosstalk and power limiting in use with these displays where power consumption is hardly an issue, as the whole thing uses less than 20W. When I say crosstalk, I mean artefacts like ​ as seen on PDPs. (the dark/light bands shouldn't be there)
> 
> 
> I must say that it has me somewhat concerned about the future of OLED displays. It seems like they will be a step forward in many areas (motion handling in particular, and hopefully contrast) but also another step back from what LCD is capable of, inheriting some similar traits to PDPs.



I think the Sony HMZ-T1 is using a color filter. White oled light sources going thru Red, Green, and Blue filters. A Samsung OLED display using Red, Green, and Blue material may look better. Of course the Blue lifetime is a serious concern unless Samsung has solved that.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brimstone-1* /forum/post/21331531
> 
> 
> I think the Sony HMZ-T1 is using a color filter. White oled light sources going thru Red, Green, and Blue filters. A Samsung OLED display using Red, Green, and Blue material may look better. Of course the Blue lifetime is a serious concern unless Samsung has solved that.



I looked for some of the same things Chrono did while checking out a HMZ-T1 demo and didn't find them. I didn't find any evidence of horizontal line bleed, nor did I see any posturing (clumping of gradients) due to low native bit depth (PS3's XMD menu background is an easy test). The biggest issues I had were the visible pixel structure (not really an issue), and having the display turn itself off (demo configuration had challenges). I'm wondering if the display Chrono tried had some sort of color space mis-match! Perhaps the gradient smoothing on his HX9 gave an invalid reference!


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brimstone-1* /forum/post/21331531
> 
> 
> I think the Sony HMZ-T1 is using a color filter. White oled light sources going thru Red, Green, and Blue filters. A Samsung OLED display using Red, Green, and Blue material may look better. Of course the Blue lifetime is a serious concern unless Samsung has solved that.



Using RGB OLEDs vs white OLEDs with colour filters is only going to change the gamut of the display, and give you mis-matched response times and/or lifetimes for each colour. There shouldn't be any other impact on image quality. In many ways, white OLEDs with colour filters are actually _better_, at least while content still adheres to the BT.709 standard.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21332128
> 
> 
> I looked for some of the same things Chrono did while checking out a HMZ-T1 demo and didn't find them. I didn't find any evidence of horizontal line bleed, nor did I see any posturing (clumping of gradients) due to low native bit depth (PS3's XMD menu background is an easy test). The biggest issues I had were the visible pixel structure (not really an issue), and having the display turn itself off (demo configuration had challenges). I'm wondering if the display Chrono tried had some sort of color space mis-match! Perhaps the gradient smoothing on his HX9 gave an invalid reference!



If you connect the HMZ-T1 up to a PC and open a folder full of files that fills the screen in the "list" or "details" view, it should be immediately obvious.


Banding was very obvious in any of the gradient test patterns I used, primarily madVR's "small ramp" pattern which generates a 16-bit gradient that is dithered down to 8-bit (similar to Super Bit Mapping actually) CalMAN's pattern generator, and a couple of test discs. The PS3 XMB background is _not_ a good test for gradation.


The HMZ-T1 claims to use Sony's Super Bit Mapping technology to create 14-bit quality gradations. As far as I am aware, the HX900 does no such thing, it just uses, I believe, a 10-bit native Sharp UV2A LCD panel.


I'm not sure what you mean by "invalid reference" though. A CRT, when sent 8-bit data would produce smoother gradations than any flat panel or projector I have seen to date. My HX900 cannot match this. With the HMZ-T1 being 8-bit native, it should (in theory) be capable of gradation on-par with a CRT, but this is definitely _not_ the case, even with its SBMV processing.


Hopefully future OLEDs will be 10-bit native and capable of good gradation, but I was shocked to see that the HMZ-T1 was worse than my LCD, given that gradation was meant to be one of OLED's strong points.



There was no colour space mismatch.


----------



## HDPeeT

Chronoptimist, I think it's a mistake to make judments about OLED based on micro-displays in the HMZ-T1. For one thing, they could be fundamentally different from normal OLED screens. The reason I say that, and I admit I could be complety wrong, is that somehow they've managed to build OLED micro-displays that have a PPI of over 2,000, while manufacturers of the (I guess you could call them *macro*) displays that go into our mobile phones are still having trouble breaking the 300 PPI barrier. The techniques for building those things could have a huge impact on black levels/colors/gradations. For all we know it could be apples vs. bananas compared to normal OLED screens.


I think it's also important to consider the fact that when using the HMZ, you're actually looking at two seperate screens that your brain is blending together. Who knows what kind of effect that has on color gradations.


As for the comparison to CRT, you gotta remember that CRTs have a much, MUCH smaller static contrast ratio than OLED and even modern LCD screens. It's much easier to have smooth gradations when the difference between the darkest colors and the brightest is less that 700:1.


----------



## rogo

"For one thing, they could be fundamentally different from normal OLED screens."


They, in fact, are fundamentally different. Your point is incredibly valid.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Samsung77* /forum/post/21334170
> 
> 
> Sorry to bust in here but figured I might as well ask...
> 
> 
> Does anyone know any place where I can buy the LG 15EL9500? I just missed out on a used one on ebay, http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=130612190669
> 
> My last bid was for 1200.00, since I found another listing (ebay uk) for 1300 NEW, but this seller is sold out now so I have no other options. Is this TV discontinued? I know it came out for 2500.00 but that was almost 2 years ago, etc, so I assume it's selling somewhere in the world for less than 1500 and although that's still extravagant for a measly 15inch TV, I don't care because I want to make it my desktop monitor, etc. If anyone has any ideas where I could find a retailer either in the US or International that could may have these in stock to ship I'd really appreciate it!



I answered you in the other thread, please don't spam multiple threads though -- it's considered bad form.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21333935
> 
> 
> "For one thing, they could be fundamentally different from normal OLED screens."
> 
> 
> They, in fact, are fundamentally different. Your point is incredibly valid.



I think fundamentally different is going a bit far. There are fundamental constraints on the power efficiency of a white (RGBW) OLED architecture but that doesnt really matter much for televisions. The other primary concern I have read about is the type of color saturation/gamut that they are able to achieve using the color filters. However, my understanding is that it is possible to increase the color gamut to 100% of NTSC by using microcavities. The Sony OLED televisions are also using a combination of color filters and microcavities (though that is using RGB emitters).


Are there some other big drawbacks to the RGBW architecture that I am missing?


Slacker


----------



## rogo

Slacker, I was agreeing with the fact that making microdisplays is almost not related to making full-size displays. They've been making TFT-LCD microdisplays for more than a decade, but no one would compare what goes on there to making LCD screens for TVs.


I have to admit, I wasn't rendering much of an opinion on the comments about color per se. I'll leave that to other posters.


----------



## HDPeeT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21337292
> 
> 
> I think fundamentally different is going a bit far. There are fundamental constraints on the power efficiency of a white (RGBW) OLED architecture but that doesnt really matter much for televisions. The other primary concern I have read about is the type of color saturation/gamut that they are able to achieve using the color filters. However, my understanding is that it is possible to increase the color gamut to 100% of NTSC by using microcavities. The Sony OLED televisions are also using a combination of color filters and microcavities (though that is using RGB emitters).
> 
> 
> Are there some other big drawbacks to the RGBW architecture that I am missing?
> 
> 
> Slacker



I wasn't talking about white OLEDs+color filters, I was speaking directly to the comparisons between the micro-displays in the HMZ headset and the "macro" displays we'll (hopefully) be seeing in the future.


----------



## slacker711

Sorry about that, I'm not sure how I managed to misinterpret both of your comments.



Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21339166
> 
> 
> Sorry about that, I'm not sure how I managed to misinterpret both of your comments.



Totally harmless error. No worries.


----------



## Chronoptimist

Huh, I was sure I replied to this the other night. I am aware that the kind of display used in the HMZ-T1 is potentially different to what we will see in a flat panel, but it is somewhat concerning to have these issues show up.


----------



## Lorddeff07

I have pretty much read most of this thread and seen most of the arguments here against oled tech and my simple conclusion is...... I find the logic of some here baffling. And in all honestly, extremely myopic and biased.


Here is what I think Oled tech is quite simply and obviously going to be the replacement for LCD tech as we know it. Its pros simply far outweigh the cons and we don't need to be rocket scientists to see that not only does every new tech get introduced small first and at a premium price but that this transition to oleds is already happening.


How far back do we have to look? I mean just look at this very thread, at some point at the start of this thread they were talking about this breakthrough and that breakthrough and now we are saying actual oled panels being mass produced. Do any of you here think that the transition from crt to lcds happened over night?


Oleds are popping up in tablets this year, mobile phones and gaming devices.... I am going to guess that we will start seeing them in laptops next year or in more mobile phones and tablets. That says one thing; via those means of production these manufactures will use the smaller form factors of these introductory devices to fine tune their manufacturing processes (like they have always done in the past with any new tech). Why this is so hard to believe, see or understand is beyond me. Like do any of you here really think that we wont at least have oled tvs at home in the next 5 years? Do some here think that the average consumer gives a damn how long that new tv they just got took to get to them? all he cares about is that its affordable and its better than what he had before. And oleds have the potential to ultimately be cheaper to manufacture than lcds and be better. Period.


What really shocks me about what i just said though is how biased some here seem to be about that little fact. Is oled more expensie than lcds or other competing display techs today? absolutely. Does that mean that the manufacturers wont shift primarily to oled tech? Absolutely not. I am guessing at one point it was cheaper making crts than it was making lcd tvs.


But the cost of manufacturing is just half teh argument. The real kicker is the need for the tech, oled has to offer something better (practically) to make and force its growth, and this si where i think most ppl here are blind to its promise and potential.


First order of business for oleds will be mobile devices, phones, tablets and laptops... cause there is an undeniable practical gain in those areas for both the manufacturer and the consumer. And the next area will finally be home tvs, but not primarily as we know it. Oled tech has one real advantage up its sleeve, and that is actually that they can be manufactured on flexible surfaces...... hold on.


Imagine this, you buy a box that is no bigger than 1ft x 2ft x 5ft. Now in this box is the disassembled structure for your 155" diagonal frame that can be made from aluminium and be no more than 3mm thick. Just a frame that you will have to put together. Now imagine that the border of this frame is magnetic and that the oled display is printed on a metal foil backing layer. Long story short, on something that when alligned can adhere to this frame. Now you simply roll out the screen all 155" of it and by means of grooves on the frame allign it and let it stick as you unroll it then hang the darn thing on your wall. Only thing that will be coming out of that frame and screen set up is a cable going to a reciever and power box that you can pretty much place anywhere you want. I mean use your imagination, nothing i have said here is "wishful thinking" or unreasonable especially if you are ready to give the tech like 10 years to develop. But that right there is a way of application that current display tech can simply not achieve.


Now the real question is this, and which is why i believe this is a sample of the future.... if you can buy a 155" display, that allows you connect everything that you typically can connect to displays today to it, has a max 7mm profile, is able to give you the absolute best blacks possible in display history and refresh rates faster and better than anything before it, will be way easier to take home than that 65" lcd tv you bought and will cost you now more than $3000. Will you do it?


And that right there is the core of my argument, look at this thread and look at how far the tech has come in 5 years. Where do you think it will be in 5 more? Then give it another five after that and you will get what i mean. In 2008 I bought a 32inch 720p lcd for $1300. Just last month i bought a 55" led lcd 3dtv for $1600 and a 32" 1080p led tv for $399. I am also looking to buy a 3d projector for $3500 though i could get one for as little as $1500. See my point? See why i think it would be damn right stupid of anyone to sit here and think that oleds arent going to one day be everywhere? Unless of course you have been living under a rock your entire life.......


----------



## Airion

Interesting post by Lorddeff07. You lost me with the part about having to make your own 155" frame (people who are willing to do that already have a projector), but in general I think you give a good reality check on OLED in regard to it's past expectations, present, and future.


A common argument here is that LCD is good enough, and that not many will pay a premium for the image quality improvement with OLED, an improvement that many may not even really notice. I'm pretty sure I've made that argument in one form or another somewhere on the forums. And yet despite this, as you point out, OLED is now available on tablets, mobile phones, and gaming devices. If you want a PS Vita, OLED is your only option right now. That fact has helped reinforce Sony's message that the Vita has the best visuals available in a handheld.


----------



## Lorddeff07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/21364154
> 
> 
> Interesting post by Lorddeff07. You lost me with the part about having to make your own 155" frame (people who are willing to do that already have a projector), but in general I think you give a good reality check on OLED in regard to it's past expectations, present, and future.
> 
> 
> A common argument here is that LCD is good enough, and that not many will pay a premium for the image quality improvement with OLED, an improvement that many may not even really notice. I'm pretty sure I've made that argument in one form or another somewhere on the forums. And yet despite this, as you point out, OLED is now available on tablets, mobile phones, and gaming devices. If you want a PS Vita, OLED is your only option right now. That fact has helped reinforce Sony's message that the Vita has the best visuals available in a handheld.




What i meant by the having to build your own frame thingy was my take on how the industry will effectively tackle the problem of bigger screens and what is arguably the biggest benefit oled tech can bring to the market.


CRTs were great as long as you weren't going bigger than 29".... LCDs are great as long as you aren't going bigger than 60" cause even though the tech can scale to much larger sizes than that, at that point it starts becoming unpractical especially when you consider how much it would cost to move ship a 80" lcd tv and how hard getting such a display into the every day home can be.


If you have ever got a projector screen, particularly the types made by elte screens called EZ frame; these frames are prefabricated and cut so they can be better packaged. Then you basically assemble it yourself which takes all of 3-5 minutes. Roll out your PJ screen material and then attach that to the frame. An oled screen can be flexible as far as it being roll-able is concerned but not stretchable. Thats where the oled screen being printed on a metalic film (think cardboard paper thickness) comes in and then that film will be attached to the frame in this regard.


It obviously all doesnt have to work out like this, but this is just me here throwing ideas outta my a** that are by all means already very plausible. So imagine what the manufacturers will do that actually pay ppl to come up with these ideas.


And about the projector? While it may seem like a lot of work, its my guess that anyone that has a projector will completely jump at oleds if they can give them their current screen sizes. I sure as hell know i would. And another thing to consider is that oleds will get that kinda media consumption outta the caves and into the living rooms.


Lastly, about the lcd is good enough argument, you are absolutely right. The benefits of going oled are not glaringly obvious. Devices like the psp vita, tablets and phones are only going that route now primarily cause of battery life. But the long term benefit is whats importnat. Samsung (just an example) knows that no matter how you spin it, fully optimized oled manufacturing will cost less than filly optimized lcd manufacturing. So in say 10 years, they could be spending half of what they typically would have spent making a 55" lcd in making a 55" oled display. And then there are all the other products that oled displays can spawn that will completely blow up the market size that they are currently working with.


eg.


Right now, Samsung(again example) makes oleds for tablets, mobile phones (and even the PSPvita). But with what can be done with oleds, when that tech is in full swing they would be making car windshield transparent HUDs, displays in building windows, in bathroom mirrors, kitchen tabletops, in-frame transparent displays for eyeglasses (Think the modern bluetooth headset that also happens to be sunglasses) .....etc. Things that right now most may not even consider many of what I am saying as necessary but when they become available you will wonder how you went through life without most of them. So oleds may only offer marginal improvements to the end user right now as long as most are concerned and to the best of our knowlege but for the manufacturers? it could potentially blow up their display market size ten fold and then some. If i can think of it? they most definaetly probably can too.


----------



## rogo

"But the long term benefit is whats importnat."


100% correct.


"Samsung (just an example) knows that no matter how you spin it, fully optimized oled manufacturing will cost less than filly optimized lcd manufacturing"


They certainly _hope and expect_ that is correct. They certainly cannot _know_ that and do not know that. There are hundreds of unknowable variables that until the 10G OLED fab is up and running and the 10G LCD fab is in the hands of someone like Samsung the answers are impossible to know.


----------



## specuvestor

Sammy has an 8G LCD fab and planning 8G OLED fab. I would think they know more than we can guesstimate










Rollable or not we are still constrained by our wall size. I would think the average city dweller will not be able to accommodate >80" in display realty.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Using RGB OLEDs vs white OLEDs with colour filters is only going to change the gamut of the display, and give you mis-matched response times and/or lifetimes for each colour. There shouldn't be any other impact on image quality. In many ways, white OLEDs with colour filters are actually better, at least while content still adheres to the BT.709 standard.



You may not realized it but that makes you a LG OLED believer


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> Sammy has an 8G LCD fab and planning 8G OLED fab.



Yes and their 8G OLED pilot fab is ready in 1. Q. 2012, the 8G OLED fab for OLED-TV mass production in 1. Q. 2013:



> Quote:
> Also the goals for OLED-Tv are now clear, SMD starts a V1 Phase1 6th G8 pilot line in the first quarter 2012 to produce 55 inch OLED-Tv panels. The V2 Phase1 G8 OLED-Tv production line will be ready in the first quarter 2013. That means that really cost competitive large OLED-Tv panels from Samsung will be possible in 2013.



http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-...dy-in-q2-2012/


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lorddeff07* /forum/post/21364482
> 
> 
> CRTs were great as long as you weren't going bigger than 29".... LCDs are great as long as you aren't going bigger than 60" cause even though the tech can scale to much larger sizes than that, at that point it starts becoming unpractical especially when you consider how much it would cost to move ship a 80" lcd tv and how hard getting such a display into the every day home can be.



You are getting too far with this. Moving big display is not much different from moving any other big item for the home. The difference is only in perception: people had expectation that TV is an item you buy in shop, haul it home and put in place by yourself. With big TV special help might be needed just like in case of e.g. big sofa. 80" TVs are available now in the US and people manage with them well. Recently I bought 65" with local dimming which means it is quite heavy. Delivered by shipment company to my door, managed to move it and hang on the mount with wife help.


The only problem with big TV is limited space and, again, people perception: it looks to big to them.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes and their 8G OLED pilot fab is ready in 1. Q. 2012, the 8G OLED fab for OLED-TV mass production in 1. Q. 2013:
> 
> http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-...dy-in-q2-2012/



Do note that pilot line is not a fab. AUO also have a G6 pilot line.


Even as I'm optimistic on OLED we have to be realistic. The fat lady sing end Jan with Sammy's capex announcement. Otherwise G8 RAMP is still speculation for now.


----------



## Lorddeff07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21365705
> 
> 
> "But the long term benefit is whats importnat."
> 
> 
> 100% correct.
> 
> 
> "Samsung (just an example) knows that no matter how you spin it, fully optimized oled manufacturing will cost less than filly optimized lcd manufacturing"
> 
> 
> They certainly _hope and expect_ that is correct. They certainly cannot _know_ that and do not know that. There are hundreds of unknowable variables that until the 10G OLED fab is up and running and the 10G LCD fab is in the hands of someone like Samsung the answers are impossible to know.



True, but we at least know what the overall benefits of oled tech are... and of all the potential "future" display techs, its the most feasible right now and the one that the most progress is being made in. As long as oleds can ultimately be cheaper to manufacture, is an overall better performing tech and has a far broader range of application; then our march to an oled display world is inevitable.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21367855
> 
> 
> You are getting too far with this. Moving big display is not much different from moving any other big item for the home. The difference is only in perception: people had expectation that TV is an item you buy in shop, haul it home and put in place by yourself. With big TV special help might be needed just like in case of e.g. big sofa. 80" TVs are available now in the US and people manage with them well. Recently I bought 65" with local dimming which means it is quite heavy. Delivered by shipment company to my door, managed to move it and hang on the mount with wife help.
> 
> 
> The only problem with big TV is limited space and, again, people perception: it looks to big to them.



While what you say is true, its not that simple. I also just recently got a large display that had to be air freighted to where i reside currently. (was actually cheaper doing that than buying from a store here lol). But trust me, the promise of large screen oleds with regard to packaging completely changes a lot of things. It breaks barriers when ppl know that they can get there hands on a 100+" display that will cost no more to ship than a printer or a small center rug.


Lastly, people aren't as mindful of space as you may think. Especially if the device is doing nothing more than taking up wall space. But this is us arguing over some things that are mostly unknown. What i do know though is that at some point everyone thought that a 29" crt was as big as you need to get. Then we got 42" and all of a sudden that isnt nearly big enough anymore. I would like to see what ppl will do if getting a 100" display costs what it costs to get a 40" display today in say 5 years. And is as easy to set up as it is to hang a picture on your wall.


----------



## Lorddeff07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Linda7463* /forum/post/21367858
> 
> 
> This is a great compilation. Thanks.
> 
> 
> That said, home-theater-sized OLEDs are not even contemplated for this decade.





I beg to differ. Home theater sized oleds are one of the biggest benefits of oleds. When lcds came in, there was a literal doubling of display screen sizes. I expect to see the exact same transition with oleds. Home theater set ups has remained pretty much a niche market because of its steep learning curve and complicated nature.... just too many things to juggle to get it right. Manufacturers go where the money is, and they know ppl like bigger displays. If you build it, and it is convenient and affordable... they will come.


I wonder if most here realize that oleds would potentially mark the end of projectors as we know it. Hell, I can see a built to order business model adopted by manufacturers for really large sized displays.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lorddeff07* /forum/post/21367935
> 
> 
> While what you say is true, its not that simple. I also just recently got a large display that had to be air freighted to where i reside currently. (was actually cheaper doing that than buying from a store here lol). But trust me, the promise of large screen oleds with regard to packaging completely changes a lot of things. It breaks barriers when ppl know that they can get there hands on a 100+" display that will cost no more to ship than a printer or a small center rug.
> 
> 
> Lastly, people aren't as mindful of space as you may think. Especially if the device is doing nothing more than taking up wall space. But this is us arguing over some things that are mostly unknown. What i do know though is that at some point everyone thought that a 29" crt was as big as you need to get. Then we got 42" and all of a sudden that isnt nearly big enough anymore. I would like to see what ppl will do if getting a 100" display costs what it costs to get a 40" display today in say 5 years. And is as easy to set up as it is to hang a picture on your wall.




It seems that when considering big displays ppl are concerned not with money but with the 'overwhelming' factor, they do not like big display dominating their main living space. This may change with time so that big display will be a natural part of the space. But still it may not change for most of the population. Take the 80" Sharp LCD which is available in the US and not that expensive. People are not buying it in millions. So thinking that 100" OLED or whatever may become mainstream does not look realistic. In fact the current big displays, say 60"+ are niche market.


----------



## Lorddeff07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21368019
> 
> 
> It seems that when considering big displays ppl are concerned not with money but with the 'overwhelming' factor, they do not like big display dominating their main living space. This may change with time so that big display will be a natural part of the space. But still it may not change for most of the population. Take the 80" Sharp LCD which is available in the US and not that expensive. People are not buying it in millions. So thinking that 100" OLED or whatever may become mainstream does not look realistic. In fact the current big displays, say 60"+ are niche market.




True, but how much of a niche market do you really think these are? And what do you think it means to the manufacturers bottom line? The relationship between these two are what s important.


Oled tech that allows manufacturers make super sized displays 80- 100+" on roll-able material that can be attached to a easy to assemble frame that all comes in a box no more than 1ft x 1ft x 4ft is too big a potential game changer to ignore. Not just to the manufacturer but to the consumer. First of you are looking at a box that will weigh less than a 32" box and cost less to ship than that too and then the end user is looking at potentially much bigger screens that are considerably cheaper. Right now, new oled tech cost around 25% more to make than the established lcd tech. That price is going to go way lower as the tech improves and we wont be spending $5000 for an 80" tv from sharp but as little as $1000.


And that right there is what is most important, ppl aren't not buying 60" tvs cause of the size of their living rooms, its cause for most ppl spending anything above $1500 for a tv is out of the question.


In relation to all this, what cheaper oled tech means is simply that the average tv size for the general consumer will probably go up from 40" to around 60" and then the ppl buying 55" and 60" displays now will be buying 80"+ displays then. While all spending around the same amount of money they are spending now. Look at it this way, as long as ppl are willing to pay $10 to watch a movie at the cinema; then those very ppl won't mind having a 100" tv at home. Especially when one of such ppl is a guy. If you could jump back to the 70s and told then to put in a 60" tv at home they would probably think you were crazy. Here we are right now talking about an 80" display and 100" displays







.


But that is just one half of the equation. What do you think will happen to the projector market? We may say that is another niche market... but the fact is at least its big enough for these companies to actually make projectors and continually invest in R&D and marketing. All that will become obsolete when sony can give you a 140" display for $5000 that you don't have to use in a cave. There will simply be no need to make projectors anymore. As it stands a 10" oled display cost samsung around $300 to make today, that cost will drop by this time next year as yield increases and demand increases. If we do a slight extrapolation here it could potentially cost samsung around $3000 to make a 100" display (most likely less but I ma just using a rough example here). I for certain know that a lot of ppl wil be willing to spend $4000 on a 100" display that will last for over 60k hours than on a $3500 projector that will last for only 5000hrs and is best used in a dark room.


Its things like this that makes me think that the overall potential and the varying ways oled tech can be applied especially when considering what it means to the manufacturers bottom line is what is going to drive the tech forward.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21366981
> 
> 
> Sammy has an 8G LCD fab and planning 8G OLED fab. I would think they know more than we can guesstimate



If you think Samsung actually knows the long-run cost of mass-producing OLED TVs and the long-run minimum cost of LCD TVs you are wrong, Spec. I'm sorry, but it doesn't actually work that way.


First of all, they have no actual idea what their OLED production cost is. They have a lot of models that give them a good range of estimates. But there are variables upon variables that constitute unknowns. If you saw their internal model, and moved every variable from its lowest number to its highest numbers, I suspect what you'd find is that the final, end-state number varies by at least a factor of two -- if not more.


Second of all, they have no 10G fab nor any idea how many Chinese 10G fabs might be built in the second half of the decade. There are more than a few solar companies that can tell you what its like to forecast prices vs. production costs in a world where Chinese producers might suddenly multiply like Tribbles and drive pricing down through several years of improvements, even temporarily pricing below cost.


> Quote:
> Rollable or not we are still constrained by our wall size. I would think the average city dweller will not be able to accommodate >80" in display realty.



The average city dweller cannot accommodate 80" period. I've been to every major U.S. city as well as London, Paris, Helsinki, Jerusalem, Lima, et al. I've been to a lot of apartments in the U.S. in particular. The average U.S. city dweller cannot buy a 60" TV. Can some? Of course. But when we talk "average" or "median", there is simply not a chance that the average city dweller is buying a 60" TV.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA* /forum/post/21367827
> 
> 
> Yes and their 8G OLED pilot fab is ready in 1. Q. 2012, the 8G OLED fab for OLED-TV mass production in 1. Q. 2013:



Samsung's plans are not announced. Third-party speculation at this point. As Spec said, more will be known soon.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21367855
> 
> 
> The only problem with big TV is limited space and, again, people perception: it looks to big to them.



Right. And while some change can occur to the latter that change is minimal to date and likely to be minimal going forward. Changes to the former are nigh impossible.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lorddeff07* /forum/post/21367935
> 
> 
> True, but we at least know what the overall benefits of oled tech are... and of all the potential "future" display techs, its the most feasible right now and the one that the most progress is being made in. As long as oleds can ultimately be cheaper to manufacture, is an overall better performing tech and has a far broader range of application; then our march to an oled display world is inevitable.



I actually believe it's very likely. I don't buy nonsense like a "far broader range of application". LCDs are in a pretty freaking broad range of applications. If you mean _flexible OLEDs_ being usable in other new places, those remain a hypothetical. Nothing Samsung is planning for its new 8G fab has much if anything to do with that. They are designing rigid, LCD-replacement panels.


It's also not currently clear how much better performance OLED is. The power consumption data from mobile is not overwhelming favorable, the image quality is basically comparable to the best LCDs etc. Bottom line is, yes, if it's cheaper to produce, it will slowly but surely displace LCD. That's simple economics. Those of you who see this as a given or known are getting ahead of yourselves. It doesn't mean you are wrong, it means you are reaching a conclusion absent any actual data. I admit that sometimes predicting the future is about that. But sometimes, it's worth remembering that companies like to hype the future, which is what's going on now.


> Quote:
> While what you say is true, its not that simple. I also just recently got a large display that had to be air freighted to where i reside currently. (was actually cheaper doing that than buying from a store here lol). But trust me, the promise of large screen oleds with regard to packaging completely changes a lot of things. It breaks barriers when ppl know that they can get there hands on a 100+" display that will cost no more to ship than a printer or a small center rug.



Absolutely no one is planning on making this happen. I don't know why you think someone is. But no one is. Could this occur in the 2020s? Yes. Will it? Maybe. Do we need rigid OLEDs to catch on first? Perhaps, so maybe that's reason enough to be excited about them. But the logistics of shipping an item you replace maybe once a decade -- or perhaps every 20 years in this case once you buy the be-all-and-end-all TV -- are just not as important as you make them out to be. It doesn't much change the economics of the TV business if they are easier to ship.


> Quote:
> Lastly, people aren't as mindful of space as you may think. Especially if the device is doing nothing more than taking up wall space.



That's just not true. It's actually been studied by manufacturers and found otherwise. There's a reason Samsung devotes the bulk of its capacity to 40-something-inch TVs.


People don't like giant TVs sitting there off. And people don't like giant TVs sitting there on. Do some people? Of course. People in general? No. And across the world, the portion of homes that can even accommodate such a thing is a small fraction anyway. Among the first world, I'd guess that actually, it's not even realistically possible to put an 80" TV in more than 1/4 of homes in a room where TV is currently watched. Rule out the people that have no interest in a TV that big and you can "size" the 80" TV market.



> Quote:
> But this is us arguing over some things that are mostly unknown. What i do know though is that at some point everyone thought that a 29" crt was as big as you need to get.



You mean when there was no HD, when DVD barely existed and when the only large-screen tech in existence was a room-filling projection TV? This is like arguing, "remember when a horse-drawn carriage was all we needed to get?" Needed is the wrong word in both cases. Could is the correct one.


> Quote:
> Then we got 42" and all of a sudden that isnt nearly big enough anymore.



In the U.S., which has the world's largest homes by square footage, the mainstream TV is 46", despite the unbelievable amount of 50" TVs available and the availability of inexpensive 60" TVs. These are what us skeptics call your "inconvenient facts". If everyone wanted your giant TVs, they could have them. Most people do not buy on picture quality, the pricing of the 50s and 60s is more than reasonable, and yet the mainstream size is a 46, which can cost pretty much the same money.


Go figure.


> Quote:
> I would like to see what ppl will do if getting a 100" display costs what it costs to get a 40" display today in say 5 years. And is as easy to set up as it is to hang a picture on your wall.



So there's a 60" Sharp at Costco that runs less than a 46" Samsung they also sell at Costco. I asked the guy in the TV area which sells better. He went over to the screen and told be its about the same. It's just one data point, but...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lorddeff07* /forum/post/21367943
> 
> 
> I beg to differ. Home theater sized oleds are one of the biggest benefits of oleds. When lcds came in, there was a literal doubling of display screen sizes.



False. Accurate description is this: "In the 10 years of the HD era, average TV sizes in the U.S. have very approximately doubled from the mid 20s to the mid 40s." It is worth noting that 50" flat panels were available as early as 2000 or so and I had my first one around 2001.


It is also worth noting that you are very confused about what's happening with OLED. The entirety of the momentum is around 8G fabs, which are ill equipped to make screens larger than the 55" you've heard talked about here. They are not going to allow Samsung to realistically make even a 70" to compete with Sharp's 70" LCD.


> Quote:
> I expect to see the exact same transition with oleds. Home theater set ups has remained pretty much a niche market because of its steep learning curve and complicated nature.... just too many things to juggle to get it right.



Surround sound is a market failure. It will never catch on. 15 years of failure have proved this. Sound bars prove this.


> Quote:
> Manufacturers go where the money is, and they know ppl like bigger displays. If you build it, and it is convenient and affordable... they will come.



And yet all evidence is to the contrary. The evidence is that if you produce inexpensive large screens you will grow the market incrementally for them. Yet what we've learned in 2011 is that the market for 60" screens has grown more than the market for 70" screens and the market for 50" screens has grown more than the market for 60" screens (market data will back that up should you get a chance to see it).


> Quote:
> I wonder if most here realize that oleds would potentially mark the end of projectors as we know it. Hell, I can see a built to order business model adopted by manufacturers for really large sized displays.



First of all, no one cares about the minuscule projector market. Second of all, these "build to order" OLEDs you are dreaming about are 15-20 years away -- if ever.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21368019
> 
> 
> It seems that when considering big displays ppl are concerned not with money but with the 'overwhelming' factor, they do not like big display dominating their main living space. This may change with time so that big display will be a natural part of the space. But still it may not change for most of the population. Take the 80" Sharp LCD which is available in the US and not that expensive. People are not buying it in millions.



No, but they did sell a few thousand and I think they are happy with that.


> Quote:
> So thinking that 100" OLED or whatever may become mainstream does not look realistic. In fact the current big displays, say 60"+ are niche market.



Right, I'm still of the opinion that they'll reach double-digits over the next couple of years for sure, and it's quite possible the 70+ segment will reach 10%.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lorddeff07* /forum/post/21368224
> 
> 
> True, but how much of a niche market do you really think these are? And what do you think it means to the manufacturers bottom line? The relationship between these two are what s important.



I don't know, but Samsung has never produced a model over 60" that has sold more than a low five figures (if that) in LCD. Their OLED fab is not even designed to make 60s. So they can't be very important to Samsung. Sharp went upsized to save their TV business from oblivion. So it mattered a lot to them, because their market share in other sizes had gone to nearly nil.


> Quote:
> Oled tech that allows manufacturers make super sized displays 80- 100+" on roll-able material that can be attached to a easy to assemble frame that all comes in a box no more than 1ft x 1ft x 4ft is too big a potential game changer to ignore.



These comments remind me of a million technology predictions that are certainly hypothetically true, but take decades to reach fruition. No one is working on what you are describing. Could it happen? Maybe. This decade? No.


> Quote:
> Not just to the manufacturer but to the consumer. First of you are looking at a box that will weigh less than a 32" box and cost less to ship than that too and then the end user is looking at potentially much bigger screens that are considerably cheaper.



This is still a real solution to a fake problem. No one is worrying about this.


> Quote:
> Right now, new oled tech cost around 25% more to make than the established lcd tech. That price is going to go way lower as the tech improves and we wont be spending $5000 for an 80" tv from sharp but as little as $1000.



LCD manufacturing is not standing still. One of the main reasons we don't have OLED is that LCD is already cheaper than it was "every going to be" if you look back 5 years ago. And LCD appears headed to be cheaper still. The bar is always moving.


> Quote:
> And that right there is what is most important, ppl aren't not buying 60" tvs cause of the size of their living rooms, its cause for most ppl spending anything above $1500 for a tv is out of the question.



By that logic, everyone that was price indifferent would buy the biggest TV that exists. And they don't. Not even close. Many of my wealthiest friends with the biggest homes own perfectly ordinary-sized TVs despite having autos that run $75,000-$125,000 and more.


> Quote:
> In relation to all this, what cheaper oled tech means is simply that the average tv size for the general consumer will probably go up from 40" to around 60" and then the ppl buying 55" and 60" displays now will be buying 80"+ displays then.



The average TV size will probably hit 50" or so. Your mistake continues to be that you think everyone buying a 55 or 60" TV wants an 80". Samsung evidently disagrees as its designing its OLED fab to make 55" TVs.


> Quote:
> While all spending around the same amount of money they are spending now.



The first several years of OLED TVs will be dramatically more expensive as well.


> Quote:
> Look at it this way, as long as ppl are willing to pay $10 to watch a movie at the cinema; then those very ppl won't mind having a 100" tv at home.



Movie release windows are the issue, not screen sizes. And I go to the movies by the way. I pay the $10 (well $8 thanks to Costco). My wife would allow a 100" TV in our family room exactly never. I'm not even sure we could fit such a thing without thousands of dollars worth of modifications to our space anyway. You have just correlated two almost entirely unrelated facts. I could just as easily say, as long as people are willing to go to Ruth's Chris for a $40 streak, they won't mind having cattle grazing in their yard.


> Quote:
> Especially when one of such ppl is a guy. If you could jump back to the 70s and told then to put in a 60" tv at home they would probably think you were crazy. Here we are right now talking about an 80" display and 100" displays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Here's the thing, when you talk about 60" TVs, most people still think you are crazy. And since most of you are just too young to understand this, the first projection TVs came out in the 1970s (or very early 1980s). They made the 1990s sets look svelte by comparison. The screens were on the order of 60". When the projection TV era later took off, it was centered around 60". There were larger sets.. Far and away the most popular were the sizes in the 50s and 60s... The biggest sizes were a niche then, too.


> Quote:
> But that is just one half of the equation. What do you think will happen to the projector market? We may say that is another niche market... but the fact is at least its big enough for these companies to actually make projectors and continually invest in R&D and marketing.



The home projector market is a niche within a niche. You are talking well under 1% of the U.S. TV market.


> Quote:
> All that will become obsolete when sony can give you a 140" display for $5000 that you don't have to use in a cave.



Sony is not even investing in an OLED fab. But leaving that aside, no one is investing in any kind of OLED production to make that possible. Nor is the market for such a thing very big, even at $5000. Do I want one? Yes.


> Quote:
> There will simply be no need to make projectors anymore.



There is barely any need now.



> Quote:
> As it stands a 10" oled display cost samsung around $300 to make today, that cost will drop by this time next year as yield increases and demand increases. If we do a slight extrapolation here it could potentially cost samsung around $3000 to make a 100" display (most likely less but I ma just using a rough example here).



Cost is a function of area not linear diagonal. A 100" display is about 100x the size of a 10".


> Quote:
> I for certain know that a lot of ppl wil be willing to spend $4000 on a 100" display that will last for over 60k hours than on a $3500 projector that will last for only 5000hrs and is best used in a dark room.



Enough to support an investment in a $6 billion fab?


The 100" OLED that retails for $4000 will not ship until 2020 or so -- if ever. Call me when it does, though. I want one.


> Quote:
> Its things like this that makes me think that the overall potential and the varying ways oled tech can be applied especially when considering what it means to the manufacturers bottom line is what is going to drive the tech forward.



It means billions of outlays in an uncertain economic climate to hope people replace perfectly working TVs for slightly better ones that are a bit larger. It's kind of insane when you think about it.


----------



## mr. wally

while i disagree with some of lorddef's projections, i do subscribe to his basic premise, that we should start seeing oled tv displays in about 5 years that are reasonably affordable.


that part is undeniable. unless there is some glitch in the manufacturing process that cannot be overcome preventing the production of large oled displays, or some patent rights that cannot be secured, oled tvs will be here. i think most of the contrarian posts are arguing over the time line when oled sets will be available for consumer purchase not if.


however, few if any are going to be demanding 115" displays. as the owner of a 50" and 60" i can't imagine the need for a bigger display. not to many people have the room to sit 15-20' from their display, and who would want to watch 115" 6-7' away?


----------



## tvted




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21370456
> 
> 
> and who would want to watch 115" 6-7' away?



puts hand up.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21370456
> 
> 
> i think most of the contrarian posts are arguing over the time line when oled sets will be available for consumer purchase not if.



Correct. I do, however, admit, the most extreme conclusion of my viewpoint is that the investment in OLED TVs could quite literally fall on its face, cost the investors billions and leave LCD as the winner anyway. That's not to say there won't be OLED TVs, but they might not come to dominate because they fail to get to the scale necessary to compete on price with ever-cheaper LCDs. It's worth noting that I actually am not interested in that outcome and would much prefer the opposite.


----------



## HDPeeT

Rogo, I would like to know what you think about this article I read on flatpanelsHD earlier this year:

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1298491831 


The report is displaysearch's 2010 LCD market analysis. I was stunned when I read that monitors still make up the majority of LCD sales and it gave me a little hope that maybe we'll soon see OLED pc monitors.


I have to say I totally agree with you that the PQ benefits of OLED TVs won't be blatantly obvious to your average consumer in comparison to modern LCDs and plasma TVs, at least not in your typical well lit showroom (I would however disagree with you on the form factor benefits, I really think a TV that's as thin as a credit card would blow people away!) But what do you think about OLEDs in comparison to today's modern computer monitors?


It seems to me that there might be a fairly substantial oppurtunity for OLEDs in the PC monitor market. The LCDs monitors we have today certainly haven't made the PQ advances that the TV class LCDs and plasmas have (you can't even get a plasma smaller than 42"). If you think about it, the monitors really kinda suck. I mean, there's no such thing as local dimming in computer monitors, so black levels just plain suck and it seems that whatever LCD tech you choose (TN/IPS/PVA/MVA) you're stuck with horrible compromises in some aspect of PQ.


If I want fast response times and low input lag, I have to choose TN, which have horrible viewing angles and color gradations. If I want good colors, I have to choose IPS, which have horrible response times and/or input lag and black levels that just plain suck! ........and on and on...


OLED has the potential to overcome all of those problems if it can live up to the hype! Perfect blacks, accurate colors, and fast response times! I think we have a winner










I just wanted to get your thoughts.


Thanks.


----------



## rgb32

Here's confirmation that Sony sourced the OLED display modules for the PS Vita from Samsung... (not too shocking)



















Source:
http://pocketnews.cocolog-nifty.com/...a-pch-110.html


----------



## navychop

A 155" diagonal HDTV would be about 11' 3" *wide*. Not exactly home use.


----------



## rgb32

Hmmm... don't think the average consumer would be able to tell the difference?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21371354
> 
> 
> was stunned when I read that monitors still make up the majority of LCD sales and it gave me a little hope that maybe we'll soon see OLED pc monitors.
> 
> 
> I have to say I totally agree with you that the PQ benefits of OLED TVs won't be blatantly obvious to your average consumer in comparison to modern LCDs and plasma TVs, at least not in your typical well lit showroom (I would however disagree with you on the form factor benefits, I really think a TV that's as thin as a credit card would blow people away!) But what do you think about OLEDs in comparison to today's modern computer monitors?
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there might be a fairly substantial oppurtunity for OLEDs in the PC monitor market. The LCDs monitors we have today certainly haven't made the PQ advances that the TV class LCDs and plasmas have (you can't even get a plasma smaller than 42"). If you think about it, the monitors really kinda suck. I mean, there's no such thing as local dimming in computer monitors, so black levels just plain suck and it seems that whatever LCD tech you choose (TN/IPS/PVA/MVA) you're stuck with horrible compromises in some aspect of PQ.
> 
> 
> If I want fast response times and low input lag, I have to choose TN, which have horrible viewing angles and color gradations. If I want good colors, I have to choose IPS, which have horrible response times and/or input lag and black levels that just plain suck! ........and on and on...
> 
> 
> OLED has the potential to overcome all of those problems if it can live up to the hype! Perfect blacks, accurate colors, and fast response times! I think we have a winner



It does seem odd that there isn't a niche market for really good PC monitors. Like why is no one satisfying the gaming market / high-end market with explicit products targeted at fixing what's "broke" with monitors?


That seems like a market failure rather than a "there is no market" issue. I can't believe the R&D would be especially high to build a great PC monitor given what's already been done with TVs and I think there'd be some reason to sell at least hundreds of thousands of said monitors, if not millions.


That said, I am not hearing much excitement about using OLED in PC monitors. At least not initially. The money is being invested to build televisions that will hopefully allow mfrs. to avoid the race to the bottom in TVs. "We have OLED, it's new, it's better, yada yada".


(Incidentally, they are not going to make 55" TVs as thin as a credit card. The rigidity would suck and the benefits would be minimal. I mean could this be done someday? Of course. But I'd expect mainstream models to be thick enough to hold themselves up and that will require some kind of backplane/frame that can span 55" diagonals. You can't do that with just a piece of flat plastic or even metal.)


What you are unlikely to see with OLED is any built-in or mainstream PC displays using it soon because of cost and the need to devote a lot of production capacity to it. I do suppose that if Samsung indeed builds an entire 8G fab and ramps it in 2013, maybe they'll see what you do (and what I agree with) -- that there's an underserved niche here -- and announce a PC monitor to serve it. I wouldn't be surprised in that case if the monitor was something like a 27".


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21371615
> 
> 
> Hmmm... don't think the average consumer would be able to tell the difference?



A real test is to take an iPhone 4s and a Galaxy S II and display the same videos on them (preferably framing the screen to the same size and hiding the phones). Fact is, preferences for the Samsung OLED display over the LCD in Apple's phone are (a) not universal, i.e. not everyone shares said preference and (b) marginal, i.e. even among those who agree it's better, few objective reviewers believe it's very much better.


----------



## specuvestor

@rogo true that there are many variables, as always thats constant in business. My point is that Sammy will know better than both of us if they put the $ where their mouth is. They have not been reckless in R&D past 15 years unlike their competitors.


And we're not saying OLED will rule the world. Please don't create a straw man







We're saying there's room for 1 more display tech that seems viable, and it is ALREADY happening, vs non existent when we debated this 15 months ago.


Just answer this: GLOBAL mean of TV size is now 42" vs 32" some 4 years ago. What do you think it will be in 5/10 years time? As discussed multiple times, psychology has to adopt over time and human will adopt, within the constraints. Current statistics is best predictor of future but it is not perfect










As for DisplaySearch, I distinctively remember they caused LCD market crash 5 years ago when they said capacity built projection is assuming 80% of TV sold in 2010 will be LCD. You should look at the mouths of the investors at the forum







What was unbelievable has become fact.


BTW though there are no plans I've heard of yet, but I think it's inevitable that we'll see OLED monitors by Samsung after we have 10" OLED tablet. As usual they will not be cheap on debut.


As to OLED PQ, if Apple is looking into it then I think it says something.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21371599
> 
> 
> A 155" diagonal HDTV would be about 11' 3" tall. Not exactly home use.



A 11' tall screen would be a 270" diagonal.

155" screen is 135.09" × 75.99" (343.14cm × 193.02cm).

Source; DPI Calculator / PPI Calculator 


I don't own a TV so I use my projector for the little TV watching I do. It is 130" diagonal, about 113.3" × 63.73" (287.79cm × 161.88cm) for the 16:9 portion of the screen. My screen is a 21:9 screen, so it is about 149" x 63" (380 x 160 cm). Never use all the 21:9 screen for TV watching, only DVD/BD movies with a Anamorphic lens.


One reason that I don't have a TV (beside that I seldom watch TV) is that my old TV went bust and I started to watch TV on that screen, and now I can't go back to a smaller size TV.










But we are not talking 155" OLED TV's for the average home, but up to 100" can very well become popular.


Many ways to camouflage a OLED TV that is tin as plastic on the wall when it is not in use.


If the printing OLED technology becomes inexpensive enough for everything from "normal" TV size to huge Cinema screens, I believe that projectors will disappear within ten years after they start to manufacture these.


Technological advantages come much slower than we want. Much of the reason that higher resolution screens have been so slow to emerge is that the Asian manufacturers have been delaying this on purpose.

We should have had HD screens in the -80, the technology was there.


Maybe these British manufacturers of Quantum Dots is too optimistic too;



> Quote:
> 11 Dec 2011
> 
> Television screens that can be rolled up and carried in a pocket are to become a reality using technology developed by British scientists.
> 
> 
> Researchers have developed a new form of light-emitting crystals, known as quantum dots, *which can be used to produce ultra-thin televisions.*
> 
> 
> The tiny crystals, which are 100,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair, *can be printed onto flexible plastic sheets to produce a paper-thin display that can be easily carried around, or even onto wallpaper to create giant room-size screens.*
> 
> 
> The scientists hope the first quantum dot televisions - like current flat-screen TVs, *but with improved colour and thinner displays - will be available in shops by the end of next year. A flexible version is expected to take at least three years to reach the market.*
> 
> 
> Placing quantum dots on top of regular LEDs can also help to produce a more natural coloured light.............
> 
> 
> "As the colours are very bright and need little energy it has generated huge excitement in the electronics industry - the quality of display they can produce will be far superior to LCD televisions."
> 
> Source: The Telegraph





> Quote:
> December 13, 2011
> *Here come the quantum dot TVs and wallpaper*
> 
> 
> A British firm's quantum dot technology will be used for flat screen TVs and flexible screens, according to the company's chief executive.
> 
> 
> The quantum dots will be in use for ultra thin, light flat screen TVs by the end of next year, and, in another three years, will be used in flexible screens rolled up like paper or used as wall coverings.
> 
> 
> The company, Nanoco Group, is reportedly working with Asian electronics companies to bring this technology to market.
> 
> 
> The first products we are expecting to come to market using quantum dots will be the next generation of flat-screen televisions, Nanoco chief executive Michael Edelman has stated.
> 
> 
> Nanoco describes itself as the world leader in the development and manufacture of cadmium-free quantum dots. While quantum dots technology is not new, the scientists at Nanoco are succeeding in their goals toward mass production.
> 
> 
> Earlier this year, the company, announced it successfully produced a 1kg batch of red cadmium-free quantum dots specified by a major Japanese corporation.
> 
> Source: Physorg.com


 Nanoco 


It will probably take more time than they wish for Quantum Dot TV's to be released in any significant numbers. But the manufacturers need to find something new and exciting to keep up the TV sales. 3D TV's have done good in some markets and not so good in other.


Higher resolution combimed with a new type of product will help both 3D TV sales (and 3D quality) and general TV sales.


----------



## Lorddeff07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21370224
> 
> 
> aid....



All I will say is this, you seem to be basing everything you are saying off the now, whereas I am basing my argument on what i see happening in the next 10 years at least. And you can disagree with me all you want, but the fact remains that "something" is going to replace lcds. And that something is most likely going to be oled.


And to assume that lcds have a similar range of applications as oleds is well.... all I will say to that is that again you are basing everything off what you see and know now and what you believe is the norm based off what lcds have and are ding in th market..... I on the other hand (though primarily idealistic) is basing everything on what i know oled as a tech is capable of doing and how it can be applied.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21371970
> 
> 
> @rogo true that there are many variables, as always thats constant in business. My point is that Sammy will know better than both of us if they put the $ where their mouth is. They have not been reckless in R&D past 15 years unlike their competitors.



Fair point and I agree.


> Quote:
> And we're not saying OLED will rule the world. Please don't create a straw man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're saying there's room for 1 more display tech that seems viable, and it is ALREADY happening, vs non existent when we debated this 15 months ago.



It's happening in mobile, yes. It's still non-existent anywhere else so far.


> Quote:
> Just answer this: GLOBAL mean of TV size is now 42" vs 32" some 4 years ago. What do you think it will be in 5/10 years time? As discussed multiple times, psychology has to adopt over time and human will adopt, within the constraints. Current statistics is best predictor of future but it is not perfect



The global mean size of TV in 10 years? 50-55"? I guess where we differ is that it's going to max below 60" whenever that happens. I live in the country with the world's largest domiciles and I've been in enough of them to know how few of them will ever have a 60" TV. When you start talking about mean TV sizes and then you start to include the Japans and Europes of the world, predictions of the mean size of TVs reaching or exceeding 60" are somewhere between absurd and idiotic.


> Quote:
> As for DisplaySearch, I distinctively remember they caused LCD market crash 5 years ago when they said capacity built projection is assuming 80% of TV sold in 2010 will be LCD. You should look at the mouths of the investors at the forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was unbelievable has become fact.



I generally ignore DisplaySearch for predicting the future and pay attention to them only to tell me what has been sold recently.


> Quote:
> BTW though there are no plans I've heard of yet, but I think it's inevitable that we'll see OLED monitors by Samsung after we have 10" OLED tablet. As usual they will not be cheap on debut.



Thing is, the monitor market is primarily 20" units these days. There is no monitor market below 17"... So someone has to commit to it for it to happen. I agree it will.


> Quote:
> As to OLED PQ, if Apple is looking into it then I think it says something.



Strangely, Apple also seems to lack an obsession with making a truly great desktop monitor. The market remains underserved.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lorddeff07* /forum/post/21372197
> 
> 
> All I will say is this, you seem to be basing everything you are saying off the now, whereas I am basing my argument on what i see happening in the next 10 years at least. And you can disagree with me all you want, but the fact remains that "something" is going to replace lcds. And that something is most likely going to be oled.
> 
> 
> And to assume that lcds have a similar range of applications as oleds is well.... all I will say to that is that again you are basing everything off what you see and know now and what you believe is the norm based off what lcds have and are ding in th market..... I on the other hand (though primarily idealistic) is basing everything on what i know oled as a tech is capable of doing and how it can be applied.



In the history of displays, here's the number of technologies that have made it:


1) CRT

2) Plasma

3) LCD


That's in about 100 years.


I know you believe something has to replace LCDs, but there is nothing in history to back this claim up. As I think I've made clear in a number of posts, I believe OLED is coming (the investments from Samsung, Panasonic, Sharp, LG, et al. over the next couple of years should confirm this). But replacing LCD? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.


As for what you believe is possible or inevitable, maybe you can show me the basis for this. I believe smartphones represent a huge step forward in portable telecom, but what's noteworthy is that they are approximately the same size as the Motorola MicroTAC -- the first truly practical portable cell phone. I would argue they are a series of impressive incremental technological improvements and that we are no closer to some screen-covered world now than we were in 2000.


I would also argue that if you want to know when this world of giant screens covering every square inch of the universe is going to materialize, you should look for evidence someone is actually planning on making such a thing. There is no one actively working on commercializing giant OLEDs. The are people working on commercializing TV-sized OLEDs that are going to very much approximate... TVs... in how they look and feel.


While that certainly can change, it's not currently changing. No matter what you say, it's not. And since it's not currently changing, it's very unlikely to change in the "next 10 years". Perhaps the 10 years after that.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21372779
> 
> 
> I guess where we differ is that it's going to max below 60" whenever that happens.
> 
> 
> I generally ignore DisplaySearch for predicting the future and pay attention to them only to tell me what has been sold recently.
> 
> 
> Strangely, Apple also seems to lack an obsession with making a truly great desktop monitor. The market remains underserved.



Yes that's our main difference. My observation is that most city dwellers, in particular the developed ones, can accomodate >60" TV on a wall, even in HK though subjective in Tokyo. It's not going to happen tomorrow but end of this decade is plausible. I am pretty sure the Chinese will get them such that your global mean will exceed 50" within 5 years










The irony is that DisplaySearch was totally right but the world didn't end


Apple was/is a major player in desktop publishing. They established quite a few standard in graphics. Nonetheless if you mean it has not gained mass adoption, then I agree.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21372937
> 
> 
> Yes that's our main difference. My observation is that most city dwellers, in particular the developed ones, can accomodate >60" TV on a wall, even in HK though subjective in Tokyo.



So I haven't been to Tokyo, I've only seen pictures and spoke to people who live that. Therefore, my opinions about Japan are based on extrapolations of living space in places like Manhattan and Europe -- which tend to be larger than those in Japan and yet still small.


I think you are confusing the physical ability to find a space to place a 60" screen on a wall somewhere with the likelihood actual humans will ever do this. I can put a 60" TV in my bathroom, for example, but it's never going to happen.


Where I reside, a lot of new homes have been built over the past 20 years because more money has been made and the older homes were, well, kind of an ugly style of Americana that probably looked data the day the first coat of paint dried. In most of the family rooms, there is no obvious location for a large, flat-panel TV period. These are typically homes of 2000-2500 square feet (so typical for the U.S.).


You seem to underrate existing behavior and architecture as deterrents to behavior change, my pushback is actually this: *People have already had several years to buy bigger TVs, most don't. Why are they suddenly bothering to change their mind next decade?* Is the answer really because the TVs are a little lighter and a little cheaper? Cause I don't buy that for a second. Even if your 60" TV goes to $500 -- which I'm doubting is in the offing as it will reduce industry profits to a pile of nothingness -- I think substantial numbers of people would choose $200 and $300 TVs that were smaller.


> Quote:
> It's not going to happen tomorrow but end of this decade is plausible. I am pretty sure the Chinese will get them such that your global mean will exceed 50" within 5 years



Have you spent time in the new cities in China? The living quarters of the "middle class" are typically Tokyo sized from what I've seen (again, photos, videos, stories only).


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21371119
> 
> 
> Correct. I do, however, admit, the most extreme conclusion of my viewpoint is that the investment in OLED TVs could quite literally fall on its face, cost the investors billions and leave LCD as the winner anyway. That's not to say there won't be OLED TVs, but they might not come to dominate because they fail to get to the scale necessary to compete on price with ever-cheaper LCDs. It's worth noting that I actually am not interested in that outcome and would much prefer the opposite.



agreed that is a possibility



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21371736
> 
> 
> It does seem odd that there isn't a niche market for really good PC monitors. Like why is no one satisfying the gaming market / high-end market with explicit products targeted at fixing what's "broke" with monitors?
> 
> 
> That seems like a market failure rather than a "there is no market" issue. I can't believe the R&D would be especially high to build a great PC monitor given what's already been done with TVs and I think there'd be some reason to sell at least hundreds of thousands of said monitors, if not millions.
> 
> 
> That said, I am not hearing much excitement about using OLED in PC monitors. At least not initially. The money is being invested to build televisions that will hopefully allow mfrs. to avoid the race to the bottom in TVs. "We have OLED, it's new, it's better, yada yada".
> 
> 
> (Incidentally, they are not going to make 55" TVs as thin as a credit card. The rigidity would suck and the benefits would be minimal. I mean could this be done someday? Of course. But I'd expect mainstream models to be thick enough to hold themselves up and that will require some kind of backplane/frame that can span 55" diagonals. You can't do that with just a piece of flat plastic or even metal.)
> 
> 
> What you are unlikely to see with OLED is any built-in or mainstream PC displays using it soon because of cost and the need to devote a lot of production capacity to it. I do suppose that if Samsung indeed builds an entire 8G fab and ramps it in 2013, maybe they'll see what you do (and what I agree with) -- that there's an underserved niche here -- and announce a PC monitor to serve it. I wouldn't be surprised in that case if the monitor was something like a 27".



what about those sony oled monitors previously discussed here. there was a post from a professional designer of some sort saying he bought them for his

biz as they needed very high pq for the work they did. he also said they had a lifetime of 4-5 years which certainly will be an issue if oled tvs can only last that long.


----------



## mr. wally

projecting oled display development more than one year out is pointless as don't forget the

world ends next december per mayan calender.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21376364
> 
> 
> what about those sony oled monitors previously discussed here. there was a post from a professional designer of some sort saying he bought them for his
> 
> biz as they needed very high pq for the work they did. he also said they had a lifetime of 4-5 years which certainly will be an issue if oled tvs can only last that long.



I imagine lifespan on the consumer TVs will be north of 20,000 hours and probably north of 30,000. It's hard to get much above 3500 hours of use on a home TV and most people are around 2000. This doesn't seem like a critical problem so long as there is no apparent burn in.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lorddeff07* /forum/post/21372197
> 
> 
> ...but the fact remains that "something" is going to replace lcds. And that something is most likely going to be oled.



Well, I will agree with Rogo here. There is no universal evidence that OLED will be that much better than LCD or PDP in any number of categories such as PQ, COM, COS, longevity, etc... Right now it is all assumptions.


Also the "I would like a TV as thin as a credit card" idea is sexy, but not practical as one would think.


Given the fact that in the past 6 years that virtually all CRTs have disappeared due to the fact that LCD/PDP have become cheap and available in a wide variety of sizes, all of the low hanging fruit is gone so to speak.


Customers will look at OLED as another "Flat" TV and compare it against LCD/PDP and make judgements, and they will not be flying off the shelves, IMO.


If OLED was ready 5 years ago, I think that you would be right, but now the competition is entrenched and that will take along time to overcome. You also assume that LCD/PDP will stand still during this time, and it wont. Just as PDP started to improve greatly to compete with LCD, both PDP and LCD will up the game.


Lots of reasons why OLED will be a success, but not necessarily a replacement that will crowd LCD/PDP out of the market.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan* /forum/post/21372046
> 
> 
> A 11' tall screen would be a 270" diagonal.
> 
> 155" screen is 135.09" × 75.99" (343.14cm × 193.02cm).....



Yes, thank you for catching my typo. A 155" diagonal would be about 11" 3" WIDE, not tall. It would be about 6' 4" tall. As you stated.


Outside of Fahrenheit 451, I don't think there are many homes that will accommodate that. Think of the WAF.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21371746
> 
> 
> A real test is to take an iPhone 4s and a Galaxy S II and display the same videos on them (preferably framing the screen to the same size and hiding the phones). Fact is, preferences for the Samsung OLED display over the LCD in Apple's phone are (a) not universal, i.e. not everyone shares said preference and (b) marginal, i.e. even among those who agree it's better, few objective reviewers believe it's very much better.










A real test? I think you missed the point... It was sarcasm about the PQ difference between the screens of an original PSP and PSV, not about comparing the latest and greatest smart phones. I wouldn't trade my 4 for a SII... but that's not for OLED vs. LCD reasons.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ I think it is not unexpected and inline with what most perceived, especially under glare. IMHO OLED is plausible because the difference is perceivable by J6P.


@rogo yes some Chinese city housing can be cramped but like I said, Chinese love bragging rights. I'm pretty sure they will squeeze a larger TV (if they can afford it) into a space that most others wouldn't







Like in many things nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised if sale of huge size TV in China exceeds US in 3 years' time.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21376917
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A real test? I think you missed the point... It was sarcasm about the PQ difference between the screens of an original PSP and PSV, not about comparing the latest and greatest smart phones. I wouldn't trade my 4 for a SII... but that's not for OLED vs. LCD reasons.



I don't think I missed the point.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21372790
> 
> 
> In the history of displays, here's the number of technologies that have made it:
> 
> 
> 1) CRT
> 
> 2) Plasma
> 
> 3) LCD
> 
> 
> That's in about 100 years.
> 
> 
> I know you believe something has to replace LCDs, but there is nothing in history to back this claim up. As I think I've made clear in a number of posts, I believe OLED is coming (the investments from Samsung, Panasonic, Sharp, LG, et al. over the next couple of years should confirm this). But replacing LCD? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.



Absolutely agree. LCD is kind of insidious technology which alwasy has a lot of room to go. E.g. LCD is not thin enough comparing to OLED? Solution: use Gorilla glass and it will get thin enough.


Remember couple of ys ago people claiming LCD will never get on plasma in the big size segment? Now the 65"/70"/80" LCDs are in shops and where are the plasmas?


Even in mobile/portable area OLED is still miniscule and it will have even tougher life with the introduction of high density LCDs like the 3K pixels in tablets.


Finally, LCD prices are always going south. Thus, even if OLEDs become viable they will be hard to justify on economy.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21378078
> 
> 
> Absolutely agree. LCD is kind of insidious technology which alwasy has a lot of room to go. E.g. LCD is not thin enough comparing to OLED? Solution: use Gorilla glass and it will get thin enough.



I kind of wonder what the real-world differences are going to be in best-panel thinness. Rumors were Apple had to go a bit thicker on "iPad3" due to needing an extra LED bar. But that's presumably a transient weakness. I tend to think that continuing to make LCD panels thinner is one of those areas of continuous improvement we'll see for several more years.


> Quote:
> Remember couple of ys ago people claiming LCD will never get on plasma in the big size segment? Now the 65"/70"/80" LCDs are in shops and where are the plasmas?



Yep. And we seem to have reports of a 90" Sharp LCD coming next year. Even if we get a big plasma, it will still certainly be smaller. In the meantime, Sharp will have sold a few hundred thousand 70" LCDs this year vs. at most a few thousand plasmas >65". Even I have been guilty of underestimating the progress of LCD, in part because I misjudged the power of the competitive forces.


What drove the 80" was all that fallow 40" capacity. And good for Sharp, right? Turning lead into gold. I certainly hope they follow on with the 90". I'd love to take my wife shopping and say, "This one!" just to see the look on her face.


> Quote:
> Even in mobile/portable area OLED is still miniscule and it will have even tougher life with the introduction of high density LCDs like the 3K pixels in tablets.



Yea, although we'll see in 2012 if Samsung starts pushing their production out to other manufacturers to try to mainstream OLED at least in smartphones. There is chatter of a 500 million-unit smartphone market for 2012; I wonder what portion of that will be OLED.


> Quote:
> Finally, LCD prices are always going south. Thus, even if OLEDs become viable they will be hard to justify on economy.



And the continued production of 650+ million large-size LCDs (10+") per year for the foreseeable future will ensure those economics are in fact realized. Hundreds of thousands of OLEDs will barely push the learning curve for the next few years....


----------



## specuvestor

Sometimes I think you guys expect it to stand on its head and juggle 6 pins







Rome is not built in a day. The first OLED device just came a year and half ago.


So what do u guys define as successful in shipment or % of market? 10m? 1%?


Successful and mass market are 2 different things. 5.1 is successful but not mass market. Similarly despite the contention, Bose is successful.


IMHO it is not exclusive. The 3 tech can coexist. No one needs to die in this western


----------



## Airion

Just some comments about Japan-


It's not all like Tokyo, downtown Tokyo least of all. People in the stereotypical tiny Tokyo apartment are in the minority of the entire Japanese population, and probably lack the money to buy a large screen TV in the first place. Go to an electronics store though, and the 60" and over TVs are the showcase items. I think your typical Japanese household can accommodate 60", and many would get one if not for the price, which is significantly higher than in the US to begin with.


----------



## specuvestor

AFAIK TV everywhere is more expensive than US. Even Taiwan and Korea. 


I'm trying to figure out why and would appreciate if someone can explain this logic.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21378276
> 
> 
> Yea, although we'll see in 2012 if Samsung starts pushing their production out to other manufacturers to try to mainstream OLED at least in smartphones. There is chatter of a 500 million-unit smartphone market for 2012; I wonder what portion of that will be OLED.



I think SMD will likely have capacity for nearly half of the smartphone market in 2012. The move to expand the customer base is happening with companies like Nokia and Motorola introducing models with OLED's in the 4th quarter and HTC rumored to bring back OLED's in the 1st half of 2012.


SMD is still going to need some non-handset markets to take off though. The price premium for OLED's means that it is unlikely that we'll see them in low-end smartphones and that is going to account for a large amount of the unit growth in 2012.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

HTC is Sammy's no 1 competitor in the Android market. I'm not sure if Sammy would sell in volume to them.


Nonetheless 4" "equivalent" capacity is one thing. Actual production is another. It'll be great to have 50m OLED handsets in 2012


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21379795
> 
> 
> HTC is Sammy's no 1 competitor in the Android market. I'm not sure if Sammy would sell in volume to them.
> 
> 
> Nonetheless 4" "equivalent" capacity is one thing. Actual production is another. It'll be great to have 50m OLED handsets in 2012



If the OLED tablet market took off, I could see Samsung maybe tightening supplies to competitors but absent that, they will have a ton of excess capacity.


I know that equivalent capacity doesnt equal actual shipments, but 50 million units seems way way low. I cant imagine that they could be profitable at that kind of utilization number.


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21378393
> 
> 
> Sometimes I think you guys expect it to stand on its head and juggle 6 pins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rome is not built in a day. The first OLED device just came a year and half ago.



Sometimes I think people confuse existence with success. Those are not the same.


> Quote:
> So what do u guys define as successful in shipment or % of market? 10m? 1%?



If OLED TV has 1% of the market, that's an abject failure. If OLED TV gets to 10% of the market and stays there -- a scenario I find unlikely for a number of reasons -- it might or might not be successful. That'd be ~25m units per year, probably spread across 3-4 primary manufacturers. So, I dunno, but it's unlikely anyone would be making money at it. If they were, sure that's successful.


Luxury automobiles is certainly "successful" without being mass market for example. And BMW, Audi and M-B all make money in normal years.


> Quote:
> Successful and mass market are 2 different things. 5.1 is successful but not mass market. Similarly despite the contention, Bose is successful.



Bose is quite successful. No arguing that point. 5.1? I'm less sure. It has almost no market penetration and almost no one makes money selling it. There are lot of companies making speakers so there is certainly economic activity around 5.1, but I think it's fair to call it (a) a mass-market failure (b) a very low profit business.


> Quote:
> IMHO it is not exclusive. The 3 tech can coexist. No one needs to die in this western



They probably will. But if you read the hype here, you could easily get the mistaken impression that the "cheaper, superior OLED is going to wipe all other technology off the planet and soon". I'm not apologizing for combating that perception.


And furthermore, recognizing that the OLED TV push could actually fail -- even though risk of failure does decrease with time and the number of players involved -- isn't based on some claim that it's exclusive.


I'm just tired of reading BS like "OLED will be cheaper, so and so says so". So I write analysis explaining why so and so isn't necessarily understanding things or choosing to be as honest them as I will. If no one wants to read that, they can skip the post.


By the way, here's an interesting forecast from just two months by DisplaySearch, which -- if anything -- tends to overhype new technologies. I will direct you to two things about it.


1) The TV market overall is barely growing.

2) It looks like one technology is more of less dominating the heck out of the others. And while that could change out in the future _it cannot change in the near future_. Those italicized words are not a prediction, they are essentially fact because you can't conjure production facilities like a Harry Potter magical effect.











From the same report as the graph:
_OLED TV is set to debut around late 2012 as a contender in the 40”+ category, but will only grow to about 2.5% of the 40”+ segment by 2015 due to high prices and limited availability. Current projections are for OLED to debut at about 2-3X the price of a high-end LED-backlit LCD TV._


I would more or less call that the "optimistic" scenario. DisplaySearch is in the business of selling reports to people who believe in a better future. They could not, for example, have written: "We believe demand at 2-3x high-end backlit LCDs will be minimal and OLED will register nothing more than a 0.2% market share of the 40+" segment in 2015." That report would not sell. I'm not saying they don't believe what they wrote. I think their report is very plausible.


----------



## navychop

Wow. They're still selling CRTs! I wonder why. Lady at work got a 32" HDTV for a hundred and eighty some dollars on Black Friday.


----------



## 440forpower

Only a phone but wow it's a sweet screen. Bought the Galaxy Nexus today. Only a 4.65 inch screen but I'm doing my part to support OLED. Now bring on the 55 incher.


----------



## specuvestor

@slacker SMD is ALREADY profitable at current production and utilization, or at least that's what the opaque associate profits are saying.


I think 50m OLED handsets is a good number considering that's what people were hoping for iPad2 and it's 1/4 of capacity and smartphone 2011 market size.


Rest of the capacity can go to tablet, Sony and the 55"







My guess is we should see an OLED monitor soon after 10" tablet.


@rogo does 10% OPM at SMD deemed successful or it has to hit Apple's range to be deemed successful?


Yes 3D exists but it's not successful. In fact it will probably exist in most new TV but hardly profit generating.


Anecdotally I doubt speakers are low profit business, from HTiB to soundbar to Bose. I don't think 5.1 is hardly profit generating though it's not mass market.


Funny that your DisplaySearch numbers are right inline with what my projections would be yet you're skeptical and I'm optimistic it will get better










1% would be deemed successful in my books, just as for huge size TV because that's a good START, a sizable beachhead. To get to 10% you need to reach 1%







The difference between u and me is of course u think it'll go 1% and stay there. I think both OLED TV and huge TV will be substantially above 1% market by end of decade.


----------



## rogo

"The difference between u and me is of course u think it'll go 1% and stay there"


No I don't, nor have I said that.


I'm fairly sure _if_ Samsung builds an 8G OLED TV fab and _if_ all the others rumored to follow suit into OLED TV actually do so that OLED TV will exceed 10% by the end of the decade.


Not sure how you are now defining "huge TV", but if you mean 80" and up, then 1% is _approximately_ correct. Could it be 2%? Sure. 3%? Dicier. 5%? No. 10%? _Not even remotely possible_.


If you mean 70" and up, I'm long ago on record as saying that could reach 10% eventually. I see no reason to back off that prediction even though I have *proved* it cannot reach that by the middle of the decade as there will simply be no production capacity from any combination of manufacturers that will make it possible. (Note: It is possible the production capacity could be commissioned in 2012 and online in time for mid decade. As there is no realistic chance of 70"+ demand exceeding 10% of the market from it's current position at 0.1% of the market, there is no reason for anyone to do this.)


Incidentally, if you are telling me Samsung is making 10% operating margin on their OLED production currently, I'd say that's good. I'd say it hardly proves "OLED is a success" on some macro scale, but it's good. I'd question whether Samsung can be trusted on those figures since they are pretty much the sole customer and the manufacturer (even if the divisions are reporting as separate entities, they could shift the profits wherever they wish). I'd also question whether they are breaking out OLED profitability from LCD as they are currently running an interesting scorched-earth policy on LCD which is yielding profit, albeit in tiny quantities across gigantic volumes.


----------



## wco81

I thought SED was completely dead because of that Texas IP firm and Canon. That was 5 years ago, wasn't it?


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm fairly sure if Samsung builds an 8G OLED TV fab and if all the others rumored to follow suit into OLED TV actually do so that OLED TV will exceed 10% by the end of the decade.
> 
> 
> Not sure how you are now defining "huge TV", but if you mean 80" and up, then 1% is approximately correct. Could it be 2%? Sure. 3%? Dicier. 5%? No. 10%? Not even remotely possible.
> 
> 
> If you mean 70" and up, I'm long ago on record as saying that could reach 10% eventually. I see no reason to back off that prediction even though I have proved it cannot reach that by the middle of the decade as there will simply be no production capacity from any combination of manufacturers that will make it possible. (Note: It is possible the production capacity could be commissioned in 2012 and online in time for mid decade. As there is no realistic chance of 70"+ demand exceeding 10% of the market from it's current position at 0.1% of the market, there is no reason for anyone to do this.)



Ok so you're saying 10% OPM is good but not deemed successful. Neither is 10% market share in the coming future? So at what stage are they deemed successful in your books? Is plasma that was half of market and soon 10% considered successful then?


PS Let's keep the definition of huge to 70" as per the 70"+ thread. This definition has the notorious reputation of creeping up through the years


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21383150
> 
> 
> Ok so you're saying 10% OPM is good but not deemed successful.



I'm saying 10% operating margin is good, but that doesn't mean the OLED business is a success. I can make 10% operating margin selling candy to the kids leaving school that walk by my house; doesn't make it a good business. It's successful when it's a good business.



> Quote:
> Neither is 10% market share in the coming future?



If the OLED TV industry captures 10% I doubt any one player will consider their OLED TV business very good -- unless there is one player only. I'd consider the business overall a success, but I doubt any manufacturer will be very excited about it.


> Quote:
> So at what stage are they deemed successful in your books? Is plasma that was half of market and soon 10% considered successful then?



Yes, because there have been years of profits at much higher levels. Even if we listen to DisplaySearch and OLED enters the market at $4000 or so, it has to be around $2000 within the first 24 months to move pretty much any volume at all -- I've demonstrated this. There simply isn't a chance in Hades of 10% of the market paying $4000 for a 55" TV, sorry. Without the early-adopter profits, OLED will have to do better market-share than plasma did to truly be successful.


I also do not believe there is a future in a high-end, niche flat-panel technology business. There has never been such a thing in the past. In fact, strangely PDP has survived long past the "expiration date" of many so-called experts in part because it's been cheap and just high enough volume to capture massive scale economics relative to the production efficiencies that needed to be wrung out.


It is true that OLED will be able to ride the coattails of the production efficiencies generated by tiny OLEDs, but I do not believe that some fundamental law of production economics has been repealed that will allow OLED TVs to exist selling in small quantities. Nor do I accept that OLED will capture 100% of the high-end TV market simply by virtue of being OLED or being expensive.


Let's be crystal clear, if OLED TVs remain 2-3x the price of high-end LCDs, they cannot ever capture 10% of the TV market. High-end LCDs don't capture 10% of the market _today_. The portion of the market that will pay the highest prices will not change over time; the belief that it will is fundamentally at odds with the way the world works.


I would consider a permanent presence of 10% of the market successful; I'm just not sure how OLED can possibly achieve that kind of equilibrium to be honest. I suspect the final share will actually grow over time well beyond that (unless, of course, something causes mfrs. to pull back and the experiment into OLED more or less fails).


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21378458
> 
> 
> AFAIK TV everywhere is more expensive than US. Even Taiwan and Korea.  I'm trying to figure out why and would appreciate if someone can explain this logic.



There are numerous factors summing up to explain this. Some of them:


1. Comparing prices at the exchange rate while internal markets are not working

at it. E.g. in Japan housing prices very high due to the lack of space.


2. These countries have high external trade surplus while the US has deficit. US deficit can be kept due to the role of dollar. In other words dollar is subsidized by the rest of the world.


3. Direct taxation of goods in many countries is much higher than in the US.


4. US market is huge, wealthy, very competitive and best integrated in the world. Compare this e.g. to Europe. They have big free market for goods and common currency but there are still local languages and local differences like in some countries satellite TVs are popular and in others not. This leads to problems like e.g. Sony TV high-end series US model HX929 has three different versions for Europe 920, 923, 925 and its menus have to support about 25 languages.


----------



## 8mile13

Right, US market is huge and wealthy + US is TV crazy.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21383294
> 
> 
> There are numerous factors summing up to explain this. Some of them:
> 
> 
> 1. Comparing prices at the exchange rate while internal markets are not working
> 
> at it. E.g. in Japan housing prices very high due to the lack of space.



Actually Japanese housing markets are only constrained in the larger cities, Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya. Outside of those markets, housing is quite reasonable, in many cases cheaper than allot of US market areas.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21383294
> 
> 
> 2. These countries have high external trade surplus while the US has deficit. US deficit can be kept due to the role of dollar. In other words dollar is subsidized by the rest of the world.



Granted, we used to export things and that is not the case anymore, but the Dollar is going to go away as the standard of world currency, our government is making sure of that.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21383294
> 
> 
> 3. Direct taxation of goods in many countries is much higher than in the US.



Understatement of the year...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21383294
> 
> 
> 4. US market is huge, wealthy, very competitive and best integrated in the world. Compare this e.g. to Europe. They have big free market for goods and common currency but there are still local languages and local differences like in some countries satellite TVs are popular and in others not. This leads to problems like e.g. Sony TV high-end series US model HX929 has three different versions for Europe 920, 923, 925 and its menus have to support about 25 languages.



I would add that there is something that puzzles me about the TV market from Japan. Since 2007 the Dollar has fallen about 25% against the Yen. It has really caused my business to suffer since my parent corp is in Japan, yet TV manufacturers have continued to drop prices in this time frame. Any comments?


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/21383146
> 
> 
> I thought SED was completely dead because of that Texas IP firm and Canon. That was 5 years ago, wasn't it?



Yes, dead. Unless somebody tries to pull out the wooden stake. If they do, we'll shoot them with a silver bullet.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/21385111
> 
> 
> .... but the Dollar is going to go away as the standard of world currency, our government is making sure of that....



Why would our government favor that, since replacing the dollar as the world reserve currency would be such a disaster for us? Trilateral commission?


If that happens, we sure won't be buying many TVs, considering how much more expensive they will become.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21386879
> 
> 
> Why would our government favor that, since replacing the dollar as the world reserve currency would be such a disaster for us? Trilateral commission?



I think his point is that we've been printing money for a decade now (monetary policy, not fiscal policy) and that's led to a long-term erosion in the value of the dollar.


For example, a dollar bought 1.17 euro a decade ago. It buys .76 euro now. 135 yen vs. 78 yen. The picture is similar against other secondary currencies.


Keep in mind that until the U.S. economy improves, the Fed has no real choice here, but it has spent many years of positive growth in "easy money" mode. This has eroded the dollar's value, never mind its effect on inflating the housing bubble, etc.


----------



## Mike Lang

Guys, keep politics out of AVS. Complaint are coming in...


Thanks


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike Lang* /forum/post/21389927
> 
> 
> Guys, keep politics out of AVS. Complaint are coming in...



Noted. I did try hard to use historical fact to answer the question rather than political opinion.










But, noted.


----------



## hughh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/21385111
> 
> 
> 
> I would add that there is something that puzzles me about the TV market from Japan. Since 2007 the Dollar has fallen about 25% against the Yen. It has really caused my business to suffer since my parent corp is in Japan, yet TV manufacturers have continued to drop prices in this time frame. Any comments?



It must be remembered that the biggest players in the TV manufacturing game are huge conglomerates. The TV business is only a portion of the whole enchilada. The reason they are "willing" to stay in the losing game is because the TV business carries a bigger "share" of visibility. i.e., Samsung is one of the largest chip makers in the world, however, they are better known for their TV manufacture. That opens the door for their sale of washers/driers, air cond. etc, worldwide. Just a thought!


----------



## specuvestor

^^ they have no choice if their competitors in Taiwan and Korea are dropping prices. Besides, average price drops of components around 10-25% are expected annually.


The Japanese are certainly not enjoying the price drops. Many of them are suffering or getting out of the business, while Sharp though RELATIVELY better, is also climbing out of a hole.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous factors summing up to explain this. Some of them:
> 
> 
> 1. Comparing prices at the exchange rate while internal markets are not working
> 
> at it. E.g. in Japan housing prices very high due to the lack of space.
> 
> 
> 2. These countries have high external trade surplus while the US has deficit. US deficit can be kept due to the role of dollar. In other words dollar is subsidized by the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 3. Direct taxation of goods in many countries is much higher than in the US.
> 
> 
> 4. US market is huge, wealthy, very competitive and best integrated in the world. Compare this e.g. to Europe. They have big free market for goods and common currency but there are still local languages and local differences like in some countries satellite TVs are popular and in others not. This leads to problems like e.g. Sony TV high-end series US model HX929 has three different versions for Europe 920, 923, 925 and its menus have to support about 25 languages.



1. Not sure what you're saying here. You mean the cost of factors of production is higher? Even if so the question to ask is why the price of Sharp branded TV cheaper in US rather than Asia.


BTW housing is expensive is RELATIVE, considering prices are down 70% in 20 years based on some calculation. And like TNG say, expensive is not uniform even in Tokyo metropolitan, just as in NY.


2. Again I'm not sure what you're saying. Are u saying weaker US$ means weaker TV prices?


3. Direct tax as in value added tax? And how does that explain US TV being cheaper than even the MANUFACTURING countries? Are Mexico TV more expensive than US?


4. I think few would argue that Japanese are wealthy too, but that shouldn't make TV prices cheaper. If it is scale then I should expect China TV to be much cheaper than US in 3 year's time since TV are ALSO manufactured there (while most US TV are made in Mexico)


The only thing I agree is efficiency of the logistics in US. There are also multiple versions of Sharp 70" for different stores and neither do I think OSD is a major cost driver.


In short it is baffling for me that manufacturers wants to compete so aggressively in such pyrrhic victory environment. Korea and Japan do subsidise their exports with higher local prices but even so it doesn't explain the price difference in other Asian countries vs US.


I'm surprised Mike is still around







Have a blessed Christmas everyone!!


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> *LG Display Announces World's Largest OLED TV Panel
> 
> 55" Panel to Advance Popularization of OLED TV Market
> *
> 
> 
> Seoul, Korea (December 26, 2011) - LG Display [NYSE: LPL, KRX: 034220], a leading innovator of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) technology, today announced that it has developed the world's largest 55-inch OLED(Organic Light Emitting Diodes) TV panel. The 55-inch panel is a significant step forward in the popularization of OLED TVs and demonstrates the effective application of AM OLED technology to larger panel sizes at a more cost efficient level.
> 
> 
> "Our objective has always been to actively define and lead emerging display technology markets," said Dr. Sang Beom Han, CEO and Executive Vice President of LG Display. "Although OLED technology is seen as the future of TV display, the technology has been limited to smaller display sizes and by high costs, until now. LG Display's 55-inch OLED TV panel has overcome these barriers."
> 
> 
> Superior Image Quality in an Ultra Thin Design
> 
> LG Display's 55" OLED TV panel produces remarkable image quality with no after image due to its high reaction velocity, as well as high contrast ratio of over 100,000:1 and wider color gamut than that produced by LCD panels.
> 
> 
> OLED, a medium that controls pixels is a departure from LCD panels which utilize liquid crystals. The new technology allows light emitting diodes to self-generate light and features a reaction velocity to electric signals over 1000 times faster than liquid crystal.
> 
> 
> The environmentally conscious will also appreciate LG Display's 55" OLED TV panel. While light sources in backlight units, like LCD panels, must always be kept on, the OLED panel allows diodes to be turned on or off which enables lower power consumption than conventional LCD panels.
> 
> 
> With no need for a special light source, LG Display's 55" OLED TV panel is also able to utilize a simplified structure thinner than that of a pen (5mm), and lighter than LCD panels. The panel's minimalist structure also allows for the realization of unique design elements.
> 
> 
> Advancing the Popularization of OLED TVs
> 
> Although industry watchers anticipate OLED as the future of TV display, to date, the technology has faced challenges due to limitations on the sizes of displays it can be applied to and a high level of investment required. LG Display has successfully addressed these issues with its 55" OLED TV panel.
> 
> 
> The panel adopts an Oxide TFT technology for backplane which is different from a Low Temperature Poly Silicon (LTPS) type generally used in existing small-sized OLED panels. The Oxide TFT type that LG Display utilizes is similar to the existing TFT process, with the simple difference lying in replacing Amorphous Silicon with Oxide. Moreover, the Oxide TFT type produces identical image quality to high performance of LTPS base panels at significantly reduced investment levels.
> 
> 
> Additionally, LG Display uses White OLED (WOLED). WOLED vertically accumulates red, green, and blue diodes. With white color light emitting from the diode, it displays screen information through color layers below the TFT base panel, which leads to a lower error rate, higher productivity, and a clearer Ultra Definition screen via the benefits of small pixels. Further, it is possible to realize identical colors in diverse angles via color information displayed through a thin layer. Lower electricity consumption in web browsing environments for smart TVs is another key strength of WOLED.
> 
> 
> Showing at CES 2012
> 
> The world's first 55" OLED TV panel from LG Display will be made available for showing to select media and customers at a private booth starting on January 9 in Las Vegas through the end of CES 2012. For information regarding a product tour, please contact the individuals listed below.


 http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/25/l...official-comi/


----------



## surap

"_it displays screen information through color layers below the TFT base panel_"


TFT? Isn't that LCD? I'm confused..


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *surap* /forum/post/21401545
> 
> 
> "_it displays screen information through color layers below the TFT base panel_"
> 
> 
> TFT? Isn't that LCD? I'm confused..



For years, I have complained about people referring to LCDs as "TFTs" or "TFT displays". LCDs use TFT technology, but TFT does not mean LCD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_transistor


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *surap* /forum/post/21401545
> 
> 
> "_it displays screen information through color layers below the TFT base panel_"
> 
> 
> TFT? Isn't that LCD? I'm confused..



It's a TFT backplane, yes. Something needs to drive the individual pixels. In the medium term, IGZO TFT backplanes are likely to be the most common method of driving OLED displays.


----------



## surap

Thanks rogo!

So TFT it's a kind of "mesh" that the individual "pixels" are soldered to?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21391446
> 
> 
> 1. Not sure what you're saying here. You mean the cost of factors of production is higher? Even if so the question to ask is why the price of Sharp branded TV cheaper in US rather than Asia.



Macroeconomic problem with local markets. Consider the famous hamburger example: why hamburger prices in MacDonalds differ hugely in various places?

This is same company, identical restaurant, same hamburger recipe yet the prices are wildly different. Why? If you go into detailed pricing components you will notice that these differences are due to local taxation, raw material,

land prices etc.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21391446
> 
> 
> BTW housing is expensive is RELATIVE, considering prices are down 70% in 20 years based on some calculation. And like TNG say, expensive is not uniform even in Tokyo metropolitan, just as in NY..



But there is a problem with lack of space. Generally the price levels in Japan

are much higher.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21391446
> 
> 
> 2. Again I'm not sure what you're saying. Are u saying weaker US$ means weaker TV prices?



No, since dollar is reserve currency you do not see movement of consumer goods reflecting the exchange rate. Even more importantly you do not see

the dollar value reflecting the state of US economy especially the trade deficit.

This indeed may even go to such an extent that weaker dollar means weaker prices since companies have to struggle to get sales for any price.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21391446
> 
> 
> 3. Direct tax as in value added tax? And how does that explain US TV being cheaper than even the MANUFACTURING countries? Are Mexico TV more expensive than US?



I was thinking about developed markets e.g. EUrope. This does not mean that less developed markets are cheaper. But the reason why it is more expensive there are different: luxury (for them) product market there is small and undeveloped, in consequence there have to be much higher overheads. Thoe products there are bought by a class of wealthy people who are not so sensitive to prices.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21391446
> 
> 
> 4. I think few would argue that Japanese are wealthy too, but that shouldn't make TV prices cheaper. If it is scale then I should expect China TV to be much cheaper than US in 3 year's time since TV are ALSO manufactured there (while most US TV are made in Mexico)



From the reasons above it is doubtful this will happen. The TVs which might get cheaper in China may be Walmart type and not the high-end type.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21391446
> 
> 
> The only thing I agree is efficiency of the logistics in US. There are also multiple versions of Sharp 70" for different stores and neither do I think OSD is a major cost driver.



Don't forget this is cut throat business so everything counts.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21391446
> 
> 
> In short it is baffling for me that manufacturers wants to compete so aggressively in such pyrrhic victory environment. Korea and Japan do subsidise their exports with higher local prices but even so it doesn't explain the price difference in other Asian countries vs US.



It explains if you take Asian economies as a whole. Take that these places have no space and resources but people have tremendous drive to live decently and in their collective memories there are times of sweating in rice fields to get the daily bowl. They must have sell their goods abroad almost for any price.


----------



## slacker711

A few interesting points from the LG PR....


1) As rogo notes, there is no release date or price attached. It is possible that they will wait until they have a press conference at CES to announce details but the fact that they are only showing it at a "private booth" makes that seem much less likely.


2) I doubt that this unit will be available in 2012, but if/when it does become feasible, the combination of WOLED and Oxide-TFT should make it substantially cheaper than SMD's RGB approach. The quote from LG touting the fact that they have overcome high costs is a pretty decent sign that this wouldnt be a $10000 television. The capex requirements really should be much lower than building an entire new fab from scratch.


3) The key report that I want to hear from CES about this display is the overall quality. Does WOLED and Oxide-TFT really allow for a display quality on par with RGB OLED's? I think that there is probably a reason that SMD is not taking this approach.


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21402105
> 
> 
> 1) As rogo notes, there is no release date or price attached. It is possible that they will wait until they have a press conference at CES to announce details but the fact that they are only showing it at a "private booth" makes that seem much less likely.



The fact that they don't even give it a product name or model makes me certain that it isn't really a product. LG has a way of hemming and hawing and doing that cultural thing where they don't want to say no... so someone might get them to vaguely hint at it being a product. But I doubt very strongly they'll announce. By the way, LG has shown other stuff at CES behind closed doors in the past and none of it has ever shipped... They also show stuff on the show floor that doesn't ship.


Honestly, our best hope is that this turns into a product for 2013.


> Quote:
> 2) I doubt that this unit will be available in 2012, but if/when it does become feasible, the combination of WOLED and Oxide-TFT should make it substantially cheaper than SMD's RGB approach. The quote from LG touting the fact that they have overcome high costs is a pretty decent sign that this wouldnt be a $10000 television. The capex requirements really should be much lower than building an entire new fab from scratch.



Can you talk about that a bit? I get why it would be cheaper. Obviously, they are experts on color filter patterning for example. But won't they actually build an entire fab to do these displays? Or do you think they can do it inside an LCD fab and make the IGZO backplanes on an existing process, mate them to the OLED layer, use existing color-filter patterning equipment, etc.? It seems like the workflows would be very different such that while a lot of the equipments and processes are similar, the actual line would have to be unique or else things would be a mess.


> Quote:
> 3) The key report that I want to hear from CES about this display is the overall quality. Does WOLED and Oxide-TFT really allow for a display quality on par with RGB OLED's? I think that there is probably a reason that SMD is not taking this approach.



So I doubt I'll get a look at it. I have no "juice" with LG and unless I can find someone to get me an invite, it may not be able to be seen. But just for what it's worth, you won't get a valid report on whether quality is comparable. At best, you will hear from someone who got a few minutes with canned demos on two early prototypes.


I suppose one of the prototypes could be bad, but assuming both are good, I doubt anyone will be actually able to objectively report back something that addresses your longer term question: Can WOLED really compete? As for why Samsung isn't going down the WOLED path, it could be a number of things besides quality. I could speculate on a couple:


1) An outgrowth of their existing operations in the mobile-display arena.

2) Ego

3) They didn't think of doing WOLED


To be honest, no one on earth can actually know if mass-produced WOLED offers 70% of the picture quality of RGB OLED or 98% _since none of either exists for TVs_. If it turns out that it's even 85% and the costs are significantly lower, Samsung has a problem. If it turns out that the costs are more similar and the quality is more similar, it's going to look like much ado about nothing.


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21403583
> 
> 
> To be honest, no one on earth can actually know if mass-produced WOLED offers 70% of the picture quality of RGB OLED or 98% _since none of either exists for TVs_.



Presumably LG's demo of a 55" (W)OLED TV will involve at least one 55" (W)OLED TV, and ditto for Samsung with a 55" RGB OLED TV, so at least one of each exists somewhere (although with LG's OLED track record it is fair to wonder if their demo will merely be an artist's rendition of a 55" (W)OLED TV).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21403819
> 
> 
> Presumably LG's demo of a 55" (W)OLED TV will involve at least one 55" (W)OLED TV, and ditto for Samsung with a 55" RGB OLED TV, so at least one of each exists somewhere (although with LG's OLED track record it is fair to wonder if their demo will merely be an artist's rendition of a 55" (W)OLED TV).



You missed the critical words "mass produced". The picture quality of hand-built prototypes is not telling. I've been attending CES since the 1990s and the gap between the hand-built prototype and the end product is often massive -- in either direction.


And, yes, even if LG has a "working prototype", I'd be suspicious that their demo was somehow faked. They continually bring stuff to CES that never sees the light of day. Showing their OLED in a room where they can keep people at arm's length and limit who even gets a look-see is not a good sign to suggest it's actually close to mass production.


----------



## David_B

I've read back to the begining of December in this thread, and think you've underestimated 1 thing that could make OLED a dominant display tech.


Weight.


Yes, it would be kind of hard to make a large display 60 and above to be light and rigid, but as you point out the real sales are in the sub-50 market right now and for the foreseeable future.


A 50 inch OLED TV on a plastic substrate as light as a picture in a frame would be very very compelling product in a world of 2 person lift glass TVs.


Something like that would completely kill the glass based heavy TV market. I think Samsung understands this and want's to continue to own the lion's share of flat panel, and that's why you won't see them backing down.


----------



## powertoold




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21407287
> 
> 
> I've read back to the begining of December in this thread, and think you've underestimated 1 thing that could make OLED a dominant display tech.
> 
> 
> Weight.



That's true that OLEDs will be very light, but that's also a drawback unless wall-mounting is required. Imagine a 20-30 pound 65" OLED TV on a stand, lol. The wind will blow it over.


LED LCDs are very light too. A 55-60" edge-lit LED LCD is around 30-40 pounds.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21402011
> 
> 
> Macroeconomic problem with local markets. Consider the famous hamburger example: why hamburger prices in MacDonalds differ hugely in various places?
> 
> This is same company, identical restaurant, same hamburger recipe yet the prices are wildly different. Why? If you go into detailed pricing components you will notice that these differences are due to local taxation, raw material,
> 
> land prices etc.
> 
> 
> No, since dollar is reserve currency you do not see movement of consumer goods reflecting the exchange rate. Even more importantly you do not see
> 
> the dollar value reflecting the state of US economy especially the trade deficit.
> 
> This indeed may even go to such an extent that weaker dollar means weaker prices since companies have to struggle to get sales for any price.



I'm not going to go into details on econs but as usual you have good info but for some reason end up with weird interpretation because somehow you can't relate to how it works in real world. In short I think you are likely to be an academic for a career in future










The Big Mac index is an anecdotal measure of purchasing power. With a weaker US$ goods in US should be MORE expensive on PPP basis. Being a reserve currency has benefits, including seniorage and debt/trade payment. But higher purchasing power is not one of them. When the Chinese RMB internationalises in few years time, it will have huge impact on US currency, cost of debt and trade, but not on PPP.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21402011
> 
> 
> But there is a problem with *lack of space*. Generally the price levels in Japan are much higher.
> 
> 
> This indeed may even go to such an extent that weaker dollar means weaker prices since companies have to struggle to get *sales for any price*.
> 
> 
> I was thinking about developed markets e.g. EUrope. This does not mean that less developed markets are cheaper. But the reason why it is more expensive there are different: luxury (for them) product market there is small and undeveloped, in consequence there have to be much higher overheads. Thoe products there are bought by a class of wealthy people who are not so sensitive to prices.
> 
> 
> From the reasons above it is doubtful this will happen. The TVs which might get cheaper in China may be Walmart type and *not the high-end type*.
> 
> 
> Don't forget this is cut throat business so everything counts.
> 
> 
> It explains if you take Asian economies as a whole. Take that these places have no space and resources but people have tremendous drive to live decently and in their collective memories there are times of sweating in rice fields to get the daily bowl. They must have sell their goods abroad almost for *any price*.



On lack of space you should reference to HK, Mexico City or Shanghai city, and explain the price discrepancy with Tokyo. I can tell you TV prices will continue to be higher in Tokyo even as the Japanese population halve in 40 years, and asset prices continue to deflate.


You are missing the point: the TV price in US is cheaper in ALL segments for same brand and model. Maybe you can come back to earth and discuss why Sharp prices in Mexico and Canada is different from US.


Nobody sells their products abroad for ANY price. If true Chinese TVs from Haier and Skyworth would have flooded the overseas market. It is still calculated based on opportunity cost.


The market place is dynamic. It is not true if you sell premium products like Apple or OLED you will not do well, or sell cheap products like netbooks or Geely you will be invincible. It depends on your positioning including size, value proposition and strategic rollouts.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21403583
> 
> 
> But won't they actually build an entire fab to do these displays? Or do you think they can do it inside an LCD fab and make the IGZO backplanes on an existing process, mate them to the OLED layer, use existing color-filter patterning equipment, etc.? It seems like the workflows would be very different such that while a lot of the equipments and processes are similar, the actual line would have to be unique or else things would be a mess.



I am looking at this as two separate issues. It is clear that LTPS backplanes are enormously expensive and that is true whether they are used for LCD's or OLED's. Everything I have read indicates that Oxide-TFT backplanes will be cheaper than LTPS. As for whether they can use an existing a-si fab, isnt that precisely what Sharp is doing with their IGZO LCD production? I believe that they are currently in the process of moving an existing Gen 6 a-si fab over to IGZO.


The second issue would be the patterning, color filters, and all of the related OLED equipment. I dont have a clue about the amount of reuse you could get with the existing LCD equipment. OTOH, the move to a WOLED architecture should significantly reduce the number of manufacturing steps in OLED production versus SMD's RGB approach.


Of course, while the above two steps should reduce prices compared to LTPS RGB OLED's, it is still an open question how they would compare to a-si based LCD's.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21403583
> 
> 
> I suppose one of the prototypes could be bad, but assuming both are good, I doubt anyone will be actually able to objectively report back something that addresses your longer term question: Can WOLED really compete?



I dont really expect anything definitive. I would like to get some first-person comparisons between Samsung and LG and whether one or both manages to truly impress the chosen few. You can also sometimes tell as much by what they leave out of a demo as what they show. The first images of the LG television show very bright colorful pics...we'll see whether they show some more challenging images at CES.


FWIW, I agree that 2012 is very doubtful for LG. Way too many new processes and the fact that they are only showing this behind closed doors gives a pretty good indication that they arent close yet. If anybody comes out with a 55" OLED in 2012, it will be Samsung (and even they will have some new processes as well).


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21407287
> 
> 
> I've read back to the begining of December in this thread, and think you've underestimated 1 thing that could make OLED a dominant display tech.
> 
> 
> Weight.



As usual at AVS, people find some "problem" with the status quo that isn't a problem and determine this will be the key to the future.


How is weight affecting the market for LED-backlit LCDs? It isn't one iota. (It's not hurting heavier plasmas to be honest.)


Consumers will not pay any premium at all for the privilege of having a slightly lighter TV in the living room.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21411446
> 
> 
> Everything I have read indicates that Oxide-TFT backplanes will be cheaper than LTPS.



That seems clear. A ton cheaper? Hard to say, but the industry's bean counters seem to know they will be cheaper.


> Quote:
> As for whether they can use an existing a-si fab, isnt that precisely what Sharp is doing with their IGZO LCD production? I believe that they are currently in the process of moving an existing Gen 6 a-si fab over to IGZO.



They are using the existing fab, but I think that sounds more impressive than it is. I doubt more of anything that's being used to make the backplanes is the same equipment. They are basically retrofitting that portion of the fab with a new backplane-creation area based on IGZO. Still, some of the equipment might be reusable, I'm not sure. Nevertheless, let's say there are some savings.


> Quote:
> The second issue would be the patterning, color filters, and all of the related OLED equipment. I dont have a clue about the amount of reuse you could get with the existing LCD equipment. OTOH, the move to a WOLED architecture should significantly reduce the number of manufacturing steps in OLED production versus SMD's RGB approach.



Right, so if there are fewer steps and they are well-understood, mature steps, this could be a problem for Samsung. It might not be because maybe they'll get good all their fab processes faster than LG on higher volume... But if LG's designs are cheaper to build at scale, that's an issue for Samsung. The very rationale for OLED is not quality, but ultimately cost. "It's eventually going to be cheaper for us than LCD." Well, if one guy's cheaper is cheaper than the other guy's cheaper....


> Quote:
> Of course, while the above two steps should reduce prices compared to LTPS RGB OLED's, it is still an open question how they would compare to a-si based LCD's.



Yeah, and that's the $10 billion question.


> Quote:
> I dont really expect anything definitive. I would like to get some first-person comparisons between Samsung and LG and whether one or both manages to truly impress the chosen few. You can also sometimes tell as much by what they leave out of a demo as what they show. The first images of the LG television show very bright colorful pics...we'll see whether they show some more challenging images at CES.



If they both have prototypes, I'll try to see them. I doubt I'll succeed, but I'll try. Either way, I submit anything shown is too early to answer the interesting question: Can the WOLED compete with the RGB OLED? My gut says, "Maybe". And I bet the prototypes will indicate the same thing. But I feel like they aren't giving us the answer we'll get 6-12 months from now.


> Quote:
> FWIW, I agree that 2012 is very doubtful for LG. Way too many new processes and the fact that they are only showing this behind closed doors gives a pretty good indication that they arent close yet. If anybody comes out with a 55" OLED in 2012, it will be Samsung (and even they will have some new processes as well).



Samsung doesn't sound like a company intending to ship a 55" OLED in 2012. Maybe they are waiting to make a louder splash, but the lack of ripples doesn't sound like someone building excitement around a real product for 2012.


----------



## specuvestor




rogo said:


> The very rationale for OLED is not quality, but ultimately cost.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> I actually disagree on this. The difference is perceivable for J6P.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21411578
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21411476
> 
> 
> The very rationale for OLED is not quality, but ultimately cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually disagree on this. The difference is perceivable for J6P.
Click to expand...


I doubt very much too if OLED can be cost effective over LCD. That would be happening in mobile area already. I think it could be PQ driven: People could accept OLED even if it is slightly pricier but PQ is shocking good.


----------



## slacker711

For anybody who really wants to get into the weeds with regards to IGZO, here is a paper from 2010 that gives some pretty good details on the various backplane technologies.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1468-6996/...1_4_044305.pdf 


One thing that I had not read/noticed before is that IGZO is supposed to allow a simpler pixel circuit. Of course, that is the theory and who knows what LG is doing?


Slacker


----------



## Bigus

Just wanted to throw my worthless anectdotal comments into the thread, for kicks, you know?










I'm now a born again OLED believer. My wife gave me a Samsung Galaxy SII for Christmas which has an AMOLED screen. This is my first direct experience with OLED displays.


Holy crap. Every time I pick up my phone, I'm utterly amazed. This screen is just beautiful. Lower resolution than the iPhone 4 'retina display' but still absolutely blows it away. Blows away every display of any type I've ever viewed, including CRT. Makes my plasma look like a bad cheap LCD. The blacks are just... black. Even in a dark room, I can't see the off pixels. Don't know what the constrast specs are, but they have to be through the roof. The colors are saturated and beautiful. And to think that this tech _also_ happens to allow much, much thinner and lower power consumption displays?


OK, so this post is probably not needed in this thread. And everyone already knows OLED has great specs anyway. And my anectdote means... nothing. But seeing this technology first hand is certainly an eye opener. This technology _will_ be a game changer, both because it has stunning picture quality (meaning it will become dominant over time if cost is even remotely comparable for any reasonable quality product) and because it is low power, thin, and light (meaning it will allow applications not previously possible, maybe seen only in scifi movies).


Enough of an eye opener for me that I probably won't buy another flat panel TV for the next few years as I figure it will be a short lived purchase. And enough that I'm already wishing an acoustically transparent version was possible (I know, I know







) because in a future theater build, I'll probably have to spend a fortune on a pj to not be disgusted every time I watch a movie.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21411578
> 
> 
> I actually disagree on this. The difference is perceivable for J6P.



Sometimes.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21411810
> 
> 
> I doubt very much too if OLED can be cost effective over LCD. That would be happening in mobile area already. I think it could be PQ driven: People could accept OLED even if it is slightly pricier but PQ is shocking good.



The actual reviews from mobile suggest the PQ is not "shocking good".



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bigus* /forum/post/21413295
> 
> 
> Just wanted to throw my worthless anectdotal comments into the thread, for kicks, you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm now a born again OLED believer. My wife gave me a Samsung Galaxy SII for Christmas which has an AMOLED screen. This is my first direct experience with OLED displays.
> 
> 
> Holy crap. Every time I pick up my phone, I'm utterly amazed. This screen is just beautiful. Lower resolution than the iPhone 4 'retina display' but still absolutely blows it away. Blows away every display of any type I've ever viewed, including CRT. Makes my plasma look like a bad cheap LCD. The blacks are just... black. Even in a dark room, I can't see the off pixels. Don't know what the constrast specs are, but they have to be through the roof.



And yet, here's a guy who was blown away. So I urge you all to read the Galaxy S II reviews. From pros. A lot of them like the screen. No review that I've read describes it as leaps and bounds ahead of the iPhone 4S screen. Some do like it better. Some are less sure.


Let's just say it's a better display. A lot better on average? That seems like a reach.


Now, I think Slacker and I have talked about this before (someone and I), but the way they make the iPhone screen and the way they make your LCD TV are not the same. And it might not be realistic ever to make 60" LCD TVs with the same technology. By contrast, it might well be realistic to scale up OLED to 60" and get picture quality that meets or exceeds that of the Galaxy S II.


Here's the problem with that. At the end of the day, whatever that quality gap is between the OLED and the best LCD (and plasma) on the market at the time... It's going to be small. You can already achieve reference color on a $2500 Samsung plasma, 15,000:1 ANSI on a Sharp Elite LCD, full-resolution motion, etc. _And most people don't give a rat's rear end about these things_.


People have traded _down_ in picture quality several times in the HD era for price or the move to flat panels (from big boxy TVs). It defies every trend in consumer electronics, consumerization in general, et al. to believe they are going to trade up in quality if there is *any* price premium at all. For OLED to reach any kind of mass-market penetration, that problem needs a solution.


----------



## gmarceau

Having seen the Galaxy S II and the new iPhone, I have to say that both look similar, although I would give the nod to the Galaxy for picture quality- hence, kind of proving your point, Rogo. I was surprised that the iPhone screen looked as good as it did. I'm guessing they've got an excellent front filter on this thing, because it's an IPS panel, I believe.


The Galaxy, though, in the dark, has just about perfect blacks- although unless there is some major advertising campaign by Samsung and LG teaching J6P(kind of getting sick of that assigned title to the average consumer, haha) about how important black level is, it's a moot point. I kept thinking how my new panny plasma could keep up with the picture on this except for low apl scenes.


I have to believe that there would be a major marketing campaign to get people familiar with OLED. Samsung and LG combined might have to spend an amount into the stratosphere just to get these panels moving through marketing alone. New and improved still sells, that's how they'll achieve the obvious price premium. If they can only make the case for it's importance.


----------



## wco81

How important is black level on a phone?


OLED still has inferior battery life for "web applications."


Might be great for video but it's still a smaller than 5-inch screen.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21414732
> 
> 
> I have to believe that there would be a major marketing campaign to get people familiar with OLED. Samsung and LG combined might have to spend an amount into the stratosphere just to get these panels moving through marketing alone. New and improved still sells, that's how they'll achieve the obvious price premium. If they can only make the case for it's importance.



Thinking about the marketing/branding side....one of the things that will likely help OLED television sales, once the price gets in the ballpark of high-end LCD's, is precisely the fact that they are not LCD's. Walk into your neighbor's house and you arent going to be able to tell whether the Samsung plasma/LCD has perfect blacks or whether it is a low-end version from Wal-Mart.


OTOH, an OLED television should be recognizable and my guess is that the marketing campaigns will set expectations about the fact that it is superior to LCD's. Now, as rogo notes, it might not be a gigantic leap over various high-end LCD models but it should be much better than your average LCD. I dont think it is going to be tough for LG/Samsung to brand OLED's as the superior technology.


Slacker


----------



## rogo

So I don't think there will be an issue selling OLED TVs as "better than LCD". I do think two things are critical, however:


1) *The margin between an OLED TV and the best LCD will be very small in terms of picture quality.* In fact, I believe that a "fixed" Sharp Elite (i.e. the color issue corrected and the pulsing problem solved) would be within 10%-20% of expert reviewers' opinions of whatever OLED comes out. And on some objective measures, it will be equivalent. Keep in mind, that manufacturers have already touted that their displays have 10 million to one contrast for several years...


Also, let's just agree that as a practical matter, the OLEDs we are discussing will ship in 2013. So we are potentially comparing them to TVs that are _two generations_ ahead of where we are now.


2) *While you can charge a price premium for quality, there is an inherent tradeoff between how much of a premium and how many you can sell -- irrespective of quality*. It's helpful again to look at cars. Simply by moving the prices up to $100,000 from $50,000, there is a _dramatic_ drop off in sales. For the price gap, you get features, performance, snob appeal -- and all are readily apparent every time you drive the car, both inside and out.


The current "bar" for the high end is the $3000 Sony 55HX929, which I believe is the priciest 55" TV you can buy, but at least is more or less. It already probably accounts for something like 2-4% of the 55"+ TVs sold. I don't actually know the real fraction, but what I do know is that there are plenty of 55" TVs for


----------



## specuvestor

The key phrase is "perceivable by J6P"


J6P is not bothered by nomenclature like MLL or nits, but they can see a difference under glare, eg under sunlight, or in dark environment. And the eye is most sensitive to contrast. We can argue what does the meter says about the contrast ratio, but proof of the pudding is that J6P can see the difference without a meter.


That's where the value proposition for OLED will be. It will not be price that will kill OLED, that will take care of itself with adoption. It will be that LCD are able to be indistinguishable with OLED in terms of contrast without blooming (which is a big thing if one understand Edge Enhancement technique)


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21416296
> 
> 
> The key phrase is "perceivable by J6P"



I'm just going to assume you haven't seen a Sharp Elite. I'm also going to assume you haven't spent a ton of time with an iPhone sitting next to an AMOLED Samsung. Because in the latter case, the contrast is barely-to-not-at-all perceivable to J6P. And in the former case, I find it well nigh impossible to believe Joe is going to see the difference without a meter.


> Quote:
> J6P is not bothered by nomenclature like MLL or nits, but they can see a difference under glare, eg under sunlight, or in dark environment. And the eye is most sensitive to contrast. We can argue what does the meter says about the contrast ratio, but proof of the pudding is that J6P can see the difference without a meter.



Right.


> Quote:
> That's where the value proposition for OLED will be. It will not be price that will kill OLED, that will take care of itself with adoption. It will be that LCD are able to be indistinguishable with OLED in terms of contrast without blooming (which is a big thing if one understand Edge Enhancement technique)



Right, although I think price is a bigger problem because the adoption --> learning curve --> better pricing --> more adoption virtuous cycle is going to be trickier to manage _than ever_.


----------



## irkuck

I would also add to rogo writings one other aspect of LCD: its flexibility to deal with any competition







. Classical illustration of this are discussions from a couple of ys back: _LCD will never overtake plasma in the big-size segment_. Indeed it was looking so then: LCDs suffered from slow response time and motion trailing. But now we are here and nobody speaks about big size plasmas anymore, those 70 and 80" LCDs are all the rage.


So, if one speaks about OLED PQ beating LCD as an argument for OLED pervailing, one can think LCD can make up for this. There is also possible combination of LCD with OLED locdim backlight which might be ideal solution if one imagines 1000+ OLED zones.


In any case, please note that the 55" OLEDs announced, even if they are real, are at this point TOO SMALL for large segment of connoiseurs and videophiles to be that attractive based on the PQ only. The 65"-90" LCD segment looks much more impressive.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21416816
> 
> 
> But now we are here and nobody speaks about big size plasmas anymore, those 70 and 80" LCDs are all the rage.



RAGE?? Noooooooooooo (with Vader's voice) Huge size is not going to catch on except for a few moneybags with large house











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21416671
> 
> 
> I'm just going to assume you haven't seen a Sharp Elite. I'm also going to assume you haven't spent a ton of time with an iPhone sitting next to an AMOLED Samsung. Because in the latter case, the contrast is barely-to-not-at-all perceivable to J6P. And in the former case, I find it well nigh impossible to believe Joe is going to see the difference without a meter.



I'm just going to assume one of us is biased










Sorry Bigus, it's between the 2 of us for now


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21416816
> 
> 
> I would also add to rogo writings one other aspect of LCD: its flexibility to deal with any competition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Classical illustration of this are discussions from a couple of ys back: _LCD will never overtake plasma in the big-size segment_. Indeed it was looking so then: LCDs suffered from slow response time and motion trailing. But now we are here and nobody speaks about big size plasmas anymore, those 70 and 80" LCDs are all the rage.



Yep, the >65" never materialized. Even if it _does_ at this point, LCD has a leg up: (1) Mass market 70" (2) High-end 70" (3) Mass market 80" and (4) Probable 90".


And we don't bother talking about motion trailing anymore. Response time is also largely a non-issue.


> Quote:
> So, if one speaks about OLED PQ beating LCD as an argument for OLED pervailing, one can think LCD can make up for this. There is also possible combination of LCD with OLED locdim backlight which might be ideal solution if one imagines 1000+ OLED zones.



Certainly possible.


> Quote:
> In any case, please note that the 55" OLEDs announced, even if they are real, are at this point TOO SMALL for large segment of connoiseurs and videophiles to be that attractive based on the PQ only. The 65"-90" LCD segment looks much more impressive.



Another good point. What serious videophile is going to downside to 55" when there are so many good choices -- already -- at 65" and up. And by the time we roll into mid-2013, how big will the choice matrix be then? And how good will those displays be? The very people who would be most likely to overpay for that kind of quality will sneer at the size. Certainly, I'm among them.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21416846
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume one of us is biased



You'd better go and define my "bias" here.


The Sharp has the best ANSI contrast of any consumer display ever. I seriously, seriously wish an OLED luck at appearing dramatically better in a a Best Buy. I think, honestly, it's going to have a tough time appearing better in a way that most people will be sure which one is better -- in terms of contrast.


There comes a serious point of diminishing returns where the distinctions between two things one of which is "superior" to the other are not so obvious. We are already there on contrast. In 2011. Never mind 2013.


----------



## vinnie97

And not to belabor the point, but the new Sharp doesn't resoundingly beat a 3-year-old Plasma in all areas of PQ objectively speaking (yes, yes, the latter being available in 60" max and not available for purchase today). If the will (and investment pipelines) had been there, who knows what may have been. The one giant who was pouring their all into R&D unceremoniously bailed.


----------



## gmarceau

I believe that the 500m has a much better ANSI than the Sharp Elite- by about 30,000:1

this was going off of a D-Nice ANSI test on either that or the 101- can't remember, but it was something like .0005 ft/L for the dark section and 23 ft/L for the white section. I think that works out to 46,000:1 on that test pattern, but even so, you're right, this LCD has beat out what I believe the 9G had achieved, which was something over 9,000:1 (again, sorry if I'm off on this, as I'm going by the old D-Nice review from memory) and that's amazing.


Having seen the new Elite in a partially dimmed section of a MHT store, it looked good, but it didn't look great. They kept playing a loop of the IMAX stuff from The Dark Knight and the blacks were about as black as anything I've seen, but this set did not have the look of the best plasmas. Can't really describe it any better than that. OLED though does have a look closer to plasma, nothing big, just something I sort of noted.


Anyway, I understand your point, rogo, about the importance of where LCD will be by 2013, but, and I think specuvestor has said this, there are so many run of the mill lcds that can't hold a candle to plasma. Just seeing some evaluations between edge lit models(which have worse picture quality on the whole than the old ccfl) and plasma makes it no contest. If panels like the 929 and the Elite make up 3% of the lcd market, then it means that about 97% is mostly worse than plasma and it isn't hard to distinguish that with off angle and even mura that can be seen sometimes in store. This tells me that most large lcds that go for 2k or under are sort of crap and this can be brought to the forefront through a proper marketing campaign.


I'd be more concerned about OLED against plasma, as that seems to be making a comeback in sales.


----------



## David_B

Wait, did I say it was a problem?


As I DID say, given the future CHOICE of walking out with a 46lb box or a 20lb box, and the possibility of using a simple couple of screws in the wall to hang the 15lb TV, there's no doubt in most anyone's mind which TV most people would walk out with.


And you're assuming that OLED will never be price competative, which is also another bad assumption.


How much extra do you suppose Samsung or Sony spends on shipping those huge boxes with very breakable glass in them?


In the end, you're thinking about 1 or 2 issues, not the complete manufacture to warehouse to shipping to pickup to installation path.


I'm almost willing to bet anyone that within 10 years OLED will be almost the ONLY type of TV in sizes greater then 40 inches.


Wait till Samsung makes an in-store dispaly with a handle on top of the new OLED and one on the old LCD TV that let's you lift both. ZERO chance most people won't walk out with the lighter TV, even if it's $100 more.


OLED on a plastic substrate won't be a little lighter, it will be a lot lighter.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21411453
> 
> 
> As usual at AVS, people find some "problem" with the status quo that isn't a problem and determine this will be the key to the future.
> 
> 
> How is weight affecting the market for LED-backlit LCDs? It isn't one iota. (It's not hurting heavier plasmas to be honest.)
> 
> 
> Consumers will not pay any premium at all for the privilege of having a slightly lighter TV in the living room.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21417750
> 
> 
> Wait, did I say it was a problem?
> 
> 
> As I DID say, given the future CHOICE of walking out with a 46lb box or a 20lb box, and the possibility of using a simple couple of screws in the wall to hang the 15lb TV, there's no doubt in most anyone's mind which TV most people would walk out with.
> 
> 
> And you're assuming that OLED will never be price competative, which is also another bad assumption.
> 
> 
> How much extra do you suppose Samsung or Sony spends on shipping those huge boxes with very breakable glass in them?...
> 
> 
> ...I'm almost willing to bet anyone that within 10 years OLED will be almost the ONLY type of TV in sizes greater then 40 inches...
> 
> 
> ...OLED on a plastic substrate won't be a little lighter, it will be a lot lighter.



I agree with _everything_ you've said except for your spelling of popsicle.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/21416914
> 
> 
> (yes, yes, the latter being available in 60" max and not available for purchase today).



Nice strawman! Add that no other plasma to date bested that 2008 PDP either!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21416852
> 
> 
> What serious videophile is going to downside to 55" when there are so many good choices -- already -- at 65" and up. And by the time we roll into mid-2013, how big will the choice matrix be then? And how good will those displays be? The very people who would be most likely to overpay for that kind of quality will sneer at the size. Certainly, I'm among them.



Ha! Thankfully a 55" OLED TV wouldn't be a downsize for me (XBR8)!










Have you had a chance to check out the Sony EL PVMs or BVMs?


----------



## Bigus

lol, I'm obviously excited at having a fantastic looking phone.







Forgive the over-giddyness.


I was comparing my phone to my wife's iPhone the other day, and yes, it looks much better to me in a dark room. Not that the iPhone looks bad... it's a great looking display, but there is a quality to the OLED display that I can't quite put my finger on. Combination of black level and color saturation _at the same time_ I think.


In any case, I was telling my wife how excited I was about this technology, that it had been in slow development for a while, and was describing some of the possible future applications. She asked when we'd see stuff like that show up... I said in at least ten, probably twenty years. So that shows you my perspective on where OLED is right now... looks great, lots of potential, but I don't see store shelves filling up with 60" OLED TV's anytime soon. One day, this will be the only technology people know or care much about.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21417554
> 
> 
> Anyway, I understand your point, rogo, about the importance of where LCD will be by 2013, but, and I think specuvestor has said this, there are so many run of the mill lcds that can't hold a candle to plasma. Just seeing some evaluations between edge lit models(which have worse picture quality on the whole than the old ccfl) and plasma makes it no contest. If panels like the 929 and the Elite make up 3% of the lcd market, then it means that about 97% is mostly worse than plasma and it isn't hard to distinguish that with off angle and even mura that can be seen sometimes in store. This tells me that most large lcds that go for 2k or under are sort of crap and this can be brought to the forefront through a proper marketing campaign.
> 
> 
> I'd be more concerned about OLED against plasma, as that seems to be making a comeback in sales.



So, I don't really disagree with any of that. I just don't think it changes a thing I've said. Yes, they will introduce OLEDs and they will look better against all the mid-market stuff in the store. So? That stuff will be 1/4 to 1/3 the price. That's just not important.


What's important is that by being 3-4x as expensive as that -- and even more expensive than that 3% _creme de la creme_ against which they will look maybe somewhat better but probably not a ton better -- how many can they possibly sell? Not many.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21417750
> 
> 
> Wait, did I say it was a problem?
> 
> 
> As I DID say, given the future CHOICE of walking out with a 46lb box or a 20lb box, and the possibility of using a simple couple of screws in the wall to hang the 15lb TV, there's no doubt in most anyone's mind which TV most people would walk out with.



You are just wrong. No one is going to care. And certainly no one is going to pay extra money. LCDs under-weigh plasmas by a ton right now. Yet, those cheap plasmas move out the door just fine at Costco. No one is like, "gee, I can save me some 20 lbs". And this nonsense that there is an important decision between buying a 45 lb. TV and a 15 lb. TV is ridiculous.


Not only is there doubt in my mind whether people would even care, but if they were advertised with their weights, I'd guess people might pay an extra $10-20 for the lighter one. There simply isn't a chance they'd pay even $100 more.


> Quote:
> And you're assuming that OLED will never be price competative, which is also another bad assumption.



You've obviously not bothered to read the thread, including people who are more expert than I on costs. No one expects OLED TVs to be price competitive _for years_. And here you are concocting a marketing campaign based on the TV's weight -- a selling point which matters the first day _and never again for the decade of ownership_. It'd be like trying to market a car based on how easily the protective film came off.


> Quote:
> How much extra do you suppose Samsung or Sony spends on shipping those huge boxes with very breakable glass in them?



So, this in fact does matter. And the good news is a 40" TV is now in a box that is quite literally less than 1/2 the size it was 5 years ago. Cargo shipping is largely a function of volume and not weight (that's not entirely a truism, but it's most a truism). I picked a random 40" Samsung off of BestBuy and here's what I can tell you about it:


It weighs 31 lbs.

Its 27 x 24 x 3.

Its box is 28 x 47 x 7.


I checked another one and I'd call that representative.


So let's assume that innovation over time takes that down to 25-27 lbs. One box dimension (the 28) is already about as close to the screen as it's ever going to be (the 24). The 47 seems long, except that's partly explained by the stand being placed in that end of the box. Perhaps your OLED can get away with a bit less packaging. Hard to say, it's "waifishness" with either mean it needs a rigid backplane to hold up for years of use (think iPad) or at least a decent amount of packaging to keep it from torquing inside the box.


The thickness of the box is not much dictated by the screen's thickness but by the desire to protect the panel against the box being pierced accidentally and having the screen damaged. Maybe your OLED can take that down an inch, not more.


So, yeah, a thinner, lighter display will have lower logistics costs. That might save $5-10 per display. Not nothing. Not everything, either.


> Quote:
> In the end, you're thinking about 1 or 2 issues, not the complete manufacture to warehouse to shipping to pickup to installation path.



I understand every issue. You're thinking those issues _matter_ when in reality they don't.


> Quote:
> I'm almost willing to bet anyone that within 10 years OLED will be almost the ONLY type of TV in sizes greater then 40 inches.



I'll gladly take that bet. In 2020, the bulk of 40" and up TVs will certainly be LCD.


> Quote:
> Wait till Samsung makes an in-store dispaly with a handle on top of the new OLED and one on the old LCD TV that let's you lift both. ZERO chance most people won't walk out with the lighter TV, even if it's $100 more.



Zero chance people will care. Lifting your TV is not a selling point. People don't lift their TVs. Again, this would be like my car example. But let me make mine actually useful. A Volkswagen and a Lexus on a commercial. A kid smears each with a blueberry pie. The Volkswagen cleans up easier. It's a selling point: "VW, easier to clean". Guess what? No one cares.


> Quote:
> OLED on a plastic substrate won't be a little lighter, it will be a lot lighter.



Which matters in a world of TVs people carry around. If TVs were laptop computers it would matter. It's worth noting that in tablets and phones, OLED is not conveying a weight advantage over LCD.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb 32* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Have you had a chance to check out the Sony EL PVMs or BVMs?



No, I haven't.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bigus* /forum/post/21419693
> 
> 
> lol, I'm obviously excited at having a fantastic looking phone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive the over-giddyness.



Be as giddy as you want to be.










> Quote:
> I was comparing my phone to my wife's iPhone the other day, and yes, it looks much better to me in a dark room. Not that the iPhone looks bad... it's a great looking display, but there is a quality to the OLED display that I can't quite put my finger on. Combination of black level and color saturation _at the same time_ I think.



I think that sense is worth something. Reviewers like the OLED screns too, they just aren't blown away by them.

]


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> I'll gladly take that bet. In 2020, the bulk of 40" and up TVs will certainly be LCD.



It all comes down to whether they can ultimately bring the cost of OLED's down below LCD's. All of the other arguments are window dressing.


Slacker


----------



## slacker711

The WSJ with an article on the 55" OLED from LG. The article states that LG will begin production in 2012 and reach full production in 2013.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj 


Displaysearch is estimating that a 55" OLED will cost $8000 in 2012 dropping to below $4000 by the end of 2013.


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor

LCD itself has inherent limitations. Response time may not be an issue but retina retention on low fps without MCFI still is. Blooming from light leakage (and conversely viewing angle) can still exist even in LD when they share common light source and the backlighting algo is not done to perfection, or what Sharp Elite owners call "pulsing". LCD has come a long way to overcome these limitations but they are inherent to the tech. Pulse based individual emitter display like OLED will resolve these issues, and their own inherent limitations should be relatively easier to overcome as they are not structural.


So it seems to some that there's nothing really interesting at CES 2012. OLED 55" is no big deal and 4K TV is not useful since there's no content yet and you have to sit like 6' to the TV to see the difference. For the record I had thought CES 2011 was a TV flop on 3D emphasis, with Nvidia Tegra 2 stealing the show.


LG and Sammy must be quite out of their mind to invest into OLED rather than LCD in 2012 then. And wait... They are the biggest LCD panel makers in the world!? Talk about billion$ shooting their own foot. Obviously they can't even see that OLED is no big difference to LCD. I would have naively think that these guys know how to differentiate their product lines, than spend billion$ trying out new toys. Sharp obviously have the same naive market segmentation thought with their 10G.


I OTOH am rather excited for the new year. Here's a better 2012 to everyone!!


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21419618
> 
> 
> Nice strawman! Add that no other plasma to date bested that 2008 PDP either!



Not a strawman, just heading off that inevitable argument that would be made by another had I not presented it (and placed it in parentheses to show that it was an aside, not the primary point I was attempting to make







). It's debatable any LCD has bested it either, though the Sharp makes a valiant effort. Maybe 2012 will be the definitive year...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21420700
> 
> 
> The WSJ with an article on the 55" OLED from LG. The article states that LG will begin production in 2012 and reach full production in 2013.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj
> 
> 
> Displaysearch is estimating that a 55" OLED will cost $8000 in 2012 dropping to below $4000 by the end of 2013.



The article is basically a DisplaySearch press release in many ways, but that aside, it's a good overview... The single-most important thing they included is this:
_

"It's hard to imagine OLED will command too much of a premium in the long run," said Paul Semenza, senior vice president at NPD DisplaySearch "They can argue OLED looks so much better, but it's a risky thing to do because LCD keeps improving thanks to those same companies."_


I will say add some analysis however:


(1) There is nothing in LG's track record to lead us to believe that they will deliver in Q3 of this year -- at all. If they do it would be a stunning development. Don't take this wrong; I hope it happens. But this is LG. Delivering anytime in 2013 would be an achievement for them.

(2) $8000? They might sell 5,000 globally for that much money.

(3) Samsung seems to be farther behind LG on delivering a TV? Or if they aren't, they are playing their cards really close to their vest. Also, Samsung sure as heck seemed to suggest that a technique similar to LG's is something they'd consider. Read that any way you want; but I read it as "We are not convinced we can actually mass produce TVs using discrete RGB sub-pixels the way we make little screens. We are certainly going to try, but we are not convinced."


Here's the weasel words:

_Samsung has been working on a factory process that uses the traditional dispersal of the three color materials, though with some refinements. It will initially use that on its OLED-TVs, said Jun Eun-sun, a spokeswoman at Samsung Mobile Display Co., the Samsung affiliate responsible for such components. "But we are not ruling other alternative technologies out," Ms. Jun said.


The development is akin to the emergence of a factory process in the 1990s that allowed the use of LCDs to expand from laptop computers to hang-on-the-wall TVs. The step cut the time required to disperse liquid crystal across a 30-inch screen from five days to five minutes._


Finally, despite the hype of a bunch of "analysts" in Seoul investment banks, the display mfrs. haven't convinced themselves that OLED is automatigically going to become inexpensive to make.
_

Manufacturers have been hoping for a similar breakthrough for OLED screens, which may ultimately prove less costly to make and sell because they don't require lighting, analysts said._


I'm fairly convinced that LG is going to stick with WOLED indefinitely.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21420898
> 
> 
> .
> 
> LG and Sammy must be quite out of their mind to invest into OLED rather than LCD in 2012 then. And wait... They are the biggest LCD panel makers in the world!? Talk about billion$ shooting their own foot. Obviously they can't even see that OLED is no big difference to LCD. I would have naively think that these guys know how to differentiate their product lines, than spend billion$ trying out new toys. Sharp obviously have the same naive market segmentation thought with their 10G.



So they've committed to invest billions then?


And they've never shot themselves in the foot right? The whole 8G-fab race wasn't about an industry building overcapacity that turned panel-making into a profitless venture, right? And the 10G Sharp fab wasn't an overreaction to that race? And that wasn't the very fab you've stated was effectively running at a loss when accounting for its capital costs, right?


Just checking.


----------



## 8mile13

Telling everybody who wants to hear it that there will be 55'' LG OLEDs in the stores by the end of 2012 to gets people's attention, instead 32'' OLEDs might hit the stores http://www.oled-display.net/lg-displ...d-tvs-in-2012/


----------



## Bigus

There is one market that will likely adopt oled early even at a price premium because of the increased performance... medical imaging displays. I'm a radiologist, and display quality matters. For some studies, minimum contrast ratio is FDA mandated. Higher contrast with oled will mean higher potential dynamic range, which aids in thr detection of some subtle lesions.


Radiology groups already pay 10k for mid 20's sized displays. Meeting that price point with oled should be easy unless the FDA approval is the driving cost factor (I dont think it is, just simple supply and demand). If it costs more but is easier on the eyes, could be an easy decision.


Small fraction of the market of course. But sometimes an industry leading the way is necessary.


Im sticking to my 10+ years to gee whiz common applications though.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> I'll gladly take that bet. In 2020, the bulk of 40" and up TVs will certainly be LCD.



Not for Samsung or LG. It makes no sense with the new production technologies like DuPont´s inkjet technology. They can produce OLED cheaper than LCD and if implemented, LCD plants can be used to produce OLED. They don´t need new plants. They can use old LCD plants for OLED production. LCD goes the same way like CCFL as backlight.


That means for example for Samsung: 2012 55" OLED for premium because of limited production, 2013 variety of OLED-TV sizes in one high end series like F9000-Series, and 2014 wider range of sizes and series like G7000, G8000 and G9000...


----------



## ALMA

Background information about LG´s WOLED and new nice pictures:


- lifetime 100.000h

- 50% less power

- no differential aging problem

- cheaper (no need for shadow mask, lower manufacturing cycle time, better production yield)

http://www.oled-display.net/backgrou...tv-technology/


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA* /forum/post/21422289
> 
> 
> Not for Samsung or LG. It makes no sense with the new production technologies like DuPont´s inkjet technology. They can produce OLED cheaper than LCD and if implemented, LCD plants can be used to produce OLED. They don´t need new plants. They can use old LCD plants for OLED production. LCD goes the same way like CCFL as backlight.
> 
> 
> That means for example for Samsung: 2012 55" OLED for premium because of limited production, 2013 variety of OLED-TV sizes in one high end series like F9000-Series, and 2014 wider range of sizes and series like G7000, G8000 and G9000...



I agree that new manufacturing techniques can and will tip things in favor of OLED. Providing control over pixels rather than zones is what will make OLED attractive in the long run. As good as LCDs have become, they do have some inherent disadvantages that require compensatory technologies (e.g. local dimming) that introduce more complexity. If you have a simpler design, one that requires less "parts", and gives a better result, that design is likely to be adopted, particularly if manufacturing cost goes down.


As this and the other OLED thread are speculative in nature, there shouldn't be any reason for rancorous exchanges. We're all speculating here.


And with CES around the corner we're going to get some answers.


Happy New Year to all pixel pundits!


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21420700
> 
> 
> The WSJ with an article on the 55" OLED from LG. The article states that LG will begin production in 2012 and reach full production in 2013.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj
> 
> 
> Displaysearch is estimating that a 55" OLED will cost $8000 in 2012 dropping to below $4000 by the end of 2013.
> 
> 
> Slacker



It will be at least 2015 until OLED can seriously compete, but by that time Sharp will have 4K 70"-90" for less than half. If OLED doesn't go 4K from the beginning, they may find themselves sidelined buy inferior LCD sets that cost much less. OLED may have slightly better PQ, but 95% of the buying public will pick the cheaper set every time.


----------



## rogo

Global sales of 40" LCD in 2013 will be 150 million or so. Global sales of OLED in 2013 will be


----------



## navychop

I hardly think OLED needs to go 4K. Sorry, 4K is a joke, not gonna make it anytime soon, if ever. Not much benefit for screens below 70", eh?


WOLED may be a step, or even a permanent part of the landscape. But it sure does look like OLED is getting out of the home TV starting gate. 2013 should be interesting. 2013. And for looking at, not buying.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21423900
> 
> 
> Absent some evidence that Samsung and LG actually intend to displace their own LCD production on amortized fabs stamping out ridiculously inexpensive LCD TVs, I'll stick with my prediction.



You wont be going on much of a limb with your prediction if you wait until the companies actually announce that they are transitioning their LCD fabs







.


Slacker


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21423938
> 
> 
> I hardly think OLED needs to go 4K. Sorry, 4K is a joke, not gonna make it anytime soon, if ever. Not much benefit for screens below 70", eh?



A joke? Is that why Intel is adding 4K support to its Ivy Bridge CPUs now? Why AMD has doubled HDMI bandwidth on their upcoming graphics cards? Why OSX Lion added support for quad resolution displays? Why Microsoft has specific guidelines on including support for high PPI displays in Windows 8 apps?


There's going to be a 2048x1536 iPad released at some point this year. (264 PPI, well below the iPhone's 330 PPI resolution) We've had high resolution screens available on our phones for more than a year now, 2012 is the year we will finally start seeing high resolution displays at larger sizes, moving computer displays beyond the 100-130 PPI they have been stuck at for a decade now, thanks to rise of HDTV and flat panels. ( IBM being the only real exception )


We are _absolutely_ going to start seeing 4K show up in commercially available HDTVs this year at the high end. If nothing else, 4K is the only way to do passive 3D (which seems to be the way forward for now) at full 1080p resolution and should help reduce the interlacing. I'd be surprised if we ever see active 3D OLED displays. Why compromise the image quality of that kind of display by putting LCDs in front of your eyes?


When the high end LCD TVs are all using 4K panels, OLED will have to match that to compete. And there are benefits to 4K on far smaller displays than 70". Maybe not for video if you sit far away from your screen, but televisions are used for far more than that these days. 1080p _sucks_ when you're using your HDTV hooked up to a PC as a monitor for desktop & game use, rather than just watching TV & Film content. And just like the jump from 720p to 1080p where people were saying you needed at least a 60" TV to see the difference, the people claiming 4K needs a 70" screen will be proven wrong once the displays are on the market, start coming down in price, and are more widely available.



I've said it before, but there are benefits to improved resolution even beyond what many charts/figures posted around the internet claim.


A couple of months back, Toshiba showed off a 2560x1600, 6.1" LCD display , along with a couple of high resolution photographs of it compared with other LCD displays.


Here is that image downsampled considerably:










Now go and stand 10-20ft from your display. (as much as your room allows)

At no point does the 498 PPI image _ever_ start to look like the others.


Once you get far enough away from the screen, the 244 and 132 PPI image start looking pretty similar, but not the 498 PPI one, because the additional resolution has changed the overall weight of the text by allowing for finer lines to be drawn, even if you are far enough away from the screen that you don't see the difference in _detail_.


And to put those numbers in perspective, the average PC monitor is around 100 PPI today.


A 50" 4K LCD display would be 88 PPI.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21424264
> 
> 
> A joke? Is that why Intel is adding 4K support to its Ivy Bridge CPUs now? Why AMD has doubled HDMI bandwidth on their upcoming graphics cards? Why OSX Lion added support for quad resolution displays? Why Microsoft has specific guidelines on including support for high PPI displays in Windows 8 apps?...
> 
> 
> We are _absolutely_ going to start seeing 4K show up in commercially available HDTVs this year at the high end. If nothing else, 4K is the only way to do passive 3D (which seems to be the way forward for now) at full 1080p resolution and should help reduce the interlacing. I'd be surprised if we ever see active 3D OLED displays. Why compromise the image quality of that kind of display by putting LCDs in front of your eyes?...
> 
> 
> ...I've said it before, but there are benefits to improved resolution even beyond what many charts/figures posted around the internet claim.
> 
> 
> A couple of months back, Toshiba showed off a 2560x1600, 6.1" LCD display , along with a couple of high resolution photographs of it compared with other LCD displays.
> 
> 
> Here is that image downsampled considerably:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now go and stand 10-20ft from your display. (as much as your room allows)
> 
> At no point does the 498 PPI image _ever_ start to look like the others.
> 
> 
> Once you get far enough away from the screen, the 244 and 132 PPI image start looking pretty similar, but not the 498 PPI one, because the additional resolution has changed the overall weight of the text by allowing for finer lines to be drawn, even if you are far enough away from the screen that you don't see the difference in _detail_....



All great points. In my opinion 4K panels will be used to make passive 3D truly viable and preferable. I have much preferred RealD 3D in theatres with double stacked 4K digital projectors than theatres using Active Shutter.


And older content can be upconverted to 4K (or near 4K).


Great examples with the characters at different resolutions.


I believe that 4K and OLED are both coming, sooner than later.


Anyway, it doesn't cost anything to speculate about these things, and we'll be getting some interesting info soon.


By the way, I ran across an interesting article on the vertical stacking of LEDs which may parallel what LG apparently is doing with the OLED stacking:
http://personal.cityu.edu.hk/~kwansh...aper/2PSSC.pdf


----------



## MikeBiker

How will the 4K media be delivered? Blu-Ray is not 4K and I don't think that HDMI can handle the bit rates needed. I don't see streaming being a useful method as it already seems to be providing compressed source material.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/21424368
> 
> 
> How will the 4K media be delivered? Blu-Ray is not 4K and I don't think that HDMI can handle the bit rates needed. I don't see streaming being a useful method as it already seems to be providing compressed source material.



Earlier, on another thread I posted an article discussing Sony's apparent ability to compress 4K onto existing BluRay media (vs players that can presently show it). And HDMI 1.4 can carry the content. (Can't presently recall if the latter requires similar compression.) At the least the technology can act as a transition to a 4K future. And sets that upconvert to 4K don't require any new media.


Like I said, we're all speculating until things slip from promise into realization.


Happy New Year!


----------



## coolscan

Sony has announced that they are working on a 4K version of Blu-Ray. If they don't show a prototype version now at CES, for demoing their 4K HT projector, it still might be a year before we hear any much more about it.


RED has a ready 4K playback format with playback machine (Red Ray) and a delivery plan (probably a download format).


A clean 4K source compress and display much better at low bitrates than 2K/HD formats from a 2K source. Hints of 4K at 15-20Mbps for HT formats.


Movie post production people say there are confirmed five manufacturers of 4K TV's that will be released in 2012 (guess that includes the Toshiba but not the Apple TV).


If TV manufacturers starts massproduction of a new TV technology like OLED TV's, and don't skip HD, and goes straight for 4K, they are just plain stupid.


As for all the speculation of how big a marked there is for OLED TV's, don't forget the PC monitor marked. Pretty big marked. Every person who owns a Megapixel camera would love to have a 4K monitor to at least see some more of that Megapixel quality they have captured.

Not just the 2MP out of the 15-20MP in their camera we get now.


----------



## taichi4

All good points.


I just read about the RED 4K technology today while hunting for the Sony article.


Interesting about the confirmation of five manufacturers.


----------



## HDPeeT

HDGuru just posted LG's US press release for their 55" OLED:

http://hdguru.com/us-version-of-lgs-...t-photos/6945/ 


It's tough to make a judgement about the design since they don't show it from the side/back, but the super thin bezel in the photo is stunning.


They actually provide a model number this time.


55EM9600











What stood out to me was the contrast ratio, 100,000,000:1 vs. 100,000:1 in the Korean press release. The 100,000:1 figure actually sounded a bit low to me. If I recall, the 15EL9500 (the 15" model they were selling) was listed as 10,000,000:1. Either way it's all marketing fluff but if the pixels can be fully shut off with actual content on the screen (and I have no reason to think they can't), I would expect LG could get an astronomical contrast ratio measurement.


----------



## sytech

Wow nice picture on that OLED display. Looks like it would be a great computer monitor. I am amazed at how small a 55" displays looks now days, when just 5 years ago people where adding them to their "home theater". I hope the OLED tech advances to larger sizes and cheaper prices fast enough to not get sidelined. Still think they will be no more than limited run or vaporware for at least another 2-3 years. I think Apple has narrowed it down to LG 55" OLED or the Sharp 70" 4K for the AppleTV next year, so I guess they will go with the company the can mass produce them the quickest.


----------



## rogo

I seriously hope the go-to-market design avoids jackass decisions like making it 4mm thin for no benefit but requiring a dumbass external box. A 1-inch thin TV with no external box is pretty much infinitely superior.


----------



## HDPeeT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21425368
> 
> 
> I seriously hope the go-to-market design avoids jackass decisions like making it 4mm thin for no benefit but requiring a dumbass external box. A 1-inch thin TV with no external box is pretty much infinitely superior.



Why are external boxes inferior?


You wrote a couple pages back that they had failed in the market, but I honestly can't remember ever seeing one in stores. I mean, I'm not trying to argue the point, I just don't recall any mass produced TVs with external boxes besides the uber high-end Runco/B&O stuff.


Couldn't an external box actually simplify wall mounting if you could have all your sources connected to the box and only have to route 1 cable through the wall?


What did you think of the 31" that LG showed at CES last year? I thought it was pretty damned sleek!


----------



## FitzRoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21424264
> 
> 
> A joke? Is that why Intel is adding 4K support to its Ivy Bridge CPUs now? Why AMD has doubled HDMI bandwidth on their upcoming graphics cards? Why OSX Lion added support for quad resolution displays? Why Microsoft has specific guidelines on including support for high PPI displays in Windows 8 apps?



You know what else is supported and yet hardly anyone uses because human biology has limits? Deep color. DVD audio. LCD has irresolvable shortcomings in contrast, viewing angles, and response time. That's why they're looking to push 4k and 3d and fake 120+hz, because it's all the marketing ammunition they have left. OLED is a real, dramatic improvement. The LCD gimmickry we continue to get every year is not. Even 4k on OLED would be a joke. Not only are the bandwidth costs incurred by 4k content unjustifiable, game consoles and broadcasters are nowhere near prepared to deliver such content. Also, what makes you think that Blu-ray can even have a successor when most people are still favoring DVDs? If we couldn't convince them to dump DVD for Blu-ray, how does throwing more pixels at people watching 8 feet away win out? The whole thing is obviously going to fail and drives up costs unnecessarily.


Now, you could argue that 4k might see some niche value for PC desktop users who demand lots of real estate. Maybe they use CAD. Maybe they're doctors or stock brokers wanting 20 large windows visible at once. But it's hardly going to light the general consumer realm on fire.


----------



## KLee

To more pix......seems to be ultra thin (4mm) and light (7.5 Kg):












http://imgur.com/vL4e2.jpg%5B/IMG%5D


http://www.theverge.com/ces/2012/1/1...medium=twitter


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FitzRoy* /forum/post/21425417
> 
> 
> You know what else is supported and yet hardly anyone uses because human biology has limits? Deep color. DVD audio. LCD has irresolvable shortcomings in contrast, viewing angles, and response time. That's why they're looking to push 4k and 3d and fake 120+hz, because it's all the marketing ammunition they have left. OLED is a real, dramatic improvement. The LCD gimmickry we continue to get every year is not. Even 4k on OLED would be a joke. Not only are the bandwidth costs incurred by 4k content unjustifiable, game consoles and broadcasters are nowhere near prepared to deliver such content. Also, what makes you think that Blu-ray can even have a successor when most people are still favoring DVDs? If we couldn't convince them to dump DVD for Blu-ray, how does throwing more pixels at people watching 8 feet away win out? The whole thing is obviously going to fail and drives up costs unnecessarily.
> 
> 
> Now, you could argue that 4k might see some niche value for PC desktop users who demand lots of real estate. Maybe they use CAD. Maybe they're doctors or stock brokers wanting 20 large windows visible at once. But it's hardly going to light the general consumer realm on fire.



4K from a strictly resolution stand point might be unnecessary on sets below 50", but there are many reasons it is coming. Passive 3D is the most prevalent. Next, it is becoming necessary on larger sets like Sharp's 80" and 90" and Panasonic's 153" and 103" as well. While there is not currently a lot of native 4K content, it will future proof your set when the change does come. Computer games will soon have 4k options and the resolution is being pushed by Apple as well. Finally, marketing will also play a part. They will use it to point out their sets have 4 times the resolution of any OLED set on the market. OLED may be the future, but unless they are able to mass produce larger sizes, cheaper and at 4K resolution, cheap large screen 4K LCD sets may keep them from ever taking off. I guess we will see at CES if LG or Samsung make any official announcement about availability, quantity and price.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21425368
> 
> 
> I seriously hope the go-to-market design avoids jackass decisions like making it 4mm thin for no benefit but requiring a dumbass external box. A 1-inch thin TV with no external box is pretty much infinitely superior.



Unless you plan on wall-mounting it, which most people buying a 4mm thin TV would be doing. It means you only have to deal with putting one cable in the wall, and not worrying about adding/changing connected equipment, rather than either putting a lot of cabling in the wall, or having a big headache down the line.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21425387
> 
> 
> You wrote a couple pages back that they had failed in the market, but I honestly can't remember ever seeing one in stores. I mean, I'm not trying to argue the point, I just don't recall any mass produced TVs with external boxes besides the uber high-end Runco/B&O stuff.



It may just be a European thing, but Pioneer displays, including the Kuros, have had optional external boxes. I think some earlier flat panels did this too, but that was before flat panels were thin and light enough that it was trivial to wall-mount them, in which case it becomes a nuisance.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FitzRoy* /forum/post/21425417
> 
> 
> You know what else is supported and yet hardly anyone uses because human biology has limits? Deep color.



Most high end Blu-ray players support Deep color. The problem is not human biology (it has been shown that 10-bit is necessary for the majority of people, and 12-bit for the outliers) but rather than most displays on the market are not capable of showing smooth gradation with an 8-bit source, so the extra precision is wasted on them. It's really only worthwhile with high end LCD displays and LCoS projectors.


And the lack of Deep Color native sources? That's a bandwidth problem.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FitzRoy* /forum/post/21425417
> 
> 
> LCD has irresolvable shortcomings in contrast, viewing angles, and response time. That's why they're looking to push 4k and 3d and fake 120+hz, because it's all the marketing ammunition they have left. OLED is a real, dramatic improvement.



OLED will certainly be an improvement, but I am surprisingly happy with my local-dimming LED backlit UV2A LCD. It's the one display after trying all the other high-end LCDs for years, and Kuros, before it, that has finally replaced my CRTs. I no longer feel like I need to rush out and pay a premium for OLEDwhich I was prepared to do. If LG had released their 31" OLED set last year, or if Sony's broadcast monitors were released a year earlier, I would have replaced my 24" CRT with one. Image quality was far more important to me than size. (if size mattered above all, I would have bought a projector rather than a flat panel)


Motion interpolation is not a joke. It is on the low-end sets where it makes everything look sped up, and unnaturally fluid, but the better implementations smooth out judder with a minimum amount of artefacts and without giving the "soap opera" look. 24p is borderline unwatchable to me now _without_ interpolation. On a display with good motion handling capabilities (CRT at 48/72Hz, OLED) 24p judder is unbearable.


LG's first OLED screen already used 120Hz interpolation, and I expect that most OLED displays will include the option. The better a display is with motion, the worse plain 24p looks.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FitzRoy* /forum/post/21425417
> 
> 
> Even 4k on OLED would be a joke. Not only are the bandwidth costs incurred by 4k content unjustifiable, game consoles and broadcasters are nowhere near prepared to deliver such content.



Who cares about broadcast or games consoles? PC gamers have been playing at double the resolution of 1080p for years now. (2560x1600 is 4MP compared to 1080p's 2MP)


Broadcast isn't even 1080p yet, I don't know why anyone would count on them for video quality. (or quality contentI cut the cord years ago)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FitzRoy* /forum/post/21425417
> 
> 
> Also, what makes you think that Blu-ray can even have a successor when most people are still favoring DVDs? If we couldn't convince them to dump DVD for Blu-ray, how does throwing more pixels at people watching 8 feet away win out? The whole thing is obviously going to fail and drives up costs unnecessarily.



A large number of Blu-rays are mastered from 4K scans, it wouldn't cost anything extra if it's possible for 4K video to be released on Blu-ray. At most, you would need a new player.


The reason DVD is still popular is price and convenience. I have to buy the "double play" version of any Blu-rays I give as a gift, because most people only have a Blu-ray player hooked up to their main TV, and not the TV in the bedroom, on their laptop etc.


The people buying OLED TVs, and/or 4K displays (at least initially) are the kind of people that will be seeking out content. They aren't going to be mass-market devices the same way that all buy the cheapest no-name TVs are 1080p now.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FitzRoy* /forum/post/21425417
> 
> 
> Now, you could argue that 4k might see some niche value for PC desktop users who demand lots of real estate. Maybe they use CAD. Maybe they're doctors or stock brokers wanting 20 large windows visible at once. But it's hardly going to light the general consumer realm on fire.



Resolution is not necessarily about more real estate. As I mentioned in my post, both Mac OS X Lion, and Windows 8 have built-in support for high PPI displays. That means you have the option of leaving screen real-estate the same, but drastically improving text and image quality. With 4K displays, you will finally see more than 2MP of the 8-24MP that modern digital cameras shoot.


A 50" 4K display is still not meeting the resolution of even the cheapest PC monitors you can buy today.


----------



## sytech

I am still waiting for those 32″ LG OLED sets from the 2008 CES. Any minute now. LOL

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/24/l...d-tvs-in-2011/ 


So if prior history is any guide, we should see the 55" sets sometime around 2015.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21426197
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for those 32″ LG OLED sets from the 2008 CES. Any minute now. LOL
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/24/l...d-tvs-in-2011/
> 
> 
> So if prior history is any guide, we should see the 55" sets sometime around 2015.



Of course, in this speculative thread, you may be right. But the 2008 Engadget article appears to be a lot less specific and definitive than what's coming out now about the 55 inch.


I'm still betting it's real. In any event we're nearing the point where people will have to show their cards.


----------



## ferro

The 31" OLED display that LG showcased at IFA in 2010 did not materialize into a real product, so I do not have much hope for this 55" version. On the other hand, the fact that we have a model number now (55EM9600) and the fact that this model has apparently gone through some Wi-Fi certification (no need to do that for a tech demo), makes me slightly less pessimistic. Maybe we can actually buy a 55" OLED this year? Hope we get some good news from CES!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21425387
> 
> 
> Why are external boxes inferior?
> 
> 
> You wrote a couple pages back that they had failed in the market, but I honestly can't remember ever seeing one in stores. I mean, I'm not trying to argue the point, I just don't recall any mass produced TVs with external boxes besides the uber high-end Runco/B&O stuff.
> 
> 
> Couldn't an external box actually simplify wall mounting if you could have all your sources connected to the box and only have to route 1 cable through the wall?
> 
> 
> What did you think of the 31" that LG showed at CES last year? I thought it was pretty damned sleek!



There have been several external-box designs. Sharp has made them. Pioneer has made them. Panasonic has at least done a variant on the theme (perhaps a true, discrete box). Customers have _universally_ hated them -- which is why they are gone. They don't simplify anything, ok? For every installation they simplify, they add a box to the other 10.


Nearly no one wall mounts 31" TVs. Few people wall mount 55" TVs by the way.


The only reason they are even showing off this design is to keep the TV stupid thin, which provides no actual benefit -- unless you consider a TV without actual rigidity to be beneficial (I don't). Breakability under normal contact is not a selling feature.


People who like these designs are the kind of people who carry those spare plug-in battery packs for their cell phone in the name of "portability".


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21426132
> 
> 
> Unless you plan on wall-mounting it, which most people buying a 4mm thin TV would be doing.



Most people do not wall mount. If they did, TV manufacturers would stop included a "free" tabletop stand with every flat panel.



> Quote:
> It means you only have to deal with putting one cable in the wall, and not worrying about adding/changing connected equipment, rather than either putting a lot of cabling in the wall, or having a big headache down the line.



Less than 1% of flat panels have a cable run through the wall.


> Quote:
> It may just be a European thing, but Pioneer displays, including the Kuros, have had optional external boxes.



Consumer feedback on external boxes was horrendously negative. That's why they are gone.


> Quote:
> A large number of Blu-rays are mastered from 4K scans, it wouldn't cost anything extra if it's possible for 4K video to be released on Blu-ray. At most, you would need a new player.



If you bit-starve the data rate to get 4k resolution, you've achieved nothing. Unless you go to quad-layer discs, 50GB 4k BluRays are not going to be very impressive sources. Sorry.


> Quote:
> Resolution is not necessarily about more real estate. As I mentioned in my post, both Mac OS X Lion, and Windows 8 have built-in support for high PPI displays. That means you have the option of leaving screen real-estate the same, but drastically improving text and image quality. With 4K displays, you will finally see more than 2MP of the 8-24MP that modern digital cameras shoot.



You had me until here. There is no benefit to a 12MP digital camera image for about 99.9% of photographers. Why do I need to see those pixels ever when they are (a) pointless (b) not reproduced on any medium my photos are ever seen on (c) only there for marketing, not for image quality. And having a better monitor to see them doesn't change any of that. A really great 8MP sensor > all the mass-market 14MP sensors available on any sub $1000 camera in the world.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> The only reason they are even showing off this design is to keep the TV stupid thin, which provides no actual benefit --



The mistake you are making is analyzing this model in terms of potential sales. They would be a nice bonus but the primary goals are proving out the manufacturing processes and bringing attention to OLED televisions. A 4mm thick television does that a lot better than a 1" television.


This is still a glorified r&d model that will just happen to go on sale to consumers. If manucturing were to go smoothly, they would ramp capacity and there would be no reason that they wouldn't offer multiple models to fit consumer needs.


Slacker


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21427044
> 
> 
> You had me until here. There is no benefit to a 12MP digital camera image for about 99.9% of photographers. Why do I need to see those pixels ever when they are (a) pointless



Please explain how the extra resolution is "pointless."



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21427044
> 
> 
> (b) not reproduced on any medium my photos are ever seen on



Photo quality printing _starts_ at 300 DPI. With a 12MP camera, you can only go as large as 8x10" and that's assuming you framed your shot perfectly, without having to throw away resolution from cropping and straightening your photo. (even the pros need to do this)


Because of bayer filtering, with anything but a Sigma camera, you ideally want to shoot with at least double the resolution of your final output for optimal sharpness. If you are shooting JPG instead of RAW, downsampling is even more important.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21427044
> 
> 
> (c) only there for marketing, not for image quality. And having a better monitor to see them doesn't change any of that.



So is your argument that there is no benefit over 2MP, or over 8MP for photography? A 1080p display is only 2MP. A 2560x1600 monitor is 4MP, and a 4K display is 8MP.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21427044
> 
> 
> A really great 8MP sensor > all the mass-market 14MP sensors available on any sub $1000 camera in the world.



Nikon's D5100, which has a 16MP sensor, has the best image quality for a sub-$1000 camera on DxOMark. The highest quality 8MP sensor is the Canon EOS 20D, which is ranked considerably lower, and is years out of date.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cam...(brand2)/Canon


----------



## David_B

So glad you know everything rogo.


How many OLED sets have you designed and sold again?


Which company do you work for again that you KNOW how much they are going to cost?


How many TVs have you helped lift into people's cars at Best Buy or Sears and heard the customer say "wow, this is heavy, I'll need help getting it out so I don't break it" again?


You're just another poster on a webboard making guesses. Don't get such a big head about your personal predictions that have no facts behind them.


Oh, and while you're at it, maybe you can tell us all what the price of Gas will be in Spain, England, France, Russia and the USA for the next 10 years that you KNOW shipping means and will continue to mean "almost nothing".


BTW, I'm sure the guys that bought $1000 CD players never thought they would be $20 and barely the size of a CD either. Saying prices won't come down in the CE industry is ignorant.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21420009
> 
> 
> So, I don't really disagree with any of that. I just don't think it changes a thing I've said. Yes, they will introduce OLEDs and they will look better against all the mid-market stuff in the store. So? That stuff will be 1/4 to 1/3 the price. That's just not important.
> 
> 
> What's important is that by being 3-4x as expensive as that -- and even more expensive than that 3% _creme de la creme_ against which they will look maybe somewhat better but probably not a ton better -- how many can they possibly sell? Not many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just wrong. No one is going to care. And certainly no one is going to pay extra money. LCDs under-weigh plasmas by a ton right now. Yet, those cheap plasmas move out the door just fine at Costco. No one is like, "gee, I can save me some 20 lbs". And this nonsense that there is an important decision between buying a 45 lb. TV and a 15 lb. TV is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> Not only is there doubt in my mind whether people would even care, but if they were advertised with their weights, I'd guess people might pay an extra $10-20 for the lighter one. There simply isn't a chance they'd pay even $100 more.
> 
> 
> 
> You've obviously not bothered to read the thread, including people who are more expert than I on costs. No one expects OLED TVs to be price competitive _for years_. And here you are concocting a marketing campaign based on the TV's weight -- a selling point which matters the first day _and never again for the decade of ownership_. It'd be like trying to market a car based on how easily the protective film came off.
> 
> 
> 
> So, this in fact does matter. And the good news is a 40" TV is now in a box that is quite literally less than 1/2 the size it was 5 years ago. Cargo shipping is largely a function of volume and not weight (that's not entirely a truism, but it's most a truism). I picked a random 40" Samsung off of BestBuy and here's what I can tell you about it:
> 
> 
> It weighs 31 lbs.
> 
> Its 27 x 24 x 3.
> 
> Its box is 28 x 47 x 7.
> 
> 
> I checked another one and I'd call that representative.
> 
> 
> So let's assume that innovation over time takes that down to 25-27 lbs. One box dimension (the 28) is already about as close to the screen as it's ever going to be (the 24). The 47 seems long, except that's partly explained by the stand being placed in that end of the box. Perhaps your OLED can get away with a bit less packaging. Hard to say, it's "waifishness" with either mean it needs a rigid backplane to hold up for years of use (think iPad) or at least a decent amount of packaging to keep it from torquing inside the box.
> 
> 
> The thickness of the box is not much dictated by the screen's thickness but by the desire to protect the panel against the box being pierced accidentally and having the screen damaged. Maybe your OLED can take that down an inch, not more.
> 
> 
> So, yeah, a thinner, lighter display will have lower logistics costs. That might save $5-10 per display. Not nothing. Not everything, either.
> 
> 
> I understand every issue. You're thinking those issues _matter_ when in reality they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll gladly take that bet. In 2020, the bulk of 40" and up TVs will certainly be LCD.
> 
> 
> 
> Zero chance people will care. Lifting your TV is not a selling point. People don't lift their TVs. Again, this would be like my car example. But let me make mine actually useful. A Volkswagen and a Lexus on a commercial. A kid smears each with a blueberry pie. The Volkswagen cleans up easier. It's a selling point: "VW, easier to clean". Guess what? No one cares.
> 
> 
> 
> Which matters in a world of TVs people carry around. If TVs were laptop computers it would matter. It's worth noting that in tablets and phones, OLED is not conveying a weight advantage over LCD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be as giddy as you want to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that sense is worth something. Reviewers like the OLED screns too, they just aren't blown away by them.
> 
> ]


----------



## Lord Humongous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21427722
> 
> 
> Please explain how the extra resolution is "pointless."



The ****** little sensor on a modern consumer camera will only capture a lot of noise unless you use a flashlight thats the strength of a nuclear bomb. Your "effective" megapixel rating is much less than what the huge number on the camera housing says. A larger sensor with a lower megapixel rating is preferable in every case. Thats why an old 5 MP semi-pro camera with an 1" CCD is better value than a modern 15 megapixel pocket camera which typically sports an 1/2.5" CCD.


----------



## powertoold




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lord Humongous* /forum/post/21428497
> 
> 
> The ****** little sensor on a modern consumer camera will only capture a lot of noise unless you use a flashlight thats the strength of a nuclear bomb. Your "effective" megapixel rating is much less than what the huge number on the camera housing says. A larger sensor with a lower megapixel rating is preferable in every case. Thats why an old 5 MP semi-pro camera with an 1" CCD is better value than a modern 15 megapixel pocket camera which typically sports an 1/2.5" CCD.



I wouldn't be surprised if we see good 4K cameras for $3000 in 3 years. Digital video technology is advancing faster now than ever before.


Also, extra resolution isn't just for movies and TV. It's very useful for computer monitors, gaming, and medical and industrial applications.


----------



## Bigus

Dunno know about all that, but my wife's nikon d5100 was sub $1000 and has fantastic image quality. Now equipped with a good 50mm prime lense, I think each pixel is important especially when cropping before sending out for a 16x24 or larger print.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21427722
> 
> 
> Please explain how the extra resolution is "pointless."
> 
> 
> Photo quality printing _starts_ at 300 DPI. With a 12MP camera, you can only go as large as 8x10" and that's assuming you framed your shot perfectly, without having to throw away resolution from cropping and straightening your photo. (even the pros need to do this)
> 
> 
> Because of bayer filtering, with anything but a Sigma camera, you ideally want to shoot with at least double the resolution of your final output for optimal sharpness. If you are shooting JPG instead of RAW, downsampling is even more important.
> 
> 
> So is your argument that there is no benefit over 2MP, or over 8MP for photography? A 1080p display is only 2MP. A 2560x1600 monitor is 4MP, and a 4K display is 8MP.



More precisely, making pixels smaller and smaller is pointless. Even more, it is damaging PQ because of increased noise level. What you say is right if pixels are above specific size. This size is, for compact cameras, agreed to be around 10 Mpix.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21427722
> 
> 
> Nikon's D5100, which has a 16MP sensor, has the best image quality for a sub-$1000 camera on DxOMark. The highest quality 8MP sensor is the Canon EOS 20D, which is ranked considerably lower, and is years out of date.




This comparison is misleading. First, these are DSLRs with relatively big sensors - compare this with the fact that there are now availabale compact cameras with 16 Mpix. It is absolutely clear that in the compact cameras the limit of Mpix has been achieved and now it is driven up by marketing.

Second, this is comparison of the newest sensor with the one from 2004. There is every reason to think if the both sensors were made in the 2011 tech, the 8MP one would beat the 16 MP.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21427298
> 
> 
> The mistake you are making is analyzing this model in terms of potential sales. They would be a nice bonus but the primary goals are proving out the manufacturing processes and bringing attention to OLED televisions. A 4mm thick television does that a lot better than a 1" television.



I get what you're saying.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21427722
> 
> 
> Please explain how the extra resolution is "pointless."



It achieves nothing in improving the quality of the picture. Got it?


> Quote:
> Photo quality printing _starts_ at 300 DPI. With a 12MP camera, you can only go as large as 8x10" and that's assuming you framed your shot perfectly, without having to throw away resolution from cropping and straightening your photo. (even the pros need to do this)



I don't know what planet you are living on, but the number of shots that are ever printed even at even 8 x 10" as a function of total shots taken is asymptotically approaching zero.


> Quote:
> So is your argument that there is no benefit over 2MP, or over 8MP for photography? A 1080p display is only 2MP. A 2560x1600 monitor is 4MP, and a 4K display is 8MP.



My correct argument is that over about 8MP, the diminishing returns have set in so unbelievably deeply that image quality would have been massively, gigantically, titantically improved had the focus been on things like noise reduction instead of useless things like pixel-count increases.


> Quote:
> Nikon's D5100, which has a 16MP sensor, has the best image quality for a sub-$1000 camera on DxOMark. The highest quality 8MP sensor is the Canon EOS 20D, which is ranked considerably lower, and is years out of date.



The sensor the world needed was never made. Your comparisons are entirely irrelevant and beside the point. Marketing long ago triumphed over image quality.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21428041
> 
> 
> So glad you know everything rogo.



It's a curse. But seriously; not everything -- just more than you.


> Quote:
> How many OLED sets have you designed and sold again?



As many as Samsung. One fewer than LG.


> Quote:
> Which company do you work for again that you KNOW how much they are going to cost?



It bugs you that I understand more about technology than you do. I get that. Tough. Learn more.


> Quote:
> How many TVs have you helped lift into people's cars at Best Buy or Sears and heard the customer say "wow, this is heavy, I'll need help getting it out so I don't break it" again?



Seriously. Stop with your fake problem. Just stop. First of all, this problem does not exist with current LCD TVs. Second of all, your "solution" for this fake problem is to create these super-fragile OLED TVs that are likely to break due to torsional stress and will require ridiculous amounts of styrofoam packaging to avoid this happening. Then, when they are hope, the first time someone is showing them off and squeezes the frame to impress their neighbor, they are going to snap the screen.... This is not a problem. It has not stopped a single TV from being sold.


Has an LCD TV been damaged in transit? Yes. Of course. Your ridiculous OLED designs will be too. But that's not the point. The point is: *The sales of TVs are in no way being limited by the current weight of TVs*. The market size for TVs will not increase even 1% due to them being lighter. Thus the "advantage" your cite is not an advantage. Again, it's like cars that are easier to clean. Can this be useful or nice? Yes. Is it important? No. When you understand the difference, call me.


> Quote:
> You're just another poster on a webboard making guesses. Don't get such a big head about your personal predictions that have no facts behind them.



No, I'm just a much smarter person than the average poster who has been following this stuff for more than 10 years. My "personal predictions" are better than most people's. Deal with it.


> Quote:
> Oh, and while you're at it, maybe you can tell us all what the price of Gas will be in Spain, England, France, Russia and the USA for the next 10 years that you KNOW shipping means and will continue to mean "almost nothing".



I explained why TV shipping means "almost nothing". Maybe the explanation was lost on you. Try to read it again. I explained that the volume of the shipments would be nearly identical and the weight difference would not meaningful alter the freight costs. This doesn't make me prescient on the price of oil. Nor does the price of gasoline necessarily track the price of oil in many of those countries due to changes in tax policies. Nor does that have any relevance to this conversation.


Again, try to understand my correct explanation of why OLED TVs will enjoy a relatively tiny shipping-cost advantage over LCD TVs in the years to come. It is correct. Even if it doesn't mesh with your incorrect thesis that weight is a "game changer" in the TV business; a business which sells a non-portable good.


BTW, I'm sure the guys that bought $1000 CD players never thought they would be $20 and barely the size of a CD either. Saying prices won't come down in the CE industry is ignorant.[/quote]



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lord Humongous* /forum/post/21428497
> 
> 
> The ****** little sensor on a modern consumer camera will only capture a lot of noise unless you use a flashlight thats the strength of a nuclear bomb. Your "effective" megapixel rating is much less than what the huge number on the camera housing says. A larger sensor with a lower megapixel rating is preferable in every case. Thats why an old 5 MP semi-pro camera with an 1" CCD is better value than a modern 15 megapixel pocket camera which typically sports an 1/2.5" CCD.



Correct.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21428985
> 
> 
> More precisely, making pixels smaller and smaller is pointless. Even more, it is damaging PQ because of increased noise level. What you say is right if pixels are above specific size. This size is, for compact cameras, agreed to be around 10 Mpix.



Correct.


> Quote:
> This comparison is misleading. First, these are DSLRs with relatively big sensors - compare this with the fact that there are now availabale compact cameras with 16 Mpix. It is absolutely clear that in the compact cameras the limit of Mpix has been achieved and now it is driven up by marketing.
> 
> Second, this is comparison of the newest sensor with the one from 2004. There is every reason to think if the both sensors were made in the 2011 tech, the 8MP one would beat the 16 MP.



Correct. And a truly fabulous, large-enough 8MP sensor made today and put in a compact camera would blow away the 14-16MP cameras sold, but would nearly impossible to market -- which is a crying shame.


----------



## HDPeeT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21427020
> 
> 
> There have been several external-box designs. Sharp has made them. Pioneer has made them. Panasonic has at least done a variant on the theme (perhaps a true, discrete box). Customers have _universally_ hated them -- which is why they are gone. They don't simplify anything, ok? For every installation they simplify, they add a box to the other 10.
> 
> 
> Nearly no one wall mounts 31" TVs. Few people wall mount 55" TVs by the way.
> 
> 
> The only reason they are even showing off this design is to keep the TV stupid thin, which provides no actual benefit -- unless you consider a TV without actual rigidity to be beneficial (I don't). Breakability under normal contact is not a selling feature.
> 
> 
> People who like these designs are the kind of people who carry those spare plug-in battery packs for their cell phone in the name of "portability".




OK, OK, OK.......forget about the external box







. You say the consumers rejected that idea and I believe you (never seen one in a store). I think the thin 4mm design is beautiful but you think it will make the display too fragile to be justified.


What I really want to know is this:


Based on what we know right now, 1 week away from CES, do you think Samsung and LG are going to seriously invest in fabs and equipment to mass produce OLEDs in the next 3-5 years and do you think we'll learn more about their true intentions at CES?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lord Humongous* /forum/post/21428497
> 
> 
> The ****** little sensor on a modern consumer camera will only capture a lot of noise unless you use a flashlight thats the strength of a nuclear bomb. Your "effective" megapixel rating is much less than what the huge number on the camera housing says. A larger sensor with a lower megapixel rating is preferable in every case. Thats why an old 5 MP semi-pro camera with an 1" CCD is better value than a modern 15 megapixel pocket camera which typically sports an 1/2.5" CCD.



My NEX-5 easily fits in my jacket pocket, has a 14MP APS-C sensor and bests any lower resolution camera. Costs well under $1000 too. I plan on upgrading it to a NEX-7 which is slightly larger, but gains an OLED viewfinder and 24MP sensorwhich is a marked improvement over the current 14MP one.


What you don't seem to realise, is that while individual pixel quality may be somewhat worse (and this is marginal, if true at all now with the improvements made to sensor technology and image processing in the last few years) at the same print size, the higher resolution camera will have higher image quality (less and/or finer noise) and more detail in the image.


The 24MP NEX-7 still handidly beats the 8MP EOS 20D (seemingly the best 8MP camera there is) despite having 3x the resolution in the same size sensor.


CCDs are outdated technology when it comes to consumer cameras. (they do have specific industrial uses though) They are only good for photography at base ISO. Modern CMOS sensors are far more efficient. The only camera still using CCD off the top of my head is Leica's M9 which has an 18MP full-frame sensor, and worse noise handling than the 24MP APS-C NEX-7 whose photosites are approaching half the size. (3.9µm vs 6.9µm) If they bothered to put an anti-aliasing filter on top of the CCD, it would probably fare even worse.


If you want to talk small sensors, just look at the massive improvements in image quality made with the change from the iPhone 4 to 4S camera, and it went from 5MP to 8MP. (still a crap camera overall, but it's a phone)



But more to the point, a 4K display still has an 8MP resolution. Do you really think that there's no advantage there when viewing photographs compared to the 2MP displays we have today, considering virtually all cameras, even those in phones, have far exceeded 2MP years ago?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *powertoold* /forum/post/21428536
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if we see good 4K cameras for $3000 in 3 years. Digital video technology is advancing faster now than ever before.
> 
> 
> Also, extra resolution isn't just for movies and TV. It's very useful for computer monitors, gaming, and medical and industrial applications.



4K is 8 megapixels. While we don't have consumer-grade video cameras to shoot that yet, any stills camera in recent years will be at least 8MP.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21428985
> 
> 
> This comparison is misleading. First, these are DSLRs with relatively big sensors - compare this with the fact that there are now availabale compact cameras with 16 Mpix. It is absolutely clear that in the compact cameras the limit of Mpix has been achieved and now it is driven up by marketing.
> 
> Second, this is comparison of the newest sensor with the one from 2004. There is every reason to think if the both sensors were made in the 2011 tech, the 8MP one would beat the 16 MP.



I picked that camera because it was the top ranked 8MP sensor on DxOMark, not because of its age. Rogo specified sub-$1000.


Canon did exactly that with its 1D Mark IVlarger pixels with a modern sensor designand it turned out that while it helped to some degree, we have actually reached the point where higher resolutions are of more benefit than larger photosites. Nikon's D5100 with a far smaller 16MP sensor is only 1/4 of a stop behind it in low-light performance. That's almost negligible.


With newer sensor designs, image quality largely stays the same at higher ISO, often improves at lower ISO, while resolution goes up. If you print/view both images at the same size, the higher resolution image ends up looking at lot better than when you compare them both at 1:1 on a monitor.


----------



## sytech




KLee said:


> To more pix......seems to be ultra thin (4mm) and light (7.5 Kg):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something strange about that picture. The birds are in exactly the same poseon all 3 pictures I have seen and the model has moved. Could be a paused picture, but then it would have the pause symbol in the upper corner. Could be shopped publicity stills.


----------



## Lorddeff07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21427020
> 
> 
> There have been several external-box designs. Sharp has made them. Pioneer has made them. Panasonic has at least done a variant on the theme (perhaps a true, discrete box). Customers have _universally_ hated them -- which is why they are gone. They don't simplify anything, ok? For every installation they simplify, they add a box to the other 10.
> 
> 
> Nearly no one wall mounts 31" TVs. Few people wall mount 55" TVs by the way.
> 
> 
> The only reason they are even showing off this design is to keep the TV stupid thin, which provides no actual benefit -- unless you consider a TV without actual rigidity to be beneficial (I don't). Breakability under normal contact is not a selling feature.
> 
> 
> People who like these designs are the kind of people who carry those spare plug-in battery packs for their cell phone in the name of "portability".



You honestly seem to be very anti oled. I can't really understand why but I am going to assume you have your reasons. Even though contrary to what yuou have been saying for so long the fisrt of the production oled panels are actually making their way to market. And at worst that will be next year if not this year. And yes it may not be cheap but no new tech ever was.


That aside I have no problem with an external box design if the displays are this thin to begin with and if said box is done right. And I think you are blowing the whole external box thingy outta proportion. Whats really important is that they somehow find a way to fit decent speakers on the tv. Make an external box for more media inputs and run one cable from it to the tv. If ppl have dvd/bluray players, cable boxes, game consoles (all boxes by the way) I strongly doubt one more external box will cause any grief to them. especially is said box has a cable long enough to grant you all the placement flexibility you will need.


Something else you need to consider is that with previous displays having an external box was simply not necessary. Cause the tech used to make those displays to begin with meant that you had enough room to put all your input needs on the display itself. With oled tech manufacturers can instantly become more flexible with their design choices expect to start seeing curved screens and what not from at least one manufacturer that is trying to differentiate itself. Even if i think that may be a stupid idea... all i am saying is that cause something didnt work before and it you don't like it, doesn't mean that it wont work now. Thats the changing world for you man.... i for one know that if buying anything that i will primarily want to mount on my wall? I will rather have an external box so i am only running one cable to the display and have the box be in a place that i can conveniently add or remove inputs and hide wires. But thats just me though.


----------



## gmarceau




sytech said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KLee* /forum/post/21426062
> 
> 
> To more pix......seems to be ultra thin (4mm) and light (7.5 Kg):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something strange about that picture. The birds are in exactly the same poseon all 3 pictures I have seen and the model has moved. Could be a paused picture, but then it would have the pause symbol in the upper corner. Could be shopped publicity stills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only person getting more interest from the girl in the picture?
> 
> 
> It's got a model number, so I'm starting to believe that it might ship somewhere in the world in 2012.
> 
> 
> I don't remember if the 31" OLED from the last CES had a model number or not.
Click to expand...


----------



## taichi4




gmarceau said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21429742
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only person getting more interest from the girl in the picture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not. But your chances of getting the 55 inch are better than your chances of getting that girl.
> 
> 
> Regarding the Bourne Ultimatum flavor of the post that questioned the parrot picture, in light of the discussion regarding digital camera resolution, isn't it likely that LG is using a high res still photo of the parrots? Better to show the image quality in a still photo of the set.
> 
> 
> If the 55 inch is all smoke and mirrors, than LG is taking a hell of a chance by talking so definitively to so many people and outlets about the set. They would be shooting themselves in the foot.
> 
> 
> Korean manufacturers have been making a yeoman's effort to evolve their industries. Look how Hyundai went from being a good bang for the buck company (with help from Japan) to making exceptionally fine cars.
> 
> 
> The same could be happening for LG, and they didn't buy Kodak's OLED patents for hobby purposes.
Click to expand...


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21429742
> 
> 
> There is something strange about that picture. The birds are in exactly the same poseon all 3 pictures I have seen and the model has moved. Could be a paused picture, but then it would have the pause symbol in the upper corner. Could be shopped publicity stills.



The LG logo is however moving between the upper left and right corner







.


I think the parrot image was added in later. I don't think it is unusual for PR images of display devices though.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21429900
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ...I think the parrot image was added in later. I don't think it is unusual for PR images of display devices though.



That's true as well.


----------



## gmarceau




taichi4 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21429803
> 
> 
> 
> You are not. But your chances of getting the 55 inch are better than your chances of getting that girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, agreed, and I'm not coming to south korea anytime soon.
> 
> 
> (last two gfs were asian, what can I say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
Click to expand...


----------



## taichi4




gmarceau said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4* /forum/post/21429848
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, agreed, and I'm not coming to south korea anytime soon.
> 
> 
> (last two gfs were asian, what can I say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, they didn't put that girl with the beautiful legs in the picture to discourage sales.
Click to expand...


----------



## GiantSquid

Does anyone have an idea of when we will start seeing OLED computer screens? We are already seeing 55" TV screens and Sony released an 11 incher years ago. I'm suprised we haven't seen 19" OLED computer monitors.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ It's a well known fact in this thread but here's a convenient link for you.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA* /forum/post/21429032
> 
> 
> The 55EM9600 is a real product, no vaporware.
> 
> http://www.preissuchmaschine.de/in-T...-15EL9500.html



But the 31" has been vaporware so far.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lorddeff07* /forum/post/21429792
> 
> 
> That aside I have no problem with an external box design if the displays are this thin to begin with and if said box is done right. And I think you are blowing the whole external box thingy outta proportion. Whats really important is that they somehow find a way to fit decent speakers on the tv. Make an external box for more media inputs and run one cable from it to the tv. If ppl have dvd/bluray players, cable boxes, game consoles (all boxes by the way) I strongly doubt one more external box will cause any grief to them. especially is said box has a cable long enough to grant you all the placement flexibility you will need.
> 
> 
> Something else you need to consider is that with previous displays having an external box was simply not necessary. Cause the tech used to make those displays to begin with meant that you had enough room to put all your input needs on the display itself. With oled tech manufacturers can instantly become more flexible with their design choices expect to start seeing curved screens and what not from at least one manufacturer that is trying to differentiate itself. Even if i think that may be a stupid idea... all i am saying is that cause something didnt work before and it you don't like it, doesn't mean that it wont work now. Thats the changing world for you man.... i for one know that if buying anything that i will primarily want to mount on my wall? I will rather have an external box so i am only running one cable to the display and have the box be in a place that i can conveniently add or remove inputs and hide wires. But thats just me though.



I actually agree with this. With HDMI *single* cable it actually makes sense for a segment to use a "media box". It is not such a novelty nowadays.


What I guess would be a return to the REAL Monitors ie displays that produces EXACTLY what is is being fed, without extensive processing or tuners. With cable and IP TV, tuners are getting obsolete. With a media box, the processing and input can be be done all at the box with wires tucked away from the display. This is the purpose of the AVR now (rather than just an audio receiver). It actually makes no sense to me that people buy high end displays with great processors just to bypass them with their AVR or vice versa.


For years that's what the gaming consoles/ set-top boxes tried to do but failed: *To be the centre of the living room where all devices gets connected to*. Let's see if Apple TV can do better.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21421546
> 
> 
> So they've committed to invest billions then?
> 
> 
> And they've never shot themselves in the foot right? The whole 8G-fab race wasn't about an industry building overcapacity that turned panel-making into a profitless venture, right? And the 10G Sharp fab wasn't an overreaction to that race? And that wasn't the very fab you've stated was effectively running at a loss when accounting for its capital costs, right?
> 
> 
> Just checking.



Sammy already SPENT billion$ on 5.5G. If it weren't for the option/ possibility of 32"+ display they wouldn't try making a Chi Mei unique motherglass. In a few weeks we will know if more billion$ will be spent on 8G. And 8G cannot be for small sizes. LG Electronics just did a rights issue of almost $900m. You don't need these kind of $ for TV set or handset R&D. Talks is next would be rights issue of their major 1/3 owned subsidiary LG Display which LG Electronics will need to contribute to the rights.


Possible that Sharp over-reacted on the *timing* of the 10G. I have repeatedly say their timing sucks, but it doesn't invalidate their view on huge panels. 10G has been bleeding because it was never meant to produce 60" panels but they had no choice when production efficiency / learning curve and market does not allow them to make 70"+. So they *were* having negative ROI for the past few years. But that same pain-in-the- 10G fab is now helping Sharp to regain prominance and leadership in the LCD space. I think they will actually more than breakeven on 10G on an accounting basis (albeit at a lower depreciation level due to write-offs) next 12 months when they progressively reduce their 60" shipments.


Like Irkuck said, intentional or slip, huge size is the "rage" now even though it is a small minuscule market NOW. So will OLED TV. If it remains minuscule due to capacity, that is a happy problem. Fact is 6 months ago we were still discussing in this thread whether TV size OLED display was even possible with the voltage issue, which I too was concerned it won't be resolved soon. Tech do change faster than opinions. Mass market will always take time, just as I don't expect people to give up on TV tuners tomorrow.


----------



## JimP




sytech said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KLee* /forum/post/21426062
> 
> 
> To more pix......seems to be ultra thin (4mm) and light (7.5 Kg):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something strange about that picture. The birds are in exactly the same poseon all 3 pictures I have seen and the model has moved. Could be a paused picture, but then it would have the pause symbol in the upper corner. Could be shopped publicity stills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the more likely possibility that its the same still photo from a thumb drive.
Click to expand...


----------



## sytech




JimP said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21429742
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the more likely possibility that its the same still photo from a thumb drive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does the LG logo change from one side to the other? I call shenanigans!
Click to expand...


----------



## greenland

That bird in the middle is A Norwegian Blue, that has not moved because it is pining for the Fjords.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/21433286
> 
> 
> That bird in the middle is A Norwegian Blue, that has not moved because it is pining for the Fjords.



If it's Scandinavian it would probably pine for a Volvo rather than a Fjord.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21429075
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what we know right now, 1 week away from CES, do you think Samsung and LG are going to seriously invest in fabs and equipment to mass produce OLEDs in the next 3-5 years and do you think we'll learn more about their true intentions at CES?



I believe they are definitely committed yes. I believe CES will provide a misleading but somewhat accurate view of their true intentions.


But yes, over the 3-5 year timetable, I think they want to mass produce OLED TVs. Keep in mind, neither necessarily can do so yet. LG is betting WOLED will solve a problem Samsung has with their method. Samsung is betting that R&D and brute force will solve a problem they have.


But I believe they both want to get there and will try very hard to do so.


----------



## ALMA

OLED mass production starts from offical papers in 2013!

http://www.oled.at/samsung-wird-8-9-...ls-in-q2-2012/ 


Samsung has DuPonts inkjet RGB technology, LG has WOLED. Both optimized for mass production.


OLED is cheaper to produce than LCD or Plasma.


- no costs for backlight

- WOLED from "LG is scalability, no need for shadow mask, lower manufacturing cycle time and better production yield"

> http://www.oled-display.net/backgrou...tv-technology/ 

- Samsung´s OLED technology from DuPont can implement in current LCD plants at low costs


- both can use the same Oxide-TFT backplane as for LCD

- thinner profile means lower costs because of less weight, less production materials, less shipping and packing costs


There is a reason why most manufactures don´t ship their TV´s with mounted stands. My old Samsung LE40M51 from 2005 had a shipping box twice as big as the shipping box from my current Sony KDL-40NX705 from 2010. The only reason is to save costs for shipping and packing.



> Quote:
> There have been several external-box designs. Sharp has made them. Pioneer has made them. Panasonic has at least done a variant on the theme (perhaps a true, discrete box). Customers have universally hated them -- which is why they are gone. They don't simplify anything, ok? For every installation they simplify, they add a box to the other 10.



You don´t need a mediabox, all connections can be integrated in the stand. You can also use the stand for wall mounting like LG LEX-8, Samsung C9000 or most Philips LCD´s. And yes, a mediabox simplify the wall mounting to reduce it to one cable (I used the Pioneer VDA external-box for wall mounting my old M51). It´s easier to take the box out of the rack to connect new equipment, as to crawl behind the TV on a low profile wallmount. You can use an AV-R as switch, but with new video standards (4K, 3D at 1080p50/60) most of them became obsolete for video features in the future.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA* /forum/post/21433560
> 
> 
> 
> OLED is cheaper to produce than LCD or Plasma.
> 
> .




No it isn't. That's simply not true. It's not even true for 4" phone screens.


Might it be true someday years from now? It's possible. But it's simply not currently true. At all. If your source of info is a site that has OLED in its URL, it's almost certainly wrong.


----------



## sytech




JimP said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21429742
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the more likely possibility that its the same still photo from a thumb drive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or even the more likely possibility it is a photoshopped publicity still like the others LG released for CES 2012. No doubt OLEd has a superior picture, but maybe it can not handle glare to well.
Click to expand...


----------



## HerbalEd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21433475
> 
> 
> I believe they are definitely committed yes. I believe CES will provide a misleading but somewhat accurate view of their true intentions.
> 
> 
> But yes, over the 3-5 year timetable, I think they want to mass produce OLED TVs. Keep in mind, neither necessarily can do so yet. LG is betting WOLED will solve a problem Samsung has with their method. Samsung is betting that R&D and brute force will solve a problem they have.
> 
> 
> But I believe they both want to get there and will try very hard to do so.



According to hdguru.com, Panasonic is presently converting one of it's LCD factories to OLED production.


----------



## HerbalEd




sytech said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP* /forum/post/21432615
> 
> 
> 
> Or even the more likely possibility it is a photoshopped publicity still like the others LG released for CES 2012. No doubt OLEd has a superior picture, but maybe it can not handle glare to well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duh!! Did you notice that the motorcycle and driver are jutting out of the picture? The picture is obviously photoshoped .... or that's damn good 3D.
Click to expand...


----------



## grexeo




JimP said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21429742
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the more likely possibility that its the same still photo from a thumb drive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worked for one of LG's European PR agencies from early 2002 to late 2007. I can't speak for how things operate now, but we would never send out any raw product shots. The display images were always simulated, and from my experience, the devices were rarely powered up.
Click to expand...


----------



## JimP




HerbalEd said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21438480
> 
> 
> 
> Duh!! Did you notice that the motorcycle and driver are jutting out of the picture? The picture is obviously photoshoped .... or that's damn good 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....but the quote of a quote picked up the wrong photo and author.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heck...it did it again. I was quoting Herb and not sytech.
Click to expand...


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21436886
> 
> 
> No it isn't. That's simply not true. It's not even true for 4" phone screens.



Most of the stuff that I have read indicates that Samsung's OLED's are price competitive with LCD smartphone displays. The key is that both use LTPS backplanes. The more complicated and expensive manufacturing process for OLED's is offset by the simpler structure (lower BOM).


A big key for OLED televisions will be getting off of LTPS.


Slacker


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21439123
> 
> 
> Most of the stuff that I have read indicates that Samsung's OLED's are price competitive with LCD smartphone displays. The key is that both use LTPS backplanes. The more complicated and expensive manufacturing process for OLED's is offset by the simpler structure (lower BOM).
> 
> 
> A big key for OLED televisions will be getting off of LTPS.
> 
> 
> Slacker



It appears LG has done that.


From http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/26/2...-be-affordable 


...The new panel was created at "significantly reduced investment levels" using an Oxide TFT technology for the backplane which, according to LG, makes it a more cost effective solution than the Low Temperature Poly Silicon (LTPS) base panels found in existing OLED displays...


And from Slashgear:
http://www.slashgear.com/lg-55-inch-...2012-26204495/ 


"Where LG Display has been particularly clever is in the backplane, using an Oxide TFT tech rather than Low Temperature Poly Silicon (LTPS) as is currently common in OLED, for identical picture quality and performance but significantly reduced investment levels.


----------



## slacker711

LG is promising that. We'll have to see about the execution.


I also don't have a good grasp on the relative costs of Oxide-TFT versus a-si. My best guess is that a mature Oxide-TFT plus WOLED fab would get us close to a-si LCD costs but I wish I had more info.


Slacker


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HerbalEd* /forum/post/21438765
> 
> 
> According to hdguru.com, Panasonic is presently converting one of it's LCD factories to OLED production.



If true, that's good news for us OLED fans.


But I'm wondering about Sony? Has their been any indication of their OLED manufacturing plans? Is the speculation that they just going to OEM from others?


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Most of the stuff that I have read indicates that Samsung's OLED's are price competitive with LCD smartphone displays. The key is that both use LTPS backplanes. The more complicated and expensive manufacturing process for OLED's is offset by the simpler structure (lower BOM).
> 
> 
> A big key for OLED televisions will be getting off of LTPS.
> 
> 
> Slacker



Nope. AMOLED has always been priced at least 30% higher since they appeared 18 months ago. But we're talking about


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson* /forum/post/21439398
> 
> 
> But I'm wondering about Sony? Has their been any indication of their OLED manufacturing plans? Is the speculation that they just going to OEM from others?



Sony has no known meaningful R&D and has not had primary manufacturing of TV panels of any kind in more than 10 years. I find it somewhat far-fetched that they are actually going to build an OLED fab _when everyone else finally appears to be ready to_.


That said, they've learned you can't actually make any money selling TVs buying panels from someone else -- no one has except Vizio and they've made _very little money_ selling very large quantities of low-priced TVs.


Here's Sony's problem. You want in on OLED? You already need to be plotting a 12-36 month entry strategy to get there. Panasonic, LG, Samsung, Chi Mei -- people who make displays -- know how to do that. Sony doesn't make displays (and please, lord, spare me some discussion of ho they are churning out a few hundred broadcast monitors per month... this would be like Winnebago trying to produce a volume subcompact).


My guess is Sony is going to fade away, but I suppose they could limp along on LCD until there is enough OLED to buy it from others. If Sharp also enters by mid-decade (quite possible) and everyone figures out how to get decent yields on large panels (less guaranteed unless you're already working on the problem), a commodity market will develop. They could invest $2 billion or so to JV with Sharp or Panasonic (or Samsung if they didn't close the door or LG) and get back in the game.


----------



## sytech




HerbalEd said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21438480
> 
> 
> 
> Duh!! Did you notice that the motorcycle and driver are jutting out of the picture? The picture is obviously photoshoped .... or that's damn good 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, obviously I did. That was my point to the previous post about the birds being the exact same pose in all 3 press release pics for the 55" OLED, despite the fact that the model has changed location. Also if it was a paused pic the LG logo would have not changed position. TLDR, the press release pics of LG 55" OLED are photo shopped.
Click to expand...


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Sony has no known meaningful R&D and has not had primary manufacturing of TV panels of any kind in more than 10 years. I find it somewhat far-fetched that they are actually going to build an OLED fab _when everyone else finally appears to be ready to_.
> 
> 
> That said, they've learned you can't actually make any money selling TVs buying panels from someone else -- no one has except Vizio and they've made _very little money_ selling very large quantities of low-priced TVs.
> 
> 
> Here's Sony's problem. You want in on OLED? You already need to be plotting a 12-36 month entry strategy to get there. Panasonic, LG, Samsung, Chi Mei -- people who make displays -- know how to do that. Sony doesn't make displays (and please, lord, spare me some discussion of ho they are churning out a few hundred broadcast monitors per month... this would be like Winnebago trying to produce a volume subcompact).
> 
> 
> My guess is Sony is going to fade away, but I suppose they could limp along on LCD until there is enough OLED to buy it from others. If Sharp also enters by mid-decade (quite possible) and everyone figures out how to get decent yields on large panels (less guaranteed unless you're already working on the problem), a commodity market will develop. They could invest $2 billion or so to JV with Sharp or Panasonic (or Samsung if they didn't close the door or LG) and get back in the game.



I saw this documentary recently ''Secrets of the Superbrands'', apparently its all about the 'smart money'.

This is how Sony makes its 'smart money'. Sony owns the bluraydisc:

1 dollarcent for every blank bluraydisc.

$9 for each blurayplayer sold.

$12 for each bluraydiscrecorder sold.

+ a cut for each bluray game/movie sold.

*secrets of the superbrands-technology*

part 1 (6 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0dUuHo58UE


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/21442275
> 
> 
> I saw this documentary recently ''Secrets of the Superbrands'', apparently its all about the 'smart money'.
> 
> This is how Sony makes its 'smart money'. Sony owns the bluraydisc:
> 
> 1 dollarcent for every blank bluraydisc.
> 
> $9 for each blurayplayer sold.
> 
> $12 for each bluraydiscrecorder sold.
> 
> + a cut for each bluray game/movie sold.



So the thing is, that's all from legitimate R&D. They developed a technology, they licensed the heck out of it. They collect fees.


And yet, in aggregate, Sony is a money loser.


They need a high-margin hit product -- or several. For too long, they've tried to make money selling other people's technology (Windows, Android, LCD). It's not working for them


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21439827
> 
> 
> Nope. AMOLED has always been priced at least 30% higher since they appeared 18 months ago. But we're talking about


----------



## gmarceau

rogo, do you think there could be a comparison made between OLED and blu-ray? Blu-ray came out in 2006, I believe, and wasn't seen as even necessary by many consumers considering the high price of over $1000 for a player when dvd players went for under $100 easily, yet somehow, consumers found some advantage to blu-ray since it eventually took off in 2010 once prices eventually got down closer to the dvd player level. I think there are some parallels here with LCD and OLED, in a way. Seems like OLED is now being deemed as inevitable at this point through news reports and the talk on the forum over the past week seems to confirm that- although we're a smaller group







OLED could be like blu-ray and continue capturing more of the market year after year as costs come down to be more competitive while showing consumering the technical advantages and LCD could continue to be a trusted technology that many consumers deem good enough.


----------



## specuvestor

I'm saying selling price







I think OLED cost is estimated to be around 15% higher but that's not a apple to apple comparison as LCD utilization rate runs at 80%. In any case the OLED ramp is still uncertain in FINANCIAL terms so my guess after the dust settles is still that OLED BOM cost is cheaper but TOTAL cost including depreciation is higher.


$10 is not big deal with high end phones. I don't expect China white brands to use OLED anytime soon







Bigger deal is that the supplier is the major competitor.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> The latest Displaysearch number I saw indicated that LTPS OLED's and LCD's cost a similar amount on an area basis. It has been a while but I also think that iSuppli had OLED's and the iPhone LCD at similar prices.
> 
> 
> I doubt that Nokia, Motorola, or the rest of the industry would be adopting OLED's if the premium was still in the $10 range. I obviously see the value in OLED's but I'm not sure that it could justify that kind of hit to margins. It isnt like these companies have Apple's 50% iPhone gross margins and can afford that kind of premium.
> 
> 
> Slacker


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21442418
> 
> 
> I'm saying selling price
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think OLED cost is estimated to be around 15% higher but that's not a apple to apple comparison as LCD utilization rate runs at 80%. In any case the OLED ramp is still uncertain in FINANCIAL terms so my guess after the dust settles is still that OLED BOM cost is cheaper but TOTAL cost including depreciation is higher.
> 
> 
> $10 is not big deal with high end phones. I don't expect China white brands to use OLED anytime soon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigger deal is that the supplier is the major competitor.



I used the worst "cost" as in cost to the buyer. They might not be right but Displaysearch seems to believe that you can purchase an OLED at the same price as a LTPS LCD.


I think you way underestimate the price sensitivity of even high-end smartphones. The total BOM on these handsets is still below $200. You are talking about increasing the BOM by >5%. I think that is going to be tough to justify until AMOLED's have lower power consumption than LCD's even when showing white (hopefully that happens in 2012/13).


Slacker


----------



## navychop

Bom ?


----------



## slacker711

BOM....bill of materials. It runs less than $200 for most high-end smartphones. Here is the estimated breakdown on the latest iPhone.

http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/iPhone-4S-Carries-BOM-of-$188,-IHS-iSuppli-Teardown-Analysis-Reveals.aspx 


The 3.5" LCD is estimated at $23 with a $14 touchscreen.


Here is one for the Nokia N8 from iSuppli last year. The combination of the AMOLED display and the touchscreen is estimated at $39.25.

http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/New...n-Reveals.aspx 


I just dont see non-Samsung manufacturers willing to increase their BOM by $10 for an OLED...and I'm obviously pretty bullish on OLED's.


Slacker


----------



## Russell Burrows

This talk of oled screens is for non flexible types??


I want the new hotness of a flexible oled screen in a 32 inch to 42 inch size??

Maybe for 2014/15?? at 4999 to 8999 dollars??


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21442408
> 
> 
> rogo, do you think there could be a comparison made between OLED and blu-ray? Blu-ray came out in 2006, I believe, and wasn't seen as even necessary by many consumers considering the high price of over $1000 for a player when dvd players went for under $100 easily, yet somehow, consumers found some advantage to blu-ray since it eventually took off in 2010 once prices eventually got down closer to the dvd player level. I think there are some parallels here with LCD and OLED, in a way. Seems like OLED is now being deemed as inevitable at this point through news reports and the talk on the forum over the past week seems to confirm that- although we're a smaller group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED could be like blu-ray and continue capturing more of the market year after year as costs come down to be more competitive while showing consumering the technical advantages and LCD could continue to be a trusted technology that many consumers deem good enough.



Here's the thing... A BluRay player costs the same to make as a DVD player did a few years ago. Its part list is almost identical, save for the different laser, different microprocessor, etc. But almost everything is corresponding.


Many BluRay players are sold to play DVDs. Mass production of those players was going to make them cheap and there was no need for distinct DVD players. There was no "DVD player fab" that could make DVD players super cheaply but couldn't immediately be converted to a BluRay player "fab".


To replace the industry's LCD capacity -- approximately 200 million current units _just for TV_ (not to mention that many screens again for computers and that many screens _again_ for phones) -- will absolutely take more than a decade _even if it's true that OLEDs can eventually be made more cheaply_ and have absolutely no downsides.


So far, it doesn't appear remotely likely that OLED is going to replace the low end of the LCD market for 10 years or more. It also doesn't appear that capacity is being built in the near term to tackle (a) the computer market or (b) the TV market outside of very limited sizes.


If _everyone_ who is dancing around OLED right now actually joins the party and commences serious investment over the next 24 months (and by everyone I mean not just Samsung and LG, but also Panasonic. Chi Mei and even Sharp), it's inevitable that a portion of the TV market will become OLED. Those manufacturers will quite literally replace a portion of their LCD production with OLED production. So _it's a self-fulfilling prophecy_ not a prediction that this will happen -- assuming you see the fabs being built or retrofitted.


There is a precedent for being able to see the future clearly. When everyone and their brother started overbuilding LCD fab capacity several years ago, two things were clear before they happened (1) that PDP would be relegated to a small slice of the market -- which it has been, even though that small slice has at times grown _slightly_ larger (2) that no one would make much money selling those LCD panels for years to come -- which is exactly what's happened. The commodity panel market has sucked.


There is a less talked about motivation among several of these parties to develop OLED TVs and to tell you they are "better". If Samsung and LG and Panasonic and Sharp have you convinced the only good TVs are OLED TVs _and no one else can make those_, they will be able to charge somewhat more money for TVs -- or at least that's the hope. The reality is that consumers won't pay much more for TVs than they pay now and that no matter what advantages OLED has in manufacturer, the insanely high yields of LCD won't be matched by OLED for years.


Many of us have waited more than a decade for OLED TVs to become real and the stars are finally aligning to make that reality something we can almost touch and see. A lot of our speculation about how much of the market OLED will garner and how successful it will be is really around the margins. Questions like "will OLED drive LCD from the market?" are really better for the next decade. Mathematically, they aren't meaningful for this one.


----------



## HDPeeT

What are the drawbacks of using an oxide TFTs vs. low-temperature-poly-silicon?


There must be a reason why LTPS has been the preferred method?


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21443838
> 
> 
> Here's the thing... A BluRay player costs the same to make as a DVD player did a few years ago. Its part list is almost identical, save for the different laser, different microprocessor, etc. But almost everything is corresponding.
> 
> 
> Many of us have waited more than a decade for OLED TVs to become real and the stars are finally aligning to make that reality something we can almost touch and see. A lot of our speculation about how much of the market OLED will garner and how successful it will be is really around the margins. Questions like "will OLED drive LCD from the market?" are really better for the next decade. Mathematically, they aren't meaningful for this one.



By this logic, OLED TV is not that different from LCD even using same Oxide TFT










Again I do not expect LCD to disappear with OLED coming. Neither did Plasma disappear when LCD came. It wil take years to upseat the incumbent.


But I'm glad we're finally going to have a 3rd plausible display tech after CRT. And I do sense rogo sounds more positive this year











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21443145
> 
> 
> BOM....bill of materials. It runs less than $200 for most high-end smartphones. Here is the estimated breakdown on the latest iPhone.
> 
> http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/iPhone-4S-Carries-BOM-of-$188,-IHS-iSuppli-Teardown-Analysis-Reveals.aspx
> 
> 
> The 3.5" LCD is estimated at $23 with a $14 touchscreen.
> 
> 
> Here is one for the Nokia N8 from iSuppli last year. The combination of the AMOLED display and the touchscreen is estimated at $39.25.
> 
> http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/New...n-Reveals.aspx
> 
> 
> I just dont see non-Samsung manufacturers willing to increase their BOM by $10 for an OLED...and I'm obviously pretty bullish on OLED's.
> 
> 
> Slacker



This is from CLSA 7 nov 11:

"We can search DisplaySearch’s reports by size, resolution and backplane technology (a-Si or LTPS). SMD’s main product is a 4.0” display with resolution of 480 x 800. SMD’s price for an OLED panel with these specifications is US$39. AUO and Sony sell a similar LCD panel. The AUO price is US$27 while the Sony price is US$30. The different prices may reflect other specifications (such as brightness) that we cannot control for, or may reflect the bargaining position of each company. For the purpose of our analysis, we consider these as the low and high estimates for comparable LCD prices. Therefore the OLED premium is a hefty 30-40%."


But I agree the touchscreen component, which is built in for Super AMOLED, is probably the one causing the confusion.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21444157
> 
> 
> This is from CLSA 7 nov 11:
> 
> "We can search DisplaySearch's reports by size, resolution and backplane technology (a-Si or LTPS). SMD's main product is a 4.0 display with resolution of 480 x 800. SMD's price for an OLED panel with these specifications is US$39. AUO and Sony sell a similar LCD panel. The AUO price is US$27 while the Sony price is US$30. The different prices may reflect other specifications (such as brightness) that we cannot control for, or may reflect the bargaining position of each company. For the purpose of our analysis, we consider these as the low and high estimates for comparable LCD prices. Therefore the OLED premium is a hefty 30-40%."
> 
> 
> But I agree the touchscreen component, which is built in for Super AMOLED, is probably the one causing the confusion.



FWIW, this is from an Avondale report in July. I wish I had access to the underlying Displaysearch reports, but if I had that much extra cash lying around, I would blow it on buying one of the new OLED televisions .



> Quote:
> A July 2010 iSuppli component breakdown for Apple's iPhone 4 estimated the retina display to cost $28.50,
> 
> and a February 2011 breakdown by iSuppli suggested that cost may have declined slightly. More recently,
> 
> DisplaySearch estimated the Super AMOLED+ in Samsung's Galaxy line of phones cost ~$25, and UBM
> 
> TechInsights estimated the display price of the Motorola Droid 2 to be ~$20. We view this as a likely indicator
> 
> that at this size, OLED displays are being priced competitively against high quality LCDs, and remain slightly
> 
> more expensive than traditional lower quality LCDs (thin film transistor LCDs, or TFT LCDs). The following
> 
> table compares smartphones with different display technologies.



You can see why I think so much hinges on the move to Oxide-TFT. It might be more expensive than a-si, but the fact that it is cheaper than LTPS is a very big deal.


Slacker


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21443968
> 
> 
> What are the drawbacks of using an oxide TFTs vs. low-temperature-poly-silicon?
> 
> 
> There must be a reason why LTPS has been the preferred method?



The biggest reason is simply that Oxide-TFT has issues with stability that had yet to be resolved. The fact that Sharp is building Oxide-TFT (IGZO) capacity for Apple shows that they believe these problems have been overcome for LCD's.


OLED's likely produce different stresses on the backplane but it seems that LG believes that they have also managed to solve the technical problems. Of course, we'll have to wait and see if LG actually puts their money where there mouth is....


Slacker


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21444258
> 
> 
> FWIW, this is from an Avondale report in July.



Ah now I see... that makes sense... besides the Super AMOLED touch screen confusion, retina displays are more expensive than the regular ones. So probably same size similar price but *different resolution*.


PS Interesting... Wonder if we can approximate OLED TV panel to 4K LCD TV panel as well







in the short term. If given the choice, which one will one choose?


----------



## lovswr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21442336
> 
> 
> So the thing is, that's all from legitimate R&D. They developed a technology, they licensed the heck out of it. They collect fees.
> 
> 
> And yet, in aggregate, Sony is a money loser.
> 
> 
> They need a high-margin hit product -- or several. For too long, they've tried to make money selling other people's technology (Windows, Android, LCD). It's not working for them




rogo, I completely agree with what your are saying. In fact, IMHO, this is the number 1 problem with large corporate entities in the US. No one wants to own (read make/manufacture) anything. Not only do they want to outsource the employees, but to the extent that it can be, also the product or service they are selling.


----------



## David_B

Sony still makes OLED displays.


Sony has plenty of R&D still going on in OLED.


Sony producted the first consumer OLED TV.


Sony still owns many OLED patents.


Anyone that thinks OLED isn't about to take the throne from LCD within 10 years isn't really looking at the trends and the announcements of LCD plants being converted to OLED, and plants being converted to LCD manufacturing methods that could be then converted to OLED manufacturing.


Samsung is supposedly priming the pump by seperating electronics from the display in upcoming LCD TVs.

Separate displays coming 


Plasma has only stayed around because they had a price advantage to LCD in the big screen size, and with the ramp up of plants that can make larger LCD panels, that price advantage will quickly vanish.


Once the non-breakable flexible OLED TVs are price equivalent, LCD will be done as a major force.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovswr* /forum/post/21444326
> 
> 
> rogo, I completely agree with what your are saying. In fact, IMHO, this is the number 1 problem with large corporate entities in the US. No one wants to own (read make/manufacture) anything. Not only do they want to outsource the employees, but to the extent that it can be, also the product or service they are selling.


----------



## HDPeeT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21444281
> 
> 
> The biggest reason is simply that Oxide-TFT has issues with stability that had yet to be resolved. The fact that Sharp is building Oxide-TFT (IGZO) capacity for Apple shows that they believe these problems have been overcome for LCD's.
> 
> 
> OLED's likely produce different stresses on the backplane but it seems that LG believes that they have also managed to solve the technical problems. Of course, we'll have to wait and see if LG actually puts their money where there mouth is....
> 
> 
> Slacker



Are we sure Apple is going to be using Sharp's IGZO? I thought it was still conjecture at this point.


If Apple is going with IGZO I think it's an encouraging sign for OLED down the road.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovswr* /forum/post/21444326
> 
> 
> rogo, I completely agree with what your are saying. In fact, IMHO, this is the number 1 problem with large corporate entities in the US. No one wants to own (read make/manufacture) anything. Not only do they want to outsource the employees, but to the extent that it can be, also the product or service they are selling.



Absolutely right. This has become a culture of greed, as opposed to building and producing a society that is productive for everyone. An enlightened business owner builds a relationship with his employees and customers, which promotes loyalty, productivity and growth into the future.


The US could be building and exporting the best of everything.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21445219
> 
> 
> Are we sure Apple is going to be using Sharp's IGZO? I thought it was still conjecture at this point.
> 
> 
> If Apple is going with IGZO I think it's an encouraging sign for OLED down the road.



There are two separate facts which the companies have separately announced.


1) Sharp is transitioning a Gen 6 a-si fab that was used for televisions to IGZO and it will be used for tablets with production slated to start before the end of their FY (ending March 2012). This is a large amount of tablet capacity and if Apple is not the customer they are going to have a problem.


2) Apple invested billions to insure their LCD supply a few months before Sharp made the IGZO announcement.


I dont think either Sharp or Apple has acknowledged whether an investment has been made in the company though it has been reported in the Japanese newspapers. The WSJ has said sources indicate that the IGZO supply is destined for the iPad 3.


I would put a very high probability that the story is true. Maybe Sharp will have problems and Apple will go with an alternatitive, but I certainly think they are trying to get it into the iPad3.


Slacker


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21444157
> 
> 
> By this logic, OLED TV is not that different from LCD even using same Oxide TFT



No it isn't. A BluRay plant is an assembly plant, not a fab. So is a DVD fab. A disc player is an assemblage of a plastic case, a power supply, a motor, some miscellaneous plastic and LEDs, and a laser, along with a logic board. A generic Foxconn plant can assemble BluRay players alongside laptops, iPhones, and lord knows what else.


The comparison to a fab is entirely irrelevant. I know you put up a smiley, but really it does a disservice to this discussion to even hint at a comparison. This is an apples to tacos comparison.


> Quote:
> Again I do not expect LCD to disappear with OLED coming. Neither did Plasma disappear when LCD came. It wil take years to upseat the incumbent.



Plasma never had LCD's market presence or really share (since LCD has owned computing even when plasma owned the much, much tinier flat-panel TV market).


> Quote:
> But I'm glad we're finally going to have a 3rd plausible display tech after CRT. And I do sense rogo sounds more positive this year



Rogo sees an industry developing ecosystems to make stuff happen. He sees a lot of companies getting involved in making the first steps toward a decade-long transition. He has touched and seen many a Samsung AMOLED-based phone.


That's a far cry from before when idiots like LG showing off displays they have no actual intention to manufacture. Rogo, however, worries that LG still makes announcements like the one they just made for a "product" they really don't intend to have on the market in the coming year. Rogo finds LG hard to take seriously. Rogo is done talking in the 3rd person.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21444652
> 
> 
> Sony still makes OLED displays.
> 
> 
> Sony has plenty of R&D still going on in OLED.
> 
> 
> Sony producted the first consumer OLED TV.
> 
> 
> Sony still owns many OLED patents.



Sony makes a couple hundred (thousand) OLEDs for broadcast centers and trucks per year. This is not a display "business" in any conventional sense that we talk about it here. They have no known R&D going on vis a vis manufacturing OLED, which is really the only issue stopping mass commercialization.


Sony took its lead with the first consumer OLED TV and then left the market, with no evidence of ever planning on returning.


Kodak owns a lot of patents. Check their stock price.


> Quote:
> Anyone that thinks OLED isn't about to take the throne from LCD within 10 years isn't really looking at the trends and the announcements of LCD plants being converted to OLED, and plants being converted to LCD manufacturing methods that could be then converted to OLED manufacturing.



I don't think anyone is arguing against that. I think there is a serious question as to whether OLED will control 51% of the display market by 2020 however. So I'm not sure how we are defining "throne". There are also questions about mass producing large-size OLEDs _that have not been answered_ by anyone.


You overstate things like "converted to LCD manufacturing methods that could then be converted to OLED manufacturing". Sharp is not moving to IGZO to facilitate the conversion to OLED. They are doing it for business reasons in the LCD business. Still, the fact the OLED folks seem to agree the future of their TFT backplanes is IGZO and the LCD folks seem to also agree on that is generally a good thing.


> Quote:
> Plasma has only stayed around because they had a price advantage to LCD in the big screen size, and with the ramp up of plants that can make larger LCD panels, that price advantage will quickly vanish.



That's not why plasma has stayed around. It's stayed around because the plants are built and high yielding and amortized _and they can make cheap TVs in various sizes_. The fact that neither Samsung nor LG could reliably produce a >60" LCD mattered some. The fact that Panasonic was exceptionally good at selling inexpensive 42" and 50" plasmas mattered more.


> Quote:
> Once the non-breakable flexible OLED TVs are price equivalent, LCD will be done as a major force.



So around 2030 then. If that. No one is working on mass producing flexible, non-breakable OLEDs. And quite frankly, if the price premium for such a display is 5%, they won't comprise the bulk of displays sold ever.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovswr* /forum/post/21444326
> 
> 
> rogo, I completely agree with what your are saying. In fact, IMHO, this is the number 1 problem with large corporate entities in the US. No one wants to own (read make/manufacture) anything. Not only do they want to outsource the employees, but to the extent that it can be, also the product or service they are selling.



Sad but true.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4* /forum/post/21445348
> 
> 
> Absolutely right. This has become a culture of greed, as opposed to building and producing a society that is productive for everyone. An enlightened business owner builds a relationship with his employees and customers, which promotes loyalty, productivity and growth into the future.
> 
> 
> The US could be building and exporting the best of everything.



We have met the enemy and he is us. Time for a revolution!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21446081
> 
> 
> There are two separate facts which the companies have separately announced.
> 
> 
> 1) Sharp is transitioning a Gen 6 a-si fab that was used for televisions to IGZO and it will be used for tablets with production slated to start before the end of their FY (ending March 2012). This is a large amount of tablet capacity and if Apple is not the customer they are going to have a problem.
> 
> 
> 2) Apple invested billions to insure their LCD supply a few months before Sharp made the IGZO announcement.
> 
> 
> I dont think either Sharp or Apple has acknowledged whether an investment has been made in the company though it has been reported in the Japanese newspapers. The WSJ has said sources indicate that the IGZO supply is destined for the iPad 3.
> 
> 
> I would put a very high probability that the story is true. Maybe Sharp will have problems and Apple will go with an alternatitive, but I certainly think they are trying to get it into the iPad3.



Slacker, small favor: Please stop signing your posts. Your name is always to the left, we know it's you.


OK, now back to your content.


1) I tend to agree that it's all but confirmed that Apple put money into Sharp. Whether this was done as a pre-buy, some combo of equity and pre-buy, some special-purpose entity, or whatnot, who knows? But it seems to have happened.


2) I believe Apple wants to buy displays from LG, Sharp and Samsung for iPad3. They got screwed a bit by LG on iPad2 and given their market power, even just dual-sourcing is not in their long-term interests if they can avoid it. So while we again lack confirmation, I suspect that we'll eventually learn that next-gen iPad has displays from all of them (perhaps only 2 of the 3 will be the high-res screens and the third will supply only low res for the iPad2 carry-over models... we'll see).


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21380372
> 
> 
> If the OLED tablet market took off, I could see Samsung maybe tightening supplies to competitors but absent that, they will have a ton of excess capacity.
> 
> 
> I know that equivalent capacity doesnt equal actual shipments, but 50 million units seems way way low. I cant imagine that they could be profitable at that kind of utilization number.
> 
> 
> Slacker



They're making something like 12-15 million a month right now, and still ramping.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21446081
> 
> 
> 1) Sharp is transitioning a Gen 6 a-si fab that was used for televisions to IGZO and it will be used for tablets with production slated to start before the end of their FY (ending March 2012). This is a large amount of tablet capacity and if Apple is not the customer they are going to have a problem.



This is interesting... why do they need IGZO for retina display when LG Display didn't?


I have the impression that part of G8 was for iPad3 and G6 for iPhones?


And yes Apple is trying to diversify their supply. CMI was in iPad2 and would be in iPad3 if not for the fact that they are so hopeless. That's also another reason why OLED for Apple is unlikely to happen soon as long as the supplier is their major competitor. Foundry for their chip has historical reasons.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21447232
> 
> 
> Rogo sees an industry developing ecosystems to make stuff happen. He sees a lot of companies getting involved in making the first steps toward a decade-long transition. He has touched and seen many a Samsung AMOLED-based phone.
> 
> 
> That's a far cry from before when idiots like LG showing off displays they have no actual intention to manufacture. Rogo, however, worries that LG still makes announcements like the one they just made for a "product" they really don't intend to have on the market in the coming year. Rogo finds LG hard to take seriously. Rogo is done talking in the 3rd person.



I totally agree, especially on LG







My favorite quote from Keynes is: When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?


Many people don't.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21448130
> 
> 
> This is interesting... why do they need IGZO for retina display when LG Display didn't?



I think the key is that IGZO offers the opportunity for cheaper displays. The cost for the LTPS fab capacity to build 100 million iPad retina displays would have been ridiculous.


Must resist urge to sign name


----------



## slacker711

Samsung "Super OLED" television sign seen at CES.

http://www.theverge.com/hd/2012/1/6/...ed-tv-ces-2012 


It is unimaginable to me that Samsung will let LG be first to market.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21453883
> 
> 
> Samsung "Super OLED" television sign seen at CES.
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/hd/2012/1/6/...ed-tv-ces-2012
> 
> 
> It is unimaginable to me that Samsung will let LG be first to market.



I tend to agree with that in principle. The one wildcard is that LG's manufacturing method seems likely to be viable in a reasonably high-yield production line. Samsung's method is still only a maybe.


----------



## HDPeeT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21454441
> 
> 
> I tend to agree with that in principle. The one wildcard is that LG's manufacturing method seems likely to be viable in a reasonably high-yield production line. Samsung's method is still only a maybe.



Do you know for sure that the prototype will be made using the same methods (LTPS/RGB) as their mobile screens? I assume it's going to, but with LG's announcement.........


----------



## ALMA

Samsung use DuPont´s technology:


In October 2011 an insider post this at AVS:



> Quote:
> *While I'm under a NDA, we just finished a project that should make CCFL/LED history. I can say that it involves OLED (e.g. in large sizes) that will blow everything you now see completely out of the water (e.g. accuracy, contrast, response time etc.).
> 
> 
> All can add that existing LCD production lines with only minimal cost/change, will be be able to adopt this new technology (e.g. expect production in 2012).Hint: Keep an eye on Samsung and LG.*





> Quote:
> *Didn't forget....my involvement is on the engineering end, not marketing. This new kind of display technology, with stunning response time, viewing angles, color and black reproduction won't initially be cheap.
> 
> 
> I can tell you that initial pricing is not about actual production cost, which is not much more than current technologies, but about getting what the market will bear.*
> 
> 
> The LG 55-inch OLED-TV is planned for release in 2012, which probably means approximately 6 - 9 months from now.
> 
> http://flatpanelshd.com/news.php?sub...&id=1311338807
> 
> 
> "It was also stated that initial production capacity will be limited to around 10.000 55-inch OLED-TVs per month, and then increased based on consumer’s reactions. Kwon Young-soo also underlines that the plan is to create a real 55-inch OLED-TV and not just a prototype for trade fairs."
> 
> 
> "LG says that they want to focus on quality instead of quantity in the beginning - and the 55-inch OLED-TV surely won’t be cheap either. LG’s current 15-inch OLED-TV costs around 2500 USD."
> 
> *If I didn't mention it earlier, Samsung's 55" OLED is not far behind.*


 http://xxx.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=21087141&postcount=53 

http://xxx.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=21087257&postcount=54 


Only days later came this news:

http://www.oled-info.com/leading-amo...ing-technology


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21454441
> 
> 
> I tend to agree with that in principle. The one wildcard is that LG's manufacturing method seems likely to be viable in a reasonably high-yield production line. Samsung's method is still only a maybe.



Complete and total speculation on my part, but I think that the rivalry is intense enough between the two companies that Samsung would throw some 5.5G capacity at televisions if they had problems with their 8.5G plans. You can get 2 55" televisions out of a single 5.5G substrate. The current 5.5G substrates are being cut into smaller sizes, but they are planning on ramping a line that uses uncut 5.5G panels in the 2nd half of 2012.


This wouldnt be a long-term solution but I think Samsung will place quite a bit of value on not getting beat to market by LG.


----------



## MaXPL

Sony quits OLED consumer business?
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/07/s...#disqus_thread 


Is this referring to all OLED production, or just those small sets like the XEL? This has to be a joke otherwise. Concentrating on LCD models? HAHAHA.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21455125
> 
> 
> Complete and total speculation on my part, but I think that the rivalry is intense enough between the two companies that Samsung would throw some 5.5G capacity at televisions if they had problems with their 8.5G plans. You can get 2 55" televisions out of a single 5.5G substrate. The current 5.5G substrates are being cut into smaller sizes, but they are planning on ramping a line that uses uncut 5.5G panels in the 2nd half of 2012.
> 
> 
> This wouldnt be a long-term solution but I think Samsung will place quite a bit of value on not getting beat to market by LG.



Interesting point. And early yields can be terrible anyway, since prices will be so high. I wouldn't discount your theory at all.


----------



## David_B

Sony has thrown it's screen R&D into a partnership with Hitachi and Toshiba to create Japan Display K.K.


Who knows what will happen with that.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MaXPL* /forum/post/21457110
> 
> 
> Sony quits OLED consumer business?
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/07/s...#disqus_thread
> 
> 
> Is this referring to all OLED production, or just those small sets like the XEL? This has to be a joke otherwise. Concentrating on LCD models? HAHAHA.


----------



## pcdo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21455125
> 
> 
> Complete and total speculation on my part, but I think that the rivalry is intense enough between the two companies that Samsung would throw some 5.5G capacity at televisions if they had problems with their 8.5G plans. You can get 2 55" televisions out of a single 5.5G substrate. The current 5.5G substrates are being cut into smaller sizes, but they are planning on ramping a line that uses uncut 5.5G panels in the 2nd half of 2012.
> 
> 
> This wouldnt be a long-term solution but I think Samsung will place quite a bit of value on not getting beat to market by LG.


 http://flatpanelshd.com/news.php?sub...&id=1325981761 


Looks like you might be right.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21458163
> 
> 
> Sony has thrown it's screen R&D into a partnership with Hitachi and Toshiba to create Japan Display K.K.
> 
> 
> Who knows what will happen with that.



This is entirely consistent with what I've been stating for a _long_ time: Sony will not be a player in the next wave. At best, they'll keep buying panels from whomever emerges in OLED and try to add value. That strategy has produced no profits in the flat-panel era; I see no reason to believe Sony will change that equation -- regardless of whether the underlying display tech is PDP, LCD or OLED.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Complete and total speculation on my part, but I think that the rivalry is intense enough between the two companies that Samsung would throw some 5.5G capacity at televisions if they had problems with their 8.5G plans. You can get 2 55" televisions out of a single 5.5G substrate. The current 5.5G substrates are being cut into smaller sizes, but they are planning on ramping a line that uses uncut 5.5G panels in the 2nd half of 2012.
> 
> 
> This wouldnt be a long-term solution but I think Samsung will place quite a bit of value on not getting beat to market by LG.



Err isn't that what I've been saying that 5.5G gives them the panel size flexibility?


If LG REALLY jumps from 3.5G to 8G OLED, you can be sure that monitors are not a major part of their plan. I tend to read between the lines of what they DO rather than what they SAY. Show me the $










Fact that LG can't do OLED small size and hence keep trashing that format ie OLED not good for mobile devices speaks volume on their capabilities and strategy.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21462310
> 
> 
> Err isn't that what I've been saying that 5.5G gives them the panel size flexibility?
> 
> 
> If LG REALLY jumps from 3.5G to 8G OLED, you can be sure that monitors are not a major part of their plan. I tend to read between the lines of what they DO rather than what they SAY. Show me the $
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact that LG can't do OLED small size and hence keep trashing that format ie OLED not good for mobile devices speaks volume on their capabilities and strategy.



The part where LG is supposed to master IGZO and master their WOLED technique all at once is the part that makes me go, "hmmmm....."


It's also worth noting that LG is trying to do OLED on the cheap in part because they lack current financial resources to do it on the "expensive". Whether their WOLED decision is objectively correct or not is hard to parse given the state of the balance sheet.


----------



## David_B

 Sharp thinks "light TVs" are important, even if rogo doesn't..


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21465598
> 
> Sharp thinks "light TVs" are important, even if rogo doesn't..



Go ahead and interpret a marketing video any way you want.


Here's my interpretation: Sharp believes LCD is already light enough that no lighter TV technology is required to show off a mobility feature that no one will use.


Next.


----------



## David_B

Not everyone can afford 5 Kuro's like D-nice can.











A TV you can SAFELY move from room to room because of it's lightness will be pretty popular with the customers sharp sells to.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21465659
> 
> 
> Go ahead and interpret a marketing video any way you want.
> 
> 
> Here's my interpretation: Sharp believes LCD is already light enough that no lighter TV technology is required to show off a mobility feature that no one will use.
> 
> 
> Next.


----------



## lymzy

So according to this , Sony is quitting OLED business for consumer markets.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21465880
> 
> 
> Not everyone can afford 5 Kuro's like D-nice can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A TV you can SAFELY move from room to room because of it's lightness will be pretty popular with the customers sharp sells to.



So again, the portion of the market clamoring for this kind of TV is _maybe_ in the low single-digits percentage of the market. Maybe. It's probably lower, but whatever.


More importantly, *it's doable with LCD*, negating the ridiculous claim that "OLED will stomp LCD due to its weight advantage".


Most people have long ago established that TVs don't move from room to room (I'd argue that TVs never moved from room to room). For the people that really like to move their "TV" around, the solution is things like phones, iPads, etc., not wall-pluggable TVs. Yes, yes, the smallest models Sharp showed used batteries. Too bad that portion of the TV market is even tinier....


Weight is not and will not be a major difference-maker. To the extent the few people that care do care, LCD is already meeting their needs. Moving on to real advancements.


----------



## specuvestor

I would think weight MIGHT be an issue with huge size plasma, but not a comparative advantage of OLED vs LCD


Neither is thinness beyond say 2cm. Thin is a heuristic decision for J6P


PS I also vaguely remember the very first Sharp Aquos 20"+ with the large round speakers at the side was supposed to be portable as well. Deja vu?


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21465598
> 
> Sharp thinks "light TVs" are important, even if rogo doesn't..





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21465659
> 
> 
> Go ahead and interpret a marketing video any way you want.
> 
> 
> Here's my interpretation: Sharp believes LCD is already light enough that no lighter TV technology is required to show off a mobility feature that no one will use.
> 
> 
> Next.



I *loved* how the word "SPIN" appeared on one of the screens while that guy was talking!


----------



## guidryp

Sony shows prototype Inorganic LED set.


This is not LED backlight. This individual inorganic LED for each pixel.


Non Organic LEDs should be more durable than OLED.

http://www.techradar.com/news/televi...nology-1053246


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21467051
> 
> 
> I *loved* how the word "SPIN" appeared on one of the screens while that guy was talking!



I like how Sharp's new "Airplay-like" technology is call BeamZit. Ok, I moved the capitalization, but really a pimple gun? Who approves this stuff?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/21467589
> 
> 
> Sony shows prototype Inorganic LED set.
> 
> 
> This is not LED backlight. This individual inorganic LED for each pixel.
> 
> 
> Non Organic LEDs should be more durable than OLED.
> 
> http://www.techradar.com/news/televi...nology-1053246



This is intriguing and they've been alluding to having some major trick up their sleeve for a while now. The problem -- as with everything Sony -- is that it's unlikely they have any ability to manufacture this.


Their diddling around for another 2-4 years while everyone else makes progress on OLED production will again leave Sony buying panels on the market and making no money. I'd love to be wrong, but their tepid comments around this were not impressive.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21468549
> 
> 
> I like how Sharp's new "Airplay-like" technology is call BeamZit. Ok, I moved the capitalization, but really a pimple gun? Who approves this stuff?
> 
> 
> This is intriguing and they've been alluding to having some major trick up their sleeve for a while now. The problem -- as with everything Sony -- is that it's unlikely they have any ability to manufacture this.
> 
> 
> Their diddling around for another 2-4 years while everyone else makes progress on OLED production will again leave Sony buying panels on the market and making no money. I'd love to be wrong, but their tepid comments around this were not impressive.



BeamZit... that's funny







I'm getting to the point that I think Sony TV demise will be earlier than Plasma TV demise (here's talking to you Auditor55







)


We actually discussed about LED TV half a year ago on this thread.


So now with 55" OLED in CES people are still skeptical. I mean I consider myself the usual skeptic but this is getting ridiculous:


-AMOLED will fail because PMOLED failed as only 2 tech succeeded after CRT

-Then as Sammy ramps up G5.5 AMOLED, there are no other mfg except Sammy

-As others adopt OLED, OLED mobile screen is no difference from LCD

-Then as Galaxy S gains traction Blue OLED lifetime and production problem makes it difficult to mass market

-Then as 31" prototype came out it is voltage issue for large OLED TV to be possible

-Then it is OLED TV are too small at 30"+

-Then it is vaporware (could be if Sammy and LG cancels 8G plan but looks more and more unlikely)

-Then if it actually comes with 55" within next 24 months it is too expensive

-Then it will only be 1% market which is insignificant (my forecast for future arguments against OLED TV)


Did I miss anything chronologically? Seriously at what stage does OLED becomes a serious contender rather than a SED wannabe?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post21467526


----------



## irkuck

^^^Yeah, get real people. There is huge fog of display vaporware at the CES to cover depressing status of new products. The only brighter point is Sharp still having drive for high-end products. Sony is in full retreat, Samsung thinks LCD is at the end of the road and promotes 'upgradable' TV in which hardware can be replaced each year.


If you already have a high-end TV keep it since nothing better is in sight. If you plan to buy one, look only at Sharp.


----------



## Lorddeff07

I don't believe anyone here still doubts oled tech.


i am not going to get into any more long winded arguments as over time this thread is actually living chronological prrof of the advancements the tech has made over the years. So only the most, shallow minded, blind and biased nay sayers probably still dispute the viability of this tech.


I will leave it as this though, oled tech will ultimately be cheaper and simpler to manufacture. That alone is going to gurantee its success. Yes, it will be really expensive for a while until more players ome in and production starts to ramp up. But I sincerely believe this transition is inevitable. the pros simply far outweigh the cons.


If anything, i am more concerned that TVs are beginning to have an identity crisis. I feel there is no need for "smart" tvs, there is now just too much tech blending. they should concentrate and making these things less complicated and rather improve ways of connecting your standard desktop, laptop or tablet to your tv.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21468549
> 
> 
> This is intriguing and they've been alluding to having some major trick up their sleeve for a while now. The problem -- as with everything Sony -- is that it's unlikely they have any ability to manufacture this.
> 
> 
> Their diddling around for another 2-4 years while everyone else makes progress on OLED production will again leave Sony buying panels on the market and making no money. I'd love to be wrong, but their tepid comments around this were not impressive.



I agree. I don't see how you would ever get the price down on tiny semiconductor diodes. This will likely remain a pipe dream many cost multiples more expensive than OLED.


----------



## guidryp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21468720
> 
> 
> So now with 55" OLED in CES people are still skeptical. I mean I consider myself the usual skeptic but this is getting ridiculous:



What does CES have to do with anything. There were 27" OLED TV's at CES *5 years ago.
*

Skeptical of what? Excess OLED hype? *Certainly*.


Skeptical that there are eventually going to be OLED mass market TVs? *Certainly not*. I don't think you will find anyone who is.


----------



## agogley




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lorddeff07* /forum/post/21468987
> 
> 
> I don't believe anyone here still doubts oled tech.
> 
> 
> i am not going to get into any more long winded arguments as over time this thread is actually living chronological prrof of the advancements the tech has made over the years. So only the most, shallow minded, blind and biased nay sayers probably still dispute the viability of this tech.
> 
> 
> I will leave it as this though, oled tech will ultimately be cheaper and simpler to manufacture. That alone is going to gurantee its success. Yes, it will be really expensive for a while until more players ome in and production starts to ramp up. But I sincerely believe this transition is inevitable. the pros simply far outweigh the cons.
> 
> 
> If anything, i am more concerned that TVs are beginning to have an identity crisis. I feel there is no need for "smart" tvs, there is now just too much tech blending. they should concentrate and making these things less complicated and rather improve ways of connecting your standard desktop, laptop or tablet to your tv.



Actually, when OLED arguments were first floated, I didn't doubt that such technology was possible, even viable. I do have doubts now. Entering the TV market now is much more difficult now with the plethora of a cheap flat screens available. And while OLED appears to be far superior to LCD, an uniformed consumer may not see it that way. You have to convince the average consumer to buy an OLED over a much cheaper plasma or LCD. Can OLED get cheaper in time. It's possible, but I don't see it in any way being a certainty.


----------



## RicoRich196




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *agogley* /forum/post/21471748
> 
> 
> Actually, when OLED arguments were first floated, I didn't doubt that such technology was possible, even viable. I do have doubts now. Entering the TV market now is much more difficult now with the plethora of a cheap flat screens available. And while OLED appears to be far superior to LCD, an uniformed consumer may not see it that way. You have to convince the average consumer to buy an OLED over a much cheaper plasma or LCD. Can OLED get cheaper in time. It's possible, but I don't see it in any way being a certainty.



While I don't necessarily disagree with you, countless times I've seen people purchase more expensive LCDs over cheaper Plasmas even though most would argue a mid range Panasonic PDP is better than a mid range LCD.


----------



## agogley




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RicoRich196* /forum/post/21472012
> 
> 
> While I don't necessarily disagree with you, countless times I've seen people purchase more expensive LCDs over cheaper Plasmas even though most would argue a mid range Panasonic PDP is better than a mid range LCD.



Yes, people do buy more expensive LCDs over PDPs which gives me hope for OLED. But I think the dynamics of the LCD/PDP are quite a bit different. Plasma suffers from misinformation both intentional and out of ignorance that I'm not sure will plague the OLED vs. LCD competition. Furthermore, the average LCD is much thinner than the average Plasma, uses less power, and has more "pop" in a bright Best Buy floor. The difference between OLED and LCD may be much less obvious to the average consumer.


In any case, I want OLED to succeed, but I don't think it is, by any means, a certainty.


----------



## navychop

_"....Sony will work conscientiously to bring the "Crystal LED Display" to market."_


Oh, yeah, *here's* a product we'll see make it to market. Not.


Pathetic FUD.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21468720
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss anything chronologically? Seriously at what stage does OLED becomes a serious contender rather than a SED wannabe?
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post21467526




when i can see one on display for retail purchase at mht.


----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21472940
> 
> 
> when i can see one on display for retail purchase at mht.



I'd like to see I'd like to see store availability dates, model numbers and prices.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ The model numbers are on the other thread. I think you can get them within 24 months, if not shorter. Whether you're willing to pay is another question.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guidryp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What does CES have to do with anything. There were 27" OLED TV's at CES 5 years ago.
> 
> 
> Skeptical of what? Excess OLED hype? Certainly.
> 
> 
> Skeptical that there are eventually going to be OLED mass market TVs? Certainly not. I don't think you will find anyone who is.



Obviously you haven't had time to read the short flat panel forum. Or even this thread. Maybe you should read first and comment later.


This is my response to the other thread just below this thread, in case you can't find it:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So it seems the common theme is that it is not coming because it has been shown but not delivered?
> 
> 
> I think the Koreans are guilty as charged, but have you guys been FOLLOWING the DEVELOPMENT in OLED?? Specifically the $ and resources put in (and beyond the Koreans) vs just TALK in the other "promising" tech? In addition the surprising WOLED implementation with IGZO by LG so significantly change the game that I think Sammy is stuck between a rock and a hard place? ie OLED no longer has to be precisely manufactured which is a requirement for RGB OLED.
> 
> 
> I'm not gullible after following tech for 30 years. I think 3D is fad. I think CES 2011 is a joke. FWIW I'm skeptical on Sony Crystal TV. But I give credit where I see it instead of relying on convenient historical bias.


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21473021
> 
> 
> In addition the surprising WOLED implementation with IGZO by LG so significantly change the game that I think Sammy is stuck between a rock and a hard place? ie OLED no longer has to be precisely manufactured which is a requirement for RGB OLED.



It was very surprising how impressive LG's TV apparently was, particularly in light of how much Samsung has invested in RGB manufacturing (surprising to me at least, but that doesn't take much).


It will be interesting to see Samsung's response to LG viz-a-viz their presumably upcoming 2012 OLED capex projection - though obviously the real news will be if/when they (start to) spend 8G production factory capex.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21473432
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see Samsung's response to LG viz-a-viz their presumably upcoming 2012 OLED capex projection - though obviously the real news will be if/when they (start to) spend 8G production factory capex.



At this point, the real surprise will be if Samsung does not announce significant 8G capex. It is also overwhelmingly likely that LG will announce a far smaller capex figure as they plan on transitioning their a-si capacity to TFT-Oxide.


After that, it will come down to execution.


----------



## slacker711

I am stunned by the fact that anybody at LG went on the record with a unit goal. If this really is their internal goal, the television has to be priced cheaper than $8000.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabet...s-for-oled-tv/ 



> Quote:
> LG and Samsung upped the ante in the TV tech wars by each unveiling a 55-inch TV with never-before-seen OLED displays. Though analysts have estimated these TVs could cost consumers as much as $10,000, LG executives told Forbes they are projecting sales of 200,000 to 300,000 units this year and up to two million units in 2013.
> 
> 
> 
> LG's first Google TV
> 
> 
> That’s a confident estimate given LG will only make one size (55-inch) of OLED TVs in 2012 and the devices won’t go on sale until May.


----------



## specuvestor

Frankly I am confused by reports saying LG ramping 4.5G fab. I thought they abandoned it for 8G? If they are really ramping 4.5G then 100k this year is achievable?


But it does make sense that with WOLED implementation they don't really need 8G. As discussed before they can just put few OLED substrate together to make their TV as the QUALITY and precision of the OLED is much less stringent vs Sammy's RGB solution.


----------



## vinnie97

Going for sale starting in MAY? I had only heard latter half of 2012 up to this point.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21468720
> 
> 
> BeamZit... that's funny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting to the point that I think Sony TV demise will be earlier than Plasma TV demise (here's talking to you Auditor55
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



I would be very very surprised if Sony is still in the TV business the day the last plasma TV is made. Very surprised.


> Quote:
> So now with 55" OLED in CES people are still skeptical. I mean I consider myself the usual skeptic but this is getting ridiculous:
> 
> 
> -AMOLED will fail because PMOLED failed as only 2 tech succeeded after CRT



Since you are quoting my post here, I defy you to find a single post where I said anything that vaguely resembles this.


> Quote:
> -Then as Sammy ramps up G5.5 AMOLED, there are no other mfg except Sammy



There still isn't, even though a lot of people are either getting close (LG) or saber rattling (others).


> Quote:
> -As others adopt OLED, OLED mobile screen is no difference from LCD



Again, you don't have to believe me. Read reviews. There are virtually none that call the Galaxy Screen dramatically better than the iPhone screen. Better? Some say yes. Dramatically better? Not in any credible review I read -- nor to my own eyes.


> Quote:
> -Then as Galaxy S gains traction Blue OLED lifetime and production problem makes it difficult to mass market



Again, I defy you to find me commenting on this.


> Quote:
> -Then as 31" prototype came out it is voltage issue for large OLED TV to be possible



We were led to believe this would be an issue with drive voltages. To the extent I commented on this at all, I was parrotting the knowledge of others.


> Quote:
> -Then it is OLED TV are too small at 30"+



And sure enough, that size is being bypassed by a screen nearly 4x as large.


> Quote:
> -Then it is vaporware (could be if Sammy and LG cancels 8G plan but looks more and more unlikely)



Last year's LG was vaporware. This year? If the two of them combined sell 100K units, I'll be impressed.


> Quote:
> -Then if it actually comes with 55" within next 24 months it is too expensive



Well, it will be. LG's estimate of their street price was "under $15,000". Now, of course, this will change in time.


> Quote:
> -Then it will only be 1% market which is insignificant (my forecast for future arguments against OLED TV)



Well, 1% of the market in 2013 would be impressive. Likely? I'm not convinced yet; but impressive.


> Quote:
> Did I miss anything chronologically? Seriously at what stage does OLED becomes a serious contender rather than a SED wannabe?



Again, since you quoted my post, I wonder if you've read my posts of late. They are far more bullish that you would seem to be suggesting. Dramatically more so in fact.


----------



## specuvestor

^^^ Actually I was addressing the other skeptics, though there are many similar issues you've brought up before. You have certainly turned more positive. The irony is that the other "rogos" are *at least* 6 months late to what we had been discussing.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21474541
> 
> 
> [ flamesuit]
> 
> 
> So I haven't spent time with the Samsung OLED yet, but I spent a good, long while with the LG. Let's dispense with the preliminaries, it's ridiculously thin and the bezel is teeny. If they bring a TV to market with that design, it will have to be wall-mount only. I doubt there was a single person at CES who couldn't have snapped the screen by holding opposite corners and pulling. I would find an extra 3-6mm and build in a magnesium or titanium or whatever internal metal backplane and bolt the back panel to that.
> 
> 
> LG has a few of the displays showing 3-D. LG is, as many know, a support of passive 3-D. The result was that the resolution of the 3-D demos was noticeably compromised. That said, the "3-Dness" was stunning. I'm yet to see a 3-D demo that has the kind of depth the OLED had. I suspect this is because of the fantastic bright-room contrast of the display. High contrast increases the apparent depth of the image and the result was apparent in the 3-D demos.
> 
> 
> LG was willing to commit to the retail price coming in below $15,000. Yes, you read that right. The part where I kept guessing it would be $9999 and I couldn't get anyone to commit to "below $10,000" was, um, telling.
> 
> 
> [ /flamesuit]



So I am not going to participate in the other OLED threads if posters there don't bother to check out what we've been discussing here. As discussed I am confident that OLED will look better under light and better for black ie MLL


And I've been guessing that the street price would likely be 3X Elite 60" street price


So do you think J6P could see the difference between an Elite and a OLED TV (without using a meter of course)? If so I would think it is very positive since this is only the first generation, vs the best LCD has to offer. Visually do you think Sammy OLED is better or LG?


----------



## User Tron

Why is erveryone so skeptical regading LG's OLED capabilities? At least they have a OLED TV for more than a year which you can buy. LG 15" OLED


----------



## slacker711

Panasonic aims to have an OLED television in 2012 while Sharp doesnt think that there is a market.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8CABNU20120111 



> Quote:
> Panasonic Corp President Fumio Ohtsubo said his company was planning to release its own OLED TV as soon as this year, close to when he expects Samsung and LG to begin selling theirs in stores.
> 
> 
> "Unfortunately we weren't able to show one at the show this time, but we are certainly developing it," he told reporters at a briefing in Las Vegas. "I can't say exactly when, but if Samsung and LG put theirs out this year we will try and make sure we are not too late."
> 
> 
> But Japan's leading LCD panel maker, Sharp Corp, is less enthusiastic about the appeal that ultra-thin but expensive OLED screens will have with consumers, who can buy high picture quality conventional televisions for much less.
> 
> 
> OLED "won't create a new market, it will just be replacement of what's already out there," Sharp President Mikio Katayama said at the Sharp booth in the Las Vegas Convention Center. His company has no plans yet to join the OLED market, he said.
> 
> 
> Katayama declined to discuss speculation that Sharp will supply Apple with panels for its assault on the TV market.


----------



## borf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *User Tron* /forum/post/21474868
> 
> 
> Why is erveryone so skeptical regading LG's OLED capabilities? At least they have a OLED TV for more than a year which you can buy. LG 15" OLED



I remember going through all this with SED and wondering why all the negativity. I don't ask that anymore.

But OLED looks more promising than SED did. I'm not going to worry until i start seeing "never give up on OLED!" in peoples signature.


----------



## David_B

This isn't surprising.


Samsung (#1) and LG (#2) would rather be leaders instead of 2nd tier mass producers chewing off sales around the edges (Sharp).


Panasonic's problem is TV isn't important enough for them to want to compete to be #anything higher then they are. They seem happy trying to get extra money out of the consumer for an equivilant product to others.


I think Samsung hopes that OLED has a long future in front of it. One where costs go down, where future improvments to the tech outstip any in LCD or Plasma, screens can get bigger and OLED PRICES come way down at about the time 3D becomes more pervasive and the ultra high contrast/light output of OLED makes OLED sets look far better then any others.


Vs Sharp who's just happy to be in a lot of stores and make money off every set they make.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21475577
> 
> 
> Panasonic aims to have an OLED television in 2012 while Sharp doesnt think that there is a market.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8CABNU20120111


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21475577
> 
> 
> Panasonic aims to have an OLED television in 2012 while Sharp doesnt think that there is a market.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8CABNU20120111



Wow, did not expect that at all. Wouldn't it be a shocker if by the end of this year we can choose from LG, Samsung and Panasonic OLED TV's? Panasonic seems to be the least likely to succeed if they could not even show a prototype at CES.


----------



## David_B

Competition is good!


Let's look at that 15inch LG OLED set.


It was $1700GBP when release around August of 2010, today it's $1050GBP, Or almost 40% less in just over a year.


Even if the 55 inch came out at $10k, it would be almost $6k in about a year. Still a lot, but 2 years down the road, prices could be very competative.


Unless China really starts flooding the market with backlit LCD/LEDs. Which may not be so out of the possibility.












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21475774
> 
> 
> Wow, did not expect that at all. Wouldn't it be a shocker if by the end of this year we can choose from LG, Samsung and Panasonic OLED TV's? Panasonic seems to be the least likely to succeed if they could not even show a prototype at CES.


----------



## specuvestor

Make sense since AFAIK Sharp doesn't have OLED R&D


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21475820
> 
> 
> Even if the 55 inch came out at $10k, it would be almost $6k in about a year. Still a lot, but 2 years down the road, prices could be very competative.



I'm ignoring all price rumors. It seems clear to me that both LG and Samsung are keeping that particular card close to their chest.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21475820
> 
> 
> Unless China really starts flooding the market with backlit LCD/LEDs. Which may not be so out of the possibility.



This seems like a different market segment to me. I think OLED will be high-end for quite some time.


----------



## MikeBiker

Any bets on which year Visio announces an OLED?


----------



## Sunidrem

Just one person's opinion, but it's a start. Found someone who addressed Samsung OLED v. LG OLED:


"It's hard to say which OLED screen we've seen thus far was the sharpest Samsung's or LG's but each is astounding in its sharpness and color saturation."

http://mashable.com/2012/01/11/samsung-oled-tv/


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/21476364
> 
> 
> Any bets on which year Visio announces an OLED?



Never. Because it is spelled Vizio.









All these sets are Vaporware for 2012. If we are lucky, second half of 2013 will start to see a few, but you better have very deep pockets.


----------



## David_B

Samsung had at least 10 OLED 55inch displays at CES.


Doesn't sound very "Vaporware" to me.


How many VT50s does Panasonic have on display?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21477308
> 
> 
> Never. Because it is spelled Vizio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All these sets are Vaporware for 2012. If we are lucky, second half of 2013 will start to see a few, but you better have very deep pockets.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just one person's opinion, but it's a start. Found someone who addressed Samsung OLED v. LG OLED:
> 
> 
> "It's hard to say which OLED screen we've seen thus far was the sharpest Samsung's or LG's but each is astounding in its sharpness and color saturation."
> 
> http://mashable.com/2012/01/11/samsung-oled-tv/



That's not good news for Sammy



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> All these sets are Vaporware for 2012. If we are lucky, second half of 2013 will start to see a few, but you better have very deep pockets.



Since it's only $5 I'll call you on your bet. Amazon voucher please.


Vaporware defined as not purchasable anywhere in the world. For eg LG 31" is vaporware. 15" is not. Price is not a consideration.


Posters here know I have relatively long memory.


----------



## wco81

So these companies talked about it happening soon but did they talk about the prices for this year?


Figures OLED would come out after I just bought a plasma after all these years hoping for SED or OLED.


Of course, I rather doubt I would be willing to pay the premium for these initial products.


----------



## gmarceau

 http://www.avforums.com/forums/ces-2...ease-year.html 


I don't think this will make it in 2012, but chances are it could be a few thousand less than the korean oleds and probably make the ultimate bedroom tv


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/21476364
> 
> 
> Any bets on which year Visio announces an OLED?



Announces? 2013. 2014. 2015. 2016.


Ships? Hahahahaha.


----------



## specuvestor

Interesting review:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Frank Benign* /forum/post/21480696
> 
> 
> Here is one report
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsun...d-tv_TV_review



I may be imagining things but Sammy seemed to be using "artistic blooming" in many of their shots. I hope they're not trying to hide something.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21480716
> 
> 
> Interesting review:
> 
> 
> 
> I may be imagining things but Sammy seemed to be using "artistic blooming" in many of their shots. I hope they're not trying to hide something.



It's not your imagination _at all_. It's used so damned often, I assume it's the OLED equivalent of phosphor lag being hidden. It's possible, though, that the prototypes are being overdriven for demo reasons and so there is a bit of, shall we say, image retention going on... that might well be gone before the shipping product.


Oddly, although I agree with Trusted Reviews that LG's frame and such looked more finished, to me Samsung's panel looked way more production ready than LG's.


----------



## specuvestor

Thanks for the clarification. This is getting intriguing.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21320482
> 
> 
> As for this ridiculous idea of transparent displays when off that become opaque when on, the only way this could possibly work is to have an entire layer behind the illumination layer that can morph from transparent to opaque. This is so ridiculously Rube Goldberg to solve a problem that doesn't exist, never mind the cost. Knock yourself out dreaming about it; there's a reason even on Star Trek the portable displays had bezels and backplanes.



Samsung seem to like the idea: http://www.tested.com/ces-2012-hands...window/47-705/


----------



## ferro

* http://lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/61850 *



> Quote:
> In 2012, LG plans to capture and solidify an early lead in the next generation display market by becoming the industry's first to launch an OLED TV. Following the 55-inch OLED TV's inaugural launch in Korea, the next generation TV will be launched in other markets across the world.
> 
> 
> Already dubbed the future of TV, LG's OLED TV exhibits unparalleled picture quality and design. Meanwhile, LG's OLED panel requires low manufacturing costs, as it is a WRGB-type display panel which is most suitable for large-screen TVs. Additionally, LG's display panels can be manufactured with high productivity, due to their low defect rates.
> 
> 
> LG decided to feature a 55-inch display panel for its first OLED TV, due to increasing demand for large-screen TVs and LG's goal of leading the next generation display market. OLED TVs in the 40-inch range are also scheduled to be launched later on. Their launch dates will be determined in accordance with market developments.


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21483626
> 
> * http://lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/61850 *
> 
> 
> In 2012, LG plans to capture and solidify an early lead in the next generation display market by becoming the industry's first to launch an OLED TV. Following the 55-inch OLED TV's inaugural launch in Korea, the next generation TV will be launched in other markets across the world.
> 
> 
> Already dubbed the future of TV, LG's OLED TV exhibits unparalleled picture quality and design. Meanwhile, LG's OLED panel requires low manufacturing costs, as it is a WRGB-type display panel which is most suitable for large-screen TVs. Additionally, LG's display panels can be manufactured with high productivity, due to their low defect rates.
> 
> 
> LG decided to feature a 55-inch display panel for its first OLED TV, due to increasing demand for large-screen TVs and LG's goal of leading the next generation display market. OLED TVs in the 40-inch range are also scheduled to be launched later on. Their launch dates will be determined in accordance with market developments.



That sounds like these won't make it to the US until 2013. Anytime there's talk of launching in Korea first, it makes me think the product won't even hit US shores. However, since there seems to be a race with Samsung and this isn't led/lcd that could make it different.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21483626
> 
> 
> ..... it is a WRGB-type display panel which is most suitable for large-screen TVs......



I assume by this you mean as regards yields, not PQ. Do I understand you correctly?


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21484383
> 
> 
> I assume by this you mean as regards yields, not PQ. Do I understand you correctly?



You will have to ask LG, it is their press release







. I have edited my post to make this more clear.


But yes, I assume LG means that WRGB is most suitable because of production costs and speed. PQ is probably not a consideration when choosing WRGB.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21478636
> 
> 
> That's not good news for Sammy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since it's only $5 I'll call you on your bet. Amazon voucher please.
> 
> 
> Vaporware defined as not purchasable anywhere in the world. For eg LG 31" is vaporware. 15" is not. Price is not a consideration.
> 
> 
> Posters here know I have relatively long memory.



Ok, I'll book your bet. Not you or anyone on the internet can photograph a 55" LG OLED retail unit in any store in the USA before the end of 2012. Now, I just need 1,999 more suckers and I will have enough to buy one in late 2013 early 2014 when a variation of that vaporware demo unit might actually come out.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll book your bet. Not you or anyone on the internet can photograph a 55" LG OLED retail unit in any store in the USA before the end of 2012. Now, I just need 1,999 more suckers and I will have enough to buy one in late 2013 early 2014 when a variation of that vaporware demo unit might actually come out.



Please don't change the bet. It's not nice. You yourself know the context of your drumming in multiple threads.


Vaporware means not available around the world, otherwise it's called "not available in the USA". USA is not the centre of consumer demand as it used to be.


FWIW if you've been lurking in this thread I've been saying it should be within 2013 but looks like there is good chance of it happening before Christmas so I figured I'll call your bluff. I actually follow the development past 2 years


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21484693
> 
> 
> Please don't change the bet. It's not nice. You yourself know the context of your drumming in multiple threads.
> 
> 
> Vaporware means not available around the world. USA is not the centre of consumer demand as it used to be.
> 
> 
> FWIW if you've been lurking in this thread I've been saying it should be within 2013 but looks like there is good chance of it happening before Christmas so I figured I'll call your bluff. I actually follow the development past 2 years



Check my original post. Since I and the majority of forum member live here in the USA and this was a consumer electronics show in the USA, it was clear what I and LG meant by 2012 release.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post21434214 


It is ok. I will release you from your bet, if your confidence that LG can deliver like they said they could is starting to waver.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21477282
> 
> 
> Just one person's opinion, but it's a start. Found someone who addressed Samsung OLED v. LG OLED:
> 
> 
> "It's hard to say which OLED screen we've seen thus far was the sharpest Samsung's or LG's but each is astounding in its sharpness and color saturation."
> 
> http://mashable.com/2012/01/11/samsung-oled-tv/



I have decided on further viewing that the Samsung is being astoundingly overdriven and it's astounding that they are showing material with such artificial colors on the demo loop.


I don't mean that as a knock on the product, but, lord, the more time I spent there, the more exhausted I was looking at it and the more I realized that it was showing things almost entirely removed from nature -- even when showing the flowers.


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21484868
> 
> 
> I have decided on further viewing that the Samsung is being astoundingly overdriven and it's astounding that they are showing material with such artificial colors on the demo loop.
> 
> 
> I don't mean that as a knock on the product, but, lord, the more time I spent there, the more exhausted I was looking at it and the more I realized that it was showing things almost entirely removed from nature -- even when showing the flowers.



Definitely interesting. And unfortunate. Hides the underlying product. Ahh well, let's hope it's not a fundamental shortcoming therein.


That being said, if they have ten OLED TVs there (believe I read that somewhere), ask them if they can switch one to a repeating loop of the last Super Bowl. That's pretty much all it would take for me to get emotional and commit to overspending on the first OLED TVs to get released (whenever that day may hopefully be).


----------



## David_B

Not really any different then all the other sets on display being in torch mode really.


They always set the platform to it's crowd pleasing setting, not what would be best in home.


LCD for brightness. Plasma for MLL. And now OLED for maximum color saturation and MLL.


Display research did some tests on OLED phones and liked everything they tested except the unreal saturation.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21485494
> 
> 
> Definitely interesting. And unfortunate. Hides the underlying product. Ahh well, let's hope it's not a fundamental shortcoming therein.
> 
> 
> That being said, if they have ten OLED TVs there (believe I read that somewhere), ask them if they can switch one to a repeating loop of the last Super Bowl. That's pretty much all it would take for me to get emotional and commit to overspending on the first OLED TVs to get released (whenever that day may hopefully be).


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21484781
> 
> 
> Check my original post. Since I and the majority of forum member live here in the USA and this was a consumer electronics show in the USA, it was clear what I and LG meant by 2012 release.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post21434214
> 
> 
> It is ok. I will release you from your bet, if your confidence that LG can deliver like they said they could is starting to waver.



I have already pre-empted you by quoting LG 15"/31" as example. Maybe Wikipedia will explain it better:

"Vaporware is a term in the computer industry that describes a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the *general public* but is never actually released nor officially canceled"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware 


So by your logic, general public for CES refers to Americans? And Mobile World Congress is for Europeans? Or Computex is for Taiwanese? Are you those new American generation that thinks there's only 2 countries in the world: USA and ROW?


There is a country on the pacific rim called South Korea which produces 99% of the subject matter and likely produce >90% for the next 3 years. Maybe you need to find out more about them to understand the subject matter better, or read this thread thoroughly. I'm thinking the US marines in South Korea probably has a better world view.


It's not worth the effort to take this bet but since you've been drumming it around as vapourware so I figured someone got to call your bluff. And I had assumed you understood what the nomenclature means. That someone just happens to be me.


For that matter I call Crystal LED a vapourware. But I roughly know what I am talking about.


----------



## JimP

Will you two please take your stupid bet offline and quit cluttering up this thread.


----------



## specuvestor

Excuse me


Your 2 contributions to OLED in this thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post21432615 

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post21438885


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21485494
> 
> 
> Definitely interesting. And unfortunate. Hides the underlying product. Ahh well, let's hope it's not a fundamental shortcoming therein.



I doubt they are fundamental issues, but I think there will be some tweaking done before you see the finished products.


> Quote:
> That being said, if they have ten OLED TVs there (believe I read that somewhere), ask them if they can switch one to a repeating loop of the last Super Bowl. That's pretty much all it would take for me to get emotional and commit to overspending on the first OLED TVs to get released (whenever that day may hopefully be).



The only ones running any video other than the loop are the two-screens-in-one demo, which is real content and looks reasonably good. The 7 screens in the main demo display cannot be changed off the loop.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21485917
> 
> 
> I have already pre-empted you by quoting LG 15"/31" as example. Maybe Wikipedia will explain it better:
> 
> "Vaporware is a term in the computer industry that describes a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the *general public* but is never actually released nor officially canceled"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
> 
> 
> So by your logic, general public for CES refers to Americans? And Mobile World Congress is for Europeans? Or Computex is for Taiwanese? Are you those new American generation that thinks there's only 2 countries in the world: USA and ROW?
> 
> 
> There is a country on the pacific rim called South Korea which produces 99% of the subject matter and likely produce >90% for the next 3 years. Maybe you need to find out more about them to understand the subject matter better, or read this thread thoroughly. I'm thinking the US marines in South Korea probably has a better world view.
> 
> 
> It's not worth the effort to take this bet but since you've been drumming it around as vapourware so I figured someone got to call your bluff. And I had assumed you understood what the nomenclature means. That someone just happens to be me.
> 
> 
> For that matter I call Crystal LED a vapourware. But I roughly know what I am talking about.



Vaporware is any product that never comes to market. A few test demo at a show is still vaporware.

http://gizmodo.com/5875570/the-best-new-vaporware 


As per the original stipulation, you photograph a 55" LG OLED retail unit in the marketplace and I will bump it up to $20, but alas your confidence is starting to crumble that LG will deliver by trying to split hairs.


----------



## specuvestor

Yes the market. The global market.


I will post an Internet link that you can buy it if you are willing to pay. Vaporware is not defined by brick and mortar nowadays in case you have not noticed. By convention most people zip up when confronted by a link where you can actually add a product to a thing called "shopping cart"


It's hardly hair splitting. It's called advancement in commerce. That's the age most people are in.


In case you still wondering, $20 is fine.


----------



## HDPeeT

I have a technical question if there's someone "in the know" about higher refresh rates with OLED.


We all know that OLEDs are super-fast devices with response times in the _micro-_second range, but I'm wondering what kind of limit different types of TFTs put on refresh rates?


For example, in LG's current iteration of the tech, they're using IGZO (at least that's what people here think they're using) which has more uniformity than LTPS but significantly lower electron mobility. Could that have an impact on how fast the panel can refresh the OLEDs?


For guys who just want OLED for watching movies, high refresh probably doesn't matter much, but I'm hoping that the it comes to computer monitors and being able to accept and display true 120hz sources is a must!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21490790
> 
> 
> 
> For guys who just want OLED for watching movies, high refresh probably doesn't matter much, but I'm hoping that the it comes to computer monitors and being able to accept and display true 120hz sources is a must!



I can't see 120Hz being anything but trivial to accomplish.


----------



## HDPeeT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21491133
> 
> 
> I can't see 120Hz being anything but trivial to accomplish.



I'm sorry, are you saying it would be _easy for them_ to accomplish or something that's _of little value_ to accomplish?


Thanks Rogo.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21492607
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, are you saying it would be _easy for them_ to accomplish or something that's _of little value_ to accomplish?
> 
> 
> Thanks Rogo.



No problem. I'm saying the OLEDs are plenty fast enough to manage 120Hz. My sentence might be gramatically correct (it might not be as well), but it's definitely as clear as mud.


I don't know enough about doing computing at 120Hz, but it should be supportable on OLEDs with ease.


----------



## Nielo TM

Sorry for the error:


Higher refresh rate *improve* picture uniformity. For an example, @ 60Hz, there's a 16ms lag between the first line and the last line.


If you restore this window and move it left and right, you'll notice that the edges of the windows become tilted. When playing games, this is more noticeable. It is one of the reasons why I opted for Plasma as it has greater picture uniformity.


Refreshing the OLED at 480Hz would be ideal and they could insert black frames to simulate "pulse" without any major issues.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Higher refresh rate doesn't improve picture uniformity. For an example, @ 60Hz, there's a 16ms lag between the first line and the last line.
> 
> 
> If you restore this window and move it left and right, you'll notice that the edges of the windows become tilted. When playing games, this is more noticeable. It is one of the reasons why I opted for Plasma as it has greater uniformity.
> 
> 
> Refreshing the OLED at 480Hz would be ideal and they would insert black frames to simulate plus without any major issues.



So, are you 'perfectly' happy with your 42 inch Plasma or is there stuff you do not like about it?


----------



## Nielo TM

There are some aspects I don't like (e.g. banding/posterization during motion, adaptive PWM noise, phosphor lag etc) but to be honest, they are nothing compared to the issues I’ve had with LCDs.


LCDs do have some inherent issues (mainly the gamma shift), but their Quality Control is poor (regardless of the price range).


----------



## 8mile13

ok.


----------



## Nielo TM

I just hope OLED don't suffer from banding/dirty screen and tinting issues.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21489216
> 
> 
> Vaporware is any product that never comes to market. A few test demo at a show is still vaporware.



I will agree that this might still be vaporware. I will wait until someone posts pics of it in their living room to reverse that opinion.


Also I will say that before I buy one there will need to be more than a few out there for at least 2 years being used to see how bad problems like color shift, burn in are.


----------



## coolscan

Occasionally there are some discussions in this thread about transparent OLED screens and what they could be used for. Here is a video from CES that demonstrate some of the conceptual possibilities uses in the future; http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/15/S...ate/#continued


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan* /forum/post/21496471
> 
> 
> Occasionally there are some discussions in this thread about transparent OLED screens and what they could be used for. Here is a video from CES that demonstrate some of the conceptual possibilities uses in the future; http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/15/S...ate/#continued



That's an LCD window that uses the light from outside as a backlight. Several concepts (like the blinds) are not possible with OLED.


Still nice


----------



## Nielo TM

OLEDs are transparent by nature. So it's entirely possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G3wWmtkN88


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/21496906
> 
> 
> OLEDs are transparent by nature. So it's entirely possible.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G3wWmtkN88



But OLED cannot block light, which is what makes the LCD Window so versatile.


You could add an LCD layer to a transparent OLED display of course


----------



## Nielo TM

No it's can't but there's no need to as long as the OLED can fight off the ambient light. And it can be used in the dark unlike LCD. It also doesn't have the ugly greenish tint










PS: LCD will also block large amount of light where OLED doesn't











PPS: If someone wants a black background, then just turn the back to black either via Smart Glass or simple LCD


----------



## 1750

Not knowing much about OLED, I'm curious..is it more, less, or equally susceptible to burn in as plasma?


----------



## Nielo TM

No one know the answer to that yet.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21490790
> 
> 
> I have a technical question if there's someone "in the know" about higher refresh rates with OLED.
> 
> 
> We all know that OLEDs are super-fast devices with response times in the _micro-_second range, but I'm wondering what kind of limit different types of TFTs put on refresh rates?
> 
> 
> For example, in LG's current iteration of the tech, they're using IGZO (at least that's what people here think they're using) which has more uniformity than LTPS but significantly lower electron mobility. Could that have an impact on how fast the panel can refresh the OLEDs?
> 
> 
> For guys who just want OLED for watching movies, high refresh probably doesn't matter much, but I'm hoping that the it comes to computer monitors and being able to accept and display true 120hz sources is a must!



OLED has response time that of Plasma, so refresh rate is not an issue. But refresh rate for plasma and LCD has different implication as one is pulse based while the other is Sample & Hold. So simplistically people just like to look at numbers and conclude heuristically but they actually have different implication due to the technology involved. I always refer people to this link to learn more about refresh rate:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1285072 


In addition, in another thread xrox actually commented higher refresh rate could be detrimental to pulse based devices as it increases hold time, which make sense to me in a certain way, though not sure if it is perceivable.


Anything above 120Hz I think is mostly marketing talk. Most of the time it applies more to the improvement of LCD response time than refresh rate. Which software are you using that output 120fps source? Do note that there is a difference between the nomenclature of 120Hz and 120fps which people usually confuse with. When you understand the difference you will understand how it works










The bottomline is that 120Hz or refresh rate is not an issue for OLED. The solution to all the visual ghosting issue IMHO is to have higher frame rate upto 120fps source. In fact I can see the industry moving towards 120fps 4k lossless, which by then it will hit a brick wall, like Audio has now. It will not happen tomorrow but likely within my lifetime











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/21494101
> 
> 
> Refreshing the OLED at 480Hz would be ideal and they could insert black frames to simulate "pulse" without any major issues.



Why would you need OLED to simulate pulse when it is pulse based?


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1750* /forum/post/21497646
> 
> 
> Not knowing much about OLED, I'm curious..is it more, less, or equally susceptible to burn in as plasma?



Based on Samsung's smaller OLED screens used in their mobile devices, burn-in is a major problem. There are many complaints of android's honeycomb soft-buttons getting burned-in because they are always present on-screen and can't be hidden.


Sony's OLED monitors also have a forced screen-saver which turns off the display if you leave a static image on it too long. Not a good sign.


We can only hope that the LG is better. For a device that is to be used for watching letterboxed movies, they better solve this issue soon. Can you imagine getting permanent burn-in on a display this expensive?


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig* /forum/post/21499648
> 
> 
> Based on Samsung's smaller OLED screens used in their mobile devices, burn-in is a major problem. There are many complaints of android's honeycomb soft-buttons getting burned-in because they are always present on-screen and can't be hidden.
> 
> 
> Sony's OLED monitors also have a forced screen-saver which turns off the display if you leave a static image on it too long. Not a good sign.
> 
> 
> We can only hope that the LG is better. For a device that is to be used for watching letterboxed movies, they better solve this issue soon. *Can you imagine getting permanent burn-in on a display this expensive?*



Well, some early adopters of Plasma surely can.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21499463
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you need OLED to simulate pulse when it is pulse based?




As far as im aware the curent OLED are based on AM


----------



## HDPeeT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21499463
> 
> 
> Anything above 120Hz I think is mostly marketing talk. Most of the time it applies more to the improvement of LCD response time than refresh rate. Which software are you using that output 120fps source?



I play a lot of FPS (first-person shooter) games on the PC, and if you have a fast enough graphics card it can render many games (especially older, less graphically demanding games) at well beyond 120 frames per second. The display I'm using is a 120hz twisted nematic (TN) LCD that CAN accept a 1080p/120hz signal over dual-link DVI and ACTUALLY DISPLAY 120 unique frames per second, not the interpolated frames we talk about with 120/240hz TVs.


The difference between gaming at 120hz and 60hz is like night and day. To quote an Anandtech writer, "it's about as subtle as a dump truck driving through your living room". All other things being equal I feel playing/competing online with a 120hz monitor gives you a huge advantage over someone who isn't. You have less input lag, less blurr, you're seeing twice as many frames as the other guy, once you experience it, you'll never want to play at 60hz again.


Right now I'm typing this out on my 120hz monitor, it's made by LG btw (LG W2363D) and even when doing something as simple as moving a window around my desktop I can tell it's 120hz, the smoothness is unbelievable!


Unfortunately it's still an TN LCD and still suffers from all the issues LCDs have. So while I get incredible temporal resolution, I am still stuck with high black levels, bad colors and crappy viewing angles.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21499463
> 
> 
> Do note that there is a difference between the nomenclature of 120Hz and 120fps which people usually confuse with. When you understand the difference you will understand how it works



I completely understand the difference and how it works, I'm talking about a true 120fps source (PC) sending a 120hz signal to a monitor that can accept AND display it. I am NOT talking about the 120hz/240hz/480hz TVs we all talk about that can only accept signals up to 60hz and then interpolate frames that never existed in the first place (soap opera effect).


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/21499673
> 
> 
> Well, some early adopters of Plasma surely can.



Yes, we can










It has been stated many times that the colored Oleds do not age at the same rate. Translation: burn in is possible and likely.


I have a 65GT30 which is much less tolerant to image retension than my 2004 657UY plasma. Just a fact.


- Rich


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB* /forum/post/21500609
> 
> 
> Yes, we can
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been stated many times that the colored Oleds do not age at the same rate. Translation: burn in is possible and likely.
> 
> 
> I have a 65GT30 which is much less tolerant to image retension than my 2004 657UY plasma. Just a fact.
> 
> 
> - Rich



Fortunately LG's (Kodak) White OLED is highly stable over time (no color shift) and has a lifetime greater than 100,000 hours, so theoretically this does not have to be an issue on LG's OLED TV.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21500703
> 
> 
> Fortunately LG's (Kodak) White OLED is highly stable over time (no color shift) and has a lifetime greater than 100,000 hours, so theoretically this does not have to be an issue on LG's OLED TV.



Are they using white LEDS with filters?

If so, then it the probelm would be limited to the degree that OLEDs reduce light output with age.


- Rich


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB* /forum/post/21500934
> 
> 
> Are they using white LEDS with filters?



Yes.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB* /forum/post/21500609
> 
> 
> Yes, we can
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been stated many times that the colored Oleds do not age at the same rate. Translation: burn in is possible and likely.
> 
> 
> I have a 65GT30 which is much less tolerant to image retension than my 2004 657UY plasma. Just a fact.
> 
> 
> - Rich



A DOWNgrade from 2004? Sheesh. I hope I never have to upgrade my Kuro (or that I die before that time comes), lol.


----------



## rogo

1) Again, it doesn't matter that LG that is using "white" OLEDs because they aren't. They are using a stack of red, green, and blue OLEDs to make white light. That said, this method is allowing them to use a fluorescent blue that has -- according to the people who make it -- better stability over time than the blue that other companies will use.


2) There would be two issues with the aging problem that could lead to burn in:


A) The blue layer aging differently _at all_ will cause color shift over time. My sense is LG is shooting for something like 20-30K hours before that sets in at all. Even at 8 hours of use per day, that would equate to years of trouble-free operation.


B) OLED pixels will age -- just like plasma pixels. If they only have, say, 30,000 hours to half brightness, they will be susceptible to burn in. But, like modern plasmas, it will be tricky to achieve said burn in.


If they could actually use a white OLED layer, they could avoid the "blue problem", but since no such practical OLED material exists for the purposes of building a TV, they are not doing this and thus are not really getting any panacea from the Kodak method. Again, however, it is allowing a substituted blue material which should help.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21502213
> 
> 
> 1) Again, it doesn't matter that LG that is using "white" OLEDs because they aren't. They are using a stack of red, green, and blue OLEDs to make white light. That said, this method is allowing them to use a fluorescent blue that has -- according to the people who make it -- better stability over time than the blue that other companies will use...
> 
> 
> ...If they could actually use a white OLED layer, they could avoid t..he "blue problem", but since no such practical OLED material exists for the purposes of building a TV, they are not doing this and thus are not really getting any panacea from the Kodak method. Again, however, it is allowing a substituted blue material which should help.



Good info about the new, fluorescent blue material. I hadn't heard that before.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21502213
> 
> 
> 1) Again, it doesn't matter that LG that is using "white" OLEDs because they aren't. They are using a stack of red, green, and blue OLEDs to make white light. That said, this method is allowing them to use a fluorescent blue that has -- according to the people who make it -- better stability over time than the blue that other companies will use.
> 
> 
> 2) There would be two issues with the aging problem that could lead to burn in:
> 
> 
> A) The blue layer aging differently _at all_ will cause color shift over time. My sense is LG is shooting for something like 20-30K hours before that sets in at all. Even at 8 hours of use per day, that would equate to years of trouble-free operation.
> 
> 
> B) OLED pixels will age -- just like plasma pixels. If they only have, say, 30,000 hours to half brightness, they will be susceptible to burn in. But, like modern plasmas, it will be tricky to achieve said burn in.
> 
> 
> If they could actually use a white OLED layer, they could avoid the "blue problem", but since no such practical OLED material exists for the purposes of building a TV, they are not doing this and thus are not really getting any panacea from the Kodak method. Again, however, it is allowing a substituted blue material which should help.



Two of the key features of White OLED (yes, it's multi-layer device that includes Blue) for display purposes are its lifetime and its excellent color stability: all emitters decrease at the same rate. There is plenty of technical documentation from Kodak on the web as pointed out in several topics. One documented example has virtually unchanged CIE coordinates (less than 0.003 CIE units) after the 50% lifetime period, so that aging effects on color balance and grey scale should be minimal.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21502642
> 
> 
> Two of the key features of White OLED (yes, it's multi-layer device that includes Blue) for display purposes are its lifetime and its excellent color stability: all emitters decrease at the same rate. There is plenty of technical documentation from Kodak on the web as pointed out in several topics. One documented example has virtually unchanged CIE coordinates (less than 0.003 CIE units) after the 50% lifetime period, so that aging effects on color balance and grey scale should be minimal.



Ferro, I'm not arguing that point so much as pointing out the mechanism by which it's achieved -- presuming that it pans out in real-world use.


The stacking method doesn't magically allow the blue to age evenly when blue aging has been a problem. What it appears to be doing, however, is allowing for the use of a blue that can't be use in a non-stacked, non-white OLED. And that blue doesn't suffer the aging issue.


It's a technical point.


Anyway, I actually trust that LG isn't bringing anything to market that won't perform well for at least 5 years of heavy use (and 10 years of lighter use). But I believe Samsung will manage to achieve the same using their entirely different approach as well.


----------



## specuvestor

^^^ I would think that's "magical"







I still don't understand why that would be the case.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21498460
> 
> 
> There's a lot of time between now and then, of course. LG's manufacturing method is highly scaleable, but the timetable for these things has a way of getting away from what's intended. They will not be able to displace even a meaningful fraction of LCD production in 4 years, so there is no reason to sell OLEDs that cheaply that soon -- even if production cost has fallen that fast. They'd still charge at least a small premium since they will be supply constrained somewhat.



And your quote on the other thread. I just want to ask: How long does it take for OLED 4" top reach LCD 4" in cost parity? Don't you think it took faster than *either* of us even expected?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB* /forum/post/21500934
> 
> 
> Are they using white LEDS with filters?
> 
> If so, then it the probelm would be limited to the degree that OLEDs reduce light output with age.
> 
> 
> - Rich



It's OLED. Not LED. And it is not white. It is RGB stacked to produce white and later separated with RGBW color filter.There are many reasons why they do this.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/21499836
> 
> 
> As far as im aware the curent OLED are based on AM



Yes, but genuine question: Does AM automatically means it is sample and hold? Most of the literature I read is that it is pulse based. And it is current driven vs LCD which is voltage driven though both are AM. Here's xrox's recent post:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21498485
> 
> 
> PDP duty cycles is ~35% "effective"
> 
> CRT duty cycle is ~ 10% or less
> 
> LCD duty cycle is 100% intrinsic (can be altered extrinsically)
> 
> 
> OLED duty cycles can be intrisically controlled
> 
> 
> Your previous post suggests that OLED is inherent 100% S&H like LCD. It is not. As I said, manufacturers may choose to do so to maximize life.
> 
> 
> OLED has the advantage of an intrinsic short response time and controllable duty cycle. This enables the optimization of motion via combinations of duty cycle control and interpolation or BFI.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21500601
> 
> 
> I play a lot of FPS (first-person shooter) games on the PC, and if you have a fast enough graphics card it can render many games (especially older, less graphically demanding games) at well beyond 120 frames per second. The display I'm using is a 120hz twisted nematic (TN) LCD that CAN accept a 1080p/120hz signal over dual-link DVI and ACTUALLY DISPLAY 120 unique frames per second, not the interpolated frames we talk about with 120/240hz TVs.



Thanks for the info. I'll have to read up more. I'm obviously falling behind because I've not read anything producing 120fps natively. What graphics card setup do you use?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21504723
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info. I'll have to read up more. I'm obviously falling behind because I've not read anything producing 120fps natively. What graphics card setup do you use?



Any "3D Vision" capable display will accept a 100/120Hz input, and any modern graphics card should be capable of sending it that. (it was introduced in 2008) Most of these displays are TN LCDs, though there are some DLP projectors as well.


Most games these days are console ports, where the graphics hardware is less powerful than PC GPUs by at least an order of magnitude. If you have SLI, it's not difficult to reach 120fps with most modern games. (personally, I find microstutter from SLI to be problematic, and stick to playing all games at 60fps)


If you aren't playing the very latest gameswhich is often the case with competitive gamingyou can run just about anything at 120fps.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21504723
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but genuine question: Does AM automatically means it is sample and hold? Most of the literature I read is that it is pulse based. And it is current driven vs LCD which is voltage driven though both are AM. Here's xrox's recent post:




It is still Sample and Hold, but since OLED doesn't have backlight or pixel response issues, you can simulate pluses very accurately without introducing flicker or brightness dip.


Also it has to be done due to the short lifespan of OLED.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21505130
> 
> 
> Any "3D Vision" capable display will accept a 100/120Hz input, and any modern graphics card should be capable of sending it that. (it was introduced in 2008) Most of these displays are TN LCDs, though there are some DLP projectors as well.
> 
> 
> Most games these days are console ports, where the graphics hardware is less powerful than PC GPUs by at least an order of magnitude. If you have SLI, it's not difficult to reach 120fps with most modern games. (personally, I find microstutter from SLI to be problematic, and stick to playing all games at 60fps)
> 
> 
> If you aren't playing the very latest gameswhich is often the case with competitive gamingyou can run just about anything at 120fps.



You should dump NVIDIA and move to our side










120Hz cuts lag by ~8ms (from ~16ms).


Most consoles games are still 20-30fps, which has lag of 33.3 to 50ms. Add that on top of lag caused by the controller, processing and TV, well ...


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21502213
> 
> 
> 1) *Again, it doesn't matter that LG that is using "white" OLEDs because they aren't.* They are using a stack of red, green, and blue OLEDs to make white light. That said, this method is allowing them to use a fluorescent blue that has -- according to the people who make it -- better stability over time than the blue that other companies will use.



Based on all the published material about the LG WOLED TV's, they are using White OLED with colorfilters. Which means that the blue filter will have the same deterioration (or non deterioration) as the other color filters.

Also no indication of stacked OLED layer(s).


Do you have any more accurate information that LG is using "stacked color OLED or are you confusing LG WOLED with Samsung's "Super" OLED?


> Quote:
> *True-OLED vs WOLED-CF*
> 
> 
> The basic OLED TV design (called a "True-OLED" TV) uses 3 color OLED sub-pixels (Red, Green and Blue) to create each 'pixel'. But some companies are using a different archicture, called WOLED-CF which uses four white OLED subpixels with color filters on top (RBG and W). This is also called a RGBW design.





























Background informations about LG Displays WOLED-TV technology


----------



## taichi4

I think you're right, Coolscan.


Yesterday I posted on the LG Official Announces 55" OLED thread that it appears LG is using four stacked white OLEDs, with three being filtered RGB, and one unfiltered (white). I posted a link to this article:
http://www.oled-info.com/kodak/kodak..._and_interview 


I also bemoaned the fact that I couldn't find a diagram I had seen that supports this, but you just posted it.


So the stability of the white is the reason for the color stability of LG's WOLED. They get around the blue issue entirely by making blue (and red and green) with a filter.


You know, every time I see the name Kodak (who also developed digital photography, ironically, I feel sad that the US sells its patents, and that we presently are unable in many instances to conceive, develop, _and manufacture_ in this country.


At least we're back up and running with the auto industry.


----------



## pete4

Frankly, I see no reason why Kodak couldn't develop this WOLED further and started selling it's own panels to others, except for financial difficulties they're in, but I think the company couldn't change fast enough and personally I think it didn't believe in it's own new tech, that it will take over so quickly.

Of course it's always 20/20 vision after the fact, but still I think Kodak wasn't changing it's ways fast enough even with the headstart they had. It's a shame, because Kodak was an Icon.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4* /forum/post/21506160
> 
> 
> I think you're right, Coolscan.
> 
> You know, every time I see the name Kodak (who also developed digital photography, ironically, I feel sad that the US sells its patents, and that we presently are unable in many instances to conceive, develop, _and manufacture_ in this country.
> 
> 
> At least we're back up and running with the auto industry.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pete4* /forum/post/21506455
> 
> 
> Frankly, I see no reason why Kodak couldn't develop this WOLED further and started selling it's own panels to others...



Kodak sold all their OLED assets to LG in 2009, so I don't think this is possible.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pete4* /forum/post/21506455
> 
> 
> Frankly, I see no reason why Kodak couldn't develop this WOLED further and started selling it's own panels to others, except for financial difficulties they're in, but I think the company couldn't change fast enough and personally I think it didn't believe in it's own new tech, that it will take over so quickly.
> 
> Of course it's always 20/20 vision after the fact, but still I think Kodak wasn't changing it's ways fast enough even with the headstart they had. It's a shame, because Kodak was an Icon.



Yeah. You have the great engineers and technicians, and then you have business people, marketers, lawyers and the rest who either support the innovators correctly, or screw it up.


Kodak was an icon, and now it seems they're focusing on printing technology. Funny, because the deposition of OLED material on panels is like and may become more like printing.


And you're quite right, ferro. Kodak gave up its patents.


----------



## HDPeeT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21446081
> 
> 
> There are two separate facts which the companies have separately announced.
> 
> 
> 1) Sharp is transitioning a Gen 6 a-si fab that was used for televisions to IGZO and it will be used for tablets with production slated to start before the end of their FY (ending March 2012). This is a large amount of tablet capacity and if Apple is not the customer they are going to have a problem.
> 
> 
> 2) Apple invested billions to insure their LCD supply a few months before Sharp made the IGZO announcement.
> 
> 
> I dont think either Sharp or Apple has acknowledged whether an investment has been made in the company though it has been reported in the Japanese newspapers. The WSJ has said sources indicate that the IGZO supply is destined for the iPad 3.
> 
> 
> I would put a very high probability that the story is true. Maybe Sharp will have problems and Apple will go with an alternatitive, but I certainly think they are trying to get it into the iPad3.
> 
> 
> Slacker



According to the most recent rumors, Apple has dropped Sharp as a supplier for the iPad 3.


The reports so far have been a little light on details so it would be tough to say if this is a "They can't build enough displays for us" issue or an "IGZO isn't ready for prime time issue".


Makes me wonder what it means, if anything, for LG's OLED mass production plans. Is IGZO really gonna be a solution for OLEDs in the near term?


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21506587
> 
> 
> Kodak sold all their OLED assets to LG in 2009, so I don't think this is possible.



I vaguely remember them retaining the right to use their own technology for some number of years. Anyone know if anything like this occurred?


Moot point- I don't think Kodak could do anything with it now.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21504723
> 
> 
> And your quote on the other thread. I just want to ask: How long does it take for OLED 4" top reach LCD 4" in cost parity? Don't you think it took faster than *either* of us even expected?



It's not quite there yet. Most of Samsung's phone lineup for 2012 uses LCD (yes, really). Only the higher end lines use OLED. But, yes, they've done well to drive cost down. Perhaps faster than we would've hoped, although in fairness to Samsung, they've also sold a ton of those phones -- more than we would've guessed. More screens = more learning curve effects = lower prices.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan* /forum/post/21505997
> 
> 
> Based on all the published material about the LG WOLED TV's, they are using White OLED with colorfilters. Which means that the blue filter will have the same deterioration (or non deterioration) as the other color filters.
> 
> Also no indication of stacked OLED layer(s).



Color filters don't deteriorate meaningfully over time any more. The issue is that the white is made of three layers of OLED material and in the past blue OLED has deteriorated more quickly. As addressed elsewhere, the blue LG is using should have much less of a problem (or none) in this regard.)


> Quote:
> Do you have any more accurate information that LG is using "stacked color OLED or are you confusing LG WOLED with Samsung's "Super" OLED?



I'm not confused, some of you are, however.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4* /forum/post/21506160
> 
> 
> I think you're right, Coolscan.
> 
> 
> Yesterday I posted on the LG Official Announces 55" OLED thread that it appears LG is using four stacked white OLEDs, with three being filtered RGB, and one unfiltered (white). I posted a link to this article:
> http://www.oled-info.com/kodak/kodak..._and_interview



Listen, what you just wrote is true and unbelievably misleading -- as is that diagram.



> Quote:
> So the stability of the white is the reason for the color stability of LG's WOLED. They get around the blue issue entirely by making blue (and red and green) with a filter.



No, that's 100% wrong. They get around the blue issue _mostly_ by using a blue OLED material that is fluorescent and wouldn't work at all in a "conventional" RGB OLED. Why does it work for LG? Because all they need from their blue is for it emit a blue light true enough such that with their red and green OLED, the final output is white.


I've explained exactly how LG is doing this several times, but I'll have to draw a diagram that actually reflects their method, because the ones people keep linking do not.


The key facts are that:


1) Every pixel on screen does have 4 sub-pixels. The emitters for those pixels are all white OLEDs.


2) Every pixel on screen has three tiny flecks of color filter, one each for red, green and blue. In that regard, they make light almost exactly the same way an LCD does -- light passes through the color filter which is bonded to the screen front (or very nearly depending on protective layers and where the BEFs and ambient filters wind up). The reasons why this is better than LCD involve the pinpoint control of the light source, whereas LCD uses a light _valve_ approach. The light emitters are very close to the screen on OLED, so the viewing angles will be better than LCD -- even using LG's method.


3) There is no need to "pattern" the OLED material at all. It's applied in three layers using vacuum deposition. I'm not sure of the order, but for our purposes, imagine it goes red, then green, then blue. Since OLED is transparent by nature, the light all passes through the layers and comes out as white before you see it. Each transistor on the backplane controls the equivalent of one sub-pixels worth of OLED emission... One fourth of a pixel of white light. Whether that light emerges from the panel as red, green, blue or white is determined by the patterning of the color filters placed in front of the OLED layers.


4) It's convoluted to do this. Take red green and blue to make white only to use white to make red green and blue... But it results in much simpler manufacturing and allows for two key layers -- the TFT backplane and the color-filter front -- to be almost identical to what's being done on LG's existing LCD production. They aren't identical since LCD uses 3-subpixels on LCD not 4 and therefore patterns its color filters very differently, but the basics are very similar. LG is already more than expert at making TFT backplanes and color filters...


And their method of depositing OLED material is very simple. I suspect their only real challenge in manufacturing is getting the deposition just right so that the backplane illuminates the OLED material in a uniform fashion so that those 8 million sub-pixels turn on as expected and are all very similar in brightness.


Kodak's method appears to have been genius, even though it will result in a more power-thirsty display than Samsung's "true" RGB OLED. LG's displays will still use less power than LCDs (which require a lot of light because of the way the LC material blocks so much of it and the polarization requires much light to be tossed) and will be slim and lightweight. LG's method is not entirely optimal for making mobile displays, but that's not a market they are currently tackling with this method anyway.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ Just want to add that:

1) The subpixel you see is the color filter

2) It should be FOUR tiny flecks of color filter: RGBW


There is no white emitting layer. They probably condense it as white as the net result of the RGB emitter is white.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21506616
> 
> 
> According to the most recent rumors, Apple has dropped Sharp as a supplier for the iPad 3.
> 
> 
> The reports so far have been a little light on details so it would be tough to say if this is a "They can't build enough displays for us" issue or an "IGZO isn't ready for prime time issue".
> 
> 
> Makes me wonder what it means, if anything, for LG's OLED mass production plans. Is IGZO really gonna be a solution for OLEDs in the near term?



This is breaking news if true as the whole supply have been ramping for iPad3 since December. Can you please provide link?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/21505198
> 
> 
> It is still Sample and Hold, but since OLED doesn't have backlight or pixel response issues, you can simulate pluses very accurately without introducing flicker or brightness dip.
> 
> 
> Also it has to be done due to the short lifespan of OLED.



Interesting... So it is PERCEIVED as a pulse even though it is actually S&H? It is more platypus than I thought.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21505130
> 
> 
> If you aren't playing the very latest games—which is often the case with competitive gaming—you can run just about anything at 120fps.



Probably that's the problem with using Tom's Hardware as a reference.


----------



## Nielo TM

I wish they stop trying pulse driving on current LCDs. All it does is creates multiple ghost images


----------



## HDPeeT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21508746
> 
> 
> This is breaking news if true as the whole supply have been ramping for iPad3 since December. Can you please provide link?


 http://english.etnews.com/news/detai...d=201201100006 


I believe that was the original source. There are about ten billion other articles out in the last week saying Sharp has been dropped as a supplier for the iPad 3.


It'll be interesting to find out if that has anything to do with IGZO TFT quality/yields.


----------



## specuvestor

Really? 10bio? Amazing how cute people can get overnight. Do you actually know how much capacity Sharp has committed to this project?


I would take ETnews with a pitch of salt. Sharp was meant to replace CMI which cannot make retina display, and to a lesser extent Samsung for obvious reasons. I would be keen to see what Sharp say early next month during their earnings results


----------



## HDPeeT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21509367
> 
> 
> Really? 10bio? Amazing how cute people can get overnight. Do you actually know how much capacity Sharp has committed to this project?
> 
> 
> I would take ETnews with a pitch of salt. Sharp was meant to replace CMI which cannot make retina display, and to a lesser extent Samsung for obvious reasons. I would be keen to see what Sharp say early next month during their earnings results



I wasn't trying to be cute, I was just pointing out that the ET article has been parroted by just about every single Apple fanboy site on the internet.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21508746
> 
> 
> ^^ Just want to add that:
> 
> 1) The subpixel you see is the color filter
> 
> 2) It should be FOUR tiny flecks of color filter: RGBW



I wrote three tiny flecks, because where the white emission occurs, there won't be _any_ color filter in theory. The white will simply pass through the front glass.


> Quote:
> There is no white emitting layer. They probably condense it as white as the net result of the RGB emitter is white.



Yep.


----------



## SiGGy

It's been mentioned a few times already and seemingly over looked when I read this thread.


There is no such thing as a "white" OLED subpixel with today's tech they're using. They use a blue OLED which also emits energy (light) near ultra violet and they add a mix of phosphors. The mix of phosphors causes some of that near UV spectrum to be converted into red and green. Thus you end up with a "white" OLED when it all combines.


So technically speaking the LG unit is all blue OLEDs + phosphors...


There's a lot of things to discuss, like are they really doing this for the color blue?


BLUE OLED + phosphors = white output -> blue color filter


Seems a bit inefficient to me but maybe you get a better blue out of it to hit the CIE target.


Or is there some organic material they can use to make an efficient white OLED? I've seen some documented for prototypes but they all seemed to have issues.


Perhaps I have my info wrong, anyone?


Articles like this make it sound just peachy








http://www.oled-display.net/backgrou...tv-technology/ 




> Quote:
> One of the concerns for OLED technology has been the lifetime of the blue color, which has historically been less than red and green. Over time, this results in very dim blue pixels and shifting of the display toward yellow. With this new architectures to overcome this issue, in particular a very stable White OLED formulation, which can be used in combination with a color filter array to produce a full-color display. LGs White OLED architecture boasts a lifetime in excess of 100.000 hours.
> 
> 
> LGs W-RGBW approach does not suffer from this problem because Lgs white emitting structure is highly stable and the white spectrum does not shift in color during long term operation. Hence the color emitted by the OLED display remains constant over time. The benefits include scalability, no need for shadow mask, lower manufacturing cycle time and better production yield.



Perhaps my question should be what is LG using for a white source?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/21511089
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "white" OLED subpixel with today's tech they're using.



Not true. Polychromatic single layer white OLEDs are made by doping RGB emitting materials into the single layer IIRC.


I'm not sure what exactly LG's design is. I suspect it is a version of a two stacked design combining monochromatic single layer blue with polychromatic single layer Red and Green.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21511183
> 
> 
> Not true. Polychromatic single layer white OLEDs are made by doping RGB emitting materials into the single layer IIRC.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what exactly LG's design is. I suspect it is a version of a two stacked design combining monochromatic single layer blue with polychromatic single layer Red and Green.



Thank you for this information, and for your informed posts in general. Given that LG has not released much material about their design, all of this is a real learning curve.


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21511183
> 
> 
> Not true. Polychromatic single layer white OLEDs are made by doping RGB emitting materials into the single layer IIRC.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what exactly LG's design is. I suspect it is a version of a two stacked design combining monochromatic single layer blue with polychromatic single layer Red and Green.



Perhaps I mis-spoke.


I said...


> Quote:
> Or is there some organic material they can use to make an efficient white OLED? I've seen some documented for prototypes but they all seemed to have issues.



Covered the other designs I've read about










I've seen stacked designs and or aggregate side by side designs that combine RGB to make white but they are all prototypes. And they all still have stability issues/compromises.


LG claims to have a 100,000+ hour stable white. In order to make that claim they would have to use an inorganic blue I would think as you said. Or have hit a home run on their materials for blue


----------



## xrox

Perhaps I misunderstood?










I thought you meant that WOLED had to be three distinct RGB layers. Sorry.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> LG claims to have a 100,000+ hour stable white. In order to make that claim they would have to use an inorganic blue I would think as you said. Or have hit a home run on their materials for blue



The blue is not inorganic? The LG papers that I have only cover a two stacked design using blue fluorescent material and a seperate RGY phosphorescent material mixture. They claim a synergistic brightness effect is achieved using this design.


They claim increased blue life via new ETL and non-carbazole HTM.


----------



## taichi4

Based on articles about Kodak's work with Novaled, it appears that LG is using Novaled's stacked White OLED. The same 100,000 hour lifetime is mentioned.

http://www.oled-info.com/lifetime/no...ent_white_oled 

http://www.novaled.com/news/2011_07_13_pr.html


----------



## piquadrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/21511089
> 
> 
> (...) LGs W-RGBW approach does not suffer from this problem because Lgs white emitting structure is highly stable and the white spectrum *does not shift in color during* long term operation. Hence the color emitted by the OLED display remains constant over time.



... but this doesn't mean the shift in brightness won't occur. So burn-in is still possible. Do you guys know any manufacturing method for compensating the life curve of oled materials in per-pixel (not per panel) regime?


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *piquadrat* /forum/post/21511473
> 
> 
> ... but this doesn't mean the shift in brightness won't occur. So burn-in is still possible. Do you guys know any manufacturing method for compensating the life curve of oled materials in per-pixel (not per panel) regime?




Correct that makes sense, yes burn in will be possible. My thoughts when making those posts was 100% directed towards the color of white (white balance) being stable in the long run.


I read a patent on a compensation algorithm last year sometime for the white balance. Wish I would have posted it now. Finding it again will probably be a pain.


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4* /forum/post/21511472
> 
> 
> Based on articles about Kodak's work with Novaled, it appears that LG is using Novaled's stacked White OLED. The same 100,000 hour lifetime is mentioned.
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/lifetime/no...ent_white_oled
> 
> http://www.novaled.com/news/2011_07_13_pr.html




Thanks, that'll help fill in some of the gaps for me. If these numbers jive LG's OLED set should be really good.


Be interesting to see how Samsung is doing their blue emitter.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/21511862
> 
> 
> Thanks, that'll help fill in some of the gaps for me. If these numbers jive LG's OLED set should be really good.
> 
> 
> Be interesting to see how Samsung is doing their blue emitter.



Filling in the gaps is an apt way of putting it. Understanding LG's design is a work in process for all of us.


It sure looks promising, even at this point.


----------



## rogo

OK, so I have no idea what xrox means by "two stack", but the LG design is this:


Three layers of vacuum deposit OLED material, red, green, and blue. All on top of each other. The transistors (all 8 million of them), will each excite a tiny portion of whatever is stacked on top of them, which will emit as white light until it hits (or doesn't hit) a portion of color filter. It's not a lot more magic than how an LCD turns a little bit of LC material in front of a transistor to block or emit light. Yes, it's different, but it's not a lot more magical.


The advantage they have is that the blue they are using never has to look blue to you, unlike the blue in an RGB OLED. Why? Because you'll never see it. It has to merely be blue "enough" such that the white that emerges is white "enough" to produce true colors through the color filters. Keep in mind, the formulation of the color filters _can be tweaked_ to accommodate this different white light -- and it will.


Ostensibly, this "fluorescent blue", as it's been described, will remain stable for much longer than the standard blues that have been talked about for years, which should lead to color stability of LG's design. Again, I'm sure they are targeting 5 years of heavy use, 10 years of significant TV use and up to 20 years of light use. Commercial use? The first-gen models will not last forever run 24/7; it's ridiculous to expect otherwise.


As for burn in, OLED has the same exact problems as plasma. If you use a given set of pixels "too much" they will be dimmer than other pixels. You will have burn in. Fortunately, the declines in brightness are slow and you are unlikely to experience burn in with normal use. It's telling that they aren't pushing this for PC usage yet, however.


The LG method solves the "blue problem" indirectly by allowing for a different and more stable blue. If -- and this is a huge if -- Samsung's blue does have a much shorter life, they might have two issues:


1) The color of the display will shift.

2) Burn in will be easier to see because the darkening of the blue sub-pixels makes it easier to "overuse" some pixels.


I am not overly worried they are rushing this to market in a way that's going to make customers miserable, but then again, they might be and the Samsung's might be rated -- or useful -- for much less time.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21513091
> 
> 
> OK, so I have no idea what xrox means by "two stack"



1-stack = RGB single layer

2-stack = B first layer+ RG second layer

3-stack = 3 separate layers for RGB


In more general terms:


1-stack = 1 emitting layer

2-stack = 2 emitting layers

3-stack = 3 emitting layers


For example both of the following designs are considered 2-stack:


2 white emitting layers

1 blue emitting layer and 1 Red-Green emitting layer



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21513091
> 
> 
> Three layers of vacuum deposit OLED material, red, green, and blue. All on top of each other.



Did LG give a schematic for this? Are there any intermediate CTM layers?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21513091
> 
> 
> The transistors (all 8 million of them), will each excite a tiny portion of whatever is stacked on top of them, which will emit as white light until it hits (or doesn't hit) a portion of color filter. It's not a lot more magic than how an LCD turns a little bit of LC material in front of a transistor to block or emit light. Yes, it's different, but it's not a lot more magical.



Subjective I guess but IMO it is very different.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21513091
> 
> 
> The LG method solves the "blue problem" indirectly by allowing for a different and more stable blue. If -- and this is a huge if -- Samsung's blue does have a much shorter life, they might have two issues:



The paper I have quotes 140,000 (IIRC it is at work) hrs for the WOLED thanks to a new ETL and HTM for the blue emitter.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21513504
> 
> 
> 1-stack = RGB single layer
> 
> 2-stack = B first layer+ RG second layer
> 
> 3-stack = 3 separate layers for RGB
> 
> 
> In more general terms:
> 
> 
> 1-stack = 1 emitting layer
> 
> 2-stack = 2 emitting layers
> 
> 3-stack = 3 emitting layers
> 
> 
> For example both of the following designs are considered 2-stack:
> 
> 
> 2 white emitting layers
> 
> 1 blue emitting layer and 1 Red-Green emitting layer



Well, I got the impression it was a 3-stack design then. But honestly, it could have been a 2-stack design as you describe it in the last line of the quoted material.



> Did LG give a schematic for this? Are there any intermediate CTM layers?
> 
> 
> I was not shown a schematic, this was all a discussion. I'm not sure if there are intermediate layers; I didn't get the impression there were -- but again, I might have failed to ask the right questions there.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Subjective I guess but IMO it is very different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's different, but not entirely different. Apply current to transistor, thing happen. In LCD, the LC material is twisted to block / emit some of the backlight. In this OLED design, the OLED material is excited to emit light. It's similar in that the transistor accounts for the locality of the phenomena even though the material is spread across the entirely of the substrate. And in both cases, the amount of current -- in aggregate -- determines how much light.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> The paper I have quotes 140,000 (IIRC it is at work) hrs for the WOLED thanks to a new ETL and HTM for the blue emitter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like plenty!
Click to expand...


----------



## navychop

Thank you SiGGy for an explanation that I can follow.


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21514225
> 
> 
> Thank you SiGGy for an explanation that I can follow.



NP, but just know LG is using a different technique using three separate red, green and blue OLEDs which combine to create their "white" OLED. They are not using the phosphor technique with a single blue LED. However most single bulb "white" oleds you see are done this way (with the phosphors), and most are not done very well. Note all of the cold (blueish) looking "white" LED x-mas lights you have seen










The big catch here has always been the lifespan of blue and if LG is using 3 separate emitters you would be concerned that what started out as a "white" OLED with the combination of the 3 lights (red, green blue) would slowly turn to a yellow shade as the blue dimmed but the red and green stayed brighter. However if you read back a few posts to Taichi4's post it says they have a stable white to 100,000k hours and a CRI (color rendering index) of ~90. These numbers are fantastic if they pan out to be true. And LG's TV should be really good for the 1st small run of OLED TVs.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Based on articles about Kodak's work with Novaled, it appears that LG is using Novaled's stacked White OLED. The same 100,000 hour lifetime is mentioned.
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/lifetime/no...ent_white_oled
> 
> http://www.novaled.com/news/2011_07_13_pr.html



What's kind of fascinating for me is this...

If there are indeed 4 sub pixels in LG's design red,green,blue & white that makes for a total of 8,294,400 sub-pixels to do 1080p resolution.

1920 x 1080 x 4 (sub-pixels) = 8,294,400 total sub-pixels


But one step deeper there are 3 OLEDs per sub-pixel as each sub-pixel has a "white" OLED compromised of red,green & blue OLEDs. Making a grand total of 24,883,200 OLEDs!

8,294,400*3=24,883,200


When I step back and think about it, it's neat. But I also wonder if there will be any sub-pixels where the "white" emitter has a faulty red, green or blue . There's a lot of room for failure there. Samsung's design certainly uses significantly less OLEDs to produce the same 1080p resolution. Sometimes less is more







But I'm still eager to read Samsungs blue emitter specs


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21513852
> 
> 
> Well, I got the impression it was a 3-stack design then. But honestly, it could have been a 2-stack design as you describe it in the last line of the quoted material.



The only LG info I have is from 2010. The 2-stack design they prototyped back then:













> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21513852
> 
> 
> It's different, but not entirely different. Apply current to transistor, thing happen. In LCD, the LC material is twisted to block / emit some of the backlight. In this OLED design, the OLED material is excited to emit light. It's similar in that the transistor accounts for the locality of the phenomena even though the material is spread across the entirely of the substrate. And in both cases, the amount of current -- in aggregate -- determines how much light.



It is a fun discussion IMO. I guess what you are suggesting is that TFT control and manufacturing are somewhat the same and what I am saying is that light generation and emission is very different.


Regarding TFT control. My interpretation is that in a LCD the TFT is just a switch to select a row of pixels to enable voltage values to be applied to said pixels. The voltage determines the orientation and the amount of light emission. In an OLED there is a similar TFT switch but there is also a second TFT that controls current delivered to the cell IIUC. Either current, or emission time determine the amount of light emitted.


----------



## taichi4

Hey SiGGy:


When did my name change to NovaLed?:


"Originally Posted by NovaLed

Based on articles about Kodak's work with Novaled, it appears that LG is using Novaled's stacked White OLED. The same 100,000 hour lifetime is mentioned.

http://www.oled-info.com/lifetime/no...ent_white_oled 

http://www.novaled.com/news/2011_07_13_pr.html "


Also, I think the LG design is four stacked white OLEDS (and color filters), with the white oleds being phosphor doped RG, with a highly stable fluorescent Blue material used instead of phosphor-based. Rogo described the fluorescent blue previously, and I believe he was right.


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4* /forum/post/21516438
> 
> 
> Hey SiGGy:
> 
> 
> When did my name change to NovaLed?:
> 
> 
> "Originally Posted by NovaLed
> 
> Based on articles about Kodak's work with Novaled, it appears that LG is using Novaled's stacked White OLED. The same 100,000 hour lifetime is mentioned.
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/lifetime/no...ent_white_oled
> 
> http://www.novaled.com/news/2011_07_13_pr.html "



I renamed you










ROFL, sorry. I fixed it in my post. I wasn't paying enough attention...


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/21515901
> 
> 
> When I step back and think about it, it's neat. But I also wonder if there will be any sub-pixels where the "white" emitter has a faulty red, green or blue . There's a lot of room for failure there. Samsung's design certainly uses significantly less OLEDs to produce the same 1080p resolution. Sometimes less is more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm still eager to read Samsungs blue emitter specs



Note that a key advantage of White OLED is that the all subpixels are uniform at the OLED level, which makes the manufacturing process a lot easier and more robust. LG does not need to apply different OLED materials for red, green and blue at the same layer with microscopic subpixel precision, but instead can apply the same material at every layer for every subpixel.


So even if it seems more complex, it may still provide better yields.


----------



## specuvestor

It sounds strange at first to have RGB combined to white and later filtered into RGBW, but it definitely improve on the uniformity, ease of production, and higher tolerance of OLED quality.


More importantly it actually makes production plausible this year rather than next. It's actually very smart technique if you think about it, ironically coming from a just-announced bankrupt company.


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21516662
> 
> 
> Note that a key advantage of White OLED is that the all subpixels are uniform at the OLED level, which makes the manufacturing process a lot easier and more robust. LG does not need to apply different OLED materials for red, green and blue at the same layer with microscopic subpixel precision, but instead can apply the same material at every layer for every subpixel.
> 
> 
> So even if it seems more complex, it may still provide better yields.



That makes sense.


For me so far the LG design seems to be the best. Be interesting if anyone can dig up blue emitter info for Samsung. Seems like LG has that covered if their "white" OLEDs really do match their 100k hour 90CRI mark with little to no drift. IMO that's phenomenal for their 1st production set.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-

Well, this is certainly disappointing. This whole filter business has turned me off of LG's approach to OLED. Something about having self emitting material but then passing it through a colour filter certainly does not sit right with me.


Short of seeing both Samsung and LG's answer to consumer TV OLED next to one another in order to do a visual check I must say I like Samsung's approach much better in theory.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/21516989
> 
> 
> Well, this is certainly disappointing. This whole filter business has turned me off of LG's approach to OLED. Something about having self emitting material but then passing it through a colour filter certainly does not sit right with me.



Even RGB OLED displays use colour filters.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/21516989
> 
> 
> Well, this is certainly disappointing. This whole filter business has turned me off of LG's approach to OLED. Something about having self emitting material but then passing it through a colour filter certainly does not sit right with me.



That was my first reaction when I read about the color filters first. But after learning a bit more about the whole White-RGBW architecture, it seems devilishly clever an practical at this time of the OLED development stage.


The only negative aspect I can think of is the efficiency, but if they want, LG can more than compensate for this. For all we know they could be using so-called "stack tandems" as developed by Kodak (now LG), where you place 2 or 3 White-OLED's on top of each other to achieve better efficiency, and therefore more brightness and/or better lifetime.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21517004
> 
> 
> Even RGB OLED displays use colour filters.



Sony does but I dont think that is the case with Samsung.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Even RGB OLED displays use colour filters.



Go on.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21517153
> 
> 
> That was my first reaction when I read about the color filters first. But after learning a bit more about the whole White-RGBW architecture, it seems devilishly clever an practical at this time of the OLED development stage.
> 
> 
> The only negative aspect I can think of is the efficiency, but if they want, LG can more than compensate for this. For all we know they could be using so-called "stack tandems" as developed by Kodak (now LG), where you place 2 or 3 White-OLED's on top of each other to achieve better efficiency, and therefore more brightness and/or better lifetime.



I still believe there are four stacked WOLEDs, with one unfiltered...i.e. white emitting.


All of this adds up to more brightness, more white OLED stability, and the stacked design actually conserves light as opposed to light loss engendered by a horizontal arrangement.


Another poster spoke about the translucency of the filters, so I don't think there is any downside to color filters, particularly as the whole arrangement creates a long-lived display.


As long as the emitters are close to the plane of the display surface, off axis performance should be great, which it is, according to observers.


LG's (Kodak's) design is pretty ingenious.


By the way, Kodak declared bankruptcy today. A great company that was mismanaged in its later years.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4* /forum/post/21517701
> 
> 
> I still believe there are four stacked WOLEDs, with one unfiltered...i.e. white emitting.
> 
> 
> All of this adds up to more brightness, more white OLED stability, and the stacked design actually conserves light as opposed to light loss engendered by a horizontal arrangement.
> 
> 
> Another poster spoke about the translucency of the filters, so I don't think there is any downside to color filters, particularly as the whole arrangement creates a long-lived display.
> 
> 
> As long as the emitters are close to the plane of the display surface, off axis performance should be great, which it is, according to observers.
> 
> 
> LG's (Kodak's) design is pretty ingenious.
> 
> 
> By the way, Kodak declared bankruptcy today. A great company that was mismanaged in its later years.



yeah kodak a company we all grew up with, remember the yellow film rolls, is now bankrupt. mismanaged is an understatement.


heck they sold the woled patents to lg for pennies compared to what they could have gotten by licensing them.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/21517674
> 
> 
> Go on.



Color filters have two very important benefits to RGB emitters
Purify the color emitted
Dramatically reduce glare/reflection in ambient light


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/21517674
> 
> 
> Go on.


 http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technol...01.html#block2 


I should always refresh before posting:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21517866
> 
> 
> Color filters have two very important benefits to RGB emitters
> Purify the color emitted
> Dramatically reduce glare/reflection in ambient light



Thanks.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21516355
> 
> 
> It is a fun discussion IMO. I guess what you are suggesting is that TFT control and manufacturing are somewhat the same and what I am saying is that light generation and emission is very different.



Yes, they are different. At some basic level, the mechanisms for how the emissions are controlled are similar was my only point.


> Quote:
> Regarding TFT control. My interpretation is that in a LCD the TFT is just a switch to select a row of pixels to enable voltage values to be applied to said pixels. The voltage determines the orientation and the amount of light emission. In an OLED there is a similar TFT switch but there is also a second TFT that controls current delivered to the cell IIUC. Either current, or emission time determine the amount of light emitted.



It's possible the control is more complex in the OLED. I've missed the discussion on how intermediate levels are being done there, but it definitely is possible the TFT backplane is somewhat more complex.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21516791
> 
> 
> It sounds strange at first to have RGB combined to white and later filtered into RGBW, but it definitely improve on the uniformity, ease of production, and higher tolerance of OLED quality.



It's worth noting that the production is -- and this is a finger-waving kind of estimate -- probably an order of magnitude easier to achieve at least initially. Samsung is going to have to play around with masks that are finicky to begin with and also master moving those masks around; LG will have none of that.


LG's method is so much easier to achieve that Samsung is legitimately concerned it might let LG get to higher yields more quickly (and may be the only way there). Samsung has already made public remarks suggested they'd go down a similar path -- if need be.


> Quote:
> More importantly it actually makes production plausible this year rather than next. It's actually very smart technique if you think about it, ironically coming from a just-announced bankrupt company.



Kodak had a lot of great IP. It's fair to say that they never really recovered from losing the Polaroid suit and they absolutely never really developed a comprehensive strategy to live on past the death of film.


It's quaint to criticize them as was done below, but there are few horse-and-carriage companies that survived into the auto age. There are few video stores that have survived into the kiosk/streaming age. There are few telegraph companies that survived into the telephone age. Etc. It's pretty nearly impossible to make the transition from being about "one thing" to something else.


Would it be nice if they had more carefully started licensing their IP a decade ago (like TI did before that) and developed new, profitable businesses since? Of course. (Oh, and Spec, that wasn't all directed at you, naturally.)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *-=Kamikaze=-* /forum/post/21516989
> 
> 
> Well, this is certainly disappointing. This whole filter business has turned me off of LG's approach to OLED. Something about having self emitting material but then passing it through a colour filter certainly does not sit right with me.



If you are going to be a technological "religionist" and demand purity, then just skip the LG product. It's very "impure".


> Quote:
> Short of seeing both Samsung and LG's answer to consumer TV OLED next to one another in order to do a visual check I must say I like Samsung's approach much better in theory.



At current, LG's looks better as a TV. In theory, LG's is going to become much cheaper, much faster. While I might like the Lamborghini Murcielago more than a BMW M3 _in theory_, there are times when I need to have the ability to pay for one _in wallet_.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21517153
> 
> 
> That was my first reaction when I read about the color filters first. But after learning a bit more about the whole White-RGBW architecture, it seems devilishly clever an practical at this time of the OLED development stage.



I doubt they will ever change from this technique. In fact, I suspect the one significant move might be to master a single-layer OLED that is true white. That would lower costs even farther and improve quality a bit more.


If efficiency of the OLEDs improves, they might drop the white pixel, too. But I doubt they will ever move to RGB; they will have no expertise in producing it. And while it might prove to be "better" in some way, it might also prove to be worse in others.


> Quote:
> The only negative aspect I can think of is the efficiency, but if they want, LG can more than compensate for this. For all we know they could be using so-called "stack tandems" as developed by Kodak (now LG), where you place 2 or 3 White-OLED's on top of each other to achieve better efficiency, and therefore more brightness and/or better lifetime.



The technique will always be less efficient than an optimized RGB. You can't mix primaries, make white, then shine them through filters that cause light loss and match the efficiency. Especially given how they are mixing the primaries (vertical stack). But it's already more efficient than LED LCD and this is "Gen 1" technology. I like their changes of improving light output, reducing power consumption, increasing display lifetime over the next half decade. See above for some ideas on how they might and what the changes might be if they do.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4* /forum/post/21517701
> 
> 
> I still believe there are four stacked WOLEDs, with one unfiltered...i.e. white emitting.



That's wrong as I take "stacked" to mean vertical. It's better to think of each pixel having 4 white OLEDs in a "grid". Each of the first three is filtered by R G or B. The fourth is unfiltered.


> Quote:
> All of this adds up to more brightness, more white OLED stability, and the stacked design actually conserves light as opposed to light loss engendered by a horizontal arrangement.



The only "stacking" is in the OLED layer and absolutely wastes light. The entire blue layer sits on top of the entire green layer sits on top of the entire red layer (again, the order doesn't matter and I don't know what it is). When all three layers are excited, the end product is white light, but this isn't efficient. It's efficient _enough_ however.


Samsung will beat them badly on power efficiency, but LG will still beat LED LCD, which right now is good enough.


So again, OLED layers are vertically stacks. Sub pixels are horizontally arranged on the color filters. Your characterization is confusing.


> Quote:
> Another poster spoke about the translucency of the filters, so I don't think there is any downside to color filters, particularly as the whole arrangement creates a long-lived display.



They are transparent, but they'll cost some light. Any material does.


> Quote:
> As long as the emitters are close to the plane of the display surface, off axis performance should be great, which it is, according to observers.



So, like, on an LCD, the LC layer is actually fairly thick and if you look closely at any LCD that isn't super-high-res, you can see that fine grid separating the pixels. On this OLED design, the OLED layer is going to be microscopically thin. It's three layers of material, vacuum deposited on the substrate. The front with the filters sits directly on top of that.


Off axis should be fine. On LG's it already seemed fine. Ironically, on Samsung's it didn't yet (although that could be due to whatever brightness enhancing sheet they had on the panel at this point). Off axis is going to outdo LCD easily. It's likely to match plasma even on the first generation.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21517153
> 
> 
> The only negative aspect I can think of is the efficiency, but if they want, LG can more than compensate for this. For all we know they could be using so-called "stack tandems" as developed by Kodak (now LG), where you place 2 or 3 White-OLED's on top of each other to achieve better efficiency, and therefore more brightness and/or better lifetime.



If you believe LG, they claimed only a 10-20% increase in power consumption versus Samsung's approach.

http://www.olednet.com/focus/focus_b...rds=&mem_stat= 


I was pretty surprised at this number. I had expected a much bigger penalty in efficiency when using WOLED. I guess a big part of this might be how well they have managed to match the peaks of the white OLED to the color filters.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21518198
> 
> 
> If you believe LG, they claimed only a 10-20% increase in power consumption versus Samsung's approach.
> 
> http://www.olednet.com/focus/focus_b...rds=&mem_stat=
> 
> 
> I was pretty surprised at this number. I had expected a much bigger penalty in efficiency when using WOLED. I guess a big part of this might be how well they have managed to match the peaks of the white OLED to the color filters.



Thanks, lots of interesting information in that article! The power efficiency difference is indeed remarkably low, though it's difficult to determine how representative this is for a current LG / Samsung comparison.


The Yellow/Blue tandem described in this article is different from the white tandem described in previous Kodak documents. For example:











For the same current density (which determines the lifetime), this tandem delivers much more light output than a single device. The article you linked does not mention such a tandem though, so I guess LG is not using that.


Another interesting piece of information in this article is that LG used the same White RGBW architecture in a 15" prototype. I assume this is the 15EL9500 that went into (limited) production. Reviews of the 15EL9500 could therefore be quite representative for the upcoming 55" model. These reviews were generally very positive.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21518058
> 
> 
> I doubt they will ever change from this technique. In fact, I suspect the one significant move might be to master a single-layer OLED that is true white. That would lower costs even farther and improve quality a bit more.
> 
> 
> If efficiency of the OLEDs improves, they might drop the white pixel, too. But I doubt they will ever move to RGB; they will have no expertise in producing it. And while it might prove to be "better" in some way, it might also prove to be worse in others.



Agreed. If all quality aspects are "good enough" and if it remains a cost-effective technology, then there is no incentive to change.



> Quote:
> The technique will always be less efficient than an optimized RGB. You can't mix primaries, make white, then shine them through filters that cause light loss and match the efficiency.



For power efficiency this is probably true. For current efficiency (which determines the lifetime of the OLED device) the tandem architectures can be beneficial. The tandem architectures require more voltage though. See posts above this one.


----------



## -=Kamikaze=-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If you are going to be a technological "religionist" and demand purity, then just skip the LG product. It's very "impure".



What new brand of nonesense are you on about good sir?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21518591
> 
> 
> Another interesting piece of information in this article is that LG used the same White RGBW architecture in a 15" prototype. I assume this is the 15EL9500 that went into (limited) production. Reviews of the 15EL9500 could therefore be quite representative for the upcoming 55" model. These reviews were generally very positive.



Let's add this. If the 55" is as good as the 15" with three more years of work perfecting it, that would be very bullish indeed. The prototypes at CES were _not_ that good. The cloud scenes, in particular, were a bunch of murk with lots of false contouring and nothing exceptional in terms of motion resolution.


But they were prototypes and I wouldn't judge them any more than I judge the Panasonic plasmas, which also had a demo loop that had a bunch of dithery, false-contoured mess. There were some scenes shown on the LGs that did, in fact, already look amazing.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21518675
> 
> 
> Agreed. If all quality aspects are "good enough" and if it remains a cost-effective technology, then there is no incentive to change.



Especially because they are going to push down the learning curve with this method, not any other.


I am confused about why this needs a white sub-pixel. Are we to presume the amount of luminance is just not there without it? I mean LCDs have to push their light through polarizers, LC material and color filters -- all of which attenuate light -- but don't need a white sub-pixel. In other words, they have output to burn. Maybe OLED is not there yet? Maybe it's not realistic to keep pushing it with that much current and still maintain lifespan?


None of this is a dealbreaker, it's just curious.


> Quote:
> For power efficiency this is probably true. For current efficiency (which determines the lifetime of the OLED device) the tandem architectures can be beneficial. The tandem architectures require more voltage though. See posts above this one.



Yeah, it's an interesting discussion. I see LG making acceptable tradeoffs already to get a product that consumes a reasonable amount of power, lasts a reasonable amount of time, and has a reasonable time to market. No reason to believe they can't improve on those aspects over time as well.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21518591
> 
> 
> Another interesting piece of information in this article is that LG used the same White RGBW architecture in a 15" prototype. I assume this is the 15EL9500 that went into (limited) production. Reviews of the 15EL9500 could therefore be quite representative for the upcoming 55" model. These reviews were generally very positive.



I have nothing conclusive but I am not sure that this is the case. This prototype was presented after the 15" OLED had already gone on sale.


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21518591
> 
> 
> Another interesting piece of information in this article is that LG used the same White RGBW architecture in a 15" prototype. I assume this is the 15EL9500 that went into (limited) production. Reviews of the 15EL9500 could therefore be quite representative for the upcoming 55" model. These reviews were generally very positive.



Here's a good review of it if anyone else is interested. I looked it up so I thought I would post it here








http://www.avforums.com/review/LG-15...00-Review.html 


Basically the gamma isn't ruler flat and green is off a tiny bit post calibration. Otherwise it calibrated very well. Even if they don't fix these errors and they happen in the 55" it'll still be a fantastic display. I would think they have worked around some of this stuff by now though including the luminance errors he mentions.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ The issue with large OLED display was voltage across large area as discussed a year ago in this thread. I think this is largely solved by IGZO.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21517890
> 
> http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technol...01.html#block2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21517866
> 
> 
> Color filters have two very important benefits to RGB emitters
> Purify the color emitted
> Dramatically reduce glare/reflection in ambient light
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should always refresh before posting:Thanks.
Click to expand...


That's Sony







If you have chromacity issue with your OLED you will need color filter. I believe Sammy is aiming for "perfection" here







Herein lies the competitive problem with LG's more effective method. (Hence my NASA anti-gravity pen analogy)


@xrox correct me if I am wrong but I think reducing glare/ ambient light is better suited for AR rather than color filter. It's using the wrong tool for the job.


@ rogo why do you say the white is unfiltered? I would think it is easier to control D65 white with RGBW subpixels rather than RGB with a clear subpixel? Unless of course the unfiltered "white" light coming through is D65 accurate.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21518198
> 
> 
> If you believe LG, they claimed only a 10-20% increase in power consumption versus Samsung's approach.
> 
> http://www.olednet.com/focus/focus_b...rds=&mem_stat=
> 
> 
> I was pretty surprised at this number. I had expected a much bigger penalty in efficiency when using WOLED. I guess a big part of this might be how well they have managed to match the peaks of the white OLED to the color filters.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21519021
> 
> 
> I am confused about why this needs a white sub-pixel. Are we to presume the amount of luminance is just not there without it? I mean LCDs have to push their light through polarizers, LC material and color filters -- all of which attenuate light -- but don't need a white sub-pixel. In other words, they have output to burn. Maybe OLED is not there yet? Maybe it's not realistic to keep pushing it with that much current and still maintain lifespan?



I think it is the same logic of why Quattron is brighter. And why LG solution is less energy efficient than RGB yet uses less power than slacker expected.


----------



## eonibm

Does anyone have an idea of what the lifespan (hours to half-brightness) of LG's 55" OLED display is going to be? I've googled millions of articles and forums and still can't find anyone who has commented on it.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21519021
> 
> 
> I am confused about why this needs a white sub-pixel. Are we to presume the amount of luminance is just not there without it? I mean LCDs have to push their light through polarizers, LC material and color filters -- all of which attenuate light -- but don't need a white sub-pixel. In other words, they have output to burn. Maybe OLED is not there yet? Maybe it's not realistic to keep pushing it with that much current and still maintain lifespan?



I think you are right on the money. Here is a summary from the LG paper I have.

*From LG paper*: The reasons quoted for using white OLED
Ease of Manufacture - eliminates the need for using a mask to coat individual RGB colors
Ease of Manufacture - eliminates the need for variable thickness RGB emitters
*From LG paper*: The reason for using RGB+W 4 subpixel +colorfilter
The loss of light caused by using color filters can be partially overcome by adding a 4th white subpixel (no color filter)
The color filter design enables higher aperture ratio than direct RGB using FMM (fine metal mask)
*From LG paper*: The reason for using stacked architecture
Synergistic effect of increasing brightness. In other words RG+B stacked is brighter than the RG and B measured separately. They claim this is due to both electrical and structural effects.


Power measurements of the 15 prototype vs direct RGB.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21519498
> 
> 
> @xrox correct me if I am wrong but I think reducing glare/ ambient light is better suited for AR rather than color filter. It's using the wrong tool for the job.



Maybe. I know very little about AR filters. However, color filters not only absorb unwanted wavelengths outside RGB, they also absorb the primary wavelength. Another benefit is that the color filters can be purposely large and overlapped at the edges to create a dark space between pixels.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> From LG paper: The reasons quoted for using white OLED
> 
> Ease of Manufacture - eliminates the need for using a mask to coat individual RGB colors
> 
> Ease of Manufacture - eliminates the need for variable thickness RGB emitters
> 
> From LG paper: The reason for using RGB+W 4 subpixel +colorfilter
> 
> The loss of light caused by using color filters can be partially overcome by adding a 4th white subpixel (no color filter)
> 
> The color filter design enables higher aperture ratio than direct RGB using FMM (fine metal mask)
> 
> From LG paper: The reason for using stacked architecture
> 
> Synergistic effect of increasing brightness. In other words RG+B stacked is brighter than the RG and B measured separately. They claim this is due to both electrical and structural effects.



So what are we missing here? Call me paranoid, but I dont generally believe in magic bullets and this is particularly true when the IP behind this has been around for years and could have been picked up by Samsung for a relatively nominal amount. There are usually drawbacks that need to be overcome that we dont find out about until commercialization...but I had thought those were either image quality or power consumption and both of those seem to be answered.


If the power consumption is really that close, why wouldnt WOLED be a mobile solution? or at least a laptop solution? The reduced power consumption while using white is a very big deal for some markets.


----------



## specuvestor

Correct. IGZO cannot work for small screens. It's tough enough to work for iPad3 retina LCD.


CLSA had quite an interesting OLED report in November. IGZO may not be much bigger than 55" (maybe 65"?)


Note LG always uses 15" for comparison. And bear in mind RGBW solution consume less power usually in brighter content because of its W subpixel. I would be keen to see the 55" comparison with Sammy.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21520283
> 
> 
> Correct. IGZO cannot work for small screens. It's tough enough to work for iPad3 retina LCD.
> 
> 
> CLSA had quite an interesting OLED report in November. IGZO may not be much bigger than 55" (maybe 65"?)
> 
> 
> Note LG always uses 15" for comparison. And bear in mind RGBW solution consume less power usually in brighter content because of its W subpixel. I would be keen to see the 55" comparison with Sammy.



AFAIK, there is nothing stopping you from using WOLED on LTPS. In fact, you wouldnt even have the PPI constraints that you currently see with the fine metal mask needed for RGB.


Of course, I am assuming that the numbers that LG has put out are actually representative of reality. That is obviously a very big assumption.


----------



## specuvestor

I'm not sure what is the constraint on LG doing RGBW on LTPS for LG's tablet or phones. But the fact is they can't do it.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21519498
> 
> 
> @ rogo why do you say the white is unfiltered? I would think it is easier to control D65 white with RGBW subpixels rather than RGB with a clear subpixel? Unless of course the unfiltered "white" light coming through is D65 accurate.



I assumed they tuned the OLED colors to get something D65-ish, yes. Xrox's comments above here seem to also suggest "clear". But, hey, it's possible it's a white color filter there -- I can't say definitively at this point.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21520259
> 
> 
> So what are we missing here? Call me paranoid, but I dont generally believe in magic bullets and this is particularly true when the IP behind this has been around for years and could have been picked up by Samsung for a relatively nominal amount. There are usually drawbacks that need to be overcome that we dont find out about until commercialization...but I had thought those were either image quality or power consumption and both of those seem to be answered.
> 
> 
> If the power consumption is really that close, why wouldnt WOLED be a mobile solution? or at least a laptop solution? The reduced power consumption while using white is a very big deal for some markets.



So power consumption for this technology might not scale with the same slope (or intercept) as with RGB OLED. It's _very_ possible that at really small sizes, the WOLED uses an unacceptable amount of power for mobile. Keep in mind, the current Samsung RGB is not actually kicking butt on power consumption vs. LCD. If the base amount of power needed for the WOLED solution to deliver acceptable brightness was too high, it'd be easy to rule it out for mobile.


If, however, the slope of power requirements were gentle, the power could become tolerable at TV sizes. Honestly, we'll know if this can work in laptops within 2-3 years because LG will announce their entry into that market -- or they won't.


----------



## sstephen

From the paper entitled


System considerations for RGBW OLED displays


(I think it was linked in this thread, but maybe the LG thread).




> Quote:
> It is well known, however, that natural images contain significant amounts of color that are low in saturation.2,3
> 
> ... The fact that much of the content to be displayed is neutral or low in saturation implies that the power efficiency of the display
> 
> when rendering near-neutral or neutral colors will significantly influence the power consumption of the display.
> 
> ... wherein the colors that are near neutral are displayed using an unfiltered white subpixel together with
> 
> small amounts of light from the RGB filtered subpixels. Importantly, it is possible to employ the RGBW pixel format
> 
> to significantly increase the power efficiency of the OLED display without decreasing the chrominance of saturated
> 
> colors. In fact, when operated properly, the color reproduction of the RGBW display is exactly the same as a corre-
> 
> sponding RGB display given that the white subpixel may be employed to form metamers ...



I take that to meant that since much of what is displayed has a large white component, it is more efficient to turn on the white subpixel and not suffer the losses from filtering the separate colours, then add in whatever is leftover from the RGB subpixels to get the correct colour. That would be more energy efficient, and also excercise the colour oleds less. Particularly blue which has been noted here as likely being the weak link.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eonibm* /forum/post/21519562
> 
> 
> Does anyone have an idea of what the lifespan (hours to half-brightness) of LG's 55" OLED display is going to be? I've googled millions of articles and forums and still can't find anyone who has commented on it.



Hours to 1/2brightness, huh? That seems not so important, there is another potentially grave-serious issue. People having OLED mobile devices report problem akin to burn-out in plasma. Where there is permanent picture area in OLED, the light output decreases and this is then visible when watching other pictures. Probably only a couple of percent of light output reduction is sufficient to notice this effect. If this is wide-ranging issue, OLED has stony tunnel ahead and maybe no light at the end of it.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eonibm* /forum/post/21519562
> 
> 
> Does anyone have an idea of what the lifespan (hours to half-brightness) of LG's 55" OLED display is going to be? I've googled millions of articles and forums and still can't find anyone who has commented on it.



There is indeed no concrete information, so we can only speculate.


For the 15" model the lifespan was reported as 30,000 hours by the AVForums.com review. Unfortunately the LG web site does not include this particular specification, but let's assume that the AVForums number is correct. This is the equivalent of 10 years if the TV is on for 8 hours per day, though you probably don't want to reach the half-brightness point.


For the 55" model they have had 2 more years of R&D, and perhaps also different design goals, so it is not unreasonable to expect a significant improvement over the 15" model.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen* /forum/post/21520556
> 
> 
> I take that to meant that since much of what is displayed has a large white component, it is more efficient to turn on the white subpixel and not suffer the losses from filtering the separate colours, then add in whatever is leftover from the RGB subpixels to get the correct colour. That would be more energy efficient, and also excercise the colour oleds less.



Correct. This is confirmed by the power consumption graph posted above by xrox. For natural images, which typically include a lot of desaturated colors, the W subpixel can offload the RGB subpixels and power efficiency goes up. For synthetic images (like the red, green an blue screen) the W subpixel needs to be off and power efficiency goes down.


----------



## rogo

So, it makes perfect sense how this is more power efficient, "Let's use our really bright white pixels as much as possible and not so much our filtered pixels".


But it has nothing to do with exercising the color OLEDs there because _there are no color OLEDs_. Every sub-pixel is going to be white (from a stacked RGB). The point is that 3 of 4 of them are filtered. Using the "clear" one as much as possible and adding less use of the others generates power efficiency. It does nothing to save the blue layer or any other layer. (Every white sub pixel uses the blue layer just as much as any other... The sub pixels that we'll see as white are unfiltered and are the brightest.


It's important to remember that the only reason there are red green and blue subpixels at all is that you get white subpixels that you see through a filter. my explanation is, I guess, in the other thread. Check it out.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21520722
> 
> 
> It does nothing to save the blue layer or any other layer.



Using the W subpixel offloads all layers of the RGB subpixels, even the useless 3 x 2 layers we never see behind the color filters










But it has nothing to do with blue specifically, which I suppose is your point.


----------



## eonibm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21520601
> 
> 
> Hours to 1/2brightness, huh? That seems not so important, there is another potentially grave-serious issue. People having OLED mobile devices report problem akin to burn-out in plasma. Where there is permanent picture area in OLED, the light output decreases and this is then visible when watching other pictures. Probably only a couple of percent of light output reduction is sufficient to notice this effect. If this is wide-ranging issue, OLED has stony tunnel ahead and maybe no light at the end of it.



Yikes, in my research on OLED vs Plasma, this was never mentioned. In fact, several articles mentioned the lack of any burn-in and certainly not any similar problem. I can't believe that LG would actually release their OLED display without this problem licked as it would create instant dissatisfaction.


----------



## Fahrenheit85




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eonibm* /forum/post/21521114
> 
> 
> Yikes, in my research on OLED vs Plasma, this was never mentioned. In fact, several articles mentioned the lack of any burn-in and certainly not any similar problem. I can't believe that LG would actually release their OLED display without this problem licked as it would create instant dissatisfaction.



Ohhh man this info has killed my lust for OLED. I'm a plasma user now and I have to dace around the burn in stuff by switching games and stuff like that all the time. Ughhh


----------



## eonibm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fahrenheit85* /forum/post/21521396
> 
> 
> Ohhh man this info has killed my lust for OLED. I'm a plasma user now and I have to dace around the burn in stuff by switching games and stuff like that all the time. Ughhh



Well you have to remember the original poster said this is only a problem with mobile OLED displays (the only prevalent OLEDs around) and that does not mean it will be with large displays. I think a lot of cell phone manufacturers rushed to put OLEDs in their phones because it was a cool spec to have and because of the lower power consumption, even those these displays were not then ready for prime time.


----------



## xrox

Any display that generates light from individual pixels (CRT, Plasma, SED, FED and OLED) can have burn in. That is a fact. The degree of burn in depends on the half life of the pixels and the shape of the aging curve of the pixels as well.


LCD which use a singular light source provided by a backlight and diffuser combination overcomes this issue.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21521605
> 
> 
> Any display that generates light from individual pixels (CRT, Plasma, SED, FED and OLED) can have burn in. That is a fact. The degree of burn in depends on the half life of the pixels and the shape of the aging curve of the pixels as well.



Exactly. I've never had an issue with burn-in on a direct-view CRT, even though it was certainly possible.

I doubt most people worried about it.


With Plasma, permanent burn-in seems to be difficult to achieve, but image retention is common.


Technically, you could have image retention with an LCD as well, but I've never seen it happen outside of commercial use. (airport displays, screens that are on 24/7 with static information etc.)


It's only going to be a problem if it's a common occurrence with OLED. (I'm very interested in seeing how CLED compares, if it ever becomes a real product)


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> But it has nothing to do with exercising the color OLEDs there because there are no color OLEDs.



It takes so long to try and explain these things everytime you post, so I took a shortcut and left my statement confusing, I guess.










When I said colour oled, I meant the white oleds under the colour filters. I suppose I should have said the colour subpixels. Presumably, if you want to create white at full brightness for a pixel, I would expect you to have to drive colour subpixels harder to achieve it than you would have to drive a white subpixel, because of the light loss of the filters over the RGB subpixels. That would age them faster. Also, you'd be driving 3 subpixels instead of 1 which would increase power consumption by a factor of at least 3, but likely more, again due to loss of the filters.


----------



## greenland

I notice that the notion that the white fourth sub-pixel in the LG WOLED panel might have been required to boost brightness, because the RBG ones alone might not be able generate enough light; has been floated on here.


If that turns out to be true, then how would the Samsung RGB OLED display provide enough brighness?


----------



## pcdo

Well I have a Galaxy S phone and I noticed some initial image retention when I got the phone. Since then I really haven't noticed further IR. Perhaps like plasma, as the panel ages IR becomes less an issue.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/21522284
> 
> 
> I notice that the notion that the white fourth sub-pixel might have been required to boost brightness, because the RBG ones alone might not be able generate enough light; has been floated on here.
> 
> 
> If that turns out to be true, then how would the Samsung RGB OLED display provide enough brighness?



The white subpixel cannot boost brightness, because it cannot be active for any saturated color where R=0 or G=0 or B=0. It could boost brightness for a subset of colors that have a grey component (R>0 and G>0 and B>0), but that does not make any sense.










The only reason for the white subpixel is to increase efficiency and lifetime.


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21520082
> 
> 
> 
> Power measurements of the 15" prototype vs direct RGB.



Just curious; any idea what size the FMM RGB screen was? And what was the peak white calibrated too on both sets?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21520818
> 
> 
> But it has nothing to do with blue specifically, which I suppose is your point.



Yes.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen* /forum/post/21522157
> 
> 
> It takes so long to try and explain these things everytime you post, so I took a shortcut and left my statement confusing, I guess.



Yes, which others have been guilty of due to lack of understanding. It's clear you do understand, I'm just trying to get everyone to grasp how this works.










> Quote:
> When I said colour oled, I meant the white oleds under the colour filters. I suppose I should have said the colour subpixels. Presumably, if you want to create white at full brightness for a pixel, I would expect you to have to drive colour subpixels harder to achieve it than you would have to drive a white subpixel, because of the light loss of the filters over the RGB subpixels. That would age them faster. Also, you'd be driving 3 subpixels instead of 1 which would increase power consumption by a factor of at least 3, but likely more, again due to loss of the filters.



Sounds about right. Good summary.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/21522284
> 
> 
> I notice that the notion that the white fourth sub-pixel in the LG WOLED panel might have been required to boost brightness, because the RBG ones alone might not be able generate enough light; has been floated on here.
> 
> 
> If that turns out to be true, then how would the Samsung RGB OLED display provide enough brighness?



Samsung won't need to be aggressively filtering it's red, green and blue the way LG is. (They may not be filtered at all.) Further, Samsung won't have two layers of emitter (pretend they are red and green) hidden behind blue, losing output that way. In short, Samsung's OLED material is going to be used much more directly and will therefore get much more light to you. It won't need "help" to achieve the brightness levels required.


One mystery, however, from the CES demos is that the Samsung displays were clearly being driven at / near their limits. Everything was really "boosted". The displays were plenty bright, mind you, but that level of driving had issues and the shipping product won't be driven that hard. I don't really know what Samsung's ultimate design is going to be like, but I doubt it will have the eye-searing brightness that modern LED LCDs are capable of.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Also, you'd be driving 3 subpixels instead of 1 which would increase power consumption by a factor of at least 3, but likely more, again due to loss of the filters.



RGBW is less efficient but unlikely factor of 3. Driving 3 subpixel is right but driving at around 1/3 or maybe 1/2 power to achieve same luma.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> The white subpixel cannot boost brightness, because it cannot be active for any saturated color where R=0 or G=0 or B=0. It could boost brightness for a subset of colors that have a grey component (R>0 and G>0 and B>0), but that does not make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason for the white subpixel is to increase efficiency and lifetime.



I'm not sure I understand your point: so for saturated color yellow W subpixel is useless even when nit is improved?


I think W subpixel makes a lot of sense controlling grey scale and increasing luma. Simple and elegant and fits how industry YCC works, vs quattron solution which is useful only if you get the engineering right, just like Sammy RGB OLED solution.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fahrenheit85* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ohhh man this info has killed my lust for OLED. I'm a plasma user now and I have to dace around the burn in stuff by switching games and stuff like that all the time. Ughhh



As xrox and Nielo has confirmed, OLED is S&H with adjustable pulse. That means if the circuit and power is no issue, OLED can be adjusted to minimize retina persistence and burn in. It remains to be seen but I wouldn't worry too much about it.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21524802
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your point: so for saturated color yellow W subpixel is useless even when nit is improved?



The question was whether the white subpixel can boost brightness. I interpret this as: "can the white subpixel increase the maximum brightness of the TV?". This is not possible, because it can only be active for specific colors. For example: the brightness for Turquoise can be increased by using the white subpixel, but for Cyan, the white subpixel must be off and the green and blue subpixel are on their own. Maximum brightness is therefore determined by what the red, green and blue subpixels can achieve.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/21522559
> 
> 
> Just curious; any idea what size the FMM RGB screen was? And what was the peak white calibrated too on both sets?



FMM screen was 15". No mention of peak light output.


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> RGBW is less efficient but unlikely factor of 3. Driving 3 subpixel is right but driving at around 1/3 or maybe 1/2 power to achieve same luma.



So, you are saying that if I drive a white oled underneath a red filter I'll get MORE red component out than if I drive the same white oled under NO filter? That white oleds under green and blue filters produce respectively more green and blue light than the same white oled with no filter? Explain to me how that works please.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ Without filter it would be "white"







I agree with you that the efficiency is reduced by the filter.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21525597
> 
> 
> The question was whether the white subpixel can boost brightness. I interpret this as: "can the white subpixel increase the maximum brightness of the TV?". This is not possible, because it can only be active for specific colors. For example: the brightness for Turquoise can be increased by using the white subpixel, but for Cyan, the white subpixel must be off and the green and blue subpixel are on their own. Maximum brightness is therefore determined by what the red, green and blue subpixels can achieve.



Let's not get into secondary CMY. Lets's assume we just want saturated red so only the R subpixel is on at level 255. Do you think the W subpixel can increase the luma of red?


To both: why do you think that RGBW is actually more "efficient" than RGB in producing white screen as per LG's power consumption chart?


----------



## hughh

Here's an article i just found. A comparison of both OLED displays shown at the CES:

*LG WOLED TV vs Samsung OLED TV*


After spending hours inspecting the LG and Samsung 55" OLED TVs at CES 2012, we thought we'd compare the two models side by side in a DigitalVersus duel.


Note that this duel isn't based on test data or reviews as is usually the case in our five-star product battles. This is basically an overview of our first impressions after checking out the two 55" OLED TVs for a few hours at CES 2012.

http://www.digitalversus.com/duels-b...-tv-ap828.html


----------



## hughh

``We are negative about the outlook for televisions in Europe and it will be difficult for LG Electronics to see growth there,’’ he said.


``The upcoming Summer Olympics in London will help boost the anemic demand for 3D TVs and that’s a good sign.’’


As for OLED TVs, which are regarded as the next-generation sets that will eventually replace LCDs, currently the industry’s mainstream, Kwon said: ``Price really matters. We will try our best to offer quality OLED TV at reasonable prices. But more time is needed for wider market demand.’’
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...29_103213.html


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21527197
> 
> 
> Let's not get into secondary CMY. Lets's assume we just want saturated red so only the R subpixel is on at level 255. Do you think the W subpixel can increase the luma of red?



I don't think so, because if you activate the White subpixel in addition Red, the pixel will become Pink instead.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21527197
> 
> 
> To both: why do you think that RGBW is actually more "efficient" than RGB in producing white screen as per LG's power consumption chart?



Because only the White supbixels are active now (if WMR=100%). They are unfiltered, so there is no efficiency loss. The highly efficient stacked White OLED architecture apparently leads to a lower power consumption than an equivalent patterned RGB OLED display.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughh* /forum/post/21529279
> 
> 
> Kwon said: "Price really matters. We will try our best to offer quality OLED TV at reasonable prices."



That is exactly what we want, Kwon. Let's hope we have the same definition of "quality" and "reasonable".


----------



## Frank Benign

The Motorola Atrix phone has an RGBW pentile LCD for lower power consumption.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21529841
> 
> 
> I don't think so, because if you activate the White subpixel for Red, it will become Pink instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because only the White supbixels are active now (if WMR=100%). They are unfiltered, so there is no efficiency loss. The highly efficient stacked White OLED architecture apparently leads to a lower power consumption than an equivalent patterned RGB OLED display.



Previously I suggested that the structure was four vertically stacked white (phosphor doped) OLEDs, with color filters to yield RGBW. That does appear to be the case.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4* /forum/post/21530710
> 
> 
> Previously I suggested that the structure was four vertically stacked white (phosphor doped) OLEDs, with color filters to yield RGBW. That does appear to be the case.



That's not what it is. I'm not even sure what you think that achieves, other than one tall, very bright pixel. You have to arrange the four white sub-pixels on a plane, not in a stack or else you can't individually filter them in any useful way.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21531908
> 
> 
> That's not what it is. I'm not even sure what you think that achieves, other than one tall, very bright pixel. You have to arrange the four white sub-pixels on a plane, not in a stack or else you can't individually filter them in any useful way.



Although this pre-LG item refers to stacked RGB OLEDs, rather than stacked RGBW, this is nevertheless a quick, useful quote regarding the virtue of vertical stacking. I don't believe this article anticipated LG's release:

http://taggedwiki.zubiaga.org/new_co...2#Stacked_OLED 


"Stacked OLED


Stacked OLED (SOLED) uses a pixel architecture that stacks the red, green, and blue subpixels on top of one another instead of next to one another, leading to substantial increase in gamut and color depth, and greatly reducing pixel gap. At the moment, all display technologies have the RGB (and RGBW) pixels mapped next to each other."


I should also qualify the term phosphor-doped White OLED, as the blue utilized is a long-life fluorescent blue material, referenced in the Novaled link I posted earlier.


When I have more time I'll post other materials.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4* /forum/post/21532201
> 
> 
> Although this pre-LG item refers to stacked RGB OLEDs, rather than stacked RGBW, this is nevertheless a quick, useful quote regarding the virtue of vertical stacking. I don't believe this article anticipated LG's release:
> 
> http://taggedwiki.zubiaga.org/new_co...2#Stacked_OLED



This is not White OLED though, nor does it use color filters, nor does it apply to an RGBW layout. It is the holy grail of OLED display archirectures, but it is not what LG is using right now.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21532466
> 
> 
> This is not White OLED though, nor does it use color filters, nor does it apply to an RGBW layout. It is the holy grail of OLED display archirectures, but it is not what LG is using right now.



from a Slashgear article prior CES:

http://www.slashgear.com/lg-55-inch-...2012-26204495/ 


'There’s also what LG is calling “White OLED (WOLED)” which vertically stacks red, green and blue diodes on a white diode base.'


Other articles have mentioned the use of color filters over the "White"(doped) OLEDs, rather than RGB OLEDs being used.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4* /forum/post/21532551
> 
> 
> from a Slashgear article prior CES:
> 
> http://www.slashgear.com/lg-55-inch-...2012-26204495/
> 
> 
> 'There's also what LG is calling White OLED (WOLED) which vertically stacks red, green and blue diodes on a white diode base.'
> 
> 
> Other articles have mentioned the use of color filters over the "White"(doped) OLEDs, rather than RGB OLEDs being used.



I think you guys are having communication problems because of the terminology.


The white OLED that LG is using is produced by stacking red, green, and blue "emitter" layers. These arent diodes and the emitters arent directly producing white light. The combination of the individual emitter layers outputs white light that is then run through red, green, and blue filters. These 3 sub pixels are combined with an unfiltered white subpixel to create the entire color gamut.


Slacker


----------



## rogo

I've correctly explained -- several times -- what LG is doing. Slacker's brief summary is also correct.


I suggest reading through my posts to understand what LG is doing, not a bunch of papers that might or might not apply to the design they are using.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21534345
> 
> 
> I've correctly explained -- several times -- what LG is doing. Slacker's brief summary is also correct.
> 
> 
> I suggest reading through my posts to understand what LG is doing, not a bunch of papers that might or might not apply to the design they are using.



This is my understanding, from a previously posted article:

http://www.oled-info.com/kodak/kodak...terview_page_2 


"For displays, Kodak has pioneered the W-RGBW pixel architecture. This consists of a WOLED with four sub-pixels per pixel. Three sub-pixels emit through red, green or blue color filters, and the fourth has no filter, leaving it white...


....Combining Kodak's pixel architecture, color filter, OLED materials and architecture advancements yields displays that have high power efficiency, greater than 100% NTSC x,y color gamut, and are estimated to have a half-life much greater than 100,000 hours."


The "White" OLEDS are created by deposition of materials, but the end result is a "White"OLED. Three of them are then color filtered, and the fourth has no filter so that is emission is "white." These are vertically stacked as previously mentioned.


Slacker appears to be saying the same thing.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4* /forum/post/21535046
> 
> 
> These are vertically stacked as previously mentioned.



The red, green and blue emissive layers that make up a white subpixel are oriented verically (towards the viewer).


The red, green, blue and white subpixels that make up a pixel are oriented horizontally as a standard RGBW stripe. The red, green and blue subpixel have a filter applied, the white subpixel is unfiltered.


Agree?


----------



## xrox

My basic interpretation drawn out in powerpoint.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox* /forum/post/21535692
> 
> 
> My basic interpretation drawn out in powerpoint.



Thanks, a picture clearly says more than my 50 words.










Bookmarked for reference when the inevitable confusion surfaces again about white OLED, subpixels, filters, layers, stacks, efficiency, and so on.


----------



## specuvestor

^^^ This is my understanding also. The white arows are indeed white which is a combination of RGB to be precise


What is unsure is whether the color filter actually has a "clear" subpixel for white instead of having a "white" subpixel. The latter will help in adjusting white chroma vs you have to engineer the RGB perfectly to produce acceptable white.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21529841
> 
> 
> I don't think so, because if you activate the White subpixel in addition Red, the pixel will become Pink instead.



You're right. Now I get your point on saturated color



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21529841
> 
> 
> Because only the White supbixels are active now (if WMR=100%). They are unfiltered, so there is no efficiency loss. The highly efficient stacked White OLED architecture apparently leads to a lower power consumption than an equivalent patterned RGB OLED display.



No loss of efficiency does not mean MORE efficient. It's lower powered at white because the RGB can be powered less at same level of luma vs Sammy's solution


----------



## rogo

Xrox's picture is accurate. The only part I'm unsure of is whether LG is using stripes or more of 2 x 2 clusters for each pixel. The picture would be a technologically accurate representation either way, but the arrangement looks different when viewed from "above" if it's a 2 x 2 cluster.


This discussion of the white sub-pixel is still interesting to me. It seems like it's really most useful when displaying _white_ and then some relatively small subset of hues where you can still use it. Thing is white -- or shades thereof -- is reasonably common. It might also be true that to realize the contrast potential of the display, being able to get white in a power-efficient manner is very valuable.


Taichi, I didn't read the entire linked item, but based on what you excerpted, I've made at least 6 posts that explain that in this or the LG OLED thread already. I think you'll find that's what I've been stating since CES. And, on a related note, I believe your understanding in the most recent post to be correct whereas the previous ones were somewhat misleading (even if you did understand it, the posts could've confused people).


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21536663
> 
> 
> Xrox's picture is accurate. The only part I'm unsure of is whether LG is using stripes or more of 2 x 2 clusters for each pixel. The picture would be a technologically accurate representation either way, but the arrangement looks different when viewed from "above" if it's a 2 x 2 cluster.



LG is using stripes. This is a close-up of the 55" OLED:


----------



## piquadrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21535905
> 
> 
> No loss of efficiency does not mean MORE efficient. It's lower powered at white because the RGB can be powered less at same level of luma vs Sammy's solution



...but these RGB subpixels have to occupy less horizontal area. It's because you have to squeeze somewhere all White ones. Less area=less maximum luminance possible. In the end the only thing you gain is because of the color filters efficiency factors of RGB subpixels. At the expense of more complex driving circuity (TFTs for W) and stronger manufacturing precision requirements (smaller deposition windows).

There's no point in believing that W subpixel could be driven differently than RGBs ones so its maximum possible luminance is more or less the same as for every other subpixel. That's why one cannot get white color only with Ws and preserve luminance level at the same time. RGBs should be turned on also.

This LG's approach is not a big deal for me.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21536663
> 
> 
> This discussion of the white sub-pixel is still interesting to me. It seems like it's really most useful when displaying _white_ and then some relatively small subset of hues where you can still use it. Thing is white -- or shades thereof -- is reasonably common. It might also be true that to realize the contrast potential of the display, being able to get white in a power-efficient manner is very valuable.



I havent seen anything on red or green, but Universal Display (an OLED materials supplier) claims that a saturated blue is only used about 10-20% of the time. The rest of the time you are generally using a "light" blue.


I assume that this is how LG can claim a fairly small drop in power consumption for RGBW. The white pixel must be used to create a fairly substantial portion of the color gamut.


----------



## piquadrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21536663
> 
> 
> This discussion of the white sub-pixel is still interesting to me. It seems like it's really most useful when displaying _white_ and then some relatively small subset of hues where you can still use it. Thing is white -- or shades thereof -- is reasonably common. It might also be true that to realize the contrast potential of the display, being able to get white in a power-efficient manner is very valuable.



The probability of non-White-enhanced pixel assuming linear color space, 8-bit quantization and pure randomized input is:


> Quote:
> 3*256^2/256^3=3/256=1%



so 99% of pixels could be White assisted.

The color conversion scheme should be as follows:


> Quote:
> (R,G,B) -> (R-Delta, G-Delta, B-Delta, W)
> 
> where:
> 
> Dellta = (Lowest_of_RGB * 3 * F_Coeff^3
> W=3*Delta



For instance assuming color filters efficiency coeff. (F_Coeff) as 1s:

(255,255,255) -> (85,85,85,255)

(125, 230,16) -> (109, 214, 0, 48) | Lowest-of_RGB=16 so: Delta=16

(125, 230, 100) -> (40, 145, 15, 255) | Lowest_of_RGB=100 so: Delta=255/3

(125, 230, 0) -> (125, 230, 0, 0)

Note that F_Coeff other than 1 resulting with rounding errors.

Note that if W is unfiltered color conversion scheme should be non-linear and reflect that W is not R+G+B.

Note that above scheme principle is to maximize use of W subpixel (power efficiency).


----------



## rogo

ferro and piquadrat, thanks for some incredibly useful posts.


----------



## specuvestor

Piquadrat, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your maths similar to white subpixel "helping" grayscale, not withstanding that there are few instances when saturated colors are used and subpixel white is not useful, as ferro pointed out?


Otherwise white subpixel helps with grayscale, luma and hence power, and more elegant than quattron yellow in implementation.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *piquadrat* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ...but these RGB subpixels have to occupy less horizontal area. It's because you have to squeeze somewhere all White ones. Less area=less maximum luminance possible. In the end the only thing you gain is because of the color filters efficiency factors of RGB subpixels. At the expense of more complex driving circuity (TFTs for W) and stronger manufacturing precision requirements (smaller deposition windows).
> 
> There's no point in believing that W subpixel could be driven differently than RGBs ones so its maximum possible luminance is more or less the same as for every other subpixel. That's why one cannot get white color only with Ws and preserve luminance level at the same time. RGBs should be turned on also.
> 
> This LG's approach is not a big deal for me.



Actually I think RGBW occupy MORE horizontal area as an ADDITIONAL subpixel white is needed vs Sammy's RGB. As per xrox's diagram, there is a stacked RGB OLED under EVERY subpixel of RGBW. That's where most of the confusion comes from. It is NOT green OLED under a green color filter.


That means technically RGBW is less efficient and uses more power since need more horizontal area, but the practically is that the W pixel provide much of the luma needed that RGB can be driven less. That's also why quattron seems brighter. With four subpixels it can be brighter than 3 subpixels. They are driven same way but decoding and color mapping can be done relatively easier than quattron to optimise luma driving from RGB and White.


That's the elegance part I was talking about. Like I said this is similar (not same) to how video YCC operates.


----------



## piquadrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21539752
> 
> 
> Piquadrat, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your maths similar to white subpixel "helping" grayscale, not withstanding that there are few instances when saturated colors are used and subpixel white is not useful, as ferro pointed out?
> 
> 
> Otherwise white subpixel helps with grayscale, luma and hence power, and more elegant than quattron yellow in implementation.



I don't think white subpixel can help with grayscale. The fact that W is unfiltered may produce problems as W is not R + G + B spectrum-wise.

It may be helpful with luma (increase it's maximum) on static images if they only consist of non-zero or non-255 pixels (so no: (125, 4, 0) nor: (255, 0, 0) in a frame buffer at a given time) working similarly as brightness. For moving pictures gain is not stable which renders it useless.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21539752
> 
> 
> Actually I think RGBW occupy MORE horizontal area as an ADDITIONAL subpixel white is needed vs Sammy's RGB. As per xrox's diagram, there is a stacked RGB OLED under EVERY subpixel of RGBW. That's where most of the confusion comes from. It is NOT green OLED under a green color filter.



The horizontal area occupied by each pixel is defined by 3 factors: the physical dimensions of the whole panel, resolution and patterning (borders between pixels). This is the reason why LG took cross pattern. If they arranged subpixels in 4 stripes (assuming each pixel is a square of "a" size) the average statistical length of each pixel's border is:

L = 4*a/2 + 3*a = 5*a | /2-because each pixel shares border with neighbors

For 3 stripes arrangement L = 4*a and for cross pattern of 4 subpixels in LG's solution L = 4*a. So LG simply did not lose on boarders going to RGBW and on the other side did not win anything either.

L affects the luminance of a panel as the area of a border (dependent on L linearly) do not produce light.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21539752
> 
> 
> That means technically RGBW is less efficient and uses more power since need more horizontal area, but the practically is that the W pixel provide much of the luma needed that RGB can be driven less. That's also why quattron seems brighter. With four subpixels it can be brighter than 3 subpixels. They are driven same way but decoding and color mapping can be done relatively easier than quattron to optimise luma driving from RGB and White.
> 
> That's the elegance part I was talking about. Like I said this is similar (not same) to how video YCC operates.



As stated above the effective horizontal area of RGBW pixel must be the same as RGB counterpart or -less- in non-cross-pattern approaches. YCC is a reversible color-space conversion as RGB->RGBW one. The similarities end here as YCC is used as an arrangement for loose compression of chroma channel in bandwidth limited scenarios. That's strictly a resolution keeper (balancing and optimizer). It doesn't help to get more luminance.


EDIT. But (255, 255, 255) -> (85, 85, 85, 255) so indeed you lost luminance (in comparison to RGB on the same horizontal area) as it should be (255, 255, 255, 255) to preserve it. The thing is if you want to get (255, 255, 255) -> (255, 255, 255, 255) the modified conversion scheme becomes discontinuous and for instance (255, 10, 30) -> does not have its RGBW representative and: (255, 85, 85) -> (255, 0, 0, 255) is the boundary. The closer to primary colors the worse.

Maybe someone wiser than me tell us how LG could succeed with this. Because it seems that they are not gaining luminance with RGBW but the opposite.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *piquadrat* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I don't think white subpixel can help with grayscale. The fact that W is unfiltered may produce problems as W is not R + G + B spectrum-wise.
> 
> It may be helpful with luma (increase it's maximum) on static images if they only consist of non-zero or non-255 pixels (so no: (125, 4, 0) nor: (255, 0, 0) in a frame buffer at a given time) working similarly as brightness. For moving pictures gain is not stable which renders it useless.
> 
> 
> The horizontal area occupied by each pixel is defined by 3 factors: the physical dimensions of the whole panel, resolution and patterning (borders between pixels). This is the reason why LG took cross pattern. If they arranged subpixels in 4 stripes (assuming each pixel is a square of "a" size) the average statistical length of each pixel's border is:
> 
> L = 4*a/2 + 3*a = 5*a | /2-because each pixel shares border with neighbors
> 
> For 3 stripes arrangement L = 4*a and for cross pattern of 4 subpixels in LG's solution L = 4*a. So LG simply did not lose on boarders going to RGBW and on the other side did not win anything either.
> 
> L affects the luminance of a panel as the area of a border (dependent on L linearly) do not produce light.
> 
> 
> As stated above the effective horizontal area of RGBW pixel must be the same as RGB counterpart or -less- in non-cross-pattern approaches. YCC is a reversible color-space conversion as RGB->RGBW one. The similarities end here as YCC is used as an arrangement for loose compression of chroma channel in bandwidth limited scenarios. That's strictly a resolution keeper (balancing and optimizer). It doesn't help to get more luminance.
> 
> 
> EDIT. But (255, 255, 255) -> (85, 85, 85, 255) so indeed you lost luminance (in comparison to RGB on the same horizontal area) as it should be (255, 255, 255, 255) to preserve it. The thing is if you want to get (255, 255, 255) -> (255, 255, 255, 255) the modified conversion scheme becomes discontinuous and for instance (255, 10, 30) -> does not have its RGBW representative and: (255, 85, 85) -> (255, 0, 0, 255) is the boundary. The closer to primary colors the worse.
> 
> Maybe someone wiser than me tell us how LG could succeed with this. Because it seems that they are not gaining luminance with RGBW but the opposite.



I can't say I totally understand your maths but like I always declare: in my industry we strive to be roughly right rather than precisely wrong










1) is it confirmed that W is unfiltered and not passing through a white color filter? As discussed, Ferro already pointed out it will not be useful for saturated colors where the mapping is saturated ie 0 or 255.


2) I understand the border part but how do you conclude the NUMBER of subpixel does not affect the horizontal area? Think Pentile.


3) I am saying YCC splits the chroma and luma which the W subpixel is acting as a Y luma. So from a decoding point of view it is not revolutionary or unprecedented. With (85,85,85,255) you have demonstrated that power can be reduced in RGB and made up for by W subpixel on an apple to apple comparison. To increase brightness and make J6P happy can't it be mapped to say (127,127,127, 255)?


I think RGBW can be brighter if power is not a consideration. But for similar power consumption with Sammy's RGB, then it will certainly will be dimmer because of the efficiency loss from color filter (and maybe RGB stack?).


----------



## slacker711

Dupont is building an experimental fab to test their solution based printing technology for OLED's. They licensed an undisclosed Asian manufacturer (likely Samsung) in November.

http://www.delawareonline.com/articl...anic-LED-plant 


Hard to say how close this is to reality, but it is the holy grail for OLED's in terms of cost.


----------



## piquadrat

My point is, if you have given full hd 16:9 panel of 55" diagonal you can calculate the maximum possible area each pixel can occupy. And your goal as an engineer is to maximize the usage of it. If you just add another subpixel to already area optimized RGB pixel structure without changing the sizes of already existed subpixels all of the newly redesigned pixels becomes bigger and simply won't fit into the panel. You have to reduce the size of R and B and G when you add W.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21544552
> 
> 
> 1) is it confirmed that W is unfiltered and not passing through a white color filter? As discussed, Ferro already pointed out it will not be useful for saturated colors where the mapping is saturated ie 0 or 255.



The thing is (255, 0, 0) and (255, 0, 0, 0) are not equal in luminance. See above. Smaller area of R in RGBW means less light. If you allow one pixel to lower its "brightnes" you have to reduce the "brightness" of all pixels in frame buffer accordingly. You can't just ignore the fact that some colors becomes a little brighter and some a little darker going to RGBW space. It's a distortion.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21544552
> 
> 
> 2) I understand the border part but how do you conclude the NUMBER of subpixel does not affect the horizontal area? Think Pentile.



See above. The NUMBER of subpixel does not affect the horizontal area of *each pixel* as each pixel area is determined by the resolution (1920x1080) and the panel size as a whole (55").


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21544552
> 
> 
> 3) I am saying YCC splits the chroma and luma which the W subpixel is acting as a Y luma. So from a decoding point of view it is not revolutionary or unprecedented. With (85,85,85,255) you have demonstrated that power can be reduced in RGB and made up for by W subpixel on an apple to apple comparison. To increase brightness and make J6P happy can't it be mapped to say (127,127,127, 255)?



Yes it can. But this redesigned scheme will have it's own boundary somewhere between 0 and 85 - around 42 I suppose so (255, 42, 42) -> (255, 0, 0, 255) and (255, 41, 42) doesn't have its representative in RGBW space. The primary color problem will arise but a little later.

And you can't ignore this problem as it results in distortions every time such problematic pixel arrives into the framebuffer. This pixel is then displayed as darker then it should be.


----------



## specuvestor

Thanks I see your point now: basically we have to assume the display size is constant. I missed that. I have to reconsider then the premise of extra subpixel like the quattron somehow is brighter. Probably more because LCD is backlit vs OLED which is individual emitter.


And I can see how lower luma in other RGB could be an issue but frankly that should be relatively easy to compensate with W subpixel, if it is filtered white.


So is unfiltered white confirmed then?


Why is RGBW space limited to 85? It is a matter of interpolation and mapping?


----------



## rogo

"So is unfiltered white confirmed then?"


I have a lot of reason to believe that's correct, but not metaphysical certainty.


----------



## piquadrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21544834
> 
> 
> Why is RGBW space limited to 85? It is a matter of interpolation and mapping?



This 85 comes from assumption that 1 portion o R + 1 portion of B + 1 portion of G forms 3 portion of W. 3*85=255 and W cannot be higher then 255.

And I have finally found why all this color messing seemed strange to me from the beginning. Obviously I was wrong with the portions math. Not 3 portions of W but 1.

So this should look like this:


> Quote:
> (124, 18, 30) > find the highest "common white" - (18, 18, 18) > substract (124-18, 18-18, 30-18) > add W component which is 18 not 3*18 > (106, 0, 12, 18)



And now all is ok.

And in real word scenario and the above example to maintain luminance W should be a little lower then 18 as W is brighter because unfiltered. Hence better power distribution.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *piquadrat* /forum/post/21544738
> 
> 
> Yes it can. But this redesigned scheme will have it's own boundary somewhere between 0 and 85 - around 42 I suppose so (255, 42, 42) -> (255, 0, 0, 255) and (255, 41, 42) doesn't have its representative in RGBW space. The primary color problem will arise but a little later.
> 
> And you can't ignore this problem as it results in distortions every time such problematic pixel arrives into the framebuffer. This pixel is then displayed as darker then it should be.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *piquadrat* /forum/post/21544967
> 
> 
> This 85 comes from assumption that 1 portion o R + 1 portion of B + 1 portion of G forms 3 portion of W. 3*85=255 and W cannot be higher then 255.




What I mean is that your 85 limit is only in the RGB space when translated directly to RGBW space. It could be 255 in the RGBW space with the proper transpose and remapping, and with *more gradation* in between. It doesn't need to be 1:1 ie (255,255,255) can be transpose to (255,255,255,255) rather than (85,85,85,255). it's a matter of decoding implementation taking into account the smaller pixel area which you explained.


On a similar note, panny also enlarged their green subpixel so that it is 50% brighter in 2012, so their mapping matrix will also have to change. Everybody's using "techniques" nowadays







In short IMHO remapping shouldn't be a major deal.


It would be very strange to me if W is unfiltered because we both agree it will have chroma issue. Since Rogo and yourself alluded to it so I'll just assume it is for now










PS I have no idea what (124, 18, 30) means







Interesting discussion nonetheless... the conclusion seemed to imply that LG RGBW may have color accuracy issue or even calibration issue. And less efficient than Sammy RGB for sure.


----------



## specuvestor

As suspected, signs of RGBW taking a toll on Sammy's capex plans. Sammy will give capex details tomorrow.


"We anticipate weaker momentum from the OLED material division in 2012 as SMD

5.5G capacity expansion should be lower than expected and 8G line ramp-up may

be delayed. As such, we revised down 2012F OLED material sales growth from

71% to 37% as SMD 5.5G A3 ramp-up should begin in 2H12 and 8G V1 ramp-up

is now likely in 2H12. We believe V1 ramp-up will be delayed as new technologies

adopted for large OLED output still have to stabilize. Accordingly, we revised down

our 2012F OLED material sales estimate by 23% to W93.3bn from W120.5bn."- KIS on a materials provider


----------



## vinnie97

Ouch, LG may have a chance to capitalize here.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21550814
> 
> 
> As suspected, signs of RGBW taking a toll on Sammy's capex plans.



When you say "RGBW", do you mean "LG's RGBW competitive advantage"?


----------



## specuvestor

^^ yes I no longer used the oft quoted but misleading term of WOLED.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ouch, LG may have a chance to capitalize here.



Knowing Sammy's tenacity, LG probably has at most 12 months breathing room.


----------



## kevydee

I have read over the last few pages of this thread a few times because I found this whole "white" pixel discussion a bit confusing. I couldn't figure out how the addition of a "white" pixel could make a picture brighter without screwing up the colors. Earlier in the thread, someone had posted for example that the white pixels would make a red screen look pink. That was my thinking also, until I stopped looking at the 4th pixel as being a "white" pixel. It isn't. To me, this whole "white" pixel description is a misnomer. The "white" pixel should be renamed "multiplier" or "follower" pixel or some other name to eliminate confusion. The 4th pixel multiplies what ever color is produced by the RGB filters to increase brightness. The only time the 4th pixel can be called "white" is when the RGB emitters are driven at the same level to produce white light.


Simply brilliant, LG.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kevydee* /forum/post/21551850
> 
> 
> I have read over the last few pages of this thread a few times because I found this whole "white" pixel discussion a bit confusing. I couldn't figure out how the addition of a "white" pixel could make a picture brighter without screwing up the colors. Earlier in the thread, someone had posted for example that the white pixels would make a red screen look pink. That was my thinking also, until ...



Your thinking was right until here. The reality is quite simple:











The white subpixel takes care of the grey component of the color of a pixel, and the RGB subpixels take care of the rest. No increased brightness, just increased efficiency.


----------



## kevydee

Ok, so is the white subpixel on its on RGB stack then? Because looking at that graphic, if red is being displayed, then the "white" subpixel would have to be red also since its on the same stack as the RGB filters. Correct?


----------



## piquadrat

I will try to be as simple as I can and you guys just point where I am wrong.

Lets take two pixels: one RGB and one RGBW and now let assume that we can redirect the same maximum power P to each of them. RGB and RGBW are both the same in horizontal area so this assumption is more or less justified. Both pixels (as wholes) are getting the same juice.

In RGB power P should be distributed evently between three subpixels so R gets 1/3*P, G gets 1/3*P and B the same 1/3*P.

In RGBW power P should be distributed evently between four subpixels so R gets 1/4*P, G gets 1/4*P, B gets 1/4*P and W gets 1/4*P.


And assume what specuvestor said (that you have transfer function which transforms (255,255,255)->(255,255,255,255))


Now let these pixels shine:

White color


> Quote:
> RGB - (255,255,255)
> 
> P(RGB,white)=(255/255)*(1/3)*P + (255/255)*(1/3)*P + (255/255)*(1/3)*P=P
> 
> RGBW - (255,255,255,255)
> 
> P(RGBW,white)=(255/255)*(1/4)*P + (255/255)*(1/4)*P + (255/255)*(1/4)*P + (255/255)*(1/4)*P=P



Red color


> Quote:
> RGB - (255,0,0)
> 
> P(RGB,red)=(255/255)*(1/3)*P + (0/255)*(1/3)*P + (0/255)*(1/3)*P=(1/3)*P
> 
> RGBW - (255,0,0,0) | primary color issue
> 
> P(RGBW,red)=(255/255)*(1/4)*P + (0/255)*(1/4)*P + (0/255)*(1/4)*P + (0/255)*(1/4)*P=(1/4)*P



Now we have to display red square on white background. What is the power (luminance) relations between red and white part:


> Quote:
> P(RGB,red) / P(RGB,white) = (1/3)*P / P = (1/3)
> 
> P(RGBW,red) / P(RGBW,white) = (1/4)*P / P = (1/4)



As you can see they are not the same. Which means the image is distorted. You can repeat this logic for any other intermediate pixel and conclude that the closer you are to primary the bigger "the dynamic misbehavior" is.

Ergo transformation (255,255,255) -> (255,255,255,255) is not a valid one.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kevydee* /forum/post/21552243
> 
> 
> Ok, so is the white subpixel on its on RGB stack then? Because looking at that graphic, if red is being displayed, then the "white" subpixel would have to be red also since its on the same stack as the RGB filters. Correct?



Good point. Each subpixel has its own stack. The graphic should be like this:


----------



## kevydee

Thanks for the clarification, ferro. On a another note, couldn't LG get the same results if the RGB subpixels were on the same emitter stack, with the "white" subpixel on a separate stack? Seems like that would be a simpler array.


----------



## rogo

No, it would be an infinitely more complex array and the first graphic was better. You need to break out of thinking of those stacks as anything discrete.


This is where it gets confusing.


The stacks are comprised of thin layers of red, green and blue OLED material. They cover the entire back of the screen. The only light you will ever see them produce is white. 100% "pure" white (pure is in quote marks because it's as pure as the OLED material allows).


Think of the letters on the bottom, the W G R and B as transistor. Think of the "stack" as a magical device that produces white light -- _and only white light_ -- albeit in varying intensity.


To make the four sub-pixels into a specific colored pixel the display will work on a modified principle of any other display. It will vary the intensity of red, green and blue to create a color mix and intensity and if possible it will also use the white pixel to increase the intensity while allowing it to drive the colored sub-pixels at a lower level (hence the discussion above). The sub-pixels are like LCD sub-pixels: they are colored by a patterned color filter on the front of the display module with the light coming from behind. (Unlike an LCD, the light source is _directly_ behind).


Thinking about the stack as having colors is not useful. It's shown that way to explain how the display is made only.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kevydee* /forum/post/21552785
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification, ferro. On a another note, couldn't LG get the same results if the RGB subpixels were on the same emitter stack, with the "white" subpixel on a separate stack? Seems like that would be a simpler array.



One of the design goals of this architecture is to keep the OLED layers uniform. This way you don't need to change masks at microscopic subpixel accuracy to deposit different materials on the same layer. Instead the same material is deposited on every layer, which increases production speed, increases yield, and therefore decreases costs.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21552836
> 
> 
> One of the design goals of this architecture is to keep the OLED layers uniform. This way you don't need to change masks at microscopic subpixel accuracy to deposit different materials on the same layer. Instead the same material is deposited on every layer, which increases production speed, increases yield, and therefore decreases costs.



To be accurate, they aren't masking the layers in the stack at all (or at least not with any kind of precision). They are depositing the layers one on top of the other and relying on the transparency properties of OLED for mixing the stack's colors and the color filters for creating the sub-pixel precision.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21550814
> 
> 
> As suspected, signs of RGBW taking a toll on Sammy's capex plans. Sammy will give capex details tomorrow.
> 
> 
> "We anticipate weaker momentum from the OLED material division in 2012 as SMD
> 
> 5.5G capacity expansion should be lower than expected and 8G line ramp-up may
> 
> be delayed. As such, we revised down 2012F OLED material sales growth from
> 
> 71% to 37% as SMD 5.5G A3 ramp-up should begin in 2H12 and 8G V1 ramp-up
> 
> is now likely in 2H12. We believe V1 ramp-up will be delayed as new technologies
> 
> adopted for large OLED output still have to stabilize. Accordingly, we revised down
> 
> our 2012F OLED material sales estimate by 23% to W93.3bn from W120.5bn."- KIS on a materials provider



This will be interesting to see tomorrow. It's hard to believe they will actually ramp up the extended 5.5G operation and the 8G _both_ in the last 2 quarters as this report suggests. And I'm be very skeptical if they claim they will.


There are bragging rights to be had here, but the false need to rush is unlikely to actually put hundreds of millions to work on an endeavor they can't yet be sure how they are undertaking.


----------



## kevydee

The updated graphic of ferro's cleared things up for me. I understood the fact that the back of the the display is composed of the RGB OLED emitter layers to produce white, but the first graphic wasn't meshing with what I was picturing in my head as far as what was happening at the pixel level. It makes sense now.


----------



## slacker711

Delete


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21550814
> 
> 
> As suspected, signs of RGBW taking a toll on Sammy's capex plans. Sammy will give capex details tomorrow.
> 
> 
> "We anticipate weaker momentum from the OLED material division in 2012 as SMD
> 
> 5.5G capacity expansion should be lower than expected and 8G line ramp-up may
> 
> be delayed. As such, we revised down 2012F OLED material sales growth from
> 
> 71% to 37% as SMD 5.5G A3 ramp-up should begin in 2H12 and 8G V1 ramp-up
> 
> is now likely in 2H12. We believe V1 ramp-up will be delayed as new technologies
> 
> adopted for large OLED output still have to stabilize. Accordingly, we revised down
> 
> our 2012F OLED material sales estimate by 23% to W93.3bn from W120.5bn."- KIS on a materials provider




Wow Lg could really run away with this one. I the pictures of this TV are great.


----------



## slacker711

Conference call notes from Samsung and LG Display. Note that I only listened to the English versions of the calls (for obvious reasons) and there is likely additional info in the Korean versions.


Samsung


Samsung has been pulling back on the amount of information that they give investors across the board. Unfortunately, OLED is no different. The only real info they gave was that display capex will be 6.6 trillion Won and that LCD will be a fairly minor part of that (only enough for maintenance capex). My WAG would put OLED capex around 5 trillion Won but would like to hear the analysts take since I dont have a good grasp on how much maintenance capex might be.


LG Display


Much more informative.


- Production is still on track with previous projections (summer ramp). This is the TFT-Oxide Gen 8 fab with 8K substrates a month of capacity. A single substrate can produce up to 6 55" televisions.


- They had previously indicated that they would make a decision on whether to proceed with further expansion of their OLED capacity in the 2nd half. They may pull that decision in due to the good feedback at CES.


- They will price OLED's at a 'reasonable' price point. Wouldnt really give any color on this answer.


- It takes 18 months to go from an a-si LCD fab to full production on a TFT-Oxide OLED fab. The limiting factor is the lead time in deposition machines.


- Blue is the limiting factor in lifetime. 30,000 hours (that is the same as Samsung's blue).


- They had some issues with TFT-Oxide but they are resolved and are ready for production.


- OLED capex. A brand new facility costs about 2.5x that of a LCD fab. Conversion is somewhere between 1x to 1.25x that of a LCD fab (bit of confusion here).


- Launch with a 55" OLED television. Didnt mention any other sizes.


----------



## HDPeeT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21556540
> 
> 
> - Blue is the limiting factor in lifetime. 30,000 hours (that is the same as Samsung's blue)..



Damn! I was really hoping that 100,000 hour figure people were floating around here was accurate. Screen burn-in is going to be a big problem with lifetime figures like that. LCD makers are going to more than happy pointing out that those expensive OLED screens aren't going to last as long as their LCDs will and you'll probably have some burn-in if you don't baby your television.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21557217
> 
> 
> Damn! I was really hoping that 100,000 hour figure people were floating around here was accurate.



It is remarkable that they have not been able to improve on the 30,000 hours of the 15EL9500 from 2 years ago.


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21556540
> 
> 
> 
> - Blue is the limiting factor in lifetime. 30,000 hours (that is the same as Samsung's blue).



?


For LG? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that statement.


In LG's design all of the sub-pixels are created equal with a WOLED setup and color filters. Because of this all of the sub-pixels should all degrade at the same rate given the same level of stimulus.


So does this mean all of the WOLEDs quickly start losing their blue? And you just don't notice on the red and green pixels since they're color filtered? So then blue starts to dim and white slowly turns yellow.


Last I read was a "stable" white from the WOLED for 100k hours. Perhaps this was just too good to be true.


Where did the 30k hours info come from?



Also begs the question for me as to what the life is like on a local dimming in-organic LCD LED set? Are they also limited to 30k hours or so? They too use "white" LEDs.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/21557379
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> For LG? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that statement.
> 
> 
> In LG's design all of the sub-pixels are created equal with a WOLED setup and color filters. Because of this all of the sub-pixels should all degrade at the same rate given the same level of stimulus.
> 
> 
> So does this mean all of the WOLEDs quickly start losing their blue? And you just don't notice on the red and green pixels since they're color filtered? So then blue starts to dim and white slowly turns yellow.
> 
> 
> Last I read was a "stable" white from the WOLED for 100k hours. Perhaps this was just too good to be true.
> 
> 
> Where did the 30k hours info come from?



The info was from a quarterly conference call that LG Display holds for investors.

http://www.teletogether.com/irliveca...isplay/2011Q4/ 


I dont really understand the blue lifetime either. I am pretty sure that Idemitsu Kosan has made substantial progress on the lifetime of their saturated fluorescent blue. It is possible that the speaker (VP of TV Marketing) made a mistake but she answered the question pretty confidently and obviously should be a position to know the answer.


Just thinking out loud, but lifetime can be measured at different points. The traditional number is LT50 (time to 50% brightness) but LT70 and LT95 are sometimes used as well.


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21556540
> 
> 
> Blue is the limiting factor in lifetime. 30,000 hours (that is the same as Samsung's blue).



Does that 30k refer to (1) half-life, (2) 95% life, or (3) a subjective "good enough" standard?


Just went through the numbers and a 30k half-life would be 2,220 hours to 95% (I have zero idea if 95% is the magic line of functionality, but it's the other fraction/percentage that I've seen frequently mentioned).


Edit: Just saw your above post, but I shall refrain from "delete"


----------



## ferro

This is a transcript from the Q&A in question:



> Quote:
> *Hee Yeon Kim*
> 
> In terms of lifetime, right now we have to consider the lifetime based on the proved basis, because the proved lifetime is the shortest, it is 3000 hours. It means 10 years of display in terms of eight hours displaying -30,000 hours.
> 
> *Unidentified Analyst*
> 
> 30,000 hours?
> 
> *Hee Yeon Kim*
> 
> 30,000, based on the blue.
> 
> *Unidentified Analyst*
> 
> And it is about for eight years, is it?
> 
> *Hee Yeon Kim*
> 
> 10 years, based on eight hours play per day.



The first sentence is puzzling...


----------



## rogo

Yes, it means the "white OLEDs" (quotes added because they are a stack of colored OLED layers) will lose their blue the fastest. This will cause their color temperature to change and they will eventually no long emit white light, but instead something in the yellow range.


As for how important this is, it depends.... Are the red and green also losing brightness so that the color change isn't horrendous? Can the display compensate a bit for the changes over time by adjusting the amount of driving applied to the various stacks to to keep the color closer to true (let's call it D65 for now)?


I mean it's important, but I just don't know how important yet.


---------------


Slacker, even if Samsung only spent, say, 4 trillion won, that sounds like enough to not only keep ramping the 5.5G but also start the 8G. It doesn't read like a delay / pullback. That said, the fact they didn't explicitly talk about ramping TV does read like a delay.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is a transcript from the Q&A in question:
> 
> 
> The first sentence is puzzling...



It is not puzzling... He probably meant to say 30k and not 3k in view of his following sentence. On conference calls we talk about what can be done realistically rather than what lab produces







Otherwise they will be in big trouble down the road for misrepresentation.


AFAIK the blue issue is not resolved on a production basis, despite all the promising results from various labs. The 100k RGBW is puzzling to me as well but I suspect their main focus should be on uniformity of RGBW decay, rather than half life, if you catch my drift.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Slacker, even if Samsung only spent, say, 4 trillion won, that sounds like enough to not only keep ramping the 5.5G but also start the 8G. It doesn't read like a delay / pullback. That said, the fact they didn't explicitly talk about ramping TV does read like a delay.



I was originally looking at KRW6tr OLED capex before CES. I wasn't available for the conf call but I would guess that probably means OLED capex is flattish 2012 at around KRW4.5tr. 8G does look to be delayed and it would be more symbolic than anything if they start a 8G plant this year.


That said I too would focus on putting out a feasible 55" product from my 5.5G fab then focus on 8G for now


OTOH I'm more keen to find out if LG really started a 4.5G that they had said previously they scrapped in favor of 8G? As discussed RGBW makes producing high quality OLED or motherglass size irrelevant. Only reason for 8G would be TV size volume rather than motherglass constraint.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> LG Display
> 
> 
> Much more informative.
> 
> 
> - Production is still on track with previous projections (summer ramp). This is the TFT-Oxide Gen 8 fab with 8K substrates a month of capacity. A single substrate can produce up to 6 55" televisions.
> 
> 
> - They had previously indicated that they would make a decision on whether to proceed with further expansion of their OLED capacity in the 2nd half. They may pull that decision in due to the good feedback at CES.



-----------------------------


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *piquadrat* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> And assume what specuvestor said (that you have transfer function which transforms (255,255,255)->(255,255,255,255))
> 
> 
> Now let these pixels shine:
> 
> White color
> 
> 
> Red color
> 
> 
> Now we have to display red square on white background. What is the power (luminance) relations between red and white part:
> 
> 
> As you can see they are not the same. Which means the image is distorted. You can repeat this logic for any other intermediate pixel and conclude that the closer you are to primary the bigger "the dynamic misbehavior" is.
> 
> Ergo transformation (255,255,255) -> (255,255,255,255) is not a valid one.



Thanks for your patience. I now understand that luma uniformity will be an issue if you do not cap at 85 since it will get darker at saturated ends of the gamut.


Having an additional pixel for brightness is not as simple as I thought







However it does seemed the industry is moving into brightness techniques. Their transformation algo must be more complex than I thought










You should probably join the Sharp Elite thread and help figure out the cyan issue with quattron


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21559208
> 
> 
> I was originally looking at KRW6tr OLED capex before CES. I wasn't available for the conf call but I would guess that probably means OLED capex is flattish 2012 at around KRW4.5tr. 8G does look to be delayed and it would be more symbolic than anything if they start a 8G plant this year.



Right, so when people in certain other threads yammer about how the forecasts from every industry forecaster "seem low", the reality is Samsung is moving slowly. And those forecasts take that into effect. It's an LG world in 2012 and that world is pretty small.


> Quote:
> That said I too would focus on putting out a feasible 55" product from my 5.5G fab then focus on 8G for now



Only problem with that is while it will allow them to make a product, it won't do anything for the mass production of 55" from the 8G where they need to master the movable mask technology, among other things.


If they make a 55" on 5.5G it's symbolic and not a means toward reasonable large-size TV production.


> Quote:
> OTOH I'm more keen to find out if LG really started a 4.5G that they had said previously they scrapped in favor of 8G? As discussed RGBW makes producing high quality OLED or motherglass size irrelevant. Only reason for 8G would be TV size volume rather than motherglass constraint.



I'd want to start on my 8G as soon as I could. It's the only way I can mass produce TVs and I need to master the yields of all the steps on _that_ process. I'm not sure minimum viable product on a small fab proves much of anything. It certainly won't help drive down costs at all.


Again, if you want even 2 million TVs in 2015, you need to lay the groundwork now. I'm laughing at the people who find my numbers out toward decade's end pessimistic.


----------



## kevydee

Found a good power point presentation on the technology:

http://www.sidchapters.org/sandiego/...004%20Rev3.ppt


----------



## rogo

That Powerpoint is good, but it's old. And as such, a number of things have changed a lot since it was made.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Only problem with that is while it will allow them to make a product, it won't do anything for the mass production of 55" from the 8G where they need to master the movable mask technology, among other things.
> 
> 
> If they make a 55" on 5.5G it's symbolic and not a means toward reasonable large-size TV production.
> 
> 
> I'd want to start on my 8G as soon as I could. It's the only way I can mass produce TVs and I need to master the yields of all the steps on that process. I'm not sure minimum viable product on a small fab proves much of anything. It certainly won't help drive down costs at all.
> 
> 
> Again, if you want even 2 million TVs in 2015, you need to lay the groundwork now. I'm laughing at the people who find my numbers out toward decade's end pessimistic.



Sammy 5.5G fab is rather huge actually. In fact the estimate is that it can meet all the IPad demand if Apple move to OLED tomorrow. (hypothetical of course since Apple must love them and Sammy must stop Galaxy S) A3 should be able to produce maybe 100k 55" per month but I can't remember off the top of my head.


That said I agree with most of your assessment in the other thread. More so in the next 3 years because further than that it's very contingent on industry capex from 2013 onwards, and the price down demand drive.


----------



## rogo

OK, so Spec I'm not going to argue your numbers -- you know 'em better than me. The point is though if they make 1M TVs per year on 5.5G that's all well and good, but it's not good for actually ramping OLED TV production into the many millions, which will require 8G (or ideally 10G at some point) and the attendant mastery of technologies that currently really only exist on paper (the mask scanning technology, for example).


I also am with you that as they invest out in coming years, we'll have more visibility into coming years. I would point out my assumptions for the later years presume _tens of millions of OLED TVs_ at that point, which presumably will require significant cap ex that isn't announced yet. In other words, I'm assuming that at some point it will be.


----------



## JimP

I'm lost....as usual.










So what is 5.5G, 8G and 10G?


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP* /forum/post/21560886
> 
> 
> I'm lost....as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is 5.5G, 8G and 10G?



It's an indication of the glass substrate size that is being produced at a plant:


5.5G: 1,300 x 1,500mm

8G: 2,200 x 2,500mm

10G: 2,880mm x 3,130mm


The display panels are cut from these sheets.


----------



## David_B

So Samsung is not spending money on LCD, but is spending money.


So either you have to believe they are spending it on Plasma (doubtful) or OLED.


I think they will move forward, but how fast depends on what they heard at CES from retailers.


They have a hard decission to make. Do you compete with LG, spending money on making current tech OLED TVs to stay in the public's mind as a leader, or do you save that early expenditure and work on the New manufacturing technique that promises more profit but not till next year?


The delay of the Galaxy SIII may hint at what's going on. Samsung can only make so many panels, and delaying the SIII in favor of a few OLED TVs could be the reason. Or the delay could be due to Table use of OLED screens.


Sounds like Samsung is making those decissions right now after talking to retailers at CES.


My guess though is they will move faster not slower with OLED. They are losing market share in LCD, they have to give the marketing department something to increase sales with. The supposed drop in MSRP might help, but they need something better then that in the next 2 years to keep investors happy.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21556540
> 
> 
> Conference call notes from Samsung and LG Display. Note that I only listened to the English versions of the calls (for obvious reasons) and there is likely additional info in the Korean versions.
> 
> 
> Samsung
> 
> 
> Samsung has been pulling back on the amount of information that they give investors across the board. Unfortunately, OLED is no different. The only real info they gave was that display capex will be 6.6 trillion Won and that LCD will be a fairly minor part of that (only enough for maintenance capex). My WAG would put OLED capex around 5 trillion Won but would like to hear the analysts take since I dont have a good grasp on how much maintenance capex might be.
> 
> 
> LG Display
> 
> 
> Much more informative.
> 
> 
> - Production is still on track with previous projections (summer ramp). This is the TFT-Oxide Gen 8 fab with 8K substrates a month of capacity. A single substrate can produce up to 6 55" televisions.
> 
> 
> - They had previously indicated that they would make a decision on whether to proceed with further expansion of their OLED capacity in the 2nd half. They may pull that decision in due to the good feedback at CES.
> 
> 
> - They will price OLED's at a 'reasonable' price point. Wouldnt really give any color on this answer.
> 
> 
> - It takes 18 months to go from an a-si LCD fab to full production on a TFT-Oxide OLED fab. The limiting factor is the lead time in deposition machines.
> 
> 
> - Blue is the limiting factor in lifetime. 30,000 hours (that is the same as Samsung's blue).
> 
> 
> - They had some issues with TFT-Oxide but they are resolved and are ready for production.
> 
> 
> - OLED capex. A brand new facility costs about 2.5x that of a LCD fab. Conversion is somewhere between 1x to 1.25x that of a LCD fab (bit of confusion here).
> 
> 
> - Launch with a 55" OLED television. Didnt mention any other sizes.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21560774
> 
> 
> OK, so Spec I'm not going to argue your numbers -- you know 'em better than me. The point is though if they make 1M TVs per year on 5.5G that's all well and good, but it's not good for actually ramping OLED TV production into the many millions, which will require 8G (or ideally 10G at some point) and the attendant mastery of technologies that currently really only exist on paper (the mask scanning technology, for example).



The problem is RGBW is making Sammy's life very difficult.


I guesstimated Sammy's RGB will sell for about 3X Sharp Elite 60" price while LG RGBW will sell for 2X. As per feedback from CES, it seemed the choice is pretty clear which set people will buy at these price points. I believe RGB ultimately SHOULD be a better solution but at this point of time Sammy is between a rock and a hard place.


So yes they might be able to produce a million OLED TV a year. But they probably need to figure out how to compete against a perceptibly superior product at a 50% higher price point. IMHO their problem is not LCD comparison. It is RGBW comparison.


If 8G is built we all know it is for TV market *volume*. Otherwise if it is niche (ie


----------



## mike50




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21561651
> 
> 
> 
> I guesstimated Sammy's RGB will sell for about 3X Sharp Elite 60" price while LG RGBW will sell for 2X.



At 3X and 2X the price of the Sharp Elite 60'', the Samsung and LG OLED 55'' will not sell.


----------



## coolscan

Isn't the rumour that Samsung is the "asian manufacturer partner" that DuPont say they have?

If that is so, Samsung also have to decide how much they shall invest in their current OLED manufacturing for TV or wait until they can "Ink Jet print" OLEDs.


Or is there a third company we don't know about that will do the InkJet process together with DuPont?


----------



## rogo

They sort of have to worry about that in the 2-5 year timeframe. The technology DuPont has is being trialed soon. It's nowhere near ready for production volumes. Maybe it will be in a few years and Samsung can use it then. It might never work at production volumes; they can't sit around doing nothing waiting to see. Unless, of course, they become convinced their current plans won't work economically -- which seems very premature.


----------



## specuvestor

People talked about it but I've not heard of Dupont method being operationally ready yet.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mike50* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> At 3X and 2X the price of the Sharp Elite 60'', the Samsung and LG OLED 55'' will not sell.



That has been the argument why OLED TV will never see the light of day if you looked back this thread past 18 months.


But does seem apparent now that the Koreans are willing to bet literally billions that IN FUTURE they will be able to price down substantially.


On hindside we will probably see the minuscule thousands of OLED TV sold next 12 months will herald in something more substantial, like huge size TVs, while skeptics laugh at the volume.


----------



## Ant99

Back in 1998 when Philips introduced their flat screen plasma at 42inches...price was $14,999. Plasma back in the day was super expensive.


I remember going to best buy and seeing small plasmas selling for $10,000.


Every new technology is always priced high when first coming out to stores.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ant99* /forum/post/21566278
> 
> 
> Back in 1998 when Philips introduced their flat screen plasma at 42inches...price was $14,999. Plasma back in the day was super expensive.
> 
> 
> I remember going to best buy and seeing small plasmas selling for $10,000.
> 
> 
> Every new technology is always priced high when first coming out to stores.



Yes, the Phillips Plasma TV was a whole new revolution. Flat screen display you can hang on the wall. Show movies in widescreen 16:9 format. It was like nothing else available. It was help along by the widespread roll out 18" satellite with DVD quality signal and HD a few years later.

OLED is more an evolution. It may have the the best picture when they finally start showing up in 2013, but the top of the line LCDs like the Elite will not be that far behind, and if the 4K marketing grabs the public attention, the OLED segment may remain a high priced niche product.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes, the Phillips Plasma TV was a whole new revolution. Flat screen display you can hang on the wall. Show movies in widescreen 16:9 format. It was like nothing else available. It was help along by the widespread roll out 18" satellite with DVD quality signal and HD a few years later.
> 
> OLED is more an evolution. It may have the the best picture when they finally start showing up in 2013, but the top of the line LCDs like the Elite will not be that far behind, and if the 4K marketing grabs the public attention, the OLED segment may remain a high priced niche product.



So, when will we see Philips OLED TVs? At the moment they are very busy with OLED lighting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viSE80NZL1s 



I forgot the transparent OLED car roof they and BASF made -


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ant99* /forum/post/21566278
> 
> 
> Back in 1998 when Philips introduced their flat screen plasma at 42inches...price was $14,999. Plasma back in the day was super expensive.
> 
> 
> I remember going to best buy and seeing small plasmas selling for $10,000.
> 
> 
> Every new technology is always priced high when first coming out to stores.



yeah i remember back in '02-'03 being at a good guys store (now out of biz) and seeing a large plasma made by nec or fujitsu that was 70-80" and was blown away by it.


talked to a salesman about it and he said they were going for 18-20k. i laughed and asked if anyone had bought any. he said yeah, he had just sold 2 to T.O. who was then playing for the niners.


so now we know who are first oled owners will be.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21572700
> 
> 
> yeah i remember back in '02-'03 being at a good guys store (now out of biz) and seeing a large plasma made by nec or fujitsu that was 70-80" and was blown away by it.
> 
> 
> talked to a salesman about it and he said they were going for 18-20k. i laughed and asked if anyone had bought any. he said yeah, he had just sold 2 to T.O. who was then playing for the niners.
> 
> 
> so now we know who are first oled owners will be.



Not T.O., who is pretty much broke.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21568908
> 
> 
> OLED is more an evolution. It may have the the best picture when they finally start showing up in 2013, but the top of the line LCDs like the Elite will not be that far behind, and if the 4K marketing grabs the public attention, the OLED segment may remain a high priced niche product.



It is very likey it will be a niche as the market research companies tend to be more realistic than manufs: iSuppli - only 34,000 OLED TVs to sell on 2012, will grow to 2.1 million by 2015 .


Hmm, less than 1% market share in 2015? Indicates lots of talk here is just talking about nothing. I think OLED TV could be reappearing as a real topic if it first starts making significant inroads into the portable display market. Still there are no signs of it and in this segment estimates for 2015 are 10% market share.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21574499
> 
> 
> It is very likey it will be a niche as the market research companies tend to be more realistic than manufs: iSuppli - only 34,000 OLED TVs to sell on 2012, will grow to 2.1 million by 2015 .
> 
> 
> Hmm, less than 1% market share in 2015? Indicates lots of talk here is just talking about nothing. I think OLED TV could be reappearing as a real topic if it first starts making significant inroads into the portable display market. Still there are no signs of it and in this segment estimates for 2015 are 10% market share.



I kind of agree with you, except that videophiles are going to be in that 1% in 2015 if the TVs deliver on their promise (likely). We want the best picture and we want it as cheaply as possible. So, sure, there's a lot of chatter, but overall a lot of reasonable learning about how this stuff works, the challenges bringing it to market, and the promise of the picture.


I mean, you can call that a lot of talk about nothing, but I'd argue it's a lot like the rest of AVS.


----------



## Top_Cat

Hi


Samsung to invest 6 billion $$$$$







in OLED (2012)



> Quote:
> Reuters reports that Samsung plans to invest 47.8 trillion Won (around 41.1 billion USD) in new factories, employees, acquisitions and research. Around 7 trillion (6.2 billion USD) has been earmarked for investment in OLED technology. This is the highest sum Samsung has even invested in a single year. Samsung currently employs 350,000.
> 
> 
> Samsung's investments in OLED technology will cover both research and production facilities. Samsung is currently the largest OLED manufacturer in the small-to-medium size screen segment and in 2012 they want to expand to the OLED-TV segment with their 55-inch OLED TV that will be available in the second half of 2012.
> 
> 
> According to sources, Samsung will also invest in flexible OLED panels and is expected to have the first mass production line up and running by Q3 2012. Additional capacity will be added in Q2 2013.



Link to full report:

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1327926619 


Regards


----------



## specuvestor

I'm wondering which one should I believe... I think Reuters context is misquoted. KRW6.6bio refers to the entire display product division. And 2012 capex is KRW25tr for Samsung Electronics. They may be referring to Samsung Group.
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsu...earch_keyword= 


FYI we discussed this last week:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post21556540


----------



## ferro

For what it's worth, Samsung Austria has apparently commented on the $8,000 rumors that are floating around:


"The price of the 55 inch Super-OLED-Tv will be much cheaper than 8.000.- Dollar. It will be a little bit higher than the premium LED-Tv/Plasma-Tv devices from Samsung."


Link: http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-...-8-000-dollar/


----------



## vinnie97

^Exciting. I see their highest priced 55" LED set is $3500. A "little bit higher" could mean as much as $500 by my estimation, so maybe the $4000 estimates were indeed closer. Their plasmas are priced lower ($3000 for a 59"), so I'm not going to use that as a benchmark.


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/21569301
> 
> 
> So, when will we see Philips OLED TVs? At the moment they are very busy with OLED lighting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viSE80NZL1s
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot the transparent OLED car roof they and BASF made -



Bingo


OLED is more than just a display device. People still don't understand the potential of OLED tech. IMO, it’s a *revolutionary technology*


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21574556
> 
> 
> I'm wondering which one should I believe... I think Reuters context is misquoted. KRW6.6bio refers to the entire display product division. And 2012 capex is KRW25tr for Samsung Electronics. They may be referring to Samsung Group.
> http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsu...earch_keyword=
> 
> 
> FYI we discussed this last week:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post21556540



I'm going to presume that the combination of the original report and the conference call and the fact that the day before earnings, one of the Korean analysts cut back on materials needs predictions means the somewhat lower number was in fact accurate.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21576265
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, Samsung Austria has apparently commented on the $8,000 rumors that are floating around:
> 
> 
> "The price of the 55 inch Super-OLED-Tv will be much cheaper than 8.000.- Dollar. It will be a little bit higher than the premium LED-Tv/Plasma-Tv devices from Samsung."
> 
> 
> Link: http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-...-8-000-dollar/



Samsung Austria? OK, maybe they are correct, but that's not exactly the horse's mouth. I'd love to see the TVs come out at $4000 instead of $8000. But I think they are mostly blustering because (a) they won't ship this year -- or at least not much and (b) they know LG has a cost advantage so they are trying to signal that doesn't bother them.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/21577205
> 
> 
> ....OLED is more than just a display device. People still don't understand the potential of OLED tech. IMO, it's a *revolutionary technology*



And in 10 or 15 years, it'll be taken for granted.


----------



## Nielo TM

Yap and we would have moved onto the successor


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/21577958
> 
> 
> Yap and we would have moved onto the successor



I doubt it. Revolutions in display and lighting are few and far between. However successful OLED is (and likely fairly successful), it will be with us for a long long time. The LED lighting revolution (and to a lesser extent OLED due to more limited applications, but it will make its mark) is just beginning but once entrenched it'll be the last lighting revolution we have for a while (note also that other non-LED technologies will be part of it -- things like phosphor-based lighting -- but that once they're in, they will also last decades).


LED and plasma each took more than 20 years to become viable enough to displace CRT. OLED will take at least a decade to reach half the TV/PC market. Once this kind of stuff happens, the economics become ridiculously favorable for it and that's why little changes. There is much hand-wringing by people about how "LCDs don't make money" but that's largely because they are so cheap. In the meantime, they are in most phones, all laptops, all desktop monitors and 90% of TVs. And achieving that took years and lots of overinvestment.


If we assume that someday OLED will be cheaper to produce than LCD is _then_ (instead of the useless proclamations made by OLED hypesters about OLED someday being cheaper than LCD is _now_), the next technology will have an even harder time displacing it.


----------



## specuvestor

^^true that. Probably once a decade you probably have a revolutionary invention that will take another decade to develop. It is easy to forget that OLED "died" once.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21568908
> 
> 
> OLED is more an *evolution*. It may have the the best picture when they finally start showing up in 2013, but the top of the line LCDs like the Elite will not be that far behind, and if the 4K marketing grabs the public attention, the OLED segment may remain a high priced niche product.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/21577205
> 
> 
> OLED is more than just a display device. People still don't understand the potential of OLED tech. IMO, it’s a *revolutionary technology*



That's what I wanted to say. OLED structure is nothing like LCD, plasma or CRT. It is more like Sony's CLED. It is evolution if you don't understand it.


----------



## Nielo TM

True (to both ^^^)


But technology is advancing rapidly (exponential growth). I wouldn't be surprised if we move away from OLED to another form of LED tech. As our knowledge of the quantum expands, so does our ability to create better technology. After all, without the recent advancements in quantum tech, we would've have those shiny new LEDs.


----------



## specuvestor

LED is a 50 year old tech from quantum mechanics







The train of progress chugs along slowly but surely










Off topic but does anyway know why I have not heard OLED having the same heat issue as LED, since both are quantum?


----------



## Nielo TM

It is recently they've progressed to become jewels of lighting. No longer classed as dim indicator


----------



## David_B

Or the materials company exagerated it's potential sales and has rolled it's estimates back to what LG/Samsung told them to expect.


Always 3 ways to look at everything.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21577346
> 
> 
> I'm going to presume that the combination of the original report and the conference call and the fact that the day before earnings, one of the Korean analysts cut back on materials needs predictions means the somewhat lower number was in fact accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Austria? OK, maybe they are correct, but that's not exactly the horse's mouth. I'd love to see the TVs come out at $4000 instead of $8000. But I think they are mostly blustering because (a) they won't ship this year -- or at least not much and (b) they know LG has a cost advantage so they are trying to signal that doesn't bother them.


----------



## pdoherty972

Samsung says 55-inch OLED HDTVS will be "much cheaper than 8,000 dollars".

http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-...-8-000-dollar/


----------



## gary cornell

Any 37" OLED coming out in 2012?


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gary cornell* /forum/post/21581150
> 
> 
> Any 37" OLED coming out in 2012?



None have been announced. Though the link pdoherty972 just shared seems to indicate that Samsung intends to introduce the KN55ES9600 for less than $8,000 before LG!










At least we'll get a nice looking 5" Samsung OLED display in a couple of weeks! (PS Vita - $249)


----------



## gary cornell

Sony OLED 24.5" for only $26,000

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-BVME250/


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gary cornell* /forum/post/21581213
> 
> 
> Sony OLED 24.5" for only $26,000
> 
> http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-BVME250/



What a joke.


Sounds like they want to say that they have them but price them so high that no one will buy one. That way, they can say they were first without actually having to build one.


----------



## gary cornell

B&H sells it and less than half.


----------



## JimP

gary,


That's a different model.


The BVM-E250 is $23,400.


But they do have a 25" OLED for $5,490. hmmmmmm, what's that about?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...tialSearch=yes


----------



## rogo

That's the broadcast models Jim. The good one is really expensive, the other one is... just expensive.


----------



## navychop

Eventually, a flat display will simply not be able to deliver better PQ. It will already deliver PQ higher than our eyes can perceive, so no further visual improvement will be possible. Then it will be down to costs and other factors. 4K OLED might be about it, as they continue improvements.


After that, a holo-tank.


After that, a holo-suite.


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21583868
> 
> 
> Eventually, a flat display will simply not be able to deliver better PQ. It will already deliver PQ higher than our eyes can perceive, so no further visual improvement will be possible. Then it will be down to costs and other factors. 4K OLED might be about it, as they continue improvements.
> 
> 
> After that, a holo-tank.
> 
> 
> After that, a holo-suite.



I continue to think about this after viewing my 500m Kuro. How much better can OLED really be??? Maybe the distance between my finger and my thumb.


Seriously, unless there becomes a new/expanded HD color standard and 4k, I don't know what the draw is going to be.


I start to wonder if the real draw outside of infinite black will be the blown out colors that j6p will enjoy. Those who look for calibration reference might be a little disappointed.


----------



## htwaits

Once again, in mankind's technological/scientific history, we have reached a plateau that stretches further out into the future than anyone can see.


----------



## gmarceau

I also have a hard time believing these sets will be only a little more than the top sets of 2012. Maybe we're talking $4000??? That being said, I also can't imagine these being priced more than the Elite if the goal of this thing is to ignite tv sales for 2012.


We don't know what they're doing behind the scenes to cut costs, but who knows how well they'll calibrate if blown out colors is the goal for the average consumer.


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21581093
> 
> 
> Samsung says 55-inch OLED HDTVS will be "much cheaper than 8,000 dollars".
> 
> http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-...-8-000-dollar/




Yeah an interview I saw with an LG rep for mashable said under 8k as well. If the could manage a 4k-6k price point those things would fly off the shelf. LG also said its going to to start ramping up production to 48,000 a month that is quite a bit maybe and the price point to interest me in the1st gen.


----------



## rogo

It's, of course, ridiculous for these sets to be "a lot better" than the Elite / Kuro. I've explained why numerous times.


Aside from people perpetually mis-reading these news reports and believing what they want to believe, the best 55" today is about $3000. The 60" Elite is $4000ish (I think more, but bear with...) There will be nothing "flying off shelves" as even the high end 55s do not do this. For 50-200% more, they will be trickling off the shelves.


The long term future is bullish, the short term future is one of very few units sold at high prices. It's nice that some tiny division of Samsung is claiming they will be "much less than $8000", but there is a lot of reason to doubt Samsung will even be shipping in 2012. Yes, they might, but if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath... they are farther from market than LG. Also, phrases like "much cheaper" have no meaning. At $6000, it would be much cheaper, and still twice as expensive as any other high end 55" TV. I don't sales at $8000 as measurably different from sales at $6000.


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21585090
> 
> 
> Samsung will even be shipping in 2012. Yes, they might, but if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath... they are farther from market than LG. Also, phrases like "much cheaper" have no meaning. At $6000, it would be much cheaper, and still twice as expensive as any other high end 55" TV. I don't sales at $8000 as measurably different from sales at $6000.



Actually from Isuppi 6k and under is a huge sales jump and another when you hit under $4,300 even if LG sells only a 100k TVs in 2012 which would be well under projections, you have to remember these are not only residential it would still constitute RD costs. They are also quoted as ready to make 48,000 a month which is an awful lot so they have probably done the research and sales checking I doubt they would get it wrong.


I agree Samsung will probably not be on the market until 2013. I think TVs over $6,000 accounted for $1.2b in sales (neilson) in the U.S alone so to say that is a small market is small thinking. World wide that is probably close to $2b with profit of 200M plus (not big compared to total TV sales). Right now that is split between a few companies LG will be first to market so they stand to make a fair amount of money to push the tech that is much cheaper for them to make printable Oleds into their new standard.


----------



## specuvestor

AU Optronics ("AUO" or the "Company") (TAIEX: 2409; NYSE: AUO) today announced that the Company and Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Idemitsu") agreed to form a strategic alliance in the field of OLED, which is expected to be used for next generation displays. The strategic alliance includes technological collaboration to develop high-performance OLED displays and OLED-related patents.


Under this strategic alliance, Idemitsu will supply high-performance OLED materials to AUO, including device structure proposal. On the other hand, AUO will reinforce the development of OLED products using high-performance OLED materials supplied by Idemitsu. This will accelerate business growth in AUO's small-sized OLED displays for smartphone and tablet, which have emerged as a new growth area in the display industry, and that of large-sized OLED displays for TV.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tracydick* /forum/post/21585225
> 
> 
> Actually from Isuppi 6k and under is a huge sales jump and another when you hit under $4,300 even if LG sells only a 100k TVs in 2012 which would be well under projections, you have to remember these are not only residential it would still constitute RD costs. They are also quoted as ready to make 48,000 a month which is an awful lot so they have probably done the research and sales checking I doubt they would get it wrong.
> 
> 
> I agree Samsung will probably not be on the market until 2013. I think TVs over $6,000 accounted for $1.2b in sales (neilson) in the U.S alone so to say that is a small market is small thinking. World wide that is probably close to $2b with profit of 200M plus (not big compared to total TV sales). Right now that is split between a few companies LG will be first to market so they stand to make a fair amount of money to push the tech that is much cheaper for them to make printable Oleds into their new standard.



Um, hi, let's just say that the global market for "TVs over $6000" was in fact $2 billion. That's very roughly 300,000 total TVs. That's... you pissing in the ocean. You... blowing a kiss across the Grand Canyon.... You standing in your living room cheering during the Super Bowl.


Like I said, that changes nothing from the forecasts. Also, stop quoting the 48,000 per month. They are going to be yielding under 50%, not 100%.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21506616
> 
> 
> According to the most recent rumors, Apple has dropped Sharp as a supplier for the iPad 3.
> 
> 
> The reports so far have been a little light on details so it would be tough to say if this is a "They can't build enough displays for us" issue or an "IGZO isn't ready for prime time issue".





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21508905
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/news/detai...d=201201100006
> 
> 
> I believe that was the original source. There are about ten billion other articles out in the last week saying Sharp has been dropped as a supplier for the iPad 3.
> 
> 
> It'll be interesting to find out if that has anything to do with IGZO TFT quality/yields.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21509367
> 
> 
> Do you actually know how much capacity Sharp has committed to this project?
> 
> 
> I would take ETnews with a pitch of salt. Sharp was meant to replace CMI which cannot make retina display, and to a lesser extent Samsung for obvious reasons. I would be keen to see what Sharp say early next month during their earnings results



Turns out to be half truths: the IGZO shipment is delayed from December to February. So IGZO problem is true. Sharp dropped as supplier is not.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21585090
> 
> 
> \\At $6000, it would be much cheaper, and still twice as expensive as any other high end 55" TV. I don't sales at $8000 as measurably different from sales at $6000.



Sales would be virtually the same, but an initial price of $6000 would say some very good things about the likely cost curve going forward.


It is interesting to see how $8000 has gone from being a floor for the initial price to the likely ceiling over the last few months.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21585498
> 
> 
> Sales would be virtually the same, but an initial price of $6000 would say some very good things about the likely cost curve going forward.



Yes. Cheaper earlier is better. Although I tend to believe the initial price will be entirely fake regardless.


> Quote:
> It is interesting to see how $8000 has gone from being a floor for the initial price to the likely ceiling over the last few months.



Well, a lot of people are / were guessing. They still are. And listening to Samsung when LG is going to ship first is a fool's game. Look, $6000 is better, let's hope that's right. Fact remains, I'm a lot more interested in where they drop to in 2013. The first year the price cut will be a synthetic cut from a synthetic price... once volume is ramping, you will see prices fall very approximately 30% per year.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21585435
> 
> 
> Turns out to be half truths: the IGZO shipment is delayed from December to February. So IGZO problem is true. Sharp dropped as supplier is not.



Also worth noting that they are considering transitioning a portion of their Gen 10 fab to IGZO. In the medium term, OLED's and LCD's might be competing using the same backplane technologies.


----------



## stepmback

I saw a 22 inch OLED a year ago and was blown away.


If one of these actually comes out in 2012 and looks as good as people say at a price below $5K, I will have to buy one.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21587760
> 
> 
> Also worth noting that they are considering transitioning a portion of their Gen 10 fab to IGZO. In the medium term, OLED's and LCD's might be competing using the same backplane technologies.



Not only the same backplanes (well almost the same), but nearly the same color filters as well.


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21588357
> 
> 
> Not only the same backplanes (well almost the same), but nearly the same color filters as well.



I really do hope these things drive the costs down in the next 2 years along with production scaling.


Is there any plans for a plant that has the capability to produce panels bigger than 55" in the news/rumor mill?


What size is the panel now they cut the 55" from? 110"?


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21584289
> 
> 
> I continue to think about this after viewing my 500m Kuro. How much better can OLED really be??? Maybe the distance between my finger and my thumb.
> 
> 
> Seriously, unless there becomes a new/expanded HD color standard and 4k, I don't know what the draw is going to be.
> 
> 
> I start to wonder if the real draw outside of infinite black will be the blown out colors that j6p will enjoy. Those who look for calibration reference might be a little disappointed.



I don't know about these 1st OLED panels, but once they get the bugs out of it...


True color; no dithering

Better *smooth* gradients on complex scenes

No PWM noise

no phosphor lag


It'll be easy to spot if you have them side by side, especially the PWM noise.


Question is what new quirks and terminology will come from the OLED bugs








And does PWM noise actually help hide some of today's problems like compression artifacts?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/21588713
> 
> 
> I really do hope these things drive the costs down in the next 2 years along with production scaling.
> 
> 
> Is there any plans for a plant that has the capability to produce panels bigger than 55" in the news/rumor mill?
> 
> 
> What size is the panel now they cut the 55" from? 110"?



Samsung's 8G LCD motherglass is 1,870mm × 2,200mm if you feel like doing some math.


As for larger motherglass, no one has technically announced an 8G OLED fab yet (although Samsung is expected to start one this year for trial-ing and LG is likely to begin converting an LCD line). Going bigger, I fear, is several years away. Which makes you wonder if the market for >60" TVs was as big as some people claim, why would that be?


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21589045
> 
> 
> Samsung's 8G LCD motherglass is 1,870mm × 2,200mm if you feel like doing some math.
> 
> 
> As for larger motherglass, no one has technically announced an 8G OLED fab yet (although Samsung is expected to start one this year for trial-ing and LG is likely to begin converting an LCD line). Going bigger, I fear, is several years away. Which makes you wonder if the market for >60" TVs was as big as some people claim, why would that be?



Good question, I'm not sure. Most of the pushing/hype I've seen starts with the vendors on these sites creating an artificial stir. It spreads like a virus from there...


So I did a bit of math... I came up with.

55" TV is about 47.9 W and 27 H for viewing area


And my conversion on the mother glass is 73.6" x 86.6"


So it's two panels per mother glass. Do they use the rest of the glass for smaller displays or does it just get recycled?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/21589334
> 
> 
> Good question, I'm not sure. Most of the pushing/hype I've seen starts with the vendors on these sites creating an artificial stir. It spreads like a virus from there...
> 
> 
> So I did a bit of math... I came up with.
> 
> 55" TV is about 47.9 W and 27 H for viewing area
> 
> 
> And my conversion on the mother glass is 73.6" x 86.6"
> 
> 
> So it's two panels per mother glass. Do they use the rest of the glass for smaller displays or does it just get recycled?



I havent done the math, but I have read multiple times that a Gen 8 fab will support 6 55" televisions per substrate.


So thinking about it, to hit 2 million units in 2015, they would need to have capacity for 40,000 substrates with 75% yields.


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21585359
> 
> 
> Um, hi, let's just say that the global market for "TVs over $6000" was in fact $2 billion. That's very roughly 300,000 total TVs. That's... you pissing in the ocean. You... blowing a kiss across the Grand Canyon.... You standing in your living room cheering during the Super Bowl.
> 
> 
> Like I said, that changes nothing from the forecasts. Also, stop quoting the 48,000 per month. They are going to be yielding under 50%, not 100%.



You realize 300,000 TVs is pretty much nothing. Lets say only 30% are for meeting rooms etc hotels conferences around the U.S. non traditional consumers from what you are used to. So its 200,000 for typical consumers in the U.S by household would be 120million house holds were looking at .016% of house holds or multi millionaire and up territory and that is if they only buy 1. even at 300,000 it does not make a dent. Hell its only 6,000 per state at 300k


Worldwide lets only count 2 billion people that have access to them or .0001% of the population again same set of people.


This is not including cruise ships, sporting events, govt centers, museums, scientists and a whole host of other people who buy these types of TVs! What are you smoking?


Also I said they were prepared for 48,000 not they are going to make 48,000.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tracydick* /forum/post/21589430
> 
> 
> You realize 300,000 TVs is pretty much nothing.



Yes, which is my point. It's pretty much nothing.


> Quote:
> This is not including cruise ships, sporting events, govt centers, museums, scientists and a whole host of other people who buy these types of TVs! What are you smoking?



I don't smoke, but I can promise you that sporting events, museums and government centers don't buy $6000 TVs.


> Quote:
> Also I said they were prepared for 48,000 not they are going to make 48,000.



They talk a lot. That doesn't mean what they are saying is true.


----------



## navychop

From my personal experience, cruise ships don't buy $600 TVs, much less $6,000 TVs.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21594184
> 
> 
> From my personal experience, cruise ships don't buy $600 TVs, much less $6,000 TVs.



The TVs on our Holland America cruise were recently upgraded (within the past 2-3 years) and were roughly $200 models, I'd estimate.


----------



## andystj




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21589045
> 
> 
> Samsung's 8G LCD motherglass is 1,870mm × 2,200mm if you feel like doing some math.
> 
> 
> As for larger motherglass, no one has technically announced an 8G OLED fab yet (although Samsung is expected to start one this year for trial-ing and LG is likely to begin converting an LCD line). Going bigger, I fear, is several years away. Which makes you wonder if the market for >60" TVs was as big as some people claim, why would that be?



I can't find a link right at this moment, but I thought that SMD had stated that they would be dealing with g8.5 glass (2200 x 2500) on their initial (V1) oled line. I believe they are to cut the backplane down to 1/6 size for deposition using SMS or some hybrid form of FMM. That will yield the 55" screens for the small run late this year. The V2 will hopefully come online sometime in 2013 and should also use 2200 x 2500 glass. In that case, the hope is to handle that size glass through production, though I'm not quite sure they have settled on a deposition technique. LITI seems like overkill until they want quad-HD resolution.


Time will tell.


----------



## andystj

Wow. I haven't been here in a while. That is an OLD signature line. Guess I won't update it 'til I can list an OLED TV. I'll just go without a sig for now.










Andy


----------



## specuvestor

The V1 8G line is the one delayed that we've been talking about. Likely slow start in 2H12 but main focus should be 5.5G A3 line which can make the 55" effectively. The A2 line is not optimal for 55" as it uses LTPS IIRC.


----------



## andystj




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21603224
> 
> 
> The V1 8G line is the one delayed that we've been talking about. Likely slow start in 2H12 but main focus should be 5.5G A3 line which can make the 55" effectively. The A2 line is not optimal for 55" as it uses LTPS IIRC.



Went back and did a little reading on the thread. Nice to see this thread is still pretty good at keeping its ear to the ground.


Regarding V1 and A3, IMHO the 1/6 2200x2500 is pretty specifically geared toward the 55" screens. Their reluctance to specify dates, prices and volumes at CES indicates that they are still finalizing their plans for deposition techniques vis-a-vis FMM vs SMS vs LITI vs some hybridization. Getting final installs on that equipment will take time, and I would not be surprised at all if the production slips to very late in 2012 or even later. I do think they feel the need to hurry as they don;t want LG to beat them to market by more than a hair. The importance of getting deposition right is KEY as they move forward with production plans that handle full size 2200x2500 substrates. Getting V2 up mid-year 2013 will be the REAL start of mass production.


My GUESS is that management at Samsung Electronics HOPES that getting V2 up and running to capacity will fill the gap until solution processing is ready for rolling out is 2015 or so. Part of that depends on the ultimate design of the fab where the V2 line is going in and how much capacity they can move through that facility. Anyone here have knowledge on that? They must be pouring concrete near the railroad lines somewhere by now.


Regarding A3 I would love to see LITI there, and I would love to see it dedicated to 1080p or even denser panels for the tablet and laptop markets. Start with 7.7-9.7" range and maybe grow to 13-15" screens.


I know some of you guys are disappointed that Samsung is only scheduled to spend $4.5 billion - $5 billion dollars on building out OLED production during 2012. But GEESH consider that they are spending $4,500,000,000.00 or more on OLED production this year and they spend a similar amount last year. THAT is commitment and a leap of faith for a technology where the blue material still has room for improvement.


Keep your ears to the ground, and you will here the stampede coming. As ROGO seems to like pointing out, it is still a ways off, and we will here the rumble get louder over the next 12-18 months, but there it IS approaching.


Andy


----------



## andystj

Gotta get rid of that signature line. I do miss my old DTV Tivo's, and my Panny is still running strong through its component inputs though. ;^)


----------



## JTG2

It seems to me that in the RGBW system, the white subpixel is used differently from the filtered subpixels, so it is going to age differently, probably dimming faster. Is that any better than the blue subpixel dimming faster in an RGB system?


----------



## specuvestor

^^ read back the thread past 3 weeks. You are mistaken on how RGBW works.


----------



## JTG2

I think I know how it works but I didn't explain my point well. So let's take an extreme case. Let's say you watch only black and white movies. It's possible that this grey-only data would be displayed with only the W subpixel leaving the filtered subpixels off all the time. This would age the unfiltered pixels unequally from the filtered. This would not be an issue with pure RGB (ignoring the blue problem).


This is not a real-world example. Another one would be to watch only saturated colors. That would have the opposite effect where the unfiltered pixels are not aged at all. Again, not a problem in pure RGB.


These examples demonstrate that the filtered and unfiltered subpixels would be used differently. So my question is whether the effects of the extremes would balance out in real-life viewing. My gut says no, and that the unfiltered subpixels would naturally be overused. I probably think that because the calculations proposed by *piquadrat* maximized the used of the unfiltered pixels to reduce power. I'm confident that they could use fancy algorithms to make it balance out, but are they doing that?


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JTG2* /forum/post/21605011
> 
> 
> My gut says no, and that the unfiltered subpixels would naturally be overused.



The same applies to Red, Green and Blue: they are not used exactly the same either. I can think of 2 methods to address this:

You can tune the White Mixing Ratio in such a way that White is not used significantly more or less than Red, Green and Blue.
You can correct the driving currents over time for White, Red, Green and Blue based on their relative usage and the aging characteristics of the materials.


----------



## rogo

My gut says that differential aging of the white sub-pixel is not going to be a problem.


----------



## specuvestor

Fact that you keep mentioning the blue subpixel means you are mistaken how RGBW works. All RGBW "color" you see comes from RGB OLED materials stacked and pass through color filter ie the subpixel you see. It is not blue material emitting blue light passing through blue subpixel. Supposedly this will negate blue material lifespan issue.


The problem that you mention is infinitely remote even if we assume half life of OLED TVs are 30k hours. Besides W, RGB are activated even in grayscale, which applies if you only watch B&W movies.


----------



## piquadrat

I'm sure that LG RGBW approach requires subpixel power balancing algorithm.

It's because of the non-linear character of luminance vs current (power dissipated) curve of organic materials.


----------



## Robert2413




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21584289
> 
> 
> I continue to think about this after viewing my 500m Kuro. How much better can OLED really be??? Maybe the distance between my finger and my thumb.
> 
> 
> Seriously, unless there becomes a new/expanded HD color standard and 4k, I don't know what the draw is going to be.
> 
> 
> I start to wonder if the real draw outside of infinite black will be the blown out colors that j6p will enjoy. Those who look for calibration reference might be a little disappointed.



I have to agree. I got my 141FD calibrated by D-Nice last week and, by using his proprietary calibration techniques, he managed to get the black level down to 0.0006 fl. Peak brightness in ISF Day mode is about 43 fl. That makes the CR about 70K. I typically watch in darkness and I am finally satisfied with my black levels (which I was not before calibration).


Based on this experience, I think that at around 0.0005 fl give-or-take, black levels are "good enough" (at least with 8-bit per color channel sources) and any further improvement is perceptually insignificant. At the moment, I can see keeeping this panel as my main monitor for a very long time.


I don't think it's a coincidence that the local dimming in the Sharp Elite LEDs is also calibrated to bring blacks in at about 0.0005 fl. That is the point where the last significant amount of "gray haze" vanishes from the picture.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ agree... Unless you are watching in a non dark environment. That's where OLED with its hybrid characteristics shines, despite some inherent limitations which I think is solvable, rather than structural.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Robert2413* /forum/post/21607228
> 
> 
> ... I got my 141FD calibrated by D-Nice last week and, by using his proprietary calibration techniques, he managed to get the black level down to 0.0006 fl.



Thanks for your calibration report. I've included it in the flat panel (post #2) lists that are linked at the bottom of my post.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Robert2413* /forum/post/21607228
> 
> 
> I have to agree. I got my 141FD calibrated by D-Nice last week and, by using his proprietary calibration techniques, he managed to get the black level down to 0.000610 fl. Peak brightness in ISF Day mode is about 43 fl. That makes the CR about 70K. I typically watch in darkness and I am finally satisfied with my black levels (which I was not before calibration).
> 
> 
> Based on this experience, I think that at around 0.0005 fl give-or-take, black levels are "good enough" (at least with 8-bit per color channel sources) and any further improvement is perceptually insignificant. At the moment, I can see keeeping this panel as my main monitor for a very long time.
> 
> 
> I don't think it's a coincidence that the local dimming in the Sharp Elite LEDs is also calibrated to bring blacks in at about 0.0005 fl. That is the point where the last significant amount of "gray haze" vanishes from the picture.



Dammit Americans, why are you using scientific instruments and then giving measurements in *foot*-lamberts. Do you not realise how ridiculous that is? This forum, and one or two older American technical papers, are the only places where I see this measurement referenced. Everywhere else in the display world uses candelas per square metre. (cd/m², or nits) I realise this is not _your_ measurement, so it's probably the only data you have, but it really has to stop. It's an embarrassment to the AV *Science* Forums name. (don't get me started on people posting xy gamut plots)


---


0.00061fL (0.002090018cd/m², thanks America) seems optimistic, unless you are altering the panel driver settings, which means you're likely going to run into misfiring in the future. This puts the panel at roughly 48,000:1 when calibrated to reference levels. (100cd/m² white, which the Kuros cannot maintain at medium-to-high APL) Last I checked it was closer to 33,000:1. (around 0.003cd/m² black)



That kind of black level is rather easy to detect when watching films in a dark room. Even CRT had a slight glow in a dark room persisting on the phosphors for a few seconds, though it was still darker than this by some margin. My full-array LED backlit LCD turns the panel _off_ when it fades to black. The Kuro's reddish glow did not satisfy, nor did all the other image quality compromises. (dither, banding, discolouration, flicker, motion blur)


There is plenty of room for OLED displays to improve upon the Kuros, and something that HT enthusiasts will notice and enjoy. Is it necessarily going to be an improvement that the general public will notice or care about? Probably not.


But the Kuros are relics. You can't buy a new one, they don't support 3D or a number of conveniences that modern displays offer. They have a high processing delay. (3-5 frames, though it's not specified whether they mean at 60Hz or not, so it could be between 50 and 167ms) They aren't suitable as a computer monitor, nor are they a good choice as a gaming display. They were very expensive compared to other TVs.


The plan is for OLED to replace LCD televisions. To bring image quality superior to the Kuros to the masses. Initially they will be high end sets of course. While the general public may not notice the differences between the Kuro and an OLED TV, they're certainly going to notice the difference between them LCDs/non-Kuro Plasmas.



If you already own a Kuro and are happy with it, yeah, maybe an OLED display isn't for you just yet. If you were unsatisfied with the Kuro, are wanting to upgrade from your Kuro, were unable to buy one before they pulled out of the display market, or simply couldn't afford one, we have OLED.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21607485
> 
> 
> If you were unsatisfied with the Kuro, are wanting to upgrade from your Kuro, were unable to buy one before they pulled out of the display market, or simply couldn't afford one, *we have OLED.*



Right. We're knee deep in OLED.


----------



## specuvestor

I think CRT glow is probably different from MLL. I could not see a CRT is on when I enter a dark room (except of course the power inducator) but I could always SENSE it. Radiation, electricity whatever it doesn't matter now










Similarly plasma problem is pre-charge to prevent misfiring, which xrox had it well documented. But OLED doesn't have to, so technically it should be darker than Kuro.


But this is unlikely to be perceivable in a dark room as the eye's sensitivity to contrast is around 10K. but would be different in a brighter room where OLED's luma should outshine plasma, if not zonal LED LCD.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *htwaits* /forum/post/21607512
> 
> 
> Right. We're knee deep in OLED.



Well it's coming this year, for those that can afford it. It should be easier to get one of them than a Kuro.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21607536
> 
> 
> But this is unlikely to be perceivable as the eye's sensitivity to contrast is around 10K. but would be different in a brighter room where OLED's luma should outshine plasma, if not zonal LED LCD.



Our sensitivity to simultaneous contrast (ANSI) may be around 10,000:1, but our dynamic range (sensitivity to a "black" TV in a dark room) is orders of magnitude higher than that, and there's far more benefit to OLED than just black level.


----------



## vinnie97

Yes, sci-fi or anything containing predominately nighttime scenes on an OLED should yield better black level perception in the dark versus Kuro, most assuredly.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21607545
> 
> 
> Well it's coming this year, for those that can afford it. It should be easier to get one of them than a Kuro.



You have more faith in a commercially viable OLED producing great images and reaching the market this year than I do.


I think DLP RP was in it's fourth or fifth year in the market before I bought one so I suppose it's just me.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21607545
> 
> 
> Our sensitivity to simultaneous contrast (ANSI) may be around 10,000:1, but our dynamic range (sensitivity to a "black" TV in a dark room) is orders of magnitude higher than that, and there's far more benefit to OLED than just black level.



Yes but in a dark room with a "true black" panel dynamic range is useless as there is no "reference" for the eye to contrast







assuming calibrated 100% brightness similar for OLED and Kuro at say 100 cd/m2


I actually think dynamic range is the reason why galaxy S looks better than LCD handset. HTC will be shipping OLED handsets again soon.


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21605967
> 
> 
> My gut says that differential aging of the white sub-pixel is not going to be a problem.



I agree with the filters it will probably age more evenly than RGB.


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21607545
> 
> 
> Our sensitivity to simultaneous contrast (ANSI) may be around 10,000:1, but our dynamic range (sensitivity to a "black" TV in a dark room) is orders of magnitude higher than that, and there's far more benefit to OLED than just black level.



Sorry for the double post but where did you read this, I don't mean to call you out I am just interested to read it my self.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21608227
> 
> 
> Yes but in a dark room with a "true black" panel dynamic range is useless as there is no "reference" for the eye to contrast
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> assuming calibrated 100% brightness similar for OLED and Kuro at say 100 cd/m2



When the bezel is indistinguishable from the screen in heavily dark scenes while viewing in a pitch black room, I will know we have made it on the black level front.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tracydick* /forum/post/21608337
> 
> 
> Sorry for the double post but where did you read this, I don't mean to call you out I am just interested to read it my self.



He's correct on ANSI/simultaneous contrast. Honestly, that battle has largely been won on displays like the Sharp Elite, the Kuro, and perhaps a couple of others. Humans simply cannot process more than about 10K:1 in an instant.


That said, doing simultaneous contrast without any hint of haloing and with a satisfactory white and black level will be a given in all likelihood on any OLEDs, so we should be pleased to see them come to market to make that kind of performance more readily available.


That said, the notion that the "orders of magnitude" that humans can perceive are useful on displays is a bit of a canard. It's absolutely true human visual perception is in fact millions to one in contrast. Think about it this way. Sit in a very nearly dark room for about 10 minutes so your eyes adjust. Not pitch dark, because you really can't see in pitch darkness unless you have echolocation (in which case you aren't seeing). You'll be able to make out shapes and such with the most minimal of illumination.


The next day, go outside and glance at the sun for a quick second. There's no question, the stimulus range is literally millions of times more potent. Unfortunately, that's not a realistic scenario on a display for a ton of reasons. First of all, your eyes cannot adjust between scenes in any especially useful way. It takes an extended period of time for your iris to fully open or close and several orders of magnitude of your visual perception range only exist in different states of your iris. Second of all, if your TV got as bright as the sun, it would be painful. You really never want this.


The bottom line is that a well-built OLED TV is going to offer the most intrascene contrast anyone can hope for and could well exceed the performance of a Sharp Elite (don't bother talking up the Kuro, the ABL circuitry limits its maximum brightness to a level below the maximum some of us would like on certain material... sorry) or a Sony HX929 or equivalent. But we are talking about a small margin of usability in that regard.


It's definitely true that a well-designed and executed OLED has the potential to be superior to the best display we've ever seen and it's absolutely the case that videophiles are excited by that prospect. It's similarly true that 5-7 years from now, when OLEDs are inexpensive, it will potentially "democratize" videophile-level picture quality the same way $80 BluRay players and inexpensive HDTVs have given everyone a chance to enjoy beautiful movies at home. But in the short run, the amount of "room" the technology has to exceed the best currently being offered is actually remarkably small. And some of that is quite literally due to how close existing TVs are to the limits of what humans can see.


----------



## buzzard767

Terrific post, rogo. The last sentence is literally the bottom line. Edit: Yet I wait the OLED with a great deal of excitement. I'm an early adopter.


----------



## pdoherty972

Review of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 OLED - they absolutely love the OLED screen, calling all other tablet's screens "washed out" in comparison.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/07/s...ional-edition/


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21611048
> 
> 
> Review of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 OLED - they absolutely love the OLED screen, calling all other tablet's screens "washed out" in comparison.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/07/s...ional-edition/



The problem is that I don't believe Android has colour management yet, so that vivid OLED screen which makes other displays look "washed out" is oversaturating everything you display on it.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21611159
> 
> 
> The problem is that I don't believe Android has colour management yet, so that vivid OLED screen which makes other displays look "washed out" is oversaturating everything you display on it.



It's true that Samsung's AMOLED displays are oversaturated, but it is equally true that most mobile LCD's are way undersaturated. I think most only hit something like 70% of the color gamut. We are just used to the undersaturation.


----------



## wco81

Thinner and better battery life, at least for video on that Samsung.


Without a backlight, OLEDs should be better on energy consumption.


Of course, does the battery life hold up when you're browsing or using mobile apps, which light up all the pixels, versus video playback?


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21611048
> 
> 
> Review of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 OLED - they absolutely love the OLED screen, calling all other tablet's screens "washed out" in comparison.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/07/s...ional-edition/



The other displays are only look washed out because of ambient light glare. The Samsung is way over saturated and the higher contrast can compensate for the glare. Once the other LCDs tablets add Nippon glare free glass it will be much closer, and the Samsung display will start to look cartoonish and inaccurate. If they can solve those problems on the OLED though, the smaller power consumption makes them ideal for portable displays, not so much for your big screen living room TV.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> When the bezel is indistinguishable from the screen in heavily dark scenes while viewing in a pitch black room, I will know we have made it on the black level front.



Have you seen the report on LG 15" in a dark room?


----------



## vinnie97

I don't think so...is it as much as we'd hoped? I haven't followed the smaller form-factor OLEDs very closely (probably to my disadvantage).


----------



## pcdo

Well my Galaxy S phone is pitch black with any black content. If there's any luminance coming from it I can't tell at all.


----------



## specuvestor

As expected for a long time... sooner or later as SDI doesn't have the financial strength and now the issue has become urgent with LG's RGBW


"SEC pursuing SMD: Samsung Electronics (SEC) yesterday disclosed that it may fully take over Samsung Mobile Display (SMD) by acquiring Samsung SDI’s minority stake in order to enhance business synergies. The electronics giant in Aug 2011 denied that it had such intentions, so yesterday’s announcement could be seen positively. If SMD is acquired, SEC could help it more easily meet capex demand as the AMOLED market is expected to grow significantly over the next few years."


----------



## rogo

"Without a backlight, OLEDs should be better on energy consumption."


So far, they haven't been. I do expect this to change, but so far, it hasn't been true in mobile, which is one reason that Apple hasn't been so jazzed to go OLED.


----------



## wco81

That and costs and also can they produce the kind of volumes Apple needs?


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21613928
> 
> 
> "Without a backlight, OLEDs should be better on energy consumption."
> 
> 
> So far, they haven't been. I do expect this to change, but so far, it hasn't been true in mobile, which is one reason that Apple hasn't been so jazzed to go OLED.




Well they do consume much less power part of the problem is your phone is displaying very little black unless your watching a video.


Email-games-pretty much any thing you do on a phone is not allowing them to shut off. Hell even a background picture.


Though it is interesting to think if WOled LGs that uses color filters will use less power then a standard Oled RGB. I guess we will just have to wait and see.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tracydick* /forum/post/21613960
> 
> 
> Well they do consume much less power part of the problem is your phone is displaying very little black unless your watching a video.



That's like saying "They consume less power, except when they're on." In other words, it's true, except that it's not true. The power consumption figure that's relevant is not some hypothetical lab figure, but rather the normal use case figure. And there, OLED is not beating LCD in mobile.



> Quote:
> Email-games-pretty much any thing you do on a phone is not allowing them to shut off. Hell even a background picture.



Right.


> Quote:
> Though it is interesting to think if WOled LGs that uses color filters will use less power then a standard Oled RGB. I guess we will just have to wait and see.



Actually, the LG method is less light efficient and will be worse than the RGB OLED. It is unlikely to be adopted in mobile anytime soon and perhaps not ever.


----------



## greenjp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/21612700
> 
> 
> Without a backlight, OLEDs should be better on energy consumption.



Plasma doesn't have a backlight either, yet it consumes the most power.


This reference to OLED being thinner and more efficient due to not having a backlight shows up in a lot of the marketing/news hype materials and yet doesn't make a bit of sense.


jeff


----------



## mattg3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/21608494
> 
> 
> When the bezel is indistinguishable from the screen in heavily dark scenes while viewing in a pitch black room, I will know we have made it on the black level front.



My D-Nice calibrated Samsung 8500 in a pitch black room has no bezel to speak of.Its actually annoying at times when im trying to decide at beginning of a film if its going to fill screen or leave black bars so i can adjust screen aspect between screen fit or 16:9 which actually gives a bigger picture aspect ratio.If title comes on in a full black screen you see nothing but letters in space.


----------



## vinnie97

Well, that's the LED-based LCD model, which has other faults like blooming and angle viewing deficiencies. Do not want a Bandaid for black level solution.


----------



## mattg3

Yes definitely angle deficiency but very little blooming after calibration.well Im on this thread so Im also ready to jump on an oled as soon they are affordable and kinks worked out.Will not buy another LED since its all about new technology if you have been on the forum as long as i have


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21612787
> 
> 
> The other displays are only look washed out because of ambient light glare. The Samsung is way over saturated and the higher contrast can compensate for the glare. Once the other LCDs tablets add Nippon glare free glass it will be much closer, and the Samsung display will start to look cartoonish and inaccurate. If they can solve those problems on the OLED though, the smaller power consumption makes them ideal for portable displays, not so much for your big screen living room TV.



If this was the problem you make it out to be pros wouldn't be raving about how awesome the Sony pro OLED monitors are.

http://provideocoalition.com/index.p...ere.._finally/ 



> Quote:
> I was able to dial the monitor in to an exact match to my calibrated CRT so I could test against a standard I know. After a few days, the only other perceptible difference between the two monitors was one of detail. My CRT was starting to look very blurry. With a multiburst test signal fed to the PVM-2541, I could clearly see the very fine black and white bars on the right side which just blend to a gray field on the CRT. That resolution difference soured me on my trusty CRT. So it appeared I was gaining resolution without sacrificing color rendition.
> 
> 
> The upshot? I've ordered them to replace all my CRTs.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21615260
> 
> 
> If this was the problem you make it out to be pros wouldn't be raving about how awesome the Sony pro OLED monitors are.
> 
> http://provideocoalition.com/index.p...ere.._finally/



...and that's the difference colour management makes.


----------



## rogo

Yeah, um, the Sony Pro OLEDs are small production and sold to broadcast studios (and trucks). They cost a lot of money per unit. It shouldn't surprise that they are good.


But again, conflating the notion that because they are really good, all OLEDs must be really good is ... like saying that because the BMW M5 is really fast and handles exceptionally well, all cars should be really fast and handle exceptionally well. After all, the fundamental technology is the same in an M5 and a Chevy Cruze.


----------



## videobruce

Funny you guys just started talking about these as I just stumbled across the same thing elsewhere;
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-mon...oduct-BVME250/ 


Only $26k, now that makes LG's $6k set really look cheap.










Regarding that above article;


> Quote:
> Cons:
> 
> -Limited viewing axis. As with LCDs, when you get too far off center, the color shifts. Excellent off-axis viewing is one thing I really miss about CRTs that even plasmas handle better. This means you have to be careful about placement in your viewing environment.
> 
> -Audio sync will be an issue with interlaced material depending upon the I/P mode you use. See above.
> 
> -Burn-in. OLEDs are like plasmas in this regard and you have to be careful with them. The PVM has a built in screensaver that dims the picture if it sits on a still frame for ten minutes. But leaving up a mask or BITC could be fatal.
> 
> -Shorter lifetime of OLED panels. I had to weigh this one on a business side. We don't really run our monitors 24/7 all year around. They do get spurts of that but not all year. I'm figuring I'll get five years out of the panels. That comes to $1,100 a year. I can easily amortize that in a professional viewing environment.



$1,100 a year, that's not too bad either.










I'll stick with my DLP and it's $100 lamp replacement every 4-5 years.


----------



## vinnie97

^There's another report about off-axis color shifting. Michael2000 on the forum claimed to have witnessed this with green when viewing the LG at CES. And then the burn-in concerns...OLED is no panacea, as many have been claiming for 10 years, but it will hopefully become the best source of video reproduction available for the videophile.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21613928
> 
> 
> "Without a backlight, OLEDs should be better on energy consumption."
> 
> 
> So far, they haven't been. I do expect this to change, but so far, it hasn't been true in mobile, which is one reason that Apple hasn't been so jazzed to go OLED.



FYI, the Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus using LCD/LED has about 8 hours battery life. The 7.7 model using OLED has 12 hours. The OLED model has 10% larger screen and 16% faster CPU so actual battery life difference would have been even greater if they were equally matched hardware.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig* /forum/post/21618657
> 
> 
> FYI, the Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus using LCD/LED has about 8 hours battery life. The 7.7 model using OLED has 12 hours. The OLED model has 10% larger screen and 16% faster CPU so actual battery life difference would have been even greater if they were equally matched hardware.



You are drawing the conclusion that the superior battery life is due to reduced consumption of the display solely. Every component that was replaced between the two of them probably uses less power, including the faster processor.


It's also true that the newer tablet has a newer version of Android which better manages power.


I'm not actually stating that the new display isn't more power efficient than the old one -- it might be -- but the evidence from bench testing and real-world experience to date is that OLED displays on mobile are not meaningfully more "sippy" than the sippiest LCDs.


That said, it's absolutely true that OLED TVs are expected to set records for power consumption for their screen sizes.


----------



## videobruce




> Quote:
> And then the burn-in concerns



That was a major surprise.

Why/how can this occur?? I'm at a loss here.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *videobruce* /forum/post/21619604
> 
> 
> That was a major surprise.
> 
> Why/how can this occur?? I'm at a loss here.



Emissive displays that wear out can wear out unevenly.

It is the nature of the beast. However, as the lifetime gets very long it becomes less of a concern. OLED Blue has aged faster causing color shifts and uneven wear.


- Rich


----------



## videobruce

Emissive as in CRT & Plasma?

I found this, but it is a little over my pay grade







;
http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/local/project...t/emissive.htm


----------



## RichB

Nice article.

If you were to display blue only from one area and it wears quicker that the other colors, then if you display white there, light output is darker and you will see it as burn in.


I have seen Samsung OLED phones at the Verizon store that are left on continuously show after images of the icons when you display a white screen.


- Rich


----------



## videobruce




> Quote:
> If you were to display blue only from one area and it wears quicker that the other colors, then if you display white there, light output is darker and you will see it as burn in.



Which is what happens to CRT's & Plasma's.


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> -Limited viewing axis. As with LCDs, when you get too far off center, the color shifts. Excellent off-axis viewing is one thing I really miss about CRTs that even plasmas handle better. This means you have to be careful about placement in your viewing environment.



I see the off-axis quoted as a problem for lcd, mostly. My mother has a 46" Sharp, 2-3 yrs old now, wasn't top of the line either. I checked a week ago, and up to 45 degree, the display still looked pretty bright and contrast wasn't much worse, if any compared to direct view. I can't speak for others, but I do NO serious viewing from 45+ degree off axis, which makes me wonder how many people would really find this a problem. OLED, even LG's should do better than my mothers LCD.



> Quote:
> -Burn-in. OLEDs are like plasmas in this regard and you have to be careful with them. The PVM has a built in screensaver that dims the picture if it sits on a still frame for ten minutes. But leaving up a mask or BITC could be fatal.



I've never owned a plasma, but I do have a 65" CRT based RPTV which uses 7" tubes. It's about 10 yrs old now, , fairly heavy viewing the first 6 yrs or so. Less so now that I have a projector, but I still use it for golf and football on the weekends, and probably an hour a day other days. I no longer bother to change SD material to widescreen, I watched plenty of 2.35:1 movies in the early days. Early on I was concerned with the logos, but at this point there is not a hint of burn in that I can see, and tube life is not generally thought to be greater than 10k hrs for these. OLED should be more than double that life, but we will have to see what gets quoted when LG and Samsung actually bring theirs to market. Unless you decide to display a logo on it 24x7, I don't think this will be much to worry about. Don't the 4g cells have a lot of static screens on them? So if they are burning in, that doesn't necessarily mean that a 55" display will. Also people do use them outdoors and to see anything in ambient light, you may have to turn brightness way up, which will age the OLED faster. Not as much of a problem when the display is in the living room. Also outside UV is higher than inside and UV is apparently a killer for OLED. I know the displays will have UV filters, but I don't know how much UV they filter out. UV may be a complete non-issue with cell phones.



> Quote:
> -Shorter lifetime of OLED panels. I had to weigh this one on a business side. We don't really run our monitors 24/7 all year around. They do get spurts of that but not all year. I'm figuring I'll get five years out of the panels. That comes to $1,100 a year. I can easily amortize that in a professional viewing environment.



If OLED panels have a 25k hr. life, that works out to just under 7hrs a day of viewing for 10 years. They may get quoted as lower, so you'd have to judge, but I doubt many on this forum keep the same display as the main viewing display for 10 years, and 7 hrs a day is a LOT of couch time.


----------



## 8mile13

Nwe Sony president Kazuo Hirai *Profile* planning major investments in Crystal LED and OLED _TECH-On!_


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen* /forum/post/21621058
> 
> 
> If OLED panels have a 25k hr. life, that works out to just under 7hrs a day of viewing for 10 years. They may get quoted as lower, so you'd have to judge, but I doubt many on this forum keep the same display as the main viewing display for 10 years, and 7 hrs a day is a LOT of couch time.



Plasmas quote 100,000 hours life (half brightness) and yet you can burn them in with static images.


We will have to wait and see.


- Rich


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21616279
> 
> 
> Yeah, um, the Sony Pro OLEDs are small production and sold to broadcast studios (and trucks). They cost a lot of money per unit. It shouldn't surprise that they are good.
> 
> 
> But again, conflating the notion that because they are really good, all OLEDs must be really good is ... like saying that because the BMW M5 is really fast and handles exceptionally well, all cars should be really fast and handle exceptionally well. After all, the fundamental technology is the same in an M5 and a Chevy Cruze.



No worse than the implicit assumption made by the poster I was replying to that OLEDs have a saturation "problem". They're dialed in that way on purpose.


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21616063
> 
> 
> ...and that's the difference colour management makes.



Something about mobile OLEDs that makes you think it's not possible to do there as well?


----------



## pdoherty972




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21619074
> 
> 
> You are drawing the conclusion that the superior battery life is due to reduced consumption of the display solely. Every component that was replaced between the two of them probably uses less power, including the faster processor.
> 
> 
> It's also true that the newer tablet has a newer version of Android which better manages power.
> 
> 
> I'm not actually stating that the new display isn't more power efficient than the old one -- it might be -- but the evidence from bench testing and real-world experience to date is that OLED displays on mobile are not meaningfully more "sippy" than the sippiest LCDs.



Samsung is using Red and Green PHOLED emitter materials now, which greatly increase power efficiency. Maybe this tablet has R and G which accounts for the better battery life.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdoherty972* /forum/post/21625359
> 
> 
> Something about mobile OLEDs that makes you think it's not possible to do there as well?



Absolutelythese are low power devices that don't have the computing power or battery life spare to implement a CMS for colour managed image viewing.


The only thing I'm aware of that _is_ colour managed is the Spyder Gallery app for iPads, which is just a photo viewer. There's no OS-wide support, or even support in the web browsers.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have cautious optimism that 4 years from now, an OLED will be offered that's clearly superior to anything on the market and spending the extra on the Elite will feel wasted.



Hijacked this quote from another thread.


Rogo you must have heard something since 1) you weren't even THAT optimistic after seeing them in CES 2)you've been saying the difference between Elite and OLED would not be that vastly different


OLED future looks brighter than ever in past 2 years. Hope the execution delivers.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21627941
> 
> 
> Hijacked this quote from another thread.
> 
> 
> Rogo you must have heard something since 1) you weren't even THAT optimistic after seeing them in CES 2)you've been saying the difference between Elite and OLED would not be that vastly different
> 
> 
> OLED future looks brighter than ever in past 2 years. Hope the execution delivers.



Four years is kind of an eternity. I do believe the gap is small, Spec, but I also believe that as OLED matures, there are reasons why I think that it might not have the perennial problems we keep seeing with LCD (uniformity issues, off-axis issues, and, honestly, quality-control issues).


Look, I have an obsolete plasma now. It's been with me a good two years longer than I forecast it would when we bought it. If I buy an Elite now, it _has_ to last 6-7 years -- it's too expensive to have a planned obsolescence of merely 4 years. Something that is 30-40% cheaper, I can at least think about replacing in 4 years... and maybe it again stays in the Rogo house for 6 years.


This isn't really important to most of you; but it does give color on (a) how I think about upgrades in that I want them to last and be reasonably priced because honestly they are not permanent items (on home improvements, I don't worry about saving $500-5000 because the changes are there forever) and (b) what I see as the promising future for OLED, a technology I do believe will eclipse LCD, however slightly. And while there seems to be some game of "gotcha" where I get caught being more optimistic or less optimistic, the reality is I already have posted the following sentiment:


OLED has the real potential to bring "Elite-level quality" to mid-range prices if/when OLED gets mainstream pricing. It's going to be hard to make an OLED that doesn't have super high contrast, brightness and viewing angles. And once they are reasonably good at color, it's going to be hard to build one that can't at least be calibrated to do good color. That scenario has absolutely no chance of materializing in the next 2-3 years, but it does have a chance of materializing in the next 4-8 years.


----------



## Robert2413




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21607485
> 
> 
> 0.00061fL (0.002090018cd/m², thanks America) seems optimistic, unless you are altering the panel driver settings, which means you're likely going to run into misfiring in the future. This puts the panel at roughly 48,000:1 when calibrated to reference levels. (100cd/m² white, which the Kuros cannot maintain at medium-to-high APL) Last I checked it was closer to 33,000:1. (around 0.003cd/m² black)
> 
> 
> 
> That kind of black level is rather easy to detect when watching films in a dark room. Even CRT had a slight glow in a dark room persisting on the phosphors for a few seconds, though it was still darker than this by some margin. My full-array LED backlit LCD turns the panel _off_ when it fades to black. The Kuro's reddish glow did not satisfy, nor did all the other image quality compromises. (dither, banding, discolouration, flicker, motion blur)



My calibrated Kuro's black level is substantially below the light level in the night sky I see out of my living room window. (Before calibration, it was about the same). Granted, I live in the 'burbs so there is some glow from streetlights a few miles distant, but it helps put things in perspective. Night scenes on the panel can actually look blacker than real-life night scenes outside my window!


As for "reddish glow," I'm not seeing it in the blacks--they seem pretty neutral, although they are *so* dark that my eyes have very little ability to distinguish color at that luminance level. (Rods, cones, and all that...) Maybe I lucked out.


I watch the panel from about 11' (3.35 m...satisfied now?







) and don't see the dithering at that distance. If I move closer enough to the panel to see dithering, I also notice loss of resolution due to the limitations of 1080p.


About the only complaint I have with the picture is that I have seen green phosphor trails occasionally, but only from fast-moving white credits scrolling vertically on a pitch-black background. I haven't checked to see if calibration helped that situation. I haven't seen this since the calibration, but I haven't specifically sought out material to demonstrate it.


----------



## specuvestor

@rogo no gotcha there. Am trying to keep track of your view and if you've heard anything new. Its always comforting to have a fellow skeptic agreeing rather than a forever-optimist agreeing


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Robert2413* /forum/post/21628159
> 
> 
> My calibrated Kuro's black level is substantially below the light level in the night sky I see out of my living room window. (Before calibration, it was about the same). Granted, I live in the 'burbs so there is some glow from streetlights a few miles distant, but it helps put things in perspective. Night scenes on the panel can actually look blacker than real-life night scenes outside my window!
> 
> 
> As for "reddish glow," I'm not seeing it in the blacks--they seem pretty neutral, although they are *so* dark that my eyes have very little ability to distinguish color at that luminance level. (Rods, cones, and all that...) Maybe I lucked out.
> 
> 
> I watch the panel from about 11' (3.35 m...satisfied now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and don't see the dithering at that distance. If I move closer enough to the panel to see dithering, I also notice loss of resolution due to the limitations of 1080p.
> 
> 
> About the only complaint I have with the picture is that I have seen green phosphor trails occasionally, but only from fast-moving white credits scrolling vertically on a pitch-black background. I haven't checked to see if calibration helped that situation. I haven't seen this since the calibration, but I haven't specifically sought out material to demonstrate it.



Chrono is hypercritical of the Kuro and tends to blow its weaknesses out of proportion, IMO. I want a better black level than the 111FD can provide, but not with the compromise in PQ that LED enthusiasts readily accept. The fact that a 4-year-old panel is still being used as a benchmark today tells me all I need to know...and represents my best display purchase yet. Frankly, I see no compelling reason to upgrade it with current tech (so as to compromise the viewing experience in other areas that would perturb me more than the hubbub about the Kuro's weaknesses) and am eagerly awaiting OLED's (hopefully rapid) development.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21628728
> 
> 
> @rogo no gotcha there. Am trying to keep track of your view and if you've heard anything new. Its always comforting to have a fellow skeptic agreeing rather than a forever-optimist agreeing



Spec, I believe that Samsung and LG would like to never invest in LCD again. I believe they will continue to increase their OLED investment in the hope of replacing 100% of their LCD production with OLED over the next decade or so.


There are reasons that goal might not be achieved, of course, but I am convinced that is there intent. I was not convinced of that a year ago, but I am convinced of it now.


So it's not so much that I've heard anything new. It's that the balance of what I learned / saw at CES plus the investments plus Samsung's willingness to admit that LG might have a better technological roadmap plus that LG roadmap's much greater simplicity etc. etc.


So, honestly, while the future is not yet written, I believe this is the future they desire and that's not insignificant.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Spec, I believe that Samsung and LG would like to never invest in LCD again. I believe they will continue to increase their OLED investment in the hope of replacing 100% of their LCD production with OLED over the next decade or so.
> 
> 
> There are reasons that goal might not be achieved, of course, but I am convinced that is there intent. I was not convinced of that a year ago, but I am convinced of it now.



This is actually non consensus but it looks pretty much what's happening past 18 months. If there's anymore LCD fab investment it would be in China.


It would be hard to find many that agree with us but I always look at actions rather than words. And their action is telling us LCD peak capex is over.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21629009
> 
> 
> This is actually non consensus but it looks pretty much what's happening past 18 months. If there's anymore LCD fab investment it would be in China.
> 
> 
> It would be hard to find many that agree with us but I always look at actions rather than words. And their action is telling us LCD peak capex is over.



Here's another truth: The growth of the LCD / flat panel TV market has practically stalled. It's forecast for sub 10% for 2012 from a much-much-lower-than-expected 2011 number. The 8G fabs are not especially old and probably none of them are even running at capacity.


Throughout the growth phase of LCD (and even plasma) in the earlier part of the 2000s, everyone planned their fabs on the Field of Dreams model ("if you build it...") and the reality is they came, but never in the numbers to justify the amount of capacity that was built. Between upgrades and retrofits, you could easily satisfy the demand for all the world's LCD TVs and computer screens with the world's existing fabs.


We already know a huge chunk of mobile phone won't be LCD for much longer (and perhaps eventually few will; we'll see within 36 months how that plays out I'd guess). Global computer sales also appear to be in a permanent tapering off (and their monitors tend to be replaced even less often on the desktop at least). Tablets are growing like crazy, yes, but no one is constructing a new fab to support that market -- which is amazingly telling.


I posited in a post some weeks ago -- that a lot of OLED fans didn't like -- that under the most aggressive forecasts OLED could reach about 1/3 of the TV market by the end of the decade. Let's just pretend that against all rational odds, the TV market somehow expands from ~200 million now to ~300 million by decades end (it's actually hard to believe this will happen and I believe the TV market -- like the major-manufacturer / "first world" auto market -- is eventually going to stop growing entirely and fluctuate with economic growth, but let's go with it). The world's existing LCD capacity would meet all that demand.


If any Chinese fab were to be built by any new entrant or in a JV with an existing player and was 10G, it could literally produce more than 10% of the world's required output for 2020. Against that backdrop, and with Sony, Panasonic, Hitachi and Sharp all suffering under Korean competition, a strong yen, a terrible TV market, their own bad decision making, whatever, _why would anyone invest in an LCD fab_? They are all sitting with "dry powder" and *all of them are looking to find a TV product that is profitable; not the one they are currently making -- which is typically LCD*.


For various signaling reasons, I suppose the game of global flat-panel chicken starts with no one coming out and saying it, but really, I think they know what we believe: If OLED production doesn't hit snags and starts to ramp as LG and Samsung hope it does, the era of LCD fabs is over. The huge caveat is that if OLED production does begin to ramp and it becomes clear that it won't actually get cheaper than LCD, we will see LCD fab investment restart before mid-decade as Samsung and LG build 10G and finish off Japan for good.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21628917
> 
> 
> So it's not so much that I've heard anything new. It's that the balance of what I learned / saw at CES plus the investments plus Samsung's willingness to admit that LG might have a better technological roadmap plus that LG roadmap's much greater simplicity etc. etc.



The weird part is that the WOLED approach has been around for years and years. I had always assumed that there were drawbacks in terms of picture quality since there was no consensus around using the WOLED architecture (it is obviously easier to manufacture). Some of the reports about Kodak's samples at SID and your comments about the LG at CES from a few years ago seemed to back that up.


I dont know if we are going to get some sort of surprise when LG launches their television but it certainly seems that WOLED offers near equivalent quality to RGB. That is a big change and should help some of the other display companies more quickly launch an OLED television over the medium term.


----------



## rogo

Slacker, I think it probably is "worse", but I think we are very likely to end up splitting hairs -- especially until Samsung produces something amazing, which hasn't even happened yet.


Having seen the prototypes and explained the reality (which for some reason bothers some people) that OLEDs have limited room to be superior to the very best LCDs and plasmas, I'd describe it -- now speculatively -- thus:


Best TV on market: 1.0 quality, improving to, say 1.2 over time

LG OLED: 1.1.5-1.2 quality, improving over time perhaps to a ceiling of 1.4

Samsung OLED: 1.15-1.2 quality, improving over time perhaps to a ceiling of 1.5


Obviously, that's speculative, but I'm suggesting RGB OLED has the most overhead. An interesting question, however is this: The techniques that will allow for affordable RGB-making (these spray-on methods being worked on, e.g.) don't yet exist in any sort of production-ready way. _Even if they materialize_, the possibility exists that RGBW may have already taken off _and become so cheap_ that they can never compete.


What there isn't room for is an OLED _manufacturing_ technology that is running smaller numbers, costs more and maybe delivers very, very slightly better picture quality. The math won't add up. This isn't like making a niche LCD where you add better parts to a mass-produced panel. This would be entire production dedicated to something that is costing more and selling less. That would -- I believe -- be why Samsung is reconsidering what to do from here. It's a pretty significant decision.


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21628917
> 
> 
> 
> So it's not so much that I've heard anything new. It's that the balance of what I learned / saw at CES plus the investments plus Samsung's willingness to admit that LG might have a better technological roadmap plus that LG roadmap's much greater simplicity etc. etc.
> 
> 
> So, honestly, while the future is not yet written, I believe this is the future they desire and that's not insignificant.



I agree I doubt they want any more investment in LCD, also I saw some news online that Samsung is considering Woled in the future and are conducting tests this seems to reinforce your idea that LGs road map is better.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21629109
> 
> 
> Here's another truth: The growth of the LCD / flat panel TV market has practically stalled. It's forecast for sub 10% for 2012 from a much-much-lower-than-expected 2011 number. The 8G fabs are not especially old and probably none of them are even running at capacity.
> 
> 
> Throughout the growth phase of LCD (and even plasma) in the earlier part of the 2000s, everyone planned their fabs on the Field of Dreams model ("if you build it...") and the reality is they came, but never in the numbers to justify the amount of capacity that was built. Between upgrades and retrofits, you could easily satisfy the demand for all the world's LCD TVs and computer screens with the world's existing fabs.
> 
> 
> We already know a huge chunk of mobile phone won't be LCD for much longer (and perhaps eventually few will; we'll see within 36 months how that plays out I'd guess). Global computer sales also appear to be in a permanent tapering off (and their monitors tend to be replaced even less often on the desktop at least). Tablets are growing like crazy, yes, but no one is constructing a new fab to support that market -- which is amazingly telling.
> 
> 
> I posited in a post some weeks ago -- that a lot of OLED fans didn't like -- that under the most aggressive forecasts OLED could reach about 1/3 of the TV market by the end of the decade. Let's just pretend that against all rational odds, the TV market somehow expands from ~200 million now to ~300 million by decades end (it's actually hard to believe this will happen and I believe the TV market -- like the major-manufacturer / "first world" auto market -- is eventually going to stop growing entirely and fluctuate with economic growth, but let's go with it). The world's existing LCD capacity would meet all that demand.
> 
> 
> If any Chinese fab were to be built by any new entrant or in a JV with an existing player and was 10G, it could literally produce more than 10% of the world's required output for 2020. Against that backdrop, and with Sony, Panasonic, Hitachi and Sharp all suffering under Korean competition, a strong yen, a terrible TV market, their own bad decision making, whatever, _why would anyone invest in an LCD fab_? They are all sitting with "dry powder" and *all of them are looking to find a TV product that is profitable; not the one they are currently making -- which is typically LCD*.
> 
> 
> For various signaling reasons, I suppose the game of global flat-panel chicken starts with no one coming out and saying it, but really, I think they know what we believe: If OLED production doesn't hit snags and starts to ramp as LG and Samsung hope it does, the era of LCD fabs is over. The huge caveat is that if OLED production does begin to ramp and it becomes clear that it won't actually get cheaper than LCD, we will see LCD fab investment restart before mid-decade as Samsung and LG build 10G and finish off Japan for good.



It's actually not difficult to project MATHEMATICALLY. 5 years ago with the infancy of 8G fab, there was already calculation that the world could support 4 10G and probably 6 (8?) 8G, assuming global average size comes to 42", which is happening. Problem is estimating demand fluctuations.


By my humble experience, a lot of predictions by people in the know usually come to pass... the problem is time frame. People tend to be too optimistic on timeframes because it will sound better ie newsworthy and second it looks better on ROI basis. Think 3G in 1999. From hype with UK 3G licenses auctioned for GBP22b to distress in 2005 (before iPhone) that it's a hype, to reality now.


So I think eventually the capacity will be fully utilised, especially with some capacity changed to OLED and some changed to huge size TVs. And it makes a lot of sense builing LCD fab in China, it being the largest backend process of LCD TVs, and soon the largest TV consumer in the world. Problem is of course politics and technology transfer, which is obvious. 10G in China makes sense as like I said, there are good demand there for the "loudest" electronics







Chinese companies are in fact trying to start OLED fabs.


For a technology that people assume it's hogwash 18 months ago, to "niche" just not long ago, to 1/3 of market is good enough for me, in terms of how OLED will grow










PS ("if you build it...")... that's why I'm never a believer of supply side economics







I actually think it makes more sense focusing on incentives structure that fosters demand.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21630818
> 
> 
> Best TV on market: 1.0 quality, improving to, say 1.2 over time
> 
> LG OLED: 1.1.5-1.2 quality, improving over time perhaps to a ceiling of 1.4
> 
> Samsung OLED: 1.15-1.2 quality, improving over time perhaps to a ceiling of 1.5



The difference between us is that I have always maintained that the 20% (or so) difference between OLED and LCD is perceivable to J6P, and hence premium would be justified. How much is subjective.


----------



## rogo

"The difference between us is that I have always maintained that the 20% (or so) difference between OLED and LCD is perceivable to J6P, and hence premium would be justified. How much is subjective."


I do a lot of shopping for fun. It is my opinion that J6P doesn't see what I'd call a 50% difference in picture quality very often. People have to either talk themselves into high-end models or be talked into them... and usually that's on features, not picture quality.


The Elite, for example, is easily 20% better than almost anything around it. Most people just shrug and acknowledge it looks good. OLED is not going to sell on real picture quality, but it will sell somewhat on people being told it's better.


Incidentally, I don't know if it will reach 1/3 of the market by 2020 obviously. I was merely extrapolating from a 2015 forecast I believe is realistic (+/- a year). I was slammed by people here who insist that somehow OLED will have more than half the market in that timeframe, which still seems something just shy of impossible.


But if things like what Tracy read are true and Samsung eventually adopts an RGBW approach, a lot of the production roadblocks will fade. I suspect that most people have no real concept of just how much easier that production is going to be (regular folks). It's a major, major shift.


But it will ever-so-slightly mitigate the small picture-quality advantage. The market challenge is still out there: Convince early adopters to pay a lot for something that is only somewhat better and will become much much cheaper soon after they buy. Yes, that's achieved in other businesses but rarely is the new product such a direct substitute for the existing one. I suppose we need just enough people who want big viewing angles, and local-dimming-type contrast ratios who will seek out the "newer, better" to get us there. But I'm confident that marketing hype will convince at least some of the needed people.


----------



## specuvestor

Key is it is perceivable by J6P, not AVS forumer







If it's not perceivable then it's very hard to market for eg better plasma black in bright showroom. As good as none.


Not surprising Sammy looking at RGBW. We've been talking about it since LG debut at CES which will affect Sammy roadmap.


But ultimately I think RGBW is an intermediate solution just as edge lit is to full backlit LED.


----------



## slacker711

CNET UK states that Samsung has told them that the UK will get the 55" OLED this spring.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/...ring-50006941/ 


This would obviously be a limited launch ahead of the London Olympics, but it would still be great to get some feedback on performance in a few months.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21637383
> 
> 
> But ultimately I think RGBW is an intermediate solution just as edge lit is to full backlit LED.



See that's an interesting comment. Full back-lit LED is all but dead. The marketplace has voted with its wallet and edge-lit LCD has satisfied the masses while _maybe_ getting marginally better over time.


I'm not disagreeing with you that we might see full RGB OLED, but if Samsung and LG ramp RGBW significantly, we also might never see it. The fact that something is theoretically possible doesn't necessarily me its ever seen in the market.


----------



## mr. wally

lcd is a very mature technology yet it still has some significant fundamental flaws that still persist. off angle viewing, uniformity issues, blooming, finally in this last year we've reached the holy grail of lcds with the local dimming arrays and they still have issues even though they have entered kuro territory.


i acknowledge the the sharp elite may have better black levels than my kuro, but it still has off angle issues, color inaccuracy issues, and that weird pulsing issue. none of those problems exist with my kuro.


i'm not here to reap love on kuros, only to point out that i wouldn't spend 4-6k for an elite while those issues still exist.


rogo said something i believe to be true. lg and sammy want out of lcd as there's so little profit in it. oled will be the next big thing and if they can commercially produce it and are ahead of the field, they will price it with profit margins far in excess of what they can attain with their lcds.


----------



## gary cornell

 http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov...nosys-20111107 


Does this replace OLED in 2013?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gary cornell* /forum/post/21640743
> 
> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov...nosys-20111107
> 
> 
> Does this replace OLED in 2013?



No.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21640501
> 
> 
> lcd is a very mature technology yet it still has some significant fundamental flaws that still persist. off angle viewing, uniformity issues, blooming, finally in this last year we've reached the holy grail of lcds with the local dimming arrays and they still have issues even though they have entered kuro territory.



This is going to sound confusing to some, but uniformity issues, blooming, and off-axis are not really picture-quality flaws at all. They are technology limitations (off axis on non-IPS panels) or implementation flaws (non-uniform back/edge lighting and blooming). They do need to be improved for the small number of us who care, but other than off-axis issues -- which are noticed by people who can't watch square on -- they tend to be widely ignored by the mass of consumers.


> Quote:
> i acknowledge the the sharp elite may have better black levels than my kuro, but it still has off angle issues, color inaccuracy issues, and that weird pulsing issue. none of those problems exist with my kuro.



A testament to Pioneer's quality control / QA to be sure.


> Quote:
> rogo said something i believe to be true. lg and sammy want out of lcd as there's so little profit in it. oled will be the next big thing and if they can commercially produce it and are ahead of the field, they will price it with profit margins far in excess of what they can attain with their lcds.



Yes, that's the idea. And since LCDs are so profit-less for them, those numbers ultimately might end tolerable for a lot of us.


If the Samsung retail-price maintenance strategy for 2012 is to be believed, it is my opinion that it is designed to ensure a framework under which they use marketing hardcore to convince people their slightly more expensive stuff is much better. They are going for an Apple-esque strategy and one that tries to preserve their retail partners. We'll see how it plays out.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gary cornell* /forum/post/21640743
> 
> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov...nosys-20111107
> 
> 
> Does this replace OLED in 2013?



Old news.


----------



## gary cornell

Jason Hartlove was a guest on Scotts show today.


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21641348
> 
> 
> Old news.



Yep, and way to much money in Oled now its coming to market.


Plus large printable Oled displays are really in the interest of any one making them as they are much cheaper to produce but sell at a premium.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gary cornell* /forum/post/21640743
> 
> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov...nosys-20111107
> 
> 
> Does this replace OLED in 2013?



Doesn't even look like new display tech. Looks more like a substitute for color filter. IMHO not impossible as an improvement for existing tech but it's a chicken and egg problem since REC709 gamut is limited anyway. You need better gamut spec for this to be useful.


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen* /forum/post/21621058
> 
> 
> 
> If OLED panels have a 25k hr. life, that works out to just under 7hrs a day of viewing for 10 years. They may get quoted as lower, so you'd have to judge, but I doubt many on this forum keep the same display as the main viewing display for 10 years, and 7 hrs a day is a LOT of couch time.



Some go as high as 35,000-50,000 hours we don't have the first gen to say yet but Oled that lasts 10plus years is way more than most people keep their sets around and long enough for me.


----------



## slacker711

Oops, Samsung/CNET retracts the spring launch date...reiterates second half launch.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/...ring-50006947/


----------



## stepmback

How would one mount an OLED tv to the wall. Isnt the tv too thin for mounting screws? Also, are all the internals to run these (LG or Samsung) OLED TVs contained in the monitor?


Also, isnt an HDMI plug too big (most of HDMI blugs are deeper than 10 mm)?


----------



## ferro

 http://www.avforums.com/forums/forum...y-day-1-a.html 












> Quote:
> Sony had three Professional Monitors set up, a CRT from 1999, an LCD from 2006 and between the both, an OLED from 2011. With the lights out the blacks on the CRT looked far better than the LCD, as you would expect but the black levels on the OLED were just astounding, completely black, so much so that you couldn’t see the screen at all. The image accuracy and colour performance was also very impressive and the pixel response was as quick as the CRT screen. However before anyone starts getting excited, the 25” OLED Professional Monitor sells for 25,000 euros but at least its good to see that Sony are working on OLED technology. It was also good to see just how incredible the image on an OLED screen can look, it truly is the new black!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21643154
> 
> 
> Oops, Samsung/CNET retracts the spring launch date...reiterates second half launch.



Saw that coming a mile away.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stepmback* /forum/post/21643573
> 
> 
> How would one mount an OLED tv to the wall. Isnt the tv too thin for mounting screws? Also, are all the internals to run these (LG or Samsung) OLED TVs contained in the monitor?
> 
> 
> Also, isnt an HDMI plug too big (most of HDMI blugs are deeper than 10 mm)?



They are going to have to make choices about how the final product works.


The LG prototype had no electronics on board and needs to be tethered to a port/power box by an "umbilical". I've spoken repeatedly about how much people hate that design. Some AVSers like it, but really, not one model with that design has ever been successful or liked. It's an option for LG, however.


Alternatively, they can add a small amount of depth to the design to support standard plugs and cables.


As for mounting, so long as they have a way of attaching a mounting plate, they'll be fine. The design is light enough that they can create a small system of rails/grooves and let you slide a plate into then then lock that down with a couple of tiny screws. The plate would be designed to work with VESA standard mounts.


----------



## gary cornell

Do we know the width of this 55" Samsung? Smaller form factor may let me go bigger in the same space and let me replace 50" Pro110.


----------



## MikeBiker

If they keep getting lighter, you'll be able to mount them on the wall with these .


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21642328
> 
> 
> Doesn't even look like new display tech. Looks more like a substitute for color filter. IMHO not impossible as an improvement for existing tech but it's a chicken and egg problem since REC709 gamut is limited anyway. You need better gamut spec for this to be useful.



We have a winner! The whole production chain would need to change. Again.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ It's just color filter, not the entire chain



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro* /forum/post/21645285
> 
> http://www.avforums.com/forums/forum...y-day-1-a.html



Again as discussed on multiple threads, these pictures are good marketing tool, but not totally truthful. Light bounces off the back structure of CRT and plasma while LCD will block light. OLED cathode can be transparent.


But better comparison for AVS is in a dark room, where OLED will be like invisible while giving other displays more justice











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stepmback* /forum/post/21643573
> 
> 
> How would one mount an OLED tv to the wall. Isnt the tv too thin for mounting screws? Also, are all the internals to run these (LG or Samsung) OLED TVs contained in the monitor?
> 
> 
> Also, isnt an HDMI plug too big (most of HDMI blugs are deeper than 10 mm)?



As rogo mentioned, it would just be like hanging a picture with the right THIN mounting plate










And yes as I mentioned before, I think these sets would have separate box and probably we would see a "as-it-is monitor" comeback in TVs


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21647048
> 
> 
> 
> As rogo mentioned, it would just be like hanging a picture with the right THIN mounting plate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes as I mentioned before, I think these sets would have separate box and probably we would see a "as-it-is monitor" comeback in TVs




I did see a press release from Lg that said they are going to have 2 options If its on a stand all the hook ups that are thick (hdmi...etc) are going to in the stand.


If it is mounted the TV will have a back pack(removable) making it thicker no size listed but I would guess maybe 1/2-3/4 inch or so.


So they are thinking of what people want.


Samsung said they are keeping it all in the base. I did not see anything about a wall option could just not be released yet.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tracydick* /forum/post/21647271
> 
> 
> Samsung said they are keeping it all in the base. I did not see anything about a wall option could just not be released yet.



I'm rarely in a position to predict anything, but in this case I'm confident that all OLED displays will have a "hanging" option.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tracydick* /forum/post/21647271
> 
> 
> I did see a press release from Lg that said they are going to have 2 options If its on a stand all the hook ups that are thick (hdmi...etc) are going to in the stand.
> 
> 
> If it is mounted the TV will have a back pack(removable) making it thicker no size listed but I would guess maybe 1/2-3/4 inch or so.
> 
> 
> So they are thinking of what people want.
> 
> 
> Samsung said they are keeping it all in the base. I did not see anything about a wall option could just not be released yet.



Bravo to LG then, that's the right approach -- especially if the stand piece is somehow able to be converted into the backpack.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *htwaits* /forum/post/21647348
> 
> 
> I'm rarely in a position to predict anything, but in this case I'm confident that all OLED displays will have a "hanging" option.



I see the future, and it matches your prediction.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21647544
> 
> 
> I see the future, and it matches your prediction.



I wish I could get my wife to read AVS.


----------



## rockaway1836

This was Samsung's solution to mounting the C9000 series from 2010.

I'm guessing whatever they come up with for OLED will be along the same lines.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search...-s&fr2=piv-web


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rockaway1836* /forum/post/21647792
> 
> 
> This was Samsung's solution to mounting the C9000 series from 2010.
> 
> I'm guessing whatever they come up with for OLED will be along the same lines.
> 
> http://video.search.yahoo.com/search...-s&fr2=piv-web



That looks pretty cool.


I would concur that the end result will be somewhat similar.


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rockaway1836* /forum/post/21647792
> 
> 
> This was Samsung's solution to mounting the C9000 series from 2010.
> 
> I'm guessing whatever they come up with for OLED will be along the same lines.
> 
> http://video.search.yahoo.com/search...-s&fr2=piv-web



Looks like kind of a pain in the ass to me. I prefer the LG back pack idea.


I do agree I can't imagine Samsung being that short sighted to have no option for wall mounting.


----------



## rockaway1836




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tracydick* /forum/post/21651601
> 
> 
> Looks like kind of a pain in the ass to me. I prefer the LG back pack idea.
> 
> 
> I do agree I can't imagine Samsung being that short sighted to have no option for wall mounting.



I must of missed it. What's the back pack idea ? How does it differ ? On the surface it seems to me that they would be the same thing. Being that the Samsung solution serves as a base and a wall mount ?


----------



## Ant99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tracydick* /forum/post/21651601
> 
> 
> Looks like kind of a pain in the ass to me. I prefer the LG back pack idea.



haha agreed. Looking at that Samsung video I kept thinking "holy crap, that looks complicated as heck to do for the average person."


They need to come up with an easier way than unscrewing and screwing lots of screws.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ant99* /forum/post/21652222
> 
> 
> They need to come up with an easier way than unscrewing and screwing lots of screws.



Screw drivers are just too high tech.


----------



## vinnie97

Behold the idiocracy (not posting to incite, just a general trend that can be seen).


----------



## greenland

Konica Minolta's first commercial OLED inkjet printing head will be available to display makers this spring.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1329392549


----------



## navychop

From the link: _"According to industry sources, Dupont's OLED printing technology is not optimized on the sub-pixel level, however. Each pixel on a display panel requires three sub pixels in red, green blue (RGB) to form one pixel."_


Can anyone explain what they mean by this? I'm sure Konica is using RGB.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21660997
> 
> 
> From the link: _"According to industry sources, Dupont's OLED printing technology is not optimized on the sub-pixel level, however. Each pixel on a display panel requires three sub pixels in red, green blue (RGB) to form one pixel."_
> 
> 
> Can anyone explain what they mean by this? I'm sure Konica is using RGB.



I read that too. It implies they can print OLED material, just not very well. Since the "very well" is the entire problem with RGB manufacturing of large sizes right now, I don't really know what to make of that comment.


----------



## 440forpower

Any guesses when we might be hearing more info on the Samsung or LG OLED tvs?


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tracydick* /forum/post/21642565
> 
> 
> Some go as high as 35,000-50,000 hours we don't have the first gen to say yet but Oled that lasts 10plus years is way more than most people keep their sets around and long enough for me.



At $10,000 for a 55" set, my freakin grand kids better be able to use it.












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *440forpower* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Any guesses when we might be hearing more info on the Samsung or LG OLED tvs?



CES 2013.


----------



## vinnie97

^You're taking bets on neither of them making it to market in 2012 then?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *440forpower* /forum/post/21661982
> 
> 
> Any guesses when we might be hearing more info on the Samsung or LG OLED tvs?



I really doubt you'll hear much of anything before the summer. And I'm very skeptical of Samsung shipping this year.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21662348
> 
> 
> At $10,000 for a 55" set, my freakin grand kids better be able to use it.



They'll rather use the holosuite.


----------



## specuvestor

The stage is set.. .and not unexpected:


" Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Samsung Electronics Co. said it will spin off its unprofitable liquid-crystal-display division as the company changes its focus to the next generation of TV displays.

The new company, provisionally named Samsung Display Co., will be set up April 1, Samsung said in a filing today. Samsung may merge the unit into the Samsung Mobile Display venture that makes organic light-emitting diode, or OLED, panels, Nam Ki Yung, a Seoul-based spokesman, said by phone.

Samsung’s LCD business had an operating loss of 750 billion won ($668 million) last year as TV sales slowed. Merging its panel-making operations will help the company expand its OLED business by utilizing LCD-manufacturing resources, according to Korea Investment & Securities Co. and Hanwha Securities Co."


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21662623
> 
> 
> I really doubt you'll hear much of anything before the summer. And I'm very skeptical of Samsung shipping this year.



Me too. I am not super set on that larger blue subpixel Sammy will have to use seems like it will make a blue shift in the colors.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/21662448
> 
> 
> ^You're taking bets on neither of them making it to market in 2012 then?



Yes, I think I have a $5 bet with spectator or saprano that there will be no OLED for sale in the US before Dec 31, 2012. I'll have to check. Good news for me so far is Samsung and LG announced there 2012 model available and pricing sheet and there is no mention of either OLED set.

http://hdguru.com/samsung-2012-hdtv-prices-leaked/7349/


----------



## vinnie97

^Ouch. That's okay, I can't afford a new TV this year anyway.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21670670
> 
> 
> Yes, I think I have a $5 bet with spectator or saprano that there will be no OLED for sale in the US before Dec 31, 2012. I'll have to check. Good news for me so far is Samsung and LG announced there 2012 model available and pricing sheet and there is no mention of either OLED set.
> 
> http://hdguru.com/samsung-2012-hdtv-prices-leaked/7349/



For the record it is $20 and it was for LG that OLED TV this year is not vapourware


----------



## David_B

No pricing on Samsung OLED because the group anouncing LCD pricing won't be the one selling OLED,


Get your wallet ready. LOL




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21670670
> 
> 
> Yes, I think I have a $5 bet with spectator or saprano that there will be no OLED for sale in the US before Dec 31, 2012. I'll have to check. Good news for me so far is Samsung and LG announced there 2012 model available and pricing sheet and there is no mention of either OLED set.
> 
> http://hdguru.com/samsung-2012-hdtv-prices-leaked/7349/


----------



## vinnie97

^Got him on a technicality.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21670670
> 
> 
> Yes, I think I have a $5 bet with spectator or saprano that there will be no OLED for sale in the US before Dec 31, 2012. I'll have to check. Good news for me so far is Samsung and LG announced there 2012 model available and pricing sheet and there is no mention of either OLED set.
> 
> http://hdguru.com/samsung-2012-hdtv-prices-leaked/7349/



BTW, this doesn't cover LG announcements (or the lack thereof). Gotta link for that?


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21670604
> 
> 
> The stage is set.. .and not unexpected:
> 
> 
> " Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Samsung Electronics Co. said it will spin off its unprofitable liquid-crystal-display division as the company changes its focus to the next generation of TV displays.
> 
> The new company, provisionally named Samsung Display Co., will be set up April 1, Samsung said in a filing today. Samsung may merge the unit into the Samsung Mobile Display venture that makes organic light-emitting diode, or OLED, panels, Nam Ki Yung, a Seoul-based spokesman, said by phone.
> 
> Samsung's LCD business had an operating loss of 750 billion won ($668 million) last year as TV sales slowed. Merging its panel-making operations will help the company expand its OLED business by utilizing LCD-manufacturing resources, according to Korea Investment & Securities Co. and Hanwha Securities Co."




i wonder does this include their plasmas or just lcds?


----------



## specuvestor

^^ plasma panel is under Samsung SDI and the above pertains to Samsung Electronics. Whether plasma will come under the new Sansung Display will be known in due course when we see the restructuring in SDI. To be honestly blunt, nobody in LG or Sammy cares much about plasma nowadays.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ^Got him on a technicality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, this doesn't cover LG announcements (or the lack thereof). Gotta link for that?



It's not cast in stone anyway. Sharp 80" and Elite was not announced on 2011 lineup as well.


----------



## inky blacks

*QUESTIONS*


Will OLED TVs eventually be cheaper to manufacture than LCD or plasma TVs?


Will we ever get OLED TVs in giant sizes, such as 120" and 133" diagonal?


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/21672047
> 
> 
> ^Got him on a technicality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, this doesn't cover LG announcements (or the lack thereof). Gotta link for that?



LG has way to much riding not to bring a product to market by say September. Samsung took a loss on LCDs and is using a blue shifted sub pixel arrangement. I don't see Samsung for sale by 2012. I can't imagine LG not selling in 2012 though.


Be we start seeing advertising campaign stuff by juneish.


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inky blacks* /forum/post/21675440
> 
> *QUESTIONS*
> 
> 
> Will OLED TVs eventually be cheaper to manufacture than LCD or plasma TVs?
> 
> 
> Will we ever get OLED TVs in giant sizes, such as 120" and 133" diagonal?



Yes as long as they don't use in line scanning 55" - 65" is about the max your going to see with that tech. (currently samsung uses thins in their oleds.)


Other than that its just a market issue maybe by 2015-2016?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inky blacks* /forum/post/21675440
> 
> *QUESTIONS*
> 
> 
> Will OLED TVs eventually be cheaper to manufacture than LCD or plasma TVs?



That is the hope. But it's not happening soon. Anyone who claims it is happening soon is simply wrong.


> Quote:
> Will we ever get OLED TVs in giant sizes, such as 120" and 133" diagonal?



Um, doubtful with any currently known production process.


Will we see 80"? 90"? Probably. The logistics of building and selling 120" and 133" OLEDs are so daunting, there is simply no chance anyone is actually planning on doing this.


I suspect we will need a _flexible_ substrate before you see 120" and 133" OLEDs. By this, I do not mean _rollable_ or folding, but flexible to the point where it can be shipped in a relatively thin container because it is impact resistant and it could be slightly "bent" to fit through a doorway.


All this seems unlikely this decade.


----------



## inky blacks

Well, I would hope they will at least match Panasonic's 103" plasma TV in size. A 103" OLED TV would be about 75% less heavy than a plasma TV.


----------



## ALMA











http://www.avforums.com/forums/16378852-post18.html


----------



## slacker711

Samsung and LG are cutting their investment into Chinese LCD fabs to focus on OLED's.

http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz...82_105263.html


----------



## javry

smart move IMO


----------



## Dbuudo07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA* /forum/post/21675615
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avforums.com/forums/16378852-post18.html



The image is broken.


My Kuro will last me well into the time when OLED's are priced lower and much larger.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21676072
> 
> 
> Samsung and LG are cutting their investment into Chinese LCD fabs to focus on OLED's.
> 
> http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz...82_105263.html



I think the most interesting thing in that article is the following quote


> Quote:
> "We can’t construct an OLED panel-producing plant in China due to the risk of a technology leak,’’ said a Samsung official.



Sounds like they are really working to keep their OLED technology from finding its way into China.


----------



## greenland

"SAMSUNG SPINS OFF LCD BUSINESS, OLED IS THE FUTURE"

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1329755852 



"Last week we reported that Samsung was reviewing the future of their LCD business. Samsung has now officially confirmed that they will spin off their LCD division from the parent company to a new subsidiary company called Samsung Display Co.


Samsung and Sony recently ended their LCD partnership and last week Reuters wrote that Samsung has realized a loss of 1 trillion Won (around $891 million) from their LCD business in fiscal year 2011. Samsung has now taken action based on that fact.


Samsung plans to move all their LCD operations from the parent company, Samsung, into a new subsidiary called Samsung Display Co. This is formally scheduled to happen April 1, 2012."


----------



## rogo

There's a lot of nonsense in Samsung's spinoff announcement. I want to be clear that I'm on record here a few weeks back as basically saying Samsung was done investing in LCD (other than to maintain existing production), so I'm not surprised by them making announcements in that direction.


But the press stuff you are reading on them spinning off the LCD business is a lot of gibberish. They are still the sole owner, they are talking about merging it _with other Samsung businesses_, etc. This is not like they are cutting it loose. They are doing this to have cleaning reporting of the financials of the parent company, which is making nice profits in mobile, and to allow them to have this ugly stepchild run around and make all their screens with its crappy financials. I'm not sure how Korean accounting laws are, but in the U.S., the parent would still have to report all the results of a wholly owned subsidiary in its bottom line, although it would invariably try to convince Wall St. that non-GAAP earnings ex. the sub co. were the number you really wanted to follow.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21677951
> 
> 
> There's a lot of nonsense in Samsung's spinoff announcement. I want to be clear that I'm on record here a few weeks back as basically saying Samsung was done investing in LCD (other than to maintain existing production), so I'm not surprised by them making announcements in that direction.
> 
> 
> But the press stuff you are reading on them spinning off the LCD business is a lot of gibberish. They are still the sole owner, they are talking about merging it _with other Samsung businesses_, etc. This is not like they are cutting it loose. They are doing this to have cleaning reporting of the financials of the parent company, which is making nice profits in mobile, and to allow them to have this ugly stepchild run around and make all their screens with its crappy financials. I'm not sure how Korean accounting laws are, but in the U.S., the parent would still have to report all the results of a wholly owned subsidiary in its bottom line, although it would invariably try to convince Wall St. that non-GAAP earnings ex. the sub co. were the number you really wanted to follow.





this is exactly how i interpret it.


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/21676772
> 
> 
> Samsung has now officially confirmed that they will spin off their LCD division from the parent company to a new subsidiary.



Same here.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21678854
> 
> 
> Same here.



Congrats on spinning off your LCD division, Sun.


----------



## specuvestor

Err the spinoff was already official 2 days ago. I posted the news 


Spinoff does not mean they are going to sever the ties with Samsung but the new Samsung Display will be part of investment income in terms of Korean GAAP. But essentially nothing changes for Samsung Electronics until the SDI restructuring.


But longer term it does indicate that Samsung is consolidating the display business into one unit and possibly reducing stake in future through IPO and list it separately like LG Display


So Samsung is cutting in a sense, depends on your timeframe and how u slice it. It's likely to become a subsi rather than fully owned.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Samsung and LG are cutting their investment into Chinese LCD fabs to focus on OLED's.
> 
> http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz...82_105263.html



Like I said, building a large LCD fab in China makes sense, while migrating the korean LCD capacity to OLED. Building an OLED in China doesn't. The Chinese are trying to get into the OLED game as well.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Sounds like they are really working to keep their OLED technology from finding its way into China.


----------



## DeletedUserPost

If the Chinese were to steal the secrets of OLED television tech--would it mean cheaper OLED TVs in the US market quicker?


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21679381
> 
> 
> Err the spinoff was already official 2 days ago. I posted the news
> 
> 
> Spinoff does not mean they are going to sever the ties with Samsung but the new Samsung Display will be part of investment income in terms of Korean GAAP. But essentially nothing changes for Samsung Electronics until the SDI restructuring.
> 
> 
> But longer term it does indicate that Samsung is consolidating the display business into one unit and possibly reducing stake in future through IPO and list it separately like LG Display
> 
> 
> So Samsung is cutting in a sense, depends on your timeframe and how u slice it. It's likely to become a subsi rather than fully owned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, building a large LCD fab in China makes sense, while migrating the korean LCD capacity to OLED. Building an OLED in China doesn't. The Chinese are trying to get into the OLED game as well.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marcus®* /forum/post/21679421
> 
> 
> If the Chinese were to steal the secrets of OLED television tech--would it mean cheaper OLED TVs in the US market quicker?





the chinese will steal oled tech like they do everything else, and then build oled displays that will be sold at a loss at walmart eliminating all other manufacturers, but your oled display will only last 12-14 months before breaking.


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21679552
> 
> 
> the chinese will steal oled tech like they do everything else, and then build oled displays that will be sold at a loss at walmart eliminating all other manufacturers, but your oled display will only last 12-14 months before breaking.



I actually go out of way to not to buy Chinese products now because they are so ****** I think the maybe $2,000 I have spent extra I have very easily saved this year by things not breaking needing repair etc. I have go so far as to buy clothes everything etc.


Its a wonder how much better made in japan/korea/germany/india/indonesia/usa is.


China is working on a limited time frame soon they will be at 7% growth which is not enough to outpace inflation there not to mention that govt controlled currency will crack some time. Most countries are getting better about their trade deficit.


As for Oled I will say LG Q3-Q4 and willing to put $5 on it. Samsung 2013.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21677951
> 
> 
> There's a lot of nonsense in Samsung's spinoff announcement. I want to be clear that I'm on record here a few weeks back as basically saying Samsung was done investing in LCD (other than to maintain existing production), so I'm not surprised by them making announcements in that direction.
> 
> 
> But the press stuff you are reading on them spinning off the LCD business is a lot of gibberish. They are still the sole owner, they are talking about merging it _with other Samsung businesses_, etc. This is not like they are cutting it loose. They are doing this to have cleaning reporting of the financials of the parent company, which is making nice profits in mobile, and to allow them to have this ugly stepchild run around and make all their screens with its crappy financials. I'm not sure how Korean accounting laws are, but in the U.S., the parent would still have to report all the results of a wholly owned subsidiary in its bottom line, although it would invariably try to convince Wall St. that non-GAAP earnings ex. the sub co. were the number you really wanted to follow.



It is not so. Spin-off means preparation for scaling down this part of business. You can't sell it since it is bad and/or you would give away lots of IP. Thus you have to take it down gradually and spin-off allows for easier restructuring.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tracydick* /forum/post/21679771
> 
> 
> I actually go out of way to not to buy Chinese products now because they are so ****** I think the maybe $2,000 I have spent extra I have very easily saved this year by things not breaking needing repair etc. I have go so far as to buy clothes everything etc. Its a wonder how much better made in japan/korea/germany/india/indonesia/usa is.
> 
> China is working on a limited time frame soon they will be at 7% growth which is not enough to outpace inflation there not to mention that govt controlled currency will crack some time. Most countries are getting better about their trade deficit.



Heh, you underestimate the nature of this kind of development. I refer you to history books where you can read how everybody was joking/getting mad about the government controlled economy and cheapy, low-Q goods from Japan, Korea and Taiwan







.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21680869
> 
> 
> It is not so. Spin-off means preparation for scaling down this part of business. You can't sell it since it is bad and/or you would give away lots of IP. Thus you have to take it down gradually and spin-off allows for easier restructuring.\\



What is not so?


You dispute my post and then produce not a single counter-factual argument.


----------



## David_B

Haven't seen a China explosion of deep black Plasma TVs.


We will see how they can do with this hard to perfect OLED making process.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/21679552
> 
> 
> the chinese will steal oled tech like they do everything else, and then build oled displays that will be sold at a loss at walmart eliminating all other manufacturers, but your oled display will only last 12-14 months before breaking.


----------



## Ant99

I wonder since OLED being so light, if shipping damage will be less now.


----------



## unknownuser200

or more broken because there so thin


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ant99* /forum/post/21684571
> 
> 
> I wonder since OLED being so light, if shipping damage will be less now.



I suspect far more shipping damage if they insist on these super-thin designs. The rigidity of anything that thin and large is going to be challenging at best.


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21685349
> 
> 
> I suspect far more shipping damage if they insist on these super-thin designs. The rigidity of anything that thin and large is going to be challenging at best.



They are not actually that rigid. compared to say a plasma, or LED. The bases contain all of the workings as to speak so the screen is really just the display and the substrate on that is flexible compared to other types of displays.


There is a less chance to crack the glass or split an Oled that probably any other type of TV. If the build quality is high.


The stands are a different story the super long a skinny one Samsung has got going on I can't imagine that not having a lot of shipping problems.


Most of these TVs wont even have any inputs on the screen it self so less fiddling around.


I just hope people do realize as light as they are they still need to be properly mounted. I would hate to see some guy hang one with a few of the 3m Velcro stickers that are rated for 20Lbs and loose a beautiful display to a 6 foot fall.


----------



## rogo

Tracy, my point is "they are not actually that rigid".


Rigidity is a good thing, not a bad thing.


Anyone who has an iPad can tell you how ridiculously rigid it is. Ditto anyone with a Macbook Air.


Now, most of you with a flat panel TV should take a look at the back of it. In many cases, the back itself is built rigid. In some cases, the rigidity comes from the inside.


I'm sorry to say, but the notion that first-generation OLEDs are going to absorb torsional stress and not fail catastrophically is ridiculous. They will by and large be ruined if flexed even a little. I've owned/worked with many laptop screens and I can tell you relatively small impacts are typically sufficient to put an end to most of them -- and the LCD itself is insanely thin.


Things like TFT backplanes and ITO-laden substrates do not take kindly to being bent. The display will need to be rigid. The problem is the obsession with thinness is the enemy of rigidity as the area increases. It's relatively easy to make a rigid iPad with a ~12" total diagonal (yes, I know how big the screen... I also know how big the bezel is). It's a lot harder to make a 55" diagonal screen rigid unless you take pretty explicit steps to do that. TVs today are thick enough that there's effectively a frame built in to handle rigidity. Super thin OLEDs are not going to have that luxury.


----------



## irkuck

^^ Which leads us to the question:


HOW much overhyped is the OLED tech?


One hears about: color, viewing angle, burn-in, lifetime, price, and now about the rigidity issues. What else is waiting in the shadow?


----------



## tory40

Seriously? Can you hold your anti-technology parties in another forum?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21685568
> 
> 
> ^^ Which leads us to the question:
> 
> 
> HOW much overhyped is the OLED tech?
> 
> 
> One hears about: color, viewing angle, burn-in, lifetime, price, and now about the rigidity issues. What else is waiting in the shadow?



Having issues, i.e. not being perfect, does not mean that OLED isn't a significant improvement over what we currently have available today.


We get it, you're happy with what you've got. Stick with it and be happy, why follow technology on the Internet and complain that it's getting better though? If things are good enough for you, nothing is forcing you to upgrade.


I really like my HX900 local-dimming LCD, and am probably going to skip the first generation or two of OLED because I'm pretty happy with what I've got and want to avoid the inevitable issues that first generation products will have. You don't see me complaining about progress though.


Are you actually someone's joke account?


----------



## javry

this has been a pretty good thread up to now. Lots of good comments to view from afar. Sure hope it stays that way given the subject matter.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/21685683
> 
> 
> Having issues, i.e. not being perfect, does not mean that OLED isn't a significant improvement over what we currently have available today.
> 
> 
> We get it, you're happy with what you've got. Stick with it and be happy, why follow technology on the Internet and complain that it's getting better though? If things are good enough for you, nothing is forcing you to upgrade.
> 
> 
> I really like my HX900 local-dimming LCD, and am probably going to skip the first generation or two of OLED because I'm pretty happy with what I've got and want to avoid the inevitable issues that first generation products will have. You don't see me complaining about progress though.
> 
> 
> Are you actually someone's joke account?



Doesn't sound like a joke account... sounds like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite 











If people want to see what OLED is all about and get a preview for OLED TV, go and drop $249 on a Playstation Vita. It uses a Samsung OLED panel (RGB triplets) and is slightly higher resolution than Sony's XEL-1, but in a 5" size instead of 11", and is simply gorgeous! PS Vita Get!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tory40* /forum/post/21685596
> 
> 
> Seriously? Can you hold your anti-technology parties in another forum?


 www.luddites.com? 


By the way, I think the rigidity issues are solvable. I just would rather have an 8mm thick TV that weighs somewhat more and is solid as heck than 4mm one that weighs a bit less and flexes. There aren't enough advantages to the latter to justify the breakage risk.


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21686429
> 
> 
> Doesn't sound like a joke account... sounds like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people want to see what OLED is all about and get a preview for OLED TV, go and drop $249 on a Playstation Vita. It uses a Samsung OLED panel (RGB triplets) and is slightly higher resolution than Sony's XEL-1, but in a 5" size instead of 11", and is simply gorgeous! PS Vita Get!




Lol the vita the screen sure is nice that is about it.


To your second point once you have seen one in person it is crazy how different they look compared to side by side to plasma or an LCD. They just look great.


----------



## specuvestor

Update on panny OLED and in particular lumens per watt. Just an update, not coming anytime soon.


"Solid state lighting (LED and OLED) have been the focus of second generation of lighting. But OLED applications have not been developed as fast as LED ones due to high cost and low efficiency. To increase brightness, OLED firms have been trying to improve on materials and panel structures. In particular, Panasonic has been trying to change the substrate under the phosphor powders into hemisphere lenses that are highly reflective. This can help to improve lighting efficiency to 128lm/W, better than peers.


Panasonic has been eager in developing OLED lighting products and has set up a joint venture Panasonic Idemitsue OLED Lighting (PIOL) with material provider Idemitsu Kosan. PIOL mainly focuses on production and sales of OLED panels while Panasonic makes OLED modules and sell OLED lighting products.


The OLED lighting panels produced by PIOL have thickness of only 2.1mm with lighting efficiency of 30lm/W. The color temperature is 3,000K with color rendering Ra level above 90. PIOL expects to increase lighting efficiency to 100lm/W in 2015 and 130lm/W in 2018.


OLED lighting has been used in specialty markets. Panasonic forecasts that OLED lighting applications still have a lot of room for growth. The firm indicated its goal to develop such products. With technological improvements and decrease in costs, Panasonic predicts revenues from OLED lighting will reach JPY15bn (US$187 million) in 2015." -Hyundai Securities


----------



## David_B

Sony Broadcast OLED's are absolutely the best displays ever made.


That's ever. As in to date. By far.


OLED does live up to the hype.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21685568
> 
> 
> ^^ Which leads us to the question:
> 
> 
> HOW much overhyped is the OLED tech?
> 
> 
> One hears about: color, viewing angle, burn-in, lifetime, price, and now about the rigidity issues. What else is waiting in the shadow?


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21687990
> 
> www.luddites.com?
> 
> 
> By the way, I think the rigidity issues are solvable. I just would rather have an 8mm thick TV that weighs somewhat more and is solid as heck than 4mm one that weighs a bit less and flexes. There aren't enough advantages to the latter to justify the breakage risk.



BINGO!


I don't think that people here really understand the dichotomy of the glass used for all of these sets. Most of the glass is .7mm thick and even a "small" sheet (like a Gen 3) can bend beyond the limits of what you would think, but it takes very little torsional stress to break it. Put micro-structures on top of it that are sensitive and you can have serious issues with them when they are subjected to the flexing of the underlying substrate (glass).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/21692642
> 
> 
> BINGO!
> 
> 
> I don't think that people here really understand the dichotomy of the glass used for all of these sets. Most of the glass is .7mm thick and even a "small" sheet (like a Gen 3) can bend beyond the limits of what you would think, but it takes very little torsional stress to break it. Put micro-structures on top of it that are sensitive and you can have serious issues with them when they are subjected to the flexing of the underlying substrate (glass).



That's why I ultimately expect a slightly thicker, more elaborate design for the display.


One thing people here are probably unaware of is how thin LCD displays already are. The actual panel is next to nothing in thickness (1-2mm perhaps?). Because there are a few layers of brightness-enhancing films and because the light bars are not that thin, the overall display is a sandwich that is somewhat thicker.


But the display itself is thicker than all the component parts by a factor of several times. And the reason is that the display case acts as protection for the display itself. You can pick up the TV and move it for example. You can set it up vertically. You can mount it on the wall and maneuver it into position. None of these things present an exceptional risk for breakage.


Of course, if you toss your Wii controller at the front of the TV -- unless it's a Gorilla Glass model or similar -- you usually destroy it instantly. Now, imagine that the whole TV is that fragile. That the act of lifting it for placement on the wall mount has, say a 5% chance of breaking it. Simply unacceptable.


It's certainly possible to design something that's 4mm thick that won't have that risk, but it's really not going to be easy. Double the depth and it gets a lot easier. You can put a substructure inside the case made of a rigid alloy that won't flex when the case is grasped, for example.


Again, I don't know what the final dimensions of these will be and what they can do at $8000 that will later be impossible at $2000. But I'm vary wary of the drive toward absolute thinness. It serves no purpose, but it will make the product a lot less durable. This is especially true as some of you believe the light weight will make moving these things around much more common (even though I continue to believe that's ridiculous, let's just agree that durability matters a lot more on TVs that do get moved around lot vs. ones that don't).


----------



## sstephen

I have no idea what the manufacturing process for oled displays is, but why would you require glass? If you are using the panel as a substrate, wouldn't plastic do better for oled? Both are carbon based.


----------



## Russell Burrows

Forgot what movie the scene was from??

Anywho:


Glass ese?

We dont need no stincking glass, ese.

We got plastic, flexible plastic, ese.


Anywho:

Plus plastic is a lot more flexible than glass.

And there are some small oled displays that are flexible.

Hopefully a few years from now we have larger oleds that can flex and rollup for transport inside a tube??


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen* /forum/post/21692828
> 
> 
> I have no idea what the manufacturing process for oled displays is, but why would you require glass? If you are using the panel as a substrate, wouldn't plastic do better for oled? Both are carbon based.



I can't really answer this because I'm not a materials expert, but 100% of current TVs are made on glass, not plastic. That's why you hear of "motherglass", not "motherplastic".


The LG method involves using color filters, which are typically at this point applied to the front glass substrate. The TFT backplanes are applied to the back glass substrates. I'm not sure any of these techniques are easily adaptable to plastic substrates.


While Samsung's OLED won't use color filters, it will still use a TFT backplane. I suspect part of the appeal of not using plastic has to do with uniformity of the material. The fact that it's an organic compound doesn't sound like a selling point for what it's worth.


----------



## Mastperf

Is there anything they can do about the splotches that appear on oled screens when displaying a black screen? I'm new to oled but I noticed it on my Vita and have read that it's normal with the tech.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ this is interesting: any link? Wondering if it is a filter issue or there's ABL involved.


@sstephen and rogo I don't think the plastic or glass has anything specific to do with the 3/5 layer OLED tech per se. I'm pretty sure they are working on plastic front and back but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know the drawback vs glass.


----------



## greenland

The weight of the LG 55 inch OLED that was displayed at CES has been reported as being just sixteen pounds. If that report is accurate; then I would find it hard to believe that they can be using sheets of glass, since they should weight much more than that. Of course the Corning folks have been making their Gorilla glass much thinner, stronger, and lighter, so perhaps LG might be using such glass panels in their OLED displays, but I doubt it.


----------



## alk3997




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mastperf* /forum/post/21700932
> 
> 
> Is there anything they can do about the splotches that appear on oled screens when displaying a black screen? I'm new to oled but I noticed it on my Vita and have read that it's normal with the tech.



Just like there are multiple LCD technologies (such as IPS and TN), there are differing OLED manufacturering technologies. The bigger OLED screens use a different technique than the cheaper Vita screens. I've not heard of any complaints about blotches on the big screens. Of course there aren't that many big OLED screens in the wild yet, so that answer might change...


It would be difficult to say that an OLED screen has a tremendous contrast ratio except for the blotches. I can't really see a manufacturer successfully trying that explanation.


----------



## Mastperf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21701563
> 
> 
> ^^ this is interesting: any link? Wondering if it is a filter issue or there's ABL involved.



I haven't found an explanation but I have heard it's a known issue on the oled phones as well. Just google Vita screen spots and you'll see quite a few people noticing them.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ Thanks

http://translate.google.nl/translate...nd-probleem%2F 


Interesting because the monitors don't seem to have this problem


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/21702148
> 
> 
> The weight of the LG 55 inch OLED that was displayed at CES has been reported as being just sixteen pounds. If that report is accurate; then I would find it hard to believe that they can be using sheets of glass, since they should weight much more than that. Of course the Corning folks have been making their Gorilla glass much thinner, stronger, and lighter, so perhaps LG might be using such glass panels in their OLED displays, but I doubt it.



Just because you can't conceive of thin sheets of glass that are not heavy doesn't mean there aren't thin sheets of glass that are not heavy.


----------



## CptBeaky

(can't delete from phone, press disregard)


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21702717
> 
> 
> Just because you can't conceive of thin sheets of glass that are not heavy doesn't mean there aren't thin sheets of glass that are not heavy.



Do you know of any that come in that size, that are that light and thin, and are not fragile? Telling me what I can or cannot conceive is just idle blather. Do you not understand the meaning of the word "perhaps", and the context in which I used it?


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21692827
> 
> 
> That's why I ultimately expect a slightly thicker, more elaborate design for the display.
> 
> 
> One thing people here are probably unaware of is how thin LCD displays already are. The actual panel is next to nothing in thickness (1-2mm perhaps?). Because there are a few layers of brightness-enhancing films and because the light bars are not that thin, the overall display is a sandwich that is somewhat thicker.
> 
> 
> But the display itself is thicker than all the component parts by a factor of several times. And the reason is that the display case acts as protection for the display itself. You can pick up the TV and move it for example. You can set it up vertically. You can mount it on the wall and maneuver it into position. None of these things present an exceptional risk for breakage.
> 
> 
> Of course, if you toss your Wii controller at the front of the TV -- unless it's a Gorilla Glass model or similar -- you usually destroy it instantly. Now, imagine that the whole TV is that fragile. That the act of lifting it for placement on the wall mount has, say a 5% chance of breaking it. Simply unacceptable.
> 
> 
> It's certainly possible to design something that's 4mm thick that won't have that risk, but it's really not going to be easy. Double the depth and it gets a lot easier. You can put a substructure inside the case made of a rigid alloy that won't flex when the case is grasped, for example.
> 
> 
> Again, I don't know what the final dimensions of these will be and what they can do at $8000 that will later be impossible at $2000. But I'm vary wary of the drive toward absolute thinness. It serves no purpose, but it will make the product a lot less durable. This is especially true as some of you believe the light weight will make moving these things around much more common (even though I continue to believe that's ridiculous, let's just agree that durability matters a lot more on TVs that do get moved around lot vs. ones that don't).



My general bend is to agree with you. My guess is that they will reach an optimum thin-ness that will satisfy the buying public but also provide the structural rigidity required to keep the thing from breaking. I'm guessing that a few breaks and ruined sets will have to take place to get there though. Thin-ness for its own sake will loose its appeal when that happens.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/21703054
> 
> 
> Do you know of any that come in that size, that are that light and thin, and are not fragile? Telling me what I can or cannot conceive is just idle blather. Do you not understand the meaning of the word "perhaps", and the context in which I used it?



I wouldn't be concerned about the glass.


----------



## MikeBiker

I noticed that the flexible glass being demonstrated at the start of the Corning video was not totally clear. It appeared to be foggy.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/21704353
> 
> 
> I noticed that the flexible glass being demonstrated at the start of the Corning video was not totally clear. It appeared to be foggy.



Looked like it was wrapped in plastic in case it broke during the demonstrationit's not indestructible. (they do the same thing here ) The next shot shows that it's clear.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/21703054
> 
> 
> Do you know of any that come in that size, that are that light and thin, and are not fragile? Telling me what I can or cannot conceive is just idle blather. Do you not understand the meaning of the word "perhaps", and the context in which I used it?



The glass sheets they use to make LCD TVs at Sharp's 10G fab are 2.88 x 3.13 _meters_ in size. The panels wind up ridiculously thin. The glass is not shaved at any point in the process.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21704962
> 
> 
> The glass sheets they use to make LCD TVs at Sharp's 10G fab are 2.88 x 3.13 _meters_ in size. The panels wind up ridiculously thin. The glass is not shaved at any point in the process.



Yes, unlike semiconductor where wafers are background to thin the substrate to make their heat dissipation better before they are cut to individual die, TFT glass is not. And yes to answer a question here that almost 3 meter square piece of glass is .7 mm thick (the glass that the TFT is on).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21704962
> 
> 
> The LG method involves using color filters, which are typically at this point applied to the front glass substrate. The _TFT backplanes_ are applied to the back glass substrates. I'm not sure any of these techniques are easily adaptable to plastic substrates.
> 
> 
> While Samsung's OLED won't use color filters, it will still use a _TFT backplane._ I suspect part of the appeal of not using plastic has to do with uniformity of the material. The fact that it's an organic compound doesn't sound like a selling point for what it's worth.



More than a few of the steps involved in making a TFT involve heat that is used for cure or set steps (resist bakes are roughly 100 Centigrade, post exposure is 110), making the use of most plastics null. Add on top of that plasma depositions and CVD where substrates are exposed to vacuum where out gassing from the plastic would be a concern and there are lots of reasons why TVs are made on glass still.


----------



## Elvis Is Alive

I have no real insight into OLED tech, as I am an optician by trade. But, for eyeglass lenses, glass has the best optical clarity of any material. Much better than any polycarbonate, trivex, or high index plastic materials. I assume it would generally translate into display screens as well. Glass lenses have the same drawbacks as their display counterparts (weight, reflectivity) and the additional drawback of added thickness.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/21705228
> 
> 
> Yes, unlike semiconductor where wafers are background to thin the substrate to make their heat dissipation better before they are cut to individual die, TFT glass is not. And yes to answer a question here that almost 3 meter square piece of glass is .7 mm thick (the glass that the TFT is on).
> 
> 
> More than a few of the steps involved in making a TFT involve heat that is used for cure or set steps (resist bakes are roughly 100 Centigrade, post exposure is 110), making the use of most plastics null. Add on top of that plasma depositions and CVD where substrates are exposed to vacuum where out gassing from the plastic would be a concern and there are lots of reasons why TVs are made on glass still.



As always, TNG, your expertise in semiconductor/display manufacturing is appreciated.


It's worth noting that while the OLED is using a TFT backplane that will be manufactured almost identically to the one on an LCD, the LG method will involve some sort of vacuum deposition of the OLED material as well.


This should further confirm the need for glass substrates all around at this point.


----------



## HDPeeT

So I've been keeping my eye on mobile devices with OLEDs and it seems like everyone has great things to say about the displays but they aren't with problems. One thing that stands out to me is when people view dark images and totally black screens in a dark environment they say that the screen is still putting out some amount of light. Now that shouldn't happen with OLEDs since the pixels _should_ be able to turn themselves off, right? Also, it seems that more and more people are seeing these black spots/splotches/mura on there mobile screens in recent months, the PS Vita being the latest example.


Here are some photos I've grabbed off some other forums as examples:


Droid RAZR










PS Vita









Keep in mind that these images are very over-exposed.


My first thought when I read about these phenonema was that they were related to the touch screen.


I'm going to assum that almost all of these devices use Samsung's Super AMOLED displays (the _super_ in Super AMOLED denotes an integrated touchscreen).


My question is, what effect does integrating a _capacative_ touchscreen into the OLED screen itself (rather than being overlaid) have on it's ability to produce an absolute black level?


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21706007
> 
> 
> PS Vita
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that these images are very over-exposed.



Hmm... I've noticed that depending upon the software that the screen doesn't go completely black, but others it does. I'll have to copy over a black (0,0,0 and 1,1,1) image and take a picture in a blacked out room to see if I can replicate this or not!


----------



## specuvestor

Good point HDPeeT that explains why the monitors do not have this issue







BTW we discussed this a day ago.


Super AMOLED uses on-cell touch below the cover glass. I was suspecting it was a filter issue because it looks like a uniformity problem. Funny is I don't see people having the same complaint about LCD touchscreen? Maybe it's not so observable on LCD?


Industry is moving to in-cell touch for LCD but not sure if it is easily applicable for OLED, since it is already difficult for LCD. This should resolve uniformity issue.


----------



## HDPeeT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21706329
> 
> 
> Good point HDPeeT that explains why the monitors do not have this issue.



That was my line of thinking, but with so few monitors out there and the fact that they are (most likely) cherry picked panels manufactured using techniques that differ greatly from the mass production lines that LG and Samsung are going to be using, I don't think we can draw any conclusions.


----------



## MK24ever

Hey, that's my Vita right there 


That OLED screen problem SUCKS, there's no other way to put it, while I agree with the advantages of it (less power consuption, better contrast and viweing angles among other) watching those spots/lines while you are watching a dark scene is inexcusable, I'd prefer less contrast but no lines, spots, traces, etc all over my picture!

And other thing, my cheap Galaxy Gio phone is more bright on daylight then the OLED display, I always thought OLED would allow better "outdoor" image.


Here's two more images.


----------



## rgb32

As mentioned over on the specific thread, the uniformity of the OLED panel in my Vita is much better...


----------



## greenland

"SAMSUNG: JAPAN & CHINA CAN COMPETE IN OLEDS"

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1330688969 


"Cho Soo-in, CEO of Samsung Mobile Display that controls Samsung's OLED development and production, does not feel comfortable about Samsung's competitive position in the OLED segment. Despite the fact that South Korean Samsung and LG have 55-inch OLED-TVs coming later in 2012, he believes that the Japanese and Chinese display makers pose a significant threat. It is an interesting reflection since none of the Japanese display makers - Sony, Panasonic, Sharp and Toshiba - have unveiled any OLED-TV products.


Cho Soo-in says that the Japanese display makers have a competitive advantage in OLED material (used to create OLED pixels) and collaborations. He also says that the Chinese display manufacturers are becoming stronger, expanding rapidly, and has received support from the Chinese government.


He expects to see the first OLED panels to roll out of China in 2013, and he expects them to join the OLED race full-heartedly. Today, the Chinese display manufacturers are still considered small but Cho Soo-in believes that the balance of power may shift during the transition from LCD to OLED production."


----------



## SiGGy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MK24ever* /forum/post/21718040
> 
> 
> Hey, that's my Vita right there
> 
> 
> That OLED screen problem SUCKS, there's no other way to put it, while I agree with the advantages of it (less power consuption, better contrast and viweing angles among other) watching those spots/lines while you are watching a dark scene is inexcusable, I'd prefer less contrast but no lines, spots, traces, etc all over my picture!
> 
> And other thing, my cheap Galaxy Gio phone is more bright on daylight then the OLED display, I always thought OLED would allow better "outdoor" image.
> 
> 
> Here's two more images.



I've read the issue dissipates once the screen has warmed up which takes about 45m or so. Can you confirm? Do you have any shots of the same sample black screen after playing a game for say an hour non-stop?


Another report said they start to diminish with time (many hours) as well. Be interesting to see some long term reports. Probably can only do this with the phones since they've been out the longer.


----------



## MK24ever




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy* /forum/post/21724561
> 
> 
> I've read the issue dissipates once the screen has warmed up which takes about 45m or so. Can you confirm? Do you have any shots of the same sample black screen after playing a game for say an hour non-stop?
> 
> 
> Another report said they start to diminish with time (many hours) as well. Be interesting to see some long term reports. Probably can only do this with the phones since they've been out the longer.



No, the problem remains no matter how long you play a game, I did already 3h non-stop of Uncharted and the problem looked exactly the same as when I started playing.


I assumed the problem would diminish with time to, since we could assume the product used to bond the screen to the front of the vita would "dry" with time leading to a uniform aspect, but I read somewhere the problem won't go away by itself, only time will tell I assume.


What makes no sense to me is that, as far as I know, the OLED technology is all about per-pixel brightness, what I mean is that since the light source is the pixel itself and not a backlight source, if the pixel is OFF or presenting 0/0/0/0 color (pure black) it should produce no light at all, so why is that pattern still so visible?


As I said on tweeter just minutes ago " It's a HUGE "no problem" I don't need (MUST!) to solve!"


It drives me nuts while I'm playing a game with dark scenes, to see those "darker" spots noticeable, this shouldn't happen, and what's more frustrating is that replacing the VITA won't solve the problem (might very well end with a even more spotty VITA) and GAME won't even accept it, saying it's "normal".


I want to point to everyone that this "problem" isn't as serious as I may "picture it", since it's ONLY noticeable if you play on a almost completely dark room and on scenes where black and dark grey image is presented, otherwise the screen is fantastic, still if you have a little bit of OCD this issue will drive you mad, I feel this is somehow even worse than a dead pixel, since it's less obvious, making the process of looking for it even more obsessive and stressful.


----------



## Wizziwig

That looks almost like stains from some kind of adhesive. I wonder if they glued some protective sheet of plastic to the front that's causing the spots. Or maybe the OLED panel itself is glued to the inside of the case itself. I think I remember seeing that in one of the blogs where they disassembled the entire Vita system.


----------



## MK24ever




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig* /forum/post/21727124
> 
> 
> That looks almost like stains from some kind of adhesive. I wonder if they glued some protective sheet of plastic to the front that's causing the spots. Or maybe the OLED panel itself is glued to the inside of the case itself. I think I remember seeing that in one of the blogs where they disassembled the entire Vita system.



"the OLED panel itself is glued to the inside of the case itself" this!


Altough I saw one of those "smash" videos on youtube and the screen didn't seemed to be very fixed/glued to the case. (front glass).


----------



## greenland

SAMSUNG CONFIRMS PLAN FOR FLEXIBLE OLEDS IN 2012

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1330950943 


"Flexible displays are obviously only the first step before we can create truly bendable electronics because it also requires other flexible components but the OLED technology can put us one step closer. Because OLED can be deposited on other substrates than glass - for example plastic - it can become flexible.


Cho Soo-in, responsible for Samsung's mobile and OLED division, now confirms to Korean newspaper AsiaE that Samsung will produce and commercialize flexible OLED displays later in 2012. The first step is to produce small flexible OLED displays for handheld devices and larger flexible OLED displays later on."


----------



## rgb32

 http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1330948323 



> Quote:
> In 2013, Sony will also launch their first OLED-TV, Negishi confirms.
> 
> 
> - _“2013 will be the year when we will really fight back with new technologies,"_ says Noriaki Negishi to Reghardware.


----------



## specuvestor

Maybe it's a typo as their new tech should be CLED ie Crystal LED?


----------



## Tracydick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21736758
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1330948323



CLed or just LED TV uses a lot more power and I think has some problems with color reproduction in the same way Samsungs RGB Oled has the super big Blue sub pixel distorts the color.



For production and something were going to see in a TV I still think LGs Woled or White Oled TV. Is probably the best were going to get for a long time to stores in TV sizes.


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> CLed or just LED TV uses a lot more power and I think has some problems with color reproduction in the same way Samsungs RGB Oled has the super big Blue sub pixel distorts the color.



Currently inorganic LEDs have a higher efficiency than organic LEDs (well, blue at least) and according to the crystal led thread, the demoed display uses 70W, so where did you hear that it uses "a lot more power"?

Why do you think a larger blue sub pixel will distort the color? Any manufacturer will just drive the blue subpixel at a lower current so I see no reason for it to "distort the color". I don't remember people who saw the Samsung display reporting an excessively blue image. Even if it was, proper calibration should be able to fix it. I see no reason to believe this is some inherent problem with Samsung's implementaion.


----------



## gimp

 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...onic-tech.html


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gimp* /forum/post/21742794
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...onic-tech.html



People who know nothing about technology need to stop reporting on it:


"The South Korean companies are developing organic light- emitting diode, or OLED, televisions that are as thin as 4 millimeters (0.16 inches) and produce images 200 times sharper than current liquid-crystal-display models"


I'm not sure what the 200x is even supposed to be a reference to. But what is clearly does not refer to is "sharpness". The OLEDs will have the same resolution, in the case of LG almost identical (perhaps actually worse thanks to the use of the white) pixel aperture ratio, and the same pixel pitch. Contrastier? Yes, and maybe 200x on useless on/off measurements. On ANSI? Not even relevant since the Samsung/LG models they will compete against are within screaming distance of human visual limits and the OLEDs will far exceed them.


200x sharper? Please.


'Using organically glowing materials, OLED TVs don't require separate backlights and can be half the thickness of Apple (AAPL)'s iPad 2, which measures 8.8 millimeters. "


So this is true, but we've discussed why it's stupid to build a TV this thin. Samsung, in the same article, in fact refused to tell Bloomberg how thick their TV will actually be. Anyway, why did this annoy me? Oh, because the thickness of the iPad is mostly the battery, not the screen. So while it's an interesting comparison point, it's _not actually a relevant technological reference_. I have a Macbook Air whose screen is clearly thinner than my iPad -- by quite a bit. It's encased in an aluminum shell. My guess is no TV sold will be thinner than that screen.... So why even mention this? How about comparing the thickness to a credit card instead of creating a fake comparison?


Anyway, it's further proof OLED is coming. For that we should be grateful, I suppose.


----------



## lymzy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gimp* /forum/post/21742794
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...onic-tech.html



Quote


"Samsung has to resolve “some technical issues” before starting mass output of OLED TVs, Kim Hyun Suk, head of the company’s TV operations, said in an interview in Las Vegas."


“LG expects to start selling “more competitively priced” models earlier than rivals, Roh Seong Ho, senior vice president at LG’s Home Entertainment Company, said in an e-mail. Initial investment costs and low output rates pose the biggest obstacles, Roh said.”



No Samsung OLED in retail this year or maybe next year due to unsolved technical issues. LG is saying low output rates being the biggest obstacles. So OLED is not ready for production and nowhere near mass production.


----------



## lymzy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21743000
> 
> 
> Anyway, it's further proof OLED is coming. For that we should be grateful, I suppose.




Korean betting on it doesn't mean OLED will become a mass product.

It is still highly likely OLED will follow the step of SED. Bad money usually drives out good.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lymzy* /forum/post/21743151
> 
> 
> Korean betting on it doesn't mean OLED will become a mass product.
> 
> It is still highly likely OLED will follow the step of SED. Bad money usually drives out good.



Have you been following this thread? The Doubt ship has long since sailed. It's now only a matter of when. SED never got this far.


----------



## rogo

Lymzy, we've been sketpical here for two months that Samsung would deliver this year. Color us "still skeptical." Also, the rational among us have figured LG's 2012 shipments would be in tiny quantities; we still believe that.


But I do believe LG will ramp in 2013 and beyond and that Samsung will begin production in 2013. I also tend to believe Panasonic is targeting 2014-5 at this point.


By mid-decade, it seems likely the Chinese are going to (a) have their own reasonably advanced LCD production (b) have brands ready to move up to tier 2. Combine this with the end of the amortization of most 8G fabs in Japan and Korea and it should be apparent that the current LCD power structure wants out of LCD for TV. Yes, it will take many, many years to achieve. No, it's not 100% guaranteed. But it's closer than it has been... by far.


----------



## greenland

OLED MAKE CRAZY FUTURISTIC CONCEPTS POSSIBLE

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1331300544 


Some fascinating concepts, making it a fun read. Take a look, and as always Ladies and Gentlemen, this is for entertainment purposes only, so no wagering please.


----------



## JimP

greenland,


Cool application on the cars. Imagine what emergency patterns could be programmed.


----------



## irkuck

According to the information from the LG road show , their OLED premiere in Europe starts on May 23rd.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21790023
> 
> 
> According to the information from the LG road show , their OLED premiere in Europe starts on May 23rd.



I wonder what that means...


----------



## David_B

SED failed because of patent problems.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lymzy* /forum/post/21743151
> 
> 
> Korean betting on it doesn't mean OLED will become a mass product.
> 
> It is still highly likely OLED will follow the step of SED. Bad money usually drives out good.


----------



## HDPeeT

 http://whylgtv.lge.com/archives/4399 



> Quote:
> With our technology, screen sizes from 47-inches to 80-inches are currently possible, and we're just getting started.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MK24ever* /forum/post/21724668
> 
> 
> What makes no sense to me is that, as far as I know, the OLED technology is all about per-pixel brightness, what I mean is that since the light source is the pixel itself and not a backlight source, if the pixel is OFF or presenting 0/0/0/0 color (pure black) it should produce no light at all, so why is that pattern still so visible?



Pixels are mostly off BUT you need to remember that the TF transistors that drive the display aren't perfect. There is always a small amount of leakage of power through the transistors. Any leakage will cause faint glow. Since they are coated on to the glass any variance in the glass, coating etc will be enough to cause a pattern. After you get past a certain voltage the transistors get past a threshold and even out. This is why when you get passed a certain brightness level the spots dissappear.


Every OLED device I have owned or seen has this glow effect (as far back as the Zune HD). The best ones I have seen don't have the darker blotches but still glow faintly. Those that glow even and without blotches are rare and vary from unit to unit even of the same type.


That said look at an LCD screen in a dark room. It has tons of light bleed that is MUCH brighter than that OLED glow. The blotches? Well manufacturing practices will need to improve, and they aren't there yet.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tracydick* /forum/post/21670643
> 
> 
> Me too. I am not super set on that larger blue subpixel Sammy will have to use seems like it will make a blue shift in the colors.



Well no. If the blue pixel is bigger they can just tune the display to deliver less voltage to it compared to other pixels. They can balance the blue with the other subpixels with an algorythm. This means that they can drive the blue easier and it will last longer. That will help with blue burn-in and color shift over time.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21686429
> 
> 
> If people want to see what OLED is all about and get a preview for OLED TV, go and drop $249 on a Playstation Vita. It uses a Samsung OLED panel (RGB triplets) and is slightly higher resolution than Sony's XEL-1, but in a 5" size instead of 11", and is simply gorgeous! PS Vita Get!



Or get the largest available to consumer OLED screen in the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 (although beware it also has the black blotches like Vita and phones etc). At almost 8" you could almost watch movies on this thing (but yes it is more than double the price for wifi version import). It is a 1.4 GHz dual core CPU with 1 GB RAM. It is higher resolution than the Vita (1280 x 800 so you can do 720 P), can use standard Micro SD cards up to 64 GB as well. The thing I don't like about the Vita are the EXPENSIVE proprietary memory cards. I mean $100.00 for 32 GB? What a ripoff. I can get a 32 GB standard micro SD for $30.00.


I have compared this tab to the Vita and the screen seems to go brighter on the Tab. I think they limited the brightness on the Vita a bit.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT* /forum/post/21791584
> 
> http://whylgtv.lge.com/archives/4399



It's a cool piece, a bit more hype-y than necessary. But I like them putting it out there that they're doing this. Further signaling they believe the time is ripe.


Sounds like my 80" display should be ready around 2015-16 or so.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> *Or get the largest available to consumer OLED screen* in the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 (although beware it also has the black blotches like Vita and phones etc)


 http://www.lg.com/uk/tv-audio-video/...v-15EL9500.jsp


----------



## slacker711

I cant vouch for the source, but somebody from CEC (should be SEC?) gives some details on Samsung's OLED launch.

http://consumerelectronicsdaily.com/...-OLED-TVs.aspx

Quote: Samsung to Have Full Production of 55-Inch OLED TV
By Mark Seavy

Samsung will be in full production of its 55-inch OLED TV when shipments begin in the second half targeting national, regional and specialty CE retailers, Matthew Angeleri, CEC manager for content and product solutions, told us.


He later says that the set will be consistent with the price of the company's other high-end products. You need to register to read the full article but you can use a fake email address (no verification of the address). There are also a ton of details on various LCD launches which seem to lend the entire article credibility.

I was pretty bullish on OLED's in televisions but the hype coming out of LG and Samsung is getting crazy.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/21805778
> 
> 
> Or get the largest available to consumer OLED screen in the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 (although beware it also has the black blotches like Vita and phones etc). At almost 8" you could almost watch movies on this thing (but yes it is more than double the price for wifi version import). It is a 1.4 GHz dual core CPU with 1 GB RAM. It is higher resolution than the Vita (1280 x 800 so you can do 720 P), can use standard Micro SD cards up to 64 GB as well. The thing I don't like about the Vita are the EXPENSIVE proprietary memory cards. I mean $100.00 for 32 GB? What a ripoff. I can get a 32 GB standard micro SD for $30.00.
> 
> 
> I have compared this tab to the Vita and the screen seems to go brighter on the Tab. I think they limited the brightness on the Vita a bit.



The Tab would work too!







However, it doesn't play PS Vita games...










Yeah, the screen rez of the Vita is quarter 1080p, and not 720p, but that's fine considering it's built as a gaming system... Look at the iPad 3... it's screen has too many pixels to fill... iPad 4 please!










OT: Yes, the proprietary memory cards for gaming systems have never been a "value" compared to general flash storage... so a direct comparison is misleading. The pack in 8GB with the 3G model is a good value though. I recently purchased a 32GB Class 10 SD card for $28, so I'm well aware of the absurd price structure... Sony has to make money some how, right?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21807389
> 
> 
> I cant vouch for the source, but somebody named Matthew Angeleri from CEC (should be SEC?) gives some details on Samsung's OLED launch.
> 
> http://consumerelectronicsdaily.com/...-OLED-TVs.aspx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He later says that the set will be consistent with the price of the company's other high-end products. You need to register to read the full article but you can use a fake email address (no verification of the address). There are also a ton of details on various LCD launches which seem to lend the entire article credibility.
> 
> 
> I was pretty bullish on OLED's in televisions but the hype coming out of LG and Samsung is getting crazy.



Agreed on the hype. It does seem to be a game of daily press-chatter one upmanship.


By the way, my guess is CEC = consumer electronics channel.


----------



## David_B












Here's the production lines coming online from Samsung, timeline and all.


V1 V2 are OLED TV displays.


A3 are flex OLED for mobile units.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21807389
> 
> 
> I cant vouch for the source, but somebody named Matthew Angeleri from CEC (should be SEC?) gives some details on Samsung's OLED launch.
> 
> http://consumerelectronicsdaily.com/...-OLED-TVs.aspx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He later says that the set will be consistent with the price of the company's other high-end products. You need to register to read the full article but you can use a fake email address (no verification of the address). There are also a ton of details on various LCD launches which seem to lend the entire article credibility.
> 
> 
> I was pretty bullish on OLED's in televisions but the hype coming out of LG and Samsung is getting crazy.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21808222
> 
> 
> The Tab would work too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, it doesn't play PS Vita games...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the screen rez of the Vita is quarter 1080p, and not 720p, but that's fine considering it's built as a gaming system... Look at the iPad 3... it's screen has too many pixels to fill... iPad 4 please!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OT: Yes, the proprietary memory cards for gaming systems have never been a "value" compared to general flash storage... so a direct comparison is misleading. The pack in 8GB with the 3G model is a good value though. I recently purchased a 32GB Class 10 SD card for $28, so I'm well aware of the absurd price structure... Sony has to make money some how, right?



Well not playing Vita games is a bonus! The ones I have played are crap so far







Well Ok maybe a bit harsh and kind of joking but I own one and I am waiting for the better stuff. I wasn't too impressed with the launch stuff. I have a 3DS too and the launch games for that weren't all that great either. I have that Uncharted game. Nice graphics demo other than that it is gimmicky and kind of meh. I am sure better stuff will come. I like FPS's so that Resistance will be nice when it is out.


I wish they would have avoided the proprietary part altogether. At least the 3DS can use standard SD cards. Making money is OK but Vita memory is extortion (since you MUST buy a card to save a game)! I didn't buy the 3G version as I have no intention to pay another cell bill.


Movies do look great on the Tab 7.7 though too. I ripped my 2001 Blu-ray and encoded it at 1280 wide and that looks pretty stunning on the OLED with all of the high contrast space scenes. I imagine even the ipad 3 "retina" screen won't match the contrast and black levels.


----------



## tcpipkim

Launch at Cannes in May



LG Electronics, May come, make an appearance in the market of TV (organic light-emitting diode) 55 inch OLED for the first time in the whole world. That price is 9,000,000 won. The first stage to meet with LG OLED TV market, the French Film Festival will be held Kang Ida. LG Electronics, a strategy that seize the initiative in the OLED TV market with the launch of the product a step ahead from competitors. LG is planning to do that OLED TV promotion all over the world, starting between.


LG Electronics has decided to release the second half of the period originally OLED TV. However, in order to (May 12 to 8 July 27) London Olympics to enjoy the effects of acquisition leading market special, based on management's judgment that must be sold earlier than its competitors, release date he was ahead of schedule in May. Samsung Electronics has announced it will release a 55-inch OLED TV before the Olympics in London.


LG Group chairman Koo BonMu this, and show affection for the OLED TV. May be ordered Koo "increase the speed of research and development. I want you to accelerate further the timing of the release in order to lead the market OLED TV, I want you to accelerate the commercialization time" recently, and. Representation that it will keep pace with competitors only OLED.


Out that the speed of production, also LG OLED display panel to provide electronic LG. Paju LG Display plant employees are preparing to build products in Chon'umuuru frugal.


According to the search display market research organization, is OLED TV market is expected to grow by 3.68 million units in 2015 from 570,000 in 2013, 11,930,000 units in 2017.


--translated from google.


----------



## David_B

9,000,000 South Korean won = 7928.1180 US dollars


Is this a press release from LG?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcpipkim* /forum/post/21816201
> 
> 
> Launch at Cannes in May
> 
> 
> LG Electronics, May come, make an appearance in the market of TV (organic light-emitting diode) 55 inch OLED for the first time in the whole world. That price is 9,000,000 won. The first stage to meet with LG OLED TV market, the French Film Festival will be held Kang Ida. LG Electronics, a strategy that seize the initiative in the OLED TV market with the launch of the product a step ahead from competitors. LG is planning to do that OLED TV promotion all over the world, starting between.
> 
> 
> LG Electronics has decided to release the second half of the period originally OLED TV. However, in order to (May 12 to 8 July 27) London Olympics to enjoy the effects of acquisition leading market special, based on management's judgment that must be sold earlier than its competitors, release date he was ahead of schedule in May. Samsung Electronics has announced it will release a 55-inch OLED TV before the Olympics in London.
> 
> 
> LG Group chairman Koo BonMu this, and show affection for the OLED TV. May be ordered Koo "increase the speed of research and development. I want you to accelerate further the timing of the release in order to lead the market OLED TV, I want you to accelerate the commercialization time" recently, and. Representation that it will keep pace with competitors only OLED.
> 
> 
> Out that the speed of production, also LG OLED display panel to provide electronic LG. Paju LG Display plant employees are preparing to build products in Chon'umuuru frugal.
> 
> 
> According to the search display market research organization, is OLED TV market is expected to grow by 3.68 million units in 2015 from 570,000 in 2013, 11,930,000 units in 2017.
> 
> 
> --translated from google.


----------



## slacker711

Here is an article in English talking about LG possibly launching at Cannes (starting May 16th).

http://people.incruit.com/news/newsv...&newsno=974001 


This is definitely not official. There will be widespread coverage when LG puts out an official date and price for the launch. My WAG is that LG had some sort of event where officials may have talked off the record.


----------



## 8mile13












LG introduced the world's biggest OLED 3D TV at a *launch event for new products* in Beijing on tuesday. The 55 inch TV produces vivid and bright images on its organic light emitting diode display
http://1platinumconcierge.blogspot.c...d-tv-with.html


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21816569
> 
> 
> Here is an article in English talking about LG possibly launching at Cannes (starting May 16th).
> 
> http://people.incruit.com/news/newsv...&newsno=974001
> 
> 
> This is definitely not official. There will be widespread coverage when LG puts out an official date and price for the launch. My WAG is that LG had some sort of event where officials may have talked off the record.



Perhaps, and yet more credence is certainly being lent to the notion of an $8000 price.


----------



## coolscan

The LG OLED 55" TV will have model number LG EM9600 in the US, and model number LG 55EM960V in Europe.


[The 84" 4K LCD/NanoLED TV will have model number/name LG 84LM9600 Cinema 3DTV in the US, LG 84LM960V in EU.]


----------



## gary cornell

New best tv coming out next?


----------



## gmarceau

I don't believe prices in asia or europe have ever been in line with US prices- if anything, they've traditionally been higher. Makes me think $5-6,000????


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau* /forum/post/21818943
> 
> 
> I don't believe prices in asia or europe have ever been in line with US prices- if anything, they've traditionally been higher. Makes me think $5-6,000????



Hey, let's hope so. I don't believe if the London Olympics launch even happens that the TV will be here until later in the year, so it's possible.


----------



## vinnie97

Too exciting...not only a price but a model #. Someone who bet against its launch may be eating crow soon enough.


----------



## MaXPL

 http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/27/29...e-release-date 


It's happening.


----------



## wco81

Hmm $8k. So someone buy to subsidize the R&D for the rest of us so that they can bring prices down.


----------



## gary cornell

Good news, now let's see if it jumpstarts more product from other manufacturers.


----------



## cbaseuser

OLED is very intriguing, but is there still an issue with one of the primary colors not having the same half life as the others (blue if I can recall), leading to uneven white balance with age? Maybe this has been addressed, I just don't remember reading anything more about it recently.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbaseuser* /forum/post/21833786
> 
> 
> OLED is very intriguing, but is there still an issue with one of the primary colors not having the same half life as the others (blue if I can recall), leading to uneven white balance with age? Maybe this has been addressed, I just don't remember reading anything more about it recently.



This year, 2012, Panasonic increased the size of the blue pixel in their plasmas. Bet they had the same problem and found this workaround.


----------



## Jonny5nz

I noticed this small article in my local paper:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ectid=10794414 


I reckon it's to do with LG's OLED. I can't wait to see it in person.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MaXPL* /forum/post/21833359
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/27/29...e-release-date
> 
> 
> It's happening.



That's one outlet re-reporting the news reported by the other outlet above more or less. In other words, that's a re-post of a post made on this very page!


Whether you, me or anyone else is buying one soon after this press event remains to be seen.


The Verge describes the motivation as "beating Samsung" and capturing some "pre-Olympic buying craze". Samsung is nowhere close to shipping a product in any kind of meaningful volumes (although if they want to beat them period, sooner is obviously required) and I dispute the notion that the world goes on any sort of pre-Olympic TV-buying bender.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP* /forum/post/21834386
> 
> 
> This year, 2012, Panasonic increased the size of the blue pixel in their plasmas. Bet they had the same problem and found this workaround.



I wonder why they don't do this with OLED?


More surface area for the blue means they can drive it lower to get the same brightness and therefore extend lifetime.


----------



## unknownuser200

 http://www.techspot.com/news/47965-l...-for-7928.html 


not sure if this was posted


----------



## rogo

Apparently, Sony is rumored to be working on OLED collaboration with AUO. Now, of course, whatever they are doing is way behind Samsung and LG (and might be behind Panasonic). But at least it shows they are aware they need to do something, so I'd actually consider this a good thing.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ That seems to be my guess as well as per this post last nov:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post21188093 


There should be something out from AUO next 6 months.


BTW Sony just did a restructuring of their division:

http://www.slashgear.com/hirai-detai...lans-27220160/ 


Let's see if they can "remember" how to see "the-next-big-thing"


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Apparently, Sony is rumored to be working on OLED collaboration with AUO. Now, of course, whatever they are doing is way behind Samsung and LG (and might be behind Panasonic). But at least it shows they are aware they need to do something, so I'd actually consider this a good thing.



and that is not the only Sony rumor:

hx955 (4K?) 55&65 inch - available september 2012

CLED - available march 2013


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/21837774
> 
> 
> and that is not the only Sony rumor:
> 
> hx955 (4K?) 55&65 inch - available september 2012
> *CLED - available march 2013*



Perhaps if there is a 55" ~ 65" CLED available next year I will have something to replace my XBR8 with!














I would replace my U2311H with a PVM-2541, but price is prohibitive...


----------



## wco81

Was Sharp doing anything with OLED development? They sold a part of their company to Hon Hai.


Weren't the Japanese companies going to be in some govt.-sponsored consortium for advanced displays development of some kind?


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Perhaps if there is a 55" ~ 65" CLED available next year I will have something to replace my XBR8 with!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would replace my U2311H with a PVM-2541, but price is prohibitive...



i'll wait till CLEDs hit the market, then i probably will start quoting










''..why is sony even looking into that?''


''I am skeptical on CLED''


''There is just no way that they are economical''



''CLED has zero chances even for commercialization not even speaking about profits''


----------



## gary cornell

Prices will come down, it's the early adopters that pay the most.


----------



## MaXPL

i cant wait til we get true CLED vs. OLED comparisons. less than a year to go i guess...


i'd like it if Pioneer joined the tv game again as well.


----------



## rogo

Sony has yet to announce anything on either front. As concerns the OLED, the collaboration possibilities are certainly interesting/probable. As concerns the CLED stuff, we really will hear _something_ about commercialization well ahead of it happening. Feel free to speculate, of course (it's AVS), but absent some kind of announcement, they still have no way to build it and there are legitimate questions about the economics. I'd love to see it, of course, as evidenced by my many posts on it after CES. But let's wait until we hear them commit some yen to the project.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> i'll wait till CLEDs hit the market, then i probably will start quoting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''..why is sony even looking into that?''
> 
> 
> ''I am skeptical on CLED''
> 
> 
> ''There is just no way that they are economical''
> 
> 
> ''CLED has zero chances even for commercialization not even speaking about profits''



How about Sony doesn't have a strong LED manufacturing or R&D capability?


We talked about this on the CLED thread. I would think LED capability would be a key prerequisite of mass producing CLED. We'll soon know if this will be Sony's next-big-thing


There's reasons for skepticism if you understand the industry. But I do agree that sometimes forum opinions are casual and uninformative.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Was Sharp doing anything with OLED development? They sold a part of their company to Hon Hai.
> 
> 
> Weren't the Japanese companies going to be in some govt.-sponsored consortium for advanced displays development of some kind?



I think Sharp is the only Japanese company openly critical and unsupportive of OLED, and they were right 6 years ago.


----------



## wco81

BTW, today rumors of Orbis, the successor to the PS3, which would, among other things, support 4k displays -- not necessarily render in 4k, maybe just output it in 4k.


One of their Blu-Ray players supposedly upscales to 4k? Maybe that is Sony's answer to other companies pushing for OLED, to push for 4K on existing display tech.


----------



## MaXPL

4K CLED...


25 million pixels!


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MaXPL* /forum/post/21839186
> 
> 
> i cant wait til we get true CLED vs. OLED comparisons. less than a year to go i guess...
> 
> 
> i'd like it if Pioneer joined the tv game again as well.



There is no comparison, CLED would be superior in every way. The thing is OLEDs are available now (in limited devices) CLED was a nice FUD tech demo to give everyone the "wait for Sony" mentality. Unfortunately the "wait" part will likely end up being many years. A TV made up of millions of tiny LEDs? Cool, but only guys like Mitt Romney or Warren Buffet who make over $53,000 a day could afford one.


Unless Sony has some magic production method going I am not holding my breath for CLED.


----------



## MaXPL

is anyone here intelligent enough to have thought of CLED or OLED conceptually/fundamentally? probably not since we're not scientists or engineers working for these world class companies; and yet they have...


i'll give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to mass producing something when theyve already gotten to the point of developing a prototype.


----------



## specuvestor

The idea of CLED is AT LEAST as old as since LED LCD TV. No more LCD pane, color filters and polarisers. Great cost savings.


Problem was high quality LED with wide gamut was too expensive or not available 5 years ago. And did I mention heat?










It's not a new idea.


Back to regular programming... more talks on Sony/ AUO OLED... timeline of last year or more specifically 4Q11 is inline with my previous post:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/28/29...ship-auo-rumor


----------



## coolscan

LG press release on E-Paper, flexible OLED:













> Quote:
> *LG Display Begins Mass Production of World's First Plastic E-Paper Display*
> 
> 
> With advancements in functionality and design, Plastic EPD to revolutionize E-Book market
> 
> 
> Seoul, Korea (March 29, 2012) – LG Display [NYSE: LPL, KRX: 034220], a leading manufacturer of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display, announced today that it has started mass production of the world's first plastic electronic paper display (EPD) for use in E-Books. The 6" XGA (1024x768), e-ink, plastic EPD is expected to revolutionize the E-Book market with its advancements in functionality and design.
> 
> 
> "With the world's first plastic EPD, LG Display has once again proven its reputation for leadership and innovation with a product we believe will help greatly popularize the E-Book market," said Mr. Sang Duck Yeo, Head of Operations for LG Display's Mobile/OLED division. "Based on our success in mass-producing plastic EPD, we are excited as we look toward applying concepts from this experience to future developments like plastic OLED and flexible displays."
> 
> 
> Innovations in Functionality and Design
> 
> The world's first plastic EPD from LG Display offers users a paper-like reading experience with a plastic substrate that is as slim as cell phone protection film, and a flexible design that allows bending at a range of 40 degrees from the center of the screen. Compared to glass EPD of the same size and resolution, LG Display's plastic EPD realizes a super slim thickness of 0.7mm which is 1/3 slimmer than existing glass EPD; as well as a weight of 14g which is more than 1/2 lighter.
> 
> 
> E-Book users have long expressed a desire for more durable EPD, since around 10% of them have damaged their product screens from accidentally dropping or hitting them. When LG Display's plastic EPD was put through repeated drop tests, from 1.5m above the ground or the average height of reading when standing, no damage resulted. When put through a break/scratch test involving hitting the display with a small urethane hammer, no scratches or breakage resulted.
> 
> 
> As EPD gets thinner, lighter, and more durable with the introduction of plastic EPD, E-Books will be able to offer certain unique benefits compared to smart devices and tablets, including reduced eye fatigue and more efficient electricity consumption in addition to lower prices.
> 
> 
> A Manufacturing Breakthrough
> 
> LG Display developed a unique technique to utilize the high TFT process, typically employed in general LCD manufacturing and with temperatures exceeding 350 degrees, in the production of its plastic EPD. By overcoming the obstacles associated with applying the existing production process to heat susceptible plastic, LG Display achieved a breakthrough with the successful mass production of plastic EPD able to maintain strong durability in high temperatures.
> 
> *Availability
> 
> The world's first mass-produced plastic EPD from LG Display will first be supplied to ODM companies in China, followed by completed products to be released in Europe at the beginning of next month.*



Where is the color?


----------



## specuvestor

^^ Wrong thread. This is the e-ink in kindle










But they're just saying the flexible plastic EPD process can be used for OLED as well.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maxpl* /forum/post/21841515
> 
> 
> is anyone here intelligent enough to have thought of cled or oled conceptually/fundamentally? Probably not since we're not scientists or engineers working for these world class companies; and yet they have...
> 
> 
> I'll give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to mass producing something when theyve already gotten to the point of developing a prototype.


*sed*


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21842827
> 
> 
> ^^ Wrong thread. This is the e-ink in kindle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they're just saying the flexible plastic EPD process can be used for OLED as well.



Good part, they can do TFT on plastic at least somewhat.


Reality check, these are durable, impact-resistant. These are not foldable, rollable or any such thing. Nor is the technology even being touted as such.


----------



## wco81

Even if rollable, how useful would it be? For large displays, it would make shipping easier but you still would have to house the electronics somewhere.


Say there are 10-inch rollable displays. You can roll those up, put it in to a tube. Sure that's easier to carry around than an iPad. But you have to attach that flexible display to electronics to drive it. Where would that go?


----------



## MaXPL




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop* /forum/post/21843639
> 
> *sed*



post 3812:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21790438
> 
> 
> SED failed because of patent problems.


----------



## specuvestor

I think navychop meant to say SED fit the description but failed anyway


There are a lot of lab products and prototypes. But that's from an R&D engineering perspective. To know whether make sense you have to ask the production engineers, and look at whether management willing to fork out the dough, ie follow the money.


I always believe conviction is highest when u put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## navychop

Yep.


----------



## KLee

On flatpanelshd.com, they state the 55 inch Samsung OLED will launch in the us and eu this fall.....


The model number is KN55ES9000, which is the first time I have seen a model number for the sammy oled


----------



## shyguy3763

What I'd like to know if there will be any smaller sized OLED TV's,it would be cheaper,which means they'd sell more, maybe a 40-42 inch in the $5000-ish range,I know I'd get one for my bed rm,any possibility?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KLee* /forum/post/21850971
> 
> 
> On flatpanelshd.com, they state the 55 inch Samsung OLED will lauch in the us and eu this fall.....
> 
> 
> The model number is KN55ES9000, which is the fiest time I have seen a model number for the sammy oled



Samsung was probably realizing no one was taking them seriously without a model #.


----------



## gary cornell

OLED at CES, bright and flashy to get a wow, has anyone seen one with normal or even calibrated settings, the kind we use in our home theater?


----------



## DeletedUserPost

It just hit me to ask this—will OLED panels need a brightness control? Since these panels create black by turning off pixels completely.


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung was probably realizing no one was taking them seriously without a model #.



Model number was out weeks after ces.


----------



## gmarceau

It's looking like MSRP for the LG model is closing in on $6k- and I'm sure that will come down by the end of the year.


----------



## vinnie97

street price of $5k by December!?


----------



## DeletedUserPost




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marcus®* /forum/post/21855008
> 
> 
> It just hit me to ask thiswill OLED panels need a brightness control? Since these panels create black by turning off pixels completely.



Did I answer my own question in my post?


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marcus®* /forum/post/21855008
> 
> 
> It just hit me to ask thiswill OLED panels need a brightness control? Since these panels create black by turning off pixels completely.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marcus®* /forum/post/21857045
> 
> 
> Did I answer my own question in my post?



I don't think so. You still need to be able to match the brightness with the ambient light. In a dark room you need less brightness than in a bright room.


If all is well the brightness setting should not affect black levels though, unlike with LCD or Plasma.


----------



## HearingImpaired

I can't wait until the price of this technology comes down!!! They say it is cheaper to make than LED and Plasma. I know there will always be a mark up at first with the new technology because of new production costs and research that went into the televisions. I wonder when they will make it affordable to the majority of the public?


----------



## stepmback

I am trying to grind it out with my current TV's until the technology becomes main stream and affordable. I am hoping for a an 80incher in the $5K range. I guessestimate that will take 3 years.. hope my TVs last that long.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stepmback* /forum/post/21857891
> 
> 
> I am trying to grind it out with my current TV's until the technology becomes main stream and affordable. I am hoping for a an 80incher in the $5K range. I guessestimate that will take 3 years.. hope my TVs last that long.



Leaving aside the question of price, I'm not at all persuaded anyone will introduce an 80 inch within 3 years.


Samsung and LG have both demoed a number of large screen LCDs for years, and both have shipped nothing more than 10s of thousands of even 65s in a single year. Their commitment to bigger sizes appears to really not much exist. And with the OLEDs being limited to 8G glass, 80s seem unlikely.


Further, I doubt Samsung's production method would even be plausible for an 80".


If one is holding out for sizes above the 60" that's common in LCD from both Samsung and LG, one might be waiting quite some time.


----------



## stepmback




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21858324
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the question of price, I'm not at all persuaded anyone will introduce an 80 inch within 3 years.
> 
> 
> Samsung and LG have both demoed a number of large screen LCDs for years, and both have shipped nothing more than 10s of thousands of even 65s in a single year. Their commitment to bigger sizes appears to really not much exist. And with the OLEDs being limited to 8G glass, 80s seem unlikely.
> 
> 
> Further, I doubt Samsung's production method would even be plausible for an 80".
> 
> 
> If one is holding out for sizes above the 60" that's common in LCD from both Samsung and LG, one might be waiting quite some time.



You may be right Rogo. I guess I am optimistic that LG or Samsung will be able to get production going. I just cant see paying $5K for 55 inch television when I really want something larger.


----------



## KLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HearingImpaired* /forum/post/21857169
> 
> 
> I can't wait until the price of this technology comes down!!! They say it is cheaper to make than LED and Plasma. I know there will always be a mark up at first with the new technology because of new production costs and research that went into the televisions. I wonder when they will make it affordable to the majority of the public?



If the lg is priced @ 8K that is already much cheaper than I first anticipated....


The price tag on the early philips and fujitsu plasmas would make your wallet cry for mercy


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/21856869
> 
> 
> street price of $5k by december!?



2014


----------



## greenland

Price level will as always depend on supply versus demand, and supply numbers will also depend on the yield percentage of good panels at the outset. It is highly unlikely that LG will ship enough good panels this year to outstrip demand, and should the demand turn out to be lower, than the meager number of panels they have projected to turn out for all the major international markets, then they will have trouble funding a rapid expansion of production capacity.


----------



## Superman07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the question of price, I'm not at all persuaded anyone will introduce an 80 inch within 3 years.
> 
> 
> Samsung and LG have both demoed a number of large screen LCDs for years, and both have shipped nothing more than 10s of thousands of even 65s in a single year. Their commitment to bigger sizes appears to really not much exist. And with the OLEDs being limited to 8G glass, 80s seem unlikely.
> 
> 
> Further, I doubt Samsung's production method would even be plausible for an 80".
> 
> 
> If one is holding out for sizes above the 60" that's common in LCD from both Samsung and LG, one might be waiting quite some time.



I can't recall reading anything about the application of OLED to projectors. If that's plausible, that could be one method to address 80"+ sizes.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Superman07* /forum/post/21861758
> 
> 
> I can't recall reading anything about the application of OLED to projectors. If that's plausible, that could be one method to address 80"+ sizes.



OLED doesn't especially lend itself to microdisplay (what you'd need for projectors). It's transparency would be a huge negative. You'd need a secondary device for light control.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Superman07* /forum/post/21861758
> 
> 
> I can't recall reading anything about the application of OLED to projectors. If that's plausible, that could be one method to address 80"+ sizes.



You would have to drive the pixels way too hard for them to work in a projector. They would probably burn-in in a few hours. Even CRT projectors burned in fairly fast.


If OLED could be "printed" like some suggest the "projector screen" could actually be a replaceable direct view screen. That is probably way in the future though.


----------



## slacker711

Samsung now saying that details on the 55" OLED television will be coming at IFA in August.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/4527...xury-tv-coming


----------



## Goatse

I love the screen on the vita... its beautiful. Colors are amazing and the contrast makes games look almost 3d, better than any plasma. Only problem is that in a dark room with a completely black screen, I can see blotches. Apparently this is common on all Vitas, some worse than others. Mine isn't horrible, since I rarely play mine in the dark or watch movies it doesn't bother me. However if my tv did this on a all black screen it would drive me nuts. So does OLED tech have an issue with black uniformity or is that a sony thing?


----------



## 8mile13

Philips and TPV-tech(which is Taiwan based) plans on showing a OLED prototype at IFA 2012 and OLED TVs for consumer market in 2013
http://www.oled-display.net/philips-...e-at-ifa-2012/


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21901800
> 
> 
> Samsung now saying that details on the 55" OLED television will be coming at IFA in August.
> 
> http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/4527...xury-tv-coming



This would seem to indicate no likely shipment this year, although perhaps Q4.


----------



## David_B

IFA. European trade show.


Michael Zoeller, European marketing director of Samsung Televisions.


Nothing to do with any North American schedule, or Korea for that matter.


Means near zero.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21902882
> 
> 
> This would seem to indicate no likely shipment this year, although perhaps Q4.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21906158
> 
> 
> IFA. European trade show.
> 
> 
> Michael Zoeller, European marketing director of Samsung Televisions.
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with any North American schedule, or Korea for that matter.
> 
> 
> Means near zero.



I know that reading comp isn't your strongest skill, but the linked article refers to introduction of the product there, _suggesting_ it won't be out yet.


If it's not out yet anywhere and is introduced at IFA, it is unlikely to be available anywhere (except perhaps Korea) before the end of the year.


Of course, things don't always happen this way, but generally that's how it works.


Perhaps someone knows of some sooner plan to ship a Samsung OLED, but I don't.


----------



## navychop

But I can hear the distant whistle and some occasional steam released.


----------



## David_B

The point is, you DON'T KNOW anything about Samsung's plans. That's zero.


Let me quote.


"At the same time, Zoeller confirmed that more details on the company's anticipated Super OLED TV, introduced at CES 2012, will be coming at IFA 2012. We should have a price then for those eyeing one up for Christmas."


I don't see where it says they are "introducing" it there. hmm. "Having a price then" doesn't mean they won't have it BEFORE then.


How about a few quotes about a Summer Olympic release date?


"According to CNET, Samsung has accelerated their plans for the 55-inch OLED-TV and expects to launch the TV in the UK this spring. That launch window will make it available in time for the 2012 Summer Olympics in London this summer.


Update 11:21:00 Samsung has clarified the CNET story and tells that the launch plans are unchanged."


"Samsung’s monster 55in OLED TV, which debuted at the International Consumer Electronics Show in January, will launch in the UK this spring."


Seriously, I can read stuff on the internet and make guesses about things as well as you do, and for everything YOU wish to guess one way I can guess the opposite.


What exactly is your point in these guesses? You Have NO inside information from either LG or Samsung, you're just an internet reader commentor.


And one that can't even stick to one side or the other at that. And sometimes you just post to say "They might do it, or they might not."

Like how about this one?

"This would seem to indicate no likely shipment this year, although perhaps Q4.

". 


You're going to count that as a "I was right all along!" post in the future won't you? LOL


You're a hoot sometimes.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21906811
> 
> 
> I know that reading comp isn't your strongest skill, but the linked article refers to introduction of the product there, _suggesting_ it won't be out yet.
> 
> 
> If it's not out yet anywhere and is introduced at IFA, it is unlikely to be available anywhere (except perhaps Korea) before the end of the year.
> 
> 
> Of course, things don't always happen this way, but generally that's how it works.
> 
> 
> Perhaps someone knows of some sooner plan to ship a Samsung OLED, but I don't.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21907462
> 
> 
> 
> You're a hoot sometimes.



You're a hoot never.


----------



## Corent

Gaming videos using 3x LG 15EL9500, GTX 480 SLI in portrait mode and NVIDIA Surround Vision.

http://www.youtube.com/user/spacejew42/videos


----------



## Blackraven

A few years ago, Sony released a Walkman with an OLED Screen (called the Walkman X series). Thing is, the model is now discontinued.











So with that said, when can we see the return of an OLED walkman?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21906811
> 
> 
> I know that reading comp isn't your strongest skill, but the linked article refers to introduction of the product there, _suggesting_ it won't be out yet.
> 
> 
> If it's not out yet anywhere and is introduced at IFA, it is unlikely to be available anywhere (except perhaps Korea) before the end of the year.
> 
> 
> Of course, things don't always happen this way, but generally that's how it works.
> 
> 
> Perhaps someone knows of some sooner plan to ship a Samsung OLED, but I don't.



I hate to quote my own posts, but anyone doubting my reading of the above should read this link below:

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-ful...gust-13222756/ 


It makes it more than clear that Samsung's OLED will not be shipping prior to IFA, but instead will be shipping after IFA. And while it still might sneak out in 2012 (I'm honestly not sure), it might well not.


----------



## David_B

Yes, we see plenty of sites taking 1 line spoken by Michael Zoeller, European marketing director of Samsung Televisions and running with the "it's not coming out till after IFA".


Still no press release from Samsung saying any of this.


And ANOTHER "it might come out, it might not" from you. PLEASE what's the point in even typing stuff like that?


I predict the earth will end tonight. Or maybe not.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21910546
> 
> 
> I hate to quote my own posts, but anyone doubting my reading of the above should read this link below:
> 
> http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-ful...gust-13222756/
> 
> 
> It makes it more than clear that Samsung's OLED will not be shipping prior to IFA, but instead will be shipping after IFA. And while it still might sneak out in 2012 (I'm honestly not sure), it might well not.


----------



## gary cornell

Let me get this straight, a 55" LG at Cannes and a 55" Samsung at IFA - now i don't know which to buy


----------



## tonyjd40

Well, I was going to get the 64/65 inch tv, I so wanted this year,but I now find myself thinking I may want to wait to see what happens with oled. If I buy the 64/65 incher this year, I will not be able to get another tv for about 3-4 years. So, I either buy the samsung 64 this year, or wait for the oled - next year and hope the price is not too high.

Anyway, what will be the biggest the oled screens will get ?(in 1-2 years). I would not really be interested in a 55 inch , even though I assume the pq would be amazing. Has there ben anymore talk of the 4k x 2k res tv's ? I guess even those tv's (4k x 2k) would't matter much as networks are just getting a handle on 1080p(i). Would there be any way someone could produce a blu ray player that could do 4k x 2k ? And then I guess you would still need a blu ray movie shot in that res for it to work well , right ?


All this new stuff is confusing at times. What would be ones best hope for the availability of a 65 inch oled at a reasonable (under 6k) price be, as in 2 years or will oled command a higher price for a longer time ? Take care guys.


Enjoy, and

god bless


tony


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21911159
> 
> 
> 
> And ANOTHER "it might come out, it might not" from you. PLEASE what's the point in even typing stuff like that?



The point -- understood by most people without tiny brains -- is that if one is waiting for this particular model, the wait might be long. If one sees the LG for sale (and really wants an OLED soon), they should consider just buying it.


It's information, even if you don't care about it. I suggest your sanity might be better preserved by putting me on your ignore list.


I will _never_ stop commenting on news reports.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tonyjd40* /forum/post/21911221
> 
> 
> Anyway, what will be the biggest the oled screens will get ?(in 1-2 years). I would not really be interested in a 55 inch , even though I assume the pq would be amazing. Has there ben anymore talk of the 4k x 2k res tv's ? I guess even those tv's (4k x 2k) would't matter much as networks are just getting a handle on 1080p(i). Would there be any way someone could produce a blu ray player that could do 4k x 2k ? And then I guess you would still need a blu ray movie shot in that res for it to work well , right ? All this new stuff is confusing at times. What would be ones best hope for the availability of a 65 inch oled at a reasonable (under 6k) price be, as in 2 years or will oled command a higher price for a longer time ? Take care guys.



Direct your wild&wet fantasies to other objects, buy now 60+ incher and enjoy life blessed by mental health for the next couple of years







.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tonyjd40*
> _Anyway, what will be the biggest the oled screens will get ?(in 1-2 years). I would not really be interested in a 55 inch , even though I assume the pq would be amazing. Has there ben anymore talk of the 4k x 2k res tv's ? I guess even those tv's (4k x 2k) would't matter much as networks are just getting a handle on 1080p(i). Would there be any way someone could produce a blu ray player that could do 4k x 2k ? And then I guess you would still need a blu ray movie shot in that res for it to work well , right ? All this new stuff is confusing at times. What would be ones best hope for the availability of a 65 inch oled at a reasonable (under 6k) price be, as in 2 years or will oled command a higher price for a longer time ? Take care guys._





> Quote:
> Direct your wild&wet fantasies to other objects, buy now 60+ incher and enjoy life blessed by mental health for the next couple of years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Legit question IMO - One thing is for sure, the pace of technology advance is staggering and makes one pause as when to jump in. There always seems to be something just around the corner that may be just a little bit better - for less cost. A few years ago, that argument seemed like snakeoil - now it's really true. So for now, I think you have to just plunge in - but make sure your buying decision is one you can live with for say the next 2 years.


Also - I don't see OLED staying expensive for very long. It's got some time in the sun right now but that could change - and nothing causes it to change quicker than being too high priced for too long. That's a stressor the OLED mfg's will want to get rid of ASAP. And nothing works on that front like volume.


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21906811
> 
> 
> I know that reading comp isn't your strongest skill,





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21911595
> 
> 
> The point -- understood by most people without tiny brains



This kind of stuff is just excruciating to read. Debate is great, and that's what makes AVS great. The above, isn't debate and doesn't belong here.


Let's remember that everyone here shares a common interest- display technology. We all certainly agree that it's a damn interesting topic. What percentage of the general populace shares that interest? To even have an interest in this stuff in the first place and post on the AVS Forum on top of that shows that we're all, relatively speaking, pretty darn smart.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/21912202
> 
> 
> This kind of stuff is just excruciating to read. Debate is great, and that's what makes AVS great. The above, isn't debate and doesn't belong here.
> 
> 
> Let's remember that everyone here shares a common interest- display technology. We all certainly agree that it's a damn interesting topic. What percentage of the general populace shares that interest? To even have an interest in this stuff in the first place and post on the AVS Forum on top of that shows that we're all, relatively speaking, pretty darn smart.



Amen to that. Unfortunately, ad hominem arguments are increasingly common, not only on forums, but in the wider world. But they're less impressive than pure debate wherever they occur.


----------



## ebernazz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/21912202
> 
> 
> This kind of stuff is just excruciating to read. Debate is great, and that's what makes AVS great. The above, isn't debate and doesn't belong here.
> 
> 
> Let's remember that everyone here shares a common interest- display technology. We all certainly agree that it's a damn interesting topic. What percentage of the general populace shares that interest? To even have an interest in this stuff in the first place and post on the AVS Forum on top of that shows that we're all, relatively speaking, pretty darn smart.



Really? I posted therefor I am smart? Really?


Excruciating? Really? Smart or Dramatic?


OK I'll give you we may at times forget to challenge the post not the poster and both of them are guilty of that but on a relative basis (constructive posts to frustration posts) it is miniscule.


----------



## rogo

Excruciating is being trolled by the same person for going on a year now.


----------



## RichB

If OLED goes mainstream, it can be a big leap for picture quality.


4K LCD's do not fix any issues with LCD's. Already, local dimming sets are getting harder to find. The 70" Elite LCD angle viewing issues are a tremendous issue for me.

I put up a 4% black level pattern and there was about a 4 foot window at 10 feet viewing distance before the pattern disappeared.

Lying down on my couch would be out of the question










- Rich


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB* /forum/post/21914048
> 
> 
> If OLED goes mainstream, it can be a big leap for picture quality.



We'll see soon. Beg there are no Pandora box of entirely new issues with OLED panels like nonuniform pixels and oled burn-in







.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB* /forum/post/21914048
> 
> 
> 4K LCD's do not fix any issues with LCD's. Already, local dimming sets are getting harder to find.



This is very true but people like to believe in numerology so their 4K cheap edge-lit 46" will show favorite televangelist in full 4K glory comparing to the dumb 2K







.


----------



## CptBeaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cynthia179* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Today we argue Plasma vs LCD. In five years, will we be arguing SED vs OLED? One can only hope.



Don't forget CLED










Of course, none of them will do justice to the 2017 ultra-ray quantum-holographic re-release of Titanic, and the real keeners among us will be busy discussing breaking news on developments in transparacorneal superdef monitors.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cynthia179* /forum/post/21916317
> 
> 
> Today we argue Plasma vs LCD. In five years, will we be arguing SED vs OLED? One can only hope.



...and certainly quad


----------



## mr. wally

and don't forget 8k.


remember we haven't seen how oled will hold up in a consumer environment.

there may be issues....


----------



## javry

*LED or LCD: It's The Back Lighting*


Technically speaking, an LED TV is also an LCD TV, as the screen on both is a liquid crystal display. An LCD display has two layers of glass that are polarized and joined together, the liquid crystals then pass or block the light to display the television picture.

The crystals do not produce any light as the light comes from a series of lamps at the back of the screen. On an LCD TV, the lamps at the back of the screen are fluorescent lamps, whilst on an LED TV the lights at the back of the screen are Light Emitting Diodes (LED).


There are two types of LED methods used to provide the back lighting to the screen: edge lighting (with or without local dimming) and full array lighting (with or without local dimming). Majority of LED TVs fall in the edge-lit without local dimming category, with the LEDs placed only along the edge of the LCD Panel.


It uses light guides to illuminate the center and other areas of the screen. Since its introduction a couple of years ago, manufacturers such as Samsung, LG and Sony have come up with a better version: edge lit with local dimming. This variety results in better picture quality, with the black levels becoming darker, providing a visual feast even for those very discerning viewers.

*The Best Choice For Picture Quality*


If you want the best in picture quality among LED TVs, technically it will have to be one that has full-array back lighting with local dimming. The individual zones of LEDs can be dimmed or brightened independently, making it more flexible and suitable to an individual's taste and preference.

Comparing side by side, LED TVs generally have better black levels and contrasts than their LCD counterparts. Color accuracy is also slightly better on an LED TV. While LCD TVs are no slouch on color accuracy, compared to an LED TV, the latter has a slight advantage. Viewing angle is more or less the same on both as this will depend on the glass panel used by the manufacturer. A thicker and higher quality glass panel is expected to provide a better viewing angle.

*The Best Choice For Energy Efficiency*


If power consumption is a major concern then what you need is an energy efficient television. LED TVs get the vote here as it is using less light to display its pictures. These are designed to produce a better quality pictures while also using less power than LCD models.
*The Best Choice For Price*


If the price tag is of major concern, LCD TVs are the obvious choice as their prices have gone down ever since LED TVs started becoming more mainstream.
*The Best Choice For Size*


In terms of size, LED TVs are slimmer compared to LCD TVs but not by much. LED lights can be installed in smaller places, allowing manufacturers to trim out some unnecessary weight. If space is an issue, better to keep those measuring tapes handy before buying your latest TV set.
*The Best Choice For Gaming and Home Theatre*


Planning to hook up your game console to your monitor? LCD TVs in the long run are recommended by many as the better choice since heads-up display (HUD) elements in some video games may create ghostly permanent images on the screen when used for a long time. This is what you call burn-in, which is less likely to happen with LCD TVs. Those who have set up a high-end home theater on their PC may also opt for an LCD TV to avoid the same.

*Conclusion*


Given these pros and cons of both LCD and LED TVs, it's really up to the buyer to figure out which suits their needs best. Obviously, LED TVs have the more advanced technology, slightly better picture quality (generally speaking), but comes at a higher price point. LCD TVs remain in production despite the gaining popularity of their LED counterparts and this is because they offer good value given at a lower price, doing so with above average picture quality.

Do take note that setting up your new display properly is one of the first things you'll need to do before going on a movie marathon to get the best results. Even the most advanced TV set can't produce that stunning picture quality you're looking for if it's not set up properly.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ OLED is not LCD. Wrong thread


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cynthia179* /forum/post/21916317
> 
> 
> Today we argue Plasma vs LCD. In five years, will we be arguing *SED* vs OLED? One can only hope.



How do I put this? The silver bullet has been fired, the wooden stake impaled, the salt has been poured, and the consignment to the flames accomplished. And the lawyers have been paid. There will never be SED.


Nevermore, quoth the raven, nevermore.


And never was.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21922069
> 
> 
> ^^ OLED is not LCD. Wrong thread



Ahh - you're so right. I went back and read some more. Thanks for the catch.


----------



## gary cornell

Anybody going to IFA? New LG and Samsung OLED will be shown.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...23_109019.html


----------



## boe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21858324
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the question of price, I'm not at all persuaded anyone will introduce an 80 inch within 3 years.
> 
> 
> Samsung and LG have both demoed a number of large screen LCDs for years, and both have shipped nothing more than 10s of thousands of even 65s in a single year. Their commitment to bigger sizes appears to really not much exist. And with the OLEDs being limited to 8G glass, 80s seem unlikely.
> 
> 
> Further, I doubt Samsung's production method would even be plausible for an 80".
> 
> 
> If one is holding out for sizes above the 60" that's common in LCD from both Samsung and LG, one might be waiting quite some time.



I think the average TV will remain 65" for some time. I do however think we will see 4K 80" OLEDs in a few years. The price will probably be about $15K which will make it a slow mover initially but I'll still want one. Maybe I won't buy the first 4K 80" OLED release but I'll consider the second year release.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *boe* /forum/post/21930494
> 
> 
> I think the average TV will remain 65" for some time. I do however think we will see 4K 80" OLEDs in a few years. The price will probably be about $15K which will make it a slow mover initially but I'll still want one. Maybe I won't buy the first 4K 80" OLED release but I'll consider the second year release.



I hope you're correct and see one sooner rather than later. Absent any of them, they'll never get cheaper. So sooner is definitely better.


----------



## wco81

Average TV size is 65 inches?


I don't think it's that big even in the US, which generally has bigger homes than other countries.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *boe* /forum/post/21930494
> 
> 
> I think the average TV will remain 65" for some time.



The average size display world wide is less than 50". In the US and Canada it probably doesn't exceed 50".


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blackraven* /forum/post/21909326
> 
> 
> A few years ago, Sony released a Walkman with an OLED Screen (called the Walkman X series). Thing is, the model is now discontinued.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So with that said, when can we see the return of an OLED walkman?



Probably never. Dedicated MP3 players have gone the way of the dodo except for Apple.


You want the next best thing? Buy a used OLED Cellphone from ebay like an infuse or GalaxyS. I did that (Infuse) and it is the best music player for the money that can also run Android apps. The SQ is great too as it has the Wolfson DAC.


----------



## javry

and even with Apple, the competition in technology is catching up.


----------



## slacker711

Sony seeking to buy OLED panels from Samsung?

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...33_109455.html


----------



## specuvestor

April 24 (Bloomberg) -- LG Display Co., the world’s second- largest maker of liquid-crystal displays, reported its third consecutive quarterly loss after television demand slowed and

shipments of some products were delayed.

The net loss was 129.2 billion won ($113 million) in the three months ended in March, from a loss of 115.4 billion won a year ago, the Seoul-based company said in a statement today. That compares with a 124.6 billion-won loss average of 23 analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Worldwide TV shipments fell last year for the first time since at least 2004, according to DisplaySearch, hurting demand for the South Korean company that’s counting on 3-D screens and mobile devices to return to profit. LG Display also was unable to ship panels for the initial batch of the new Apple Inc. iPads after failing to meet the Cupertino, California-based company’s quality requirements, research company IHS Inc.’s iSuppli said.

......

The LCD industry likely won’t turn around this year as supply outstrips demand and LG shifts focus to developing next-generation TV panels, Jeong said today.

In May, LG will probably start mass producing 55-inch panels using organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, as backlights, Jung Han Sup, a Seoul-based analyst at SK Securities Co., said in an April 16 report.
*The company is on track to start mass production of OLED panels in the second half, with a capacity to produce 48,000 a month*, Jeong said. The company will switch some of its LCD capacity to OLED production, he said.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21944229
> 
> 
> 
> In May, LG will probably start mass producing 55-inch panels using organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, as backlights, Jung Han Sup, a Seoul-based analyst at SK Securities Co., said in an April 16 report.
> *The company is on track to start mass production of OLED panels in the second half, with a capacity to produce 48,000 a month*, Jeong said. The company will switch some of its LCD capacity to OLED production, he said.



Good strategy - assuming demand will equal supply. Transferring a lackluster demand for LCD into a feverpitch demand for OLED may be a stretch - but OLED's got legs right now - so let's wait n see what happens.


----------



## greenland

PANASONIC TO INVEST IN OLED PRODUCTION


http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1335202278 


"Panasonic will reportedly invest 20-30 billion Yen in a new 6. generation OLED production line designed for manufacturing of OLED-TV panels. The OLED production line will be located inside Panasonic's Himeji LCD plant.


Panasonic has not made any final decisions regarding the specific OLED production plans yet, but OLED-Info.com mentions that the final plans could include a partner."


----------



## greenland

PHILIPS TO EXHIBIT OLED-TV AT IFA 2012 - RUMOR

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1335252415 


"According to Digitimes and industry sources, Philips is likely to reveal an OLED-TV at IFA 2012 in September. The OLED panels will be sourced from LG.Display's OLED production.


The rumor started back in February 2012, and has now be reiterated by Digitimes based on claims by industry sources. According to the sources, TPV Technology that recently took over the Philips TV brand will showcase an OLED-TV at IFA 2012 in Berlin."


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/21944339
> 
> 
> PANASONIC TO INVEST IN OLED PRODUCTION
> 
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1335202278
> 
> 
> "Panasonic will reportedly invest 20-30 billion Yen in a new 6. generation OLED production line designed for manufacturing of OLED-TV panels. The OLED production line will be located inside Panasonic's Himeji LCD plant.
> 
> 
> Panasonic has not made any final decisions regarding the specific OLED production plans yet, but OLED-Info.com mentions that the final plans could include a partner."



We had heard this Gen 6 rumor some months back too. It seems like a very odd substrate size choice, but I'm sure there's a logic to it that I haven't contemplated the implications of quite yet.


They may be trying to triangulate what they perceive the competition to be doing at certain sizes.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21944229
> 
> 
> April 24 (Bloomberg) -- LG Display Co., the world’s second- largest maker of liquid-crystal displays, reported its third consecutive quarterly loss after television demand slowed and
> 
> shipments of some products were delayed.
> 
> The net loss was 129.2 billion won ($113 million) in the three months ended in March, from a loss of 115.4 billion won a year ago, the Seoul-based company said in a statement today. That compares with a 124.6 billion-won loss average of 23 analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg.
> 
> Worldwide TV shipments fell last year for the first time since at least 2004, according to DisplaySearch, hurting demand for the South Korean company that’s counting on 3-D screens and mobile devices to return to profit. LG Display also was unable to ship panels for the initial batch of the new Apple Inc. iPads after failing to meet the Cupertino, California-based company’s quality requirements, research company IHS Inc.’s iSuppli said.
> 
> ......
> 
> The LCD industry likely won’t turn around this year as supply outstrips demand and LG shifts focus to developing next-generation TV panels, Jeong said today.
> 
> In May, LG will probably start mass producing 55-inch panels using organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, as backlights, Jung Han Sup, a Seoul-based analyst at SK Securities Co., said in an April 16 report.
> *The company is on track to start mass production of OLED panels in the second half, with a capacity to produce 48,000 a month*, Jeong said. The company will switch some of its LCD capacity to OLED production, he said.





oleds as back lights??


i thought oleds don't need a backlight?


----------



## stepmback

The organic compound produces its own light. I think the release is poorly worded.


----------



## specuvestor

RGBW implementation is "backlighting" from a certain point of view, but I agree it is badly worded and misleading.


My post in the LG OLED thread:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ^^ And again for the record, we thought it was ridiculous to replace the LED backlight with expensive OLED.
> 
> 
> Turn out that the so-called OLED backlight is actually backlighting individual pixels (ie the ultimate Local Dimming) It is definitely an elegant solution to a complex problem... and I had to admit that I was skeptical that LG of all companies will be able to pull this off. But I am glad they did.
> 
> 
> But this solution is probably not feasible for high density screens


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21947095
> 
> 
> RGBW implementation is "backlighting" from a certain point of view, but I agree it is badly worded and misleading.
> 
> 
> My post in the LG OLED thread:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by specuvestor
> 
> ^^ And again for the record, we thought it was ridiculous to replace the LED backlight with expensive OLED.
> 
> 
> Turn out that the so-called OLED backlight is actually backlighting individual pixels (ie the ultimate Local Dimming) It is definitely an elegant solution to a complex problem... and I had to admit that I was skeptical that LG of all companies will be able to pull this off. But I am glad they did.
> 
> 
> But this solution is probably not feasible for high density screens
> 
> :



Yeah but the RGBW is not really backlighting to an LCD as your post seems to say but is just white OLEDs with filters over them, there is no liquid crystal there at all.


As far as pixel level local dimming as another idea I would think it wouldn't work due to parallax. If you looked at the screen a bit off axis the LCD and backlight pixel would not line up due to backplane glass thickness making LCD viewing angle issues much worse. You could probably increase the local dimming density much more than it is now though.


----------



## specuvestor

I never mention Liquid Crystal at all







it is a sort of "backlighting" because they still uses color filters, and ironically the white OLED is not intrinsically white at all, which we have already discussed at length 2 months ago.


As you mention, the off axis problem with LCD is the backlight lining up with the LC which is like a venetian blind effect. But this problem is much mitigated when the OLED light source is very close to the RGBW color filter without any "venetitian blind". Density however should have an issue at smaller pitches with neighbouring light contamination.


----------



## rogo

I'm just not overly worried about any issues with LG's technology. We're talking a *quantum leap* over LCD. I mean, I doubt it's going to be perfect, _especially in the first generation or two_. But it's such a ridiculous leap forward on the things that are still wrong with LCD, that I suspect by mid decade no serious videophile will be wasting their breath discussing LCD any more.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21948200
> 
> 
> I'm just not overly worried about any issues with LG's technology. We're talking a *quantum leap* over LCD. I mean, I doubt it's going to be perfect, _especially in the first generation or two_. But it's such a ridiculous leap forward on the things that are still wrong with LCD, that I suspect by mid decade no serious videophile will be wasting their breath discussing LCD any more.
> 
> 
> Ide*A*s are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies ha*V*e guns, why should we let them have idea*S*. -- Joseph Stalin



Your flagship citation suggests tendency for doctrinal thinking (not to mention lack of taste in the selection of the author







). While it was Deng Xiaoping who, citing old Chinese saying, said:

_It doesn't matter whether it is a yellow cat or a black cat, a cat that catches mice is a good cat_.


That marked another example of historical triumph of pragamtic over doctrinal








. In the conext of OLED key pragmatic question arises: If it is such quantum leap, and its only problem is scaling up, why it has not conquisted small factor displays?


The analytic answer to this is that LCD is chameleon technology hugely adaptable to the environment. This is seen both on the monster size and high density display sides. Now there is coming IGZO LCD version from Sharp claiming to have high brightness and contrast, very low power and high density. Thus, quantum leaps or not, LCD is pushing full steam ahead. Chances of OLED are not extremely bright facing such formidable competition.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> I'm just not overly worried about any issues with LG's technology. We're talking a *quantum leap* over LCD. I mean, I doubt it's going to be perfect, _especially in the first generation or two_. But it's such a ridiculous leap forward on the things that are still wrong with LCD, that I suspect by mid decade no serious videophile will be wasting their breath discussing LCD any more.



you're probably right. Are there any American companies going after this that you guys know of? Or is the technology going to be soley international with not alot going on domestically?


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21948233
> 
> 
> ........... The analytic answer to this is that LCD is chameleon technology hugely adaptable to the environment. This is seen both on the monster size and high density display sides. Now there is coming IGZO LCD version from Sharp claiming to have high brightness and contrast, very low power and high density. Thus, quantum leaps or not, LCD is pushing full steam ahead. Chances of OLED are not extremely bright facing such formidable competition.



If I get your drift, LCD is not going to go quietly - and perhaps it's not even going to go at all. And the same probably applies to LED and Plasma. They'll put up a fight. That's a good thing - isn't it?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21948233
> 
> 
> Your flagship citation suggests tendency for doctrinal thinking (not to mention lack of taste in the selection of the author
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). While it was Deng Xiaoping who, citing old Chinese saying, said:
> 
> _It doesn't matter whether it is a yellow cat or a black cat, a cat that catches mice is a good cat_.
> 
> 
> That marked another example of historical triumph of pragamtic over doctrinal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . In the conext of OLED key pragmatic question arises: If it is such quantum leap, and its only problem is scaling up, why it has not conquisted small factor displays?
> 
> 
> The analytic answer to this is that LCD is chameleon technology hugely adaptable to the environment. This is seen both on the monster size and high density display sides. Now there is coming IGZO LCD version from Sharp claiming to have high brightness and contrast, very low power and high density. Thus, quantum leaps or not, LCD is pushing full steam ahead. Chances of OLED are not extremely bright facing such formidable competition.



When they make an LCD that has both wide viewing angles and high contrast, you give me a call. Until then, I'm not worried about LCD surviving OLED's assault on the living room.


As for small form factor, OLED hasn't "won" yet because it's more expensive. I realize this concept is hard to grasp, but there are no cheap smartphones with OLED displays. (And, please, anyone quoting carrier-subsidized retail pricing on smartphones should just pack up they foruming shoes and go home now. Those prices are not relevant to this discussion.) It's also true, however, that OLED has been at this game for about 3 years (barely?) and LCD has been at it since there's been a game. I'd say give it time. There isn't enough OLED production on earth to satisfy all the demand yet.


IGZO is a nice development for LCD. Too bad very little LCD IGZO production seems to be getting turned up. Also -- and please don't take this wrong -- I could care less about what happens to phones, tablets and laptops. I suspect LCD will continue to dominate laptops for years and probably tablets too. It will continue to dominate TVs for years too. But videophiles will search out OLED once it starts getting produced in _any quantity_. Moving 20 degrees off axis and losing contrast? Suffering edge-lit uniformity indignities? Please. LCD remains horrible in those regards. At any price. The rarest of LCD exceptions are products that their manufacturers have yet to commit to continue making and have terrible economics. In other words, full array locally dimmed LCD might not be around in a few years.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/21948237
> 
> 
> you're probably right. Are there any American companies going after this that you guys know of? Or is the technology going to be soley international with not alot going on domestically?



I doubt display manufacturing will ever again be done by American companies. Ever.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/21948246
> 
> 
> If I get your drift, LCD is not going to go quietly - and perhaps it's not even going to go at all. And the same probably applies to LED and Plasma. They'll put up a fight. That's a good thing - isn't it?



Yes. It's a great thing.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21948233
> 
> 
> Your flagship citation suggests tendency for doctrinal thinking (not to mention lack of taste in the selection of the author
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). While it was Deng Xiaoping who, citing old Chinese saying, said:
> 
> _It doesn't matter whether it is a *yellow* cat or a black cat, a cat that catches mice is a good cat_.
> 
> 
> That marked another example of historical triumph of pragamtic over doctrinal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . In the conext of OLED key pragmatic question arises: If it is such quantum leap, and its only problem is scaling up, why it has not conquisted small factor displays?
> 
> 
> The analytic answer to this is that LCD is chameleon technology hugely adaptable to the environment. This is seen both on the monster size and high density display sides. Now there is coming IGZO LCD version from Sharp claiming to have high brightness and contrast, very low power and high density. Thus, quantum leaps or not, LCD is pushing full steam ahead. Chances of OLED are not extremely bright facing such formidable competition.



It's actually white cat, not yellow cat. Close enough but you're actually quite apt at arguing the fringe










Plasma is declining because Panny shut down P5. LCD is declining becuase LCD capacity is being shifted to OLED. Doesn't need to be rocket scientist to figure this out. Just need logical unbiased observation.


That said, from his language rogo does seem to up his optimissim on OLED again: to perceivable difference against LCD.


----------



## David_B

Samsung already out sells the iphone, with oled screened cellphones.


Many other cellphone mkers now have oled cellphones too.


Samsung is migrating tablets to oled. Toshiba has an oled tablet coming out.


And the japan display co is doing small screen oled.


Oh, and the new sony portable game unit is oled.


I would say you are seeing oled take over, right now.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That marked another example of historical triumph of pragamtic over doctrinal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . In the conext of OLED key pragmatic question arises: If it is such quantum leap, and its only problem is scaling up, why it has not conquisted small factor displays?
> 
> 
> .


----------



## RichB

I have seen OLED cellphone with sever burn-in.

That is a challenge for displays with static displays.


I suspect LED will still do well in the computer display market.


- Rich


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21948296
> 
> 
> I doubt display manufacturing will ever again be done by American companies. Ever.



"Ever" is kind of a long time.


----------



## ToddUGA

When it comes to the computer monitor space, I'm more excited for IGZO than OLED. Sharp is supposedly going to release a 32 IGZO monitor with 3840x2160 pixels (140 ppi). OLED's potential for burn-in scares me at this point.


----------



## Goo

My phone has an oled display with pentile pixel structure. I have watched more than 100 hours of 4:3 tv shows (star trek on netflix) and I do not see any burn in using solid color screens.


Does the pixel structure change the possibility of burn in?

I have seen images of oled burn in but it hasn't happened on my phone's display after 2 years of heavy use.


Are there any expectations as far as burn in / image retention for upcoming large screen oled tvs? Compared to plasma / crt?


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, LG Display stated that they think that early-adopters will pay a 100% premium for OLED televisions and it will go mainstream when it gets within 30-40%.


They will be announcing details about their commercial Gen 8 fab in July. That should give us a fairly concrete idea about when they think that OLED's will be gaining real traction outside of the 1% and AVS members







.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Goo* /forum/post/21949022
> 
> 
> 
> Does the pixel structure change the possibility of burn in?



It shouldn't much matter that it's pentile. There is some overlap in sub-pixel use, but if burn in was going to happen in your phone, that wouldn't protect you. I suspect some implementations on phones at this point are better than others (not related to pixel structure but more the generation of materials used and perhaps exposure of the phone to certain kinds of light over time).




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21948584
> 
> 
> "Ever" is kind of a long time.



I'm actually willing to stick with ever. American manufacturing is in the kind of secular, multi-decade decline that you don't tend to come out. I believe that once OLED takes off it's going to be the display of choice until mid-century or later. (LCD, I actually believe will be around for decades too.) There is no reason whatsoever to believe an American company is going to get involved in OLED manufacturing unless, I suppose, Apple does in a vertical integration play. But even if that happens, it's more likely to be a joint venture and not one in the U.S. or one they run/control.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21948315
> 
> 
> That said, from his language rogo does seem to up his optimissim on OLED again: to perceivable difference against LCD.



I am more optimistic because I believe LG is going to drive the industry with a mfg. method that is going to seem fairly easy within a couple of years.


But, yes, I believe the difference in _quality_ will be apparent to videophiles because I think full array back-lit LCD is more or less a fringe technology that will barely be developed from here. I've often compared the OLED to the Sharp Elite (a great display). How many people have really experienced a Sharp Elite? Virtually no one. And nothing is likely to change that. In fact, it's somewhat likely the Sharp Elite won't be around in a few years -- although I hope it is.


But more significantly, I believe OLED will deliver that kind of quality across all viewing angles and -- ultimately -- at mainstream prices. Full array LCD, locally dimmed LCD is not going to do that. That's an important distinction I think.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21948296
> 
> 
> When they make an LCD that has both wide viewing angles and high contrast, you give me a call. Until then, I'm not worried about LCD surviving OLED's assault on the living room.



For the mass market LCD is already too-good-enough. You belong to a margin of doctrinal zealots fixated on the viewing angles







.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21948296
> 
> 
> As for small form factor, OLED hasn't "won" yet because it's more expensive.



But price is decisive if the competing technologies are good-enough. You seem to imply OLED may reach the stage at which it will beat the LCD on price. That will be very hard.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21948296
> 
> 
> It's also true, however, that OLED has been at this game for about 3 years (barely?) and LCD has been at it since there's been a game. I'd say give it time. There isn't enough OLED production on earth to satisfy all the demand yet.



Demand is function of price. OLED is not competitive and it is hard to see how it may become competitive. True, there is movement to make it more competitive be using LCD plants for manufacturing. But still this is uphill stony road.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21948296
> 
> 
> IGZO is a nice development for LCD. Too bad very little LCD IGZO production seems to be getting turned up.



LCD is upping the game. Now the target for OLED to match LCD must be high density and especially low power consumption. These are formidable problems for OLED.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21948296
> 
> 
> Also -- and please don't take this wrong -- I could care less about what happens to phones, tablets and laptops. I suspect LCD will continue to dominate laptops for years and probably tablets too. It will continue to dominate TVs for years too. But videophiles will search out OLED once it starts getting produced in _any quantity_. Moving 20 degrees off axis and losing contrast? Suffering edge-lit uniformity indignities? Please. LCD remains horrible in those regards. At any price.



Your requirements are much beyond standard consumers and will not be satisified by the industry since the 'zealots' market is too small







. The practical problem you will soon face is to buy a small and supposedly perfect 55" OLED for the XXXL price or cheaper 70", 80" or maybe even 90" LCD.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21948296
> 
> 
> I doubt display manufacturing will ever again be done by American companies. Ever.



But why it should be done at all? Low-profit commodities made under cut-throat competition?? While at the same time companies which make designer products like Apple or Intel or even better have just a Web portal are _overcashed_???


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21950164
> 
> 
> Now the target for OLED to match LCD must be high density and especially low power consumption. These are formidable problems for OLED.



The requirements for those two metrics are very different for televisions versus handsets. Nobody is talking about a 300ppi 50" television. OLED's will be able to handle the resolutions for both 4K and 8K with little problem. On the power consumption side, unless people start surfing the web on their televisions, OLED's should perform very well against LCD's for the vast majority of content.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21950164
> 
> 
> For the mass market LCD is already too-good-enough. You belong to a margin of doctrinal zealots fixated on the viewing angles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Damn folks with odd living spaces.

I say we get rid of all those square rooms and sectionals.

There aught to be a law: living rooms must be built like bowling alleys










- Rich


----------



## HearingImpaired




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21948296
> 
> 
> When they make an LCD that has both wide viewing angles and high contrast, you give me a call. Until then, I'm not worried about LCD surviving OLED's assault on the living room.
> 
> 
> As for small form factor, OLED hasn't "won" yet because it's more expensive. I realize this concept is hard to grasp, but there are no cheap smartphones with OLED displays. (And, please, anyone quoting carrier-subsidized retail pricing on smartphones should just pack up they foruming shoes and go home now. Those prices are not relevant to this discussion.) It's also true, however, that OLED has been at this game for about 3 years (barely?) and LCD has been at it since there's been a game. I'd say give it time. There isn't enough OLED production on earth to satisfy all the demand yet.
> 
> 
> IGZO is a nice development for LCD. Too bad very little LCD IGZO production seems to be getting turned up. Also -- and please don't take this wrong -- I could care less about what happens to phones, tablets and laptops. I suspect LCD will continue to dominate laptops for years and probably tablets too. It will continue to dominate TVs for years too. But videophiles will search out OLED once it starts getting produced in _any quantity_. Moving 20 degrees off axis and losing contrast? Suffering edge-lit uniformity indignities? Please. LCD remains horrible in those regards. At any price. The rarest of LCD exceptions are products that their manufacturers have yet to commit to continue making and have terrible economics. In other words, full array locally dimmed LCD might not be around in a few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt display manufacturing will ever again be done by American companies. Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's a great thing.



I read through this thread and couldn't find the information I was looking for. What is the resolution of Oled displays and what is the average lifespan of them?


----------



## tvted

Backplane advancement to benefit LCD and possibly OLED from SHARP:



> Quote:
> Japanese electronics giant Sharp announced recently that it has begun producing high-resolution liquid-crystal displays (LCDs) featuring metal-oxide transistor arrays.
> 
> 
> Metal oxides are expected to help bring down the price of high-resolution LCDs, which are similar in sharpness to the retina displays found in the latest iPad and iPhone, and may also cut the cost of making organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays, a newer type of screen that is richly colored and energy-efficient, but which remains expensive to produce at large sizes.


 http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/40285/?p1=A2 


td


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21950164
> 
> 
> For the mass market LCD is already too-good-enough. You belong to a margin of doctrinal zealots fixated on the viewing angles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



I assume you mean "doctrinaire". Regardless, if you actually take a moment to read my post, it is crystal clear I am not talking about the mass market consumer being especially impressed.


> Quote:
> But price is decisive if the competing technologies are good-enough. You seem to imply OLED may reach the stage at which it will beat the LCD on price. That will be very hard.



No. I am however implying the price gap will shrink over time. And OLED will, in fact, beat the street prices of locally dimmed, full array LCD, which might not even exist.


> Quote:
> Demand is function of price. OLED is not competitive and it is hard to see how it may become competitive. True, there is movement to make it more competitive be using LCD plants for manufacturing. But still this is uphill stony road.



Yes, it's an uphill battle. I am sticking with my original forecasts for how much penetration OLED will achieve through the decade. That said, even those forecasts -- which wildly offend the OLED zealots by the way -- show that an uphill battle will eventually lead to about 1/3 of the market. By the next decade, OLED will most assuredly capture 1/2 the market because, well, the world's largest LCD makers have already decided to shift from LCD to it.


One plant in China is not going to suddenly replace them.


> Quote:
> LCD is upping the game. Now the target for OLED to match LCD must be high density and especially low power consumption. These are formidable problems for OLED.



OLED wins on power consumption at larger sizes. And giant IGZO displays don't exist yet.


> Quote:
> Your requirements are much beyond standard consumers and will not be satisified by the industry since the 'zealots' market is too small
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . The practical problem you will soon face is to buy a small and supposedly perfect 55" OLED for the XXXL price or cheaper 70", 80" or maybe even 90" LCD.



I'm buying a 65" plasma in June. My next "problem" is in 2016. I'm not too worried, but thanks for looking out for me.


> Quote:
> But why it should be done at all? Low-profit commodities made under cut-throat competition?? While at the same time companies which make designer products like Apple or Intel or even better have just a Web portal are _overcashed_???



Yes, all Apple has is a good website... Umm ok.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21951287
> 
> 
> I'm buying a 65" plasma in June. My next "problem" is in 2016. I'm not too worried, but thanks for looking out for me.



What... a Panasonic TC-P65VT50?


----------



## gary cornell

Is LG waiting to see how their 55" OLED sells in Europe before announcing its USA debut?


----------



## HearingImpaired

Is the resolution of these displays almost double that of 1080p?


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21950164
> 
> 
> For the mass market LCD is already too-good-enough. You belong to a margin of doctrinal zealots fixated on the viewing angles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....



Consumers walking into a B&M and seeing an LCD next to a similar sized OLED will notice the viewing angles. And other features. And will pay a 30% - 100% premium, as driven by their wallet. Side by side, LCD will have a tough time and will become the "low end" product for those for whom price is *EVERYTHING.*


Manufacturers want OLED because they can actually make margin on them. Eventually, even OLED will become commoditized and low margin. The writing is on the wall and I think we're seeing the last big investment in LCD development. And even this investment, you notice, is applicable to OLED. I doubt there will be continuing LCD development with a big budget *unless* it applies elsewhere as well.



But- LCD will be around a long time for persistent displays. The airport arrivals/departures monitors will be LCD. Not plasma. Not CRT. Not OLED. LCD.


----------



## specuvestor

For those following this thread for long time, it is amusing that irkuck is repeating what rogo said a year late, and rogo is replying to "rogo" now










Like I said, the train of technology has left the station, it's no longer at the stage of whether OLED is viable as a future mass market product. Neither does it mean LCD or plasma will disappear next year. We don't live in a binary world. What is up for debate is the price curve hence the adoption and replacement rate. And of course the usual buzz on the generational improvements in OLED, which is what AVS is about











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HearingImpaired* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I read through this thread and couldn't find the information I was looking for. What is the resolution of Oled displays and what is the average lifespan of them?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HearingImpaired* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is the resolution of these displays almost double that of 1080p?



Resolution on small screens are still being improved but nowhere near retina LCD. 1080p for TV is not an issue, but next 3 years their focus will probably not be on 4k.


Problem with OLED is traditionally on blue lifespan of up to 30k hours. LG RGBW implementation supposedly lengthen the lifespan. We'll see when the spec is out.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvted* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Backplane advancement to benefit LCD and possibly OLED from SHARP:
> 
> http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/40285/?p1=A2
> 
> 
> td



That's the IGZO backpane we've been talking about in this thread and iPad threads


What irkuck fail to figure out is that IGZO is only for sizes from about 10" iPad to 60" TV. you still need LTPS for small sizes and a-Si for huge size, as of current development.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21951522
> 
> 
> For those following this thread for long time, it is amusing that irkuck is repeating what rogo said a year late, and rogo is replying to "rogo" now



That probably shows that Rogo has incorporated new information into his evaluation.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *htwaits* /forum/post/21951761
> 
> 
> That probably shows that Rogo has incorporated new information into his evaluation.



And I respect that. Like I always quoted Keynes "When facts change, I change my mind... What do you do Sir?"


Unlike a forumer still hoping for SED








or arguing whether OLED is viable.


I am not trolling rogo but every incremental positive he has towards OLED, is just a confirmation that the path is right


----------



## HearingImpaired




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21951522
> 
> 
> For those following this thread for long time, it is amusing that irkuck is repeating what rogo said a year late, and rogo is replying to "rogo" now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, the train of technology has left the station, it's no longer at the stage of whether OLED is viable as a future mass market product. Neither does it mean LCD or plasma will disappear next year. We don't live in a binary world. What is up for debate is the price curve hence the adoption and replacement rate. And of course the usual buzz on the generational improvements in OLED, which is what AVS is about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution on small screens are still being improved but nowhere near retina LCD. 1080p for TV is not an issue, but next 3 years their focus will probably not be on 4k.
> 
> 
> Problem with OLED is traditionally on blue lifespan of up to 30k hours. LG RGBW implementation supposedly lengthen the lifespan. We'll see when the spec is out.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the IGZO backpane we've been talking about in this thread and iPad threads
> 
> 
> What irkuck fail to figure out is that IGZO is only for sizes from about 10" iPad to 60" TV. you still need LTPS for small sizes and a-Si for huge size, as of current development.



Still though 30k hours is about ten years watching tv 8 hours a day.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32* /forum/post/21951422
> 
> 
> What... a Panasonic TC-P65VT50?



Why is that an eek? I mean I haven't ordered it yet because I'm waiting to make sure there isn't a showstopper, but assuming it's better than the ST50 by the margin I expect it to be, I'll be ordering one next month.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21951522
> 
> 
> For those following this thread for long time, it is amusing that irkuck is repeating what rogo said a year late, and rogo is replying to "rogo" now



I can't decide which is more insane: Me talking to me, or irkuck talking to me from a year ago.


> Quote:
> Like I said, the train of technology has left the station, it's no longer at the stage of whether OLED is viable as a future mass market product. Neither does it mean LCD or plasma will disappear next year. We don't live in a binary world. What is up for debate is the price curve hence the adoption and replacement rate. And of course the usual buzz on the generational improvements in OLED, which is what AVS is about



As I said, I expect there to be a lot of LCDs next decade. I just doubt many videophiles are going to be buying them. Most videophiles don't buy them now. In fact, LCD has never really been the choice of the majority of videophiles when you think about it. As great as the Sharp Elite is, most videophiles buy plasmas because they are so much cheaper or because they don't like the color on the Sharps or for whatever reason.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *htwaits* /forum/post/21951761
> 
> 
> That probably shows that Rogo has incorporated new information into his evaluation.



You know me well.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21952268
> 
> 
> And I respect that. Like I always quoted Keynes "When facts change, I change my mind... What do you do Sir?"



It's funny, we have people in this country called "Kansans" who come from a place called Kansas. They have learned of things like fossils and geological strata and yet still deny the existence of evolution.... I find this ironic only because you brought up Keynes, which kind of looks like the word Kansas.


> Quote:
> I am not trolling rogo but every incremental positive he has towards OLED, is just a confirmation that the path is right



I don't view your remarks as trolling in any way. When you notice more optimism, I sometimes clarify the nature of said optimism.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ Evolution is an incomplete explanation/ theory in any case







Like many discussions in AVS, things are more complicated than they look on surface. Heuristically we would love to believe there is a simple explanation so we can make sense of our environment. But we forget that in a complex chaos system that there is no singular answer but more of a "maybe", "probably", which doesn't appeal to classical deterministic views. And there are things like parents' love that don't make sense at all.


The progress of OLED is not deterministic as well. It's a probability game in a changing competitive environment. We can only *guess* when OLED will be mainstream, but that doesn't appeal to many. Science as a discipline and ideology has moved on, mainstream has not.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HearingImpaired* /forum/post/21952336
> 
> 
> Still though 30k hours is about ten years watching tv 8 hours a day.



key word is "up to"


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21952268
> 
> 
> I am not trolling rogo *but every incremental positive he has towards OLED, is just a confirmation that the path is right*



Please forgive me, but I don't understand the highlighted "but" portion of your last comment.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21950206
> 
> 
> The requirements for those two metrics are very different for televisions versus handsets. Nobody is talking about a 300ppi 50" television. OLED's will be able to handle the resolutions for both 4K and 8K with little problem. On the power consumption side, unless people start surfing the web on their televisions, OLED's should perform very well against LCD's for the vast majority of content.



I was not suggesting 300ppi TVs, that would be insane. What I meant is that LCD is evolving all the time and OLED will be stressed to follow. True, one can make high-density OLEDs but let's see them first competing with LCDs. About the power consumption, Sharp claims it lowered it down for the LCD once again.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21951287
> 
> 
> No. I am however implying the price gap will shrink over time. And OLED will, in fact, beat the street prices of locally dimmed, full array LCD, which might not even exist. Yes, it's an uphill battle. I am sticking with my original forecasts for how much penetration OLED will achieve through the decade. That said, even those forecasts -- which wildly offend the OLED zealots by the way -- show that an uphill battle will eventually lead to about 1/3 of the market. By the next decade, OLED will most assuredly capture 1/2 the market because, well, the world's largest LCD makers have already decided to shift from LCD to it.



Time horizon of 10ys is speculation, what is predicted up to 2015 is couple of percent of OLED market share. That means OLED spreading up will require deep pockets from its promoters.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21951287
> 
> 
> I'm buying a 65" plasma in June. My next "problem" is in 2016. I'm not too worried, but thanks for looking out for me.



Heh, that fits zealotic profile of preaching theories but extremely conservative practice







. Plasma??? In 2012?


Anyway, this illustrates the problem of moving target for OLED. The announced 55 inchers are now too small for high-enders to consider, even if their PQ is brilliant. So now OLED should be moving to the 65"+ segment but this too big a step for now. If and when such OLEDs appear LCD will be well established there.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21951287
> 
> 
> Yes, all Apple has is a good website... Umm ok.



Oh, no, they have designer products people are buying like crazy. But 100 billion worth companies like Facebook?




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21951522
> 
> 
> For those following this thread for long time, it is amusing that irkuck is repeating what rogo said a year late, and rogo is replying to "rogo" now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, the train of technology has left the station, it's no longer at the stage of whether OLED is viable as a future mass market product. Neither does it mean LCD or plasma will disappear next year. We don't live in a binary world. What is up for debate is the price curve hence the adoption and replacement rate. And of course the usual buzz on the generational improvements in OLED, which is what AVS is about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution on small screens are still being improved but nowhere near retina LCD. 1080p for TV is not an issue, but next 3 years their focus will probably not be on 4k. Problem with OLED is traditionally on blue lifespan of up to 30k hours. LG RGBW implementation supposedly lengthen the lifespan. We'll see when the spec is out. That's the IGZO backpane we've been talking about in this thread and iPad threads. What irkuck fail to figure out is that IGZO is only for sizes from about 10" iPad to 60" TV. you still need LTPS for small sizes and a-Si for huge size, as of current development.



I've been consistently stating that LCD is an extremely flexible technology which is unlikely to get disposed any time soon. OLED entering now faces huge problems. e.g. the 55" OLED flagships are not impressive anymore vs. flotillas of 65"+ LCD flagships. OLED portable panels are not so impressive vs. latest high-density LCDs. IGZO is just another example of LCD flexibility, it will limit possibility of OLED entering tablets and monitors.


Besides this, OLED is projected in the minds of fantasizers as the ultimate Holy Grail tech contrasting with the proven real-life issues with the LCD. Reality should not be expected prefect.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21952636
> 
> 
> 
> Heh, that fits zealotic profile of preaching theories but extremely conservative practice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Plasma??? In 2012?
> 
> .



According to people in this section of AVS, buying a plasma in 2012 is idiotic. You're at least the second person to imply this more than a little strongly.


I guess I don't get why. I'm not sure why it won't serve me for 5+ years like the last one did.


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21952268
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike a forumer still hoping for SED



Who is now driving people absolutely bonkers over on the audio side, with subwoofers being his latest chew toy.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21952452
> 
> 
> ^^ Evolution is an incomplete explanation/ theory in any case



Thanks for being level-headed on this topic so we don't have to get into theories on origins.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21952636
> 
> 
> Heh, that fits zealotic profile of preaching theories but extremely conservative practice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Plasma??? In 2012?



Zealotry, really? That's what I would call someone who fixates on LED tech as the only viable display tech.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Who is now driving people absolutely bonkers over on the audio side, with subwoofers being his latest chew toy.



one of the things I learnt in life is never argue with a persistent retiree











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *htwaits* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Please forgive me, but I don't understand the highlighted "but" portion of your last comment.



My feel of the industry is more corporate management, strategic, investor relations and financial aspects. I hardly talk to the people on the ground. But you need people on the ground to feedback whether plasma P5 or LCD 10G is a good idea, or 3D/ 4K make sense or not.


From skeptic to "quantum leap", rogo represent the industry's sentiment towards OLED pretty well AFAIK. He is a pretty good representation how perceptions have changed. So i do follow his perception closely. Sammy made a big bet, when perceptions were unfavorable, and looks like bearing fruit. OLED devices is the main driver for their display profitability now, as per results today. LG has surprised with RGBW OLED. Others like the Japanese and Taiwanese, didn't.


" April 27 (Bloomberg) -- Samsung Electronics Co. overtook Nokia Oyj as the world’s biggest vendor of mobile-phones last quarter, ending the Finnish company’s 14-year run as the global industry leader, according to researcher Strategy Analytics.

Samsung shipped 93.5 million handsets in the first quarter, 36 percent more than a year earlier, and compared with 82.7 million for second-ranked Nokia, Strategy Analytics said in an e-mailed statement today. It’s the first time the Suwon, South Korea-based company led in phone shipments, the Boston-based researcher said.

Demand for Galaxy smartphones helped Samsung today post first-quarter net income of 5.05 trillion won ($4.5 billion), beating analysts’ estimates. Nokia last week reported a 1.34 billion euros ($1.8 billion) first-quarter operating loss after handset sales slumped."


----------



## David_B

Samsung has been pro-OLED for over 7 years. Rogo has turned his "sentiment" around in the last 6 months.


Get real.


The only people with negative outlooks on OLED have been internet commentors.










Samsung, Sony, Kodak, Dow etc have been on OLED for a very long time. They didn't stick it out this long because they thought it would fail, or not be better economically then current tech while improving tech specs.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21955855
> 
> 
> one of the things I learnt in life is never argue with a persistent retiree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My feel of the industry is more corporate management, strategic, investor relations and financial aspects. I hardly talk to the people on the ground. But you need people on the ground to feedback whether plasma P5 or LCD 10G is a good idea, or 3D/ 4K make sense or not.
> 
> 
> From skeptic to "quantum leap", rogo represent the industry's sentiment towards OLED pretty well AFAIK. He is a pretty good representation how perceptions have changed. So i do follow his perception closely. Sammy made a big bet, when perceptions were unfavorable, and looks like bearing fruit. OLED devices is the main driver for their display profitability now, as per results today. LG has surprised with RGBW OLED. Others like the Japanese and Taiwanese, didn't.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ Have you heard of PM OLED? Maybe you can read this thread in entirety first, since you want to talk about history, which is as real as you can get. I could remember quite a lot of negativity on OLED since PM OLED failed to gain traction and everyone bailed out except Sammy, and with Sony's half hearted effort


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21956371
> 
> 
> Samsung has been pro-OLED for over 7 years. Rogo has turned his "sentiment" around in the last 6 months.



Zero OLED TVs shipped in 7 years... Up to and including today.


Impressive for a "pro-OLED company".


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21956694
> 
> 
> Zero OLED TVs shipped in 7 years... Up to and including today. Impressive for a "pro-OLED company".



This is biased statement. What counts are not only TV displays. Samsung did fantastic job producing OLED displays for mobile. Now TVs are just being made. This is stunning development. The problem of OLED is stiff competition from the evolving LCD.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21952452
> 
> 
> ..........The progress of OLED is not deterministic as well. It's a probability game in a changing competitive environment. We can only guesswhen OLED will be mainstream,



and "if" -


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21956893
> 
> 
> This is biased statement. What counts are not only TV displays. Samsung did fantastic job producing OLED displays for mobile. Now TVs are just being made. This is stunning development. The problem of OLED is stiff competition from the evolving LCD.



Well, he's right. There aren't any OLED displays large enough to be considered home theater displays on the market.


As you said, there is stiff competition and that in part doesn't make it a definate shoe in.


----------



## David_B

What did LCD start out as? Calculator parts.


Seems many manufacturers "stuck it out" with LCD long enough to develop the replacment for CRT huh?


BTW, PM OLED failed? I think you don't understand how many devices shiped with it. Did they make a PM OLED TV? No. Did PM OLED lead to TVs? Of course it did. Development is mostly failure, but through failure you find success if you "stick it out".



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21956507
> 
> 
> ^^ Have you heard of PM OLED? Maybe you can read this thread in entirety first, since you want to talk about history, which is as real as you can get. I could remember quite a lot of negativity on OLED since PM OLED failed to gain traction and everyone bailed out except Sammy, and with Sony's half hearted effort


----------



## slacker711

AUO is promising samples of their 32" OLED television by the end of the year off of their Gen 6 pilot fab.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20120427PD208.html 


I dont think they have mentioned the manufacturing method for the display but AUO is going to show a 32" OLED with a IGZO TFT at SID so that seems like the best bet.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What did LCD start out as? Calculator parts.
> 
> 
> Seems many manufacturers "stuck it out" with LCD long enough to develop the replacment for CRT huh?
> 
> 
> BTW, PM OLED failed? I think you don't understand how many devices shiped with it. Did they make a PM OLED TV? No. Did PM OLED lead to TVs? Of course it did. Development is mostly failure, but through failure you find success if you "stick it out".



You have no idea how closely we followed mobile display driver leader Solomon Systech and SDI back then when PM OLED was introduced mainly as a secondary display on top of a clamshell, just when industry was transiting to color STN.


By your logic SED or FED TV should appear in 10 year's time and we're actually not too negative about them right now.


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea how closely we followed mobile display driver leader Solomon Systech and SDI back then when PM OLED was introduced mainly as a secondary display on top of a clamshell, just when industry was transiting to color STN.
> 
> 
> By your logic SED or FED TV should appear in 10 year's time and we're actually not too negative about them right now.



I never said anything about the patents of OLED, why would you bring up a display tech that was comletely stopped because of legal not technical issues?


My logic does not extend to tech stopped by legal issues.


And are you admitting pm oled was not a failure as you earlier said? Because I don't understand your attempt to marginalize a display tech that helped us get where we are today.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21957441
> 
> 
> AUO is promising samples of their 32" OLED television by the end of the year off of their Gen 6 pilot fab.
> 
> .



This is intriguing (and a bit weird). I don't see any market for a premium priced 32" TV. I wonder if they are going to show their ability to produce and then move upmarket in size or if they are going to try to make and sell a $2000 32" TV.


Worthy of watching this development because on the face of it, there's a mismatch here -- but I'm sure they have an idea of what comes next.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21958587
> 
> 
> This is intriguing (and a bit weird). I don't see any market for a premium priced 32" TV. I wonder if they are going to show their ability to produce and then move upmarket in size or if they are going to try to make and sell a $2000 32" TV.
> 
> 
> Worthy of watching this development because on the face of it, there's a mismatch here -- but I'm sure they have an idea of what comes next.



How about a kitchen TV where viewing angle matters?

$2K doubtful, $1K perhaps.


- Rich


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP* /forum/post/21957003
> 
> 
> Well, he's right. There aren't any OLED displays large enough to be considered home theater displays on the market. As you said, there is stiff competition and that in part doesn't make it a definate shoe in.



The 55" OLEDs are just being made as I said, at least LG must be stocking them already for the May launch in Europe. The problem with stiff competition is in LCD price and PQ which is just good-enough. More general, LCD is highly adaptable tech, e.g. Once OLED was advertised as super-thin, now LCD is pactically matching it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB* /forum/post/21958594
> 
> 
> How about a kitchen TV where viewing angle matters?
> 
> $2K doubtful, $1K perhaps.
> 
> - Rich



OLED kitchen TVs? Sounds joke for a product supposed to have ultra-high PQ. Anybody trying to start OLED market with TVs less than, say, 40" is damaging the OLED brand. Even the coming 55" OLEDs will face pondering "Yeah nice, but I can get same size top LCD for waaay less or get much bigger LCD much cheaper".


----------



## CptBeaky

A 32" OLED TV suggests a focus away from the North American market. Or maybe they get a significant enough improvement in yields that they think they can price it better. Made well, it could be a hell of a nice monitor for a indie filmmaker or enthusiast digital photographer.


----------



## shyguy3763

I'd buy a 40-42 inch OLED tv in a heartbeat,my bedroom is quite small,I'd love to replace my 10 year old LCD.I think it would be a great way to test the market on a first gen product,cost less too compared to 55 inch model.


----------



## Mikazaru




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21958587
> 
> 
> This is intriguing (and a bit weird). I don't see any market for a premium priced 32" TV. I wonder if they are going to show their ability to produce and then move upmarket in size or if they are going to try to make and sell a $2000 32" TV.
> 
> 
> Worthy of watching this development because on the face of it, there's a mismatch here -- but I'm sure they have an idea of what comes next.



Actually, the article says "sizes larger than 32 inches". I would pay $2000 for a 40" OLED.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I never said anything about the patents of OLED, why would you bring up a display tech that was comletely stopped because of legal not technical issues?
> 
> 
> My logic does not extend to tech stopped by legal issues.
> 
> 
> And are you admitting pm oled was not a failure as you earlier said? Because I don't understand your attempt to marginalize a display tech that helped us get where we are today.



Then the logic is incorrect. Tech developments had been littered with legal and IP issue, from software copyright to hardware IP infringement, in the past 30 years that I've been following the industry. OLED or even LCD are not invented by Koreans or Taiwanese. I don't even understand the lawsuit Oracle have on Google for Java (remember Open Office?)


It depends whether they have the foresight and fortitude to "stuck it out" (like you said). But without foresight, it's just a grind to financial hell, and we've seen so many of them. For every success story there are at least 9 that failed, but we don't read about it. We only read success. If board of Apple refuse to get Jobs back in 1996, Job's legacy would be a wannabe (Lisa and NeXt were not exactly a smashing commercial success) and Apple would be another Kodak. It's a fine line between zero and hero.


As such history had shown PMOLED was a total failure. It tried but didn't succeed and manufacturers avoided it like a plague, distancing themselves from bad publicity. To Sammy's credit, they continued to develop it. They were the hero in this case.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/16/s...rts-on-amoled/ 

-From *2008*, note "small bucket of buyers"


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikazaru* /forum/post/21964788
> 
> 
> Actually, the article says "sizes larger than 32 inches". I would pay $2000 for a 40" OLED.



OK, so I'll buy that there's a small -- real -- market for $2000, 40" OLEDs. I doubt the market is real at $3000, but I'm with you if they make it work for $2000. Maybe their clever plan is to carve out that niche first. Not necessarily sustainable as an advantage, but a good way to drive production and work down the learning curve.


Anyway, if AUO dives in and Panasonic dives in, it will further increase the inevitability of the TV transition. And it's probably the best defense against the Chinese invading their already profitless LCD market.


----------



## David_B

*sigh*


Guess someone needs to tell lenovo that PMOLED is a "failure" and "everyone is running away from it".


http://www.slashgear.com/color-lenov...oled-21147640/ 




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21965352
> 
> 
> Then the logic is incorrect. Tech developments had been littered with legal and IP issue, from software copyright to hardware IP infringement, in the past 30 years that I've been following the industry. OLED or even LCD are not invented by Koreans or Taiwanese. I don't even understand the lawsuit Oracle have on Google for Java (remember Open Office?)
> 
> 
> It depends whether they have the foresight and fortitude to "stuck it out" (like you said). But without foresight, it's just a grind to financial hell, and we've seen so many of them. For every success story there are at least 9 that failed, but we don't read about it. We only read success. If board of Apple refuse to get Jobs back in 1996, Job's legacy would be a wannabe (Lisa and NeXt were not exactly a smashing commercial success) and Apple would be another Kodak. It's a fine line between zero and hero.
> 
> 
> As such history had shown PMOLED was a total failure. It tried but didn't succeed and manufacturers avoided it like a plague, distancing themselves from bad publicity. To Sammy's credit, they continued to develop it. They were the hero in this case.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/16/s...rts-on-amoled/
> 
> -From *2008*, note "small bucket of buyers"


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21966515
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> 
> Guess someone needs to tell lenovo that PMOLED is a "failure" and "everyone is running away from it".
> 
> 
> http://www.slashgear.com/color-lenov...oled-21147640/



Right... and everyone's running towards s800 then? It's a year old post...Have you got yours yet?


While Samsung mobile division been making tonnes of $ from AMOLED Galaxy S, I hardly hear Lenovo talk about PMOLED. I'll remind them the next time I talk to them.


*sigh*


By your measure E-Ink as a Display tech must be a mega success.


----------



## specuvestor

Samsung Galaxy S3 with 4.8" screen and 720p resolution, conveniently







but probably pentile

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/sams...ne-x-50007834/


----------



## irkuck

^^ Microscoped and proved pentile . It is as good as a pentile can be but illustrating OLED has still manufacturing/cost issues since Samsung was not able to put RGB.


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Right... and everyone's running towards s800 then? It's a year old post...Have you got yours yet?
> 
> 
> While Samsung mobile division been making tonnes of $ from AMOLED Galaxy S, I hardly hear Lenovo talk about PMOLED. I'll remind them the next time I talk to them.
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> 
> By your measure E-Ink as a Display tech must be a mega success.



Amazon has killed the printed book with it?


If you don't think that's a "mega success", you have very skewed ideals.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21983022
> 
> 
> ^^ Microscoped and proved pentile . It is as good as a pentile can be but illustrating OLED has still manufacturing/cost issues since Samsung was not able to put RGB.



Considering it has 2.4X resolution over the S2



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21983120
> 
> 
> Amazon has killed the printed book with it?
> 
> 
> If you don't think that's a "mega success", you have very skewed ideals.



So skewed that the Taiwanese company that makes E-Ink is bleeding, and that the hottest selling Kindle is now an LCD? E-Ink never even made it beyond the eReader space, just as PMOLED hardly beyond the top of the clamshell.


"1Q12 loss per share of NT$0.7: In our note Losing pricing power, published on 23 Feb, we had expressed concern about E Ink's profitability in 1Q12 due to weak e-reader shipments driven by serious inventory issues from major brand vendors. E Ink reported a 1Q12 net loss of NT$788m, or LPS of NT$0.7, worse than our recently highlighted potential worst-case LPS of ~NT$0.3 and consensus EPS of NT$0.1. Negative gross margin on e-readers on back of low utilization rate dragged E Ink's 1Q GM down to 0.8%, significantly lower than 28.5% in 4Q11 and much worse than our or Street estimates of 20-25%."- Macquarie 27 Apr


I happen to know Pime View aka E-Ink very well and had stated on record that Kindle is a great reader. That doesn't make it a success over time. Consumers want multimedia rather than less eyesore and more battery life. OTOH PMOLED was lacking in power consumption and motion. You really need to know your history *in context* before posting, instead of pick and choose articles in the internet. I doubt E Ink will exist as much as PMOLED exist in 3 years time, if not less. Both were interesting while it lasted, albeit shortly. They were much more successful than products that never even came out of the lab, if you put in that perspective


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikazaru* /forum/post/21964788
> 
> 
> Actually, the article says "sizes larger than 32 inches". I would pay $2000 for a 40" OLED.



I wanna go back to Mikazaru's comment here. $2 grand for a 40" OLED? Really? Why? Not attacking you - I'm just curious.



> Quote:
> OK, so I'll buy that there's a small -- real -- market for $2000, 40" OLEDs. I doubt the market is real at $3000, but I'm with you if they make it work for $2000. Maybe their clever plan is to carve out that niche first. Not necessarily sustainable as an advantage, but a good way to drive production and work down the learning curve.



I'm guessing the market will be rough at even $1 grand for a 40 incher once thngs settle down.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21983022
> 
> 
> ^^ Microscoped and proved pentile . It is as good as a pentile can be but illustrating OLED has still manufacturing/cost issues since Samsung was not able to put RGB.



It shows that they have yet to master LITI which has nothing to do with manufacturing televisions.


----------



## slacker711

OT



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21983136
> 
> 
> I happen to know Pime View aka E-Ink very well and had state on record that Kindle is a great reader. That doesn't make it a success over time. Consumers want multimedia rather than less eyesore and more battery life.



What are your thoughts on Mirasol? It allows for multimedia, but with a lower display quality. OTOH, it has outdoor viewability and the battery life of e-ink displays. It seems like a better solution than e-ink, but I am not sure if consumers will transition entirely to LCD/OLED based devices.


----------



## irkuck

 Chinese 10G LCD plant will make OLED breakthrough even harder.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21983334
> 
> 
> OT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on Mirasol? It allows for multimedia, but with a lower display quality. OTOH, it has outdoor viewability and the battery life of e-ink displays. It seems like a better solution than e-ink, but I am not sure if consumers will transition entirely to LCD/OLED based devices.



Mirasol is a far, far cry indoors from eInk right now. I hope it gets better and becomes more successful, but so far, it's not good enough to make a great e-reader and not good enough to make any kind of decent tablet.


It's between both worlds, good at neither.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21984861
> 
> Chinese 10G LCD plant will make OLED breakthrough even harder.



"Glass substrates at the 10G line can be cut into eight units of 60-inch TV panels"


Is that eight 60" sets or four 120" sets


----------



## David_B

Pime View making bad decissions on factory capacity has zero to do with e-ink device sales.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21983136
> 
> 
> Considering it has 2.4X resolution over the S2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So skewed that the Taiwanese company that makes E-Ink is bleeding, and that the hottest selling Kindle is now an LCD? E-Ink never even made it beyond the eReader space, just as PMOLED hardly beyond the top of the clamshell.
> 
> 
> "1Q12 loss per share of NT$0.7: In our note Losing pricing power, published on 23 Feb, we had expressed concern about E Ink's profitability in 1Q12 due to weak e-reader shipments driven by serious inventory issues from major brand vendors. E Ink reported a 1Q12 net loss of NT$788m, or LPS of NT$0.7, worse than our recently highlighted potential worst-case LPS of ~NT$0.3 and consensus EPS of NT$0.1. Negative gross margin on e-readers on back of low utilization rate dragged E Ink's 1Q GM down to 0.8%, significantly lower than 28.5% in 4Q11 and much worse than our or Street estimates of 20-25%."- Macquarie 27 Apr
> 
> 
> I happen to know Pime View aka E-Ink very well and had stated on record that Kindle is a great reader. That doesn't make it a success over time. Consumers want multimedia rather than less eyesore and more battery life. OTOH PMOLED was lacking in power consumption and motion. You really need to know your history *in context* before posting, instead of pick and choose articles in the internet. I doubt E Ink will exist as much as PMOLED exist in 3 years time, if not less. Both were interesting while it lasted, albeit shortly. They were much more successful than products that never even came out of the lab, if you put in that perspective


----------



## David_B

"The 10G line will focus on the production of large- and ultra large-size LCD panels for local brand TV vendors in China"


OLED is for everywhere but China. This has near zero effect on the rest of the world.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21984861
> 
> Chinese 10G LCD plant will make OLED breakthrough even harder.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/21985229
> 
> 
> Mirasol is a far, far cry indoors from eInk right now. I hope it gets better and becomes more successful, but so far, it's not good enough to make a great e-reader and not good enough to make any kind of decent tablet.
> 
> 
> It's between both worlds, good at neither.



Do you really think that the reading experience is that much worse than e-ink? The resolution is better than the e-ink solutions, but I have read that the background color is more silver than white. With color images, the saturation of Mirasol seems quite a bit better than the color version of e-ink. The big question I have had has generally been about the premium for Mirasol over e-ink. I think people will pay some premium for color, but it isnt going to be big.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21984861
> 
> Chinese 10G LCD plant will make OLED breakthrough even harder.



post it on the LCD forum where it belongs. It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread: OLED Technology.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21985945
> 
> 
> "The 10G line will focus on the production of large- and ultra large-size LCD panels for local brand TV vendors in China"
> 
> 
> OLED is for everywhere but China. This has near zero effect on the rest of the world.



Heh, fact that the chinese decided for 10G means that:


- LCD manufacturing will be ruled by China


- Costs of large screen LCDs will be significantly reduced


- OLED will have much harder time to break in, it looks unlikely

now OLED becomes replacement of LCD TV


You can see similar effect now in small displays. OLED has not made it in small displays, it is limited to some high-end models but not expanding its presence or moving down the ladder.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/21987600
> 
> 
> post it on the LCD forum where it belongs. It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread: OLED Technology.



This is narrow&shallow point of view. Chinese anouncing 10G is extremely important for the future of OLED TV. This is due to the fact that OLED must be competitive in the segment of large displays to survive but this looks problematic now.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21987279
> 
> 
> Do you really think that the reading experience is that much worse than e-ink? The resolution is better than the e-ink solutions, but I have read that the background color is more silver than white. With color images, the saturation of Mirasol seems quite a bit better than the color version of e-ink. The big question I have had has generally been about the premium for Mirasol over e-ink. I think people will pay some premium for color, but it isnt going to be big.



So I haven't experienced color e-Ink and therefore I can't comment on that.


For straight up reader apps where color doesn't matter, it's just very, very hard to beat the e-Ink monochrome solution and in the time I got to spend with Mirasol, I didn't think it came close. Primarily, because the contrast of the words on page didn't seem to be in the league of the e-Ink (someone had a Kindle so we could compare).


My sense is a Mirasol that's 10x better than what you could buy now might make a good Nook tablet-type display (or Kindle Fire) for a really cheap tablet/e-reader hybrid. In the meantime, I guess I wonder what market it's targeting. It's not good enough indoors for any of them it seems. And optimizing around outdoors doesn't seem very important.


----------



## Mikazaru




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/21983179
> 
> 
> I wanna go back to Mikazaru's comment here. $2 grand for a 40" OLED? Really? Why? Not attacking you - I'm just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing the market will be rough at even $1 grand for a 40 incher once thngs settle down.



I'm a bit of tech nut (as are most AVSers) and hardly representative of the average consumer. I paid the same for my 34" xbr960N 7 years ago and drove from Canada down to the US to get it because it wasn't available up here (10 hr round trip). I'm also a gamer and think a 40" OLED would be ideal for gaming (it's fantastic on the Vita). I've been coveting OLED for a while now and have grown accustomed to sitting fairly close to the screen while playing games, so size isn't a big issue. Everything's relative -- I spent almost half that amount on the new iPad and would probably use the TV a lot more (40" OLED + PS4/NextBox = gaming heaven).


I understand where you're coming from... most people place more importance on relative value than aesthetics/small increases in performance. I admit I'm a bit surprised that you find $2000 excessive for a 40" OLED -- I was of the mindset that it's wishful thinking on my part. In the end though, everyone has their own criteria for their purchase decisions (compact sealed subwoofer vs large ported subwoofer, or receiver vs separates etc.).


----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21988114
> 
> 
> Chinese anouncing 10G is extremely important for the future of OLED TV. This is due to the fact that OLED must be competitive in the segment of large displays to survive but this looks problematic now.













"Problematic" was pre 2010. "Possible" was 2010 to Jan 2012. "Likely" is post Jan 2012.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikazaru* /forum/post/21988634
> 
> 
> I'm a bit of tech nut and hardly representative of the average consumer. I paid the same for my 34" xbr960N 7 years ago and drove from Canada down to the US to get it because it wasn't available up here (10 hr round trip). I'm also a gamer and think a 40" OLED would be ideal for gaming (it's fantastic on the Vita). I've been coveting OLED for a while now and have grown accustomed to sitting fairly close to the screen while playing games, so size isn't a big issue. Everything's relative -- I spent almost half that amount on the new iPad and would probably use the TV a lot more (40" OLED + PS4/NextBox = gaming heaven).
> 
> 
> I understand where you're coming from... most people place more importance on relative value than aesthetics/small increases in performance. In the end though, everyone has their own criteria for their purchase decisions (compact sealed subwoofer vs large ported subwoofer, or receiver vs separates etc.).



While you explained that pretty well - my thought is that there probably aren't too many of _you_ out there - and that the OLED folks [whomever they prove to be] will find that out if they keep the price that high for too long. So my question would be - would you still buy a 40 incher for $2 grand if you knew that the same TV was going to be available in 6 months to a year for $1 grand - or less? Your answer is probably yes - but I'm guessing that most folks would answer no.


----------



## irkuck

_Chinese anouncing 10G is extremely important for the future of OLED TV. This is due to the fact that OLED must be competitive in the segment of large displays to survive but this looks problematic now._


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/21989493
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Problematic" was pre 2010. "Possible" was 2010 to Jan 2012. "Likely" is post Jan 2012.



So what that OLED TVs were shown in Jan 2012? OLED came to the small displays a while ago and where it is now? Chinese 10G is a tsunami for the display world. It means large panel prices will go down by another 30% or so. The only factor for OLED is that having the knife on their throats Samsung and LG will be madly trying to push OLED to survive in the display area. This will be risky game requiring huge subsidies for OLED to stay in.


----------



## mattg3

Bottom line is OLED is the future of displays no matter what is said on this thread


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mattg3* /forum/post/21990496
> 
> 
> Bottom line is OLED is the future of displays no matter what is said on this thread



It could be the future of displays, if they get yields up and costs down. Which they have been trying to do without success for many years now. Hopefully, LG and Samsung have figured it out were Sony and others have failed. If a few years from now they are still only able to produce a limited number at 4 times the cost of same size LCD set, it may remain a high end niche product. LCD is not going to be standing still, LCD technology is making advances as well. Such as IGZO, 4K resolution and glare free glass. If given the choice today between a $8000 55" OLED and a 70" or 80" IGZO, 4K glare free LCD for half the price, I would guess most the regular public would take the LCD.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/21990781
> 
> 
> It could be the future of displays, if they get yields up and costs down. Which they have been trying to do without success for many years now. Hopefully, LG and Samsung have figured it out were Sony and others have failed. If a few years from now they are still only able to produce a limited number at 4 times the cost of same size LCD set, it may remain a high end niche product. LCD is not going to be standing still, LCD technology is making advances as well. Such as IGZO, 4K resolution and glare free glass. If given the choice today between a $8000 55" OLED and a 70" or 80" IGZO, 4K glare free LCD for half the price, I would guess most the regular public would take the LCD.



10/10. Some people say here OLED is the future no matter what. Apparently they still have not heard this: It is economy, stupid. Given the pace of advance in the LCD, the future of OLED is at best a long and winding stony road uphill.


----------



## mattg3

Stupid is a bit harsh.Im talking about the future which could be five years from now.New technology will move things forward no matter what the economic state is when they first show up.When i bought my first pioneer plasma in 2003 for 4 grand people thought i was nuts but everyone wanted to see it.Nothing existed like it before and flat screens in a big box tv had just started to show up with the Sony Wega models.Look what happen.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B* /forum/post/21985937
> 
> 
> Pime View making bad decissions on factory capacity has zero to do with e-ink device sales.



By this logic SMD which accounted for >90% of OLED panels produced has nothing to do with OLED device sale or development either.


You are trying to be a devil's advocate but it still has to make sense.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/21983334
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on Mirasol? It allows for multimedia, but with a lower display quality. OTOH, it has outdoor viewability and the battery life of e-ink displays. It seems like a better solution than e-ink, but I am not sure if consumers will transition entirely to LCD/OLED based devices.



Sorry I'm not familiar with this tech. Not heard much about it. What is interesting is that both Mirasol and E-Ink are US tech











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21988114
> 
> 
> Heh, fact that the chinese decided for 10G means that:
> 
> 
> - LCD manufacturing will be ruled by China
> 
> 
> - Costs of large screen LCDs will be significantly reduced
> 
> 
> - OLED will have much harder time to break in, it looks unlikely
> 
> now OLED becomes replacement of LCD TV
> 
> 
> You can see similar effect now in small displays. OLED has not made it in *small displays*, it is limited to some high-end models but not expanding its presence or moving down the ladder.



I can assure people that what you say is irrelevant because :

1) OLED is unlikely to be in huge sizes (or even 4k) in the next 3 years... so you can use 4k as a strawman for OLED's demise the next 3 years as well

2) Obviously you are not aware that when we say "small" in the industry we mean phones & CE, and medium size we mean anything smaller than 10" (Notice how iPad and netbooks are


----------



## S. Hiller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/21993094
> 
> 
> 10/10. Some people say here OLED is the future no matter what. Apparently they still have not heard this: It is economy, stupid. Given the pace of advance in the LCD, the future of OLED is at best a long and winding stony road uphill.



What advance? Are you referring to picture quality? Fundamentally it seems like it's stuck and has nowhere to go. We need emissive tech. (Beautiful new iPad screen and the Elite notwithstanding...)


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *S. Hiller* /forum/post/22001160
> 
> 
> What advance? Are you referring to picture quality? Fundamentally it seems like it's stuck and has nowhere to go. We need emissive tech. (Beautiful new iPad screen and *the Elite notwithstanding*...)



The Sharp Elite is not the end all, be all either.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> 10/10. Some people say here OLED is the future no matter what. Apparently they still have not heard this: It is economy, stupid. Given the pace of advance in the LCD, the future of OLED is at best a long and winding stony road uphill.



You forgot, that the two biggest panel maker, LG and Samsung switching in the next years from LCD to OLED. It´s the same story like from CCFL to LED. The future for OLED-TV´s is much brighter than for LCD-TV´s. LG claimed they can make now, if they wanted, 47-80" and 4K-OLED-TV´s!



> Quote:
> With our technology, screen sizes from 47-inches to 80-inches are currently possible, and we're just getting started. The stability of the technology also means that our screen will support Ultra Definition, which is 4 times higher than Full HD!


 http://whylgtv.lge.com/archives/4399


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21993993
> 
> 
> I can assure people that what you say is irrelevant because :
> 
> 1) OLED is unlikely to be in huge sizes (or even 4k) in the next 3 years... so you can use 4k as a strawman for OLED's demise the next 3 years as well
> 
> ....
> 
> There is a reason why manufacturers sell 55" at $8000 rather than 32" at $4000. Please don't consistently assume top people who put billions into capex and nurturing an entire supply chain are idiots.



Your thinking is contradictory: Indeed it is unlikely there will be huge (and 4K) OLEDs in the next 3 ys. On the other hand, manufs must bring to the market in the beginning biggest OLEDs in the main line (=55") in order to establish shining presence and attract hig-end buyers. But here is the problem: with the current and coming big size LCDs, OLED is not so shiny anymore. High-end buyers will be distracted by the relative smallness of OLED sets even if the PQ is brilliant. There is similar effect at the very high-end of LCD: people having choice between the Sharp Elite 60-70" Übersets and the plain simple 80" often select the 80" since its PQ is good enough, price is way lower, and size is so much more impressive. While such considerations do not imply OLED demise, they mean OLED will be hard pressed from every side by the LCD and result of this far is from the mantra "OLED will prevail no matter what".



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/21993993
> 
> 
> 2) Obviously you are not aware that when we say "small" in the industry we mean phones & CE, and medium size we mean anything smaller than 10" (Notice how iPad and netbooks are


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/22001421
> 
> 
> Your thinking is contradictory: Indeed it is unlikely there will be huge (and 4K) OLEDs in the next 3 ys. On the other hand, manufs must bring to the market in the beginning biggest OLEDs in the main line (=55") in order to establish shining presence and attract hig-end buyers. But here is the problem: with the current and coming big size LCDs, OLED is not so shiny anymore. High-end buyers will be distracted by the relative smallness of OLED sets even if the PQ is brilliant. There is similar effect at the very high-end of LCD: people having choice between the Sharp Elite 60-70" Übersets and the plain simple 80" often select the 80" since its PQ is good enough, price is way lower, and size is so much more impressive. While such considerations do not imply OLED demise, they mean OLED will be hard pressed from every side by the LCD and result of this far is from the mantra "OLED will prevail no matter what".



Videophiles like big sets, but big sets are not necessarily videophile. I doubt I'll see any of Sharp's non-Elite huge sets at the VE shootout. If it is "good-enough" then let's don't talk about the videophile market. I happen to think that the 55" OLED should be aimed at this market, for now.


Put it this way: What size and what price does a FIRST generation OLED TV should be launched in your wisdom? Since any other size-price tradeoff will certainly invite your criticism. I think 55" was chosen as 8G optimal and sufficiently larger than the 42" global average.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/22001421
> 
> 
> In fact my small excludes desktops. But this does not matter: OLED devices are gestating ever longer. At present it looks unlikely they can make big inroads even in the smartphone segment - what is available is mainly due to Samsung which most likely *heavily subsidizes* it.



Please substantiate your claim cause financial numbers does not supoport your claim



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/22001421
> 
> 
> BTW, a nice illustration of the current status of LCD vs. OLED are comparisons between the displays of fresh smartphones: HTC One X LCD and Samsung Galaxy III OLED. Both are said to be fantastic to the point the display technology does not play role in the selection, and this means OLED has lost its definitive PQ advantage.



Right... that sounds like what LG Mobile said 24 months ago on mobile OLED is useless. You may want to check out HTC sales and Galaxy sales in 6 months. Past 12 months seems like a trend.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/22001421
> 
> 
> Flat displays were a huge step up. By comparison, the step from the LCD to OLED is small at best in the present circumstances., maybe even nonexisting taking the advancements in the LCD. I mean this in the above sense, e.g. OLED PQ is bit better but size not so attractive to justify the expense. BTW, there is every reason to believe that in 5ys time LCD tech *will be much improved*.



You have no idea LCD TV improvement has more or less maxed out in Elites, as rogo been saying, and Hiller pointed out. By saying this you certainly have no idea how LCD structure limits the tech. You are just assuming that it will just get better into perpetuity. In pushing for micro local dimming you would eventually end up with emmissive technology like Crystal LED, though I am skeptical that is happening soon. In this world, LCD which essentially is a window blind, is redundant.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *S. Hiller* /forum/post/22001160
> 
> 
> What advance? Are you referring to picture quality? Fundamentally it seems like it's stuck and has nowhere to go. We need emissive tech. (Beautiful new iPad screen and the Elite notwithstanding...)


----------



## slacker711

It looks like we will get details on the official Samsung OLED television this week. Translations of Korean newspapers have said it will be on the 10th. Production is expected to start up ahead of the Olympic games (presumably in tiny numbers) with full production in the 4th quarter.

http://news.mk.co.kr/english/newsRea...2012&no=282282 


The race is on.


----------



## aleitry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/22001649
> 
> 
> It looks like we will get details on the official Samsung OLED television this week. Translations of Korean newspapers have said it will be on the 10th. Production is expected to start up ahead of the Olympic games (presumably in tiny numbers) with full production in the 4th quarter.
> 
> http://news.mk.co.kr/english/newsRea...2012&no=282282
> 
> 
> The race is on.



nice scoop slacker711. thanks for sharing.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/22001575
> 
> 
> Videophiles like big sets, but big sets are not necessarily videophile. I doubt I'll see any of Sharp's non-Elite huge sets at the VE shootout. If it is "good-enough" then let's don't talk about the videophile market. I happen to think that the 55" OLED should be aimed at this market, for now.



The example of the 80" set was used only for illustration. For videophiles the choice would be 70" Elite vs. 55" OLED. What you think they would choose?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/22001575
> 
> 
> Put it this way: What size and what price does a FIRST generation OLED TV should be launched in your wisdom? Since any other size-price tradeoff will certainly invite your criticism. I think 55" was chosen as 8G optimal and sufficiently larger than the 42" global average.



Obviously, the 55" is chosen optimally being maximum size in the main line of sets - otherwise it would not have any chance at all. But in this size OLED faces stiff competition from tons of LCD sets. Then, it is not particularily appealing to high-enders for whom 55" is too small now and who are looking for bigger sizes.


To be really attractive the OLED should be available in the 65" size at a less than 5-digits price.


BTW, if things go as planned there will be funny choice later this year: Samsung will have 55" OLED and 75" LCD both for about the same price (likely about 8 grands). Which of them will the segment ready to splurge this kind of money prefer, to your mind?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/22001575
> 
> 
> Right... that sounds like what LG Mobile said 24 months ago on mobile OLED is useless. You may want to check out HTC sales and Galaxy sales in 6 months. Past 12 months seems like a trend.



LG probably meant OLED is not enough competitive to LCD and that is now turning to be quite right. Samsung is pushing OLED

but one could say the Galaxy would be moving without the OLED too. HTC is still much on the LCD side.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/22001575
> 
> 
> You have no idea LCD TV improvement has more or less maxed out in Elites, as rogo been saying, and Hiller pointed out. By saying this you certainly have no idea how LCD structure limits the tech. You are just assuming that it will just get better into perpetuity. In pushing for micro local dimming you would eventually end up with emmissive technology like Crystal LED, though I am skeptical that is happening soon. In this world, LCD which essentially is a window blind, is redundant.



What I am saying is LCD has proven record of innovation, there is no reason to think this is coming to and end, quite opposite. Due to the economics the trend in fact is backing off from maxing the PQ - vide edgelit vs. full local dimming. Same with emmissive tech, it might be a theoretical Holy Grail but if needed denser LCD local dimming would practically challenge it. But as one can see even the rough local dimming is not in demand, not to mention the dense one.


Oh yes, and there was also RGB local dimming. So in the end, if OLED would be seriously denting LCD based on the PQ (which is purely theoretical possibility) there is waiting RGB dense local dimming on the LCD side to fend it off







.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aleitry* /forum/post/22001680
> 
> 
> nice scoop slacker711. thanks for sharing.





wow they're beating lg to market?


based on ces demos, i thought they were still having manufacturing issues.

did they follow lg and switch to woled?


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/22001649
> 
> 
> It looks like we will get details on the official Samsung OLED television this week. Translations of Korean newspapers have said it will be on the 10th. Production is expected to start up ahead of the Olympic games (presumably in tiny numbers) with full production in the 4th quarter.
> 
> http://news.mk.co.kr/english/newsRea...2012&no=282282
> 
> 
> The race is on.



"SEC's OLED TV launch event today for press only (no sellside allowed).

Local news indicating initial px pt @ US$10,000 for VIP customers only.

Previously, around 1Q-end, mgmt indicated that 55" OLED TV px will come down

to US$5,000 lvl in the 1st year of mass production.

Today's OLED TV is made from SMD's V1-pilot line (8K/mth).

2012F OLED TV production? Will be announced today.

Why today? SEC aimed to minimize the time gap between mkt anticipation and

actual OLED TV launch to prevent marketing competition from LG.

Press conference @ 2 PM in Samsung Tower today!"
*

Note it is V1 pilot line*


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/22003841
> 
> 
> The example of the 80" set was used only for illustration. For videophiles the choice would be 70" Elite vs. 55" OLED. What you think they would choose?



Most videophiles and calibrators still chose a 4 year old Kuro. Obviously your benchmark for videophile market is different from what OLED is targeting (for now).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/22003841
> 
> 
> BTW, if things go as planned there will be funny choice later this year: Samsung will have 55" OLED and 75" LCD both for about the same price (likely about 8 grands). Which of them will the segment ready to splurge this kind of money prefer, to your mind?



See above



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/22003841
> 
> 
> Obviously, the 55" is chosen optimally being maximum size in the main line of sets - otherwise it would not have any chance at all. But in this size OLED faces stiff competition from tons of LCD sets. Then, it is not particularily appealing to high-enders for whom 55" is too small now and who are looking for bigger sizes.
> 
> 
> To be really attractive the OLED should be available in the *65" size at a less than 5-digits price*.
> 
> 
> LG probably meant OLED is not enough competitive to LCD and that is now turning to be quite right. Samsung is pushing OLED
> 
> but one could say the Galaxy would be moving without the OLED too. HTC is still much on the LCD side.



Right... and be accused of subsidising OLED? I'm still waiting for your note on how Sammy is subsudising OLED on small screens. Funny thing is, do check back 12 months after the V1 line goes commercial. You may be dismally surprised.


And of course videophiles will have a different interpretation from you regarding PQ vs size. You would go for the 110" TCL TV we know.


Fact: 1) LG Mobile is being creamed on the smartphone side for the past 2 years that the CEO was changed. How is that considered "right". 2) HTC has been losing market share to Sammy on Android when they are the only 2 games in town. And the only reason they are not using OLED is because Sammy is not selling to them. They are now looking to get supply from AUO. How's that for a LCD supporter.


You obviously possess very proprietary statistics to come to your own conclusions.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/22003841
> 
> 
> What I am saying is LCD has proven record of innovation, there is no reason to think this is coming to and end, quite opposite. Due to the economics the trend in fact is backing off from maxing the PQ - vide edgelit vs. full local dimming. Same with emmissive tech, it might be a theoretical Holy Grail but if needed denser LCD local dimming would practically challenge it. But as one can see even the rough local dimming is not in demand, not to mention the dense one.
> 
> 
> Oh yes, and there was also RGB local dimming. So in the end, if OLED would be seriously denting LCD based on the PQ (which is purely theoretical possibility) there is waiting RGB dense local dimming on the LCD side to fend it off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



With emissive RGB "backlight" and micro local dimming, LC layer is *redundant*. Think about it for once instead of reiterating as usual.


----------



## gary cornell

Anybody here going to spend $10,000 for a 55"? Makes the LG look like a bargain.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ It's a V1 *pilot* line and it will be structurally more expensive than LG RGBW method if they stick to RGB


----------



## gary cornell

Indeed, but which model has the better picture?


----------



## specuvestor

^^ Theoretically Sammy's RGB. But I always believe the proof is in the pudding







especially for first gen products. We'll know within the next 3 months I guess.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/22004533
> 
> 
> wow they're beating lg to market?
> 
> 
> based on ces demos, i thought they were still having manufacturing issues.
> 
> did they follow lg and switch to woled?



Apparently, no. And I'm not sure they are really beating LG to market. It depends on your definition of "to market" I suppose.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gary cornell* /forum/post/22005334
> 
> 
> Anybody here going to spend $10,000 for a 55"? Makes the LG look like a bargain.



Indeed.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gary cornell* /forum/post/22005391
> 
> 
> Indeed, but which model has the better picture?



My bet, the LG will actually.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/22005668
> 
> 
> ^^ Theoretically Sammy's RGB. But I always believe the proof is in the pudding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> especially for first gen products. We'll know within the next 3 months I guess.



Sort of. It seems like virtually no one will be able to buy these until late in the year. I suppose we may see them somewhere or find an owner on these forums. My lord, though, buying one of these early units is like buying a prototype/beta.


----------



## specuvestor

As rogo mentioned, it depends on how you define "to market"


May 10 (Bloomberg) -- Samsung Electronics Co., Asia’s biggest electronics maker, aims to start selling televisions using organic light-emitting diodes in the second half as it

seeks to gain leadership in the next-generation TV market.

Sales will start in South Korea before global shipments begin, Kim Hyun Suk, head of the company’s TV operations, said at a media briefing in Seoul today. The first models will cost

at least twice as much as the most expensive flat-screen sets of comparable size, he said.




Samsung and LG employ different OLED technologies. Samsung uses red, green and blue OLED materials inside individual pixels to create images, while LG uses white light and an extra color filter.

Samsung’s method can be more energy-efficient and show a broader range of colors, according to Paul Semenza, senior vice president of analyst services at Santa Clara, California-based DisplaySearch. The technology requires greater accuracy and consistency, making manufacturing harder than LG’s approach, he said.

While Samsung is open to different approaches in the long term, the *models to be sold this year will be based on its current technology*, Kim said today.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/22005780
> 
> 
> Samsung's method can be more energy-efficient and show a broader range of colors, according to Paul Semenza, senior vice president of analyst services at Santa Clara, California-based DisplaySearch. The technology requires greater accuracy and consistency, making manufacturing harder than LG's approach, he said.
> 
> While Samsung is open to different approaches in the long term, the *models to be sold this year will be based on its current technology*, Kim said today.



There were some rumors in the Korean press a few weeks ago that Samsung would pursue a two-track strategy with RGB for high-end OLED's and WOLED for a cheaper version.


It will be interesting to see how LG responds. The rumors pointed to a Cannes roll-out which starts next week. They have room on price since Samsung priced theirs above the general expectations for a $8000 price point.


----------



## coolscan

 Samsung shows off production 55-inch OLED HDTVs at the 2012 World's Fair


----------



## sstephen

I love rhetoric like this


> Quote:
> Samsung says its OLED tech has 20 percent better color reproduction than existing LED-backlit LCD HDTVs



20% better? Measured how? Better than what? What metrics?

Once you calibrate an existing LCD display of decent quality, either back lit or edge lit, don't they come very close to the full rec. 709 colour gamut? So if they manage to accurately display, say 95% of the colour gamut, improving that by 20% is pretty much meaningless.


OTOH, if they are talking about expanding the colour gamut, then they are talking about the ability to display colours that are not on ANY commercial source, which would only make them inaccurate.


----------



## slacker711

Time for some video....begin the nit picking









http://www.youtube.com/user/OLEDNET


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen* /forum/post/22007246
> 
> 
> I love rhetoric like this
> 
> 
> 20% better? Measured how? Better than what? What metrics?
> 
> Once you calibrate an existing LCD display of decent quality, either back lit or edge lit, don't they come very close to the full rec. 709 colour gamut? So if they manage to accurately display, say 95% of the colour gamut, improving that by 20% is pretty much meaningless.
> 
> 
> OTOH, if they are talking about expanding the colour gamut, then they are talking about the ability to display colours that are not on ANY commercial source, which would only make them inaccurate.



Better cleaner primaries and better grey-scale tracking. Like the difference between a consumer LCD and a Pro LCD.

This will give a better color reproduction of rec.709.


OLED has wider color gamut than LCD, which will give better color reproduction of photos and video that have wider color gamut like aRGB and ProPhoto RGB (for photos) and video shot and rendered without the rec.709 restrictions.

OLED is also ready for the new wider color standards that is in the works.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/22005780
> 
> 
> While Samsung is open to different approaches in the long term, the *models to be sold this year will be based on its current technology*, Kim said today.



That's at least the second time they've basically said, "We're pretty much open to making RGBW/WOLED." You can interpret this a lot of ways. But to me, it suggests that they are not even slightly convinced they can make RGB work at large scale using small mask scanning or any other technique. And this is why I (and others) were skeptical of meaningful production growth prior to the LG bombshell.


Now, I don't want the above misinterpreted. I'm sure they believe if they keep on brute forcing it, they will get there at some point. But *they cannot know* if said production will ever be cost effective. They literally cannot know,. And this is why statements like: "OLED will be cheaper to make than LCD" have historically been so idiotic.


I doubt very much Samsung is going to pursue a two-pronged strategy going forward by the way. They will work down the learning curve on two entirely different production methods only to get less far on either? Not likely.


One of two scenarios plays out here:


1) They figure out ways in 2012 and 2013 to master their RGB method sufficiently that they get confident it will scale to true 8G fabrication. Public statements just now they are considering other methods are all you need to know to prove they've yet to achieve that, but that also doesn't mean they've given up.


2) They launch something in the coming year or so using a technique very similar to LG's, either by directed infringing on IP they don't own, by working around said IP, or by getting the magical Korean government to negotiate some cross license. This allows them to ramp a lower cost product as quickly as LG.


It should be noted here that even if you believe OLED is going to produce a superior picture to LCD, it's very correct to describe it as only "somewhat better" than the best LCDs on the market (e.g. the Sharp Elite). The notion that they could then differentiate between an RGBW OLED and an RGB OLED is absurd. Consumers are going to struggle to see the picture quality on the OLEDs period -- although I expect they'll be wowed by the thinness in store displays and the oversaturated colors. They aren't going to pay another $2000 for the "better OLED". There is no realistic room for a two-tier OLED strategy. And being bad at making both makes no sense for Samsung.


----------



## sytech

Guess I will have to wait to see them in person, but in this comparison demo all I am seeing is a brighter and over saturated picture from the OLED versus the LED. And I am certainly not see a $7000 premium on the price. The thinness is cool, but what do you do with the control board. I don't want a wired controlled box. Maybe wireless or a slightly thicker model with boards included.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhOXQzCG-wY


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/22008109
> 
> 
> Guess I will have to wait to see them in person, but in this comparison demo all I am seeing is a brighter and over saturated picture from the OLED versus the LED. And I am certainly not see a $7000 premium on the price. The thinness is cool, but what do you do with the control board. I don't want a wired controlled box. Maybe wireless or a slightly thicker model with boards included.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhOXQzCG-wY



I think you'll get a choice to have the box attached or built in by next year. I certainly hope so.


Also, I'd imagine by mid/late-2013 the price premium will be


----------



## gary cornell

Another 8 months till CES


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/22007896
> 
> 
> That's at least the second time they've basically said, "We're pretty much open to making RGBW/WOLED." You can interpret this a lot of ways. But to me, it suggests that they are not even slightly convinced they can make RGB work at large scale using small mask scanning or any other technique. And this is why I (and others) were skeptical of meaningful production growth prior to the LG bombshell.
> 
> 
> Now, I don't want the above misinterpreted. I'm sure they believe if they keep on brute forcing it, they will get there at some point. But *they cannot know* if said production will ever be cost effective. They literally cannot know,. And this is why statements like: "OLED will be cheaper to make than LCD" have historically been so idiotic.
> 
> 
> I doubt very much Samsung is going to pursue a two-pronged strategy going forward by the way. They will work down the learning curve on two entirely different production methods only to get less far on either? Not likely.
> 
> 
> One of two scenarios plays out here:
> 
> 
> 1) They figure out ways in 2012 and 2013 to master their RGB method sufficiently that they get confident it will scale to true 8G fabrication. Public statements just now they are considering other methods are all you need to know to prove they've yet to achieve that, but that also doesn't mean they've given up.
> 
> 
> 2) They launch something in the coming year or so using a technique very similar to LG's, either by directed infringing on IP they don't own, by working around said IP, or by getting the magical Korean government to negotiate some cross license. This allows them to ramp a lower cost product as quickly as LG.
> 
> 
> It should be noted here that even if you believe OLED is going to produce a superior picture to LCD, it's very correct to describe it as only "somewhat better" than the best LCDs on the market (e.g. the Sharp Elite). The notion that they could then differentiate between an RGBW OLED and an RGB OLED is absurd. Consumers are going to struggle to see the picture quality on the OLEDs period -- although I expect they'll be wowed by the thinness in store displays and the oversaturated colors. They aren't going to pay another $2000 for the "better OLED". There is no realistic room for a two-tier OLED strategy. And being bad at making both makes no sense for Samsung.



yeah, that is more or less what i have read that sammy (and everyone else) is having problems manufacturing rgb pixels for the oled panels, hence lgs

innovative woled solution.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/22008580
> 
> 
> yeah, that is more or less what i have read that sammy (and everyone else) is having problems manufacturing rgb pixels for the oled panels, hence lgs
> 
> innovative woled solution.



And, specifically, the problem exists on big panels. Samsung has no trouble at all making their RGB panels for phones and their small Galaxy tablets. The problem exists because the mask isn't rigid enough across a wide span and so sags in the middle. This results in a lack of precision and terrible yields.


Samsung has been working on a technique called "small mask scanning" where a smaller mask is moved around incrementally. It doesn't sag, but it has to be moved very precisely to keep the pixels all in alignment. So it's both slower and creates a whole new problem.


Again, I don't actually know if they've given up on using this for mass production. But I suspect they are giving serious consideration to giving up using it, knowing full well that LG's method for pixel generation is -- quite frankly -- trivial. Leaving aside the whole IGZO/backplane issue (which is decoupled from how the pixels are made and is not linked to either OLED method per se), LG seems to have stumbled upon / licensed a technique that should realistically allow a 5-year ramp of OLED into the millions of units produced with high yields and potentially some better lifespan characteristics because they can make a better blue phosphor choice. Samsung knows this.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/22008713
> 
> 
> And, specifically, the problem exists on big panels. Samsung has no trouble at all making their RGB panels for phones and their small Galaxy tablets. The problem exists because the mask isn't rigid enough across a wide span and so sags in the middle. This results in a lack of precision and terrible yields.
> 
> 
> Samsung has been working on a technique called "small mask scanning" where a smaller mask is moved around incrementally. It doesn't sag, but it has to be moved very precisely to keep the pixels all in alignment. So it's both slower and creates a whole new problem.
> 
> 
> Again, I don't actually know if they've given up on using this for mass production. But I suspect they are giving serious consideration to giving up using it, knowing full well that LG's method for pixel generation is -- quite frankly -- trivial. Leaving aside the whole IGZO/backplane issue (which is decoupled from how the pixels are made and is not linked to either OLED method per se), LG seems to have stumbled upon / licensed a technique that should realistically allow a 5-year ramp of OLED into the millions of units produced with high yields and potentially some better lifespan characteristics because they can make a better blue phosphor choice. Samsung knows this.





you do know your panel manufacturing tech. i think i can guess who you work for.


pm me


----------



## specuvestor

As discussed in this thread since CES, LG's RGBW is throwing a spanner in the works for Sammy's RGB solution. So this is expected and nothing surprising.


I agree mostly with what rogo said except that I think Sammy can do dual track. Simply because 1)they have been commercially producing RGB OLED for small medium size panels so any lessons learnt in TV can be used for monitors in future 2) RGBW is an incremental capex rather than a whole new R&D process. Sammy been doing dual, tri track for as long as I can remember, from memory to mobile OS. And plasma and LCD. In fact OLED is probably the 1st tech that they lead rather than follow market/ industry acceptance.


But IMHO sagging has always been an issue since motherglass became bigger and bigger. I'm optimistic that it can be overcome, rather than some other inherent limitations.


As always I reserve comments on PQ difference until reviews are out and someone actually tasted the pudding. In theory we know OLED is better than LCD and RGB better than RGBW but it buoys down to execution and development.


Personally I think pulse based display somehow is easier and better for the eyes. Problem with LCD is it has to synchronize the LC with the backlight pulse. This is inherent tech structure constraint. So we'll see how Sharp Elite will stack up against OLED 2H12 and say 2013 Christmas, on a pure PQ basis.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/22009042
> 
> 
> A
> 
> I agree mostly with what rogo said except that I think Sammy can do dual track. .



I think they can explore both. I do not agree they can ramp both to mass production. And it's financial suicide to try.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/22007896
> 
> 
> And this is why statements like: "OLED will be cheaper to make than LCD" have historically been so idiotic.
> 
> .....
> 
> It should be noted here that even if you believe OLED is going to produce a superior picture to LCD, it's very correct to describe it as only "somewhat better" than the best LCDs on the market (e.g. the Sharp Elite). The notion that they could then differentiate between an RGBW OLED and an RGB OLED is absurd. Consumers are going to struggle to see the picture quality on the OLEDs period -- although I expect they'll be wowed by the thinness in store displays and the oversaturated colors. They aren't going to pay another $2000 for the "better OLED". There is no realistic room for a two-tier OLED strategy. And being bad at making both makes no sense for Samsung.



I could not state it better







. Another funny thing to note is the coming BIG confusion in the marketing for consumers: The 4K LCD marketed as out-of-this-world-wonder and the 2K OLED marketed as heaven for the eyes







. This confusion could only be resolved if there would be heavenly-wonder, a 4K OLED on the horizon. But nothing like this will be coming anytime soon due to the cost/manuf problems. Forum future looks bright though with the coming battles of what is better: 2K OLED vs. 4K LCD







.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/22009998
> 
> 
> I could not state it better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Another funny thing to note is the coming BIG confusion in the marketing for consumers: The 4K LCD marketed as out-of-this-world-wonder and the 2K OLED marketed as heaven for the eyes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . This confusion could only be resolved if there would be heavenly-wonder, a 4K OLED on the horizon. But nothing like this will be coming anytime soon due to the cost/manuf problems. Forum future looks bright though with the coming battles of what is better: 2K OLED vs. 4K LCD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Indeed, let the "mine is better than yours" contests begin.


To be honest, this is part of the reason I'm buying one last plasma and sitting out the next 2-3 rounds. I figure the dust will settle in a few years and we'll have something really great -- and affordable. In the meantime, I can just buy something really great -- and affordable -- that is also 65" and lets me watch from the couch on the side of my room.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/22010090
> 
> 
> Indeed, let the "mine is better than yours" contests begin.
> 
> 
> To be honest, this is part of the reason I'm buying one last plasma and sitting out the next 2-3 rounds. I figure the dust will settle in a few years and we'll have something really great -- and affordable. In the meantime, I can just buy something really great -- and affordable -- that is also 65" and lets me watch from the couch on the side of my room.



Mmm, kinda hypocrisy it sounds. Eloquently boxing everybody around about the newest and brightest display tech and settling in a cave with the stone age plasma to survive the period of Great Confusion







. Now, if you expect the dust settling to show those 4K 70"+ OLEDs at affordable prices in a few years, better be prepared the plasma becoming your retirement age display hehe.


----------



## buzzard767




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/22010090
> 
> 
> Indeed, let the "mine is better than yours" contests begin.
> 
> 
> To be honest, this is part of the reason I'm buying one last plasma and sitting out the next 2-3 rounds. I figure the dust will settle in a few years and we'll have something really great -- and affordable. In the meantime, I can just buy something really great -- and affordable -- that is also 65" and lets me watch from the couch on the side of my room.



Having been a burned early adopter too many times I've have come to same conclusion.


----------



## WilliamR

Samsung 55" OLED to debut for $9,000.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57431847-1/samsung-oled-will-retail-for-$9000/


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/22010240
> 
> 
> Mmm, kinda hypocrisy it sounds. Eloquently boxing everybody around about the newest and brightest display tech and settling in a cave with the stone age plasma to survive the period of Great Confusion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Now, if you expect the dust settling to show those 4K 70"+ OLEDs at affordable prices in a few years, better be prepared the plasma becoming your retirement age display hehe.



The Kuro is advanced enough PQ-wise even in 2012 to be qualified as a "stone age plasma?"


Anyone with a 2008 model (the last gen) would also be fine with sitting it out (unless they own the 50" and are fiending larger sizes or demanding something greater than 60") a few more years. Almost unheard of for technological advances to flatten for such an extended period (but the whole economic downturn that continues to this day does explain it in some way).


----------



## gary cornell

The 55" LG at Cannes next week, wouldn't expect release of more tech details at a film festival.


----------



## 8mile13

*NPD DisplaySearch* predicts a significant and steady decline in OLED TV prices soon after the sets debut. *Digitimes* agrees: According to *Digitimes* improvements in panel production will quickly reduce manufacturing costs and lower the price gap between OLED and LCd TVs to around 30% in 2013.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/25540...fall_fast.html


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *buzzard767* /forum/post/22010305
> 
> 
> Having been a burned early adopter too many times I've have come to same conclusion.



+1

former sxrd and hd dvd owner


----------



## brody76

2K or 4K, why does it matter.

Seeing the colors and contrast of the OLED, it will just blow away any other technology on the market when it will be available.


We're talking about 100000000:1 contrast here guys, this is just RIDICULOUS.

Drug for your eyes.


The blacks are as black as black can be, meaning the Kuro can go back to school.

Totally gonna blow it out of the water (and trust me, I'd love to own a Kuro).


This year Samsung is going to commercialize the first OLED display, a 55".


And it looks AMAZING. Sure, it's 9,000$, but in 2 years it will be worth 5,000$, and in 3 years why not 3,000$ (much more affordable).


-Impressive colors

-Low energy consumption

-Best blacks you'll ever see

-Perfect viewing angle

-No motion lag


It's only disadvantage at the moment : a short lifespan.


But like the first plasmas/LCD's, this will be figured out soon and isn't a real issue in my opinion. In 5 years we will have affordable and great OLED TV sets.


So Kuro fanboys can hold onto their plasmas as much as they want, their daddy is coming.

And it's going to be a huge ass whooping.










Korea rules.


----------



## TitusTroy

*Samsung shows off production 55-inch OLED HDTVs*


company officials expect it to go on sale in the second half of the year for around $9,000...

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/10/s...d-worlds-fair/


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brody76* /forum/post/22012973
> 
> 
> 2K or 4K, why does it matter.
> 
> Seeing the colors and contrast of the OLED, it will just blow away any other technology on the market when it will be available.
> 
> 
> We're talking about 100000000:1 contrast here guys, this is just RIDICULOUS.
> 
> Drug for your eyes.
> 
> 
> The blacks are as black as black can be, meaning the Kuro can go back to school.
> 
> Totally gonna blow it out of the water (and trust me, I'd love to own a Kuro).
> 
> 
> This year Samsung is going to commercialize the first OLED display, a 55".
> 
> 
> And it looks AMAZING. Sure, it's 9,000$, but in 2 years it will be worth 5,000$, and in 3 years why not 3,000$ (much more affordable).
> 
> 
> -Impressive colors
> 
> -Low energy consumption
> 
> -Best blacks you'll ever see
> 
> -Perfect viewing angle
> 
> -No motion lag
> 
> 
> It's only disadvantage at the moment : a short lifespan.
> 
> 
> But like the first plasmas/LCD's, this will be figured out soon and isn't a real issue in my opinion. In 5 years we will have affordable and great OLED TV sets.
> 
> 
> So Kuro fanboys can hold onto their plasmas as much as they want, their daddy is coming.
> 
> And it's going to be a huge ass whooping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Korea rules.



No need to make slights against most professional calibrators and reviewers who use the Kuro as a reference. When the next reference arrives, I'm all eyes.


Good God almighty, it's "stone age Plasma losers" (paraphrased) from one minute to Kuro fanboys the next. Those dishing out this spittle might want to check their own rhetoric at the door.


----------



## gary cornell

Simple question - how reflective is OLED?


----------



## specuvestor

^^ it should be as reflective as LED TV now simply because it is bright enough


@brody76 please don't quote contrast numbers that will diminish your credibility in this thread










@William and Titus the news has been posted previously. Do check here often for the latest


----------



## johnnybrulez




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brody76* /forum/post/22012973
> 
> 
> 2K or 4K, why does it matter.
> 
> Seeing the colors and contrast of the OLED, it will just blow away any other technology on the market when it will be available.
> 
> 
> We're talking about 100000000:1 contrast here guys, this is just RIDICULOUS.
> 
> Drug for your eyes.
> 
> 
> The blacks are as black as black can be, meaning the Kuro can go back to school.
> 
> Totally gonna blow it out of the water (and trust me, I'd love to own a Kuro).
> 
> 
> This year Samsung is going to commercialize the first OLED display, a 55".
> 
> 
> And it looks AMAZING. Sure, it's 9,000$, but in 2 years it will be worth 5,000$, and in 3 years why not 3,000$ (much more affordable).
> 
> 
> -Impressive colors
> 
> -Low energy consumption
> 
> -Best blacks you'll ever see
> 
> -Perfect viewing angle
> 
> -No motion lag
> 
> 
> It's only disadvantage at the moment : a short lifespan.
> 
> 
> But like the first plasmas/LCD's, this will be figured out soon and isn't a real issue in my opinion. In 5 years we will have affordable and great OLED TV sets.
> 
> 
> So Kuro fanboys can hold onto their plasmas as much as they want, their daddy is coming.
> 
> And it's going to be a huge ass whooping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Korea rules.



I don't get the whole plasma fanboy/lcd fanboy/oled fanboy thing and never did.


We should all be excited new shizzle is coming down the line as it breeds better displays. (Plasma and LCD displays are only now catching up to the Pioneers... 4 years?) **and still not there**


I for one went through so many damn displays LCD and PLASMA from 2006-2008.. Local Dimming, LED and the whole nine.


The Kuro was the only display that was worth my time... and the only display I've owned since 2008.


Since then, the Elite LCDs from Sharp impress me to hell... but at a crazy price point.


On the other hand, even though the Kuro is my plasma love child, man an OLED at big screens is going to be amazing. And any one who isn't excited must be nuts.


I can't believe after all this time, there's still these same debates. A good picture is a good picture... regardless of tech.


Real World Contrast and Color fidelity wins the day. EVERYTIME.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97* /forum/post/22011083
> 
> 
> The Kuro is advanced enough PQ-wise even in 2012 to be qualified as a "stone age plasma?"
> 
> 
> Anyone with a 2008 model (the last gen) would also be fine with sitting it out (unless they own the 50" and are fiending larger sizes or demanding something greater than 60") a few more years. Almost unheard of for technological advances to flatten for such an extended period (but the whole economic downturn that continues to this day does explain it in some way).



What matters are consumers with their pockets and they have already decided simple LCD edgelit is good enough PQ-wise and otherwise. Nail in the coffin proving plasma is stone age just came in the form of staggering win of Panasonic which managed to beat Sony 10 billion to 5 billion







.


----------



## brody76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/22013696
> 
> 
> 
> @brody76 please don't quote contrast numbers that will diminish your credibility in this thread



100000000:1 or 90000000:1 doesn't really matter, it's just the best contrast you'll ever be able to have on a TV set, and by far.


The numbers are often used for psychological impact. And here it's justified seeing the PQ.



> Quote:
> (Plasma and LCD displays are only now catching up to the Pioneers... 4 years?) **and still not there**



And they will never catch up, intentionally.

Too expensive to mass produce, too much labor needed.


The market isn't asking for it, the market wants cheap LCD's with an acceptable PQ, nothing more. Samsung, Panasonic and LG were smart to not commercialize 4000$ sets that would never sell.


Don't think they can't, they just don't want to.


Otherwise they wouldn't be on top with OLED technology if they were that bad at making TV sets.


While Pioneer was commercializing "stone age plasmas" with deep blacks, Samsung, LG were studying/financing new technologies : OLED/AMOLED.


They had no interest in exploiting an old technology that was condemned to no evolution at all.


Conclusion after 5 years on the market :


-Pioneer failed to sell their overly expensive plasmas, almost went bankrupt and had to stop manufacturing them.


-Samsung overcame most of the manufacturing problems that OLED brought, and are ready to commercialize it late this year with probably the best PQ you've ever seen on a TV set. Mass production starting soon.


So as far as i'm concerned "pros" can still use their Kuro as a reference, it wont change these facts.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brody76* /forum/post/22012973
> 
> 
> 2K or 4K, why does it matter.
> 
> Seeing the colors and contrast of the OLED, it will just blow away any other technology on the market when it will be available.
> 
> 
> We're talking about 100000000:1 contrast here guys, this is just RIDICULOUS.
> 
> Drug for your eyes.
> 
> 
> The blacks are as black as black can be, meaning the Kuro can go back to school.
> 
> Totally gonna blow it out of the water (and trust me, I'd love to own a Kuro).
> 
> 
> This year Samsung is going to commercialize the first OLED display, a 55".
> 
> 
> And it looks AMAZING. Sure, it's 9,000$, but in 2 years it will be worth 5,000$, and in 3 years why not 3,000$ (much more affordable).
> 
> 
> -Impressive colors
> 
> -Low energy consumption
> 
> -Best blacks you'll ever see
> 
> -Perfect viewing angle
> 
> -No motion lag
> 
> 
> It's only disadvantage at the moment : a short lifespan.
> 
> 
> But like the first plasmas/LCD's, this will be figured out soon and isn't a real issue in my opinion. In 5 years we will have affordable and great OLED TV sets.
> 
> 
> So Kuro fanboys can hold onto their plasmas as much as they want, their daddy is coming.
> 
> And it's going to be a huge ass whooping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Korea rules.



I don't think anyone is debating the superior picture produced by OLED vs. LCD. They problem has always been manufacturing yields, cost and longevity. Sony and others have tried for a long time and failed. LG and Samsung hopefully have it figured out, but just because you have the superior technology in the fight, doesn't mean you win the war. IE: Beta vs VHS.

If we stick to reality, it looks like next year the consumer will have their choice between a 55" OLED 2K for about $9K or a 70" 4K IGZO LCD for a little more than half that price. It will be interesting to see which one they pick.


----------



## brody76

I agree with you on that, the consumer is king, and he will choose what technology will make it through.


But I truly believe that the OLED's PQ will be outstanding enough on the shelves for peoples to see a difference.


Plus, OLED/AMOLED has the phone market to rely on.


We're talking about -30% of production costs for 2013, already.

We can only imagine that the prices will be much more affordable in 2-3 years from now.


The OLED will be as affordable as high end LED LCD's in few years (maybe a bit more, but the PQ will justify that difference in my opinion).


In the mean time the Sharp ELITE is the only thing on the market that will get the closest to an OLED TV, and it's not cheap either (got down a bit by now, but we're talking about 6k/8k when it hit the marked. For something that's not even close to an OLED).


Some companies like Sharp and Sony will stick to LCD, but with LG and Samsung (the two leaders on the market, alone they represent +30% pf the total market, which is huge) fiercely promoting OLED, it's going to be tough for them.


Sure, Sharp and Sony can produce top notch LCD's that are competitive and have a sweet PQ. But no where OLED, and honestly i hardly doubt LCD will totally cure its flaws in a matter of 2-3 years from now. So the difference between OLED and LCD will be flagrant on the shelves (blue/gray blacks, color accuracy, viewing angle, fluidity, etc..).


High end LCD's haven't even been able to catch up with high end plasmas on the market until now, how can we expect that it can compete with OLED.


The success of OLED on the market will depend on Samsung and LG's ability to efficiently lower the production costs in the upcoming years, and resolving the short lifespan issue (which I believe, they did, or they wouldn't risk going into mass production yet).


LG might even take the advantage over Samsung with it's cheaper OLED models hitting the market soon.

This is going to be interesting !


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brody76* /forum/post/22015048
> 
> 
> I agree with you on that, the consumer is king, and he will choose what technology will make it through.
> 
> 
> But I truly believe that the OLED's PQ will be outstanding enough on the shelves for peoples to see a difference.
> 
> 
> Plus, OLED/AMOLED has the phone market to rely on.
> 
> 
> We're talking about -30% of production costs for 2013, already.
> 
> We can only imagine that the prices will be much more affordable in 2-3 years from now.



You are dreaming if you think OLED is only going to only a 30% premium over LCD of comparable size by 2013.


----------



## gary cornell

It would be interesting to know if every time an AVS member purchases a 55" OLED, to acknowledge here - we can see how sales are going, at least for AVS members.


----------



## brody76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech* /forum/post/22016196
> 
> 
> You are dreaming if you think OLED is only going to only a 30% premium over LCD of comparable size by 2013.



First off, I was talking about production costs (30% less expensive to produce a 55" OLED by 2013).

Secondly, no, i'm not dreaming. It was announced by Samsung.


----------



## Sunidrem

"Samsung says that one of the major advantages of PenTile AMOLED displays is increased lifetime."

http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-we-...ey-last-longer 


Odd thing for Samsung to say with TV production so close, being that TVs need a lot more lifetime than cell phones. Hopefully this is merely Samsung rationalizing the fact that at least one line is apparently married to PenTile.


----------



## zoro

So as I understand Sony is out of oled then whom to trust for my 70 inch set?


----------



## mattg3

Apple


----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnnybrulez* /forum/post/22013967
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> The Kuro was the only display that was worth my time... and the only display I've owned since 2008.
> 
> 
> Since then, the Elite LCDs from Sharp impress me to hell... but at a crazy price point.



Many of us felt that the Kuro was at a crazy price point. That is the main reason that Pioneer exited the TV business.


----------



## brody76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zoro* /forum/post/22016606
> 
> 
> So as I understand Sony is out of oled then whom to trust for my 70 inch set?



Not really, they're in.

Japan Display = Sony, Toshiba, Hitachi


Japan Display should mass produce OLED's by 2013.

I believe some of those OLED's will be stamped "SONY".


But you should clearly compare TV's objectively, and not only for their brand.


Sony heavily depends on other manufacturers to produce their TV's recently, a lot of them are Samsung but stamped "Sony".


OLED is clearly a new era, and standards will change.


I think Sony is clearly overtaken by the events, they couldn't master OLED technology ...


When you buy a Sony LCD, you're pretty much buying a Samsung.

Sony is not what it used to be anymore ...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brody76* /forum/post/22017842
> 
> 
> Not really, they're in.
> 
> Japan Display = Sony, Toshiba, Hitachi
> 
> 
> Japan Display should mass produce OLED's by 2013.
> 
> I believe some of those OLED's will be stamped "SONY".
> 
> 
> But you should clearly compare TV's objectively, and not only for their brand.
> 
> 
> Sony heavily depends on other manufacturers to produce their TV's recently, a lot of them are Samsung but stamped "Sony".
> 
> 
> OLED is clearly a new era, and standards will change.
> 
> 
> I think Sony is clearly overtaken by the events, they couldn't master OLED technology ...
> 
> 
> When you buy a Sony LCD, you're pretty much buying a Samsung.
> 
> Sony is not what it used to be anymore ...



Japan Display is not a TV venture.


----------



## brody76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/22017939
> 
> 
> Japan Display is not a TV venture.


 http://www.mobileburn.com/19156/news...display-market 


I hardly believe they would develop OLED's and not fully exploit the technology.

Samsung also started developing OLED's for the phone market.


So if you think Sony is going to sit on the OLED and watch Samsung/LG rape them on the market ...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brody76* /forum/post/22017954
> 
> 
> So if you think Sony is going to sit on the OLED and watch Samsung/LG rape them on the market ...



LG and Samsung have been raping Sony in the TV market for a decade. Not sure why you think OLED -- where Sony's early technology lead has already turned into a gigantic technology deficit vs. both Korean companies -- is going to be different. If anything, it's likely to be worse.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brody76* /forum/post/22015048
> 
> 
> .........The OLED will be as affordable as high end LED LCD's in few years (maybe a bit more, but the PQ will justify that difference in my opinion).
> 
> .........



It would be so much better if it could be affordable in something less than a few years. At 9 grand a pop, they'll run through the early adopter crowd pretty quick IMO and there won't be anyone to fill in the void. If that happens, the price may start dropping for all the wrong reasons. As some said earlier, the incredible jump in technology OLED represents is a monumental achievment. But technological advance is only one part of the success equation. It doesn't mean success in and of itself [just ask Sony] - utility would be the second part - and affordability [especially in these trying times] would be the third. If they can score on all three, they just might have a winner on their hands. Here's hoping they do. I'm going to need a new toy in about a year


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brody76* /forum/post/22017842
> 
> 
> Sony heavily depends on other manufacturers to produce their TV's recently, a lot of them are Samsung but stamped "Sony".
> 
> 
> OLED is clearly a new era, and standards will change.
> 
> 
> I think Sony is clearly overtaken by the events, they couldn't master OLED technology ...
> 
> 
> When you buy a Sony LCD, you're pretty much buying a Samsung.
> 
> Sony is not what it used to be anymore ...



Sony have been using S-LCD panels in their displays, the rest of the image processing etc. is entirely different from what you find in a Samsung LCD. And the image processing makes a _huge_ difference to image quality.


In 2010 they switched to using Sharp LCD panels, which unfortunately didn't seem to work out for them (I believe Sharp could not keep up with demand?) but that was good news for me anyway, as I generally hate the kind of image you get from Samsung's S-PVA panels. (viewing angle and motion handling is terrible)


Other than the panel used, which affects characteristics like the contrast ratio, viewing angles, and motion handling (though not motion interpolation and backlight scanning) Sony and Samsung LCDs look quite different.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/22019786
> 
> 
> LG and Samsung have been raping Sony in the TV market for a decade. Not sure why you think OLED -- where Sony's early technology lead has already turned into a gigantic technology deficit vs. both Korean companies -- is going to be different. If anything, it's likely to be worse.



For a decade? The LCD television market has only been around for 10 years or so, with the introduction of Sharp's Aquos line in 2001. It's more like the last five years or so where Samsung and LG have established dominance in the market, and I find your phrasing to be very distasteful.


----------



## Mikazaru

 http://ca.reuters.com/article/techno...84D0XM20120514 


Sony and Panasonic are in talks to join forces. The reported target date for commercialization is 2015 though.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist* /forum/post/22021341
> 
> 
> For a decade? The LCD television market has only been around for 10 years or so, with the introduction of Sharp's Aquos line in 2001. It's more like the last five years or so where Samsung and LG have established dominance in the market, and I find your phrasing to be very distasteful.



"Raping" was a horrible word choice.


Sony hasn't made any profit selling TVs for years as it has lost market share to LG and, most especially, Samsung. A major reason for this is that they don't make the core components of TVs. There appears to be no shift coming in the latter regard, which should continue to make the former true.


I doubt very much Sony will be selling TVs at all by decade's end, unless something very radical occurs.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikazaru* /forum/post/22021979
> 
> http://ca.reuters.com/article/techno...84D0XM20120514
> 
> 
> Sony and Panasonic are in talks to join forces. The reported target date for commercialization is 2015 though.



That's potentially interesting, even though it's several years away. Of course, it further proves that the other JV isn't about television. If it were, this putative JV wouldn't need to exist, would it?


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikazaru* /forum/post/22021979
> 
> http://ca.reuters.com/article/techno...84D0XM20120514
> 
> 
> Sony and Panasonic are in talks to join forces. The reported target date for commercialization is 2015 though.



reuters has their initials mixed up. never heard of oel before.


----------



## wco81

Does Japan have antitrust laws?


Or is it more about preserving Japanese companies in the face of Korean and Chinese competition?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/22022718
> 
> 
> reuters has their initials mixed up. never heard of oel before.



Japan uses the terms OEL (organic electroluminescence) and "organic EL" for OLED's.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/22022731
> 
> 
> Does Japan have antitrust laws?
> 
> 
> Or is it more about preserving Japanese companies in the face of Korean and Chinese competition?



Joint ventures tend to be legal in Japan. They are much harder to achieve in the U.S., although possible under certain circumstances.


----------



## pokekevin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally* /forum/post/22022718
> 
> 
> reuters has their initials mixed up. never heard of oel before.



Interesting...we shall see if it's true.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81* /forum/post/22022731
> 
> 
> Does Japan have antitrust laws?
> 
> 
> Or is it more about preserving Japanese companies in the face of Korean and Chinese competition?



I'm betting there is definitely some "us against them" stuff goin on here. Both non-Japanese companies seem to be kickin butt and maintaining the cutting edge of upcoming technology - while both Japanese companies are hurting badly, sustaining massive loses - to the extent that you wonder if they'll even be around in 2015.


----------



## TitusTroy

besides cost what other risk is there in being an early adopter on OLED's?...if you have the cash why not?...people keep comparing this to HD-DVD or Betamax etc and they are not the same at all...it's not like the excellent image quality, black levels, thin form factor and color are ever going to become obsolete...with HD-DVD etc you won't be able to continue watching 1080p Blu-rays because they ceased production so you were stuck with a downgraded DVD player (along with whatever current HD-DVD's you have)


with OLED there is no other risk...will your cable provider stop producing content?...no...will Blu-ray's/streaming stop?...no...your OLED quality will be everlasting


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy* /forum/post/22024117
> 
> 
> besides cost what other risk is there in being an early adopter on OLED's?...if you have the cash why not?...people keep comparing this to HD-DVD or Betamax etc and they are not the same at all...it's not like the excellent image quality, black levels, thin form factor and color are ever going to become obsolete...with HD-DVD etc you won't be able to continue watching 1080p Blu-rays because they ceased production so you were stuck with a downgraded DVD player (along with whatever current HD-DVD's you have)
> 
> 
> with OLED there is no other risk...will your cable provider stop producing content?...no...will Blu-ray's/streaming stop?...no...your OLED quality will be everlasting



Troy, the risk is in your last sentence, actually. There's a real concern that the first-generation products won't be "everlasting", especially the Samsung ones.


I mean if you're really cost indifferent, that doesn't matter. But the notion that the set might suffer color shift or burn in within just a few years _and cost $8000_ is, I feel, a real deterrent to buying a first-generation product. Nevermind whatever other first-generation showstoppers emerge.


We can't really know how "everlasting" these TVs are at providing quality until they've been out a few years. Given the price, that's a fairly high risk.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> we can't really know how "everlasting" these tvs are at providing quality until they've been out a few years. Given the price, that's a fairly high risk.



+1


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy* /forum/post/22024117
> 
> 
> besides cost what other risk is there in being an early adopter on OLED's?...if you have the cash why not?...people keep comparing this to HD-DVD or Betamax etc and they are not the same at all...it's not like the excellent image quality, black levels, thin form factor and color are ever going to become obsolete...with HD-DVD etc you won't be able to continue watching 1080p Blu-rays because they ceased production so you were stuck with a downgraded DVD player (along with whatever current HD-DVD's you have)
> 
> 
> with OLED there is no other risk...will your cable provider stop producing content?...no...will Blu-ray's/streaming stop?...no...your OLED quality will be everlasting



It is way too early in the process to answer such a question. You are assuming that the makers designed and manufactured a technically flawless product. We will not know if they did or not until after a sizable number of consumers have put the units through their paces for at least a year. I would be very surprised if some defects were not discovered in the first generation of the models now slated to be released this year.


----------



## greenland

If this report on an Australian site is credible; it would appear that both LG and Samsung are going to engage in OLED gimmicks wars right out of the gate.


Samsung & LG To Launch Dual View OLED TVs In Q3

http://smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Lar...ED_TV/W6A6S6P3 


Excerpted:


" Samsung and LG who are still fighting over 3D technology in the Australian Federal Court, are now set to do battle in the OLED TV market with new dual view' TVs that allow two people to watch separate programs from the same TV.

The new range of dual view OLED TVs are expected to be launched in Australia in September.


Research Company DisplaySearch has said that while LG is still aggressively promoting its Passive 3D TV technology with claims that it was better than what Samsung is offering with their powered Active Shutter technology, the rivals are set to go head to head in the dual TV market with a similar battle to what they have encountered over 3D TV."


----------



## greenland

It would be great if DisplaySearch's OLED TV Price Drops projections turn out to be on target.



"Good News! OLED TV Prices Will Fall Fast"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/25540...fall_fast.html 


"A 55-inch OLED TV priced over $8,000 in the second half of 2012 may cost closer to $2,300 within two years, a dramatic price reduction that would make the sets accessible to mainstream buyers.


That's according to a price forecast from research firm NPD DisplaySearch, which predicts a significant and steady decline in OLED TV prices starting soon after the sets debut.


Samsung today announced that its 55-inch "Super" OLED 3D TV will be available in Korea for around $9,000 in the second half of 2012. The company didn't say when its OLED TV will arrive in the U.S.


Acknowledging a "great deal of uncertainty" surrounding prices of large OLED TVs, NPD DisplaySearch says the price of a 55-inch OLED model could drop roughly 50 percent to around $4,000 by the end of 2013, and continue falling to the $1,500 range by the end of 2015."


----------



## specuvestor

^^ Price drop of 30% a year is reasonable, if 8G ramps. The above looks too aggressive


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor* /forum/post/22032797
> 
> 
> ^^ Price drop of 30% a year is reasonable, if 8G ramps. The above looks too aggressive



I'm with you on this. The 2-year "forecast" that presumes pricing will fall 70% from the starting price is the kind of thing that has few actual precedents in the history of making anything new. (And before anyone say, "what about iPhone?", Apple's price to carriers has more or less not changed in 5 years... The price we pay is not the real price there).


If we get back-to-back 30% drops, however, that would still be a substantial move toward parity in 2 years. It's just more like $4000 in 2014, not $2300. The latter price assumes the price is being sliced in half two years in a row. Could it happen? Maybe. Will it happen? Seems less likely although it's linked to production in at least two ways:


1) Without higher volumes, there's no way costs will be low enough to justify a price that low at that time. The "lose money on each, make it up on volume" strategy is what these guys are trying to avoid, not repeat.


2) Without the ability to produce many more, there is no real reason to drive the price that low. Selling out of $2300 displays when you could've sold them for $4000 is beyond stupid.


So we'll certainly see. In the meantime, the volumes this year seem headed for the forecast numbers of "thousands to maybe tens of thousands" globally. That's not enough to drive price on its own, but it's enough to get started with mastering production.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/22025857
> 
> 
> I mean if you're really cost indifferent, that doesn't matter. But the notion that the set might suffer color shift or burn in within just a few years _and cost $8000_ is, I feel, a real deterrent to buying a first-generation product. Nevermind whatever other first-generation showstoppers emerge.



I think the burn-in issue is why these sets are always shown at shows but not sold. If they bring these sets to shows with special demo reels going burn-in is no issue. When these get in the field I have a feeling OLED sets will be a nightmare. They will instantly get a bad name as a set that doesn't last like plasma did in the beginning. People will be mad when they watch a movie and see a ghosted image saying "AMMO" and "HEALTH" in the corners after Timmy played Xbox on it all day and try to return the set as being "defective". Stores will drop them as the returns and complaints will be not worth the hassle. They will be happier selling the more robust LCD sets.


I think OLED sets will just be toys for rich boys to go with their Tesla roadsters and high end audio. If you have millions you might not mind having to throw out an $8,000 set and buy a new one every two years. Everyone else will likely stay away, A little better contrast and black level won't be worth the cost and short life.


----------



## vinnie97

If it's as bad as you predict, LG and Samsung are throwing a whole lotta' cash down the tubes.


----------



## brody76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveC19* /forum/post/22045546
> 
> 
> I think the burn-in issue is why these sets are always shown at shows but not sold. If they bring these sets to shows with special demo reels going burn-in is no issue. When these get in the field I have a feeling OLED sets will be a nightmare. They will instantly get a bad name as a set that doesn't last like plasma did in the beginning. People will be mad when they watch a movie and see a ghosted image saying "AMMO" and "HEALTH" in the corners after Timmy played Xbox on it all day and try to return the set as being "defective". Stores will drop them as the returns and complaints will be not worth the hassle. They will be happier selling the more robust LCD sets.
> 
> 
> I think OLED sets will just be toys for rich boys to go with their Tesla roadsters and high end audio. If you have millions you might not mind having to throw out an $8,000 set and buy a new one every two years. Everyone else will likely stay away, A little better contrast and black level won't be worth the cost and short life.




I don't think Samsung and LG walked blindfolded into mass producing OLED panels.


Samsung and LG produce majority of LCD panels for the TV market, they control it. They can bottleneck it anytime, and aggressively promote OLED to make a break through. It's called marketing.


And when you control a market like they do, you have no reason to believe you will fail.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> _I mean if you're really cost indifferent, that doesn't matter. But the notion that the set might suffer color shift or burn in within just a few years and cost $8000 is, I feel, a real deterrent to buying a first-generation product. Nevermind whatever other first-generation showstoppers emerge._



I agree - except that most first-gen buyers probably have other things on their agendas though - like being the first on their block to own new stuff. Why velse would they do it? especially if they knew the price was going to be half their purchase price within a year?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/22045849
> 
> 
> I agree - except that most first-gen buyers probably have other things on their agendas though - like being the first on their block to own new stuff. Why velse would they do it? especially if they knew the price was going to be half their purchase price within a year?



I'm just advocating passing and spending one's excess disposable income on something else in 2012. Perhaps a down payment on an M5? Or some built-in 12-burner barbecue?


Your points are spot on, however.


----------



## brody76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711* /forum/post/22023584
> 
> 
> Japan uses the terms OEL (organic electroluminescence) and "organic EL" for OLED's.



That is a japanese "manner".

They tend to take things and rename it to make it look new.


Same goes for history, but that is another story.


Samsung and LG might adopt a more radical solution, fixing price to sell lower than production cost.

Sony has done it for the PS3 to force the BR earlier into the market (and beat the HD DVD), and I don't know why it wouldn't work for TV sets.


Just cut prices in half in a year or two, and sell as much as they can while loosing some money.

Production costs will catch up and lower with time. That way though they aren't likely to make profit immediately.


----------



## diabolyte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brody76* /forum/post/22046749
> 
> 
> Samsung and LG might adopt a more radical solution, fixing price to sell lower than production cost.
> 
> Sony has done it for the PS3 to force the BR earlier into the market (and beat the HD DVD), and I don't know why it wouldn't work for TV sets.
> 
> 
> Just cut prices in half in a year or two, and sell as much as they can while loosing some money.
> 
> Production costs will catch up and lower with time. That way though they aren't likely to make profit immediately.



wouldnt we all love for that to happen quickly, but the reality is that it makes no sense for them to engage in this practice. unlike console wars, there's no software/games/licensing to make up for the hardware losses so there isn't a need to sell the hardware at a loss in order to build up a large user base.


----------



## brody76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *diabolyte* /forum/post/22054233
> 
> 
> wouldnt we all love for that to happen quickly, but the reality is that it makes no sense for them to engage in this practice. unlike console wars, there's no software/games/licensing to make up for the hardware losses so there isn't a need to sell the hardware at a loss in order to build up a large user base.



There is a huge market at stake.


If Samsung and LG stay leaders, they will make enormous profits in the upcoming years. By dominating the market with OLED, they will undoubtedly be selling a lot of OLED panels to other TV makers in the next 10 years = huge profit.


This is what happens when you democratize a technology, you get royalties on everything.










Loose money for 2-3 years, and harvest the fruits later.


PS : I recently got myself a Samsung Galaxy S2, and the screen is unreal.

I've never seen such a fluid and beautiful screen in my life.


----------



## Xavier1

The Gillette razor model won't work in this industry, and not in these economic times.


This is going to be a premium product for a couple of years I think.


----------



## specuvestor

Does this make sense to anyone knowledgeable in material science? Note the word "Mass-produced"










"-Commercialization of garphene will be earlier than expected, replacing ITO

for touch panels in 2012 and flexible displays in 2013.


- Also, SEC plans to use garphene for semiconductor industry


- 2020F Market growth: Flexible display > Non-Flexible display


- Estimated market size of graphene for smartphones: US$6.6bn


- Why Graphene?


a) Mobility - 100x faster than silicon


b) Strength - 200x stronger than copper


c) Transparency - transmittance ratio 98%


- Price competitiveness: Upper ITO US$140/m2 vs. Mass-produced Graphene US$70/m2" -Hyundai Securities


----------



## rogo

Graphene rocks. It's a form of carbon that has to be made because it really doesn't happen (a la nanotubes, but it's more like carbon "foil", it's not at all tubular).


Indium in ITO is killer pricey so everyone wants to ditch it, but nothing else transparent and conductive has been found that's practical. Sounds like practical graphene might be just the ticket.


----------



## delphiplasma

I have an HTC oled phone and the measurements were up to the standards of the grade1 broadcast crt monitor I have. Gamma and greyscale first rate (however, I have an app that adjusts the rugby balance) the color was very accurate, however slightly oversaturated on all 3 primaries


----------



## specuvestor

^^ interesting. How did you conclude that? Did you measure it yourself under dark conditions?IIRC HTC only had an AMOLED phone for a very short time but had bad reviews due to the touch layer, before there was Super AMOLED



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Graphene rocks. It's a form of carbon that has to be made because it really doesn't happen (a la nanotubes, but it's more like carbon "foil", it's not at all tubular).
> 
> 
> Indium in ITO is killer pricey so everyone wants to ditch it, but nothing else transparent and conductive has been found that's practical. Sounds like practical graphene might be just the ticket.



Thanks much. I'll look more into this then as a Sammy affiliate is moving into this area. I'm just skeptical about its commercial-bility


----------



## delphiplasma

Yes, measurements were taken in the same way as I would measure any other display. The Super AMOLED improves in terms of greater light output from the screen due to the touch layer being removed. However, brightness is not about quality. Many reviews of screens as small as 4inch will rarely consider the technical measurement qualities of such a display. The only things most people are interested in, for phone applications, are deep blacks, super whites and Gaudy colours.


The qualities of the measurements most certainly show when viewing films on the display. However, I think CRT and Plasma wins in terms of viewing angle. I've noticed on most AMOLED and SAMOLED a white balance error which show a slightly green tinge when viewed at an angle.


----------



## specuvestor

^^ Do you have numbers or measurement report to share? I actually think the green tinge, which is evident in PSP Vita, is likely to be touch layer related. I can't remember if the old HTC OLED is pentile? But then again... are you talking about HTC One S?


----------



## delphiplasma

I will see if I can upload the hcfr graphs in JPEG format. The phone is European. But lets just say that the gamma was a perfect linear 2.35, from 10ire to 100ire. And rgb Delta tracking errors were below 2 from 10ire to 100ire. Color graph was accurate, just a too wide gamut giving oversaturated colours.


----------



## delphiplasma

Just to add, reference to green tinge. I noticed this effect on a super AMOLED device, which is suppose to do away with touch layer. Hopefully, the large screens will not exhibit this effect, as they will not have interactive screens


----------



## coolscan

Sharp is showing some small prototype screens at the Society for Information Display show in Boston.


One of them is a 13.5 inch Organic EL display ~ 3840 x 2160 pixel ~ 326PPI based on White OLEDs + RGB color filters.

(also a LCD screen; 6.1 inch 2560 x 1600 ~ 498PPI for mobile devices)

http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/120601.html 

http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/01/s...2012/#comments 



> Quote:
> Associated Press
> 
> Japanese electronics maker Sharp Corp. says it is upgrading its current displays to make them slimmer and clearer.
> 
> 
> Sharp also said Friday its innovation is based on technology that reduces power consumption.
> 
> 
> For liquid crystal displays, the technology called IGZO requires little adjustment to production lines or investment. The upgrade kicks in this fiscal year.
> 
> 
> The technology can also be applied to OLED screens, which can be paper-thin. Hurdles remain for mass production because of costs. Rivals including Samsung Electronics Co. and Sony Corp. are all working on thinner displays.


----------



## brody76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan* /forum/post/22088402
> 
> 
> Sharp is showing some small prototype screens at the Society for Information Display show in Boston.
> 
> 
> One of them is a 13.5 inch Organic EL display ~ 3840 x 2160 pixel ~ 326PPI based on *White OLEDs + RGB color filters*.
> 
> (also a LCD screen; 6.1 inch 2560 x 1600 ~ 498PPI for mobile devices)
> 
> http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/120601.html
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/01/s...2012/#comments




In other words, LG tech ?

Sony has already been manufacturing those small OLED displays for some time now, however upgrading to 40 or 50" is another story ...


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brody76* /forum/post/22088764
> 
> 
> In other words, LG tech ?



That doesn't have an immediate answer.

LG use Red + Green + Blue + White OLED pixels and color filters.

This from Sharp might be White OLED and color filters.



> Quote:
> Sony has already been manufacturing those small OLED displays for some time now, however upgrading to 40 or 50" is another story ...



Sony has shown nothing like what Sharp is showing here.

Here we are talking about 4K OLED (3860x2160) in 13.5" size, 326PPI.


And regarding 6.1" LCD screen with 498PPI. Only Toshiba has announced a similar prototype tablet screen back in Octorber 2011 with same high PPI.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan* /forum/post/22089121
> 
> 
> =
> 
> And regarding 6.1" LCD screen with 498PPI. Only Toshiba has announced a similar prototype tablet screen back in Octorber 2011 with same high PPI.



Sharp's is using IGZO, was Toshiba's?


That matters only because of things like thinness, brightness, battery life, etc. But it makes Sharp's display interesting, especially with rumors of iPad Minis using Retina displays instead of shrunked iPad 1/2 displays...


----------



## brody76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan* /forum/post/22089121
> 
> 
> That doesn't have an immediate answer.
> 
> LG use Red + Green + Blue + White OLED pixels and color filters.
> 
> This from Sharp might be White OLED and color filters.



Well I'm not an engineer, but it's pretty much the same concept to me.

Generating colors through filters.


LG doesn't use color pixels, they use filters over the pixels.


For now the blue OLED pixels die too fast, so they can't be used in a mass produced panel. LG got around this by applying a blue filter to generate the blue color, same for red and green.


There's not 1000 ways of making an OLED panel, pretty much every TV manufacturer is going to be using this method.


----------



## MaXPL

how is using a white oled and color filters better than just native rbg oleds?

wont color be not as rich as native rbg?


----------



## brody76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MaXPL* /forum/post/22094699
> 
> 
> how is using a white oled and color filters better than just native rbg oleds?
> 
> wont color be not as rich as native rbg?



From the comparatives I could read, Samsung's true RGB OLED has much more accurate colors and richer image.


Problem is, Samsung's OLED isn't ready to hit the market yet.

Their blue pixels die too fast.


There are rumors stating Samsung is dropping the RGB OLED to adopt the LG WOLED method. Too complex to manufacture at the moment i presume.


----------



## nightboy18

@brody


Samsung is going to release their OLED-TV with RGB-tech this year, i think it´s too late now to drop the RGB down, maybe for new models next year??


rumors are just....rumors







and i´m sure that samsung is launching the TV this year. I think they are ready for it with the small mask scanning technology.


----------



## DeletedUserPost

I don't believe RGB-pure will ever sustain. I suspect a superior alternative of the current White-RGB solution is possible but the engineers aren't asking themselves the right questions to put new theory into practice. Not that I take the presumption White-RGB is inferior — not in the reality of LCD display tech.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MaXPL* /forum/post/22094699
> 
> 
> how is using a white oled and color filters better than just native rbg oleds?
> 
> wont color be not as rich as native rbg?



It's better because it's much, much, much, much easier to manufacture. That means much, much, much higher yields and a faster learning curve yielding lower prices.


It also means they can use a different blue phosphor in the "sandwich" used to make white which should ostensibly wear better and closer to the red and green. In a true RGB design, the blue lifetime is an open question.


Finally, with the white design, the red, green and blue will be generated from color filters. The notion the color will necessarily be worse is based on some intuitive bias, but not really backed up by initial observations nor necessarily even true in the long run.


I personally believe a true RGB design might have an extra 10-20% of theoretical performance but whether that performance is delivered in reality is another matter entirely.


----------



## David_B

Samsung isn't dropping rgb. They have so many manufacturing methods in the fire right now there's really no reason to.


----------



## greenland

SHARP REVEALS FIRST OLED PANELS

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1338806425 



"Sharp has revealed their first OLED panels ever – and they are extremely promising. The panels have been produced utilizing Sharp’s IGZO TFTs that enables Sharp to create extremely high-resolution display panels (both LCD and OLED).


The first OLED panel measures 13.5 inches and is designed for laptops. It has an impressive resolution of 3840x2160 pixels – often referred to as 4K. Pixel density is 326 ppi (pixels per inch) and it is based on white OLEDs with color filters. This is extremely impressive, especially because it is Sharp’s first OLED prototype. Other manufacturers have struggled with producing high-resolution OLED panels but Sharp seems to have overcome that issue with IGZO, signaling the potential of IGZO based TFTs and production...................................."

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/1/305...play-prototype 


"Sharp's 498 ppi LCD hopes to kickstart the crystal IGZO transistor revolution"


"While Sharp hasn’t yet entered the OLED market, Sharp's president Takashi Okuda told the crowd that there are no technological barriers standing in the way of production — whether or not Sharp decides to start making the displays will depend on what the market does. If the demand is there for OLED, Sharp wants to fill it."


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It's better because it's much, much, much, much easier to manufacture. That means much, much, much higher yields and a faster learning curve yielding lower prices.
> 
> 
> It also means they can use a different blue phosphor in the "sandwich" used to make white which should ostensibly wear better and closer to the red and green. In a true RGB design, the blue lifetime is an open question.
> 
> 
> Finally, with the white design, the red, green and blue will be generated from color filters. The notion the color will necessarily be worse is based on some intuitive bias, but not really backed up by initial observations nor necessarily even true in the long run.
> 
> 
> I personally believe a true RGB design might have an extra 10-20% of theoretical performance but whether that performance is delivered in reality is another matter entirely.



Aren't those 'different blue phosphors' used in the RGBW 'sandwich' blue OLED materials? If so then you still have to deal with the blue OLED aging problem also the Red, Green and Blue will still age at a different rate.

quote: 'red, green and blue OLED materials are sandwiched together'











Up until now there are _claims_ - no hard fact - that the white sandwich has longer life and less chance of color shift versus separate R, G and B OLEDs, -> LG 'long-life testing' is still under way.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7...at-is-oled-tv/ 


I read somewhere that RGB filters might lower the amount of light coming off the screen, what about that?


----------



## gary cornell

Any buzz coming out of Europe on the LG 55" OLED?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/22097394
> 
> 
> Aren't those 'different blue phosphors' used in the RGBW 'sandwich' blue OLED materials? If so then you still have to deal with the blue OLED aging problem also the Red, Green and Blue will still age at a different rate.
> 
> quote: 'red, green and blue OLED materials are sandwiched together'



Yes and no. They are part of the sandwich. However, because the blue is *only* being used to make white and never exposed directly to the eye, it's a _different_ blue than you'd use in a "traditional" RGB design. I was told by an exec at a leading manufacturing of materials for OLED that this blue, which was described as "fluorescent", has much different wear characteristics than the blue used in RGB designs which has to be more neutral. In other words, the blue LG is using is not the blue Samsung is using and LG's blue has wear characteristics more similar to its red and green.


> Quote:
> Up until now there are _claims_ - no hard fact - that the white sandwich has longer life and less chance of color shift versus separate R, G and B OLEDs, -> LG 'long-life testing' is still under way.
> http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7...at-is-oled-tv/



I'm suggesting it based on what I've been told. It makes sense that the blue material is different and in being different might wear better. How much better? That certainly remains to be seen.


> Quote:
> I read somewhere that RGB filters might lower the amount of light coming off the screen, what about that?



What about it? First of all, I think it fails to appreciate that the design is RGBW so there will be an unfiltered white section of the pixel used frequently on the brightest parts of an image. Second of all, it presumes that there is some level of brightness that is (a) interesting to achieve and (b) not achievable by the LG design. For me -- and most people not watching TV with sunglasses -- anything above 50ish ft/L would be blinding. When LG's set is out and can't achieve that, we can talk about this "problem". Until that happens, however, I'm inclined to believe based on the demos that LG's set will be plenty bright.


Finally, it is certainly true that in a raw design sense LG's method is less power efficient. But they still expect to use less power than a modern LCD. Modern LCDs are already marvels of power efficiency. Beating those is a sufficient bar for virtually everyone -- we are talking sub 100w consumption period. Will Samsung win on "lowest powered 55" TV ever?" Quite possibly. I'm just not sure that matters. And if only Samsung can generate 80 ft/L while the LG maxes out at, say, 60, I'm quite sure that doesn't matter. Damaging one's eyesight isn't a valuable feature in a TV.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes and no. They are part of the sandwich. However, because the blue is *only* being used to make white and never exposed directly to the eye, it's a _different_ blue than you'd use in a "traditional" RGB design. I was told by an exec at a leading manufacturing of materials for OLED that this blue, which was described as "fluorescent", has much different wear characteristics than the blue used in RGB designs which has to be more neutral. In other words, the blue LG is using is not the blue Samsung is using and LG's blue has wear characteristics more similar to its red and green.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm suggesting it based on what I've been told. It makes sense that the blue material is different and in being different might wear better. How much better? That certainly remains to be seen.



Ok. So the fluorescent blue can not be used in the Samsung OLED? Seems that LG made the right choice here
http://www.osa-direct.com/osad-news/525.html


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/22099813
> 
> 
> Ok. So the fluorescent blue can not be used in the Samsung OLED? Seems that LG made the right choice here
> http://www.osa-direct.com/osad-news/525.html



It apparently cannot be used by Samsung because the color would be horribly off if it were. Samsung is left with a "traditional" phosphorescent blue for now.


I clipped a relevant bit of the article you linked for inclusion here.


> Quote:
> Fluorescent materials are more stable compared to phosphorescent materials and have longer lifetimes. Though phosphorescent OLEDs have efficiencies that reach 11%, they are less stable, have shorter lifetimes and produce poor colour quality with their light blue colour emissions. Blue light has a wider band gap that requires higher energy for effective blue light emission, and inherently has lower efficiency and a shorter lifetime. The developed blue emitters are solution processed, which mean they can be easily manufactured and made into huge size displays using low cost printing methods. The material is solution-processable making it easy to manufacture and cost-effective.


----------



## navychop




----------



## Sunidrem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/22100067
> 
> 
> It apparently cannot be used by Samsung because the color would be horribly off if it were. Samsung is left with a "traditional" phosphorescent blue for now.
> 
> 
> I clipped a relevant bit of the article you linked for inclusion here.



Fluorescent is the traditional OLED, and Samsung uses fluorescent for green and blue (per oled-info.com).

http://www.oled-info.com/oled-technology 


> Quote:
> Another interesting division is between Fluorescent and Phosphorescent materials. *Fluorescent materials last longer (and were discovered first)* but are much less efficient than Phosphorescent materials. Most people agree that the future of OLEDs (especially in large-area displays and lighting panels) lie with Phosphorescent materials, although there are still challenges in developing a long-lasing blue Phosphorescent OLED. It is possible to combine these materials though, and *today Samsung for example use a red PHOLED together with Fluorescent green and blue.* Universal Display Corporation is pioneering PHOLED research, holding basic patents in this area.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sunidrem* /forum/post/22101170
> 
> 
> Fluorescent is the traditional OLED, and Samsung uses fluorescent for green and blue (per oled-info.com).
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/oled-technology



The plot thickens then. Perhaps there are multiple choices of blues here, I don't know. The indications I was given were that LG could use a "better", longer-lasting blue than Samsung could use because it was asking less of the blue in terms of color accuracy.


Apparently, the difference is not fluorescence vs. phosphorescence. So what the difference is, I don't know.


----------



## slacker711

The primary difference is probably the color coordinates of the blue. You can get a really long life for a sky blue but only a short one for a deep blue. A RGB architecture is going to give you less ability to fudge the coordinates than RGBW with color filters. My understanding is that LG likely isn't even using red and green materials, but rather a single yellow phosphorescent layer and another blue fluorescent layer.


LG and Samsung are also probably using different blue suppliers. Samsung has attempted to bring in as many domestic suppliers as possible while LG is likely using idimitsu Kosan out of Japan.


----------



## coolscan

I don't know if it was clear in previouse post that the Sharp 4K ~ 13.5" OLED prototype display was IGZO based; Here some more info;

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/1/3056490/sharp-caac-igzo-498-ppi-display-prototype 


> Quote:
> The event wasn't all about LCD, though — Sharp was also showing off some OLED displays with CAAC-IGZO transistors, including a 13.5-inch 3840 x 2160 prototype for laptops and a 3.4-inch flexible display at 540 x 960 resolution.
> 
> 
> Both displays looked impressively sharp and the high (326 ppi) pixel density showed off OLED’s trademark contrast and black levels.
> 
> While Sharp hasn’t yet entered the OLED market, Sharp's president Takashi Okuda told the crowd that there are no technological barriers standing in the way of production — whether or not Sharp decides to start making the displays will depend on what the market does. If the demand is there for OLED, Sharp wants to fill it.



Sharp has also done some interesting discovery and development together with research company Semiconductor Energy Laboratory in thin-film transistor (TFT) technology called CAAC-IGZO.


> Quote:
> Sharp and research company Semiconductor Energy Laboratory are announcing a new jointly-developed advancement in thin-film transistor (TFT) technology called CAAC-IGZO (C-axis aligned crystal Indium gallium zinc oxide), which they believe will do nothing short of "revolutionize" display technology.
> 
> While working on semiconductors made from conventional amorphous IGZO, researchers accidentally stumbled across a new crystalline structure with better electrical properties, allowing Sharp to make even smaller transistors, decrease power consumption, increase touchscreen performance, and produce even higher resolution displays.
> 
> Sharp believes the advance is particularly important in the mobile industry, where manufacturers are constantly pushing for higher pixel density.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rogo;*
> 
> Perhaps there are multiple choices of blues here, I don't know


In 2010 Universal Display showed a all-phosphorescent AMOLED, they added a light blue subpixel to the conventional RGB configuration. seems that light blue is suitable for displays utilizing the two-blue structure. LG and Samsung probably use the dark blue.
http://www.oled-display.net/universal-display-all-phosphorescent-amoled-display-architecture-at-sid-2010/


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4110#post_22102681
> 
> 
> I don't know if it was clear in previouse post that the Sharp 4K ~ 13.5" OLED prototype display was IGZO based; Here some more info;
> http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/1/3056490/sharp-caac-igzo-498-ppi-display-prototype



Sharp is the pioneer in IGZO. Also the reason why they couldn't supply for "iPad 3" because the IGZO ramp was worse than expected. What is interesting is their foray into OLED since they have been publicly skeptical of OLED as next tech.


----------



## Lessard

First impressions from SID 2012

http://www.oled-info.com/first-impressions-sid-2012


----------



## David_B

Who wouldn't love to unroll a TV onto your wall!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4110#post_22123364
> 
> 
> Who wouldn't love to unroll a TV onto your wall!



Me.


And, really, who doesn't love a fake demo?


Oh, me.


----------



## David_B

Yeah, and we know how accurate your predictions are.


No OLED TVs for sale before 2014. Wrong.


No OLED TVs for sale before 2013. Wrong.


Nobody cares about light TVs. Wrong.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4110#post_22123410
> 
> 
> Me.
> 
> And, really, who doesn't love a fake demo?
> 
> Oh, me.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4110#post_22133740
> 
> 
> Yeah, and we know how accurate your predictions are.



Extraordinarily accurate.


> Quote:
> Nobody cares about light TVs. Wrong.



Besides you and your fake concern about this, show me a shred of data that people care about the weight of their TV. Hint: There isn't one.


----------



## KidHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4110#post_22133740
> 
> 
> No OLED TVs for sale before 2013. Wrong.



That prediction may turn out correct after all. We've got about 6.5 months before the end of the year and I haven't heard anything concrete about what will be available and when.


----------



## walford

TV weight is inportantant when reviewing the specs for either a TV stand or a TV wall mount since these specs normally state a maximum weight supported.


----------



## David_B

I think the pictures of ready for sale LG TVs and boxes pretty much guarantee they are shipping before the end of the year easily.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KidHorn*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4110#post_22136293
> 
> 
> That prediction may turn out correct after all. We've got about 6.5 months before the end of the year and I haven't heard anything concrete about what will be available and when.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KidHorn*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4110#post_22136293
> 
> 
> That prediction may turn out correct after all. We've got about 6.5 months before the end of the year and I haven't heard anything concrete about what will be available and when.



Good point. Regardless, even if anything ships this year, it's clear it will be token amounts. Already the nonsensical media reports about May shipments have proved idiotic. And while they can still deliver a few sets before the Olympics, I hope no one has a blank spot on their wall banking on this. In other words, "if you want to watch the games, you should have a TV by now."


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22136329
> 
> 
> TV weight is inportantant when reviewing the specs for either a TV stand or a TV wall mount since these specs normally state a maximum weight supported.



Good point. That said, I just bought a 65" plasma that weighs less than the 50" plasma it replaced. (And it's obese compared to an LCD, I'm sure, although there are nearly no 65" LCDs on the market.) It's certainly nice that we can use less elaborate wall mounting hardware for lighter-weight TVs. Is this a selling point? No, of course it isn't.


----------



## sooke

Thought people here might be interested:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/audiovideo/quantum-dots-are-behind-new-displays/


----------



## ferro

A report from the LG booth at SID 2012:

http://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-sid-2012 


Key points:

LG expects OLED TVs to grow at 320% (CAGR) from 2012 to 2016, reaching 11% of the TV market, while the rest of the market - LCD/PDP/CRT - will grow at 1.1%
LG thinks that OLEDs will reach a price premium of 50% at about 2015, and that this is when the market will start to grow.
At 2017 they see OLED TVs costing less than LCDs.
Currently LG are using a Gen-8 fab. The backplane (Oxide-TFT) is made on the whole glass, but they cut it in half to deposit the OLEDs (so it's a 1/2 Gen-8, enough to make 3 55" panels). To reduce costs, they aim to deposit on the OLED materials on a full-scale Gen-8 in the near future.
Finally, LG announced their "near future" OLED plans, which include 4K2K (UD) OLED TVs panels. They also see larger sized TVs (over 55") and curved displays.


----------



## gary cornell

So we wait till next CES to see larger displays and then more months till they're available...


----------



## brody76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sooke*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22138297
> 
> 
> Thought people here might be interested:
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/audiovideo/quantum-dots-are-behind-new-displays/



LCD is crap, whatever "evolution" they bring to it.

You will never attain the level of contrast and colors of OLED on LCD display.


It also wont change the fact that it needs to be back-lit.

Which creates the problems we know with LCD since it's on the market.


The next real "evolution" is Crystal LED for the LCD, but even then it will arrive too late on the market to compete properly with OLED.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22140512
> 
> 
> A report from the LG booth at SID 2012:
> 
> Key points:
> LG expects OLED TVs to grow at 320% (CAGR) from 2012 to 2016, reaching 11% of the TV market, while the rest of the market - LCD/PDP/CRT - will grow at 1.1%



Believable. Overall, it's worth noting that means the TV market is almost entirely flat since the OLED numbers are so small. It's also worth noting that we debated a few months back whether OLED would exceed 50% of the market by the end of the decade and it appears that those of us that explained why it more or less mathematically could not have LG in our camp.


> Quote:
> [*]LG thinks that OLEDs will reach a price premium of 50% at about 2015, and that this is when the market will start to grow.



In other words, that 320% CAGR is (a) off a tiny number and (b) really backloaded.


> Quote:
> [*]At 2017 they see OLED TVs costing less than LCDs.


Sounds aggressive. But let's hope they are correct. So by LG's own reckoning, this is the tipping point. They will have a cost advantage and something in the low double-digits of the market (north of 11% but probably not 20% of the market). What happens, it seems, is whatever date they reach the cost crossover, they basically hope to have enough capacity coming online to start eliminating their own LCD TV production by then. Presumably, Samsung has a similar goal. Of course, it's unlikely no one else will be as far along by then and also that supplying the middle of the market (think PCs, most phones/tablets will be OLED by then) will still be an LCD world for a while longer.


> Quote:
> [*]Currently LG are using a Gen-8 fab. The backplane (Oxide-TFT) is made on the whole glass, but they cut it in half to deposit the OLEDs (so it's a 1/2 Gen-8, enough to make 3 55" panels). To reduce costs, they aim to deposit on the OLED materials on a full-scale Gen-8 in the near future.
> 
> [*]Finally, LG announced their "near future" OLED plans, which include 4K2K (UD) OLED TVs panels. They also see larger sized TVs (over 55") and curved displays.



So they can't vapor-deposit the OLED across the whole sheet yet. This is probably a uniformity issue. I'm sure that's something they will fix as I doubt it's especially tricky. It may turn out they need a machine with more "heads" or nozzles that simply doesn't exist yet. As for larger sizes, we really need to take that with a grain of salt. LG has basically never produced anything larger than a 60" in quantity because they have been stuck at Gen 8. I don't see why OLED changes this meaningfully -- Gen 8 glass still cuts awkwardly into larger sizes. Unless they plan on a hybridized cut to make larger sizes (and obviously, they have come out and state they are cutting the substrate in half, there is no particularly reason they can't cut the substrate in some other fashion to achieve something else), this seems like talk. Of course, the mid-decade market would seem to demand larger sizes from them so hopefully they are planning to respond to said demand.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22133920
> 
> 
> Besides you and your fake concern about this, show me a shred of data that people care about the weight of their TV. Hint: There isn't one.


Being able to mount a TV on the wall as easily as a picture frame, rather than having to buy specialised brackets, put up batons and put very long screws/bolts into the wall absolutely is a selling point. You're crazy to think otherwise.


Hell, I _couldn't_ wall-mount my current TV in my old place, the wall wouldn't hold it (even things like shelves were problematic) and not being able to wall-mount it restricted the size I could buy. it was only when I moved to a new building with solid walls that I would risk putting a $4000 TV on the wall. And when moving to that new building, the weight of the display was a real problem. With a full pane of thick glass over the display, the HX909 is surprisingly heavy for an LCD—the 46" display is roughly the same weight as a 70" Sharp LCD, and the 52" panel is heavier. (it's actually tougher to move a small, dense panel than a large one of the same weight)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brody76*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22141054
> 
> 
> LCD is crap, whatever "evolution" they bring to it.
> 
> You will never attain the level of contrast and colors of OLED on LCD display.
> 
> It also wont change the fact that it needs to be back-lit.
> 
> Which creates the problems we know with LCD since it's on the market.
> 
> The next real "evolution" is Crystal LED for the LCD, but even then it will arrive too late on the market to compete properly with OLED.


Crystal LED has nothing to do with LCD displays. It's an Inorganic LED display, rather than an Organic LED display.

Hopefully the inorganic LEDs won't have the power-related issues of OLED displays, but I really don't know anything in that regard, just that all OLED displays shown/released so far, seem to be showing similar (if not worse) power related issues to Plasma displays. (ABL)


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22141287
> 
> 
> Being able to mount a TV on the wall as easily as a picture frame, rather than having to buy specialised brackets, put up batons and put very long screws/bolts into the wall absolutely is a selling point. You're crazy to think otherwise.



You're crazy to mount an $8000 TV on the wall without specialized brackets just because it's lighter. And when the lighter TV has a retarded media box tethered to it, who exactly is mounting it to the wall? (Hint again: Pretty much no one). If you use it in the "media box tethered" mode, it's now not only an $8000 TV, it's not especially lighter than existing LCD TVs. And it's not especially smart to mount even 20 lbs. of $8000 on the wall without some specialized hardware.


----------



## greenland

Reality Check.


It is all about the quality of the image; and how light a panel is should be secondary to that. Would anyone settle for inferior video quality in exchange for it being much lighter than a far heavier display that provides a superior viewing experience? I never would. First and foremost OLED will have to sell on the basis of providing a superior viewing experience over Plasma or LCD in order to stand any chance of displacing them in the market place. How light it is will be of little importance if it can not outperform the heavier older technology in image processing.


An anorexic model better still look great, or she will not find much work.


KISS It is the video quality that matters first and foremost. I hope that the LG and Samsung OLED panels will live up to our expectations. So far it looks very promising.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22140512
> 
> 
> A report from the LG booth at SID 2012:
> http://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-sid-2012
> 
> Key points:
> At 2017 they see OLED TVs costing less than LCDs.
> LG expects OLED TVs to grow at 320% (CAGR) from 2012 to 2016, reaching 11% of the TV market, while the rest of the market - LCD/PDP/CRT - will grow at 1.1%
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22141183
> 
> 
> Believable. Overall, it's worth noting that means the TV market is almost entirely flat since the OLED numbers are so small. It's also worth noting that we debated a few months back whether OLED would exceed 50% of the market by the end of the decade and it appears that those of us that explained why it more or less mathematically could not have LG in our camp.
Click to expand...

I changed the order of the two listed items I quoted in the original post to help make my point.


Sorry, I'm not following this. If it’s true that OLEDs cost less than LCDs by 2017 then how can you conclude LCDs will still be outselling OLEDs and therefore have more than 50% of the market by the end of the decade? I know this is only LG and capacity might be a concern, but do we really think people are going to pay more to get an LCD set rather than an OLED set in 2018 and 2019? It seems to me if OLEDs do get cheaper then absolutely they will be more than 50% of the market by the end of the decade and will be outselling all other sets substantially.


Or did you mean the number if sets in homes rather than the market?


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22143010
> 
> 
> Reality Check.
> 
> It is all about the quality of the image; and how light a panel is should be secondary to that. Would anyone settle for inferior video quality in exchange for it being much lighter than a far heavier display that provides a superior viewing experience? I never would. First and foremost OLED will have to sell on the basis of providing a superior viewing experience over Plasma or LCD in order to stand any chance of displacing them in the market place. How light it is will be of little importance if it can not outperform the heavier older technology in image processing.
> 
> An anorexic model better still look great, or she will not find much work.
> 
> KISS It is the video quality that matters first and foremost. I hope that the LG and Samsung OLED panels will live up to our expectations. So far it looks very promising.




In the retail market everything comes down to price/performance ratio. While OLED thinnest is a nice bonus, it in not that much of a factor over already thin LCDs and even some plasmas. Anyone who has seen OLED know it has the potential to become the dominant tech in the future, but still needs to overcome many obstacles. Obviously price and corresponding production yields being the most important, followed by longevity and supersaturation. What people tend to forget is LCD tech is not standing still. You have IGZO, Quantum dots, and even CLED tech giving the many benefits of OLED, with cheaper production costs. What is disturbing is that the actual 55" LG OLED projected price has actually gone up, from rumored $8,000 USD to over $11K. A possible indication the production yields are not advancing as LG hoped.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22143468
> 
> 
> I changed the order of the two listed items I quoted in the original post to help make my point.
> 
> Sorry, I'm not following this. If it’s true that OLEDs cost less than LCDs by 2017 then how can you conclude LCDs will still be outselling OLEDs and therefore have more than 50% of the market by the end of the decade? I know this is only LG and capacity might be a concern, but do we really think people are going to pay more to get an LCD set rather than an OLED set in 2018 and 2019? It seems to me if OLEDs do get cheaper then absolutely they will be more than 50% of the market by the end of the decade and will be outselling all other sets substantially.
> 
> Or did you mean the number if sets in homes rather than the market?



Rich, there are two things here that are important:


1) You simply cannot go from 11% of the *TV* market in 2016 to 50% of the total market for flat panels in four years without at least a half dozen 8G fabs (keep in mind there is a giant computer/IT market as well as the TV market). You cannot build those fabs overnight and you can't do it without north of $20 billion. LG and Samsung -- as big as they are -- don't satisfy the entirety of the market. They also make LCDs. There is no technology transition where just because thing "A" has gotten marginally cheaper than thing "B", you can suddenly replace 100% of your making of thing "B" with thing "A". Nor can force your competitors to do this. Nor will your competitors fold up your tents and quit just because you have a cost advantage.


I'm not really sure how many computer screens are made each year, but let's assume it's on the order of another 250 million (to go with the 250 million TVs that are made). Even LG will be in the LCD TV business in 2016 when they believe OLED TV will capture 11% of the global TV business. So that's about 25 million OLEDs out of 500 million that are being demanded unless there is an OLED computer screen by then (none announced). Perhaps OLED will capture 10% of the global computer market too by then (I don't really know). It would still mean we are 450 million units short.


2) The average selling price of LCD TVs (forget computer monitors / laptop screens) is going to be so far below what the selling price is of OLED TVs in 2017, it's unclear to me what people here think is going to happen, but I doubt LG thinks this is going to happen:


2013-2016: OLED establishes itself as a premium-priced product that is clearly better than LCD. It costs more than LCD, but each year the gap narrows.

2017: OLED is now cheaper to build by $5-10 per unit -- and that's what they mean, not $500 cheaper to build -- so let's sell them for less at retail even though we can't possibly satisfy even 25-30% of the total TV market.


That would be the absolute dumbest strategy ever and would turn OLED into yet another commodity thing like LCD -- which is the very scenario they are seeking to avoid.


I expect OLED production to really begin to soar *even slightly before it reaches production-price parity*. But even if you look at that math and consider how much of the world's flat-panel demand is not satisfied by LG and Samsung, how many LCDs those two companies will still be making in 2016-17, how little OLED production capacity will still exist relative to the global demand for OLED TVs and computer panels, the high likelihood of Chinese entrants into the LCD market with breakthrough prices whose almost sole purpose will be to make life miserable for LG and Samsung, etc. it seems likely that around decade's end, OLED will be roughly equal with LCD in terms of satisfying panel demand (although with the caveat I mentioned before that I believe smartphones and most likely tablets will have made the swap unless IGZO LCDs are a lot better than and thinner than I've seen evidence of so far. I actually believe Apple doesn't use OLED in the iPhone most primarily because it was a single-source product and LG appears to be rapidly changing that equation so it will be interesting to watch the 2014 iPhone most in particular to see what screen type it uses.)


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22142658
> 
> 
> You're crazy to mount an $8000 TV on the wall without specialized brackets just because it's lighter. And when the lighter TV has a retarded media box tethered to it, who exactly is mounting it to the wall? (Hint again: Pretty much no one). If you use it in the "media box tethered" mode, it's now not only an $8000 TV, it's not especially lighter than existing LCD TVs. And it's not especially smart to mount even 20 lbs. of $8000 on the wall without some specialized hardware.


I never said that, I said it would be as easy to put on the wall as a picture frame. You would still need to use a TV mount, but not something that ends up pushing the TV inches off the wall, and needs specialised fixings. Samsung already have some Edge LED sets with a "picture frame" style mount, which is _far_ easier to put up than traditional TV mounts.


And a media box is beneficial for most people. Either you have a power cable and multiple long HDMI cables going up the wall into the display (note that the HDMI cable/connector itself is thicker than the TV) or you have a single special-purpose cable that carries both power & audio/video over a single flexible lead.


For me personally, it would be a drawback, as my only input is a HTPC, so there's only ever going to be a single HDMI lead going into the TV, and another box would be a nuisance. For almost everyone else though, it just means you put a slim box in your AV cabinet that everything connects into via short HDMI cables (less clutter) and it's trivial to add or remove devices/cables, rather than having to run more through the wall and/or try to blindly plug them into the back/edge of the set.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22143010
> 
> 
> Reality Check.
> 
> It is all about the quality of the image; and how light a panel is should be secondary to that. Would anyone settle for inferior video quality in exchange for it being much lighter than a far heavier display that provides a superior viewing experience? I never would. First and foremost OLED will have to sell on the basis of providing a superior viewing experience over Plasma or LCD in order to stand any chance of displacing them in the market place. How light it is will be of little importance if it can not outperform the heavier older technology in image processing.
> 
> An anorexic model better still look great, or she will not find much work.
> 
> KISS It is the video quality that matters first and foremost. I hope that the LG and Samsung OLED panels will live up to our expectations. So far it looks very promising.


Video quality absolutely is the most important thing, but in my old place, the choice would have been a 46" panel that fits on the furniture in the room, or I could have potentially gone as large as 60" if the walls would have supported it.


And practicality aside, if you had the choice between two sets that offered the same image quality, wouldn't you want the thinner and lighter one?

As long as you are not compromising image quality, I see no reason you shouldn't want things to get thinner & lighter.


And the mass market has already proven that thinness and lightness _has_ won over image quality a long time ago with the popularity of Edge LED sets. While it may not be a concern for you, it clearly is for many people.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22144811
> 
> 
> I never said that, I said it would be as easy to put on the wall as a picture frame. You would still need to use a TV mount, but not something that ends up pushing the TV inches off the wall, and needs specialised fixings. Samsung already have some Edge LED sets with a "picture frame" style mount, which is _far_ easier to put up than traditional TV mounts.



So you're saying LCD already offers this., Got it.


> Quote:
> And a media box is beneficial for most people. Either you have a power cable and multiple long HDMI cables going up the wall into the display (note that the HDMI cable/connector itself is thicker than the TV) or you have a single special-purpose cable that carries both power & audio/video over a single flexible lead.



No it is not better. Clearly not. Every single media-box flat-panel TV design ever has failed in the marketplace and been replaced. Every single one of them. I'm sure you're going to explain to me why somehow OLED will make this suddenly desirable after more than 10 years of failures, but you won't be correct. It is coming back because of some irrational desire to make the TV ridiculously thin to the point of actually compromising the rigidity of the display. That's the only reason. This is not being done to benefit consumers because consumers have spoken loudly and clearly that they do not want this....


> Quote:
> For me personally, it would be a drawback, as my only input is a HTPC, so there's only ever going to be a single HDMI lead going into the TV, and another box would be a nuisance. For almost everyone else though, it just means you put a slim box in your AV cabinet that everything connects into via short HDMI cables (less clutter) and it's trivial to add or remove devices/cables, rather than having to run more through the wall and/or try to blindly plug them into the back/edge of the set.



... you're world perspective is really distorted by your experience. No one adds and removes cables more than once every blue moon. People do not value this, they do not want yet another box, they do not care about this magical single cable (and the magical power cable they need too, so really it's 2 cables anyway). It's far more clutter, it's not less clutter. Cable to box --> box to TV. People have rejected these designs every single time. Some tiny number of people will be excited by this. Most of them already have an AVR or switcher and only run one HDMI cable anyway.


It's about being able to advertise a stupid thin TV. And, again, the designs of the OLEDs are actually thin beyond good judgement. The lack of a sub-frame to build in rigidity is a poor design decision that will result in unnecessary breakage in all sorts of odd situations. And the OLEDs that are not wall mounted will be subject to torsional stressed that are unnecessary. The TVs could have still hit record thinness and weight with real ports and with sufficient rigidity for such large screen sizes. LG, Samsung and some small but real number of customers are about to learn the hard way that a 4mm thick TV is not more interesting than a 16mm thick one in almost every environment. But the latter would be a lot better able to handle the stresses of the real world.


> Quote:
> Video quality absolutely is the most important thing, but in my old place, the choice would have been a 46" panel that fits on the furniture in the room, or I could have potentially gone as large as 60" if the walls would have supported it.
> 
> And practicality aside, if you had the choice between two sets that offered the same image quality, wouldn't you want the thinner and lighter one?
> 
> As long as you are not compromising image quality, I see no reason you shouldn't want things to get thinner & lighter.



That's not a selling point, which remains a huge issue of confusion here at AVS. You can't take some assumption which is years from existing and say, "Well if it existed, wouldn't that matter?" First of all, it doesn't exist. All else is not equal. Second of all, let's make image quality and price equal 5 years from now. Now, the thinner and lighter TV is going against the TV that has: the better warranty *or* the ability to have someone grab the screen without breaking it because it's not 4mm thick *or* some other selling feature we can't yet image. These "if all else was equal" hypothetical questions are fascinating and pointless. Weight does not sell TVs today. It won't sell TVs tomorrow. In 2017, when the OLED is in the realm of price competitive with the LCD, what's the weight gap going to be? Do you even know? My guess, not very much. The power gap will be similarly small. You'll be looking at third-generation IGZO LCDs (or 4th) vs. IGZO-backplane OLEDs. Both will have color filters on the front. The extra depth/weight of the LCD will come from two LED bars on the vertical edges that are in the roughly 11th incarnation and use 2016 efficiency LEDs.


> Quote:
> And the mass market has already proven that thinness and lightness _has_ won over image quality a long time ago with the popularity of Edge LED sets. While it may not be a concern for you, it clearly is for many people.



Ugh. Stop reasoning on the dependent variable. It makes you draw very, very terrible conclusions. The victory of edge-lit LED sets has nothing to do with their thinness and lightness. Nothing.


It has absolutely everything to do with two major factors:


1) Virtually every TV on the market is an edge-lit LED TV. It's hard to lose the market share war when you dominate in SKUs.

2) The reason for #1 is that edge-lite LED is very inexpensive to build and works well enough that TV buyers will purchase them.


They don't buy them because they are thinner and lighter. They bought them at first because they were cheaper and when they started buying them, soon there was more or less nothing else to buy.


(Aside: It's true that edge-lit designs are a bit thinner and lighter than full-array designs and certainly much thinner and lighter than plasma designs. This is all good for logistics as the box is smaller, more fit in a shipping container, the truck freight costs have a weight factor, etc. However, if this actually added up to enough to matter, direct LED LCD wouldn't be winning in emerging markets -- and winning it is. Those are fatter and heavier and use bigger boxes to ship in. They also _cost even less to build_. They don't sell many in the U.S. yet because mfrs. believe that the thin marketing has made U.S. customers less willing to save money for some fatness. But the toe is in water this year for direct LED in the U.S. If people vote with their wallets, you'll see more of them in the coming years.)


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22144894
> 
> 
> So you're saying LCD already offers this., Got it.


I'm saying that some have. The larger displays do not, because they are still far to big and heavy.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22144894
> 
> 
> No it is not better. Clearly not. Every single media-box flat-panel TV design ever has failed in the marketplace and been replaced. Every single one of them. I'm sure you're going to explain to me why somehow OLED will make this suddenly desirable after more than 10 years of failures, but you won't be correct. It is coming back because of some irrational desire to make the TV ridiculously thin to the point of actually compromising the rigidity of the display. That's the only reason. This is not being done to benefit consumers because consumers have spoken loudly and clearly that they do not want this....


They have been popular in Europe, at least. Pioneer were still making sets with media boxes there with the KRP-A models until they decided to exit the television business. (of course someone might argue that it was because Pioneer were doing things like that, they went out of business, but there were far bigger issues)


I still don't see how having a mess of wires to deal with going up to the wall into the TV directly, is preferable to having a slim box in your media cabinet and a single cable to deal with. If you don't have space for another box, well I can understand that, but that's usually not the case. I do run into people having wall-mounted their TV and then months later going out and buying a games console, a Blu-ray player or some other device, and having a horrible time getting it hooked up to the TV though.


It's certainly less of an issue for many of the HT-focused people here though, as they are probably already using an AV Receiver as their "media box."


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22144894
> 
> 
> It's about being able to advertise a stupid thin TV. And, again, the designs of the OLEDs are actually thin beyond good judgement. The lack of a sub-frame to build in rigidity is a poor design decision that will result in unnecessary breakage in all sorts of odd situations. And the OLEDs that are not wall mounted will be subject to torsional stressed that are unnecessary. The TVs could have still hit record thinness and weight with real ports and with sufficient rigidity for such large screen sizes. LG, Samsung and some small but real number of customers are about to learn the hard way that a 4mm thick TV is not more interesting than a 16mm thick one in almost every environment. But the latter would be a lot better able to handle the stresses of the real world.


I think you're greatly over-estimating how much of a problem it's going to be.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22144894
> 
> 
> People do not value this, they do not want yet another box, they do not care about this magical single cable (and the magical power cable they need too, so really it's 2 cables anyway).


Both Pioneer and Sony have used combined DisplayPort + Power cables in their products, that were smaller than a standard HDMI cable.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22144894
> 
> 
> Most of them already have an AVR or switcher and only run one HDMI cable anyway.


Most people _do not_ have an AVR or even a surround sound setup.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22144894
> 
> 
> It has absolutely everything to do with two major factors:
> 
> 1) Virtually every TV on the market is an edge-lit LED TV. It's hard to lose the market share war when you dominate in SKUs.
> 
> 2) The reason for #1 is that edge-lite LED is very inexpensive to build and works well enough that TV buyers will purchase them.
> 
> They don't buy them because they are thinner and lighter. They bought them at first because they were cheaper and when they started buying them, soon there was more or less nothing else to buy.


Edge LED sets were _never_ cheaper. When they were initially launched, they were considerably more expensive than CCFL models. Even today, the few CCFL models that still exist are cheaper than Edge LED sets. Yet anyone I knew buying a TV would go for one because they immediately made 3"+ deep televisions look dated, despite the initial costs. (which were considerable in their first year, at least in Europe)


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22145536
> 
> 
> I'm saying that some have. The larger displays do not, because they are still far to big and heavy.



Too bad no one is planning a really big OLED either. By the time they are, let me know what the LCD weighs. Again, this is a fake selling point, not a real one.


> Quote:
> They have been popular in Europe, at least. Pioneer were still making sets with media boxes there with the KRP-A models until they decided to exit the television business. (of course someone might argue that it was because Pioneer were doing things like that, they went out of business, but there were far bigger issues)



They are not currently popular. They are hated.


> Quote:
> I think you're greatly over-estimating how much of a problem it's going to be.



I think people will hate it and it's stupid. Thankfully LG will let you mount the connection ports behind the TV like *every other TV sold has them*.


> Quote:
> Most people _do not_ have an AVR or even a surround sound setup.



Right. And they never will. Yet most people who would spend 10 seconds worrying about having their "multiple cables replaced by one" already have solved this problem. Sorry, but they have. No one else cares. Certainly, they won't see this as a selling point.


> Quote:
> Edge LED sets were _never_ cheaper. When they were initially launched, they were considerably more expensive than CCFL models. Even today, the few CCFL models that still exist are cheaper than Edge LED sets. Yet anyone I knew buying a TV would go for one because they immediately made 3"+ deep televisions look dated, despite the initial costs. (which were considerable in their first year, at least in Europe)



LED sets have very nearly (actually?) achieved manufacturing cost parity with CCFL designs actually. And in spite of your claim, direct LED is dominating in emerging markets, further driving the cost of LEDs down for TVs. Somehow the lack of thinness is not getting in the way of cheaper. Edge LED is going to keep getting cheaper. The parts cost nearly nothing. I don't really know why we're discussing this particular aspect of the discussion, but regardless, I doubt there'll be any CCFL LCD of any kind by the time OLED is cost competitive with LCD.


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22145934
> 
> 
> They are not currently popular. They are hated.



It appears that you can't buy such a TV now even if you wanted to, and a few years ago only Pioneer was offering it with their niche Kuro displays. That's what I got by Googling the subject, but by all means correct me if I'm wrong and if media boxes have been a widely available but rejected option. Otherwise, unavailability doesn't necessarily mean a lack of interest. There's too many variables to emphatically draw such a conclusion, says the scientist in me. Even assuming a media box is a fairly popular idea, it wouldn't convince people to put down the cash for a high end plasma.


"They are hated."







You make your opinion all too clear.


I think your line of thinking works against wireless connectivity options as well, that cables behind a fixed TV are such a non issue that people wouldn't pay more for the simplicity of wireless. It reminds me of current passive 3D fanatics, whose arguments for current 1080p passive panels work as much against active displays as they do against upcoming 4k passive displays, which will certainly be better and will be desired by those who now say they don't care about (or hate!) the resolution advantages.


----------



## rogo

Airion, there have been several TVs in the HD era with "media box" designs. Not one of them was a success. I think the market's opinion is clear.


As for wireless, it can't carry full-resolution HDMI without issues. It just can't. There are always glitches, dropouts, compression, what have you. When that gets solved, great. It's still not going to be free to add a wireless transceiver to each end of the value chain and it also does't solve the power problem. So why are we excited about this?


Look, you can buy wireless now. I have a WiDi device and there are wireless HDMI replacements that are sub $100. Good luck living with one.


The arguments about passive and active 3D are not related. People already prefer passive 3D even with the resolution loss. I doubt anyone who looked at the LG OLED at CES wasn't blown away by the 3D, even though there was resolution loss. The overall impression of depth was flat out amazing. There are so many mediocre active implementations right now that active is burying itself just fine, I think. But if active wins, so be it. 3-D in the home is still currently going nowhere fast. We'll see if that changes.


----------



## Airion

Yes, passive/active 3D is irrelevant here, you missed by point but no big deal.


People don't like cables. If people can get rid of them at a reasonable cost, they do. We didn't always have WiFi, but people love it now. Mobile devices aside, it's widely used to connect devices where an ethernet cable would otherwise do just fine (and faster in fact): PCs, game consoles, TVs. Game consoles, controllers always used to be wired. Now they're almost universally wireless. No, wireless HDMI isn't there yet in terms of cost and reliability. But if and when it is, people will adopt it, because it will make connecting devices simpler.


Speaking of HDMI, for all its problems, people at least appreciate that it simplifies cabling by combining audio and video into one. Simplification is the trend, so it's hard to believe that people would actually "hate" media box TVs. More likely the small added convenience just wasn't enough ensure success for those few TVs that had it. There's a difference between lack of incentive (media box would be nice, but matters far less than other factors when buying a TV), and deterrent (we hate it!).


----------



## David_B

Seperates failed because nobody saw a 100lb tv with a 4lb seperate better then a 104lb all in one tv.


An 11lb display with a 2lb media box would probably be more to people's liking.


Also just because people tried something before and it failed that doesn't necissarily mean some new combination won't work.


There where many touch screen computers in the past, the iPad can hardly be called a failure.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22149031
> 
> 
> Yes, passive/active 3D is irrelevant here, you missed by point but no big deal.
> 
> People don't like cables. If people can get rid of them at a reasonable cost, they do. We didn't always have WiFi, but people love it now. Mobile devices aside, it's widely used to connect devices where an ethernet cable would otherwise do just fine (and faster in fact): PCs, game consoles, TVs. Game consoles, controllers always used to be wired. Now they're almost universally wireless. No, wireless HDMI isn't there yet in terms of cost and reliability. But if and when it is, people will adopt it, because it will make connecting devices simpler.
> 
> Speaking of HDMI, for all its problems, people at least appreciate that it simplifies cabling by combining audio and video into one. Simplification is the trend, so it's hard to believe that people would actually "hate" media box TVs. More likely the small added convenience just wasn't enough ensure success for those few TVs that had it. There's a difference between lack of incentive (media box would be nice, but matters far less than other factors when buying a TV), and deterrent (we hate it!).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22149378
> 
> 
> Seperates failed because nobody saw a 100lb tv with a 4lb seperate better then a 104lb all in one tv.
> 
> An 11lb display with a 2lb media box would probably be more to people's liking.
> 
> Also just because people tried something before and it failed that doesn't necissarily mean some new combination won't work.
> 
> There where many touch screen computers in the past, the iPad can hardly be called a failure.



Yeah, there's some "logic" for you. "The TV is down to 11 lbs from 100, now let's require it to be tethered to some box."


Or they could have just made the entire thing 15 lbs, but clearly that would be too logical.


The *only* reason for this jackass boxes is to make the screen 4mm thin, a design decision that is -- once again -- a solution in search of a problem that no one has.


But, hey, when people literally break their displays in their own hands inadvertently, LG will doubtless be proud of this "un-mazing" achievement.


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22149509
> 
> 
> Yeah, there's some "logic" for you. "The TV is down to 11 lbs from 100, now let's require it to be tethered to some box."



Well if the trend continues, the TV will NEED a box to be tethered to, lest it float away!


I agree relative weight isn't a problem. Rather, if you have an immobile TV stuck to a wall, or a TV basically immobile because it's too heavy, then using a flashlight and one eye to get an oblique view of the TV's inputs to connect the Wii I brought over, poking around randomly for five minutes, isn't my idea of manufacturers doing me a favor. Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but don't see how making it easier would be a deterrent. It's not like people don't expect to connect boxes to their TVs.


----------



## greenland

I am neutral on the merits or negatives about having the processing located in a separate box arrangement; but might it not have some value from a service stand point? Imagine if the OLED display is OK but some part of the processing electronics have started to malfunction; would it not be great to just have them provide a replacement box right away, instead of having to go through a prolonged period where they dispatch a local service person to your home, and he then decides to either take the set apart or take it into the shop, and you end up with no TV at all for a period of time, sometimes for a long period?


Instead of having some service person trying to replace electronic components in an integrated display; would it not be much better to have service just bring out a new box with them, and take away the old malfunctioning one? It strikes me that it would be more cost effective, while also providing much better prompt customer service to the affected consumers. In fact; the manufacturer might be better off to just skip the service call part, and just start sending out new boxes, with a return shipping label for the defective one. In fact; since the cost to the consumer for replacement boxes should not be very high; it might allow new owners to not bother spending money on extended coverage contracts; and instead just count on being able to purchase a replacement box, if ever needed, down the road after the standard coverage period has expired. Food for thought!


----------



## Chronoptimist

Something else to consider as well; if all, your image processing is in an external box, why not have the option of upgrading _that_ on a more frequent basis than the entire display?


What if you were to buy a first generation OLED display with an external box, and two years down the line you could replace the box with one that has a much better color management system, adds support for “HDMI 1.5”, or 48Hz inputs, adds a new motion interpolation scheme or image processing technique. While it can’t change the display’s resolution, maybe it adds support for downsampling a 4K input.


I don’t think it's likely now, but what if DisplayPort became more commonplace and a new box added a set of DisplayPort connectors in addition to HDMI?


Once you move this outside the display, there are a number of interesting things that can be done with it.


----------



## sstephen

Or you could sell them without any box at all! And they could sync to several different signals!

Now what could we call them???? I KNOW! MONITORS!!!


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22150583
> 
> 
> Or you could sell them without any box at all! And they could sync to several different signals!
> 
> Now what could we call them???? I KNOW! MONITORS!!!


A monitor is just a television without a tuner. You still have to deal with having multiple cables going to the display, all the image processing is internal, and are generally limited to what it came with when you bought it, there's no upgrade path. (The exception is the Panasonic professional monitors where you can swap out input boards)


If you use an AVR or some other box so that you're only actually sending one input to the display, you lose per-input control for all your devices. (and despite what many people say, each HDMI device often _does_ need individual calibration)


And the point here, is that you would eventually have a wireless box, rather than actually needing to tether it to the display.

With OLEDs, hopefully the panel will start to become less important, and the focus will be on image processing/calibration capabilities instead. Especially with the cost of OLED TVs (at least in the first few years) wouldn't you rather spend $4000 on a display, and buy a $500 box in a few years than switch it out for a new $3000 display?

As mentioned above, it seems like it could also greatly simplify support as well.


----------



## rogo

Again, these are fantastical notions. People are not going to separately upgrade their electronics boxes from their TVs. Please. This is some thing some of you AVSers _might_ want (not me, but some of you perhaps I can believe that). It's not going to become common.


And repair centers are not going to believe that just the box is the problem. They are going to want to evaluate the system.


None of this is going to help sell the TVs, which is the whole point.


This is akin to automobile weight or any number of car specs. We'd like our cars to be lighter (most of us at least), but when they aren't, we rarely avoid buying them. We'd like our cars to be easy to service, but when they aren't, we don't choose a competing model that is. Look, I'm not saying none of this ever enters into anyone's mind. There are clearly some outlier cases where, for example, even the 4mm thickness is a selling point. But it's not as if this is some kind of important mass-market differentiator. And it's not as if any of these things don't bring second-order issues of their own (again, these will be the first flat-panel TVs ever sold that normal humans can literally bend, flex and break with their bare hands... and this will, in fact, happen inadvertently within a few months of them going on sale).


None of the described pluses are good. Requiring a "sidecar" is not a win just because you might want to plug a Wii in someday that isn't permanently plugged in. In my house, it's easier to reach the TV itself than it would be to reach the "sidecar", so the very notion that having the box "makes it easier to connect stuff" is actually not objectively true. It's only true for some people in some cases. (By the way, the TV having some sort of wireless interface so something like a Wii can just be "paired" and used Minority Report/CSI:Miami/Hawaii Five-O-style seems inevitable. I believe the current Panasonic Viera's can actually do a halfway version of that now with some types of content. I don't see why _that_ won't catch on.)


And as for wirelessness, since we can't yet transfer full-res HDMI without losses, I'd love to know how we're going to move 4K without losses in this mystical wireless box. That's just not happening anytime soon. We're going to have the best TVs and cripple them with wireless boxes that downsample the heck out of the image? Sounds like a grrrrrreat idea. Also, the display still needs power. So, again, this is a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22150275
> 
> 
> Something else to consider as well; if all, your image processing is in an external box, why not have the option of upgrading _that_ on a more frequent basis than the entire display?
> 
> What if you were to buy a first generation OLED display with an external box, and two years down the line you could replace the box with one that has a much better color management system, adds support for “HDMI 1.5”, or 48Hz inputs, adds a new motion interpolation scheme or image processing technique. While it can’t change the display’s resolution, maybe it adds support for downsampling a 4K input.
> 
> I don’t think it's likely now, but what if DisplayPort became more commonplace and a new box added a set of DisplayPort connectors in addition to HDMI?
> 
> Once you move this outside the display, there are a number of interesting things that can be done with it.



The potential for replacing the processing box with an improved model also crossed my mind. It might have appeal to those who would want to keep their set up to date with such things as 3D processing improvements, etc, as long as their OLED display panel is still in good working order. I expect that those processing units would not be very expensive to manufacture, and could be sold at a very reasonable retail price range. People replace lots of consumer electronics with upgraded models all the time.


I am just trying to think outside the box, and yes the pun is intentional.


----------



## David_B

Samsung is half way to this with it's "Smart Evolution" TV upgrade path.


They seem very convinced there's enough people that would like to do this to design their TVs with this.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22150919
> 
> 
> A monitor is just a television without a tuner. You still have to deal with having multiple cables going to the display, all the image processing is internal, and are generally limited to what it came with when you bought it, there's no upgrade path. (The exception is the Panasonic professional monitors where you can swap out input boards)
> 
> If you use an AVR or some other box so that you're only actually sending one input to the display, you lose per-input control for all your devices. (and despite what many people say, each HDMI device often _does_ need individual calibration)
> 
> And the point here, is that you would eventually have a wireless box, rather than actually needing to tether it to the display.
> 
> With OLEDs, hopefully the panel will start to become less important, and the focus will be on image processing/calibration capabilities instead. Especially with the cost of OLED TVs (at least in the first few years) wouldn't you rather spend $4000 on a display, and buy a $500 box in a few years than switch it out for a new $3000 display?
> 
> As mentioned above, it seems like it could also greatly simplify support as well.


----------



## rogo

The portion of those Samsung TVs that will ever be upgraded is well below 1%. Whether you wish to accept that or not is another matter, but it is the case.


----------



## walford

If you are using only one HDMI input connection to support multiple HDMI sources wouldn't you be able to use differnent TV program Modes with different PQ settings to handle almost all/if not all differences that may exist between the HDMI input content from the different sources.


----------



## David_B

Unless you have brand new sources that are all HDMI, using an external device to switch them all makes it impossible to set the TV up for the differences they may have. If all your sources are somewhat new, not so much a problem.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22152557
> 
> 
> If you are using only one HDMI input connection to support multiple HDMI sources wouldn't you be able to use differnent TV program Modes with different PQ settings to handle almost all/if not all differences that may exist between the HDMI input content from the different sources.


----------



## David_B

The Kinect add on for the Xbox 360 was the fastest selling electronic device ever in history when it first came out.


This was historic for another reason which is add ons for consoles have usually sold in very low numbers.


So, please enlighten us how you know what something that's never been done in the TV market will sell less then 1%.


Maybe you did a poll of 2000 likely new TV buyers like Samsung? Or perhaps you have a Time machine and went into the future to see?


What is it eactly that gives you this clairvoyance? Did you go to some fortune teller that told you Samsung would fail?


Seriously, all this "I know EVERYTHING about TVs (even though I have nothing to do with the industry)" attitude of yours is getting old.


Personally, I wonder if this interface will allow them to do a tru-2way box, or a satellite box, or a DVR box add on or a Game Console. If it does, it would greatly extend the life of these TVs making their owners very happy.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22152382
> 
> 
> The portion of those Samsung TVs that will ever be upgraded is well below 1%. Whether you wish to accept that or not is another matter, but it is the case.


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22151323
> 
> 
> None of this is going to help sell the TVs, which is the whole point.



The position you took though, was not that it simply wouldn't help, but that people hate it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4140#post_22151323
> 
> 
> In my house, it's easier to reach the TV itself than it would be to reach the "sidecar", so the very notion that having the box "makes it easier to connect stuff" is actually not objectively true.



And I think this is the source of it. You personally don't like the idea of media boxes, and you extrapolate that because you don't like it, "They are hated." You start with a fact, that the few media box TV designs haven't become ubiquitous, then ignore what you haven't seen (their success in Europe), and color it with your personal dislike for the idea, and arrive at the conclusion that "They are hated." You're entitled to your opinion, and it's not without insight, but this doesn't amount to good science or solid analysis.


It's good punditry though!


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22153242
> 
> 
> Unless you have brand new sources that are all HDMI, using an external device to switch them all makes it impossible to set the TV up for the differences they may have. If all your sources are somewhat new, not so much a problem.


It is a common misconception that because you are using HDMI, you do not need per-device calibration. That is categorically untrue. An Xbox 360 HDMI output is wildly different from the PS3’s, which required a different calibration from my PC (minor but not the same) and my cable box. People like to think that with HDMI, every device output is the same, but it’s not at all, and even if it _were_ the same, different devices may warrant different calibrations regardless.


I don’t know about anyone else’s TV, but mine only has a toggle button to switch between the currently selected scene mode and theatre mode. Both of those scenes are used up on a _single_ input device, to switch between the 2.2 gamma, low latency game mode which displays full RGB/4:4:4 resolution, and doesn’t allow interpolation, and Theatre mode, which drops chroma resolution to 4:2:2, switches to a 2.4 gamma calibration, turns on motionflow, and puts the set into a higher latency mode that changes the local dimming algorithm and greatly increases contrast.


Will an AVR keep audio in sync as the display changes between a low-latency sub-30ms game mode, and one that is around 100ms? I know HDMI supports lip-sync correction, but I was under the impression that this was a fixed value the display sent, rather than something dynamic that changes with the picture settings and refresh rate.


What am I supposed to do if there's more than one device going to that input? The set only has two scene modes that offer full RGB resolution (required for games consoles or PC use) and there's no quick or easy way to switch scene modes other than the game/theatre toggle.


If you’re going through an AVR, the display has no idea that the source has changed, but with an external media box it’s as if you changed inputs on the TV, which has its own set of controls. Most TVs only offer three or maybe four presets per input, and a lot of them only actually offer the full calibration controls on one of them. I don’t want to be going several menus deep every time I switch devices, that’s why things like per-input controls exist, and why TVs have that HDMI audio pass through so the AVR is last in the chain rather than first.


----------



## walford

David B.


I think you missed my point, for each of my HDMI ports I have seven Program modes available each of which has separate video and audio calibration settings so if I am using an AVR or another form of HDMI input switch. After switching to a different HDMI source from the "switch" I can change the Program Mode in use on the one HDMI port being used for input. Currently I have a separate program mode for Movies and another one for Football that I use for the HDMI input port from my cable PVR unit.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> Yeah, there's some "logic" for you. "The TV is down to 11 lbs from 100, now let's require it to be tethered to some box."
> 
> 
> Or they could have just made the entire thing 15 lbs, but clearly that would be too logical.
> 
> 
> The *only* reason for this jackass boxes is to make the screen 4mm thin, a design decision that is -- once again -- a solution in search of a problem that no one has.
> 
> 
> But, hey, when people literally break their displays in their own hands inadvertently, LG will doubtless be proud of this "un-mazing" achievement.



right, they are looking for problems.


----------



## rogo

Airion, I could handle a media-box design no problem. It provides me no benefit because I have a 7-HDMI AVR. But I could handle one. Therefore, I think your conclusion is in error.


David, I assure you people will not be upgrading those Samsung TVs. The relationship between obscure bits of TV technology people already don't think they need and Kinect, which is ridiculously fun, does not exist. Nevermind the fact that there isn't a new Xbox, so you either buy Kinect or don't. With the TV, you buy a new TV or don't -- or now buy this upgrade which doesn't yet exist, but might someday if they actually support them. It will have a sub 1% uptake rate. The value proposition is nearly impossible to fathom anyway when the important part of what you'd get in an upgrade is the better screen technology. Of course, there are morons who think dual-core TVs are improving their viewing. Enough to cover 1/4% of owners. (I realize these TVs might already have a dual-core processor. Let's just assume the upgrade has a "better processor".) And then a few people who are frustrating about some app that doesn't run but will if they spend $500 on an upgrade. Add in another 1/2%. Sounds like 3/4%, which is about right.


----------



## David_B

Um, have you seen an F1 or indycar crash recently?


They use the same carbon fiber the back of the LG is made of.


The LG isn't going to break.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22154708
> 
> 
> right, they are looking for problems.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22155127
> 
> 
> Um, have you seen an F1 or indycar crash recently?
> 
> They use the same carbon fiber the back of the LG is made of.
> 
> The LG isn't going to break.



Um, the way carbon fiber works in a racecar is, in fact, that it shatters to absorb impact. The relationship between that use of carbon fiber and the TV does not exist.


I guarantee that I could take the two sides of the TV, flex, and destroy the screen. So could you.


Carbon fiber has a great strength-to-weight ratio but when it fails, it fails period. And you will absolutely be able to flex a piece of carbon-fiber that large. It will not maintain rigidity across that distance without a skeleton inside the panel. Aluminum and steel wouldn't either (unless they were thicker, in which case they would... of course, in theory you could layer enough carbon fiber to achieve the same thing, but you are well beyond the 4mm mark at this point).


The issue isn't the carbon fiber, it's building the TV without a rigid skeleton and relying solely on a flat backplane to provide rigidity. No consumer-affordable material will allow such a design to work without breakage risk. Compare this to a 55" LCD where I doubt any of us could take the opposite corners and flex the TV to the point of destruction.


And, no, the point isn't that anyone is going to actually flex their TV this way. The point is the TV is going to give in strange, normal-life moments like when people lean over it. When the first of these shatters, I look forward to the pictures online.


----------



## andy sullivan

How about if it used Gorilla Glass for the screen?


----------



## mattg3

Cant imagine these screens are going to crack in shipment or in set up process.If this were to happen who would risk the purchase?


----------



## hoope11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22155303
> 
> 
> Um, the way carbon fiber works in a racecar is, in fact, that it shatters to absorb impact. The relationship between that use of carbon fiber and the TV does not exist.
> 
> I guarantee that I could take the two sides of the TV, flex, and destroy the screen. So could you.
> 
> Carbon fiber has a great strength-to-weight ratio but when it fails, it fails period. And you will absolutely be able to flex a piece of carbon-fiber that large. It will not maintain rigidity across that distance without a skeleton inside the panel.



You are wrong about this. The strength and toughness of carbon fiber composites varies greatly. The orientation of the fibers and the polymers used significantly affect the properties of the material. It's true that parts of a racecar's carbon fiber monocoque are designed to shatter in a crash, but the shell surrounding the driver is constructed to be totally rigid.


It is absolutely possible to create a carbon composite backplane that would resist bending in the arms of a person.


I don't know anything about the construction of this specific TV, but I would expect the engineers to choose a material with sufficient rigidty.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22155485
> 
> 
> How about if it used Gorilla Glass for the screen?



Gorilla Glass 2 seems to have increased resistance to torsional stress. I'm sure it would help make it harder to break the screen,


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoope11*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22155753
> 
> 
> You are wrong about this. The strength and toughness of carbon fiber composites varies greatly. The orientation of the fibers and the polymers used significantly affect the properties of the material. It's true that parts of a racecar's carbon fiber monocoque are designed to shatter in a crash, but the shell surrounding the driver is constructed to be totally rigid.
> 
> It is absolutely possible to create a carbon composite backplane that would resist bending in the arms of a person.
> 
> I don't know anything about the construction of this specific TV, but I would expect the engineers to choose a material with sufficient rigidty.



Thanks for clarifying. I really doubt they are using the level of technology required to protect a human in an F1 car, but perhaps they are. That sounds really expensive.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mattg3*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22155563
> 
> 
> Cant imagine these screens are going to crack in shipment or in set up process.If this were to happen who would risk the purchase?



I'm not imagining them cracking in shipment. But plasmas and LCDs can crack in setup. What I'm suggesting is that the foolish pursuit of thinness makes the OLEDs far more likely to break in setup than they need to be.


----------



## mattg3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22156307
> 
> 
> Gorilla Glass 2 seems to have increased resistance to torsional stress. I'm sure it would help make it harder to break the screen,
> 
> Thanks for clarifying. I really doubt they are using the level of technology required to protect a human in an F1 car, but perhaps they are. That sounds really expensive.
> 
> I'm not imagining them cracking in shipment. But plasmas and LCDs can crack in setup. What I'm suggesting is that the foolish pursuit of thinness makes the OLEDs far more likely to break in setup than they need to be.





Totally agree that we dont need paper thin displays.I have a ten year old Pioneer 433 cmx that was considered thin for its day but its a tank hanging over my fireplace but my samsung 55 8500 LED is as thin as I would ever need for an in home theater.


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mattg3*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22156464
> 
> 
> Totally agree that we dont need paper thin displays.I have a ten year old Pioneer 433 cmx that was considered thin for its day but its a tank hanging over my fireplace but my samsung 55 8500 LED is as thin as I would ever need for an in home theater.




You mean you don'to need one.


Many people do.


----------



## greenland

One would expect that the manufacturers would have done a lot of stress testing on their panel designs, before deciding to mass produce them. I doubt if they will turn out to be as brittle as a person who has never laid hands on one keeps claiming they are.


I notice that the LG model does not even have ventilation holes or slots in the back; which would appear to indicate that the panels are also going to run cool, because of not having the processing electronics housed inside the display. it also prevents dust from getting into the panel; which is also a good thing.


There is far too much negative whining showing up about the products, before they have even become available. Knock it off.


----------



## kaosv1

 http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120621/D9VH82G00.html


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22155303
> 
> *I guarantee* that I could take the two sides of the TV, flex, and destroy the screen.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22156570
> 
> 
> I doubt if they will turn out to be as brittle as a person who has never laid hands on one keeps claiming they are.



Agreed, unless you have inside knowledge rogo, I'd suggest backing off a bit on such wild certainty.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22156957
> 
> 
> Agreed, unless you have inside knowledge rogo, I'd suggest backing off a bit on such wild certainty.



Is that a threat?


----------



## Mik James

I thought oled's were being advertised as bendable displays? How would they crack if they can be bent?


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22158075
> 
> 
> Is that a threat?



No, but I think you make yourself look silly when you give such confident judgements before you've obviously given it enough thought. As we've seen, there are in fact a number of options to make a thin panel strong and rigid. Would they be economically viable in budget, mid range, and top of the line models? I don't know, and I doubt you know either. I've been surprised at what kind of stuff is out there though. Right now I can go to the hardware store and buy cat/child-proof paper for Japanese style sliding doors. They tested it on a variety program against a lion and a professional boxer. It bested the lion and the boxer only broke it on the second punch. Now of course, this is a rollable material, not rigid, so I'm not suggesting it for OLED displays, but it's an example of a strong, "high tech" material that's available to the common man.


In any case, manufacturers are surely aware of the danger of putting out a fragile TV. They're going to give it more thought than you, me, or all of us together as to what materials can be used and at what cost. That's no guarantee that they'll find an answer, and no guarantee that they won't mess it up and we'll be able to enjoy videos of broken thin panels as you predict. But I don't think we can make guarantees one way or the other at this point.


----------



## 8mile13

My laptop screen - 4mm/15inch - can be broken very easily. What does that tell you about a 4mm/55inch TV? Right, bad idea


----------



## Airion

I think it either means that:


A. Your laptop screen is not broken as easily as you say, or:

B. If it is as broken as easily as you say, manufacturers won't bring a 4mm/55inch TV to market unless they're willing to take the risks.


I suspect when you say your laptop screen can be broken easily, you don't mean broken easily in any real world, actual usage. Any display, including a TV of any kind or a laptop screen, can be broken easily with the proper tools and intent. For example, a hammer, and the intent to break a nice display. Very easy! It doesn't mean that laptop screens are unreasonably fragile, or that thin flat panels have to stand up to exceptional abuse. Any thin panel would need to stand up to the stresses of shipping, set up, and perhaps the occasional toddler-attack, but for the most part I think people will expect and accept that the TV is relatively fragile, just as they do now.


When TV screens were getting broken by errant Wiimotes a few years ago, people didn't blame TVs for being too fragile. For the most part, they blamed over-zealous gamers with sweaty hands who ignored the constant warnings in games to use the Wiimote hand strap. Nintendo, though arguably not a fault, nonetheless saw vulnerability and quickly designed a rubber Wiimote jacket to help cover themselves. Meanwhile, no TV manufacturer apologized for having fragile TVs, nor (as far as I know) strengthened their TV screens to take any responsibility. Rather, people accepted and expected that TVs are fragile. I think as long as thin panels don't become unreasonably fragile, they'll be fine.


----------



## Mik James

Again aren't oleds supposed to be on some sort of bendable material? Or are they going the old fashioned way and actually using glass?


----------



## 8mile13

I can break my laptopscreen with my hands, i really do not need a hammer for that







That is definitely a case of unreasonably fragility, to me that is. I should not be able to bend or break it with my hands. The same will be the case with the 55inch LG OLED.


Its all ok for you guys, till an accident happens, that is


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mik James*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4100_100#post_22159874
> 
> 
> Again aren't oleds supposed to be on some sort of bendable material?



Not for the large TV models that LG and Samsung are set to introduce. The bendable OLED technology is just starting to emerge for very small displays, and for potential OLED lighting displays.


Here is one site where you can read up on the subject.

http://www.oled-info.com/


----------



## Mik James

That kinda seems like a step backwards eh? why put a great new technology that can be printed on a bendable material behind breakable mirror like glass ?


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22160064
> 
> 
> I can break my laptopscreen with my hands, i really do not need a hammer for that



The point I wanted to make is, you _don't_ break it with your hands. You recognize that it's fragile and treat it appropriately. It wasn't so unreasonably fragile that you didn't buy it (though maybe you wouldn't buy another one?)


I don't mean to say there's no room for improvement, or that manufacturers should get away with scaling your laptop screen up to 55" without strengthening it, but they don't need to make them super strong. When accidents happen, people don't usually blame the TV. I could drop my laptop, spill soup on it, or put it in the oven, but I wouldn't blame my laptop for breaking. If it were to break in the course of normal, responsible usage, such as pulling the screen up, then I would blame the laptop.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion*
> 
> 
> The point I wanted to make is, you _don't_ break it with your hands. You recognize that it's fragile and treat it appropriately. It wasn't so unreasonably fragile that you didn't buy it (though maybe you wouldn't buy another one?)
> 
> I don't mean to say there's no room for improvement, or that manufacturers should get away with scaling your laptop screen up to 55" without strengthening it, but they don't need to make them super strong. When accidents happen, people don't usually blame the TV. I could drop my laptop, spill soup on it, or put it in the oven, but I wouldn't blame my laptop for breaking. If it were to break in the course of normal, responsible usage, such as pulling the screen up, then I would blame the laptop.



The whole 4mm 55inch thing is all about looks. It is obvious that LG exchanged some strength for better looks. And its clear, at least to me, that this will have consequences.


----------



## Airion

I agree, it's all about looks. But how is it obvious that they've exchanged strength for looks? I don't know, they may well have, but I don't accept extrapolation and assumption as evidence.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200_100#post_22161212
> 
> 
> The point I wanted to make is, you _don't_ break it with your hands. You recognize that it's fragile and treat it appropriately. It wasn't so unreasonably fragile that you didn't buy it (though maybe you wouldn't buy another one?)
> 
> I don't mean to say there's no room for improvement, or that manufacturers should get away with scaling your laptop screen up to 55" without strengthening it, but they don't need to make them super strong. When accidents happen, people don't usually blame the TV. I could drop my laptop, spill soup on it, or put it in the oven, but I wouldn't blame my laptop for breaking. If it were to break in the course of normal, responsible usage, such as pulling the screen up, then I would blame the laptop.




Some people appear to want to be able to to treat the forthcoming 55 inch OLED TV displays like Frisbees. How else can one explain all the whining about how fragile they are going to turn out to be, before they have even become available for purchase?!


Like Plasma or LCD displays, all I need to see from the manufacturers is; can they deliver them from their assembly plants all along the supply lines, and into the consumer homes without they breaking. Once they are set up in the chosen viewing locations; do people keep tossing their Plasma or LCD panels into the middle of Rugby Scrums or Demolition Derbies?! Of course not; so if the OLED panels can remain intact all along the supply chain, with all the shipping and handling stresses that implies; I see no reason why they should not remain intact in most homes.


----------



## taichi4

I find it funny that the lightness of a TV is suddenly a detriment. I'd rather have a 15 lb TV fall to the ground than a 150-200 lb TV,


Of course dropping or bending a TV is not what I would do...


As others have said, we don't know enough about the construction of these TVs to engage in a battle royale.


I'm looking forward to lighter Tvs.


----------



## RichB

When they start shipping we will now. If too many break, they will decide to get esoteric with materials or make them thicker.


I have a 600m and I had it delivered by value electronic because they were out of production and had rediculous shipping damage stats.


I have it on an articulating mount. I will not be surprised if the kids one day break it.


- Rich


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion*
> 
> I agree, it's all about looks. But how is it obvious that they've exchanged strength for looks? I don't know, they may well have, but I don't accept extrapolation and assumption as evidence.



The 55 Samsung OLED is 8mm, that's kind of the minimum thickness AFAIK. Folks seems to love the ultra thin stuff, just take a look at the supermodels


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22162875
> 
> 
> The 55 Samsung OLED is 8mm, that's kind of the minimum thickness AFAIK. Folks seems to love the ultra thin stuff, just take a look at the supermodels



Sounds like Samsung has made some better industrial-design decisions then. Maybe, for example, they built in a rigid backplane/subframe to preclude the panel from being flex under normal, real-world loads. Like, for example, someone leaning on one for a moment to reach over the top of it. Things that happen in living rooms... in the real world....


----------



## greenland

Now we are hearing a new complaint about the LG. It should not be made so thin, because some idiot might knock it over while reaching over it! Good lord, what a crock. Some Idiot might do the same thing to a Plasma or LCD display, so should they also be made imbecile proof? By the way; where is the documentation that states that the LG panel flexes at all? The same person keeps making that claim, over and over to justify all his premature griping. Ever since he locked himself into a brand new large Plasma display; he appears to be trying to convince himself that he made the right choice, by posting premature complaints about problems with a display that has not yet been tested for such alleged defects.


This base for the LG model looks robust enough to make it hard for someone to knock over the display, unless they are treating the unit like a tackling dummy.

http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/LG-55EM9600-Tablestand-Base-inputs-580.jpg


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22163247
> 
> 
> Now we are hearing a new complaint about the LG. It should not be made so thin, because some idiot might knock it over while reaching over it! Good lord, what a crock. Some Idiot might do the same thing to a Plasma or LCD display, so should they also be made imbecile proof? By the way; where is the documentation that states that the LG panel flexes at all? The same person keeps making that claim, over and over to justify all his premature griping. Ever since he locked himself into a brand new large Plasma display; he appears to be trying to convince himself that he made the right choice, by posting premature complaints about problems with a display that has not yet been tested for such alleged defects.
> 
> This base for the LG model looks robust enough to make it hard for someone to knock over the display, unless they are treating the unit like a tackling dummy.
> http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/LG-55EM9600-Tablestand-Base-inputs-580.jpg



Seriously, get your inuendo out of your posts. And at least take the time to read mine. This has nothing to do with "knocking over the TV" which, by the way, will be trivially easy to do at 15 lbs. and presents an entirely different problem than the one I'm describing.


I'm trying to convince myself I made the right choice? Really? I spent a year not buying a TV. I'm more than convinced I made the right choice. In no post since taking delivery of my Panasonic have I done anything to suggest exchanging it for any other model or returning it and delaying my purchase*.


Since January, I have warned about the thinness of the OLEDs being a poor design decision. I have railed against the separate port box since I was aware of it (since then at least, if not earlier).


I'm not sure what knowledge of materials or physics you possess (your posts suggest little by the way), but there is a direct relationship between the construction of something and its resistance to flexing. If you build something with a separate frame or with materials of sufficient thickness, rigidity, or form, you can create tremendous resistance to flexing. A good example is an automobile, which is made of steel in what is almost exclusively now "unibody" construction. In unibody constructions, the body and the frame are one and the same (because there is no separate frame). The use of sufficiently thick steel allows for significant rigidity across great distances. Compare this to, say, sheets of steel that are perhaps twice as thick as your aluminum foil in the kitchen. You'd be able to bend such steel trivially.


Most televisions these days are made primarily of various plastics which are selected for their ability to bear weight, absorb impact, etc. If you've ever seen these things taken apart, you'll see that there's more than a little thickness to said plastic. Now, current TVs are asked to hold things like heavy PDP modules (my TV apparently has a nearly 100 lb. screen section alone) and even moderately heavy LCD modules. OLED modules are much lighter, so the internals required to hold the module itself (and the lack of a need for a backlight module) means that it's possible to build things like a 4mm thick TV.


But being able to do something doesn't mean you should do something. It's not possible to build a 4mm piece of plastic that wouldn't flex on a 55" diagonal panel under the normal strength of an adult human. This is doubtless why LG has chosen carbon fiber for their backplane. But even carbon fiber has limits. You can't realistically use the highest grades of carbon fiber to build TVs -- at least not TVs that run less than $50,000 -- and you can't stop flexing of a large sheet of carbon fiber. Samsung's design relies on something different, either a thicker substrate of plastic or quite possibly an internal frame whose sole function is to provide rigidity across the backplane. That might be made of a light metal alloy and attached to the plastic if they are going with an internal-frame design. Even those extra 4mm of thickness that Samsung is providing allow for an almost exponential increase in the rigidity of the panel. And you want rigidity. Flex leads to all sorts of bad things.**


In my many years around computers, I've seen LCD panels absolutely destroyed by relatively minor impacts that didn't even break the front glass, but merely hit it. The cause of this was impact damage to the backplane. Not coincidentally, OLED backplanes will resemble LCD backplanes in many ways.


What you don't want to do is design something such that if someone leans on it for a fleeting moment and causes flex in the panel, catastrophic failure occurs. The LG design will allow this to occur. It is form over function. Will this occur often? Who knows. The number sold in 2012 is going to be infinitesimal. Perhaps the early adopters will wall mount them?***


Stiffness and light weight have long been desired on things like bicycles, which have used things like steel, sometimes with chromium and molybdenum in alloy. LG's choice of carbon fiber was clearly dictated by a combination of weight goals as well as marketing "sex appeal" goals. Whether they can realistically use a grade of carbon fiber that is high enough to provide the kind of rigidity that they will need once this becomes a mainstream product is a legitimately open question. Whether there is any real reason to focus so much on thinness, while ignoring the fragility it will yield is, however, already a closed question. If anything, launching at slightly greater thickness and then trimming it down in the second or third year would've been a possible opportunity. If these things, however, prove ultra fragile, that will gain them nothing.



* It's completely fair to say I've discussed whether it's performing up to normal specs, which I am confident it is.

** Gorilla Glass 2 makes a point of how well it holds up under flexing. The point there is not that flexing is good for it, but rather it won't fail catastrophically under minor flex as most glass certainly does.

*** The relevance of the "extra thinness" on wall mounting is that much more lost on me. You can't even impress your guests by showing them a 4mm panel on the wall vs. an 8mm one. Are you planning on having your guests slam their faces up against the wall? Will they really appreaciate that difference of 4mm?


----------



## rogo

Sony and Panasonic have made it official:

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201206/12-0625E/index.html 


Notably: "They plan to jointly develop *printing method-based next-generation OLED technology*, which will be suitable for low-cost mass production of large, high resolution OLED panels and modules. Sony and Panasonic aim to establish mass-production technology during 2013, by integrating their unique technologies to improve the overall efficiency of development."


This technology (a) has been talked about for years (b) doesn't exist (c) presumably has been considered by Samsung and somehow hasn't gotten anywhere and (d) is something Panasonic ostensibly has figured out. If (d) is true, they could theoretical ramp this down the cost curve fairly quickly, which will be important given how far behind Samsung and LG they are.


This probably represents the absolute last hope for both companies in TV. Neither has large-scale LCD production (Panasonic doesn't even have an 8G fab for LCD, Sony has nothing that makes TV panels) and Panasonic has signaled that PDP is a technology that will only capture a few percent of the market until it winds down. Samsung and LG intend to make it difficult to sell LCD by decade's end against the "better OLED" and Panasonic and Sony need (1) owned production and (2) competitive product. If this JV succeeds, they could survive as TV makers. If it fails, both will be out of the TV business before the calendar hits 2020.


----------



## specuvestor

I agree with rogo that 4mm is of little value except bragging rights. Even a photoframe is thicker than that, which was what people were referencing to a decade ago at the advent of FPTV. It is likely to induce unnecessary logictics and operational problems while solving none.


However I did suggest months back that I think the age of monitors may be coming back with external boxes. By monitor I mean displays that output the source as it is (not TVs without tuner yet with inbuilt processors etc.) With a "photoframe" TV it makes more sense to have just a single cable connected to the TV and processing done externally. This also simplifies matters for those with AVR, or multiple devices that connects to the TV, as everything can be connected at the TV console level. It just makes sense though it didn't catch momentum in the past. I think one of the design consideration should be that connectors should be easier to access rather than all at the back of the box.


----------



## greenland

Form follows function. LG claims that they had no need to make the display any thicker just for the sake of making it thicker, and that they have come up with a carbon fiber composite housing for the OLED components that is strong and secure. Only time will tell if that turns out to be an accurate claim, and not the people who post on here as if they are Philip K Dick's Precogs.


The LG OLED panel is dangerous because it is so thin that some owner may stumble and fall across it and decapitate himself on it. You'll cut off your head with it Ralphie.


----------



## Airion

Two thoughts:


1. Most of us here probably agree that a super thin panel has little practical value. It doesn't help picture quality. However, we here are not everyone. The question isn't just whether or not thin displays have practical value or not, but if they have perceived value or not. We can deride thin panels as vain or unnecessary, and I would. But it some people want them, they want them. They'll buy them and support the industry selling them. I'll even admit I slightly want one despite having no good reason to.


2. As to the problem of leaning over a display and breaking it: people won't need to lean over a display if there's a separate media box. The problem has found it's solution! Or alternatively, the fragility problem is still in search of a cause.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22164527
> 
> 
> Two thoughts:
> 
> 1. Most of us here probably agree that a super thin panel has little practical value. It doesn't help picture quality. However, we here are not everyone. The question isn't just whether or not thin displays have practical value or not, but if they have perceived value or not. We can deride thin panels as vain or unnecessary, and I would. But it some people want them, they want them. They'll buy them and support the industry selling them. I'll even admit I slightly want one despite having no good reason to.



Exactly.


I dont know if TV's this thin have much value for the mass market, but I think that many people who are buying in the ultra-premium market are going to like the clear differentiation with the rest of the market. The average person is never going to notice the Kuro sitting in your living room, but they'll notice a 4mm television almost immediately.


There is a reason why mass market cars are never sold in colors like yellow but you see them on lamborghini's.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200_100#post_22164527
> 
> 
> Two thoughts:
> 
> 1. Most of us here probably agree that a super thin panel has little practical value. It doesn't help picture quality. However, we here are not everyone. The question isn't just whether or not thin displays have practical value or not, but if they have perceived value or not. We can deride thin panels as vain or unnecessary, and I would. But it some people want them, they want them. They'll buy them and support the industry selling them. I'll even admit I slightly want one despite having no good reason to.
> 
> 2. As to the problem of leaning over a display and breaking it: people won't need to lean over a display if there's a separate media box. The problem has found it's solution! Or alternatively, the fragility problem is still in search of a cause.



If the LG panel turns out to be brittle or fragile and subject to easy breakage; this configuration would appear to be the one that would be the most vulnerable.

http://cdn.asia.cnet.com/story_media/62215577/600x450/sc005.jpg 


Surely LG must have done extensive stress testing on such a configuration before deciding to bring it to market?


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22164696
> 
> 
> If the LG panel turns out to be brittle or fragile and subject to easy breakage; this configuration would appear to be the one that would be the most vulnerable.
> http://cdn.asia.cnet.com/story_media/62215577/600x450/sc005.jpg
> 
> Surely LG must have done extensive stress testing on such a configuration before deciding to bring it to market?



This product is the first forray into the market starting at the ultra-high price.

They cannot make money util production increases and the price comes down.


While they could make them out of Duranium (Star Trek), I think you will see bit fatter design out of more common earthly materials.


Light is nice, but broken on delivery sucks for the customer and manufacturer.

Basically, this is just done to wow the folks at shows and for PR.


These products are not representative of what you will see when they go mainstream.


- Rich


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22164527
> 
> 
> Two thoughts:
> 
> 1. Most of us here probably agree that a super thin panel has little practical value. It doesn't help picture quality. However, we here are not everyone. The question isn't just whether or not thin displays have practical value or not, but if they have perceived value or not. We can deride thin panels as vain or unnecessary, and I would. But it some people want them, they want them. They'll buy them and support the industry selling them. I'll even admit I slightly want one despite having no good reason to.
> 
> 2. As to the problem of leaning over a display and breaking it: people won't need to lean over a display if there's a separate media box. The problem has found it's solution! Or alternatively, the fragility problem is still in search of a cause.



As for #2, people have things behind their TVs, like walls with pictures hanging on them, mantles, furniture. Maybe in your setup it's impossible to have any reason to every touch the TV, not in mine -- or countless others.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22164553
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> I dont know if TV's this thin have much value for the mass market, but I think that many people who are buying in the ultra-premium market are going to like the clear differentiation with the rest of the market. The average person is never going to notice the Kuro sitting in your living room, but they'll notice a 4mm television almost immediately.
> 
> There is a reason why mass market cars are never sold in colors like yellow but you see them on lamborghini's.



Yes, that's fair and Airion's on point there too.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22164696
> 
> 
> If the LG panel turns out to be brittle or fragile and subject to easy breakage; this configuration would appear to be the one that would be the most vulnerable.
> http://cdn.asia.cnet.com/story_media/62215577/600x450/sc005.jpg
> 
> Surely LG must have done extensive stress testing on such a configuration before deciding to bring it to market?



I find it amusing you think they've tested this anywhere. They've not shipped a single production unit, they've shown them off behind ropes at trade shows. Do you think they are taking their tiny yields and actually subjecting them to physical-breakage testing? I promise you they are complying only with the minimal testing required by consumer-product safety regulations. These have undergone no sort of real-world testing to find out just how fragile they are.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22164742
> 
> 
> This product is the first forray into the market starting at the ultra-high price.
> 
> They cannot make money util production increases and the price comes down.
> 
> While they could make them out of Duranium (Star Trek), I think you will see bit fatter design out of more common earthly materials.
> 
> Light is nice, but broken on delivery sucks for the customer and manufacturer.
> 
> Basically, this is just done to wow the folks at shows and for PR.
> 
> These products are not representative of what you will see when they go mainstream.
> 
> - Rich



That's also probably true.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22165491
> 
> 
> I find it amusing you think they've tested this anywhere. They've not shipped a single production unit, they've shown them off behind ropes at trade shows. Do you think they are taking their tiny yields and actually subjecting them to physical-breakage testing? I promise you they are complying only with the minimal testing required by consumer-product safety regulations. These have undergone no sort of real-world testing to find out just how fragile they are.



I'd like to think they tested this during the design stage with just the materials that provide the strength. Not during the (pre/pilot)production stage using the final and QA-tested product.


----------



## David_B

I am betting the screen for the LG will be a complete laminate sandwich and not seperate parts.


The caron fiber back glued to the multi layers of the display will be stronger than you all think.


More devices today are built this way.


Go look at the ifix website to see how many screened devices they have to break the screen to get appart.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22165491
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amusing you think they've tested this anywhere. They've not shipped a single production unit, they've shown them off behind ropes at trade shows. Do you think they are taking their tiny yields and actually subjecting them to physical-breakage testing? I promise you they are complying only with the minimal testing required by consumer-product safety regulations. These have undergone no sort of real-world testing to find out just how fragile they are.
> 
> 
> i find it amusing that we're arguing about external boxes and frame rigidity for a set that may not even be available anytime this year. all they've done is shown us 1 set, 1 demo loop, and a box.
> 
> well a few may make it to market this year, it looks like they'll just be dribbling out.
> 
> 
> what i would like to see is one of those you tube test where they drop iphones and galaxies (or tablets) from different heights to see how well they fare on impact.
> 
> 
> take 3-4 of these new oled and just drop them onto concrete.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22165630
> 
> 
> I'd like to think they tested this during the design stage with just the materials that provide the strength. Not during the (pre/pilot)production stage using the final and QA-tested product.



Ferro, I'm not questioning that there was some amount of minimal testing done. But things like mass production of carbon fiber barely exist. I don't recall the CES sets that specifically, but I'm fairly sure they didn't have carbon-fiber backplanes at the time.


Look, this is a dead horse. I think some good points were raised about why they are seeking form over function. I think it's correct to say that the designs of the $8000 sets might well not be the same as those of the $3000 sets 3-4 years down the road. It's pretty clear I think this is a bad design on a lot of levels. The incredible thinness it will offer will be exciting to reviewers -- as were the breathless reviews about 1-inch thick LCD TVs when they first came to market. But the market hasn't rooted out somewhat fatter LCDs. In fact, I'm surprised how chunky most of the stuff I see at Best Buy, Costco, Fry's actually still is.


One of the pluses of OLED is clearly that the modules are lighter and thinner. That will lend itself to TVs that are generally thinner. There is no special need to give up robustness to achieve this, however. Most TVs sold today are very durable against a lot of types of damage (no, most won't survive an errant Wii controller, but it appears LG is using Gorilla Glass, so hopefully at least _that_ will be a non issue).


I suspect they will ultimately come to realize that someone leaning atop the TV for a second or five is (a) not something the initial design is well suited to survive and (b) is something that other TVs on the market do, in fact, survive easily. Given that there is nothing about Samsung's panel differences that automatically dictate a fatter overall panel, the fact they are going out at 2x the thickness of LG says a lot to me. Samsung, of course, has other issues with ramping their SMM production and whether that will match what LG is doing with their RGBW design and what Panasonic and Sony might conjure up next year.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22165690
> 
> 
> what i would like to see is one of those you tube test where they drop iphones and galaxies (or tablets) from different heights to see how well they fare on impact.
> 
> take 3-4 of these new oled and just drop them onto concrete.


It would be interesting in an academic way, but who has the ~$40K in *this* economy for such a project?


----------



## specuvestor

TVs are not mobile devices... these are also unnecessary tests










Neither are they 10" across which are more rigid than say 55" across


What is necessary is that they will be rigid enough to be transported via trucks (and the errant delivery man) and the occasional "accidents" at home. IMHO shipping across oceans ironically should not be an issue since stand-alone panels has been shipped.


I think generally thinness is not a factor for AVS videophile. They are more for heuristic decision makers with loads of cash. It is easier to discuss/conclude thinness with a ruler than MLL







That will be the market they are targetting for 4mm.


----------



## ThumperII




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22165946
> 
> 
> But things like mass production of carbon fiber barely exist.



Hilarious. I can buy a quality bike frame of 100% carbon fiber for about $400 from China. If that ain't mass production....

http://www.e-hongfu-bikes.com/


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ThumperII*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22166794
> 
> 
> Hilarious. I can buy a quality bike frame of 100% carbon fiber for about $400 from China. If that ain't mass production....
> http://www.e-hongfu-bikes.com/



There are many different grades of carbon fiber. Some of them are only strong along the bias of the fibers, which is probably fine for crafting bike frames and borderline useless when crafting large rectangles.


----------



## 8mile13

the back of the 55EM960V


----------



## ThumperII

There are many different grades of carbon fiber. Imagine the torque on a bicycle ridden by a 220lb fit cyclist. The varying forces on the seat cluster, fork and bottom bracket as the cyclist pedals down the road hitting cracks, bumps and twisting around corners, sometimes out of the saddle and mostly not. Now imagine a tv in a living room where someone decides they need to unweight a little as they lean over. The bicycle is also a much more complicated layup than a back panel.


You may also want to check out their fully carbon wheel rims and handlebars.


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22167447
> 
> 
> the back of the 55EM960V



Interesting, but interesting because these two models look quite different! Could you explain where/when you pulled the images from?


In either case, there's clearly no need to bend over the panel to connect HDMI cables. Inputs are located on the stand. They're not behind the panel, but below it. It's not literally a media box, but kind of the same idea- just watch your head!







Seriously though watch your head.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22165491
> 
> 
> As for #2, people have things behind their TVs, like walls with pictures hanging on them, mantles, furniture. Maybe in your setup it's impossible to have any reason to every touch the TV, not in mine -- or countless others.



Perhaps these things are more above than behind. People aren't going to hang pictures literally behind a 55" display, where they can't see them, leaning over and accidentally putting their body weight on top of the display in the process. I know you didn't mean that, but I think your accident scenario is becoming less likely, and less likely to actually cause damage. Unlike any CRT or LCD display I've ever had (including now) or seen, the AV inputs will be below the display rather than behind it, which eliminates the requirement to reach over/behind it.


On a different note, we've got four current threads about OLED advancements in this subforum, and enough vitriol for five or six! I suspect we'll look back on these times, these threads, as the cluttered, eager chatter just before the dawn of OLED. We're witnessing, or perhaps participating in, history here.


Or, just as likely, wasting our time.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion*
> 
> 
> Interesting, but interesting because these two models look quite different! Could you explain where/when you pulled the images from?


The first pick is from Stylecowboys.nl, its from the start of the year, CES. LG recently showed the ''carbon fiber-reinforced plastics''( CFRP) version.


http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-6482_7-10012629-4.html#2300-6482_7-10012629-4.html?&_suid=1340727329957012965176996258604


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200#post_22167941
> 
> 
> Interesting, but interesting because these two models look quite different! Could you explain where/when you pulled the images from?
> 
> In either case, there's clearly no need to bend over the panel to connect HDMI cables. Inputs are located on the stand. They're not behind the panel, but below it. It's not literally a media box, but kind of the same idea- just watch your head!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though watch your head.
> 
> Perhaps these things are more above than behind. People aren't going to hang pictures literally behind a 55" display, where they can't see them, leaning over and accidentally putting their body weight on top of the display in the process. I know you didn't mean that, but I think your accident scenario is becoming less likely, and less likely to actually cause damage. Unlike any CRT or LCD display I've ever had (including now) or seen, the AV inputs will be below the display rather than behind it, which eliminates the requirement to reach over/behind it.



Seriously, stop telling me about how unlikely this is OK? It's not unlikely. So long as there is something behind your TV -- anything -- this razor-edge panel will be jutting into the air and will be in your way. In my case, there is a mantle behind the TV and above that wall. I doubt it's a very uncommon layout. In other cases, there'll be a shelf above it. Will this affect everyone? Of course not. That's not the point, never has been.


As for the images, if they are really different backplanes in them (and they seem to be), I'd assume it's just different shows and different stages in the evolution. Whatever was at CES was clearly more prototype. Whatever they showed off last month was more likely a test version of the finished product. That's why we saw things like the shipping box with all the logos and detail on it from the Greek (?) site.


----------



## gary cornell

Still nobody from Europe with the LG to post some serious feedback? Looks like we will just have to wait till they arrive out our local dealers.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gary cornell*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4230#post_22169068
> 
> 
> Still nobody from Europe with the LG to post some serious feedback? Looks like we will just have to wait till they arrive out our local dealers.



Don't hold your breath.










In all seriousness, though, I suspect if this show up stateside this year, it will be at a few dealers, later in the year. I look forward to spending time with one at a Magnolia or equivalent.


----------



## gary cornell

Not going to name the dealer - i was told Aug., make of it what you will...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gary cornell*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4230#post_22169215
> 
> 
> Not going to name the dealer - i was told Aug., make of it what you will...



Let's hope it's true.


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4230#post_22168548
> 
> 
> Seriously, stop telling me about how unlikely this is OK? It's not unlikely.



Is that a threat?


Seriously, stop telling me how likely this is okay? It's not likely.


What was sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander (special thanks to Mitt Romney for the quote)!







Seriously though, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, but I'm willing to consider that I might well be wrong. We don't know how strong these panels will be, and while I _doubt_ they'll be especially fragile, I don't _know_, and I'm not afraid to admit it. Neither of us are in a position to speak with authority about the rate of accidents in the future involving an OLED of unknown strength. And yet, you try to.


----------



## greenland

Here is a very good 19 second video clip of the LG OLED TV display at SID 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dajVNnkl38s


----------



## ferro

It does take 3 LG employees (2 engineers + 1 product manager) to get it out of the box with any kind of confidence though:


----------



## greenland

Which proves nothing at all. It is a first generation revolutionary design, so of course they were going to take great care in the handling of it,since they probably did not bring very many of them along for the show. I suspect that as much care is taken by manufacturers in the setting up of similar sized Plasma and LCD displays at exhibitions.



Boeing is using a lot of carbon fiber composite materials in their 787 Passenger Jet.



COMPOSITES IN THE AIRFRAME AND PRIMARY STRUCTURE


http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_06/article_04_2.html 


"The Boeing 787 makes greater use of composite materials in its airframe and primary structure than any previous Boeing commercial airplane. Undertaking the design process without preconceived ideas enabled Boeing engineers to specify the optimum material for specific applications throughout the airframe.


The result is an airframe comprising nearly half carbon fiber reinforced plastic and other composites. This approach offers weight savings on average of 20 percent compared to more conventional aluminum designs."


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4230#post_22170723
> 
> 
> It does take 3 LG employees (2 engineers + 1 product manager) to get it out of the box with any kind of confidence though










But also,










You can imagine their fear. They've got the one prototype in their care and the whole company, including all of their superiors, are depending on them to do the simple task of safely putting up the display. If they were to clumsily damage it, they would be instantly ruining untold amounts of planning, money, and hard work. Those 3 employees hold the entire weight of their company in their hands. Even if it was a brick, I'd be careful too.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4230#post_22170782
> 
> 
> Which proves nothing at all.



I'm not trying to prove anything. Just thought it was a new and amusing picture in the context of the last few pages of this thread.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200_100#post_22170804
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to prove anything. Just thought it was a new and amusing picture in the context of the last few pages of this thread.




Amusing in what sense? You said "it does take". The picture shows one guy just looking on and the other two with hands on the panel. I saw three delivery men doing something similar when the store delivered my plasma set.


----------



## gary cornell

I'd like to see the silver boder replaced with a non glossy black.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4230#post_22170819
> 
> 
> Amusing in what sense? You said "it does take". The picture shows one guy just looking on and the other two with hands on the panel. I saw three delivery men doing something similar when the store delivered my plasma set.



Amusing in the sense that the topic of discussion here was the strength of the TV, and the picture shows 3 LG employees taking it out of the box very carefully and awkwardly. The guy looking on also has one hand at the base of the TV.


Again, I'm not trying to prove anything about the strength of the TV. I'm sure it will be fine.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gary cornell*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200_100#post_22170835
> 
> 
> I'd like to see the silver boder replaced with a non glossy black.




You may be on to something. I took a look at a front on video clip of the unit, and it does tend to glitter and look distracting to the eye. Perhaps it will not be that way in a properly illuminated home setting,


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200_100#post_22169145
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all seriousness, though, I suspect if this show up stateside this year, it will be at a few dealers, later in the year. I look forward to spending time with one at a Magnolia or equivalent.



In that case the Magnolia management in your region better alert their store staff to watch out for a guy with a Sheldon Cooper personality profile , who will be attempting to bend and break the LG OLED display panel.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4230#post_22170960
> 
> 
> In that case the Magnolia management in your region better alert their store staff to watch out for a guy with a Sheldon Cooper personality profile , who will be attempting to bend and break the LG OLED display panel.



I have about as much in common with Sheldon Cooper as I do with George Clooney, which is to say not very much.


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4230#post_22170842
> 
> 
> Amusing in the sense that the topic of discussion here was the strength of the TV, and the picture shows 3 LG employees taking it out of the box very carefully and awkwardly. The guy looking on also has one hand at the base of the TV.
> 
> Again, I'm not trying to prove anything about the strength of the TV. I'm sure it will be fine.



If the set where truely fragile, 3 guys handling a fragile screen would twist it more then 1 guy.


I'd say this shows it to be pretty strong that 3 guys didn't twist it into pieces as some think it can be.


----------



## rogo

The set weighs 15 lbs., but it had 3 people handling it. Clearly, the only logical conclusion is that it's super strong. Yup.


----------



## specuvestor

Seoul, South Korea (AP) -- Prosecutors have charged six South Korean employees of an Israeli company with leaking advanced TV display technology from Samsung Mobile Display and

LG Display to their rivals.

The Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office said Wednesday that the six stole OLED display technology from the display affiliate of Samsung Electronics and LG Display and relayed it to Chinese and Taiwanese panel makers.

Orbotech Ltd., the Israeli company, makes display inspection equipment that it supplies to customers in South Korea, China and Taiwan. Its South Korean unit was also charged.

Orbotech did not respond to requests for comment.

Asian display panel makers are in a highly competitive battle to develop a new generation of ultra-thin TV displays.

The Israeli company wasn't named by prosecutors but Samsung and LG identified it as Orbotech.


----------



## taichi4

"The set weighs 15 lbs., but it had 3 people handling it. Clearly, the only logical conclusion is that it's super strong. Yup.



































"



Or the three employees are incredibly weak. You must always keep an open mind for alternative explanations.


----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4240_40#post_22174145
> 
> 
> "The set weighs 15 lbs., but it had 3 people handling it. Clearly, the only logical conclusion is that it's super strong. Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> Or the three employees are incredibly weak. You must always keep an open mind for alternative explanations.


The blue pixels are make with Kryptonite.


----------



## wjchan

Finally got around to profiling my Sony PVM-2541 OLED display with an i1 Pro Display 3 and dispcalGUI. The following image shows that the display has a wider gamut than Rec. 709.
 


Its gamut is close to that of Adobe RGB:
 


As a comparison, the new Macbook Pro Retina Display doesn't quite cover the full Adobe RGB gamut:
 


Since the Samsung LG technology is closer to Sony's, it'll be interesting to see how that compares to LG's WOLED Samsung's gamut. [edited]


--wilson


----------



## pcdo

Are those uncalibrated results? I assume that calibrated results would look much different.


----------



## David_B

Sony's super top emission tech is a little bit like LG's but without the W.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wjchan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4230#post_22182162
> 
> 
> Finally got around to profiling my Sony PVM-2541 OLED display with an i1 Pro Display 3 and dispcalGUI. The following image shows that the display has a wider gamut than Rec. 709.
> 
> 
> Its gamut is close to that of Adobe RGB:
> 
> 
> As a comparison, the new Macbook Pro Retina Display doesn't quite cover the full Adobe RGB gamut:
> 
> 
> Since the Samsung technology is closer to Sony's, it'll be interesting to see how that compares to LG's WOLED gamut.
> 
> --wilson


----------



## taichi4

'The blue pixels are make with Kryptonite.'


That could be another reasonable explanation, except for the fact that kryptonite was banned in displays by the Indo-Chinese Pact of 1907.


----------



## wjchan

You're right. The Sony technology, which uses color filters to obtain red, green and blue, is closer to LG's. The graphs are from uncalibrated displays; I was only profiling the Sony monitor.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoope11*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4170#post_22155753
> 
> 
> You are wrong about this. The strength and toughness of carbon fiber composites varies greatly. The orientation of the fibers and the polymers used significantly affect the properties of the material. It's true that parts of a racecar's carbon fiber monocoque are designed to shatter in a crash, but the shell surrounding the driver is constructed to be totally rigid.
> 
> It is absolutely possible to create a carbon composite backplane that would resist bending in the arms of a person.
> 
> I don't know anything about the construction of this specific TV, but I would expect the engineers to choose a material with sufficient rigidty.



Actually this is wrong too.


The reason carbon fiber works well in these cars is that it forms a sort of cage around the driver, this cage has form and structure to make it strong. It is much like when sheet metal is folded with flanges it is strong but when in flat sheet form it is flimsy. It is also why you see ribbing formed into large spans of sheet metal, it needs some kind of cross section to stiffen it up. Take a flat sheet of paper stand it on edge then try to put something on it, it will collapse. Take that same sheet and roll it into a tube now you could put a book on it and it will hold up.


On the back of a TV a flat carbon sheet will have no form/cross section to it and will not withstand torsional force very well at all. The thin carbon fiber sheet would flex allot, it wouldn't break, but the glass display panel will. If you formed ribbing into the CF then it would be better, but then it wouldn't be thin anymore and defeat the whole purpose.


I tend to agree with those that say thin on TVs is a gimmick. I would rather have a little thicker set and have it be be more robust. I don't sit there looking at a TV from the side to admire it's thinness, I look at it from the front to admire the picture


----------



## buzzard767

From: The OLED-Info newsletter (July 2012)


OLED TVs in 2012

Samsung and LG already announced plans to start selling OLED TVs in 2012, but it seems that no one really knows how much they hope to sell in 2012. The actual question seems to be the capacity: how many panels will the two companies be able to produce until the year's end?


According to Digitimes, Samsung's internal target is to produce 200,000 panels in 2012 (in their 5.5-Gen fab). LGD will only be able to produce 50,000 panels.


DisplaySearch are much less optimistic. They estimate that both companies together will only be able to produce 20,000 panels as they still haven't overcome all the technical challenges.


----------



## nZumur

Two great models to look out for -


1)Samsung ES9500 OLED TV - It is definitely going to be thin, but will live up to its picture quality promise?


The SONYXEL-1 suffered from color accuracy issues, but they describe their new "55 incher as a masterpiece of accurate color reproduction and maximized performance - So maybe they did solve their problems?

Samsung told CNET that the ES9500 TV has a 0.3-inch depth, which is about a third as thin as the skinniest LED TVs, but still nearly doubles that of the LG's 0.157-inch (4mm) depth.

for more info - http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-es9500-oled-tv/4505-6482_7-35117948.html?tag=contentBody;cocoTable for more information.


2) LG 55EM9600 - a forthcoming OLED that promises amazing picture quality, but will be priced for serious enthusiasts only. The LG 55EM9600 won CNET's highest honor at the Consumer Electronics Show in January with the promise of revolutionary picture quality in an incredibly slim design. Although LG holds more promise for its picture quality, its astronomical price might deter it from mainstream success. Time will have to tell.


Either way both products show potential for revolutionizing the Tv industry.


For more info : http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/lg-55em9600/4505-6482_7-35117947.html?tag=contentBody;cocoTable


----------



## vinnie97

It'll be more like an evolution @ the rate it's taking for them to materialize. And I can't imagine the Samsung will undercut the price of the LG by much if anything at all.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4260#post_22191656
> 
> 
> It'll be more like an evolution @ the rate it's taking for them to materialize. And I can't imagine the Samsung will undercut the price of the LG by much if anything at all.



Given that the Samsung 75" LCD was announced at close to $20,000 today for Korea, I think your guess is probably right.


----------



## vinnie97

That's a big'un. Samsung is finally trying to fill in the supersize void (with the exception of Sharp), eh? A tad OT but still pertinent regarding the potential pricing threshold Samdung is willing to engage.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wjchan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200_100#post_22182162
> 
> 
> Finally got around to profiling my Sony PVM-2541 OLED display with an i1 Pro Display 3 and dispcalGUI. The following image shows that the display has a wider gamut than Rec. 709.
> http://www.avsforum.com/image/id/1126888/width/600/height/441
> 
> Its gamut is close to that of Adobe RGB:
> http://www.avsforum.com/image/id/1126890/width/600/height/441
> 
> As a comparison, the new Macbook Pro Retina Display doesn't quite cover the full Adobe RGB gamut:
> http://www.avsforum.com/image/id/1126893/width/600/height/441
> 
> Since the Samsung LG technology is closer to Sony's, it'll be interesting to see how that compares to LG's WOLED Samsung's gamut. [edited]
> 
> --wilson


FYI, you _need_ a Spectrophotometer for accurate measurements with wide gamut displays, but thanks for the comparison. I wouldn't expect Samsung's display to be as saturated as the Sony monitor, as they don't use a microcavity cell structure.

Looks like that would be a fantastic display for photo editing, but not necessarily for video. I don't think the PVM has a color management engine at all?


----------



## wjchan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4260#post_22195234
> 
> 
> FYI, you _need_ a Spectrophotometer for accurate measurements with wide gamut displays, but thanks for the comparison. I wouldn't expect Samsung's display to be as saturated as the Sony monitor, as they don't use a microcavity cell structure.
> 
> Looks like that would be a fantastic display for photo editing, but not necessarily for video. I don't think the PVM has a color management engine at all?



The electronics in the PVM aren't as sophisticated as the BVM. The PVM gives you a choice of Rec709, SMPTE-C, EBU color standards. Gamma can also be set. But if you need something more elaborate, go for the BVM or get an outboard video processor.


----------



## mr. wally

well olympics are 3 weeks away and no oled release from lg or sammy.


methinks there's some problems in producing these puppies.


----------



## gary cornell

What happened with the LG debut at Cannes, not for sale there either?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4260#post_22203556
> 
> 
> well olympics are 3 weeks away and no oled release from lg or sammy.
> 
> methinks there's some problems in producing these puppies.



I find it somewhere between amusing and laughable that people believed these would actually be for sale before the Olympics. Even by spring the spin was "will be marketed during the Olympics". Leaving aside how dumb that is, "The TV you are watching the Olympics on right now is bad, but we can't sell you the better one..." it seemed ridiculous that they'd ship by now.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gary cornell*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4260#post_22203586
> 
> 
> What happened with the LG debut at Cannes, not for sale there either?



I don't think it was ever supposed to be on sale there Gary. It was an intro/show off. In fact, I think LG and Samsung have both been very, very vague on when you can actually buy one. Hopefully still in 2012.


----------



## gary cornell

Let's hope when they do show up it was worth the wait. Mark, it's movie night, Master and Commander on blu ray, you can have the 70" Elite or the 65" Panasonic Plasma, which do you choose?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gary cornell*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4260#post_22207258
> 
> 
> Let's hope when they do show up it was worth the wait. Mark, it's movie night, Master and Commander on blu ray, you can have the 70" Elite or the 65" Panasonic Plasma, which do you choose?



Well I bought the Panasonic, but my reasons might not apply. If you're sitting in the sweet spot, both are calibrated, how can you go wrong? Bigger is generally better for something like that...










(Oh, and shoot the hostage.)


----------



## gary cornell

Who is the hostage? I may have to decide on the 65" or the 70" in Sept. when my seating distance will increase. I think my question gets to the heart of the issue, which display under the best conditions brings the most enjoyment.


----------



## andy sullivan

If I didn't have to pay for my choice I would take the Elite. Similar PQ and a bigger screen. If I had to pay for it, that's another story.


----------



## rogo

I agree with Andy here. Bottom line is that for us, it came down to two things:


1) We have a couch on the side wall. We wanted a TV that would look great from there. The Elite would not; the Panasonic does.


2) The Panasonic is _half the money of the Elite_. The $3000 I didn't spend will quite literally buy me the next TV I buy, assuming I wait 5 years. It will pay for most of it if I only wait 3 years. The Elite is freaking great. It's not so great that 5 years from now you're going to want it over an OLED. Heck, it's not so great that it beat the Panasonic in the shootout this year. Doesn't that speak volumes? To me, it wasn't "can I spend the $6000?" it was "will I feel like a chump if I spend the $6000?" and the answer to that was yes. And this is knowing full well that i can't have a super bright white screen on the plasma. But even without that super bright white screen, I've enjoyed the daytime viewing we've done immensely. I enjoyed the NBA Finals and MLB a ton already... I'm not sure what I'm missing other than 5". I'm positive I have $3000 more un-spent however.


----------



## greenland

LARGE-SCALE KOREAN OLED PROJECT CONFIRMED

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1342176932 


"The rumors were true, and as reported, LG has received a large sum of investment capital to develop and market flexible and transparent OLED panels. LG is not the only company involved in the project, however. Avaco – a manufacturer of OLED production equipment – is also involved. It has been reported that the Korean government has invested around 55 million USD but the number has not been confirmed


LG aims to create OLED display panels with distinctive characteristics such as transparency and flexibility. Small and medium-size panels are already being tested but larger OLED panels are also included in the plans. One of the goals is to develop and produce a 60-inch flexible and transparent OLED panel with ultra-high resolution by 2017."


----------



## Spruce Goose

LG's current WOLED technology requires the use of a color-filter layer, which impedes the transmission of light. I would expect transparency to be a challenge for them.


Bob


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4260#post_22215202
> 
> 
> LARGE-SCALE KOREAN OLED PROJECT CONFIRMED
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1342176932
> 
> "LG aims to create OLED display panels with distinctive characteristics such as transparency and flexibility. Small and medium-size panels are already being tested but larger OLED panels are also included in the plans. One of the goals is to develop and produce a 60-inch flexible and transparent OLED panel with ultra-high resolution by 2017."


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Spruce Goose*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200_100#post_22216212
> 
> 
> LG's current WOLED technology requires the use of a color-filter layer, which impedes the transmission of light. I would expect transparency to be a challenge for them.
> 
> Bob



The report I linked to stated that they are already testing small and medium sized panels, and if that is accurate, then they must be well on their way to overcoming the challenges.


"LG aims to create OLED display panels with distinctive characteristics such as transparency and flexibility. Small and medium-size panels are already being tested but larger OLED panels are also included in the plans. One of the goals is to develop and produce a 60-inch flexible and transparent OLED panel with ultra-high resolution by 2017."


I see no reason why they would have to stick to the WOLED approach for the transparent products, just because they found them to be the best current approach to put to use in their first generation large OLED TV panels.


----------



## rogo

They have to stick to the WOLED approach because (a) it's going to be less expensive (b) once it scales they will have built manufacturing for _that process and not another one_ (c) the only way to do RGB that currently exists is SMS and only Samsung is even trying that on large-size panels and has intimated they might also have to switch away from it.


No offense intended here, Greenland, but they announced that something might be ready in 2017. Let's just assume they have no real specific plans around what that is. Also, the need for transparency and/or flexibility at 60" is entirely unclear. Both of those attributes are interesting for certain smaller panel applications. Evidence of them being useful at 60" presumes the invention of some device/application that would warrant them. Further. many applications that would benefit from transparency do not benefit from flexibility (think overlay displays). And many applications cannot make use of transparency at all as it will decimate contrast.


I'm not actually worried about the WOLED issue here. I don't see why a 4th generation LG WOLED couldn't have enough light output to support tranparency. I'm not sure why the color filters suddenly matter vs. RGB. If the WOLED is as bright today as the RGB, the presence of the color filters shouldn't matter. Light has to pass through the entirety of the OLED sandwich for either technology. The filters are not polarized like LCD light. They are just filters. In an RGB OLED, each sub-pixel is still only a small portion of the visible spectrum.


----------



## David_B

LG's current production line is tiny. Everyone is going to develop many ways to make OLED panels over the next 5 years,


All new technologies start slow, small quantities then ramp up with newer designs and manufacturing methods.


CD's and DVD's aren't made the way they originally where.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4260#post_22207177
> 
> 
> I find it somewhere between amusing and laughable that people believed these would actually be for sale before the Olympics. Even by spring the spin was "will be marketed during the Olympics". Leaving aside how dumb that is, "The TV you are watching the Olympics on right now is bad, but we can't sell you the better one..." it seemed ridiculous that they'd ship by now.



I think both companies have said the sets would be released in the 2nd half of this year but many bloggers and others such as digitimes quoted "industry sources" saying it would be before the Olympics.


----------



## sonyfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4260#post_22219170
> 
> 
> I think both companies have said the sets would be released in the 2nd half of this year but many bloggers and others such as digitimes quoted "industry sources" saying it would be before the Olympics.



I'm betting a Samsung commercial for the new OLED during the opening ceremony's.


----------



## hughh

From today's MSNBC:

￼

Samsung

Samsung's concept flexible AMOLED transparent screen and tablet can also be used as a real-time interpreter.

By Poornima Gupta and Noel Randewich

￼

Tablets with paper-thin screens that can be folded and tucked into your back pocket, artificial intelligence and augmented reality — the stuff of science fiction may be coming to a store near you.

It's been two years-plus since Apple launched the iPad and spawned rival tablets from the likes of Samsung, Amazon.com, Sony and now Google and Microsoft.

Much of the competition so far has centered on making smartphone and tablets lighter, slimmer, faster and longer-running than their predecessors, and the trend shows no signs of slowing. The increasingly crowded marketplace is also galvanizing hardware designers and software engineers to explore new technologies that may revolutionize the look and feel of mobile devices in coming years.

"We should think beyond just the touchscreen device," said Lin Zhong, a professor at Rice University who does research on mobile systems. "Why do we have to hold tablets, carry many displays? We should think about wearable computers."

Some researchers are experimenting with wearable devices, such as Google Glass, a stamp-sized electronic screen mounted on eyeglass frames to record video, access email and surf the Web. Others, like Microsoft, are investigating the use of 3-D cameras to create images that pop up when a person calls. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBCUniversal.)

Samsung has a concept video that shows a bendable, transparent 3-D smartphone-hybrid tablet that can also be used as a real-time interpreter.

Few of these new technologies will hit store shelves any time soon — companies and researchers are more actively working on touchscreen innovations in the near term.

In particular, organic-light-emitting diodes, or OLED, is widely touted as the successor to liquid crystal displays. OLED displays, such as in Samsung's Galaxy Note smartphone, are lighter, thinner and tougher than current displays.

The main attraction of OLED at first are their ruggedness, but the technology could one day allow tablets to be folded or rolled up like a newspaper. Reaching that point poses challenges like making the delicate chips and components inside them more flexible and resistant to damage.

"Flexible and foldable displays will first be implemented on smaller sizes like smartphones," said Rhoda Alexander, IHS iSuppli's tablet analyst. "Tablets may follow in a later progression, once manufacturing costs and yields have been tested."

An unfolding NewSSlate concept developed by Innovation+Bermer Labs shows a foldable tablet that one can use to read news and watch videos. These are not expected to be ready for prime time for another few years.

Next up: Wraparound glass  Apart from experimenting with various materials in their own labs, manufacturers are partnering with premier academic institutions in their quest for the most interactive screens. Samsung is working with Stanford University's chemical engineering department, and Microsoft is working with Rice University.

Professor Zhenan Bao's team at Stanford has developed stretchable, super-sensitive and solar-powered "electronic skin," or sensors that can feel a touch as light as that of a fly. One of its obvious applications is in touchscreens, and Bao said the research has generated a lot of inquiries from companies.

"Right now there is a lot of interest in having sensors in the screen that can have pressure input for the touchscreen," Bao said. "Companies are also basically looking for replacement material for the current silicon that is cheaper and compatible with plastic substrate but has the same performance level."

Specialty glass company Corning, famous for its "gorilla glass" used in Apple devices, has an ultra-slim flexible glass called "willow glass" that has the potential to enable displays to be wrapped around a device. Corning said it is currently shipping samples of willow glass, which is compatible with OLED displays, to companies.

Article continues here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48189278/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/#.UAMkIo6e5t8


----------



## ALMA

LG OLED-TV IFA-Preview Event:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To9XpguM7iU


----------



## whityfrd

well it seems the oled campaign has gone silent when its supposed to be in stores soon. not a good sign at all. im thinking were looking at the end of this year if were lucky to get anything out. i would have like to see this released in the next month so next years sets i can look foward to. no one like to be a guinea pig.


----------



## AuDiOBoY529

Hey guys, I realize that this is an OLED thread, but with OLED coming out pretty soon, will we see SED televisions out in the near future? I know Canon abandon the technology but could it change?


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AuDiOBoY529*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200_100#post_22250207
> 
> 
> Hey guys, I realize that this is an OLED thread, but with OLED coming out pretty soon, will we see SED televisions out in the near future? I know Canon abandon the technology but could it change?



I highly doubt it; since it would not be able to outperform OLED from a specs. standpoint, and it probably would cost just as much as OLED at the outset.


----------



## taichi4

SED and newer variants such as FED have many advantages, and theoretically are capable of producing anything that OLED can because both kinds of displays use discrete pixels.


In the case of SED and FED the advantage over OLED is that phosphor technology is well established, and phosphor longevity a primary virtue. With OLEDs stability and longevity are a goal. Some advantages of OLED include high energy efficiency and has been demonstrated to work on very light, and even transparent substrates.


SED and FED would provide no obstacle to the creation of very large flat displays.

However the bulk of investment has gone, I believe, to OLED.


But I'd like to see and buy one!


----------



## wco81

Some small TX company sued Canon and that killed SED development.


I don't believe the TX company is actually going to produce a product so they may only be a patent troll which preemptively killed SED before Canon could commercialize it.


----------



## taichi4

AUO owns the patents free and clear for FED, which could offer an image superior to OLED, but the last news item I could find was 2010.


FED is, apparently, more difficult to manufacture than SED.


The ball is in AUO's court.


----------



## GmanAVS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AuDiOBoY529*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200_100#post_22250207
> 
> 
> Hey guys, I realize that this is an OLED thread, but with OLED coming out pretty soon, will we see SED televisions out in the near future? I know Canon abandon the technology but could it change?



SED is still dead and let's hope it RIP.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4260#post_22252659
> 
> 
> AUO owns the patents free and clear for FED, which could offer an image superior to OLED, but the last news item I could find was 2010.
> 
> FED is, apparently, more difficult to manufacture than SED.
> 
> The ball is in AUO's court.



AUO is going into OLED. Never hear them talk about FED. As discussed previously their OLED product was supposed to come out in 2Q:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1371083/au-optronics-showcases-32-inch-oled-full-hd-o1-response-time#post_21188093 


"AU Optronics (AUO) president Paul Peng has indicated plans to mass produce 4.3-inch AMOLED panels in 3Q12 and introduce large-size AMOLED panels by end of the year. The product has resolutions up to 257ppi, the highest AMOLED resolution in the industry.


The company originally planned to start AMOLED mass production in 2Q12, but there was a delay.


The firm has been reportedly cooperating with Japan-based customers to develop large-sized AMOLED panels using oxide TFT backplanes at a 6G experimental line. AUO's customer in Japan is most likely Sony as the two have been discussing AMOLED cooperation for smartphones for the last few months."


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4260#post_22254308
> 
> 
> AUO is going into OLED. Never hear them talk about FED...



From AUO's website,

http://www.auo.com/?sn=193&lang=en-US 


"...Meanwhile, AUO is also dedicated to the horizontal integration of technologies such as LCD, OLED, FED, E-paper, and oxide transistors. We believe that through constant technical and innovative brainstorming, we will definitely keep leading the world’s trends."


They have been working on OLED for years, but in 2010 bought the patent rights to FED:

http://www.auo.com/?sn=107&lang=en-US&c=11&n=262 


"...The fast response time, high efficiency, brightness, and contrast of FED technology not only compare favorably with traditional CRT technology but also outperform in terms of image quality and power efficiency. FED technology will be focused on high-end display application for future development. Apart from OLED, FED technology will be a new application option in the flat display industry, which will become a strong support for AUO's unique competence in the future..."


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4260#post_22252340
> 
> 
> Some small TX company sued Canon and that killed SED development.



Believe that if it helps you sleep at night.


> Quote:
> I don't believe the TX company is actually going to produce a product so they may only be a patent troll which preemptively killed SED before Canon could commercialize it.



Toshiba never developed a process to actually mass-produce panels using the technology. No patent suit was in the way of that failure. The patent suit was at most the nail in the coffin, not the coffin itself.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4290#post_22254935
> 
> 
> From AUO's website,
> http://www.auo.com/?sn=193&lang=en-US
> 
> "...Meanwhile, AUO is also dedicated to the horizontal integration of technologies such as LCD, OLED, FED, E-paper, and oxide transistors. We believe that through constant technical and innovative brainstorming, we will definitely keep leading the world’s trends."
> 
> They have been working on OLED for years, but in 2010 bought the patent rights to FED:
> http://www.auo.com/?sn=107&lang=en-US&c=11&n=262
> 
> "...The fast response time, high efficiency, brightness, and contrast of FED technology not only compare favorably with traditional CRT technology but also outperform in terms of image quality and power efficiency. FED technology will be focused on high-end display application for future development. Apart from OLED, FED technology will be a new application option in the flat display industry, which will become a strong support for AUO's unique competence in the future..."



yes that's what I also referred to in my other post:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/1470#post_22120168 


My point is that besides this 2 year old website there is nothing about FED that AUO actually talks about, privately or publicly. It exist simply as a website.


----------



## greenland

That is more than enough talk about FED/SED since this thread is for OLED information. When some manufacturers demonstrates SED/FED TV sets at some future CES show, then will be the time to talk about FED/SED in a serious manner, on a thread dedicated to it; and not on a thread dedicated to OLED discussions. I don't expect to see the need for such A FED/SED thread anytime soon; so please let this tread get back to what it is intended for.


----------



## Tazishere

I think SED discussion is pertinant. It was going to sweep the world in 2006 if not for a trolling patent lawsuit. Things would be much different today if SED had been available. OLED technology would still be far off. Competitors would be trying to reverse engineer SED. The patent lawsuit is what kick-started more OLED research and development.


----------



## taichi4

I agree with you. It's ridiculous for any poster to try and demand that a free discussion be straitjacketed. That's not how most human beings discuss things. If this thread went on for ten pages discussing nothing but SED, then there might be some argument for the discussion to go elsewhere.


FED has advantages over SED and OLED, from what I've read, and AUO does have the patents for it. And they have not removed mention of it from their website.


----------



## CruelInventions

We got auditor55's doppelganger up in here.


----------



## rogo

I have no personal need or desire to short-circuit the discussion of SED/FED/xED of any type. But please get real: It did not die to patent trolling. If that had anything to do with it at all, the correct approach was to let it reach market and then extract royalties via patent trolling. No advantage was gained or would ever be by filing a patent lawsuit for the purpose of preventing the product from coming to market. That isn't what happened. Again, if it helps you sleep at night to believe that's what happened, fine, believe it. Toshiba bet the entirety of their CE division on HD-DVD and SED (mostly the former). The rolled a one on HD-DVD and another one on SED. Those of you who have been to the craps table know what that amounts too. They _never_ developed any means to manufacture the SED displays at any price, let alone an affordable one. That's why the project was shut down.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4200_100#post_22265965
> 
> 
> I agree with you. It's ridiculous for any poster to try and demand that a free discussion be straitjacketed. That's not how most human beings discuss things. If this thread went on for ten pages discussing nothing but SED, then there might be some argument for the discussion to go elsewhere.
> 
> FED has advantages over SED and OLED, from what I've read, and AUO does have the patents for it. And they have not removed mention of it from their website.



Then start a thread dedicated to that topic, instead of hijacking this one. How important can SED/FED be to people who do not take the time to start a thread about it, or even resurrect the very old ones that died from lack of interest?! What part of " OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread" do SED/FED chatterboxes not understand?!


----------



## taichi4

A few responsive posts on a subject, brought up by another poster, is not hijacking.


Get serious.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4260#post_22219197
> 
> 
> I'm betting a Samsung commercial for the new OLED during the opening ceremony's.



Well, it doesn't look like this prediction came true exactly, but according to this article there was an olympic OLED announcement by LG in Europe. So I guess you could say the prediction was close.


Thanks to member Greenland for posting this link in another thread.


----------



## greenland

The guy had already created a thread asking the same question; and most of you completely ignored it, but you feel it very important to keep it going on a thread that is supposed to be dedicated to OLED discussions.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1421838/with-oled-coming-out-soon-will-we-see/0_100


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4290#post_22268757
> 
> 
> Well, it doesn't look like this prediction came true exactly, but according to this article there was an olympic OLED announcement by LG in Europe. So I guess you could say the prediction was close.
> 
> Thanks to member Greenland for posting this link in another thread.



But really, this was nothing more than yet-another announcement "we plan to release this sometime before the end of the year". I mean, that's still all well and good, but the year is getting shorter and the lack of release date is getting more noticeable.


----------



## greenland

According to this site; LG is going to launch their 55 inch OLED this October in Australia

.
http://smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large_Display/OLED_TV/X6S3R7R5 


If that is an accurate report, then it is likely that they will ship to Europe and the USA around the same time. That would get the limited number that they are going to ship this year in stores around the world in time for deep pockets holiday shoppers to snap them all up.


----------



## KidHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4290#post_22271155
> 
> 
> According to this site; LG is going to launch their 55 inch OLED this October in Australia
> 
> .
> http://smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large_Display/OLED_TV/X6S3R7R5
> 
> If that is an accurate report, then it is likely that they will ship to Europe and the USA around the same time. That would get the limited number that they are going to ship this year in stores around the world in time for deep pockets holiday shoppers to snap them all up.


_3D sets are expected to make up more than 10 percent of the total_


That's it?


I thought almost all TVs sold nowadays were 3D.


----------



## rogo

Sorry, I just don't buy any reports coming out of Australia about anything. The population and economy are far smaller than California. It's geographically isolated. It's a wonderful country -- really by all accounts -- but it's hard to take any news coming out of that region seriously.


----------



## greenland

Well, LG has also run OLED TV spots in Europe on Olympic Games broadcasts, so they surely would not be doing that, unless they were going to have the product available to be purchased before very long. I notice that they also paid for the round trip costs for HDguru, in order to have him cover their recent OLED demonstration in Monaco. Not something a company would probably do, if they were not going to start shipping the product to the US before too long.


They certainly have been making much more of a product promotion effort, as far as I can tell, than Samsung has been doing. I wonder if anyone in Europe has seen any Samsung TV spots promoting their OLED TV product?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4290#post_22272906
> 
> 
> Well, LG has also run OLED TV spots in Europe on Olympic Games broadcasts, so they surely would not be doing that, unless they were going to have the product available to be purchased before very long.



You are certainly entitled to believe that. They have not run any ads in the U.S. that I've seen, watching most nights of prime time coverage.


> Quote:
> I notice that they also paid for the round trip costs for HDguru, in order to have him cover their recent OLED demonstration in Monaco. Not something a company would probably do, if they were not going to start shipping the product to the US before too long.
> 
> They certainly have been making much more of a product promotion effort, as far as I can tell, than Samsung has been doing. I wonder if anyone in Europe has seen any Samsung TV spots promoting their OLED TV product?



I'm still very much of the opinion that LG's product will ship significantly before Samsung's. I no longer believe LG will deliver 200,000 units in 2012 however. That seems nigh impossible at this juncture.


----------



## slacker711

Smarthouse is the worst rumor site I have ever read, and it isnt even close. I wouldnt believe them if they told me the sun was coming up tomorrow.

_You are certainly entitled to believe that. They have not run any ads in the U.S. that I've seen, watching most nights of prime time coverage._


FWIW, I believe the writer of OLED-Info is based out of Israel.


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4290#post_22272906
> 
> 
> Well, LG has also run OLED TV spots in Europe on Olympic Games broadcasts, so they surely would not be doing that, unless they were going to have the product available to be purchased before very long. I notice that they also paid for the round trip costs for HDguru, in order to have him cover their recent OLED demonstration in Monaco. Not something a company would probably do, if they were not going to start shipping the product to the US before too long.
> 
> They certainly have been making much more of a product promotion effort, as far as I can tell, than Samsung has been doing. I wonder if anyone in Europe has seen any Samsung TV spots promoting their OLED TV product?



I'm trying to remember when I have EVER seen an ad for the Elite.


Low number expensive products don't really get much advertising money on TV.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4290#post_22276084
> 
> 
> I'm trying to remember when I have EVER seen an ad for the Elite.



I haven't seen one. I guess they might run print in home-theater-y magazines, but I have no specific knowledge to back that up.


> Quote:
> Low number expensive products don't really get much advertising money on TV.



Of course, while 2012's OLED is one of those, OLED is about a different thing altogether. To the extent they are running ads, it's about the long game of convincing people they need to dump their LCDs for something better.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4260#post_22252340
> 
> 
> Some small TX company sued Canon and that killed SED development.
> 
> I don't believe the TX company is actually going to produce a product so they may only be a patent troll which preemptively killed SED before Canon could commercialize it.


Canon was in an exclusive license agreement with Applied Nanotech, Canon and Toshiba made SED Inc as a joint venture, Applied Nanotech tried to cancel the license agreement with a lawsuit, Canon became the sole owner of SED Inc, Applied Nanotech continued with the lawsuit, and than Canon won the lawsuit.

Canon won the lawsuit in 2008 and Applied Nanotech gave up their right to appeal in 2008 . Note that Canon liquidated SED Inc in 2010 .


----------



## Rich Peterson

I'm a little surprised how quiet it's been all summer regarding LG and Samsung's OLEDs. If either of them really are shipping in October, I would think we would hear something a little more definitive soon.


The IFA CE conference is in Berlin at the end of August. Some such as this article are indicating we'll get more information there. Sure hope so.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4290#post_22292507
> 
> 
> I'm a little surprised how quiet it's been all summer regarding LG and Samsung's OLEDs. If either of them really are shipping in October, I would think we would hear something a little more definitive soon.
> 
> The IFA CE conference is in Berlin at the end of August. Some such as this article are indicating we'll get more information there. Sure hope so.



Even that article implies Samsung will only actually announce product at that point, not ship it... I'm somewhat skeptical Samsung is shipping anything this year at this point (and, of course, have been for quite some time). I'd like to be pleasantly surprised there. Even LG seems poised to come up well short of its shipment goals and I'd argue only they have truly launched their product.


----------



## toxic1988

There was a preview IFA event with press conference from Samsung for the IFA trade show here in Germany, 4 weeks ago.


- OLED TV will be the highlight at this year´s IFA booth from samsung

- Launch (in germany) in 2012

- the price will be over the UE75ES9090 LED TV (7.999 euro ~ 10.000 dollar)



Sorry, my english is not perfect









i´m from munich and i´ll go to this year´s IFA to see this amazing OLED TV´s and i hope i´ll get news there.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toxic1988*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4290#post_22295018
> 
> 
> There was a preview IFA event with press conference from Samsung for the IFA trade show here in Germany, 4 weeks ago.
> 
> - OLED TV will be the highlight at this year´s IFA booth from samsung
> 
> - Launch (in germany) in 2012
> 
> - the price will be over the UE75ES9090 LED TV (7.999 euro ~ 10.000 dollar)
> 
> Sorry, my english is not perfect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i´m from munich and i´ll go to this year´s IFA to see this amazing OLED TV´s and i hope i´ll get news there.



Your English is more than good enough.










We look forward to your report. Thanks.


----------



## stepmback




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toxic1988*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4290#post_22295018
> 
> 
> There was a preview IFA event with press conference from Samsung for the IFA trade show here in Germany, 4 weeks ago.
> 
> - OLED TV will be the highlight at this year´s IFA booth from samsung
> 
> - Launch (in germany) in 2012
> 
> - the price will be over the UE75ES9090 LED TV (7.999 euro ~ 10.000 dollar)
> 
> Sorry, my english is not perfect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i´m from munich and i´ll go to this year´s IFA to see this amazing OLED TV´s and i hope i´ll get news there.



Take lots of pictures...







I would like to see the back of this tv to see how the connections will work or the base of the tv, if that is where the connections will be.


----------



## toxic1988

Yes i will take pictures and maybe some vids for youtube










i think the back of the TV is like the series 9 monitor like this: http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/monitors/LS27B970DS/ZA-gallery 


you can see this here (pictures from the premium showcase in korea this may) you can see the back of the TV at the second picture at this site: http://samsungtomorrow.com/2677 


but where are the connections? external box? we will see


----------



## Wizziwig

For what it's worth, my relatives in Poland told me that LG was running many commercials for the OLED TV's during their olympic coverage. They are also supposedly going to manufacture these TV's in a factory in Poland. Still no official release date but some of the dealers over there are saying end of August. Hopefully LG is not wasting millions in advertising for a TV that may not be available to purchase this year.


----------



## greenland

OLED TV PRODUCTION COSTS 8-10 HIGHER THAN LCD

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1344852811 


"OLED production costs for small-size OLED panels are decreasing but production costs for OLED TV panels are still high, analyst firm DisplaySearch says. It is between 8-10 times more expensive to produce OLED-TV panels compared to LCD TV panels. Samsung’s OLED TV is most expensive to manufacture."


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4290#post_22304311
> 
> 
> OLED TV PRODUCTION COSTS 8-10 HIGHER THAN LCD
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1344852811
> 
> "OLED production costs for small-size OLED panels are decreasing but production costs for OLED TV panels are still high, analyst firm DisplaySearch says. It is between 8-10 times more expensive to produce OLED-TV panels compared to LCD TV panels. Samsung’s OLED TV is most expensive to manufacture."



It's important to understand just how big that is in terms of when OLED will reach cost parity. We are talking several years -- minimum.


It also appears DisplaySearch's forecast for "total amount of AMOLED anything to be made in the world" are pretty consistent with what I've been saying for quite a while. It's going to take over... slowly....


----------



## specuvestor

And the real work and grinding starts after the euphoria...


"SDC's OLED capex to be slower than expected; negative for the equipment makers: We recently lowered our year-end capacity estimates for SDC's mobile OLED (5.5G) by 6% for 2012E and 17% for 2013E (click here for our report), reflecting our view of: 1) delayed penetration into the tablet PC market and 2) sluggish demand from non-Samsung customers. We also lowered our estimates of TV OLED capacity (8G) by 25% for 2012E and 65% for 2013E due to difficulties in small mask scanning technology. We believe this will have a negative impact of 30-40% on equipment makers' 2013E earnings outlook, due to: 1) delayed adoption of newly developed tools; 2) lower capacity; and 3) much lower expectations for an increase in equipment ASP" -Barclays


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4290#post_22304311
> 
> 
> OLED TV PRODUCTION COSTS 8-10 HIGHER THAN LCD
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1344852811
> 
> "OLED production costs for small-size OLED panels are decreasing but production costs for OLED TV panels are still high, analyst firm DisplaySearch says. It is between 8-10 times more expensive to produce OLED-TV panels compared to LCD TV panels. Samsung’s OLED TV is most expensive to manufacture."



If it doesn't ramp it's gonna be more expensive. Period. The proof of the pudding is when an 8G LCD and OLED plant ramps at same utilisation, what is the cost.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*
> 
> OLED TV PRODUCTION COSTS 8-10 HIGHER THAN LCD
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1344852811
> 
> 
> "OLED production costs for small-size OLED panels are decreasing but production costs for OLED TV panels are still high, analyst firm DisplaySearch says. It is between 8-10 times more expensive to produce OLED-TV panels compared to LCD TV panels. Samsung’s OLED TV is most expensive to manufacture."



the Displaysearch article
http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/120808_new_amoled_tv_costs_ten_times_more_than_lcd_tv_to_produce.asp 



> Quote:
> Jae-Hak Choi, senior analist, FPD Manufacturing for NPD DisplaySearch, noted, ''While cost reduction in LCd's has slowed, largepanel AMOLED cost reduction is in its infancy. In the long-term, new and improved processes, printing technology, and higher performance material will reduce AMOLED costs to levels equal to or lower than LCd.''


----------



## pds3

This thread was started way back in 2006 and yet there are still no OLED televisions of any decent size on the market to speak of. At this point in time I can't help but wonder if there ever will be???


----------



## Tazishere

The way the economy is, it is a bad time to introduce a new, more expensive technology. It's probably inevitable eventually, though.


----------



## rogo

The thing is 8mile, Choi's comment is based on what he gets told by LG and Samsung. They insist it will eventually be cheaper and it's quite possibly true. Although, that said, it's much more likely to be true for:


1) LG's method of RGBW used vapor deposition than anything Samsung is doing with SMS.

2) Some method of printable OLED that has yet to basically be proved at anything beyond a lab test


In the meantime, even IGZO backplanes are far more expensive than standard TFT backplanes. Will that change? Almost certainly and sometime soon. But it hasn't yet.


----------



## greenland

When the first generation of the LG and Samsung panels are sold, they will have to hit a home run from performance and satisfaction aspects, or they may not gain enough consumer demand momentum to keep scaling up production.


With so much of the wealth now concentrated among the few at the top, and much of the middle class no longer having disposable income for big ticket items such as these OLED TV sets, it is not inconceivable that they may end up being just high priced niche products, installed only in the homes of the wealthy. We might have to wait several years, for cut rate OLED sets to start to come from China, and there is even a chance that LG and Samsung might end up discovering that they can not sell enough of their products to keep on manufacturing them. It happened to Pioneer with their Plasma product.


----------



## Whatstreet

The volume will be low at $10K per panel, low enough that cash availability won't matter for this scenario. Will economics provide enough volume to develop manufacturing to the point OLED is less expensive to manufacture than LCD? The economic picture three to five years from now holds the answer.


----------



## Orbitron

IFA Berlin coming up Aug. 31, maybe some concrete news on release dates of the OLEDs.


----------



## sonyfan

It's common with these type of moderated fourms.

I just got another infraction for making a off handed joke.

just wondering how many infractions it takes before my registration is deleted.


----------



## sytech

That's nothing. I was personally attacked by D-Nice have a heated discussion and I lost my account. while he only got a temporary timeout. That is why he posts mainly on the other boards as do many others.


----------



## sonyfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4320#post_22319281
> 
> 
> That's nothing. I was personally attacked by D-Nice have a heated discussion and I lost my account. while he only got a temporary timeout. That is why he posts mainly on the other boards as do many others.



oh yea those calibrators go blastic if you go aginst the party line

and no matter what they say to others will get a free pass.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4320#post_22319155
> 
> 
> I see Big Brother has whacked hours upon hours of my work from this thread -- again.
> 
> No PM, no warning, just deletion. Most of the work was me quoting my own posts and putting context around them. While there may have been something in there that warranted excision, wanton deletion is just something I can't accept. There is too much work involved here to have censorship just throw it out willy nilly.
> 
> Have fun with this discussion and all the navel gazing. I'm again out.



You mean this post ?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4320#post_22319310
> 
> 
> You mean this post ?



Wow, I'm losing my ability to pay attention here at AVS. Thanks for the link. It still might be time for me to exit these discussions. I mean, there is no product to discuss.


All of you can feel free to delete the above references to a post I've deleted if you wish...


And my rant at the moderation was inappropriate in this case.


----------



## sonyfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4320#post_22319397
> 
> 
> Wow, I'm losing my ability to pay attention here at AVS. Thanks for the link. It still might be time for me to exit these discussions. I mean, there is no product to discuss.




Rogo do you think a pro calibration will ever be necessary on the new OLED displays whenever they hit the stores.

From the limited eye witness reports so far they seem to be picture perfect.


----------



## vinnie97

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but my answer is if you want accuracy, you will undoubtedly need it. Excited reports from eyewitnesses are hardly objective observations nor have there been any colorimeter or brightness measurements taken.


----------



## sytech

I haven't seen them first hand, but form the demo video looks like excellent black levels, but all the other color are over saturated to the point of looking like a cartoon. I am sure by the time they get to mass production they will have it dialed backed. I really hope they find a way to quickly reduce production cost, or else it could fester on the shelf for years like other superior tech that cost to much. I think you put one of Sharp's new brighter IGZO LCD 4K panels with glare free glass against it and you can get reasonably close to the quality of the superior OLED tech, at a fraction of the cost. Maybe not for the demanding people in this forum, but for 95% of the buying public.


----------



## greenland

Both Dr. Ramond Soneira of Displaymate and HDGuru have seen the displays up close; and they both expressed the same hope that the LG OLED TV units will come with good CMS tools that will permit the dialing back of the over-saturated neon like colors. LG keeps stressing in their promotions the great deep colors that it provides.


I hope they are not just doing that to try and convince people that neon is the new normal, because they can not tone it down.


----------



## sonyfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4320#post_22320875
> 
> 
> Both Dr. Ramond Soneira of Displaymate and HDGuru have seen the displays up close; and they both expressed the same hope that the LG OLED TV units will come with good CMS tools that will permit the dialing back of the over-saturated neon like colors. LG keeps stressing in their promotions the great deep colors that it provides.
> 
> I hope they are not just doing that to try and convince people that neon is the new normal, because they can not tone it down.



I would think LG increased the color to show off.

Will the built in CMS tools, etc, negate the need for a pro calibration?


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4300_100#post_22320910
> 
> 
> I would think LG increased the color to show off.
> 
> Will the built in CMS tools, etc, negate the need for a pro
> 
> calibration?



Since it is a first generation product, there is no way to tell if they will or not yet. In both their Plasma and LED/LCD displays it has not, although some people found the THX certified models to be good enough, and others found that using the CMS tools in conjunction with a calibration disc got them acceptable results. OLED is a brand new frontier, so we will just have to wait for reports back from the first explorers.


----------



## buzzard767




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4320#post_22320910
> 
> 
> I would think LG increased the color to show off.
> Will the built in CMS tools, etc, negate the need for a pro calibration?



Sure it will, as long as you have the tools to calibrate _using_ the CMS.


----------



## buzzard767

If the display is perfect there is no need for adjustment controls.


----------



## rogo

I would be stunned if the first-generation products don't need calibration by a pro.


I would hope by the 3rd-5th generation, however, that there can be an ISF preset that is simply correct and requires no calibration. Not that I want to put calibrators out of business at all, but rather there should be an accurate, out-of-the-box option that is D65, with "flat" gamma and properly set contrast.


----------



## sonyfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4320#post_22322020
> 
> 
> I would be stunned if the first-generation products don't need calibration by a pro.
> 
> I would hope by the 3rd-5th generation, however, that there can be an ISF preset that is simply correct and requires no calibration. Not that I want to put calibrators out of business at all, but rather there should be an accurate, out-of-the-box option that is D65, with "flat" gamma and properly set contrast.



Is it possible the first-generation does have that feature?

Given the lofty prices and the LG flagship 60" OLED could have it.


----------



## vinnie97

There's a 60" panel due to be shipped?


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4300_50#post_22322164
> 
> 
> There's a 60" panel due to be shipped?


Is there a 60" panel due to be shipped?


No.


----------



## vinnie97

I was asking the one who made the claim (I assume it was a mistake), but thanks for the grammar correction.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4320#post_22322043
> 
> 
> Is it possible the first-generation does have that feature?



There is no reason to believe this, no.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4300_50#post_22322305
> 
> 
> I was asking the one who made the claim (I assume it was a mistake), but thanks for the grammar correction.


Never mind me. I've just been reading declarative sentences with attached question marks for to long here at AVS.










The only coming release screen size that I've ever read about in this thread has been 55", but who knows when the first meaningful display will be on the market for the excess cash group.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4320#post_22319397
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4320#post_22319310
> 
> 
> You mean this post ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I'm losing my ability to pay attention here at AVS. Thanks for the link. It still might be time for me to exit these discussions. I mean, there is no product to discuss.
> 
> 
> All of you can feel free to delete the above references to a post I've deleted if you wish...
> 
> 
> And my rant at the moderation was inappropriate in this case.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the reprieve


----------



## vinnie97

No problem, seemed a little snarky...so I had to assume it was one of those pet peeve type irritations.










Yes, 55" is my understanding, too...60" just sounds more like a projection of one's wishes onto a product launch/lineup.


----------



## sonyfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22322561
> 
> 
> No problem, seemed a little snarky...so I had to assume it was one of those pet peeve type irritations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 55" is my understanding, too...60" just sounds more like a projection of one's wishes onto a product launch/lineup.



The LG 'Manifesto' 60" is at the very start of the video.

What do you think they mean by 'comming soon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRLRp1vGvfA&feature=player_embedded


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4320#post_22322559
> 
> 
> Thank you for the reprieve



I will always consider you a friend.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22324101
> 
> 
> The LG 'Manifesto' 60" is at the very start of the video.
> 
> What do you think they mean by 'comming soon?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRLRp1vGvfA&feature=player_embedded



In LG parlance, coming soon means "sometime within the next decade."


----------



## vinnie97

lol, that is such a minuscule (and cryptic) reference, you have to be on your toes to catch it.


----------



## rogo

I actually think the 60" reference is probably nothing more than a typo. They certainly do plan to do larger displays, but nothing indicates that is as much a priority as ramping production of the 55".


----------



## sonyfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22325119
> 
> 
> I actually think the 60" reference is probably nothing more than a typo. They certainly do plan to do larger displays, but nothing indicates that is as much a priority as ramping production of the 55".




It's only 5" more.

Would it be that much harder to manufacture?


----------



## Orbitron

I would think everything from 32" to 90" in 3 years, they're just dipping their toes in the water this year.


----------



## CruelInventions

_*to 90" in 3 years*_.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22325351
> 
> 
> It's only 5" more.
> 
> Would it be that much harder to manufacture?



Yes. It's harder than you might think. The substrate is _either_ cut into 55s or 60s. The yield-improvement is then separate for each line because the backplanes, while similar, are a different ratio. No process is a lot harder, every process is a little harder. But mostly it splits the effort on the ramp and the ramp is clearly challenging. Of all the outcomes in the short run, one of the least likely is 55 and 60. That just doesn't make a lot of sense from any standpoint. Now, eventually? Of course.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22325598
> 
> 
> I would think everything from 32" to 90" in 3 years, they're just dipping their toes in the water this year.



In 3 years? No. In the long run? Sure. Although I'm not persuaded OLED is heading down as low as 32" TVs perhaps anytime, well, ever. By the time OLED is actually cost competitive with LCD, 32" TVs are going to be a low-margin backwater. In the same way you don't see many high-end subcompact autos, I'm not sure anyone is worried about 32" OLED TVs. And as for 90", not off of 8G... And there are no current plans for 10G. So for the time being, we can reasonably expect to see sizes capped around 60", with the possibility of a very low volume 70ish" TV around mid decade. LG does produce some tiny number of 70+" panels off an 8G LCD fab (and also some 65s, but evidence is that's from an older line that perhaps amounts to excess capacity because it's certainly not being used for anything state of the art and the industry in general has too much build capacity), but it's really tiny. Much of what goes on in OLED is similar, production-wise (color filters, TFT backplanes) so until/unless you hear they are building 10G, I wouldn't get very excited for sizes over 60".


Now, again, in the long run this can and will change. In the medium term, I'd look for a small reach up in size and a small reach down perhaps to 50". Showing off cool tech on tiny displays isn't likely going to work well, especially during the time they are really expensive. LG needs to move volume (as does Samsung) so targeting volume sizes will be essential.


----------



## Tazishere

Straight from the LG horse's mouth. See if you can figure out what this means. I hope it means we'll have to start a new OLED Panel discussion forum.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/752381-lg-display-ceo-discusses-q2-2012-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single


----------



## rogo

Some of the Korean to English combined with the transcription being hardly error free makes it tricky, but here's one thing you can glean:


They have the capacity to make 8K substrates per month, maximum, out of the TV fab. That fab is the Gen 8 pilot. They specifically did *not* announce any investment beyond that. "...the scale and timing of the additional investment for the larger size OLED, will be decided while considering the two factors. It should satisfy needs to greater, larger size OLED earlier while reducing opportunity cost in LCD business." In other words, to make more OLEDs they have to make fewer LCDs (for the time being) and they also don't want to make too many OLEDs for the market.


Anyway, a Gen 8 fab makes 6 x 55" panels per sheet, making the *theoretical maximum capacity of LG's current and announced* OLED production equal to 48,000 units per month _at 100% yield_, Obviously, yields will be nowhere near 100% and by accounts from DisplaySearch et al., it's likely they are currently closer to 50%. Extrapolating this out for 2013 suggests that LG anticipates shipping somewhere around 250,000-300,000 OLED TVs next year (around 1/2 of the theoretical maximum they can make). While it's possible they will add capacity that is usable for production before the end of 2013, *there is no reason to believe that will happen*. What is instead more likely is they will decide in 2013 to add capacity that will come online in 2014. This is not some binary switch that gets flipped. These conversions take time and money.


As things currently stand, I would state with some degree of certainty that LG's own internal forecasting for OLED TVs for 2013 is below 500,000 units, probably comfortably so. But that's not discouraging, necessarily, it's a beginning. Keep in mind the TV market is about 250 million units annually, so LG's target is likely below 0.25% of the industry total. Samsung's 2013 target is much harder to guess at. Together, however, the two are unlikely to supply 1% of TVs in 2013 using OLED. By 2014, that ought to change.


----------



## sonyfan

Who cares about that jive, when is the bloody 55" going to ship to the USA?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22328336
> 
> 
> Who cares about that jive, when is the bloody 55" going to ship to the USA?



This is the "technology advancements" thread. "That jive" is core to the discussion.


As for when the "bloody 55" is coming to the USA, the answer is still unknown. I'm less persuaded it's coming this year as the days pass. Others believe what they want to believe.


----------



## Tazishere




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22328336
> 
> 
> Who cares about that jive, when is the bloody 55" going to ship to the USA?



Tomorrow.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tazishere*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22330345
> 
> 
> Tomorrow.



Today actually - http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-55EM9700-oled-tv


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22330437
> 
> 
> Today actually - http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-55EM9700-oled-tv



That link seems to go nowhere. What did it say?


Am guessing it was a spec page that got pulled... Regardless, that wouldn't answer the "when" question, sadly.


----------



## mr. wally

sadly the skeptics here seen to have been correct about when the oled sets will appear.


lg will probably have some out by years end, but sammy is apparently having manufacturing issues

and i wouldn't expect to see anything from them till next year.


----------



## rogo

From DisplaySearch via Venture Beat:
http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/15/oled-displays-to-hit-44b-by-2019-with-growth-in-tvs-and-mobile-devices/ 


I'm just going to keep linking back to these posts until they start to look foolish:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1382413/lg-official-announces-55-oled-for-ces/330#post_21544891 


"I am also feeling a lot better about my prior prediction that LCD will control more than half the display market in 2020" ....


The display market today is _much larger_ than $88 billion. There are 250 million TVs, >300 million PC sales, >600 million touchscreen phone sales....GIA says it will be $110 billion by 2017 (easiest reference to find on market size).


So, yeah, by decade's end OLED should be getting to the halfway point. When I suggested this months ago, the very idea that it could take that long was roundly mocked. Yet my methodology was to use information I already had. People here continue to claim I "know nothing".


The record speaks for itself.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22331081
> 
> 
> That link seems to go nowhere. What did it say?
> 
> Am guessing it was a spec page that got pulled... Regardless, that wouldn't answer the "when" question, sadly.



Hehe… Sorry, just having fun here ( http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-55*L*M9*6*00-led-tv -> http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-55*E*M9*7*00-*o*led-tv )











I'm not expecting to see any OLED TVs in a Magnolia AV/HT this year, but then again the OLED PVM/BVM monitors are still shipping, right?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22331352
> 
> 
> Hehe… Sorry, just having fun here ( http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-55*L*M9*6*00-led-tv -> http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-55*E*M9*7*00-*o*led-tv )



Gotcha.









> Quote:
> I'm not expecting to see any OLED TVs in a Magnolia AV/HT this year, but then again the OLED PVM/BVM monitors are still shipping, right?



From LG? Not that I know of. Sony's broadcast stuff is, of course, available.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22331352
> 
> 
> Hehe… Sorry, just having fun here ( http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-55*L*M9*6*00-led-tv -> http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-55*E*M9*7*00-*o*led-tv )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not expecting to see any OLED TVs in a Magnolia AV/HT this year, but then again the OLED PVM/BVM monitors are still shipping, right?





there may not be a magnolia around next year.


----------



## Orbitron

If Gen 8 yields (6) 55" displays, couldn't they do (3) 110" displays? If so, i would show it at CES, press would go ape sh**.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22332202
> 
> 
> If Gen 8 yields (6) 55" displays, couldn't they do (3) 110" displays? If so, i would show it at CES, press would go ape sh**.



No, you need to sacrifice four 55s to get a single 110". I'll let you draw it out yourself to see why.


You could certainly build a prototype, but this wouldn't be viable for any kind of mass production.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22332202
> 
> 
> If Gen 8 yields (6) 55" displays, couldn't they do (3) 110" displays? If so, i would show it at CES, press would go ape sh**.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22332218
> 
> 
> No, you need to sacrifice four 55s to get a single 110". I'll let you draw it out yourself to see why.
> 
> You could certainly build a prototype, but this wouldn't be viable for any kind of mass production.



That's how TCL came out with a 4k 110" LCD TV.


But they have to perfect OLED yield at 55" first (not to mention the price) to even try doing that ie no chance in the next 3 years at least


----------



## greenland

Their main focus now should be on getting the 55 units shipped, and waiting to see how well they are received, since they are going to be very expensive. It is not a given that the demand will be large enough for to allow them to scale up production numbers. Pioneer never got over that hurdle with their Kuro product, and had to give up on it altogether.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22334015
> 
> 
> Their main focus now should be on getting the 55 units shipped, and waiting to see how well they are received, since they are going to be very expensive..



I'm sure you are correct that is their main focus.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pds3*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4320#post_22305694
> 
> 
> This thread was started way back in 2006 and yet there are still no OLED televisions of any decent size on the market to speak of. At this point in time I can't help but wonder if there ever will be???



Actually, things seemed to suddenly heat up earlier this year. Things are now happening faster than I, for one, expected. I didn't expect anything to ship to consumers before 2015.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22342722
> 
> 
> Actually, things seemed to suddenly heat up earlier this year. Things are now happening faster than I, for one, expected. I didn't expect anything to ship to consumers before 2015.



I kind of agree with you. But I understand where the comment you responded to was coming from as well....


Hopefully, the logjam is breaking.


----------



## filmoreXXX

 http://channelnews.com.au/Display/Industry/E6F9T6Q8


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *filmoreXXX*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22350100
> 
> http://channelnews.com.au/Display/Industry/E6F9T6Q8



WHAT???? Is this for real? Not releasing OLED (in Australia)?


----------



## MaXPL

most likely misinformation.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4350#post_22350258
> 
> 
> WHAT???? Is this for real? Not releasing OLED (in Australia)?



I didn't note the article specifically reference the release was canceled for Australia (though obviously it's an Aussie site, so perhaps that went without saying?)


If it's Aussie-only news, I'm sure it only applies for 2012. If it's world news, it's either wrong or only applies for 2012.


----------



## toxic1988

Hi guys,


only 2 days left until IFA begins.


Here is a picture of Samsung´s OLED TV ad @ IFA


----------



## greenland

SAMSUNG'S OLED TV IS COMING


Man, we have waited a long time for Samsung’s OLED-TV. It has been 9 months but Samsung has still not started selling the thing. At IFA, Samsung has named the TV and updated the design.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1346327997


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22356413
> 
> 
> SAMSUNG'S OLED TV IS COMING
> 
> Man, we have waited a long time for Samsung’s OLED-TV. It has been 9 months but Samsung has still not started selling the thing. At IFA, Samsung has named the TV and updated the design.
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1346327997



Still no pricing or availability dates. Disappointing.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22356505
> 
> 
> Still no pricing or availability dates. Disappointing.



So I now put Samsung's chances of a 2012 release at


----------



## sonyfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22357381
> 
> 
> So I now put Samsung's chances of a 2012 release at


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4300_100#post_22357601
> 
> 
> Are they are going with the RGBW (white/clear pixel) thing?



They would have to find their way around some patents that are owned by LG, to do that, and after they just got burned for doing that with Apple they may not be willing to risk doing it with OLED patents.


----------



## mr. wally

based on what i just saw from engadget at ifa, lg clearly is closer to market than sammy's oled.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22357601
> 
> 
> Are they are going with the RGBW (white/clear pixel) thing?



No, Samsung's first product is pure RGB, using small mask scanning to pattern the substrates. It's very challenging to ramp that, much more so than LG's "no pattern" vapor deposition method combined with color filters. Samsung -- as far back as January -- reserved the right to adopt an RGBW solution if it proved necessary/better/whatever. But I agree that they'll have some patent issues to work around to do so.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22357883
> 
> 
> based on what i just saw from engadget at ifa, lg clearly is closer to market than sammy's oled.



I think that's been true since the beginning of the year as well. It does look like LG has finished, production-ready industrial design and cosmetics. I wonder what their capacity is now and how many markets they are targeting. Also, given that there's


----------



## sonyfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22357969
> 
> 
> Samsung -- as far back as January -- reserved the right to adopt an RGBW solution if it proved necessary/better/whatever. But I agree that they'll have some patent issues to work around to do so.



Oh? Do tell.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22358157
> 
> 
> Oh? Do tell.



They made a public statement (I'd have to hunt it down, and I'm really not interested in investing the time) that said something close to, "We're open to all approaches if ours doesn't prove to be the best". It was in reference to the RGBW design. But based on the patents LG now holds, it will be challenging. Samsung might have negotiate a license with LG (hard), risk infringing (I'll let people decide what that looks like), or devise a different way to achieve the same result without infringing (I have no idea how strong the patents are).


----------



## zoro

I saw a picture of 55 incher







holly Molly , this thing is a beauty!


----------



## sonyfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22358477
> 
> 
> They made a public statement (I'd have to hunt it down, and I'm really not interested in investing the time) that said something close to, "We're open to all approaches if ours doesn't prove to be the best". It was in reference to the RGBW design. But based on the patents LG now holds, it will be challenging. Samsung might have negotiate a license with LG (hard), risk infringing (I'll let people decide what that looks like), or devise a different way to achieve the same result without infringing (I have no idea how strong the patents are).



My understanding is the clear pixel is off (zero current) for complete black

and on for anything above that. It's for back and white only.

Seems like the right way to go given the extra Yellow or Green pixel

has had limited success from Sharp, etc.


----------



## sonyfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zoro*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22358529
> 
> 
> I saw a picture of 55 incher
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holly Molly , this thing is a beauty!



yea man, and just imagine if *they* can adapt it to the Flex OLED at 110" or more!

one can only imagine a roll up flex OLED you can just hang on the wall.

were talking portability and low shipping costs here.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22358679
> 
> 
> yea man, and just imagine if *they* can adapt it to the Flex OLED at 110" or more!
> 
> one can only imagine a roll up flex OLED you can just hang on the wall.
> 
> were talking portability and low shipping costs here.



And of course 4K if not 8K, no matter what sense it makes







. Seriously, with 80/90" 2K LCDs readily available and 84" 4K LCDs showing up, the 55" OLED is a lost proposition unless it can compete on price with the 55" LCDs.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22358679
> 
> 
> yea man, and just imagine if *they* can adapt it to the Flex OLED at 110" or more!
> 
> one can only imagine a roll up flex OLED you can just hang on the wall.
> 
> were talking portability and low shipping costs here.



Maybe in 10-20 years.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22359282
> 
> 
> And of course 4K if not 8K, no matter what sense it makes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Seriously, with 80/90" 2K LCDs readily available and 84" 4K LCDs showing up, the 55" OLED is a lost proposition unless it can compete on price with the 55" LCDs.



Maybe in 5 years.


----------



## Orbitron

With the evolution - revolution in display technology i've come to a decision on strategy. Hold off on a new display and use the money to do a dedicated home theater. My guess is most here have a decent display but how many have the killer sound system to complete the experience?


----------



## vinnie97

Both display and sound are decent over here.


----------



## toxic1988

Here is my IFA report










at first: both OLED TV´s are absolutely amazing but i prefer clearly the Samsung OLED.

why? the colors are much much deeper and brighter and the sharpeness is crazy. the design is stunning. And of course: Full HD 3D. The passive 3D on the LG looks horrible. A too bad resulotion for this TV, this sucks. The picture from the LG model was a little blurry and the colors was not so impressive for me.


the connections on the Samsung TV are on the back, not in the stand like LG´s. The LG model is ~ 3mm slimmer than Samsung´s, but it doesnt matter for me.


I think the Samsung version is the future. It takes time but the result is much more impressive for me.



and of course: the blue pixel die´s faster, its not easy to manufacture and expensive but for the 30.000 hours (+?) lifetime it´s the best experience for me. and in 2-3 years it will be no longer a problem with new manufactoring methods and other improvements.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toxic1988*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22364453
> 
> 
> Here is my IFA report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at first: both OLED TV´s are absolutely amazing but i prefer clearly the Samsung OLED.
> 
> why? the colors are much much deeper and brighter and the sharpeness is crazy. the design is stunning. And of course: Full HD 3D. The passive 3D on the LG looks horrible. A too bad resulotion for this TV, this sucks. The picture from the LG model was a little blurry and the colors was not so impressive for me.
> 
> the connections on the Samsung TV are on the back, not in the stand like LG´s. The LG model is ~ 3mm slimmer than Samsung´s, but it doesnt matter for me.
> 
> I think the Samsung version is the future. It takes time but the result is much more impressive for me.
> 
> and of course: the blue pixel die´s faster, its not easy to manufacture and expensive but for the 30.000 hours (+?) lifetime it´s the best experience for me. and in 2-3 years it will be no longer a problem with new manufactoring methods and other improvements.



I'm intrigued on why there is such a big difference vs CES. Technically we have been saying RGB solution should be better than RGBW... question is how perceivable for the consumer to fork out extra dough.


----------



## 8mile13

In a IFA interview Moon IK Jang (LG OLED division) said that:


the LG 55" OLED will cost €10.000,-/€12.000,-. Massproduction will start in december (48.000 55'' panels per month).


My prediction was €9.999,-







, most folks believed price would be €8.000,-


----------



## walt73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22366788
> 
> 
> In a IFA interview Moon IK Jang (LG OLED division) said that:
> 
> 
> the LG 55" OLED will cost €10.000,-/€12.000,-. Massproduction will start in december (48.000 55'' panels per month).
> 
> 
> My prediction was €9.999,-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , most folks believed price would be €8.000,-



1. WTH, shouldn't mass production have started back in say Apr? They keep putting it off.


2. I bet 48,000 panels per month assumes 100% yield; what will be the actual yield of serviceable units?


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walt73*
> 
> 
> 1. WTH, shouldn't mass production have started back in say Apr? They keep putting it off.
> 
> 
> 2. I bet 48,000 panels per month assumes 100% yield; what will be the actual yield of serviceable units?




Jang was not willing to talk about degree of production failure amongst the 48.000 panels, capacity = 48.000.


----------



## pds3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22366788
> 
> 
> In a IFA interview Moon IK Jang (LG OLED division) said that:
> 
> the LG 55" OLED will cost €10.000,-/€12.000,-. Massproduction will start in december (48.000 55'' panels per month).
> 
> My prediction was €9.999,-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , most folks believed price would be €8.000,-



I really find it hard to believe that there are all that many people willing to pay that much money for a small 55 inch set.


----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4400_40#post_22366788
> 
> 
> In a IFA interview Moon IK Jang (LG OLED division) said that:
> 
> the LG 55" OLED will cost €10.000,-/€12.000,-. Massproduction will start in december (48.000 55'' panels per month).
> 
> My prediction was €9.999,-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , most folks believed price would be €8.000,-


How many people pay full MSRP for a TV?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22367553
> 
> 
> Jang was not willing to talk about degree of production failure amongst the 48.000 panels, capacity = 48.000.



I doubt very much the first month production will be anywhere near that high anyway. The line's capacity is no higher than 48K per month.


And, yes, yields are probably going to run around 1/2 whatever the capacity is.


----------



## irkuck

Where they can sell 48 000 55" OLED TVs per month @ such prices?


----------



## sa

OLED story from The Verge .


----------



## rogo

@Irkuck, Fantasyland.


@sa, great link, thanks.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380#post_22369333
> 
> 
> Where they can sell 48 000 55" OLED TVs per month @ such prices?



I think it depends on what you mean by sell. The manufacturers sell primarily to retail outlets. They don't need to sell through to consumers.


I can envision many sets going into demo boxes at retail outlets across the launch countries and many more sets just to fill the retail pipeline so stores have some inventory.


----------



## Dierkdr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sa*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22369334
> 
> 
> OLED story from The Verge .



Gee, and here I've been worrying about the wisdom of having bought a 60" Plasma this year, in the face of large-scale, blow-everything-else-out-of-the-water OLED panels - coming Any Day Now!










Guess I can sleep again at night - and probably continue to do so for at least the next several years -







- before Cost & Reliability (Life Span) even begin to reach those of today's sets...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22370429
> 
> 
> I think it depends on what you mean by sell. The manufacturers sell primarily to retail outlets. They don't need to sell through to consumers.
> 
> I can envision many sets going into demo boxes at retail outlets across the launch countries and many more sets just to fill the retail pipeline so stores have some inventory.



Again, even if they ramp production to the full capacity, yield will cut the actual number of sets in half initially and probably to no higher than 2/3 by year end. And they probably can sell 300,000 globally at $8000.


----------



## David_B

Only LG knows what the yields are.


Regardless of what people would like to guess.


Full Capacity is whatever they feel comfortable with running the line at too.


----------



## mr. wally

 http://in.reuters.com/article/email/idINBRE8830H220120904 



2 samusng oleds stolen on way to berlin ifa.


the makings of a great mystery novel


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22371414
> 
> 
> Only LG knows what the yields are.



Yes, they could in fact be around 10%. What they are not is 90%. Or anywhere near it. Regardless of what people would like to fantasize about.


> Quote:
> Full Capacity is whatever they feel comfortable with running the line at too.



Full capacity is 8000 substrates per month with 6 panels per substrate. That's public information and confirmed by LG again with their recent announcements. No one ever goes from zero to full capacity in the first month, so we can rule that out. And since yields reduce _available_ units for sale, we can draw accurate assessments of how many TVs they can possibly make.


Max capacity * utilization * yield for each month is the value.


Over the 12 months of 2013, the utilization will likely reach 100% (perhaps even fairly quickly, however it's a function of yield. You don't just push utilization to 100% if yield is 10% unless you want to file bankruptcy.) Yield will likely rise monthly. My estimate is that yield will start around 50% -- and this is based on comments made by DisplaySearch and others about the current state of costs combined with what we know about the current immaturity of IGZO in general -- and rise over the course of the year. It's very possible I'm optimistic on initial yield.


Regardless, as I do, in fact, understand how all this works contrary to the endless trolling of some people would have some believe, I think LG's forecast is probably around 25K units per month -- until additional production goes online. They have not yet announced additional production and for information on tracking that, I rely on reading news reports as well as the fact that Specuvestor and slacker711 track that kind of thing. Until we hear from one of those sources that additional production has been committed, _we can correctly assume it has not been_.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4400_100#post_22371731
> 
> http://in.reuters.com/article/email/idINBRE8830H220120904
> 
> 2 samusng oleds stolen on way to berlin ifa.
> 
> the makings of a great mystery novel




They probably ran off to seek Asylum with Apple.


----------



## David_B

All speculation on your part with no proof.


More guessing from the peanut gallery.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22371756
> 
> 
> Yes, they could in fact be around 10%. What they are not is 90%. Or anywhere near it. Regardless of what people would like to fantasize about.
> 
> Full capacity is 8000 substrates per month with 6 panels per substrate. That's public information and confirmed by LG again with their recent announcements. No one ever goes from zero to full capacity in the first month, so we can rule that out. And since yields reduce _available_ units for sale, we can draw accurate assessments of how many TVs they can possibly make.
> 
> Max capacity * utilization * yield for each month is the value.
> 
> Over the 12 months of 2013, the utilization will likely reach 100% (perhaps even fairly quickly, however it's a function of yield. You don't just push utilization to 100% if yield is 10% unless you want to file bankruptcy.) Yield will likely rise monthly. My estimate is that yield will start around 50% -- and this is based on comments made by DisplaySearch and others about the current state of costs combined with what we know about the current immaturity of IGZO in general -- and rise over the course of the year. It's very possible I'm optimistic on initial yield.
> 
> Regardless, as I do, in fact, understand how all this works contrary to the endless trolling of some people would have some believe, I think LG's forecast is probably around 25K units per month -- until additional production goes online. They have not yet announced additional production and for information on tracking that, I rely on reading news reports as well as the fact that Specuvestor and slacker711 track that kind of thing. Until we hear from one of those sources that additional production has been committed, _we can correctly assume it has not been_.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22372074
> 
> 
> All speculation on your part with no proof.
> 
> More guessing from the peanut gallery.



Wrong as usual.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22371850
> 
> 
> They probably ran off to seek Asylum with Apple.



Funny one Greenland.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22371414
> 
> 
> Only LG knows what the yields are.
> 
> Regardless of what people would like to guess.
> 
> Full Capacity is whatever they feel comfortable with running the line at too.



Last semi-official word was when they demoed them at Monte Carlo and the avforum interveiwer ask the LG guy if the yields were still only around 50%.


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22373088
> 
> 
> Last semi-official word was when they demoed them at Monte Carlo and the avforum interveiwer ask the LG guy if the yields were still only around 50%.



I heard from the mother of a friend of some LG worker that the yields are 110%!


Yeah, and I have a bridge in NY to sell you too.


People at companies have been fired for revealing less.


PS. When a line is in pre-production there's a reason it's called "pre-prodution". Yield numbers from then are completely useless. And secret.


----------



## Tazishere

Even if yields were dismal, say for the sake of arguement, 10%. They could sell all of them at a premium. Right now, without having sold even one, it's a total loss.


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4380_60#post_22372074
> 
> 
> All speculation on your part with no proof.
> 
> More guessing from the peanut gallery.



There's wild speculation and then there is reasoned speculation. Rogo's tends to the latter. Yours, I'm never really sure to be quite honest. Occasionally interesting as a counterpoint, but rarely bringing the detailed specificity that Rogo does. Plus, he's got a predictive track record of pretty good accuracy going back a long ways.


----------



## greenland

Product in the supply chain is the only thing worth paying attention to. Predictions do not contribute anything that help determine when that actually starts happening Some people just like to pretend that they do.


The Rooster on the Dung Heap thinks that it is his crowing that makes the Sun rise each dawn.


----------



## sytech

Samsung asking for injunction against sale of LG OLED for using stolen Samsung OLED tech in South Korea.


http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/05/samsung-asks-for-south-korean-injunction-against-lg/


----------



## greenland

The two Korean Giants might end up crippling each other, and end up letting China eat both their lunches, while they are busy engaged in a war of mutual destruction.


----------



## vinnie97

Samdung is one to protest.


----------



## seanclayton

It's only okay if Samsung steals.


----------



## sonyfan

Yea right just like when Job's and Apple stole the GUI from Xerox.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4400_100#post_22374901
> 
> 
> Yea right just like when Job's and Apple stole the GUI from Xerox.



And the mouse concept. Workers at Xerox warned management not to let those guys come and see a demonstration.


----------



## sonyfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22374964
> 
> 
> And the mouse concept. Workers at Xerox warned management not to let those guys come and see a demonstration.



Yes true and about a 100 of them ended up working for Apple out of frustration with the suit's in NYC

who never understood what they were doing after years of trying. Jobs 'got it' in 10 min.

When Robert Cringely interviewed Jobs for his 'Triumph of The Nerds' series

Jobs said 10 minutes into the Xerox Alto demo in he knew all personal computers would

use a mouse and GUI someday.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22375055
> 
> 
> Yes true and about a 100 of them ended up working for Apple out of frustration with the suit's in NYC
> 
> who never understood what they were doing after years of trying. Jobs 'got it' in 10 min.
> 
> When Robert Cringely interviewed Jobs for his 'Triumph of The Nerds' series
> 
> Jobs said 10 minutes into the Xerox Alto demo in he knew all personal computers would
> 
> use a mouse and GUI someday.



I believe Apple flat out stole it also, but someone pointed out that Apple made a substantial invest in Xerox at the time and was given a tour of Xerox PARC facility as a courtesy. Then supposedly later paid Xerox something for using the mouse and GUI after the fact and ultimately Xerox lost the lawsuit it brought against Apple years later. I guess that is when Jobs figured he could get anything he wanted by "bending the rules" Like how he brought a house in Tennessee because it had the shortest wait time for a liver and he magically jumped to the top of the donor list or how he repurchaseed his Mercedes every 90 days on paper so he never had to drive with plates under California law. Then the use their legal team to stifle the competition that is to close to their design, yet they are free to steal from others with no consequences. I guess there are perks to being the wealthiest American company.


----------



## vinnie97

Apple fanatics who use their products to spite MS are the funniest and most ironic.










Wow, this topic went off the rails, but that's what happens with no news.


----------



## markrubin

posts deleted: move on please


----------



## irkuck

From Digitimes: _AU Optronics (AUO) is set to start mass producing small-sized AMOLED panels in the third quarter of 2012 with a production yield rate at around 50%, according to industry sources.


AUO president Paul Peng said in recent Digitimes reports that the company had planned to mass produce 4.3-inch AMOLED panels in the second quarter, but production had to be delayed until the third quarter due to difficulties. The sources said some of these difficulties included raising yield rates to appropriate levels which AUO has now done, and so is ready to mass produce the panels at its 3.5G production line.


The 3.5G line will reportedly be able to produce 7,000 glass substrates a month, making AUO the second company in the world, and the first in Taiwan, to be able to mass produce the technology, said the sources. This will bump up competition in the small-sized AMOLED segment and may help AUO make up for losses incurred over the last seven quarters, added the sources.


AUO will first produce the panels for HTC and may later do so for Sony, the sources speculated; however, the companies have yet to make any official statements on the matter._


50% yield means OLED is still far behind normal productivity rates.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22376958
> 
> 
> 50% yield means OLED is still far behind normal productivity rates.



As we have been saying.


----------



## Dierkdr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22376958
> 
> 
> From Digitimes: _AU Optronics (AUO) is set to start mass producing small-sized AMOLED panels in the third quarter of 2012 with a production yield rate at around 50%, according to industry sources.
> 
> AUO president Paul Peng said in recent Digitimes reports that the company had planned to mass produce 4.3-inch AMOLED panels in the second quarter, but production had to be delayed until the third quarter due to difficulties. ....._



Wow: 50% seems an extraordinarily high "fail" rate - ??










Query: Assume these roll off in fairly large sheets, which are then cut down to size? (4.3-inch in this case.)


Is the point of failure an ENTIRE sheet, or could any given sheet produce both Good & Bad 4.3-inch panels? (Expect the latter to be the case, as thought that was how plasma & lcd panels are produced: a large panel that is cut to size.)


Do not know whether it necessarily follows, but it SOUNDS Logical to assume that if the failure rate is 50% for 4.3-inch panels, then the failure rate for Larger Panels (say, 55-inches...) would be even higher...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22378835
> 
> 
> Always take anything that is being reported by Digitimes with a huge amount of salt. Find some other sources that confirm anything that they claim, because they have a long history of having posted a lot claims that turned out not have been true.



I am inclined to agree with Greenland here in questioning just about anything Digitimes says. Of course, in the past when I've questioned Digitimes here and explained my stuff is as accurate, I've been mocked (not by Greenland).


Anyway, until we hear someone else stating this, we have a Digitimes rumor. And those have a low hit rate.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dierkdr*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22378334
> 
> 
> Wow: 50% seems an extraordinarily high "fail" rate - ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Query: Assume these roll off in fairly large sheets, which are then cut down to size? (4.3-inch in this case.)
> 
> Is the point of failure an ENTIRE sheet, or could any given sheet produce both Good & Bad 4.3-inch panels? (Expect the latter to be the case, as thought that was how plasma & lcd panels are produced: a large panel that is cut to size.)
> 
> Do not know whether it necessarily follows, but it SOUNDS Logical to assume that if the failure rate is 50% for 4.3-inch panels, then the failure rate for Larger Panels (say, 55-inches...) would be even higher...



The failure rate is per panel, not substrate. But with smaller panels, those failures are less costly. You are correct in surmising that if the failure rate is 50% with small panels, it's going to be worse with larger panels. You can imagine why. Take a sheet and cut it into 16 pieces. If 50% of them are bad, then you have 8 good, small pieces. If you only cut it into 4 pieces and the same defects are occur, all 4 pieces are probably defective.


Now, for a number of reasons, we can surmise that no one is running at 0% yield. But the likelihood of yields running terribly low at this point is terribly high. This is consistent with pricing at $8000 and up. It's very possible that the initial yield of the LG line -- start to finish -- was in the 10% range (similar for Samsung). But if we believe they are ramping production now, it's also likely that current yields are much higher than whatever they were initially.


As for AUO, they are new to the party and making small screens for now. Expect their yields to rise fairly quickly. Also, understand the above paragraph about LG and Samsung was to illustrate the point, not to suggest any specific current yields.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22378921
> 
> 
> I am inclined to agree with Greenland here in questioning just about anything Digitimes says. Of course, in the past when I've questioned Digitimes here and explained my stuff is as accurate, I've been mocked (not by Greenland).
> 
> Anyway, until we hear someone else stating this, we have a Digitimes rumor. And those have a low hit rate.



Digitimes tend to be HALF-truths. Key is to figure out how they jump the gun to arrive at their conclusion.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22376958
> 
> 
> From Digitimes: _AU Optronics (AUO) is set to start mass producing small-sized AMOLED panels in the third quarter of 2012 with a production yield rate at around 50%, according to industry sources.
> 
> AUO president Paul Peng said in recent Digitimes reports that the company had planned to mass produce 4.3-inch AMOLED panels in the second quarter, but production had to be delayed until the third quarter due to difficulties. The sources said some of these difficulties included raising yield rates to appropriate levels which AUO has now done, and so is ready to mass produce the panels at its 3.5G production line.
> 
> The 3.5G line will reportedly be able to produce 7,000 glass substrates a month, making AUO the second company in the world, and the first in Taiwan, to be able to mass produce the technology, said the sources. This will bump up competition in the small-sized AMOLED segment and may help AUO make up for losses incurred over the last seven quarters, added the sources.
> 
> AUO will first produce the panels for HTC and may later do so for Sony, the sources speculated; however, the companies have yet to make any official statements on the matter._
> 
> 50% yield means OLED is still far behind normal productivity rates.



IIRC that was the yield rate of LCD fab in LG 7.5G and Sammy 8G when they first ramped. Nothing extraordinary here. What is extraordinary is that AUO managed to get it to work while CMI couldn't. As rumoured AUO likely making for HTC for handsets.


posted on AUO much earlier. Point is things can be forecasted if one knows where to look:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/3840#post_21837755 
http://www.avsforum.com/t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/3570#post_21585279


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dierkdr*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4410#post_22378334
> 
> 
> Wow: 50% seems an extraordinarily high "fail" rate - ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Query: Assume these roll off in fairly large sheets, which are then cut down to size? (4.3-inch in this case.)
> 
> Is the point of failure an ENTIRE sheet, or could any given sheet produce both Good & Bad 4.3-inch panels? (Expect the latter to be the case, as thought that was how plasma & lcd panels are produced: a large panel that is cut to size.)
> 
> Do not know whether it necessarily follows, but it SOUNDS Logical to assume that if the failure rate is 50% for 4.3-inch panels, then the failure rate for Larger Panels (say, 55-inches...) would be even higher...



Ok, here's a little on production lines.


Engineers come up with machines to do many steps in the manufacture of a part.


And they calculate stress's and strengths of raw materials, how fast they can say vapor deposit a layer of something and design around some mythical unit output per minute/hour.


So, let's say you turn your brand new line up, at 50% speed and get a 10% yield. You look at where something is failing, maybe slow down the line because the failure at that point is you made a mistake how fast you could run that specific action in your line. Or a part on your machine isn't put together correctly. Or the tolerances you thought would work don't, so you have to make new parts for the machine.


Now, how much are your raw materials? How many units do you really need to produce? Is there some design flaw that you have to fix later after your initial startup to full production to increase your yield?


Without knowing a LOT of those things, anyone, ANYONE, saying "yields are such and such" are blowing smoke.


If you run your line above the speed that creates a lot of bad parts in order to get what you think your initial orders will be, you do it. Because not having enough product at the start can be a killer.


My father made a production line run 1000 parts of something to get 10 good ones. Because the vendor HAD to have the part. And he needed 10 part. Now.


Yields mean zero at this point. Anyone stuck on them is a fool.


Now, if you where trying to make an LCD and where trying to compete in a cut throat saturated market, it would be important. But NOBODY is selling an OLED TV. So this initial startup is a far far different animal for OLED TV.


Samsung and LG want to stay #1 and #2 in TV. There is zero doubt OLED is the future, and whoever stakes out the plot at the start will probably have the largest part of the pie.


Did you know that at one time they made pre-recorded video tape movies at 1:1 speed on racks after racks of industrial VCRs? They eventually found other faster way's to do it, and prices came down. Same thing will happen with OLED TV now.


----------



## specuvestor

Here's a little about the difference between high capex production line and low capex lines.


For the former, utilisation is paramount. DRAM cannot make money without going into 90% utilisation. And sometimes, contrary to academic argument, they will go into loss just to keep a comparative advantage or to keep the people and plant working, because to shut down and restart again is very uneconomical. Japanese are classical studies. They are not wrong operationally, they are wrong in their forecast and adoption to environment.


For low capex lines like Foxconn, labour and materials are paramount. They can run at low utilisation and yield rate and still scrap by, as long as selling price covers their BOM. That's how Chinese manufacturers can give you 10 samples overnight if you ask for it, and have credibility to pay.


In both cases Engineers and management do calculations based on material suppliers, equipment suppliers, System Integrators , customer demands, etc to guesstimate what will be the yield rate. The whole supply chain has to COLLABORATE to avoid the weakest link. For eg the talk now for iPhone is that the LCD is the weakest link. it doesn't matter if Foxconn can do 100% yield when LCD cannot deliver. Yield rate is not plucked out of the sky because it is SPECIFIED by the equipment supplier. Your car doesn't run at ANY speed when u buy it. There is a specification. Yield rate is simply the MATHEMATICAL ratio of production vs capacity. Yield rate is ALWAYS low at the beginning, hence the learning curve. If everyone can do the same thing and get the same yield rate then all businesses will have no comparative advantage for high capex business. Sammy DRAM and Micron DRAM would have the same profit margins. Even for low capex business optimisation is paramount in the long run and that differs from companies to companies, which is how the weaker ones are weeded out.


LCD is somewhere in the middle of these 2 extremes. However RGB OLED is on the high capex side with $4b committed, which is why cash poor LG focused on RGBW to reduce the capex structure. And yes volume is the key to reducing costs and selling price. But determining volume is more complicated than irkuck insist that it's just a function of motherglass cuts.


I don't smoke, literally and metaphorically. Anyone who doesn't understand details yet claim otherwise and critique is smoking.


----------



## rogo

I know this confuses people, but yields don't _ever_ mean zero.


Today, LG states publicly that the capacity of their OLED production is 48,000 panels per month. That's 8000 substrates at 6 panels per. That assumes 100% yield. Anything less is *a hard limit on how many TVs you will see until they build additional capacity*. There is no speed higher than 8000 substrates available on the existing line. That's _literally_ the capacity of the existing line. And it shouldn't shock anyone. It's a single 8G line at one plant. 8000 substrates per month doesn't sound horrible for such a thing at all.


Now, LG has two brand new processes on this line that are likely compromising yields:


1) Making IGZO TFT backplanes

2) Vapor depositing OLED material three times evenly


If you read some of the linked articles, you'd believe that it's most likely (1) that's the big issue right now. Sharp's experience trying to make smaller IGZO screens suggests this is correct. Regardless, every substrate or partial substrate that is no good _limits the number of TVs for sale_. But it's more insidious than that. The "learning curve" is the process by which manufacturing costs fall as production rises. The fall in those costs leads to a lowering of prices. Until yields rise, production *cannot rise, by definition*. Advancing down the learning curve isn't some nice to have, it's a _need to have_ and so increasing yields are an imperative.


The good news -- at least for LG -- is that assuming the low yields are currently due to issues making IGZO backplanes, they are likely to be resolved in the near future. IGZO is new and perhaps finicky, but the fundamental nature of the process is not so tricky that it's believed to be a showstopper. By contrast, Samsung's ability to master small mask scanning as a volume-production technique remains an open question. This could actually never happen and would cause Samsung to re-think their manufacturing, either seeking to adopt an RGBW method for TV-size OLED or perhaps to try to commercialize an OLED "printing" technique.


----------



## pqcanada

Don't know where to ask but is there one of these threads for lcd/led instead? Has there been anything new lately?


I remember the days when lcd contrast ratios kept going up and low end models would actually beat last years high end. Now rarely does any one even list native contrast anymore.


And even panel websites like Samsung, Auo and LG Philips don't show much these days either.


----------



## toxic1988




> Quote:
> “Samsung is pushing hard to launch OLED this year, before Christmas.”


 http://smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large_Display/Industry/T9X7K8M3?page=1


----------



## Lee Stewart

*LG Display sues Samsung over OLED patents*

http://www.zdnet.com/lg-display-sues-samsung-over-oled-patents-7000004893/


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toxic1988*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22442287
> 
> http://smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large_Display/Industry/T9X7K8M3?page=1



I think Australian tech news is about as reliable as DIgitimes... Just sayin'..



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22442467
> 
> *LG Display sues Samsung over OLED patents*
> http://www.zdnet.com/lg-display-sues-samsung-over-oled-patents-7000004893/



Seems like typical tech lawsuits... You sue me, I sue you... Yada yada....


----------



## toxic1988

the typical digitimes source is "industry sources claim"







and at the australian site there is a name and a clear statement.


another example? look at the CNET asia site


> Quote:
> According to Greogory Lee, president and CEO of Samsung Asia, the ES9500 will definitely be launched within the year.



its also a statement from september.

http://asia.cnet.com/product/samsung-ua55es9500-55-inch-oled-46728243.htm 



my prediction is a release in korea this year and US/Europe release february or march for the samsung. for an later release in the next year they have to change the model number. ES=2012. at IFA there was still announced as an "ES-Model". I think there is a reason behind it. i hope you understand what i mean my english is not perfect


----------



## Lee Stewart

CEATEC Japan starts 10/2 so maybe will will get more news from both companies.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22444308
> 
> 
> CEATEC Japan starts 10/2 so maybe will will get more news from both companies.



Or more of the same useless promises they can fail to live up to, more likely....


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22444323
> 
> 
> Or more of the same useless promises they can fail to live up to, more likely....



LOL - Hey! You are preaching to the choir! I voted; not going to happen this year in that poll.


----------



## Lee Stewart

*Sony and Panasonic to offer OLED TVs by March 2014*

http://www.oled-info.com/sony-and-panasonic-offer-oled-tvs-march-2014


----------



## mr. wally

let's see.


lg's woled is considered by most of what i read easier to manufacture than samsungs oled,



and



lg still hasn't released for retail sale a woled display this year,

but samsung will have their oled displays available for sale

this year...........




seems to me the only oled displays samsung will be selling this year are the ones from the electronics shows in vegas and berlin.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22444402
> 
> *Sony and Panasonic to offer OLED TVs by March 2014*
> http://www.oled-info.com/sony-and-panasonic-offer-oled-tvs-march-2014



Not to rain on that parade, but I'm going to rain on it anyway...


"The collaboration with Panasonic is running smoothly and the two company *may* offer OLED products after March 2014,"


Also worth reminding people, the collaboration is to _develop techniques to manufacture OLEDs_. It's not a joint venture to actually do that. It's not a plan to build a manufacturing facility. And it's not a commitment to build a facility or to manufacture OLEDs. It's a research joint venture to _figure out how to maybe build OLEDs in the future_ using techniques that have not yet been developed.


I would ignore sights like "OLED Info" which tend to breathlessly hype every word from any company without even understanding them, let alone without properly interpreting what was said.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22446740
> 
> 
> Not to rain on that parade, but I'm going to rain on it anyway...
> 
> "The collaboration with Panasonic is running smoothly and the two company *may* offer OLED products after March 2014,"
> 
> Also worth reminding people, the collaboration is to _develop techniques to manufacture OLEDs_. It's not a joint venture to actually do that. It's not a plan to build a manufacturing facility. And it's not a commitment to build a facility or to manufacture OLEDs. It's a research joint venture to _figure out how to maybe build OLEDs in the future_ using techniques that have not yet been developed.
> 
> I would ignore sights like "OLED Info" which tend to breathlessly hype every word from any company without even understanding them, let alone without properly interpreting what was said.



Read the press release from Sony:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/25/sony-panasonic-oled-partnership-is-official-aims-for-mass-prod/


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22446759
> 
> 
> Read the press release from Sony:
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/25/sony-panasonic-oled-partnership-is-official-aims-for-mass-prod/



I've read it, have you?


"They plan to jointly develop printing method-based next-generation OLED technology, which will be suitable for low-cost mass production of large, high resolution OLED panels and modules. Sony and Panasonic *aim to establish mass-production technology* during 2013, by integrating their unique technologies to improve the overall efficiency of development."


The key words, _to establish mass production technology_ do not involve building anything, not even a plant, let alone a display.


" In parallel with the joint development of the next-generation technologies of the OLED panels and modules, Sony and Panasonic *plan to continue to study collaboration in the mass production of OLED panels and modules.* "


So they _plan_ to _study_ collaboration in the mass production of OLED panels. In other words, they are going to talk about whether they might ever do a deal to produce something together. Again, nothing is being built here: neither a display, nor a plant, not a machine that goes in a plant.


----------



## navychop

I am trying to recall, from Lo! these many years ago, statements in a semiconductor class. This was back when B Gates was running around selling BASIC on paper tape. IIRC, new advanced semiconductors, such as 8 bit CPUs, had to have at least 30% yield to be introduced to market, and never made money until and unless yields topped 80% or 90%. There were good financial reasons behind this- which, I gather, still apply today, give or take a few percent.


So, real world, I *MIGHT* be able to see in person an OLED TV sometime in 2013. Baby steps, but needed steps. And then one day we won't remember, and take OLEDs for granted, salivating over the holographic displays.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22449401
> 
> 
> I've read it, have you?
> 
> "They plan to jointly develop printing method-based next-generation OLED technology, which will be suitable for low-cost mass production of large, high resolution OLED panels and modules. Sony and Panasonic *aim to establish mass-production technology* during 2013, by integrating their unique technologies to improve the overall efficiency of development."
> 
> The key words, _to establish mass production technology_ do not involve building anything, not even a plant, let alone a display.
> 
> " In parallel with the joint development of the next-generation technologies of the OLED panels and modules, Sony and Panasonic *plan to continue to study collaboration in the mass production of OLED panels and modules.* "
> 
> So they _plan_ to _study_ collaboration in the mass production of OLED panels. In other words, they are going to talk about whether they might ever do a deal to produce something together. Again, nothing is being built here: neither a display, nor a plant, not a machine that goes in a plant.



You left a piece out:

_*Also, each company plans to utilize its own strengths to develop and commercialize its own competitive, high-performance, next-generation OLED televisions and large-sized displays.*
_


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22449690
> 
> 
> You left a piece out:
> _*Also, each company plans to utilize its own strengths to develop and commercialize its own competitive, high-performance, next-generation OLED televisions and large-sized displays.*
> _



Does that change something? I'd say no.


Each company _plans_.... another promise,without a commitment.


To _develop_... in other words, "we will eventually design a product based on this manufacturing technology we have yet to devise."


And _commercialize_... so, they will someday build a product they have yet to invent... maybe... because, well, that's their "plan", but not exactly their promise.


At least there are absolutely no dates or committed investments.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22450565
> 
> 
> Does that change something? I'd say no.
> 
> Each company _plans_.... another promise,without a commitment.
> 
> To _develop_... in other words, "we will eventually design a product based on this manufacturing technology we have yet to devise."
> 
> And _commercialize_... so, they will someday build a product they have yet to invent... maybe... because, well, that's their "plan", but not exactly their promise.
> 
> At least there are absolutely no dates or committed investments.



And I would disagree with you. What? You think neither Panasonic nor Sony are going to sell OLED displays in the near future?


----------



## mikek753

what's possibility to see 55" OLED on sale in USA this year?


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikek753*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22451483
> 
> 
> what's possibility to see 55" OLED on sale in USA this year?



You can get the forum reader's opinion on how likely it is in this poll in this forum. You can see it's not considered very likely.


----------



## specuvestor

Interesting that they actually mention Apple


Oct. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Will use investment to start mass production of smartphone OEL displays in FY14, Nikkei reports.

• Plans to compete against Samsung, which controls 90% of global market: Nikkei

• Hopes to supply Apple, which now uses LCD: Nikkei

• Most Samsung output used for own products: Nikkei

• OEL line to go in Mobara, Chiba prefecture plant: Nikkei

• May invest additional 100b yen to raise capacity: Nikkei


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22453167
> 
> 
> Interesting that they actually mention Apple
> 
> Oct. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Will use investment to start mass production of smartphone OEL displays in FY14, Nikkei reports.
> 
> • Plans to compete against Samsung, which controls 90% of global market: Nikkei
> 
> • Hopes to supply Apple, which now uses LCD: Nikkei
> 
> • Most Samsung output used for own products: Nikkei
> 
> • OEL line to go in Mobara, Chiba prefecture plant: Nikkei
> 
> • May invest additional 100b yen to raise capacity: Nikkei



I have always assumed Apple would switch eventually. Thing is they now need to offer an integrated touchscreen OLED display too get Apple's business and a dual-source / triple-source for the display. It's possible they could be part of the mix in 2015 if LG is there and if someone else (AUO?) is also live by then.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4440#post_22453712
> 
> 
> I have always assumed Apple would switch eventually. Thing is they now need to offer an integrated touchscreen OLED display too get Apple's business and a dual-source / triple-source for the display. It's possible they could be part of the mix in 2015 if LG is there and if someone else (AUO?) is also live by then.



I thought you always assumes LCD retina is better than OLED?







But yes Apple is unlikely to want to be held hostage by Samsung.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22453901
> 
> 
> I thought you always assumes LCD retina is better than OLED?



Let's characterize it accurately: Image-quality-wise, they are fairly comparable today. Owning an iPhone 5, having used the S3 much, I'd say the iPhone 5 has much more natural color by the way, but both are really quite good. Two things are fairly clear though:


1) The OLED is thinner. Now, Apple has conjured up this in-cell touchscreen business so it's not entirely comparable, but over time that thinness will win out.

2) OLED tech is less mature. Over time, it's likely to have a more robust trajectory.


> Quote:
> But yes Apple is unlikely to want to be held hostage by Samsung.



It seems like the only part left in iPhone from Samsung is the processor. Does anyone know otherwise?


----------



## specuvestor

this is one of the post that I got the impression:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/2010#post_20195746 


iPad is still using Samsung screen IIRC... but for sure Apple love Samsung as much as they love Google







Only a matter of time before they are out of the supply chain


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22457178
> 
> 
> this is one of the post that I got the impression:
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/2010#post_20195746
> 
> iPad is still using Samsung screen IIRC... but for sure Apple love Samsung as much as they love Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a matter of time before they are out of the supply chain



That post was from March of 2011. That's like multiple models of Galaxy ago. I think the screen has improved there (although so has the Retina display). I think they are still comparable, but the trajectory of OLED is stronger.


Anyway, yes, the Samsung screens are still in iPad, but I doubt they will be in the next generation iPad.


----------



## specuvestor

Just sidetrack a bit on the decision to make OLED 55" rather than smaller/larger, note this statistics that says average size is growing from 35" to 37" YoY in August... but actually skewed to 32" sizes... no prizes for guessing where those are sold. Lies damn lies and statistics










Hence the skew and average TV size for developed markets should be much more to the right... rough guesstimate about 15% will be 55" or larger, which may surprise some people. And there lies OLED TV's target market


"Based on panel makers’ shipments reported in the Monthly TFT LCD Shipment Database, the average TV panel diagonal has increased from 34.8” in August, 2011 to 36.8” in August, 2012. With a typical range of 18-20M panel shipment per month, an increase of 2 inches in screen size is significant, and has helped to increase area demand." -DisplaySearch


----------



## rogo

Spec, what do you think is the proportion of panels that go into developed markets vs. emerging. If only 6% of total panels are that big and you are suggesting that in those markets 55" is 15% of the total, doesn't that imply that less than half of total panels are going to developed markets? (Math example: 20 million sold per month, 6% are 55+, 1.2 million... In developed markets, 15% are 55+, _say that's most of the 55s_. That puts total in developed markets at about 7x that or 8ish million or 40% of total shipments.) Let me say, I buy that because in developing world people don't have TVs, in developed world, they _already have HDTVs_. I'm just curious what the split is.


Anyway, the idea that 55+ sales globally are now at something _approaching_ 15 million annually isn't that shocking. It's worth noting that as you increase size from there, sales fall _rapidly_ such that the vast majority of such sales are 55s, then 60s, and the number of 70s and up remains tiny. There appears to be no indication, for example, that global sales of 70" sets in 2012 are going to do better than about 500,000 units -- and that may be a stretch.


----------



## specuvestor

The devil is always in the details







Off the top of my head, about 2/3 TV *SET* (panels) shipments goes to developing markets, including China; but conversely 2/3 of sales and % of area output goes to developed markets, which explain why TV makers still bother with the cutthroat US market. No one I know still buys a 32" TV, not even for bedrooms, maybe kitchen







In addition even developing markets seemed to be losing interest in 60") is evident. It also gives an indication that 55" size is not such a niche market in developed economies that OLED makers are stupid enough to debut in.


FWIW Samsung just released preliminary numbers... based on analysts' estimates of the breakdown looks TV and LCD business should be rebounding, all the more if LGE says the same. Ona related Note (pun intended in this OLED forum) two years ago no one would have believed and would think the idea of Galaxy S products being half of Samsung's profits moronic:


DIVISION 3Q 2012 3Q 2011 (KRW b)


Chip 1215 1590

LCD 875 -90

Phone 4872 2520

TV 585 240


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> “If you have a television that is 60 inches or larger and are watching video that has a 3,840 by 2,160 resolution, then a 4K television makes sense,” said Tom Morrod, director of TV systems and technology research for IHS. “However, a very limited amount of content is available at the 4K resolution. *Meanwhile, because of high prices and other issues, the market for super-sized, 60-inch and larger sets is very small — at only about 1.5% of total television shipments in 2012*.”


 http://www.homemediamagazine.com/hdtv/ihs-isuppli-4k-tv-will-see-small-marginal-share-28504


----------



## rogo

Spec, thanks for the data. If we reconcile the ~15 million units of 55" and up with the ~4 million units of 60" and up, you get a market north of 10 million at 55". That speaks to a fairly robust segment into which to introduce the OLED product. That said, it also speaks to the challenge of getting much larger TVs into homes. There is ready availability of 60s -- and quite frankly 70s at least here in North America -- yet apparently even within this sub-segment, 55" thoroughly dominates overall, 60" obliterates 70", and so on.


I don't mean to suggest that there isn't room to move up from there over time, but the idea that this is going to happen quickly or significantly seems absurd at this point. I'd suggest this points out a long-term structural resistance to the largest sizes, irrespective of price, continues to prove itself in the marketplace. I'd further suggest that the idea 70" TVs are moving from less than 1/4% of the market beyond 10% by the end of the decade remains more than a little "out there". It will be interesting to revisit this topic every few years, though, to see how the trend develops.


Lee, thanks much for that link.


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22463609
> 
> 
> yet apparently even within this sub-segment, 55" thoroughly dominates overall, 60" obliterates 70", and so on.



I have issue with this statement because that is how the industry progress. If one substitutes the numbers 55" -> 42" and 60" ->47", that was the picture some 5 years ago.


60" and above is likely right at about 2% of 2012 shipment, probably higher than the shipment of RPTV and HT projectors combined. But I doubt that will be the case 12 months rolling forward







More towards 3-4% is my guess and likely the latter if Foxconn gets into the act.


----------



## Lee Stewart

*HDTV Expert - TV Shipments to Fall 1.4% in 2012 — by Ken Werner*

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2012/07/hdtv-expert-tv-shipments-to-fall-14-in-2012-by-ken-werner.php


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22463647
> 
> 
> I have issue with this statement because that is how the industry progress.



You can't have issue with it; it's fact.


> Quote:
> If one substitutes the numbers 55" -> 42" and 60" ->47", that was the picture some 5 years ago.



Uh huh, and I've actually already addressed that. It will be noteworthy to revisit it in 5 years. If the momentum is such that the *gigantically, overwhelming portion of 55+" TVs that is currently only 55" has shifted to 60" and higher, we can note a trend*. If, however, the trend is even slightly slower than previous trends in upsizing, _it will be reasonable to conclude non-price, non-availability factors have placed a permanent cap on upsizing_. I would argue -- empirically -- the data already backs up the idea of a permanent cap. What I would not argue is exactly what that cap is. I have _speculated_ it's around 10% for the 70"+ segment over the next decade, which would represent 5000% growth of that segment in the next 8 years.


> Quote:
> 60" and above is likely right at about 2% of 2012 shipment, probably higher than the shipment of RPTV and HT projectors combined. But I doubt that will be the case 12 months rolling forward
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More towards 3-4% is my guess and likely the latter if Foxconn gets into the act.



You are moving appreciably higher than iSuppli by claiming 2% (as they say 1.5%), but I'm not persuaded how much this matters. It's still (a) a really small portion of the 55" and up segment (b) very significant that the 70" segment sits comfortably at *less than 10%* of even the 60" and up segment using your numbers. (I'd have 70s at somewhat higher than 10% of the 60 and up segment using the iSuppli number because I believe 70s are likely to be around 0.2% of the total market this year, or


----------



## mr. wally

still have a hard time wrapping my head around the demise of plasma.


it's cheaper than lcd or led, better pq, cheaper at larger sizes.


only the locally dimming area leds can surpass plasma pq at a much heftier cost, so why

wouldn't you buy a plasma if you're looking for a new large hd tv?


----------



## vinnie97

Same old myths/concerns: Not bright enuff, too reflective, burn-in fears.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22465202
> 
> 
> still have a hard time wrapping my head around the demise of plasma.
> 
> it's cheaper than lcd or led, better pq, cheaper at larger sizes.
> 
> only the locally dimming area leds can surpass plasma pq at a much heftier cost, so why
> 
> wouldn't you buy a plasma if you're looking for a new large hd tv?



Most people want to view their display in a room with at least some ambient sunlight. A situation were plasmas fails miserably. The holy grail of displays would be 4K OLED with glare free glass, but until then, full array LCD will have to do if you have a bright room.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22465202
> 
> 
> still have a hard time wrapping my head around the demise of plasma.
> 
> it's cheaper than lcd or led, better pq, cheaper at larger sizes.
> 
> only the locally dimming area leds can surpass plasma pq at a much heftier cost, so why
> 
> wouldn't you buy a plasma if you're looking for a new large hd tv?



I did.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22465371
> 
> 
> Same old myths/concerns: Not bright enuff, too reflective, burn-in fears.



Yeah, but also very few SKUs in very few sizes.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22465748
> 
> 
> Most people want to view their display in a room with at least some ambient sunlight. A situation were plasmas fails miserably. The holy grail of displays would be 4K OLED with glare free glass, but until then, full array LCD will have to do if you have a bright room.



Mine works just fine in some ambient sunlight. Until that OLED is out, it will do.


----------



## Steve S

"Non-price non-availabilty factors"=spousal objection to that great big screen in her/his living room.


In my 6 years experience selling sets I've seen prices drop to the point that a 55 or even 60" set can easily be had for less than a 40-46" model 4 or 5 years ago. When you get above 60" the life partner often puts on the brakes for room aesthetics reasons.


With the advent of models like the 640 series Sharps and EH6000 Samsungs the price advantage of plasma in larger sizes has pretty much disappeared (pq advantage still there but average buyer doesn't care). Indications are that tvs that consume more than a certain amount of electricity will become unavailable in CA, which will hurt big plasmas.


In my experience the average buyer (not the AV enthusiast) purchases the most garishly bright set with the most whiz-bang internet features they can afford. I don't think an $8000 55" OLED is going to be percieved as worth 6k more than an edge lit shiny screen LED backlit lcd to more than a tiny percentage of customers.


Just an anecdote but the most common thing I hear when a customer sees the $9999 price on the 90" Sharp="I didn't pay that much for my first new car!". In my case I could have bought 4 copies of my first new car ('72 Corolla) for that price.


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22465202
> 
> 
> still have a hard time wrapping my head around the demise of plasma.
> 
> it's cheaper than lcd or led, better pq, cheaper at larger sizes.
> 
> only the locally dimming area leds can surpass plasma pq at a much heftier cost, so why
> 
> wouldn't you buy a plasma if you're looking for a new large hd tv?


Size. When 37-inches is as small as you can go. You're alienating the general consumer who wants something smaller and affordable. The public can have a sexy flat panel high-def TV with their preferred aesthetic: bright, saturated, and excessively sharpened with an LCD. All reasonable sizes welcomed with prices that feel like a bargain.


----------



## DaveC19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22465202
> 
> 
> still have a hard time wrapping my head around the demise of plasma.
> 
> it's cheaper than lcd or led, better pq, cheaper at larger sizes.
> 
> only the locally dimming area leds can surpass plasma pq at a much heftier cost, so why
> 
> wouldn't you buy a plasma if you're looking for a new large hd tv?



Dither.


----------



## vinnie97

^Uneven backlighting (MURA) drove me to Plasma, and dither hasn't been anywhere near the deterrent for me that some claim it to be.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22476228
> 
> 
> ^Uneven backlighting (MURA) drove me to Plasma, and dither hasn't been anywhere near the deterrent for me that some claim it to be.



Probably because you don't sit with your face jammed right up next to the TV. In other words, you're "normal", unlike many AVSers.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22477843
> 
> 
> Probably because you don't sit with your face jammed right up next to the TV. In other words, you're "normal", unlike many AVSers.


Does this mean I'm not speshul like mommy always claimed?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22478393
> 
> 
> Some OLED Technology Development News. I hope I am not posting it on the wrong thread, since it appears to have been taken over by people who want to use it to talk about Plasma and LCD issues mainly.
> 
> Evaluating molecules within a sealed organic light emitting diode device
> 
> October 8, 2012
> http://phys.org/news/2012-10-molecules-emitting-diode-device.html
> 
> "AIST researchers have developed a method that can selectively measure the behavior of specific molecules at the interfaces of organic layers in a multilayered organic light emitting diode (OLED) device during light emission. The researchers have succeeded, for the first time, in measuring the behavior of the electric charges in a device at the molecular level. The developed method uses an advanced laser spectroscopic technique that has been improved to measure the molecular vibrational spectrum at the interface of a specific organic layer inside an OLED device. By employing a signal enhancement phenomenon that occurs at the interface with a concentrated electric field, the method can be used to evaluate the molecular condition of the organic layer during light emission without destroying the device. This world-first has been achieved through the merger of AIST's cutting-edge fundamental measurement technology with CEREBA's practical OLED device manufacturing and evaluation technologies. The method is expected to be useful for elucidating the deterioration of materials and deterioration of interfaces in a device on the basis of molecular level information. Such elucidation is necessary for extending the life of OLED devices.



Do I get this right, that this is a test/lab device idea for evaluating OLED performance over time?


If so, it's interesting -- and certainly the right there -- but hardly transformational, even in concept.


----------



## walt73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve S*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22468791
> 
> 
> "Non-price non-availabilty factors"=spousal objection to that great big screen in her/his living room.
> 
> 
> In my 6 years experience selling sets I've seen prices drop to the point that a 55 or even 60" set can easily be had for less than a 40-46" model 4 or 5 years ago. When you get above 60" the life partner often puts on the brakes for room aesthetics reasons.



Funny how the number keeps going up. A few yrs ago the life partners used to choke on 50"; 60" was thought decadent, way OTT, too big for the room, aesthetically challenged etc etc etc.

Today they can stomach 60". Soon enough it'll be 70 or even 75".


----------



## hazard0us

What is the latest news regarding availability of the LG and Samsung OLED TVs? It's now October 10th... I'm assuming they have missed the Thanksgiving & Christmas seasons by now! There seems to be nothing in the press and no reviews or hands-on tests.


----------



## Wilt

They'll be on show at CES 2013 with them saying launching second half of that year.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hazard0us*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22480883
> 
> 
> What is the latest news regarding availability of the LG and Samsung OLED TVs? It's now October 10th... I'm assuming they have missed the Thanksgiving & Christmas seasons by now! There seems to be nothing in the press and no reviews or hands-on tests.



It's pretty clear that no sort of general availability is happening this year. Whether _any_ availability is occurring at all is TBD. Let's hope that we don't have a re-launch at CES with yet another cycle of no availability date. In other words, it's time for the vapor to condense.


----------



## hazard0us

Dang it... those guys.... sheesh.


Well, the upside is that competition from Sony and Panasonic will be either real or much closer - so LG & Samsung might lower their TV prices by the time they're putting them out.


It also means I could be happy with a 65VT50 for a good while!


----------



## pds3

This thread was started over 6 years ago. It would appear that if they couldn't do it in 6 years (which is a really long time by technology standards), it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pds3*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22481322
> 
> 
> This thread was started over 6 years ago. It would appear that if they couldn't do it in 6 years (which is a really long time by technology standards), it ain't gonna happen.


I think it'll happen eventually. I think it will be another 6 years before they're common at inexpensive prices. Especially when current TV manufacturers are generally losing money. LED light bulbs are still expensive too, but will likely be as cheap as CFL within a decade or so.


Flat panel big-screen TV's were a staple of "coming soon" back in the 1980's, and it didn't take until the first decade of 2000's to become popular.


To tide us over, there are other technologies like plasma, but I always had sensitivity to temporal dither, as I can see the grain in dark colors even from 2 screen widths away. Modern DLP's are pretty good now to my eyes, but they don't eliminate motion blur as completely as CRT.


For now, CRT-perfect motion is achievable with modern LCD panels (90-95% motion blur reduction) using an improved scanning backlight, so this is a lower-lying apple that can be plucked sooner, as this type of technology is ripe for a big fall in prices. These days, I've been doing research on this technology, and am surprised how basic/simple the technology is -- it was just formerly cost-prohibitive due to the wattage in LED's required for long dark periods and short strobes -- I've just put up a good FAQ at http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/scanningbacklight


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22481420
> 
> 
> I think it'll happen eventually. I think it will be another 6 years before they're common at inexpensive prices. Especially when current TV manufacturers are generally losing money. LED light bulbs are still expensive too, but will likely be as cheap as CFL within a decade or so.



Of course, many of us actually have LED lightbulbs in our homes, unlike OLED TVs....


----------



## specuvestor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pds3*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4470#post_22481322
> 
> 
> This thread was started over 6 years ago. It would appear that if they couldn't do it in 6 years (which is a really long time by technology standards), it ain't gonna happen.



6 years is not a long time in tech. It feels long for a consumer point of view. LED in LED backlit LCD have been around for about 50 years. Concept of HDTV has been talked about for 20 years before plasma commercialised.


Last friday talk is that Samsung said OLED TV launch on schedule end of year while LG says 8G plan will be revealed in November. Nothing concrete so I don't want to raise hopes up by posting. Let's see what these guys say on their results briefing on 25/26 Oct.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22482032
> 
> 
> Of course, many of us actually have LED lightbulbs in our homes, unlike OLED TVs....


It took almost half a century before LED's were bright enough to be used as general-purpose illumination.


OLED display panels have been around shorter than that.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *specuvestor*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22482511
> 
> 
> 6 years is not a long time in tech. It feels long for a consumer point of view. LED in LED backlit LCD have been around for about 50 years. Concept of HDTV has been talked about for 20 years before plasma commercialised.



All that is true, which is why I believe we'll see them TVs. The fact you can go buy the phones with these displays is kind of what you need to know in that regard. The first active-matrix TFT laptops were monochrome units in the 1980s and early 1990s. Viable TFT full-color TVs followed in the later 1990s. That was well into the LCD era, already.


> Quote:
> Last friday talk is that Samsung said OLED TV launch on schedule end of year while LG says 8G plan will be revealed in November. Nothing concrete so I don't want to raise hopes up by posting. Let's see what these guys say on their results briefing on 25/26 Oct.



Look, I'd love to see Samsung release before year end. I just don't see anything resembling genuine availability as possible at this point. Checking around with a few retail sources I know, no one sees them coming here at least.


As for LG 8G, it seems like hearing that's going to ramp in 2013 would be very good news for greater production / lower pricing. In the short run, though, we're still waiting to even be able to see tiny quantities at astronomical prices reach retail.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22482032
> 
> 
> Of course, many of us actually have LED lightbulbs in our homes, unlike OLED TVs....


OT, you still think Switch has a chance to deliver this year (unlike OLED)?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22482818
> 
> 
> OT, you still think Switch has a chance to deliver this year (unlike OLED)?



Switch has no chance to deliver this year, no.


But my house now has Feit Electric 60-watt-equivalent bulbs in it, purchased at Costco for like $12.


Waiting for Switch to provide their "vaporware" -- in more ways than one -- at prices far in excess of what many once thought might happen is akin to waiting for OLED. I can buy Switch bulbs in the next batch; just like I can buy an OLED TV in 3-5 years -- when it's readily available and the pricing is in line with the universe.


----------



## bonzichrille

Problems with getting these out in 2012:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57535070-221/samsung-lg-to-delay-55-inch-oled-tvs-until-2013/


----------



## vinnie97

Who's surprised?


----------



## RandyWalters




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22506717
> 
> 
> Who's surprised?



Probably the 17% of the responders in the OLED in 2012 poll who though it would happen this year:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1431410/poll-will-there-be-an-oled-for-sale-in-the-u-s-in-2012 


Personally, i don't believe a word that those two Korean manufacturers say


----------



## vinnie97

Right, other than those with their heads in the clouds.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bonzichrille*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22506145
> 
> 
> Problems with getting these out in 2012:
> http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57535070-221/samsung-lg-to-delay-55-inch-oled-tvs-until-2013/



LG still says it's coming this year, although pretty much they said, "only in Korea, and not many units." Even that seems unlikely, but we'll see. I hate being right.


----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4480_40#post_22508785
> 
> 
> LG still says it's coming this year, although pretty much they said, "only in Korea, and not many units." Even that seems unlikely, but we'll see. I hate being right.


I have no doubt that LG could build up a few sets and sell them to be able to claim that they met their 2012 commitment.


----------



## Orbitron

LG comes out with a 2012 model and 5 minutes later we're at CES and now need to introduce something slightly different for 2013?????


----------



## mattg3

Does it really matter in the long run if it comes out Dec or February?Just release the damn thing to the public in a finished version that can be purchased,evaluated and enjoyed.


----------



## toxic1988

DisplaySearch says, they won´t be out until late 2013..... how serious is this information?? i think february 2013 would be great, but maybe i´m too optimistic??


CES 2013 will be very interesting. new promises for availability or maybe still no information about that.

New TV´s with new features and two OLED TV´s with features from 2012. i can´t believe that. it´s so crazy. big damage for the korean makers.....


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mattg3*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22513426
> 
> 
> Does it really matter in the long run if it comes out Dec or February?Just release the damn thing to the public in a finished version that can be purchased,evaluated and enjoyed.



I think the reason it's not out is because they simply can't build them at anything resembling a reasonable yield. Otherwise, it would be out already.


Presumably, they are continuing to tweak/improve the production line until such time as they can do that.


If they could build them today -- even unprofitably -- they'd be out because we all should understand that at the initial price (a) the market is small (b) profitability is not the concern, but rather actually limiting demand.


----------



## andy sullivan

The first brand to hit the market and be reviewed will be the champion of the world. As long as the review is through the roof that is. Price won't matter but at least a little availability will be required. Not a lot but enough for folks to go check it out. I'm betting that it will be widely considered the greatest thing since white bread and everybody will want one, as soon as they can afford one.


----------



## mattg3

Yes,the industry needs that kind of excitement again


----------



## Lee Stewart

*The OLED State of Affairs*

http://www.display-central.com/flat-panel/the-oled-state-of-affairs/


----------



## vinnie97

With all those seemingly insurmountable challenges, 2014 is looking to be closer to reality.


----------



## mikek753

by that 2014 OLED have to deliver 4k or 8k to compete with LCD

otherwise what would make consumers to upgrade from 60"+ LCD / Plasma to 55" OLED?

I think OLED has to skip 1080p (2k) and move right to 4k at least from 55" and up


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikek753*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22516593
> 
> 
> by that 2014 OLED have to deliver 4k or 8k to compete with LCD
> 
> otherwise what would make consumers to upgrade from 60"+ LCD / Plasma to 55" OLED?
> 
> I think OLED has to skip 1080p (2k) and move right to 4k at least from 55" and up



Not going to happen in that time frame. No one has shown a large 2160P OLED display. UHD will be nothing but a very small blip on the rader in 2014. Nor will UHD displays be affordable by 2014. Only very early adopters will buy OLED displays the first couple of years due to their high prices, which will probably be less than half the price of UHDTVs.


8K displays will not show up in the marketplace before 2017, if that.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22515329
> 
> 
> The first brand to hit the market and be reviewed will be the champion of the world. As long as the review is through the roof that is. Price won't matter but at least a little availability will be required. Not a lot but enough for folks to go check it out. I'm betting that it will be widely considered the greatest thing since white bread and everybody will want one, as soon as they can afford one.



I just don't see that happening. I see most people -- even if they get wind of the fact that some "great new TV is out" -- going to the store and saying, "Well it looks good. It's thin. But why the hell is it so expensive?" I just can't imagine what you think people are going to see that's going to make them so sure they need to have one. The OLED looks like a really good LCD TV. That's all it looks like.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mattg3*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22515638
> 
> 
> Yes,the industry needs that kind of excitement again



Then it better come up with something else.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22515690
> 
> 
> If Samsung or LG can still not obtain even a mediocre yield rate from their initial production runs; that just might mean that they got way ahead of themselves, when they both announced that they were going to churn out thousands of them per month before the end of this year. If they are getting such a low yield from their production runs, the chances are that even those panels that they deem to be acceptable, may also have hidden defects that might show up after the consumers have put them through their real world paces for a period of time.



Yes, good theories there. That said, some of us never believed they were going to churn out thousands per month before the end of the year. We thought that part was hubris, plan and simple. That said, I really like your theory on the "acceptable" parts being not quite there yet.


> Quote:
> Perhaps the two Korean Competitors got into an OLED version of the Space Race, and When LG put their first unmanned Sputnik in Orbit by announcing before the CES show that they were going to start shipping 55 inch panels this year, it forced Samsung to prematurely announce that they were going to keep up with LG, and beat them to the Moon. The early years of the manned space race to the moon were not pretty. Rockets kept blowing up on the launch pads. This could turn out to be a devastating public relations disaster for LG, since they kept on demonstrating the product in different countries for a good portion of the year; and always insisting that they were right on the production schedule for the most part. Since their 2012 PLasma and LCD models, even their top of the line units, have received fairly low ratings from reviewers and consumers, if they do not deliver on their OLED promises within the next few months; they will become known as the company that is much Vapor and little product.



I'm not sure who hyped this more. LG has been hyping OLED for several years and failing to deliver. Samsung somewhat unbelievably came out this year and basically said, "We are moving a process we've mastered for 4-5" screens to 55" screens even though there are serious reasons to believe that won't work." You, again, may be right on the analysis. The good news for LG remains that their fundamental design is still easier to build. What we're learning is that "easier" != "easy".


> Quote:
> If both companies can not start shipping product and capturing the initial market share fairly soon, they will be risking having China or Taiwan catching up with them, and perhaps surpassing them. Should that happen, then they will have a huge problem, since China especially would be able to beat them on the production cost side of the ledger.



Perhaps. I wonder where the challenge lies here. We have all of Japan Inc. claiming they can enter this market at will (Panasonic, Sony...) as if it requires no special skill. Then you have Korea showing how hard it is. China doesn't even have advanced LCD production. Can they skip that step? I don't know, but I'd guess LG and Samsung have a window to find out. And the Taiwanese players do too.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22516785
> 
> 
> I just don't see that happening. I see most people -- even if they get wind of the fact that some "great new TV is out" -- going to the store and saying, "Well it looks good. It's thin. But why the hell is it so expensive?" I just can't imagine what you think people are going to see that's going to make them so sure they need to have one. The OLED looks like a really good LCD TV. That's all it looks like.



I personally have not seen an OLED display but friends of mine who sell this equipment have and they have told me, hands down, OLED is the best looking display they have ever seen - and that includes the Pioneer Kuros which they used to sell. But Joe Public isn't going to buy a TV that is priced 4 to 6 times more than what he can get in a LCD TV in the same size. Just like Joe P. didn't buy 50" HDTV plasma displays when they first came out. They bought 50" and 60" RPTV HDTVs which were a fraction of the price.


> Quote:
> Then it better come up with something else.



The industry is betting on both UHDTV and OLED TVs to be the new "excitement products" for the next 5 years. And like all new television technologies that require a different manufacturing process, they come out at very high prices and slowly come down until they reach mass market pricing. The staple of the TV industry will still be LED LCD displays for quite some time.


----------



## rogo

Lee, it's the best-looking display I've ever seen. But the idea that Joe Public is going to go, "OMG WOW I NEED THIS" is ludicrous. It's just not that good. It quite frankly can't be. You can't re-kindle the industry on "somewhat better contrast, slightly improved color, a bit better off-axis viewing, even thinner form factor" etc. This is what OLED is going to offer and there is simply no way that's a "game changer". Flat panels _were_ a game changer. Everyone has one now.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22518453
> 
> 
> Lee, it's the best-looking display I've ever seen. But the idea that Joe Public is going to go, "OMG WOW I NEED THIS" is ludicrous. It's just not that good. It quite frankly can't be. You can't re-kindle the industry on "somewhat better contrast, slightly improved color, a bit better off-axis viewing, even thinner form factor" etc. This is what OLED is going to offer and there is simply no way that's a "game changer". Flat panels _were_ a game changer. Everyone has one now.



If they can not increase the yields and lower cost, OLED will never be a game changer. It will remain an expensive niche product. Crystal LED has a chance, but we have yet to see if Sony can actually deliver. IMHO, the only potential game changer on the horizon is an 80" 4K IGZO IPS Moth-Eye display with a sub $5000 price tag. Unlike the other technologies their are no major technological hurdles to overcome. Just economy of scales the will decrease cost as mass production ramps up.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22519978
> 
> 
> If they can not increase the yields and lower cost, OLED will never be a game changer. It will remain an expensive niche product. Crystal LED has a chance, but we have yet to see if Sony can actually deliver. IMHO, the only potential game changer on the horizon is an 80" 4K IGZO IPS Moth-Eye display with a sub $5000 price tag. Unlike the other technologies their are no major technological hurdles to overcome. Just economy of scales the will decrease cost as mass production ramps up.



What makes you think that Sony's Crystal LED has a chance? Do you know how difficult it is to manufacturer?


No 80" UHD display is gong to be a mass market product. It will be regulated to the videophile segment of the market which is very small.


----------



## homogenic

Can't they figure out how to make LCD more efficient and capable of zero black level? If LCD must remain the dominant flat panel display, there shouldn't be any hurdles into turning it something, something useful and beautiful. Making it something where Kuro owners stop reminiscing about the good old days.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22520139
> 
> 
> Can't they figure out how to make LCD more efficient and capable of zero black level? If LCD must remain the dominant flat panel display, there shouldn't be any hurdles into turning it something, something useful and beautiful. Making it something where Kuro owners stop reminiscing about the good old days.



You are talking about two very different TV technologies. LCD is based on an external light source that shines through the liquid crystals. To get a zero black level, you have to stop 100% of the light. That isn't feasible. PDP is based on the pixels themselve generating the light. When a pixel is told to generate no light it does just that. OLED works the same way that PDP does. It generates it's own light. No external light source like LED or CCFL needed.


----------



## Tazishere




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22520139
> 
> 
> Can't they figure out how to make LCD more efficient and capable of zero black level? If LCD must remain the dominant flat panel display, there shouldn't be any hurdles into turning it something, something useful and beautiful. Making it something where Kuro owners stop reminiscing about the good old days.



Sharp Elite LCD TV has already done this, at a high cost though.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tazishere*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22520600
> 
> 
> Sharp Elite LCD TV has already done this, at a high cost though.



Has it done it uniformly thoughout the images being shown? I am not talking about test patterns, I am talking about source images like from a BD or OTA.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22520617
> 
> 
> Has it done it uniformly thoughout the images being shown? I am not talking about test patterns, I am talking about source images like from a BD or OTA.



I am very satisfied with mine.


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22520598
> 
> 
> You are talking about two very different TV technologies. LCD is based on an external light source that shines through the liquid crystals. To get a zero black level, you have to stop 100% of the light. That isn't feasible. PDP is based on the pixels themselve generating the light. When a pixel is told to generate no light it does just that. OLED works the same way that PDP does. It generates it's own light. No external light source like LED or CCFL needed.



Excuse me this isn't directed at you, but, this sucks monkey balls. The tech companies should have come together for one unified replacement for CRT. I hate LCD for its picture quality and I hate Plasma for its inflexibility for non-HT size panels. I desperately want OLED or equivalent tech to succeed immediately.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22519978
> 
> 
> If they can not increase the yields and lower cost, OLED will never be a game changer. It will remain an expensive niche product.



I'm still optimistic they will increase yields and lower costs, but as I've said for years, it will take longer than the cheerleaders believe.


> Quote:
> Crystal LED has a chance, but we have yet to see if Sony can actually deliver.



I very much doubt that ever gets built.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22520014
> 
> 
> No 80" UHD display is gong to be a mass market product. It will be regulated to the videophile segment of the market which is very small.



Initially yes. Eventually, that should be a $2500 product and much more common.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22521656
> 
> 
> Initially yes. Eventually, that should be a $2500 product and much more common.



IMO, you are being overly optomistic.


----------



## mikek753




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22522414
> 
> 
> IMO, you are being overly optomistic.


why not? some day it will









2015, 2020, or even 2050

for sure it'll NOT happen in 2012 or 2013 for 55" and up


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikek753*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22522500
> 
> 
> why not? some day it will
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2015, 2020, or even 2050
> 
> for sure it'll NOT happen in 2012 or 2013 for 55" and up



Price falls rapidily on products that consumers buy in large quantity. 80" TVs are not a product that will enjoy that. Too limited a market for a TV of that size.


----------



## Tazishere

I'm not complaining about OLED's no show. That is why I bought a Pansonic plasma this year, to wait out the roll out of OLED. OLED technology still needs improvement in lifetime of the component colors anyway. If you look around, the only sizes you'll see are under 7 inches. That is a long way from 55 inches.


----------



## mikek753




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22522647
> 
> 
> Price falls rapidily on products that consumers buy in large quantity. 80" TVs are not a product that will enjoy that. Too limited a market for a TV of that size.


we don't have even 55" OLED and you about 80"









the last I were aware was Sony 11" only and nothing after that that you can buy at any price

I think we went into sci-fi section here from reality

but, sure I'd like 80" OLED for $2k no questions


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikek753*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22522898
> 
> 
> we don't have even 55" OLED and you about 80"



I am not talking about an 80" OLED. I am talking about an 80" LCD. We got those.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22522414
> 
> 
> IMO, you are being overly optomistic.



Why? The 70" is already a $2500 product. It wasn't terribly long ago that 65" LCDs were a $5000-or-screw-you product.


80" LCDs are really nothing but 4 40" panels sold as one. Do you believe it's impossible for a 40" LCD to sell for $500-600? I sure don't.


And as for resolution, those 40" panels already come in 1920 x 1080, so the "UHD" is already free once they start selling the panels as one.


I have no doubt 80" will eventually be a $2500 product, assuming the mfrs. believe there is market demand for it. If there is no increase in demand at the lower price, fine, it'll stay premium and sell few. But if -- as many here believe -- there is some room to sell 10% of the market at 70" and up, that's 20-25 million TVs annually. To achieve that, 70" TVs will likely be $1500-2000 and 80" will likely be $2500-3000 max.


----------



## mikek753




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22523237
> 
> 
> Why? The 70" is already a $2500 product. It wasn't terribly long ago that 65" LCDs were a $5000-or-screw-you product.
> 
> 80" LCDs are really nothing but 4 40" panels sold as one. Do you believe it's impossible for a 40" LCD to sell for $500-600? I sure don't.
> 
> And as for resolution, those 40" panels already come in 1920 x 1080, so the "UHD" is already free once they start selling the panels as one.
> 
> I have no doubt 80" will eventually be a $2500 product, assuming the mfrs. believe there is market demand for it. If there is no increase in demand at the lower price, fine, it'll stay premium and sell few. But if -- as many here believe -- there is some room to sell 10% of the market at 70" and up, that's 20-25 million TVs annually. To achieve that, 70" TVs will likely be $1500-2000 and 80" will likely be $2500-3000 max.



what's this thread about?

It has nothing to do with LCD tech that's sure mainstream.

Would we keep close to OLED tech? pls


----------



## vinnie97

Nothing's happening with OLED to which we are privy. As a result, the topic veers to other display tech. It's not that big a deal.


----------



## 8mile13

my prediction:

What we are seeing right now is the triumph of Edge Lit. Plasma will stop and OLEd will try to take over the Plasma/ Local Dimming market. OLEd can forget about the Edge Lit market. This means that OLEd will be expensive for a looong time to come










...and Edge Lit will dominate the 4K market to, already is dominating the 4K market











 

the kingg


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22524228
> 
> 
> my prediction:
> 
> What we are seeing right now is the triumph of Edge Lit. Plasma will stop and OLED will try to take over the Plasma/ Local Dimming market. OLED can forget about the Edge Lit market. This means that OLED will be expensive for a looong time to come
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and Edge Lit will dominate the 4K market to, already is dominating the 4K market
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the kingg



Edge list LED/LCD's are a cost saving measure that reduces the quality of the image displayed.

It is not something I would celebrate.


- Rich


----------



## vinnie97

That looks like garbage.


----------



## Tazishere




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22521454
> 
> 
> Excuse me this isn't directed at you, but, this sucks monkey balls. The tech companies should have come together for one unified replacement for CRT. I hate LCD for its picture quality and I hate Plasma for its inflexibility for non-HT size panels. I desperately want OLED or equivalent tech to succeed immediately.



I think the unified replacement for the CRT will be OLED, if they can iron out the low yield problem, and the uneven life span of the colors. When LCD's were small, there was also a very slow development to larger sizes. Eventually OLED will be the only technology available, which is a good thing. I'm optimistic.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tazishere*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22525904
> 
> 
> I think the unified replacement for the CRT will be OLED, if they can iron out the low yield problem, and the uneven life span of the colors. When LCD's were small, there was also a very slow development to larger sizes. Eventually OLED will be the only technology available, which is a good thing. I'm optimistic.



78% of all USA Households have an HDTV. Very few of them are CRT. So OLED would be the replacement for PDP and LCD


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tazishere*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22525904
> 
> 
> I think the unified replacement for the CRT will be OLED, if they can iron out the low yield problem, and the uneven life span of the colors. When LCD's were small, there was also a very slow development to larger sizes. Eventually OLED will be the only technology available, which is a good thing. I'm optimistic.



To paraphrase a quote from economics: "Eventually, we're all dead."


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22526135
> 
> 
> 78% of all USA Households have an HDTV. Very few of them are CRT. So OLED would be the replacement for PDP and LCD



Right, right and right.


Given replacement cycles and the fact of the existing LCDs and PDPs, _the vast majority will first be replaced with an LCD_, that OLED wave is going to be slow in coming. Consider that we are still looking at several years (3-5 say) before the average buyer could even possibly consider OLED due to price. Given TV replacement cycles are on the order of 7-8 years, that means that more than half the nation's TVs will be replaced with a non-OLED first. Of the other half, let's say half of those will be replaced with a non-OLED too (due to price, size not available, features, whatever -- OLED will be ~50% of the market in 2020, perhaps a bit more in the U.S., less globally).


As a practical matter, you are looking at


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22526428
> 
> 
> To paraphrase a quote from economics: "Eventually, we're all dead."
> 
> Right, right and right.
> 
> Given replacement cycles and the fact of the existing LCDs and PDPs, _the vast majority will first be replaced with an LCD_, that OLED wave is going to be slow in coming. Consider that we are still looking at several years (3-5 say) before the average buyer could even possibly consider OLED due to price. Given TV replacement cycles are on the order of 7-8 years, that means that more than half the nation's TVs will be replaced with a non-OLED first. Of the other half, let's say half of those will be replaced with a non-OLED too (due to price, size not available, features, whatever -- OLED will be ~50% of the market in 2020, perhaps a bit more in the U.S., less globally).
> 
> As a practical matter, you are looking at


----------



## Lee Stewart

*LG to start mass production of OLED TV panels in early 2014?*


> Quote:
> LG Display is still suffering from low yields (and low uniformity) in their OLED TV pilot line (M1) and they had to delay launching these TVs (originally planned for June 2012), but that didn't stop LG's chairman from deciding to devote the company's main R&D resources towards OLED TVs development. Now we hear that LG Display actually decided to start building a mass production line (called M2) - which will become fully operational in Q1 2014 with a capacity of 32,000 substrates monthly - or about 180,000 55" OLED TV panels in a month (assuming 100% yield, so obviously the real number will be lower).
> 
> 
> LGD is expected to start placing equipment orders during the next quarter - and in fact the company already sent letters of intent (LOI) to some companies. The company will officially announce this investment plan "any day now". The M2 line will be able to process the evaporation and encapsulation on a full substrate (in the M1 pilot line the substrate is cut in half before those steps).


 http://www.oled-info.com/lg-start-mass-production-oled-tv-panels-early-2014


----------



## gmarceau

So this means the fun begins in 2014? Or that these start retailing at much less than what they'll originally sell for?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> OLEDs use organometalic compounds to emit light. They typically have a central metal atom surrounded by organic ligands. The decay issues are the same as with typical organic fluorophores. In the excited state these molecules are very reactive to H2O and O2, as well as other small molecules that may be around. Once they react they become a different molecule and they will no longer fluoresce or phosphoresce and give off light. The more blue the light emission, the higher the energy of the excited state, and the more reactive the excited molecule will be. So your blue organic phosphores will have a much shorter lifetime than will red phosphores. *The burn-in problem seen in OLED displays, that can be seen after just several weeks of operation with static content, is a manifestation of early blue degradation compared to green and red*.


 http://www.display-central.com/flat-panel/is-quantum-dot-lifetime-good-enough-for-tv/ 

?


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22526800
> 
> 
> So this means the fun begins in 2014? Or that these start retailing at much less than what they'll originally sell for?


Less? No way! I would expect them to be more costly given how long and drawn out this road to better yields has been.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22526517
> 
> *LG to start mass production of OLED TV panels in early 2014?*
> http://www.oled-info.com/lg-start-mass-production-oled-tv-panels-early-2014



Hmm, so if we assume that whatever the M1 production is actually stays online _and_ they add the M2 production early in 2014 but not *before* 2014, we can extrapolate a few things. The M2 line should allow for 2.15 million TVs @ 100% yield on a full year. It won't have a full year and it will probably yield something in the "half plus" range by then. So LG might be targeting sales of very approximately 1.5 million units come 2014. That would represent slightly more than 0.5% of the TV market and probably as much as 5x the 2013 production, which is probably not more than 300,000 or so, given the limited capacity of the M1 line and the likelihood of much lower yields.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> "The total shipments for OLED TVs this year will be 500, down from the 50,000 we had earlier expected," said the DisplaySearch official, citing the very low production yield as the main reason.
> 
> 
> "Mass-produced OLED TVs will be available from late next year, not this year," the official added.


 http://www.x-drivers.com/news/hardware/7287.html


----------



## rogo

Not English much, x-drivers.


DisplaySearch sounds like they are thinking 2013 is going to be only what 2012 was originally supposed to... In other words, pretty minor production overall.


Anyone ready to take bets on whether there's a $5000 set in 2014?


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4530#post_22528364
> 
> 
> Not English much, x-drivers.
> 
> DisplaySearch sounds like they are thinking 2013 is going to be only what 2012 was originally supposed to... In other words, pretty minor production overall.
> 
> Anyone ready to take bets on whether there's a $5000 set in 2014?


Maybe for a 40".


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, LG Display gave some commentary on their OLED TV plans. The 55" OLED will be released on a "promotional" basis this year with real volumes as well as the decision on the commercial Gen 8 fab coming next year. A Korean newspaper indicates that they are aiming for the 1st half of next year but they didnt narrow down the timeframe during the english version of their conference call.


Samsung said nothing which really speaks volumes.


At best, I would push back any expectations for reasonably priced OLED TV's to Christmas 2014. The key decision to watch is still when LG/Samsung start putting money into a new fab. That will tell us when they are actually confident in their technical progress.


----------



## rogo

Thanks for the update Slacker. For the purposes of scoring the "pissing contest", we can certainly monitor next year's production of both companies to decide whether the products truly became available in 2013. But that said, it really sounds like 2014 is shaping up to be "most probably the year of the OLED assuming the companies invest in fabs".


While the following is not in any way directed at you, this kind of shell game is what's been going on for a decade. Yes, yes, everything is much more tangible now. But given that 2012 was "release year" and the there are all sorts of press mentions of "Olympics" "50,000 units per month" "comparable pricing to LCDs"etc. etc., it's hard for me to not think, _this is precisely where my pessimistic forecasts of a year or two ago came from_. Essentially, we exit 2012 as we entered it: without any product. We now go into 2013 facing the real prospect of very, very tight availability throughout the year, which will be fine because it's almost certainly going to be accompanied by astronomical pricing.


Do you have any sense of what you might think that "reasonable" 2014 set will run? Are we talking $5,000?


I ask only because it appears the very top end of the 55" LCD market currently sits around $3000 in the U.S. (perhaps a small bit more at full-priced retail; which is a bit like saying, "but if you're a T.Rex, you might also want meteor insurance...."). It's possible, I suppose, that the market will remain that high for 2 years, but somewhat likely it will come down to at most about $2500 over 2 years -- if not lower. A $5,000 TV would, therefore, still be 2x as expensive as the _most expensive_ product in the category and approximately 7-8x as expensive as the least.


By way of comparison, the Sharp Elites are currently _less expensive_ than that and comprise something significantly under 1% of the total sales volume. Of course, part of that is due to distribution, although a $5,000 OLED would have the same issues. Most of it is due to the fact that _people will not pay that premium for a TV_. I'm not sure where pricing needs to be on a relative basis, but it seems to me that at $5,000 volumes are seriously capped.


Furthermore, by 2014, it seems _more than likely_ that 4K LCDs will be generally available in large sizes and if the OLEDs are being sold at 2K, that looks to be a very powerful sales disadvantage. Yes, yes, I know the proponents are thinking, "No way, people will see the OLED is better." And my response is, "Or they will see the LCD has more resolution. Or, more likely, they will see both of them as really good and wonder what the premium is about."


The OLED TV era is once again stumbling to get its footing.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> the primary market for Ultra HD TVs _and_ OLEd TVs will be in the *50''+* size


 http://www.cepro.com/article/the_looming_ultra_hd_4k_oled_war/ 



nice find Lee


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Do you have any sense of what you might think that "reasonable" 2014 set will run? Are we talking $5,000?



Now it is always possible that I am underestimating the stupidity of their C level execs, but I dont believe that LG or Samsung will invest the billions necessary for a Gen 8 OLED fab unless they have a clear path to yields sufficient to bring down pricing drastically. The numbers that you mention about the size of the high-end market are pretty clear to everybody. There is simply no market for televisions priced at more than $5000.


and everything I have read indicates that this really is about yields. The material costs of WRGB OLED's using IGZO are at least in the ballpark of LCD's. The problem is both yields and having a fab large enough over which to spread the capex and R&D costs. I am sure that the first televisions from these fabs will still be priced at a premium but prices should fall rapidly as volumes rise. The investment isnt going to work unless they think they can get sub-$2500 OLED televisions when they hit target yields in the fab.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4560#post_22534133
> 
> 
> Now it is always possible that I am underestimating the stupidity of their C level execs, but I dont believe that LG or Samsung will invest the billions necessary for a Gen 8 OLED fab unless they have a clear path to yields sufficient to bring down pricing drastically. The numbers that you mention about the size of the high-end market are pretty clear to everybody. There is simply no market for televisions priced at more than $5000.
> 
> and everything I have read indicates that this really is about yields. The material costs of WRGB OLED's using IGZO are at least in the ballpark of LCD's. The problem is both yields and having a fab large enough over which to spread the capex and R&D costs. I am sure that the first televisions from these fabs will still be priced at a premium but prices should fall rapidly as volumes rise. The investment isnt going to work unless they think they can get sub-$2500 OLED televisions when they hit target yields in the fab.



OK, so perhaps it's reasonable to look at it this way:


The introductory pricing is going to be astronomical still, let's say $8000 (perhaps a bit less?).


To reach any kind of volume, the price needs to be at parity with high-end LCD product, perhaps with a small-ish premium because it's the "new new thing". Although, even as I write this, I note: (1) A small-ish premium will alone cut sales more than in half and (2) The high end is already such a small segment of the market. So maybe that small-ish premium to the high end is "while yields are almost there, but not quite there".


What I suppose gets interesting is once there is parity at the top end vs. LCD, what happens to the corresponding LCDs? The desire to move upwards of 2 million OLEDs, then 5 million in that segment starts to crowd out the performance LCD segment, which can have its production shifted elsewhere.


Rather than speculate on when the 55" OLED _also_ reaches $2500 (or whatever the current going price is for the very top end 55" LCD, i.e. when it reaches price parity), let's just say that's a pretty significant tipping point. If it happens in 2 years, so be it. That still feels fairly unlikely to me, but we'll see.


----------



## Rich Peterson

 Here's an article from displaysearch. It predicts OLED sales surpassing 4K x 2K starting in 2014.


> Quote:
> NPD DisplaySearch has reduced the near term forecast for OLED TV shipments to just 500 in 2012 and 50K in 2013, but expects that large scale mass production will enable the market to grow to around 9M by 2016. Shipments of 4K × 2K LCD TVs are expected to grow from just over 4K in 2012 to 154K in 2013, and around 5M by 2016, mostly in 50” and larger sizes.


----------



## rogo

Observations:


1) DisplaySearch tends to know from experience that "more than a doubling" in a given year is nearly impossible. If you look at the OLED forecast and extrapolate it outward, it would have to literally double every year to reach half the TV market by 2020. It seems more likely it will be somewhat slower than that, but _assuming plans stay on track_, one could imagine 100+ million OLED TVs sold in 2020. If anything like this happens, the same forces that drove LCD prices down will be firmly in place through that period and retail pricing should be able to fall 30% per year until it approximates today's TV pricing, I see no particular reason why it will be lower, given that today's pricing is largely profitless and they'll be fewer primary panel suppliers whoring out OLEDs, driving prices down.


2) They effectively see 4k x 2k lagging OLED by about a year. OLED will have to have "response products" or else its growth will definitely slow.


3) The idea that TV unit sales are coming back ever is something they allude to, but it's pretty clearly wishful thinking and their own very short report says why: People are not watching TV on small-ish screens. They are either watching TV on bigger screens or really small screens. Fast forward 5 years when that 40" LCD is kinda looking long in the tooth. Either there is room for a bigger TV and you buy one or you just shift your watching to you tablet, which has all these nifty viewing features the TV lacks. Yes, today, tablet viewing is flawed: channels missing, slow response, can't access your DVR without an external device, etc. But that all seems likely to change (and, please, give us "cloud DVR" for our $100/month cable subscription and, really, a lot of us will just keep paying for the convenience).


4) DisplaySearch sees technological diversity dying off entirely very, very soon. PDP, RPTV, CRT, CCFL LCD TV all dead within 4 years. If the OLED growth continues on a logarithmic curve along the lines of what they expect, it will eventually reach half the market and then probably spend the entire 2020s not really killing off LED LCD entirely. Interesting.


----------



## Artwood

How long will it be before you can buy a 65-inch OLED for $3,500?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4560#post_22538757
> 
> 
> How long will it be before you can buy a 65-inch OLED for $3,500?



IMO . . . . 5 to 7 years


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4560#post_22538908
> 
> 
> IMO . . . . 5 to 7 years



You may in fact be correct. I'm going to go with 4-5 years.


----------



## Lee Stewart

*DisplaySearch: only 50,000 OLED TVs will be sold in 2013, 9 million in 2016*


> Quote:
> DisplaySearch released their 2012-2016 global TV market forecasts. They have reduced OLED TV shipments to just 500 units in 2012 and 50,000 in 2013. Meanwhile, 4K2K LCD TVs are expected to grow from 4,000 units in 2012 to 154,000 in 2013. However, DisplaySearch predicts that OLED TV growth will pickup soon afterwards to reach 9 million units in 2016:












http://www.oled-info.com/displaysearch-only-50000-oled-tvs-will-be-sold-2013-9-million-2016


----------



## RobertR1

So I need to hold out until 2014 for something good...?


----------



## 8mile13

According to DisplayMate till 2017 there will only be 50''+ OLEd's. Does that means that after 2017 we will see smaller sized OLEd's or will they leave the smaller sizes to LCd tech?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4560#post_22541947
> 
> 
> According to DisplayMate till 2017 there will only be 50''+ OLEd's. Does that means that after 2017 we will see smaller sized OLEd's or will they leave the smaller sizes to LCd tech?



I doubt it very much, except as computer monitors.


----------



## Lee Stewart

*LTPS AMOLED is Coming on Gen 8*

http://www.display-central.com/flat-panel/ltps-amoled-is-coming-on-gen-8/


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4560#post_22538757
> 
> 
> How long will it be before you can buy a 65-inch OLED for $3,500?



LONG before SED!


----------



## navychop

My take, from reading the above, is late 2015 before almost reasonably priced OLEDs appear, and 2017 before they are a force in the marketplace. Nevermind the wishes and hopes and fantasies.


----------



## mattg3

I think the whole industry shot themselves in the foot by pushing OLED information on the marketplace way before anyone could ever hope to buy,let alone afford one.Once people read and saw the OLED prototypes they put off any interest in other screens.Now we are in a very cloudy limbo and if we need a new set soon its not going to be an OLED which is a big compromise after being exposed to and wanting an OLED


----------



## andy sullivan

I agree. The public should just now be hearing about OLED. Today's market is dramatically different than when LCD first hit the market many years ago. Now days they should bring a new technology into play only when they can offer a realistic price from the get go.


----------



## mtbdudex

Hurry up and get OLED to market!

My 2005 Sony 42" 720p HDTV slimline is waiting to be replaced....


Seriously, when time comes I will buy the best I can for $2k max in 47-50" size. Was hoping it could be OLED.



Sent from my 32GB iPhone4 using Tapatalk


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mattg3*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4560#post_22561731
> 
> 
> I think the whole industry shot themselves in the foot by pushing OLED information on the marketplace way before anyone could ever hope to buy,let alone afford one.Once people read and saw the OLED prototypes they put off any interest in other screens.Now we are in a very cloudy limbo and if we need a new set soon its not going to be an OLED which is a big compromise after being exposed to and wanting an OLED



Oddly, for me it was the presence of the prototypes that clarified by purchase of a non-OLED after a year-plus of dithering.


I knew (a) things would take longer than people hoped (b) the size would be inadequate (c) the performance would only be "special" not breathtaking (d) the pricing would be insane.


----------



## Steve S

^^^The view from the bottom (retail hell):


The vast majority of people actually walking into showrooms have still never heard of OLED. The percentage of folks put into a "wait and see" mode to the point that they're postponing purchases is miniscule and consists solely of those in what I'd call the "enthusiast community". Catering to that community is not profitable to manufacturers and retailers beyond the Halo effect that premium products have on lower end models--non-enthusiasts walk in and look at the VT-50 but drive home with an ST-50 in the pickup bed. They aren't going to buy a 7 or 8k tv at all, let alone a 55" one, not going to see pq improvement worth 3-4 times the price of a high end led/lcd.


Ridiculous as this may sound I think more money would be made if somebody built a big screen flat panel with a touch screen--Half the people walking in and looking at the display Samsung UN55ES8000 start poking at the onscreen icons thinking it's a touchscreen


----------



## rogo

It should go without saying, but before worrying about a "range" of TVs, they should maybe ship just one.


----------



## 8mile13

What about this (from the same link)


> Quote:
> We can also reveal that Samsung Electronics Australia is currently working closely with the Hoyts cinema group and Foxtel to deliver a new level of movie streaming to a new range of OLEd TV's that will be launched in Australia in april 2013.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4560#post_22566517
> 
> 
> What about this (from the same link)



Oh lord, this is the Aussie publication again? They are about the worst source going... Below Digitimes bad.


I'll wait till CES for better rumors to be honest. Hopefully someone will put a line in the sand and say, "This is our price. This is our ship date."


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4500#post_22484766
> 
> 
> Switch has no chance to deliver this year, no.
> 
> But my house now has Feit Electric 60-watt-equivalent bulbs in it, purchased at Costco for like $12.
> 
> Waiting for Switch to provide their "vaporware" -- in more ways than one -- at prices far in excess of what many once thought might happen is akin to waiting for OLED. I can buy Switch bulbs in the next batch; just like I can buy an OLED TV in 3-5 years -- when it's readily available and the pricing is in line with the universe.


Against all odds, we were wrong.







If only the same was true for OLED! The bulb that I think is in most direct competition is the Philps L-Prize (not rated for fully enclosed fixtures), the best price of which is only $5 less (on Amazon) than the similarly lumen-rated Switch bulb.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4560#post_22581309
> 
> 
> Against all odds, we were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only the same was true for OLED! The bulb that I think is in most direct competition is the Philps L-Prize (not rated for fully enclosed fixtures), the best price of which is only $5 less (on Amazon) than the similarly lumen-rated Switch bulb.



We are so far off-topic, but the frosted Switch bulb doesn't seem available for purchase yet and is $50, the unfrosted -- not suitable for most residential uses unless you like geometric patterns on your walls -- is $45. The 800-lumen Philips that isn't the L-prize bulb uses only 12.5w (instead of 10w) and is $21.50 or so. It's entirely competitive with Switch for open fixtures, has sold millions worldwide, and is less than half the price. It's ugly if you have to look at it, but most of my open fixtures wouldn't require that.


Even vs. the $35 Philips, the Switch is pricey -- and less proven. Right now, spending $10-12 on Costco bulbs just feels safer.


----------



## vinnie97

Yea, sorry, I just couldn't believe my eyes. I read from one of the retail distributors that the frosted is on the way, which I am more willing to believe than I was a month ago. I'm awaiting the 40-watt equivalent (the 60-watt equivalent has been measured to use 10w, like the L-Prize, so if the 40-watter similarly has an actual measurement of 6w, I'll be thrilled) because I have some open fixtures using other LEDs at the moment that look a bit unsightly. I'm also a big fan of the Philips bulbs. Back to your regularly scheduled OLED programming.


----------



## Chronoptimist

I have a number of LED bulbs, including some of the latest Philips ones. They’re all terrible.

They age far quicker than they ought to, and no one offers high wattage equivalents that are any good yet.

I’ve even had three bulbs die on me so far, rather than just dimming and losing efficiency - two of which were Philips bulbs that failed within the first 6 months!


Lighting quality is poor across the board. They are all low CRI devices, and the "better" bulbs just focus on making the apparent _color_ of their light match a good incandescent, but not the lighting quality.

I think this is primarily because most bulbs are now blue LEDs with yellow phosphors, or a phosphor mix to convert it to which, which still leaves a big blue spike in their spectrum.


CFL bulbs offer high wattage equivalents, though they are not as efficient as you might hope - a high quality 160W equivalent still draws about 45W today.

And while CFL bulbs now offer 95+ CRI, that is with "daylight" bulbs that are 5000K or higher, rather than warmer bulbs. (Incandescents are around 2700K)


Most bulbs don’t do a great job dimming either - CFl or LED - because they use PWM dimming, which is efficient for both energy consumption and heat output, but causes the bulbs to have a lower duty cycle and flicker more. (This is particularly problematic with LEDs which have faster switching rates and less persistent phosphors.


As much as I want to be efficient, for anywhere that lighting color/quality matters, I am stuck using halogen lamps now, which are only slightly more efficient than Incandescent bulbs, put out a lot of heat, and a lot of them have a tendency to buzz when dimmed.


----------



## vinnie97

I was hoping we didn't have to go there, but Pandora's box is already open, and OLED information is not exactly pouring forth.







I am not so picky, nor have I used the bulbs for any significant lengths of time to have any fail.







Bluish hue doesn't necessarily bother me either. In terms of Philips failures, they at least offer an extended 6-year warranty, which certainly provides some peace of mind. Were your Philips that failed used in any enclosed luminaires? As I'm sure you know, heat's the quickest way to a premature death of these bulbs (aside from power spikes). I have had some bulbs from other brands develop defects (Miracle LED), but their low power usage (4.5 to 5.5 watts) is enough to enable me to overlook it.


----------



## RichB

OK, I'll help keep this thread off topic.


I had 5 inch recessed lights which I replaced with these from CREE:

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202899615/h_d2/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&keyword=cree+light&storeId=10051#specifications 


They are subsidised in MA. We took them apart and there are 3 active blue/yellow phosphor LED's and 2 red LEDs.


As you dim them, one blue is turned off and the reds are intensified.

This produces better dimming. They are a bit different and there is color shift as you dim, but I have grown to love them.

The 4 inch fixtures appear to be a newer design and dim better than the 6 inch.


One thing I have noticed about LED's is the produce a more directional light with defined shadows than a traditional frosted buld.

More light is bounced off your room. So if you have a blue room you get blue light. My girls room has pink bedspreads so the room it pink.

There is room color gain regardless of the color tempurature of the light.


For bulbs, these work best in my closed globe fixtures:

http://1000bulbs.com/product/63392/LED-A19135H27.html?utm_source=SmartFeedGoogleBase&utm_medium=Shopping&utm_term=LED-A19135H27&utm_content=LED+Light+Bulbs+-+60+Watt+Equal+-+2700K&utm_campaign=SmartFeedGoogleBaseShopping&gclid=CMnNvqPXzrMCFdKd4AodcQ4AUA 


The Definity bulb at 2700K have good color and are truely multi-directional.


- Rich


----------



## pkeegan

I have some Cree led bulbs with a CRI of 90. I have had them a couple of years now. Great light output but they interfere with VHF reception. Light goes on, TV channel goes away. Light goes off, TV channel comes back.


----------



## wco81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4560#post_22587202
> 
> 
> OK, I'll help keep this thread off topic.
> 
> I had 5 inch recessed lights which I replaced with these from CREE:
> http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202899615/h_d2/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&keyword=cree+light&storeId=10051#specifications
> 
> They are subsidised in MA. We took them apart and there are 3 active blue/yellow phosphor LED's and 2 red LEDs.
> 
> As you dim them, one blue is turned off and the reds are intensified.
> 
> This produces better dimming. They are a bit different and there is color shift as you dim, but I have grown to love them.
> 
> The 4 inch fixtures appear to be a newer design and dim better than the 6 inch.
> 
> One thing I have noticed about LED's is the produce a more directional light with defined shadows than a traditional frosted buld.
> 
> More light is bounced off your room. So if you have a blue room you get blue light. My girls room has pink bedspreads so the room it pink.
> 
> There is room color gain regardless of the color tempurature of the light.
> 
> For bulbs, these work best in my closed globe fixtures:
> http://1000bulbs.com/product/63392/LED-A19135H27.html?utm_source=SmartFeedGoogleBase&utm_medium=Shopping&utm_term=LED-A19135H27&utm_content=LED+Light+Bulbs+-+60+Watt+Equal+-+2700K&utm_campaign=SmartFeedGoogleBaseShopping&gclid=CMnNvqPXzrMCFdKd4AodcQ4AUA
> 
> The Definity bulb at 2700K have good color and are truely multi-directional.
> 
> - Rich



The reviews on the homedepot site says that when they're dimmed, they turn green.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22591707
> 
> 
> The reviews on the homedepot site says that when they're dimmed, they turn green.


The Philips L-prize bulbs are amazing - they shine light above and below. They look far better than CFL's, better color, too. Shame they are so expensive ($40+). You get what you pay for. The L-Prize bulb got a strange heatsink and remote phosphor, but it's got an amazing incandescent-looking light, both above and below. These particular bulbs don't have a noticeable "color-amplification" effect, at least to my eyes.


I have found that the LED bulbs that aren't directional, while still being bright, are generally more expensive.


Tomorrow's high end LED bulbs (5+ years from now) will likely be color-temperature tunable, and they'll automatically lower color temperature in a high-quality manner when you dim. Getting that romantic reddening effect during dimming. Eventually you won't tell the difference from incandescent, except for the lack of infrared radiation. Just watch the industry. Some are already attempting this, execution will improve.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pkeegan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22591476
> 
> 
> I have some Cree led bulbs with a CRI of 90. I have had them a couple of years now. Great light output but they interfere with VHF reception. Light goes on, TV channel goes away. Light goes off, TV channel comes back.


My Philips bulbs doesn't have this effect. It's the fault of the LED driver and not adequately testing the LED driver for RFI effects. The Cree LED's (manufacturer of the LED chips themselves) are very nice, but a great LED driver also makes or breaks things too! Did you report this issue to Cree? They might give you a free replacement 'fixed' bulb for the courtesy of reporting this! (A video helps, too)


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22591707
> 
> 
> The reviews on the homedepot site says that when they're dimmed, they turn green.


Since they blend the color they have color shift that is not as linear as an incandescent light.


I really like them and step smarthome dimmers to select the levels I like.

Most go quite redat the lowest levels. A single color LED cannot match.

Home Depot takes returns, if you have recessed lights it is. Worth a try.


- Rich


----------



## pkeegan

I did contact Cree but their engineer never returned my calls.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22592764
> 
> 
> The Philips L-prize bulbs are amazing - they shine light above and below. They look far better than CFL's, better color, too. Shame they are so expensive ($40+).



They are noticeably better than the "non-L-Prize" bulbs in your mind?


----------



## vinnie97

What have I done?







The L-Prize are brighter than the regular Philips 60-watt equivalent, and they do it with less power. Didn't do a side-by-side comparison of the color or light dispersion differences.


----------



## mattg3

Sound And Vision Magazine stated this month that Oled may not ship till late 2013.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mattg3*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22598321
> 
> 
> Sound And Vision Magazine stated this month that Oled may not ship till late 2013.



This would not be shocking, but if we are discussing a print magazine, they developed this belief months ago, so it's speculative and old. If you mean the website, it's still speculative, but again wouldn't be shocking.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22595436
> 
> 
> They are noticeably better than the "non-L-Prize" bulbs in your mind?


Yes. CRI 93 -- light is noticeably better than the non-L-prize Philips Endura bulbs (which were already pretty good at CRI 85). It's one of the few LED bulbs whose light looks perfectly incandescent to my eyes -- at normal brightness, when illuminated inside a lampshade, glass ball enclosure (or anything that hides the strange looking bulb), I really can't tell the difference between it and an incandescent.


It only really becomes apparent it's an LED only if I dim it significantly, less than 50% brightness. That's to be expected -- no LED's I've seen has yet simulated the reddening effect perfectly (for now). Also, they are durable -- they're less likely to fry themselves in an enclosed fixture than most LED's, many people have put these in enclosed fixtures without problem and without burnouts (Even though the instructions still says it's not recommended; go ahead if it's the L-prize bulb). The warranty on them is also a little more generous than normal too. Phiips did the "oven test" during the L-prize evaluations (in this test; all CFL's burnt out, while all L-prize bulbs kept shining); they survive higher operating temperatures than the average LED bulb; they switched from ribbed heatsink-base (of the 2010 model) to the smooth-white-painted-metal heatsink base (of the 2012 model) since less heat dissipation is needed for this model. More R&D than normal went to the L-prize bulb than most brands of LED bulbs, and it _really_ shows in its quality (And unfortunately, the price, too.)


(One note: Make sure your dimmer is compatible with the bulb, get one bulb to test with.)


----------



## vinnie97

^Yea, that's kind of the thing that stops me from using them in enclosed fixtures, Philips' own warning. I figure they must have printed it on both the packaging and the bulbs themselves for good reason, lol. Guess I'll be waiting for Switch still.







Philips 6-year warranty, though, is nearly enough to offset any fears of using inside an enclosed fixture (though would the warranty be honored if they determined you were using the bulb outside recommended operational parameters?). Too many questions, lighting isn't what it used to be (but heck if it isn't much more exciting).


----------



## navychop

I'll mark my calendar for 2017. But by then we should have OLED lighting.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Here's an interesting marketing concept for OLED by LG for those who might be interested in checking it out. Some rather clever browswer animation.

http://www.lgoled.tv/index.html 


It says the sets are "coming soon".


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22604527
> 
> 
> Here's an interesting marketing concept for OLED by LG for those who might be interested in checking it out. Some rather clever browswer animation.
> http://www.lgoled.tv/index.html
> 
> It says the sets are "coming soon".



I guess that's cool. I doubt it's going to help them sell really expensive TVs to be honest.


----------



## chucky2

Just as a casual enthusiast, I'd be happy with OLED finally making the scene in late 2013 if it meant that LG/Samsung/Whoever decided not to bring OLED sets to market unless they were "UltraHD". This to me makes the most sense, as with the 4K/"UltraHD" rollout looming, buying an uber expensive OLED set that's 1080p would be sort of a huge let down once "UltraHD" material became available.


Plea to LG/Samsung/Whoever: If you're going to release a usable size OLED panel (24" or greater), make sure it's UltraHD.


Chuck


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chucky2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22607991
> 
> 
> Just as a casual enthusiast, I'd be happy with OLED finally making the scene in late 2013 if it meant that LG/Samsung/Whoever decided not to bring OLED sets to market unless they were "UltraHD". This to me makes the most sense, as with the 4K/"UltraHD" rollout looming, buying an uber expensive OLED set that's 1080p would be sort of a huge let down once "UltraHD" material became available.
> 
> Plea to LG/Samsung/Whoever: If you're going to release a usable size OLED panel (24" or greater), make sure it's UltraHD.
> 
> Chuck



i think this was discussed earlier in this thread, and i believe most thought that at least the gen 1 oled sets will be 1080p


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22608276
> 
> 
> i think this was discussed earlier in this thread, and i believe most thought that at least the gen 1 oled sets will be 1080p



It's in fact impossible to change that right now.


And it's hugely ironic, I think, given there are 5" OLEDs that are 1920 x 1080. So when someone tells you, "it would be too hard to do a 55" that is 4K", please feel free to mock them for being stupid. It would have been easy if they had just started that way several years ago as they built toward this moment. But they were shortsighted.


Now, OLED will ship and will instantly be "backwards" technology. Low resolution and small, while simultaneously being hugely expensive.


The hot products at CES are going to be the gigantic 4K TVs, even though they will be entirely unaffordable at $20-25K.


Even the 75" Samsung is likely to excited more people than the 55" OLED that people saw last year, were promised for last year, and will be promised again for sometime this year at some astronomical price.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22608330
> 
> 
> The hot products at CES are going to be the gigantic 4K TVs, even though they will be entirely unaffordable at $20-25K.
> 
> Even the 75" Samsung is likely to excited more people than the 55" OLED that people saw last year, were promised for last year, and will be promised again for sometime this year at some astronomical price.



Hisense is suppose to have a 65" 4K in the US for $3500 early next year. I know that is not as big as some 4K models, but very reasonable for new tech. The great thing is prices on 4K sets are going to fall fairly quick, especially as compared to OLED. Just read some where that Foxconn wants to get into the 4K business and make large 4K sets from 80" to an amazing 130".


----------



## toxic1988




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22608330
> 
> 
> Now, OLED will ship and will instantly be "backwards" technology. Low resolution and small, while simultaneously being hugely expensive.



I would always prefer an OLED TV with FullHD!


in fact, there is still no 4K content available. 4K is nice for people who want to touch her nose on the screen







so....4k for what?



Full HD OLED is definitely no "backwards" technology for the next 3-4 years.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toxic1988*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611097
> 
> 
> I would always prefer an OLED TV with FullHD!
> 
> in fact, there is still no 4K content available. 4K is nice for people who want to touch her nose on the screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so....4k for what?
> 
> Full HD OLED is definitely no "backwards" technology for the next 3-4 years.



Hold off judgement until you actually see one with studio quality 4K materiel. Many here might pick the OLED, but Joe Consumer would not. I would wager that if you put even a lowly $3500 Hisense 65" 4K TV up against a $10,000 LG 55" OLED, eight out of ten would pick the 4K. It will be interesting to see if the 84" Sony 4K and 55" LG OLED make the next big video shootout at VE, and which one comes out on top.


----------



## chadsdsmith




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611302
> 
> 
> Hold off judgement until you actually see one with studio quality 4K materiel. Many here might pick the OLED, but Joe Consumer would not. I would wager that if you put even a lowly $3500 Hisense 65" 4K TV up against a $10,000 LG 55" OLED, eight out of ten would pick the 4K. It will be interesting to see if the 84" Sony 4K and 55" LG OLED make the next big video shootout at VE, and which one comes out on top.



I actually agree. Two things that people don't realize when they are at the store looking at tvs is the store lighting is terrible and likely won't show the benefits of the oled nearly as much as in the normal home enviroment (part of the reason why people don't look very hard at plasmas) and that people usually stand closer to the tvs in the store than they ever will be at home. Therefore, the 4k set is going to shine. Then again, it will depend on which source material they are playing on it. I would imagine the store would be smart enough to play some kind of 4k demo material, but then again........


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toxic1988*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611097
> 
> 
> 
> Full HD OLED is definitely no "backwards" technology for the next 3-4 years.



It sure as hell isn't "forwards" technology.


Same pixel count as we've had for more than 10 years, marginally improved contrast... WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


----------



## toxic1988




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611302
> 
> 
> Hold off judgement until you actually see one with studio quality 4K materiel. Many here might pick the OLED, but Joe Consumer would not. I would wager that if you put even a lowly $3500 Hisense 65" 4K TV up against a $10,000 LG 55" OLED, eight out of ten would pick the 4K. It will be interesting to see if the 84" Sony 4K and 55" LG OLED make the next big video shootout at VE, and which one comes out on top.



I was at IFA this year and i saw the LG 84inch 4k, the Samsung 70" prototype and the Sony 4k. And of course both OLED´s and i would choose the OLED. why? infinite contrast, deep blacks and a sleek design. 4K is "nice to have" but OLED is awesome in ANY screen size and in ANY resolution (for me). in comparison with the 75" LED from samsung is the ES9500 OLED the winner. i´ve spoken with some other visitors at the samsung booth who saw the OLED and the 75" LED and they said exactly the same. however.... maybe here in europe it´s not like in america: "bigger=better"


----------



## toxic1988




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611648
> 
> 
> It sure as hell isn't "forwards" technology.
> 
> Same pixel count as we've had for more than 10 years, marginally improved contrast... WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!



marginally improved contrast??? u kidding me?







do you ever saw an OLED TV with your own eyes??


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toxic1988*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611724
> 
> 
> marginally improved contrast??? u kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you ever saw an OLED TV with your own eyes??


He has.


----------



## Mr.SoftDome




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toxic1988*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611710
> 
> 
> I was at IFA this year and i saw the LG 84inch 4k, the Samsung 70" prototype and the Sony 4k. And of course both OLED´s and i would choose the OLED. why? infinite contrast, deep blacks and a sleek design. 4K is "nice to have" but OLED is awesome in ANY screen size and in ANY resolution (for me). in comparison with the 75" LED from samsung is the ES9500 OLED the winner. i´ve spoken with some other visitors at the samsung booth who saw the OLED and the 75" LED and they said exactly the same.
> 
> however.... maybe here in europe it´s not like in america: "bigger=better"



It absolutely is important to me. 55inch is my latest bedroom size (only because I won't give away my 55 XBR8 when I replaced it with the Elite 70).


Size is important to many these days and I think the trend is growing. I love my 70 but it too is almost not enough. 80 seems to be perfect in my eyes. I really do think 80 would be the end of questioning size for me regardless of tech. Don't get me wrong, 70 is awesome but just like speakers, upgrade upgrade until you find that speaker that is finally it. Thank gosh I'm there with speakers but think it will take 80 to finally be done for a bit. Don't have room for projector. I could never trade *DOWN* to a 55 OLED from a 70 Elite just because it's OLED. My Elite doesn't suck that much. 70 is just not that big when hung on wall although quite nice no doubt. You really don't need that much realestate and 8 to 10 feet back is fine. Moving back to 55 regardless of tech is just crazy after having a larger display. No can do.


Guess I am put until an 80 OLED comes along (and oh gosh make it from someone other than Samsung) to replace my 70. Maybe it will be an 80 4k Elite(fingers crossed for Sharp, Sony and Panasonic) and maybe not even OLED. We will see. Size matters! Those that say tech over size I say bullxxxx (higher end) but nice OLED is starting at 55. Good stuff coming in 2013 I bet.


And Happy Thanksgiving all!


Rick


----------



## mikek753




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611302
> 
> 
> Hold off judgement until you actually see one with studio quality 4K materiel. Many here might pick the OLED, but Joe Consumer would not. I would wager that if you put even a lowly $3500 Hisense 65" 4K TV up against a $10,000 LG 55" OLED, eight out of ten would pick the 4K. It will be interesting to see if the 84" Sony 4K and 55" LG OLED make the next big video shootout at VE, and which one comes out on top.



I'd agree with this logic.

Market is driven by Joe Consumer and not "us" who knows what those buzzword means like uniformity, black / white level clipping, real contrast ratio, dynamic range, half tones, D65, etc

Marketing is already invented infinite contrast

Unfortunately for "us" it'll be the same as megapixels war in digi cameras regardless of picture quality. Think about iPhone with 8 mp vs DSLR with 6 mp and try to explain to Joe Consumer why cool iPhone produces worse pictures vs DSLR


----------



## toxic1988




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.SoftDome*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611759
> 
> 
> Moving back to 55 regardless of tech is just crazy after having a larger display. No can do.
> 
> Rick



I agree.


But when you came from a 55" or a 60" set it´s not really a downgrade. here in germany is 40" for the most people really BIG







(not for me)

55inch is since 3 years my favourite screen size.


----------



## Mr.SoftDome




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toxic1988*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611810
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> But when you came from a 55" or a 60" set it´s not really a downgrade. here in germany is 40" for the most people really BIG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (not for me)
> 
> 55inch is since 3 years my favourite screen size.



Why? German living room walls only 3 feet wide?







I hear ya but even my 80 year old mom has a 42 and that's so 2006










Take care!


Rick


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toxic1988*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611724
> 
> 
> marginally improved contrast??? u kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you ever saw an OLED TV with your own eyes??



Marginally, yes. The ANSI contrast on existing TVs is already great as is the on/off. OLED will be freaking amazing on ANSI, but sets like the Sharp Elite and Sony 950 are so good, the difference to humans will be very, very small. True on/off -- intrascene dynamic range -- is not a real problem for most content. Your eye cannot adjust fast enough, nor do you want "daylight brightness" from your display. It's actually painful. Marginally improved.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611747
> 
> 
> He has.



Yup.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikek753*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611803
> 
> 
> I'd agree with this logic.
> 
> Market is driven by Joe Consumer and not "us" who knows what those buzzword means like uniformity, black / white level clipping, real contrast ratio, dynamic range, half tones, D65, etc
> 
> Marketing is already invented infinite contrast
> 
> Unfortunately for "us" it'll be the same as megapixels war in digi cameras regardless of picture quality. Think about iPhone with 8 mp vs DSLR with 6 mp and try to explain to Joe Consumer why cool iPhone produces worse pictures vs DSLR



Joe consumer is onto something here. He/she loves retina displays. He loves big screens. Accurate color is more or less available yet virtually no one pays for calibration to get truly accurate color on mainstream displays. You have people all over AVS railing _against_ accurate color and claiming it isn't even a real thing.


I don't know about the rest of you, but as much as I want an OLED, I would in a second prefer a really good top-end LCD or plasma at 80" to _any_ kind of 55" anything. Hell, I bought a 65" because the idea of something as tiny as 55" was ridiculous to me.


Honestly, I think these first-generation OLEDs are going to be a total bust in the market _but so do the manufacturers_. They are going to make very, very, very few of them and sell them to rich people and egomaniacs (some overlap in that Venn diagram). Hopefully beginning in 2014, we'll get something better. Hopefully, in 2013 *they will at least ship something at all*.


----------



## vinnie97

On the other hand, I'm still using a 50-incher, so I do hope these 55" treasures arrive before I get the upgrade itch to something more gargantuan.


----------



## rogo

Going from 50" to 55" is not going to be satisfying, really. I mean it might not be unsatisfying, but it'll barely feel like an upgrade. Of course, the quality upgrade might be nice.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chucky2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22607991
> 
> 
> Just as a casual enthusiast, I'd be happy with OLED finally making the scene in late 2013 if it meant that LG/Samsung/Whoever decided not to bring OLED sets to market unless they were "UltraHD". This to me makes the most sense, as with the 4K/"UltraHD" rollout looming, buying an uber expensive OLED set that's 1080p would be sort of a huge let down once "UltraHD" material became available.
> 
> Plea to LG/Samsung/Whoever: If you're going to release a usable size OLED panel (24" or greater), make sure it's UltraHD.
> 
> Chuck



"Better" is the enemy of "Good Enough."


If you keep holding off to make it "better" you will never get anything to market.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toxic1988*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22611097
> 
> 
> I would always prefer an OLED TV with FullHD!
> 
> in fact, there is still no 4K content available. 4K is nice for people who want to touch her nose on the screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so....4k for what?
> 
> Full HD OLED is definitely no "backwards" technology for the next 3-4 years.



Just saw the 85" 4K display over at Sony for the first time on Long Island. It was very impressive as you got very close. At 1 foot the amount of detail was truly incredible as the picture refused to break down. The 4K demo material was well done and obvious care was taken to show off this beast as well as they could, but the beauty was largely evident only upon close inspection. Once you backed off to a normal viewing distance, most would never notice they were looking at 4K. It was impossible to tell how good the black levels were given the bright conditions of the store.


Based on what I saw, 4K will be a really tough sell. Proof? I spent about 20 minutes simply watching people reacting or not reacting to the display in the relatively crowed Sony store. I would say that more than 90% of the people I observed simply walked right passed it or simply gave it a casual glance. Some of those that saw the big "4K" banner, went over and took a closer look. However I can honestly say, based on what I saw at that store, people were not impressed. Without a question I was the only one at that time that exhibited a high degree of curiosity.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22618768
> 
> 
> Just saw the 85" 4K display over at Sony for the first time on Long Island. It was very impressive as you got very close. At 1 foot the amount of detail was truly incredible as the picture refused to break down. The 4K demo material was well done and obvious care was taken to show off this beast as well as they could, but the beauty was largely evident only upon close inspection. Once you backed off to a normal viewing distance, most would never notice they were looking at 4K. It was impossible to tell how good the black levels were given the bright conditions of the store.
> 
> Based on what I saw, 4K will be a really tough sell. Proof? I spent about 20 minutes simply watching people reacting or not reacting to the display in the relatively crowed Sony store. I would say that more than 90% of the people I observed simply walked right passed it or simply gave it a casual glance. Some of those that saw the big "4K" banner, went over and took a closer look. However I can honestly say, based on what I saw at that store, people were not impressed. Without a question I was the only one at that time that exhibited a high degree of curiosity.



My guess it the $25,000 sticker price prevented "Joe Consumer" from giving it more than a passing glance. You yourself an AV enthusiast, was probably one the few that even knew what they were looking at. Once you see a real 4K studio master of The Amazing Spiderman on that set the difference will be obvious versus an 80" or 90" Sharp running the regular 1080p, especially at the recommended 1.5PH.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22616304
> 
> 
> Going from 50" to 55" is not going to be satisfying, really. I mean it might not be unsatisfying, but it'll barely feel like an upgrade. Of course, the quality upgrade might be nice.


I'm holding out on that improved contrast ratio to impress, but I have a suspicion plasma (under Pioneer's flailing banner) might have one more trick to deliver (and at a greater size naturally) before that's feasible. I'm pretty content with my current set at 6 to 7 feet out, so I'm in no rush.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22618849
> 
> 
> My guess it the $25,000 sticker price prevented "Joe Consumer" from giving it more than a passing glance. You yourself an AV enthusiast, was probably one the few that even knew what they were looking at. Once you see a real 4K studio master of The Amazing Spiderman on that set the difference will be obvious versus an 80" or 90" Sharp running the regular 1080p, especially at the recommended 1.5PH.



Keep in mind that the shoppers walking by had no idea of the price tag. Sony did not put spotlights on that price tag in the display setup. My point was that at a normal viewing distance (which was generally the case as people walked by), nobody really had any idea there was anything special about the display other than the size. Sticker shock and grabbing your attention as the result of 4K are two very different things. As I said, the display was awesome as you got close and saw how much detail there was to be resolved. However as you backed up, the display was much harder to differentiate from a good quality 2K display.


As is always the case when we make this kind of jump in resolution, you'll need a much bigger screen at your current viewing distance or a much closer seat to appreciate all there is. Not saying the difference isn't there, but simply the conditions must be right to appreciate the difference. In fact I have little doubt that at normal viewing distances where people generally sit for a 2K display, superior black levels will trump the benefits of 4K.


The bottom line is that 4K is the future, prices will drop and 4K material will be more common. OTOH buyers better have the room for much larger displays or have the logistics to rearrange their viewing areas or what's the point?


----------



## taichi4

For those who want a cinematic experience in the home, one that envelops and immerses you, larger screen sizes are important. I view my 65 inch display, as a compromise on the way to a much larger, and hopefully thin display. I think OLED, when mature, will have its advantages, But I, too, would rather have a 90 inch Sharp LCD (despite my general non-enthusiasm for LCD) than a 55 inch OLED.


----------



## vinnie97

90" just sounds ridiculous and a bit overkill (the likelihood of breakage during shipping at that size is so much higher). I'm not against larger sizes, but I'm content in the 50" range for the time being. I don't think I'm in the minority either. Don't 60"+ sizes make up only a single percentage point of the market?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*
> 
> In fact I have little doubt that at normal viewing distances where people generally sit for a 2K display, superior black levels will trump the benefits of 4K.


That prospect indeed excites me more.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22620044
> 
> 
> 90" just sounds ridiculous and a bit overkill (the likelihood of breakage during shipping at that size is so much higher). I'm not against larger sizes, but I'm content in the 50" range for the time being. I don't think I'm in the minority either. Don't 60"+ sizes make up only a single percentage point of the market?
> 
> That prospect indeed excites me more.



The problem with trying to use past market percentages as future barometer for sales, is that the results are skewed by price. The reason a few years ago the 24"- 32" size had the largest sales percentage was because the price for 50" and up was prohibitive. Now it is getting harder to find those smaller sizes. With Sharp, Vizio and others selling 60" models below $1000, the average size should start skewing upwards. There is a tipping point as far as sizes are concerned where some of these huge sets start to become a problem for those living in condos and town homes, but even the smallest of detached homes in the US should accommodate up to an 70" to 80" with no problem.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22618768
> 
> 
> Just saw the 85" 4K display over at Sony for the first time on Long Island. It was very impressive as you got very close. At 1 foot the amount of detail was truly incredible as the picture refused to break down. The 4K demo material was well done and obvious care was taken to show off this beast as well as they could, but the beauty was largely evident only upon close inspection. Once you backed off to a normal viewing distance, most would never notice they were looking at 4K. It was impossible to tell how good the black levels were given the bright conditions of the store.
> 
> Based on what I saw, 4K will be a really tough sell. Proof? I spent about 20 minutes simply watching people reacting or not reacting to the display in the relatively crowed Sony store. I would say that more than 90% of the people I observed simply walked right passed it or simply gave it a casual glance. Some of those that saw the big "4K" banner, went over and took a closer look. However I can honestly say, based on what I saw at that store, people were not impressed. Without a question I was the only one at that time that exhibited a high degree of curiosity.



Good info. I think OLEDs, especially at 55", are going to be even more underwhelming. They will sell neither size, nor resolution, nor really anything that people can latch onto. Thinness? Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee! Exorbitant pricing for sure. Contrast that most people will be very hard pressed to see (and might be nearly impossible to see in a lit space like a store)? OLED is an enthusiast-only product. At least 4K will also come with size.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22620044
> 
> 
> 90" just sounds ridiculous and a bit overkill (the likelihood of breakage during shipping at that size is so much higher). I'm not against larger sizes, but I'm content in the 50" range for the time being. I don't think I'm in the minority either. Don't 60"+ sizes make up only a single percentage point of the market?
> 
> That prospect indeed excites me more.



Yes, they do. But growing slowly.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22620200
> 
> 
> The problem with trying to use past market percentages as future barometer for sales, is that the results are skewed by price. The reason a few years ago the 24"- 32" size had the largest sales percentage was because the price for 50" and up was prohibitive. Now it is getting harder to find those smaller sizes. With Sharp, Vizio and others selling 60" models below $1000, the average size should start skewing upwards. There is a tipping point as far as sizes are concerned where some of these huge sets start to become a problem for those living in condos and town homes, but even the smallest of detached homes in the US should accommodate up to an 70" to 80" with no problem.



We'll just, again, disagree on that prediction. First of all, the idea that the smallest homes can take a TV that big is wrong. I live in one of the richest areas in the U.S. (no, I'm not especially well off, but I'm very well-off-adjacent). Many homes here could not take a TV that big. Many tens of millions of Americans live in much smaller homes / less well off regions. Second of all, most U.S. homes have a woman in them who wants nothing to do with a TV that big in the living room. This cultural norm does not appear to be changing especially rapidly.


You have been able to buy a 60" TV for $1000 or less for well over a year. The proportion of 60" TVs sold of the total has grown very, very slightly. The 70s have grown even more marginally, despite ready availability at prices below $2500. Obviously, these numbers will change over time. The idea this product category is headed for mainstreaming seems to still be the wishful thinking of enthusiasts rather than any evidence-based analysis. I'm sticking by my belief that the 70"+ category is likely to reach about 10% of the market over the next several years, but scarcely more.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22619932
> 
> 
> For those who want a cinematic experience in the home, one that envelops and immerses you, larger screen sizes are important. I view my 65 inch display, as a compromise on the way to a much larger, and hopefully thin display. I think OLED, when mature, will have its advantages, But I, too, would rather have a 90 inch Sharp LCD (despite my general non-enthusiasm for LCD) than a 55 inch OLED.



The funny thing is, I agree with you. My 65" is a great upgrade from my 50". And when we buy again, I'll go bigger. I don't see any value at all in thinness. My TV is near a wall. I defy anyone on earth who doesn't already know how thick it is to correctly guess it's depth from looking at it (well, they'd use heuristics if they are familiar with flat panel TVs generally, but that kind of proves the point). But I could now see how a 75" could fit in my family room and could probably talk my wife into a TV that large. I doubt I'd win a discussion about 80 or 90, but 75 seems doable.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22620044
> 
> 
> 90" just sounds ridiculous and a bit overkill (the likelihood of breakage during shipping at that size is so much higher). I'm not against larger sizes, but I'm content in the 50" range for the time being. I don't think I'm in the minority either. Don't 60"+ sizes make up only a single percentage point of the market?
> 
> That prospect indeed excites me more.



It sounds ridiculous to you. It does not sound ridiculous to Sharp, it does not sound ridiculous to the people who are buying them, or to people who are coming from having front projectors and large screens. Some people want a cinematic experience in the home, and that is not ridiculous.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22620815
> 
> 
> It sounds ridiculous to you. It does not sound ridiculous to Sharp, it does not sound ridiculous to the people who are buying them, or to people who are coming from having front projectors and large screens. Some people want a cinematic experience in the home, and that is not ridiculous.


90" _is_ a ridiculous notion to the vast majority. I'm not holding against anyone because it really only comes down to feasibility and logistics for manufacturing, shipping and ultimately ownership. A roll-up OLED screen that could be hung or mounted on a wall would go a long way in making it more feasible. The price would be jaw-dropping nonetheless.


----------



## billybill

I hope someday that a 90" OLED will be my small bedroom tv and that I'll have a 150" for my main tv. That would be my dream.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22620815
> 
> 
> It sounds ridiculous to you. It does not sound ridiculous to Sharp, it does not sound ridiculous to the people who are buying them, or to people who are coming from having front projectors and large screens. Some people want a cinematic experience in the home, and that is not ridiculous.



Let's be clear. There are people who want them. And let's be clear, they are selling the 90" at about qty. 10,000 annualized. Worldwide. Part of that is price, but even the home-theater projector market is closer to 100K units globally than 1 million.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22621916
> 
> 
> 90" _is_ a ridiculous notion to the vast majority. I'm not holding against anyone because it really only comes down to feasibility and logistics for manufacturing, shipping and ultimately ownership. A roll-up OLED screen that could be hung or mounted on a wall would go a long way in making it more feasible. The price would be jaw-dropping nonetheless.



It's going to be ridiculous to the vast majority even if it walls mounts. The idea that the screen rolling up is beneficial I actually find strange. The additional delay to start watching TV is never going to be pleasing.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *billybill*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22621934
> 
> 
> I hope someday that a 90" OLED will be my small bedroom tv and that I'll have a 150" for my main tv. That would be my dream.



One problem I have with that idea is that a lot of day-to-day content not only doesn't merit a 150" screen, it'd be actively annoying. I have no interest in CNBC on a 150" screen or, for that matter, the typical half-hour comedy.


If the screen could start out transparent and use a small portion of itself for "regular" viewing and more of itself for movies and sports, it'd be more appealing. Of course, transparent-substrate screens have other problems.


----------



## sharok




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22622205
> 
> 
> Let's be clear. There are people who want them. And let's be clear, they are selling the 90" at about qty. 10,000 annualized. Worldwide. Part of that is price, but even the home-theater projector market is closer to 100K units globally than 1 million.
> 
> It's going to be ridiculous to the vast majority even if it walls mounts. The idea that the screen rolling up is beneficial I actually find strange. The additional delay to start watching TV is never going to be pleasing.
> 
> One problem I have with that idea is that a lot of day-to-day content not only doesn't merit a 150" screen, it'd be actively annoying. I have no interest in CNBC on a 150" screen or, for that matter, the typical half-hour comedy.
> 
> If the screen could start out transparent and use a small portion of itself for "regular" viewing and more of itself for movies and sports, it'd be more appealing. Of course, transparent-substrate screens have other problems.



I'm waiting for the Elite 90" to be released. Will purchase it the same day it gets released. If some people do not enjoy a 90" TV, they don't have to buy one. My bedroom TV is bigger than 50" and I'm happy with it.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22622205
> 
> 
> It's going to be ridiculous to the vast majority even if it walls mounts. The idea that the screen rolling up is beneficial I actually find strange. The additional delay to start watching TV is never going to be pleasing.


Maybe so, but it might be a nice alternative for a projector (and won't have all those pesky requirements that are associated with projector setups). The beneficial part to the roll-up form factor is in the shipping and transportation...yea, I hadn't considered the complexity and fragility involved beyond that when setting up. In terms of the delay factor, this could be allayed via a dedicated wall. I agree that it might be too unsightly for many of the female of the species in particular.


----------



## taichi4

Let's be clear. I do think OLED will be superior to LCD, and so I'd prefer a 90 inch OLED to a 90 inch LCD, but that's not in the offing any time soon.


Of course you don't need 90 inches to watch typical television. It's real purpose to aficionados of home theater is...home theater.


Once you have a decent size screen for movies it's very hard to go back to a smaller screen. In fact, after a bit, a large panel seems normal and the tendency is to want bigger.


For many, watching a movie on a 40 or 50 inch screen is fine, and there is no right or wrong when it comes to taste. But for a not inconsiderable number of people film watching is synonymous with large screens which envelop you, and bringing that experience into the home is a great thing which technology now makes available.


----------



## vinnie97

Well, you see, I agree about downgrading in that I couldn't easily settle for 40" after becoming accustomed to 50".







The only way anyone has been able to experience something over 75" is via projector (unless there's an 80" DLP or otherwise I'm forgetting), so I'm sure these people also have a unique in-home perspective. I am personally not getting a hankering for more screen real estate until my almost 5-year-old panel gets obsoleted in the realm of 2D PQ. Even then, PQ supersedes size for me every time.


----------



## taichi4

I think that's totally reasonable to stay with what you have until something compelling comes out.


A large panel, such as the 90 inch that intrigues me, would be far more attractive and practical in OLED for many reasons, including weight. The 15 pound weight of the 55 inch LG OLED heralds large, light panels, which will be great.


Other obvious advantages of OLED are infinite black, probable elimination of blooming, and broad viewing angles, but no one has any idea about burn in. CLED, which many are skeptical about, would eliminate burn in.


----------



## vinnie97

I'm still in shock at the weight of the LG 55 inch. I imagine the fragility would increase as the diameters increase, but hopefully they can use a tensile material to prevent breakage from flexing during transport.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22623219
> 
> 
> Let's be clear. I do think OLED will be superior to LCD, and so I'd prefer a 90 inch OLED to a 90 inch LCD, but that's not in the offing any time soon.
> 
> Of course you don't need 90 inches to watch typical television. It's real purpose to aficionados of home theater is...home theater.
> 
> Once you have a decent size screen for movies it's very hard to go back to a smaller screen. In fact, after a bit, a large panel seems normal and the tendency is to want bigger.
> 
> For many, watching a movie on a 40 or 50 inch screen is fine, and there is no right or wrong when it comes to taste. But for a not inconsiderable number of people film watching is synonymous with large screens which envelop you, and bringing that experience into the home is a great thing which technology now makes available.



It's not an inconsiderable number of people. But that said, with the ready availability of 70" LCDs, the portion of the market they represent is currently _nowhere near one half of one percent_ (it's probably approaching 1/4 of 1% in 2012). Of course, we are those enthusiasts. But when people look at things like the 90" sets, which are, for example. significantly below 0.1% of the market, and complaining about the cost, they should be aware, _they are priced that way because the few that really demand them will pay those prices_. There isn't some automatic scale economics function that's going to make those radically cheaper and ubiquitous. This is neither here not there, but it's more of an observation. It will be interesting, for example, to track the 70" progress. It start last year at at about $2500 (lowest retail) to $3000. This year it's $2000-2500, with the Black Friday deal being $1500. Add in awareness of it, and sales have certainly improved. But it's not as if manufacturers are preparing for some radical alteration of demand mix toward that size.


It will take years to even make the investments to satisfy a small portion of the market with gigantic displays. We'll watch those developments closely of course. In the meantime, you are seeing 80s and 90s come from obsolete fabs that used to make 42s and 46s. And not many of those jumbo screens are selling even though the technology to make them is well amortized and really build costs are low.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22624249
> 
> 
> I'm still in shock at the weight of the LG 55 inch. I imagine the fragility would increase as the diameters increase, but hopefully they can use a tensile material to prevent breakage from flexing during transport.



I suspect the OLEDs are going to be scary fragile. But when you start talking really, really big sizes, wall mounting should offer good protection. Once it's up there, it'll be somewhat safe. A freestanding 90" OLED will need a substructure every bit as big as the Sharp LCD or else it will be break the moment someone leans on its top corner.


----------



## mattg3

No way they will release something that could shatter with little pressure.Word getting out on that will kill sales.Weird thought but maybe they should thicken up large size OLED before their release.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mattg3*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22626323
> 
> 
> No way they will release something that could shatter with little pressure.Word getting out on that will kill sales.Weird thought but maybe they should thicken up large size OLED before their release.



I haven't seen the final cosmetics, but the variants they were showing last year were actually easily breakable by a normal adult with bare hands. If you leaned on the corner at the top to, say, reach above your TV for any reason and pressed down (on one of those prototype models), you'd break it.


----------



## vinnie97

Wow, that would be traumatizing for the new owner of a $10k display.


----------



## andy2000

I suspect that if OLED ever gets off the ground most displays won't be the ultra thin ones we've seen in demos. As a practical matter, most people aren't going to want a super fragile display that requires an external box with the electronics, and input jacks (not to mention no room for the speakers).


----------



## mattg3

Yes, that external electronics box would break the deal for me


----------



## tezster

Other than cost, I think the weight/bulk of the TV itself becomes an important factor when someone envisions purchasing a large-sized display. Actually, in my case, the weight would be almost as important as the cost. If wall-mounting becomes less of a project, to the point where it's almost a non-issue, it would certainly appeal to more buyers. This is one aspect of OLED that excites me: I'd love to see a 70" OLED under 50 pounds.


----------



## Artwood

I'm not greedy--I just wish I could one day have the last greatest 85-inch plasma produced by Panasonic. Is that too much to ask?


----------



## Steve S

You guys should see the box the current 90" Sharp comes in--has a wooden pallet built onto the bottom to help prevent shipping damage.


Little anecdote--we've had the 90" Sharp on display for 4 months or so and it's also available at the other large Sears store in our area, about 5 miles away in a much more affluent bedroom community. Total sales between the two stores-1, and it was returned (no, I don't know why)


----------



## vinnie97

^Ridiculousness confirmed. ;D Have you sold any 80 inchers?


----------



## sytech

The 90" is hard to justify at $9K when you can get the Sharp 80" for around $4K. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 90" 1080p model dropped next year, in favor of a large 4K Ultra HD Model.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22632699
> 
> 
> The 90" is hard to justify at $9K when you can get the Sharp 80" for around $4K. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 90" 1080p model dropped next year, in favor of a large 4K Ultra HD Model.




good point, assuming sharp is still around next year.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22633591
> 
> 
> good point, assuming sharp is still around next year.



I don't see a lot of risk to Sharp in the next 12 months. Or really the next 24 based on what they did to refinance everything.


The question they face is if sales don't improve, who ends owning them and what happens to the pieces.


----------



## Esox50




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22623219
> 
> 
> Once you have a decent size screen for movies it's very hard to go back to a smaller screen. In fact, after a bit, a large panel seems normal and the tendency is to want bigger.


Couldn't have said it better myself. I got a 60" last year. I was like "wow, cant believe i waited so long to go 'big'". Now, a year later, I am convinced there are elves and gnomes that have been working in the dark to shrink this TV down while I sleep at night. 










I casually look at the prices of the Sharp 80" ($4.5-5K) and 90" ($9.5-10k), and I think I would like to get one. However, given my current TV is only a year old, and we have the prospect of new tech coming...I think I'm going to wait 2-3 years.


I don't know if its realistic or not, but my great hope is that by end of 2015 /early 2016, I'll be able to go get a 80" 4K OLED for about $5K, or a 90" for about $8-10K. And in fact, as i consider a new home theater credenza in the next calendar year, I am making sure it is 82" wide to accomodate up to 90" TVs.


----------



## rogo

I don't see an OLED that big being that cheap in just 3 years, given that currently no OLED of rany size is shipping anywhere on earth and no one is planning 10G glass right now. (One weird thing about the 80" and 90" LCDs is that they currently only exist because of overcapacity in 8G fabs so 40/42" and 46" lines are being repurposed to make 80, 84 and 90" LCDs. That won't repeat anytime soon for OLED.)


But that said, the long-run trajectory is for OLED to slowly, but surely takeover the LCD market, especially from the high end. Given than an 80" LCD is that much money now, your OLED of 80" seems likely in the 3-5 year period. And your 90" seems likely in the 4-8 year term, with a proportional price vs. today's doubling over the 80".


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4620#post_22635052
> 
> 
> I don't see a lot of risk to Sharp in the next 12 months. Or really the next 24 based on what they did to refinance everything.
> 
> The question they face is if sales don't improve, who ends owning them and what happens to the pieces.


I actually see Vizio being the biggest threat to Sharp. A couple of places was selling the new 70" Vizio (very well reviewed) for under $1500. It's not 3D but many don't really care, especially for that price.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22637742
> 
> 
> I actually see Vizio being the biggest threat to Sharp. A couple of places was selling the new 70" Vizio (very well reviewed) for under $1500. It's not 3D but many don't really care, especially for that price.



I am not 100% sure, but I think those new Vizios are using Sharp's older UV2 panel in their new 60" and 70" sets. So Sharp is getting paid either way.


----------



## R Harkness



(Wow this thread brings out the old-school!)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4590#post_22618768
> 
> 
> Just saw the 85" 4K display over at Sony for the first time on Long Island. It was very impressive as you got very close. At 1 foot the amount of detail was truly incredible as the picture refused to break down. The 4K demo material was well done and obvious care was taken to show off this beast as well as they could, but the beauty was largely evident only upon close inspection. Once you backed off to a normal viewing distance, most would never notice they were looking at 4K. It was impossible to tell how good the black levels were given the bright conditions of the store.
> 
> Based on what I saw, 4K will be a really tough sell. Proof? I spent about 20 minutes simply watching people reacting or not reacting to the display in the relatively crowed Sony store. I would say that more than 90% of the people I observed simply walked right passed it or simply gave it a casual glance. Some of those that saw the big "4K" banner, went over and took a closer look. However I can honestly say, based on what I saw at that store, people were not impressed. Without a question I was the only one at that time that exhibited a high degree of curiosity.



Ken,


I agree.


I recently saw the Sony 4K displaying the Sony 4K source content at a Sony store. I felt the same way you do.


I currently use a JVC RS55 projector which employs a mechanical/optical process to wrangle 4K pixels on to the screen. However, it can not currently accept 4K source input, so the benefit is mostly a total lack of pixel structure (you can put your nose to the screen and find it hard to see any), allowing for very large image sizes without pixelation. It also allows for some neat upscaling as well (definitely a more impressive image in terms of clarity and detail than I got from my previous 1080p JVC model).


But, anyway, being into big images I've been intrigued by 4K. And it's not ONLY because I use a projection set up. I have found myself very aware of the limitations of 1080p content in terms of resolution for many years, whether it be on flat panels or whatever. It's just obvious that 1080p can't resolve the finest details (or furthest away objects). Given the quadrupling of resolution for 4K I'd hoped I'd immediately see the benefit in terms of a step forward in realism (I wasn't expecting a huge obvious leap, but a very distinct step in the direction I'm speaking about).


What I saw on the Sony 4K left me less impressed than I expected. At least on this display/this set up, like you said, from an "average" viewing distance (I'd guess about 7 to 10 feet) there was nothing that stuck out particularly from the rest of the 1080p displays in this or any other store. It looked like..well...really good HD. It was only being aware of what 4K ought to bring to the table, and looking for the finest details, as well as moving closer, that I could start to spot the 4K difference. Yes, in those wide shots of cities, towns, beaches etc smaller details and far away objects remained resolved in a way you don't get with 1080p. So that in itself was very cool. But in just casual viewing it wasn't contributing to a particularly new "wow" experience. Again...it felt a lot like a really good HD image but not some paradigm shift.


I also watched customer reactions and it was the same as you report. Most glanced, passed by. Some stopped, uttered that it looked nice. No one seemed to notice it's "4Kness" and several customers had to read the big sony 4K advert sign and material before they understood they were supposed to be seeing anything better on that display vs the other 1080p displays.


One HUGE caveat as always is the fact this was a store demo. You'd think it WOULD have been set up as carefully as possible by Sony technicians. But we know by now just how low the standards for a proper display seem to plummet in almost any store, no matter how high-end it purports to be. So I'm certain that what I saw is mostly a hint at what 4K can bring to the table when properly presented. (At least...I hope). When I got home my "4K-lite" projector with a 1080p source actually had more "wow" factor in terms of apparent sharpness and detail, which is why I'm sure the Sony set up wasn't optimal.


But it does leave me feeling that 4K is going to be a tougher sell to consumers than HD was. I was going to say even harder than 3D, but then some sizable portion of consumers actively hate 3D...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22637742
> 
> 
> I actually see Vizio being the biggest threat to Sharp. A couple of places was selling the new 70" Vizio (very well reviewed) for under $1500. It's not 3D but many don't really care, especially for that price.



More like Sharp's salvation. They are pushing the utilization in Sakai up.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22637774
> 
> 
> I am not 100% sure, but I think those new Vizios are using Sharp's older UV2 panel in their new 60" and 70" sets. So Sharp is getting paid either way.



Yep.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22638795
> 
> 
> But it does leave me feeling that 4K is going to be a tougher sell to consumers than HD was. I was going to say even harder than 3D, but then some sizable portion of consumers actively hate 3D...



I suspect it will be a tough sell. Not as tough a sell as OLED, however. People are getting used to "retina displays" on their phones, tablets and laptops.


----------



## vinnie97

Wellll, finally saw my first (AM)OLED "in the flesh" and whilst it is only a 4.8" screen (on the Samsung Galaxy S3), I am pretty enamored with it. However, even this display shows residual lighting/bleeding in dark areas with high contrast content. I also noticed very minutely the "black spot" phenomenon in a few locations on the screen. Totally engrossing viewing experience otherwise (well, as engrossing as a


----------



## greenland

"Scientists develop indium-free organic light-emitting diodes"

http://phys.org/news/2012-12-scientists-indium-free-light-emitting-diodes.html 


"The metal-oxide, indium tin oxide (ITO), is a transparent conductor used as the anode for flat screen displays, and has been the standard for decades. Due to indium's limited supply, increasing cost and the increasing demand for its use in screen and lighting technologies, the U.S. Department of Energy has designated indium as "near-critical" in its assessment of materials vital to clean energy technology. Scientists have been working to find an energy efficient, cost effective substitute. "There are not many materials that are both transparent and electrically conductive," said Joseph Shinar, an Ames Laboratory Senior Scientist. "One hundred percent of commercial display devices in the world use ITO as the transparent conducting electrode. There's been a big push for many years to find alternatives." "Everybody is trying to find a replacement for ITO, many working with zinc oxide, another metal oxide. But here we are working towards something different, developing ways to use a conducting polymer," said Min Cai, a post-doctoral research scientist in the Ames Laboratory and the Dept. of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University......


----------



## xoham

There are many people downplaying OLED in favor of cheap giant displays. I have the opposite view.


I'd rather have a 24" OLED monitor for my computer than any other technology and I'd be willing to pay a premium for it, the same way I bought an IPS monitor over a TN.


Second, I'd rather have a 50" OLED TV over any larger size LCD. It is more than large enough and it would be better in all the ways we know.


Here's an allegory or metaphor. Plenty of consumers buy SSD drives that are far smaller than conventional spinning HDDs for the same price because they out-perform. I think it is reasonable to expect the same with OLED.


----------



## taichi4

Well...I'd definitely tale a large panel OLED (or a Crystal LED) over a large panel LCD any day. Controlling individual pixels is the way to go for many reasons.


But for some of us the size of a panel is a factor that can weigh in our decision of what panel to buy. Ultimately there is no right or wrong when it comes to individual preference.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xoham*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22674359
> 
> 
> There are many people downplaying OLED in favor of cheap giant displays. I have the opposite view.
> 
> I'd rather have a 24" OLED monitor for my computer than any other technology and I'd be willing to pay a premium for it, the same way I bought an IPS monitor over a TN.
> 
> Second, I'd rather have a 50" OLED TV over any larger size LCD. It is more than large enough and it would be better in all the ways we know.
> 
> Here's an allegory or metaphor. Plenty of consumers buy SSD drives that are far smaller than conventional spinning HDDs for the same price because they out-perform. I think it is reasonable to expect the same with OLED.



Aside from the fact that I'm sure you mean analogy, not allegory.... the parallel here is a poor one on at least two dimensions I can see:


(1) A 50" TV would in no way satisfy most of us. That's why the SSD analogy doesn't apply. Those of us with SSD-based computers (and I have two, by the way), accept them because _the SSD has enough space_. If the SSD was 16GB, we would not bother. It was only when it reached 64GB that -- for me -- it was adequate. Now, I probably wouldn't consider less than 128GB for a new machine.


Yes, some people have different base requirements. And certainly 55" OLEDs will satisfy some discerning TV viewers. But the idea that a high-priced product can get away with being insufficient to satisfy the demand of the very buyers it needs to attract because it's better is not correct. That said, I believe 55" is an adequate starting size, even if the majority of AVS enthusiasts will be uninterested at that size.


Also, the premium -- assuming the pricing is indeed $8K -- is not IPS vs. TN. It's more like Mercedes vs. Toyota.


(2) This claim of "better in all the ways we know" is fascinating. I agree people use it to justify the purchase of expensive (overpriced?) goods all the time. But I wonder if people are confused about how good OLED will really be.


It will not have the lifetime of LCD and won't be free of its burn-in risk. It quite possibly won't get as bright either. It will be lower resolution than the best LCDs too.


It will be contrastier, although in many environments not discernibly so. It will be thinner, sexier, etc.


Look, that may not matter. The BMW M3 doesn't haul your kids to soccer as well as a GMC Arcadia, either.


But we are talking very, very marginal picture quality improvements here. And astronomically higher prices for a display that will not be very large and by a dimension people do understand other than size -- resolution -- won't even be state of the art.


The selling of OLED is going to be very, very tough indeed.


----------



## Esox50




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22676151
> 
> 
> But we are talking very, very marginal picture quality improvements here. And astronomically higher prices for a display that will not be very large and by a dimension people do understand other than size -- resolution -- won't even be state of the art.


That pretty much sums it up.


I am going to assume 4K TVs will be the norm for 50"+ sizes in three years (not sure sure if thats a realistic assumption or not). Anyway, as I've posted, my next TV has to be min 80" (preferably 90"). Why would I ever more 1.5x more for OLED over LCD for marginal improvements? Let's say I have the following options in 3-4 years:

80" 4K LCD $5,000

90" 4K LCD $8,000

55" 4K OLED $4,000

80" 4K OLED $7,500

90" 4K OLED $12,000


I would say given how I feel right now, I'd get the 80" LCD, and if I had a few thousand more bucks in my pocket, I would probably also take the 90" LCD over the 80" OLED.


----------



## vinnie97

I'm a wack job but I'm inclined to agree with xoham to a point. If I can get a set with black levels that are absolute, I will be glad to take a 55" upgrade over my 50" plasma (I'm happy to sit at 7 feet out as well). I've seen how immersive black levels make the viewing experience, and it's something I crave more than a size upgrade (though cost is very much an issue).


----------



## homogenic

Can we assume along with extreme increases in resolution other radical advancements in LCD tech will be brought with it? IGZO backplanes and blue phase mode should make the existing dominate panel tech more desirable to videophiles.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22677109
> 
> 
> Can we assume along with extreme increases in resolution other radical advancements in LCD tech will be brought with it? IGZO backplanes and blue phase mode should make the existing dominate panel tech more desirable to videophiles.



Exactly right, While LG is still trying to figure out how to get 55" OLED yields above 40%, LCD tech continues to make great advances. 4K resolution, IGZO panels, MothEye anti-glare screens that improve contrast, Blue Phase, ICC reality engines etc. Check out Sharp's new IGZO/MothEye XL9 series that just came out in Japan. Those might not be OLED black levels, but the price and size more than makes up for it for most buyers.


----------



## rogo

I agree with all the skeptical posts above, especially those that correctly note LCD tech is not standing still.


But on the "exciting OLED news" side, LG's OLED is at FCC, requesting certification. So it's one step closer to real for the U.S.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/07/lgs-first-55-inch-oled-hdtv-pops-up-in-the-fccs-database/


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22677235
> 
> 
> Exactly right, While LG is still trying to figure out how to get 55" OLED yields above 40%, LCD tech continues to make great advances. 4K resolution, IGZO panels, MothEye anti-glare screens that improve contrast, Blue Phase, ICC reality engines etc. Check out Sharp's new IGZO/MothEye XL9 series that just came out in Japan. Those might not be OLED black levels, but the price and size more than makes up for it for most buyers.



Agreed that LCDs keep making strides.


Unfortunately they seem unable so far to make a truly significant move forward in the area that probably bothers me most: Viewing angles.

Year after year I see manufacturers tout better viewing angles for LCD, and even see the occasional reviewer praising LCD viewing angles.


Yet every time I see the latest LCD models it's the same story: image altering, washing out unless I'm in the sweet spot. I can't stand that attribute of LCD and it keeps it from being a premium or reference technology, for me at lest.

If OLED improves on this problem that's a very good thing.


(I understand much of the population at large is not as bothered by LCD's shortcomings in this area).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22678589
> 
> 
> Agreed that LCDs keep making strides.
> 
> Unfortunately they seem unable so far to make a truly significant move forward in the area that probably bothers me most: Viewing angles.
> 
> Year after year I see manufacturers tout better viewing angles for LCD, and even see the occasional reviewer praising LCD viewing angles.
> 
> Yet every time I see the latest LCD models it's the same story: image altering, washing out unless I'm in the sweet spot. I can't stand that attribute of LCD and it keeps it from being a premium or reference technology, for me at lest.
> 
> If OLED improves on this problem that's a very good thing.
> 
> (I understand much of the population at large is not as bothered by LCD's shortcomings in this area).



Well, I bought what I imagine is my last-ever plasma for the viewing-angle reason more than anything. But I wonder if this, too, won't be getting better in LCD. First of all, it's better in IPS panels. Second of all, IGZO promises better aperture ratios for LCD, which ought to help.


That said, I am entirely in agreement with you.


----------



## navychop

Well I just saw a 70" LCD at a big box warehouse store for less than $1,900. And I must say, the viewing angles were more than good enough.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Full story at this link . Not sure if this involves their 55" panels or not.

*Samsung Display likely to resume OLED capex soon*


OLED 5.5G expansion likely for A2 not A3

Hopes have grown for OLED capacity expansion to resume since the official

launch of Samsung Display (SD) on Jul 1, there is some uncertainty regarding this

plan. We recently visited equipment makers in SD’s supply chain to confirm if 5.5G

OLED capex will resume soon. We found some changes to the plan compared to

earlier expectations. Specifically, we now expect capacity to increase at the A2 fab

(tentatively named A2E) rather than the A3 facility. But, we do not believe there will

be any significant capacity changes regardless of the line. However, 8G capex is

likely to be delayed as the A2E space was originally designed for 8G lines.


We expect the new 5.5G lines to adopt flexible and laser induced thermal imaging

(LITI) process technologies used at the A2P3 line. We believe this is likely as the

thin-film process is close to resolving technological difficulties that have prevented

flexible displays and delayed 5.5G OLED capex. We believe LITI-based highresolution

displays and flexible technologies are essential to reinforce the

differentiation strategy at Samsung Electronics (SEC)’s smartphone business and

to ensure SD’s OLED competitiveness.


Additional 5.5G and 8G OLED lines to built at A3 facility.

We expect the A3 facility, designed for only 5.5G capacity, will house both

additional 5.5G OLED expansion and 8G lines going forward, as 5.5G capex will

take place at the A2 fab in 2H12. As such, there are concerns over 8G OLED

capex delays as mass production lines will likely be built at the A3 facility. But, we

still expect shares of OLED equipment players taking part in the expansion to rally

from 1H13 as mass production should begin from 2014.


OLED expansion likely on small- and mid-sized panel demand in 2013

We maintain our view that 5.5G OLED equipment will be ordered in 3Q12 as

additional OLED capacity is required to ramp up in 1H13 as SEC’s smartphone

sales will outpace existing SD’s 5.5G OLED capacity. Stripping out SEC, smalland

mid-sized panel sales account for around 40% of SD’s total capacity, but this

should fall sharply, slipping below 30% from 2Q13. As such, we expect 5.5G capex

from 2H12.


OLED equipment shares to rally as orders resume, SFA Eng top pick

We expect OLED equipment shares to rally as SD resumes orders from 3Q12.

Shares are trading at an average 8-9x 2012 PE on concerns over capex delays.

Despite these worries, we maintain a positive view as the capex cycle should

extend from 5.5G to 8G. Specifically, we maintain SFA Engineering (SFA) as our

top pick, with a BUY rating and W80,000 TP given the company’s experience in

supply OLED equipment to SD. Of note, SFA currently trades at 8.8x 2012 PE.


----------



## rogo

You can read between the lines between easily there:


The 5.5G line is being fully utilized for *smartphones* alone. They need more production there. They are building it. "We maintain our view that 5.5G OLED equipment will be ordered in 3Q12 as additional OLED capacity is required to ramp up in 1H13 as SEC’s smartphone sales will outpace existing SD’s 5.5G OLED capacity."


The idea they were ever going to mass-produce TVs on the 5.5G line was pretty ridiculous. I think Specuvestor once explained they could get going on the 5.5G line (and I'm sure that was true). It appears this report, however, confirms that all of the TV production is being done on the 8G pilot line because (a) the 5.5G line is not available and (b) the only way to scale TV production is the 8G line.


If/when they get the 8G line going at 24K substrates per month, they will have the capacity to build 150K panels per yield, figuring on a yield of ~50%, that's about 1 million units run rate by year end 2013. Sounds about right as a goal. It's worth noting that there seems to be absolutely no way to accelerate this timetable from here which suggests that Samsung has no interest in doing so, no capability to do so (i.e. they can't make the TVs faster no matter what) and no real need to do so.


The long and short of it is that OLED TVs will be looking to capture north of 1% of the total market in 2014, not 2013.


----------



## mike50




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22676151
> 
> 
> 
> The selling of OLED is going to be very, very tough indeed.



How about CLED?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mike50*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22686303
> 
> 
> How about CLED?



If anyone ever builds such a thing, it will be an even tougher sell, unless it is priced very aggressively, which is to be determined.


I doubt there is much to worry about with regard to that technology before 2014-15. And it's quite possible we'll never have to worry about it.


OLED, at least, is coming to televisions.


----------



## irkuck

 LCD has staying power, refuses to die.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22687974
> 
> LCD has staying power, refuses to die.



"According to DisplaySearch, it will take another four years for OLED screens to capture less than a tenth of the global TV screen market."


[ smug]


As some of us have been saying for quite a long time...


Oh, and it's 12/11/12... Anyone take delivery of a 2012 OLED yet?


[ /smug]


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22677383
> 
> 
> I agree with all the skeptical posts above, especially those that correctly note LCD tech is not standing still.
> 
> But on the "exciting OLED news" side, LG's OLED is at FCC, requesting certification. So it's one step closer to real for the U.S.
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/07/lgs-first-55-inch-oled-hdtv-pops-up-in-the-fccs-database/



Back in May LG had a "sort of confidential" admittance to having a 2013 4K 55" "W"OLED ("White OLED") available for (interviewee guess of) $10,000 USD.


The 55EM9600.


LG's claiming that White OLED produces higher panel yields.

http://asia.cnet.com/lg-to-launch-4k-oled-tv-in-2013-62215629.htm 


I know I'm throwing myself to the wolves in this skeptics-pit, but eh. I've got Ibuprofen.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22639593
> 
> 
> Wellll, finally saw my first (AM)OLED "in the flesh" and whilst it is only a 4.8" screen (on the Samsung Galaxy S3), I am pretty enamored with it. However, even this display shows residual lighting/bleeding in dark areas with high contrast content.



I don't understand. Light bleeding from *where* exactly? There's nothing transmissive. This is an emissive technology.


----------



## Mik James

Emissive displays still need to block the light from adjacent pixels to show dark areas.


----------



## coolscan

Wrong thread.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mik James*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22691104
> 
> 
> Emissive displays still need to block the light from adjacent pixels to show dark areas.



Ah, ok.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22691233
> 
> 
> Wrong thread.



?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22690864
> 
> 
> 
> LG's claiming that White OLED produces higher panel yields.
> http://asia.cnet.com/lg-to-launch-4k-oled-tv-in-2013-62215629.htm
> 
> I know I'm throwing myself to the wolves in this skeptics-pit, but eh. I've got Ibuprofen.



I'm positive that White OLED (or more accurately RGBW) will have higher yields -- at least in the short run. That said, LG has delivered exactly as many units as Samsung this year.


As for the future and 4K, I've already stated I believe it was a mistake to sell 2K OLED at all. The magnitude of that mistake will be even more apparent next year when 4K LCD becomes even more available and makes shiny, new OLED seem obsolete before it ships. The Reuters article linked above already damns OLED by saying LCD can be four _times_ as good. They mean resolution.


The article you linked, however, references the 2K OLED as being the $10,000 product and the 4K product separately. One could hope that changes, but there isn't much evidence to back that up.


And it seems like LG will have to get its IGZO going to make 4K work. Currently, it has no IGZO production to speak of.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22690975
> 
> 
> I don't understand. Light bleeding from *where* exactly? There's nothing transmissive. This is an emissive technology.


I saw residual lighting, that's all I know.







And the explanation given already seems to be suitable enough as to the reason why.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22692718
> 
> 
> I saw residual lighting, that's all I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the explanation given already seems to be suitable enough as to the reason why.



Yes, you're certainly right. Even with a bunch of light bulbs together, I can imagine if they're not carefully partitioned the light will bounce around off the bulbs to the sides.


But there's another thing I'm trying to remember. Is it possible that at least a small _part_ of what you saw wasn't the display? The _eye itself_ isn't perfect in this regard. Look at any light source in a very high-contrast area----you'll get something you're accustomed to and probably discount. A sort of glare effect. Our eye has a set of coping strategies for dealing with this (moving around, iris dilation), so we become used to "not" seeing it. Sitting in a dark room and looking at the wall next to a bright window will show a kind of fuzzy bleed in. Sorry for thinking out loud...I'll have to see an OLED in person.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22692662
> 
> 
> I'm positive that White OLED (or more accurately RGBW) will have higher yields -- at least in the short run. That said, LG has delivered exactly as many units as Samsung this year.
> 
> As for the future and 4K, I've already stated I believe it was a mistake to sell 2K OLED at all. The magnitude of that mistake will be even more apparent next year when 4K LCD becomes even more available and makes shiny, new OLED seem obsolete before it ships. The Reuters article linked above already damns OLED by saying LCD can be four _times_ as good. They mean resolution.
> 
> The article you linked, however, references the 2K OLED as being the $10,000 product and the 4K product separately. One could hope that changes, but there isn't much evidence to back that up.
> 
> And it seems like LG will have to get its IGZO going to make 4K work. Currently, it has no IGZO production to speak of.



Yeah, the 4K reference confused me. In any case, all the online specs I can find on the 55EM9600 show it to be 2K, so you're right.


Hmmmmm......curious---Are they using RGBW to mean WOLED now, or just all versions of having a white light help out the RGB triad? In computer graphics / imaging, traditionally RGBW is used outside of any particular display vehicle to mean a particular color model. It's the additive-light version of the subtractive CMYK.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22693319
> 
> 
> Yes, you're certainly right. Even with a bunch of light bulbs together, I can imagine if they're not carefully partitioned the light will bounce around off the bulbs to the sides.
> 
> But there's another thing I'm trying to remember. Is it possible that at least a small _part_ of what you saw wasn't the display? The _eye itself_ isn't perfect in this regard. Look at any light source in a very high-contrast area----you'll get something you're accustomed to and probably discount. A sort of glare effect. Our eye has a set of coping strategies for dealing with this (moving around, iris dilation), so we become used to "not" seeing it. Sitting in a dark room and looking at the wall next to a bright window will show a kind of fuzzy bleed in. Sorry for thinking out loud...I'll have to see an OLED in person.


That could have been another cause for what was detected, IF that bleed extended beyond the 4.8" OLED screen to the phone bezel or beyond, but it was exclusive to the screen itself.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22693362
> 
> 
> Yeah, the 4K reference confused me. In any case, all the online specs I can find on the 55EM9600 show it to be 2K, so you're right.
> 
> Hmmmmm......curious---Are they using RGBW to mean WOLED now, or just all versions of having a white light help out the RGB triad? In computer graphics / imaging, traditionally RGBW is used outside of any particular display vehicle to mean a particular color model. It's the additive-light version of the subtractive CMYK.



LG has actually started using the acronym WRGB but, yes, WRGB, RGBW, and WOLED refer to the same architecture.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4650#post_22692662
> 
> 
> I'm positive that White OLED (or more accurately RGBW) will have higher yields -- at least in the short run. That said, LG has delivered exactly as many units as Samsung this year.
> 
> As for the future and 4K, I've already stated I believe it was a mistake to sell 2K OLED at all. The magnitude of that mistake will be even more apparent next year when 4K LCD becomes even more available and makes shiny, new OLED seem obsolete before it ships. The Reuters article linked above already damns OLED by saying LCD can be four _times_ as good. They mean resolution.
> 
> The article you linked, however, references the 2K OLED as being the $10,000 product and the 4K product separately. One could hope that changes, but there isn't much evidence to back that up.
> 
> And it seems like LG will have to get its IGZO going to make 4K work. Currently, it has no IGZO production to speak of.



It's being reported that LG is currently getting about 50% yields on the 55" TV in their pilot line. It's not yet at LCD yields but it is a pilot line. This is using an IGZO backplane. They are also reportedly shipping the first TVs to a department store in Korea.


There is a lot of excitement about 4K here and TVs will certainly adopt them. Is it really possible for most people's eyes to actually see that resolution on a 55" TV sitting 10 feet away in their house? I can see the case if its 3D. How much programming is there actually in 3D and 4K yet?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22694490
> 
> 
> LG has actually started using the acronym WRGB but, yes, WRGB, RGBW, and WOLED refer to the same architecture.
> 
> It's being reported that LG is currently getting about 50% yields on the 55" TV in their pilot line. It's not yet at LCD yields but it is a pilot line. This is using an IGZO backplane. They are also reportedly shipping the first TVs to a department store in Korea.



Cool! This should calm a few naysayers down a small notch at least. {chuckle}.


No one is complaining about this, but as far as the current 55" limitation, I'd recommend the LG JSC technological triumph. (Just Sit Closer).


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22694490
> 
> 
> They are also reportedly shipping the first TVs to a department store in Korea.


I would like to see these reports. Do you have a link?


For those of us in the US, we can't buy LG's OLED set yet, but we can buy a wall mount for it here . Wonder how many of them they are selling.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22694584
> 
> 
> I would like to see these reports. Do you have a link?
> 
> For those of us in the US, we can't buy LG's OLED set yet, but we can buy a wall mount for it here . Wonder how many of them they are selling.



That's just a plain old mounting bracket with a product specific title. In fact, the cut-n-paster who made this thing was a little careless. In the product description is the following:


> Quote:
> Brand New In Box Wall Mount for Samsung 55" Class 6400 Series 1080p LED HDTV TV



I used to see crap like this all the time for memory cards. Things like "SD card for Canon Cameras" and similar hooey.


I should sell a microfiber cloth for the 55EM9600 screens. Hmmmm......


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22694490
> 
> 
> LG has actually started using the acronym WRGB but, yes, WRGB, RGBW, and WOLED refer to the same architecture.



Yep.


> Quote:
> It's being reported that LG is currently getting about 50% yields on the 55" TV in their pilot line. It's not yet at LCD yields but it is a pilot line. This is using an IGZO backplane. They are also reportedly shipping the first TVs to a department store in Korea.
> 
> There is a lot of excitement about 4K here and TVs will certainly adopt them. Is it really possible for most people's eyes to actually see that resolution on a 55" TV sitting 10 feet away in their house? I can see the case if its 3D. How much programming is there actually in 3D and 4K yet?



That yield report is nonsense. They might be up to 50% yield _on the backplanes_, but they are almost certainly not getting it on the TVs overall.


Also, this "department stores in Korea" stuff is drivel. Without a press release and photographs of the stuff in stores, it didn't happen.


As for the resolution, I don't believe it's needed on a 55" TV for most people. I believe it's about marketing. And yes, you raise a good point about 3D. The 3D on the LG OLED is incredible in terms of its depth. Really, truly amazing. Best I've seen. But it's resolution starved because it's passive. It would probably be unreal in 4K.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22694584
> 
> 
> I would like to see these reports. Do you have a link?
> 
> For those of us in the US, we can't buy LG's OLED set yet, but we can buy a wall mount for it here . Wonder how many of them they are selling.



I guess I haven't posted enough here to be allowed to post a link (fear or spammers). There's an article from ZDNet Korea, all in Korean, that you can find from Google with the search term "꿈의 OLED TV 출시 초읽기…LG 선공" and use the translate feature. In English, it's "OLED TV launch countdown of dreams ... LG strike first". It doesn't mean the TVs will be at your local Best Buy soon but it is a start. Like I said, this is still a pilot line and while the yields are getting better there's still room for improvement and LG is ahead of Samsung. For LG it's mostly to do with the IGZO backplane. Deposition of the WRGB frontplane is not all that complicated. Here's part of the article (pardon the translation).


According to industry sources, willingness to look when elected OLED TV is the LG camp. Up to 500 levels of 55-inch OLED TV to launch later this month, at least 100, LG Electronics, the industry expects.

 

"LG Display is still, but rely on product releases, showing that large OLED panel mass production yields show the difficulties in securing the state," said one industry official later this month, LG Electronics OLED TV to be released in the market of 400-500 level seems to be, "he said.

 

Another official, "said LG Electronics planned to be released later this month, 100 single OLED TV is distributed through the Lotte Department Store" LG launched 55-inch OLED TV prices expected to be around 10 million won, "he said.


----------



## rogo

So LG remains "committed" to some completely bogus "2012" release by pushing 100 units into one store in Korea.


Time to smash the rolleyes emoticon again....



























































As for the whole yield thing:


(a) Yields are not 100% on the other parts of the process, even though those are fairly straightforward


(b) It's too bad they didn't partner with Sharp, who is farther along on IGZO


(c) It's funny that IGZO was going to be "cheaper" than a-Si backplanes, which have yields of like 99% and use cheaper materials.


(d) It's good that's the yield bottleneck, because it will be solved


(e) It's telling they are not pricing these at $5K, because you'd think that was doable if "everything else was really easy" as suggested


(f) Everything else is not so easy, even if it straightforward


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22695194
> 
> 
> LG launched 55-inch OLED TV prices expected to be around 10 million won, "he said.



That's about $10K US.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22698082
> 
> 
> After their 2012 OLED TV public relations disaster, and their failure to inform the public why they have not delivered on their release promises, LG has put itself in the terribled position that few potential customers will believe anything they say at the upcoming CES event. I understand that production problems can arise, that tends to cause delays; but LG launched an extensive promotional campaign, in which they were selling the wonders of their soon to be shipped product, including a big PR event at Monti Carlo, and they have not issued any forthright explanation to the public as to why they have not shipped the promised product. They owed the public such an explanation, and their failure to do so has established the situation where most people will not longer believe anything they promise for 2013. Fool us once............



I think they made a few critical mistakes with this product. One was thinking the could find a way to get above 40% yield during the year it took bring the production line to operation. Another problem was with going with 2K vs 4K. Regardless of how much harder it would have been to implement, the fact is they will have to go 4K within the next 3-5 years anyway to avoid "marketing inferiority". Why buy a display with half the resolution of a lowered priced 4K set? Also, I think the size is problematic, especially at this price point. If you use previous sales statistics, the 55" size is right in the sweet spot, but that is more a function of pricing the actual demand. When I brought my first 50" plasma ten years ago, I really wanted the 70" Qualia 007, but could not justify the $13K price tag. 4K prices should drop fairly fast and and 80" 4K sets will be cheaper than this 55" OLED within a year. Even at launch, Hisense will have a 65" 4K for around $3500. If you are going to lay out 10 grand you want it to make an impact. Finally, I think LCD tech has made some recent advances that are going to make OLED incredible black levels and contrast less of a impact. Will LCD ever be as good or better than OLED, probably not, but close enough especially for the price/performance ratio. I would love to see LG or Samsung figure out a way to fix the production problems. I am sure those 80" 4K OLED prototypes at CES are going to look amazing, but until they find a solution will just remain demo units.


----------



## greenland

After their 2012 OLED TV public relations disaster, and their failure to inform the public why they have not delivered on their release promises, LG has put itself in the terrible position that few potential customers will believe anything they say at the upcoming CES event. I understand that production problems can arise, that tends to cause delays; but LG launched an extensive promotional campaign, in which they were selling the wonders of their soon to be shipped product, including a big PR event at Monti Carlo, and they have not issued any forthright explanation to the public as to why they have not shipped the promised product. They owed the public such an explanation, and their failure to do so has established the situation where most people will not longer believe anything they promise for 2013. Fool us once............


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22698332
> 
> [...]and their failure to do so has established the situation where most people will not longer believe anything they promise for 2013. Fool us once............



.....which will have absolutely no impact on them whatsoever. Not their stock price, not their sales, nothing. People will be oo'd and ah'd by the technology in front of them. They will not pass over LG if the technology shows up out of some grudge. Nor will any such bad PR hurt them now. This isn't presidential politics.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22698327
> 
> 
> I think they made a few critical mistakes with this product. One was thinking the could find a way to get above 40% yield during the year it took bring the production line to operation. Another problem was with going with 2K vs 4K. Regardless of how much harder it would have been to implement, the fact is they will have to go 4K within the next 3-5 years anyway to avoid "marketing inferiority". Why buy a display with half the resolution of a lowered priced 4K set? Also, I think the size is problematic, especially at this price point. If you use previous sales statistics, the 55" size is right in the sweet spot, but that is more a function of pricing the actual demand. When I brought my first 50" plasma ten years ago, I really wanted the 70" Qualia 007, but could not justify the $13K price tag. 4K prices should drop fairly fast and and 80" 4K sets will be cheaper than this 55" OLED within a year. Even at launch, Hisense will have a 65" 4K for around $3500. If you are going to lay out 10 grand you want it to make an impact. Finally, I think LCD tech has made some recent advances that are going to make OLED incredible black levels and contrast less of a impact. Will LCD ever be as good or better than OLED, probably not, but close enough especially for the price/performance ratio. I would love to see LG or Samsung figure out a way to fix the production problems. I am sure those 80" 4K OLED prototypes at CES are going to look amazing, but until they find a solution will just remain demo units.



Perhaps, and you make a fairly reasoned argument. In my opinion though, it's not a matter of how black you can get, but how you can maintain a super dark black without squashing all the grays to black as well. There is effectively a kind of per-pixel dimming (clumsy way to put it)....and each pixel will have phenomenal control, dark, light, etc., except for the sideways bleed that I was recently educated on here.


I do believe how OLED looks (complete with it's physical presentation), will save the day for it in the next year and a half or so. Besides, 2K at only 55" (at 16:9, about 48" x 27"), you have 40 DPI. 4K at 80" (roughly 69" x 39") yields roughly 55 DPI. Not enormously different in smoothness. So that's part of the equation if you were deciding on one vs. the other. _Sort of._










But to not have a backlight: It's SUCH a wake-up call after seeing one LED-LCD set after another to walk into the plasma section.....


----------



## navychop

I think *MOST* folks will not see any value in the price delta between 2K & 4K. For many years, if ever. Especially since all they can see is a scaled image, NEXT TO NOTHING native at that res. And at average sizes and distances? Really? The inflated marketing numbers game? Most people ain't gonna buy it. Especially in the economy we can look at the next few years, So all this "4K is necessary for OLED" is nonsense, IMHO.


Plasmas? Great. If you're happy buying something with less than 10% market share that is declining rapidly, with a roughly 2014 final production date. And you watch in the dark, enjoy the warmth and don't have CA authorities on you for excessive energy use. Yes, a lot over-hyped, but some kernals of truth.


Plasmas are dead, their death certificate has already been signed. Accept it, enjoy what you have while you have it. OLED will make it, long term, I believe. But there are other contenders. What about field-induced polymer electroluminescent *(Fipel)* technology? What if this gets the WOLED treatment and color filters produce yet another TV technology? Possibly cheaper than OLED? If there are moves in that direction, there's going to be some quaking in Korea.


I suspect if my JVC RPTV based on LCoS technology dies in the next 4-5 years, I'll likely be buying LCD, despite how interested in OLED I am. Simple- LCD will be mature, with a longer lifespan, and already has more than good enough PQ. And price will be a major factor, especially as I, like many other folks, may have less disposable income by then.


----------



## rogo

There are not, realistically, any other contenders navy. The display industry has invented dozens of ways to put an image on screen. In direct-view TV, exactly three have ever reached the market: CRT, PDP and LCD. The first is basically dead, the second had a brief run and almost became a hit (it was a success, but not truly a "hit" in terms of numbers), the third owns more than 90% of the market. Billions have been spent pursuing the others and nothing has ever come of it.


The only reason we can be reasonably assured OLED will be a television technology is that we've seen it work in small scale and seen the large prototypes shown by big, wealthy (in one case) companies. It takes billions of dollars and more than a decade to successfully commercialize a new flat-panel technology. It did for PDP, it did for LCD. It has for OLED. Until you see someone putting billions on the table, you can rest easy knowing you'll never see a TV based on that technology.


Oh, and as for LCD, it's not going to go quietly into the good night. All the IGZO magic that OLED needs will benefit LCD -- including whatever theoretical cost edge it provides (I remain very, very skeptical). LCD also benefits from continued scale economics on LEDs. LG's OLED design incidentally is about 2/3 of an LCD TV with 1/3 changed out to make it an OLED. It's a really critical 1/3 and the design remains the most promising, but even that has proved itself very very hard to bring to market.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22700946
> 
> 
> Plasmas are dead, their death certificate has already been signed. Accept it, enjoy what you have while you have it.


You might be misunderstanding me. The reason I brought up plasma is to illustrate just how wonderful it is to have an emissive display with such finely tuned reactive elements. Enough so that a mass market priced OLED with just 2K at a mere 55" would nevertheless certainly be a smash hit. That's the only reason I bring it up at all. On it's own, plasmas just can't seem to fully kill that 800 pound gorilla of IR.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22701417
> 
> 
> You might be misunderstanding me. The reason I brought up plasma is to illustrate just how wonderful it is to have an emissive display with such finely tuned reactive elements. Enough so that a mass market priced OLED with just 2K at a mere 55" would nevertheless certainly be a smash hit. That's the only reason I bring it up at all. On it's own, plasmas just can't seem to fully kill that 800 pound gorilla of IR.



I don't want to rehash whether or not plasmas have killed image retention. I will say three things however:


1) I never experience it on my new plasma and never did on my old one.

2) It's most certainly not an 800-pound gorilla

3) I find it amusing that everyone "knows" OLED won't have any problems with image retention or burn in, given how many have been sold


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22702121
> 
> 
> I don't want to rehash whether or not plasmas have killed image retention. I will say three things however:
> 
> 1) I never experience it on my new plasma and never did on my old one.
> 
> 2) It's most certainly not an 800-pound gorilla



Eh, you may be right. _But the market for them is nearly gone_ and it isn't because of weight, cost of manufacture, nor energy consumption, and not that potential buzzing nor do I think image brightness. Even if the image retention were technically defeated (which is isn't), the *perception* of it is an 800 pound gorilla. Whenever people who don't know _anything_ about TV's at all ask me what to buy, they *always* come armed with words to the effect of "we don't want a plasma....the images burn into them." Or they had it happen, or their friends did, etc.



> Quote:
> 3) I find it amusing that everyone "knows" OLED won't have any problems with image retention or burn in, given how many have been sold



It's not how many of them sold that determines this so much as it is for how long even a few of them have been running. You're right in not making this assumption though: even CRT's can have IR.


----------



## greenland

Japanese scientists develop OLED material free of rare metals


"Without the use of rare metals, the costs for materials in OLEDs can be reduced to about one-10th, the scientists said."

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy/technology/AJ201212130054 


"Japanese researchers said they have developed a new material for organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) that is free of rare metals and can slash the costs to produce smartphone displays and other appliances.


The team led by Chihaya Adachi, director of Kyushu University's Center for Organic Photonics and Electronics Research, said they created a dicyanobenzene derivative, an organic chemical compound that emits light at high efficiencies, without the use of rare metals.


The material is as cheap as fluorescent substances and is as efficient in electroluminescence, or the use of electrons to induce light emission, as phosphorous substances, they said.


The team named the new material's light-emitting features "hyperfluorescence."


"We wish to tie up with Japanese manufacturers and strive to commercialize our Japan-born technology at an early date," Adachi said.............................


......................................................................................................................................................


Since this new material is not a phosphorous substance, I wonder if it might greatly reduce or eliminate image retention or burn-in damage?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22702847
> 
> 
> Since this new material is not a phosphorous substance, I wonder if it might greatly reduce or eliminate image retention or burn-in damage?



Assuming that the other techniques had IR? Good question. It has everything to do with how the material itself holds up under multiple uses, and at what intensities. Even an incandescent bulb behaves differently when it ages. Heck, so does my son's glow in the dark Frisbee.


Something I've off and on wondered about for years was if the electrical characteristics of a worn plasma cell could be detected and electrically compensated for. So the pixels that had variations of a "burn" would have their signal altered to compensate.


----------



## Elvis Is Alive




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22702917
> 
> 
> Assuming that the other techniques had IR? Good question. It has everything to do with how the material itself holds up under multiple uses, and at what intensities. Even an incandescent bulb behaves differently when it ages. Heck, so does my son's glow in the dark Frisbee.
> 
> Something I've off and on wondered about for years was if the electrical characteristics of a worn plasma cell could be detected and electrically compensated for. So the pixels that had variations of a "burn" would have their signal altered to compensate.



I believe something like this is exactly what some of Panasonic plasmas do (or at least did). Voltage was adjusted over time, which had the side effect of the infamous "black level doubling overnight" fiasco. I am not sure why they did this (maybe to keep brightness levels consistant as the panel ages?).


More informed posters can correct if I am mis-speaking.



I am very interested in OLED displays but not for many years. I currently use RP displays (67" Samsung LED DLP and maybe the only green blob free 60" Sony XBR2 in existance) and prefer large sizes. My next display must be around 80" at a reasonable cost. I will probably get either get a Sharp 80" LCD or a closeout priced 82" Mits DLP to use for the next few years. It's a shame that consumer PDP displays have maxed out at 64-65" size.


----------



## mikek753




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22702847
> 
> 
> Japanese scientists develop OLED material free of rare metals
> 
> "Without the use of rare metals, the costs for materials in OLEDs can be reduced to about one-10th, the scientists said."
> http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy/technology/AJ201212130054
> 
> "Japanese researchers said they have developed a new material for organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) that is free of rare metals and can slash the costs to produce smartphone displays and other appliances.
> 
> The team led by Chihaya Adachi, director of Kyushu University's Center for Organic Photonics and Electronics Research, said they created a dicyanobenzene derivative, an organic chemical compound that emits light at high efficiencies, without the use of rare metals.
> 
> The material is as cheap as fluorescent substances and is as efficient in electroluminescence, or the use of electrons to induce light emission, as phosphorous substances, they said.
> 
> The team named the new material's light-emitting features "hyperfluorescence."
> 
> "We wish to tie up with Japanese manufacturers and strive to commercialize our Japan-born technology at an early date," Adachi said.............................
> 
> ......................................................................................................................................................
> 
> Since this new material is not a phosphorous substance, I wonder if it might greatly reduce or eliminate image retention or burn-in damage?



this is good news, however:

1. how long it'll take to get mass product? 3-5 years?

2. 1/10th cost? 55" OLED for $800-$1k - so good to be true

3. what China will do as rare metals main producer?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22702501
> 
> 
> Eh, you may be right. _But the market for them is nearly gone_ and it isn't because of weight, cost of manufacture, nor energy consumption, and not that potential buzzing nor do I think image brightness. Even if the image retention were technically defeated (which is isn't), the *perception* of it is an 800 pound gorilla. Whenever people who don't know _anything_ about TV's at all ask me what to buy, they *always* come armed with words to the effect of "we don't want a plasma....the images burn into them." Or they had it happen, or their friends did, etc.
> 
> It's not how many of them sold that determines this so much as it is for how long even a few of them have been running. You're right in not making this assumption though: even CRT's can have IR.



Sorry, I don't buy this. While I believe plasma was hurt several years ago by threats of "burn in", it lost in the market to LCD for four reasons:


1) Cost

2) Availability in a wide array of sizes

3) Brightness

4) Gigantic array of manufacturers of panels and TV


AVSers think that regular people know all the junk that is obsessed about here; but they don't.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22702847
> 
> 
> Japanese scientists develop OLED material free of rare metals
> 
> "Without the use of rare metals, the costs for materials in OLEDs can be reduced to about one-10th, the scientists said."
> http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy/technology/AJ201212130054
> 
> "Japanese researchers said they have developed a new material for organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) that is free of rare metals and can slash the costs to produce smartphone displays and other appliances.
> 
> The team led by Chihaya Adachi, director of Kyushu University's Center for Organic Photonics and Electronics Research, said they created a dicyanobenzene derivative, an organic chemical compound that emits light at high efficiencies, without the use of rare metals.
> 
> The material is as cheap as fluorescent substances and is as efficient in electroluminescence, or the use of electrons to induce light emission, as phosphorous substances, they said.
> 
> The team named the new material's light-emitting features "hyperfluorescence."
> 
> "We wish to tie up with Japanese manufacturers and strive to commercialize our Japan-born technology at an early date," Adachi said.............................
> 
> ......................................................................................................................................................
> 
> Since this new material is not a phosphorous substance, I wonder if it might greatly reduce or eliminate image retention or burn-in damage?



First, you mean "phosphor" not "phosphorous", which is an element.


Second, this article is gigantically misleading and irrelevant.


Why? Because they are talking about the material for the OLED itself, not the display. The display will still require a TFT backplane and that will still use IGZO going forward, which means indium, gallium and zinc. See below...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikek753*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22704265
> 
> 
> this is good news, however:
> 
> 1. how long it'll take to get mass product? 3-5 years?
> 
> 2. 1/10th cost? 55" OLED for $800-$1k - so good to be true
> 
> 3. what China will do as rare metals main producer?



So there is a lot of confusion about "rare metals".


First, there are so-called "rare earth" elements. None of them are rare, as in scarce. China produces most of them for cost reasons, but they exist elsewhere and an old U.S. mine owned by Molycorp is being reopened, for example, with all sorts of nifty technology, environmental safeguards, etc. because these metals are now very expensive. The list of rare earths is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element 


Then, there are "rare metals", for example gold, that are actually rare.


Indium, which comes as a byproduct of zinc mining, is not especially rare, but is fairly unique in that it produces (with tin) the world's only known practical transparent electrodes. As a result, LCDs (and plasmas) need indium and consumption of it has soared in the flat-panel era. Indium is 4x to 10x as expensive as it was a decade ago (depending on the fluctuations in the market and whether China is being obnoxious about producing it). Indium can be recovered from recycling and the technology is getting better to do that (nearly all is recycled at this point). It's not rare in the sense of being scarce at all. There is a 100+ year known supply and there is more indium in the earth than silver (while more silver is used by far).


Gallium is also a byproduct of zinc mining and is less rare than indium. It's also less needed, since indium-tin oxide (the transparent electrodes) don't use it. It will be used in IGZO, but there is no particular shortage to worry about.


Neither Indium nor Gallium are "rare earths" nor are they "rare".


As to the technology in question that greenland linked to, a "better, cheaper" OLED material would likely take 3-10 years to reach the market. If it cut the price of making the OLED layer by 90%, it would probably mean the price of a display would fall by about 10%. No, really that's what it would mean. If you figure the display is composed of the following parts:


* Power supply and electronics

* TFT backplane

* Front glass (and color filters in the case of LG)

* OLED layer


... the only part affected by this is the OLED layer. You pay about 2.5x the manufacturing cost of your TV (that's very rough by the way, but bear with me). If we take the example of the OLED _material_ falling in price 90%, the OLED layer doesn't fall 90% in price, the material for the layer does. Let's say that the OLED layer costs you 40% of your manufacturing cost (sounds high, but whatever). The masking / patterning (Samsung) or the vapor deposition (LG) is most of the work, the material is a portion. So let's call the material 30% of the cost of that layer. Now we drop that by 90%. So we had 30% (the OLED material) of a layer that cost you 40% (the OLED layer). We've made that layer cost about 27% less (1 - (.9 * .3) = .27). So our build cost has now fallen by about 11% overall (.27 * .40 = 10.8). However, our retail price is still going to be about 2.5x our build cost.


If our build cost before was "100", and retail was 250. We can now recalibrate at 89 and 222.5. The difference between the old price, 250, and the new price 222.5 is about 11%.


(Incidentally, LG is already using at least some fluorescent OLED materials, suggesting that in TVs, they are trading power efficiency for cost already. So I'm not sure this even has significant implications for them at all.)


----------



## tgm1024

As usual, your arguments are founded from your long history of such things, so they're often a good exercise.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22704488
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't buy this. While I believe plasma was hurt several years ago by threats of "burn in", it lost in the market to LCD for four reasons:
> 
> 1) Cost


I'm sorry Rogo, I really don't understand this. Plasmas have been a bargain! And to get an LCD at even similar picture quality places plasma at an UBER-bargain.



> Quote:
> 2) Availability in a wide array of sizes


Perhaps. Larger than 65" as a common place purchase is a recent phenomenon though, no? Or are you referring to under-42" crowd?



> Quote:
> 3) Brightness


OK. But compared to the fear of burn-in (my claimed 800 pound gorilla), this isn't even on the map. I've been in the technical world forever, imaging for most of it, and even I knew of the fear of plasma burn-in/IR long before any brightness issue. And I can guarantee the non-techie mom&pop&grandmothers out there know of IR as well, but for the vast majority of them, nothing about brightness. Outside of the AV crowd, or those that have invested homework, it's just not even on the radar at first.



> Quote:
> 4) Gigantic array of manufacturers of panels and TV


I'll make a classic economics argument here. Manufacturers follow demand. Demand isn't somehow pushed by manufacturers. You don't suddenly have people wanting more mousetraps because a ton of mousetrap factories showed up pushing their price ever lower. It's not like the sudden supply of natural gas which is plentiful as a weird welcome by-product of fracking. You have to put money into manufacturing because of a perceived demand first.


----------



## greenland

A lot of demand has been originally jump started by the manufacturer; especially when ever they introduced a revolutionary new product. That is what Apple did with their Pods, Phones, and Pads.


I still much prefer Plasma over LCD for Blu-ray and TV viewing, but would never use a Plasma display as a computer monitor. People have purchased a huge amount of LCD TV displays in sizes smaller than are available in Plasma displays; so that accounts for a significant amount of the higher LCD sales numbers.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22705016
> 
> 
> A lot of demand has been originally jump started by the manufacturer; especially when ever they introduced a revolutionary new product. That is what Apple did with their Pods, Phones, and Pads.
> 
> I still much prefer Plasma over LCD for Blu-ray and TV viewing, but would never use a Plasma display as a computer monitor. People have purchased a huge amount of LCD TV displays in sizes smaller than are available in Plasma displays; so that accounts for a significant amount of the higher LCD sales numbers.



I hadn't thought of that. The computer monitor specific LCD's were always excluded from the TV numbers (right?), but not when the TV's are bought for computing purposes.


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680_60#post_22704842
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Rogo, I really don't understand this. Plasmas have been a bargain!



Me neither (not understanding his point), but I'm sure he'll explain.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680_60#post_22704842
> 
> 
> ...... but for the vast majority of them, nothing about brightness. Outside of the AV crowd, or those that have invested homework, it's just not even on the radar at first.



Totally and completely disagree with you there. Since many of the retail environments showcase plasmas and lcds in relatively bright settings, the LCDs often look much more robust, appealing, vibrantly bright, etc.,. to the general consumer.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22704842
> 
> 
> As usual, your arguments are founded from your long history of such things, so they're often a good exercise.
> 
> I'm sorry Rogo, I really don't understand this. Plasmas have been a bargain! And to get an LCD at even similar picture quality places plasma at an UBER-bargain.



Yeah, first of all, quality wasn't my argument. LCDs were available in much smaller sizes for a long time when that mattered. I realize that seems irrelevant now; it wasn't for the first half of the decade. And those scale economics eventually allowed LCD pricing to catch plasma pricing in the 40s and up, too.


> Quote:
> Perhaps. Larger than 65" as a common place purchase is a recent phenomenon though, no? Or are you referring to under-42" crowd?



Yes, sorry.


> Quote:
> OK. But compared to the fear of burn-in (my claimed 800 pound gorilla), this isn't even on the map. I've been in the technical world forever, imaging for most of it, and even I knew of the fear of plasma burn-in/IR long before any brightness issue. And I can guarantee the non-techie mom&pop&grandmothers out there know of IR as well, but for the vast majority of them, nothing about brightness. Outside of the AV crowd, or those that have invested homework, it's just not even on the radar at first.



Sorry, I don't buy this. People at Best Buy go in and see the bright images, they go home with them. Best Buy even has a decent number of knowledgeable people (decent number) who tell people not to worry about burn in, but they can't be bothered to convince them the "dimmer" image is better.


> Quote:
> I'll make a classic economics argument here. Manufacturers follow demand. Demand isn't somehow pushed by manufacturers. You don't suddenly have people wanting more mousetraps because a ton of mousetrap factories showed up pushing their price ever lower. It's not like the sudden supply of natural gas which is plentiful as a weird welcome by-product of fracking. You have to put money into manufacturing because of a perceived demand first.



The classical argument is wrong. LCD fab building ramped up for 5 years well ahead of demand. It led to years of industry overcapacity, which led to panels everywhere and lower pricing. Manufacturers of TVs followed the unlimited availability of panels. (and yes it was unlimited).


They put the money in confident there would be demand and then had to price to create the demand because they had invested in a factory.


By the way, the sudden supply of natural gas is actually a weird and welcome by-product of fracking. Fracking isn't a new idea. It's an old idea. It wasn't popular because it didn't seem worth it. Then in North Dakota, people started using fracking-type methods to get _oil_, not gas because oil prices had remained so high for so long people went looking for "tight oil". When the methods proved viable for oil, it became more realistic to use them just for gas, which was also pricey -- and "running out" in North America. Then ruinous amounts of investment went into fracking (sounds a lot like the LCD build of the early 2000s actually). Natural gas is now actually priced too low, which has some intriguing short-term oddball benefits but isn't actually optimal. But that's another matter.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22705452
> 
> 
> Yeah, first of all, quality wasn't my argument.


I still think you have the cart before the horse here. Cost being something that hurt plasma _was_ part of your argument, and for that there is no such thing as cost in a vacuum. For any given price point, you have better picture with plasma. For any given picture quality (above a certain point) you have plasmas being cheapest. Or so it seems to me.



> Quote:
> LCDs were available in much smaller sizes for a long time when that mattered. I realize that seems irrelevant now; it wasn't for the first half of the decade. And those scale economics eventually allowed LCD pricing to catch plasma pricing in the 40s and up, too.


I think you're still over estimating the picture quality of LCD's for a given price point when compared to plasma.



> Quote:
> People at Best Buy go in and see the bright images, they go home with them. Best Buy even has a decent number of knowledgeable people (decent number) who tell people not to worry about burn in, but they can't be bothered to convince them the "dimmer" image is better.


Perhaps my experiences are different then, but I didn't see this in stores. The plasmas in the highly lit Bestbuy didn't seem outshone by the LCD's even though they could have been. It was never the case that there were a pile of dim screens called plasma and a pile of bright ones called LCD. It just was never that stark.


Actually, something I overlooked and probably shouldn't have are the bragging rights that came with a thin TV. Plasmas were still mostly 4 inches thick when the 1 inch thick edge-lits started showing up.



> Quote:
> The classical argument is wrong. LCD fab building ramped up for 5 years well ahead of demand.


They didn't do this for yucks. They did this *because* of the demand they were seeing and where they were predicting it would go. If it takes X number of years to build a fabrication facility, you have to try to see X years down the road.



> Quote:
> It led to years of industry overcapacity, which led to panels everywhere and lower pricing. Manufacturers of TVs followed the unlimited availability of panels. (and yes it was unlimited).
> 
> They put the money in confident there would be demand and then had to price to create the demand because they had invested in a factory.


I'm sorry I don't understand this either. That is just backwards. You have no ability to "price to create the demand" as you put it. That's just not an economic concept. You price to sell the product. If there's too much supply, that means that the demand is less, then that price drops so that you can still sell. Price does not push the demand around. Also, I specified "perceived demand". I should have probably said "predicted demand". It sounds like what you're saying is they predicted something that never showed and as a result had to price far lower than they ever thought they would. I can't imagine how that could be, but honestly can't speak with authority to that either way, so if that's what you're saying, I'll defer to you.



> Quote:
> By the way, the sudden supply of natural gas is actually a weird and welcome by-product of fracking. Fracking isn't a new idea. It's an old idea.


Didn't say it was. But the latest technique, the "horizontal slickwater fracking" is a late 90's implementation. And the amount of NG resulting from it did take many people by surprise.



> Quote:
> It wasn't popular because it didn't seem worth it. Then in North Dakota, people started using fracking-type methods to get _oil_, not gas because oil prices had remained so high for so long people went looking for "tight oil". When the methods proved viable for oil, it became more realistic to use them just for gas, which was also pricey -- and "running out" in North America. Then ruinous amounts of investment went into fracking (sounds a lot like the LCD build of the early 2000s actually). Natural gas is now actually priced too low, which has some intriguing short-term oddball benefits but isn't actually optimal. But that's another matter.


Ok, no, wait. First of all, yes, since the 40's fracking was an oil gathering mechanism. Fast forward to 1998: The latest slickwater thing has resulted in an amount of NG that depressed the NG prices sharply. NG is not priced "too low", it's priced based upon supply (and inverted demand, all over again). This is far too afield from AV....I only brought it up as an example of what was _not_ happening in the LCD world. The large supply of LCD's didn't take anyone by surprise. The supply of natural gas did.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22707831
> 
> 
> I still think you have the cart before the horse here. Cost being something that hurt plasma _was_ part of your argument, and for that there is no such thing as cost in a vacuum. For any given price point, you have better picture with plasma. For any given picture quality (above a certain point) you have plasmas being cheapest. Or so it seems to me.
> 
> I think you're still over estimating the picture quality of LCD's for a given price point when compared to plasma.
> 
> Perhaps my experiences are different then, but I didn't see this in stores. The plasmas in the highly lit Bestbuy didn't seem outshone by the LCD's even though they could have been. It was never the case that there were a pile of dim screens called plasma and a pile of bright ones called LCD. It just was never that stark.
> 
> Actually, something I overlooked and probably shouldn't have are the bragging rights that came with a thin TV. Plasmas were still mostly 4 inches thick when the 1 inch thick edge-lits started showing up.
> 
> They didn't do this for yucks. They did this *because* of the demand they were seeing and where they were predicting it would go. If it takes X number of years to build a fabrication facility, you have to try to see X years down the road.
> 
> I'm sorry I don't understand this either. That is just backwards. You have no ability to "price to create the demand" as you put it. That's just not an economic concept. You price to sell the product. If there's too much supply, that means that the demand is less, then that price drops so that you can still sell. Price does not push the demand around. Also, I specified "perceived demand". I should have probably said "predicted demand". It sounds like what you're saying is they predicted something that never showed and as a result had to price far lower than they ever thought they would. I can't imagine how that could be, but honestly can't speak with authority to that either way, so if that's what you're saying, I'll defer to you.
> 
> Didn't say it was. But the latest technique, the "horizontal slickwater fracking" is a late 90's implementation. And the amount of NG resulting from it did take many people by surprise.
> 
> Ok, no, wait. First of all, yes, since the 40's fracking was an oil gathering mechanism. Fast forward to 1998: The latest slickwater thing has resulted in an amount of NG that depressed the NG prices sharply. NG is not priced "too low", it's priced based upon supply (and inverted demand, all over again). This is far too afield from AV....I only brought it up as an example of what was _not_ happening in the LCD world. The large supply of LCD's didn't take anyone by surprise. The supply of natural gas did.



We more or less agree on nothing, so there is nothing to talk about to be honest.


1) The dim vs. bright thing is widely agree upon. I don't know how or why you don't see it, but it's widely agreed upon.


2) The LCD fab thing I'm 100% positive of. I called the ruinous investment as it happened. If I did, many who followed it more closely than me did. Yes, they predicted demand for HDTVs. No they didn't predict demand for all those LCD TVs. In fact, the world's 8G fabs never ran near capacity. There was a shakeout before all the fabs were even built. But in the year where everyone broke great, it absolutely shocked everyone that so much stupid investment was happening at once. It was a discontinuous moment that would forever write the history of plasma and indirectly seal the fate of Japan Inc.


They "priced to create demand" to try to run near 100% utilization. That led to ruinous price competition, often negative gross margins, and honestly, the death of plasma as more than a niche technology. Panasonic never reached capacity on their fabs because LCD got the market. It got the market through a combination of aggressive players and a ruinous commodity market. That allowed the Vizios of the world to sell at 10% retail margins on commodity panels and take share from Sony et al. That's what happened. And it's why 2 of the 3 Taiwanese LCD makers are not independent anymore. And it's why Sony, Toshiba, et al. never made their own panels for large-size TVs -- they realized there'd be cheap panels and they were way too late getting started. Of course, as primary manufacturers with high-margin structures they would then have no technological leadership or anything to fall back on. (Not that this helped Sharp, which would be done in by the yen and its own unbelievably ruinous investment in the world's only 10G plant when it saw something like 12 8G fabs happening at once.)


3) As for fracking, yes it's been improved. But no, nothing is surprising. It's actually too easy to frack shale so any idiot can drill a well. And every idiot has done so (along with serious players). The price is so low that nearly no one makes money doing it anymore and most fracking operations are currently profitless. The price is "too low" from an efficient, near market perspective. It's nice for us consumers and temporarily good for CO2 since it's killing off U.S. coal-based electricity. The number of new wells is already down because the price is too low to justify them and it will, of course, change over time as we (a) allow exports (b) use more gas (c) produce less gas due to people leaving the market. Over time, the price will find the correct level. The current situation is "surprising" in the sense that 10 years ago the U.S. was "running out of gas", but it's really a strange artifact of the oil business more than anything.


The price is not at all a function of demand in the U.S. This is where we have nothing to talk about. It's like you read econ textbooks and think the world works that way. If the price for natural gas rose 30%, demand wouldn't change right now. The price is well below the market clearing price because there is so much supply -- _and potential supply_ -- out there. At some other price, say twice the current price, demand would change. That would then yield all sorts of second-order effects, some good, some bad.


Be well.


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> They "priced to create demand" to try to run near 100% utilization. That led to ruinous price competition, often negative gross margins, and honestly, the death of plasma as more than a niche technology. Panasonic never reached capacity on their fabs because LCD got the market. It got the market through a combination of aggressive players and a ruinous commodity market. That allowed the Vizios of the world to sell at 10% retail margins on commodity panels and take share from Sony et al. That's what happened....



Ah, right. I had forgotten all about that! Plasma has been a bargain for so long now, I had forgotten those days when offbrand LCDs were undercutting plasmas (and the better known/regarded LCD brands) on price. And by a lot. Plasmas weren't the lowest priced game in town back then. By the time plasma became cheap, the game was already pretty much over, as you've described.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22708246
> 
> 
> We more or less agree on nothing, so there is nothing to talk about to be honest.


Ah look! We just agreed!



> Quote:
> Be well.










And you too.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680#post_22701068
> 
> 
> There are not, realistically, any other contenders navy. The display industry has invented dozens of ways to put an image on screen. In direct-view TV, exactly three have ever reached the market: CRT, PDP and LCD. The first is basically dead, the second had a brief run and almost became a hit (it was a success, but not truly a "hit" in terms of numbers), the third owns more than 90% of the market. Billions have been spent pursuing the others and nothing has ever come of it.
> 
> 
> The only reason we can be reasonably assured OLED will be a television technology is that we've seen it work in small scale and seen the large prototypes shown by big, wealthy (in one case) companies. It takes billions of dollars and more than a decade to successfully commercialize a new flat-panel technology. It did for PDP, it did for LCD. It has for OLED. Until you see someone putting billions on the table, you can rest easy knowing you'll never see a TV based on that technology.......



But if FIPEL could be used as a direct replacement for current LCD backlighting/edge lighting, would that not eliminate the billions investment? Considering billions will be spent anyway, to bring it to market for area lighting.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22709032
> 
> 
> But if FIPEL could be used as a direct replacement for current LCD backlighting/edge lighting, would that not eliminate the billions investment? Considering billions will be spent anyway, to bring it to market for area lighting.



I'm going to remain skeptical of technologies that are supposedly going to do X, Y, and Z until they do it. The history of this kind of stuff suggests it will never exist.


There are all sorts of non-sensical predictions about OLED lighting, for example, that fly in the face of current data that _these things will not exist_. When I heard the hype here a couple of years ago, I said, "LED -- the inorganic type -- will dominate lighting, along with CFL, which is already cheap as heck". Others said no. Yet, by last fall, you had people already backing off their nonsensical beliefs:


> Quote:
> "A new report suggests that organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, won't come anywhere close to replacing conventional illuminators like incandescent and compact fluorescent lightbulbs in the foreseeable future. The analysis, conducted by Lux Research, a technology consultancy based in Boston, is marked by an extremely bleak projection of the worldwide OLED lighting market in 2020—a mere US $58 million in annual sales."


 http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/optoelectronics/expectations-dim-for-oled-lighting 


Certainly, it's possible that OLED lighting or FIPEL will catch on and somehow this will be synergistic with displays. But it's not likely.


What's likely is that LCD will keep better for far, far longer in display than everyone who wants to kill it can imagine and that OLED will eventually make it big in TVs using techniques like LGs. Things like printable OLEDs and other exotic ideas will probably not exist this decade and might never.


----------



## Artwood

If OLED doesn't come faster, bigger, and cheaper we are looking at a window of years where the only displays that can be bought that aren't as expensive as OLED will be CRAPPY LCDs!


Can you imagine NO SHARP?


That means BIG displays are gone!


Then when plasma exits and OLED costs too much you'll have the HORROR story of LCD world wide total domination!


2014 might be the LAST YEAR to buy big size quality--if it doesn't come in 2013.


Pray for plasma--pray for OLED--pray for big TVs--pray against LCD that sucks! Who can take it?!!!


It's the end of the video world!


With rear projection dead ALL of those people will be crying at the prospect of LCD that sucks!


I really don't want to hear about OLED until it can be at least 65-inches and not cost more than current 65-inch plasmas.


Will that day come or will we wait for it SO long that they give up on OLED and we have to face the horror of ETERNAL LCD OBLIVION!


Are we really just 3 years away from it being all over?!


----------



## mike50




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22711495
> 
> 
> If OLED doesn't come faster, bigger, and cheaper we are looking at a window of years where the only displays that can be bought that aren't as expensive as OLED will be CRAPPY LCDs!
> 
> Can you imagine NO SHARP?
> 
> That means BIG displays are gone!
> 
> Then when plasma exits and OLED costs too much you'll have the HORROR story of LCD world wide total domination!
> 
> 2014 might be the LAST YEAR to buy big size quality--if it doesn't come in 2013.
> 
> Pray for plasma--pray for OLED--pray for big TVs--pray against LCD that sucks! Who can take it?!!!
> 
> It's the end of the video world!
> 
> With rear projection dead ALL of those people will be crying at the prospect of LCD that sucks!
> 
> I really don't want to hear about OLED until it can be at least 65-inches and not cost more than current 65-inch plasmas.
> 
> Will that day come or will we wait for it SO long that they give up on OLED and we have to face the horror of ETERNAL LCD OBLIVION!
> 
> Are we really just 3 years away from it being all over?!



LOL ! We are 3 years away from game over for the human race as by then it will be too late to save planet earth.


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mike50*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22711547
> 
> 
> LOL ! We are 3 years away from game over for the human race as by then it will be too late to save planet earth.


If human race develops molecular nanotechnology or Friendly, self-recursively-improving AI, this earth-saving business could happen easily and quickly. And great flat panels could be made too, but why would you waste time in front of them if you had whole artificial paradise-universes to explore.


----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4680_40#post_22720503
> 
> 
> If human race develops molecular nanotechnology or Friendly, self-recursively-improving AI, this earth-saving business could happen easily and quickly. And great flat panels could be made too, but why would you waste time in front of them if you had whole artificial paradise-universes to explore.


I'm waiting to upgrade until they finish developing an affordable holodeck.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22711426
> 
> 
> I'm going to remain skeptical of technologies that are supposedly going to do X, Y, and Z until they do it. The history of this kind of stuff suggests it will never exist.
> 
> There are all sorts of non-sensical predictions about OLED lighting, for example, that fly in the face of current data that _these things will not exist_. When I heard the hype here a couple of years ago, I said, "LED -- the inorganic type -- will dominate lighting, along with CFL, which is already cheap as heck". Others said no. Yet, by last fall, you had people already backing off their nonsensical beliefs:
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/optoelectronics/expectations-dim-for-oled-lighting
> 
> Certainly, it's possible that OLED lighting or FIPEL will catch on and somehow this will be synergistic with displays. But it's not likely.
> 
> What's likely is that LCD will keep better for far, far longer in display than everyone who wants to kill it can imagine and that OLED will eventually make it big in TVs using techniques like LGs. Things like printable OLEDs and other exotic ideas will probably not exist this decade and might never.



Thank you for your response. I suppose the next 3-5 years will be very interesting for the display & lighting world.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22725551
> 
> 
> Thank you for your response. I suppose the next 3-5 years will be very interesting for the display & lighting world.



You're welcome. And I really hope they will be.


----------



## rogo

Since there has been no press release, I am presuming neither Samsung nor LG got their fake ship date by jamming a few OLED sets into stores in Korea by year end. But does anyone have ties in Korea and an ability to confirm one way or the other?


----------



## saprano

Been out of the oled world for awhile. What happened to the 55" sets that were supposed to be released by now?


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *saprano*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22732710
> 
> 
> Been out of the oled world for awhile. What happened to the 55" sets that were supposed to be released by now?




bad news. look for the thread "shockingly bad new about oled"


----------



## Rich Peterson

We will no-doubt get some OLED TV info in a couple weeks at CES. LG's press conference is scheduled for 8AM PST on Monday Jan 7th. Samsung's is at 2 PST later that day. Sony's is at 5PST.


In the past Engagdget has provided a live blog during the press conferences with pictures and their observations and also including their commentary. I don't think any of the press conferences are streamed anywhere, though. If anyone knows of that please post.


Often announcements are made before the actual CES press day to catch the most attention. Last year Samsung hung this huge OLED banner outside the LV Convention Center. It was seen before the show making it clear OLED would be a big push for them during the show.


Now that the suits recognize that manufacturing is a huge challenge, I wonder if OLED TV will be as front-and-center this year?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22734121
> 
> 
> We will no-doubt get some OLED TV info in a couple weeks at CES. LG's press conference is scheduled for 8AM PST on Monday Jan 7th. Samsung's is at 2 PST later that day. Sony's is at 5PST.
> 
> In the past Engagdget has provided a live blog during the press conferences with pictures and their observations and also including their commentary. I don't think any of the press conferences are streamed anywhere, though. If anyone knows of that please post.
> 
> Often announcements are made before the actual CES press day to catch the most attention. Last year Samsung hung this huge OLED banner outside the LV Convention Center. It was seen before the show making it clear OLED would be a big push for them during the show.
> 
> Now that the suits recognize that manufacturing is a huge challenge, I wonder if OLED TV will be as front-and-center this year?



I will have a press tag this year, but I won't be there Monday unless I get another gig that requires it. I'll learn what I can.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22735272
> 
> 
> I will have a press tag this year, but I won't be there Monday unless I get another gig that requires it. I'll learn what I can.



Rogo, I'm surprised they let you into these places at all. Isn't CES for folks who actually *believe* the propaganda?


----------



## saprano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22735272
> 
> 
> I will have a press tag this year, but I won't be there Monday unless I get another gig that requires it. I'll learn what I can.



Do you have an extra pass?


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22734121
> 
> 
> Now that the suits recognize that manufacturing is a huge challenge, I wonder if OLED TV will be as front-and-center this year?




No doubt we will see some larger OLED prototypes from LG and Samsung that will probably never make it to market, but the interesting thing to watch for is if the Sony/Panasonic OLED venture or any of the Chinese manufactures have anything to show. In all likelihood, this is the year of 4K and I would expect a lot of manufactures to show 4K sets. Also the Sony/LG/Toshiba 4K alliance should show 4K blu-ray for the first time with shipping in late 2013.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22739544
> 
> 
> No doubt we will see some larger OLED prototypes from LG and Samsung that will probably never make it to market, but the interesting thing to watch for is if the Sony/Panasonic OLED venture or any of the Chinese manufactures have anything to show. In all likelihood, this is the year of 4K and I would expect a lot of manufactures to show 4K sets. Also the Sony/LG/Toshiba 4K alliance should show 4K blu-ray for the first time with shipping in late 2013.



Interesting you think we'll larger OLED prototypes. I am less sanguine on the prospects for that.


People need to stop thinking there is some sort of Sony/Panasonic OLED venture. There is not.


I know you all think you read that; you didn't.


There is a Sony/Panasonic venture to develop technology to manufacture OLED. The key words there are "develop", "technology" and "manufacture". The two companies are trying to invent techniques, processes and devices that can be used to manufacture OLED displays. They have not announced any plans to build those devices and _certainly_ have not begun discussing any plans to build displays together -- at least not publicly.


----------



## sytech

I definitely think we will see larger OLED prototypes, but they will probably remain just prototypes. We should also see one or two 4K OLED prototypes. I think even LG realizes that 2K OLED was a misstep. Even if they figure out their yield problems and have a small run, they will need to make the jump to 4K much sooner than expected, to compete with the 4K marketing hype. The biggest push is of course going to be 4K LCD and MothEye. Most manufactures should quickly license the Nippon/Sharp anti-glare glass on their larger screens in 2014. Also, I think we should see something from Sony about 4K Blu-ray with a shipping date much earlier than most people think, maybe as early as late 2013.


----------



## rogo

We'll know soon enough.


----------



## hotskins

im excited for motheye. I hope sharp sells the tech to LG because they need it bad. The vt50 barely has any glare so they dont really need it.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hotskins*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22747431
> 
> 
> im excited for motheye. I hope sharp sells the tech to LG because they need it bad. The vt50 barely has any glare so they dont really need it.



I think Japan's Nippon Glass actually hold most of the license for the glare-free glass and worked with Sharp to integrate it for the large display market. Sharp's marketing department is the one calling it MothEye and I believe a few Phillips sets in Europe already had some version of glare free glass. Don't know how the licensing arrangement works or how much a factor Sharp holds, but I would suspect we will see it quickly adopted by other manufactures. Reportedly, the irregularities in the glass that give it its glare free properties also makes calibration of the sets more difficult because of the measuring equipment attached to the screen.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *saprano*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22732710
> 
> 
> Been out of the oled world for awhile. What happened to the 55" sets that were supposed to be released by now?



The official LG site in Australia says they are "slated for launch in early 2013" there. There's now a commercial in China which says they will be released there in April. An article in a Russian newspaper says they will be released there in March and are available for preorder now. The LG has been through the FCC in the US though a release date has not yet been mentioned. In the U.K. they've been demoing it on their "gadget show" which has been traveling around the country for the past few weeks. The LG marketing VP in Mexico said a few weeks ago they would be released there in "early 2013". LG had to retool their pilot line over the summer, hence the delay from the earlier expectations. Again, this is coming off one pilot line from one company so its not realistic to expect these will be in large volumes at competitive prices until large volume regular production facilities are running which could still be sometime in 2014. Samsung models may still be a ways off.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22750512
> 
> 
> The official LG site in Australia says they are "slated for launch in early 2013" there. There's now a commercial in China which says they will be released there in April. An article in a Russian newspaper says they will be released there in March and are available for preorder now. The LG has been through the FCC in the US though a release date has not yet been mentioned. In the U.K. they've been demoing it on their "gadget show" which has been traveling around the country for the past few weeks. The LG marketing VP in Mexico said a few weeks ago they would be released there in "early 2013". LG had to retool their pilot line over the summer, hence the delay from the earlier expectations. Again, this is coming off one pilot line from one company so its not realistic to expect these will be in large volumes at competitive prices until large volume regular production facilities are running which could still be sometime in 2014. Samsung models may still be a ways off.



[rantapalooza]And like everyone else, they have a beautiful slim line bezel and completely ruin it with an ugly downward bulge to house their logo/camera/whatever. Gross.[/rantapalooza]


----------



## Orbitron

 http://www.andrew-robinson-online.com/oled-falls-to-ultrahd/ 


Bad news for sure.


----------



## mr. wally

weird the article sez ultra hd has killed off 4k. i thought the standard for ultra hd was the same as 4k?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4710#post_22751287
> 
> 
> weird the article sez ultra hd has killed of 4k. i thought the standard for ultra hd was the same as 4k?



The quote you're referring to is this one:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Andrew Robinson in an article on December 18, 2012*  http://www.andrew-robinson-online.com/oled-falls-to-ultrahd/
> 
> 
> It appears, for the time being, that UltraHD has claimed yet another victim; first 4K and now OLED.



...which I read probably 5 times and still don't understand. I even flipped quickly through the article that it refers to, and it was no help.


----------



## rogo

UltraHD, as defined in the source link, is 4K. that makes his second quote incomprehensible -- and wrong.


----------



## 8mile13

Since Consumer Electronics Association replaced 4K name by UltraHD, UltraHD kind off killed 4K


----------



## RichB

It will be a shame if 4K slows the OLED push, but OLED does not stand much of a chance.


OLED:
is not easily manufactured
improves picture quality (who cares about that)
does not require replacement of you AVR, Player, and HDMI cables (at least that is what they will tell you)
is harder to sell than twice the resolution


- Rich


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22752667
> 
> 
> Since Consumer Electronics Association replaced 4K name by UltraHD, UltraHD kind off killed 4K



Given that none of the new panels actually does 4000 lines of horizontal resolution (4K), but rather 3840 lines, CEA decided

to define the category of new, higher resolution panel as

UltraHD, stipulating that panels bearing that moniker provide a minimum of 3,840 horizontally and at least 2,160 lines of resolution.


The journalist writing that article got a little too exuberant, and unintentionally misleading.


----------



## mypretty1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22752912
> 
> 
> It will be a shame if 4K slows the OLED push, but OLED does not stand much of a chance.
> 
> OLED:
> improves picture quality (who cares about that)
> 
> - Rich



A TV is made to show a picture. That is its primary use!


I know that some folk play games on a TV but that is not what it is designed for - hence so may complaints on the various threads about lag etc. I imagine an OLED TV would not display the inherent flaws associated with current and future edge-lit TVs such as UHDTVs.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mypretty1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22753292
> 
> 
> A TV is made to show a picture. That is its primary use!
> 
> I know that some folk play games on a TV but that is not what it is designed for - hence so may complaints on the various threads about lag etc. I imagine an OLED TV would not display the inherent flaws associated with current and future edge-lit TVs such as UHDTVs.



You know I am being sarcastic.


But in the showroom, it is all about eye searing blue grayscale images.

Get ready for sales folks pushing pixels...


- Rich


----------



## taichi4

You know, prognosticators are more often wrong than right. I'm not sure OLED, or some variant thereof, is as dead as it is now being made out to be. It is more likely that someone will temper what might have been a premature move to production with some problem solving and subsequent technological advancements.

Emissive displays aren't dead, just gestating, IMO.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22753527
> 
> 
> You know, prognosticators are more often wrong than right. I'm not sure OLED, or some variant thereof, is as dead as it is now being made out to be. It is more likely that someone will temper what might have been a premature move to production with some problem solving and subsequent technological advancements.
> 
> Emissive displays aren't dead, just gestating, IMO.



The problem is deeper than you think: it is the production of what? OLED struggling with getting 55"@2K while LCD is moving to 50-110"@4K. OLED mobile displays struggling @720p while LCD just pushed to 1080. Not even talking about the price of OLED vs. LCD.


----------



## irkuck

The problem is deeper than you think: it is the production of what? OLED struggling with getting 55"@2K while LCD is moving to 50-110"@4K. OLED mobile displays struggling @720p while LCD just pushed to 1080. LCD is a fast moving target which OLED is not able to follow. Not even talking about the price of OLED vs. LCD.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22754299
> 
> 
> The problem is deeper than you think: it is the production of what? OLED struggling with getting 55"@2K while LCD is moving to 50-110"@4K. OLED mobile displays struggling @720p while LCD just pushed to 1080. Not even talking about the price of OLED vs. LCD.



The problem may or may not be deeper than I think, but sometimes serious obstacles lead to ingenious solutions.


As long as LCD screens are "shutter overlays" filtering backlighting, off axis viewing will continue to be somewhat unsatisfactory, and local dimming is not likely to be the equivalent of an emissive display with discrete pixels.


I'm just more optimistic than you. As both of our views are opinions, only time will determine the outcome.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22754658
> 
> 
> The problem may or may not be deeper than I think, but sometimes serious obstacles lead to ingenious solutions.
> 
> As long as LCD screens are "shutter overlays" filtering backlighting, off axis viewing will continue to be somewhat unsatisfactory, and local dimming is not likely to be the equivalent of an emissive display with discrete pixels.
> 
> I'm just more optimistic than you. As both of our views are opinions, only time will determine the outcome.



IPS, IGZO, and other technologies make me more optimistic _than you_ about LCD.


----------



## mypretty1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22754658
> 
> 
> The problem may or may not be deeper than I think, but sometimes serious obstacles lead to ingenious solutions.
> 
> As long as LCD screens are "shutter overlays" filtering backlighting, off axis viewing will continue to be somewhat unsatisfactory, and local dimming is not likely to be the equivalent of an emissive display with discrete pixels.
> 
> I'm just more optimistic than you. As both of our views are opinions, only time will determine the outcome.



I agree.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22755371
> 
> 
> IPS, IGZO, and other technologies make me more optimistic _than you_ about LCD.



Right. People do not recognize the problem with active pixels: it is exponentially more difficult to make plenty of them

when the pixel number is increasing. Thus the step from 2K to 4K would be colossal for OLED.


In fact OLED is facing direct existential threat right now. The only segment where OLED is commercialized of sort

is mobile. Now, everybody will tell that the difference between recent mobile LCDs and OLEDs is slight and with

technologies like AH-IPS and IGZO the LCD will keep up at least. But in addition mobile LCD is now changing from 720

to full 1080 which will become norm in 2013. Making 1080 mobile OLED is a huge step since the pixel number is doubled

and thus OLED may loose the game.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22756513
> 
> 
> Right. People do not recognize the problem with active pixels: it is exponentially more difficult to make plenty of them
> 
> when the pixel number is increasing. Thus the step from 2K to 4K would be colossal for OLED.
> 
> In fact OLED is facing direct existential threat right now. The only segment where OLED is commercialized of sort
> 
> is mobile. Now, everybody will tell that the difference between recent mobile LCDs and OLEDs is slight and with
> 
> technologies like AH-IPS and IGZO the LCD will keep up at least. But in addition mobile LCD is now changing from 720
> 
> to full 1080 which will become norm in 2013. Making 1080 mobile OLED is a huge step since the pixel number is doubled
> 
> and thus OLED may loose the game.



While I tend to think we agree on this, one thing that's different is that LG's OLED method is not especially hard to increase the pixel count in. It doesn't actually have "active pixels" in the sense of Samsung's OLED or, say, PDP. The entire OLED layers are the same whether or not it's 4K or 2K. The only differences are the backplane and the color-filter layer. And the backplane -- the IGZO layer -- is moving to 4K (or equivalent PPI) whether LG sticks with LCD or goes whole hog on OLED. So in that respect, it doesn't much matter to LG at least which technology wins. They can go high resolution either way.


For small displays, where OLED has obviously been a success, there's a legitimate question whether it needs to get more pixel rich. That is to say, the 1280 x 720 ~5-inch display is "resolutiony" enough for the market already. But there are, indeed, questions about whether it's easy to make OLEDs in 7-inch and 10-inch at "retina" resolutions. And I say there are questions because we clearly haven't seen Samsung pushing OLEDs into tablets at all. There is _an_ AMOLED tablet, in the 7.7" size, but also more 7" LCD models and the 10.1" LCD models. If it were trivial to just make more OLEDs, they surely would already be doing that at Samsung. We can conclude, therefore, it is not simple or free to do that. (And the AMOLED Galaxy Tab 7.7 appears more than twice as expensive as the LCD-based 7' Galaxy Tab 2.)


Obviously, it's possible to do high resolution on those tablets with LCD, but not yet with OLED too.


What we'll get a better window into during 2013 is how much AMOLED production expands into _other_ screen sizes beyond, say 5.5 inches (the size of a jumbo Samsung cell phone) and whether or not Samsung is able to push more pixels there without problems. In the meantime, we _will_ see more high-pixel LCD screens in sizes from 4 inches to 84 inches and IGZO will begin to replace amorphous silicon and HTPS backplanes apace.


I'm less persuaded than you that OLED faces an existential threat, but I think it faces additional market ones.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22759563
> 
> 
> While I tend to think we agree on this, one thing that's different is that LG's OLED method is not especially hard to increase the pixel count in. It doesn't actually have "active pixels" in the sense of Samsung's OLED or, say, PDP. The entire OLED layers are the same whether or not it's 4K or 2K. The only differences are the backplane and the color-filter layer. And the backplane -- the IGZO layer -- is moving to 4K (or equivalent PPI) whether LG sticks with LCD or goes whole hog on OLED. So in that respect, it doesn't much matter to LG at least which technology wins. They can go high resolution either way.



Indeed, it seems LG would face less hurdles than Samsung. But there are questions then why LG is not moving into OLED mobile displays, why does not have clear lead over Samsung in TV?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22759563
> 
> 
> For small displays, where OLED has obviously been a success, there's a legitimate question whether it needs to get more pixel rich. That is to say, the 1280 x 720 ~5-inch display is "resolutiony" enough for the market already.



Hah, forget about technical considerations. 720 has absolutely no chance with 1080 whatever the technology due to the marketing by numbers. Thus a 720 OLED has no future and by default OLED has no future due to the difficulty of moving to 1080.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22759563
> 
> 
> What we'll get a better window into during 2013 is how much AMOLED production expands into _other_ screen sizes beyond, say 5.5 inches (the size of a jumbo Samsung cell phone) and whether or not Samsung is able to push more pixels there without problems. In the meantime, we _will_ see more high-pixel LCD screens in sizes from 4 inches to 84 inches and IGZO will begin to replace amorphous silicon and HTPS backplanes apace.
> 
> I'm less persuaded than you that OLED faces an existential threat, but I think it faces additional market ones.



High-density, retinal LCD will become norm in tablets and laptops, OLED is left behind. IGZO and AH-IPS will add to the pressure.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22759563
> 
> 
> While I tend to think we agree on this, one thing that's different is that LG's OLED method is not especially hard to increase the pixel count in. It doesn't actually have "active pixels" in the sense of Samsung's OLED or, say, PDP. The entire OLED layers are the same whether or not it's 4K or 2K. The only differences are the backplane and the color-filter layer. And the backplane -- the IGZO layer -- is moving to 4K (or equivalent PPI) whether LG sticks with LCD or goes whole hog on OLED. So in that respect, it doesn't much matter to LG at least which technology wins. They can go high resolution either way.
> 
> For small displays, where OLED has obviously been a success, there's a legitimate question whether it needs to get more pixel rich. That is to say, the 1280 x 720 ~5-inch display is "resolutiony" enough for the market already. But there are, indeed, questions about whether it's easy to make OLEDs in 7-inch and 10-inch at "retina" resolutions. And I say there are questions because we clearly haven't seen Samsung pushing OLEDs into tablets at all. There is _an_ AMOLED tablet, in the 7.7" size, but also more 7" LCD models and the 10.1" LCD models. If it were trivial to just make more OLEDs, they surely would already be doing that at Samsung. We can conclude, therefore, it is not simple or free to do that. (And the AMOLED Galaxy Tab 7.7 appears more than twice as expensive as the LCD-based 7' Galaxy Tab 2.)
> 
> Obviously, it's possible to do high resolution on those tablets with LCD, but not yet with OLED too.
> 
> What we'll get a better window into during 2013 is how much AMOLED production expands into _other_ screen sizes beyond, say 5.5 inches (the size of a jumbo Samsung cell phone) and whether or not Samsung is able to push more pixels there without problems. In the meantime, we _will_ see more high-pixel LCD screens in sizes from 4 inches to 84 inches and IGZO will begin to replace amorphous silicon and HTPS backplanes apace.
> 
> I'm less persuaded than you that OLED faces an existential threat, but I think it faces additional market ones.



One of your most well thought out posts, Rogo. Regarding tablets, it's true cost is an issue for tablet size screens but Samsung is running their fab at full capacity to make screens for phones and thus have no capacity for tablet size screens. They have chosen to develop and implement plastic substrate (unbreakable, bendable, flexible) technology rather than expand capacity on current technology. As with most any completely new technology, it has taken a bit longer than hoped but they seem to have gotten past the major hurdles as they are investing in a second line. Agreed that we'll see how this goes in late 2013 as they should have sufficient capacity for it by then.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22760686
> 
> 
> Indeed, it seems LG would face less hurdles than Samsung. But there are questions then why LG is not moving into OLED mobile displays, why does not have clear lead over Samsung in TV?
> 
> Hah, forget about technical considerations. 720 has absolutely no chance with 1080 whatever the technology due to the marketing by numbers. Thus a 720 OLED has no future and by default OLED has no future due to the difficulty of moving to 1080.
> 
> High-density, retinal LCD will become norm in tablets and laptops, OLED is left behind. IGZO and AH-IPS will add to the pressure.



Irkuck, I find it interesting that you are confident a mature LCD tech will make these great improvements but an emerging OLED tech is stuck forever. If Samsung and LG believed this, then why did they spend 3-4 times as much on OLED development than on LCD in 2012 and announce plans to do the same in 2013 despite all the OLED is dead talk? The only investments they are making in LCD are due to tariff restrictions in China. Even Panasonic announced they would no longer invest in PDP but instead focus development efforts on OLED. If I understand, you think this is because of marketing hype around an unnecessary 1080 HD resolution? We'll see next week but there is a good chance Samsung will demo a 5" HD OLED at CES. They are expected to have an HD OLED screen on the Galaxy S4.


why LG is not moving into OLED mobile displays? LG is investing in flexible OLED mobile displays. Keeping in mind it is developing new technology (so the dates may slip a bit) but they are planning on having a line running at the end of 2013. They were the leader in AH-IPS LCD, especially for Apple, so it didn't make sense for them to cannibalize that business with small OLED screens but they acknowledge that flexible screens will be preferable and OLED is the way to do that.


why [LG] does not have clear lead over Samsung in TV? LG does have a clear lead over Samsung in OLED TV. There are no reports that Samsung is preparing for release of their OLED TV as there is for LG, no Samsung TV at the FCC.


As for IGZO, read Rogo's post. IGZO will benefit OLED more than it does LCD as it is a considerable cost savings compared to LTPS OLED.


----------



## irkuck

^*ynotgoal*: OLED is desperately trying to be still relevant. Flexibility is not chosen by Samsung/LG but is now seen as possibly the last line of defence for OLED though it remains to be seen if it is enough attractive for small displays to get some market share. But in the dense displays area OLED has very bleak prospects to compete with the LCD. Yes, Samsung may demo 5"@2K OLED but this will be lab model while such LCDs will be commercial standard in 2013. Overall problem is LCD pixel is much simpler to make than OLED while LCD PQ quality is now high enough. Jumping from 720 to 1080 or from 1080 to 4K is exponentially more difficult for OLED and linearly more difficult for LCD. Hence one can see writing on the wall for OLED.


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22764375
> 
> 
> ^*ynotgoal*: OLED is desperately trying to be still relevant. Flexibility is not chosen by Samsung/LG but is now seen as possibly the last line of defence for OLED though it remains to be seen if it is enough attractive for small displays to get some market share. But in the dense displays area OLED has very bleak prospects to compete with the LCD. Yes, Samsung may demo 5"@2K OLED but this will be lab model while such LCDs will be commercial standard in 2013. Overall problem is LCD pixel is much simpler to make than OLED while LCD PQ quality is now high enough. Jumping from 720 to 1080 or from 1080 to 4K is exponentially more difficult for OLED and linearly more difficult for LCD. Hence one can see writing on the wall for OLED.


Please Sir, chill with the death talk for OLED. The current manufacturing problems will be resolved with solutions that'll progress flat panel fabrication. The fact that OLED can be used for professional monitors for medical personnel and post production house technicians should mean that those who make them for those purposes believe the technology is worth saving for the inevitable time to replace backlight dependent LCD/LED.


----------



## vinnie97

LCD PQ is high enuff? Ya, if you want to spend 5 grand or more.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22765074
> 
> 
> Please Sir, chill with the death talk for OLED. The current manufacturing problems will be resolved with solutions that'll progress flat panel fabrication. The fact that OLED can be used for professional monitors for medical personnel and post production house technicians should mean that those who make them for those purposes believe the technology is worth saving for the inevitable time to replace backlight dependent LCD/LED.



My thinking exactly, as I've posted previously.


An obstacle is not a dead end.


This is an interesting read, as it suggests that there are more than a few possibilities out there:

http://www.supashop.ch/news/artikel/new-polymer-development-may-slash-oled-tv-prices/102401/ 


Happy New Years!


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22764375
> 
> 
> ^*ynotgoal*: OLED is desperately trying to be still relevant. Flexibility is not chosen by Samsung/LG but is now seen as possibly the last line of defence for OLED though it remains to be seen if it is enough attractive for small displays to get some market share. But in the dense displays area OLED has very bleak prospects to compete with the LCD. Yes, Samsung may demo 5"@2K OLED but this will be lab model while such LCDs will be commercial standard in 2013. Overall problem is LCD pixel is much simpler to make than OLED while LCD PQ quality is now high enough. Jumping from 720 to 1080 or from 1080 to 4K is exponentially more difficult for OLED and linearly more difficult for LCD. Hence one can see writing on the wall for OLED.



LCD PQ is high enough?

Yeah on a total of what, 3 FP's today?

Sharp Elite, HX950 & ....?


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22762038
> 
> 
> One of your most well thought out posts, Rogo. Regarding tablets, it's true cost is an issue for tablet size screens but Samsung is running their fab at full capacity to make screens for phones and thus have no capacity for tablet size screens. They have chosen to develop and implement plastic substrate (unbreakable, bendable, flexible) technology rather than expand capacity on current technology. As with most any completely new technology, it has taken a bit longer than hoped but they seem to have gotten past the major hurdles as they are investing in a second line. Agreed that we'll see how this goes in late 2013 as they should have sufficient capacity for it by then.
> 
> Irkuck, I find it interesting that you are confident a mature LCD tech will make these great improvements but an emerging OLED tech is stuck forever. If Samsung and LG believed this, then why did they spend 3-4 times as much on OLED development than on LCD in 2012 and announce plans to do the same in 2013 despite all the OLED is dead talk? The only investments they are making in LCD are due to tariff restrictions in China. Even Panasonic announced they would no longer invest in PDP but instead focus development efforts on OLED. If I understand, you think this is because of marketing hype around an unnecessary 1080 HD resolution? We'll see next week but there is a good chance Samsung will demo a 5" HD OLED at CES. They are expected to have an HD OLED screen on the Galaxy S4.
> 
> why LG is not moving into OLED mobile displays? LG is investing in flexible OLED mobile displays. Keeping in mind it is developing new technology (so the dates may slip a bit) but they are planning on having a line running at the end of 2013. They were the leader in AH-IPS LCD, especially for Apple, so it didn't make sense for them to cannibalize that business with small OLED screens but they acknowledge that flexible screens will be preferable and OLED is the way to do that.
> 
> why [LG] does not have clear lead over Samsung in TV? LG does have a clear lead over Samsung in OLED TV. There are no reports that Samsung is preparing for release of their OLED TV as there is for LG, no Samsung TV at the FCC.
> 
> As for IGZO, read Rogo's post. IGZO will benefit OLED more than it does LCD as it is a considerable cost savings compared to LTPS OLED.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22766824
> 
> 
> LCD PQ is high enough?
> 
> Yeah on a total of what, 3 FP's today?
> 
> Sharp Elite, HX950 & ....?





i hope sammy and lg keep funding oled development next year at least at this years level so there remains hope than a breakthrough in manufacturing the buggers

might occur. haven't seen anything that makes it clear that is going to happen though,


yes, the only lcds worth buying, if one can afford the high cost, are the fully backlight locally dimming arrays.

not cheap at all especially compared pound to pound to pdps.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22766824
> 
> 
> LCD PQ is high enough?
> 
> Yeah on a total of what, 3 FP's today?
> 
> Sharp Elite, HX950 & ....?



That's more than the number of OLEDs for sale.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22766954
> 
> 
> i hope sammy and lg keep funding oled development next year at least at this years level so there remains hope than a breakthrough in manufacturing the buggers
> 
> might occur. haven't seen anything that makes it clear that is going to happen though,
> 
> yes, the only lcds worth buying, if one can afford the high cost, are the fully backlight locally dimming arrays.
> 
> not cheap at all especially compared pound to pound to pdps.



They are pricey. None is $8000 for 55" however.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22762038
> 
> 
> One of your most well thought out posts, Rogo. Regarding tablets, it's true cost is an issue for tablet size screens but Samsung is running their fab at full capacity to make screens for phones and thus have no capacity for tablet size screens. They have chosen to develop and implement plastic substrate (unbreakable, bendable, flexible) technology rather than expand capacity on current technology. As with most any completely new technology, it has taken a bit longer than hoped but they seem to have gotten past the major hurdles as they are investing in a second line. Agreed that we'll see how this goes in late 2013 as they should have sufficient capacity for it by then



I don't really believe Samsung makes _some_ tablet OLEDs, charges a ton for them, but doesn't sell them for less money because 100% of capacity is going to phones. I do agree capacity is going to phones, but I think what you're seeing is they can't just scale to even tablet sizes without yield issues. And that's why the 7" tablets don't all have OLEDs (in fact 95% of what they sell in that category does not.)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22760686
> 
> 
> Indeed, it seems LG would face less hurdles than Samsung. But there are questions then why LG is not moving into OLED mobile displays, why does not have clear lead over Samsung in TV?
> 
> Hah, forget about technical considerations. 720 has absolutely no chance with 1080 whatever the technology due to the marketing by numbers. Thus a 720 OLED has no future and by default OLED has no future due to the difficulty of moving to 1080.
> 
> High-density, retinal LCD will become norm in tablets and laptops, OLED is left behind. IGZO and AH-IPS will add to the pressure.



LG seems to be behind on mobile OLED, but I imagine they'll catch up if they think there's a market demand. I'm not sure they see a huge need right now given the growth of LCD tech in the small-screen market. The very trends you mention suggest that LG has less motivation to work hard on mobile OLED when they can focus OLED on TV sizes and work backwards to mobile later, if, again, the market demands.


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22767408
> 
> 
> That's more than the number of OLEDs for sale.
> 
> They are pricey. None is $8000 for 55" however.
> 
> I don't really believe Samsung makes _some_ tablet OLEDs, charges a ton for them, but doesn't sell them for less money because 100% of capacity is going to phones. I do agree capacity is going to phones, but I think what you're seeing is they can't just scale to even tablet sizes without yield issues. And that's why the 7" tablets don't all have OLEDs (in fact 95% of what they sell in that category does not.)
> 
> LG seems to be behind on mobile OLED, but I imagine they'll catch up if they think there's a market demand. I'm not sure they see a huge need right now given the growth of LCD tech in the small-screen market. The very trends you mention suggest that LG has less motivation to work hard on mobile OLED when they can focus OLED on TV sizes and work backwards to mobile later, if, again, the market demands.



It seemed as though to me the argument was trying to made that OLED is a broken technology that'll never come to fruition in the HDTV world, which I believe isn't true. I do believe LG and Samsung were drastically over anticipating their manufacturing abilities of these units. But I do believe they'll come sooner rather than later (2014-15)


I was also pointing out that I believe the statement "LCD's have high enough PQ today" is an unwarranted statement.


----------



## vinnie97

^Yea, but you have to consider the source here...IRKuck likely *does* believe the PQ has reached a level that is good enough because I have seen him treat Plasma like an ant beneath his shoe.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22767473
> 
> 
> It seemed as though to me the argument was trying to made that OLED is a broken technology that'll never come to fruition in the HDTV world, which I believe isn't true. I do believe LG and Samsung were drastically over anticipating their manufacturing abilities of these units. But I do believe they'll come sooner rather than later (2014-15)



OLED is not broken tech but it is a tech which is unable to compete with the LCD. LCD is really an unbeatable moving target. Panel prices are so low it is hard to beat them. Some mobile OLED displays were commercialized (probably hefty subsidized) with great trouble at 720p (and pentile matrix), LCD is now pushing to full 1080 which is doubling the pixel number and making huge problem for OLED to match. Even forgetting the price, the 55" OLED TVs are now looking hopeless in the crowd of LCDs ranging from 55"-110" and pushing to 4K.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22767764
> 
> 
> ^Yea, but you have to consider the source here...IRKuck likely *does* believe the PQ has reached a level that is good enough because I have seen him treat Plasma like an ant beneath his shoe.



Just to clarify what I mean by "good-enough" it is for the 99.xx% of the public. The rest are Elite buyers







. Regarding plasma, a thread like "2013 - the year plasma died" starts looking reasonable.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22764375
> 
> 
> ^*ynotgoal*: OLED is desperately trying to be still relevant. Flexibility is not chosen by Samsung/LG but is now seen as possibly the last line of defence for OLED


Don't forget the all-powerful bragging rights to super thin cool looking displays.







Can edge lit ever *quite* get there?


----------



## ynotgoal

 The official press release from LG 


SEOUL, Jan. 2, 2013 -– LG Electronics (LG) announced today that it will begin accepting pre-orders for its eagerly-awaited 55-inch class (54.6-inch diagonal) WRGB OLED TV (Model 55EM9700) in South Korea this month with deliveries scheduled to begin next month.


Other markets where the revolutionary LG OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) TV will be available will be announced over the next several weeks along with their respective prices. The announcement comes just days before the 2013 Consumer Electronics Show (CES), where an early version of the TV last year was awarded “Best of Show.”


More than 1,400 LG retail stores in South Korea will begin accepting orders from consumers for KRW 11 million (approximately US $10,000) TVs starting Jan. 3 with delivery to commence the first week of February. As the first and only company to announce availability of the next-generation TV technology, LG is prepared to ramp up quickly to take the lead in the OLED segment that is expected to grow to 7.2 million units by 2016, according to Display Search.


“We are extremely pleased to be able to make this announcement at the start of the new year because we believe that OLED will usher in a whole new era of home entertainment,” said Havis Kwon, President and CEO of LG’s Home Entertainment Company. “Not since color TV was first introduced 60 years ago has there been a more transformational moment. When high definition TV was first introduced 15 years ago, the public’s reaction was ‘wow!’ but when customers see our razor-thin OLED TV for the first time, they’re left speechless. That’s a clear indicator as any that OLED TV is much more than just an incremental improvement to current television technology.”


Only 4 millimeters (0.16 inches) thin and weighing less than 10 kilograms (22 pounds), LG’s OLED TVs produce astoundingly vivid and realistic pictures thanks to its superior WRGB technology. LG’s unique Four-Color Pixel system features a white sub-pixel, which works in conjunction with the conventional red, blue, green setup to create the perfect color output. LG’s exclusive Color Refiner delivers even greater tonal enhancement, resulting in images that are more vibrant and natural than anything seen before. The 55-inch OLED TV also offers an infinite contrast ratio, which maintains optimal contrast levels regardless of ambient brightness or viewing angle.


Even before its launch, LG’s OLED TV was turning heads all over the world. In addition to being named Best of Show at CES 2012, the influential Industrial Designers Society of America recognized the TV with a coveted IDEA Award. Meanwhile, LGreceivedthe European Display Achievement 2012-2013 Award from the European Imaging and Sound Association (EISA). And to cap it off, LG’s OLED received Korea’s Good Design President Award in October.


----------



## vinnie97

Very exciting. Here's hoping that this PR is more than just hot air. Eagerly awaiting for announcements in the next few weeks regarding other markets.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22769648
> 
> 
> Don't forget the all-powerful bragging rights to super thin cool looking displays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can edge lit ever *quite* get there?



Yeah, superthin for superfat $$$$$







. Wonder how many preorders they get but not expecting Gangnam-style craze


----------



## Artwood

The world is still on target for the 2015 Total LCD domination horror story apocalyptic holocaust!


OLED too pricey with all that will be left will be LCD that SUX!


LG down to only three Plasma models for 2013.


Is it guaranteed that Samsung and Panasonic will produce plasma in 2014?


LCD might be good for one person sitting directly in front of it--if you've got a wife get a divorce--if you've got friends who like to watch TV with you--get rid of them, too--I'm sure the message around here will be to just buy zillions of LCDs!


How can anyone who cares about video quality be hopeful for the future?


When all that is left is LCD--what incentive will there be to make them better?


Keep them looking sorry for $5,000...who knows...maybe Sharp really does have a future!


----------



## rogo

Only $10,000 to be a beta tester for OLED. Sounds pretty compelling.


----------



## Artwood

rogo: take a guess--when do you think we MIGHT see 65-inch OLED for $3,500?


Would 2018 be a reasonable guess?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22774392
> 
> 
> rogo: take a guess--when do you think we MIGHT see 65-inch OLED for $3,500?
> 
> Would 2018 be a reasonable guess?



It could be that late, but I'll go with 2016. Optimism in this regard (while unwarranted by past results) seems like a good thing to possess.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22774700
> 
> 
> It could be that late, but I'll go with 2016. Optimism in this regard (while unwarranted by past results) seems like a good thing to possess.



And then it will be an oldfashioned 2K-only, while 4K LCD will be in good taste and pricey 8K LCDs will be available







. Not that 8K sets are must but consumers are sooo sensitive to numbers .


----------



## Orbitron

Aren't the companies that are pushing 4k in USA the same companies that are selling 8k now in Japan - just saying.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22777263
> 
> 
> Aren't the companies that are pushing 4k in USA the same companies that are selling 8k now in Japan - just saying.



Selling now 8K







. Are you texting from the world 5 lightyears in the future from us?


----------



## Orbitron

Panasonic plasma 145" in 8k

http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/04/27/145.inch.flicker.free.8k.tv.developed.in.japan/


----------



## Whatstreet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22776382
> 
> 
> And then it will be an oldfashioned 2K-only, while 4K LCD will be in good taste and pricey 8K LCDs will be available
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Not that 8K sets are must but consumers are sooo sensitive to numbers .



I am not convinced I will need 4K for a 65" panel. I agree 4K is nice to have on anything greater than 80".


----------



## sytech

Hey, I just remembered. Someone owes me money man







No OLED in 2012. Now I just have to remember who. At least I get to post my gif.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22777384
> 
> 
> Panasonic plasma 145" in 8k
> http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/04/27/145.inch.flicker.free.8k.tv.developed.in.japan/



That is commercial panel, of which they probably sold less than 20. Also, I think there are still only three 8K studio cameras in the world. All owned by NHK and only used for the Olympics and a few 8K demo reels. 8K for the home consumer market is a very long way off, if ever. We will have to see if the movie studios start to adopt their use. If they film only in 4K they are locked into that resolution forever. It might be wise of them to master in 8K. That would probably be the maximum they will ever need for the consumer market because of display size limitations.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22778001
> 
> 
> Hey, I just remembered. Someone owes me money man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No OLED in 2012. Now I just have to remember who. At least I get to post my gif.


If that's how you phrased it, you're screwed. AMOLED Cell phones were shipping.  LOL.....


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22778080
> 
> 
> If that's how you phrased it, you're screwed. AMOLED Cell phones were shipping.  LOL.....



No, the bet was specifically for the 55" LG OLED.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Whatstreet*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22777431
> 
> 
> I am not convinced I will need 4K for a 65" panel. I agree 4K is nice to have on anything greater than 80".



Unfortunately your reason will be beaten by emotions: when seeing cheapy 4K LCD 65" and more expensive 2K 65" OLED

people will grab 4K.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22778219
> 
> 
> Unfortunately your reason will be beaten by emotions: when seeing cheapy 4K LCD 65" and more expensive 2K 65" OLED
> 
> people will grab 4K.



Unless the establishment is smart enough to put them both in a darker environment.

But generally, I agree.


- Rich


----------



## sytech

LG is having enough trouble with the 55" OLED model, do you really think we are going to see a 65" 2K OLED for sale to the consumer anytime soon?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22778219
> 
> 
> Unfortunately your reason will be beaten by emotions: when seeing cheapy 4K LCD 65" and more expensive 2K 65" OLED
> 
> people will grab 4K.



Don't _completely_ discount the 4mm bragging rights. That thing is sick looking. And don't forget something else: By now, a solid section of the public has already had LCD and had trouble seeing somethings, like the subtle dark shades of gray. I'm not saying either of these will be enough, but it'll count for something non-insignificant.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22778219
> 
> 
> Unfortunately your reason will be beaten by emotions: when seeing cheapy 4K LCD 65" and more expensive 2K 65" OLED
> 
> people will grab 4K.




will they? if benefits of 4k are only visible to most consumers on an 80+ inch display (or within inches of the screen) will people really be willing to

pay a premium over 2k sets. now i concede your point once the price delta between 2k and 4k even out.


personally, i will wait a few more years before upgrading my av equip not to 4k, but 8k.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22778480
> 
> 
> Don't _completely_ discount the 4mm bragging rights. That thing is sick looking. And don't forget something else: By now, a solid section of the public has already had LCD and had trouble seeing somethings, like the subtle dark shades of gray. I'm not saying either of these will be enough, but it'll count for something non-insignificant.



yup thinness will help sell these puppies but only for those with money to burn. very few can justify paying a 7-8k premium over led just for a few millimeters


----------



## vinnie97

You're waiting for 8k (and only a few more years)? What size screen are you anticipating here?


----------



## navychop

I've been very doubtful about 4KTV. Not much value to the average Joe.

*BUT-* Will it show a major improvement in 3DTV? Will OLED at any resolution/pixel count have advantages for 3DTV?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4700_100#post_22779107
> 
> 
> You're waiting for 8k (and only a few more years)? What size screen are you anticipating here?


A 30" 8K monitor still has less resolution than an iPhone.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22779785
> 
> 
> I've been very doubtful about 4KTV. Not much value to the average Joe.
> *BUT-* Will it show a major improvement in 3DTV? Will OLED at any resolution/pixel count have advantages for 3DTV?


Not strictly related to the 3D. But for 4K displays of any technology: Sure, the current Passive3D implementation halves the vertical resolution, despite whatever merging gimickery your brain is supposed to be able to manage, so a 4K display would bring that back to 1080 of course.


You got me remembering recent hooey I read though for LCD only. Correct me if I'm wrong (please): but there's a new Passive3D posed by a manufacturer I forget (beats me if it'll ever ship) that involves passive glasses but a shuttering TV---every other frame one polarization, the others the other polarization (I'm guessing (????) from interleaving 2 LED grids behind the LCD, one grid polarized right for the even frames, the other left for the odd), and ironically, that wouldn't work on emissive technologies. But it would potentially be a full 4K-3D LCD with passive glasses.


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740_60#post_22779901
> 
> 
> A 30" 8K monitor still has less resolution than an iPhone.



I thought somebody (I forget who, irkuck maybe) posted a good response the last time you brought this up, i.e., it doesn't matter, yours is an apples to oranges comparison.


----------



## vinnie97

Well, aside from the fact you would typically hold an iPhone well less than an arm's length from your eyes.


8K and diminishing returns say hello.


----------



## Whatstreet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22778219
> 
> 
> Unfortunately your reason will be beaten by emotions: when seeing cheapy 4K LCD 65" and more expensive 2K 65" OLED
> 
> people will grab 4K.



Set them side by side and people will see that they can't see the pixels, but they will see the difference in color and improved viewing angle. However, the biggest selling feature of anything is the PRICE!


----------



## NulloModo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22771695
> 
> 
> The world is still on target for the 2015 Total LCD domination horror story apocalyptic holocaust!
> 
> OLED too pricey with all that will be left will be LCD that SUX!
> 
> LG down to only three Plasma models for 2013.
> 
> Is it guaranteed that Samsung and Panasonic will produce plasma in 2014?
> 
> LCD might be good for one person sitting directly in front of it--if you've got a wife get a divorce--if you've got friends who like to watch TV with you--get rid of them, too--I'm sure the message around here will be to just buy zillions of LCDs!
> 
> How can anyone who cares about video quality be hopeful for the future?
> 
> When all that is left is LCD--what incentive will there be to make them better?
> 
> Keep them looking sorry for $5,000...who knows...maybe Sharp really does have a future!



The manufacturers of OLED will get their act together and figure out how to improve yields, which will drop the price. Maybe Sony's Crystal LED tech will be even easier to produce, and it avoids the blue subpixel life issue that OLED has as well.


LCD viewing angles are fine for a couch in front of the TV. Maybe not for a chair set 90 degrees to the couch, but how many people watch TV like that?


LCD with local dimming and full array backlighting (Sharp Elite and Sony XBR) can look just as good as plasma. Plasma does some things better, the LCDs do some things better, it comes down to personal preference, but there is a world of difference between cheap LCDs and the high end panels.


If no one is making plasma anymore that doesn't mean the competition for the best picture quality will stop. There will always be a market for the sub-$1,000 Viseos and whatnot, but Sony, Sharp, Panasonic, Samsung, et al will try to outdo each other to make the best looking set so that they can charge the highest price, and all of those improvements will trickle down to more affordable sets as they continue to one-up each other year after year.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22779023
> 
> 
> will they? if benefits of 4k are only visible to most consumers on an 80+ inch display (or within inches of the screen) will people really be willing to
> 
> pay a premium over 2k sets. now i concede your point once the price delta between 2k and 4k even out.



Passive 3D benefits _today_ from 4K at 50" screen sizes (and up).


Passive 3D is a pleasure compared to active, with essentially free, battery-free glasses.


So I expect LG to be somewhat aggressive with regard to 4K, its marketing, etc. And I expect that will pressure Samsung, an active 3D proponent, to respond in kind.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22780472
> 
> 
> Passive 3D benefits _today_ from 4K at 50" screen sizes (and up).
> 
> Passive 3D is a pleasure compared to active, with essentially free, battery-free glasses.
> 
> So I expect LG to be somewhat aggressive with regard to 4K, its marketing, etc. And I expect that will pressure Samsung, an active 3D proponent, to respond in kind.




I'm not a fan of home 3d sets based on what I've seen to date, but that may be due to the rather heavy handed implementation of active 3d, imho.


My post failed to consider the benefits of 4k, pariticularly as it pertains to passive and glasses free 3d.


Point conceded.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22780472
> 
> 
> Passive 3D benefits _today_ from 4K at 50" screen sizes (and up).
> 
> Passive 3D is a pleasure compared to active, with essentially free, battery-free glasses.
> 
> So I expect LG to be somewhat aggressive with regard to 4K, its marketing, etc. And I expect that will pressure Samsung, an active 3D proponent, to respond in kind.



Indeed, having both passive and active at home I can attest passive is pleasure and with the 4K it will be ideal. But don't forget 3D viewing is and will be marginal.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NulloModo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22780297
> 
> 
> The manufacturers of OLED will get their act together and figure out how to improve yields, which will drop the price. Maybe Sony's Crystal LED tech will be even easier to produce, and it avoids the blue subpixel life issue that OLED has as well.



If you have Sony dreams pray Sony survives. OLED by definition will be always much more difficult than LCD and it is unlikely to drop to the LCD level. Reason is that OLED pixel is much more complicated vs. LCD pixel.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NulloModo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22780297
> 
> 
> LCD viewing angles are fine for a couch in front of the TV. Maybe not for a chair set 90 degrees to the couch, but how many people watch TV like that?
> 
> LCD with local dimming and full array backlighting (Sharp Elite and Sony XBR) can look just as good as plasma. Plasma does some things better, the LCDs do some things better, it comes down to personal preference, but there is a world of difference between cheap LCDs and the high end panels.
> 
> If no one is making plasma anymore that doesn't mean the competition for the best picture quality will stop. There will always be a market for the sub-$1,000 Viseos and whatnot, but Sony, Sharp, Panasonic, Samsung, et al will try to outdo each other to make the best looking set so that they can charge the highest price, and all of those improvements will trickle down to more affordable sets as they continue to one-up each other year after year.



LCD has still significant potential for improvement (e.g. IGZO) but consumers decided that PQ is enough good already. Thus local dimming is on extinction, plasma is dying, Sony, Sharp and Panasonic are zombies.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Whatstreet*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22780280
> 
> 
> Set them side by side and people will see that they can't see the pixels, but they will see the difference in color and improved viewing angle. However, the biggest selling feature of anything is the PRICE!



Yes, price. But we are talking about scenarios in which prices are similar Then people select model with higher performance numbers. Thus, seeing 2K and 4K they will buy 4K.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22779107
> 
> 
> You're waiting for 8k (and only a few more years)? What size screen are you anticipating here?



That the 8K sets will come is sure since Japanese already decided they will have only 8K standard. When such sets come first is not clear yet since they want to provide full broadcast chain and content. But 8K sets my come earlier, 3-5 ys???


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22778387
> 
> 
> LG is having enough trouble with the 55" OLED model, do you really think we are going to see a 65" 2K OLED for sale to the consumer anytime soon?


Sale to the consumer @very attractive prices obviously? This is pipe dream.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22780768
> 
> 
> I'm not a fan of home 3d sets based on what I've seen to date, but that may be due to the rather heavy handed implementation of active 3d, imho.
> 
> My post failed to consider the benefits of 4k, pariticularly as it pertains to passive and glasses free 3d.
> 
> Point conceded.



But as noted below... the point is minor....


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22780831
> 
> 
> Indeed, having both passive and active at home I can attest passive is pleasure and with the 4K it will be ideal. But don't forget 3D viewing is and will be marginal.



... yes, I have yet to use the 3-D on my many-months-old VT50.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4700_100#post_22780128
> 
> 
> I thought somebody (I forget who, irkuck maybe) posted a good response the last time you brought this up, i.e., it doesn't matter, yours is an apples to oranges comparison.


It's true that viewing distance matters, but it still doesn't change the fact that an iPhone has higher resolution. I can still see aliasing on the iPhone display around text and in games, and people sit pretty close to their monitors. When you start looking at HT-sized displays, pixel density starts dropping off considerably. There are definitely applications for 8K.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4700_100#post_22780831
> 
> 
> If you have Sony dreams pray Sony survives.


I think they will survive, but I am skeptical of Crystal LED making it to the market, or of Sony still being in the TV business in five years time.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4700_100#post_22780831
> 
> 
> OLED by definition will be always much more difficult than LCD and it is unlikely to drop to the LCD level. Reason is that OLED pixel is much more complicated vs. LCD pixel.


It's more difficult _now_, it may not be in the future.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4700_100#post_22780831
> 
> 
> LCD has still significant potential for improvement (e.g. IGZO) but consumers decided that PQ is enough good already. Thus local dimming is on extinction, plasma is dying, Sony, Sharp and Panasonic are zombies.


I think people are getting far too excited over IGZO. The main thing it improves is efficiency, and it allows for better touch accuracy on phone and tablet devices. There has been some mention of faster switching times, but I haven't seen any kind of detail on that.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4700_100#post_22780831
> 
> 
> That the 8K sets will come is sure since Japanese already decided they will have only 8K standard. When such sets come first is not clear yet since they want to provide full broadcast chain and content. But 8K sets my come earlier, 3-5 ys???


3-5 years? Isn't the target to begin 8K production in 2020?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4700_100#post_22780856
> 
> 
> ... yes, I have yet to use the 3-D on my many-months-old VT50.


The biggest problem with 3D today, in my opinion, is that we still don't have any TVs with support for 1080p60 3D, and that passive 3D loses so much resolution. With those two issues taken care of, 3D gaming becomes a _much_ more attractive proposition.


But I still don't think 3D will ever have mainstream adoption, at least not in its current form. Part of the problem is that we have Toshiba shipping glasses-free 3D sets in Japan at ridiculous prices, and others showing off prototypes at CES. This has a lot of people holding off on buying a 3DTV until they don't need glasses, when realistically that tech is still years away, if they can ever get past the resolution and limited viewing position issues.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22781084
> 
> 
> It's true that viewing distance matters, but it still doesn't change the fact that an iPhone has higher resolution. I can still see aliasing on the iPhone display around text and in games, and people sit pretty close to their monitors. When you start looking at HT-sized displays, pixel density starts dropping off considerably. There are definitely applications for 8K.



Aliaising is the result of improper antialiasing. Without proper antialiasing no increase in resolution helps.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22781084
> 
> 
> I think people are getting far too excited over IGZO. The main thing it improves is efficiency, and it allows for better touch accuracy on phone and tablet devices. There has been some mention of faster switching times, but I haven't seen any kind of detail on that.



IGZO has better transparency which means not only lower power, smaller pixels but more vivid pictures. IGZO is seriously potential way for LCD to match OLED.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22781084
> 
> 
> 3-5 years? Isn't the target to begin 8K production in 2020?



2020 is when full broadcast chain is ready, displays should be coming earlier (like 4K is now).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22781881
> 
> 
> Aliaising is the result of improper antialiasing. Without proper antialiasing no increase in resolution helps.


(???)Of course an increase in resolution reduces the aliasing you can perceive. Careful here: are you referring to an increase in image size at the same _DPI_, or increases in apparent DPI (size&distance taken into account). Essentially the FOV per pixel.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22781084
> 
> 
> I think people are getting far too excited over IGZO. The main thing it improves is efficiency, and it allows for better touch accuracy on phone and tablet devices. There has been some mention of faster switching times, but I haven't seen any kind of detail on that.
> 
> 3-5 years? Isn't the target to begin 8K production in 2020?
> 
> The biggest problem with 3D today, in my opinion, is that we still don't have any TVs with support for 1080p60 3D, and that passive 3D loses so much resolution. With those two issues taken care of, 3D gaming becomes a _much_ more attractive proposition.
> 
> But I still don't think 3D will ever have mainstream adoption, at least not in its current form. Part of the problem is that we have Toshiba shipping glasses-free 3D sets in Japan at ridiculous prices, and others showing off prototypes at CES. This has a lot of people holding off on buying a 3DTV until they don't need glasses, when realistically that tech is still years away, if they can ever get past the resolution and limited viewing position issues.



IGZO allows for smaller backlights and/or more aggressive cycling which has the potential to lower the black floor and raise contrast.


As for 3D, I think you miss the primary problem. Most people don't give a hoot about resolution or frame rate or gaming. They aren't going to put on glasses to watch TV, however.That's why they are holding out. And that's why Toshiba, et al. is trying to make them happy with glasses-free solution. That makes the whole idea that the future is VR headsets all the more laughable to me.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22782011
> 
> 
> (???)Of course an increase in resolution reduces the aliasing you can perceive. Careful here: are you referring to an increase in image size at the same _DPI_, or increases in apparent DPI (size&distance taken into account). Essentially the FOV per pixel.



You have limited notion of aliasing and this is why you think resolution itself can deal with it. It is not so, aliasing understood precisely can be only eliminated by proper antialiasing. Increased resolution allows to preserve more detail when antialiasing is applied.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22785563
> 
> 
> You have limited notion of aliasing and this is why you think resolution itself can deal with it. It is not so, aliasing understood precisely can be only eliminated by proper antialiasing. Increased resolution allows to preserve more detail when antialiasing is applied.


Please don't tell me what my notions are of something. I'm well aware of various applicative uses of the term aliasing.


But the term as applied by chronoptimist was resolution specific, no? Here:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> It's true that viewing distance matters, but it still doesn't change the fact that an iPhone has higher resolution. I can still see aliasing on the iPhone display around text and in games, and people sit pretty close to their monitors. When you start looking at HT-sized displays, pixel density starts dropping off considerably. There are definitely applications for 8K.


I haven't done the angular math yet to see if he's right, but his argument (in red) is specific to resolution. Or did I read him wrong?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800_100#post_22785563
> 
> 
> You have limited notion of aliasing and this is why you think resolution itself can deal with it. It is not so, aliasing understood precisely can be only eliminated by proper antialiasing. Increased resolution allows to preserve more detail when antialiasing is applied.


Anti-aliasing only works to a point. You can't do anything about aliasing when the cause of aliasing is the size of the pixels themselves.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*4K LCD TVs Expected to Outpace OLED TV Shipments, NPD DisplaySearch Reports*


NPD Displaysearch is usually considered quite reliable. Article is here .



4K LCD TVs Expected to Outpace OLED TV Shipments, NPD DisplaySearch Reports

Overall TV Market Continues to Slow Growth in the Near Term


SANTA CLARA, Calif., January 4, 2013—With the annual Consumer Electronics Show just around the corner, speculation about what TV technologies will be highlighted by manufacturers has been growing. In recent years, highlights have included 3D, Smart TV, and OLED, as TV makers promoted technologies to excite consumer interest. This year it’s 4K×2K.


According to the latest TV market forecast published in the NPD DisplaySearch Quarterly Advanced Global TV Shipment and Forecast Report, 4K LCD TV shipments are projected to exceed OLED TV shipments through 2015. This is a result both of the delay in commercialization by OLED TV makers, as well as increased promotion of 4K LCD TVs by several brands. In addition, many Chinese TV brands are currently in the process of launching 4K LCD TVs in the domestic China market. OLED TVs are still expected to launch in 2013, but volumes are expected to be low and prices expected to be very high. 4Kx2K resolution is not exclusive to LCD TV and 4K OLED TVs are also expected to be introduced at some point in premium TV segments.


[more not included here]

http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/130104_4k_lcd_tvs_expected_to_outpace_oled_tv_shipments.asp


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22786318
> 
> *4K LCD TVs Expected to Outpace OLED TV Shipments, NPD DisplaySearch Reports*
> 
> NPD Displaysearch is usually considered quite reliable. Article is here .
> 
> 4K LCD TVs Expected to Outpace OLED TV Shipments, NPD DisplaySearch Reports
> 
> Overall TV Market Continues to Slow Growth in the Near Term
> 
> SANTA CLARA, Calif., January 4, 2013—With the annual Consumer Electronics Show just around the corner, speculation about what TV technologies will be highlighted by manufacturers has been growing. In recent years, highlights have included 3D, Smart TV, and OLED, as TV makers promoted technologies to excite consumer interest. This year it’s 4K×2K.



And here comes the @#$%-storm of "I told you so"s.







LOL....


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22786318
> 
> 
> NPD Displaysearch is usually considered quite reliable.



Displaysearch is usually considered reliable but no one has mentioned their blog post from a few days ago where they admitted their "shockingly bad" OLED piece from less than 3 weeks earlier was wrong.


"Why did LGE decide to announce their OLED TV on the first working day of 2013? First, we might surmise that LG Display has significantly rasied its production yield rate, thought to be in the single-digit percentage range."



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22786318
> 
> 
> According to the latest TV market forecast published in the NPD DisplaySearch Quarterly Advanced Global TV Shipment and Forecast Report, 4K LCD TV shipments are projected to exceed OLED TV shipments through 2015.



Why is this news? OLED TVs aren't going to be in large quantities until they have more than pilot lines. That's was never ever planned to happen until 2014. The same report shows OLED shipments more than tripling every year from 2013 through the end of the chart in 2016 and leaving 4K LCD behind.


4K, with less than 1% market share in 2014, is still just as much a niche product at the moment as OLED. Why would one pay $20K for an 84" 4K LCD when they can get a 70" Sharp LCD for $2K?


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22787292
> 
> 
> Displaysearch is usually considered reliable but no one has mentioned their blog post from a few days ago where they admitted their "shockingly bad" OLED piece from less than 3 weeks earlier was wrong.
> 
> "Why did LGE decide to announce their OLED TV on the first working day of 2013? First, we might surmise that LG Display has significantly rasied its production yield rate, thought to be in the single-digit percentage range."
> 
> Why is this news? OLED TVs aren't going to be in large quantities until they have more than pilot lines. That's was never ever planned to happen until 2014. The same report shows OLED shipments more than tripling every year from 2013 through the end of the chart in 2016 and leaving 4K LCD behind.
> 
> 4K, with less than 1% market share in 2014, is still just as much a niche product at the moment as OLED. Why would one pay $20K for an 84" 4K LCD when they can get a 70" Sharp LCD for $2K?



Thanks for posting this. Like a number of people on this forum, I didn't buy into this whole OLED is dead idea.

Besides the retraction of the piece, and LG's forward movement, improvements in OLED technology are occurring

from other quarters. There are simply too many advantages to emissive displays for everyone to give up on them.


Thanks for the dose of sanity.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22787292
> 
> 
> Displaysearch is usually considered reliable but no one has mentioned their blog post from a few days ago where they admitted their "shockingly bad" OLED piece from less than 3 weeks earlier was wrong.
> 
> "Why did LGE decide to announce their OLED TV on the first working day of 2013? First, we might surmise that LG Display has significantly rasied its production yield rate, thought to be in the single-digit percentage range."



I'm sorry, do you see that as a retraction? I sure don't. It's very believable that they now have production up to the 20% range from the single digits and that will allow them to fill the absolutely minimal demand for $10,000 55" TVs.


> Quote:
> Why is this news? OLED TVs aren't going to be in large quantities until they have more than pilot lines. That's was never ever planned to happen until 2014. The same report shows OLED shipments more than tripling every year from 2013 through the end of the chart in 2016 and leaving 4K LCD behind.



Actually, the expansion of production was originally slated for 2012, not 2014. Then no one spent any money to do it. Then it was slated for next year, except no one has announced any spending to do that. The idea that these schedules haven't slipped massively is a lie.


At current projected forecasts, OLED is unlikely to reach 1% market penetration until 2014. You'll see from looking back through here that many felt it would be _much_ sooner than that.


If you double 1% in 2014, you get 2% in 2015, 4% in 2016, 8% in 2017, 16% in 2018, 32% in 2019... Assuming you can double for 5 straight years, which is unlikely for any number of reasons....


----------



## ynotgoal

I have better things to do than argue with you Rogo but I take offense to the lying statement which you also made in reference to an earlier post of mine, so I'll make this one reply.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22788030
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, do you see that as a retraction? I sure don't. It's very believable that they now have production up to the 20% range from the single digits and that will allow them to fill the absolutely minimal demand for $10,000 55" TVs.



So your position is they went from "shockingly bad" single digit yields to "significantly better" 20% and decided to release them in less than 3 weeks? Ok.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22788030
> 
> 
> Actually, the expansion of production was originally slated for 2012, not 2014. Then no one spent any money to do it. Then it was slated for next year, except no one has announced any spending to do that. The idea that these schedules haven't slipped massively is a lie.
> 
> At current projected forecasts, OLED is unlikely to reach 1% market penetration until 2014. You'll see from looking back through here that many felt it would be _much_ sooner than that.
> 
> If you double 1% in 2014, you get 2% in 2015, 4% in 2016, 8% in 2017, 16% in 2018, 32% in 2019... Assuming you can double for 5 straight years, which is unlikely for any number of reasons....



I'll agree with you that "many [here] *felt* it would be much sooner", probably in part due to your statements. The actual plans from Samsung and LG, however, were to build the pilot lines in 2012 and have real production lines in early 2014. It's also true that date has likely slipped to late 2014, still depending on market reaction to these TVs. You can choose your own definition of "massively" however the definition of lying is pretty clear and my statement regarding the plans outlined by Samsung and LG are not one. I'll refer you to some LG conference calls which clearly imply a decision to build a pilot line in 2012 with a "promotional focus" and then to make a decision on a full 8g line following the release of the initial TVs. Both calls imply a mid 2012 release of the initial TV, which had a "massive?" 6 month delay, an OLED capex decision at the end of 2012, and an 18 month process to convert an 8g fab which gets you to an early/mid 2014 date for real production. Spin that however you want. And have a nice day.


From the Q2 2011 call on July 21, 2011


Andrew Abrams - Avian Securities LLC

Got you. Okay. And there were a couple of comments made on your previous call last night about OLEDs, and maybe you could talk a little bit about that? And it kind of said that you were shying away from small panels, but you were moving to large panel in terms of how you’re perceiving of the OLED space going forward?


Hee Yeon Kim - Head-Investor Relations

... in the TV side we will continue to invest OLED TV. We try to release cost-efficient and high-quality OLED TV in the middle of next year as a promotional focus, after checking out the market response for our OLED TV. And then we will decide our CapEx plan at the end of next year.


Andrew Abrams - Avian Securities LLC

Okay. And so where would you be producing the OLED TV in 2012? Is that going to be in an existing facility, or can you give us a little color there?


Hee Yeon Kim - Head-Investor Relations

Yes, the volume should be very limited, as it’s just for checking out the market response. So we already have the R&D and high-light reps in our existing 8th generation, but that’s not the commercial production base. If the market responds for our new OLED TV next year, we will decide material CapEx next year.



From Q4 2011 call on Jan 27, 2012.


Colin Sebastian - JPMorgan

Okay. And just going back to OLED really quickly in terms of taking existing LCD line from when you decide to convert that to OLED. What do you think the timing is from that first consideration to being able to ramp up OLED production on that line, is it six months or would it be 12 months or would it be 18 months, can you give the general timeframe there?


Hee Yeon Kim - Head, Investor Relations

It should be 18 months that’s the usual pattern.


Colin Sebastian - JPMorgan

Okay. So that’s from taking an existing LCD offline and then starting the process and 18 months later you’re in full production on OLED.


Hee Yeon Kim - Head, Investor Relations

Yes, we have to procure the [deposition] version as well although we have to convert our existing Amorphous silicon-based to Oxide.


----------



## sytech

Oh, I smell another bet. I am going to parlay my winnings on the no 55" LG OLED in 2012 and bet that LG ships less than 25,000 OLED units in 2013.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22788547
> 
> 
> Oh, I smell another bet. I am going to parlay my winnings on the no 55" LG OLED in 2012 and bet that LG ships less than 25,000 OLED units in 2013.




I don't know who would take the other side of that bet.


Think you'll have to give some hefty odds...


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22787292
> 
> 
> Why is this news? OLED TVs aren't going to be in large quantities until they have more than pilot lines. That's was never ever planned to happen until 2014. The same report shows OLED shipments more than tripling every year from 2013 through the end of the chart in 2016 and leaving 4K LCD behind.
> 
> 4K, with less than 1% market share in 2014, is still just as much a niche product at the moment as OLED. Why would one pay $20K for an 84" 4K LCD when they can get a 70" Sharp LCD for $2K?



Similar question is why would one pay $10K for 55" OLED. But there is big difference here. Retinal and mobile displays show that pixel density may have little impact on the LCD price. There is no reason why big displays should be different in this respect so the prices we see now may go down fast. On the other hand the difference between the 2K and 4K OLED is huge since OLED pixels are inherently more complex to make and thus overall reliability is lower. Besides, the 4K LCD tech will be pushed by China, adding to the cost decline. Strategically OLED has thus no chance with the exception that seeing writings on the wall Samsung and LG will make some extraordinary advances in the OLED manuf. Sounds impossible but there where many impossibilities which were broken before.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22788493
> 
> 
> I have better things to do than argue with you Rogo but I take offense to the lying statement which you also made in reference to an earlier post of mine, so I'll make this one reply.
> 
> So your position is they went from "shockingly bad" single digit yields to "significantly better" 20% and decided to release them in less than 3 weeks? Ok.



Dude, get a grip. There is nothing directed at you in any post that accuses you of lying.


> Quote:
> I'll agree with you that "many [here] *felt* it would be much sooner", probably in part due to your statements.



ROFLMAO.


> Quote:
> The actual plans from Samsung and LG, however, were to build the pilot lines in 2012 and have real production lines in early 2014.



Hmm, now I'll just stay you are wrong. Lying? No. But definitely 100% wrong. What do you think they were going to do in 2013? They were supposed to build 8G production _last year_. It was telegraphed over and over. It just was never funded.


> Quote:
> It's also true that date has likely slipped to late 2014, still depending on market reaction to these TVs.



I have no idea where you get 2014 or "market reaction". There is no market reaction. They have not shipped one TV. Not one.


> Quote:
> You can choose your own definition of "massively" however the definition of lying is pretty clear and my statement regarding the plans outlined by Samsung and LG are not one.



Again, you need some serious grippage. The statement in my post above is generic. It is not an accusation that anyone is lying, least of all you.


> Quote:
> I'll refer you to some LG conference calls which clearly imply a decision to build a pilot line in 2012 with a "promotional focus" and then to make a decision on a full 8g line following the release of the initial TVs. Both calls imply a mid 2012 release of the initial TV, which had a "massive?" 6 month delay, an OLED capex decision at the end of 2012, and an 18 month process to convert an 8g fab which gets you to an early/mid 2014 date for real production.



First of all, I love the way you ignore Samsung and pretend LG is the only company we're talking about.


Second of all, they have shipped zero TVs. It's not out yet. It's not a "6 month delay", and the February ship date for Korea is arguably not a real ship date. They convinced DisplaySearch last year that they'd deliver _about 100,000_ by the end of 2012. Samsung did the same. At this point, if each of those companies deliver that many in 2013, it'll be an achievement. I'd call that a good year delay. But really it's worse because the way they were talking at CES _last year_, you'd believe these products were going to impact the TV market sometime soon. And, my God, Samsung has hyped their 8G OLED plans since early last year (if not before). Have they committed _any_ of that money yet? I'm not sure, to be honest, but I don't think so.


Third of all, LG has suggested production was planned for 2013 numerous times, like here: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1296654131 


Fourth of all, here's a reference to the _existing_ 8G "pilot" production: http://consumerelectronicsdaily.com/Content/LG-Display-starts-pilot-production-on-8G-OLED-TV-panel-line.aspx referencing 4000 substrates per month. That's 24,000 TVs per month with 100% yield or 300K _just from that one pilot line_. That was as of _August of last year_.


Fifth of all, here's a reference from _last January_ http://www.semi.org/en/node/40381 . "LG OLED panel production capacity is currently at 24K substrates per month at 4.5G and 8K per month at 8G". The forecast in that article was for more than 1 million views in 2013. Where was that capacity coming from? Thin air? Obviously, everyone was led to believe the capacity would exist. The 2014 forecast was for 5 million TVs. That means the capacity needed to exist _before_ 2014. That's 400,000 TVs per month. Again, thin air won't make that.


Sixth of all, the price to sell even 1 million TVs globally is _well below the original guess of $8000_. Surely everyone understands that right? There is no way to move -- even globally -- 1 million 55" TVs at $8000-10,000. The most expensive 55" TV for sale at Best Buy (conventional TVs, not outdoor sets) is $3200. Most are much less. The global market for TVs as big as 55" is currently on the order of 25 million units total. (It's less, but I'm giving some slack to the equation). We can try to guess what price it would take to move 1 million "BMW" TVs, but one thing you can _know_ is that at $10,000, there is *simply not any chance in hell of this happening*.


In addition to pricing the TV such that _they don't have to produce many to satisfy demand_, LG is alone in the market right now. Samsung -- it should be noted -- has obviously not solved their production problems at all. Further, the idea that the $10,000 price is some temporary aberration that will be "corrected" in a few months is something we can dismiss out of hand. That's the price for the better part (if not the entirety of) 2013. While, again, it's a ridiculous game to guess what the next price will be, we know they've been talking about price parity with LCD as "coming soon". Dating back to 2009, we've heard this promise from LG, that OLED will be cheaper by 2016. "OLED panels will cost less than LCD panels in 2016." That literally means OLED will cost less than the cheapest LCD. So we have to more or less get from $10,000 to $1,000 in 4 years. Do you think anyone really believes that's happening? What's the 2014 price on the path to that?


The idea that these TV have not slipped massively is patent absurd.


----------



## greenland

I originally posted this news item back on 9/1/2012. It might have contributed to LG not having been able to ship any units by the end of the year.


............................................................................................................................................................



Not sure if this might affect the production of the displays or not. It happed in late August and they say that the have stopped production of those components to conduct an investigation of the accident.


"Explosion at LG Chem's OLED factory kills one employee, injures 14 others"

http://www.oled-info.com/explosion-lg-chems-oled-factory-kills-one-employee-injures-14-others 


"LG Chem said that a large explosion broke out at their OLED production factory in Heungdeok District in Cheongju, North Chungcheong, Korea on August 24. One 26-years old employee was killed and 14 others were injured. This tragic accident happened when a large 200-liter drum that contained dioxane (a volatile substrate used in the manufacturing process) exploded due to unknown reasons.


The police are now investigating whether this is a case of poor equipment management and improper maintenance by LG Chem. This may also be due to negligence of workers at the factory. LG Chem said that while there's no problem to continue produce OLEDs in the factory, they have decided to stop operation until the investigation is over.



LG Chem is producing electron transport and hole injection materials used in OLED panels, and is also producing OLED lighting panels. The explosion probably took place in the material factory, not in the OLED lighting factory."


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22789515
> 
> 
> Fifth of all, here's a reference from _last January_ http://www.semi.org/en/node/40381 . "LG OLED panel production capacity is currently at 24K substrates per month at 4.5G and 8K per month at 8G". The forecast in that article was for more than 1 million views in 2013. Where was that capacity coming from? Thin air? Obviously, everyone was led to believe the capacity would exist. The 2014 forecast was for 5 million TVs. That means the capacity needed to exist _before_ 2014. That's 400,000 TVs per month. Again, thin air won't make that.



The 1 million units in 2013 was all supposed to be from the "trial" production capacity that both Samsung and LG were developing. They were both projected to have the capability of producing 8,000 Gen 8 substrates a month. Each substrate is capable of producing 6 55" televisions...multiply it out and you get over a million units for 2013.


If, and I personally think this is doubtful, LG or Samsung were to announce that they were going to begin building a commercial Gen 8 fab immediately, then ynot will be right. The delay was basically immaterial. Unfortunately, I doubt that we are going to get that announcement anytime soon.


----------



## greenland

Should this turn out to be true, it would really put pressure on Samsung and LG to offer their own Ultra OLED products.



RUMOR: SONY TO UNVEIL 4K OLED-TV AT CES

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1357428158 



"We will know for sure on Monday but The Verge says that Sony plans to unveil a 4K – or Ultra HD – OLED-TV at CES 2013 in Las Vegas.


4K OLED-TV AT CES?


Sources tell The Verge that Sony plans to unveil a spectacular OLED-TV at this year’s CES show. If true it will be the first OLED-TV with the extremely high 4K resolution – or Ultra HD as the industry prefers to call it."


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22790062
> 
> 
> The 1 million units in 2013 was all supposed to be from the "trial" production capacity that both Samsung and LG were developing. They were both projected to have the capability of producing 8,000 Gen 8 substrates a month. Each substrate is capable of producing 6 55" televisions...multiply it out and you get over a million units for 2013.
> 
> If, and I personally think this is doubtful, LG or Samsung were to announce that they were going to begin building a commercial Gen 8 fab immediately, then ynot will be right. The delay was basically immaterial. Unfortunately, I doubt that we are going to get that announcement anytime soon.



Slacker, that's my point about the "trial" capacity. Between the two of them, they are 80,000 units below the 80,000 per month capacity they have. They won't be there soon, either. Nor has either company announced plans to expand production.


We can continue to quibble over whether the delay is material or not, but we _know_ for a fact that by mid-year they had convinced the people that publish the reports that they were on their way to shipping 1+ million units this year. That seems impossible for any number of reasons. And as for shipping many, many more in 2014 (i.e. millions, not a million), they'd need to construct a fab _before_ 2014. So it has to start this year.


Every bit of the timetable is backwards a year, except perhaps first shipment, which has been _scaled back still from the original first shipment plans_ that called for an $8000 price and, therefore, more volume.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22790152
> 
> 
> Should this turn out to be true, it would really put pressure on Samsung and LG to offer their own Ultra OLED products.
> 
> RUMOR: SONY TO UNVEIL 4K OLED-TV AT CES
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1357428158
> 
> "We will know for sure on Monday but The Verge says that Sony plans to unveil a 4K – or Ultra HD – OLED-TV at CES 2013 in Las Vegas.
> 
> 4K OLED-TV AT CES?
> 
> Sources tell The Verge that Sony plans to unveil a spectacular OLED-TV at this year’s CES show. If true it will be the first OLED-TV with the extremely high 4K resolution – or Ultra HD as the industry prefers to call it."



Sony has absolutely no ability to produce a large-size OLED TV in production quantities. I'd love for them to announce some plans otherwise, but until you hear words like "hundreds of millions" or "billions", there's a problem. Sony has a larger problem than Samsung and LG, by the way. they don't have _any_ 8G production of any kind. They don't have, therefore, the ability to convert an existing fab in part to make backplanes, they have no experience making 55" (or larger) TVs, etc. etc.


While I am delighted and excited that Sony will show off something like this, the idea that it puts pressure on Sasmung and LG implies they intend to build it sometime soon or at a competitive price. That seems unlikely at best.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> While I am delighted and excited that Sony will show off something like this,


You will probably see the 4K sony OLED in action and tell us all about it, right?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22791029
> 
> 
> Slacker, that's my point about the "trial" capacity. Between the two of them, they are 80,000 units below the 80,000 per month capacity they have. They won't be there soon, either. .



As usual, the key is yields. We dont know much about Samsung, but I believe that LG actually does have 8K Gen 8 substrates. That gives you a theoretical capacity of 50,000 units a month and a real world capacity way way below that.


Let me put it this way, LG doesnt need to build anything to sell 500,000 OLED TV's in a year. They need to figure out how to use the capacity that they actually have. We'll know that they have hit that point when they announce that announce expenditures for a commercial Gen 8 fab with capacity of many multiples of the initial fab.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22791214
> 
> 
> You will probably see the 4K sony OLED in action and tell us all about it, right?



Assuming it's available for viewing, of course.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22791779
> 
> 
> As usual, the key is yields. We dont know much about Samsung, but I believe that LG actually does have 8K Gen 8 substrates. That gives you a theoretical capacity of 50,000 units a month and a real world capacity way way below that.
> 
> Let me put it this way, LG doesnt need to build anything to sell 500,000 OLED TV's in a year. They need to figure out how to use the capacity that they actually have. We'll know that they have hit that point when they announce that announce expenditures for a commercial Gen 8 fab with capacity of many multiples of the initial fab.



Yes, yes, violent agreement.


The thing about 500K units is _that doesn't amount to a hill of beans_. It's about 1/4 of 1% of the TV market. They can price to sell to the wealthy and ignorant, but even that isn't a sustainable place to be. This has to move forward or die. It doesn't have to do that overnight, but it has to happen at some point soon. Either this production technique is proved and yields reach into the upper double digits and they come to the recognition they can max out that capacity or they don't. If they do, they announce a new fab _well ahead_ of reaching max capacity. That has to be at least 6 months, but I imagine it's longer. Running the business at 500K units annualized is probably a goal for _year end_ or thereabouts. It's clearly not achieved now nor is it likely to be achieved by mid-year. Generally, this is a story of continuous improvement, not discontinuous improvement.


Basically, without understanding the intracacies of capital spending, I'd guess LG has to announce plans by summer at the latest if we are to believe they will produce more than 1 million units next year. If they don't, we can rule out meaningful OLED growth before 2015. If they do, we can figure OLED will reach exceed 1% of the market by 2015 and might even get close next year. Again, all of this is well behind even last year's forecasts.


----------



## zoro

Are we in for Oled /4K $$$$ delight this year from Sony?


----------



## vtms

There is no way 4K OLED will be sold this year. Sony is just showing its another pie-in-the-sky prototype.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22792929
> 
> 
> There is no way 4K OLED will be sold this year. Sony is just showing its another pie-in-the-sky prototype.


While that's certainly true, I do admire the way that they're establishing that they're pursuing BOTH OLED and Crystal LED to enough of a degree to make each a focal point. I for one, am dying to see how Sony positions themselves verbally. If the 4K OLED announcement rumors are true for all of them (Sony/LG/......and didn't Samsung recently hint too(?)) will the best-in-show go to the dog that is .01" larger than the others?


----------



## vivftp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800#post_22791029
> 
> 
> Sony has absolutely no ability to produce a large-size OLED TV in production quantities. I'd love for them to announce some plans otherwise, but until you hear words like "hundreds of millions" or "billions", there's a problem. Sony has a larger problem than Samsung and LG, by the way. they don't have _any_ 8G production of any kind. They don't have, therefore, the ability to convert an existing fab in part to make backplanes, they have no experience making 55" (or larger) TVs, etc. etc.
> 
> While I am delighted and excited that Sony will show off something like this, the idea that it puts pressure on Sasmung and LG implies they intend to build it sometime soon or at a competitive price. That seems unlikely at best.



I've been hearing from people online that Sony will be utilizing AUO for TV OLED panels, along with LCD... does AUO have hte ability to produce panels anywhere that size? How about the joint venture with Panasonic? Does Panasonic have any abilities along those lines?


----------



## rogo

So let's clarify a couple of things:


1) AUO has perfectly acceptable 8G LCD production. They have *zero* OLED production. They have not shown any evidence of being close to OLED production. To make OLEDs you either need to (a) license LG's technology that they have yet to perfect or (b) duplicate Samsung's technology that they have yet to perfect despite huge investments that virtually no one else can match. AUO has yet to show any viable IGZO backplanes, either, which are considered integral to OLED mass production.


2) Sony and Panasonic _do not have a joint venture to produce OLED TVs_. I know people think they do, but those people are wrong. Sony and Panasonic have a joint venture to develop technologies to _produce_ OLEDs. That's ideas that would lead to machines and processes for a hypothetical OLED plant that either of them might build or another joint venture they might announce in the future would use for both of them. The existing JV is several steps away from the making-TV step.


I have no doubt Sony is working with AUO because it owns zero LCD production in mainstream sizes. It also works with LG and Sharp and Samsung. The fact that Sony has no announced strategy to remain relevant in the TV business is troublesome. The only people who are likely to survive are primary mfrs. and deep discounters. Even primary mfrs. have suffered (Sharp, Panasonic) with high yen, expensive plant investments, economic challenges in the world, etc. The idea that Sony can be successful without internal production is absurd. That's Vizio territory, which is a very low-margin model.


If Sony shows up at CES again with multiple technologies and no announced products, it's basically an admission they are done in the TV business. It won't appear that way, but it will be that. By mid-decade, you'll either own OLED fabs, own LCD fabs or be finished. You won't be buying panels from XYZ and selling them for premium prices. Sony has already lost billions doing that for _a decade_. Oh, you also won't be claiming there is a future in those multiple technologies. You'll have a stake in the ground not pie in the sky.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> If Sony shows up at CES again with multiple technologies and no announced products, it's basically an admission they are done in the TV business. It won't appear that way, but it will be that. By mid-decade, you'll either own OLED fabs, own LCD fabs or be finished. You won't be buying panels from XYZ and selling them for premium prices. Sony has already lost billions doing that for _a decade_. Oh, you also won't be claiming there is a future in those multiple technologies. You'll have a stake in the ground not pie in the sky.


Seems to me that the product that gets the most attention at CES, IFA etc...owner gets most free publicity. That is what this prototype stuff, for the most part, is all about isn't it?


----------



## ferro

This report claims that LG's 55" OLED is now scheduled for a spring release here in The Netherlands (and Belgium and Luxembourg):

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftweakers.net%2Fnieuws%2F86480%2Flg-brengt-eerste-oled-tv-in-voorjaar-uit-in-benelux.html


----------



## Rich Peterson

I don't know if this has already been reported, but I noticed if you go to lg's website http://www.lg.com , OLED is now front-and-center in position one on their banner near the top. That means it likely will be seen by people looking for TVs, washing machines, cell phones, etc.


They put lots of interesting OLED information out there, but I don't see any pricing or availability yet.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4830#post_22794013
> 
> 
> I don't know if this has already been reported, but I noticed if you go to lg's website http://www.lg.com , OLED is now front-and-center in position one on their banner near the top. That means it likely will be seen by people looking for TVs, washing machines, cell phones, etc.
> 
> They put lots of interesting OLED information out there, but I don't see any pricing or availability yet.



I've looked at this for a while now, and still don't understand something: how do the wires go from the base connections to the panel if the arm holding the tv is clear?


----------



## taichi4

To put things into perspective regarding the initial cost to consumers of OLED displays, Sharp's initial IGZO LCD displays will not be inexpensive:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2023851/sharp-stays-big-with-its-2013-tvs-but-wheres-the-4k-.html 


The 32-inch commercial grade PN-K321 monitor will be somewhere north of $7,000.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4830#post_22795273
> 
> 
> To put things into perspective regarding the initial cost to consumers of OLED displays, Sharp's initial IGZO LCD displays will not be inexpensive:
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2023851/sharp-stays-big-with-its-2013-tvs-but-wheres-the-4k-.html
> 
> The 32-inch commercial grade PN-K321 monitor will be somewhere north of $7,000.



True, but isn't IGZO the substrate of choice for OLED? If so, goes to follow that IGZO/OLED is always going to be a major leap in $$ over IGZO/LCD for a while.


----------



## rogo

Taichi, the thing is, while those IGZO computer monitors will cost a lot (at first), they are unique in being 4K and 32". It's a specialized product and so it's pricey at first because there are segments that will overpay. It's too expensive, of course, but explainable.


$12,000 for a 55" TV, on the other hand, I don't grasp at all.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4830#post_22795344
> 
> 
> True, but isn't IGZO the substrate of choice for OLED? If so, goes to follow that IGZO/OLED is always going to be a major leap in $$ over IGZO/LCD for a while.



I would guess that the yields on the IGZO substrate are the major driver of the low yields/high cost. LG is using a pretty simple process for laying down the OLED materials on the substrate and the overall material cost shouldnt be dramatically higher than for a LCD. In mobile, Samsung uses the same substrate as used in the high-end LCD's(LTPS) but uses a much more difficult manufacturing process than LG's WRGB and is still within the ballpark of high-end LCD pricing.


It took Sharp about a year longer than they expected to get ramp some IGZO products (mostly mobile). We'll have to see how long it takes LG.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4830#post_22795652
> 
> 
> I would guess that the yields on the IGZO substrate are the major driver of the low yields/high cost. LG is using a pretty simple process for laying down the OLED materials on the substrate and the overall material cost shouldnt be dramatically higher than for a LCD. In mobile, Samsung uses the same substrate as used in the high-end LCD's(LTPS) but uses a much more difficult manufacturing process than LG's WRGB and is still within the ballpark of high-end LCD pricing.
> 
> It took Sharp about a year longer than they expected to get ramp some IGZO products (mostly mobile). We'll have to see how long it takes LG.



I believe you're right. All good points.


----------



## rogo

The thing is, Samsung is going to have to move to IGZO as well. They can postpone it for a bit, but only for a bit.


It appears their OLED TV business is quite far behind... I wonder what they'll say at their presser.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Engadet Report: *Samsung unveils 55-inch OLED HDTV, really is planning to release it this year*


No pricing or availability, but at least we have a model number now: KNF559500

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/07/samsung-oled-hdtv-KN55F9500-/ 


Since Engadget reported the LG OLED sets incorrectly this morning, I wanted all to know they were the source of this...


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4830#post_22796957
> 
> 
> Engadet Report: *Samsung unveils 55-inch OLED HDTV, really is planning to release it this year*
> 
> No pricing or availability, but at least we have a model number now: KNF559500
> http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/07/samsung-oled-hdtv-KN55F9500-/
> 
> Since Engadget reported the LG OLED sets incorrectly this morning, I wanted all to know they were the source of this...




just vaporware.


samsung has to get something out after lg's launch.


note it sez to be release this year, not when.


----------



## Artwood

OLED is getting here as fast as jets got to the Germans in World War II--they were the best but they were too little and too late.


Only a nuclear bomb type technology display can win the war against the advancing LCD crap looking hordes!


Live in fantasy future land all you want--right now we're on the brink of LCD armies annihilating the quality video world!


Kuros and plasmas of all types are currently being moved to bunkers!


The hardest part is listening to the blind LCD lovers crow--"We SUCK and we WON"!


Millions and Millions of LCD plants here have taken over.


They're even part of the OLED conspiracy--Get people to wish for OLED so they won't raise Cain about LCD ASSIMILATING the whole planet!


Even junky 3-D is almost done.


People here talk about 2K, 4K, and 99K when you can't even get 1080p that isn't compressed down to the sewer level of LCD!


Is it true that Joan Baez is going to sing "The night they drove old plasma down"?


----------



## homogenic

*Blue Phase Mode — commericalize soon please!

*IGZO

*4K


Means the future of LCD is evolving, Artwood.


----------



## tgm1024

By the way, with the advancements into 4K, are we *FINALLY* done already with the interlacing crap? I mean, I'm not going to turn around in 5 years and have Comcast advertising UHD, when what they really mean is 2160i managed by line doubling in the tv am I?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4830#post_22797486
> 
> 
> OLED is getting here as fast as jets got to the Germans in World War II--they were the best but they were too little and too late.
> 
> Only a nuclear bomb type technology display can win the war against the advancing LCD crap looking hordes!
> 
> Live in fantasy future land all you want--right now we're on the brink of LCD armies annihilating the quality video world!
> 
> Kuros and plasmas of all types are currently being moved to bunkers!
> 
> The hardest part is listening to the blind LCD lovers crow--"We SUCK and we WON"!
> 
> Millions and Millions of LCD plants here have taken over.
> 
> They're even part of the OLED conspiracy--Get people to wish for OLED so they won't raise Cain about LCD ASSIMILATING the whole planet!
> 
> Even junky 3-D is almost done.
> 
> People here talk about 2K, 4K, and 99K when you can't even get 1080p that isn't compressed down to the sewer level of LCD!
> 
> Is it true that Joan Baez is going to sing "The night they drove old plasma down"?



Artwood, (honestly) I absolutely love your posts---stay strong brother. I have no idea how you manage it without a Costco bucket of Prozac, but you hang in there even with the future bleakly over-run by the LCD Borg. I wonder if their eye pieces are 4K...


----------



## vinnie97

^Ditto (on loving his posts)!


----------



## dsurkin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4830#post_22795536
> 
> 
> Taichi, the thing is, while those IGZO computer monitors will cost a lot (at first), they are unique in being 4K and 32". It's a specialized product and so it's pricey at first because there are segments that will overpay. It's too expensive, of course, but explainable.


I think the main use will be by doctors, examining digital x-rays/MRI scans. The need the highest resolution, in a screen size that will fit in the examining room. In that market, the $7,000 price is well worth it.


----------



## coolscan

Is BOE in China manufacturing 65" UHD TV with AMOLED and Ink-Jet printing? Or is it just bad translation?


> Quote:
> November 16, 2012 to 21, to promote scientific and technological innovation and enhance the quality of development "as the theme of the 14th China International Hi-Tech Fair (hereinafter referred to as" fair ") held in Shenzhen Convention and Exhibition Center. Enterprise as a leader in the of semiconductor display industry in China, BOE Technology Group to bring a number of independent research and development of new products and new technologies celebrities at high-tech fair.
> 
> Which BOE world's first, 110 inches ADSDS ultra high-definition display, as well as the Chinese mainland's first 65-inch ultra-high-definition oxide TFT display are high-tech fair is starting to become the focus of attention of the exhibition site.
> 
> Both display resolution up to 3840 * 2160 (4K × 2K level), resolutions up to 4 times the FHD of UHD (Ultra HD) ultra-high-definition levels, leading the market trend nowadays Masamori ultra-high resolution. Exhibition site, many viewers have stopped to experience realistic large field of ultra-high-definition display in front of the big screen.
> 
> It is understood that the new type of the BOE 65 inches HD display oxide TFT backplane technology used is also AMOLED display industry development essential technology.
> 
> 
> Late last month, the BOE also released the world's first fusion oxide TFT backplane technology and ink-jet printing technology of large-size AMOLED display.
> 
> Original Chinese; http://www.boe.com.cn/news/News.asp?news_id=565
> Via google translate;


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> I think the main use will be by doctors, examining digital x-rays/MRI scans. The need the highest resolution, in a screen size that will fit in the examining room. In that market, the $7,000 price is well worth it.


My experience would be just the opposite. While tacking on $7k to the price of an MRI or pet scanner would be trivial, I don't believe adding this kind of monitor adds much to the diagnostic ability of the radiologist.

1. They can zoom in on any area with interesting pathology in place of "high resolution".

2. They can adjust black or white levels to enhance any region where they think they see something.

3. They can apply any number of algorithms to enhance or sharpen edges.

4. They can use noise reduction to improve their diagnostic abilities on the image.

"deep blacks", "calibrated colour", preservation of film grain, detail without edge enhancement etc. are all things we want when viewing a movie, but are not particularly valuable when viewing diagnostic images. Higher resolution and lower noise help, but both are more important with the image acquisition than with the image display.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsurkin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4830#post_22815016
> 
> 
> I think the main use will be by doctors, examining digital x-rays/MRI scans. The need the highest resolution, in a screen size that will fit in the examining room. In that market, the $7,000 price is well worth it.


And millions of Photographers that shoot with cameras that 2-3 times the resolution of 4K and like to see more than the 2MP version of their photo. And Graphics designers that for a decade and more have been creating imagery for prints with 300-500DPI.

A 32" 4K monitor is not more than 137.68DPI, much less than many phones and tablets.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800_100#post_22797486
> 
> 
> OLED is getting here as fast as jets got to the Germans in World War II--they were the best but they were too little and too late.


Yeah, it's too bad what happened to jet engine technology. Shame that isn't around these days.


OLED might be late, and expensive at first, but unless something better comes along, it's likely to take over. I don't know where you get the idea that we will have an LCD-only future.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800_100#post_22797486
> 
> 
> People here talk about 2K, 4K, and 99K when you can't even get 1080p that isn't compressed down to the sewer level of LCD!


This is funny, because if we are strictly speaking about technical accuracy of image reproduction - not a pleasing rendition, but a technically accurate one - including things like resolution/sharpness of the image, LCDs are far better than Plasmas in that regard.


There is nothing "compressed down" about the image of an LCD at all. I'm not even sure what you mean by that, and it makes me curious to know what your actual experience with LCDs is.


The only things you can really fault them on are motion handling, which is mostly covered now thanks to response time improvements, interpolation, and backlight scanning techniques. Plasma motion is hardly perfect either.


Contrast, which is probably going to be in excess of 5,000:1 native now with IGZO panels, exceeding Plasma with the use of full array local dimming.


And viewing angles, which are mostly fine in a well lit environment, and mostly fine regardless with a good IPS panel - though IPS has significantly lower contrast than other panel types.

And for "home theatre" applications, viewing angle is mostly irrelevant in my opinion, as I won't be sitting anywhere except for the couch in front of the TV, and viewing angles on the better sets are fine for that.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsurkin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800_100#post_22815016
> 
> 
> I think the main use will be by doctors, examining digital x-rays/MRI scans. The need the highest resolution, in a screen size that will fit in the examining room. In that market, the $7,000 price is well worth it.


For what it's worth, displays like that have been available for years in the medical industry. Barco have a 10MP (4096 x 2560) display available now.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4830#post_22815701
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4830#post_22797486
> 
> 
> OLED is getting here as fast as jets got to the Germans in World War II--they were the best but they were too little and too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's too bad what happened to jet engine technology. Shame that isn't around these days.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> OLED might be late, and expensive at first, but unless something better comes along, it's likely to take over. I don't know where you get the idea that we will have an LCD-only future.



Agreed. The OLED-can't-ever-catch-up-mantra is getting tiresome.



> Quote:
> This is funny, because if we are strictly speaking about technical accuracy of image reproduction - not a pleasing rendition, but a technically accurate one - including things like resolution/sharpness of the image, LCDs are far better than Plasmas in that regard.



(?) I don't understand----how is resolution and sharpness of LCD far better than Plasma?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800_100#post_22816708
> 
> 
> (?) I don't understand----how is resolution and sharpness of LCD far better than Plasma?


Plasma has a more obvious pixel structure, LCD displays a finer image. Plasma uses a lot of dithering when rendering the image, suffers from things like line bleed etc.


You can't master content on a Plasma display, there's a reason broadcast monitors are all LCD rather than Plasmas. (and now some OLEDs)


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4830#post_22816759
> 
> 
> Plasma has a more obvious pixel structure, LCD displays a finer image. Plasma uses a lot of dithering when rendering the image, suffers from things like line bleed etc.
> 
> 
> You can't master content on a Plasma display, there's a reason broadcast monitors are all LCD rather than Plasmas. (and now some OLEDs)



I think the _more obvious_ pixel structure is merely subjective.


It's something that is no where near an issue for my PDP and I sit about 6-7 feet away from a 60" display.


----------



## vinnie97

[snark]Obviously, you need to get your eyes checked![/snark]


----------



## hoozthatat

I understand the issues of pixel structure in a PDP in _smaller_ sizes with higher resolution displays. But to use the reference monitor example seems a bit silly to me.


----------



## l3ftonm3

Any info from CES if the upcoming OLED tv's to be released this year will support actual [email protected] input?

http://www.siliconimage.com/products/product.aspx?pid=216


----------



## coolscan

 Panasonic Debuts World’s First 4K Printed OLED TV, Just Half An Inch Thick (prototype). 

Chinese mainland panel manufacturer BOE also claim to have mastered amoled ink-jet printing.


----------



## homogenic

China having OEL manufacturing capabilities means we'll have affordable OLED panels sooner rather than later? Thank you God for the Chinese.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4830#post_22815388
> 
> 
> Is BOE in China manufacturing 65" UHD TV with AMOLED and Ink-Jet printing? Or is it just bad translation?



No one is printing OLEDs and BOE has no OLED products on the market.


They might well be pursuing both, but they aren't doing it yet.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4830#post_22820862
> 
> 
> No one is printing OLEDs and BOE has no OLED products on the market.
> 
> 
> They might well be pursuing both, but they aren't doing it yet.



So when Panasonic shows at CES what they claim is "the world first printed OLED screen" and BOE states that they have the technology to print Amoled on their website, you mean "No one is printing OLEDs" as in that they are not in production or that they haven't manufactured prototypes yet?


Because my question was really whether they had made prototypes. I know they are not on the marked but being shown at tradeshows. Panasonic obviously have. 

BOE states; _"It is understood that the new type of the BOE 65 inches HD display oxide TFT backplane technology used is also AMOLED display industry development essential technology.

Late last month, the BOE also released the world's first fusion oxide TFT backplane technology and ink-jet printing technology of large-size AMOLED display"_ which of course doesn't directly confirm that they have made prototypes.


----------



## rogo

I mean, no one is producing them.


One-off prototypes don't prove anything. I have no real idea how Panasonic "printed" that prototype or how they even define "printing" at this stage, as they absolutely refused to discuss anything about it. But they most certainly have no ability to produce anything using OLED "printing".


As for BOE, I think you are confusing two separate developments:


1) They have IGZO TFT backplane technology which they have shown off in prototype form


2) They claim to have OLED printing technology, which I am unaware they have even demoed any prototypes from (That is not to say they haven't. They may well have demoed prototypes, I just not have seen them.)


It's not clear that BOE can actually make LCDs with IGZO in quantity -- in fact, I doubt they can as neither Sharp nor LG has shown any ability to push IGZO to volume yet, and they have years of experience in TFTs and a long lead time working on IGZO.


It seems like BOE is basically trying to claim "We have the two most important technologies to make great big OLEDs; IGZO and printing of OLED material." Maybe they have both, although the idea they are production ready seems unlikely. Additionally, I continue to believe that while printable OLED is potentially exciting and important -- especially because I am convinced Samsung cannot mass produce OLED TVs using FMM/SMS -- LG does not need printing or any more developments to scale OLED. It just needs to decide to spend billions to do it and to perfect IGZO, which I consider inevitable.


----------



## greenland

Panasonic closing LCD plant to start production on OLED and 4K tablet

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/49203/panasonic-replacing-lcd-factory-with-oled-production-facility 


"Eagle-eyed television lovers will have spotted that Panasonic has changed its LCD range to use passive 3D technology. Not because it particularly believes passive 3D is the best 3D display tech, but as a result of shutting down its own LCD panel manufacturing facility instead buying-in LCDs from LG.


Now we’ve also learnt that Panasonic is going to be using the former LCD factory to produce both the new 56-inch OLED TV it announced this week, and the 4k, 20-inch tablet. Plasma TV production is done elsewhere, and that plant won’t be closing any time soon, although the company did tell us that eventually it thinks OLED will replace both the existing display technologies.


That the firm has shut the factory already really does point to its getting started on mass-producing OLEDs. A spokesman told us that although there are no dates, Panasonic is confident it can produce TVs that use the technology and are significantly cheaper than the rivals.


Panasonic also says that OLED needs to be 4K because there’s really no point in selling this new tech with the resolutions of today."


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22822934
> 
> 
> That the firm has shut the factory already really does point to its getting started on mass-producing OLEDs. A spokesman told us that although there are no dates, Panasonic is confident it can produce TVs that use the technology and are significantly cheaper than the rivals.
> 
> Panasonic also says that OLED needs to be 4K because there’s really no point in selling this new tech with the resolutions of today."



True OLED needs to be 4K but at what size? The 56" Panasonic demos is too small. In any case, I doubt Panasonic is able to take lead in such advanced OLED.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22821532
> 
> 
> It seems like BOE is basically trying to claim "We have the two most important technologies to make great big OLEDs; IGZO and printing of OLED material." Maybe they have both, although the idea they are production ready seems unlikely.



I would not discount BOE as "maybe". When they say they have these two technologies they have them. They are not saying having production-ready OLED tech yet. But knowing their speed of progress expect 65" 4K OLED demos this year and production ready sets at the CES'14. The 65" will beat others including Panasonic.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22823054
> 
> 
> True OLED needs to be 4K but at what size? The 56" Panasonic demos is too small.



Good question, but I'm hoping they're shooting high with some manufacturing fall back. In all bleeding edge technological pursuits that I've ever seen (CPUs/Memory/Graphics Engines, even floppy disks of yore), what shakes out the manufacturing problems faster than anything else is to actually start manufacturing. Yields are hard to discern in a lab.


But listening to you guys for a while, it seems that panels are a hit or miss only phenomenon. In other yield-limited pursuits like high speed CPU's, they aim high and keep reducing the clock rate until it passes. In this way they're able to shoot high, yet still release "lesser" chips. In panels though, am I right in guessing that they cannot aim for 84", see it fail, and trim the result down? Further, can they use the same 84" manufacturing apparatus in a ramped down fashion to produce 65" panels that work?


----------



## novcze




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22823054
> 
> 
> True OLED needs to be 4K but at what size? The 56" Panasonic demos is too small.



Why small, I can imagine 4K OLED on 40" screen without any problems, same thing as today's Full HD 20" LCD panels.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22821532
> 
> 
> As for BOE, I think you are confusing two separate developments:
> 
> 
> 1) They have IGZO TFT backplane technology which they have shown off in prototype form
> 
> 
> 2) They claim to have OLED printing technology, which I am unaware they have even demoed any prototypes from (That is not to say they haven't. They may well have demoed prototypes, I just not have seen them.)
> 
> 
> It's not clear that BOE can actually make LCDs with IGZO in quantity -- in fact, I doubt they can as neither Sharp nor LG has shown any ability to push IGZO to volume yet, and they have years of experience in TFTs and a long lead time working on IGZO.
> 
> 
> It seems like BOE is basically trying to claim "We have the two most important technologies to make great big OLEDs; IGZO and printing of OLED material." Maybe they have both, although the idea they are production ready seems unlikely. Additionally, I continue to believe that while printable OLED is potentially exciting and important -- especially because I am convinced Samsung cannot mass produce OLED TVs using FMM/SMS -- LG does not need printing or any more developments to scale OLED. It just needs to decide to spend billions to do it and to perfect IGZO, which I consider inevitable.


Had to do some more search out of curiosity.







This is what I found about BOE;


Two links behind paywall so it really nothing more to see;


> Quote:
> Mar 08, 2012; BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. (SSE: 000725) has successfully developed mainland China’s first Oxide TFT LCD screen (18.5 inch Oxide TFT-LCD).
> 
> This means that China’s oxide TFT rear panel technology has reached the advanced level in the industry.
> 
> November 6 2012; BOE, a leading Chinese display manufacturer, has just launched two oxide-TFT-based 17-in AM-OLED displays, manufactured via ink-jet printing and vacuum deposition approaches. The printed device is the world's first AM-OLED that...



> BOEs main 8.5-Gen plant is in Beijing.

> BOE has a G5.5 AMOLED production line factory in inner Mongolia under construction which will be operational Q4 2013. The majority products are display panels with small-medium size.

> Dec 25, 2012; BOE Display has signed a $5.26 billion investment agreement with the Chinese government to construct a new 8.5G line within the western China municipality. Will be operational in 2015.


Just tag on a Table from October 2012 of; Table 2. Many panel makers have plans to shift to oxide TFTs in 2012–2013. 


To sum up what I have found both elsewhere and some of it I have posted here;

> Seems like the status is that BOE has Oxide TFT production facilities that they are going to use for massproduction of the 65" Oxide TFT UHDTV.

> They have managed to produce to different AMOLED panels with Ink-Jet printing, one of them is 18.5".

> They are going to use their Oxide TFT backpane technology to refine their AMOLED Ink-Jet printing into massproduction.


Guess nothing much to be excited about before earliest 2015?










From China International Hi-Tech Fair held in Shenzhen November 16 to 21, 2012.


----------



## coolscan

Novelty; True LED TV, C-SEED from Porsche Design; Large size 201" - Low resolution - High price, outdoor TV for your back garden.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800_100#post_22823054
> 
> 
> True OLED needs to be 4K but at what size? The 56" Panasonic demos is too small.


Too small? Anything larger is _too big_ if you are outside America, or care about how the room looks.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800_100#post_22823054
> 
> 
> In any case, I doubt Panasonic is able to take lead in such advanced OLED.


If Panasonic have been able to manufacture a prototype display using an RGB printing method, and have shut down one of their LCD plants to re-tool it for OLED Printing, why would they not have a chance of taking lead? Being able to print the displays at scale could result in significant price reductions.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22823400
> 
> 
> Too small? Anything larger is _too big_ if you are outside America, or care about how the room looks.



Thank you for saying this. I'm in the *distinct* minority here, but when I see a 70" set in someone's livingroom, my first thoughts are "too big" and "dominating".


I do have to say though that this would almost certainly be mitigated by the higher than 16:9 movie aspect ratio.


Once watching a movie that is.


----------



## pkeegan

I too want a smaller set of ~40 to 42". Otherwise I can't fit it into my living room.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800_100#post_22823422
> 
> 
> Thank you for saying this. I'm in the *distinct* minority here, but when I see a 70" set in someone's livingroom, my first thoughts are "too big" and "dominating".


I don't think you are in the minority at all. Perhaps the minority on American-based AV forums like this site, but certainly not the minority in general.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800_100#post_22823422
> 
> 
> I do have to say though that this would almost certainly be mitigated by the higher than 16:9 movie aspect ratio.


Well if you are talking about wider aspect ratios, you need a "bigger" display to achieve the same perceived size. I don't understand why they choose to measure TVs by their diagonal. Height is what actually matters when it comes to your perception of size.


That's why, when you went from a 21" 4:3 CRT (most common size in non-American countries) you had to buy a 26" 16:9 display to have the picture appear the same size. If you went with a 21" panel again, it would be much smaller. Technically the 26" panel has a 36% larger area, but felt the same because it has the same height. Back when we were switching from 4:3 to 16:9, most people I knew either went with a 26" (sold as 28" back when they were CRTs) or a 32" display if they wanted something bigger. 36" seemed like a ridiculous idea to most people.


With flat panels being a foot or two further back from you, you can go for a larger size without it being so imposing on the room, and the most common size these days seems to be 46" for people that want a "larger" display, with the outliers buying 50-55" panels.

Very few panels over 55" are sold outside USA - probably equivalent to the over 70" market there.



When you are going to an even wider aspect ratio such as 21:9 though, the numbers get inflated even further, because we are still measuring diagonals for some reason. That's why Philips' ultra-wide 56" 21:9 display doesn't actually feel too big, because despite what that number might suggest, it's equivalent in height to a 45" 16:9 panel, and that's just big enough in most non-American homes. Even the trend towards 55" rather than 50" 16:9 is pushing it - those panels often look oversized in a European home.



I'm disappointed that they didn't change to 21:9 native displays with the switch to 4K. It seems like that would be a much easier selling point than resolution/clarity.


Practically nothing I use my display for requires anything other than 21:9. I can't think of the last time I watched a 16:9 film, and I watch almost no television content. (maybe one or two seasons of a show a year, on Blu-ray)

PCs have no trouble outputting 21:9 resolutions for the desktop, or changing the aspect ratio for gaming, so that would be unaffected.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22822934
> 
> 
> Panasonic closing LCD plant to start production on OLED and 4K tablet
> 
> http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/49203/panasonic-replacing-lcd-factory-with-oled-production-facility
> 
> 
> "Eagle-eyed television lovers will have spotted that Panasonic has changed its LCD range to use passive 3D technology. Not because it particularly believes passive 3D is the best 3D display tech, but as a result of shutting down its own LCD panel manufacturing facility instead buying-in LCDs from LG.
> 
> 
> Now we’ve also learnt that Panasonic is going to be using the former LCD factory to produce both the new 56-inch OLED TV it announced this week, and the 4k, 20-inch tablet. Plasma TV production is done elsewhere, and that plant won’t be closing any time soon, although the company did tell us that eventually it thinks OLED will replace both the existing display technologies.
> 
> 
> That the firm has shut the factory already really does point to its getting started on mass-producing OLEDs. A spokesman told us that although there are no dates, Panasonic is confident it can produce TVs that use the technology and are significantly cheaper than the rivals.
> 
> 
> Panasonic also says that OLED needs to be 4K because there’s really no point in selling this new tech with the resolutions of today."



Big words by Panasonic. Let's see follow through. Also, I freaking hate nonsense like "we can do this significantly cheaper"... than what? Let's just assume LG has IGZO working (a problem they will solve because every single LCD/OLED manufacturer has to and LG is ahead of everyone who isn't Sharp in trying). Then what? How are you going to be "significantly cheaper" at making OLED than LG, which uses two ridiculously easy processes on top of their backplanes. Panasonic should shut its yap, produce something and then brag.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22823054
> 
> 
> True OLED needs to be 4K but at what size? The 56" Panasonic demos is too small. In any case, I doubt Panasonic is able to take lead in such advanced OLED.
> 
> I would not discount BOE as "maybe". When they say they have these two technologies they have them. They are not saying having production-ready OLED tech yet. But knowing their speed of progress expect 65" 4K OLED demos this year and production ready sets at the CES'14. The 65" will beat others including Panasonic.



OK, I'm glad you have anointed some company that has no track record as the next big thing. And maybe you are right. I have no idea, but I will be floored and excited at once if BOE has a production 65" 4K in 2014 at a price that isn't astronomical.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22823422
> 
> 
> Thank you for saying this. I'm in the *distinct* minority here, but when I see a 70" set in someone's livingroom, my first thoughts are "too big" and "dominating".



I'm with Chron here. You're in the overwhelming majority, even in North America. You're just in the minority at AVS.


I tried to get a read on how big the 65+ market was going to be going forward and got estimates ranging from 10% to 30%. But as I've said here, without prompting people pointed out that the numbers will remain low in Europe and Japan (and the bulk of China, actually) for the foreseeable future. These giant TVs are mostly about marketing and selling small numbers at somewhat larger prices.


Look at Sharp's strategy and you can see that the 90" is not priced linearly: Get more from the small sliver that wants that. The purpose of the 90" is to sell more 80" TVs, which has worked. And the 80 helped sell 70s. But even with that, no one else has built a 10G fab nor is there much evidence beyond 8.5G for even OLED, which limits practical production to 65".


These 110" and 84" pieces are being made in a way that _inherently limits their production_ and not one mfr. is intended to mainstream even the smaller of those. That includes the Chinese, I'm sorry to say. That said, a Hisense 84" will be much cheaper than the current LG.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22823794
> 
> 
> Very few panels over 55" are sold outside USA - probably equivalent to the over 70" market there.



Makes sense. You've reminded me of something. When friends of the family from Denmark visited us maybe 12 years ago, they thought that my 32" CRT was the craziest looking thing they had ever seen. I admitted to him that I would never have gone bigger: CRT's over 32" weighed half as much as a buick and would crush most basic stands.


When I visited Norway 15 years ago, even in well off households the largest TV's I saw looked somewhat less than 19".


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22824169
> 
> 
> Big words by Panasonic. Let's see follow through. Also, I freaking hate nonsense like "we can do this significantly cheaper"... than what? Let's just assume LG has IGZO working (a problem they will solve because every single LCD/OLED manufacturer has to and LG is ahead of everyone who isn't Sharp in trying). Then what? How are you going to be "significantly cheaper" at making OLED than LG, which uses two ridiculously easy processes on top of their backplanes. Panasonic should shut its yap, produce something and then brag.
> 
> OK, I'm glad you have anointed some company that has no track record as the next big thing. And maybe you are right. I have no idea, but I will be floored and excited at once if BOE has a production 65" 4K in 2014 at a price that isn't astronomical.



Panasonic is not known for showing product at shows that do not ship.

They tend to be conservative.


- Rich


----------



## vinnie97

*gasp* You said a dirty word (according to many).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22824915
> 
> 
> Panasonic is not known for showing product at shows that do not ship.
> 
> They tend to be conservative.



It wasn't a product. It was a prototype and explicitly described as one. They can't manufacture it. Period.


Maybe that changes over the next year or two. But today, it's a fact.


They also showed off 4K prototypes last year that they had no intention of shipping. And didn't.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *novcze*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22823220
> 
> 
> Why small, I can imagine 4K OLED on 40" screen without any problems, same thing as today's Full HD 20" LCD panels.



This topic is endlessly repeating: if you think about watching TV standard viewing scenario starts at 3PH minimum. For such viewing distance one can not see difference between the 4K and 2K, especially with compressed sources. Tablets, phones and computer monitors are in different viewing scenarios, 1-2PH. there increased resolution makes sense. 40"@4K would make excellent computer monitor. You might be watching your TV like computer monitor but this is not the way population is watching.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22826440
> 
> 
> It wasn't a product. It was a prototype and explicitly described as one. They can't manufacture it. Period.
> 
> 
> Maybe that changes over the next year or two. But today, it's a fact.
> 
> 
> They also showed off 4K prototypes last year that they had no intention of shipping. And didn't.



They did not claim that it was anything other than a prototype.


Some manufacturers show products that they claim will ship and do not.










- Rich


----------



## Artwood

How many years til OLED annihilates LCD? That will be the happiest day for AVS mankind!


----------



## greenland

Panasonic 56-inch 4K OLED TV

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/49165/panasonic-56-inch-4k-oled-tv-detailed-information--pictures-and-hands-on 


"Panasonic says that what makes its OLED panel better than any others is the printing technology used to make the display. This method is said to dramatically reduce costs of production, increase yield rates and make the displays more reliable. It works by printing a layer, which is then sandwiched between a backing layer and a transparent cathode placed on the top. This apparently improves the light output, and ensures there are no reflections.


Panasonic claims that its printing process scales very well. So there’s no reason you can’t print both 24 and 56-inch screens using the same technology. It also says there is very little wastage of the organic material, which is another way to reduce costs."


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22826663
> 
> 
> They did not claim that it was anything other than a prototype.
> 
> 
> Some manufacturers show products that they claim will ship and do not.



Right, but your above post seemed to imply, "because they showed this... it means something..."


My reply was, "it means something when they claim it's a product, not until then...."


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22828008
> 
> 
> Right, but your above post seemed to imply, "because they showed this... it means something..."
> 
> 
> My reply was, "it means something when they claim it's a product, not until then...."



Right, because it does mean something.

It means they can build a prototype.

Last year, that was probable not true.


I may mean that Panasonic may have some fight left in them in the display business.

At least, I hope so.


- Rich


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22826832
> 
> 
> How many years til OLED annihilates LCD? That will be the happiest day for AVS mankind!



Not true sir. I will be right beside you.

Providing, they have no new and interesting flaws, like picture accuracy and lifespan.


I am not sure if you will ever get rid of LED/LCDs on computer displays.

Are we ready to go back to burn-in and screen savers?


- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22828262
> 
> 
> Not true sir. I will be right beside you.
> 
> Providing, they have no new and interesting flaws, like picture accuracy and lifespan.
> 
> 
> I am not sure if you will ever get rid of LED/LCDs on computer displays.
> 
> Are we ready to go back to burn-in and screen savers?
> 
> 
> - Rich



My guess is still that that if it's not solved solidly in the next few years, the mere concept of IR (real or imagined) will hang around the OLED neck like it does to plasma now in the eyes of the public. Too bad Crystal LED seems so beyond unlikely, at least as it stands right now. It really seemed like a nifty combination of solid-older-tech and new. Ah well...enough lamenting...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22828262
> 
> 
> Not true sir. I will be right beside you.
> 
> Providing, they have no new and interesting flaws, like picture accuracy and lifespan.
> 
> 
> I am not sure if you will ever get rid of LED/LCDs on computer displays.
> 
> Are we ready to go back to burn-in and screen savers?



It doesn't seem that there is an iota of momentum to replace PC/laptop screens with OLED. There is virtually no momentum with tablets for that matter.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22828546
> 
> 
> It doesn't seem that there is an iota of momentum to replace PC/laptop screens with OLED. There is virtually no momentum with tablets for that matter.



Momentum? Probably not....perhaps Apple? They like to pretend to be the newest of the newest. But for right *now*, It would be crazy stupid to use OLED for such devices until BI/IR was solved. It's precisely the environment to cause disaster to screens that are horrible at static images.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22828844
> 
> 
> Momentum? Probably not....perhaps Apple? They like to pretend to be the newest of the newest. But for right *now*, It would be crazy stupid to use OLED for such devices until BI/IR was solved. It's precisely the environment to cause disaster to screens that are horrible at static images.



Apple seems to be driving its partners to improve LCD right now, which of course they are doing for their own reasons too.


Better touch technology, continued support for IPS, IGZO, etc. are all Apple-favored things (and since Apple buys a lot of stuff, that's good news).


It's certainly possible that OLED will get easy enough to make to be able to also encroach into the tablet and PC worlds, but right now, even Samsung barely sells any of their lone OLED tablet -- and charges a lot for it.


And the best small-ish LCDs are not being derided by too many people for lacking anything (color, contrast, etc.) OLED will have to do something in particular to displace LCD there. Thinness, power consumption, something... And it might, but it feels like that's a many-years-out scenario.


----------



## slb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22829788
> 
> 
> Apple seems to be driving its partners to improve LCD right now, which of course they are doing for their own reasons too.
> 
> 
> Better touch technology, continued support for IPS, IGZO, etc. are all Apple-favored things (*and since Apple buys a lot of stuff, that's good news*).
> 
> 
> It's certainly possible that OLED will get easy enough to make to be able to also encroach into the tablet and PC worlds, but right now, even Samsung barely sells any of their lone OLED tablet -- and charges a lot for it.
> 
> 
> And the best small-ish LCDs are not being derided by too many people for lacking anything (color, contrast, etc.) OLED will have to do something in particular to displace LCD there. Thinness, power consumption, something... And it might, but it feels like that's a many-years-out scenario.



Off-topic, but I read on the WSJ site that Apple cut orders for Q1-2013 iPhone components by approximately 50% from what they had originally projected. They still buy lots of stuff.


----------



## PeterG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slb*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860_60#post_22829869
> 
> 
> Off-topic, but I read on the WSJ site that Apple cut orders for Q1-2013 iPhone components by approximately 50% from what they had originally projected. They still buy lots of stuff.



Not to derail the thread, but this WSJ article was a shoddy bit of reporting. They said Apple anticipated 65 million sales in Q1 (that is what the initial report said). However, they surreptitiously deleted that. I don't give much credence to BGR, but now and then they do get it correct:

http://bgr.com/2013/01/14/iphone-5-analysis-component-cuts-291307/?utm_source=featuredposts-widget-main&utm_medium=home 


"Old media" often derides "New media" as playing fast and loose with fact checking etc, but clearly *all* media is succumbing to the disease of sloppiness and being first out the gate.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PeterG*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22830013
> 
> 
> Not to derail the thread, but this WSJ article was a shoddy bit of reporting. They said Apple anticipated 65 million sales in Q1 (that is what the initial report said). However, they surreptitiously deleted that. I don't give much credence to BGR, but now and then they do get it correct:
> 
> http://bgr.com/2013/01/14/iphone-5-analysis-component-cuts-291307/?utm_source=featuredposts-widget-main&utm_medium=home
> 
> 
> "Old media" often derides "New media" as playing fast and loose with fact checking etc, but clearly *all* media is succumbing to the disease of sloppiness and being first out the gate.


I was just hearing today on NPR about how Android has eaten far deeper into their lunch than they had expected. 3rd hand reporting of course by NPR, so who knows.


OT bifurcations are hard to avoid. At least in the usenet days you could ignore an entire visible branch of it. LOL.....


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PeterG*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4860#post_22830013
> 
> 
> Not to derail the thread, but this WSJ article was a shoddy bit of reporting. They said Apple anticipated 65 million sales in Q1 (that is what the initial report said). However, they surreptitiously deleted that. I don't give much credence to BGR, but now and then they do get it correct:
> 
> http://bgr.com/2013/01/14/iphone-5-analysis-component-cuts-291307/?utm_source=featuredposts-widget-main&utm_medium=home
> 
> 
> "Old media" often derides "New media" as playing fast and loose with fact checking etc, but clearly *all* media is succumbing to the disease of sloppiness and being first out the gate.



I actually think the Journal got punked. Seriously.


----------



## irkuck

OLED prospects are bleak as manufacturers are still struggiling with yield and cost of even small low-density panels despite many years of productivization efforts. With the general trend of pushing towards high-density OLED may not deliver in the end.


----------



## mypretty1











http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/oled-tv-overtake-4k-201301172591.htm


----------



## rogo

I think the 4K forecasts fail to grasp that 4K is basically free to add to LCD and will give LCD a marketing edge and therefore will likely be on 100% of LCDs of 50" and up within a few years if there is any marketing reason to do so. And if OLED has a toe-hold, that's a marketing reason...


So....


EDIT: Digitimes actually agrees with me and has much bigger UHD numbers than the link you have above;



Ultra HD TV panel shipments expected to reach 10 million in 2014

Tony Huang, DIGITIMES Research, Taipei [Monday 14 January 2013]


Shipments for Ultra HD (3840 by 2160) TV panels sized 32-inch and above are expected to reach 3.83 million units in 2013 followed by a drastic increase in 2014 to 10 million units, according to Digitimes Research.


Digitimes Research said TV vendors including China-based TCL and Skyworth along with Japan-based Sony and Panasonic and Korea-based Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics are all looking to push Ultra HD TV sales in 2013, but only by a small amount due to high costs in producing the technology. Those costs are expected to drop throughout 2013, however, and TV panel makers are expected to bump up their production of Ultra HD TV panels throughout the time period into 2014 when Ultra HD shipments could reach as high as 10 million units, added Digitimes Research.


Meanwhile, OLED TV panel makers are still having mass production issues and are likely to face challenges from Ultra HD TV competition during both years, noted Digitimes Research.


----------



## CatBus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22842402
> 
> 
> 4K is basically free to add to LCD and will give LCD a marketing edge and therefore will likely be on 100% of LCDs of 50" and up within a few years



The hdtvtest article seems to agree with your 50"+ assumption and still comes out bearish in their 4K forecast in spite of it.


> Quote:
> Another reason given by Chung to explain why UHDTV will be held back is because these displays are only available in much larger screen sizes of 50 inches and above – a size that many households consider too impractical, or too expensive to buy


----------



## rogo

Well, it was stunning to learn that 50"-and-up is a pretty small category _overall_. But when we compare it to the putative OLED market, it's a level playing field.


Within 5 years, I'd say very nearly 100% of LCDs in that category will be 4K. By contrast, half the category is unlikely to be OLED.


----------



## mypretty1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22843126
> 
> 
> Well, it was stunning to learn that 50"-and-up is a pretty small category _overall_. But when we compare it to the putative OLED market, it's a level playing field.
> 
> 
> Within 5 years, I'd say very nearly 100% of LCDs in that category will be 4K. By contrast, half the category is unlikely to be OLED.



Ergo, half the category will be OLED.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mypretty1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22845024
> 
> 
> Ergo, half the category will be OLED.



Um, perhaps I didn't word that well.


It is unlikely that half the category will be OLED.


Better?


----------



## irkuck

If OLED is so promising it would already be making significant inroads into the portable displays market. There are huge volumes and profits there. But seen now is significant weakening of OLED position due to the high-density LCDs.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4800_100#post_22845134
> 
> 
> If OLED is so promising it would already be making significant inroads into the portable displays market. There are huge volumes and profits there. But seen now is significant weakening of OLED position due to the high-density LCDs.


Contrast and motion handling aren't a big concern on mobile devices, except perhaps the PlayStation Vita. (which uses OLED, but has a plastic screen)


Brightness, visibility in sunlight (not necessarily the same as brightness) power consumption and resolution are all far more important, and LCD wins at all of those in the mobile space, especially once IGZO becomes widespread.


----------



## mypretty1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22845110
> 
> 
> Um, perhaps I didn't word that well.
> 
> 
> It is unlikely that half the category will be OLED.
> 
> 
> Better?



I read what is posted on this and other threads with interest. I have no knowledge about how things work, I just have a view about the picture I watch. Whether one technology will win out over another is a moot point AFAIAC. I do not think anyone knows for sure.


There is much discussion about light bleed, flashing!, judder, DSE, lag (for gamers) and more, which leads me to the conclusion that folk are not too happy with the TVs on sale at the moment. So it seems logical to me that people will be looking for a TV that does away with these problems. OLED, on the surface, could be the answer. Sorry










When I read that 84" TVs are edge-lit I wonder whether this means the same problems will be visible as current edge-lit TVs - but on a grander scale.







. Will OLED have burn-in/IR? I am waiting for the reviews of these UHDTVs and OLED. Until then my feeling is that LCD/LED, Plasma and Projectors are approaching their sell-by date. It could be a few years but I can't find the button to switch on my crystal ball.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22845169
> 
> 
> Contrast and motion handling aren't a big concern on mobile devices, except perhaps the PlayStation Vita. (which uses OLED, but has a plastic screen)
> 
> 
> Brightness, visibility in sunlight (not necessarily the same as brightness) power consumption and resolution are all far more important, and LCD wins at all of those in the mobile space, especially once IGZO becomes widespread.



So if that really starts to happen, it feeds into irkuck's theory that OLED is simply going to fail. LCD manufacturing didn't directly scale up from small screen (computer) to big (TV), but a lot of the processes did. They had to invent a few new things, but then they could rationalize building giant TV fabs and -- voila -- they took over the TV market. If OLED economics get harmed by the LCD guys taking back most of the mobile market, that's not long-term bullish for OLED.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mypretty1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22845182
> 
> 
> I read what is posted on this and other threads with interest. I have no knowledge about how things work, I just have a view about the picture I watch. Whether one technology will win out over another is a moot point AFAIAC. I do not think anyone knows for sure.
> 
> 
> There is much discussion about light bleed, flashing!, judder, DSE, lag (for gamers) and more, which leads me to the conclusion that folk are not too happy with the TVs on sale at the moment. So it seems logical to me that people will be looking for a TV that does away with these problems. OLED, on the surface, could be the answer. Sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I read that 84" TVs are edge-lit I wonder whether this means the same problems will be visible as current edge-lit TVs - but on a grander scale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Will OLED have burn-in/IR? I am waiting for the reviews of these UHDTVs and OLED. Until then my feeling is that LCD/LED, Plasma and Projectors are approaching their sell-by date. It could be a few years but I can't find the button to switch on my crystal ball.



First of all, gamers who care about this stuff are a small portion of the market.


Second of all, most gamers are cheap bastards. I don't see them buying $10,000 TVs.


Third of all, 100% of gamers somehow game today on these "terrible" screens.


Fourth of all, this "sell-by" date for LCDs is really freaking far out there.


Fifth of all, how do you know OLED will have no problems of its own?


Sixth of all, LCD technology is getting better. Uniformity is getting, even on edge lighting, IGZO is coming, etc etc.


Seventh of all, OLED has been "a few years away" for a decade. So whatever you do, don't hold your breath, OK?


----------



## irkuck

 Review of the 56" 4K OLED by Sony and Panasonic. This citation states the OLED problem clearly: _A 56 inch TV is not enough to fully justify 4K resolution, at least not for the typical living room where viewers often sit 4-5 meters from the TV screen. There is nothing wrong with 4K, we praise that trend, but we also think that the wow-factor would have been higher if Panasonic and Sony had produced, for example, a 70” 4K OLED-TV._


----------



## rogo

Too bad AUO has nothing larger than 8G motherglass and cannot realistically mass produce 70-inch displays. Then there is the secondary issue of how tiny the worldwide 70-inch market is and will be.


Catch-22-22-22.


----------



## mypretty1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22847130
> 
> 
> First of all, gamers who care about this stuff are a small portion of the market.
> 
> Second of all, most gamers are cheap bastards. I don't see them buying $10,000 TVs.
> 
> Third of all, 100% of gamers somehow game today on these "terrible" screens.
> 
> Fourth of all, this "sell-by" date for LCDs is really freaking far out there.
> 
> Fifth of all, how do you know OLED will have no problems of its own?
> 
> Sixth of all, LCD technology is getting better. Uniformity is getting, even on edge lighting, IGZO is coming, etc etc.
> 
> Seventh of all, OLED has been "a few years away" for a decade. So whatever you do, don't hold your breath, OK?



My comments were about the problems associated with LCD/LED and Plasma TVs. It was not about gamers per se but what a many people have complained about. I do not game but I would not describe gamers in the derogatory manner you did.


I do not know how things will progress over time. You may be right in your view.







In the meantime I will not be holding my breath, I will wait until I can read reviews on UHDTV and OLED TVs to help make up my own mind.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mypretty1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22849861
> 
> 
> My comments were about the problems associated with LCD/LED and Plasma TVs. It was not about gamers per se but what a many people have complained about. I do not game but I would not describe gamers in the derogatory manner you did.
> 
> 
> I do not know how things will progress over time. You may be right in your view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime I will not be holding my breath, I will wait until I can read reviews on UHDTV and OLED TVs to help make up my own mind.



Hmm, I don't really think I described gamers in a derogatory manner. I certainly see how the use of "cheap bastards" could be taken that way, however. Many of my good friends are cheap bastards. Sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4770#post_22771695
> 
> 
> The world is still on target for the 2015 Total LCD domination horror story apocalyptic holocaust!
> 
> 
> OLED too pricey with all that will be left will be LCD that SUX!
> 
> 
> LG down to only three Plasma models for 2013.
> 
> 
> Is it guaranteed that Samsung and Panasonic will produce plasma in 2014?
> 
> 
> LCD might be good for one person sitting directly in front of it--if you've got a wife get a divorce--if you've got friends who like to watch TV with you--get rid of them, too--I'm sure the message around here will be to just buy zillions of LCDs!
> 
> 
> How can anyone who cares about video quality be hopeful for the future?
> 
> 
> When all that is left is LCD--what incentive will there be to make them better?
> 
> 
> Keep them looking sorry for $5,000...who knows...maybe Sharp really does have a future!




Art, you really need to get out of the house and see what the better, properly calibrated, LED/LCDs can do. You'll feel better about life. There's a reason that many Pioneer Kuro owners switched to displays like the Sharp Elite and never looked back...not even once.


----------



## Ken Ross

Someone please 'splain' this to me. Much is made of OLED's contrast ratio. When compared to a display like the Sharp Elite, which already has black levels close to zero and whites that can be eye-searing (if you so choose), where is this 'quantum leap' coming from?


Can I see marginal improvements in black levels from the already exceedingly dark blacks on the Elite? Sure. But a quantum leap? I'm having trouble with that one. There simply isn't enough room in the best display's current black levels and absolute black to define this gap as 'huge'...at least not in my book.


Peak whites? i don't think so as the whites can already be 'eye-searing', as i said before.


Sow much of this is hyperbole?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22850109
> 
> 
> Someone please 'splain' this to me. Much is made of OLED's contrast ratio. When compared to a display like the Sharp Elite, which already has black levels close to zero and whites that can be eye-searing (if you so choose), where is this 'quantum leap' coming from?
> 
> 
> Can I see marginal improvements in black levels from the already exceedingly dark blacks on the Elite? Sure. But a quantum leap? I'm having trouble with that one. There simply isn't enough room in the best display's current black levels and absolute black to define this gap as 'huge'...at least not in my book.
> 
> 
> Peak whites? i don't think so as the whites can already be 'eye-searing', as i said before.
> 
> 
> Sow much of this is hyperbole?



Response time? Plasma makes good use of that.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4900_100#post_22850109
> 
> 
> Someone please 'splain' this to me. Much is made of OLED's contrast ratio. When compared to a display like the Sharp Elite, which already has black levels close to zero and whites that can be eye-searing (if you so choose), where is this 'quantum leap' coming from?


Well if it's the Sharp Elite you are comparing to, it never actually turns the LED zones off, so "black" still glows in a dark room. (I think they're something like 80,000:1 peak on-off) The Sharp Elite also has about 300 local dimming zones spread out over the panel, and due to the nature of how things work, the zones need to have diffused boundaries. So if you have a fully lit zone next to a fully dimmed zone, light bleeds into the dim zone and brightens it, reducing contrast.


Other local dimming LCDs tend to be in the 100-zone range (makes less of a difference than you would think) and can turn the zones completely off, for a higher on-off contrast (in excess of 100,000:1) but potentially lower ANSI contrast ratio than the Elite. (ANSI depends more on number of zones and the content displayed - it's closer to 10,000:1 on my Sony for example)


A 1080p OLED display essentially has six million "local-dimming" zones (1920x1080x3) with hard edges, due to subpixel-level control. ANSI contrast on both the Sharp Elite, and the Pioneer Kuros before them, tops out at about 15,000:1. ANSI contrast on OLED should be almost the same as on-off contrast - certainly in excess of 100,000:1.


----------



## Ken Ross

I hear what you're saying, but when you actually see some of the best LED/LCDs today, you really don't see any significant light bleed, you just don't. I just wonder, in practical terms, if this quantum improvement isn't significantly overstated.


I even hear some of the reviewers raving about the more saturated colors as well as the ability to display a greater color palette with OLED. Well here too, I'm having a bit of trouble. If we have a hypothetical display A that today already calibrates beautifully to Rec709, then what is this display with 'richer and more varied colors' going to do relative to Rec709? You either calibrate accurately to that standard or you don't. Do we have a more 'saturated & varied color compliance' with Rec709? Not to my knowledge.


I remember first seeing the small Sony OLED that was on sale not that long ago. Yes, it was nice, but I surely didn't think it warranted some of drooling reviews I saw.


Just trying to separate the signal from the noise. Sometimes all the hyperbole results in a low S/N ratio.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4900_100#post_22850438
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but when you actually see some of the best LED/LCDs today, you really don't see any significant light bleed, you just don't.


You don't have to convince me of that - I'm very happy with my Sony HX900 after owning a 9.5G Kuro. But I still expect big improvements from OLED.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4900_100#post_22850438
> 
> 
> I even hear some of the reviewers raving about the more saturated colors as well as the ability to display a greater color palette with OLED. Well here too, I'm having a bit of trouble. If we have a hypothetical display A that today already calibrates beautifully to Rec709, then what is this display with 'richer and more varied colors' going to do relative to Rec709? You either calibrate accurately to that standard or you don't. Do we have a more 'saturated & varied color compliance' with Rec709? Not to my knowledge.


Well one of the differences is that OLED is fully saturated all the way down to black due to being an emissive display. (I assume Plasma & CRT are the same)


I'm quite sure it's better than this on a lot of panels, but here's an example from Sony:
 


But yes, today's displays are mostly fine with BT.709 content, wider gamuts only matter when looking to 4K onwards.


----------



## Ken Ross

Full saturation down to black is interesting. I'd have to see an A/B between a conventional display and OLED at these lower luminance levels. Of course I also know of no camera that can maintain full saturation down to black.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22850095
> 
> 
> Art, you really need to get out of the house and see what the better, properly calibrated, LED/LCDs can do. You'll feel better about life. There's a reason that many Pioneer Kuro owners switched to displays like the Sharp Elite and never looked back...not even once.


But didn't just as many decide the "ugprade" wasn't quite worth all the hullabaloo?







That sword swings both ways.


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22850543
> 
> 
> Full saturation down to black is interesting. I'd have to see an A/B between a conventional display and OLED at these lower luminance levels. Of course I also know of no camera that can maintain full saturation down to black.



Have you not seen the comparisons on You Tube?


----------



## Artwood

I'm for anything that can save the world from LCD--I'm starting to fear though that OLED will get here too little--cost too much--be too small--and be too late.


If you love plasma buy it quickly--nothing is stopping the probable 2015 day of infamy when plasma will be gone and we will be left with the horror of LCD!


I loathe the day when I'll have to visit the LCD forum with the ignoramuses they have over there gushing things like "man I saw a great 60HZ over at Wal-Mart"!


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22850985
> 
> 
> But didn't just as many decide the "ugprade" wasn't quite worth all the hullabaloo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sword swings both ways.



Nope, not at all. I've spent a considerable amount of time on that thread and the very happy switchers greatly outnumber those that weren't quite sure.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22851065
> 
> 
> Have you not seen the comparisons on You Tube?



Trying to judge display quality on YouTube shot with cheap cameras? Not my thing.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22851071
> 
> 
> I'm for anything that can save the world from LCD--I'm starting to fear though that OLED will get here too little--cost too much--be too small--and be too late.
> 
> 
> If you love plasma buy it quickly--nothing is stopping the probable 2015 day of infamy when plasma will be gone and we will be left with the horror of LCD!
> 
> 
> I loathe the day when I'll have to visit the LCD forum with the ignoramuses they have over there gushing things like "man I saw a great 60HZ over at Wal-Mart"!



You're frightening me now Art. I fear for you.


----------



## hoozthatat

Yet the VT50 beat out the Sharp Elite in the 2012 Value Electronics Shoot-Out.


Not taking anything away from the Sharp Elite but it's higher price tag makes it for the 1%'ers


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4900_100#post_22850985
> 
> 
> But didn't just as many decide the "ugprade" wasn't quite worth all the hullabaloo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sword swings both ways.


Most people that bought Kuros were already firmly in the Plasma camp, and had already spent the money on buying a Kuro that they were happy with. I doubt many people actually tried switching.


Full Array LED LCDs are a completely different class of display from Edge Lit or older CCFL models. Many plasma owners simply ignore them for being "another LCD" without having ever seen them.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4900_100#post_22852150
> 
> 
> Yet the VT50 beat out the Sharp Elite in the 2012 Value Electronics Shoot-Out.
> 
> 
> Not taking anything away from the Sharp Elite but it's higher price tag makes it for the 1%'ers


The Sharp Elite has color decoding issues due to its use of a "Quattron" YRGB UV2A panel which automatically disqualified it from winning. Sony used an RGB UV2A panel from Sharp in their HX900 and do not have this problem. They have fewer dimming zones, but their algorithm allows for zones to be completely turned off, which result in higher on-off contrast, and I feel it makes better use of local dimming in general.


The VT50 has a number of issues as well, but if you are used to owning Plasmas for years, you're probably just used to them and accept it.


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4920#post_22852303
> 
> 
> Most people that bought Kuros were already firmly in the Plasma camp, and had already spent the money on buying a Kuro that they were happy with. I doubt many people actually tried switching.
> 
> 
> Full Array LED LCDs are a completely different class of display from Edge Lit or older CCFL models. Many plasma owners simply ignore them for being "another LCD" without having ever seen them.
> 
> The Sharp Elite has color decoding issues due to its use of a "Quattron" YRGB UV2A panel which automatically disqualified it from winning. Sony used an RGB UV2A panel from Sharp in their HX900 and do not have this problem. They have fewer dimming zones, but their algorithm allows for zones to be completely turned off, which result in higher on-off contrast, and I feel it makes better use of local dimming in general.
> 
> 
> The VT50 has a number of issues as well, but if you are used to owning Plasmas for years, you're probably just used to them and accept it.



How come it didn't DQ it from winning in 2011?


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4920#post_22852303
> 
> 
> Most people that bought Kuros were already firmly in the Plasma camp, and had already spent the money on buying a Kuro that they were happy with. I doubt many people actually tried switching..


From where did you pull this "most people" figure? I can tell you I wasn't one of them...but that set was single-handedly enough to put me in to said camp, even with its numerous faults.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22851902
> 
> 
> Nope, not at all. I've spent a considerable amount of time on that thread and the very happy switchers greatly outnumber those that weren't quite sure.


So, what would you say, 10:1? Confirmation bias can also have an effect here. Sorry, I'm not succumbing just yet.


----------



## hellotv

guys i'm still rookie when it comes to all this tech talk so maybe this is a stupid question..why would anyone buy a oled set in the next few years when oled 4k sets will be coming out soon after the reg oled sets hit the stores...


----------



## chadsdsmith




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hellotv*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4920#post_22853368
> 
> 
> guys i'm still rookie when it comes to all this tech talk so maybe this is a stupid question..why would anyone buy a oled set in the next few years when oled 4k sets will be coming out soon after the reg oled sets hit the stores...



I actually tend to agree with you. Only the extreme early adopters are likely to jump on either of these new products. On one hand you have more resolution but more of the same contrast and uniformity issues, on the other hand you have great uniformity and contrast with less resolution. They are both incredibly expensive, so if I were financially able to afford them, I would feel like I should be getting the best of both worlds. Then again, if I could afford them, I would likely be able to get the best of both worlds later on. I guess, when money is really not a limiting factor, people just want the latest and greatest, even if the latest and greatest will be later and greater







in the near future. For me, I think I would really go above my normal budget for a tv if there were a 70+" 4k oled available from sony/panasonic. That would likely be the pinnacle of tv tech for years. That is saying something because the tv market has really been stagnant with regards to real advancement. I would be bummed if they were not able to solve the current manufacturing issues with oled or if it turned out to be unreliable, because it seems like the gt50 I just bought is going to be the last plasma I can buy, as I am sure that plasmas will be all but gone by the time I am in the market again (5 or so years). If I can't buy a plasma and oled never takes off, I am gonna be pissed lol.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4920#post_22852476
> 
> 
> So, what would you say, 10:1? Confirmation bias can also have an effect here. Sorry, I'm not succumbing just yet.



I will stick by my original assessment of the satisfied switchers 'greatly outnumbering' those that are not. As to the exact ratio, I'll leave that to you to cull through the 12,000+ posts to arrive at the precise number. Should be a fun Sunday exercise if you're so inclined. That might enable you to remove the 'confirmation bias'.


----------



## vinnie97

Nah...not worth my time (I was merely fishing for an estimate/ballpark figure), but neither is the price of one of those Sharps versus what I paid for the Kuro.


----------



## Kirkus Maximus

There are some interesting developments in the gaming LCD space (BENQ, ASUS) that are focusing on reduction of motion blur in LCDs at 120hz. You can basically get plasma quality motion resolution by using strobing LCD backlights.

Check it out here:
http://marky.com/backlight/high-speed-video-of-lightboost/ 

I bring it up because one major area where Plasma/OLED beats LCD is motion resolution. If I can get an LCD with accurate colors AND good motion resolution, an OLED looks a lot less tempting. Note, my plasma smokes my LCD in PixPerAn motion resolution tests.


Now with most over-compressed broadcast TV rendering motion completely blurry due to compression artifacts, LCD has gotten away with having poor motion resolution. But if you do a side by side TV comparison with a very high bit rate 1080p60 source showing a lot of motion, OLED will likely smoke the best LCDs. High bit rate 1080p at 60fps is what I'm looking for in content. And I think [email protected] will become the real UHDTV because millions of TVs support it and you will be able to see the difference unlike 4K.


4K TVs are basically 3D 2.0. It's being pushed down uneducated consumers' throats, again. Now I would gladly take a 30 inch 4K computer monitor that sits 2 feet away from my face, but for a 55'' TV 12' away, it's pointless. I would also much prefer a 4K OLED monitor as you're not limited to the blu-ray/HDTV color space.


----------



## 8mile13

LG is planning to release three OLED models 40'', 55'' and 70'', the curved OLED and three to four more OLED models.

Source seems to be Korean *ETNEWS.com*

http://www.flexible-display.net/lg-oled-tvs-released-later-this-year-once-with-curved-oled-model/ 

http://www.oled-info.com/lg-plans-launch-40-70-and-curved-oled-tvs?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+oled-info+%28OLED-Info%3A+OLED+tech+news+and+resources%29


----------



## vinnie97

^I can only giggle at this news PR puff piece/conjecture.


----------



## ferro

 LG Display goes all-out for OLED 


Company to invest $3.6 billion in facilities, gets green light for China factory.


----------



## hoozthatat

I applaud LG for their effort on bringing OLED to fruition finally in the FP world. But one has to wonder how long, if ever, with the recent advancements and future enhancements to LCD, will OLED actually be a dominant, or even a prevalent force in the FP world. Seems a ways off.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4920#post_22860220
> 
> LG Display goes all-out for OLED
> 
> 
> Company to invest $3.6 billion in facilities, gets green light for China factory.



The article says LG Display is spending $3.6 billion total, it makes no comments about that all being spent on OLED, which of course it isn't.


----------



## taichi4

From the article cited ( http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2013/01/133_129183.html ):


"...The company is to spend 3.8 trillion won (about $3.6 billion) this year on adding facilities and improving technologies _with the predominant focus on improving its capabilities for OLED screens_..."


----------



## vinnie97

So most of it. So let's round it down to $3 billion for argument's sake. They sound serious, don't they? :0


----------



## rogo

It's possible it could be $3 billion, it's possible it could $1 billion. Given the source, I don't think we know very much, actually.


So far, the 8G question hasn't come close to being answered, and that's the interesting open question about how serious they are.


----------



## irkuck

Wondering why the LG having such big plans is not announcing a small OLED and still using plain old LCD in their 5"@2K mobile


----------



## rogo

Well, obviously, they don't have the capacity for that to be OLED. don't have their IGZO issues licked to make that OLED, don't have high-pixel-density, OLED, etc.


And, again, we'll know they're seriously invested in OLED when they announce an 8G facility. The fact they are spending almost exactly what they spent last year at LG Display while saying kind words about OLED doesn't suggest that's happening this year, so I'd expect more status quo in 2013, not the breathless anticipation the linked articles displayed, alas.


By the way, are any of the 1920 x 1080 smartphone displays AMOLED?


----------



## taichi4

The point I made earlier, possibly on a different thread, is that dire predictions, and lofty ones, are often mistaken, and at best educated guesses... but still guesses. At least we can say that it doesn't seem the manufacturers are throwing in the towel on OLED, and that some of the predictions of its demise have been hyperbolic.


The same with the doom and gloom about plasma. Panasonic's ZT60 has been getting amazing feedback, black levels probably as good as OLED. Limited to 65 inches, but still...


Personally, OLED or some variant of it remain my hoped for choice, and I think some of the news on this front, properly interpreted, is more optimistic than not.


----------



## mikek753

Wasn't the same talk happened a year ago?

I think it is just PR for LG and Samsung based on past year


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4920#post_22863646
> 
> 
> The point I made earlier, possibly on a different thread, is that dire predictions, and lofty ones, are often mistaken, and at best educated guesses... but still guesses. At least we can say that it doesn't seem the manufacturers are throwing in the towel on OLED, and that some of the predictions of its demise have been hyperbolic.
> 
> 
> The same with the doom and gloom about plasma. Panasonic's ZT60 has been getting amazing feedback, black levels probably as good as OLED. Limited to 65 inches, but still...
> 
> 
> Personally, OLED or some variant of it remain my hoped for choice, and I think some of the news on this front, properly interpreted, is more optimistic than not.



Taichi, I'm not sure there is news, is my point.


The one optimistic sign at CES was that Samsung, LG, Panasonic and Sony all showed OLED. That's two more than showed it last year.


Only one of the four actually promised a shipping date, however, and the promised price was astronomical.


As for size, the ZT60's 65" limit is a lot more than OLED's 55" limit.


----------



## taichi4

Not only did many people predict OLED's demise on this forum, but few anticipated that there would actually be OLED 4K displays shown at CES. Moreover, in much of the press it's stated that Sony and Panasonic (in cooperation) are the first companies to be using an RGB printing technique for large displays..


All this seems like news to me, and optimistic news at that.


----------



## irkuck

^That OLED is not doing well is patently obvious. Real money is in small portable displays which are ideal target for OLED but there are no signs of its expansion there. 55" OLED TVs were promised laster year by Sammy and LG for $10K and were not delivered. Now only LG is promising and for $12K, this means yield problems are much harder than thought before. The 4K 56" OLEDs shown by Sony and Panasonic (both with mountains of debt) are prototypes, too small to make excitement at the high-end. The truth is OLED principle might be fine but its productivization issues are nightmare.


----------



## ynotgoal

The LG goes all-out for OLED story gives a bit more detail on their 2013 budget but isn't totally new news since the budget was announced a week or two ago. The investment in the 8g oled fab is to be approved by their board at the next meeting in early/mid February (not sure the exact date). It should be on the order of 20-32k substrates/month. Any deviation from that in timing or size would be news.


If there's news in the story its "LG Display also plans to mass produce bendable displays, intended for use in mobile devices, within the year." Obviously bendable screens will be oled. They've been working on a flexible OLED frontplane line with igzo backplane. It's been their plan but it will be interesting to see if they are actually ready to mass produce these by the end of the year to compete with Samsung.


The Samsung Galaxy S4 should be the first FHD AMOLED smartphone. It is likely to be announced either at Mobile World Congress at the end of February or at least by the end of April.


There you have two near term specific predictions to either look forward to or state how totally wrong they must be.


----------



## taichi4

Although this press release is a couple of weeks old, it goes into a little detail on Panasonic (and Sony's) RGB OLED printing method.


I continue to be optimistic.









http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/08/panasonic-has-plans-for-a-4k-oled-too/


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4920#post_22866101
> 
> 
> Not only did many people predict OLED's demise on this forum, but few anticipated that there would actually be OLED 4K displays shown at CES. Moreover, in much of the press it's stated that Sony and Panasonic (in cooperation) are the first companies to be using an RGB printing technique for large displays..
> 
> 
> All this seems like news to me, and optimistic news at that.



No one predicted OLED's demise here that I can remember. Perhaps you can find those people. Even irkuck's skepticism isn't a prediction of demise. In fact, I asked him a week or so ago if he believed that he felt OLED wasn't going to happen at all for TV and I don't think he replied, but I doubt he believes that.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4920#post_22866770
> 
> 
> ^That OLED is not doing well is patently obvious



Yep.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4920#post_22866851
> 
> 
> The LG goes all-out for OLED story gives a bit more detail on their 2013 budget but isn't totally new news since the budget was announced a week or two ago. The investment in the 8g oled fab is to be approved by their board at the next meeting in early/mid February (not sure the exact date). It should be on the order of 20-32k substrates/month. Any deviation from that in timing or size would be news.
> 
> 
> If there's news in the story its "LG Display also plans to mass produce bendable displays, intended for use in mobile devices, within the year." Obviously bendable screens will be oled. They've been working on a flexible OLED frontplane line with igzo backplane. It's been their plan but it will be interesting to see if they are actually ready to mass produce these by the end of the year to compete with Samsung.
> 
> 
> The Samsung Galaxy S4 should be the first FHD AMOLED smartphone. It is likely to be announced either at Mobile World Congress at the end of February or at least by the end of April.
> 
> 
> There you have two near term specific predictions to either look forward to or state how totally wrong they must be.



OK, so that's a bunch of interesting stuff. Timing on LG's 8G is interesting.


The bendable stuff is only mildly interesting it seems to me. I mean if they can make the mobile screens unbreakable that's great, but they are still going to put glass fronts on them for scratch resistance it seems to me. If they can produce an unbreakable and scratch proof plastic screen, that's another matter entirely. Color me skeptical that's coming soon.


Also, Samsung scaling up to 1920 x 1080 is important. OLED has failed to gain pixel density so that would be important as I expect large-screen mobiles to all go 1080p within a year or so.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG Announces Plans to Release More OLED HDTVs*

http://www.hdtvreview.com/news/2013/01/18/lg-announces-plans-to-release-more-oled-hdtvs/ 


LG has already begun to launch the first of their OLED HDTVs. Today the company revealed that in addition to the new 55EM9700 the company will also be releasing a 40 and a 70 inch model within the next year as well. The 70 inch display will make a worldwide release, while the 40 inch display will be restricted to Korea and Europe only. In addition to that, LG will also be releasing soon a new curved display from their new EA9800 series. This curved TV also uses OLED technology. LG has yet to release actual release dates and prices.


----------



## slacker711

OT


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4920#post_22866908
> 
> 
> The bendable stuff is only mildly interesting it seems to me. I mean if they can make the mobile screens unbreakable that's great, but they are still going to put glass fronts on them for scratch resistance it seems to me. If they can produce an unbreakable and scratch proof plastic screen, that's another matter entirely. Color me skeptical that's coming soon.



Dai Nippon Printing has developed a hardened plastic that is supposed to be scratch resistant. They expect revenues to start in the middle of CY 2013.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20121203/254047/ 


I dont see much utility in the examples of flexible screens that Samsung showed at CES, but an unbreakable screen would be pretty cool. I hate putting smartphones in cases.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4920#post_22867365
> 
> *LG Announces Plans to Release More OLED HDTVs*
> 
> http://www.hdtvreview.com/news/2013/01/18/lg-announces-plans-to-release-more-oled-hdtvs/
> 
> 
> LG has already begun to launch the first of their OLED HDTVs. Today the company revealed that in addition to the new 55EM9700 the company will also be releasing a 40 and a 70 inch model within the next year as well. The 70 inch display will make a worldwide release, while the 40 inch display will be restricted to Korea and Europe only. In addition to that, LG will also be releasing soon a new curved display from their new EA9800 series. This curved TV also uses OLED technology. LG has yet to release actual release dates and prices.



Thanks for your optimism, Rich.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4920#post_22866908
> 
> 
> No one predicted OLED's demise here that I can remember. Perhaps you can find those people. Even irkuck's skepticism isn't a prediction of demise. In fact, I asked him a week or so ago if he believed that he felt OLED wasn't going to happen at all for TV and I don't think he replied, but I doubt he believes that.
> 
> Yep...



"..._In fact OLED is facing direct existential threat right now._ The only segment where OLED is commercialized of sort

is mobile. Now, everybody will tell that the difference between recent mobile LCDs and OLEDs is slight and with

technologies like AH-IPS and IGZO the LCD will keep up at least. But in addition mobile LCD is now changing from 720

to full 1080 which will become norm in 2013. Making 1080 mobile OLED is a huge step since the pixel number is doubled
_and thus OLED may loose the game._

Edited by irkuck - 12/29/12 at 6:18am


Italics mine.


----------



## irkuck

OLED future is this battle: Chinese are moving into the LCD area with tremendous force, Samsung and LG want to save themselves by pumping billions and billions into OLED. They have very deep pockets and may have chances to win in this game but it is not guaranteed. If Samsung indeed releases Galaxy S4 with 1080 OLED it will mean it is just able to keep with the LCD in resolution but this will be very costly. If LG is able to release the 70" OLED it will mean it is able to just keep with the LCD in size but cost is still an issue.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22868015
> 
> 
> "..._In fact OLED is facing direct existential threat right now._ The only segment where OLED is commercialized of sort
> 
> is mobile. Now, everybody will tell that the difference between recent mobile LCDs and OLEDs is slight and with
> 
> technologies like AH-IPS and IGZO the LCD will keep up at least. But in addition mobile LCD is now changing from 720
> 
> to full 1080 which will become norm in 2013. Making 1080 mobile OLED is a huge step since the pixel number is doubled
> _and thus OLED may loose the game._
> 
> Edited by irkuck - 12/29/12 at 6:18am
> 
> 
> Italics mine.



Italics might be yours, but I'm going to just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that either (a) English isn't your first language or (b) you are not reading carefully.


Irkuck's post doesn't predict the demise of OLED.


"Direct existential threat" means that something _could_ take it out. Could and will are not the same word. A prediction of demise contains the word "will".


As for your italics, again note the word "may" instead of the word "will".


Irkuck is saying that even with the billions invested to date and the success in Samsung's mobile display division, the future is very uncertain.


That's not a prediction of demise.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4920#post_22867867
> 
> 
> OT
> 
> Dai Nippon Printing has developed a hardened plastic that is supposed to be scratch resistant. They expect revenues to start in the middle of CY 2013.
> 
> http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20121203/254047/
> 
> 
> I dont see much utility in the examples of flexible screens that Samsung showed at CES, but an unbreakable screen would be pretty cool. I hate putting smartphones in cases.



Same for me.


That stuff looks promising, although only the thinner version (the 0.5mm) compares favorably with Gorilla Glass in terms of thickness.


It is good to know that people are looking at this problem because -- and this should be obvious, but most people here who think roll-up screens are coming to their smartphone have problem have missed it -- no smartphone is shipping without some kind of layer between you, me and the display. Gorilla Glass is good, but obviously can still shatter and while it tends to protect the underlying screen, we've probably all seen situations where it doesn't. An unbreakable screen and an unbreakable front (of plastic) that is similarly hard to scratch like GG, would be a really appealing smartphone combo (tablets too).


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22869011
> 
> 
> Italics might be yours, but I'm going to just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that either (a) English isn't your first language or (b) you are not reading carefully.
> 
> 
> Irkuck's post doesn't predict the demise of OLED.
> 
> 
> "Direct existential threat" means that something _could_ take it out. Could and will are not the same word. A prediction of demise contains the word "will".
> 
> 
> As for your italics, again note the word "may" instead of the word "will".
> 
> 
> Irkuck is saying that even with the billions invested to date and the success in Samsung's mobile display division, the future is very uncertain.
> 
> 
> That's not a prediction of demise.



Rogo:


We're not lawyers, and you are not Samuel Johnson.


It is clear that Irkuck is pessimistic, which was the thrust of my comment.


Please do not engage in ad hominem attacks to make your points. Your comment about English not being my first language is deliberately provocative and insulting.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22868118
> 
> 
> OLED future is this battle: Chinese are moving into the LCD area with tremendous force, Samsung and LG want to save themselves by pumping billions and billions into OLED. They have very deep pockets and may have chances to win in this game but it is not guaranteed. If Samsung indeed releases Galaxy S4 with 1080 OLED it will mean it is just able to keep with the LCD in resolution but this will be very costly. If LG is able to release the 70" OLED it will mean it is able to just keep with the LCD in size but cost is still an issue.



Perceived cost in the buyers mind will be an even larger issue if the 70" sets aren't 4k.


----------



## tgm1024

Well, the tone taken toward the viability of OLED is certainly different. There were many things that at least conversationally sounded to me as arguments that OLED might never take off (largely because of the difficulty in chasing 4K and LCD advancements including IGZO). Everything was always understood as an unknown of course, but to someone not plugged into the industry (like me), it does seem like OLED is further along than many expected it would be in January 2013.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22869858
> 
> 
> Well, the tone taken toward the viability of OLED is certainly different. There were many things that at least conversationally sounded to me as arguments that OLED might never take off (largely because of the difficulty in chasing 4K and LCD advancements including IGZO). Everything was always understood as an unknown of course, but to someone not plugged into the industry (like me), it does seem like OLED is further along than many expected it would be in January 2013.



correct, and its window of opportunity is closing rather rapidly.


if you can't buy an affordable 2nd gen oled set from bb or amazon by 12/14, i believe that window will be irreparably closed.


----------



## mikek753




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4900_100#post_22870341
> 
> 
> correct, and its window of opportunity is closing rather rapidly.
> 
> 
> if you can't buy an affordable 2nd gen oled set from bb or amazon by 12/14, i believe that window will be irreparably closed.



Why 12/14 deadline? Is it due to Chinese will mass produce LCD that no one can cost compete?

Or we will be out of electricity or etc global issues?

Would you mind explain in plain English to way out of industry person? Pls.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22869168
> 
> 
> Rogo:
> 
> 
> We're not lawyers, and you are not Samuel Johnson.
> 
> 
> It is clear that Irkuck is pessimistic, which was the thrust of my comment.
> 
> 
> Please do not engage in ad hominem attacks to make your points. Your comment about English not being my first language is deliberately provocative and insulting.



Actually, that couldn't be farther removed from the truth. You claimed people predicted the "demise" of the technology, which means "death". It has no other common meanings. Then you quoted a post about "facing a threat" as a death prediction. Those aren't the same thing. If I predict the 49ers will win the Superbowl, I'm necessarily predicting the Ravens will lose. If I predict the Ravens defense will give Kaepernick a tough time, I'm making no particular statement about the outcome. They simply aren't the same and, honestly, we have a lot of non-native English speakers here. It's an easy to make mistake when one isn't especially familiar with the language.


Apparently, you are a native English speaker, but you're also clearly not playing remotely fair here. I asked for a specific thing and instead of responding directly, you decided to just quote irkuck to make a different (albeit related) point. I'm not sure that proves anything.


Incidentally, you also don't seem to know what an ad hominem attack is. Asking whether you speak English natively or questioning whether you read carefully don't apply. An ad hominem attack that fell into either of those categories would read, "you're a dumb foreigner" or "you're too stupid to understand what I'm saying". I did neither and would not do either under any circumstances as the first of those is just plain unacceptable in civil discourse and the second clearly doesn't apply to you.


So let's just agree that (1) I didn't seek to offend you, so I'm sorry about that (2) You have not quoted anyone who predicted the failure of OLED.


Many of us are pessimistic about its prospects for world domination, but that's another matter entirely.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22869858
> 
> 
> Well, the tone taken toward the viability of OLED is certainly different. There were many things that at least conversationally sounded to me as arguments that OLED might never take off (largely because of the difficulty in chasing 4K and LCD advancements including IGZO). Everything was always understood as an unknown of course, but to someone not plugged into the industry (like me), it does seem like OLED is further along than many expected it would be in January 2013.



Actually, it's the opposite. After CES 2012, many of us believed that OLED was inevitable and would begin its quest toward world domination. This after years of broken promises. In the ensuing year, it has returned to breaking promises and LCD has continued to advance. The problems with OLED 3 years ago weren't IGZO and 4K, they were economies of scale and sufficient performance improvements to justify caring. Today, it's those and IGZO and 4K.


So, no, tgm, OLED is not further along than many expected in 2013. It's less far along than we all hope even as recently as the middle of 2012. It appears distinctly possible that only LG will ship a TV this year and that it will ship fewer than 100,000 units worldwide.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22870341
> 
> 
> correct, and its window of opportunity is closing rather rapidly.
> 
> 
> if you can't buy an affordable 2nd gen oled set from bb or amazon by 12/14, i believe that window will be irreparably closed.



That might be true in TVs, it's hard to say. Sony, Panasonic, AUO, Samsung and countless other dreamers are hoping to go past LCD with something they can call new and somewhat unique. Will anyone care? Hard to know. Will people pay a premium for it? Well, we know the answer is: Not much of one. The muddled marketing of selling 3-D, 4K, Smart TV, and OLED when people are shifting viewing to tablets is already challenging enough. But these guys are hardheaded and won't quit easily.


I don't expect such a product by 12/14. I believe we might see such a thing by 12/15, however. Two price cuts from here gets things below $5000, i.e.


----------



## kdog750

I would love for OLED to have taken off but at this stage I just don't see it without a major technological breakthrough on the manufacturing side of it.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22870485
> 
> 
> Actually, it's the opposite. After CES 2012, many of us believed that OLED was inevitable and would begin its quest toward world domination. This after years of broken promises. In the ensuing year, it has returned to breaking promises and LCD has continued to advance. The problems with OLED 3 years ago weren't IGZO and 4K, they were economies of scale and sufficient performance improvements to justify caring. Today, it's those and IGZO and 4K.
> 
> 
> So, no, tgm, OLED is not further along than many expected in 2013. It's less far along than we all hope even as recently as the middle of 2012.



No no no, I should have been more clear: I'm claiming that _recently_ much of the mood seems to have changed here. In the last month or less.


----------



## navychop

Follow the money. If they're investing a bil or more, they must know something. You don't get that kind of budget without being VERY convincing. They aren't showing all their cards.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikek753*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22870441
> 
> 
> Why 12/14 deadline? Is it due to Chinese will mass produce LCD that no one can cost compete?
> 
> Or we will be out of electricity or etc global issues?
> 
> Would you mind explain in plain English to way out of industry person? Pls.




I'm not in display panel industry either, I just read a lot and like to make some somewhat educated guesses.


Yes it's based on the assumption that there will be a lot of large, 4k, inexpensive and possibly igzo panels coming out of china in 2 years, as well significant improvements in the quality of lcd/led panels coming out of Korea, Taiwan, and possibly Japan if sharp makes it.


If you can get 80 - 110" 4k, igzo led panel for $2500-3000 by the end of 2014, and oled only offers signifcantly smaller panels at 2-3 times that price, I think the panel manufacturers will abandon it for the next hoped for great tech breakthrough.


And Rogo, yes I'm talking about television displays only, and by affordable, I'm talking, using today's prices, Sony hx 900 and sharp elite series local dimming arrays price points for oled in 2 years.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22869858
> 
> 
> Well, the tone taken toward the viability of OLED is certainly different. There were many things that at least conversationally sounded to me as arguments that OLED might never take off (largely because of the difficulty in chasing 4K and LCD advancements including IGZO). Everything was always understood as an unknown of course, but to someone not plugged into the industry (like me), it does seem like OLED is further along than many expected it would be in January 2013.



As far as I see it now OLED is survival game. LCD, even at 4K, is becoming commodity dominated by Chinese prices and zeal. Other manufacturers to survive must go into something much more sophisticated. Samsung and LG have very deep pockets to pump gazillions into OLED due to the structure of their conglomerates and hidden subsidies. In the end they may prevail but on pure economic grounds the technology would never pick up. But there will be another level in such considerations if Chinese show their own full range of OLEDs at next-year CES







. Then again, with their prices and zeal OLED may still win







.


----------



## scottylans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4890#post_22851906
> 
> 
> Trying to judge display quality on YouTube shot with cheap cameras? Not my thing.




Then you're doing it wrong.

The fact is, when you point a camera at an LCD, CRT or plasma display the quality of the resulting display in the picture is generally pretty poor.

It only takes some common sense to realise, over the years - all the photos you've ever seen of a display, the LCD doesn't look that good to a photo. The OLED looks distinctively different.
https://www.google.com/search?q=oled&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=518&sei=uQsBUfe2AdHMkgXM_YCwDw&tbm=isch#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&tbs=isz:l&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=oled+television&oq=oled+television&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l9.8460.9565.3.9820.10.9.0.0.0.0.245.1021.3j3j2.8.0...0.0...1c.1.D1GmYyEVZEA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41248874,d.dGI&fp=d0ffd0c9c7cda515&biw=1280&bih=518 

When a photo of an OLED is taken you can still quite easily tell that the picture is vastly superior.

Most of those photos of OLED displays look like the old days of photoshopped product pictures, where they have to put a pretend image on the display because taking a photo wouldn't work - not so here.


Furthermore, when you do your reading (which I finally did this last week) and understand the opinion of the TV reviewers, how the technology works and just how good the blacks are, you realise this is a seriously, seriously good technology. The 'cons' sections in most OLED articles are pretty thin for anything bad.


As someone who would never ever consider owning an LCD and will only use plasma, the fact OLED will render both null and void in quality, completely excites me. It's a fantastic technology


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottylans*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22871932
> 
> 
> As someone who would never ever consider owning an LCD and will only use plasma, the fact OLED will render both null and void in quality, completely excites me. It's a fantastic technology



So you are one of those who are queuing up to hook one of those $12K 55" OLEDs ?










Samsung trying to dispel FUD about OLED Exceeding 300 Million OLED Panel Production Mark ... from 2007


----------



## scottylans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22871942
> 
> 
> So you are one of those who are queuing up to hook one of those $12K 55" OLEDs ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung trying to dispel FUD about OLED Exceeding 300 Million OLED Panel Production Mark ... from 2007



I'm currently on an 80U, 2008 50" Panasonic (720p) I'm planning on moving it to craigslist in the next 6 months and getting in a 64 or 65" Plasma to last 4 years.

In that time, I'm hoping in 4 years, a 70" OLED will be under $3500

That's the plan at this point - one more plasma for me and then OLED hopefully.


As for OLEDs success, there's always the rich and the videophiles, people will NOT put up with the poor quality of LCD, furthermore - unlike plasma where people can try to argue, I think OLED is CLEARLY going to be visible in how it's superior, from low latencies, clearly better blacks, thinner and lighter cabinets and theoretically lower power, it's got ALL the bulletpoints needed to defeat LCD and appease the early adopters.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottylans*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22871932
> 
> 
> Then you're doing it wrong.
> 
> The fact is, when you point a camera at an LCD, CRT or plasma display the quality of the resulting display in the picture is generally pretty poor.
> 
> It only takes some common sense to realise, over the years - all the photos you've ever seen of a display, the LCD doesn't look that good to a photo. The OLED looks distinctively different.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=oled&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=518&sei=uQsBUfe2AdHMkgXM_YCwDw&tbm=isch#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&tbs=isz:l&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=oled+television&oq=oled+television&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l9.8460.9565.3.9820.10.9.0.0.0.0.245.1021.3j3j2.8.0...0.0...1c.1.D1GmYyEVZEA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41248874,d.dGI&fp=d0ffd0c9c7cda515&biw=1280&bih=518
> 
> When a photo of an OLED is taken you can still quite easily tell that the picture is vastly superior.
> 
> Most of those photos of OLED displays look like the old days of photoshopped product pictures, where they have to put a pretend image on the display because taking a photo wouldn't work - not so here.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, when you do your reading (which I finally did this last week) and understand the opinion of the TV reviewers, how the technology works and just how good the blacks are, you realise this is a seriously, seriously good technology. The 'cons' sections in most OLED articles are pretty thin for anything bad.
> 
> 
> As someone who would never ever consider owning an LCD and will only use plasma, the fact OLED will render both null and void in quality, completely excites me. It's a fantastic technology



There have been many excellent pictures taken from displays of varying techs with careful camera work. Browse some of the AVS threads and you'll find them. With that said, these pictures are more for 'fun' than to make an absolute assessment of display quality. However to compare two different displays in the same frame, when the light output and settings of each display are different, is difficult to impossible. Each display will require a different, ideal exposure.


My point was that there are many reasons why assessing differences in display quality from the typical, poorly shot YouTube video is foolish. Who would buy a display in this manner or come to definitive conclusions about the merits of one tech vs another.


Further, I never said that the OLED tech was not excellent, it is. But here again, you missed my point. When black levels in the best of the current displays (plasma & LED/LCD) is already so good, it's tough to measure, how much of an improvement do you expect to see in this area? Improvements will be evolutionary, not revolutionary.


If we already have displays that are very close to perfect in conforming to Rec709, how much of an improvement do you expect to see in this area? If the claim is that OLED color saturation is X% better than conventional displays and is capable of displaying Y% 'more hues' than other techs, I will contend this does nothing to improving color accuracy as far as our accepted standard is concerned. In fact it might look great, but it might be less accurate. Of course there's no reason to believe that an OLED can't be calibrated to be accurate and conforming to Rec709, but then it will probably look very much the same as another, accurately calibrated display tech.


'Eye popping' and accurate can be two very different things. We shall see.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottylans*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22871944
> 
> 
> 
> As for OLEDs success, there's always the rich and the videophiles, people will NOT put up with the poor quality of LCD.......



That's where we strongly disagree. To say that the best LED/LCDs are of 'poor' quality, is just a very naive statement.


I owned nothing but plasmas, including two Kuros. I now own the Sharp Elite. I have no biases or predispositions, I'm simply looking for the best PQ, and yes, I am a videophile. In fact there are many 'videophiles' that own the Elite. To see a calibrated Elite and still retain the opinion that this tech is of 'poor quality', would be the height of denial IMO. Does the tech have negatives? Of course, every tech does. I would not recommend an Elite (or most LED/LCDs) for those that require wide viewing angles. However if someone doesn't have that criteria on their 'must have' list, you bet I'd recommend an Elite if PQ is very high on their list.


To make a blanket statement that this tech is of poor quality, is living in the past.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22871336
> 
> 
> If you can get 80 - 110" 4k, igzo led panel for $2500-3000 by the end of 2014, and oled only offers signifcantly smaller panels at 2-3 times that price,




Well it's maybe useful to point out (as was pointed out to me earlier) that I'm not the minority in feeling that 70"+ is too big for nearly any room. I'm the minority only here in AV centric forums. So as far as size by itself, there are going to be large TV's that willl be passed on, not because of their cost, but because they're not wanted.


That said, if many here are right, it'll still likely be the case that a 55" UHD IGZO will be substantially cheaper than a 55" SD OLED for a while. But I keep seeing size (as such) thrown around as one of the qualifiers and I'm starting to wonder if maybe it matters less than many think in terms of sales. Are we getting CES-myopic?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottylans*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22871932
> 
> 
> Most of those photos of OLED displays look like the old days of photoshopped product pictures




"old days" ???


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22871089
> 
> 
> Follow the money. If they're investing a bil or more, they must know something. You don't get that kind of budget without being VERY convincing. They aren't showing all their cards.



I completely agree!


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22872409
> 
> 
> "old days" ???


LaserDisc era.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22873001
> 
> 
> LaserDisc era.



Sure. And the current days are all photoshoped too. If you're convinced otherwise, you'll have to explain how every single display on amazon has the equivalently fantastic picture.


It's hardly "the old days".


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> As someone who would never ever consider owning an LCD and will only use plasma, the fact OLED will render both null and void in quality, completely excites me. It's a fantastic technology



From that statement, I think it is safe to say you have a bias against LCD 










> Quote:
> people will NOT put up with the poor quality of LCD, furthermore - unlike plasma where people can try to argue, I think OLED is CLEARLY going to be visible in how it's superior, ...



Except that people HAVE been putting up with the "poor quality of LCD" for years.


I think the reason for that is, not surprisingly, most people aren't videophiles. You can go back in the avs archives and find myriad stories of people who had purchased a new 1080 or 720 display and still had it hooked up to SD cable, not even knowing it, at least until the poster pointed it out. Unit sales of dvd still outstrip unit sales of Blu-Ray. Not every new title, but overall. Even in dollar sales, dvd > BD by nearly 3:1, (more like 2:1 just before Christmas) according to homemediamagazine. That indicates to me that most people are not as interested in video quality as many here would like to think.

LCD does have weaknesses, but how "bad" are they to the average purchaser? I'd say not very. The cheaper the panel, for a given size, generally the higher the sales. Most people just aren't looking for a living room tv with "deep blacks" or nearly perfect off-axis viewing. Most people just don't care, and if they can save $100 dollars on a panel they will trade off both of those qualities to get it. I watch my tv in a dimly lit room, and my projector with the lights off, but most watch tv in a room with a couple of lights on, where high contrast will never be noticed.


If you put a properly calibrated oled tv next to a torch mode, saturated lcd in best buy or fry's, same size, same resolution, I think you'd find a lot more people commenting positively on the lcd colours than the oled blacks, or off axis viewing.


I look forward to oled, but it won't outstrip lcd sales until the price for similar size panel at same resolution is also similar. Most consumers are more price concious than performance concious. I'd also suggest that they would value reliability or longevity over performance, but not over price. Not to the extreme of course.


FWIW, I just upgraded my 65" crt rear projector with a 60" plasma.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4900_100#post_22873167
> 
> 
> I think the reason for that is, not surprisingly, most people aren't videophiles. You can go back in the avs archives and find myriad stories of people who had purchased a new 1080 or 720 display and still had it hooked up to SD cable, not even knowing it, at least until the poster pointed it out.


It's not an issue of not being videophiles or not, though certainly most of the older generation don't seem to care - at least not in my experience. Does HD cable cost more than SD? There's your reason. The content is the same, why should they pay more for it?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4900_100#post_22873167
> 
> 
> Unit sales of dvd still outstrip unit sales of Blu-Ray. Not every new title, but overall. Even in dollar sales, dvd > BD by nearly 3:1, (more like 2:1 just before Christmas) according to homemediamagazine. That indicates to me that most people are not as interested in video quality as many here would like to think.


Same problem. Blu-ray costs most than DVD. And it's far less convenient than DVD. Just about everyone has some way of playing back a DVD now. A Blu-ray disc will only work in a Blu-ray player, so you can't just lend them out to friends, unless you ask whether they have a Blu-ray player first, and often the answer is "I don't know". You might have a Blu-ray player hooked up to your main TV, but not the TV in the kitchen/bedroom or other places in the house. I know a lot of people that don't have a bedroom TV - they don't watch TV in bed enough to justify having one in there, but they will sometimes take their notebook through with them and watch a DVD that way - can't do that unless you have a Blu-ray drive, and these days it seems to be DVD or nothing in notebooks. This is actually somewhere that streaming services like Netflix win, especially if they have an iPad rather than a notebook.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4900_100#post_22873167
> 
> 
> LCD does have weaknesses, but how "bad" are they to the average purchaser? I'd say not very. The cheaper the panel, for a given size, generally the higher the sales. Most people just aren't looking for a living room tv with "deep blacks" or nearly perfect off-axis viewing. Most people just don't care, and if they can save $100 dollars on a panel they will trade off both of those qualities to get it. I watch my tv in a dimly lit room, and my projector with the lights off, but most watch tv in a room with a couple of lights on, where high contrast will never be noticed.


In fact, LCD is typically better for most people, because they can go much brighter, which is the number one most important thing for a _lot_ of people I know. Look at a row of TVs in the store with LCDs and Plasmas next to each other, and it's no wonder why Plasma sales are dwindling.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4900_100#post_22873167
> 
> 
> I look forward to oled, but it won't outstrip lcd sales until the price for similar size panel at same resolution is also similar. Most consumers are more price concious than performance concious. I'd also suggest that they would value reliability or longevity over performance, but not over price. Not to the extreme of course.


Absolutely. I had to really struggle to convince my parents to buy an LCD from a brand name rather than a no-name LCD that was bigger _and_ half the price, back when they were looking to get a flat panel. They're glad that they did now, after hearing how friends' cheap sets have all died now, but even though it was well within their budget, they really didn't see why they should spend any more money.


----------



## Artwood

If the United States gave China Taiwan in exchange for producing cheap OLEDs would that stop the world wide LCD Army?


I'm for ANYTHING that stops LCD!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22873387
> 
> 
> If the United States gave China Taiwan in exchange for producing cheap OLEDs would that stop the world wide LCD Army?
> 
> 
> I'm for ANYTHING that stops LCD!



I think Artwood is secretly loving LCD. You gotta read between the lines. (Squint a lot).


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> It's not an issue of not being videophiles or not, though certainly most of the older generation don't seem to care - at least not in my experience. Does HD cable cost more than SD? There's your reason. The content is the same, why should they pay more for it?





> Quote:
> Same problem. Blu-ray costs most than DVD



??? What is you definition of videophile? How many people do you know who call themselves videophiles who don't have a blu-ray player, or who only watch SD from cable? Or at least did a few years ago. Both cable providers here include HD channels in your package for free, and all OTA, though very few seem to know it still exists, is HD.


I used the term videophile because scottylans seems to be one. Maybe you include a lot of people who switched to HD packages and bought blu-ray players a few years ago who you do not consider videophiles?


> Quote:
> The content is the same, why should they pay more for it?


Assuming you have to, you'd pay because you ARE a videophile and the quality does matter.


You seem to be arguing with me, or at least disagreeing with me, but you seem to agree with me except over the term videophile?? Or what am i missing?





Edit: added in on last sentence


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22873167
> 
> 
> From that statement, I think it is safe to say you have a bias against LCD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that people HAVE been putting up with the "poor quality of LCD" for years.
> 
> 
> I think the reason for that is, not surprisingly, most people aren't videophiles. You can go back in the avs archives and find myriad stories of people who had purchased a new 1080 or 720 display and still had it hooked up to SD cable, not even knowing it, at least until the poster pointed it out.



And many of those are/were watching plasma. Whod'a thunk.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22873387
> 
> 
> If the United States gave China Taiwan in exchange for producing cheap OLEDs would that stop the world wide LCD Army?
> 
> 
> I'm for ANYTHING that stops LCD!



Man, is this getting old. Some just love to live in the past.


----------



## scottylans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22872073
> 
> 
> That's where we strongly disagree. To say that the best LED/LCDs are of 'poor' quality, is just a very naive statement.
> 
> 
> I owned nothing but plasmas, including two Kuros. I now own the Sharp Elite. I have no biases or predispositions, I'm simply looking for the best PQ, and yes, I am a videophile. In fact there are many 'videophiles' that own the Elite. To see a calibrated Elite and still retain the opinion that this tech is of 'poor quality', would be the height of denial IMO. Does the tech have negatives? Of course, every tech does. I would not recommend an Elite (or most LED/LCDs) for those that require wide viewing angles. However if someone doesn't have that criteria on their 'must have' list, you bet I'd recommend an Elite if PQ is very high on their list.
> 
> 
> To make a blanket statement that this tech is of poor quality, is living in the past.




Not really, I've seen LCD with my own eyes, it's inferior rubbish, I can not stand it in the slightest.

I need only open a few JPG files on my plasma in the lounge to see it blow away and LCD for colour, black levels. They simply don't compare.


----------



## vinnie97

^While I'm not the least bit interested in LCD (the price premium to get something on par with Plasma is not worth it to me), I think you are painting a tad broadly with your subjective brush. For the vast majority of panels, I couldn't agree more, however.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22873819
> 
> 
> Man, is this getting old. Some just love to live in the past.



Hope Artwood likes live theatre.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22870719
> 
> 
> No no no, I should have been more clear: I'm claiming that _recently_ much of the mood seems to have changed here. In the last month or less.



It's post-CES euphoria. We had it last year, too. Once people again come to grips with the fact that Sony and Panasonic didn't announce anything (and they didn't) and that Samsung didn't announce a ship date (and they didn't) and that LG has one model coming out at $12,000, it'll die down.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22871089
> 
> 
> Follow the money. If they're investing a bil or more, they must know something. You don't get that kind of budget without being VERY convincing. They aren't showing all their cards.



The thing is -- and this is confusing I know when people read the "news" from OLED hype sites -- LG didn't say anything about investing big money in OLED. LG display announced flat capital spending vs. last year. Last year, they produced essentially zero OLEDs. I know some people think they are moving all the capex over to OLED, but we don't actually know that.


The most correct thing you said there, IMO, navy, is "they aren't showing all their cards".


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22871336
> 
> 
> I'm not in display panel industry either, I just read a lot and like to make some somewhat educated guesses.
> 
> 
> Yes it's based on the assumption that there will be a lot of large, 4k, inexpensive and possibly igzo panels coming out of china in 2 years, as well significant improvements in the quality of lcd/led panels coming out of Korea, Taiwan, and possibly Japan if sharp makes it.
> 
> 
> If you can get 80 - 110" 4k, igzo led panel for $2500-3000 by the end of 2014, and oled only offers signifcantly smaller panels at 2-3 times that price, I think the panel manufacturers will abandon it for the next hoped for great tech breakthrough.
> 
> 
> And Rogo, yes I'm talking about television displays only, and by affordable, I'm talking, using today's prices, Sony hx 900 and sharp elite series local dimming arrays price points for oled in 2 years.



So by that we mean $4000-5000 for 65" sets.


What's interesting about that is (a) I think that's very doable (b) those volumes are so tiny I don't think it achieves anything for OLED.


People again get confused, "Why can they make an LCD that's so low volume, but not sustain an OLED business like that?" The answer is, the LCD uses the same basic part from a fab making millions of screens annually. The OLED would basically move at most a few hundred thousand at that point. That's not going to actually work economically. You can't both price that low and have volume that low in OLED. It's the Catch-22 we've been discussing from the beginning. At some point you need to price low enough to push volume to push down the learning curve.


The "how" of getting there is why there is still uncertainty this happens, even though a lot of people want it to happen very badly. Again, it's worth remembering that in TV, there was an entire computer ecosystem to leverage off of and they started out TVs in the 32" range using those _very same fabs_. It took years for larger motherglass and 40" TVs to go from "we have this coming" to actually being for sale. Samsung, I believe, showed it at CES three years running. OLED doesn't get that luxury. At some point, someone just has to go for it.


Once they do, they almost have to blow past the $4000-5000 price level and head straight for $3000-3500 (or, to be accurate, some small premium to the street price of the Samsung x8000 line and whatever the equivalent is from Sony). Even that spot won't hold for very long.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22871781
> 
> 
> As far as I see it now OLED is survival game. LCD, even at 4K, is becoming commodity dominated by Chinese prices and zeal. Other manufacturers to survive must go into something much more sophisticated. Samsung and LG have very deep pockets to pump gazillions into OLED due to the structure of their conglomerates and hidden subsidies. In the end they may prevail but on pure economic grounds the technology would never pick up. But there will be another level in such considerations if Chinese show their own full range of OLEDs at next-year CES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Then again, with their prices and zeal OLED may still win
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



So the question is, what's the prize here? Samsung and LG are currently in the "we play in every sandbox" phase. But that won't last once they come to realize that profits are more interesting than revenues. It seems that day is coming as they spin off their display divisions in whole or in part.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottylans*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22871932
> 
> 
> As someone who would never ever consider owning an LCD and will only use plasma, the fact OLED will render both null and void in quality, completely excites me. It's a fantastic technology



It is, but I think you make the mistake of underselling the competition and overselling OLED.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22871942
> 
> 
> So you are one of those who are queuing up to hook one of those $12K 55" OLEDs ?



I'm going to guess that not many who couldn't find a few bucks to buy any flat panel in the past decade are lining up to blow 12 grand on an OLED. Maybe that's me pre-judging, but it's hard not to in this case.


> Quote:
> Samsung trying to dispel FUD about OLED Exceeding 300 Million OLED Panel Production Mark ... from 2007



Apple put out a bunch of meaningless stats in their conference call yesterday as well. Something like 4.5 trillion notifications delivered!


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottylans*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22871944
> 
> 
> I'm currently on an 80U, 2008 50" Panasonic (720p) I'm planning on moving it to craigslist in the next 6 months and getting in a 64 or 65" Plasma to last 4 years.
> 
> In that time, I'm hoping in 4 years, a 70" OLED will be under $3500
> 
> That's the plan at this point - one more plasma for me and then OLED hopefully.



I'm on the same plan, although I made the jump from a 2006 50" plasma to 2012 65" plasma and kept the old one in my living room in case I found some use for it. I imagine the Craigslist value is really quite low.


> Quote:
> As for OLEDs success, there's always the rich and the videophiles, people will NOT put up with the poor quality of LCD, furthermore - unlike plasma where people can try to argue, I think OLED is CLEARLY going to be visible in how it's superior, from low latencies, clearly better blacks, thinner and lighter cabinets and theoretically lower power, it's got ALL the bulletpoints needed to defeat LCD and appease the early adopters.



Yes, but there won't be an OLED business around those people. It doesn't work that way, as I explained above. If the market doesn't grow into the millions, it will shrink from the thousands back to zero.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22872044
> 
> 
> Further, I never said that the OLED tech was not excellent, it is. But here again, you missed my point. When black levels in the best of the current displays (plasma & LED/LCD) is already so good, it's tough to measure, how much of an improvement do you expect to see in this area? Improvements will be evolutionary, not revolutionary.



Very evolutionary. We're at the point where sequential contrast, in particular, exceeds useless levels on the "dimming" LCDs -- and I mean that in a good way. (It doesn't on plasmas because of peak-light limitations, but for movie watching it tends to also already "be there".) Intrascene contrast on both techs could use some more headroom and OLED will provide this. Similarly, absolute black levels will reach near perfection. But how much this matter and to how many people remains another matter. Most source material doesn't benefit from either. Yes, there are absolutely exceptions, but do you go out and spend premium dollars to replace your TV for exceptions? No. Now, of course, there is a replacement cycle and there are people who want "the best". People like Ken who spent >$6000 on a 70" Elite for example.


In my mind, however, the _unbelievably tepid_ sales of the Elite speak about equally to price and to the relatively small improvement most people witness. OLED is going to face the same problem, even if somewhat more people see it as better. And without the pre-packaged demo materials of a trade show (i.e. showing the Best Buy loop), I think the number of those people is far smaller than OLED proponents do.


> Quote:
> If we already have displays that are very close to perfect in conforming to Rec709, how much of an improvement do you expect to see in this area? If the claim is that OLED color saturation is X% better than conventional displays and is capable of displaying Y% 'more hues' than other techs, I will contend this does nothing to improving color accuracy as far as our accepted standard is concerned. In fact it might look great, but it might be less accurate. Of course there's no reason to believe that an OLED can't be calibrated to be accurate and conforming to Rec709, but then it will probably look very much the same as another, accurately calibrated display tech.
> 
> 
> 'Eye popping' and accurate can be two very different things. We shall see.



Yep, I've beaten the hell out of that drum for a while now. There is some truth that LCD fails to keep delivering color at lower luminance. So, again, OLED will improve on that. In how much content does that matter? In how many sources have the cameras actually captured the color information for it to be even be reproduced?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22872391
> 
> 
> Well it's maybe useful to point out (as was pointed out to me earlier) that I'm not the minority in feeling that 70"+ is too big for nearly any room. I'm the minority only here in AV centric forums. So as far as size by itself, there are going to be large TV's that willl be passed on, not because of their cost, but because they're not wanted.
> 
> 
> That said, if many here are right, it'll still likely be the case that a 55" UHD IGZO will be substantially cheaper than a 55" SD OLED for a while. But I keep seeing size (as such) thrown around as one of the qualifiers and I'm starting to wonder if maybe it matters
> 
> less than many think in terms of sales. Are we getting CES-myopic?



You're in the overwhelming majority vis a vis 70" TVs. I'm on record as to a believe that the size won't exceed 10% of the market for years and years. But 55" might be a problem in a world where 60" and 65" are increasingly common. Smaller _is_ worse and OLED has already picked the wrong target based on an expectation it would be out already, not in a mode where it's effectively not out until next year. (Even if you believe Samsung is _also_ shipping this year, total production globally is going to be really, really tiny in 2013.)


And, of course, there is cost. A premium 55" set streets for around $2500-3000 in the U.S. Within 2 years, that set is likely to be IGZO, even better, and similar money. If they OLED is $4000-5000, the market for OLED vs. the _premium_ 55" TV is going to be roughly 1:20. That's really too small.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22873819
> 
> 
> Man, is this getting old. Some just love to live in the past.



You mean like Kuro owners?







I kid, I kid.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22874156
> 
> 
> ^While I'm not the least bit interested in LCD (the price premium to get something on par with Plasma is not worth it to me), I think you are painting a tad broadly with your subjective brush. For the vast majority of panels, I couldn't agree more, however.



The interesting thing is that those premium LCDs do sell, but they do sell really poorly overall. And plasma sales are falling rapidly too.


Is there a videophile market left? It doesn't really seem like the answer is yes.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottylans*
> 
> 
> I need only open a few JPG files on my plasma in the lounge to see it blow away and LCD for colour, black levels. They simply don't compare.



actually color accuracy on the TH-XXPX85U is not really good and blacks aren't anyway near Pioneer top Plasma's. I wouldn't be blown away








http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/panasonic-viera-th-42px80u/4505-6482_7-32887130-2.html


----------



## homogenic

Can someone be polite in their explanation as to why high video performance tech is never made available for entry level panels, and why everyone can't simply charge a premium for size only?


----------



## mr. wally

think of your choices when buying a new car as an analogy


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottylans*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22873933
> 
> 
> Not really, I've seen LCD with my own eyes, it's inferior rubbish, I can not stand it in the slightest.
> 
> I need only open a few JPG files on my plasma in the lounge to see it blow away and LCD for colour, black levels. They simply don't compare.



Interesting. I guess many of the professional reviewers that felt the Elite was the best display ever must have been smoking crack. I guess if they had known in advance that the tech was 'inferior rubbish', they might have written their reviews differently.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22874420
> 
> 
> Hope Artwood likes live theatre.


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4950#post_22873387
> 
> 
> If the United States gave China Taiwan in exchange for producing cheap OLEDs would that stop the world wide LCD Army?
> 
> 
> I'm for ANYTHING that stops LCD!



Well since manufacturers are only going to make what the buying public demands, I doubt the LCD Army will be going away anytime soon. But if you don't like LCD, simply don't buy it. It's just a personal preference. Outside of the VT-50 and the Kuro, I haven't seen a plasma I would take for free much less pay for one. For me, watching a plasma is like trying to view the world through a sheet of yellow cellophane. No thanks.


I was also very hopeful of OLED but I just don't see it anymore. Not after the massive amount of money that's already been sunk into R&D and they still have a 90% panel failure rate. 70" OLED's at $3500 (or even $6500) would take a radical new manufacturing process as of yet undiscovered. And that doesn't even address the blue OLED degradation rate problem. There's no indication any of the manufacturers have even come close to solving that part of it.


If I had to put money on it, I would say the next five years will see a flood of 4K sets with a large portion of those being cheap tv's coming from China. The higher end sets will be IGZO from the likes of Sony, samsung, etc. The few OLED panels to hit the market will go the way of the Pioneer Kuro in 5 years and will be more collector items. I hope I'm wrong, but I bet that's a lot closer to the truth than $3500 70" OLED panels










EDIT: I'm probably wrong about there being a "flood" of 4K sets in 5 years. I read that market analysts estimate by 2017 4K sets will be 0.8% of the market. That would mean probably very little 4K content after a 4 year period.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22875867
> 
> 
> Well since manufacturers are only going to make what the buying public demands...



Problem in the display area is one has to make a plant worth billions in order to make panels. Otherwise it would be like in audio: apart of the mainstream there are lots of specialized companies operating to satisfy any perversive need for perverses willing to pay whatever price







. In the display area the general mass consumer dictates and already dictated that PQ is good enough, thus e.g. even locally dimmed LCD sets are dying. General consumer will accept OLED if its price is within the LCD range and that looks rahter unpromising: there were going to be $10K 55" OLED sets last year, they are now scheduled to appear for $12K. Delays and price increase are very bad omen for new tech.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22874431
> 
> 
> You're in the overwhelming majority vis a vis 70" TVs. I'm on record as to a believe that the size won't exceed 10% of the market for years and years. But 55" might be a problem in a world where 60" and 65" are increasingly common. Smaller _is_ worse and OLED has already picked the wrong target[...]



I definitely don't even like 65"ers and 60"ers haven't sold me yet either. What do the trends indicate: *Is the expectation that we're close or closing in quickly to what people want for maximum TV size, or that we're going to CES ourselves right to 110" someday?*


----------



## 8mile13

AVS member Don Landis made a short 4K Sony OLED film at CES2013. He complained about OLED blacks. In one AVS post he refers to it as one of the OLED problems ''Room reflections in blacks. There is non such thing on OLED as flat black, only glossy black''. In his video comment he says that ''the glare and reflections from the room in the blacks in the picture were a distraction. Every OLED screen i saw, wether from LG or Samsung or Toshiba had this black reflection problem i found annoying.''


4K Sony OLED


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22874431
> 
> 
> Now, of course, there is a replacement cycle and there are people who want "the best". People like Ken who spent >$6000 on a 70" Elite for example.



Actually I have the 60" Elite, Mark. I may decide to get the 70" Elite, but lots more thought will be necessary before I pull the trigger on anything.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4900_100#post_22877354
> 
> 
> AVS member Don Landis made a short 4K Sony OLED film at CES2013. He complained about OLED blacks. In one AVS post he refers to it as one of the OLED problems ''Room reflections in blacks. There is non such thing on OLED as flat black, only glossy black''. In his video comment he says that ''the glare and reflections from the room in the blacks in the picture were a distraction. Every OLED screen i saw, wether from LG or Samsung or Toshiba had this black reflection problem i found annoying.''


So the same problem that every other TV in existence also has? (though things like Motheye and Invisible glass are promising)


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22877354
> 
> 
> AVS member Don Landis made a short 4K Sony OLED film at CES2013. He complained about OLED blacks. In one AVS post he refers to it as one of the OLED problems ''Room reflections in blacks. There is non such thing on OLED as flat black, only glossy black''. In his video comment he says that ''the glare and reflections from the room in the blacks in the picture were a distraction. Every OLED screen i saw, wether from LG or Samsung or Toshiba had this black reflection problem i found annoying.''
> 
> 
> 4K Sony OLED



I probably am impressed with one aspect of the video that others are not. The overall color quality looks no different than that obtainable from virtually any other tech. Anyone wowed by that video from an OLED color standpoint, has already lost all objectivity. Of course this gets back to what I've said for years, you can't make assessments on PQ from videos like this. But hey, I can't tell you how many years I've seen people ready to write their checks for a given display based on one still pix or short video. Each to his own.


Yes, the reflections are patently obvious and very distracting, but even there I'm not sure I could come to the conclusion that OLED screen reflectivity is worse than others. But I'll take Don's word for it.


What I was impressed with was the 4K aspect of the display where Don zoomed in on the screen to highlight moving traffic below. The detail held up very nicely and mirrored what I saw in the 84" Sony 4K display that I saw.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22877935
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22877354
> 
> 
> AVS member Don Landis made a short 4K Sony OLED film at CES2013. He complained about OLED blacks. In one AVS post he refers to it as one of the OLED problems ''Room reflections in blacks. There is non such thing on OLED as flat black, only glossy black''. In his video comment he says that ''the glare and reflections from the room in the blacks in the picture were a distraction. Every OLED screen i saw, wether from LG or Samsung or Toshiba had this black reflection problem i found annoying.''
> 
> 
> 4K Sony OLED
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84uxdA9DHMA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the same problem that every other TV in existence also has? (though things like Motheye and Invisible glass are promising)
Click to expand...


Not exactly (if I understand this properly). An anti-reflective glass (or coating or whatever you want to call it) attempts to circumvent the specular reflectance by transmitting as much light as possible straight through the glass. This is how museum glass works as well, despite the company's absurd diagram.


Again, if I understand the problem----someone clarify for me, even the best anti reflection glass would still allow the light through to hit the "OLED black" and then bounce back as reflection. The only solution would be for a type of glass that takes light in, but throws it away parallel to the surface, or something else insane.


Do I have that right? And further, is this for real? Why is the OLED black a glossy surface anyway?


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22878294
> 
> 
> Not exactly (if I understand this properly). An anti-reflective glass (or coating or whatever you want to call it) attempts to circumvent the specular reflectance by transmitting as much light as possible straight through the glass. This is how museum glass works as well, despite the company's absurd diagram.
> 
> 
> Again, if I understand the problem----someone clarify for me, even the best anti reflection glass would still allow the light through to hit the "OLED black" and then bounce back as reflection. The only solution would be for a type of glass that takes light in, but throws it away parallel to the surface, or something else insane.
> 
> 
> Do I have that right? And further, is this for real? Why is the OLED black a glossy surface anyway?



Throwing the light back at the panel is not ideal.

Clearly, we need glass that pass the maximum light through and then absorbs it on the way back and converts it into energy that is used to power the panel.


Duck soup.


- Rich


----------



## tgm1024

Or a colored e-ink tv.......lol......aye yi yi. How are the fabrication numbers for THAT I wonder....


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22877922
> 
> 
> Actually I have the 60" Elite, Mark. I may decide to get the 70" Elite, but lots more thought will be necessary before I pull the trigger on anything.



Oops, Sorry Ken! Your TV is too small for me.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22878327
> 
> 
> Throwing the light back at the panel is not ideal.
> 
> Clearly, we need glass that pass the maximum light through and then absorbs it on the way back and converts it into energy that is used to power the panel.



It struck me that whatever the MothEye stuff does, it's a pretty big step forward. All the good TVs out are reflective as hell these days, even with very thin glass fronts.


I hope we get to the point where MothEye-type technologies become standards on _high-end_ TV products. I doubt they will ever be standard on lower-end products.


I also wonder if true plastic-front TVs will become common at some point and whether they will be any good in this regard.


----------



## mikek753




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5000_100#post_22878613
> 
> 
> It struck me that whatever the MothEye stuff does, it's a pretty big step forward. All the good TVs out are reflective as hell these days, even with very thin glass fronts.
> 
> 
> I hope we get to the point where MothEye-type technologies become standards on _high-end_ TV products. I doubt they will ever be standard on lower-end products.
> 
> 
> I also wonder if true plastic-front TVs will become common at some point and whether they will be any good in this regard.



Is there any film that can be applied on top of existing TV panel that can reduce reflections?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5000_100#post_22878613
> 
> 
> I also wonder if true plastic-front TVs will become common at some point and whether they will be any good in this regard.


Plastic is generally much worse optically than glass, and is easily damaged. I certainly hope that does not happen.


It doesn't help that plastic is around forever as it doesn't decompose, and is very difficult to properly recycle/re-use.



P.S. If you ever need ophthalmic lenses, be sure to get them in CR-39 rather than Polycarbonate or other high index options. Funny that the cheapest option is also the best quality. If only that was the case with anything else.


----------



## scottylans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22874505
> 
> 
> actually color accuracy on the TH-XXPX85U is not really good and blacks aren't anyway near Pioneer top Plasma's. I wouldn't be blown away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/panasonic-viera-th-42px80u/4505-6482_7-32887130-2.html




Which further concretes just how good plasma is then, when my $1000 30" Dell monitor on my PC which is top end - is completely blown away for colours and black level by an apparently poor level plasma! The pictures simply have no comparison.


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22877979
> 
> 
> I probably am impressed with one aspect of the video that others are not. The overall color quality looks no different than that obtainable from virtually any other tech. Anyone wowed by that video from an OLED color standpoint, has already lost all objectivity. Of course this gets back to what I've said for years, you can't make assessments on PQ from videos like this. But hey, I can't tell you how many years I've seen people ready to write their checks for a given display based on one still pix or short video. Each to his own.
> 
> 
> Yes, the reflections are patently obvious and very distracting, but even there I'm not sure I could come to the conclusion that OLED screen reflectivity is worse than others. But I'll take Don's word for it.
> 
> 
> What I was impressed with was the 4K aspect of the display where Don zoomed in on the screen to highlight moving traffic below. The detail held up very nicely and mirrored what I saw in the 84" Sony 4K display that I saw.


Who cares about the colors? You didn't get from the video that black is beautiful?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikek753*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22878660
> 
> 
> Is there any film that can be applied on top of existing TV panel that can reduce reflections?



Not as a practical matter no.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22878795
> 
> 
> Plastic is generally much worse optically than glass, and is easily damaged. I certainly hope that does not happen.
> 
> 
> It doesn't help that plastic is around forever as it doesn't decompose, and is very difficult to properly recycle/re-use.
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. If you ever need ophthalmic lenses, be sure to get them in CR-39 rather than Polycarbonate or other high index options. Funny that the cheapest option is also the best quality. If only that was the case with anything else.



Yeah, you are correct Chron. I hope it doesn't happen either and given that decades have gone into trying to make great eyeglasses with only limited success, I doubt great front plastic for TVs will ever happen.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22878928
> 
> 
> Who cares about the colors? You didn't get from the video that black is beautiful?



Who doesn't get that?


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22878613
> 
> 
> Oops, Sorry Ken! Your TV is too small for me.



It's actually too small for me too at our new place, Mark. That's why it will become our bedroom TV. Perfect size there.










I'm leaning toward 4K for my next set. I think I want to future proof my next display and I don't want to spend the money that would be necessary for the kind of 2K display that would make me happy.


At least that's my thinking as of today.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22878928
> 
> 
> Who cares about the colors? You didn't get from the video that black is beautiful?



Nope, I don't get that from that video. I've seen 100s of 'videos' from different displays, both plasma and LED/LCD, where blacks looked equally superb. You simply can't discern that from a video with a high degree of accuracy.


I know the blacks of OLED are terrific, I don't need a video shot with a cheap camera to 'prove' that to me. On the other hand I don't know if shadow detail is equally as good. but who cares about shadow detail, right? Who cares about color, right? As long as we achieve absolute black, all is well.


The blacks on my non-OLED Elite are superb and so is the shadow detail. It's not a quantum leap from the black levels of the best displays to the black levels of OLED. But I know some will never be convinced of that.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22880016
> 
> 
> Who doesn't get that?



Oh, we'll if you put it that way!


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22880602
> 
> 
> Nope, I don't get that from that video. I've seen 100s of 'videos' from different displays, both plasma and LED/LCD, where blacks looked equally superb. You simply can't discern that from a video with a high degree of accuracy.
> 
> 
> I know the blacks of OLED are terrific, I don't need a video shot with a cheap camera to 'prove' that to me. On the other hand I don't know if shadow detail is equally as good. but who cares about shadow detail, right? Who cares about color, right? As long as we achieve absolute black, all is well.
> 
> 
> The blacks on my non-OLED Elite are superb and so is the shadow detail. It's not a quantum leap from the black levels of the best displays to the black levels of OLED. But I know some will never be convinced of that.


I appreciate that you love your Elite non-OLED, non-IGZO display panel. Some of us aren't satisfied with the current best of, especially when there are refinements that can only come about through newer tech.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22880535
> 
> 
> It's actually too small for me too at our new place, Mark. That's why it will become our bedroom TV. Perfect size there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm leaning toward 4K for my next set. I think I want to future proof my next display and I don't want to spend the money that would be necessary for the kind of 2K display that would make me happy.
> 
> 
> At least that's my thinking as of today.



My bedroom could use a 60". But I have to say in 7 years we haven't really missed not having a TV there.


I do agree that a 4K main TV would be the next logical step.


As I've been saying here to people for close to two years, the TV a lot of us really want isn't for sale yet and probably won't be for another 2-3 years. As a result, we have the dilemma of feeling like the "last TV we will need for a long time" is not something we can currently purchase.


The solution to that 3 years ago was to buy the Kuro as it left the market. But of course it had the problem of (a) maxing out at 60" (b) not being exceptionally bright (c) honestly, being a plasma, with all the attendant limitations.


Last year, a lot of folks who wanted no compromise performance bought the Elite, but folks like me decided there was simply no way that would even be satisfying for 5 years and went for the "other best thing" for about half the money.


My advice to most people is to do some version of what I did: Stop pretending that there is some "be all and end all" now or, really, anytime soon. I mean even if you could afford $20,000 for the 84" LG, that seems like a weird choice since it's merely very good and not truly exceptional. And the first-gen OLEDs require a certain kind of insanity -- beyond the wallet -- to invest in.


To that end, it seems like one ought to spend low and prepare to replace with the Gen 2 or Gen 3 OLED -- or perhaps a true IGZO LCD -- within a couple of years. Of course, if one can sit tight, that remains an option.


We are again off topic, but we're also -- and this is noteworthy -- without developments to report. I look forward to the March release of the LG so it's at least at retail. But at $12,000, sales are going to be really, really tiny. And I'm going to discourage people from pushing them up because they are being asked to pay a lot to be beta testers.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22880906
> 
> 
> I appreciate that you love your Elite non-OLED, non-IGZO display panel. Some of us aren't satisfied with the current best of, especially when there are refinements that can only come about through newer tech.



And of course some of us don't come with the predispositions and biases that make a fair and balanced assessment of some current tech almost impossible. Throwing out the catch phrases 'non-OLED' and 'non-IGZO' in the manner you did, simply serves to emphasize my point.


Anyone that's known me over the years knows that I welcome new tech as much as anyone and probably more than most, but unlike some, I'm 'tech agnostic'. Give me the best picture and I could care less what the tech is behind it (other than the normal intellectual curiosity). So with that said, I'm not short sighted enough to think that certain current displays (read 'non-OLED', 'non-IGZO') can't produce exceptional imagery.


----------



## Ken Ross

Mark, your advice is good and I know you've adhered to that philosophy as long as I've known you. The problem for anal guys like me, is that I find it painful to buy a lesser display when I know better ones are available. I can make do very nicely without having 'the best' in many other facets of my life, but something happens to me with video displays and certain other areas of electronics. Call it a character flaw.










I suspect, at least in my case, that I'll always be looking at the next great thing coming down the pike. I'll also be so bold as to say that even buying an OLED or IGZO LCD in a few years will NOT future proof you...not in the area of electronics. There is no such thing as future proof when it comes to this stuff.


Yes, I know my 'illness' results in frequent display churn, but I guess it's better than being heavily medicated.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22881314
> 
> 
> Mark, your advice is good and I know you've adhered to that philosophy as long as I've known you. The problem for anal guys like me, is that I find it painful to buy a lesser display when I know better ones are available. I can make do very nicely without having 'the best' in many other facets of my life, but something happens to me with video displays and certain other areas of electronics. Call it a character flaw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know my 'illness' results in frequent display churn, but I guess it's better than being heavily medicated.




I don't see that as a character flaw at all.


And it mystifies me how now and then how people I read about once in a while who have a dead sub-pixel on their screen and can brush it off as somehow livable.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22881074
> 
> 
> 
> My advice to most people is to do some version of what I did: Stop pretending that there is some "be all and end all" now or, really, anytime soon. I mean even if you could afford $20,000 for the 84" LG, that seems like a weird choice since it's merely very good and not truly exceptional. And the first-gen OLEDs require a certain kind of insanity -- beyond the wallet -- to invest in.
> 
> 
> To that end, it seems like one ought to spend low and prepare to replace with the Gen 2 or Gen 3 OLED -- or perhaps a true IGZO LCD -- within a couple of years. Of course, if one can sit tight, that remains an option.
> 
> 
> We are again off topic, but we're also -- and this is noteworthy -- without developments to report. I look forward to the March release of the LG so it's at least at retail. But at $12,000, sales are going to be really, really tiny. And I'm going to discourage people from pushing them up because they are being asked to pay a lot to be beta testers.



Not that it matters much, but the LG 84" 4K can be had for $17K, and I would guess below $15K by next year. 2K OLED seems stillborn. Stuck between astonishingly low yields that will never led to substantial cost reduction, inability to scale larger without more production problems and without the 4K resolution they will need in 4-5 years to compete. The Chinese look ready to jump on the 4K bandwagon big time, with relatively reasonably priced 55"-65" 4K displays around $4,000. I know am am not the only one waiting on my dream set, a 80" 4K OLED MOTHEYE for under $5,000. So in the mean time, the question is do you grab a decent 65" plasma or one of the "reasonably priced" 4K LCDs.


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22877979
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I was impressed with was the 4K aspect of the display where Don zoomed in on the screen to highlight moving traffic below. The detail held up very nicely and mirrored what I saw in the 84" Sony 4K display that I saw.



yes but the same thing that is impressive about 4K is what makes it somewhat unimpressive to me. I know it's beating a dead horse, but to get the benefits of all that extra resolution, you must get very, very close to the TV. I guess it will be impressive when I get up off the couch and on my way to the bathroom and I happen to pass right by the TV. Under normal viewing distances, not so much. And you'll notice in the demo's, they have a loop of the absolute optimal viewing material with far off objects(like people walking around in a skyscraper window) so you can discern all this detail,and only if you get right next to the screen.


I consider myself a resolution junkie, but was very underwhelmed when I saw it demoed at a Sony Store, strictly because of the distance I needed to get to have a "wow" factor. I do see it's benefits though in large computer monitors where detailed graphics and photography work are being performed. And perhaps very large screen home theater projectors where people are sitting closer than the recommended distance. But for TV's even in the 70-80" range, I think the visual impact of the jump from 720P to 1080P is much bigger than from 2K to 4K.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4980#post_22880535
> 
> 
> It's actually too small for me too at our new place, Mark. That's why it will become our bedroom TV. Perfect size there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I'm leaning toward 4K for my next set. I think I want to future proof my next display and I don't want to spend the money that would be necessary for the kind of 2K display that would make me happy.
> 
> At least that's my thinking as of today.



4K is in no way future-proof, better wait for 8K, Sharp was showing 8K prototype....


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22881868
> 
> 
> So in the mean time, the question is do you grab a decent 65" plasma or one of the "reasonably priced" 4K LCDs.



For me I'm leaning toward 4K. I have a problem buying today what is essentially 'outdated' tech. I can honestly see arguments both ways, but this is how I look at it. Sony will have a 65" 4K set that looks to be very nice and might not be priced in the stratosphere. Yes, 65" is a bit smaller than what I'd hoped for, but for me that might be a better 'stop gap' display than a 2K unit. Besides, I'll still be looking for a larger screen down the road and the 65" can serve me well in my den.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22881910
> 
> 
> yes but the same thing that is impressive about 4K is what makes it somewhat unimpressive to me. I know it's beating a dead horse, but to get the benefits of all that extra resolution, you must get very, very close to the TV. I guess it will be impressive when I get up off the couch and on my way to the bathroom and I happen to pass right by the TV. Under normal viewing distances, not so much. And you'll notice in the demo's, they have a loop of the absolute optimal viewing material with far off objects(like people walking around in a skyscraper window) so you can discern all this detail,and only if you get right next to the screen.
> 
> 
> I consider myself a resolution junkie, but was very underwhelmed when I saw it demoed at a Sony Store, strictly because of the distance I needed to get to have a "wow" factor. I do see it's benefits though in large computer monitors where detailed graphics and photography work are being performed. And perhaps very large screen home theater projectors where people are sitting closer than the recommended distance. But for TV's even in the 70-80" range, I think the visual impact of the jump from 720P to 1080P is much bigger than from 2K to 4K.



Well I went with a buddy last night to look at the 84" 4K Sony again (with no intention of buying it). I had seen it before, but my mission this time was to see how well it upscaled 2K to 4K. I brought my Sony NEX VG30 2K camcorder with some footage I had previously shot. They were nice enough to allow me to hook it up and watch the footage as well as the live feed from the camera. I was impressed. I saw absolutely no artifacts in the upscaling process and the image was very nicely defined, smooth, and very resolute on the 84" screen. Did it look better than it does on my Elite? Tough to say without seeing both screens side by side. But I certainly didn't feel it looked any worse and this was on a very large 84" screen.


This is a must for me to even consider 4K. If 2K can't look at least as good on a 4K screen as it does on a 2K screen, what good is it? So at this point I know that at least in the case of the Sony, upscaling is very well done. I can't speak to the other manufacturer's upscaling, but they'd be very foolish to not implement flawless 2K>4K upconversion.


Your are correct though, to see the benefits of 4K, you obviously need to move closer to the screen. It's certainly doable and I can see taking the time to do it if I'm watching something worthwhile.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22881941
> 
> 
> 4K is in no way future-proof, better wait for 8K, Sharp was showing 8K prototype....



Yup, it never ends. But honestly, we keep talking about diminishing returns and going from 4K to 8K seems to me to be the height of 'diminishing returns'. I can't even begin to imagine how large a screen would be needed or how close you'd need to sit to see the advantages of 8K over 4K.


But yes, this brings up the point I made in a previous post, anyone that thinks they've finally 'future-proofed' is very naive. I should have used a different phrasing when I mentioned buying 4K to 'future-proof' in my post.










FWIW, I think it will be a long time before we ever see 8K here.


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22881304
> 
> 
> And of course some of us don't come with the predispositions and biases that make a fair and balanced assessment of some current tech almost impossible. Throwing out the catch phrases 'non-OLED' and 'non-IGZO' in the manner you did, simply serves to emphasize my point.
> 
> 
> Anyone that's known me over the years knows that I welcome new tech as much as anyone and probably more than most, but unlike some, I'm 'tech agnostic'. Give me the best picture and I could care less what the tech is behind it (other than the normal intellectual curiosity). So with that said, I'm not short sighted enough to think that certain current displays (read 'non-OLED', 'non-IGZO') can't produce exceptional imagery.


I'm losing faith in the inevitability of OLED. 4K, IGZO, Quantum Dot Film, Blue Phase Mode, will keep LCD as the alpha display tech for the foreseeable future (don't kill yourself Artwood!).


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22881988
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your are correct though, to see the benefits of 4K, you obviously need to move closer to the screen. It's certainly doable and I can see taking the time to do it if I'm watching something worthwhile.



Another thing I hadn't even though of before is this. As stated, I think you have to get too close to the screen to see the benefits of 4K based off the full screen demo I was seeing in the Sony Store. Now consider the vast majority of blu ray material is 2:35:1 on a 1:78:1 screen, you will still have the black bars on top and bottom with an overall reduced image. Which means you have to get that much closer to see the difference.


I'm not bashing 4K, I just think it is such a marginal difference in PQ requiring you to sit unreasonably close. Especially since they are using the old edge lit technologies that introduce the same artifacts and problems inherent with that tech.


----------



## Mr.SoftDome




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22881314
> 
> 
> Mark, your advice is good and I know you've adhered to that philosophy as long as I've known you. The problem for anal guys like me, is that I find it painful to buy a lesser display when I know better ones are available. I can make do very nicely without having 'the best' in many other facets of my life, but something happens to me with video displays and certain other areas of electronics. Call it a character flaw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect, at least in my case, that I'll always be looking at the next great thing coming down the pike. I'll also be so bold as to say that even buying an OLED or IGZO LCD in a few years will NOT future proof you...not in the area of electronics. There is no such thing as future proof when it comes to this stuff.
> 
> 
> Yes, I know my 'illness' results in frequent display churn, but I guess it's better than being heavily medicated.



It is an illness isn't it? Same boat. I am with others that this is stop gap time. I think I would pick an Elite (which is awesome) or the Panasonic Plasma and let her ride for a few years.


For me it's a money thing. Need to give it a rest for a bit. Boy in my 20s I had a 36 inch Sony Trinitron Tube and thought it was the best thing ever. Me and a bud moving that heavy beast everytime I moved. Had it for years though. Never a need to upgrade.


Then HD came. Income climbing and obsession began.


2005: Sony 34 XBR960 CRT and stand $2500 (gave to relative)

2007: Pioneer Plasma 5071 and new rack/stand $3500 (gave to best friend $300)

2009: Sony 55 XBR8 $5100 (now in master bedroom-perfect in bedroom)

2012: Elite 70 $6800


Finally think I'm there and I can't afford this insanity every two years anymore. My next will have to be 80. 4k and perhaps not even OLED depending on LCD advancements.


I hope OLED comes around or big advances in LCD but I think we are several years away from making it a worthwhile jump from the Elite 70 ( for me) Also can't keep giving these displays away ugh!


It seems a good time to buy now if you have an older display with any of the current crop of better displays and ride it out. Really, how could anyone not enjoy a bluray or sports on any of these 65 and larger displays? They are pretty damn good. And I'm not Joe satisfied. They are really good!


Perfect time to work on audio while you wait! Don't even get me started on my audio obsession that surpassed my video obsession ten-fold. Thank gosh that's done for me now.


It sounds like many years until OLED meets my replacement criteria. Maybe that's a good thing for me and my wallet.


Back to OLED advancements. Will this same thread be going in a year or two? Waiting...


Rick


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22882004
> 
> 
> Yup, it never ends. But honestly, we keep talking about diminishing returns and going from 4K to 8K seems to me to be the height of 'diminishing returns'. I can't even begin to imagine how large a screen would be needed or how close you'd need to sit to see the advantages of 8K over 4K.But yes, this brings up the point I made in a previous post, anyone that thinks they've finally 'future-proofed' is very naive. I should have used a different phrasing when I mentioned buying 4K to 'future-proof' in my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . FWIW, I think it will be a long time before we ever see 8K here.



Irony is the 8K is the most certain tech which will be definitely available due to the NHK/Japanese commitment to it. They are rightly preparing full chain while 4K is resolution without content, delivery chains and committed operators, it is only the display and it may wane any time. Sharp is showing prototype of 8K LCD around. Whether the 8K is needed is another matter, arguments for 4K are already thin.


----------



## Ken Ross

Actually there's a ton of 4K content just waiting. There are tons of movies mastered in 4K. I know of none in 8K. So I disagree with you there. Delivery chain? That's another matter, but it will come.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22881951
> 
> 
> For me I'm leaning toward 4K. I have a problem buying today what is essentially 'outdated' tech. I can honestly see arguments both ways, but this is how I look at it. Sony will have a 65" 4K set that looks to be very nice and might not be priced in the stratosphere. Yes, 65" is a bit smaller than what I'd hoped for, but for me that might be a better 'stop gap' display than a 2K unit. Besides, I'll still be looking for a larger screen down the road and the 65" can serve me well in my den.


I don't think it's outdated at all when it is keeping neck and neck with the best LCD has to offer (in the realm of 1080p), but you have long since relegated it (Plasma) to the dustbin of ancient technology. I don't think Panasonic is done innovating it just yet (assuming they can stay viable financially), so I couldn't disagree with these odd sentiments more. A 4K set at 65" seems futile, unless you're going to move the seating arrangement many feet forward.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22881314
> 
> 
> Mark, your advice is good and I know you've adhered to that philosophy as long as I've known you. The problem for anal guys like me, is that I find it painful to buy a lesser display when I know better ones are available. I can make do very nicely without having 'the best' in many other facets of my life, but something happens to me with video displays and certain other areas of electronics. Call it a character flaw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect, at least in my case, that I'll always be looking at the next great thing coming down the pike. I'll also be so bold as to say that even buying an OLED or IGZO LCD in a few years will NOT future proof you...not in the area of electronics. There is no such thing as future proof when it comes to this stuff.



No such thing perhaps, but there is "close". The thing that actually annoys me the most about the perpetual Kuro whining threads, "Why isn't there something better than this really high contrast, color accurate display that shows 100% of the available pixels with nearly full motion resolution?" is that it begs the question. And that's another one of those Logic 101 fallacies that really just bore people. If you buy something great, it's going to be great for a while. If you buy something that by definition can't be great, it can't be great for very long. And under Rogo's Rule (tm), you simply solve the problem by not overpaying. (The best part about the Kuro closeout deals is that people didn't ever overpay!)


Display technology moves like a glacier. Delivering of higher-resolution content is going to move like the tectonic plates.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22881868
> 
> 
> Not that it matters much, but the LG 84" 4K can be had for $17K, and I would guess below $15K by next year. 2K OLED seems stillborn. Stuck between astonishingly low yields that will never led to substantial cost reduction, inability to scale larger without more production problems and without the 4K resolution they will need in 4-5 years to compete. The Chinese look ready to jump on the 4K bandwagon big time, with relatively reasonably priced 55"-65" 4K displays around $4,000. I know am am not the only one waiting on my dream set, a 80" 4K OLED MOTHEYE for under $5,000. So in the mean time, the question is do you grab a decent 65" plasma or one of the "reasonably priced" 4K LCDs.



So Sy, "in the meantime", you again have the choice of what i believe is a much bigger gap than $1000. I don't think Sony is targeting the $4,000 level of reasonableness for the 4K 65" TV. Their current 65" is $4500. I'm imagining $6000-8000. Maybe I'm wrong but either way that decent plasma is $3000. That's the bogey. You could obviously go either way, depending on how close you'll sit and some other priorities.


But back to Ken's point; I could choose to spend more now, but I hate the feeling of getting ripped off. I used to buy cutting edge computers until I stopped and starting buying mid-range ones every 2-3 years. It made me happier knowing I wasn't pointlessly throwing money at stuff that wasn't doing anything for me psychically. The $3000 I didn't spend last year on the Elite is buying me most of my 2016 TV. For me, that's really valuable beyond the actual dollars because the TV I have is not only good enough but also does things the Elite doesn't do. If the equation were reversed and I were buying this year, perhaps that Sony would be the winner (like, for example, I was moving into an apartment and would be closer to it and therefore really wanted the 4K and didn't need off-axis viewing). I might value the dollars less and the features more.


These tradeoffs are legitimate. Today, for me, not feeling like a chump and getting critical benefits > some sense that something might be better (although clearly not much better, since my TV won the VE shootout last year).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22881951
> 
> 
> For me I'm leaning toward 4K. I have a problem buying today what is essentially 'outdated' tech. I can honestly see arguments both ways, but this is how I look at it. Sony will have a 65" 4K set that looks to be very nice and might not be priced in the stratosphere. Yes, 65" is a bit smaller than what I'd hoped for, but for me that might be a better 'stop gap' display than a 2K unit. Besides, I'll still be looking for a larger screen down the road and the 65" can serve me well in my den.



What I don't like about the Sony is the speakers. What I do like is that they'd be great if the TV moves into a den. Also, if the thing runs $5000 instead of $8000, that seems better.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22882004
> 
> 
> Yup, it never ends. But honestly, we keep talking about diminishing returns and going from 4K to 8K seems to me to be the height of 'diminishing returns'. I can't even begin to imagine how large a screen would be needed or how close you'd need to sit to see the advantages of 8K over 4K.
> 
> 
> But yes, this brings up the point I made in a previous post, anyone that thinks they've finally 'future-proofed' is very naive. I should have used a different phrasing when I mentioned buying 4K to 'future-proof' in my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, I think it will be a long time before we ever see 8K here.



Yeah, I don't really know what to make of 8K. I mean to do it technically is going to be trivial. To market it is going to be pointless. To transmit many channels of it is simply not happening anytime soon, no matter what NHK does.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22882103
> 
> 
> I'm losing faith in the inevitability of OLED. 4K, IGZO, Quantum Dot Film, Blue Phase Mode, will keep LCD as the alpha display tech for the foreseeable future (don't kill yourself Artwood!).



Well, IGZO is inevitable for LCD. As is 4K. The former is going to be ultimately cheaper -- and something they can market. the latter is going to be about marketing -- and ultimately costless to manufacture.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.SoftDome*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22882488
> 
> 
> It is an illness isn't it? Same boat. I am with others that this is stop gap time. I think I would pick an Elite (which is awesome) or the Panasonic Plasma and let her ride for a few years.
> 
> 
> For me it's a money thing. Need to give it a rest for a bit. Boy in my 20s I had a 36 inch Sony Trinitron Tube and thought it was the best thing ever. Me and a bud moving that heavy beast everytime I moved. Had it for years though. Never a need to upgrade.
> 
> 
> Then HD came. Income climbing and obsession began.
> 
> 
> 2005: Sony 34 XBR960 CRT and stand $2500 (gave to relative)
> 
> 2007: Pioneer Plasma 5071 and new rack/stand $3500 (gave to best friend $300)
> 
> 2009: Sony 55 XBR8 $5100 (now in master bedroom-perfect in bedroom)
> 
> 2012: Elite 70 $6800
> 
> 
> Finally think I'm there and I can't afford this insanity every two years anymore. My next will have to be 80. 4k and perhaps not even OLED depending on LCD advancements.
> 
> 
> I hope OLED comes around or big advances in LCD but I think we are several years away from making it a worthwhile jump from the Elite 70 ( for me) Also can't keep giving these displays away ugh!



So you bought a huge size upgrade twice, and once a small one plus some meaningful brightness and snazziness.


By that logic, you could only upgrade (a) to an OLED or really great LCD of at least 70" and (b) once you do, it's hard to imagine you'd find the need to do it again.


You're actually a classic example of why I think TV sales are shrinking as the HD conversion cycle has ended. You converted, you found your size, and now you're kind of done.


Some people are behind you and haven't yet found their size -- although industry data shows that size upgrading is far, far slower in the real world than at AVS Forum -- and some people do eventually seek quality or need to replace a TV that just fails on them or want to add something to another room (although even that is dying in the tablet era).


We've discussed this before, but if you made up a list of a "perfect" TV, you'd want:
near pefect intrascene and sequential contrast
accurate color with color overhead for newer expanded gamuts
perfect motion resolution
no artifacting on motion
perfect uniformity
no dithering, patterning, false contouring, haloing, flashlighting, mura, vertical banding, "dirty screen" effects or any other such display-based _mishegoss_
as much size as you desire for your space
the pixel count needed for the highest quality source (preferably such that it allows passive 3D with at least 1920 x 1080p resolution)
perfect viewing angles from any practical viewing location
the least reflective, most-ambient rejecting viewing surface possible
freedom from image retention or burn-in
something I missed


A TV with all that seems not especially far away. Someone who owns one is so unlikely to seek an upgrade, even if "sick" like Ken. More importantly, the one reason why many of us still pray OLED makes it is that the only scenario it does is that it reaches price parity with LCD. And if it does that, we got a lot of that list for "free". It's what I've called the democratization of a videophile-quality picture. Sure, sure, some of the features will still be premium, but most will be "free" with OLED. Hopefully, that drives LCD to offer the same.


----------



## Ken Ross

Vinnie, I never said plasma was relegated to the 'dustbin of ancient technology' nor did I do by comparing this tech to LED/LCD. Can you point me to the post where I did so?


I think you are confusing my preference for the better LED/LCD with the denigrating of plasma technology. Those are not 'odd sentiments'. There's a significant difference. I've lived with both techs and found one I prefer. That's not the same as slamming plasma. You are totally misconstruing what I said.


As for a 65" 4K display, yes, you move your seating forward. I've faced greater challenges in life. I am still very undecided as to which way I'll go.


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> something I missed



longevity

reasonable price


----------



## Ken Ross

Mark, the speakers are a mixed blessing indeed. For den use, it would be ideal if those speakers can be utilized as a L/R pair or, perhaps a center in conjunction with a minimalist surround system. Sony has no info at the moment as to whether or not the unit accepts an audio input.


I'm guessing an MSRP of about $6-7K with typical street discounts.


As for your wish list, I agree if it was fulfilled by some display down the road, even a sicky like me might finally staple my wallet closed. Unfortunately, such will not be the case for my next display.










BTW, you might want to add to that list one item: 'must not come with anything resembling a Samsung easel stand'.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22883078
> 
> 
> Vinnie, I never said plasma was relegated to the 'dustbin of ancient technology' nor did I do by comparing this tech to LED/LCD. Can you point me to the post where I did so?
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing my preference for the better LED/LCD with the denigrating of plasma technology. Those are not 'odd sentiments'. There's a significant difference. I've lived with both techs and found one I prefer. That's not the same as slamming plasma. You are totally misconstruing what I said.
> 
> 
> As for a 65" 4K display, yes, you move your seating forward. I've faced greater challenges in life. I am still very undecided as to which way I'll go.


OK, so you did put "outdated" in quotes, so I might have misconstrued a tad, but the sentiment was still one of "not looking back" to Plasma, which is a sentiment I find odd given that it's still seeing developments and improvements. Moving closer to a display is trivial to a point, but if you want to get your premium's worth (for content that doesn't exist, now, I might add), it becomes a necessity.


----------



## Ken Ross

Vinnie, the sentiment was nothing more than I prefer LED/LCD to plasma. Stop reading more into this than there is. They're both great techs, I prefer one over the other. Isn't that what choice is all about?


Of course moving closer to a 4K display is the way to maximize the detail that's present, that's a given. I suspect that many people sit too far away from a 2K display to clearly differentiate 720p from 1080p. Is that trivial too?


----------



## vinnie97

It's just unfathomable to me (having left LCD behind in 2007...yes, I know, plenty of improvements since then, a few of its biggest faults have yet to be overcome). As to your question, I think you already said it best, diminishing returns, which are far greater for 4K than for 1080p. One can get away with resolving the majority of 1080p content of a 65" panel from 9 to 10 feet out, while you need to cut that in half for 4K not to mention the minimal actual content, which doesn't look to be changing very rapidly in 2013. Sure, you can see degrees of improvement between those two distances, but degrees would not be enough (for me) given the premium that 4K demands. Currently in ownership of a 50" panel, I'm much preferring the prospect of enjoying a 65" panel from 10 feet out.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22883170
> 
> 
> Mark, the speakers are a mixed blessing indeed. For den use, it would be ideal if those speakers can be utilized as a L/R pair or, perhaps a center in conjunction with a minimalist surround system. Sony has no info at the moment as to whether or not the unit accepts an audio input.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> All good thoughts... and it'll be interesting to know where the end result is on audio in. I could pass on 5.1 sound in my den, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> BTW, you might want to add to that list one item: 'must not come with anything resembling a Samsung easel stand'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! Or the "x" in shiny chrome!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22883110
> 
> 
> longevity
> 
> reasonable price
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed on both, although if it meets the rest of my checklist, "semi-reasonable" price will suffice.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Artwood

Can the Jupiter project save humanity from LCD?


Ken Ross: look--the Elite you have doesn't suck--but most LCDs do suck--you're going to see less and less local dimming sets and more and more edge lit crap! Who wants a world like that?


OLED isn't happening. Is it POSSIBLE to have better LCD? Yes--it's possible but it is not probable that LCD will match say a 65-inch VT-50 at a comparable price.


So what we really have to look forward to is CHINESE LCD. Whoope de doo!


Ask all the regular contributors at the plasma forum how thrilled they are at that prospect if there is no plasma alternative!


Ask all the Pioneer Kuro owners who are so busy LOVING their sets that they don't even post here at this forum.


Ad Rigo what i don't understand is this: at nearly every ENTHUSIAST site in the world they don't celebrate what's LESS than perfect.


In 1975 ENTHUSIASTS didn't celebrate the 1975 Corvette! Why should ANY video enthusiast on planet Earth celebrate ANY display henceforth produced with ANY technology if it can't beat out a KURO!


KUROs aren't perfect by any means--from an enthusiast's viewpoint ANY display that can't beat them in FUTURISTIC terms applied to the state of the Art simply SUCKS!


That INCLUDES 4K Chinese LCDs with viewing angles that will suck and will not have the contrast of Ken Ross' ELITE!


Look folks--I respect Rogo and Ken Ross--they've been here forever and know way more about video than I could ever even ask questions about. And I'm not saying they are doing this but some people are:


I'm not a dummy--I can read in between the lines--and I've noticed how this place works: there always seem to be a new group of experts that come out that correspond to whatever the AV Industry is trying to sell that makes them money but isn't that great!


Centuries before most people here were born we had people that claimed that VHS was better than Beta from Sony. They were always wrong and VHS sold more than Beta did.


I remember when there were people here trying to push rear projection LCD that you could SEE THROUGH as the best thing since sliced bread.


It always sucked and there were always all kind of Industry plant experts saying it was great.


Then there were the peoeple who said that it was WONDERFUL to pay for DLP bulbs--that SUCKED and look how many years it took for that to die out.


Then there were the Sony SXRD lovers who dreamed kind of like the SED lovers and the Qualia lovers the Laser DLP lovers and now the OLED lovers--the greatest was just around the corner and never got there.


Now all that's left is LCD which still SUCKS when viewed from the side and Panasonic PLASMA that SUCKS less but still doesn't cut it compared to the best Kuro.


Seems to me like unless you have a calibrated Kuro or are directly in front of Ken Ross' Elite or maybe if you aren't that picky and are over at Rogo's house and are looking at his 65-inch plasma then most probably you are viewing a display that SUCKS!


I'm not picky--I can live with Panasonic Plasma...but it is possible that I may be FORCED into an all LCD world!


I'm not the only plasma loving human being on planet Earth that PUKES at that prospect!


P.S. There may be only one thing left to survive such a dark age of LCD--Rogo said he had been able to live without a 60-inch display in his bedroom.


I'm not crazy--there are some things better than plasma TV!!!


----------



## vinnie97

^'Scuse my mancrush but that was full of awesome.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22884867
> 
> 
> Can the Jupiter project save humanity from LCD?
> 
> 
> Ken Ross: look--the Elite you have doesn't suck--but most LCDs do suck--you're going to see less and less local dimming sets and more and more edge lit crap! Who wants a world like that?



Art, I understand your angst, but things really aren't quite as bad as you make them out to be. Your BP is much higher than it needs to be, calm down.










As an example, your generalization about edge lit tech being crap is not quite accurate in all cases. Yes, full array is usually going to be the better and more costly design and yes, unfortunately we're seeing far less of it. With that said, edge lit designs are highly variable in both their implementation and ultimate success (or failure). Sony has/had a dynamic edge lit design in one of their panels that got exceptionally good reviews for dark screen uniformity, black levels and freedom from clouding. I recall one reviewer stating it could easily have been mistaken for a full array panel. Likewise the new 75" Samsung dynamic edge lit design is getting rave reviews by many for the same reasons, uniformity, freedom from clouding and great black levels.


So all is not lost even in edge lit designs when done properly. I agree that most edge lit panels leave much to be desired, but I prefer to focus on the better designs (I'm a glass 1/2 full kind of guy). I see evidence that the tech is getting better and manufacturers are addressing many of the initial shortcomings of edge lit designs. Are there still some lousy implementations out there? Sure. There are lousy plasmas, LED/LCDs, projection sets of different designs and we had many lousy CRTs too. No one tech is going to be consistently perfect IMO.


Even with OLED, do we know that all designs will be fabulous? Do we know that they will not have their own unique issues (aside from potential issues of longevity) that we're not aware of yet, since they're really not yet out in the wild, save small cellphone displays? Hell, my Samsung Galaxy S3 has a great OLED display, but I'll tell you this, I wouldn't want its color accuracy on my TV display. It's vivid, colorful and fun to look at it, but accuracy? Not so much. Do I care? No, it's a cellphone. So I'll reserve judgement even on OLED until I see a working, calibrated 'for sale' unit. Nothing, not even OLED, is a slam dunk.


----------



## greenland

Sony lays out the how their Super Top Emission OLED display functions.Panasonic's probably works the same way.


"a much more efficient means of utilizing the light produced by the organic material and this method offers lower power consumption and longer life."

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/oel_01.html 


"OLED self luminescent displays feature superb video image response times and stunningly vivid color reproduction. Sony has striven to enhance functionality even further with "Super Top Emission" technology. The following provides a look at the basic OLED principles and introduces Super Top Emission."


Use link to read the specific details, and view the charts.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5010#post_22885458
> 
> 
> Sony lays out the how their Super Top Emission OLED display functions.Panasonic's probably works the same way.
> 
> 
> "a much more efficient means of utilizing the light produced by the organic material and this method offers lower power consumption and longer life."
> 
> http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/oel_01.html
> 
> 
> "OLED self luminescent displays feature superb video image response times and stunningly vivid color reproduction. Sony has striven to enhance functionality even further with "Super Top Emission" technology. The following provides a look at the basic OLED principles and introduces Super Top Emission."
> 
> 
> Use link to read the specific details, and view the charts.



What's this? A post about OLED technology? What's that doing in the OLED technology thread?


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22885477
> 
> 
> What's this? A post about OLED technology? What's that doing in the OLED technology thread?



Here! Here!


And not bad for a company that was "supposedly" distancing themselves from OLED. Top emission, and RGB printing. Not bad at all.


----------



## rogo

I really thought the link to the Sony stuff was already in this thread. It's somewhere here in this sub-forum because we discussed it back a couple of weeks ago. But if it wasn't in this thread, it certainly should have been so, yeah. Greenland.


And as for Sony "distancing" themselves, it's more, "not nearing" themselves. They still haven't shown any commitment to investing the real money to produce anything. Showing off technology has _never_ been their problem.


----------



## homogenic

rogo, are the politics involved in new product boil down to financial incentive or are there other rarely discussed factors that come into play as well?


----------



## greenland

Panasonic and Sony have collaborated in the development of the product, and Panasonic has already stated that they intend to manufacture their own OLED panels; so Sony may end up purchasing panels from them down the road.



Panasonic closing LCD plant to start production on OLED and 4K tablet

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/49203/panasonic-replacing-lcd-factory-with-oled-production-facility 


"Eagle-eyed television lovers will have spotted that Panasonic has changed its LCD range to use passive 3D technology. Not because it particularly believes passive 3D is the best 3D display tech, but as a result of shutting down its own LCD panel manufacturing facility instead buying-in LCDs from LG.


Now we’ve also learnt that Panasonic is going to be using the former LCD factory to produce both the new 56-inch OLED TV it announced this week, and the 4k, 20-inch tablet. Plasma TV production is done elsewhere, and that plant won’t be closing any time soon, although the company did tell us that eventually it thinks OLED will replace both the existing display technologies.


That the firm has shut the factory already really does point to its getting started on mass-producing OLEDs. A spokesman told us that although there are no dates, Panasonic is confident it can produce TVs that use the technology and are significantly cheaper than the rivals.


Panasonic also says that OLED needs to be 4K because there’s really no point in selling this new tech with the resolutions of today."


----------



## vinnie97

They're saying all the right things, and they typically don't over-promise and under-deliver like *some* companies who will go unmentioned. Their confidence in Plasma in the near-term is also telling/reassuring.


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22888853
> 
> 
> They're saying all the right things, and they typically don't over-promise and under-deliver like *some* companies who will go unmentioned. Their confidence in Plasma in the near-term is also telling/reassuring.



*cough* Sony *cough*


I do however disagree with Panasonic when they say there's no point in manufacturing OLED with HD resoltuion. Maybe just a way to help them sleep at night since they're behind their Korean counterparts.


Though I do agree that 4K is the resolution of the foreseeable future.


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22888900
> 
> 
> *cough* Sony *cough*
> 
> 
> I do however disagree with Panasonic when they say there's no point in manufacturing OLED with HD resoltuion. Maybe just a way to help them sleep at night since they're behind their Korean counterparts.
> 
> 
> Though I do agree that 4K is the resolution of the foreseeable future.



Realistically producing OLED in 2K would be just fine. But there would be a *perceived* lack of appeal from the buying public that it's old tech because of being 2K. And even the more knowledgeable forum members here would probably have to do some soul searching to decide on whether to go with a 4K set or go with OLED, or just wait until they finally get 4K OLED combined. But if they truly have found a process to make OLED panels much cheaper then 4K OLED would be a no-brainer if you are in the market for the latest and greatest.


However, it probably is almost all marketing hype because a 4K set in a 56" size is almost completely useless unless you are using it for a very large computer monitor. I doubt many people are going to pull up their couch 2-3 feet away from that size set to get the effect of 4K upconversion.


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889070
> 
> 
> Realistically producing OLED in 2K would be just fine. But there would be a *perceived* lack of appeal from the buying public that it's old tech because of being 2K. And even the more knowledgeable forum members here would probably have to do some soul searching to decide on whether to go with a 4K set or go with OLED, or just wait until they finally get 4K OLED combined. But if they truly have found a process to make OLED panels much cheaper then 4K OLED would be a no-brainer if you are in the market for the latest and greatest.
> 
> 
> However, it probably is almost all marketing hype because a 4K set in a 56" size is almost completely useless unless you are using it for a very large computer monitor. I doubt many people are going to pull up their couch 2-3 feet away from that size set to get the effect of 4K upconversion.



At the moment, if I'm choosing from the available 4K sets, which are still just edge lit LED/LCD's, I think most on here would choose the OLED because in terms of PQ performance the OLED would blow them out of the water.


However the one "ehh" I sense with this is still the yield issues with OLED today. And if someone is spending a heavy chunk of change I can obviously see that you'd want reliability. But if we're talking purely performance I think the verdict is unanimous that as of today OLED trumps 4K.


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889132
> 
> 
> At the moment, if I'm choosing from the available 4K sets, which are still just edge lit LED/LCD's, I think most on here would choose the OLED because in terms of PQ performance the OLED would blow them out of the water.
> 
> 
> However the one "ehh" I sense with this is still the yield issues with OLED today. And if someone is spending a heavy chunk of change I can obviously see that you'd want reliability. But if we're talking purely performance I think the verdict is unanimous that as of today OLED trumps 4K.



I agree. However the gist of what I was reading in the Panasonic release was that they have a different manufacturing technique that will allow them to make it much cheaper than their rivals. That is making me assume that they have come up with a process where they don't have that 90% panel failure rate. If that assumption is true and they really are gearing up for mass production, then maybe it is feasible to predict $5000 70" OLED TV's in the next 4 or 5 years.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22887043
> 
> 
> rogo, are the politics involved in new product boil down to financial incentive or are there other rarely discussed factors that come into play as well?



I think it's almost always 90% financial, but 10% of it is a combination of prestige and strategy. With respect to OLED, LG and Samsung are hoping to move past profitless LCD making (or nearly profitless LCD making), but also capture unequivocally the crown as the technology leaders. But what you can see _clearly_ is they aren't just throwing billions into fabs and releasing products at prices _down the learning curve_ immediately to get there. Why? The 90%.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22888780
> 
> 
> Panasonic and Sony have collaborated in the development of the product, and Panasonic has already stated that they intend to manufacture their own OLED panels; so Sony may end up purchasing panels from them down the road.



The thing is, they are collaborating on the manufacturing technology, not technically the product. But what you see is a prototype of a product that is a result of that collaboration. As for Panasonic's "statement", I respectfully disagree such a statement has actually been made.


> Quote:
> Panasonic closing LCD plant to start production on OLED and 4K tablet
> 
> http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/49203/panasonic-replacing-lcd-factory-with-oled-production-facility
> 
> 
> "Eagle-eyed television lovers will have spotted that Panasonic has changed its LCD range to use passive 3D technology. Not because it particularly believes passive 3D is the best 3D display tech, but as a result of shutting down its own LCD panel manufacturing facility instead buying-in LCDs from LG.
> 
> 
> Now we’ve also learnt that Panasonic is going to be using the former LCD factory to produce both the new 56-inch OLED TV it announced this week, and the 4k, 20-inch tablet. Plasma TV production is done elsewhere, and that plant won’t be closing any time soon, although the company did tell us that eventually it thinks OLED will replace both the existing display technologies.
> 
> 
> That the firm has shut the factory already really does point to its getting started on mass-producing OLEDs. A spokesman told us that although there are no dates, Panasonic is confident it can produce TVs that use the technology and are significantly cheaper than the rivals.
> 
> 
> Panasonic also says that OLED needs to be 4K because there’s really no point in selling this new tech with the resolutions of today."



"Really does point to" doesn't mean they've decided a damn thing. This is the gap between hope and reality, the gap between what might be and what is. What is = Panasonic not producing a damn thing, not announcing a product, etc.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889136
> 
> 
> I agree. However the gist of what I was reading in the Panasonic release was that they have a different manufacturing technique that will allow them to make it much cheaper than their rivals. That is making me assume that they have come up with a process where they don't have that 90% panel failure rate. If that assumption is true and they really are gearing up for mass production, then maybe it is feasible to predict $5000 70" OLED TV's in the next 4 or 5 years.



So, kdog, the _idea_ is that printable OLEDs will use less material (less waste = cheap), allow for fewer bad panels than the Samsung method (better yield), etc. And, yes, that $5000, 70" OLED within 4-5 years is probably something resembling the goal. The panel they demoed, however, used a demo version of the manufacturing technology, not a production version of it. To build a factory based on it is probably a year or two away. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but does suggest they can't even _commit_ to such an idea right now until the technology underlying such a fab is further developed.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889070
> 
> 
> Realistically producing OLED in 2K would be just fine. But there would be a *perceived* lack of appeal from the buying public that it's old tech because of being 2K. And even the more knowledgeable forum members here would probably have to do some soul searching to decide on whether to go with a 4K set or go with OLED, or just wait until they finally get 4K OLED combined. But if they truly have found a process to make OLED panels much cheaper then 4K OLED would be a no-brainer if you are in the market for the latest and greatest.
> 
> 
> However, it probably is almost all marketing hype because a 4K set in a 56" size is almost completely useless unless you are using it for a very large computer monitor. I doubt many people are going to pull up their couch 2-3 feet away from that size set to get the effect of 4K upconversion.



10/10







. The point is that human visual system resolution depends on contrast. Thus a 2K OLED may well be seen as having better *perceived* resolution (that is 'sharpness' in common parlance) than a 4K LCD, at a reasonable viewing distance. But this, as you correctly notice, will not help OLED since public will be focused by marketing on 4K>2K.


4K makes sense in the living room typical viewing conditions with displays in the 100" range. Such size sounds gargantuan and horrendous but perhaps it is another level of visual adaptation like jumping from the 28" CRT to 65" LCD which I did and it looks now perfectly & obviously normal







.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889132
> 
> 
> But if we're talking purely performance I think the verdict is unanimous that as of today OLED trumps 4K.



It is? Interesting. I still find myself amazed that without a single available product out there, some have closed the book on even conducting real world comparisons with actual calibrated product.


Lousy science if you ask me. Does OLED hold tremendous promise for being the premiere display tech? Sure. Do we know for sure that a calibrated OLED will surpass the accuracy of the best of plasma and LED/LCD? No we don't. Do we know that OLED can produce jet blacks with in-your-face color, sometimes bordering on 'cartoony'? Yes we do.


If someone can point me to those tests I'd appreciate it. Until then, color me cautiously optimistic. But a slam dunk? IMO, not at this point.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889070
> 
> 
> However, it probably is almost all marketing hype because a 4K set in a 56" size is almost completely useless unless you are using it for a very large computer monitor. I doubt many people are going to pull up their couch 2-3 feet away from that size set to get the effect of 4K upconversion.



Isn't that an overstatement though? People can still see resolution effects, especially with motion, even if they can't quite pin down "why". There is a distinct diminishing returns at a certain point but it's hard to believe that it's 2 to 3 feet away for any realistic screen.


----------



## greenland

Panasonic is probably projecting that 4K will be the standard, with all 1080P displays sales numbers in decline, by the time they bring their OLED product to market. Optimistically, the earliest they may be able to start shipping any OLED TVs is 2015, and by then 4K might already have started to corner a good share of the market. Those of you who are saying you disagree with Panasonic's stated position that there would be not much point in going after the 1080P OLED market, are probably not taking into account that they will not be entering the market for at least a couple of years yet. By then they will know if LCD 4K has taken off or not, and they can then decide if they should also manufacture 1080P OLED panels or not. They just made a forward looking projection, which can always be subject to change, as they get closer to being able to ship product. If they discover that 1080P still dominates the market in 2015 or 2016 they can always switch to manufacturing 1080P OLED displays, in accordance with what future market demand numbers indicate to them.


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889602
> 
> 
> Isn't that an overstatement though? People can still see resolution effects, especially with motion, even if they can't quite pin down "why". There is a distinct diminishing returns at a certain point but it's hard to believe that it's 2 to 3 feet away for any realistic screen.



I had posted this chart on another thread, but it is very representative of what I saw when I viewd the 84" Sony 4K set in Houston. I had to get very close to that 84" screen to be able to tell it wasn't 1080P. The chart shows 9' but I had to get about 6 to see any real difference. According to the chart, the very maximum distance would be 6" to see 4K on a 56". But then you have to consider that most movies will be shown in 2:35:1 on your 1:78:1 TV which will make the overall picture smaller and it's that much closer you have to sit on top of it. All the 4K demos are full screen.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22890010
> 
> 
> I had posted this chart on another thread, but it is very representative of what I saw when I viewd the 84" Sony 4K set in Houston. I had to get very close to that 84" screen to be able to tell it wasn't 1080P. The chart shows 9' but I had to get about 6 to see any real difference. According to the chart, the very maximum distance would be 6" to see 4K on a 56". But then you have to consider that most movies will be shown in 2:35:1 on your 1:78:1 TV which will make the overall picture smaller and it's that much closer you have to sit on top of it. All the 4K demos are full screen.



Oh yes, thank you, I have seen that chart. (sigh) I have to state things that sound in concert with each other and also in opposition.


How much of this is an on-paper evaluation of static images (merely worrying about FOV of a single pixel), or honest to god side by side comparisons with groups of folks.
The eye is not a CCD nor CMOS array
The eye does not function as a static full frame at once machine
The eye/brain uses edges in extreme amounts to greatly affect apparent resolution
The eye/brain can detect things that are moving that it cannot when still.
I can't even get started past the tip of this iceberg.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889719
> 
> 
> Panasonic is probably projecting that 4K will be the standard, with all 1080P displays sales numbers in decline, by the time they bring their OLED product to market. Optimistically, the earliest they may be able to start shipping any OLED TVs is 2015, and by then 4K might already have started to corner a good share of the market. Those of you who are saying you disagree with Panasonic's stated position that there would be not much point in going after the 1080P OLED market, are probably not taking into account that they will not be entering the market for at least a couple of years yet. By then they will know if LCD 4K has taken off or not, and they can then decide if they should also manufacture 1080P OLED panels or not. They just made a forward looking projection, which can always be subject to change, as they get closer to being able to ship product. If they discover that 1080P still dominates the market in 2015 or 2016 they can always switch to manufacturing 1080P OLED displays, in accordance with what future market demand numbers indicate to them.



Thank you by the way for your relentless ferreting out of links. It's incredibly useful.


----------



## jlanzy


It would appear that a flexible OLED display large enough to replace projectors and their greater than 100" screens are a long ways off and since they are expected to be more expensive than glass rigid based ones the prices will likely be stratospheric if ever they approach those screen sizes. I guess I'll be upgrading my projector a few times more before this technology would be competing for it, at least in the sub $15K price range.


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889452
> 
> 
> It is? Interesting. I still find myself amazed that without a single available product out there, some have closed the book on even conducting real world comparisons with actual calibrated product.
> 
> 
> Lousy science if you ask me. Does OLED hold tremendous promise for being the premiere display tech? Sure. Do we know for sure that a calibrated OLED will surpass the accuracy of the best of plasma and LED/LCD? No we don't. Do we know that OLED can produce jet blacks with in-your-face color, sometimes bordering on 'cartoony'? Yes we do.
> 
> 
> If someone can point me to those tests I'd appreciate it. Until then, color me cautiously optimistic. But a slam dunk? IMO, not at this point.



Fair enough. I'm guess I'm just more interested at the moment of affordable OLED rather than affordable 4K. I've said before I'm excited for 4K and believe that it has the possibility to open up an entire realm of great things for AVS and etc. but I do believe that OLED has a greater potential upside.


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889452
> 
> 
> It is? Interesting. I still find myself amazed that without a single available product out there, some have closed the book on even conducting real world comparisons with actual calibrated product.
> 
> 
> Lousy science if you ask me. Does OLED hold tremendous promise for being the premiere display tech? Sure. Do we know for sure that a calibrated OLED will surpass the accuracy of the best of plasma and LED/LCD? No we don't. Do we know that OLED can produce jet blacks with in-your-face color, sometimes bordering on 'cartoony'? Yes we do.
> 
> 
> If someone can point me to those tests I'd appreciate it. Until then, color me cautiously optimistic. But a slam dunk? IMO, not at this point.


All current display tech are ***** footing around when it comes to contrast. There's a picture a here with three calibrated monitors from Sony. One's CRT, the others were LED (LCD), and OLED, all displaying black with white lettering, now I know you're not a pictures and video man, but, if any of what that picture promises is ten percent accurate for the real world, game over for everything else, improving on their close enough status.


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22890162
> 
> 
> Oh yes, thank you, I have seen that chart. (sigh) I have to state things that sound in concert with each other and also in opposition.
> 
> 
> How much of this is an on-paper evaluation of static images (merely worrying about FOV of a single pixel), or honest to god side by side comparisons with groups of folks.
> The eye is not a CCD nor CMOS array
> The eye does not function as a static full frame at once machine
> The eye/brain uses edges in extreme amounts to greatly affect apparent resolution
> The eye/brain can detect things that are moving that it cannot when still.
> I can't even get started past the tip of this iceberg.



That's true, that chart may only be representing static images. However, I can only go off what my own eyes told me when I saw the 84" in person. Watching the full screen demo at normal viewing distances, I saw nothing in the demo that stood out from regular 1080P. And this was a demo that had uncompressed 4K content that was specifically trying to showcase the differences in 4K and 2K. Now when you consider watching a movie on that screen in 2:35:1 ratio and showing normal content, I personally think the jump to 4K is going to be very marginal. And I'm not one of those blind viewers who can't see the difference between 720 and 1080







. I fully expected to be blown away by 4K before witnessing it. I was very surprised that the effect on PQ was negligible. I'm much more interested in OLED and would be just fine with it if they were only 2K.


----------



## Chronoptimist

Even with static images, your eye is never static. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade 


The Carlton Bale charts may be right in theory, but not in practice.


----------



## sstephen

When I look at that chart, the red line (full benefit of 1080p) would happen at about 11 feet for a 84" display. To me that means if you sit ANY closer, you'd start to derive some benefit to 2160p. Maybe not all. Why is it people frequently assume you have to sit close enough to reap all the benefit of resolution or it is a waste? When you watch your 1080 tv do you keep your head exactly at the distance required to get the "full benefit of 1080p", and never move closer or further away? If the owner of an 84" display wants to sit 8 feet from the screen, they'd need something like 1600p to get the full benefit, but that isn't going to happen. They'll have to get 2160 or drop back down to 1080.


I'm well aware that a lot of movies shot digitally in the last 10 years or so weren't shot @ 4k, and no television that I know of is being shot @ 4k, but content is a different question.


Also, that 1600p number I threw out was deduced from eyeballing the chart. Nothing fancier than that.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22890530
> 
> 
> Even with static images, your eye is never static. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade
> 
> 
> The Carlton Bale charts may be right in theory, but not in practice.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22890530
> 
> 
> Even with static images, your eye is never static. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade



Crap, I was hoping you wouldn't bring this up. I actually had written it as a point in this, but it really plants a seed for a horrifyingly long bifurcating tree of endless banter, so I erased it. Actually, I've attempted it more than once in the forum and erased it before posting.


I was really hoping not to get too far into it, because it's opening up a door for cranky argumentative types (not you) to pounce with misunderstanding of subtle points. The long and the short of it is yes, the eye does move, and you increase a sense of resolution and identification. There's all kinds of stuff that resembles mechanisms for shutting out motion blur frequencies and basically it's a topic absolutely no one but a neuro-scientist will even half understand. BTW, I once thought that the neurons themselves were designed to do a kind of FFT, in sort of the vague vague way we can detect two sounds together independently (just enormous in scope). Oh Christ, I can see another pounce coming. But the bottom line is you still do not gain the same level of micro object identification as you do when an objects moves even a seemingly small fov.


> Quote:
> The Carlton Bale charts may be right in theory, but not in practice.



I don't know much about how they formed that chart, but it does look like someone picked a threshold and mathematically extrapolated regions for it. I can see why there would be a level of belief in this: if there was a threshold (regardless of how it was determined) then it seems to follow that mathematically there'd be linear computations for it. If that *is* possible, I don't think we're anywhere near that level of resolution yet.


BTW, thank you for pointing me toward Jinc. I had skipped over that somehow in my background.


----------



## tgm1024

A question about LG's RGBW approach to this.


Do I read this right: They're using a "long life blue" (whatever that is) for each sub, to ignite a white "phosphor" to then be filtered to the color they want. Is the point of having the OLED's themselves all of the same type to ensure that they wear more evenly?


Would that allow to avoid a blue fade for a pixel, and deal with it as the entire pixel fading (all subpixels all blue), detect this(?) (resistance, or something), and ramp it up to compensate?


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889385
> 
> 
> 10/10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . The point is that human visual system resolution depends on contrast. Thus a 2K OLED may well be seen as having better *perceived* resolution (that is 'sharpness' in common parlance) than a 4K LCD, at a reasonable viewing distance. But this, as you correctly notice, will not help OLED since public will be focused by marketing on 4K>2K.
> 
> 
> 4K makes sense in the living room typical viewing conditions with displays in the 100" range. Such size sounds gargantuan and horrendous but perhaps it is another level of visual adaptation like jumping from the 28" CRT to 65" LCD which I did and it looks now perfectly & obviously normal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


That dirty tech, Plasma, has been superior at contrast for quite some time (with recent Sharp and Sony finally leveling the playing fields).


----------



## Artwood

Let ma ask this: say you have an 84" 4K LCD--I'm asking that size because 84" would be quite large for most people and let's just imagine that one day in the future enough people would be willing to buy 84" displays so that producing them makes economic sense:


At what distance away from the 84 inch screen would you get the MAXIMUM possible benefit of 4K?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889385
> 
> [...]100" range. Such size sounds gargantuan and horrendous but perhaps it is another level of visual adaptation like jumping from the 28" CRT to 65" LCD which I did and it looks now perfectly & obviously normal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



I thought that at first, but there's a distinct difference (limit) here. Living rooms aren't getting bigger. Living room walls aren't either.


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> Do I read this right: They're using a "long life blue" (whatever that is) for each sub, to ignite a white "phosphor" to then be filtered to the color they want.


Consensus is that they have a single subpixel type. A homogeneous layer covering the whole panel. I don't know if the "layer" is an integrated rgb or layered as in rgb one on top of the other, not side by side, then filters over top of that layer (side by side) to give you rgb and then another with no filter to give you white. So the emitting layer is the same for every subpixel, but the filter determines the end colour. I hope I explained that well enough for people to understand.


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> At what distance away from the 84 inch screen would you get the MAXIMUM possible benefit of 4K?


The purple line determines that. So a little over 5 ft.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22890885
> 
> 
> I thought that at first, but there's a distinct difference (limit) here. Living rooms aren't getting bigger. Living room walls aren't either.


A logical mind you have!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889452
> 
> 
> It is? Interesting. I still find myself amazed that without a single available product out there, some have closed the book on even conducting real world comparisons with actual calibrated product.



Step in and watch the closing doors! Oh, wait, the train hasn't even been built yet....


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889602
> 
> 
> Isn't that an overstatement though? People can still see resolution effects, especially with motion, even if they can't quite pin down "why". There is a distinct diminishing returns at a certain point but it's hard to believe that it's 2 to 3 feet away for any realistic screen.



The "anti-resolution" movement has decided the charts tell the story. When people actually _see_ something different, they are informed the charts say that's impossible. It is vaguely reminiscent of the Soviet Russia of history books.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22889719
> 
> 
> Panasonic is probably projecting that 4K will be the standard, with all 1080P displays sales numbers in decline, by the time they bring their OLED product to market. Optimistically, the earliest they may be able to start shipping any OLED TVs is 2015, and by then 4K might already have started to corner a good share of the market. Those of you who are saying you disagree with Panasonic's stated position that there would be not much point in going after the 1080P OLED market, are probably not taking into account that they will not be entering the market for at least a couple of years yet. By then they will know if LCD 4K has taken off or not, and they can then decide if they should also manufacture 1080P OLED panels or not. They just made a forward looking projection, which can always be subject to change, as they get closer to being able to ship product. If they discover that 1080P still dominates the market in 2015 or 2016 they can always switch to manufacturing 1080P OLED displays, in accordance with what future market demand numbers indicate to them.



It's a gonna be a good week. I get on AVS on a Monday and Greenland is just making a lot of sense. A lot of sense.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22890530
> 
> 
> Even with static images, your eye is never static. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade
> 
> 
> The Carlton Bale charts may be right in theory, but not in practice.



Oh dear, Chron, you're questioning the charts! The chart police are coming!!!!


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22890768
> 
> 
> A question about LG's RGBW approach to this.
> 
> 
> Do I read this right: They're using a "long life blue" (whatever that is) for each sub, to ignite a white "phosphor" to then be filtered to the color they want. Is the point of having the OLED's themselves all of the same type to ensure that they wear more evenly?
> 
> 
> Would that allow to avoid a blue fade for a pixel, and deal with it as the entire pixel fading (all subpixels all blue), detect this(?) (resistance, or something), and ramp it up to compensate?



The point of the blue in the LG is that since you never see the blue they are using -- because it exists only as part of a white-light sandwich -- they can use a blue that someone making a "standard" RGB OLED with triplet pixel could not use. The LG blue as such need only be sufficiently in the right wavelengths to yield a white light from the OLED panel. It's a fluorescent blue (if memory serves) that might look odd if you saw it directly on, but you never will. Samsung uses a different blue, since it's directly exposed to the user that is more natural looking but without the longevity.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22890969
> 
> 
> Consensus is that they have a single subpixel type. A homogeneous layer covering the whole panel. I don't know if the "layer" is an integrated rgb or layered as in rgb one on top of the other, not side by side, then filters over top of that layer (side by side) to give you rgb and then another with no filter to give you white. So the emitting layer is the same for every subpixel, but the filter determines the end colour. I hope I explained that well enough for people to understand.



So I'll try this again:

*The whole point is that the LG has a homogeneous layer of OLED, or more accurately three of them.* If it had R, G, and B side by side, it would be a traditional OLED and would not benefit from the color filtering. Instead, the deposit the three layers of red, green, and blue on top of each other without any pixel patterning of any kind. Imagine making a peanut butter, jelly and cream cheese sandwich with three really nice even layers. But since OLED material is transparent, unlike your peanut butter, whenever a pixel is lit up, it lights up all three layers.


Now, here's the part where it gets tricky.


On the bottom "bread", there are 8 million sub pixels. One for R, G, B and W for each of the 2 million pixels that make up an HD image. On the top bread, there are the color filters _and those are patterned_ so you have a pixel "quadruplet" of R, G, B, and clear for each of the main pixel. When you call for, say, yellow at pixel 500,1000, here's what happens.


1) The green sub-pixel on the backplane gets current at 500,1000.

2) The red sub-pixel also does.

3) The RGB "sandwich" at 500,1000 for _both_ the red and green sub pixels gets current. These sub pixels on the OLED layer are amorphous and not defined, but that's fine because the transistors will deliver the current in a very narrow area and so the amount of excess OLED material illuminating will be virtually nothing.

4) Since the sandwich is lit up behind the tiny fleck of red and green color filter at 500,1000, you will get yellow light (R + G = yellow). And those sub-pixels will be nice and sharp-edged because the color filter is precisely "cut" on the front of the display.


Now, the key is that in Step 3, every time a sub-pixel is used, the RGB sandwich all lights up. It might only go to 128 of 255, or to 200 or to 14, but it's all on or all off. There is no differential wear. There is, however, no "ramping up" the blue over time either. It would not even be possible with this design since the blue layer -- like the red and green layers -- has no pixels. If the blue dies off faster, the display would only be able to compensate through odd hacking of the color management and that wouldn't work very well for very long.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5000_100#post_22890768
> 
> 
> A question about LG's RGBW approach to this.
> 
> 
> Do I read this right: They're using a "long life blue" (whatever that is) for each sub, to ignite a white "phosphor" to then be filtered to the color they want. Is the point of having the OLED's themselves all of the same type to ensure that they wear more evenly?
> 
> 
> Would that allow to avoid a blue fade for a pixel, and deal with it as the entire pixel fading (all subpixels all blue), detect this(?) (resistance, or something), and ramp it up to compensate?


It's my understanding that they're essentially just using white OLEDs with RGB color filters on top to create color, so it has some similarities with LCD in that regard.


But rather than simply having a "white" OLED layer, they are using layered RGB OLEDs to create the white, and they have a fourth unfiltered "white" subpixel to help improve brightness of the display.

This allows them to use a blue which is more resilient, but does not produce accurate color. This doesn't matter though, because it is filtered before you see it.


So it won't stop the blue OLEDs fading, but all subpixels will experience it uniformly, rather than only the blue subpixel showing uneven wear compared to the red and green subpixels.

Another thing which they have not discussed, that may also be a factor - especially if they are using black frame insertion - is that it will keep the response time of all the subpixels equal. With RGB OLED, there is the _potential_ for mis-matched response times which could potentially lead to color separation like Plasmas experience. ("Phosphor lag") I think that is unlikely though, as OLED response times should be at least an order of magnitude faster than the phosphors used in Plasma displays. If mis-matched response times are a factor at all, I would expect it to act more like a direct-view CRT display, where you did not experience that problem.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5000_100#post_22890682
> 
> 
> Crap, I was hoping you wouldn't bring this up. I actually had written it as a point in this, but it really plants a seed for a horrifyingly long bifurcating tree of endless banter, so I erased it. Actually, I've attempted it more than once in the forum and erased it before posting.
> 
> 
> I was really hoping not to get too far into it, because it's opening up a door for cranky argumentative types (not you) to pounce with misunderstanding of subtle points. The long and the short of it is yes, the eye does move, and you increase a sense of resolution and identification. There's all kinds of stuff that resembles mechanisms for shutting out motion blur frequencies and basically it's a topic absolutely no one but a neuro-scientist will even half understand. BTW, I once thought that the neurons themselves were designed to do a kind of FFT, in sort of the vague vague way we can detect two sounds together independently (just enormous in scope). Oh Christ, I can see another pounce coming. But the bottom line is you still do not gain the same level of micro object identification as you do when an objects moves even a seemingly small fov.


Well I won't press the matter any further, but I was under the impression that while it's not the same as detecting motion in the scene, it was still contributing to essentially seeing more resolution than you would expect if it were truly static.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5000_100#post_22890682
> 
> 
> BTW, thank you for pointing me toward Jinc. I had skipped over that somehow in my background.


No problem.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5000_100#post_22890635
> 
> 
> When I look at that chart, the red line (full benefit of 1080p) would happen at about 11 feet for a 84" display. To me that means if you sit ANY closer, you'd start to derive some benefit to 2160p. Maybe not all. Why is it people frequently assume you have to sit close enough to reap all the benefit of resolution or it is a waste? When you watch your 1080 tv do you keep your head exactly at the distance required to get the "full benefit of 1080p", and never move closer or further away? If the owner of an 84" display wants to sit 8 feet from the screen, they'd need something like 1600p to get the full benefit, but that isn't going to happen. They'll have to get 2160 or drop back down to 1080.


That's a good point, and something most people overlook. Even if you assumed the chart to be true, it still shows that when you get closer than 11ft, you start to see the benefits of 4K over 1080p.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5000_100#post_22891179
> 
> 
> If it had R, G, and B side by side, it would be a traditional OLED and would not benefit from the color filtering.


Not meaning to nitpick, or be argumentative, but that's exactly what Sony's Super Top Emission is all about - using color filters over RGB OLED to improve efficiency, color purity, contrast, and ambient light rejection.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22890302
> 
> 
> All current display tech are ***** footing around when it comes to contrast. There's a picture a here with three calibrated monitors from Sony. One's CRT, the others were LED (LCD), and OLED, all displaying black with white lettering, now I know you're not a pictures and video man, but, if any of what that picture promises is ten percent accurate for the real world, game over for everything else, improving on their close enough status.



So let me get this straight, we have the best of LED/LCD that are capable of producing retina-burning full-screen whites and, at the same time, blacks that make it difficult to see where the picture ends and the bezel begins. Yes, in a totally darkened room you can just see that border, but it's really not all that obvious. So what I'm saying is we already have a CR that has so much headroom, it's not even used. Most calibrated LED/LCDs are not being driven at anywhere near their full-screen brightness potentials. So I'm not sure how this is '***** footing'. What am I missing?


Also keep in mind that it's not very difficult for manufacturers to conduct demos demonstrating how much better one tech is than the other by not setting up the 'inferior' tech properly. It's done all the time.


----------



## RichB

Panasonic is absolutely right.

How can you sell a high-end display in the showroom when the other displays have 4K in gigantic letters.


Ultimately, you have to sell these things.

We all know it is not all about quality.


- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22891179
> 
> 
> Now, the key is that in Step 3, every time a sub-pixel is used, the RGB sandwich all lights up. It might only go to 128 of 255, or to 200 or to 14, but it's all on or all off. There is no differential wear. There is, however, no "ramping up" the blue over time either. It would not even be possible with this design since the blue layer -- like the red and green layers -- has no pixels. If the blue dies off faster, the display would only be able to compensate through odd hacking of the color management and that wouldn't work very well for very long.




Yikes.


1. Now I'm really confused. I had thought that they were igniting a white from *only* a blue (pre-filter), but apparently not.


Here's a diagram of the LG subpixels side by side from cnet, showing the RGB stacking to make the white first before the filtering. They're not showing blue->white, which I thought was reported, they're showing what you were talking about: the RGB stack _is_ white (and then filtered), the standard additive light color model under the filter:
 

Is this right?


2. An off beat question about the use of white in WRGB (you and chron are likely to know this I'm betting). In simple RGB color models, there's something called the "Gray Component". For any given R, G, and B value (usually weighted) it's the smallest number of the 3 of them. (so 64/128/192 has a gray component of 64, since all three in concert at any value, is a value of gray). Do you suppose that the white is always lit then with that gray component, and perhaps optionally the gray component is then subtracted from the other colors? So a full white screen is either all 4 sub pixels on, or just the W. A light pink (R:255 / G:192 / B:192) might be (R:64 / G:0 / B:0 / W:192)?


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by sstephen
> 
> 
> Consensus is that they have a single subpixel type. A homogeneous layer covering the whole panel. I don't know if the "layer" is an integrated rgb or layered as in rgb one on top of the other, *not side by side*, then filters over top of that layer (side by side) to give you rgb and then another with no filter to give you white. So the emitting layer is the same for every subpixel, but the filter determines the end colour. I hope I explained that well enough for people to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> So I'll try this again:
> 
> 
> The whole point is that the LG has a homogeneous layer of OLED, or more accurately three of them. If it had R, G, and B side by side, it would be a traditional OLED and would not benefit from the color filtering. Instead, the deposit the three layers of red, green, and blue on top of each other without any pixel patterning of any kind. Imagine making a peanut butter, jelly and cream cheese sandwich with three really nice even layers. But since OLED material is transparent, unlike your peanut butter, whenever a pixel is lit up, it lights up all three layers.
Click to expand...


I don't see anything in my post that disagreed with what you wrote, other than I wasn't sure whether they used 3 separate layers or one. I'm wondering what you might have written if it had


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22891230
> 
> 
> 
> Not meaning to nitpick, or be argumentative, but that's exactly what Sony's Super Top Emission is all about - using color filters over RGB OLED to improve efficiency, color purity, contrast, and ambient light rejection.



Sony will get ambient-light rejection and might get "purer" colors. But it can't possibly improve efficiency by filtering light. That doesn't make any sense.


What they claim -- and wow there is no documentation of the claim -- is that "traditional" RGB wastes light by going _through_ the TFT backplane and needs a polarizer (think Samsung), while they can get by with color filters and no polarizer. And in that manner, they "waste" less light and get by with less power (presumably than Samsung). I was not aware before reading this that Samsung's design even used a polarizer nor that it was "bottom emission". In fact, _I don't believe it does_. I think Sony is comparing "super top emission" to some AMOLED display that might have existed in the past but no longer does. Every Google reference to Samsung AMOLEDs I can find seems to imply they are top emission devices. It's possible that Samsung uses a polarizer for ambient rejection and Sony's design is still superior in many ways, but it doesn't seem like bottom emission is being used anywhere. But I'm open to rebuttals for that belief; it was a quick set of searches.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22891577
> 
> 
> Panasonic is absolutely right.
> 
> How can you sell a high-end display in the showroom when the other displays have 4K in gigantic letters.
> 
> 
> Ultimately, you have to sell these things.
> 
> We all know it is not all about quality.



Spot on.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22890010
> 
> 
> I had posted this chart on another thread, but it is very representative of what I saw when I viewd the 84" Sony 4K set in Houston. I had to get very close to that 84" screen to be able to tell it wasn't 1080P. The chart shows 9' but I had to get about 6 to see any real difference. According to the chart, the very maximum distance would be 6" to see 4K on a 56". But then you have to consider that most movies will be shown in 2:35:1 on your 1:78:1 TV which will make the overall picture smaller and it's that much closer you have to sit on top of it. All the 4K demos are full screen.



My bet is that 2-3 years from now any LCD 65" and above will be 4K unless you shop at Costco/Walmart for their bottom end set in those sizes.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22891690
> 
> 
> Sony will get ambient-light rejection and might get "purer" colors. But it can't possibly improve efficiency by filtering light. That doesn't make any sense.
> 
> 
> What they claim -- and wow there is no documentation of the claim -- is that "traditional" RGB wastes light by going _through_ the TFT backplane and needs a polarizer (think Samsung), while they can get by with color filters and no polarizer. And in that manner, they "waste" less light and get by with less power (presumably than Samsung).



No, I could be wrong, but I don't believe that's what sony is saying. There is an efficiency issue by discarding waves that subtract other ones. I'll have to ask my color scientist friend about this---he's on the bleeding edge of this degree of optics.


From the quote below, it looks like (I am guessing, mind you) Sony is trying to effectively "tune" the anode/cathode distances so that the only light that really wants to escape are the waves that peak at the same time. Basically the ones that are not only the same precise frequency, but also likely the ones in phase. I believe the reason for this might be because when you have subtle out of phase (and varying wavelength) added together, you end up with them subtracting each other.


It sort of reminds me of tuned exhaust on a car. Trying to line it up with the pulse precisely.


I'll put in bold why I think this:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sony*
> 
> The microcavity structure utilizes light *resonance effects* between the two electrodes. Red, Green and Blue all have different light wavelengths. Therefore the thickness of the organic film corresponding to each color is adjusted to produce the *spectral peak wavelength (the optimum light) for each color*. *Only light that possesses the same wavelength as the distance* between the "cathode electrode semitransparent film" and the "anode electrode reflective film" *resonates*. Light wavelengths that do not match are weakened. As a result, *the spectrum of the extracted light is sharpened* while brightness and color purity are enhanced. This ensures the strongest light from each color.



There's an entire field related to electrical resonance that I don't fully understand......it's part of how transmitters work.


----------



## mr. wally

i was away for the weekend and wasn't following this thread.



the last 3 pages here contain more cogent information about the current state of video display science that i have read in a very long time


many thanks to our contributing members.


a very good read indeed.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22891577
> 
> 
> Panasonic is absolutely right.
> 
> How can you sell a high-end display in the showroom when the other displays have 4K in gigantic letters.
> 
> 
> Ultimately, you have to sell these things.
> 
> We all know it is not all about quality.
> 
> 
> - Rich



I need to read more of these posts, it makes shopping for my next display so much easier. I can now rule out 4K since it seems they're all of poor quality.


OLED here I come, cartoony or not.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22892034
> 
> 
> I need to read more of these posts, it makes shopping for my next display so much easier. I can now rule out 4K since it seems they're all of poor quality.
> 
> 
> OLED here I come, cartoony or not.



I wonder if I can get a discount on a 4:3 480p OLED....


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22892041
> 
> 
> I wonder if I can get a discount on a 4:3 480p OLED....



I suspect some here would choose them over the best 4K displays.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22891825
> 
> 
> No, I could be wrong, but I don't believe that's what sony is saying. There is an efficiency issue by discarding waves that subtract other ones. I'll have to ask my color scientist friend about this---he's on the bleeding edge of this degree of optics.
> 
> 
> From the quote below, it looks like (I am guessing, mind you) Sony is trying to effectively "tune" the anode/cathode distances so that the only light that really wants to escape are the waves that peak at the same time. Basically the ones that are not only the same precise frequency, but also likely the ones in phase. I believe the reason for this might be because when you have subtle out of phase (and varying wavelength) added together, you end up with them subtracting each other.
> 
> 
> It sort of reminds me of tuned exhaust on a car. Trying to line it up with the pulse precisely.
> 
> 
> There's an entire field related to electrical resonance that I don't fully understand......it's part of how transmitters work.



TGM, I'm going to just accept that everything you wrote is mostly true as pertains to what I'm writing next:


It still doesn't prove Samsung is doing bottom emission and I don't believe they are. And Sony is claiming bottom emission = bad like "everyone else" is doing it when it seems like that idea has already been discredited.


Now it's possible that some of Sony's voodoo is why they don't need a polarizer and it's possible that Samsung still needs one. Other than ambient rejection, however, I can't see why that would be true. You don't need to polarize the light coming out; the only reason LCDs do that at all is because LC material can't block non-polarized light.


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22892041
> 
> 
> I wonder if I can get a discount on a 4:3 480p OLED....


I would have loved to replace my old 20-inch Sony CRT that I keep for SD viewing with 30-inch 4:3 480p OLED.


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22891272
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, we have the best of LED/LCD that are capable of producing retina-burning full-screen whites and, at the same time, blacks that make it difficult to see where the picture ends and the bezel begins. Yes, in a totally darkened room you can just see that border, but it's really not all that obvious. So what I'm saying is we already have a CR that has so much headroom, it's not even used. Most calibrated LED/LCDs are not being driven at anywhere near their full-screen brightness potentials. So I'm not sure how this is '***** footing'. What am I missing?
> 
> 
> Also keep in mind that it's not very difficult for manufacturers to conduct demos demonstrating how much better one tech is than the other by not setting up the 'inferior' tech properly. It's done all the time.


You win Ken, I'll say no more.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22893007
> 
> 
> You win Ken, I'll say no more.



Homogenic, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm merely trying to present the other side. I think it's too easy to bash other techs, that at their best are excellent, in anticipation of a new tech that has yet to truly prove itself.


I'd like nothing better than to have 70" 4K OLED at affordable prices, which lives up to everyone's expectations. But we've got a long way to go before arriving at that station.


----------



## mfogarty5

For those of you like rogo who have seen the newest OLED displays, do they flicker like CRTs and plasmas? There was a discussion about flicker in this thread back in 2009 and it was mentioned that the Sony OLED did flicker. I see flicker in CRTs, plasmas and even an LED LCD iMac below brightness level 5.


And yes artwood I manage to live with the "horror" that is our old school CCFL Sony XBR5! The motion resolution isn't the best but it doesn't flicker and I can watch a daytime football game without staring at my reflection! And get this, I debated between the XBR5 and the Kuro and chose the XBR5 over the Kuro and don't regret it! (well my panel hasn't delaminated yet and I reserve the right to regret it if it does).










Anyway, I would like to know if OLEDs flicker.


----------



## Artwood

Does anyone know if 4K LCD sucks when viewed from the side?


If it's taking so long to iron out OLEDs problems is there any chance that in the meantime--say 2014 through 2017 that Panasonic might break down--use the patents it bought from Pioneer- -and show all the people around here a better than Kuro TV?


It wouldn't be the greatest but it might just beat OLED that doesn't exist and Chinese 4K LCD!


Is it true that when a TV beats out Kuro that it will be the end of the universe?


I think the universe will end when they broadcast Wrestlemania LXIX!


----------



## rogo

I'm not very flicker sensitive. But I don't feel the OLEDs being demoed have flicker problems.


As for "side viewing", the viewing angles are pretty excellent. The Samsung is marginally weaker than the LG in my opinion, but it's not an important deal. I think the viewer cone exceeds the practical viewing area, i.e. you wouldn't want to watch from anywhere the picture doesn't look great.


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22888853
> 
> 
> They're saying all the right things, and they typically don't over-promise and under-deliver like *some* companies who will go unmentioned. Their confidence in Plasma in the near-term is also telling/reassuring.


You mean except for th 4 years in a row panasonic lied about the mll increase huh?


Panasonic makes razors too. They are no better than any other big company.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22894211
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if 4K LCD sucks when viewed from the side?



Actually Art, I've heard the viewing angles of the new 4K LED/LCDs are so good, their picture is perfect when the display is viewed from the back. Perfect 360 degree viewing. Are you devastated?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22890877
> 
> 
> Let ma ask this: say you have an 84" 4K LCD--I'm asking that size because 84" would be quite large for most people and let's just imagine that one day in the future enough people would be willing to buy 84" displays so that producing them makes economic sense: At what distance away from the 84 inch screen would you get the MAXIMUM possible benefit of 4K?



This depends on how you understand the MAXIMUM. There is here a factor in the viewing scenario. Say, you may go to the cinema and see a movie sitting at a distance of 1.5PH and be very satisfied soaking all 4K pixels. But this scenario is for occasional and not for any normal TV viewing, it is too close. On the other hand it is known that even under stringent conditions benefits of 4K are lost at 3PH and typically at >2.5PH. Thus, for typical TV viewing distance around 2.5PH seems to be very natural. But 2.5PH is still rather too close for normal living room. The only solution is then to increase the display size to the range of 100". The cost is of course the size but otherwise the 4K pixels are not lost and living room sitting place is not too close to the wall. You may wish to consult Sony expert document on the 4K .


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5040#post_22890885
> 
> 
> I thought that at first, but there's a distinct difference (limit) here. Living rooms aren't getting bigger. Living room walls aren't either.



True, not everybody has a free wall in the living room of size capable to fit 100 incher flagships. I bet majority those who would be serious to commit to such a beast do not suffer from tight places but rather lack of money is a temporary problem before prices drop (including me







). So in the end, 4K is stupid for the living room TV scenario unless one buys 110" with which it seems to make sense







.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22894685
> 
> 
> This depends on how you understand the MAXIMUM. There is here a factor in the viewing scenario. Say, you may go to the cinema and see a movie sitting at a distance of 1.5PH and be very satisfied soaking all 4K pixels.



Sounds pretty acidic.










PH is "Panel Height" or "Picture Height"? I'm more comfortable with arcseconds per pixel.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22894685
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*
> 
> I thought that at first, but there's a distinct difference (limit) here. Living rooms aren't getting bigger. Living room walls aren't either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, not everybody has a free wall in the living room of size capable to fit 100 incher flagships. I bet majority those who would be serious to commit to such a beast do not suffer from tight places but rather lack of money is a temporary problem before prices drop (including me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). So in the end, 4K is stupid for the living room TV scenario unless one buys 110" with which it seems to make sense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


LOL. I see the logic knot you tied there. Well played.










But regardless, as monster panel prices descend over time, there will be an increase in monster panels, but only approaching the limits of the aggregate (average) wall in people's houses. Even if 110" were given away free in the streets (might be 2016? Ha!) there would be a significant number of people buying smaller panels.


That all said, there are some here in AVSforum who wouldn't be happy until they bought a 500 foot JumboTron, and then installed it far in the back of their yard to keep the FOV normal.


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22891805
> 
> 
> My bet is that 2-3 years from now any LCD 65" and above will be 4K unless you shop at Costco/Walmart for their bottom end set in those sizes.



Well as stated before, analysts expect 0.8% market penetration of 4K TV's by the year 2017. I personally don't think this is large enough a number to drastically lower production costs or drive 4K content. If those numbers are even close to correct, then we might be looking at more than a ten year wait until you can get a reasonably priced large 4K set with adequate 4K content.


The one thing that can speed this all up though is the Chinese entering the U.S. TV market with large cheap 4K panels. If they can do this without them being complete junk, it will definitely influence the rate of market penetration. The vast majority of the buying public has already shown they are far more interested in low cost instead of picture quality. The major manufacturers had better do something quick to distinguish themselves from the Chinese (OLED) or they are going to potentially be in a position of not being able to compete.


----------



## Ken Ross

I think they said the same thing about HD kdog. In fact many thought it would fail. So I'm not sure I agree with your time frame.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22895415
> 
> 
> I think they said the same thing about HD kdog. In fact many thought it would fail. So I'm not sure I agree with your time frame.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2



That may be so but there is a huge difference between then and now. The move to HD was basically a mandate pushing the networks off analog so it could be used by the government. Here we have strictly market forces pushing sales which will likely be a lot slower. But as I added in my edit, the whole Chinese situation could greatly influence what happens. It's strictly a best guess on my part though. The move to HD was very quick, however, I am very surprised at how static improvements to picture quality have been over the last 5 years. And with the exception of a very small handful of sets, PQ has actually taken a step backwards.


----------



## kdog750

Yea sorry, I meant that the mandate created a flood of digital HD content which helped drive sales for HD TV's. For 4K, you have content providers waiting on 4K TV's to start selling in volume while 4K sets won't sell in volume until adequate 4K content is available. Kind of a slow creeping process IMO unless the Chinese flood the market with cheap 4K panels that rival the cost of Samsung/Sony 2K sets. Then again, I am just thinking out loud, not trying to be stubborn on a fixated idea.


I'll be staying with the Elite. My next TV will be 64K with holographic 4D and Smell-o-vision


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22895307
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*
> 
> My bet is that 2-3 years from now any LCD 65" and above will be 4K unless you shop at Costco/Walmart for their bottom end set in those sizes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well as stated before, analysts expect 0.8% market penetration of 4K TV's by the year 2017.
Click to expand...


You guys might not be referring to the same thing.


Are they using standard market segment analysis terminology for that number? In other words, do they mean 0.8% installed base (in people's home), or 0.8% marketed (and for sale) in 2017. I think the latter number to be very very unlikely and much too small. I'm only guessing of course, but by 2017, the percentage of sets on the shelves that are UHD will be much higher than 0.8%.


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22895894
> 
> 
> You guys might not be referring to the same thing.
> 
> 
> Are they using standard market segment analysis terminology for that number? In other words, do they mean 0.8% installed base (in people's home), or 0.8% marketed (and for sale) in 2017. I think the latter number to be very very unlikely and much too small. I'm only guessing of course, but by 2017, the percentage of sets on the shelves that are UHD will be much higher than 0.8%.



Well, here's one link on it. There are a ton of them if you google it but I'm sure they are just giving their best estimate as well.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/4k-tv-shipments-rise-2-103101036.html


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22895985
> 
> 
> Well, here's one link on it. There are a ton of them if you google it but I'm sure they are just giving their best estimate as well.
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/4k-tv-shipments-rise-2-103101036.html



Well color me naive then. It just seems that from 2013 to 2017 is an eternity in high-tech, even with all the fab issues, and 0.8 percent shipped seems *vanishingly* small.


That's only 1 in every 125 shipments.


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22896003
> 
> 
> Well color me naive then. It just seems that from 2013 to 2017 is an eternity in high-tech, even with all the fab issues, and 0.8 percent shipped seems *vanishingly* small.
> 
> 
> That's only 1 in every 125 shipments.



One point I just realized upon reading some of these articles is they continue to say 0.8% of *global* shipments. Does that mean that U.S. sales might be 10-20% while the rest of the world is playing catch up? I suppose that leaves a huge amount of room for speculation.


And yes, 4 years *can* be an eternity in high tech. But not always.


Let's consider the last 5 years in TV tech and PQ improvements. 5 years ago, We were just starting to move away from CCFL into edge lit LED/LCD's. Edge lit had the advantage of being thinner, but not better PQ. The Pioneer Kuro had just entered the market place and still to this day is considered the best PQ set in existance by many. Local dimming technology had hit the marketplace as well. Now, 5 years later all that has happened is we now have 3D which most consider a gimmick. The Kuro has disappeared. Edge lit sets rule the LCD world as the local dimming sets are starting to stop production. The VT50 plasma was introduced which is considered a good set but still no Kuro. To me there has been very little advancement in television tech in the last 5 years unless you want to count 3D, which I don't personally


----------



## Whatstreet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22895747
> 
> 
> As far as the static nature of PQ is concerned, people may not like to admit it, but the better displays are more than enough for the overwhelming majority of the public. Add to that the fact that we're getting so close to the limits of visual acuity (barring 200" displays) and *there simply isn't a ton of room for significant improvements*.



Except for viewing angle, contrast ratio, motion blur, image uniformity, image retention and a number of other things.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22894508
> 
> 
> You mean except for th 4 years in a row panasonic lied about the mll increase huh?
> 
> 
> Panasonic makes razors too. They are no better than any other big company.


For the sets from 2009-2011? I agree that casts a shadow on their reputation of recent.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22896098
> 
> 
> One point I just realized upon reading some of these articles is they continue to say 0.8% of *global* shipments. Does that mean that U.S. sales might be 10-20% while the rest of the world is playing catch up? I suppose that leaves a huge amount of room for speculation.
> 
> 
> And yes, 4 years *can* be an eternity in high tech. But not always.
> 
> 
> Let's consider the last 5 years in TV tech and PQ improvements. 5 years ago, We were just starting to move away from CCFL into edge lit LED/LCD's. Edge lit had the advantage of being thinner, but not better PQ. The Pioneer Kuro had just entered the market place and still to this day is considered the best PQ set in existance by many. Local dimming technology had hit the marketplace as well. Now, 5 years later all that has happened is we now have 3D which most consider a gimmick.



No, you might have just accidentally made my own argument for me. If 5 years ago is the stake in the sand, and you wish to make that the inception moment for edge-lit, then lets go with it. Did 4 years after that stake in the sand result in only 0.8% of shipments being edgelit?


The analogy is to some degree apples and oranges before we even start, but it still seems to me that 0.8% is remarkably low. Four years? 1 in 125? Really?


----------



## rogo

TGM, I think the forecast is probably wrong, too, but keep in mind:


1) No TV under 50" will have 4K, even by 2017.


2) The 50" and up market is currently only about 10% of the the total TV market.


3) Even if we figure that doubling, it still leaves 80% of the TVs _below_ 50" in 2017.


4) The reason the unit totals are so much bigger below 50" is because _in aggregate_ the world doesn't demand big TVs. That's not just because emerging economics have so many more people than we do -- of course they do -- but because there are lots of secondary spaces for TVs as well as primary places. Then you add in the people for whom the primary TV is 46" or below (and in the U.S., 46" is still the most popular size!).


5) Mathematically, it leaves a small slice of the market for advanced technologies to emerge.


So let's say the forecast is doubly pessimistic: 50" and up is still under 10% and only 1 in 10 has 4K. Both of those seem pretty likely to prove false, _most especially the latter_. Over a 5-year period, with incremental cost approaching of 4K approaching zero, it should reach all the top end and most mid-range sets. So it should only fail to be in *entry-level sets over 50"*.


That said, when I do that math, I will admit I don't necessarily get numbers hugely north of 4-6% of the total market. Of course, with those numbers, I get 10-15 million sold in 2017. That still puts 4K sales right up there with OLED sales for similar periods. Obviously, the error margin in that is too wide to be useful. But DisplaySearch doesn't disagree with me: http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/130104_4k_lcd_tvs_expected_to_outpace_oled_tv_shipments.asp


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5070#post_22895805
> 
> 
> I'll be staying with the Elite. My next TV will be 64K with holographic 4D and Smell-o-vision




To be honest kdog, if I knew for sure I could get a 70" Elite without the Nov build date issues, it too would be high on my list.


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22896389
> 
> 
> No, you might have just accidentally made my own argument for me. If 5 years ago is the stake in the sand, and you wish to make that the inception moment for edge-lit, then lets go with it. Did 4 years after that stake in the sand result in only 0.8% of shipments being edgelit?
> 
> 
> The analogy is to some degree apples and oranges before we even start, but it still seems to me that 0.8% is remarkably low. Four years? 1 in 125? Really?



You can't compare edge lit tv's to a completely different standard in resolution. Going edge lit was a relatively cheap manufacturing method for an already existing 1080p medium. It's main marketing hype was "thin" while not increasing PQ. As you said, it really is apples and oranges. Going edgelit was staying completely within the confines of pricing and momentum of a current medium. 4K is a different medium that is extremely expensive to produce, has no current medium, and whose benefits will only be seen in a bare minimum of 60" are above. Most don't own a 60" or above. As some said before it is a restriction of living room space for many.


Keep in mind, Im not saying I'm right and you are wrong, I'm just thinking out loud.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Whatstreet*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22896242
> 
> 
> Except for viewing angle, contrast ratio, motion blur, image uniformity, image retention and a number of other things.



Contrast ratio is very very high in the better sets. I really don't think many will get excited by higher CRs. We already have retina-burning whites in many LED/LCDs and blacks that are extremely dark.


Viewing angle is less of a limitation in the newer displays (including LED/LCDs) according to those that attended CES. It is a non-issue with plasma.


Motion blur is also a matter of sensitivity for many. It certainly doesn't bother me on my Elite with the proper settings engaged.


Image retention is more an issue with plasma than the other techs and even there it's not a major issue.


Image uniformity is one area I'll agree with you on. But even there some displays are quite good and I don't think for some it would be an area of improvement that would make them switch.


----------



## Ty819




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22896750
> 
> 
> You can't compare edge lit tv's to a completely different standard in resolution. Going edge lit was a relatively cheap manufacturing method for an already existing 1080p medium. It's main marketing hype was "thin" while not increasing PQ. As you said, it really is apples and oranges. Going edgelit was staying completely within the confines of pricing and momentum of a current medium. 4K is a different medium that is extremely expensive to produce, has no current medium, and whose benefits will only be seen in a bare minimum of 60" are above. Most don't own a 60" or above. As some said before it is a restriction of living room space for many.
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, Im not saying I'm right and you are wrong, I'm just thinking out loud.



Is it actually expensive to produce? I thought I remembered Rogo saying it was relatively cheap to implement and would therefore be included in all mid to upper tier LCDs around 50 inches and up within a few years.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22896614
> 
> 
> TGM, I think the forecast is probably wrong, too, but keep in mind:
> 
> 
> 1) No TV under 50" will have 4K, even by 2017.
> 
> 
> 2) The 50" and up market is currently only about 10% of the the total TV market.
> 
> 
> 3) Even if we figure that doubling, it still leaves 80% of the TVs _below_ 50" in 2017.
> 
> 
> 4) The reason the unit totals are so much bigger below 50" is because _in aggregate_ the world doesn't demand big TVs. That's not just because emerging economics have so many more people than we do -- of course they do -- but because there are lots of secondary spaces for TVs as well as primary places. Then you add in the people for whom the primary TV is 46" or below (and in the U.S., 46" is still the most popular size!).
> 
> 
> 5) Mathematically, it leaves a small slice of the market for advanced technologies to emerge.
> 
> 
> So let's say the forecast is doubly pessimistic: 50" and up is still under 10% and only 1 in 10 has 4K. Both of those seem pretty likely to prove false, _most especially the latter_. Over a 5-year period, with incremental cost approaching of 4K approaching zero, it should reach all the top end and most mid-range sets. So it should only fail to be in *entry-level sets over 50"*.
> 
> 
> That said, when I do that math, I will admit I don't necessarily get numbers hugely north of 4-6% of the total market. Of course, with those numbers, I get 10-15 million sold in 2017. That still puts 4K sales right up there with OLED sales for similar periods. Obviously, the error margin in that is too wide to be useful. But DisplaySearch doesn't disagree with me: http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/130104_4k_lcd_tvs_expected_to_outpace_oled_tv_shipments.asp



Certainly hope you are wrong about nothing under 50" in 4K by 2017. I use a 37" 1080p LCD as a PC monitor. Biggest I could go without seeing pixels at my viewing distance. I want a 40-42" 4k for my next PC monitor and long before 2017. Like going from an iPad 1 to iPad 3.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22897103
> 
> 
> Certainly hope you are wrong about nothing under 50" in 4K by 2017. I use a 37" 1080p LCD as a PC monitor. Biggest I could go without seeing pixels at my viewing distance.


Why is seeing pixels a detriment? I purposefully turn off all antialiasing and font-smoothing settings just to maintain a crisp look. Computer monitors have different "charters" than TV's IMO. I like to have a real honest to God edge to focus on.







I can see pixels on the 12 point letter "x" on my 15.4" 1280x800. And It's great.


----------



## Artwood

From everything i've heard it seems like it is going to be a few years before OLED and 4K LCD are viable realities--by that I mean capable of 65-inch size with at least ZT60 picture quality and COMPARABLY priced.


Let me ask this question and see if ANY one is brave enough to answer it--will there be a bridge TV until OLED and 4K are viable realities?


The bridge would be would be a 70-inch display or larger with picture quality slightly better than any Kuro or the current Sharp Elite and not costing over 4.5K--in other words about as great 1080p performance as one could possibly imagine with improvements in all current picture quality parameters?


If there isn't it seems like it will be the same old same old until 2017!


If that is true then the video display world SUX!!!




P.S. Since Panasonic bought the Pioneer patents do you think that the president of Panasonic has a better than Kuro prototype in a cave in Japan that is guarded by Godzilla?


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22897175
> 
> 
> Why is seeing pixels a detriment? I purposefully turn off all antialiasing and font-smoothing settings just to maintain a crisp look. Computer monitors have different "charters" than TV's IMO. I like to have a real honest to God edge to focus on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see pixels on the 12 point letter "x" on my 15.4" 1280x800. And It's great.



Are you related to Art?


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22897103
> 
> 
> Certainly hope you are wrong about nothing under 50" in 4K by 2017. I use a 37" 1080p LCD as a PC monitor. Biggest I could go without seeing pixels at my viewing distance. I want a 40-42" 4k for my next PC monitor and long before 2017. Like going from an iPad 1 to iPad 3.



I read Monoprice is introducing a 4K PC monitor under their own name this march. I believe it will only be 27" though.


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ty819*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22896912
> 
> 
> Is it actually expensive to produce? I thought I remembered Rogo saying it was relatively cheap to implement and would therefore be included in all mid to upper tier LCDs around 50 inches and up within a few years.



Well certainly expensive at first but relatively cheap compared to producing a 4K OLED TV for sure. Mass production will drive the cost down as the demand cranks up. But the big question is, how much demand will there be for 4K sets? If the Chinese come in with slave labor produced decent quality 4K sets for cheaper than 2K sets, then 4K will take over rather fast.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ty819*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22896912
> 
> 
> Is it actually expensive to produce? I thought I remembered Rogo saying it was relatively cheap to implement and would therefore be included in all mid to upper tier LCDs around 50 inches and up within a few years.



4K is not expensive to produce.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22897103
> 
> 
> Certainly hope you are wrong about nothing under 50" in 4K by 2017. I use a 37" 1080p LCD as a PC monitor. Biggest I could go without seeing pixels at my viewing distance. I want a 40-42" 4k for my next PC monitor and long before 2017. Like going from an iPad 1 to iPad 3.



Sorry, my post above is really about TV only. I expect _a lot_ of 4K monitors to reach the market. I'm just not of the opinion you will see 40" 4K TVs anytime soon that you can repurpose as monitors.


The difference? A 4K monitor will come at a nice premium -- witness the 2500 x 1600 monitors today vs. the 1920 x 1080 ones -- while a 40" 4K TV might be a bargain, if it comes to pass.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22896775
> 
> 
> Contrast ratio is very very high in the better sets. I really don't think many will get excited by higher CRs. We already have retina-burning whites in many LED/LCDs and blacks that are extremely dark.
> 
> 
> Viewing angle is less of a limitation in the newer displays (including LED/LCDs) according to those that attended CES. It is a non-issue with plasma.
> 
> 
> Motion blur is also a matter of sensitivity for many. It certainly doesn't bother me on my Elite with the proper settings engaged.
> 
> 
> Image retention is more an issue with plasma than the other techs and even there it's not a major issue.
> 
> 
> Image uniformity is one area I'll agree with you on. But even there some displays are quite good and I don't think for some it would be an area of improvement that would make them switch.



Right, nothing on that least is so compelling, especially to more than a small segment of the market, that it's going to sweep people off their feet.


Hell, high-end picture quality already is a niche within a niche.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5000_100#post_22895465
> 
> 
> I am very surprised at how static improvements to picture quality have been over the last 5 years. And with the exception of a very small handful of sets, PQ has actually taken a step backwards.


Color, contrast and motion have all seen big improvements across the board in the last five years, and we have seen the introduction of 3D. Even lower-end panels are now showing very good BT.709 color these days. How is that "static"? I think you should go back and look at what was available five years ago and compare that with today's offerings from the same manufacturers.


----------



## Bill Xia

Computer monitors don't really follow the general idea of needing certain size to have full resolution. Even a small 15" monitor will have 1080p these days.Most of you don't realize that young gamers are a big driving force behind popularization to new display technologies.

Those kids/young adult probably still live at home or started working but don't have a family yet to support. They have a lot of disposable cash. 15 million discrete GPUs were shipped in Q2 2012 alone and it was considered to be a slow quarter. So expand that into a whole year, you would expect at least 70-90 millions shipped for the last annum. As a mid-level hard core gamer myself, I would agree that average users replace their GPU every year and half, so that's about 150 million more or less active consumers. If they're willing to spend few hundred hard earned (or parents earned) dollars on just a GPU, it's not hard to understand that they will be wiling to invest in a latest flagship monitor, especially considering that 4k is now a new generation, no longer just minor annual updates.


Of course the 24-32 inch category displays will be the ones mainly effected, but it has an indirect effect on the prices of bigger displays.


I do agree that it won't be too quick for 4k displays to come down in price and


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22898332
> 
> 
> Color, contrast and motion have all seen big improvements across the board in the last five years, and we have seen the introduction of 3D. Even lower-end panels are now showing very good BT.709 color these days. How is that "static"? I think you should go back and look at what was available five years ago and compare that with today's offerings from the same manufacturers.



Well about 4 years ago the Samsung full array back lit set (8500) was rated very highly. Shortly after they pulled it and before the Elite was manufactured, we went through a plethora of VERY crappy edge lit TV's with horrible uniformity issues, spot lighting and streaking. I remember being very pissed at myself for not grabbing an 8500 and being stuck in limbo with no viable alternative. I was not interested in plasma because of my viewing environment. So going from the deep inky blacks of the 8500 to the streaky grey-blue blacks of the edge lit sets was a huge step backwards in PQ. To me at least.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22898685
> 
> 
> Well about 4 years ago the Samsung full array back lit set (8500) was rated very highly. Shortly after they pulled it and before the Elite was manufactured, we went through a plethora of VERY crappy edge lit TV's with horrible uniformity issues, spot lighting and streaking. I remember being very pissed at myself for not grabbing an 8500 and being stuck in limbo with no viable alternative. I was not interested in plasma because of my viewing environment. So going from the deep inky blacks of the 8500 to the streaky grey-blue blacks of the edge lit sets was a huge step backwards in PQ. To me at least.



IIRC, Samsung also shot themselves in the foot with their mid-range TV's with crappy firmware controls (they were there in principal, but people couldn't seem to get them to "behave"), and their _horrendous_ lack of control over their panel lottery (perhaps the latter begot the former). You literally had people returning boxes immediately at the door that didn't have serial number stickers starting with SQ01 or SQ03 (Samsung created). From the reviews it looks like they must've cleaned that particular act of theirs up in the last couple years.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22896775
> 
> 
> Motion blur is also a matter of sensitivity for many.





> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> *OMG yes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Whatstreet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22896775
> 
> 
> Contrast ratio is very very high in the better sets. I really don't think many will get excited by higher CRs. We already have retina-burning whites in many LED/LCDs and blacks that are extremely dark.



Yes, but the LED/LCD with good contrast ratio is much more expensive.


> Quote:
> Viewing angle is less of a limitation in the newer displays (including LED/LCDs) according to those that attended CES. It is a non-issue with plasma.



I haven't seen any IGZO panels. I hope that it does improve viewing angle. Contrast at off center viewing angles is something I really would like to see improved and is my biggest complaint with LCD.


> Quote:
> Motion blur is also a matter of sensitivity for many. It certainly doesn't bother me on my Elite with the proper settings engaged.



It depends on what you are watching. It is obvious for any one if the motion is fast enough.


> Quote:
> Image retention is more an issue with plasma than the other techs and even there it's not a major issue.



A plasma screen can 'glow' with the ghost of an image for hours. It's annoying.


> Quote:
> Image uniformity is one area I'll agree with you on. But even there some displays are quite good and I don't think for some it would be an area of improvement that would make them switch.



I'm glad you concede that there is room for improvement of something.


I did not mention compression artifacts and lag which are also areas where there is room for improvement.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Whatstreet*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100_100#post_22900899
> 
> 
> It depends on what you are watching. It is obvious for any one if the motion is fast enough.


It's funny, because most "motion blur" complaints are actually about the source material. Unless you're playing video games, motion blur is not an issue with most flat panels today.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22897325
> 
> 
> I read Monoprice is introducing a 4K PC monitor under their own name this march. I believe it will only be 27" though.



I'm fairly sure the monitor you are referring to is 2560 x 1600 (or whatever that pixel count is).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22901285
> 
> 
> It's funny, because most "motion blur" complaints are actually about the source material. Unless you're playing video games, motion blur is not an issue with most flat panels today.



Trust me, you know I've been pounding my keyboard about native FPS loudly (and forEVER).


But it doesn't change the fact that some panels are better than others (today) at motion. I'm _very_ sensitive to it, and some I can watch a football game on, and others I cannot.


----------



## vinnie97

I would wager that motion blur to you is the equivalent of dithering to Chrono.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100_100#post_22901567
> 
> 
> Trust me, you know I've been pounding my keyboard about native FPS loudly (and forEVER).
> 
> 
> But it doesn't change the fact that some panels are better than others (today) at motion. I'm _very_ sensitive to it, and some I can watch a football game on, and others I cannot.


I didn't mean to imply that there weren't any differences between displays, just that most "motion blur" complaints are actually about the source content than the display. And I don't mean native framerate, though that is important, but simply due to the shutter speeds used on the cameras. For example, I've seen lots of complaints about objects blurring as they move across the screen, or when the camera pans, but if you actually pause the image, you see that it's source material itself, and what you're seeing is motion blur caused by the camera.


Random shot from the Blu-ray I happened to have in right now:
 


Here you see that you can't read the text on the van, and the background is also blurred, but that wouldn't change no matter how good the display gets.


While there are still differences between panels, most of them are now a _lot_ better than they were a couple of years ago - particularly LCDs - as manufacturers have been forced to improve motion handling to add good 3D support. (at least with Active 3D)



With games though, there are still lots that don't use any kind of motion blur (and many people prefer not to have any if it's optional) so you are supposed to have perfectly sharp motion at all times, and that's what _really_ shows motion handling differences between displays, rather than any filmed content.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100_100#post_22901628
> 
> 
> I would wager that motion blur to you is the equivalent of dithering to Chrono.


Posterization is my biggest complaint about most displays these days, though dithering can be a side-effect of that. (the Kuros used a _lot_ of dither to try and mask it, for example)


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100#post_22901711
> 
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that there weren't any differences between displays, just that most "motion blur" complaints are actually about the source content than the display. And I don't mean native framerate, though that is important, but simply due to the shutter speeds used on the cameras



And you'd be correct. I just figured Ken, then whatstreet, (and then I), were talking about the other industry term:
www.wikipedia.com/Motion_Disgustingness (don't click)


(chuckle)


Interpolative results on some plasmas are as smooth as silk.


Apologies to Ken and then whatstreet if that's not what they meant, and I'll let you go back to correcting them if so.


----------



## Ken Ross

I agree with you guys 100%. There are many issues with content that have been blamed on displays over the years, and it still goes on. Most people don't have the luxury of having several different display techs to prove to themselves that what they're seeing isn't related to the display, but rather to issues with content. I don't think this will ever change. The knee-jerk reaction is to always blame the display.


----------



## irkuck

@^Ken: 10/10







. Even more, instead of pushing 4K which will require 25 Mb/s with HEVC I would use this 25 Mb/s HEVC for 1080p/60 4:2:2. That would be honey for the eye beating Blu-ray and beating the 4K after upconversion.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100_100#post_22905702
> 
> 
> @^Ken: 10/10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Even more, instead of pushing 4K which will require 25 Mb/s with HEVC I would use this 25 Mb/s HEVC for 1080p/60 4:2:2. That would be honey for the eye beating Blu-ray and beating the 4K after upconversion.


4:2:0 4K gives you a 3840x2160 luma resolution, with 1920x1080 chroma.

4:2:2 1080p gives you a 1920x1080 luma resolution with 960x1080 chroma.


There is absolutely zero point in moving from 4:2:0 video encoding when you have the opportunity to increase resolution for the same cost. Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

We will not be moving to HEVC for 1080p content.


----------



## navychop

Gee I wish I understood that.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22907538
> 
> 
> Gee I wish I understood that.



Basically he's saying you can't put 6 pounds of coffee in a 5 pound can, and you shouldn't try. Just get the 6 pound can, which is 4K, and I agree.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22907696
> 
> 
> Basically he's saying you can't put 6 pounds of coffee in a 5 pound can, and you shouldn't try. Just get the 6 pond can, which is 4K, and I agree.



Vacuum packing?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100_100#post_22907538
> 
> 
> Gee I wish I understood that.


This is not entirely accurate, but imagine that the image you see on your display is made up of two images: a "detail" image (luma channel) layered over a "color" image (chroma channel)


If an image is 4:4:4 or RGB, it means that the "color" image is the same resolution as the "detail" image.

4:2:2 means that the color image is 1/2 the resolution of the detail image.

4:2:0 means that the color image is 1/4 the resolution of the detail image, and that is how all video is encoded today. (1920x1080 luma channel with a 960x540 chroma channel)


This is an effective way to save bandwidth because our eyes still see the "detail" image as being perfectly sharp, and layering that over a low resolution "color" image helps mask the fact that it is lower resolution.


If you have a 1080p 4:4:4 image, it is still only 1920x1080 for both the "detail" and "color" images.

If you have a 4K 4:2:0 image, it has a 3840x2160 "detail" image, and a 1920x1080 "color" image.



That's not to say there's no reason for RGB/4:4:4 content to exist - it does look better - but it's not an efficient use of available bandwidth.


----------



## whityfrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22907538
> 
> 
> Gee I wish I understood that.



dont worry. im sure 5 people will come along and completely dissect that post with comments on every sentence that was originally posted. then those response posts will get completely dissected by sentence in return. then while reading every posters left field thoughts on the subject matter that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread their posting in, you realize this thread was hijacked 20 pages ago.


in a nutshell, if you dont understand what im saying, stay on topic people. this thread is officially become a 4K thread until some other OLED news comes up and gets posted here only to eventually drift off into another 6 page lateral subject. this forum is unreadable 90% of the time because i cant ever read about topics that the title of thread indicates.


This thread should be no more than 3 pages if you count actual news. how many pages is it now? 172? thats a lot of senseless bs to wade through to get to the actual information. I'm sorry if i come out of nowhere with the complaints, but the reason above is the reason, and my lack of posts are a complete result of whats typed above also.


best regards, ******.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22907879
> 
> 
> Vacuum packing?



Only if we're talking Cathode Tube...


What are you making such a phos phor?


----------



## mr. wally

Well since we're going off topic"......



GO NINERS!!!


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22906844
> 
> 
> We will not be moving to HEVC for 1080p content.



??? This might be one of the worst predictions in the AVS







. Broadcasters (satellite especially) will have strong incentive to move to HEVC since it allows to save bandwidth and money. In a similar way as they are moving out of MPEG-2 to H.264 they may start gradual transition to HEVC.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22910230
> 
> 
> ??? This might be one of the worst predictions in the AVS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Broadcasters (satellite especially) will have strong incentive to move to HEVC since it allows to save bandwidth and money. In a similar way as they are moving out of MPEG-2 to H.264 they may start gradual transition to HEVC.



Is it a bad prediction?


You have to replace 100% of the equipment, including _every single set top box_ to move to HEVC. I don't see anyone doing this for 1080p.


For 4K? Sure.


For 1080p? Why?


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22910753
> 
> 
> Is it a bad prediction?
> 
> 
> You have to replace 100% of the equipment, including _every single set top box_ to move to HEVC. I don't see anyone doing this for 1080p.
> 
> 
> For 4K? Sure.
> 
> 
> For 1080p? Why?



Agree totally. It makes no sense to do that for 1080P.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22907943
> 
> 
> This is not entirely accurate, but imagine that the image you see on your display is made up of two images: a "detail" image (luma channel) layered over a "color" image (chroma channel)
> 
> 
> If an image is 4:4:4 or RGB, it means that the "color" image is the same resolution as the "detail" image.
> 
> 4:2:2 means that the color image is 1/2 the resolution of the detail image.
> 
> 4:2:0 means that the color image is 1/4 the resolution of the detail image, and that is how all video is encoded today. (1920x1080 luma channel with a 960x540 chroma channel)
> 
> 
> This is an effective way to save bandwidth because our eyes still see the "detail" image as being perfectly sharp, and layering that over a low resolution "color" image helps mask the fact that it is lower resolution.
> 
> 
> If you have a 1080p 4:4:4 image, it is still only 1920x1080 for both the "detail" and "color" images.
> 
> If you have a 4K 4:2:0 image, it has a 3840x2160 "detail" image, and a 1920x1080 "color" image.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not to say there's no reason for RGB/4:4:4 content to exist - it does look better - but it's not an efficient use of available bandwidth.



Thank you very, very much. I understood the explanation, and it was something I was completely unaware of. I have saved this explanation offline for future reference.


RGB forever? Come ze revolution, I'll fix it all!


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22911069
> 
> 
> Agree totally. It makes no sense to do that for 1080P.



You are wrong. Bandwidth is of primary concern to broadcasters and first truth their learn is customers select platform based on the number of "channels" no matter what garbage are many of them.. Since set top boxes are being replaced anyway there is no problem with adding new features. Broadcaster are now facing problem of transition to all channels HD and that require more bandwidth. They can easily calculate how much saving can come from packing more HD channels onto a single satellite transponder. The only point is that complete shift to new technology is gradual and takes time. BTW, HEVC will be available in 4K boxes and broadcasters will have to push them to consumers to give 4K real start.


----------



## greenland

PANASONIC TO LAUNCH FIRST OLED TV IN 2015 - RUMOR

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1359964233 


"Panasonic showcased its first OLED-TV prototype at CES 2013. Sources from Japan now claim to know that Panasonic will launch its first OLED-TV in 2015 when the inkjet printing production method is ready for mass production.


PANASONIC OLED TV IN 2015


Panasonic and Sony both unveiled a 56-inch OLED-TV prototypes with 4K resolution at CES. The two makers are collaborating on OLED technology and are also co-developing the so-called inkjet printing production method where OLED pixels are “printed” into substrates."


.......................................................................................................................................................


Since they are just projecting when they will have succeeded in the development of the inkjet printing production method, the 2015 launch date seems like a best case scenario; and I would not be too surprised if they end up running into technical problems that will require them to delay production beyond the 2015 time target.


----------



## greenland

Samsung and LG decide to settle OLED patent dispute behind closed doors

http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/04/samsung-lg-oled-peace/ 



"It looks as if Samsung and LG have both taken their fingers away from the red button marked MORE LITIGATION. It's being reported that the pair have come to an agreement to work out their OLED patent issues away from the harsh light of the courtroom. Korea's Yonhap News is claiming that a peace summit was held at a Seoul hotel, with Samsung's Kim Ki-nam saying that the pair will resolve the issues "one by one." Give peace a chance, folks."


----------



## vinnie97

^Maybe they are coming to the realization about the rocky state of OLED's future and finally deciding to cooperate on some level.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22921824
> 
> 
> ^Maybe they are coming to the realization about the rocky state of OLED's future and finally deciding to cooperate on some level.



That might be reverse logic. If OLED were truly rocky, it would cease being quite as relevent. It's because it's definitely the way forward that they want to put down the patent daggers ASAP. Given the stupid state of patents these days, most of their energy is spent on trading threats.


----------



## greenland

I saw a report recently which stated that the Korean Government was pushing the two companies to stop waging war on each other, because they feared that they were going to end up losing out on OLED to foreign competitors. I suspect that might be what brought about their new agreement to settle things in private.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22921914
> 
> 
> That might be reverse logic. If OLED were truly rocky, it would cease being quite as relevent. It's because it's definitely the way forward that they want to put down the patent daggers ASAP. Given the stupid state of patents these days, most of their energy is spent on trading threats.


That's logical.







The everpresent delays just give the appearance of rocky on the technical front in any case (and these hurdles would indeed be better served if the money they were funneling into legalities could get re-apportioned to the R&D fund).







Oh well, it's about time for LG to put up or shut up and deliver it's 100,000 or so units this year.


----------



## sstephen

Or perhaps both could bring (better?) panels to market sooner, but not without infringing on the others patents, and this paves the way for both to get to market with something cheaper better sooner. Probably just wishful thinking.










Some of you guys are pretty quick to give up on oled. I know it seems to be taking a long time to get to the finish line. I for one expect longer blue oled life will get found, and that they will resolve the outstanding issues with inkjet printing of the panels. I expect solutions to both. I don't expect a sudden breakthrough on the blue oled thing, and I just don't know what the outstanding issues are with inkjet printing. Maybe it's much further from a commercially viable process than I think.


----------



## vinnie97

Well, LG already has an interim solution to that blue OLED problem. I consider the printing method but a pipedream at this point (prototypes be damned), especially after the tepidness of the latest report.


----------



## tgm1024

Just an amusing musing










Couldn't they just stack multiple blue's and wear-balance them over time?


----------



## rogo

Inkjet OLED printing has been "just around the corner" since 2001. That's just reality.


As for blues, I don't really know how severe the problem is for Samsung, but (a) I don't think it's a problem for LG's RGBW displays (b) no, you can't stack multiple blues and balance them, it's unrealistically complex and expensive (c) obviously, a straight up breakthrough in blue OLED life is not at all easy, since, that too, has been a problem getting attention for more than a decade (d) don't you wonder if in this patent deal, LG isn't going to get $1 billion or so from Samsung for the RGBW tech? I sure do.


----------



## Artwood

If OLED becomes a reality it will be because of my efforts here at telling the whole world how much LCD sucks!


The Koreans and the Japanese hate the Chinese and KNOW that they better come out with OLED fast because CHEAP crummy looking 4K LCD is coming fast and the American buying public has been propogandized into loving crappy LCD for so long that unless OLED is beyond fantastic--


The brainwashing can't be broken!


Pray that a combination Japanese-Korean Army can drop the atom bomb of OLED to stop the 4K LCD Chinese Army of suckism!


The Chinese have infiltrated America with Wal-mart--if Wal-mart goes for 4K Chinese LCD then the suckiests/crappiests will rule the world!


Who can take it?!


They'll pay off the grand master posters here and we'll be "EDUCATED" into why 4K LCD is great!


Better go ahead and buy that ZT-60--Panasonic will have to kill it off from the 2014 line to build demand for 2015 OLED.


Get ready to pay out the wazoo!


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22923321
> 
> 
> If OLED becomes a reality it will be because of my efforts here at telling the whole world how much LCD sucks!
> 
> 
> The Koreans and the Japanese hate the Chinese and KNOW that they better come out with OLED fast because CHEAP crummy looking 4K LCD is coming fast and the American buying public has been propogandized into loving crappy LCD for so long that unless OLED is beyond fantastic--
> 
> 
> The brainwashing can't be broken!
> 
> 
> Pray that a combination Japanese-Korean Army can drop the atom bomb of OLED to stop the 4K LCD Chinese Army of suckism!
> 
> 
> The Chinese have infiltrated America with Wal-mart--if Wal-mart goes for 4K Chinese LCD then the suckiests/crappiests will rule the world!
> 
> 
> Who can take it?!
> 
> 
> They'll pay off the grand master posters here and we'll be "EDUCATED" into why 4K LCD is great!
> 
> 
> Better go ahead and buy that ZT-60--Panasonic will have to kill it off from the 2014 line to build demand for 2015 OLED.
> 
> 
> Get ready to pay out the wazoo!



Off your meds?










Come now, it's not all that dramatic, is it?


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22923321
> 
> 
> If OLED becomes a reality it will be because of my efforts here at telling the whole world how much LCD sucks!


I'm pretty sure nobody with any kind of influence on the future of TV industry reads AVS forums. Even if every AVS member started aggressively demanding OLED in every post, it would not make iota of difference to manufacturers' OLED plans.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22923321
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They'll pay off the grand master posters here and we'll be "EDUCATED" into why 4K LCD is great!



hmmm


I doubt any AVS members got paid off for anything


and we do note your dislike of LCD


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22923321
> 
> 
> They'll pay off the grand master posters here and we'll be "EDUCATED" into why 4K LCD is great!



Art, I know (no, I hope) that your repetitive posts in thread after thread are at least somewhat tongue in cheek. With that said, have you ever seen the Sony 4K LED/LCD? Have you ever seen the Samsung 4K display? Ever??


I sincerely doubt that anyone that's seen those amazing displays would come to the conclusion that we have anything to fear from these gorgeous displays, let alone need to be 'paid off' to say so.


Really Art, get a grip.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22925184
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22923321
> 
> 
> (something ridiculous)
> 
> 
> 
> *[....]* and we do note your dislike of LCD
Click to expand...


Try not to jump to conclusions.


----------



## markrubin

we should move on now...


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/4740#post_22771408
> 
> The official press release from LG
> 
> 
> SEOUL, Jan. 2, 2013 -– LG Electronics (LG) announced today that it will begin accepting pre-orders for its eagerly-awaited 55-inch class (54.6-inch diagonal) WRGB OLED TV (Model 55EM9700) in South Korea this month with deliveries scheduled to begin next month.
> 
> 
> Other markets where the revolutionary LG OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) TV will be available will be announced over the next several weeks along with their respective prices. The announcement comes just days before the 2013 Consumer Electronics Show (CES), where an early version of the TV last year was awarded “Best of Show.”
> 
> 
> More than 1,400 LG retail stores in South Korea will begin accepting orders from consumers for KRW 11 million (approximately US $10,000) TVs starting *with delivery to commence the first week of February*. As the first and only company to announce availability of the next-generation TV technology, LG is prepared to ramp up quickly to take the lead in the OLED segment that is expected to grow to 7.2 million units by 2016, according to Display Search.
> 
> 
> “We are extremely pleased to be able to make this announcement at the start of the new year because we believe that OLED will usher in a whole new era of home entertainment,” said Havis Kwon, President and CEO of LG’s Home Entertainment Company. “Not since color TV was first introduced 60 years ago has there been a more transformational moment. When high definition TV was first introduced 15 years ago, the public’s reaction was ‘wow!’ but when customers see our razor-thin OLED TV for the first time, they’re left speechless. That’s a clear indicator as any that OLED TV is much more than just an incremental improvement to current television technology.”
> 
> 
> Only 4 millimeters (0.16 inches) thin and weighing less than 10 kilograms (22 pounds), LG’s OLED TVs produce astoundingly vivid and realistic pictures thanks to its superior WRGB technology. LG’s unique Four-Color Pixel system features a white sub-pixel, which works in conjunction with the conventional red, blue, green setup to create the perfect color output. LG’s exclusive Color Refiner delivers even greater tonal enhancement, resulting in images that are more vibrant and natural than anything seen before. The 55-inch OLED TV also offers an infinite contrast ratio, which maintains optimal contrast levels regardless of ambient brightness or viewing angle.
> 
> 
> Even before its launch, LG’s OLED TV was turning heads all over the world. In addition to being named Best of Show at CES 2012, the influential Industrial Designers Society of America recognized the TV with a coveted IDEA Award. Meanwhile, LGreceivedthe European Display Achievement 2012-2013 Award from the European Imaging and Sound Association (EISA). And to cap it off, LG’s OLED received Korea’s Good Design President Award in October.



Reviving this old post because it says delivery of the 55EM9700 OLED display is supposed to start the first week of Feb in Korea. Well, it's the first week of Feb. Have we heard from anyone who has received one yet?


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22927270
> 
> 
> Reviving this old post because it says delivery of the 55EM9700 OLED display is supposed to start the first week of Feb in Korea. Well, it's the first week of Feb. Have we heard from anyone who has received one yet?



I haven't heard anything after checking a plethora of sites. I'd love to see if they've shipped yet or not as well.


----------



## Artwood

Despite some of my outlandishness I believe one thing is clear--


There's talk of many technologies here but none of them are happening. When OLED is at Wal-mart then I'll believe it--I don't think that day will ever happen.


When in fact that day never does happen--OLED dies--and plasma is gone--what will we be left with?


An LCD only world!


I have yet to hear from any of the people around here who are supposedly knowledgeable how this is not going to take place.


It may be a 4K LCD world but it will be an LCD only world.


I challenge ANYONE to predict the year that OLED will be available at Wal-mart and I'll shut up about it!


I know there are many OLED proponents here at this thread and I would love more than anything for an LCD only world not to happen.


So all you OLED lovers and believers and wishers and dreamers please tell me--when will OLED be sold at Wal-mart? If it really is a great product that will be the ultimate PROOF of its greatness as a technology.


TVs are kind of like rocket propulsions systems. Dozens have been proposed and we're still sending 99% of them into space with solid and liquid chemical propulsion systems.


Just because a technology is feasible on paper does not mean that it is feasible in practice.


When OLED can be bought at Wal-mart then that will prove its true feasibility--until then it is like Warp drive is to rockets!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22927363
> 
> 
> I haven't heard anything after checking a plethora of sites. I'd love to see if they've shipped yet or not as well.



I would be shocked to learn of another delay.


Oh wait, perhaps not.


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22928057
> 
> 
> I would be shocked to learn of another delay.
> 
> 
> Oh wait, perhaps not.



Is it wrong to dream? Maybe I am a fool.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22928048
> 
> 
> I challenge ANYONE to predict the year that OLED will be available at Wal-mart and I'll shut up about it!



You promised! OLED will be available at Wal-mart July 17, 2018. Doors open early, hurry.


Now Art, keep your promise.


----------



## vinnie97

Oh, LG, the Little enGine that couldn't. ;(


----------



## Artwood

Ken Ross: I will keep that promise--I'd like to get one last plasma but I'm beginning to think that the ZT60 MIGHT be plasma's last great effort.


I don't know if they'll improve one last time in 2014 or if they be shutting things down then and that the 2013 ZT60 will be their last great effort before OLED,


If Chinese 4K LCD is good enough it might not make any difference what anyone else makes--the tidal wave may be unstoppable.


I'm scared to death of the world wide cataclysm.


For many the Kuros are only past memories in our dreams.


Only Godzilla can save us now! That's what Gomer Pyle says anyway.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5130#post_22922415
> 
> 
> Inkjet OLED printing has been "just around the corner" since 2001. That's just reality.
> 
> 
> As for blues, I don't really know how severe the problem is for Samsung, but (a) I don't think it's a problem for LG's RGBW displays (b) no, you can't stack multiple blues and balance them, it's unrealistically complex and expensive (c) obviously, a straight up breakthrough in blue OLED life is not at all easy, since, that too, has been a problem getting attention for more than a decade (d) don't you wonder if in this patent deal, LG isn't going to get $1 billion or so from Samsung for the RGBW tech? I sure do.



I'm not sure how relevant their mobile OLED's are to larger televisions, but Samsung don't appear to have made any progress to extending the blue lifetime at all. If you search around youtube, you will find screen burn-in examples dating from many years ago, to very recent models. The burn-in is always in the blue color channel only. Not very encouraging.










The few reviews of LG's older 15" OLED TV that they shipped around 2010 don't mention anything about image retention or burn-in. Did the older 15" also use WOLED?


----------



## Wizziwig

LG supposedly shipping in Korea on February 20th and Samsung "launching" on 19th.

http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-set-launch-their-oled-tvs-february-19


----------



## ferro

 Samsung will start its 5" Full-HD AMOLED mass production this month


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22929975
> 
> Samsung will start its 5" Full-HD AMOLED mass production this month



They had to do this for any price, otherwise OLED would be going down the drain. Question is what is t h e price, and will this display be used in Samsung high volume products. If this display is made be the (many) millions OLED still have future. BTW, it will be interesting to see if this genuine RGB or pentile design.


----------



## rogo

Is Galaxy S4 going to have this display? Somehow I thought so, but I'm less sure now.


(This read differently originally.... I meant to say I expected this originally, but then the relatively late production of the display gave me pause... Slacker's post below confirms that it's expected on the S4, which confirms what I'd seen as well.)


----------



## slacker711

It will be a huge upset if the S4 doesnt have this display. Every rumor and analyst report has unequivocally said that this is going to be the display for the S4. Samsung is finally changing out the green material so there should a be a ~20% power consumption savings. I havent heard anything about whether they have a new blue.


----------



## Whatstreet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22928057
> 
> 
> I would be shocked to learn of another delay.
> 
> 
> Oh wait, perhaps not.


----------



## Ken Ross

Ah, so that's how the rolled up displays will come packaged!


----------



## whityfrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22928048
> 
> 
> Despite some of my outlandishness I believe one thing is clear--
> 
> 
> There's talk of many technologies here but none of them are happening. When OLED is at Wal-mart then I'll believe it--I don't think that day will ever happen.
> 
> 
> When in fact that day never does happen--OLED dies--and plasma is gone--what will we be left with?
> 
> 
> An LCD only world!
> 
> 
> I have yet to hear from any of the people around here who are supposedly knowledgeable how this is not going to take place.
> 
> 
> It may be a 4K LCD world but it will be an LCD only world.
> 
> 
> I challenge ANYONE to predict the year that OLED will be available at Wal-mart and I'll shut up about it!
> 
> 
> I know there are many OLED proponents here at this thread and I would love more than anything for an LCD only world not to happen.
> 
> 
> So all you OLED lovers and believers and wishers and dreamers please tell me--when will OLED be sold at Wal-mart? If it really is a great product that will be the ultimate PROOF of its greatness as a technology.
> 
> 
> TVs are kind of like rocket propulsions systems. Dozens have been proposed and we're still sending 99% of them into space with solid and liquid chemical propulsion systems.
> 
> 
> Just because a technology is feasible on paper does not mean that it is feasible in practice.
> 
> 
> When OLED can be bought at Wal-mart then that will prove its true feasibility--until then it is like Warp drive is to rockets!



do you seriously have to remind us each and every week about your cold sweat lcd world armageddon dreams?!? i swear everytime i see artwood its followed by the same paranoid post. you obviously cant see oled at walmart because walmart doesent sell 12 thousand dollar tvs. i also find it hard to believe someone who buys their tv's from walmart is worried about a supposed "lcd world". im just kidding dude, i know you dont buy your tv's from walmart, but seriously, we can do without all the anti plasma haikus every week.


----------



## vinnie97

^OLEDs aren't going to drop below $12k ever?


----------



## mattg3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22933624
> 
> 
> ^OLEDs aren't going to drop below $12k ever?



Now if that were true say goodby to OLED.Economy could never support it.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

To add more fuel to the fire, we eventually need OLED's capable of 1 millisecond impulse lengths for CRT-quality motion without motion interpolation, for playing console video games and computer games without motion blur at all, AND without input lag of interpolation. That requires OLED that's 16x brighter than a sample-and-hold. (1ms impulses versus 16.7ms sample-and-hold).


Ideally, native 120 Hz refresh is better, and that will only require 8x brighter (1ms impulses versus 8.33ms sample-and-hold) to have the same motion clarity as CRT without motion interpolation, and without input lag.


FWIW, PS Vita is a sample-and-hold OLED.


----------



## Artwood

I don't think it's paranoid to fear an all LCD world.


Ask any of the supposed expert reviewers and they're not for LCD.


Ask anyone if Plasma is on the way out and most will say yes.


Ask anyone if OLED is just around the corner at comparatively reasonable prices and large sizes and most everyone will say no.


What I point out here repeatedly is the dirty little secret that the industry doesn't want you to know and that is that we're heading towards an all LCD substandard world.


Wishing that wasn't the case isn't going to make it true.


What surprises me is all the plasma posters here at AVS who said for year after year how plasma was superior to LCD now you don't hear from anymore or they spout the new gospel that substandard LCD is now acceptable.


Now some people might believe that all of those people changed--I think most just joined the video display manufacturing sales force.


Ask the people at the plasma forum how many of them are looking forward to an all LCD world.


Ask the people at the LCD forum if they are looking forward to ANYTHING quality wise.


The best thing about OLED is that it keeps video picture quality fans' minds from where the state of the art is heading.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22936613
> 
> 
> What I point out here repeatedly is



Ok, you're on record.


----------



## fjames




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22936613
> 
> 
> What surprises me is all the plasma posters here at AVS who said for year after year how plasma was superior to LCD now you don't hear from anymore or they spout the new gospel that substandard LCD is now acceptable.



Not me. I've only owned two flat screens, both plasmas, the second purchased last year (or end of year before, I can't remember) and I plan on keeping it until something better comes along. I have no idea what that may be, which is why I'm following these threads - to much tech to catch up on in a short time if I needed to do that.


----------



## whityfrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22933624
> 
> 
> ^OLEDs aren't going to drop below $12k ever?



Of course it will. But the perspective of what were looking at is that oled needs to be a doorbuster on black friday to coexist on the shelf next to other tv techs. thats not the case. you didnt see kuros sold at walmart but they were atleast within someones price range who worked for a company as opposed to owning it. lets let the early stages be the early stages and stop trying to visualize what the end is going to look like. early plasmas were also ridiculously overpriced when they entered the market and they had and are still having a good run.


and artwood. its not that i dont agree with you, just not completely. its that you basically say the same thing with different words in alot of your posts. we get the point. thanks.


----------



## whityfrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22936613
> 
> 
> I don't think it's paranoid to fear an all LCD world.
> 
> 
> Ask any of the supposed expert reviewers and they're not for LCD.
> 
> 
> Ask anyone if Plasma is on the way out and most will say yes.
> 
> 
> Ask anyone if OLED is just around the corner at comparatively reasonable prices and large sizes and most everyone will say no.
> 
> 
> What I point out here repeatedly is the dirty little secret that the industry doesn't want you to know and that is that we're heading towards an all LCD substandard world.
> 
> 
> Wishing that wasn't the case isn't going to make it true.
> 
> 
> What surprises me is all the plasma posters here at AVS who said for year after year how plasma was superior to LCD now you don't hear from anymore or they spout the new gospel that substandard LCD is now acceptable.
> 
> 
> Now some people might believe that all of those people changed--I think most just joined the video display manufacturing sales force.
> 
> 
> Ask the people at the plasma forum how many of them are looking forward to an all LCD world.
> 
> 
> Ask the people at the LCD forum if they are looking forward to ANYTHING quality wise.
> 
> 
> The best thing about OLED is that it keeps video picture quality fans' minds from where the state of the art is heading.



well if you do have to end up buying an led or lcd because thats all there is, just make sure your front and center and your significant other sits off center. im sure she could give a rats behind about off angle axis viewing. lol


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22936613
> 
> 
> 
> What surprises me is all the plasma posters here at AVS who said for year after year how plasma was superior to LCD now you don't hear from anymore or they spout the new gospel that substandard LCD is now acceptable.



Art, I'm not sure why you continue to be surprised. You apparently can't grasp the concept that some plasma owners changed because the nature of the PQ of the best LED/LCDs changed. It's as simple as that. This is not rocket science. I am not talking about substandard LCDs, there are still plenty of those. Believe it or not Art, there are also still plenty of substandard plasmas. Would you be happier if the world was taken over by substandard plasmas with lousy black levels and serious IR?


Did you ever read the many reviews on the Sharp Elites? Some reviewers declared them to be the best consumer displays ever. So why wouldn't a former plasma owner who agrees, change allegiance? This doesn't lessen the PQ of plasmas, but rather gives a clear alternative to plasma with little in the way of sacrifice, save viewing angles.


When I can achieve better black levels than the Kuro I owned, far brighter whites and overall full-screen brightness, zero IR, zero fear of burn-in (admittedly less of an issue than it had been with plasmas) among other benefits and only give back (IMO) viewing angles, why would I not be happier? There are many former Kuro owners who now own the Elites and feel the same. There are other LED/LCDs from Samsung & Sony that have attained excellent PQ and have also gotten great reviews from professional reviewers.


Once you finally realize that the LED/LCD technology is not static and great strides have been made in PQ, you'll stop feeling paranoid and possibly far less convinced we have all been 'paid off' by some shadowy underworld LCD Godfather.


Oh, BTW, you've broken your promise to stop your endless LCD bashing...but I think we all expected that.


----------



## vinnie97

^But there are also many current Kuro owners who weren't wowed enough by the Sharp panels to switch.







Aside from the poor viewing angles (and the inaccurate color reproduction), I don't like the voodoo being employed to create those deeper blacks, which adds a new distracting artifact, that being blooming. Maybe it's minor enough to keep you satisfied, but it's not a tradeoff I'd like to make.


----------



## Ken Ross

Vinnie, blooming is a non-issue on the Elite, it really is. I had a Sony 929, and on that panel it was an issue. Sharp developed a mechanism to deal with the blooming (put simply, unlike Sony they never turned the pixels completely off).


The color inaccuracy is overstated and I'd bet you'd never (or rarely) see it. It is associated primarily with low luminance cyan. Remember, I had both the Pro 151 and the Elite for about a month and compared them many times. The only significant difference in color rendition (both panels were ISF'd) was cyan, and I was the first to see it and mention it in the Elite thread as many AVS members can testify. I was totally objective. In fact, the first several professional reviews raved about the Elite's PQ and never mentioned the cyan issue. That's how hard the inaccuracy was to see.


You are correct, there were many Kuro owners who didn't switch. Not many people would have shelled out $5,000-8,000 for these panels if they didn't see major improvements. Of course some people could never be convinced that anything other than a plasma could offer the best PQ. I was among that group for a long time. However others did feel the improvements were significant enough to make the switch.


As for 'voodoo', you do realize that 'voodoo' is employed in the creation of any image on a display, correct? That is the case with CRTs,, LCDs, LED/LCDs, OLED, and yes, drum roll, plasma. I personally could care less what type of 'voodoo' is used in the creation of the best imagery. When we see a spectacular image, the idea is we become unaware of the 'voodoo' behind it, we just revel in the imagery. There are many paths to a great image.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100_100#post_22938455
> 
> 
> Vinnie, blooming is a non-issue on the Elite, it really is. I had a Sony 929, and on that panel it was an issue. Sharp developed a mechanism to deal with the blooming (put simply, unlike Sony they never turned the pixels completely off).


I actually suspect the main reason is the LCD panel used. With the HX900 Sony used an RGB UV2A panel from Sharp, and that suffered from minimal blooming. With the HX920, Sony switched back to using Samsung panels, and blooming was more of an issue. They also introduced "Intelligent Peak LED" which increased contrast at the expense of blooming. You can easily have it not turn the LED zones off by changing it to the "low" local dimming setting, or increasing brightness one notch. Makes almost no difference to the visibility of blooming in my opinion.


With the Elite, Sharp uses an RGBY UV2A panel, which has the same high contrast properties as the HX900, but introduces color inaccuracies and I don't like the pixel structure up close. (though to be fair, the HX900 has similar issues too - Sharp panels get addressed in a weird way)

The Elite also has around 300 dimming zones compared to around 100 zones on either Sony. But I believe it's primarily the panel that makes the difference, as blooming is almost as much of a non-issue with the UV2A-equipped HX900 as it is on the Elite. This is why I think the HX900 is "special" compared to the HX920/950. (though they are great sets in their own right)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100_100#post_22938210
> 
> 
> I don't like the voodoo being employed to create those deeper blacks, which adds a new distracting artifact, that being blooming. Maybe it's minor enough to keep you satisfied, but it's not a tradeoff I'd like to make.


There's no "voodoo" going on, local dimming is very effective. On the Kuros, the entire black level is raised to a level higher than that of blooming, which makes blooming a non-issue in my opinion. And CRTs which achieved deep black levels without local-dimming "voodoo" suffered from blooming _much_ worse than any local-dimming LCD - the whole surface of the tube lit up, rather than a localized area.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100_100#post_22938455
> 
> 
> As for 'voodoo', you do realize that 'voodoo' is employed in the creation of any image on a display, correct? That is the case with CRTs,, LCDs, LED/LCDs, OLED, and yes, drum roll, plasma. I personally could care less what type of 'voodoo' is used in the creation of the best imagery. When we see a spectacular image, the idea is we become unaware of the 'voodoo' behind it, we just revel in the imagery. There are many paths to a great image.


Yep, the end result is what matters. Knowing how they achieve that result can only help in identifying problems. E.g. knowing how plasmas work, lets me know that after trying out a lot of them including several Kuros, even if Panasonic or someone came out with a Plasma that had a _zero_ black level, I still wouldn't be happy with the display, because there's more to it than just contrast and what a calibrator can measure.


----------



## coolscan

So it seems that it is more or less confirmed that that Samsung will start the mass-production of their new Amoled screen. With full HD resolution at 1920x1080 on a 4.99" screen will give a pixel density of 440 PPI. That's quite a bit higher than Apple's iPhone 5 "retina screen" at 326 PPI.

Samsung is said to start with 3 million units a month and increasing to 10 million in the coming months if needed.


The new Amoled screen is said to use green PHoled which will increase efficiency with 25%. Oled-info com. 


I understand there must be some manufacturing difference between small Amoled screen and big OLED screens, but haven't paid much attention to details of the different processes.

But are there anybody that in a simple way can explain why small OLED screens seems to very doable with good yields and large ones problematic?

Can it be that the much larger organic Dot deposit for big screens is the reason for the problem because it is just too large deposit of organic material par pixel?

Could a simple thing like disregarding resolution and depositing smaller Dots would be better? This would of course make the screens like a 55" with f.ex. 300 PPI of a very high resolution, but they could use pixel binning or up-conversion to accommodate HD or 4K?


The VP of Merck, a manufacturer of Oled material, both vapour based and soluble, claims in this January 2013 interview that _"the material performance gap between vapor based and printable materials is closed in R&D"._


The commercial from Samsungs keynote at CES 2013 for Youm Flexible OLED Display.


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22938736
> 
> 
> even if Panasonic or someone came out with a Plasma that had a _zero_ black level, I still wouldn't be happy with the display, because there's more to it than just contrast and what a calibrator can measure.


Isn't a zero black level emissive display with accurate color the end game we all desire?


----------



## vinnie97

^He will always find something about Plasma to complain about (he's probably making a veiled reference to his disdain for dithering there).










And sorry, guys (Ken, Chrono), I'd take an actual black level reduction over a clever masking attempt any day, especially at the asking price of the Sharp.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22938884
> 
> 
> 
> I understand there must be some manufacturing difference between small Amoled screen and big OLED screens, but haven't paid much attention to details of the different processes.
> 
> But are there anybody that in a simple way can explain why small OLED screens seems to very doable with good yields and large ones problematic?
> 
> Can it be that the much larger organic Dot deposit for big screens is the reason for the problem because it is just too large deposit of organic material par pixel?
> 
> Could a simple thing like disregarding resolution and depositing smaller Dots would be better? This would of course make the screens like a 55" with f.ex. 300 PPI of a very high resolution, but they could use pixel binning or up-conversion to accommodate HD or 4K?



So yeah, we've talked it before but the thread gets off on tangents.


It has nothing at all to do with pixel size, resolution, or any of that.


It has everything to do with the fact that the small screens are small.


Let me explain.


Samsung "patterns" the OLED material on the substrate using what is a called a *fine metal mask*, which is basically a mesh or the high-tech equivalent of the "silkscreen" used to make t-shirts. No matter how hard they try, the mesh can only be made so rigid. When the mesh is small, it's not a problem... The fabricating machine can hold it over the substrate, the OLED material can be "injected" through it, and the end result is a nice even layer.


The problem is that the mask can never touch the substrate. If it does, the OLED material is uneven and your pixels don't come out right (especially because you need to lay down three colors. And you get waste.


So on larger displays, they spent some time trying to use large masks. It didn't work. The mask would sag in the middle and touch the substrate and you'd get no yield at all.


The clever guys at Samsung figured out a solution. Take a small mask and move it around the display, pattern a bit of the display each time. There are two big issues here, though:


1) It's really slow and inefficient to do this


2) You need perfect alignment on every move or you again destroy the substrate


This technique, called _small mask scanning_ is what they've been working on for at least a couple of years. And they've yet to get especially close to releasing a TV, even in small quantities. This suggests that _it's really hard_ to scale as a technique, they are attempting to build new methods to make it work, and that it's possible it will never scale as a manufacturing method.


It's for this reason I have speculated (as have others), that Samsung might eventually license LG's method or go a different route entirely. LG's method, for what it worth, _doesn't require any patterning of OLED material_.


All the hype around "printable OLEDs" is that they do require patterning, but don't need a mask. They pattern directly on the substrate using something that is most akin to the print head in your inkjet printer. Again, that's been worked on for 10 years and the closest it has come to reality is a couple of prototypes at 2013 CES which allegedly might be ready for manufacture in 2015. Of course, we've been hearing that printable OLED is a year or two away for 10 years.


I hope this helps, I could do some diagrams if I get really bored.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22940140
> 
> 
> 
> And sorry, guys (Ken, Chrono), I'd take an actual black level reduction over a clever masking attempt any day, especially at the asking price of the Sharp.



If they both got you to the same observable (and yes, even measurable) place, who gives a rat's tush? I'll never understand that. But hey, whatever makes you comfortable.


----------



## slacker711

Samsung and LG have settled their various OLED patent suits. No word on the licensing terms, but considering the fact that they settled because of pressure from the Korean government, I wouldnt be surprised at general cross-licenses.


I have heard quite a bit of speculation about Samsung adopting WRGB but surprisingly little about any movement towards an IGZO substrate. If Samsung sticks with LTPS, their televisions will remain more expensive than LG's (assuming that LG works out hte yield issues).


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100_100#post_22940079
> 
> 
> Isn't a zero black level emissive display with accurate color the end game we all desire?


I think the quality of motion on Plasma sucks (false contouring, color break-up) they suffer from dithering & posterization, I suffer from headaches due to the flicker, and they dim the image due to their ABL. They aren't suitable as a monitor either, which rules them out for my needs.


A lot of people would probably be satisfied if all they did was fix the black level on Plasma, but I think you would still find people complaining about other areas too. It's just that black level is the most obvious thing they need to fix to the folks around here. You can't just stick a colorimeter on the screen and have it tell you what gradation or motion quality is like, and make a pretty chart to post online like you can with grayscale and color measurements.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100_100#post_22940492
> 
> 
> If they both got you to the same observable (and yes, even measurable) place, who gives a rat's tush? I'll never understand that. But hey, whatever makes you comfortable.


I don't think many people that actually complain about local dimming LCD, have ever actually seen a local dimming LCD, and certainly not the better ones properly set up in a home environment.


Sure, you can take over-exposed photos or watch from the side to show how "bad" local dimming is, but that's not how it looks in person.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5100_100#post_22940265
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the fact that the small screens are small.
> 
> 
> Let me explain...


Good info.


----------



## dsinger











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22940492
> 
> 
> If they both got you to the same observable (and yes, even measurable) place, who gives a rat's tush? I'll never understand that. But hey, whatever makes you comfortable.



I wonder if Vinnie and Art are related?


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22940620
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Vinnie and Art are related?



Does make you wonder.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22940265
> 
> 
> So yeah, we've talked it before but the thread gets off on tangents.
> 
> 
> I hope this helps, I could do some diagrams if I get really bored.


Thank you rogo for the explanation, gave me a clear understanding of the problem.









Almost unimaginable to think of that millions of dollars in R&D and failed productions resulting in low yields is because they can't make "silk screens" rigid enough.


As to the Oled printing. What I have understood is that the big hindrance has been the quality of the Soluble Oled. I hope the guy from Merck, that I linked to, are truthful that the performance gap between vapour based Oled and soluble has been closed in R&D. Always thought that depositing of Oled material with a Ink-Jet printer-head would solve many problems and open up the possibility for other screen types that can't be done on solid material.


----------



## Artwood

You would think that the LCD world consisted of just a Sharp Elite or maybe a Sony HX 950.


While I wouldn't want either I could respect someone buying a Sharp Elite. Overall would I say that it had better picture quality than the best Kuro?--no but it would be close enough to where if you were sitting right in front of it in the sweet spot it would be comparable. I don't think the same thing could be said about the Sony.


It's not these LCD sets that are concerning--they are comparably high priced but not out of the ball park--what is concerning is the DIRECTION of the rest of LCD land. It is negative.


Edge lit is a step backwards. Less and less Full array local dimming IS a step backwards.


120Hz versus 240 Hz is a step backwards--there are more of the former and less of the latter nowadays.


The majority of LCD is going backwards quality wise.


Are there some people that went from the best Panasonic models of the last few years to Sharp Elites--yes--of course--but that was miniscule.


Ditto for going from the best Panasonic plasmas to the best Sony LCDs.


Why? Most people didn't want to spend WAY more for LCD drawbacks--can you say motion resolution?


For that matter does anyone at the LCD forum even talk about motion resolution improvements anymore?


WHATEVER happened to 480Hz? That kind of went away didn't it?


Now what I'd like to hear is the case FOR the majority of all LCDs getting better quality wise to what was produced two years ago.


I don't think that case can be made.


Anybody want to make those cases? Anybody?


As for LCD quality--no I don't think that aggregate LCD quality is getting better--I think that aggregate LCD quality is getting WORSE!


I don't think that the LCD Godfather pays any of the Ken Rosses of the world. I just don't think there are many Ken Rosses.


I do think that LCD manufacturers try to manipulate enthusiast sites--this isn't the only place it happens--it costs less to do that than to spend the money in advertising. If companies will spend millions for advertising--don't think that they won't spend thousands for PLANT posters.


My point is not to BASH the epitome of LCDs--that would be silly as long as Elites and Sony's best LCD sets exist--my point is to BASH the picture quality direction of the aggregate of ALL the rest of LCDs produced--it is not going up but it is going down.


As to the argument of there being some bad plasmas this of course is true.


Would anybody want to wager about the picture quality winner between the WORST plasma set at 50 inches versus the WORST LCD at 50 inches?


Which would suck more?


For that matter has anybody heard if the Elites will be improved?


I haven't heard anything about that happening.


Has anybody heard ANYTHING about non Elite or non Sony HX950 improvement for 2K sets the next few years--I haven't heard anything--I don't think there is anything to hear.


Has anybody heard of plasmas going away? Who hasn't?


The bottom line is this--Japan and Korea already know that CHEAP LCDs are coming! The other bottom line is those bean counters from those nations don't really believe that the overall standard of living is going to RISE much--it will stay the same basically for many years.


The only hope may be China--they won't produce second rate quality forever.


Mark my words folks--sometimes technology stops for 10 or twenty years. The reason it stops for that long is enough people aren't agitated enough for the dynamic to change.


Will CES 2014 be as uneventful as CES 2013? Probably. Will people here think that? Probably not. That's the REAL problem.


----------



## mikek753

I'd agree with you about PQ no improvements in past 2 years or even went down.

But, market moves for cheap and not for quality - IMHO.

So, yes cheap 50"+ LCD at $500 or below will win at the end like it or not.

Whoever will buy for $500 or below will look for the size and if it'll come with 4k than will be no 2nd thought at all.

Why to produce PQ TV that can't be sold, while masses will buy anything at right price?


How many will buy 2k 50" OLED for $5k - $10k vs so so 4k 50" LCD below $2k


Look what happened to digi cameras? megapixel war that has nothing to do with PQ, but right opposite PQ went down.


No, I don't like this trend, so what?


----------



## Ken Ross

Art, I'd suggest you read some of the comments from people that saw the latest Samsung LED/LCDs at CES, but you've worn me out. We just go round and round and round...I'm dizzy and I'm getting off. I'll leave this to someone else with more patience than me.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22940620
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Vinnie and Art are related?


You mean you can't agree with someone without being related to them in this day and age? Shocker.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22940716
> 
> 
> Thank you rogo for the explanation, gave me a clear understanding of the problem.



You're most welcome.


> Quote:
> Almost unimaginable to think of that millions of dollars in R&D and failed productions resulting in low yields is because they can't make "silk screens" rigid enough.



For what it's worth, I don't believe Samsung will solve the problem. But I believe LG's method and some form of printing will eventually work out... In the meantime, Samsung might squeeze a few displays onto the market with their method at low yields... But the next 1-2 years aren't that important anyway.


> Quote:
> As to the Oled printing. What I have understood is that the big hindrance has been the quality of the Soluble Oled. I hope the guy from Merck, that I linked to, are truthful that the performance gap between vapour based Oled and soluble has been closed in R&D. Always thought that depositing of Oled material with a Ink-Jet printer-head would solve many problems and open up the possibility for other screen types that can't be done on solid material.



So if it's true that that the soluble OLED material is ready in the labs, it might be ready for production in the next couple of years. I imagine the "print heads" aren't actually a very big challenge given how amazing that technology is elsewhere. I guess we'll learn more as Panasonic, Sony, AUO, et al. announce developments. I'm just skeptical because these problems have allegedly been close to solution before.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22927270
> 
> 
> Reviving this old post because it says delivery of the 55EM9700 OLED display is supposed to start the first week of Feb in Korea. Well, it's the first week of Feb. Have we heard from anyone who has received one yet?


 LG’s Organic Light-Emitting Diode TVs customers pre-ordered since the start of this year will be delivered to Korean consumers starting from the 20th this month. LG is hoping the sales of these new breed of flat screens will pick up as more consumers experience them at homes.


On the 7th, LG announced that the company will start delivery of its OLED TVs to those who placed pre-production orders in Korea from the 20th. LG also commented it “will move first to be the winner of this year’s newly launched TVs by starting the delivery of OLED TVs, together with the launching events for other new 2013 TV models scheduled to take place in mid and late this month.”


However, LG decided not to disclose how many pre-production orders were placed for the OLED TVs. The OLED TVs come in hefty price tags of about KRW 1.1 million (approximately 10,000 in USD), and their target consumers are VVIPs at the moment, rather than the general public. The trade insiders are speculating that about 130 to 200 pre-production orders had been placed.


LG’s OLED TVs will be rolled-out in the U.S. in March, and in the other parts of the world, including Europe, in consideration of market response and production capacity. Meanwhile, Japanese newspapers reported that LG will launch 55-inch OLED TVs in Japan sometime in this spring.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22940580
> 
> 
> Samsung and LG have settled their various OLED patent suits. No word on the licensing terms, but considering the fact that they settled because of pressure from the Korean government, I wouldnt be surprised at general cross-licenses.
> 
> 
> I have heard quite a bit of speculation about Samsung adopting WRGB but surprisingly little about any movement towards an IGZO substrate. If Samsung sticks with LTPS, their televisions will remain more expensive than LG's (assuming that LG works out hte yield issues).



Have you seen where there was an actual settlement? The latest I saw is they agreed to work on resolving the suits. Both companies had assigned people to work on the resolution. A cross-license would definitely be a positive development for quicker adoption of OLEDs. I'm sure LG doesn't want to give up their WRGB patents but they would probably like to get access to Samsung's flexible technology. It could be an interesting idea.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22941839
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, I don't believe Samsung will solve the problem. But I believe LG's method and some form of printing will eventually work out... In the meantime, Samsung might squeeze a few displays onto the market with their method at low yields... But the next 1-2 years aren't that important anyway.


It's an open question whether Samsung will solve that problem or get to TVs by another method. It is unlikely they'll be releasing TVs soon. For what it's worth, their strategy was to gradually increase screen sizes over time but they had not intended to jump to 55" screens yet. They were caught off-guard by LG's TV plans and decided to try to use their existing technology at larger sizes to not cede the TV race. The RGB method was really just thought of as a stopgap for the pilot line but not necessarily the final technology and they have been working on other technologies, including printing, at the same time. They are making progress on larger sizes though as they are likely to increase the size of their next small screen size expansion from 5.5g substrates to 6.5g.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22941839
> 
> 
> So if it's true that that the soluble OLED material is ready in the labs, it might be ready for production in the next couple of years. ... I'm just skeptical because these problems have allegedly been close to solution before.


soluble materials .. close to solution. Ha, nice choice of words.



There's a lot of discussion here about 4K vs OLED. Industry expert Barry Young gave an interview today with his impression.


Both Samsung and LG Display are in OLEDs for the long term and have figured out that they cannot accurately forecast delivery of new technology, but they are firm in their beliefs that the technology will be differentiated and the costs will be competitive. Each company continues to appropriate CAPEX for OLEDs in a strategic fashion, while committing spending for LCDs tactically.


DisplaySearch says that both Samsung and LGD are currently focusing on 4K2K and "delaying" OLED TVs... what's your view here?


Both Samsung and LG have separate groups working on LCDs and OLEDs, so the priorities in one group (LCDs) don’t necessarily effect the priorities of another group (OLEDs). If you look at the Capex for Samsung and LG, they are putting relatively more investment in OLEDs than LCDs.


----------



## David_B

Ooor, Samsung is releasing a TV about the same time as LG?

Samsung set to launc OLED TVs February 19? 


More likely it's the Samsung Galaxy note 8 though









Galaxy 8 Note 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22940265
> 
> 
> So yeah, we've talked it before but the thread gets off on tangents.
> 
> 
> It has nothing at all to do with pixel size, resolution, or any of that.
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the fact that the small screens are small.
> 
> 
> Let me explain.
> 
> 
> Samsung "patterns" the OLED material on the substrate using what is a called a *fine metal mask*, which is basically a mesh or the high-tech equivalent of the "silkscreen" used to make t-shirts. No matter how hard they try, the mesh can only be made so rigid. When the mesh is small, it's not a problem... The fabricating machine can hold it over the substrate, the OLED material can be "injected" through it, and the end result is a nice even layer.
> 
> 
> The problem is that the mask can never touch the substrate. If it does, the OLED material is uneven and your pixels don't come out right (especially because you need to lay down three colors. And you get waste.
> 
> 
> So on larger displays, they spent some time trying to use large masks. It didn't work. The mask would sag in the middle and touch the substrate and you'd get no yield at all.
> 
> 
> The clever guys at Samsung figured out a solution. Take a small mask and move it around the display, pattern a bit of the display each time. There are two big issues here, though:
> 
> 
> 1) It's really slow and inefficient to do this
> 
> 
> 2) You need perfect alignment on every move or you again destroy the substrate
> 
> 
> This technique, called _small mask scanning_ is what they've been working on for at least a couple of years. And they've yet to get especially close to releasing a TV, even in small quantities. This suggests that _it's really hard_ to scale as a technique, they are attempting to build new methods to make it work, and that it's possible it will never scale as a manufacturing method.
> 
> 
> It's for this reason I have speculated (as have others), that Samsung might eventually license LG's method or go a different route entirely. LG's method, for what it worth, _doesn't require any patterning of OLED material_.
> 
> 
> All the hype around "printable OLEDs" is that they do require patterning, but don't need a mask. They pattern directly on the substrate using something that is most akin to the print head in your inkjet printer. Again, that's been worked on for 10 years and the closest it has come to reality is a couple of prototypes at 2013 CES which allegedly might be ready for manufacture in 2015. Of course, we've been hearing that printable OLED is a year or two away for 10 years.
> 
> 
> I hope this helps, I could do some diagrams if I get really bored.


----------



## rogo

I don't see why you quoted my entire post to talk about something totally unrelated.... Well, I do know why, but I'm not happy you're still doing things like that.


Regardless, I don't think anyone believes Samsung is in position to ship OLED TVs on LG's schedule -- including Samsung. They didn't even announce a date at CES.


----------



## irkuck

^Likely it is more dramatic: Samsung must have been under life&death pressure to get 2K portable 5" OLED ready just now when first LCDs with such res start appear. Otherwise OLED would be practically dead.


----------



## greenland

Apple Hires a New High Powered Leader in AMOLEDs

February 6, 2013

http://oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=774 


"Apple’s recent hire, Jueng –jil (James) Lee--a former Research fellow from LG Display and a senior person in LG Display’s R&D effort to create a printed AMOLED TV. "



I would not be very surprised if down the road LG hits Apple with a number of patent infringement suits, claiming that the guy transferred them to Apple, and that is why they hired the guy.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22942812
> 
> 
> Apple Hires a New High Powered Leader in AMOLEDs
> 
> February 6, 2013
> 
> http://oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=774
> 
> 
> "Apple’s recent hire, Jueng –jil (James) Lee--a former Research fellow from LG Display and a senior person in LG Display’s R&D effort to create a printed AMOLED TV. "
> 
> 
> 
> I would not be very surprised if down the road LG hits Apple with a number of patent infringement suits, claiming that the guy transferred them to Apple, and that is why they hired the guy.



The problem with such things is that sometimes just the _threat_ of a suit is what has teeth. I wonder how this guy skirted around a NCA (NCC). Also the NDA must've been an inch thick.


----------



## whityfrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22942583
> 
> 
> I don't see why you quoted my entire post to talk about something totally unrelated.... Well, I do know why, but I'm not happy you're still doing things like that.
> 
> 
> Regardless, I don't think anyone believes Samsung is in position to ship OLED TVs on LG's schedule -- including Samsung. They didn't even announce a date at CES.



this forum was founded on dissecting peoples posts sentence by sentence and frequent off topic responses that usually result in a 10 page hijacking at a time. lol i can understand this is a direct result of sheer boredom and a lack of said product to consume time with, but it really does hamper finding any useful information trapped within the thread.


and just so you know, it wasnt me who did this, so dont direct the gunfire my way.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22942202
> 
> LG’s Organic Light-Emitting Diode TVs customers pre-ordered since the start of this year will be delivered to Korean consumers starting from the 20th this month. LG is hoping the sales of these new breed of flat screens will pick up as more consumers experience them at homes.
> 
> 
> On the 7th, LG announced that the company will start delivery of its OLED TVs to those who placed pre-production orders in Korea from the 20th. LG also commented it “will move first to be the winner of this year’s newly launched TVs by starting the delivery of OLED TVs, together with the launching events for other new 2013 TV models scheduled to take place in mid and late this month.”
> 
> 
> However, LG decided not to disclose how many pre-production orders were placed for the OLED TVs. The OLED TVs come in hefty price tags of about KRW 1.1 million (approximately 10,000 in USD), and their target consumers are VVIPs at the moment, rather than the general public. The trade insiders are speculating that about 130 to 200 pre-production orders had been placed.
> 
> 
> LG’s OLED TVs will be rolled-out in the U.S. in March, and in the other parts of the world, including Europe, in consideration of market response and production capacity. Meanwhile, Japanese newspapers reported that LG will launch 55-inch OLED TVs in Japan sometime in this spring.
> 
> Have you seen where there was an actual settlement? The latest I saw is they agreed to work on resolving the suits. Both companies had assigned people to work on the resolution. A cross-license would definitely be a positive development for quicker adoption of OLEDs. I'm sure LG doesn't want to give up their WRGB patents but they would probably like to get access to Samsung's flexible technology. It could be an interesting idea.
> 
> It's an open question whether Samsung will solve that problem or get to TVs by another method. It is unlikely they'll be releasing TVs soon. For what it's worth, their strategy was to gradually increase screen sizes over time but they had not intended to jump to 55" screens yet. They were caught off-guard by LG's TV plans and decided to try to use their existing technology at larger sizes to not cede the TV race. The RGB method was really just thought of as a stopgap for the pilot line but not necessarily the final technology and they have been working on other technologies, including printing, at the same time. They are making progress on larger sizes though as they are likely to increase the size of their next small screen size expansion from 5.5g substrates to 6.5g.
> 
> soluble materials .. close to solution. Ha, nice choice of words.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of discussion here about 4K vs OLED. Industry expert Barry Young gave an interview today with his impression.
> 
> 
> Both Samsung and LG Display are in OLEDs for the long term and have figured out that they cannot accurately forecast delivery of new technology, but they are firm in their beliefs that the technology will be differentiated and the costs will be competitive. Each company continues to appropriate CAPEX for OLEDs in a strategic fashion, while committing spending for LCDs tactically.
> 
> 
> DisplaySearch says that both Samsung and LGD are currently focusing on 4K2K and "delaying" OLED TVs... what's your view here?
> 
> 
> Both Samsung and LG have separate groups working on LCDs and OLEDs, so the priorities in one group (LCDs) don’t necessarily effect the priorities of another group (OLEDs). If you look at the Capex for Samsung and LG, they are putting relatively more investment in OLEDs than LCDs.




after all they hype and broken promises, i remain skeptical.


i'll believe lg will ship an oled to the u.s. when i can see one in a retail store


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whityfrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22950815
> 
> 
> this forum was founded on dissecting peoples posts sentence by sentence



It wasn't actually. It used to be much better.


> Quote:
> and frequent off topic responses that usually result in a 10 page hijacking at a time. lol i can understand this is a direct result of sheer boredom and a lack of said product to consume time with, but it really does hamper finding any useful information trapped within the thread.



Yes, that does happen, especially when there is nothing new to talk about. The truth is that it's mostly a flaw with this kind of forum software. You can never resurface the real conversation easily.


> Quote:
> and just so you know, it wasnt me who did this, so dont direct the gunfire my way.



My reading skills are intact. I know who did what.


----------



## greenland

Well, it does appear that LG is preparing for to introduce their 55 inch OLED to the US.


They have posted this on their LG US site.

http://www.lg.com/us/oled/index.jsp


----------



## grexeo

And at the same time they've removed the OLED microsite in the UK, along with the 55" model product page.


I assume this means OLED TVs aren't coming to the UK any time soon. Disappointed, but not surprised.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22951329
> 
> 
> Well, it does appear that LG is preparing for to introduce their 55 inch OLED to the US.
> 
> 
> They have posted this on their LG US site.
> 
> http://www.lg.com/us/oled/index.jsp



I had to laugh at their pictures of 'conventional' TV images. They look like 1st gen LCD from years ago.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grexeo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22951410
> 
> 
> And at the same time they've removed the OLED microsite in the UK, along with the 55" model product page.
> 
> 
> I assume this means OLED TVs aren't coming to the UK any time soon. Disappointed, but not surprised.


The conspiracy theorist in me says the UK cancellation has to do with the low yield issues.


----------



## agkss

Another year without OLED...I only know the Sony 11"


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22951329
> 
> 
> Well, it does appear that LG is preparing for to introduce their 55 inch OLED to the US.
> 
> 
> They have posted this on their LG US site.
> 
> http://www.lg.com/us/oled/index.jsp



I don't want to sound rude here but they've had that on their website for a little over a month, maybe longer?


It's nice information though!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22951229
> 
> 
> Yes, that does happen, especially when there is nothing new to talk about. The truth is that it's mostly a flaw with this kind of forum software. You can never resurface the real conversation easily.



Yep. In the heydays of USENET, the nested tree-view of a thread allowed you to visually ignore large digressions in a whack. You go from OLED to, (picking somemthing out of the air) USENET, and never impact the rest of the conversation.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22951645
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22951329
> 
> 
> Well, it does appear that LG is preparing for to introduce their 55 inch OLED to the US.
> 
> 
> They have posted this on their LG US site.
> 
> http://www.lg.com/us/oled/index.jsp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had to laugh at their pictures of 'conventional' TV images. They look like 1st gen LCD from years ago.
Click to expand...

This thing on the left?
 

...looks modern to me!


By the way, how do the wires go from the base up to the panel again?


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22951329
> 
> 
> Well, it does appear that LG is preparing for to introduce their 55 inch OLED to the US.
> 
> 
> They have posted this on their LG US site.
> 
> http://www.lg.com/us/oled/index.jsp



They still have this old obsolete page also: http://www.lg.com/uk/tvs/lg-55EM960V-oled-tv


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22953075
> 
> 
> They still have this old obsolete page also: http://www.lg.com/uk/tvs/lg-55EM960V-oled-tv



Well that convinces me


----------



## greenland

Samsung Display drops injunction against LG OLED Display

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2013/02/12/52/0200000000AEN20130212010451320F.HTML 


"SEOUL, Feb. 12 (Yonhap) -- Samsung Display Co. on Tuesday dropped an injunction aimed to block LG Display Co. from using its organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology, raising hopes the two rivals are moving to settle their display technology dispute."


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22955330
> 
> 
> Samsung Display drops injunction against LG OLED Display
> 
> http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2013/02/12/52/0200000000AEN20130212010451320F.HTML
> 
> 
> "SEOUL, Feb. 12 (Yonhap) -- Samsung Display Co. on Tuesday dropped an injunction aimed to block LG Display Co. from using its organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology, raising hopes the two rivals are moving to settle their display technology dispute."



With the Korean government pushing the two companies to cooperate, OLED is likely to evolve faster.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22955767
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22955330
> 
> 
> Samsung Display drops injunction against LG OLED Display
> 
> http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2013/02/12/52/0200000000AEN20130212010451320F.HTML
> 
> 
> "SEOUL, Feb. 12 (Yonhap) -- Samsung Display Co. on Tuesday dropped an injunction aimed to block LG Display Co. from using its organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology, raising hopes the two rivals are moving to settle their display technology dispute."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the Korean government pushing the two companies to cooperate, OLED is likely to evolve faster.
Click to expand...


Faster than it would otherwise yes, but not much faster than predicted by many here, because the bulk of the obstacles in the way for OLED weren't expressed here as legal, they were economic/physical.


----------



## irkuck

 OLED is massacred and bulldozhed - it's real or just Samsung-blasting?


----------



## rogo

Honestly, I think Cook is Samsung bashing. He's also proving to be a bit more Jobs-like than I recently gave him credit for.


The points about power consumption are true on mobile -- up to a pretty limited point. The points about color are true -- up to a pretty limited point. But the guy used the word "awful". The word that comes to mind for me when I see an S3 is "beautiful". And I use an iPhone 5, which has a very nice screen of its own.


----------



## Ken Ross

I've got an S3 and my wife an iPhone5. I much prefer looking at videos and pix on the S3. It's has more of an impact and is simply more 'fun'. With that said, I don't give it high marks for color accuracy, but I don't think that was ever Samsung's intent. In-your-face color sells well in the mobile world and this is an example of that.


I've said on several occasions that if an OLED, with its super-saturated colors, were calibrated to conform to Rec709, would we see any difference (in terms of color) between it and more conventional displays? OLEDs may shine with new standards and their expanded color gamuts, but I suspect other display technology might rise to the occasion too.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22955792
> 
> 
> Faster than it would otherwise yes, but not much faster than predicted by many here, because the bulk of the obstacles in the way for OLED weren't expressed here as legal, they were economic/physical.



You may be right, but the way I look at it each company has bits of the technology puzzle, and their own connections with other fabricators. Pooling their resources might make things go faster.


And I remain optimistic about Panasonic's and Sony's cooperation.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5160#post_22936274
> 
> 
> To add more fuel to the fire, we eventually need OLED's capable of 1 millisecond impulse lengths for CRT-quality motion without motion interpolation, for playing console video games and computer games without motion blur at all, AND without input lag of interpolation. That requires OLED that's 16x brighter than a sample-and-hold. (1ms impulses versus 16.7ms sample-and-hold).
> 
> 
> Ideally, native 120 Hz refresh is better, and that will only require 8x brighter (1ms impulses versus 8.33ms sample-and-hold) to have the same motion clarity as CRT without motion interpolation, and without input lag.
> 
> 
> FWIW, PS Vita is a sample-and-hold OLED.


I am VERY curious about more specifics about impulse-driving in relationship to LED and OLED technologies. OLED is initially a fail for motion blur during video game use, unless it's got enough brightness for low-input-lag impulse-drive modes. OLED has a lot of brightness problems (unlike discrete/crystal LED's) *Does anyone know if any OLED manufacturer plans to release impulse-driveable OLED's that can run at full brightness even in impulse-driven modes (as quickly on-and-off as CRT phosphor)?*


To the best of my knowledge, Sony's expensive Crystal LED prototype is definitely impulse-driven as it flickers in camera video. It is also reported to have great motion quality. (unlike PS Vita OLED which has lots of motion blur). *Does anyone know what the impulse length (length of pixel flash per refresh) the Sony Crystal LED is?* Has anyone ever pointed a 1000fps+ camera at the Sony Crystal LED, to determine its refresh pattern? (I've already created such a high-speed video for LightBoost LCD's, measured to have 85%-92% clearer video game motion than a typical 60Hz LCD -- that is 7 to 11x less motion blur, thanks to impulse-driving)


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22956007
> 
> OLED is massacred and bulldozhed - it's real or just Samsung-blasting?



Hmm. This is the same company that just hired away one of LG's OLED experts????


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5190#post_22942812
> 
> 
> Apple Hires a New High Powered Leader in AMOLEDs
> 
> February 6, 2013
> 
> http://oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=774
> 
> 
> "Apple’s recent hire, Jueng –jil (James) Lee--a former Research fellow from LG Display and a senior person in LG Display’s R&D effort to create a printed AMOLED TV. "


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22956524
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, Sony's expensive Crystal LED prototype is definitely impulse-driven as it flickers in camera video. It is also reported to have great motion quality. (unlike PS Vita OLED which has lots of motion blur). *Does anyone know what the impulse length (length of pixel flash per refresh) the Sony Crystal LED is?* Has anyone ever pointed a 1000fps+ camera at the Sony Crystal LED, to determine its refresh pattern? (I've already created such a high-speed video for LightBoost LCD's, measured to have 85%-92% clearer video game motion than a typical 60Hz LCD -- that is 7 to 11x less motion blur, thanks to impulse-driving)



Leaving aside the fact that Sony will never ever ship a crystal LED, the prototype had _terrible_ motion quality. Because of whatever kind of "scanning" technique it was using, it would "draw" the image vertically and the result was flat out awful on the edges of the display. They showed a boat floating across the screen and unless you were blindly ignoring it, you could see it "combing" into view. I found it odd the thing got such hype given how flat-out awful it was at display horizontal motion.


Again, this matters not at all. No consumer product based on this technology will ever be delivered. Sorry.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22957241
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the fact that Sony will never ever ship a crystal LED, the prototype had _terrible_ motion quality. Because of whatever kind of "scanning" technique it was using, it would "draw" the image vertically and the result was flat out awful on the edges of the display. They showed a boat floating across the screen and unless you were blindly ignoring it, you could see it "combing" into view. I found it odd the thing got such hype given how flat-out awful it was at display horizontal motion.


Thanks, that satisfies my curiousity. Sounds like it is using a rather bad scan pattern (perhaps made necessary in the prototype for some reason, such as a requirement to multi-scan the Crystal LED, etc).


That leaves OLED. Regardless, the solution to the motion blur problem for OLED is not as simple as many think...

instant pixel switching (alone) does not necessarily eliminate motion blur; the only way to do so is to shorten the length that an individual frame is displayed (either via extra frames, or via black period between frames)


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22957241
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the fact that Sony will never ever ship a crystal LED, the prototype had _terrible_ motion quality. Because of whatever kind of "scanning" technique it was using, it would "draw" the image vertically and the result was flat out awful on the edges of the display. They showed a boat floating across the screen and unless you were blindly ignoring it, you could see it "combing" into view. I found it odd the thing got such hype given how flat-out awful it was at display horizontal motion.
> 
> 
> Again, this matters not at all. No consumer product based on this technology will ever be delivered. Sorry.


For what it's worth, all LCDs do this as well. I am surprised that they were not scanning at a rate high enough to at least bring it down to LCD levels. Or maybe the motion resolution just made it stand out that much more. Or perhaps simply because it was a very early prototype or something that is unlikely to go into production.


I wonder if OLEDs are updated progressively like Plasmas, or scanned like LCDs.


----------



## Corent

 http://www.lg.com/us/oled/whats-oledtv.jsp 


vs.

http://www.lg.com/us/oled-tv/whats-oledtv.jsp 


Two different FAQs on the same site. Which one is newer? The "oled-tv" one has been around since at least CES. The "oled" one does not have "burn-in" and "weight" entries.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22958121
> 
> 
> That leaves OLED. Regardless, the solution to the motion blur problem for OLED is not as simple as many think...
> 
> instant pixel switching (alone) does not necessarily eliminate motion blur; the only way to do so is to shorten the length that an individual frame is displayed (either via extra frames, or via black period between frames)



That is true, but the speed of the transition of the pixels is a problem for LCD and to some extent for Plasma.

If panels could run at 120 HZ (in the US) as it is a natual multiple of 24 and 60.


I, like many, am so used to 24 HZ for movies that better motion does not look right.

30HZ would be a better choice though.


The reaction to the Hobbit's 48 HZ was mixed at best.

I wish I had the time to see it.


- Rich


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22956528
> 
> 
> Hmm. This is the same company that just hired away one of LG's OLED experts????



When the said company CEO says: “_If you ever buy anything online and really want to know what he color is, as many people do, you should really think twice before you depend on the color from a OLED display_” and does the above, the only logical explanation is they are working on AppLED which will be very finest OLED in contrast to rotten LG and Samsung OLED







.


----------



## Chronoptimist

Without color management, OLED saturation _is_ terrible. That's why Apple is focused on LED displays - their saturation falls in line with the sRGB spec so they get accurate color for "free".


----------



## greenland

Apple will claim that they perfected OLED and that is why you will have the privilege of paying three times more for it, than the competitors products.


They have that King's New Clothes sale pitch down perfectly.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22958698
> 
> 
> The reaction to the Hobbit's 48 HZ was mixed at best.



No, don't overstate it. It was mixed, not mixed at best.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22959766
> 
> 
> Apple will claim that they perfected OLED and that is why you will have the privilege of paying three times more for it, than the competitors products.
> 
> 
> They have that King's New Clothes sale pitch down perfectly.



Too true. And they compel you to only go to their own Tailors for everything.


But I think you mean the "Emperor's New Clothes."


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Corent*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22958679
> 
> http://www.lg.com/us/oled/whats-oledtv.jsp
> 
> 
> vs.
> 
> http://www.lg.com/us/oled-tv/whats-oledtv.jsp
> 
> 
> Two different FAQs on the same site. Which one is newer? The "oled-tv" one has been around since at least CES. The "oled" one does not have "burn-in" and "weight" entries.



People need to realize the burn-in issue depending on their type of use. It's not something that should be overlooked.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22959799
> 
> 
> No, don't overstate it. It was mixed, not mixed at best.



I did not try to state it.

The review I read were mostly bad.


- Rich


----------



## HDPeeT

What would the price of an OLED TV be if the yields for the panels were as high as they are for LCD panels?


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*
> 
> I did not try to state it.
> 
> The review I read were mostly bad.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Reviewers tend to be overly critical. On the Dutch HTforum most folks seem to like The Hobbit 3D 48fps. 90% of viewing is 2D anyway so 3D 48fps reviews are not really significant.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22960402
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22959799
> 
> 
> No, don't overstate it. It was mixed, not mixed at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not try to state it.
> 
> The review I read were mostly bad.
> 
> 
> - Rich
Click to expand...


"Mostly bad"? Not the ones I read. As a guess, you may be reacting to headlines. When something is new and sold to be 100% accepted by everyone as great, the bad reviews will always float quickly to the top because they are the most sensational---it was such a surprise for anything bad to be attributed to this new technology that it quickly had the spotlight. Look at the overall review set from independent places like RT.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22960609
> 
> 
> What would the price of an OLED TV be if the yields for the panels were as high as they are for LCD panels?



Probably 2x a premium LCD or so... So like $6000 for a 55". Eventually, they'll be as cheap. But it's not only a yield problem today, it's a "this is more expensive to do" problem. I do believe LG could reach cost parity in 3-4 years realistically, assuming they really ramp the IGZO-backplane making.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22958121
> 
> 
> Thanks, that satisfies my curiousity. Sounds like it is using a rather bad scan pattern (perhaps made necessary in the prototype for some reason, such as a requirement to multi-scan the Crystal LED, etc).
> 
> 
> That leaves OLED. Regardless, the solution to the motion blur problem for OLED is not as simple as many think...
> 
> instant pixel switching (alone) does not necessarily eliminate motion blur; the only way to do so is to shorten the length that an individual frame is displayed (either via extra frames, or via black period between frames)



I'm willing to write it off to being a prototype.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22958176
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, all LCDs do this as well. I am surprised that they were not scanning at a rate high enough to at least bring it down to LCD levels. Or maybe the motion resolution just made it stand out that much more. Or perhaps simply because it was a very early prototype or something that is unlikely to go into production.



Sounds reasonable.


----------



## Rich Peterson

What's bothing me a little is that a month or so ago if you went to lg.com, the big five section scrolling banner had OLED in position 1. So anyone looking for a TV, washingmachine, cellphone, or anything would see it. But now I see google TV, 3D Tv, and LED TVs promoted but not OLED. I wonder why?


----------



## Artwood

OLED isn't happening soon.


LCD quality is going backwards and plasma is barely hanging on.


I'm afraid.


----------



## slacker711

Preorders hit 100, LG OLED is set to go on sale on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/14/us-lg-tv-idUSBRE91D03Z20130214 


Unit sales are meaningless, we need to get some reviews.


----------



## hoozthatat

Funny thing here is the obvious omission of a US release date. Big shocker.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22962784
> 
> 
> OLED isn't happening soon.
> 
> 
> LCD quality is going backwards and plasma is barely hanging on.
> 
> 
> I'm afraid.


ZT60 (and maybe the F8500) is gonna' keep Plasma from flatlining this year...but next year could be grim.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22962984
> 
> 
> Preorders hit 100, LG OLED is set to go on sale on Monday.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/14/us-lg-tv-idUSBRE91D03Z20130214



Wow, all of 100? Very impressive.


----------



## chrinbavs

that right. The AMOLEDs will compete with active-matrix TFTs in this premium end of the cell-phone market. thanks


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22962984
> 
> 
> Preorders hit 100, LG OLED is set to go on sale on Monday.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/14/us-lg-tv-idUSBRE91D03Z20130214
> 
> 
> Unit sales are meaningless, we need to get some reviews.



I'm wondering how many hardware revs (for the same 2013 model) we're going to see as the year progresses. IMO (guessing, because I don't understand yet the start to end development cycle), it's almost certainly going to be a learn-as-you-go model in small time slices, perhaps even month by month. Given the nature of small output numbers, they'll be able to upgrade fairly quickly I think.


----------



## 8mile13

Isn't there a AVS-ish forum in South-Korea? Or maybe in North-Korea


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22964095
> 
> 
> Isn't there a AVS-ish forum in South-Korea? Or maybe in North-Korea



North Korea has one. They've been debating the release of this thing for months:
 

But there's only been the prototype, and no one knows for sure what the yields will be.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22963072
> 
> 
> Funny thing here is the obvious omission of a US release date. Big shocker.



They are supposed to arrive in the US sometime in March.

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-34435_1-57562434/lgs-oled-tv-to-arrive-in-march-for-about-$12k/


----------



## dsurkin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22960402
> 
> 
> I did not try to state it.
> 
> The review I read were mostly bad.
> 
> 
> - Rich


I saw "The Hobbit" in 48fps, and it made a real difference in action scenes. Where, for example, I noticed blurring in "The Avengers," I found "The Hobbit" to be perfectly clear. It made following the action much more pleasant.


I saw both movies at NYC location, 3D IMAX, with state-of-the art projection and sound capabilities. Both directors are known for quality work. Therefore, I think the difference in clarity was entirely due to the 48fps technology. Admittedly, the film looks different--almost video-like. I'm reminded of British TV shows from the 1970s and earlier, where the interior scenes were captured on video but the exterior scenes were captured on film. You could always see the transition. Here's another thought: early silent movies weren't films at 24fps; they generally ran between 16fps and 20fps. Making the transition from those movies to the modern 24fps gave a different look to the screen action.


I think the advance in frame rate is something we'll get used to. The next generation will take it for granted. Eventually, home TVs will have to support 240 refresh rate in order to display 48fps. The next generation of Blu-Ray discs will have to support a higher transfer rate. Cable TV and streaming services, of course, will just use more compression so our picture quality will get worse.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsurkin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22964560
> 
> 
> Admittedly, the film looks different--almost video-like.



Perhaps real life is "video like". Perhaps all day we witness the Soap Opera Effect.


----------



## rogo

Most of movie making relies on the fact it's shot at 24fps. If you ever see a movie set, it looks not at all real or life-like. The problem with 48fps is that it exposes the fiction. In "The Hobbit" this, more than anything, caused the people who didn't like it to not like it. It looked fake to them because, well, it's fake.


Over time, this ought to be something that can be mitigated. But the question is whether the industry will bother. Maybe for some portion of films where motion is essential, it will become commonplace. Generally speaking, 24fps works not only for most films, but for most content within most films.


Anyway, back to OLED....


Selling 100 means nothing, of course, except that a really big LCD is 3x more popular than a pretty small OLED. And that means nothing, too.


But after a year to hype this, basically even in "hometown Korea". the product is generating absolutely no interest at $10,000.


While I'm interested in reviews, Slacker, I don't think they mean anything either. This is first-gen stuff and I'm not sure why reviews are more telling that sales data.


I guess what I'm interested in is (a) global rollout schedule (b) production plans (c) when's the price cut?


That tells me much more about the future.


The fact that 100 really rich Koreans will soon take delivery of a TV I'd personally consider too small for my house -- and I wouldn't care if it is the best reviewed TV ever, it's still too small for me -- is a milestone after a decade-long wait, but it doesn't yet feel like a very important one.


----------



## greenland

The OLED TV sales will end up being too small a sample for consumers to get statistically significant performance feedback from owners, this year. One market research firm has recently projected that only 1,600 units will be sold worldwide for all of 2013.


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22964471
> 
> 
> They are supposed to arrive in the US sometime in March.
> 
> http://ces.cnet.com/8301-34435_1-57562434/lgs-oled-tv-to-arrive-in-march-for-about-$12k/



I've seen the statements, I appreciate the link, I've just not heard anything since CES about the US roll out


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22965342
> 
> 
> While I'm interested in reviews, Slacker, I don't think they mean anything either. This is first-gen stuff and I'm not sure why reviews are more telling that sales data.
> 
> 
> I guess what I'm interested in is (a) global rollout schedule (b) production plans (c) when's the price cut?



I would go with b as the most important on my radar. The global rollout is nice, but selling 1,000 a month isnt going to tell us much more about their yields.


The reason I care about the reviews is I want to know the performance "floor" of the product. I fully expect issues with a first-generation product but the failure modes matter, particularly if they are related to WRGB or the lifetime of the materials.


Hell, I think the 100 units probably overstates demand. How many of those units are heading to R&D labs in Taiwan, Japan or in Samsung?


----------



## losemetss

Good LED. Industry & Energy's (MOCIE) Next-Generation Growth Engine Industries Initiative. thank you


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDPeeT*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5220#post_22960609
> 
> 
> What would the price of an OLED TV be if the yields for the panels were as high as they are for LCD panels?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22961622
> 
> 
> Probably 2x a premium LCD or so... So like $6000 for a 55". Eventually, they'll be as cheap. But it's not only a yield problem today, it's a "this is more expensive to do" problem. I do believe LG could reach cost parity in 3-4 years realistically, assuming they really ramp the IGZO-backplane making.
> 
> I'm willing to write it off to being a prototype.
> 
> Sounds reasonable.



So we've discussed yield issues over and over in this thread... but what exactly does "yield" mean in the context of these OLED TV's? If I was judging LCD TV's, I would put their real-world "yield" at less than 10%. What I mean by that is that 90% of the LCD's I see in the stores have some dead pixels, backlight bleed, clouding, bad color uniformity, etc. But yet somehow these qualify for sale at retail. Maybe the reason OLED TV yields are considered low is because they are being held to a higher standard than your average LCD? That would make sense to me if they expect someone to pay $12K for a TV - it needs to be perfect!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22965379
> 
> 
> The OLED TV sales will end up being too small a sample for consumers to get statistically significant performance feedback from owners, this year. One market research firm has recently projected that only 1,600 units will be sold worldwide for all of 2013.



That wouldn't shock me.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22967292
> 
> 
> I would go with b as the most important on my radar. The global rollout is nice, but selling 1,000 a month isnt going to tell us much more about their yields.
> 
> 
> The reason I care about the reviews is I want to know the performance "floor" of the product. I fully expect issues with a first-generation product but the failure modes matter, particularly if they are related to WRGB or the lifetime of the materials.
> 
> 
> Hell, I think the 100 units probably overstates demand. How many of those units are heading to R&D labs in Taiwan, Japan or in Samsung?



True, true on the demand. And fair points on the idea of a performance "floor". It's going to be hard to get lifetime type data for a long while -- or at least I hope it's going to be hard.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22967642
> 
> 
> 
> So we've discussed yield issues over and over in this thread... but what exactly does "yield" mean in the context of these OLED TV's? If I was judging LCD TV's, I would put their real-world "yield" at less than 10%. What I mean by that is that 90% of the LCD's I see in the stores have some dead pixels, backlight bleed, clouding, bad color uniformity, etc. But yet somehow these qualify for sale at retail. Maybe the reason OLED TV yields are considered low is because they are being held to a higher standard than your average LCD? That would make sense to me if they expect someone to pay $12K for a TV - it needs to be perfect!



No, you don't really understand yield. It has nothing at all to do with what you consider defects, sorry.


A couple of dead pixels, some backlight "bleed", some uniformity flaws are not yield issues. Every panel you see at market has passed QC and therefore counts as positive yield. When panels come off the line they are tested -- albeit briefly and poorly -- and they have to perform to a certain minimum standard to get turned into TVs and boxed up.


For modern LCD TVs, the typical fab that makes 50,000 panels on a line probably has a yield north of 90%. Well, actually it definitely has a yield that high.


The dismal OLED yield is not about getting it perfect, it's about getting it working at all. I wish it were what you were hoping, but no. When we hear that LG was yielding 10%, that means they literally had to recycle 90% of the panels because they simply didn't produce a picture not that 2-3 pixels were bad.


LG has two very new processes going on and each was probably failing badly.


1) They are making 55" IGZO backplanes. No one else is near that yet, including LG in any other product. IGZO backplanes will eventually have about a 99% yield on their own. But it's bleeding-edge stuff right now and apparently the yields there were (are?) below 10%.


2) They are vapor depositing three layers of OLED material atop one another, one after the other, that need to be perfectly uniform. While the process isn't especially technically tricky, it's new, especially given the materials being used. And it has to be precise, the material layers need to be really even, and the current from the transistors needs to excite the three layers of material in a pixel-shaped region accurately when asked to. This process step is likely again going to have very high yields eventually, but surely did not initially.


----------



## Artwood

rogo: will OLED perform as well as plasma at 100,000 hours? By that I mean will picture quality on OLED decay at the same percentage as plasma at 100,000 hours?


Since OLED might be expensive people may shy away from buying it if its picture quality degrades too swiftly and if you HAVE to buy one three years later.


Will the color blue in OLED hold up well at 1000,000 hours?


Anyone else who knows about OLED picture quality performance hours at say 100,000 hours of use feel free to chime in.


I know that a display doesn't have to last 100,000 hours but the new plasmas say they can last that long.


How long can OLED picture quality hold up?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22967825
> 
> 
> rogo: will OLED perform as well as plasma at 100,000 hours? By that I mean will picture quality on OLED decay at the same percentage as plasma at 100,000 hours?


Does anyone really care if their OLED set lasts 100,000 hours to half brightness? That's almost eleven-and-a-half years from 24/7 use. Realistically you are not going to have more than 8 hours a day (that would be heavy home use) which is 34 years. And I would say that most people probably only watch about 4 hours of television a day, rather than 8 which is approaching 70 years.


Even if you assume eight hours a day rather than four, 30,000 hours would get you 10 years until _half brightness_ from OLED. I think that is achievable.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22967939
> 
> 
> Does anyone really care if their OLED set lasts 100,000 hours to half brightness? That's almost eleven-and-a-half years from 24/7 use. Realistically you are not going to have more than 8 hours a day (that would be heavy home use) which is 34 years. And I would say that most people probably only watch about 4 hours of television a day, rather than 8 which is approaching 70 years.
> 
> 
> Even if you assume eight hours a day rather than four, 30,000 hours would get you 10 years until _half brightness_ from OLED. I think that is achievable.



For me the issue is the even aging because i want the color temperature to remain stable, brightness retained, and the panel is resistant to uneven wear.

Plasma (which I prefer) has IR and burn in issues.

There is no way you should use one as a computer monitor.

I have a pioneer 600M in my office that I watch primarily news. The logo and banner areas are burned in.

You will notice that folks who say burn in is not a problem do not say you cannot get burn in.

LCD's are far better suited to fixed image display or that primarily display a source that uses logos and tickers.


Since OLEDs are emissive and subject to wear, I will be paying attention to this aspect of their performance.


- Rich


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22968065
> 
> 
> For me the issue is the even aging because i want the color temperature to remain stable, brightness retained, and the panel is resistant to uneven wear.
> 
> Plasma (which I prefer) has IR and burn in issues.
> 
> There is no way you should use one as a computer monitor.
> 
> I have a pioneer 600M in my office that I watch primarily news. The logo and banner areas are burned in.
> 
> You will notice that folks who say burn in is not a problem do not say you cannot get burn in.
> 
> LCD's are far better suited to fixed image display or that primarily display a source that uses logos and tickers.
> 
> 
> Since OLEDs are emissive and subject to wear, I will be paying attention to this aspect of their performance.


Those are definitely valid concerns to have about OLED, but are not necessarily related to how many hours it will take to reach half brightness. I'm pretty sure that Panasonic's 100,000 hours rating is higher than any LED set available, yet they are still susceptible to those issues whereas LED is not. And an LED set at half brightness is probably similar to a Plasma at full brightness.


I am surprised that you have a Kuro relegated to an office for watching the news, when any cheap LED set would do a better job without permanent damage.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22968618
> 
> 
> Those are definitely valid concerns to have about OLED, but are not necessarily related to how many hours it will take to reach half brightness. I'm pretty sure that Panasonic's 100,000 hours rating is higher than any LED set available, yet they are still susceptible to those issues whereas LED is not. And an LED set at half brightness is probably similar to a Plasma at full brightness.
> 
> 
> I am surprised that you have a Kuro relegated to an office for watching the news, when any cheap LED set would do a better job without permanent damage.



That is true but the hours to half brightness can be an indicator.


I bought it when they were to be had at great deals.

I have a 65GT30 in my living room.

Even with the burn in, the picture and angle viewing make it worth it.


I have seen Samsung OLED phones at the Verizon Store with massive icon burn-in.


My guess is the best we can hope for is burn-in resistance.


- Rich


----------



## ynotgoal

 LGs White OLED architecture boasts a lifetime in excess of 100.000 hours. There are 8,766 hours in a year, so these devices are very stable. Another advantage of the White OLED approach is the elimination color shift over time due to one color dying out more quickly than the others.

IEEE Spectrum 

O’Donovan [principal research analyst for Gartner’s semiconductor research group] says he thinks, at least in the short term, that LG’s white OLED approach “will be better for yields and will create a more uniform color for the whole panel.” He argues that although researchers have extended the lifetime of blue OLEDs to about 20 000 hours, white OLEDs eliminate the problem of fading blues altogether.



From the same article, for future printed oleds using solution materials:

Over the years, companies have lowered the defect rate and have increased screen life by extending the time it takes for the blue pixels to fade to half their original brightness. That metric has risen from 5000 hours a few years ago to about 34 000 hours today at typical TV brightness levels, according to an announcement by DuPont. Though that’s still a lot less than the 50 000 to 80 000 hours of an LCD, it’s enough to allow an OLED TV to run about 18 hours a day for at least seven years.


----------



## whityfrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22968065
> 
> 
> For me the issue is the even aging because i want the color temperature to remain stable, brightness retained, and the panel is resistant to uneven wear.
> 
> Plasma (which I prefer) has IR and burn in issues.
> 
> There is no way you should use one as a computer monitor.
> *I have a pioneer 600M in my office that I watch primarily news. The logo and banner areas are burned in.*
> 
> You will notice that folks who say burn in is not a problem do not say you cannot get burn in.
> 
> LCD's are far better suited to fixed image display or that primarily display a source that uses logos and tickers.
> 
> 
> Since OLEDs are emissive and subject to wear, I will be paying attention to this aspect of their performance.
> 
> 
> - Rich


my 600M was burglarized from my house in 2010 and it still ticks me off every time i think about it. i find your use of the one you still own morbidly disgusting.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whityfrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22970157
> 
> 
> my 600M was burglarized from my house in 2010 and it still ticks me off every time i think about it. i find your use of the one you still own morbidly disgusting.



OK, then I wont tell you about the 500M in my kids playroom










That one is in perfect shape.

Hopefully, this year the Panasonic ZT series will come close to it in black levels.

I expect it to exceed it in full screen brightness and color accuracy.


- Rich


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22967825
> 
> 
> rogo: will OLED perform as well as plasma at 100,000 hours? By that I mean will picture quality on OLED decay at the same percentage as plasma at 100,000 hours?



I doubt it, but....


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22967939
> 
> 
> Does anyone really care if their OLED set lasts 100,000 hours to half brightness? That's almost eleven-and-a-half years from 24/7 use. Realistically you are not going to have more than 8 hours a day (that would be heavy home use) which is 34 years. And I would say that most people probably only watch about 4 hours of television a day, rather than 8 which is approaching 70 years.
> 
> 
> Even if you assume eight hours a day rather than four, 30,000 hours would get you 10 years until _half brightness_ from OLED. I think that is achievable.



... so do I


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22968065
> 
> 
> For me the issue is the even aging because i want the color temperature to remain stable, brightness retained, and the panel is resistant to uneven wear.
> 
> Plasma (which I prefer) has IR and burn in issues.
> 
> Since OLEDs are emissive and subject to wear, I will be paying attention to this aspect of their performance.



As will I. Uneven wear can absolutely occur long before half brightness. Especially if the "wear curve" is parabolic.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22969512
> 
> LGs White OLED architecture boasts a lifetime in excess of 100.000 hours. There are 8,766 hours in a year, so these devices are very stable. Another advantage of the White OLED approach is the elimination color shift over time due to one color dying out more quickly than the others.



Repeat after me. LG does not use white OLEDs. LG does not use white OLEDs.


If they did, the advantage would exist, but they don't.


Am I sure, yes, I am 100% sure. Not 99% sure, 100% sure.


They use red, green and blue OLEDs in a stack. They use all three colors with exactly the same duty cycle. That is to say, for each sub-pixel _you see_, there is an underlying RGB stack that is used for the same duration and to the same brightness. But contrary to the way you might be reading or interpreting the linked material, if the three colors wear unevenly, then the color will in fact shift over time. For example, if the blue dies out quicker, the display will shift away from neutral color to a really ugly yellow tint. Furthermore, if OLED life isn't very good overall, burn-in risk would be real. (I'm not saying it's real, I'm saying the pseudo-white approach doesn't offer a damn thing over a "regular" RGB approach in that regard.)


> Quote:
> IEEE Spectrum
> 
> O’Donovan [principal research analyst for Gartner’s semiconductor research group] says he thinks, at least in the short term, that LG’s white OLED approach “will be better for yields and will create a more uniform color for the whole panel.” He argues that although researchers have extended the lifetime of blue OLEDs to about 20 000 hours, white OLEDs eliminate the problem of fading blues altogether.



O'Donovan sure says what you quoted but he is wrong. LG does not use white OLEDs.


> Quote:
> From the same article, for future printed oleds using solution materials:
> 
> Over the years, companies have lowered the defect rate and have increased screen life by extending the time it takes for the blue pixels to fade to half their original brightness. That metric has risen from 5000 hours a few years ago to about 34 000 hours today at typical TV brightness levels, according to an announcement by DuPont. Though that’s still a lot less than the 50 000 to 80 000 hours of an LCD, it’s enough to allow an OLED TV to run about 18 hours a day for at least seven years.



That's barely enough to make me feel entirely comfortable. I don't want my TV "half as bright as new", nor do you. If the decline is linear, I'd basically consider the first 10,000 or so hours really good on a TV like and the next 5-10K pretty decent. That said, I doubt my TV is on for 2,000 hours per year and I am comfortable with 5-7 years of everyday use.


----------



## mikek753




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22969512
> 
> LGs White OLED architecture boasts a lifetime in excess of 100.000 hours. There are 8,766 hours in a year, so these devices are very stable. Another advantage of the White OLED approach is the elimination color shift over time due to one color dying out more quickly than the others.
> 
> IEEE Spectrum
> 
> O’Donovan [principal research analyst for Gartner’s semiconductor research group] says he thinks, at least in the short term, that LG’s white OLED approach “will be better for yields and will create a more uniform color for the whole panel.” He argues that although researchers have extended the lifetime of blue OLEDs to about 20 000 hours, white OLEDs eliminate the problem of fading blues altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> From the same article, for future printed oleds using solution materials:
> 
> Over the years, companies have lowered the defect rate and have increased screen life by extending the time it takes for the blue pixels to fade to half their original brightness. That metric has risen from 5000 hours a few years ago to about 34 000 hours today at typical TV brightness levels, according to an announcement by DuPont. Though that’s still a lot less than the 50 000 to 80 000 hours of an LCD, it’s enough to allow an OLED TV to run about 18 hours a day for at least seven years.



good info, but isn't it academic (speculations) only?

So far I don't see any OLED TV in any store.

Was that data based on small OLED panels that are in phones or cameras, but in 55" TV?


My conspiracy theory is that there are no large OLED TV in stores due to manufacturer can't guarantee OLED panel will work to the specs over warranty period and it will be too much risk to sale those to latter provide "free" replacement under 1 year or so. Also plus manufacture yields.

I hope I'm wrong and we'll see OLED TV in stores tomorrow ;-)


----------



## Artwood

If blue decays too fast then that is a problem.


As for TV use there are people in this world that keep their TVs running most all of the time--being unconcerned about power consumption though ironically they're the same type people who don't want to buy a new display at quick intervals--you know--the Joe6pack variety. If OLED decays too fast they won't buy them which of course doesn't matter the first few years as the AVSers will of course buy them but some portion of the dumbo public will eventually have to buy them if prices are to fall on them.


I hope OLEDs do last a long time and I hope they can solve the color blue problem they have--no one wants a TV with fading blues where you have to continually adjust for that deficiency.


i may be paranoid about the performance issue--the reason I am is I have heard the same old arguments about people using TVs for 4 hours a day when the DLP lamp replacement issue was afire. No one wanted to replace lamps at quick intervals--I suspect that the dumbo population doesn't want to buy TVs at quick intervals.


OLED may not have to last 100,000 hours but blue performance needs to last longer than 20,000 hours.


This may sound alarmist but remember how berserk this forum went about Panasonic plasma blacks getting lighter and lighter as those sets aged?


If they did that about blacks--don't think that they won't do the same when it comes to fading blues.


The real critical point for OLED might be two years after they have been used--they don't need to have declining blue color levels at 2 years--you'll hear about it here first--and then all the people that lose their minds about "Rainbows" and "Flicker" and "Burn-in" will be on the rampage and OLED will not need that at that time when they will still be comparably high priced.


I think the manufacturers need to be more concerned about getting OLED right instead of getting it out quickl!


Course if 4K Chinese LCD comes out roaring they may have no choice but to come with it and then each year try to correct problems?


----------



## whityfrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22971936
> 
> 
> If blue decays too fast then that is a problem.
> 
> 
> As for TV use there are people in this world that keep their TVs running most all of the time--being unconcerned about power consumption though ironically they're the same type people who don't want to buy a new dis[lay at quick intervals--you know--the Joe6pack variety. If OLED decays too fast they won't buy them which of course doesn't matter the first few years as the AVSers will of course buy them but some portion of the dumbo public will eventually have to buy them if prices are to fall on them.
> 
> 
> I hope OLEDs do last a long time and I hope they can solve the color blue problem they have--no one wants a TV with fading blues where you have to continually adjust for that deficiency.
> 
> 
> i may be paranoid about the performance issue--the reason I am is i have heard the same old arguments about people using TVs for 4 hours a day when the DLP lamp replacement issue was afire. Ho one wanted to replace lamps at quick intervals--I suspect that the dumbo population doesn't want to buy TVs at quick intervals.
> 
> 
> OLD may not have to last 100,000 hours but blue performance needs to last longer than 20,000 hours.
> 
> 
> This may sound alarmist but remember how berserk this forum went about Panasonic plasma blacks getting lighter and lighter as those sets aged?
> 
> 
> If they did that about blacks--don't think that they won't do the same when it comes to fading blues.
> 
> 
> The real critical point for OLED might be two years after they have been used--they don't need to have declining blue color levels at 2 years--you'll hear about it here first--and then all the people that lose their minds about "Rainbows" and "Flicker" and "Burn-in" will be on the rampage and OLED will not need that at that time when they will still be comparably high priced.
> 
> *I think the manufacturers need to be more concerned about getting OLED right instead of getting it out quickl!
> 
> 
> Course if 4K Chinese LCD comes out roaring they may have no choice but to come with it and then each year try to correct problems?*




cough......plasma.......cough.


----------



## whityfrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22970204
> 
> *OK, then I wont tell you about the 500M in my kids playroom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> That one is in perfect shape.
> 
> Hopefully, this year the Panasonic ZT series will come close to it in black levels.
> 
> I expect it to exceed it in full screen brightness and color accuracy.
> 
> 
> - Rich



while your 500m is on borrowed time, thats still practical use for the set. now im curious as to whats actually in your personal viewing setup. may i refer to you as "moneybags rich"?


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5250#post_22970852
> 
> 
> I doubt it, but....
> 
> ... so do I
> 
> As will I. Uneven wear can absolutely occur long before half brightness. Especially if the "wear curve" is parabolic.
> 
> Repeat after me. LG does not use white OLEDs. LG does not use white OLEDs.
> 
> 
> If they did, the advantage would exist, but they don't.
> 
> 
> Am I sure, yes, I am 100% sure. Not 99% sure, 100% sure.
> 
> 
> They use red, green and blue OLEDs in a stack. They use all three colors with exactly the same duty cycle. That is to say, for each sub-pixel _you see_, there is an underlying RGB stack that is used for the same duration and to the same brightness. But contrary to the way you might be reading or interpreting the linked material, if the three colors wear unevenly, then the color will in fact shift over time. For example, if the blue dies out quicker, the display will shift away from neutral color to a really ugly yellow tint. Furthermore, if OLED life isn't very good overall, burn-in risk would be real. (I'm not saying it's real, I'm saying the pseudo-white approach doesn't offer a damn thing over a "regular" RGB approach in that regard.)
> 
> 
> 
> O'Donovan sure says what you quoted but he is wrong. LG does not use white OLEDs.
> 
> That's barely enough to make me feel entirely comfortable. I don't want my TV "half as bright as new", nor do you. If the decline is linear, I'd basically consider the first 10,000 or so hours really good on a TV like and the next 5-10K pretty decent. That said, I doubt my TV is on for 2,000 hours per year and I am comfortable with 5-7 years of everyday use.




There you go again. "White oled" is just an old industry term to describe an architecture that produces white from the R, G, and B components. The WOLED acronym is a shorthand way of saying white OLED. He isn't saying they have a single oled material that produces white on its own, if that's what you are thinking.


As for the color shift you are right in what you are saying, so far as it goes. The other piece was described in a different thread on this board which went through this whole argument. The key quote is this:


"Because of the energy transfer from blue to yellow emitters, both emitters decrease at the same rate and the ratio of blue to yellow remains the same. This provides a stable color as a function of aging time. This is one of the important considerations for a full-color display and minimizes the effects on color balance and gray scale for the RGB and RGBW formats."


In RGBW/WRGB/WOLED/white oeld (whatever you want to call it) architecture, the electrons pass through all 3 colors and they interact with each other. The energy from one layer passes through the remaining layers and excites the electrons in that layer. For this reason, the RG phosphorescent layer is really a single yellow layer consisting of almost entirely green but with just a few drops of red. The interaction of the green on the red materials produces the desired color. In a similar fashion, these electrons then pass through the blue layer and excites the blue material. The combination reduces the differential aging issue to where its not considered to be a problem during a tv lifetime. Its not magic, its materials science. The trade-off, of course, is you need color filters.


----------



## Artwood

How much do color filters reduce brightness?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22972843
> 
> 
> There you go again. "White oled" is just an old industry term to describe an architecture that produces white from the R, G, and B components. The WOLED acronym is a shorthand way of saying white OLED. He isn't saying they have a single oled material that produces white on its own, if that's what you are thinking.



I don't "go anywhere". I'm actually telling you how LG's technology works. It isn't "WOLED". I'm not sure why you think there are "old industry terms". But there are certainly "white LEDs" in the inorganic side, which are single devices that have been engineered to emit white light. The LG technology isn't a "white OLED" at all. It's not engineered to produce white light from a single device. It's a stack of red, green, and blue layers that are "excited" together to produce white light. This isn't some "distinction without a difference" between the three layers are discrete.


> Quote:
> As for the color shift you are right in what you are saying, so far as it goes. The other piece was described in a different thread on this board which went through this whole argument. The key quote is this:
> 
> 
> "Because of the energy transfer from blue to yellow emitters, both emitters decrease at the same rate and the ratio of blue to yellow remains the same. This provides a stable color as a function of aging time. This is one of the important considerations for a full-color display and minimizes the effects on color balance and gray scale for the RGB and RGBW formats."
> 
> 
> In RGBW/WRGB/WOLED/white oeld (whatever you want to call it) architecture, the electrons pass through all 3 colors and they interact with each other. The energy from one layer passes through the remaining layers and excites the electrons in that layer. For this reason, the RG phosphorescent layer is really a single yellow layer consisting of almost entirely green but with just a few drops of red. The interaction of the green on the red materials produces the desired color. In a similar fashion, these electrons then pass through the blue layer and excites the blue material. The combination reduces the differential aging issue to where its not considered to be a problem during a tv lifetime. Its not magic, its materials science. The trade-off, of course, is you need color filters.



So, again, maybe this is all true. We really can't know. But all this material does is confirm exactly what I said here: The blue is, in fact, separate and if it has different aging characteristics, that will eventually matter. It's not OLED bashing, it's math.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22973653
> 
> 
> I don't "go anywhere". I'm actually telling you how LG's technology works. It isn't "WOLED". I'm not sure why you think there are "old industry terms". But there are certainly "white LEDs" in the inorganic side, which are single devices that have been engineered to emit white light. The LG technology isn't a "white OLED" at all. It's not engineered to produce white light from a single device. It's a stack of red, green, and blue layers that are "excited" together to produce white light. This isn't some "distinction without a difference" between the three layers are discrete.
> 
> So, again, maybe this is all true. We really can't know. But all this material does is confirm exactly what I said here: The blue is, in fact, separate and if it has different aging characteristics, that will eventually matter. It's not OLED bashing, it's math.



Thank you for sharing the "white LED" info. You know much more about LEDs than I. Terminology can be confusing when applied to similar fields. LG is definitely not using a white LED technology. It's agreed they are using "layers that are "excited" together to produce white light". So I guess its just a question of definitions of white oled and WOLED. Yes, different aging will eventually matter but just saying the folks in the industry don't seem to think it will in a tv lifetime using this architecture. And I do know that you are not OLED bashing. Since this is an oled technology thread there is an overview page on oled-info.com about the status of oled tvs .


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22973464
> 
> 
> How much do color filters reduce brightness?



So this is a good question. LG discussed this at the SID conference last May .


"They say that WRGB is more efficient than direct-emission (or Side-By-Side, SBS as they call it). This is somewhat surprising because an WRGB design includes color filters which block about 66% of the light (except for the white sub-pixel which isn't filtered). But for white this design is very effective, and they say that in smart TVs a lot of the content will be white (web browsing, etc.) - which explains their claim that WRGB is more efficient. They also say that they hope to reduce the power consumption by around 50% by 2015."


----------



## rogo

I wonder if part of LG's power-consumption claim comes from the fact they are already on IGZO and Samsung isn't.... Some of the rest of it is using the unfiltered white, although our prior discussions of that are appropriate skeptical as to how many combinations of colors will allow for that.


Regardless, I don't dispute their claims on power and would be pleased to see it reduced a further 50%.


----------



## Wizziwig

Final Specs, User manual, etc. posted on Korean website:

http://www.lge.co.kr/lgekr/product/detail/LgekrProductDetailCmd.laf?prdid=EPRD.254552 


User Manual:

http://www.lgservice.co.kr/cs_lg/search_service/search.jsp?category=TOTAL&ch1=&ch2=&ch3=&ContentsClose=&kwd_konan=55EM9700


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22974506
> 
> 
> y-sid-2012">LG discussed this at the SID conference last May.
> 
> 
> ..."They say that WRGB is more efficient than direct-emission (or Side-By-Side, SBS as they call it). This is somewhat surprising because an WRGB design includes color filters which block about 66% of the light (except for the white sub-pixel which isn't filtered). But for white this design is very effective, and they say that in smart TVs a lot of the content will be white (web browsing, etc.) - which explains their claim that WRGB is more efficient. They also say that they hope to reduce the power consumption by around 50% by 2015."



Are you sure it's 66% light loss?


I was thinking that the WRGB might have less light scatter, so it's better conserving the light.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5200_100#post_22975991
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22974506
> 
> 
> y-sid-2012">LG discussed this at the SID conference last May.
> 
> 
> ..."They say that WRGB is more efficient than direct-emission (or Side-By-Side, SBS as they call it). This is somewhat surprising because an WRGB design includes color filters which block about 66% of the light (except for the white sub-pixel which isn't filtered). But for white this design is very effective, and they say that in smart TVs a lot of the content will be white (web browsing, etc.) - which explains their claim that WRGB is more efficient. They also say that they hope to reduce the power consumption by around 50% by 2015."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure it's 66% light loss?
> 
> 
> I was thinking that the WRGB might have less light scatter, so it's better conserving the light.
Click to expand...


They're just making a quick calculation. An RGB stack that is later filtered to release only red is throwing away the green and blue, or 2 out of the 3 primary additive components.


----------



## taichi4

Whew! This light scattering issue is more complex than I thought!










Oleds apparently use a light scattering layer to _increase_ light, but from other reading I've done, this increase may be less directional.


Complicated!










I need breakfast.


----------



## ynotgoal

LG Display announced today that it has decided to invest 706 billion korean won in a 8th generation OLED-Television manufacturing plant.

The line can handle 2,200mmx2,500 mm panels and will be installed in its P9 plant in Paju South Korea.


The company plans to begin investment in the line, which will focus on WRGB OLED evaporation process, in the first quarter of 2013, with mass production scheduled for the first half of 2014 at a monthly capacity of 26,000 input sheets.


----------



## mtbdudex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22978107
> 
> 
> LG Display announced today that it has decided to invest 706 billion korean won in a 8th generation OLED-Television manufacturing plant.
> 
> The line can handle 2,200mmx2,500 mm panels and will be installed in its P9 plant in Paju South Korea.
> 
> 
> The company plans to begin investment in the line, which will focus on WRGB OLED evaporation process, in the first quarter of 2013, with mass production scheduled for the first half of 2014 at a monthly capacity of 26,000 input sheets.



Just saw that also
http://news.yahoo.com/lg-display-invest-655-million-oled-panels-222903201--finance.html 


Looks like when 2015 comes and I replace my 2005 Sony 42" 720p HDTV the prices of a 55" OLED may be reasonable, this is my family room HDTV.


I'll stick with projection for the basement HT.


----------



## rogo

So, some back of the envelope on that indicates it's a pretty tepid investment. It's a lot better than them _not investing_, but it's not a huge bet and I think it indicates (a) minimal price reductions in the very short run (b) substantial price reductions later in 2014 and into 2015.


An 8G substrate can make 6 panels per sheet at 100% yield. There is no way yields will be anywhere near 100% when the plan goes online at a date we'll call June of next year (announcements like "first half" mean, "not first quarter" and so it's between April and June, but usually it's safe to assume June).


So the monthly capacity is 26,000 x 6 or 156,000 displays x (yield percentage). Let's say _over the course of the first year_, the yield averages out to 65%. I believe that's fairly generous, but if it's true, you get very close to ~100K displays per month, or about 1.2M per year. That's a very tiny 0.5% of the total TV market, but represents something around 5% of the total market for displays 50" and up. Now, obviously, they can't steal any share from people who want truly larger displays, but I believe they can take share from the 50-60" category for anyone willing to "buy the best". Keep in mind, the _overwhelming majority_ of displays 50" and up that sell are 50" and 55" and the next largest category, by far, is 60" (please include things like any remnant 52" displays in the group, I'm rounding).


When you view the production through this lens, we can conclude that LG is seeking to capture about 5% of the category it's in within 2 years from now and so when we look at pricing, we should ask, "What will it take to do that?" It's also worth noting that there is nothing requiring LG to push 26,000 substrates through this production facility each month and, in the opening months at least, they likely won't. I suspect that pricing around 2x the current premium category will be necessary to move any reasonable quantity of displays but even that will have to come down to push this facility to capacity. That said, I don't see LG going there immediately once this facility is online.


It seems like a sub $5,000 price is not in the offing next year but is necessary come 2015 to achieve a push toward capacity of this facility.


It's also worth noting that if Samsung makes a similar investment (and figures out how to make displays at all, which it currently really can't do), that would drive prices down somewhat faster.


Entry into the market by a Sony or Panasonic begins to make 2016 look like the first year we might actually see reasonable pricing in the 55" OLED category (read as sub $4000). It's hard to see how LG's plans and 2013 pricing get us that much faster. They literally can't just wake up and decide to push production over to OLED faster given that it would take a much-larger expansion than they are doing this time going forward and the soonest that could come online would be 2015. An "all-in" bet on OLED -- which I believe is unlikely anyway since the $3,000 TV market is actually quite small even at 55" -- couldn't arrive before then.


This is a positive step to be sure, but if anything it points to a _slower_ time schedule than we might have forecast a year ago.


----------



## slacker711

The capacity of the upgrade is definitely on the low-end of what I had hoped.


OTOH, the timeframe is faster than I had expected. I had thought that the initial schedule would aim for a ramp in the 2nd half of 2014.


I wouldnt expect a $5000 price point at the beginning of next year, but it seems at least possible for Christmas 2014....certainly by 2015. LG can't expect that Samsung will stand still for very long.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22978531
> 
> 
> The capacity of the upgrade is definitely on the low-end of what I had hoped.
> 
> 
> OTOH, the timeframe is faster than I had expected. I had thought that the initial schedule would aim for a ramp in the 2nd half of 2014.



I kind of feel the timeframe they said is more or less the "2nd half of 2014"... "Mass production to _begin_ in the first half of 2014"....


> Quote:
> I wouldnt expect a $5000 price point at the beginning of next year, but it seems at least possible for Christmas 2014....certainly by 2015. LG can't expect that Samsung will stand still for very long.



Yes, precision on timing is tricky here. It seems _very unlikely to me_ that it happens by next Christmas. That would be 2 price drops of 30% (or more using U.S. pricing) from here.


As for Samsung, their ability to produce will have a lot to do with their standing still. I still don't believe they can go to anything near 100K units per month using their SMS method. I doubt they disagree with that assessment.


----------



## slacker711

My thinking is simply based on the number of units per month that will likely (hopefully?) be producing by next Christmas. The original 8K fab that current OLED televisions are being produced on should still be in production. If yields across the two fabs are at 50%, LG would still be producing 100K a month.


You have a better feel for the high-end market than me. Is there any chance that they could sell close to 100K units a month next Christmas if the price of a 55" television is $7000?


----------



## Rich Peterson

Good analysis above.


I'll add that DisplaySearch expects the OLED consumer TV market to be $3 billion by 2015. If the sets sell for $4000 by then, that would be a total of about 750,000 units sold in 2015 or even less if the price stays higher. It seems to me if the yields are OK, LG will end up with plenty of capacity for their share of that market with this commitment, right?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22979164
> 
> 
> My thinking is simply based on the number of units per month that will likely (hopefully?) be producing by next Christmas. The original 8K fab that current OLED televisions are being produced on should still be in production. If yields across the two fabs are at 50%, LG would still be producing 100K a month.
> 
> 
> You have a better feel for the high-end market than me. Is there any chance that they could sell close to 100K units a month next Christmas if the price of a 55" television is $7000?



So, yea, Slacker, if they run both lines, they could produce that many displays.


As to whether they could sell that many at that price, it seems very crudely to be on the cusp of plausible, but not especially likely. The premium end of the market today in that size category is priced at ~$3000 (+/- depending on retailer, sales, etc.) in the U.S. for example. It's likely that sliver represents no more than about 10% of the total of "50"+ category". Annualized, you are talking about something under 3 million total units globally and so you'd need to get 40% share in that sub-category with something more than twice as expensive. On that math, there isn't a chance. The reason I place it on the "cusp of plausible" is that some of the inputs in the formula are (a) estimates from industry data (b) subject to change a bit. It still feels like at best, you'd get 5% share _within the sub-category_ if the price were as high as $7000. And very roughly that's 10,000 units per month.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22979865
> 
> 
> Good analysis above.
> 
> 
> I'll add that DisplaySearch expects the OLED consumer TV market to be $3 billion by 2015. If the sets sell for $4000 by then, that would be a total of about 750,000 units sold in 2015 or even less if the price stays higher. It seems to me if the yields are OK, LG will end up with plenty of capacity for their share of that market with this commitment, right?



So, yeah, Rich. I figure yields will inevitably improve. They might even improve somewhat quickly, especially if LG ends up also making IGZO displays for Apple as seems likely*. (A lot of the yield problem seems to be on the backplane side and the conventional wisdom is that there are no real showstoppers there, even if there are substantial growing pains.)


It does seem believable that LG will be able to satisfy anywhere from 50% of a smaller market than the one you described (higher prices, fewer units, really low LG yields) to perhaps 100% of the market you described ($4000 price, 60K units per month, not-even-60% yields across the two production facilities). So I'm less worried about that part of the equation coming to fruition. What's more "concerning" is that all in these numbers aren't very interesting looking out 2 years. Of course, we've known this for a while thanks to both DisplaySearch and, well, the fact that I made a similar set of forecasts last year without their help using standard forecasting techniques (like once you have a good baseline, production rarely does much more than double in the ensuing year).


What's somewhat fascinating, I think, is how low the price will have to get to move, say, 1 million units. If we look back up to what I was describing to Slacker, the "premium market within the large-size market" where OLED operates is something below 3 million TVs right now. Even if we buy the idea that this is growing somewhat and that the estimate could be somewhat low (for example, it could currently be 2x that if all the inputs are ridiculously far off), it's instructive to realize how small premium markets are in general. To sell 1 million OLEDs, they probably have to be priced very close to where the F8000 Samsungs (or equivalent) will exist in 2013. At that price, you might be able to sell even more OLEDs, but you'd have to wait until you could produce more (e.g. in the coming year). But to sell 5 million OLEDs, you'd literally have to get pricing down below where the top-end LCDs sit right now and somehow also gain nearly 100% share in that category. The latter of those seems like something that would happen overnight, but it doesn't actually work that way in the real world. Not every buyer will just suddenly buy an OLED in the first year some kind of parity is reached, especially given the likelihood the LCD option is even better by then.


I think something like 5 million sold is probably a 2018 goal and likely represents the first year that OLED is priced in such a way that it targets more than just the premium sliver of the market, albeit not much more.


* Those would be small IGZO displays for iPads and such, but the expertise in ramping IGZO making would likely help LG on their TV-sized display-making as well.


----------



## dsinger

^ Rogo: Are you assuming 2k or 4k OLEDs from LG? Seems to me that if OLED is primarily 2k and higher end LCD is 4k the marketing of the 4k LCD at cheaper prices for a given size could make OLED a tough sell in the showroom to the average uneducated buyer.


----------



## Esox50

Given all of the great discussion in this thread today, I am convinced more than ever that there is no way I'll be getting an 80-84" OLED for $7,000-9,999 in 2015. So, 4K 80-84" LCD it will be for my next TV. Does anyone have any idea/guess how much the Sony 4K X900A TVs are going to go for? Here's my simple logic. Usually the biggest size in a TV range commands 2x the price. So if the 84" Sony 4K is $25,000...then I'm guessing the 65" X900A will be $12,000 (roughly). The 55" will be just under 2/3rds the price of the 65" (similar to the 2012 HX950 series 55" vs 65"). So that equates to $7,499. So, in summary (using the Sony X900A projected MSRPs as an example):

84X900A - $24,999

65X900A - $11,999

55X900A - $7,499


Now fast forward two model years to 2015. How much would an 84" 4K LCD TV be going for then? Maybe $9,999? Does OLED have a chance in hell of hitting that price point for an 84" 4K version? Considering it's only two model years away...I say no way. I'm guessing it will be 2018 or 2019 before it sniffs that price point.


Thoughts and opinions?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22981179
> 
> 
> ^ Rogo: Are you assuming 2k or 4k OLEDs from LG? Seems to me that if OLED is primarily 2k and higher end LCD is 4k the marketing of the 4k LCD at cheaper prices for a given size could make OLED a tough sell in the showroom to the average uneducated buyer.



If LG does not switch to 4K by that point, I believe there is absolutely no chance they will capture 10-30% of the high-end market. They will lose the marketing war, period, to the 4K marketing onslaught. This is especially true because 4K streaming will be real by then, whether or not 4k discs are. A high-end display will sell to the people that want high-end content.


That said, I have no doubt LG can transition to 4K on their technology.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Esox50*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22981283
> 
> 
> Given all of the great discussion in this thread today, I am convinced more than ever that there is no way I'll be getting an 80-84" OLED for $7,000-9,999 in 2015....
> 
> 
> Now fast forward two model years to 2015. How much would an 84" 4K LCD TV be going for then? Maybe $9,999? Does OLED have a chance in hell of hitting that price point for an 84" 4K version? Considering it's only two model years away...I say no way. I'm guessing it will be 2018 or 2019 before it sniffs that price point.
> 
> 
> Thoughts and opinions?



I'd say "no way" is correct. Beyond that, I don't see how they make many TVs bigger than the 55" anyway. An 8G substrate cuts beautifully into 6 55" displays at 2200 x 2500mm... But for 60" displays, it's too small to do that, so you wind up with only 4 displays. It's even worse with 65" cuts, where you can't get more than 3 because the width is 2/3 of the substrate width (and 3 is tight, but doable). So that makes 60s and 65s both much more expensive to sell since you'd have to charge enough downstream to make up for what you lose. For example, say the retail price is $5000 on the 55" model so the wholesale is $3000. If you can sell 6, you make $18000. On 60" TVs, you'd have to charge $4500 (4 x 4500), which would wind up with a retail price of about $6300. For 5", that's about 25% more money. The math is worse at 65", where the wholesale would need to $6000 and the retail would end up close to $8500.


This has _long been_ a problem with LCDs in general and explains why mainstream 65" LCDs have been so hard to come by. Because there is no evidence at all that anyone is planning on making a 10G fab for OLED, the long-term hope is that not only does "printable" OLED making become real, but so does "roll-to-roll" OLED making, ending the days of substrate tyranny. But that's years and years away.


In the meantime, I suspect that the vast majority of OLED production will go toward the 55" and then we'll see a 65" down the road and perhaps a 70 or 75" (the latter being more likely, you get two cuts from the sheet either way) somewhat after that. The reason Samsung skipped the 70" is that Sharp can "just make them" on the 10G and Samsung is de facto indifferent between making a 70" or 75" from their fab. But note how much they charge for the 75". It's not remotely competitive with the Sharp 80" or really any Samsung display on a "per square inch" basis.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22980966
> 
> 
> 
> What's somewhat fascinating, I think, is how low the price will have to get to move, say, 1 million units. If we look back up to what I was describing to Slacker, the "premium market within the large-size market" where OLED operates is something below 3 million TVs right now. Even if we buy the idea that this is growing somewhat and that the estimate could be somewhat low (for example, it could currently be 2x that if all the inputs are ridiculously far off), it's instructive to realize how small premium markets are in general. To sell 1 million OLEDs, they probably have to be priced very close to where the F8000 Samsungs (or equivalent) will exist in 2013. At that price, you might be able to sell even more OLEDs, but you'd have to wait until you could produce more (e.g. in the coming year).



I look at it the other way. We (and LG) know that the market for premium tier televisions is tiny. They are estimating that the OLED market will be 600,000 units in 2014. The only way that this estimate makes any sense is if they believe they can get prices down substantially by next Christmas. There is just no chance of that happening if they are trying to sell a $8000 55" television next year. They might miss their yield targets, but my assumption is if they hit them that they will be able to bring their price down to somewhere close to $5000.


The capex for LG actually seems fairly cheap to me. $650 million for the capacity to produce 1.87 million units a year seems fairly reasonable. If/when they hit LCD type yields, the depreciation costs shouldnt be a major barrier to matching LCD pricing. At that point, the question will be how much they have managed to drive down material costs. The estimates I have seen indicate that OLED's can have a 20% bill of materials advantages versus LCD, but there are so many assumptions in that kind of projection that it is hard to have a lot of confidence in those numbers.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22982577
> 
> 
> I look at it the other way. We (and LG) know that the market for premium tier televisions is tiny. They are estimating that the OLED market will be 600,000 units in 2014. The only way that this estimate makes any sense is if they believe they can get prices down substantially by next Christmas. There is just no chance of that happening if they are trying to sell a $8000 55" television next year. They might miss their yield targets, but my assumption is if they hit them that they will be able to bring their price down to somewhere close to $5000.



Look, you may well be correct here. I'm not sure they can sell anywhere near that many at anything more than $5,000 (or even at that). I'm somewhat less persuaded they intend to move that far down the price curve in one year, however. This makes me skeptical that LG intends to move anywhere near that many units next year. We're speculating, of course, and we'll know much more in 18-24 months.... To be completely honest, I'm a lot more intrigued by what happens in 2015 at this point, which I think promises to be a more interesting year as OLED will have to move within striking distance of LCD.


> Quote:
> The capex for LG actually seems fairly cheap to me. $650 million for the capacity to produce 1.87 million units a year seems fairly reasonable. If/when they hit LCD type yields, the depreciation costs shouldnt be a major barrier to matching LCD pricing. At that point, the question will be how much they have managed to drive down material costs. The estimates I have seen indicate that OLED's can have a 20% bill of materials advantages versus LCD, but there are so many assumptions in that kind of projection that it is hard to have a lot of confidence in those numbers.



So I've long found those BOM estimates to be utterly pointless. One thing is that several of them relied on IGZO being cheaper than a-Si and, obviously, IGZO is going to be used by _both LCD and OLED_. Similarly, LG is using a virtually identical front filtering/glass combo on OLED and LCD. So the difference is basically in LED + light guides + BEFs + polarizers + LC layer vs. OLED layer. The OLED _seems_ like it could ultimately be cheaper, but we'd be foolish to interpret fewer parts as automatically cheaper and given how many parts there are in common, something like 20% cheaper overall seems really, really far out there. Specifically, it's worth noting that everything unique to LCD in this scenario is really old stuff that has absolutely mammoth economics of scale behind it. And the vast majority of those items are parts that come from a supplier as is, bought as commodities. There is absolutely no yield issue or process (although there is some assembly involved with wiring in the edge-lit LED bars and then aligning them with the light guides) needed. It's basically stacking a few pieces of plastic and adding the LC step vs. the OLED step for OLEDs. So OLEDs get the advantage of skipping the "plastic" and the LEDs, but they have to undergo three separate vapor deposition steps. And otherwise, a lot of the steps are common (the TFT backplane making and the color filter litho).


Most LCD fabs are already fully depreciated and the processes in them probably run with ridiculously high yields. While it's true than a brand new fab in China might need some time to reach those yields, it will be at them before any of these OLED fabs are running at any kind of mass production capacity.


I don't want to dispute that someday OLEDs will be cheaper to make than LCDs are today, but it seems likely that we are talking some time around the decade's end if not later.


----------



## greenland

Samsung Targets OLED Television Sales in First Half Following LG. Feb. 18, 2013

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-19/samsung-plans-to-strengthen-lead-in-market-for-high-end-tv-sets.html 


"Samsung Electronics Co., the world’s largest television maker, targets to start selling TVs using a technology allowing brighter and sharper images in the first half to extend its market lead.

The ultra-thin TVs will feature organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, Yoon Boo Keun, head of Samsung’s consumer electronics unit, said after a company briefing in Seoul today, without giving more details."


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22983683
> 
> 
> Samsung Targets OLED Television Sales in First Half Following LG. Feb. 18, 2013
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-19/samsung-plans-to-strengthen-lead-in-market-for-high-end-tv-sets.html
> 
> 
> "Samsung Electronics Co., the world’s largest television maker, targets to start selling TVs using a technology allowing brighter and sharper images in the first half to extend its market lead.
> 
> The ultra-thin TVs will feature organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, Yoon Boo Keun, head of Samsung’s consumer electronics unit, said after a company briefing in Seoul today, without giving more details."


So it sounds like they gave some kind of press briefing after which they were asked about OLED. They mentioned only that they were still targeting the first half of this year. It's good to hear they haven't given up, but we have heard this sort of thing before so who knows?


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22981999
> 
> 
> Beyond that, I don't see how they make many TVs bigger than the 55" anyway. An 8G substrate cuts beautifully into 6 55" displays at 2200 x 2500mm...



Is there a reason the sheets have to be cut into equal size TVs? LG has said they will introduce 40" and 70" sizes which can conveniently sit side by side on a 2200x2500 sheet. They would still be expensive of course.


On the more speculative front, Samsung's 8g issues may actually lead to 65" sets. They are nearly ready for 6g size production and there have been serious discussions of using this for TVs if they can't resolve the 8g sizes soon. A 6g substrate would cut into 65" sets. It's not that it would be optimal but to some extent Samsung's reputation (and pride) is a bit on the line so they are going to want to get some TVs on the market sooner rather than later. Not saying it will happen but its being discussed and again they would be expensive.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5280#post_22984342
> 
> 
> Is there a reason the sheets have to be cut into equal size TVs?



No, there isn't. It's more common and much easier for certain steps, but not 100% required.


> Quote:
> LG has said they will introduce 40" and 70" sizes which can conveniently sit side by side on a 2200x2500 sheet. They would still be expensive of course.



I'll trust your math. It's been a while since I looked at this. It's something like 2 x 70 and 3 x 40, if I recall.


> Quote:
> On the more speculative front, Samsung's 8g issues may actually lead to 65" sets. They are nearly ready for 6g size production and there have been serious discussions of using this for TVs if they can't resolve the 8g sizes soon. A 6g substrate would cut into 65" sets. It's not that it would be optimal but to some extent Samsung's reputation (and pride) is a bit on the line so they are going to want to get some TVs on the market sooner rather than later. Not saying it will happen but its being discussed and again they would be expensive.



That's certainly possible. The thing is I'm pretty sure Samsung's production issues are related to _any_ large size screens. Now, that said, you are probably correct they won't ramp up the 8G until they get those resolved and could use the 6G and make a 65", which I believe would be much more compelling for a lot of people willing to spend the gigantic money needed to get involved with OLED.


----------



## Artwood

Could the force of Korean nuclear weapons, OLED, and Wal-mart be able to stop Chinese 4K LCD or is Chinese 4K LCD in the long run just plain old unstoppable?


----------



## rogo

Chinese 4K LCD is, of course, unstoppable. But that doesn't necessarily mean its market domination is entirely inevitable.


----------



## greenland

"OLED TV Begins to Show Some Signs of Life" According to HDGuru


http://hdguru.com/oled-tv-begins-to-shows-some-signs-of-life/10004/#more-10004 


It is a long summation of where he feels things now stand; but the following part of it jumped out at me. It is an astonishing projection by a senior manager at Panasonic U.K..



"Panasonic


Industry trade publication Consumer Electronics Daily reported last week that Panasonic will go straight to 4K (UHD) OLED TV, skipping 2K OLED and 4K resolution LCD TVs. Fabrice Estornel, senior manager of the TV Group at Panasonic U.K. claimed he was confident production of its printed OLED panel would begin around the middle of this year."


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22988601
> 
> 
> "OLED TV Begins to Show Some Signs of Life" According to HDGuru
> 
> 
> http://hdguru.com/oled-tv-begins-to-shows-some-signs-of-life/10004/#more-10004
> 
> 
> It is a long summation of where he feels things now stand; but the following part of it jumped out at me. It is an astonishing projection by a senior manager at Panasonic U.K..
> 
> 
> 
> "Panasonic
> 
> 
> Industry trade publication Consumer Electronics Daily reported last week that Panasonic will go straight to 4K (UHD) OLED TV, skipping 2K OLED and 4K resolution LCD TVs. Fabrice Estornel, senior manager of the TV Group at Panasonic U.K. claimed he was confident production of its printed OLED panel would begin around the middle of this year."



That is cool. I think Panasonic scores a bit higher on the veracity meter than some other manufactures.

However, it’s Fabrice…










I am sure Rogo will arrive to explain how this is mostly fantasy










- Rich


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22988657
> 
> 
> That is cool. I think Panasonic scores a bit higher on the veracity meter than some other manufactures.
> 
> However, it’s Fabrice…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure Rogo will arrive to explain how this is mostly fantasy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich



I read that on HD Guru as well. I continue to be optimistic about OLEDs and the printing method of production.


----------



## hoozthatat

Is Panasonic being foolish or incredibly intelligent by skipping 2K OLED?

Ultimately I think the decision buys them time to, along with their R&D partners, attempt and alleviate some of the yield issues and try to enter the market in full force, eventually.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_22988735
> 
> 
> Is Panasonic being foolish or incredibly intelligent by skipping 2K OLED?
> 
> Ultimately I think the decision buys them time to, along with their R&D partners, attempt and alleviate some of the yield issues and try to enter the market in full force, eventually.


I think they're right - what's the point in buying 2K OLED?


----------



## andy sullivan

I think Panasonic is being very smart. Since the cost of OLED will be high anyway why not just incorporate the added cost of 4K into the display from the start? If everybody else is going to be big bucks out of the gate, Panasonic may as well be recognized as the best PQ of the big buck display providers. Having the best PQ is a hat that can be worn for a long time, even after the competition has caught up. Being at the top of the PQ ladder may make you big fat target but when everybody aims at you that big fat target will always your name on it. Publicity is a good thing.


----------



## hoozthatat

I agree, obviously the inevitability of 4K is prominent and I believe the inevitability of 4K OLED is even more so. The decision to skip out on 2K isn't a surprise given that Panasonic has shown no ability, or inclination to dive into OLED yet.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_22988791
> 
> 
> I think Panasonic is being very smart. Since the cost of OLED will be high anyway why not just incorporate the added cost of 4K into the display from the start?



I understand the importance of things being 4K or bust in the minds of the public afraid of spending money on outdated equipment, and I'm one of them, but this particular reason is not valid IMO. Panasonic is indeed being very intelligent in not battling in the "me first" octagon that no one really wins at, but not for that reason.


You can't say off-hand "why not just incorporate the added cost of 4K", as if that's some off-the-cuff ignorable nut to crack. Look at what just "incorporating the added cost of 4K" does to the price-tag of a technology we already DO understand.


There are differing degrees of the metric "Expensive"....all things expensive are not equally so.


----------



## greenland

If Panasonic can obtain a higher yield from their 4K OLED sheets than LG and Samsung appear to be able to from their 1080P sheets, (and they have claimed that they can), then that will put them in strong competitive pricing position against those two companies.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_22988978
> 
> 
> If Panasonic can obtain a higher yield from their 4K OLED sheets than LG and Samsung appear to be able to from their 1080P sheets, (and they have claimed that they can), then that will put them in strong competitive pricing position against those two companies.



Did they clarify as to what that higher yield means? Is it higher yield in some experimental in-lab fabrication line, or IRL?


----------



## greenland

This is what they said. Keep in mind that they already demonstrated a 4K panel at CES which wowed those who viewed it, so they must have some idea about what the production costs will be.



""Panasonic says that what makes its OLED panel better than any others is the printing technology used to make the display. This method is said to dramatically reduce costs of production, increase yield rates and make the displays more reliable."


Historically, Panasonic has been a company that does not tend to overpromise, unlike LG and Samsung have often done.


----------



## sstephen

Of the people who are willing to drop 10k on a new


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22988657
> 
> 
> That is cool. I think Panasonic scores a bit higher on the veracity meter than some other manufactures.
> 
> However, it’s Fabrice…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure Rogo will arrive to explain how this is mostly fantasy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich



Not fantasy, but "corporate project" doesn't sound like it's going to be ready right away.

http://www.insideci.co.uk/news/panasonic-anticipates-4k-oled-tv-launch-next-year.aspx 


Speculating about a possible timetable for its introduction at the brand's recent pan-European convention, Panasonic UK Senior Manager for the Visual Marketing Group Fabrice Estornel exclusively told Inside CI that he was "hopeful for a launch sometime in 2014." He explained that OLED was currently a "Corporate project" but once turned over to Panasonic's TV division, a more definitive timetable would be announced.


----------



## 8mile13

A Panasonic UK senior manager stated that ' OLED is currently a ''corporate project'' ', - dream on folks


----------



## andy sullivan

It may indeed be a "corporate project" but if they, and by they I mean any company planning of making a major profit in the TV industry, the development of a new technology to replace LCD and plasma is the only answer. If it isn't OLED then something else better come along. 4K on it's own won't be the answer because it will be viewed as juiced up LCD. 4K along with OLED is a viable solution if if if it can be brought to market in a reliable and inexpensive package. My point is that if they can't make OLED work they had better come up with something that will work. And soon. At least as far as the US market is concerned.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22988601
> 
> 
> "OLED TV Begins to Show Some Signs of Life" According to HDGuru
> 
> 
> http://hdguru.com/oled-tv-begins-to-shows-some-signs-of-life/10004/#more-10004
> 
> 
> It is a long summation of where he feels things now stand; but the following part of it jumped out at me. It is an astonishing projection by a senior manager at Panasonic U.K..
> 
> 
> 
> "Panasonic
> 
> 
> Industry trade publication Consumer Electronics Daily reported last week that Panasonic will go straight to 4K (UHD) OLED TV, skipping 2K OLED and 4K resolution LCD TVs. Fabrice Estornel, senior manager of the TV Group at Panasonic U.K. claimed he was confident production of its printed OLED panel would begin around the middle of this year."



To me that's the only sensible place for OLED to go. I just can't see 2K OLED...a waste IMO. Also, by that time we'll have HDMI 2.0 and the display will be more or less future proof and capable of displaying 4K @60p, something current 4K displays can't do.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_22989040
> 
> 
> Of the people who are willing to drop 10k on a new


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22988601
> 
> 
> "OLED TV Begins to Show Some Signs of Life" According to HDGuru
> 
> 
> http://hdguru.com/oled-tv-begins-to-shows-some-signs-of-life/10004/#more-10004
> 
> 
> It is a long summation of where he feels things now stand; but the following part of it jumped out at me. It is an astonishing projection by a senior manager at Panasonic U.K..
> 
> 
> 
> "Panasonic
> 
> 
> Industry trade publication Consumer Electronics Daily reported last week that Panasonic will go straight to 4K (UHD) OLED TV, skipping 2K OLED and 4K resolution LCD TVs. Fabrice Estornel, senior manager of the TV Group at Panasonic U.K. claimed he was confident production of its printed OLED panel would begin around the middle of this year."



This year? Is they a [ /loudrollickingguffaw] tag?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22988657
> 
> 
> That is cool. I think Panasonic scores a bit higher on the veracity meter than some other manufactures.
> 
> However, it’s Fabrice…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure Rogo will arrive to explain how this is mostly fantasy



Let's just say it makes Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones seem like reality TV. Well, more realistic than reality TV.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22988735
> 
> 
> Is Panasonic being foolish or incredibly intelligent by skipping 2K OLED?



I think 2K OLED is pointless and have said so several times. So kudos to Panasonic.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22988770
> 
> 
> I think they're right - what's the point in buying 2K OLED?



None.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22989169
> 
> 
> Not fantasy, but "corporate project" doesn't sound like it's going to be ready right away.
> 
> http://www.insideci.co.uk/news/panasonic-anticipates-4k-oled-tv-launch-next-year.aspx
> 
> 
> Speculating about a possible timetable for its introduction at the brand's recent pan-European convention, Panasonic UK Senior Manager for the Visual Marketing Group Fabrice Estornel exclusively told Inside CI that he was "hopeful for a launch sometime in 2014." He explained that OLED was currently a "Corporate project" but once turned over to Panasonic's TV division, a more definitive timetable would be announced.


_Hopeful_ and _sometime in 2014_ sound a lot more believable than this year. They still sound unlikely and the 2015 timetable we've talked of before sounds more believable. But if somehow something trickled out late in 2014 at some high price, I wouldn't be completely shocked. I'd be surprised -- pleasantly -- but at least that's still 18 months away. Sooner than that would be shocking. Something like 24-30 months would be that much more believable.


----------



## Artwood

I think 4K OLED will come out in time for black Friday November 2014 just in time for Christmas and the new 4 team play-off in college football.


Roll Tide!


Does anyone know if OLED is good at producing the color Crimson?


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22988978
> 
> 
> If Panasonic can obtain a higher yield from their 4K OLED sheets than LG and Samsung appear to be able to from their 1080P sheets, (and they have claimed that they can), then that will put them in strong competitive pricing position against those two companies.



I don't think they would have to try to hard to beat the single digit yields, requiring no repair, that LG is currently experiencing with their 2K OLED line. The could incorporate every new technology like 4K, IGZO backplane and Motheye and still come out with similar low yields.


----------



## rogo

Keep in mind that by most accounts, LG's dismal yields are attributable mostly to the jump to IGZO, which is bleeding edge stuff, especially at 55 inches.


Everyone in the industry believes IGZO is inevitable. And inevitable in this case means "headed for 95+% yields" in relatively short order. But what kind of timeframe that is, I can't say with any authority.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22993413
> 
> 
> I think 4K OLED will come out in time for black Friday November 2014 just in time for Christmas and the new 4 team play-off in college football.
> 
> 
> Roll Tide!
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if OLED is good at producing the color Crimson?



Well, OLED has certainly produced a lot of red ink so far....


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22992545
> 
> 
> I think 2K OLED is pointless and have said so several times. So kudos to Panasonic.



Yes, and 56" 4K OLED is pointless. But with 2K OLED yields reported in single digit, the jump to 4K big displays is improbable. Unless there are asteroid-explosion breakthroughs in manufacturing.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22996780
> 
> 
> Yes, and 56" 4K OLED is pointless.


The limitations of 1080p are visible at sizes far smaller than 56″.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22996780
> 
> 
> Yes, and 56" 4K OLED is pointless.



If you sit close enough, it's not pointless.


----------



## taichi4

People that have seen Panasonic's _20 inch_ 4K tablet came away impressed, not just with static computer images, but with video. Of course, such a tablet is viewed close up.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*
> 
> Yes, and 56" 4K OLED is pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you sit close enough, it's not pointless.
Click to expand...


How close would that be?


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22997647
> 
> 
> How close would that be?



Yeah, I think you got it.


----------



## greenland

Samsung Looks to Duplicate LG’s WRGB OLED TV Architecture

http://www.hdtvreview.com/news/2013/02/21/samsung-looks-to-duplicate-lgs-wrgb-oled-tv-architecture/ 


"For the past several months Samsung and LG have been in a legal battle of OLED TV manufacturing designs. The fuss happened with employees from LG acquired leaked information from employees from Samsung. But today, it looks like the two companies will be sharing OLED technology after all. According to the Korea Times, Samsung announced that they will be adopting soon LG’s WRGB architecture for OLED TVs. The company is looking to begin producing the panels before the end of the year with the first panels hitting the shelves next year. It will be interesting to see how the two companies try to distinguish themselves apart if they use similar manufacturing methods."


----------



## vinnie97

^Surprise surprise.


Maybe they can get 10% yields or higher.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22997647
> 
> 
> How close would that be?


lol, I love how this illustrates the absurdity of pursuing ever higher resolutions without consideration for anything else.


----------



## barrelbelly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_22997929
> 
> 
> Samsung Looks to Duplicate LG’s WRGB OLED TV Architecture
> 
> http://www.hdtvreview.com/news/2013/02/21/samsung-looks-to-duplicate-lgs-wrgb-oled-tv-architecture/
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see how the two companies try to distinguish themselves apart if they use similar manufacturing methods."



No brainer...Pricing. They will both immediately go to undercutting one another across all tech platforms to gain the upper hand. A total win for us consumers.


----------



## sstephen

re: 4k on 56" tv and that "how close would that be?" pic.


The following is a sine wave pic where the pixels are "discrete" and has not gone thru an antialiasing filter.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Aliasing.JPG 


Have a look on your tv, or monitor. First, get close enough to make sure that the pixels are discrete and aren't being scaled up or down, since that would defeat the whole purpose.

Now start moving back. When you can no longer make out any of the "jaggies", that is the distance where you are getting "full benefit' of your displays resolution.

You may find you are further back than you think. For me, that distance was 3-4 feet further back than I sit from my 60" tv, which isn't that much larger than a 56". I admit I sit closer than most.

If you sit closer than the distance where the jaggies disappear on your 1080 display, then you would derive SOME benefit from 4k, provided you maintained display size and seating distance. You certainly won't have to sit ridiculously close like in that picture.


It is true you may not derive "full benefit" of 4k at that distance, but so what. The goal to me isn't to adjust my seating to get full benefit, the goal is to get, at minimum, a resolution where I can't make out pixels where I like to sit, given my display size. If my display has somewhat higher resolution than that, fine because I'd like the display that gives me at least that. If that means I need 4k, then great, I'd get 4k, but wouldn't bother with 8k (passive 3d args not withstanding).


That's how I look at it anyway. So I for one would like 4k both for my plasma and my projector (where I sit relatively closer still).




p.s. I am aware that that pic exceeds Nyquist. That was the whole point. There is no reason that your BD movies couldn't be shot in 4k (or higher) then scaled down to 1080p and contain info that appears to exceed the nyquist frequency.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_22998843
> 
> 
> p.s. I am aware that that pic exceeds Nyquist. That was the whole point. There is no reason that your BD movies couldn't be shot in 4k (or higher) then scaled down to 1080p and contain info that appears to exceed the nyquist frequency.


There are definitely some "sharp" looking Blu-rays out there that have aliasing encoded on the disc.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5310#post_22996780
> 
> 
> Yes, and 56" 4K OLED is pointless. But with 2K OLED yields reported in single digit, the jump to 4K big displays is improbable. Unless there are asteroid-explosion breakthroughs in manufacturing.



I think we have very different definitions of pointless. I also think you don't really understand that the yield problem with the WRGB designs wouldn't be affected by 4K vs. 2K. Actually, I bet you do understand it. You're just being persnickety.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_22997929
> 
> 
> Samsung Looks to Duplicate LG’s WRGB OLED TV Architecture
> 
> http://www.hdtvreview.com/news/2013/02/21/samsung-looks-to-duplicate-lgs-wrgb-oled-tv-architecture/
> 
> 
> "For the past several months Samsung and LG have been in a legal battle of OLED TV manufacturing designs. The fuss happened with employees from LG acquired leaked information from employees from Samsung. But today, it looks like the two companies will be sharing OLED technology after all. According to the Korea Times, Samsung announced that they will be adopting soon LG’s WRGB architecture for OLED TVs. The company is looking to begin producing the panels before the end of the year with the first panels hitting the shelves next year. It will be interesting to see how the two companies try to distinguish themselves apart if they use similar manufacturing methods."



Well, I'm just going to come out and say it. I've basically been saying for quite a while that Samsung's manufacturing method would not work. And this _proves_ it. It's good news for OLED because it means all the techniques and such to make WRGB work will get ramped up more quickly.


It's going to make it even more challenging for the "printable" crew at this point because an ecosystem is going to develop around a very simple technique while they are trying to invent one. I wish them well, but they'd better do everything they can to deliver something viable soon. Or else like many dreams of alternative production methods, they too will be crushed.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_22998130
> 
> 
> lol, I love how this illustrates the absurdity of pursuing ever higher resolutions without consideration for anything else.



Nah, some people are just near-sighted vinnie.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_22999018
> 
> 
> You're just being persnickety.



Word of the day Mark, 'persnickety'.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_23000231
> 
> 
> Nah, some people are just near-sighted vinnie.



It's obvious he's warming himself on a cold winter's night with his plasma.


----------



## catonic

I presume (and hope) that this whole debate about viewing distances and screen sizes for 4k is going to be irrelevant as before long all tv's will be 4k so people will just choose their preferred viewing distance and not give a damn about how much better 4k is compared with 1080P.

In the mean time, given the fact that almost no-one has seen a 4k tv showing 4k content in action in a home or normal viewing environment, it is amazing how many people claim to know how close you need to sit to a given size screen to get any benefit.

These people have expert knowledge of their biases and fantasies and no knowledge of reality.

I would suggest we wait until we can see at least one 4k tv showing a good variety of 4k content in a proper viewing environment before we start fantasizing about such matters.

And if you believe that some chart is going to help you here then I hope that your tv somehow falls over and hits you on the head and knocks some sense into you.









End of rant







and back to good old fashioned scientific discussion on AVS.


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_23000318
> 
> 
> It's obvious he's warming himself on a cold winter's night with his plasma.



I enjoyed this response.


----------



## mypretty1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_22997929
> 
> 
> Samsung Looks to Duplicate LG’s WRGB OLED TV Architecture
> 
> http://www.hdtvreview.com/news/2013/02/21/samsung-looks-to-duplicate-lgs-wrgb-oled-tv-architecture/
> 
> 
> "It will be interesting to see how the two companies try to distinguish themselves apart if they use similar manufacturing methods."



LG promote Passive 3D and Samsung prefer Active 3D.







Unless they both use LG's screens.







But what do I know.


----------



## vinnie97

I think all of the above messieurs are brothers (how they get along, I'll never know).


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_23001739
> 
> 
> I think all of the above messieurs are brothers (how they get along, I'll never know).



That's because they've all tacitly agreed not to messieurs mind up too much.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mypretty1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_23000771
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_22997929
> 
> 
> Samsung Looks to Duplicate LG’s WRGB OLED TV Architecture
> 
> http://www.hdtvreview.com/news/2013/02/21/samsung-looks-to-duplicate-lgs-wrgb-oled-tv-architecture/
> 
> 
> "It will be interesting to see how the two companies try to distinguish themselves apart if they use similar manufacturing methods."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG promote Passive 3D and Samsung prefer Active 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they both use LG's screens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what do I know.
Click to expand...


I think it's inevitable that Samsung will cave in on this like Sony has started to. Even at 1920x540, LG passive seems impressively easy to watch now.


----------



## taichi4

Passive 3D is much brighter, and brightness is critical when watching 3D. And, as we all know, 4K will further improve the passive 3D experience.


Even in the theaters, I opt for passive.


----------



## wattheF

I do think these things are the TV of the future but we have got a long while until 4k OLED become a commercially viable option for the general public IMO. That is for those of us that are not rich.


Most people don't even REALLY care about PQ, they only think they do. What I mean is, remember when 1080p flat screens really became the hot thing? They were so expensive, and there was barely any content available for them, but enough people still bought them. Why? Its just the whole appeal of having what was the newest, hottest, most sleek machine available. Its all about the "image" and I don't even mean image quality. Fast forward years later when cheap 1080p flat panels are available for under $1500 and now under $1000 (and so on), and thats when everyone went out and bought one. Meanwhile most of them look like crap. Most people don't even adjust picture settings to make their TV's look even half way decent.


The early adapters of LCD and plasma technology payed for it, but they helped to keep the technology progressing to the point where it is today. As long as enough people are willing to plunk down a bunch of money for the actual or maybe even percieved upgrades that 4K and OLED will offer (sleek, paper thin design, higher resolution, better PQ), and companies can find a way to profit off of them (regardless of quality), then we will see the same thing happen with these technologies. But the progression to get to the point of affordable 55''+ 4k OLED will be slow and painfull...and I haven't even mentioned the issues of 4K content!


I know I have at least one more good plasma purchase in me before any of this happens!


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_23003387
> 
> 
> Passive 3D is much brighter, and brightness is critical when watching 3D. And, as we all know, 4K will further improve the passive 3D experience.
> 
> 
> Even in the theaters, I opt for passive.



When 4K makes passive 3D better, and only then, will I make the switch from active. IMO there is no comparison in PQ, and my active 3D picture is plenty bright enough.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_23003577
> 
> 
> When 4K makes passive 3D better, and only then, will I make the switch from active. IMO there is no comparison in PQ, and my active 3D picture is plenty bright enough.



It is true that there are some sets which put out enough light to make active a good option.


----------



## Tazishere




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_22998130
> 
> 
> lol, I love how this illustrates the absurdity of pursuing ever higher resolutions without consideration for anything else.




Why poke fun at this poor guy? He is diabled from what I can see.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tazishere*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_23004165
> 
> 
> Why poke fun at this poor guy? He is diabled from what I can see.


 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_22998130
> 
> 
> lol, I love how this illustrates the absurdity of pursuing ever higher resolutions without consideration for anything else.



I agree. There is alot more to PQ than just resolution. Content and particularly broadcast standards haven't even caught up to 1080p yet and now we are looking at 4K?!?!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_23004602
> 
> 
> I agree. There is alot more to PQ than just resolution. Content and particularly broadcast standards haven't even caught up to 1080p yet and now we are looking at 4K?!?!



Because content and broadcast standards are never going to catch up to 1080p. We might get more resolution someday, but we are not going to get broadcasters suddenly giving a rat's rear about their lousy broadcasts.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_23003554
> 
> 
> ......I know I have at least one more good plasma purchase in me before any of this happens!



Better be quick. Maybe 2 years or so before the closeout specials.


Market forces may dictate "common" technology to drive out "niche" technology, even when it may be sustainable.


I wish I'd have caught the closeout of the JVC LCoS RPTVs at 70" before they disappeared.


----------



## Artwood

When the last great plasma is produced JUMP on it!


Crawl in a bunker and try to survive the LCD only holocaust!


If OLED never happens then you know the world is coming to an end--who could survive watching LCD?


----------



## Ken Ross

^ Unreal, it never ends.


----------



## vtms

Not being able to purchase affordable TV in the near future that's better than LCD is not a holocaust. It'd be nice if people saved their outrage for really important tragedies, like having to wait decades for the Matrix-like VR. 


Seriously, do you realize that $10B over the next 10 years could defeat aging and save people from countless diseases and premature deaths? Do you know that US millitary spent over $1 Trillion instead on developing a war plane? Could use some outrage about that.


Anyway, I think the near future of watching things belongs to high-resolution OLED HMDs, not big-screen TVs.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_23007310
> 
> 
> I think the near future of watching things belongs to high-resolution OLED HMDs, not big-screen TVs.


Good luck trying to sell that to a public that doesn't even want to wear lightweight passive 3D glasses.


I agree that there is a market for it, but a very niche one at best.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_23007346
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_23007310
> 
> 
> I think the near future of watching things belongs to high-resolution OLED HMDs, not big-screen TVs.
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck trying to sell that to a public that doesn't even want to wear lightweight passive 3D glasses.
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a market for it, but a very niche one at best.
Click to expand...


I agree, but damn, I would *love* to watch Avatar while walking around in it, or hanging out on the back of the Taruk during the aerial battle. That thing comes out, perhaps it'll still be niche, but maybe a smidgeon less so than now, and I'll try to be part of it.


----------



## vtms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23007346
> 
> 
> Good luck trying to sell that to a public that doesn't even want to wear lightweight passive 3D glasses.
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a market for it, but a very niche one at best.


There's a niche market for this now, but think of this as more of smartphone market before first iPhone. Most people don't realize they'll want this, especially since the HMD equivalent of the first iPhone hasn't arrived yet.


----------



## vinnie97

I think research for those is a good thing, but it should not overlook prevention by uncovering (and even whistleblowing) the modern toxic causes and contributors to those diseases (which in my opinion are prevalent today, and I do blame big pharma and Monsanto among others







)


These OLED companies wouldn't have thrown said funds into disease research anyhow, so that is neither here nor there. ;(


----------



## ctma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_22997929
> 
> 
> Samsung Looks to Duplicate LG’s WRGB OLED TV Architecture
> 
> 
> "



...I think that is disapointing and boring...

for me this WRGB is nothing more than an alternative backlight for LCD....yes, maybe energy saving...a little brighter...

but for me it has nothing to do with original idea to generate the picture with activly light-emmiting pixels, like in plasma TVs...


I think Samsung simply caved in from the marketing point of view : LG claims to have "OLED"-TV, which in reality are nothing more than improved LCDs...so they would get market share with, in my eyes, a false claim...thats what Samsung must prevent...so they moved in the easier path for the time being....


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ctma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23009374
> 
> 
> ...I think that is disapointing and boring...
> 
> for me this WRGB is nothing more than an alternative backlight for LCD...



You are quite fortunately mistaken.


> Quote:
> .yes, maybe energy saving...a little brighter...
> 
> but for me it has nothing to do with original idea to generate the picture with activly light-emmiting pixels, like in plasma TVs...



It absolutely does. Each pixel has:


1) Four independently addressed light sources (for the sub-pixels). LCD does not, it used 3 "light valves" located a great distance away from the light source.

2) A scheme by which the four light sources are colored to produce the light primaries. While the scheme is radically different from plasma, it's analogous. In plasma, each sub-pixel cell uses one of three different phosphor formulations. A similar gas excitation method is used to "activate" the cell's phosphor to make light. In WRGB OLED, each sub-pixel's light is "excited" via current. It is colored -- immediately and with an infinitesimal distance gap -- via a filter.


WRGB is far, far, far more similar to plasma than it is to LCD. The commonality of parts to LCD (TFT backplanes and color filters) confuses people into believing the image is somehow created in a similar way when it most certainly isn't.


> Quote:
> I think Samsung simply caved in from the marketing point of view : LG claims to have "OLED"-TV, which in reality are nothing more than improved LCDs...so they would get market share with, in my eyes, a false claim...thats what Samsung must prevent...so they moved in the easier path for the time being....



Samsung "caved in' from a "we can't possibly make TVs using our manufacturing method. It has nothing to do with marketing (other than not wanting to be shut out of the market for 2-3 years) and everything to do with ramping production now rather than in the future. Perhaps printable technology ultimately renders this method a stopgap, but I actually doubt it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23009550
> 
> 
> Sure, ok, but remember that social interaction is completely redefined these days. Once upon a time people had to meet face to face. You saw people once in a blue moon. Then the world shrank with automobiles, etc., and you saw people more often. Then phones showed up and OMG, people never saw each other so much as chatted on the phone. But they could share with so many more people. And then email, and then txting/facebook/twitter/forums/....yada³. Social isolation some think, but actually people are sharing with ever more people. Who can honestly say WTF a non-clunky headset will do. I want to say that it'll never dominate TV's, but I've been wrong about other things that seemed illogical: I originally (and mostly stubbornly still do) think that Twitter will never get more than 100 users.



Umm, I use social media. I like it. It has amazing powers for good. It's not a very good repalcement for (a) people being together in the same room or (b) actually looking at people. I don't know _anyone_ who thinks it is.


> Quote:
> Eh. If HMD are lighter than sunglasses someday, and I get to walk around Avatar, or the moon, or or or or or (somethingaboutSandraBullock), then heck....I'm on board...



Uh huh. For 6 straight hours? Planning on marrying someone (or are you already married?!?). Give me a toy I can use or something like Google Glass that adds to reality and we can talk. Shutting out the world? Not a good path for society to go down.


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_23007086
> 
> 
> Better be quick. Maybe 2 years or so before the closeout specials.
> 
> 
> Market forces may dictate "common" technology to drive out "niche" technology, even when it may be sustainable.
> 
> 
> I wish I'd have caught the closeout of the JVC LCoS RPTVs at 70" before they disappeared.



2013...just need to figure out what model.


----------



## markrubin

sorry... OT posts deleted: several reports received


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340#post_22999018
> 
> 
> I think we have very different definitions of pointless. I also think you don't really understand that the yield problem with the WRGB designs wouldn't be affected by 4K vs. 2K. Actually, I bet you do understand it. You're just being persnickety.



Well, judging from the price and volumes of the 55" LG 2K OLED they are in single digit yields just because of the WRGB, Samsung yields must be microscopic. 4K yields would be only much more worse than that. I see oledlight at the end of the tunnel though due to the LG building new plant for OLED TVs, they had to make big progress in manufacturing to justify the plant. I still do not see OLED competing with LCD on economic grounds.


----------



## Chronoptimist

I hope that RGB OLED, and later on, layered TOLED has a future. Adding more subpixels is exactly the opposite of what I want from a display, and Sony's 4K OLED was using pentile rather than RGB. (which probably means that Panasonic's was as well)


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_23012068
> 
> 
> sorry... OT posts deleted: several reports received



No worries. Delete away.


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> Adding more subpixels is exactly the opposite of what I want from a display



As long as you can't see them from your seating position, and all other things being equal, what difference does it make? If it ruined contrast, or skewed colours, perhaps, but there is no technical reason I know of why that SHOULD happen (which is not to say the manufacturer won't screw it up anyway).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23012132
> 
> 
> Well, judging from the price and volumes of the 55" LG 2K OLED they are in single digit yields just because of the WRGB, Samsung yields must be microscopic. 4K yields would be only much more worse than that. I see oledlight at the end of the tunnel though due to the LG building new plant for OLED TVs, they had to make big progress in manufacturing to justify the plant. I still do not see OLED competing with LCD on economic grounds.



Maybe OLED will never compete on economic grounds, irkuck, but your insistence on posting about the single-digit yields as related to the WRGB _when the only existing reports indicate it has nothing at all to do with that_ are bizarre.


By all accounts, the yield problem is due to LG trying to ramp IGZO at 55" while also trying to build OLEDs. And their IGZO yield is flat out terrible.


Yet, in the LCD industry, 100% of mfrs. are (a) planning to go to IGZO (b) believing it has no fundamental showstoppers and (c) believing it will ultimately be as cheap -- or perhaps cheaper -- as a-Si.


So... while there are doubtless less than 100% yields at the vapor depo step of the RGB OLED layers on the LG, let's stop suggesting that's somehow really a failed concept, even if its struggling.


As for going to 4K, you mistakenly believe it would much alter the yields. It wouldn't. On the color-filter layer, the yields should be identical, since 4K color filters are _trivial_.


Perhaps in the short run the IGZO layer at 4K would be a tiny tiny bit more challenging, but again, 4K pixel density at 55" is _so low_, if they had just decided to ramp at 4K initially, their yields would *not be any lower than they are now*. Since the vapor depo process has no pixels, it would not be affected by being 4K at all.


It was a marketing blunder by LG to not realize the 4K jump would occur so quickly and that their OLED ramp would occur so slowly. I promise you if they had it to do over again and realized:


1) That they wouldn't ship 10,000 OLEDs till 2014 and

2) That 4K would be on the market in 2013


They'd not have done 2K OLED, especially given their passive 3-D tech.


----------



## grexeo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23013614
> 
> 
> As long as you can't see them from your seating position, and all other things being equal, what difference does it make?



You don't have to consciously notice something for it to affect overall image quality.


My eyes and brain are not able to distinguish individual subpixels, but I notice the low pixel fill rate on my plasma, which makes whites appear "masked" when compared to my LCD. And that's with both displays calibrated to the same light level and colour temperature.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grexeo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23014649
> 
> 
> You don't have to consciously notice something for it to affect overall image quality.



Truth.


----------



## GmanAVS

So, on a slightly different subject given all the assurances 2013 is the year we see in stores 50"+ OLED sets, will the admins create a new OLED sub-forum in the Display Devices for threads by owners, reviews, settings, etc.







or will the technology be lumped into say the LCD or Plasma ones?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GmanAVS*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23014847
> 
> 
> So, on a slightly different subject given all the assurances 2013 is the year we see in stores 50"+ OLED sets, will the admins create a new OLED sub-forum in the Display Devices for threads by owners, reviews, settings, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or will the technology be lumped into say the LCD or Plasma ones?



We've had this conversation before and I'm not an admin, but....


There was a bogus clarion call to immediately create an OLED sub-forum last year for all the 2012 OLEDs... Zero shipped.


And now it's 2013 and we're still OLED free.


I don't know what to make of having a sub-forum for exactly one model of TV... It seems stupid to me... Especially a TV that is expected to ship fewer than 10,000 units all year....


But at some point un-lumping might make sense.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_23016613
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GmanAVS*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23014847
> 
> 
> So, on a slightly different subject given all the assurances 2013 is the year we see in stores 50"+ OLED sets, will the admins create a new OLED sub-forum in the Display Devices for threads by owners, reviews, settings, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or will the technology be lumped into say the LCD or Plasma ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've had this conversation before and I'm not an admin, but....
> 
> 
> There was a bogus clarion call to immediately create an OLED sub-forum last year for all the 2012 OLEDs... Zero shipped.
> 
> 
> And now it's 2013 and we're still OLED free.
> 
> 
> I don't know what to make of having a sub-forum for exactly one model of TV... It seems stupid to me... Especially a TV that is expected to ship fewer than 10,000 units all year....
Click to expand...


Regardless, it seems to me that OLED has (just barely) outgrown a sub-forum dedicated to "Flat Panel General & New FP Tech".


And later this year there will be millions of OLED TVs in people's homes.¹


I wasn't part of that clarion call you refer to, but what does seem evident is that several OLED's are coming "soon", and are "here", even if only one model. This means as new information starts showing up _before new models are shipped_ there will need to be a partitioned place for that information so that it can be easily added to once more OLED's show up.


E.g., if there is sudden speculation that manufacturer X will be licensing LG's fabrication patents, then if it turns out true or false later it would be nice to add to it within its own sandbox filled with other such OLED facts (and hooey).

¹ HAHA


----------



## Rich Peterson

Here's more:

*Samsung and LG to discuss OLED dispute in March, may cross-license*


Article is here .


> Quote:
> The battle between Samsung and LG over OLED technology patents has been winding down recently, and it looks like there may be an end in sight. A new report says that Samsung and LG are planning to discuss the OLED dispute as soon as next month, and there has already been chatter of cross-licensing deals on the table.
> 
> 
> The dispute has been going on for a while in Korean courtrooms. It started in 2011, when Samsung suspected researchers of leaking information to LG. In 2012, LG served Samsung with a patent suit, and Samsung moved to have LG patents annulled. But, a bit over a week ago, both sides agreed to drop their respective suits and talk about a resolution. Now, it seems those talks will happen next month.
> 
> 
> Even better, both LG Display chief executive Han Sang-beom and Samsung Display chief executive Kim Ki-nam have expressed willingness to resolve the dispute. Kim even went so far as to say that Samsung is "considering cross licensing patents". So, the end is in sight.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taichi4*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_23003387
> 
> 
> Even in the theaters, I opt for passive.



Why _even_ in theaters? Theaters are using a different mechanism and don't lose vertical resolution, so it's precisely what you'd want. There are a couple different techniques used, and both are fascinating, and IMO flawless, particularly when the screen is carefully coated to be silvery.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23017358
> 
> 
> Why _even_ in theaters? Theaters are using a different mechanism and don't lose vertical resolution, so it's precisely what you'd want. There are a couple different techniques used, and both are fascinating, and IMO flawless, particularly when the screen is carefully coated to be silvery.



It's true that passive in theaters starts from a place of higher resolution, and I'm familiar

with the reflection and gain aspects of specialized screens. But really I'm referring to the impact of brightness on the 3D experience, which I think is critical.


I have greatly preferred passive for this reason, and it seems to me that crosstalk is less of an issue in passive as well.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23017159
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't part of that clarion call you refer to, but what does seem evident is that several OLED's are coming "soon", and are "here", even if only one model. This means as new information starts showing up _before new models are shipped_ there will need to be a partitioned place for that information so that it can be easily added to once more OLED's show up.



So just to be clear, "several"?"


There are two announced models worldwide, only one of which has a ship date for 2013.


Forecasts expect total shipments globally in the five digits for 2013.


So we are looking at maybe a few dozen people with one for a year.


And you're in a hurry to outgrow having 3-4 threads running here to move them to a barren sub-forum which would have essentially no activity?


Or did I miss something?


----------



## andy sullivan

I agree but, how many threads and posts did we have for SED?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_23018862
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23017159
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't part of that clarion call you refer to, but what does seem evident is that several OLED's are coming "soon", and are "here", even if only one model. This means as new information starts showing up _before new models are shipped_ there will need to be a partitioned place for that information so that it can be easily added to once more OLED's show up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, "several"?"
> 
> 
> There are two announced models worldwide, only one of which has a ship date for 2013.
> 
> 
> Forecasts expect total shipments globally in the five digits for 2013.
> 
> 
> So we are looking at maybe a few dozen people with one for a year.
> 
> 
> And you're in a hurry
Click to expand...


Where did you get hurry? I said "barely".



> Quote:
> to outgrow having 3-4 threads running here to move them to a barren sub-forum which would have essentially no activity?
> 
> 
> Or did I miss something?



Nope, you got it. A barren sub-forum is overstatement, but isn't damaging anyway, it would have the activity that OLED is causing now (here), and my point is it's more about what gets added in the future. And the number of actually shipped (or even announced models) isn't indicting of the idea at all. It's the information and discussion around what has to happen (and what *IS* happening) _before_ their release that is just as important. We've got discussions centering around the following (and this is hardly complete):
Samsung vs. LG
4 color subs vs. 3
printing technology, with a pie in the sky hope of roll-to-roll endless production
burn in / image retention
Sony's attempts
Fabrication issues, including new plants being made and $$ being invested
The usage of IGZO
Apple's take on this
Transparent OLED
Flexible products
The impact of 4K OLED on smaller vs. larger panels
(etc.)


...._each_ with the trickling in of information that is currently being pressed together into this thread. *Each one* of those items would be growable on there own eventually.


Besides, it couldn't hurt anything. The number of people ignoring the thread "OLED" now will be the same people ignoring the subforum "OLED".


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23019823
> 
> 
> I agree but, how many threads and posts did we have for SED?


Ask Artwood.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23010850
> 
> 
> 2013...just need to figure out what model.



Best of luck to you. May your timing be better than mine. And then, when that unit has reached it's EOL, maybe display tech will have settled out, OLED or otherwise.


----------



## rogo

I really don't care if we have a sub-forum or not. This one thread is plenty for me right now given how little there is to talk about. I much prefer one thread to many.


There will be a time when that changes but it hasn't come yet.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_23021414
> 
> 
> I really don't care if we have a sub-forum or not. This one thread is plenty for me right now given how little there is to talk about. I much prefer one thread to many.
> 
> 
> There will be a time when that changes but it hasn't come yet.



Doesn't matter that much to me either way yet, but we're at the point where we're probably better off with multiple threads. And I'll prefer multiple threads (for multiple topics) to one any day of the week. I don't care if each one has 3 entries. When new info shows up in one, I'll know what it's for, it'll flag as one of my participated threads, and life will make a lot more sense than it does now.


That said, given that you seem to like creating posts with broad amounts of information in them, I can see why you would be less interested in partitioned discussions at the moment.


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340_60#post_23020747
> 
> 
> Ask Artwood.













Perhaps you're thinking of auditor55, the AVS #1, #2 and #3 SED cheerleader.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_23022254
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5340_60#post_23020747
> 
> 
> Ask Artwood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you're thinking of auditor55, the AVS #1, #2 and #3 SED cheerleader.
Click to expand...


I never got on that bandwagon myself, it was off my radar at the time, but looking back I do sort of wish that SED/FED research had continued, despite the realities in the way. I sort of like the idea of throwing electrons at a phosphor.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GmanAVS*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23014847
> 
> 
> So, on a slightly different subject given all the assurances 2013 is the year we see in stores 50"+ OLED sets, will the admins create a new OLED sub-forum in the Display Devices for threads by owners, reviews, settings, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or will the technology be lumped into say the LCD or Plasma ones?



I think we should get a 4K flat panel section before an OLED section, because you know, you can actually buy a 4K set. Amazingly, there are already a few owners of the $17,000 LG 84" 4K in the LCD section.


----------



## vinnie97

The LCD section is sufficient for that set. Otherwise, where are the standard def, 720p and full HD panel forums?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_23022312
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GmanAVS*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23014847
> 
> 
> So, on a slightly different subject given all the assurances 2013 is the year we see in stores 50"+ OLED sets, will the admins create a new OLED sub-forum in the Display Devices for threads by owners, reviews, settings, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or will the technology be lumped into say the LCD or Plasma ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should get a 4K flat panel section before an OLED section, because you know, you can actually buy a 4K set. Amazingly, there are already a few owners of the $17,000 LG 84" 4K in the LCD section.
Click to expand...


Well whether or not you want an OLED section, I'm totally against a 4K section. To me, it's akin to a "good LCD" section and a "Better LCD" section. OLED seems to be an entirely different beast to me.


Actually, the more I think about it, the less convinced of my new section stance I am getting. There is already so much cross-talk because even in something as common as all the variants of plasma vs. LCD, there is no clear destination for it. Enough of this for now however. It's not a democracy here anyway.


----------



## rogo

I think my AVS participation fell about 80% when the plasma and LCD forums were split (against my personal preference, which I outlined publicly). I suspect more sub-forums would reduce my presence even more. So that would be a pretty big plus for some people.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23023623
> 
> 
> I think my AVS participation fell about 80% when the plasma and LCD forums were split










I was wondering why you were only at 28,000 posts.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23023623
> 
> 
> I think my AVS participation fell about 80% when the plasma and LCD forums were split (against my personal preference, which I outlined publicly). I suspect more sub-forums would reduce my presence even more. So that would be a pretty big plus for some people.


No, not a plus at all. Do you still think they should be combined?


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23022254
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you're thinking of auditor55, the AVS #1, #2 and #3 SED cheerleader.


*

My apologies to all.* Yep, *MAJOR* brain burp on my part.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23023113
> 
> 
> Well whether or not you want an OLED section, I'm totally against a 4K section. To me, it's akin to a "good LCD" section and a "Better LCD" section. OLED seems to be an entirely different beast to me.
> 
> 
> Actually, the more I think about it, the less convinced of my new section stance I am getting. There is already so much cross-talk because even in something as common as all the variants of plasma vs. LCD, there is no clear destination for it. Enough of this for now however. It's not a democracy here anyway.



I guess they could make it a sub section of the LCD section, but they have the projectors split below $3K above and below, so who knows. It is obvious though they will need a 4K section to discuss 4K projectors, 4K flat panel, 4K blu-ray players, 4K movies etc. It would be best to not disturb the 2K hold outs.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23024205
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering why you were only at 28,000 posts.



If you actually look at it (and I'm not going to do any real research), I've been an AVS member for more than 13 years. That's an average of 6 posts per day over that time period. But what I'm sure we'd find is that there was a period where I'd respond to more like 20 posts per day pretty regularly and long periods where I didn't show up at all. There's a pretty strong correlation between me (a) getting interested in new areas of home-theater and HD tech and posting more (b) that interest waning and me posting a bit less (c) AVS policy changing and me posting _a lot less_ (d) a repeat of the cycle but it never coming close to the previous level.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23024246
> 
> 
> No, not a plus at all. Do you still think they should be combined?



I felt -- and the archives probably back this up -- that the split was utterly pointless and really bad. It catered to the worst people on AVS, those who couldn't make an intelligent post without engaging in some flame baiting about one tech or the other being bad. The tens of thousands who lurk or find the forum via Google don't give a rat's behind about the underlying technology, they want a great picture that meets their needs. When they come to AVS and are shopping and have to re-do all their questions and research across forums split along technology, it provides them a confused, incomplete picture of what TV to buy.


Given that plasma is slowly but surely dying, it's less logical than ever to segregate the two. People do really cross shop and yet there is no intelligent place to post threads like "VT 50 vs. Elite" or "Plasma or LCD for my bright living room" or "Which is worse, uniformity or dithering?" etc. etc. You can post them here, but this sub-forum gets minimal traffic compared to the plasma or LCD forums.


Also, in the Plasma area, LCD myths still get trotted out routinely and in the LCD area, plasma myths are repeated with the certainty that Donald Trump insists Obama wasn't born in the U.S. (and, really, anyone who believes that is just too stupid for me to have a conversation with so they should move on from this post).


But I don't have the time or energy to care enough to do anything about it. I try to contribute facts and my opinions (when I think they are useful) to both the plasma and LCD areas. I just don't do much these days.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5370#post_23014217
> 
> 
> Maybe OLED will never compete on economic grounds, ....



If OLED will never compete on economic grounds how it can compete at all? PQ is not the main issue anymore and LCD can well compete on PQ if needed by IGZO and dense local dimming.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23025962
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23024205
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering why you were only at 28,000 posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually look at it (and I'm not going to do any real research), I've been an AVS member for more than 13 years. That's an average of 6 posts per day over that time period. But what I'm sure we'd find is that there was a period where I'd respond to more like 20 posts per day pretty regularly and long periods where I didn't show up at all. There's a pretty strong correlation between me (a) getting interested in new areas of home-theater and HD tech and posting more (b) that interest waning and me posting a bit less (c) AVS policy changing and me posting _a lot less_ (d) a repeat of the cycle but it never coming close to the previous level.
Click to expand...



Eh. We've gone to the mat before, but I like your posts.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23024246
> 
> 
> No, not a plus at all. Do you still think they should be combined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do really cross shop and yet there is no intelligent place to post threads like "VT 50 vs. Elite" or "Plasma or LCD for my bright living room" or "Which is worse, uniformity or dithering?" etc. etc. You can post them here, but this sub-forum gets minimal traffic compared to the plasma or LCD forums.
> 
> 
> Also, in the Plasma area, LCD myths still get trotted out routinely and in the LCD area, plasma myths are repeated
Click to expand...


Yeah, this bothers me too, and I've been an advocate of not splitting forums in the past in other sites. I've forgotten the large number of forums I've seen where this very dynamic has clobbered productive discussion. I'm backing out of this thing for now.


----------



## andy sullivan

Reading Rogo's last response, especially the advantages of having one LCD/Plasma thread, spiked a thought in my old and uninformed brain. If you took the Elite from Sharp, eliminated the color problem, increased off axis viewing by 50%, and incorporated 4K, would you have a serious contender for OLED 4K? The only real problem would be the off axis concern which could possibly be accomplished with the new screen materials (Gorilla,Moth Eye) being discussed here. Fixing the color problem and using 4K would be pretty simple.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23026050
> 
> 
> If OLED will never compete on economic grounds how it can compete at all? PQ is not the main issue anymore and LCD can well compete on PQ if needed by IGZO and dense local dimming.



You raise a good question irkuck.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23026486
> 
> 
> Eh. We've gone to the mat before, but I like your posts



I like a lot of your posts.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23026990
> 
> 
> Reading Rogo's last response, especially the advantages of having one LCD/Plasma thread, spiked a thought in my old and uninformed brain. If you took the Elite from Sharp, eliminated the color problem, increased off axis viewing by 50%, and incorporated 4K, would you have a serious contender for OLED 4K? The only real problem would be the off axis concern which could possibly be accomplished with the new screen materials (Gorilla,Moth Eye) being discussed here. Fixing the color problem and using 4K would be pretty simple.



So I've been arguing that since last year Andy, that "the best LCDs are so good, there isn't really room for 'better quality' as a selling point." That doesn't mean there is no room, but there isn't much room.


The Elite has:

* Great simultaneous contrast

* Great sequential contrast

* Great brightness

* Really good motion handling

* Excellent gamma


But:

* Slightly imperfect color (a problem some other sets don't have, so we know it's fixable)

* Slightly imperfect off-axis viewing (a problem plasma obviously fixes, something that's gotten better on LCD over time)

* A reflective screen (but so will OLED, and maybe fixed by Moth Eye once and for all)

* "Only" 2K resolution (but easily fixed as you say)


The point of the list above isn't to assail the Elite but to show that there simply aren't many real picture-quality metrics / selling points where the Elite isn't already great or "fixable". And what applies to the Elite could easily apply to other LCDs. Although, there's a caveat. The apparent death of local dimming means I'm not sure about the future of simultaneous contrast on LCD. Does anything touch the Elite (or other local dimmers?). I mean, this is a fixable problem _with_ local dimming, but what about without?


Also, as IGZO becomes ubiquitous on LCD, will we see better contrast? I think we will. And will that mitigate the need for local dimming? I don't really know. But if someone could build great edge-lit screens, that might. The reality with edge-lit vs. local dimming is that if you could actually get uniform light (hard, but not impossible), stop letting it leak out the edges (very easy with care) and block it well (perhaps coming with redesigned panels thanks to IGZO?!?) you don't need full-array dimming. All of these are hard problems, but all of them leverage off a giant LCD ecosystem that has at least partly solved them. And who is to say OLED will have perfect uniformity with the WRGB method (or even with the now apparently dead Samsung RGB method?!?)?


----------



## andy sullivan

The Elite also has excellent black levels even though that's probably included in your contrast statement. Would it not be cheaper, much cheaper, to make the upgrades you mention regarding LCD and forget developing OLED? What with the problems so far in bringing OLED to the stores, forget the cost, just getting product on some shelves. It seems like OLED may have some teething problems so why not stick with a known entity and engineer away the weak points of LCD? Even if you stay with local dimming it's still going to be light years cheaper than OLED. In the mean time develop the local dimming edge lit technology. It almost looks like they want something brand new just to have something brand new to market. I'm not saying that's a stupid plan because we all like something brand new. Sort of Starwarsy.


----------



## navychop

Oh I don't think the Samsung RGB method is dead. I think it's on the shelf, awaiting better materials development and perhaps ink jet printing.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23028109
> 
> 
> It almost looks like they want something brand new just to have something brand new to market. I'm not saying that's a stupid plan because we all like something brand new.



I believe that's actually _the majority_ of the business plan. If it's new, it can be sold as different. No one has made much money ever in LCD. Samsung does OK selling the finished TVs, but the panel side of the business has always been kind of sucky.


The hope was to renew display on a new tech where there'd be a competitive edge on mfg. and less overcapacity. I think for a lot of reasons, that is unlikely to really ever come to pass.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23028803
> 
> 
> Oh I don't think the Samsung RGB method is dead. I think it's on the shelf, awaiting better materials development and perhaps ink jet printing.



I should clarify. When I say, "the Samsung RGB method is dead" I mean, "the Samsung RGB method" using small-mask scanning. I don't mean RGB OLED, which I believe will be resurrected by printing at some point. But when that happens is unclear; at least 2 years from now -- no sooner.


----------



## fjames




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23023623
> 
> 
> I think my AVS participation fell about 80% when the plasma and LCD forums were split (against my personal preference, which I outlined publicly). I suspect more sub-forums would reduce my presence even more. So that would be a pretty big plus for some people.



I don't know who you are, but you speak with seeming authority and I read everything you write that I see. You're my go-to guy for this stuff, so I hope you know what you're talking about


----------



## Chronoptimist

I agree about the splitting of forums. I've run a couple of sites in the past (one of which was going for about seven years or so with consistent traffic - I really should have tried to monetize that at some point) and the best solution is to have as few different sections as possible, with good moderation. Splitting up into sections such as LCD/Plasma/OLED rather than "Flat panels" or Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo rather than "Gaming" for example, only serves as a way to cut down on the work for your moderation team. Most people don't bother to visit each section which weakens your community, it limits discussion, and is just generally a bad idea.


However, AVS probably has enough traffic that each section is its own little community these days. I really only bother to check this section now, and occasionally browse another one (usually the calibration section - though I don't have as much interest in that these days) but more than 90% of my time is just spent in here.


If you simply had a "flat panels" section, I think discussion would be a lot more lively and interesting - but you need good moderation to avoid repeat topics, trolling, and so on. That's not to say that all the "Display Devices" sections should be consolidated into a single one, but you could probably get away with less than 1/3 of what we have right now - there are 18 sections!


----------



## GmanAVS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fjames*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23032155
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23023623
> 
> 
> I think my AVS participation fell about 80% when the plasma and LCD forums were split (against my personal preference, which I outlined publicly). I suspect more sub-forums would reduce my presence even more. So that would be a pretty big plus for some people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who you are, but you speak with seeming authority and I read everything you write that I see. You're my go-to guy for this stuff, so I hope you know what you're talking about
Click to expand...


Everyone can learn something new from others every day. Some can be biased even when right. Read, learn, do your own research and in person viewing, listening, etc..


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fjames*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23032155
> 
> 
> I don't know who you are, but you speak with seeming authority and I read everything you write that I see. You're my go-to guy for this stuff, so I hope you know what you're talking about



I hope I know what I'm talking about too.










Thanks for the kind words, by the way.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23032280
> 
> 
> I agree about the splitting of forums. I've run a couple of sites in the past (one of which was going for about seven years or so with consistent traffic - I really should have tried to monetize that at some point) and the best solution is to have as few different sections as possible, with good moderation. Splitting up into sections such as LCD/Plasma/OLED rather than "Flat panels" or Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo rather than "Gaming" for example, only serves as a way to cut down on the work for your moderation team. Most people don't bother to visit each section which weakens your community, it limits discussion, and is just generally a bad idea.



#violentagreement


> Quote:
> However, AVS probably has enough traffic that each section is its own little community these days. I really only bother to check this section now, and occasionally browse another one (usually the calibration section - though I don't have as much interest in that these days) but more than 90% of my time is just spent in here.



For me, the thing is, the more granular the sections, the less I even see threads elsewhere. I don't know who that benefits. Not me directly and certainly not anyone I might have offered some usual info to elsewhere.


> Quote:
> If you simply had a "flat panels" section, I think discussion would be a lot more lively and interesting - but you need good moderation to avoid repeat topics, trolling, and so on. That's not to say that all the "Display Devices" sections should be consolidated into a single one, but you could probably get away with less than 1/3 of what we have right now - there are 18 sections!



Mhm.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GmanAVS*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23032495
> 
> 
> Everyone can learn something new from others every day. Some can be biased even when right. Read, learn, do your own research and in person viewing, listening, etc..



Hmm, am I biased? I don't really think so. There's a pretty big difference between firmly held opinions and bias. I, for one, try not to let bias creep in even when I believe something pretty strongly.


----------



## greenland

The forums were split because the managers of the site got tired of all the Plasma V. LCD fanboy wars that never stopped raging, and kept taking threads off topic; something that never happens with this thread!


----------



## Rich Peterson

HD Guru reports on Samsung OLED release date and price. Link is here .


> Quote:
> *Samsung OLED HDTV Release Date and Price Reported*
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung just concluded its Southeast Asia Forum in Jakarta, Indonesia. According to published report by Rappler.com, its 55-inch Super OLED TV will ship into the Southeast Asian market beginning this August at a price of $18,434 US!
> 
> 
> Samsung’s first OLED TV debuted at the 2012 International Consumer Electronic Show (CES). They never priced or shipped it. The 2013 version of the Samsung Super OLED TV model, the KN55F9500, was at the 2013 CES (photo above). Until now there’s been no information as to when the first units would arrive or at what cost. There’s still no word yet from Samsung regarding a US price and delivery date.
> 
> 
> LG, during the 2013 CES, announced a March 2013 delivery in the Korean market of its 55-Inch OLED HDTV. The price there is around $10,000, and it’s scheduled for the US market later this year at a price of $12,000.
> 
> 
> The Samsung KN55F9500 uses red, green and blue organic light emitting diodes to produce images of outstanding contrast and deep, rich, bright colors. The LG version uses “white” OLEDs which are a sandwich of red, blue, green OLED layers under red, green, blue, and clear filters. Each company claims their technology is superior.
> 
> 
> Based upon the prices of both brands, we see the mass production of this exciting new technology to still be a ways off, as reports indicate very low yields which are reflected in the high prices.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5300_100#post_22983683
> 
> 
> Samsung Targets OLED Television Sales in First Half Following LG. Feb. 18, 2013
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-19/samsung-plans-to-strengthen-lead-in-market-for-high-end-tv-sets.html
> 
> 
> "Samsung Electronics Co., the world’s largest television maker, targets to start selling TVs using a technology allowing brighter and sharper images in the first half to extend its market lead.
> 
> The ultra-thin TVs will feature organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, Yoon Boo Keun, head of Samsung’s consumer electronics unit, said after a company briefing in Seoul today, without giving more details."



I still feel that Samsung is far more likely to go this route ,instead of sticking with their RGB OLED approach at those astronomical prices. LG and Samsung suddenly settled their OLED patent disputes, which make me think that they probably agreed to share the same WOLED approach.


----------



## vinnie97

lol @ a presumably 2K panel for $18k+


----------



## Rich Peterson

Source The Korean Economic Journal .


> Quote:
> *LG's OLED Technology Emerges as a Global Standard*
> 
> 
> LG's OLED production technology is positioning itself as a global standard. A market research firm DisplaySearch revealed in its "Supply/Demand and Capital Investment" report, released on March 3, that following a group of large OLED panel manufacturers such as AUO and BOE that are using LG Display's W-RGC production standard, Samsung Display is set to adopt this standard.
> 
> 
> DisplaySeach noted that Samsung Display will introduce the equipment needed to produce 55-inch W-OLED next month. With respect to DisplaySearch's comments, Samsung Display denied to confirm in detail its OLED investment and production schedules.
> 
> 
> LG Display set up a production line with a capacity of producing 8G (2200x2500 mm) OLED per month at its Paju factory last year with an investment of 350 billion won. LG Display also announced an investment plan of up to 706.3 billion won last year to build an M2 line with a monthly production capacity of 26,000 OLEDs.


----------



## greenland

"Here's Why Samsung and LG Are Finally Playing Nice"

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02/06/heres-why-samsung-and-lg-are-finally-playing-nice.aspx 


Excerpt:


"When the dust settles, Samsung and LG will likely sign a cross-licensing agreement to give both companies free rein on each others' OLED patents, effectively thwarting unnecessary chest-thumping and encouraging Korean innovation to resume."


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fjames*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23032155
> 
> 
> I don't know who you are, but you speak with seeming authority and I read everything you write that I see. You're my go-to guy for this stuff, so I hope you know what you're talking about



Oh, he *does.* He has a darned good record of being right. Even when I was sure he was wrong. I'm still disappointed that my expectation of LCoS hitting 30% of the market was wrong. Rogo correctly saw it wouldn't get anywhere near that- RPTVs, even rather thin ones with great PQ, wilted under the sexy LCDs & plasmas that you could hang on walls.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23048936
> 
> 
> Oh, he *does.* He has a darned good record of being right. Even when I was sure he was wrong. I'm still disappointed that my expectation of LCoS hitting 30% of the market was wrong. Rogo correctly saw it wouldn't get anywhere near that- RPTVs, even rather thin ones with great PQ, wilted under the sexy LCDs & plasmas that you could hang on walls.



that's not what killed sony's lcos. it was their inability to find a way to keep their chips from degrading over time.


lots of people dropped big bucks on these sets for a 3-4 year lifetime


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Sharp Samsung Alliance – An Alliance of Mutual Benefits.* Source: Displaysearch .

 


> Quote:
> According to news reports, Sharp is in talks with Samsung on concluding a capital and business alliance. The two sides are believed to be in final negotiations, with Sharp likely to receive around 10 billion yen ($107M) in investment from Samsung, in exchange for a 3% stake of Sharp. We believe Samsung’s main purpose is to secure panel supply from Sharp, especially 32” produced on the Gen 8 line (Kaymeyama-II fab) and 40” and 60” from Gen 10 (Sakai fab).
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> •Given that Sharp is a leader in oxide TFT technology, especially at Gen 8, it’s possible that Samsung can utilize the oxide TFT backplanes from Sharp for its AMOLED TV.
> 
> •This may indicate that Samsung wants to continue to source a certain percentage of panels externally. There are indications that Samsung Display is reducing the scale of its own TFT LCD fab investment in China. It’s possible that the Samsung group intends to curb new TFT LCD capacity expansion and focus more on AMOLED TV.


----------



## greenland

If this report is accurate; then the LG 55 OLED sets are not going to be available in the US for several more months, at least!


"LG has revealed that its 55-inch OLED TV will be arriving on UK shelves this July, making it second market it will launch in after South Korea.


The TV – which is just 4.5mm thick – is currently being showcased at Harrods, and is available for pre-order. It will retail for £9,999."

http://www.t3.com/news/lg-to-launch-55-inch-oled-tv-in-july


----------



## vinnie97

And here there were some UK folks thinking LG were foregoing their island altogether. Another pushback, and I would not be surprised if they don't launch in the US at all. I wonder if they can even manage to sell 1000 panels this year.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23051736
> 
> 
> If this report is accurate; then the LG 55 OLED sets are not going to be available in the US for several more months, at least!


I don't think that's accurate. I called my local BestBuy and they are saying I can take delivery in April if I want. But I don't want to fork over the $12K.


Maybe others want to call a local retailer and see what they are saying about availability?


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23052083
> 
> 
> I don't think that's accurate. I called my local BestBuy and they are saying I can take delivery in April if I want. But I don't want to fork over the $12K.
> 
> 
> Maybe others want to call a local retailer and see what they are saying about availability?




Ask Best Buy if they have a display unit that costumers can come and see, like Harrods of London is doing. Any store manager can promise to take a pre-order and set a future date just to get the order now. Best Buy does not have anything about taking such orders posted on their website.


----------



## Artwood

Not wanting to fork over 12K means you still have brains left!


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23052783
> 
> 
> Not wanting to fork over 12K means you still have brains left!



Maybe, but I assure you they are going fast.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23052710
> 
> 
> Ask Best Buy if they have a display unit that costumers can come and see, like Harrods of London is doing. Any store manager can promise to take a pre-order and set a future date just to get the order now. Best Buy does not have anything about taking such orders posted on their website.



No, they have no demo, and I agree they could be feeding me a line just to get orders. Hope not.


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23052823
> 
> 
> Maybe, but I assure you they are going fast.



Define, "going fast" ?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23052993
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23052823
> 
> 
> Maybe, but I assure you they are going fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define, "going fast" ?
Click to expand...


I don't know if he can, but if he actually buys one of those things then it's a sure sign that it's too late.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400#post_23049038
> 
> 
> that's not what killed sony's lcos. it was their inability to find a way to keep their chips from degrading over time.
> 
> 
> lots of people dropped big bucks on these sets for a 3-4 year lifetime



Actually, the reference was more toward the only successful LCoS sets made, the ones by JVC. Sony, and Intel, if you remember their embarrassment, don't count.


And those JVC LCoS chips are doing just fine today, in FPTVs. And my 61" JVC RPTV, 18" deep, rec'd 4/12/05, is still going strong today and is still my primary set.


----------



## rogo

Could there possibly be any more OLED disappointment than this report about July, the UK and it being the second market?


I mean that's a rhetorical question but even as recently as January, they were promising U.S. deliveries in March and if we are to read the report literally (and I'm inclined to as Greenland has), they we are looking at September -- or later.....


The scenario where prices were going to fall to $6000 by next year seems even more remote.


----------



## vtms

Look, OLED isn't happening, which is what I've been saying here for years. At this point, I'd pin my hopes on QLED instead, even though it's at early developmental stage. There's also Blue Phase LCD tech in the pipeline too. Forget about OLED or you'll be disappointed again and again.


----------



## vinnie97

^OLED, with the billions sunk into R&D (and ongoing!) thus far, isn't happening yet QLED (of which there has been a single prototype by a single manufacturer, which no longer manufactures TVs of its own) is? Color me skeptical (to risk an understatement).


----------



## Elvis Is Alive




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23054155
> 
> 
> Actually, the reference was more toward the only successful LCoS sets made, the ones by JVC. Sony, and Intel, if you remember their embarrassment, don't count.
> 
> 
> And those JVC LCoS chips are doing just fine today, in FPTVs. And my 61" JVC RPTV, 18" deep, rec'd 4/12/05, is still going strong today and is still my primary set.




Heh, I've had the opposite experience. My Sony 60" XBR2 LCOS set still going strong on 2nd bulb. Owned since March 2007. I also purchased a JVC 56" LCOS in 2008 that lasted about 18 months (light engine failure). Luckily my Mack warranty allowed me to replace it with a 67" Sammy LED DLP that is stilla flawless performer.





Back on topic - How much longer with the window of viability be open for OLED if these delays continue to postpone efficencies of scale?


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> How much longer with the window of viability be open for OLED if these delays continue to postpone efficencies of scale?


Until something comes along which promises to solve the problems of other display techs with the carrot of reduced cost, or until the manufacturers think they have run out of avenues to solve the existing problems.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23054382
> 
> 
> Could there possibly be any more OLED disappointment than this report about July, the UK and it being the second market?
> 
> 
> I mean that's a rhetorical question but even as recently as January, they were promising U.S. deliveries in March and if we are to read the report literally (and I'm inclined to as Greenland has), they we are looking at September -- or later.....
> 
> 
> The scenario where prices were going to fall to $6000 by next year seems even more remote.



I went to my local small Best Buy this morning.


Best Buy rep: Hi, may I help you?

Me: Yeah, I heard something about LG coming out with an OLED TV. Are you familiar with that?

BB: Yeah.

Me: Is that something you will have here?

BB: Oh yeah. Well, we may not have one on display but we can get one.

Me: When will that be available?

BB: Mmm.. early April.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23055333
> 
> 
> Look, OLED isn't happening, which is what I've been saying here for years. At this point, I'd pin my hopes on QLED instead, even though it's at early developmental stage. There's also Blue Phase LCD tech in the pipeline too. Forget about OLED or you'll be disappointed again and again.



Why have you been hanging around this thread dedicated to OLED developments "for years" given what you say you believe?! the LG 55inch OLED is now available in Korea, and Harrods of London has one on display, and are taking orders for them now. Meanwhile the two technologies that you have pinned your hopes on are still not available at all.


Only time will tell if OLED takes off or not, but you are not Nostradamus.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23055333
> 
> 
> Look, OLED isn't happening, which is what I've been saying here for years.



That's a pretty strong statement. You could say you doubt it will happen but instead you are declaring it won't. So if a consumer OLED is released here later this year are you going to come back and admit you were wrong?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23056739
> 
> 
> I went to my local small Best Buy this morning.
> 
> 
> Best Buy rep: Hi, may I help you?
> 
> Me: Yeah, I heard something about LG coming out with an OLED TV. Are you familiar with that?
> 
> BB: Yeah.
> 
> Me: Is that something you will have here?
> 
> BB: Oh yeah. Well, we may not have one on display but we can get one.
> 
> Me: When will that be available?
> 
> BB: Mmm.. early April.



So please don't take what I'm about to write as some sort of "I know better than the random Best Buy person you talked to" thing. But....


You talked to some random Best Buy person who looked up the SKU on a computer that says it will be available in early April.


That computer may have up-to-date information.


Or it may not.


At this point, I'm not impressed by what Best Buy's inventory-management system currently "believes" is happening. I will be impressed when someone takes delivery of an LG OLED in the U.S. Until that happens, *the TV is not for sale here*. Sorry.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vtms*
> 
> Look, OLED isn't happening, which is what I've been saying here for years.



Its on the LG UK site, take a look








http://www.lg.com/uk/tvs/all-tvs 


LG OLED - on sale now!








http://www.lgblog.co.uk/2013/03/lg-oled-on-sale-now/


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elvis Is Alive*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23056537
> 
> 
> Heh, I've had the opposite experience. My Sony 60" XBR2 LCOS set still going strong on 2nd bulb. Owned since March 2007. I also purchased a JVC 56" LCOS in 2008 that lasted about 18 months (light engine failure). Luckily my Mack warranty allowed me to replace it with a 67" Sammy LED DLP that is still a flawless performer.
> 
> 
> Back on topic - How much longer with the window of viability be open for OLED if these delays continue to postpone efficiencies of scale?



Congrats on your Sony still working. I wondered if all of them were deceased. That episode is one that makes me hesitant to ever buy a Sony OLED, if such come to pass.


I suspect for some reason the later models of JVC were more prone to light engine failures. But I know such failures, even for the early models, are becoming more common. And replacements are either not available or costly. I'm hoping mine (also on it's second bulb, but about to be on #3) holds out until OLED becomes affordable.


I'm not certain OLED TVs will make it to market, but I lean strongly that way. Sort of the opposite of the Debbie Downer attitude.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23054382
> 
> 
> Could there possibly be any more OLED disappointment than this report about July, the UK and it being the second market?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23056952
> 
> 
> the LG 55inch OLED is now available in Korea, and Harrods of London has one on display, and are taking orders for them now.



Second market? Did they even launch in their first market? There is zero evidence that they have shipped a single OLED TV in Korea. I check various Korean shopping sites and forums on a daily basis and these TV's are not for sale. Did some crazy rich Korean buy the entire first production run and not post about it anywhere? Where are the unboxing images and/or videos?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23059265
> 
> 
> 
> Second market? Did they even launch in their first market? There is zero evidence that they have shipped a single OLED TV in Korea. I check various Korean shopping sites and forums on a daily basis and these TV's are not for sale. Did some crazy rich Korean buy the entire first production run and not post about it anywhere? Where are the unboxing images and/or videos?



There isn't any evidence I can find, Wizziwig, so I agree with you.


But as far as second goes, there is no ambiguity they mean it to be the UK, per the press release linked by 8mile:


'“Following the LG launch and supply to the Korean market earlier in the year, the UK is proud to be the next market to launch LG OLED TV, as this innovative and premium model launches first in Europe to UK consumers.”


I mean, that statement, attributed to LG's Andrew Mackay, UK Commercial Director of Home Entertainment and Home Appliances, is pretty clear that the launch has happened in Korea and that the UK is next.


Now, we agree that whatever launch has happened in Korea hasn't resulted in the TV going on sale in any meaningful way nor have we found evidence of a single human taking delivery.


But when LG's own PR machine claims (a) the TV will be out in July in the UK and (b) the TV will be out in the UK second only to Korea, the important point to realize is that Best Buy's inventory control system suggesting otherwise is the suspect part of this equation. This is doubly true because the UK PR mentions the demo unit in Harrod's whereas there is absolutely no U.S. PR. I dunno, but I feel like we might be looking at an October U.S. release and I really hope that feeling is not correct.


----------



## greenland

How much news coverage can one expect in South Korea for a product release, when the Manufacturer claimed to have only 100 units on order when they started shipping to the purchasers?


LG sure is continuing to engage in a lot of promotions of the product, even in places like Brazil, so they better be able to start delivering some product in the next few months, or they will be the laughing stock of the industry.

http://www.tecmundo.com.br/televisao/37316-lg-anuncia-primeira-tv-oled-do-mundo-para-o-mercado-brasileiro.htm 


"March 6, 2013


During the LG Digital Experience 2013, which happened today (6), in São Paulo, the marketing director Pablo Vidal announced the arrival of the world's first OLED TV to market. With a screen that stands out from the others by the image more vivid and extreme contrast, the LG OLED TV has incredible physical characteristics.


The product comes to market in the first half of 2013. For now, the price has not been set."


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23059715
> 
> 
> LG sure is continuing to engage in a lot of promotions of the product, even in places like Brazil, so they better be able to start delivering some product in the next few months, or they will be the laughing stock of the industry.



Yeah, so true.


I notice they still have this press release from CES on their website. Is it possible that they again will miss their commitment to release in the US? Two years in a row? They would be the laughing stock of the industry.


Here's what the press release says:


"01/07/2013


LG ELECTRONICS USA ANNOUNCES AVAILABILTY OF EAGERLY ANTICIPATED OLED TV


March U.S. Rollout Will Follow Early Launch in Korea


LAS VEGAS, Jan. 7, 2013 – LG Electronics USA announced today that the revolutionary new LG OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) TV will be available in the United States beginning in March."


----------



## sstephen

I would think there is a good chance that LG is not trying to produce OLED panels for market just yet. Instead, they are trying to work the kinks out of their production process. As a byproduct, they produce some viable panels. What to do with them? Might as well sell 'em. Generate some buzz. Recover a bit of money (very little compared to their investment). If that is true, they'd be willing to try something new with production even if it might drastically lower whatever yields they have, just on the off chance it will teach them something they need to know, or will actually pan out. So that would mean the supply at any given time might be zero panels or more than expected. But in any case the supply is probably unpredictable, and expecting a steady increasing stream of panels coming to market is probably not going to happen. Also that might mean they choose to go into markets where lack of supply at any given time won't upset the buying public. Maybe the UK and Brazil are more tolerant of such things, or maybe the expected market is small enough that they don't expect demand to outstrip supply any time soon.


Anyway, just speculation.


----------



## rogo

"They would be the laughing stock of the industry."


They already are.


And, no offense, but the idea that they can dump substandard goods off on Brazilians or the English seems very unlikely to me.


----------



## Wizziwig

I feel like their Korean "paper launch" was nothing more than a PR stunt. Or maybe they were simply bluffing and trying to intimidate Samsung into thinking they were ready to ship. Maybe this tactic helped in settling the lawsuits or signing licensing agreements for WRGB tech. Seeing the recent news, it seems like it worked in their favor, even if they never ship anything this year.


----------



## sstephen

Excuse me. I did not say substandard.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23061785
> 
> 
> Excuse me. I did not say substandard.



No, you didn't. You seem to suggest that production might be zero some of the time and a bit more some other times. That seems almost equally bad to me, though.


----------



## sstephen

For a pilot line, where they are trying to work out kinks in the process for production. I would not expect every change they try on a pilot line to improve yields. Some might not. But they would still try them.


And just to reassert, I am speculating on possiblities.


----------



## wse

The New Panasonic ZST65 plasma 2013 will give OELD a run for it 's money and you can buy three of them for the price of one!


----------



## Ken Ross

The upcoming Samsung F8500 may do better than that and get even closer to OLED.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5430#post_23061966
> 
> 
> For a pilot line, where they are trying to work out kinks in the process for production. I would not expect every change they try on a pilot line to improve yields. Some might not. But they would still try them.
> 
> 
> And just to reassert, I am speculating on possiblities.



It's reasonable speculation. I suspect, however, they have to just eat a huge amount of bad panels / substrates to get the IGZO production up to snuff.


----------



## Rich Peterson

I found this to be an interesting article suggesting Samsung's delays in OLED manufacturing have hurt them. I am not going to post the whole article, but here's a bit . Source: ItVoice Online Magazine .

*Samsung Sharp deal hints at worries*


Samsung’s strategic shift to OLED technology was spurred in part by the roaring success of its Galaxy smartphones, which featured the bright, power-saving displays and propelled Samsung into the No. 1 spot last year in the world smartphone market.


Samsung now holds a near monopoly in the production of small, smartphone-sized OLED displays, which it produces at the rate of nearly half a million a day, garnering double-digit profit margins.


Samsung has struggled to produce televisions using OLED screens, however, as it stuck with the conventional RGB form of the technology that is difficult to scale to large glass sizes.


[...]


Samsung Display’s main LCD TV screen plants are seventh and eighth generation, suitable for 40 to-60 inch screens. It has held off on investing in larger panels given its strategic move into OLEDs, which are thin enough to bend or roll like paper, paving the way eventually for wearable computers and curved-screen TVs.


“I believe Samsung’s big push for OLED is the right decision, given all the benefits OLED has over LCD, but overpromise and underdelivery caused a bit of hiccup here,” said Lee Sun-tae, an analyst at NH Investment & Securities. He saw the Sharp deal as a way to help keep Samsung in the game until OLED is on board.


“This is definitely a good deal, as it allows Samsung to add large screen capacity at just a fraction of the cost of building a 10G plant. Samsung seized the right opportunity from Sharp’s financial difficulty.”


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23062459
> 
> 
> It's reasonable speculation. I suspect, however, they have to just eat a huge amount of bad panels / substrates to get the IGZO production up to snuff.



The part that bothers me is not the slow roll-out to other countries but the fact that they havent yet delivered the first 100 orders in South Korea. They have capacity for 50,000 displays a month so even if IGZO yields are abysmal, they should have little problem getting those out the door. It makes me wonder if we are they are seeing performance issues.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23063262
> 
> 
> The part that bothers me is not the slow roll-out to other countries but the fact that they havent yet delivered the first 100 orders in South Korea. They have capacity for 50,000 displays a month so even if IGZO yields are abysmal, they should have little problem getting those out the door. It makes me wonder if we are they are seeing performance issues.



What makes you say that haven't delivered the models in Korea? I know there hasn't been an independent review out (probably need to see a US model for that) but I believe LG said several times they've been shipped in Korea.


From the UK press release :

Andrew Mackay, UK Commercial Director of Home Entertainment and Home Appliances added:

“Following the LG launch and supply to the Korean market earlier in the year, the UK is proud to be the next market to launch LG OLED TV"

I could be wrong but "and supply" sounds like British for shipped to me.


From the LG press release in Korean in February , translated (55EM9700 is the OLED model number though I'm sure Red is probably not the right translation):

LG Electronics 'All Red TV (Model: 55EM9700)' 'dream' quality of size 55 18, authentic shipped.


Come from last month to start selling reservations Red TV LG Electronics posted a total of 100 sales so far.


Red TV LG come LG's unique 'WRGB way' OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode Organic Light-Emitting Diode) technology to apply the implementation of the best quality. WRGB-pixel RGB (Red, Green, Blue) approach has been applied to the existing for 'RGB' W (White) pixels to add, 4 color (Color) pixels color representation range is wide.



Following LG's press conference on Thursday, Feb. 14, there were a number of news sources that reported the LG OLED TV shipments of the pre orders were starting on the next Monday, Feb. 18 so not sure what could have happened over the weekend to change that. There are newer reports that they will begin showing up in some stores in Korea in the next few weeks. A portion of the 50,000/month capacity will probably always be used for R&D so I'm not sure I would count on all of that going for released production models even after the M2 line is complete but there won't be large shipments until after that is done.


----------



## rogo

I think the reason why he believes none have shipped in South Korea is, well, that there isn't a single independent report of a single display being delivered to a single customer anywhere on earth.


And even the material you quote from LG doesn't go anywhere near contradicting that.


As for the "50,000 capacity", that would be at 100% yield, so let's stop talking about that being any sort of real number. "A portion" of it might be producing displays, the line is not being run at anywhere near capacity, etc. etc.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23064405
> 
> 
> As for the "50,000 capacity", that would be at 100% yield



I need clarification on two levels of this in order to understand it.

I always assumed that when anyone referred to production capabilities (using whatever term), they were talking _post_ yield. Naive of me?
What do they mean that a portion will be used for R&D as if that impacts the 50,000/month number? How could internal R&D usage of _any_ sized department amount to anything substantial?


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23064405
> 
> 
> I think the reason why he believes none have shipped in South Korea is, well, that there isn't a single independent report of a single display being delivered to a single customer anywhere on earth.
> 
> 
> And even the material you quote from LG doesn't go anywhere near contradicting that.
> 
> 
> As for the "50,000 capacity", that would be at 100% yield, so let's stop talking about that being any sort of real number. "A portion" of it might be producing displays, the line is not being run at anywhere near capacity, etc. etc.



"there isn't a single independent report of a single display being delivered to a single customer anywhere on earth."

Not one? I guess Harrod's, the one so far who has an incentive to show it being as its a retail store, isn't a customer? It will be exclusive to Harrods in Knightsbridge, London, where you can see a model on display. 


While I'm sure Slacker can speak to his beliefs, I am a bit curious what "Following the LG launch and supply to the Korean market earlier in the year" means to you? Also not sure why it matters that much since as soon as we see it in stores that won't matter because it'll be too expensive and have no market share, etc etc.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23064650
> 
> 
> I need clarification on two levels of this in order to understand it.
> 
> I always assumed that when anyone referred to production capabilities (using whatever term), they were talking _post_ yield. Naive of me?
> What do they mean that a portion will be used for R&D as if that impacts the 50,000/month number? How could internal R&D usage of _any_ sized department amount to anything substantial?



I'm sure Rogo will reply but since I'm here at the moment.

1. LG gave the capacity of the equipment. They didn't at the time, and probably still don't, know what the ultimate yields will be so this stated capacity does not reflect yield losses.

2. This is LG's initial pilot production line. As an earlier poster mentioned and with any technology they will always be experimenting with new technologies, new materials, new processes and they need manufacturing equipment to try it out and see how it works at scale. I guess one could call it "manufacturing R&D". It won't be a significant size in terms of ultimate production capacity years from now but it may be a significant part of this pilot line.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23064661
> 
> 
> "there isn't a single independent report of a single display being delivered to a single customer anywhere on earth."
> 
> Not one? I guess Harrod's, the one so far who has an incentive to show it being as its a retail store, isn't a customer? It will be exclusive to Harrods in Knightsbridge, London, where you can see a model on display.


Big whoop, another DEMO.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23064650
> 
> 
> I need clarification on two levels of this in order to understand it.
> 
> I always assumed that when anyone referred to production capabilities (using whatever term), they were talking _post_ yield. Naive of me?
> What do they mean that a portion will be used for R&D as if that impacts the 50,000/month number? How could internal R&D usage of _any_ sized department amount to anything substantial?



No, the capacity is based on *the number of substrates they can run*. It's not the post-yield number at all.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23064738
> 
> 
> I'm sure Rogo will reply but since I'm here at the moment.
> 
> 1. LG gave the capacity of the equipment. They didn't at the time, and probably still don't, know what the ultimate yields will be so this stated capacity does not reflect yield losses.
> 
> 2. This is LG's initial pilot production line. As an earlier poster mentioned and with any technology they will always be experimenting with new technologies, new materials, new processes and they need manufacturing equipment to try it out and see how it works at scale. I guess one could call it "manufacturing R&D". It won't be a significant size in terms of ultimate production capacity years from now but it may be a significant part of this pilot line.



I think people are somewhat confused by how this works, but the fact is if the line can process 50,000 substrates per month with 6 panels per, the goal is 300,000 perfect panels per month. They will tweak each step of the process to get there, but it's not like some portion of the line is dedicated to failure and then they turn back on "make good panels" for some period of time.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23064661
> 
> 
> "there isn't a single independent report of a single display being delivered to a single customer anywhere on earth."
> 
> Not one? I guess Harrod's, the one so far who has an incentive to show it being as its a retail store, isn't a customer? It will be exclusive to Harrods in Knightsbridge, London, where you can see a model on display.



No, Harrod's taking a demo unit doesn't constitute a customer, sorry. Delivering a single demo unit to the world's single-most famous department store proves nothing, actually. They had at least 10 working demo units at CES this year and nearly that many last year. In between those shows, they sold exactly zero units. The ability to hand one unit over a third-party in London _who currently has no ability to deliver a single unit to a customer before summertime_ doesn't prove much of a darned thing.


> Quote:
> While I'm sure Slacker can speak to his beliefs, I am a bit curious what "Following the LG launch and supply to the Korean market earlier in the year" means to you? Also not sure why it matters that much since as soon as we see it in stores that won't matter because it'll be too expensive and have no market share, etc etc.



I'm certainly not speaking for Slacker, but to me, this "launch" in Korea has yet to be proved to be more than a press release. Not even the OLED fanboy sites have a report of a customer taking delivery nor of an actual store in Korea where you can go buy one. Maybe you think that doesn't matter, but some of us think it does.


As to why, the part where regular people buy them comes _after_ the part where it's sold for months of being too expensive with no yields, no market share, etc. Until that part starts, the second part can't be approaching. And there isn't evidence that part has started.


When there is, it gets more interesting.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23064946
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23064650
> 
> 
> I need clarification on two levels of this in order to understand it.
> 
> I always assumed that when anyone referred to production capabilities (using whatever term), they were talking _post_ yield. Naive of me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the capacity is based on *the number of substrates they can run*. It's not the post-yield number at all.
> 
> [............]
> 
> 
> I think people are somewhat confused by how this works, but the fact is if the line can process 50,000 substrates per month with 6 panels per, the goal is 300,000 perfect panels per month.
Click to expand...



Ah, ok.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23064661
> 
> 
> While I'm sure Slacker can speak to his beliefs, I am a bit curious what "Following the LG launch and supply to the Korean market earlier in the year" means to you? Also not sure why it matters that much since as soon as we see it in stores that won't matter because it'll be too expensive and have no market share, etc etc.



We both follow the Korean newspapers as well as the Korean analysts. I very much doubt that LG has shipped the OLED television and we have yet to hear a single word from anybody that this has happened. In the past, I have been able to find reviews on random Korean message boards for low volume handsets or e-readers...but thus far there has been nothing on this television. While it is possible that the television has been released, I would very much wager against it.


As for why it matters, I want confirmation about the performance of the television. While I dont have high expectations for any first generation unit, but the modes of failure will matter. Are there any undisclosed drawbacks to a WRGB display? How soon before burn-in? I want to find out the performance "floor" for WRGB OLED televisions.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23065562
> 
> 
> We both follow the Korean newspapers as well as the Korean analysts. I very much doubt that LG has shipped the OLED television and we have yet to hear a single word from anybody that this has happened. In the past, I have been able to find reviews on random Korean message boards for low volume handsets or e-readers...but thus far there has been nothing on this television. While it is possible that the television has been released, I would very much wager against it.



I'd, in fact, expect the OLED hype sites to post something when there is evidence someone, somewhere has taken delivery.


> Quote:
> As for why it matters, I want confirmation about the performance of the television. While I dont have high expectations for any first generation unit, but the modes of failure will matter. Are there any undisclosed drawbacks to a WRGB display? How soon before burn-in? I want to find out the performance "floor" for WRGB OLED televisions.



This is good stuff and totally reasonable to look out for. My sense is that the performance floor is "high" and the drawbacks are "minimal" but I, too, would like to see that confirmed.


----------



## greenland

Even if LG has shipped the one hundred units that they claimed were pre-ordered in South Korea, that would still be far too small a statistical sample for to project any meaningful performance results out of. Furthermore, I would expect LG to have put that small number through a lot of testing before shipping, which would be easy to do, but will not be possible to continue, once they ramp up production to the level that would be required to make the enterprise worthwhile.


I feel that we will not have sufficient meaningful product performance feedback for another two years or more.


----------



## 8mile13

Streetinsider (if you're not inside...you're outside ):

according Universal Display CFO Sidney Rosenblatt OLED technology is expected to take off in 2014 - Display Research sees OLED TV shipments to hit 4.8 million units in 2015 - Analists have been a little skeptical, Reuters noted. Some don't expected OLED TV sales to really ramp until 2015.

http://www.streetinsider.com/Insiders+Blog/Universal+Display+(PANL)+Expects+Strong+OLED+Growth,+Just+Not+Until+2014.../8158951.html


----------



## rogo

So ~2% of the total TV market in 2 years and ~20% of the market for 50% and up, perhaps a bit less. That already sounds impossible. If you looked at Samsung along, I doubt very much that the flagship line accounts for anywhere near 20% of their sales -- it's 150% more expensive than their least expensive sets. And to get 20% of the market with only 2 mfrs. selling at volume by then (introductory units from Panasonic and Sony are a _maybe_ at that point only), with discounters selling below Samsung prices by quite a bit, etc. etc. strains credulity.


For this to happen, OLED pricing would have to fall to approximately $2500 by 2015.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23067662 So ~2% of the total TV market in 2 years and ~20% of the market for 50% and up, perhaps a bit less. That already sounds impossible. If you looked at Samsung along, I doubt very much that the flagship line accounts for anywhere near 20% of their sales -- it's 150% more expensive than their least expensive sets. And to get 20% of the market with only 2 mfrs. selling at volume by then (introductory units from Panasonic and Sony are a _maybe_ at that point only), with discounters selling below Samsung prices by quite a bit, etc. etc. strains credulity.
> 
> 
> For this to happen, OLED pricing would have to fall to approximately $2500 by 2015.


This will not happen by 2015! maybe 2020 I will be so old


----------



## Mark Rejhon

See this article:

*Why Do Some OLED's Have Motion Blur?*


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23076240
> 
> 
> See this article:
> 
> *Why Do Some OLED's Have Motion Blur?*



Nice article, but I don't like the diagrams. They (you?) should have labeled the X axis as Time and the Y axis as distance traveled (from left to right, up to down, or anywhere). Or the reverse. The way they've got it drawn they've conflated the two concepts and make it look as if blur is dependent upon a slope greater than 0.


I understand what they (you?) were trying to draw, but the first glance at their diagram makes it look as if there would be no blur if tracking an object horizontally.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23076378
> 
> 
> I don't like the diagrams---in fact they're _*very*_ bad IMO. They should have labeled the X axis as Time and the Y axis as position (from left to right, up to down, or whatever). Or the reverse. The way they've got it drawn they've conflated the two concepts and make it look as if it's dependent upon a diagonal motion.


The vertical axis is *position along the motion vector* and the the horizontal axis is *time*. This is a very old 2001 Microsoft Research paper. I'll see if I can add labels to these; or procure clearer diagrams.


> Quote:
> I understand what they were trying to draw


*Good. That's the important part.* I also listed additional scientific references to better and newer papers than Microsoft Research, but are often more complex reading. "Plain English" explanations is what the Blur Busters Blog specialize in, so I have to strike a good balance.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23076406
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23076378
> 
> 
> I don't like the diagrams---in fact they're _*very*_ bad IMO. They should have labeled the X axis as Time and the Y axis as position (from left to right, up to down, or whatever). Or the reverse. The way they've got it drawn they've conflated the two concepts and make it look as if it's dependent upon a diagonal motion.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, yes, the diagrams need to be edited for clarity to add the labels. The vertical axis is *position along the motion vector* and the the horizontal axis is *time*.
> 
> This is a very old 2001 Microsoft Research paper. I'll see if I can add labels to these; or procure clearer diagrams.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> I understand what they were trying to draw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good. That's the important part. I also listed additional scientific references to better and newer papers than Microsoft Research, but are often more complex reading. "Plain English" explanations is what the Blur Busters Blog specialize in, so I have to strike a good balance.
Click to expand...



Yeah, get rid of the "path of real object in scene". Thought: "Distance Traveled" for Y axis might be better than "Position along the motion vector" only because the arrow drawn might _itself_ look like the motion vector in screen coordinates.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23076431
> 
> 
> Yeah, get rid of the "path of real object in scene". Thought: "Distance Traveled" for Y axis might be better than "Position along the motion vector" only because the arrow drawn might _itself_ look like the motion vector in screen coordinates.


I don't like "Distance Travelled" because it doesn't signify absolute distance from starting position, or relative distance from last position. If it was relative, then that suggests acceleration. For now, until the original Microsoft images are edited, I've added a small note now:

*Vertical axis represents position of moving object. Horizontal axis represent time.*


----------



## greenland

Wednesday, March 13th, 2013

KOREA IT TIMES ([email protected])

SEOUL, KOREA - 27 of LG Electronics’ (LG) 2013 products were recognized by the red dot design awards for their excellence in the field of design. A panel of 37 independent judges considered over 4,662 products from 1,865 manufacturers, designers and architects from 54 countries. LG took top honors by receiving the coveted red dot: best of the best award for its new curved OLED TV. LG also received 24 other red dot design awards in addition to two honorable mentions.

http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/27224/lg-recognized-red-dot-and-if-design-awards


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23077443
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23076431
> 
> 
> Yeah, get rid of the "path of real object in scene". Thought: "Distance Traveled" for Y axis might be better than "Position along the motion vector" only because the arrow drawn might _itself_ look like the motion vector in screen coordinates.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like "Distance Travelled" because it doesn't signify absolute distance from starting position
Click to expand...


No? I'm not sure how it could otherwise. Any relative graphing would be very odd thing to see indeed. If you like, then "Distance from starting point", but I don't like that personally. Up to you though. If you use it however, be sure to get rid of the "path" reference. That's the *worst* part of it all, and really makes me wonder how an engineer came up with it.


----------



## Rich Peterson

I don't know if this is legit or what, but I've stumbled on someone who claims to own the LG OLED TV and says he's using it for gaming. I saw it in the xbox360achievements forum. In that forum he's userid EGGNOGGA.


You can check out his posts here . You might have to scroll around in that thread a little, I had trouble getting a link directly to his post.


He mentions there are 2 issues that concern him:

"there are 2 issues I have with my LG: 1) It has a good deal of glare if I'm gaming/watching TV during the daytime. 2) Most tv's will have what is known as 'backlight' on the edges. Mine has it, although it's not noticeable unless the entire screen is black."


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23083194
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is legit or what, but I've stumbled on someone who claims to own the LG OLED TV and says he's using it for gaming. I saw it in the xbox360achievements forum. In that forum he's userid EGGNOGGA.
> 
> 
> You can check out his posts here . You might have to scroll around in that thread a little, I had trouble getting a link directly to his post.
> 
> 
> He mentions there are 2 issues that concern him:
> 
> "there are 2 issues I have with my LG: 1) It has a good deal of glare if I'm gaming/watching TV during the daytime. 2) Most tv's will have what is known as 'backlight' on the edges. Mine has it, although it's not noticeable unless the entire screen is black."



The guy is full of @#$% (or just doesn't know what's in front of him), forget him, and move on. An emissive display does not have a light "behind" it, therefore nothing on the edges, unless there's something dramatically wrong and then it almost certainly wouldn't be localized to the edges.


He probably has a 55LA7400 in front of him, which has the same stupid dew-drop thing in the bottom middle bezel. Or perhaps someone sold him an LA7400 for $12,000. Aye yi yi....


----------



## 8mile13

He probably owns a OLED LCd


----------



## irkuck

There is still life in OLED: New Samsung Galaxy IV has full HD 5" OLED display (pentile though). Since this mobile is expected to sell in many tens of millions there is enough volume to make the display production economical. However first reports indicate the display is bright and saturated, it has a blue tint, so not a big revelation comparing to LCD.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23083194
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is legit or what, but I've stumbled on someone who claims to own the LG OLED TV and says he's using it for gaming. I saw it in the xbox360achievements forum. In that forum he's userid EGGNOGGA.
> 
> 
> You can check out his posts here . You might have to scroll around in that thread a little, I had trouble getting a link directly to his post.
> 
> 
> He mentions there are 2 issues that concern him:
> 
> "there are 2 issues I have with my LG: 1) It has a good deal of glare if I'm gaming/watching TV during the daytime. 2) Most tv's will have what is known as 'backlight' on the edges. Mine has it, although it's not noticeable unless the entire screen is black."



Occam's Razor. He most likely has an LED Edge-lit LCD TV set. He is describing backlight clouding issues.


It might be a special Irish product for St. Patrick's Day. O'LED!


----------



## vinnie97

Greenland with the funnies. O'LED, lol


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23084154
> 
> 
> There is still life in OLED: New Samsung Galaxy IV has full HD 5" OLED display (pentile though). Since this mobile is expected to sell in many tens of millions there is enough volume to make the display production economical. However first reports indicate the display is bright and saturated, it has a blue tint, so not a big revelation comparing to LCD.



Good luck in seeing the pentile structure on a 1080p 5" screen.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23085060
> 
> 
> Good luck in seeing the pentile structure on a 1080p 5" screen.



That will be interesting research question: Can pentile be noticeable in some circumstances on a display with 441 ppi density?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23083431
> 
> 
> The guy is full of @#$% (or just doesn't know what's in front of him), forget him, and move on. An emissive display does not have a light "behind" it, therefore nothing on the edges, unless there's something dramatically wrong and then it almost certainly wouldn't be localized to the edges.
> 
> 
> He probably has a 55LA7400 in front of him, which has the same stupid dew-drop thing in the bottom middle bezel. Or perhaps someone sold him an LA7400 for $12,000. Aye yi yi....



I hope it's the latter.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23084154
> 
> 
> There is still life in OLED: New Samsung Galaxy IV has full HD 5" OLED display (pentile though). Since this mobile is expected to sell in many tens of millions there is enough volume to make the display production economical. However first reports indicate the display is bright and saturated, it has a blue tint, so not a big revelation comparing to LCD.



Since it's pentile, it's kind of easy to jack up the resolution. None of this, of course, means they can make bigger displays however, which is all we really care about. And, right, importantly, none of the AMOLED phones are kicking the ass of the non-AMOLED phones with high-quality LCD displays. There is no night-and-day difference or even a LeBron vs. Carmelo difference. It's more a LeBron vs. KD difference.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23084439
> 
> 
> Occam's Razor. He most likely has an LED Edge-lit LCD TV set. He is describing backlight clouding issues.
> 
> 
> It might be a special Irish product for St. Patrick's Day. O'LED!



Good one, "Green"land....


And, yes, there is a *zero* percent chance this guy has an OLED display. Not 0.000000001%. But precisely 0%.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Ross*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23085060
> 
> 
> Good luck in seeing the pentile structure on a 1080p 5" screen.


Well it's _not_ a 1080p screen if it's Pentile. Pentile only uses two subpixels per pixel, so technically it only has 2/3 the resolution of a 1080p display - lower resolution than the iPhone. (294 PPI vs 326 PPI)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23084439
> 
> 
> Occam's Razor. He most likely has an LED Edge-lit LCD TV set. He is describing backlight clouding issues.


Why would OLED be immune to uniformity issues?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23085822
> 
> 
> Well it's _not_ a 1080p screen if it's Pentile. Pentile only uses two subpixels per pixel, so technically it only has 2/3 the resolution of a 1080p display - lower resolution than the iPhone. (294 PPI vs 326 PPI)



Well, it's technically 1080 x 2, as opposed to 720 x anything, which is what you're statement sort of implies.


A _standard_ RGB display uses 3 subpixels per pixel as a matter of course, Pentile displays use RG pixels alternating with BG pixels. So the total number of subpixels is certainly 2/3 as you state, but the translation of that to PPI is more arguable.


> Quote:
> Why would OLED be immune to uniformity issues?



It wouldn't be immune, but it should be similarly susceptible to plasma because so long as the material is laid evenly and the voltages are applied evenly, you can expect uniformity. Now whether we get that today or not is another matter. But it won't have the same kind of uniformity issues as LCD, which are a function of light guide tolerances and alignment with edge-lighting assemblies.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5400_100#post_23085961
> 
> 
> Well, it's technically 1080 x 2, as opposed to 720 x anything, which is what you're statement sort of implies.
> 
> 
> A _standard_ RGB display uses 3 subpixels per pixel as a matter of course, Pentile displays use RG pixels alternating with BG pixels. So the total number of subpixels is certainly 2/3 as you state, but the translation of that to PPI is more arguable.


Well I suppose it is still "1920x1080" but it's a crap 1920x1080.


Perhaps we should be measuring subpixels-per-inch now?

iPhone 5: 978

Galaxy S4: 881

Xperia Z: 1322


The only problem is that it then implies that RGBY or RGBW displays will look better than RGB ones (they do not) and that an ideal display with _no_ subpixels would be much lower resolution.


----------



## navychop

I also do not expect meaningful OLED shipments before 2015. But I do hope they will come.


However, things may be greatly delayed, as I suspect South Korea has much more to be concerned about, and will shortly have to deal with, as regards NK.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23086111
> 
> 
> Well I suppose it is still "1920x1080" but it's a crap 1920x1080.
> 
> 
> Perhaps we should be measuring subpixels-per-inch now?
> 
> iPhone 5: 978
> 
> Galaxy S4: 881
> 
> Xperia Z: 1322
> 
> 
> The only problem is that it then implies that RGBY or RGBW displays will look better than RGB ones (they do not) and that an ideal display with _no_ subpixels would be much lower resolution.



I think the point you make is why it's easier and more correct to call the display 1920 x 1080 while acknowledging it's Pentile and therefore, 1920 x 1080 (x 2) instead of (x 3).


If we start getting into subpixels per inch, we're going to regret the meaninglessness of those metrics very soon.


And, let me say Chron, I agree with you on the inferiority of Pentile. That said, the Samsung displays are better at higher resolution with Pentile than the earlier AMOLEDs were at lower resolution with Pentile. That is, the damage is lower the higher the nominal pixel count gets. The early reports are this 1920 x 1080 display is the best yet --- and we'll all know soon enough.


The idea that it's much better than an LCD remains false and when there is IGZO LCD readily available -- which I suspect will happen next year -- it may be even more false.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23085292
> 
> 
> I hope it's the latter.
> 
> Since it's pentile, it's kind of easy to jack up the resolution. None of this, of course, means they can make bigger displays however, which is all we really care about. And, right, importantly, none of the AMOLED phones are kicking the ass of the non-AMOLED phones with high-quality LCD displays. There is no night-and-day difference or even a LeBron vs. Carmelo difference. It's more a LeBron vs. KD difference.



The question is if the high density blurs pentility so much it is not recognizable anymore. If that is the case, Samsung made right decision not to push full RGB OLED. Sales of the Galaxy IV are estimated to be around 44 mln in the first two quarters from its launch. This is giant volume in highly profitable business. The PQ of the AMOLED is not its big advantage in mobile but its thinness is. All this means OLED has future but it remains to be seen if it is so in the TV business which is stodgy, low- if not unprofitable and suffering from image problem: young generations prefer personal full HD on their mobiles than a communal big full HD in the living room.


----------



## rogo

I doubt very much that anyone is even noticing these extra pixels on these 5" phones to be honest. I mean, it's fine they're there, but if resolutions had remained at 720 levels instead of pushing to 1080, I'm confident the screens could have been very nearly equally gorgeous.


It's really a marketing thing more than a functional thing and, if anything, requires the pixel-based assets to be re-sized yet again to be tappable by human fingers. But now that we've reached 1920 x 1080, I'm fairly confident we're done with phone resolution.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23088604
> 
> 
> I doubt very much that anyone is even noticing these extra pixels on these 5" phones to be honest. I mean, it's fine they're there, but if resolutions had remained at 720 levels instead of pushing to 1080, I'm confident the screens could have been very nearly equally gorgeous.



The question is if 1080 pentile structure is noticeable in some way in certain circumstances. This may not have any practical significance, it is just a test if nothing more than pentile is needed.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23088604
> 
> 
> It's really a marketing thing more than a functional thing and, if anything, requires the pixel-based assets to be re-sized yet again to be tappable by human fingers. But now that we've reached 1920 x 1080, I'm fairly confident we're done with phone resolution.



It should be so but market forces are blind like darwinian evolution which once produced dinosaurs







. There is already talk that graphics chips in those dino mobiles are capable to drive external monitors @2560x1600







.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23090054
> 
> 
> The question is if 1080 pentile structure is noticeable in some way in certain circumstances. This may not have any practical significance, it is just a test if nothing more than pentile is needed.
> 
> It should be so but market forces are blind like darwinian evolution which once produced dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . There is already talk that graphics chips in those dino mobiles are capable to drive external monitors @2560x1600
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Even on desktop PCs, however, the penetration of >1920 x 1080 is well, well, well, well, well under 1% several years into its availability.


While we are both aware of why this _should_ change on desktops, it's hard to imagine why it should change on mobiles.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23091519
> 
> 
> Even on desktop PCs, however, the penetration of >1920 x 1080 is well, well, well, well, well under 1% several years into its availability.
> 
> While we are both aware of why this _should_ change on desktops, it's hard to imagine why it should change on mobiles.



Mobiles have much faster technology diffusion and replacement rates. This year the number of mobiles with full HD displays may easily

reach 100 mln.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5460#post_23084154
> 
> 
> There is still life in OLED: New Samsung Galaxy IV has full HD 5" OLED display (pentile though). Since this mobile is expected to sell in many tens of millions there is enough volume to make the display production economical. However first reports indicate the display is bright and saturated, it has a blue tint, so not a big revelation comparing to LCD.



I don't know what sub pixel structure Samsung is using in the S4 but DisplaySearch reports We believe that Samsung has revamped its sub-pixel layout to achieve FHD resolution using its existing FMM (Fine Metal Mask) evaporation process. Samsung might be using the advanced s-stripe with hexagonal and diamond-shaped pixels to achieve the higher ppi.


The s-stripe arrangement has several advantages. First, the display readability is significantly improved compared to traditional Pentile, which has two sub-pixels per pixel. S-stripe has three sub-pixels per pixel, and an advanced design may have five. The second advantage is that s-stripe may enable longer lifetimes for the display. Normally, the blue organic material has the shortest lifetime; in s-stripe, the blue sub-pixel domain is larger than that of the other colors. This means that the luminance per area can be less for blue, which is less stressful. In this way, the entire OLED display’s lifetime can be extended.


If an s-stripe or advanced version sub-pixel layout is the ultimate solution for AMOLED to achieve 400 ppi+ resolution, then it could be a competitive advantage for Samsung.




The S4 will also have an Adapt Display feature according to Raymond Soneira, Displaymate's display guru who has previously criticized Samsung for the lack of calibration on their AMOLED displays - the colors are too saturated, the whites are too blue, and the intensity scales are too steep.


As Raymond points out, Samsung's own S4 site shows a CIE chromaticity diagram and a gray scale level picker (see screenshot above). This leads Raymond to believe that the S4 will have extensive color, white-point, and display calibration adjustments. This could be a "major display advancement and a win for Samsung and AMOLED displays" - according to Raymond.


Raymond adds that this multi-parameter interactive display calibration software will make it possible for such an OLED to accurately provide any desired color gamut, white point color temperature, and intensity scale. This is actually much harder for LCDs to implement because they are internally a non-linear analog display technology at the panel level, whereas OLEDs are digitally driven via Pulse Width Modulation (PWM).


LCDs have a non-linear and irregular S Shaped Transfer Characteristic (light output versus drive signal) that makes it harder to accurately implement the various calibration variables. On the other hand, OLEDs driven with PWM respond in a straight-forward linear fashion that makes it easy to accurately calculate and precisely adjust the various parameters.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23094593
> 
> 
> Mobiles have much faster technology diffusion and replacement rates. This year the number of mobiles with full HD displays may easily
> 
> reach 100 mln.



No kidding. But so what? How you extrapolate from this that they are going to go from an already pointless resolution to an ever higher resolution is incomprehensible.


There is no way humans are going to care about 440ppi vs. 350 ppi... And no one is going to even want more pixels because things with fixed-sized icons become a mess if you _again_ scale the pixel count.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23094747
> 
> 
> I don't know what sub pixel structure Samsung is using in the S4 but DisplaySearch reports We believe that Samsung has revamped its sub-pixel layout to achieve FHD resolution using its existing FMM (Fine Metal Mask) evaporation process. Samsung might be using the advanced s-stripe with hexagonal and diamond-shaped pixels to achieve the higher ppi.
> 
> 
> The s-stripe arrangement has several advantages. First, the display readability is significantly improved compared to traditional Pentile, which has two sub-pixels per pixel. S-stripe has three sub-pixels per pixel, and an advanced design may have five. The second advantage is that s-stripe may enable longer lifetimes for the display. Normally, the blue organic material has the shortest lifetime; in s-stripe, the blue sub-pixel domain is larger than that of the other colors. This means that the luminance per area can be less for blue, which is less stressful. In this way, the entire OLED display’s lifetime can be extended.



This is pretty meaningless for devices designed to last 2-4 years unless the displays weren't already lasting 2-4 years. I mean it's good, but of course no LCD was having an issue here.


> Quote:
> If an s-stripe or advanced version sub-pixel layout is the ultimate solution for AMOLED to achieve 400 ppi+ resolution, then it could be a competitive advantage for Samsung.



Over other AMOLEDs... not vs. LCD.


> Quote:
> As Raymond points out, Samsung's own S4 site shows a CIE chromaticity diagram and a gray scale level picker (see screenshot above). This leads Raymond to believe that the S4 will have extensive color, white-point, and display calibration adjustments. This could be a "major display advancement and a win for Samsung and AMOLED displays" - according to Raymond.



Again, so what? On 5" displays this matters a lot to whom? No one who bought an S3 and loved the screen (i.e. "the vast majority of owners"). Unless Samsung can make bigger screens _using the same technology_ -- which we have every reason to believe is not even happening -- then this isn't important. I suppose the caveat here is that Samsung will likely scale this up to 7" screens where someone might care a bit more.. but really only a bit. People just aren't losing sleep over display calibration on their 5" phone.


Oh, also, the linked DisplaySearch item rants on about how "the blue area can be bigger" and then shows the blue area as the tiniest of the 3 colors... I assume the diagram is just wrong, but it's kind of odd and funny.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5500_100#post_23094747
> 
> 
> This leads Raymond to believe that the S4 will have extensive color, white-point, and display calibration adjustments. This could be a "major display advancement and a win for Samsung and AMOLED displays" - according to Raymond.
> 
> 
> Raymond adds that this multi-parameter interactive display calibration software will make it possible for such an OLED to accurately provide any desired color gamut, white point color temperature, and intensity scale.



The importance of this is interesting to me.


Is this to have a broader range of manufacturing results all look the same? (That would theoretically allow more subcontractors produce phone panels that can still be used.) (No?) But otherwise, I can't imagine there are many folks who would care much about super accurate color on a phone. I certainly couldn't care less, and I can't imagine my wife, my neighbors, or anyone's kids running in circles screaming about it.


I'm sure an interior decorator might care, maybe. {shrug}


----------



## slacker711

I think its an answer to all of the gadget bloggers who complain about the oversaturated colors in their reviews. I dont think it means much to average consumers, but reviewers are nitpicking tiny difference between these handsets.


----------



## greenland

I sure hope the thread is not going to be taken over with smart phone talk again, since it is a thread for OLED TV news and developments. Is there no place else for on this site for people to post about those tiny little phone screens?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23096288
> 
> 
> I sure hope the thread is not going to be taken over with smart phone talk again, since it is a thread for OLED TV news and developments. Is there no place else for on this site for people to post about those tiny little phone screens?



I remain highly dismissive of the notion that Samsung's progress on smartphone displays matters much (at all?) for TVs. And the fact they are already moving away from FMM RGB to LG's RGBW vapor-deposition, no-pixels method of TV mfg. speaks volumes.


----------



## Wizziwig

FYI, here is the pentile structure of the S4:


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23097619
> 
> 
> FYI, here is the pentile structure of the S4:



Assuming that picture is accurate, I'm not seeing how that's an exciting change. It's geometrically different, but still RGBG. It also renders false the claim of an enlarged blue area.


I presume there is some reason why RBGB is impossible, which is really too bad.


And, honestly, Pentile still sucks.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23097642
> 
> 
> Assuming that picture is accurate, I'm not seeing how that's an exciting change. It's geometrically different, but still RGBG. It also renders false the claim of an enlarged blue area. I presume there is some reason why RBGB is impossible, which is really too bad.
> 
> And, honestly, Pentile still sucks.



But in the S4 subpixel density is so high it may effectively mask pentile.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23094959
> 
> 
> No kidding. But so what? How you extrapolate from this that they are going to go from an already pointless resolution to an ever higher resolution is incomprehensible.
> 
> 
> There is no way humans are going to care about 440ppi vs. 350 ppi... And no one is going to even want more pixels because things with fixed-sized icons become a mess if you _again_ scale the pixel count.
> 
> This is pretty meaningless for devices designed to last 2-4 years unless the displays weren't already lasting 2-4 years. I mean it's good, but of course no LCD was having an issue here.
> 
> Over other AMOLEDs... not vs. LCD.
> 
> Again, so what? On 5" displays this matters a lot to whom? No one who bought an S3 and loved the screen (i.e. "the vast majority of owners"). Unless Samsung can make bigger screens _using the same technology_ -- which we have every reason to believe is not even happening -- then this isn't important. I suppose the caveat here is that Samsung will likely scale this up to 7" screens where someone might care a bit more.. but really only a bit. People just aren't losing sleep over display calibration on their 5" phone.
> 
> 
> Oh, also, the linked DisplaySearch item rants on about how "the blue area can be bigger" and then shows the blue area as the tiniest of the 3 colors... I assume the diagram is just wrong, but it's kind of odd and funny.



My point in this discussion is that it looks OLED has still life ahead due to Samsung pushing it into their new mobile flagship. If not this I would be much less certain about OLED breaking into the TV world. Now, mobile OLED can help TV OLED in the economic sense. There was enormous discussion here about LG getting preorder for 100 pcs of 55" OLED TVs. Such numbers have nothing to do with economy. But Samsung may move 50 mln OLED mobile displays this year and this will bring collosal economy of scale to OLED which may help jump start OLED TVs too.


----------



## Tazishere

Well, the only OLED devices available to comment on so far are cellphones. Everything else is speculation on Vaporware as of now.


----------



## greenland

"Panasonic Sony Sumitomo Lifetime Blue color OLED TV 4K2K (UHD) P-OLED Ink-jet printing

At CES 2013 Panasonic unveiled a 56" 4K (3840x2160) OLED TV panel prototype that was produced using an all-printing method. Back in January we assumed Panasonic were using SMOLED materials, but now Sumitomo Chemical revealed (as part of their 2013-2015 plan presentation) that this TV prototype used the company's PLED materials.

http://www.oled-info.com/panasonics-printed-56-4k-oled-tv-prototype-uses-sumitomos-pled-materials 



Panasonic has been working on OLED printing technologies for quite some time and back in 2009, they teamed up with Sumitomo to jointly-develop OLED TVs, based on Sumitomo's P-OLED materials and technology."


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23098571
> 
> 
> But in the S4 subpixel density is so high it may effectively mask pentile.



Fair enough.


> Quote:
> My point in this discussion is that it looks OLED has still life ahead due to Samsung pushing it into their new mobile flagship. If not this I would be much less certain about OLED breaking into the TV world. Now, mobile OLED can help TV OLED in the economic sense. There was enormous discussion here about LG getting preorder for 100 pcs of 55" OLED TVs. Such numbers have nothing to do with economy. But Samsung may move 50 mln OLED mobile displays this year and this will bring collosal economy of scale to OLED which may help jump start OLED TVs too.



Except that Samsung is going to use _none of the technology_ in the mobile displays for TVs. Are you not getting that or are you just being a pain in the rear for some other reason? There is no manufacturing synergy between those 50 million mobile displays using the FMM RGB tech and the RGBW TVs they are heading towards. And even if they made 500 million, it _seems clear_ they have given up trying to make large-screen FMM displays because SMS was a terrible idea and it's not going to scale.


So there is no "colossal" scale at all. It's more like saying, "Hey, since HP makes millions upon millions of printers, they ought to be able to make printing presses well, too." While they might, the two aren't linked.


(Oh, also, there are about 100x mobile phone screens in the area of _one_ TV. So even if there were economies of scale that were related -- and, again, there aren't -- it would be like making 500,000 TVs. The best way to get good at making 500,000 TVs would be ... to make 500,000 TVs... Not to make 50 million phone screens,)


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23099261
> 
> 
> Except that Samsung is going to use _none of the technology_ in the mobile displays for TVs. Are you not getting that or are you just being a pain in the rear for some other reason? There is no manufacturing synergy between those 50 million mobile displays using the FMM RGB tech and the RGBW TVs they are heading towards. And even if they made 500 million, it _seems clear_ they have given up trying to make large-screen FMM displays because SMS was a terrible idea and it's not going to scale.
> 
> So there is no "colossal" scale at all. It's more like saying, "Hey, since HP makes millions upon millions of printers, they ought to be able to make printing presses well, too." While they might, the two aren't linked.
> 
> (Oh, also, there are about 100x mobile phone screens in the area of _one_ TV. So even if there were economies of scale that were related -- and, again, there aren't -- it would be like making 500,000 TVs. The best way to get good at making 500,000 TVs would be ... to make 500,000 TVs... Not to make 50 million phone screens,)



I have not said a word that mobile tech is to be reused on the TV side. Not. Though TV side is in some way simpler than mobile due to much lower density /though it has its own difficulties/. What I am saying is that there is OLED volume generated by mobile and this blows some future into the OLED tech in general. In other words if Samsung would not try to blow another life into mobile OLED this year future of OLED would be looking really bleak. But here it is, 2K [email protected]" - don't blame it's only pentile







. This means OLED is not left behind and it is competing with full HD mobile LCDs.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23099401
> 
> 
> I have not said a word that mobile tech is to be reused on the TV side. Not. Though TV side is in some way simpler than mobile due to much lower density /though it has its own difficulties/. What I am saying is that there is OLED volume generated by mobile and this blows some future into the OLED tech in general. In other words if Samsung would not try to blow another life into mobile OLED this year future of OLED would be looking really bleak. But here it is, 2K [email protected]" - don't blame it's only pentile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . This means OLED is not left behind and it is competing with full HD mobile LCDs.



So your argument is that OLED hype will continue because OLED, which was already in a bunch of phones, is going to be in a bunch of phones...


This is even less persuasive.


Your _other_ argument -- that had Samsung abandoned OLED for phones (something that didn't seem to have any chance of happening anyway) -- OLED would be dead is not one many people in the industry were taking seriously.


I don't see any relationship between the continued success of OLED in mobile phones and the growth of OLED TVs. And -- if anything -- a year after the OLED TVs were first announced, I'm less certain that OLEDs are going to have 100% market share in smartphones. I'm not saying they _won't_, just that I was certain they would a year ago and now I don't really know.


----------



## wco81

Maybe they could arrange a few dozen Samsung phones in a grid to form a big screen.


In a couple of years, they would only need a fraction of them, the way they're increasing the screen sizes of phones.


OLED is still less energy efficient for web applications than LCD and the color accuracy of the AMOLEDs in phones are said to be still inferior to the LCD in the iPhone.


So what's the point? Deeper blacks but the other colors are whack. Is that what we're going to get out of big-screen OLEDs?


----------



## rogo

It's also worth noting that LCDs continue to improve on power consumption (better LEDs for another few years at least, IGZO), while OLED may or may not have much room to go in the smartphone space. But I don't want to keep derailing this discussion to talk phones. I just don't see how the _continued use of AMOLEDs_ in a phone that already used them matters one bit to the adoption/growth of OLED TVs. I suppose irkuck is correct that if Samsung abandoned AMOLED for the phones, that would be bad. But it had no chance of happening.


----------



## Rich Peterson

I wouldn't exactly call this news, but some might be interested...

*Samsung OLED TV gets UL certification*


Source: http://sammyhub.com/2013/03/19/samsung-oled-tv-gets-ul-certification/ 



Samsung has announced that its OLED TV has gained a certification from Underwriters Laboratories. Samsung boasts that its 55-inch OLED TV is the first OLED TV to receive any certification for the picture quality and went through a series of tests, which the lab calls Emotional Image Quality Evaluation.


The tests include assessments on brightness, colour and uniformity and uses 3D colour space to accurately measure the depth of colour and contrast ratio.


Samsung’s S9 UHD TV also got certified by Underwriters Laboratories earlier this month.


Samsung is expected to start selling the OLED TV later this year.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5490#post_23099978
> 
> 
> So your argument is that OLED hype will continue because OLED, which was already in a bunch of phones, is going to be in a bunch of phones...
> 
> This is even less persuasive.
> 
> Your _other_ argument -- that had Samsung abandoned OLED for phones (something that didn't seem to have any chance of happening anyway) -- OLED would be dead is not one many people in the industry were taking seriously.
> 
> I don't see any relationship between the continued success of OLED in mobile phones and the growth of OLED TVs. And -- if anything -- a year after the OLED TVs were first announced, I'm less certain that OLEDs are going to have 100% market share in smartphones. I'm not saying they _won't_, just that I was certain they would a year ago and now I don't really know.



You seem to think OLED TV and OLED mobile are totally different. They are not, technology core is the same. Having 50 mln OLED displays sold is indirectly boosting chances for OLED TV. There is huge difference between technology which is promising but has no volumes and technology which has some real segment selling well. But overall, it seems OLED will not dent LCD hegemony in any significant way.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23104088
> 
> 
> You seem to think OLED TV and OLED mobile are totally different.



No, I don't. But the *manufacturing* of them is completely different.


> Quote:
> They are not, technology core is the same.



Even this is disputable. Samsung's AMOLED mobile displays have very, very little in common with LG's RGBW OLED TVs (which apparently will soon be the technological twins of Samsung's TVs... perhaps by next year). The backplanes are different, the front color filters are different, the middle "layer" is manufactured entirely differently.


> Quote:
> Having 50 mln OLED displays sold is indirectly boosting chances for OLED TV.



This is quite frankly nonsense. They made 35 million or so last year. Did that "indirectly boost the chances of OLED TV" too? It neither harmed nor helped.


> Quote:
> There is huge difference between technology which is promising but has no volumes and technology which has some real segment selling well.



AMOLED on mobiles has been selling well since at least 2011. It's actual growth curve in 2013 vs. 2012 will be quiet minimal. You want your meme, fine, you can have it. I don't see how this is even slightly important, but I will simply conceded that it's _slightly_ important.


> Quote:
> But overall, it seems OLED will not dent LCD hegemony in any significant way.



As I said last year, the chances of OLED becoming even half of the total _display industry_ by decade's end seemed minimal. I was mocked. They seem far more minimal now given that if we are forecasting today, we'd go:


Smartphones: perhaps 100% OLED, perhaps 50% (depending on what happens with IGZO LCD costs)

Tablets: probably less than 50% OLED, see above

Laptops: probably less than 20% OLED

Desktop monitors: probably less than 5% OLED

TVs: almost certainly less than 25% of units sold


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5500_100#post_23104977
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23104088
> 
> 
> You seem to think OLED TV and OLED mobile are totally different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't. But the *manufacturing* of them is completely different.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> They are not, technology core is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even this is disputable. Samsung's AMOLED mobile displays have very, very little in common with LG's RGBW OLED TVs (which apparently will soon be the technological twins of Samsung's TVs... perhaps by next year). The backplanes are different, the front color filters are different, the middle "layer" is manufactured entirely differently.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Having 50 mln OLED displays sold is indirectly boosting chances for OLED TV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is quite frankly nonsense. They made 35 million or so last year. Did that "indirectly boost the chances of OLED TV" too? It neither harmed nor helped.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> There is huge difference between technology which is promising but has no volumes and technology which has some real segment selling well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AMOLED on mobiles has been selling well since at least 2011. It's actual growth curve in 2013 vs. 2012 will be quiet minimal. You want your meme, fine, you can have it. I don't see how this is even slightly important, but I will simply conceded that it's _slightly_ important.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> But overall, it seems OLED will not dent LCD hegemony in any significant way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said last year, the chances of OLED becoming even half of the total _display industry_ by decade's end seemed minimal. I was mocked. They seem far more minimal now given that if we are forecasting today, we'd go:
> 
> 
> Smartphones: perhaps 100% OLED, perhaps 50% (depending on what happens with IGZO LCD costs)
> 
> Tablets: probably less than 50% OLED, see above
> 
> Laptops: probably less than 20% OLED
> 
> Desktop monitors: probably less than 5% OLED
> 
> TVs: almost certainly less than 25% of units sold
Click to expand...


Decades end is almost 7 years away. That's disheartening to think that might result in OLED penetration of less than 25% in the TV market.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23105416
> 
> 
> Decades end is almost 7 years away. That's disheartening to think that might result in OLED penetration of less than 25% in the TV market.



Reality is sometimes cruel.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Do quantum dot displays pose challenges for OLED?*


Source: Digitimes 


As OLED has been consistently facing mass production issues for applications on large-size displays such as TV panels, and is expected to have high production costs for at least a few more years as industry observers have predicted, display developers have been looking for alternative solutions to providing high contrast and more energy-efficient products to their TV and possibly even tablet, smartphone and notebook customers. One of those solutions is quantum dot display technology.


Quantum dots (QD) or semiconductor nanocrystals are a form of light emitting technology and consist of nano-scale crystals that can provide an alternative for applications such as display technology. This display technology differs from CRTs and LCDs, but it is similar to OLED displays, in that light is supplied on demand, which enables new, more efficient displays and allows for mobile devices with longer battery lives, according to recent reports from New Scientist.


QD displays also consume lower power and have richer color than conventional OLED, claim some analysts. The analysts also state that the white light produced by quantum dots has high brightness and excellent color reproduction, raising its potential to replace the backlight unit (BLU) using the LED to form the "QLED."


But has the technology proved itself in actuality? As of early 2013, Sony used QDs to improve the color of some of its high-end Bravia TVs, shown at CES 2013. The analysts who viewed the TV claimed the range of colors it could display was increased by about 50% compared to LCD TVs. Judging by the photos circulating online it seems this claim is legit.


The technology being used in the Sony TV sets is said to come from Nanosys, which recently announced that it is working with 3M to commercialize a QD film that could be integrated into the back of today's LCD panels. Sources at the company have also said the film could cut the display's power consumption by half and enable LCDs to generate 50% more colors within the range set by the National Television System Committee, added the analysts.


Additionally, according to IEEE Spectrum Technology, QD Vision is also working on a QD LED display that reportedly works exactly like an OLED display but at a lower cost. OLED displays contain a thin layer of light-emitting organic semiconductor sandwiched between two electrodes, but QD Vision reportedly replaces the organic material with QDs, said analysts who have connections to the technology creators.


Despite the technology starting to pop up in the market, Digitimes Research has found that no makers of the QD technology have plans to mass produce it in the short term and may need at least another 3-5 years. Samsung Display is also not expected to take priority of the technology and instead will continue development of its OLED research, added Digitimes Research.


OLED is gaining a lot of hype in the market, as it should considering the picture quality it provides. However, despite recent large investments into OLED either through Samsung Display or LG Display, there still has been only little progress in terms of using the technology for large-size applications. A large reason for this is that manufacturing OLED displays typically requires depositing organic molecules on the substrate using expensive evaporation techniques, hence the high costs and complicated production process. The analysts also stated the two companies may need another three years at least to bring down costs so that OLED TVs may be affordable for consumers, which if true, means that TV vendors could be battling for OLED displays as well as quantum dot display technology in the future.


In the meantime, one thing seems for sure - Samsung and LG are still likely to use OLED, as they have made huge investments in the technology, so it is likely that Japan-based TV vendors who are looking for a new high-end technology for use in their TV products might want to consider investing in the technology perhaps with Sharp, as their Korea-based rivals have their OLED technology niche while China-based TV vendors are largely aiming to get Ultra HD TV panels from Taiwan-based panel makers.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Samsung Gives Products Wall Street Send-Off*


Source: Twice magazine 


New York — As supermodel Kate Upton, quarterback Eli Manning and hip-hop artist Flo Rida looked on, Samsung Electronics America executive VP Joe Stinziano gave a formal send-off to his company’s 2013 TV and A/V model lines in the heart of Wall Street on Wednesday.

...


The company said it will also offer its first 55-inch 1080p OLED TV “in the second half of the year,” at a price to be announced, the company said.


----------



## rogo

So let me react to this news.....


1) Digitimes has maybe the worst reports in tech journalism. And it's a bloody shame. OK, that said, it seems like a QD layer could make a really, really good RGBW-style display a la LG's OLED. This would perhaps allow for much easier manufacturing (solving the problem of making pixels), assuming quantum-dot technology is adaptable to this kind of use. If I were someone not named Samsung or LG, I'd probably be looking at this hardcore. Whiter light with lower power consumption based on fewer layers? Mate that with an IGZO backplane and color filters and bam....


2) Kate Upton, Eli Manning and... Flo-rida? A SuperBowl champ... A supermodel... And a super _hack_.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23104977
> 
> 
> No, I don't. But the *manufacturing* of them is completely different.



One big variable in the manufacturing is whether Samsung sticks with LTPS. As of right now, I think that they are planning on a LTPS fab paired WRGB for their first commercial Gen 8 facility. They may also see some benefit from their experience with vapor deposition of the materials. I assume that while removing the shadow mask makes everything simpler that there is still some learning curve to depositing a precise amount of materials at an even depth across a Gen 8 sized substrate.


I'd also add that they should benefit from their continued R&D into OLED materials. While the emitter layers may not be identical, they should be fairly similar and there are a variety of other layers which will benefit from any improvements that Samsung makes to their handset line.


Let me put it this way, I'd be far more skeptical of any other company trying to catch LG using WRGB. The fact that Samsung has manufactured hundreds of millions of OLED's should give them at least some advantage over a company like AUO trying to copy LG.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5500_100#post_23106576
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way, I'd be far more skeptical of any other company trying to catch LG using WRGB. The fact that Samsung has manufactured hundreds of millions of OLED's should give them at least some advantage over a company like AUO trying to copy LG.




Take 10 steps back. Both sides of this argument might be talking past each other. _Might._


There are three disparate notions going on that apply to both arenas:
The marketing impact upon the public. As the public starts seeing OLED on more and more phones (will they?), it stands to reason that the term becomes more commonly recognized as "the next latest and greatest" than if it were confined to TVs. Whatever impact that has is up for grabs. Doubt it means anything at all for TV sales.
_Regardless of whether or not one manufacturing technique in any way applies to the other_, the technological achievements in the small (the actual OLED elements) might be important for both small and large displays. In particular there's uneven wearing, and the IR/BI boogeyman again (to some). Phones don't have the display on for long, but there are game consoles that do.
That said, it absolutely makes no sense to me to place any faith at all that the _manufacturing_ achievements of one have any impact on the other.


I'm the very last one to get away with pretending to take the high-road on anything here (yes, my track record is terrible), but it seems to me that both points are not completely at war with each other, which would indicate that it's a pretty good time to wind down this particular off-ramp.


For me only---my final 2¢ on it: I personally like knowing what Samsung did with the OLED sub-pixels of their small displays, but that's probably about it.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5500_100#post_23106493
> 
> 
> So let me react to this news.....
> 
> 
> 1) Digitimes has maybe the worst reports in tech journalism. And it's a bloody shame. OK, that said, it seems like a QD layer could make a really, really good RGBW-style display a la LG's OLED. This would perhaps allow for much easier manufacturing (solving the problem of making pixels), assuming quantum-dot technology is adaptable to this kind of use. If I were someone not named Samsung or LG, I'd probably be looking at this hardcore. Whiter light with lower power consumption based on fewer layers? Mate that with an IGZO backplane and color filters and bam....



Are QD amenable to the utopian roll-to-roll printing?


----------



## greenland

LG Tells Samsung: Show Me The Money.


http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2013/03/21/5/0200000000AEN20130321008500320F.HTML 


"LG Electronics asks Samsung to pay for patents

SEOUL, March 21 (Yonhap) - LG Electronics Inc. on Thursday accused Samsung Display Co. and Samsung Electronics Co. of illegally using its technology and demanded the two companies pay for the patents, the latest development in the Samsung-LG display feud. Samsung Display and LG Display Co., the world's two biggest display makers, have been embroiled in a patent tussle over organic light-emitting diode (OLED) and liquid crystal display (LCD) technologies that later expanded to their TV-making affiliates Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics. In a statement, LG Electronics said it is "doubtful" about Samsung Display's decision to drop a patent suit against the company and said it will carefully consider the suggestion LG Electronics also called for compensation for the use of its patent technologies, adding it is ready to hold talks on the payment issue. The move marks a twist in the display feud between the two tech giants that seemed to be heading toward a peaceful end. After filing requests for a sales ban on each other's products and use of certain technologies, the two companies recently agreed to make a compromise in a meeting organized by the commerce ministry. In February , Samsung Display dropped an injunction aimed to block LG Display from using its OLED technology."


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23104977
> 
> 
> No, I don't. But the *manufacturing* of them is completely different.
> 
> Even this is disputable. Samsung's AMOLED mobile displays have very, very little in common with LG's RGBW OLED TVs (which apparently will soon be the technological twins of Samsung's TVs... perhaps by next year). The backplanes are different, the front color filters are different, the middle "layer" is manufactured entirely differently. d



Heh, so where are the LG's mobile RGBW OLEDs? LG RGBW is exactly what I'm saying: very promising tech aiming to sell 100 TVs for 12000$. Samsung at least has tens of millions sold already.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23104977
> 
> 
> This is quite frankly nonsense. They made 35 million or so last year. Did that "indirectly boost the chances of OLED TV" too? It neither harmed nor helped.
> 
> AMOLED on mobiles has been selling well since at least 2011. It's actual growth curve in 2013 vs. 2012 will be quiet minimal. You want your meme, fine, you can have it. I don't see how this is even slightly important, but I will simply conceded that it's _slightly_ important.



You are grossly wrong. Without real sales these companies could be on the cliff to decide if it is worth struggling with the tech which is eternally promising. Why the Galaxy 4 OLED is significant? It is since the LCD raised the bar significantly this year by jumping to full HD mobile. OLED had to be there or it would be obsolete. Fact that OLED did it means it is still in the game. This is bit similar to the 4K vs. 2K in TV. OLED must be able to be in the 4K segment, otherwise it risks being obsolete.


Regarding the mobile vs. TV OLEDs I presume the organic LED material is same in both. Both TV and mobile are 2K now. Difficulty in the mobile OLED is high density of subpixels. Difficulty in TV are subpixel sizes and resulting uniformity problems. These are different problems indeed.


----------



## mr. wally

can we expect to see oled displays on tablets soon? would that be a samsung mobile based oled display or an rgbw type?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23107627
> 
> 
> can we expect to see oled displays on tablets soon? would that be a samsung mobile based oled display or an rgbw type?



I have read some rumors that Samsung might start gearing up for tablets later this year and into 2014. I think the question is more economic than technical. As of right now, the iPad absolutely dominates the high-end of the tablet market where an OLED tablet would need to sell. Most of the non-Apple tablets have had to compete on price and that wont work for an 7+" OLED right now.


----------



## slacker711

and here is a rumor from today about a >10" OLED tablet from Samsung.

http://www.sammobile.com/2013/03/21/rumour-samsung-to-follow-up-galaxy-tab-7-7-with-10-1-or-11-6-full-hd-amoled-display/#.UUtIMvq-t98.twitter


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23106576
> 
> 
> One big variable in the manufacturing is whether Samsung sticks with LTPS. As of right now, I think that they are planning on a LTPS fab paired WRGB for their first commercial Gen 8 facility. They may also see some benefit from their experience with vapor deposition of the materials. I assume that while removing the shadow mask makes everything simpler that there is still some learning curve to depositing a precise amount of materials at an even depth across a Gen 8 sized substrate.



I presume you are correct about even deposition across a Gen 8 substrate. LG must be struggling even on their current production with this. It can't be _all_ the IGZO problem.


> Quote:
> I'd also add that they should benefit from their continued R&D into OLED materials. While the emitter layers may not be identical, they should be fairly similar and there are a variety of other layers which will benefit from any improvements that Samsung makes to their handset line.



There might be materials benefits, but you make very different choices for RGB and RGBW.


> Quote:
> Let me put it this way, I'd be far more skeptical of any other company trying to catch LG using WRGB. The fact that Samsung has manufactured hundreds of millions of OLED's should give them at least some advantage over a company like AUO trying to copy LG.



Seems like AUO is going down the path of trying to invent "printable" RGB on the very, very thin dimes of Sony and Panasonic. There are so many reasons why I don't see this happening quickly -- if at all.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23106908
> 
> 
> Take 10 steps back. Both sides of this argument might be talking past each other. _Might._



Slacker and I are not talking past each other, for what it's worth.


> Quote:
> For me only---my final 2¢ on it: I personally like knowing what Samsung did with the OLED sub-pixels of their small displays, but that's probably about it.



I think that's cool too. Of course it has zero implications for an RGBW TV.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23106926
> 
> 
> Are QD amenable to the utopian roll-to-roll printing?



Umm, maybe? No one can say since nothing has ever been really made with quantum dots. I'm not exactly sure how the QD LEDs Sony is using are being made either, but I suspect they are being fabbed on wafers, so that's not really telling us much.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23107432
> 
> 
> Heh, so where are the LG's mobile RGBW OLEDs? LG RGBW is exactly what I'm saying: very promising tech aiming to sell 100 TVs for 12000$. Samsung at least has tens of millions sold already.



Keep repeating it like a parrot. I'll mail you a box of crackers.


> Quote:
> You are grossly wrong.



Well then at least I'm in really good company.


> Quote:
> Without real sales these companies could be on the cliff to decide if it is worth struggling with the tech which is eternally promising. Why the Galaxy 4 OLED is significant? It is since the LCD raised the bar significantly this year by jumping to full HD mobile. OLED had to be there or it would be obsolete. Fact that OLED did it means it is still in the game. This is bit similar to the 4K vs. 2K in TV. OLED must be able to be in the 4K segment, otherwise it risks being obsolete.



If Samsung had _not_ gone full HD and had simply said, "The Galaxy S4 has an even better, even brighter screen this year" and offered the same resolution as last year, I'm quite confident they would still not be losing any sales they would otherwise have had to HTC, Moto, LG... I know all you tech fanboys think your desire for specs and this and that add up to a meaningful percentage of the market. But you don't.


> Quote:
> Regarding the mobile vs. TV OLEDs I presume the organic LED material is same in both.



Actually, no. In RGBW, the materials are not identical to the RGB material. Similar, but not identical. You use a more forgiving blue since you never emit a true blue to the end user.


> Quote:
> Both TV and mobile are 2K now. Difficulty in the mobile OLED is high density of subpixels. Difficulty in TV are subpixel sizes and resulting uniformity problems. These are different problems indeed.



Again, no. In TV with RGBW, you don't have any OLED pixels, subpixels, etc. You do have the potential for uniformity issues on the OLED layer. But they are not based on pixels.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23107627
> 
> 
> can we expect to see oled displays on tablets soon? would that be a samsung mobile based oled display or an rgbw type?



So Samsung has been selling a really pricey ~7" tablet with OLED for a while. No one buys it. It costs too much. The same problem is going to exist until they can reach price parity with LCD tablets of same size (at least premium tablets like iPads and whatever Windows premium tablets catch on going forward). And this is the OLED chicken-and-egg writ large. In TVs, we are watching mfrs. try to push down the learning curve to get costs lower by selling tiny numbers of super expensive TVs in a world where no one really buys super expensive TVs anymore. And that's going to be a struggle.


In tablets, it's worse.


Samsung can make tablet OLEDs happen by basically investing in the capacity to do it and then deciding to price the tablets at parity with other tablets. They will lose money doing this -- for a while -- but eventually they might hit a cost per display that makes sense. Of course, the window is tight. LCD is _still getting cheaper_ and if we are still to believe that eventually IGZO gets cheaper than LTPS and even a-Si, then not betting on that for backplanes makes the problem worse. Why? Because look out 2 years to next-gen tablet screens based on IGZO with next-gen LED backlights that are 2x more efficient and perhaps even using something like quantum dots for better color and even better efficiency. The basic cell / LC piece is ridiculously cheap from a decade of doing this on a fully amortized plant...


OLED is catching a moving target that is actually an improving, moving target.


In a world where Samsung and Apple were still frenemies instead of outright foes, I think this transition might already be underway. As things stand, however, it's going to be very challenging to make it happen. Of course, a lot depends on whether Apple (or someone like it) drives the LCD industry to make all this real. Maybe Apple already is (they are spending $10 billion on cap ex this year, nearly as much as Intel), but we don't know because they play the cards close to the vest.


----------



## mr. wally

well the samsung tablet with the amoled displayy is either not widely available or no one is touting its oled screen.


either way oled dispalys are not a factor in the tablet market


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23109078
> 
> 
> well the samsung tablet with the amoled displayy is either not widely available or no one is touting its oled screen.
> 
> 
> either way oled dispalys are not a factor in the tablet market



It's not widely available and it's much more expensive than the LCD verison of the small Galaxy Tab.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23108625
> 
> 
> If Samsung had _not_ gone full HD and had simply said, "The Galaxy S4 has an even better, even brighter screen this year" and offered the same resolution as last year, I'm quite confident they would still not be losing any sales they would otherwise have had to HTC, Moto, LG... I know all you tech fanboys think your desire for specs and this and that add up to a meaningful percentage of the market. But you don't.



Oh no, I was not aware your sense of the market is so low. We are talking about flagships, top-end tech. They must have latest and best specs, people look after other features like convenience of use only after the specs are there. This year displays specs are full HD displays, it would be huge damage for Samsung if S4 had no full HD, OLED is there to imply it is outsmarting competition. Same reason is for eight core processor in S4 in some markets and 13 megapixel camera. This makes interesting question of what is next when the display res is at the end of the road? There are rumors already that next LG flagship will have 4K video camera recording - one more reason to buy 4K TV







.


----------



## rogo

Irkuck, your view of the market is quite frankly mistaken. I know a lot of folks who sell mobile for a living and I assure you that while the young boys ask about resolution and care about specs, 90% of buyers do not.


And really, I feel like at this point you are just trolling me and I'm taking the bait. So I'll try to stop.


----------



## borf

Not knowing any marketing statistics, I'll guess men go for specs and women go for what feels right. Women are theoretically half the consumer market but don't men buy the tech stuff (usually). And in the end, don't both of them have to get past that persuasive sales tech guy spouting numbers.


Then again people buy ultra flat panels with reduced image quality, so specs obviously aren't everything.


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5500_100#post_23113065
> 
> 
> Irkuck, your view of the market is quite frankly mistaken. I know a lot of folks who sell mobile for a living and I assure you that while the young boys ask about resolution and care about specs, 90% of buyers do not.
> 
> 
> And really, I feel like at this point you are just trolling me and I'm taking the bait. So I'll try to stop.



History has proven you correct. Seriously, how many people outside these types of forums have a clue as to how their current(let alone the latest n greatest) gear works?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23113065
> 
> 
> Irkuck, your view of the market is quite frankly mistaken. I know a lot of folks who sell mobile for a living and I assure you that while the young boys ask about resolution and care about specs, 90% of buyers do not.
> 
> And really, I feel like at this point you are just trolling me and I'm taking the bait. So I'll try to stop.



For the forum record, this shows plain and simple you have no idea of the market. True, the flagship segment is a smaller part of the market but its overall volumes are staggering. Say, Samsung will sell 50 mln S4 this year, this is minuscule part of over billion phones sold. But 50 mln 2K OLED displays sold in a very profitable and expensive product is a volume which keeps OLED still on the table. And in the _flagship segment_ specs are everything. Some buyers may not understand what 2K or 8-core means but they definitely go for the higher numbers







. Otherwise there would not be such extreme darwinian evolution which brought full HD to mobile and is pushing towards 4K video recording.


Regarding the LG RGBW, it surely has (theoretical) advantage over AMOLED. But it is highly suspicious LG is not pushing it into mobiles where there are volumes and profits. There must significant obstacles against this, most likely technological.


----------



## rogo

As usual, you draw totally unsupportable conclusions and simply state them as fact. Enjoy.


----------



## mypretty1

Would it not be possible to keep comments on this Thread to the subject of OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread? There is so much chatter about mobiles and tablets it is difficult sifting information about OLED TVs from the chaff.


----------



## CruelInventions

Good luck with that. Threads tend to meander, it's just the way it is on forums. Especially when there isn't a ton of new developments, news, etc., to discuss.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mypretty1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23114738
> 
> 
> Would it not be possible to keep comments on this Thread to the subject of OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread? There is so much chatter about mobiles and tablets it is difficult sifting information about OLED TVs from the chaff.



Not much to tell about OLED TVs for now. TVs may arrive on the back of mobile OLEDs







.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5500_100#post_23114937
> 
> 
> Not much to tell about OLED TVs for now. TVs may arrive on the back of mobile OLEDs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



So you keep hijacking the thread and taking it off topic, because you think it is funny to do so? It is not.


The news flow about OLED TV developements is not enhanced by your flooding of the thread with all that blather about phone panels. Feel free to start a thread dedicated to that topic, but kindly stop misusing this one. Thank you.


----------



## mypretty1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23115008
> 
> 
> So you keep hijacking the thread and taking it off topic, because you think it is funny to do so? It is not.
> 
> 
> The news flow about OLED TV developements is not enhanced by your flooding of the thread with all that blather about phone panels. Feel free to start a thread dedicated to that topic, but kindly stop misusing this one. Thank you.



+1


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5520#post_23115008
> 
> 
> So you keep hijacking the thread and taking it off topic, because you think it is funny to do so? It is not.



So you hijacked the thread to make it dead?


----------



## rogo

The thread is _moribund_ because there is nothing -- again -- to talk about.


LG's promised February date in Korea passed without any signs of delivery. Now their March U.S. date is going to pass without any deliveries.


OLED is the technology that cried wolf in TV.


----------



## vinnie97

Hey, UK. You're up "next" in June. I dedicate this (garbage) to you in a faux effort to get you fired up:


----------



## mypretty1

I believe there was a no-show of the LG OLED TV at LG's Spring 2013 dealer show, 19 - 21 March. Nor is the OLED TV mentioned on LG's Blog for the LG @ The Gadget Show Live 2013, 3 - 7 April.


Looks like a trip to Harrods.









.


----------



## rogo

If the pound falls a bit more, I may visit the UK soon... Although the trip would have nothing to do with seeing a demo unit of a TV I've seen since January 2012 but still wouldn't be able to buy....


----------



## JWhip

Rogo, Harrod's has a great electronics section. I visit it every time I am in London. I was there in January but the LG OLED wasn't there yet. They have the Sony 84" 4K next to a gigantic Panasonic. Well worth the trip! Check out a football match too if you can. I can help you with that!


----------



## 8mile13

Lux research believes that only 7.000 OLED TVs will be shipped in 2014 - DisplaySearch predicts 2.000.000 units in 2014







- LG predicts 600.000/7.00.000 units in 2014








http://www.oled-info.com/lux-research-sees-only-7000-oled-tvs-shipped-2014 




> Quote:
> *LG INVESTS MORE IN OLED TVs, BUT CAPACITY CLAIMS EXAGGERATED*
> 
> 
> Posted on March 22, 2013 by Jonathan Melnick
> 
> 
> LG is investing KRW 706 billion ($655 million) in a new organic light-emitting diode (OLED) TV manufacturing plant, which it expects to begin producing on gen 9 (2160 mm x 2460 mm) substrates in 2014, with a production capacity of nearly two million 55-inch TVs annually. The investment in the new OLED TV line comes as LG announced 100 preorders for its $12,000, 55-inch diagonal OLED TVs produced on its existing line. LG also set aggressive growth goals of 15% for its flat-panel display business as a whole, which includes both OLED and liquid crystal displays (LCDs).
> 
> 
> As Samsung and LG race to be seen as the most innovative display company in the world, their announcements on OLED will play a major role. As Samsung continues to tout flexible displays (client registration required), LG is staking its claim in TVs. However, the announcements are intended to make the companies look innovative in the volatile and perception-driven world of consumer electronics, and do not reflect the current state of the technology. If LG plans to use gen 9 glass substrates, it will have to use solution processing, which may be a good fit eventually for its white-red-green-blue (WRGB) OLEDs, but the processing yields will not be sufficient for mass production. Expect less than 7,000 total OLED TVs to be shipped across the entire industry in 2014, and LG’s line to be opened later than it anticipates (see the report “Cutting Up the LCD Pie: Calculating the Billion-Dollar Slices from Display Innovation” — client registration required).
> 
> http://www.luxresearchinc.com/blog/2013/03/lg-invests-more-in-oled-tvs-but-capacity-claims-exaggerated/






If folks are not allowed to talk about OLED related stuff in this *thread* we might as well shut it down


----------



## vinnie97

I'm going with the Lux forecast given the current rate of dev.


----------



## rogo

Well, let's talk about OLED stuff...


First, I will bet serious coin that 7,000 is closer to the real number than 2 million. I have long stated I don't believe the pricing goes from $10,000 --> $3,000 but rather that it goes from $10,000 to more like $7,000 (perhaps $5,000)... Either way, _the product has to ship first and be on sale for a while_. That hasn't happened in any market, anywhere. At $5,000-$7,000, there is nothing resembling a 2 million-unit market. At $10,000, the market is probably closer to 7,000 than even 100,000.....


Second, it's increasingly likely Samsung will never ship based on the RGB tech or -- if they do -- it will be in sample-unit quantities (like the kind that allow for a tiny global market in the sub-100K size). Their bluster on shipping seems to be a function of reacting to LG and LG has -- again -- gone quiet.


Third, there is *news* above but it's confounding. The fab is referred to as 9G, but the glass size is most assuredly 8G. At 8G, the ability to cut into larger size is still compromised (for example, you get 1 x 3 of 65" displays with a lot of waste if you go that route). I don't know why they refer to 9G or why they think that will require some new kind of processing. Does this call their whole report into question? That's another matter.


----------



## andy sullivan

The biggest hurdle regarding OLED is that with all the hype it's received and all the talk on sites like this one, it absolutely must hit the ground running and be so awesome and so RELIABLE that there will be no question that the new king has arrived. I think LG and Samsung know this and to that end cannot deliver the goods. If, and it's a big if, Panasonic/Sony can get a handle on the technology they are working on, then maybe.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> which it expects to begin producing on gen 9 (2160 mm x 2460 mm) substrates in 2014



I think you always have to be careful with research reports but that is especially so when they cant even get the size of the substrate right. Seriously, how do you mess that up?


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> 
> Third, there is *news* above but it's confounding. The fab is referred to as 9G, but the glass size is most assuredly 8G. At 8G, the ability to cut into larger size is still compromised (for example, you get 1 x 3 of 65" displays with a lot of waste if you go that route). I don't know why they refer to 9G or why they think that will require some new kind of processing. Does this call their whole report into question? That's another matter.


ok.

quote:

''LG Display has announced that it has decided to invest KRW 706 billion in a new 8th generation OLED TV panel manufacturing line (2,200mm x2,500mm), to be installed at its P9 plant in Paju, South Korea''.

http://www.cln-online.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3225:lgd-new-oled-line&catid=63:technology&Itemid=183 


*the role of Solution Processing in the future of OLED TVs*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_YbWdyjWR0


----------



## sytech

I know OLED is going to get here. Any day now...


----------



## rogo

So 40mm in either dimension is unimportant... it doesn't change anything.


But I don't see why LG needs solution processing/printing for 8G at all.


Yes, it might save some material over vapor deposition. But it also wastes a lot of time/effort on patterning _which LG doesn't need_. And solution processing/printing isn't real. Evaporation / vapor deposition is real, even if ridiculously immature.


I tried to watch the DuPont video (it's too long to get through all of it), but I am even more willing to discard Lux's conclusions based on what I believe are a series of incorrect assumptions.


DuPont, incidentally, seems to be developing materials that LG can use for the RGBW design by "spin coating" as opposed to vapor deposition (less waste perhaps). But their overall printing method seems incredibly clunky and inefficient. The idea that printable OLED is going to lead to massive cost reduction sometime soon seems far-fetched at best.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> So 40mm in either dimension is unimportant... it doesn't change anything.
> 
> 
> But I don't see why LG needs solution processing/printing for 8G at all.
> 
> 
> Yes, it might save some material over vapor deposition. But it also wastes a lot of time/effort on patterning _which LG doesn't need_. And solution processing/printing isn't real. Evaporation / vapor deposition is real, even if ridiculously immature.
> 
> 
> I tried to watch the DuPont video (it's too long to get through all of it), but I am even more willing to discard Lux's conclusions based on what I believe are a series of incorrect assumptions.
> 
> 
> DuPont, incidentally, seems to be developing materials that LG can use for the RGBW design by "spin coating" as opposed to vapor deposition (less waste perhaps). But their overall printing method seems incredibly clunky and inefficient. The idea that printable OLED is going to lead to massive cost reduction sometime soon seems far-fetched at best.


seems that LG is using Solution Processing.


from the YouTube video 18.20
*License Agreement*

DuPont has licensed its process technology to a large Asian display maker who is currently a leading manufacturer of OLEDs


Their objective is to reproduce and scale up the process in order to mass produce OLED televisions


______________________

*DuPont reports $20 million revenues from OLED technology*
http://www.osa-direct.com/osad-news/641.html


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5550#post_23134123
> 
> 
> seems that LG is using Solution Processing.
> 
> 
> from the YouTube video 18.20
> *License Agreement*
> 
> DuPont has licensed its process technology to a large Asian display maker who is currently a leading manufacturer of OLEDs
> 
> 
> Their objective is to reproduce and scale up the process in order to mass produce OLED televisions
> 
> 
> ______________________
> 
> *DuPont reports $20 million revenues from OLED technology*
> http://www.osa-direct.com/osad-news/641.html



I dont know whether it has been officially confirmed but everybody in the industry says that Dupont's licensee is Samsung though the technology is still under development. LG is definitely not using solution processing for their current television.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5550#post_23134489
> 
> 
> I dont know whether it has been officially confirmed but everybody in the industry says that Dupont's licensee is Samsung though the technology is still under development. LG is definitely not using solution processing for their current television.



LG is _definitely_ using vapor deposition for their current television.


And the reality is _most_ of DuPont's tech is about getting the stuff printable, which is exactly 100% non-applicable to LG's RGBW designs period. That said, the ability to spin coat or "spray on" the material as a liquid instead of vapor depositing it _might_ be interesting/valuable for LG going forward.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5500_100#post_23135130
> 
> 
> LG is _definitely_ using vapor deposition for their current television.
> 
> 
> And the reality is _most_ of DuPont's tech is about getting the stuff printable, which is exactly 100% non-applicable to LG's RGBW designs period. That said, the ability to spin coat or "spray on" the material as a liquid instead of vapor depositing it _might_ be interesting/valuable for LG going forward.



When it comes to what LG has done so far; the word "Vapor" fits them like a glove.







I suppose since they have lagged far behind both Samsung and Panasonic in their development of improved Plasma displays, and their LCD offerings are also not rated among the best, it should come as no surprise to us, that it is looking more and more like they will also end up lagging behind in the OLED TV category.


I still think that Panasonic may surpass them when it comes to bringing worthwhile quantities of OLED TV sets to market in the next few years.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5550#post_23135617
> 
> 
> When it comes to what LG has done so far; the word "Vapor" fits them like a glove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose since they have lagged far behind both Samsung and Panasonic in their development of improved Plasma displays, and their LCD offerings are also not rated among the best, it should come as no surprise to us, that it is looking more and more like they will also end up lagging behind in the OLED TV category.
> 
> 
> I still think that Panasonic may surpass them when it comes to bringing worthwhile quantities of OLED TV sets to market in the next few years.



For what it's worth, I think their decision to couple OLED development with a switch to IGZO is looking like the big "this was too hard" in retrospect. The hype around IGZO notwithstanding, it's obviously hard to do. Only Sharp has actually made any substantial progress at all. There is little doubt that OLED with LTPS would also have been a mess -- you could have had product perhaps, but you could never have scaled -- but it might already exist.


What remains confounding -- at least to me -- is why they stopped the original strategy of scaling up from smaller to larger sizes. That would have been much easier to with IGZO than just leaping to 55 inches on a technology they basically had never used. In fact, in retrospect, they probably should have just partnered with Sharp at least on backplane development. This would have helped _both companies_ on both the TV side and the mobile side (especially with respect to their business dealings with Apple, which could have led to billions more in business by now if the technology was more real).


It's kind of funny to go back and erase the demos from last year -- and how they clouded the judgment of myself and others -- and then go back to what I believed _before_ January 2012 to see just how correct those beliefs actually were.


Essentially, we're back to the point where this is _at the earliest_ a 2014 technology and quite possibly (if Lux is correct) a 2015 technology. And by that I don't want to dismiss shipping a few thousand TVs as totally insignificant, but it would essentially be demo quantities. So if we don't see production ramp up over into at least the hundreds of thousands _next year_ (it surely won't this year), then we can look to 2015 for the dawn of the OLED era. And, ironically, that's about when a lot of us pegged it might begin... We just bought into the same smoke-and-mirrors show everyone else did.


Vapor indeed.


----------



## tgm1024

All this is making me pine for the naive days when I was routing for Crystal LED.....


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5500_100#post_23137518
> 
> 
> What remains confounding -- at least to me -- is why they stopped the original strategy of scaling up from smaller to larger sizes.



Is it possible that the true way to battle the folks over-indulging in the big sizes is to keep focus on 55? The reason I wonder this is because 1. I remember us discussing that 55" might be the outlyer for the general public (most interested in 47" or less). Which was not what the general avsforum-ite would be interested in, but we're not the target either. And 2. word in this forum was that both Sony's and Sharp's TV divisions are having trouble being financially successful (particularly Sharp, except for the Apple variable). Is it possible that the true profit lies in pulling back from the ever increasing screen size (and ever shrinking market share)?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5550#post_23137686
> 
> 
> Is it possible that the true way to battle the folks over-indulging in the big sizes is to keep focus on 55? The reason I wonder this is because 1. I remember us discussing that 55" might be the outlyer for the general public (most interested in 47" or less). Which was not what the general avsforum-ite would be interested in, but we're not the target either. And 2. word in this forum was that both Sony's and Sharp's TV divisions are having trouble being financially successful (particularly Sharp, except for the Apple variable). Is it possible that the true profit lies in pulling back from the ever increasing screen size (and ever shrinking market share)?



My point here was that they started with a 15" display and then promised (but never delivered) a 31". I'm not talking about going beyond 55". I believe they need to do that (flagship displays are sold mostly in larger than 55" sizes, even though the total sales of 60" and up are dwarfed by 55" displays), but it's a separate issue from what I was alluding to.


----------



## sytech

Lets face it, LG totally miscalculated with OLED. 2K OLED is basically DOA. If we are lucky they might ship less than 10,000 units worldwide in 2013 and maybe 100,000 in 2014, before they scrap the entire line. They have moved onto 4K with their LCD line and will have make the jump to 4K with OLED also, to make it a viable product in 2015. Hopefully Panasonic/Sony 4K OLED method can actual make acceptable yields to reach mass production and reduce cost.


----------



## rogo

Well, the other thing about going IGZO is that IGZO is a much better bet for 4K than LTPS or a-Si. If all you want to do is power an LCD, those legacy techs will cut it, but for an OLED, the conventional wisdom is you _need_ IGZO or an equivalent "oxide" solution. It's not at all clear Sony or Panasonic has made any progress there. They are basically hoping and praying AUO will just have figured it out by then.


I have agreed with your thesis that 2K OLED never should've happened at all. It's going to make the idea of OLED as flagship even more far-fetched when flagship LCDs that are higher resolution start reaching the market in mainstream sizes this year _long before OLED really does._


----------



## slacker711

Why would IGZO be better for 4K than LTPS? They are already doing much higher density displays than 4K on OLED mobiles using LTPS. My understanding is that LTPS beats IGZO on every spec except cost.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5550#post_23137518
> 
> 
> Essentially, we're back to the point where this is _at the earliest_ a 2014 technology and quite possibly (if Lux is correct) a 2015 technology. And by that I don't want to dismiss shipping a few thousand TVs as totally insignificant, but it would essentially be demo quantities. So if we don't see production ramp up over into at least the hundreds of thousands _next year_ (it surely won't this year), then we can look to 2015 for the dawn of the OLED era. And, ironically, that's about when a lot of us pegged it might begin... We just bought into the same smoke-and-mirrors show everyone else did.
> 
> Vapor indeed.



According to rumors LG is preparing next high-end mobile to be coming after summer with 5" 2K RGBW display. If that materializes it will give credibility and volumes to the LG OLED business. Think again about my statement the only sane way for OLED now is via mobile. OLED TV is just a pissing content of old Asian boys getting prostate problems on the way.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*
> 
> Is it possible that the true way to battle the folks over-indulging in the big sizes is to keep focus on 55? The reason I wonder this is because 1. I remember us discussing that 55" might be the outlyer for the general public (most interested in 47" or less). Which was not what the general avsforum-ite would be interested in, but we're not the target either. And 2. word in this forum was that both Sony's and Sharp's TV divisions are having trouble being financially successful (particularly Sharp, except for the Apple variable). Is it possible that the true profit lies in pulling back from the ever increasing screen size (and ever shrinking market share)?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> My point here was that they started with a 15" display and then promised (but never delivered) a 31". I'm not talking about going beyond 55". I believe they need to do that (flagship displays are sold mostly in larger than 55" sizes, even though the total sales of 60" and up are dwarfed by 55" displays), but it's a separate issue from what I was alluding to.


The way i see it 55'' will get people's attention 31'' not. That is what the ''inch it up'' is all about. The promisses and not deliver over and over again would not work as well with a 31''.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*
> 
> When it comes to what LG has done so far; the word ''Vapor'' fits them like a glove.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> ... We just bought into the same smoke-and- mirrors show everyone else did


They were never able to mass produce anything









However, the announcements are intended to make the companies LG look innovative in the volatile and perception-driven world of consumer electronics, and do not reflect the current state of the technology...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tmg1024*
> 
> 
> All this is making me pine for the naive days when i was routing for Crystal LED.....


However, the Crystal LED announcements prototype was are intended to make the companies Sony look innovative in the volatile and perception-driven world of consumer electronics, and do not reflect the current state of the technology...


----------



## greenland

LG has engaged in a lot of global presentations of their 55 Inch OLED TV panel. They have put on big shows in places like even Brazil, this year; yet so far all they have even committed to doing is having some available in Harrods of London in July, and since they said before that they would have them available in the USA by now, and that has not happened, they can easily let the Harrods date slip also.


So why are they continuing such a massive global marketing campaign on a product that they clearly must have known that they were not going to be able to ship in any worthwhile numbers?


Perhaps they have figured out a very clever way to get a lot of great media coverage, to enhance their Brand Name reputation, without having to earn it, since their Plasma and LCD models are rated as being average at best. What they have been doing with the shows that they have staged at events like the Monaco Grand Prix etc. has garnered them a lot of great media publicity. They even paid for all of HDGuru's travel costs to have him fly over and cover the Monaco Event, even though he still has not been able to test one, or go see one in a store, all these many months later.


It reminds me of what Automakers have done for many years at their Auto Shows, when they demonstrate concept cars that they have no intention of ever producing, but still garner a lot of free TV and press favorable coverage for free. I see no reason to give any credence to forward looking statements from LG from here on out, until they at least start shipping more than a tiny token amount of OLED TV units. Look to Panasonic as the company that has a track record of not over promising ahead of time, but have made steady improvements over the years on their Plasma sets, something LG has not done. LG are behaving more like Carnival Barkers than anything else these days.


----------



## vinnie97

carnival barkers, I likes.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5550#post_23139678
> 
> 
> Why would IGZO be better for 4K than LTPS? They are already doing much higher density displays than 4K on OLED mobiles using LTPS. My understanding is that LTPS beats IGZO on every spec except cost.



My understanding is that IGZO beats it on power. It would seem that with more transistors that starts to matter. It could be my understanding is wrong, but that is my understanding.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5550#post_23139945
> 
> 
> According to rumors LG is preparing next high-end mobile to be coming after summer with 5" 2K RGBW display. If that materializes it will give credibility and volumes to the LG OLED business. Think again about my statement the only sane way for OLED now is via mobile. OLED TV is just a pissing content of old Asian boys getting prostate problems on the way.



We here don't much care about mobile. Mobile has _plenty_ of great screens -- LCD _and_ OLED. What remains unclear is whether OLED is really meaningfully better on mobile. When the IGZO-based LCDs hit mobile it may, in fact, be the other way around.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5550#post_23140586
> 
> 
> 
> The way i see it 55'' will get people's attention 31'' not. That is what the ''inch it up'' is all about. The promisses and not deliver over and over again would not work as well with a 31''.



Totally fair point.


> Quote:
> They were never able to mass produce anything



Or, really, produce anything at all.


> Quote:
> However, the announcements are intended to make the companies LG look innovative in the volatile and perception-driven world of consumer electronics, and do not reflect the current state of the technology...



Constantly showing something and promising to ship it and not shipping it is making one look less innovative and more phony, it seems to me.


> Quote:
> However, the Crystal LED announcements prototype was are intended to make the companies Sony look innovative in the volatile and perception-driven world of consumer electronics, and do not reflect the current state of the technology...



See Exhibit A, Sony, Super Phony. Lots of demos over the years, few products of any import.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5550#post_23141384
> 
> 
> LG has engaged in a lot of global presentations of their 55 Inch OLED TV panel. They have put on big shows in places like even Brazil, this year; yet so far all they have even committed to doing is having some available in Harrods of London in July, and since they said before that they would have them available in the USA by now, and that has not happened, they can easily let the Harrods date slip also.



And they probably will.


> Quote:
> So why are they continuing such a massive global marketing campaign on a product that they clearly must have known that they were not going to be able to ship in any worthwhile numbers?
> 
> 
> Perhaps they have figured out a very clever way to get a lot of great media coverage, to enhance their Brand Name reputation, without having to earn it, since their Plasma and LCD models are rated as being average at best. What they have been doing with the shows that they have staged at events like the Monaco Grand Prix etc. has garnered them a lot of great media publicity. They even paid for all of HDGuru's travel costs to have him fly over and cover the Monaco Event, even though he still has not been able to test one, or go see one in a store, all these many months later.



Yeah, this has long ago stopped making sense to me.


> Quote:
> It reminds me of what Automakers have done for many years at their Auto Shows, when they demonstrate concept cars that they have no intention of ever producing, but still garner a lot of free TV and press favorable coverage for free. I see no reason to give any credence to forward looking statements from LG from here on out, until they at least start shipping more than a tiny token amount of OLED TV units. Look to Panasonic as the company that has a track record of not over promising ahead of time, but have made steady improvements over the years on their Plasma sets, something LG has not done. LG are behaving more like Carnival Barkers than anything else these days.



Well put. I've been dismissing the demos for quite some time (and the promises as well). That's why I keep bringing up the lack of evidence of a single delivery anywhere. In this day and age of instant information, if anyone had the TV, you'd think we'd know about it.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5500_100#post_23142000
> 
> 
> See Exhibit A, Sony, Super Phony. Lots of demos over the years, few products of any import.




Yeah, but they gave us the Trinitron, so I cut them a lot of slack.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5500_100#post_23142000
> 
> 
> See Exhibit A, Sony, Super Phony. Lots of demos over the years, few products of any import.


To be fair though, Sony is very clear when something they are showing off is a prototype display showcasing some of the technologies they are working on, and something they actually intend on shipping in the near future. The problem is that the press doesn't seem to pay any attention to that.


And who else has been shipping OLED displays larger than 10" since mid-2011? (low volume, pro-grade equipment, but displays you can purchase nonetheless)


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5580#post_23142228
> 
> 
> To be fair though, Sony is very clear when something they are showing off is a prototype display showcasing some of the technologies they are working on, and something they actually intend on shipping in the near future. The problem is that the press doesn't seem to pay any attention to that.
> 
> 
> And who else has been shipping OLED displays larger than 10" since mid-2011?



So....


there's some truth to that, but they really like to have it both ways. The CLED demo was filled with lots of vague platitudes that were designed to suggest it was seriously under consideration for productizing -- something I believe was never under any serious consideration.


And while they are selling professional-grade OLEDs, they are most certainly not taking any steps toward commercializing a consumer product anytime soon. I don't see why they get any "credit" for this.


----------



## vinnie97

^Bragging rights, as vapid and meaningless they may be. Sonyboys (not referencing anyone in particular) have long latched onto such opportunities. Before anyone gets upset, this is coming from someone who appreciates some of the technological developments that Sony has helped to pioneer over the years (particularly in the media variety including CD, MD, Blu-ray).


----------



## ynotgoal

So I know its popular to say the LG OLED TVs aren't shipping in Korea with no reviews published. Maybe. But there are several stores who claim they are available. Here are a couple that I found with just a quick search. Feel free to place your orders -- if they're not shipping it won't cost you anything.

Galleria for $10,478

Lotte for $9,271


On the Lotte site, the text 개 (최대 999개까지 구매가능) next to the quantity translates to: Available (up to 999)


The line above with the delivery truck icon:


Shipping type: Companies courier delivery (payment within 3 days from the day after shipment)



Separately, LG has had a "World 1st OLED TV Festival" during March offering a $900 off coupon


----------



## rogo

It's popular to say they aren't shipping because there isn't a single report of anyone taking delivery of one. And there isn't a single report of anyone reviewing one based on a shipping unit.


I have no doubt you can put those TVs in your carts at Galleria and Lotte, but the very idea they'd be available at e-commerce sites while no one has reported them actually being at retail seems pretty unlikely.


It's 2013, I feel strongly we would know if they were actually for sale. I mean I could list them on a web page and promise delivery too.


----------



## dryasanne

So sorry, please let me in, even if I really dont know the technicals about Oled.


First, I understand tv shows like csi:miami and big budget feature fim like Prometheus

--- its just fake see through displays, plexiglass


But - what this illusion is meant to be ? A simple see through LED display backlit by ambient/ sunligth or have we seen moviemakers trying to illude some kind of OLEDs which "glow on their own" (like Avatar, in the dark laboratory)


Which leads to my q - I should really get to know this organic led display work, may be some of you could explain it in plain English?


This organic part are we talking of the process working in fireflies?

Plain and simple bioluminescence?



If I ever will get to understand how a firefly could materialize into the LG oled smart tv at sale at Galleria - that will be my lucky day


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5580#post_23149823
> 
> 
> I have no doubt you can put those TVs in your carts at Galleria and Lotte, but the very idea they'd be available at e-commerce sites while no one has reported them actually being at retail seems pretty unlikely.
> 
> 
> It's 2013, I feel strongly we would know if they were actually for sale. I mean I could list them on a web page and promise delivery too.



Lotte and Galleria are Korea's top retail stores . An "e-commerce site" would be more like Danawa


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5580#post_23150122
> 
> 
> Lotte and Galleria are Korea's top retail stores . An "e-commerce site" would be more like Danawa



Thanks for the correction, ynotgoal.


This, if anything, speaks further to the idea that if you could actually buy these, someone would have reported seeing one in a store or owning one.


The absence of evidence while not evidence of absence is certainly close.


----------



## navychop

Can I send someone a deposit on the first to ship Holosuite? I can wait.


----------



## bonzichrille

So wat ever happened to the 55-inch LG oled that was suppose to ship in south korea in the beginning of March (or was it even middle of feb)? They simply havent been delivered, or is it so that south koreans are more tight-lipped when it comes to discussing HT products over the internet?


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dryasanne*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5580#post_23149966
> 
> 
> So sorry, please let me in, even if I really dont know the technicals about Oled.
> 
> 
> First, I understand tv shows like csi:miami and big budget feature fim like Prometheus
> 
> --- its just fake see through displays, plexiglass
> 
> 
> But - what this illusion is meant to be ? A simple see through LED display backlit by ambient/ sunligth or have we seen moviemakers trying to illude some kind of OLEDs which "glow on their own" (like Avatar, in the dark laboratory)
> 
> 
> Which leads to my q - I should really get to know this organic led display work, may be some of you could explain it in plain English?
> 
> 
> This organic part are we talking of the process working in fireflies?
> 
> Plain and simple bioluminescence?
> 
> 
> 
> If I ever will get to understand how a firefly could materialize into the LG oled smart tv at sale at Galleria - that will be my lucky day



No, it does not require backlighting. It generates it's own light- an emissive display. It is not really like fireflies. The word "Organic" basically just means it contains carbon.


Here's a start to understanding OLEDs:

*Link 1* 
*Link 2* 

*Link 3* 


You have an interesting user name.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bonzichrille*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5580#post_23152184
> 
> 
> So wat ever happened to the 55-inch LG oled that was suppose to ship in south korea in the beginning of March (or was it even middle of feb)? They simply havent been delivered, or is it so that south koreans are more tight-lipped when it comes to discussing HT products over the internet?



LG has missed every date they have ever made on their OLED TV shipments, so many of us forum readers are assuming they stil haven't shipped. We don't really know, though. For example, they still have this press release on their website saying the set will be available in the US in March and that didn't happen either.


----------



## 8mile13

They have their own Video Sharing Services - on which Koreans might show off their 55'' OLEDs. Probably not right now









*AfreecaTV*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afreeca 


*Is there korean Youtube?* 2006 article
http://koreacrunch.com/archive/is-there-korean-youtube-yes


----------



## tgm1024

Well I suppose this kinda takes us by surprise:


> Quote:
> Given the supposed shipping schedule of the first 55" OLED TV from LG, how did 1000 customers receive them in the US already? By ordering directly from the web site.


 http://www.abcnews.com/techjournal/20130323/First_1000_USA_Customers_Received_First_OLED_TV_from_LG


----------



## Rich Peterson

Good one!


----------



## navychop

Oh yeah, ya got me too!


----------



## greenland

HD Guru has a new article posted; in which he gives his opinion that the 2013 top of the line Plasmas from Samsung and Panasonic will provide a better viewing experience than the 2013 UltraHD LED offerings. But that is not why you called me.


The reason why I mentioned it is because as I read down through his article, I came across this bit of OLED news, which he slipped in.



"What About OLED?


Ahh, OLED the Holy Grail of TV pictures, with the potential to have the best contrast ratio of any display technology. Unfortunately, Samsung and LG recently informed us their offerings have been delayed once again. LG was supposed to ship into the US in March at a price of $12K for its 55-inch HDTV. LG is now saying “second half of 2013”. Samsung told us “second half of 2013 at a price to be announced”. As time passes the likelihood of either firm entering mass production dims.


Market research firms agree, pushing back mass production predictions to 2015 or beyond."

http://hdguru.com/will-2013-plasmas-appear-sharper-than-uhd-tvs/#more-10205


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5500_100#post_23154536
> 
> 
> As time passes the likelihood of either firm entering mass production dims.



This statement I don't understand at all. Why wouldn't their likelihood of entering mass production go up with time? What, they take a little longer and then run the risk of abandoning OLED manufacturing to others?


Besides, IMHO you snipped out the more important part of that paragraph:


> Quote:
> According to an iSuppli announcement today, US shipments will be a “total of just 56,000 OLED TVs cumulatively in 2013 and 2014, with sets commanding extremely high retail pricing because of a lack of wide scale manufacturing. But shipment numbers will grow quickly from 2014 onward, jumping to 370,000 by 2015, and then surging to 1.9 million units by 2017.



But IMO this is likely just nonsense guessing all over again.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5580#post_23154803
> 
> 
> This statement I don't understand at all. Why wouldn't their likelihood of entering mass production go up with time? What, they take a little longer and then run the risk of abandoning OLED manufacturing to others?
> 
> 
> Besides, IMHO you snipped out the more important part of that paragraph:
> 
> But IMO this is likely just nonsense guessing all over again.



The longer it takes to get to market, the more chance of them abandoning OLED as technology moves on. LG has already shifted it focus to the emerging 4K market and the new plasmas and LCDs have greatly improved their contrast. You have IGZO, Motheye and other cost effective tech that will help to further close the performance gap with OLED. So while OLED may still be superior, the other tech will be good enough at much cheaper price point. IMO 2K OLED is all but dead. Marketing will make them have to jump to 4K to compete and a new way of manufacturing, like Panasonic/Sony printing method will have to be found to reduce cost.



The 4K Train has already left the station and at a price point not much higher than a top of the line similar 2K unit.

http://www.shopnbc.com/Seiki_50_Slim_LED_4K_Ultra_HD_120Hz_HDTV_w_HDMI_Cable_Two_Year_Extended_Warranty/437-325.aspx?storeid=1#video


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5500_100#post_23155352
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5500_100#post_23154803
> 
> 
> This statement I don't understand at all. Why wouldn't their likelihood of entering mass production go up with time? What, they take a little longer and then run the risk of abandoning OLED manufacturing to others?
> 
> 
> Besides, IMHO you snipped out the more important part of that paragraph:
> 
> But IMO this is likely just nonsense guessing all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why HDGuru says that the likelihood of entering mass production in the future dims, (in my opinion, since I cannot read his mind) is because they have so far demonstrated that the only thing both companies have been able manufacture is false shipping dates,
Click to expand...


Understood, but that doesn't equate to the liklihood of them entering mass production dimming. That just doesn't follow.



> Quote:
> and I did not include the snippet you place so much importance on is because it added nothing new to the thread, and I provided a link to the article, in order to give HDguru some traffic to his work product, rather than ripping him off.



Sure, ok, that makes sense (and is polite of you). I still maintain that it is the important part of what he had to say though, but if your reasons involve an avoidance of quoting in full, then I get you're trying to be conscientious.


----------



## rogo

"According to an iSuppli announcement today, US shipments will be a “total of just 56,000 OLED TVs cumulatively in 2013 and 2014, with sets commanding extremely high retail pricing because of a lack of wide scale manufacturing. But shipment numbers will grow quickly from 2014 onward, jumping to 370,000 by 2015, and then surging to 1.9 million units by 2017.” Readers note: the US TV market is around 35 million units."


It seems that iSuppli just adjusted their forecasts backward in time a bit (it's hard to parse because most previous forecasts were for worldwide).


While I agree with sytech to a point, I should point out LG's manufacturing method for OLED is _already the cheaper way_. You aren't seeing it because the IGZO piece is completely immature, And look, it's possible they'll need a better method of depositing the OLED material (well, not a better one, but an even more reliable one perhaps?), but by _not having OLED pixels_, they're going to be hard to beat on cost/complexity. You should really watch the DuPont stuff to get an idea of how utterly complex printable OLED really is. It's not like Sony and Panasonic are actually onto something easy to make; it's like they are onto something that isn't *totally unrealistic*, like Samsung's method -- which I think we can agree is never going to be used to mass produce televisions.


As for these forecasts, they can be read a bit interestingly:


First, no normal people are buying OLED TVs through the end of next year. Neither iSuppli (nor I) believes the price is falling enough to allow this. Why _anyone_ would be foolish enough to pay $7000-12,000 for a first-generation of these products at 55" when you have _amazing choices_ that are a tiny fraction of that is beyond comprehension. If you're an oligarch or a billionaire and you just want to waste some cash, fine. Really, it's fine; there's no judgment from me. But in terms of regular people, just don't even think about it.


Second, that 2015 number is very approximately 1% of the total market but probably more like 5% of the "bigger than 50-inch market". In general, that 50+" market is only 10% of all TVs worldwide, but surely in the U.S. we skew larger. To capture even that, you will need pricing of under $4,000 at today's prices for a 55". That still would be a gigantic premium, for example, to Samsung's (apparently very good) F8000 LCD -- about 50%. Keep in mind that flagship TVs (even within the 50"+ segment) are less than 10% of the total sold.


Third, that 2017 forecast remains really aggressive. Again, let's take some crude extrapolations. About 8 million 50+" TVs sold that year, allegedly 2 million OLEDs? Again, "flagship TVs" are


----------



## greenland

The way LG has gone about this whole marketing approach has become stranger and stranger. They keep on with a global OLED TV PR campaign, while at the same time they keep failing to meet one shipping deadline after another, which they alone have kept on setting.


The Harrods of London pre-ordering gambit seemed like a strange approach to take, by putting them ahead of getting product into stores in the US market. It just did not make sense for them to shove the USA into later this year at best, while at the same time bringing Harrods Of London ahead of the American Market; Unless?


And this is the only way that I can see that their late switch to that approach would make sense. They decided to do a test on how much of a demand there would be for the product, by setting their bait for pre-orders among the very deep pockets types, and Harrods makes an ideal pond to go fishing for them. I suspect that they have been stunned by how few real pre-orders they received from customers in Korea, and that even if they did fill one hundred orders there, it might have been to ship them to corporate insiders. You, know; that old trick of buying your own product just to claim that it is in demand?! So they then needed to know will there be much of demand elsewhere for such an expensive product; and where better to test the waters than to have Harrods taking pre-orders. If the orders pour in, then that will give them confidence to start scaling up production. On the other hand, if they receive very few orders from a place where the Price Is No Object class hangout, then that will be a strong indication to LG that it would not be worth investing in large scale production of their 1080P 55 inch OLED TV.


I would not be very surprised to learn down the road that they did not receive enough orders to make it worthwhile going forward with production; and I also would not be very surprised if they show up at CES 2014 with 4K OLED TV Demo Set, and that they fully intend to have it available in the USA in the second half of 2014.


What is it that they say LG stands for; Lies Good; is that it?!


----------



## tgm1024

Hold on. Wait a sec. I need a stake in the sand. What does "the US TV market is around 35 million units" mean. 35 million a year? Huh? That seems MUCH too high. There's less than 120 million households. Can this be right? A new TV on average every 3 1/2 years?


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5580#post_23157090
> 
> 
> What does "the US TV market is around 35 million units" mean. 35 million a year? Huh? That seems MUCH too high. There's less than 120 million households. Can this be right? A new TV on average every 3 1/2 years?


Yes the US sales are around 35 million per year.


----------



## rogo

TGM, many, many U.S. households have more than 1 television. The replacement frequency is more than twice what you estimate, but there are a lot of second and third TVs out there. Plus, there are a lot of TVs in commercial establishments.


It is worth noting that there are still _a lot of standard-definition TVs_ in the second- and third-TV rooms. And those will be replaced someday and then not for a decade. Similarly, if anything, the time between TV replacement in the U.S. is _lengthening_, not shortening. There is a lot of mythology in the press that it's shortening, but that's quite frankly wrong. A lot of data around the move to HDTV was misinterpreted to suggest a fundamental shift toward buying TVs more often when, in actuality, it's a one-time replacement cycle. Once replaced with an HDTV set, the replacement cycle again moves to about 7-8 years.


I actually have an LCD that is now 10 years old with no need to be replaced (in a secondary room, yes, but the point remains). Until it breaks, it's never getting replaced. And there's a whole generation of 20-somethings who don't have much interest in traditional TV at all.


I suspect the U.S. market will shrink on a unit basis over the course of the decade. It would not surprise me to learn it's down to 30 million units by 2020, even with some population growth.


----------



## slacker711

Take it for whatever its worth, but reports are coming out of Samsung planning to ship their 55" OLED TV in the 2nd quarter. Here is an English article, but I have read similar things in the Korean press. If the translations are right, those articles have direct quotes from Samsung officials.

http://consumerelectronicsdaily.com/Content/Samsung-Expected-to-Ship-55-inch-OLED-and-85-inch-4K-Sets-by-Mid-Year.aspx


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> Take it for whatever its worth, but reports are coming out of Samsung planning to ship their 55" OLED TV in the 2nd quarter. Here is an English article, but I have read similar things in the Korean press. If the translations are right, those articles have direct quotes from Samsung officials.
> 
> http://consumerelectronicsdaily.com/Content/Samsung-Expected-to-Ship-55-inch-OLED-and-85-inch-4K-Sets-by-Mid-Year.aspx


same reports as 2012...


*Samsung's got a 55-inch super OLED TV of its own, coming in the second half of 2012*
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/09/samsung-55-inch-super-oled-tv-launch-ces-2012/ 


*The best of Samsung's 2012 TV lineup: 75-inch series 8 LED, 55-inch OLED, and 4K prototype display*
http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/12/2703014/samsung-2012-tv-lineup-in-photos


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5580#post_23158889
> 
> 
> Take it for whatever its worth, but reports are coming out of Samsung planning to ship their 55" OLED TV in the 2nd quarter. Here is an English article, but I have read similar things in the Korean press. If the translations are right, those articles have direct quotes from Samsung officials.
> 
> http://consumerelectronicsdaily.com/Content/Samsung-Expected-to-Ship-55-inch-OLED-and-85-inch-4K-Sets-by-Mid-Year.aspx



I plan to take it for what it's worth.


----------



## wse

I want my MTV ON OLED


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5610#post_23160604
> 
> 
> I plan to take it for what it's worth.



Vapor ware, NKorea is ready to nuke them so I don't think we will see that anytime soon


----------



## vinnie97

^Us, too, if you read the cables/reports.


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23160617
> 
> 
> Vapor ware, NKorea is ready to nuke them so I don't think we will see that anytime soon



I wouldn't worry about that too much if I were you...


----------



## Rich Peterson

Someone took a short video of the display of the LG OLED TV at Harrod's and put it on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P4ZMMRBAHE


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23163109
> 
> 
> Someone took a short video of the display of the LG OLED TV at Harrod's and put it on youtube.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P4ZMMRBAHE



Somethings wrong. It looks just like LCD quality on my laptop.


----------



## JWhip

Just wondering how that thing would be wall mounted? making them that thin really makes it difficult to wall mount. I would have NO interest in any table top TV at this stage.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23163786
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23163109
> 
> 
> Someone took a short video of the display of the LG OLED TV at Harrod's and put it on youtube.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P4ZMMRBAHE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The camera work left a lot to be desired on that shoot. It sure does not showcase the display.
Click to expand...


How does the wiring go from the base up to the panel? All I see is clear plexiglass between the two.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5610#post_23164734
> 
> 
> How does the wiring go from the base up to the panel? All I see is clear plexiglass between the two.



Transparent optical cable.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5610#post_23164518
> 
> 
> Just wondering how that thing would be wall mounted? making them that thin really makes it difficult to wall mount. I would have NO interest in any table top TV at this stage.



The area behind the base connector (the part that bulges out) can be exposed and there is either VESA holes or an ability to add a VESA plate there. I forget exactly how it's supposed to work, but it will work. The end result is a very-close-to-the-wall configuration since you can use the smallest class of mount. The display is ridiculously light. What I'm not sure about is whether they ended up implemented the ability to mount the electronics part on the wall as well (they were saying you'd have that option). If not, you have to have the box separate, which has _never_ been a popular TV configuration even though people will chime in after this post and tell you why they like it.


----------



## Wizziwig

Why is LG always using the same old demo loop every time they display these TV's. Why not show real-world content like BD movies, sports, etc. so that you can compare it to other TV's showing the same content? What are they hiding? Also, in a bright store setting like Harrods, I doubt anyone even realizes that these are not edge-lit LED LCD's. There is no way to detect any contrast or motion handling advantages under these conditions and content. Maybe they really don't want to sell these TV's at all.


----------



## Wizziwig

For what it's worth, there is a firmware update posted on the Korean LG site for this TV:

http://www.lgservice.co.kr/cs_lg/download/SoftwareDownloadDetailCmd.laf?cSeq=7497 


Too bad there is no counter to see how many owners have actually downloaded this.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5610#post_23166576
> 
> 
> Why is LG always using the same old demo loop every time they display these TV's. Why not show real-world content like BD movies, sports, etc. so that you can compare it to other TV's showing the same content? What are they hiding? Also, in a bright store setting like Harrods, I doubt anyone even realizes that these are not edge-lit LED LCD's. There is no way to detect any contrast or motion handling advantages under these conditions and content. Maybe they really don't want to sell these TV's at all.



There is so much goodness in this post of yours. It's a shame LG isn't listening to what you have to say.


----------



## mypretty1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5610#post_23164518
> 
> 
> Just wondering how that thing would be wall mounted? making them that thin really makes it difficult to wall mount. I would have NO interest in any table top TV at this stage.




I thought when the LG OLED TV was originally touted it came in 3 mounting flavours, although I haven't heard this mentioned lately.









http://www.hdtv-news.com/lg/3d-oled/


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG Postpones OLED TV Shipments to Second Half From March*


Source: Consumer Electronics Daily 

By Mark Seavy


LG Electronics postponed the U.S. launch of its 55-inch OLED TV to the second half, as supplier LG Display works to improve what have been 40 percent yields for the panels, LG Electronics Senior Marketing Manager Paul Lee told us. LG Electronics was to have delivered its 55-inch OLED TV in March at $12,000, the company said at CES.


LG Display has been making the OLED panels on 5.5-generation and 8th-generation lines and has started fulfilling some pre-orders in South Korea, LG officials have said. With availability of OLED panels expected to be tight this year, LG will limit distribution to the U.S. and South Korean markets, Lee said.


"We will have it in the second half of the year"


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23166934
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5610#post_23166576
> 
> 
> Why is LG always using the same old demo loop every time they display these TV's. Why not show real-world content like BD movies, sports, etc. so that you can compare it to other TV's showing the same content? What are they hiding? Also, in a bright store setting like Harrods, I doubt anyone even realizes that these are not edge-lit LED LCD's. There is no way to detect any contrast or motion handling advantages under these conditions and content. Maybe they really don't want to sell these TV's at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is so much goodness in this post of yours. It's a shame LG isn't listening to what you have to say.
Click to expand...


I'm always thinking back to the sample-and-hold impact on blurring and the arguments that OLED might not have the brightness needed to pulse properly. This post by Mark Rejhon has always made me wonder.


Perhaps they weren't showing movies and sports because they dare not.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5610#post_23167323
> 
> *LG Postpones OLED TV Shipments to Second Half From March*
> 
> 
> Source: Consumer Electronics Daily
> 
> By Mark Seavy
> 
> 
> LG Electronics postponed the U.S. launch of its 55-inch OLED TV to the second half, as supplier LG Display works to improve what have been 40 percent yields for the panels, LG Electronics Senior Marketing Manager Paul Lee told us. LG Electronics was to have delivered its 55-inch OLED TV in March at $12,000, the company said at CES.
> 
> 
> LG Display has been making the OLED panels on 5.5-generation and 8th-generation lines and has started fulfilling some pre-orders in South Korea, LG officials have said. With availability of OLED panels expected to be tight this year, LG will limit distribution to the U.S. and South Korean markets, Lee said.
> 
> 
> "We will have it in the second half of the year"



Again, the claim of fulfilling orders in South Korea.... Meantime, a demo unit in London for people who won't be able to receive TVs until next year at the earliest. And a claim of "second half" in the U.S. We all know when they say "second half" they mean "not third quarter" or else they'd say that... So generally we view that kind of date as Nov/Dec.


On the upside, the last report of yields was 10%. So 40% is a gigantic, important upgrade.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5610#post_23168013
> 
> 
> I'm always thinking back to the sample-and-hold impact on blurring and the arguments that OLED might not have the brightness needed to pulse properly. This post by Mark Rejhon has always made me wonder.
> 
> 
> Perhaps they weren't showing movies and sports because they dare not.



That would not be a good sign. I suppose we'll know eventually. I certainly doubt these first-generation products are LCD bright, but I hope they aren't disappointingly dim.


----------



## tgm1024

Well.........I want crystal LED.


----------



## mr. wally

iirc after 2012 ces lg said oled deliveries were to occur in first half of last year.


now they're saying 2nd half of 2013 which probably means 2014.


2 years after they promised the initial deliveries.


also, if they getting 40% yeilds, why aren't those panels going out now

there must be some other issues they have yet to resolve.


----------



## vinnie97

As the boy who cried wolf, it's hard to believe anything LG has to say, especially about yield.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5610#post_23170133
> 
> 
> iirc after 2012 ces lg said oled deliveries were to occur in first half of last year.
> 
> 
> now they're saying 2nd half of 2013 which probably means 2014.
> 
> 
> 2 years after they promised the initial deliveries.
> 
> 
> also, if they getting 40% yeilds, why aren't those panels going out now
> 
> there must be some other issues they have yet to resolve.



Because that 40% is more like 4%. The last report you could actually put some stock in was from early this year with yields of defect free panels in the "single digit". After repairs, maybe around 15% yield of useable panels.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5610#post_23170229
> 
> 
> As the boy who cried wolf, it's hard to believe anything LG has to say, especially about yield.



Agreed. I've lost count of the number of lies and missed dates by LG. Can you imagine being one of those people who pre-ordered this at Harrods and now being told you won't get it until next year?


I'm really skeptical these TVs will ever ship. The more they delay them, the less desirable they become in a market that will rapidly fill with 4K LCD sets and eventually Japanese 4K Oled. They had a nice window to ship these TVs and they missed it. At this point, they might as well scrap the line and start over with a 4K version next year.


I guess we should have known this would happen. LG makes some of the worst reviewed panels on the market (plasma and LCD included). What were the odds of them producing such a premium product?


----------



## rogo

Just to be clear, the pre-order price at Harrod's is £10,000 or $15,300 U.S. As unreasonable as the price is in Korea... as even more unreasonable as the alleged $12,000 price is in the U.S.... the U.K. price is downright stupid. I just can't imagine that people are pre-ordering it at Harrod's, especially given that I suspect the salespeople are not promising delivery.


I wish I had never been talked out of the skepticism of posts like this one:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/2730#post_21082910 


and this one:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/2670 


and this one:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/2640#post_21014610 


and this one from 8/8/11 (why did I back off this?):


"The fact is that if Spec is hearing chatter that Samsung is delaying 8G OLED till 2013, we can almost be 100% assured it's already delayed till 2013. Why would they be investing in a tiny, niche market for high end sets given how bad the TV market is right now to try to make this real for next year? They almost certainly wouldn't. So we're back to the point where:


* LG can't actually fund volume production of OLED TVs and therefore any claims by them are almost automatically to be ignored. An affordable 50"+ OLED from LG is still 5 years or more away.


* Samsung timetable for market entry into OLED TV is back to a minimum of 2+ years from now. Plant spent in 1H13, first sampling in 2H13... First real TVs? Late 2014? First affordable 50+" OLED TVs? Sounds like 5 years away. In 5 years, high performance 60" LCDs will routinely be available for $1000 or less. How OLED is going to compete with this is not clear.


It's when you get back into this chicken-and-egg trap that you begin to understand why OLED TV can easily never reach fruition. But even if you believe that someone will spend billions on the leap of faith, you can't really believe you are buying one for 5 years or so. And we've been saying that for close to a decade now. That should tell you something."


and this one....

http://www.avsforum.com/t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/2100#post_20447847 


but more than any of them... this is the one I backed off on a ton last year and now I'm wondering why:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/2010#post_20193280 


This is from *March 23, 2011*:

"I don't see a chance in hell of a 55-inch OLED TV shipping at any price next year and I see the chance as very small for a high-priced one to ship in 2013. I base this on the fact that even a 15-inch will be a bridge too far in 2011 (the LG will exist, be hard to find, cost an astronomical sum, and, oh, be hard to find). I base the future predictions not on some high-minded cap ex numbers, which are driven almost 100% by mobile phones and tablets, but on the utter lack of historical precedent. Thing being made in tiny sizes doesn't suddenly become thing made in giant sizes when the history of said thing has been its very slow ramp up from even tinier sizes (the first full color OLED in a practical CE device was used on a digital camera I'm fairly sure)."


I mean, I was _completely fooled_ by what was demoed at CES 2012 and bought into the LG/Samsung hype show. But I should've never bothered and just _stuck with what I knew to be true_. Obviously, nothing shipped in 2012. And the chance is _still_ small that a high-priced one will ship in 2013. I mean, it might, but it will be _really_ high priced and in tiny quantities -- if you can even buy one.


The lesson learned is that if you go back many thousands of posts in this thread, the information is often better than what comes later. Our intuition and knowledge was often spot on. Our ability to get snowed -- those of us who try to avoid getting snowed, that is -- was more intact. Fortunately, that skepticism is back strongly. There's a post which I think I failed to link above about "not believing the stuff is shipping until it's in Best Buy" and I'm going to keep that in mind.


----------



## rogo

*From April 2011:*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/2010#post_20295686
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think this says quite a bit. A 25" non-consumer OLED that is likely produced on a tiny experimental line will be available for $7400 in Q2.
> 
> 
> 
> The prediction for sub-$5000 30" OLED's by the end of 2012 is looking safer all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Slacker



Oops.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23171101
> 
> 
> I wish I had never been talked out of the skepticism of posts like this one:




Even a cranky clock is right twice a day. 


Seriously though, you're right. To me, it does seem like 2K OLED will have a fork stuck in it soon unless it can be shown that 2K OLED is dramatically cheaper and _is technically solid at the same time._ The longer the public has to wait, the longer "4K" will sound off in their heads like a claxon. And that'll be true regardless of whether or not there is even only one 2 minute clip of 4K content available on the planet.


The longer I think about it, the longer I'm convinced that the blur must be terrible because they just cannot pulse and be bright enough. BTW, was it you that confirmed a bit of blur on a couple of their CES demos?


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, my prediction of 30" OLED for sub-$5000 was based on Gen 5.5 production. I looked at the economics of the Gen 5.5 fabs and figured that Samsung would produce a prototype television along the lines of the 11" Sony and 15" LG OLED televisions...basically, glorified prototypes.


CES 2012 changed the game. There was no point in producing a ~30" television after they had showed the 55" versions.


The real disconnect right now is that it is being reported that LG is handing out contracts for their commercial Gen 8 fab. Are they dumb enough to start construction of that fab without first putting out some trial units? That seems to be the case.


----------



## slacker711

Also, I maintain the opinion that the fact that Sony is selling a 25" professional OLED for $5500 (using a glorified R&D fab) indicates that the $12,000 price point for the 55" OLED has little relation to the product costs if/when they hit any sort of acceptable yields.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5610#post_23172064
> 
> 
> FWIW, my prediction of 30" OLED for sub-$5000 was based on Gen 5.5 production. I looked at the economics of the Gen 5.5 fabs and figured that Samsung would produce a prototype television along the lines of the 11" Sony and 15" LG OLED televisions...basically, glorified prototypes.
> 
> 
> CES 2012 changed the game. There was no point in producing a ~30" television after they had showed the 55" versions.
> 
> 
> The real disconnect right now is that it is being reported that LG is handing out contracts for their commercial Gen 8 fab. Are they dumb enough to start construction of that fab without first putting out some trial units? That seems to be the case.



FWIW, I didn't actually intend to re-post that to call you out. It was more a point of showing how our world view got re-colored from what we kind of knew to what we were all led to believe. You figured on that 30" TV because it was a logical progression, as you note. Instead, we were all shown an illogical progression -- 55" TVs that no one had any ability to make -- and we all bought into it. It was fiction.


As for the LG Gen 8 fab, I'd still like to believe it's being built because (a) they really believe they are solving their IGZO problems and (b) they believe they vapor deposition of 8G substrates is actually production viable or they are already replacing it in trial production and that's _also_ killing yields in the short run. With respect to (b), I actually no longer believe that vapor depo is true mass-production technique for RGBW. It can be made to work, but it's actually quite slow and clunky. I presume the way they do it is 3 chambers so they can overlay the colors fairly quickly with a drying / solidification step in between each. As a practical matter, the more I read / watch from DuPont, et al., the more I think a spray/solution method would be more optimal going forward -- and much faster. Whether they are going there soon or not, I have no idea/


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5610#post_23172166
> 
> 
> Also, I maintain the opinion that the fact that Sony is selling a 25" professional OLED for $5500 (using a glorified R&D fab) indicates that the $12,000 price point for the 55" OLED has little relation to the product costs if/when they hit any sort of acceptable yields.



Of course, $12,000 is very roughly 4x that for very roughly 4x the area. And, of course, Sony's glorified R&D fab is based off a fairly "old" one they used to make the XEL-1 TV, which was sold in the market (something LG really never did although I realize some people think general availability of the 15" OLED from LG happened because eventually a few dozen appeared in e-commerce). And, of course, Sony's manufacturing technique doesn't involve pioneering an entirely new TFT backplane technology, but instead uses a mature one. And, of course, Sony is in that market because of maintaining its reputation in broadcast and having a piece to sell for trucks / studios. And, of course, they don't need to make a profit on those displays so long as they continue to do so on cameras and other parts of the value chain.


Otherwise, the two are fairly parallel.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23171101
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, the pre-order price at Harrod's is £10,000 or $15,300 U.S. As unreasonable as the price is in Korea... as even more unreasonable as the alleged $12,000 price is in the U.S.... the U.K. price is downright stupid. I just can't imagine that people are pre-ordering it at Harrod's, especially given that I suspect the salespeople are not promising delivery.


Seems about what you would expect. $12,000 USD is approximately £7,800. Add their 20% taxes and you're around £9,400. And then there are probably other fees for importing to the Eu and because products simply cost more over there - the US is significantly cheaper than most of the world for electronics - often by 50% or more when it comes to large televisions. (though that gap is narrowing these days)


----------



## JWhip

Just because the OLED is priced in Pounds doesn't mean it will cost the current exchange rate dollar in the US. As an example, the Sony 84" in Harrods is priced at 24,999 pounds while it is priced at $24,999 in the US. Maybe the same will be the case with the OLED?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23173168
> 
> 
> Just because the OLED is priced in Pounds doesn't mean it will cost the current exchange rate dollar in the US. As an example, the Sony 84" in Harrods is priced at 24,999 pounds while it is priced at $24,999 in the US. Maybe the same will be the case with the OLED?




Yeah, I was actually going to mention this too. Different markets have different MSRP's.


----------



## tgm1024

Am I the only one here actually not angry or disappointed with LG for OLED? Perhaps it's because I've been an engineer all my life, but I'm sympathetic to the attempt---seems like they've been pushing a technological boulder up a heck of a mountain.


Even if they over-played their hand: They're in a battle with a number of players where perhaps they felt that it was a survival thing to push the 2K asap for reasons we could never guess. All engineers have been parts of design decisions and all companies make release decisions that no outsider would ever be able to guess a number of times in their respective times.


----------



## rogo

The expected U.S. price is $12,000, not $15,000. But also not $10,000. Of course, it could be $10,000. I'm not sure it matters. I just was pointed out that at £10,000, I doubt they are getting many pre-orders to speak of.


As for LG, I suspect TGM, you are indeed one of the few.


There is no _attempt_ to applaud, other than perhaps an attempt to mislead millions of people with a marketing campaign that is now 15 months old.


You give them way too much credit. They aren't in a "survival" battle. Sony, Panasonic and Sharp are all on life support in TVs. Only Samsung and LG among the majors aren't, Why? Because only they are primary panel producers of LCDs and also TV producers (oh, they also make plasmas, to boot). Arguably, LG's OLED nonsense dates back to their 15" model and, what 2010 or so.


Basically, they are going on 4 years of promising to offer these sales and more or less never doing it (a couple of thousand units of a 15" sold for a few months and maybe a few thousand units of a 55" sometime this year do not real products make).


Of course the only people really at fault here are us rubes for falling for it over and over and over.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23174485
> 
> 
> You give them way too much credit. They aren't in a "survival" battle. Sony, Panasonic and Sharp are all on life support in TVs. Only Samsung and LG among the majors aren't, Why? Because only they are primary panel producers of LCDs and also TV producers (oh, they also make plasmas, to boot).


Because they are cheap. And based in Korea. (which allows them to be cheap)


You're listing things that allow them to reduce the costs, but the reason they are doing well is because they are the cheapest "brand names" around. Sharp is (or at least was) a major LCD panel producer as well, and Panasonic used to make their own panels. (with the Hitachi factories they purchased) And of course Panasonic is a major manufacturer of Plasma panels, which is doing _really well_ for them right now...


Every time anyone I know is looking to buy a new TV or replace an old set, I have to fight to get them to avoid Samsung and LG - even the people that have bought them in the past and had all sorts of problems with them - the price is just too good compared to everyone else, especially in this economy. I don't know how it is in the US, but they are considerably cheaper than everyone else here - you can get a 47" LG LCD for the price of a 32-42" set from anyone else, and it's an inch bigger than anyone else makes in that size class.


And they're using passive 3D which is cheap, and preferred by anyone that doesn't hang around these forums - they don't care about the resolution loss, they care that the glasses are cheap, light, don't require power, and it doesn't give you a headache to watch. If they care about 3D at all, that is.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23174485
> 
> 
> The expected U.S. price is $12,000, not $15,000. But also not $10,000. Of course, it could be $10,000. I'm not sure it matters. I just was pointed out that at £10,000, I doubt they are getting many pre-orders to speak of.
> 
> 
> As for LG, I suspect TGM, you are indeed one of the few.
> 
> 
> There is no _attempt_ to applaud, other than perhaps an attempt to mislead millions of people with a marketing campaign that is now 15 months old.
> 
> 
> You give them way too much credit. They aren't in a "survival" battle. Sony, Panasonic and Sharp are all on life support in TVs. Only Samsung and LG among the majors aren't, Why? Because only they are primary panel producers of LCDs and also TV producers (oh, they also make plasmas, to boot). Arguably, LG's OLED nonsense dates back to their 15" model and, what 2010 or so.
> 
> 
> Basically, they are going on 4 years of promising to offer these sales and more or less never doing it (a couple of thousand units of a 15" sold for a few months and maybe a few thousand units of a 55" sometime this year do not real products make).
> 
> 
> Of course the only people really at fault here are us rubes for falling for it over and over and over.




As far as survival battle goes, I should have chosen my words more carefully----my point was that all companies are in competition with each other, an over-reaching Darwinian struggle in a way. Further, for all I know it could well be that one of the reasons that they're NOT fostering TV divisions that are hurting is because of such marketing decisions.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23173335
> 
> 
> Am I the only one here actually not angry or disappointed with LG for OLED? Perhaps it's because I've been an engineer all my life, but I'm sympathetic to the attempt---seems like they've been pushing a technological boulder up a heck of a mountain.



I'm not angry or disappointed. Sure, I wish OLED TVs would have been out a few years ago. Samsung was a year late with their mid size OLED panels as well but they figured it out. Same is happening with TVs. By the way, its actually Samsung rather than LG who has yet to produce a TV. At this early stage, there might be less anger if there was less attention on marketing spin and more looking at where the money is being spent to see what is happening. As Slacker pointed out, LG's OLED equipment suppliers are reporting orders for new 8g equipment on an almost daily basis. And Samsung's suppliers are actually reporting they expect to finalize orders in the next few months. Spending a billion dollars is a different thing than a marketing guy talking up their future products. And the reports are coming not from LG and Samsung but from their suppliers. The time for marketing will be when those new 8g lines are running next year.


FWIW, a bit of analysis on some of these reports might also help with the anger issues, imho. Take this report below...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5610#post_23167323
> 
> *LG Postpones OLED TV Shipments to Second Half From March*
> 
> 
> Source: Consumer Electronics Daily
> 
> By Mark Seavy
> 
> 
> LG Electronics postponed the U.S. launch of its 55-inch OLED TV to the second half, as supplier LG Display works to improve what have been 40 percent yields for the panels, LG Electronics Senior Marketing Manager Paul Lee told us. LG Electronics was to have delivered its 55-inch OLED TV in March at $12,000, the company said at CES.
> 
> 
> LG Display has been making the OLED panels on 5.5-generation and 8th-generation lines and has started fulfilling some pre-orders in South Korea, LG officials have said. With availability of OLED panels expected to be tight this year, LG will limit distribution to the U.S. and South Korean markets, Lee said.
> 
> 
> "We will have it in the second half of the year"



First, LG doesn't have 5.5-gen lines for either OLED or IGZO so it seems there is some misunderstanding in the report. Second, 40% yields and fulfilling pre-orders in Korea is as expected for this point. Third, if you register to read the rest of the report you will see that he says LG is also delaying their 55" and 65" 4K LCD TVs until the second half. And sales of the 84" 4K "aren't as big as we would like them to be". So here's a report that says both OLED and 4K sets are being delayed a few months and the interpretation is OLED is vaporware and 4K is doing fine.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23174528
> 
> 
> And of course Panasonic is a major manufacturer of Plasma panels, which is doing _really well_ for them right now...



I understand there is a market segment that really likes plasma but the technology lost the TV battle. From Panasonic's President this week: Panasonic's TV business made a loss of 210 billion yen in fiscal 2011. Some media reported that Panasonic has decided to withdraw from the manufacture of plasma TVs and panels. Tsuga said, "Withdrawal is not completely beyond the realm of possibility". Another example of OLED is not happening despite billions of dollars being spent on facilities and plasma is doing "really well" despite the company actively talking about withdrawal.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23172490
> 
> 
> As a practical matter, the more I read / watch from DuPont, et al., the more I think a spray/solution method would be more optimal going forward -- and much faster. Whether they are going there soon or not, I have no idea


The major manufacturers all have a goal of having the materials and technology for solution processing (be that DuPont or another method) around 2015. Now, that is a goal and not at all a promised delivery date. It is also a goal for technology not for products in the market. As we know, it will then require a bit of time to build up manufacturing lines. Vapor deposition is it for products for the next few years.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23174528
> 
> 
> 
> And they're using passive 3D which is cheap, and preferred by anyone that doesn't hang around these forums - they don't care about the resolution loss, they care that the glasses are cheap, light, don't require power, and it doesn't give you a headache to watch. If they care about 3D at all, that is.



I prefer passive 3-D and I sort of hang around these forums.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23175787
> 
> 
> Second, 40% yields and fulfilling pre-orders in Korea is as expected for this point.



Not really clear if either of those is true, however.


> Quote:
> Third, if you register to read the rest of the report you will see that he says LG is also delaying their 55" and 65" 4K LCD TVs until the second half. And sales of the 84" 4K "aren't as big as we would like them to be". So here's a report that says both OLED and 4K sets are being delayed a few months and the interpretation is OLED is vaporware and 4K is doing fine.



Can we just call them both vaporware?


> Quote:
> I understand there is a market segment that really likes plasma but the technology lost the TV battle. From Panasonic's President this week: Panasonic's TV business made a loss of 210 billion yen in fiscal 2011. Some media reported that Panasonic has decided to withdraw from the manufacture of plasma TVs and panels. Tsuga said, "Withdrawal is not completely beyond the realm of possibility". Another example of OLED is not happening despite billions of dollars being spent on facilities and plasma is doing "really well" despite the company actively talking about withdrawal.



No one here thinks plasma is surviving past mid-decade. We all get it.


> Quote:
> The major manufacturers all have a goal of having the materials and technology for solution processing (be that DuPont or another method) around 2015. Now, that is a goal and not at all a promised delivery date. It is also a goal for technology not for products in the market. As we know, it will then require a bit of time to build up manufacturing lines. Vapor deposition is it for products for the next few years.



Fair enough. That means slow production from what I can tell. Add in a super painful IGZO ramp and you've got real issues. I doubt that LG is really going to build an 8G fab with vapor deposition unless the plan is to pull out the vapor depo section. In other words, I doubt they'll ever go to full production using that method. It's clearly not very scalable, even though it's doubtless workable as a bridge.


----------



## zoro

Sony just announced two OLED 4K monitor


----------



## Chronoptimist

Before anyone gets excited, it just seems to be updates of the current models with 50% better viewing angles.


----------



## rogo

Before anyone gets excited at all, they updated their existing, non-4K models, effective very soon. The 4K prototypes they showed off were a 30" model promised next year and the 56" model (in a professional version) with no promise of any ship date.


On the plus side, it's a continuing reminder that the one company shipping OLED displays -- _on planet earth_ -- that are bigger than 8 inches diagonally is Sony.


----------



## 8mile13

Sony announces that they sold over 20.000 professional OLED monitors









http://www.oled-info.com/sony-shows-30-and-56-4k-oled-monitor-prototypes-30-ones-will-arrive-2014


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23179704
> 
> 
> Sony announces that they sold over 20.000 professional OLED monitors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/sony-shows-30-and-56-4k-oled-monitor-prototypes-30-ones-will-arrive-2014




Are they bragging about an odd blue hue to the white on the left example?


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*
> 
> Are they bragging about an odd blue hue to the white on the left example?


Those are three 4K OLED monitor prototypes. Maybe there is something wrong whit the first one maybe it is blu-ish by purpose. Who knows


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23179704
> 
> 
> Sony announces that they sold over 20.000 professional OLED monitors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/sony-shows-30-and-56-4k-oled-monitor-prototypes-30-ones-will-arrive-2014



My guess is they have close to 100% market share of the truck/studio monitor market with these displays right now. I'd also guess they are kind of saturating the market, but that those get replaced every few years because they are on _a lot of hours per day_.


While it remains marginally significant that Sony is producing something -- while everyone else builds nothing -- what's intriguing is whether the 30" for next year is built using any of the technologies they might commercialize for making TVs. The current displays really are not, nor will the updates be.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23179704
> 
> 
> Sony announces that they sold over 20.000 professional OLED monitors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/sony-shows-30-and-56-4k-oled-monitor-prototypes-30-ones-will-arrive-2014



That could be over $100 milion in revenues for Sony from the professional OLED line (depending on what models are being bought). That seems like a pretty good chunk of business.


----------



## rogo

The link says they are selling 800 per month. The average selling price is probably under $5000 retail (given the price of the 17" model). That seems to be under a $4M monthly run rate and under a $50M annual business. That seems like "noise" to a company like Sony, especially given that I bet the margins are not strong.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23179837
> 
> 
> Are they bragging about an odd blue hue to the white on the left example?



That's how the first-gen Sony PVM OLED monitors are. I noticed the blue shift at extreme viewing angles when I checked one out when they started shipping. Other than that they have an uncanny picture!


Perhaps I should burn a big hole in my pocket and order a PVM-2541A!


----------



## greenland

Samsung Display HQ searched by police in probe over stolen LG OLED tech

http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/10/samsung-display-hq-searched-by-police-in-probe-over-stolen-lg-ol/ 


"Bloomberg reports Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency investigators entered the Samsung Display HQ in Asan as they look into the possibility that LG partners may have leaked secrets of its technology. A Samsung spokesperson denied any involvement, and an LG spokesperson is quoted saying the police made the allegation themselves. "


----------



## ynotgoal

LG WOLED TV Subpixels Captured in Macro Photo
http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/lg-55em970v-p15134/lg-woled-tv-subpixels-captured-macro-photo-n29041.html


----------



## 8mile13

TMC NEWS

*Sharp to develop organic EL panel production technology*



OSAKA, April 10 -- (Kyodo) _ Sharp Corp. is planning to develop technology for commercial mass production of organic electroluminescence panels for next-generation televisions by March 2016, industry sources said Tuesday.


The struggling electronics manufacturer intends to take advantage of earnings from the technology to help turn around its finances, they said.


After developing the technology, Sharp may decide whether to use the technology for its own commercialization of organic EL panels, including outsourcing production to Taiwanese and other electronics manufacturing services providers.


If Sharp decides commercialization of the technology is difficult, it may sell the technology to other companies or license others to produce the panels.


Sharp intends to include the development of organic EL panel production technology in its business plan for the three years through fiscal 2015 ending March 2016, to be released on May 14, the sources said.


Organic EL panels are thinner and consume less electricity than liquid crystal displays. LG Electronics Inc. has already launched organic EL display TVs, while Samsung Electronics Co. has used the panels for smartphones.


Sharp expects to take on the South Korean companies with unique material allowing for clearer images on organic EL displays, the sources said.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23186930
> 
> 
> LG WOLED TV Subpixels Captured in Macro Photo
> http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/lg-55em970v-p15134/lg-woled-tv-subpixels-captured-macro-photo-n29041.html



This is one of the better reviews I've seen so I recommend this article.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23186930
> 
> 
> LG WOLED TV Subpixels Captured in Macro Photo
> http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/lg-55em970v-p15134/lg-woled-tv-subpixels-captured-macro-photo-n29041.html


Ugh, look at how far apart those red subpixels are - and the fill factor in general seems poor.

This is why I will never buy a display with more than three subpixels per pixel, and why I hope layered TOLED or some other technology for multi-colored pixels becomes a reality.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23186757
> 
> 
> Samsung Display HQ searched by police in probe over stolen LG OLED tech
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/10/samsung-display-hq-searched-by-police-in-probe-over-stolen-lg-ol/
> 
> 
> "Bloomberg reports Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency investigators entered the Samsung Display HQ in Asan as they look into the possibility that LG partners may have leaked secrets of its technology. A Samsung spokesperson denied any involvement, and an LG spokesperson is quoted saying the police made the allegation themselves. "



I can't _wait_ to see how many people chime in here later reporting this "theft" as hard fact instead of speculation.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23186930
> 
> 
> LG WOLED TV Subpixels Captured in Macro Photo
> http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/lg-55em970v-p15134/lg-woled-tv-subpixels-captured-macro-photo-n29041.html



They seem to again fail to understand how the display even works and I disagree with the conclusion that the blue is smaller.


The red, green, and blue "sub-pixels" are all just color-filtered white sub-pixels. I suspect the illusion is the white appears bigger because when it's "on" it's at a fuller intensity. If you look at the photos, you can clearly see that more intensity = appearance of bigness.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23186993
> 
> TMC NEWS
> 
> *Sharp to develop organic EL panel production technology*
> 
> 
> 
> OSAKA, April 10 -- (Kyodo) _ Sharp Corp. is planning to develop technology for commercial mass production of organic electroluminescence panels for next-generation televisions by March 2016, industry sources said Tuesday.
> 
> 
> The struggling electronics manufacturer intends to take advantage of earnings from the technology to help turn around its finances, they said.



On the one hand, this would appear to suggest the future of OLED TV is brighter than before as yet another mfr. has thrown its lot in with it. On the other hand, the idea that a company that may well be bankrupt in 2013, 2014, or 2015 "intends to take advantage of earnings from the technology to help turn its finances" when it won't roll out the technology till 2016 and can't possibly make _profits_ from it in the first 2-3 years... Well, yeah....


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23187052
> 
> 
> This is one of the better reviews I've seen so I recommend this article.



I agree it contains some slightly valuable information, but the high screen reflectivity bit into news. I'm pretty sure you could read that in AVS in 2012.


It appears they viewed the same exact demo loop most of us have seen fore more than a year and other than taking a closeup photo, learned more or less nothing new -- except that the color might be better. They viewed what seems to be a demo model in a well-lit room.


Don't get me wrong, I'm always eager to read in-the-field reports, but I'm not sure what's exciting to read here given that they have more incorrect information about European release dates and take as credible reports of 100 sales in Korea despite no evidence to back that up (although if you can actually buy one, I do believe competitors have likely bought 100).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23188045
> 
> 
> Ugh, look at how far apart those red subpixels are - and the fill factor in general seems poor.
> 
> This is why I will never buy a display with more than three subpixels per pixel, and why I hope layered TOLED or some other technology for multi-colored pixels becomes a reality.



I'm baffled by the closeups, Chron. The actual fill-factor of the OLED material on this display is 100%. Literally. There is a lot of space between the rows, which is maybe because the top electrodes are there to close the "excitation" of the sub-pixels through the OLED layer? But in terms of the horizontal fill, it actually looks somewhat close to 100% -- depending on intensity. You can clearly see that brighter = "bigger" = fuller. Now, we can quibble over whether the design needs to work this way, but I suspect that's a function of the amorphous pixels of the OLED pixels in the RGBW design. And I suspect the only reason the sharp edges exist is because the color filter is _slightly_ masked off between sub pixels to create rectangular blocks, denying the 100% horizontal fill, but sharpening the sub-pixel edges.


It does seem like the inter-row spacing is bigger than it probably needs to be but overall my guess is fill factor is very competitor with a TFT-LCD.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23188320
> 
> 
> I'm baffled by the closeups, Chron. The actual fill-factor of the OLED material on this display is 100%. Literally.


The underlying OLED structure may have a 100% fill, but that doesn't mean there's no structure from the color filter layer, transistors/wiring etc. They aren't using IGZO yet, are they?












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23188320
> 
> 
> But in terms of the horizontal fill, it actually looks somewhat close to 100%


Yes, but even with 100% fill, you are automatically worse than any display with three subpixels as soon as you are not using all four to create a color.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23188320
> 
> 
> You can clearly see that brighter = "bigger" = fuller.


It looks like at least some of this (such as white being larger) is simply caused from this being what appears to be photos from a cell phone. I'm not sure you could say it does this definitively without a higher quality source - thought it does look like reduced intensity = reduced size.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23188320
> 
> 
> It does seem like the inter-row spacing is bigger than it probably needs to be but overall my guess is fill factor is very competitor with a TFT-LCD.


It really depends on the panel type that you're comparing it to. Sharp's UV2A panels have a very high fill factor for example.








Source


----------



## SC0TLANDF0REVER

This is bad news for Plasma, but good for OLED.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/10/4210556/panasonic-ceases-plasma-panel-development-will-continue-to-make-tvs 


> Quote:
> When asked if plasma R&D may ever start back up, Okamoto said that isn't the plan. The company has shifted at least some of its plasma engineers to OLED development, with which Panasonic plans to eventually replace its plasma lineup. Panasonic has yet to reveal its OLED plans, though it showed off a prototype model at CES this January and it is in a co-development partnership with Sony. Okamoto said "OLED is one of the key future products" for Panasonic, and that it is continuing to study demand for the televisions before announcing any plans. He elaborated that the company may focus on business sales at first. Considering the company's financial woes (it posted a nearly ¥700 billion loss the quarter before last) the executive said it needed to make sure it could profitably produce OLEDs before bringing them to market. Manufacturers across the board have struggled with yield rates to-date, making OLEDs prohibitively expensive and rare.


----------



## vinnie97

Bad news for videophiles all around in the near-term...Artwood was right, the edge-lit LED nightmare has just about come to fruition.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> They aren't using IGZO yet, are they?



LG use Oxide-TFT not a-Si-TFT like Samsung´s OLED-TV.


----------



## rogo

Alma is correct, LG is _already_ using IGZO, which is one reason why they are having such a tough time ramping up.


And with regard to fill factor, the photos certainly suggest a very, very immature design that is spending a lot of space on wiring and electrodes that aren't even placed behind the sub pixels at all. It seems really crude.


----------



## taichi4

[quote name="greenland" url="/t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23190828... So far there is just a lot of Seoul Searching going on! [/quote]


That's just so much bul(gogi).


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23190661
> 
> 
> Alma is correct, LG is _already_ using IGZO, which is one reason why they are having such a tough time ramping up.
> 
> 
> And with regard to fill factor, the photos certainly suggest a very, very immature design that is spending a lot of space on wiring and electrodes that aren't even placed behind the sub pixels at all. It seems really crude.


There's so much discussion of it everywhere, I couldn't remember whether they were or not. While it is useful to know what tech it is they are using, as you can see, it's the implementation that actually matters.


----------



## rogo

Well, given that there is next to nothing with IGZO in production globally and LG has none of it and tried to jump straight to 55" IGZO backbones, we shouldn't be surprised they did so in a _relatively_ crude manner.


I'm sure it'll mature as a tech; but it's off to a really, really slow start.


----------



## wse

Panasonic announced end of Plasma the 2013 series is the last one, they are shifting to OELED


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23193522
> 
> 
> Panasonic announced end of Plasma the 2013 series is the last one, they are shifting to OELED



Not exactly, They announced the end of Plasma R&D and shifting that resource to OLED (which is a good thing).


The best information from Junkies site is that there will be a 2014 Plasma's with some improvement but not groundbreaking because they are near reference.


- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23193522
> 
> 
> Panasonic announced end of Plasma the 2013 series is the last one




Here we go. This is where I knew the conclusions would be prematurely drawn and what was said will be misquoted or worse: partially quoted, and then endlessly parroted around forums and the water cooler. *Did you read the article?*


----------



## rogo

Right, so pretty much everything those of us paying attention have been saying for a while:


2013: Really good plasmas

2014: Similar plasmas

2015: Almost certainly the last year you can even buy a plasma


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23193588
> 
> 
> Here we go. This is where I knew the conclusions would be prematurely drawn and what was said will be misquoted or worse: partially quoted, and then endlessly parroted around forums and the water cooler. *Did you read the article?*



Yes side ways! Relax this is not the end of the world


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23193041
> 
> 
> Well, given that there is next to nothing with IGZO in production globally and LG has none of it and tried to jump straight to 55" IGZO backbones, we shouldn't be surprised they did so in a _relatively_ crude manner.
> 
> I'm sure it'll mature as a tech; but it's off to a really, really slow start.



IGZO should be first and foremost seen in mobiles due to its proclaimed enormous advantages in this segment. Not being visible in mobiles yet makes IGZO another suspicious tech: tons of hype, no real stuff.


----------



## greenland

SID 2013 May 19-24. Vancouver Convention Centre, Vancouver, Canada

http://www.displayweek.org/Program/OLEDTV.aspx 


Session 21: OLED TV (Active-Matrix Devices/OLEDs)

21.1: Invited Paper: Technological Progress and Commercialization of AMOLED TV

Chang-Ho Oh, LG Display Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Korea

21.2: Distinguished Paper: A 55-in. AMOLED TV Using InGaZnO TFTs Using WRGB Pixel Design

Woo-Jin Nam, LG Display Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Korea

21.3: A 65-in. Amorphous-Oxide-TFT AMOLED TV Using Side-by-Side and Fine-Metal-Mask Technology

Jen-Yu Lee, AU Optronics Corp., Hsinchu, Taiwan

21.4L: Late-News Paper: : Recent Developments in Carbon-Nananotube-Enabled Vertical Organic Light-Emitting Transistors for OLED Displays

Mitchell McCarthy, nVerPix, LLC, and University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Session 27: OLED Displays I (OLEDs)

27.1: A 13.3-in. CAAC-IGZO-FET OLED Display with Narrow Driver Area Using a Highly Efficient Deep-Blue Device

Tsunenori Suzuki, Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd., Atsugi, Japan


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23195007
> 
> 
> SID 2013 May 19-24. Vancouver Convention Centre, Vancouver, Canada
> 
> http://www.displayweek.org/Program/OLEDTV.aspx
> 
> 
> Session 21: OLED TV (Active-Matrix Devices/OLEDs)
> 
> 21.1: Invited Paper: Technological Progress and Commercialization of AMOLED TV
> 
> Chang-Ho Oh, LG Display Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Korea
> 
> 21.2: Distinguished Paper: A 55-in. AMOLED TV Using InGaZnO TFTs Using WRGB Pixel Design
> 
> Woo-Jin Nam, LG Display Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Korea
> 
> 21.3: A 65-in. Amorphous-Oxide-TFT AMOLED TV Using Side-by-Side and Fine-Metal-Mask Technology
> 
> Jen-Yu Lee, AU Optronics Corp., Hsinchu, Taiwan
> 
> 21.4L: Late-News Paper: : Recent Developments in Carbon-Nananotube-Enabled Vertical Organic Light-Emitting Transistors for OLED Displays
> 
> Mitchell McCarthy, nVerPix, LLC, and University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
> 
> Session 27: OLED Displays I (OLEDs)
> 
> 27.1: A 13.3-in. CAAC-IGZO-FET OLED Display with Narrow Driver Area Using a Highly Efficient Deep-Blue Device
> 
> Tsunenori Suzuki, Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd., Atsugi, Japan



Looks like a lot of good info. OK, who's going to go and report back?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23194693
> 
> 
> IGZO should be first and foremost seen in mobiles due to its proclaimed enormous advantages in this segment. Not being visible in mobiles yet makes IGZO another suspicious tech: tons of hype, no real stuff.



Or it's hard to ramp up production, but everyone is absolutely committed to doing so anyway.


----------



## rogo

These SID presentations have been going on since 2002 or so. I think there has been very little momentum, actually. I'm not especially persuaded that OLED development is occurring any faster than LCD development did, even though it leverages off of it in some very major ways. The first monochrome TFT LCDs were a product of the early 1990s. By the early 2000s, we had full on TVs using full-color TFT LCDs. The first monochrome OLEDs are now more than a decade old and we've had phone-sized OLEDs for at least 3 years. In spite of that, we've actually have virtually no progress of any kind beyond it. Two "freak" TVs at astronomical prices that sold thousands of units total and left the market (neither bigger than 15") and that's it. Not even a volume tablet at 7".


I'm not suggesting it's no progress at all, but it's not very much progress. And in 2013 -- a year after the world's largest TV maker had promised to put 55" TVs on the market -- they have more or less announced a plan to switch technology completely to commercialize OLED TV because their smartphone technology _simply cannot be scaled to TV sizes_. In the meantime, "printable" OLED technology has been talked about since at least 2001-02 and is now being promised for commercialized in 2015. I mean, look, if that happens that's great. If it doesn't lead to a sub-$3000 TV, it's irrelevant even if it exists.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23196528
> 
> 
> Or it's hard to ramp up production, but everyone is absolutely committed to doing so anyway.



IGZO better has no ramping problem when traditional mobile LCDs smoothly made it to 2K. IGZO should

be the star of the show in 2K mobile.


Some light in the tunnel is that [email protected]" IGZO monitor by Sharp made it to real product though it is a niche

in a niche.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23197366
> 
> 
> In the meantime, "printable" OLED technology has been talked about since at least 2001-02 and is now being promised for commercialized in 2015. I mean, look, if that happens that's great. If it doesn't lead to a sub-$3000 TV, it's irrelevant even if it exists.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23175787
> 
> 
> The major manufacturers all have a goal of having the materials and technology for solution processing (be that DuPont or another method) around 2015. Now, that is a goal and not at all a promised delivery date. It is also a goal for technology not for products in the market. As we know, it will then require a bit of time to build up manufacturing lines. Vapor deposition is it for products for the next few years.



If you saw "printable" OLED being promised for commercialization in 2015 I'd be curious to see where you saw that. If you got that from my post I tried to be pretty clear that I didn't think commercialization would happen then but the hope was for the technology to be developed by then. Commercialization would then require production lines to be built. That might be 2017 or so if all goes well. Anything is possible though.


Printable OLED will offer faster production throughput and lower material usage resulting in lower costs but the lifetimes will not be as good as vapor deposition. At least that's the state of it for now. The end result would likely be the mass market will be printed and the premium market will still be vapor deposition. If it all works well, because the investment cost is lower and the equipment makers aren't tied so closely to Samsung/LG, then the DuPont's and others of the world will be selling their printing equipment not just to Samsung and LG but also to Sharp, Japan Display, ChiMei, BOE, AUO and every other display manufacturer. There won't be two companies converting 5 production lines to OLED but there will be 10 companies converting 1 or 2 lines to OLED. The printed OLEDs should easily be less expensive than LCD. The premium market would likely still be Samsung, LG, and an AUO/Sony combination with that market priced comparably to premium LCD. That is quite a few years from now though and a lot can happen to change that.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23199522
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23197366
> 
> 
> In the meantime, "printable" OLED technology has been talked about since at least 2001-02 and is now being promised for commercialized in 2015. I mean, look, if that happens that's great. If it doesn't lead to a sub-$3000 TV, it's irrelevant even if it exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5640#post_23175787
> 
> 
> The major manufacturers all have a goal of having the materials and technology for solution processing (be that DuPont or another method) around 2015. Now, that is a goal and not at all a promised delivery date. It is also a goal for technology not for products in the market. As we know, it will then require a bit of time to build up manufacturing lines. Vapor deposition is it for products for the next few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you saw "printable" OLED being promised for commercialization in 2015 I'd be curious to see where you saw that. If you got that from my post I tried to be pretty clear that I didn't think commercialization would happen then but the hope was for the technology to be developed by then. Commercialization would then require production lines to be built. That might be 2017 or so if all goes well. Anything is possible though.
> 
> 
> Printable OLED will offer faster production throughput and lower material usage resulting in lower costs but the lifetimes will not be as good as vapor deposition. At least that's the state of it for now. The end result would likely be the mass market will be printed and the premium market will still be vapor deposition. If it all works well, because the investment cost is lower and the equipment makers aren't tied so closely to Samsung/LG, then the DuPont's and others of the world will be selling their printing equipment not just to Samsung and LG but also to Sharp, Japan Display, ChiMei, BOE, AUO and every other display manufacturer. There won't be two companies converting 5 production lines to OLED but there will be 10 companies converting 1 or 2 lines to OLED. The printed OLEDs should easily be less expensive than LCD. The premium market would likely still be Samsung, LG, and an AUO/Sony combination with that market priced comparably to premium LCD. That is quite a few years from now though and a lot can happen to change that.
Click to expand...


Ok, going to step into the padded room for a sec. I wonder if the printable technology will usher in a "plug and play" approach. If the cost of the emitting part of the panel is cheap to produce, then is it conceivable that TV's will be made that allow new OLED prints to "slide in" or somesuch? Every 3 years you spend $50 and get a new OLED array.


It would require that the OLED printing progress to insanely high volume / low production cost, but seems to me that I can buy a replacement screen for my laptop cheaply (in relationship to the rest of the system). And make no mistake----the rest of the TV *is* a computer these days.


----------



## tgm1024

[BlackHelicopter style=conspiracy]ynotgoal, are you deleting posts as you go along? You're only at 28 posts at the time of _this_ post and I would swear I saw you hover at 26 for a while. LOL......[/BlackHelicopter]


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23199686
> 
> 
> [BlackHelicopter style=conspiracy]ynotgoal, are you deleting posts as you go along? You're only at 28 posts at the time of _this_ post and I would swear I saw you hover at 26 for a while. LOL......[/BlackHelicopter]



No, I wasn't aware one could do that. Conspiracy?? It was never really my intent to post much here. I think one of my first few posts was in December when LG was getting ready to announce availability of the TVs so 25 or so posts in 4 months would be a lot for me here. Just thought there were a few things some of you might be interested in as OLEDs move into TV production and I get good info from some of you on your thoughts on the TVs.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23199522
> 
> 
> 
> If you saw "printable" OLED being promised for commercialization in 2015 I'd be curious to see where you saw that. If you got that from my post I tried to be pretty clear that I didn't think commercialization would happen then but the hope was for the technology to be developed by then. Commercialization would then require production lines to be built. That might be 2017 or so if all goes well. Anything is possible though.



I was more speculating on Panasonic's plans based on them basically abandoning plasma, which they had been selling millions of, for _nothing_ unless they get OLED running. And it seems their OLED plan revolves around printables. (Yes, other people, I am aware of their LCD business, which is entirely irrelevant. But I am aware of it, thanks.)


> Quote:
> Printable OLED will offer faster production throughput and lower material usage resulting in lower costs but the lifetimes will not be as good as vapor deposition. At least that's the state of it for now. The end result would likely be the mass market will be printed and the premium market will still be vapor deposition. If it all works well, because the investment cost is lower and the equipment makers aren't tied so closely to Samsung/LG, then the DuPont's and others of the world will be selling their printing equipment not just to Samsung and LG but also to Sharp, Japan Display, ChiMei, BOE, AUO and every other display manufacturer. There won't be two companies converting 5 production lines to OLED but there will be 10 companies converting 1 or 2 lines to OLED. The printed OLEDs should easily be less expensive than LCD. The premium market would likely still be Samsung, LG, and an AUO/Sony combination with that market priced comparably to premium LCD. That is quite a few years from now though and a lot can happen to change that.



What's your timetable for "cheaper than LCD"? I'm not clear on that.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23199675
> 
> 
> Ok, going to step into the padded room for a sec. I wonder if the printable technology will usher in a "plug and play" approach. If the cost of the emitting part of the panel is cheap to produce, then is it conceivable that TV's will be made that allow new OLED prints to "slide in" or somesuch? Every 3 years you spend $50 and get a new OLED array.



That's not going to happen.


> Quote:


----------



## Wizziwig

Regarding the gaps and fill-factor of those macro shots - couldn't some of this be attributed to the fact that LG uses passive 3D on these panels?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23200389
> 
> 
> Regarding the gaps and fill-factor of those macro shots - couldn't some of this be attributed to the fact that LG uses passive 3D on these panels?



Why? The gaps include horizontal distances, and the filters are reversed per scanline. There'd be nothing to gain from that. Unless.........they're trying to increase the vertical-off-angle 3D viewing by the vertical distances? IIRC, the concern with passive is having the pixels as close to the filter as possible so that vertically you don't acidentally view the wrong scanline partially through the wrong filter. That's crosstalk.


I'm personally wondering two things:

Maybe the device and technology that deposits the OLED sub-pixels does so in a fixed distance way regardless of how big the panel is. That is, the tight grouping allows for smaller panels, and for larger panels they just space them further apart (and hopefully increase their brightness) (?) That allows them to have the thing requiring the tightest spacing (the sub pixel putter-onner







) to be perfected, and the same regardless of panel.
and/or Maybe they realized that it's a sharper image when the subs are dramatically closer to increase sharpness. This would keep a sub from pixel 1 from appearing as part of pixel 2. (?)


It's the only things I can imagine off the top of my head.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23200389
> 
> 
> Regarding the gaps and fill-factor of those macro shots - couldn't some of this be attributed to the fact that LG uses passive 3D on these panels?



No, that has nothing to do with it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23200474
> 
> 
> I'm personally wondering two things:
> 
> Maybe the device and technology that deposits the OLED sub-pixels does so in a fixed distance way regardless of how big the panel is. That is, the tight grouping allows for smaller panels, and for larger panels they just space them further apart (and hopefully increase their brightness) (?) That allows them to have the thing requiring the tightest spacing (the sub pixel putter-onner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) to be perfected, and the same regardless of panel.
> and/or Maybe they realized that it's a sharper image when the subs are dramatically closer to increase sharpness. This would keep a sub from pixel 1 from appearing as part of pixel 2. (?)
> 
> 
> It's the only things I can imagine off the top of my head.



OMG, *there are no OLED sub-pixels*. How many times do we have to discuss this? No, really, *there are no OLED sub pixels.*


The way the LG works is that there is *one giant OLED pixel* made by layering red, green, and blue OLED material on top of one another. Portions of that one giant pixel are illuminated by exciting small chunks of it using transistors to pass current through it which causes a small portion of the *one giant pixel* to get excited.


The sub pixels are _solely made using the color filters_. The sharp edges come from the color filters only. Without them, the sub pixels would be somewhat amorphously edged. LCD works differently in that it uses an "eggcrate" type grid to segregate the LC material for each sub-pixel while also having color filters. But the sharp edge is from the grid, which serves to effectively create discrete pixels out of a a single layer of LC. In the LG OLED design, there are no sub-pixels whatsoever. There are transistors used to _approximately excite the area for each sub-pixel_ and then the color filter is used to rigidly define it. It's for that reason that some border was necessary (you get a sharp edge via the dark border). But why the vertical inter-pixel spacing is so large remains at best a partially answered question.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23203267
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23200389
> 
> 
> Regarding the gaps and fill-factor of those macro shots - couldn't some of this be attributed to the fact that LG uses passive 3D on these panels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23200474
> 
> 
> I'm personally wondering two things:
> 
> Maybe the device and technology that deposits the OLED sub-pixels does so in a fixed distance way regardless of how big the panel is. That is, the tight grouping allows for smaller panels, and for larger panels they just space them further apart (and hopefully increase their brightness) (?) That allows them to have the thing requiring the tightest spacing (the sub pixel putter-onner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) to be perfected, and the same regardless of panel.
> and/or Maybe they realized that it's a sharper image when the subs are dramatically closer to increase sharpness. This would keep a sub from pixel 1 from appearing as part of pixel 2. (?)
> 
> 
> It's the only things I can imagine off the top of my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, *there are no OLED sub-pixels*. How many times do we have to discuss this? No, really, *there are no OLED sub pixels.*
> 
> 
> The way the LG works is that there is *one giant OLED pixel* made by layering red, green, and blue OLED material on top of one another. Portions of that one giant pixel are illuminated by exciting small chunks of it using transistors to pass current through it which causes a small portion of the *one giant pixel* to get excited.
> 
> 
> The sub pixels are _solely made using the color filters_. The sharp edges come from the color filters only. Without them, the sub pixels would be somewhat amorphously edged. LCD works differently in that it uses an "eggcrate" type grid to segregate the LC material for each sub-pixel while also having color filters. But the sharp edge is from the grid, which serves to effectively create discrete pixels out of a a single layer of LC. In the LG OLED design, there are no sub-pixels whatsoever. There are transistors used to _approximately excite the area for each sub-pixel_ and then the color filter is used to rigidly define it. It's for that reason that some border was necessary (you get a sharp edge via the dark border). But why the vertical inter-pixel spacing is so large remains at best a partially answered question.
Click to expand...



There are times where you draw distinctions with a venom I just can't understand. And even with that distinction in place, it doesn't speak for or against my speculations at all. Not the sharpness, not the spacing, none of it.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23205284
> 
> 
> There are times where you draw distinctions with a venom I just can't understand.



There are times I explain something for the 1000th time and I flat out can't believe we are going back to the part where a fundamentally wrong description appears in this thread.


> Quote:
> And even with that distinction in place, it doesn't speak for or against my speculations at all. Not the sharpness, not the spacing, none of it.



It absolutely does, since your understanding of the way the pixels work is completely in error. There is no "pixel spacing" because there are no pixels.


The _appearance of pixels_ exists solely from color-filter patterning.


----------



## sstephen

You are certainly going to need some spacing between the anodes of the subpixels (or cathodes, I don't know if they even use common anode, common cathode or neither in oled displays). So I don't really see anything wrong with referring to that as a gap, or referring to the individual colors as sub-pixels whether generated by color filters or not.


----------



## Rich Peterson

I have no idea if this can be applied to TVs or if it's limited to OLED lighting, but techies might find it interesting nevertheless.

*Color of OLEDs can now at last be predicted thanks to new modeling technique*


Source: phys.org 


OLEDs – thin, light-emitting surfaces – are regarded as the light sources of the future. White OLEDs consist of stacked, ultra-thin layers, each emitting its own light color, all together resulting in white light. Up to now it has been impossible to predict the exact light color produced by a white OLED; manufacturers had to rely on trial and error. Researchers at Eindhoven University of Technology, Philips Research, Dresden University of Technology and other institutes have now developed a method that allows the color of light produced by a specific OLED design to be calculated with high precision. They did this by modeling the complex processes in OLEDs on a molecular scale. This technique will allow manufacturers to greatly improve their OLED design processes and reduce the cost. At the same time the energy efficiency and lifetime of OLEDs can be increased.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23207565
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5670#post_23205284
> 
> 
> There are times where you draw distinctions with a venom I just can't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are times I explain something for the 1000th time and I flat out can't believe we are going back to the part where a fundamentally wrong description appears in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> And even with that distinction in place, it doesn't speak for or against my speculations at all. Not the sharpness, not the spacing, none of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It absolutely does, since your understanding of the way the pixels work is completely in error. There is no "pixel spacing" because there are no pixels.
> 
> 
> 
> The _appearance of pixels_ exists solely from color-filter patterning.
Click to expand...


I've always known there were color filters employed here.


And the appearance of pixels, _are pixels_. *Pixel means picture element*. But Ok. let's go with the distinction you are making anyway and apply it to what I was saying:Let's take my first quote of this:


> Quote:
> Maybe the device and technology that deposits the OLED sub-pixels does so in a fixed distance way regardless of how big the panel is. That is, the tight grouping allows for smaller panels, and for larger panels they just space them further apart (and hopefully increase their brightness) (?) That allows them to have the thing requiring the tightest spacing (the sub pixel putter-onner smile.gif) to be perfected, and the same regardless of panel.



And change it this way with your distinctions honored (in red):


> Quote:
> Maybe the device and technology that deposits the things that look like OLED sub-pixels but that are really just parts of the OLED with a separate filter on it does so in a fixed distance way regardless of how big the panel is. That is, the tight grouping allows for smaller panels, and for larger panels they just space them further apart (and hopefully increase their brightness) (?) That allows them to have the thing requiring the tightest spacing (the sub pixel putter-onner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) to be perfected, and the same regardless of panel.



Besides, I'm not sure what on earth you would call those filters if not sub-pixels. They are color components of the picture element itself. What I'm saying is that the group of 4 things (I couldn't care less what they truly are or how they're made) is maybe always of a certain size: the whole pixel is _always_ the same physical WxH size, and they space those apart at larger intervals for larger panels.


Here's the original picture I ever saw about the LG method of OLED:  . It's from a possibly naive and early CNET article where the guy specifically refers to LG's sub-pixels. If those sub-pixels are actually just circuitry to different parts of a single big OLED, what could it matter? I've known there were filters involved for a long time.


As far as my sharpness comment, the sharpness I'm referring to has nothing to do with the defined edges of each of those filters----even if as amorphous as a puddle of spit it still applies. I'm saying that keeping the grouping together with clear distances between each complete pixel will keep one sub-pixel (or whatever you feel comfortable calling it) from appearing as part of a neighboring pixel. I was speculating that this will aid in the pixel definitions, or "sharpness" as I put it.


Seriously, there should never have to be a clarification made like this.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_100#post_23207837
> 
> 
> You are certainly going to need some spacing between the anodes of the subpixels (or cathodes, I don't know if they even use common anode, common cathode or neither in oled displays). So I don't really see anything wrong with referring to that as a gap, or referring to the individual colors as sub-pixels whether generated by color filters or not.



Well, it's a bit of a mystery to me what he's all worked up about here.


And as I pointed out: a pixel is a picture element. The RGBW components of that are sub-pixels. No?


It's not as though I was saying that the LG mechanism was done by employing sub pixels _without_ filters.


----------



## rogo

I'm not worked up about anything.


As to sstephen's remarks, I agree there is a need for some amount of space for electrodes. Except not much space. Look at the LCD design of Sharp's linked above. You simply don't need much space to handle that, yet LG is taking about 1/3 of the pixel space -- vertically -- for electrodes and whatever else. It's also taking substantial horizontal space to separate out the red, green, blue and white. I believe that's for edge definition, specifically related to the fact that you'd have bleedthrough otherwise _since there is only one giant OLED layer, which is completely oblivious to whatever semantic definitions some of you wish to keep applying to it_.


The closest technological precursor to how this works is probably JVC (et al.) with LCOS. There, only a single, pixel-grid-less LC layer existed. And a small portion of it was twisted by transistor excitation beneath it. The result was a tremendous fill factor (well, it still is) but a pretty poor edge definition. Now, that lack of edging makes little difference on the LCOS -- you need magnification to even notice this -- but it's there.


The color filters in this case are clearly cut to provide edge definition not only between pixels, but between sub-pixels. And the amount of _horizontal_ space seems reasonable. The vertical space seems excessive, however, and is almost certainly due to this being first-generation technology. The amount of light output being lost to all that dead space alone is horrid, never mind the poor visual fill factor.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Some news from LG:


*LG sells 200 OLED TVs in three months in Korea; predicts "substantial numbers" in 2013*


Source: whathifi.com 


LG has confirmed it has sold 200 OLED TVs since the company’s first 55in OLED TV went on sale in Korea.


The LG 55EM970V OLED TV (above) opened for pre-orders in Korea in January before going on sale in February.


Originally unveiled at CES in 2012, the LG OLED TV is also now available for pre-order in the UK, having gone on sale at the start of March in Harrods, London for £10,000.


Around 100 sets were reported to have been pre-ordered after six weeks in Korea, and LG’s director of home entertainment communications Hugo Shin confirmed at a briefing at LG HQ in Seoul today that sales have hit 200.


Shin said LG expects to sell “substantial numbers” of OLED and 4K Ultra HD TVs over the next 24 months, despite these initial slow sales.


Clearly very expensive now, Shin believes OLED TVs could be a similar price to existing high-end LED screen in as little as two or three years.


LG believes OLED TV offers particular performance improvements in terms of colours, contrast and viewing angle, plus at just 4mm thin, holds plenty of aesthetic appeal, too.


As well as this 55in flatscreen OLED TV, LG is continuing to develop curved OLED TVs, as first revealed at CES 2013.


Bringing the cinema feel to TV screens, based on the curved screen of IMAX cinemas, LG says curved OLED TVs will deliver a more immersive experience as well as delivering the optimum viewing distance to every part of the screen.


As for plasma sets, LG says it will keep making PDP TVs as long as there is consumer demand for them, but views them as a budget offering.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23209064
> 
> 
> Bringing the cinema feel to TV screens, based on the curved screen of IMAX cinemas,



.....which I can't freaking stand.....



> Quote:
> ...LG says curved OLED TVs will deliver a more immersive experience as well as delivering the optimum viewing distance to every part of the screen.



It's possible, and maybe I'm alone on this one but I can't see these things mounted on walls, and isn't the public increasingly doing just that as these things get bigger? Or maybe this is just the new look on the wall?


----------



## webgrandeur

The curved screen has been around for a while for front projection home theaters. Google projector curved screen to get some examples. They are IMO more cinematic, but not something I'd want to watch regular TV on (or on a large screen at all).


----------



## rogo

"Clearly very expensive now, Shin believes OLED TVs could be a similar price to existing high-end LED screen in as little as two or three years."


These guys are such jokers it's essentially impossible to believe anything they say.


That caveat aside, the price of high-end LCDs is now $2500. So he's basically predicting a 75% cost reduction in 2-3 years. Give it 3 years and that means 35% per year (because it compounds) using the Korea price as a benchmark.


2014: $6500

2015: $4225

2016: $2750


I'm more than skeptical, but I'd be the first to say, I'd be delighted to see it.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *webgrandeur*
> 
> The curved screen has been around for a while for front projection home theaters. Google projector curved screen to get some examples. They are IMO more cinematic, but not something I'd want to watch regular TV on (or on a large screen at all).


The curved OLED reminds me of the 21:9 TV. Don't believe it will be a succesfull. Only traditional 16:9 TV sells







Just keep on squandering those Wons LG & Samsung


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700#post_23211881
> 
> 
> The curved OLED reminds me of the 21:9 TV. Don't believe it will be a succesfull. Only traditional 16:9 TV sells
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep on squandering those Wons LG & Samsung



Time will tell, I guess, but my guess is they actually will sell pretty well.


----------



## Chronoptimist

I have no interest in curved displays. I get the argument that a curved display is equidistant at all points if you are sitting in the sweet spot, but it obviously limits viewing angles, and let's figure out curved camera sensors before we start making displays for content that doesn't exist. Even then, I don't want a TV to intrude any more on the room than they already do, and I don't think it makes enough of a difference to be worthwhile unless it's actually wrapping around you, completely filling your field of vision. (which would require content much wider than 21:9)


21:9 displays on the other hand are something I _do_ want to see succeed, even though it seems that they are probably going to die off. (the 4K spec should have been 21:9 native) I don't watch television, so more than 90% of the content I watch is already natively 21:9 (films) and computers can output a native 21:9 image on the desktop or in games without any trouble. So for me, the vast majority of my content would be improved by a 21:9 native display.


----------



## irkuck

Curved makes big sense for computer monitors if one looks at those 3-display sets people use nowadays. For monster TVs like those 110"@4K it makes sense too assuming the viewing distance at 2.5H and well defined sweetspot .

Nice example where curved would provide seamless substitute for 5 x 2K monitors in portrait mode , would have to be 6Kx2K


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700#post_23212849
> 
> 
> Curved makes big sense for computer monitors if one looks at those 3-display sets people use nowadays.



And also for gaming I would think.


----------



## Chronoptimist

If you are talking about replacing a triple-display surround setup with a single curved display, then you are talking about 48:9.

But that is the kind of wrap-around FoV I was talking about where curved displays start to make sense.


Curved displays make no sense for large scale 16:9, and I would much rather see "flat" 21:9 displays on the market before anything else. There is no content for anything wider than 21:9 other than a PC source, but the vast majority of films in existence are shot in that aspect ratio and have to be letterboxed on 16:9 displays. Constant image height with a 21:9 display is much better than the variable height we have now. Pillarboxing is not distracting (especially with OLED black levels) but the image shrinking in size vertically is.


----------



## Rich Peterson

What a surprise. Another OLED-related delay. *This article is talking about phone sized displays only*, but it seems a delay with those doesn't bode well for the large-screen flexible displays we've been talking about here.


*Samsung’s Hyped Flexible Displays are Once Again Delayed*


Source: androidheadlines.com 


Will Samsung’s highly anticipated flexible screens ever see the light of day? Samsung has once again announced that their flexible display’s release will be further delayed. Samsung said that their planned end of 2013 release goal would not be met.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700#post_23212120
> 
> 
> Time will tell, I guess, but my guess is they actually will sell pretty well.



The only reason I can see to offer this is so that LG can have a statement in its sales report that includes the phrase "sales of the curved model were _de minimis_."



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700#post_23215174
> 
> 
> What a surprise. Another OLED-related delay. *This article is talking about phone sized displays only*, but it seems a delay with those doesn't bode well for the large-screen flexible displays we've been talking about here.
> 
> 
> *Samsung’s Hyped Flexible Displays are Once Again Delayed*
> 
> 
> Will Samsung’s highly anticipated flexible screens ever see the light of day? Samsung has once again announced that their flexible display’s release will be further delayed. Samsung said that their planned end of 2013 release goal would not be met.



So we should be clear on some things about these. Let me clarify again that I think for mobile, the killer app here is unbreakable and that "flexibility" beyond that is so uninteresting and irrelevant that no one in the industry is actually pursuing it at this time even though you periodically see demos of "rolling" and "folding" designs. That said:


1) Samsung has prototyped a flexible display but none of the actual technology to manufacture them. They don't have the ability to lay down flexible electrodes in mass production, for example.


2) To that end, there are basic pieces of the technology that don't really exist. While the flexible display has been demoed, the flexible touchscreen has not been. While there are flexible electrodes, indium-tin oxide is not flexible, but is used in all existing displays because it's transparent and able to be mass produced. While plastic-substrate displays are doable, OLEDs can't handle any air at all and films that will protect an OLED against constant flexing from any air exposure also don't exist in any mass-production sense.


3) Samsung's "delay" here is fiction. There was never any product to announce with this display so there was never any delay. I suspect they want to do something with it because, well, an unbreakable screen would be very cool and a selling point. But you'll see more technology announcements about solving these problems before you see a phone with a flexible display. Until then, don't hold your breath.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Does anyone in this forum believe this??????? It's been reported by many sources.


*LG Announces Curved OLED TVs Coming This Year*


Source: HDTV Review 


At the beginning of the year, LG unveiled their first big screen OLED TV. The company did not release a release date, but many suspected that it would release later this year. Today, it was unveiled that LG does indeed have plans to release their OLED HDTV sometime in the second half of 2013. The model the company displayed at CES was the 55” TV from their new EA9800 series. It featured a curved screen so that users could feel more immersed in the display. LG has yet to announce retail prices, but the regular OLED TVs have been priced at around $10000 in Korea.


More Sources:
http://technewstube.com/theverge/201257/lg-aims-to-start-selling-curved-oled-tvs-this-year/ 
http://www.somedroid.com/2013/04/18/lg-aims-to-start-selling-curved-oled-tvs-this-year/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Somedroid+(somedroid.com) 
http://gizmodo.com/5994950/lgs-curved-oled-tvs-are-actually-going-on-sale


----------



## JWhip

Call me crazy, but how is a 55" curved screen immersive? People don't set a couple feet from their TV's, more like 8 feet. A curved screen is a complete waste of time. They should focus their attention on perfecting flat OLED screens and actually getting them on the market in numbers actually greater than a few hundred.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700#post_23217239
> 
> 
> Does anyone in this forum believe this??????? It's been reported by many sources.
> 
> 
> *LG Announces Curved OLED TVs Coming This Year*
> 
> 
> Source: HDTV Review



I still don't believe they've shipped 200 of the flat ones, even though they insist they have. So count me as a "no."


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700#post_23218482
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, but how is a 55" curved screen immersive? People don't set a couple feet from their TV's, more like 8 feet. A curved screen is a complete waste of time. They should focus their attention on perfecting flat OLED screens and actually getting them on the market in numbers actually greater than a few hundred.



It's moronic. "A complete waste of time" puts it so well, JWhip. In fact, everything you say puts it really well.


----------



## borf

It would be great if it was wall sized and you sat within the 5ft center. Otherwise I think the effect would be minimal...


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700#post_23219853
> 
> 
> I still don't believe they've shipped 200 of the flat ones, even though they insist they have. So count me as a "no."



I think LG fails to make a distinction between "selling" and "shipping/delivering". I'm pretty sure that every time they come out with these numbers, what they really mean is "pre-ordered". Depending on the pre-order terms and size of deposit, I guess it counts as a sale in their minds.










Until there is a retail unit unboxing video or pictures, it's all vaporware.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700#post_23220646
> 
> 
> 
> Until there is a retail unit unboxing video or pictures, it's all vaporware.



Precisely.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23214682
> 
> 
> If you are talking about replacing a triple-display surround setup with a single curved display, then you are talking about 48:9.
> 
> But that is the kind of wrap-around FoV I was talking about where curved displays start to make sense.
> 
> 
> Curved displays make no sense for large scale 16:9, and I would much rather see "flat" 21:9 displays on the market before anything else. There is no content for anything wider than 21:9 other than a PC source, but the vast majority of films in existence are shot in that aspect ratio and have to be letterboxed on 16:9 displays. Constant image height with a 21:9 display is much better than the variable height we have now. Pillarboxing is not distracting (especially with OLED black levels) but the image shrinking in size vertically is.




Chron, do you have a 21:9?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23223164
> 
> 
> Chron, do you have a 21:9?


No - none of the previously released 21:9 sets met my requirements. I would prefer a 21:9 display if everything else was equal though.


The problem with the current sets is that they are scaling 1920x810 or thereabouts to 2560x1080.

What _should_ have happened would be 4K having support for 5120x2160 (native 21:9) rather than being 3840x2160. (16:9)


That way you could have native 21:9 content that is scaled _down_ on 16:9 displays, rather than having to scale _up_ from 3840x1620. (letterboxed 16:9)


At least it's still more feasible to upscale with a 4K source, as there's more information there to begin with, but I would rather not be scaling it at all.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23223830
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23223164
> 
> 
> Chron, do you have a 21:9?
> 
> 
> 
> No - none of the previously released 21:9 sets met my requirements. I would prefer a 21:9 display if everything else was equal though.
> 
> 
> The problem with the current sets is that they are scaling 1920x810 or thereabouts to 2560x1080.
> 
> What _should_ have happened would be 4K having support for 5120x2160 (native 21:9) rather than being 3840x2160. (16:9)
> 
> 
> That way you could have native 21:9 content that is scaled _down_ on 16:9 displays, rather than having to scale _up_ from 3840x1620. (letterboxed 16:9)
> 
> 
> At least it's still more feasible to upscale with a 4K source, as there's more information there to begin with, but I would rather not be scaling it at all.
Click to expand...


I was wondering what they were doing.


Does Blu-Ray allow fields for native 2560 across?


I've only seen the Vizio 21:9. And it looked like crap.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23223902
> 
> 
> Does Blu-Ray allow fields for native 2560 across?


No-and there wouldn't be any content for it even if they added support, because current players wouldn't be able to scale that image down for 16:9 TVs.

Moving to 4K was an opportunity to include native 21:9 encoded content, and require players to support downscaling it for 16:9 displays, but they didn't do anything about it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23223902
> 
> 
> I've only seen the Vizio 21:9. And it looked like crap.


The last Philips set was supposed to be good (full local dimming) but it was severely overpriced compared to other displays here. But that's the main problem - most of them weren't good TVs, they relied on the aspect ratio as their main selling point.


----------



## David_B

I wonder if a curved screen is easier to manufacture?


Could be why they are pushing forward with it. Maybe yealds are higher for some mechanical reason when you make the screen curved?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23226155
> 
> 
> I wonder if a curved screen is easier to manufacture?
> 
> 
> Could be why they are pushing forward with it. Maybe yealds are higher for some mechanical reason when you make the screen curved?


It's not that it is easier to manufacture than a regular one, it's that you can make a curved screen with OLED at all compared to LCD or Plasma. They are just looking for new ways to sell people another TV.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700#post_23226155
> 
> 
> I wonder if a curved screen is easier to manufacture?
> 
> 
> Could be why they are pushing forward with it. Maybe yealds are higher for some mechanical reason when you make the screen curved?



I cannot imagine any reason it would be easier to make the curved screen. You'd have more steps not fewer and I'm not seeing any reason why it would be more forgiving.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23226430
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23226155
> 
> 
> I wonder if a curved screen is easier to manufacture?
> 
> 
> Could be why they are pushing forward with it. Maybe yealds are higher for some mechanical reason when you make the screen curved?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that it is easier to manufacture than a regular one, it's that you can make a curved screen with OLED at all compared to LCD or Plasma. They are just looking for new ways to sell people another TV.
Click to expand...



Well we've also talked a lot about the "gotta show it at a show first or early" thing, which has a momentum all its own completely devoid of ever believing it will truly sell or be manufacturable. Most recent such thing that comes to mind is the Crystal LED.


Sure they can probably turn this curved thing into a real product, but I can't begin to take it seriously until I see it cleanly on a wall, hear a cogent reason how it could possibly matter at most people's viewing distances, etc. There's a big burden of proof on this thing that I just don't see them satisfying.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Predictions based on DisplaySearch data. I bolded some text.

*OLED TV Prices Could Fall in Line with 2013 LCD TV Prices By 2018*


Source: digitalversus.com 


LG is the first—and for the time being only—TV maker to have started actually selling OLED TVs, although they're currently only available in South Korea. However, the competition isn't far behind. Samsung should be releasing one or more models this year, with Sony and Panasonic no doubt set to follow in 2014. We reckon we can expect to see the first Ultra HD (4K) OLED TV landing sometime around February 2014.


But OLED is an expensive technology—not because of the components, as OLED panels aren't necessarily any more expensive to produce than LCD panels (more on that soon)—but because of the 15 years of R&D it has taken to perfect it (since 1998!).


Working closely with all the main screen-makers, researchers at Display Search have compiled a document aimed at panel manufacturers outlining various predictions for sales volumes and turnover per screen technology type. Information from the report can be used to deduce the progression of OLED panel prices across all manufacturers. Note that we're not talking about finished TVs here, but about the main component used to build them—the screen and the electronics used to control it. But since the screen is the most costly part of a TV, panel prices can give us some idea of how TV prices may also evolve.


Prices: OLED 2018 = LCD 2013
*In three years' time, prices are predicted to be 4.6 times lower than current levels. By extrapolating the results further, we can see that by 2018—five years after the first OLED TVs launched—the average price per panel should end up at around $475. That's comparable to the cost of LCD panels in 2013 ($460 according to Display Search).*


By 2018, OLED panels should therefore be selling for about the same price as today's LCD panels. Still, we should bear in mind that:

• in 2018, screen sizes will probably be bigger than in 2013. We should see OLED TVs at about the same price as today's LCD models, but with bigger screens (by 2018, OLED TVs will be available in all sizes);

• between now and 2018, the cost of goods sold for LCD technology will drop. Unlike plasma, which is due to be phased out by 2015-2016, LCD will still be around as an entry-level alternative. LCD is eventually likely to be phased out sometime between 2020 and 2025;

• OLEDs are slimmer, lighter and easier to recycle than LCD TVs, which means they'll be less affected by transport costs, green taxes, etc. This may push prices down slightly further.


----------



## vinnie97

That is predicated on a 2013 launch, of which there is little evidence regarding this happening. Sony and Panasonic will "no doubt" have sets to follow in 2014? Funny.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23231992
> 
> 
> That is predicated on a 2013 launch, of which there is little evidence regarding this happening. Sony and Panasonic will "no doubt" have sets to follow in 2014? Funny.



As soon as I see a writer say something like "_X_ times lower than" I want to smack 'em.


----------



## vinnie97

Yup, hogwild speculation, not even accounting for the dynamic realities of (and particularly slower than forecast) OLED development.


----------



## rogo

I can't stand hypesters, so let's take a look at what DisplaySearch actually had to say about OLED less than three weeks ago:


> Quote:
> "According to the latest Quarterly Worldwide FPD Shipment and Forecast Report, AMOLED revenues are expected to pass $11.3B in 2013, up from $6.9B in 2012. This is an important milestone in the growth of AMOLED production. However, as long as the AMOLED business model remains limited to a single source (Samsung Display) and customer (Samsung Mobile), its future growth is questionable."



Source: http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2013/04/2013-amoled-revenues-to-pass-10b/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DisplaysearchBlogDisplaysearch+%28DisplaySearch+Blog+%C2%BB+DisplaySearch%29 


More intelligent things:
The likelihood of Sony and Panasonic shipping anything next year is very, very, very close to zero.
The likelihood of LCD being phased out in 2020-2025 is pretty darned close to zero. What do you think those Chinese LCD plants are being built for, exactly?
In 2018, LCDs will outsell OLEDs in the TV businesses. And not by a little.


----------



## Wizziwig

OLED yield could be just 10% - DisplaySearch

http://www.current.com.au/2013/04/22/article/OLED-yield-could-be-just-10---DisplaySearch/MVIBGJICZD.html


----------



## andy sullivan

According to the Panasonic Insider, Yield is a major issue for everyone except Panasonic.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23236569
> 
> 
> According to the Panasonic Insider, Yield is a major issue for everyone except Panasonic.



It's not hard to produce at "high yield" when your production is zero.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG to bring their OLED TVs to India in H2 2013*


Source: techinvestornews.com 


LG hosted their Tech Show 2013 in India yesterday, and the company announced that it plans to introduce its OLED TVs in India in the second half of 2013. Currently LG are offering their OLED TVs in Korea only (for $10,000, they have sold only around 200 units so far). The TVs will arrive in the UK in July, and the US probably in H2 2013 as well.


----------



## PCD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23238668
> 
> *LG to bring their OLED TVs to India in H2 2013*
> 
> 
> Source: techinvestornews.com
> 
> 
> LG hosted their Tech Show 2013 in India yesterday, and the company announced that it plans to introduce its OLED TVs in India in the second half of 2013. Currently LG are offering their OLED TVs in Korea only (for $10,000, they have sold only around 200 units so far). The TVs will arrive in the UK in July, and the US probably in H2 2013 as well.



Dell Canada has them for sale, but out of stock so far

http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Video_Conferencing/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=bsd&cs=cabsdt1&sku=A6820882 


Oh, and 4K as well

http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Video_Conferencing/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=bsd&cs=cabsdt1&sku=A6820881


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23238668
> 
> *LG to bring their OLED TVs to India in H2 2013*
> 
> 
> Source: techinvestornews.com
> 
> 
> LG hosted their Tech Show 2013 in India yesterday, and the company announced that it plans to introduce its OLED TVs in India in the second half of 2013. Currently LG are offering their OLED TVs in Korea only (for $10,000, they have sold only around 200 units so far). The TVs will arrive in the UK in July, and the US probably in H2 2013 as well.



Uh, yeah, India. Sure. Incidentally, I'm selling a bridge over New York's East River. Built by a guy named Roebling. In excellent condition even though it's a bit old....


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PCD*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23238895
> 
> 
> Dell Canada has them for sale, but out of stock so far
> 
> http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Video_Conferencing/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=bsd&cs=cabsdt1&sku=A6820882
> 
> 
> Oh, and 4K as well
> 
> http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Video_Conferencing/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=bsd&cs=cabsdt1&sku=A6820881



Listed != "for sale". I can list them on my e-commerce site too.


----------



## chadsdsmith

I know this is off topic, but I went to a best buy(magnolia) and they had the sony 84" 4k tv there playing a 4k demo loop. It was definitely impressive when you get up close to it, and its shear size was a sight to behold. With that said, my previous suspicion was confirmed (at least imho) that this is probably the smallest size that will really benefit from 4k resolution. Don't get me wrong, at 5 or 6 feet it looks pretty crazy, but after backing up to the 9-10 ft I am accustomed to viewing my 65" gt50 from, I honestly don't think it looked any different from 1080p. I have good eyesight (not ridiculously good or anything) so I don't think I am missing anything. I really don't think having a 84" 4k at 9 feet is really going to benefit anyone, let alone a 65" tv at that distance. Don't get me wrong, they are going to eventually sell (when they don't require a mortgage to pay for) like crazy because most people (myself included) are going to put their noses right up to them and be blown away by the detail, but most of the impressive attributes of the sony set I saw once I moved back had more to do with the pristine demo source that was obviously created to wow you. I think that same demo would look equally impressive in 1080p from that distance. Also, I believe the 84" set is a local dimming backlit set, so its contrast/black levels are good, 4k or not. Overall, it was interesting but I think I will wait for 80+ inch 4k oleds in 6 years or so.


----------



## PCD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23239058
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, India. Sure. Incidentally, I'm selling a bridge over New York's East River. Built by a guy named Roebling. In excellent condition even though it's a bit old....
> 
> Listed != "for sale". I can list them on my e-commerce site too.



You're a funny guy.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PCD*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23239112
> 
> 
> You're a funny guy.



I know. And thanks.


But sometimes, funny and truthful are not terribly far apart.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chadsdsmith*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23239065
> 
> 
> With that said, my previous suspicion was confirmed (at least imho) that this is probably the smallest size that will really benefit from 4k resolution. Don't get me wrong, at 5 or 6 feet it looks pretty crazy, but after backing up to the 9-10 ft I am accustomed to viewing my 65" gt50 from, I honestly don't think it looked any different from 1080p. I have good eyesight (not ridiculously good or anything) so I don't think I am missing anything. I really don't think having a 84" 4k at 9 feet is really going to benefit anyone, let alone a 65" tv at that distance.



In another thread I stated many times that realistic living room viewing with 4K benefits requires 110" sets which were demoed but are not sold yet. Asymptotically such sets should sell for not much more than 4x55" 2K decent LCD sets. Since there is already one 4K 50" set in the 1 k$ range this price estimate is sound. The only question is thus when such affordable 110"@4K LCD sets become available.


----------



## PCD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23241066
> 
> 
> In another thread I stated many times that realistic living room viewing with 4K benefits requires 110" sets which were demoed but are not sold yet. Asymptotically such sets should sell for not much more than 4x55" 2K decent LCD sets. Since there is already one 4K 50" set in the 1 k$ range this price estimate is sound. The only question is thus when such affordable 110"@4K LCD sets become available.



Although I'm sure Dell has nothing to sell yet, they ARE pricing the 84" at 20k. Who knows, maybe by the time they get them in price may have dropped considerably. I did call my rep today, but he's a server guy and transferred me. Waited 5 minutes on hold then lost interest.


----------



## Rich Peterson

There's probably no one on earth that wants to see LG have success producing their OLED TVs more then the execs at LG.

*LG profit drops 91% amid stagnant TV demand*


Source: Bloomberg News 


LG Electronics Inc., the world's second-largest television maker, posted a 91 percent drop in first-quarter profit as a stagnant market hurt TV sales. The shares fell.


Net income fell to 22.1 billion won ($20 million) in the three months ended March 31 from 247.5 billion won a year earlier, Seoul-based LG said in a statement Wednesday. That compares with the 208.7 billion-won average of 23 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Sales increased to 14.1 trillion won from 13.2 trillion won.


Profit at the TV-making unit declined from a year earlier as demand for plasma-display sets decreased, LG said in the statement. LG, which trails Samsung Electronics Co. in TV shipments, has said it plans to increase deliveries 15 percent this year by offering sets with new display technologies and more advanced functions.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> _''What has LG shown us on OLED? Nothing,'' Michael Zoeller, senior director of TV sales and marketing at Samsung Europe headquarters, told The Korea Herald shortly after his official briefing at the conference on friday._




Samsung, LG urged to cooperate on OLED


SARDINIA



Tuesday, April 23, 2013


SAMSUNG and LG were urged to reach an agreement on patent sharing to keep at bay the Chinese rivals that are fast on Korea's heels in terms of OLED technology, an executive at leading research firm said in an interview Saturday.


"It could be desirable for the companies to share their patents," said Paul Gray, director of TV Electronics and Europe TV Research at DisplaySearch, on the sidelines of the IFA Global Conference on the Italian island of Sardinia.


"I think that Samsung and LG need to consider where their biggest threats lie. Is it each other or is it Chinese companies, which already have aggressive plans to move into OLED technology?"


OLED is cited as the next-generation display technology with better clarity, color saturation and energy efficiency than LCDs.


Samsung and LG, the world's top two display makers, both claim dominance over this new panel technology and are in a related legal dispute.


A cross-licensing agreement seemed to be in the making early this year, but recently, the police raided Samsung Displays headquarters and plants.


Despite the turn of events, Samsung still appeared to be skeptical of LG's OLED technology.


"What has LG shown us on OLED? Nothing," Michael Zoeller, senior director of TV sales and marketing at Samsungs Europe headquarters, told The Korea Herald shortly after his official briefing at the conference on Friday.


He also stressed that is important is not the competitors doings, but what Samsung does, refusing to take seriously LGs claims on being an OLED pioneer.


Zoeller's comments echoed Samsung Display CEO Kim Ki-nam, who, following the recent raid, pronounced that Samsung is the only company in the world possessing OLED technology, and that it has no reason to steal from anyone.


Meanwhile, Gray opined that the TV business is not an option for Apple because the popular iPad and iPhone maker isnt positioned to effectively manage it.


It doesnt make sense for Apple to directly compete in the global TV market against Samsung, he said.


Apple has very limited product diversity. Most of its key products are selling below US$1,000.


The Korea Herald/ANN

http://www.bt.com.bn/business-world/2013/04/23/samsung-lg-urged-cooperate-oled 

.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23243709
> 
> 
> There's probably no one on earth that wants to see LG have success producing their OLED TVs more then the execs at LG.
> 
> *LG profit drops 91% amid stagnant TV demand*
> 
> 
> Source: Bloomberg News
> 
> 
> LG Electronics Inc., the world's second-largest television maker, posted a 91 percent drop in first-quarter profit as a stagnant market hurt TV sales. The shares fell.
> 
> 
> Net income fell to 22.1 billion won ($20 million) in the three months ended March 31 from 247.5 billion won a year earlier, Seoul-based LG said in a statement Wednesday. That compares with the 208.7 billion-won average of 23 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Sales increased to 14.1 trillion won from 13.2 trillion won.
> 
> 
> Profit at the TV-making unit declined from a year earlier as demand for plasma-display sets decreased, LG said in the statement. LG, which trails Samsung Electronics Co. in TV shipments, has said it plans to increase deliveries 15 percent this year by offering sets with new display technologies and more advanced functions.




I don't think this came as a surprise to anyone, especially not the LG suits.


There are a *lot* of things they're trying to tackle and re-fit for all at once: Plasma manufacturing phase out (which probably involves repurposing of a lot of assets and is expensive), tackling a brand new manufacturing technique (OLED), getting IGZO ironed out, and having 4K worries affect everthing.


And I think the public is spooked by all the "new" stuff on the horizon and may well be in a "wait and see" mode before buying even 2K.


Did I over simplify this?


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

I really hope whoever comes out with OLED in a big TV does it this year, I hate LCD with a passion and want it to die already!!


Actually, what I'd really want is a 4k OLED PC monitor at a decent size, like 27". When you're literally right next to it, the extra res is very useful (especially for content creators and vfx programmers).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RLBURNSIDE*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23244399
> 
> 
> I really hope whoever comes out with OLED in a big TV does it this year.



Well I just really hope they don't blur out the wazoo. They're likely not yet bright enough to pulse.


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> "What has LG shown us on OLED? Nothing," Michael Zoeller, senior director of TV sales and marketing at Samsungs Europe headquarters, told The Korea Herald shortly after his official briefing at the conference on Friday.
> 
> 
> He also stressed that is important is not the competitors doings, but what Samsung does, refusing to take seriously LGs claims on being an OLED pioneer.



And what has Samsung showed us? *Nothing.*


> Quote:
> , pronounced that Samsung is the only company in the world possessing OLED technology, and that it has no reason to steal from anyone.



Riiight. Except the fact that they have a flawed production method in place and have already, to an extent admitted LG's method is more efficient and plain better.


I'm really hoping the two companies can bury the hatchet, to an extent, and work together on hashing this one out. Because *not having OLED isn't beneficial to any of us.* I know this may be a pipe dream, but I'll dare to hope.


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> Well I just really hope they don't blur out the wazoo.


If I had to look at a wazoo on an oled monitor (and, thankfully, I don't), I think I'd prefer it to be blurry.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23244602
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Well I just really hope they don't blur out the wazoo.
> 
> 
> 
> If I had to look at a wazoo on an oled monitor (and, thankfully, I don't), I think I'd prefer it to be blurry.
Click to expand...


LOL!


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RLBURNSIDE*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23244399
> 
> 
> Actually, what I'd really want is a 4k OLED PC monitor at a decent size, like 27". When you're literally right next to it, the extra res is very useful (especially for content creators and vfx programmers).



27"@4K is definitely overkill, I am typing this on my 27"@2560x1440 and it is perfectly comfortable. Game is different for 32" and bigger where 4K is really needed.


----------



## rogo

One great mystery is that there has been no intelligent industry-wide collaborate on IGZO, which has the potential to save everyone money. While I understand "Company X" sees it as some sort of edge, realistically, it's going to spread across the ecosystem as soon as anyone perfect it. Why? Because knowledge tends to flow freely and most of the "intelligence" in making it will ultimately be in the fabrication equipment, which is made upstream of the display mfrs. So any edge will be transitory, but in the meantime pursuing being first has cost Sharp and LG very, very dearly.


It's an unfortunate market failure that there isn't collaboration being two or more display companies to perfect IGZO backplane making ASAP. Everyone would win.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG optimistic about OLED production*


Source advanced-television.com 


South Korea’s LG is making aggressive plans to convert existing LCD production lines to OLED output. *By the middle of next year LG says it should be producing 6,000 panels per hour and will have improved production quality.* This year LG expects 1 million 4K displays to be shipped to the market, higher than previously anticipated.


Describing OLED TVs as “our ultimate differentiated product”, Hee Yeon Kim, LG’s head of investor relations, talking on LG’s Q1 2013 Earnings conference call, said Q1 product shipments were down 19 per cent to 8.2 million sq metres of display products, with TVs taking 43 per cent of that output, monitors taking 21 per cent, notebooks 9 per cent and tablets 14 per cent. Mobile products took 13 per cent of output.


LG said that its production capacity declined 6 per cent quarter-on-quarter to 11.2 million square metres “since we allocated some [factory space] capacity to fresh R & D activities, and converting an LCD production line for [other uses].”


Hee expected shipments during Q2 to increase slightly “in a mid to high single digit level”.


Hee added that for 2013 he expected LCD demand to be similar to that of 2012. However, he said that LG anticipated that high-resolution, larger size displays “might go faster this year…and we will pro-actively prepare for the growing needs of high resolution larger panels for the industry.” He said that OLED production was going well and that LG is focusing on improving the cost competitiveness of OLED by raising the [successful] production rate and product efficiency.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700#post_23231828
> 
> 
> Predictions based on DisplaySearch data. I bolded some text.
> 
> *OLED TV Prices Could Fall in Line with 2013 LCD TV Prices By 2018*
> 
> 
> Source: digitalversus.com
> 
> 
> LG is the first—and for the time being only—TV maker to have started actually selling OLED TVs, although they're currently only available in South Korea.
> 
> *Yeah, that stuff Sony sold was chopped liver.*
> 
> However, the competition isn't far behind. Samsung should be releasing one or more models this year, with Sony and Panasonic no doubt set to follow in 2014.
> 
> *2014 will see - NOTHING from them, that you can buy in a store with OLED stamped on it.*
> 
> 
> We reckon we can expect to see the first Ultra HD (4K) OLED TV landing sometime around February 2014.
> 
> *Only if you're smoking something REALLY strong, or are taking LSD.*
> 
> 
> But OLED is an expensive technology—not because of the components, as *OLED panels aren't necessarily any more expensive to produce than LCD panels* (more on that soon)—but because of the 15 years of R&D it has taken to perfect it (since 1998!).
> 
> *Haven't got the faintest clue what you're reporting on, have you?*
> 
> 
> Working closely with all the main screen-makers, researchers at Display Search have compiled a document aimed at panel manufacturers outlining various predictions for sales volumes and turnover per screen technology type. Information from the report can be used to deduce the progression of OLED panel prices across all manufacturers. Note that we're not talking about finished TVs here, but about the main component used to build them—the screen and the electronics used to control it. But since the screen is the most costly part of a TV, panel prices can give us some idea of how TV prices may also evolve.
> 
> 
> Prices: OLED 2018 = LCD 2013
> *In three years' time, prices are predicted to be 4.6 times lower than current levels. By extrapolating the results further, we can see that by 2018—five years after the first OLED TVs launched—the average price per panel should end up at around $475. That's comparable to the cost of LCD panels in 2013 ($460 according to Display Search).*
> 
> 
> By 2018, OLED panels should therefore be selling for about the same price as today's LCD panels. Still, we should bear in mind that:
> 
> • in 2018, screen sizes will probably be bigger than in 2013. We should see OLED TVs at about the same price as today's LCD models, but with bigger screens (by 2018, OLED TVs will be available in all sizes);
> 
> • between now and 2018, the cost of goods sold for LCD technology will drop. Unlike plasma, which is due to be phased out by 2015-2016, LCD will still be around as an entry-level alternative. LCD is eventually likely to be phased out sometime between 2020 and 2025;
> 
> • OLEDs are slimmer, lighter and easier to recycle than LCD TVs, which means they'll be less affected by transport costs, green taxes, etc. This may push prices down slightly further.
> *I mean, you REALLY haven't got the faintest clue what you're reporting on, have you? Or product costing in general, even?*



See imbedded comments above.


Clearly, digitalversus is not a respectable source.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chadsdsmith*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23239065
> 
> 
> I know this is off topic, but I went to a best buy(magnolia) and they had the sony 84" 4k tv there playing a 4k demo loop. It was definitely impressive when you get up close to it, and its shear size was a sight to behold. With that said, my previous suspicion was confirmed (at least imho) that this is probably the smallest size that will really benefit from 4k resolution. Don't get me wrong, at 5 or 6 feet it looks pretty crazy, but after backing up to the 9-10 ft I am accustomed to viewing my 65" gt50 from, I honestly don't think it looked any different from 1080p. I have good eyesight (not ridiculously good or anything) so I don't think I am missing anything. I really don't think having a 84" 4k at 9 feet is really going to benefit anyone, let alone a 65" tv at that distance. Don't get me wrong, they are going to eventually sell (when they don't require a mortgage to pay for) like crazy because most people (myself included) are going to put their noses right up to them and be blown away by the detail, but most of the impressive attributes of the sony set I saw once I moved back had more to do with the pristine demo source that was obviously created to wow you. I think that same demo would look equally impressive in 1080p from that distance. Also, I believe the 84" set is a local dimming backlit set, so its contrast/black levels are good, 4k or not. Overall, it was interesting but I think I will wait for 80+ inch 4k oleds in 6 years or so.



4K ( or "ultra HD") sets in any size that will be in most homes, is only useful for the improved 3D effects. It *MIGHT* save 3D. But at TV sizes that we'll actually buy (save for the very few), it won't have any detectable PQ improvement. But will sell on marketing anyway.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23243821
> 
> Samsung, LG urged to cooperate on OLED
> 
> 
> SARDINIA
> 
> 
> 
> Tuesday, April 23, 2013
> 
> 
> SAMSUNG and LG were urged to reach an agreement on patent sharing to keep at bay the Chinese rivals that are fast on Korea's heels in terms of OLED technology, an executive at leading research firm said in an interview Saturday.
> 
> 
> "It could be desirable for the companies to share their patents," said Paul Gray, director of TV Electronics and Europe TV Research at DisplaySearch, on the sidelines of the IFA Global Conference on the Italian island of Sardinia.
> 
> 
> "I think that Samsung and LG need to consider where their biggest threats lie. Is it each other or is it Chinese companies, which already have aggressive plans to move into OLED technology?"........
> 
> .



IMHO, if the Chinese have *ANY* OLED expertise, it was stolen. And that will lead to patent suits that will keep them from selling them outside of China.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23245579
> 
> *LG optimistic about OLED production*
> 
> 
> Source advanced-television.com
> 
> 
> South Korea’s LG is making aggressive plans to convert existing LCD production lines to OLED output. *By the middle of next year LG says it should be producing 6,000 panels per hour and will have improved production quality.* This year LG expects 1 million 4K displays to be shipped to the market, higher than previously anticipated.........



Right. *Of course* I believe this. Just like I believed all their previous claims.


----------



## coolscan

Quite an OT item, but I thought some her might be interested:
Mystery Of LED ‘Droop’ Solved – Future Looks Bright For Alternative Lighting 


> Quote:
> Researchers have identified what causes light emitting diodes (LEDs) to be less efficient at high drive currents, opening up the door for the energy efficient lighting alternative to be better implemented.
> 
> 
> Previously, scientists had only theorized about the cause behind LED “droop,” which refers to a mysterious drop in the amount of light produced when a higher current is applied to the lights. This phenomenon has helped hold LED technology back as a viable replacement for incandescent bulbs for all-purpose commercial and residential lighting. However, now that the cause has been identified, LEDs may finally take off on a large scale.



Also, look out for LED remote phosphor lighting, not exactly new, but powerful products are emerging.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Here we go again.... Apparently this press release contains the info for this (non US) announcement. Anyone care to translate? http://www.lgnewsroom.co.kr/contents/13988 


Source engadget . (These are the folks that give us the live blogging at CES).


*LG will launch the world's first 55-inch curved OLED HDTV*


We visited LG's HQ earlier this month and heard that the curved OLED HDTV prototypes it showed at CES are due for release, and now it's official. *A Korean press release indicates we can expect the 55EA9800 to launch in the next month, with shipments starting in June*. According to the specs, its 4.3mm depth results in a weight of just 17kg, probably thinks to a carbon-fiber reinforced frame. Like an IMAX theater screen, the edges are curved towards the viewer to provide a more immersive feeling. Given the fact that we're still waiting for LG's flat OLED TVs to see a wider release we doubt it will arrive on US shelves any time soon


----------



## ynotgoal

Consumer Electronics Daily published a story last week quoting a Panasonic product manager saying they have a goal of shipping OLED sets within a year. It's probably best not to take statements of goals by a product manager as a promise by the company but it is Pansonic and they do seem to have a following here. What is true is Panasonic is building a pilot line in Himeji for $385 million and despite their agreement with Sony on OLED development they are pursuing different strategies and separate manufacturing plans (Sony's TV is being made by AUO). The "news" part is they identified an Osaka facility for actual production though they haven't made any investment for that yet.


Slacker, an interesting statement he makes is the Panasonic approach is "partially based on polymer technology from CDT." Any idea what the "partial" refers to? I've seen reports of mixing polymer and small molecule emitters providing a better printing capability but still providing better performance than polymer would have as well as CDT using phosphorescent polymer material for red and green. Have you heard this? They also claim to have improved deep blue performance (check out CDTs 2012 technical paper on their website). It's singlet with low efficiency done by a cavity but it is deep blue.


----------



## rogo

I've explained this in several previous posts, but Sony and Panasonic never had a collaboration to build OLED TVs. They have a collaboration to develop technology that would allow the building of OLED TVs. Follow that sentence closely to understand it. It's a JV to develop machines and processes that would allow the partners to individually (or jointly if they ever decided to) build production facilities for OLED TVs.


I've also explained several times that I believe Sony's plan to outsource manufacture will fail. It has failed Sony since the late 1990s, when they punted on developing PDP lines and their own TFT-LCD lines. They never made a profit buying other people's technology and they likely never will. People will draw a parallel to Apple, which of course makes none of its own displays or microprocessors or radios yet turns a nice profit. But TVs are not cell phones or tablets. If Sony tries to push all the costs onto AUO -- which seems likely -- AUO will simply turn around and sell panels to whomever wants to buy them at whatever price the market will bear and Sony will be again left profitless.


Panasonic to its credit seems to understand if they want to make a go of this they will need a production line. The idea that they will ship a TV from a line that doesn't exist using processes that barely exist beyond the prototyping stage and do so next year seems far-fetched at best. Even if we weren't talking OLED this would be true.


It is nevertheless important that we see signs Panasonic is moving forward. I continue to believe they are actually targeting 2015 for product. It remains my sincere hope that 2017 will be the year that OLED reaches the mainstream.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23256743
> 
> 
> Here we go again.... Apparently this press release contains the info for this (non US) announcement. Anyone care to translate? http://www.lgnewsroom.co.kr/contents/13988
> 
> 
> Source engadget . (These are the folks that give us the live blogging at CES).
> 
> 
> *LG will launch the world's first 55-inch curved OLED HDTV*
> 
> 
> We visited LG's HQ earlier this month and heard that the curved OLED HDTV prototypes it showed at CES are due for release, and now it's official. *A Korean press release indicates we can expect the 55EA9800 to launch in the next month, with shipments starting in June*. According to the specs, its 4.3mm depth results in a weight of just 17kg, probably thinks to a carbon-fiber reinforced frame. Like an IMAX theater screen, the edges are curved towards the viewer to provide a more immersive feeling. Given the fact that we're still waiting for LG's flat OLED TVs to see a wider release we doubt it will arrive on US shelves any time soon


 Pocket-lint claims the price will be $13,515 though they seem to be confusing US and Korea with current availability. LG does display the curved 55EA9800 as the prominent item on their Korean homepage .


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23256824
> 
> 
> Slacker, an interesting statement he makes is the Panasonic approach is "partially based on polymer technology from CDT." Any idea what the "partial" refers to? I've seen reports of mixing polymer and small molecule emitters providing a better printing capability but still providing better performance than polymer would have as well as CDT using phosphorescent polymer material for red and green. Have you heard this? They also claim to have improved deep blue performance (check out CDTs 2012 technical paper on their website). It's singlet with low efficiency done by a cavity but it is deep blue.



I dont want to read too much into the word "partially". It could be referring to the fact that Sumitomo/CDT is using a phosphorescent red or it could just be referring to Panasonic's own contributions.


With respect to blue, I think the key number is the 13,000 hour half life. They definitely have some work to do before they can commercialize it, but the fact that they seem to be making progress is a good sign.


----------



## slacker711

I have to say that the fact that they are listing a June ship date for the curved OLED does make me question my conviction that LG has not yet shipped the original 55" OLED. Perhaps we just have 200 abnormally secretive rich Koreans that own them.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5760#post_23257046
> 
> 
> I have to say that the fact that they are listing a June ship date for the curved OLED does make me question my conviction that LG has not yet shipped the original 55" OLED. Perhaps we just have 200 abnormally secretive rich Koreans that own them.



You would think they'd be continuing to ship, however. Yet not a single review unit has found its way into the hands of any reviewer anywhere on earth. Suspicious? Implausible?


By the way, if 200 _had_ shipped, at least half wouldn't be in the hands of rich, secretive Koreans, they'd be in the hands of display technology companies.


----------



## coolscan

I am sure those curved OLEDs will be nice to have as a monitor, particularly if you could afford three of them.

 


But if one really want wide and curved, one could do that with LCDs for less money until the OLED prices drop (and are generally available.)


----------



## vinnie97

No thanks. Curved LCD + the inherent notoriously diminished viewing angles. Egads.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23257874
> 
> 
> No thanks. Curved LCD + the inherent notoriously diminished viewing angles. Egads.



Well, actually, that's the point entirely. If you have the normals all hitting you then almost nothing is "off angle".


But, no, I'm not interested either unless I *need* a 60 foot wide monitor.


----------



## Rich Peterson

There are lots of reports today of the LG announcement. Here's another. I think the last line referring to availability in the US is an error and should be UK, not US.


Source: cnet 

*LG's curved 55-inch OLED TV now open for preorders*


The 55EA9800, priced at roughly $13,500, will be available starting next month, but for starters will be limited to the Korean market.


After being the first TV manufacturer to launch an OLED TV, LG is now taking preorders for a new model featuring a curved screen. The 55EA9800, priced at 15 million Korean won (US$13,500), will be available starting from next month, but this is limited to the Korean market for now. Unfortunately, both availability and pricing for other countries will only be announced later.


Despite a sizable 55-inch screen, the 55EA9800 has an alluring 4.3mm-thin side profile and weighs just 17kg. Special "thin-transparent film speakers" are integrated within the panel's stand to maintain a sleek overall design. More importantly, the curved display is touted to deliver an IMAX-like viewing experience, according to the company.


It also shares the same WRGB technology used by the LG 55EM9700, which is now retailing in Korea and the US for around US$10,000.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5760#post_23257874
> 
> 
> No thanks. Curved LCD + the inherent notoriously diminished viewing angles. Egads.



Note this is is only slightly curved and should make nicer sweetspot viewing. Especially for monster sets like 110"@4K curved would be natural. But the real need is in computer monitors, very wide angle and curved aiming for substituting multimonitor arrangements. Anyway, yet another technological rigidity is broken.


Would be good to know what is the curvature radius of this display


----------



## vinnie97

Fair play, guys. Get in the sweet spot and bob's yer uncle. I don't personally like the restriction placed on the viewer unfortunately.


----------



## irkuck

BTW, time to change this forum name as the world is not FLAT anymore... [email protected] Panel General ....


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5760#post_23259291
> 
> 
> BTW, time to change this forum name as the world is not FLAT anymore... [email protected] Panel General ....


\


Oh yeah, I bet you think we actually walked on the moon










- Rich


----------



## markrubin

how about


Flat Panel (or sightly curved) ...


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5760#post_23259306
> 
> 
> how about
> 
> 
> Flat Panel (or sightly curved) ...



Somewhat flat panel. After all, no panel is perfectly flat.










- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23259423
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5760#post_23259306
> 
> 
> how about
> 
> 
> Flat Panel (or sightly curved) ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhat flat panel. After all, no panel is perfectly flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich
Click to expand...


Well, having an engineering background I decided to dive into the mathematical definitions of flatness. And OMG I had forgotten how nutty these theoreticians can be. It's considered a set of theories that are "not easy to handle".


I don't think any one of those guys ever kissed a girl in his life.


----------



## ynotgoal

Yields: LG 50%, Samsung 20%.


As I've suspected for a while some are reporting Samsung's low yield rate and assuming LG was the same. It should be obvious by now they are not.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23259809
> 
> 
> Yields: LG 50%, Samsung 20%.
> 
> 
> As I've suspected for a while some are reporting Samsung's low yield rate and assuming LG was the same. It should be obvious by now they are not.



Comparing what to what though? Samsung 4K OLED to LG 2K OLED?


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> I have to say that the fact that they are listing a June ship date for the curved OLED does make me question my conviction that LG has not yet shipped the original 55" OLED. Perhaps we just have 200 abnormally secretive rich Koreans that own them.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> You would think they'd be continuing to ship, however. Yet not a single review unit has found its way into the hands of any reviewer anywhere on earth. Suspicious? Implausible?
> 
> 
> By the way, if 200 _had_ shipped, at least half wouldn't be in the hands of rich, secretive Koreans, they'd be in the hands of display technology companies.



Someone should start a Official LG 55EM9700 OLED Owner Thread, see what happens










Seems to me that there is some Sun Tzu stuff going on here. The curved OLED announcement will distract from the never delivered flat OLEDs. Next: the heart shaped OLED announcement will distract from the never delivered flat _and_ curved OLEDs


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23256882
> 
> 
> I've explained this in several previous posts, but Sony and Panasonic never had a collaboration to build OLED TVs. They have a collaboration to develop technology that would allow the building of OLED TVs. Follow that sentence closely to understand it. It's a JV to develop machines and processes that would allow the partners to individually (or jointly if they ever decided to) build production facilities for OLED TVs.
> 
> 
> I've also explained several times that I believe Sony's plan to outsource manufacture will fail. It has failed Sony since the late 1990s, when they punted on developing PDP lines and their own TFT-LCD lines. They never made a profit buying other people's technology and they likely never will. People will draw a parallel to Apple, which of course makes none of its own displays or microprocessors or radios yet turns a nice profit. But TVs are not cell phones or tablets. If Sony tries to push all the costs onto AUO -- which seems likely -- AUO will simply turn around and sell panels to whomever wants to buy them at whatever price the market will bear and Sony will be again left profitless.
> 
> 
> Panasonic to its credit seems to understand if they want to make a go of this they will need a production line. The idea that they will ship a TV from a line that doesn't exist using processes that barely exist beyond the prototyping stage and do so next year seems far-fetched at best. Even if we weren't talking OLED this would be true.
> 
> 
> It is nevertheless important that we see signs Panasonic is moving forward. I continue to believe they are actually targeting 2015 for product. It remains my sincere hope that 2017 will be the year that OLED reaches the mainstream.







Concise, accurate, well analyzed.


Great post.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5760#post_23260471
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should start a Official LG 55EM9700 OLED Owner Thread, see what happens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that there is some Sun Tzu stuff going on here. The curved OLED announcement will distract from the never delivered flat OLEDs. Next: the heart shaped OLED announcement will distract from the never delivered flat _and_ curved OLEDs



I think you're onto something... same applies to the ever growing list of countries where it is launching (despite not having been sighted for sale in any of them): Korea, US, UK, India, whatever.... I think they just want to keep people from forgetting about their OLED so they release these ridiculous press releases every few weeks to get some free media coverage. How about actually shipping something to a major review site? Panasonic manages to ship early models of their plasmas to review sites, why can't LG do the same?


Maybe China bought the entire production run so they can start reverse engineering them before anyone else.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5760#post_23259595
> 
> 
> Well, having an engineering background I decided to dive into the mathematical definitions of flatness. And OMG I had forgotten how nutty these theoreticians can be. It's considered a set of theories that are "not easy to handle".



From this point of view 'flat' is just a special weird case of curved so the right title of the the forum should be: Curved Panel General & New CP Tech










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5760#post_23259595
> 
> 
> I don't think any one of those guys ever kissed a girl in his life.



Civilized way: _I don't think any one of those persons ever kissed a person in his life_


----------



## rogo

Having done some retail shopping today, I'm now of the mindset that the price target for a 55" flagship TV come 2015 has to be considered at not higher than $2500 and realistically, it might be as low at $2000. This suggests to me that OLED targeting $3000 is no longer relevant for moving mainstream volumes. I've already dissected before how vanishingly small the existing flagship market is (10% of the global market is >50", 10% of that is flagship, which includes all sizes).


For OLED to move millions of units and assuming LCD doesn't cease to exist in that environment, it seems necessary for OLED to reach price parity with flagship LCD at an absolute maximum. That appears to be $2500 _today_ and seems headed lower over time.


The important point here is that $2000 is fully 1/3 lower than $3000. It would arguably take one more year of improvement to get there. It seems, therefore, very unlikely we are seeing this happen before 2017 and nigh impossible it will occur before 2016.


----------



## ynotgoal

AVForums editor Phil Hinton visited LG earlier this month and has an audio presentation of his visit available. It includes a discussion of the LG OLED TV "in a retail environment available for sale that you can play with" in the LG shop (similar to an Apple store). The discussion is rather long, starts with a review of some plasma models, then a discussion of LG in general. The majority of the OLED discussion starts around the 40 minute mark. Some interesting points.


Strong rumors are one of the Japanese companies (wouldn't say which one) will release a 4K OLED next year "and it'll be less expensive than you think".

LG expects price parity with high end LED LCD in 2-3 years, depending on competition. 2 years if the Japanese rumor is true as LG would be forced to match price, 3 years otherwise (more realistically).

Compares OLED to plasma. He says, the OLED is expensive but "if I had 10K, I'd buy one. It's that good."

Expects a UK review panel this summer.


----------



## rogo

Nice find, thanks.


I still do not believe the production processes are ready enough for any Japanese company to release an OLED next year for a price "less expensive than I'd think." More importantly, I think quantity delivery is almost entirely out of the question for 2014.


As for "price parity", I alert people to a phenomenon I warned about with SED many years ago. I hope they understand what "price parity" means in 2-3 years. See my post above. High-end LCD is already not a $3000 category at 55", no matter what delusions Sony lives under. And there is next to no volume at $2500. If you doubt this, ask why Samsung has one model at $2500 and another half dozen that are as little as half as expensive. To fight toe-to-toe with LCD, the price needs to get to around $2000. While Phil Hinton would pay $10,000, virtually no one else will.


----------



## tgm1024

I'm still suspicious of a guy who's been here almost a year and has only 33 posts.


I think it's against forum rules or something. 


Good info.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5760#post_23263887
> 
> 
> I'm still suspicious of a guy who's been here almost a year and has only 33 posts.
> 
> 
> I think it's against forum rules or something.



IDK, I've averaged apparently 2,000 posts per year, but currently I am down to about a rate of 600. If trends continue, my rate will be below 100 a year by December.


----------



## Artwood

I think that the Horror of Worldwide LCD Forces are attempting to silence Rogo with a cosmic ray accelerator that originates at a HARP station in Alaska.


----------



## vinnie97

^HAARP, you mean


----------



## Artwood

No the accelerator means you don't have to use one of the A's.


There are a lot of A's around here--the ones that love LCD have harp sounds coming from them when they have gas.


I need a drink bad!


----------



## irkuck

If LG OLED tech is so good why it is not seen in mobile displays where there are volumes and money? There are rumors LG will show first mobile product with OLED display in Q3/4, until then LG OLED has status of high-end PRware and will continue it if nothing appears.


----------



## rogo

If BMW makes such good cars, then how come it doesn't sell great mobile phones, too?


That is what we call a _non sequitir_ and while it's more outrageous than the one you keep repeating, irkuck, it's not terribly so.


Just because LG's _technology_ is good, it doesn't follow that their ability to scale that up to make mobile phone displays while also trying to scale it up to make television displays is so easy to do. This is especially true when their most important mobile-phone (and tablet) display customer has been demanded LCD screens. And since the OLED TV ramp has been going on for 2 years now, during which time that customer has demanded hundreds of millions of tablet and phone screens.


While I'm sure LG would like to tackle mobile and TV at the same time, it's just not trivial to do everything at once. I look forward to them moving into mobile. But I look equally forward to a non-Sharp company offering an IGZO LCD on mobile, too.


----------



## Rich Peterson

This is Australia.


*LG's curved OLED launches with Ewan McGregor's help*


Source: cnet 


LG has confirmed that the 55-inch curved OLED TV will be available outside of South Korea by the end of the year at an Australian launch.


LG has announced availability for the 55-inch curved OLED TV in Australia, which is the first country to be confirmed outside of South Korea, and introduced Ewan McGregor as its new brand ambassador.


Though pricing wasn't announced at the Australian launch of the LG 2013 range, the company said the TV will arrive before the end of the year. The set was announced for Korea at 15 million won (around AU$13,100); there is no availability or pricing for other regions, including the U.S.


LG Australia's marketing general manager Lambro Skropidis told CNET Australia that he was unable to say whether the curved version of OLED will arrive before the flat EM9700 OLED panel, which was also revealed at the Consumer Electronics Show this year.


LG had previously said that a standard 55-inch OLED panel would be available in Australia by the end of March for AU$11,999, though it is yet to be released there or in the States.


In a Q&A event with MC Andrew O'Keefe, Ewan McGregor spoke about his new relationship with LG, touching on the upcoming ad campaigns for OLED and Ultra HD, before describing his brand ambassador role and telling people that LG makes "f***ing good tellies."


Meanwhile, the company announced Australian pricing for the new Ultra HD (4K) range in 65 inches and 55 inches, costing AU$8,999 and AU$6,999, respectively. Local U.S. pricing is likely to be similar.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23265580
> 
> 
> If BMW makes such good cars, then how come it doesn't sell great mobile phones, too? That is what we call a _non sequitir_ and while it's more outrageous than the one you keep repeating, irkuck, it's not terribly so.Just because LG's _technology_ is good, it doesn't follow that their ability to scale that up to make mobile phone displays while also trying to scale it up to make television displays is so easy to do. This is especially true when their most important mobile-phone (and tablet) display customer has been demanded LCD screens. And since the OLED TV ramp has been going on for 2 years now, during which time that customer has demanded hundreds of millions of tablet and phone screens. While I'm sure LG would like to tackle mobile and TV at the same time, it's just not trivial to do everything at once. I look forward to them moving into mobile. But I look equally forward to a non-Sharp company offering an IGZO LCD on mobile, too.



Customers demanded LCD since there were no (competitive) OLED offerings. In mobile displays there is money and volumes, TV is struggling. LG either treats OLED TV as giant PR and/or disregards economics. Samsung at least is going logical way: mobile OLED first. So the LG is not the BMW case: it is the same OLED tech which instead of scaling up the size they should scale down, otherwise it is almost unliekly they will get economics right.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23269530
> 
> 
> Customers demanded LCD since there were no (competitive) OLED offerings. In mobile displays there is money and volumes, TV is struggling. LG either treats OLED TV as giant PR and/or disregards economics. Samsung at least is going logical way: mobile OLED first. So the LG is not the BMW case: it is the same OLED tech which instead of scaling up the size they should scale down, otherwise it is almost unliekly they will get economics right.



How many televisions with >300ppi and running on battery power do you own?


Different requirements mean different technologies.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23269986
> 
> 
> How many televisions with >300ppi and running on battery power do you own?
> 
> Different requirements mean different technologies.



Sounds absurd: the technology for 5" and 55" OLED is the same. Moreover, OLED pixels for 5" should be even easier to make than for 55". On top of this, moving 10 or 20 mln 5" OLED displays to consumers is easy (Samsung will move at least 50 mln AMOLEDs this year). Instead LG is claiming selling not 100 but as much as 200 55" OLEDs. What LG and Samsung are doing in big OLEDs is like a pissing contest among oldboys with overgrown prostates.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23270718
> 
> 
> Sounds absurd: the technology for 5" and 55" OLED is the same.



"Sounds absurd"? Just awesome.


I guess I'll step out of the way now and let you continue to rant on subjects you know nothing about.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5700_100#post_23270718
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23269986
> 
> 
> How many televisions with >300ppi and running on battery power do you own?
> 
> Different requirements mean different technologies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds absurd: the technology for 5" and 55" OLED is the same.
Click to expand...


Did you mean


"What slacker just said sounds absurd because the technology for 5" and 55" OLED is the same."


or


"Saying the technology for 5" and 55" OLED is the same only sounds absurd" (but isn't according to you)


(?) I know in both cases you believe they are the same technological hurdles, but which way did you mean?


----------



## rogo

I don't know what irkuck means, exactly, tgm, but he seems convinced by the following:


1) LG's technology is not easier to make than Samsungs.


2) We can prove this because they didn't make mobile.


3) Mobile is a real market and LG obviously knows this and since they didn't aggressively pursue mobile, they can't really build their OLED displays at all, so the whole thing is a smokescreen.


What this ignores is:


a) Corporations are fallible


b) LG felt its technology would give it a leg up in televisions that Samsung would have a hard time catching up on


c) LG Display is making plenty of money in mobile already selling to Apple, itself, and others


d) LG could easily have overestimated its ability to ship TVs


None of this disproves that LG's method for making TVs isn't significantly better than Samsung's. In fact, there is little evidence that Samsung is actually pursuing volume mfg. of OLED TVs using its method at all whereas there is evidence that Samsung and LG are both pursuing the RGBW method (the latter most especially).


Further, there is an important consideration regarding mobile that irkuck simply chooses to ignore.


Specifically, power consumption is _nearly everything_ on mobile. The existing OLED displays to date have not fared especially well on that (the newest one I believe is better). They have stayed with LCD generally, but actually consume more power on full-screen/near full-screen illuminations. The RGBW design might simply not perform well on power usage at 4-5" diagonally. If it's 20-40% worse than Samsung's OLED, which is worse than the best LTPS LCDs, that might not be good enough to be viable. Do I know this to be the case? No I don't, but it's certainly possible LG does.


----------



## irkuck

Correcting distortions to my point of view:


1) - Never claimed this: LG tech should be easier to make than Samsung

2) ,3) - I am buying your argument that LG OLED might not have favorable power consumption which is critical for mobile and tolerable for TV. However, this would be bad for the future of LG OLED. TV busines is usually bleeding and really hard to make any profits. Profits and volumes are in mobile. From this point of view Samsung AMOLED looks better since they have full production running, the latest S4 display is 1080p and even it is pentile there is no visual effect of it. Thus, if there is no mobile OLED from LG coming soon, its OLED is doomed business-wise since price, volumes and scope of TV offering would make it too-small niche product.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Why Is LGE Launching Curved A OLED TV?*


Source: displaysearch blog. 


This week LGE announced that it will beigin taking orders for a curved OLED TV (the 55EA9800), with shipments planned to start in June. The price was set at 15 million Won ($13,550), a 4 million Won premium on the 55” OLED TV (55EM9700) it started selling in January for 11 million Won ($10,330). Even though there is no other competitor in the OLED TV market and LG’s existing OLED production is not yet stable and sales of OLED TVs are still very small, LGE seems to be in a hurry to announce another OLED TV product.


Standard OLED TV is not positioned well in the market, and Ultra HD (4Kx2K) LCD TVs are clearly a competitive threat. With an inventory overhang of old models from last year, launches of new models are somewhat delayed. Since the timing doesn’t look ideal, and since no case has been made for the benefits of a curved TV, the question is why is LGE moving forward with curved OLED TV at this time? It may be a reflection of longer-term strategic concerns at LGE.


First, there are still plenty of rumors about Samsung’s OLED TV. Some assert that Samsung cannot launch its OLED TV this year, while others say that Samsung will adopt white OLED (following LGE’s technology) because RGB OLED suffers from very poor manufacturing yields. Another viewpoint is that as TV market leader, Samsung would take the tactical decision not to launch a copycat OLED TV even if RGB OLED TV was ready to mass produce. Despite this, it is likely that LGE is worried about Samsung’s response in OLED TV and may be trying to occupy any potential territory available to its rival.


Second, production yield is still a headache for LGE. OLED TV shipments have been delayed in Korea, the first market, and other regions are also facing delayed launch and shipments, most notably the U.S. So, rather than increasing volumes, a value increase is better for such scarce quantities. If the shipment target is also June, LGE may be buying itself more time to improve manufacturing processes.


Third, like Sony, LGE is planning to launch 55” and 65” UHD TVs, following the launch at 84”. LGE may find it difficult to differentiate a hugely expensive flat OLED TV from a relatively cheap UHD TV. A curved OLED TV (with a higher price) would clearly be different than a simple LCD UHD TV. No TV has ever been produced in a concave design, as it requires some sort of flexible display.


OLED still faces the challenge of hitting LCD’s fast-moving target. LGE has not given up on thinking of new ways to compete.


----------



## irkuck

^10/10 analysis.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23273789
> 
> 
> Correcting distortions to my point of view:
> 
> 
> 1) - Never claimed this: LG tech should be easier to make than Samsung
> 
> 2) ,3) - I am buying your argument that LG OLED might not have favorable power consumption which is critical for mobile and tolerable for TV. However, this would be bad for the future of LG OLED. TV busines is usually bleeding and really hard to make any profits. Profits and volumes are in mobile. From this point of view Samsung AMOLED looks better since they have full production running, the latest S4 display is 1080p and even it is pentile there is no visual effect of it. Thus, if there is no mobile OLED from LG coming soon, its OLED is doomed business-wise since price, volumes and scope of TV offering would make it too-small niche product.



At the risk of exceeding my posting quota for the week and having a mostly non-TV post ..


Power consumption differences between RGB and WRGB depends on the content as shown here for two reasons. It is easy to see that white needs to be lit up if there is any color which makes WRGB consume more power, especially notable for darker or single colored areas. OTOH, and I know the chemistry of it is difficult, but WRGB is a more efficient architecture.


LG produced some small sized OLEDs a few years ago but Apple preferred to stick with LCD at the time so they stopped making them. LG is now re-starting their small OLED program with the first product with an unbreakable OLED to be on the market in q4. LG's small OLEDs are RGB.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5730#post_23257043
> 
> 
> I dont want to read too much into the word "partially". It could be referring to the fact that Sumitomo/CDT is using a phosphorescent red or it could just be referring to Panasonic's own contributions.
> 
> 
> With respect to blue, I think the key number is the 13,000 hour half life. They definitely have some work to do before they can commercialize it, but the fact that they seem to be making progress is a good sign.



I guess I was looking at the 20,000 hour lifetime stats. I'm not sure what the blue fluorescent lifetime is but its not great either. Plus, the polymer red and green efficiency numbers are pretty good and they don't use iridium. My concern is 2017 isn't that far off if this is a credible option for TVs. I found some info on their printing technology and it's quite a bit more complicated than I thought. There is one step which still requires a vacuum chamber and another point where they have to let it sit for an hour for materials to dry. Plus they need an oxide backplane. It does sound like they could get some small quantity out of their Himeji pilot line next year though.


----------



## tgm1024

Let's not lose sight that good times are a'coming!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23273789
> 
> 
> Correcting distortions to my point of view:
> 
> 
> 1) - Never claimed this: LG tech should be easier to make than Samsung
> 
> 2) ,3) - I am buying your argument that LG OLED might not have favorable power consumption which is critical for mobile and tolerable for TV. However, this would be bad for the future of LG OLED. TV busines is usually bleeding and really hard to make any profits. Profits and volumes are in mobile. From this point of view Samsung AMOLED looks better since they have full production running, the latest S4 display is 1080p and even it is pentile there is no visual effect of it. Thus, if there is no mobile OLED from LG coming soon, its OLED is doomed business-wise since price, volumes and scope of TV offering would make it too-small niche product.



I did write your view "seemed" to include those things. You have clarified.


With respect to profits, we'll just agree to disagree. There is volume in mobile. Whether there is profit is pretty impossible to say. Samsung sells nearly all its AMOLED product to Samsung. It's easy enough to make that look profitable on both ends, but is it? Is it more profitable than selling LCDs in mobile? Are you feeling confident about that?


Today, TV is profitable for few outside of Samsung and LG. The key commonality is making both panels and finished goods in huge quantity. It's not what the underlying tech is. (And before we go off on Panasonic and plasma let's just point out that market was / is declining and Panasonic alone couldn't fix that, especially with the yen where it was the past 3 years. Had Abenomics come in 2010, who knows?)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23274506
> 
> 
> At the risk of exceeding my posting quota for the week and having a mostly non-TV post ..
> 
> 
> Power consumption differences between RGB and WRGB depends on the content as shown here for two reasons. It is easy to see that white needs to be lit up if there is any color which makes WRGB consume more power, especially notable for darker or single colored areas. OTOH, and I know the chemistry of it is difficult, but WRGB is a more efficient architecture.
> 
> 
> LG produced some small sized OLEDs a few years ago but Apple preferred to stick with LCD at the time so they stopped making them. LG is now re-starting their small OLED program with the first product with an unbreakable OLED to be on the market in q4. LG's small OLEDs are RGB.



The larger point on power I was making was that Apple, for example, probably rejected "worse than LCD at any reasonable number of points on the curve". It's certainly possible that WRGB will ultimately outperform LTPS LCD on enough of the relevant portion of the power curve to be a contender on mobile. And that would likely appeal to Apple, although the challenge is Apple won't buy a screen that only one company can build.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23274584
> 
> 
> I guess I was looking at the 20,000 hour lifetime stats. I'm not sure what the blue fluorescent lifetime is but its not great either. Plus, the polymer red and green efficiency numbers are pretty good and they don't use iridium. My concern is 2017 isn't that far off if this is a credible option for TVs. I found some info on their printing technology and it's quite a bit more complicated than I thought. There is one step which still requires a vacuum chamber and another point where they have to let it sit for an hour for materials to dry. Plus they need an oxide backplane. It does sound like they could get some small quantity out of their Himeji pilot line next year though.



The reality is that "printable" OLED is no panacea that makes production instantly easier. That much is crystal clear if you watch the DuPont presentation. I think it's clear that something like SMS-based FMM mfg. is not going to be used to mass produce TVs. But beyond that, Sony/Panasonic/AUO are obsessed with printing in the short run because they _don't_ have WRGB a la LG. In fact, I wonder if LG's technology combined with wide-area printing -- to remove the vapor step eventually -- becomes something ridiculously formidable. It will still be far less complex than what Sony and Panasonic's design requires and ought to be far more forgiving. And if they can get rid of the 3-stage vapor depo, this should ultimately scale ridiculously well. The caveat being that, of course, it requires making IGZO backplanes as easily as a-Si ones are made today. I still believe that's a given, but until it happens...


----------



## Wizziwig

I doubt LG's current WRGB tech would work in mobile at all. If you look at the FCC filing they made last year, it shows a peak power consumption of 5.2A/520W.







That's in Plasma territory and definitely not something you can stick in a phone.


Test Report Source: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=807396&fcc_id='BEJ55EM9700UA 


Also, since DisplaySearch now confirmed that shipments have been delayed in Korea, it seems that this tech doesn't work too well in non-mobile applications either.


----------



## wse

Ok flexible OLED that rolls up and are 12feet wide in 8K definition with 32bit ability is what I want! Soon in the next 20 years?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23279221
> 
> 
> I doubt LG's current WRGB tech would work in mobile at all. If you look at the FCC filing they made last year, it shows a peak power consumption of 5.2A/520W.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's in Plasma territory and definitely not something you can stick in a phone.



That test report is listing a power consumption specific to the 55EM9700, not to the technology in general. Of COURSE a 55" panel is going to pull a lot of power. It says nothing at all either way about whether or not their WRGB tech would work in a phone.


----------



## irkuck

It is not evident at present that OLED will necessarily provide better PQ than advanced LCD. This is illustrated by comparison between mobile 2K displays in S4 and HTC One: _As we pointed out in our Samsung Galaxy S4 review, the screen is undeniably one of the handset's selling points. Due to its pixel density of 441 pixels per inch (ppi), it has great image quality, and the handset also boasts excellent viewing angles and colour reproduction. Unsurprisingly, the HTC One's display is also great. With a pixel density of 469ppi and thanks to HTC's Super LCD technology, the screen on the HTC One is one of the sharpest and brightest we've had the pleasure of using, and it also offers deep blacks and vibrant colours.Having used the two smartphones side by side, we have to say that the HTC One wins again. Thanks to its higher brightness level, we found that the screen on the HTC One was much more legible outdoors than the screen on the Samsung Galaxy S4, with its AMOLED screen often proving too dim outdoors. We also preferred video playback on the HTC One due to its blacker blacks, although this might not be the same for everyone. Winner: HTC One_


This of course is not the same as comparing TV displays but if somebody would dare to make high-end LCD with dense local dimming that could be hard for OLED.


----------



## slacker711

I hate to break this to you, but they dont use the same technology for the HTC One LCD as they do for television LCD's. Google LTPS versus a-si.


----------



## 8mile13

LG officials say that LG Display aims to enter the small-sized OLED market with their new flexible OLED panels in 2013.


LG also confirmed that the first flexible OLEDs will not really be flexible or bendable









http://www.oled-info.com/news


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23280602
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, but they dont use the same technology for the HTC One LCD as they do for television LCD's. Google LTPS versus a-si.



I think he knows this.... but didn't want to let it get in the way of some OLED bashing.


I also think it's fair to say that IGZO backplane, large-format LCD TVs with local dimming could probably match OLED for 99% of consumers at 50% of the price. That still does represent a TV adoption threat of sorts, albeit a small one as no one seems likely to build locally dimmed LCD TVs..


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23280806
> 
> 
> LG officials say that LG Display aims to enter the small-sized OLED market with their new flexible OLED panels in 2013.
> 
> 
> LG also confirmed that the first flexible OLEDs will not really be flexible or bendable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/news



I've explained for a couple of years here that "flexible" TVs would neither be flexible as people think of it nor bendable (as that's esentially pointless). The short-term technological goal is unbreakability. I realize not everyone has been reading here for years and there is no problem with you reiterating their info, I just raise the point that some of us have done a pretty good job understanding the trends in progress. If you remove from the equation the part where I was completed duped by CES 2012 into believing TVs would ship last year and really remove that from everyone's calculus, I think you'll find this forum has done a good job of seeing the market unfold.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23282308
> 
> 
> 
> I also think it's fair to say that IGZO backplane, large-format LCD TVs with local dimming could probably match OLED for 99% of consumers at 50% of the price.




Assuming that both televisions are using IGZO backplanes with identical yields on the substrates, what exactly is causing OLED's to be double the price of the LCD? The WRGB architecture should allow for fairly high yields. Are you expecting half the throughput using the same sized fab?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23282308
> 
> 
> I think he knows this.... but didn't want to let it get in the way of some OLED bashing. I also think it's fair to say that IGZO backplane, large-format LCD TVs with local dimming could probably match OLED for 99% of consumers at 50% of the price. That still does represent a TV adoption threat of sorts, albeit a small one as no one seems likely to build locally dimmed LCD TVs...



I am not bashing but turning attention of OLED-heaven dreamers that LCD has still significant potential which definitely makes LCD replacement unlikely and OLED future uncertain. Example of mobile just shows it. As I said, mobile is telling since this is the area where there is volume, progress and profits.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23282308
> 
> 
> I've explained for a couple of years here that "flexible" TVs would neither be flexible as people think of it nor bendable (as that's esentially pointless). The short-term technological goal is unbreakability. I realize not everyone has been reading here for years and there is no problem with you reiterating their info, I just raise the point that some of us have done a pretty good job understanding the trends in progress. If you remove from the equation the part where I was completed duped by CES 2012 into believing TVs would ship last year and really remove that from everyone's calculus, I think you'll find this forum has done a good job of seeing the market unfold.



Bendable/foldable displays seem to be of limited use but curved displays are reasonable. Computer monitors are the area of immediate need for them, curved 110" 4K TV could be more attractive than flat for HT viewing. And finally, I guess any personal display, including mobile, might be kind of more eye-catching if just a bit of curvature is added to it but this would have to be tested. Ending with flat terror could be liberating







.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23282949
> 
> 
> Assuming that both televisions are using IGZO backplanes with identical yields on the substrates, what exactly is causing OLED's to be double the price of the LCD? The WRGB architecture should allow for fairly high yields. Are you expecting half the throughput using the same sized fab?



OLED subpixel is inherently more complicated than LCD. In the case of OLED one has complex light emission from sophisticated molecules. LCD is just changing orientation of molecules under electric field. Question is if the complexity can be managed to the point the technology will be economical.


----------



## Artwood

Translation of irkuck: OLED ain't happening and we are doomed to LCD only that sucks!


The only reason for OLED posts is to avoid thinking about the nightmare world of LCD only.


If they are making less and less local dimming LCDs why think that they would start doing that with LARGE 4K LCDs? How much would that cost?


3D was a gimmick but even that is being phased out!


Face it people--other than the f8500 and the ZT60 we are looking at a video LCD only world that picture quality wise SUCKS!


And if you don't believe me then honestly answer this question: What YEAR will there be a 65-inch non LCD 4K set that costs less than $4,000?


Now answer this: when will ZT60s or their successors and f8500s and their successors cease being produced?


Now tell me how we aren't heading towards a LCD only world that sucks!


What I'm saying is so AWFUL that no videophile wants to face it!


Buy a ZT60 or a f8500 and watch it until it dies.


When it dies it will all be all over!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23282308
> 
> 
> I've explained for a couple of years here that "flexible" TVs would neither be flexible as people think of it nor bendable (as that's esentially pointless). The short-term technological goal is unbreakability.




When things are fragile in nature, they are by definition harder to put together into a product (and ship, etc.) If flexible displays are 1000x more forgiving in this regard, then I would assume that the TVs would be cheaper and quicker to produce.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23284067
> 
> 
> Translation of irkuck: OLED ain't happening and we are doomed to LCD only that sucks!
> 
> The only reason for OLED posts is to avoid thinking about the nightmare world of LCD only.


Hello? Your rambling posts are to avoid thinking, most posts here are about prospects of OLED technology. What I say is that LCD is fast moving target and OLED has huge problems in getting into real production not even speaking about economics.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23284067
> 
> 
> If they are making less and less local dimming LCDs why think that they would start doing that with LARGE 4K LCDs? How much would that cost?



Consumers decided LCD PQ is good enough, this is why local dimming dimmed out and edge-lit is ruling. OLED might still get some market share but its window of opportunity is closing.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23282949
> 
> 
> Assuming that both televisions are using IGZO backplanes with identical yields on the substrates, what exactly is causing OLED's to be double the price of the LCD? The WRGB architecture should allow for fairly high yields. Are you expecting half the throughput using the same sized fab?



I think I was referring to short-term pricing rather than long term (to be honest, I wrote it fairly quickly and I'm not 100% sure what I was getting at). That said, I do believe throughput will be significant lower _at least for the next several years_. Fabs are really, really good at making LCDs. It's also quite possible that "fairly high yields" will be 10-30% lower than what LCD gets. We don't know yet, but clearly LG is having at least some issues reliably vapor depo-ing the three layers of OLED material uniformly. And the process _is_ slow.


All that said, slacker, I'm sure the cost-of-production gap will narrow over time.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23283167
> 
> 
> I am not bashing but turning attention of OLED-heaven dreamers that LCD has still significant potential which definitely makes LCD replacement unlikely and OLED future uncertain. Example of mobile just shows it. As I said, mobile is telling since this is the area where there is volume, progress and profits.



We agree LCD still has tremendous potential. While we also agree mobile has huge volume and has made huge progress, I think you overestimate it's profits. I think you also make the mistake of conflating unit volume with "capital v" volume. The TV market is north of 200 million LCD TVs at this point. The amount of glass used on them is enough to make _billions_ of mobile phones. The smartphone market is roughly 1/10 as big by area as the TV market, perhaps smaller.


> Quote:
> Bendable/foldable displays seem to be of limited use but curved displays are reasonable. Computer monitors are the area of immediate need for them, curved 110" 4K TV could be more attractive than flat for HT viewing. And finally, I guess any personal display, including mobile, might be kind of more eye-catching if just a bit of curvature is added to it but this would have to be tested. Ending with flat terror could be liberating
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Your position as "serious observer" of technology trends is called into question when you deem curved TVs / screen valuable. Talk about a niche within a niche.


It is also worth noting that curved TVs are going to be significantly more complex to ship than flat ones. Logistics isn't costless. Who is paying for this? The tiny number of people that care.


> Quote:
> OLED subpixel is inherently more complicated than LCD. In the case of OLED one has complex light emission from sophisticated molecules. LCD is just changing orientation of molecules under electric field. Question is if the complexity can be managed to the point the technology will be economical.



Or one could argue, "LCD pixel is inherently more complicated since it requires a compartmentalized area for each one (the pixel grid) to hold a small amount of fluid. RGBW OLED, on the other hand, does not even need pixels on the "active" layer (the back and front layers are made the same as an LCD, so equally complex).


----------



## andy sullivan

Irkurk, I think your statement that consumers have decided that LCD PQ is good enough hits the mail squarely on the head. Plasma may offer better PQ, OLED will also, full array offers better screen uniformity, LED offers slimmer displays, local dimming Full array is really a step up in PQ, and now local dimming edge lit is the new buzz word. The average consumer buys into all that gobbldygook. Hell, most of them still think that Samsung developed this awesome new technology called LED TV's. Decent picture at a decent price equals big profits. Throw out a new buzz word every couple of years and we'll buy into it.


----------



## S. Hiller

Someone here or elsewhere was talking about how OLED not only offers tremendous potential for picture improvement, but also the "gimmicks" like thinness that have been used to sucker in so many consumers. So maybe it has a chance...










(And I do also hope folks out there in consumer-land notice what Panasonic has accomplished with their recent plasmas...)


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *S. Hiller*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23286828
> 
> 
> Someone here or elsewhere was talking about how OLED not only offers tremendous potential for picture improvement, but also the "gimmicks" like thinness that have been used to sucker in so many consumers. So maybe it has a chance...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (And I do also hope folks out there in consumer-land notice what Panasonic has accomplished with their recent plasmas...)



....yeah, and by the time they do it'll be 2015....


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23285046
> 
> 
> Irkurk, I think your statement that consumers have decided that LCD PQ is good enough hits the mail squarely on the head. Plasma may offer better PQ, OLED will also, full array offers better screen uniformity, LED offers slimmer displays, local dimming Full array is really a step up in PQ, and now local dimming edge lit is the new buzz word. The average consumer buys into all that gobbldygook. Hell, most of them still think that Samsung developed this awesome new technology called LED TV's. Decent picture at a decent price equals big profits. Throw out a new buzz word every couple of years and we'll buy into it.



It's not only buzzwords: LCD PQ _is_ GE in the consumer eyes except of a small videophile segment. Peculiarity of this market is that there are no small companies serving videophiles like it is e.g. in the projector area. This is of course due to the panel making which in hands of big players.

*Rogo*: _The TV market is north of 200 million LCD TVs at this point. The amount of glass used on them is enough to make billions of mobile phones. The smartphone market is roughly 1/10 as big by area as the TV market, perhaps smaller._


Measuring economics by the amount of glass used??? If anything this points mobile is better business than TV







.

*Rogo*: _Your position as "serious observer" of technology trends is called into question when you deem curved TVs / screen valuable. Talk about a niche within a niche. It is also worth noting that curved TVs are going to be significantly more complex to ship than flat ones. Logistics isn't costless. Who is paying for this? The tiny number of people that care._


You generalize while my position was specific. I mentioned computer monitors and 110" TVs as areas where curved sounds reasonable which implicitly says it is a gimmick for other displays. In other words, Imax-type of display makes visual sense for wide angle viewing. Then I mentioned that adding _small_ curving to standard displays may increase their wow factor but this has to be tested.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23279453
> 
> 
> That test report is listing a power consumption specific to the 55EM9700, not to the technology in general. Of COURSE a 55" panel is going to pull a lot of power. It says nothing at all either way about whether or not their WRGB tech would work in a phone.



So if a 55" LED LCD uses 100 watts and a 55" WRGB OLED uses 500 watts, this tells us nothing about power usage on a 5" version of similar displays? Why? Wouldn't the power usage scale with size?


----------



## Wizziwig

I hate to side with Artwood but his paranoia might have some merit. Both Plasma and Local-Dimmed LCD have failed in the market and will likely be discontinued in the coming years. This means that there is no market for a display who's primary distinguishing feature is improved picture quality. The average consumer doesn't seem to care about picture quality - else these displays would not be disappearing. I think image quality only becomes a factor when you can also match price vs. an inferior looking set. But given what happened with Plasma, even matching price may not be enough.


So the questions is whether OLED can even remain on the market long enough to reach price parity with LCD. If it takes too long, couldn't it disappear just like Plasma and LD LCD?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23286961
> 
> 
> 
> Measuring economics by the amount of glass used??? If anything this points mobile is better business than TV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



You get that at the end of the day, a fab is constrained by how many substrates it can run each month, right? So the fact that the industry is spending more substrates on TV by an order of magnitude than on mobile is pretty significant. The fact that it nets more money per sq meter of mobile is also significant. I'm happy to agree with you on that point.


> Quote:
> You generalize while my position was specific. I mentioned computer monitors and 110" TVs as areas where curved sounds reasonable which implicitly says it is a gimmick for other displays. In other words, Imax-type of display makes visual sense for wide angle viewing. Then I mentioned that adding _small_ curving to standard displays may increase their wow factor but this has to be tested.



Fair points. I think this proves it's a niche within a niche, but I think you correctly identify the few people/display types where the niche might exist at all. The question is whether it's worth bothering to make a 110" curved screen given how much more complex that will be. My suspicion is no. On the wraparound monitor side, a 32:9 or 48:9 setup would be amazing, but I feel like selling very few of them will lead to very high costs.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23287180
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5790#post_23279453
> 
> 
> That test report is listing a power consumption specific to the 55EM9700, not to the technology in general. Of COURSE a 55" panel is going to pull a lot of power. It says nothing at all either way about whether or not their WRGB tech would work in a phone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if a 55" LED LCD uses 100 watts and a 55" WRGB OLED uses 500 watts, this tells us nothing about power usage on a 5" version of similar displays? Why? Wouldn't the power usage scale with size?
Click to expand...


Ah....ok, sorry. I misunderstood your statement. When you said it was "in plasma territory", you were establishing that because plasma would be too energy draining in a phone then WRGB OLED must be as well.


I don't believe energy demands scale linearly, but your point is well taken. My mistake.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23287187
> 
> 
> I hate to side with Artwood but his paranoia might have some merit. Both Plasma and Local-Dimmed LCD have failed in the market and will likely be discontinued in the coming years. This means that there is no market for a display who's primary distinguishing feature is improved picture quality. The average consumer doesn't seem to care about picture quality - else these displays would not be disappearing. I think image quality only becomes a factor when you can also match price vs. an inferior looking set. But given what happened with Plasma, even matching price may not be enough. So the questions is whether OLED can even remain on the market long enough to reach price parity with LCD. If it takes too long, couldn't it disappear just like Plasma and LD LCD?



I would not say consumer doesn't seem to care about PQ. It is that LCD PQ reached wow level for the consumer so why bother for more?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23287209
> 
> 
> You get that at the end of the day, a fab is constrained by how many substrates it can run each month, right? So the fact that the industry is spending more substrates on TV by an order of magnitude than on mobile is pretty significant. The fact that it nets more money per sq meter of mobile is also significant. I'm happy to agree with you on that point.
> 
> Fair points. I think this proves it's a niche within a niche, but I think you correctly identify the few people/display types where the niche might exist at all. The question is whether it's worth bothering to make a 110" curved screen given how much more complex that will be. My suspicion is no. On the wraparound monitor side, a 32:9 or 48:9 setup would be amazing, but I feel like selling very few of them will lead to very high costs.



TV business is notoriously plagued by losses or razor-thin profits, mobile is doing better. There is no growth in TV and huge growth in smartphones. Hopefully LG will prove its OLED in mobile displays.


Regarding the curved screens I identified areas where there would be some real merit of having them. 55" curved TVs look pure gimmick. Though it would be interesting test with consumers by showing them same sized OLED displays e.g. 55" carrying same price stickers: flat and curved. How often people would choose curved?


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23288465
> 
> 
> I would not say consumer doesn't seem to care about PQ. It is that LCD PQ reached wow level for the consumer so why bother for more?


"Caring about best PQ" in the average showroom means getting the brightest, showiest panel regardless of any other performance parameters.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23288465
> 
> 
> I would not say consumer doesn't seem to care about PQ. It is that LCD PQ reached wow level for the consumer so why bother for more?
> 
> TV business is notoriously plagued by losses or razor-thin profits, mobile is doing better. There is no growth in TV and huge growth in smartphones. Hopefully LG will prove its OLED in mobile displays.



There's perhaps negative growth in TVs, especially in the developed world.


> Quote:
> Regarding the curved screens I identified areas where there would be some real merit of having them. 55" curved TVs look pure gimmick. Though it would be interesting test with consumers by showing them same sized OLED displays e.g. 55" carrying same price stickers: flat and curved. How often people would choose curved?



The thing is at 55", the value of curved in further diminished by (a) it's general uselessness and (b) the fact it gets "cut off" at the extreme edges and (c) it looks weird. So while your test would be somewhat telling, I would not be inclined to extrapolate much from its results.


----------



## Rich Peterson

I'm curious: Does anyone actually believe this?

*Samsung to start selling OLED TVs in Korea in June*


Source: digitimes .


Samsung Electronics is expected to start selling its 55-inch OLED TVs in South Korea as of June 2013, according to industry sources, adding the company will release the products in Taiwan as of the third quarter of the year.


The company has faced ongoing issues in producing OLED TV panels for the devices due to low yields and other technology bottlenecks but is expected to have a limited amount of technology upon the TV's release in June, the sources said.


Samsung's 55-inch ES9500 will use a series of native red, green, and blue subpixel OLEDs to create a picture, while LG Electronic's already launched 55-inch EM9600 uses white OLEDs (WOLED) overlaid by red, green, and blue filters in addition to a fourth, filter-free white OLED subpixel.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG Display Expects 'Meaningful' OLED Profit By Mid-2014*


Source: Consumer Electronics Daily 


LG Display’s OLED business will generate “a meaningful profit” by mid-2014, surpassing the profit of its LCD business two to three years later, said Investor Relations Head Hee Yeon Kim on a Q1 earnings call. The OLED profit will come as LG Display shifts more production to a new 8th-generation OLED TV panel line in Paju, South Korea, that’s scheduled to start mass production in first half 2014, the company said. In moving production to 8G from the current 4G line that’s being used to produce 55-inch panels, LG Display will strive to improve "the cost-competitiveness of OLED and raising the yield rate and product efficiency,” Kim said.



[More available to subscribers]


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23287180
> 
> 
> So if a 55" LED LCD uses 100 watts and a 55" WRGB OLED uses 500 watts, this tells us nothing about power usage on a 5" version of similar displays? Why? Wouldn't the power usage scale with size?



The 500 watt figure is meaningless, so let's not even bother comparing it. Power usage would scale with size _mostly_, but there are a lot of reasons why it wouldn't necessarily be linear.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23290481
> 
> *LG Display Expects 'Meaningful' OLED Profit By Mid-2014*
> 
> 
> Source: Consumer Electronics Daily
> 
> 
> LG Display’s OLED business will generate “a meaningful profit” by mid-2014, surpassing the profit of its LCD business two to three years later, said Investor Relations Head Hee Yeon Kim on a Q1 earnings call. The OLED profit will come as LG Display shifts more production to a new 8th-generation OLED TV panel line in Paju, South Korea, that’s scheduled to start mass production in first half 2014, the company said. In moving production to 8G from the current 4G line that’s being used to produce 55-inch panels, LG Display will strive to improve "the cost-competitiveness of OLED and raising the yield rate and product efficiency,” Kim said.



So the only reason this is interesting is that mentioning it on an earnings call carries some weight. Of course, "meaningful" carries no meaning.


I like hearing that they are still believing production will ramp up within a year. This is significant given that *current production is basically zero*.


The other profit statements are misleading. It's not hard to beat out the profit of their TV business on much smaller OLED volume since OLED won't chase low-profit entry segments and will have no low-margin products period. The question is will they move enough units at high margin. Again, they basically have to get pricing _comfortably under $3000_ by 2017 for this to come true. May the odds be ever in their favor.


----------



## coolscan

Maybe it is time for some of these companies with all the money and time they use to get OLED to become manufacturable to start to sink some real R&D money into OLET (Organic Light-Emitting Transistor).

Probably one OLET variant is the basis for the Sony's Crystal LED prototype.


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> Maybe it is time for some of these companies with all the money and time they use to get OLED to become manufacturable to start to sink some real R&D money into OLET



What production problems with OLED do you think will be solved with OLET? I know very little about OLET. The only advantage a quick search gave me was the ability to use OLET as the active matrix, reducing the need for the normal TFT, or more likely these days, would remove the need for IGZO, since the OLET could do that job. But you still have all the other problems that I can see, limited blue life, must be sealed against oxygen, deposition etc. Solving those issues for one tech would solve them for the other. There are probably issues with OLET that don't exist for OLED, but less so the other way around.


----------



## Steve S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23288627
> 
> 
> "Caring about best PQ" in the average showroom means getting the brightest, showiest panel regardless of any other performance parameters.



Truer words were never written. Samsung got to #1 in tv sales because they had/have the most eye-searing "Dynamic" mode.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve S*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23292464
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23288627
> 
> 
> "Caring about best PQ" in the average showroom means getting the brightest, showiest panel regardless of any other performance parameters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truer words were never written. Samsung got to #1 in tv sales because they had/have the most eye-searing "Dynamic" mode.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I noticed that about them in 2010. I had to wonder if part of their anti-reflection magic had to do with the fact that they were overpowering every other potential reflection in the room by 3x. LOL....


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23291944
> 
> 
> What production problems with OLED do you think will be solved with OLET? I know very little about OLET. The only advantage a quick search gave me was the ability to use OLET as the active matrix, reducing the need for the normal TFT, or more likely these days, would remove the need for IGZO, since the OLET could do that job. But you still have all the other problems that I can see, limited blue life, must be sealed against oxygen, deposition etc. Solving those issues for one tech would solve them for the other. There are probably issues with OLET that don't exist for OLED, but less so the other way around.



The problem with OLED in larger displays is the deposit of OLED material.


OLET is a transistor that gives light itself. No need for further deposits of organic material like Oled.


Organic light-emitting *Diode* (OLED) vs Organic light-emitting *Transistor* (OLET).


An OLET is both the light and power source.


OLET is far from being ready for making displays, but a lot of research is done with many variations that try to come up with the best solutions.


Most of the more current papers on OLET are locket behind paywalls. Here are one explanation from 2010.


> Quote:
> *What The Heck is OLET Technology, and Will It Replace OLEDs?*
> 
> 
> But now there is OLET, or organic light emitting transistors, which are reported to be as much as 100 times more efficient than equivalent OLEDs, and twice as efficient as optimized OLEDs. According to Nanowerk, where OLEDs fail, OLETs are taking up the slack.
> 
> 
> "OLET is a new light-emission concept, providing planar light sources that can be easily integrated in substrates of different nature - silicon, glass, plastic, paper, etc. - using standard microelectronic techniques," Michele Muccini, a researcher at the Institute of Nanostructured Materials (ISMN) in Bologna, Italy, explains to Nanowerk. "The focus of OLET development is the possibility to enable new display/light source technologies, and exploit a transport geometry to suppress the deleterious photon losses and exciton quenching mechanisms inherent in the OLED architecture."
> 
> 
> So, while OLEDs have some deficiencies that cause energy inefficiencies, OLETs hold the potential to be of equal quality lighting and display while zapping those energy losses. The research shows that "OLETs enable the control of quenching and electrode-induced photon loss processes in an organic light-emitting device. These fundamental processes are those that still limit efficiency and brightness of OLED technology."
> 
> *And the research shows that they are over 100 times more efficient than equivalent OLEDs, and over 2 times more efficient than optimized OLED with the same emitting layer.*
> 
> A longer explanation here.





> Quote:
> To put all this another simpler way the following advantages can be seen in OLETs:
> 
> 
> *A transistor-based light source switches on or off much faster than an OLED
> 
> 
> *An OLET requires less circuitry; it is the switch and the light both
> 
> 
> *An OLET has better light output at less power than an OLED
> 
> 
> *The amount of light produced can be adjusted more than with an OLED
> 
> 
> *Because OLETs are layered materials they can be integrated onto computer chips; LEDs cannot
> 
> 
> *Because OLETs can be integrated into chips transmission speeds are reduced
> http://liambean.hubpages.com/hub/Organic-Light-Emitting-Transistor-Will-it-Replace-OLEDs



A abstract from a paper from 2011 behind a paywall;


> Quote:
> Intrinsic nonuniformity in the polycrystalline-silicon backplane transistors of active matrix organic light-emitting diode displays severely limits display size. Organic semiconductors might provide an alternative, but their mobility remains too low to be useful in the conventional thin-film transistor design.
> 
> *Here we demonstrate an organic channel light-emitting transistor operating at low voltage, with low power dissipation, and high aperture ratio, in the three primary colors.
> 
> 
> The high level of performance is enabled by a single-wall carbon nanotube network source electrode that permits integration of the drive transistor and the light emitter into an efficient single stacked device.
> 
> 
> The performance demonstrated is comparable to that of polycrystalline-silicon backplane transistor-driven display pixels.*



I just wanted to mention OLET as something new and more interesting into this OLED discussion that goes around and around in endless circles.


----------



## tgm1024

Hmmmm......fascinating, but I want to ask about something I think is unclear in their stats.


I followed that link. When they say "100 times more efficient", there are two ways of interpreting that, aren't there?


1. It takes 1/100th the power of OLED.

2. It wastes 1/100th the amount of power OLED wastes.


If it's #1, that's truly interesting. Is it even possible though?


If it's #2, then it means something, but not a lot. If item A uses 90% of the power for light with 10% waste, and item B uses 99.9% of its power for light with .1% waste, then it's wasting 1/100th the amount item A does, but it's still only an issue of 90% vs 99.9%.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23291071
> 
> 
> The 500 watt figure is meaningless, so let's not even bother comparing it.



Do you have a source for a more accurate figure? The FCC report was all I could find. I can only assume that LG's OLED operates similar to a plasma where power usage depends on the content shown. So darker images will presumably consume much less power while brighter content may hit 500W. Maybe their color filters are very inefficient and they need all this power to generate enough light output? How much additional light is lost in the glasses with passive 3D?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23295045
> 
> 
> Do you have a source for a more accurate figure? The FCC report was all I could find. I can only assume that LG's OLED operates similar to a plasma where power usage depends on the content shown. So darker images will presumably consume much less power while brighter content may hit 500W. Maybe their color filters are very inefficient and they need all this power to generate enough light output? How much additional light is lost in the glasses with passive 3D?



Well, I don't have notes from CES 2012 anymore, but I recall very clearly that in _real world usage_ the LG OLED will use less power than an LCD TV of similar size, per LG. That doesn't mean it won't have higher peaks (it will), but it does mean on average it will come in under 100 watts.


I can tell you that I doubt very much 500 watts will be attainable with normal settings. That was probably a "max power output" case.


The color-filter design is less efficient than a true RGB design with some content and more efficient with other content. You can see that in LG's presentations.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23295071
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23295045
> 
> 
> The color-filter design is less efficient than a true RGB design with some content and more efficient with other content. You can see that in LG's presentations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm......Why would it be more efficient in any situation?...that confuses me. A filter's job is to throw away light. An uncovered LED throws out a spectral color.
Click to expand...


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23289347
> 
> 
> There's perhaps negative growth in TVs, especially in the developed world.
> 
> The thing is at 55", the value of curved in further diminished by (a) it's general uselessness and (b) the fact it gets "cut off" at the extreme edges and (c) it looks weird. So while your test would be somewhat telling, I would not be inclined to extrapolate much from its results.



While on the 55" curving is a gimmick I am not sure it looks weird. Definitely it would be weird if curved too much but slight, just a touch, of bending might have some magic to it. For 4K 110" with which the viewing distance would be in the 2.5-3 PH range I feel curving would provide visual advantage. I have to look into projector area to see what is the status of curved screens there.


----------



## rogo

TGM, it's more efficient because of the white.


Irkuck, the prototypes looked weird. Way too curved.


----------



## chucky2

I wonder how the curved would look as part of a wall that had a custom matched curve to it, sort of embedded in there. Might look pretty cool...


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chucky2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23297335
> 
> 
> I wonder how the curved would look as part of a wall that had a custom matched curve to it, sort of embedded in there. Might look pretty cool...




I was wondering that too. I couldn't decide if it would look cool, or kind of......creepy or something, like the room was trying to collapse on me.


Maybe they're betting the company on selling to the 4 rooms in the world that would meet that criteria.










This has got to be a CES-style "did it because we can" kind of thing. Call me a skeptic on this particular endeavor of their's.


----------



## mikek753




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23297716
> 
> 
> I was wondering that too. I couldn't decide if it would look cool, or kind of......creepy or something, like the room was trying to collapse on me.
> 
> 
> Maybe they're betting the company on selling to the 4 rooms in the world that would meet that criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has got to be a CES-style "did it because we can" kind of thing. Call me a skeptic on this particular endeavor of their's.



way off-topic of OLED tech

but, curved is cool or lets say flexible as next extension for this tech

Think about 360 curved panel that you stick your head inside to be able look around - that required 360 view camera as well.

I watched long time ago short film in panoramic theater that had screens around, while people stand inside. I don't remember number of screens / cameras 6 or 8 or etc.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikek753*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23297951
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23297716
> 
> 
> I was wondering that too. I couldn't decide if it would look cool, or kind of......creepy or something, like the room was trying to collapse on me.
> 
> 
> Maybe they're betting the company on selling to the 4 rooms in the world that would meet that criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has got to be a CES-style "did it because we can" kind of thing. Call me a skeptic on this particular endeavor of their's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> way off-topic of OLED tech
> 
> but, curved is cool or lets say flexible as next extension for this tech
> 
> Think about 360 curved panel that you stick your head inside to be able look around - that required 360 view camera as well.
> 
> I watched long time ago short film in panoramic theater that had screens around, while people stand inside. I don't remember number of screens / cameras 6 or 8 or etc.
Click to expand...



I've seen that as well, and it looked horrible. You cannot "draw" a scene around you and have it just "work" without distortion.....it's not the same thing as your own real-life environment supplying an image to your eyes from your periphery.


----------



## vinnie97

Yea, it does sound tacky (pardon the term).


----------



## Hi Def Fan

I hadn't checked up on the advancement of OLED tech for some time after initially reading about it vs PLED and the whole Kodak vs Cavendish Labs bit. Last I'd heard those working on OLED for TVs were experimenting with color filtering a black and white display to avoid the 10,000 hr deterioration of the blue emitters.


Then I did some checking yesterday and was surprised to read about the PM9700, and EM9600. I wasn't aware such large sets were even in the prototype let alone production stages. It's rather confusing though since CNET refers to the PM9700 as plasma and talks of it having poor black detail.


Enter the EM9600, apparently a true OLED TV that LG claims has none of the PQ problems of other types of sets, or even other OLED sets. The one nagging bit for me though was no mention of any B&W w/ color filtering or short lifespan problems. If they'd solved that riddle you'd think they'd mention it.


So then I stumbled upon something even more surprising. After all the talk of Panasonic's TV division struggling financially, I find an article about them partnering with Sony to make OLED or P-OLED TVs. At first I'm thinking, great! One of my fave brands not only surviving but coming out with new tech.


When all through the article the term PLED was used, I was optimistic about them solving the short lifespan problem. It talked of Sumitomo having built a large factory to make the screen material, but the bottom line was it's merely OLED and P-OLED fab they're producing, not full PLED. They've upped the lifespan by it, but only to 20,000 hrs, which IMO is still not good enough. That's still only 1/3 the lifespan of a typical LCD.


I seem to recall in my searching yesterday reading the word "encapsulated" being used, which I hadn't encountered before in researching OLED tech. I get the feeling they mean instead of color filtering a B&W display, they are starting with OLED, then spray coating it with polymer to minimize deterioration, thus the "P-OLED" moniker. If so it seems this would not be nearly as durable as using a polymer (PLED) film to begin with.


Again, I haven't found much details on LG's EM9600, but besides their talk of it having no PQ issues, I recall one article describing their manufacturing process as using lots of filtering to get the colors right. Whether that means they start with a B&W display and color filter it is hard to say, but I keep coming back to the fact that you'd think if they'd solved the short lifespan problem that would be one of THE main selling points, yet all through LG's stage demo for it, they never mentioned that once.

_"The company also says that the performance level of their PLED materials is good enough for OLED TVs. Their blue OLED emitter now has a lifetime of over 20,000 hours."_

http://www.oled-info.com/panasonics-printed-56-4k-oled-tv-prototype-uses-sumitomos-pled-materials 


Why is it no one seems to be using full on PLED tech, eg coating the substrate with a PLED vs OLED film? The guys that formed Cavendish Labs tested PLED diodes to last upwards 100,000 hrs way back when PLED was discovered. Even if that's just 100,000 for a grey scale test vs color, you'd think it would still be far better than a mere 20,000 hrs when used in full color displays.


(EDITED)

Well it appears this "P-OLED" is really just PLED. They actually ARE using a polymer film. Disappointing that even with a full on poly film they only get 20,000 hr lifespan. I'm now thinking starting with a B&W display and color filtering it (similar to the way DLP tech works) would have been better. http://www.oled-info.com/p-oled 


For some time they've been telling us these OLED/PLED screens are going to be cheaper to mass produce since they can literally use ink jet printers, but they're going to have to be to keep the consumer price down much lower than current tech if they're only going to get 20,000 hrs out of them. Our disposable society just got more disposable.


I've also since read coolscan's post on OLET, and I gotta say, if they can make them without the blue emitter deterioration, it sounds a lot more promising than OLED or PLED, and if Muccini is the first to figure it out, Italy could certainly use that kind of help financially.


----------



## Rich Peterson

I think it's time to stir the pot with a little wild speculation.

*Samsung Building Bendy, Flexible TV Displays*


Source: hdtvtest 


No one will deny that the next-generation of 4K (Ultra HD) and OLED TVs are absolutely dazzling from a visual perspective, but that doesn’t mean you can enjoy the experience from anywhere in your living room. As wonderful as LG’s sexy 55-inch OLED or Samsung’s sleek 85-inch S9 might be, the viewing experience can still be pretty flat, literally speaking. After all, they don’t call them “flat-screen” TVs for nothing.


But the time when flat-screen displays are consigned to the great TV scrap-heap in the sky may not be all that far off. Already we’ve seen Samsung and LG come out with curved OLED models, though viewers will need to stay rooted to their sofas to enjoy it. But if Samsung’s new designs are anything to go by, that might not be the case for much longer. *A newly published patent suggests that the Korean firm is looking to build a new generation of flexible displays, ones that can be bent into shape via a remote control, offering unparalleled viewing angles from every corner of your living room.*


And it’s not just the physical display that flexes its muscles – the remote would also be able to calibrate the images to fit perfectly within the screen’s new shape. All of this would be orchestrated by a “panel deformation member” at the rear of the display. *The patent illustrates how it would be possible to rotate or bend just a portion of the display, or else shift the entire thing, according to the viewer’s preferences. The remote control would work via a bluetooth or infrared connection, pulling up a menu that gives a range of screen configuration options, allowing viewers to customize the degree of rotation and bend to their satisfaction.*


Not that Samsung has said anything at all about making flexible TVs just yet. For now, all it’s done is file a patent, but all the signs are that the company is heading in that direction. It’s rumored to have been working on bendy smartphones for some time now – a lot of people were disappointed that the Galaxy SV turned out to be rigid – but it wouldn’t take much more effort to apply this technology to a larger screen size.


One thing we do know is that Samsung is keen on discovering new ways to let people customize their viewing experiences. It’s latest flagship TV, the F8000 Smart TV we saw at CES, features such delights as social integration, a personalized recommendation engine and voice controls. In future, Samsung might just be able to customize the viewing experience in a brand new way, placing an emphasis on next-generation hardware rather than just tailored content


----------



## slacker711

If you want really wild speculation, industry sources seem to be claiming that Samsung has had a breakthrough with small mask scanning for their RGB OLED televisions with yields at 60%.


Article in Korean (used Google translate).

http://www.etnews.com/news/device/device/2766941_1479.html


----------



## rogo

The proof of the pudding will be in the release of thousands of displays per month to the market, I suppose.


It still seems like a fairly non-scaleable way to make millions of TVs.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5820#post_23317762
> 
> 
> The proof of the pudding will be in the release of thousands of displays per month to the market, I suppose.
> 
> It still seems like a fairly non-scaleable way to make millions of TVs.



To succeed in the marketplace only pudding is not enough, full menu is required. Meaning that one 55" set is not a menu, a range of sizes is definitely needed with flagships considerably bigger than 55". Plus 4K is likely to be necessary in the menu, and all at prices that thousands of sets can be moved each month. There is no evidence OLED can provide such menu.


----------



## JWhip

55" is not big enough. Get one to 70" that is reliable and can actually last a few years and I am there.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5850#post_23319444
> 
> 
> To succeed in the marketplace only pudding is not enough, full menu is required. Meaning that one 55" set is not a menu, a range of sizes is definitely needed with flagships considerably bigger than 55". Plus 4K is likely to be necessary in the menu, and all at prices that thousands of sets can be moved each month. There is no evidence OLED can provide such menu.



I completely agree with all of this.


My pudding comments referred only to the claims that Samsung had licked its yield problems.


In other news, the temperature in Hades appears to be around 31 degrees Fahrenheit.


----------



## catonic

This thread, and the whole OLED saga, is beginning to take on Duke Nukem Forever legendary status, and we all know how that turned out !!


----------



## 8mile13

OLED pudding


----------



## coolscan

OLED News.


Say hello to iOLED;


> Quote:
> *NHK has a theoretical fix for OLED's theoretical longevity problem*
> Engadget
> 
> Also posted here in AVS Latest Industrial News.
> 
> 
> Japan's National Broadcasting Corporation, NHK, reckons OLED displays don't last long enough. And they have a point, because OLED pixels that are exposed to the air can lose half of their brightness in just 100 days. Commercial products are of course protected from the elements, but they're not perfect. This is where iOLED comes in. NHK inverts the anode and cathode layers in traditional OLED configurations, hence the added "i", and then adds an additional protective coating above the cathode. The result is a display that retains its brightness even when not fully sealed from the environment. Hopefully, this sort of solution will make its way into OLED TVs by the time OLED TVs are actually affordable, but in the meantime we're expecting to hear more about NHK's technology (and maybe see it in action) at Display Week later this month.


----------



## vamaxy

thank you, The company is thus gearing up towards commercialization in 2007.


----------



## vamaxy

thank you, The company is thus gearing up towards commercialization in 2007.


----------



## wse

OLED will be affordable in 2020 at this rate! The Panasonic new Z60 sounds like a winer and will be available this year


----------



## Rich Peterson

*World’s Largest 65-inch Full HD OLED TV Panel Published By AUO*


Source: http://www.hngn.com/articles/3213/20130520/world-s-largest-65-inch-full-hd-oled-panel-technology.htm 


AU Optronics Corp., one of the world's leading providers of optoelectronic solutions, has published the world's largest 65-inch Full HD OLED TV panel, which will be debuted during the Display Week 2013 this week at the Vancouver Convention Centre, Canada, according to the company's news release.


Taiwan based AU Optronics Corp. submitted 13 technology papers, which will be presented during the Display Week 2013 held by the Society for Information Display (SID). These technology papers will include special features such as OLED, 3D, Flexible, and Transparent LCD. One among these will be the world's largest 65-inch Full HD OLED panel technology.


"The 65" FHD AMOLED TV panel is adopted advanced metal oxide TFT backplane and the worldwide largest Generation 6 full-size Fine Metal Mask (FMM) OLED evaporation technology,"said the press release. "The Company achieves an excellent uniformity of metal oxide TFT and panel without the color mixing by FMM technology. The panel is also embedded the self-invention pixel compensation driving technology which further improves the TFT and OLED performances."


----------



## rogo

So they have "published" it? Sounds really exciting to watch TV in an industry journal!


For what it's worth, there will never be a mass-produced 65" AMOLED using FMM.... Certainly not from AUO, which is ostensibly the mfg. partner of Sony and Panasonic working to develop "printable" techniques, using solution-based deposition....


In short, I'd love to find this exciting, but it's a classic OLED announcement: Something you can't buy and will never be able to.


----------



## mfogarty5

So OLED displays have the motion blur of an LCD and the prospect of burn-in like a plasma and this is the holy grail of display technology?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mfogarty5*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5850#post_23338475
> 
> 
> So OLED displays have the motion blur of an LCD and the prospect of burn-in like a plasma and this is the holy grail of display technology?



Since about 1% of people consider either of those a problem, yes.


----------



## mfogarty5

Rogo,


I enjoy reading your informative no non-sense posts so please allow me to elaborate on my post above. You said above that only 1% consider burn-in or motion blur an issue. I actually think the population scared of plasma burn-in is much higher than that, but I will go with your 1% assumption for purposes of this discussion.


You have said in many posts that OLED has an uphill battle in the marketplace because most people won't notice the difference between LCD and OLED and most of the population that can tell the difference will not be willing to pay the price premium. So aren't display manufacturers targeting the very 1% you noted above?There will be a few wealthy individuals who will purchase the latest and greatest, but it seems to me that in order for OLED to be successful in the market it has to be successful here on avsforum first because this is where people who care about the best picture quality congregate. So which group of people here do you think will purchase OLED displays? The plasma fans who dislike the motion blur of LCD or the LCD fans who do not want to worry about IR/burn-in?


It seems to me that OLED can only be successful if it has the best attributes of LCDs and plasmas and eliminates their weaknesses when in fact the truth is that it has two of the worst attributes of plasmas and LCDs: burn-in and motion blur.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mfogarty5*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23339318
> 
> 
> It seems to me that OLED can only be successful if it has the best attributes of LCDs and plasmas and eliminates their weaknesses when in fact the truth is that it has two of the worst attributes of plasmas and LCDs: burn-in and motion blur.




So it seems to me. I keep thinking back to Mark Rejhon's pondering about the current OLED brightness not _yet_ being enough for the to pull off a pulse technology (aka "backlight scanning" in the LCD world).


Further, just for comparative info he seemed to notice that Sony's Crystal LED (using "standard" non-organic LED's _somehow_







) had a pronounced flicker to them, so that he speculated that _that_ particular technology would not be prone to the issues. I still think that as time goes on, the pursuit for longer life OLED's and a discovery of CLED-like manufacturing techniques will collide accidentally. And we'll have a series of _mumble_LED options (O, iO, C, pick letters from the alphabet). If Rogo is getting ready to pounce on me, _pretend I didn't say this._ (LOL)


What makes _mumble_LED _remain_ the Holy Grail is all the magic that comes from emissive, plus absolutely fine-tuned control of every conceivable metric.


And if that weren't enough, apparently Holy Grail is primarily defined as Skinny to the vast majority of the public.


----------



## Steve S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mfogarty5*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5850#post_23339318
> 
> 
> Rogo,
> 
> 
> I enjoy reading your informative no non-sense posts so please allow me to elaborate on my post above. You said above that only 1% consider burn-in or motion blur an issue. I actually think the population scared of plasma burn-in is much higher than that, but I will go with your 1% assumption for purposes of this discussion.
> 
> 
> You have said in many posts that OLED has an uphill battle in the marketplace because most people won't notice the difference between LCD and OLED and most of the population that can tell the difference will not be willing to pay the price premium. So aren't display manufacturers targeting the very 1% you noted above?There will be a few wealthy individuals who will purchase the latest and greatest, but it seems to me that in order for OLED to be successful in the market it has to be successful here on avsforum first because this is where people who care about the best picture quality congregate. So which group of people here do you think will purchase OLED displays? The plasma fans who dislike the motion blur of LCD or the LCD fans who do not want to worry about IR/burn-in?
> 
> 
> It seems to me that OLED can only be successful if it has the best attributes of LCDs and plasmas and eliminates their weaknesses when in fact the truth is that it has two of the worst attributes of plasmas and LCDs: burn-in and motion blur.



Targeting the 1% is a surefire money-loser, unless you're in the yacht business.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve S*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23340297
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mfogarty5*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5850#post_23339318
> 
> 
> Rogo,
> 
> 
> I enjoy reading your informative no non-sense posts so please allow me to elaborate on my post above. You said above that only 1% consider burn-in or motion blur an issue. I actually think the population scared of plasma burn-in is much higher than that, but I will go with your 1% assumption for purposes of this discussion.
> 
> 
> You have said in many posts that OLED has an uphill battle in the marketplace because most people won't notice the difference between LCD and OLED and most of the population that can tell the difference will not be willing to pay the price premium. So aren't display manufacturers targeting the very 1% you noted above?There will be a few wealthy individuals who will purchase the latest and greatest, but it seems to me that in order for OLED to be successful in the market it has to be successful here on avsforum first because this is where people who care about the best picture quality congregate. So which group of people here do you think will purchase OLED displays? The plasma fans who dislike the motion blur of LCD or the LCD fans who do not want to worry about IR/burn-in?
> 
> 
> It seems to me that OLED can only be successful if it has the best attributes of LCDs and plasmas and eliminates their weaknesses when in fact the truth is that it has two of the worst attributes of plasmas and LCDs: burn-in and motion blur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting the 1% is a surefire money-loser, unless you're in the yacht business.
Click to expand...


I don't believe it to be 1%. If you're referring to the 1% that *actually* suffer from it, then that's one thing. But the folks that believe it to be big issues are far greater than that I'm guessing.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5850#post_23339360
> 
> 
> So it seems to me. I keep thinking back to Mark Rejhon's pondering about the current OLED brightness not _yet_ being enough for the to pull off a pulse technology (aka "backlight scanning" in the LCD world).


You can *interpolate* instead, too. That way, you can add more Hz, and milk the OLED color gamut full-time, while reducing motion blur without losing brightness headroom (as pulsing requires). But of course, that's not good for computers and games.


Also the transistors in AMOLED slows things down a bit -- that's why IPS LCD (active matrix) is slower than TN LCD (no transistors).


Also, high speed video of the Sony Trimaster OLED display shows it flickering in a roughly 50%-50% duty cycle, which would reduce motion blur by 50%. It's probably internally run at the equivalent of 120Hz, and putting black frames in between 60Hz refreshes, to switch the pixel transistors in an AMOLED on and off.


Motion blur on an OLED is not an unsolvable problem. But it isn't a simple problem as some think. For reasons explained in recent posts in the other thread, it is currently much easier to eliminate motion blur on an TN LCD than on an OLED or IPS LCD. It's funny to see the black level holy grail solved by OLED, but the motion blur holy grail darn-near solved by LightBoost strobe backlight LCD's (which less motion blur than plasma -- even Panasonic's 2500 FFD). We can't have our cake and eat it too. Yet.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mfogarty5*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5850#post_23339318
> 
> 
> Rogo,
> 
> 
> I enjoy reading your informative no non-sense posts so please allow me to elaborate on my post above



Anyone who enjoys my lack of nonense is free to elaborate.









> Quote:
> You said above that only 1% consider burn-in or motion blur an issue. I actually think the population scared of plasma burn-in is much higher than that, but I will go with your 1% assumption for purposes of this discussion.



I agree with you on the plasma thing, too. I was being hyperbolic and flip. But we're going with it.... (Let's say 10% of people actually still worry about it if they are shopping plasmas, which are only sold on bigness or videophileness or cheapness, by the way.)


> Quote:
> You have said in many posts that OLED has an uphill battle in the marketplace because most people won't notice the difference between LCD and OLED and most of the population that can tell the difference will not be willing to pay the price premium. So aren't display manufacturers targeting the very 1% you noted above?There will be a few wealthy individuals who will purchase the latest and greatest, but it seems to me that in order for OLED to be successful in the market it has to be successful here on avsforum first because this is where people who care about the best picture quality congregate. So which group of people here do you think will purchase OLED displays? The plasma fans who dislike the motion blur of LCD or the LCD fans who do not want to worry about IR/burn-in?



So I think the first buyers are going to be plasma buyers. LCD buyers don't generally give a rat's hiney about picture quality. That's not to say there aren't LCD-loving videophiles, but again, look at proportions.


> Quote:
> It seems to me that OLED can only be successful if it has the best attributes of LCDs and plasmas and eliminates their weaknesses when in fact the truth is that it has two of the worst attributes of plasmas and LCDs: burn-in and motion blur.



So, yeah, that's not gonna help.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve S*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5850#post_23340297
> 
> 
> Targeting the 1% is a surefire money-loser, unless you're in the yacht business.



Well, BMW does it....But in TV making you need more scale than in cars. And first-gen OLED is targeting the 0.1%, aka "yacht people."


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Samsung-LG Misstep on TV Screens Creates Opening for Sony*


Source: Bloomberg 


Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Electronics Inc. are reworking their strategies for high-end TVs after spending billions of dollars on a new display technology that’s behind schedule and costs almost $10,000 a set. The misstep by the Koreans has created an opening for Sony Corp. Sharp Corp. and Chinese maker Skyworth Digital Holdings Ltd. Those companies are introducing TVs using conventional liquid-crystal displays that offer resolutions rivaling the new technology for about half the price.


The world’s two biggest television makers have struggled to profitably manufacture sets with organic light-emitting diodes, which have a brighter and sharper picture than the LCDs used in most TVs. Though both companies said they would mass-market OLED TVs last year, LG’s first model, priced at 11 million won ($9,900), hit stores in South Korea in January and Samsung still isn’t selling one.

*Samsung and LG are now pivoting, with plans to boost output of LCD sets to maintain their dominance of the industry. Sony, meanwhile, is seeking to capture a greater share of the market for ultra-high definition TVs -- forecast to rise sevenfold by 2015 -- by expanding its range of LCD sets.*


“Samsung and LG both misjudged the ultra-high definition market,” said Jeon Byung Ki, an analyst at E*Trade Korea Co. in Seoul. “Now they’re thinking they may have to stick with LCD technology for a while.”


Spokesmen for both Samsung and LG said their companies remain committed to OLEDs, yet they will expand their offerings of ultra-high-definition sets using LCD technology.


[Lots more in the article]


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mfogarty5*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5850#post_23339318
> 
> 
> Rogo,
> 
> 
> I've I enjoy reading your informative no non-sense posts so please allow me to elaborate on my post above. You said above that only 1% consider burn-in or motion blur an issue. I actually think the population scared of plasma burn-in is much higher than that, but I will go with your 1% assumption for purposes of this discussion.
> 
> 
> You have said in many posts that OLED has an uphill battle in the marketplace because most people won't notice the difference between LCD and OLED and most of the population that can tell the difference will not be willing to pay the price premium. So aren't display manufacturers targeting the very 1% you noted above?There will be a few wealthy individuals who will purchase the latest and greatest, but it seems to me that in order for OLED to be successful in the market it has to be successful here on avsforum first because this is where people who care about the best picture quality congregate. So which group of people here do you think will purchase OLED displays? The plasma fans who dislike the motion blur of LCD or the LCD fans who do not want to worry about IR/burn-in?
> 
> 
> It seems to me that OLED can only be successful if it has the best attributes of LCDs and plasmas and eliminates their weaknesses when in fact the truth is that it has two of the worst attributes of plasmas and LCDs: burn-in and motion blur.



I've been following the development of OLED displays with some interest, but I'd object to the statement that:
_"...when in fact the truth is that it has two of the worst attributes of plasmas and LCDs: burn-in and motion blur"._

*First of all* (and being a big fan of plasma displays), the 'burn-n' issue, is not nearly the same problem with today's sets as it was even 7 or 8 years ago. Sure, if you want to use it for your computer monitor, or for primarily gaming I'd stay away. But most buyers today are ignorant of the fact that plasmas when treated well the first 100 to 200 hours, and not abused thereafter, no longer have such a problem.

*Secondly*, I'd argue that LCD/LEDs have a MUCH bigger problem than 'motion-blur', which is their terrible tendancy for significant picture quality degradation when viewing off-axis .

THAT'S a much bigger deal IMO.

*So concerning OLED displays* - does anyone know if they have better off-axis picture quality than LCD/LED?

Because if not, that's a real deal breaker for me...


----------



## vinnie97

^The off-angle problem only bothers those who have a large enough (or widely distributed enough) group of viewers where off-axis degradation might rear its ugly head (only videophiles notably suffer from this defect, I truly believe the average joe puts it out of sight and out of mind with modern sets). I don't like it and prefer the greater versatility of Plasma viewing angles, but that is not a concern for every buyer.


OLED should certainly possess better viewing angles, though I could have sworn some CES attendees noticed some discoloration when the prototypes were viewed at a certain angular threshold.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5850#post_23342867
> 
> 
> ^The off-angle problem only bothers those who have a large enough (or widely distributed enough) group of viewers where off-axis degradation might rear its ugly head (only videophiles notably suffer from this defect, I truly believe the average joe puts it out of sight and out of mind with modern sets).



Respectfully, I disagree with this. I think it's not so much a videophile problem as a "where is the couch" problem. A lot of people will like TV better when this problem goes away again.


> Quote:
> OLED should certainly possess better viewing angles, though I could have sworn some CES attendees noticed some discoloration when the prototypes were viewed at a certain angular threshold.



Some of the 2012 prototypes were sub-optimal. By 2013 that seemed to be gone though. I expect plasama-like viewing angles from the shipping sets -- if they ever do ship.


----------



## sstephen

A few points.

Nobody would invest the billions in any new technology just to market to the upper 1% or 10% of the market. I think Samsung and LG both expect the cost of manufacture of OLED sets to be lower than the equivalent LCD set. Not today or tomorrow, but in a few years. If they achieve that, then it doesn't matter if OLED retains some weakness of LCD, provided it isn't really obvious to the majority of viewers, as long as the cost of a low end OLED panel is lower than the cost of an equivalent LCD panel, it will sell more units. Price rules. Obviously, that isn't the only consideration. If the lifespan of OLED panels were perceived to be unusually short for example, then that could cause J6P to avoid OLED unless cost were significantly lower than LCD. I'm not saying OLED will ever get there or that it will have no weaknesses.


Burn-in with plasma may not be an actual concern (I bought one in the last few months and certainly haven't worried about it), but the perception is certainly a concern. As long a J6P thinks his set might burn-in in a couple of years, he'll rethink his purchase. He may educate himself and buy one anyway, but he may just say to hell with it and buy an lcd for about the same price after looking at one and deciding he can live with the contrast or off-axis problem.


If I were a manufacturer, I'd be more concerned about an issue like burn-in than off axis or contrast. Burn-in is a demon down the road, and you can't tell just by looking at a set in the showroom how bad it might be if you buy one. OTOH, off-axis and contrast can both be demonstrated while you are in the showroom, and you can decide if you can live with it or not.


As has been said here many times, the real money to be made is not in sales to videophiles, it's in sales to the rest of the buying public, and provided the picture is decent, the average consumer cares about cost and reliability more than contrast or off-axis. Especially contrast, since most sets don't get viewed in really low light situations where you can even tell.


OLED is an active display and burn-in is a consideration with crt, plasma, and it will be with any LED based tech, or any tech where the light from an individual pixel is generated at the pixel itself and the technology shows some kind of output decay with time (which is all of them so far as I know). The only active tech that comes to mind where it doesn't come into play would be scanning laser, but I don't think we are likely to see scanning laser flat panels hanging on walls in the near future. Lots of consumers still consider burn-in an issue on plasma where the lifespan is 100k hours. For me, until shown otherwise, I would consider it a bigger risk on OLED where the lifespan is currently around 20k hours, or at least that is the number I see thrown around.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5850#post_23343029
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I disagree with this. I think it's not so much a videophile problem as a "where is the couch" problem. A lot of people will like TV better when this problem goes away again.


Perhaps so, it just seems to not make enough of an impact in comparison to the appeal of a set that resembles a torch (perhaps the defects don't readily become apparent to the buyer until viewed at home), given the lion's share of the market that LCD holds.


----------



## rogo

It's funny, I don't really think LCD won mostly because of "torch" capability, although I realize AVSers believe that. For years, it's been much cheaper to make and sell in the smaller sizes and so it automatically "won" the market in those sizes. It also had dozens of suppliers, to boot. Plasma is handicapped by the brightness factor, yes, but I don't think that's really been very important on the list of reasons why it's "lost". Does it matter on the margins? Absolutely, which is why Samsung produced a brighter plasma. Does it matter more now that you can finally buy 65" LCDs regularly? Absolutely.


----------



## mattg3

Not sure if it mattered to most but the heat issue was a problem for me.I have 10 year old Pioneer 433 that always raised the temperature in my room thus I passed on it for a small video room I set up in my condo.The 433 is over my fireplace but my dedicated video room has a calibrated Samsung 8500.Yes its a great picture but off axis viewing and some flashlight effects have always made me wish i had gone with a plasma.If an affordable OLED appears on market in a few years I will replace my 8500.


----------



## rogo

The heat issue is gone for most people, but I do think it mattered in the middle of the prior decade a lot. Once larger LCDs became viable and didn't act as radiators, a TV that did would have a negative.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5850#post_23342213
> 
> *Samsung-LG Misstep on TV Screens Creates Opening for Sony*
> 
> 
> Source: Bloomberg
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Electronics Inc. are reworking their strategies for high-end TVs after spending billions of dollars on a new display technology that’s behind schedule and costs almost $10,000 a set. The misstep by the Koreans has created an opening for Sony Corp. Sharp Corp. and Chinese maker Skyworth Digital Holdings Ltd. Those companies are introducing TVs using conventional liquid-crystal displays that offer resolutions rivaling the new technology for about half the price.
> 
> 
> [Lots more in the article]



So I read this whole thing and don't know what to make of it....


But let's take it at face value for a second....


If it's even a little bit true, the idea that lots of affordable OLED TVs are coming anytime soon is increasingly remote / absurd. I am inclined to agree with the theory that Samsung doesn't spend money improving plasma as they did if another videophile-quality technology is "just around the corner" in some affordable form...


Nothing here really changes the possible timetable I've been looking at -- 2016-17 -- but if that were to slip again, I would not be shocked.


Again, I feel foolish only for becoming briefly fooled by 2012's dog-and-pony show. The predictions before and since remain remarkably on point....


----------



## slacker711

If Samsung and LG Display are actually planning to boost LCD output, it is news to the market. Samsung said two weeks ago that they are expanding capex spending on OLED's and LG Display indicated a month ago that they will spend half of their capex on OLED's this year and a higher percentage next year.


All of this might be a huge mistake, but there is nothing in that article that actually indicates a change in spending.


----------



## homogenic

This feels like torture. That guy from Alabama who predicts the end of the world as a flood of LCD only options for your flat panels--is appearing less like a lunatic and more like a prophet. Can we at least have edge-lit with color LED's?


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5880#post_23349883
> 
> 
> This feels like torture. That guy from Alabama who predicts the end of the world as a flood of LCD only options for your flat panels--is appearing less like a lunatic and more like a prophet. Can we at least have edge-lit with color LED's?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5880#post_23349883
> 
> 
> This feels like torture. That guy from Alabama who predicts the end of the world as a flood of LCD only options for your flat panels--is appearing less like a lunatic and more like a prophet. Can we at least have edge-lit with color LED's?


If the future continues to be LCD, then we also need 120Hz capability (without needing HDTV refresh rate overclocking ). The SEIKI 4K HDTV supports native 120Hz external input at 1920x1080, and it does have a lot less motion blur, without the tradeoffs of interpolation. Also, we need higher quality strobe backlights in large-screen HDTV's, so that we can have motion blur elimination benefits. It would be easier at 120Hz, where things would be far more flicker-free.


The motion blur advantages are quite apparent, pursuit camera photographs captured at frame rate matching refresh rate:

 60fps on 60 Hz LCD (non-interpolated, no scanning backlight)

 120fps on 120 Hz computer gaming monitor: *50% less motion blur*

 120fps on LightBoost computer gaming monitor: *~90% less motion blur*


(Actual photos -- not simulations -- from Motion Blur Comparison: 60Hz versus 120Hz versus LightBoost ).

No interpolation involved. It would be great to see more of this type of technology found in HDTV's.


I would like other technologies, other than LCD/LED to start catching up, since LCD has other intrisinic limitations (e.g. black levels), but it is slowly starting to become easier to eliminate motion blur on LCD (as the speed pixel transitions cease to be the limiting factor in motion blur). Eventually, more LCD's will have less motion blur than plasma. (LightBoost displays already has less motion blur than Panasonic 2500Hz FFD plasmas). But the LCD black level problem is extremely hard to solve. It is still extremely expensive to eliminate motion blur on LCD (e.g. Elite LCD HDTV), but LightBoost computer monitors now cost less than 300 from Amazon. It will take a while before good motion blur-eliminating OLED's reach that price level, without using interpolation (not good for games, due to lag).


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5880#post_23349883
> 
> 
> This feels like torture. That guy from Alabama who predicts the end of the world as a flood of LCD only options for your flat panels--is appearing less like a lunatic and more like a prophet. Can we at least have edge-lit with color LED's?


That'd be Artwood, a modern technophile sage.


----------



## rogo

Mark, those photo compares are very impressive.


----------



## Artwood

I'm not really a prophet--i just notice what the ever present sales force is trying to sell and what they are trying to dismiss here at AVS.


When Full array backlighting ended and you could see the 2013 flat edge crap fiasco of LCD offerings--that's when I knew it was the end.


Also when 240 went away and all you had at Walmart was 120.


Then you saw 3-D fade away from great promotion.


Look--the video display industry would like to sell $9,000 55-inch OLEDs but they know that won't sell.


They wish they could sell the current shoot out plasmas as bridge TVs--the only problem is the bridge to OLED is too far and at the end of the bridge people will wonder--why am I buying OLED when what I already have is this good?!


The only way to sell 4K LCD is to make sure that all other LCDs really SUCK. It is quite amazing but the video display industry has been able to sell LCD that sucks by just making it bright! How dumb are Americans? Pretty dumb!


4K LCD doesn't cut it! The only way to sell it is to get rid of the plasma shootout participants.


The only question is when?


Probably 2015.


When it happens the sales force will do everything in their power here to shut me up as they try to sell Chinese 4K LCD that sucks!


They'll tell everybody how great it is. It will be like front projection see through the picture LCD crap TV revisited!


As I bemoan the holocaust the people here that actually do know video will know that I'm right. Many of them will just move on and you won't hear from them anymore--some will join the sales force and try to sell Chinese 4K LCD.


They will ridicule me and try to start ignore campaigns.


The only chance anyone has to live through the holocaust is to hang on to what they've already got and hope that the Chinese public gets wealthy enough to where the Chinese will produce something different.


The only way I'll survive it is if one of the 4K LCD crap producers buys me out to shut me up--you'll know that's what happens if I leave here or try to tell you how great 4K LCD is.


The only way to stop the holocaust from happening is to NEVER buy LCD and crusade against it until you die.


The future will consist of zombies bowing down and worshiping 4K LCD that sucks and you'll feel like you are in the song--"The Sound of Silence".


If you do perchance to go down a dimly lit tenement hall you'll see scribbled on it "Beware the coming LCD only apocalyptic horror story holocaust"--signed Artwood!


----------



## mikek753

Artwood,


I agree with you, but market doesn't agree with us and many on AVS.

Do you remember when Olivia LCD was sold below $1k?

That TV is close to un-watchable, but at my local Fry's was long line to pay for this TV only as it was LCD and size and below $1k. Those people didn't need D65, gamma or etc to be correct.

This is why LCD TV went from 240 to 120 and from Back to Edge for only reason to make it cost less and appeal to female (wife), who will tell "I don't want that ugly box in my home, but that slim (edge) TV I like" regardless of PQ.


Samsung was 1st who went with Edge lit only (could be due to pressure from Sharp) and look at result - less good PQ, but was marketed as new and cool tech with all mambo-jumbo, and now it's on the top of TV sales.

The next move was all TV manufactures relaxed on QC to lower cost.


How one will justify 55" 2K OLED at $9k vs 50" 4K LCD at $1k ?

Also, by the time OLED finally hit stores 4K LCD may drop in price to $500.


As result I don't see 55"+ OLED will anytime soon to be in stores ... like it or not.

And nothing I can do about it, can't you?


----------



## Artwood

They sold a lot of Mustang IIs from 1974 through 1978 and that car performance wise sucked!


Sometimes a market is not what people want to buy--sometimes it is what is produced--the forces work both ways.


The reason for this thread's popularity is that most people at AVS who give a hoot about picture quality CRINGE at the thought of LCD only.


The video display manufacturers have brought the horror story on us by their marketing.


They would rather make money selling toilet paper!


I'm in favor of making money but just because any market buys something doesn't mean that the purchase is INTRINSICALLY good.


Sales of LCD doesn't mean that the state of the art is advancing picture quality wise--it's in fact going backwards.


And I don't buy that the way a market plays out is the ONLY way it can play out.


Or that TV is only a commodity that by nature will tend ONLY towards sucking!


Why do speakers have a greater price range than video displays?


People by in large don't predominantly go to the theater to HEAR a movie.


They do go to WATCH a movie.


You have zillions of speaker companies producing speakers in astronomical price ranges but you don't have a large price range when it comes to video displays.


I think that Hollywood is a great INFLUENCE on what types and quality video displays ARE produced.


I don't think Hollywood cares about the quality of speakers that are produced.


To sum up--what we are offered in video displays is MORE influenced by forces OTHER than the masses are dictating.


Because even though the masses may buy what sucks--don't tell me that they LIKE what sucks!


LCD fan's argument here is that the masses LIKE what sucks and that is a good thing and that we should also LIKE what sucks--if it's making money it must be right!


My argument is that MUCH better quality plasma could be made and money could be made doing that--the reason that doesn't happen has less to do with the masses and more to do with Hollywood.


My hunch is that video displays will SUCK until the moment that Hollywood can make MORE through streaming AND the theaters than they currently make through Blu-ray sales and the theaters.


That's when the LCD reign of terror will end. Sadly we may have to endure 15 years of TORTURE--when keyboards are a thing of the past and cars drive themselves--that's when we'll finally get rid of LCD and OLED will MAGICALLY be cheap! And Hollywood will still be making money!


----------



## webgrandeur

I don't believe the theaters in my area care much about PQ either. I've tried many of them, and it is lousy, plus having to watch TV commercials before the movies has stopped me from ever going to a theater again. For my money, a $7K DLP projector and a $50K media room was a bargain compared to what I can see in the theaters. Streaming with only lower-end audio choices isn't an option for me, either. So, IMO, the movie industry doesn't recognize us either.


----------



## Artwood

Maybe LCD sucks so much because it HAS to suck more than the local theaters which ALSO suck!


I compare black levels of plasmas to restrictor plates at Talladega. If they got rid of restrictor plates there is no telling how fast stock cars could go at that track. Can you imagine how fast Indy cars could go there?


I think in a secret bat cave in Japan they have a plasma that has been hooked up with a sub field cloaking device with a trracyor beam that can actually divert the blackness of a black hole into the plasma itself!


They are afraid if it was made public that D-Nice and other calibrators might be transporyted to another dimension and that all the LCDs in the world would simultaneously blow up causing the greatest fall out of suckiness in the history of mankind!


Even wild animals would talk like Mr. Ed the talking horse and rebuke all the humans who brought the LCD plague into the world.


Mr. Ed knew about it a long time ago--that's why he wore those sunglasses!


P.S. Forgive the spelling mistakes--I think I'm smelling LCDs in the neighborhood!


----------



## Wizziwig

You can't compare the speaker market to the TV market. Anybody can produce a speaker in their garage. There is no huge capital investment in factories required to produce them. This makes it practical to produce high-end speakers that cost a ton yet sell in very small numbers. That business model will not work for TV production (case in point - Pioneer). Because of the huge investment required, only a few companies can make TV panels and we're stuck with products designed only for the mass-market. There is no real videophile TV market similar to the audiophile market.


If you don't need a TV, then there is a videopile market for projectors. The sky is the limit when it comes to front projector pricing. You can find any quality level you desire if you can afford it.


----------



## rogo

"There is no real videophile TV market similar to the audiophile market."


There has been one and it still sort of exists (think B&O), for example, but somehow it's harder to maintain. I suspect this is because speakers are long ago prone to voodoo (people believe they hear a lot of things) and projectors are the purview of the home-theater purists (so the high-end of that is really just a niche market within a pretty niche market to begin with). It seems like it's just been hard to build a niche flat-panel maker, even when sourcing someone else's panels. Apparently, the eyes are less susceptible to voodoo and similarly, the "lesser" panels are pretty good.


----------



## Steve S

^^^And my favorite trick of doing car analogies doesn't work--you can't park a videophile tv in the driveway to impress the neighbors.


----------



## mfogarty5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5880#post_23357359
> 
> 
> ". It seems like it's just been hard to build a niche flat-panel maker, even when sourcing someone else's panels. Apparently, the eyes are less susceptible to voodoo and similarly, the "lesser" panels are pretty good.



I think an argument could be made that once Sony sold its share of the SLCD joint venture with Samsung that it became a niche flat panel maker you described above. Quantum dots are this year's "voodoo".


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve S*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23358312
> 
> 
> ^^^And my favorite trick of doing car analogies doesn't work--you can't park a videophile tv in the driveway to impress the neighbors.



But audiophiles can drive an 8000 watt subwoofer to achieve the same effect.


Assuming your windows hold out. And theirs.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mfogarty5*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5880#post_23358324
> 
> 
> I think an argument could be made that once Sony sold its share of the SLCD joint venture with Samsung that it became a niche flat panel maker you described above. Quantum dots are this year's "voodoo".



Sony is targeting a huge "niche"... too huge to use the word.


They are prominently in my Costco at $400 every time I walk in and also at $7000 or so... with everything in between.


I am thinking more like a brand that only did a Sharp Elite-type product.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG Display to Build A Full Production Line for OLED TV in Two Years*


Source: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=36817 


LG Display plans to offer a complete family of OLED TV products in different sizes by 2015, aiming at replacing its existing LCD TV technology.


Speaking at the at the Society for Information Display (SID) last week, Oh Chang-ho, managing director of LG Display, said that his company could have a range of UHD OLED TV panel products in various sizes and designs by 2015. He added that LG will have a full OLED production line by that time.


Mr. Oh added that LG Display's OLED TV panel was a combined product into which IGZO, white OLED, pixel driving circuit technology and encapsulation technology were applied.


LG Display wants to become the leader in the OLED TV technology field. The company's approach for making OLED panels offers an easier way to mass-produce them, at least compared to the approach rival Samsung had been following so far. However, Samsung could also adopt LG's OLED display-making technology through a possible cross-licencing agreement, which has not been officially confirmed yet.


----------



## borf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5880#post_23360306
> 
> *LG Display to Build A Full Production Line for OLED TV in Two Years*
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=36817
> 
> 
> LG Display plans to offer a complete family of OLED TV products in different sizes by 2015, aiming at replacing its existing LCD TV technology.
> 
> 
> Speaking at the at the Society for Information Display (SID) last week, Oh Chang-ho, managing director of LG Display, said that his company could have a range of UHD OLED TV panel products in various sizes and designs by 2015. He added that LG will have a full OLED production line by that time.
> 
> 
> Mr. Oh added that LG Display's OLED TV panel was a combined product into which IGZO, white OLED, pixel driving circuit technology and encapsulation technology were applied.
> 
> 
> LG Display wants to become the leader in the OLED TV technology field. The company's approach for making OLED panels offers an easier way to mass-produce them, at least compared to the approach rival Samsung had been following so far. However, Samsung could also adopt LG's OLED display-making technology through a possible cross-licencing agreement, which has not been officially confirmed yet.



So has it been decided OLED must be 4k or nothing?

It's like a desert mirage getting farther the closer you get.

In 2015 they will probably postpone for 8k.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *borf*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5880#post_23360801
> 
> 
> So has it been decided OLED must be 4k or nothing?
> 
> It's like a desert mirage getting farther the closer you get.
> 
> In 2015 they will probably postpone for 8k.



Yes that will probably happen, 8K that' real 3D now bring a projector that cost 4,000 and that will do for me


----------



## mikek753




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23360306
> 
> *LG Display to Build A Full Production Line for OLED TV in Two Years*
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=36817
> 
> 
> LG Display plans to offer a complete family of OLED TV products in different sizes by 2015, aiming at replacing its existing LCD TV technology.
> 
> 
> Speaking at the at the Society for Information Display (SID) last week, Oh Chang-ho, managing director of LG Display, said that his company could have a range of UHD OLED TV panel products in various sizes and designs by 2015. He added that LG will have a full OLED production line by that time.
> 
> 
> Mr. Oh added that LG Display's OLED TV panel was a combined product into which IGZO, white OLED, pixel driving circuit technology and encapsulation technology were applied.
> 
> 
> LG Display wants to become the leader in the OLED TV technology field. The company's approach for making OLED panels offers an easier way to mass-produce them, at least compared to the approach rival Samsung had been following so far. However, Samsung could also adopt LG's OLED display-making technology through a possible cross-licencing agreement, which has not been officially confirmed yet.



Thanks for the info.

Looks like another "free" press for LG - nothing more.

As many already ready to replace 2 years old LG 55" OLED at home this would be the right time

Somehow I believe LG less and less no matter what they say about OLED ...


----------



## wse


Forget OLED this is what will make the new world of movies   









*Top shelf cinema.*


The highest quality picture. The most immersive experience. This is Sony 4K. Sony's SXRD ™  4K movie theater projector technology delivers greater than four times 1080p resolution, anamorphic 3D, and 1080p to 4K upscaling. Nothing else comes close.   "I am pleased to announce that I have found this year's 'Holy Grail' of a home theater projector...Best overall picture ever to grace my current, or previous home theater...4K is an obvious next step for projectors in the home."  – Art Feierman, *Projector Reviews*


----------



## jlanzy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5800_100#post_23361572
> 
> 
> Forget OLED this is what will make the new world of movies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Top shelf cinema.*
> 
> 
> The highest quality picture. The most immersive experience. This is Sony 4K. Sony's SXRD ™  4K movie theater projector technology delivers greater than four times 1080p resolution, anamorphic 3D, and 1080p to 4K upscaling. Nothing else comes close.   "I am pleased to announce that I have found this year's 'Holy Grail' of a home theater projector...Best overall picture ever to grace my current, or previous home theater...4K is an obvious next step for projectors in the home."  – Art Feierman, *Projector Reviews*


Yeah, I've been hoping in 2-3 years to replace my projector and 120x51 screen with an equal sized flexible OLED 4K screen, but in reading this thread I don't see that being in the sub 20K for many more years away.  Of course by then maybe Red will actually release their 4K laser projector that may look better than OLED, or not.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Not sure what to make of this but I thought some might find it interesting.

*OLED TVs don't make economic sense: Experts*


Source: http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Science%2Band%2BTech/Story/A1Story20130528-425635.html 


Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics, two Korean companies that are leading the world's television market, appear to be in a forced race to churn out sets fitted with organic light emitting displays, but experts believe the competition will soon become meaningless


"The technology simply will not stretch that far to make it affordable for the mass consumer market," said one display expert, declining to be identified.


He figured that at most, the two companies would each sell 100 units once Samsung launched its sets later this year as it has said.


Each company claims to have the lead in OLED TVs despite experts being sceptical of whether OLED will really set new standards in display technology, mostly because they seem impossibly expensive for screens that are larger than phones, tablets and cameras.


LG has already started to ship its flagship 55-inch flat models that sport a price tag of more than US$1,000 (S$1,260). It is now taking orders for curved OLED TVs. LG Electronics was the first to showcase such sets to the world.

*"Samsung doesn't want to be in this game. It knows that OLED TVs are not the answer. For LG too, it knows there's no money coming from OLED TVs, but it has to compete and beat Samsung, so that's the rationale behind their rivalry in this segment," the industry expert added.*


Whether these TVs will become competitive in overseas markets is another prolematic issue

*"I'm not sure whether Samsung will ship OLED this year to Europe. It would confuse the 4K2K message to do so. Samsung's presentation at IFA GPC seemed to be very carefully thought through," Paul Gray, head of the European TV segment at DisplaySearch, told The Korea Herald.*


He said OLED was not expected to endure, adding that LG Electronics' shipments were "scarcely 100" in the first quarter.


In comparison, DisplaySearch forecast the global market for Ultra HD TVs to grow to see worldwide shipments reaching 3.9 million units next year.


By 2015, the shipments are expected to hit 6.88 million to further grow to 9.87 million in 2016. For this year, it sees shipments at around 930,000.


Ultra HD TVs are four times sharper than full HD TVs and cheaper than those with OLED displays.


Samsung recently unveiled an 85-inch Ultra HD TV - the world's first - and is now set to release 55-inch and 65-inch models next month, all at "reasonable and affordable prices," according to Kim Hyun-seok, Samsung Electronics' head of the TV division.


The upside of OLED is that it's rated to be up to 1,000 times faster than the conventional LED-backlit LCD panels, is superior to plasma screens that are fast dying in the market, devoid of blur, detailed and energy saving.


The downside is the price and the low manufacturing yield not to mention *there is currently almost no content that is compatible with the high-end colour range offered by OLED TVs.*


----------



## rogo

Irkuck would agree with the above.


Slacker would tell you the capex hasn't been cut.


----------



## irkuck

Rogo, you would not agree? Economics of OLED was always in question, there were always signs OLED is an ego battle between LG and Sammy.


----------



## andy sullivan

I have a hard time buying a statement that say's "4K is four times sharper than full HD TV's".


----------



## borf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5880#post_23366418
> 
> 
> I have a hard time buying a statement that say's "4K is four times sharper than full HD TV's".



2x is what they should say since each pixel is 1/2 as big (resolution = 2x)

Area quadruples but that is complete marketing b.s.

The more I learn about the sales & marketing force the more it sours.

Step back twice as far from the tv. Hey you have a 4k tv. How bout that sales pitch..


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5880#post_23364473
> 
> 
> Rogo, you would not agree? Economics of OLED was always in question, there were always signs OLED is an ego battle between LG and Sammy.



I would agree, irkuck.


I was just crediting you and slacker, for the specific sentiments you guys have noted over and over.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Exactly one month ago today LG released this press release entitled:


LG BEGINS SALES OF WORLD’S FIRST CURVED OLED TV


It went on to say "LG Electronics (LG) announced that it will begin accepting pre-orders for its 55-inch (54.6-inch diagonal) Curved OLED TV (Model 55EA9800) in South Korea, *with deliveries to begin next month*."


I don't see how they could say deliveries would occur "next month" unless they actually have units built or are really close to being completed and ready for packaging or at least have some confidence they can achieve that. But I guess this is LG we are talking about.










If any deliveries have occured I would think we would have heard something from someone in Korea. Looks like LG has again made promises they can't keep. But I very willing to say I'm wrong if someone can find evidence any of these have actually shipped.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *borf*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5900_100#post_23366513
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5880#post_23366418
> 
> 
> I have a hard time buying a statement that say's "4K is four times sharper than full HD TV's".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2x is what they should say since each pixel is 1/2 as big (resolution = 2x)
Click to expand...


No. Resolution is about the ability to resolve. For any given fixed _real world size_ screen (pick one----a foot by a foot if you like):


If it's displaying 200x100 pixels, it's providing _two times the information that you get with 100x100_. That's "twice" the ability to resolve, "twice" the clarity (or whatever misapplied metric they apply these days), etc. 200x200 is providing 4 times so. Assuming of course that all other mitigating factors are removed, such as visual acuity from distance, etc.


Accept it or not, this stupid argument keeps showing up and it reminds me of the "Plasma is better, No it's not" that shows up _everywhere._


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5900_100#post_23367647
> 
> 
> Exactly one month ago today LG released this press release entitled:
> 
> 
> LG BEGINS SALES OF WORLD’S FIRST CURVED OLED TV
> 
> 
> It went on to say "LG Electronics (LG) announced that it will begin accepting pre-orders for its 55-inch (54.6-inch diagonal) Curved OLED TV (Model 55EA9800) in South Korea, *with deliveries to begin next month*."
> 
> 
> I don't see how they could say deliveries would occur "next month" unless they actually have units built or are really close to being completed and ready for packaging or at least have some confidence they can achieve that. But I guess this is LG we are talking about.



Well, heck. They obviously mean, "we're finally, almost, _maybe_ going to ship". So cut them slack.







LOL...


----------



## vinnie97

LG = Laughing Gas?


----------



## navychop

I am not about to believe two huge companies have spent billions on nothing more than egos.


To spend that much and not have a plausible product would leave a lot of explaining to be done. Consequences would be serious.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5900_100#post_23368545
> 
> 
> I am not about to believe two huge companies have spent billions on nothing more than egos.




Not "nothing more than egos". The ego wouldn't exist unless there were $$ at the end of it all as a prize. There's no such thing as having an ego boost by throwing money away. So it's by definition _always_ more than mere ego, because the ego is about who can economically do the best, invent the most, be the "one", etc., etc., etc.


----------



## mr. wally

are we sure they've spent billions on oled?


so far they are using existing fab lines. i think lg announced they would spend

big bucks on a new, oled fab line, but that may be as much of a mirage the oled displays they've promised


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23368633
> 
> 
> Not "nothing more than egos". The ego wouldn't exist unless there were $$ at the end of it all as a prize. There's no such thing as having an ego boost by throwing money away. So it's by definition _always_ more than mere ego, because the ego is about who can economically do the best, invent the most, be the "one", etc., etc., etc.



The article stated:

"Samsung doesn't want to be in this game. *It knows that OLED TVs are not the answer.* For LG too, *it knows there's no money coming from OLED TVs*, but it has to compete and beat Samsung, so that's the rationale behind their rivalry in this segment....."


I don't believe that such sums are being spent with no expectation of a return on the investment in terms of money. You can't put food on the table using bragging rights. The article, IMHO, is just a baseless hatchet job. I'd say there are several big name companies that are pretty darned sure OLED will make it to the TV market in a profitable form. Now will there be a "next best thing" within 10 years? OLET? Quantum dots? Holosuites? Who knows?


----------



## vinnie97

Where's the beef?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23369522
> 
> 
> are we sure they've spent billions on oled?
> 
> 
> so far they are using existing fab lines. i think lg announced they would spend
> 
> big bucks on a new, oled fab line, but that may be as much of a mirage the oled displays they've promised



Yes, and since Korean companies report their financials in such an opaque manner, it will be very difficult to discern when or if they've made this investment. I think your analysis is quite astute.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23369649
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that such sums are being spent with no expectation of a return on the investment in terms of money. You can't put food on the table using bragging rights. The article, IMHO, is just a baseless hatchet job. I'd say there are several big name companies that are pretty darned sure OLED will make it to the TV market in a profitable form. Now will there be a "next best thing" within 10 years? OLET? Quantum dots? Holosuites? Who knows?



I think the point is OLED is its own "hatchet job". Promises promises, but products? None to speak of.


As Rich Peterson points out: The curved OLED must be "shipping" by now according to LG. But is it? No evidence. There is, in fact, no real evidence they've shipped the flat one. It's not been reviewed anywhere on earth. I know, I know, they keep saying it's shipping and that people have bought it. But the part where we know of someone who has bought one is the part of this equation that is lacking.


----------



## vinnie97

The February release in South Korea has come and gone with no reviews. The supposed American release in April has come and passed with no reviews. The UK release for June is next. How much would you like to wager that a review will surface before end of June?


----------



## homogenic

I hate this. All I want is a TV that's an end game, is that really too much?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23369649
> 
> 
> The article stated:
> 
> "Samsung doesn't want to be in this game. *It knows that OLED TVs are not the answer.* For LG too, *it knows there's no money coming from OLED TVs*, but it has to compete and beat Samsung, so that's the rationale behind their rivalry in this segment....."
> 
> I don't believe that such sums are being spent with no expectation of a return on the investment in terms of money. You can't put food on the table using bragging rights. The article, IMHO, is just a baseless hatchet job. I'd say there are several big name companies that are pretty darned sure OLED will make it to the TV market in a profitable form. Now will there be a "next best thing" within 10 years? OLET? Quantum dots? Holosuites? Who knows?



Of course the investment is being justified but this is based on "if we have OLED then we rule the world" as you can not predict all the issues with productivization of new technology. Now the OLED proves to be more difficult tu crack anybody has expected. Still, both Koreans and Japanese will put money into OLED since they fill the breath of Chinese/Taiwanese coming in. Samsung and LG have tons of money and resources, OLED investment in no way is going to bankrupt them.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23370854
> 
> 
> I hate this. All I want is a TV that's an end game, is that really too much?



Other guys can't do it for you so go and do it for yourself







. The problem here is LCD ingenuity in which subpixels are very simple due to the separation of lighting from light control. Lighting is centralized, only light control is localized. Technologies like OLED in which both lighting and light control are localized look better but have inherently more complicated subpixels. Thus they can not win over the LCD.


----------



## Wizziwig

Finally found another source besides the FCC report for estimated power usage on the LG 55EM9700:

http://downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/tv_prod_list.pdf 


Power Consumption in On Mode: 107.8 watts


Maximum On Mode Power for Qualification: 108 watts


Luminance in Brightest Selectable Picture Setting (cd/sq. meter): 230


Luminance in Default Picture Setting (cd/sq.meter): 171


Not as efficient or bright as LED-LCD but still decent results if true. Hopefully these TV's will not require any ABL limiting circuits and can maintain their brightness on all content.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5900_100#post_23369649
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23368633
> 
> 
> Not "nothing more than egos". The ego wouldn't exist unless there were $$ at the end of it all as a prize. There's no such thing as having an ego boost by throwing money away. So it's by definition _always_ more than mere ego, because the ego is about who can economically do the best, invent the most, be the "one", etc., etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article stated:
> 
> "Samsung doesn't want to be in this game. *It knows that OLED TVs are not the answer.* For LG too, *it knows there's no money coming from OLED TVs*, but it has to compete and beat Samsung, so that's the rationale behind their rivalry in this segment....."
> 
> 
> I don't believe that such sums are being spent with no expectation of a return on the investment in terms of money. You can't put food on the table using bragging rights. The article, IMHO, is just a baseless hatchet job.
Click to expand...


I think so. The idea that "there's no money coming from OLED TVs" is stated without either of the qualifiers "now" or "ever".


Often times I see article writers throwing careless statements out that I think they assume will go unchallenged. Or worse, a quoting of facts that are supposed to "speak for themselves" when no fact does. S'ok in conversational terms (like in a forum thread), but not when writing news or even when trying to sound "newsy".


Once in a while I take a quick scroll-thru the Wikipedian take on Weasle Wording and it's various forms. Problem is, that article itself isn't well written.


----------



## 8mile13

Samsung spent 7.9 trillion won - $7.007.300.000 - in the past two fiscal years developing OLEDs, both for TVs and its mobile sevices.


LG investment in OLED TV panels in 2012 and this year will be 1.1 trillion won - $975.700.000

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/samsung-lg-misstep-on-tv-screens-creates-opening-for-sony.html 


They do not spent this much money because they ''need to compete and beat ''. They spent this kind a money because they believe in OLED and want to be the ones that dominate the future OLED TV market.



To me the weird Korean Herald article's purpose is to distract from the revealing Bloomberg article.


----------



## Artwood

No company on planet Earth spends $7 trillion on anything!


Oh--I'm sorry--we're talking about wan--do they make wan in derivative hedge fund generators?


If they did would spend $7 trillion on OLED could it beat out LCD that sucks?


Is LCD the most bought and money spent on product that sucks of all times?


The video display world has reached the era of complete lunacy--can't make a Pioneer Kuro killer--spend 7 trillion wan and still nobody can buy OLED--and to top it off--make LCD WORSE with edge lit and 120 and PEOPLE BUY IT?!!!


Am I crazy or is the whole rest of the world crazy?


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23372383
> 
> 
> Am I crazy or is the whole rest of the world crazy?



Sorry, but based on the rants I've seen in this thread, it looks to me like you are at least teetering on the edge...







Hey, you asked, right?


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23372383
> 
> 
> No company on planet Earth spends $7 trillion on anything!
> 
> 
> Oh--I'm sorry--we're talking about wan--do they make wan in derivative hedge fund generators?
> 
> 
> If they did would spend $7 trillion on OLED could it beat out LCD that sucks?
> 
> 
> Is LCD the most bought and money spent on product that sucks of all times?
> 
> 
> The video display world has reached the era of complete lunacy--can't make a Pioneer Kuro killer--spend 7 trillion wan and still nobody can buy OLED--and to top it off--make LCD WORSE with edge lit and 120 and PEOPLE BUY IT?!!!
> 
> 
> Am I crazy or is the whole rest of the world crazy?


There's enough crazy to go around.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23370490
> 
> 
> Yes, and since Korean companies report their financials in such an opaque manner, it will be very difficult to discern when or if they've made this investment. I think your analysis is quite astute.
> 
> 
> I think the point is OLED is its own "hatchet job". Promises promises, but products? None to speak of.
> 
> 
> As Rich Peterson points out: The curved OLED must be "shipping" by now according to LG. But is it? No evidence. There is, in fact, no real evidence they've shipped the flat one. It's not been reviewed anywhere on earth. I know, I know, they keep saying it's shipping and that people have bought it. But the part where we know of someone who has bought one is the part of this equation that is lacking.



Has Marketing ever failed to over promise anything?


I wouldn't give up on OLED unless there's no product shipping in numbers by the end of 2015. And I expect they'll still be quite unaffordable, even then.


OLED can supplant a good chunk of the LCD market if it has demonstrably better PQ (which will take quite a bit of convincing for J6P) or the promise comes true and it comes in cheaper. Market success would be more likely with some of both. Or maybe the wild card feature of flexibility will somehow become of value for TV sized displays and THAT be the driver of success. The simplicity of LCD will not alone ensure OLED failure.


I'm now past 8 years on a $3,000 JVC LCoS set that I planned to get 5 years out of. I'm guessing I will replace it in a couple of years (move it to the rec room) and have no hope whatsoever that it's replacement will be OLED. I simply will not spend $3,000 again on a TV set (barring sudden riches). I expect I'll end up with a UHD LCD set. I'd trade out sooner if I could get rid of a 36" NTSC CRT.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23371954
> 
> 
> Samsung spent 7.9 trillion won - $7.007.300.000 - in the past two fiscal years developing OLEDs, both for TVs and its mobile sevices.
> 
> 
> LG investment in OLED TV panels in 2012 and this year will be 1.1 trillion won - $975.700.000
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/samsung-lg-misstep-on-tv-screens-creates-opening-for-sony.html
> 
> 
> They do not spent this much money because they ''need to compete and beat ''. They spent this kind a money because they believe in OLED and want to be the ones that dominate the future OLED TV market.



You can ascribe whatever motives to it that you wish. The fact remains that neither has shipped a television (unless LG has shipped a few hundred) and that Samsung's investment can _mostly_ be justified on the strength of their outstanding smartphone business alone.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23371125
> 
> 
> Finally found another source besides the FCC report for estimated power usage on the LG 55EM9700:
> 
> http://downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/tv_prod_list.pdf
> 
> 
> Power Consumption in On Mode: 107.8 watts
> 
> 
> Maximum On Mode Power for Qualification: 108 watts
> 
> 
> Luminance in Brightest Selectable Picture Setting (cd/sq. meter): 230
> 
> 
> Luminance in Default Picture Setting (cd/sq.meter): 171
> 
> 
> Not as efficient or bright as LED-LCD but still decent results if true. Hopefully these TV's will not require any ABL limiting circuits and can maintain their brightness on all content.



So keep in mind that OLED power will vary with content, unlike on most LCDs where it doesn't. In other words, it might actually be as good as current LCDs on the power side. It won't be as bright as they _can_ get, but I'm not sure how much that will matter since you ought to be able to calibrate to north of 50 ft/L. I share your concerns on ABL since there was some issue with OLED voltages some time back that I'm unsure about the solution to, but I suspect at least with LG's TVs this is going to be a non-problem.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23372995
> 
> 
> Has Marketing ever failed to over promise anything?
> 
> 
> I wouldn't give up on OLED unless there's no product shipping in numbers by the end of 2015. And I expect they'll still be quite unaffordable, even then.
> 
> 
> OLED can supplant a good chunk of the LCD market if it has demonstrably better PQ (which will take quite a bit of convincing for J6P) or the promise comes true and it comes in cheaper. Market success would be more likely with some of both. Or maybe the wild card feature of flexibility will somehow become of value for TV sized displays and THAT be the driver of success. The simplicity of LCD will not alone ensure OLED failure.



I think the problem here is something Irkuck and I have been talking about for a good 2+ years. "Demonstrably better PQ" is a ridiculous idea. Joe is already happy with what he can buy now. He's buying LCD over plasma because it's good enough, cheap enough, bright enough... He's giving up viewing angles and best-available contrast for it. The idea that OLED is changing the game in a way that the Samsung F8500 isn't seems, quite frankly, laughable. And the failure of the Sharp Elite to change the game shows how limited the market is at 2x the price of the high end (which is what it sold for when it completely failed to generate meaningful sales even though videophiles found it quite superb.)


There is no way OLED can be even 2x better in the eyes of most people, especially because high-end LCD is going to 4K first. And there is no way OLED can be cheaper soon since it starts out with such a huge handicap. Even volume shipments by 2015 seem like a remote prospect when 2013 is a year without shipments entirely (or with _de minimis_ shipments).


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23372905
> 
> 
> Sorry, but based on the rants I've seen in this thread, it looks to me like you are at least teetering on the edge...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you asked, right?



I would change that to over the edge!


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23373159
> 
> 
> I would change that to over the edge!


Can't say that I agree. Where are the LCD displays with a caliber that matches Sharp Elites and Sony XBR65HX950s in 2013?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5900_100#post_23373211
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23373159
> 
> 
> I would change that to over the edge!
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say that I agree. Where are the LCD displays with a caliber that matches Sharp Elites and Sony XBR65HX950s in 2013?
Click to expand...


A nutcase isn't someone who says the sky is blue. A nutcase is someone who says the sky is blue 400 times in a row in a forum.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5900_100#post_23372995
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23370490
> 
> 
> Yes, and since Korean companies report their financials in such an opaque manner, it will be very difficult to discern when or if they've made this investment. I think your analysis is quite astute.
> 
> 
> I think the point is OLED is its own "hatchet job". Promises promises, but products? None to speak of.
> 
> 
> As Rich Peterson points out: The curved OLED must be "shipping" by now according to LG. But is it? No evidence. There is, in fact, no real evidence they've shipped the flat one. It's not been reviewed anywhere on earth. I know, I know, they keep saying it's shipping and that people have bought it. But the part where we know of someone who has bought one is the part of this equation that is lacking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Marketing ever failed to over promise anything?
> 
> 
> I wouldn't give up on OLED unless there's no product shipping in numbers by the end of 2015.
Click to expand...


Heck, by then the 2013 OLED's that never existed will be wearing out and it'll be time for an upgrade, so they're on target!


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23374254
> 
> 
> A nutcase isn't someone who says the sky is blue. A nutcase is someone who says the sky is blue 400 times in a row in a forum.


lol, fine, perhaps it's too much for him to bear.







I agree there may perhaps be a lack of perspective in these excessive rooftop-shouting episodes, but they strangely draw me in as if being hypnotized by their fanfare-laden hyperbole (maybe).


----------



## kdog750

Maybe this is like the arms race between the U.S. and the old Soviet Union. Perhaps LG and Sony are trying to make the other spend themselves into bankruptcy by convincing them that they are on the verge of an OLED breakthrough.


I believe it started out with a lot of promise that the money being sunk into OLED research would pay off. Billions of dollars later is when they finally realized they were at the point of no return and had to go with 4K instead. All these promises being made by both companies on OLED are just free press to make them look like they are on the cutting edge IMO. They will be able to pump out a few units for bragging rights but I think both companies secretly know it's a dead end.


----------



## vinnie97

^LG and Sony or LG and Samsung?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23375039
> 
> 
> Maybe this is like the arms race between the U.S. and the old Soviet Union. Perhaps LG and Sony are trying to make the other spend themselves into bankruptcy by convincing them that they are on the verge of an OLED breakthrough.



There is a lot of prestige, ego and face-saving elements in the relentless fight between the LG and Samsung. On a bigger stage there is tons of nationalism, chauvinism and xenophobia between the Asian

nations and this is too reflected in the technology battles. At the height of their heydeys Japanese were really thinking they invented walkmans since they are privilegded race. That was a driving force for the Koreans to beat the Japanese and overcome inferiority complex. But now they both are scared to death by the Chinese dragon and this is one of the reasons why they pour tons of money into OLED.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*HDTV Expert - LCD Always Wins*


Source: HDTV Magazine 

by Ken Werner on May 30, 2013


LCD always wins — well, almost always.


With its incredible depth of technical development, sophisticated and frighteningly efficient manufacturing, octopussian supply chain, multiple applications, huge volume, and effective distribution, LCD has held off all serious competitors for computer and television displays. Indeed, LCDs for consumer applications such as TV are so inexpensive than panel-makers make little or no money manufacturing them. That’s another story, but it makes LCDs even harder to compete with.


And LCD remains a moving target. The industry is mature but it is not stagnant. Many a would-be competitor has seen its chosen technology (FED, for example) as having a competitive opportunity against the LCDs of the time, but under-estimated the time it would take to bring the technology to market. By the time they were ready for market, LCD had evolved and closed the competitive gap the new technologies were designed to fill. (Note: Everybody, including the very sophisticated Samsung, underestimates the time it takes to bring a new display technology to market.)


LCDs power of survival can be frustrating. Today’s plasma is a better display for television than today’s LCD, as a recent shoot-out has once again confirmed, but plasma’s market share is in the single digits and even its greatest fans realize its future is limited.



Sony Triluminous TV with Color IQ quantum-dot element (left) shows richer and more varied colors than a conventional LCD-TV (right). (Photo: Ken Werner)


And that brings us to OLED and SID Display Week 2013, which was held last week in Vancouver, British Columbia (which is a beautiful and entertaining city). One of the few cases in which an alternative technology has eaten away a significant piece of LCD market share has been OLED displays for smart phones. These displays took much, much longer to get to market than Samsung anticipated, but Samsung stuck with it and, this time, the window of opportunity did not close. OLEDs are successful and profitable in this application.


But television is a different story. Despite its best efforts, LG Display has failed to produce large OLED screens with anything approaching acceptable manufacturing yields, and Samsung always felt it would take longer for OLED-TV to become technically and commercially viable. So both companies are trying to find their ways forward. Meanwhile, Panasonic and Sony have shown technology demonstrators with printed front planes, which is the technology that could make OLED front planes economically viable. But it is still in a developmental stage.

*So what would happen if a new LCD-TV technology arose that would substantially narrow the difference in image quality between LCD and OLED, and do so at a cost that is much, much less than the cost of an OLED-TV? History could repeat itself, and OLED-TV’s window of opportunity could close.


Such a technology exists, is currently available at consumer electronics retailers, and was shown by two separate vendors at SID. The technology is quantum-dot-enhanced backlights, which I, and many others, have described extensively. (If you would like a refresher, see http://www.hdtvexpert.com/?p=2741 )*


QD Vision was showing a commercially available Sony Triluminous TV set, which is Sony’s designation for its extended-gamut sets that use QD Vision’s quantum-dot optical element, which QD Vision calls Color IQ. There are two 4Kx2K Triluminous models, with no comparable models that are not Triluminous. However, there is an FHD Triluminous model that has a roughly comparable non-Triluminous counterpart. From this, we can estimate that Sony is charging roughly $300 for the quantum-dot enhancement. This is a good deal for Sony because adding the quantum-dot enhancement is close to cost neutral. It’s also a very good deal for consumers, who get OLED-like color for a very affordable price premium.


Also at SID 2013, 3M announced it would soon be going into volume production with its Quantum Dot Enhancement Film (QDEF). Without going into detail (see the article referenced above for that), there is reason to believe that the QD Vision approach is more appropriate for large screens and the 3M QDEF approach is more appropriate for small to medium-size screens, at least for now. In any case, 3M is saying its initial applications will be small and medum-size screens, while QD Vision is only talking television and promising additional customers in the reasonably near future.


This still leaves 3M with a lot of opportunities. Remember, the only place where OLED is successful, thus far, is in cell phones. Picture a 5-inch, 1920×1080, LCD smart phone display with QDEF. That would give Samsung Display something to think about.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG Display's OLED TV Panel Output 50-100 Units a Month, Universal CEO Says*


Source: Consumer Electronics Daily 


LG Display’s monthly production of 55-inch active matrix OLED (AMOLED) TV panels is “maybe” 50-100 units, enough to bring sets to market in South Korea and elsewhere for “consumer feedback,” but short of “meaningful” sales that aren’t expected before 2015, Universal Display CEO Steve Abramson said at a J.P. Morgan investor conference in Boston.


LG Display is gearing up for 8th-generation OLED production in 2014 with monthly capacity for 26,000 substrates with OLED TV sales expected to hit 1 million units a year later, analysts have said. The 55-inch panels are currently being produced across a 5.5G line, analysts have said. LG Display’s sales of AMOLED panels were “insignificant” to the company’s $6 billion in total revenue in the quarter ended March 31, the company said in an SEC...


[More for subscribers of which I am not one]


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5910#post_23375099
> 
> 
> ^LG and Sony or LG and Samsung?



oops i meant samsung.


----------



## sstephen

I don't see anything about the quantum dot solution that addresses viewing angle or contrast. Just gamut. Not that that isn't good, but until some source is available outside Rec. 709, anything showing off a wider gamut is just inaccurate. Also by his own admission adding quantum dot increases the cost, and that is one thing that printable oled holds as a promise to the manufacturers, that being to lower cost. Obviously that hasn't been obtained yet, but I think it has a better chance of lowering cost for "consumer grade" displays than quantum dots.


Anyway, I'm a projector guy waiting wishing for a good 4k, non-lamp based dlp. So you guys should get your 4k oled displays before I get mine.


----------



## David_B

"Hey Ed, let's go buy a new tv."

"OK. What do they have?"

"Well, they have plasma, on it's way out. LCD, like our old one. What else?"

"LED?"

"That's just a new name for Lcd. "

"Might as well keep our old one then."


This is the conversation Oled is ment to contine.


"Oh, and they have this new oled. Looks awesome! And it's new!"


Oled will be fine. And they need it to convince millions of people to replace perfectly good working sets.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5900_100#post_23376530
> 
> 
> "Hey Ed, let's go buy a new tv."
> 
> "OK. What do they have?"
> 
> "Well, they have plasma, on it's way out. LCD, like our old one. What else?"
> 
> "LED?"
> 
> "That's just a new name for Lcd. "
> 
> "Might as well keep our old one then."
> 
> 
> This is the conversation Oled is ment to contine.
> 
> 
> "Oh, and they have this new oled. Looks awesome! And it's new!"
> 
> 
> Oled will be fine. And they need it to convince millions of people to replace perfectly good working sets.



I was wondering last year if Sony found themselves scratching their heads about this very problem with "Crystal LED". By the way, somebody PLEASE sue the manufacturers that over play the LED without the "-LCD" or "lit" part.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*
> 
> I was wondering last year if Sony found themselves scratching their heads about this very problem with "Crystal LED". By the way, somebody PLEASE sue the manufacturers that over play the LED without the "-LCD" or "lit" part.


In the UK Samsung LED TV advertising was considered misleading
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/UK-Samsung-LED-Tv-Ads,news-4571.html


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> "And LCD remains a moving target. The industry is mature but it is not stagnant. Many a would-be competitor has seen its chosen technology (FED, for example) as having a competitive opportunity against the LCDs of the time, but under-estimated the time it would take to bring the technology to market. By the time they were ready for market, LCD had evolved and closed the competitive gap the new technologies were designed to fill. (Note: Everybody, including the very sophisticated Samsung, underestimates the time it takes to bring a new display technology to market.)"



It's odd. I (and others) have spent the better part of a decade here at AVS explaining this very thing. If we could see that, you'd think people in the industry could see it better than us... The only explanation for why they couldn't is some combination of blind faith and hubris, I suppose....


----------



## coolscan

Just noticed that this very thread was started May 24, 2006. Many years of hopes and promises.


----------



## vinnie97

Give it another 7 years and maybe a product will be available to purchase.


----------



## Artwood

In 2006 LCD sucked and 7 years from now it will still suck!


And 7 years from now Pioneer Kuros will still look great!


And OLED still won't be here!!!


And 4K LCD will still suck!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5900_100#post_23376904
> 
> 
> Just noticed that this very thread was started May 24, 2006. Many years of hopes and promises.



Yep. But I just see that as the thread having been started _far too early._


----------



## vinnie97

ROGO to the rescue please: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1472970/japans-nhk-ioled-solves-longevity-problem 


lol


----------



## mr. wally

Interesting conundrum is playing out here.


My Kuro won't last forever. A touch of red bias is developing, and I look forward to the better motion processing of current models.


That said, my Kuro still shines and any new replacement that is currently available will be a minimally marginal improvement at best.


So what is one to do to future proof yourself for the next 5 -7 years?


According to most accounts new plasmas will last until 2015 before they fade from the marketplace,

.


I haven't seen a 4k set yet, but most reviewers say marginal improvement until you get over 80" or scoot up to 4' viewing distance. Still need to take it in with my own eyes, but can't rule it in or out yet. Currently watching a 50" set in a medium sized room so 80" could be unworkable.


Then by 2015 is the potential game changing oled displays. Price and availability are very much in doubt, but any avs member who isn't salivating on the best case result on oled sets doesn't belong here,


So I have 2 years for this to play out befor the Kuro gets re-directed to the guest room, and I have no clear idea on what tech display will be best


It was so much clearer and easier decisions purchasing my 1st 2 hd sets.



Sigh....


----------



## vinnie97

It's fairly easy right now if you think something greater than 50" would help improve the immersion of your HT experience.


----------



## Artwood

My advice is to buy the biggest and best plasma you can buy in 2014.


That is the world's LAST CHANCE before 4K LCD that sucks!


There may be some low cost plasmas left in 2015 but I think that the best ones will be discontinued.


2014 is the LAST CHANCE year!


Get it calibrated by one of the great calibrators who were at the shoot out.


Get the best backlighting.


What else can you do?


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23379599
> 
> 
> My advice is to buy the biggest and best plasma you can buy in 2014.


Or 2013 if you can't wait any longer.










I can't imagine there being a wide gap in performance, can you?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23379527
> 
> 
> ROGO to the rescue please: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1472970/japans-nhk-ioled-solves-longevity-problem
> 
> 
> lol



I'm not going to join another thread where they are fantasizing about suddenly shortcircuiting the process by which they promise but don't ship.


I already explained in that thread why NHK's "breakthrough" is irrelevant to actual OLED TV longevity issues (which I don't believe are especially important anyway, but are something).


----------



## vinnie97

I was just astounded at the ignorance of all these missed timelines and I know you can tackle it better.


----------



## mikek753




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5900_100#post_23379599
> 
> 
> 
> What else can you do?



Go outside, meet other people, travel, sports, get a life ...

Don't be attached to TV as zombie for many hours

Look what TV does to you http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034032/


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5900_100#post_23379915
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23379527
> 
> 
> ROGO to the rescue please: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1472970/japans-nhk-ioled-solves-longevity-problem
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to join another thread where they are fantasizing about suddenly shortcircuiting the process by which they promise but don't ship.
Click to expand...


Would've sworn you just did....


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23380352
> 
> 
> Would've sworn you just did....



I didn't... I had posted in that thread once and it's apparently taken on a life of its own -- like this one. One of these is enough.


----------



## whityfrd

i'd say if your in the hunt for a new set, its for a reason. either necessity or upgrade. either reason is reason enough to not have OLED in the back of your mind when making your upcoming purchase. tv manufacturers sure as hell arent downgrading production of units based on when OLED might hit the mainstream market. tech doesent go backwards so anything you get over what you have now will be better so there is virtually no buyers remorse. those in the "upgrade" department might as well stick with what you have, barring i havent laid eyes on the VT or ZT series from Panasonic with my own eyes. you all have been through this process before and have made a decision. and its the tv hanging on your wall as we speak. no sense in doing this all over again when its not even necessary.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23379599
> 
> 
> My advice is to buy the biggest and best plasma you can buy in 2014.
> 
> 
> That is the world's LAST CHANCE before 4K LCD that sucks!
> 
> 
> There may be some low cost plasmas left in 2015 but I think that the best ones will be discontinued.
> 
> 
> 2014 is the LAST CHANCE year!
> 
> 
> Get it calibrated by one of the great calibrators who were at the shoot out.
> 
> 
> Get the best backlighting.
> 
> 
> What else can you do?



I don't like the looks of LCD/LEDs either,and think OLEDs might be a promise that never materializes in a practical, mass market sense.

But I think given the great video enthusist's following for plasma quality displays - I think plasmas WILL continue to be available, but they might becme an expensive niche market...


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23382216
> 
> 
> I don't like the looks of LCD/LEDs either,and think OLEDs might be a promise that never materializes in a practical, mass market sense.
> 
> But I think given the great video enthusist's following for plasma quality displays - I think plasmas WILL continue to be available, but they might becme an expensive niche market...



Plasma will continue into at least 2017 and prices should continue to fall as R&D has stopped and no more changes to the production facilities will be needed. 2K OLED for the home theater market is all but dead, and now the dream starts all over as someone looks for a viable and affordable production process for 4K OLED. 4K LCD tech is were all the action will take place as IGZO, quantum dots and MothEye helps it preform closer to OLED. I myself, will be picking up one of the relatively cheap Panasonic 65" S64 or ST60 displays to hold me over until HDMI 2.0, H.265 are in place. A 4K media delivery solution is finalized and prices for large format (70"-90") 4K displays becomes more affordable. Which should be around 2016.


----------



## slacker711

Samsung and LG to show 75"+ OLED televisions with release plans in the 2nd half of '13 or the first half of 2014. Also planning on UHD OLED TV's in 2014.

http://english.etnews.com/electronics/2777010_1303.html


----------



## tgm1024

Wait a sec. Is LG downplaying the LM9700 already (perhaps because it's 2K?)


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23385735
> 
> 
> Wait a sec. Is LG downplaying the LM9700 already (perhaps because it's 2K?)



No, They are downplaying it because they never got beyond single digit yields and thus could not reduce cost. The 4K marketing train was just dancing on the grave.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23384759
> 
> 
> Samsung and LG to show 75"+ OLED televisions with release plans in the 2nd half of '13 or the first half of 2014. Also planning on UHD OLED TV's in 2014.
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/electronics/2777010_1303.html



I'll believe it when I see it. Personally, and for sale.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5900_100#post_23385834
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23385735
> 
> 
> Wait a sec. Is LG downplaying the LM9700 already (perhaps because it's 2K?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, They are downplaying it because they never got beyond single digit yields and thus could not reduce cost. The 4K marketing train was just dancing on the grave.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but the 4K 75" isn't going to be any easier yield-wise, is it? If they're now "announcing" (or semi-announcing, leaking, whatever) a 4K OLED, it seems to me that maybe they're soon to be pulling quickly away from the 9700 ever having existed. No?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23384759
> 
> 
> Samsung and LG to show 75"+ OLED televisions with release plans in the 2nd half of '13 or the first half of 2014. Also planning on UHD OLED TV's in 2014.
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/electronics/2777010_1303.html



I would fire everyone in OLED PR or whoever is telling them to talk to the press and put out drivel like this. A 75" TV in 2013? Please. They haven't shipped the damn 55". My goodness. These people are the companies that cried OLED.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23385834
> 
> 
> No, They are downplaying it because they never got beyond single digit yields and thus could not reduce cost. The 4K marketing train was just dancing on the grave.



Yep.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23386095
> 
> 
> I'll believe it when I see it. Personally, and for sale.



Only way we'll ever know it's shipping is when it's in Best Buy. I said that a long time ago, seems truer than ever.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23386390
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the 4K 75" isn't going to be any easier yield-wise, is it? If they're now "announcing" (or semi-announcing, leaking, whatever) a 4K OLED, it seems to me that maybe they're soon to be pulling quickly away from the 9700 ever having existed. No?



Right. It's a stupid product anyway. It needs to be under $6,000 to ever move 100,000 units and has no chance of doing that. So why bother? I guess we'll see how this plays out.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23384759
> 
> 
> Samsung and LG to show 75"+ OLED televisions with release plans in the 2nd half of '13 or the first half of 2014. Also planning on UHD OLED TV's in 2014.
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/electronics/2777010_1303.html




this is a prank, right?


----------



## mikek753




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5900_100#post_23387114
> 
> 
> this is a prank, right?



I don't think so ...

Both shown 55" OLEDs, didn't they?

Now, they promise to show 70", 75", 77" OLEDs

The key word is "show"

While "show" and "buy" have diff meanings, isn't it?

Is tech exist? Yes

Can I buy it? No


pick one


----------



## Rich Peterson

This might be old news, I'm not sure.

*Panasonic stops plasma to focus on OLED*


Source: Advanced Television 


Electronics giant Panasonic is to cease R&D and shortly production of its famed plasma displays, reckoned by many to be amongst the best in the business. Instead, Panasonic will switch to OLED developments.


Panasonic is not the first high-end manufacturer to admit that it’s tough to maintain a profit margin on the increasingly price-squeezed High Street. Pioneer did much the same a couple of years ago.


But with Panasonic’s enviable reputation for high quality, the news is not all bad. Panasonic Display VP Kiyoshi Okamoto confirmed that its latest ZT60 Smart TV will be the last plasma model to come from its R&D division. Okamoto stressed that Panasonic will continue to produce and sell its latest range of plasma TVs until 2014 at the earliest.


To date Panasonic’s OLED efforts have been limited to a R&D project with Sony.


Panasonic’s financial troubles have not been helped by a decline in sales of TV displays in the US. For the past year sales have suffered in the USA, and are not expected to recover until 2014, according to IHS iSupply. This year’s sales will fall 2.7 per cent, following on from last year’s decline of 5.8 per cent. In pure numbers IHS expects around 36.6 million sets (of all types) to be sold this year, recovering to 37.8 million in 2014.


But the Plasma sector suffered a near-catastrophic sales collapse, down 24 per cent last year (in the US) to just 3.6 million units, and helping Panasonic’s decision to exit the market.


----------



## borf

I hope that decision really does stem from faith in OLED rather than the need to cut and run.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23387114
> 
> 
> this is a prank, right?



Yep.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23388082
> 
> 
> This might be old news, I'm not sure.



It is.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23386453
> 
> 
> I would fire everyone in OLED PR or whoever is telling them to talk to the press and put out drivel like this. A 75" TV in 2013? Please. They haven't shipped the damn 55". My goodness. These people are the companies that cried OLED........



Maybe they're hoping for *Mr. Wizard* to fix it for them.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikek753*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5940#post_23387176
> 
> 
> ......The key word is "show"
> 
> While *"show" and "buy" have diff meanings*, isn't it?
> 
> Is tech exist? Yes
> 
> Can I buy it? No
> 
> 
> pick one



Nailed it.


----------



## kdog750

A lot are inferring that 4K might have been the nail in the coffin for OLED, but that's not how I read the timeline of events. Up until Dec. of last year, the major manufacturers were aiming towards OLED as the next big thing, not 4K. It was only after it became obvious that all the problems from the poor yields to the blue degradation rate, and the overall longevity issue were making it mostly a mostly a dead end. That's when the momentum shifted to 4K. The manufacturers needed the next big thing so 4K it was. If they had been able to work out those issues earlier, OLED would be in the forefront with 4K being a very niche market.


----------



## Artwood

OLED is a nowhere pipe dream!


Get over it!


Get ready for 4K LCD that sucks!


Who can take this horror story?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23392563
> 
> 
> A lot are inferring that 4K might have been the nail in the coffin for OLED, but that's not how I read the timeline of events. Up until Dec. of last year, the major manufacturers were aiming towards OLED as the next big thing, not 4K. It was only after it became obvious that all the problems from the poor yields to the blue degradation rate, and the overall longevity issue were making it mostly a mostly a dead end. That's when the momentum shifted to 4K. The manufacturers needed the next big thing so 4K it was. If they had been able to work out those issues earlier, OLED would be in the forefront with 4K being a very niche market.



I disagree with this analysis to _some_ extent.


It's definitely the case that mfrs. are seeking a "next big thing". There are a couple of things in error about the timeline / series of events as I see it, though.


1) They've been pursuing OLED for at least a dozen years.


2) Ever since the first "retina" iPhone, the idea of mainstreaming higher resolution LCDs has been something gaining serious consideration. The move to 2560 x 1600 desktop monitors accelerated that trend. The idea this was coming to TV wasn't new, but the products in the marketplace in other spaces made it real. In other words, 4K was coming regardless of whether OLED was ever invented.


3) 4K, like quadrophonic sound, SACD, and other exotic formats, was always going to be a tough sell with a long curve, but unlike many before it, it's actually really easy to manufacture on the LCD side. They can build it nearly for free and yet charge a nice premium for it.


4) Nothing about the inability to manufacture OLED for television is news. The only "news" was the now apparently entirely bogus dog-and-pony show from 2012 indicating OLED TV was coming before mid-decade. That was basically nothing more than a red herring resulting from some gigantic genital-measuring contest that has been going on between Samsung and LG since the 1990s.


(Oh, and while I still suspect LG will have the first viable OLED TV; Samsung's you-know-what is bigger.)


----------



## irkuck

 Dense LCDs are becoming commodity , this is another tough problem brewing for OLED even if only from the marketing point.


----------



## kdog750

rogo:


Right, I knew they had been working on OLED for years, with a much bigger push in the recent years to have it ready to roll out. But the article I had read last December said that LG and Samsung were shifting a large part of their resources to 4K and mostly abandoning(for now) the push into OLED,


Earlier in 2012, I had read some articles where they had talked about 4K vs. OLED. Most of the experts agreed that the manufacturers were going to opt for OLED for the next big thing because it had a much bigger visual impact than 4K. But like everything else, it all came down to money, and OLED just isn't ready for prime time yet, if ever.


I wish it had been too because I've seen the 84" 4K set in action before. I was less than impressed. I was originally blown away when I saw the first HD TV years ago displaying 720P. However, when I saw 4K diplayed, I didn't even realize it was anything higher than 1080P until I got about 4 feet away from the screen. I have 20/20 vision too and I just don't see 4K being the next big thing. But advertising is in full gear trying to convince us we need it.


And it must be working because based on what I read in the Sony 65" 4K TV thread here. Owners are claiming they are "blown away" by the 4K upscale resolution. But they either have super human acuity or are sitting 2 feet away from their sets. Or perhaps its some placebo effect happening.


----------



## GotHDTV?

Yeah, LG and Samsung only had 1080p OLED at CES this year and they had 4K also (but not OLED). Sony and Panasonic were the only one that had 4k OLED. Sharp did have a LCD 8K 84" on display that you could put your face to and was still clear.


I was going to post pictures from CES this year under the title "Special Displays that I saw at CES 20xx" like I used to do in the early 2000's, but I just did not have time. Maybe next year.


----------



## greenland

LG and Samsung are on to something. Just keep announcing the introduction of newer bigger and better OLED TV sets coming soon, and you get lots of free press, which convinces casual consumers that you are one of the very best cutting edge technology development companies, so anything with your brand name on it must surely be the very best and worth buying.


Next year they get to announce that they will soon be introducing a five hundred inch OLED set, with an infinite amount of Super Ultra Pixels, which will weigh only four grams, and can be folded into one of a myriad of different Origami Art Shapes,when not being used for TV purposes.


They got the free publicity scam idea from having read The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen.


----------



## vinnie97

^Getting cynical, are we?!







I like that Panasonic is keeping everything close to their chest (other than the insider who says it's "easy" for them to ramp up production, which I will remain suspect about until such time that a model is launched and in stores).


----------



## greenland

Well, the Auto Industry has been pulling that free publicity scam for as long as I can remember. Each year they build concept cars to display at the auto shows, which they have no intention to ever bring to market, and each year the TV stations salivate over them and show them on their news, and autos show specials, as if the consumers need to see and hear about fantasy cars, that will never be on the market.


----------



## vinnie97

True. The CEMs have done that for a while as well to be honest, typically at trade shows like the CES.







At least Tesla is doing more than blowing smoke.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23392918
> 
> Dense LCDs are becoming commodity , this is another tough problem brewing for OLED even if only from the marketing point.



Yes, and it's likely to get much worse. Within 2-3 years, only low-end LCD products _won't_ be "dense".



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23393575
> 
> 
> rogo:
> 
> 
> Right, I knew they had been working on OLED for years, with a much bigger push in the recent years to have it ready to roll out. But the article I had read last December said that LG and Samsung were shifting a large part of their resources to 4K and mostly abandoning(for now) the push into OLED,
> 
> 
> Earlier in 2012, I had read some articles where they had talked about 4K vs. OLED. Most of the experts agreed that the manufacturers were going to opt for OLED for the next big thing because it had a much bigger visual impact than 4K. But like everything else, it all came down to money, and OLED just isn't ready for prime time yet, if ever.



I think the article claiming a resource shift is something we've discussed and can't find evidence to support. It's certainly true that LG and Samsung are dipping toes in the 4K pool, but it's less clear that they are pulling and resources from OLED.


> Quote:
> I wish it had been too because I've seen the 84" 4K set in action before. I was less than impressed. I was originally blown away when I saw the first HD TV years ago displaying 720P. However, when I saw 4K diplayed, I didn't even realize it was anything higher than 1080P until I got about 4 feet away from the screen. I have 20/20 vision too and I just don't see 4K being the next big thing. But advertising is in full gear trying to convince us we need it.



One very, very serious problem for OLED is that it has the same problem as 4K in this regard. Many people are not going to see much of a difference. Look, I know at CES everyone goes "OMG THIS IS THE GREATEST TV EVER" when viewing the demo loops. I've been to basically every CES since the late 1990s, so I get to see all these reactions. But I also go to Best Buy and such a lot. People are just going to shrug a lot when an OLED is showing Monsters University next to a bunch of LCDs and that F8500 plasma in the corner.


> Quote:
> And it must be working because based on what I read in the Sony 65" 4K TV thread here. Owners are claiming they are "blown away" by the 4K upscale resolution. But they either have super human acuity or are sitting 2 feet away from their sets. Or perhaps its some placebo effect happening.



At least 4K has a spec sheet to look at. OLED has no spec to even tout, unless it's also 4K.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23394111
> 
> 
> LG and Samsung are on to something. Just keep announcing the introduction of newer bigger and better OLED TV sets coming soon, and you get lots of free press, which convinces casual consumers that you are one of the very best cutting edge technology development companies, so anything with your brand name on it must surely be the very best and worth buying.
> 
> 
> Next year they get to announce that they will soon be introducing a five hundred inch OLED set, with an infinite amount of Super Ultra Pixels, which will weigh only four grams, and can be folded into one of a myriad of different Origami Art Shapes,when not being used for TV purposes.
> 
> 
> They got the free publicity scam idea from having read The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen.



The thing about this is that the nonsense has gone on for years. In fact, Sharp and Panasonic used to routinely trot out the world's largest this or that. Neither is guaranteed to even be in the TV business by mid-decade. So I doubt it's "working". And Samsung has been pulling this nonsense since, well, forever. They showed a 40-inch LCD for at least 3 years before you could buy it. They showed a 65-inch for a similar period of time and then again with their 75-inch.


None of it matters...


The reason Samsung succeeds is when you go to Best Buy, the wall is filled with them and you know about them because of relentless (and usually decent) marketing. Nothing wrong with that, but I doubt it's because anyone in Best Buy thinks they are shipping an OLED.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23394458
> 
> 
> True. The CEMs have done that for a while as well to be honest, typically at trade shows like the CES.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least Tesla is doing more than blowing smoke.



Tesla is a model for delivering on promises. Even when they have to delay something, they let the world know in advance. The long wait for their $35,000 car is going to be painful to sit through. I say this (a) because I want the SUV variant (model X is probably too big for me, Model S certainly is) and (b) because they are going to from niche to mainstream and forever silence the electric-car doubters. And green or not, those cars are so much better than what all of us are now driving, the beginning of the mainstreaming of them is going to make the world a better place. (And, yes, I'm also an environmentalist, but based on my time behind the wheel of a Model S, I'm at least as excited about the prospect of driving such an incredibly performing vehicle day in and day out.)


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23394274
> 
> 
> ^Getting cynical, are we?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like that Panasonic is keeping everything close to their chest (other than the insider who says it's "easy" for them to ramp up production, which I will remain suspect about until such time that a model is launched and in stores).



Panasonic's Chief Technology Office said today they will have an OLED TV on the market in 2015. Of course that is not really going to happen in any meaningful way as he goes on to say 'we are only at the technological development stage at this point.' Also, there's no factory, no investment in a factory, no specific plans to invest in a factory, no money to invest, no plans to build production printing equipment, etc. Actually Panasonic may not be making many TVs at all for long, either LCD or plasma.


"Panasonic is also carrying out a significant scaling-back of its output of LCD and plasma screens for TV use, to the point where LCDs for tablets and other non-TV applications will account for 80% of its product by the end of this year. Currently the TV/non-TV split is around 50:50."


On the other hand, LG is spending a lot of money to build a factory and Samsung is expected to announce their investment in the next few months.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23395102
> 
> 
> Tesla is a model for delivering on promises. Even when they have to delay something, they let the world know in advance. The long wait for their $35,000 car is going to be painful to sit through. I say this (a) because I want the SUV variant (model X is probably too big for me, Model S certainly is) and (b) because they are going to from niche to mainstream and forever silence the electric-car doubters. And green or not, those cars are so much better than what all of us are now driving, the beginning of the mainstreaming of them is going to make the world a better place. (And, yes, I'm also an environmentalist, but based on my time behind the wheel of a Model S, I'm at least as excited about the prospect of driving such an incredibly performing vehicle day in and day out.)


I'm not the environmentalist type but I love using less energy and the (long-term) economic benefits that entails, so the range of 300 miles really piqued my attention in a good way. Battery technology seems to be the main roadblock to getting better range, so I hope by some miracle the forthcoming "low-end" (2015?) model will have an even greater range (this could be improved in other areas as well obviously, like with improvements in the aerodynamic design of the vehicle itself). I hope to make their low-end vehicle my next purchase based on what they're doing now. Their supercharger station installation forecast is another impressive venture that I hope they can deliver on (20 minutes for half a charge is not as convenient or quick as filling up a tank, but we're nearly there).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23395710
> 
> 
> Panasonic's Chief Technology Office said today they will have an OLED TV on the market in 2015. Of course that is not really going to happen in any meaningful way as he goes on to say 'we are only at the technological development stage at this point.' Also, there's no factory, no investment in a factory, no specific plans to invest in a factory, no money to invest, no plans to build production printing equipment, etc. Actually Panasonic may not be making many TVs at all for long, either LCD or plasma.
> 
> 
> "Panasonic is also carrying out a significant scaling-back of its output of LCD and plasma screens for TV use, to the point where LCDs for tablets and other non-TV applications will account for 80% of its product by the end of this year. Currently the TV/non-TV split is around 50:50."
> 
> 
> On the other hand, LG is spending a lot of money to build a factory and Samsung is expected to announce their investment in the next few months.


Thanks for that, 2015 at the earliest with a prohibitive price and a highly limited number of units.


----------



## rogo

The only thing Panasonic seems unequivocally committed to is being a much smaller player in the TV market.


I do hope they ship something in 2015, but it's clear -- as I and others have said before -- that for them (and for that matter Sony) to be a volume player, we are looking at 2016-17 the earliest for that to happen.


It's frustrating to have been prescient on this....


----------



## kdog750

*"I think the article claiming a resource shift is something we've discussed and can't find evidence to support."*


I can't find the original article but here's one from last month:

http://bgr.com/2013/05/22/samsung-lg-oled-investment-failure/ 

_Samsung, LG reportedly rush back to LCD TVs after OLED investments fizzle_


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23392918
> 
> Dense LCDs are becoming commodity , this is another tough problem brewing for OLED even if only from the marketing point.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23395102
> 
> 
> Yes, and it's likely to get much worse. Within 2-3 years, only low-end LCD products _won't_ be "dense".



Meaning OLED will be a niche technology at best.Unless there is some breakthrough in printed wallpaper OLED.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23396504
> 
> *"I think the article claiming a resource shift is something we've discussed and can't find evidence to support."*
> 
> 
> I can't find the original article but here's one from last month:
> 
> http://bgr.com/2013/05/22/samsung-lg-oled-investment-failure/
> 
> _Samsung, LG reportedly rush back to LCD TVs after OLED investments fizzle_



The problem is, that's the same "article" we're more or less discussing, just a different link/source. Existing evidence -- in the form of financials / quarterly reports from LG and Samsung -- indicates that article is basically fiction.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23396654
> 
> 
> Samsung has done something very telling this year. They have developed and already brought to market a PLasma model that has been so drastically redesigned and improved on, from their previous Plasma models, that I doubt they would have invested so much into doing so, if they planned to have OLED ready for wide distribution within the next two or more years.



I again find myself agreeing and disagreeing. On the one hand. it's a state-of-the-art, flagship product. On the other hand, Samsung can clearly do both at the same time. It's different people working on the products.


> Quote:
> Their new Plasma is almost like when Pioneer made the jump from their old design to their new Kuro approach. I am not saying that the Samsung F8500 is the equal of the best Kuro, but I am saying that for Samsung it is just about as big a leap forward.



What's going to be interesting is to see whether they follow up on the F8500 with the tweaking necessarily to get rid of the flaws still present that kept the "experts" from declaring it the unequivocal winner. If they take it up another notch next year, I think that will increase the signaling value of it that much more.


I do agree with your assessment that it's a big leap for Samsung. That said, it appears to be at best overall on parity with the Panasonics, outside of the brightness. That's why I'm curious to see where it goes in 2014. Another jump forward suggests they expect the technology to carry on for several more years.


> Quote:
> They are also devoting a lot of attention to tending to any software issues that arise, and getting out updates to correct them on a more rapid basis than they have done in previous years. I doubt that they would have gone to all that effort to come up with such an improved Plasma product, if they did not expect to be selling more of them than OLED sets for the next few years at least. Their actions speak louder than their words about OLED as far as I can tell.



That does seem to signal a shift. If nothing else, it shows Samsung committed to better customer experiences overall.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23396744
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning OLED will be a niche technology at best.Unless there is some breakthrough in printed wallpaper OLED.



One thing we can say with something approaching certainty: OLED as a portion of TV sales is not going to threaten LCD anytime soon at all. For all the sniping I got when I suggested more a year ago that OLED wasn't going to catch LCD in overall sales by decade's end, it now appears all-but impossible for it reach even 10% of TV unit sales within 5 years. That would be 25 million units in 2017, which seems absurd when we can be reasonably assured that 2014 is going to be ~1 million _if suddenly everything aligns._ Even if you believe that magically turns into 5 million in 2015, double that twice and you are not at 10% of the TV market in 2017.


There is _still_ a lot of brave talk out of LG about price parity and the impending OLED tsunami. But until there's at least an earthquake, it's hard to take it very seriously.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Manufacturers forecast low OLED TV shipments this year, DigiTimes says


Source: FlyOnTheWall 


Samsung Electronics (SSNLF) has set a goal of 200,000 OLED TV panels from its in-house production in 2012, while LG Electronics has lowered its target for OLED TV panels to be sourced from LG Display (LPL) to 50,000 units from the previous target of 100,000, according to DigiTimes, citing industry sources.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5900_100#post_23397431
> 
> 
> Manufacturers forecast low OLED TV shipments this year, DigiTimes says
> 
> 
> Source: FlyOnTheWall
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics (SSNLF) has set a goal of 200,000 OLED TV panels from its in-house production in 2012, while LG Electronics has lowered its target for OLED TV panels to be sourced from LG Display (LPL) to 50,000 units from the previous target of 100,000, according to DigiTimes, citing industry sources.



I wonder how big they're going to make the O on their boxes since they really seem to me to be the first and worst offender at fooling people as to what "LED" means.


----------



## tgm1024

There's an crank-pot attitude here I'm not sure I understand.


Why do the attempts at bringing OLED to a product for the last 10 years have an emotionally charged bearing on the progress they've made in the last two? I don't care if they've been trying for 5, 10, or 15 years to get a product---it seems to me that it's exciting to be so close and the LG 2012 issues excepted, I don't see that learning curve to be any set of broken promises to be angry about.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23397703
> 
> 
> There's an crank-pot attitude here I'm not sure I understand.
> 
> 
> Why do the attempts at bringing OLED to a product for the last 10 years have an emotionally charged bearing on the progress they've made in the last two? I don't care if they've been trying for 5, 10, or 15 years to get a product---it seems to me that it's exciting to be so close and the LG 2012 issues excepted, I don't see that learning curve to be any set of broken promises to be angry about.



well it should not: perhaps we set our expectations too high


I have been an early adopter of plasma and LED LCD's and am also hoping to buy an OLED display but some of the luster of this new technology seems to be wearing off: I think start up and learning curve difficulties can provide an indication as to the possible overall success of a new product.


And as pointed out, with the present economy and the fact that existing displays on the market are considered commodities it does not portend well for OLED: but we can continue to hope...


my opinion only


----------



## irkuck

Seasoned experts like *rogo* agree OLED TV will be a niche technology to which I am adding - "_at best_". Maybe chances of OLED are better in mobile where every micron shaved off the thickness counts. But even this is iffy as indicated by no clear advantage between the latest 2K displays in the S4 OLED and HTC1 LCD.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23398094
> 
> 
> Seasoned experts like *rogo* agree OLED TV will be a niche technology to which I am adding - "_at best_". Maybe chances of OLED are better in mobile where every micron shaved off the thickness counts. But even this is iffy as indicated by no clear advantage between the latest 2K displays in the S4 OLED and HTC1 LCD.



Sorry, I don't buy that OLED will be a niche. I think OLED will replace both Plasma and LCD. Sure, it will take several years but I have little doubt it will happen.


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23398396
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't buy that OLED will be a niche. I think OLED will replace both Plasma and LCD. Sure, it will take several years but I have little doubt it will happen.



I'll give you 10 to 1 odds that it won't.


I'll bet the technology that finally replaces LCD hasn't even been invented yet.


----------



## binici

But...

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Televisions/OLED-TVs/pcmcat301000050010.c?id=pcmcat301000050010 



OLED TVs — Coming This Year to Best Buy


Going green never looked so good


OLED (Organic Light-Emitting Diode) TV technology will soon be joining plasma, LED and LCD in the very competitive television marketplace. So why should you consider an OLED TV over the more established TV technologies?


With an OLED TV, you'll enjoy a high degree of color accuracy, great contrast, wide viewing angles and low power consumption. And unlike some existing television technologies that contain toxic lead and/or mercury, OLED is a completely green technology that will not add pollutants to landfills.



The Benefits of OLED:


•Color Accuracy — OLED displays have the ability to recreate every color in the visible spectrum

•Contrast — OLED displays create black areas by completely shutting off, and their inherent high brightness also produces pristine whites

•Fast Switching — OLED displays have extremely fast refresh rates for blur-free action sequences

•Wide Viewing Angels — The high brightness and self-illumination of OLED displays translate to an extremely wide viewing angle

•Low Power Consumption — Since they produce their own light and require no backlighting, OLED displays are extremely efficient

•Environmentally Friendly — As mentioned previously, OLEDs don't contain toxic chemicals, so they are truly a "green" technology

•Durability — OLED displays are more rugged and can operate in more extreme conditions, such as higher altitudes and colder temperatures, than other display technologies

•Dimensions — OLED displays can be made very thin and are therefore very lightweight




Check BestBuy.com for updates and product release dates as the year progresses, and sample OLED TVs at your local Best Buy store once they hit the marketplace.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23398094
> 
> 
> Seasoned experts like *rogo* agree OLED TV will be a niche technology to which I am adding - "_at best_". Maybe chances of OLED are better in mobile where every micron shaved off the thickness counts. But even this is iffy as indicated by no clear advantage between the latest 2K displays in the S4 OLED and HTC1 LCD.



I agree the HTC One looks pretty amazing as well. And, yes, I'm with you. OLED TVs will be a niche technology, _at best_, for at least the next several years. Anyone arguing otherwise at this point is kidding themselves. Where you and I agree is that "the next several years" means through the decade. That's where others deviate from us.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23398396
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't buy that OLED will be a niche. I think OLED will replace both Plasma and LCD. Sure, it will take several years but I have little doubt it will happen.



Why does it replace plasma and OLED? Cost? No evidence of that. Quality? That's rarely a winning proposition and on mobile, at least, we're seeing LCD go toe-to-toe with OLED. BMW hasn't _replaced_ Toyota and is no closer to doing so now than it was in the 1980s when it first went mainstream


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23398862
> 
> 
> I'll give you 10 to 1 odds that it won't.
> 
> 
> I'll bet the technology that finally replaces LCD hasn't even been invented yet.



That's very possible, which means we won't see it until 2025 -- or later.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *binici*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23399229
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> 
> 
> OLED TVs — Coming This Year to Best Buy



As the late, great Whitney Houston once said, "Crack is whack."


----------



## Artwood

Rogo: Most people PRESUME that a successor to the ZT60 will be offered by Panasonic in 2014.


Here's the big question: if Panasonic cannot deliver on OLED until 2016 is there ANY CHANCE that Panasonic might offer one last great plasma in 2015?


LCD HATERS from all around the world are dying to know!


Should the last plasma bridge TV be bought in 2014 or 2015?


How much would 4K LCD have to suck for you to buy a plasma bridge TV?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *binici*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23399229
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> The Benefits of OLED:
> 
> •Color Accuracy — OLED displays have the ability to recreate every color in the visible spectrum
> 
> •Contrast — OLED displays create black areas by completely shutting off, and their inherent high brightness also produces pristine whites
> 
> •Fast Switching — OLED displays have extremely fast refresh rates for blur-free action sequences
> 
> •Wide Viewing Angels — The high brightness and self-illumination of OLED displays translate to an extremely wide viewing angle
> 
> •Low Power Consumption — Since they produce their own light and require no backlighting, OLED displays are extremely efficient
> 
> •Environmentally Friendly — As mentioned previously, OLEDs don't contain toxic chemicals, so they are truly a "green" technology
> 
> •Durability — OLED displays are more rugged and can operate in more extreme conditions, such as higher altitudes and colder temperatures, than other display technologies
> 
> •Dimensions — OLED displays can be made very thin and are therefore very lightweight



Yeah, OLED may have these nice features but how they show up in real life? This is tested right now by the market on large scale in mobile with the S4 OLED vs. other 2K mobile LCD's. result is OLED does not provide clear unequivocal case of PQ superiority. Conclusion is LCD is good enough which limits the case for OLED.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Panasonic Plans to Have OLED HDTVs by 2015*


Source: HDTV Review 


Panasonic’s CTO, Yoshiyuki Miyabe, announced earlier this week that the company is looking to launch their first OLED TVs by the end of the 2015 fiscal year. That actually equates to sometime by March 2016. The only details known are from the demos that Panasonic has shown. Currently, the company is showing off a 56 inch display featuring 4K (3840 x 2160) resolution. We probably won’t hear more about the TVs until it get closer to a release date.


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23401117
> 
> 
> Yeah, OLED may have these nice features but how they show up in real life? This is tested right now by the market on large scale in mobile with the S4 OLED vs. other 2K mobile LCD's. result is OLED does not provide clear unequivocal case of PQ superiority. Conclusion is LCD is good enough which limits the case for OLED.



I don't see how you can compare 5" and sub-5" screens to that of a flat panel TV? I disagree with the notion that LCD is _good enough._ It's average. You don't use your phone(or its screen/display technology) in the same way you're using your TV(or it's screen/display technology)


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23402628
> 
> 
> I don't see how you can compare 5" and sub-5" screens to that of a flat panel TV? I disagree with the notion that LCD is _good enough._ It's average. You don't use your phone(or its screen/display technology) in the same way you're using your TV(or it's screen/display technology)



It's not good enough for you but it is good enough in the eyes of the market as a whole. Fore example LCD TVs with local dimming are better than edge-lit ones but market decided edge-lits are good enough and does not want to pay overhead for the local dimmers.


Obviously mobile displays can not serve as substitute for comparison of TV panels. But it is remarkable OLED does not exhibit clear advantage there. It may get the same with TV panels.


----------



## Whatstreet

The fact that a very large consumer electronics retailer *believes* they will be able to sell OLED TVs in the foreseeable future is very encouraging. Still, price and availability may be limited.


The quote "Going green never looked so good" is important as even large governments wants this for their societies very badly.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *binici*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23399229
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Televisions/OLED-TVs/pcmcat301000050010.c?id=pcmcat301000050010
> 
> 
> 
> OLED TVs — Coming This Year to Best Buy
> 
> 
> Going green never looked so good
> 
> 
> 
> Check BestBuy.com for updates and product release dates as the year progresses, and sample OLED TVs at your local Best Buy store once they hit the marketplace.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23396329
> 
> 
> The only thing Panasonic seems unequivocally committed to is being a much smaller player in the TV market.....



Sad but true. I just hope we don't one day see Panasonic selling off their brand name for someone to label garbage with, like Polaroid did.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23398396
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't buy that OLED will be a niche. I think OLED will replace both Plasma and LCD. Sure, it will take several years but I have little doubt it will happen.



Unless OLET comes out. Or Quantum grits, or Zombie SED or disposable LCD or ..........


I truly hope it will live up to it's potential. And the large investment to date is encouraging, assuming it's really happened. But I must admit to questioning the when - and the if.


----------



## andy sullivan

I don't think that a 4K OLED display can take a 720P or 1080i network broadcast signal and substantially improve the PQ enough to justify a larger price outlay . Compare it to a Sony 70" passive 3D for $2500 today. If (not a chance in this decade) you could sell the OLED version of the 70" Sony in 4K for $3500 it still wouldn't make much of a dent in the market. To get the average person to spend 40% more you're going to have to blow them away, I mean like slap them in the face blow them away.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23400908
> 
> 
> Rogo: Most people PRESUME that a successor to the ZT60 will be offered by Panasonic in 2014.
> 
> 
> Here's the big question: if Panasonic cannot deliver on OLED until 2016 is there ANY CHANCE that Panasonic might offer one last great plasma in 2015?
> 
> 
> LCD HATERS from all around the world are dying to know!
> 
> 
> Should the last plasma bridge TV be bought in 2014 or 2015?
> 
> 
> How much would 4K LCD have to suck for you to buy a plasma bridge TV?



I'm sure there will be a Panasonic successor to the ZT60. And, based on published reports about ending all plasma R&D, I'm sure it'll be a ZT60 with a new bezel - and very little else new about it.


Heck, in 2015 *even I* might have to go take a look at the "last" Panny plasma. If anyone has them on decent display. Or ANY display.


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Whatstreet*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23402782
> 
> 
> The fact that a very large consumer electronics retailer *believes* they will be able to sell OLED TVs in the foreseeable future is very encouraging. Still, price and availability may be limited.
> 
> 
> The quote "Going green never looked so good" is important as even large governments wants this for their societies very badly.



Governments don't really care about "going green". They are using that as a cover for trying to get a carbon tax. It would help sell to the environmentally conscience consumer though.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *binici*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5970#post_23399229
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> 
> •Color Accuracy — OLED displays have the ability to recreate every color in the visible spectrum



Too bad Rec. 709 is still use for recordings and broadcasts so this is irrelevant.


> Quote:
> •Contrast — OLED displays create black areas by completely shutting off, and their inherent high brightness also produces pristine whites



Nice, but for ANSI, the best displays already match/exceed the human visual-perception system... No, really, they do. Still, I think 1% of buyers will value that extra contrast.


> Quote:
> •Fast Switching — OLED displays have extremely fast refresh rates for blur-free action sequences



Another 1% technology


> Quote:
> •Wide Viewing Angels — The high brightness and self-illumination of OLED displays translate to an extremely wide viewing angle



And another...


> Quote:
> •Low Power Consumption — Since they produce their own light and require no backlighting, OLED displays are extremely efficient



But not really more so than LED LCDs already for sale, so... no...


> Quote:
> •Durability — OLED displays are more rugged and can operate in more extreme conditions, such as higher altitudes and colder temperatures, than other display technologies



Please. This is comparing it to plasma?


> Quote:
> •Dimensions — OLED displays can be made very thin and are therefore very lightweight



A 0.1% problem.


In other words, a lot of features that all together will interest


----------



## irkuck

 Rumor mills never stop upping the stakes.


----------



## rogo

The only remotely interesting thing about these prototypes is that for some of us, if they were to ever exist, they might be our next TVs... And the operative words in that sentence are "remotely" and "exist"....


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23404348
> 
> Rumor mills never stop upping the stakes.



"Sources" will also say any silly little thing you want to hear.


----------



## irkuck

 Anyway, OLED future is forecasted to be curved but big







.


Update: Finally taking position in the starting blocks?


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23407227
> 
> Anyway, OLED future is forecasted to be curved but big
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Update: Finally taking position in the starting blocks? [/quote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I will be able to pick one up at best buy next month.
> 
> 
> 
> Cool!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23407227
> 
> Anyway, OLED future is forecasted to be curved but big



I believe there might be a ton of uses for those things, but for TVs? I don't believe it for a sec. Having a face on the left side off the screen narrow excessively to the faces on the right when you're sitting to the left of the TV?


To say otherwise is
 

OR
 

OR
 


(take your pick).


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23407778
> 
> 
> I believe there might be a ton of uses for those things, but for TVs? I don't believe it for a sec. Having a face on the left side off the screen narrow excessively to the faces on the right when you're sitting to the left of the TV?



Notice this is very gentle curving, for 55" it is more of a gimmick (and the price of it is laughable). But for a 110" 4K display this could be real viewing enhancement for sweetspot position.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23408328
> 
> 
> But for a 110" 4K display this could be real viewing enhancement for sweetspot position.



And very bad viewing for anyone sitting anywhere off-axis!

No, I'd say a curved screen (even if "gently" curved) for a panel display is a very bad idea - unless you're entire audience is sitting directly straight on...


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23408338
> 
> 
> And very bad viewing for anyone sitting anywhere off-axis!
> 
> No, I'd say a curved screen (even if "gently" curved) for a panel display is a very bad idea - unless you're entire audience is sitting directly straight on...



I am not sure it is very bad, should be fine for SINK's and DINK's but is not for communal viewing







.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23408383
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23408338
> 
> 
> And very bad viewing for anyone sitting anywhere off-axis!
> 
> No, I'd say a curved screen (even if "gently" curved) for a panel display is a very bad idea - unless you're entire audience is sitting directly straight on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure it is very bad, should be fine for SINK's and DINK's but is not for communal viewing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Last time I heard those acronyms it was the 80's! LOL...


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23403412
> 
> 
> Too bad Rec. 709 is still use for recordings and broadcasts so this is irrelevant.


The Rec. 2020 color space is supported by HEVC, will likely be supported by HDMI 2.0, and might be supported by the 4K version of Blu-ray. The ability to show more than the Rec. 709 color space on a consumer display has limited application today but that could change within the next year.


----------



## hoozthatat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23408817
> 
> 
> The Rec. 2020 color space is supported by HEVC, will likely be supported by HDMI 2.0, and might be supported by the 4K version of Blu-ray. The ability to show more than the Rec. 709 color space on a consumer display has limited application today but that could change within the next year.



Are you insinuating that the entire broadcast/recording industry is going to switch their default color space for mastering and content delivery to Rec. 2020? When every individual that owns a flat panel in the U.S. will be watching displays that only show content at Rec. 709? Because that just seems silly. There will be *limited* avaiability of Rec. 2020 content in 2013 and 2014. And could end up being even longer.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23408817
> 
> 
> The Rec. 2020 color space is supported by HEVC, will likely be supported by HDMI 2.0, and might be supported by the 4K version of Blu-ray. The ability to show more than the Rec. 709 color space on a consumer display has limited application today but that could change within the next year.



It could change from *absolutely zero application* to _some minimal application_ in one year is what you mean right?


In other words, if any of that actually materializes into mattering, then the ability to display > Rec. 709 might actually matter for that tiny fraction of content.


Of course, the content then has to have a color palette that actually uses the larger color space in a detectable way, so we've reduced the available set of content where this matters by another 90-99%.


Figure on the first part being about 0.1% of content you'll view and the second part being about 10% of that content.


So this larger color space might matter on 0.01% of what you watch.

*Who is signing up to replace their TV for that extra color?*


----------



## kdog750

The reason they introduced a curved OLED screen was strictly to distinguish it from other TV's. Like others have said, a gimmick. Unfortunately, it's the wrong gimmick since it actually restricts the viewing angle. A curved screen is fine if you are at an IMAX theater. Not so good for TV viewing.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23409030
> 
> 
> Are you insinuating that the entire broadcast/recording industry is going to switch their default color space for mastering and content delivery to Rec. 2020?


No, but I look at whether something is relevant by how likely it is to be used during the lifetime of the display.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hoozthatat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23409030
> 
> 
> There will be *limited* avaiability of Rec. 2020 content in 2013 and 2014. And could end up being even longer.


Both film and digital movies could take advantage of the Rec. 2020 color space. After all both of them have color spaces that are larger than Rec. 709.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23409876
> 
> 
> Of course, the content then has to have a color palette that actually uses the larger color space in a detectable way, so we've reduced the available set of content where this matters by another 90-99%.


I think you are vastly overestimating the Rec. 709 color space since it only covers 35.9% of the color space that can be seen by the human eye. Digital movies and professional photography use larger color spaces for good reason.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23407227
> 
> Anyway, OLED future is forecasted to be curved but big
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Update: Finally taking position in the starting blocks?



Hmm... where have I seen that black box before... Oh, now I remember - back in May 2012 when they were supposed to ship the flat 55" version.

http://forums.hdtvtest.co.uk/index.php?topic=7136.0 


Enough with the stupid PR stunts LG! Just ship something already or admit that this thing will never see the light of day.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23409936
> 
> 
> Both film and digital movies could take advantage of the Rec. 2020 color space. After all both of them have color spaces that are larger than Rec. 709.



The operative word is _could._


> Quote:
> I think you are vastly overestimating the Rec. 709 color space since it only covers 35.9% of the color space that can be seen by the human eye. Digital movies and professional photography use larger color spaces for good reason.



I think you are vastly overestimate the number of productions that will be made in a larger colorspace given how few people will be able to play back the expanded colorspace. We already have these hypothetically expanded colorspaces on BluRay, in TVs, et al. but there is no one actually viewing them. Why? Because without 100% of the value chain produced, mastered and duplicated in the wider colorspace, you never see the color.


Also, I'm sorry, but a well dialed in TV already looks freaking amazing. People love the color on them. This is truly a solution that continues to seek a problem. Yes, I am aware of occasionally wishing for a redder red or a tealer teal or whatnot. But that wish is pretty rare.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23409876
> 
> 
> It could change from *absolutely zero application* to _some minimal application_ in one year is what you mean right?
> 
> In other words, if any of that actually materializes into mattering, then the ability to display > Rec. 709 might actually matter for that tiny fraction of content.
> 
> Of course, the content then has to have a color palette that actually uses the larger color space in a detectable way, so we've reduced the available set of content where this matters by another 90-99%.
> 
> Figure on the first part being about 0.1% of content you'll view and the second part being about 10% of that content.
> 
> So this larger color space might matter on 0.01% of what you watch.
> *Who is signing up to replace their TV for that extra color?*


Surely all 4K content is going to be BT.2020 - the DCI colorspace that films are mastered to is significantly wider than the current BT.709 standard.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23409936
> 
> 
> No, but I look at whether something is relevant by how likely it is to be used during the lifetime of the display.
> 
> Both film and digital movies could take advantage of the Rec. 2020 color space. After all both of them have color spaces that are larger than Rec. 709.
> 
> I think you are vastly overestimating the Rec. 709 color space since it only covers 35.9% of the color space that can be seen by the human eye. Digital movies and professional photography use larger color spaces for good reason.


That's true, but colors that we typically encounter are much narrower than that, and not _that_ far beyond the BT.709 colorspace.


I seem to recall seeing a chart which showed the typical gamut of "everyday" colors, and it actually wasn't that far beyond the limits of BT.709, so I do wonder how significant moving to the BT.2020 gamut will be.

I thought it was in some of the early Quattron literature from when they were first launched, but I can't seem to find it now. (it was a CIE chart with a lot of data points marked on it, showing how the extra 10% colorspace from Quattron covered most of them)


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> But when it comes to notice subtle differences among shades of a color, woman do tend to come out on top


 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/09/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex/


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23410056
> 
> 
> The operative word is _could._


I see no reason why it won't happen once there is a video format that supports the Rec. 2020 color space.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23410056
> 
> 
> I think you are vastly overestimate the number of productions that will be made in a larger colorspace given how few people will be able to play back the expanded colorspace. We already have these hypothetically expanded colorspaces on BluRay, in TVs, et al. but there is no one actually viewing them.


DLP, LCD, OLED, and Plasma can show a larger color space than Rec. 709 and I think the main reason it hasn't happened yet was due to the lack of a widely adopted standard. xvYCC was proprietary, was supported by only a few companies, and was limited because it had to be compatible with 8-bit video.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23410827
> 
> 
> That's true, but colors that we typically encounter are much narrower than that, and not _that_ far beyond the BT.709 colorspace.
> 
> 
> I seem to recall seeing a chart which showed the typical gamut of "everyday" colors, and it actually wasn't that far beyond the limits of BT.709, so I do wonder how significant moving to the BT.2020 gamut will be.
> 
> I thought it was in some of the early Quattron literature from when they were first launched, but I can't seem to find it now. (it was a CIE chart with a lot of data points marked on it, showing how the extra 10% colorspace from Quattron covered most of them)


The Rec. 709 color space covers 74.4% of Pointer's color space which is a color space of natural surface colors (nothing that was made by humans). So even for nature footage we are still missing out on 25.6% of the color space that can be seen by the human eye. Here is a link to an article on Super Hi-Vision which has a chart comparing various color spaces. Also here is a link to a document about the development of Rec. 2020 and section 3.2.6 is about the color space.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23412729
> 
> 
> I see no reason why it won't happen once there is a video format that supports the Rec. 2020 color space.



Call us when the format comes out, kk?


> Quote:
> DLP, LCD, OLED, and Plasma can show a larger color space than Rec. 709 and I think the main reason it hasn't happened yet was due to the lack of a widely adopted standard. xvYCC was proprietary, was supported by only a few companies, and was limited because it had to be compatible with 8-bit video.



So a bunch of TVs that can support a wider color space have been out for more than a decade, but there is no content. But OLED -- which has been vaporware for a decade -- is going to change this? Got it!


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23414173
> 
> 
> Call us when the format comes out, kk?
> 
> So a bunch of TVs that can support a wider color space have been out for more than a decade, but there is no content. But OLED -- which has been vaporware for a decade -- is going to change this? Got it!


I'm surprised that you agree that 4K's requirement for new players means that H.265 will likely become the standard, but you don't think BT.2020 will happen at all. Why would they _not_ do that?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23414768
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23414173
> 
> 
> Call us when the format comes out, kk?
> 
> So a bunch of TVs that can support a wider color space have been out for more than a decade, but there is no content. But OLED -- which has been vaporware for a decade -- is going to change this? Got it!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised that you agree that 4K's requirement for new players means that H.265 will likely become the standard, but you don't think BT.2020 will happen at all. Why would they _not_ do that?
Click to expand...


I'll chime in here quickly not with Rogo's concern but with my concern I voiced else forum.


They probably will "do" 2020. But I think we're gold plating the tire irons a bit:

No one but the uber purists is complaining that the color space doesn't "reach" enough of the real colors.
A new color space will not fix goofed up colors from channel to channel vs. what's encoded on the blu-ray.
Where the rubber meets the road is what the display itself can push. _Regardless of the color model sent to the device_, a red sub can only go 0 to full blast. Same for the green & blue. However the model itself _divides that up_ is different than something magically waving a magic wand and changing the display itself. Even the crummiest of all color models can reach 0 to full blast.


The triangles showing the *color model* differences within the chromaticity diagram are not changing what the display itself is capable of outputting.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23414816
> 
> 
> No one but the uber purists is complaining that the color space doesn't "reach" enough of the real colors.


I often see "non-purists" with their TVs having all the processing turned up, oversaturating the image. So while the displays can currently go beyond the BT.709 gamut, they look incredibly unnatural when doing so - but a lot of people like the extra saturation. BT.2020 gives you more saturated color, _without_ making it look like people are sunburnt etc.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23414816
> 
> 
> A new color space will not fix goofed up colors from channel to channel vs. what's encoded on the blu-ray.


I'm not sure what you mean by this.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23414816
> 
> 
> Where the rubber meets the road is what the display itself can push. _Regardless of the color model sent to the device_, a red sub can only go 0 to full blast. Same for the green & blue. However the model itself _divides that up_ is different than something magically waving a magic wand and changing the display itself. Even the crummiest of all color models can reach 0 to full blast.


 See here .


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23414768
> 
> 
> I'm surprised that you agree that 4K's requirement for new players means that H.265 will likely become the standard, but you don't think BT.2020 will happen at all. Why would they _not_ do that?



They're at totally different parts of the value chain, and they have different implications.


You can take _any_ video and compress it into H.265. So long as the decoder exists, the viewer can see it, irrespective of display.


A wider colorspace means changing _every single piece_ of the value chain. Anytime you work in the smaller colorspace: camera --> recording --> compression --> transmission / physical disc --> player --> display you lose the extra color info and _can never recover it_.


Understand what that means and you can see why _even if_ the standard supports BT.2020 (and let's just agree it will), it might not reach people. If a content producer merely uses the smaller colorspace _anywhere_, that's what the user will see. If the user's display can only receive the smaller color information or process it, that's what the user will see.


Furthermore, there is the issue of "nice to have" vs. "need to have". You can't transmit 4K or package it without also moving to H.265. (Well, of course you can, but you can't get it to anywhere near as many people in anywhere near the quality you'll need to convince _anyone_ that it actually looks any different.) The wider colorspace? What problem is that solving? The one where some tiny subset of colors we wish existed in video aren't able to be reproduced. But the _vast majority of colors we want_ are already there in Rec.709. They just are.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23417309
> 
> 
> A wider colorspace means changing _every single piece_ of the value chain. Anytime you work in the smaller colorspace: camera --> recording --> compression --> transmission / physical disc --> player --> display you lose the extra color info and _can never recover it_.


Content is not currently shot in BT.709 though, all of these transformations are already happening in production.


Cameras will shoot in their "native" colorspace that differs depending on the brand, which is then converted to DCI for Theaters, and BT.709 for Consumers.


Cameras such as the Sony F65 are already capturing _much_ wider gamuts than even DCI supports:
​

So it will be simple for them to output to BT.2020 instead of BT.709 - it's actually less work, as it's more difficult to have things looking good when you are constraining the gamuts so much.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23417309
> 
> 
> Understand what that means and you can see why _even if_ the standard supports BT.2020 (and let's just agree it will), it might not reach people. If a content producer merely uses the smaller colorspace _anywhere_, that's what the user will see. If the user's display can only receive the smaller color information or process it, that's what the user will see.


Actually, what usually happens with colorspace mismatches is that the image will either look very desaturated, or very oversaturated. Colors are essentially stored as percentage values rather than absolute values. So 100% red is different depending on the colorspace you assign them.


You won't "lose" that color information if it passes through something in the chain incorrectly - it just won't look right until you assign it the proper colorspace.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23417309
> 
> 
> Furthermore, there is the issue of "nice to have" vs. "need to have". You can't transmit 4K or package it without also moving to H.265. (Well, of course you can, but you can't get it to anywhere near as many people in anywhere near the quality you'll need to convince _anyone_ that it actually looks any different.) The wider colorspace? What problem is that solving? The one where some tiny subset of colors we wish existed in video aren't able to be reproduced. But the _vast majority of colors we want_ are already there in Rec.709. They just are.


Just like there's no point moving to 4K without H.265, there's no point moving to it without BT.2020 either.


BT.2020 is going to be far more noticeable to the general public than H.265 or the increase in resolution.


----------



## ynotgoal

Samsung reportedly decided today to build a gen 6 OLED line expected to be operational by the end of this year. "The line is expected to produce panels for both TVs and mobile devices. The 6th generation line is capable of producing two pieces of panel for 55 inch TVs or tens of mobile device panels."


The gen 6 line is thought to be primarily for tablet size devices but can produce TVs as well. I think the gen 6 size could also produce two 65" TVs. This would make this the first real line (not pilot line) capable of making TVs and it would be ready before LG's line in the middle of next year. Oh, and "operational by the end of the year" means installed and ready to test not producing in volume. It would probably be 2nd quarter next year before you see products at the store from this line. Also, the volume is still small but growing. It also means Samsung will be using their RGB method and LTPS for their first TVs.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23414173
> 
> 
> So a bunch of TVs that can support a wider color space have been out for more than a decade, but there is no content.


Sony released the first display that supported xvYCC in 2006. xvYCC is proprietary, supported by only a few companies, and has several limitations. The Rec. 2020 color space was made by the same organization that made the Rec. 709 color space which is the standard for all modern consumer displays.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23417309
> 
> 
> A wider colorspace means changing _every single piece_ of the value chain. Anytime you work in the smaller colorspace: camera --> recording --> compression --> transmission / physical disc --> player --> display you lose the extra color info and _can never recover it_.


Professional equipment can already handle larger color spaces so the main obstacle is distribution.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23417502
> 
> 
> Cameras will shoot in their "native" colorspace that differs depending on the brand, which is then converted to DCI for Theaters, and BT.709 for Consumers.


To add to this the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is currently developing ACES which has a color space that covers the entire visible spectrum. Here is a link to a document that has a brief explanation on ACES and while most studios are waiting for it to be completed a few movies have used it .


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Low Manufacturing Yields to Keep Cost of AMOLED TV Panels High for Several Years, According to NPD DisplaySearch*



Source: DisplaySearch 


Santa Clara, California, June 12, 2013—The first 55" AMOLED TV is on the market, with others expected to follow; however, the cost of AMOLED panels will remain very high compared to TFT LCD display panels, limiting adoption by consumers. Current manufacturing costs for AMOLED (Active-Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode) display panels are estimated to be almost seven times higher than costs for the LCD panels that now dominate the TV market, according to the new NPD DisplaySearch Quarterly AMOLED Panel Cost Report.


“The estimated total manufacturing cost of a full-HD 55" panel is $2,454 in Q1’13, due to low manufacturing yields,” according to Tadashi Uno, Director of Materials and Components Market Research for NPD DisplaySearch. “As yields improve, the cost is expected to fall significantly over the next two years, but will remain much higher than equivalent LCD panels.”


AMOLED TV panel manufacturing yields (the fraction of panels produced that are useable) are lower than TFT LCDs, because AMOLED manufacturing processes are not mature. Materials, depreciation, personnel expenses, and other cost factors are highly related to yield rate; therefore, improving AMOLED yields quickly is the key factor for making AMOLED TVs competitive with LCD TVs. According to the NPD DisplaySearch cost model, the manufacturing cost for AMOLED TV panels is expected to fall by 36% from Q1’13 to Q1’14, but the panels will still cost five times as much as LCD TV panels. In 32" TV panels, the cost model also that AMOLED is only twice the cost of LCD. However 32" is a much more cost-sensitive segment of the market, so AMOLED is not competitive even with this much smaller premium.


[See website for graphic].


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23417664
> 
> 
> Samsung reportedly decided today to build a gen 6 OLED line expected to be operational by the end of this year. "The line is expected to produce panels for both TVs and mobile devices. The 6th generation line is capable of producing two pieces of panel for 55 inch TVs or tens of mobile device panels." The gen 6 line is thought to be primarily for tablet size devices but can produce TVs as well. I think the gen 6 size could also produce two 65" TVs. This would make this the first real line (not pilot line) capable of making TVs and it would be ready before LG's line in the middle of next year. Oh, and "operational by the end of the year" means installed and ready to test not producing in volume. It would probably be 2nd quarter next year before you see products at the store from this line. Also, the volume is still small but growing. It also means Samsung will be using their RGB method and LTPS for their first TVs.



Logic of this is clear: OLED TV panels will be kept as a side of mobile OLED panel manufacturing. This is economically sound but it means there is no way OLED will be significant in the TV market. Some 55" flagships are by far not sufficient against LCD armadas. So either there are significant manufacturing breakthroughs still waiting or OLED has missed the train.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23419640
> 
> 
> Logic of this is clear: OLED TV panels will be kept as a side of mobile OLED panel manufacturing. This is economically sound but it means there is no way OLED will be significant in the TV market. Some 55" flagships are by far not sufficient against LCD armadas. So either there are significant manufacturing breakthroughs still waiting or OLED has missed the train.


Yep, it's called taking the path of least resistance, and that path seems to be LED/LCD. If OLED or something else can't come out and smack LED in the mouth from the get go then most manufactures won't risk the loss of profits. Not even for a couple of years. Just not enough return on investment.


----------



## rogo

Richard and Chron, great points both of you.


irkuck and Andy, spot on.


ynot, I read that as, "We are essentially not producing televisions this year _or_ next year." The ability to occasionally repurpose a tablet/smartphone line to drop 2 TVs at a time suggests (a) they won't do that often (b) they won't be making many (any?) TVs when they do. This tells me a couple of things,


(1) They don't intend to ramp 8G production using their RGB method soon and likely ever. This further confirms it's just not workable.


(2) They don't intend to start selling OLED TVs in any kind of volume until at least 2015 if not later.


How anyone can read this as anything optimistic about widespread availability in 2014 is bizarre to me.


Doesn't specuvestor owe me a drink somewhere?!?


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23419776
> 
> 
> Yep, it's called taking the path of least resistance, and that path seems to be LED/LCD. If OLED or something else can't come out and smack LED in the mouth from the get go then most manufactures won't risk the loss of profits. Not even for a couple of years. Just not enough return on investment.



I agree. And a perfect example of this is full array back lit with local dimming sets. I consider my 70" Elite to look much better than the equivalent 70" edge lit TV. And it only cost about 5 times as much instead of the 7 for OLED. However, that picture improvement was not enough to create profits. The nearly 6 billion that Sharp lost last year was proof of that. That tech has been discontinued at Sharp and Sony.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23417664
> 
> 
> The gen 6 line is thought to be primarily for tablet size devices but can produce TVs as well.



Where did this come from? I read the article and it's not in there. It seems many follow-on posts are assuming this is true, but is it really? How do you know the line isn't set up this way as an efficient way to produce both?


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23420198
> 
> 
> How anyone can read this as anything optimistic about widespread availability in 2014 is bizarre to me.
> 
> 
> Doesn't specuvestor owe me a drink somewhere?!?



If you find him, he owes me $20 as well.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23420362
> 
> 
> Where did this come from? I read the article and it's not in there. It seems many follow-on posts are assuming this is true, but is it really? How do you know the line isn't set up this way as an efficient way to produce both?



Most large TVs are made on gen 7 and gen 8 lines for economies of scale. Gen 6 lines are generally considered ideal for mid size displays like tablets and laptops. Samsung has been wanting a gen 6 line for a while to move up from phone displays into tablets. They say it will produce both TVs and mobile devices and I have no reason to believe that won't be the case. Some follow on posts are making a different assumption that this implies Samsung won't build an 8g line. Samsung targeted 3 OLED investment decisions this year. A 5.5g expansion and now this 6g line have both occurred earlier than targeted. The final and completely separate decision on an 8g line isn't expected til closer to the end of the year with construction completion at the end of 2014. I'm amazed that there seems to be an expectation that either Samsung or LG can flood the market with OLED TVs before the production lines are built and failure to do so confirms they won't ever make them in volume? The fact that this article mentions TVs for the 6g line and it is being rushed to completion earlier than expected is more likely an indication they want to have some TV products available when LG's line is complete in the 2nd quarter of next year as they sense LG is gaining the perception of being the leader in OLED TVs.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23420362
> 
> 
> Where did this come from? I read the article and it's not in there. It seems many follow-on posts are assuming this is true, but is it really? How do you know the line isn't set up this way as an efficient way to produce both?



You can only run a finite number of substrates per month through the line. A 6G line can't make many TVs period. And if you want to make lots of smartphone and tablet displays, you can't make many at all.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23421054
> 
> 
> I'm amazed that there seems to be an expectation that either Samsung or LG can flood the market with OLED TVs before the production lines are built and failure to do so confirms they won't ever make them in volume?



That's no one's assumption. The assumption is that: Despite hyping the "imminent release" of these TVs since early in 2012, the clear message from Samsung is this: *We won't be shipping many (any?) until 2015.* The very facts you are claiming to be in evidence (the 8G line not being finished until the end of 2014), due nothing but _back up_ the assumption.


> Quote:
> The fact that this article mentions TVs for the 6g line and it is being rushed to completion earlier than expected is more likely an indication they want to have some TV products available when LG's line is complete in the 2nd quarter of next year as they sense LG is gaining the perception of being the leader in OLED TVs.



Where "some" = hundreds or perhaps single-digit thousands, with an outside production capability in the low double-digit thousands (annualized).


The idea they are still considering ramping SMS RGB for 8G seems beyond far-fetched to me, even if you consider it realistic. They clearly don't, or else they'd use an already well-perfected technique (they've shipped a _lot_ of OLED displays) and at least ship some TVs. If they are really wanting to be perceived as a leader, they could simply ship period. The fact they aren't means even _de minimis_ quantities using this production method are not forthcoming.


Again, Samsung showed off a TV in January 2012. They promised a production model soon. The lack of a single unit or a promised shipping date 17 months later speaks _volumes_.


----------



## navychop

This is beginning to remind me of LCoS. Several companies tried it. Intel, after much entry fanfare, dropped out. Sony went to market (briefly) with, shall we say, a disappointing product. JVC was the only one to successfully produce LCoS. For RPTVs, although the product was good, the market moved against it (probably because it wasn't thin and "sexy"). But it is still used quite well for FPTVs today.


Might we not see some parallels with OLED?


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Digitimes Research: AMOLED handset panel shipments to reach 363 million units in 2015*

Source: Digitimes 


Currently, smaphone is the most important application for AMOLED panels and has been fueling shipment growth. Digitimes predicts AMOLED handset panel shipments to grow to 363 million units in 2015, up 332% from the number in 2011. In 2015, AMOLED handset panel shipments will account for 88.7% of total AMOLED panel shipments and 79.5% of total AMOLED panel output value.


Handset AMOLED panel market growth has mainly been driven by strong support from South Korea-based Samsung Electronics, who has been eager to roll out smartphones with lighter and thinner form factors and higher-resolution displays.

*TV is the second largest application for AMOLED panels and their shipments in 2015 are likely to account for 12.4% of total AMOLED panel output value, Digitimes Research predicts. In addition, LG Display and Samsung are expected to continue expanding their OLED TV panel capacity in 2014 and 2015, and hence by 2016, the TV segment's share of AMOLED panel output value is expected to increase significantly.*


The key for OLED TV market demand to grow is to increase yields. Currently, the low yields for the panels are preventing system prices in the end market to go down. Digitimes Research expects yields to increase to the point where firms can obtain profits around 2014-2015. As the global LCD TV market faces saturation, looking for a blue ocean is a must for TV vendors. OLED TVs are higher-priced products that may keep their TV-related businesses growing in both revenues and profits, added Digitimes Research.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23421463
> 
> 
> This is beginning to remind me of LCoS. Several companies tried it. Intel, after much entry fanfare, dropped out. Sony went to market (briefly) with, shall we say, a disappointing product. JVC was the only one to successfully produce LCoS. For RPTVs, although the product was good, the market moved against it (probably because it wasn't thin and "sexy"). But it is still used quite well for FPTVs today.
> 
> 
> Might we not see some parallels with OLED?


I think that Sony had three years of models, the A2000, A2020, and the A3000. They had one major problem with light engines/optic blocks. The situation was pretty much fixed with the A3000 but by then Sony decided that the bigger profits were with LCD flat panels. I still have a 60A3000 which has a wonderful picture and compares very favorably with my 2013 Sony.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23421327
> 
> 
> You can only run a finite number of substrates per month through the line. A 6G line can't make many TVs period. And if you want to make lots of smartphone and tablet displays, you can't make many at all.
> 
> 
> Where "some" = hundreds or perhaps single-digit thousands, with an outside production capability in the low double-digit thousands (annualized).



It's not that you can't make large TVs from a 6g line, it's just not typical. We don't know their intended use of the line but it wouldn't be surprising if they started it with half TVs and half tablets until an 8g line starts. I'm a bit surprised they pushed up the 6g line as I expected it to be built for flexible displays for tablets which aren't ready yet. Perhaps they will build TVs until they get the flexible capability perfected and then convert the TV side to flexible displays. Sepcifically, you can make two 65" TVs from a 6g sheet. The stated capacity is somewhere between 20-40k sheets per month. My understanding is the yields on the 5.5g lines are well above 80-90% so 60% for a 6g line seems reasonable. At the lower capacity that would be 20k sheets * 2 TVs/sheet * 60% yield * 50% for TVs = 12k TVs/month. Of course that number would change based on the total capacity which would probably be higher and the product mix.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23421327
> 
> 
> That's no one's assumption. The assumption is that: Despite hyping the "imminent release" of these TVs since early in 2012, the clear message from Samsung is this: *We won't be shipping many (any?) until 2015.* The very facts you are claiming to be in evidence (the 8G line not being finished until the end of 2014), due nothing but _back up_ the assumption.



My post wasn't specifically referring to your response but the general tenor of the responses as noted by Rich. Regarding Samsung in 2014 specifically (as opposed to LG), prior to this announcement I'm unclear how there could have been an expectation that there would have been significant volume in 2014. Let's start at the beginning. We can agree this is June 2013? How long does it take to build an 8g line... LG started their investment in February and it is expected to be built in q2 2014 so about 15 months would be a good answer. So if Samsung announced an 8g investment today and it took 15 months to build the line, then it's September 2014. Then they need to train the staff, work out startup issues, build some inventory, start filling the distribution channel. Another 3 months for that? So that's December 2014. How could they ship significant volume in 2014 if they just get started in December 2014? This announcement makes it possible if they choose to do so to have a greater volume in 2014 than they would have before this announcement. On the other hand, LG should have 6 months of production on a larger line so that should be most of the volume in 2014.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23421327
> 
> 
> The idea they are still considering ramping SMS RGB for 8G seems beyond far-fetched to me, even if you consider it realistic. They clearly don't, or else they'd use an already well-perfected technique (they've shipped a _lot_ of OLED displays) and at least ship some TVs. If they are really wanting to be perceived as a leader, they could simply ship period. The fact they aren't means even _de minimis_ quantities using this production method are not forthcoming



I may not understand the intent here but it sounds like you're saying they can't possibly make improvements in 8g size production technology? A few years ago they said vapor deposition wasn't possible at greater than 4g size lines. Neither of us knows for sure what Samsung's technology will be. The RGB system has fewer materials so if the yield is the same as WRGB, the cost would be lower. Aside from the yield issue though the blue lifetime would be an issue for RGB.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23421327
> 
> 
> The assumption is that: Despite hyping the "imminent release" of these TVs since early in 2012.
> 
> 
> Again, Samsung showed off a TV in January 2012. They promised a production model soon. The lack of a single unit or a promised shipping date 17 months later speaks _volumes_.



I think we all get that many are not happy about CES 2012 but, really, that was a year and a half ago. Isn't it about time to move on from that?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23422205
> 
> 
> It's not that you can't make large TVs from a 6g line, it's just not typical.



Actually, it is that you can't. There are _always_ limits on the number of substrates you can feed through the line in a month (the "Herbie" problem, Read this book ) . You can reasonably assume the line won't output more than 60,000 substrates per month. If you use half its capacity to make TVs, you get 30,000 x 2 x yield TVs per month. That's 720,000 annually x the yield, which is likely to be under 1/2 in the first year.


It also decimates your capability to make other things there.


> Quote:
> We don't know their intended use of the line but it wouldn't be surprising if they started it with half TVs and half tablets until an 8g line starts.



It would floor me.


> Quote:
> I'm a bit surprised they pushed up the 6g line as I expected it to be built for flexible displays for tablets which aren't ready yet. Perhaps they will build TVs until they get the flexible capability perfected and then convert the TV side to flexible displays. Sepcifically, you can make two 65" TVs from a 6g sheet. The stated capacity is somewhere between 20-40k sheets per month. My understanding is the yields on the 5.5g lines are well above 80-90% so 60% for a 6g line seems reasonable. At the lower capacity that would be 20k sheets * 2 TVs/sheet * 60% yield * 50% for TVs = 12k TVs/month. Of course that number would change based on the total capacity which would probably be higher and the product mix.



What yields are above 80-90%? Not for TVs. Those yields are clearly more like 8-9%. If the yields on TV panels were 80-90%, Samsung would be selling TVs.


> Quote:
> My post wasn't specifically referring to your response but the general tenor of the responses as noted by Rich. Regarding Samsung in 2014 specifically (as opposed to LG), prior to this announcement I'm unclear how there could have been an expectation that there would have been significant volume in 2014. Let's start at the beginning. We can agree this is June 2013? How long does it take to build an 8g line... LG started their investment in February and it is expected to be built in q2 2014 so about 15 months would be a good answer. So if Samsung announced an 8g investment today and it took 15 months to build the line, then it's September 2014. Then they need to train the staff, work out startup issues, build some inventory, start filling the distribution channel. Another 3 months for that? So that's December 2014. How could they ship significant volume in 2014 if they just get started in December 2014? This announcement makes it possible if they choose to do so to have a greater volume in 2014 than they would have before this announcement. On the other hand, LG should have 6 months of production on a larger line so that should be most of the volume in 2014.



So without doing any math, I'm going to just put it this way: LG and Samsung together will ship fewer than 500,000 OLED TVs next year. That seems almost 100% certain.


> Quote:
> I may not understand the intent here but it sounds like you're saying they can't possibly make improvements in 8g size production technology? A few years ago they said vapor deposition wasn't possible at greater than 4g size lines. Neither of us knows for sure what Samsung's technology will be. The RGB system has fewer materials so if the yield is the same as WRGB, the cost would be lower. Aside from the yield issue though the blue lifetime would be an issue for RGB.



I'm saying SMS is fundamentally a bad method on large substrates. It's really, really slow and the alignment issues are huge. I don't believe they intend to scale it and part of the reason they haven't built anything faster is that they've tried to get it working on large substrates and found it it never will. SMS is a kludge.


> Quote:
> I think we all get that many are not happy about CES 2012 but, really, that was a year and a half ago. Isn't it about time to move on from that?



I've moved on. I own a 2012 plasma and told my wife "we might even get another plasma at this rate" because OLED production is such a joke and a 65-70" seems really, really far out -- especially at sub $4000. My point is these folks have no credibility. None. And announcements about production lines that maybe, possibly could be use to make a few TVs but are clearly targeted at mobile devices don't buy them credibility.


What will buy them credibility is shipping TVs. Period.


----------



## PCD

Dell Canada is now shipping (if you have $14K). 55" LG OLED

http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Video_Conferencing/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=dhs&cs=cadhs1&sku=A6820882 


In case you don't wish to click the link, Dells blurb below:


Highlights


•OLED

•

✓4 Color Pixel

✓ Inifinte Constrast

✓ Universal Control

✓ No thicker than a pencil

 




•LG Smart TV

•


Easy to Use

✓ Magic Remote

✓ Universal Control

✓On Now

✓Built-In Wi-Fi

✓Dual Core Processor


Easy to Enjoy

✓ Premium Content

✓Game World

✓LG Smart World (App Store)


Easy to Connect

✓Smart Share

✓LG Cloud

✓Miracast

✓NFC

✓WiDi

✓MHL


LG Cinema 3D

✓ Cinema 3D Glasses

✓Dual Play

✓2D to 3D Conversion

✓3D World

✓3D Depth Control

✓3D Sound Zooming





Overview


Stunning design and stunning picture quality with Infinite Contrast and 4 Color Pixel technology that displays more true to life images. LG's 4 Color Pixel technology adds the color white to the conventional 3 color sources to enhance accuracy for more true to life and vibrant colors. LG's intuitive Magic Remote is a simple and fun way to pick and choose what you want to watch from premium content providers like Hulu Plus®, Netflix® and YouTube® directly from your TV. The Magic Remote is all you need to control your TV and entertainment systems. Simply click, gesture, scroll or use LG's unique Voice™ that is capable of recognizing how you naturally speak to change the channel or find something to watch. Now, you can spend less time navigating and more time enjoying your entertainment. LG’s dual core processor provides fast access to Internet content and enhances processing speed. Mirror files from your Smartphone, tablet and other devices with MiracastTM to your TV. LG Cinema 3D glasses are comfortable, lightweight, battery-free. 4 sets of glasses included.


Manufacturer Part# : 55EM9700

Dell Part# : A6820882


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PCD*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23422410
> 
> 
> Dell Canada is now shipping (if you have $14K). 55" LG OLED
> 
> http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Video_Conferencing/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=dhs&cs=cadhs1&sku=A6820882



Hasn't this been listed there since at least April? Until it says ships in 1-2 days like all their other TV's, I'm not going to assume it's shipping any time soon. But I invite anyone in Canada to order and find out.


----------



## PCD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23422415
> 
> 
> Hasn't this been listed there since at least April? Until it says ships in 1-2 days like all their other TV's, I'm not going to assume it's shipping any time soon. But I invite anyone in Canada to order and find out.



No


It was "out of stock" previously


They also removed the $20k panel.


@Wizz....I would love to order one, but the price rather offends me







. I fully get the early adopter pays for the rest of us mentality, but if I were going to blow 2 months salary like that, I'd rather take a month long vacation or something. There are people that DO have that type of coin to throw on a TV though, especially in Toronto where a "cheap" condo starts at 500k anywhere half decent. Alas, I am not one of them


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PCD*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23422410
> 
> 
> Dell Canada is now shipping (if you have $14K). 55" LG OLED



This is quite a milestone. This is the first large consumer OLED TV I've seen for sale in North America. Of course, I don't know when they are shipping but if this was intentional rather than a mistake and they really intend to start to take orders, I think that's exciting.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*
> *Low Manufacturing Yields to Keep Cost of AMOLED TV Panels High for Several Years, According to NPD DisplaySearch*
> 
> 
> 
> Source: DisplaySearch
> 
> 
> Santa Clara, California, June 12, 2013—The first 55" AMOLED TV is on the market, with others expected to follow; however, the cost of AMOLED panels will remain very high compared to TFT LCD display panels, limiting adoption by consumers. Current manufacturing costs for AMOLED (Active-Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode) display panels are estimated to be almost seven times higher than costs for the LCD panels that now dominate the TV market, according to the new NPD DisplaySearch Quarterly AMOLED Panel Cost Report.
> 
> 
> “The estimated total manufacturing cost of a full-HD 55" panel is $2,454 in Q1’13, due to low manufacturing yields,” according to Tadashi Uno, Director of Materials and Components Market Research for NPD DisplaySearch. “As yields improve, the cost is expected to fall significantly over the next two years, but will remain much higher than equivalent LCD panels.”
> 
> 
> AMOLED TV panel manufacturing yields (the fraction of panels produced that are useable) are lower than TFT LCDs, because AMOLED manufacturing processes are not mature. Materials, depreciation, personnel expenses, and other cost factors are highly related to yield rate; therefore, improving AMOLED yields quickly is the key factor for making AMOLED TVs competitive with LCD TVs. According to the NPD DisplaySearch cost model, the manufacturing cost for AMOLED TV panels is expected to fall by 36% from Q1’13 to Q1’14, but the panels will still cost five times as much as LCD TV panels. In 32" TV panels, the cost model also that AMOLED is only twice the cost of LCD. However 32" is a much more cost-sensitive segment of the market, so AMOLED is not competitive even with this much smaller premium.
> 
> 
> [See website for graphic].


----------



## rogo

Extrapolating that graph puts price parity out in 2017. I recognize that's dangerous, but it sounds right.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23422154
> 
> 
> I think that Sony had three years of models, the A2000, A2020, and the A3000. They had one major problem with light engines/optic blocks. The situation was pretty much fixed with the A3000 but by then Sony decided that the bigger profits were with LCD flat panels. I still have a 60A3000 which has a wonderful picture and compares very favorably with my 2013 Sony.



So *you're* the one that still has one working!










I think the BLOB destroyed Sony's rep for LCoS and scared off buyers, fixed or not.


I think OLED use in *tablets* will be very interesting to follow. 7", 10", .......


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000_100#post_23424394
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23422154
> 
> 
> I think that Sony had three years of models, the A2000, A2020, and the A3000. They had one major problem with light engines/optic blocks. The situation was pretty much fixed with the A3000 but by then Sony decided that the bigger profits were with LCD flat panels. I still have a 60A3000 which has a wonderful picture and compares very favorably with my 2013 Sony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So *you're* the one that still has one working!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the BLOB destroyed Sony's rep for LCoS and scared off buyers, fixed or not.
Click to expand...

 

Interesting.  Many folks getting the Sony 2013 new R550A series are experiencing screen "blobs".  Are these related?  The later serial numbers seem to be better: I returned one and now have one with spectacular uniformity (blob-less ), but I was I find the choice of words curious.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23424394
> 
> 
> So *you're* the one that still has one working!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the BLOB destroyed Sony's rep for LCoS and scared off buyers, fixed or not.


LCoS is still widely used in Sony's projectors, and doesn't have this problem. Part of the issue is that rear projection TVs were a market that basically only existed in USA. They were never popular anywhere else.


----------



## PCD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23422719
> 
> 
> This is quite a milestone. This is the first large consumer OLED TV I've seen for sale in North America. Of course, I don't know when they are shipping but if this was intentional rather than a mistake and they really intend to start to take orders, I think that's exciting.



I'm in the same camp as you. If this is real, and not some Dell drone making an error, then it bodes well for all of us. Other companies simply will NOT let a market be dominated with no competition, so if these things move at all, we could see more players jump in to the game.


I would also hope the price hits parity FAR FAR earlier than 2017 and I suspect it will based on history. Look at the Kuro, or Sharp 70" etc. They came out sky high as well, didn't take that long for the price to become more realistic.


If that set was around 7k or 8k I would buy it although it really doesn't fit my budget, however at 55yrs of age my time is limited and my eyes are already starting to go (Thanks Type 2) so what the heck.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PCD*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23425173
> 
> 
> I'm in the same camp as you. If this is real, and not some Dell drone making an error, then it bodes well for all of us.



A Dell chat rep claimed the set was really shipping. Of course, when I pressed them, I was informed, "We have not sold one or shipped one."


> Quote:
> I would also hope the price hits parity FAR FAR earlier than 2017 and I suspect it will based on history. Look at the Kuro, or Sharp 70" etc. They came out sky high as well, didn't take that long for the price to become more realistic.



Sorry, but history backs me, not what you think happened to the Kuro and Sharp 70".


The Kuro got cheaper because Pioneer exited the TV business. The Sharp 70" actually launched in the mid-$2000s at a number of big-box retailers. Yes, it's marginally cheaper now, especially in de-featured variants. But then, we've also seen the end of _endaka_.


The history of TV price declines, for what it's worth, is that 30% compounded reductions are about thebest you will ever see.


Using that and starting with $13,000.....


2014: $9100

2015: $6370

2016: $4450

2017: $3121


(Using $10,000 as a baseline, you get $7000, $4900, $3430, $2400 incidentally. Of course, 4 years of _compounded_ 30% reductions is a lot of "ifs" turning into reality.)


That, of course, is nowhere near price parity as in 2013, a flagship 55-inch LCD _launches_ at $2500 and falls lower later in the model year. It's hard to imagine a flagship LCD will be anymore than that in 2017, but it's easy to imagine it will be


----------



## hungro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23425281
> 
> 
> A Dell chat rep claimed the set was really shipping. Of course, when I pressed them, I was informed, "We have not sold one or shipped one."
> 
> Sorry, but history backs me, not what you think happened to the Kuro and Sharp 70".
> 
> 
> The Kuro got cheaper because Pioneer exited the TV business. The Sharp 70" actually launched in the mid-$2000s at a number of big-box retailers. Yes, it's marginally cheaper now, especially in de-featured variants. But then, we've also seen the end of _endaka_.
> 
> 
> The history of TV price declines, for what it's worth, is that 30% compounded reductions are about thebest you will ever see.
> 
> 
> Using that and starting with $13,000.....
> 
> 
> 2014: $9100
> 
> 2015: $6370
> 
> 2016: $4450
> 
> 2017: $3121
> 
> 
> (Using $10,000 as a baseline, you get $7000, $4900, $3430, $2400 incidentally. Of course, 4 years of _compounded_ 30% reductions is a lot of "ifs" turning into reality.)
> 
> 
> That, of course, is nowhere near price parity as in 2013, a flagship 55-inch LCD _launches_ at $2500 and falls lower later in the model year. It's hard to imagine a flagship LCD will be anymore than that in 2017, but it's easy to imagine it will be


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23425281
> 
> 
> A Dell chat rep claimed the set was really shipping. Of course, when I pressed them, I was informed, "We have not sold one or shipped one."



I wonder why a company like Dell would even stock such an item. I mean why sink cash into inventory on something that is unlikely to ever sell a single unit because of price. Maybe they got crazy high margins on these things to make it worthwhile.


Doesn't Dell have a pretty liberal return policy? Someone please order it!


----------



## slacker711

So the obvious question is, if the Displaysearch numbers are even remotely accurate, why does the 55" OLED from LG cost $10,000? The estimates include both yields and depreciation.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hungro*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23425504
> 
> 
> Remember no body con predict the future no matter who or what amount of statistical data they poses.



I think you are confusing "predicting the future" in a Nostradamus sense with the ability to predict the future when we are discussing things we understand pretty well. I'll stack my track record on the latter against 14 years at AVS Forum. I don't know if the archives are complete, but the record is pretty good. And the reason it's good is not because I have some gift, but because I learned how things work and can use that to draw reasonable extrapolations about what will happen.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23425673
> 
> 
> I wonder why a company like Dell would even stock such an item. I mean why sink cash into inventory on something that is unlikely to ever sell a single unit because of price. Maybe they got crazy high margins on these things to make it worthwhile.
> 
> 
> Doesn't Dell have a pretty liberal return policy? Someone please order it!



They don't stock it, Wizzi... They drop ship if you order it via some distributor. That's why I don't believe they really can get one.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23426259
> 
> 
> So the obvious question is, if the Displaysearch numbers are even remotely accurate, why does the 55" OLED from LG cost $10,000? The estimates include both yields and depreciation.



Um, that's actually pretty easy. The retail price ends up being a multiple of the production cost because it's marked up everywhere in the chain. The markups tend to be higher on "branded" good, but the function is one of those "rules" of consumer-electronics retaiing that causes vexation among consumer but is more or less always the way it has worked.


Start at $2500 production cost. Add gross margin of 35% and we're at $3800 or so. (It could easily be higher at this point since it's early and they might be intentionally seeking a higher gross margin. Add in transportation and other logistics and a substantial warranty reserve (again, higher than average since this is so new). That probably pushes it up near $4500. Then add in distribution margin and we're at $5000. Now add in retailer margins of 30% or so and we're pushing up to near $7000. The rest seems to be gouging.*


* Or, more likely, DisplaySeach is taking an extrapolation which is currently optimistic.


----------



## Hi Def Fan

Been reading up a bit about IGZO tech OLEDs. Sony is claiming the use of IGZO makes their displays last 10 yrs. Hard to believe, esp since Sharp refuted Sony's claim of 30,000 hrs on their first OLED. From what I was reading first gen OLED was more like 10,000 hrs. So instead of 10 yrs that could be 3-4 yrs for the IGZOs.


Besides lifespan issues though, I still don't see how TVs made with rare elements like Indium and Gallium can ever be expected to reach the affordability of the amorphous silicon they replace in current LCDs, a very common element.


And like some have said, no one's claiming OLET to be any better on the lifespan front. In fact it's mostly just referred to as requiring far less power, which really only serves the mobile device market.


So why there's ways to make better looking displays, no one seems to know how to do it practically yet.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23424428
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Many folks getting the Sony 2013 new R550A series are experiencing screen "blobs".  Are these related?  The later serial numbers seem to be better: I returned one and now have one with spectacular uniformity (blob-less
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), but I was I find the choice of words curious.


I doubt that the problems are related. The LCOS problems were actually heat related. The Optical Block was place above a heat source and not properly isolated from that source. A shame because in front projectors LCOS provides a stunning picture and remains quite popular.


----------



## Steve S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23424428
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Many folks getting the Sony 2013 new R550A series are experiencing screen "blobs".  Are these related?  The later serial numbers seem to be better: I returned one and now have one with spectacular uniformity (blob-less
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), but I was I find the choice of words curious.



Two completely different technologies and two completely different causes. Only commonality is the Sony logo below the screen. The housing containing the 3 LCOS chips on the SXRD sets was too close to the projection lamp and got too hot, resulting in either green blobs on the screen or, as was the case on my A2000 a uniform green discoloration all over the screen. These sets had a two-speed fan that could be set in the menu to blow more air (supposedly for higher altitudes) and an eco setting that reduced lamp brightness. I used both on my set and managed to get 3 years out of it before the discoloration occurred. Going into the service menu and reducing the green cuts and drives got me another year, then I took advantage of Sony's settlement and got a new led/lcd for free.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hi Def Fan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23426487
> 
> 
> Been reading up a bit about IGZO tech OLEDs. Sony is claiming the use of IGZO makes their displays last 10 yrs. Hard to believe, esp since Sharp refuted Sony's claim of 30,000 hrs on their first OLED. From what I was reading first gen OLED was more like 10,000 hrs. So instead of 10 yrs that could be 3-4 yrs for the IGZOs.
> 
> 
> Besides lifespan issues though, I still don't see how TVs made with rare elements like Indium and Gallium can ever be expected to reach the affordability of the amorphous silicon they replace in current LCDs, a very common element.



First of all, IGZO has nothing to do with OLED life. IGZO is used on the TFT backplane layer, not the OLED layer. So I have no idea what Sony is claiming, but it sounds pretty irrelevant.


Second of all, every LCD TV sold on earth has indium in it. The electrodes in every LCD TV are made from indium-tin oxide, the only practical transparent electrode in mass production/scale use to date.


Third of all, rare earth elements are not rare. I know this is confusing. But "rare earth elements" is a term that refers to a class of metals in the periodic table most of which are not rare.


Read some links:

http://www.indium.com/metals/indium/supply/ 


> Quote:
> The data shows that indium is available. Indium exists in the earth’s crust in quantities approximately three times that of silver (which is currently extracted at 60x the rate of indium).


 http://arstechnica.com/business/2008/07/analysis-recent-panics-over-rare-metal-scarcity-overblown/ 


Fourth of all, half of the world's indium comes from recycling and gallium is heavily recycled as well.


These metals have both gotten pricier over recent years because the world's demand for smartphones and tablets has exploded almost exponentially, but the price of indium is actually not meaningfully different from where it was in 2004, except that you actually buy the physical metal for much _less_ (on the commodity markets, the price is oddly what it was in 2004; this disconnect is one of the oddities of the indium market, http://strategic-metal.typepad.com/strategic-metal-report/indium/ ).


The price of gallium is also now where it was in 2003-04 http://strategic-metal.typepad.com/strategic-metal-report/gallium/ . It had doubled, but we've gotten so good at recycling it -- this happens whenever something gets too expensive -- that the ability of primary producers to price gouge has been largely eliminated.


So, anyway, there is no reason IGZO can't be inexpensive. The industry still is convinced it will ultimately be cheaper than a-Si backplanes, although it will have to produce volumes in the 100+ million range to ever actually even be sure of that. The mfg. process is ostensibly simpler. Currently, however, the learning curve is less than 0.1% as mature as that of a-Si (and really even LTPS) backplanes. Yields are awful and prices are high. That should change since both OLED and LCD mfg. is counting on it.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23427578
> 
> 
> I doubt that the problems are related. The LCOS problems were actually heat related. The Optical Block was place above a heat source and not properly isolated from that source. A shame because in front projectors LCOS provides a stunning picture and remains quite popular.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve S*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23428548
> 
> 
> Two completely different technologies and two completely different causes. Only commonality is the Sony logo below the screen. The housing containing the 3 LCOS chips on the SXRD sets was too close to the projection lamp and got too hot, resulting in either green blobs on the screen or, as was the case on my A2000 a uniform green discoloration all over the screen. These sets had a two-speed fan that could be set in the menu to blow more air (supposedly for higher altitudes) and an eco setting that reduced lamp brightness. I used both on my set and managed to get 3 years out of it before the discoloration occurred. Going into the service menu and reducing the green cuts and drives got me another year, then I took advantage of Sony's settlement and got a new led/lcd for free.




i was victimized as well with my xbr2. when operating properly these lcos displays could put out impressive pq. but after 2 years, the ob failed and it was replaced for free by sony. then about a year and a half after that i could start to see some mild color non-uniformity, now that i knew what to look for. it was just a matter of time before another ob would be needed, so i stayed out of the class action and got my 60" replaced with a free 60" led, the 700 series. sxrd pq towers over the led, but it now the main tv for the wife and use my kuro in a man cave.


i read some article from that at one time was linked to these sony threads here on avs which the author said he found the cause not just heat, but uv degredation of the rgb chips.


who knows, but i'm still leary of sony products as they knew damn well they had problems with the sxrd but sold them anyway and dumped most of the owners in a sham class action settlement.


----------



## chriscic

I haven't looked into OLED's in a while, so excuse my ignorance, but aren't these TVs (the 55-inch models from LG or Samsung) being sold somewhere now? Why can't I find some legit. reviews (other than trade-show sightings) out there?


Thanks!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23429413
> 
> 
> I haven't looked into OLED's in a while, so excuse my ignorance, but aren't these TVs (the 55-inch models from LG or Samsung) being sold somewhere now?



No.


> Quote:
> Why can't I find some legit. reviews (other than trade-show sightings) out there?



Because no one is selling them, even though LG keeps claiming to have shipped some.


Samsung doesn't even make the claim.


----------



## Artwood

You know that the video picture quality future is bleak when people are dreaming of Igmoes and Mothballs.


3-D goes down the toilet--1080p is compressed more and more each day--Full array backlights are in museums--and with all of that we have people dreaming of 4K in LCD form which has already been PROVEN to suck and is currently getting WORSE!


Can someone please explain this picture?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23432648
> 
> 
> You know that the video picture quality future is bleak when people are dreaming of Igmoes and Mothballs.3-D goes down the toilet--1080p is compressed more and more each day--Full array backlights are in museums--and with all of that we have people dreaming of 4K in LCD form which has already been PROVEN to suck and is currently getting WORSE! Can someone please explain this picture?



True, the world is not perfect but it is very enjoyable for those with normal electrochemical brain activity levels and who own just high-end LCDs and Blu-rays. Thus, the picture is you are friendly advised to check with professionals if you are not progressing with symptoms of depression.


----------



## vinnie97

High-end plasmas look better.


----------



## kdog750

Even if they magically found a way to make OLED cheap, I suspect many plasma fans would still prefer plasma. As far as I know, they have never addressed the "shiney blacks" that OLED have. It seems to be a just a big drawback to the tech. Not sure how great having deep blacks would be if you can see your reflection in them.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23432846
> 
> 
> High-end plasmas look better.


Doesn't even have to be High End. But, if you want something bigger than 65" without needing to get a mortgage, LCD is the only game in town.


----------



## Mad Norseman

I love my 2011 65" Panny ST30 plasma, but would REALLY like a 75" 4K Panny plasma - if they'd ever make one!


OLEDs seem really expensive, especially for a technology that's been in development for so long now, that I don't hold out much hope for OLEDs...


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23433828
> 
> 
> Doesn't even have to be High End. But, if you want something bigger than 65" without needing to get a mortgage, LCD is the only game in town.


Sadly true...I'm finally with a 65-incher. Guess I'll soon be finding out how inadequate this size is.


----------



## fluxo

Just been reading a Sony PVM Trimaster EL manual:

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/assetDownloadController/PVM2541.1741opermanual.pdf?path=Asset%20Hierarchy$Professional$SEL-yf-generic-153697$SEL-yf-generic-153719SEL-asset-299223.pdf&id=StepID$SEL-asset-299223$original&dimension=original 


The precautions section (page 6) is a little scary:

"In addition, over a long period of use, because of the physical characteristics of the panel, such “stuck” pixels may appear spontaneously. These problems are not a malfunction."


"Do not leave the screen facing the sun as it can damage the screen. Take care when you place the unit by a window."


And the in a subsection entitled On Burn-in:


"Due to the characteristics of the material used in the OLED panel for its high-precision images, permanent burn-in may occur if still images are displayed in the same position on the screen continuously, or repeatedly over extended periods."


Etc. Maybe the new OLEDs won't come with such warnings.


PS.


Sorry for the formatting but the AVS phone web "app" is a nightmare to use.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23433662
> 
> 
> Even if they magically found a way to make OLED cheap, I suspect many plasma fans would still prefer plasma. As far as I know, they have never addressed the "shiney blacks" that OLED have. It seems to be a just a big drawback to the tech. Not sure how great having deep blacks would be if you can see your reflection in them.



I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Plasma is just as reflective as OLED. Unless you're comparing against the super-aggressive filters on recent plasmas which reduce viewing angle and brightness?


Personally, I think both LCD and Plasma suck equally. They have different strengths and weaknesses but neither is a suitable CRT replacement for me. I don't know if OLED will be any better until they ship actual products I can test.


----------



## irkuck

Market is the king and OLED future looks bleak under its rule: Even the Samsung OLED-bread-and-butter S4 with its 2K display is under big pressure


----------



## kdog750




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23435668
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Plasma is just as reflective as OLED. Unless you're comparing against the super-aggressive filters on recent plasmas which reduce viewing angle and brightness?
> 
> 
> Personally, I think both LCD and Plasma suck equally. They have different strengths and weaknesses but neither is a suitable CRT replacement for me. I don't know if OLED will be any better until they ship actual products I can test.



Well, I own the Elite and don't have a plasma. But I always assumed the reflection complaints of plasmas were due to the glossy screen to increase contrast and not due to the underlying technology itself. On another thread here, they have a couple of videos at the OLED presentations earlier this year where they point out the reflections in the blacks are distracting. And that they are glossy black instead of flat black.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23435668
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kdog750*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23433662
> 
> 
> Even if they magically found a way to make OLED cheap, I suspect many plasma fans would still prefer plasma. As far as I know, they have never addressed the "shiney blacks" that OLED have. It seems to be a just a big drawback to the tech. Not sure how great having deep blacks would be if you can see your reflection in them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Plasma is just as reflective as OLED.
Click to expand...

 

No, completely different issue, unless I misread something.

 

As I understand it, the specular reflection nightmare on plasma is because of the facing glass they seem to prefer.  In the case of OLED the reflections are directly off of the turned off surfaces of the OLED grid itself.  Speculation, *someone chime in please*: If plasma has that problem as well, is it possible that it's the case that they opted for putting the reflections off the facing glass instead of the plasma cells that are off?

 

I don't think anti-reflection glass will help here because they excel at transmittance.  The light will pierce it, land on the OLED array, and bounce back.


----------



## Wizziwig

FYI,


Dell.ca is back to showing their usual "Temporarily Out Of Stock. Please call sales number at the top of this page for assistance" message that was there since April. Looks like it was just a temporary glitch in their system when they showed the LG as shipping in 1-2 weeks. Or if you're really optimistic - they just sold out!


----------



## Rich Peterson

This is a very long article with lots of good information in it. I only included the beginning here. I urge everyone to check it out.

*Samsung OLED release is much less anticipated*


Source: Korean Joongang Daily 


Surprise success of UHD has companies readjusting strategy

*Samsung Electronics is set to finally introduce its first, long-awaited organic light-emitting display (OLED) 55-inch TV in two weeks, according to a source familiar with the situation.* The debut comes six months after LG Electronics unveiled the world’s first 55-inch OLED TV and less than two months after LG came up with a curved OLED TV the same size.


However, Samsung does not appear hyped about the impending launch of the new, next-generation TV segment that has been the industry’s center of attention for the past year.


Several rounds of rumors and speculation about the timing of the launch were wrong - the first being July last year in time for the London Olympics. Some industry insiders even predicted that Samsung wouldn’t release an OLED TV this year, citing low production yield and technological barriers.


Whereas LG has been outspoken about its OLED prowess - being first to get in the market - Samsung, the No. 1 player, seems almost disengaged.


“We do not put a big significance on the timing of OLED TV release,” said the source, who asked not to be named. “It is meaningless to concentrate on OLED TVs when UHD TVs are doing so well - especially given that the production yield for OLED TVs has been unsatisfactory, the product won’t turn a profit and won’t likely satisfy customers [in terms of quality due to the new product’s early stage of development].”


He added that Samsung’s focus has shifted to ultra high-definition (UHD) TVs for the time being. That marks a reversal in the company’s strategy, given that Samsung and other TV makers had initially unveiled UHD TVs as a stopgap measure until the release of OLED TVs. When LG became the first company to release a UHD TV - an 84-inch model with a price tag of $22,000 - Yoon Boo-keun, head of Samsung’s consumer electronics unit, underestimated the potential of UHD, saying it “has no value without content that meets the screen quality.”


----------



## PCD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23437585
> 
> 
> FYI,
> 
> 
> Dell.ca is back to showing their usual "Temporarily Out Of Stock. Please call sales number at the top of this page for assistance" message that was there since April. Looks like it was just a temporary glitch in their system when they showed the LG as shipping in 1-2 weeks. Or if you're really optimistic - they just sold out!



Good one











Although the tinfoil hat part of me wonders if this was an experiment to see if anyone would bite, I'm reminded of Hanlon's razor.


----------



## rogo

That is a good article, Rich.


A couple of observations:


1) " And it pulled the plug on the 110- and 95-inch models showcased at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January in anticipation of low demand due to the hefty weight and enormous prices. " I told _everyone_ I talked with at CES at the Samsung booth, "Those big ones are not products and will never see the light of day. Please ignore any comments from reps to the contrary. Hah!


2) The latest OLED forecast from DisplaySearch is now for


----------



## mr. wally

4k is a solution in search of native content. with the upgrade issues still out there i wouldn't touch one of these yet.


----------



## Artwood

Even if you get a 171 inch through the door where you could possibly truly enjoy the 4K resolution--you still have LCD that sucks when viewed one zillionth of a degree off of pure center with NO Full array backlight with pathetic blacks and it will cost 90 trillion dollars!


I think the display industry is more or less saying--if we can reduce ALL displays to DUNG then we can MAKE the consumer Eat the dung! We can MAKE them like crap!


We can even have people here say that crap is good


OLED is NOT COMING!


And 4K LCD WILL suck!


----------



## tgm1024


I'm thinking Lexapro.  Maybe old fashioned lithium as well.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6090#post_23442607
> 
> 
> I'm thinking Lexapro.  Maybe old fashioned lithium as well.


----------



## vinnie97

Add in a Seroquel, and pass the cocktail over to me.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PCD*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6090#post_23439261
> 
> 
> Good one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the tinfoil hat part of me wonders if this was an experiment to see if anyone would bite, I'm reminded of Hanlon's razor.



Back to "Usually Ships: 1-2 Weeks".


----------



## Artwood

At least I'm not eating it!


How does regressing LCD taste?


----------



## Rich Peterson

This is mostly about small OLED screens but then they go on to large OLEDs and there may be some info here that's of interest.

*LG to mass-produce flexible displays*


Source: The Korean Times 


By Kim Yoo-chul


LG Display is expected to solidify its leadership in the display market as it will mass-produce a new flexible smartphone panel for major clients from the fourth quarter of this year.


Technicians and researchers at LG say this new development is an effort to meet growing demand for innovative business solutions.


[LOTS SKIPPED]


Flexible OLEDs are just one part of LG’s plan to sweep the global OLED market by increasing its investment in various business projects.


The company, which is the first to mass produce OLED screens and curved OLEDs for televisions, is in the process of developing OLED TV screens that support UHD viewing quality.


To remain competitive, LG works to cut manufacturing costs, achieve lower consumption and advanced viewing quality, said Lim Joo-soo, a manager at its OLED technology strategy division.

*“LG Display is developing UHD OLED TV screens. For enhanced brightness, we plan to switch the existing ‘bottom-emission’ tech into ‘top-emission’ tech. The company also has interests in developing materials that can help OLED applications extend their lifespan,” said Lim


As OLED TVs go mainstream within the next few years, LG is expanding its panel sizes to 65 inches and 77 inches.


According to LG officials, the 65-inch and 77-inch OLED panels will be produced at its M1 pilot line inside the P9 factory in Paju. The M1 line will house more equipment to produce bigger screens, and the M2 line will be mass-produced starting next year.*


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote from that article:
> Flexible OLEDs are just one part of LG’s plan to sweep the global OLED market by increasing its investment in various business projects.


 

{chuckle}.  Anyone seeing them as a self-defined Dr. Evil at the table with Mini-Me?  Not going to work.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6090#post_23441793
> 
> 
> .......We can even have people here say that crap is good.....



Well, from four footers, it does wonders in my garden!


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6090#post_23443960
> 
> 
> This is mostly about small OLED screens but then they go on to large OLEDs and there may be some info here that's of interest.
> *LG to mass-produce flexible displays*
> 
> Source: The Korean Times



This piece shows at least that the guys recognized the LCD train has left and one can not catch it with the 55" 2K OLEDs anymore.The talk about 77" OLEDs looks like the 55" story repeating.


----------



## rogo

Fascinating that LG is being forced to switch to top-emission as well. Yet another technical decision they made that was wrong and will have to be undone now....


First, going with not-yet-ready IGZO.... Second, going with passe 1080p... Third, going with much-less-efficient bottom emission....


The original goal of producing a large-format display by 2015 should never have been screwed with. Their credibility would.... still exist....


----------



## irkuck

^It means this technology is still immature and its hype is bordering on cheating.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Another "coming soon" rumor?

*Samsung reportedly shipping 55-inch OLED TV to South Korea next week*


Source: engadget 


Samsung told us to expect its 55-inch OLED TV sometime in July, but there's now a chance that South Koreans will get an early look. Yonhap News Agency hears through tipsters that the premium set could ship to Samsung's homeland next week, with a price somewhere north of 10 million won ($8,840). It might not be alone, either -- those same sources also claim that the company's curved OLED TV may arrive at the same time. Samsung hasn't confirmed anything, but such moves would line up with the firm's tendency to debut products in its home country. Besides, Samsung rarely lets any of LG's salvos go unanswered.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6090#post_23448401
> 
> 
> Another "coming soon" rumor?
> 
> *Samsung reportedly shipping 55-inch OLED TV to South Korea next week*
> 
> 
> Source: engadget
> 
> 
> Samsung told us to expect its 55-inch OLED TV sometime in July, but there's now a chance that South Koreans will get an early look. Yonhap News Agency hears through tipsters that the premium set could ship to Samsung's homeland next week, with a price somewhere north of 10 million won ($8,840). It might not be alone, either -- those same sources also claim that the company's curved OLED TV may arrive at the same time. Samsung hasn't confirmed anything, but such moves would line up with the firm's tendency to debut products in its home country. Besides, Samsung rarely lets any of LG's salvos go unanswered.




Will they place them next to the LG OLED sets on the imaginary shelf?


----------



## Artwood

Will they place them next to the 4K LCD sets in the sewer?


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, a material supplier to LG (Universal Display) had their 55" OLED television at their annual meeting on Thursday. They said it was likely the first unit in the United States.


I would wager quite a bit that this unit was bought commercially. I have followed the company for years and they have never shown a sample OLED device that wasnt selling commercially. I also doubt that LG is handing out prototypes, particularly to a company that also supplies Samsung.


Now that I think about it, I'll put a call into IR to see if I can get a direct answer to the question.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6090#post_23456875
> 
> 
> FWIW, a material supplier to LG (Universal Display) had their 55" OLED television at their annual meeting on Thursday. They said it was likely the first unit in the United States.
> 
> 
> I would wager quite a bit that this unit was bought commercially. .



I would wager a nearly infinite sum that it was not bought commercially in the United States. Also, the very nature of it being the first unit in the United States almost states by definition it wasn't purchased from a retailer in the U.S. -- who would have more than one unit.


There is no outlet that has even listed the unit for sale in the U.S. save Dell's online store. And by all evidence, they did not ship any before listing the TV as not available.


I am all-but certain the unit was delivered to them from LG. I don't understand why you don't think they'd hand one out to their main OLED material supplier; but even if Universal Display had to pay for one, they could've easily had it air-shipped from Korea. And you can bet that's what happened, no matter whose tab it was on.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6090#post_23457146
> 
> 
> I am all-but certain the unit was delivered to them from LG. I don't understand why you don't think they'd hand one out to their main OLED material supplier; but even if Universal Display had to pay for one, they could've easily had it air-shipped from Korea. And you can bet that's what happened, no matter whose tab it was on.



Of course I dont believe it was bought in the US. It didnt even occur to me that anybody would think that was a possibility.


The general thinking on this thread, and I have agreed, has been that the fact that we have yet to see a single pic of LG's television in the wild makes it doubtful that they have actually shipped TV's...even in Korea. I believe that this unit is the first unit is evidence that they are actually shipping the television. As for why I think it was bought and not given, it is based on the history of their relationship with other OLED manufacturers. They are literally told nothing of Samsung's future plans or products. Perhaps the relationship with LG is different, but I doubt that LG would give a finished unit to a company that is so tied to Samsung...unless they are actually shipping this TV in Korea so Samsung already has one in their labs.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6090#post_23457284
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6090#post_23457146
> 
> 
> I am all-but certain the unit was delivered to them from LG. I don't understand why you don't think they'd hand one out to their main OLED material supplier; but even if Universal Display had to pay for one, they could've easily had it air-shipped from Korea. And you can bet that's what happened, no matter whose tab it was on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I dont believe it was bought in the US. It didnt even occur to me that anybody would think that was a possibility.
> 
> 
> The general thinking on this thread, and I have agreed, has been that the fact that we have yet to see a single pic of LG's television in the wild makes it doubtful that they have actually shipped TV's...even in Korea. I believe that this unit is the first unit is evidence that they are actually shipping the television. As for why I think it was bought and not given, it is based on the history of their relationship with other OLED manufacturers. They are literally told nothing of Samsung's future plans or products. Perhaps the relationship with LG is different, but I doubt that LG would give a finished unit to a company that is so tied to Samsung...
Click to expand...

 

Well, that might change after they read this thread.....


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul*
> 
> I see no reason why it won't happen once there is a video format that supports the Rec. 2020 color space.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> Call us when the format comes out, kk?
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> DLP, LCD, OLED, and Plasma can show a larger color space than Rec. 709 and I think the main reason it hasn't happened yet was due to the lack of a widely adopted standard. xvYCC was proprietary, was supported by only a few companies, and was limited because it had to be compatible with 8-bit video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a bunch of TVs that can support a wider color space have been out for more than a decade, but there is no content. But OLED -- which has been vaporware for a decade -- is going to change this? Got it!
Click to expand...


The Sony ''mastered in 4K'' stuff has an expanded color gamut










only seems to work on stuff that supports Sony's proprietary Triluminos technology though.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Mastered_in_4K/Industry_Trends/High-Def_Retailing/4K/UHDTV/Ultra_HD/Mastered_in_4K_and_the_Road_to_Ultra_HD/11781 



Seems to me that 4K blu-ray will have expanded color gamut just like the ''mastered in 4K'' line.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6090#post_23457284
> 
> 
> Of course I dont believe it was bought in the US. It didnt even occur to me that anybody would think that was a possibility.
> 
> 
> The general thinking on this thread, and I have agreed, has been that the fact that we have yet to see a single pic of LG's television in the wild makes it doubtful that they have actually shipped TV's...even in Korea. I believe that this unit is the first unit is evidence that they are actually shipping the television. As for why I think it was bought and not given, it is based on the history of their relationship with other OLED manufacturers. They are literally told nothing of Samsung's future plans or products. Perhaps the relationship with LG is different, but I doubt that LG would give a finished unit to a company that is so tied to Samsung...unless they are actually shipping this TV in Korea so Samsung already has one in their labs.


\


I don't understand why you believe that LG would deny one of its main suppliers a working unit simply because that supplier also works with Samsung. That's incredible pissiness for a multi-billion-dollar company.


But even if they are shipping a tiny number of units in Korea -- and LG has stated this for months, though some of us remain skeptical -- no one has reviewed one anywhere. That still suggests it isn't really available, even when LG protests otherwise.


----------



## houseall

yeah.just look a few posts ahead. Iso has added the article to one of his older posts.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6090#post_23439457
> 
> 
> 1) " And it pulled the plug on the 110- and 95-inch models showcased at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January in anticipation of low demand due to the hefty weight and enormous prices. " I told _everyone_ I talked with at CES at the Samsung booth, "Those big ones are not products and will never see the light of day. Please ignore any comments from reps to the contrary. Hah!



At the same time Sharp is already selling the 90-incher and Samsung trying to break with the 75" and 84"







. This opinion thus sounds like Samsung wanting to smear the supersized market since they have to source panels from the Chinese. While the 110-inch 4K market is obviously going to be small, any calculations of its size have to include large part of the HT projector market which it will be killing. Moreover, the enormous price of 110-incher is sounding funny in the mouth of the main OLED proponent







: 110-incher @4K is essentially just 4x55" panels stamped together: no new panel tech, same 55" production lines, and no new electronics. The only problem is weight and installation effort but still nothing comparing to the overall effort of building decent HT.


----------



## WaveBoy

so WHEN in the hell exactly is Samsung going to release their 55" 1080p OLED? They said they were going to at the end of last year. That never happened....And it probably wont for this year either. sigh*


----------



## WaveBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PCD*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6030#post_23422410
> 
> 
> Dell Canada is now shipping (if you have $14K). 55" LG OLED
> 
> http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Video_Conferencing/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=dhs&cs=cadhs1&sku=A6820882
> 
> 
> In case you don't wish to click the link, Dells blurb below:
> 
> 
> Highlights
> 
> 
> •OLED
> 
> •
> 
> ✓4 Color Pixel
> 
> ✓ Inifinte Constrast
> 
> ✓ Universal Control
> 
> ✓ No thicker than a pencil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> •LG Smart TV
> 
> •
> 
> 
> Easy to Use
> 
> ✓ Magic Remote
> 
> ✓ Universal Control
> 
> ✓On Now
> 
> ✓Built-In Wi-Fi
> 
> ✓Dual Core Processor
> 
> 
> Easy to Enjoy
> 
> ✓ Premium Content
> 
> ✓Game World
> 
> ✓LG Smart World (App Store)
> 
> 
> Easy to Connect
> 
> ✓Smart Share
> 
> ✓LG Cloud
> 
> ✓Miracast
> 
> ✓NFC
> 
> ✓WiDi
> 
> ✓MHL
> 
> 
> LG Cinema 3D
> 
> ✓ Cinema 3D Glasses
> 
> ✓Dual Play
> 
> ✓2D to 3D Conversion
> 
> ✓3D World
> 
> ✓3D Depth Control
> 
> ✓3D Sound Zooming
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overview
> 
> 
> Stunning design and stunning picture quality with Infinite Contrast and 4 Color Pixel technology that displays more true to life images. LG's 4 Color Pixel technology adds the color white to the conventional 3 color sources to enhance accuracy for more true to life and vibrant colors. LG's intuitive Magic Remote is a simple and fun way to pick and choose what you want to watch from premium content providers like Hulu Plus®, Netflix® and YouTube® directly from your TV. The Magic Remote is all you need to control your TV and entertainment systems. Simply click, gesture, scroll or use LG's unique Voice™ that is capable of recognizing how you naturally speak to change the channel or find something to watch. Now, you can spend less time navigating and more time enjoying your entertainment. LG’s dual core processor provides fast access to Internet content and enhances processing speed. Mirror files from your Smartphone, tablet and other devices with MiracastTM to your TV. LG Cinema 3D glasses are comfortable, lightweight, battery-free. 4 sets of glasses included.
> 
> 
> Manufacturer Part# : 55EM9700
> 
> Dell Part# : A6820882



I bet the input lag for gaming is "OVER 9000000!!!!!"................ms.


----------



## binici




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WaveBoy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6090#post_23460841
> 
> 
> I bet the input lag for gaming is "OVER 9000000!!!!!"................ms.



at least Dell offers great finance options!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WaveBoy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6090#post_23460835
> 
> 
> so WHEN in the hell exactly is Samsung going to release their 55" 1080p OLED? They said they were going to at the end of last year. That never happened....And it probably wont for this year either. sigh*



Are you in the market for an $8000-12,000 TV? I ask only because even if they do release it, that's the price....


I doubt it's coming this year, by the way.


They are a bunch of phony hypesters (both Samsung and LG) on this. The ridiculous promises in 2012... The continued ridiculous promises in 2013... The ridiculous promises of competitive pricing "soon"....


You hear that howling? It's the sound of the technology that cried wolf....


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Panasonic to Provide OLED TV Technology for Other Manufacturers by Charging*


Source: LEDInside 


It is reported that Panasonic is considering providing OLED TV mass production technology for other TV manufacturers by charging. Panasonic has launched negotiation with Japanese manufacturers at home and abroad, including LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics.


Compared with Samsung's technology, Panasonic's technology allows manufacturers to produce OLED TV in large quantity at lower cost, although Panasonic is jointly developing OLED panels with Sony and providing technical information for each other, and Panasonic will offer the Panasonic's own mass production technology to external companies only because the volume production mode of Sony and Panasonic is different.


Sony and Panasonic announced on June 25, 2012 that they will jointly develop next-generation OLED panels for TV / large-size monitor, and they aimed to establish the mass production technology of next-generation OLED panel in 2013. In addition to Panasonic, Sony is also working with Taiwan's AU Optronics to develop OLED panels together.


Currently, LG has already started selling OLED TV in several markets worldwide, but sales are not ideal, allegedly the cumulative sales in Korea by the end of this April is only 200 units. However, Samsung's OLED TV will be put on sale this week at slightly lower price than LG, close to $ 9,000, but the price is far higher than that of LED TV and 4K TV in the same size.


OLED TV is considered as orthodox successor of the next generation of display technology. But a lot of investment capital flow is required to invest OLED TV, so it is obviously difficult for Panasonic in trouble to invest. However, Panasonic has mastered OLED technology of itself; it would be another form of waste that Panasonic cannot take advantage of its OLED technology of itself.


Previously, Panasonic had just set foot in the production of small-size OLED panel, it is reported that Panasonic plans to produce commercial OLED panel in its Himeji plant for medical equipments and television station before the end of 2015.


----------



## vinnie97

Poor translation, but the last sentence suggests that a Panasonic consumer panel may very well not be coming in 2015 after all, only mentioning commercial purposes.


----------



## rogo

It could be a translation error; I have no idea. But aside from the reference to "television stations" the fact that it refers to "end of 2015" again makes me believe that we'd be lucky to see anything come out of Panasonic before 2016 (or Sony for that matter).


So between now and then, another 650 million or so LCD TVs will be sold against perhaps 1 million OLEDs. Oh, and Samsung has three new tablets coming out next month all of which use LCDs.


----------



## ALMA

Samsung released curved OLED-TV for $13000 in Korea:

http://www.samsung.com/sec/consumer/tv-video/tv/oled-tv/KN55S9CAF-features 

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/26/samsung-launches-55-inch-flawless-curved-oled-tv-in-korea/ 


Outside Korea in July...


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23471638
> 
> 
> Samsung released curved OLED-TV for $13000 in Korea:
> 
> http://www.samsung.com/sec/consumer/tv-video/tv/oled-tv/KN55S9CAF-features
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/26/samsung-launches-55-inch-flawless-curved-oled-tv-in-korea/
> 
> 
> Outside Korea in July...


 

I can't imagine this curved business has staying power.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*
> 
> 
> Samsung released curved OLED-TV for $13000 in Korea:
> 
> 
> Outside Korea in July...



Does outside Korea mean in the US? If Samsung puts their set up for sale in the US before LG, then who actually won the race?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23471859
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*
> 
> 
> Samsung released curved OLED-TV for $13000 in Korea:
> 
> 
> Outside Korea in July...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does outside Korea mean in the US? If Samsung puts their set up for sale in the US before LG, then who actually won the race?
Click to expand...

 

Depends.  If the Samsung is a complete disaster in PQ, then LG won.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23471770
> 
> 
> I can't imagine this curved business has staying power.


I can. If it delivers the PQ everybody hopes for and if it greatly reduces off axis viewing problems. Of course those are big if's but curved is aimed at the latter and OLED is aimed at delivering great PQ.


----------



## navychop

Sounds like overconfidence for Panasonic to consider producing for other companies when they haven't proven any producibility at all.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23472121
> 
> 
> I can. If it delivers the PQ everybody hopes for and if it greatly reduces off axis viewing problems. Of course those are big if's but curved is aimed at the latter and OLED is aimed at delivering great PQ.



I would think curved would worsen viewing angles. Only the person in the center sweet spot would get a good view.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23472121
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23471770
> 
> 
> I can't imagine this curved business has staying power.
> 
> 
> 
> I can. If it delivers the PQ everybody hopes for and if it greatly reduces off axis viewing problems.
Click to expand...

 

It's can't solve off-axis issues, and I doubt anyone would claim that.  Not even LG's "you can see passive 3D lying down" smokingcrack marketing team would attempt that.  Criminey, I hope not anyway.  It's the OLED part of it that would manage that, not this curved hooey.

 

If you're in the middle of a curved screen, things will be great, but of dubious incremental value.  If you're off axis, then the side closest to you will be worse because it'll be horizontally squashed.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23472130
> 
> 
> I would think curved would worsen viewing angles. Only the person in the center sweet spot would get a good view.


Only if several people sit very close, which there wont be space for, or the viewing angle is very bad. The panel doen't have that much curve.


What I scratch my head about is that they release the curved screen but can't release a straight screen.

Is that just for getting some additional marketing hype?


Seems to have a good viewing angle.


----------



## binici

* Samsung rolls out OLED TV as production glitches linger *

_SEOUL (Reuters) - Samsung Electronics Co Ltd launched its first OLED TV on Thursday, taking the ultra-thin technology into a nascent market despite tenacious production challenges that keep costs high while prevailing LCD screens only get better and cheaper.


The world's biggest TV manufacturer has staked its display future on OLED - organic light emitting diode - technology and its success with smaller screens has bolstered its smartphone market share and earnings. But big screens are likely to take a much slower road to profits.


OLED technology is widely believed to offer the potential for better picture quality than standard liquid crystal display screens, with crisper picture resolution, faster response times and high-contrast images. It also allows for curved televisions, which manufacturers say offer a more immersive experience.


But production constraints are a key problem.


Samsung is producing OLED screens for TVs from a small pilot line and some analysts estimate the yield at just 30 percent - with seven out of 10 screens from the line faulty, largely due to difficulties in spreading organic light emitting materials evenly across large screens.


Although many industry experts believe OLED will eventually be the next big thing, they do not think it will manage to do to LCDs what LCDs did to bulky cathode ray tube sets: almost completely replace them in the space of just several years.


"They are not sufficiently transformational to trigger a complete switch-over from LCDs," said Eo Kyu-jin, an analyst at IBK Securities, adding that for now OLED televisons would represent less than 1 percent of the 200 million-plus global TV market.


Samsung's $13,000 price tag on its curved 55-inch OLED television is the same as similar offerings from LG Electronics Inc , some five times more than popular LCD equivalents.


Samsung itself took a cautious tone, warning that industry forecasts for sales growth were a bit too optimistic.


"We have just introduced our first OLED TV and have to see consumer response to gauge overall market demand," Kim Hyunsuk, a Samsung executive vice president, told reporters.


Research firm DisplaySearch has forecast global industry-wide sales of OLED televisions at 50,000 this year and 600,000 next year, with rapid growth thereafter to reach 7 million in 2016.


LG, which currently offers both curved and non-curved 55-inch screens, is estimated to have only sold a few hundred screens so far after starting sales earlier this year.


LCD technology is also getting better and this is where many of Samsung's and LG's rivals, which lack their South Korean rivals' deep pockets, are concentrating their efforts.


"OLED demand is likely to pick up strongly only after 2015. It has a long way to go to improve picture quality to the level of ultra-high definition and to lower production costs sharply," said Chung Won-suk, an analyst at HI Investment & Securities.


Samsung, seeking to avoid putting all its eggs in one basket, also unveiled on Thursday 55-inch and 65-inch ultra-high definition (UHD) TV sets which offer crisper LCD picture resolution. Sony Corp and Chinese manufacturers are aggressively marketing that technology.


As market dynamics remain uncertain, manufacturers' investment plans have so far been modest.


LG Display, which is also working from a pilot line, has just started investing 706 billion won this year in large OLED panels. Samsung Display has yet to announce its capital investment plan for production of large OLED screens.


Samsung said it will begin selling its curved OLED televisions outside South Korea from July but did not specify which countries. It has no plans to offer non-curved OLED screens this year.
_


Interesting... Seems like OLED is making a push, but the battle will be a tough one?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23472205
> 
> 
> Only if several people sit very close, which there wont be space for, or the viewing angle is very bad. The panel doen't have that much curve. What I scratch my head about is that they release the curved screen but can't release a straight screen.
> 
> Is that just for getting some additional marketing hype?



They are desperately trying to differentiate OLED from tons of LCD sets and partially justify its high price. Consumers are getting even more confused: there is full palette of high-end Samsung LED 2K LCDs, they just introduced 4K LED LCDs, and now there is curved OLED. Flat OLED will add to the ridicule.


All this is due to market darwinism by LG and Samsung while reason says curved OLED should be directed first and foremost to the computer monitor market.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23472205
> 
> 
> Seems to have a good viewing angle.


Looks distorted to me.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *binici*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23472318
> 
> * Samsung rolls out OLED TV as production glitches linger *
> 
> 
> Samsung said it will begin selling its curved OLED televisions outside South Korea from July but did not specify which countries. It has no plans to offer non-curved OLED screens this year.



I didn't realize Samsung was only doing the curved OLED this year, I thought they were doing both like LG. Interesting.


----------



## rogo

Sorry, Rich, I find none of this interesting. It's offensive to the consumer.


Two giant companies more or less pretending to release products.


Samsung's "curved only" approach is nothing more than an admission they simply cannot produce the TV. Now they are not only selling it for a fortune, they are also making it strange and weird. This ensures already tiny demand will become that much tinier. Whether they deliver zero (likely) or 100-200 (possible) in 2013, this is barely what one would call a product. It's a prototype.


That Samsung called the industry forecasts for OLED "optimistic" is terrifying. The industry forecasts have OLED garnering


----------



## Wizziwig

I think the reasons for releasing a curved model are pretty obvious. They need some way for the average consumer to notice the TV in the store. If it was flat, it would simply get lost in the sea of LCDs. At least this design will cause people to stop and investigate what it's all about. Hopefully that will raise public awareness of OLED tech and make it easier to sell the flat versions to come.


The curve is not about improving picture quality. If it was, they would have curved it vertically too - otherwise pixels at the top/bottom are still further away than center. It's just a marketing decision.


----------



## Artwood

The real answer is for the video display company heavy hitters behind closed doors to agree to ELIMINATE LCD that sucks!


OLED is never happening!


Curved is never happening!


I think what is finally happening is that the executives who run the companies that produce all the LCD that sucks are finally waking up to the reality that if LCD takes 100% control then THEY will also have to watch LCD that sucks!


They can't handle that thought because THEY know it sucks!


Has anyone noticed that all through 2013 we have been moving INEXORABLY to the LCD only world wide domination horror story apocalyptic holocaust!


Who is the person around here who has been telling everyone that the emperor's clothes are off and this is indeed happening?


Face it--Panasonic is about to throw in the towel much sooner than anyone wants to happen!


How long will Samsung remain around producing plasma?


For all you SOPHISTICATES out there who think I'm crazy--what are the GREAT examples of CURRENTLY produced LCD? Where are they at? Are they in D-Nice's house?


No I don't think they're there--they aren't ANYWHERE!


Even Wal-Mart is bored with selling LCD--even they know it sucks!


If you can't have OLED why not talk about Curved OLED which you also can't have?


What is that you're saying...Cry me a river!


----------



## Supermans

So what is the problem with the low OLED yields anyways? Also, curved screens only work in my opinion if the image is movie theater sized and you are off to one side or another. Or you are positioned perfectly in the middle of the theater. With a 55 inch screen, it seems too small to get any benefits unless you sit freakishly close. I do see how having the curved screens can distinguish itself from the other sets, however they really need to be 75 inches or larger to make that wow factor impact being curved.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23475160
> 
> 
> The real answer is for the video display company heavy hitters behind closed doors to agree to ELIMINATE LCD that sucks!
> 
> 
> OLED is never happening!
> 
> 
> Curved is never happening!
> 
> 
> I think what is finally happening is that the executives who run the companies that produce all the LCD that sucks are finally waking up to the reality that if LCD takes 100% control then THEY will also have to watch LCD that sucks!
> 
> 
> They can't handle that thought because THEY know it sucks!
> 
> 
> Has anyone noticed that all through 2013 we have been moving INEXORABLY to the LCD only world wide domination horror story apocalyptic holocaust!
> 
> 
> Who is the person around here who has been telling everyone that the emperor's clothes are off and this is indeed happening?
> 
> 
> Face it--Panasonic is about to throw in the towel much sooner than anyone wants to happen!
> 
> 
> How long will Samsung remain around producing plasma?
> 
> 
> For all you SOPHISTICATES out there who think I'm crazy--what are the GREAT examples of CURRENTLY produced LCD? Where are they at? Are they in D-Nice's house?
> 
> 
> No I don't think they're there--they aren't ANYWHERE!
> 
> 
> Even Wal-Mart is bored with selling LCD--even they know it sucks!
> 
> 
> If you can't have OLED why not talk about Curved OLED which you also can't have?
> 
> 
> What is that you're saying...Cry me a river!



LOL whut?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23474340
> 
> 
> Sorry, Rich, I find none of this interesting. It's offensive to the consumer. Two giant companies more or less pretending to release products.
> 
> Samsung's "curved only" approach is nothing more than an admission they simply cannot produce the TV. Now they are not only selling it for a fortune, they are also making it strange and weird. This ensures already tiny demand will become that much tinier. Whether they deliver zero (likely) or 100-200 (possible) in 2013, this is barely what one would call a product. It's a prototype.



You do not appreciate the total problem. Even if they _could_ produce OLED in volumes and even if its price would not be sick but just crazy, OLED has lost its appeal since one can not promote it by PQ, size, and thinness vs. LED LCD anymore. One the other hand LCD bleeding edge is now promoted as 4K making the 2K OLED perceived as backwater. So out of desperation there is curved OLED, this is real differentiation as one can not make a curved LCD. But it looks irrelevant, one can not make volumes of curved 55" OLEDs.


However the curved display concept has significant value in the computer monitor, gaming and all other areas where solitary wide angle view is useful.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23475316
> 
> 
> You do not appreciate the total problem. Even if they could produce OLED in volumes and even if its price would not be sick but just crazy, *OLED has lost its appeal since one can not promote it by PQ, size, and thinness vs. LED LCD anymore*.



I don't agree with this. OLED has not lost it's appeal. There are countless accounts of people "blown away" by the picture quality in demos and I don't see that's been lost. The sets are priced high enough it's probably worth it for stores to get some source material that will look equally as stunning.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23475316
> 
> 
> You do not appreciate the total problem.



Irkuck, do you really believe I don't appreciate the total problem? I mean really? I am bending over backwards to show you respect; do me the same courtesy?


> Quote:
> Even if they _could_ produce OLED in volumes and even if its price would not be sick but just crazy, OLED has lost its appeal since one can not promote it by PQ, size, and thinness vs. LED LCD anymore. One the other hand LCD bleeding edge is now promoted as 4K making the 2K OLED perceived as backwater. So out of desperation there is curved OLED, this is real differentiation as one can not make a curved LCD. But it looks irrelevant, one can not make volumes of curved 55" OLEDs.



I doubt they can even make tiny quantities. It's a sideshow.


> Quote:
> However the curved display concept has significant value in the computer monitor, gaming and all other areas where solitary wide angle view is useful.



It has significant value in the really big computer monitor market. It has no meaningful value in the medium-sized computer monitor market. And the market paying a premium for computer monitors is pretty small anyway. I mean, I'm glad someone can serve it in theory. That said, 55-inch displays don't serve it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23476047
> 
> 
> I don't agree with this. OLED has not lost it's appeal. There are countless accounts of people "blown away" by the picture quality in demos and I don't see that's been lost. The sets are priced high enough it's probably worth it for stores to get some source material that will look equally as stunning.



The problem is that these people are being blown away mostly because they are told to be blown away. Once these things are at retail, running content that people will live with, the end result is going to be fairly ordinary vs. what they can otherwise buy for a fraction of the price. This was the problem with the Sharp Elite. It had "world beating" contrast -- both simultaneous and sequential -- but it didn't matter to most people. And world-beating contrast is all OLED offers. It doesn't offer exceptional brightness. It doesn't offer meaningful color improvements (in fact, it may actually offer worse color due to this obsession with showing off the oversaturation it is capable of). And, quite honestly, the bar is not even where it was in 2012. The Samsung F8500 and Panasonic VT/ZT 60 didn't exist. By the time you can even buy an OLED, those will be replaced at least once, perhaps twice. The flat-out dumbest thing Panasonic has done is whatever cuts it has made to plasma R&D. It could have used its mantle as the "picture quality kings" to launch its OLED in 2016. If it cedes that to Samsung in 2014 and 2015, well....


Regardless, I suspect within 24 months, we will see a jumbo IGZO-backplane 4K OLED that raises the bar yet again. Maybe someone will bring back local dimming, maybe they won't. But even without it, I think you'll see the bar raised by a lower black floor from an IGZO design.


The chance to blow people away is a function of the competition. And that competition is quite literally getting better all the time. It's also good enough that most people are very happy with it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23476495
> 
> 
> At last someone decides to service the niche market of people who live in Silos. You can't mount a flat panel on a curved wall.



^ This. Think of all the survivalists who live in the old Minuteman silos. They are probably delighted they can at last have a flat panel to replace the government-issue 1967 Sylvania that came with the silo.


----------



## borf




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23476047
> 
> 
> OLED has not lost it's appeal. There are countless accounts of people "blown away" by the picture quality in demos and I don't see that's been lost..



Hope they are right, but that kind of enthusiasm is like the "honeymoon phase". I don't pay much attention to that stuff anymore.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23476047
> 
> 
> I don't agree with this. OLED has not lost it's appeal. There are countless accounts of people "blown away" by the picture quality in demos and I don't see that's been lost. The sets are priced high enough it's probably worth it for stores to get some source material that will look equally as stunning.



It should be evident from my writing, but apparently it was not, that what is meant by the 'lost appeal' concerns major segment of mass market, not niches. Mass market decided the LCD, and even edgelit for the matter, is good enough PQ-wise and otherwise. The market could turn to the OLED if it is made with the range of LCD sizes and competing on price with the LCD. This sounds impossible.


Of course there are people who are craving for OLED but their numbers are too limited even for a niche market. Many of those people are just on an addict-hunger of wanting something better than LCD. So now when the 55" OLED might become available they will beg for a bigger one, when bigger ones appear they will beg for 4K OLED and if such appears they will beg for a cheap one







.


----------



## rogo

You can sign me up right now for the first 70" 4K OLED that is under $5000. Honestly, otherwise why bother?


I can already buy a freaking spectacular plasma 65" for under $4000 that is 2K. I can buy a $7000 4K TV from Sony _today_. There is no OLED for sale from anyone. So I'll pay a premium to the plasma for the pixels and power consumption. I'll offer a discount to the LCD because I figure it'll be half as expensive within 24 months and so the OLED will be pricier.


Yes, I'm in a niche market. But, then, so are the people buying that 5-series "fastback" from BMW.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23478563
> 
> 
> You can sign me up right now for the first 70" 4K OLED that is under $5000. Honestly, otherwise why bother?
> 
> 
> I can already buy a freaking spectacular plasma 65" for under $4000 that is 2K. I can buy a $7000 4K TV from Sony _today_. There is no OLED for sale from anyone. So I'll pay a premium to the plasma for the pixels and power consumption. I'll offer a discount to the LCD because I figure it'll be half as expensive within 24 months and so the OLED will be pricier.


Yes, this is the problem. For most people, current displays are good enough. And for those of us that have an interest in the high end - most of us probably already have a display we are happy with, whether that's a Pioneer Kuro, Sharp Elite, Sony HX9 etc.


If OLED had actually happened five years ago when flat panels were considerably worse off than they are now, then I would have absolutely been willing to pay a premium for it.

But I've had my Sony HX900 for years at this point and while I definitely want to move to 4K, and the other improvements OLED should bring are enticing, I am _not_ willing to pay a premium for it now, and I certainly don't want to buy a first generation product.


Honestly, 4K (or even better, 8K) is going to be a bigger push for me than the contrast and viewing angle improvements OLED is going to bring over my current set. Resolution is by far the most obvious flaw that my TV has. I'm happy with how contrast, motion, color etc. is on it. It can still be improved upon, but I'm no longer desperately looking for something better like I was five years ago when I was buying just about every top-tier display that was coming out, only to return them for some glaring image quality problem.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23477151
> 
> 
> Irkuck, do you really believe I don't appreciate the total problem? I mean really? I am bending over backwards to show you respect; do me the same courtesy?



Your expertise is impeccable, what I am emphasizing OLED is not anymore technical problem only. OLED has no differentiation factor from the LCD which consumers consider goodenough. This is leading to Samsung desperation of curved OLED. Curved is a factor but a weak one, it may even lead to a ridicule by consumers which, seeing a sea of flat LCDs and a single curved OLED, may become suspicious it loses shape due to intense light emission.







.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6120#post_23477151
> 
> 
> It has significant value in the really big computer monitor market. It has no meaningful value in the medium-sized computer monitor market. And the market paying a premium for computer monitors is pretty small anyway. I mean, I'm glad someone can serve it in theory. That said, 55-inch displays don't serve it.



Curved computer monitor has clear application range with real benefits, it would be a good area to start with. Professional and high-end gaming market would be ready to pay for it.


----------



## rogo

Chron and Irkuck, I think you both raise important points.


Irkuck, given the market for computer monitors is real, albeit small, it's noteworthy no one is building an OLED in a realistic monitor size. Lifespan? Burn-in? Interesting it seems to me.


----------



## irkuck

Why nobody is buliding OLED monitors? This question is well seen with Samsung which has mobile AMOLED product. Why they do not try to make just slightly bigger AMOLEDs? In my view this is due to manufacturing problems which are exponentially growing with size. So why on earth they are trying to jump into 55" OLED? I see it as a combination of the Chinese threat and battles with LG, there is no economic thinking here.


----------



## catonic

Samsung have become addicted to OLED vapourware, they can't kick the habit !


----------



## vinnie97

They must be intense fumes, the same kind LG are inhaling in vast quantities.


----------



## Wizziwig

 http://lgdnewsroom.com/display_insights/2573 


> Quote:
> With all the attention on large-sized OLED TVs since they were first showcased two years ago at CES 2012, what’s striking is the *effectiveness and speed* at which the LG Display and LG Electronics partnership has delivered the technology to the marketplace as first to release a standard 55-inch OLED TV at the start of this year and a curved 55-inch OLED TV in May.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> With its expert grasp of the technology, LG Display’s application of OLED to LG’s 55-inch OLED TV and 55-inch Curved OLED TV has been *smooth and seamless* – with the result that both TVs are now available in stores in Korea and will be globally unveiled soon.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Wow, that's PR to the extreme! Thanks for the chuckle.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23492115
> 
> http://lgdnewsroom.com/display_insights/2573




thanks, good to know


----------



## catonic

 http://lgdnewsroom.com/display_insights/2573 


Hard scientific evidence as to just how intoxicating vapourware fumes can be !


----------



## vinnie97

They are shameless...but that's par for the course for many entities early in the 21st century.


----------



## Chris5028

I just hope they don't mess up the market for OLED with crap TVs before the higher quality manufacturers get their OLED displays out in force. It would be unfortunate if they created the same environment Plasma has been muddling along in.


----------



## sstephen

The industries (mis)leader in OLED technology.


----------



## andy sullivan

I have a sneaky feeling that when the OLED dust clears you will see Panasonic as the big dog on the block. Maybe by the summer of 2015 or 2016.


----------



## rogo

I'll bet you an OLED TV that you won't see Panasonic as the big dog of OLED in 2015. In fact, I'd be surprised if they actually ship more than a minimal quantity by year end of 2015. There is simply not a chance of that outshipping any meaningful quantity from LG or Samsung, which we _presume_ will be delivering >100K per month by then.


Now, 2016 is another matter. But given the whole outsourced production philosophy here, I don't see Panasonic ever leading anything. No one has led display technology ever by outsourcing the display making. Why is this changing with OLED? If Panasonic completely changes its mind and decides to fabricate its own panels, fine, they might lead. If they rely on AUO to make their panels, they will be a bit player.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23496488
> 
> 
> I'll bet you an OLED TV that you won't see Panasonic as the big dog of OLED in 2015. In fact, I'd be surprised if they actually ship more than a minimal quantity by year end of 2015. There is simply not a chance of that outshipping any meaningful quantity from LG or Samsung, which we _presume_ will be delivering >100K per month by then.
> 
> 
> Now, 2016 is another matter. But given the whole outsourced production philosophy here, I don't see Panasonic ever leading anything. No one has led display technology ever by outsourcing the display making. Why is this changing with OLED? If Panasonic completely changes its mind and decides to fabricate its own panels, fine, they might lead. If they rely on AUO to make their panels, they will be a bit player.



But isn't Panasonic collaborating with Sony on OLED panel research & production?

Wasn't that an announcement a couple months back?


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23496731
> 
> 
> But isn't Panasonic collaborating with Sony on OLED panel research & production?
> 
> Wasn't that an announcement a couple months back?


Sony and Panasonic did announce that joint venture (but only to develop not manufacture) but Sony has been quite silent while Panasonic seems to be forging ahead with what they consider a better technology (printed method)). I don't know what that really means and I am technologically in the dark ages but I do believe what Panasonic spouting. With the demise of plasma as a viable technology possibly by the end of 2018 Panasonic needs to step up or step out. If they stay it will be fueled by their idea of how to manufacture OLED. In a nutshell, Panasonic feels that Samsung and LG will not be able build a profitable mass produced OLED display. I have no basis to think they are correct which is why I termed it a sneaky feeling. My gut believes them and my brain has no clue.


----------



## mikek753




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23498258
> 
> 
> Sony and Panasonic did announce that joint venture (but only to develop not manufacture) but Sony has been quite silent while Panasonic seems to be forging ahead with what they consider a better technology (printed method)). I don't know what that really means and I am technologically in the dark ages but I do believe what Panasonic spouting. With the demise of plasma as a viable technology possibly by the end of 2018 Panasonic needs to step up or step out. If they stay it will be fueled by their idea of how to manufacture OLED. In a nutshell, Panasonic feels that Samsung and LG will not be able build a profitable mass produced OLED display. I have no basis to think they are correct which is why I termed it a sneaky feeling. My gut believes them and my brain has no clue.



based on 2 years old promise to deliver OLED to mass market and so far we don't see any in stores I think your logic is sound - like it or not ...


----------



## navychop

Whoever is "the big dog of OLED in 2015," I'm beginning to believe they'll be a Shih Tzu.


----------



## JWhip

Having been unable to attend CES the past couple of years due to travel, I had yet to see an OLED set in the flesh, until yesterday. Harrod's in London has 2 on display, with one playing a LG demo reel and the other The Avengers Blu-ray, both in 2 and 3D. The PQ is outstanding, with the best blacks I have seen on a flat panel display and I have an elite 141. Color and detail are superb. I saw no issues with viewing angle or image retention. I spent an hour checking out the sets. The downside, well price for one. At 10,000 pounds or $14,900, that is a TON of oney for a 55" set. The set cannot be wall mounted although I was told a wall mountable set will be available in the fall. That will probably be even more expensive. Also, it takes 4 weeks from the date you order and pay for the set before it is ready for delivery. The best I could get out of the salesman was that they sold several. With a 4 week wait, the production run for this set must be very limited, given that Harrod's is the only store that I am aware of which sells them. They will ship to the US if you want one! At least the LG set is not vapor ware and can be had. As for reliability ang longevity issues, who knows. What I can say is that the set seems to be capable of some excellent performance. The sets have been there since March. Whether they will look this good in 6 more months is anyone's guess. At this size and price and further given that they can't be wall mounted, I have NO interest. However, in a couple years at half the price and at 70 plus inches, who knows?


----------



## irkuck

Keep heads cool guys: the train has left for OLED. It would require full range of sizes at very competitive prices just to enter the market in any significant way and this is impossible.


----------



## vinnie97

A world of only edgelit LCDs and you're suggesting we keep cool heads? That's just heresy.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23503344
> 
> 
> Also, it takes 4 weeks from the date you order and pay for the set before it is ready for delivery. The best I could get out of the salesman was that they sold several. With a 4 week wait, the production run for this set must be very limited, given that Harrod's is the only store that I am aware of which sells them. They will ship to the US if you want one! At least the LG set is not vapor ware and can be had.



I guess that's up for debate. I still call it vaporware unless you can walk out with it from the store. Did they say how many they actually delivered to customers vs. how many they sold? Or was the first sale less than 4 weeks ago?


If they actually delivered any, you would think at least one person (or review site) would have posted pictures of the set in their home.


How was the quality of motion? Any blurring? Was it playing proper 24p or using soap-opera-effect inducing interpolation?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23503862
> 
> 
> 
> If they actually delivered any, you would think at least one person (or review site) would have posted pictures of the set in their home.



The lack of a single review anywhere on the internet and the lack of any actual evidence of end-user ownership is really telling....


I'd be more concerned though if the debate was, "Is the product generally going to be available soon?" Instead, the debate is, "Are shipments really zero, or have they sold 200-300 TVs?"


That's still a marginally interesting question, but not a very interesting one. Either answer still means there is no real OLED TV for sale anywhere; whether or not there are demo units in Harrods.


This fact won't be changing in 2013.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23504294
> 
> 
> The lack of a single review anywhere on the internet and the lack of any actual evidence of end-user ownership is really telling....


 http://reviews.lg.com/7074-en_gb/MD05034960/reviews.htm


----------



## JWhip

In regards to sales, all I could get out of the salesman was that they sold either a few or quite a few. I was assured that they have been delivered to customers, with one being delivered to a customer in France. I will try to go back tomorrow and take somes pics if they don't object and post them once I get back. The point I was making is that the sets are available, at very limited quantities if only for the very rich (it is Harrod's after all!)


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23504465
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23504294
> 
> 
> The lack of a single review anywhere on the internet and the lack of any actual evidence of end-user ownership is really telling....
> 
> 
> 
> http://reviews.lg.com/7074-en_gb/MD05034960/reviews.htm
Click to expand...

 

His review was dated the 16th OF MAY!  Is that even possible???????  It's from the LG website so presumably the set has to be actually purchased before the review was written.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23504641
> 
> 
> His review was dated the 16th OF MAY!  Is that even possible???????  It's from the LG website so presumably the set has to be actually purchased before the review was written.



The original LG PR announcing the Harrods pre-order was dated March 7th. At that time, they claimed delivery in July. LG made no further announcements. Since they missed every single date in the past, it's hard to believe they delivered any sets earlier than expected. Everything in that review is common knowledge so it doesn't really prove he owns it. Too bad the review was not posted on a forum so we can ask questions.

http://www.lgblog.co.uk/2013/03/lg-oled-on-sale-now/


----------



## Rich Peterson

Regarding LG's OLED set at Harrod's in London, JWhip wrote:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23503344
> 
> 
> They will ship to the US if you want one!



C'mon, folks, here's your chance. Who's willing to fork over $16K for a set to be delivered from Harrod's to their home in the US? Anybody? There must be some rich I-gotta-be-first forum member here willing to take the plunge, right? We less well off readers would be very appreciative.


----------



## JWhip

I will be posting a full report with pics when I get back. Please not that burn in appears to be an issue as it is visible on an all white field. Minor but there nonetheless.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Burn in? Really bad news.


I'm about as optimistic as anyone here on the future of OLED TV, but if it shows visible burn-in after just a few months of running the demo loops, that seems to me to be an absolute showstopper for any hope of an OLED future until resolved.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23506723
> 
> 
> Burn in? Really bad news.
> 
> 
> I'm about as optimistic as anyone here on the future of OLED TV, but if it shows visible burn-in after just a few months of running the demo loops, that seems to me to be an absolute showstopper for any hope of an OLED future until resolved.



I think burn in is the real issue with this technology; and I don't see how it can be resolved.....


my opinion only: and yes I would buy one at these inflated prices if I thought it would outperform plasma or LED: and last as long...


----------



## JWhip

The burn in is not from the loop but from a menu generated by the tv that runs vertically on the left side of the screen. It is left on all the time with the sets in torch mode about 8 to 10 hours a day, 7 days a week. I will post a pic of the menu when I get back but not of the burn in as I was not able to get a good picture of that. No question it is a concern although it is faint and something I did not see while watching the loop of a Blu ray, just on a white screen. More next week.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*
> 
> His review was dated the 16th OF MAY!  Is that even possible???????  It's from the LG website so presumably the set has to be actually purchased before the review was written.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*
> 
> The original LG PR announcing the Harrods pre-order was dated March 7th. At that time, they claimed delivery in July. LG made no further announcements. Since they missed every single date in the past, it's hard to believe they delivered any sets earlier than expected. Everything in that review is common knowledge so it doesn't really prove he owns it. Too bad the review was not posted on a forum so we can ask questions.
> 
> http://www.lgblog.co.uk/2013/03/lg-oled-on-sale-now/



timlongson from Manchester owned the 55EM970V for a few hours ( after that the police came, arrested him and brought the OLED he stole back to Harrods









http://reviews.lg.com/7074-en_gb/MD05034960/reviews.htm


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23507000
> 
> 
> The burn in is not from the loop but from a menu generated by the tv that runs vertically on the left side of the screen. It is left on all the time with the sets in torch mode about 8 to 10 hours a day, 7 days a week. I will post a pic of the menu when I get back but not of the burn in as I was not able to get a good picture of that. No question it is a concern although it is faint and something I did not see while watching the loop of a Blu ray, just on a white screen. More next week.



Thanks for the report. Not being able to get a pic of the burn in makes it sound like it is really faint. Is that your impression when there? Also, I understand they have a few models there. Is it visible on all of them? I believe they had one in a window display so it would have been on 24x7. Not that it should have burn in yet regardless.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23506798
> 
> 
> I think burn in is the real issue with this technology; and I don't see how it can be resolved.....
> 
> 
> my opinion only: and yes I would buy one at these inflated prices if I thought it would outperform plasma or LED: and last as long...



I agree burn in is likely the major issue with the WRGB technology. The obvious solution is increasing lifetime of the materials. There are also compensation technologies being developed such as this from Ignis Innovation. The yellow (red/green) material being used has a lifetime of 85,000 hours to 95% brightness where it might be a minor issue and 1,450,000 hours to 50% brightness so this sort of compensation could mitigate minor burn in issues for a long time.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23506548
> 
> 
> I will be posting a full report with pics when I get back. Please not that burn in appears to be an issue as it is visible on an all white field. Minor but there nonetheless.



I very much appreciate your first-hand reports and I'm quite sure all readers of this thread agree. Thank you!


----------



## CheYC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23506548
> 
> 
> I will be posting a full report with pics when I get back. Please not that burn in appears to be an issue as it is visible on an all white field. Minor but there nonetheless.



You're in Wayne? Where is it that you're looking at this TV? I'm in Paoli btw.


----------



## JWhip

It seems that only one of the salesmen, at least when I am there, really knows these sets well. He volunteered the burn in info to me but I was pushing the envelope a bit to get a picture for obvious reasons. The store is really quite crowded and the oleds attract some attention, after the 85 inch Samsung 4K for a cool 38,000 pounds or $54,000. I must say, that is quite a display. I will try to get there early tomorrow to see if we can put the white screen up and see if he will allow me to take a picture.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23504465
> 
> http://reviews.lg.com/7074-en_gb/MD05034960/reviews.htm



That's not what any reasonable person means by review...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23504641
> 
> 
> His review was dated the 16th OF MAY!  Is that even possible???????  It's from the LG website so presumably the set has to be actually purchased before the review was written.



A non-owner, posting on the mfr. website. Clearly not the hurdle I was speaking of...


So to clarify for the cement-skulled:

*An independent, third-party review done by a reputable reviewer of televisions and/or home-theater gear. There would be instrumented testing as part of the review as well as subjective evaluation. Examples include: Home Theater Magazine, Gary Merson's HD Guru, Widescreen Review, or any similar entities based outside the U.S."

*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23506211
> 
> 
> Regarding LG's OLED set at Harrod's in London, JWhip wrote:
> 
> C'mon, folks, here's your chance. Who's willing to fork over $16K for a set to be delivered from Harrod's to their home in the US? Anybody? There must be some rich I-gotta-be-first forum member here willing to take the plunge, right? We less well off readers would be very appreciative.



I doubt you can actually buy it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23506798
> 
> 
> I think burn in is the real issue with this technology; and I don't see how it can be resolved.....



The same way it's resolved on plasmas: To get it to the point where it occurs effectively never. I have no real idea if the Harrod's unit is permanently damaged or if it's a plasma-like "image retention" phenomenon, but with enough lifespan to the OLED material and (more importantly) an even wear curve, this becomes a non-problem. That said, buying a first-generation product is again proved to be stupid given the insane pricing and the likelihood it's the worst-performing OLED TV LG will ever sell.


And, yes, I wrote stupid.


> Quote:
> my opinion only: and yes I would buy one at these inflated prices if I thought it would outperform plasma or LED: and last as long...



I forget what you own, but the "outperformance" is so slight, I can't imagine why you'd pay 5x what a good plasma runs even if it lasted as long. That's equivalent to paying $300,000 for a 5-series competitor because it "outperforms" the BMW (well, perhaps as much as $400,000 depending on options). I can see paying a nice premium for some amount of outperformance. In fact, I applaud that kind of purchasing among those who can afford it.


But 3-5x for a decidedly marginal gain in performance makes no sense to me, not even accounting for possible longevity issues.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23506798
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23506723
> 
> 
> Burn in? Really bad news.
> 
> 
> I'm about as optimistic as anyone here on the future of OLED TV, but if it shows visible burn-in after just a few months of running the demo loops, that seems to me to be an absolute showstopper for any hope of an OLED future until resolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think burn in is the real issue with this technology; and I don't see how it can be resolved.....
Click to expand...

 

Technologies take time.  And forget the "it's been promised for 10 years" business.

 

Keep in mind just how bad the old CRTs used to burn in.  In the 70's and early 80's I saw not-too-old yet burned in computer monitors left and right.  By the time the 90's showed up, this was a *far* less common and much harder to do.  I actually had a java IDE up with the internal panes in the exact same position for most of the day for years with no burn-in.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6150#post_23506723
> 
> 
> Burn in? Really bad news.
> 
> 
> I'm about as optimistic as anyone here on the future of OLED TV, but if it shows visible burn-in after just a few months of running the demo loops, that seems to me to be an absolute showstopper for any hope of an OLED future until resolved.



It's not really surprising. Somewhere on this forum I posted a link to a FAQ on LG's website that clearly warned about burn-in risk. They eventually pulled that section from their site. Now we know why.










Our only hope is that this is temporary retention like you often see on Plasma.


What kind of idiot working at LG would put static menus on a TV prone to burn-in? Don't these type of menus usually have a time-out, orbiter, or screen-saver?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23507849
> 
> 
> I forget what you own, but the "outperformance" is so slight, I can't imagine why you'd pay 5x what a good plasma runs even if it lasted as long. That's equivalent to paying $300,000 for a 5-series competitor because it "outperforms" the BMW (well, perhaps as much as $400,000 depending on options). I can see paying a nice premium for some amount of outperformance. In fact, I applaud that kind of purchasing among those who can afford it.
> 
> 
> But 3-5x for a decidedly marginal gain in performance makes no sense to me, not even accounting for possible longevity issues.



For me, it's not even about performance. I'd be willing to pay a significant premium just so I don't have to deal with the inherent limitations of plasma or LCD. Plasma is incompatible with my eyes and ears (I see DLP-like rainbows/flashes and hear annoying buzzing) so they are not worth buying for me at any price. I also can't live with LCD viewing angles, uniformity-issues, and crappy dark-room black levels. I realize I'm in the 1-2% of the population affected by these issues. Too bad I'm not in the 1-2% that can afford this OLED.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23508844
> 
> 
> For me, it's not even about performance. I'd be willing to pay a significant premium just so I don't have to deal with the inherent limitations of plasma or LCD. Plasma is incompatible with my eyes and ears (I see DLP-like rainbows/flashes and hear annoying buzzing) so they are not worth buying for me at any price. I also can't live with LCD viewing angles, uniformity-issues, and crappy dark-room black levels. I realize I'm in the 1-2% of the population affected by these issues. Too bad I'm not in the 1-2% that can afford this OLED.



OK, so those are all fair points. You're in a small minority, but one that wants something different for totally legitimate reasons.


I will say this: Somewhere around the 5th year of OLED TV sales, the pricing should be more compatible with the 50%, rather than 1-2%. So keep holding out hope.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23509230
> 
> 
> I will say this: Somewhere around the 5th year of OLED TV sales, the pricing should be more compatible with the 50%, rather than 1-2%. So keep holding out hope.



Right, but for every day these TV's are delayed, this whole schedule shifts further down. This is why I keep hoping for LG or Samsung to ship something - even if it's not affordable to anyone. At least it will start the clock ticking and begin the process of gradual price reduction. Instead we've been in this constant holding pattern for years now. Meanwhile LCD just gets cheaper and cheaper, making it harder for any competing tech to enter or remain in the market.


It seems to me that in order for OLED TV's to have any chance, they would need to follow a pattern similar to the mobile space. The price difference to LCD doesn't seem very large at those sizes and this at least allows them to coexist in the market. Can you imagine if they had introduced OLED phones at 5x the price of LCD phones?


----------



## Artwood

Plasma is like being trapped in Stalingrad during World War II.


Who can stop the LCD hordes--they're everywhere!


A Totalitarian victory of an LCD only world will be the death of video quality civilization!


Rogo tells the truth! OLED ain't happening and the cost of it is ridiculous!


If LCD does take over the world they should shut the whole AVS Forum down for 5 minutes so that everyone who cares about video picture quality can mourn its passing.


I think that some of the people are waking up to the fact that I--the Paul Revere of video quality is truly shouting an ominous warning--the LCDs are coming--the LCDs are coming!


Please BEWARE of the coming LCD only worldwide domination apocalyptic horror srory holocaust of video quality!


4K LCD will suck and will cost a lot and everything else will suck MORE!


Get ready for a video world that SUCKS!


Stop the OLED fantasizing! Get ready to take it! I can't stop crying! The video world is ending!


What really hurts is thinking about all the people at AVS who post in and who eventually--when their plasmas die--will HAVE to endure LCD that sucks!


It's like people who like big cars who have to endure small cars that suck!


This is the saddest I've felt since the WKRP episode where they were throwing turkeys out the helicopters!


That's what the LCD lovers are going to do to plasmas!


It's worse than the Hindenberg!


----------



## Shadowdane

Yah they need to start smaller on the OLED screens.. hell maybe computer monitors using OLED and move up from there.

Granted if burn-in is an issue on OLED I'd hate to have my Windows Start menu burned into my monitor.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23509327
> 
> 
> Right, but for every day these TV's are delayed, this whole schedule shifts further down. This is why I keep hoping for LG or Samsung to ship something - even if it's not affordable to anyone. At least it will start the clock ticking and begin the process of gradual price reduction. Instead we've been in this constant holding pattern for years now. Meanwhile LCD just gets cheaper and cheaper, making it harder for any competing tech to enter or remain in the market.



I agree the clock needs to start ticking. That said, LCD is, I think, nearly at the bottom of the pricing curve. It's really challenging to enter the market but I don't think LCD getting another 10-30% cheaper matters all that much.


> Quote:
> It seems to me that in order for OLED TV's to have any chance, they would need to follow a pattern similar to the mobile space. The price difference to LCD doesn't seem very large at those sizes and this at least allows them to coexist in the market. Can you imagine if they had introduced OLED phones at 5x the price of LCD phones?



They'd have gotten nowhere in mobile had that happened, but remember the display is just part of the phone price. In a Galaxy S4, for example, the OLED screen is about $75 of $235. In an iPhone 5, the LCD is about $45 of about $205.


----------



## JWhip

I was able to take some pics showing the burn in quite clearly. I would say that it is burn in and not temporary image retention as it is rather dark as the pics will show. I will post one once I am able to figure out how to do that from my iPad, otherwise, it will have to wait. Interestingly, I asked why the sets menu bar was left on all the time to do such damage. I was told that LG insisted on it. If that is true, that was DUMB.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23511290
> 
> 
> I was able to take some pics showing the burn in quite clearly. I would say that it is burn in and not temporary image retention as it is rather dark as the pics will show. I will post one once I am able to figure out how to do that from my iPad, otherwise, it will have to wait. Interestingly, I asked why the sets menu bar was left on all the time to do such damage. I was told that LG insisted on it. If that is true, that was DUMB.



Download Dropbox and use Photo Upload or use Photo Stream and get the pictures out of there (easy to do on a Mac, more annoying on a PC).


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23511290
> 
> 
> Interestingly, I asked why the sets menu bar was left on all the time to do such damage. I was told that LG insisted on it. If that is true, that was DUMB.



Wow. That is just further evidence that LG doesn't really want to sell these TV's at all. They are just using them as a tool in their public relations and marketing agenda - to make the company seem technologically superior to their competitors. I'm surprised they don't plaster their logo across the entire screen.


----------



## markrubin

here are the photos from JWhip: he is emailing them from a train heading to Edinburgh: this first one shows the menu: more to come


----------



## markrubin

photo shows burn in on left courtesy JWhip


----------



## JWhip

I would like to thank Mark for posting the pics. It is not easy to type on a bouncy train to Edinburgh. A note on my observations. The first day, they had been playing The Avengers Blu ray on that screen. The burn in was not as noticeable during the film or on a one color screen but clearly visible. When the menu went back up and was on for a couple of days, it was much worse, as noted in the pics. It may fade a bit depending on the screen content but is to my mind permanent. As far as I am concerned, that screen is ruined. The salesman agreed. I will post quite a few pics in a full article once I return in a few days.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23513428
> 
> 
> When the menu went back up and was on for a couple of days, it was much worse, as noted in the pics.



Honest question: what would happen with current generation plasma when taken new out of the box and tortured with a white-on-black static menu in store-torch-mode for days? From the pictures it seems that there was no orbiter at work either. Wouldn't the plasma burn in as well?


----------



## RichB

They will burn in as well. Though, probably not as quickly.

It is uneven wear that is permanent.


I have seen plasma's at best buy that are burned in.

I am careful with Plasmas.


- Rich


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23513708
> 
> 
> They will burn in as well. Though, probably not as quickly.


I don't think you can say that without running a plasma under the same conditions as those OLED sets. People make claims about plasmas being highly resistant or even "immune" to image retention/burn-in these days, which is not the case in my experience.

I think it's just that the people making those claims happen to have viewing habits that are not conducive to producing burn-in - or they simply don't notice it.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferro*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23513647
> 
> 
> Honest question: what would happen with current generation plasma when taken new out of the box and tortured with a white-on-black static menu in store-torch-mode for days? From the pictures it seems that there was no orbiter at work either. Wouldn't the plasma burn in as well?



yes: and even LCD's can burn in, although we have not seen reports of LCD burn in for some time


what gets my attention is that a company would allow a new technology demo show this so clearly: it is cause for concern in my opinion


we have seen hundreds of threads where plasma owners have reported burn in issues on $2k plasmas that turned out to be (temporary) image retention


imagine the outcry if this new technology suffers burn in quickly on an over $10k panel


----------



## RichB

JWhip's photos look like blue was depleted which is consistent with reports of issues with premature blue aging.


- Rich


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23514183
> 
> 
> JWhip's photos look like blue was depleted which is consistent with reports of issues with premature blue aging.
> 
> 
> - Rich



Those shots look exactly like the sort of burn-in you see on OLED phones. It mostly shows up on blue backgrounds.


I hope JWhip took some shots of the top/bottom borders of the screen. I'm curious if the letter-box bars from the blu-ray disk also caused any burn-in.


JWhip, did you notice any ABL behavior by the set? - where brightness of the screen would decrease when displaying full-screen white.


----------



## JWhip

If I recall correctly, LG uses white phosphors with RGB filters. I agree that the set has likely been abused and that this could be he result of that. However, given that this is the only store that I know of that has tis set on display and on sale, one would think that more care or thought would have gone into this. BTW, it was the only set there with burn in/image retention. They have every set imaginable, from the new Sammy 75" LED, the 85" 4k, the ZT & VT plasmas, the Sammy 8500, 84" Sony and so on.


----------



## JWhip

Wizziwig, he first picture shows no evidence of burn in at the top and bottom of the screen. I saw none while there. I also didn't notice any ABL but frankly, didn't look for it as I didn't think it w an issue for OLED. I guess that will have to wait for my next trip, whenever that might be. Not for a good bit though.


----------



## andy sullivan

Perhaps Rogo could chime in regarding BURN-IN with current plasma technology. If I remember correctly he owns a 65" plasma and actually tried very hard to induce burn-in and could not accomplish it.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23511201
> 
> 
> I agree the clock needs to start ticking. That said, LCD is, I think, nearly at the bottom of the pricing curve. It's really challenging to enter the market but I don't think LCD getting another 10-30% cheaper matters all that much.



The prices bottom out but panels are evolving, e.g. 4K may soon be de rigueur in LCD. Which will be exponentially difficult for OLED to climb up.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23511201
> 
> 
> They'd have gotten nowhere in mobile had that happened, but remember the display is just part of the phone price. In a Galaxy S4, for example, the OLED screen is about $75 of $235. In an iPhone 5, the LCD is about $45 of about $205.



There is no real market for the S4 OLED display and so it is hard to verify its price.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23514263
> 
> 
> I also didn't notice any ABL but frankly, didn't look for it as I didn't think it w an issue for OLED.



I'm taking nothing for granted. These TVs need to be checked for all the usual LCD/Plasma bugs and we'll likely discover new OLED specific ones as time passes.


Any sign of visible DSE during camera panning scenes? Hopefully they have good uniformity (ignoring the areas with burn-in).


How would you rate motion clarity and quality vs. Plasma and LCD?


----------



## JWhip

I will get to that next week.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23514159
> 
> 
> yes: and even LCD's can burn in, although we have not seen reports of LCD burn in for some time


The difference with LCDs is that they don't "burn" due to uneven wear, the pixels simply get "stuck" in one state. This really only ever happens in situations where the displays are on 24/7 displaying static images, because when you turn an LCD off, the pixels are reset.

While it's technically possible, it's not realistically going to happen in a home environment, even if you're using a computer on them all day, as long as you are turning it off at night - unless the display is faulty.


With CRT, Plasma, OLED etc. the wear is accumulative. This is how Plasmas may end up with uneven wear across the screen with letterboxing "burned" into the screen if someone primarily watches films and little 16:9 content, for example.

With the first couple of generations of OLED, they will probably be more susceptible to burn-in due to the materials being used, which is something they will surely figure out. Part of the problem is that they are trying to drive them to be as bright as an LCD, rather than competing with Plasmas.


Hopefully, they will be able to get them to be as resistant as CRTs in a few years time. Late generation CRTs were almost immune to burn-in from home use scenarios. (even with gamers)

Plasma is always driving its phosphors at 100%, and varying the duration to modulate brightness.

CRT adjusted the brightness of the phosphors directly, so they weren't driven as hard. OLED should be more CRT-like in this regard, being able to vary the brightness of the pixel, rather than using PWM (or similar) to modulate brightness.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23514159
> 
> 
> we have seen hundreds of threads where plasma owners have reported burn in issues on $2k plasmas that turned out to be (temporary) image retention


It's true, sometimes image retention only lasts a few days, weeks, or even a couple of months if it gets really bad before subsiding. But they can still get burned permanently, and some people don't want to put up with IR for days on end, even if it will disappear eventually.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23514236
> 
> 
> If I recall correctly, LG uses white phosphors with RGB filters. I agree that the set has likely been abused and that this could be he result of that. However, given that this is the only store that I know of that has tis set on display and on sale, one would think that more care or thought would have gone into this. BTW, it was the only set there with burn in/image retention. They have every set imaginable, from the new Sammy 75" LED, the 85" 4k, the ZT & VT plasmas, the Sammy 8500, 84" Sony and so on.



LG does not use white phosphors. As a practical matter, there is no such thing, although it might be possible such a thing exists somewhere.


LG uses a stacked red, green, and blue phosphor. That stack is driven together to make white. The white is then filtered into red, green, and blue. I'd rather not re-explain why because there are about 500 posts that do this, but that's the way it works.


The reason the blue can wear out in the stack faster is that the stack is driven together and nothing makes the stack age uniformly. It's different materials for each light primary. The blue can still wear faster (and apparently does).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6180#post_23514270
> 
> 
> Perhaps Rogo could chime in regarding BURN-IN with current plasma technology. If I remember correctly he owns a 65" plasma and actually tried very hard to induce burn-in and could not accomplish it.



Yeah, I can't actually get my TV to retain an image, let alone burn in. But keep in mind, I'm not running menus for days (weeks? months?) on end. That's just not a realistic use case for a TV and so I don't believe it reflects something important. That said, there is reason to be concerned about these first-gen LG OLEDs when you see that severe a "burn in" after a relatively short stay in a store. We don't know if they are running them overnight (I'd guess no, but I can't be sure), but the whole thing seems set up to cause the TVs to fail prematurely.


Let me say that running hours of ESPN or similar on my TV, I cannot get a hint of the bars to display on either all-white or all-black fields. I similarly cannot other static bits to "retain" no matter what I do that I consider realistic or even somewhat abusive (like leaving the PS3 on the menus for long stretches). My TV has been calibrated, so it runs "normal" settings, but is most often in "ISF Day" mode, so it's not exactly running dim.


No one should expect anything less than what I have from a $10,000 TV. Or a $5,000 TV. Or even a $3,000 TV. I mean that's a bare minimum of acceptability, in my mind: The idea you should not have to think twice about what you are watching. I will add the caveat that some people seem addicted to one particular channel or to long sessions of gaming as their primary uses. I'm less convinced that those people should buy plasmas. For anyone else, I'm convinced the state of the art is more than good enough.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23515182
> 
> 
> With CRT, Plasma, OLED etc. the wear is accumulative. *This is how Plasmas may end up with uneven wear across the screen with letterboxing "burned" into the screen if someone primarily watches films and little 16:9 content, for example.*
> 
> With the first couple of generations of OLED, they will probably be more susceptible to burn-in due to the materials being used, which is something they will surely figure out. Part of the problem is that they are trying to drive them to be as bright as an LCD, rather than competing with Plasmas.


This actually matches my viewing habits to a "T," and that's simply because of director choice (I predominately watch movies paying no mind to the given aspect ratio nor do I use the zoom feature, as I'd rather not risk cutting off edges of the picture). As a result, the Kuro I recently sold had the upper and lower vertical segments of the screen with less wear than the center portion, which was made obvious on a blank screen or on full-screen content with low lighting. It looks like I will be afflicted by this defect until I jump (back) on the LCD train. ;(


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23515182
> 
> 
> The difference with LCDs is that they don't "burn" due to uneven wear, the pixels simply get "stuck" in one state. This really only ever happens in situations where the displays are on 24/7 displaying static images, because when you turn an LCD off, the pixels are reset.
> 
> While it's technically possible, it's not realistically going to happen in a home environment, even if you're using a computer on them all day, as long as you are turning it off at night - unless the display is faulty.



I have direct evidence to dispute those claims. We have about a dozen Dell IPS LCD monitors at work that have permanent retention. I also have a different IPS LCD at home that shows image retention that is not yet permanent. The difference between LCD and Plasma is that their burn-in potential is reversed with respect to time. Plasma burn-in risk decreases with age while LCD burn-in risk increases. None of the LCDs showed any retention until about 4 years of use. It's almost like the pixels get lazier with time and take longer and longer to reset. I have no idea if other LCD tech like TN and VA have similar issues. My home LCD was not abused either - set to automatic power off after 20 idle minutes since it was new. I also found legal disclaimers about burn-in in the user manuals of many LCDs.


I will agree with you about last generation CRT. I've got 3 at home that get abused heavily and show no sign of burn-in after many years. Let's hope OLED gets to that level sooner than later. Otherwise you better get an iron-clad warranty that covers burn-in like the extended warranties offered by BB.


----------



## coolscan

Found a notice from April that Sony Pictures will equip all their remaster and editing suits with Sony 56" 4K OLED monitors by end of 2013.

Can this be re-brands or will Sony be able to mass-produce this for consumer sales from next year?


Regardless of the headline; This is only for Sony's internal use for the moment.
Sony UHD/4K OLED TVs Ready by Late 2013


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23517068
> 
> 
> Found a notice from April that Sony Pictures will equip all their remaster and editing suits with Sony 56" 4K OLED monitors by end of 2013.
> 
> Can this be re-brands or will Sony be able to mass-produce this for consumer sales from next year?
> 
> 
> Regardless of the headline; This is only for Sony's internal use for the moment.
> Sony UHD/4K OLED TVs Ready by Late 2013



It can't be re-brands, but they can't be close to mass production either. Again, 2015 seems much more likely. My guess is they'll make a few dozen for these edit/mastering suites... Then perhaps 100s for broadcast/internals over the first half of next year... Figure the goal is double-digit to triple-digit thousands in 2015 with true "mass production" the year after.


----------



## navychop

Hard to believe that Sony will start internal shipping by the end of the year. If they had any confidence in their production processes, I think they'd be trying to steal at least SOME of the Korean's thunder with a few announcements of their own.



White OLEDs for area lighting have been around for some time. Here's a brag from *Panny.* See also *Philips* and *Konica-Minolta* . For the well heeled, you've been able buy *this* for a while now:


----------



## ynotgoal

Curry's (UK's version of Best Buy) is holding their Curry's PC World Christmas event where they showcase new products to be available for Christmas. One of them is LG's curved OLED tv.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23518207
> 
> 
> 
> White OLEDs for area lighting have been around for some time. Here's a brag from *Panny.* See also *Philips* and *Konica-Minolta* . For the well heeled, you've been able buy *this* for a while now:


I wonder if anybody using these panels for building lighting for Photography in the US, that they have to pay license fees to LitePanel that won a patent case for LED lights for use in motion picture, television and photographic lighting in a ruling by Judge Essex of the International Trade Commission in January.


Not that LitePanels invented the LED panels or the use of them. They where just the first company that filed for a patent.


Will such a patent discriminate between OLED and LED light panels?


LitePanels is owned by the Vitecgroup , that has a reputation for buying up companies that hold patents and then leveraging the patents to extract licensing fees. To defend against this case would have cost several million dollars. It was cheaper to do a licensing agreement, as all the named defendants did in this case, because they where small companies that doesn't have the kind of money the Vitecgroup have.


Brands they own; "O Connor" "Sachtler" "Vinten" "Anton Bauer" "Autoscript" "Petrol" "Manfrotto" "Gitzo" "Lastolite" "Kata"

Litepanels Win LED Patent Case 


-


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23518207
> 
> 
> Hard to believe that Sony will start internal shipping by the end of the year. If they had any confidence in their production processes, I think they'd be trying to steal at least SOME of the Korean's thunder with a few announcements of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> White OLEDs for area lighting have been around for some time. Here's a brag from *Panny.* See also *Philips* and *Konica-Minolta* . For the well heeled, you've been able buy *this* for a while now:


I wonder who will deliver the first A19 OLED bulb, hopefully with the efficiency of that Panasonic invention.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23518570
> 
> 
> I wonder who will deliver the first A19 OLED bulb, hopefully with the efficiency of that Panasonic invention.


 

I think we're starting to fall for the O part of OLED for not very cogent reasons.  FWIW, I saw "regular" LED A19's at Home Depot.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23518207
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White OLEDs for area lighting have been around for some time. Here's a brag from *Panny.* See also *Philips* and *Konica-Minolta* . For the well heeled, you've been able buy *this* for a while now:



Those produce white light by color mixing red, green and blue from what I can read. They don't directly make white.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23518570
> 
> 
> I wonder who will deliver the first A19 OLED bulb, hopefully with the efficiency of that Panasonic invention.



Probably no one ever unless some advantage emerges that doesn't yet exist in making them. Standard "inorganic" OLEDs are now down to $13ish for 60-watt bulbs, I suspect they'll be at $5 by the middle of the decade. Those are dimmable, 2700K, instant on, 20+ year life bulbs that are small enough to work in nearly all fixtures. I'm not sure how much progress needs to be made in A19.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23519004
> 
> 
> I think we're starting to fall for the O part of OLED for not very cogent reasons.  FWIW, I saw "regular" LED A19's at Home Depot.



There are a bunch. The ones I refer to above are the Cree's.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23519056
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23518207
> 
> 
> White OLEDs for area lighting have been around for some time. Here's a brag from *Panny.* See also *Philips* and *Konica-Minolta* . For the well heeled, you've been able buy *this* for a while now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those produce white light by color mixing red, green and blue from what I can read. They don't directly make white.
Click to expand...

 

Yeah, LED's of any kind I've heard of are frequency specific.  They produce a spectral color, or UV, and probably are probably available for many regions of the EMS, though I don't know of any uses.

 

IIRC, the first white LED was created dichromatically by using a yellow phosphor.  Part of the blue excites the yellow with the rest escaping *through* the yellow.  The spectral yellow frequency stimulates the red and green cones of the eye and of course the blue the blue yielding the white light.  This is still a common technique today I think.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23519004
> 
> 
> I think we're starting to fall for the O part of OLED for not very cogent reasons.  FWIW, I saw "regular" LED A19's at Home Depot.


Oh, even Walmart has 'em. I just want to see the above-linked Panasonic development utilized in an A19 bulb to determine what real-world power usage can be achieved at typical 40/60/75W lumen equivalencies. I know the returns will be diminishing, but curiosity has the best of me.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23519056
> 
> 
> Those produce white light by color mixing red, green and blue from what I can read. They don't directly make white.
> 
> Probably no one ever unless some advantage emerges that doesn't yet exist in making them. Standard "inorganic" OLEDs are now down to $13ish for 60-watt bulbs, I suspect they'll be at $5 by the middle of the decade. Those are dimmable, 2700K, instant on, 20+ year life bulbs that are small enough to work in nearly all fixtures. I'm not sure how much progress needs to be made in A19.
> 
> There are a bunch. The ones I refer to above are the Cree's.



I use the Cree fixtures and A19 bulb from Home Depot.

They are excellent. The A19's seem brighter than the lumen rating and run cooler then other LED A19's I have tried.


- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23520442
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23519056
> 
> 
> Those produce white light by color mixing red, green and blue from what I can read. They don't directly make white.
> 
> Probably no one ever unless some advantage emerges that doesn't yet exist in making them. Standard "inorganic" OLEDs are now down to $13ish for 60-watt bulbs, I suspect they'll be at $5 by the middle of the decade. Those are dimmable, 2700K, instant on, 20+ year life bulbs that are small enough to work in nearly all fixtures. I'm not sure how much progress needs to be made in A19.
> 
> There are a bunch. The ones I refer to above are the Cree's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use the Cree fixtures and A19 bulb from Home Depot.
> 
> They are excellent. The A19's seem brighter than the lumen rating and run cooler then other LED A19's I have tried.
> 
> 
> - Rich
Click to expand...

 

Straying OT, but given the way this thread spins in circles on such limited info it almost seems refreshing.

 

FWIW, the Cree all-in-one recessed lights I put in the ceiling absolutey DO seem significantly brighter than their lumen rating.  But it's a very harsh light, and that's not a color temperature thing.  There's two things going on: the flicker and the nasty directional nature of LEDs in general, but I don't know which overrules which, but I'm betting they work together in a nasty way.  I'm still not completely happy with the effect.


----------



## markrubin

^^^


I put Phillips Ambient LED bulbs (and the Ecosmart Home Depot equivalent) throughout my home several months after upgrading to a Lutron RRA 2 system: so the dimmers were not rated for LED loads in that they require at least tbd watts load to dim properly: in most cases it worked OK but where it did not, I left one conventional bulb in that circuit


the LED bulb light does indeed seem harsh but you get used to it: I see no flicker: these are PAR 30, 38 and 40 recessed fixtures


by doing so I reduced the air conditioning load by several thousand btu's/ hr : a great investment


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23520926
> 
> 
> Straying OT, but given the way this thread spins in circles on such limited info it almost seems refreshing.
> 
> 
> FWIW, the Cree all-in-one recessed lights I put in the ceiling absolutey DO seem significantly brighter than their lumen rating.  But it's a very harsh light, and that's not a color temperature thing.  There's two things going on: the flicker and the nasty directional nature of LEDs in general, but I don't know which overrules which, but I'm betting they work together in a nasty way.  I'm still not completely happy with the effect.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23521038
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> 
> I put Phillips Ambient LED bulbs (and the Ecosmart Home Depot equivalent) throughout my home several months after upgrading to a Lutron RRA 2 system: so the dimmers were not rated for LED loads in that they require at least tbd watts load to dim properly: in most cases it worked OK but where it did not, I left one conventional bulb in that circuit
> 
> 
> the LED bulb light does indeed seem harsh but you get used to it: I see no flicker: these are PAR 30, 38 and 40 recessed fixtures
> 
> 
> by doing so I reduced the air conditioning load by several thousand btu's/ hr : a great investment



I also detect no flicker, but I believe the "Harshness" comes from their direction nature; they are not easily diffused.


- Rich


----------



## vinnie97

I exclusively use LEDs from Miracle LED, Array, Xledia, Feit Electric, and two Chinese off-brands. The Arrays are BR30 bulbs used in down recesses and are probably my favorites for the amount of light output at only 7.6 watts, and they don't require fancy dimmers (though the range of dimming is not as linear as I would like). The moment an OLED bulb becomes available (about the time LG releases their OLED TV stateside?), my order is in.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23520926
> 
> 
> Straying OT, but given the way this thread spins in circles on such limited info it almost seems refreshing.
> 
> 
> FWIW, the Cree all-in-one recessed lights I put in the ceiling absolutey DO seem significantly brighter than their lumen rating.  But it's a very harsh light, and that's not a color temperature thing.  There's two things going on: the flicker and the nasty directional nature of LEDs in general, but I don't know which overrules which, but I'm betting they work together in a nasty way.  I'm still not completely happy with the effect.



We have a couple of "spots", not truly recessed, over the fireplace. I tried a Feit Electric bulb in there rated "Flood". It was super concentrated and, well, too bright. It was ostensibly the right color temp, too, but I had to take them back to Costco. Just too much aggressiveness given you could see the bulb light directly.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23521038
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> 
> I put Phillips Ambient LED bulbs (and the Ecosmart Home Depot equivalent) throughout my home several months after upgrading to a Lutron RRA 2 system: so the dimmers were not rated for LED loads in that they require at least tbd watts load to dim properly: in most cases it worked OK but where it did not, I left one conventional bulb in that circuit
> 
> 
> the LED bulb light does indeed seem harsh but you get used to it: I see no flicker: these are PAR 30, 38 and 40 recessed fixtures
> 
> 
> by doing so I reduced the air conditioning load by several thousand btu's/ hr : a great investment



I don't know what a tbd watt is, but your story is interesting nevertheless. Our family room needs desperately to have recessed lighting here and I'd only do it with all LEDs for heat/power concerns.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23521190
> 
> 
> 
> I also detect no flicker, but I believe the "Harshness" comes from their direction nature; they are not easily diffused.



That seems to be my experience detailed above, but I can't entirely be sure. We have another LED bulb in the same room in a lamp which seems not at all harsh, also from Feit. Of course, there's a shade over it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23521225
> 
> 
> I exclusively use LEDs from Miracle LED, Array, Xledia, Feit Electric, and two Chinese off-brands. The Arrays are BR30 bulbs used in down recesses and are probably my favorites for the amount of light output at only 7.6 watts, and they don't require fancy dimmers (though the range of dimming is not as linear as I would like). The moment an OLED bulb becomes available (about the time LG releases their OLED TV stateside?), my order is in.



Just don't hold your breath there Vinnie.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23522029
> 
> 
> I don't know what a tbd watt is, but your story is interesting nevertheless. Our family room needs desperately to have recessed lighting here and I'd only do it with all LEDs for heat/power concerns.



The Cree 4" fixtures at Home Depot are more advanced than the 6 inch version.

They are composed of Blue LEDs and Red LEDs that are mixed when you dim.

It is a reasonable approximation of the dim to red of an incandescent and they dim much lower.

I had 5 inch cans so I just put them in the existing trims and that worked well.


- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23522051
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23522029
> 
> 
> I don't know what a tbd watt is, but your story is interesting nevertheless. Our family room needs desperately to have recessed lighting here and I'd only do it with all LEDs for heat/power concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cree 4" fixtures at Home Depot are more advanced than the 6 inch version.
> 
> They are composed of Blue LEDs and Red LEDs that are mixed when you dim.
> 
> It is a reasonable approximation of the dim to red of an incandescent
Click to expand...

 

Hmmmmm.....and that is desirable *why?*  I'm not sure that's what it's attempting to approximate.  I'd guess instead that the Stokes Shift might lose efficiency at lower wattage resulting in a gradual push toward blue.  A red LED added to this would balance that precisely back to the original white/gray curve.

 

BTW, that's interesting.  I don't dim the 4" cree I have, but I had no idea they attempted this at all.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23522708
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm.....and that is desirable _why?_  I'm not sure that's what it's attempting to approximate.  I'd guess instead that the Stokes Shift might lose efficiency at lower wattage resulting in a gradual push toward blue.  A red LED added to this would balance that precisely back to the original white/gray curve.
> 
> 
> BTW, that's interesting.  I don't dim the 4" cree I have, but I had no idea they attempted this at all.



I took one apart and examined its behavior when dimmed.

They dim much better than the conventional LED with yellow phosphor










- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23522746
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23522708
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm.....and that is desirable _why?_  I'm not sure that's what it's attempting to approximate.  I'd guess instead that the Stokes Shift might lose efficiency at lower wattage resulting in a gradual push toward blue.  A red LED added to this would balance that precisely back to the original white/gray curve.
> 
> 
> BTW, that's interesting.  I don't dim the 4" cree I have, but I had no idea they attempted this at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took one apart and examined its behavior when dimmed.
> 
> They dim much better than the conventional LED with yellow phosphor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich
Click to expand...

 

There still needs to be a yellow phosphor somewhere (YAG or something else) to dichromatically bring it to white, because it's almost certainly relying on the blue LED for the high wattage work.  BTW, curious: wikipedia actually had a mention of an experimental white LED that produced that yellow from the substrate itself rather than a phosphor.  I wonder which way THAT would tip when dimmed.

 

.....anyway.....this OT-topic has run amok here.....


----------



## rogo

I think running off-topic amok is tolerable given that the alternative is more fictitious press releases from LG and Samsung about delivering these TVs to non-existent customers.


----------



## Chris5028

I am curious what all the plasma people will do when Plasma goes the way of CRT and OLED never arrives....


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23523874
> 
> 
> I am curious what all the plasma people will do when Plasma goes the way of CRT and OLED never arrives....



Before that, I will buy more Plasma's.

According to avjunkie (Panasonic insider on the AH forum), they will be making Plasma's next year.

My Plan, stock up.


If OLED continues to be non viable, then either Panasonic will scale down and milk their Plasma or sell the IP to someone who may use it...


I will wait and see.


- Rich


----------



## Chris5028

I feel badly for the videophiles in my income bracket... I may not be able to afford a new Plasma on Panasonic's last year... Let alone 3 or 4 so I have quality TVs for the duration...


----------



## markrubin

interesting comments from Charles Hansen, President of Ayre Acoustics: he keeps a new spare Kuro in a box:


"Actually we were ahead of the time. We knew that 3D would flop as there were so many problems with it. In my meeting with one of the top Japanese manufacturers of A/V equipment they said that 3D had failed miserably. However, they had high hopes for 4K. They said that the images were so bright and detailed that they actually looked more dimensional than "3D". Plus there is no need to wear the silly glasses. I have not seen 4K myself, but the effect is apparently like the "Retina" screens on the Apple devices, or the smart phones that have 1920 x 1080 on a 4" screen, where the information density is simply staggering.. The biggest stumbling block with that will be the price. I heard of one display that was $12,000 (I think), but my brother said that he saw a review of a 4K display that looked glorious. But it was $55,000. Clearly the prices will have to come down a long, LONG way before we see any mass-market acceptance. And without mass-market acceptance, there will be no titles, as there is nobody to sell the discs to.... Don't forget that the market penetration for Blu-ray DISCS (not players) is still quite low, as the average person has such a poor display that even Blu-ray looks terrible.


It was also interesting because the Japanese manufacturer said that the Chinese companies are building their own screens now. And instead of OEM or ODM sales of these screens, they are creating new brands to sells the screens themselves. But he said they have a long way to go. He saw one Chinese 4K display that actually looked very good when fed 4K source material, but when fed anything else it looked terrible. As usual, everything becomes a race to the bottom.The normal consumer looks at two numbers -- the inches and the price: "I got a 50" flatscreen at Costco for $500!" They know NOTHING about picture quality, or reliability or availability of spare parts. I still have a final generation 50" Kuro monitor in a sealed box waiting for the right time to open it up and enjoy it. I don't know if that picture quality will ever be surpassed. The people that are hard-core vacuum tube fans will pay many, many hundreds of dollars for sealed New Old Stock tubes from the 1930s. We purchased 500,000 of all of Toshiba's low noise JFET's for audio use when they were announced as end of life. That should be a 50 to 100 year supply. Nobody will ever build transistors that good ever again. Instead they simply want to make everything as small as possible so that you can have 40 Mpixel cameras in your smart phones...."

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1181755/ayre-dx-5-bluray-player/1170#post_23523500


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23524115
> 
> 
> I feel badly for the videophiles in my income bracket... I may not be able to afford a new Plasma on Panasonic's last year... Let alone 3 or 4 so I have quality TVs for the duration...



Check out this review of the Panasonic ST60:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article/test-report-panasonic-tc-p60st60-3d-plasma-hdtv 


This display is better than any Plasma last year including the VT50 and it is very reasonably priced.


- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23524120
> 
> 
> interesting comments from Charles Hansen, President of Ayre Acoustics: he keeps a new spare Kuro in a box:
> 
> 
> "Actually we were ahead of the time. We knew that 3D would flop as there were so many problems with it. In my meeting with one of the top Japanese manufacturers of A/V equipment they said that 3D had failed miserably.


 

There's a logic disconnect here that I'm really not comfortable with.

 

I followed your link and that post seems (to me anyway) as if he had an initial point of view in the beginning and searched to support it.

 

3D "failing miserably" ?  *People say stuff like this and I STILL don't know what that's supposed to mean.*  *WHAT* precisely did 3D "fail miserably" at?  You either think it's worth having or you don't.  But:

 

Does a 3D TV cost a lot more than it's non-3D counterpart?  No.  (Seriously, I think the model sony I had introduced at almost exactly $100 less for non-3D, down from *$1750.*)
Does a 3D TV produce fun and wonderful results for many?  Yes.
Does the 3D part of TV in any way hurt its 2D PQ?  No.
Are there 3D releases out there that people absolutely rave about that would love to see at home?  Yes.  Even if the count is One:  Avatar, it's worth it to me.  Will there be others?  Absolutely.
Do I love watching my kids and their friends learn about the solar system in 3D?  Yes.
Am I hearing from some gamers how 3D "changes everything".  Yes.

 

And most importantly: To say that 3D "failed miserably" and that he has high hopes for 4K makes no fundamental sense, because the two technologies are disparate notions and do not mutually exclude each other.  Was 3D supposed to revive the TV industry or something?  Is 4K now poised to hopefully revive the TV industry?

 

There are arguments being made here with initial premises I just don't follow.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23524115
> 
> 
> I feel badly for the videophiles in my income bracket... I may not be able to afford a new Plasma on Panasonic's last year... Let alone 3 or 4 so I have quality TVs for the duration...


Get one of those 3-year warranties from SquareTrade or the like.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23524273
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23524120
> 
> 
> interesting comments from Charles Hansen, President of Ayre Acoustics: he keeps a new spare Kuro in a box:
> 
> 
> 
> "Actually we were ahead of the time. We knew that 3D would flop as there were so many problems with it. In my meeting with one of the top Japanese manufacturers of A/V equipment they said that 3D had failed miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a logic disconnect here that I'm really not comfortable with.
> 
> 
> I followed your link and that post seems (to me anyway) as if he had an initial point of view in the beginning and searched to support it.
> 
> 
> 3D "failing miserably" ?  _People say stuff like this and I STILL don't know what that's supposed to mean._  You either think it's worth having or you don't.  But:
> 
> Does a 3D TV cost a lot more than it's non-3D counterpart?  No.  (Seriously, I think the model sony I had introduced at almost exactly $100 less for non-3D, down from _$1750._)
> Does a 3D TV produce fun and wonderful results for many?  Yes.
> Does the 3D part of TV in any way hurt its 2D PQ?  No.
> Are there 3D releases out there that people absolutely rave about that would love to see at home?  Yes.  Even if the count is One:  Avatar, it's worth it to me.  Will there be others?  Absolutely.
> Do I love watching my kids and their friends learn about the solar system in 3D?  Yes.
> Am I hearing from some gamers how 3D "changes everything".  Yes.
> 
> 
> And most importantly: To say that 3D "failed miserably" and that he has high hopes for 4K makes no fundamental sense, because the two technologies are disparate notions and do not mutually exclude each other.  Was 3D supposed to revive the TV industry or something?  Is 4K now poised to hopefully revive the TV industry?
> 
> 
> There are arguments being made here with initial premises I just don't follow.
Click to expand...


I was commenting on his keeping a Kuro in a box: did not intend to start a discussion on 3D


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23524283
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23524273
> 
> 
> There are arguments being made here with initial premises I just don't follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was commenting on his keeping a Kuro in a box: did not intend to start a discussion on 3D
Click to expand...

 

LOL....ok, fair enough.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23524115
> 
> 
> I may not be able to afford a new Plasma on Panasonic's last year.


Last year of R&D, not last year of production.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23524120
> 
> 
> However, they had high hopes for 4K. They said that the images were so bright and detailed that they actually looked more dimensional than "3D".


People have been saying this about flat panels since they were introduced. There's nothing "3D" about them.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23524120
> 
> 
> the average person has such a poor display that even Blu-ray looks terrible.


Blu-ray looks great on just about anything as long as you set up the picture controls correctly. You have to be trying to make Blu-ray look bad.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23524120
> 
> 
> I still have a final generation 50" Kuro monitor in a sealed box waiting for the right time to open it up and enjoy it. I don't know if that picture quality will ever be surpassed.


You know, good on Pioneer for managing to achieve this mythical status with the Kuros, because while they may have been good at the time (and I would argue against that, having owned all "2.5" generations) there is nothing about the picture quality that's never going to be surpassed. In many areas they actually aren't that good at all, and were surpassed by other displays a long time ago. Black level is the only area where Kuros were on top until the local dimming LED sets came along. From all accounts the new Panasonics even better the Kuros.


----------



## vinnie97

^You know, if they weren't "that good" in "many areas" "at all," there wouldn't be so many who hold them up as a reference even to this day (we're talking calibrators as well, not just laypersons). They had the #1 motion resolution at the time, not to mention the deepest black levels. The local dimming LED sets of which you speak (Sharp? Sony?) are no longer being manufactured, are they? They also introduce their own artifacts (blooming). Finally, the Kuro is beat in a few areas by the new Panasonics but not all and some would say not overall (before anyone interjects, I'm of the belief they're close enough).


----------



## wse

I don't think we will see 4K OLED sold until 2015


----------



## Latinoheat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23524828
> 
> 
> I don't think we will see 4K OLED sold until 2015



I'll just be happy to see OLED for sale in North America.







4K would just be sweet.


----------



## rogo

The ignoramuses that keep a spare 50" Kuro in a box because they "don't know if that picture quality will ever be surpassed" need (a) to get a life and (b) to just be ignored at this point.


It's been annoying for most of the past 5 years to listen to that kind of nonsense. But in the last couple of years, it's just become laughable.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23526147
> 
> 
> The ignoramuses that keep a spare 50" Kuro in a box because they "don't know if that picture quality will ever be surpassed" need (a) to get a life and (b) to just be ignored at this point.
> 
> 
> It's been annoying for most of the past 5 years to listen to that kind of nonsense. But in the last couple of years, it's just become laughable.



Maybe that person just bought a Kuro box and put some bricks in;

Much cheaper and the same bragging rights.










- Rich


----------



## Steve S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23526147
> 
> 
> The ignoramuses that keep a spare 50" Kuro in a box because they "don't know if that picture quality will ever be surpassed" need (a) to get a life and (b) to just be ignored at this point.
> 
> 
> It's been annoying for most of the past 5 years to listen to that kind of nonsense. But in the last couple of years, it's just become laughable.



Thank you. Electronics do deteriorate when unused for long periods of time, that thing may just emit a small puff of smoke and die if it ever gets unpacked. All the one-upmanship "mine's better than yours" stuff around here is laughable enough but the Kuro-worship is about the worst example.


Reminds me of the folks who'll buy and meticulously restore a classic sports or muscle car and turn it into a "trailer queen" instead of getting out and driving it.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve S*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23526782
> 
> 
> Electronics do deteriorate when unused for long periods of time


 

Huh?  How?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve S*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23526782
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the folks who'll buy and meticulously restore a classic sports or muscle car and turn it into a "trailer queen" instead of getting out and driving it.



At least a classic 'Vette or old Ford hot rod will still look beautiful just sitting there. A fat, small Kuro in (or out) of its cardboard box 10 years from now will be worth maybe $100-200 and be just pathetic.


----------



## vinnie97

Fat? Not really a concern unless you choose aesthetics over PQ. It still holds its own against modern panels remarkably well, which is no easy feat, IMO. In 10 years, it should have been well and truly buried, one would hope.







I can't imagine calling its PQ "pathetic" no matter what year we're talking, however.


----------



## rogo

I'm not saying the picture quality will be pathetic... Preening over it? That already is.


----------



## cajieboy

Maybe he's just waiting for it to be discovered by American Pickers searching for that rusty gold.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23527608
> 
> 
> Fat? Not really a concern unless you choose aesthetics over PQ.


 

I believe aesthetics matter a whole lot more than videophiles are willing to admit.  The thing goes in your living room.  It'll soon be "too retro" for most.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23529498
> 
> 
> I believe aesthetics matter a whole lot more than videophiles are willing to admit.  The thing goes in your living room.  It'll soon be "too retro" for most.


If you're wall mounting, thickness leaves a very obvious impression if the television is in a place where you may see it from the side.

And I have always hated the recessed panel that most older HDTVs had - I love the flush glass bezel that my HX900 and more modern panels have. The Pioneer bezel is thick, gathers dust, and is prone to scratching.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23529641
> 
> 
> If you're wall mounting, thickness leaves a very obvious impression if the television is in a place where you may see it from the side.
> 
> And I have always hated the recessed panel that most older HDTVs had - I love the flush glass bezel that my HX900 and more modern panels have. The Pioneer bezel is thick, gathers dust, and is prone to scratching.





well since we have no oleds to kick around, let's rip something else.


i like most of your posts but plasmas really aren't as bad as your portray them


yeah my edge lit sony is much thinner than my kuro, but thinness has nothing to do with pq.

i will gladly accept a little more dust on my bezel for the other benefits kuros provide.


and yeah, i have 3 kuros still in their boxes along with my star war toys


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23530972
> 
> 
> well since we have no oleds to kick around, let's rip something else.
> 
> i like most of your posts but plasmas really aren't as bad as your portray them


My HX900 is not particularly slim either. I went with the thinnest mount I could find (though it was actually _too thin_ if I wanted access to the ports at the back) and it's still 3.5" off the wall. They shaped the bezel so that it only appears to be 0.5" thick until you get over to the side of it, but I wish it was really only 0.5" thick and was able to be hung on the wall like a picture frame.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23530972
> 
> 
> yeah my edge lit sony is much thinner than my kuro, but thinness has nothing to do with pq.
> 
> i will gladly accept a little more dust on my bezel for the other benefits kuros provide.


I would never compromise on thickness if it impacted image quality. But thicker sets and raised bezels are certainly starting to make older models look dated compared to modern designs that are incredibly thin with extremely slim bezels and a flush front.


----------



## schnura

Just found this on another forum. Not sure if it's okay to post other forums so here's just the pdf link .


Looks like OLED is finally really coming to America and in just two weeks.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6210#post_23524223
> 
> 
> Check out this review of the Panasonic ST60:
> 
> http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article/test-report-panasonic-tc-p60st60-3d-plasma-hdtv
> 
> 
> This display is better than any Plasma last year including the VT50 and it is very reasonably priced.
> 
> 
> - Rich



And here's another terrific review - this one from Home Theater Magazine:
http://www.hometheater.com/content/panasonic-viera-tc-p60st60-3d-plasma-hdtv 

Looks like the sweet spot in Panasonic's line to me!


(And I don't think plasmas are going away, though they may become a more expensive 'niche' market...that's my story and I'm sticking to it!).


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23529498
> 
> 
> I believe aesthetics matter a whole lot more than videophiles are willing to admit.  The thing goes in your living room.  It'll soon be "too retro" for most.


Yes, I see your point, especially for a 60" set, but the 50-incher I had did not stick out in an aesthetically unpleasing way considering the furniture on which it was placed.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *schnura*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23531534
> 
> 
> Just found this on another forum. Not sure if it's okay to post other forums so here's just the pdf link .
> 
> 
> Looks like OLED is finally really coming to America and in just two weeks.










I don't take Robert (Value Electronics) as someone who cries wolf, especially when it comes to his livelihood.


----------



## Wizziwig

All this talk about Kuros being too thick is making me want to ***** slap each of you in the face. You're the reason we have TVs that suck! (trademark: Artwood







)


I mean seriously... on a videophile forum? You remind me of the wives I see dragging their husbands around BB checking out TV's without even turning them on. Picture should be valued above all else - not what a TV looks like when turned off!


I still use a tube CRT HDTV and couldn't care less how thick the box is. It gives me the best blacks (until OLED ships), perfect motion, perfect viewing angles, zero input lag, etc. The 34" Sony XBR CRT was the true reference display - only replaced by Kuro because of screen size.


This obsession with thinness is ridiculous.


----------



## vinnie97

Rest assured that reason ("depth") was at the bottom of my list when making a determination as to sell mine.


----------



## rupprider

Re: pdf link for Samsung: allotment is spelled wrong. ( Per Merriam Webster home and office edition) Sorry, couldn't help it!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23532364
> 
> 
> All this talk about Kuros being too thick is making me want to ***** slap each of you in the face. You're the reason we have TVs that suck! (trademark: Artwood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> I mean seriously... on a videophile forum?


 

Yes, on a videophile forum.  Even on the most OCD of videophile forums you can have discussions regarding style, and how silly things can look.  Especially when you're comparing current vs. prior styles, and what lands in your living room.

 

Besides, the initial point regarded leaving the Kuro in the box was how it would look to comparable TVs of any current era (whenever that TV comes out).  Some TVs have more or less caught up to and passed the Kuro in PQ.  And the Kuros look ridiculously old: their bezel's are horribly chunky looking.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23532051
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't take Robert (Value Electronics) as someone who cries wolf, especially when it comes to his livelihood.



Nor do I, but by bringing over a curved one that is even more expensive, Samsung more or less ensures that they simply don't sell any, right?


I mean, I'll still believe it when someone shows photos of an unboxing and not until then, but given this is going to be like $13,000 and a bit weird, it's safe to assume that sales will be absolutely minimal. You can rule out anyone:


1) Who wants to wall mount

2) With the common sense not to buy a first-generation product

3) Unwilling to spend a 4-5x premium over plasma and LCD for what will be a very small bump in picture quality

4) Who doesn't want something weird

5) Who simply can't afford that kind of money


Something around 7 million TVs of 50 inches and up are sold in the U.S. each year, perhaps as many as 10 million. I would guess that if you think this through, the Samsung as is targets the 1% of the 1%, so many 1,000 units. There are some foolish rich people out there, but the $13,000 will buy you an upgraded battery on your Tesla. Somehow that seems like a clear choice.


----------



## ditcho




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23533154
> 
> 
> Yes, on a videophile forum.  Even on the most OCD of videophile forums you can have discussions regarding style, and how silly things can look.



True. But you won't be taken seriously. Same if you start defending edge-lit LCD display technology.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ditcho*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23534673
> 
> 
> True. But you won't be taken seriously. Same if you start defending edge-lit LCD display technology.



So I shouldn't note that there are some pretty excellent edge-lit sets out there? Because then people will take me less seriously? Is it possible for people at AVS to take me even less seriously than they already do?


----------



## Artwood

If Rogo says that there is decent edge lit out there then he has been kidnapped and brainwashed and has a device implanted in his brain by the LCD worldwide domination--Let's make all video displays suck forces!


Everyday the horror of LCD gets darker and darker--maybe the world is accelerating into a black hole!


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23526147
> 
> 
> The ignoramuses that keep a spare 50" Kuro in a box because they "don't know if that picture quality will ever be surpassed" need (a) to get a life and (b) to just be ignored at this point.
> 
> 
> It's been annoying for most of the past 5 years to listen to that kind of nonsense. But in the last couple of years, it's just become laughable.



I agree it's time to let go CRT


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23534463
> 
> 
> Nor do I, but by bringing over a curved one that is even more expensive, Samsung more or less ensures that they simply don't sell any, right?
> 
> 
> I mean, I'll still believe it when someone shows photos of an unboxing and not until then, but given this is going to be like $13,000 and a bit weird, it's safe to assume that sales will be absolutely minimal. You can rule out anyone:
> 
> 
> 1) Who wants to wall mount
> 
> 2) With the common sense not to buy a first-generation product
> 
> 3) Unwilling to spend a 4-5x premium over plasma and LCD for what will be a very small bump in picture quality
> 
> 4) Who doesn't want something weird
> 
> 5) Who simply can't afford that kind of money
> 
> 
> Something around 7 million TVs of 50 inches and up are sold in the U.S. each year, perhaps as many as 10 million. I would guess that if you think this through, the Samsung as is targets the 1% of the 1%, so many 1,000 units. There are some foolish rich people out there, but the $13,000 will buy you an upgraded battery on your Tesla. Somehow that *seems like a clear choice*.


Yes, yes, it does. Who wouldn't want to travel (up to) 300 miles on one charge?







I don't understand why Robert is jumping in full-fledged with Samsung in the curved OLED realm, perhaps because flat OLED at 55" is just too passe at this juncture?


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23534463
> 
> 
> I mean, I'll still believe it when someone shows photos of an unboxing and not until then, but given this is going to be like $13,000 and a bit weird, it's safe to assume that sales will be absolutely minimal.



I think your sales projections may actually be too optimistic. Supposedly, they only sold 2 sets in 4+ months of being on display in London. Yet even with such low demand, you have to wait 4 weeks to get one? That does not bode well for LG at all.


In case anyone missed it, here's JWhip's write-up of his demo at Harrod's:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1481970/oled-in-london


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23535623
> 
> 
> If Rogo says that there is decent edge lit out there then he has been kidnapped and brainwashed and has a device implanted in his brain by the LCD worldwide domination--Let's make all video displays suck forces!
> 
> Everyday the horror of LCD gets darker and darker--maybe the world is accelerating into a black hole!


Edge-lit LCDs _can_ look pretty good in the right environment - though I wouldn't buy one.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ditcho*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23534673
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6240#post_23533154
> 
> 
> Yes, on a videophile forum.  Even on the most OCD of videophile forums you can have discussions regarding style, and how silly things can look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But you won't be taken seriously. Same if you start defending edge-lit LCD display technology.
Click to expand...

 

I'm sorry, but that's just absurd.  A videophile forum is about discussing video products---and there are many facets to this, one of which is most certainly how stupid it may or may not look in your house.  Pretending that appearances shouldn't impact your buying decision is how you won't be taken seriously.


----------



## tgm1024


Question about the Image Retention vs Burn In regarding OLEDs.

 

Is there any indication at all that there is such a thing as "fixable" Image Retention in OLED?  I would expect not....isn't plasma IR (not burn in) caused by an accumulated electrical charge within the pixel walls affecting further excitation of the plasma?  There *is* no such affect with LEDS that I can imagine.

 

I'm guessing that if you see anything retained then it's there for good.  No?


----------



## navychop

At what general size do they move from backlit to edgelit? Or does anyone make backlit anymore? Not talking local dimming here.


I assume my Sammy LN52 bought in 9/08 is edge lit, but how do I KNOW?


----------



## tgm1024


Ok, I'd like a clarification on the LG OLED subpixel stack structure.

 

Previously it had been diagrammed (and assumed) that *each* of the subpixels were an RGB stack of OLED's with a color filter on top.  Possible exception of the white subpixel which may be unfiltered, or ever so slightly filtered to a more accurate white, depending upon where you read.  But back to the stack...

 

This site: http://www.oled-info.com/lgs-wrgb-oled-tv-sub-pixels-captured-macro-photo states in it's opening paragraph:

 


> From the above article:
> LG's structure uses four white sub pixels *(made from yellow and blue emitters)* with color filters on top


 

This means that the stack is actually *dichromatic* in nature, using two OLEDS: spectral blue & yellow, and not the 3 RGB triad.  In both cases, of course, there is still a filter on top defining the resulting color of the subpixel.

 

This seems like a minor issue, but I'd like to know if this is real or not.

 

Keep in mind, I'm talking about the stack of OLED's under the filter of each of the sub pixels here, and not the WRGB net effect.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23535623
> 
> 
> If Rogo says that there is decent edge lit out there then he has been kidnapped and brainwashed and has a device implanted in his brain by the LCD worldwide domination--Let's make all video displays suck forces!
> 
> 
> Everyday the horror of LCD gets darker and darker--maybe the world is accelerating into a black hole!



Fortunately, there was no probing of certain orifices.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23535759
> 
> 
> I agree it's time to let go CRT



Ironically, I just recycled my last CRT about a month or two ago. Now, it hadn't been plugged in for like 8 years, but it was sitting there... It had some sentimental value, but I finally let it go.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23535805
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, it does. Who wouldn't want to travel (up to) 300 miles on one charge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why Robert is jumping in full-fledged with Samsung in the curved OLED realm, perhaps because flat OLED at 55" is just too passe at this juncture?



My good friend drives his Tesla to and from work, decent commute. My wife is driving a Volt, 70% electric, 30% gas, One visit to the fossil fuel-ery in a month. The future is wide open....


I suspect Robert is jumping in with the Samsung curved because Samsung more or less canceled the flat one. And LG -- despite claiming they are selling -- can't demonstrate proof anyone owns one.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23535867
> 
> 
> I think your sales projections may actually be too optimistic. Supposedly, they only sold 2 sets in 4+ months of being on display in London. Yet even with such low demand, you have to wait 4 weeks to get one? That does not bode well for LG at all.
> 
> 
> In case anyone missed it, here's JWhip's write-up of his demo at Harrod's:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1481970/oled-in-london



It's my firm opinion that they air ship these from Korea if someone puts confirmed funds in Harrod's account. I actually believe U.S. sales will work the same way although it's possible some tiny amount of initial inventory will be stateside.


You're right that I'm probably optimistic. To be honest, the curved-ness is probably a negative for far, far more people that a positive. It will be weird. And $13,000 is even more moronic than $10,000. It's basically designed to not sell.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23536129
> 
> 
> Edge-lit LCDs _can_ look pretty good in the right environment - though I wouldn't buy one.



Nor would I for a main TV. For a secondary TV? I would take the deal.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23536375
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that's just absurd.  A videophile forum is about discussing video products---and there are many facets to this, one of which is most certainly how stupid it may or may not look in your house.  Pretending that appearances shouldn't impact your buying decision is how you won't be taken seriously.



^^^ This.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23536475
> 
> 
> Question about the Image Retention vs Burn In regarding OLEDs.
> 
> 
> Is there any indication at all that there is such a thing as "fixable" Image Retention in OLED?  I would expect not....isn't plasma IR (not burn in) caused by an accumulated electrical charge within the pixel walls affecting further excitation of the plasma?  There _is_ no such affect with LEDS that I can imagine.
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that if you see anything retained then it's there for good.  No?



Seems logical. The residual cell voltage thing can't occur on OLED. There are no cells. I suppose there is some possibility of the transistors behaving in a funky manner, but that seems less likely.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23537620
> 
> 
> At what general size do they move from backlit to edgelit? Or does anyone make backlit anymore? Not talking local dimming here.
> 
> 
> I assume my Sammy LN52 bought in 9/08 is edge lit, but how do I KNOW?



Very little has backlighting, even the large stop. Mostly it's edge. Ironically, some cheap stuff is going to "direct LED", which is an inexpensive style of backlighting. You can tell it's there because the TV is usually much thicker. A few high end products have local dimming and a few huge ones have full array, but not many.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23537743
> 
> 
> Ok, I'd like a clarification on the LG OLED subpixel stack structure.
> 
> 
> Previously it had been diagrammed (and assumed) that _each_ of the subpixels were an RGB stack of OLED's with a color filter on top.  Possible exception of the white subpixel which may be unfiltered, or ever so slightly filtered to a more accurate white, depending upon where you read.  But back to the stack...
> 
> 
> This site: http://www.oled-info.com/lgs-wrgb-oled-tv-sub-pixels-captured-macro-photo states in it's opening paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> This means that the stack is actually _dichromatic_ in nature, using two OLEDS: spectral blue & yellow, and not the 3 RGB triad.  In both cases, of course, there is still a filter on top defining the resulting color of the subpixel.
> 
> 
> This seems like a minor issue, but I'd like to know if this is real or not.
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, I'm talking about the stack of OLED's under the filter of each of the sub pixels here, and not the WRGB net effect.



I was explicitly told by a rep from one of the OLED material makers that it was three separate layers of OLED, but that was in 2012. It's certainly possible they have changed things or tweaked things. It's pretty clear that as "easy" as this mfg. technology is supposed to be, in 18 months LG has quite literally made absolutely no apparent progress delivering TVs (a few 100 units don't change that even if they exist _somewhere_). Cutting the vapor deposition phase to 2 steps instead of 3 would be a win, assuming you get (a) the right white and (b) the right wear characteristics.


----------



## tgm1024


If Samsung is truly putting all their OLED eggs in a the curved basket, then they are absolutely going to regret it.

 

Big.

 

IMO, of course.  Hardly anything in this stupid sector makes much sense to me any longer.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23537743
> 
> 
> Ok, I'd like a clarification on the LG OLED subpixel stack structure.
> 
> 
> Previously it had been diagrammed (and assumed) that _each_ of the subpixels were an RGB stack of OLED's with a color filter on top.  Possible exception of the white subpixel which may be unfiltered, or ever so slightly filtered to a more accurate white, depending upon where you read.  But back to the stack...
> 
> 
> This site: http://www.oled-info.com/lgs-wrgb-oled-tv-sub-pixels-captured-macro-photo states in it's opening paragraph:
> 
> 
> From the above article:
> 
> LG's structure uses four white sub pixels (made from yellow and blue emitters) with color filters on top
> 
> 
> This means that the stack is actually _dichromatic_ in nature, using two OLEDS: spectral blue & yellow, and not the 3 RGB triad.  In both cases, of course, there is still a filter on top defining the resulting color of the subpixel.
> 
> 
> This seems like a minor issue, but I'd like to know if this is real or not.
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, I'm talking about the stack of OLED's under the filter of each of the sub pixels here, and not the WRGB net effect.




It is real. LG's white oled stack is separated into two layers: a yellow phosphorescent emitter layer and a blue fluorescent emitter layer each surrounded by its own electron/hole transport layer.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23538672
> 
> 
> It is real. LG's white oled stack is separated into two layers: a yellow phosphorescent emitter layer and a blue fluorescent emitter layer each surrounded by its own electron/hole transport layer.



While I don't doubt you (and even clicked the thumbs up), I wonder how you know....


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23539309
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23538672
> 
> 
> It is real. LG's white oled stack is separated into two layers: a yellow phosphorescent emitter layer and a blue fluorescent emitter layer each surrounded by its own electron/hole transport layer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't doubt you (and even clicked the thumbs up), I wonder how you know....
Click to expand...

 

I wonder the same thing.  Though look at his posts to thumbs ratio.  44:16 !!!  Holy moley.

 

One of the links I *didn't* post had what I thought was a further oddity saying that the white was "phosphorescent based".

 

http://www.oled-info.com/lgs-8-gen-line-will-produce-oled-backlit-lcds-not-true-oled-tvs

 

But it was a 2011 link on speculations and I didn't like how old it was.

 

This link is about the Kodak OLED technology which was bought by LG and supposedly used.

http://www.oled-info.com/kodak/kodak_oled_systems_information_and_interview

 

ynotgoal, do you have a link?  I'd like to read about it.  Or at least see a diagram....the misinformation about this thing is getting a little thick out in the wild.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23539360
> 
> 
> I wonder the same thing.  Though look at his posts to thumbs ratio.  44:16 !!!  Holy moley.
> 
> 
> One of the links I *didn't* post had what I thought was a further oddity saying that the white was "phosphorescent based".
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/lgs-8-gen-line-will-produce-oled-backlit-lcds-not-true-oled-tvs
> 
> 
> But it was a 2011 link on speculations and I didn't like how old it was.
> 
> 
> This link is about the Kodak OLED technology which was bought by LG and supposedly used.
> http://www.oled-info.com/kodak/kodak_oled_systems_information_and_interview
> 
> 
> ynotgoal, do you have a link?  I'd like to read about it.  Or at least see a diagram....the misinformation about this thing is getting a little thick out in the wild.


 Here is one of the first references to using yellow and blue from Kodak about 10 years ago or so. If you're interested in the technology, it's a good starting point to understand the white oled (wrgb) technology. JWhip's pictures notwithstanding, I would point out the following paragraph on aging:


It is noteworthy that the white devices are much more stable than the blue monochrome device using the same

material combination except for the yellow dopant. It was shown earlier that even in monochrome devices, rubrene

doping in both the emission layer and the hole-transport layer enhances the operational stability of the OLED

devices.14-16 We have measured the EL spectra of the white OLED before and after the aging test. The spectra and

the CIE coordinates are virtually unchanged (changes ≤ 0.05 CIE unit). If the degradation rates of the two spectral

bands were different, the color coordinates of the white EL could change significantly with device operation.

However, both of the yellow and the blue peaks decay at the same rate. This fact suggests that the yellow emission

is excited via a down-conversion process of energy transfer from the blue layer to the yellow dopant, and the

efficiency of this process is not affected by aging.


JWhip: There were two OLEDs on display. Did you see the same issue on both or just one of the displays? There could be a number of explanations for what is seen in the one set.


The yellow material LG uses comes from Universal Display. 


The "phosphorescent based" comment comes from that the original materials were all fluorescent and the use of a phosphorescent material was "news". Once a good stable blue phosphorescent material is commercialized they will say something like "all phosphorescent".


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23539665
> 
> 
> The "phosphorescent based" comment comes from that the original materials were all fluorescent and the use of a phosphorescent material was "news". Once a good stable blue phosphorescent material is commercialized they will say something like "all phosphorescent".


 

Driven by what EMS frequency I wonder?  A blue phosphorescent driven by blue LED?  Both blue + yellow driven by the same OLED?

 

Side trivial question: Is it accurate to call these things SMD's (Surface Mounted Diodes)?


----------



## JWhip

I have no interest in all in ever purchasing a curved OLED. Nonetheless, Robert has invited me up to check out the new Samsung when it arrives, allegedly on July 23rd. If he permits, I will be taking plenty of pictures. Samsung is recommending a 200 hour break in for these sets but claims burn in is not an issue. We shall see about that. I can assure you that Robert will be more careful with these sets than the blokes in London. It will be interesting to see just how many he receives, as he is supposed to be the only source for these sets in the US. He is also trying to get his hands on the LG set as well for an OLED shootout.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23539761
> 
> 
> Driven by what EMS frequency I wonder?  A blue phosphorescent driven by blue LED?  Both blue + yellow driven by the same OLED?
> 
> 
> Side trivial question: Is it accurate to call these things SMD's (Surface Mounted Diodes)?



I'm not the best person to address your LED questions. I will say that OLED actually stands for "organic light emitting device" .. it's not a diode at all, though it's common to see it referred to that way. The difference between fluorescent and phosphorescent OLED materials is just that they are different chemicals. The phosphorescent materials converts "triplet" energy into light which in a fluorescent material just becomes heat. This makes phosphorescent materials 4 times more efficient than fluorescent materials.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23540501
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23539761
> 
> 
> Driven by what EMS frequency I wonder?  A blue phosphorescent driven by blue LED?  Both blue + yellow driven by the same OLED?
> 
> 
> Side trivial question: Is it accurate to call these things SMD's (Surface Mounted Diodes)?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the best person to address your LED questions.
Click to expand...

 

So far, you're precisely the best person to address my LED questions.

 

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23540501
> 
> 
> I'm not the best person to address your LED questions. I will say that OLED actually stands for "organic light emitting device" .. it's not a diode at all, though it's common to see it referred to that way.


 

Including the Kodak OLED white paper you referenced above; They also refer to them as diodes.   But I understand.

 

You seem knowledgeable enough to be an industry "insider" trying to keep a low profile to not get fired for engaging in forums.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23539665
> 
> 
> JWhip: There were two OLEDs on display. Did you see the same issue on both or just one of the displays? There could be a number of explanations for what is seen in the one set.



Can you list some possible explanations? Even if the blue and yellow aged evenly to prevent a shift in color, you still have excessive wear on the pixels displaying the white icons compared to the darker background.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23542527
> 
> 
> Can you list some possible explanations? Even if the blue and yellow aged evenly to prevent a shift in color, you still have excessive wear on the pixels displaying the white icons compared to the darker background.



That is correct. And the blue and yellow don't age evenly on top of that. I'm not sure why 10-year-old Kodak data would even be relevant to the discussion. The materials in current OLEDs are far removed from whatever they might have been experimenting with. If you check out the Universal Display link, you can see the lifetime of the blue is not even in the universe of the other colors. I would love for someone to explain how something with a 20,000 hour life could possibly have a decline in concert with something that has a 1.45 million hour life. (Hint: It can't.)


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23542644
> 
> 
> If you check out the Universal Display link, you can see the lifetime of the blue is not even in the universe of the other colors. I would love for someone to explain how something with a 20,000 hour life could possibly have a decline in concert with something that has a 1.45 million hour life. (Hint: It can't.)


But if performance is predictable enough, it can be calibrated out.


While 20,000 hours might seem low, that's still almost 7 years, 8 hours a day, to half brightness.


----------



## JWhip

There were 2 displays and the salesman indictated it was on both. I was in a store during business hours and it was difficult enough to get someone to help me examine one set let alone 2. So I was only able to examine one for burn in. The salesmen were well aware of the burn in and inquired if i knew a way to reduce it. I didn't, other than to tell them to deactivate the menu and run the loop of blu-ray all the time. Needless to say when I went back, the menu was back up. I will further explore this topic with the new Samsung curved OLED next week.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23542527
> 
> 
> Can you list some possible explanations? Even if the blue and yellow aged evenly to prevent a shift in color, you still have excessive wear on the pixels displaying the white icons compared to the darker background.



Sure, so one photo isn't really a lot to go on but let's consider how the wrgb (white oled) works and what we can see from the photo. Remember that regardless of whether the color displayed is pink, orange, purple, whatever, the oled produces white and the displayed color is determined by the color filters. So, with the exceptions of intensity and large periods of black, there shouldn't really be any difference in wear on the materials in showing a white bar or a loop display. Also, the "burn in" photo shows virtually no blue color coming through on the blue screen which is taken to suggest the blue material is worn out. However, if there were no blue being produced form the oled, then the white boxes would appear yellow which they do not. So, if blue is actually being produced to display the white box, the path to the display that is different from showing a white color and showing a blue color is the color filter. The white color goes through unfiltered rather than being the combination of red, green, and blue. It is complete speculation but based on the photo I would look into the color filter as one possible explanation. I would be curious to see a similar photo to the burn in shot with the display being green or red instead of blue.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23542935
> 
> 
> There were 2 displays and the salesman indictated it was on both. I was in a store during business hours and it was difficult enough to get someone to help me examine one set let alone 2. So I was only able to examine one for burn in. The salesmen were well aware of the burn in and inquired if i knew a way to reduce it. I didn't, other than to tell them to deactivate the menu and run the loop of blu-ray all the time. Needless to say when I went back, the menu was back up. I will further explore this topic with the new Samsung curved OLED next week.



Thanks


----------



## navychop

If people find it acceptable to toss out a TV after 20,000 hours of use, then only the first 20,000 hours matter. But will the color really be acceptable for 20,000 hours?


A better approach might be to lower the expected lifetimes of red and green, to force an even aging. I know, heresy.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23543582
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23542527
> 
> 
> Can you list some possible explanations? Even if the blue and yellow aged evenly to prevent a shift in color, you still have excessive wear on the pixels displaying the white icons compared to the darker background.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, so one photo isn't really a lot to go on but let's consider how the wrgb (white oled) works and what we can see from the photo. Remember that regardless of whether the color displayed is pink, orange, purple, whatever, the oled produces white and the displayed color is determined by the color filters. So, with the exceptions of intensity and large periods of black, there shouldn't really be any difference in wear on the materials in showing a white bar or a loop display. Also, the "burn in" photo shows virtually no blue color coming through on the blue screen which is taken to suggest the blue material is worn out. However, if there were no blue being produced form the oled, then the white boxes would appear yellow which they do not. So, if blue is actually being produced to display the white box, the path to the display that is different from showing a white color and showing a blue color is the color filter. The white color goes through unfiltered rather than being the combination of red, green, and blue. It is complete speculation but based on the photo I would look into the color filter as one possible explanation. I would be curious to see a similar photo to the burn in shot with the display being green or red instead of blue.
Click to expand...

 

If the layering *for each subpixel* that kodak mentioned (abreviated--ignoring anode/cathode)
Filter
Yellow "Emitter"
Blue "Emitter"

 

Is really
Filter
Yellow phosphor
Blue OLED

 

Or even
Filter
Yellow phosphor
Blue phophor
Blue OLED

 

In these cases, when new, so long as the phosphor efficiency remains the same, the white will not alter with degrading blue (except to lessen in intensity).

 

I don't believe though that this proves that the culprit is left to the filter itself though.  The burn-in could be because the filtered subpixels naturally have less energy than the unfiltered white subpixel so that when the blue degrades, the four subpixels go from
White
Red
Green
Blue

 

to
Less White
*Much* Less Red
*Much* Less Green
*Much* Less Blue

 

This would mean that a "burned" OLED pixel would fade to white.


----------



## JWhip

Btw, the burn in was most visible when that section of the screen was showing one color, regardless of what that color was. It was visible on a white screen, a green screen. While visible on a screen displaying content, it was visible, just not as visible as with a one color screen. I didn't think to take pics on all types of screens, as the pic I took was representive of what was visible. The picture I took was part of the loop. It just so happens that that section of screen was showing a blue sky when I took the picture. As for the Samsung, Robert advised me after reading my piece that the Samsung uses a RGB system not LG's WRGB system.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23543819
> 
> 
> Btw, the burn in was most visible when that section of the screen was showing one color, regardless of what that color was. It was visible on a white screen, a green screen. While visible on a screen displaying content, it was visible, just not as visible as with a one color screen. I didn't think to take pics on all types of screens, as the pic I took was representive of what was visible. The picture I took was part of the loop. It just so happens that that section of screen was showing a blue sky when I took the picture. As for the Samsung, Robert advised me after reading my piece that the Samsung uses a RGB system not LG's WRGB system.


 

This is what I was trying to say above: I wonder if all burned pixels naturally "fade to white" then disproportionately because of the naturally dimmer subs that are filtered (over the unrestrained higher energy white subpixel).  So a white burn would be very evident over a substantial color background.  And even on a white background: In the case of a burn showing on a bright white background, if the burn-in appears as a gray: it would mean that the normal white pixel with all 4 subpixels firing are now instead the white subpixel firing with the 3 filtered ones subdued.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23543776
> 
> 
> If people find it acceptable to toss out a TV after 20,000 hours of use, then only the first 20,000 hours matter. But will the color really be acceptable for 20,000 hours?


50% brightness after 20,000 hours. The TV doesn't suddenly stop working. And that's still almost 7 years at 8 hours a day. I don't know anyone that has kept a flat panel seven years before upgrading or replacing it - especially not early adopters.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23543776
> 
> 
> A better approach might be to lower the expected lifetimes of red and green, to force an even aging. I know, heresy.


You calibrate it out through software, you don't age the other components prematurely.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23543819
> 
> 
> Btw, the burn in was most visible when that section of the screen was showing one color, regardless of what that color was. It was visible on a white screen, a green screen. While visible on a screen displaying content, it was visible, just not as visible as with a one color screen. I didn't think to take pics on all types of screens, as the pic I took was representive of what was visible. The picture I took was part of the loop. It just so happens that that section of screen was showing a blue sky when I took the picture. As for the Samsung, Robert advised me after reading my piece that the Samsung uses a RGB system not LG's WRGB system.



That the display is showing the same effect on any single color screen, even a green screen is further significant evidence (pretty close to proof) that the display is not showing aging of the blue emitter but rather there is something else at work there.


----------



## piquadrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23543819
> 
> 
> Btw, the burn in was most visible when that section of the screen was showing one color, regardless of what that color was. It was visible on a white screen, a green screen. While visible on a screen displaying content, it was visible, just not as visible as with a one color screen. I didn't think to take pics on all types of screens, as the pic I took was representive of what was visible. The picture I took was part of the loop. It just so happens that that section of screen was showing a blue sky when I took the picture. As for the Samsung, Robert advised me after reading my piece that the Samsung uses a RGB system not LG's WRGB system.



That's because of uneven wear of subpixel's brigtness. Each subpixel has its own white light source. While the spectrum of this light is more or less stable it's brightness apparently is not. If the brightness of particular subpixel changes there is a color shift visible in per pixel basis. Don't know why you guys think that LG's WRGB is color-shift-proofed?

So if red subpixel is worn out locally this will be visible on red and white if white is RGB assisted (not W alone). On white chart the effect will be less apparent because of the white subpixel assistance. But the same pixel can be also have green subpixel worn out which will be visible on green and white etc.

This is not a rocket science.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23544074
> 
> 
> That the display is showing the same effect on any single color screen, even a green screen is further significant evidence (pretty close to proof) that the display is not showing aging of the blue emitter but rather there is something else at work there.



Is it? When a pixel is activated on the LG, _no matter what color you see_, the activation is identical.


That he saw burn in means that pixel is partly "worn out." How you know that wear isn't due to just the blue being used up is completely unclear to me. It could absolutely be just the blue being less robust that would lead to this. It would change the hue of the white light by some amount, but that would be masked by the color filters to a point. Notably, it would reduce the total light output of those pixels, which is what would lead to the apparent burn in.


----------



## Artwood

I'm so glad that no orifices were probed rogo.


LCD is like the Borg--you can tell who has been assimilated by one simple fact--have they bought as their main display an LCD?


If they are then they are the LCD Borg!


Once you've gotten to the point that you think that LCD looks good--you can not be redeemed!


OLED is like the ribbon in the sky that Jean Luc Picard wanted to go to--it's all fantasy!


Don't bend over to the LCD forces! Stop the abomination of the LCD only world wide domination horror story apocalyptic holocaust of video quality!


Buy plasma and pray. The only reason for curved OLED is in toilet stalls!


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23542872
> 
> 
> But if performance is predictable enough, it can be calibrated out.
> 
> 
> While 20,000 hours might seem low, that's still almost 7 years, 8 hours a day, to half brightness.



I'm confused how calibration would solve the burn-in problem. Traditional calibration is performed per-screen and applies the same correction to all pixels. You would need some kind of localized calibration that applies per-pixel correction to mask any burned pixels. I have a hard time seeing how that could be performed for 1920x1080x4 sub-pixels using any kind of manual probe.


To do it automatically, they would need some kind of frame-buffer history that tracked exactly what each pixel was displaying over its life. They would also need a very accurate method to predict color and luminance change as a function of time and color displayed.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23546010
> 
> 
> I'm confused how calibration would solve the burn-in problem. Traditional calibration is performed per-screen and applies the same correction to all pixels. You would need some kind of localized calibration that applies per-pixel correction to mask any burned pixels. I have a hard time seeing how that could be performed for 1920x1080x4 sub-pixels using any kind of manual probe.


I did not mean user calibration, but internal calibration of the set. If you know that after 2000 hours, the brightness of blue will have dropped ~5% on average, you can adjust red & green to compensate for that. It will not be perfect, but avoids large color shifts over the lifetime of the panel.

Plasmas and CRTs have already been doing this to compensate for phosphors losing sensitivity as they age. Some LCDs also have similar internal calibration features.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23546010
> 
> 
> To do it automatically, they would need some kind of frame-buffer history that tracked exactly what each pixel was displaying over its life. They would also need a very accurate method to predict color and luminance change as a function of time and color displayed.


What you suggest would be a method to try and prevent burn-in. You would be surprised at what a difference even using a rough value for panel age will make. And who says that they _can't_ do this?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23546090
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23546010
> 
> 
> I'm confused how calibration would solve the burn-in problem. Traditional calibration is performed per-screen and applies the same correction to all pixels. You would need some kind of localized calibration that applies per-pixel correction to mask any burned pixels. I have a hard time seeing how that could be performed for 1920x1080x4 sub-pixels using any kind of manual probe.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not mean user calibration, but internal calibration of the set. If you know that after 2000 hours, the brightness of blue will have dropped ~5% on average, you can adjust red & green to compensate for that.
Click to expand...

 

There are almost certainly going to be electrical characteristics that can be read that are consistent with "worn out" thin film luminescence.  The panel every 1000 power ups might do a full screen of color test and electrical read.  The problem is that you cannot read a worn out phosphor (I still need clarification if that's one of the "emitters"), so yes, wear balancing would be based on predictive methods like you said in that case.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23546090
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23546010
> 
> 
> To do it automatically, they would need some kind of frame-buffer history that tracked exactly what each pixel was displaying over its life. They would also need a very accurate method to predict color and luminance change as a function of time and color displayed.
> 
> 
> 
> What you suggest would be a method to try and prevent burn-in.
Click to expand...

 

Except it won't work if the burn-in isn't caused by age-worn OLED's but from the OLED staying on consecutively for too long (heat?  Internal resistance?).  If that's the case, then two frame "cumulation" buffers could theoretically be identical but one screen might actually have the burn and the other not.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *piquadrat*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23545228
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23543819
> 
> 
> Btw, the burn in was most visible when that section of the screen was showing one color, regardless of what that color was. It was visible on a white screen, a green screen. While visible on a screen displaying content, it was visible, just not as visible as with a one color screen. I didn't think to take pics on all types of screens, as the pic I took was representive of what was visible. The picture I took was part of the loop. It just so happens that that section of screen was showing a blue sky when I took the picture. As for the Samsung, Robert advised me after reading my piece that the Samsung uses a RGB system not LG's WRGB system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because of uneven wear of subpixel's brigtness. Each subpixel has its own white light source. While the spectrum of this light is more or less stable it's brightness apparently is not. If the brightness of particular subpixel changes there is a color shift visible in per pixel basis. Don't know why you guys think that LG's WRGB is color-shift-proofed?
> 
> So if red subpixel is worn out locally this will be visible on red and white if white is RGB assisted (not W alone). On white chart the effect will be less apparent because of the white subpixel assistance. But the same pixel can be also have green subpixel worn out which will be visible on green and white etc.
> 
> This is not a rocket science.
Click to expand...

 

What we're talking about is figuring out the *underpinning* is of each of the subpixels.  In the case of the "worn out red" that you're talking about, it would have to be related to the blue or yellow underneath.  We're trying to figure out how the underpinnings are constructed and how the lack of a color shifted white burn might expose what's going on underneath.


----------



## tubby497

Robert Zohn from **************** will be receiving OLED tv's next week.


----------



## ynotgoal




----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tubby497*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23546778
> 
> 
> Robert Zohn from **************** will be receiving OLED tv's next week.



Some updated info on their site:
http://www.kn55s9.com/ 


$14999, ouch!










Can't wait for the world's first unboxing and review of large retail OLED.


I find it truly sad for LG that Samsung beat them to market. After all the PR and hoopla... Someone at LG needs to get fired.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23546785


 

Ok, hold on a sec.  Help me out.

 

Looking at the first stack on the left.

 

(?) The Glass is the facing glass of the display, or the substrate under everything?  Is this showing light emitting downward?  The Cathode (where current exits *but electrons enter*) supplies the electron transport/injection layer and is the fluorescent blue (and later the phosphorescent yellow---er "green/red") the actual thin-film luminescents?  Those are the blue & yellow "emitters", referred to by the prior documents, correct?


----------



## piquadrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23546361
> 
> 
> What we're talking about is figuring out the _underpinning_ is of each of the subpixels.  In the case of the "worn out red" that you're talking about, it would have to be related to the blue or yellow underneath.  We're trying to figure out how the underpinnings are constructed and how the lack of a color shifted white burn might expose what's going on underneath.


If the wearing pattern was gray or white (so all RGBW channels aged evenly) all you have to do is by looking at the color of the ghost image on pure white chart displayed.

If the ghost image is gray it's caused by the brightness-wear-out, if it's colored it's caused by spectrum-wear-out (color shift of RGB/BY layer).

But if the wearing pattern was not gray or white the above coloration could be a result of the brightness-wear-out as well (each subpixel aging independently). We have to avoid this because brightness-wear-out tells us nothing about the structure of the oled layer, only spectrum change can give some clues. That's why the extraction of the spectrum-wear-out is necessary.

Without the controlled environment this is quite impossible.

On the other hand doing some spectroscopy of W channel (most probably unfiltered) tells you all about the oled layer structure instantly.


----------



## rogo

The current LG is a "bottom emission" TGM. It's less efficient as a result. They will change that to be a "top emission" in the next generation.


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, I took a look to see if I could find any reports of burn-in on Sony's line of professional OLED monitors and came up empty. The structure of the Sony monitors is different but the limiting factor of the lifetime is still the blue material (regardless of whose blue they are using). The question is whether Sony is doing something to compensate for the blue material aging, the usage patterns of professional displays are sufficiently different that burn-in isnt a concern, or simply that the Harrod's LG display is a one-off for whatever reason.


----------



## Rich Peterson

LG Display reaffirms OLED as ultimate display tech. Updates on flexible OLEDs and new TV fab



Source: Oled-info.com 


LG Display reported their financial results for Q2 2013. Revenues decreased slightly to $5.8 billion and the net income was $93 million. Overall this was a good report as the company turned profitable and their outlook for Q3 was strong.


Regarding OLEDs, Hee Yeon Kim, LGD's Head of Investor Relations said that the company still sees OLED as their ultimate differentiated products and they will continue to focus on obtaining on OLED business space that would generate profit from this business as early as possible. About 80% of LGD's CapEx in 2013 will go towards OLED and LTPS and other "advanced display effects".


OLED TV yields are continually improving and the setting up of the 2nd OLED fab (M2) has been carried out on schedule. They still aim to start mass-scale production (26,000 monthly Gen-8 substrates) in the middle of 2014, but exact ramping-up hasn't been decided yet as it depends on yield improvements. They will give more details hopefully in the first half of 2014.


Regarding LG's plastic-based OLED, they said again that they will start production in the middle of the second half of 2013. We know that one of LGD's clients is LG Electronics, who wants to produce the first flexible-OLED phone by the end of 2013.


----------



## tgm1024


I have been trying, (and failing), to find out what the implication of Gen 8 is.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6270#post_23540501
> 
> 
> I will say that OLED actually stands for "organic light emitting device" .. it's not a diode at all, though it's common to see it referred to that way.


 

Trying to pin things down here, one at a time.

 

I did some digging and I'm fairly certain you're wrong here.  OLED's *are* a variant of light emitting diodes, and they are in fact diodes: They are dual terminal with non-symetric conductance.  It's not merely "common to see it referred to that way": It's hard to find any documentation at all that doesn't specifically refer to them as "Organic Light Emitting Diodes", including the old stuff from Kodak you mention.  And I can't find anything at all that goes out of its way to counter that notion directly.


----------



## Loving a v

Long time lurker, first time posting. I'd love to own one of these OLED TVs.

CNET just published they are finally shipping to stores this week!


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23551588
> 
> 
> I have been trying, (and failing), to find out what the implication of Gen 8 is.



A Gen 8 fab refers to the size of the substrate that is being produced. In the case of a Gen 8 fab, the substrates will be 2200mm by 2500mm. That is large enough to produce 6 55" televisions on a single substrate versus only 2 55" televisions that could be produced on the Gen 5.5 substrates that are currently in production.


Most of the LCD televisions in the world are built on Gen 8 fabs due to the economies of scale provided by the larger substrates.


The fact that LG is building a Gen 8 fab gives us at least the possibility of competitively priced OLED televisions. The question is if/when the yields will hit a level at least close to LCD's.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tubby497*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23546778
> 
> 
> Robert Zohn from **************** will be receiving OLED tv's next week.


Can you tell Robert Zohn to try out the motion tests at * www.testufo.com *, especially this one: *www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking* .


The eye tracking test looks very different on a CRT than on most LCD.

I want to know if the LG OLED makes this pattern look more similar to a CRT than to an LCD.


(Due to precision of animation, please use these web browsers: IE10, Chrome, Opera15+, or FF24+ pre-beta -- with a recent graphics card and GPU-acceleration enabled. IE10 and Chrome will work reliably for perfect [email protected])


----------



## coolscan

 *LG's 55-inch curved OLED TV hits Best Buy for $14,999* 

_A Best Buy store in Richfield, Minnesota is the first retailer to stock the 55-inch set, which is available beginning today for just shy of 15 grand.

It's due to hit Magnolia stores at select Best Buys in Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle and San Antonio over the next few weeks._


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23552740
> 
> *LG's 55-inch curved OLED TV hits Best Buy for $14,999*
> 
> _A Best Buy store in Richfield, Minnesota is the first retailer to stock the 55-inch set, which is available beginning today for just shy of 15 grand.
> 
> It's due to hit Magnolia stores at select Best Buys in Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle and San Antonio over the next few weeks._



I verified this is true and posted a report in this thread in this forum.


----------



## Whatstreet




> Quote:
> Like any new technology, it's going to start expensive and get cheaper. Today's $14,999 is tomorrow's $1,499. I can't wait.




by Geoffrey Morrison July 22, 2013 11:15 AM PDT

CNET: LG and Samsung OLED HDTVs available now: What you need to know


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Whatstreet*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23555472
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Like any new technology, it's going to start expensive and get cheaper. Today's $14,999 is tomorrow's $1,499. I can't wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by Geoffrey Morrison July 22, 2013 11:15 AM PDT
> 
> CNET: LG and Samsung OLED HDTVs available now: What you need to know
Click to expand...

 

I'd like GM to confirm that the RGB stack image is *indeed* from LG themselves.  Because frankly, this is getting confusing.  Unless they're regarding the "yellow" emitter as "red/green" like they did in the image that ynotgoal supplied.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> FWIW, I took a look to see if I could find any reports of burn-in on Sony's line of professional OLED monitors and came up empty. The structure of the Sony monitors is different but the limiting factor of the lifetime is still the blue material (regardless of whose blue they are using). The question is whether Sony is doing something to compensate for the blue material aging, the usage patterns of professional displays are sufficiently different that burn-in isnt a concern, or simply that the Harrod's LG display is a one-off for whatever reason.



There should be at least a few burn-in reports out there since there are warnings in the Operating Instructions.

[pdf] 


> Quote:
> 2011 BVM OLED monitor:
> 
> 
> Due to the characteristics of the material used in the
> 
> OLED panel for its high-precision images, permanent
> 
> burn-in may occur if still images are displayed in the same
> 
> position on the screen continuously, or repeatedly over
> 
> extended periods.
> 
> 
> Images that may cause burn-in
> 
> 
> • Masked images with aspect ratios other than 16:9
> 
> • Color bars or images that remain static for a long time
> 
> • Character or message displays that indicate settings or
> 
> the operating state
> 
> • On-screen displays such as center markers or area
> 
> markers
> 
> 
> To reduce the risk of burn-in
> 
> 
> • Turn off the character and marker displays
> 
> Press the MENU button to turn off the character displays.
> 
> To turn off the character or marker displays of the
> 
> connected equipment, operate the connected equipment
> 
> accordingly. For details, refer to the operation manual of
> 
> the connected equipment.
> 
> • Turn off the power when not in use
> 
> Turn off the power if the viewfinder is not to be used for
> 
> a prolonged period of time.
> 
> 
> Screen saver
> 
> 
> This product has a built-in screen saver function to reduce
> 
> burn-in. When an almost still image is displayed for more
> 
> than 10 minutes, the screen saver starts automatically and
> 
> the brightness of the screen decreases.
> 
> 
> On a Long Period of Use
> 
> 
> Due to an OLED’s panel structure and characteristics of
> 
> materials in its design, displaying static images for
> 
> extended periods, or using the unit repeatedly in a high
> 
> temperature/high humidity environments may cause image
> 
> smearing, burn-in, areas of which brightness is
> 
> permanently changed, lines, or a decrease in overall
> 
> brightness.
> 
> 
> In particular, continued display of an image smaller than
> 
> the monitor screen, such as in a different aspect ratio, may
> 
> shorten the life of the unit.
> 
> Avoid displaying a still image for an extended period, or
> 
> using the unit repeatedly in a high temperature/high
> 
> humidity environment such an airtight room, or around the
> 
> outlet of an air conditioner.
> 
> 
> To prevent any of the above issues, we recommend
> 
> reducing brightness slightly, and to turn off the power
> 
> whenever the unit is not in use.


----------



## tgm1024


↑ == Disaster


----------



## markrubin

^^^^


these burn in warnings have always accompanied OLED display announcements: as they do for plasma (and even LCD) displays


what we need to know is how burn in issues will be handled: the message I get is it is not covered by warranty, yet some retailers may offer extended protection...


if not, I agree it will not be a good start for this new technology


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23555804
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> these burn in warnings have always accompanied OLED display announcements: as they do for plasma (and even LCD) displays


 

Not for $15,000 displays they're not.  Besides, regardless, I'm concerned about a big distinction here that I'm not sure many are considering.  A pretty bad "what if".

 

On a plasma set, if you display a big bright "X" in the middle of a black screen and hold it there for a long time, you'll eventually get some IR....perhaps eventual burn.  If, however, you display for only a second at a time, interspersed with 3 seconds of random patterns, then the IR doesn't show up.

 

HOWEVER, if the burn in on an OLED comes from age, then the only thing that those 3 seconds will do will be to make it take 4x longer for the burn in to occur.  There is likely no pixel-orbiter or cycling pattern "repair" effect to come to the rescue.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23555705
> 
> 
> I'd like GM to confirm that the RGB stack image is *indeed* from LG themselves.  Because frankly, this is getting confusing.  Unless they're regarding the "yellow" emitter as "red/green" like they did in the image that ynotgoal supplied.



That image is from LG, but the image alone says nothing since you are looking at the color filter part of the LG, which of course contains R G and B color filters.


As for whether the sandwich contains three colors, I was told it was, ynotgoal seems to know otherwise (though many of the linked documents he's pulled are so old and irrelevant, I wonder what his sources are).


I fail to see why it matters. They use a stack, they make white light, they filter the light back to R G and B and unfiltered white.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23556122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23555705
> 
> 
> I'd like GM to confirm that the RGB stack image is *indeed* from LG themselves.  Because frankly, this is getting confusing.  Unless they're regarding the "yellow" emitter as "red/green" like they did in the image that ynotgoal supplied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That image is from LG, but the image alone says nothing since you are looking at the color filter part of the LG, which of course contains R G and B color filters.
Click to expand...

 

No, *this* image shows the RGB underpinnings as discrete layers.

 



 

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23556122
> 
> 
> I fail to see why it matters. They use a stack, they make white light, they filter the light back to R G and B and unfiltered white.


It matters because of what might happen when the blue fades.  For a while there it really looked like a blue OLED with a yellow phosphor (the blue and yellow "emitters").  This has a dramatically different effect as blue fades than it would if the 3 colors were just blasting out independently.

 

To a large extent, none of any of what we talk about matters, but the denizens here are *deeply* interested in video technology.


----------



## slacker711

The OLED stack is definitely made up of a yellow emitter layer and a blue emitter layer. The source of that info is the supplier of the materials, Universal Display.


The yellow emitter is basically the green emitter with a small amount of red emitter added to the layer.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23557164
> 
> 
> The OLED stack is definitely made up of a yellow emitter layer and a blue emitter layer. The source of that info is the supplier of the materials, Universal Display.
> 
> 
> The yellow emitter is basically the green emitter with a small amount of red emitter added to the layer.


 

As the Thin Film Luminescent itself, or as a phosphor activated by the blue?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23557186
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23557164
> 
> 
> The OLED stack is definitely made up of a yellow emitter layer and a blue emitter layer. The source of that info is the supplier of the materials, Universal Display.
> 
> 
> The yellow emitter is basically the green emitter with a small amount of red emitter added to the layer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the Thin Film Luminescent itself, or as a phosphorescent *activated* by the blue?
Click to expand...


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23557186
> 
> 
> As the Thin Film Luminescent itself, or as a phosphor activated by the blue?



Dont think of this like a LED with a yellow phosphor on top of a blue LED.


The yellow material itself emits light when a current is applied (as does the blue). I hadnt heard the term Thin Film Luminescent but I think that applies.


The term phosphorescent refers to the type of OLED material. The first materials discovered were fluorescent materials (by Kodak). These only emitted 25% of the possible light and thus use a considerable amount of power. Universal Display later discovered phosphorescent materials which allowed for a 100% internal quantum efficiency.


The yellow material in the LG television is phosphorescent (as is the red/green in Samsung's TV's). The blue in both is fluorescent since they have yet to make a phosphorescent blue with a decent lifetime.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23556197
> 
> 
> No, _this_ image shows the RGB underpinnings as discrete layers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It matters because of what might happen when the blue fades.  For a while there it really looked like a blue OLED with a yellow phosphor (the blue and yellow "emitters").  This has a dramatically different effect as blue fades than it would if the 3 colors were just blasting out independently.
> 
> 
> To a large extent, none of any of what we talk about matters, but the denizens here are *deeply* interested in video technology.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23546785




Just to add to Slacker's post. Look at the "white EL" in the graph. The blue emitter produces the steep left peak in the blue spectrum but almost nothing in the red and green spectrum. The yellow emitter produces the rest with the two peaks in the red and green spectrum. This is why LG and most everyone will show it as red, green and blue emitter even though it is physically only two material layers.


----------



## navychop

Just to knock this out of the box, what about this *TLED* info? Will TLED "assimilate" OLED if it works out? Three to four times the efficiency of while light produced, run thru "LCD" filters might make this a whole new ball game.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23556197
> 
> 
> No, _this_ image shows the RGB underpinnings as discrete layers.



Sure enough, it does.


> Quote:
> It matters because of what might happen when the blue fades.  For a while there it really looked like a blue OLED with a yellow phosphor (the blue and yellow "emitters").  This has a dramatically different effect as blue fades than it would if the 3 colors were just blasting out independently.



It simply does not matter whether the green and red are together in yellow or separate with respect to the blue. The blue is the weak link. I don't know why you think it matters if there are 3 or 2 layers, but it doesn't.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23557164
> 
> 
> The OLED stack is definitely made up of a yellow emitter layer and a blue emitter layer. The source of that info is the supplier of the materials, Universal Display.
> 
> 
> The yellow emitter is basically the green emitter with a small amount of red emitter added to the layer.



Thanks Slacker. In my mind, that's confirmation (given you are the source, with a reference cited.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23557354
> 
> 
> Dont think of this like a LED with a yellow phosphor on top of a blue LED.
> 
> 
> The yellow material itself emits light when a current is applied (as does the blue). I hadnt heard the term Thin Film Luminescent but I think that applies.
> 
> 
> The term phosphorescent refers to the type of OLED material. The first materials discovered were fluorescent materials (by Kodak). These only emitted 25% of the possible light and thus use a considerable amount of power. Universal Display later discovered phosphorescent materials which allowed for a 100% internal quantum efficiency.
> 
> 
> The yellow material in the LG television is phosphorescent (as is the red/green in Samsung's TV's). The blue in both is fluorescent since they have yet to make a phosphorescent blue with a decent lifetime.



Honestly, the fluorescent blue doesn't have a decent lifetime either. It has a lifetime that allows them to contemplate making TVs, but it's hardly impressive. The good news is a lot of people will probably never experience problems. The bad news is there needs to be a 50,000+ hour material, ideally phosphorescent, in the long run. A dozen years into the OLED era, no such thing has been developed.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23557435
> 
> 
> 
> Just to add to Slacker's post. Look at the "white EL" in the graph. The blue emitter produces the steep left peak in the blue spectrum but almost nothing in the red and green spectrum. The yellow emitter produces the rest with the two peaks in the red and green spectrum. This is why LG and most everyone will show it as red, green and blue emitter even though it is physically only two material layers.



Reasonable.


----------



## Wizziwig

So any other theories (besides to attract attention) as to why both companies released curved models ahead of the flat ones? Could there be a manufacturing advantage that improves yield on a curved surface? Maybe it allows them to rotate the panel relative to some equipment thanks to the constant distance of the surface.


----------



## andy sullivan

Pure marketing strategy.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23557902
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> It matters because of what might happen when the blue fades.  For a while there it really looked like a blue OLED with a yellow phosphor (the blue and yellow "emitters").  This has a dramatically different effect as blue fades than it would if the 3 colors were just blasting out independently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It simply does not matter whether the green and red are together in yellow or separate with respect to the blue. The blue is the weak link. I don't know why you think it matters if there are 3 or 2 layers, but it doesn't.
Click to expand...

 

The point is mooted now, because the yellow emitter has been established as a non-phosphor (phosphors can also be considered emitters), but if you read what I said carefully, you'll see that if it was indeed a yellow phosphor then as blue dies, the yellow "dies" (emits less).  Not strictly 1:1 because there's a problem with the efficiency of the stokes shift, but very close for all practical purposes and certainly closer than two OLED's.  A single blue oled + Y phoshor would mean that as the blue dies down the effect would be a shift downward maintaining a clean gray component (not chromatically "tinged").  So an aging blue would be countered by simply making driving it harder over time (assuming they were kept at a lesser amount earlier).

 

Now that we have confirmation (I'll certainly take it as such: slacker & ynotgoal seem solid folks to me) that the yellow emitter is in fact an OLED, then we now do see that there's a problem with color shifting over time.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23557942
> 
> 
> So any other theories (besides to attract attention) as to why both companies released curved models ahead of the flat ones? Could there be a manufacturing advantage that improves yield on a curved surface? Maybe it allows them to rotate the panel relative to some equipment thanks to the constant distance of the surface.


 

With all new technologies, there is a perceived need to establish yourself as either:
the pioneer (no pun), or
at least not falling behind

 

I believe when you put a marketing hat on, you need to think more like a mob does than any one individual.  As individuals we recognize things as stupid.  As an aggregate force though, we are all swayed by silly impressions.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23556092
> 
> 
> Not for $15,000 displays they're not.  Besides, regardless, I'm concerned about a big distinction here that I'm not sure many are considering.  A pretty bad "what if".


Do you forget that this is what plasma was like when it was new?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23556092
> 
> 
> On a plasma set, if you display a big bright "X" in the middle of a black screen and hold it there for a long time, you'll eventually get some IR....perhaps eventual burn. If, however, you display for only a second at a time, interspersed with 3 seconds of random patterns, then the IR doesn't show up.
> 
> 
> HOWEVER, if the burn in on an OLED comes from age, then the only thing that those 3 seconds will do will be to make it take 4x longer for the burn in to occur.  There is likely no pixel-orbiter or cycling pattern "repair" effect to come to the rescue.


Burn-in is an accumulative process with Plasma displays as well, and in my experience it's _not_ that difficult to burn them if you are primarily using them for playing games, or have essentially permanent uneven wear from watching 2.37:1 films all the time.


----------



## markrubin

^^^


my first plasma was a Pioneer 50 inch purchased new in 1999: it was $14,950.00: and it never had burn in


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23559126
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> 
> my first plasma was a Pioneer 50 inch purchased new in 1999: it was $14,950.00: and it never had burn in



I had two of those.

I gave one to my father and it had burn n since he watches mostly news.

I am not sure any what this proves.


It appears that these panels will have uneven wear for the color primaries.

That will produce burn in.

I have also seen Samsung phones with severe burnin on the display units.


- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23546785
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to add to Slacker's post. Look at the "white EL" in the graph. The blue emitter produces the steep left peak in the blue spectrum but almost nothing in the red and green spectrum. The yellow emitter produces the rest with the two peaks in the red and green spectrum. This is why LG and most everyone will show it as red, green and blue emitter even though it is physically only two material layers.
Click to expand...

 

WHOA, WAIT A MINUTE.  That graph *cannot* be showing the emitters in the stack, they're showing the resulting subpixels: white, red, green, blue.  If they were showing the emitters, they'd be showing only 3 lines: the blue, the yellow, and the "resulting" addition of the two as perceived by our eyes---the white.

 

It's true that the yellow emitter is producing the non-blue regions, (that is the whole point and nothing new----it's how I started this whole dichromatic discussion in the first place), but that's not what that graph is technically showing.....how could it?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23559110
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23556092
> 
> 
> Not for $15,000 displays they're not.  Besides, regardless, I'm concerned about a big distinction here that I'm not sure many are considering.  A pretty bad "what if".
> 
> 
> 
> Do you forget that this is what plasma was like when it was new?
Click to expand...

 

Of course I don't.  Those were bad buying decisions back then too.  Will OLED grow out of it?  Sure.  But how long has an over-exaggerated worry about plasma hung around plasma's neck?  A long time.  I would argue that the early releasing of plasma back then (while not technically a *bad* idea, nor even a stoppable one) is a great analogy to how troubling problems can be a long term disaster to a technology---whether that problem ends up being mostly fixed or not.

 

 


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6300#post_23556092
> 
> 
> On a plasma set, if you display a big bright "X" in the middle of a black screen and hold it there for a long time, you'll eventually get some IR....perhaps eventual burn. If, however, you display for only a second at a time, interspersed with 3 seconds of random patterns, then the IR doesn't show up.
> 
> 
> HOWEVER, if the burn in on an OLED comes from age, then the only thing that those 3 seconds will do will be to make it take 4x longer for the burn in to occur.  There is likely no pixel-orbiter or cycling pattern "repair" effect to come to the rescue.
> 
> 
> 
> Burn-in is an accumulative process with Plasma displays as well, and in my experience it's _not_ that difficult to burn them if you are primarily using them for playing games, or have essentially permanent uneven wear from watching 2.37:1 films all the time.
Click to expand...

 

Not exactly the same way though.  Plasma's burn most horribly when an image is held static and not broken up by interspersed pseudo random images.  OLED's I'm guessing just burn based upon age, regardless of how long a subpixel was held at a certain level consecutively.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23559150
> 
> 
> WHOA, WAIT A MINUTE.  That graph _cannot_ be showing the emitters in the stack, they're showing the resulting subpixels: white, red, green, blue.  If they were showing the emitters, they'd be showing only 3 lines: the blue, the yellow, and the "resulting" addition of the two as perceived by our eyes---the white.
> 
> 
> It's true that the yellow emitter is producing the non-blue regions, (that is the whole point and nothing new----it's how I started this whole dichromatic discussion in the first place), but that's not what that graph is technically showing.....how could it?



White EL is the combined output of the emitters. Red, green and blue CF are color filters. The point, as you surmised, is blue dying out doesn't affect the output in the red and green. Note that JWhip indicated the burn in area was affected the same in a green screen as it was in a blue screen.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23559583
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23559150
> 
> 
> WHOA, WAIT A MINUTE.  That graph _cannot_ be showing the emitters in the stack, they're showing the resulting subpixels: white, red, green, blue.  If they were showing the emitters, they'd be showing only 3 lines: the blue, the yellow, and the "resulting" addition of the two as perceived by our eyes---the white.
> 
> 
> It's true that the yellow emitter is producing the non-blue regions, (that is the whole point and nothing new----it's how I started this whole dichromatic discussion in the first place), but that's not what that graph is technically showing.....how could it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White EL is the combined output of the emitters. Red, green and blue CF are color filters. The point, as you surmised, is blue dying out doesn't affect the output in the red and green. Note that JWhip indicated the burn in area was affected the same in a green screen as it was in a blue screen.
Click to expand...

 

Yeah, a guess of mine and others is that a skewed white filtered red is still pretty close to a non-skewed white filtered red.  Samsung doesn't have this, so we'll have to see what THEY look like.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23559762
> 
> 
> Yeah, a guess of mine and others is that a skewed white filtered red is still pretty close to a non-skewed white filtered red.  Samsung doesn't have this, so we'll have to see what THEY look like.



One of the benefits of LG's approach is supposed to be the stability of the white light.


Here is a paper from Kodak talking about a white OLED with yellow and blue emitters. There are other papers that express a similar sentiment.

http://lib.semi.ac.cn:8080/tsh/dzzy/wsqk/SPIE/vol5214/5214-233.pdf 


> Quote:
> The spectrum of these white devices is largely insensitive to drive current density and operational aging:



Now I will admit that this is a case where a little knowledge may be dangerous. The materials in these papers are going to be different and I cant say for certain what structure LG has used, but generally my understanding is that color stability is supposed to be a strength of white OLED's.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23561195
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23559762
> 
> 
> Yeah, a guess of mine and others is that a skewed white filtered red is still pretty close to a non-skewed white filtered red.  Samsung doesn't have this, so we'll have to see what THEY look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the benefits of LG's approach is supposed to be the stability of the white light.
> 
> 
> Here is a paper from Kodak talking about a white OLED with yellow and blue emitters. There are other papers that express a similar sentiment.
> 
> http://lib.semi.ac.cn:8080/tsh/dzzy/wsqk/SPIE/vol5214/5214-233.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> The spectrum of these white devices is largely insensitive to drive current density and operational aging:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I will admit that this is a case where a little knowledge may be dangerous. The materials in these papers are going to be different and I cant say for certain what structure LG has used, but generally my understanding is that color stability is supposed to be a strength of white OLED's.
Click to expand...

 

This is going to take some sorting through to get right.


----------



## mypretty1

There are curved screen OLED TVs from LG and Samsung appearing in the US. They are not yet available here and I would be interested in the following.


I gather the LG cannot be wall-mounted. Is this also true for the Samsung?


Does the Samsung come with the frame shown on some photos? Or can it be removed?


I also wondered about the curved screen, and whether there is any distortion when viewing it other than from straight ahead.


----------



## rogo

The OLED layers are deposited and excited separately (whether it's a yellow + blue or a red, green and blue). The idea that there is some magic color stability of the LG even though the blue will age faster is false. The Kodak paper is either (a) complete fiction or (b) based on having a yellow OLED that is equally terrible to the blue in terms of lifetime, which simply isn't the case.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mypretty1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23568422
> 
> 
> There are curved screen OLED TVs from LG and Samsung appearing in the US. They are not yet available here and I would be interested in the following.
> 
> 
> I gather the LG cannot be wall-mounted. Is this also true for the Samsung?
> 
> 
> Does the Samsung come with the frame shown on some photos? Or can it be removed?
> 
> 
> I also wondered about the curved screen, and whether there is any distortion when viewing it other than from straight ahead.



Regarding distortion, maybe this old video will help:


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23568440
> 
> 
> The OLED layers are deposited and excited separately (whether it's a yellow + blue or a red, green and blue). The idea that there is some magic color stability of the LG even though the blue will age faster is false. The Kodak paper is either (a) complete fiction or (b) based on having a yellow OLED that is equally terrible to the blue in terms of lifetime, which simply isn't the case.


 

Again, it's mooted already, but this is precisely why I was trying to relentlessly get a sense as to what that yellow layer truly is, and if it's affected by the blue underneath in any way at all that a YAG-yellow (or similar) phosphor would be in order to better auto-correct the white naturally.

 

By the way, there's no way in hell that a Kodak paper is complete fiction.  It's far more likely that we're misreading something.

 

The problem with white papers written by scientists is they *always* write to the wrong target.  Their descriptions always are written to other scientists who would be making the same fundamental assumptions they do as to the meanings, and it throws everyone else for a loop.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23559126
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> 
> my first plasma was a Pioneer 50 inch purchased new in 1999: it was $14,950.00: and it never had burn in



The difference is plasma had to overcome economies of scale to reduce price, whereas OLED has to overcome technical problems of 90% failure rates. And to that, pressure by 4K marketing and 2K OLED for the home theater market is all but dead. We are back to waiting for the holy grail again. Namely, someone to find a better and cheaper way to produce large 4K OLED panels.


----------



## Wizziwig

So I guess we all got lucky that some idiot at Harrod's burned-in both of their OLEDs. Without such abuse we may not have known the true burn-in potential on the LG for many months (or never) given the low sales and internet posts. What are the chances we'll get that lucky again on the Samsung?


The largest Samsung OLED I have any experience with was the 7.7" version. It was used on one of their tablets and a similar model from Toshiba. Both would show signs of Android status-bar burn-in after just a few weeks of use. Maybe that's why they disappeared from the market. All of Samsung's current tablets use LCD.


Is there any reason to believe they have somehow succeeded where LG failed on their 55" panel?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23569014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23559126
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> 
> my first plasma was a Pioneer 50 inch purchased new in 1999: it was $14,950.00: and it never had burn in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is plasma had to overcome economies of scale to reduce price, whereas OLED has to overcome technical problems of 90% failure rates.
Click to expand...

 

Sure, but failure rates for plasma on TV sized screens (37", etc.) were exceedingly high in the very beginning too, no?


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mypretty1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6330#post_23568422
> 
> 
> 
> I gather the LG cannot be wall-mounted. Is this also true for the Samsung?
> 
> 
> Does the Samsung come with the frame shown on some photos? Or can it be removed?



Found some additional info. See page 8 of the quick-start guide here:

http://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/EM/201307/20130701161910466/[S9C]BN68-05356A-01Kor-0624-2.pdf 


You will see the frame comes pre-attached to the TV and is not removable. Only the little "kick-stand" like device in the center is installed by the user. Neither the LG or Samsung have any mounting holes on the back.


----------



## tgm1024

Well, it seems sketchy to me that the wear rate would be so oddball. But if you're right, it'll only be a small matter of time for the rest of the display to catch up.


The biggest reason I still doubt this to be going on is that the bright white boxes are still bright white when they're on. I'm understanding this beast less and less as time goes on.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Phosphor aging is probably different from OLED aging.

It's possible that the mid-grays don't age fast, but the full-whites ages much faster on OLED than plasmas.


I'd love to see aging curves for all intensities -- it may not be a linear relationship.

For example, you may be able to display a 10% gray for far more than 10 times longer than a 100% white.

Discrete LED has that non-linear behaviour, so I'm wondering if OLED's have that as well.


And we've got to combine both OLED aging and phosphor aging, in OLED displays that combines both OLED and phosphor (e.g. white OLED + phosphor).


----------



## Wizziwig

For what it's worth, the only confirmed U.S. Samsung dealer will be doing mandatory 200 hour aging of all panels using Samsung recommended color slides before sending them to customers. He will also track luminance drop over time. Hopefully that will give us better data about projected half-life of these sets.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6360#post_23576729
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, the only confirmed U.S. Samsung dealer will be doing mandatory 200 hour aging of all panels using Samsung recommended color slides before sending them to customers. He will also track luminance drop over time. Hopefully that will give us better data about projected half-life of these sets.



Yes, and that's commendable.


For what it's worth, even that dealer will tell you he's just one of a number of dealers who is getting the Samsung, however. Samsung's strategy is to go to quality special retailers in major markets of which the retailer in question certainly is one (albeit not the only one).


----------



## Desk.

I don't know if this has been penned by our very own 'Rogo', but this brand new Forbes article about the development of OLED TV by Mark Rogowsky is well worth a read...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/07/28/oled-finally-arrives-but-is-the-dream-tv-really-worth-it/


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6360#post_23577146
> 
> 
> I don't know if this has been penned by our very own 'Rogo', but this brand new Forbes article about the development of OLED TV by Mark Rogowsky is well worth a read...
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/07/28/oled-finally-arrives-but-is-the-dream-tv-really-worth-it/



I can neither confirm nor deny the authorship of that article.


----------



## markrubin

^^^


nice article Mark


Mark


----------



## 8mile13

the probability that the writer is not Rogo is _minimal_


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6360#post_23576729
> 
> 
> mandatory 200 hour aging of all panels using Samsung recommended color slides before sending them to customers.


_Mandatory_ aging with Samsung-supplied patterns? Are you sure this is not just them taking initiative to try and prevent some returns? If the sets required 200 hours run-in, surely Samsung would be doing it at the factory.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rogo*
> 
> The two sets (LG’s 55EA9800 and Samsung’s 55KNS9) are more similar than different.


For what it's worth, I'm hearing that the Samsung display is _significantly_ better than the LG one.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6360#post_23577328
> 
> 
> the probability that the writer is not Rogo is _minimal_



Benefits of having deep background in this thread are clearly visible







. Found one sentence in need for a small correction: "Because the OLEDs are featherweights, with LG’s at just 38 pounds" but otherwise well written story







.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6360#post_23576729
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, the only confirmed U.S. Samsung dealer will be doing mandatory 200 hour aging of all panels using Samsung recommended color slides before sending them to customers. He will also track luminance drop over time. Hopefully that will give us better data about projected half-life of these sets.


 

THAT is both perfect AND responsible.  Wonderful!  Can't wait to see what happens.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6360#post_23577343
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6360#post_23576729
> 
> 
> mandatory 200 hour aging of all panels using Samsung recommended color slides before sending them to customers.
> 
> 
> 
> _Mandatory_ aging with Samsung-supplied patterns? Are you sure this is not just them taking initiative to try and prevent some returns? If the sets required 200 hours run-in, surely Samsung would be doing it at the factory.
Click to expand...

 

This also occurred to me.  And it bothers me a lot, especially since we're talking about low numbers.  For higher production volumes, 200 hours per unit at the factory quickly becomes flat out undoable, but for now?  Unless they're trying to "train" the retailers now for the eventual increase in production....(?)


----------



## markrubin

I think aging of the panels is a good idea, if done properly, without the menu being left up


we also need a better definition of half life: with plasma we assumed the wear was even for colors, but with OLED we know that there is uneven aging of certain colors


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23578269
> 
> 
> I think aging of the panels is a good idea, if done properly, without the menu being left up
> 
> 
> we also need a better definition of half life: with plasma we assumed the wear was even for colors, but with OLED we know that there is uneven aging of certain colors


 

I have to wonder about that menu (in the LG case).  Did they forget about stickers?


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6360#post_23570819
> 
> 
> This paper confirms excellent visual properties of OLED. The only issue to be clarified yet is long-term burn-in.



And can production be ramped up and costs reduced dramatically.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6360#post_23576729
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, the only confirmed U.S. Samsung dealer will be doing mandatory 200 hour aging of all panels using Samsung recommended color slides before sending them to customers. He will also track luminance drop over time. Hopefully that will give us better data about projected half-life of these sets.



Well, he's not going to be very busy, is he?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23578980
> 
> 
> Well, he's not going to be very busy, is he?



Not with 2 units.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23578975
> 
> 
> And can production be ramped up and costs reduced dramatically.



If burn-in is not shown to be non-issue ramping-up makes no sense. Reports from mobile show AMOLED screens are prone to burn-in.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6360#post_23577343
> 
> _Mandatory_ aging with Samsung-supplied patterns? Are you sure this is not just them taking initiative to try and prevent some returns? If the sets required 200 hours run-in, surely Samsung would be doing it at the factory.
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm hearing that the Samsung display is _significantly_ better than the LG one.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23578216
> 
> 
> This also occurred to me.  And it bothers me a lot, especially since we're talking about low numbers.  For higher production volumes, 200 hours per unit at the factory quickly becomes flat out undoable, but for now?  Unless they're trying to "train" the retailers now for the eventual increase in production....(?)



Well, he's also doing this primary because the sets will come professionally pre-calibrated. The 200 hour break-in is standard practice before doing any calibrations in order to obtain stable results. Preventing burn-in will hopefully be an added benefit but can't be confirmed as effective until more testing is done. For all we know, maybe the sets are already pre-aged at the factory. We should know more after the luminance tracking data becomes available.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23580537
> 
> 
> If burn-in is not shown to be non-issue ramping-up makes no sense. Reports from mobile show AMOLED screens are prone to burn-in.



I agree but I think these companies feel they need to solve other manufacturing issues in parallel.


- Rich


----------



## xrox

Just read this discussion on OLED IR and burn-in. As you know any display that generates light inside individual pixels will be prone to burn-in issues (CRT,PDP,SED,FED, OLED...etc). And the severity of the burn-in problem can be correlated with the rated lifetime of the set.


Since the lifetime of OLED is relatively low compared to PDP I would say that the burn-in problem would be worse than PDP. However, PDP was unique that it had a severe type of IR caused by MgO sputtering and IMO was the primary source of the poor PDP "burn-in" reputation. Taking that into account it is hard to predict just how problematic the burn-in problem will be for OLED relative to PDP.


Note that there are reports of both IR and mura in OLED devices as well. The source seems to be issues with charge transport changes through the backplane and OLED layers.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by xrox  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23581339
> 
> 
> Just read this discussion on OLED IR and burn-in. As you know any display that generates light inside individual pixels will be prone to burn-in issues (CRT,PDP,SED,FED, OLED...etc). And the severity of the burn-in problem can be correlated with the rated lifetime of the set.
> 
> 
> Since the lifetime of OLED is relatively low compared to PDP I would say that the burn-in problem would be worse than PDP. However, PDP was unique that it had a severe type of IR caused by MgO sputtering and IMO was the primary source of the poor PDP "burn-in" reputation. Taking that into account it is hard to predict just how problematic the burn-in problem will be for OLED relative to PDP.
> 
> 
> Note that there are reports of both IR and mura in OLED devices as well. The source seems to be issues with charge transport changes through the backplane and OLED layers.


 

The physics of the burn-in are of course important to understand in all display technologies, but as I see it, the true bottom line that we still don't fully understand yet is *which of the two "types" of burn in is this?*

 

Is BI caused by:
*Consecutive* pounding of static images (as with plasma...this is "fixed" by interspersing random data), or
Nominal age of the subpixel, consecutive excitation or otherwise.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23581429
> 
> 
> Is BI caused by:
> _*Consecutive*_ pounding of static images (as with plasma...this is "fixed" by interspersing random data), or
> Nominal age of the subpixel, consecutive excitation or otherwise.


In AVS terminology your type 1 would be IR and type 2 would be burn-in. As I described above, the change in charge transport properties with usage may produce IR on OLED and the quick EL material aging may produce burn-in so they may have both. Add to that the possibility of mura.


----------



## irkuck

Just wondering if the burn-in potential of OLED is why manufacturers are avoiding any mention of using OLED in computer monitors??? On the surface, computer (laptop/tablet) displays would make much sense with OLED.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23581654
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23581429
> 
> 
> Is BI caused by:
> _*Consecutive*_ pounding of static images (as with plasma...this is "fixed" by interspersing random data), or
> Nominal age of the subpixel, consecutive excitation or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In AVS terminology your type 1 would be IR and type 2 would be burn-in.
Click to expand...

 

Not quite, I should have been more clear about "fixed".  In *both* cases, they refer to burn in potential.  Even in plasma, you pound consecutively long enough and you'll get permanent burn in.  If you intersperse that with random material, even if you still have the total amount of "on" time the same you'll avoid burn in.

 


> Quote:
> As I described above, the change in charge transport properties with usage may produce IR on OLED


 

Regardless, for most of us, these terms are primarily from a plasma intuition set.  I believe the chances of IR being possible that is not BI to be a bit of a reach.  So to that extent, we should really refrain from even using a distinction in terms and stay with burn in until we see otherwise.  There is no documented charge residue (or anything similar) like that of a plasma cell.  Or is there?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23582287
> 
> 
> Not quite, I should have been more clear about "fixed".  In _both_ cases, they refer to burn in potential.  Even in plasma, you pound consecutively long enough and you'll get permanent burn in.  If you intersperse that with random material, even if you still have the total amount of "on" time the same you'll avoid burn in.


IIUC I would then disagree. Interspersing random material cannot protect you from uneven phosphor aging in a PDP. It only protects against non-phosphor related image retention like MgO sputtering and residual charge.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23582287
> 
> 
> Not quite, I should have been more clear about "fixed". In _both_Regardless, for most of us, these terms are primarily from a plasma intuition set.  I believe the chances of IR being possible that is not BI to be a bit of a reach.  So to that extent, we should really refrain from even using a distinction in terms and stay with burn in until we see otherwise.  There is no documented charge residue (or anything similar) like that of a plasma cell.  Or is there?


OLED is such a widely variable technology. There are papers discussing mura and IR in OLED due to the backplane effects but who knows if it applies across the board or only to certain backplane technologies.


----------



## tgm1024


We're talking past each other on the first point.  What I'm saying is that your notion that what I said regarding consecutive display was called IR was not quite right: it also leads to burn in.  I said "fixable", when I should have said "preventable".  The uneven wearing thing is unrelated to that.

 

Doesn't matter.  In any case, I see only trouble making assumptions about the consecutive style of burn being IR, or even somehow not the same thing as age.  There's nothing that I can see that indicates for OLEDS 10 hours on high all at once is worse than 10 hours on high with random images in between.

 

We'll know a whole lot more fairly soon now that we've got retailers in hot pursuit of what's what.  Or *a* retailer as it may be.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23582528
> 
> 
> We're talking past each other on the first point.  What I'm saying is that the notion that what I said regarding consecutive display was called IR was not quite right: it also leads to burn in.  I said "fixable", when I should have said "preventable".  The uneven wearing thing is unrelated to that.


Recently I've been having trouble interpreting posts so it is probably me. From the original statements about pounding consecutive images vs excitation....etc I am confused how they are different types of Burn In. I fail to see the difference.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Think at the pixel level.

The pixels burn-in do not depend on each other. Just because one pixel is bright, doesn't affect wear-and-tear of the adjacent pixel.

It's simply the contrast in wear-and-tear between adjacent pixels that becomes visible to the human eye.


Metaphors may help.

One smartphone manufacturer (that I worked for) that uses an OLED screen in some of the phones, have used the candle metaphor to describe OLED burn. I thought it was a very accurate "Plain English(tm)" explanation of why burn-in becomes visible to human eye.


This means:

- Basically, *each pixel is like a candle* that lasts approximately 20,000 hours of average picture level (insert your favourite number here)*

- There are a few million candles on a 1080p OLED. (1920 times 1080, times subpixels, depending on RGB or pentile)

- The candle burns fastest when the candle is new.

- The candle goes gradually dimmer as it burns down.

- The candle burns fastest when the pixel is brightest.

- The candle burns slowest when the pixel is darkest.

- The burning speed of the candle gradually slows down as the candle burns down. Dimmer if the candle is old.

- "Visible burn in" now means "_some candles (pixels) burned down far more than adjacent candles (pixels), to the point where you can easily see visible differences in brightness between adjacent candles_"


Thusly:

- The first, say, 200 hours, the candle burns fastest and brightest, creating largest differentials between adjacent candles if you don't wear evenly. This shows up as noticeable burn in, as the newer brighter-burning candles contrast with the older slower-burning candles.

- Doing a factory burn allows the fast-burn phase to be done-over-with, so that the candles burn slower. So that the burn-time asymmetry between adjacent candles create less differences (and thus, prevents burn in from becoming noticeable after a short time period).

- Rated 20,000 hours is only based on average picture level. This can easily mean 5,000 hours of full-white, 10,000 hours of bright gray, 20,000 hours of medium gray, or 40,000 hours of dim gray, infinite hours of full black (candle is off), etc. Again, replace with your favorite numbers, but you get the approximate idea.

- The graph of burnspeed-versus-pixel-intensity is not linear. It can vary from tech to tech and display to display (e.g. plasma vs. OLED). It's a steep cliff that plateaus out.

- The more you burn, the differences between adjacent candles become smaller small because you go into the plateau. So you can erase burn in just by keeping using the display to cause the pixels to plateau out. The burn-in will become fainter over time.

- Sometimes there's an additional short-term component to the burn-in too. (e.g. when the display cools down or when you exercise the pixel, burn-in disappears quickly). So a new variable may be added: An overheated/static candle can burn dimmer (and still burn down fast), while a cooled-down/variable candle will burn brighter (and matching adjacent pixels better). This covers the temporary image-retention aspect.


So you don't have to use the same image to create burn in.

-- It can be black bars (letterbox burn in)

-- It can be semi-static images that orbits closely around each other, like an animated station logo (it creates a blurry burn-in)

-- It can be area-differences in average picture level. A splitscreen video (video touching each other directly, no borders, no black gaps) can still create burn in. This is when one video is on average brighter and the other is on average darker. If you run these looping for hundreds of hours, you will get burn in, even though you never ever had black boundaries or gaps. This is because the brighter video burnt those candles faster. This is a use case that very RARELY happens, though, but it does happen, and has happened before (e.g. advertising billboards)


With the candle metaphor, there is no concept of "different kinds of burn-in". Just "different burn-in use cases" and "different burn-in patterns, including blurry burn-in and sharp burn-in"


----------



## Desk.

I would pay good money right now to watch a webcast where a couple of AV experts actually sit down for a period of time with one of these new OLED sets, offering their impressions as they try out a variety of material.


Surely someone's onto this? I can imagine it would only help in Robert Zohn's bid to sell these TVs.


----------



## Chris5028

Well, pass the hat, we can all buy one together and after the Pros get done playing with it they can give it away to a random member.


----------



## tgm1024


For purposes of this sub-discussion, "different kinds of burn in" is conversationally the same as "different causes of burn in".

 

Also, I still see nothing at all indicating that there might be a "fixable" style of IR with OLED.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23584152
> 
> 
> Think at the pixel level.
> 
> The pixels burn-in do not depend on each other. Just because one pixel is bright, doesn't affect wear-and-tear of the adjacent pixel.
> 
> It's simply the contrast in wear-and-tear between adjacent pixels that becomes visible to the human eye.


What I think is causing confusion is that PDP does not fit well into your metaphor.


The stubborn burnt in images we see in a PDP are caused by sputtering of magnesium oxide. This is a phenomenon that affects adjacent cells as well as the primary cell. In a PDP the pixels are open to each other and when one cell is discharging it affects the cells next to it by supplying charged particles and sputtered materials. This is why even stubborn IR is somewhat reversible in PDP.


Now phosphor aging does fit your metaphor but is really not what people are seeing as the lifespans of PDP phosphors are 100K hours or more.


OLED on the other hand has the EL material aging much faster and therefore IMO is much more probable as the primary cause of the burnt in images people are reporting.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23584894
> 
> 
> Well, pass the hat, we can all buy one together and after the Pros get done playing with it they can give it away to a random member.



Can I change my name to "a random member?"


----------



## JWhip

Seems the Sammy curved rollout at VE has been delayed till August 14th. Quite a moving target!


----------



## Desk.

OLED sets have been described as boasting colours which are extremely vivid, bordering on 'cartoony'.


I haven't seen one of the new 55" TV sets in the flesh, but that's also an impression I get from OLED screens on mobile phones.


Forgive my ignorance in the science of this, but is the sometimes 'wax crayony'-style colour something that can be adjusted and dialled down to something more 'natural', or is it an inherent quirk of the technology that we'll just have to live with?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23586907
> 
> 
> OLED sets have been described as boasting colours which are extremely vivid, bordering on 'cartoony'.
> 
> 
> I haven't seen one of the new 55" TV sets in the flesh, but that's also an impression I get from OLED screens on mobile phones.
> 
> 
> Forgive my ignorance in the science of this, but is the sometimes 'wax crayony'-style colour something that can be adjusted and dialled down to something more 'natural', or is it an inherent quirk of the technology that we'll just have to live with?


 

I've heard this too, but I think it's because various places are trying to show off the level of saturation they can achieve.  Or some such ill-conceived notion.  There should be nothing *inherently* cartoony about the color coming from OLED.  It's entirely about what you send to it, and the predictability of the device allowing you to calibrate it.  It's gamut is supposed to be fairly large, and I think people are trying to showcase that.

 

I don't know what you're talking about with regard to cell phones.  My Samsung Galaxy Note II has an OLED screen, and the photos on it are fantastic.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23585269
> 
> 
> The stubborn burnt in images we see in a PDP are caused by sputtering of magnesium oxide. This is a phenomenon that affects adjacent cells as well as the primary cell.


_[re my "candle" metaphor of burn-in (e.g. pixel as candles)]_

Yes, candle behavior is different in plasmas than in OLED's.

For example for plasma, candles would tend to produce soot when burning brightly, affecting its own brightness and immediately-adjacent candles. Candles affected by soot would burn more dimly.

OLED candles would burn a little more "pure" without the sputter effect.


So the candle metaphor can still technically be used for plasma (to a lesser/modified extent), just need to be modified to address the different specifics of plasma behaviour.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6390#post_23586530
> 
> 
> Seems the Sammy curved rollout at VE has been delayed till August 14th. Quite a moving target!



Look's like the U.S. will join Korea and UK - sets on demo for months but nothing anyone can actually buy.


This is all a contest between LG and Samsung. Each side is waiting for the other to make the first move. Do you think it was a coincidence that LG just happened to announce their curved set the same week as Samsung? Also their sudden change in plans from launching the flat version to going with the curved.


I just hope VE or BB end up getting at least 1 set to sell this year so we have something to talk about.


----------



## tgm1024


Arrrrrrrgh.  I'm suffering from OLED Burn-Out Syndrome.  OBOS is dangerous people.

 

If you find yourself reading about OLED for longer than 4 hours, consult your doctor.


----------



## 8mile13

LG to mass-produce OLEDs from 2014

*THE KOREA TIMES* 2013-08-01 15:35

 
LG Display CEO Han Sang-beom, fifth from left, pulls a lever with Gyeonggi Province Governor Kim Moon-soo, fourth from left, and other LG executives and guests to celebrate the first installment of equipment to be used on a new OLED display-manufacturing line at the firm’s display complex in Paju, Gyeonggi Province, Thursday.



> Quote:
> By Kim Yoo-chul
> 
> 
> LG Display, the world’s biggest display manufacturer, said Thursday it will start mass-producing OLED (organic light-emitting diode) screens to be used in televisions from the latter half of 2014.
> 
> 
> “Our new OLED manufacturing line using the so-called eighth-generation glass-cutting technology will go online in the second half of next year after various pilot tests,” company spokesman Lee Sang-wook said.
> 
> 
> The eighth generation technology screen measures 2,200 millimeters in width and 2,500 millimeters in height, which is customized for TV screens over 50 inches in sizes.
> 
> 
> The new line has a monthly production capacity of 26,000 glass sheets. Total investment for the new line will reach 700 billion won, Lee said.
> 
> 
> Unlike LG, its rival Samsung Display has yet to announce a plan to mass-produce OLEDs.
> 
> 
> The mass production plan was unveiled at a ceremony to celebrate the installment of the first production equipment for the new line at the company’s main display complex in Paju, Gyeonggi Province.
> 
> 
> Present at the ceremony were Gyeonggi Province Governor Kim Moon-soo; Paju City Mayor Lee In-jae; LG Display CEO Han Sang-beom; Idemitsu Kosan, Vice President Matsumoto Yoshihisa; Merck Korea CEO Michael Grund; and other executives from LG’s top-tier local partner firms.
> 
> 
> “As you know, LG was the first firm to release 55-inch OLED screens. Now, we are moving toward mass-production. It will be tough. But we will closely collaborate with our partners to complete the plan as scheduled,” the CEO Han said during the event.
> 
> 
> LG, which bought Kodak’s OLED patent portfolio in 2009, has been paying more attention to the white-OLED with color filter TV panel process using both phosphorescent and fluorescent materials that can help ease the mass production of OLED TV screens as compared to the “RGB” approach being pushed by its biggest bitter cross-town rival Samsung Display.
> 
> 
> LG Display said it has recently developed a hybrid technology designed to cut costs and generate better production yields.
> 
> 
> The spokesman said this is a “WRGB-OLED,” which uses advantages of white- and RGB-based OLED technologies, respectively.
> 
> 
> According to an estimate by iSuppli, a market research firm, it hopes to produce 75,000 OLED TV units annually.
> 
> 
> “The success of Samsung and LG in implementing a large-sized curved OLED was thought to be a meaningful achievement in the display industry. But both companies still face challenges with mass production and market availability of curved OLED TVs isn’t near-term possibility,” said Vinta Jakhanwal, analyst at iSuppli said.
> 
> 
> “Limited availability, as well as the high retail pricing, of OLED TVs will likely restrict shipments by Samsung and LG during the next few years. Another point is that by the time OLED TV production achieves efficiencies in large-scale production, the industry’s current mainstream of LCD TVs will have had an opportunity to become even more competitive in performance and price,” Jakhanwal stressed.


----------



## Desk.

LG begin work at plant to start mass production of OLED TVs from second half of 2014....

http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/02/lg-oled-plant-2h-2014/ 


EDIT: Beat me to it, 8mile13.


----------



## irkuck

Are numbers in the report correct:

_The eighth generation technology screen measures 2,200 millimeters in width and 2,500 millimeters in height, which is customized for TV screens over 50 inches in sizes.


The new line has a monthly production capacity of 26,000 glass sheets._

_According to an estimate by iSuppli, a market research firm, it hopes to produce *75,000* *OLED TV units annually.*_


75 000 TVs annually from monthly production of 26 000 glass sheets each 2200x2500 mm???


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23588745
> 
> 
> Are numbers in the report correct:
> 
> _The eighth generation technology screen measures 2,200 millimeters in width and 2,500 millimeters in height, which is customized for TV screens over 50 inches in sizes.
> 
> 
> The new line has a monthly production capacity of 26,000 glass sheets._
> 
> _According to an estimate by iSuppli, a market research firm, it hopes to produce *75,000* *OLED TV units annually.*_
> 
> 
> 75 000 TVs annually from monthly production of 26 000 glass sheets each 2200x2500 mm???


 

Not sure of the numbers per se, but I suspect you-know-who is going to stomp on the word "hope" above with both feet.    And for good reason.  IMO, in this OLED world of "oops, can't ship yet", "oops, not ready", "oops, burns in", "oops, can't mount", "oops, ______" (fill in with erasable marker on your screen), you don't get to say that any longer without people cringing a little.


----------



## vinnie97

So...is that an admission that the flat panel OLED will actually launch in 2014 now?


----------



## theatredaz

I can't wait to see OLED> but more importantly 4K OLED.


* The fact that you can sit within 6 feet of a 60"-70" ~ 4K display without pixel moire (if properly built) is an exciting concept!



I can't wait to buy a nice 70-80" incher 4K~OLED Display and finally have a real immersive theatre experience.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23588891
> 
> 
> So...is that an admission that the flat panel OLED will actually launch in 2014 now?


 

No, it means that Crystal LED will come back and rule the roost in 2015.

 

ok, ok, ok....


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *theatredaz*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23588906
> 
> 
> I can't wait to see OLED> but more importantly 4K OLED.
> 
> * The fact that you can sit within 6 feet of a 60"-70" ~ 4K display without pixel moire (if properly built) is an exciting concept!
> 
> I can't wait to buy a nice 70-80" incher 4K~OLED Display and finally have a real immersive theatre experience.



Early start of weekend smoking


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23588951
> 
> 
> No, it means that Crystal LED will come back and rule the roost in 2015.
> 
> ok, ok, ok....


Someone, quick, necrobump that thread. I could use more laughs.


----------



## slacker711

LG has begun deliveries of the TV. No word on numbers.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/02/5619701/first-us-consumers-receive-delivery.html


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23590721
> 
> 
> LG has begun deliveries of the TV. No word on numbers.
> 
> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/02/5619701/first-us-consumers-receive-delivery.html



I call BS. They need to post pictures of a delivery or unboxing or it never happened.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23590721
> 
> 
> LG has begun deliveries of the TV. No word on numbers.
> 
> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/02/5619701/first-us-consumers-receive-delivery.html



Nonsense. It's expected to be another month or so before customers receive the TVs.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23588745
> 
> 
> Are numbers in the report correct:
> 
> _The eighth generation technology screen measures 2,200 millimeters in width and 2,500 millimeters in height, which is customized for TV screens over 50 inches in sizes.
> 
> 
> The new line has a monthly production capacity of 26,000 glass sheets._
> 
> _According to an estimate by iSuppli, a market research firm, it hopes to produce *75,000* *OLED TV units annually.*_
> 
> 
> 75 000 TVs annually from monthly production of 26 000 glass sheets each 2200x2500 mm???



6 per sheet... 156,000 per month, 1.8 million per year @ 100% yield.


Let's assume the goal is 75,000 per month, 50% yield, 900K for the first full year the line is up and running.


Although, that said, perhaps 75,000 is the production goal _for 2014_, since the 8G line won't be up until late in the year.


----------



## Heinz68

 DIGITAL TRENDS reviews LG 55EA9800 curved OLED
Code:


Code:


[CODE]Highs

    Exceptional Blacks
    Superior brightness
    Highly accurate color out of box
    Eye-catching curves, razor-thin profile
    Loaded with features

Lows

    Can’t be wall-mounted
    Disappointing motion resolution
    Minor brightness uniformity issues
    Dead pixels are disconcerting

[/CODE]


Read more at http://www.digitaltrends.com/tv-reviews/lg-55ea9800-review/


----------



## irkuck

^^Indeed, since they say:
_Our new OLED manufacturing line using the so-called eighth-generation glass-cutting technology will go online in the second half of next year after various pilot tests_


^Plenty of dead pixels in a 15 grand TV, seen in a demo model at LG??? While dead pixels are long forgotten in any LCD?? Are they trying to make fool of people?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23591169
> 
> 
> Nonsense. It's expected to be another month or so before customers receive the TVs.



JMO, but I think you are taking the skepticism too far. That's a press release from LG Electronics and while it is possible that somebody sent it out early, the odds are fairly heavy that it is correct. There are no language barriers or ambiguous words in it.


Unless of course you (or somebody you know) ordered one the first day and are still waiting. Then I would be on the phone with somebody at Best Buy asking rather impolitely where my $15,000 television was


----------



## 8mile13

The curved OLEDs curved remote control


----------



## theatredaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23589156
> 
> 
> Early start of weekend smoking










No


----------



## surap

Want that remote! I dont care about curved screens, that remote is cool!


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23591278
> 
> 
> ^Plenty of dead pixels in a 15 grand TV, seen in a demo model at LG??? While dead pixels are long forgotten in any LCD?? Are they trying to make fool of people?



I guess now we know what the low yield problems are all about. If this sample they deemed acceptable to view by the press had 40+ dead pixels, can you imagine how bad the rejected panels are?


Also the review finally confirmed what I suspected from all the trade show videos - it does not support any kind of strobing or scanning to reduce blur. It relies on artifact and input-lag inducing motion interpolation like the majority of LCD.


Now to see what Samsung brings to the table.


----------



## Desk.

This review of the first OLED set commercially available in the US is very welcome...

http://www.digitaltrends.com/tv-reviews/lg-55ea9800-review/ 


...but it does raise some questions...


Does the issue with motion resolution suggest that OLED sets are more like LCD sets in this regard than plasma?


Does it suggest this could be a problem inherent in all OLED sets, or is it purely down to LG's approach?


Could 240hz or 1000hz solve this problem, or could Samsung have a better approach to the issue?


Are dead/lazy pixels the reason for problems with production yield (I don't believe we've ever heard exactly what those are)?


Should we be concerned that this is a problem so many years down the development track, and this close to mass production? Could it be something which could be refined out of the manufacturing process?


Is it really a concern if the dead/lazy pixels can't be seen with the human eye when watching at a reasonable distance?


Would they be more apparent when viewing prolonged dark/light scenes?


Were these pixels faulty at the point of manufacture, or have they failed during the lifespan of the set so far (with the prospect more could follow)?


If there are this many dead/lazy pixels in a 1080p display, how many would there be in a 4K set? (Sony had a couple of prototypes available for close-up inspection at CES, so we know it's possible to make one without immediately obvious issues).


I know that LG's been making the running with OLED, and it's great to see it driving things forward. I just hope the other companies haven't been prevaricating because they know there are some issues which can't be easily resolved, if even at all.


----------



## Desk.

Two further questions...


The review suggests picture quality like that of a top plasma. So they're saying it's 'only' as good, and not noticeably better - despite the extended colour gamut and ability to present absolute blacks?


Did these guys get to test this set in completely blacked-out conditions, and if not would that have then showed an improvement on even the best image plasmas have to offer?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23591330
> 
> 
> JMO, but I think you are taking the skepticism too far. That's a press release from LG Electronics and while it is possible that somebody sent it out early, the odds are fairly heavy that it is correct. There are no language barriers or ambiguous words in it.
> 
> 
> Unless of course you (or somebody you know) ordered one the first day and are still waiting. Then I would be on the phone with somebody at Best Buy asking rather impolitely where my $15,000 television was



I spoke to a number of people in key positions in the supply chain. While it's _possible_ that a handful of units did go to customers, I promise you if you walk into a store today, you are going to be told about your month+ wait to get your TV. In other words, if they did deliver any (which I still don't believe, but I also don't care), they did an intentional mini-shipment so they could put out a press release saying they delivered some. It's not like there are sets sitting in distribution today you can go buy and have delivered on Tuesday afternoon. There just aren't.


The initial round for the whole U.S. was described -- by LG -- as "hundreds". Down the road, "eventually thousands" will make it here. Not tens of thousands, but specifically "thousands".


Oh, and when it comes to _actual deliveries_ of these, I don't think it's possible to take the skepticism too far. A report of an unboxing in someone's home would be noteworthy, even if again irrelevant. Let's just agree that LG will deliver a few 100 units by year end -- unless something else goes wrong. Let's not pretend any company on earth should ever issue a press release about doing something like that for a product it promised to deliver in spring of 2012.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Heinz68*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23591247
> 
> DIGITAL TRENDS reviews LG 55EA9800 curved OLED
> 
> 
> 
> Read more at http://www.digitaltrends.com/tv-reviews/lg-55ea9800-review/



So they saw it at the LG even and made a bunch of quick observations. Not much of a review; I'd think many of you could've done the same by seeing it at Magnolia.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592430
> 
> 
> I spoke to a number of people in key positions in the supply chain. While it's _possible_ that a handful of units did go to customers, I promise you if you walk into a store today, you are going to be told about your month+ wait to get your TV. In other words, if they did deliver any (which I still don't believe, but I also don't care), they did an intentional mini-shipment so they could put out a press release saying they delivered some. It's not like there are sets sitting in distribution today you can go buy and have delivered on Tuesday afternoon. There just aren't.
> 
> 
> The initial round for the whole U.S. was described -- by LG -- as "hundreds". Down the road, "eventually thousands" will make it here. Not tens of thousands, but specifically "thousands".



Who expects tens of thousands of orders for this television at this price?


They delivered a few sets. I expect that they have very few orders as well.


I'm looking for a thorough review and hopefully one of the early adopters will give us one. It is immaterial to me, and I think the ultimate fate of the technology, if they deliver a few hundred sets or a few thousand.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592303
> 
> 
> Does the issue with motion resolution suggest that OLED sets are more like LCD sets in this regard than plasma?


Apparently no-one was listening years ago when I was saying that OLEDs would have LCD-like motion handling performance due to them being Sample & Hold displays. While switching times on OLEDs are good, image persistence is what matters when it comes to motion clarity. OLEDs are not really bright enough to use adequate scanning/dark frame insertion techniques to reduce persistence, and will have to rely on motion interpolation in the near future.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592303
> 
> 
> Should we be concerned that this is a problem so many years down the development track, and this close to mass production? Could it be something which could be refined out of the manufacturing process?


I wouldn't be too concerned yet. If Samsung also have this issue, then it might be something to be concerned about. That said, I had a Kuro with almost 20 dead subpixels out of the box, so sometimes you just get a bad set.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592303
> 
> 
> Is it really a concern if the dead/lazy pixels can't be seen with the human eye when watching at a reasonable distance?


Even a single stuck subpixel stands out to me. 40 is totally unacceptable.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592400
> 
> 
> The review suggests picture quality like that of a top plasma. So they're saying it's 'only' as good, and not noticeably better - despite the extended colour gamut and ability to present absolute blacks?


Most reviews don't seem to focus on evaluating image quality. They might check that the calibration controls work, and see if the set is adding sharpness or other processing to the image, but that's it. Few reviewers seem concerned about things like gradation, dithering, chroma resolution, subpixel layout etc. In theory, an OLED would bring the best of Plasma and LCD together - high native contrast ratio with very good ANSI performance from Plasma, with the high image quality of LCD, a zero black level, and no panel-based motion blur. (but as we see, early OLEDs are going to suffer from retinal motion blur due to high persistence)


David Mackenzie at HDTVtest is one of the few reviewers I've seen that actually pays a lot of attention to the finer aspects of what a display is doing with regards to things like image processing.


----------



## Wizziwig

Here's the spec sheet for the LG:

http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/55EA9800-Spec-Sheet.pdf 


Some notable stats:

TV Weight 37.92 lbs

Power Consumption Under 85W, Max 291W

Limited Warranty 1 Year Parts and Labor


----------



## Gary Merson

First technical review is up at http://hdguru.com . We learned a lot and found a number of surprises.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Merson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592791
> 
> 
> First technical review is up at http://hdguru.com . We learned a lot and found an number of surprises.


The only thing I found surprising is that you don't consider 40+ stuck subpixels to be an issue at all, and your biases clearly show through:


> Quote:
> While interesting, dead or stuck sub-pixels are not an OLED-only phenomenon (ask many LCD owners)


Because there has never been a plasma with dead or stuck subpixels - except my Kuro which had the most I've seen from any type of display (almost 20) or even the CRTs I've seen which had a "dead pixel". (which is not technically a dead pixel, but looks like it)


----------



## wse

"Our last test was with a 0 IRE black screen. There were around 50 or so stuck sub-pixels either white, blue or green (no red). They are extremely small, like stars in the night sky. Our good friends at Digital Trends were kind enough to let us use their time exposure to show it to you. Photo image was taken with a 4 second exposure on a Nikon D8000 with 50mm f/1.8 lens"


$14,999 and these kinds of problem! I don't think so, I will stick with the 65" ZT60 from Panasonic


----------



## Gary Merson

We did not state it is limited to LCDs. There are a heck more LCD panels out there than plasmas. Thanks for reading our review.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592487
> 
> 
> Who expects tens of thousands of orders for this television at this price?
> 
> 
> They delivered a few sets. I expect that they have very few orders as well.
> 
> 
> I'm looking for a thorough review and hopefully one of the early adopters will give us one. It is immaterial to me, and I think the ultimate fate of the technology, if they deliver a few hundred sets or a few thousand.



I used quote marks for a specific reason. The specific reason being the part where I was quoting someone.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Merson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592791
> 
> 
> First technical review is up at http://hdguru.com . We learned a lot and found a number of surprises.



Thanks for linking the review.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592832
> 
> 
> "Our last test was with a 0 IRE black screen. There were around 50 or so stuck sub-pixels either white, blue or green (no red). They are extremely small, like stars in the night sky. Our good friends at Digital Trends were kind enough to let us use their time exposure to show it to you. Photo image was taken with a 4 second exposure on a Nikon D8000 with 50mm f/1.8 lens"
> 
> 
> $14,999 and these kinds of problem! I don't think so, I will stick with the 65" ZT60 from Panasonic



For $5000 it should be 100% perfect. For $15,000 this is embarrassing.


----


Reading Gary's review, I cannot imagine why someone would buy this TV other than bragging rights. Legitimate concerns about build quality and longevity.... The odd effect of the curved screen... The questionable motion resolution.... The breathtaking price...


Yes, it's highly contrasty and the color is good. But even Gary can't use phrases like "this was clearly the best video we've ever seen". If an expert like Mr. Merson came away only very impressed rather than blown away, how is someone with slightly less discerning standards going to feel. "This is a great TV, but I can't believe it's 6x as expensive's as Samsung's really good plasma."?


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592303
> 
> 
> Could 240hz or 1000hz solve this problem, or could Samsung have a better approach to the issue?


As a reminder, you can reduce motion blur by shortening the refreshes by either two of the methods:

(1) Shorten refresh by adding more frames (more interpolation, more Hz)

(2) Shorten refresh by adding black period between frames (black frame insertion, CRT flicker, plasma flicker, strobe backlight, scanning backlight)

(3) A combination of (1) or (2)


For example, a 60Hz display with 1/1000sec flashes once per refresh, has exactly the same amount of eye-tracking motion blur motion blur as a [email protected] sample-and-hold display (assuming complete refreshes during each of the visible 1/1000sec periods)


Some high end LCD/LED TV's interpolate to [email protected], then flicker at 240Hz (scanning backlight) to a 1/960sec strobe, for "960Hz" simulation.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23593030
> 
> 
> Reading Gary's review, I cannot imagine why someone would buy this TV other than bragging rights. Legitimate concerns about build quality and longevity.... The odd effect of the curved screen... The questionable motion resolution.... The breathtaking price...


It will be interesting to see how Samsung's OLED compares.


----------



## ynotgoal

 LG will be displaying the flat EM9700 at 45 airports .



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592246
> 
> 
> I guess now we know what the low yield problems are all about. If this sample they deemed acceptable to view by the press had 40+ dead pixels, can you imagine how bad the rejected panels are?
> 
> 
> Now to see what Samsung brings to the table.



This is obviously why Samsung has marketed their TV as "Zero Pixel Defect (ZPD)" . Note that LG is using an oxide backplane while Samsung is using LTPS. So Samsung's should be less prone to pixel defects but more susceptible to blue color shift. Several suppliers have listed Samsung as having a 2 year warranty while LG has the same 1 year limited parts and labor warranty as other TVs at Best Buy.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23593352
> 
> 
> This is obviously why Samsung has marketed their TV as "Zero Pixel Defect (ZPD)" . Note that LG is using an oxide backplane while Samsung is using LTPS. So Samsung's should be less prone to pixel defects but more susceptible to blue color shift. Several suppliers have listed Samsung as having a 2 year warranty while LG has the same 1 year limited parts and labor warranty as other TVs at Best Buy.



Thanks for posting that.


The LG is out of contention for me - even if I had $15K to blow on a TV. The number of issues already discovered (and more likely to come as owners receive them) is not acceptable for a premium product. Their only hope is that this set was some kind of defective anomaly - but that seems unlikely since it was approved for viewing by the press and critical reviewers.


Based on the ZPD policy, it sounds like Samsung has a better grasp of what people expect in a product at this price level. Hopefully we'll get some reviews soon.


----------



## greenland

Defects in a first generation panel were to be expected. I still am baffled as to why LG and Samsung decided to make the production even more difficult by opting for a curved panel right out of the gate. Were any dead pixels observed on the LG 55inch flat panel OLED that they had on display at CES, and at other venues around the world for the past 18 months or so?


Tortoise and The Hare. I still would not be surprised if Panasonic ends up bringing the better OLED TV to market in 2014-15 than either of the Korean Companies.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23593552
> 
> 
> Tortoise and The Hare. I still would not be surprised if Panasonic ends up bringing the better OLED TV to market in 2014-15 than either of the Korean Companies.



That would not surprise me at all. LG to me has always been a bottom-feeder. They make crappy TV's for the


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23593552
> 
> 
> I still am baffled as to why LG and Samsung decided to make the production even more difficult by opting for a curved panel right out of the gate.


The OLED substrates are so thin that they are very easy to bend into a minor curve. It was a small-cost-increment method of making their OLED TV's special. Bending was a tiny cost fraction of the $15,000 price.


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592488
> 
> 
> Apparently no-one was listening years ago when I was saying that OLEDs would have LCD-like motion handling performance due to them being Sample & Hold displays.



Doing more reading on this, I've found it reported that Displaymate's Raymond Soneira says Samsung's OLED technology uses pulse-width modulation. This, as I understand it, is what gives plasma such good motion resolution, so perhaps there's hope the Samsung OLED set won't share this weakness apparent in LG's set...

http://www.oled-info.com/s4-offer-extensive-display-calibration-adjustments 


> Quote:
> MT, here's the explanation Raymond sent us:
> 
> 
> Plasma displays, DLP, and Samsung OLEDs all use Pulse Width Modulation to independently control the intensity (Luminance) of every single R,G,B sub-pixel in the entire display. In Pulse Width Modulation each sub-pixel is continuously switched at a very high rate (typically greater than 100KHz) between the fully Off and fully On states by the display controller and AM Active Matrix. The percentage of time that a sub-pixel spends in the On state determines its particular observed visual Luminance. For example, within an given image refresh frame, if a particular sub-pixel spends 25% of the time in the On state and 75% in the Off state, it will have 25% of the peak Luminance for that sub-pixel at that instant. This makes it easy to digitally control the entire image and apply all of the desired display calibrations digitally as well.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23593596
> 
> 
> The OLED substrates are so thin that they are very easy to bend into a minor curve. It was a small-cost-increment method of making their OLED TV's special. Bending was a tiny cost fraction of the $15,000 price.




Isn't OLED in flat form already supposed to be super special? It smacks of gilding the lily for no good reason. HDGuru is complaining about how the curve is causing distortions to the viewing image. Furthermore; you say that the bending was easy to accomplish and only a small cost increment. How do you know that? They have set the price for the model higher than the flat version price was set at, and of course they also had to engineer a new set of components and curved housing to match this "easy bend" you refer to. That introduced an additional amount of manufacturing complexity which was sure to compound the first generation launch difficulties.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23593770
> 
> 
> Isn't OLED in flat form already supposed to be super special? It smacks of gilding the lily for no good reason. HDGuru is complaining about how the curve is causing distortions to the viewing image. Furthermore; you say that the bending was easy to accomplish and only a small cost increment. How do you know that? They have set the price for the model higher than the flat version price was set at, and of course they also had to engineer a new set of components and curved housing to match this "easy bend" you refer to. That introduced an additional amount of manufacturing complexity which was sure to compound the first generation launch difficulties.



It's called MARKETING.


----------



## greenland

Everything falls under the umbrella term: Marketing, even historic product failures such as the Edsel were introduced with big Marketing campaigns, so saying "it is called Marketing" is meaningless.


----------



## vinnie97

Not special enough apparently (concerning in and of itself) for differentiation, so this new angle (pun intended) was deemed as necessary by the higher-ups. LG is also in no rush to get the flat screens to market, so there is obviously a lack of urgency and confidence that they can sell enough of the flat panels for $10k


----------



## Wizziwig

For those on the left coast who can't shop VE, it looks like there's another option for the Samsung in LA:

http://www.videoandaudiocenter.com/KN55S9-p/kn55s9.htm 


I wonder if they have it on display yet.


----------



## irkuck

*Moderator*: Can a new main thread "OLED Displays" be created in parallel to the "LCD Flat Panel Displays" and "Plasma Flat Panel Displays" threads? Reason is that first OLED TVs are now in shops with more to come, and discussion of a particular model properties has started. Moreover, initial revelations about the first OLED TV guarantee that the "OLED TV" thread will be very lively for a long time. From obvious reasons naming the thread "OLED Flat Panel displays" is not appropriate.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23594636
> 
> *Moderator*: Can a new main thread "OLED Displays" be created in parallel to the "LCD Flat Panel Displays" and "Plasma Flat Panel Displays" threads? Reason is that first OLED TVs are now in shops with more to come, and discussion of a particular model properties has started. Moreover, initial revelations about the first OLED TV guarantee that the "OLED TV" thread will be very lively for a long time. From obvious reasons naming the thread "OLED Flat Panel displays" is not appropriate.


+1

(I think you mean new forum, not new thread...)


----------



## markrubin

^^^


this thread was started in 2006 and a new owners thread would be appropriate....for an AVS member to start


however I think it will stay in this forum ( Flat Panels General and new FP Tech) for a while: maybe we can update the forum title to: Flat Panels General and OLED technology


thread title edited to: Flat Panels General and OLED technology


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23594636
> 
> 
> Reason is that first OLED TVs are now in shops with more to come, and discussion of a particular model properties has started.


Well, it's about five years too late for that, but I agree that we could do with an OLED forum section. (at least if AVS continues to split everything up the way they currently do)


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23593552
> 
> 
> Defects in a first generation panel were to be expected.


 

I didn't expect any manufacturer would release a $15,000 TV in this day and age with a handful of dead pixels and consider that "ok".  Brand new technology or not.  I don't believe that was expected.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23593552
> 
> 
> Tortoise and The Hare. I still would not be surprised if Panasonic ends up bringing the better OLED TV to market in 2014-15 than either of the Korean Companies.


 

I've heard this several times about Panasonic, and I've agreed every time.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23594967
> 
> 
> I didn't expect any manufacturer would release a $15,000 TV in this day and age with a handful of dead pixels and consider that "ok".  Brand new technology or not.  I don't believe that was expected.



50+ is more than a handful! I've looked at various large LCD, Plasma, and LCOS panels over the years and they all had a few dead pixels upon careful inspection. But we're talking 2-5 pixels at most. 50+ is ridiculous at any price. Also offering motion resolution even lower than their crappy LCD panels is a joke for a product claiming 0.1ms response time. Based on HDGuru numbers, they have brightness to at least offer a dim "impulse" mode similar to Sony or 960Hz+ interpolation.


JWhip,


Did the 2 LG panels you saw in London have this many dead pixels? Apperently they are only visible on black backgrounds at close range.


----------



## Solfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23593552
> 
> 
> Defects in a first generation panel were to be expected. I still am baffled as to why LG and Samsung decided to make the production even more difficult by *opting for a curved panel* right out of the gate.


 

It'll make it easier to shove it into a round gobbige can.


----------



## JWhip

Wiz, the answer is no. However, I had no way to run a totally black screen and all my viewing was in showroom lighting. The Blu-ray disc they had for the display did not have much in the way of black bars to test the pixels. However, the demo loop did have scenes with large night scenes and I did not notice any stuck pixels. This is something I will check carefully at VE with the Sammy that is due to arrive on the14th.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23595599
> 
> 
> Wiz, the answer is no. However, I had no way to run a totally black screen and all my viewing was in showroom lighting. The Blu-ray disc they had for the display did not have much in the way of black bars to test the pixels. However, the demo loop did have scenes with large night scenes and I did not notice any stuck pixels. This is something I will check carefully at VE with the Sammy that is due to arrive on the14th.



Thanks. I guess we can hope some of the issues are specific to the curved version.


I talked to a Samsung dealer here on the west coast today (see my link a few posts back) and they said 2-3 weeks. If it shows up here before Robert gets them in stock, I'll definitely drive up to LA to check it out and give a full report.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23594954
> 
> 
> Well, it's about five years too late for that, but I agree that we could do with an OLED forum section. (at least if AVS continues to split everything up the way they currently do)



It is understood that only now first real OLED TVs appeared in shops. It would be thus entirely logical _an_d innovative to have a new forum 'OLED Displays'. Otherwise where the 'Official Owner' threads will be located?


Obviously, at this point it is hard to judge if OLED becomes established and durable technology in the TV area. But even if its rise is meteoritic it deserves its forum. There is emerging opposite case: Plasma is now clear sunset technology but one can see the Plasma Flat Panel Display forum continuing indefinitely after last plasma panels disappear from shops since its memories and mournings will last for generations







.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23596265
> 
> 
> It is understood that only now first real OLED TVs appeared in shops. It would be thus entirely logical _an_d innovative to have a new forum 'OLED Displays'. Otherwise where the 'Official Owner' threads will be located?


What were the Sony XEL-1 or LG 15EL9500 then? Imaginary televisions?


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23596265
> 
> 
> It is understood that only now first real OLED TVs appeared in shops. It would be thus entirely logical _an_d innovative to have a new forum 'OLED Displays'. Otherwise where the 'Official Owner' threads will be located?



right here in this forum: the forum name has been updated


Looking forward to seeing the first owners thread here soon


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Merson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592791
> 
> 
> First technical review is up at http://hdguru.com . We learned a lot and found a number of surprises.



As much as the contrast ratio and true black level sound thrilling, the suggestions that this technology is subject to the motion-blur sample and hold effect, like LCDs, is a major

come-down. The choice being, apparently, added blur to motion (yuck) or suffering the soap opera effect (huge yuck!). So, back where we've been with LCD.


Great. Just great.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23594914
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> however I think it will stay in this forum ( Flat Panels General and new FP Tech) for a while: maybe we can update the forum title to: Flat Panels General and OLED technology


A fine interim step; until OLED is more popular.


Once OLED is popular, revert the title of this place -- and spawn off the OLED threads to a newly-popular OLED forum. I'd like to keep this forum as a place where we also talk about new display technologies if they become popular in the future (google "blue-phase LCD" as an example -- microsecond pixel response time)


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Merson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6420#post_23592791
> 
> 
> First technical review is up at http://hdguru.com . We learned a lot and found a number of surprises.


Gary, can you eventually consider also quoting test-pattern-independent motion resolution via true scientific MPRT measurement (milliseconds) rather than test-pattern-specific numbers such as "320 lines"? MPRT is comparable apples-to-apples on different sizes of displays.


Even with multiple displays matching "1080 lines of motion resolution", there is still further motion clarity improvements to be had, especially during faster motion, especially with computer material & game material. A good example is the TestUFO MPRT test at www.testufo.com/#test=mprt (view this in Chrome browser. Currently designed for LCD, but should also work with any sample-and-hold display such as OLED) ... You will immediately see the test often returns an MPRT of 16.7ms for a sample-and-hold 60Hz display (at least when averaging black-white and white-black transitions). However, that test is not very compatible with motion interpolation algorithms, so it may not properly measure MPRT's during TruMotion.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Merson*
> 
> Based on the video we captured using our high speed camera (at 480 and 1000 frames per second) we believe it’s sample and hold at a 60 Hz frame rate.


Good for you about using a high speed video camera in determining if a display is sample-and-hold. Blur Busters also uses that to analyze displays (computer monitors, in this case). A good test pattern to display during high speed video for sample-and-hold, is the TestUFO Flicker Test at www.testufo.com/#test=flicker in Full Screen mode.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23597753
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23594914
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> however I think it will stay in this forum ( Flat Panels General and new FP Tech) for a while: maybe we can update the forum title to: Flat Panels General and OLED technology
> 
> 
> 
> A fine interim step; until OLED is more popular.
> 
> 
> Once OLED is popular, revert the title of this place -- and spawn off the OLED threads to a newly-popular OLED forum. I'd like to keep this forum as a place where we also talk about new display technologies if they become popular in the future (google "blue-phase LCD" as an example -- microsecond pixel response time)
Click to expand...


yes certainly that is the plan


remember when flat panels was all one forum, and it grew so big that there was call to split it up: it was spit into 3 forums and that is the way it has been for several years


I can see a forth forum for OLED but it is a bit too soon...


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23597608
> 
> 
> As much as the contrast ratio and true black level sound thrilling, the suggestions that this technology is subject to the motion-blur sample and hold effect, like LCDs, is a major
> 
> come-down. The choice being, apparently, added blur to motion (yuck) or suffering the soap opera effect (huge yuck!). So, back where we've been with LCD.
> 
> 
> Great. Just great.


As I posted a little earlier, it's been reported that Displaymate's Raymond Soneira says Samsung OLED tech uses the plasma approach of pulse width modulation, instead of LG's approach of sample and hold, so I might not give up all hope just yet....


> Quote:
> MT, here's the explanation Raymond sent us:
> 
> 
> Plasma displays, DLP, and Samsung OLEDs all use Pulse Width Modulation to independently control the intensity (Luminance) of every single R,G,B sub-pixel in the entire display. In Pulse Width Modulation each sub-pixel is continuously switched at a very high rate (typically greater than 100KHz) between the fully Off and fully On states by the display controller and AM Active Matrix. The percentage of time that a sub-pixel spends in the On state determines its particular observed visual Luminance. For example, within an given image refresh frame, if a particular sub-pixel spends 25% of the time in the On state and 75% in the Off state, it will have 25% of the peak Luminance for that sub-pixel at that instant. This makes it easy to digitally control the entire image and apply all of the desired display calibrations digitally as well.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23597964
> 
> 
> As I posted a little earlier, it's been reported that Displaymate's Raymond Soneira says Samsung OLED tech uses the plasma approach of pulse width modulation, instead of LG's approach of sample and hold, so I might not give up all hope just yet....


That was talking about a phone-sized display though, so it's not a safe assumption to make that it will be the same when they scale it up.

For what it's worth, I have been told that Samsung's OLED TV appeared to use discrete levels of gradation like an LCD display, rather than PWM like a Plasma from someone that has had the opportunity to spend some time with it.


I suppose it's possible that with switching times that fast, you could use a _lot_ of subfields to help reduce the artifacts that PWM causes, but that seems unlikely.

I don't know why they would choose to use pulse-width modulation if the display is capable of discrete gradation. It might make sense in a phone display to try and reduce power consumption though.


If they end up using PWM with OLEDs, my interest in the technology drops to zero.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23597608
> 
> 
> As much as the contrast ratio and true black level sound thrilling, the suggestions that this technology is subject to the motion-blur sample and hold effect, like LCDs, is a major come-down. The choice being, apparently, added blur to motion (yuck) or suffering the soap opera effect (huge yuck!). So, back where we've been with LCD.
> 
> 
> Great. Just great.



Samsung makes this claim:


• Blur-free Motion: Another advantage of individually controlled pixels is the detailed, smooth and clear picture quality presented that is free of any motion blur. This motion clarity is 100 times more clear than an LED screen.

http://www.samsung.com/global/article/articleDetailView.do?atcl_id=61734 


Click on the "Samsung OLED Television" link, then select "OLED PICTURE QUALITY" -> "BLUR-LESS MOTION" for an interactive comparison to "conventional TV".


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23599184
> 
> 
> Samsung makes this claim:
> 
> 
> • Blur-free Motion: Another advantage of individually controlled pixels is the detailed, smooth and clear picture quality presented that is free of any motion blur. This motion clarity is 100 times more clear than an LED screen.
> 
> http://www.samsung.com/global/article/articleDetailView.do?atcl_id=61734
> 
> 
> Click on the "Samsung OLED Television" link, then select "OLED PICTURE QUALITY" -> "BLUR-LESS MOTION" for an interactive comparison to "conventional TV".



Marketing claims mean absolutely nothing.


Here is what it says on LG's site:


"The response speed of LG OLED is over one hundred times faster than LED TV, allowing you to enjoy fast moving scenes with completely blur-free, crystal clear pictures. All details and actions are as good as life on LG OLED TV."


We all know how that turned out.










Regarding PWM on the Samsung. I'll have to agree with Chronoptimist. The last thing we need is another display technology with dithering artifacts, posterization/banding during motion, etc. Also, none of the videos captured of the Samsung at trade-shows show any of the typical PWM flicker you see on plasma captures.


If the LG can do 105 fL in Vivid mode, all LG had to do was offer black-frame-insertion at 120hz. With 60hz content, the slight flicker would have been fine for many people. I've seen that mode on some Sony SXRD projectors and it was very usable (although a bit dim) for gaming. The reduction in blur was very drastic. This LG pumps out more brightness than any projector so I think it would have worked even better. If they must do interpolation, at least offer something better than 120hz - even their LCDs go higher.


----------



## piquadrat

...but one has to compensate for brightness decrease (with b-f-i). There would be no problem if oled's life was a linear function of brightness (emission) but usually it isn't. So decreasing time when subpixel is lit to half and increasing the emission by two times won't cancel each other and hurts life span even more.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23597258
> 
> 
> What were the Sony XEL-1 or LG 15EL9500 then? Imaginary televisions?



Ah, you mean those 15" dwarfs which appeared like comets and are now forgotten?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23597898
> 
> 
> yes certainly that is the plan
> 
> remember when flat panels was all one forum, and it grew so big that there was call to split it up: it was spit into 3 forums and that is the way it has been for several years
> 
> I can see a forth forum for OLED but it is a bit too soon...



I hope the current OLEDs fare much better than those above. Though reservation about creating new forum is well-deserved judging from the brave new world of OLED problems a bold step would put the AVS into the (risky) forefront. Anyway, it will be interesting to see when the OLED forum will be created i.e. when the mods get faith this is not comet technology anymore







. I wonder too if plasma displays disappear from shops the plasma forum will change to Vintage Plasma & History forum...


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23599868
> 
> 
> I wonder too if plasma displays disappear from shops the plasma forum will change to Vintage Plasma & History forum...


Let's not get ahead of ourselves (I know some have a knack for that).


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*
> 
> 
> I hope the current OLEDs fare much better than those above. Though reservation about creating new forum is well-deserved judging from the brave new world of OLED problems a bold step would put the AVS into the (risky) forefront. Anyway, it will be interesting to see when the OLED forum will be created i.e. when the mods get faith this is not comet technology anymore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I wonder too if plasma displays disappear from shops the plasma forum will change to Vintage Plasma & History forum...


Two $15.000 OLEDs, the curved 55'' LG and the curved 55'' Samsung, will be for sale soon and that it till end 2014. My prediction is that there will be no OLED Forum till 2015.


----------



## Desk.

In regards to Samsung using pulse-width modulation rather than LG's sample and hold, this has been posted by HD Guru in response to questions about their experiece checking out the OLED LG set. Not sure where they read this, but I can't help but hope it's true...


> Quote:
> http://hdguru.com/lg-55ea9800-oled-hdtv-reviewed/#more-11091
> 
> David Mackenzie // Aug 4, 2013 at 10:07 am
> 
> 
> >> “We asked LG how the OLED makes a picture and are waiting for a response. Specifically, is it like LED LCD, using a method called sample and hold, or more plasma’s method, called pulse-width modulation.”
> 
> 
> OLED uses Sample and Hold.
> 
> 
> Thanks Dave. As a practice we don’t make definitive technology statements until we get verification from the manufacturer. Better late than wrong.
> 
> 
> We read recently that the 55-inch Samsung OLED is going to use pulse-width modulation(though it was not written by Samsung). We are waiting for the answer from Samsung.
> 
> 
> HD Guru


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23597288
> 
> 
> right here in this forum: the forum name has been updated
> 
> 
> Looking forward to seeing the first owners thread here soon



You might want to consider placing the OLED owners thread on the Plasma forum, since there are now only three companies offering them, and within a year or two there may be only one or none of them still offering them.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23600274
> 
> 
> Two $15.000 OLEDs, the curved 55'' LG and the curved 55'' Samsung, will be for sale soon and that it till end 2014. My prediction is that there will be no OLED Forum till 2015.



Maybe you are right but rumors are Sony, Panny and others are gearing up. In any case, it is certain OLED displays will generate huge amount of forum traffic due to the tons of new issues.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23600841
> 
> 
> You might want to consider placing the OLED owners thread on the Plasma forum, since there are now only three companies offering them, and within a year or two there may be only one or none of them still offering them.



Yeah, it seems OLED has closer affinity to Plasma than LCD due to the burn-in







.


----------



## markrubin

I hope OLED will eventually live up to all the hype and get its own forum: and not just for issues


and I still think the reports of the death of Plasma panels are exaggerated


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23597258
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6450#post_23596265
> 
> 
> It is understood that only now first real OLED TVs appeared in shops. It would be thus entirely logical _an_d innovative to have a new forum 'OLED Displays'. Otherwise where the 'Official Owner' threads will be located?
> 
> 
> 
> What were the Sony XEL-1 or LG 15EL9500 then? Imaginary televisions?
Click to expand...

 

Yes.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23599690
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23599184
> 
> 
> Samsung makes this claim:
> 
> 
> • Blur-free Motion: Another advantage of individually controlled pixels is the detailed, smooth and clear picture quality presented that is free of any motion blur. This motion clarity is 100 times more clear than an LED screen.
> 
> http://www.samsung.com/global/article/articleDetailView.do?atcl_id=61734
> 
> 
> Click on the "Samsung OLED Television" link, then select "OLED PICTURE QUALITY" -> "BLUR-LESS MOTION" for an interactive comparison to "conventional TV".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marketing claims mean absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> Here is what it says on LG's site:
> 
> 
> "The response speed of LG OLED is over one hundred times faster than LED TV, allowing you to enjoy fast moving scenes with completely blur-free, crystal clear pictures. All details and actions are as good as life on LG OLED TV."
> 
> 
> We all know how that turned out.
Click to expand...

 

Maddening, isn't it?  And it spawns off ENDLESS corrections here and forcing people who know better to spend countless accumulated hours beating back misconceptions.

 

These guys have got to reign in the marketing department a tad.  It's almost as if the heavy hitters in the engineering department tell other lesser engineers just enough information to make them dangerous, and those 2nd tier engineers talk to the marketing department and then we have......"passive 3D can be viewed lying down".


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23600841
> 
> 
> You might want to consider placing the OLED owners thread on the Plasma forum, since there are now only three companies offering them, and within a year or two there may be only one or none of them still offering them.



I think 4K deserves its own section more than OLED right now. Considering you can actually go to the store and take home a variety of 4K sets. The Bestbuy I was in had both the Sony and new Samsung and said they will be getting the LG 4K sets soon.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23601001
> 
> 
> I think 4K deserves its own section more than OLED right now. Considering you can actually go to the store and take home a variety of 4K sets. The Bestbuy I was in had both the Sony and new Samsung and said they will be getting the LG 4K sets soon.


 

Not IMO.  There are far too many 2K vs. 4K posts out there currently, and besides, it's not a fundamental split in display technology.  It'd be like having one for 720p vs. 1080p back in the day.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23601001
> 
> 
> I think 4K deserves its own section more than OLED right now. Considering you can actually go to the store and take home a variety of 4K sets. The Bestbuy I was in had both the Sony and new Samsung and said they will be getting the LG 4K sets soon.



There is already a Forum for those 4K models. It is the LCD Forum. There is no separate forums for LCD 720P and 1080P models, so there is no reason to create one for a new higher resolution category of LCD models.


----------



## Whatstreet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23600930
> 
> 
> I hope OLED will eventually live up to all the hype and get its own forum: and not just for issues
> 
> 
> and I still think the reports of the death of Plasma panels are exaggerated



Yes OLED is OLED and Plasma is Plasma. Separate forum makes it easier to find what people are looking for. Some may be interested in Plasma after it's gone and the forum section would still be there though dead to new activity.


----------



## vinnie97

Even if they stopped plasma production tomorrow (as highly unlikely as that would be), that forum would see activity for years from current owners and those scrambling to buy used.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23600974
> 
> 
> Maddening, isn't it?  And it spawns off ENDLESS corrections here and forcing people who know better to spend countless accumulated hours beating back misconceptions.
> 
> These guys have got to reign in the marketing department a tad.


It's not really marketing though - the OLED panel itself should have essentially no motion blur. What you see now are the effects of retinal persistence, which is something that Philips brought to light in 2006 with their "ClearLCD" (aka Aptura) displays.

I guess they just haven't been big in America, but Philips had been leading the way with a number of technologies to improve motion handling on their displays - they even had CRTs with motion interpolation to help smooth out film judder.


People have only just started to take notice of retinal-based motion blur recently - and it was only really "solved" when Sony started using backlight scanning on the HX900 LCDs using "Clear Plus" (aka Clear 2) MotionFlow, and then with the introduction of the Impulse Mode with the HX920. (which is Clear Plus without the interpolation, and suitable for gaming)

And of course there is also Lightboost in the PC world, which has even lower retinal persistence and operates at 120Hz rather than 60Hz to reduce flicker. It would be really nice if displays could accept their "native" refresh rate (120Hz/240Hz) via a DisplayPort input rather than being limited to 60Hz over HDMI, because that lets you reduce persistence further, without making flicker worse.


These technologies have done a very good job reducing retinal persistence-based motion blur, to levels far below Plasma displays, but there is still some remaining panel-based blur. (though it is minimal)

OLED should solve the panel blur issue, but takes us back to the days of sample & hold LCDs with 100% persistence, because they aren't bright enough to use dark frame insertion or scanning techniques yet.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23602105
> 
> 
> Even if they stopped plasma production tomorrow (as highly unlikely as that would be), that forum would see activity for years from current owners and those scrambling to buy used.


People are blowing Panasonic's announcement of ending Plasma R&D way out of proportion. I bet they will still be in production for years to come, unless they have really found some breakthrough in their printing process that allows them to sell 4K OLED sets for the same price as their previous Plasmas. (highly unlikely)


And finishing R&D doesn't necessarily mean the end of progress for Plasmas either. For all we know, they have improvements planned out for the next five years of Plasmas, and we will continue to see improvements in performance. (realistically, I would only expect improvements next year though)


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23602225
> 
> 
> .....People are blowing Panasonic's announcement of ending Plasma R&D way out of proportion. I bet they will still be in production for years to come, unless they have really found some breakthrough in their printing process that allows them to sell 4K OLED sets for the same price as their previous Plasmas. (highly unlikely)
> 
> 
> And finishing R&D doesn't necessarily mean the end of progress for Plasmas either. For all we know, they have improvements planned out for the next five years of Plasmas, and we will continue to see improvements in performance. (realistically, I would only expect improvements next year though)



With the market share and volume shipments so diminished, I can foresee a cliff in a couple of years. Only if OLED stays marginal, and no other technology steps up to the plate, will there be any long term hope for plasma. IMHO.



As to 4K or UHD, OLED or not, cabling is a concern. I haven't seen the HDMI 2.0 spec- it seems to be endlessly rescheduled. It MIGHT have better specs than DisplayPort, but DisplayPort is here today and is a known quantity that appears to meet the UHD requirements. UHD ain't going anywhere without those specs - and cables and equipment you can buy. It will take an awful lot of convincing to get me to replace my HDMI 1.3 AV receiver with a new one- HDMI 2.0 or DisplayPort. And so it will be for most. The sooner the equipment is on the street, the sooner some folks will start picking it out in their normal upgrade cycle.


----------



## Chronoptimist

The current HDMI spec supports 4K - but only at 30Hz.

The vast majority of video content in existence is 30fps or less (film is 24fps) so for most people, it's really not a big deal.


60Hz and above really only matters for PC use - admittedly that's the main reason anyone would want to buy a 4K display today though.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23602735
> 
> 
> The current HDMI spec supports 4K - but only at 30Hz.
> 
> The vast majority of video content in existence is 30fps or less (film is 24fps) so for most people, it's really not a big deal.
> 
> 
> 60Hz and above really only matters for PC use - admittedly that's the main reason anyone would want to buy a 4K display today though.



Being able to input 50 or 60 hz to a 4k display matters to those of us who want options as to where the scaling of source material takes place. I won't buy a 4k display until I can scale 1080i or p with an external video processor or AVR etc. Reports on the scaling ability of Seiki (sp?) and my observations of Sony 4k sets leave me depressed. Since 1080 and 720p will be the major source material for a long time being able to have a choice for scaling is very important.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23604195
> 
> 
> Being able to input 50 or 60 hz to a 4k display matters to those of us who want options as to where the scaling of source material takes place. I won't buy a 4k display until I can scale 1080i or p with an external video processor or AVR etc. Reports on the scaling ability of Seiki (sp?) and my observations of Sony 4k sets leave me depressed. Since 1080 and 720p will be the major source material for a long time being able to have a choice for scaling is very important.



I agree. Are any of the current 4k displays even configured to allow 2x or 3x pixel resize for 1080p and 720p signals respectively (no pixel averaging/point sample)? What external processors exist for 4k upscaling at 60Hz?


Can't wait to see the LG 55EA9800. It was somewhat surprising to see HDGURUs low motion resolution bench, but I'm not sure that is completely telling. If it's anything like the motion on the Sony Vita Samsung OLED panel, the low number of 320 lines is definitely misleading.







I don't believe the Vita does BFI, and it certainly looks much more fluid than any LCD screen.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23604195
> 
> 
> Being able to input 50 or 60 hz to a 4k display matters to those of us who want options as to where the scaling of source material takes place. I won't buy a 4k display until I can scale 1080i or p with an external video processor or AVR etc. Reports on the scaling ability of Seiki (sp?) and my observations of Sony 4k sets leave me depressed. Since 1080 and 720p will be the major source material for a long time being able to have a choice for scaling is very important.


I'm not sure why you think that requires 60Hz.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23604706
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you think that requires 60Hz.


eg. sport broadcast at 720p60 or TV shows at 1080i30 that have 60Hz motion not 24 or 30. If the TV can't accept [email protected] it means the external video processor or digital video recorder or other external box can't do all the scaling/processing - since it would reduce 60Hz motion to 30.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23604812
> 
> 
> eg. sport broadcast at 720p60 or TV shows at 1080i30 that have 60Hz motion not 24 or 30. If the TV can't accept [email protected] it means the external video processor or digital video recorder or other external box can't do all the scaling/processing - since it would reduce 60Hz motion to 30.


This is rare though - most video content is 30fps or less, and few people use external scalers at all these days. There's very little need for them now, and even the high end stuff like Lumagen boxes cut corners when scaling.

And it's trivial to scale up 720p or 1080i/p to 4K. You just double or triple the size of the pixels, no complex interpolation required.

And if you do want to use interpolation, most displays' HD scaling capabilities are sufficient. It's not like SD where you are going from a very low source resolution without much detail.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23604812
> 
> 
> eg. sport broadcast at 720p60 or TV shows at 1080i30


Actually; the correct term in these forums tend to be 1080i60 (preferred worldwide notation), not 1080i/30 (European notation). It's actually 60 images per second, displayed as the full screenful of odd scanlines, followed 1/60sec later by the full screenful of even scanlines. So there is the temporal resolution of two fields per interlaced refresh. The correct terminology is to use the full number, not the half number, because that actually denotes the temporal resolution of the video. Remember, it's possible to encode 30fps or 60fps within 1080i60, and the 60fps-via-1080i60 looks twice as smooth as 30fps-via-1080i60. Much of the stuff you see in news shows, sports, olympics, sitcoms, soap operas, are often broadcast at 1080i60.


Here's a hidden undocumented TestUFO simulated interlace test of 30fps vs 60fps via 1080i:
* www.testufo.com/#test=interlace *


Compare to the non-interlaced version:
* www.testufo.com/#test=framerates *


View these links in Chrome browser or another VSYNC-supported browser.

You can clearly see both of them have the same temporal resolution, despite the interlacing.

The interlace emulation works best on strobed displays such as plasma, LightBoost or computer CRT's, but a close approximate effect is still achieved on modern LCD's.


To your credit, Wikipedia for 1080i does say:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wikipedia/1080i*
> 
> The frame rate can be implied by the context, while the field rate is generally specified after the letter i, such as "1080i60". In this case 1080i60 refers to 60 fields per second. The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) prefers to use the resolution and frame rate (not field rate) separated by a slash, as in 1080i/30 and 1080i/25, likewise 480i/30 and 576i/25.[2] Resolutions of 1080i60 or 1080i50 often refers to 1080i/30 or 1080i/25 in EBU notation.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23605242
> 
> 
> This is rare though - most video content is 30fps or less, and few people use external scalers at all these days. There's very little need for them now, and even the high end stuff like Lumagen boxes cut corners when scaling.



In what way did the Lumagen "cut corners" in their scaling?


- Rich


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23605691
> 
> 
> Actually; the correct term in these forums tend to be 1080i60 (preferred worldwide notation), not 1080i/30 (European notation).


Which international standards bodies prefer the term 1080i60? Note I prefer 1080i60 or 1080i50 as it shows the number of images per second, but was told it was incorrect.

I noticed on broadcastengineering.com they use both 1080i30 (28 results) and 1080i60 (66 results).


Though it will be less of an issue in future when we have high fps progressive frame rates







.


> Quote:
> It's actually 60 images per second, displayed as the full screenful of odd scanlines, followed 1/60sec later by the full screenful of even scanlines. So there is the temporal resolution of two fields per interlaced refresh. The correct terminology is to use the full number, not the half number, because that actually denotes the temporal resolution of the video. Remember, it's possible to encode 30fps or 60fps within 1080i60, and the 60fps-via-1080i60 looks twice as smooth as 30fps-via-1080i60. Much of the stuff you see in news shows, sports, olympics, sitcoms, soap operas, are often broadcast at 1080i60.


I know all that that's why I said there'd be a problem if you were tried to upconvert 60Hz content such as 1080i to 4K and send over a 4K connection that only supports 30Hz.










> Quote:
> Much of the stuff you see in news shows, sports, olympics, sitcoms, soap operas, are often broadcast at 1080i60.


Except in the UK


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23605242
> 
> 
> This is rare though - most video content is 30fps or less, and few people use external scalers at all these days. There's very little need for them now, and even the high end stuff like Lumagen boxes cut corners when scaling.
> 
> And it's trivial to scale up 720p or 1080i/p to 4K. You just double or triple the size of the pixels, no complex interpolation required.
> 
> And if you do want to use interpolation, most displays' HD scaling capabilities are sufficient. It's not like SD where you are going from a very low source resolution without much detail.



I have grown to respect your comments, however your apparent ignorance as to the value of a Lumagen's capabilities greatly diminishes that respect. The major reason I have little interest in upgrading to 4k is the improvement a Radiance and a Darbee can make with a 70" Elite. PQ looks more detailed and has greater apparent 2D depth than the 55 & 65" Sony's I saw with 1080p source material.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23605698
> 
> 
> In what way did the Lumagen "cut corners" in their scaling?


Pretty sure they're still only using 4:2:2 chroma, which means that upscaled content could look better, and 4:4:4 sources are degraded.

In my testing with the madVR video renderer on PC, you can clearly get better than 4:2:2 resolution out of a 4:2:0 source.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23605966
> 
> 
> I have grown to respect your comments, however your apparent ignorance as to the value of a Lumagen's capabilities greatly diminishes that respect. The major reason I have little interest in upgrading to 4k is the improvement a Radiance and a Darbee can make with a 70" Elite. PQ looks more detailed and has greater apparent 2D depth than the 55 & 65" Sony's I saw with 1080p source material.


I had one of the original Radiance boxes and ended up getting rid of it. They have improved a lot of the functionality now, adding a much more useful CMS system, but I still don't think they are worth the cost in most cases - especially not if you are dealing with 720p or 1080i/p sources on a 4K display, where upscaling is considerably easier than SD.

And now that it has been years since I watched broadcast content, I don't even see the point in one. Maybe if you're still watching broadcast content they are still worthwhile, but the quality of broadcast content is so bad that it hardly seems worth it.


Back in the early days of HDTV where scaling and deinterlacing (particularly cadence detection) was terrible, they were much more worthwhile.


While I have not had the opportunity to do a direct comparison, madVR scaling on a HTPC can be configured to give better results than I remember getting from the Radiance.

Using a HTPC for playback also eliminated the cadence detection problems I had with the Radiance, and allows for things such as re-clocking PAL content to 24p, and decimation to output 24p from 3:2 interlaced NTSC sources. (e.g. 480i60 DVDs)


I've commented on the Darbee boxes before, but they just seem to add "local contrast enhancement" processing to the image, which looks terrible to me.

As someone that does a fair amount of photography/image editing work, I'm used to working with tools that offer that functionality (Photoshop's "clarity" tool, for example) and while I can understand how it might make the image appear to "pop off the screen" at a first glance, there are a lot of downsides to that kind of processing, and it goes against directorial intent. It's particularly damaging on scenes which are supposed to have a low contrast, dream-like quality.

In rare cases, I may use this type of processing at _very_ low levels when editing an image, but it has to be adjusted on a per-image basis with care, and I would never try using it on top of already mastered content.


----------



## andy sullivan

I would say that someone that hasn't watched broadcast TV for years must be in huge minority. Most if not all of the professional reviews I've read on the Darbee rave about it.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23606627
> 
> 
> I would say that someone that hasn't watched broadcast TV for years must be in huge minority.


Perhaps, but I would put money on there being fewer people with external scalers than those who no longer watch broadcast content, and the market for people looking to buy 4K external scalers is going to be almost non-existent.

Just about everyone I know has now replaced their cable or satellite with an internet connection and streaming services.


The most likely demand I can see for a 4K scaler is going to be from gamers who want a cheap low latency 2x or 3x "no interpolation" device, for displays which don't have this as an option.

One would hope that manufacturers will be smart enough to realize that they should be doing this with their game modes anyway.



I'm not saying that there is no need for HDMI 2.0 or DisplayPort inputs, to support refresh rates above 30Hz. I'm saying that for _most_ of the market, _it doesn't matter_. Most video content - especially 4K native content - is 30Hz or less.

You can still watch your 720p60 sports channels at 60fps on a 4K display, you just can't run them through an external scaler and keep them at 60fps right now - but that's barely going to be a problem for anyone.


The main area where 4K being limited to 30Hz right now is an issue, is PC use. It mostly doesn't matter for video content, and doesn't matter for console gaming at all.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23606627
> 
> 
> Most if not all of the professional reviews I've read on the Darbee rave about it.


This is the problem when you have people writing reviews of displays and video processors that have no experience with creating content - which gives you a good understanding of what devices like this are actually doing to the image - or a proper understanding of what good image quality actually is.


It's becoming more of a problem than ever before, now that anyone can write up a review of a device and publish it online, and with how cheap calibration gear is now.

Someone can write up a technical-looking evaluation of a display by sticking a meter on it and hitting "measure" in a package like Calman without really having the understanding of how things work, or even the specifics of what it is they're measuring. (but lower error numbers are always better!)


I've even seen this problem crop up with people offering "calibration" services, where they will dial in the display to look good in a calibration report (without looking at saturation below 100%, of course) but then turn on all kinds of nasty image processing to make the image "pop more". If it doesn't show up in a calibration report, it can't be bad, can it?


----------



## Mad Norseman

^^^I've read two pro reviews on the Darbee Darblet (one in Home Theater Magazines, the other in Sound & Vision), and BOTH reviewers approached it expecting to hate it, or expose it as nonsense.

Except, both ended up raving about it, and bought one for use in their own systems.

So I wouldn't call those guys just "anyone", or inexperienced, or un/misinformed by any stretch...might try one myself!


By the way, I stopped in Best Buy's Richfield, MN Flagship store today to see the new curved 55" OLED display,...and was not impressed.

It looked small and colors dull. Curved face appears to be a gimmick. (Much more impressed with the 84" Sony 4K set on display!).


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23602225
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are blowing Panasonic's announcement of ending Plasma R&D way out of proportion. I bet they will still be in production for years to come, unless they have really found some breakthrough in their printing process that allows them to sell 4K OLED sets for the same price as their previous Plasmas. (highly unlikely)
> 
> 
> And finishing R&D doesn't necessarily mean the end of progress for Plasmas either. For all we know, they have improvements planned out for the next five years of Plasmas, and we will continue to see improvements in performance. (realistically, I would only expect improvements next year though)



Got me wondering, will we see 4k plasmas?


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23607176
> 
> 
> Got me wondering, will we see 4k plasmas?



I would hope so!

If they & Sony can't make larger sized OLEDs panels for a similar price - then give me a 75" 4K Panny Plasma!

But I agree, that I'd expect Plasmas to remain around and even continue to improve at least while they're 'perfecting' OLED...if it can ever be perfected from a commercial/practical standpoint that is...


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23605875
> 
> 
> I noticed on broadcastengineering.com they use both 1080i30 (28 results) and 1080i60 (66 results).


Oh well, at least I've got that new *TestUFO interlacing web animation* (view in Chrome) now to break through the muddiness of inconsistent terminology.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6480#post_23605691
> 
> 
> It's actually 60 images per second, displayed as the full screenful of odd scanlines, followed 1/60sec later by the full screenful of even scanlines. So there is the temporal resolution of two fields per interlaced refresh.


Isn't it more complicated than that though? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing 

Though that isn't what should happen for the 30 fps (30Hz) within 1080i60 that is mentioned below.


> Quote:
> Remember, it's possible to encode 30fps or 60fps within 1080i60, and the 60fps-via-1080i60 looks twice as smooth as 30fps-via-1080i60. Much of the stuff you see in news shows, sports, olympics, sitcoms, soap operas, are often broadcast at 1080i60.


eg. a de-interlacer may use different methods for static sections and moving portions of the image? eg. if the entire picture was static, you wouldn't want to use line doubling as you would lose half the resolution.


Perhaps that's one of the demos that blurbusters could show - how well different TVs/Blu-ray players de-interlace different types of content? And as well as possible how the de-interlacing of TVs/Blu-ray players works.

eg. shooting a TV displaying an interlaced source with a high frame rate camera and displaying that back in slow motion.


I like the motion tests but I think it would be even better with actual footage from current HDTVs of how they (or the Blu-ray players) actually do the de-interlacing of the different types of content.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23607532
> 
> 
> Isn't it more complicated than that though? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing


Joe, I am not talking about deinterlacing.


I'm talking about watching 30fps versus 60fps material on an old interlaced TV (e.g. old analog TV, or CRT HDTV)


During 30fps displayed as interlaced (e.g. 480i or 1080i), both fields of an interlaced refresh come from the same original frame captured at one time period.

During 60fps displayed as interlaced (e.g. 480i or 1080i), each field of an interlaced refresh contains separate images (temporally 1/60 apart). Two "frames" (fields) encoded into one interlaced refresh, taking advantage of the temporal displacement of the displaying of even lines and odd lines, to gain the full temporal resolution of 60 frames per second when it's all displayed on the screen. You get twice the motion fluidity, the full 60fps soap opera effect.


I'm obviously talking about 1080i60 (same thing as 1080i/30 in the ECC preferred notation, no difference).

For UK, replace all "60" above with "50", and replace all "30" above with "25.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23607552
> 
> 
> Joe, I am not talking about deinterlacing.
> 
> 
> I'm talking about watching 30fps versus 60fps material on an old interlaced TV (e.g. old analog TV, or CRT HDTV)


But since all current TVs are progressive scan and they don't sell CRT TVs any more I think de-interlacing is more relevant. Since people nowadays will be watching interlaced sources (as well as progressive ones) on progressive HDTVs.

So how and how well players and HDTVs de-interlace content would be a good demo of how things work currently as opposed to when people used CRT TVs which is in the past (or mostly is).


eg. we were talking about current broadcasts/TV shows in HD and how they should be displayed. So de-interlacing and source rate is relevant to it.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23607569
> 
> 
> eg. we were talking about current broadcasts/TV shows in HD and how they should be displayed. So de-interlacing and source rate is relevant to it.


Got it. I understand now.

Good deinterlacers attempt to keep the original image rate unmodified, e.g. 30fps becomes 30fps, and 60fps becomes 60fps.

But obviously, that is not always the rule of thumb.

There's extra temporal information in the original for deinterlacers to take advantage of.


There can be other considerations/complexities such as motion interpolation being involved as part of deinterlacing. For interpolation being added, there are 60 original points for motion vector computations in 60fps sent over 1080i60, and 30 original points for motion vector computations in 30fps sent over 1080i60.


Yes, it does get horrendously complicated from here onwards.

But the point still stands -- there is extra original temporal resolution in 60fps over 1080i60 than 30fps over 1080i60 that can be taken advantage of by deinterlacers and/or interpolators, if their algorithms wish to use the extra temporal information (e.g. for computation of motion vectors, for choosing an optimized deinterlacing algorithm, etc)


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23607176
> 
> 
> Got me wondering, will we see 4k plasmas?



I think the more pertinent question is: In 4 years, will we see plasmas?


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23610177
> 
> 
> I think the more pertinent question is: In 4 years, will we see plasmas?



My eight-ball says, unlikely.

Next year, looks good though.


- Rich


----------



## navychop

I certainly don't have the enthusiasm for OLED that I once did. I still hope for it to deliver on it's promises and even dominate the market- I just don't see that as a sure thing anymore.


Another question is: Will OLED's fate be determined before Plasma's? It seems the last nail is being driven into plasma's coffin, but maybe it can recover if OLED doesn't make it.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23610410
> 
> 
> I certainly don't have the enthusiasm for OLED that I once did. I still hope for it to deliver on it's promises and even dominate the market- I just don't see that as a sure thing anymore.
> 
> 
> Another question is: Will OLED's fate be determined before Plasma's? It seems the last nail is being driven into plasma's coffin, but maybe it can recover if OLED doesn't make it.



I think Plasma has independent problems because LED/LCDs outsell them by a wide margin and 4K is easy for LCD and not likey to happen for Plasma.

I am rooting for OLED. There is is a race and I think the technology issues will get resolved.


- Rich


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23610509
> 
> 
> I think Plasma has independent problems because LED/LCDs outsell them by a wide margin and 4K is easy for LCD and not likey to happen for Plasma.
> 
> I am rooting for OLED. There is is a race and I think the technology issues will get resolved.
> 
> 
> - Rich



If OLED goes by the wayside, and all we're left with is LCD/LED displays I don't know what we'll do for a great picture!









I'm hoping plasma sticks around and gets into the 4K market if OLED bombs...or even if it DOESN'T bomb!


----------



## Desk.

I can't help but view the next 12 months as being crucial for the short-term prospects of OLED as TV technology.


We've waited so long for this Holy Grail of TV tech to come along, and I'm just fearful we're not seeing enough momentum in the field for it to break through into the mainstream market.


Sony's TV division has just posted a rare quarterly profit, and this is being attributed to the success of its 4K LED screens...
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/x9-profit-201308083240.htm 


The financially embattled TV companies are looking to make a profit - that's the bottom line. What worries me is that they'll consider the far-less tricky or costly manufacture of surprisingly popular 4K LED screens as a better prospect of maximising their profits, and just concentrate on this area in the short-term - perhaps sitting on OLED tech by keeping the prices unattainably high, and lining up affordable versions of these 'miracle sets' as the NEXT big advance for five to ten years' time (once the buzz of 4k/8k has worn off).


After all, if Joe Q Public is happy to pay out for LED screens, even if they are a far from perfect technology, why bother striving for anything better?


It's good that LG are pushing the technology forward. They're known to currently favour the cheaper end of the market, but producing innovative OLED tech could help raise their standing. It's just frustrating that we know Panasonic have an OLED manufacturing process that produces apparently 100 per cent yields, and should therefore be the best bet of getting sets onto the market, but that we're seeing little significant progress (it'll be interesting to see what emerges at next month's trade shows).


We need affordable OLED TV sets, and we need them soon.


----------



## Desk.

Offering cheer in the field of OLED technology (hopefully driving it into the TV market), material supplier and OLED tech licence-holder Universal Display announce better than anticipated second quarter profits...

http://www.rttnews.com/2170165/universal-display-shares-soar-22-as-q2-results-top-estimates-backs-outlook.aspx?type=ern


----------



## markrubin

OLED is not going to bomb or fail: not a chance: I say that based on the commitments and investments the major players have made: these companies would not have undertaken such a risk unless they had a high degree of confidence they could overcome the manufacturing startup learning curve


But it does appear they are struggling much more than anticipated: and cheap OLED's are still a long way off: but they will come


----------



## hotskins

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807133432.htm 

(last paragraph in the article)

Some of these design concepts could also be applied to Organic Light Emitting diodes, a new and rapidly growing display technology, allowing for more efficient displays in cell phones and TVs.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23611622
> 
> 
> I can't help but view the next 12 months as being crucial for the short-term prospects of OLED as TV technology. We've waited so long for this Holy Grail of TV tech to come along, and I'm just fearful we're not seeing enough momentum in the field for it to break through into the mainstream market.
> 
> 
> Sony's TV division has just posted a rare quarterly profit, and this is being attributed to the success of its 4K LED screens...
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/x9-profit-201308083240.htm
> 
> 
> The financially embattled TV companies are looking to make a profit - that's the bottom line. What worries me is that they'll consider the far-less tricky or costly manufacture of surprisingly popular 4K LED screens as a better prospect of maximising their profits, and just concentrate on this area in the short-term - perhaps sitting on OLED tech by keeping the prices unattainably high, and lining up affordable versions of these 'miracle sets' as the NEXT big advance for five to ten years' time (once the buzz of 4k/8k has worn off).
> 
> 
> After all, if Joe Q Public is happy to pay out for LED screens, even if they are a far from perfect technology, why bother striving for anything better?
> 
> 
> It's good that LG are pushing the technology forward. They're known to currently favour the cheaper end of the market, but producing innovative OLED tech could help raise their standing. It's just frustrating that we know Panasonic have an OLED manufacturing process that produces apparently 100 per cent yields, and should therefore be the best bet of getting sets onto the market, but that we're seeing little significant progress (it'll be interesting to see what emerges at next month's trade shows).
> 
> 
> We need affordable OLED TV sets, and we need them soon.



TLC will probably release them with in a year look at their 65 " 4K LED TV it is 1/5 of Sony's price


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23611839
> 
> 
> TLC will probably release them with in a year look at their 65 " 4K LED TV it is 1/5 of Sony's price



Very good. 


Producing 4K versions of existing and relatively easily-manufactured LED tech is one thing. Manufacturing a cheap version of new tech that even the best companies are struggling to master is, of course, something entirely different.


That being said, if companies are able to radically undercut the prices of 4K LED tech from the likes of Sony, it might propel those larger companies to quickly roll out new OLED tech which can still command those high-end prices.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23611667
> 
> 
> OLED is not going to bomb or fail: not a chance: I say that based on the commitments and investments the major players have made: these companies would not have undertaken such a risk unless they had a high degree of confidence they could overcome the manufacturing startup learning curve
> 
> 
> But it does appear they are struggling much more than anticipated: and cheap OLED's are still a long way off: but they will come



Totally agree.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6360#post_23577146
> 
> 
> I don't know if this has been penned by our very own 'Rogo', but this brand new Forbes article about the development of OLED TV by Mark Rogowsky is well worth a read...
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/07/28/oled-finally-arrives-but-is-the-dream-tv-really-worth-it/



From the article:


> Quote:
> the initial rollout is limited to Best Buy/Magnolia locations in Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle and San Antonio.



Rogo, I like the article, but I have to say I'm really hurt that you didn't mention Minneapolis as one of the initial locations, especially since we had it first!


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23611667
> 
> 
> OLED is not going to bomb or fail: not a chance: I say that based on the commitments and investments the major players have made: these companies would not have undertaken such a risk unless they had a high degree of confidence they could overcome the manufacturing startup learning curve
> 
> 
> But it does appear they are struggling much more than anticipated: and cheap OLED's are still a long way off: but they will come



So what's to prevent consumers from rejecting OLED the same way they rejected Plasma? Despite what the manufacturers want, ultimately, they can't force people to buy a tech they don't want. Even if the major players stopped making LCD, there would always be lesser guys who can't make OLED and continue to sell super-cheap LCD.


Has there ever been a consumer survey conducted to determine why people chose LCD over Plasma when shopping for 42"+ displays?


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23612168
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23611667
> 
> 
> OLED is not going to bomb or fail: not a chance: I say that based on the commitments and investments the major players have made: these companies would not have undertaken such a risk unless they had a high degree of confidence they could overcome the manufacturing startup learning curve
> 
> 
> But it does appear they are struggling much more than anticipated: and cheap OLED's are still a long way off: but they will come
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's to prevent consumers from rejecting OLED the same way they rejected Plasma? Despite what the manufacturers want, ultimately, they can't force people to buy a tech they don't want. Even if the major players stopped making LCD, there would always be lesser guys who can't make OLED and continue to sell super-cheap LCD.
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a consumer survey conducted to determine why people chose LCD over Plasma when shopping for 42"+ displays?
Click to expand...


good question: there are factors that make this unlikely in my opinion:


--- many of the plasma/ LCD panel OEM's have committed to OLED going forward: that means they will switch from making plasma/ LCD panels in favor of OLED


--- I think OLED has the potential to compete price wise with LCD once they get past the learning curve: to me OLED has significant advantages over present technology in terms of PQ, thickness, weight, power consumption to name a few: those AVS members lucky enough to get to see the new OLED displays have all lauded them for a stunning picture.



as far as a survey, not sure of that but it has a lot to do with what the retailers want to push: LCD's are more profitable, and easier to sell because they look better in the showroom, and their thin, lightweight design is more appealing, easier to ship, handle, and mount, and have more appeal in the home.


sure there will be a legacy market for LCD displays, just as there continues to be with plasma: but I am talking about the long term: if only we knew how long 'long term' really is...


----------



## navychop

_"....we know Panasonic have an OLED manufacturing process that produces apparently 100 per cent yields...."
_


I really can't accept that uncritically. Let them prove it.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23610410
> 
> 
> I certainly don't have the enthusiasm for OLED that I once did. I still hope for it to deliver on it's promises and even dominate the market- I just don't see that as a sure thing anymore.
> 
> 
> Another question is: Will OLED's fate be determined before Plasma's? It seems the last nail is being driven into plasma's coffin, but maybe it can recover if OLED doesn't make it.


You were one of the more bullish about OLED types up until recently. That number keeps dwindling.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23611667
> 
> 
> OLED is not going to bomb or fail: not a chance: I say that based on the commitments and investments the major players have made: these companies would not have undertaken such a risk unless they had a high degree of confidence they could overcome the manufacturing startup learning curve
> 
> 
> But it does appear they are struggling much more than anticipated: and cheap OLED's are still a long way off: but they will come





Question is if the manufacturing difficulties persist, and these display providers can now make very healthy profits selling 4ks, do they continue to invest oled, which remains an unproven tech on displays this size.


----------



## hotskins

Does any one think that manipulating the 'spin' of electrons like the Cambridge team did would apply to oled tech like the article says might?


----------



## Whatstreet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23611634
> 
> 
> Offering cheer in the field of OLED technology (hopefully driving it into the TV market), material supplier and OLED tech licence-holder Universal Display announce better than anticipated second quarter profits...
> 
> http://www.rttnews.com/2170165/universal-display-shares-soar-22-as-q2-results-top-estimates-backs-outlook.aspx?type=ern



Rogo's article has increased my optimism that OLED flat panel TV will eventually succeed. I agree that your average guy won't be buying for the next three to five years but that's better than never.


The permanent image burn in observed on LG models is of concern. Maybe this issue will be improved as it has been for plasma sets.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23612368
> 
> 
> good question: there are factors that make this unlikely in my opinion:
> 
> 
> --- many of the plasma/ LCD panel OEM's have committed to OLED going forward: that means they will switch from making plasma/ LCD panels in favor of OLED



Just to be clear, at least a couple of those are failing TV makers. And one (Sony) has never built its own flat panels in any meaningful quantity. That strategy has failed it throughout the HDTV era. I don't see why it changes on a brand new technology. I am somewhat more bullish on Panasonic, but there is a lot to prove between now and volume shipping.


> Quote:
> --- I think OLED has the potential to compete price wise with LCD once they get past the learning curve: to me OLED has significant advantages over present technology in terms of PQ, thickness, weight, power consumption to name a few: those AVS members lucky enough to get to see the new OLED displays have all lauded them for a stunning picture.



Virtually none of those sell TVs. Weight is fairly well irrelevant once it is below a reasonable level. LCD is already at that level. Thickness is nearly entirely irrelevant and if to achieve thinness you need a media box for ports, you lose almost all (more than all?) the "ergonomic" advantage of the TV. Power consumption on LCDs is already below $10 annually on Energy Guide stickers. And it's not really clear that real-world OLED consumption is even better.


Picture quality? Has never sold volume TVs (well maybe it sort of did in the Trinitron era). And without volumes, you get no learning-curve improvements.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23613248
> 
> 
> Question is if the manufacturing difficulties persist, and these display providers can now make very healthy profits selling 4ks, do they continue to invest oled, which remains an unproven tech on displays this size.



No, there is no such guarantee.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Whatstreet*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23615475
> 
> 
> Rogo's article has increased my optimism that OLED flat panel TV will eventually succeed. I agree that your average guy won't be buying for the next three to five years but that's better than never.
> 
> 
> The permanent image burn in observed on LG models is of concern. Maybe this issue will be improved as it has been for plasma sets.



I'm pretty confident despite the early burn-in reports and the skepticism that I expressed above that this could still happen. But it's been the technology that "could happen" for the last decade. It's not really clear that a couple of curved models that are by their nature targeting small volumes has proved much of anything. We probably won't really need if there's going to be an OLED era until 2015 at the soonest.


----------



## Chronoptimist

I'm fairly confident that OLEDs will eventually take off despite all the problems we have seen recently.

One of the big problems is that display manufacturers - more than just about any other industry - continue to show off _very_ early prototypes, and talk about them as if they're coming soon. They always over-promise and under-deliver.


For some reason they thought that the growth in sales caused by people upgrading from CRTs to flat panels was sustainable, and they were all undercutting each other to try and grab a share.

All that succeeded in doing was devaluing their products, so the market now has an expectation for cheap displays, and people are not willing to pay a premium for them any more.


The current push for OLED seems to be fuelled by the fact that TV sales and profits are down, and have been for a while - so they are trying to revitalize the market.

Now that everyone has flat panels, you only have a small fraction of those numbers upgrading or replacing sets, and OLED is not going to suddenly change that - just like 3D didn't, and 4K won't either.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23613118
> 
> 
> You were one of the more bullish about OLED types up until recently. That number keeps dwindling.



Yep. Show me something meaningful on the street by the end of 2015 - or hit the street.


----------



## p5browne




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23615643
> 
> 
> I'm fairly confident that OLEDs will eventually take off despite all the problems we have seen recently.
> 
> One of the big problems is that display manufacturers - more than just about any other industry - continue to show off _very_ early prototypes, and talk about them as if they're coming soon. They always over-promise and under-deliver.
> 
> 
> For some reason they thought that the growth in sales caused by people upgrading from CRTs to flat panels was sustainable, and they were all undercutting each other to try and grab a share.
> 
> All that succeeded in doing was devaluing their products, so the market now has an expectation for cheap displays, and people are not willing to pay a premium for them any more.
> 
> 
> The current push for OLED seems to be fuelled by the fact that TV sales and profits are down, and have been for a while - so they are trying to revitalize the market.
> 
> Now that everyone has flat panels, you only have a small fraction of those numbers upgrading or replacing sets, and OLED is not going to suddenly change that - just like 3D didn't, and 4K won't either.



Hmmm! From other Forums of Members who purchased the Expensive Sony, LG and Samsung pseudo 4K TVs, there appears to be a market for those who want to pay!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23615643
> 
> 
> I'm fairly confident that OLEDs will eventually take off despite all the problems we have seen recently.
> 
> One of the big problems is that display manufacturers - more than just about any other industry - continue to show off _very_ early prototypes, and talk about them as if they're coming soon. They always over-promise and under-deliver.
> 
> 
> For some reason they thought that the growth in sales caused by people upgrading from CRTs to flat panels was sustainable, and they were all undercutting each other to try and grab a share.
> 
> All that succeeded in doing was devaluing their products, so the market now has an expectation for cheap displays, and people are not willing to pay a premium for them any more.
> 
> 
> The current push for OLED seems to be fuelled by the fact that TV sales and profits are down, and have been for a while - so they are trying to revitalize the market.
> 
> Now that everyone has flat panels, you only have a small fraction of those numbers upgrading or replacing sets, and OLED is not going to suddenly change that - just like 3D didn't, and 4K won't either.



Great post. Seriously great.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23616497
> 
> 
> Great post. Seriously great.



+1


I agree that TV's have become a cheap commodity because of the constant undercutting and consumers will now refuse to pay the prices necessary to build high-quality displays. Hence the demise of local-dimmed LCD, Kuro, etc...


But what's the solution to drive prices back up again? In other markets (hard drives for example), a drop in supply will usually increase prices. But is that realistic for the TV industry with so many suppliers? How can anyone fight the onslaught of cheap Chinese LCDs? I wonder how long Sony, LG, and Samsung will be able to sell their UHD $5K sets when consumers start seeing knock-offs selling for 

This race to the bottom really sucks for those of us willing to pay a premium for higher quality products.


----------



## RichB

+1 as well.

What would make me upgrade would be a larger display and a fatter bank account










- Rich


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23616609
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> I agree that TV's have become a cheap commodity because of the constant undercutting and consumers will now refuse to pay the prices necessary to build high-quality displays. Hence the demise of local-dimmed LCD, Kuro, etc...
> 
> But what's the solution to drive prices back up again? In other markets (hard drives for example), a drop in supply will usually increase prices. But is that realistic for the TV industry with so many suppliers? How can anyone fight the onslaught of cheap Chinese LCDs? I wonder how long Sony, LG, and Samsung will be able to sell their UHD $5K sets when consumers start seeing knock-offs selling for
> This race to the bottom really sucks for those of us willing to pay a premium for higher quality products.



LCD market is unique since billion bucks plants are needed for making panels. In other areas market solution for the conflict between products for [email protected] Goodenoughs and for Brians Highends is emergence of specialized (small) companies satisfying any perverse need. This can be seen e.g. in audio, loudspeakers and even cameras. Since this is not possible in the display area one has to live with commoditization and goodenough products. It looks there is no change in this until technology is invented enabling panel manufacturing without gigantic investment costs or maybe panel manufacturers willing to sell raw panels to smaller companies.


----------



## slacker711

It looks like Samsung might have actually had a break through on yields. I have maintained that the current televisions are nothing but glorified prototypes at $15,000....but the story changes when they get to sub-$10,000.


The proof will be if they follow this up with an aggressive move to build a Gen 8 fab. So far, they have only announced a Gen 6 fab. It can be used for televisions, but they'll build a Gen 8 fab when they are serious about OLED televisions.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2013/08/133_140871.html 


> Quote:
> Samsung cuts OLED TV price 34%
> 
> 
> By Kim Yoo-chul
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics said Sunday that it has decided to cut the price of its cutting-edge curved OLED TV by a whopping 34 percent, allowing more customers to purchase the premium TV.
> 
> 
> “Samsung Electronics will sell our curved 55-inch OLED TV at 9.9 million won, from the previous 15 million won. The aggressive pricing policy was aimed at appealing to more consumers and leading the way in the OLED TV market,” Samsung said in a statement.
> 
> 
> Samsung, the world’s biggest TV manufacturer, started selling the 55-inch curved OLED TV in Korea from June this year.
> 
> 
> OLED TV is thinner than conventional LCD TVs as OLED TV doesn’t require backlighting. OLED stands for organic light-emitting diode.
> 
> 
> But higher prices and limited quantities due to small manufacturing yields have been cited as the biggest hurdles hampering its imminent market expansion, according to analysts.
> 
> 
> “The price cut is also due to improved manufacturing yields. We hope the measure helps us lead over rivals in the heated race for OLED TVs,” the Samsung statement read.
> 
> 
> The company said it will compensate consumers who already bought the TV.


----------



## p5browne

And what happened to the Great Announcement from Epson that they'd found a way for their new kind of printer, to simply print the parts for the OLEDs?


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23617522
> 
> 
> It looks like Samsung might have actually had a break through on yields. I have maintained that the current televisions are nothing but glorified prototypes at $15,000....but the story changes when they get to sub-$10,000.



I'm determined to remain cautious, but this is potentially great news.


A number of scenarios pop into mind...


Taken positively, and at face value, it would appear there genuinely HAS been a breakthrough in yields which has allowed a price cut taking the set into the sort of cost territory currently occupied by high-end 4K sets.


Also, it would seem Samsung IS seriously committed to pushing OLED, and ramping it up quite quickly. If they had wanted to keep OLED as something off in the distance, still being developed, I suspect they would have kept the prices unaffordably high.


If you look at this negatively, then I suppose it could be argued that Samsung fears their long-developing OLED being overtaken in the marketplace by 4K LCD, and is desperately slashing its prices in the hope it can maintain interest while it works to try and make it all workable.


However, I think the more positive position is more likely. Let's hope for more good news soon, such as plans for an even more affordable flat panel.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2013/08/133_140871.html


----------



## slacker711

Normally, you might be able to attribute a price cut of this magnitude to a build up of inventory. Witness the Surface RT from Microsoft. However, that doesnt really make sense for Samsung's OLED televisions. They have only been on the market for a month and it was generally believed that they were being built to order.


That leaves various positive interpretations. One thing is for sure, this is the first time since CES2012 that Samsung is actually trying to lead the OLED television market. They have been content to respond to LG thus far. It will be interesting to see if LG can match this price cut.


Still need the Gen 8 announcement from Samsung though.


----------



## Wizziwig

Isn't it possible that they were simply unable to sell any TVs at $15K? - either because of price, poor performance, or the curved form-factor. Unlike LG, I never saw Samsung release any sort of sales numbers for these models.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6510#post_23611873
> 
> 
> Very good.
> 
> Producing 4K versions of existing and relatively easily-manufactured LED tech is one thing. Manufacturing a cheap version of new tech that even the best companies are struggling to master is, of course, something entirely different. That being said, if companies are able to radically undercut the prices of 4K LED tech from the likes of Sony, it might propel those larger companies to quickly roll out new OLED tech which can still command those high-end prices.



Maybe, hopefully 4K OLED


----------



## Desk.

As posted by Vaktmestern on another forum, here's a picture of what's purported to be a NEW LG OLED set seemingly set to be unveiled at Ifa, and made available for sale a CHEAPER price than their only-just-released existing model...





























And a link to the source for this news...

http://www.fullhd.gr/tileoraseis/oled-tvs/item/16016-lg-new-curved-tv-with-oled-ifa2013.html 


With this, and the news today that Samsung are cutting the RRP of its curved screen by 34% in South Korea, I'm growing more optimistic by the hour.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23618001
> 
> 
> Isn't it possible that they were simply unable to sell any TVs at $15K? - either because of price, poor performance, or the curved form-factor. Unlike LG, I never saw Samsung release any sort of sales numbers for these models.



How many could they possibly have in inventory? Samsung knew that LG had only sold a few hundred units in the first months of availability. It doesnt seem remotely reasonable to believe that they built up thousands of televisions on the hope that a curved OLED would suddenly ignite sales. I doubt they would do this kind of massive price cut ahead of a US/worldwide rollout just to get rid of a few hundred units.


The televisions are also reportedly built to order.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23617522
> 
> 
> It looks like Samsung might have actually had a break through on yields. I have maintained that the current televisions are nothing but glorified prototypes at $15,000....but the story changes when they get to sub-$10,000.
> 
> 
> The proof will be if they follow this up with an aggressive move to build a Gen 8 fab. So far, they have only announced a Gen 6 fab. It can be used for televisions, but they'll build a Gen 8 fab when they are serious about OLED televisions.
> 
> http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2013/08/133_140871.html



It's also possible yields have improved from 30% to 50%, which is hardly a "breakthrough".


It's also possible that sales at $15,000 are so asymptotically approaching zero, that they decided to try out $10,000.


The global market for $10,000 55-inch TVs is well under 2 million.


----------



## slacker711

We have different definitions of breakthrough. I would consider going from 30% to 50% to be a big deal.


I dont think that 30% to 90% happens in the real world so I dont even consider that as a possibility. Getting to 50% doesnt guarantee further progress but Samsung would feel a lot more comfortable projecting yields going forward....and that is what they'll need to move on the commercial Gen 8 fab.qq


> Quote:
> It's also possible that sales at $15,000 are so asymptotically approaching zero, that they decided to try out $10,000.



Sure, but even that is a change. I have been operating under the assumption that Samsung doesnt actually want to sell these televisions. They were giant billboards or just part of the insane competition between Samsung and LG.


At $10,000, it seems that they might actually want to sell a few of these.


I would guess that the market for a 55" television at $10,000 is far far below 2 million.


----------



## JWhip

And one that is curved even lower.


----------



## Wizziwig

These claims of improved yields actually seem credible if we also consider that Samsung is offering the zero-pixel-defect warranty on their sets. Such a warranty would probably not be practical if yields were still


----------



## rogo

Apparently, we do have different definitions of breakthrough. Incremental improvement != breakthrough. And the idea that SMS is going to be extensible to mass production on 8G for OLED remains a fallacy. I'm sorry, it just does.


Incidentally, I spoke with LG PR and felt like there is a difference between our common belief "they don't want to sell these" and "we are not going to sell a lot of them, but we have every intention of selling some." The reality of the $15,000 launch price is that "some" was much closer to "none" than some.


I picked 2 million because that is 10% of the 10% of TVs in the 50+" category. Realistically, at $10,000 (or $9,000) with only one size for sale and a global market of ~25 million in the 50" and up category, you are looking at a max market size of much closer to 250K. The point being: You are not ramping a fab that can do 30-50K substrates of 6 up to support the 250K market. You might to support the 2 million market. However, to get to that market, your pricing needs to be around $3000.


----------



## slacker711

I think this is the same conversation that we have had for a while. We arent getting to 90% yields and sub-$3000 pricing overnight. This price cut seems like a fairly significant step in that process. It certainly shows a seriousness about actually selling OLED televisions that Samsung hadnt shown previously.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23619960
> 
> 
> The point being: You are not ramping a fab that can do 30-50K substrates of 6 up to support the 250K market. You might to support the 2 million market. However, to get to that market, your pricing needs to be around $3000.


 

Isn't this the cart before the horse though?  The way to *get* to lower pricing, and hence the broader market, is to be able to manage higher volume.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> As posted by Vaktmestern on another forum, here's a picture of what's purported to be a NEW LG OLED set seemingly set to be unveiled at Ifa, and made available for sale a CHEAPER price than their only-just-released existing model...



It could be cheaper because it looks smaller (LG Logo is bigger) than the EA9800. More like 40-42"?


new LG OLED-TV
http://www.fullhd.gr/media/k2/items/cache/dd66d188a03d0b309f566175d16cd2ed_L.jpg 


"old" EA9800

__
https://flic.kr/p/8691077614
​


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23620459
> 
> 
> It could be cheaper because it looks smaller (LG Logo is bigger) than the EA9800. More like 40-42"?
> 
> 
> new LG OLED-TV
> http://www.fullhd.gr/media/k2/items/cache/dd66d188a03d0b309f566175d16cd2ed_L.jpg
> 
> 
> "old" EA9800
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/8691077614
> ​



I doubt if they would be introducing a smaller curved panel than the 55inch size. It makes very little sense to have it curved at 55inches, , but it would be absolutely useless at the 42 inch size that you are speculating about.


By the way; my McAfee software security suite is warning that the fullhd.gr link is to a site with unsafe practices, so people should be careful about going to it.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23620362
> 
> 
> Isn't this the cart before the horse though?  The way to _get_ to lower pricing, and hence the broader market, is to be able to manage higher volume.



Demand and competition from other companies is what will drive production expansion and price drops. That is how it always works, regardless of what the product may be.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> but it would be absolutely useless at the 42 inch size that you are speculating about.



It makes sense as computer monitor for games or photoshop. But it was LG itself who speculated about a smaller version for Europe. So it makes much more sense than a new design after the EA9800 and it seems both companys currently aren´t interested in ordinary flat OLED-TV´s. At the moment they want the curved design as show effect to separate OLED from LCD and Plasma.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23620492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23620362
> 
> 
> Isn't this the cart before the horse though?  The way to _get_ to lower pricing, and hence the broader market, is to be able to manage higher volume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demand and competition from other companies is what will drive production expansion and price drops. That is how it always works, regardless of what the product may be.
Click to expand...

 

Absolutely.  However, manufacturing facilities don't form overnight for new products.  There's *always* a bit of forecasting and gambling going on.  I'm not talking about a push scenario where manufacturer X creates a widget in order to make demand for it.  It's a gambling on what the current interest is (I'm guessing pretty big), and what that'll do for demand later.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23620554
> 
> 
> It makes sense as computer monitor for games or photoshop. But it was LG itself who speculated about a smaller version for Europe. So it makes much more sense than a new design after the EA9800 and it seems both companys currently aren´t interested in ordinary flat OLED-TV´s. At the moment they want the curved design as show effect to separate OLED from LCD and Plasma.


Not if it's still 1080p and as susceptible to burn-in as the previous model. I do think the design is a lot better on this one, but I still think the curved screen is a bad idea.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23620211
> 
> 
> I think this is the same conversation that we have had for a while. We arent getting to 90% yields and sub-$3000 pricing overnight. This price cut seems like a fairly significant step in that process. It certainly shows a seriousness about actually selling OLED televisions that Samsung hadnt shown previously.



We can agree to disagree. I think it shows they are dilettantes as opposed to being completely indifferent.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23620362
> 
> 
> Isn't this the cart before the horse though?  The way to _get_ to lower pricing, and hence the broader market, is to be able to manage higher volume.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23620922
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  However, manufacturing facilities don't form overnight for new products.  There's _always_ a bit of forecasting and gambling going on.  I'm not talking about a push scenario where manufacturer X creates a widget in order to make demand for it.  It's a gambling on what the current interest is (I'm guessing pretty big), and what that'll do for demand later.



I think you understand the former issue from your latter post. You can't possibly ramp production without the big fab, You can't possibly drive meaningful volumes with the small fab. It's also not even slightly clear that if they keep insisting on using SMS that they will develop 8G tech of any utility from their 6G fab. The substrate sizes are just so different.


Furthermore, I'm not persuaded that there is any meaningful market for OLED TVs at 1/4 the resolution of LCDs....


----------



## Whatstreet

Samsung Buying Novaled to Meet OLED Demand

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/samsung-oled-acquisition-cheil-novaled,23853.html


----------



## vinnie97

Wowsung. I have to wonder about this demand they reference, however. It must be related to their phones. Let's hear it for OLED tablets (baby steps here)!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23621875
> 
> 
> Wowsung. I have to wonder about this demand they reference, however. It must be related to their phones. Let's hear it for OLED tablets (baby steps here)!


 

Or phablets.  My Galaxy Note II display is amazing!  *Side note: This is a very well put together phone/tablet, and they didn't do the Motorola trick of re-writing and breaking everything Google wrote.  They customized many things of course, but they all seem to *work*.*


----------



## vinnie97

phablets, hah, first time I've seen that hybrid descriptor.







The S3 in my possession is nearly a phablet given its large screen size of 4.8 inches, but what are the other determining factors?


----------



## tgm1024

Beats me. I jokingly used the term in the past anf discovered that it was showing up here and there. Figure, if it's a moose and still connects to a cell network, it's a phablet. Thing actually has a pen, but I don't use it.


----------



## navychop

I view a phablet as with a large enough screen to be used as a tablet, but with phone functions. NOT to hold up to your ear, but to connect via Bluetooth. Keep it in a large jacket pocket or "holster." Or purse.


OLED might be nice there, but not much of a step to TV size.


----------



## rogo

Some industry analysts use "phablet" for any phone that is 4.5" diagonal or bigger. Of course, today that is close to 100% of premium Android phones. Others use it for 5" and up phone devices.


It's an ugly word, but it conveys the idea of "it's a phone but almost big enough to be a small tablet."


----------



## ALMA

Today is the OLED-TV event at Value Electronics:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57598099-76/samsung-tv-event-join-us-at-8-45-a.m-pt-tuesday-live-blog/


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23623561
> 
> 
> Today is the OLED-TV event at Value Electronics:
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57598099-76/samsung-tv-event-join-us-at-8-45-a.m-pt-tuesday-live-blog/


 

Clicking through lands me on this article from August 1 about LG.  Hope this wasn't posted already.

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57596514-76/dont-hold-your-breath-for-a-flat-panel-lg-oled-tv-in-the-u.s./

 


> From the article:
> Don't hold your breath for a flat-panel LG OLED TV in the U.S.
> 
> 
> The Korean electronics giant will only be releasing the curved version of its OLED TV in the U.S., at least for the foreseeable future, the company tells CNET.


----------



## tubby497

"The Samsung KN55S9C OLED TV is officially coming to America, and with a big price cut: $8,999" Cnet quote.

Samsung press conference.


----------



## slacker711

$9000 price for the Samsung.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57598160-221/samsung-slashes-price-of-curved-oled-tv-to-$8999/


----------



## JWhip

They may actually sell some at that price. Not to me though.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23624555
> 
> 
> They may actually sell some at that price. Not to me though.



that is a significant price adjustment:


Samsung had an exclusive event last night at Cipriani's in NYC, in part to show off this new display (that is my assumption: I was unable to attend but the invite had the curved OLED on it): I hope this means they are really getting serious about OLED


...and I might be interested at that price....


----------



## JWhip

They claim that better than expected yields enable them to see at this price point. we shall see. I am seeing one tomorrow. Frankly, I would never buy a first generation product like this. Also, a 55 inch screen for 9k? For that, I would want at least 70 inches, one that is flat and can be mounted on a wall.


----------



## markrubin

^^^


looking forward to your report: please say hello to Robert for me


----------



## Rich Peterson

What's interesting to me is that in early 2012 when LG and Samsung announced their 55" OLEDs for later that year, speculation in the industry would be that it would cost around $8K-$10K. So this price gets us back to what many had expected a long time ago instead of the shocking $15K.


----------



## JWhip

Will do!


----------



## JWhip

I think it has more to do with undercutting LG than anything else.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23624695
> 
> 
> I think it has more to do with undercutting LG than anything else.


 

We don't know how large the margins are.  Maybe it's still able to turn a profit for them.  Perhaps it's a bit of predatory pricing.

 

By the way, have all the other manufacturers stayed quiet about the notion of curved TVs?  Have any stated that they are *not* going to pursue it?


----------



## remush

Just reading this preliminary review, a bit of good news about the burn in of the new Samsung. They also said the black levels were a bit better than the best plasmas, but no objective info provided.

http://consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/08/samsung-oled-tv-review/index.htm


----------



## Rich Peterson

This was from back in June.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23425281
> 
> 
> The history of TV price declines, for what it's worth, is that 30% compounded reductions are about thebest you will ever see.
> 
> 
> Using that and starting with $13,000.....
> 
> 
> 2014: $9100
> 
> 2015: $6370
> 
> 2016: $4450
> 
> 2017: $3121
> 
> 
> (Using $10,000 as a baseline, you get $7000, $4900, $3430, $2400 incidentally. Of course, 4 years of _compounded_ 30% reductions is a lot of "ifs" turning into reality.)
> 
> 
> That, of course, is nowhere near price parity as in 2013, a flagship 55-inch LCD _launches_ at $2500 and falls lower later in the model year. It's hard to imagine a flagship LCD will be anymore than that in 2017, but it's easy to imagine it will be


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23624775
> 
> 
> Just reading this preliminary review, a bit of good news about the burn in of the new Samsung. They also said the black levels were a bit better than the best plasmas, but no objective info provided.
> 
> http://consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/08/samsung-oled-tv-review/index.htm



This sounds encouraging vs. the poor results of the LG:

_"Theoretically, OLEDs have very fast response times, faster than LED LCDs and even plasmas. This should mean that OLEDs, like plasma sets, can handle motion without noticeable blurring. But in our tests with the TV's Automotion feature turned off, motion blur was surprisingly LCD-like: only fair, and greater than what we typically see with plasma TVs. With the Automotion feature activated, the set's motion-blur reduction improved to the level of excellent, with no noticeable over-smoothing (the "soap opera" effect) we see in some LCD TVs that makes film look like video."

.....

.....

In a preliminary test, we displayed our special "burn-in" test pattern, which uses a dark, flat, gray field of video, on the screen and checked every 10 minutes for image sticking.


We did see subtle image retention on some of the plasmas in the room in as little as 10 minutes, but it took a full hour before the OLED showed any effects of the test pattern, and even then it was very subtle. As a result, we're cautiously optimistic about OLED burn-in. We'll just have to wait to see if OLED TVs can maintain their image quality over the long term."
_


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23625098
> 
> 
> This sounds encouraging vs. the poor results of the LG:
> 
> _"Theoretically, OLEDs have very fast response times, faster than LED LCDs and even plasmas. This should mean that OLEDs, like plasma sets, can handle motion without noticeable blurring. But in our tests with the TV's Automotion feature turned off, motion blur was surprisingly LCD-like: only fair, and greater than what we typically see with plasma TVs. With the Automotion feature activated, the set's motion-blur reduction improved to the level of excellent, with no noticeable over-smoothing (the "soap opera" effect) we see in some LCD TVs that makes film look like video."_


Sounds like motion handling is the same as LG (Sample & Hold display) except Samsung's processing is better. (no surprise there)


It's a common misconception that interpolation always adds the "soap opera effect". Sony's MotionFlow has managed to avoid the "soap opera effect" for years, and others like Samsung offer settings to tune the interpolation to reduce or eliminate it. (not everyone dislikes that look, and not all content looks bad with it)

It's also a misconception that LCDs require interpolation, or that they have worse motion handling than Plasmas. The best LCDs use backlight scanning and have motion handling that is much better than Plasmas.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23625098
> 
> 
> We did see subtle image retention on some of the plasmas in the room in as little as 10 minutes, but it took a full hour before the OLED showed any effects of the test pattern, and even then it was very subtle. As a result, we're cautiously optimistic about OLED burn-in. We'll just have to wait to see if OLED TVs can maintain their image quality over the long term."


Seeing image retention after an hour is still cause for concern, in my opinion, when you consider that Plasmas and OLEDs will show image retention/burn for different reasons.



Samsung's set should be a lot better than LG's though, and it's encouraging that they have already been able to reduce the price to $9000.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23625228
> 
> 
> Sounds like motion handling is the same as LG (Sample & Hold display) except Samsung's processing is better. (no surprise there)
> 
> It's a common misconception that interpolation always adds the "soap opera effect". Sony's MotionFlow has managed to avoid the "soap opera effect" for years


Perhaps on the HX950 and similarly high end models, but my R550A (sony) has MotionFlow settings and exhibits soap opera effect.  As does the W802A.

 


> Chronoptimist continues:
> 
> It's also a misconception that LCDs require interpolation, or that they have worse motion handling than Plasmas. The best LCDs use backlight scanning and have motion handling that is much better than Plasmas.


I suppose, but that also requires the very highest models to manage that one....and even then I'm not so convinced.  The above alluded to 2012 XBR-65HX950 was the first time I ever saw one that equaled the plasmas, and IMO it didn't exceed them.  The middle of the road panas have always been smooth as silk.

 

By the way, there's been an uptick in plasma motion processing attempted "debunking" recently and I'm not sure what's fueling it, because in every instance I've seen, in order to match plasma motion you have to put in place heroic demands on the hardware and your wallet.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23625083
> 
> 
> This was from back in June.
> 
> So given that the $9000 was achieved in 2013 rather than 2014, does that move the graph to:
> 
> 2013: $9100
> 
> 2014: $6370
> 
> 2015: $4450
> 
> 2016: $3121



It's really, really hard to know.


Part of me believes that the push is now dictated by the competitive forces -- if they emerge. I think if you read the tea leaves from some of my recent posts, you'll see my references to 2016 as some sort of realistic year of interest. The reason is that the Sony/Panasonic entry into the market is a 2015 phenomenon in all likelihood. That creates a marketplace and possibly a push to bring these to the cusp of competitiveness with LCD. Note that $3000 is not actually competitive with LCD which already maxes out at around $2500 for 2K and is about to hit $3500 for 4K from major brands. But it is an important step.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23625312
> 
> 
> Perhaps on the HX950 and similarly high end models, but my R550A (sony) has MotionFlow settings and exhibits soap opera effect.  As does the W802A.


The "Clear" MotionFlow settings should not introduce any soap opera effect. (except in very rare circumstances) The Impulse mode only uses backlight scanning and does not use interpolation at all.

The Standard option does seem to introduce some soap opera effect, and (obviously) the "Smooth" option adds a lot of it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23625312
> 
> 
> The above alluded to 2012 XBR-65HX950 was the first time I ever saw one that equaled the plasmas, and IMO it didn't exceed them.


It needs to be in the "Clear Plus" or "Impulse" mode to better a Plasma. The good thing about LCD is that you can configure it for the level of interpolation or backlight scanning that you are comfortable with.

Lightboost LCD monitors best just about any display available now. (including those Sony models)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23625312
> 
> 
> The middle of the road panas have always been smooth as silk.


If I recall correctly, Panasonic are using interpolation.

And motion handling is not necessarily about the smoothness of motion (otherwise LCDs with a great deal of soap opera effect would be "best") but rather the sharpness and clarity of motion, and how visible any artifacts are.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23625312
> 
> 
> By the way, there's been an uptick in plasma motion processing attempted "debunking" recently and I'm not sure what's fueling it, because in every instance I've seen, in order to match plasma motion you have to put in place heroic demands on the hardware and your wallet.


Honestly, I think Plasma motion handling is overrated. I have yet to see a plasma which does not exhibit severe artifacts with motion (phosphor trailing or image quality problems relating to the panel driving) and their motion persistence is still relatively high, so they cannot cope with fast motion when playing games like a CRT does. (or a low persistence LCD)


----------



## mr. wally

if accurate, interesting differences between these 2 models

http://www.dailytech.com/Samsungs+55inch+Curved+OLED+TV+Ships+for+Only+9000/article33166c.htm


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6540#post_23618229
> 
> 
> As posted by Vaktmestern on another forum, here's a picture of what's purported to be a NEW LG OLED set seemingly set to be unveiled at Ifa, and made available for sale a CHEAPER price than their only-just-released existing model...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a link to the source for this news... http://www.fullhd.gr/tileoraseis/oled-tvs/item/16016-lg-new-curved-tv-with-oled-ifa2013.html
> 
> With this, and the news today that Samsung are cutting the RRP of its curved screen by 34% in South Korea, I'm growing more optimistic by the hour.



Very nice I want one, no wait I want a 4K projector with a 12 feet wide screen


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23625670
> 
> 
> if accurate, interesting differences between these 2 models
> http://www.dailytech.com/Samsungs+55inch+Curved+OLED+TV+Ships+for+Only+9000/article33166c.htm


Higher price and thinner = better set, apparently. From speaking with someone that has spent some time with both models, the Samsung OLED is a much better display.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*
> 
> The above alluded to 2012 XBR-65HX950 was the first time I ever saw one that equaled the plasmas, and IMO it didn't exceed the.


The 2012 HX950 is the same TV as the 2011 HX929. Main difference is that the HX950 has slightly better 3D performance.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*
> 
> 
> So given that the $9000 was achieved in 2013 rather than 2014, does that move the graph to:
> 
> 2013: $9100
> 
> 2014: $6370
> 
> 2015: $4450
> 
> 2016: $3121


We do not know how much a flat 55'' OLED, which is what everybody is waiting for, will cost










According imagic and other sources the Samsung KN55S9C will cost $8.999 which is $6.000 less than the LG 55EA9800. 40%








http://www.avsforum.com/t/1485835/samsung-declares-oled-price-war-55-selling-for-8-999 


Looks like Samsung is gonna lose money on every KN55S9C they sell. Question is: How much?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23625836
> 
> 
> Looks like Samsung is gonna lose money on every KN55S9C they sell. Question is: How much?


 

They'll make it up on volume.


----------



## Whatstreet

Samsung's 55-inch Curved OLED TV Ships for "Only" $9,000

http://www.dailytech.com/Samsungs+55inch+Curved+OLED+TV+Ships+for+Only+9000/article33166.htm


----------



## MikeBiker

A hands-on test of the Samsung OLED TV.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/08/samsung-oled-tv-review/index.htm


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6570#post_23625228
> 
> 
> Sounds like motion handling is the same as LG (Sample & Hold display) except Samsung's processing is better. (no surprise there)
> 
> 
> It's a common misconception that interpolation always adds the "soap opera effect". Sony's MotionFlow has managed to avoid the "soap opera effect" for years, and others like Samsung offer settings to tune the interpolation to reduce or eliminate it. (not everyone dislikes that look, and not all content looks bad with it)



The MotionFlow settings (and similar Samsung LCD modes) you speak of which don't cause SOE are using backlight tricks. I fail to see how this proves that interpolation alone doesn't cause SOE.


The observations from that review to me indicated that the Samsung OLED must be doing something in addition to simple interpolation like the LG. Otherwise I would have expected them to notice some SOE on 24p content. No doubt they also have better processing than LG, as noted in the AVS news report of 240Hz refresh rate.


Something to consider: Since the Samsung is not using filters, they may be losing less light, thus allowing them to drive the panel using some kind of pulsed/strobed method when enabled in the options. Or maybe add some mild BFI.


I guess we need to wait for reviews to be sure what's really going on.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23625836
> 
> 
> 
> We do not know how much a flat 55'' OLED, which is what everybody is waiting for, will cost



Curving the TV is not adding to the price. It's adding marginally to the cost, but it's not adding to the price.


----------



## Wizziwig

Available to order now:

http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/KN55S9CAFXZA-buy 


1-Year Warranty.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23627204
> 
> 
> Available to order now:
> 
> http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/KN55S9CAFXZA-buy
> 
> 
> 1-Year Warranty.



I don't usually recommend buying extended warranties but it might be worth considering for this item under the circumstances


----------



## Rich Peterson

Another Rogo article from Forbes: OLED TV Price Wars: Samsung $6000 Cheaper Than LG, But Don't Rush To Buy


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23628280
> 
> 
> Another Rogo article from Forbes: OLED TV Price Wars: Samsung $6000 Cheaper Than LG, But Don't Rush To Buy



This is very interesting and very curious, I would expect any OLED display to have visually and measurably the best black levels period. Quote: "Even though Consumer Reports loved the performance of the TV, especially the contrast, they described the all-important black levels as just “ slightly deeper” than their favorite TV, the Panasonic ZT60 plasma."


----------



## greenland

Since the ZT60 measures just slightly above being able to display a completely black level, how could anyone expect OLED to have anything but a slight improvement in that regard?!


----------



## vinnie97

That really depends on the viewing content AND environment, since a Kuro can go slightly blacker than the ZT60 also.







Eagerly awaiting the 500M versus OLED blackout comparisons.


----------



## 8mile13

In the Consumer Reports review included video the blacks comment is slightly different:


> Quote:
> _Several things that very much impressed us_.
> 
> Number one is black level. Though we've seen very deep black levels on the latest Plasma's _this one just takes it a little bit further and go's really deep black_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which helps the contrast in the image.


----------



## navychop

CR has never, IMHO, had a good reputation regarding their electronics reviews. Would you give the slightest credence to a speaker review by them?


----------



## headlesschickens

So let's dig into this.


> Quote:
> Theoretically, OLEDs have very fast response times, faster than LED LCDs and even plasmas. This should mean that OLEDs, like plasma sets, can handle motion without noticeable blurring.



Nope. Technically OLED panels appear to have the same motion blur as the absolute best LCD panels because of the response time, but unfortunately that's not saying too much. We've really got to get this whole "sample and hold" basis for motion blur out there as common knowledge, otherwise we're going to be living with motion blur forever. Read anything Mark Rejhon's written about motion blur ever for more details.


> Quote:
> But in our tests with the TV's Automotion feature turned off, motion blur was surprisingly LCD-like: only fair, and greater than what we typically see with plasma TVs. With the Automotion feature activated, the set's motion-blur reduction improved to the level of excellent, with no noticeable over-smoothing (the "soap opera" effect) we see in some LCD TVs that makes film look like video.



Hard to tell what's really going on here, since the guy only bothered to use a single sentence describing one of the most important, least understood aspects of this display technology (we know it has good color and black already, that's not news).


I'm going to write off strobe effects immediately, because anyone who's worked with strobe displays (LightBoost monitors, some of the newer LCD TVs that have strobe backlight modes) should know that for backlight strobe to really work you need to have content matching strobe rate. So if you want to strobe at 120hz (to avoid visible flicker) you'll also need 120fps content, which doesn't exist outside PC gaming or special demo reels. If you strobe at the content's frame rate (30 or 24) you'll get so much flicker you'll probably throw up (think way worse than Panasonic's 48hz mode). If you strobe at multiples of the content frame rate (say 120hz for 30 fps content), you'll get judder like you see on plasma. I'm certain the author would have commented on that (no one calls judder excellent motion even if it is preferable to LCD blur).


So the only option I see here is frame interpolation. If the reviewer didn't notice it then I'm guessing it's because the interpolation algorithms are improving fairly quickly at this point (I expect companies like Samsung are spending big money in this area since it's currently the only option for dealing with blur). Everyone who's seen interpolation in action knows how frequently these systems fail to produce good frames (generally seen as misplaced blocks and more common with faster/more complex motion). I expect that as these systems improve they'll be harder to detect by looking for these kinds of major distortions. And the absence of these distortions may actually reduce the discomfort experienced by viewers; remember that even though you may not identify bad frames consciously your brain is processing them, resulting in a viewing experience consisting of randomly-moving misplaced blocks and other bizarre distortions. Just theory, but I can't think of any other way to explain what was described in the review.


There are very simple tests that can be run to detect motion interpolation (David Mackenzie showed one at the shootout), and it's unfortunate that the reviewer wasn't aware of that.


RE: Black levels


We should keep in mind how hard it is to properly measure black levels at the ranges we're interested in. Even with top-tier equipment the reviewers turned in wildly different numbers for the 2013 plasma panels. Aside from having good hardware you need proper calibration of that hardware and a completely dark environment (otherwise the reflected ambient light is going to ruin your numbers). I'm not sure how much you can trust early reports on black levels for these panels until more people have been able to measure them, compare them directly to other panels in complete darkness, etc. Honestly it's hard to expect anything that much better than the current plasma black levels from these first generation panels.


----------



## vinnie97

^That's why I'm anxious for some blackout comparisons with the best Plasma has to offer. With the many years of development, OLED can surely match it.


Concerning your comments about motion blur, Jake(Jim?) from Consumer Reports chimed in with some more information in the Industry News subforum:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JakeNY28*  /t/1485835/samsung-declares-price-war-curved-55-oled-for-8999/30#post_23628918
> 
> 
> OK, got some answers. The reason we're seeing some LCD-like motion performance is because OLED--like LCD--is a sample-and-hold technology, even though the TVs have a very fast refresh rate. That means that each image/frame is kept onscreen, statically, until the TV refreshes with the new frame. CRT and OLEDs are impulse driven (also called pulse driven), so you see an image, then black, then another image, with a much shorter time between frames. (This is also why plasma TVs are a bit dimmer-they require extra brightness to compensate for the black between frames.) The way that the eye deals with these two different approaches is why sample-and-hold-based displays cause motion blur.
> 
> 
> There are two ways to address this: frame interpolation (adding additional frames) and black frame insertion. In its OLED, Samsung's Automotion actually uses both approaches, and the TV lets you choose between them. I'm still checking, but we liked the company's ClearMotion setting--it uses black frame interpolation and maintains motion resolution, but it's a bit dimmer than when frame interpolation is used. Fortunately, OLEDS can get very bright, so it's not as big an issue.
> 
> 
> We're still playing around with this (30fps content) as well as judder controls (with 24fps content), so I may have more to report, but I think I have a better understanding of why this set, as well as Gary Merson's review of the LG OLED, exhibit some LCD-like characteristics. Hope this is helpful.--Jim


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23628871
> 
> 
> In the Consumer Reports review included video the blacks comment is slightly different:



Um, I specifically quoted Consumer Reports...


From their OLED vs. plasma section at the end of the review:


"Better black levels (but only *slightly deeper* than our reference Panasonic ZT60 plasma)"


I am careful at Forbes to avoid introducing my biases without stating explicitly that I am doing so.


The post linked above doesn't include my personal belief that Consumer Reports is not only correct, but most people won't even see the difference (of course, AVSers are not "most people").


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23629238
> 
> 
> CR has never, IMHO, had a good reputation regarding their electronics reviews. Would you give the slightest credence to a speaker review by them?



Read the review of the Samsung. It's not your old-school Consumer Reports speaker review. It's actually pretty good. Whether the conclusions are all correct remains to be confirmed by others, but it's a good review.


----------



## 8mile13

cnet Katzmaier


> Quote:
> Thanks to those ''absolute blacks'' which i've seen in person on preproduction models, i expect both LG's and Samsung's OLED TVs to deliver better picture quality than anything currently available.
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-kn55s9c/4505-6482_7-35823374.html


----------



## Desk.

One thing we really need to find out is whether the Samsung OLED TV suffers any stuck/lazy pixels, as showed up during hands-on trials with the LG set.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23629741
> 
> 
> One thing we really need to find out is whether the Samsung OLED TV suffers any stuck/lazy pixels, as showed up during hands-on trials with the LG set.


 

Well, for any stuck sub pixels, I'm sure they'll refund 1/6,000,000th of $9000 to compensate.


----------



## headlesschickens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23629370
> 
> 
> ^That's why I'm anxious for some blackout comparisons with the best Plasma has to offer. With the many years of development, OLED can surely match it.
> 
> 
> Concerning your comments about motion blur, Jake(Jim?) from Consumer Reports chimed in with some more information in the Industry News subforum:



Well it's definitely interesting to see that they've included black frame insertion. It's not exactly true impulse drive, but I'm liking the fact that Samsung is aware that some of us are serious about motion blur. I'd love to see some high speed camera footage that could reveal exactly what their frame cycles look like in that mode. From all the research that's been done on LightBoost and similar monitor strobe tech, one of the things that became clear is that black frame insertion only works really well if the black time makes up most of the frame time. IE, the best LB monitors only strobe for 1.4ms every 8ms frame (they only work at 120hz/fps). Plasma's refresh cycle is slightly mysterious but seems to be largely linked to flashing at 16ms intervals, ie 60hz refresh cycle, with the only hold time being the phosphor decay rate (resulting in phosphor lag effects as different colors of phosphors decay at different rates). As I understand it this is around 4-5ms, which is still only slightly over 1/4 the total frame time at 60hz.


Both of these techniques give excellent motion resolution at their native pulse rates, but require frame doubling on 30fps content (or 4x in the case of 120hz LB monitors) which results in the judder/double-image effect you see on plasma when watching normal TV (not to be confused with 2:3 judder caused by conversion from 24fps to 30fps, which has nothing to do with this).


I honestly don't know if there's a true solution to this problem until content is produced at 60fps, which a lot of the old purists are going to fight against forever (by the way, thanks for making the HFR standard another multiple of 24 that doesn't cleanly convert to 60hz Peter Jackson, we all really appreciate that). You're either going to get sample and hold blur or plasma style frame doubling judder, and it's honestly hard to say which is worse if you can make the color and blacks equal by replacing LCD with OLED.


Frame interpolation is the solution TV manufacturers are pushing, but as I said before the results are usually bad. Now, if someone can produce interpolation that actually works 99% of the time that would get my attention, because when interpolation produce good frames it's honestly a very good effect (disclaimer: I'm from the PC gaming world and always want more frames. Everything should be filmed at 60fps or more).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *headlesschickens*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23629879
> 
> 
> (by the way, thanks for making the HFR standard another multiple of 24 that doesn't cleanly convert to 60hz Peter Jackson, we all really appreciate that). You're either going to get sample and hold blur or plasma style frame doubling judder,


 

I don't think I'm buying that concept.  Peter Jackson isn't in the display manufacturing world.  Remember that these guys are attempting to build increasingly better standards for *content.*  Far far too much of the technical world has been shooting itself in the ass foot by attempting to build in backward compatibility when what they should have done is bite a nasty bullet and restarted.  We've seen silly things inherited in the AV world for quite some time and the entire goal of this stuff is to break *away* from that.  What's seriously the problem with that anyway?  It doesn't prevent a display from handling 24 fps, nor does it particularly matter what reverse-pulldown is performed to go from 60 downward to 24 for the 24 only theaters etc.


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23627204
> 
> 
> Available to order now:
> 
> http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/KN55S9CAFXZA-buy
> 
> 
> 1-Year Warranty.



2-year warranty if you use a major credit card.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23629741
> 
> 
> One thing we really need to find out is whether the Samsung OLED TV suffers any stuck/lazy pixels, as showed up during hands-on trials with the LG set.



In Korea, Samsung is advertising this set under a zero pixel defect guarantee. I am sure they chose this path after analyzing the LG television.


Samsung uses a different backplane technology so their yield problems are likely very different than LG.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23630198
> 
> 
> In Korea, Samsung is advertising this set under a zero pixel defect guarantee. I am sure they chose this path after analyzing the LG television.
> 
> 
> Samsung uses a different backplane technology so their yield problems are likely very different than LG.



Specifically, Samsung uses old school a-Si backplanes,semi-old-school LTPS backplanes so is doubtless experiencing near 100% yields on those. Where it's suffering is on the OLED side, since it's using a production process that is still very likely non-scalable to true mass production.


It's interesting that they are getting no bad pixels when the displays are working. I say that not because I'd expect transistor failure (again, they should be approaching 100% on that), but because I'd expect some displays to have small glitches in OLED deposition. I guess you either get near perfect registration and deposition or you get a big mess and then throw it out. I can't believe they intend to stick with that manufacturing method although I also doubt they'll admit they aren't going to.


Incidentally, neither Samsung nor LG is getting good power usage from their TVs. They are probably OK on average, but the top-end numbers look awful and they aren't going to beat LCD in typical use cases right now.


----------



## ynotgoal

The Samsung TV is also available at Best Buy Magnolia though at a higher $9,999 price.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olstemplatemapper.jsp?id=pcat17080&type=page&qp=cabcat0100000%23%23-1%23%23-1~~cabcat0101000%23%23-1%23%23-1~~cabcat0101001%23%23-1%23%23-1~~q466173746c696d69747067735f323236&list=y&nrp=15&sc=TVVideoSP&sp=-currentprice+skuid&usc=abcat0100000 


Looking very closely at the screen, Samsung has been able to produce a larger blue phosphor pixel, which should help with blue light output. A company executive told TWICE that blue phosphor longevity “is not an issue,” although the company declined to give a panel life expectancy.


Samsung will position its Ultra HD sets as having the best resolution, and the OLED as having the best overall picture.


In related news, LG Electronics VP John Taylor issued the following comment on Samsung’s lower OLED price positioning Tuesday afternoon: “LG’s curved OLED TV, that’s been on sale in the U.S. since July 22, is a premium product that commands a premium price because of its superior performance and styling. It sells for $14,999.”

http://www.twice.com/node/108002 



Samsung uses LTPS backplanes.


----------



## slacker711

I wish Samsung was using a-si. That used to be one of the holy grails for OLED development but the industry has pretty much given up on it. They are using LTPS, which allows them to leverage their mobile OLED experience. I dont remember the details but supposedly there were going to be technical issues with moving to Gen 8 LTPS substrates. The fact that they are offering a zero pixel defect policy might mean that they have mostly solved those issues.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23630582
> 
> 
> I wish Samsung was using a-si. That used to be one of the holy grails for OLED development but the industry has pretty much given up on it. They are using LTPS, which allows them to leverage their mobile OLED experience. I dont remember the details but supposedly there were going to be technical issues with moving to Gen 8 LTPS substrates. The fact that they are offering a zero pixel defect policy might mean that they have mostly solved those issues.



Ugh, yes. Sorry about that, I "mental typoed". I think a-Si has issues on larger substrates that are not solvable vis a vis current.


Long run, Samsung also has to move to IGZO. Short run, they can stay with LTPS. I'm not convinced they can move SMS to Gen 8 at all, however,.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23628739
> 
> 
> That really depends on the viewing content AND environment, since a Kuro can go slightly blacker than the ZT60 also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eagerly awaiting the 500M versus OLED blackout comparisons.



I hope you meant a blackout comparison vs. a final gen CRT. Kuro is not the black-level benchmark we should be striving for. Well, maybe for ANSI black.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23630568
> 
> 
> The Samsung TV is also available at Best Buy Magnolia though at a higher $9,999 price.
> 
> ...
> 
> In related news, LG Electronics VP John Taylor issued the following comment on Samsung’s lower OLED price positioning Tuesday afternoon: “LG’s curved OLED TV, that’s been on sale in the U.S. since July 22, is a premium product that commands a premium price because of its superior performance and styling. It sells for $14,999.”



The LG shows up as $8999 for me on BB website. They also state 2-year warranty vs. 1-year on the Samsung website. Who to believe?


Premium product my ass. Their OLED appears to be staying true to form for LG. They made the worst plasma and LCD displays and now will likely make the worst OLED displays. At least for plasma/LCD, they also had the lowest prices.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *headlesschickens*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23629879
> 
> 
> Well it's definitely interesting to see that they've included black frame insertion. It's not exactly true impulse drive, but I'm liking the fact that Samsung is aware that some of us are serious about motion blur. I'd love to see some high speed camera footage that could reveal exactly what their frame cycles look like in that mode. From all the research that's been done on LightBoost and similar monitor strobe tech, one of the things that became clear is that black frame insertion only works really well if the black time makes up most of the frame time. IE, the best LB monitors only strobe for 1.4ms every 8ms frame (they only work at 120hz/fps). Plasma's refresh cycle is slightly mysterious but seems to be largely linked to flashing at 16ms intervals, ie 60hz refresh cycle, with the only hold time being the phosphor decay rate (resulting in phosphor lag effects as different colors of phosphors decay at different rates). As I understand it this is around 4-5ms, which is still only slightly over 1/4 the total frame time at 60hz.
> 
> 
> Both of these techniques give excellent motion resolution at their native pulse rates, but require frame doubling on 30fps content (or 4x in the case of 120hz LB monitors) which results in the judder/double-image effect you see on plasma when watching normal TV (not to be confused with 2:3 judder caused by conversion from 24fps to 30fps, which has nothing to do with this).



Glad I asked the CR reviewer for clarification about the blur issue - he didn't seem to realize OLED was sample-and-hold at first. I've also asked for clarification about the black-level comments.


You can't do high-quality interpolation without at least 1 frame of lag in order to compute motion vectors. That makes it worthless in my view, even if they solve artifact problems. It's also hard to reduce blur on low fps content without introducing soap-opera-effect.


I'm perfectly fine with judder at 30hz and will take it over any motion interpolation. Maybe I'm just used to it from decades of watching CRTs. I'm also not sensitive to 60hz flicker but can't stand plasma phosphor lag and rainbows. The Samsung OLED ability to offer both interpolation and BFI sounds like the best option to satisfy everyone. I've seen BFI before on 60hz content SXRD projectors and besides the huge loss in brightness, it was very CRT-like. Can't wait to check out the Samsung in person.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *headlesschickens*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23629312
> 
> 
> I'm going to write off strobe effects immediately, because anyone who's worked with strobe displays (LightBoost monitors, some of the newer LCD TVs that have strobe backlight modes) should know that for backlight strobe to really work you need to have content matching strobe rate. So if you want to strobe at 120hz (to avoid visible flicker) you'll also need 120fps content, which doesn't exist outside PC gaming or special demo reels. If you strobe at the content's frame rate (30 or 24) you'll get so much flicker you'll probably throw up (think way worse than Panasonic's 48hz mode). If you strobe at multiples of the content frame rate (say 120hz for 30 fps content), you'll get judder like you see on plasma. I'm certain the author would have commented on that (no one calls judder excellent motion even if it is preferable to LCD blur).


Until we have televisions that accept 120Hz+ inputs (ideally if the set has 240/480Hz interpolation, it could accept that as an input) and source material that moves beyond 24fps, we’re stuck with compromises. For video, I think Sony got it right using a combination of backlight scanning (rather than strobing) and motion interpolation. The interpolation means you need to use less flicker to achieve the same motion clarity, and helps to avoid judder. (Though you still have interpolation errors show up)


Having the option to only strobe is useful for gamers, as it does not introduce significant delays (most interpolation systems use at least three frames) and games are more likely to run at higher native framerates. On my PC, everything runs at 60fps.


And for that matter, few people complained of judder back when we had CRTs, which had even faster switching times and less persistence than the best strobed displays available today—so it should at least be an option.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23629376
> 
> 
> The post linked above doesn't include my personal belief that Consumer Reports is not only correct, but most people won't even see the difference (of course, AVSers are not "most people").


“Most people” are perfectly content with LCD black levels—if you’re not watching in a dark room, they are already perfect.


But I think “most people” would be able to identify the OLED panel compared to a Plasma if they viewed them in a dark room. (I don’t think “most people” would care though)


This is assuming that these OLED panels do in fact have a zero black level. (Or a black level below the threshold of a dark-adapted eye, at least) There are a number of OLED panels out there which do not.


Something else I am concerned about, is the uniformity of black. This is something many current OLED displays suffer from, and something the Kuros had trouble with as well. I don’t know how the latest Panasonics fare.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23631142
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with judder at 30hz and will take it over any motion interpolation. Maybe I'm just used to it from decades of watching CRTs. I'm also not sensitive to 60hz flicker but can't stand plasma phosphor lag and rainbows.


Personally, I can’t stand the judder from watching 24Hz content natively any more, and use the Clear Plus mode. (backlight scanning plus interpolation, that largely avoids the “Soap Opera Effect”)


That said, I agree with you about flicker, and plasma artifacts.

While CRT flicker can be quite obvious after years of flat panels, you quickly get used to it and tune it out. I have not found that to be the case with plasma, and found it to be a constant issue which I was never able to ignore.


I would be happy to use CRT-style 60Hz flicker on an OLED or LCD panel with 60fps content—though I would much rather have CRT-style flicker at 120Hz or greater.


And with a PC input, there’s really no reason that one of these displays couldn't sync to any arbitrary refresh rate up to its maximum, rather than requiring you to jump from 60fps to 120fps.


Something like 80Hz would probably satisfy most people, and have far less demanding hardware requirements.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23631142
> 
> 
> The Samsung OLED ability to offer both interpolation and BFI sounds like the best option to satisfy everyone. I've seen BFI before on 60hz content SXRD projectors and besides the huge loss in brightness, it was very CRT-like. Can't wait to check out the Samsung in person.


Even if it does offer dark frame insertion (I would have expected scanning, to help minimize brightness loss) it will have a much greater persistence than CRTs. Only the LightBoost monitors begin to approach the short persistence that CRTs had.


Honestly, with the new interest in LightBoost displays, and talk of OLED’s sample & hold problems, I have been seriously considering trying to source a high-end CRT again just for gaming. (Something like a Sony FW900)


----------



## Jorsher




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23631242
> 
> 
> And with a PC input, there’s really no reason that one of these displays couldn't sync to any arbitrary refresh rate up to its maximum, rather than requiring you to jump from 60fps to 120fps.



I thought the 60/120/240/480/600/etc hz rates were due to electricity, in NA at least, running at 60hz? I'm not doubting there aren't ways around it, since, I believe EU use multiples-of-60 refresh rates on their modern displays despite 50hz power source?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jorsher*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23631585
> 
> 
> I thought the 60/120/240/480/600/etc hz rates were due to electricity, in NA at least, running at 60hz? I'm not doubting there aren't ways around it, since, I believe EU use multiples-of-60 refresh rates on their modern displays despite 50hz power source?


That's why CRTs used 60Hz originally (and 50Hz in other regions) but it's completely irrelevant today.

With video we are still stuck with the limitations of film being 24fps and video content being 25/50, or 30/60fps, which is why televisions moved from 60Hz to 120/240/480/960Hz, as you always want a refresh rate that is divisible by the source framerate to avoid judder.

But with a PC source (using applications on the desktop, games etc.) you can render at any framerate you like, so something like 80Hz would be fine.


CRT monitors in the past would often be run at 75Hz or 85Hz to reduce flicker for example, but when we moved to flat panels, everything went back to 60Hz because there was no more flicker.


----------



## Jorsher

I figured it was no longer an issue, but wasn't sure since they still stick with the multiples of 60. I assume because it's a lot easier. I know something divisible by 24 is optimal. Now that you mention it, I know I've set custom rates in Linux... Nice.


Isn't 24fps the "desired" framerate for cinema among videophiles? I watched the 48fps version of the Hobbit. It was odd at times, and really makes the CGI stand out (along with the 3D), but the live action -- things like the flame on a candle -- looked a lot more lifelike. It did feel a little odd, but I assume it's just due to being used to 24fps.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jorsher*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23631880
> 
> 
> I figured it was no longer an issue, but wasn't sure since they still stick with the multiples of 60. I assume because it's a lot easier. I know something divisible by 24 is optimal. Now that you mention it, I know I've set custom rates in Linux... Nice.


Well I'm not saying they should drop support for things like 120Hz. I'm saying that if the display is capable of 60/120Hz, there's no reason it shouldn't accept anything in the range of 60-120Hz, rather than only those two specific refresh rates. Video would still have to be multiples of 24/50/60.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jorsher*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23631880
> 
> 
> Isn't 24fps the "desired" framerate for cinema among videophiles? I watched the 48fps version of the Hobbit. It was odd at times, and really makes the CGI stand out (along with the 3D), but the live action -- things like the flame on a candle -- looked a lot more lifelike. It did feel a little odd, but I assume it's just due to being used to 24fps.


As long as we stick to 24fps, we will _never_ have good motion handling with films on any display - it will always be a compromise between flicker, judder, and having to use interpolation.


People that want us to stick to 24fps are living in the past. I think the HFR version of The Hobbit would have been much better received if they had displayed 48fps in 2D rather than 3D. But even that would probably not be enough to change people's minds.

The thing is, people are used to film having a bad framerate, and juddery motion. If you fix those problems "it doesn't look like film".

This is only temporary. If you spend a decent length of time with high framerate content (more than just sitting through one film) it's painful to go back to low framerates.


Part of the problem is that people also associate the "sped-up" look that you can get from using old/bad interpolation processing on 24fps film content, with content that is natively shot at a higher framerate.

And frankly I think it was a mistake to have shot The Hobbit at 48fps. No consumer displays have official support for 48Hz inputs. (some may accept them, as it might be in the tolerance they have for 50Hz inputs)

All consumer displays support 60fps. If it were shot at that, we could have a consumer version, rather than being stuck with a 24fps Blu-ray. (where they just throw away half the frames)



I game on PC exclusively now for example, because it allows me to play all games at 60fps. If my display accepted a 120Hz input, I would upgrade and run them at 120fps.

There are a number of reasons that I avoid playing console games, but the primary one is because the majority of them run at 30fps. (or less)

Once you are used to high framerates, you can't go back.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> cnet Katzmaier
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Thanks to those ''absolute blacks'' which i've seen in person on preproduction models, i expect both LG's and Samsung's OLED TVs to deliver better picture quality than anything currently available.
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-kn55s9c/4505-6482_7-35823374.html



Hence that point I was trying to get at, I would expect OLED technology to yield (visibly superior black levels) period.










PS: According to the books OLED technology should also have superior response times compared to current display technology. As we all know OLED displays have the potential to not only be the most energy-efficient but also have the best picture quality, if it's done right anyway. I'm sure in time OLED technology will improve greatly it's still in it's infancy, we all are in agreement I think that there is a huge potential here. Initial cost continues to drop as well.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23632266
> 
> 
> And frankly I think it was a mistake to have shot The Hobbit at 48fps. No consumer displays have official support for 48Hz inputs.


 

This is the only place where you and I are not in complete agreement, and it's entirely because of a differing mindset I believe.

 

These guys are trying to forge ahead *without* being encumbered by the way things have always been.  The Way Things Have Always Been = When Things Were Rotten, and it makes no sense to worry too much about displays.

 

In all the entrepreneur situations I've been in in my life, this has been a deadly model: we would call it the "missionary work" of trying to push a concept onto a public unable to manage it, and this is to be avoided at all costs.  However, these guys are artists with unspeakable power in the movie world, and they're trying to look ahead.  And I like that.  I take it as a given also that artists are weird.

 

Yep: I would have loved to see the jump to 60.  But I don't fault them for trying to call their own shots early and moving at whatever pace they wanted.  It's not an enormous technological hurdle for displays/BDPs to *quickly* handle these things in the immediate future, especially when things are changing so fast as is.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23631142
> 
> 
> I hope you meant a blackout comparison vs. a final gen CRT. Kuro is not the black-level benchmark we should be striving for. Well, maybe for ANSI black.


I'm not sure what the best CRTs reached (and when were they even manufactured) but full-screen black on the best Kuros has been shown to reach as low as 0.0001/0.0000 fL in the hands of D-Nice, so I definitely said what I meant.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23632368
> 
> 
> This is the only place where you and I are not in complete agreement, and it's entirely because of a differing mindset I believe.
> 
> These guys are trying to forge ahead _without_ being encumbered by the way things have always been. The Way Things Have Always Been = When Things Were Rotten, and it makes no sense to worry too much about displays.
> 
> In all the entrepreneur situations I've been in in my life, this has been a deadly model: we would call it the "missionary work" of trying to push a concept onto a public unable to manage it, and this is to be avoided at all costs. However, these guys are artists with unspeakable power in the movie world, and they're trying to look ahead. And I like that. I take it as a given also that artists are weird.
> 
> Yep: I would have loved to see the jump to 60. But I don't fault them for trying to call their own shots early and moving at whatever pace they wanted. It's not an enormous technological hurdle for displays/BDPs to _quickly_ handle these things in the immediate future, especially when things are changing so fast as is.


I would argue that it was the other way around. They shot it and were concerned about backwards compatibility with 24p (discard half the frames and you have a 24p release) rather than thinking ahead and shooting at 60p, which allows you to release a HFR version at home instead of 24p. And you could still release a low framerate 30p version from that, but it wouldn't be the same as the "filmic" 24p.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23632737
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what the best CRTs reached (and when were they even manufactured) but full-screen black on the best Kuros has been shown to reach as low as 0.0001/0.0000 fL in the hands of D-Nice, so I definitely said what I meant.


You could set up a CRT so that black would turn the tube _off_.

Frankly, the numbers don't matter except when doing direct comparisons with the same class of meter. (or the same meter) And especially when using stupid imperial units, they only seem to support the "well it's good enough, the differences are miniscule" argument.

The Kuros glow in a dark room - they can't do black. That's the main thing that matters to me as far as black level is concerned.


ANSI contrast matters, but far less than that. CRT ANSI was less than 200:1. Full array local dimming is typically over 5000:1. I think the Sony and Sharp sets were over 10,000:1. (the VE shoot-outs should have the numbers if you want to look it up) The Kuros were about 15,000:1.

ANSI is only a concern once you have black level figured out. You might have lower ANSI on the local dimming LCDs, but the Sony sets at least can do true black by turning the zones completely off.


And there's no point in good black levels or contrast if you can't achieve it without crushing shadow detail.

With the Kuros I had to turn up the brightness control in order to see all the shadow detail in the picture, which reduced their contrast significantly. (the gamma controls were not sufficient)

They will pass a simple test pattern with a "1% gray" patch on a black background, but put up a complex image with a lot of tones near black and suddenly your shadow details are missing and look posterized. That's something most people don't seem to mention/remember.


OLED should hopefully avoid this problem, as they seem to have discrete gradation like LCDs rather than using PWM (or similar driving methods) like Plasma/DLP.


----------



## vinnie97

Yea, well, the new Samsung OLED is capable of absolute black (no glow), but it also *crushes blacks*, so I, too, will take a miniscule glow over a loss of detail. Concerning low level detail loss on the Kuro, it must be minuscule enough to not register on many videophiles' (professionals and enthusiasts alike) radars. You tend to be more susceptible to plasma's weaknesses (and more critical) than anyone I can recall on this forum, so none of your claims surprise me. Additionally, I'm not a fan of the methods used by the Sony sets to mimic true black because they introduce a separate set of distracting artifacts.


Even if some of you don't want it to happen, I am eager for a blackout level comparisons of _calibrated_ (OLED versus 500M/101FD) panels in a dark room. Lugging an ole' CRT around for that purpose is less likely to happen than a flat panel that set the benchmark in black levels 5 years ago (and that has been used in similar comparisons up to this year).


----------



## tgm1024


It's gonna take a while before the ISF mooks report on this thing en masse.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23632868
> 
> 
> Yea, well, the new Samsung OLED is capable of absolute black (no glow), but it also *crushes blacks*,



Will you please explain what you mean by "crushes blacks" and why you think that?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23632277
> 
> 
> Hence that point I was trying to get at, I would expect OLED technology to yield (visibly superior black levels) period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: According to the books OLED technology should also have superior response times compared to current display technology. As we all know OLED displays have the potential to not only be the most energy-efficient but also have the best picture quality, if it's done right anyway. I'm sure in time OLED technology will improve greatly it's still in it's infancy, we all are in agreement I think that there is a huge potential here. Initial cost continues to drop as well.



So far, the first two OLEDs on the market have pretty mediocre power consumption.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23633211
> 
> 
> Will you please explain what you mean by "crushes blacks" and why you think that?



"Crushes blacks" means that it destroys shadow detail in the dark areas even though the absolute shade of black might be really dark. It's a "gamma problem" and sometimes it's fixable by calibration (you can improve the curve), but sometimes it isn't -- the TV will simply not preserve shadow detail.


Katzmaier disagrees the Samsung crushes blacks, by the way. You can read his excellent review for yourself ( http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-kn55s9c/4505-6482_7-35823374.html ) but the relevant sentence is here: "The shadow detail advantage went to OLED, which had no trouble with tough areas like Bond's tux or his face as he walks through the bar."


He also notes that the whole black level business is basically a little bit better than Samsung and Panasonic's current plasmas: "I have to imagine that the even-blacker Panasonic ZT60/VT60 would fare even better in a dark-room shootout with the OLED: worse, yes, but not that much worse."


This echoes Consumer Reports (and me by the way... and irkuck... and, well, everyone who has described the coming OLEDs as better, but not a ton better, because of the really good state of current TVs.)


Oh, and for all you ABL junkies, the OLED sounds likes it's every bit as bad as a plasma, arguably worse. The question yet to be answered is if you calibrate it low enough, how little do you notice it. Of course, then we'd be back to the fact that most of us with plasmas already barely notice it, except on some ads and very, very rare content. So in that regard, the OLED will be fine. But we're not ABL junkies and if you are, I don't see how the OLED is going to be any more satisfying in that regard.


It seems like if one wants to buy now for whatever reason, the Samsung is a clear choice, despite being a truly ugly industrial design (that frame is really worse than it first appears, it just makes the TV look clunky and while it adds minimal value on the LCD line, it adds absolutely none on the OLED).


But I'm still not clear why you'd pay 3x the price of the plasma for something that absolutely no one is calling anything more than just a bit better. When the Sharp Elite was new, it had more size, arguably a clearer performance gap and a much smaller price gap between it and the state-of-the-art alternatives.


Even if you want one of these really badly, I see buying the first generation ones as a weird compromise of far too much price for far too much weirdness in requiring you to buy the curved model, which no one is claiming they want in their living room. Within 12-24 months, you get the next step-wise price cut and a chance to buy a flat one. That's a much more interesting entry point than this overweight oddball. Never mind worrying about its longevity, which seems to be a real concern with both models (the LG based on what's been evidenced in store, the Samsung based on everything we know from its mobile displays, which are tortured much less than a TV would be).


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23633211
> 
> 
> Will you please explain what you mean by "crushes blacks" and why you think that?


A loss of shadow detail, and it's not me who thinks that but the CR reviewer who has stated it. When the black levels were diminished and thus the contrast ratio (and yes, still superior to the plasma with which they compared, the ZT60), this loss of shadow detail disappeared. This actually seems to be in alignment with Katzmaier's impressions actually (haven't read them in full).


----------



## SDB30

There are dead/lazy pixels on the samsung oled. Watch the DigitalTrends review on YouTube.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23633524
> 
> 
> So far, the first two OLEDs on the market have pretty mediocre power consumption.
> 
> "Crushes blacks" means that it destroys shadow detail in the dark areas even though the absolute shade of black might be really dark. It's a "gamma problem" and sometimes it's fixable by calibration (you can improve the curve), but sometimes it isn't -- the TV will simply not preserve shadow detail.
> 
> 
> Katzmaier disagrees the Samsung crushes blacks, by the way. You can read his excellent review for yourself ( http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-kn55s9c/4505-6482_7-35823374.html ) but the relevant sentence is here: "The shadow detail advantage went to OLED, which had no trouble with tough areas like Bond's tux or his face as he walks through the bar."
> 
> 
> He also notes that the whole black level business is basically a little bit better than Samsung and Panasonic's current plasmas: "I have to imagine that the even-blacker Panasonic ZT60/VT60 would fare even better in a dark-room shootout with the OLED: worse, yes, but not that much worse."
> 
> 
> This echoes Consumer Reports (and me by the way... and irkuck... and, well, everyone who has described the coming OLEDs as better, but not a ton better, because of the really good state of current TVs.)
> 
> 
> Oh, and for all you ABL junkies, the OLED sounds likes it's every bit as bad as a plasma, arguably worse. The question yet to be answered is if you calibrate it low enough, how little do you notice it. Of course, then we'd be back to the fact that most of us with plasmas already barely notice it, except on some ads and very, very rare content. So in that regard, the OLED will be fine. But we're not ABL junkies and if you are, I don't see how the OLED is going to be any more satisfying in that regard.
> 
> 
> It seems like if one wants to buy now for whatever reason, the Samsung is a clear choice, despite being a truly ugly industrial design (that frame is really worse than it first appears, it just makes the TV look clunky and while it adds minimal value on the LCD line, it adds absolutely none on the OLED).
> 
> 
> But I'm still not clear why you'd pay 3x the price of the plasma for something that absolutely no one is calling anything more than just a bit better. When the Sharp Elite was new, it had more size, arguably a clearer performance gap and a much smaller price gap between it and the state-of-the-art alternatives.
> 
> 
> Even if you want one of these really badly, I see buying the first generation ones as a weird compromise of far too much price for far too much weirdness in requiring you to buy the curved model, which no one is claiming they want in their living room. Within 12-24 months, you get the next step-wise price cut and a chance to buy a flat one. That's a much more interesting entry point than this overweight oddball. Never mind worrying about its longevity, which seems to be a real concern with both models (the LG based on what's been evidenced in store, the Samsung based on everything we know from its mobile displays, which are tortured much less than a TV would be).



thank you for clubbing my irrational early adopter impulses and keeping me from buying one of these.


must exercise restraint............


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SDB30*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23633772
> 
> 
> There are dead/lazy pixels on the samsung oled. Watch the DigitalTrends review on YouTube.



Can you provide a link? I watched a review on Youtube and if they mentioned dead pixels, I missed it.


In their written review, they call it the best TV ever made.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/tv-reviews/samsung-kn55s9c-review/ 


It might not be a good value, but the reviews are pretty amazing for a first generation model. Now the questions about longevity need to be answered.


----------



## tubby497

Cnet review "Simply put, the Samsung KN55S9C produces the best picture I've seen on any TV, ever. Even with the unnecessary and distorting curved screen, I liked its picture better than that of the the ZT60, the Kuro, or anything else I've seen."


DigitalTrends review "Blacks are so black, that sometimes you think that tv is turned off in dark scenes. This tv can burn your eyeball if you asked it to. And that is called contrast. This tv will grab you and won't let you go. The colors pop, images are sharp, this is what tv's are supposed to look like."


----------



## Wizziwig

You gotta love the comments from Plasma and LCD owners in this thread. Have you guys actually read the CNET and DigitalTrends reviews?

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-kn55s9c/4505-6482_7-35823374.html 
http://www.digitaltrends.com/tv-reviews/samsung-kn55s9c-review/ 


In case anyone missed it, you should also go over this 2 page thread where the Consumer Reports tester answered some of my questions regarding image retention, blur, black level, etc.:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1485835/samsung-declares-price-war-curved-55-oled-for-8999 



"Simply put, the Samsung KN55S9C produces the best picture I've seen on any TV, ever. Even with the unnecessary and distorting curved screen, I liked its picture better than that of the the ZT60, the Kuro, or anything else I've seen. But yes, I'd like a flat one even better." - CNET


"This is the best-looking TV we’ve ever seen. Ever." - DigitalTrends


For those who want objective numbers. Here's some from CNET:


"With my normal method of measuring 0% black, which blackens the entire screen aside from a 5% stripe to make sure the screen remains active, the KN55S9C measured 0.00004 fL, the lowest (best) I've ever recorded. I have no trouble believing that the only reason it's not zero is because of light leakage from either the stripe or somewhere else in the room.


Peak light output with a window was 132 fL in Dynamic mode, 106 in Movie with Cell Light at maximum. That's better than any plasma we've measured -- the Samsung F8500 comes closest at 83 fL -- but not as good as the brightest LEDs like the Sharp Elite, which can reach 300."


It's game over for Plasma as soon as these come down in price and are available in larger flat form factors. LCD will persist for the bottom end of the market or where resistance to image retention and extreme brightness are important.


About the only flaw of the Samsung OLED is the high input lag - 60.3 ms at best, 151 at worst. Seems like Samsung recycled the video processor from their Plasma set which achieved similar numbers.


----------



## agkss

Glad to read that OLED survive all the hype









I won't have to wait to panasonic make a plasma that finally kill the Kuro...OLED already kill it.

Now wait a few years and buy a 75" OLED.


----------



## slacker711

Just noticed this addition to the review of the LG OLED which talks about the reason for the stuck pixels.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/tv-reviews/lg-55ea9800-review/ 


> Quote:
> [Update: Since this review was published, LG contacted Digital Trends claiming that the sub-pixel anomaly we noted was due to TFT drive current deviation, explained as: " [a] phenomenon where some sub-pixels look brighter than the other ones in the area at the very low gray levels. It is only observed at extremely low gray levels, since it is a phenomenon related to TFT micro current control, and in other circumstances (as you go away from those extremely low gray levels) those brighter-looking sub-pixels are totally invisible.”
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/tv-reviews/lg-55ea9800-review/#ixzz2c6JtnZji
> 
> Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook]


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23634403
> 
> 
> You gotta love the comments from Plasma and LCD owners in this thread. Have you guys actually read the CNET and DigitalTrends reviews?
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-kn55s9c/4505-6482_7-35823374.html
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/tv-reviews/samsung-kn55s9c-review/
> 
> 
> In case anyone missed it, you should also go over this 2 page thread where the Consumer Reports tester answered some of my questions regarding image retention, blur, black level, etc.:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1485835/samsung-declares-price-war-curved-55-oled-for-8999
> 
> 
> 
> "Simply put, the Samsung KN55S9C produces the best picture I've seen on any TV, ever. Even with the unnecessary and distorting curved screen, I liked its picture better than that of the the ZT60, the Kuro, or anything else I've seen. But yes, I'd like a flat one even better." - CNET
> 
> 
> "This is the best-looking TV we’ve ever seen. Ever." - DigitalTrends
> 
> 
> For those who want objective numbers. Here's some from CNET:
> 
> 
> "With my normal method of measuring 0% black, which blackens the entire screen aside from a 5% stripe to make sure the screen remains active, the KN55S9C measured 0.00004 fL, the lowest (best) I've ever recorded. I have no trouble believing that the only reason it's not zero is because of light leakage from either the stripe or somewhere else in the room.
> 
> 
> Peak light output with a window was 132 fL in Dynamic mode, 106 in Movie with Cell Light at maximum. That's better than any plasma we've measured -- the Samsung F8500 comes closest at 83 fL -- but not as good as the brightest LEDs like the Sharp Elite, which can reach 300."
> 
> 
> It's game over for Plasma as soon as these come down in price and are available in larger flat form factors. LCD will persist for the bottom end of the market or where resistance to image retention and extreme brightness are important.
> 
> 
> About the only flaw of the Samsung OLED is the high input lag - 60.3 ms at best, 151 at worst. Seems like Samsung recycled the video processor from their Plasma set which achieved similar numbers.


You're right, as a silly Plasma owner, I should stop trying to piece together the disparaging impressions. Sorry for annoying you with inane ramblings (but thanks for posting the specific values, haven't had a chance to dive full-on into every review but was only commenting on Jim's impressions at CR):


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JakeNY28*  /t/1485835/samsung-declares-price-war-curved-55-oled-for-8999/30#post_23631772
> 
> 
> With regard to black level, the OLED panel was essentially "off" when we put up a black field and turned down the brightness setting. Our meter measurement was 0.0010 nits. At the appropriate threshold setting (where we could get the deepest black and still see shadow detail) however we couldn't really see our "number one" —the lowest level box on our test pattern (you can see the pattern on our video). Turning up the brightness one notch on the setting improved the visibility of that box, but in a room with no lights on we could see the overall black level was ever so slightly illuminated. It's worth noting that we're viewing in a very dark room so any so-called illumination is quite black as well. More surprising was the black level we saw on the Panasonic ZT60 sitting right next to it with the same pattern. Its black level was running neck-in-neck with the OLED set to the higher "illuminated" setting, though OLED still had the slight edge. Quite honestly, at these levels we're quibbling and both displays had comparable black levels with any video we played on them. The OLED's big advantage here was it's overall image brightness.


0.0010 nits gives us 0.00029 fL (a far cry from 0.00004 fL, but not based on human vision of course), which is as good as it gets, but there is the shadow detail caveat. That *seems* to conflict with Katzmaier's impression and the aforementioned quotes that Rogo shared:


> Quote:
> The shadow detail advantage went to OLED, which had no trouble with tough areas like Bond's tux or his face as he walks through the bar. I have to imagine that the even-blacker Panasonic ZT60/VT60 would fare even better in a dark-room shootout with the OLED: worse, yes, but not that much worse.



Digitaltrends doesn't go into any of the above details.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23634403
> 
> 
> You gotta love the comments from Plasma and LCD owners in this thread.



You mean, "every flat panel owner on the planet save the dozens with OLED displays?" I mean, seriously, if you're going to insult people maybe you can pick a better pejorative than, "You gotta love the comments from everyone. You're all a bunch of idiots," which is more or less the broad brush you are painting with.


> Quote:
> Have you guys actually read the CNET and DigitalTrends reviews?



Word for word, yes.


> Quote:
> "Simply put, the Samsung KN55S9C produces the best picture I've seen on any TV, ever. Even with the unnecessary and distorting curved screen, I liked its picture better than that of the the ZT60, the Kuro, or anything else I've seen. But yes, I'd like a flat one even better." - CNET
> 
> 
> "This is the best-looking TV we’ve ever seen. Ever." - DigitalTrends



What you might notice if you can take off the fanboy goggles for a minute is the lack of phrases like "by far" or "by a wide margin" or "you should go out and buy one today". Instead, the reviews say it's the best TV, but generally describe it as being the best by a small margin. I must have missed the phrase where anyone described that small margin as worth 3-5x the "second best TV".


> Quote:
> It's game over for Plasma as soon as these come down in price and are available in larger flat form factors. LCD will persist for the bottom end of the market or where resistance to image retention and extreme brightness are important.



See, this comment is pointless. It'd be like me going over to Autoblog and trolling every post with "it's game over for gas-powered cars as soon as EVs get 500-mile range for $30,000". I mean it's true, but pointless because it doesn't exist. And guess what, neither does this OLED you speak of. I also love the anti-logic that OLED removes plasma from the market, but not LCD because you've concluded that it does some magic things that render there being no reason to buy a plasma but some reasons to buy LCD.


The absolute earliest the price of OLED will compete with the plasma is 2016 so we have at least 3 years before we have to worry about this doomsday (unless manufacturers stop making plasma for reasons that have nothing to do with OLED). Since that's 3 years away, we should totally obsess about it right now because some reviews said the OLED was a tiny bit better than the plasma. Clearly AVS Forum should focus on not questions like, "Do I buy the very first OLED out or maybe wait a bit?" but rather, "Should we just stop talking about plasma and dismiss at yesterday's technology because 2-3 thousand OLEDs might make it into the country this year -- 1 for every 1000 plasmas or so." Oh, wait, my sarcasm is blowing up the forum software.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *agkss*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23634436
> 
> 
> Glad to read that OLED survive all the hype
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't have to wait to panasonic make a plasma that finally kill the Kuro...OLED already kill it.
> 
> Now wait a few years and buy a 75" OLED.



Yup, _years_.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23634643
> 
> 
> You're right, as a silly Plasma owner, I should stop trying to piece together the disparaging impressions. Sorry for annoying you with inane ramblings (but thanks for posting the specific values, haven't had a chance to dive full-on into every review but was only commenting on Jim's impressions at CR):
> 
> 0.0010 nits gives us 0.00029 fTl (a far cry from 0.00004 fL, but not based on human vision of course), which is as good as it gets, but there is the shadow detail caveat. That *seems* to conflict with Katzmaier's impression and the aforementioned quotes that Rogo shared:
> 
> Digitaltrends doesn't go into any of the above details.



I guess we'll have to see. Katzmaier usually pays attention and personally I care what's in the shadow detail of real content, not test patterns. But significantly, neither review says, "This picture blows away anything you've ever seen." They do note the brightness is far better even than Samsung's plasma. But, of course, Samsung's far-brighter-than-Panasonic plasma doesn't tend to outpoint by more than a tiny margin in reviews (or it loses to it by a tiny margin). So even that whole brightness thing doesn't seem to translate into important picture quality advantages. Go figure.


----------



## vinnie97

Didn't you know? The (few) CRT holdouts at least are exempt from contempt.


----------



## markrubin

both the LG 55EA9800 OLED HDTV and Samsung KN55S9C Curved Panel Smart 3D OLED HDTV are now listed on Amazon: but not yet in stock


----------



## GmanAVS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23634872
> 
> 
> both the LG 55EA9800 OLED HDTV and Samsung KN55S9C Curved Panel Smart 3D OLED HDTV are now listed on Amazon: but not yet in stock


Already looking forward to the Official "LG 55EA9800 OLED HDTV " and "Samsung KN55S9C " Owners threads










Com'on already, who is going to be the 1st owne, hurry up gents!


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23634838
> 
> 
> Didn't you know? The (few) CRT holdouts at least are exempt from contempt.



Well, that includes me, then. 


I don't know why anyone would want to throw stones at a technology which, even in its infancy, demonstrates the ability to surpass the performance of existing plasma and OLED TV sets in most if not all respects.


It may be unaffordably expensive technology at the moment, and yet to be fully tested, but why don't we keep an open mind, hope for the best, and see what happens?


Frankly, I'm encouraged and enthused by what I've read, and am now even more inclined to hold off on replacing my trusty old CRT set.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23634403
> 
> 
> "Simply put, the Samsung KN55S9C produces the best picture I've seen on any TV, ever. Even with the unnecessary and distorting curved screen, I liked its picture better than that of the the ZT60, the Kuro, or anything else I've seen. But yes, I'd like a flat one even better." - CNET
> 
> 
> "This is the best-looking TV we’ve ever seen. Ever." - DigitalTrends
> 
> 
> For those who want objective numbers. Here's some from CNET:
> 
> 
> "With my normal method of measuring 0% black, which blackens the entire screen aside from a 5% stripe to make sure the screen remains active, the KN55S9C measured 0.00004 fL, the lowest (best) I've ever recorded. I have no trouble believing that the only reason it's not zero is because of light leakage from either the stripe or somewhere else in the room.
> 
> 
> Peak light output with a window was 132 fL in Dynamic mode, 106 in Movie with Cell Light at maximum. That's better than any plasma we've measured -- the Samsung F8500 comes closest at 83 fL -- but not as good as the brightest LEDs like the Sharp Elite, which can reach 300."



Artwood, are you reading these reviews? Might this put a stop to your frequent ranting about being stuck in an LCD-only world?


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23634731
> 
> 
> You mean, "every flat panel owner on the planet save the dozens with OLED displays?" I mean, seriously, if you're going to insult people maybe you can pick a better pejorative than, "You gotta love the comments from everyone. You're all a bunch of idiots," which is more or less the broad brush you are painting with.



When did I call anyone an idiot? I was too lazy to round up all the quotes but too many comments here focused on a few minor issues while completely ignoring the final conclusion of each review. That's the only point I was trying to make. No offense intended.


> Quote:
> Word for word, yes.
> 
> What you might notice if you can take off the fanboy goggles for a minute is the lack of phrases like "by far" or "by a wide margin" or "you should go out and buy one today". Instead, the reviews say it's the best TV, but generally describe it as being the best by a small margin. I must have missed the phrase where anyone described that small margin as worth 3-5x the "second best TV".
> 
> See, this comment is pointless. It'd be like me going over to Autoblog and trolling every post with "it's game over for gas-powered cars as soon as EVs get 500-mile range for $30,000". I mean it's true, but pointless because it doesn't exist. And guess what, neither does this OLED you speak of. I also love the anti-logic that OLED removes plasma from the market, but not LCD because you've concluded that it does some magic things that render there being no reason to buy a plasma but some reasons to buy LCD.



Plasma does nothing better than OLED when it comes to picture quality. Therefore it is redundant once price and size are matched. LCD offers better brightness, image retention resistance, and resolution. The analogy to cars is flawed. ICE vehicles have performance advantages to EV's such as better range, refueling time, etc. One tech does not render the other redundant even at the same price.


> Quote:
> The absolute earliest the price of OLED will compete with the plasma is 2016 so we have at least 3 years before we have to worry about this doomsday (unless manufacturers stop making plasma for reasons that have nothing to do with OLED). Since that's 3 years away, we should totally obsess about it right now because some reviews said the OLED was a tiny bit better than the plasma.



I must have missed your prediction of a 40% price drop this early after launch. Nobody can predict the future.


> Quote:
> I guess we'll have to see. Katzmaier usually pays attention and personally I care what's in the shadow detail of real content, not test patterns. But significantly, neither review says, "This picture blows away anything you've ever seen." They do note the brightness is far better even than Samsung's plasma.



I guess we all have different aspects of picture performance that matter to us most. What's a "minor" improvement to you is huge for me. I have not seen a shipping display that was able to achieve zero glow or "off" state in a dark room with no blooming. If that's not a significant improvement over plasma than I'm not sure what people are expecting - a black hole that sucks ambient light out of your room?


----------



## SDB30

I


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23634084
> 
> 
> Can you provide a link? I watched a review on Youtube and if they mentioned dead pixels, I missed it.
> 
> 
> In their written review, they call it the best TV ever made.
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/tv-reviews/samsung-kn55s9c-review/
> 
> 
> It might not be a good value, but the reviews are pretty amazing for a first generation model. Now the questions about longevity need to be answered.



I apologize, that was the review of the LG.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23633524
> 
> 
> He also notes that the whole black level business is basically a little bit better than Samsung and Panasonic's current plasmas: "I have to imagine that the even-blacker Panasonic ZT60/VT60 would fare even better in a dark-room shootout with the OLED: worse, yes, but not that much worse."


I am not familiar with his position on black level from previous generations of flat panel. If he has been mostly happy with black level so far, I'm quite sure it is a "small difference" to him.

There are many of us out there that miss the inky blacks that CRT was capable of. (and local-dimming LED has) To me, being capable of doing true black while maintaining good shadow detail is a significant improvement, not a minor one.

But it's not a mass-market selling point, as most people are happy with LCD black levels.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23633524
> 
> 
> Oh, and for all you ABL junkies, the OLED sounds likes it's every bit as bad as a plasma, arguably worse. The question yet to be answered is if you calibrate it low enough, how little do you notice it. Of course, then we'd be back to the fact that most of us with plasmas already barely notice it, except on some ads and very, very rare content. So in that regard, the OLED will be fine. But we're not ABL junkies and if you are, I don't see how the OLED is going to be any more satisfying in that regard.


I would hope that all OLEDs are like the Sony monitors where they have an ABL at maximum contrast, but it's like a CRT where reducing the contrast control reduces the strength of the ABL. At about 70% contrast (150cd/m2) the Sony monitor's ABL is no longer in effect. My biggest issue with Plasma ABL is that I tend to watch at low brightness levels, but reducing the contrast control has no effect on the ABL strength.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23633524
> 
> 
> But I'm still not clear why you'd pay 3x the price of the plasma for something that absolutely no one is calling anything more than just a bit better. When the Sharp Elite was new, it had more size, arguably a clearer performance gap and a much smaller price gap between it and the state-of-the-art alternatives.


If I was in a position where I could drop $9000 on one of these without having to think about it, and upgrade to next year's model when it comes out, I probably would. As I've been saying for a while, OLEDs basically combine most of the strengths that both Plasmas and LCDs have. Unfortunately they still have some plasma-like qualities (ABL, burn-in) and are sample & hold displays like old LCDs.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23635091
> 
> 
> Well, that includes me, then.
> 
> 
> I don't know why anyone would want to throw stones at a technology which, even in its infancy, demonstrates the ability to surpass the performance of existing plasma and OLED TV sets in most if not all respects.
> 
> 
> It may be unaffordably expensive technology at the moment, and yet to be fully tested, but why don't we keep an open mind, hope for the best, and see what happens?
> 
> 
> Frankly, I'm encouraged and enthused by what I've read, and am now even more inclined to hold off on replacing my trusty old CRT set.


Not throwing stones, just trying to get to the nitty gritty truth.







I don't know why there seems to be an aversion to being objective about this.


----------



## gmarceau

There's a lot that'll be improved with the weight, motion resolution, and maybe the abl, but it's promising to see what's happening with this technology in it's first incarnation as a large flat panel.


I'm hoping for some news from Panasonic/Sony on their 4k offering for 2014 at IFA.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23636382
> 
> 
> I am not familiar with his position on black level from previous generations of flat panel. If he has been mostly happy with black level so far, I'm quite sure it is a "small difference" to him.
> 
> There are many of us out there that miss the inky blacks that CRT was capable of. (and local-dimming LED has) To me, being capable of doing true black while maintaining good shadow detail is a significant improvement, not a minor one.
> 
> But it's not a mass-market selling point, as most people are happy with LCD black levels.
> 
> I would hope that all OLEDs are like the Sony monitors where they have an ABL at maximum contrast, but it's like a CRT where reducing the contrast control reduces the strength of the ABL. At about 70% contrast (150cd/m2) the Sony monitor's ABL is no longer in effect. My biggest issue with Plasma ABL is that I tend to watch at low brightness levels, but reducing the contrast control has no effect on the ABL strength.
> 
> If I was in a position where I could drop $9000 on one of these without having to think about it, and upgrade to next year's model when it comes out, I probably would. As I've been saying for a while, OLEDs basically combine most of the strengths that both Plasmas and LCDs have. Unfortunately they still have some plasma-like qualities (ABL, burn-in) and are sample & hold displays like old LCDs.



I just don't think most wealthy people want to buy a new expensive TV this year and then a new expensive TV next year. I just don't think most people want to do that period, regardless of bank account size. Sure, some enthusiasts do, but not many.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23635769
> 
> 
> When did I call anyone an idiot? I was too lazy to round up all the quotes but too many comments here focused on a few minor issues while completely ignoring the final conclusion of each review. That's the only point I was trying to make. No offense intended.



You didn't, but the implication was pretty strong.


> Quote:
> Plasma does nothing better than OLED when it comes to picture quality. Therefore it is redundant once price and size are matched.



This is a form of selection bias where you define a problem according to your own arbitrary criteria and then decide that because you've defined the problem in the way you want you eliminate one alternative. If you redefine the problem as "videophile picture quality at 65" for $3000", you can see that LCD fails to offer this for the vast majority of people and OLED is years away. So one could argue, "once OLED matches bigger LCDs in size, those LCDs will go away since they are so wildly inferior in picture quality". But again, that would be selection bias. Plasma was supposed to "definitely be gone by 2010" based on this kind of flawed logic. Because Panasonic's very future as a display manufacturer is reasonably in question, I don't doubt that plasma is (a) on the wane and (b) will likely be on its last legs by 2015. The mistake is relating this to infinitesimal OLED sales. Plasma sales are already millions off their peak despite no OLED sales whatsoever.


> Quote:
> LCD offers better brightness, image retention resistance, and resolution. The analogy to cars is flawed. ICE vehicles have performance advantages to EV's such as better range, refueling time, etc. One tech does not render the other redundant even at the same price.



OLED renders LCD 100% redundant once it can be made in quantity 250 million. Currently it's 0% relevant (not unlike electric cars, although those are at least growing at discernible rates).


> Quote:
> I must have missed your prediction of a 40% price drop this early after launch.



I must have missed the part where Samsung actually launched the TV, delivered any, and then dropped the price. Oh, wait, that didn't happen. They were taking pre-orders, got basically none, and substituted next year's price.


> Quote:
> Nobody can predict the future.



Again, in these cases, we more or less can predict the future. This is why I and others have done it so accurately.


> Quote:
> I guess we all have different aspects of picture performance that matter to us most. What's a "minor" improvement to you is huge for me. I have not seen a shipping display that was able to achieve zero glow or "off" state in a dark room with no blooming. If that's not a significant improvement over plasma than I'm not sure what people are expecting - a black hole that sucks ambient light out of your room?



You're entitled to prioritize whatever matters most to you. What you're not entitled to is to claim something is _objectively_ huge when it requires pitch-black rooms to even see and light meters few own to measure.


People rave about the blacks on their Samsung LCD for crissakes. Those are objectively awful, except when the lights are up, when, well, they aren't. They're also good enough to enjoy a movie.


The idea that the giant contrast ratios of existing TVs aren't enough to delight people is simply false. The idea that the better CR of OLED is going to cause people to upgrade for the "much more lifelike picture" is patently absurd.


And this is not about "what people are expecting" at all, it's about the fact that current TVs are great for most people. They already do accurate color, perfect geometry, excellent contrast, sound motion handling, etc. etc. The problem with the idea of an OLED revolution has always been the incredibly narrow space above what you can buy and what is potentially missing. That's why the TVs are curved. It's to create some artificial wow factor knowing full well that the picture is going to fail to do that*



* Again, you videophiles are likely to be more wowed than many. But the true videophile will fairly note that the wow-ing vs. a ZT60 or F8500 is actually more of a "wow" than a 'WOW". I went to the famous black-screen Kuro demo back when the very idea of a true black flat panel was considered mere myth. It was amazing. Then regular content started playing on the displays and the more of it we watched, the less amazing the demo was. I'll let you think about why.


----------



## gmarceau

rogo, you're still buying an oled when you decide to upgrade, right ?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638387
> 
> 
> OLED renders LCD 100% redundant once it can be made in quantity 250 million. Currently it's 0% relevant (not unlike electric cars, although those are at least growing at discernible rates).


Only once they increase the brightness, eliminate burn-in/image retention, eliminate the ABL, and reduce motion blur to be at least on par with the better LCDs. Until that happens, they're just plasma replacements.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638387
> 
> 
> People rave about the blacks on their Samsung LCD for crissakes. Those are objectively awful, except when the lights are up...


This is how most people watch their TVs - even with movies.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638387
> 
> 
> I went to the famous black-screen Kuro demo back when the very idea of a true black flat panel was considered mere myth. It was amazing. Then regular content started playing on the displays and the more of it we watched, the less amazing the demo was. I'll let you think about why.


That's the thing though - we already have enough ANSI contrast for displaying bright scenes (and arguably, LCDs are better at this than Plasmas) but any time there's a dark scene in a film or game I'm left disappointed with how it looks on most flat panels.


----------



## Rich Peterson

HDGURU Gary Merson picks Samsung over LG in a head-to-head OLED comparison. He also describes the Samsung OLED as "the best of the best HDTV ... ever".

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/best-hdtv-ever-15-000-lg-9-000-samsung-oleds-6C10931492


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23635769
> 
> 
> I must have missed your prediction of a 40% price drop this early after launch. Nobody can predict the future.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638387
> 
> 
> Again, in these cases, we more or less can predict the future. This is why I and others have done it so accurately.
Click to expand...


Rogo, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I think your predictions about the future of OLED TV rollout have been hit and miss. Some have been good and some are way off. For example, you wrote this post in November 2010 in this thread which has been proven quite far from reality. Here's what you said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tbyrne*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/1800#post_19477743
> 
> 
> When will they start production of OLED HDTV's? Anyone have a guestimate?
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/1800#post_19478671
> 
> 
> 2016 or so.
Click to expand...


----------



## greenland

Can we get back to the actual developments In OLED TV product, instead of once again hijacking the thread to engage in Predictions Wars. It is really becoming very tiresome. Perhaps the dueling prognosticators should start a thread dedicated to making predictions. In other words; Take It Ouside please!


----------



## tubby497

Seems to me there are people that don't want change. I don't get it. We should be super excited! It's the next generation of tv's. Are we not videophiles?? OLED's picture quality is better than plasma or lcd and doesn't have the negative shortcomings that plague plasma/lcd.... I have the KRP500M, which is the pinnacle of picture quality. I have love and hate relationship with my kuro. OLED changes that. I been waiting for an upgrade and it's finally here, and it's with OLED.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638840
> 
> 
> Can we get back to the actual developments In OLED TV product, instead of once again hijacking the thread to engage in Predictions Wars. It is really becoming very tiresome. Perhaps the dueling prognosticators should start a thread dedicated to making predictions. In other words; Take It Ouside please!


 

Well in particular, I'm a little sick of the self patting on the back stuff in all aspects of life.  I'm awesome at not patting myself on the back.  But I'm a huge offender of predictions.

 

Not sure where the line is drawn overall.  This is the progression I see, which is natural IMO:

 

Company X announces Y (Samsung announces curved OLED)
We discuss and learn about Y ("How would that work----does it mount on the wall?")
We wonder if Y is a good move ("I don't think this is a great idea.  I wouldn't want it")
We predict one way or another ("It's going to fail: they can't push this idea")

 

Apply this to all kinds of stuff.  Not sure how to stop predictions in a learning thread.  I don't see the charter of a thread as a ticker-tape of news releases.  Nor would a "news releases only" thread ever work because it takes the seasoned folks here to determine if it's filled with sensible information or BS.  Which starts the 1-4 progression above.

 

*EDIT:* And just saying all the above just makes it worse.  Sorry.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638840
> 
> 
> Can we get back to the actual developments In OLED TV product, instead of once again hijacking the thread to engage in Predictions Wars. It is really becoming very tiresome. Perhaps the dueling prognosticators should start a thread dedicated to making predictions. In other words; Take It Ouside please!



I predict there will be an OLED owners thread in this forum very soon


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638429
> 
> 
> rogo, you're still buying an oled when you decide to upgrade, right ?



Yep. I predict it will be in 2016.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638449
> 
> 
> Only once they increase the brightness, eliminate burn-in/image retention, eliminate the ABL, and reduce motion blur to be at least on par with the better LCDs. Until that happens, they're just plasma replacements.



This remains the weird conclusion of a really small customer segment that is wildly overrepresented on these forums.


> Quote:
> This is how most people watch their TVs - even with movies.



And with the lights up a Samsung F8000 LCD is videophile black levels.


> Quote:
> That's the thing though - we already have enough ANSI contrast for displaying bright scenes (and arguably, LCDs are better at this than Plasmas) but any time there's a dark scene in a film or game I'm left disappointed with how it looks on most flat panels.



Shrug.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638682
> 
> 
> Rogo, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I think your predictions about the future of OLED TV rollout have been hit and miss. Some have been good and some are way off. For example, you wrote this post in November 2010 in this thread which has been proven quite far from reality. Here's what you said:



You're not picking a fight since you're not a d*@[email protected](bag.


Let's talk about that for a second. The worldwide sales of OLEDs at these prices is going to be under 100K annually. So maybe production will hit mass production levels in 2015, but it won't next year. So I'm not sure for a 2010 guess, that calling it for 2016 was terribly off. It appears possible that normal people will buy the sets in 2015, but unlikely many others will buy them before then. Again, 100K units is significant below 0.1% of the TV market.


We can quibble about the nature of what was said in that thread and whether what's going on now really constitutes "production" in a traditional sense. I'd argue these models are basically BMW ActiveE-type production. Yes, they are being built, but in very intentionally limited amounts not actually designed to drive volume.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639017
> 
> 
> I predict there will be an OLED owners thread in this forum very soon



Enjoy the TV, even though that thread I suspect will be lonely.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639017
> 
> 
> I predict there will be an OLED owners thread in this forum very soon



I was wondering if you were getting ready to take the plunge. Are you?


----------



## mattg3

Cant wait for first users review


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638387
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to prioritize whatever matters most to you. What you're not entitled to is to claim something is _objectively_ huge when it requires pitch-black rooms to even see and light meters few own to measure.
> 
> 
> People rave about the blacks on their Samsung LCD for crissakes. Those are objectively awful, except when the lights are up, when, well, they aren't. They're also good enough to enjoy a movie.
> 
> 
> The idea that the giant contrast ratios of existing TVs aren't enough to delight people is simply false. The idea that the better CR of OLED is going to cause people to upgrade for the "much more lifelike picture" is patently absurd.



I'm not the only one to prioritize contrast ratio. It is widely agreed to be the most important metric of picture quality. I guess after years of tiny incremental improvement in black level (after a giant step backwards post CRT/Kuro era), I can't help but be excited about OLED. At least one aspect of the picture quality holy grail may be checked off the list in the near future.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tubby497*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638920
> 
> 
> Seems to me there are people that don't want change. I don't get it. We should be super excited! It's the next generation of tv's. Are we not videophiles?? OLED's picture quality is better than plasma or lcd and doesn't have the negative shortcomings that plague plasma/lcd.... I have the KRP500M, which is the pinnacle of picture quality. I have love and hate relationship with my kuro. OLED changes that. I been waiting for an upgrade and it's finally here, and it's with OLED.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639017
> 
> 
> I predict there will be an OLED owners thread in this forum very soon



Finally some reason. Glad to see there are some videophiles still here that can appreciate what this TV promises to deliver. If it weren't for the curve, I would strongly consider this set as well. As it stands, I need to see how distracting the curve will be in person.


For anyone else considering it, I saw that ABT in Chicago will also be selling it.


Here's something from CNET for the plasma fans that might make it easier to resist an upgrade to OLED:


> Quote:
> katzmaier Aug 16, 2013
> 
> @I'd take the OLED, assuming you're talking about the 55-inch VT, despite the curve. But if I could have any size VT/ZT OR a 55-inch OLED, I'd take the 65-inch ZT. Size wins IMO



That's fair enough. Luckily I got size covered with a dedicated home-theater front-projector setup. Samsung has already stated they would release larger screens next year and I'd be shocked if we don't see models announced at CES.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639164
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639017
> 
> 
> I predict there will be an OLED owners thread in this forum very soon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering if you were getting ready to take the plunge. Are you?
Click to expand...


yes perhaps.. I am tempted...


but that prediction of an owners thread was not based on my own purchase


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638589
> 
> 
> HDGURU Gary Merson picks Samsung over LG in a head-to-head OLED comparison. He also describes the Samsung OLED as "the best of the best HDTV ... ever".
> http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/best-hdtv-ever-15-000-lg-9-000-samsung-oleds-6C10931492



Another amazing review and nice to see that Samsung addressed all the issues found on the LG. Man, I'm with Mark Rubin, it's really tempting and hard to resist.


BB/Magnolia have good return policies if the curve absolutely sucks and one can't get used to it. BB also offered one of the few extended warranties to cover plasma burn-in. Maybe they would cover these OLED's too.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6630#post_23634464
> 
> 
> Just noticed this addition to the review of the LG OLED which talks about the reason for the stuck pixels.
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/tv-reviews/lg-55ea9800-review/



So if I'm understanding their response, LG does not consider this a defect and think it is acceptable on a $15K TV? No matter the reason, the fact remains that if you're sitting close enough, instead of being treated to a perfect fade-to-black (one of the key benefits of OLED) you'll be seeing a colored star-field instead. Then there are the "vertical streak" uniformity issues, auto-dimming, and motion resolution.


Anyone else surprised LG has not already answered Samsung's price cut? As soon as we found out about Samsung's curved model, LG immediately announced their curved screen and air-rushed one to BB to claim "first available" title. Their silence now seems odd.


----------



## agkss

Some people here hates plasma like i hate LCD...Funny but we are in an OLED Thread.

LG continues to be a mediocre brand even in OLED.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639253
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638387
> 
> 
> The idea that the giant contrast ratios of existing TVs aren't enough to delight people is simply false. The idea that the better CR of OLED is going to cause people to upgrade for the "much more lifelike picture" is patently absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the only one to prioritize contrast ratio. It is widely agreed to be the most important metric of picture quality.
Click to expand...

 

IMO, the prioritization of contrast ratio is absolutely not at issue.  Even with TOP prioritization, its STILL more than likely (and is in fact the case) that LCD's have already closed in on the diminishing returns side of the wizbang curve.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> The idea that the giant contrast ratios of existing TVs aren't enough to delight people is simply false. The idea that the better CR of OLED is going to cause people to upgrade for the "much more lifelike picture" is patently absurd.


Eventhough difference in pq might be minimal in favor of Samsung/LG curved OLED it would turn them into the new *flatscreen KING*s. The king is at the top of the food chain, which makes it a must have for flatscreen lovers with enough money to spend.


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639164
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639017
> 
> 
> I predict there will be an OLED owners thread in this forum very soon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering if you were getting ready to take the plunge. Are you?
Click to expand...


Yeah, when the 80" or bigger models show up for $5k or less, I'm in. See you in 2016...


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639285
> 
> 
> yes perhaps.. I am tempted...
> 
> 
> but that prediction of an owners thread was not based on my own purchase



Mark,


Do you suppose that you might be more inclined to purchase one if it were a flat panel, instead of the curved one that Samsung is making available, provided the price was no higher?


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639683
> 
> 
> IMO, the prioritization of contrast ratio is absolutely not at issue.  Even with TOP prioritization, its STILL more than likely (and is in fact the case) that LCD's have already closed in on the diminishing returns side of the wizbang curve.



When viewed in the daytime or in a brightly lit room, I would agree. This is not the TV for people watching under those conditions. Might as well go with one of the cheaper alternatives.


I will also agree with Rogo that selling a TV purely on contrast is going to be a hard sell. I mean, how do you even demo that in a store setting? I had to literally press my face against the screen and cup my hands around the sides when I was testing a Sharp Elite at BB. Maybe they need to setup tents around the TV's?







Even then it would really require a side-by-side comparison to get the full impact of what you're missing on a lower contrast screen. I think Samsung realized the same marketing dilemma and their solution was the stupid curved screen. Hopefully the great reviews and word-of-mouth will help fuel some sales of these TVs.


----------



## tgm1024


Samsung & LG: focusing on curved TVs.

 

Sony: Their only XBR LCD (X900A, a 4K device) offered has the speakers glued on permanently.

 

Really makes you wonder about these guys.  Do they want to sell these things, or shoot themselves in the foot?  What next?  An ugly as hell stand?  Oh wait, Samsung thought of that one already.  TWICE.

 

In any case, Sony just announced a version of the X9 without the speakers, so we're seeing some sanity surface.


----------



## JWhip

As I noted in the OLED in London piece, there was a 4 week wait to get one of those flat LG sets. I have to also wonder about how many of the curved sets that are actually being brought into the US. Robert at VE still has yet to receive his and now won't get any until at the earliest, August 24th. The date of delivery continues to get pushed back. Considering that the Sammy 8500 won the shootout, I would have thought that he would have gotten some priority on actually getting one or 2 to actually sell. It seems that the units brought in were set aside for the press event and for reviewers to get a look at. I wonder if it will take weeks to get one of the curved OLEDs as well? All this tells me is that these sets are in EXTREMELY low production. While I will run up to VE once he gets one in to check it out, I am with Rogo on this whole thing. As much as I would love to have what OLEDs promise, I want to see how they actually perform in the field over an extended time, how well the blue phosphors last and one that is wall mountable and FLAT not curved. The curve is nothing more than a gimmick that clearly distorts the image and makes not one iota of sense to me. I would also want one 70 inches in size. I already have a 141 that have had the blacks lowered by D-Nice and am still thrilled by the PQ. So no 55 inch or even 60 inch for my next set. I want a 70 incher. I figure that will be 2016 at the earliest. It will probably have to be 4k as well. I just hope that Panny can figure out how to print these babies so I can actually afford one once they come out.


----------



## agkss

Many people (me too) wait for a larger OLED, a 4K and Panasonic or Sony but to be honest plasma doesn't sell well for them (F8500 is probably hit his high end target right now) and they can change their mind and be out of business because only get red numbers. Well samsung is doing a good job with OLED but not enough to in my case trust again in the brand but if there no another brand to really produce OLED...i prefer a Samsung than the faulty LG any day.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23640256
> 
> 
> Sony: Their only XBR LCD (X900A, a 4K device) offered has the speakers glued on permanently.
> 
> Really makes you wonder about these guys.  Do they want to sell these things, or shoot themselves in the foot?  What next?  An ugly as hell stand?  Oh wait, Samsung thought of that one already.  TWICE.
> 
> In any case, Sony just announced a version of the X9 without the speakers, so we're seeing some sanity surface.


Have you seen them in person? The speakers are well integrated in the design, and give you an even frame around the image when watching films - and it's nice to see someone focus on good sound again. I think it's the best looking set they have put out for a while.


----------



## JWhip

I have seen the Sony several times including this afternoon. iMHO, the speakers look ugly.


----------



## Wizziwig

Couple more previews of the LG and Samsung that I don't think were posted yet:

http://www.televisioninfo.com/content/samsung-kn55sc9-preview 

http://www.televisioninfo.com/content/lg-55ea9800-preview


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639253
> 
> 
> I'm not the only one to prioritize contrast ratio. It is widely agreed to be the most important metric of picture quality. I guess after years of tiny incremental improvement in black level (after a giant step backwards post CRT/Kuro era), I can't help but be excited about OLED. At least one aspect of the picture quality holy grail may be checked off the list in the near future.\.



You should prioritize it. The problem is that the best plasmas already produce ANSI that is at/near the limits of the human visual perception system. That's just reality. I've seen the OLED demos a bunch now and will certainly check out the production models soon, but the idea that the CR of these "pops" vs. the best existing TVs is false.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639285
> 
> 
> yes perhaps.. I am tempted...
> 
> 
> but that prediction of an owners thread was not based on my own purchase



Gotcha mr.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639683
> 
> 
> IMO, the prioritization of contrast ratio is absolutely not at issue.  Even with TOP prioritization, its STILL more than likely (and is in fact the case) that LCD's have already closed in on the diminishing returns side of the wizbang curve.



See above. We have limits as people. Exceeding them is pointless.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639758
> 
> 
> Eventhough difference in pq might be minimal in favor of Samsung/LG curved OLED it would turn them into the new *flatscreen KING*s. The king is at the top of the food chain, which makes it a must have for flatscreen lovers with enough money to spend.



Disagree. There are plenty of well off people that recognize value or lack thereof. Even at $9000, there's a value equation problem going on, especially given the uncertainty of buying (a) first gen and (b) weirdo curved screen.


Quite frankly, a _lot_ of people didn't buy the Sharp Elite when it was atop the food chain because the price/value was pretty sketchy on that one too. And it had a small issue with color that most people couldn't even see. By the same logic, the OLED could easily be rejected for any number of small reasons beyond price/value (1) curvedness (2) ABL still strong (3) longevity questions (4) burn-in risk (5) it's quite frankly tiny to many of (6) it's power consumption is actually pretty awful (7) it can't be wall mounted. You might find none of those matter, for me 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be dealbreakers to buying an OLED at this point. For others with more money than me, any one of them could easily cause them to leave their wallet in their pocket or purse.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639910
> 
> 
> Yeah, when the 80" or bigger models show up for $5k or less, I'm in. See you in 2016...



I'll pre-order from Robert as soon as that's for sale.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23640223
> 
> 
> When viewed in the daytime or in a brightly lit room, I would agree. This is not the TV for people watching under those conditions. Might as well go with one of the cheaper alternatives.
> 
> 
> I will also agree with Rogo that selling a TV purely on contrast is going to be a hard sell. I mean, how do you even demo that in a store setting? I had to literally press my face against the screen and cup my hands around the sides when I was testing a Sharp Elite at BB. Maybe they need to setup tents around the TV's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even then it would really require a side-by-side comparison to get the full impact of what you're missing on a lower contrast screen. I think Samsung realized the same marketing dilemma and their solution was the stupid curved screen. Hopefully the great reviews and word-of-mouth will help fuel some sales of these TVs.



I find that at retail, the bright-room performance of a good LCD (like a high-end Samsung) often sells the TV to _me_. Now, of course, I'm savvy enough to have bought differently, but the idea that large numbers of regular folks will make that choice -- for a $6500 premium -- strains the imagination. The reviews I'm reading still say, "it's great, but only a little greater than the next big thing you can buy."


----------



## Lessard




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23640803
> 
> 
> You should prioritize it. The problem is that the best plasmas already produce ANSI that is at/near the limits of the human visual perception system. That's just reality. I've seen the OLED demos a bunch now and will certainly check out the production models soon, but the idea that the CR of these "pops" vs. the best existing TVs is false.



The reviewers say the opposite, for example:


"Yet the OLED set's images were very bright, well above what we’ve seen from any plasma TV, so you get an unparalleled contrast range that makes images pop off the screen."


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23640803
> 
> 
> The reviews I'm reading still say, "it's great, but only a little greater than the next big thing you can buy."



Please read again the reviews then


"Move over, plasma, there's a new TV picture-quality sheriff in town."

"Simply put, the Samsung KN55S9C produces the best picture I've seen on any TV, ever"

"I liked its picture better than that of the the ZT60, the Kuro, or anything else I've seen"


This is quite different that just "a little greater" for me


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23640217
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23639285
> 
> 
> yes perhaps.. I am tempted...
> 
> 
> but that prediction of an owners thread was not based on my own purchase
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> 
> Do you suppose that you might be more inclined to purchase one if it were a flat panel, instead of the curved one that Samsung is making available, provided the price was no higher?
Click to expand...


I was put off initially by the curved set, but not enough to rule it out: it is not a big deal to me since I would use it on a credenza,I am not wall mounting it


I am agonizing over Rogo's (and others) cautions to avoid this first gen set and wait: I know that is good advise, but I remain tempted and you know I am an early adopter










one other concern is the warranty: I thought it was 3 years, not one (or extended to 2)


----------



## JimP

Has there been any comments as to how these displays behave with some room lighting?


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23641189
> 
> 
> I was put off initially by the curved set, but not enough to rule it out: it is not a big deal to me since I would use it on a credenza,not wall mount it
> 
> 
> I am agonizing over Rogo's (and others) cautions to avoid this first gen set and wait: I know that is good advise, but I remain tempted and you know I am an early adopter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one other concern is the warranty: I thought it was 3 years, not one (or extended to 2)



According to BestBuy's website, when purchased through them the Samsung KN55S9CAFXZA has a 2 year parts plus 2 year labor warrantee.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsung+-+55%26%2334%3B+Class+(54-5/8%26%2334%3B+Diag.)+-+OLED+-+1080p+-+Smart+-+3D+-+HDTV/1626142.p;jsessionid=D3A50352C51FDD647B6CAAF5E99AEF09.bbolsp-app02-101?id=1219058089120&skuId=1626142


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*
> 
> Eventhough difference in pq might be minimal in favor of Samsung/LG curved OLED it would turn them into the new *flatscreen KING*s. The king is at the top of the food chain, which makes it a must have for flatscreen lovers with enough money to spend.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> Disagree. There are plenty of well off people that recognize value or lack thereof. Even at $9000, there's a value equation problem going on, especially given the uncertainty of buying (a) first gen and (b) weirdo curved screen.
> 
> By the same logic, the OLED could easily be rejected for any number of small reasons beyond price/value (1) curvedness (2) ABL still strong (3) longevity questions (4) burn-in risk (5) it's quite frankly tiny to many of (6) it's power consumption is actually pretty awful (7) it can't be wall mounted. You might find none of those matter, for me 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be dealbreakers to buying an OLED at this point. For others with more money than me, any one of them could easily cause them to leave their wallet in their pocket or purse.


Yes , the new *KING* is a troubled *KING* and that might be the reason why only a few people are willing to buy the Curved(







)OLED. But, was the new *KING* flat with few problems still priced at $9.000 the advantage in PQ would still be minimal beyond the best Plasma's and LCD's nevertheless lots of flatscreen fans would be tempted eventhough they could get very close in PQ for half the price..


btw value i never cared about. I would never think of buying the ST60 and would go straight for the ZT60







I don't see you buying a ST60


----------



## remush

I wonder how Samsung and other oled manufactures will differentiate their oled displays in the future, in a given year. Since we're looking at infinite contrast, I'm assuming for

every oled display, what pq differences will there be between entry, mid and flagship models? Resolution, screen size availability, OS software??


----------



## RichB

What is the purose of a super thin curved screen?

You don't mount it on the wall right?


- Rich


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23641564
> 
> 
> I wonder how Samsung and other oled manufactures will differentiate their oled displays in the future, in a given year. Since we're looking at infinite contrast, I'm assuming for
> 
> every oled display, what pq differences will there be between entry, mid and flagship models? Resolution, screen size availability, OS software??



While reviewers will probably stop measuring black level, they can can still measure white level since it has a large impact on contrast in a bright room. In addition to what you mentioned, there will likely be differences in motion handling, input lag, and ABL behavior. The list of issues that plagued the previous gen (both lcd and plasma) has definitely been reduced but maybe we'll discover OLED specific issues/limitations that will become apparent once we have actual owners using them in their homes.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6600#post_23625836
> 
> 
> The 2012 HX950 is the same TV as the 2011 HX929. Main difference is that the HX950 has slightly better 3D performance. We do not know how much a flat 55'' OLED, which is what everybody is waiting for, will cost
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According imagic and other sources the Samsung KN55S9C will cost $8.999 which is $6.000 less than the LG 55EA9800. 40%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1485835/samsung-declares-oled-price-war-55-selling-for-8-999 . Looks like Samsung is gonna lose money on every KN55S9C they sell. Question is: How much?



I don't think they will lose money they will kill LG







Now you can get two Panasonic 65" ZT60 for $9Gs the best picture TV out there! http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-P65ZT60?t=reviews#BVRRWidgetID 


Now I have heard that the fan is totally obnoxious on this TV? What's whit that?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23641564
> 
> 
> I wonder how Samsung and other oled manufactures will differentiate their oled displays in the future, in a given year. Since we're looking at infinite contrast, I'm assuming for
> 
> every oled display, what pq differences will there be between entry, mid and flagship models? Resolution, screen size availability, OS software??


The differences between them will be accuracy, pixel structure, resolution, motion handling, brightness, ABL.

Speaker design may be a differentiatior as well, but with the panels being so thin, we may just end up with worse than flat panels already have.


Right now you have LG using an RGBW pixel structure, Samsung using a vertical RGB pixel structure, and the Sony/Panasonic prototypes using a Pentile pixel structure.

I won't be buying anything until there is a set which offers the "standard" horizontal RGB stripe pixel structure.

My current display uses a Sharp UV2A panel, which is really good in most respects, but uses their ​ subpixel addressing[/URL] - it basically uses an RGB stripe subpixel layout, but depending on the brightness, it may turn off half the subpixel. This can be really obvious sometimes and it's a huge annoyance of mine. (and being able to see a difference of only half a subpixel means that I could definitely use 4K)


I would like to see a 4K, 2.37:1 panel. (technically it would be a "5K" panel I suppose) I think it's a shame they did not consider adding support for 2.37:1 native video content when designing the new video spec, but at 4K, the scaling required should hopefully not impact image quality too much.

I mostly watch films or use my PC for gaming and other PC-related tasks, all of which would support a native 2.37:1 display. Can't think of the last time I watched any 16:9 content.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23640440
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23640256
> 
> 
> Sony: Their only XBR LCD (X900A, a 4K device) offered has the speakers glued on permanently.
> 
> Really makes you wonder about these guys.  Do they want to sell these things, or shoot themselves in the foot?  What next?  An ugly as hell stand?  Oh wait, Samsung thought of that one already.  TWICE.
> 
> In any case, Sony just announced a version of the X9 without the speakers, so we're seeing some sanity surface.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen them in person? The speakers are well integrated in the design, and give you an even frame around the image when watching films - and it's nice to see someone focus on good sound again. I think it's the best looking set they have put out for a while.
Click to expand...

 

Everyone's different, but you bet I saw them in person.  *The video was spectacular.*  But the speakers were *freakshow hideous**,* but not on their own: it's that they're glued to a tv.  Seriously, this was a very weird gamble on their part...that people who place such a premium on what they buy for video are going to accept the visual effect of speakers right next to the image staring them in the face?  I didn't find it just different, I found it uncomfortable esthetically.  You don't make two bold unusual moves at the same time: 4K & speakers IMO.  It's already established that folks buy TVs without speakers stuck to them visibly.  Why would they risk this on an already big risk (4K)?

 

Not that one opinion matters, but I thought it interesting that the local BB had a guy buy and return the 55" X9 because he couldn't deal with the look of the speakers once he got it home--it looked much better in the BB/Mag room.  I could see how this could be: In a super dark room they were distracting to me, but in a home environment they'd be downright off-putting.

 

I'll give you this much however: IF you were forced to glue speakers THAT size visibly to a TV, THEN that is how you'd want the speakers to look.  But........gross.


----------



## Chronoptimist

Are you talking about the 84X900 as having "glued on" speakers? I agree that the design of that set is ugly.

I thought you were talking about the 55/65X900A where the speakers are a part of the bezel, and it frames the image nicely when watching films.


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lessard*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23641161
> 
> 
> The reviewers say the opposite, for example:
> 
> 
> "Yet the OLED set's images were very bright, well above what we’ve seen from any plasma TV, so you get an unparalleled contrast range that makes images pop off the screen."
> 
> Please read again the reviews then
> 
> 
> "Move over, plasma, there's a new TV picture-quality sheriff in town."
> 
> "Simply put, the Samsung KN55S9C produces the best picture I've seen on any TV, ever"
> 
> "I liked its picture better than that of the the ZT60, the Kuro, or anything else I've seen"
> 
> 
> This is quite different that just "a little greater" for me


Rogo's point is that all subsequent HDTV beyond LCD/Plasma will on the surface appear incrementally better than the best of present day tech. The nuance of performance will be lost on the general consumer and those who already have the best of the best of today's displays. He isn't disparaging OLED. He wants it to succeed but is cautious to call it the end game we assumed it'd be some time ago.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23641906
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the 84X900 as having "glued on" speakers? I agree that the design of that set is ugly.
> 
> I thought you were talking about the 55/65X900A where the speakers are a part of the bezel, and it frames the image nicely when watching films.


 

No, the hideous TV design I'm talking about is precisely that XBR-__X900A that you mention you like.  I'm referring to the "speakers as part of the bezel" as "glued on speakers".  Just a figure of speach.  And I'm not sure why anyone would like it, but to each his own.


----------



## Wizziwig

Anyone else notice this disclaimer on Samsung's web site:


*Special shipping and handling required - A Samsung Service Engineer will contact you after your order has been confirmed


They don't have that on any of their other TVs. What's a "Service Engineer"? Maybe they will custom build the panel for you and you can ask to have it flattened or to have the hideous frame removed.










Still no user manual posted.


----------



## greenland

Since the 55 inch curved OLED display has a fairly deep footprint from both the curvature depth and rear support extension, I wonder how people would feel about having to have very wide and deep TV stands to place future much larger curved sets on, since they cannot be wall mounted? In a way things are going full circle. People wanted thin flat panel TVs that could be wall mounted. Now we have gone from having deep convex CRT sets, to deep concave OLED sets which cannot be wall mounted.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lessard*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23641161
> 
> 
> The reviewers say the opposite, for example:
> 
> 
> "Yet the OLED set's images were very bright, well above what we’ve seen from any plasma TV, so you get an unparalleled contrast range that makes images pop off the screen."
> 
> Please read again the reviews then
> 
> 
> "Move over, plasma, there's a new TV picture-quality sheriff in town."
> 
> "Simply put, the Samsung KN55S9C produces the best picture I've seen on any TV, ever"
> 
> "I liked its picture better than that of the the ZT60, the Kuro, or anything else I've seen"
> 
> 
> This is quite different that just "a little greater" for me



Yeah, and again, that's a form of selection bias. I don't want to call myself more objective than you by some objective standard. But I think in this case, I feel I'm being the objective observer.


You quoted three sentences which contain no hyperbole. Every one of them calls the TV the best, but none say "by a mile" or "by a lot" or "easily". Effectively, that means they are saying it's better, but not a lot better. Because if it were a lot better, you'd be reading those words.


When the Kuro came out, it was _a lot better_. It was so good, people here still own, use and love them versus current models which are much better than the ones _they_ replaced from 5 years ago. I suggest you read the reviews again and perhaps refer back to the last few VE shooutouts. The way I read those sentences -- and the reviews they appear in -- is that the Samsung OLED would very likely win the VE shootout, by a clear but small margin.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23641189
> 
> 
> I was put off initially by the curved set, but not enough to rule it out: it is not a big deal to me since I would use it on a credenza,I am not wall mounting it
> 
> 
> I am agonizing over Rogo's (and others) cautions to avoid this first gen set and wait: I know that is good advise, but I remain tempted and you know I am an early adopter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one other concern is the warranty: I thought it was 3 years, not one (or extended to 2)



The curved part vexes me not because I would wall mount, Mark, but because of the strangely small sweet spot it generates. It's not that off-angle contrast is reduced, it's that sitting off angle, the display looks especially weird. I don't want it to look weird when I'm on my side couch. Also, the CR review says the geometry is funky unless you put the TV below eye level. I _barely_ get the bottom third below eye level. That worries me. If the thing were flat, had a 5-year warranty and was $5000, maybe I'd consider giving up the size. I doubt it, but we'd be having a different conversation. If it were flat, had a 5-year warranty, was 65 inches and $9000, maybe I'd just call Robert and order one. I say that even considering my comments above.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23641472
> 
> 
> 
> Yes , the new *KING* is a troubled *KING* and that might be the reason why only a few people are willing to buy the Curved(
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )OLED. But, was the new *KING* flat with few problems still priced at $9.000 the advantage in PQ would still be minimal beyond the best Plasma's and LCD's nevertheless lots of flatscreen fans would be tempted eventhough they could get very close in PQ for half the price..
> 
> 
> btw value i never cared about. I would never think of buying the ST60 and would go straight for the ZT60
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see you buying a ST60



I have a VT50. If I were buying in 2013, though, I would have very, very seriously considered an ST60. Why? Because tossing that in the home gym in 2-3 years for an OLED would've seem more reasonable than doing that with a ZT60. I'm really not overly frugal on electronics but I like feeling good about my purchase. Maybe another level of wealth would change that for me, but I really doubt it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23641962
> 
> 
> Rogo's point is that all subsequent HDTV beyond LCD/Plasma will on the surface appear incrementally better than the best of present day tech. The nuance of performance will be lost on the general consumer and those who already have the best of the best of today's displays. He isn't disparaging OLED. He wants it to succeed but is cautious to call it the end game we assumed it'd be some time ago.



Brilliantly summarized.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23643176
> 
> 
> Since the 55 inch curved OLED display has a fairly deep footprint from both the curvature depth and rear support extension, I wonder how people would feel about having to have very wide and deep TV stands to place future much larger curved sets on, since they cannot be wall mounted? In a way things are going full circle. People wanted thin flat panel TVs that could be wall mounted. Now we have gone from having deep convex CRT sets, to deep concave OLED sets which cannot be wall mounted.



This is weird and a really good observation. I presume flat OLED will come whenever they actual intend to start selling it in quantity. 2015 maybe?


----------



## JWhip

LG does sell a flat OLED, just not in the US. However, it also cannot be wall mounted. I just don't get it.


----------



## p5browne

Re the Speaker issue - why not sell TVs as Speakerless, with the added Option of purchasing speakers that will somehow attach to the sides of the set if required. Why pay for something that, in a lot of cases, aren't needed or wanted, adds cheapness to the set and causes the engineers to try and figure were to put/hide the offending little b---s!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *p5browne*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23643666
> 
> 
> Re the Speaker issue - why not sell TVs as Speakerless, with the added Option of purchasing speakers that will somehow attach to the sides of the set if required. Why pay for something that, in a lot of cases, aren't needed or wanted, adds cheapness to the set and causes the engineers to try and figure were to put/hide the offending little b---s!



Because more than 90% of people want speakers with their TV. And having them attach on is always worse than having them be built in from an engineering/reliability standpoint.


The ascendancy of sound bars may begin to change the portion of people who demand speakers, but the idea they won't be built in anytime soon is pretty much wishful thinking on the part of a small, small minority.


----------



## p5browne




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23643762
> 
> 
> Because more than 90% of people want speakers with their TV. And having them attach on is always worse than having them be built in from an engineering/reliability standpoint.
> 
> 
> The ascendancy of sound bars may begin to change the portion of people who demand speakers, but the idea they won't be built in anytime soon is pretty much wishful thinking on the part of a small, small minority.



From what I'm seeing, more and more TV purchasers are being talked into the SoundBar Addon. (My son included) Would be interesting as to the stastistics of how many get pulled into this gambit? Again, no speakers required.


----------



## JWhip

The lack of any speakers and the amp to drive them is the main reason why I chose the 141 over the 151 Elite. I do recognize that I have to use the HT audio to get any sound which is not as convenient as built in speakers but then again, the sound is so much better this way.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23640803
> 
> 
> (6) it's power consumption is actually pretty awful (7) it can't be wall mounted. You might find none of those matter, for me 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be dealbreakers to buying an OLED at this point.



Just curious, what sort of power consumption are you expecting from future OLED? Even the current models don't seem all that high to me:


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23642988
> 
> 
> No, the hideous TV design I'm talking about is precisely that XBR-__X900A that you mention you like. I'm referring to the "speakers as part of the bezel" as "glued on speakers". Just a figure of speach. And I'm not sure why anyone would like it, but to each his own.


I see. "Glued on" implies to me that it's poorly integrated with the design, rather than being a flush part of the bezel. But I am of the opinion that trying to make display bezels as thin as possible is a mistake. It certainly makes your picture stand out, but I don't like that when watching a display for any length of time - especially in a brighter room.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23643371
> 
> 
> When the Kuro came out, it was _a lot better_. It was so good, people here still own, use and love them versus current models which are much better than the ones _they_ replaced from 5 years ago. I suggest you read the reviews again and perhaps refer back to the last few VE shooutouts. The way I read those sentences -- and the reviews they appear in -- is that the Samsung OLED would very likely win the VE shootout, by a clear but small margin.


Actually, there's some revisionist history going on here. The Pioneer 8th Generation Plasmas (1G Kuros) increased contrast from their 7G performance of ~1,000:1 to 3,000:1. LCDs were in the 1,500-2,000:1 contrast range, and if I recall correctly, Panasonic were around 2,000-2,500:1.

So they were considerably better than previous Pioneer panels, but Pioneer panels had always been far behind when it came to contrast ratio. Even today's LCDs have a higher contrast ratio than the original Kuros.


The second generation of Kuros (and the "2.5G" monitors) are where they actually made a leap in performance, and went from about 3,000:1 to 30,000:1 contrast (15,000:1 ANSI) which put them ahead of everyone else for a short while.

Then the XBR8 came along (around the same time, I think?) with its _zero_ black level, but plasma fans managed to convince people that it was "using tricks" to achieve this (and I suppose in a way it is) and blew the "haloing" issue (lower ANSI contrast) way out of proportion.

The Sony HX900 was introduced a few years later and largely fixed the ANSI problems by using an LCD panel with ~5,000:1 native contrast (Sharp UV2A) giving it an ANSI contrast ratio in excess of 10,000:1 - somewhat lower than the Kuros, but this largely eliminated the "haloing" issues with most content. (it's extremely rare with film content, but you can create test patterns that expose it) And people seem to have forgotten how a CRT with its ~200:1 ANSI contrast looked. (far worse "haloing" than the Sony local dimming sets)

I'm not saying that it's a better set, but I personally prefer high contrast LCD to plasma - even if they were able to produce one which had zero black level. (this would have objectively better contrast than a full array local dimming LCD, but image quality would still be worse)



That said, I agree that current displays - particularly LCD in the viewing conditions _most_ people watch them in - offer good enough contrast / overall image quality that anything OLED offers in that regard will largely be ignored.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23644723
> 
> 
> That said, I agree that current displays - particularly LCD in the viewing conditions _most_ people watch them in - offer good enough contrast / overall image quality that anything OLED offers in that regard will largely be ignored.



I'm not sure I agree the OLED contrast/overall image quality difference will be largely ignored. When I walked into BestBuy and saw the LG OLED, it grabbed my attention and seemed to make all the other sets look noticeably inferior. I don't know if that was because of contrast, brightness, or something else. But it seems to me when people see that and see the "billion to one" contrast ratio (or whatever they choose to market it with), people will be influenced.


It may be kind of like the transition from 720P to 1080P sets. Even though in small sets at normal viewing distances the difference was negligible at best, many people were influenced that 1080P was "Full HD" and they had to have it.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *p5browne*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23644226
> 
> 
> From what I'm seeing, more and more TV purchasers are being talked into the SoundBar Addon. (My son included) Would be interesting as to the stastistics of how many get pulled into this gambit? Again, no speakers required.



I don't have stats handy. Sound bar sales are growing nicely, but it's still a tiny fraction of TV sales. And you can't take off the speakers because "people might buy sound bars."


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23644655
> 
> 
> Just curious, what sort of power consumption are you expecting from future OLED? Even the current models don't seem all that high to me:



$18 and $27 is 2x and 3x worse than current LCDs. Yes, in the grand scheme those totals are trivial either way, but they are a lot worse than what LCD is doing. The Vizio I see when I walk into Costco now has a $9 Energy Guide tag.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23644723
> 
> 
> Actually, there's some revisionist history going on here. The Pioneer 8th Generation Plasmas (1G Kuros) increased contrast from their 7G performance of ~1,000:1 to 3,000:1. LCDs were in the 1,500-2,000:1 contrast range, and if I recall correctly, Panasonic were around 2,000-2,500:1.
> 
> So they were considerably better than previous Pioneer panels, but Pioneer panels had always been far behind when it came to contrast ratio. Even today's LCDs have a higher contrast ratio than the original Kuros.
> 
> 
> The second generation of Kuros (and the "2.5G" monitors) are where they actually made a leap in performance, and went from about 3,000:1 to 30,000:1 contrast (15,000:1 ANSI) which put them ahead of everyone else for a short while.
> 
> Then the XBR8 came along (around the same time, I think?) with its _zero_ black level, but plasma fans managed to convince people that it was "using tricks" to achieve this (and I suppose in a way it is) and blew the "haloing" issue (lower ANSI contrast) way out of proportion.
> 
> The Sony HX900 was introduced a few years later and largely fixed the ANSI problems by using an LCD panel with ~5,000:1 native contrast (Sharp UV2A) giving it an ANSI contrast ratio in excess of 10,000:1 - somewhat lower than the Kuros, but this largely eliminated the "haloing" issues with most content. (it's extremely rare with film content, but you can create test patterns that expose it) And people seem to have forgotten how a CRT with its ~200:1 ANSI contrast looked. (far worse "haloing" than the Sony local dimming sets)
> 
> I'm not saying that it's a better set, but I personally prefer high contrast LCD to plasma - even if they were able to produce one which had zero black level. (this would have objectively better contrast than a full array local dimming LCD, but image quality would still be worse)
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I agree that current displays - particularly LCD in the viewing conditions _most_ people watch them in - offer good enough contrast / overall image quality that anything OLED offers in that regard will largely be ignored.



I guess I'm remembering the black-level performance of those second Kuros as being jaw droppingly better than anything else out there at the time.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23644883
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I agree the OLED contrast/overall image quality difference will be largely ignored. When I walked into BestBuy and saw the LG OLED, it grabbed my attention and seemed to make all the other sets look noticeably inferior. I don't know if that was because of contrast, brightness, or something else. But it seems to me when people see that and see the "billion to one" contrast ratio (or whatever they choose to market it with), people will be influenced.
> 
> 
> It may be kind of like the transition from 720P to 1080P sets. Even though in small sets at normal viewing distances the difference was negligible at best, many people were influenced that 1080P was "Full HD" and they had to have it.



At $9000, it's going to be ignored period. At $6000, it's going to be ignored period.


And, with respected intended to people here at AVS who will expand their budgets, the idea that even at $4000, people who were about to buy a $2500 TV will buy a $4000 OLED because it has a fake contrast ratio spec attached to it flies in the face of everything we know to be true. That said, there is obviously a small segment of the population willing to buy newer and better. They are buying 4K sets, but only in small amounts. That's why Sony is about to slash prices. Already, the 55" is heading toward $3500. This year. Does anyone believe it won't be $2500 within 2 more years?


Only a tiny sliver of the TV market even exists at today's top end. It's the


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tubby497*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6660#post_23638920
> 
> 
> Seems to me there are people that don't want change. I don't get it. We should be super excited! It's the next generation of tv's. Are we not videophiles?? OLED's picture quality is better than plasma or lcd and doesn't have the negative shortcomings that plague plasma/lcd.... I have the KRP500M, which is the pinnacle of picture quality. I have love and hate relationship with my kuro. OLED changes that. I been waiting for an upgrade and it's finally here, and it's with OLED.



Indeed we should be excited, however there are hurtles to overcome but I'm sure in time it will all come together. Another thing I'm really looking forward to is an increase in (screen size) with OLED technology very large screen sizes should be very likely given what we know about the potential of the technology anyway, now that's something to get excited about.


----------



## SED <--- Rules




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23646030
> 
> 
> Indeed we should be excited, however there are hurtles to overcome but I'm sure in time it will all come together. Another thing I'm really looking forward to is an increase in (screen size) with OLED technology very large screen sizes should be very likely given what we know about the potential of the technology anyway, now that's something to get excited about.



I'd think a 70 inch 4K OLED would be just perfect for me. I cannot fathom how spectacular that would look. I would be willing fork over a lot of dough for something like that. The future of tvs is looking very exciting indeed. For now though, we will be playing the waiting game.


Oh and one more thought about OLEDs. As much as I love great contrast and black levels, there are other aspects that are important to PQ. So far, based on what I read of the LG and Samsung OLEDs, the motion is not the best. Motion is very important and I'm hoping it will not be an issue in the upcoming years. We'll see.


----------



## mfogarty5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *p5browne*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23644226
> 
> 
> From what I'm seeing, more and more TV purchasers are being talked into the SoundBar Addon. (My son included) Would be interesting as to the stastistics of how many get pulled into this gambit? Again, no speakers required.



You are looking at it backwards. In the continual race to the bottom, TV manufacturers removed quality speakers and they are now being sold separately as soundbars. People don't want soundbars as much as they need them to provide the audio that should have been included in the TV in the first place.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23643762
> 
> 
> Because more than 90% of people want speakers with their TV. And having them attach on is always worse than having them be built in from an engineering/reliability standpoint.
> 
> 
> The ascendancy of sound bars may begin to change the portion of people who demand speakers, but the idea they won't be built in anytime soon is pretty much wishful thinking on the part of a small, small minority.



Bingo. Rogo gets it once again.


Many people on avsforum have outright contempt for people who use the speakers on the TV. One of the reasons I selected a Sony XBR5 over the Kuro is that the Kuro's speakers looked like the detachable devices they were. Do the Sony's speakers match a 5.1 or 7.1 system? Nope. Do I care about watching football, golf or most tv programs in 5.1 or 7.1? Nope. Do I want to watch loud explosions when my daughters are sleeping? Nope. So I use headphones. Do I want to be able to actually hear dialogue? You betcha. And a good pair of speakers on the tv fits the bill quite nicely.


Surround sound setups are also not well suited to family rooms in the open floor plans found in most new construction.


As it relates to OLED, I'm very concerned that in order to make them thin, the speakers will be terrible or removed altogether.


----------



## Rich Peterson

There's nothing here really new that I can see but I thought you might want to check this out.



CNET article *Seven problems with current OLED televisions* is here .


----------



## Rich Peterson

This digitaltrends.com article has another comparison of the 2 OLEDs: *LG vs. Samsung: Battle of the curved OLED TVs*


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23645864
> 
> 
> Sound bar sales are growing nicely, but it's still a tiny fraction of TV sales. And you can't take off the speakers because "people might buy sound bars."


 

Not strictly because "people might buy sound bars", but you can absolutely make bolt-on speakers a seamless option.  IF (and only if) completely out of sight.

 

Speakers are generally completely hidden behind the TV these days.  For the vast majority of the world out there, this is totally peachy-keen.  Continuing that thought, for TVs in general there is absolutely no reason that a screw-on, snap-on, whatever-on speaker system cannot be attached easily and out of sight with all the same sound quality as when part of the chassis.  And with minimal impact on chassis design.  So long as there is care to dampen rattle, etc.

 

OLED F's that up when part of the goal is to make things absurdly thin, but it's certainly doable.  Just as it was theoretically doable to make the EM9700 mountable (most likely by thickening it up).

 

Though a tiny fraction of the whole, many high-end folks would love the ability to remove the speakers on the TV to decrease the clearance against the wall needed.  Further, others would love the ability to add ever larger speakers as an option.


----------



## Randomoneh

I have found (on Korean and some US sites) the real curvature of these curved sets.


It is 4500R for Samsung (4200R announced) and 5000R for LG. That means that the radius of the curve (and the sweet spot) is 4500 mm (4.5 meters) for Samsung and 5000 mm (5 meters) for LG.


> Quote:
> TV화면의 곡률은 LG전자 제품은 반지름이 5ｍ인 원만큼 휘어진 5,000R이었으나, 삼성전자는 4,500R(실제 측량 수치)로 LG전자보다 더 휘어진 것으로 조사됐다.





> Quote:
> The curvature of the TV screen, LG Electronics as a circle of radius 5m 5,000 R curve but, the Samsung 4,500 R (actual measurement value) to be bent more than the LG Electronics was examined.



That means the equidistant HFOV at the sweet spot is 14° (LG) and 15.5° (Samsung).


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23648166
> 
> 
> Speakers are generally completely hidden behind the TV these days.  For the vast majority of the world out there, this is totally peachy-keen.


Actually, sound quality is the thing I hear most people complaining about with televisions these days, rather than things like contrast or resolution. A lot of people have trouble hearing dialog properly with the speakers they put on most TVs now.


Sound bars have come about now because TV speakers are _so bad_. Most people are not buying them for "surround sound", to add a subwoofer, or anything like that. (frankly, the only sound bars that are any good for that purpose, are the Yamaha Sound Projectors)

And I think sound bars are a terrible solution, rather than building good speakers into the TV in the first place.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23648166
> 
> 
> Continuing that thought, for TVs in general there is absolutely no reason that a screw-on, snap-on, whatever-on speaker system cannot be attached easily and out of sight with all the same sound quality as when part of the chassis.  And with minimal impact on chassis design.  So long as there is care to dampen rattle, etc.


It didn't work out very well for Pioneer who sold two varieties of optional speaker (sides, or below the screen) which then meant that there were two stands sold for the TV. Rather than everything coming in one box, you're now ordering three separate components that requires assembly. And I have seen _a lot_ of Kuros out there which are using the wrong stand so there's a gap between the base and the TV. With the first Kuro I bought, the store sent me the wrong stand and I had to deal with returning that, and ordering the right one from another supplier that had them in stock.


And separate speakers never looked well integrated into the design of the set, but they will look especially bad now that high-end panels mostly seem to use a flush glass front, rather than the raised plastic frame of older displays.


Most of the time, I don't use TV speakers - but there have still been times when it has been useful to have them built in.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23648875
> 
> 
> It didn't work out very well for Pioneer who sold two varieties of optional speaker (sides, or below the screen) which then meant that there were two stands sold for the TV. Rather than everything coming in one box, you're now ordering three separate components that requires assembly. And I have seen _a lot_ of Kuros out there which are using the wrong stand so there's a gap between the base and the TV. With the first Kuro I bought, the store sent me the wrong stand and I had to deal with returning that, and ordering the right one from another supplier that had them in stock.
> 
> 
> And separate speakers never looked well integrated into the design of the set, but they will look especially bad now that high-end panels mostly seem to use a flush glass front, rather than the raised plastic frame of older displays.


 

I don't think that's completely what I said.  They would look just *fine* if they were bolted to the back completely out of site like I said: the speakers I've seen often push the sound down and around or straight back anyway.  This leaves the front to look just like a non-speaker solution does.  All that happens is the TV thickens.

 

You're correct that they'd have to be aware of this with stand design if the speakers ended up encroaching on where the legs attach.  I can't imagine this to be common: nor can I see this a tough problem to solve.  On my R550A, for instance, I could circular-saw my speakers off the back and I don't think it would impact the stand at all.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23648166
> 
> 
> Not strictly because "people might buy sound bars", but you can absolutely make bolt-on speakers a seamless option.  IF (and only if) completely out of sight.
> 
> 
> Speakers are generally completely hidden behind the TV these days.  For the vast majority of the world out there, this is totally peachy-keen.  Continuing that thought, for TVs in general there is absolutely no reason that a screw-on, snap-on, whatever-on speaker system cannot be attached easily and out of sight with all the same sound quality as when part of the chassis.  And with minimal impact on chassis design.  So long as there is care to dampen rattle, etc.
> 
> 
> OLED F's that up when part of the goal is to make things absurdly thin, but it's certainly doable.  Just as it was theoretically doable to make the EM9700 mountable (most likely by thickening it up).
> 
> 
> Though a tiny fraction of the whole, many high-end folks would love the ability to remove the speakers on the TV to decrease the clearance against the wall needed.  Further, others would love the ability to add ever larger speakers as an option.



I'm going to admit I don't get your point (see below), but, again, most buyers want speakers, so you have to build them into TVs. You can't make them attachable, or detachable, or whatever you're after. It would complicate a product that is currently without complicate to satisfy a small minority rather than the vast majority.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23648875
> 
> 
> Actually, sound quality is the thing I hear most people complaining about with televisions these days, rather than things like contrast or resolution. A lot of people have trouble hearing dialog properly with the speakers they put on most TVs now.



This is what I experienced when I recently visited my mom. Nice Toshiba LCD that met her picture quality needs just fine. But the sound? Oh lord it was awful. TV is thin and I guess the speakers are just lousy. I told her we'd find he a sound bar.


> Quote:
> Sound bars have come about now because TV speakers are _so bad_. Most people are not buying them for "surround sound", to add a subwoofer, or anything like that. (frankly, the only sound bars that are any good for that purpose, are the Yamaha Sound Projectors)
> 
> And I think sound bars are a terrible solution, rather than building good speakers into the TV in the first place.



I've read decent reviews of even the inexpensive Vizios actually for systems with some kind of subwoofer and without. Are they great? No, but apparently a solid value. But I digress.


> Quote:
> It didn't work out very well for Pioneer who sold two varieties of optional speaker (sides, or below the screen) which then meant that there were two stands sold for the TV. Rather than everything coming in one box, you're now ordering three separate components that requires assembly. And I have seen _a lot_ of Kuros out there which are using the wrong stand so there's a gap between the base and the TV. With the first Kuro I bought, the store sent me the wrong stand and I had to deal with returning that, and ordering the right one from another supplier that had them in stock.
> 
> .



See above. This is one of several reasons TVs will come with built-in speakers. And, yes, it presents a problem for OLEDs and their largely pointless super-thinness. (Largely pointless because in curved it provides no discernible benefit and in flat it's benefit is minimal, especially if rigidity is compromised.) I wonder if it isn't time for someone to figure out how to mainstream one of those exotic flat speaker technologies, e.g Magnepan ( http://www.magnepan.com/ )


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23649347
> 
> 
> I don't think that's completely what I said.  They would look just _fine_ if they were bolted to the back completely out of site like I said: the speakers I've seen often push the sound down and around or straight back anyway.  This leaves the front to look just like a non-speaker solution does.  All that happens is the TV thickens.
> 
> 
> You're correct that they'd have to be aware of this with stand design if the speakers ended up encroaching on where the legs attach.  I can't imagine this to be common: nor can I see this a tough problem to solve.  On my R550A, for instance, I could circular-saw my speakers off the back and I don't think it would impact the stand at all.



I believe the sound goes straight down on the Toshiba I mentioned above. It's not exactly a good solution, but it's still not clear what you're proposing. You want a bolt-or-remove design? Not happening. Too many things could go wrong. Anything removable is going to be not a mainstream product.


----------



## tgm1024


Sure, that'll do.  That's precisely what I want.  In the simplest configuration: an optional remove design.  I cannot imagine how that complicates manufacturing much.  Speakers are voice-coils.  They represent the oldest of all the technology in the thing, and they're going to be there anyway.  Requires two speakers (encased) screwed to the back of the TV.  An insert tab and one holding screw each.  Two analog connectors each.  If you want, you can unscrew it and go tighter to the wall.  Or you can (potentially) order bigger/better ones from the manufacturer.  I'm happy, the audiophiles are happy[ier].

 

The person who wants a turn-key system with single ordering gets it just as always.  Given all the tight bezels out there, I can't think of any modern ones that push sound forward anyway.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23650042
> 
> 
> This is what I experienced when I recently visited my mom. Nice Toshiba LCD that met her picture quality needs just fine. But the sound? Oh lord it was awful. TV is thin and I guess the speakers are just lousy. I told her we'd find he a sound bar.


And I bet she would much rather not have a sound bar, and have it integrated into the television.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23650042
> 
> 
> I wonder if it isn't time for someone to figure out how to mainstream one of those exotic flat speaker technologies, e.g Magnepan ( http://www.magnepan.com/ )


Well Sony introduced Magnetic Fluid speakers with the X900A models, and from what I've seen so far, people seem to be quite impressed with them. The problem is physics, and it's difficult to hide away a speaker in a really slim enclosure, and still have it sound good.


Flat panel speakers like the Magnepans need a lot of distance behind them, and they are highly directional.

Philips used NXT flat panel speakers in their LCDs a number of years ago, but I don't recall how they sounded.
THX's Steerable Line Array speaker seemed like it could potentially be integrated into slightly thicker flat panel designs, or at least improve over traditional sound bar design (being steerable, it's more like the Yamaha Sound Projectors) but it was announced and then nothing ever seemed to happen with it.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23641189
> 
> 
> I was put off initially by the curved set, but not enough to rule it out: it is not a big deal to me since I would use it on a credenza,I am not wall mounting it
> 
> 
> I am agonizing over Rogo's (and others) cautions to avoid this first gen set and wait: I know that is good advise, but I remain tempted and you know I am an early adopter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one other concern is the warranty: I thought it was 3 years, not one (or extended to 2)



Vallue Electronics updated their info on the Samsung OLED TV: 5 year warranty from date of purchase $99

http://www.kn55s9.com/


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23650677
> 
> 
> And I bet she would much rather not have a sound bar, and have it integrated into the television.



For sure, we're going to need to build her a shelf for the sound bar. Pain in the rear.


> Quote:
> Flat panel speakers like the Magnepans need a lot of distance behind them, and they are highly directional.
> 
> Philips used NXT flat panel speakers in their LCDs a number of years ago, but I don't recall how they sounded.
> THX's Steerable Line Array speaker seemed like it could potentially be integrated into slightly thicker flat panel designs, or at least improve over traditional sound bar design (being steerable, it's more like the Yamaha Sound Projectors) but it was announced and then nothing ever seemed to happen with it.



Good run down. I was speaking hypothetically, but this is solid practical stuff.


----------



## Desk.

OLED "tipping point" approaching as TV production ramps up, says Korean investment company...

http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/31246/tipping-point-approaching-oled-industrywoori-securities


----------



## vinnie97

^UHD OLEDs coming in the third quarter of *this (?!)* year, so says Woori Investment. Maybe another prototype, because LG/Samsung only have a little over a month to debut such a product (and meet the deadline).


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23651504
> 
> 
> Vallue Electronics updated their info on the Samsung OLED TV: 5 year warranty from date of purchase $99
> 
> http://www.kn55s9.com/


 http://www.mackcam.com/warranties/televisions/ 


> Quote:
> The equipment will be restored to proper operating condition at no charge to you (this includes warranted parts and labor for manufacturer defects). Such service, repair, adjustment of the equipment is assured the registered contract holder, provided the equipment has not been tampered with, modified, damaged as a result of liquid, grit, power surge, *burn-in,* impact and physically broken parts. This service contract only covers a unit malfunction. Customer maintenance is not covered.



For reference, here is the BB warranty. It specifically mentions covering burn-in and pixel defects. Before buying, one would need to verify if these terms also apply to OLED.

http://www.geeksquad.com/uploadedFiles/wwwgeeksquadcom/protection_plans/geek_squad_protection/television-guide.pdf 
http://www.geeksquad.com/uploadedFiles/wwwgeeksquadcom/protection_plans/Geek_Squad_Protection_TsandCs_7_15_12_English.pdf


----------



## 8mile13

  

Despicable mE


----------



## Wizziwig

Regarding the Samsung, Amazon is now taking orders with 1-2 month estimated delivery. Earlier today, they showed 1 unit "in-stock" through a third party seller.


Personally, I'm not sure I would purchase this from anyone else but BB. They offer the only warranty likely to cover burn-in and pixel defects. See link to warranty terms 2 posts back.


----------



## vinnie97

Couldn't find the product page when I searched for it previously. Now it's live: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-KN55S9C-Curved-Panel-Smart/dp/B00E5GIN36/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377149638&sr=8-1 


At least this means they're fairly confident they'll be receiving them.


----------



## Wizziwig

Also, according to BB, they have an exclusive on the LG for the next few months. You can order it at any of their stores, but only a select few stores have demo units on display:
Code:


Code:


[CODE]CALIFORNIA
West L.A.       11301 W Pico Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064
Mission Viejo   25422 El Paseo, Mission Viejo, CA 92691
San Francisco   1717 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CAÂ 94103
Santana Row     3090 Stevens Creek Blvd, San Jose, CAÂ 95128
COLORADO
Denver  8682 Park Meadows Center Dr., Lone Tree, CO 80124
CONNECTICUT
Danbury 2 International Dr., Danbury, CT 06810
FLORIDA
Aventura        21035 Biscayne Blvd, Aventura, FL 33180
ILLINOIS
Chicago 2100 N Elston Ave, Chicago, ILÂ  60614-3904
MICHIGAN
Novi    21051 Haggerty Road, Novi, MI 48375
MINNESOTA
Richfield       1000 West 78th St, Richfield, MN 55423
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Portsmouth      45 Gosling Rd, Newington, NH, 03801
NEW YORK
62nd and Broadway       1880 Broadway, New York City, NY 10023
Westbury        1100 Old Country Road, Westbury, NY 11590
TEXAS
Dallas  9378 N Central Expressway, Dallas, TX 75231
North Rim       17414 La Cantera, San Antonio, TX 78257
The Woodlands   1550 Lake Woodlands Dr, The Woodlands, TX 77380
VIRGINIA
Springfield Mall        6555 Frontier Dr, Springfield, VA 22150
Washington
Bellevue        14404 NE 20th Street, Bellevue, WAÂ  98007

[/CODE]


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23655596
> 
> 
> Couldn't find the product page when I searched for it previously. Now it's live: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-KN55S9C-Curved-Panel-Smart/dp/B00E5GIN36/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377149638&sr=8-1
> 
> 
> At least this means they're fairly confident they'll be receiving them.



This line about when it might be shipped is unintentionally hilarious.


"Usually ships within 1 to 2 months." Apparenty based on all the past history of shipping the product.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23655555
> 
> 
> Regarding the Samsung, Amazon is now taking orders with 1-2 month estimated delivery. Earlier today, they showed 1 unit "in-stock" through a third party seller.
> 
> 
> Personally, I'm not sure I would purchase this from anyone else but BB. They offer the only warranty likely to cover burn-in and pixel defects. See link to warranty terms 2 posts back.



Agree and BestBuy's warranty is two years where Samsung's website says only one year so I think that would imply you only get one year if bought through Amazon.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23656128
> 
> 
> This line about when it might be shipped is unintentionally hilarious.
> 
> 
> "Usually ships within 1 to 2 months." Apparenty based on all the past history of shipping the product.



We can only pray that the US launch does not repeat what happened with the Korean/UK launches - where 6 months later we're still waiting for a single confirmed-owner review of either TV. Someone out there must be buying these things. Strange they aren't bragging about it on the net.


----------



## navychop

_"...a tipping point is approaching..."_


Only in the same sense as the end of the world is approaching. I can understand why there is no author attached to the piece.


----------



## JWhip

Harrod's quoted me 4 weeks to get flat LG. they really must be making ten of these sets a week!


----------



## Desk.

More impressions of the new Samsung OLED set...

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/blog/2013/08/18/picture-shows-future-television


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23657993
> 
> 
> Harrod's quoted me 4 weeks to get flat LG. they really must be making ten of these sets a week!



My sense is very strong that there are no actual units for sale in the U.K. If you order one, it gets shipped from Korea.


LG told me explicitly that in the U.S. there would be units in distribution, however.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23650324
> 
> 
> Sure, that'll do.  That's precisely what I want.  In the simplest configuration: an optional remove design.  I cannot imagine how that complicates manufacturing much.  Speakers are voice-coils.  They represent the oldest of all the technology in the thing, and they're going to be there anyway.  Requires two speakers (encased) screwed to the back of the TV.  An insert tab and one holding screw each.  Two analog connectors each.  If you want, you can unscrew it and go tighter to the wall.  Or you can (potentially) order bigger/better ones from the manufacturer.  I'm happy, the audiophiles are happy[ier].
> 
> 
> 
> The person who wants a turn-key system with single ordering gets it just as always.  Given all the tight bezels out there, I can't think of any modern ones that push sound forward anyway.


 

Ok, to put a bookend on this particular OT part of the discussion, Sony has not only slashed prices on their existing XBR's (with the speakers) but set the 55" & 65" speakerless versions at $3500 & $5000 respectively.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23659143
> 
> 
> More impressions of the new Samsung OLED set...
> 
> http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/blog/2013/08/18/picture-shows-future-television



"This may not look like much, but it is a quantum leap in television performance."


Nice.


----------



## wco81

Has Panasonic announced a timeline for their OLED?


Has the Japanese consortium of display manufacturers announced anything?


Wasn't Sony going to pursue some alternate display tech after all the various ones they dallied with? I mean after Kaz Hirai took over, not 5 or 6 years ago.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SED*


----------



## greenland

How much of a visual distraction is the outer frame to the eye?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFB-cAWKMwg 


Looking at it on this Samsung clip, it looks like it might be. I find it strange that for the past few years the manufacturers have been promoting ever narrower bezels, and now Samsung has decided to hang them inside a much wider frame, which creates a wide boundary on each side of the actual picture.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23660941
> 
> 
> How much of a visual distraction is the outer frame to the eye?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFB-cAWKMwg
> 
> 
> Looking at it on this Samsung clip, it looks like it might be. I find it strange that for the past few years the manufacturers have been promoting ever narrower bezels, and now Samsung has decided to hang them inside a much wider frame, which creates a wide boundary on each side of the actual picture.


 

Yeah, to me there was something about that frame that looked ..... oddly in the way somehow.  I can't wait for them to perfect this TV, get the brightness up enough to manage very tight pulses, etc., etc., etc.  I was glad to hear someone call it "oh el ee dee" instead of the increasingly common "oh led", which I can't quite get my mind around.


----------



## gmarceau

Cnet measured the black level of the Samsung set at .00004f/l, which I believe is around the same measurement that Sony was showing in charts for their OLED broadcast monitors. Although, David Katzmeier wasn't sure if his reading was accurate. Has anyone been able to see one of these sets in a light controlled environment yet?


D-Nice, when are you getting your hands on one of these sets for a review? Tweaked Kuro vs. OLED?


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23660332
> 
> 
> Ok, to put a bookend on this particular OT part of the discussion, Sony has not only slashed prices on their existing XBR's (with the speakers) but set the 55" & 65" speakerless versions at $3500 & $5000 respectively.



Sweat breaking out on foreheads?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23660941
> 
> 
> How much of a visual distraction is the outer frame to the eye?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFB-cAWKMwg
> 
> 
> Looking at it on this Samsung clip, it looks like it might be. I find it strange that for the past few years the manufacturers have been promoting ever narrower bezels, and now Samsung has decided to hang them inside a much wider frame, which creates a wide boundary on each side of the actual picture.



It's hard to put into words just how freaking awful that frame is. When I first saw the basic design at CES, I was dumbfounded that Samsung thought this was progress when it basically undid years of that and was displeasing aesthetically to boot. It's actually worse on the smaller 55" than it is on the larger 84", where it's already awful. You can't stop looking at it and it traps the stuff between itself and the TV because it's on more or less (not even exactly, which is worse!) the same plane. I believe it ranks in the bottom 5 of all TVs in the flat-panel era for industrial design. No one will miss it when it goes away in the next generation Samsungs.


Also, before some of you chime in to explain that you like it, I'm sure you believe that. Really I am. But from a TV watching perspective, it adds negative value in about 4 different ways. You won't enjoy it if you end up with it; you might grow to ignore it though.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23660487
> 
> 
> "This may not look like much, but it is a quantum leap in television performance."
> 
> 
> Nice.



The Sound and Vision author writes: "As an unabashed fanboy of OLED, I’m practically giddy that we finally have TVs to check out. Is the KN55S9C better than the current king of picture quality, the Panasonic ZT60? Yes, it sure seems like "


So when people keep asking me why I claim no one is calling this revolutionary vs. existing TVs, I'd point out phrases like *"it sure seems to be"* are not exactly the same as. "Yes, it's much better than the ZT60." Essentially, this guy is saying, "The TV is a bit better. I think."


Same article, he quotes his colleague Al:


"The image put out by the set, while not perfect (more on that to come) proves that OLED is capable of satisfying the core requirements of serious videophiles. "


Again, *capable of satisfying* is a lot different from "blowing away". Do you think it's a coincidence that reviewer after reviewer chooses that very non-hyperbolic phrases? I sure don't.


Editor Rob did say contrast was "absolutely mesmerizing" and I don't doubt that. Of course, it's pretty freaking mesmerizing on a ZT60 or Samsung F8500 and he didn't draw a comparison. So we don't know how much more mesmerizing he meant to imply.


But like every other review, Sound and Vision seems to echo the same themes: The TV is great, but only a little bit greater than other things you can buy for 1/3 the price. (And by the way, S&V points out -- like I and others have -- that those other things are bigger, too.)


----------



## tlwiz1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6720#post_23660332
> 
> 
> Ok, to put a bookend on this particular OT part of the discussion, Sony has not only slashed prices on their existing XBR's (with the speakers) but set the 55" & 65" speakerless versions at $3500 & $5000 respectively.



If this holds out to be true...a 65" 4K UHD Sony vs. a Panasonic zt60. $5000 vs 3700-4000. That would be a pretty tough call. Drop an extra grand for the UHD or hold out. That's almost too close to call.


----------



## Chris5028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tlwiz1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23662984
> 
> 
> If this holds out to be true...a 65" 4K UHD Sony vs. a Panasonic zt60. $5000 vs 3700-4000. That would be a pretty tough call. Drop an extra grand for the UHD or hold out. That's almost too close to call.



I think its a pretty easy choice. ZT and buy an ST60 for your bedroom with the money you saved.


----------



## vinnie97

So much for that bookend.







$3100 is the bottom line price for the ZT60 so far (that I personally achieved, plus tax). Based on the 2013 shootout results, I think jumping on the UHD bandwagon is unnecessary this year (along with the prospect of the new HDMI revision rendering you with premature obsolescence).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tlwiz1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23662984
> 
> 
> If this holds out to be true...a 65" 4K UHD Sony vs. a Panasonic zt60. $5000 vs 3700-4000. That would be a pretty tough call. Drop an extra grand for the UHD or hold out. That's almost too close to call.



The Sony price change is definitely true.


----------



## Wizziwig

If you're near Chicago, it looks like ABT now has them in stock and on display in their store. Estimated Delivery Date Aug 29th - Sep 2nd :

http://www.abt.com/product/71818/Samsung-KN55S9.html


----------



## greenland

That straight on view of the Samsung set up in the Abt clip, reinforces my take that the frame is an ugly visual distraction. Of course it will make it easy for a young child to grab a hold of and pull the display down, so it does have that selling point going for it.










Notice how highly reflective the screen is.


----------



## p5browne




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23663444
> 
> 
> That straight on view of the Samsung set up in the Abt clip, reinforces my take that the frame is an ugly visual distraction. Of course it will make it easy for a young child to grab a hold of and pull the display down, so it does have that selling point going for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how highly reflective the screen is.



Great Safety Point!

We have enough children getting into trouble pulling TVs down, without the Manufacturer now actually giving them handles to make it even easier! Plus at this price point, you're not going to go out and buy another! (Insurance Claim anyone?)


----------



## Wizziwig

Do we have any female readers? I wonder if the Samsung design appeals to women. There must be some demographic that finds this design attractive.


For the products I work on, we routinely bring in random customers to give feedback. Anything with such a universal negative reaction would never make it to market. I find it hard to believe a large company like Samsung would not perform similar market research.


----------



## JWhip

2:35:1 and the like scope films are a mess on this set. The distortion due to the curve is so obvious with the bars as to be insane. I don't care how black the blacks are with such a bent picture.


----------



## Randomoneh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23664064
> 
> 
> 2:35:1 and the like scope films are a mess on this set. The distortion due to the curve is so obvious with the bars as to be insane. I don't care how black the blacks are with such a bent picture.


Huh? What do you think this is? A 180° display?


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23664028
> 
> 
> Do we have any female readers? I wonder if the Samsung design appeals to women. There must be some demographic that finds this design attractive.



I expect female readers would hate it more. They usually have better taste










I like the Samsung video claim that curved screens give you better visibility off angle.

Huh? How does increasing the angle off angle ever look better










Curved screens were created to keep focus on projected images.


- Rich


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23663444
> 
> 
> That straight on view of the Samsung set up in the Abt clip, reinforces my take that the frame is an ugly visual distraction. Of course it will make it easy for a young child to grab a hold of and pull the display down, so it does have that selling point going for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how highly reflective the screen is.



So, there's often a collective delusion at AVS about just how reflective most screens are. But the Samsung LCDs are mirror-like already and this is, well, probably worse.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23664028
> 
> 
> Do we have any female readers? I wonder if the Samsung design appeals to women. There must be some demographic that finds this design attractive.
> 
> 
> For the products I work on, we routinely bring in random customers to give feedback. Anything with such a universal negative reaction would never make it to market. I find it hard to believe a large company like Samsung would not perform similar market research.



My wife works in home furnishings. Her description was, "Hideous." She especially hated how by framing the stuff between your TV and the edge of the bezel/frame, it called extra attention to it.


And, no, Wizz, this was never tested. Absolutely not outside Korea, and probably not even there. I also doubt focus groups even would work in Korea. People would know it was Samsung or LG and culturally, it would be very hard to call out the products in such a setting given that you'd be getting paid to be there. In the U.S., Americans have no trouble saying, "Wow, that's freaking ugly, where's my 100 bucks?"


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23664207
> 
> 
> I expect female readers would hate it more. They usually have better taste
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the Samsung video claim that curved screens give you better visibility off angle.
> 
> Huh? How does increasing the angle off angle ever look better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curved screens were created to keep focus on projected images.



Since when is bogus marketing a new thing on TVs, Rich?


As for hating it more, my wife can't tell me if my assessment of "bottom 5 all time" has any meaning to her, she hasn't seen as many TVs as I have. But she reiterated, "hideous".


----------



## Randomoneh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23664207
> 
> 
> I expect female readers would hate it more. They usually have better taste
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the Samsung video claim that curved screens give you better visibility off angle.
> 
> Huh? How does increasing the angle off angle ever look better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curved screens were created to keep focus on projected images.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Never mind what curved screens were created for, it's a mathematically provable that for most cases you'll get higher HFOV than if you were using a flat screen of the same diagonal / width.

"b-but distortion!"

You get distortion anyway (except for when you're sitting at the right place at the right time). This is just a different type of distortion.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23660941
> 
> 
> How much of a visual distraction is the outer frame to the eye?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFB-cAWKMwg
> 
> 
> Looking at it on this Samsung clip, it looks like it might be. I find it strange that for the past few years the manufacturers have been promoting ever narrower bezels, and now Samsung has decided to hang them inside a much wider frame, which creates a wide boundary on each side of the actual picture.




I like the quote from the young lady from techlicious saying she

can't believe how quickly they've come to market.



Are they really on the market yet when i'm still looking for the first u.s. set in

someones home?


----------



## viclaw

Just saw 55" LG OLED on display at the Best Buy at the Magnolia on Ashland and Elston in Chicago. No crappy frame here.


The demo was excellent (Nemo) but they could not (would not) play the same source that was on the Panasonic and other sets in the room. Yes, in my opinion the curved screen is distracting. Maybe the same as migrating from the 3x4 CRT to the 16x9 flat panels? Aside from that I think I want one but they need to show me some typical sourced material and reduce the price by 3/4 from the posted $14,999 (I wonder if they give bonus points for buying at list).


Is it time to start an owners thread? This one, at 225 pages, is getting long in the tooth. /


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *viclaw*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23665561
> 
> 
> Just saw 55" LG OLED on display at the Best Buy at the Magnolia on Ashland and Elston in Chicago. No crappy frame here.
> 
> 
> The demo was excellent (Nemo) but they could not (would not) play the same source that was on the Panasonic and other sets in the room. Yes, in my opinion the curved screen is distracting. Maybe the same as migrating from the 3x4 CRT to the 16x9 flat panels? Aside from that I think I want one but they need to show me some typical sourced material and reduce the price by 3/4 from the posted $14,999 (I wonder if they give bonus points for buying at list).
> 
> 
> Is it time to start an owners thread? This one, at 225 pages, is getting long in the tooth. /



It's time to start an owners thread as soon as an owner posts one.


----------



## gmarceau

My experience with passive 3d on the LG set was awesome, as long as you're in the front and center sweet spot. That was the best 3d I've seen, and the first time it's been worthwhile.


Rogo, I'm pretty sure that the Sound and Vision article said the contrast was orders of magnitude better, especially in low apl-I'm guessing this was in a light controlled environment. I did check out a ZT60 playing blu ray, which was right up there with the oled, though.


The actual picture itself really seems to have this dark depth of plasma, but the sharpness and brightness of lcd, making for a slightly different looking image. I'm looking forward to seeing one of these sets fully calibrated, but the initial reports are that they're doing this well.


----------



## Rich Peterson

LG's 55 inch OLED is rolling out to Germany this week for about $12,000. http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/25/lg-55-inch-curved-oled-tv-germany/


----------



## David_B

People saying these oled sets aren't as big a leap as kuro was are just fanboys in denial.


If either of these sets said "Panasonic" on them, 50 percent of posters would be saying nothing else comes close.


Saw the LG at best buy, it's the best by far in the store.


Once they are priced more competitively they will take over.


The question is will the Chinese step up an release ultra high end lcd at ultra low prices before that can happen?


4k seems to say maybe.


----------



## Wizziwig

Anyone in SoCal area who wishes to check out the Samsung - it is now available at Paul's TV in Irvine, CA. Couple of the Best Buy's also have the LG (see store list I posted earlier). I'll be doing extensive testing of both models sometime this week. I think I'll leave my credit cards at home - just to make sure I don't do something I'll regret later.










Edit: Looks like you can also now get the Samsung up in LA (see lower left of ad): https://www.videoandaudiocenter.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/homepage/LAT82313.gif 


Maybe we'll see the owner's thread open this week.


----------



## 8mile13

Though the Curved Samsung is much cheaper and is considered the better TV i want to remind folks that Samsung will adopt LG's white OLED plus color filter technology. And according to Samsung officials the company will start the manufacture of AMOLED with white OLED plus color filter technology in late 2013
http://touchdisplayresearch.com/?m=201302


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23666069
> 
> 
> M
> 
> Rogo, I'm pretty sure that the Sound and Vision article said the contrast was orders of magnitude better, especially in low apl-I'm guessing this was in a light controlled environment. I did check out a ZT60 playing blu ray, which was right up there with the oled, though.



You are making my point. Who cares what some metered reading says? Every single _qualitative_ measure says this is a marginal improvement. That is absolutely something to applaud and be interested in, although at 3x the price, in a smaller size, and with a curved screen, perhaps not very interested in.


And as for quantitative measures, I direct everyone touting "orders of magnitude" of contrast improvement to the same physiology the smug, anti-4K forces like to trot out. Humans can only perceive on the order of 10K:1 contrast _at any one time_. (It may be slightly higher, but it is not significantly higher. Feel free to insert 15K:1 as some sort of absolute max).


ZT60s already exceed the limits of humans. I quote HDGuru: "The ZT60 creates a contrast ratio of 38,454.54 to 1 in Bright Room Mode and 27,636.26 to 1 in the THX Cinema Mode. We also performed adjustments in the Custom Mode. We obtained a maximum light output of 47.1 ft. lamberts."


Now, there is a gigantic caveat there and it's really important. ZT60s don't do this on all content. The reason is that plasma ABL will affect enough scenes that peak whites will fall from, say, 47 ft/L to 15 on a fair amount of content. But you might want to observe that _even if you cut those ratios down by 2/3_ they are still close to the limits of humans.


What does this mean? It means that there is room for improvement in contrast-ratio perception. There is not room for anything resembling even a single order of magnitude improvement, let alone several. (Measuring CR on the OLEDs is going to get pointless if the black truly is black by the way, because CR becomes infinite, not "several orders of magnitude" better. If black is anything other than absolutely freaking black-as-a-black-hole black, CR will likely not measure even one order of magnitude better. While doubling the calibrated white level is certainly doable, reducing the black level by 80% and yet still having that be measurable seems pretty unlikely... But this is a sideshow anyway...)


People are advised -- as they were in 2005 and the contrast-ratio wars -- not to get caught up in useless specmanship but rather in (a) what they intellectually know to be possible (b) what they can actually see (c) what every single review has said to date.


> Quote:
> The actual picture itself really seems to have this dark depth of plasma, but the sharpness and brightness of lcd, making for a slightly different looking image. I'm looking forward to seeing one of these sets fully calibrated, but the initial reports are that they're doing this well.



I don't doubt you'll find it "the best TV ever". I'm certainly not arguing with anyone who does. A good analogy might be to note that Usain Bolt is the best sprinter ever. He's electric to watch and does things no one has ever done. But at the end of the day, he's only a little bit faster than, say, Carl Lewis in his prime. If I needed 100 meters run to go grab some medicine and get it to a dying child and (calendar be damned for a moment), I could have either of them do the job at their peak, well, Lewis would also save the kid.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23666661
> 
> 
> People saying these oled sets aren't as big a leap as kuro was are just fanboys in denial.
> 
> 
> If either of these sets said "Panasonic" on them, 50 percent of posters would be saying nothing else comes close.



I won't speak for a single other person, but they could brand it "Rogo" and I'd tell people, "I believe I have created a TV that is better than anything out there. A bit better, but definitely better."


> Quote:
> Once they are priced more competitively they will take over.



This remains the single most irrelevant point made about OLEDs for a decade. I don't mean to call you out, but it's hard to imagine a more irrelevant point. "Once a Ferrari costs what a Corvette does, the Chevy is toast."


If someone is the market for a Ferrari (OLED) today, they should consider the downsides (unknown longevity, weird/ugly design, price, small size, etc.) and make a choice. If someone was in the market for a Corvette, they should just buy one. The fact that Ferrari might someday go more mass market is so completely irrelevant to that purchase decision it needs to be summarily disregarded.


> Quote:
> The question is will the Chinese step up an release ultra high end lcd at ultra low prices before that can happen?
> 
> 
> 4k seems to say maybe.



So now you're saying better LCD might stop the OLED takeover dead in its tracks. Boy, that directly contradicts the idea that OLED will take over, doesn't it.


In fact, that's been the argument of irkuck and myself for way too many posts (to be clear, we are on the same side of that argument).


I still remain cautiously optimistic that within 3 years, OLEDs will be (a) much more affordable and (b) in more interesting sizes and form factors. I'm less sure than a lot of people that the sale of tiny quantities of really expensive curved ones actually proves much in that regard. I remember how Quadrophonic sound was going to take over. I see the continued presence of features like 3-D on TVs and Surround Sound on receivers as being ubiquitous in availability but adopted by only a small, small sliver of the marketplace (yes, even Surround Sound).


I also wonder if you took a top-end plasma, a top-end LCD and one of these OLEDs and asked regular folks to rate them on a scale of 0-10 in a reasonably lit room, what kind of ratings you'd get. If we arbitrarily decide the OLED would get 10, I doubt the others would get less than 8 and almost certainly not less than 7. When looking at 3-4x the cost (or more for the LG still?!?), I think ignoring that is like pretending the Ferrari isn't wildly more expensive than the Corvette.


----------



## drfreeman60




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23663046
> 
> 
> So much for that bookend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $3100 is the bottom line price for the ZT60 so far (that I personally achieved, plus tax). Based on the 2013 shootout results, I think jumping on the UHD bandwagon is unnecessary this year (along with the prospect of the new HDMI revision rendering you with premature obsolescence).



Vinnie - just completed purchase last Sunday and delivery Friday of 60" ZT60 at approx. $ 600.00 less that the price you are showing. Went into BB asked if they would match their own previous low price since less than 30 days ago. They agreed and threw in 24 month 0% financing plus a coupon for 10% off additional purchases in the next 30 days.


Yes the ZT is good. No, demand has not overwhelmed supply at this time. One note, BB in Memphis said that at this time they would be receiving no more of the 60" ZT60's. At that time, only twelve in stock. The truck that delivered mine delivered nine ZT60's (I forgot to ask which size) to one customer who wanted all left in the box which is why they showed up at my house three hours early. The other guy must be preparing for the plasma apocalypse.


David


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23666069
> 
> *The actual picture itself really seems to have this dark depth of plasma, but the sharpness and brightness of lcd, making for a slightly different looking image.* I'm looking forward to seeing one of these sets fully calibrated, but the initial reports are that they're doing this well.


You weren't trying but you made that sound so edible.


----------



## wco81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23666661
> 
> 
> People saying these oled sets aren't as big a leap as kuro was are just fanboys in denial.
> 
> 
> If either of these sets said "Panasonic" on them, 50 percent of posters would be saying nothing else comes close.
> 
> 
> Saw the LG at best buy, it's the best by far in the store.
> 
> 
> Once they are priced more competitively they will take over.
> 
> 
> The question is will the Chinese step up an release ultra high end lcd at ultra low prices before that can happen?
> 
> 
> 4k seems to say maybe.



Speaking of the Japanese, what are they up to?


Didn't they set up a display consortium along with the Japanese govt. a couple of years ago?


Didn't Sony after Hirai took over pursue some other tech (guess they dropped their pursuit of OLED)?


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23667249
> 
> 
> Though the Curved Samsung is much cheaper and is considered the better TV i want to remind folks that Samsung will adopt LG's white OLED plus color filter technology. And according to Samsung officials the company will start the manufacture of AMOLED with white OLED plus color filter technology in late 2013
> http://touchdisplayresearch.com/?m=201302



That article is a bit old and I've been unable to find any recent evidence they are going with WOLED. The recent price cut and announcement of improved yields also doesn't help the WOLED case. If it does turn out to be true, maybe it's a reason to buy a Samsung now. The LG implementation of WOLED seems to have some quality issues not present on the Samsung.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23667273
> 
> 
> And as for quantitative measures, I direct everyone touting "orders of magnitude" of contrast improvement to the same physiology the smug, anti-4K forces like to trot out. Humans can only perceive on the order of 10K:1 contrast _at any one time_. (It may be slightly higher, but it is not significantly higher. Feel free to insert 15K:1 as some sort of absolute max).
> 
> 
> ZT60s already exceed the limits of humans. I quote HDGuru: "The ZT60 creates a contrast ratio of 38,454.54 to 1 in Bright Room Mode and 27,636.26 to 1 in the THX Cinema Mode. We also performed adjustments in the Custom Mode. We obtained a maximum light output of 47.1 ft. lamberts."



No currently available non-OLED display exceeds human vision when watching dark scenes in an unlit room. After giving your eyes 10 minutes to adapt, you will notice black backgrounds turning gray and emitting an easily visible glow. For reference, human rod cells are sensitive down to 0.000001 cd/m² (0.000000292 ftL) given enough adaptation time.


The contrast limits you describe above need to be taken in context. When you're watching a dark sci-fi movie where the average brightness might be 10 cd/m² or less, even using your contrast numbers, you will easily be able to resolve 10 cd/10,0000 = 0.001 cd/m² (aka: 0.000292 ftL).


Take a look at any anticipation thread for a new TV or projector model here at AVS. All anyone talks about is black level. It's all anyone will talk about if/when a ZT70 is launched next year. Clearly we haven't reached a point where everyone is satisfied with the current black and contrast performance.


As far as pricing is concerned. The TV market is no different than any other (cars, computers, whatever). You always pay a huge premium for rapidly diminishing returns. But there are always people out there willing to pay the price for that extra bit of performance. I don't see anything wrong with that and I'm not going to go around telling people not to buy something just because they can get 90% of the performance for 1/3 the price. If you want the best, you usually have to pay for it.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23668101
> 
> 
> No currently available non-OLED display exceeds human vision when watching dark scenes in an unlit room. After giving your eyes 10 minutes to adapt, you will notice black backgrounds turning gray and emitting an easily visible glow. For reference, human rod cells are sensitive down to 0.000001 cd/m² (0.000000292 ftL) given enough adaptation time.



So let's say I agree with you on this. One problem is that most movies then have bright scenes and your eye's re-adaptability limits how quickly you can see things even between scenes -- unless you're running some genital-measuring demo.


> Quote:
> The contrast limits you describe above need to be taken in context. When you're watching a dark sci-fi movie where the average brightness might be 10 cd/m² or less, even using your contrast numbers, you will easily be able to resolve 10 cd/10,0000 = 0.001 cd/m² (aka: 0.000292 ftL).
> 
> 
> Take a look at any anticipation thread for a new TV or projector model here at AVS. All anyone talks about is black level. It's all anyone will talk about if/when a ZT70 is launched next year. Clearly we haven't reached a point where everyone is satisfied with the current black and contrast performance.



So, again, there are two things going on here. One, the issue of the really small minority of people who isn't satisfied by current black levels. I am no longer one of those people, but I am more than willing to acknowledge they exist.


> Quote:
> As far as pricing is concerned. The TV market is no different than any other (cars, computers, whatever). You always pay a huge premium for rapidly diminishing returns. But there are always people out there willing to pay the price for that extra bit of performance. I don't see anything wrong with that and I'm not going to go around telling people not to buy something just because they can get 90% of the performance for 1/3 the price. If you want the best, you usually have to pay for it.



So there are two freaking gigantic differences:


1) Paying the huge premium today will make you a chump. Why? Because if the OLED is still offered at all 2 years from now, it will be half the price more or less. If you buy the Lamborghini today, it will cost more 2 years from now.


2) Small production cars are a viable economic construction. So are yachts, 4 carat diamond rings, $25,000 wristwatches, etc. Small production flat panel television are not a viable economic construction. There will be no OLED market at $9000. There will either be one below $3000 or none. I don't see anything wrong will telling people not to buy something because they can get 90% of the performance for 1/3 the price. I don't see enough psychic benefit to owning a too-small, weirdly shaped TV whereas although I don't desire a Ferrari at all, I completely get why people want to own and drive them.


I regularly dispense advice to people on what is and is not worth it. Of course, it matters what you can afford, but even when you are flush with excess cash, there are purchases that are of very dubious merit.


That said, I'm pretty sure I've been clear on this: If you want the first generation OLED and don't care that it's small, weirdly shaped, might not last, isn't especially power frugal, has an odd external interface box, and is also only _slighty_ better at displaying video than the best plasmas on the market, then *by all means go and by one*.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drfreeman60*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6750#post_23667535
> 
> 
> Vinnie - just completed purchase last Sunday and delivery Friday of 60" ZT60 at approx. $ 600.00 less that the price you are showing. Went into BB asked if they would match their own previous low price since less than 30 days ago. They agreed and threw in 24 month 0% financing plus a coupon for 10% off additional purchases in the next 30 days.


I didn't skimp out on size for the record (went for the max available, 65").







Congrats on the bargain, though!


> Quote:
> Yes the ZT is good. No, demand has not overwhelmed supply at this time. One note, BB in Memphis said that at this time they would be receiving no more of the 60" ZT60's. At that time, only twelve in stock. The truck that delivered mine delivered nine ZT60's (I forgot to ask which size) to one customer who wanted all left in the box which is why they showed up at my house three hours early. The other guy must be preparing for the plasma apocalypse.


lol, did Art move up north?


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23668101
> 
> 
> The contrast limits you describe above need to be taken in context. When you're watching a dark sci-fi movie where the average brightness might be 10 cd/m² or less, even using your contrast numbers, you will easily be able to resolve 10 cd/10,0000 = 0.001 cd/m² (aka: 0.000292 ftL)


Here's what galls my balls (ahem), a Pioneer 101FD/600M owner had both of his ~5-year-old panels given the D-nice calibration treatment this weekend and achieved the following black levels in fTl on three separate readings: 0.0000, 0.0001, 0.0002 (with brightness readings at 50 fTl and 45 fTL, respectively).


That's the pinnacle of contrast ratio in flat panels right there but remains elusive today and is now restricted to this new shaky (and costly) OLED tech with very few product offerings available for actual purchase.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23668568
> 
> 
> Here's what galls my balls (ahem), a Pioneer 101FD/600M owner had both of his ~5-year-old panels given the D-nice calibration treatment this weekend and achieved the following black levels in fTl on three separate readings: 0.0000, 0.0001, 0.0002 (with brightness readings at 50 fTl and 45 fTL, respectively).


Sorry, but I'm having a hard time believing these results. I can believe that the black level could be lowered via service menu tweaks (which may impact the operation of the panel in the future) but to go from roughly 33,333:1 (I think 25,000:1 on the 60" panels?) to 500,000:1? Are you sure that you have not added an extra digit?


And if one of the readings was zero, that meter is operating below the limits it should be used at, and the measurements are invalid. It's also a bad idea to be using fL as a measurement. (no hardware outputs numbers in fL natively and people tend to round them)


I seem to recall the 500M measuring about 0.003cd/m² from the factory - and they had better black levels than the 60" models.

If you go from reference levels (100cd/m²) to "50fL" (171cd/m²) without changing the black level, that would boost contrast to 57,000:1. (approaching the 80,000;1 of the Sharp Elite) But white level measurements on a plasma are irrelevant without knowing what pattern size was used due to the ABL. If you measure the _true_ peak level, it will be much lower with actual content.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23668568
> 
> 
> That's the pinnacle of contrast ratio in flat panels right there but remains elusive today and is now restricted to this new shaky (and costly) OLED tech with very few product offerings available for actual purchase.


The Kuros were not without problems either, and were also very costly at the time - though not quite this expensive. A lot of people that continue to post about them on forums like this, seem to be people that managed to pick up a set on clearance when Pioneer exited the TV market.


----------



## vinnie97

Yes, the window size will make a difference in max light output. In the case of depth of blacks, a false reading might be true if it was isolated, but you can get a good handle on the earlier experimentation where he was able to get repeated performance using said SM adjustments: http://www.**************.com/showthread.php?t=13128#.UPpaB2c3mbU (highdef junkies)


I have seen pro calibration reports with fL/fTL used as the unit of measurement, so I question your claim about no hardware outputting in that format (I don't own any colorimeter so I can't judge for myself).


As he has experimented further, apparently he has been able to implement these deeper blacks across every flavor of Kuro (2008/9 year of manufacturer), both 50" and 60".


Also, you don't have to remind me they have problems (the same person above who had his calibrated this year had noticed a red tint developing in his 101FD, which was largely dialed out during calibration), but they remain a sight to behold when they are pulling these numbers.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23668720
> 
> 
> In the case of depth of blacks, a false reading might be true if it was isolated, but you can get a good handle on the earlier experimentation where he was able to get repeated performance using said SM adjustments


If the measurements are fluctuating between 0.0000fL and 0.0002fL, then either the panel is not being driven correctly and pixels are misfiring, or (more likely) these measurements are being taken below the threshold of the meter. You cannot make accurate measurements near a meter's minimum level - ideally you want a meter with an order of magnitude better capabilities than the display you are trying to measure.


And if these numbers _are_ correct - which I do not believe to be the case - it would indicate that the measurements from the Kuros when they were released (which put them in the range of 30,000-40,000:1) were significantly off - or D-Nice has somehow managed to improve their performance by an order of magnitude - also _highly_ unlikely. Do you think Pioneer would have shipped the displays in a state which limited their contrast to 1/10th of its potential?


I could be mistaken, but I think the Kuros would go into a low power state and dim further when displaying black after 30-60 seconds; perhaps that's what he is measuring, and not the real-world performance of the panel. (when a bright scene fades to black)

I just don't believe that he's managed to improve the set from less than 50,000:1 to 500,000:1 by tweaking some service menu values.


And if it turns out the old measurements were wrong (unlikely, as they were relatively consistent from calibrators and review sites at the time) then all that tells us, is that we need significantly more contrast than expected, because my 500M had a very obvious glow when displaying "black" in a dark room. So if it was in excess of 100,000:1 as D-Nice seems to claim, then the new Panasonic sets are not nearly as good as people have been reporting, and we need a much higher contrast than I expected for acceptable black levels. (but hopefully that won't be a problem for OLED anyway)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23668720
> 
> 
> I have seen pro calibration reports with fL/fTL used as the unit of measurement, so I question your claim about no hardware outputting in that format (I don't own any colorimeter so I can't judge for myself).


You can convert the values and round them, but it's 2013 and this is the AV _Science_ forum. Foot Lamberts should have no place here.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23668720
> 
> 
> As he has experimented further, apparently he has been able to implement these deeper blacks across every flavor of Kuro (2008/9 year of manufacturer), both 50" and 60".


I have no doubt that you will be able to improve the black level of a 5 year old plasma by tweaking the panel driving voltages via the service menu - the increase in voltage over time was probably not perfectly in sync with the phosphor ageing and could be improved.


----------



## greenland

Breaking News. This just in:


Pioneer Kuro Panels still no longer being manufactured and available to be purchased. However Kuro is still not dead, it is just resting and pining for the Fjords!


Can we get back to talking about OLED, or would it be straying too much off topic to talk about the actual thread topic, OLED Developments?!


OLED. It will have to deliver on more than lowering the Black Levels below what Panasonic's best Plasma models are currently capable of, to satisfy what we were led to expect from them. They were supposed to deliver the best image displays ever, while using far less energy than Plasma does. They also were supposed to be extremely light, compared to Plasma units, and cast off far less heat. Does the Samsung Curved OLED unit deliver on those promises or not?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23669037
> 
> 
> Breaking News. This just in:
> 
> 
> Pioneer Kuro Panels still no longer being manufactured and available to be purchased. However Kuro is still not dead, it is just resting and pining for the Fjords!
> 
> 
> Can we get back to talking about OLED


 

Lots of OT stuff happens here.  But IMHO the talk of the Kuro has a place *precisely here*, as does the talk of any prior "king" or high end displays.  We need a stake in the sand by which to compare the newcomer which has for years been billed as the best of all possible display technologies, and further we need to compare the bottom line effects to the user.  Without talking about prior heavy hitters, we have no ability to judge where along the diminishing-returns curve we are with OLED.  And without *that* we have no idea if any of this new tech is worth it yet.


----------



## JWhip

I have a 141 and D-Nice has tweaked my set as well and I can tell you that the blacks are significantly better than they were before. The red tint that I had is gone as well, at least for now. I believe that the blacks were at .0001. This set looks superb. Even having seen the flat LG OLED, I am still more than satisfied. I was able to pick up my 141 at PIoneer cost through a contact there when they announced they were exiting the business. As much as I loved the set, there was no way I would spend $7,500 for that level of performance. I am set to see the Sammy OLED this week in a light controlled environment and will report back once I have.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23669191
> 
> 
> Lots of OT stuff happens here.  But IMHO the talk of the Kuro has a place _precisely here_, as does the talk of any prior "king" or high end displays.  We need a stake in the sand by which to compare the newcomer which has for years been billed as the best of all possible display technologies, and further we need to compare the bottom line effects to the user.  Without talking about prior heavy hitters, we have no ability to judge where along the diminishing-returns curve we are with OLED.  And without _that_ we have no idea if any of this new tech is worth it yet.



For people who are going to be in the market for a top of the line new HDTV this year, or in the next few years, comparisons betweeen OLED and what else is being manufactured on an ongoing basis makes sense. Building a shrine to a brand that is no longer being manufactured, and never sold in big numbers when it was, is not worth all the wasted words being devoted to that futile exercise. Perhaps there should be a thread dedicated to raising Kuro from the dead. It could be named: The Lazarus Project.


----------



## greenland

The Samsung curved screen is like a mirror. How does the LG model compare to it, when it comes to being anti-reflective. Also, does the outer sides of the curved glass tend to catch more side reflections than a regular flat screen?


The side shot of the Samsung in this Video clip appears to show that it just might, but that may not be the case when viewed in person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01b4in_Ovjc


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23669795
> 
> 
> The Samsung curved screen is like a mirror. How does the LG model compare to it, when it comes to being anti-reflective. Also, does the outer sides of the curved glass tend to catch more side reflections than a regular flat screen?
> 
> 
> The side shot of the Samsung in this Video clip appears to show that it just might, but that may not be the case when viewed in person.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01b4in_Ovjc


 

Wow, does 55" look small these days....


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23668812
> 
> 
> If the measurements are fluctuating between 0.0000fL and 0.0002fL, then either the panel is not being driven correctly and pixels are misfiring, or (more likely) these measurements are being taken below the threshold of the meter. You cannot make accurate measurements near a meter's minimum level - ideally you want a meter with an order of magnitude better capabilities than the display you are trying to measure.


I'm not the one with whom you should be taking up the matter. However, the meter used is obviously capable enough to read to the ten-thousandth decimal place.


> Quote:
> And if these numbers _are_ correct - which I do not believe to be the case - it would indicate that the measurements from the Kuros when they were released (which put them in the range of 30,000-40,000:1) were significantly off - or D-Nice has somehow managed to improve their performance by an order of magnitude - also _highly_ unlikely. Do you think Pioneer would have shipped the displays in a state which limited their contrast to 1/10th of its potential?


I don't presume to know why they didn't milk their performance, other than to get the enthusiasts excited about future year models.


> Quote:
> I could be mistaken, but I think the Kuros would go into a low power state and dim further when displaying black after 30-60 seconds; perhaps that's what he is measuring, and not the real-world performance of the panel. (when a bright scene fades to black)
> 
> I just don't believe that he's managed to improve the set from less than 50,000:1 to 500,000:1 by tweaking some service menu values.


You're not mistaken, but this would be a ridiculously amateur mistake for D-Nice to make given his experience with the panels. I think 500,000:1 is an exaggeration on your part, but 55,000:1 is not out of the ordinary.


> Quote:
> And if it turns out the old measurements were wrong (unlikely, as they were relatively consistent from calibrators and review sites at the time) then all that tells us, is that we need significantly more contrast than expected, because my 500M had a very obvious glow when displaying "black" in a dark room. So if it was in excess of 100,000:1 as D-Nice seems to claim, then the new Panasonic sets are not nearly as good as people have been reporting, and we need a much higher contrast than I expected for acceptable black levels. (but hopefully that won't be a problem for OLED anyway)


Panasonic's inferiority in contrast ratio levels in comparison to the last generation of Kuro is not news. Of course it shouldn't be a problem for OLED, but those with such a Kuro panel now can get similar black level performance (with Panasonic not all that far behind). Even at these extremely low levels that were achieved, these panels glow in a completely dark room as per your observation (never was it insinuated otherwise), so OLED can obviously improve in this area (sci-fi and movies/documentaries about space will benefit the most).


> Quote:
> You can convert the values and round them, but it's 2013 and this is the AV _Science_ forum. Foot Lamberts should have no place here.


How is rounding anti-science? Take it up with the calibrators who choose this format for output. I can only concur that rounding causes less accurate results when we're measuring minutely low black levels.


> Quote:
> I have no doubt that you will be able to improve the black level of a 5 year old plasma by tweaking the panel driving voltages via the service menu - the increase in voltage over time was probably not perfectly in sync with the phosphor ageing and could be improved.


Obviously, but the above improvements are being employed irrespective of the panel's age.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23669735
> 
> 
> For people who are going to be in the market for a top of the line new HDTV this year, or in the next few years, comparisons betweeen OLED and what else is being manufactured on an ongoing bases makes sense. Building a shrine to a brand that is no longer being manufactured, and never sold in big numbers when it was, is not worth all the wasted words being devoted to that futile exercise. Perhaps there should be a thread dedicated to raising Kuro from the dead. It could be named: The Lazarus Project.


Nobody's building a shrine here, just discussing measurements and theoretical performance limits. And as it's been insinuated already by tgm, it's a good benchmark for what we should expect from OLED at a minimum.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670001
> 
> 
> Wow, does 55" look small these days....


Is that you, tgm?







I completely leapfrogged 55" (and 60") on my way to 65" almost three months ago. My perception is that it is already "shrinking" as well.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670337
> 
> 
> Nobody's building a shrine here, just discussing measurements and theoretical performance limits. And as it's been insinuated already by tgm, it's a good benchmark for what we should expect from OLED at a minimum.


I would rather see it compared to the Panasoniz Z series which according to many mags and such delivers the best picture they've ever seen. The Kuro was awesome but it maxes out at 60" and does not do 3D. Like 3D or not pretty much every single top of the line and middle of the line display regardless of technology includes 3D. Maybe some of you can run down to a store or go to a friends and gaze at a Kuro but I can't so why not compare it to something we can all go see.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670354
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670001
> 
> 
> Wow, does 55" look small these days....
> 
> 
> 
> Is that you, tgm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely leapfrogged 55" (and 60") on my way to 65" almost three months ago. My perception is that it is already "shrinking" as well.
Click to expand...

 

Sometime last year I posted how ridiculous I thought 60" displays looked in folks' living rooms.  Now I have one, and I'm surprised at how normal it seems.  In fact, I'm afraid to mount it back a short ways on the wall, because of how moving a foot back will shrink its apparent size.  Too funny.

 

About the need for ever larger TVs.  It's not just the "getting used to something" so that it now seems normal.  There's something more.

 

There's a psychological thing going on here that I'm only beginning to get a sense of: It's a crack-pot theory Vinnie, so humor me a second.  In all movies (of any physical size) we're only presented with a certain in-movie FOV.  (Not our real-life eye-to-display FOV, but what the camera is capturing within the scene).  When we watch it (home or theatre) perhaps we constantly wonder what's missing on the sides and above and below.  So we gain a sense of anxiety about missing the parts of the TV screen that if were present might somehow display what's missing in the film (even though of course, it cannot, because a larger screen shows the same information, only bigger).

 

Evolution probably lends itself to a larger window showing more information, not the same exact information just bigger.  So perhaps we equate larger with answering our questions of what we're missing.  Only we then enlarge our screen to discover that we *still* can't quite see what's missing.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670580
> 
> 
> I would rather see it compared to the Panasoniz Z series which according to many mags and such delivers the best picture they've ever seen. The Kuro was awesome but it maxes out at 60" and does not do 3D. Like 3D or not pretty much every single top of the line and middle of the line display regardless of technology includes 3D. Maybe some of you can run down to a store or go to a friends and gaze at a Kuro but I can't so why not compare it to something we can all go see.


I understand and agree, though I don't have access to a Kuro anymore (I'm still interested in it being eclipsed by new tech). Still, the numbers for the ZT60 have all been fleshed out pretty much (0.0012 fTL black levels, max brightness of 47 fTL in custom mode, though a bit lower around 35 in ISF when aiming for accuracy). It will be interesting to see if someone will find a way to similarly procure extra performance gains in the coming months/years on this panel.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670584
> 
> 
> Sometime last year I posted how ridiculous I thought 60" displays looked in folks' living rooms.  Now I have one, and I'm surprised at how normal it seems.  In fact, I'm afraid to mount it back a short ways on the wall, because of how moving a foot back will shrink its apparent size.  Too funny.
> 
> 
> About the need for ever larger TVs.  It's not just the "getting used to something" so that it now seems normal.  There's something more.
> 
> 
> There's a psychological thing going on here that I'm only beginning to get a sense of: It's a crack-pot theory Vinnie, so humor me a second.  In all movies (of any physical size) we're only presented with a certain in-movie FOV.  (Not our real-life eye-to-display FOV, but what the camera is capturing within the scene).  When we watch it (home or theatre) perhaps we constantly wonder what's missing on the sides and above and below.  So we gain a sense of anxiety about missing the parts of the TV screen that if were present might somehow display what's missing in the film (even though of course, it cannot, because a larger screen shows the same information, only bigger).
> 
> 
> Evolution probably lends itself to a larger window showing more information, not the same exact information just bigger.  So perhaps we equate larger with answering our questions of what we're missing.  Only we then enlarge our screen to discover that we _still_ can't quite see what's missing.


It's as good a theory as any....ironically, it's this greater resolution (4K, 8K) content that will make these larger screens truly justifiable (as opposed to only mentally).







Still, I believe the full resolution of 1080p content can be appreciated in typical living rooms with panels in the 65 to 70" size range (where the seating distance is typically 10 feet or more).


----------



## Rich Peterson

LG Sets Price Cut for Curved OLED TV [apparently only in Korea at this time]



Source: http://www.passfail.com/blogs/wsj/lg-sets-price-cut-for-curved-oled-tv/lg-sets-price-cut-for-curved-oled-tv-10933425.htm 


LG said Monday it will cut the prices of its curved OLED TVs for South Korea by nearly 30% to 10,900,000 won ($9,788) from 15,000,000 won previously. Just two weeks ago, Samsung executed a similar price cut on the luxury TV sets.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670836
> 
> 
> LG Sets Price Cut for Curved OLED TV [apparently only in Korea at this time]
> 
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.passfail.com/blogs/wsj/lg-sets-price-cut-for-curved-oled-tv/lg-sets-price-cut-for-curved-oled-tv-10933425.htm
> 
> 
> LG said Monday it will cut the prices of its curved OLED TVs for South Korea by nearly 30% to 10,900,000 won ($9,788) from 15,000,000 won previously. Just two weeks ago, Samsung executed a similar price cut on the luxury TV sets.


 

...didn't need to be Nostradamus to call that one...


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670584
> 
> 
> Sometime last year I posted how ridiculous I thought 60" displays looked in folks' living rooms. Now I have one, and I'm surprised at how normal it seems. In fact, I'm afraid to mount it back a short ways on the wall, because of how moving a foot back will shrink its apparent size. Too funny.


You will certainly get used to just about any size of TV in your home over time. And in a giant US home I can see 60" and larger fitting in quite nicely. Anywhere else in the world, and even a 60" panel is looking far too big.


The problem for me is how the panel looks in a room when it's off. I have no objection to a large image; but once you get to 60" and larger, a projector seems like the better option. When that's not in use, you are not left with a giant black slab on the wall.


Personally, I'm happy with the 55" size of these OLEDs - and I would much rather see 2.37:1 panels instead of larger displays.

Actually, I would be quite happy with the size of the previous "21:9" displays where a 55" panel has the same height as a 44" 16:9 display, but the image is equal to that of a 58" display when watching films. (because there's no letterboxing)

The problem with those was the excessive price compared to other LCDs, the panel quality, and the scaling required. 4K OLED would fix that. (actually it would technically be 5K)


Especially when the panels seem to be susceptible to burn-in, I am loathed to be paying for half a display which I never use, that's going to suffer from uneven wear.

*Kuro* (Click to show)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670329
> 
> 
> I'm not the one with whom you should be taking up the matter. However, the meter used is obviously capable enough to read to the ten-thousandth decimal place.


Giving readings at that level, does not mean they are _accurate_ readings. To _accurately_ measure 0.0001fL, you need a meter capable of reading down to 0.00001fL.

One of the older meters I own is specified to 0.5cd/m2 and will still put out plausible looking readings down to 0.05cd/m2 if you increase the exposure length - but when you compare them against a meter which is actually specified to measure much lower than that, you will find that the readings close to its minimum specified level, and everything below that are completely inaccurate. And once you go below around 0.05cd/m2, it just returns 0.333,0.333,0.000 for all xyY values.


If the readings fluctuate between 0.0000 and 0.0002, then the meter being used is _clearly_ not capable of accurate measurements at this level - because it should be fluctuating between something like 0.00004 and 0.00020 if that were the case.

Many calibrators are using instruments which are cable of taking a reading far lower than they are specified for, and assuming those results are accurate - for example the Orb Optronix SP-100 spectroradiometer, which is only specified down to 1cd/m2. (0.291863508 fL - see why fL is stupid?)

Software packages such as calman allow you to increase the exposure length to take lower readings, and under certain conditions the results _may_ match up to a reference-grade meter, but you cannot guarantee that performance.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670329
> 
> 
> You're not mistaken, but this would be a ridiculously amateur mistake for D-Nice to make given his experience with the panels. I think 500,000:1 is an exaggeration on your part, but 55,000:1 is not out of the ordinary.


If he is reporting 50fL white, and 0.0001fL black, that's 500,000:1. From a panel that measures less than 50,000:1 when brand new.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670329
> 
> 
> Panasonic's inferiority in contrast ratio levels in comparison to the last generation of Kuro is not news.


It's news to me, after side-by-side comparisons and reviews that say the black level is on-par with the Kuros, with better gradation and a "cleaner" image: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-txp60zt65b-201305062961.htm?page=Performance 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670329
> 
> 
> Of course it shouldn't be a problem for OLED, but those with such a Kuro panel now can get similar black level performance (with Panasonic not all that far behind).


There is a stark difference between _no_ light when displaying black (local dimming LED, OLED) and the glow of a plasma or LCD in a dark room - even the Kuros. I would not call that "similar".


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670329
> 
> 
> How is rounding anti-science?


Converting SI units (candelas per square metre) to US customary units (foot-lambert) goes against the "science" part of this forum.


----------



## andy sullivan

Giant US home? Anywhere else in the world? The vast majority us use only a portion of our TV's if we watch anything other than broadcast TV don't we?


----------



## vinnie97

 *Kuro* (Click to show)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chrono*
> 
> Giving readings at that level, does not mean they are _accurate_ readings. To _accurately_ measure 0.0001fL, you need a meter capable of reading down to 0.00001fL.
> 
> One of the older meters I own is specified to 0.5cd/m2 and will still put out plausible looking readings down to 0.05cd/m2 if you increase the exposure length - but when you compare them against a meter which is actually specified to measure much lower than that, you will find that the readings close to its minimum specified level, and everything below that are completely inaccurate. And once you go below around 0.05cd/m2, it just returns 0.333,0.333,0.000 for all xyY values.
> 
> 
> If the readings fluctuate between 0.0000 and 0.0002, then the meter being used is _clearly_ not capable of accurate measurements at this level - because it should be fluctuating between something like 0.00004 and 0.00020 if that were the case.
> 
> Many calibrators are using instruments which are cable of taking a reading far lower than they are specified for, and assuming those results are accurate - for example the Orb Optronix SP-100 spectroradiometer, which is only specified down to 1cd/m2. (0.291863508 fL - see why fL is stupid?)


The US has traditionally been stubborn when it comes to flubbing IU. I don't see that changing soon here at AVS, a US-based site. To truly determine how deep his colorimeter is capable of reading (as opposed to this blind speculation) and dismissing his findings, one needs to determine which unit he is actually using. I am trying to track that down but it's not publicized and easily located.


> Quote:
> If he is reporting 50fL white, and 0.0001fL black, that's 500,000:1. From a panel that measures less than 50,000:1 when brand new.


Well, there's some missing information from this calculation. D-Nice's own ANSI calculation post experimentation last year was 47,800:1 (with only a 23.9 fL), so the numbers are being taken out of context in some way.


> Quote:
> It's news to me, after side-by-side comparisons and reviews that say the black level is on-par with the Kuros, with better gradation and a "cleaner" image: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-txp60zt65b-201305062961.htm?page=Performance


Yes, we already know about the increased gradations, but the black level comparison is not true for the 50" monitors or for the readings on any Kuro model achieved when engaging the service menu tweaks. I thought we went over this already...


> Quote:
> There is a stark difference between _no_ light when displaying black (local dimming LED, OLED) and the glow of a plasma or LCD in a dark room - even the Kuros. I would not call that "similar".


It's not so stark with any kind of content on screen (a starry night scene included).


> Quote:
> Converting SI units (candelas per square metre) to US customary units (foot-lambert) goes against the "science" part of this forum.


See above.


----------



## anthonymoody

My 75" set has already taught me that my room and viewing distance could easily and happily accommodate an 84" set! (And I'm a former projector guy, 110" screen, former location, much longer viewing distance; I try to imagine what 110" would be like at 11'...at 4K I think it might work)


----------



## greenland

Has it not already been established that the OLED sets will have almost perfect black levels, just by the nature of how OLED works? If that is true, then what is the point in posting about Kuro MLL on the OLED developments thread? There would be no need to keep bringing up such a benchmark, right?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23669037
> 
> 
> Breaking News. This just in:
> 
> 
> Pioneer Kuro Panels still no longer being manufactured and available to be purchased. However Kuro is still not dead, it is just resting and pining for the Fjords!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23669735
> 
> 
> For people who are going to be in the market for a top of the line new HDTV this year, or in the next few years, comparisons betweeen OLED and what else is being manufactured on an ongoing bases makes sense. Building a shrine to a brand that is no longer being manufactured, and never sold in big numbers when it was, is not worth all the wasted words being devoted to that futile exercise. Perhaps there should be a thread dedicated to raising Kuro from the dead. It could be named: The Lazarus Project.



Dude, you are making too much sense these days.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670001
> 
> 
> Wow, does 55" look small these days....



Tiny. I cannot imagine giving up 40% of my screen real estate.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670584
> 
> 
> Sometime last year I posted how ridiculous I thought 60" displays looked in folks' living rooms.  Now I have one, and I'm surprised at how normal it seems.  In fact, I'm afraid to mount it back a short ways on the wall, because of how moving a foot back will shrink its apparent size.  Too funny.
> 
> 
> About the need for ever larger TVs.  It's not just the "getting used to something" so that it now seems normal.  There's something more.



Of course, in large parts of the world, 55" is about as large as a room will fit. The 50" and up category is still only about 10% of global TV sales.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23670970
> 
> 
> ...didn't need to be Nostradamus to call that one...



I hear he's enjoying his Kuro.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23671211
> 
> 
> Giant US home? Anywhere else in the world? The vast majority us use only a portion of our TV's if we watch anything other than broadcast TV don't we?



Even average U.S. homes are giant compared to most of the world.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *anthonymoody*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23671218
> 
> 
> My 75" set has already taught me that my room and viewing distance could easily and happily accommodate an 84" set! (And I'm a former projector guy, 110" screen, former location, much longer viewing distance; I try to imagine what 110" would be like at 11'...at 4K I think it might work)



I have used the go bigger one step at a time approach to set the stage for an 80" or so next time... We had a 50", now a 65".. the spousal-acceptance-factor is high for the current TV when it was very skeptical prior to ownership...


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23671265
> 
> 
> Has it not already been established that the OLED sets will have almost perfect black levels, just by the nature of how OLED works? If that is true, then what is the point in posting about Kuro MLL on the OLED developments thread? There would be no need to keep bringing up such a benchmark, right?


Yes, they are most certainly capable (but, again, one of the first reviewers of the Samsung panel felt there was a bit of black crush occurring, which required decreasing the contrast ratio by an arbitrary amount). Call it an academic exercise in the meantime while more impressions come in.


----------



## Desk.

Another hands-on review of the Samsung, which calls it 'Not perfect, but still awesome'.


Interestingly, the 'not perfect' comment appears to be directed at extra features like the 'two different channels at the same time' option - not the ability to display a great picture, where there is zero criticism.

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Hands-on-with-Samsung-s-OLED-TV-Not-Perfect-But-Still-Awesome.shtml


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23668356
> 
> 
> So let's say I agree with you on this. One problem is that most movies then have bright scenes and your eye's re-adaptability limits how quickly you can see things even between scenes -- unless you're running some genital-measuring demo.



We must have different tastes in what we watch. For the sci-fi/horror content I regularly watch, there are many low-light scenes that last long enough to easily notice the poor blacks on existing displays. Your eyes also don't lose their low-light sensitivity instantly and small bright areas of the screen have little long-term effect. You pupil may close down briefly, but then within a few seconds you're back where you started - looking at poor blacks. There is really no point debating this further and I'm not going to keep arguing about it. If you don't believe me, I suggest you visit the projector forums sometime - where people have been struggling with this issue for years - even on units with native on/off contrast and blacks much better than the old Kuros.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23668356
> 
> 
> So, again, there are two things going on here. One, the issue of the really small minority of people who isn't satisfied by current black levels. I am no longer one of those people, but I am more than willing to acknowledge they exist.



I don't know how large of a group they really are but certain sections of this forum are heavily biased towards that group. That same group is often willing to spend significant dollars (much more than this OLED) to satisfy their need for better blacks. Also consider how many upgrades some people have gone through while searching for better blacks. If you've upgraded 3x times for some minor improvement like we see from Panasonic every year, you could have paid for an OLED instead and ended the black-level upgrade quest once and for all.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6780#post_23668356
> 
> 
> 
> So there are two freaking gigantic differences:
> 
> 
> 1) Paying the huge premium today will make you a chump. Why? Because if the OLED is still offered at all 2 years from now, it will be half the price more or less. If you buy the Lamborghini today, it will cost more 2 years from now.
> 
> 
> 2) Small production cars are a viable economic construction. So are yachts, 4 carat diamond rings, $25,000 wristwatches, etc. Small production flat panel television are not a viable economic construction. There will be no OLED market at $9000. There will either be one below $3000 or none. I don't see anything wrong will telling people not to buy something because they can get 90% of the performance for 1/3 the price. I don't see enough psychic benefit to owning a too-small, weirdly shaped TV whereas although I don't desire a Ferrari at all, I completely get why people want to own and drive them.
> 
> 
> I regularly dispense advice to people on what is and is not worth it. Of course, it matters what you can afford, but even when you are flush with excess cash, there are purchases that are of very dubious merit.
> 
> 
> That said, I'm pretty sure I've been clear on this: If you want the first generation OLED and don't care that it's small, weirdly shaped, might not last, isn't especially power frugal, has an odd external interface box, and is also only _slighty_ better at displaying video than the best plasmas on the market, then *by all means go and by one*.



We've been waiting for OLED how long now? Maybe some people are sick and tired of waiting. And just because something better is around the corner doesn't stop people from buying new iphones every year. There will always be something better and cheaper on the horizon. The OLED issues you listed as negatives may or may not be problems for everyone. The external box for example has been regarded as a desirable feature on some of the early reviews. A $9K TV is obviously targeting a different group than your average shopper so I wouldn't necessarily apply their requirements to this set.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23672784
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how large of a group they really are but certain sections of this forum are heavily biased towards that group. That same group is often willing to spend significant dollars (much more than this OLED) to satisfy their need for better blacks. Also consider how many upgrades some people have gone through while searching for better blacks. If you've upgraded 3x times for some minor improvement like we see from Panasonic every year, you could have paid for an OLED instead and ended the black-level upgrade quest once and for all.
> 
> 
> We've been waiting for OLED how long now? Maybe some people are sick and tired of waiting. And just because something better is around the corner doesn't stop people from buying new iphones every year. There will always be something better and cheaper on the horizon. The OLED issues you listed as negatives may or may not be problems for everyone. The external box for example has been regarded as a desirable feature on some of the early reviews. A $9K TV is obviously targeting a different group than your average shopper so I wouldn't necessarily apply their requirements to this set.



Display technology is no different then computer technology it's a moving train, you just have to decide when you want to jump in. I don't judge anybody who decides to jump in now for example or wait for a later date when OLED technology comes down in price and improves, it's up to the individual there's no wrong or right here. Additionally I don't blame people who want the best, I consider myself one of those people but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to upgrade each year to have the best. The only thing better than what I have right now for example would be an OLED but unfortunately they max out at 55'' inches and have a curved screen, I perhaps might be able to live with the curve screen but I will not downgrade my screen size. So I'm currently playing the waiting game, I'd ideally want my next display to be an 80'' + 4k OLED and that's what I'm keeping an eye out for. But I think I'm in for a long wait.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23673732
> 
> 
> I don't judge anybody who decides to jump in now for example or wait for a later date when OLED technology comes down in price and improves, it's up to the individual there's no wrong or right here.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23641189
> 
> 
> I was put off initially by the curved set, but not enough to rule it out: it is not a big deal to me since I would use it on a credenza,I am not wall mounting it
> 
> 
> I am agonizing over Rogo's (and others) cautions to avoid this first gen set and wait: I know that is good advise, but I remain tempted and you know I am an early adopter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one other concern is the warranty: I thought it was 3 years, not one (or extended to 2)



Mark, did you decide to bite on the Samsung or wait? As was noted, the warranty through BestBuy seems better than some others and it's two years parts and labor. I'm not trying to influence you, just curious.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23673829
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23673732
> 
> 
> I don't judge anybody who decides to jump in now for example or wait for a later date when OLED technology comes down in price and improves, it's up to the individual there's no wrong or right here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23641189
> 
> 
> I was put off initially by the curved set, but not enough to rule it out: it is not a big deal to me since I would use it on a credenza,I am not wall mounting it
> 
> 
> I am agonizing over Rogo's (and others) cautions to avoid this first gen set and wait: I know that is good advise, but I remain tempted and you know I am an early adopter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one other concern is the warranty: I thought it was 3 years, not one (or extended to 2)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark, did you decide to bite on the Samsung or wait? As was noted, the warranty through BestBuy seems better than some others and it's two years parts and labor. I'm not trying to influence you, just curious.
Click to expand...


no: I have managed to control myself so far....


Mark (rogo) has given me a number for OLED Anonymous: he said anytime I feel the urge to buy one I should call that number first...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23672784
> 
> 
> We must have different tastes in what we watch. For the sci-fi/horror content I regularly watch, there are many low-light scenes that last long enough to easily notice the poor blacks on existing displays.



That's fine. I don't watch horror, but I certainly watch sci-fi.


> Quote:
> Your eyes also don't lose their low-light sensitivity instantly and small bright areas of the screen have little long-term effect. You pupil may close down briefly, but then within a few seconds you're back where you started - looking at poor blacks.



Once there is a daylight scene, your eyes most certainly lose the next 10-30 minutes of being able to perceive the darkest things. You're certainly right there is no point debating it. It's really easy to test. Go to bed one night. Spend half an hour in a dark bedroom. Get up, go to the bathroom, turn on the light. Do your business. Return to bed. Measure how long it takes before you can "see in the dark" as well as before the bathroom trip. It's a long time.


> Quote:
> I don't know how large of a group they really are but certain sections of this forum are heavily biased towards that group. That same group is often willing to spend significant dollars (much more than this OLED) to satisfy their need for better blacks. Also consider how many upgrades some people have gone through while searching for better blacks. If you've upgraded 3x times for some minor improvement like we see from Panasonic every year, you could have paid for an OLED instead and ended the black-level upgrade quest once and for all.



So long as you want a pretty tiny screen. That's curved. That may not last you very long. That you can't wall mount. That has a separate box with all the cables. Blah blah blah blah blah.


> Quote:
> We've been waiting for OLED how long now? Maybe some people are sick and tired of waiting. And just because something better is around the corner doesn't stop people from buying new iphones every year.



$199 one year, $649 the next with reselling them on iPhones. That's what I've done. My net cost on iPhones? Umm, it's basically zero and I always have the newest iPhone. (Android fans, please note you can almost pull this off with Galaxy phones, but not quite since they depreciate faster. But it's close enough that for $100-200 per year, you can do it there too.) I've been pretty clear on this. If you're tired of waiting, whatever idiotic thing that means, go buy one of these. But that kind of logic is pretty perilous when you're talking about something that is the TV in your living room.


It's analogous to the people that desperately wanted an electric car and could buy the Nissan Leaf when it came out. If the low range met their needs, fine, buy it. Understand you're overpaying (and they sure did, the price fell by thousands in year two). Understand the first ones are imperfect (and they are, in hot climates, there are some battery issues, which apparently next year's models will finally fix as Nissan just developed a better battery to deal with the heat). Understand that the car goes about 80 miles so if you want a car that will get you to the Hamptons and back, it's a really bad choice.


Yes, it's electric. Zero tailpipe emissions. No gas station visits. Minimal maintenance. But it might be a bad choice for a lot of fans of EVs.


This is akin to the first OLEDs.


If you wanted any of the things that a 55" curved OLED doesn't offer -- and I'd submit that most of the people here who are in the market for an OLED do in fact wants things not included -- then continuing to wait is simply a much better choice. That's true independent of the early-adopter tax. But when you consider the early-adopter tax, it makes it easier to wait. Most people hate buying something only to see the price much lower really soon after. In fact, the reactions are often irrational. When Apple first intro'd the iPhone, they changed the pricing soon after and had to offer some gift-card type things to people who had voluntarily paid the higher price, because those people were just angry. The OLED is 100% certainly going to be a lot cheaper (or gone from the market having failed, which I believe is far less likely but still not impossible). A lot cheaper.


> Quote:
> There will always be something better and cheaper on the horizon. The OLED issues you listed as negatives may or may not be problems for everyone. The external box for example has been regarded as a desirable feature on some of the early reviews. A $9K TV is obviously targeting a different group than your average shopper so I wouldn't necessarily apply their requirements to this set.



There won't always be something better and cheaper. That's just not true. Next year's Camry will cost as much or more. Will it be better? Perhaps. Will the 40" Samsung LCD sold next year be cheaper? Maybe $20-40, but not much. You don't get any savings of meaning by waiting. That's also true of an iPhone by the way. The new one coming Sept. 10 is going to be $199, just like the old one. (It's arguably not going to be much better, either, but I digress).


There have been more than a dozen "external box" TVs in the HD era sold in the U.S. Not one has ever been popular. Reviewers have touted the feature as positive on all of them, I'm quite sure. And by the way, I believe that some tiny minority of people think it's a valuable feature. It isn't because any serious person has separate sound and is running just one HDMI cable from the AVR to the TV anyway. And if you don't have separate sound, the idea you want to find a shelf to accommodate a stupid media box because you can't put a cable tie around your 2-3 HDMI wires for a set _you cannot wall mount_ is pretty ridiculous. But, yes, some people think they want this. When the marketing wars end and it becomes apparent you (a) need to sell a TV with speakers that are not terrible (b) in order to do that you need to put some tiny amount of depth in your TV, you'll see that future OLEDs have the ports built in just like normal and the main reasons they aren't included in these is that it's hard to build curved circuit boards with connectors and it's impossible to make razor thin enclosures with circuit boards anyway.


I think it's more than fair game for me to say, "Don't buy these" as a public service. I'm less persuaded it's fair game for you to say, "It's not fair for you to tell people not to buy them." You want to make a case why people should pay 3-4x what a state-of-the-art TV costs for a relatively small, oddly curved, first-generation product that can't be wall mounted, has an external media box, has unknown longevity, etc. etc. etc. make it. "People that watch a lot of really dark movies might enjoy it" is such a case I suppose. To me, horror movies don't justify a $9000 TV and if I'd rather have a little bigger than a little more black, but I'm not a fan of the genre, so I'll leave you to make the argument that "horror fans should flock to these."


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23673909
> 
> 
> no: I have managed to control myself so far....
> 
> 
> Mark (rogo) has given me a number for OLED Anonymous: he said anytime I feel the urge to buy one I should call that number first...



Call anytime!


One note is that we're again 4 months from CES (and far less from IFA). I suspect we'll see more product announcements and while we'll have to be skeptical, the shipments of _something_ in 2013 might lend a bit more credibility to what we hear. By way of example, if Samsung offered a 65" for $6000 next year that was flat, I would probably tell early adopters, "Go buy this. Now." That's 40% more real estate for 33% less money. And it'd be second generation. That's enough upgrades right there. Especially if it came in flat.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> One note is that we're again 4 months from CES ( and far less from IFA ).



IFA starts next week


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23675708
> 
> 
> IFA starts next week



Do you disagree that next week is "far less than 4 months"?


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23674884
> 
> 
> That's fine. I don't watch horror, but I certainly watch sci-fi.
> 
> Once there is a daylight scene, your eyes most certainly lose the next 10-30 minutes of being able to perceive the darkest things. You're certainly right there is no point debating it. It's really easy to test. Go to bed one night. Spend half an hour in a dark bedroom. Get up, go to the bathroom, turn on the light. Do your business. Return to bed. Measure how long it takes before you can "see in the dark" as well as before the bathroom trip. It's a long time.



I can't speak for your bathroom, but the lighting in mine is much brighter than anything I see on my projector or TV screen. If you're exposed to that for several minutes, you will definitely lose your night vision. I see no such effect watching movies because they put out much less light on average and in some cases can be totally dominated by dark content. If you're primarily watching brighter stuff or in a lit room, then you don't need OLED.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23674884
> 
> 
> So long as you want a pretty tiny screen. That's curved. That may not last you very long. That you can't wall mount. That has a separate box with all the cables. Blah blah blah blah blah.



Size only matters if you were actually shopping for and can accommodate a > 55" set. Most people buy sizes even smaller. If it was my only display, I would want something bigger too because I have the space for it.


I'll agree about the curved screen. It's plain stupid.


We have no data to definitively say if longevity will be an issue on these OLED sets. Even if they don't hit 100K hour half-lives, many don't watch enough TV for that to matter. Personally, I would get a performance warranty like those sold by BB to cover any anxiety that comes with any unproven technology.


Mounting only matters if you were planning to mount. I don't have stats handy but it wouldn't surprise me if most people still use stands.


The external box is tiny. I've seen HDMI switch-boxes that were bigger. I agree that main-stream models will ditch the box. But this model is not meant for that market yet. Anyone spending $9K on a TV probably has an audio system to match and will run everything through their receiver and hide the Samsung box out of sight - I think the remote sensor is on the TV and not the box but I'll check next time I test it.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23675865
> 
> 
> Do you disagree that next week is "far less than 4 months"?


8mile has a knack for acting the part of Capt. Obvious (a good handle for him perhaps, Mr. Snark?







)


----------



## Randomoneh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23674884
> 
> 
> Especially if it came in flat.


Why?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676469
> 
> 
> ...curved screen...plain stupid.


Why? What is "plain stupid" about cylindrical display? Higher FOV? Good looks? What?


----------



## Wizziwig

I just came back from a second round of testing. This time around I had a remote control (instead of using the awkward joystick in the back of the TV). This allowed me to play with more of the settings. After some minor tweaks to "movie" mode, I achieved much better results than on my first trip.


I edited the original post below with new content marked in green


======================================================================


Today I had the opportunity to test the Samsung OLED at Paul's TV in Irvine, CA. It was setup in its brightest mode. Because of the poor lighting and lack of time, I didn't test the more accurate picture modes. Here's my reaction:


1) Black levels - impossible to judge with the lighting used. The store is inside a larger furniture store and they had a spot light on the ceiling pointed at the set. By cupping my hands around my face, I was able to observe that blacks were indistinguishable from the bezel but it's not an ideal way to test a TV. I would need to see it in a dark room so that my eyes could properly adjust before I could compare it to any other set.


2) Brightness. Same as all the LED's around it when not using BFI. With BFI enabled, it was noticeably darker on commercials and white backgrounds but still brighter than Plasmas. On non-white color slides, I found it too bright even with BFI - especially on the Red slides. In most home environments, the BFI mode would be perfectly usable - unlike the incredibly dim impulse modes on Sony LEDs. I ran some hockey clips and didn't see any noticeable ABL issues.

After resetting "Dynamic" mode to default, the set did achieve a slightly brighter picture than a 60" LED hanging above it. I really can't imagine why anyone would need more brightness. In "Movie" mode, it was noticeably darker. A similar drop to engaging BFI mode. There was still some headroom on the "cell light" and "contrast" settings so one could make it brighter if needed. I found it acceptable at default, even with store lighting. Engaging BFI while in default movie mode did start to feel too dim but I think it may still work at home, especially if you max out the "cell light" and "contrast".


3) In addition to brightness loss, the BFI does cause a noticeable flicker on some bright content. It would probably not bother me but could be an issue for some. It also increased the sense of judder on non-60fps content.


4) Motion handling: For some reason the custom setting was grayed out. I could not select a custom judder/blur reduction combination and could only use the presets. I spent most of my time on the BFI preset because I hate SOE/lag inducing interpolation. Using the commonly referenced FPD benchmark, I was able to resolve all 1080 lines. Testing with the other patterns, I was less impressed. On the swinging rope test, there was still a lot of blur on the shirt stripes compare to my CRT. I would rate it similar to Plasma or some of the better scanning/strobing LED TVs. It does beat Plasma in that there was zero artifacting during motion - no increased dithering, noise, or banding. There were also no phosphor trails visible at any time. When I briefly tested the motion interpolatated modes, the quality was basically on par with my CRT - crystal clear motion with no halos. It might be useful for non-movie content and where input lag is not an issue. As previously reported, with all motion/BFI settings disabled, it was similar to LCD.

Figured out why I couldn't tweak "custom" auto motion plus. You have to disable the BFI first - it can't be combined with the motion interpolation modes. I was able to achieve very similar results to BFI, by maxing out the "Blur" reduction slider while leaving the "Judder" slider at 0. To my surprise this did not cause noticeable SOE when playing film content. Wish more manufacturers would offer such customization to their interpolation algorithms. Achieved the same 1080 motion resolution as BFI without the flicker or loss in brightness. I would take this over any LCD or Plasma when it comes to motion.


Here's the showstopper for me - You can't enable any of these modes while in "Game" mode. You're forced to endure the LCD style motion blur. They should at least let you enable BFI.


5) Static images: I have several test patterns which I use to judge Plasma rainbow effect severity. None present on the OLED. I know most people don't suffer from this but I'm throwing it out there for anyone else affected.

Zero line-bleed. I tested using the green ratings card found before movie trailers.


6) Image processing: I noticed a lot of image noise and compression artifacts. Either this set reveals flaws in the source much more than other sets or it was poorly adjusted.

Completely solved in "Movie" mode. Very clean image with no dither or other artifacts. When you enable "Game" mode, the set automatically forces you into "Standard" mode and lots of processing is disabled. In that configuration, the above mentioned noise and artifacts return. Since I didn't have a console to test with, I can't say if it would affect actual gaming quality. Hopefully not, because without "Game" mode the lag is above 100 ms according to other reviews.


7) Curved screen: I was able to find a viewing position where the bottom of the screen appeared straight but the top still showed a slight curve. I could not find a position where both top and bottom appeared even. I think given enough time, I could probably learn to ignore it. The curved screen did diffuse reflections better than similar glossy sets around it.

So on the first day there were some boxes in the way so I could not back up any further than ~12 feet from the set. Today I was able to go back ~15-18 feet. At those distance, the top and bottom started to even out and the image appeared as it would on a flat panel. Unfortunately, at that distance the set felt too small and lost much of its impact. Reflections kind of stretch like a fun-house mirror. I think that spreading out the reflections like that helps but others may disagree.


8) Uniformity: good overall but not perfect. I saw some minor DSE on the right edge of the screen on patterns that panned vertically. Not sure if it was image retention or some imperfection in the anti-glare coating. Still better than any LCD and Plasma uniformity I've seen. I could also see some color shift at the edges of the screen when viewing from close range.

Still saw some slight bands on the right edge on full screen gray slides when standing close to the screen. I think it's the screen coating because the effect increased as you got closer and look down on the set. I did not notice any DSE during regular content - a very clean and "looking-through-a-window" type experience.


9) Screen defects: no dead pixels or obvious image retention visible. They were running a baseball game on fox and then switched to ESPN. Both channels had logos and static graphics on the screen. A Samsung 8500 plasma running the same channels showed a permanent ESPN logo and other graphics burned into the screen when switching to commercials. I was actually surprised the OLED performed better in this regard but I don't know how long each set was subjected to the abuse so far.

No change on the OLED. To be fair, I would like to state the ESPN logo faded on the Sammy Plasma. Unfortunately, in its place there was another graphic elsewhere on the screen. At least it seemed to prove that it wasn't permanent Plasma burn-in, just stubborn retention.


10) Availability - the set was in stock and I could have taken it home tonight. Sounds better than the multi-week delays we heard about with LG.

I asked how many they sold. 0. While I was there, no other customer seemed interested in the set. They offered it to me with zero tax and free delivery. That's actually a large discount from MSRP considering the high sales tax here in CA.


11) Viewing angle - when viewing gray slides at an angle close to the screen you could see a cyan tint taking over the screen. One could also see thick cyan horizontal bands forming. Not an issue from realistic viewing angles and distances - especially since you really can't watch this TV off-angle due to the curve. Still not as good as CRT or older Plasmas that didn't employ excessive filtering.


Overall, I was not blown away. I know Rogo will love that comment










I think I've been spoiled by my CRT (seen here for reference: http://www.hometheater.com/content/sony-kd-34xbr960-crt-tv ). Regardless if it's OLED, LCD, or Plasma, I have not found another display that satisfies me on the same level. Maybe if I didn't have a 110" front-projector setup, I would be seduced by the screen size of current TVs. But right now, I just can't find anything with the same quality of motion, lack of noise and artifacts, and overall smoothness of those old CRTs. I was hoping OLED might finally be it. But this first iteration doesn't quite get there for me.


I still want to find a store that can demo it in a dark room so I can try the more accurate picture presets. Maybe that would win me over because I'm a black-level junkie. In the environment where I was testing, there is no way any customers would even know it wan't at LED LCD. Perhaps that explains the curve.


If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask. The store is 1 mile from my office and I might swing by there again for another testing session. I'm also curious how much ESPN abuse that set can take before burn-in sets in.


-Mark

I walked away with a much better impression today and I'm once again looking forward to future OLED models. I was able to rule out the Samsung for my purposes due to the lack of any blur reduction in "Game" mode. As a game developer, this is simply a showstopper for me. If you're comfortable with LCD motion blur in you games or don't mind excessive input-lag, then you may not care.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Randomoneh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676507
> 
> 
> Why? What is "plain stupid" about cylindrical display? Higher FOV? Good looks? What?


Field of view is dependant on panel size and viewing distance. The panels are not nearly big enough, people do not sit close enough, and they are not curved enough, to increase your FoV over a regular flat display - and being curved has a number of downsides. For one thing, it only looks correct when you are sitting in the sweet-spot.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676649
> 
> 
> 2) Brightness. Same as all the LED's around it when not using BFI. With BFI enabled, it was noticeably darker on commercials and white backgrounds but still brighter than Plasmas. On non-white color slides, I found it too bright even with BFI - especially on the Red slides. In most home environments, the BFI mode would be perfectly usable - unlike the incredibly dim impulse modes on Sony LEDs. I ran some hockey clips and didn't see any noticeable ABL issues.


I wonder if this was a setup issue, or to do with the specific models on display - the LED sets should have been able to go brighter.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676649
> 
> 
> I have several test patterns which I use to judge Plasma rainbow effect severity.


Tip: you can just display a white image and wave your hand in front of your face to see this easily on any panel which does this. It can also give you an idea of image persistence on displays which are using strobed backlighting/dark frame insertion.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676649
> 
> 
> I think I've been spoiled by my CRT (seen here for reference: http://www.hometheater.com/content/sony-kd-34xbr960-crt-tv ). Regardless if it's OLED, LCD, or Plasma, I have not found another display that satisfies me on the same level. Maybe if I didn't have a 110" front-projector setup, I would be seduced by the screen size of current TVs. But right now, I just can't find anything with the same quality of motion, lack of noise and artifacts, and overall smoothness of those old CRTs. I was hoping OLED might finally be it. But this first iteration doesn't quite get there for me.


Well OLED is basically a return to CRT-like performance after a decade of flat panel compromises. Right now it's better in a couple of ways, and worse in others, but hopefully in a few years it will be at the point where it's better in all regards. If it were an option for me, I'd still be using CRT today. (even though I do like my Sony HX900)


----------



## rogo

"Overall, I was not blown away. I know Rogo will love that comment"


Wizz, I appreciate your review. If you were blown away, I'd be no more or less pleased.


----------



## sippelmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23674884
> 
> 
> One note is that we're again 4 months from CES (and far less from IFA). I suspect we'll see more product announcements and while we'll have to be skeptical, the shipments of _something_ in 2013 might lend a bit more credibility to what we hear. By way of example, if Samsung offered a 65" for $6000 next year that was flat, I would probably tell early adopters, "Go buy this. Now." That's 40% more real estate for 33% less money. And it'd be second generation. That's enough upgrades right there. Especially if it came in flat.



I'd probably buy that.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sippelmc*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676867
> 
> 
> I'd probably buy that.


I would have until this topic got me thinking about 2.37:1 displays again. Now I want a 2.37:1 OLED so I can actually use the whole screen. Why pay for half a TV that doesn't get used?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676940
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sippelmc*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676867
> 
> 
> I'd probably buy that.
> 
> 
> 
> I would have until this topic got me thinking about 2.37:1 displays again. Now I want a 2.37:1 OLED so I can actually use the whole screen. Why pay for half a TV that doesn't get used?
Click to expand...

 

Using what content?  Content normalized with drawn in black bars?  (I think you were among the first to raise this point).  Blu-Ray 21:9 movies (encoded in the 16:9 format with letterboxing) is effectively a native 1920x820 (or 822 or similar).  You then are stuck with scaling artifacts to get that number up to 1080.  Similar math applies to 4K, no?  Just get a larger 16:9 screen?


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676961
> 
> 
> Using what content?  Content normalized with drawn in black bars?  (I think you were among the first to raise this point).  Blu-Ray 21:9 movies (encoded in the 16:9 format with letterboxing) is effectively a native 1920x820 (or 822 or similar).  You then are stuck with scaling artifacts to get that number up to 1080.  Similar math applies to 4K, no?  Just get a larger 16:9 screen?



One would end up making trade-offs with a 2.37 display also. It would have lots of unused space on each side of all the 16X9 content.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676506
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23675865
> 
> 
> Do you disagree that next week is "far less than 4 months"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8mile has a knack for acting the part of Capt. Obvious (a good handle for him perhaps, Mr. Snark?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
Click to expand...


When reading your post rogo i realised that the IFA starts next week, so its a good time to remind folks










Today Samsung started selling the KE55S9C OLED in Holland. Price is €7999 (In Germany the LG OLED costs €8999).


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23674884
> 
> 
> Once there is a daylight scene, your eyes most certainly lose the next 10-30 minutes of being able to perceive the darkest things. You're certainly right there is no point debating it. It's really easy to test. Go to bed one night. Spend half an hour in a dark bedroom. Get up, go to the bathroom, turn on the light. Do your business. Return to bed. Measure how long it takes before you can "see in the dark" as well as before the bathroom trip. It's a long time.


IIRC the dark adaptation and pupil response are triggered by average brightness reaching your retina. I suspect that in a pitch black room dark adaptation will occur regardless of screen content as the average brightness reaching your retina is low regardless. Your experiment of getting up to go to the bathroom is poor IMO as the average brightness is very high.


I've tested this a long time ago with my 141FD and I can't quite remember the overall response. I'll have to do it again for interest sake.


----------



## tgm1024


Yes, but with OLED we're now quibbling over absurdly small differences between rip-in-spacetime-black, uber-black, and really-dark-black.

 

These differences are not going to take much of a change in ambient light to become unified into the same "really really good black".

 

And I believe any bias lighting at all will render all of this moot.

 

It's not just about the iris, if anyone is thinking that.  It has to do with rod saturation and then something called "adaption".

 

Here's a paper from MIT on precisely this phenomenon.  To be honest, I haven't taken the time to fully digest it because there are other things on my plate, but there's a small chart with a time axis on page 10.  If I'm reading this properly, the adaption process doesn't take many minutes, but more like 1 or so.

 

I don't normally supply links that I don't myself 100% read through, but you guys have a deep background in light effects, so I thought you'd like this:

persci.mit.edu/pub_pdfs/*saturation*82.pdf‎

 


> Quote:
> Abstract—*A background that is briefly flashed to a dark-adapted eye saturates the rod system. This
> 
> transient saturation occurs with backgrounds that are as much as 2 log units dimmer than those
> 
> producing saturation under steady viewing. Rod threshold is highest when the background is first turned
> 
> on, and falls as adaptation proceeds. The nature of the adaptive processes are studied by presenting
> 
> flashed backgrounds on pre-adapting fields. The data can be interpreted in terms of two adaptive
> 
> processes: the first is multiplicative, and occurs rapidly; the second is subtractive, and occurs more
> 
> slowly.*


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677149
> 
> 
> Yes, but with OLED we're now quibbling over absurdly small differences between rip-in-spacetime-black, uber-black, and really-dark-black.


That is fine. I am only responsing to the general mention of dark adaptation and displays in dark rooms. As for desired black level, in my experience, my 141FD has a very poor black level when I'm dark adapted. In fact, it glows enough to ruin some low APL scenes. If I'm dark adapted and the display enters power save mode and shuts off the black level leaving only phosphorescence, it is an enormous difference. To me that is the black level that I want an OLED to have.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677149
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a paper from MIT on precisely this phenomenon.  To be honest, I haven't taken the time to fully digest it because there are other things on my plate, but there's a small chart with a time axis on page 10.  If I'm reading this properly, the adaption process doesn't take many minutes, but more like 1 or so.
> 
> 
> I don't normally supply links that I don't myself 100% read through, but you guys have a deep background in light effects, so I thought you'd like this:
> persci.mit.edu/pub_pdfs/*saturation*82.pdf‎


The link is subscription only. I read scientific papers and patents for a living so if you find a free pdf copy I'll give it a read.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677211
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677149
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a paper from MIT on precisely this phenomenon.  To be honest, I haven't taken the time to fully digest it because there are other things on my plate, but there's a small chart with a time axis on page 10.  If I'm reading this properly, the adaption process doesn't take many minutes, but more like 1 or so.
> 
> 
> I don't normally supply links that I don't myself 100% read through, but you guys have a deep background in light effects, so I thought you'd like this:
> persci.mit.edu/pub_pdfs/*saturation*82.pdf‎
> 
> 
> 
> The link is subscription only. I read scientific papers and patents for a living so if you find a free pdf copy I'll give it a read.
Click to expand...

 

Hmmm......here it is using google as the intermediary:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpersci.mit.edu%2Fpub_pdfs%2Fsaturation82.pdf&ei=yRYeUvyTIe60sATChIDICA&usg=AFQjCNGSzuP-F-BDv3um522gQyAvQHJdCA&sig2=X929IcGxbpmBb9tLpNAqNg&bvm=bv.51156542,d.cWc&cad=rjt

 

....which works for me (without subscription) so please try it.  In case it doesn't, I've uploaded the PDF directly (below).  I believe the "fair use" clause of the DMCA allows something that is freely available on the web to be reposted so long as credit is given.  In this case, to MIT.

 

If this isn't the case, then I'll have to ask a moderator how to do this.

 

 

saturation82.pdf 248k .pdf file


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676686
> 
> 
> I wonder if this was a setup issue, or to do with the specific models on display - the LED sets should have been able to go brighter.
> 
> Tip: you can just display a white image and wave your hand in front of your face to see this easily on any panel which does this. It can also give you an idea of image persistence on displays which are using strobed backlighting/dark frame insertion.
> 
> Well OLED is basically a return to CRT-like performance after a decade of flat panel compromises. Right now it's better in a couple of ways, and worse in others, but hopefully in a few years it will be at the point where it's better in all regards. If it were an option for me, I'd still be using CRT today. (even though I do like my Sony HX900)



I forgot about the hand-waving trick. I've used it on other occasions. It might reveal something about the BFI strobing on this OLED so I'll try it next time. Regarding brightness: There was a Samsung LED hanging right above it. Don't recall the model number and didn't check its settings. During the baseball game, there was no visible difference in brightness vs. the OLED in default torch mode. If I go back, I'll verify settings to make sure it can't be forced any brighter and spend more time with BFI disabled. I'm used to a dim display and any of these TVs are bright enough for me - even the Plasmas.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677211
> 
> 
> That is fine. I am only responsing to the general mention of dark adaptation and displays in dark rooms. As for desired black level, in my experience, my 141FD has a very poor black level when I'm dark adapted. In fact, it glows enough to ruin some low APL scenes. If I'm dark adapted and the display enters power save mode and shuts off the black level leaving only phosphorescence, it is an enormous difference. To me that is the black level that I want an OLED to have.
> 
> The link is subscription only. I read scientific papers and patents for a living so if you find a free pdf copy I'll give it a read.



Finally someone who gets what I've been trying to argue several times in this thread. That glow is exactly what I would pay dearly to remove. Based on the reviews from dark roms, these OLEDs can achieve that goal. I was not able to verify it for myself because of ambient lighting in the store. No other display I've ever used could do it. My CRT can go down to that absolute black level but it requires picture compromises in brightness and shadow detail that I'm not comfortable with. I once had an external video processor on the CRT which allowed me to hand tweak gamma at each level. It alleviated some of the shadow detail issues but the added input lag and top-end brightness loss wasn't worth it in the long run. The video processor also cost more than the CRT and I needed it for my projector.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23674884
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's more than fair game for me to say, "Don't buy these" as a public service. I'm less persuaded it's fair game for you to say, "It's not fair for you to tell people not to buy them." You want to make a case why people should pay 3-4x what a state-of-the-art TV costs for a relatively small, oddly curved, first-generation product that can't be wall mounted, has an external media box, has unknown longevity, etc. etc. etc. make it. "People that watch a lot of really dark movies might enjoy it" is such a case I suppose. To me, horror movies don't justify a $9000 TV and if I'd rather have a little bigger than a little more black, but I'm not a fan of the genre, so I'll leave you to make the argument that "horror fans should flock to these."
> 
> Call anytime!
> 
> 
> One note is that we're again 4 months from CES (and far less from IFA). I suspect we'll see more product announcements and while we'll have to be skeptical, the shipments of _something_ in 2013 might lend a bit more credibility to what we hear. By way of example, if Samsung offered a 65" for $6000 next year that was flat, I would probably tell early adopters, "Go buy this. Now." That's 40% more real estate for 33% less money. And it'd be second generation. That's enough upgrades right there. Especially if it came in flat.



I think that it's all relative to how much money you have and how Important display technology is to you and what exactly you're looking for. For some people spending 9k or more on this new 55'' OLED display won't mean much to them but I'm not one of them it's just to small for that price and I don't care for the curved form factor. So I'm in agreement with you on this rogo for the average Joe who is not super wealthy this would not be a good time to buy in my opinion. However if I was in the market for a new display and this OLED was an 80'' or larger and not curved for the exact same price 9k, I might just be temped to do it.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677494
> 
> 
> Finally someone who gets what I've been trying to argue several times in this thread. That glow is exactly what I would pay dearly to remove.


 

Most everyone probably gets what you've been trying to argue, and it's a fair point.  BTW, are you employing any kind of bias light?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677637
> 
> 
> I think that it's all relative to how much money you have and how Important display technology is to you and what exactly you're looking for.


 

This isn't in defense of Rogo's position, but it's just to point out that while yes, of course how much money you have drives whether or not you can *afford* something but it's not the entirety of the bottom line.

 

Something like 20 years ago I went on trip down to Virginia and during that trip I visited a cave system there.  I was starving and there was no food anywhere to be found except for a shack that was selling things like snickers bars for $3.95.  I can afford $4 for a 75 cent candy bar.  I will not pay $4 for a 75 cent candy bar based entirely on the principal of it.  No one, absolutely *NO one,* likes to be had.  And folks might feel this way for a few reasons.  *Given it's cost*:
Its small size
The non-mountability
The burn-in (longevity) potential
The external box thing (whatever it turns into)
Unknown motion issues
The sound issues (in all their forms)
The distortion issues (to whatever degree they are)
Fear of one day looking back on this thing and kicking yourself


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676649
> 
> 
> Today I had the opportunity to test the Samsung OLED at Paul's TV in Irvine, CA. It was setup in its brightest mode. Because of the poor lighting and lack of time, I didn't test the more accurate picture modes. Here's my reaction:
> 
> 
> 1) Black levels - impossible to judge with the lighting used. The store is inside a larger furniture store and they had a spot light on the ceiling pointed at the set. By cupping my hands around my face, I was able to observe that blacks were indistinguishable from the bezel but it's not an ideal way to test a TV. I would need to see it in a dark room so that my eyes could properly adjust before I could compare it to any other set.
> 
> 
> 2) Brightness. Same as all the LED's around it when not using BFI. With BFI enabled, it was noticeably darker on commercials and white backgrounds but still brighter than Plasmas. On non-white color slides, I found it too bright even with BFI - especially on the Red slides. In most home environments, the BFI mode would be perfectly usable - unlike the incredibly dim impulse modes on Sony LEDs. I ran some hockey clips and didn't see any noticeable ABL issues.
> 
> 
> 3) In addition to brightness loss, the BFI does cause a noticeable flicker on some bright content. It would probably not bother me but could be an issue for some. It also increased the sense of judder on non-60fps content.
> 
> 
> 4) Motion handling: For some reason the custom setting was grayed out. I could not select a custom judder/blur reduction combination and could only use the presets. I spent most of my time on the BFI preset because I hate SOE/lag inducing interpolation. Using the commonly referenced FPD benchmark, I was able to resolve all 1080 lines. Testing with the other patterns, I was less impressed. On the swinging rope test, there was still a lot of blur on the shirt stripes compare to my CRT. I would rate it similar to Plasma or some of the better scanning/strobing LED TVs. It does beat Plasma in that there was zero artifacting during motion - no increased dithering, noise, or banding. There were also no phosphor trails visible at any time. When I briefly tested the motion interpolatated modes, the quality was basically on par with my CRT - crystal clear motion with no halos. It might be useful for non-movie content and where input lag is not an issue. As previously reported, with all motion/BFI settings disabled, it was similar to LCD.
> 
> 
> 5) Static images: I have several test patterns which I use to judge Plasma rainbow effect severity. None present on the OLED. I know most people don't suffer from this but I'm throwing it out there for anyone else affected.
> 
> 
> 6) Image processing: I noticed a lot of image noise and compression artifacts. Either this set reveals flaws in the source much more than other sets or it was poorly adjusted.
> 
> 
> 7) Curved screen: I was able to find a viewing position where the bottom of the screen appeared straight but the top still showed a slight curve. I could not find a position where both top and bottom appeared even. I think given enough time, I could probably learn to ignore it. The curved screen did diffuse reflections better than similar glossy sets around it.
> 
> 
> 8) Uniformity: good overall but not perfect. I saw some minor DSE on the right edge of the screen on patterns that panned vertically. Not sure if it was image retention or some imperfection in the anti-glare coating. Still better than any LCD and Plasma uniformity I've seen. I could also see some color shift at the edges of the screen when viewing from close range.
> 
> 
> 9) Screen defects: no dead pixels or obvious image retention visible. They were running a baseball game on fox and then switched to ESPN. Both channels had logos and static graphics on the screen. A Samsung 8500 plasma running the same channels showed a permanent ESPN logo and other graphics burned into the screen when switching to commercials. I was actually surprised the OLED performed better in this regard but I don't know how long each set was subjected to the abuse so far.
> 
> 
> 10) Availability - the set was in stock and I could have taken it home tonight. Sounds better than the multi-week delays we heard about with LG.
> 
> 
> Overall, I was not blown away. I know Rogo will love that comment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I've been spoiled by my CRT (seen here for reference: http://www.hometheater.com/content/sony-kd-34xbr960-crt-tv ). Regardless if it's OLED, LCD, or Plasma, I have not found another display that satisfies me on the same level. Maybe if I didn't have a 110" front-projector setup, I would be seduced by the screen size of current TVs. But right now, I just can't find anything with the same quality of motion, lack of noise and artifacts, and overall smoothness of those old CRTs. I was hoping OLED might finally be it. But this first iteration doesn't quite get there for me.
> 
> 
> I still want to find a store that can demo it in a dark room so I can try the more accurate picture presets. Maybe that would win me over because I'm a black-level junkie. In the environment where I was testing, there is no way any customers would even know it wan't at LED LCD. Perhaps that explains the curve.
> 
> 
> If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask. The store is 1 mile from my office and I might swing by there again for another testing session. I'm also curious how much ESPN abuse that set can take before burn-in sets in.
> 
> 
> -Mark



Nice review.










PS: No offense Mark but I'd take this new OLED over your old CRT tube any day, no hesitation whatsoever sorry.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677684
> 
> 
> This isn't in defense of Rogo's position, but it's just to point out that while yes, of course how much money you have drives whether or not you can _afford_ something but it's not the entirety of the bottom line.
> 
> 
> Something like 20 years ago I went on trip down to Virginia and during that trip I visited a cave system there.  I was starving and there was no food anywhere to be found except for a shack that was selling things like snickers bars for $3.95.  I can afford $4 for a 75 cent candy bar.  I will not pay $4 for a 75 cent candy bar based entirely on the principal of it.  No one, absolutely _NO one,_ likes to be had.  And folks might feel this way for a few reasons.  _Given it's cost_:
> Its small size
> The non-mountability
> The burn-in (longevity) potential
> The external box thing (whatever it turns into)
> Unknown motion issues
> The sound issues (in all their forms)
> The distortion issues (to whatever degree they are)
> Fear of one day looking back on this thing and kicking yourself



The correct response would be there's no right or wrong here. If you can afford that four dollar candy bar I don't see anything wrong with getting it, we live in an opportunistic world especially in United States (Welcome to Capitalism).










So again if someone has the money to burn and they want this new display I don't see anything wrong with that, no one is being forced to buy anything here. Additionally it does sound like a great display and you would be the first adopter of the new technology and have bragging rights etc.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677765
> 
> 
> The correct response would be there's no right or wrong here. If you can afford that four dollar candy bar I don't see anything wrong with getting it, we live in an opportunistic world especially in United States (Welcome to Capitalism).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So again if someone has the money to burn and they want this new display I don't see anything wrong with that, no one is being forced to buy anything here. Additionally it does sound like a great display and you would be the first adopter of the new technology and have bragging rights etc.


 

No one said anything about there being something morally "wrong" with it, don't shift the point around.  We're talking about whether or not folks will buy it or even if it makes sense to do so.  And people don't like to be taken for a ride regardless of economic stature.  Will folks buy it?  Yes.  Is their wealth all the variables you need to determine this?  No.


----------



## chadsdsmith

I realize this is far from a controlled/scientific experiment, but I have a Samsung galaxy s3 phone with an oled screen, and I downloaded a picture of a pure black square (a black slide if you will) and viewed it on my phone to see if it still had any kind of glow to it in my nearly pitch black bedroom. My eyes had adjusted to the room for a little bit when I did it, and I can tell you that I still could see a bit of a glow coming from the screen. I have no idea if there where any other factors going on that would effect the light output (I am sure there were, but I imagine there would be on a large tv as well) , but after this admittedly unscientific test, I would not personally expect an oled tv to have that "is the tv on? I can't tell because it is darker than the darkest depths of space" look that many expect it to have in a dark room. I have also owned an xbr960 crt, but never tried such an experiment. I can tell you that I would never take that tv back over my current gt50 plasma. Its absolute black levels may not be equal to the crt, but it blows it away in nearly every other category as far as I am concerned. I am sure an oled would only further that gap for me and my tastes. I would hope that my next tv will be an 80" panasonic oled with 4k resolution (I know...not necessary but...), passive 3d and a price after discount somewhere south of $5k. I imagine we are still 5yrs from that, but it will happen, unless panny gets out of the tv biz or oled proves to be an unreliable to build at practical costs tech.


----------



## Rich Peterson

The Samsung OLED is now available In several European countries for about $10,500. UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands and Italy .


Source: http://www.oled-info.com/oled-tv-stories


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677494
> 
> 
> My CRT can go down to that absolute black level but it requires picture compromises in brightness and shadow detail that I'm not comfortable with.


The same may be true for these first generation models, though I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## xrox

I haven't really kept up with AVS and OLED over the last while. So what I'm reading is that the new OLED models actually have a black level?? I would really like to learn the technical reason why they do because LCD, PDP, and CRT all have black levels above zero for explainable reasons (all different BTW). I don't see a need for a black level in OLED that is above zero?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676961
> 
> 
> Using what content? Content normalized with drawn in black bars? (I think you were among the first to raise this point). Blu-Ray 21:9 movies (encoded in the 16:9 format with letterboxing) is effectively a native 1920x820 (or 822 or similar). You then are stuck with scaling artifacts to get that number up to 1080. Similar math applies to 4K, no? Just get a larger 16:9 screen?


Well yes, it would also require 4K. (5K wide really) I'd be upscaling movies to 4K rather than pixel doubling to "emulate" a 1080p native screen anyway, so scaling to 2.37:1 would not be any worse. The problem with "current" displays is that they're only scaling from 810>1080, so the scaling factor is too small to look good. (you always want at least 2x)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676982
> 
> 
> One would end up making trade-offs with a 2.37 display also. It would have lots of unused space on each side of all the 16X9 content.


I don't watch anything that is 16:9


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677149
> 
> 
> Yes, but with OLED we're now quibbling over absurdly small differences between rip-in-spacetime-black, uber-black, and really-dark-black.


If I can see it, it's not dark enough.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677149
> 
> 
> And I believe any bias lighting at all will render all of this moot.


Personally, I cannot stand bias lighting. I find it makes for a very uncomfortable viewing experience, and does little to improve the perception of black level.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677494
> 
> 
> My CRT can go down to that absolute black level but it requires picture compromises in brightness and shadow detail that I'm not comfortable with. I once had an external video processor on the CRT which allowed me to hand tweak gamma at each level. It alleviated some of the shadow detail issues but the added input lag and top-end brightness loss wasn't worth it in the long run.


There are a couple of nice tricks you can do with an AVFoundry VideoEQ which is a relatively low cost device with minimal processing delays. Because the device allows you to manually write 1024-point LUTs on a computer, it's far better suited than most other video processors for sending 0 with black, but a much higher level with 1% gray so that no shadow detail is lost, and you maintain an accurate 2.4 gamma across the full range. There are still some compromises when you set up a CRT so that it turns off with black though.


For what it's worth, my Sony HX900 will also turn the panel _off_ when sent 0 signal, and has similar looking ANSI performance when compared to a CRT - though blooming is contained to a smaller area, and ANSI contrast is much higher.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23678162
> 
> 
> I haven't really kept up with AVS and OLED over the last while. So what I'm reading is that the new OLED models actually have a black level?? I would really like to learn the technical reason why they do because LCD, PDP, and CRT all have black levels above zero for explainable reasons (all different BTW). I don't see a need for a black level in OLED that is above zero?


I couldn't tell you why, but there have been a number of OLED displays with a non-zero black level so far. I was very disappointed with Sony's HMZ-T1 headset for a number of reasons, but the most immediate problem I had with it is that it only had around 10,000:1 contrast which looked much worse than my Sony local dimming LCD.


----------



## wco81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23674884
> 
> 
> 
> $199 one year, $649 the next with reselling them on iPhones. That's what I've done. My net cost on iPhones? Umm, it's basically zero and I always have the newest iPhone. (Android fans, please note you can almost pull this off with Galaxy phones, but not quite since they depreciate faster. But it's close enough that for $100-200 per year, you can do it there too.) I've been pretty clear on this. If you're tired of waiting, whatever idiotic thing that means, go buy one of these. But that kind of logic is pretty perilous when you're talking about something that is the TV in your living room.



You get $649 on a year old, locked iPhone?


Well you'd have to, in order to have a zero net cost. Besides the $199 upfront cost, you're paying for part of the phone every month for a year.


But unless it's unlocked, why would people pay almost full retail? Some used to take it to T-Mobile but now, you can get iPhone directly from T-Mobile.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677788
> 
> 
> No one said anything about there being something morally "wrong" with it, don't shift the point around.  We're talking about whether or not folks will buy it or even if it makes sense to do so.  And people don't like to be taken for a ride regardless of economic stature.  Will folks buy it?  Yes.  Is their wealth all the variables you need to determine this?  No.



But you did, morals are nothing more than points of view on what an individual considers right and wrong which in by itself effects every decision you make. Hence one might feel it's unwise or wrong to purchase this display based on its size and features because of it's high cost to you. Many feel the money should go elsewhere to something more important even if you do have the money for it, so you see it's all points of views. There are many famous sayings that came around and for good reason, that's not to say that everything is in your control because it's not.


1. (most) victims are volunteers.

2. buyers beware.


Now I don't think these sayings always apply to every situation or even at all in other scenarios out of your control, but don't you think it wise to keep them in mind?










PS: So when you say "people don't like to be taken for a ride regardless of economic stature" I'd think you were referring to a situation where someone bought the same display somewhere else and was charged twice as much for it. Indeed in my book that would be morally wrong, even though I suppose it happens every day in our capitalistic system. I see nothing wrong with making a profit but there should be limits to how much. But going back to the original topic at hand here I don't think that's what we were talking about but more about if it be wise to purchase this OLED display at this time. And as I said before it's up to the individual to decide for themselves, there's no wrong or right here even if you are convinced Samsung or another company overcharge for this new display technology.


----------



## tgm1024


>reply deleted


----------



## p5browne

Obviously, the people selling the candy bar are finding people who think nothing of forking out $4 at that time because they want it Now, even though they know they're being overcharged. If the Vendor couldn't sell it for $4, or a competitor suddenly appears, then the price will come down. Now the problem with this senario is, the vendor only has probably a few Hundred dollars tied up in his retail setup, versus the Manufacturers a few Hundred Million Dollars tied up in R&D, etc. Monies have to be recovered, especially if you're having to discard 50% or more of your production! You've all seen the bottom lines of many of the Manufacturers of today's TV's, and I'm surprised they haven't thrown in the towel and said that there's no money in this, time to get out!


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chronoptimist*
> 
> I don't watch anything that is 16:9.


Don't you watch a lot of blu-ray movies? There are lots of 16:9 (1.77:1) blu-rays out there. So you do not watch 16:9 blu-rays?


A few of them_
http://www.psu.com/forums/showthread.php/69652-16-9-Fullscreen-Blu-Ray-Movies


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23679233
> 
> 
> Don't you watch a lot of blu-ray movies? There are lots of 16:9 (1.77:1) blu-rays out there. So you do not watch 16:9 blu-rays?
> 
> A few of them_
> http://www.psu.com/forums/showthread.php/69652-16-9-Fullscreen-Blu-Ray-Movies


Well, it's not that I avoid anything 16:9, but the amount of 16:9 content I watch is a tiny fraction of it. There are maybe 15-20 films on that list (not counting the ones that are wider than 16:9) that I own, and that's the majority of my 16:9 content. I don't mind pillarboxing for maybe 20 titles out of the hundreds that I own.

More the majority of films I own are either letterboxed, or narrower than 16:9, and anything I use my PC for can be rendered in 2.37:1

I don't watch broadcast at all, or streaming services (which often crop films) which is where the majority of 16:9 content is.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23678599
> 
> 
> You get $649 on a year old, locked iPhone?
> 
> 
> Well you'd have to, in order to have a zero net cost. Besides the $199 upfront cost, you're paying for part of the phone every month for a year.
> 
> 
> But unless it's unlocked, why would people pay almost full retail? Some used to take it to T-Mobile but now, you can get iPhone directly from T-Mobile.



Jesus, no. If you spend $199 one year and $649 the next, you've spent ~$850. You then have to sell the phones for ~$450 each to have a net cost of zero.


And guess what? I got $430 last year. I'll get $400-ish this year. That's $830, which isn't a truly zero, but is close enough.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677081
> 
> 
> IIRC the dark adaptation and pupil response are triggered by average brightness reaching your retina. I suspect that in a pitch black room dark adaptation will occur regardless of screen content as the average brightness reaching your retina is low regardless. Your experiment of getting up to go to the bathroom is poor IMO as the average brightness is very high.
> 
> 
> I've tested this a long time ago with my 141FD and I can't quite remember the overall response. I'll have to do it again for interest sake.



So, I'm not suggesting the bathroom experience is precisely the same. But, again, in _real movies_ there are often daytime scenes and nighttime scenes. If we are talking about a horror movie or "Blade Runner", perhaps that isn't true and the church of the almighty black level is where we should all be worshiping (the way that sentence originally read was offensive, I'm really glad I read it back to myself). If we're talking about the vast majority of content where scenes go from dark to light to dark to light, the idea that you're visual system doesn't adapt to the bright scenes is simply false. It's not open to interpretation, it's false.


I'm not talking about three stars in space, either. I'm talking about the difference between the scene that occurs in space and the one that happens on the planet's surface.


You can't watch this scene (the full version) on a big screen without your pupils constricting unless you have dialed down your peak whites by more than a plasma's ABL:


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23679461
> 
> 
> But, again, in _real movies_ there are often daytime scenes and nighttime scenes. If we are talking about a horror movie or "Blade Runner", perhaps that isn't true and the church of the almighty black level is where we should all be worshiping (the way that sentence originally read was offensive, I'm really glad I read it back to myself). If we're talking about the vast majority of content where scenes go from dark to light to dark to light, the idea that you're visual system doesn't adapt to the bright scenes is simply false. It's not open to interpretation, it's false.


I just tested what I was saying and it works perfectly. When sitting between 10-15 feet from my 141FD the average brightness reaching my retinas in a black room remains very low regardless of what is on the screen. I remain in a dark adapted state throughout any movie, any scene. This is how I watch all of my movies. This is why I've always valued black level and had interest in zero black PDP.


Now, if I stick my face against the screen the average brightness reaching my retina is much higher and yes a long enough bright scene will cause me to lose sensitivity.


And if I turn on the room lights I start to lose sensitivity within seconds but it still takes 10+ minutes to fully adapt.


----------



## Randomoneh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676686
> 
> 
> For one thing, it only looks correct when you are sitting in the sweet-spot.


Please define correct in relation to displays and content (assume we're cyclops, ignore stereoscopy-induced errors).


----------



## Randomoneh

About OLED, are there any problems with distribution uniformity of the luminance?

Let's say hypothetically brightness is at 100%, black level is 1 nit and white is 500 nits. Each new level of gray (R1G1B1, R2G2B2, R3G3B3...) should ideally be 499/256 = 1.95 nits higher than previous, right?


I imagine something like this would ruin the experience in dark and very bright scenes:


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23678162
> 
> 
> I haven't really kept up with AVS and OLED over the last while. So what I'm reading is that the new OLED models actually have a black level?? I would really like to learn the technical reason why they do because LCD, PDP, and CRT all have black levels above zero for explainable reasons (all different BTW). I don't see a need for a black level in OLED that is above zero?



From a review by HDGuru.


"OLED, which stands for "organic light-emitting diode," has a technological trick that's destined to change TVs forever: Since each pixel illuminates itself, and is totally pitch black when its not active, you have bright images and wide-viewing angles, but with perfect contrast: completely black blacks down to the pixel. This is a capability neither LCD nor plasma has ever been able to deliver, this is why we care about TV sets that cost more than some cars.


Even though these are different approaches to OLED, many of the tests showed how similar these TVs are, especially when compared to older TV technologies. During a black level test, for instance, we simply could not measure any light emitted from either TV. No LED or plasma could pull this off, and the result is an infinite contrast ratio with blazing bright whites. It's like staring into a car's high beams."

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/best-hdtv-ever-15-000-lg-9-000-samsung-oleds-6C10931492


----------



## ynotgoal

Since there seems to be a lot of interest in Panasonic's OLED program, they are showing a 20" 4K OLED tablet at IFA.
http://panasonic.co.jp/corp/news/official.data/data.dir/2013/08/jn130827-2/jn130827-2.html 


Note that it is being shown in the "Concept Stage" presentation. It will likely still be a while yet for Panasonic to sell OLED TVs .. it would be unusual for the leader in one display tech (plasma in this case) to also be the leader in the next display tech.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677642
> 
> 
> Most everyone probably gets what you've been trying to argue, and it's a fair point.  BTW, are you employing any kind of bias light?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23678521
> 
> 
> Personally, I cannot stand bias lighting. I find it makes for a very uncomfortable viewing experience, and does little to improve the perception of black level.



No. The reason I watch in the dark is because I find it improves immersion in what I'm watching. I don't want to see my living room furniture and walls - I want to see a floating screen surrounded by black. Bias lighting also tends to crush shadow detail unless you lower the gamma to compensate.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677703
> 
> 
> Nice review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: No offense Mark but I'd take this new OLED over your old CRT tube any day, no hesitation whatsoever sorry.



So would I. Don't get me wrong, I would pick that OLED over any other 55" LCD or Plasma if price was no object. At $9K, I wanted to be blown away but left the store disappointed. I was hoping for a set that would finally destroy my almost 10 year old CRT across the board in all aspects of picture performance. That was not the case. Like all display technologies ever created (including CRT), the OLED still forces you to make compromises. If it was the "best ever" in every category, we wouldn't be forced to make any compromises at all.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23678521
> 
> 
> I couldn't tell you why, but there have been a number of OLED displays with a non-zero black level so far. I was very disappointed with Sony's HMZ-T1 headset for a number of reasons, but the most immediate problem I had with it is that it only had around 10,000:1 contrast which looked much worse than my Sony local dimming LCD.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chadsdsmith*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23677896
> 
> 
> I realize this is far from a controlled/scientific experiment, but I have a Samsung galaxy s3 phone with an oled screen, and I downloaded a picture of a pure black square (a black slide if you will) and viewed it on my phone to see if it still had any kind of glow to it in my nearly pitch black bedroom. My eyes had adjusted to the room for a little bit when I did it, and I can tell you that I still could see a bit of a glow coming from the screen. I have no idea if there where any other factors going on that would effect the light output (I am sure there were, but I imagine there would be on a large tv as well) , but after this admittedly unscientific test, I would not personally expect an oled tv to have that "is the tv on? I can't tell because it is darker than the darkest depths of space" look that many expect it to have in a dark room. I have also owned an xbr960 crt, but never tried such an experiment. I can tell you that I would never take that tv back over my current gt50 plasma. Its absolute black levels may not be equal to the crt, but it blows it away in nearly every other category as far as I am concerned. I am sure an oled would only further that gap for me and my tastes. I would hope that my next tv will be an 80" panasonic oled with 4k resolution (I know...not necessary but...), passive 3d and a price after discount somewhere south of $5k. I imagine we are still 5yrs from that, but it will happen, unless panny gets out of the tv biz or oled proves to be an unreliable to build at practical costs tech.



I noticed the same thing when testing mobile OLEDs. I think they are all made by Samsung. You have to consider that mobile displays are designed around a totally different set of requirements compared to a TV. Their main focus is low weight, low power usage, and low cost. It has also been reported that the mobile OLEDs use PWM to drive the panels. Any of these factors could explain why they don't get to full black.


I use my XBR CRT exclusively for gaming and random cable programming. I would never use it for watching letterboxed movies - it's too damn small. A good quality Plasma or LCD makes a much better primary display.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23678153
> 
> 
> 
> The same may be true for these first generation models, though I hope I'm wrong.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23678162
> 
> 
> I haven't really kept up with AVS and OLED over the last while. So what I'm reading is that the new OLED models actually have a black level?? I would really like to learn the technical reason why they do because LCD, PDP, and CRT all have black levels above zero for explainable reasons (all different BTW). I don't see a need for a black level in OLED that is above zero?



This concern stems from the first ever published review of the Samsung OLED. It was done by Consumer Reports. In their review, they had to raise black level from absolute zero in order to improve shadow detail. We don't know if that adjustment was really necessary or just personal preference. We also don't know if their set was typical or just a sample with a badly adjusted gamma at the factory. What we do know is that none of the other reviews have complained about shadow detail. All reviews agree that the set can achieve absolute zero illumination in a dark room.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23678521
> 
> 
> There are a couple of nice tricks you can do with an AVFoundry VideoEQ which is a relatively low cost device with minimal processing delays. Because the device allows you to manually write 1024-point LUTs on a computer, it's far better suited than most other video processors for sending 0 with black, but a much higher level with 1% gray so that no shadow detail is lost, and you maintain an accurate 2.4 gamma across the full range. There are still some compromises when you set up a CRT so that it turns off with black though.



I was able to achieve a similar result with a Lumagen. Ignoring the price, these band-aid solutions are not ideal in my view because you are compressing the remaining dynamic range by clamping off those low-brightness bits and raising them above 0. We're dealing with a digital process where you've just thrown away a good number of bits into a black void. We would need some kind of analog gamma adjustment and analog component input to do this right. Even then, the internal digital processing precision inside the TV could limit the benefit. Maybe someday I'll move my Lumagen back to the CRT to see what can be achieved.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23679582
> 
> 
> I just tested what I was saying and it works perfectly. When sitting between 10-15 feet from my 141FD the average brightness reaching my retinas in a black room remains very low regardless of what is on the screen. I remain in a dark adapted state throughout any movie, any scene. This is how I watch all of my movies. This is why I've always valued black level and had interest in zero black PDP.
> 
> 
> Now, if I stick my face against the screen the average brightness reaching my retina is much higher and yes a long enough bright scene will cause me to lose sensitivity.
> 
> 
> And if I turn on the room lights I start to lose sensitivity within seconds but it still takes 10+ minutes to fully adapt.



I think the explanation is pretty simple. Try reading a book by plasma or reflected projector light. The amount of light just doesn't compare to a light bulb and has negligible effect on your eyes. What I notice is that on a fade to black after a bright scene, I will momentarily see absolute black. This lasts a few seconds, then the glow comes back.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Randomoneh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23679693
> 
> 
> About OLED, are there any problems with distribution uniformity of the luminance?
> 
> Let's say hypothetically brightness is at 100%, black level is 1 nit and white is 500 nits. Each new level of gray (R1G1B1, R2G2B2, R3G3B3...) should ideally be 499/256 = 1.95 nits higher than previous, right?
> 
> 
> I imagine something like this would ruin the experience in dark and very bright scenes:



There was a link in this thread to a scientific review of a 25" Sony OLED monitor. You should check it out. What you describe above it not a problem. OLEDs can have the best low-level black gradation of any available technology. You would be able to resolve every shade of black and white on a properly adjusted set.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23680001
> 
> 
> I think the explanation is pretty simple. Try reading a book by plasma or reflected projector light. The amount of light just doesn't compare to a light bulb and has negligible effect on your eyes. What I notice is that on a fade to black after a bright scene, I will momentarily see absolute black. This lasts a few seconds, then the glow comes back.


My viewing experience echoes this on both the 111FD and the ZT60. The psychological effect alone that comes from eliminating such a glow is going to be welcomed by a few of us at least.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23679582
> 
> 
> I just tested what I was saying and it works perfectly. When sitting between 10-15 feet from my 141FD the average brightness reaching my retinas in a black room remains very low regardless of what is on the screen. I remain in a dark adapted state throughout any movie, any scene. This is how I watch all of my movies. This is why I've always valued black level and had interest in zero black PDP.
> 
> 
> Now, if I stick my face against the screen the average brightness reaching my retina is much higher and yes a long enough bright scene will cause me to lose sensitivity.
> 
> 
> And if I turn on the room lights I start to lose sensitivity within seconds but it still takes 10+ minutes to fully adapt.



So sitting not very close to a not very big, not very bright TV that has significant ABL effects, you don't find much affect on your retinas?


Respect intended, but that more or less doesn't prove much to me. I can lose basically all my darkness sensitivity using my laptop in a dark room. I think it's safe to conclude a 55" OLED at 6-8 feet is (a) a reasonable use case (b) a ridiculous amount brighter apparently -- and actually -- than your TV.


----------



## agkss

I hate that glow on my gt50...that's what i want: "absolute blacks" in OLED. And obviously if will be a 75-80" Display...better.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23680001
> 
> 
> I was able to achieve a similar result with a Lumagen. Ignoring the price, these band-aid solutions are not ideal in my view because you are compressing the remaining dynamic range by clamping off those low-brightness bits and raising them above 0. We're dealing with a digital process where you've just thrown away a good number of bits into a black void. We would need some kind of analog gamma adjustment and analog component input to do this right. Even then, the internal digital processing precision inside the TV could limit the benefit. Maybe someday I'll move my Lumagen back to the CRT to see what can be achieved.


You need explicit control over the LUT to achieve good results, which the Lumagen devices do not offer. The Video EQ offered a 10-bit LUT, which was _just_ acceptable. The issue is that you need to be able to set input values of 0,0,0 to output 0,0,0 and then input values of 1,1,1 might need to be as high as 50,50,50 to display correctly. (because you have reduced brightness on the tube so much) I don't know of any other device which allowed you to write a custom LUT that achieves this. Most devices want to use interpolation on any LUT changes you make to create a smooth curve, and you will end up with severe posterization near black if that happens.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23680169
> 
> 
> So sitting not very close to a not very big, not very bright TV that has significant ABL effects, you don't find much affect on your retinas?
> 
> Respect intended, but that more or less doesn't prove much to me. I can lose basically all my darkness sensitivity using my laptop in a dark room. I think it's safe to conclude a 55" OLED at 6-8 feet is (a) a reasonable use case (b) a ridiculous amount brighter apparently -- and actually -- than your TV.


Calibrated brightness levels are 100cd/m2. That's not very bright - at least not compared to how most people have their displays set.

And personally once the display starts filling a large amount of my field of view, I prefer to switch to the projector reference level, which is half that.


----------



## slacker711

According to industry sources, LG will show a 77" OLED at IFA.

http://economy.hankooki.com/lpage/industry/201308/e20130829181252120180.htm


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> Well, it's not that I avoid anything 16:9, but the amount of 16:9 content I watch is a tiny fraction of it. There are maybe 15-20 films on that list (not counting the ones that are wider than 16:9) that I own, and that's the majority of my 16:9 content. I don't mind pillarboxing for maybe 20 titles out of the hundreds that I own.
> 
> More the majority of films I own are either letterboxed, or narrower than 16:9, and anything I use my PC for can be rendered in 2.37:1
> 
> I don't watch broadcast at all, or streaming services (which often crop films) which is where the majority of 16:9 content is.


I like HistoryHD Channel and a docu once a while, can't do without that. And 6 blu-rays a week


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23680567
> 
> 
> According to industry sources, LG will show a 77" OLED at IFA.
> 
> http://economy.hankooki.com/lpage/industry/201308/e20130829181252120180.htm


 

This part cracked me up:

 


> Quote:
> LG전자가 77인치 OLED TV를 내놓게 되면 또다시 '세계 최초'와 '세계 최대' OLED TV라는 타이틀을 동시에 거머쥐게 된다. LG전자는 지난 1월 세계 최초로 55인치 OLED TV를 내놓은 데 이어 4월에는 세계 최초의 곡면 OLED TV도 잇따라 선보인 바 있다.


 

Is there a translated copy someplace?


----------



## slacker711

Translation from Bing.


> Quote:
> LG 77 inch OLED TV coming out
> 
> As early as next week, the first line in 2013, IFA
> 
> 
> 
> Input time: 2013.08.29 18: 12: 53 edit time: 2013.08.29 13: 16: 45
> 
> 
> More than 70-inch super OLED LG (OLED) TVs in every next generation TV market occupancy.
> 
> 
> 29, according to the industry, LG has recently completed the development of an authentic 77-inch OLED TV is preparing for mass production. LG OLED Panel, the existing 55-inch large yields are also stabilizing phase reached in accordance with 77 inch OLED TV has decided the launch of.
> 
> 
> 77 inch OLED TV is taking place in Berlin as early as next week, Germany is Europe's largest electronics show is scheduled to debut in 2013 ' IFA '. LG Electronics has unveiled the product from this IFA 77 inches place the current measures to internally final review.
> 
> 
> 77-inch OLED TV, LG Electronics is the world's first over and ' devoid ' and the ' world's largest ' OLED TV will reach the title simultaneously. LG OLED TV last January launched the world's first 55 inches in April was the world's first OLED TV launched a series of curved bars.
> 
> 
> LG is the world's largest size at this time 77-inch OLED TV markets around the world by launching a product catches the tone certainly is strategy. The current OLED TV launches with two Samsung and LG, as well as throughout the world and is confined to a single product, product size is 55 inches.
> 
> 
> LG 77 inch super OLED TV this year in the 110-inch is planning to finish the development. At present, the development of a 110-inch OLED Panel from LG display is completed in the middle of the year or in January next year to step aside or held in the United States ' consumer gajeonsyo (CES) seems to reveal a surprise '.


----------



## tgm1024


2560 or 2160.  Which?  Besides: *huh?*


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23680169
> 
> 
> So sitting not very close to a not very big, not very bright TV that has significant ABL effects, you don't find much affect on your retinas?
> 
> 
> Respect intended, but that more or less doesn't prove much to me. I can lose basically all my darkness sensitivity using my laptop in a dark room. I think it's safe to conclude a 55" OLED at 6-8 feet is (a) a reasonable use case (b) a ridiculous amount brighter apparently -- and actually -- than your TV.


I mistakenly took your first couple posts on adaptation as a generality about content regardless of display type and viewing distance that everyone would experience. Statements like "not open for interpretation" and "simply false" seems to always be posted by members with little to no actual basis for making such statements (i.e. - scientific literature, test results...etc). I understand now that you were referring to your own experience with a brighter display and closer viewing distance which is completely valid. My apologies.


And if I was trying to prove anything to anyone it was that it is the total light reaching the retina (or illuminance or average luminance IIRC) that determines adaptation changes IIRC. In my specific case I remain dark adapted regardless of screen content.


----------



## VidPro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *agkss*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23680173
> 
> 
> I hate that glow on my gt50...that's what i want: "absolute blacks" in OLED. And obviously if will be a 75-80" Display...better.



I'm right there with you. I watch a lot of horror movies and I would like nothing more to plunged into total darkness when a scene goes black.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23680795
> 
> 
> Translation from Bing.



Thanks for the translation. No mention of 4k which IMO means it's unmarketable even if they intend to actually produce them for sale.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23680983
> 
> 
> I mistakenly took your first couple posts on adaptation as a generality about content regardless of display type and viewing distance that everyone would experience. Statements like "not open for interpretation" and "simply false" seems to always be posted by members with little to no actual basis for making such statements (i.e. - scientific literature, test results...etc). I understand now that you were referring to your own experience with a brighter display and closer viewing distance which is completely valid. My apologies.
> 
> 
> And if I was trying to prove anything to anyone it was that it is the total light reaching the retina (or illuminance or average luminance IIRC) that determines adaptation changes IIRC. In my specific case I remain dark adapted regardless of screen content.



100% fair xrox. And you tick off a really good summary of the different issues at hand. A lot of people here sit far closer than you or I and go for "immersion" in a way that the light would start to matter.


Anyway, nothing I said should be misinterpreted: I want blacker-than-night black too. I'm just less obsessed with it than a lot of people. I often watch in low light and in those conditions, my year-old plasma has blacks that are indistinguishable from the screen frame.... Yes, the effect breaks down when we go to total darkness, but I'm not of the mindset to do that especially often. For whatever little it's worth, outside the AVS crowd, I doubt many people do at home either.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23680567
> 
> 
> According to industry sources, LG will show a 77" OLED at IFA.
> 
> http://economy.hankooki.com/lpage/industry/201308/e20130829181252120180.htm



77"? Getting there!


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6870#post_23681336
> 
> 
> It is probably not a a 20 inch 4K OLED.
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/panasonics-4k-oled-ifa-2013
> 
> 
> "Some web sites are reporting that Panasonic is set to unveil a 20" 4K OLED tablet at the IFA 2013 event next week. Those sites are relying on auto-translated Japanese text. But in fact the company will not show such a tablet. In an English PR, Panasonic says they will show a 4K 20" tablet and a 4K OLED panel prototype - those are two different devices."



Thanks for this info. I should probably remove my post with the article given that it's totally wrong...


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6840#post_23680567
> 
> 
> According to industry sources, LG will show a 77" OLED at IFA.
> 
> http://economy.hankooki.com/lpage/industry/201308/e20130829181252120180.htm


 

It doesn't say anywhere in there if the 77" (or the 110" monster) is curved or flat.


----------



## SED <--- Rules




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6870#post_23682468
> 
> 
> It doesn't say anywhere in there if the 77" (or the 110" monster) is curved or flat.



Ahhh 77 inches. That's much better. 4K, OLED, and 77 inches. Yes, yes, and yes please. Oh and decent pricing too please...yeah I'm asking for too much


----------



## ynotgoal

LG executives in Korea told the Wall Street Journal that the price on LG’s new 55-inch Full HD 1080p curved OLED TV has also been hacked nearly 30 percent in the Korean market to 10,900,000 won ($9,788) from 15,000,000 won previously.

_A U.S. dealer, who asked not to be named, said he was told LG will similarly cut the price here on its model 55EA9800 55-inch curved OLED TV to a $9,999 UPP, from the original $14,999 introductory price._


The Wall Street Journal reported that LG’s OLED price cut was made to make the set affordable to a wider pool of consumers.


LG also reduced prices on its 55-inch, flat-screen OLED TVs to 9,900,000 won each starting this week, from 11,000,000 won previously. That set has not been introduced in the United States.

http://www.twice.com/articletype/news/lg-confirms-sept-1-ultra-hdtv-price-cuts/108159


----------



## vinnie97

Samdung will still eat EllGee's lunch (well, for the ~1000 folks worldwide who buy one or more of these).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6870#post_23683392
> 
> 
> 
> The Wall Street Journal reported that LG’s OLED price cut was made to make the set affordable to a wider pool of consumers.



The Korean-to-English translation should be, "No one was buying any."


----------



## Wizziwig

I tested the Samsung OLED again today. I edited my original review with some new information here:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676649


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6800_100#post_23676649
> 
> 
> Zero line-bleed. I tested using the green ratings card found before movie trailers.


That's good - it was a serious problem on the HMZ-T1. Of course that was an OLED microdisplay rather than a television, but it's still good to have confirmation that it's not a problem.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6800_100#post_23676649
> 
> 
> 11) Viewing angle - when viewing gray slides at an angle close to the screen you could see a cyan tint taking over the screen. One could also see thick cyan horizontal bands forming. Not an issue from realistic viewing angles and distances - especially since you really can't watch this TV off-angle due to the curve. Still not as good as CRT or older Plasmas that didn't employ excessive filtering.


Interesting - I thought that Samsung were using RGB OLEDs without color filters, as close to the surface of the glass as possible. Having the image change with viewing angle suggests that may not be the case. (Sony have viewing angle issues on theirs due to the Super Top Emission cell structure.


----------



## Randomoneh

OLED with black at 0.005 (nits) / white at 200 or another OLED with black at 0.0005 / white at 20? Both have contrast ratio of 40000:1.


----------



## JimP

Does anyone else get the impression that it might be a good idea to buy a 2014 plasma to carry you until they get the bugs worked out and drop the price of OLED?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6800_100#post_23684606
> 
> 
> Does anyone else get the impression that it might be a good idea to buy a 2014 plasma to carry you until they get the bugs worked out and drop the price of OLED?


 

Yep.  Been said many times.


----------



## Randomoneh

-


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6870#post_23683772
> 
> 
> I tested the Samsung OLED again today. I edited my original review with some new information here:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6810#post_23676649



Thanks for the updated review, the time you put into all this is much appreciated and I really did enjoy reading it all nice work.










PS: I'm still going over it my head, why on earth did both LG and Samsung decided to release this display curved? Of course I'm holding off judgment until I see the curved screen in person but I'm thinking there had to be something both company's saw in common that led them to come to the same conclusion. Of course it could be something as simple as "monkey see, monkey do" thinking that this change in form factor would sell more displays, who knows for sure?


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6870#post_23683807
> 
> 
> Interesting - I thought that Samsung were using RGB OLEDs without color filters, as close to the surface of the glass as possible. Having the image change with viewing angle suggests that may not be the case. (Sony have viewing angle issues on theirs due to the Super Top Emission cell structure.



It may have something to do with the AR coating. The fact that the tint was not even across the entire surface but more intense in certain spots (maybe 3-4 horizontal bands down the screen) makes me believe so. To be perfectly clear, I only saw it in full-screen colored slides. With actual video content, it would not be an issue at any sane viewing angle and distance. I think one of the other review sites noted a similar extreme angle tint so it appears normal for this set.


I would definitely wait for second generation models based on my experience. If you buy it now, it would be similar to buying a Ferrari and being told you can't shift out of first gear. The set has great motion resolution potential that you can't tap into for all applications. That is a shame and I would be pissed if they released a new model without that limitation.


I think what we're looking at with these first-gen models is some recycling of existing processing components. The menus even have a "cell light" setting which is obviously carried over from their Plasmas. The motion enhancement processor also appears virtually identical to their LCD units. I think in time, we'll see chipsets developed that fully tap into 100% of the OLED potential - including reduced input lag.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6870#post_23684863
> 
> 
> Thanks for the updated review, the time you put into all this is much appreciated and I really did enjoy reading it all nice work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: I'm still going over it my head, why on earth did both LG and Samsung decided to release this display curved? Of course I'm holding off judgment until I see the curved screen in person but I'm thinking there had to be something both company's saw in common that led them to come to the same conclusion. Of course it could be something as simple as "monkey see, monkey do" thinking that this change in form factor would sell more displays, who knows for sure?



I think if you owned it for a long time, your brain would eventually learn to tune-out and ignore the curve. I noticed it much less toward the end up of my 2 hour testing session and focused more on the picture quality. I'm almost 100% certain the curve is there just to get people to stop-and-look at the store. Without it, there is simply nothing to make most people realize this is not LED LCD besides the sticker price. Store conditions are not a good way to sell these TVs and I hope the slow sales won't hurt the advancement and development of future OLED tech.


I may go out to review the LG next week. I'm kind of tired after spending close to 4 hours total on the Samsung but I'm curious how LG handles their game mode.


----------



## wco81

Have these companies indicated that they would continue to develop OLED displays, regardless of the sales of these first models?


Has Panasonic talked road map at all?


----------



## tgm1024


Registration is open for the "OLEDs World Summit 2013".  Sept. 17-19, San Franscisco.

 

You can also register for their free "webinar".



 

Whatever.

 

http://www.oledsworldsummit.com/home.aspx


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Randomoneh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6800_100#post_23684521
> 
> 
> OLED with black at 0.005 (nits) / white at 200 or another OLED with black at 0.0005 / white at 20? Both have contrast ratio of 40000:1.


I'll take high contrast at a lower brightness any day... but 20 is too low. 50 is the lowest I would use, but you really should have double what you want, to account for brightness loss over time and to try and eliminate the ABL by keeping contrast low.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6870#post_23685190
> 
> 
> I'll take high contrast at a lower brightness any day... but 20 is too low. 50 is the lowest I would use, but you really should have double what you want, to account for brightness loss over time and to try and eliminate the ABL by keeping contrast low.



That reminds me... I looked carefully for any sign of ABL on the Samsung OLED. It simply does not manifest itself in regular content (at least in movie mode). I spent a good 5 minutes watching hockey. I then watched the same hockey clip on a Samsung 8500 Plasma and the ABL was very clear (I know this was improved in later firmware). I also watched a few commercials that transition into white backgrounds.


Regarding my earlier comment about viewing angles... maybe it wasn't the screen coating after all. I looked at a few screenshots of a Sony OLED monitor and their tint off-angle looked very similar. This testing of mobile Samsung OLED's also reveals their viewing angle is not as good as IPS LCD.

http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_S4_ShootOut_1.htm#Viewing_Angle 


You can also see the same bluish / greenish tint I noticed in the pictures here:

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1316433816 


Maybe the enlarged blue pixels?


----------



## Wizziwig

Also, I can confirm the IR sensor is in the bottom center of the Samsung OLED and not on the media box. You could in theory hide the box anywhere you wish.


I wonder if all the video processing is inside that little box or if any of it is inside the panel. Maybe Samsung could offer an upgrade to improve motion processing and/or lag with a newer box like they are promising for their 4K TVs.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6870#post_23684606
> 
> 
> Does anyone else get the impression that it might be a good idea to buy a 2014 plasma to carry you until they get the bugs worked out and drop the price of OLED?


A 4K 75" VT series Panasonic plasma maybe? Yup, I'm there in a heart beat!


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6870#post_23686322
> 
> 
> A 4K 75" VT series Panasonic plasma maybe? Yup, I'm there in a heart beat!



I doubt a 75" 4K plasma as Panasonic has said no more R&D or substantial plant upgrade for plasma line, but the do have lines that were making the quickly disappearing 42" plasma, that could be converted to 84" 4K plasma.


----------



## p5browne

No sense dreaming - it ain't going to happen! NO 4K Plasmas in the pipe!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6870#post_23687773
> 
> 
> I doubt a 75" 4K plasma as Panasonic has said no more R&D or substantial plant upgrade for plasma line, but the do have lines that were making the quickly disappearing 42" plasma, that could be converted to 84" 4K plasma.



Yeah, that does seem viable. It also would be something of an egregious power consumer and 80+" TVs are very niche to begin with. So in spite of the fact that it's plausible as a concept, it seems implausible as a reality.


----------



## ynotgoal

For those who want a wall mountable oled with "stunning sound"

http://lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/63752


----------



## tgm1024


Looks like they're sticking with that ugly dewdrop in the middle bottom of the bezel like Samsung seems to be.  I hope that thing goes away soon.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6870#post_23691921
> 
> 
> For those who want a wall mountable oled with "stunning sound"
> 
> http://lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/63752



So this is the first Flat OLED screen from LG.


Will be available in Germany late in September and keep rolling out in the rest of the world after that.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*
> 
> For those who want a wall mountable oled with "stunning sound"
> 
> http://lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/63752



A model with the same name - 55EA8800 - was present at the CES so it is not ''the newest model''
http://www.trustedreviews.com/lg-55ea8800_TV_review


----------



## tgm1024


^^^ Yet another marketing department running out of ways of changing the stand????  I'm tempted to ask "what next", but after some of the stuff I've seen from LG and Samsung lately.....I'll hold off from fear alone.

 

EDIT: I was hoping to change my mind.  But nope: That stand is freakshow hideous.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23693972
> 
> 
> Yet another design that seeks to reverse the trend in recent years of making the bezel frames as narrow as possible.
> 
> Curved models, and now wide picture frame models. Why are the makers intent on gilding the lily, and drawing attention away from the quality of the video display in their First Generation large OLED TVs? It is almost like they do not want to have shoppers paying close attention to the actual image processing.


 

Greenland, stay tuned for the rabbit ears coming your way soon....


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23693972
> 
> 
> Yet another design that seeks to reverse the trend in recent years of making the bezel frames as narrow as possible.


I actually dislike the recent trend of making the bezels as thin as possible. That's fine when you actually have to save space (e.g. a notebook computer) and having a really thin bezel certainly makes the image stand out in the stores, but I actually prefer the image to have some amount of framing around it. It's the same reason that you use matting when framing artwork, and you don't just stick it on the wall.


I actually would not be opposed to an OLED that was designed to be framed as if it was artwork, if it were possible to have a low enough power output that you could actually consider leaving it on. (though this part seems unlikely)


LG's design seems like they couldn't come up with a solution for wall-mounting the display and they threw this together at the last minute.

It looks like the set is raised up from the frame, and it's not even rectangular.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> and it's not even rectangular.


 
__
https://flic.kr/p/9651195924
​


----------



## Rich Peterson

W-OLED TV panel modules expected to be 6 times more expensive than LCDs in 2014


Source: digitimes .


W-OLED TV panel modules sized 55-inch are expected to be six times more expensive than similar LCD modules in 2014, down from eight times in 2013, according to market observers.


The observers said that material costs are still the main reason for high OLED TV panel pricing, but costs are gradually dropping as material makers make further developments in producing the technology.


Based on the developments, material costs for OLED TV panels should shrink to about six times compared to LCD module pricing in 2014, which should drive down end market pricing for the TVs as a result.


However, the observers still believe end pricing will still be too high for most consumers during the year and instead believe that Ultra HD TVs will be the choice among consumers in the high-end TV segment.


Other panel makers in the market such as AU Optronics (AUO) are further researching large-size OLED panels but feel the technology is a long way from maturing


----------



## tgm1024


^ Funny if they're trying to imply that 55" OLED screens have already matured.


----------



## rogo

It speaks massive volumes that all the OLED announcements / designs are about frames, curves, etc. The idea that picture quality is going to sell these remains far-fetched.


Of course, the idea that gimmicks is going to solve that problem is also wrong, but the grasping at straws shows the mfrs. understand Problem A, they just don't have an answer with Solution B.


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900#post_23697083
> 
> 
> It speaks massive volumes that all the OLED announcements / designs are about frames, curves, etc. The idea that picture quality is going to sell these remains far-fetched.
> 
> 
> Of course, the idea that gimmicks is going to solve that problem is also wrong, but the grasping at straws shows the mfrs. understand Problem A, they just don't have an answer with Solution B.




I guess looking at how Pioneers TV division ended, they know they can't rely on PQ alone, and at least until costs go down, they have to incorporate other selling points. Especially with 4K already being here, as it's easier to market that than a general promise of better picture.


----------



## Wizziwig

Dutch review:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fwdmagazine.be%2Ffwd%2F151521%2Freview-samsung-ke55s9c-oled%2F


----------



## Rich Peterson

I thought this video review of Samsung's OLED TV was pretty good, especially for those who haven't seen it in a home setting.


It doesn't contain a lot of technical measurements or anything, just some general thoughts.


----------



## anthonymoody




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900#post_23697083
> 
> 
> It speaks massive volumes that all the OLED announcements / designs are about frames, curves, etc. The idea that picture quality is going to sell these remains far-fetched.
> 
> 
> Of course, the idea that gimmicks is going to solve that problem is also wrong, but the grasping at straws shows the mfrs. understand Problem A, they just don't have an answer with Solution B.



You see Sony just announced a $4000 curved LED? Not OLED. LED. WTF is going on?!?


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900#post_23699215
> 
> 
> I thought this video review of Samsung's OLED TV was pretty good, especially for those who haven't seen it in a home setting.
> 
> 
> It doesn't contain a lot of technical measurements or anything, just some general thoughts.



I am not seeing $9000 worth of goodness there. Yes, nice blacks and saturation but 3 times the price of top of the line plasmas, no.


----------



## markrubin

I think AVS members should help define what we are looking for in the *next generation* OLED display: some of my requirements are:


--flat OLED, wall mountable


-- no media box


-- 4K resolution/ HDMI 2.0 compatibility


--70 inch or larger size


-- no fan noise


-- no more than 2X price of comparable non OLED display


-- warranty coverage for burn in


is this too much to expect? anything to add?


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *anthonymoody*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900#post_23700280
> 
> 
> You see Sony just announced a $4000 curved LED? Not OLED. LED. WTF is going on?!?



I came here just now to comment on this very development.


Sony's announced a curved 65" set, but it's LED - not OLED - and it's just $4000!


It can't be seen as anything other than a spoiler to the LG and Samsung sets, and it's potentially pretty damaging.


My belief is that the curve design was a bid to differentiate OLED from existing tech in the eyes of the general public, and now that gimmick is redundant. When the uninitiated shopper sees the Sony set alongside the OLEDs in a brightly lit showroom environment, the OLED price tags are going to look a little silly.


I really hope OLED enters mass production soon, and prices come down quickly. I want my OLED.


Here's a link to a report on this curved LED Sony set..

http://t.nbcnews.com/technology/sony-throws-hdtv-shoppers-curve-curved-65-tv-8C11073469


----------



## vinnie97

Sony trying to spoil OLED development with inferior technology? That is rather unlike them (they usually back the technically superior tech)....seems they're getting desperate, so perhaps an exit from the TV business will happen sooner rather than later.


----------



## JWhip




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900#post_23700464
> 
> 
> I think AVS members should help define what we are looking for in the *next generation* OLED display: some of my requirements are:
> 
> 
> --flat OLED, wall mountable
> 
> 
> -- no media box
> 
> 
> -- 4K resolution/ HDMI 2.0 compatibility
> 
> 
> --70 inch or larger size
> 
> 
> -- no fan noise
> 
> 
> -- no more than 2X price of comparable non OLED display
> 
> 
> -- warranty coverage for burn in
> 
> 
> is this too much to expect? anything to add?



I agree 100% and would add supports rec 2020.


----------



## JWhip

A curved LCD? Please. Just who is asking for these curved sets anyway? Not me. The whole curved set idea is a step backwards IMHO for the entire industry.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23700689
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *anthonymoody*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900#post_23700280
> 
> 
> You see Sony just announced a $4000 curved LED? Not OLED. LED. WTF is going on?!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I came here just now to comment on this very development.
> 
> 
> Sony's announced a curved 65" set, but it's LED - not OLED - and it's just $4000!
> 
> 
> It can't be seen as anything other than a spoiler to the LG and Samsung sets, and it's potentially pretty damaging.
Click to expand...

 

 

DAMMIT guys.  If you mean LED LCD, *say "LED LCD". * Not "LED".  You got my hopes up for a new emissive LED technology.  "Spoiler to the LG and Samsung sets".  Don't forget, Sony actually *did* produce a "regular" LED 55" demo (Crystal LED).

 

grumblegrumblegrumble.

 

I think the manufacturers must've had a collective stroke.  So this thing is the very worst of the technologies?  LED-LCD & curved.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900#post_23700464
> 
> 
> I think AVS members should help define what we are looking for in the *next generation* OLED display: some of my requirements are:
> 
> 
> --flat OLED, wall mountable
> 
> -- no media box
> 
> -- 4K resolution/ HDMI 2.0 compatibility
> 
> --70 inch or larger size
> 
> -- no fan noise
> 
> -- no more than 2X price of comparable non OLED display
> 
> -- warranty coverage for burn in
> 
> is this too much to expect? anything to add?



Jwhip mentions Rec.2020 which I'm sure will be carried just fine by HDMI 2.0 and seems to be on other parts of the value chain already. I'm not sure this is a checklist item, but it might be nice to hear about it being there.


Mark, your list is great. I'd prefer that the burn-in thing be addressed by the fact the sets don't burn in. In other words, 100K-hour life or something similar such that running 20 hours of static video means nothing in terms of OLED wear and therefore can't burn in. I'm OK with warranty coverage; I'm less OK with "ESPN fans have to worry about the TV".


Seems like Energy Star should be on the list as well, since there is some real ambiguity about how thirsty the first generation sets are and one of the few regrets I have about buying this plasma is that it's now just about the biggest electric power consumer in my house (even though it uses much less power than my previous plasma).


I'd really like "some sort of low/zero reflectivity front glass". If I'm paying thousands more, that seems reasonable to ask for.


----------



## tgm1024


I'm going to start channeling Artwood soon if this manufacturing nonsense continues much longer.


----------



## JWhip

Rogo, as the current crop of 4K sets don't support rec 2020, I thought I would add it to the list, although with the Evolution Kit, Samsung 4K's should be upgradeable to add it. I would also add display port which the new Panasonic 4K includes.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900#post_23700961
> 
> 
> 
> DAMMIT guys.  If you mean LED LCD, _say "LED LCD". _ Not "LED".  You got my hopes up for a new emissive LED technology.  "Spoiler to the LG and Samsung sets".  Don't forget, Sony actually *did* produce a "regular" LED 55" demo (Crystal LED).
> 
> 
> grumblegrumblegrumble.
> 
> 
> I think the manufacturers must've had a collective stroke.  So this thing is the very worst of the technologies?  LED-LCD & curved.



Most people assume now days when you say LCD or LED display it's in conjunction with one another, they no longer make LCD's displays without LED backlighting.










PS: Just to clarify a few things incase you didn't already know this, OLED's emit their own light whereas an LCD panel requires a backlight such as a full array of LED's behind LCD panel. In the past fluorescent tubes were used as a light source for LCD displays, but no longer. Additionally OLED's and Plasmas have several qualities in common, one of them being they both produce their own light and don't rely on any other source like an LCD display does.


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900#post_23700464
> 
> 
> I think AVS members should help define what we are looking for in the *next generation* OLED display: some of my requirements are:
> 
> 
> --flat OLED, wall mountable
> 
> 
> -- no media box
> 
> 
> -- 4K resolution/ HDMI 2.0 compatibility
> 
> 
> --70 inch or larger size
> 
> 
> -- no fan noise
> 
> 
> -- no more than 2X price of comparable non OLED display
> 
> 
> -- warranty coverage for burn in
> 
> 
> is this too much to expect? anything to add?



Maybe they can create some sort of shape shifting display, curved for those who want it at the touch of a button, or changing size to fit the aspect ratio that is currently displayed. Probably unrealistic but I'm no engineer, who knows what kind of gimmick they'll come up with next.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23701367
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900#post_23700961
> 
> 
> 
> DAMMIT guys.  If you mean LED LCD, *say "LED LCD". * Not "LED".  You got my hopes up for a new emissive LED technology.  "Spoiler to the LG and Samsung sets".  Don't forget, Sony actually *did* produce a "regular" LED 55" demo (Crystal LED).
> 
> 
> grumblegrumblegrumble.
> 
> 
> I think the manufacturers must've had a collective stroke.  So this thing is the very worst of the technologies?  LED-LCD & curved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people assume now days when you say LCD or LED display it's in conjunction with one another, they no longer make LCD's displays without LED backlighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: Just to clarify a few things incase you didn't already know this, OLED's emit their own light whereas an LCD panel requires a backlight such as a full array of LED's behind LCD panel. In the past fluorescent tubes were used as a light source for LCD displays, but no longer. Additionally OLED's and Plasmas have several qualities in common, one of them being they both produce their own light and don't rely on any other source like an LCD display does.
Click to expand...

 

Whoa!  Some days.  LOL.  That's all display 101.  Pretty basic stuff.  What you're talking about is the difference between emissive and transmissive displays.  It should be pretty clear that I understand all that based upon my statement in the first place.  Further, note my use of "emissive" above.

 

And no, the common usage of "LED" meaning "LED-LCD" is not a good idea anyway, should be fodder for a class-action suit given how many times we have to clear the notions up for people, but was especially misleading to me in this one rare instance because of these 3 sentences:

"You see Sony just announced a $4000 curved LED? Not OLED. LED. WTF is going on?!?"
"Sony's announced a curved 65" set, but it's LED - not OLED - and it's just $4000!"
"It can't be seen as anything other than a spoiler to the LG and Samsung sets, and it's potentially pretty damaging."

 

The "LED" not "OLED" sounded distinctly like it was a shocking re-unveiling of CLED or some other non-organic LED variant.  The idea that this competes directly with the LG and Samsung sets to me wasn't because of the curve but because it might have been another emissive technology.

 

Just an anomalous combination of wording.


----------



## vinnie97

Yea, my mind didn't wander there with the original statement, I just assumed bottom-barrel LCD-LED edgelit/backlit tech.







But I also remain unconvinced by that CLED prototype as being anything but a museum piece.


----------



## tgm1024

OYE I know. But I can engage in a "willing suspension of disbelief" LOL...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900#post_23701285
> 
> 
> Rogo, as the current crop of 4K sets don't support rec 2020, I thought I would add it to the list, although with the Evolution Kit, Samsung 4K's should be upgradeable to add it. I would also add display port which the new Panasonic 4K includes.



Noted and thumbs upped.


----------



## ALMA

Haier shows 55" OLED-TV too and Samsung unveiled the UHD-OLED-TV at IFA 2013...


----------



## JazzGuyy

All this discussion of curved screens made me remember that for most of their existence CRT screens were curved too, except it was convex rather than concave and usually on both axes. The Sony Trinitron change that to one axis and later to flat. And these curved CRTs always had geometric distortion just like the new curved screens do. It was just different.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23702826
> 
> 
> All this discussion of curved screens made me remember that for most of their existence CRT screens were curved too, except it was convex rather than concave and usually on both axes. The Sony Trinitron change that to one axis and later to flat. And these curved CRTs always had geometric distortion just like the new curved screens do. It was just different.



yes but unlike OLED, there were valid technical reasons for making a CRT screen curved


----------



## coolscan

Samsung 55" OLED UHD TV. Will come in flat and curved version..........at some point.

 

http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/05/samsung-reveals-the-world-s-first-curved-uhd-tvs-at-ifa-2013/#continued


----------



## RichB

I get the feeling that OLEDs are made on a pasta machine. It must take extra work to flatten them










- Rich


----------



## 8mile13

Besides the world's first curved (sony) Edge Lit LED LCd ( wonder how that will look off axis







) there was also the worlds first and largest (sony) 4K OLED TV (prototype







) at the IFA 2013 .


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23702779
> 
> 
> Haier shows 55" OLED-TV too and Samsung unveiled the UHD-OLED-TV at IFA 2013...



Here's more info on the Samsung UHD OLED PROTOTYPE. http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-35205_7-57601448-10391741/samsung-touts-4k-oled-tv-98-inch-behemoth/


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23703073
> 
> 
> Besides the world's first curved (sony) Edge Lit LED LCd ( wonder how that will look off axis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) there was also the worlds first and largest (sony) 4K OLED TV (prototype
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) at the IFA 2013 .



Sony and their "Worlds First" claims.

WE have to use stop watches to see who is claiming "Worlds First" first.










Hours after Sony claims "Worlds First" curved LCD LED (HD TV), Samsung shows "Worlds First" Curved LCD LED 4K ~ *UHD* TV.


The most interesting "Worlds First" claim this time goes to Samsung.










.


----------



## anthonymoody

Gawd I hope all these curved sets fail miserably, regardless of tech. However, I hope that is not somehow taken as a sign that OLED sets are a failure...


Btw to the earlier discussion of the convention of using led as shorthand for led lit LCD...come on. Get over it. It's happened, like it or not. Move on.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *anthonymoody*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23703180
> 
> 
> Gawd I hope all these curved sets fail miserably, regardless of tech. However, I hope that is not somehow taken as a sign that OLED sets are a failure...
> 
> 
> Btw to the earlier discussion of the convention of using led as shorthand for led lit LCD...come on. Get over it. It's happened, like it or not. Move on.


 

Where did I make some emotional stand on that topic?  No where.  I was talking about why I thought there was an announcement of a new emissive tech.

 

But unemotionally?  Do you, or do you not realize that outside of AVS forum members there is *endless* confusion about what "LED TVs" mean?  As you said: "come on".


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*
> 
> 
> Sony and their "Worlds First" claims.
> 
> WE have to use stop watches to see who is claiming "Worlds First" first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hours after Sony claims "Worlds First" curved LCD LED (HD TV), Samsung shows "Worlds First" Curved LCD LED 4K ~ *UHD* TV.
> 
> 
> The most interesting "Worlds First" claim this time goes to Samsung.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Its all about getting media attention..


----------



## greenland

A video clip showing the LG 55inch Flat OLED at IFA, and a shot of the setup with the built in surround speakers in the frame exposed. They have set a price of 9K Euros, and say it will be available later this year.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/05/eyes-on-lg-55-inch-gallery-oled/


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23702860
> 
> 
> yes but unlike OLED, there were valid technical reasons for making a CRT screen curved



Very interesting.


Did it have to do with the manufacturing process at the time or was it something else?


----------



## greenland

Haier's new OLED TV is harder to push over than most

http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/05/haier-tv-stand/ 


"new 55-inch OLED set. And, granted, the set is nice and thin at four millimeters, with a 1.5 millimeter bezel. What the company was really excited about, however, was the built-in stand. Yep, it's a four millimeter thick TV that can stand on its own, making it really difficult to push over in one direction, at least."



No pictures or video of how the image looks, or what the price of the set will be, has been provided by engadget.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23703784
> 
> 
> Haier's new OLED TV is harder to push over than most
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/05/haier-tv-stand/
> 
> 
> "new 55-inch OLED set. And, granted, the set is nice and thin at four millimeters, with a 1.5 millimeter bezel. What the company was really excited about, however, was the built-in stand. Yep, it's a four millimeter thick TV that can stand on its own, making it really difficult to push over in one direction, at least."
> 
> 
> No pictures or video of how the image looks, or what the price of the set will be, has been provided by engadget.


 

This weird thing?  I'm not sure if I like it or not.

http://www.cnetfrance.fr/i/edit/2013/09/39793674/02.Haier.Oled.jpg


----------



## greenland

BERLIN -- LG is looking to make Ultra HD OLED TVs more affordable with the new LA9650 series, unveiled here at the IFA tech show. This is the 65-inch model.

http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-35205_7-10018124-1.html 


Cnet just posted images of the 65inch Ultra HD OLED panel, but provided no other details. Have any of you come across an further information about the product?



.....................................................................................................................................................................


Samsung touts 4K OLED TV, 98-inch behemoth


At the IFA show in Berlin, the electronics giant shows the fruits of its work to improve TV resolution and marry Ultra HD with the rich tones of OLED displays.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-35205_7-57601448-10391741/samsung-touts-4k-oled-tv-98-inch-behemoth/ 


Some more details on the linked page.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23703914
> 
> 
> BERLIN -- LG is looking to make Ultra HD OLED TVs more affordable with the new LA9650 series, unveiled here at the IFA tech show. This is the 65-inch model.
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-35205_7-10018124-1.html
> 
> 
> Cnet just posted images of the 65inch Ultra HD OLED panel, but provided no other details. Have any of you come across an further information about the product?
> 
> 
> 
> .....................................................................................................................................................................
> 
> 
> Samsung touts 4K OLED TV, 98-inch behemoth
> 
> 
> At the IFA show in Berlin, the electronics giant shows the fruits of its work to improve TV resolution and marry Ultra HD with the rich tones of OLED displays.
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-35205_7-57601448-10391741/samsung-touts-4k-oled-tv-98-inch-behemoth/
> 
> 
> Some more details on the linked page.




Now we're getting into front projection territory.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23703872
> 
> 
> This weird thing?  I'm not sure if I like it or not.



It looks somewhat similar to the monolith that showed up at the beginning of 2001 A Space Odyssy, or in this case A Space Oddity. They need to tart it up a little, to make the stand portion not blend into the actual display. It looks like they have made no provisions for where people could place the auxiliary equipment such as receivers, and Blu-ray players.


----------



## JazzGuyy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23703758
> 
> 
> Very interesting.
> 
> 
> Did it have to do with the manufacturing process at the time or was it something else?


It had to do with how the cathode "gun" worked. The screen had to be curved to insure that the distance the electron beam traveled was constant across the screen. Since the gun was fixed, the screen had to be curved. Sony eventually found ways to manipulate the beam so that the screen could be flat. Remember, the basic CRT technology started out in the 1920s, if I remember correctly.


----------



## agkss

CNET is wrong those LG Models are Full Nano LED...NO OLED 4K...Only Sony and Panasonic have an UHD OLED Bigger than 55"...56" +1


----------



## rmongiovi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23704234
> 
> 
> It had to do with how the cathode "gun" worked. The screen had to be curved to insure that the distance the electron beam traveled was constant across the screen. Since the gun was fixed, the screen had to be curved. Sony eventually found ways to manipulate the beam so that the screen could be flat. Remember, the basic CRT technology started out in the 1920s, if I remember correctly.



A CRT is just a big vacuum tube. Didn't they also make them convex to resist implosion?


----------



## JazzGuyy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rmongiovi*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23704376
> 
> 
> A CRT is just a big vacuum tube. Didn't they also make them convex to resist implosion?


That may have had a little something to do with it but the explanation I remember was always about maintaining constant beam distance as the electron beam swept the tube's inner face. It seems that concerns about implosion of picture tubes had something to do with why we ended up with 16:9 as the HD aspect ratio. The first HDTV experiments and standards came out of Japan and a lot of what became HDTV was built on that work. All of the initial work on HD was done during the era of the CRT tube and as I remember it a 16:9 tube was about the maximum aspect ratio that could be used in a CRT at anything approaching an affordable cost and with an acceptable weight without running into structural problems, like implosion. I seem to remember the original proposals for HD wanted an aspect ratio of 2.05 or 2.1 to 1 which would have been a nice compromise between the widely used movie widescreen formats of 1.85:1 and 2:35(or so):1. The tube technology of the time just couldn't support it though. Today, it would be easy to do and I was sort of surprised that 4K TV technology didn't take the opportunity to modify the aspect ratio since we are no longer limited by tube technology. 2:10:1 strikes me as just about the perfect all-around widescreen aspect ratio when you have to have a fixed ratio.


----------



## JWhip

That may be true but since HD broadcasts are 16 x 9, that horse has already left the barn.


----------



## JazzGuyy

Of course but a 2.1:1 TV displaying 16:9 source material would be conceptually the same thing as a 16:9 display showing 4:3 material. The technology allows multiple source ratios to be displayed (albeit with black bars). The choice of maintaining a 16:9 aspect ratio for 4K TVs is as much a marketing decision (maybe moreso) as anything. There is nothing in the technology that would have precluded a slightly wider aspect ratio which might have better served multiple source aspect ratios. I understand the decisions that were made but they didn't have to go that way vs. the situation during the early days of HD when 16:9 may have been totally a technology limitation decision. Since the change is not going to happen, I won't comment more about it.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rmongiovi*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23704376
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23704234
> 
> 
> It had to do with how the cathode "gun" worked. The screen had to be curved to insure that the distance the electron beam traveled was constant across the screen. Since the gun was fixed, the screen had to be curved. Sony eventually found ways to manipulate the beam so that the screen could be flat. Remember, the basic CRT technology started out in the 1920s, if I remember correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A CRT is just a big vacuum tube. Didn't they also make them convex to resist implosion?
Click to expand...


lots of good info already provided


A CRT tube is a pressure vessel: in order to hold pressure (in this case negative pressure) it is much easier to make surfaces round, (later flat screen CRT's were able to be flat because of technology advances and the use of heavier glass)


a second reason is geometric distortion at the corners/ edges


speaking of implosions, I had an unfortunate experience after building Heathkit's first color TV which used a CRT: it was a huge project for me (this was 45 years ago) but I built it and it worked great: so good a friend offered to buy it: but an accident while moving it caused an elevator door to close on the neck of the CRT which resulted in implosion: you could hear the glass break and the rush of air, and the sinking feeling....replacing the CRT in a color TV in those days was a major task...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23703073
> 
> 
> Besides the world's first curved (sony) Edge Lit LED LCd ( wonder how that will look off axis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) there was also the worlds first and largest (sony) 4K OLED TV (prototype
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) at the IFA 2013 .]



Isn't that the same OLED they demoed at CES in January?


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> 
> Isn't that the same OLED they demoed at CES in January?


probably.

Only difference seems to be that at the CES it was a ''prototype'', at the IFA it's a ''technology demonstration''


----------



## agkss




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23704633
> 
> 
> What about their report of Samsung demonstrating a UHD Definition OLED prototype? Do they also have that wrong?



55 inches flat and curve...when i first read 89" uhd OLED i though finally a bigger screen but not was another s9


----------



## IronManFan

Just saw the OLED at Best Buy. The picture is stunning, popping way more than any of the TV's around it, be they ZT60's or LED's or 4K's. But the curve is a deal-breaker. The distance where the curve is no longer a perspective distraction happens to be exactly where you start to see 1080p pixels. It's a stunningly inept handling of a product that is excellent enough to be appealing without gimmickry. It's like flames on a Ferrari.


Seeing the curved OLED with the giant idiotically framed Samsung 4K TV, gave the impression of an industry that is operating on an unstable mix of excitement and panic. The manufacturers clearly love the new technology, but they don't trust it to sell itself yet, because most people really can't use it, because of lack of both content and delivery systems. For the time being, 4K upscaling of 1080p is not good. It looks fake and the vaunted color range is not in any way discernible from 1080p. The industry should just wait for Netflix to have their 4K streaming up and running and then drop flat 4K OLEDs at sizes bigger than 55". People will buy that tech, because it will be discernibly better.


Until then, early adopters are going to drop a lot of money on products that are only incrementally better (and in some respects, worse) than the technology they're supplanting.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6690#post_23642988
> 
> 
> No, the hideous TV design I'm talking about is precisely that XBR-__X900A that you mention you like.  I'm referring to the "speakers as part of the bezel" as "glued on speakers".  Just a figure of speach.  And I'm not sure why anyone would like it, but to each his own.



I agree what the hell, these speakers are horrendous, if you spend that much money on a panel 99% of the time buyers will have a dedicated audio set up!


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IronManFan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23706101
> 
> 
> Just saw the OLED at Best Buy. The picture is stunning, popping way more than any of the TV's around it, be they ZT60's or LED's or 4K's. But the curve is a deal-breaker. The distance where the curve is no longer a perspective distraction happens to be exactly where you start to see 1080p pixels. It's a stunningly inept handling of a product that is excellent enough to be appealing without gimmickry. It's like flames on a Ferrari. Seeing the curved OLED with the giant idiotically framed Samsung 4K TV, gave the impression of an industry that is operating on an unstable mix of excitement and panic. The manufacturers clearly love the new technology, but they don't trust it to sell itself yet, because most people really can't use it, because of lack of both content and delivery systems. For the time being, 4K upscaling of 1080p is not good. It looks fake and the vaunted color range is not in any way discernible from 1080p. The industry should just wait for Netflix to have their 4K streaming up and running and then drop flat 4K OLEDs at sizes bigger than 55". People will buy that tech, because it will be discernibly better.
> 
> 
> Until then, early adopters are going to drop a lot of money on products that are only incrementally better (and in some respects, worse) than the technology they're supplanting.



I just saw a custom paint job on a purple Lamborgini and it was like the old Camero with the flames on it! What a waist, but the owner wanted to be seen from far away?

https://www.google.com/search?q=camaro&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#hl=en&q=camaro+with+flames&biv=i%7C0%3Bd%7CFJAwVUcLMJ1SUM%3A 


So their will always be some people who could care less about money they just want to be seen with the latest fad!


----------



## wse

Personally, I will wait until 80" 4K OELD comes until then, I will keep my JVC Projector and my 12 feet screen


----------



## ALMA

LG 77" curved UHD-OLED-TV at IFA 2013:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/06/lg-77-inch-curved-uhd-oled/


----------



## walt73

Incredible that they were able to build one this big already.


Judging by the rollout of the 55", the 77" should hit in about 18 months I guess.


----------



## eriaur

 Ignis now offers 55" AMOLED TV MaxLife evaluation samples, received "firm orders" from display makers 



In May 2013, Ignis Innovation announced that it will soon start shipping sample 20" AMOLED displays to display makers to evaluation their MaxLife compensation technology. Today Ignis announced that they decided to go for a larger 55" FHD OLED TV. The company said it received "firm orders" for those samples from from display manufacturers and OEMs.



IGNIS announces that it has received firm orders for samples of its 55” Full HD AMOLED display from display manufacturers and OEMs. The display is built using IGNIS’s patented MaxLife™ compensation technology. This sample is designed for display manufacturers and OEMs who want to evaluate the performance of MaxLife technology for use in their own displays and products.


The major issues in large area AMOLED displays are cost and lifetime. The low yield, which is caused by complex pixel circuits and a high level of non-uniformities, results in a higher display cost. AMOLED displays can have non-uniformity patterns known as “mura”, resulting in stripes, speckles, or cloudiness in the display. This is due to the manufacturing process of both the TFT and the OLED. The Current solution is to use complex pixel structures (with multiple TFTs per pixels) known as in-pixel compensation (IPC). In addition to limited performance of IPC for non-uniformity compensation, the complex pixel structure results in a higher manufacturing defects and lower yield. Therefore, it is not practical to adopt such an approach for high volume large-area AMOLED displays. Moreover, achieving 2Kx4K AMOLED displays will be difficult with the complex pixel circuits. Thus, adopting a simple solution with high compensation performance is crucial to reduce the cost, increase the capacity with the limited fabrication lines, and achieve higher resolution displays.



In addition, AMOLED displays suffer from image sticking, where images can be permanently burned into the display. This is caused by the instability of both the TFT and the OLED which is a more serious issue at higher brightness and longer-running display operation.


“IGNIS MaxLife technology offers three major advantages over existing solutions: superb compensation capability for high degree of initial non-uniformity, comprehensive aging compensation, and detailed defect report for repair and tuning.” says Dr. Reza Chaji, President and CTO. “Despite its unique offerings, IGNIS MaxLife technology provides for a very simple pixel structure leading to even higher manufacturing yield and higher resolution (e.g. 2Kx4K).” he added. “IGNIS technology is a universal solution and has been manufactured and proven on oxide, polysilicon, and amorphous silicon TFT backplanes.”


----------



## R Harkness

I'm waiting for our local high end store to get the LG OLED in (it's coming). But yesterday they had the curved Sony 65" LED display, beside a non-curved version.

I couldn't see anything the curve added in terms of viewing experience, viewing angles etc. Except that I was aware of the image curve..not a great thing IMO.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23708383
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for our local high end store to get the LG OLED in (it's coming). But yesterday they had the curved Sony 65" LED display, beside a non-curved version.
> 
> I couldn't see anything the curve added in terms of viewing experience, viewing angles etc. Except that I was aware of the image curve..not a great thing IMO.


 

I hope they coin the *Smiley Face Effect* (SME) as a term.  Top curve when under the dead center.


----------



## Orbitron

Should we expect an 84" 4K OLED at CES or too soon?


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23708581
> 
> 
> Should we expect an 84" 4K OLED at CES or too soon?



Why would OLED pick 84" for a size? The reason that 4K LCD chose the 84" size was because the plants making 42" displays were not being used as much anymore.


----------



## Orbitron

If not 84", than what size will the largest OLED be?


----------



## Orbitron

If not 84", than what size will the largest OLED be?


----------



## rogo

8G doesn't beautifully cut into anything bigger than 55". It can be awkwardly cut into many sizes.


----------



## irkuck

 A 77" 4K OLED wonder is at least materialized in flesh and bones, though do not salivate yet on consuming it before your EOL


----------



## anthonymoody




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23703191
> 
> 
> Where did I make some emotional stand on that topic?  No where.  I was talking about why I thought there was an announcement of a new emissive tech.
> 
> 
> But unemotionally?  Do you, or do you not realize that outside of AVS forum members there is _endless_ confusion about what "LED TVs" mean?  As you said: "come on".



I disagree. I don't think there is any confusion whatsoever. I think there is a mass misconception to be sure, but no confusion per se. The misconception that is pretty universally held (outside avs...) is that led is something completely distinct from LCD as opposed to a way of lighting LCD. And understood that I may be splitting hairs on confusion vs misconception










But I think it speaks to a larger issue, which is that in reality "it doesn't matter" for the buying public because people walk into Best Buy or the like and are drawn to big bright screens with very narrow bezels, not to one technology (or actual videophile performance) over another.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *anthonymoody*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23710344
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6930#post_23703191
> 
> 
> Where did I make some emotional stand on that topic?  No where.  I was talking about why I thought there was an announcement of a new emissive tech.
> 
> 
> But unemotionally?  Do you, or do you not realize that outside of AVS forum members there is *endless* confusion about what "LED TVs" mean?  As you said: "come on".
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I don't think there is any confusion whatsoever. I think there is a mass misconception to be sure, but no confusion per se.
Click to expand...




> Quote:
> And understood that I may be splitting hairs on confusion vs misconception


 

Your 2nd statement stands to nullify the nonsensical 1st.  Give it up.


----------



## dave1216

We stopped in to Best Buy last weekend to see the 15K OLED set. Was not set up great with a good demo, just the store loop. But I have to say at first glance I was not impressed. The lack of whites being white was a big factor to me. White was more grey. If I were to get a set like this it would be in a room with light most of the time and the lack of true white would be a negative for me no matter how black black is. On the otherhand the wife and I really liked the 4K Samsung. Of course not a fair comparison because it was on a special loop, but other than the colors being completely saturated (the city shots...and maybe that was the intent) it was quite impressive.


----------



## Pres2play

The 15K OLED is now listed at 10K, or $9,999.


I will wait for Black Friday and hope for a deal on the Samsung 55" OLED. After seeing it at BB, I decided the screen curve is not a big deal.


----------



## MaXPL

So So So... after all these years OLED is finally available in the US.

What was Rogos final prediction on availability?


Will buy 46" as soon as they hit $5k. 55" is too big for my space.


----------



## vinnie97

The wait continues for you since that isn't a size even in manufacturer contention (publicly in any case).


----------



## NLPsajeeth




> Quote:
> LG will introduce its advanced ULTRA HD OLED TV technology to consumers in 2014.





> Quote:
> LG is hard at work developing OLED TVs with ULTRA HD picture quality in screen sizes greater than 70 inches.


 http://www.lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/63911


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NLPsajeeth*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23715793
> 
> 
> http://www.lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/63911



Let the games begin.


----------



## slacker711

An in-depth review of the LG OLED TV with a comparison with high-end plasmas and LCD's to follow.

http://www.displaymate.com/LG_OLED_TV_ShootOut_1.htm


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23716455
> 
> 
> An in-depth review of the LG OLED TV with a comparison with high-end plasmas and LCD's to follow.
> 
> http://www.displaymate.com/LG_OLED_TV_ShootOut_1.htm



LG could not have hoped for a better review, than the one given to their product by Dr. Raymond M. Soneira.


They did provide him with the set, so I would expect that they made sure to select one that had no stuck pixels, etc.


His findings read like it is really almost a perfect display. Now we need someone like him to put five thousand hours on the display and then report on how well it has held up.


----------



## markrubin

^^^


great review from a respected expert in the industry...I guess he wrote it before the curved LCD was announced


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23716684
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> 
> great review from a respected expert in the industry...I guess he wrote it before the curved LCD was announced


It is a great article, but there is a terminology minor error in Raymond's article, however.

He is a highly respected person and knows what he is talking about, but needs a minor modification of the terminology, in my opinion -- since the LG OLED has more motion blur than a plasma display. It's already confirmed by several sources (japanese scientists, HDGuru, myself, and others). So, I've sent emails to Raymond to point this out.


> Quote:
> Hello Raymond:
> 
> 
> There is a minor error in one of your articles.
> 
> The phraseology "motion blur" should be changed to "transition time" or "ghosting":
> http://www.displaymate.com/LG_OLED_TV_ShootOut_1.htm#Response_time
> 
> 
> Although the transition time is excellent, the LG OLED still has motion blur caused by sample-and-hold, especially when we're doing fast motions (e.g. window dragging, scrolling, etc). There is still some sample-and-hold motion blur on the OLED's. Also, "ghosting" (remnants from previous refreshes) is the word that should be ideally used instead of "motion blur" (includes sample-and-hold, which the OLD still has).
> 
> 
> Response time (based on MPRT measurement -- Motion Picture Response Time) is different from transition time (0.1ms). Several OLED's with ~0.1ms transitions actually have at least 8ms-16ms of sample-and-hold, creating an high MPRT measurement from things like MotionMaster and other MPRT measurement cameras.
> 
> 
> HDTVTest said the LG55EA9800 has motion blur as bad as a 60Hz TV (120Hz TV). This is seen in moving resolution test patterns. We're not talking about the ghosting (correctly described and photographed by you) but the sample-and-hold motion blur.
> 
> 
> For example, try viewing this motion animation on the OLED:
> http://www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking
> 
> 
> Also, I have found a way to do inexpensive pursuit camera, using existing consumer cameras:
> http://www.blurbusters.com/motion-tests/pursuit-camera/
> 
> Only a $150 low-friction camera rail and a consumer camera is now needed, because of a new technique of verifying tracking accuracy.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Mark Rejhon



----


> Quote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote:
> 
> >> HDTVTest said the LG55EA9800 has motion blur as bad as a 60Hz TV (120Hz TV).
> 
> 
> Apologies, I meant HDGuru:
> http://hdguru.com/lg-55ea9800-oled-hdtv-reviewed/
> 
> 
> Also, you may want to see this japanese scientific stuff:
> 
> Journal of Vision also found that the Sony Trimaster OLED has an MPRT of 7.5 milliseconds:
> http://www.journalofvision.org/content/13/7/6.full
> 
> 
> Figure 19 has the following image:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also I have earlier written an article about OLED motion blur:
> http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur
> 
> 
> It is very important to distinguish the terminology "motion blur" (which can occur on instant-response displays, due to the sample-and-hold effect), and the terminology "ghosting". Some scientists would like to call you out on the use of the "motion blur" terminology.
> 
> 
> OLED is an excellent technology but it still has more motion blur than many plasmas -- due to the sample-and-hold effect. OLED still has more motion blur than the new interpolation-free low-lag "Motionflow Impulse" found on certain Sony HDTV's. It does have *more* ghosting than OLED, but *less* motion blur than the LG OLED. So you see, how important it is for DisplayMate to be careful about the use of the "motion blur" versus "ghosting" terminology, because these can actually improve independently of each other.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark Rejhon



I have no knocks on Raymond and I highly respect him & his article is quite correct (when reading his "motion blur" terminology as "ghosting"). There is definitely zero ghosting on an OLED -- zero bleed between refreshes.


For writing to the (gradually-becoming-increasingly-educated) public, he will need to carefully make sure the phraseology now accomodates the sample-and-hold motion blur, which is a different cause of motion blur than the panel's own ghosting (LCD refreshes bleeding between refreshes). Stationary photography do not capture sample-and-hold motion blur, it only captures ghosting. Pursuit camera is needed for *objective* measurement of *sample-and-hold* motion blur.


Since many other sources have *already confirmed OLED motion blur* (japanese scientists, HDGuru, myself, and others), reviews needs to now recognize the sample-and-hold effect found during flickerfree / long-duration flickers / long-persistence. The sample-and-hold effect is an important consideration during very fast motion, the type of motions seen in computer use and gaming use, that is increasingly a use case of big screen displays, beyond slower-moving blurrier-video.


Current OLED displays flickers with a persistence of about ~8 milliseconds (give or take) per refresh at this moment, according to these measurements already made. This creates 8ms of persistence (sample-and-hold), leading to more human perceived motion blur (confirmed in moving-photo patterns such as http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo ...) than those found on known ultra-high-efficiency strobe backlights (e.g. nVidia LightBoost strobe backlight, Eizo's FDF2405W strobe backlight, and Sony's Game Mode Motionflow Impulse strobe backlight). There is still less ghosting on OLED, but far more motion blur on the OLED.


That said, the terminology needs to be fixed in his article.

So, DisplayMate's article is correct when the terminology "motion blur" is replaced with "ghosting".


----------



## rogo

It's definitely a comprehensive review and highlights something I was discussing a couple of years ago: The chance for near-perfect video to eventually become a mainstream product. It's not likely that OLED gets cheaper it's going to be made worse; it might get better.


I think Part II of the article is going to vindicate what I and others have been saying for quite some time.


By the way, I (like others) have tremendous respect for Soneira. And there is a lot of objective detail in his review that justifies the hype and excitement. But it's impossible not to read his personal excitement there too. This technology has not advanced quickly. That's just a mis-reading of history. It's been demoed for more than a decade and even when it was demoed at tiny sizes, the quality was never in question. The question was -- and is -- can it be built. In the interim, everything else closed an awful lot of the quality gap.


I think subjectively, it's very easy to see how much of the quality gap is already closed. And sophisticated reviewers with their own tools already know how close is it objectively. Soneira's second part will be interesting to see his perspective there.


(I can say as I sit on my couch typing this post, the idea I would prefer to see a curved screen from her such that I am seeing the right edge of the screen curl away from me (even a little) is beyond absurd. The idea that's an advantage strains the imagination beyond its limits).


----------



## p5browne

More and more OLEDs are popping out of the woodwork at IFA - should be a real 3 ring circus by the time CES come around! - ie LG's 77" UHDTV OLED!


----------



## Orbitron

Hypothetical question and not sure if it's even a fair question - let's assume future technology allows an OLED to be made in 92" or larger. Does it surpass the image of a state of the art 92" or larger screen and projector? Overall, is the look of OLED better than the look of projection regardless of screen size?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23717777
> 
> 
> Hypothetical question and not sure if it's even a fair question - let's assume future technology allows an OLED to be made in 92" or larger. Does it surpass the image of a state of the art 92" or larger screen and projector? Overall, is the look of OLED better than the look of projection regardless of screen size?



For many of us, the answer is clearly yes. For others, the answer will be no.


I hate to hedge (and you can put me in the former camp), but the idea your'e going to get an objective truth here is not the way it works.


----------



## Orbitron

Mark, how about a drop down flexible 92" OLED in 2.35:1 in 8K? It would be a replacement for my StudioTek 130. (In about 10 years)


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23717321
> 
> 
> It's definitely a comprehensive review and highlights something I was discussing a couple of years ago: The chance for near-perfect video to eventually become a mainstream product. It's not likely that OLED gets cheaper it's going to be made worse; it might get better.
> 
> 
> I think Part II of the article is going to vindicate what I and others have been saying for quite some time.
> 
> 
> (I can say as I sit on my couch typing this post, the idea I would prefer to see a curved screen from her such that I am seeing the right edge of the screen curl away from me (even a little) is beyond absurd. The idea that's an advantage strains the imagination beyond its limits).



Yet this expert claims that curved TV's are better!? Go figure. His argument about reduced reflections does match up with what I observed on the Samsung but I think he's dismissing the top/bottom curve distortion too easily - especially at only 8ft.


So you really think that OLEDs will get better as they get cheaper? I'm kind of afraid that as these TVs fall in price, their quality control will tank - similar to what we see with LCD today. Sure there will always be a "golden sample" but I'm not so sure that the average random OLED will be as good as the average random $9K OLED we have available today. Hopefully you're right and the unit-to-unit variation will be much smaller for OLED than it is for LCD.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23717777
> 
> 
> Hypothetical question and not sure if it's even a fair question - let's assume future technology allows an OLED to be made in 92" or larger. Does it surpass the image of a state of the art 92" or larger screen and projector? Overall, is the look of OLED better than the look of projection regardless of screen size?



By the time we have such a large OLED at equivalent projector pricing, who knows what the projector world will offer.


Projectors also don't have fixed sizes like a direct-view panel so they can always go bigger depending on your setup and light requirements. I doubt one tech will ever replace the other.


All that being said, I would gladly give up my 110" JVC projector for a 92" or bigger OLED if they were reasonably priced (say


----------



## 8mile13

Lot of those projector folks do not care about TVs, and lots of TV folks do not care about projectors no matter how much an PQ upgrade switching might bring. OLED, top Plasma's and top LCd's offers better PQ than any projector out there seems to me. Projector has one advantage, it will always be bigger, and bigger is better some say.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23717777
> 
> 
> Hypothetical question and not sure if it's even a fair question - let's assume future technology allows an OLED to be made in 92" or larger. Does it surpass the image of a state of the art 92" or larger screen and projector? Overall, is the look of OLED better than the look of projection regardless of screen size?


Projectors are inherently low contrast devices. Even the best projectors offering contrast ranges of 130,000:1 are not nearly as good as those numbers imply. As soon as there is any ambient light in the room, contrast from a projector drops precipitously. This includes light reflecting off the walls in the room from the projected image, back onto the screen. With three-chip projectors, you have convergence issues to deal with, and most projectors put out a somewhat soft image. Single-chip projectors are the only ones that are really suited for computer use, for example. (but those have other problems)


The advantage of a projector is that you only need a relatively small unit for a very large image. (far larger than 92") There are motorized screens, and motorized shelves for them, which means that when you are not using the projector, it can be completely hidden away.


With a large 92" OLED display, you have to figure out how to get it inside your home and (presumably) mount it on the wall.

Now you have a massive black slab stuck on your wall at all times. Even with a fixed projection screen rather than a motorized one, you are left with a large white surface on the wall when it's not in use, which is far more acceptable.


And there's something to be said for the look of an emissive display compared to a reflective display. Even if the OLED produces a technically better image on all fronts, some people would still prefer to watch a projector - just like some people still prefer to use an e-ink reader rather than a tablet with a high DPI display.

Another advantage which projectors have is that you can use an anamorphic lens and project a natively 21:9 image. Unless manufacturers decide to make 21:9 OLED displays (and I really hope that they do) projectors are your only option for that.



Personally, I am interested in OLED at "television" sizes - the current 55" models are as large as I would ever want to have. Actually, that is already larger than I really want for a television. I would be more comfortable with something in the 40-50" range.

I am much more interested in projection at larger sizes than OLED, for the reasons mentioned above. I don't have a room which I can dedicate to being a "TV room" and cover one of the walls in this black slate. I can, however, have a smaller television in the room, and a projector/screen which drops down from the ceiling when I want to watch a film on a big screen.



Now make the OLED display transparent when it's off, or replace the motorized projection screen with a rollable OLED display, and I'll take one instead of a projector any day.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23716649
> 
> 
> His findings read like it is really almost a perfect display. Now we need someone like him to put five thousand hours on the display and then report on how well it has held up.


 

(sometime in the near future)

"....after 5000 hours of testing, we discovered that the worries of wear and burn-in to be entirely overblown.  We must've found at least 120 pixels still working...."


----------



## sooke

From the article:


> Quote:
> But what makes this TV absolutely stunning is combining that with a very accurate factory calibration that takes full advantage of the OLED display technology and delivers picture quality and accuracy that is visually indistinguishable from perfect based on our extensive Lab tests.



So... is the author implying that these LG OLEDs will be sold to consumers pre-calibrated at the factory, or is he just implying that the cherry-picked sample LG sent him was pre-calibrated?


If it is the former, why is this suddenly possible with OLEDs, but hasn't been done with LED/LCD TVs? (I get that it would not be possible with plasma due to need for break-in of phosphors).


----------



## greenland

"Samsung brings its first OLED 4K TV to IFA"

http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/06/samsungs-first-oled-4k-tv-eyes-on/ 


The picture of the demo model shows a nice clean narrow bezel, without a surrounding ugly wide mounting frame, Here's hoping that Samsung keeps it looking like this.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23711055
> 
> 
> The 15K OLED is now listed at 10K, or $9,999.
> 
> 
> I will wait for Black Friday and hope for a deal on the Samsung 55" OLED. After seeing it at BB, I decided the screen curve is not a big deal.



The Samsung is not stocked at BB. According to the salesman, the TV is lent out to the stores for display only. Not surprised, with its hefty price tag. I guess this will keep the price from going down any time soon.

The guy said it would take till the end of the month to get one sent directly from Samsung if ordered now.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23720225
> 
> 
> "Samsung brings its first OLED 4K TV to IFA"
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/06/samsungs-first-oled-4k-tv-eyes-on/
> 
> 
> The picture of the demo model shows a nice clean narrow bezel, without a surrounding ugly wide mounting frame, Here's hoping that Samsung keeps it looking like this.



You know, at first I didn't care for the LG and the picture frame model, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes. The majority of buyers still want internal sppearks and with the picture frame they have them all around and you don't need a break out box for all the connections.


----------



## p5browne

Factory Perfect Calibration in what conditions?

Have calibrated my 2 LG 55LHXs - one in a Yellow Room (Wife's Loft), and the other in my Dark Green Walled Bedroom. (Not my choice, the wife's before placing her in the back bedroom.)

Swapped TVs when having an issue with mine - each LHX looked terrible in it's new setting - had to recalibrate both of them.

So for those who do not have their sets calibrated in it's to be viewed settings, you're calibration will be off due to colourations, lighting direct and indirect, windows, curtains, paintings on the wall, etc.


----------



## mr. wally

any new oled demos from sony or panny at ifa?


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23719401
> 
> 
> Now make the OLED display transparent when it's off, or replace the motorized projection screen with a *rollable OLED display*, and I'll take one instead of a projector any day.


You: "Come see my new screen!"

......(points the remote at the motorized screen)

......(rollable projector-style screen comes down from the ceiling)

......(beautiful picture instantly appears)

Them: "Wow, that projector has amazing picture quality....um....*hey, where's the projector!?!?!*"


Priceless!


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23720292
> 
> 
> You know, at first I didn't care for the LG and the picture frame model, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes. The majority of buyers still want internal sppearks and with the picture frame they have them all around and you don't need a break out box for all the connections.



They better have improved on the ability of their panels to withstand Image Retention, than the model that they displayed at Harrods, if they are going to have owners displaying fixed copies of Impressionist Paintings. Otherwise they will end up leaving a lasting impression.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23717321
> 
> 
> I think subjectively, it's very easy to see how much of the quality gap is already closed. And sophisticated reviewers with their own tools already know how close is it objectively. Soneira's second part will be interesting to see his perspective there.


What I would like to see is:

-- Tests on the OLED relevant to gaming and computer usage (1080p/60fps).

-- Pursuit camera tests.


Here is a Panning Map Readability Test at: http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=toronto-map.png 

(Use a supported browser )


This is a torture test of being able to read the street names while panning a map. Most displays fail this test; only a few succeed -- such as CRT displays, CRT projectors, nVidia LightBoost strobe-backlight LCD's, and other short-persistence displays such as the new Eizo FDF2405W strobe-backlight LCD. From already-known information from other testers, the LG OLED would fail the above readability test at 960pps.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23718589
> 
> 
> Mark, how about a drop down flexible 92" OLED in 2.35:1 in 8K? It would be a replacement for my StudioTek 130. (In about 10 years)



Sounds good. And it sounds like it might actually be doable. I'm still a bit skeptical that an OLED that unrolls and re-rolls over and over again will be real in even 10 years, but it could happen.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23719116
> 
> 
> Yet this expert claims that curved TV's are better!? Go figure. His argument about reduced reflections does match up with what I observed on the Samsung but I think he's dismissing the top/bottom curve distortion too easily - especially at only 8ft.



It's a really odd claim that curved is better. Really odd.


> Quote:
> So you really think that OLEDs will get better as they get cheaper? I'm kind of afraid that as these TVs fall in price, their quality control will tank - similar to what we see with LCD today. Sure there will always be a "golden sample" but I'm not so sure that the average random OLED will be as good as the average random $9K



Here's my optimism for the future of OLED.


1) LG actually sucks at both aspects of making OLEDs today: the IGZO and the OLED deposition. Yet the TV looks great. To get to mass production, they have to get great at both of those. The quality should be better as the price falls even assuming nothing changes.


2) You can't build an OLED with lousy contrast even if you cheaper. It's not going to work. So the baseline for a cheap OLED is just way higher than the baseline for a cheap LCD, where you could be lazy as hell in making the light guides align and you could make an awful panel (and many still are and do!).


I think the $3000 models of 2016-17 are going to easily outperform the $9000 models of today. I don't actually know that $1000 models are coming this decade, so discussing that aspect of the market is less important to me.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23721497
> 
> 
> What I would like to see is:
> 
> -- Tests on the OLED relevant to gaming and computer usage (1080p/60fps).
> 
> -- Pursuit camera tests.
> 
> 
> Here is a Panning Map Readability Test at: http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=toronto-map.png
> 
> (Use a supported browser )
> 
> 
> This is a torture test of being able to read the street names while panning a map. Most displays fail this test; only a few succeed -- such as CRT displays, CRT projectors, nVidia LightBoost strobe-backlight LCD's, and other short-persistence displays such as the new Eizo FDF2405W strobe-backlight LCD. From already-known information from other testers, the LG OLED would fail the above readability test at 960pps.



That made me dizzy on my laptop. It seems like a torture test of the highest order for motion.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sooke*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23719708
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> So... is the author implying that these LG OLEDs will be sold to consumers pre-calibrated at the factory, or is he just implying that the cherry-picked sample LG sent him was pre-calibrated?
> 
> 
> If it is the former, why is this suddenly possible with OLEDs, but hasn't been done with LED/LCD TVs? (I get that it would not be possible with plasma due to need for break-in of phosphors).



Well, you have to consider that the current OLEDs are much more expensive and produced in very small quantities. This does allow them to spend more time on each unit to make sure it is properly calibrated and free of major defects. I don't know if that would be practical when cranking out millions of units per month like they do with LCD or Plasma.


That's kind of the point of the question I posed to Rogo earlier. Hopefully these future "cheap" OLEDs will retain all the features of the current expensive ones - good factory calibration, low unit-to-unit quality variance, no dead-pixel warranties, etc.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23720273
> 
> 
> The Samsung is not stocked at BB. According to the salesman, the TV is lent out to the stores for display only. Not surprised, with its hefty price tag. I guess this will keep the price from going down any time soon.
> 
> The guy said it would take till the end of the month to get one sent directly from Samsung if ordered now.



I think that may have something to do with various exclusivity agreements. BB currently has an exclusive on the LG. Samsung is sold and stocked by other dealers.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23721497
> 
> 
> What I would like to see is:
> 
> -- Tests on the OLED relevant to gaming and computer usage (1080p/60fps).
> 
> -- Pursuit camera tests.
> 
> 
> Here is a Panning Map Readability Test at: http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=toronto-map.png
> 
> (Use a supported browser )
> 
> 
> This is a torture test of being able to read the street names while panning a map. Most displays fail this test; only a few succeed -- such as CRT displays, CRT projectors, nVidia LightBoost strobe-backlight LCD's, and other short-persistence displays such as the new Eizo FDF2405W strobe-backlight LCD. From already-known information from other testers, the LG OLED would fail the above readability test at 960pps.



I ran a lot of 720p/60fps video clips on the Samsung OLED. The built-in media player refused to play any of my 1080p/60fps files. Some of my files had similar panning patterns to what is on your map test. When you enabled any of the motion enhancement features like interpolation or BFI, it got very good results. The BFI alone was not CRT quality (nothing is!) but the 240hz motion interpolation was very close to my CRT. You have to figure that at 240hz, you're at ~4ms per sample-and-hold interval. Still not usable for gaming since all motion enhancement including BFI is disabled in game mode and you're stuck with 60hz LCD blur.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23721759
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Rejhon*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6900_100#post_23721497
> 
> 
> Here is a Panning Map Readability Test at: http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=toronto-map.png
> 
> 
> 
> That made me dizzy on my laptop. It seems like a torture test of the highest order for motion.
Click to expand...

The patterns make me dizzy too - and I don't normally suffer from those problems. I play a lot of games where people get motion sick, and have never suffered from that. I do sometimes get motion sick from gaming at low framerates though, but this is 60fps.

I think the issue is that it's constantly moving and you have to keep moving your eyes back and forth over it. I asked Mark a while back if we could have the option to reverse the pattern direction so I'm no longer dizzy after using them.


As for the speed, the default 960 pixels/second is not that quick. Gaming will regularly meet or exceed the speed of the 1920 px/s pattern.

With my TV set to "Clear Plus" MotionFlow, the map is still perfectly clear at 3000px/s. Unfortunately does not _only_ use backlight scanning, it's combined with interpolation so it is unsuitable for gaming.


With MotionFlow disabled, which is equivalent to an OLED that does not use black frame insertion or scanning, I can read the text but motion is blurred even at 240 px/s due to retinal persistence.

With interpolation alone, which the OLEDs offer, it's sharp up to about 480px/s. But interpolation is unsuitable for gaming, and frankly while I am ok with it being used on LCDs, I'm not ok with it on OLED which should not require it - though it may still be necessary for 24p which is so low framerate.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sooke*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23719708
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> So... is the author implying that these LG OLEDs will be sold to consumers pre-calibrated at the factory, or is he just implying that the cherry-picked sample LG sent him was pre-calibrated?
> 
> 
> If it is the former, why is this suddenly possible with OLEDs, but hasn't been done with LED/LCD TVs? (I get that it would not be possible with plasma due to need for break-in of phosphors).



Anything is po$$ible.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sooke*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6960#post_23719708
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> So... is the author implying that these LG OLEDs will be sold to consumers pre-calibrated at the factory, or is he just implying that the cherry-picked sample LG sent him was pre-calibrated?
> 
> 
> If it is the former, why is this suddenly possible with OLEDs, but hasn't been done with LED/LCD TVs? (I get that it would not be possible with plasma due to need for break-in of phosphors).



Cause when you charge $9K for a 55" display in low quantities, the manufacturer can afford to tweak them.


Then the question becomes how big a difference will there be between a properly calibrated plasma/led/whatever and the OLEDs under normal room lighting.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DisplayMate*
> 
> The screen on the TV is slightly curved. One reason for curving the screen is just because it can be done with OLEDs, while LCd's and Plasma cannot.


*curved LED LCd*
http://gizmodo.com/sony-made-the-first-curved-led-tv-and-its-worthy-of-y-1254853239 

*curved Plasma*
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2010/04/japanese-airport-sports-the-worlds-largest-curved-digital-display/ 

http://www.nkiac.co.jp/en/kixnews/news1006.html


----------



## gmarceau

Looks like Seiki is getting into the OLED game- although this is based on a prototype that they showed at IFA. I'm really interested to see what the Chinese manufacturers are going to bring to the table and if they'll force the Korean companies to drop their prices.

http://www.oled-info.com/seiki-quietly-shows-oled-tv-prototype-ifa-2013


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23727259
> 
> 
> Looks like Seiki is getting into the OLED game- although this is based on a prototype that they showed at IFA. I'm really interested to see what the Chinese manufacturers are going to bring to the table and if they'll force the Korean companies to drop their prices.
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/seiki-quietly-shows-oled-tv-prototype-ifa-2013


 

As with most things in technology, after the technical hurdles are solved, the prices will largely be determined by a @#$%storm flurry of patents.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23727286
> 
> 
> As with most things in technology, after the technical hurdles are solved, the prices will largely be determined by a @#$%storm flurry of patents.



How does one say: Patents! We Don't Need No Stinkin' Patents; in Mandarin?!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23727353
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23727286
> 
> 
> As with most things in technology, after the technical hurdles are solved, the prices will largely be determined by a @#$%storm flurry of patents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does one say: Patents! We Don't Need No Stinkin' Patents; in Mandarin?!
Click to expand...

 

I'm the wrong one to ask.  I barely know my own language (English).  The only Mandarin I know is "number 7", and "number 12 not too spicey".


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23727353
> 
> 
> How does one say: Patents! We Don't Need No Stinkin' Patents; in Mandarin?!



专利！我们不需要没有讨厌的专利.............maybe?


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23722707
> 
> 
> I ran a lot of 720p/60fps video clips on the Samsung OLED. The built-in media player refused to play any of my 1080p/60fps files. Some of my files had similar panning patterns to what is on your map test. When you enabled any of the motion enhancement features like interpolation or BFI, it got very good results. The BFI alone was not CRT quality (nothing is!) but the 240hz motion interpolation was very close to my CRT. You have to figure that at 240hz, you're at ~4ms per sample-and-hold interval. Still not usable for gaming since all motion enhancement including BFI is disabled in game mode and you're stuck with 60hz LCD blur.



I was close to buying the Samsung OLED this week, to replace my 7-year old 720p plasma, but once I saw the LCD-like blur with the Motion Plus feature off, my heart just sunk. Can (will) Samsung get this fixed???


----------



## JimP

Pres2play


I wouldn't blow it off just yet.


I find it odd that some settings do just the opposite of what they're suppose to do and it takes a while for good information to surface..


----------



## Pres2play

I agree, not a total deal killer... just yet.


Seeing the OLED has convinced me of one thing, though, I won't be buying another plasma. Just tired of the heat coming from these boxes.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23728045
> 
> 
> I agree, not a total deal killer... just yet.
> 
> 
> Seeing the OLED has convinced me of one thing, though, I won't be buying another plasma. Just tired of the heat coming from these boxes.




What's a little heat?










I would make the argument about how plasma is a mature technology but it sure seems that the manufacturers change working designs and cause problems.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23728045
> 
> 
> I agree, not a total deal killer... just yet.
> 
> 
> Seeing the OLED has convinced me of one thing, though, I won't be buying another plasma. Just tired of the heat coming from these boxes.



if you get one, please share how long it takes for delivery and post photos of the de-boxing and your setup.

dying to see what one of these looks like at home


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23728168
> 
> 
> What's a little heat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would make the argument about how plasma is a mature technology but it sure seems that the manufacturers change working designs and cause problems.



Stuff starts to go wrong as you get old










- Rich


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23728168
> 
> 
> What's a little heat?



I don't know about the newer sets, but Pio can fry you in your couch.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23728529
> 
> 
> if you get one, please share how long it takes for delivery and post photos of the de-boxing and your setup.
> 
> dying to see what one of these looks like at home



I will definitely post pix and info. Just got to get more on this Motion Plus before I take any action.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23727840
> 
> 
> I was close to buying the Samsung OLED this week, to replace my 7-year old 720p plasma, but once I saw the LCD-like blur with the Motion Plus feature off, my heart just sunk. Can (will) Samsung get this fixed???



I doubt it. The gamer market is typically ignored by TV manufacturers. That's how you end up with highly reviewed TVs like the ST60 plasmas with unusable 75ms input lag.


Without "Game Mode", the Samsung OLED was measured at a ridiculous 150ms - that's too high even for proper lip-sync unless you adjust audio delay on your surround receiver. With "Game Mode", it's around 60ms. Unfortunately, none of the blur-reduction modes work in "Game Mode" so you're stuck with LCD blur.


In theory, I don't see why they could not allow the black-frame-insertion or "Clear Motion" mode in "Game Mode". It doesn't require any complex processing and should not affect input lag. Samsung would need to issue some kind of firmware update to enable this if their hardware allows it.


Most likely you will need to wait for second-gen OLED if you require clear motion for gaming. Non-gamers should be fine with the current model - the motion is no worse than LCD or Plasma.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23727840
> 
> 
> I was close to buying the Samsung OLED this week, to replace my 7-year old 720p plasma, but once I saw the LCD-like blur with the Motion Plus feature off, my heart just sunk. Can (will) Samsung get this fixed???



I think the motion blur can be fixed. The burn-in and longevity is what worries me, as well as the still disappointing yields. In fact, Sony has dropped OLED in the new Vita due to problems/cost and the fact they believe LCD has improved enough to offer similar performance.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23727840
> 
> 
> I was close to buying the Samsung OLED this week, to replace my 7-year old 720p plasma, but once I saw the LCD-like blur with the Motion Plus feature off, my heart just sunk. Can (will) Samsung get this fixed???


In a way it's good that this has happened with the first generation of OLED sets because it is finally getting people to pay attention to the fact that motion blur is now primarily based on image persistence, and not panel switching times. Perhaps the Plasma crowd will now also admit that the best LCDs have better motion sharpness than the best Plasmas now - not because LCDs have better panel response times, but because they have modes which allow for considerably lower persistence.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23730007
> 
> 
> Without "Game Mode", the Samsung OLED was measured at a ridiculous 150ms - that's too high even for proper lip-sync unless you adjust audio delay on your surround receiver. With "Game Mode", it's around 60ms. Unfortunately, none of the blur-reduction modes work in "Game Mode" so you're stuck with LCD blur.


Even 60ms is unacceptable - that's four frames of delay. Sony's LCDs are now down to ~20ms latency in game mode (just over 1 frame) and PC monitors are below 8ms now. (


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730500
> 
> 
> In a way it's good that this has happened with the first generation of OLED sets because it is finally getting people to pay attention to the fact that motion blur is now primarily based on image persistence, and not panel switching times. Perhaps the Plasma crowd will now also admit that the best LCDs have better motion sharpness than the best Plasmas now - not because LCDs have better panel response times, but because they have modes which allow for considerably lower persistence.



Can you gamers and susceptible people admit that most of us simply don't even see what you care about?


I mean, I _can_ see it, but most of the time, I don't and it certainly doesn't bother me on motion video on my plasma.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23730509
> 
> 
> Can you gamers and susceptible people admit that most of us simply don't even see what you care about?
> 
> I mean, I _can_ see it, but most of the time, I don't and it certainly doesn't bother me on motion video on my plasma.


I'm not sure that's true - I know people that couldn't care less about display technology, and they still complain about the screen blurring when they watch football or other sports.

I understand that people who mostly watch films (but not action films) or drama may not care about motion handling, but just about anything else benefits from it.


Part of the problem, I suspect, is that you don't care enough about it, and are simply used to how bad motion handling has become due to the prevalence of flat panels. I think if you spent a while with a display which has excellent motion handling properties (maybe a week or two) you would really miss it after switching back.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23730189
> 
> 
> ...snip.... The burn-in and longevity is what worries me, as well as the still disappointing yields. In fact, Sony has dropped OLED in the new Vita due to problems/cost and the fact they believe LCD has improved enough to offer similar performance.




You summed it up very well.


I sure won't be on the bleeding edge of this tech.


----------



## tgm1024


People don't normally give a @#$% about black level.

 

People don't normally give a @#$% about hyper surreal "pop" being technically absurd.

 

People don't normally give a @#$% about color space.  Or even 8 bit vs. 10 bit color depth even when they can see the contouring.

 

But people *absolutely* care about motion blur.....the moment they get their sets home.  They notice it immediately when a scene of a lawn pans (even slowly) and suddenly goes from the sharp they were used to with their CRT to a smeary mess that looks like their 6 year old's finger painting.

 

This has been mitigated these days, but for TVs, I've **only** seen it at acceptable levels on plasmas and the top tier Sony LCD's.  Everyone else I've seen is an absolute mess.  I've not seen the Sharp Elite.

 

OLED will have these growing pains as well.

 

What I desperately hope however is that the reviewers who don't understand motion blur issues STOP with the nonsense about how motion blur will be very good because of the response rate.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730568
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that's true - I know people that couldn't care less about display technology, and they still complain about the screen blurring when they watch football or other sports.
> 
> I understand that people who mostly watch films (but not action films) or drama may not care about motion handling, but just about anything else benefits from it.
> 
> 
> Part of the problem, I suspect, is that you don't care enough about it, and are simply used to how bad motion handling has become due to the prevalence of flat panels. I think if you spent a while with a display which has excellent motion handling properties (maybe a week or two) you would really miss it after switching back.


Strongly disagree here. For example, Hold-Type blur was ubiquitous in the literature long, long ago, even when response times were in the double digits. I spent significant time and energy trying to convince AVS members of its actual existence. Probably hundreds of posts worth. People thought I was full of BS. It took years for AVS to accept the concept.


Yet, to this day I have never really seen hold type blur on LCDs.



Edit : I remember having discussions here on AVS on the variability of human visual perception of blur from different causes.


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6990#post_23730189
> 
> 
> Sony has dropped OLED in the new Vita due to problems/cost and the fact they believe LCD has improved enough to offer similar performance.



I suspect it's more the case that Sony believes it can sell almost or just as many PS Vitas using an inferior and cheaper LCD display.


However, there's already been some criticism when the two displays are examined side-by-side...


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23730759
> 
> 
> Yet, to this day I have never really seen hold type blur on LCDs.


 

I'm sorry, I don't understand.  Do you mean this as stated?  Is the work done by blurbusters (and Mark Rejhon) entirely offbase in your opinion?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730809
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't understand.  Do you mean this as stated?  Is the work done by blurbusters (and Mark Rejhon) entirely offbase in your opinion?


What I'm saying is that I recognized and fully accepted the hold type blur theory many years ago after reading multiple scientific papers even though I physically could not detect it on the screen due to my insensitivity to it.


IMO the recent interest on AVS about strobbing to improve hold-type blur is not novel. It has been in the literature for more than 10 years. What is novel about it is the DIY aspect of it.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23730851
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that I recognized and fully accepted the hold type blur theory many years ago after reading multiple scientific papers even though I physically could not detect it on the screen due to my insensitivity to it.


Are you saying that you just don't see motion blur on LCDs? Because _most_ motion blur that people see on LCDs now, is due to image persistence.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23730851
> 
> 
> IMO the recent interest on AVS about strobbing to improve hold-type blur is not novel. It has been in the literature for more than 10 years. What is novel about it is the DIY aspect of it.


There has been information about it, but now there are mainstream displays using this idea to good effect.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23730851
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730809
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't understand.  Do you mean this as stated?  Is the work done by blurbusters (and Mark Rejhon) entirely offbase in your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that I recognized and fully accepted the hold type blur theory many years ago after reading multiple scientific papers even though I physically could not detect it on the screen due to my insensitivity to it.
> 
> 
> IMO the recent interest on AVS about strobbing to improve hold-type blur is not novel. It has been in the literature for more than 10 years. What is novel about it is the DIY aspect of it.
Click to expand...

 

Well, of course "the recent interest" == "the number of people discussing it".  And that will always be fueled by the *availability* of it.  As pulse style technology started showing up getting better and better in higher models there was a natural interest in what is truly going on, particularly as differing approaches are attempted.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730885
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you just don't see motion blur on LCDs?


Yes, I am insensitive to hold-type motion blur on modern LCDs even though I obviously accept that most others are affected.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730885
> 
> 
> Because _most_ motion blur that people see on LCDs now, is due to image persistence.


Funny you state that like it is a revelation yet more than 6 years ago the literature and myself were stating the same thing here on AVS to no acceptance


----------



## tgm1024


^*It doesn't matter if it's a revelation.*  In fact it's because it's a *not* a revelation that makes your assertion that you don't see it even more interesting.

 

I'm not even sure it's possible for the human eye to not see it, and this makes me wonder if we're talking about the same thing.

 

Mark Rejhon has a "testufo" site where a sample-and-hold problematic display shows a checkerboard and others don't.  This is accomplished by exploiting the image persistence issue (There are other issues: e.g. pixel persistence which are related, but not for modern monitors.)  Have you run this on some non-pulse screen?

 

http://www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking


----------



## xrox

I suspect my persistence is short or just doesn't compute in my eye-brain system. To confirm the hold-type blur effect years ago I found that using the excel cell scroll (which creates an exceptionally long hold time) you can create a brutally severe hold type blur by tracking the scroll. This I could easily detect.


As for an actual LCD with video material I don't see why you can't accept that others might not be able to detect it. Isn't this a universal truth for almost all display artifacts? Being here on AVS you should know that










Human visual perception varies widely in my experience.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23731105
> 
> 
> I suspect my persistence is short or just doesn't compute in my eye-brain system. To confirm the hold-type blur effect years ago I found that using the excel cell scroll (which creates an exceptionally long hold time) you can create a brutally severe hold type blur by tracking the scroll. This I could easily detect.
> 
> 
> As for an actual LCD with video material I don't see why you can't accept that others might not be able to detect it. Isn't this a universal truth for almost all display artifacts? Being here on AVS you should know that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human visual perception varies widely in my experience.


 

I "should know that"?  I'm not calling you a liar, nor am I convinced that there aren't things that we don't know, nor even things that we "don't know we don't know".

 

However, in current theory, (the theory you insist has been around a while), in order to not perceive motion blur on a run of the mill sample-and-hold display with image persistence (keeping pixel persistence out of the equation for modern monitors), and note for this we are discussing the kind blur formed by a object traversing screen coordinate space, you would have to have your eye track each and every pixel and "stutter" at each and every new pixel location absorbing its visual information right at the moment of being drawn and track forward right when it was being re-drawn and holding precisely there for its duration.  You would also have to avoid the "two steps forward, one step back" issue of your eye trying to track.

 

However in theory, the visual information will smear against your retina because your eye will attempt tracking without the jump discontinuities of the pixel boundaries.  You apparently have an ability to absorb that smear entirely and make clear sense of it.  That's very interesting to me.  You're not lying, I just don't understand it.

 

*Did you run the testufo example I gave?*


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23731199
> 
> 
> I "should know that"?  I'm not calling you a liar, nor am I convinced that there aren't things that we don't know, nor even things that we "don't know we don't know".
> 
> 
> However, in current theory, (the theory you insist has been around a while), in order to not perceive motion blur on a run of the mill sample-and-hold display with image persistence (keeping pixel persistence out of the equation for modern monitors), and note for this we are discussing the kind blur formed by a object traversing screen coordinate space, you would have to have your eye track each and every pixel and "stutter" at each and every new pixel location absorbing its visual information right at the moment of being drawn and track forward right when it was being re-drawn and holding precisely there for its duration.  You would also have to avoid the "two steps forward, one step back" issue of your eye trying to track.
> 
> 
> However in theory, the visual information will smear against your retina because your eye will attempt tracking without the jump discontinuities of the pixel boundaries.  You apparently have an ability to absorb that smear entirely and make clear sense of it.  That's very interesting to me.  You're not lying, I just don't understand it.
> 
> _Did you run the testufo example I gave?_


You are interpreting the theory as if human visual system performs equally in every human being. There has to be a threshold where you interpret the discreet sequential frames as a judder effect rather than a blur. I can't believe that the threshold is the same for every human knowing that sensitivity to a stimuli varies so widely between persons.


Whether it be color seperation, blur, DFC, mura, ABL or whatever, it never fails that some will be sensitive and some will not even when they know what to look for.


I find it interesting you cannot accept this as a response.


I can't run his examples as my computer gives me an error. I don't see why it would make a difference as I already explained I can see the effect on a test pattern if the hold-time is increased dramatically beyond 16ms.


----------



## Desk.

HDGuru compare the LG and Samsung OLED sets, and the praise is glowing...

http://hdguru.com/best-hdtv-ever-10000-lg-and-9000-samsung-oleds-face-off/


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Quote:Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23731281
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23731199
> 
> *Did you run the testufo example I gave?*
> 
> 
> 
> You are interpreting the theory as if human visual system performs equally in every human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not.  However it's your assertion that you don't see it at all (not just less so, but *at all*) on any LCD.  I'd like to see how that is once you run the test.  It'd be very interesting to many folks, because it show that there's a possibility for the image persistence problem to *completely* NOT affect a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> I find it interesting you cannot accept this as a response.
> 
> I can't run his examples as my computer gives me an error. I don't see why it would make a difference as I already explained I can see the effect on a test pattern if the hold-time is increased dramatically beyond 16ms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you say this (about the 16ms?)  I don't see it in the prior 37 posts (my page).  Not that it matters, because your claim (especially when Chron asked you about it) is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I'm done bickering with you on this.  Make your claim to the wind for all I care now.  It's not that I'm somehow not "accepting" of the idea that people are different and have different thresholds.  It's that you're making a claim that puts you in a very *very* rare group, and it's not one that I understand and would like to.
> 
> 
> 
> Run that test when you're able to if you care to, or don't.  Whatever.
Click to expand...


----------



## wco81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23731539
> 
> 
> HDGuru compare the LG and Samsung OLED sets, and the praise is glowing...
> 
> http://hdguru.com/best-hdtv-ever-10000-lg-and-9000-samsung-oleds-face-off/




So what are the chances of future iterations eliminating the motion resolution problem?


If you were only displaying static images, these would be great but of course, with video content, especially live sports, this is a big issue.


Or is it a fatal flaw with OLED, just as it is with LCD?


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730766
> 
> 
> I suspect it's more the case that Sony believes it can sell almost or just as many PS Vitas using an inferior and cheaper LCD display.
> 
> 
> However, there's already been some criticism when the two displays are examined side-by-side...


I hope Consumer Electronics Companies don't abandon ship during this rough period of integrating OLED into a primarily thin and remote marketplace. Seeing the differences in the image it produces versus what we have with Liquid Crystal -- I can't be Rogo and relax and accept the **** we have now. Nothing we have now will ever reach what OLED is doing right now. In fact the possibility that something more could come from this tech won't allow to sleep well with whatever happens. There are movies I want to see rendered better than their release prints (before the theatrical digital revolution). I want OLED to wipe out all existing primitive tech.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23731616
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23731539
> 
> 
> HDGuru compare the LG and Samsung OLED sets, and the praise is glowing...
> 
> http://hdguru.com/best-hdtv-ever-10000-lg-and-9000-samsung-oleds-face-off/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what are the chances of future iterations eliminating the motion resolution problem?
> 
> 
> If you were only displaying static images, these would be great but of course, with video content, especially live sports, this is a big issue.
> 
> 
> Or is it a fatal flaw with OLED, just as it is with LCD?
Click to expand...

 

There's nothing fatal that a pulse mechanism cannot overcome as long as the response time (pixel persistence, distinct from image persistence) isn't itself too long, which it won't be with OLED and isn't any longer on LCD.....So long as the device is bright enough to provide a pulse of light bright enough to overcome the fact that it is now "off" for a period of time.

 

You might really like this fascinating thread on the subject.   Look towards the end to see the most recent information about how these effects are beaten back, but it's only 174 posts long anyway.  Some are claiming that some techniques are producing better results than even a CRT.


----------



## CatBus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23731539
> 
> 
> HDGuru compare the LG and Samsung OLED sets, and the praise is glowing...
> 
> http://hdguru.com/best-hdtv-ever-10000-lg-and-9000-samsung-oleds-face-off/



Is that for real, though? LG has no dark frame insertion tech at all--just frame interpolation?!? In 2013?


If so, wow. Samsung won before the comparison got started.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CatBus*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23731745
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23731539
> 
> 
> HDGuru compare the LG and Samsung OLED sets, and the praise is glowing...
> 
> http://hdguru.com/best-hdtv-ever-10000-lg-and-9000-samsung-oleds-face-off/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that for real, though? LG has no dark frame insertion tech at all--just frame interpolation?!? In 2013?
> 
> 
> If so, wow. Samsung won before the comparison got started.
Click to expand...

 

Brightness issue?  I don't know the subpixel output specs, but they're filtering everything (which is a process of throwing *away* light).  Perhaps that's the problem here in comparison to Samsung?


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23731539
> 
> 
> HDGuru compare the LG and Samsung OLED sets, and the praise is glowing...
> 
> http://hdguru.com/best-hdtv-ever-10000-lg-and-9000-samsung-oleds-face-off/



Looks like the motion blur issue is present in movie mode, too, not just game mode. Ouch!


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730735
> 
> 
> People don't normally give a @#$% about black level.
> 
> 
> People don't normally give a @#$% about hyper surreal "pop" being technically absurd.
> 
> 
> People don't normally give a @#$% about color space.  Or even 8 bit vs. 10 bit color depth even when they can see the contouring.
> 
> 
> But people _absolutely_ care about motion blur.....the moment they get their sets home.  They notice it immediately when a scene of a lawn pans (even slowly) and suddenly goes from the sharp they were used to with their CRT to a smeary mess that looks like their 6 year old's finger painting.
> 
> 
> This has been mitigated these days, but for TVs, I've **only** seen it at acceptable levels on plasmas and the top tier Sony LCD's.  Everyone else I've seen is an absolute mess.  I've not seen the Sharp Elite.
> 
> 
> OLED will have these growing pains as well.
> 
> 
> What I desperately hope however is that the reviewers who don't understand motion blur issues STOP with the nonsense about how motion blur will be very good because of the response rate.



The source was a Blu-ray player, and what I saw wasn't a normal panning blur, where the whole image gets fuzzy, but after-images of moving objects and body parts. I've never seen this in plasmas, only the LCDs, even the 4K sets have this effect.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730509
> 
> 
> Can you gamers and susceptible people admit that most of us simply don't even see what you care about?
> 
> 
> I mean, I _can_ see it, but most of the time, I don't and it certainly doesn't bother me on motion video on my plasma.



I think you are being short sighted on this one. I would say a growing percentage of males under 30, spend more time using their displays for gaming and internet than actual TV/Movie watching. I am over 30 and do a little gaming on the weekends when I have time. I wouldn't consider a LCD with more than 80ms delay, let only an OLED with 150ms.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730568
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that's true - I know people that couldn't care less about display technology, and they still complain about the screen blurring when they watch football or other sports.
> 
> I understand that people who mostly watch films (but not action films) or drama may not care about motion handling, but just about anything else benefits from it.
> 
> 
> Part of the problem, I suspect, is that you don't care enough about it, and are simply used to how bad motion handling has become due to the prevalence of flat panels. I think if you spent a while with a display which has excellent motion handling properties (maybe a week or two) you would really miss it after switching back.



I think I watch sports and action movies plenty and just don't agree with you that this is a prevalent problem. That some people are susceptible to it and find it important? Sure, that's clear. That it's prevalent; no, I disagree.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730735
> 
> 
> People don't normally give a @#$% about black level.
> 
> 
> People don't normally give a @#$% about hyper surreal "pop" being technically absurd.
> 
> 
> People don't normally give a @#$% about color space.  Or even 8 bit vs. 10 bit color depth even when they can see the contouring.
> 
> 
> But people _absolutely_ care about motion blur.....the moment they get their sets home.  They notice it immediately when a scene of a lawn pans (even slowly) and suddenly goes from the sharp they were used to with their CRT to a smeary mess that looks like their 6 year old's finger painting.



If there was motion blur on most sets, fine, but there isn't. What _you_ see, most people just don't see.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730759
> 
> 
> Strongly disagree here. For example, Hold-Type blur was ubiquitous in the literature long, long ago, even when response times were in the double digits. I spent significant time and energy trying to convince AVS members of its actual existence. Probably hundreds of posts worth. People thought I was full of BS. It took years for AVS to accept the concept.
> 
> 
> Yet, to this day I have never really seen hold type blur on LCDs.
> 
> 
> Edit : I remember having discussions here on AVS on the variability of human visual perception of blur from different causes.



That edit may be the crux of this issue.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730851
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that I recognized and fully accepted the hold type blur theory many years ago after reading multiple scientific papers even though I physically could not detect it on the screen due to my insensitivity to it.



I think most of us are just insensitive. If we weren't, you'd see so much more mainstream complaining about this. You don't.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23730920
> 
> 
> Yes, I am insensitive to hold-type motion blur on modern LCDs even though I obviously accept that most others are affected.



Quite possibly it's "some" and not "most".


----------



## vinnie97

^Kind've like dithering (eagle eyes?) and ABL complaints...they rank in the infinitesimal minority.


----------



## Wizziwig

I think like many issues, people don't see certain problems unless they have a frame of reference to compare against. Most people have been subjected to LCD blur for so many years now, they don't even realize how motion used to look on a CRT. Your brain just gets used to it and accepts it as normal.


Also, if you primarily watch content sourced from 24fps film, you're unlikely to be affected by blur. That sort of content is just too low FPS and contains so much inherent blur that it's almost irrelevant what display you watch it on. It appears blurry even on my CRT.


It's primarily a problem for content shot on video at 60i or 60p and any games running at 60hz.


If you're considering an OLED for watching movies, I would not let the current discussion dissuade you. As evidenced by the reviews, it's not an issue for that type of content regardless of LCD, Plasma, or OLED.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23732511
> 
> 
> I think you are being short sighted on this one. I would say a growing percentage of males under 30, spend more time using their displays for gaming and internet than actual TV/Movie watching. I am over 30 and do a little gaming on the weekends when I have time. I wouldn't consider a LCD with more than 80ms delay, let only an OLED with 150ms.



I am absolutely certain you are mistaken when it comes to displays of 50" and up, sorry.


I'm also absolutely certain that barring death, all males under 30 become males over 30. And demographically speaking, you're talking a small segment.


Never mind the fact that console sales are shrinking (yes, shrinking... yes, I'm accounting for the fact that PS4 and Xbox One are coming), PC sales are shrinking, PC-to-TV connections are not growing and the fast growing segments of gaming don't use discrete displays.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23733986
> 
> 
> Also, if you primarily watch content sourced from 24fps film, you're unlikely to be affected by blur. That sort of content is just too low FPS and contains so much inherent blur that it's almost irrelevant what display you watch it on. It appears blurry even on my CRT.


^I'd disagree with that part of your statement.

I'm outputting 24 fps via Bitstream, and the picture - AND motion - both look VERY sharp from Blu-ray on my plasma display.

There is no inherent problem with blur and 24 fps sources.


Though the rest of what you said is right on, and understandable I'd say.


The bigger issue for me w/OLED is its off-axis viewing capabilities.

I'm still not sure how that's going to pan out.

Will off-axis with OLED be as crappy as with LCD/LED?, or will it be great as with plasma displays?

Reports are that OLED shouldn't suffer from off-axis viewing problems like LCDs do, but its yet to be proven...


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23733986
> 
> 
> I think like many issues, people don't see certain problems unless they have a frame of reference to compare against. Most people have been subjected to LCD blur for so many years now, they don't even realize how motion used to look on a CRT. Your brain just gets used to it and accepts it as normal.


 

I think this must be precisely the issue.  I don't think I agree with your gaming assessment (in terms of numbers), but what you say here is the only thing that rings true to me in this entire discussion of "no it doesn't".  It's analogous to saying most people aren't susceptible to a camera being out of focus.  There are people who do not see as well as others and see everything as a (stationary) blur, but for the average person even *that* is an anomaly.  I'm sorry, but information is either lost or it isn't.  And your eye either can track or it cannot.  Whether or not it is uncomfortable is another story.  Whether or not there is a frame of reference to CRT is another story.  But most people *do* notice motion blur, they've just forgotten or never knew that it *was* motion blur and accepted that TVs "do this" so in relative terms it's "ok".  The folks here insisting that most LCD's don't exhibit it are the vast minority, not the other way around.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7020#post_23733986
> 
> 
> I think like many issues, people don't see certain problems unless they have a frame of reference to compare against. Most people have been subjected to LCD blur for so many years now, they don't even realize how motion used to look on a CRT. Your brain just gets used to it and accepts it as normal.


Totally agree with certain artifacts like ABL, Buzzing...etc. Don't agree with artifacts like color separation and hold-type blur. When it comes to temporal artifacts involving integration/persistence IMO it is the variation is HVS performance along with focus/training that determines sensitivty.


In my specific case a frame of reference makes no difference.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23734482
> 
> 
> ^I'd disagree with that part of your statement.
> 
> I'm outputting 24 fps via Bitstream, and the picture - AND motion - both look VERY sharp from Blu-ray on my plasma display.
> 
> There is no inherent problem with blur and 24 fps sources.



Next time you watch a high-speed action sequence in a movie, hit the pause button. It might surprise you.


Between the judder of low-fps content and inherent blur, there just isn't a huge visible difference between displays on such content. Take a look at any CNET review shootout. They will admit that in motion resolution test patterns, some sets resolve 1080 lines, while others may only do 600. But watching actual movie content, they could not tell them apart. Almost every review has a quote similar to "As usual I found it tough to discern blurring in actual program material". ( http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/panasonic-tc-l42e60/4505-6482_7-35781826-2.html ). That's just a random LCD review. You will find same comment in every review.


These sources just don't stress the motion abilities of a display enough to matter what tech it uses.


----------



## Kenneth Tong

Shocked that the 55 Inch OLED isn't available for sale in America. Desperate to buy a new TV for GTA5 - no luck!


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23734953
> 
> 
> Next time you watch a high-speed action sequence in a movie, hit the pause button. It might surprise you.
> 
> 
> Between the judder of low-fps content and inherent blur, there just isn't a huge visible difference between displays on such content. Take a look at any CNET review shootout. They will admit that in motion resolution test patterns, some sets resolve 1080 lines, while others may only do 600. But watching actual movie content, they could not tell them apart. Almost every review has a quote similar to "As usual I found it tough to discern blurring in actual program material". ( http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/panasonic-tc-l42e60/4505-6482_7-35781826-2.html ). That's just a random LCD review. You will find same comment in every review.
> 
> 
> These sources just don't stress the motion abilities of a display enough to matter what tech it uses.


Sorry, I just don't see it (stopped action or not) with my plasma displaying 24 fps material.

Not at all similar to the typical LCD 'blurring'...IMO.

I've heard 'flickering' mentioned before with 24fps material in reviews - but at 60Hz setting that's not an issue either.

A 24 fps yields a sharper picture with Blu-ray sources I've found than with other settings.

Whereas, your 'mileage' apparently varies...


But like I mentioned, I'm just hoping that OLED will be able to eventually overcome all the problems hashed about here in this thread!


----------



## Pres2play

Motion resolution was superb, measuring the full 1,200 lines in all Auto Motion Plus modes except for Off and Custom in certain settings (namely, turning down the antiblurring slider). Engaging the Clear Motion setting turns on black-frame insertion, which did make a very slight visible improvement over modes when it was turned off, at the expense of cutting light output in half, introducing slight flicker, and disabling true 1080p/24 film cadence. The optimal setting for correct cadence, with no Soap Opera Effect or loss in motion resolution, is Custom with the deblur slider at 10 and the dejudder slider at 0.

--CNET Editors' Take



Great review and very helpful information!


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23736521
> 
> 
> Motion resolution was superb, measuring the full 1,200 lines in all Auto Motion Plus modes


Personally, I feel it's better for *motion resolution to be measured in milliseconds (MPRT)*, rather than motion resolution measured in "lines of motion resolution". MPRT, stands for Motion Picture Response Time.


Lines of motion resolution is *very test-pattern specific*.


Milliseconds of motion resolution is *test-pattern independent*.


With MPRT, you know that 1 millisecond of motion blur equals 1 pixel of motion blur for every 1000 pixels/second motion. Very simple math. e.g. 4ms MPRT means you get 8 pixels of motion blur during 2000 pixels/sec motion. Apples to apples, even comparing 4K displays to 1080p displays.


I would like to see more Blu-Ray motion resolution tests to migrate to the MPRT standard, rather than "Lines of Motion Resolution". Or alternatively, motion equivalence ratios (1 / MPRT). So a display with a "240" measured motion equivalence ratio has about 2ms of MPRT. Also, "Lines of motion resolution" also is highly dependant on human eye measurements only, while "MPRT" can be measured by either test pattern or by specialized equpment (e.g. MotionMaster Display Measurement Kit, and other systems).


Ask display reviewers to also measure using milliseconds of motion resolution.


----------



## sooke

^^^^ Hhmmm... It is hard for me to wrap my head around MPRT. When a CNET review says "lines of motion resolution is 1200 (or 800) lines", I can intuitively understand what it is telling me if I know how many lines of resolution the TV has (even though, as you say, being test pattern dependent, it may not be particularly useful information). But if a cnet review said "the motion resolution is 4 ms" I would be adrift. I would have no idea if that is good or bad. Even with your explanation "4ms MPRT means you get 8 pixels of motion blur during 2000 pixels/sec motion", I'm struggling. Uhmm.. sounds pretty good... I guess. Actually it sounds really good if it means only 8 out of 2000 pixels are "wrong" every second. ???


BTW, I'm not arguing with you. I really enjoy your posts and try to learn all I can from them.


----------



## Chronoptimist

"Lines of resolution" is a completely meaningless test, because it says nothing about the speed that the patterns are moving at, and companies have a habit of changing the test patterns to suit their displays.


Panasonic used to advertise "1080 lines of resolution" on their plasmas, then when a new generation came along with improved phosphors/panel driving, the new generation of sets also had "1080 lines of resolution" with the old panels now showing lower numbers, because they had increased the speed of the patterns.


It was originally thought up because it puts LCD in a very bad light. With a sample and hold LCD at 60Hz you get 300 lines of resolution no matter what - this made plasma look a lot better.

The problem is that when you have a 240Hz sample & hold LCD, you now have 1200 lines of resolution, beating the Plasma displays. Guess why they no longer advertise that.


----------



## 8mile13

In 2008 CNET admitted that ''compared with other the Geek Box tests, which are (by design) objective, any inclusion of motion resolution testing would have to be taken with a grain or ten of salt.''


' http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10020262-1.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=Crave


----------



## Pres2play

According to TWIT-TV, the Samsung has software issues and the company is working on a fix. Apparently, they're able to crash the software repeatedly by pressing certain buttons on the remote. Also noticed the sets were pulled from the stores last week. This may explain why.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/5600_50#post_23177745
> 
> 
> Before anyone gets excited at all, they updated their existing, non-4K models, effective very soon. The 4K prototypes they showed off were a 30" model promised next year and the 56" model (in a professional version) with no promise of any ship date.
> 
> 
> On the plus side, it's a continuing reminder that the one company shipping OLED displays -- _on planet earth_ -- that are bigger than 8 inches diagonally is Sony.



The 56 inch model looks fabulous. If only it were bigger, available and affordable.


----------



## tgm1024


Panasonic is pushing hard for printing OLED.

Panasonic is claiming 2015 FY launch for OLED (*by* calendar March 2016)

 

Does this guarantee the two are connected?  Is the FY2015 release going to be the (Sumitomo) printed OLED or is it possible to be the non-printed method?

 

I also don't see them yet falling for the curved TV bait.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23739369
> 
> 
> According to TWIT-TV, the Samsung has software issues and the company is working on a fix. Apparently, they're able to crash the software repeatedly by pressing certain buttons on the remote. Also noticed the sets were pulled from the stores last week. This may explain why.



What is TWIT-TV? I haven't been able to find any other mention of this anywhere. And what does it mean to say the sets were pulled from the stores? I don't think anyone is stocking them in the stores anyway. Are you saying stores that have a demo unit are being told to remove them? I would think this would be big news so why isn't it out there anywhere?


Thanks.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23740141
> 
> 
> What is TWIT-TV? I haven't been able to find any other mention of this anywhere. And what does it mean to say the sets were pulled from the stores? I don't think anyone is stocking them in the stores anyway. Are you saying stores that have a demo unit are being told to remove them? I would think this would be big news so why isn't it out there anywhere?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



See Leo Leporte at Twit.tv/byb . It's episode 86. He mentions the problem at the very end of the review. Don't watch the youtube version...it doesn't show where he mentions the problem.


I went all around Mahattan and found that all the demo units were removed. No one in the stores knows why. Could be nothing, just speculating.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23737535
> 
> 
> "Lines of resolution" is a completely meaningless test


+1


> Quote:
> It was originally thought up because it puts LCD in a very bad light. With a sample and hold LCD at 60Hz you get 300 lines of resolution no matter what - this made plasma look a lot better.
> 
> The problem is that when you have a 240Hz sample & hold LCD, you now have 1200 lines of resolution, beating the Plasma displays. Guess why they no longer advertise that.


We also have the Panasonic NeoPDP's which use short-persistence phosphors. Those have WAY more motion resolution.

In addition, some strobe-backlight LCD's have over 10x more motion resolution than a 60Hz LCD. The motion test patterns starts to hit their limiting factor.

Technically, if you could get a pattern fine enough, you'd essentially have over 3,600 lines of resolution on a LightBoost LCD, if you properly linearly scale the motion resolution based on how much the blur trail shortens (e.g. 35 pixels of motion blurring trail becomes only 3 pixels long, for a specific speed motion). But all the test patterns for "Lines of motion resolution" caps out a specific number, such as "1080 lines of motion resolution", which is also meaningless too.

*Computer motion and game motion can be much faster than movie/television motion. In addition, source-based blur is added less frequently to videogame motion*. So humans can easily tell apart a display of "2000 lines of motion resolution" (extrapolated from existing standards) versus "5000 lines of motion resolution" (extrapolated from existing standards) -- but those numbers are meaningless and beyond the limits of a common motion resolution test pattern. Recent vision research have showed that people can tell the difference between 240Hz-equivalence, 480Hz-equivalence and 960Hz-equivalence displays, under ideal motion conditions. (~4 pixels of motion blur, ~2 pixels of motion blur, and ~1 pixel of motion blur respectively for 1000 pixel/sec motion). Virtual reality is an excellent use case. Of course, many displays "fall short of expectations", due to various scientific factors (such as phosphor decay, continuous modulation such as temporal dithering that's necessary for DLP; and affects motion resolution, diffusion between adjacent scanning backlight segments and affects motion resolution, or LCD pixel response being too slow to fit in the black frame interval between strobes, etc.)


See thread in Display Calibration:
* Standardizing Motion Resolution: "Milliseconds of motion resolution" is better than "lines of motion resolution" *


It's no less legitimate than say, measuring contrast ratios. Just like "ANSI checkerboard contrast ratio" is fairer (despite still being occasionally problematic such as due to ambient light or halos), the use of "milliseconds of motion resolution" is fairer than "lines of motion resolution". "Motion Picture Response Time" is what vision researchers and scientists use, and the milliseconds method is already used by other scientific papers . It's both subjectively and objectively measurable at least on an averaged basis -- with test equipment and with test patterns.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23739968
> 
> 
> Panasonic is pushing hard for printing OLED.
> 
> Panasonic is claiming 2015 FY launch for OLED (_by_ calendar March 2016)
> 
> 
> Does this guarantee the two are connected?  Is the FY2015 release going to be the (Sumitomo) printed OLED or is it possible to be the non-printed method?
> 
> 
> I also don't see them yet falling for the curved TV bait.



I don't believe Panasonic is developing anything other than the printed method. Given that neither LG nor Samsung is having any success with their existing methods in terms of production yields or quantity or economics, I see no reason why Panasonic would want to copy them. Do you?


----------



## gmarceau

Is 2016 a little late for Panasonic to jump on board with OLED? I was thinking that 2014 might not be conservative enough for the company and that 2015 would be their flagship 4k OLED line, but 2016 seems like they'll be too far behind the korean and chinese companies.


----------



## p5browne

No one has postulated that maybe, the OLED screens are coming out bent! So, make a curved set instead of unbending for flat screen, and causing more damage, and higher failure rate!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23742476
> 
> 
> Is 2016 a little late for Panasonic to jump on board with OLED? I was thinking that 2014 might not be conservative enough for the company and that 2015 would be their flagship 4k OLED line, but 2016 seems like they'll be too far behind the korean and chinese companies.



You can't make the impossible possible just because you wish it so. It's going to take years to take this from concept to reality and the presence of tiny quantities of prototypes doesn't radically alter that equation. I doubt they can deliver LG/Samsung-like quantities even next year, but it's certainly not entirely out of the question a small number will trickle out next year.


Rather, it seems more likely that commercial shipments from Panasonic and Sony won't happen until 2015 or 2106. It's not a terribly big problem when you consider that worldwide shipments of OLED TVs will be in the low thousands this year and perhaps the low six figures next year.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *p5browne*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23742931
> 
> 
> No one has postulated that maybe, the OLED screens are coming out bent! So, make a curved set instead of unbending for flat screen, and causing more damage, and higher failure rate!



LOL, not it doesn't work that way.


----------



## Elix

I'll just leave it here: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20130916PD215.html 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Paul Peng, AUO President*
> 
> Peng also believes that OLED may be like other panel technology in the market that never came to fruition when compared with the success of TFT LCD, such as field emission display (FED) technology, PDP and surface-conduction electron-emitter displays (SED).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *p5browne*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23742931
> 
> 
> No one has postulated that maybe, the OLED screens are coming out bent! So, make a curved set instead of unbending for flat screen, and causing more damage, and higher failure rate!


 

Frankly, I'm a little worried about the quality of 1080p now.  They'll have to take their 4K's and squish them.

 

  ok, ok, ...


----------



## slacker711

The AUO quote may or may not reflect the reality of OLED production problems at Samsung/LG. OTOH, it likely absolutely reflects the issues at AUO itself.


I doubt that we see much from Panasonic/Sony anytime soon.


----------



## vinnie97

Which leaves Panasonic to fade further into obscurity, though they're trying with the foray into LED.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23745106
> 
> 
> Which leaves Panasonic to fade further into obscurity, though they're trying with the foray into LED.


 

I disagree.  I don't think Panasonic needs to be leading the pack, when the pack currently has all the impact of a handful of guys waving signs written in crayon.  And if they manage this printing thing, and if it lives up to all it might be, it could *really* make things interesting.  Beats me if 2016 will be the year for that though.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23743733
> 
> 
> The AUO quote may or may not reflect the reality of OLED production problems at Samsung/LG. OTOH, it likely absolutely reflects the issues at AUO itself.



Everything else in the Digitimes post is both responsible and reasonable, including the headline.


I think his comment in the last paragraph, which is what we're discussing here, is definitely in the "may or may not" realm. But I don't think he's saying otherwise. He's just pointing out what irkuck, myself and a few others have noted for a long while: until this stuff is really mass produced, there is no guarantee it will be ever be mass produced.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23745698
> 
> 
> Everything else in the Digitimes post is both responsible and reasonable, including the headline.
> 
> 
> I think his comment in the last paragraph, which is what we're discussing here, is definitely in the "may or may not" realm. But I don't think he's saying otherwise. He's just pointing out what irkuck, myself and a few others have noted for a long while: until this stuff is really mass produced, there is no guarantee it will be ever be mass produced.



Until it happens, there will never be any certainty. I always view it in terms of probabilities. The building of an 8G fab doesnt absolutely insure commercial OLED production at reasonable prices, but the probability rises substantially.


With respect to AUO, the CEO's comments make me think that even small amounts of commercial production from Panasonic/Sony in 2014 are unlikely. Those arent the comments that a company makes if anything is going right with respect to OLED R&D.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23747540
> 
> 
> Until it happens, there will never be any certainty. I always view it in terms of probabilities. The building of an 8G fab doesnt absolutely insure commercial OLED production at reasonable prices, but the probability rises substantially.



Agreed. Well stated, slacker.


> Quote:
> With respect to AUO, the CEO's comments make me think that even small amounts of commercial production from Panasonic/Sony in 2014 are unlikely. Those arent the comments that a company makes if anything is going right with respect to OLED R&D.



I never really believed they'd have anything especially meaningful before 2016. I just don't want grief if they decide to produce 200 panels next year and be told, "you were wrong, see." I mean, I'd continue to argue that at current levels, neither Samsung nor LG is actually "in production" but I get that people genuinely believe otherwise. Now, if either of those guys starts to move 1,000 or more units a month, I wouldn't contest the idea the product is beyond the advanced sampling stage, but the evidence is that we are not there.


----------



## NLPsajeeth

This has got to be a typo of some sort...


> Quote:
> Panasonic said it is progressing fast enough to launch the 55” UHD OLED TV in Q4’2013. The company plans to volume produce the TV panels from its Himeji Pilot Gen5.5 line.


 http://www.oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=790


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NLPsajeeth*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7080#post_23749739
> 
> 
> This has got to be a typo of some sort...
> http://www.oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=790



Clearly, that's a typo as Q4, 2013 is two weeks from now and Panasonic is at prototype stage.


----------



## fluxo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23734482
> 
> 
> The bigger issue for me w/OLED is its off-axis viewing capabilities. I'm still not sure how that's going to pan out. Will off-axis with OLED be as crappy as with LCD/LED?, or will it be great as with plasma displays? Reports are that OLED shouldn't suffer from off-axis viewing problems like LCDs do, but its yet to be proven...



I saw the Samsung last week. The off-axis viewing was decent and nothing like what you'd see on most LCDs.


There's a lot of negativity in this thread but what I saw, albeit in less than ideal viewing conditions, was very encouraging.


----------



## Elix




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7050#post_23745698
> 
> 
> until this stuff is really mass produced, there is no guarantee it will be ever be mass produced.


I have no doubt OLEDs will be (mass)produced, but it may only take a portion of the market, never to remove LED from the scene. I think that is what AUO President tried to say? But it's strange he placed PDP among SED and FED.


----------



## gmarceau

The fact that he compared SED/FED with PDP doesn't quite make sense. I'm guessing AUO is having a tougher time getting OLED off the ground than LG or Samsung and they know that they can do LCD cheap and also better than anyone else (outside of ChiMei), at the moment.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elix*
> 
> I have no doubt OLEDs will be (mass)produced, but it may only take a portion of the market, never to remove LED from the scene. I think that is what AUO President tried to say?


That is what he is saying.


I to believe that OLED will be marginal for several years and after that there will be many years in which OLED will only have a small portion of the market, kind a like Plasma currently. That isn't by definition a bad thing (as long as the price is OK it is a good thing for many of us







)


----------



## Rich Peterson

In this article it says:


" NPD calculates that the manufacturing cost for a 55” TV using TFT LCD TV is $426, while the cost for manufacturing the same size TV with RGB OLED is $7,300, and using WOLED is $3,600. The main reason for the cost discrepancies can be attributed to the current low yields for OLED display manufacturing, the need to invest in expensive manufacturing equipment, and the high cost of OLED materials."


----------



## dsmith901

We all would like perfect quality 70" OLED at affordable prices tomorrow but we should all remember how long it took large-screen plasma TV to reach their full potential at a reasonable price. Plus it was Pioneer and (I think) Mitsubishi (?) who were the leaders in early plasma development, while Panasonic came along later yet eventually became a leader of affordable plasma TV technology. So it doesn't bother me at all if Panasonic comes late to the OLED game because it will probably be at least 5 years anyway before we see affordable OLED - just about the time my already 7 year-old Panny plasma approaches half-brightness, LOL!


----------



## tgm1024


Perfect quality is still going to depend upon finally getting all the content suppliers (networks, TV filmers, movie makers, whatever else you can think of) to fully agree upon how saturated a look is too much.

 

Right now, going from channel to channel is a near disaster for skin tones.  And even from show to show within a channel.  That won't be fixed by any display.  And aren't movies slowly transitioning to every increasing color saturation as well?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23751676
> 
> 
> Perfect quality is still going to depend upon finally getting all the content suppliers (networks, TV filmers, movie makers, whatever else you can think of) to fully agree upon how saturated a look is too much.


This is what BT.709 and BT.2020 standards are for.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7080#post_23751676
> 
> 
> Perfect quality is still going to depend upon finally getting all the content suppliers (networks, TV filmers, movie makers, whatever else you can think of) to fully agree upon how saturated a look is too much.
> 
> 
> Right now, going from channel to channel is a near disaster for skin tones.  And even from show to show within a channel.  That won't be fixed by any display.  And aren't movies slowly transitioning to every increasing color saturation as well?




Tell it like it is brother.










I just got a Tivo Roamio to replace my Tivo S3. Talk about difference in gamma. The S3 must have been having problems as the Roamio (S5) definitely looks better.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23751803
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23751676
> 
> 
> Perfect quality is still going to depend upon finally getting all the content suppliers (networks, TV filmers, movie makers, whatever else you can think of) to fully agree upon how saturated a look is too much.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what BT.709 and BT.2020 standards are for.
Click to expand...

 

Neither of those color spaces has the ability to prevent a content provider from filming faces too red.  The filmers are playing games like crazy with how much saturation is too much saturation.  They're providing wrong coordinates within the color space.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23752675
> 
> 
> Neither of those color spaces has the ability to prevent a content provider from filming faces too red.  The filmers are playing games like crazy with how much saturation is too much saturation.  They're providing wrong coordinates within the color space.


No-one said that films have to recreate reality 100%. It's an artistic medium.


As long as the content was mastered on a calibrated reference monitor (it will have been) then calibrating your display to the standards should reproduce it as intended.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*This is clearly identified as a rumor.* Looks like the information identified as a mistake earlier in this thread is getting picked up around the web now. http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1379576633&rss 



"The OLED Association claims that Panasonic’s mass production efforts are progressing faster than planned. The goal was to launch OLED displays in 2015, but Panasonic now expects to release the first OLED TV in the fourth quarter of 2013."


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23752702
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23752675
> 
> 
> Neither of those color spaces has the ability to prevent a content provider from filming faces too red.  The filmers are playing games like crazy with how much saturation is too much saturation.  They're providing wrong coordinates within the color space.
> 
> 
> 
> No-one said that films have to recreate reality 100%. It's an artistic medium.
> 
> 
> As long as the content was mastered on a calibrated reference monitor (it will have been) then calibrating your display to the standards should reproduce it as intended.
Click to expand...

 

Oh, I understand.  The problem is that *that* artistic license is driving me nuts.  Or perhaps it's just sheer laziness or crappy monitors in their studios.  Channel A thinks faces should look one way.  Channel B thinks it should look another.  I have to have different settings for each.  You don't see that issue on your Sony?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23752875
> 
> 
> Oh, I understand.  The problem is that _that_ artistic license is driving me nuts.  Or perhaps it's just sheer laziness or crappy monitors in their studios.  Channel A thinks faces should look one way.  Channel B thinks it should look another.  I have to have different settings for each.  You don't see that issue on your Sony?


I only watch Blu-ray. It sounds like the problem is broadcasters using poor quality sources, colorspace conversions happening in their playback chain that shouldn't be, or simply someone screwing something up. Broadcast has a tendency to crop the aspect ratio of films - who knows what else they're doing.


If they were doing their jobs correctly, it should just look like a highly compressed version of the Blu-ray with no other changes, assuming it comes from the same source. (1080i60 should deinterlace to 1080p24 with good playback hardware)

Often times, broadcast is sourced from lower quality masters that were originally created for the DVD release, rather than waiting for a new master though - that's why there are a number of films which are available on HD broadcast but not currently available on Blu-ray.


----------



## andy sullivan

I know exactly what skin tones should be, and I'm available to any studio.


----------



## coolscan

 *A summary report on OLED TVs shown at IFA 2013.* 


Points of most interest;

>

Samsung Electronics Company (SEC) uses its Small Mask Scanning (SMS) method and LTPS TFT backplane on TV application. Samsung had indicated that AP Systems, a Korean equipment maker, had developed Laser Induced Thermal Imaging (LITI) for TVs, but unfortunately, uneven pixel edge and interface thermal sensitivity issues between layers and the blue color hindered the use of the LITI process.

LG Display ramps up its M2 line in Q2’2014, the company can be ready to produce panels 77” in diagonal since M2 line is designed to produce panels from a whole substrate whereas M1 line is cut in a half in order to produce perform the OLED deposition. The M1 line is a Gen8 (2200 x 2500mm), which could produce six of 55” OLED TV panels. The M2 line capacity is 26K monthly.

Panasonic uses IJP and the RGB pixilation method.

Panasonic said it is progressing fast enough to launch the 55” UHD OLED TV in *Q4’2013.*

The company plans to volume produce the TV panels from its Himeji Pilot Gen5.5 line.

Haier, a Chinese CE giant, exhibited its first OLED TV set at the IFA 2013. The panel is most likely LGD made.

The panel size is 55” no detail was revealed regarding to mass production.

However, we anticipate that more Chinese CE brands are eager to put out OLED integrated products in CE market.

In terms of panel production, BOE, Guoxhian, Hehui, Jilan, Irico, Tianma, and Visionox have announced its involvement in OLED display production

BOE and Tianma have been voicing its activities in OLED display production. BOE put out the aggressive mass production plan in B6Ordos fab to start operation in Q214 whereas his domestic rival Tianma unveiled its 12.1” prototype OLED displays in 2011 at the SID.

_DisplayMate compared the LG 55” OLED with commercial LCDs in their_ LG OLED TV Display Technology Shoot-Out _and reported that LCDs are clearly number one is in Peak Brightness. The LG OLED TV has a Peak Brightness comparable to the brightest LCD TVs, but only for Average Picture Levels (APL) below 30%, which is typical for essentially all TV, movie and video content. Above 30% APL, which is common for web and computer content with white backgrounds, the OLED Brightness decreases but the LCD Brightness remains unchanged. Other than Peak Brightness at high APL the OLED TV significantly outperforms all LCDs in every other category including Black Levels, Contrast Ratio, Viewing Angles, and Response Time._

*OLED TVs exhibited at the IFA 2013*


----------



## Rich Peterson

^ Wow, great report, thank you!


Another report that Panasonic is really close to releasing their UHD OLED? Could that really be true?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7000_100#post_23754475
> 
> 
> ^ Wow, great report, thank you!
> 
> 
> Another report that Panasonic is really close to releasing their UHD OLED? Could that really be true?


 

I'm dying to see what the scalability issues are for IJP.  And if it no longer needs as difficult to manufacture substrate.

 

If it turns out that printing a 110" TV is only linearly more expensive than printing a 55" TV, and printing a 55" TV becomes a piece of cake, then they could Really Be On To Something®.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*
> 
> *OLED TVs exhibited at the IFA 2013*


 Sony 4K OLED &
 

Seiki OLED at the IFA 2013


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23754689
> 
> Sony 4K OLED &


 

Here.  It's fixed:


----------



## JWhip

And its wonderfully flat. I like that. The way is should be. Now make them in a 70".


----------



## NLPsajeeth




> Quote:
> Another report that Panasonic is really close to releasing their UHD OLED



Not another, all reports are coming from a single source, the OLED Association article.

I agree with rogo, as much as I would like this to be true, this doesn't seem very likely. CE companies tend to announce products well in advance. And Q4 2013 is in under 2 weeks.


Panasonic is releasing a 4K UHD TV in Q4 2013, the Panasonic Viera TC-L65WT600 . It just isn't OLED, it is an LCD. I think that was the source of confusion.


----------



## webgrandeur




> Quote:
> And Q4 2013 is in under 2 weeks.


I would expect the wording of their statement "in Q4 2013" to likely be closer to the end of that quarter (which also is timed well for Super Bowl marketing and advertising in Feb).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *webgrandeur*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23755330
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> And Q4 2013 is in under 2 weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> I would expect the wording of their statement "in Q4 2013" to likely be closer to the end of that quarter (which also is timed well for Super Bowl marketing and advertising in Feb).
Click to expand...

 

Also keep in mind that press releases often are meant for stockholders and industry financial analysts as much as they are for potential consumers.  Q4 might not be *calendar* Q4.


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23754960
> 
> 
> And its wonderfully flat. I like that. The way is should be. Now make them in a 70".



Not good enough. 100"...period.


----------



## rgb32

Where's the Samsung S9C Series OLED TV Owners Thread?







Anyone think Samsung will reduce the input lag in game mode with a firmware update?

http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/KN55S9CAFXZA


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23757637
> 
> 
> Where's the Samsung S9C Series OLED TV Owners Thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone think Samsung will reduce the input lag in game mode with a firmware update?
> 
> http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/KN55S9CAFXZA


 

Create one if you like.


----------



## 8mile13

I am also waiting for someone to start a OLED owner *thread*. I wonder if we will see such a *thread* this year. Lets start a poll


----------



## p5browne




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7080#post_23758701
> 
> 
> I am also waiting for someone to start a OLED owner *thread*. I wonder if we will see such a *thread* this year. Lets start a poll



Seeing as to how much Forum Members are Not in favour of 55" Curved Screens, you may be waiting awhile.

74" curved screen I can see, but I seriously doubt the Prototypes will be up for sale!


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7080#post_23758701
> 
> 
> I am also waiting for someone to start a OLED owner *thread*. I wonder if we will see such a *thread* this year. Lets start a poll



Be4 the owner thread there should first be *OLED Panel Displays* forum to put it into. The forum should be on the same level as the other flat panel displays fora /but obviously without the flat designator in the title/. Earlier proposal for this has, however, been rejected flatly







. In the meantime OLED displays are in shops and some people bought them but they are stil orphans with no own avs place. This should not be surprising as established sites tend to emphasize tradition (CRTs excellently represented of course), leaving field flat for newcomers to dig-in







.


----------



## JimP

Are there any OLED owners yet?


I wouldn't worry about where the thread is started as moderators can move threads around and create new display devices within the forum structure.


----------



## 8mile13

Any OLED owner *thread* will be moved to this Forum till a OLED Forum is created, *Flat Panels General and OLED Technology* has been added for this purpose.


----------



## Desk.

Well, there's now an owner of the Samsung OLED on the UK-oriented AVForums, and he seems to be very happy with his brand new purchase.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*
> 
> Well, there's now an owner of the Samsung OLED on the UK-oriented AVForums, and he seems to be very happy with his brand new purchase.



210 OLED *threads* in the avforums OLED Forum and there is one guy who actually bought a OLED... two day ago










*The AVForums OLED TVs Forum*
http://www.avforums.com/forums/oled-tvs/ 


..*the thread with the guy who bought an OLED*
http://www.avforums.com/forums/oled-tvs/1809955-samsung-ke55s9c-55-oled-now-uk.html


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23760607
> 
> 
> 210 OLED *threads* in the avforums OLED Forum and there is one guy who actually bought a OLED... two day ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The AVForums OLED TVs Forum*
> http://www.avforums.com/forums/oled-tvs/
> 
> 
> ..*the thread with the guy who bought an OLED*
> http://www.avforums.com/forums/oled-tvs/1809955-samsung-ke55s9c-55-oled-now-uk.html



In point of fact, it's actually his second OLED set. 


He also owns one of the small Sony portables, so at least it shows one customer so satisfied with this albeit currently pricey technology that he's gone back for more.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*
> 
> 
> In point of fact, it's actually his second OLED set.
> 
> 
> He also owns one of the small Sony portables, so at least it shows one customer so satisfied with this albeit currently pricey technology that he's gone back for more.


The tiny stuff does not count


----------



## Pres2play

I ordered the Samsung S9 today, with a strict fulfillment date of October 14. I want it mostly for Bluray movies, and I expect it will look great in my dim room. I've already downloaded the manual to get things started.


----------



## Pres2play

I hope the Oled will resolve the issue of banding. Notice the layers of gray around the white letters...


click on the image for a better look


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23759734
> 
> 
> Be4 the owner thread there should first be *OLED Panel Displays* forum to put it into. The forum should be on the same level as the other flat panel displays fora /but obviously without the flat designator in the title/. Earlier proposal for this has, however, been rejected flatly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . In the meantime OLED displays are in shops and some people bought them but they are stil orphans with no own avs place. This should not be surprising as established sites tend to emphasize tradition (CRTs excellently represented of course), leaving field flat for newcomers to dig-in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .





The new forum names should read:


Plasma TV Forum

LCD TV Forum

OLED TV Forum


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23761507
> 
> 
> The new forum names should read:
> 
> 
> Plasma TV Forum
> 
> LCD TV Forum
> 
> OLED TV Forum



I would rather have a 4K section for the thousands that will need it, than an OLED section for the tens that might.


----------



## tubetwister

*Found this old news to be sure 7/18/2012

LG charged with stealing Samsung OLED Tech*
http://www.techspot.com/news/49436-lg-display-workers-charged-with-stealing-samsung-oled-secrets.html 

then this
*Samsung office raided over LG OLED tech theft allegations 4/10/2013*
http://www.neowin.net/news/samsung-office-raided-over-lg-oled-tech-theft-allegations 


I'm Sure this horse has been beaten here before what's the real story or we don't know yet ?

*Did LG steal from Samsung or did Samsung steal from LG or did they both steal from each other!

or maybe nobody stole anything* I they have similar but different panels


not much beyond 4/13 with So. Korean police raid at Samsung?
*I bet if anyone asked Apple they would side with LG*









Seem like the Japanese companies usually share technologies or at least stay out of patent wars for the most part

any new news ?


Now Sony's in the mix I believe making their own panels? or maybe using LG panels? and then there is the

arrangement with Sony and Panasonic.,What about Sharp IGZO OLED , No Toshiba OLED??? or will they re badge ?


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23761570
> 
> 
> I would rather have a 4K section for the thousands that will need it, than an OLED section for the tens that might.



I don't agree that a separate 4K forum is needed, as all display devices will eventually be 4K and will simply continue to be discussed in their respective forums.


But OLED is a whole new technology and requires its own forum, even if (at the moment) it will serve far less forum members or visitors.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23761475
> 
> 
> I hope the Oled will resolve the issue of banding. Notice the layers of gray around the white letters...


This is often a source problem rather than a display problem. If you're not watching Blu-ray, it will be a problem no matter what.

But hopefully OLED will bring us back to CRT levels of gradation. 10-bit LCDs and LCoS displays are close, but not quite there.


----------



## Jason626




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23761725
> 
> 
> I don't agree that a separate 4K forum is needed, as all display devices will eventually be 4K and will simply continue to be discussed in their respective forums.
> 
> 
> But OLED is a whole new technology and requires its own forum, even if (at the moment) it will serve far less forum members or visitors.


I agree with you.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23761822
> 
> 
> This is often a source problem rather than a display problem. If you're not watching Blu-ray, it will be a problem no matter what.
> But hopefully OLED will bring us back to CRT levels of gradation. 10-bit LCDs and LCoS displays are close, but not quite there.



We will see -- the store demo video showed no sign of banding in scenes with bright bulbs and dark backgrounds. There's also a panning shot of a lighthouse with glorious sunlight shining through and no hint of banding.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23761822
> 
> 
> This is often a source problem rather than a display problem. If you're not watching Blu-ray, it will be a problem no matter what.
> 
> But hopefully OLED will bring us back to CRT levels of gradation. 10-bit LCDs and LCoS displays are close, but not quite there.



I found the same thing in my review. The Samsung OLED is very good at revealing flaws in the content. All sorts of compression artifacts, noise, and banding show up on this set when watching less than ideal sources - especially broadcast TV. Luckily it's minimized in the movie mode. I looked at several color-scale ramp patterns and did not notice any unusual banding. Probably just a calibration issue or badly encoded source.


----------



## Pres2play

^^^Is banding and contouring the same thing?


Also, is noise mainly an issue with plasma sets?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23762346
> 
> 
> ^^^Is banding and contouring the same thing?



What you called "banding" above is indeed contouring or, more properly _false contouring_.


----------



## JimP

Has anything been said about the OLED displays having or not having ABL???


and for that matter, just how linear gamma and color is at various brightness levels?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23761507
> 
> 
> The new forum names should read:
> 
> 
> Plasma TV Forum
> 
> LCD TV Forum
> 
> OLED TV Forum



The now-legendary traditionalism of avs masters flatly rejects skipping the word "flat" from established forum names as that would amount to a revolution with unpredicatable consequences in bending and twisting which could have grave impact on straight revenue flow







.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23761570
> 
> 
> I would rather have a 4K section for the thousands that will need it, than an OLED section for the tens that might.



There is no need for separate 4K section. 4K displays enter now the mainstream and fit into the existing display fora.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23761507
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23759734
> 
> 
> Be4 the owner thread there should first be *OLED Panel Displays* forum to put it into. The forum should be on the same level as the other flat panel displays fora /but obviously without the flat designator in the title/. Earlier proposal for this has, however, been rejected flatly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . In the meantime OLED displays are in shops and some people bought them but they are stil orphans with no own avs place. This should not be surprising as established sites tend to emphasize tradition (CRTs excellently represented of course), leaving field flat for newcomers to dig-in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new forum names should read:
> 
> 
> Plasma TV Forum
> 
> LCD TV Forum
> 
> OLED TV Forum
Click to expand...


Not quite ready to start a new forum: you (Pres2play) could start a Samsung OLED owners thread in this forum


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23762346
> 
> 
> ^^^Is banding and contouring the same thing?


 

Yes.  Actually, it's usage probably came from the neuro-optic usage of "contouring", which I've only seen as the sub-concept *illusory contouring* where the brain sees lines that aren't there.  Graphics apps that I've seen use the contouring term (when forced around objects).  The graphics/imaging based companies even back to the 80's mostly used "banding", when used as a description of an unwanted artifact of low color/shade depth, but did occasionally use them interchangeably.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23762653
> 
> 
> Not quite ready to start a new forum


 

Yeah, *please* don't.  Not yet.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23762327
> 
> 
> I found the same thing in my review. The Samsung OLED is very good at revealing flaws in the content. All sorts of compression artifacts, noise, and banding show up on this set when watching less than ideal sources - especially broadcast TV. Luckily it's minimized in the movie mode. I looked at several color-scale ramp patterns and did not notice any unusual banding. Probably just a calibration issue or badly encoded source.


It may not be the source. Early HDTVs were blamed for being very good at exposing the flaws in highly compressed sources due to their resolution, clarity, upscaling, or whatever other reason people thought it might be. What was actually the problem, was that HDTVs - especially the earlier ones - were not very good at gradation. So what was a subtle shade difference between two macroblocks on a CRT was magnified due to the lack of gradation on the HDTV.

This is one of Plasma/DLP's biggest weaknesses in my opinion - they are not very good at gradation. With a good source, you don't have as many compression artefacts visible, so the problem is not as obvious, and it's easy to blame the source rather than the display.


Simply looking at a grayscale ramp is not necessarily a good test. Certainly it will highlight gradation problems on a particularly bad set, but many displays can pass this test and still have problems with actual source content - particularly in dimly lit scenes.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23762559
> 
> 
> Has anything been said about the OLED displays having or not having ABL???


They have an ABL. I have not seen measurements from the LG or Samsung displays, though Sony's OLEDs behave like CRTs where reducing the contrast also reduces the strength of the ABL, so once you are down at 70% contrast, it is effectively eliminated. Hopefully even if we have to live with an ABL, all OLED sets will behave like this, and not like Plasmas where the ABL is fixed regardless of contrast.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23762653
> 
> 
> Not quite ready to start a new forum: you (Pres2play) could start a Samsung OLED owners thread in this forum




I look forward to it, and it's good to know it won't be hidden away in this thread. Should be here in two or three weeks.

Let the count down begin!


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23763535
> 
> 
> I look forward to it, and it's good to know it won't be hidden away in this thread. Should be here in two or three weeks.
> 
> Let the count down begin!



Is that an OLED set? Congratulations - looking forward to hearing all about it when it arrives.


----------



## KidHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7110#post_23761475
> 
> 
> I hope the Oled will resolve the issue of banding. Notice the layers of gray around the white letters...



That's usually caused by a palette reduction algorithm in the source material. One of many ways compression is done.


----------



## ALMA

LG 75EA9809 as first 75" OLED-TV on the way? Officially certified by "TÜV" and "Unitymedia" (cable tv) in Austria and Germany:

http://digital.orf.at/modules/produkte/ausgabe_receiver_detail.php?pr_id=1470 


(looking at 75")
http://www2.unitymedia.de/service/hdmodul/internet/


----------



## rogo

Samsung and LG are done suing each other:


"Samsung Display said in a statement it has "come to an agreement with LG Display to focus on finding ways to cooperate on patent matters though discussions, and to immediately drop lawsuits over liquid-crystal displays and next-generation organic light-emitting-diode display patents."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304213904579094592252201558.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird 


Objectively, this is good news.


----------



## ALMA

LG´s flat 55EA8809 in Europe stores from September 27 for 8999€.


> Quote:
> De LG 55EA8809 Gallery OLED TV is vanaf 27 september verkrijgbaar bij Mediamarkt en Saturn voor een adviesprijs van 8.999 euro.


 http://www.hdtvnieuws.nl/hdtv/lg-55ea8809-20130923/


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*
> 
> LG 75EA9809 as first 75" OLED-TV on the way? Officially certified by "TÜV" and "Unitymedia" (cable tv) in Austria and Germany:
> 
> http://digital.orf.at/modules/produkte/ausgabe_receiver_detail.php?pr_id=1470
> 
> 
> (looking at 75")
> http://www2.unitymedia.de/service/hdmodul/internet/


It does not seem realistic that a 75'' OLED TV will hit the market any time soon.



btw here is a list of Wi-Fi CERTIFIED LG OLED TVs -> 21-01-2013


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> probably means it is an OLED TV so it might as well be a LED LCd.



No, LCD is "LA" not EA" and that´s what LG said in 2012:


> Quote:
> *Because we use the Color Refiner and not a metal mask, and because we stack our pixels vertically instead of horizontally, there is no droop. No droop means larger, stable displays. With our technology, screen sizes from 47-inches to 80-inches are currently possible,* and we’re just getting started. The stability of the technology also means that our screen will support Ultra Definition, which is 4 times higher than Full HD!


 http://whylgtv.lge.com/archives/4399


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> LG OLED TV 55EA980T
> 
> LG OLED TV 55EA880T
> 
> LG OLED TV 55EA8800
> 
> LG OLED TV 55EA9800
> 
> LG OLED TV 55EA880V
> 
> LG OLED TV 47EA880W
> 
> LG OLED TV 55EA8809
> 
> LG OLED TV 55EA880W
> 
> LG OLED TV 75EA980V
> 
> LG OLED TV 55EA980V
> 
> LG oLED TV 75EA980W
> 
> LG OLED TV 55EA9809
> 
> LG OLED TV 55EA980W



It´s accurate. EAxxx9 = German market, EAxxxW Scandinavian market, EAxxxV = UK/US


----------



## irkuck

 Fight settled, expect impeccable garagantuan OLEDs soon


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*
> 
> that's what LG said in 2012:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Because we use the Color Refiner and not a metal mask, and because we stack our pixels vertically instead of horizontally, there is no droop. No droop means larger, stable displays. _With our technology, screen sizes from 47-inches to 80-inches are_ currently _possible_, and we’re just getting started. The stability of the technology _also means that our screen will support Ultra Definition_, which is 4 times higher than Full HD!
> 
> 
> 
> http://whylgtv.lge.com/archives/4399
Click to expand...

That's an 12-03-2012 ''article''. So were is the (4K)47''and (4K 55'') (4K)75'' LG OLED TV i ask myself today, 24-09-2013


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23766146
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*
> 
> that's what LG said in 2012:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Because we use the Color Refiner and not a metal mask, and because we stack our pixels vertically instead of horizontally, there is no droop. No droop means larger, stable displays. *With our technology, screen sizes from 47-inches to 80-inches are* currently *possible*, and we’re just getting started. The stability of the technology *also means that our screen will support Ultra Definition*, which is 4 times higher than Full HD!
> 
> 
> 
> http://whylgtv.lge.com/archives/4399
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an 12-03-2012 ''article''. So were is the (4K)47''and (4K 55'') (4K)75'' LG OLED TV i ask myself today, 24-09-2013
Click to expand...

 

Arg!  Warning.  European date reversals.  Take cover.  {claxon sounds}


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23766097
> 
> Fight settled, expect impeccable garagantuan OLEDs soon


 

Fight settled, expect impeccable gargantuan price fixing soon.


----------



## markrubin

Calibrating Leo Laporte's Samsung KN55S9C OLED TV

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1491901/calibrating-leo-laportes-samsung-kn55s9c-oled-tv


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> That's an 12-03-2012 ''article''. So were is the (4K)47''and (4K 55'') (4K)75'' LG OLED TV i ask myself today, 24-09-2013



They said 4K is with their current WOLED-Technology possible but not that the first OLED-TV´s will be 4K. LG Europe said before the 55" OLED-Launch, they planned to introduce a smaller and bigger one after the two 55" variants. Now the curved 55" (originally one year before it was the 55EM970, now cancelled for the curved EA980) is sold as first step, the flat EA8809 was always planned as second step (originally one year before with flamingo stand and not as wall mounted gallery OLED-TV) and now followed in September 27. Logically the other screen sizes could be follow soon and could be still planned with one year delay like the other OLED-TV´s.


They can make the 55" and a 77" 4K UHD-OLED prototype with their 8G pilot plant. So it´s not impossible to make a 47" and a 75" with 1080p resolution. 4K resolution is the next step.


----------



## sippelmc

Yep, I was thinking about the LG/Samsung happy hour and I can think of only two reasons:


1) Threat of Panasonic/Sony OLED alliance (SK vs Japan)


2) They saw the massive price war on the 1st gen 4K's with gargantuan price drops and don't want a repeat of that with OLED.


I'm guessing the 2nd....


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23765982
> 
> 
> Samsung and LG are done suing each other:
> 
> 
> "Samsung Display said in a statement it has "come to an agreement with LG Display to focus on finding ways to cooperate on patent matters though discussions, and to immediately drop lawsuits over liquid-crystal displays and next-generation organic light-emitting-diode display patents."
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304213904579094592252201558.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird
> 
> 
> Objectively, this is good news.



Those two companies made similar statements several months ago, and then resumed filing patent infringement suits against each other soon after. The South Korean Government was supposed to have intervened in the dispute back then, and banged heads until they agreed to do what they are saying they have agreed to do now.


"There is no honor among thieves."


----------



## markrubin

^^^^


I wonder what the legal staff at each of these companies will do now.....


It would be good if they could cooperate rather than continue to bring patent suits against each other: but I doubt this will happen


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23766420
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> I wonder what the legal staff at each of these companies will do now.....
> 
> 
> It would be good if they could cooperate rather than continue to bring patent suits against each other: but I doubt this will happen



Mark,


FlatpanelsHd headline on the new announced agreement between the two companies reads like a headline in The Onion.


"LG & SAMSUNG DROP ALL OLED PATENT LAWSUITS - AGAIN"

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1380022115


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23766500
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23766420
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> I wonder what the legal staff at each of these companies will do now.....
> 
> 
> It would be good if they could cooperate rather than continue to bring patent suits against each other: but I doubt this will happen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> 
> FlatpanelsHd headline on the new announced agreement between the two companies reads like a headline in The Onion.
Click to expand...

 

LOL.  I'll say:


----------



## greenland

"IS LG PLANNING NEW 75" AND 47" OLED TVS?"

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1380026065 


So far it all reads speculative, with nothing having been confirmed by LG.


"It seems weird for LG not to announce soon-to-come OLED TVs at the just concluded IFA 2013 show, but according to three separate entities, LG is preparing to release a 75-inch and a 47-inch OLED TV, besides the new 55-inch models.


75" AND 47" LG OLED TVS APPROVED


According to three separate entities; TUV, an Austrian TV inspection unit; Unity Media, a German cable TV provider; and the Wi-Fi association, LG has a new massive 75-inch OLED TV planned for release. The entities have also approved a new 47-inch OLED TV from LG."


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23766097
> 
> Fight settled, expect impeccable garagantuan OLEDs soon





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23766167
> 
> 
> Fight settled, expect impeccable gargantuan price fixing soon.



Accidently this came after IFA where some modest Chinese OLEDs were shown...


----------



## Pres2play

Since OLED has no Phosphors, is a break-in period really needed before calibration?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23766863
> 
> 
> Since OLED has no Phosphors, is a break-in period really needed before calibration?


 

LG's mechanism (last we went back and forth on this in a flurry of tech papers) uses a yellow phosphor excited by a blue light).  Regardless though, you don't need phosphors to have non-uniform wear characteristics.


----------



## Pres2play

Thanks, tgm. I take it then that a break-in period is needed to be on the safe side.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23766981
> 
> 
> Thanks, tgm. I take it then that a break-in period is needed to be on the safe side.


 

Absolutely no one knows.  However, if you say it here it'll likely be taken as gospel in 100 blogs across the world.  So we gotta be careful.  LOL!   Aye yi yi....


----------



## tubetwister




> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1346797220
> 
> *TWO SAMSUNG OLED-TVS STOLEN AT IFA*
> 
> By Rasmus Larsen (@flatpanels)
> 
> 05 Sep 2012 More Sharing Services Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people in the TV business are not playing by the rules. On the way to IFA two Samsung OLED-TVs were stolen, says Samsung. Samsung believes that someone will try to copy the technology.
> 
> 
> OLED INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE
> 
> 
> This is not the first time that we hear about foul play in the OLED industry. While transporting all the products to IFA, Samsung noticed that two OLED-TVs had gone ”missing”.



Any of you guys know about this? how's the picture what settings ?







just kidding


I guess it got Shanghaied ha ha!


You think maybe it was LG,.Vizio ,maybe Panasonic, Sony or TCL,Seiki maybe ? maybe a free lance job to be sold highest industrial espionage bidder maybe Foxconn or even Apple?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23766358
> 
> 
> Those two companies made similar statements several months ago, and then resumed filing patent infringement suits against each other soon after. The South Korean Government was supposed to have intervened in the dispute back then, and banged heads until they agreed to do what they are saying they have agreed to do now.



Right, so it seems like it's really settled.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23766420
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> I wonder what the legal staff at each of these companies will do now.....



Sue Chinese companies, most likely.


> Quote:
> It would be good if they could cooperate rather than continue to bring patent suits against each other: but I doubt this will happen



I dunno, Samsung still can't scale their tech (period) and LG still can't figure out some things. Neither has a market to protect right now, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a modicum of cooperation. But really, we don't want them to joint venture. Fewer companies trying to push the tech forward is not a win.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23766816
> 
> 
> 
> Accidently this came after IFA where some modest Chinese OLEDs were shown...



Yep, that's the impetus.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23766981
> 
> 
> Thanks, tgm. I take it then that a break-in period is needed to be on the safe side.



It can't hurt to break it in for 100-300 hours or so. Worse case, it doesn't help.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tubetwister*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23767634
> 
> 
> 
> Any of you guys know about this? just kidding
> 
> 
> You think maybe it was LG,.Vizio ,maybe Panasonic, Sony or TCL,Seiki maybe ? maybe a free lance job to be sold highest industrial espionage bidder maybe Foxconn or even Apple?



Why wouldn't they just buy them at retail instead of stealing them? Canon used to just buy Xerox machines and ship them back to Japan, take them apart, make them better and then, eventually, build machines that would outdo the competition.... That goes back generations.


----------



## tubetwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23767662
> 
> 
> Right, so it seems like it's really settled.
> 
> Sue Chinese companies, most likely.
> 
> I dunno, Samsung still can't scale their tech (period) and LG still can't figure out some things. Neither has a market to protect right now, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a modicum of cooperation. But really, we don't want them to joint venture. Fewer companies trying to push the tech forward is not a win.
> 
> Yep, that's the impetus.
> 
> It can't hurt to break it in for 100-300 hours or so. Worse case, it doesn't help.
> 
> Why wouldn't they just buy them at retail instead of stealing them? Canon used to just buy Xerox machines and ship them back to Japan, take them apart, make them better and then, eventually, build machines that would outdo the competition.... That goes back generations.


Good point about buying them maybe it was North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un 's people? they don't have a lot of extra money these days









OTOH his buddy and "friend for life." Dennis Rodman could probably just buy him one to put in his palace !

ofc if some one buys it it leaves a paper trail for future patent litigation no? Chinese could buy it with impunity though.

Then again maybe just some lucky stiff is watching it now!

But then again maybe Foxconn could scale it with their huge factories and slave labor they have been shopping for product to keep them busy but they could also just buy one also



they might be getting cheaper in a couple of years found this but then again Sharp is not *usually in the cheap seat space.


> Quote:
> Sharp News
> 
> .
> 
> Hon Hai to establish an OLED R&D center in Japan, aims to start OLED production in 2015
> 
> According to reports from Japan, Taiwan's Hon Hai (Foxconn) is establishing an OLED R&D center in Japan with an aim to start AMOLED panel production in 2015. Hon Hai is in talks with Sharp's Sakai Display Product (SDP) large-size LCD production base. SDP is jointly operated by Hon Hai and Sharp.


 http://www.oled-info.com/tags/companies/sharp


----------



## slacker711

The IFA robbery happened last year. They actually found the TV's along the side of a highway a few days before this years IFA.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23767662
> 
> 
> But really, we don't want them to joint venture. Fewer companies trying to push the tech forward is not a win.



I for one hope Samsung and LG keep fighting as long as possible. I doubt we would have seen the large price drop from $15K if Samsung and LG were not in a battle over OLED.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23766863
> 
> 
> Since OLED has no Phosphors, is a break-in period really needed before calibration?



I would recommend it. We don't have any recent data to work with but some old WOLED tests showed that the wear was non-linear and occurred more rapidly during the early hours. Nothing to lose by taking it easy for a few hundred hours as Rogo suggested.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23768979
> 
> 
> I for one hope Samsung and LG keep fighting as long as possible. I doubt we would have seen the large price drop from $15K if Samsung and LG were not in a battle over OLED.
> 
> I would recommend it. We don't have any recent data to work with but some old WOLED tests showed that the wear was non-linear and occurred more rapidly during the early hours. Nothing to lose by taking it easy for a few hundred hours as Rogo suggested.



Reports are both OLED are being sold well below cost and yield and logevity for both have still not substantially improved. They are going to remain a high end niche market until Sony/Panasonic 4K OLED printing method can be perfected. So once again we play the waiting game.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23770336
> 
> 
> Reports are both OLED are being sold well below cost and yield and logevity for both have still not substantially improved. They are going to remain a high end niche market until Sony/Panasonic 4K OLED printing method can be perfected. So once again we play the waiting game.


 

We always will.  Unless technology somehow stops dead in its tracks.  But I do admit: there is an *awful lot going on all at once* right now compared to prior years.  The list of newfangled immediate unknowns goes off the page.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23770336
> 
> 
> Reports are both OLED are being sold well below cost and yield and logevity for both have still not substantially improved. They are going to remain a high end niche market until Sony/Panasonic 4K OLED printing method can be perfected. So once again we play the waiting game.



While I agree overall OLED is going to be a high end niche for some time, the reports I've read are that Samsung at least have improved yields substantially. But there likely is still a long way to go to get the prices down from outrageous to just really really high.


But wherever I hear these "selling at or below cost" I wonder what all they include in their cost. (The auto dealer near me claims they sell pretty much every car below cost but when you look their prices are no different from every other dealer and somehow they make money). Are they including some amount of the years and years of R&D they need to recover? New manufacturing facilties ? Advertising? Expected warrantee claims? What else?


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23770624
> 
> 
> ......But I do admit: there is an _awful lot *OF MARKETING AND PRESS RELEASES* going on all at once_ right now compared to prior years.....




FIFY.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23771127
> 
> 
> While I agree overall OLED is going to be a high end niche for some time, the reports I've read are that Samsung at least have improved yields substantially. But there likely is still a long way to go to get the prices down from outrageous to just really really high.\



The problem is that even if Samsung has improved yields, it's using SMS for the OLED deposition, which is not scalable. And it's using LTPS for the backplanes, which seems unlikely to be the long-term backplane of choice, given the industry is moving to IGZO. So it's basically scaled one certain dead-end technology and another technology that will almost certainly be more expensive (and also seems unlikely to last in the long term).


I'm not sure that any improvements in what they are doing now are meaningful.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23772011
> 
> 
> FIFY.


 

I understand your point, but no, it's the case that there *is* a lot going on.  Whether or not it's actually shipping doesn't mean that it isn't being manufactured and that it isn't a flurry of technology happening for real.  And a lot of it *is* shipping, even if much of it isn't ending up covering the wall of best buy.

 

From my perspective, I think this is right, but please feel free to correct:

4K - Shipping
w/ HDMI 2.0 - Shipping (finally)
IGZO - *unclear* *to me*
OLED - Shipping (*kinda)*
Curved - Shipping (unfortunately)
Passive 3D adoptions (from active) - Shipping
Quantum Dots as emissive pixel technology - Not Shipping
Quantum Dots - Shipping (as RGB light source only, for Triluminus LCD)
Truly non-reflective surfaces - Not shipping

 

A lot of stuff IMO.


----------



## NLPsajeeth




> Quote:
> 3. IGZO - unclear to me



4K IGZO displays are shipping, the Sharp PN-K321 and the ASUS PQ321Q are both examples of such displays.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Samsung says their OLED TV will receive the Best New Product Award at the upcoming Korea Electronics Show in October.

http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/31966/samsung-uhd-curved-oled-tvs-win-innovation-awards-kes


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tubetwister*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7140#post_23767634
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1346797220
> 
> *TWO SAMSUNG OLED-TVS STOLEN AT IFA*
> 
> By Rasmus Larsen (@flatpanels)
> 
> 05 Sep 2012 More Sharing Services Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Samsung believes that someone will try to copy the technology."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Samsung has some experience in these matters.
Click to expand...


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23773102
> 
> 
> I understand your point, but no, it's the case that there _is_ a lot going on.  Whether or not it's actually shipping doesn't mean that it isn't being manufactured and that it isn't a flurry of technology happening for real.  And a lot of it _is_ shipping, even if much of it isn't ending up covering the wall of best buy.
> 
> 
> From my perspective, I think this is right, but please feel free to correct:
> 
> 4K - Shipping
> w/ HDMI 2.0 - Shipping (finally)
> IGZO - _unclear_ _to me_
> OLED - Shipping (_kinda)_
> Curved - Shipping (unfortunately)
> Passive 3D adoptions (from active) - Shipping
> Quantum Dots as emissive pixel technology - Not Shipping
> Quantum Dots - Shipping (as RGB light source only, for Triluminus LCD)
> Truly non-reflective surfaces - Not shipping
> 
> 
> A lot of stuff IMO.



Yes. Just not a lot of *OLED* stuff, IMHO.


----------



## Elix

Not yet posted? http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n130926_01.html


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elix*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23785774
> 
> 
> Not yet posted? http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n130926_01.html


:

_15μm diameter OLED dots were arrayed with 20μm pitch_... - You beast, you are dreaming about gigapixel displays


----------



## filmoreXXX

what we need is someone who can find a blue that lasts 30,000 half life


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *filmoreXXX*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23785890
> 
> 
> what we need is someone who can find a blue that lasts 30,000 half life


 

Or just stack 5 of them so that it no longer matters.


----------



## p5browne




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23786091
> 
> 
> Or just stack 5 of them so that it no longer matters.



As one fails, it switches down to the next one. By the time you get to #3, you'll probably be back into the market to make your next purchase.


----------



## JWhip

I finally had the opportunity to check out the new Sammy OLED for 2 1/2 hours today at VE. Thanks Robert! The set was in a darkened space with only a tiny bit of light entering the room. The room was quite dark. The set was not calibrated and was basically in out of the box mode with the exception that it was placed into movie mode with the blur settings disabled. As expected, the blacks on this set are superb, a shade or 2 lower than on my D-Nice adjusted 141 which has great blacks. The blacks here are better and are great. However, there is blooming to report which is noticeable around white objects against a black background. For example, when I popped in the Oblivion disc, a black screen comes up with a white Universal logo. A few inches around the logo are grey not black, a bit irregular in shape but a similar shape as the Universal logo.I have this a bit on the 141 too. The tv is really bright, even with the cell light dialed down to 0. With the black blacks and brightness of the picture, you are left with a very dynamic image, unlike anything I have ever seen. However, there were a few things I witnessed that I didn't like. The first is the curve. It really distorts the picture. Black bars at the top and bottom curve with the screen. It is slight but IMHO, a step backwards. The picture itself looks slightly bowed in. I do not like that at all. The screen also leans back and can't be adjusted unless you shim up the base, which make the set unstable. Because of the screen leaning back, it really needs to be at eye level, with one's eyes right in the middle of the screen. If you look up at the screen or down, you get a color shift. An example would be a black and white image. Standing up, the top part of the screen was fine. However, the bottom half would be awash in green and red blotches, with the reverse if you are looking up at the screen. I noticed the same issue when seated at either side of the set outside the frame. This OLED does not retain its image like a plasma does during off axis viewing. I also detected another slight abnormality due to the screen's curve. On 4x3 material, the black bars on the side tended to flare out ever so slightly as they reached the bottom on the screen. Out of the box, the set was a bit red. This was really noticeable on From Here to Eternity which was really red. I am sure a calibration will fix that. Curiously, a black and white image from Paul McCartney's KIsses LIve did not look as red except when an image came up from a black screen. When the image switched, faces had a red tint coming out of a full black screen. I am really not sure why that would be the case. With the motion circuitry disabled, some motion blur was evident. Turned on and kicked up 2 notches, this improved totally without any artifacts. As dynamic as the image was, I found the detail not to be fantastic, with the image looking a bit soft. I am sure that a proper calibration would fix that. Looking at the pixels, the blue pixels are twice the size as the red and green. I was also told that the voltage used on the blue pixels is about half as that on the others. As a result, the set is said the reach half brightness in only 30,000 hours, which is quite short IMHO. How well the blue pixel will wear is another matter. However, a real effort has been made to minimize the chance that that would happen. Pixel orbiter was enabled. I saw no evidence at all of any image retention, let alone burn in. On a black screen, I noticed no stuck pixels at all. Other than the issues noted above, this set does deliver a great image and is a hint of the future of TV. Personally, I want a flat wall mountable one that must be at a minimum 65". 70" would be about perfect for me along with a much lower price. Maybe in 3 years?


----------



## rogo

"Personally, I want a flat wall mountable one that must be at a minimum 65". 70" would be about perfect for me along with a much lower price. Maybe in 3 years?"


Yeah, that's pretty much the set all of us want.


2016 the soonest, 2018 on the outside?


Mine has to have 4K; I'm going to expect it to deliver 5+ years of lack of purchase regret. I got 6 from my previous plasma. The current one is in year 2.... It's just too much of a pain to re-integrate a new TV and basically it's not a device that delivers enough change to justify being replaced more often. I used to, for example, replace computers annually. Now, I go 3ish years between purchases. I expect my current Windows machine will go 5+...


Back to the topic at hand, it would be interesting to see if OLED can hit some interesting milestones in 2014.


* Shipping 100K units

* Falling another 30% in price

* Delivering flat panels (because that will signal the technology is selling on its own merits, not gimmickry)


----------



## JWhip

I still have my 2002 Panny 42" EDTV plasma in the bedroom. The family room has my 50" 7UY both of which are going quite strong and still look great. My 141 is 4 years old and I want to get another few years on that one too. About than, I will be ready for another set. I keep my stuff for a long time. You should see how old some of my 2 channel stuff is.


----------



## Orbitron

JWhip, excellent review. Look for non curved 4K OLED at CES, only 13 more weeks.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elix*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23785774
> 
> 
> Not yet posted? http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n130926_01.html



Photolithography on a 55" scale?


----------



## Pres2play

JWhip, did Robert let you play with the settings? I'm concerned about the blooming you reported. Isn't blooming something you can control in the basic setup menu?


Also, how far back did you have to move for the OLED pixels to disappear? I think at 7 feet, I was still able to see them.


----------



## JWhip

I didn't see the pixels at our seats which were 7 feet from the screen, which was too close for me. I can't imagine ever sitting that close to any display. As for the settings, we reduced the cell light to 0 and noticed no change in the blooming. Perhaps when the set is calibrated, it will be eliminated. We will see as I will be going back up to check once it is calibrated. It is my understanding that Robert is keeping this set for display. I will report back once it is. We will be comparing it to a fully calibrated 500M.


----------



## ALMA

Here is the flat OLED-TV by LG. Without speakers it costs 7999 EUR. With canvas speakers 8999 EUR. Same as the curved one.

http://www.lg.com/nl/televisies/lg-55EA8809-gallery-oled-tv


----------



## bigcoupe2003

I am curious to know how many on the forum actually purchased an OLED and if so which did you choose LG or Samsung


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23789223
> 
> 
> I didn't see the pixels at our seats which were 7 feet from the screen, which was too close for me. I can't imagine ever sitting that close to any display. As for the settings, we reduced the cell light to 0 and noticed no change in the blooming. Perhaps when the set is calibrated, it will be eliminated. We will see as I will be going back up to check once it is calibrated. It is my understanding that Robert is keeping this set for display. I will report back once it is. We will be comparing it to a fully calibrated 500M.



I went by VE this morning and watched Adele and Batman Begins for a few minutes. You're right, I can't see the pixels either at 7 feet.


On the Adele disc I could see a light-gray around the microphone she was holding, but the mic itself was not hazy. I saw this glow around other objects, too. It might be the way the video was shot; I didn't see this on Batman. This might be different from the blooming that you mentioned, where the white area of an image is spilling out into the black areas.


Shadow detail on Batman always bothers me. Seems it's overly dark on all sets, this one included.


The curve of the screen is interesting. With the TV at the right level, I'm wasn't as aware, or should I say distracted, by any picture distortion caused by the curve. The picture looks awesome, not Ultra HD awesome, just 1080p awesome, and that's good enough for me, until the industry can come up with real 4K stuff. After watching the Samsung a little longer, I went into a BestBuy to buy Avatar in 3D and sat in the magnolia section, in front of the Sony 65" ultra-HD LCD with the side mounted speakers. I sat in one of the two seats, which put me slightly off axis. After just having been with the OLED, I discovered that I was gazing more at the center of the screen and the edge closest to me. The far edge seemed to extend beyond my comfort zone and I realized I wasn't paying as much attention to that part of the screen. With the curved sceen, I felt...yes...more immersed in the picture, and Robert has the same two-seat arrange in his store. I think I'm liking the curved screen more, but that's just me.


----------



## JWhip

Did you notice the color issues off axis as I described in my mini review? I have the Adele disc and have not noticed what you described on my 141. I guess the curve is a matter of taste, just like blondes vs, brunettes. I hate it. I also don't like the size of the screen. Just too small, especially at that price. My philosophy on sets is when I replace them, I go bigger and move the older ones to another room. I would consider a 55" for my family room, at maybe 2 grand. I also think I will hold out for 4k. I can wait 3 more years!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23791413
> 
> 
> After just having been with the OLED, I discovered that I was gazing more at the center of the screen and the edge closest to me. The far edge seemed to extend beyond my comfort zone and I realized I wasn't paying as much attention to that part of the screen. With the curved sceen, I felt...yes...more immersed in the picture, and Robert has the same two-seat arrange in his store. I think I'm liking the curved screen more, but that's just me.



Even if I buy this (and I personally don't), it's still a dumb way to sell TVs. Most people don't just sit with 1-2 people directly centered in front of the television. It's just not the way things work out more often than not. The idea that we are benefiting as consumers from narrowing the viewing area on a TV that finally solves the single worst problem of LCDs is pretty ridiculous.


I look forward to the death of curved.


(Also, I can't imagine finding a TV as small as 55 inches immersive in any way.)


----------



## JWhip

I agree, 55" is NOT immersive. Viewing this set at 7 feet was not immersive in the least.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23791762
> 
> 
> I agree, 55" is NOT immersive. Viewing this set at 7 feet was not immersive in the least.


Well that's not surprising, it only gives you a 32 degree FoV. You need to be about 4.5ft from a 55" display for an immersive view. 65" is more appropriate for 7ft.


----------



## JWhip

I would never sit 4.5 feet from any TV at any size. Frankly, 7 feet from a 65" is too close for me as well. Just not my thing.


----------



## Pres2play

Like JWip said, it's a matter of taste, which you prefer. I think the real issue is price. If this Sammy were under two thousand, everyone would be all over it. The curved screen is simply an excuse to say away.


Regarding size, every time I look at my 50" plasma, I am so happy I got it, the 65" would look ridiculous in my apartment. The 55" OLED will fit perfectly on my stand, and the Connect One box is so terrific. I hate reaching behind the set so much that I never connect anything. Finally, I get to reconnect my Toshiba HD DVDplayer, without having to route it through my AVR.


I will comment on one thing, I think the real joke here is 4k. I have sat in the store many times looking at Spiderman on the 4k LCD displays, and nothing about this television appeals to me. The picture looks sharp but absolutely flat (no pun) and lifeless. I never, never considered buying this thing. In contrast, the minute I saw the OLED I knew it was something special. I just hope the set can last a few years. Anyway, I paid for the pretection plan, which helps me sleep.


----------



## JWhip

Once you receive it from Robert, start an owners thread. The set does have a lot going for it, with the blacks and brightness. It is an eye catcher to be sure. The price, not so much and I would never buy a 1st gen product. Too many issues I would like sorted out. I figure maybe in 2 years, most likely 3 for me. Enjoy the set and keep posting your impressions over time. And by all means, have it calibrated.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23791919
> 
> 
> I would never sit 4.5 feet from any TV at any size.


Which is why larger sizes exist.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23791919
> 
> 
> Frankly, 7 feet from a 65" is too close for me as well. Just not my thing.


Well different people probably find different viewing angles to be immersive or not. For me it starts about 50 degree FoV.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23792198
> 
> 
> Regarding size, every time I look at my 50" plasma, I am so happy I got it, the 65" would look ridiculous in my apartment. The 55" OLED will fit perfectly on my stand, and the Connect One box is so terrific.


This is why, as much as I want the improvements OLED brings, I think my next upgrade will be a projector. While I would like a bigger image, I don't want a bigger display in my home.

My current display is _good enough_ that there's little reason to upgrade it other than resolution. A 1080p OLED would be better, but not so much that it justifies the additional cost - at least not in the near future while they are still sold at premium prices.

And I don't see 55" or smaller OLED displays with 4K resolutions, using a standard RGB subpixel layout (none of the large displays are yet) with enough lifespan or resistance to burn-in that makes them suitable as a monitor and not just a television, at an affordable price any time soon.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23792198
> 
> 
> I will comment on one thing, I think the real joke here is 4k. I have sat in the store many times looking at Spiderman on the 4k LCD displays, and nothing about this television appeals to me. The picture looks sharp but absolutely flat (no pun) and lifeless. I never, never considered buying this thing. In contrast, the minute I saw the OLED I knew it was something special. I just hope the set can last a few years. Anyway, I paid for the pretection plan, which helps me sleep.


That's not really due to 4K, but the fact that it's an Edge-lit LED display.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23792314
> 
> 
> Once you receive it from Robert, start an owners thread. The set does have a lot going for it, with the blacks and brightness. It is an eye catcher to be sure. The price, not so much and I would never buy a 1st gen product. Too many issues I would like sorted out. I figure maybe in 2 years, most likely 3 for me. Enjoy the set and keep posting your impressions over time. And by all means, have it calibrated.



What, and face an onslaught of ridicule and rage. The guy who starts the Samsung Curved OLED thread will be the most hated member in AVS history.


Oh, what the f..k.--OK.


----------



## Wizziwig

No doubt. All the haters and trolls who can't afford it will come out of the woodwork and start criticizing it. There's no way to avoid that I'm afraid.


----------



## pg_ice

ok i have not seen an OLED tv yet but i have seen my Samsung Galaxy S4 with OLED display.

sure the blacks are black but in a daytime or low lit viewing even my new Sony 55" W9 with Quantum Dots seems to have super blacks.

Y:0.033 to be exact


so whats the deal with this new OLED tvs?

oversaturated like hell(Adobe RGB Gamut on SRGB content) in demo mode with colors colors everywhere to get the buyers attention.

also the colors pop more with reflections everywhere on the display in the strongly lighted stores.

+ a tad more microcontrast thats only is just a micro difference compared to the new LEDs


but once you get home and get calibrated SRGB colors and watch some blu-rays

i doubt i will see any difference in daytime/low light viewing?


For a person that mostly watch his movies in a pitch dark room.

ok it should be a great difference.

but not for me

even an OLED screen doesnt look great with no ambient light in the room.

not even my S4.

You need some ambientlight and you need some reflections on the screen to make the colors pop even more.

every glasspanel looks more black if it has reflections on it.

thats why i hate matted displays btw.

they never look black enough.


also

hasnt the Samsung OLED poor peak brightness?

i think i read it somewhere.

only 200cd/m2 or something

thats low compared to the new LEDs that often has around 300cd/m2



so whats the hype all about?

i dont get it










its cheaper to buy 3-4 lamps in the room to get good ambient light.

and Boom!

suddenly you cant see any difference in blacklevel against an OLED and a new flagship LED TV.

thank you LED Lamps..you saved me a fortune


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23791919
> 
> 
> I would never sit 4.5 feet from any TV at any size. Frankly, 7 feet from a 65" is too close for me as well. Just not my thing.



Ditto.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23792198
> 
> 
> Like JWip said, it's a matter of taste, which you prefer. I think the real issue is price. If this Sammy were under two thousand, everyone would be all over it. The curved screen is simply an excuse to say away.



No, it really isn't an excuse.


> Quote:
> Regarding size, every time I look at my 50" plasma, I am so happy I got it, the 65" would look ridiculous in my apartment. The 55" OLED will fit perfectly on my stand, and the Connect One box is so terrific. I hate reaching behind the set so much that I never connect anything. Finally, I get to reconnect my Toshiba HD DVDplayer, without having to route it through my AVR.



It's hard to take this entirely seriously without a #firstworldproblems tag. I never connect anything to my set that isn't already connected. But if I need to, my Denon has an HDMI port on the front. The idea that "having to route through your AVR" is a burden is pretty ridiculous. It's a *feature* since it gives you sound.


> Quote:
> I will comment on one thing, I think the real joke here is 4k. I have sat in the store many times looking at Spiderman on the 4k LCD displays, and nothing about this television appeals to me. The picture looks sharp but absolutely flat (no pun) and lifeless. I never, never considered buying this thing. In contrast, the minute I saw the OLED I knew it was something special. I just hope the set can last a few years. Anyway, I paid for the pretection plan, which helps me sleep.



The real joke is that the OLED doesn't have 4K.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23792491
> 
> 
> Which is why larger sizes exist.



Alas, not in OLED.


> Quote:
> Well different people probably find different viewing angles to be immersive or not. For me it starts about 50 degree FoV.



For me, it requires a big screen. The bigger the better. You can fake your brain by jamming more stuff in your field of view. Anyone who thinks sitting up close to a 50" screen is like going to the movies in a theater is delusional. The brain doesn't say, "Hey, field of view is full, this looks really huge." It says, "Hey, field of view is full, this looks x inches tall, but is filling my field of view because I'm sitting close to it."


That illusion certainly works for many people and creates "immersiveness". It doesn't work for me. That's why I still (a) go to the movies (b) would not consider downgrading from my 65", but rather would like to go larger.


> Quote:
> This is why, as much as I want the improvements OLED brings, I think my next upgrade will be a projector. While I would like a bigger image, I don't want a bigger display in my home.



Fair point. I would need a new house, however, as any projector setup would be very complex. Needlessly so given the likelihood I can get a 75" or 80" display that would not be in the way next time.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23793172
> 
> 
> What, and face an onslaught of ridicule and rage. The guy who starts the Samsung Curved OLED thread will be the most hated member in AVS history.



The guy who starts that thread will be the guy who owns the TV and wants to talk about it. Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would hate that person; certainly I would not.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23793224
> 
> 
> No doubt. All the haters and trolls who can't afford it will come out of the woodwork and start criticizing it. There's no way to avoid that I'm afraid.



I can afford one. I just replaced multiple computers and smartphones and put in an EV charger that was more a luxury than a necessity. Can I hate on the product now that I've established my ability to buy one? Of course, I kid. Not about being to afford to but about needing to prove anything about being able to buy one to earn the right to express negative things about it. Everyone should be free to express whatever thoughts they have about the product. And by the way, no one is arguing against the basic picture quality of the OLEDs. That it's outstanding is a given. That anyone should just go buy one just because of that is another matter.


----------



## Pres2play

With the Connect One box, I will have a clean connection to the TV and I won't have to struggle to connect new equipment. Also, in my experience, AVRs introduce too many issues, which is why I stop using mine. I use the analog output on my Oppo for audio and go HDMI direct to the TV. I will do the same with my Toshiba player, but use the TV audio instead. I don't know why you would think this is ridiculous.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200#post_23793245
> 
> 
> ok i have not seen an OLED tv yet but i have seen my Samsung Galaxy S4 with OLED display.
> 
> sure the blacks are black but in a daytime or low lit viewing even my new Sony 55" W9 with Quantum Dots seems to have super blacks.
> 
> Y:0.033 to be exact
> 
> 
> so whats the deal with this new OLED tvs?
> 
> oversaturated like hell(Adobe RGB Gamut on SRGB content) in demo mode with colors colors everywhere to get the buyers attention.
> 
> also the colors pop more with reflections everywhere on the display in the strongly lighted stores.
> 
> + a tad more microcontrast thats only is just a micro difference compared to the new LEDs
> 
> 
> but once you get home and get calibrated SRGB colors and watch some blu-rays
> 
> i doubt i will see any difference in daytime/low light viewing?
> 
> 
> For a person that mostly watch his movies in a pitch dark room.
> 
> ok it should be a great difference.
> 
> but not for me
> 
> even an OLED screen doesnt look great with no ambient light in the room.
> 
> not even my S4.
> 
> You need some ambientlight and you need some reflections on the screen to make the colors pop even more.
> 
> every glasspanel looks more black if it has reflections on it.
> 
> thats why i hate matted displays btw.
> 
> they never look black enough.
> 
> 
> also
> 
> hasnt the Samsung OLED poor peak brightness?
> 
> i think i read it somewhere.
> 
> only 200cd/m2 or something
> 
> thats low compared to the new LEDs that often has around 300cd/m2
> 
> 
> 
> so whats the hype all about?
> 
> i dont get it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its cheaper to buy 3-4 lamps in the room to get good ambient light.
> 
> and Boom!
> 
> suddenly you cant see any difference in blacklevel against an OLED and a new flagship LED TV.
> 
> thank you LED Lamps..you saved me a fortune




It's already started, Wizziwig.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793334
> 
> 
> For me, it requires a big screen. The bigger the better. You can fake your brain by jamming more stuff in your field of view. Anyone who thinks sitting up close to a 50" screen is like going to the movies in a theater is delusional. The brain doesn't say, "Hey, field of view is full, this looks really huge." It says, "Hey, field of view is full, this looks x inches tall, but is filling my field of view because I'm sitting close to it."


To be clear, I was not meaning to imply that at all. What I meant was that "immersive" starts at 50 degrees FoV for me. Sitting close to a small display is certainly not nearly as immersive as sitting back from a larger display. But it doesn't matter how large the display is, if it's not filling at least a 50 degree FoV for me.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793334
> 
> 
> Fair point. I would need a new house, however, as any projector setup would be very complex. Needlessly so given the likelihood I can get a 75" or 80" display that would not be in the way next time.


I think the projector guys make it seem a lot more complex than it really is; though it is a big job if you want very high contrast performance, as you have to start blacking everything out and covering it in velvet to minimize reflections.

That's really the main thing that has me hesitating. (I would not do that again) Well, that and the fan noise. I wouldn't consider a projector until they have moved to solid state lighting either.


I just wish someone would come out with a 5K 21:9 OLED display.

For the same height as the current 55" panels (and height is what we use to perceive the "size" of a display in the room) a 68" 21:9 panel would give you a 70% larger image.

This is equivalent to a 72" 16:9 panel, with a _much_ smaller impact on the room.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793334
> 
> 
> I can afford one. I just replaced multiple computers and smartphones and put in an EV charger that was more a luxury than a necessity. Can I hate on the product now that I've established my ability to buy one? Of course, I kid. Not about being to afford to but about needing to prove anything about being able to buy one to earn the right to express negative things about it. Everyone should be free to express whatever thoughts they have about the product. And by the way, no one is arguing against the basic picture quality of the OLEDs. That it's outstanding is a given. That anyone should just go buy one just because of that is another matter.


To be fair though, that's how it goes on this forum. 1080p was completely unnecessary and even "harmful" to image quality until it was affordable.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793245
> 
> 
> sure the blacks are black but in a daytime or low lit viewing even my new Sony 55" W9 with Quantum Dots seems to have super blacks.
> 
> Y:0.033 to be exact


3000:1 contrast is very low, but you're right - if you are watching in a bright enough room then you will not notice the black level of your set being deficient. I don't find it immersive at all to be watching content in a bright room though, and dark scenes can be problematic.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793245
> 
> 
> + a tad more microcontrast thats only is just a micro difference compared to the new LEDs


No, it is significantly better in this regard. Not just a little better.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793245
> 
> 
> even an OLED screen doesnt look great with no ambient light in the room.
> 
> You need some ambientlight and you need some reflections on the screen to make the colors pop even more.


This is not the case with OLED. An edge-lit set like your Sony W9 needs this because the poor black level performance washes out the colors.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793245
> 
> 
> hasnt the Samsung OLED poor peak brightness?
> 
> i think i read it somewhere.
> 
> only 200cd/m2 or something
> 
> thats low compared to the new LEDs that often has around 300cd/m2


Reference brightness is only 100cd/m2 though.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7100_100#post_23793224
> 
> 
> No doubt. All the haters and trolls who can't afford it will come out of the woodwork and start criticizing it. There's no way to avoid that I'm afraid.


 

^sounds hateful.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793569
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793334
> 
> 
> For me, it requires a big screen. The bigger the better. You can fake your brain by jamming more stuff in your field of view. Anyone who thinks sitting up close to a 50" screen is like going to the movies in a theater is delusional. The brain doesn't say, "Hey, field of view is full, this looks really huge." It says, "Hey, field of view is full, this looks x inches tall, but is filling my field of view because I'm sitting close to it."
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, I was not meaning to imply that at all. What I meant was that "immersive" starts at 50 degrees FoV for me. Sitting close to a small display is certainly not nearly as immersive as sitting back from a larger display. But it doesn't matter how large the display is, if it's not filling at least a 50 degree FoV for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think what's happening when you're too close to a screen is that your brain is receiving a focusing cue from your eyes that you're now *really* not looking at real life scene.  IRL your eyes just don't focus that closely on stuff that's supposed to be far away.
> 
> 
> 
> THAT SAID however, "immersion" is a bit more powerful than either of you are giving it credit for.  I was surprised at something recently.  On vacation, I watched an episode of True Blood through HBOGO.com on my laptop.  This was of course up close.  During the hour long show I completely forgot that I was watching it on a laptop.  Later on, I couldn't remember which episode it was that I saw on the laptop and which others I saw on the TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793569
> 
> 
> I just wish someone would come out with a 5K 21:9 OLED display.
> 
> For the same height as the current 55" panels (and height is what we use to perceive the "size" of a display in the room) a 68" 21:9 panel would give you a 70% larger image.
> 
> This is equivalent to a 72" 16:9 panel, with a *much* smaller impact on the room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does the extra screen resolution help you when the 21:9 content is mastered by throwing away information above and below the movie?  (By *drawing in* black letterboxes).  The movie *content* is still not going to be 2160p no matter how wide you make the screen, no?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793769
> 
> 
> How does the extra screen resolution help you when the 21:9 content is mastered by throwing away information above and below the movie? (By drawing in black letterboxes). The movie content is still not going to be 2160p no matter how wide you make the screen, no?


Actually, I think HDMI 2.0 adds support for 21:9 native content.

You always want to go wider with a 21:9 display, because it means that 16:9 content can be displayed using 1:1 mapping, rather than being downscaled. That's why previous displays were 2560x1080 rather than 1920x810.

And with 2160p vertical resolution, 16:9 content scales perfectly: 720x3 = 2160, 1080x2 = 2160.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793769
> 
> 
> THAT SAID however, "immersion" is a bit more powerful than either of you are giving it credit for. I was surprised at something recently. On vacation, I watched an episode of True Blood through HBOGO.com on my laptop. This was of course up close. During the hour long show I completely forgot that I was watching it on a laptop. Later on, I couldn't remember which episode it was that I saw on the laptop and which others I saw on the TV.


That's true, I don't need to be watching on a large TV to enjoy something. I generally enjoy it a lot more when I do though.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793984
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793769
> 
> 
> How does the extra screen resolution help you when the 21:9 content is mastered by throwing away information above and below the movie? (By drawing in black letterboxes). The movie content is still not going to be 2160p no matter how wide you make the screen, no?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think HDMI 2.0 adds support for 21:9 native content.
> 
> You always want to go wider with a 21:9 display, because it means that 16:9 content can be displayed using 1:1 mapping, rather than being downscaled.
Click to expand...

 

This is the part I don't understand.  The 1:1.  If the movie has black bars *drawn in*, then your movie is no longer 1080p high.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23793995
> 
> 
> This is the part I don't understand.  The 1:1.  If the movie has black bars _drawn in_, then your movie is no longer 1080p high.


Right, but content which is _not_ 21:9 (TV, 16:9 films, console games etc.) is displayed 1:1 rather than being downscaled.


It's far better to be upscaling letterboxed content to 21:9 (especially with a 5K resolution display) than it is to downscale anything. It is a trade-off either way though.

With HDMI 2.0 supporting 21:9 natively, hopefully we will see some native 21:9 content released. (or at least anamorphic 21:9)


EDIT:


5120x2160:
4K 16:9 content can be displayed 1:1
4K 21:9 content is upscaled (potentially 1:1 mapped in the future)
1080p content can be displayed 1:2
720p content can be displayed 1:3
More resolution available for computer use
Higher pixel density


3840x1620
4K 21:9 letterboxed content can be displayed 1:1
4K 16:9 content is downscaled 0.75x
1080p content is scaled by 1.5x
720p content is scaled by 2.25x
Less resolution available for computer use
Lower pixel density


The way I see it, most content that you watch on a 4K display - at least in the near future - is going to be upscaled anyway, and you have enough resolution now that it's not going to hurt image quality much. Downscaling is never a good thing.


----------



## pg_ice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200#post_23793476
> 
> 
> It's already started, Wizziwig.



its already started

brrrrr so scary


----------



## pg_ice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200#post_23793569
> 
> 
> 3000:1 contrast is very low,



no its high



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200#post_23793569
> 
> 
> This is not the case with OLED. An edge-lit set like your Sony W9 needs this because the poor black level performance washes out the colors.
> 
> Reference brightness is only 100cd/m2 though



poor blacklevel on the W9? haha

man you must be JOKING?

washed out colors on the W9? even that sounds funny haha


as i said

no display looks good in a complete black room

not even my S4 with its OLED screen.

so sure its the same with an 55" OLED screen..no difference.


there is no such thing as reference brightness

learn that

theres only recomendations

120cd/m2 is the recomendation for rec709 and thats for darkroom viewing i belive


280cd/m2 in daytime viewing is so great.

i wouldnt replace that for a weak OLED screen thats only hits 200cd/m2!?


the contrast ratio you get with that high brigtness is almost like you are there.

you dont get that feeling with sloppy 200cd/m2.


----------



## markrubin

we really need an owners thread started for the *Samsung and LG 55 inch OLED displays*: could an owner, or prospective owner, or someone who saw one start such a thread?


the new thread will, hopefully, be limited to discussions of 55 inch OLED displays and their performance (otherwise I will start one)


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23794209
> 
> 
> we really need an owners thread started for the *Samsung and LG 55 inch OLED displays*: could an owner, or prospective owner, or someone who saw one start such a thread?
> 
> 
> the new thread will, hopefully, be limited to discussions of 55 inch OLED displays and their performance (otherwise I will start one)



Please do. "If you build it they will come".


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*
> 
> we really need an owners thread started for the *Samsung and LG 55 inch OLED displays*: could an owner, or prospective owner, or someone who saw one start such a thread?
> 
> 
> the new thread will, hopefully, be limited to discussions of 55 inch OLED displays and their performance (*otherwise I will start one*)


Please start two *threads*







today.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23794135
> 
> 
> no its high
> 
> poor blacklevel on the W9? haha
> 
> man you must be JOKING?


3,000:1 is not a high contrast level. Panasonic's current plasma line has 10x that contrast performance - and even that is not nearly enough for viewing in a dark room, in my opinion. JVC's new projectors have 150,000:1 native contrast . Sony's previous HX9 series were much higher contrast than that (5,000:1 native, "infinite" with local dimming) and these new OLED panels are better still.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23794135
> 
> 
> washed out colors on the W9? even that sounds funny haha


It's a known problem with low contrast displays such as edge-lit LCDs, ​ advertise the fact in their OLED literature[/URL] .


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23794135
> 
> 
> no display looks good in a complete black room


CRTs do, my local dimming HX9 does, and I'm sure these new OLEDs will too. No edge-lit LCD display does though.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23794135
> 
> 
> 280cd/m2 in daytime viewing is so great.
> 
> i wouldnt replace that for a weak OLED screen thats only hits 200cd/m2!?


In-room contrast is not necessarily dependent on display brightness when you are comparing different display types, but yes an LCD may be better in daylight.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200#post_23794229
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23794209
> 
> 
> we really need an owners thread started for the *Samsung and LG 55 inch OLED displays*: could an owner, or prospective owner, or someone who saw one start such a thread?
> 
> 
> the new thread will, hopefully, be limited to discussions of 55 inch OLED displays and their performance (otherwise I will start one)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do. "If you build it they will come".
Click to expand...

 http://www.avsforum.com/t/1493149/samsung-kn55s9c-55-inch-oled-owners-thread


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200#post_23794091
> 
> 
> its already started
> 
> brrrrr so scary



My apologies to you, Ice. My comment was not cool.


----------



## mtbdudex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23791919
> 
> 
> I would never sit 4.5 feet from any TV at any size. Frankly, 7 feet from a 65" is too close for me as well. Just not my thing.



I sit 10 ft from 102" screen in 16:9 mode, it's 130" in 2.35:1 mode. Perfect immersion, for a basement HT.

Have had close to 100 different people over and nobody has complained.



Sent from my 32GB iPhone4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Orbitron

I sit 9.8 feet from a 92" screen in 2.35:1, immersive without having to shift your eyes to see the sides. It's also the distance at which the front speakers image perfectly - sound important too.


----------



## JWhip

That is fine,it is not for me. Can't you just accept that? I also don't sit in the first few rows of a theater. I sit in the back.


----------



## tgm1024


 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23796134
> 
> 
> That is fine,it is not for me. Can't you just accept that?


In a forum, folks aren't just talking to you.  They're discussing with the group.  No one is trying to convince you to change your mind.


----------



## Pres2play

About 10 years ago, I purchased a new Sony VPH-50 CRT projector for about $7k and spent another two or three grand on a 96” DA-Lite screen, the type with the metal frame and the snaps. It was a nice projector, but it didn’t have a widescreen mode for anamorphic material, which lowered the resolution of DVD movies. At 10 feet away, the image on the screen was pretty large, but I rarely felt immersed, even after trying larger screen sizes.

If it were all about size, the multiplex theaters with the small venues would be out of business. It’s the video quality that counts, not the screen size, and that’s what makes a movie on a good quality laptop, or a highend television immersive.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200#post_23793984
> 
> 
> That's true, I don't need to be watching on a large TV to enjoy something. I generally enjoy it a lot more when I do though.



Totally agree.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200#post_23793569
> 
> 
> To be clear, I was not meaning to imply that at all. What I meant was that "immersive" starts at 50 degrees FoV for me. Sitting close to a small display is certainly not nearly as immersive as sitting back from a larger display. But it doesn't matter how large the display is, if it's not filling at least a 50 degree FoV for me.



Fair enough.


> Quote:
> I think the projector guys make it seem a lot more complex than it really is; though it is a big job if you want very high contrast performance, as you have to start blacking everything out and covering it in velvet to minimize reflections.
> 
> That's really the main thing that has me hesitating. (I would not do that again) Well, that and the fan noise. I wouldn't consider a projector until they have moved to solid state lighting either.



I should clarify. I watch in a family room that opens onto a kitchen. The only way to have a projector would be to attach it to the ceiling and have a retractable screen also on the ceiling. This would be ugly and still wind up too high for my liking. I could improve this in no way -- I have looked. My problem isn't the velvet; it's the geometry and aesthetics.


----------



## pg_ice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7170#post_23787988
> 
> 
> However, there is blooming to report which is noticeable around white objects against a black background.



Life in Every Pixel right ?

well some pixels live more it seems


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23796822
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200#post_23793984
> 
> 
> That's true, I don't need to be watching on a large TV to enjoy something. I generally enjoy it a lot more when I do though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200#post_23793569
> 
> 
> To be clear, I was not meaning to imply that at all. What I meant was that "immersive" starts at 50 degrees FoV for me. Sitting close to a small display is certainly not nearly as immersive as sitting back from a larger display. But it doesn't matter how large the display is, if it's not filling at least a 50 degree FoV for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> I think the projector guys make it seem a lot more complex than it really is; though it is a big job if you want very high contrast performance, as you have to start blacking everything out and covering it in velvet to minimize reflections.
> 
> That's really the main thing that has me hesitating. (I would not do that again) Well, that and the fan noise. I wouldn't consider a projector until they have moved to solid state lighting either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should clarify. I watch in a family room that opens onto a kitchen. The only way to have a projector would be to attach it to the ceiling and have a retractable screen also on the ceiling. This would be ugly and still wind up too high for my liking. I could improve this in no way -- I have looked. My problem isn't the velvet; it's the geometry and aesthetics.
Click to expand...


I relate completely. My house has the same structure. I'd love to have a separate theater w/ a ginormous projector screen, but w/ the current set up it's simply not doable.


----------



## ALMA

Bad news for Plasma fans, but good news for OLED:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/08/panasonic-end-plasma-tv/


----------



## vinnie97

Consider the source (Nikkei) and don't believe everything you read.








Second, there's no mention of OLED, so it's even more speculative to claim this is good news for the fledgling technology (resources may be shifting to LCD-LED production instead) based on that article anyway.


----------



## ALMA

 http://www.avforums.com/forums/19654332-post38.html 

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1379576633 


And I can told you that the Panasonic repair service in Germany also said, the current plasma Series will be the last Panasonic Plasmas.

I know that after the Japanese headquarter statement to exit Plasma R&D in March/April 2014 an American marketing source said otherwise, but I don´t believe in marketing.










Of course, for the mainstream market they will focus on LCD-TV´s till OLED prices becomes mainstream. Nothing wrong with that. They also shifted their focus from Plasma more to LCD since two years.


----------



## Rich Peterson

This is a very shallow test, but I thought interesting nonetheless

*OLED vs LED LCD: Which TVs Use More Power?*


Source digitalversus .


> Quote:
> Adjusted for the screen size, Philips' Ultra HD TV consumed 35% more power than LG's curved OLED TV and the Samsung UE46F6400 consumed 62% more! So there's no question: OLED TVs (at least as far as this one shows) do use less power than LCD TVs.


----------



## Chronoptimist

I'm not sure how you "adjust for screen size" because only some of the components in a display scale with size.

And there did not appear to be any kind of brightness matching done.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200#post_23817607
> 
> http://www.avforums.com/forums/19654332-post38.html
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1379576633
> 
> 
> And I can told you that the Panasonic repair service in Germany also said, the current plasma Series will be the last Panasonic Plasmas.
> 
> I know that after the Japanese headquarter statement to exit Plasma R&D in March/April 2014 an American marketing source said otherwise, but I don´t believe in marketing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, for the mainstream market they will focus on LCD-TV´s till OLED prices becomes mainstream. *Nothing wrong with that.* They also shifted their focus from Plasma more to LCD since two years.


There's a lot wrong with it for videophiles who aren't made out of money in the meantime.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200#post_23817469
> 
> 
> Bad news for Plasma fans, but good news for OLED:
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/08/panasonic-end-plasma-tv/



I posted this on the Panasonic Plasma ST60 thread but here you go anyway since you brought up the topic. No word yet if Samsung will pull out as well but since they are pushing OLED big time I think it's only a matter of time now as well.










"Sad news indeed although I think we all saw this one coming, I would not expect this information to be a total shock to anyone here on these forums. But for those who didn't already know here are the links."



Panasonic 'to quit' loss-making plasma TV business
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24458805 


Panasonic to drop plasma TV business early next year, says sources
http://www.slashgear.com/panasonic-to-drop-plasma-tv-business-early-next-year-says-sources-09300707/


----------



## rogo

Vinnie, forget not being made of money, what do you even buy, period? The OLED choice matrix = "not flat, 55 inches".


In plasma, you've had 60", 65", flat, as well as 55".


Arguably, $3000 has bought videophile performance at 65 inches for a few years. ($2700 on Amazon at the moment for a VT60, Just over $3000 for a ZT60 from a bunch of second-tier retailers, more from anyone serious it seems.)


Let's say I want an LCD of _at least_ as much size. What $3000 TV is anywhere near as good? Is the Samsung UN65F8000 ($3300 at Amazon, so kinda close) anywhere near as good? The Sony 65" W850? ($2700). My sense is that from a picture-quality standpoint they just aren't in the universe of the Panasonics or the $3400 Samsung 64F8500 plasma. It doesn't make them bad, but it does make them worse


There aren't a lot of examples of "the only good version of a product is now gone and what we have left _costs as much_ but is worse." I suppose it's fair to say so long as the Samsung is around, the product won't be gone, but this is a bleak moment about 15 years into the HD era.


And, for what it's worth, we've been promised affordable, large OLED TVs for about that entire era. What we have -- at last -- is something. But that something is infinitesimal, needlessly shaped away from the flatness we've all come to covet, extraordinarily expensive by all current standards, and pretty small. It takes a lot of optimism to believe that even a $3500 65-inch OLED is coming anytime before 2016 (and a fair amount of optimism to see it that soon), so we are looking at a minimum of 2 years where the choice is to (a) hope the Samsung sticks around or (b) buy what, exactly?


I don't like this scenario at all. And the idea that "this is good for OLED" is just ridiculous. Panasonic is doing this because it's financially desperate not because it's ready to make a bunch of OLED TVs to replace it. It's likely to further pull back from the TV business; there is no way it's losing all that money just in plasma, the LCD division is surely contributing to the losses as well. With Sharp continuing to hang by a thread and Sony's commitment to consumer electronics always an open question because of their lack of profits for a decade now, all of this looks ugly. Very ugly.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200#post_23817607
> 
> http://www.avforums.com/forums/19654332-post38.html
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1379576633
> 
> 
> Of course, for the mainstream market they will focus on LCD-TV´s till OLED prices becomes mainstream. Nothing wrong with that. They also shifted their focus from Plasma more to LCD since two years.


No,..._there's A LOT wrong with that!_


----------



## vinnie97

Pretty much, Rogo. I was just assuming there'd be such a beast available (65"/70" OLED) in the near future. A mistaken assumption, especially when basing it on LG PR reports.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23819939
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't a lot of examples of "the only good version of a product is now gone and what we have left _costs as much_ but is worse." I suppose it's fair to say so long as the Samsung is around, the product won't be gone, but this is a bleak moment about 15 years into the HD era.



We've seen this before with the demise of CRT, full-array LCD, and Kuro. All were replaced by products inferior in many aspects of performance.


The TV industry seems to be unique in this regard compared to pretty much every other class of electronics - where things always get better and cheaper over time.


I'm kind of surprised that Panasonic sat on the Kuro tech for all these years and never released anything to match or surpass it before pulling out.


----------



## vinnie97

^Except they did finally match it in 2013. As a previous owner of a Kuro and now a ZT60, I am a witness to this reality.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23821384
> 
> 
> We've seen this before with the demise of CRT, full-array LCD, and Kuro. All were replaced by products inferior in many aspects of performance.
> 
> 
> The TV industry seems to be unique in this regard compared to pretty much every other class of electronics - where things always get better and cheaper over time.
> 
> 
> I'm kind of surprised that Panasonic sat on the Kuro tech for all these years and never released anything to match or surpass it before pulling out.



They had two choices as I understand it...


1. Dump their current technology line which was incompatible with KURO technology and continue to produce Pioneers expensive Plasma display's that were not very profitable for Pioneer btw, hence is why they got out of the business altogether. Or


2. Continue on with their own technology endeavors which they had already invested a considerable amount of time and money into developing with their engineers hoping that it would lead them into better profits by (reducing cost) and in their mind increasing picture quality.


Unfortunately for us they went with option number 2.


----------



## vinnie97

^Not to mention, Panasonic did hire former Kuro engineers, so I'd say we finally saw the fruits of their collaboration/contribution in 2013.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23821384
> 
> 
> I'm kind of surprised that Panasonic sat on the Kuro tech for all these years and never released anything to match or surpass it before pulling out.


One of the things that Panasonic were continually improving, and made a big deal about, was the gradation on their plasmas. This is in direct opposition to Pioneer's driving method which had very limited gradation and required the use of a _lot_ of dithering. With this year's models, they managed to match Pioneer's black level without sacrificing gradation performance.


----------



## Chris5028

On the plus side if Panasonic is really out, I will be able to convince my wife to let me buy a ZT60. Silver Lining I guess....


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23824500
> 
> 
> On the plus side if Panasonic is really out, I will be able to convince my wife to let me buy a ZT60. Silver Lining I guess....



I'd suggest getting the ST60 instead, in fact you probably won't even be able to tell much of a difference see CNT's review. Then take the extra money you would have saved and put it into an OLED down the road, that's your best choice in my opinion anyway good luck with your choice.











Oh and if the wife is a factor like you say I'm sure it would have pleased them to have saved the extra $$$


----------



## andy sullivan

I agree with Radtech. You may find the V pretty close in price to the S as the year comes to a close. Depends on inventory.


----------



## Chris5028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23826584
> 
> 
> I'd suggest getting the ST60 instead, in fact you probably won't even be able to tell much of a difference see CNT's review. Then take the extra money you would have saved and put it into an OLED down the road, that's your best choice in my opinion anyway good luck with your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and if the wife is a factor like you say I'm sure it would have pleased them to have saved the extra $$$



Will I notice the difference with the room pitch black? That is the only complaint I have with my ST50, it isn't so black that it disappears when its super dark in the room.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23828321
> 
> 
> Will I notice the difference with the room pitch black? That is the only complaint I have with my ST50, it isn't so black that it disappears when its super dark in the room.


No Plasma will do that, only CRT, Full Array Local-Dimming LED, and OLED will.


----------



## Chris5028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23828501
> 
> 
> No Plasma will do that, only CRT, Full Array Local-Dimming LED, and OLED will.



Well, I will have to live with close enough then I guess...


----------



## Cleveland Plasma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23818933
> 
> 
> I posted this on the Panasonic Plasma ST60 thread but here you go anyway since you brought up the topic. No word yet if Samsung will pull out as well but since they are pushing OLED big time I think it's only a matter of time now as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Sad news indeed although I think we all saw this one coming, I would not expect this information to be a total shock to anyone here on these forums. But for those who didn't already know here are the links."


---That article did say, "When reached for comment, the company said that nothing had been decided." I bet plasma tech has 1-2 years left in it. However, no real PQ improvements.


----------



## rogo

We'll know something for sure within 3 months. Because by the time Panasonic gets to CES, it will be obvious whether they are shutting production down in March or not.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23828860
> 
> 
> We'll know something for sure within 3 months. Because by the time Panasonic gets to CES, it will be obvious whether they are shutting production down in March or not.



The question is, will they have anything to show that is worthy of attention beyond JSP?


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23830201
> 
> 
> The question is, will they have anything to show that is worthy of attention beyond JSP?



I'm sure there will be lots of OLED prototypes as usual. Whether any of those will materialize into actual products is another story. Look how many years LG showed their OLED at CES before it actually showed up for sale.


Speaking of CES, is the event worth attending? I've never been to it but I can get free passes from work. It's about a 4 hour drive to Vegas from here.


From the pictures I've seen, it looks like the sort of event where bodyguards surround all the products and you can't actually examine anything in detail - especially without press credentials.


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cleveland Plasma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23828775
> 
> 
> ---That article did say, "When reached for comment, the company said that nothing had been decided." I bet plasma tech has 1-2 years left in it. However, no real PQ improvements.



If the other article is accurate, that they lost another $900b on Plasma in 2012, it's over. There's zero reason to continue selling something that has done nothing but lose money for more then 4 years.


----------



## rogo

Well, what didn't happen is the loss of $900b on anything. That's clear.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23831485
> 
> 
> Well, what didn't happen is the loss of $900b on anything. That's clear.


 

I was going to mention that last night.  Even if the b were Yen, it'd be 10 billion US dollars.  Uh uh, no way.


----------



## Rich Peterson

 Here's a youtube PR piece from LG that supposedly describes the inspiration of the curved LG OLED along with some of the challenges of the design process.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23830484
> 
> 
> I'm sure there will be lots of OLED prototypes as usual. Whether any of those will materialize into actual products is another story. Look how many years LG showed their OLED at CES before it actually showed up for sale.
> 
> 
> Speaking of CES, is the event worth attending? I've never been to it but I can get free passes from work. It's about a 4 hour drive to Vegas from here.
> 
> 
> From the pictures I've seen, it looks like the sort of event where bodyguards surround all the products and you can't actually examine anything in detail - especially without press credentials.



I know some people that attend. Before they tightened up admittance (hope they don't make the same mistakes as COMDEX), I considered going. Most of them now consider every other year, unless they get whiff of something.


Anyway, their take: Some years yes, some years no. And hard to tell in advance. I personally don't expect much beyond fluff this year as not much is leaking. But who knows, maybe Panny or competitors will come up with something that will actually see the light of day. Or maybe Dish will pull another kangaroo out of the hat. Heck, who knows, maybe Sony has some big surprise coming. But frankly, I don't expect any of it. I expect a quiet year, with 2015 to perhaps have some spicy OLED releases announced.


----------



## Cleveland Plasma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23830659
> 
> 
> If the other article is accurate, that they lost another $900b on Plasma in 2012, it's over. There's zero reason to continue selling something that has done nothing but lose money for more then 4 years.


They all report losses, how can one stay in business losing that much cash.......


----------



## Weboh

I bet the Korean companies can survive in margins which the Japanese competitors can't. I have been reading rumors that Panasonic is planning something big with its displays; I don't know if the typist of those rumors is a liar or not though. If OLED doesn't impress, we will be back to plasmas which haven't been totally utilized. Plasmas have a great frame rates and color depth, which would be awesome on a better-than bluray compact disc.


So why is this tech abandoned so quickly? 4K? No, since large amounts of it won't exist; and movies said to be shot in it aren't as sharp looking as some of the demos for the TVs. Burn-in? It is becoming history, though still an issue. LED TVs in big sizes? The briteness isn't going to fool people forever. OLED tech? A potential quick way to make a somewhat equivalent to a plasma TV. I can't think of any other reason to abandon something that works, other than finding something that works better.


----------



## Orbitron

Will these unsold plasmas flood the market? The money could be used for OLED products.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cleveland Plasma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23833507
> 
> 
> They all report losses, how can one stay in business losing that much cash.......


It's called creative book keeping. It's not all that difficult for a largely diversified company to show a loss on paper.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*
> 
> Heck, who knows, maybe Sony has some big surprise coming.


A big prototype surprise


----------



## Rich Peterson

I can't wait to see the comments on this article...


*9 Advantages of OLED TV Technology; Pros and Cons as well as AMOLED TV*


Source: LCD Buying Guide 


1) OLED TV does not suffer from motion lag or motion blur as does LCD displays. In fact, OLED technology has the fastest response rate time of any type of display due to utilizing TFT active matrix (AMOLED) technology with the organic light emitting diodes.


2) OLED TV screens have near perfect viewing angle. OLEDs create light (are emissive) rather than block light. Every pixel is lit independently and that light will be seen from off axis viewing angles easily and accurately, also like plasma TV technology.


3) OLED TVs have one solid layer of plexiglass-like material which is extremely thin and light and contains all of the color compounds and TFT material needed. Therefore, the OLED panel is flexible (as in non-breakable) as well.


4) OLED televisions utilize slight electric currents to excite a combination of organic phosphorescence encased in a plastic substrate. OLED needs very little power to operate so in theory should last for a very long time as the parts are not taxed significantly. One weakness here is the blue organic LED compound which may die before the red and green compounds.


5) OLED TV will be the most energy efficient TV technology ever produced. It takes hardly any power to energize the organic light emitting molecules located in the emissive layer of the substrate.


6) OLED televisions may one day be flexible, cardboard thin and large enough to cover an 9' X 9' wall.


7) OLEDs response rate is even faster than plasma and there is no motion lag or trailer effect either.


8) OLED TVs and monitors will have the advantage of no screen burn in.


9) Due to superior technological efficiencies in manipulating lighter, simpler carbon based material, generating deeper blacks, brighter whites and all the gray scales in between should be a great strength of OLED.


Disadvatages:

1) Price. Development costs are currently too high to economically develop larger screen sizes. But remember, plasma and LCD display technology started there as well.


----------



## markrubin

^^^


he is spot on with the disadvantages, as far as it goes...


----------



## wco81

Who wrote that guide, Samsung and LG?


Or some trade association?


----------



## Wizziwig

I really hope manufacturers can solve the high input lag on next year's OLED models. The LG numbers were just posted in a review (see owner's thread) and it's similar to the Samsung: 71ms game-mode, 135ms normal. Is there something inherent about OLED that requires such a high input lag or are these companies just using crappy video processors? Even older LCDs that had high lag from excessive over-drive processing were not this bad.


----------



## Cleveland Plasma

^^^ Exactly, they probably had a profit last year.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23833702
> 
> 
> I bet the Korean companies can survive in margins which the Japanese competitors can't. I have been reading rumors that Panasonic is planning something big with its displays; I don't know if the typist of those rumors is a liar or not though. If OLED doesn't impress, we will be back to plasmas which haven't been totally utilized. Plasmas have a great frame rates and color depth, which would be awesome on a better-than bluray compact disc.
> 
> 
> So why is this tech abandoned so quickly? 4K? No, since large amounts of it won't exist; and movies said to be shot in it aren't as sharp looking as some of the demos for the TVs. Burn-in? It is becoming history, though still an issue. LED TVs in big sizes? The briteness isn't going to fool people forever. OLED tech? A potential quick way to make a somewhat equivalent to a plasma TV. I can't think of any other reason to abandon something that works, other than finding something that works better.


I personally feel plasma will be around for 1-3 years yet. Hell keep the exact same models, they will sell as is !


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7260#post_23835203
> 
> 
> I can't wait to see the comments on this article...
> 
> 
> *9 Advantages of OLED TV Technology; Pros and Cons as well as AMOLED TV*
> 
> 
> Source: LCD Buying Guide
> 
> 
> 
> 8) OLED TVs and monitors will have the advantage of no screen burn in.
> 
> 
> Disadvantages:
> 
> 
> 1) Price. Development costs are currently too high to economically develop larger screen sizes. But remember, plasma and LCD display technology started there as well.



#8 is not reasonable. Any emissive technology that can age is subjust to wear and burn-in is uneven wearing.


Contrary to many claims, Plasma's burn-in. It is just not that easy to do and many confusre IR and burn-on.

However, you know it if you have it










- Rich


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23835203
> 
> 
> I can't wait to see the comments on this article...
> 
> 1) OLED TV does not suffer from motion lag or motion blur as does LCD displays. In fact, OLED technology has the fastest response rate time of any type of display due to utilizing TFT active matrix (AMOLED) technology with the organic light emitting diodes.


There is no panel-based motion blur. There is plenty of persistence-based motion blur due to the OLEDs being sample & hold displays. Even with techniques like scanning the image, ​ does not yet match CRT[/URL] .


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23835203
> 
> 
> 2) OLED TV screens have near perfect viewing angle. OLEDs create light (are emissive) rather than block light. Every pixel is lit independently and that light will be seen from off axis viewing angles easily and accurately, also like plasma TV technology.


This depends on the panel design. Sony's original OLED broadcast monitors were known to have limited viewing angles. ( ​ with the A-series updates[/URL] )


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23835203
> 
> 
> 3) OLED TVs have one solid layer of plexiglass-like material which is extremely thin and light and contains all of the color compounds and TFT material needed. Therefore, the OLED panel is flexible (as in non-breakable) as well.


While the panel may be flexible, that does not necessarily mean it's more difficult to break.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23835203
> 
> 
> 4) OLED televisions utilize slight electric currents to excite a combination of organic phosphorescence encased in a plastic substrate. OLED needs very little power to operate so in theory should last for a very long time as the parts are not taxed significantly. One weakness here is the blue organic LED compound which may die before the red and green compounds.


Considering that OLEDs have the shortest advertised life of any display on sale today, this doesn't seem accurate. For that matter, Plasmas have the longest advertised life, and they have the highest power consumption.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23835203
> 
> 
> 5) OLED TV will be the most energy efficient TV technology ever produced. It takes hardly any power to energize the organic light emitting molecules located in the emissive layer of the substrate.


LED LCDs seem to be showing lower power consumption than OLED.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23835203
> 
> 
> 6) OLED televisions may one day be flexible, cardboard thin and large enough to cover an 9' X 9' wall.


Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows what the future holds.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23835203
> 
> 
> 7) OLEDs response rate is even faster than plasma and there is no motion lag or trailer effect either.


This is just repeating #1


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23835203
> 
> 
> 8) OLED TVs and monitors will have the advantage of no screen burn in.


Since when?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23835203
> 
> 
> 9) Due to superior technological efficiencies in manipulating lighter, simpler carbon based material, generating deeper blacks, brighter whites and all the gray scales in between should be a great strength of OLED.


Black level is certainly good, but they're not nearly as bright as LED LCDs yet, and use an ABL.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23835203
> 
> 
> Disadvatages:
> 
> 1) Price. Development costs are currently too high to economically develop larger screen sizes. But remember, plasma and LCD display technology started there as well.


Price, size, resolution, pixel structure, burn-in, latency...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23836299
> 
> 
> Contrary to many claims, Plasma's burn-in. It is just not that easy to do and many confusre IR and burn-on.


It's easy enough to do.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7260#post_23835203
> 
> 
> I can't wait to see the comments on this article...
> 
> 
> *9 Advantages of OLED TV Technology; Pros and Cons as well as AMOLED TV*
> 
> 
> Source: LCD Buying Guide
> 
> 
> 1) OLED TV does not suffer from motion lag or motion blur as does LCD displays. In fact, OLED technology has the fastest response rate time of any type of display due to utilizing TFT active matrix (AMOLED) technology with the organic light emitting diodes.
> 
> 
> 2) OLED TV screens have near perfect viewing angle. OLEDs create light (are emissive) rather than block light. Every pixel is lit independently and that light will be seen from off axis viewing angles easily and accurately, also like plasma TV technology.
> 
> 
> 3) OLED TVs have one solid layer of plexiglass-like material which is extremely thin and light and contains all of the color compounds and TFT material needed. Therefore, the OLED panel is flexible (as in non-breakable) as well.
> 
> 
> 4) OLED televisions utilize slight electric currents to excite a combination of organic phosphorescence encased in a plastic substrate. OLED needs very little power to operate so in theory should last for a very long time as the parts are not taxed significantly. One weakness here is the blue organic LED compound which may die before the red and green compounds.
> 
> 
> 5) OLED TV will be the most energy efficient TV technology ever produced. It takes hardly any power to energize the organic light emitting molecules located in the emissive layer of the substrate.
> 
> 
> 6) OLED televisions may one day be flexible, cardboard thin and large enough to cover an 9' X 9' wall.
> 
> 
> 7) OLEDs response rate is even faster than plasma and there is no motion lag or trailer effect either.
> 
> 
> 8) OLED TVs and monitors will have the advantage of no screen burn in.
> 
> 
> 9) Due to superior technological efficiencies in manipulating lighter, simpler carbon based material, generating deeper blacks, brighter whites and all the gray scales in between should be a great strength of OLED.
> 
> 
> Disadvatages:
> 
> 1) Price. Development costs are currently too high to economically develop larger screen sizes. But remember, plasma and LCD display technology started there as well.





Newest update from lg samsung oled trade assn:



Oleds cure cancer


----------



## navychop

_"...8) OLED TVs and monitors will have the advantage of no screen burn in...."_



In ten years, maybe. Maybe not. NOT.


----------



## rogo

The panels on the market are not even a little flexible... That is gibberish....


----------



## Rich Peterson

Good news if true:

*OLED TVs Likely to Become Mainstream Sooner than Expected*


Source: BusinessKorea 


OLED TVs are expected to be popularized in the near future.


According to industry sources on October 14, LG Display achieved 60-70% yield in the core production process of large-area OLED panels earlier this month, while Samsung Display recorded 40-50% yield.


When the two Korean companies introduced the world’s first OLED TVs, many said that lowering prices would be difficult due to low yields, thus prompting skepticism about popularization. The launch had no special meaning other than symbolic at that time.


But the era of OLED TVs appears to be coming faster than expected, since domestic display manufacturers’ production yields of large-area OLED panels has improved dramatically.


Kim Young-woo, researcher at HMC Investment Securities, said, “Usually, when the yield rate of OLED TVs reaches 70%, mass production becomes possible. LG and Samsung are projected to surpass the threshold by the end of this year,” adding, “When 70% yield is attained, the price of 55-inch OLED TVs will be 15-20% cheaper. Therefore, they can be competitive in the market.”


However, until 70% yield is attained, some problems will remain. The current yield is still low; hence, OLED TVs cannot be priced like LED TVs. Due to high prices, there is not enough demand for OLED TVs in the market.


According to a market research firm, the demand for large OLED panels in Q1 of next year is forecast to reach less than half of the panel supply in Q4 2013.


----------



## JWhip

Assuming the best, namely 20%, that would make the current Sammy $7,200 which is still way too high for a 55" set. `In another year, that would be $5760 and another year after that $4600. They better get the yields up around 90% or you will be looking at 2017 for the sets to go mainstream, at least at these sizes. I could live with $5600 retail for a 70 inch display but not a 55"


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7260#post_23838014
> 
> 
> Good news if true:
> 
> *OLED TVs Likely to Become Mainstream Sooner than Expected*
> 
> 
> Source: BusinessKorea
> 
> 
> OLED TVs are expected to be popularized in the near future.
> 
> 
> According to industry sources on October 14, LG Display achieved 60-70% yield in the core production process of large-area OLED panels earlier this month, while Samsung Display recorded 40-50% yield.
> 
> 
> When the two Korean companies introduced the world’s first OLED TVs, many said that lowering prices would be difficult due to low yields, thus prompting skepticism about popularization. The launch had no special meaning other than symbolic at that time.
> 
> 
> But the era of OLED TVs appears to be coming faster than expected, since domestic display manufacturers’ production yields of large-area OLED panels has improved dramatically.
> 
> 
> Kim Young-woo, researcher at HMC Investment Securities, said, “Usually, when the yield rate of OLED TVs reaches 70%, mass production becomes possible. LG and Samsung are projected to surpass the threshold by the end of this year,” adding, “When 70% yield is attained, the price of 55-inch OLED TVs will be 15-20% cheaper. Therefore, they can be competitive in the market.”
> 
> 
> However, until 70% yield is attained, some problems will remain. The current yield is still low; hence, OLED TVs cannot be priced like LED TVs. Due to high prices, there is not enough demand for OLED TVs in the market.
> 
> 
> According to a market research firm, the demand for large OLED panels in Q1 of next year is forecast to reach less than half of the panel supply in Q4 2013.




If true that would be good news. However, I would like to know how they jumped from 10% yields to 70% all of a sudden. Until the Chinese start to make them, they will remain high priced niche market.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7260#post_23838014
> 
> 
> Good news if true:
> 
> *OLED TVs Likely to Become Mainstream Sooner than Expected*
> 
> 
> Source: BusinessKorea
> 
> 
> OLED TVs are expected to be popularized in the near future.
> 
> 
> According to industry sources on October 14, LG Display achieved 60-70% yield in the core production process of large-area OLED panels earlier this month, while Samsung Display recorded 40-50% yield.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> “When 70% yield is attained, the price of 55-inch OLED TVs will be 15-20% cheaper. Therefore, they can be competitive in the market.”
> 
> However, until 70% yield is attained, some problems will remain. The current yield is still low; hence, OLED TVs cannot be priced like LED TVs. Due to high prices, there is not enough demand for OLED TVs in the market. According to a market research firm, the demand for large OLED panels in Q1 of next year is forecast to reach less than half of the panel supply in Q4 2013.



While the jump to 70% would be amazing if confirmed, it is steep uphill battle ahead for OLED vs. LCD. Even 15-20% cheaper OLED won't be competitive, 55" size while mainstream is not enough for the premium segment for which 65" is now minimum. This is the reason why forecast for OLED panels is so bleak. On top of this next year will be roaring 4K LCD with OLED left behind again. OLED would have to jump to the 65"[email protected] and at reasonable price to be competitively positioned with LCD.


----------



## KidHorn




> Quote:
> Usually, when the yield rate of OLED TVs reaches 70%, mass production becomes possible



What's so special about 70%? Why can't they mass produce at 60%? or 50%?


----------



## markrubin

here is another link that gives a bit of a different perspective:

http://www.techinvestornews.com/Mobile/Latest-Mobile-News/reports-from-korea-suggest-both-lgd-and-sdc-increased-oled-tv-production-yi 


the difference in this article is the size of the lot: as you can see this refers to pilot lines: this is likely not representative of a mass production yield: to me these articles may not be reliable to predict any breakthroughs just yet...


----------



## tgm1024


Many folks here *completely* underestimated the speed at which 4K progressed.  Perhaps we'll be happily wrong about OLED as well.

 

And IMO it does not matter that there was a dinky Sony OLED screen years ago or that generalized flat panels "have been promised for 10 years."

 

And I'm doubly glad that the gloom and doomers about 4K clobbering OLED outright weren't right.

 

(cue Artwood in 5....4....3....2.... )


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23828321
> 
> 
> Will I notice the difference with the room pitch black? That is the only complaint I have with my ST50, it isn't so black that it disappears when its super dark in the room.



I currently have a 70'' Elite and a 55'' ST60, although the Elite does get's better black levels the ST60 holds it's own very nicely in the dark let me tell you. The ST60 screen get's quite dark in fact enough to give you that Elite feeling very deep inky blacks here I'm not kidding you, it's very close I assure you. I think you will be very pleased especially when you factor in the price vs picture quality.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KidHorn*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7260#post_23838910
> 
> 
> What's so special about 70%? Why can't they mass produce at 60%? or 50%?



Lower yield -> Higher price. As it is stated 70% yield means price lower 15-20%. In $$$ this is still too high but it signals a major breakthrough in manufacturing.


----------



## JWhip

Having seen the Sammy in a dark room, the blacks are very deep, even a shade or 2 darker than my Kuro which has had the blacks reduced by D-Nice. The black bars on my set are almost as black as the bezel. With the Sammy, they would be every bit as black. While I have some issues with the Sammy, the black levels are incredible.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23839199
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7230#post_23828321
> 
> 
> Will I notice the difference with the room pitch black? That is the only complaint I have with my ST50, it isn't so black that it disappears when its super dark in the room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I currently have a 70'' Elite and a 55'' ST60, although the Elite does get's better black levels the ST60 holds it's own very nicely in the dark let me tell you. The ST60 screen get's quite dark in fact enough to give you that Elite feeling very deep inky blacks here I'm not kidding you, it's very close I assure you. I think you will be very pleased especially when you factor in the price vs picture quality.
Click to expand...

 

What did that 70" Sharp Elite cost you??????  Holy moley.


----------



## vinnie97

Yea, I find his recommendations interesting. Don't buy the top of the line plasma (VT/ZT60, retailing at several thousands less than the Sharp) but simultaneously try not to notice the "investment" made in a Sharp 70" Elite.


----------



## KidHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7260#post_23839291
> 
> 
> Lower yield -> Higher price. As it is stated 70% yield means price lower 15-20%. In $$$ this is still too high but it signals a major breakthrough in manufacturing.



I get that, but it doesn't explain why 70% is a magic number. 80% would be an even lower price, so why not state they can't mass produce until they hit 80%?


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7260#post_23839497
> 
> 
> Yea, I find his recommendations interesting. Don't buy the top of the line plasma (VT/ZT60, retailing at several thousands less than the Sharp) but simultaneously try not to notice the "investment" made in a Sharp 70" Elite.



I bought the 70'' Elite when it first came out 2 years ago,







if Panasonic had a Plasma display as good as the ST60 is now at the same price point it would have been another story possibly. I had actually tried a Panasonic VT30 back then but it had issues I couldn't live with, mainly buzzing and fluctuating brightness. I acutely wanted a KURO back then but they were sadly no longer available, so I ended up with the 70'' Sharp Elite. I had actually ordered the 65'' Sony 929 after the VT30 was returned but Sony pushed back the release date on that model and lost my sale, you see it's all about timing.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7260#post_23839378
> 
> 
> What did that 70" Sharp Elite cost you??????  Holy moley.



Good things didn't come cheep back then, if Panasonic had the ST60, ZT60 or VT60 back then well who knows.


----------



## RichB

My OLED plan was to order a 65ZT60 from Robert (the Plasma shootout site) to tide me over.

This way, I won't be tempted until I can get a 75 inch or larger OLED display.










- Rich


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7260#post_23838345
> 
> 
> If true that would be good news. However, I would like to know how they jumped from 10% yields to 70% all of a sudden. Until the Chinese start to make them, they will remain high priced niche market.


So we're waiting on the Chinese to undercut the Koreans? Which theoretically means cheaper superior display tech for the rest of us? Come on Chinese!


----------



## Weboh

I just hope they have durable yields. I have my fingers crossed, that there won't be a need to revive the Plasma TV industry. I don't want a disposable TV, and OLED needs to be at least as durable as a plasma or even, an LCD.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7260#post_23839873
> 
> 
> I bought the 70'' Elite when it first came out 2 years ago,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if Panasonic had a Plasma display as good as the ST60 is now at the same price point it would have been another story possibly. I had actually tried a Panasonic VT30 back then but it had issues I couldn't live with, mainly buzzing and fluctuating brightness. I acutely wanted a KURO back then but they were sadly no longer available, so I ended up with the 70'' Sharp Elite. I had actually ordered the 65'' Sony 929 after the VT30 was returned but Sony pushed back the release date on that model and lost my sale, you see it's all about timing.


Fair enough, but I would not dissuade someone from getting a VT/ZT today if they want the best plasma can provide (even if you feel the benefits over the ST60 are marginal).







Panasonic wasn't on my radar until this year thanks to being spoiled by Kuro actually.


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23839025
> 
> 
> Many folks here _completely_ underestimated the speed at which 4K progressed.  Perhaps we'll be happily wrong about OLED as well.
> 
> 
> And IMO it does not matter that there was a dinky Sony OLED screen years ago or that generalized flat panels "have been promised for 10 years."
> 
> 
> And I'm doubly glad that the gloom and doomers about 4K clobbering OLED outright weren't right.
> 
> 
> (cue Artwood in 5....4....3....2.... )



I didn't realize it had substantively progressed at all...


----------



## Cleveland Plasma

So just before OLED came out a month ago, we had plasma and LED.


---In the future what is the "new" competition going to be for OLED ??


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23840468
> 
> 
> I didn't realize it had substantively progressed at all...


There are 4K LCDs for around $700 now.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23840986
> 
> 
> There are 4K LCDs for around $700 now.


Not sure if it is good progress. A 720p or 900p plasma provides better PQ overall according to some. But Plasma has always had a high framerate.


----------



## rogo

The most expensive 55" 2K display is basically $2500. For a 4K, the bar is about $1000 higher by late next year.


OLED needs to get 70% cheaper. At even $4000, there will be virtually no sales and virtually no scale economics.


Ramping yields on pilot lines is nice, but has little to do with moving to 8G fabs. The parts that are not working out for Samsung and LG will be difficult to scale to 8G and in Samsung's case, almost certainly not scaleable to it at all.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23841605
> 
> 
> Ramping yields on pilot lines is nice, but has little to do with moving to 8G fabs. The parts that are not working out for Samsung and LG will be difficult to scale to 8G and in Samsung's case, almost certainly not scaleable to it at all.



Unless you have some specific information indicating otherwise, the pilot lines are 8G. They are supposedly slicing the substrates into smaller partitions which is going to increase the manufacturing costs, but the initial LTPS/IGZO substrates are 8G.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Ignis' 55" OLED TV samples arrive, company says their technology enables lifetime and efficiency boost*


Source: oledinfo.com 


Last month Ignis Innovation announced that they began producing some 55" OLED TV evaluation samples for display makers to test their MaxLife compensation technology. The company now tells us that the first sample panel arrived at their offices, and they will start fulfilling orders (to display makers and OEMs) in about two weeks.


The company did some initial measurements, and they say that this panel offers the world's lowest power consumption (20% lower than LG and Samsung's current OLED TVs), longest lifetime (a significant boost over existing OLED panels). The panels are highly uniform (much better than the OLED TVs no the market).


The MaxLife external compensation technology continuously measures every pixel in the display and compensates for even the smallest shift in performance (due to burn-in or bad manufacturing issues), making it completely uniform and completely stable. MaxLife can work with a-Si, LTPS and metal-oxide backplanes (the 55" panels produced now use a metal-oxide backplane).


Besides the benefits listed above, Ignis says that MaxLife will improve production yields (and so lower production costs) and also offer an easy migration to high resolutions (UHD) due to the simple pixel design.


Edit:


For those not following the Ignis Innovation technologies, here's a summary:


According to Ignis Innovation their MaxLife technology aims to solve major issues in large area AM-OLED displays namely high cost and low lifetimes:


•High costs are due to low manufacturing yields which is caused by the need for complex pixel circuits to compensate for high levels of non-uniformities patterns known as "mura", resulting in stripes, speckles, or cloudiness in the display

•These non-uniformities are due to the manufacturing process of both the TFT and the OLED

•The current solution is to use complex pixel structures (with multiple TFTs per pixels) known as in-pixel compensation (IPC)

•The complex pixel structure results in a higher manufacturing defects and lower yield

•It is not practical to adopt such an approach for high volume large-area AM-OLED displays

•Achieving 2Kx4K AM-OLED displays will be difficult with the complex pixel circuits

•Adopting a simple solution with high compensation performance is crucial to reduce the cost, increase the capacity with the limited fabrication lines, and achieve higher resolution displays

•AM-OLED displays suffer from image sticking, where images can be permanently burned into the display - caused by the instability of both the TFT and the OLED which is a more serious issue at higher brightness and longer-running display operation


Dr. Reza Chaji, President and CTO, said, "Ignis MaxLife technology offers three major advantages over existing solutions: superb compensation capability for high degree of initial non-uniformity, comprehensive aging compensation, and detailed defect report for repair and tuning." Reza Chaji, added, "Despite its unique offerings, Ignis MaxLife technology provides for a very simple pixel structure leading to even higher manufacturing yield and higher resolution (e.g. 2Kx4K)."


----------



## Cleveland Plasma

^^^ They have an edge, they are FLAT


----------



## markrubin

it seems to me the MaxLife compensation technology would introduce additional lag time for processing...


and it refers to it as MaxLife *external* compensation technology: does that mean an external box?


seems to me if this technology is needed to fix the issues with this display it should be built in to OLED displays: and not further increase prices...


I am not criticizing the technology: I have not seen it: just raising questions


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23843169
> 
> 
> it seems to me the MaxLife compensation technology would introduce additional lag time for processing...
> 
> 
> and it refers to it as MaxLife *external* compensation technology: does that mean an external box?
> 
> 
> seems to me if this technology is needed to fix the issues with this display it should be built in to OLED displays: and not further increase prices...
> 
> 
> I am not criticizing the technology: I have not seen it: just raising questions



I agree. with memory being as cheap as it is, tracking cummulative use per pixel is not difficult.

Of course, if it goes wrong, it will get interesting.










- Rich


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23841818
> 
> 
> Unless you have some specific information indicating otherwise, the pilot lines are 8G. They are supposedly slicing the substrates into smaller partitions which is going to increase the manufacturing costs, but the initial LTPS/IGZO substrates are 8G.



From what I know, none of the hard things are being done at 8G... By "hard things" I mean vapor deposition at LG and the SMS at Samsung. Slicing them into little pieces and then processing them makes things like SMS plausible. Doing it at 8G remains (likely) a dream. As for the vapor deposition, it's apparently harder for LG to get this right than anticipated. Doing it across an entire 8G sheet is going to be tricky.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23844239
> 
> 
> From what I know, none of the hard things are being done at 8G... By "hard things" I mean vapor deposition at LG and the SMS at Samsung. Slicing them into little pieces and then processing them makes things like SMS plausible. Doing it at 8G remains (likely) a dream. As for the vapor deposition, it's apparently harder for LG to get this right than anticipated. Doing it across an entire 8G sheet is going to be tricky.



I think that producing the substrate itself is pretty tricky considering that these are the first Gen 8 sized LTPS and IGZO substrates.


Samsung is slicing the Gen 8 substrates into sixths which is still considerably larger than the Gen 5.5 substrates that they were slicing into fourths while LG is only slicing the substrate in half. You are right that scaling up will still take time but LG's commercial M2 fab is supposed to be run without cutting the substrate. If LG's yields are up to 70% (obviously still a rumor), then I wouldnt be surprised if they are ready to take the next step when the M2 fab starts its commercial ramp.


Everything about the current process is kludgy...from a glass half full standpoint, both companies have a huge number of levers to reduce cost over the next few years.


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23840986
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23840468
> 
> 
> I didn't realize it had substantively progressed at all...
> 
> 
> 
> There are 4K LCDs for around $700 now.
Click to expand...


So what? The operative word there was substantively. Even if they were $200 what would you watch on them?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*
> 
> 
> Many folks here *completely* underestimated the speed at which 4K progressed.  Perhaps we'll be happily wrong about OLED as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23840468
> 
> 
> I didn't realize it had substantively progressed at all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7200_100#post_23840986
> 
> 
> There are 4K LCDs for around $700 now.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23844636
> 
> 
> So what? The operative word there was substantively. Even if they were $200 what would you watch on them?


 

The statement of mine you originally responded to was "Many folks here *completely* underestimated the speed at which 4K progressed."  A few operative words there.  And we *are* far past where many thought we'd be right now: We have 4K TV's for sensible prices that came out fairly quickly.  And HDMI 2.0 solidified.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23842253
> 
> 
> The MaxLife external compensation technology continuously measures every pixel in the display and compensates for even the smallest shift in performance (due to burn-in or bad manufacturing issues), making it completely uniform and completely stable.



I have a hard time seeing how this tech can work in practice. Do they have an optical sensor behind every pixel that "continuously measures every pixel"? How else could they detect and compensate for initial manufacturing defects? Also, the early OLED research papers showed a very non-linear wear curve so I don't know how accurate a purely predictive method would be - it might incorrectly compensate in cases where no correction is necessary.


I would also echo the concern about processing lag. It's pretty bad already. Maybe Samsung and LG are already doing some of this wear compensation?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23845216
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23842253
> 
> 
> The MaxLife external compensation technology continuously measures every pixel in the display and compensates for even the smallest shift in performance (due to burn-in or bad manufacturing issues), making it completely uniform and completely stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a hard time seeing how this tech can work in practice. Do they have an optical sensor behind every pixel that "continuously measures every pixel"? How else could they detect and compensate for initial manufacturing defects?
Click to expand...

 

All electronics have known electrical characteristics measurable on the way in and out.  These characteristics will change with heat, life span, resistance, capacitance, light output, harsh language and dog drool.

 

I'm being glib, but it's no major stretch to have the wear be entirely electrically detected with enormous accuracy.  Something producing light during it's lifespan would absolutely not have the same electrical characteristics as when brand new, and I'm betting such things are predictable.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23844636
> 
> 
> So what? The operative word there was substantively. Even if they were $200 what would you watch on them?


Well my PC is already rendering games at 4K and beyond internally, would support 4K on the desktop which would be a significant benefit, and will upscale any video to 4K. Everything I already use my current TV for would benefit from 4K.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23845110
> 
> 
> The statement of mine you originally responded to was "Many folks here _completely_ underestimated the speed at which 4K progressed." A few operative words there. And we _are_ far past where many thought we'd be right now: We have 4K TV's for sensible prices that came out fairly quickly. And HDMI 2.0 solidified.


We might be hearing about a 4K disc format some time in the not too distant future as well (CES is not that far off now) and _I suspect_ it won't have the Blu-ray branding attached to it..


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23845318
> 
> 
> Well my PC is already rendering games at 4K and beyond internally, would support 4K on the desktop which would be a significant benefit, and will upscale any video to 4K. Everything I already use my current TV for would benefit from 4K.
> 
> We might be hearing about a 4K disc format some time in the not too distant future as well (CES is not that far off now) and _I suspect_ it won't have the Blu-ray branding attached to it..



What a disaster if it leaves off the BluRay branding....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23844572
> 
> 
> I think that producing the substrate itself is pretty tricky considering that these are the first Gen 8 sized LTPS and IGZO substrates.



True enough.


> Quote:
> Everything about the current process is kludgy...from a glass half full standpoint, both companies have a huge number of levers to reduce cost over the next few years.



Which is good because they need to reduce cost by at least 70%.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Here's an interesting quote from koreaittimes 


> Quote:
> According to industry sources, LG Electronics is reviewing the idea of lowering the price of its 55 inch OLED TV (flat panel model) from the current 9.9 million won to 6 million won at the end of this year.



That would be a change from about $9300 to about $5600.


And at the same time there's this article from Reuters saying:


> Quote:
> South Korea's LG Display Co Ltd warned that fourth-quarter profit will not match the third due to falling TV panel prices and it will counter that downtrend by pushing out bigger-ticket products such as ultra high-definition panels.


----------



## JWhip

That tells me that they aren't selling many at all at the current price.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23845769
> 
> 
> Here's an interesting quote from koreaittimes
> 
> That would be a change from about $9300 to about $5600.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think they could drop the price to a buck and it wouldn't change their sales figures currently
> 
> 
> 
> judging from the sammy and lg oled owners threads here, very in home reports to date


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23845318
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23844636
> 
> 
> So what? The operative word there was substantively. Even if they were $200 what would you watch on them?
> 
> 
> 
> Well my PC is already rendering games at 4K and beyond internally, would support 4K on the desktop which would be a significant benefit, and will upscale any video to 4K. Everything I already use my current TV for would benefit from 4K.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23845110
> 
> 
> The statement of mine you originally responded to was "Many folks here _completely_ underestimated the speed at which 4K progressed." A few operative words there. And we _are_ far past where many thought we'd be right now: We have 4K TV's for sensible prices that came out fairly quickly. And HDMI 2.0 solidified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We might be hearing about a 4K disc format some time in the not too distant future as well (CES is not that far off now) and _I suspect_ it won't have the Blu-ray branding attached to it..
Click to expand...


Upscaling is a nice feature, but I don't think it's enough to get people to start considering 4K displays. Hopefully the other factors you posted will quicken the pace(crossing fingers)...


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23845251
> 
> 
> All electronics have known electrical characteristics measurable on the way in and out.  These characteristics will change with heat, life span, resistance, capacitance, light output, harsh language and dog drool.
> 
> 
> I'm being glib, but it's no major stretch to have the wear be entirely electrically detected with enormous accuracy.  Something producing light during it's lifespan would absolutely not have the same electrical characteristics as when brand new, and I'm betting such things are predictable.



As I'm sure you're aware, there are % tolerances on all electrical components. This makes it hard to apply a hard rule on a device that could contain ~8 million pixels. Even if you were to display the exact same RGBA on every pixel, I suspect it will eventually develop non-uniform response across areas of the screen. The only way to combat this would be through some type of feedback. They seem to imply having such feedback with their comment about "continuously measures every pixel". I just wish they provided more detail. I've seen several high-end LCD monitors that have similar compensation for backlight non-uniformity and the results are very poor in practice.


Done incorrectly, wear compensation does more harm than good. Just look at the craziness that ensued over Panasonic plasma's "rising blacks" issue a few years ago.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23846285
> 
> 
> That tells me that they aren't selling many at all at the current price.



I suspect they're barely selling _any_. It's just really expensive for something that's marginally superior to existing products and lacks the snob appeal or visceral "superiority" of a luxury automobile.


This idea commonly espoused here that the world is raft with wealthy people who just spend any amount of money on anything is not borne out in reality. Things like the Maybach flat out failed because the price:value equation was off, not because the car itself was bad. I live within a few thousand feet of two of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country and have seen two Maybachs ever on the road, for example. Ferraris, on the other hand, are hardly an unusual sighting.


When the pricing moves into the "this is a luxury good that is reasonable" range, they can begin to capture 1-3% of the market. Of course, that market is tricky to define. If you are looking at "high end 55+ inch TVs", you are looking at maybe a 3-5 million unit market (out of a sub-20 million unit 55" TV market). You can see the problem here: Even at 5% of that, the entire demand globally would


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> From what I know, none of the hard things are being done at 8G...



Not right. LG uses 8G pilot-line with Oxide-TFT, Samsung 6G with LTPS. There is a reason why LG can showed a 77" UHD-OLED-TV at the last IFA and planned more and bigger sizes and Samsung currently stick with the 55" size.

http://www.kdbdw.com/bbs/download/171949.pdf?attachmentId=171949 


47"
http://digital.orf.at/modules/produkte/ausgabe_receiver_detail.php?pr_id=1467 


75"
http://digital.orf.at/modules/produkte/ausgabe_receiver_detail.php?pr_id=1470


----------



## hungro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7260#post_23838107
> 
> 
> Assuming the best, namely 20%, that would make the current Sammy $7,200 which is still way too high for a 55" set. `In another year, that would be $5760 and another year after that $4600. They better get the yields up around 90% or you will be looking at 2017 for the sets to go mainstream, at least at these sizes. I could live with $5600 retail for a 70 inch display but not a 55"



Over five grand is way too much for a 55 ". Any other OLED TV coming out better be uhd as well.


----------



## JWhip

I agree, which I why as interested as I am in seeing these sets, which I now have, I will be waiting for a few years before seriously considering one.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23849540
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23845251
> 
> 
> All electronics have known electrical characteristics measurable on the way in and out.  These characteristics will change with heat, life span, resistance, capacitance, light output, harsh language and dog drool.
> 
> 
> I'm being glib, but it's no major stretch to have the wear be entirely electrically detected with enormous accuracy.  Something producing light during it's lifespan would absolutely not have the same electrical characteristics as when brand new, and I'm betting such things are predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I'm sure you're aware, there are % tolerances on all electrical components. This makes it hard to apply a hard rule on a device that could contain ~8 million pixels. Even if you were to display the exact same RGBA on every pixel, I suspect it will eventually develop non-uniform response across areas of the screen. The only way to combat this would be through some type of feedback. They seem to imply having such feedback with their comment about "continuously measures every pixel". I just wish they provided more detail. I've seen several high-end LCD monitors that have similar compensation for backlight non-uniformity and the results are very poor in practice.
> 
> 
> Done incorrectly, wear compensation does more harm than good. Just look at the craziness that ensued over Panasonic plasma's "rising blacks" issue a few years ago.
Click to expand...

 

No you're talking about things measuring the aggregate effects, which I'll grant you is akin to doing brain surgery with a vice grip.  What I'm talking about is finer tuned than that.  *Every single subpixel is already addressable* (to some extent) with it's own electronic feed, even if it takes row and column lines to specify it.  There are already electronics to deliver precisely the right voltage to precisely the sub pixel.  I don't believe the electronics for measuring the lines is particularly complicated.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7290#post_23849540
> 
> 
> As I'm sure you're aware, there are % tolerances on all electrical components. This makes it hard to apply a hard rule on a device that could contain ~8 million pixels. Even if you were to display the exact same RGBA on every pixel, I suspect it will eventually develop non-uniform response across areas of the screen. The only way to combat this would be through some type of feedback. They seem to imply having such feedback with their comment about "continuously measures every pixel". I just wish they provided more detail. I've seen several high-end LCD monitors that have similar compensation for backlight non-uniformity and the results are very poor in practice.
> 
> 
> Done incorrectly, wear compensation does more harm than good. Just look at the craziness that ensued over Panasonic plasma's "rising blacks" issue a few years ago.



I think we are talking about an order of magnitude difference between pixel tolerance and burn-in due to long term wear.

A TV could use ram to accumulate statistics and save then non-volatile storage when powered down.


What Panasonic did was drive the televisions as very low levels (probably to achieve better reviews) and then up them to make sure the panels were stable.


The proposed feature is designed to keep them working as new as long as possible.


- Rich


----------



## xrox

I can only imagine that "burn-in" or "pixel wear" compensation is done via signal monitoring and pre-programmed look-up tables. No need for pixel measuring circuits IIRC.


Non-uniformities originating in the TFT is another story. Compensation circuits are needed and are costly.


This is all from my memory from a few years ago so things may have changed.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23850879
> 
> 
> I can only imagine that "burn-in" or "pixel wear" compensation is done via signal monitoring and pre-programmed look-up tables. No need for pixel measuring circuits IIRC.
> 
> 
> Non-uniformities originating in the TFT is another story. Compensation circuits are needed and are costly.
> 
> 
> This is all from my memory from a few years ago so things may have changed.


 

Given that what has to happen to translate a pile of bits into a discrete voltage (a digital amp basically) for each sub-pixel, measuring the line in and out can't possibly be that complicated.  It's not as though this would require 24 million chunks of monitoring electronics.  I just can't imagine this being difficult given some of the memory controllers I've seen.  In the case of a TV display, I believe you basically have an address (a coordinate system for the subpixel), a voltage, and measure the results of applying that voltage to that address.

 

I'll have to see the design details to know for sure what's happening.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23850944
> 
> 
> Given that what has to happen to translate a pile of bits into a discrete voltage (a digital amp basically) for each sub-pixel, measuring the line in and out can't possibly be that complicated.  It's not as though this would require 24 million chunks of monitoring electronics.  I just can't imagine this being difficult given some of the memory controllers I've seen.  In the case of a TV display, I believe you basically have an address (a coordinate system for the subpixel), a voltage, and measure the results of applying that voltage to that address.
> 
> 
> I'll have to see the design details to know for sure what's happening.



At some point in the digital processing, you have an RGB value for each pixel.

So, maybe it would be easier at that time. Sampling is very accurate.


- Rich


----------



## xrox

Ignis tech looks like a simple voltage compensation via signal processing. Time and/or current density is probably tracked from the signal processing step and the compensated voltages are calculated. No measurement is taken AFAIK. That would be way too expensive and complicated. But I may be wrong.

http://www.oled-info.com/ignis-demonstrates-their-maxlife-external-compensation-technology 


Uniformity compensation of the backplane issues is much more difficult.


----------



## tgm1024


 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23850994
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23850944
> 
> 
> Given that what has to happen to translate a pile of bits into a discrete voltage (a digital amp basically) for each sub-pixel, measuring the line in and out can't possibly be that complicated.  It's not as though this would require 24 million chunks of monitoring electronics.  I just can't imagine this being difficult given some of the memory controllers I've seen.  In the case of a TV display, I believe you basically have an address (a coordinate system for the subpixel), a voltage, and measure the results of applying that voltage to that address.
> 
> 
> I'll have to see the design details to know for sure what's happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point in the digital processing, you have an RGB value for each pixel.
> 
> So, maybe it would be easier at that time. Sampling is very accurate.
Click to expand...

 

Sort of.  The issue always turns into a digital to analog converter of sorts (the digital amp comment I made).

 

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23851069
> 
> 
> Ignis tech looks like a simple voltage compensation via signal processing. Time and/or current density is probably tracked from the signal processing step and the compensated voltages are calculated. No measurement is taken AFAIK. That would be way too expensive and complicated. But I may be wrong.
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/ignis-demonstrates-their-maxlife-external-compensation-technology
> 
> 
> Uniformity compensation of the backplane issues is much more difficult.


 

Thanks for that.  Maybe that's what they're doing.  But........I'm not sure.  You can draw more than one conclusion about what's going on from that video.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23851355
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of.  The issue always turns into a digital to analog converter of sorts (the digital amp comment I made).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that.  Maybe that's what they're doing.  But........I'm not sure.  You can draw more than one conclusion about what's going on from that video.


I checked the intellectual property on this topic and there is a good chance you are correct. Unlike the statements in that article about tracking usage through signal processing (which is known) the Ignis IP suggests a dedicated measurement circuit on each pixel. This may be novel (hence IP) but I'm not sure what is in the actual product they are marketing.


----------



## PCD

55" Sammy & 55" LG OLED on Best Buy Canada website, available for pre-order, Delivery Oct 31. Around $10,000.00 CDN each. hey, it's a start










Click the picture of the TV for details

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/category/oled-tvs/32098.aspx?icmp=home_specials4_20131018_OLEDTV_en 


Wow, I just noticed there are only 3 left for Ontario (my province)...big production run

















EDIT: Looks like 2 per province & territory, at least from Best Buy, so 22 of each for Canada and maybe double that if Future Shop is selling them as well (same parent company).

EDIT2: Corrected manufacturer.


----------



## rogo

Obviously, you meant Samsung, not Panasonic. Just clarifying.


----------



## PCD

Yes, thank you for the correction.


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PCD*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23852672
> 
> 
> 55" Sammy & 55" LG OLED on Best Buy Canada website, available for pre-order, Delivery Oct 31. Around $10,000.00 CDN each. hey, it's a start
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click the picture of the TV for details
> 
> http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/category/oled-tvs/32098.aspx?icmp=home_specials4_20131018_OLEDTV_en
> 
> 
> Wow, I just noticed there are only 3 left for Ontario (my province)...big production run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: Looks like 2 per province & territory, at least from Best Buy, so 22 of each for Canada and maybe double that if Future Shop is selling them as well (same parent company).
> 
> EDIT2: Corrected manufacturer.



I preordered the Sammy! Can't wait. Just a week and a half to go.


Really looking forward to test out the 3D performance as well.


----------



## PCD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23855373
> 
> 
> I preordered the Sammy! Can't wait. Just a week and a half to go.
> 
> 
> Really looking forward to test out the 3D performance as well.



Very nice. I hope you can find the time to post your impressions and some pic's.


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PCD*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23863146
> 
> 
> Very nice. I hope you can find the time to post your impressions and some pic's.



yeah for sure. If there are issues with OLED, I will find them. I can't help but find every tiny defect or abnormality in a display. I see things that most people never notice. I can't even use plasma because of the rainbows/fringing, dithering, and flicker. I will run motion tests, etc. The only thing I've liked about LCD in the past was how "clean" it looked when not in motion. The whites, and lack of dithering/pixel noise presented an image that was very smooth and easy on the eyes. Of course the blur and smearing ruins LCD for me. I've been mainly watching LCOS projectors which have much better motion then LCD flat panels but I can't help try out OLED as this has been a dream come true for me. Perfect blacks.


----------



## tgm1024


^It's still conceivable for light to leak *sideways* to the areas occupying the off OLEDs.


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23863890
> 
> 
> ^It's still conceivable for light to leak _sideways_ to the areas occupying the off OLEDs.



No, it's not. Each pixel is completely self contained and produces it's own light independant of the pixels around it. Each pixel also emits light straight ahead, and thats why you get viewing angles that are plasma like. So there will be no light leaking anywhere


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23864817
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23863890
> 
> 
> ^It's still conceivable for light to leak *sideways* to the areas occupying the off OLEDs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. Each pixel is completely self contained and produces it's own light independant of the pixels around it. Each pixel also emits light straight ahead, and thats why you get viewing angles that are plasma like. So there will be no light leaking anywhere
Click to expand...

 

No, if the light merely emitted straight ahead, you'd have viewing angles close to a 0% off of dead center.  In fact if it were truly straight ahead, it would be like being at the screen of a movie theater looking up at the projector lens.  

 

They aren't just thin film luminescents hanging in air either: there's glass or plastic on top of them.  That must produce at least some scattering and reflection effect.

 

There's another problem too by the way, though I think I only heard about it with the prototypes: There were reports of the blacks being "shiny".  This was presumably a result of the outside light penetrating through and striking the off OLED directly forming a spectral reflection.


----------



## Pres2play

^^^I can confirm there is a slight glow to text and images when there's a black background, but I think it's normal to see this...it is a light source after all.


Blacks are not shiny on my OLED with the room lights on. But with the set turned off, the screen is very reflective...weird.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*
> 
> ^^^I can confirm there is a slight glow to text and images when there's a black background, but I think it's normal to see this...it is a light source after all.



Based upon the Flatspanelhd review of the LG 15EL9500 a while back one would expect that there is no glow whatsoever. I guess that future generations will improve in this regard.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1289487180


----------



## Pres2play

I think we're talking about a tiny amount of stray light that you might see with the naked eye. Here's a picture of a white dot on my Samsung. Even though the OLED pixels around it are completely off, I still can detect a miniscule trace of gray around the image that I can't capture with my camera.

 


Really nothing to complain about when you see your TV disappear into blackness (see my cable box clock lit in the right bottom corner).

 


Then you get images like this one, and you're sold on OLED...


----------



## JimP

Pres2play


Any idea what peak white measures using a 10% windows pattern?


Come to think of it, has anyone compared window to full screen patterns on these displays?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23865593
> 
> 
> ^^^I can confirm there is a slight glow to text and images when there's a black background, but I think it's normal to see this...it is a light source after all.
> 
> 
> Blacks are not shiny on my OLED with the room lights on. But with the set turned off, the screen is very reflective...weird.


 

I'm certainly glad to hear about not having shiny blacks!  A >phew
 

And with the set turned off, a reflective screen is from the surface of the facing glass, not the off OLED.  I'm curious about the details of this though and will bring a flashlight with me to BB/Mag next time.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23866545
> 
> 
> I think we're talking about a tiny amount of stray light that you might see with the naked eye. Here's a picture of a white dot on my Samsung. Even though the OLED pixels around it are completely off, I still can detect a miniscule trace of gray around the image that I can't capture with my camera.




I was mistaken. I've learned that OLED pixels scatter their light in multiple directions. I guess this accounts for the glow that I mentioned and has nothing to do with leakage or stray light.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23869937
> 
> 
> I was mistaken. I've learned that OLED pixels scatter their light in multiple directions. I guess this accounts for the glow that I mentioned and has nothing to do with leakage or stray light.



I wonder what effect this has on ANSI contrast. One of the issues with CRTs was that while they had awesome on/off contrast, their ANSI contrast was horrendous due to light reflecting and scattering on the front glass. The OLED effect seems much more localized and would probably not be measurable on the traditional ANSI checkerboard. Maybe they need to devise a new test pattern.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23869937
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23866545
> 
> 
> I think we're talking about a tiny amount of stray light that you might see with the naked eye. Here's a picture of a white dot on my Samsung. Even though the OLED pixels around it are completely off, I still can detect a miniscule trace of gray around the image that I can't capture with my camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was mistaken. I've learned that OLED pixels scatter their light in multiple directions. I guess this accounts for the glow that I mentioned and has nothing to do with leakage or stray light.
Click to expand...

 

No, not quite.  I believe you're confusing two issues.  At least for this part anyway.

 

If you look at something sharp and in every way well defined on your desk.  With no glow or any form of hazyness that strays past the well defined lines of the object.  Its light *is still sent out in all directions* or else there'd be places surrounding your desk where that object would suddenly vanish from sight.

 

This is not the same phenomenon.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23870026
> 
> 
> I wonder what effect this has on ANSI contrast. One of the issues with CRTs was that while they had awesome on/off contrast, their ANSI contrast was horrendous due to light reflecting and scattering on the front glass. The OLED effect seems much more localized and would probably not be measurable on the traditional ANSI checkerboard. Maybe they need to devise a new test pattern.


A good chunk of CRT floating black was due to electron backscattering.


----------



## tgm1024


It's a good discussion, but I want to clarify that I'm mostly commenting on what was conceivable, not quite so much what was already observed regarding "perfect blacks".

 

I'm not of the opinion that it'll be a pronounced effect.  Actually, I'm not sure either way, but that said, there's an issue of to what degree this is merely a pondering in physics.  True, as light wanders along, any change in the medium's density (as when encountering glass or plastic) does cause refraction and changes in blur-like scatter, but the bottom line is whether or not it'll ever matter.

 

The calibrators I've read here often revel in measuring absurdly low amount of light coming from purportedly black screens.  Perhaps they'll see stuff scattering and glowing, etc., etc., as time goes on.  Particularly when the OLED's start being made ever cheaper for an ever cheaper market.


----------



## xrox

Aside from the internal glass reflections dispersion that all displays will have there are technology specific causes like CRT electron backscattering.


I had a paper on this at one point but can't seem to find it. From what I remember OLED potentially can be the best at blooming/light leakage depending on design,


Local dimming LCD is by far the worst for obvious reasons. CRT as discussed was also very bad. In both cases the blacks literally float with APL.


PDP also has leakage to adjacent cells as the cells were open to each other through the top of the ribs on on two sides.


IIRC if the OLED design is a monolayer then there may be significant leakage. If the EL layers are discrete and encased then leakage could be very minimal.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23870753
> 
> 
> Aside from the internal glass reflections dispersion that all displays will have there are technology specific causes like CRT electron backscattering.
> 
> 
> I had a paper on this at one point but can't seem to find it. From what I remember OLED potentially can be the best at blooming/light leakage depending on design,
> 
> 
> Local dimming LCD is by far the worst for obvious reasons. CRT as discussed was also very bad. In both cases the blacks literally float with APL.
> 
> 
> PDP also has leakage to adjacent cells as the cells were open to each other through the top of the ribs on on two sides.
> 
> 
> IIRC if the OLED design is a monolayer then there may be significant leakage. If the EL layers are discrete and encased then leakage could be very minimal.


 

Maybe that sidewall encasement limits viewing angle?  I'm curious if it's impossible to have the best of both worlds so long as there's anything between the light source and me.  Makes me wonder if we'll have sturdy but otherwise uncovered OLEDs someday, or somehow lumpy ones (enclosed in their own micro lens that limits side scatter.  All interesting stuff.


----------



## Pres2play

^^^That's exactly what I'm noticing. The screen blooms with bright, white text on black backgrounds, and you don't need test patterns to see this.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23871075
> 
> 
> ^^^That's exactly what I'm noticing. The screen blooms with bright, white text on black backgrounds, and you don't need test patterns to see this.


 

Can you do me a favor?  Try to draw a small white box on a black background.  Try to cover up the left edge of the white box with a solidly opaque but sharply edged black object.  (construction paper?)

 

How bad do you see the blooming out the left?  Can you give a sense as to how it "seems"?  Does it go away entirely once you block the pixel straight (over the pixel).  Does it bloom a pixel width?  A sub pixel width?  (Etc.)  It'll be difficult.

 

Beats me if this is in the "wrong" category or not.  I understand scattering to some extent, but mostly just trying to learn as much as I can.

 

I'd love it if the heavy hitting ISF guys chimed in here.


----------



## JWhip

I have seen the blooming on this set. If may just be the way the eye works, with the white being so bright against a black background that it causes the eye to perceive the blooming, sort of the effect of looking into a set of bright headlights. The brightness on this set is rather intense. It would be interesting to see if it is still there if that white object is completely covered. I didn't think of doing that when I tested the set. Frankly, I have been too busy to run up the Robert's to play with the set again. Maybe on my next visit. If it is the result of the way the eye works, not much you can do about it.


----------



## 8mile13




----------



## tgm1024




 

...I don't see what the big deal is...


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23871140
> 
> 
> Can you do me a favor?  Try to draw a small white box on a black background.  Try to cover up the left edge of the white box with a solidly opaque but sharply edged black object.  (construction paper?)
> 
> 
> How bad do you see the blooming out the left?  Can you give a sense as to how it "seems"?  Does it go away entirely once you block the pixel straight (over the pixel).  Does it bloom a pixel width?  A sub pixel width?  (Etc.)  It'll be difficult.
> 
> 
> Beats me if this is in the "wrong" category or not.  I understand scattering to some extent, but mostly just trying to learn as much as I can.
> 
> 
> I'd love it if the heavy hitting ISF guys chimed in here.



Interesting, never thought of just covering a portion of the bright text. I'll cover the text with a piece of black poster board when I get home, and observe the effect. If light is truly scattering from the OLED pixel, this should stop it from reaching the off pixels.


----------



## JimP

Don' t overlook the possibility of having cataracts. You'll get the same effect.


Also clean your glasses if you wear them. Camera lenses too.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23872571
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23871140
> 
> 
> Can you do me a favor?  Try to draw a small white box on a black background.  Try to cover up the left edge of the white box with a solidly opaque but sharply edged black object.  (construction paper?)
> 
> 
> How bad do you see the blooming out the left?  Can you give a sense as to how it "seems"?  Does it go away entirely once you block the pixel straight (over the pixel).  Does it bloom a pixel width?  A sub pixel width?  (Etc.)  It'll be difficult.
> 
> 
> Beats me if this is in the "wrong" category or not.  I understand scattering to some extent, but mostly just trying to learn as much as I can.
> 
> 
> I'd love it if the heavy hitting ISF guys chimed in here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, never thought of just covering a portion of the bright text. I'll cover the text with a piece of black poster board when I get home, and observe the effect. If light is truly scattering from the OLED pixel, this should stop it from reaching the off pixels.
Click to expand...

 

No, because the scattering occurs under and within the glass.  What this *might* do is show you what is happening in your eyes vs. on the display.  By the way, I forgot: also try covering the off pixels right up to (but not covering the lit up ones).  If it's entirely in the eye, the glare will appear up and over the posterboard.

 

This whole thing might be too tight and too faint to tell though.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23872656
> 
> 
> No, because the scattering occurs under and within the glass.  What this *might* do is show you what is happening in your eyes vs. on the display.  By the way, I forgot: also try covering the off pixels right up to (but not covering the lit up ones).  If it's entirely in the eye, the glare will appear up and over the posterboard.
> 
> 
> This whole thing might be too tight and too faint to tell though.



Good point.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23872648
> 
> 
> Don' t overlook the possibility of having cataracts. You'll get the same effect.
> 
> 
> Also clean your glasses if you wear them. Camera lenses too.



I will ask my son to have a look. I will try a few captures, too.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Another reviewer praises the Samsung OLED. This time it's Geoffrey Morrison, in an article in Forbes . He doesn't like the curve or the price, but he says:


> Quote:
> The KN55S9C is as close to a perfect television as I’ve seen.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23874928
> 
> 
> Another reviewer praises the Samsung OLED. This time it's Geoffrey Morrison, in an article in Forbes . He doesn't like the curve or the price, but he says:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> The KN55S9C is as close to a perfect television as I’ve seen.
Click to expand...

 



Just a rant.  Can the TV industry simplify their model numbers already?  {size}{letters}{model number} works great.

 

That above is nuts to visually parse.  S looks like 5.  letter/number/letter/number/letter good grief.  And there's an AFXCA suffix too.  Oye.


----------



## Pres2play

  

 


With first two letters covered...

 

 


With white text covered. (Actually, a white test pattern was covered, below, to show only the off pixels, which are on the left)

 


With off pixels covered...(same white test pattern on the right side)

 


EDIT: The last two images are actually pictures of a video test pattern, and the pattern is much larger than the text images. This makes it easier to see the "glow" that I mentioned.


----------



## GeoffreyMorrison




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23875055
> 
> 
> 
> Just a rant.  Can the TV industry simplify their model numbers already?  {size}{letters}{model number} works great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That above is nuts to visually parse.  S looks like 5.  letter/number/letter/number/letter good grief.  And there's an AFXCA suffix too.  Oye.



They're actually pretty easy, once you know the code. I wrote this last year, but the basics are still sound:
CNET - What HDTV Model Numbers Mean


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GeoffreyMorrison*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23876795
> 
> 
> They're actually pretty easy, once you know the code. I wrote this last year, but the basics are still sound:
> CNET - What HDTV Model Numbers Mean


A correction:


> Quote:
> Sony KDL-40EX640
> 
> KDL: Display type/product category. LCD in this case, though you'll also see XBR for the high-end. "VPL" is its front projector prefix.
> 
> 40: Size
> 
> EX: Series. Right now EX, BX, and HX.
> 
> 640: Generally, year. For example, the HX929 is the 2011 model, the HX950 is the 2012 model. Due to carry-overs and other factors, this isn't a steadfast rule. Also, different models get released at different times during the year, so there's no easy "5"


The two letters are the series, the first digit is where the set ranks in it. E.g. HX9 is higher-end than HX8.

The middle digit is somewhat ambiguous. Originally it was supposed to be 0 = 2010, 1 = 2011, 2 = 2012, but they don't seem to have stuck with it.

The last digit is the region. 0 = Japan, 9 = USA, 3 = United Kingdom, 5 = Europe. (I'm fairly sure those are correct)

XBR is a US-only thing.



Even if you can decipher what they mean, I don't think most model numbers are very good. For one thing, why not just use the year in the model number, rather than 30/50/60 etc. like Panasonic do, or a single digit like Sony use, which is only good for 10 years.


----------



## 8mile13

You should really check out each and every european country to get to the bottom of this..


UK HX953

Netherlands HX950

Germany HX955

etc..


----------



## greenland

"Great news for LG TV fans around the world: UBI Research test results find LG CURVED OLED TV (55EA9800) outperforming and superior than Samsung’s Curved OLED TV (KN55S9) in many aspects."

http://whylgtv.lge.com/archives/6057 



"A Look Inside

The first comparison was made on the internal structure of each TV with the view to evaluate design optimization and mass production readiness.


Inside, LG CURVED OLED TV had its circuitry compactly integrated in the middle rear of the panel, whereas Samsung’s panel showed tangled circuits and a complicated layout, ultimately affecting its weight and size. In terms of number of components, Samsung uses a total of 3,382 components with 226 screws of 17 different kinds, whereas LG’s CURVED OLED TV incorporates 952 components with 121 screws of ten different varieties. In addition, the actual components used in Samsung’s Curved OLED TV are much larger, resulting in a circuitry that is 36 percent larger and a power board that is 56 percent larger than those used by LG. Overall, side-by-side comparison found Samsung ‘bulkier’ and heavier and considered the end product lacking in optimized design versus the compact size of the LG TV’s internal components entirely suitable for mass production."






"Product specifications LG Samsung

Number of circuit components 952 3382

Number of screws 121 226

Thickness 4.3 mm 12.5 mm

Weight 17.2 kg 32.8 kg

Side bezel 11 mm 15 mm

Top and bottom bezel 13 mm 17 mm

Energy efficiency rating Level 3 Level 4

Curvature 5000R 4500R

Set slope 2 degrees 3.5 degrees"


Interesting claims by LG. I wonder will it allow them to be able to slash prices on their OLED TVs faster than Samsung will be able to?


----------



## tgm1024


"A thinner bezel is perceived to be less distracting, thereby enhancing an immersive viewing experience."

 

What a crock.


----------



## schnura

Samsung has been more successful in slashing the OLED price, coming out of the gate at $9,000 and LG is playing catch up at $10,000.


I would have thought a larger power supply and components would be considered a good thing. High performance scaling, processing and de-interlacing requires more circuitry, beefier power supplies and a more complex electrical design and components. Seems incorrect to criticize a company for building a more elaborate electrical design.


I'd be more focused and interested in the picture quality differences. I understand LG uses all white OLEDs with red/green/blue filters and Samsung uses dedicated red green, blue and white OLEDs. Not sure which technology is better, but it would be good to see an a/b comparison.


----------



## JWhip

I don't give a damn about how many components are in the set, how thick or thin the bezel is, how much it weighs, etc. I am concerned about two things over all else, namely picture quality, reliabity and cost. I found that research puff piece to be a waste of time.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *schnura*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23878270
> 
> 
> Samsung has been more successful in slashing the OLED price, coming out of the gate at $9,000 and LG is playing catch up at $10,000.
> 
> 
> I would have thought a larger power supply and components would be considered a good thing. High performance scaling, processing and de-interlacing requires more circuitry, beefier power supplies and a more complex electrical design and components. Seems incorrect to criticize a company for building a more elaborate electrical design.
> 
> 
> I'd be more focused and interested in the picture quality differences. I understand LG uses all white OLEDs with red/green/blue filters and Samsung uses dedicated red green, blue and white OLEDs. Not sure which technology is better, but it would be good to see an a/b comparison.


Plus, Samsung's OLED has *much better* off-axis viewing than LG's OLED technology which is a BIG plus in my eyes!

(That's per a really nice article comparing the two OLED technologies in the November issue of S&V magazine,...that issue also has in depth reviews of the LG & Samsung OLED displays).

Worth picking it up!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23878392
> 
> 
> I don't give a damn about how many components are in the set, how thick or thin the bezel is, how much it weighs, etc. I am concerned about two things over all else, namely picture quality, reliabity and cost. I found that research puff piece to be a waste of time.


 

I did too, and I don't care about any of the following within reason (and everything is within reason these days): bezel, weight, component number.  And especially not the number of friggen screws


----------



## 8mile13

 http://whylgtv.lge.com/archives/6057 

Samsung OLED according LG -> snapshot of an ''independent'' review.

Thickness - 12.5mm

Side bezel - 15mm

Top and bottom bezel - 17mm

Weight - 32.8kg

Energy efficiency rating - 295W

http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/KN55S9CAFXZA-specs 

Samsung OLED according Samsung

W x H x D without stand - 55.8''x 30.6' 'x 5.3''

W x H x D with stand - 55.8'' x 30.6'' x 14.2''

Weight without stand - 27.2 kg ( 60.0 lb)

Weight with stand - 30.9 kg ( 68.1 lb)

Typical power consumption - 135W

Maximum power consumption - 300W


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23878413
> 
> 
> I did too, and I don't care about any of the following within reason (and everything is within reason these days): bezel, weight, component number.  And especially not the number of friggen screws


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23878561
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23878413
> 
> 
> I did too, and I don't care about any of the following within reason (and everything is within reason these days): bezel, weight, component number.  And especially not the number of friggen screws
Click to expand...


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23879946
> 
> 
> But no: A device with more components (and screws) has more component level items that _*can be fixed independently*._  I'm sick to death of consumer electronics that are made from a single circuit board with absolutely everything stamped onto them like a laptop motherboard does.  Down the road past your return window you _want_ separate components.  You _want_ to be able to replace a $75 communications board instead of the entire $500 motherboard.
> 
> 
> You want the pieces parts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> along with all those screws.  Or at least more of them.
> 
> 
> I remember talking to a service technician for Sony Trinitrons a long time ago about this.  When TVs stopped becoming "reparable at the component level" it became increasingly likely that the consumer would scrap TVs outright or face very large repair bills.



Tv's have become basically a disposable commodity item rather than something you would have repaired like a car. Reliability has improved since the Trinitron days. There is something called "the bathtub curve" that applies to failure rates. Think of a U with a very long bottom. There's a relatively steep failure rate early in the life span easily covered by the warrantee period followed by a very low failure rate for a long period, probably 7-8 years for TVs, followed by a steep increase at the end of life.


Given that and the severe price competition in the TV business these days manufacturers are going to assemble them as cheaply as they can and we consumers can only hope they don't cheapen the components assembled to the point of deceased PQ and reliability performance.


Samsung's many components and screws etc. vs. those of LG may be an indication how quickly Samsung was trying to get something to market rather than an intent to mass produce in the same fashion.


----------



## agkss

SAMSUNG KES9C 55" OLED TV Review by Vincent Teoh of HDTV Test UK:
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ke55s9c-201310273395.htm


----------



## JWhip

There is a separate thread for the review already.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*TCL plans a 8.5-Gen Oxide-TFT OLED TV fab in Shenzhen*


Source: old-info.com 


In July 2013, Chinese media reported that TCL's CSOT subsidiary is planning to establish a 8.5-Gen OLED TV fab. Today JRJ reports that TCL announced it it will invest 24.4 billion yuan (just over $4 billion) to build a new 8.5-Gen TV fab in Shenzhen, owned by Shenzhen Huaxing Photoelectric Technology (and not CSOT).


This fab (called Huaxing Power Two) will have two lines, one for a-Si LCDs (70,000 monthly substrates) and one for Oxide-TFT OLED TV panels (30,000 monthly substrates). According to the report, construction of this fab will commence towards the end of 2013. TCL is yet to raise the money for this fab.


The report suggests that OLED technology isn't mature yet for TV applications and we shouldn't expect the 2nd line to begin operation in the near future as there are still technology hurdles.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23879946
> 
> 
> But no: A device with more components (and screws) has more component level items that _*can be fixed independently*._  I'm sick to death of consumer electronics that are made from a single circuit board with absolutely everything stamped onto them like a laptop motherboard does.  Down the road past your return window you _want_ separate components.  You _want_ to be able to replace a $75 communications board instead of the entire $500 motherboard.
> 
> 
> You want the pieces parts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> along with all those screws.  Or at least more of them.
> 
> 
> I remember talking to a service technician for Sony Trinitrons a long time ago about this.  When TVs stopped becoming "reparable at the component level" it became increasingly likely that the consumer would scrap TVs outright or face very large repair bills.



It's just fundamentally orders of magnitude more reliable to put all the components on one board. Sorry.


You _want_ your stuff built that way, not with a bunch of fragile, expensive interconnections that, themselves, become points of failure. If you want to rail against something, the cost of replacing boards is fine as is the surprisingly high failure rate given integrated boards. But I can promise you beyond any doubt that separate boards are absolutely not coming back into vogue; they are just a terrible idea from an engineering standpoint. And they would lead to higher costs for everyone.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23882748
> 
> *TCL plans a 8.5-Gen Oxide-TFT OLED TV fab in Shenzhen*
> 
> 
> Source: old-info.com
> 
> 
> In July 2013, Chinese media reported that TCL's CSOT subsidiary is planning to establish a 8.5-Gen OLED TV fab. Today JRJ reports that TCL announced it it will invest 24.4 billion yuan (just over $4 billion) to build a new 8.5-Gen TV fab in Shenzhen, owned by Shenzhen Huaxing Photoelectric Technology (and not CSOT).
> 
> 
> This fab (called Huaxing Power Two) will have two lines, one for a-Si LCDs (70,000 monthly substrates) and one for Oxide-TFT OLED TV panels (30,000 monthly substrates). According to the report, construction of this fab will commence towards the end of 2013. TCL is yet to raise the money for this fab.
> 
> 
> The report suggests that OLED technology isn't mature yet for TV applications and we shouldn't expect the 2nd line to begin operation in the near future as there are still technology hurdles.



So, in other words, they are building a new fab that _someday_ will have an OLED production line. But, oh by the way, they haven't raised money for the fab at all. So, perhaps, in 3-5 years, this fab maybe could possibly be up and running.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23884025
> 
> 
> So, in other words, they are building a new fab that _someday_ will have an OLED production line. But, oh by the way, they haven't raised money for the fab at all. So, perhaps, in 3-5 years, this fab maybe could possibly be up and running.



You underestimate them, work on the fab is commencing soon and money will be arranged on the run as the cash is aplenty in China. Things are moving lightning-speed there, 24/7.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23884494
> 
> 
> You underestimate them, work on the fab is commencing soon and money will be arranged on the run as the cash is aplenty in China. Things are moving lightning-speed there, 24/7.



If and when that factory gets built, most of it will be producing 4K LCD panels. No one has solved the production yield problems with OLED yet, but with Chinese slave labor wages, they can make even 50% yields work.


----------



## Mark Rejhon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23884698
> 
> 
> If and when that factory gets built, most of it will be producing 4K LCD panels. No one has solved the production yield problems with OLED yet, but with Chinese slave labor wages, they can make even 50% yields work.


Even at China middle class wages of some of the better factories (which is actually luxurious in China, affording cars & high speed fares, despite earning less than Walmart employees! The boom is so crazy there).


Alas, it is certainly really is very hard to compete at some of these economies of scale, with so many display makers losing money.


Long term we need diversification in many countries, for OLED manufacturing, so I hope production yields go up reasonably well. I remember the day where production yields for active matrix LCD's were less than 20%, and they cost hundreds of dollars for just a few inches.


I own a Sharp 3ML100 pocket TV -- one of the world's first consumer-sold TFT Active Matrix -- from year 1989. A very colorful and massive 3" with surprisingly little motion blur, when other pocket TV's were only 1" or 2" ghost-generators, or monochrome. Paid $499 of lawnmower money and snow shoveling money for it at age 15. From what I read in magazines of the era, production yields on that screen was abysmal (I think they mentioned something like *10% or 20% yield*, IIRC), yet that screen image quality was light years ahead of all pocket TV's on the market at the time. Flat panel TV's were being advertised as a dream for the 80's and 90's, stayed a pipe dream, then suddenly arrived en-masse till the 2000's. Give OLED a few more years. It's a good heir to LCD -- eventually.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23884494
> 
> 
> You underestimate them, work on the fab is commencing soon and money will be arranged on the run as the cash is aplenty in China. Things are moving lightning-speed there, 24/7.



The report says something entirely different.


----------



## KidHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *schnura*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23878270
> 
> 
> I'd be more focused and interested in the picture quality differences. I understand LG uses all white OLEDs with red/green/blue filters and Samsung uses dedicated red green, blue and white OLEDs. Not sure which technology is better, but it would be good to see an a/b comparison.



I would think using RGB directly instead of white with a filter would be better since anything back lit will not be able to achieve true black. In of itself, anything back lit will almost certainly have a worse contrast ratio.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23884025
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7350#post_23879946
> 
> 
> But no: A device with more components (and screws) has more component level items that *can be fixed independently.*  I'm sick to death of consumer electronics that are made from a single circuit board with absolutely everything stamped onto them like a laptop motherboard does.  Down the road past your return window you *want* separate components.  You *want* to be able to replace a $75 communications board instead of the entire $500 motherboard.
> 
> 
> You want the pieces parts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> along with all those screws.  Or at least more of them.
> 
> 
> I remember talking to a service technician for Sony Trinitrons a long time ago about this.  When TVs stopped becoming "reparable at the component level" it became increasingly likely that the consumer would scrap TVs outright or face very large repair bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just fundamentally orders of magnitude more reliable to put all the components on one board. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"Orders of magnitude"?*  A single order of magnitude is 10x.  Orders is at least 2, so the minimum of what you're saying is that it's 100x more reliable to put all the components on one board?  (and 3 is 1000x, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you're overstating things.
Click to expand...




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> You *want* your stuff built that way, not with a bunch of fragile, expensive interconnections that, themselves, become points of failure. If you want to rail against something, the cost of replacing boards is fine as is the surprisingly high failure rate given integrated boards. But I can promise you beyond any doubt that separate boards are absolutely not coming back into vogue; they are just a terrible idea from an engineering standpoint. And they would lead to higher costs for everyone.
Click to expand...

 

No one is implying it'll come back in vogue.

 

And it's a terrible idea from a manufacturing standpoint sure.  Things are cheaper to make when they're all surface mounted.  It's more expensive to make and assemble multiple parts and you can get more immediately noticed manufacturing failures before they're put in the box.  But after decades of casually configuring and repairing PCs and unix systems, I can tell you that after you've owned the device, it's the components that are the parts that fail, *not* the interconnects.  The wires and sockets themselves don't fail, but the memory, power supplies, fans, cpus, etc., do.  But once it passes QA and is in the box, if you have 3 satellite components vs. 1 large board containing 3 components, you still have 3 components that can fail.  Out of warranty, I'd much rather replace a cheaper part.

 

The degree to which they listed the differences in the review isn't that much of an issue other than it shows that they haven't yet reached the stage of cutting corners.  That alone *probably* means that they're further from volume manufacturing than LG.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KidHorn*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23886761
> 
> 
> I would think using RGB directly instead of white with a filter would be better since anything back lit will not be able to achieve true black. In of itself, anything back lit will almost certainly have a worse contrast ratio.



It's not backlit, it's filtered white subpixels. There is no reason the LG approach will have any worse CR than the Samsung approach.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23886852
> 
> 
> No one is implying it'll come back in vogue.....
> 
> 
> (bunch of stuff not quoted by the system....)
> 
> 
> And it's a terrible idea from a manufacturing standpoint sure.  Things are cheaper to make when they're all surface mounted.  It's more expensive to make and assemble multiple parts and you can get more immediately noticed manufacturing failures before they're put in the box.  But after decades of casually configuring and repairing PCs and unix systems, I can tell you that after you've owned the device, it's the components that are the parts that fail, _not_ the interconnects.  The wires and sockets themselves don't fail, but the memory, power supplies, fans, cpus, etc., do.  But once it passes QA and is in the box, if you have 3 satellite components vs. 1 large board containing 3 components, you still have 3 components that can fail.  Out of warranty, I'd much rather replace a cheaper part.
> 
> 
> The degree to which they listed the differences in the review isn't that much of an issue other than it shows that they haven't yet reached the stage of cutting corners.  That alone _probably_ means that they're further from volume manufacturing than LG.



So, yes, 100x more reliable is what I mean, more or less.


And, yes, in some theoretical, deranged world where the goal is to make something more repairable instead of more reliable in the first place, you absolutely build a bunch of separate parts. Except that's not the correct approach. Reliability begins at the build stage and that has costs. Manufacture has costs. Assembly has costs. QA has costs. You build everything separate, it all costs more and it can all fail more easily on the interconnects, the cabling, the physical relationships, etc. Stuff on separate pieces has a tendency to come apart under impact during transport, during cleaning your house, during a spirited Wii incident, etc. etc.


It would be nice if you could have both: repairable and reliable (while also being affordable). But you can't. So you get "less repairable" in exchange for the other things.


And, yes, the less integrated TV is the one that is _further_ from mass production. That's absolutely a spot-on observation.


----------



## rmongiovi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23888336
> 
> 
> It's not backlit, it's filtered white subpixels. There is no reason the LG approach will have any worse CR than the Samsung approach.



Are you certain? LG is using a 4 subpixel model whereas Samsung is the standard RGB, right? I don't see that it's clear that you can accurately reproduce colors in a four subpixel system regardless of whether the extra subpixel is white ala LG or yellow as in Sharp's quattron. The data being displayed is RGB and based on scientific studies of human eye physiology into how to use RGB to simulate the color gamut. I don't see that the color of the extra subpixel matters. You somehow have to do the math to figure out how much to use the extra subpixel and how much to use the RGB subpixels based on only RGB data. Sharp has demonstrated that this is difficult to get right. We know that most manufacturers don't get it right with the RGB pixels the data was designed for. Witness the growth of the 9 point cube lookup tables to correct the gamut at 729 different points because of non-linearities in pixel response. Throw a new subpixel into the mix and I'm just not convinced.....


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23888336
> 
> 
> So, yes, 100x more reliable is what I mean, more or less.


 

Clarify, because we're talking about two displays here.  Do you think that the Samsung is 100x more likely to break down at any given age mark?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rmongiovi*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23888677
> 
> 
> Are you certain? LG is using a 4 subpixel model whereas Samsung is the standard RGB, right?



Yes, LG is using red, green, blue and _white_.


> Quote:
> I don't see that it's clear that you can accurately reproduce colors in a four subpixel system regardless of whether the extra subpixel is white ala LG or yellow as in Sharp's quattron.



Well, I don't know why you believe that, but you're mistaken,


> Quote:
> The data being displayed is RGB and based on scientific studies of human eye physiology into how to use RGB to simulate the color gamut. I don't see that the color of the extra subpixel matters. You somehow have to do the math to figure out how much to use the extra subpixel and how much to use the RGB subpixels based on only RGB data.



Um, white is white.


> Quote:
> Sharp has demonstrated that this is difficult to get right. We know that most manufacturers don't get it right with the RGB pixels the data was designed for. Witness the growth of the 9 point cube lookup tables to correct the gamut at 729 different points because of non-linearities in pixel response. Throw a new subpixel into the mix and I'm just not convinced.....



Well, be unconvinced. It's really not my problem. First of all, there is no reason why would result in inaccurate color. Second of all, this is irrelevant to contrast ratio.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23888944
> 
> 
> Clarify, because we're talking about two displays here.  Do you think that the Samsung is 100x more likely to break down at any given age mark?



No, I don't because not everything is equal. I do believe that integrating the parts results in a 100x reliability improvement all else being equal, however. I doubt either set is particularly reliable given the rush to develop them and the amount of bleeding-edge technology being deployed. There is, however, far more bleeding-edge tech in the LG, which has the first mainstream IGZO backplane of any size. But I do suspect the LG's mainboard (assuming it's integrated) is, in fact, far more reliable than the Samsung's.


----------



## rmongiovi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23890371
> 
> 
> Yes, LG is using red, green, blue and _white_.
> 
> Well, I don't know why you believe that, but you're mistaken,
> 
> Um, white is white.
> 
> Well, be unconvinced. It's really not my problem. First of all, there is no reason why would result in inaccurate color. Second of all, this is irrelevant to contrast ratio.




"White is white." Seriously? They're D65? That's terrific!


And sorry, apparently I wasn't following your argument. I interpreted "CR" as Color Rendering rather than Contrast Ratio. My bad; I should have paid more attention to the previous post....


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rmongiovi*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23891324
> 
> 
> "White is white." Seriously? They're D65? That's terrific!
> 
> 
> And sorry, apparently I wasn't following your argument. I interpreted "CR" as Color Rendering rather than Contrast Ratio. My bad; I should have paid more attention to the previous post....



Here's the review from HD Guru on color:
_

"In THX mode, color temperature was good: 6421K (x0.309 y0.329) at 20 IRE and 6542K (x0.313 y0.335) at 80 IRE. Our sample, according to LG, was brand spanking new. We do not know if there’s a break-in period that would yield an even more accurate gray. Another question we are investigating.


The Rec. 709 HDTV color, the default for THX what we could call “spot on” as it was within the accuracy range of our spectroradiometer (spec in parentheses) with red x0.644 y0.329 (x0.640 y0.330), green x0.300 y0.604 (x0.300 y0.600), blue x0.147, y0.064 (x0.150 y0.060)."_


So, yes, white is white. D65. The color is "spot on".


Good enough for you?


----------



## Wizziwig

In addition to the increase in reliability, you also have to consider the improvements in form factor that are possible thanks to integration of parts. The LG is much thinner and lighter than the Samsung. It would simply not be possible to make smartphones, tablets, and other electronics as thin and light as they are today if they were made of easy to repair discrete parts. I do agree that it sucks from a repair-ability perspective. It's also less environmentally sound since it makes recycling harder. For example, I was able to grab various cheap recycled boards from Ebay to keep my aging CRT alive. With a modern LCD, I would have junked it many years ago as soon as anything on the single integrated motherboard failed out of warranty.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23892914
> 
> 
> Here's the review from HD Guru on color:
> _"In THX mode, color temperature was good: 6421K (x0.309 y0.329) at 20 IRE and 6542K (x0.313 y0.335) at 80 IRE. Our sample, according to LG, was brand spanking new. We do not know if there’s a break-in period that would yield an even more accurate gray. Another question we are investigating.
> 
> The Rec. 709 HDTV color, the default for THX what we could call “spot on” as it was within the accuracy range of our spectroradiometer (spec in parentheses) with red x0.644 y0.329 (x0.640 y0.330), green x0.300 y0.604 (x0.300 y0.600), blue x0.147, y0.064 (x0.150 y0.060)."_
> 
> So, yes, white is white. D65. The color is "spot on".
> 
> Good enough for you?


Typically displays are mixing RGB to achieve D65 white, and with an LED backlit LCD for example, the "white" LED backlight itself is _not_ white. (but this is filtered by the LCD panel)

The concern with the LG display is that those white (unfiltered) subpixels may not be D65 - especially as it ages. Just because the display can be calibrated to measure D65 with a test pattern does not mean that the white subpixels themselves are D65, and may lead to less accurate images depending on how the display mixes in the white subpixel.


And frankly, I think adding more subpixels is a bad thing. It reduces the effective pixel density of the display, and breaks anything designed to use subpixel rendering. (e.g. fonts on a PC)

Samsung's OLED display has a similar problem where it's using RGB subpixels, but they are arranged vertically rather than the typical horizontal arrangement.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23894643
> 
> 
> 
> The concern with the LG display is that those white (unfiltered) subpixels may not be D65 - especially as it ages.



And this is different from the Samsung's blue aging exactly how? Oh, right, it isn't.


> Quote:
> Just because the display can be calibrated to measure D65 with a test pattern does not mean that the white subpixels themselves are D65, and may lead to less accurate images depending on how the display mixes in the white subpixel.



This is quite frankly nonsense. It's like saying, "Indian people may lead to less accurate communication because they have accents." Just because the result can hypothetically be true doesn't mean you aren't being prejudiced. It's equally possible the LG is just fundamentally superior in its implementation.


> Quote:
> And frankly, I think adding more subpixels is a bad thing. It reduces the effective pixel density of the display, and breaks anything designed to use subpixel rendering. (e.g. fonts on a PC)



Thanks for making your bias clear.


> Quote:
> Samsung's OLED display has a similar problem where it's using RGB subpixels, but they are arranged vertically rather than the typical horizontal arrangement.



The various designs of subpixels makes things like subpixel rendering such a crapshoot, I'm not sure how this even plays a role in this conversation. There are too many layouts of pixels at this point for any system to presume it can understand how subpixels are being made.


Isn't one of these wildly more power efficient than the other at this point? That's _objectively_ relevant, not a bunch of subjective bias that isn't even supported by any data.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23896842
> 
> 
> And this is different from the Samsung's blue aging exactly how? Oh, right, it isn't.


When you're mixing RGB, you can adjust the mixture to compensate if blue ages. When your white OLED layer is unfiltered, I'm not sure what you can do about it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23896842
> 
> 
> This is quite frankly nonsense. It's like saying, "Indian people may lead to less accurate communication because they have accents." Just because the result can hypothetically be true doesn't mean you aren't being prejudiced. It's equally possible the LG is just fundamentally superior in its implementation.


When the TV is in control of how the white subpixel is mixed in with content, I'm not sure how you can calibrate around it. Typically with calibration you're displaying patterns that are neutral gray - those should be easy to calibrate accurately regardless of what the white subpixel is doing. That does not mean _other_ mixtures of RGBW are going to be accurate though, because you don't know how white is being mixed in, or how accurate the color of white from that unfiltered subpixel is.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23896842
> 
> 
> Thanks for making your bias clear.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that I am biased against displays which are using non-standard subpixel layouts (BGR, Pentile, a vertical layout, adding a fourth subpixel etc.) then you're right, I am completely biased against them. Ideally displays wouldn't even _have_ subpixels. Single chip DLPs are so much sharper than anything else out there due to their lack of subpixels.


When you count the number of subpixels a display has, it _appears_ that more subpixels means a higher pixel density. After all, using RGBW means you have 8.3M subpixels rather than 6.2M subpixels when you're using RGB stripes. But it means that each individual subpixel is smaller, so for images where not all subpixels are lit (or brightly lit) the fill-factor is considerably reduced.


RGB / RGBW / DLP displaying white:










RGB / RGBW / DLP displaying red:










RGB / RGBW / DLP displaying a blue "H":










The more subpixels you add, the worse image quality gets. DLP is just an example here though, of course it has other issues to contend with, but a display which eliminated subpixels (e.g. layered TOLED) would be a big step up from what we have now.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23896842
> 
> 
> The various designs of subpixels makes things like subpixel rendering such a crapshoot, I'm not sure how this even plays a role in this conversation. There are too many layouts of pixels at this point for any system to presume it can understand how subpixels are being made.


Until very recently, horizontal RGB stripes have been standard. Subpixel rendering on computers has been standard for more than a decade at this point. As long as subpixels are still being implemented in displays, we should at least make use of them.

Sharp is now incorporating subpixel rendering in its new displays to improve the resolution of 4K images displayed on 1080p panels beyond what other displays show. ( on / off )


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23896842
> 
> 
> Isn't one of these wildly more power efficient than the other at this point? That's _objectively_ relevant, not a bunch of subjective bias that isn't even supported by any data.


Does anyone care about power efficiency on a $10,000 display? I would have thought that image quality would be the priority.


----------



## ynotgoal

Last week at FPD International 2013 in Japan, LG demoed a 77" UHD curved OLED TV and said they planned on releasing it in 2014. They also said they had created a user controlled curvature feature. That is the user could adjust the curvature radius. It could be curved if you are watching TV alone or it could be made flat if you are watching with a group of people. The feature would be for larger TVs so it could be applied to the TV mentioned here though it seems it has not yet been decided for sure.


I know that many call the curve a gimmick. Dr. Soneira at DisplayMate offers a different view at least as it applies to the curved OLED on Samsung's new Galaxy Round smartphone.
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Round_ShootOut_1.htm


----------



## Orbitron

I would like to replace my 46" bedroom tv, it's 45" wide including bezel. What is the closest size we will see in 2014?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23897509
> 
> 
> When you're mixing RGB, you can adjust the mixture to compensate if blue ages.



Yes, by magic faerie dust... Is there _any_ evidence at all this happens on the Samsung OLED? They certainly are not marketing anything that indicates this is happening. It's also not even a little clear they would know how to do this or that they could, except in some theoretical sense. It's even less clear they could compensate on a per-pixel basis.


> Quote:
> When your white OLED layer is unfiltered, I'm not sure what you can do about it.



And yet, with LG's blue, which should have much better longevity inside the stack, I'm not at all sure you need to. So it might actually be better.


> Quote:
> When the TV is in control of how the white subpixel is mixed in with content, I'm not sure how you can calibrate around it. Typically with calibration you're displaying patterns that are neutral gray - those should be easy to calibrate accurately regardless of what the white subpixel is doing. That does not mean _other_ mixtures of RGBW are going to be accurate though, because you don't know how white is being mixed in, or how accurate the color of white from that unfiltered subpixel is.



Oh, god. Please keep manufacturing problems that might exist to justify the inferiority of a design that has already been vetted as provided excellent. Please.


> Quote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that I am biased against displays which are using non-standard subpixel layouts (BGR, Pentile, a vertical layout, adding a fourth subpixel etc.) then you're right, I am completely biased against them. Ideally displays wouldn't even _have_ subpixels. Single chip DLPs are so much sharper than anything else out there due to their lack of subpixels.



I mean that since sub-pixel layouts are already different, the use of sub-pixel rendering is already a bad idea. It's going to be different on all the different layouts so how can you rely on it looking good? You can't.


> Quote:
> When you count the number of subpixels a display has, it _appears_ that more subpixels means a higher pixel density. After all, using RGBW means you have 8.3M subpixels rather than 6.2M subpixels when you're using RGB stripes. But it means that each individual subpixel is smaller, so for images where not all subpixels are lit (or brightly lit) the fill-factor is considerably reduced.



That might be a fair point, thought I've heard no such complaints regarding the LG.


> Quote:
> Does anyone care about power efficiency on a $10,000 display? I would have thought that image quality would be the priority.



Yes, because some of us give a damn.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23898103
> 
> 
> Last week at FPD International 2013 in Japan, LG demoed a 77" UHD curved OLED TV and said they planned on releasing it in 2014.



The best laid plans of mice and men...


> Quote:
> They also said they had created a user controlled curvature feature. That is the user could adjust the curvature radius. It could be curved if you are watching TV alone or it could be made flat if you are watching with a group of people. The feature would be for larger TVs so it could be applied to the TV mentioned here though it seems it has not yet been decided for sure.



This is nonsense.


> Quote:
> I know that many call the curve a gimmick. Dr. Soneira at DisplayMate offers a different view at least as it applies to the curved OLED on Samsung's new Galaxy Round smartphone.
> http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Round_ShootOut_1.htm



I read this and am of the mind that Dr. Soneira may finally have lost his.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23898160
> 
> 
> I would like to replace my 46" bedroom tv, it's 45" wide including bezel. What is the closest size we will see in 2014?



55 inches.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23897509
> 
> 
> 
> RGB / RGBW / DLP displaying white:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGB / RGBW / DLP displaying red:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGB / RGBW / DLP displaying a blue "H":



Although it doesn't sound like any reviewers could see it from typical viewing distances, the LG WRGB fill-factor is actually much worse than your diagrams depict. I wonder how much brightness they are losing in all those black gaps.

 


Here is the Samsung OLED for comparison:


----------



## greenland

 http://www.displaymate.com/LG_OLED_TV_ShootOut_1.htm#Lab_Tests 


"LG OLED TV Lab Measurements and Technical Analysis

Below we analyze the LG OLED TV model 55EA9800 using a wide range of Laboratory measurement data and objective evaluation criteria.


White Sub-pixels

Every pixel on the LG OLED TV also has a 4th independent pure White sub-pixel in addition to the standard Red, Green and Blue sub-pixels found on other displays – that’s an extra 2.1 million sub-pixels, bringing the total up to 8.3 million. In principle, they aren’t necessary because White can be produced by the other sub-pixels, but White sub-pixels provide a number of key advantages: they improve color management that allows the Color Gamut to be easily adjusted, they improve the color balance of the White Point, particularly for the crucial Color Tracking accuracy of the gray scale, and they significantly improve the power efficiency of the display because a single sub-pixel is needed to make the underlying gray component of every pixel instead of powering three Red, Green and Blue sub-pixels to do the same job. Other displays also have White sub-pixels, but they are always used to boost brightness at the expense of color saturation and accuracy – LG is the first manufacturer I am aware of to use White sub-pixels to improve color accuracy rather than decrease it…"


Link to the full hands-on review.

http://www.displaymate.com/LG_OLED_TV_ShootOut_1.htm


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23897509
> 
> 
> RGB / RGBW / DLP displaying white:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGB / RGBW / DLP displaying red:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGB / RGBW / DLP displaying a blue "H":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more subpixels you add, the worse image quality gets.


 

1. I understand this theory, (I do).  But is it a complaint IRL yet regarding either the WRGB or RGBY (e.g. Sharp Quattron) implementations?

 

2. The fill problem as stated is only a pronounced issue when attempting only one of the primaries.  Something that results in a (post correction) firing of *just* the red, blue or green, and nothing else.  In the case of the Sharp Quattron, the Y is often used along with R and G.  This produces a theoretically 3/4 fill over a 2/3 fill.  In theory.  And for the fast amount of colors that involve some amounts of the RGB normally, this would involve all four.  I don't know how LG is using that white in practice (do you?) but it could well be added in to any combination that had any level of desaturation in it, no?  The common gray component is in just about everything.

 

3. What precisely is holding up TOLED anyway?  Unified subpixel-free pixels have been regarded as a huge win for a long time.

 


> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> 
> 
> I mean that since sub-pixel layouts are already different, the use of sub-pixel rendering is already a bad idea. It's going to be different on all the different layouts so how can you rely on it looking good? You can't.


 

Subpixel rendering has only been a user configurable issue for PCs, and specifically so for text.  It's not something that's ever assumed to be ok to turn on by default, even when it'd probably work for 99% of the displays out there, and it's absolutely not an applicable technology to video.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23898504
> 
> 
> Here is the Samsung OLED for comparison:


Is there about twice as much blue as there should be?


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23899422
> 
> 
> Is there about twice as much blue as there should be?



Define should










I expect they put in the amount they needed; Hopefully, to account for aging.


- Rich


----------



## JWhip

Yes, there is 2x as much blue due to the faster aging of the blue element. Furthermore, the voltage feeding the blue is reduced as well, all for the purpose of extending the life of the blue OLED material and hence the useful life of the display. It would be nice if there could figure out how to have the blue age at the same rate as the green and red. I won't mind this so much when these displays are not all that expensive, but I would not pay these prices for unproven tech.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23899464
> 
> 
> Yes, there is 2x as much blue due to the faster aging of the blue element. Furthermore, the voltage feeding the blue is reduced as well, all for the purpose of extending the life of the blue OLED material and hence the useful life of the display. It would be nice if there could figure out how to have the blue age at the same rate as the green and red. I won't mind this so much when these displays are not all that expensive, but I would not pay these prices for unproven tech.


 

Is this RGB or technically a kind of RGBB?  or RGB? 

 

I can't find the voltage information online, but I believe it and it sounds perfectly sensible (and predictable).  As for the size, you're stating pretty much what they say here:

 

http://www.oled-info.com/samsungs-kn55s9c-sub-pixel-design

 


> Quote:
> As you can see, the blue subpixels are bigger than the red and green ones (about twice as large). This was designed this way because the blue OLED has the lowest lifetime - if it is bigger then you can lower the brightness and so conserve lifetime.


 

I have to do some more guessing here.

 

Consider: You have a small box called a pixel that you must populate with the subpixels RG and B.  That box *cannot* get any bigger than a certain amount, because the pixel size is dictated by the resolution and size of the display.  So the concept of "increasing blue" is actually inseparable form the concept of "shrinking red and green".  This means that the red and green are *smaller* than they would otherwise be, and hence are made to burn out sooner to better match the burnout of the blue.

 

Note...I have to do some numbers guessing here too...just winging it based on size.  They may have found a great balance: reduce the life of the red and green by maybe 20% and increase the life of the blue by 60-70.  The blue doesn't last twice as long as it would have otherwise: The blue is roughly twice the size of the red and green currently, but not twice the size of what it would have been had the red green and blue all been the same size.

 

If it were monetarily feasible (the biggest if in this entire forum), I would think it's an overall win to eventually stack the blues, even if the other subpixels aren't TOLED stackable.  Perhaps once the transparency issues are solved that's what we'll see?  Perhaps the pixels of the future will be TOLED layers of RRGGGBBBBB (with an opaque bottom).


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tmg1024*
> 
> Is this RGB or technically a kind of RGBB?  or RGB?


The blu pixel is almost twice the size of the red and green one so its rgb.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23899813
> 
> 
> The blu pixel is almost twice the size of the red and green one so its rgb.



So they can market it as Big Blue










- Rich


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23899853
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23899813
> 
> 
> The blu pixel is almost twice the size of the red and green one so its rgb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they can market it as Big Blue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich
Click to expand...


that should be Big (half life) Blue


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23898401
> 
> 
> I mean that since sub-pixel layouts are already different, the use of sub-pixel rendering is already a bad idea. It's going to be different on all the different layouts so how can you rely on it looking good? You can't.


For as long as we have displays with subpixels, it makes sense to use them. It can significantly increase your perceived resolution.


Subpixel rendering is nothing new; as I said before, it's been in use for more than a decade now, because almost every display out there uses the standard RGB stripes.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23899422
> 
> 
> Is there about twice as much blue as there should be?


There's nothing which says that all subpixels have to be the same size. They typically are, but with OLED it makes sense to use larger blue subpixels than red/green. It's not ideal, but helps compensate for the problems with blue.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23898928
> 
> 
> 1. I understand this theory, (I do).  But is it a complaint IRL yet regarding either the WRGB or RGBY (e.g. Sharp Quattron) implementations?


It doesn't even have to be a problem with four subpixels, I find it problematic on RGB displays too.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23898928
> 
> 
> 2. The fill problem as stated is only a pronounced issue when attempting only one of the primaries.  Something that results in a (post correction) firing of _just_ the red, blue or green, and nothing else.  In the case of the Sharp Quattron, the Y is often used along with R and G.  This produces a theoretically 3/4 fill over a 2/3 fill.  In theory.  And for the fast amount of colors that involve some amounts of the RGB normally, this would involve all four.  I don't know how LG is using that white in practice (do you?) but it could well be added in to any combination that had any level of desaturation in it, no?  The common gray component is in just about everything.


That's true, if your rendering is optimized to take advantage of those extra subpixels, you could in theory improve the fill factor when the fourth subpixel is being used. The problem is that it's worse when it's not in use, and they are still separate elements.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23898928
> 
> 
> 3. What precisely is holding up TOLED anyway?  Unified subpixel-free pixels have been regarded as a huge win for a long time.


Black levels I suppose, and I think most TOLED designs have been RGB rather than layered designs. 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23898928
> 
> 
> Subpixel rendering has only been a user configurable issue for PCs, and specifically so for text.  It's not something that's ever assumed to be ok to turn on by default, even when it'd probably work for 99% of the displays out there, and it's absolutely not an applicable technology to video.


Subpixel rendering has been forced on in OS X for years at this point, and has been the default on Windows since Vista.


Sharp are claiming that they get almost 4K resolution out of their existing 1080p Quattron panels now that they're using subpixel rendering, so I'm not sure why you don't think it is relevant to video.


----------



## tgm1024


Quote:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23899896
> 
> 
> Subpixel rendering has been forced on in OS X for years at this point, and has been the default on Windows since Vista.   Sharp are claiming that they get almost 4K resolution out of their existing 1080p Quattron panels now that they're using subpixel rendering, so I'm not sure why you don't think it is relevant to video.


I just looked both of those up and verified them.  I stand corrected.  I still am having a hard time buying it, but I stand corrected.


----------



## greenland

Isn't Samsung Blue a Neil Diamond song?!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23900324
> 
> 
> Isn't Samsung Blue a Neil Diamond song?!


 

LOL.  A Neil Diamond reference in AVSforum is at LEAST a stablehand of the apocalypse....

 

Into the abyss....


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7380#post_23899464
> 
> 
> Yes, there is 2x as much blue due to the faster aging of the blue element. Furthermore, the voltage feeding the blue is reduced as well, all for the purpose of extending the life of the blue OLED material and hence the useful life of the display. It would be nice if there could figure out how to have the blue age at the same rate as the green and red. I won't mind this so much when these displays are not all that expensive, but I would not pay these prices for unproven tech.



Does anyone know what the blue aging faster than red or green means from a calibration standpoint? Are the sets going to require calibration more often to retain accurate colors because of it?


----------



## slacker711

Samsung vs LG OLED comparison.

http://bcove.me/zdwa7jfj


----------



## R Harkness

I saw my first OLED TV today, the Samsung 55 inch.


It's currently being displayed at the Toronto TAVES (Toronto Audio Video Entertainment Show at the King Edward hotel), along with Samsung's big (85"?) 4K LCD displays. I'd like to combine my comments on the Samsung 4K displays with the OLED display.


Like many, I've seen the *Samsung* (and the Sony) *4K displays* before. Staring again for a while at the Samsung 4K displays one of my takeaways is:


1. It's certainly a clear step up in image resolution from 1080p (duh!). But, that said, we still aren't "there yet" if the goal is a real life replication of detail. I don't know if it's still a limitation of the resolution and whether 8K is needed (I know, I know, viewing distance has to be factored in any such discussion - I was viewing between 6 and maybe 4 feet from the screen), but I'm sure it still has to do with image capture limitations too. Whether it be the sensors on the video cameras not capturing all the detail available, or that we are still losing temporal resolution in terms of frame rate/image blur. Whatever it is, I find the image "amazing for a TV" but certainly not real-life levels of effortless clarity and smoothness. But, it's still very impressive nonetheless.

*Back to OLED.* It was the 55" being displayed in a fairly large hotel room, lighting "medium" I guess, large but high up overhead light flooding the room, but slightly dim in that big hotel room way (think...your last wedding reception...)

I saw two types of content: the Samsung shot promotional stuff meant to show the strengths of OLED - super brightly colored paints splashing on to a black background screen, and also on to people painted black. I also watched some of the Amadeus Blu-Ray, chosen probably because of all the dark and black costumes people were wearing during a funeral scene.


The image was of course very rich and vivid with the promotional material. But, at least under the show lighting conditions it didn't immediately strike me as a "wow, new paradigm" difference in black levels and contrast vs the 4K screens I'd just been watching, which can look like they have terrific contrast with the 4K material. I did afterword see the very same paint-on-black images being played on the big Samsung 4K display and while it also looked quite vivid on that, after just viewing the OLED I could see how the OLED's contrast, and sense of texture on the paint, was actually even better. (Although I heard that 4K display was calibrated to a lower gamma for show conditions - I don't know about the OLED calibration).


Viewing the Amadeus material, a deary funeral scene on a dark day, people dressed in dark clothes, it looked definitely richer than it likely would on many other displays (I haven't seen that Blu-Ray for a long time). There was an effortless sense to the way the black levels carved out all the types of dark and black clothing worn in group shots. I'd see actors wearing black clothes that looked really dark next to one another, in a way that would make you go "wow" on a normal display in terms of the darkness combined with shadow detail. But then even within that shot there'd be _another_ dark piece of clothing, e.g. a black hat, in front of the actor with the dark cloak, with the hat being even _more_ pitch black. It was like seeing black against black, still easily intelligibly different in luminance, Like the OLED is saying "throw anything you want at me, doesn't matter how dark, I don't care, I can do it." So it was very impressive to see that. Even my friend, not a video-nut, but he has a nice JVC projector, said "Wow, I never knew that movie looked so amazing." What he was seeing, I mentioned, was how this particular display made the movie look.


That said, it was a further refinement of image on Amadeus, not necessarily a new-paradigm-looking image. Just really nice. Though, I can only imagine what something outrageous in contrast would look like, for instance Pacific Rim, on a display like this in dim lighting.


Finally, another take-away for me was this:


2. Living with a projector that does a quasi-4K resolution thing (JVC's E-shift technology, sort of a wobulation-type thing that takes 1080p and doubles the on-screen pixel count), pixels have been a thing of the past. Much like 4K promises for any reasonable viewing distance. Being used to this at home, and after first watching the 4K displays up close at the show, moving to the OLED aside from the contrast I was aware of taking a step down in pixel count. Sort of like going from a retina-display or other high res phone screen to a previous generation. So while the OLED struck me as next-gen in contrast, it gave me a bit of old-gen impression in terms of pixel count/pixel structure. Bring on OLED 4K!


----------



## MrBonk

Real life replication of detail? I think that lies more in quality of content.


----------



## R Harkness

Went back to the show again today and watched some of the Skyfall Blu-Ray and Prometheus on the OLED display. Lighting in the room seemed dimmer to me so not really bad conditions for viewing.

There were two Samsung OLEDs in two different rooms. In the first room (where I saw Amadeus yesterday), I watched Skyfall. The night scenes really were a revelation in terms of the dynamics and realism of the image, especially the Shanghai at night sequence, Bond swimming, to Bond chasing the dude to the elevator scene. The richness of the dark scenes combined with the richness of the overall colour, cast by all different city light sources, was something else.


At one point the split the signal of some of the Samsung promotional shots (new ones, I hadn't seen - standard HD nature stuff) with both the OLED playing it and a nearby 4K display. The image did look better on the OLED due to the color richness and contrast, which made the image generally look a bit deeper and more solid, and also actually sharper in some shots, where good contrast was required.


In the other room I watched some of the crew in Prometheus prowling around the wrecked Alien ship. It looked a bit hyped in terms of contrast, losing some detail in the highlights on the helmets, a bit "video." But nonetheless as a sheer display of contrast, the pitch black of the tunnel with the blinding lights shining off their helmets, it was pretty amazing. Then they switched the picture mode from dynamic to a calibrated cinema setting

and there was a huge change, predictably. Color and contrast becoming much more muted. And, although no doubt more accurate, I have to say an image calibrated like that doesn't jump out anything like the more dynamic mode in terms of "look at me I'm a new technology" feeling. I think I might have just looked at the calibrated Prometheus image and moved on pretty quickly if I didn't know I was staring at OLED. But I'm sure under darker conditions the difference between the calibrated OLED image and a calibrated LCD/Plasma image would be apparent.


And...again...I was still more aware of the pixels. If I had to choose between a 4K display and an OLED right now, at similar sizes, I'd choose the OLED because contrast/color richenss is an attribute that is obvious from any practical viewing distance, across pretty much all source material, of any source resolution. Whereas the benefits of 4K are noticeable under much stricter conditions, closer viewing, source material etc.

But, at this point I wouldn't like to take a step "backwards" in display resolution/pixel density, and would want to wait for the holy grail of OLED 4K.


Oh, and one last thing: the curvature of the screen is ridiculous. Aside from making it stand out from the crowd aesthetically (mission accomplished) it does one thing for the image: distorts it from almost every viewing position. I was continually annoyed by the curved distortion of the image, which was particularly apparent in letter-boxed movie content like Sky-fall.

I have an anamorphic lens that I use sometimes for my projection system for 2:35:1 content and one of the things you have to deal with from certain throw distances is a bowing of the image that you have to work to negate. Yet, here is a display technology that should be blessedly free of such issues, deliberately introducing a curve into the picture! Egads.


----------



## tgm1024


 

RH, like 2 others, I gave you a thumbs-up.  Nice post.  And yes, that curve is maddening.  1 monumental step forward (OLED PQ) and 2 steps back (an actually *deliberate* distortion!).  Very weird times.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7410#post_23903804
> 
> 
> RH, like 2 others, I gave you a thumbs-up.  Nice post.  And yes, that curve is maddening.  1 monumental step forward (OLED PQ) and 2 steps back (an actually _deliberate_ distortion!).  Very weird times.



Cool. An over 200 page thread that seemed to stop dead once I made my posts. It was gettin' lonely in here.


----------



## vinnie97

Lonely with all that thumbs up love? I'll add to that total to make it 6.







I am thoroughly convinced that the manufacturers are concerned the PQ isn't enough to differentiate it from their LED lightbleeders, hence the curvaceous gimmickry.


----------



## R Harkness

LOL vinnie, thanks. I don't pay attention to the "thumbs up" stuff and absolutely LOATHE the infiltration of "like" buttons throughout the internet. It's conversation that I like.


----------



## rogo

You killed the thread because, really, what more needs to be said.










Seriously, though, I agree with pretty much every word.


----------



## catonic

Full points for the use of the term "Egads" Rich. Excellent.


----------



## Artwood

R Harkness: At what size and at what quality would it take FLAT 4K OLED to make you switch away from projection?


Would a 110 inch do it or would you like slightly larger?


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7410#post_23905252
> 
> 
> R Harkness: At what size and at what quality would it take FLAT 4K OLED to make you switch away from projection?
> 
> 
> Would a 110 inch do it or would you like slightly larger?




That's a good question and it's one OLED has me occasionally contemplate. And I still don't have an answer.


I have a bit of an unusual situation in that I vary the size of my image depending on the source material, the effect I want it to have, how it looks best, guest preferences, etc. So I'll watch 16:9 content anywhere from 95" diag to 136" diagonal, and 2:35:1 CinemaScope between 99" to 125" wide. A smaller, brighter, more dense projected image has a more plasma-like look which I sometimes enjoy, other times I want the image huge. But, in essence, I'm already sometimes shrinking my image for some content as opposed to other projector owners who maintain one image size.


If projection contrast/technology stood still I could imagine being happy with 105" diagonal at the smallest for an OLED panel. That's actually a nice size I often settle on at home. But then there's the 2:35:1 movie issue, where I'm used to watching scope at much larger widths than I can ever expect from an OLED and I'd be back to watching the 2:35:1 image shrink down compared to 16:9. That's a pretty huge advantage of projection to overcome, and I'm not sure I could give it up. Until OLED showed up, the JVC projectors had the largest measured contrast ratio of any display type (says some of the tech publications). The contrast/black levels are already pretty amazing on the JVC projector I own, and JVC just made another leap in contrast this year (I'll be receiving that model soon). Interestingly, image sharpness, something I might have expected to miss in projection vs a flat panel, hasn't been an issue. The top projectors can produce ridiculously sharp images on surprisingly large image sizes and when I view flat panels I never think I'm seeing a sharper image, just a smaller one.


I think the most compelling thing for me about an OLED panel is both the true "off" black levels - which would be really something in the black-out environment conditions in which I watch, and the insanely high ANSI contrast that, barring some new advance in projector technology, no projector will match.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23904001
> 
> 
> I don't pay attention to the "thumbs up" stuff and absolutely LOATHE the infiltration of "like" buttons throughout the internet.


 

I thumbs-up'd you on this.


----------



## vinnie97

lol @ the irony


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23899896
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7300_100#post_23898928
> 
> 
> 3. What precisely is holding up TOLED anyway?  Unified subpixel-free pixels have been regarded as a huge win for a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> Black levels I suppose, and I think most TOLED designs have been RGB rather than layered designs.
Click to expand...

 

In a manner of speaking.  I was referring to the TOLED technology used in SOLED, to meet your desire for a subpixel free pixel.  Here's a good definition of what I was referring to.

 


> Quote:
> Definition of:*TOLED*
> 
> (*T*ransparent *OLED*) An organic LED display technology that is entirely transparent. Regular OLEDs use a transparent anode layer that faces the user and a cathode layer that reflects light back. The TOLED uses both a transparent anode and cathode, which enables a see-through device.
> 
> *Stacked OLEDs*
> 
> Using TOLED technology, OLEDs can be constructed as a stacked OLED (SOLED), in which separate red, green and blue layers are stacked on top of each other. *A stacked OLED provides precise color alignment because the R, G and B pixels are directly on top of each other rather than side-by-side* as with regular OLED and other display technologies. See OLED .


----------



## rogo

Ironically, the LG design is a stacked OLED. The only problem is that it cannot address the red, green and blue OLED layers separately. And that "only problem" is a very hard one to fix manufacturing-wise, which is why you haven't seen such a thing.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23914420
> 
> 
> Ironically, the LG design is a stacked OLED. The only problem is that it cannot address the red, green and blue OLED layers separately. And that "only problem" is a very hard one to fix manufacturing-wise, which is why you haven't seen such a thing.


 

We went back and forth over this some time ago.  In the case of the LG, the white light underpinning to each of the subpixels is likely from a blue OLED and yellow phosphor (a dichromatic white).  That's what the papers seem to indicate.  It's also how most white LED's (sans the O) work.  "Stokes shift" and all that.  The stuff that referred specifically to 3 discrete layers of OLED to form the white were what seemed like 4th hand or speculative info.  We had to dive into what seemed like the least guessing of the guesswork.  If LG recently said something specific to it, please tell me.

 

In any case, I would love to know what the holdup is on this SOLED stuff.  If it yielded anything impressive at all, and were remotely doable, it'd have been a show floor prototype by now.  I'm left wondering if there is no real win to the "subpixel free pixel" afterall.


----------



## rogo

Sorry, to me it's unimportant whether LG is using a 2-stack or a 3-stack. They could just as easily be using a 3-stack, but it would be still unaddressable, so it's entirely a moot point.


My original source on there being three colors was Universal Display, but it again doesn't matter. You _could_ build a three-stack display since there is red and green -- just ask Samsung.


I doubt stacking is a win. It would require tremendously complex electrode stacking in a way that neither Samsung nor LG does. You would have to deposit electrodes on each vertical layer with a channel to get them fed back down below, passing through the other layers. You'd still need lots and lots of transistors, but unlike the existing designs, you'd have a harder time getting them to do their magic.


LG seems to have work to do on refining the IGZO transistors and opening up the aperture ratio on the color filters. In the end, it will wind up with something that has a fill ratio closer to the Samsung.


It does seem pretty appealing to ultimately just deposit the layers one on top of the other in a stacked design and perhaps that's eventually in the offing, But I doubt it's a priority in the near term because the display folks seem to have a lot of other things on their plate, notably flexibility.


----------



## mtbdudex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7410#post_23907137
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23904001
> 
> 
> I don't pay attention to the "thumbs up" stuff and absolutely LOATHE the infiltration of "like" buttons throughout the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thumbs-up'd you on this.
Click to expand...


Thx Rich for your post, really great info buried in this tech thread.

Btw, tap talk does not have a thumbs up option .....



Via my 32GB iPhone4 using Tapatalk


----------



## JimP

I've read some post that OLED will also have ABL behavior.


What is the current thinking about this.


----------



## RWetmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7410#post_23916497
> 
> 
> I've read some post that OLED will also have ABL behavior.
> 
> 
> What is the current thinking about this.



Obviously it's not good. I don't think anyone desires ABL.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7410#post_23916497
> 
> 
> I've read some post that OLED will also have ABL behavior.
> 
> 
> What is the current thinking about this.



We need to see how much ABL is required.

If for example, it can maintain 50 fl on a full white screen, it will do fine in a retain environment like Best Buy / Magnolia.


My 65ZT60 does about 10 fL and a BB it is disastrous.

I can understand why they do not sell in that Store.


Paul's TV used DirectTV feeds and Plasma's look great.


At this point, I think concern is justified.


- Rich


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23916257
> 
> 
> I doubt stacking is a win. It would require tremendously complex electrode stacking in a way that neither Samsung nor LG does. You would have to deposit electrodes on each vertical layer with a channel to get them fed back down below, passing through the other layers. You'd still need lots and lots of transistors, but unlike the existing designs, you'd have a harder time getting them to do their magic.


It is definitely a "win" for image quality. I don't think you will find a single projector that's not using a "stacked" design. The difference is that with three chip projectors, each image is overlaid and does not align perfectly, whereas DLP does the "stacking" temporally using the same pixel elements so it's perfectly sharp.


That said, in some cases it does end up lowering your effective resolution. With computer graphics that use subpixel rendering, you can increase your effective resolution quite a bit, and now Sharp are using subpixel rendering to give you almost 4K resolution from their 1080p panels.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23916747
> 
> 
> We need to see how much ABL is required.
> 
> If for example, it can maintain 50 fl on a full white screen, it will do fine in a retain environment like Best Buy / Magnolia.
> 
> 
> My 65ZT60 does about 10 fL and a BB it is disastrous.
> 
> I can understand why they do not sell in that Store.
> 
> 
> Paul's TV used DirectTV feeds and Plasma's look great.
> 
> At this point, I think concern is justified.


It depends on what you consider ABL a problem for. If your only concern is maximum brightness with a white screen, I think OLED will be fine. According to HDTVtest Samsung's OLED hits 150cd/m2 with a full white pattern, and I'm sure LG's is brighter still. It's not comparable to LCDs yet, but not that dim either.


The main problem for me with an ABL is how it affects the display's peak brightness - and it's doubly important with OLED.

I don't know what Samsung's ABL does, but say it dims the panel by as much as 70%. That means if the fully dimmed brightness is 150cd/m2 you will have peaks of 500cd/m2 when only small areas of the screen are lit.

When you're watching in a darkened room - as people are likely to do with an OLED set (you are buying it for the black level after all) I find 500cd/m2 to be piercingly bright and uncomfortable to watch.


I'm not so concerned about the maximum brightness of the panel - 100cd/m2 is the "reference" brightness and what I have my displays calibrated to. In fact, I will sometimes switch to a preset that is set to _half_ that brightness if I'm feeling tired or have a headache.

But I use an LCD set so when it's calibrated to 100cd/m2, it is 100cd/m2 whether it's the full screen or a small area of the screen that's lit.


With many of the plasmas I've owned in the past, when you calibrate them so that their brightness is 100cd/m2 with a full white screen, they would be above 200cd/m2 for peak brightness which was uncomfortable for me to watch. I _really_ don't like much above 100cd/m2 in a dim room.

If you set the plasma so that the peaks were 100cd/m2, then a full white screen would be down to 50cd/m2 which looks awfully dull. I could never find a compromise between peak and full screen brightness I was happy with.



Fortunately, with Sony's OLEDs at least, it seems that when you reduce the contrast control, this also reduces the strength of the ABL - just like CRTs. With Plasmas, the ABL was typically at a fixed strength regardless of what contrast was set to.

On the Sony OLED monitors, reducing contrast to about 70% completely eliminates the ABL - hopefully that will also be the case with Samsung and LG's OLEDs.

I haven't seen anyone measure their ABL performance though, and I don't know anyone that bothered to include ABL measurements in their plasma reviews either - something I was really pushing for. Not to show off how "bad" plasmas were relative to LCDs, but so we knew how the ABL behaved across each plasma, and we would have been able to make comparisons to the OLEDs.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23917728
> 
> 
> That said, in some cases it does end up lowering your effective resolution. With computer graphics that use subpixel rendering, you can increase your effective resolution quite a bit, and now Sharp are using subpixel rendering to give you almost 4K resolution from their 1080p panels.


 

Well, then tell me what you think of this take of mine then:

 

In computer graphics, SPR works well because you *start* with an object with the goal of then *rendering* it the best you can.  Where your algorithm puts the information within the raster (a font for instance) is entirely up to the algorithm.

 

In video, you *instead* start with an array of pixels sent to you.  I'm not sure what can be done at that point except for two big issues:

 
Interpolation in panning (the line of pixels now has 3x the horizontal resolution from mere SPR placement alone---this is definitely a win)
and interpolative object smoothing (a recognized hi contrast jagged line for instance, that could then have smoothing algorithms rendering it more carefully when it is moved).

 

But without having seen it, I'm still unable to imagine that approaching 4K effects, especially since 4K *itself* has its own interpolation going on.  Have you seen Sharp's results in person?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23916257
> 
> 
> Sorry, to me it's unimportant whether LG is using a 2-stack or a 3-stack. They could just as easily be using a 3-stack, but it would be still unaddressable, so it's entirely a moot point.


 

This comment off-ramp is only mooted because it's not at all the same kind of layered approach as SOLED (given the definition I posted above).

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> 
> It is definitely a "win" for image quality. I don't think you will find a single projector that's not using a "stacked" design. The difference is that with three chip projectors, each image is overlaid and does not align perfectly, whereas DLP does the "stacking" temporally using the same pixel elements so it's perfectly sharp.


 

The reason I question whether or not it's a win (results worth the economics) is not because I can't imagine it to be so, but because I'm just not seeing one prototype demo of it after another.  Has anyone seen any such thing with OLED?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23917974
> 
> 
> In video, you _instead_ start with an array of pixels sent to you.  I'm not sure what can be done at that point except for two big issues:


Yes, but you can send a 4K image to a 1080p panel and downsample that using subpixel rendering. I think Sharp are also offering upscaling features for 1080p native sources, which take advantage of the subpixel rendering.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23917974
> 
> 
> But without having seen it, I'm still unable to imagine that approaching 4K effects, especially since 4K _itself_ has its own interpolation going on.  Have you seen Sharp's results in person?


I haven't had the opportunity to see them in person, but I can say that it will be very easy for them to double vertical resolution. Sharp have been using a split subpixel design where there are separate upper and lower halves to each subpixel for years at this point. The difference is that they are now independently addressable, previously they were simply used to improve panel efficiency and gradation (I believe) by dithering with them.


A 50% gray line is displayed like this on current panels, rather than the having both the upper and lower halves turned on at 50%, for example. (which is why I suspect it's done to improve efficiency)


http://imgur.com/xkZNGod.png%5B/IMG%5D



Now with the upper and lower halves individually addressable, you really have a 1920x2160 panel with rectangular pixels.


http://imgur.com/V8SwfFx.jpg%5B/IMG%5D



Horizontal resolution, I am less convinced about, because they're splitting the RGBY layout, which doesn't really give you full pixels, and it's only going to work in some situations.

You won't always be able to replace red+green with the yellow subpixel for example. (p.s. I wish these slides were available in English)

You will definitely have improved resolution in _some_ situations, but it's not going to be equivalent to a 4K panel all the time.



http://imgur.com/Sm6NO3C.jpg%5B/IMG%5D




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23918027
> 
> 
> The reason I question whether or not it's a win (results worth the economics) is not because I can't imagine it to be so, but because I'm just not seeing one prototype demo of it after another. Has anyone seen any such thing with OLED?


Oh I'm quite sure they have no interest in pursuing it when it's a lot more complicated and they can "hide" subpixels by simply making higher resolution "2D" panels rather than three dimensional stacked panels.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7410#post_23917728
> 
> 
> 
> That said, in some cases it does end up lowering your effective resolution. With computer graphics that use subpixel rendering, you can increase your effective resolution quite a bit, and now Sharp are using subpixel rendering to give you almost 4K resolution from their 1080p panels.
> 
> It depends on what you consider ABL a problem for. If your only concern is maximum brightness with a white screen, I think OLED will be fine. According to HDTVtest Samsung's OLED hits 150cd/m2 with a full white pattern, and I'm sure LG's is brighter still. It's not comparable to LCDs yet, but not that dim either.
> 
> 
> The main problem for me with an ABL is how it affects the display's peak brightness - and it's doubly important with OLED.
> 
> I don't know what Samsung's ABL does, but say it dims the panel by as much as 70%. That means if the fully dimmed brightness is 150cd/m2 you will have peaks of 500cd/m2 when only small areas of the screen are lit.
> 
> When you're watching in a darkened room - as people are likely to do with an OLED set (you are buying it for the black level after all) I find 500cd/m2 to be piercingly bright and uncomfortable to watch.
> 
> 
> I'm not so concerned about the maximum brightness of the panel - 100cd/m2 is the "reference" brightness and what I have my displays calibrated to. In fact, I will sometimes switch to a preset that is set to _half_ that brightness if I'm feeling tired or have a headache.
> 
> But I use an LCD set so when it's calibrated to 100cd/m2, it is 100cd/m2 whether it's the full screen or a small area of the screen that's lit.
> 
> 
> With many of the plasmas I've owned in the past, when you calibrate them so that their brightness is 100cd/m2 with a full white screen, they would be above 200cd/m2 for peak brightness which was uncomfortable for me to watch. I _really_ don't like much above 100cd/m2 in a dim room.
> 
> If you set the plasma so that the peaks were 100cd/m2, then a full white screen would be down to 50cd/m2 which looks awfully dull. I could never find a compromise between peak and full screen brightness I was happy with.
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, with Sony's OLEDs at least, it seems that when you reduce the contrast control, this also reduces the strength of the ABL - just like CRTs. With Plasmas, the ABL was typically at a fixed strength regardless of what contrast was set to.
> 
> On the Sony OLED monitors, reducing contrast to about 70% completely eliminates the ABL - hopefully that will also be the case with Samsung and LG's OLEDs.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone measure their ABL performance though, and I don't know anyone that bothered to include ABL measurements in their plasma reviews either - something I was really pushing for. Not to show off how "bad" plasmas were relative to LCDs, but so we knew how the ABL behaved across each plasma, and we would have been able to make comparisons to the OLEDs.



150 cd/m2 is about 43 fL so that is 4 time better than plasma. That should help in the showroom but more is better.

Plasma is dead because of ABL. It wasn't the screen thickness, power usage, or price. The picture was certainly excellent.

It was the showroom brightness.


OLED looks plenty bright for me as is Plasma.

I like Sony's approach as well.


- Rich


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7410#post_23917728
> 
> 
> It is definitely a "win" for image quality. I don't think you will find a single projector that's not using a "stacked" design. The difference is that with three chip projectors, each image is overlaid and does not align perfectly, whereas DLP does the "stacking" temporally using the same pixel elements so it's perfectly sharp.



I was obviously discussing flat panels as this is the flat-panel forum.


> Quote:
> The main problem for me with an ABL is how it affects the display's peak brightness - and it's doubly important with OLED.
> 
> I don't know what Samsung's ABL does, but say it dims the panel by as much as 70%. That means if the fully dimmed brightness is 150cd/m2 you will have peaks of 500cd/m2 when only small areas of the screen are lit.
> 
> When you're watching in a darkened room - as people are likely to do with an OLED set (you are buying it for the black level after all) I find 500cd/m2 to be piercingly bright and uncomfortable to watch.



And human eyes have a strict contrast limit for simultaneous use, so if you get "pierced" your eye will adjust and move you away from "seeing" the blacks.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7410#post_23918027
> 
> 
> This comment off-ramp is only mooted because it's not at all the same kind of layered approach as SOLED (given the definition I posted above).



Again, LG is not making pixels with OLED, which is why I don't care. My point about OLED stacking remains. It will be hard to do, so I doubt it will be done anytime soon.


> Quote:
> The reason I question whether or not it's a win (results worth the economics) is not because I can't imagine it to be so, but because I'm just not seeing one prototype demo of it after another.  Has anyone seen any such thing with OLED?



If no one has a clue how to build it and sees limited benefit, why even prototype it?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7410#post_23917728
> 
> 
> Fortunately, with Sony's OLEDs at least, it seems that when you reduce the contrast control, this also reduces the strength of the ABL - just like CRTs. With Plasmas, the ABL was typically at a fixed strength regardless of what contrast was set to.
> 
> On the Sony OLED monitors, reducing contrast to about 70% completely eliminates the ABL - hopefully that will also be the case with Samsung and LG's OLEDs.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone measure their ABL performance though, and I don't know anyone that bothered to include ABL measurements in their plasma reviews either - something I was really pushing for. Not to show off how "bad" plasmas were relative to LCDs, but so we knew how the ABL behaved across each plasma, and we would have been able to make comparisons to the OLEDs.


The ABL in PDP is no different than that of OLED or CRT. The peak brightness vs APL is varied in a way to try and keep the average brightness unchanged and thus the power unchanged. Turning down the contrast lowers the peak brightness. At some point it reaches a level below the ABL threshold. Same thing happens in a Plasma but at a much lower threshold.


Efficiency and lifetime determine the strength of the ABL. Primarily PDP ABL was aggressive due to poor efficiency.


As for your stance on low APL being too bright. I remember you stating this before and I still shake my head and find it hard to believe. High peak brightness at low APL with class leading blacks is highly desirable and one of the main reasons PDP contrast repution was so good.


You say it is uncomfortable to watch. In what way? Obviously the average brightness is no higher (actually much lower) so what is bothering your eyes?


----------



## RichB

^^^

For low light viewing, I find ABL beneficial as it limits intensity form dark to light scene transitions.


In the showroom, it is the number one ingredient leading to the demise of Plasma.


- Rich


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23921012
> 
> 
> The ABL in PDP is no different than that of OLED or CRT. The peak brightness vs APL is varied in a way to try and keep the average brightness unchanged and thus the power unchanged. Turning down the contrast lowers the peak brightness. At some point it reaches a level below the ABL threshold. Same thing happens in a Plasma but at a much lower threshold.


Not on any of the plasmas I measured. The Kuros would dim by about 50% no matter whether contrast was high or reduced to very low levels. The only thing that affected the ABL were the power saving options, which made it more aggressive.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23921012
> 
> 
> You say it is uncomfortable to watch. In what way? Obviously the average brightness is no higher (actually much lower) so what is bothering your eyes?


Maybe in theory the eye only cares about average brightness, but I find a small bright area on the screen far more piercing in the darkness than a full screen with the same average brightness, because it's only filling a much smaller portion of your vision.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23921502
> 
> 
> Not on any of the plasmas I measured. The Kuros would dim by about 50% no matter whether contrast was high or reduced to very low levels. The only thing that affected the ABL were the power saving options, which made it more aggressive.


Sounds like something is lost in translation here. Why on earth would a PDP require a fixed ABL when the primary purpose is to limit power? That makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23921618
> 
> 
> Sounds like something is lost in translation here. Why on earth would a PDP require a fixed ABL when the primary purpose is to limit power? That makes absolutely no sense.


Don't ask me, I just know that I saw the same ABL performance no matter what the contrast was set to - or at least, there was no meaningful reduction. (still dimming 50% with peaks of 100cd/m2) I won't say there was _no_ change because this was probably five years ago now, but I'm fairly sure there wasn't any change. Maybe other manufacturers handled it differently (I would hope so) but I tested multiple Kuros, which led me to conclude that they're using a fixed ABL.

Sony's ABL for their LCDs operates in a similar fashion when you enable it. Adjusting the backlight or contrast doesn't affect its strength.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7410#post_23921082
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> For low light viewing, I find ABL beneficial as it limits intensity form dark to light scene transitions.
> 
> 
> In the showroom, it is the number one ingredient leading to the demise of Plasma.
> 
> 
> - Rich


...that, and ignorant buyers...


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23922000
> 
> 
> ...that, and ignorant buyers...



The customer is always right










After viewing the ZT60 at Best Buy, I was doubtful until I went to Paul's TV.

I love my ZT60, but


...the flesh is weak










- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23922266
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23922000
> 
> 
> ...that, and ignorant buyers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The customer is always right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After viewing the ZT60 at Best Buy, I was doubtful until I went to Paul's TV.
> 
> I love my VT60, but
> 
> 
> ...the flesh is weak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich
Click to expand...

 

A plasma belongs in the dark BB/Magnolia room.  Period, end of story.  It does not belong on the surface-of-the-sun BB floor.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23922311
> 
> 
> A plasma belongs in the dark BB/Magnolia room.  Period, end of story.  It does not belong on the surface-of-the-sun BB floor.



Did you mean: Period, end of Plasma










They are in the Magnolia area, but then you run the BB feeds with super bright white and yellow content the Plasmas look pale in comparison.


Here is a shot from BB. I think you can guess which screen in the Plasma.

I know better and this display worried me









 


People will say that was you camera.

No, this is what the buyer is faced with.


- Rich


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23922392
> 
> 
> Here is a shot from BB. I think you can guess which screen in the Plasma.
> 
> I know better and this display worried me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich


The bright showroom problem was due to the diffuse reflections washing out contrast on PDP. As you point out the real problem is brightness, irrelevant of ambient light. When you put a display that is up to 5 times brighter than PDP beside it, the PDP will look dull in any ambient light.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23922392
> 
> 
> Did you mean: Period, end of Plasma
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are in the Magnolia area, but then you run the BB feeds with super bright white and yellow content the Plasmas look pale in comparison.
> 
> 
> Here is a shot from BB. I think you can guess which screen in the Plasma.
> 
> I know better and this display worried me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People will say that was you camera.
> 
> No, this is what the buyer is faced with.
> 
> 
> - Rich



Good example Rich.


It's pretty obvious that demo material favors LEDs.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23921818
> 
> 
> Don't ask me, I just know that I saw the same ABL performance no matter what the contrast was set to - or at least, there was no meaningful reduction. (still dimming 50% with peaks of 100cd/m2) I won't say there was _no_ change because this was probably five years ago now, but I'm fairly sure there wasn't any change. Maybe other manufacturers handled it differently (I would hope so) but I tested multiple Kuros, which led me to conclude that they're using a fixed ABL.
> 
> Sony's ABL for their LCDs operates in a similar fashion when you enable it. Adjusting the backlight or contrast doesn't affect its strength.


Ah, I took your meaning as the magnitude drop remains fixed. A percent drop makes more sense. Still not sure why it is needed if the power threshold remains the same.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23922620
> 
> 
> The bright showroom problem was due to the diffuse reflections washing out contrast on PDP. As you point out the real problem is brightness, irrelevant of ambient light. When you put a display that is up to 5 times brighter than PDP beside it, the PDP will look dull in any ambient light.



I looks like OLED's may avoid this pitfall.


Perhaps Plasma could not do much about the ABL, but I hope OLED manufacturers realize the need to seer eyeballs in order to sell them and overbuild them a bit.


I will happily turn it down when I get it home.


- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23922637
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23922392
> 
> 
> Did you mean: Period, end of Plasma
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are in the Magnolia area, but then you run the BB feeds with super bright white and yellow content the Plasmas look pale in comparison.
> 
> 
> Here is a shot from BB. I think you can guess which screen in the Plasma.
> 
> I know better and this display worried me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People will say that was you camera.
> 
> No, this is what the buyer is faced with.
> 
> 
> - Rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good example Rich.
> 
> 
> It's pretty obvious that demo material favors LEDs.
Click to expand...

 

Yep.  Point taken well.  More than a little sad.

 

BTW, occasionally they F up on the floor with LED's too.  My local BB had all the panels on torch, but the KDL-55W802A obviously had its eco setting on and looked like a ridiculous 1/3rd as bright.


----------



## Chris5028

My Local BB has the ST60 set up in a bright area but it runs on a different demo loop than the LED sets around it. The ST60 really pops out at you even with the other TVs being brighter. I bet the store manager has a bit of Plasma fancy...


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23923120
> 
> 
> Yep.  Point taken well.  More than a little sad.



It's tragic.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23923538
> 
> 
> My Local BB has the ST60 set up in a bright area but it runs on a different demo loop than the LED sets around it. The ST60 really pops out at you even with the other TVs being brighter. I bet the store manager has a bit of Plasma fancy...



On real context Plasma is fantastic.


- Rich


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23922915
> 
> 
> I looks like OLED's may avoid this pitfall.
> 
> 
> Perhaps Plasma could not do much about the ABL, but I hope OLED manufacturers realize the need to seer eyeballs in order to sell them and overbuild them a bit.
> 
> 
> I will happily turn it down when I get it home.
> 
> 
> - Rich



Well OLED's are not very affordable right now and will not be so for for quite some time it looks like. That means most people interested in this top notch dollar display will probably be viewing it in a premium viewing environment with controlled lighting etc. But yes when the prices come down retailers will rush to push this thing in torch mode and undoubtably hang it on the wall way above  eye level or do many other horrible things you can think of as well. 🙈


----------



## rogo

77" completely fake prototype 4K LG OLED wins some silly CES pre-show award... Jiggity.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57612022-221/lgs-4k-oled-tv-wins-ces-award-hands-on/


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23941127
> 
> 
> 77" completely fake prototype 4K LG OLED wins some silly CES pre-show award... Jiggity.
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57612022-221/lgs-4k-oled-tv-wins-ces-award-hands-on/


 

Not sure what a "fake prototype" is if it turned on and showed an image without exploding, but in any event LG needs to make English tag lines a little less clumsy sounding than "with Ultimate Vividness".  That's gotta be among the goofiest pitches yet.  I think they may have fallen into a Korean version of the common trap of "literal translation".


----------



## vinnie97

How 'bout making **** up like ultimate vividity?


I know LG has a habit of fibbing, but I'm going to take them at their word that it is an actual prototype.


----------



## Rich Peterson

And it's curved.


----------



## work permit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23941469
> 
> 
> And it's curved.



Ouch. How long are they going to keep this up? I mean, the market for sets costing $10,000 is small enough. How many people are looking to spend that much on a curved set? I'm starting to think they dont want to actually sell any sets at all.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23941184
> 
> 
> Not sure what a "fake prototype" is if it turned on and showed an image without exploding, but in any event LG needs to make English tag lines a little less clumsy sounding than "with Ultimate Vividness".  That's gotta be among the goofiest pitches yet.  I think they may have fallen into a Korean version of the common trap of "literal translation".



No input panel for starters...


I mean, I suppose if you want to call it an "engineering prototype" it's not fake. But it's not like, "Oh, here's something that's in a rough state, but was constructed using manufacturing techniques,." This was hand built and is designed to mimic an actual television, but it isn't actually one.


It's not a prototype of an actual product, which makes it winning an award kind of bizarre. That LG continues to parade out things that are not even remotely real and acts like they are remotely real is offensive.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23942512
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23941184
> 
> 
> Not sure what a "fake prototype" is if it turned on and showed an image without exploding, but in any event LG needs to make English tag lines a little less clumsy sounding than "with Ultimate Vividness".  That's gotta be among the goofiest pitches yet.  I think they may have fallen into a Korean version of the common trap of "literal translation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No input panel for starters...
> 
> 
> I mean, I suppose if you want to call it an "engineering prototype" it's not fake. But it's not like, "Oh, here's something that's in a rough state, but was constructed using manufacturing techniques,." This was hand built and is designed to mimic an actual television, but it isn't actually one.
> 
> 
> It's not a prototype of an actual product, which makes it winning an award kind of bizarre. That LG continues to parade out things that are not even remotely real and acts like they are remotely real is offensive.
Click to expand...

 

Point taken.

 

I suppose I harken back to Sony's Crystal LED, which you pointed out didn't have a prayer of being produced outside of prototype quantities.  That won the best display award in CES2012, and wasn't a real product, as much as I wish it could have been.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23942897
> 
> 
> Point taken.
> 
> 
> I suppose I harken back to Sony's Crystal LED, which you pointed out didn't have a prayer of being produced outside of prototype quantities.  That won the best display award in CES2012, and wasn't a real product, as much as I wish it could have been.



Yeah, so the good news about this LG is that it has a prayer of being produced at some point, unlike that Sony. Both were similarly bogus prototypes in terms of being production ready, but at least the LG points to a future direction of something they already have in the works.


The bad news about OLED -- for me at least -- is I've come to believe the only way it will reach mass production at all is via printable technology. I don't believe either Samsung or LG can scale the current methods to interesting volumes. The good news is that I believe printable OLEDs are more than a fantasy... But more on that soon.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23945707
> 
> 
> Yeah, so the good news about this LG is that it has a prayer of being produced at some point, unlike that Sony. Both were similarly bogus prototypes in terms of being production ready, but at least the LG points to a future direction of something they already have in the works.


A prototype means that they are experimenting with the technology. There's nothing "bogus" about it if they were able to show a working display. Having a prototype says nothing about how soon that technology is ready to hit the market, if it even will.

Sony were telling people that they should not expect the Crystal LED display to become an actual product - they were just showcasing some of the technologies they were exploring.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23945707
> 
> 
> The bad news about OLED -- for me at least -- is I've come to believe the only way it will reach mass production at all is via printable technology. I don't believe either Samsung or LG can scale the current methods to interesting volumes. The good news is that I believe printable OLEDs are more than a fantasy... But more on that soon.


I'm not sure why it's a bad thing if the future of OLED is through printed displays - we already have companies developing the technology who have demonstrated working prototypes, and Sony have announced 30" and 56" OLEDs for sale next year based on this technology, so they are clearly making progress.


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23942512
> 
> 
> No input panel for starters...
> 
> 
> I mean, I suppose if you want to call it an "engineering prototype" it's not fake. But it's not like, "Oh, here's something that's in a rough state, but was constructed using manufacturing techniques,." This was hand built and is designed to mimic an actual television, but it isn't actually one.
> 
> 
> It's not a prototype of an actual product, which makes it winning an award kind of bizarre. That LG continues to parade out things that are not even remotely real and acts like they are remotely real is offensive.











So no 77" 4k oled at Walmart on Black Friday?


----------



## ALMA

New Samsung OLED-TV at CES with a variable curvature?


> Quote:
> Samsung to pyeotda bent 'variable OLED TV' puts out early next year. TV is variable depending on your taste and the flat surface of the screen with the remote control operation of the free transition to the commercialization, if a TV is rated as a breakthrough product.
> 
> 
> According to industry sources, Samsung Electronics, the 13th and the last flat surface free of the outer frame of the TV capable of switching the variable order. Industry official said, "This is the 1st year in Las Vegas, the world's largest consumer electronics trade show held the International Electronics Show (CES) 2014 'variable in the TV show as prototypes for the line of previous work knows that," he said. So far, Samsung at CES 2012 flat OLED TV, 2013 년 curved OLED TV at CES has released one.
> 
> 
> To launch a new product, *the remote control allows you to adjust the curvature* seems to be. Industry official said, "the launch of any TV that Samsung is not known with respect to the variable OLED TV in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office last May, the TV screen with the remote control to adjust the curvature of the patent pending technology, the state," he said.



http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Feconomy.hankooki.com%2Flpage%2Findustry%2F201311%2Fe20131113171836120180.htm


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23946178
> 
> 
> A prototype means that they are experimenting with the technology. There's nothing "bogus" about it if they were able to show a working display.



There's a huge difference between a prototype of a _product_ and a prototype that serves as a technology demonstration. When BMW shows off a prototype of the i3 electric car, that's a "Hey, this thing is coming next year" prototype. LG shows off a technology demonstration. It was not a product prototype.


> Quote:
> Having a prototype says nothing about how soon that technology is ready to hit the market, if it even will.



Product prototypes signify intent to manufacture. They usually are followed by... products. Technology prototypes signify... next to nothing.


> Quote:
> Sony were telling people that they should not expect the Crystal LED display to become an actual product - they were just showcasing some of the technologies they were exploring.



Actually, Sony people were telling people about 15 different stories about Crystal LED. How do I know? Because I heard 15 different stories. None of them were very close to the truth which was, "We have no idea why this thing is here, we are never going to build TVs using this technology."


> Quote:
> I'm not sure why it's a bad thing if the future of OLED is through printed displays - we already have companies developing the technology who have demonstrated working prototypes, and Sony have announced 30" and 56" OLEDs for sale next year based on this technology, so they are clearly making progress.



It's not a bad thing, except for the fact that the only two commercially available OLEDs are not printed and therefore cannot see their production scaled up. And Sony has no OLED production facility of any kind*, even in the planning stage. So when they "announce" the sale of something for next year, we should be wary of that. It's certainly true that they are making progress. I believe they will be well served to scrap their progress and start over soon.


* Sony does, of course, produce their much smaller broadcast OLEDs. That facility does not use printable tech and won't be part of the TV-making using printables.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23946324
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a bad thing, except for the fact that the only two commercially available OLEDs are not printed and therefore cannot see their production scaled up.



So what exactly do you see as the show stopper for LG's approach?


----------



## JWhip

Rogo, I look forward to hearing more about the printing process progress. Hopefully sooner rather than later!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23946306
> 
> 
> New Samsung OLED-TV at CES with a variable curvature?
> http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Feconomy.hankooki.com%2Flpage%2Findustry%2F201311%2Fe20131113171836120180.htm


 

Every time I try to read an auto-translation of Asian text, I come away realizing that it might have really said 3 different things.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23946324
> 
> 
> It's not a bad thing, except for the fact that the only two commercially available OLEDs are not printed and therefore cannot see their production scaled up. And Sony has no OLED production facility of any kind*, even in the planning stage. So when they "announce" the sale of something for next year, we should be wary of that. It's certainly true that they are making progress. I believe they will be well served to scrap their progress and start over soon.



Hopefully, Panasonic is doing something with their soon to be mothballed factories.


Sony is working with Panasonic. Is it possible that they will produce the panels for Sony (perhaps not the TV)?


- Rich


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23947422
> 
> 
> Hopefully, Panasonic is doing something with their soon to be mothballed factories.
> 
> 
> Sony is working with Panasonic. Is it possible that they will produce the panels for Sony (perhaps not the TV)?
> 
> 
> - Rich



I think they were only partnering with Sony on R&D and have since parted ways. I guess we will know for sure at CES this year. It is sure to be one of the biggest CES ever with tall the new tech coming. 4K OLED, 4K BLu-ray etc. In all likely hood, if Panasonic OLED printing method has not significantly increased yields they will most likely exit the panel business They have a few mediocre LCD and there 4K LED panels will not be selling in viable numbers until 2016. No one can compete against Chinese slave labor wages. You have to have a product locked down with patents and a method they can not legally duplicate to compete. Even the Koreans and Taiwanese are going to have trouble in the future.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23947565
> 
> 
> .No one can compete against Chinese slave labor wages. You have to have a product locked down with patents and a method they can not legally duplicate to compete. Even the Koreans and Taiwanese are going to have trouble in the future.



You are right with the exception of "slave wages". They are paid their market wages. Wages are low due to the abundance of manpower and simple tasks but what people earn is way better than in the countryside. In some local markets in China wages went up significantly.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23946585
> 
> 
> So what exactly do you see as the show stopper for LG's approach?



There is huge material waste going on, combined with an inability to get an even deposition layer. It's solvable to an extent, but it will never be efficient and it will have high particle counts always and therefore yield issues... It also won't get cheap while it keeps wasting OLED and won't get fast since it requires three steps to deposit OLED.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23947422
> 
> 
> Hopefully, Panasonic is doing something with their soon to be mothballed factories.
> 
> 
> Sony is working with Panasonic. Is it possible that they will produce the panels for Sony (perhaps not the TV)?



So there's confusion here on a couple of issues:


1) Panasonic currently has no plans to manufacture OLED even if chooses to make branded OLEDs. Neither does Sony.


2) Panasonic and Sony partnered on developing technology to make possible the manufacture of OLEDs, not actually OLED displays. In other words, the equipment itself. Some of that equipment is pretty important going forward, but I think they are going to be leapfrogged on pieces of the value chain very soon.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23951086
> 
> 
> There is huge material waste going on, combined with an inability to get an even deposition layer. It's solvable to an extent, but it will never be efficient and it will have high particle counts always and therefore yield issues... It also won't get cheap while it keeps wasting OLED and won't get fast since it requires three steps to deposit OLED.



You are right about the material waste, but I think you have to keep that in context. The total material revenues for OLED's are something like 5% of Samsung's OLED revenues. I am sure it is much much higher for LG right now but I see little reason that they wont be able to eventually close the gap with Samsung's yields in mobile. The only difference between the two approaches is getting rid of the shadowmask and that should actually increase yields. Some differences is in layer thickness and doping concentrations will also impact television cost structures, but I very much doubt that we are talking about dramatic increases in total costs.


I agree that printing changes the game in terms of throughputs and it is likely required if OLED's are going to truly become a LCD replacement. However, there is a big difference between getting down to that level and simply taking over a big chunk of the high-end market.


----------



## coolscan

If anybody very much desire a high-end OLED reference monitor, the Flanders Scientific 24.5" reference OLED monitor is on offer for $7000 less than the regular price. 

12 bit signal processing & 12 bit signal support
All inputs provided at no additional charge (3G/Dual-Link/HD/SD-SDI, Component, Composite, and DVI-I)
Instantly selectable Rec. 709, EBU, SMPTE-C, & DCI-P3 modes
Compatible with industry leading 3rd party calibration solutions like LightIllusion's LightSpace CMS and SpectraCal's CalMAN Studio for advanced 3D LUT based calibration of your monitor
DIT LUT import for on-set use of technical or look LUTs. Using the Main Component of LightSpace allows you to instantly convert virtually any format to FSI's .dat format for use on the monitor
12 Video Scope Modes that work across all inputs as well as audio level meters and an audio phase meter for use with SDI embedded audio
Durable metal construction, yet the monitor only weighs 17 lbs. (7.7 kg)!
AC or DC operation
...and of course outstanding black level performance, unmatched by any other display technology!


----------



## vinnie97

Tempting but still not at $6500. Thanks for the head's up.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23951086
> 
> 
> There is huge material waste going on, combined with an inability to get an even deposition layer. It's solvable to an extent, but it will never be efficient and it will have high particle counts always and therefore yield issues... It also won't get cheap while it keeps wasting OLED and won't get fast since it requires three steps to deposit OLED.
> 
> So there's confusion here on a couple of issues:
> 
> 
> 1) Panasonic currently has no plans to manufacture OLED even if chooses to make branded OLEDs. Neither does Sony.
> 
> 
> 2) Panasonic and Sony partnered on developing technology to make possible the manufacture of OLEDs, not actually OLED displays. In other words, the equipment itself. Some of that equipment is pretty important going forward, but I think they are going to be leapfrogged on pieces of the value chain very soon.



It's a gamble, Sharp is betting the approach will pay off down the road. This is one of the reasons I like Sharp actually, they llike to think of new ways to do something like they did with the yellow subpixel . They tend to think outside the box, in many ways they remind me of Apple only not quite as smart.










If Panasonic or Sony want to stay in the display industry they both need to start working on OLED technology, they know this so and so explains this joint venture. Whether or not they decide to go into the OLED display market together is yet to be seen but it would make sense. It's ether going to happen or they won't remain in the display industry for much longer which seems highly unlikely given their past ventures.


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23951086
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23946585
> 
> 
> So what exactly do you see as the show stopper for LG's approach?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is huge material waste going on, combined with an inability to get an even deposition layer. It's solvable to an extent, but it will never be efficient and it will have high particle counts always and therefore yield issues... It also won't get cheap while it keeps wasting OLED and won't get fast since it requires three steps to deposit OLED.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23947422
> 
> 
> Hopefully, Panasonic is doing something with their soon to be mothballed factories.
> 
> 
> Sony is working with Panasonic. Is it possible that they will produce the panels for Sony (perhaps not the TV)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there's confusion here on a couple of issues:
> 
> 
> 1) Panasonic currently has no plans to manufacture OLED even if chooses to make branded OLEDs. Neither does Sony.
> 
> 
> 2) Panasonic and Sony partnered on developing technology to make possible the manufacture of OLEDs, not actually OLED displays. In other words, the equipment itself. Some of that equipment is pretty important going forward, but I think they are going to be leapfrogged on pieces of the value chain very soon.
Click to expand...

You love talking in absolutes.


Let's go back in time and kill the cd or prevent recorded video tapes. I am sure you made the same absolute statements about them failing to.


CDs and pre-recorded tapes had a lot of problems and or cost when first manufactured. And they eventually found cheaper methods for both.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23955882
> 
> 
> You love talking in absolutes.



You love trolling me, but whatever.


> Quote:
> Let's go back in time and kill the cd or prevent recorded video tapes. I am sure you made the same absolute statements about them failing to.



CDs weren't expensive to produce when they were new. CD players were, but that had an understandable path to getting stupidly cheaper. And, of course, it did. I have no idea what recorded videotapes have to do with this, but the issue there was always business model not technology.


> Quote:
> CDs and pre-recorded tapes had a lot of problems and or cost when first manufactured. And they eventually found cheaper methods for both.



Again, you are conflating almost entirely irrelevant things.


And tons of technologies, do, in fact, fail to get traction. Quadrophonic sound anyone? Digital Compact Cassette? SACD? In the heyday for projection TV, which many of you probably think was a success, it moved 4 million units globally per year. If OLED TV gets that far and no farther, it will never succeed and will be gone from the market faster than it arrived.


But all of this is irrelevant, if you actually read my last few posts above, they are bullish on OLED, not bearish. That said, I am aware of things that lead me to believe that we remain about 2-3 years from meaningful changes in OLED production and pricing. People expecting something major next year are likely to be disappointed. People who keep repeating that Panasonic is producing an OLED this year will look foolish. In the plasma announcement, they had no words about OLED. They don't see it as something that can be productized soon -- because it can't. And a lot of people I've been speaking with now believe that while it can be a success, the success is predicated on a whole new set of production processes. None of those are currently in place.


The situation is not terribly far from the situation with LCD TV at the turn of the millennium. When the first large-size LCDs were shown, they were not manufactureable. It was impossible to get the LC material evenly distributed on the substrate in less than hours or days _for each TV_. Then a manufacturing change came along and that process took minutes. It was possible afterward to start ramping up production of LCD fabs all over and for LCD to take over the TV world. OLED isn't suffering from one process flaw, but from two different processes that both cannot scale. Fortunately, people know the solution. Making it world is going to take time.


----------



## RichB

From the HDJ insider thread I sense no optimism about near term OLED production.

2 to 3 years, at best, sounds right to me. So right, that I upgraded to Panasonic ZT60 display.

I will just have to suffer through the years










I get the feeling that 4K is going to be such a huge push, that Panasonic felt that the technical hurdles were not worth the investment and this lead to the decision to cease production.


I think it is a shame that they never built a 75 inch Plasma. I can't say it would have been commercial success but would have bought one in a heart beat.


- Rich


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23957339
> 
> 
> From the HDJ insider thread I sense no optimism about near term OLED production.
> 
> 2 to 3 years, at best, sounds right to me. So right, that I upgraded to Panasonic ZT60 display.
> 
> I will just have to suffer through the years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get the feeling that 4K is going to be such a huge push, that Panasonic felt that the technical hurdles were not worth the investment and this lead to the decision to cease production.
> 
> *I think it is a shame that they never built a 75 inch Plasma.* I can't say it would have been commercial success but would have bought one in a heart beat.
> 
> 
> - Rich



Hear! hear!

Guess I'll have to wait for a decently priced 75" OLED, 4K display with good off-axis viewing now...


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23957339
> 
> 
> I think it is a shame that they never built a 75 inch Plasma. I can't say it would have been commercial success but would have bought one in a heart beat.


They do have 85" models though.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23957339
> 
> 
> From the HDJ insider thread I sense no optimism about near term OLED production.



As I've said, they are simply not close to production.


> Quote:
> 2 to 3 years, at best, sounds right to me. So right, that I upgraded to Panasonic ZT60 display.
> 
> I will just have to suffer through the years



Good call. Minimal suffering, I'd say.









> Quote:
> I get the feeling that 4K is going to be such a huge push, that Panasonic felt that the technical hurdles were not worth the investment and this lead to the decision to cease production.
> 
> 
> I think it is a shame that they never built a 75 inch Plasma. I can't say it would have been commercial success but would have bought one in a heart beat.



Funny thing is they had the motherglass to make a 150". Not sure why they didn't cut some 75s and see what happened...


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23957602
> 
> 
> They do have 85" models though.




It seems to be the older technology and too pricey for me.


- Rich


----------



## boe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23954012
> 
> 
> If anybody very much desire a high-end OLED reference monitor, the Flanders Scientific 24.5" reference OLED monitor is on offer for $7000 less than the regular price.
> 
> 
> Too small for me and worthless for gaming although I'm sure it has a nice picture for static images.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23957392
> 
> 
> Hear! hear!
> 
> Guess I'll have to wait for a decently priced 75" OLED, 4K display with good off-axis viewing now...



What will be your viewiing distance to the 75"@4K OLED if it materializes before your EOL?


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23957179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23955882
> 
> 
> You love talking in absolutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You love trolling me, but whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Let's go back in time and kill the cd or prevent recorded video tapes. I am sure you made the same absolute statements about them failing to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CDs weren't expensive to produce when they were new. CD players were, but that had an understandable path to getting stupidly cheaper. And, of course, it did. I have no idea what recorded videotapes have to do with this, but the issue there was always business model not technology.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> CDs and pre-recorded tapes had a lot of problems and or cost when first manufactured. And they eventually found cheaper methods for both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are conflating almost entirely irrelevant things.
> 
> 
> And tons of technologies, do, in fact, fail to get traction. Quadrophonic sound anyone? Digital Compact Cassette? SACD? In the heyday for projection TV, which many of you probably think was a success, it moved 4 million units globally per year. If OLED TV gets that far and no farther, it will never succeed and will be gone from the market faster than it arrived.
> 
> 
> But all of this is irrelevant, if you actually read my last few posts above, they are bullish on OLED, not bearish. That said, I am aware of things that lead me to believe that we remain about 2-3 years from meaningful changes in OLED production and pricing. People expecting something major next year are likely to be disappointed. People who keep repeating that Panasonic is producing an OLED this year will look foolish. In the plasma announcement, they had no words about OLED. They don't see it as something that can be productized soon -- because it can't. And a lot of people I've been speaking with now believe that while it can be a success, the success is predicated on a whole new set of production processes. None of those are currently in place.
> 
> 
> The situation is not terribly far from the situation with LCD TV at the turn of the millennium. When the first large-size LCDs were shown, they were not manufactureable. It was impossible to get the LC material evenly distributed on the substrate in less than hours or days _for each TV_. Then a manufacturing change came along and that process took minutes. It was possible afterward to start ramping up production of LCD fabs all over and for LCD to take over the TV world. OLED isn't suffering from one process flaw, but from two different processes that both cannot scale. Fortunately, people know the solution. Making it world is going to take time.
Click to expand...

Typical rogo. Try and change the subject.


Anyway CDs were massivly expensive to make when first produced they had every issue you spoke of as a reason for oled never getting cheaper to manufacture, but they did. And all it took was persistence at improving the method they used tiny steps at a time.


Vhs tapes took 2 hours to make even when prices dropped by 2/3rds. There are many things that go into making something profitable and all your reasons behind your attempt for years now to say oled will not be sold are now so many tears on the rain.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7400_100#post_23967807
> 
> 
> Anyway CDs were massivly expensive to make when first produced they had every issue you spoke of as a reason for oled never getting cheaper to manufacture, but they did. And all it took was persistence at improving the method they used tiny steps at a time.


 

What makes CDs a particularly crummy analogy is that in the beginning they were expensive to create but the end price never reflected the massive decrease as time went on.  Annoying as hell, especially now it costs more for that @#$%ing STOOOPIDLY designed jewel case than for the disc.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/05/arts/pennies-that-add-up-to-16.98-why-cd-s-cost-so-much.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


> Quote:
> "In the early days of compact disks in the 80's, CD's cost between $3 and $4 to get manufactured," said David Grant, the vice president of sales at WEA. "But as CD making processes have become more automated and capacity has been added, CD costs have come down and the market has steadied."


 

Further, it just doesn't fit this discussion for yet another reason: the technology involved in TVs advances continually.  CD's, aside from manufacturing techniques, don't increase resolution, or color, or sound fidelity, or or or or or....they're not a moving target.

 

CD-R's might have been a better example, because they were TRULY whackjob expensive in the beginning.


----------



## Rich Peterson

CNET compares OLED, LCD, and Plasma in this article . Here's a summation. More info in the article.



Light output (brightness)

Winners: LCD, OLED (sort of)

Loser: Plasma



Black level

Winner: OLED

Loser: LCD

Runner-up: Plasma



Contrast ratio

Winner: OLED

Loser: LCD

Runner-up: Plasma



Resolution

Winner: LCD

Loser: Plasma

Runner-up: OLED



Motion blur

Winner: Plasma

Loser/Runner-up: LCD and OLED



Refresh rate

Winner: Plasma, OLED, LCD



Viewing angle

Winner: Plasma

Loser: LCD

Runner-up: OLED



Energy consumption

Winner: LED LCD

Runner-up: Plasma and OLED


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23967403
> 
> 
> What will be your viewiing distance to the 75"@4K OLED if it materializes before your EOL?



Right now we're about 10 feet from my 65" Panny, but want to move to about 7 feet away or so in a future set up...

Some people sit even as close as 5 feet away right now.

Also, a 75" would be perfect for the space I have available, whereas 84" or up would be too large.

77" might be do-able (if with a thin bezel), and I think one manufacturer is working on such a size(?).


----------



## RichB

^^^


75 inch is the new 65










For me 75 would be great but I would not turn something bigger at a reasonable price.


- Rich


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23967807
> 
> 
> Typical rogo. Try and change the subject.



Seriously, go get a life that doesn't involve trolling me. Seriously. It will help you.


You also should buy a mirror on the way to getting that life. It is precisely you that goes and tries to change the subject.


> Quote:
> Anyway CDs were massivly expensive to make when first produced they had every issue you spoke of as a reason for oled never getting cheaper to manufacture, but they did. And all it took was persistence at improving the method they used tiny steps at a time.



By 1987, CDs were under $16 on average. They would get _slightly_ cheaper over the next few years, to under $13. They would then rise in price. The idea that CDs were ever "massively expensive" to end consumers _and also purchased_ is simply a lie.


You can see that CD sales didn't exist as a detectable number before 1986, I could easily have chosen 1988 or 1989 as the "first meaningful year" but 1987 was the first year the average price was below $16.

 


The facts, of course, belie your false claims.


There is truth that CD players were ridiculously expensive at first. I remember a friend's dad doing business with Sony and getting a $900 CD player as part of the work. We were all blown away by it because no one we knew would buy such a thing (even those people who could afford one). Of course, within 2 years, that was $200.


> Quote:
> Vhs tapes took 2 hours to make even when prices dropped by 2/3rds. There are many things that go into making something profitable and all your reasons behind your attempt for years now to say oled will not be sold are now so many tears on the rain.



Again, there exist two possibilities and only two:


1) You lack basic reading comprehension skill.


2) You are just trolling.


For years, I've been explaining why it would be very challenging to produce cost effective OLED TVs and _lo and behold there are still no cost effective OLED TVs anywhere on earth_. Guess what, I have been 100% correct. About the only mistake I made was to be duped by CES 2012 into believing that (1) LG and Samsung would deliver TVs in 2012, which, of course, they didn't do. (2) Believing LG had developed some breakthrough that would allow mass production of OLEDs, which, of course, they haven't.


If one wishes to go back and read what I've written here, it more or less predicted that mass production of OLED televisions was due in the second half of this decade and, _lo and behold, mass production of OLED televisions is due in the second half of this decade._ There remains a zero percent change that worldwide OLED TV volume will reach 1 million units next year which means there is a zero percent chance OLED TV volume will reach even 1/2 of 1 percent of global TV volume. Or, put differently, if you look at the 10% of TVs that are 50" and up (~25 million units), OLED will not comprise anywhere near 5% of that market next year.


While it's hazardous at this point to make explicit guesses for 2015 production, it seems like the million-unit mark will be challenging to achieve given that Samsung has absolutely no means to mass produce TVs at this juncture and LG is planning on perhaps building its next gen fab _late in 2014_. LG's fab could supply something like 1 million units if it runs at full production and >60% yields in 2015.


So, again, in the real world, to sum up, I've been right all along. I've never say, "OLED TV will not happen." I've said, "it's going to be hard and there are challenges that need to be overcome for it to happen." If those are not overcome, it will not, in fact, happen. And if you actually talk to equipment suppliers in the industry -- as I have -- they are looking at things like reaching the 1% of the TV market plateau by 2016 and by decade's end starting to make serious market-share inroads.


By then, perhaps you'll be able to get one for your basement.


----------



## aleitry

Interesting MIT Technology Review article regarding OLED inkjet printing: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/521656/inkjet-printing-could-be-the-key-to-next-generation-oled-displays/


----------



## dsinger

Thanks for finding that. Hopefully the market ready comment is fact and not sales hype.


----------



## tlwiz1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aleitry*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23974622
> 
> 
> Interesting MIT Technology Review article regarding OLED inkjet printing: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/521656/inkjet-printing-could-be-the-key-to-next-generation-oled-displays/



Another one here: http://news.oled-display.net/2013/kateeva-yieldjet-to-print-cost-effective-flexible-large-oled-tv-displays/ 


This article as some interview questions/answers with the manufacturer. I am very excited and hopeful for this tech now! 6 x 55" at once...in 90-120 seconds!







HOLY CRAP! Imagine a huge display...done!


----------



## vinnie97

Does anyone know if any of the key display manufacturers have purchased one of those bad boys or are they in the process of doing so?


EDIT: This is confidential courtesy of the NDA according to the company president.


----------



## vinnie97

From the Oled Display article, Rogo is in good company:


> Quote:
> Dr. Jennifer Colegrove President of California-based Touch Display Research, expects that 2016 will be the take-off year for OLED TVs. By 2020, she predicts that the market will reach $15.5 billion.


----------



## vinnie97

Blue still poses longevity issues:


> Quote:
> Nitrogen is the ultimate OLED processing environment. Early data shows that with Yieldjet device lifetime in certain applications more than doubles. What does that mean in hours?
> 
> 
> Answer: Using the best red and green materials, LT50 lifetime of hundreds of thousands of hours are possible. And for the best blue materials, LT50 lifetimes of tens of thousands of hours are possible.


----------



## JWhip

Looks promising. Let's hope it turns out to be in the real world.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tlwiz1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23975003
> 
> 
> Another one here: http://news.oled-display.net/2013/kateeva-yieldjet-to-print-cost-effective-flexible-large-oled-tv-displays/
> 
> 
> This article as some interview questions/answers with the manufacturer. I am very excited and hopeful for this tech now! 6 x 55" at once...in 90-120 seconds!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOLY CRAP! Imagine a huge display...done!



I found this article to be very informative, especially the question and answer part. I encourage everyone to check it out.


There are many other similar articles out there. This one from Electronic Engineering times says: "Kateeva claims to already have customers for its Yieldjet, and that displays manufactured using them will begin appearing in 2014.". If that's true, we should see more OLEDs on the market next year.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7440#post_23946324
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a bad thing, except for the fact that the only two commercially available OLEDs are not printed and therefore cannot see their production scaled up. And Sony has no OLED production facility of any kind*, even in the planning stage. So when they "announce" the sale of something for next year, we should be wary of that. It's certainly true that they are making progress. I believe they will be well served to scrap their progress and start over soon.
> 
> 
> * Sony does, of course, produce their much smaller broadcast OLEDs. That facility does not use printable tech and won't be part of the TV-making using printables.



Hi rogo correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that Sony had been producing and selling very expensive and high-end OLED's display's for professional studios for a few years now? I did read somewhere that OLED technology was invented through Sony's research and development team so they claim anyway? So if they did indeed invent or at the very least pioneer the technology they should be in a better position then others starting out with no name and trying to be competitive. This is all assuming they wish to enter into the lower price range market and produce lower-cost OLED displays. Now we all know that companies can claim whatever they want and we also know it doesn't make it true so please take everything I'm saying here with a grain of salt as this is only from what I read in the past. Anyway I don't know if Sony outsourced the technology and had someone else build their OLED display's most likely but whatever the case I do believe they have been selling professional grade OLED displays to big time movie producers or studios for a few years now and that's bound to be worth something I would think.










Nevermind just saw your response in the lower section.










Update (Quote rogo) "* Sony does, of course, produce their much smaller broadcast OLEDs. That facility does not use printable tech and won't be part of the TV-making using printables"


Would using printables be the only viable option for low-cost consumer level based OLED displays?


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7470#post_23951086
> 
> 
> There is huge material waste going on, combined with an inability to get an even deposition layer. It's solvable to an extent, but it will never be efficient and it will have high particle counts always and therefore yield issues... It also won't get cheap while it keeps wasting OLED and won't get fast since it requires three steps to deposit OLED.
> 
> So there's confusion here on a couple of issues:
> 
> 
> 1) Panasonic currently has no plans to manufacture OLED even if chooses to make branded OLEDs. Neither does Sony.
> 
> 
> 2) Panasonic and Sony partnered on developing technology to make possible the manufacture of OLEDs, not actually OLED displays. In other words, the equipment itself. Some of that equipment is pretty important going forward, but I think they are going to be leapfrogged on pieces of the value chain very soon.



Rogo; Find it a bit unusual that you haven't commented on Kateeva. Given 2 above did you write their press release?


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23979209
> 
> 
> Rogo; Find it a bit unusual that you haven't commented on Kateeva. Given 2 above did you write their press release?



Maybe he was busy working on this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/11/19/apple-likes-to-say-its-products-have-the-best-displays-it-can-stop/


----------



## rogo

I will have a story on Kateeva probably this weekend. Mine should have run Tuesday as well (I met with the company), but I got absolutely _swamped_ with other stuff and had a lot of posts this week -- including that Apple one. I think the Kateeva tech is a potential breakthrough in actually scaling OLEDs and I think the industry actually agrees. That doesn't mean Kateeva will necessarily win, but it seems somewhat inevitable that everyone is going to move toward printables. Two years removed from the Samsung and LG prototypes, neither can produce more than a nominal amount of displays per month using their existing techniques. More on this in my post...


Dsinger, as for "writing their press release", of course not, but I did meet with the founder and the new CEO. Very impressive folks.


----------



## wco81

Where are these articles?


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23977344
> 
> 
> I found this article to be very informative, especially the question and answer part. I encourage everyone to check it out.
> 
> 
> There are many other similar articles out there. This one from Electronic Engineering times says: "Kateeva claims to already have customers for its Yieldjet, and that displays manufactured using them will begin appearing in 2014.". If that's true, we should see more OLEDs on the market next year.




It does appear the printing method may finally lead to OLED becoming a mass produced product. I would guess the LG and Samsung method will be discontinued in a few years, if the printing method pans out. Once again we are back to the waiting game. I am curious if the Kateeva method can do 4K restitution, because by the time they start cranking them out most will be looking to future proof.


----------



## Esox50

I don't understand all of the technical details, but I did pick up something about G8 (or 6 x 55"). What does that imply for bigger sized OLED TVs? What would be the logical bigger size TV panels to be cut from this G8? I'm trying to get sense of what size OLED TVs might show up from this new process. Ideally, i'd like to go 75-84" on my next TV...and 4K to boot.


----------



## tgm1024

Seems to me that if it gets cheap enough (sounds like it has the potential to be the pie-in-the-sky hope for volume with production cost one day below LCD) that it could diminish the issue of blue mortality to mere noise.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23980178
> 
> 
> Where are these articles?



If you are asking about the Kateeva OLED printing press release, here are some:


http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/21/kateeva-oled-tv-inkjet-printer/ 
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2427454,00.asp 
http://www.oled-info.com/kateeva-finally-unveil-their-yieldjet-oled-tv-inkjet-printing-system 
http://news.oled-display.net/2013/kateeva-yieldjet-to-print-cost-effective-flexible-large-oled-tv-displays/ 
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/kateevas-yieldjet-printer-may-make-oled-tv-affordable-for-the-masses/ 
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/521656/inkjet-printing-could-be-the-key-to-next-generation-oled-displays/ 
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1320174&itc=eetimes_sitedefault


----------



## wco81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23980408
> 
> 
> If you are asking about the Kateeva OLED printing press release, here are some:
> 
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/21/kateeva-oled-tv-inkjet-printer/
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2427454,00.asp
> http://www.oled-info.com/kateeva-finally-unveil-their-yieldjet-oled-tv-inkjet-printing-system
> http://news.oled-display.net/2013/kateeva-yieldjet-to-print-cost-effective-flexible-large-oled-tv-displays/
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/kateevas-yieldjet-printer-may-make-oled-tv-affordable-for-the-masses/
> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/521656/inkjet-printing-could-be-the-key-to-next-generation-oled-displays/
> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1320174&itc=eetimes_sitedefault



Thanks, but I meant rogo referring to writing up articles. Is that on the front page of AVS?


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23980255
> 
> 
> It does appear the printing method may finally lead to OLED becoming a mass produced product. I would guess the LG and Samsung method will be discontinued in a few years, if the printing method pans out. Once again we are back to the waiting game. I am curious if the Kateeva method can do 4K restitution, because by the time they start cranking them out most will be looking to future proof.


From http://news.oled-display.net/2013/kateeva-yieldjet-to-print-cost-effective-flexible-large-oled-tv-displays/ 


> Quote:
> What are the limitations in resolution? Is this technology UHD ready? What is the largest size?
> 
> 
> YIELDjet can provide sufficient precision for 4K x 2K displays at the 31” size and up (e.g. ~120 ppi), and a G8 system (2500 mm x 2200 mm – large enough to fit 6 x 55” TVs) is under construction in our facility.We are also developing an approach for inkjet printing much higher resolution displays (e.g. ~400 ppi) for mobile applications on YIELDjet by using novel pixel layouts more tailored to inkjet,





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23980744
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I meant rogo referring to writing up articles. Is that on the front page of AVS?


No, he's a contributor at Forbes.com.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23980255
> 
> 
> It does appear the printing method may finally lead to OLED becoming a mass produced product.



I believe -- cannot confirm, but believe -- that everyone feels this is true. If printing does not pan out, mass-produced OLED TVs don't happen. But it's looking like it will pan out.


> Quote:
> I would guess the LG and Samsung method will be discontinued in a few years, if the printing method pans out. Once again we are back to the waiting game.



Yes, but a reasonable wait. Production of some volume by 2015, moving to interesting production numbers in 2016. Don't expect much next year, sadly.


> Quote:
> I am curious if the Kateeva method can do 4K restitution, because by the time they start cranking them out most will be looking to future proof.



It's probably more amenable to 4K than most because it reduces the creation of spurious particles.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Esox50*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23980279
> 
> 
> I don't understand all of the technical details, but I did pick up something about G8 (or 6 x 55"). What does that imply for bigger sized OLED TVs? What would be the logical bigger size TV panels to be cut from this G8? I'm trying to get sense of what size OLED TVs might show up from this new process. Ideally, i'd like to go 75-84" on my next TV...and 4K to boot.



So 8G has always been good for 6 x 55" and always has sucked for everything bigger. The industry has managed to produce 60" and 65" and 75" TVs from 8G substrates, some of which have eventually achieved reasonable costs. (The cheapest 60" and 70" TVs are usually from Sharp-sourced panels, made on the world's only 10G fab, which is great for those sizes.) So the bad news is large quantities of bigger numbers are going to be unlikely for the next few years. The good news is that roll-to-roll type production is doable with OLED and may come online in 5 years or so. If it does, substrate size becomes less important.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23980356
> 
> 
> Seems to me that if it gets cheap enough (sounds like it has the potential to be the pie-in-the-sky hope for volume with production cost one day below LCD) that it could diminish the issue of blue mortality to mere noise.



My guess is that throwaway displays are not the future. But lifespans are going to be better with the printables for a couple of technical reasons and true 30,000-hour displays are going to meet the needs of the TV market, I believe.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23980744
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I meant rogo referring to writing up articles. Is that on the front page of AVS?



No, I don't write here, though some of the stuff on the AVS front is really good.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23980861
> 
> 
> From http://news.oled-display.net/2013/kateeva-yieldjet-to-print-cost-effective-flexible-large-oled-tv-displays/
> 
> 
> No, he's a contributor at Forbes.com.



Yes, I got outed a while back. I cover a lot of different tech stuff and OLED is an area of interest. I felt kind of bad not covering the Kateeva news the day it was free of the embargo it just wasn't in the cards for me. The good news is that most of the articles were either press release-y or too arcane for most of the Forbes audience. I hope to bring some context to it; some of which you guys will be familiar with. But if people want to see it, I'll link when it goes live.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_23981150
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23980356
> 
> 
> Seems to me that if it gets cheap enough (sounds like it has the potential to be the pie-in-the-sky hope for volume with production cost one day below LCD) that it could diminish the issue of blue mortality to mere noise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that throwaway displays are not the future. But lifespans are going to be better with the printables for a couple of technical reasons and true 30,000-hour displays are going to meet the needs of the TV market, I believe.
Click to expand...

 

I believe that it is the natural tendency to produce cheaper and cheaper products (with few outliers).  CRTs turned into throwaway items decades ago when they became prohibitive to repair at the component level (a TV repair tech told me that the real turning point for him was the late 80's for even Sony Trinitrons).  VCR's quickly became use an toss items.  Speakers, radios, laptops, etc., etc., have all turned to the point where the replacement cost upon failure has decreased to the point where it's a no-brainer move.  It's not a stretch to say that if manufacturing costs drop significantly, then OLEDs will follow suit.  If quality is high enough, I actually welcome that.


----------



## 8mile13

 *_a few pics*


----------



## mr. wally




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23979986
> 
> 
> I will have a story on Kateeva probably this weekend. Mine should have run Tuesday as well (I met with the company), but I got absolutely _swamped_ with other stuff and had a lot of posts this week -- including that Apple one. I think the Kateeva tech is a potential breakthrough in actually scaling OLEDs and I think the industry actually agrees. That doesn't mean Kateeva will necessarily win, but it seems somewhat inevitable that everyone is going to move toward printables. Two years removed from the Samsung and LG prototypes, neither can produce more than a nominal amount of displays per month using their existing techniques. More on this in my post...
> 
> 
> Dsinger, as for "writing their press release", of course not, but I did meet with the founder and the new CEO. Very impressive folks.





good stuff


thanks


----------



## tgm1024


Regarding the YIELDjet.  I hate when companies/press/whoever use slight of hand stats like "The result: A 10X reduction in particles when compared to commonly used OLED production techniques."

 

What does that mean exactly?  Do they now have 1/10th the number of particles, or are they now removing 10 times as many particles as used to be removed?  (A completely different result).


----------



## dsinger

Rogo: Regarding your comments on screen size in post 7513, I would be interested in your impressions as to how difficult it would be to scale their "printer" to a larger size. Based upon the photos multiplying by 1.x to produce 6x80" doesn't look too difficult. Thanks


----------



## rogo

Kateeva would likely have no problem (nor would, I suspect, anyone else doing printables), but no substrate in the world has been proposed that is 6 x 80". The largest active substrates are the 10G ones used by Sharp at Sakai. And it's currently the only operational (planned?) 10G fab. One thing I'm not entirely clear on (well, I'm not at all clear on it), is what exactly is being used as the substrate material for the would-be flexible OLEDs. It's possible that there is some flexibility in size there, but there is the bigger issue of whether mfrs. will produce to a size that few consumers are looking for. It could be a little while.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_23988300
> 
> 
> Kateeva would likely have no problem (nor would, I suspect, anyone else doing printables), but no substrate in the world has been proposed that is 6 x 80". The largest active substrates are the 10G ones used by Sharp at Sakai. And it's currently the only operational (planned?) 10G fab. One thing I'm not entirely clear on (well, I'm not at all clear on it), is what exactly is being used as the substrate material for the would-be flexible OLEDs. It's possible that there is some flexibility in size there, but there is the bigger issue of whether mfrs. will produce to a size that few consumers are looking for. It could be a little while.


 

I was going to ask about our assumptions on substrates, but not specific to flexibles.  I don't see anything that condemns printable technology to using the same substrates that LCD's require.  There are other dimensionally stable materials that OLED's can be printed on, no?  There's no need for the uber-rigid glass base if we're no longer putting down dimensionally fragile grids and electronics, is there?


----------



## slacker711

The ultimate goal is roll to roll OLED printing for both lighting and displays. That would create a real revolution in both market segments but there are a huge number of technical issues before we get there.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/417307/roll-to-roll-plastic-displays/


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23989457
> 
> 
> The ultimate goal is roll to roll OLED printing for both lighting and displays. That would create a real revolution in both market segments but there are a huge number of technical issues before we get there.
> 
> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/417307/roll-to-roll-plastic-displays/



Sure, I'm just questioning whether standard substrates are even an issue any longer for the rigid OLED displays.


----------



## rogo

For the moment, standard-ish substrates are still an issue, yes. And the idea that you can just undo lots of familiar processes in the name of creating big sizes is just not a priority for the industry. Big sizes = small sales. Lots of standard processes = mass production = possibilities for profit.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23979986
> 
> 
> I think the Kateeva tech is a potential breakthrough in actually scaling OLEDs and I think the industry actually agrees.



What makes you think the industry thinks this is the breakthrough? Obviously Kateeva thinks its a breakthrough. Dow thought their printing tech was a breakthrough 4 years ago too. I'm not disagreeing at all just wondering if you've talked to industry sources outside of Kateeva or have some insight into their customers?


----------



## Mark Rejhon

As a rough comparision in motion blur (pursuit camera / moving eyes) while tracking moving objects on a screen:


16.7ms (1/60) persistence == 60Hz non-strobed LCD

8.3ms (1/120) persistence == 120Hz non-strobed LCD

7.5ms persistence == Sony Trimaster OLED (PVM series)

4.1ms (1/240) persistence == equivalent to 240Hz non-strobed LCD

2.3ms persistence == equivalent to EIZO Turbo240 in FG2421 (which I have, too, measured with my oscilloscope)

2ms persistence == equivalent to Sony GDM-W900 CRT (medium-persistence phosphor)

1.4ms persistence == equivalent to LightBoost=10% setting on new gaming monitors.


As smart display professionals (and engineers) now are beginning to realize, display persistence affects tracking-based motion blur more directly than pixel transition speed. I am pretty curious about knowing the persistence values of other models of OLED's such as Flanders Scientific, Sony BVM series, LG, Samsung, in the various computer-compatible (interpolation-free) motion blur reduction modes of the OLED. Generally, OLED rolling scans are the proper way to reduce OLED motion blur, for gaming and computer use, with zero input lag. If you need help measuring persistence of an OLED, send me a PM. Blur Busters wishes to see more manufacturers use an OLED rolling scan technique in GAME MODE on several of the new AMOLED HDTV's. The trailing off-pass behind the on-pass can be an adjustable distance, to increase/reduce persistence of an OLED, in a brightness-versus-motion-blur tradeoff. Such OLED television makers should include such an adjustment, at least in a service menu or advanced menu. It will be darker and flicker more at shorter settings, but theoretically become much sharper than a CRT. Then for extra brightness, you widen the rolling scan to keep pixels on longer, in exchange for extra tracking-based motion blur (the type of motion blur found at testufo.com/eyetracking which is a different cause of motion blur than pixel-transition-related motion blur)

*I am REALLY interested in knowing the exact persistence values for the LG OLED and the Samsung OLED*, in their blur-reducing modes (black frame insertion). Symmetrical black frame insertion (50%:50%), during 60Hz, will convert 16.7ms persistence into 8.3ms persistence, but black frame insertion isn't always 50%:50% .... (the duty cycle affects persistence, as explained in animation at testufo.com/blackframes#count=3 ).


Does anyone have exact persistence measurements for the LG and Samsung?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23994237
> 
> 
> What makes you think the industry thinks this is the breakthrough? Obviously Kateeva thinks its a breakthrough. Dow thought their printing tech was a breakthrough 4 years ago too. I'm not disagreeing at all just wondering if you've talked to industry sources outside of Kateeva or have some insight into their customers?



I think you'd be wise not to clip quotes without context. The next sentence makes it pretty clear I'm not actually saying Kateeva's tech has already been hailed by the industry as a breakthrough, but rather than printables have been.


That said, what makes me think Kateeva's tech is one is that it appears to be a better take on printing than anything that currently exists. And it solves problems at a couple of the hardest steps of the manufacturing process period. The company is like an Applied Materials, a Nikon (the semiconductor part), a KLA-Tencor. They aren't going to be seen or heard from by end customers ever. But they have cleaned up a lot of what was wrong in printing. Don't be surprised to learn that they do have customers within the next year. But keep in mind, also, it's a risky business. There are maybe a dozen possible customers on the entire planet.


----------



## Rich Peterson

This just in from the I-guess-every-little-bit-helps file:

*LG's lowers the price of their 55" curved OLED TV by $200 to $8,799*


Source: http://www.oled-info.com/lgs-lowers-price-their-55-curved-oled-tv-200-8799


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23995300
> 
> 
> That said, what makes me think Kateeva's tech is one is that it appears to be a better take on printing than anything that currently exists. And it solves problems at a couple of the hardest steps of the manufacturing process period. The company is like an Applied Materials, a Nikon (the semiconductor part), a KLA-Tencor. They aren't going to be seen or heard from by end customers ever. But they have cleaned up a lot of what was wrong in printing. Don't be surprised to learn that they do have customers within the next year. But keep in mind, also, it's a risky business. There are maybe a dozen possible customers on the entire planet.



Is this Kateeva tech suitable only for megabillion dollar plants or one could buy one printing machine and establish a workshop printing displays with size to order ?







.


----------



## Heinz68

Hard to believe about "soon", but if the Chinese display manufacturers will start producing OLED panels it sure will help to push the prices down, same goes for the 4K UHD. Read more and pictures at FlatPanelsHD 


> Quote:
> *OLED TVs will soon get cheaper*
> 
> Samsung and LG are producing their own OLED panels, and we hear that they are steadily improving production yields and reducing costs. It is also reported that Samsung and LG are setting up new, larger OLED plants in Korea.
> 
> The Chinese display manufacturers will also be joining soon. TCL – the third largest TV maker during some months – has received board approval to build an 8.5G plant to produce LCD and OLED panels. TCL aims to produce 55-inch OLED panels. Construction of the plant will commence in late 2013. Another Chinese display manufacturer, BOE, also has plans to set up an 8G plant to produce OLED panels for TVs, but no date has been announced.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Heinz68*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23998640
> 
> 
> Hard to believe about "soon", but if the Chinese display manufacturers will start producing OLED panels it sure will help to push the prices down, same goes for the 4K UHD. Read more and pictures at FlatPanelsHD
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> *OLED TVs will soon get cheaper*
> 
> Samsung and LG are producing their own OLED panels, and we hear that they are steadily improving production yields and reducing costs. It is also reported that Samsung and LG are setting up new, larger OLED plants in Korea.
> 
> The Chinese display manufacturers will also be joining soon. TCL – the third largest TV maker during some months – has received board approval to build an 8.5G plant to produce LCD and OLED panels. TCL aims to produce 55-inch OLED panels. Construction of the plant will commence in late 2013. Another Chinese display manufacturer, BOE, also has plans to set up an 8G plant to produce OLED panels for TVs, but no date has been announced.
Click to expand...

There have been two chinese OLED prototypes, Seiki and Haier*, at the IFA. Were are the TCL OLED prototype's? Shouldn't there be at least a prototype before building a 8.5 plant?



**Haier and Seiki OLEDs at the IFA 2013*
*Did two chinese electronics companies pass LG OLED TV panels off as theirs???* 


> Quote:
> It was reported that chinese firms used products made by an korean display maker. The TVs were not supplied officially. Instead, chinese companies bought finished products, took them apart and reassembled them



The pic in the Flatpanelshd.com article suggests that chinese manufacturers have an OLED screen manufacturing machine. Its the US Kateeva YIEDJet. Chinese manufacturers do not have a OLED screen manufacturing machine








http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1385446730


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23998893
> 
> 
> There have been two chinese OLED prototypes, Seiki and Haier*, at the IFA. Were are the TCL OLED prototype's? Shouldn't there be at least a prototype before building a 8.5 plant?
> 
> 
> 
> **Haier and Seiki OLEDs at the IFA 2013*
> *Did two chinese electronics companies pass LG OLED TV panels off as theirs???*
> 
> The pic in the Flatpanelshd.com article suggests that chinese manufacturers have an OLED screen manufacturing machine. Its the US Kateeva YIEDJet. Chinese manufacturers do not have a OLED screen manufacturing machine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1385446730



Does anyone know how the Yiedjet is different than the Panasonic/Sony OLED printing method? Is it just the inclusion of the nitrogen chamber for less defects? It does finally look like OLED might have a road to serious mass production with this equipment. Still, it will probably be late next year before anyone start production and probably late 2016 until they reach mass consumption pricing.


----------



## rogo

I think the timetable for anyone using Kateeva's tech is 2015. That doesn't mean there will be no general progress next year but given LG's fab expansion is planned for _late_ next year and it's not actually clear Samsung has any plans to expand its fab despite talking about it pretty often, well....


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23997854
> 
> 
> Is this Kateeva tech suitable only for megabillion dollar plants or one could buy one printing machine and establish a workshop printing displays with size to order ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



I think you KNOW the answer to THAT question!


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500#post_23997557
> 
> 
> This just in from the I-guess-every-little-bit-helps file:
> 
> *LG's lowers the price of their 55" curved OLED TV by $200 to $8,799*
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.oled-info.com/lgs-lowers-price-their-55-curved-oled-tv-200-8799



That MSRP is meaningless. The actual street prices are much lower because they are not selling. If they continue the current decline, we may see these at initial Sharp Elite levels sometime next year. Hopefully they'll also have a flat version by then.


----------



## tgm1024


....meanwhile....

 

Quantum-Dot technology is marching steadily along....the Amazon Kindle Fire HDX 7:

 

http://www.displaymate.com/Tablet_ShootOut_4.htm

 

The more I read about QD the less I understand about it.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7530#post_24004205
> 
> 
> ....meanwhile....
> 
> 
> Quantum-Dot technology is marching steadily along....the Amazon Kindle Fire HDX 7:
> 
> http://www.displaymate.com/Tablet_ShootOut_4.htm
> 
> 
> The more I read about QD the less I understand about it.



A *link* from your link "explains" it. Not really. Is there any possibility that QD could be an independent display technology of it's own, and not just a backlight? Does not seem to be applicable to OLED- or do I have that wrong?


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7530#post_24005280
> 
> 
> A *link* from your link "explains" it. Not really. Is there any possibility that QD could be an independent display technology of it's own, and not just a backlight? Does not seem to be applicable to OLED- or do I have that wrong?




I got the impression that they were two competing technologies with QD already in 55" displays. Reading how OLED that's currently in production can't be scaled into large volume production without using a printing press makes me think that QD has a leg up on OLED.


----------



## rogo

Quantum-dot films on LED-LCDs = real and available now. Things like the Kindle fFire and Sony HDX.


Quantum-dot emissive displays = mythic technology that is nowhere near production anywhere.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24006392
> 
> 
> Quantum-dot films on LED-LCDs = real and available now. Things like the Kindle fFire and Sony HDX.
> 
> 
> Quantum-dot emissive displays = mythic technology that is nowhere near production anywhere.


 

Things like the Sony triluminus are using QD for simple on or off, which are then metered by the LCD element.  Just a replacement for the standard white light to filter arrangement.  The Kindle Fire *HDX 7* write-ups read differently.  It's reading as if the QD's themselves are what the world was waiting for: *variable* output, each one an emitting subpixel in its own right.  No LCD grid mentioned at all.

 

Forget it.  It's not said everywhere but it is an (IPS?) LCD afterall from other reviews.  Not much different from the triluminus.


----------



## ALMA

95" OLED-TV at CES 2014 by LG?


> Quote:
> LG Display 95-inch large OLED panels as the success of the development of this based on LG Electronics has a large screen OLED TV of 95 inches will likely start production. This product is in Las Vegas as early as January next year, the world's largest consumer electronics trade show held in the International Electronics Show (CES) 2014 'is expected to be released for the first time. First prototype form at CES debuted back in the future when the full-scale launch is expected to be based on market conditions.


 http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Feconomy.hankooki.com%2Flpage%2Findustry%2F201311%2Fe20131128180141120180.htm


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24006882
> 
> 
> Forget it.  It's not said everywhere but it is an (IPS?) LCD afterall from other reviews.  Not much different from the triluminus.


In their current implementations, they are both replacing the "white" LEDs from their backlight (a blue LED with a phosphor coating) with blue LEDs. A quantum dot film is then placed in front of the backlight which turns the blue LED into a white light source.


The difference is that the quantum dot film can be highly tuned to give you very pure red and green light, compared to the phosphor coated "white" LEDs:



http://imgur.com/IEW2tkd.jpg%5B/IMG%5D



I believe it's also more efficient to keep the blue LED "pure" rather than turning it into a white LED.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7530#post_24007631
> 
> 
> 95" OLED-TV at CES 2014 by LG?
> http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Feconomy.hankooki.com%2Flpage%2Findustry%2F201311%2Fe20131128180141120180.htm



This is interesting:
_LG Display, the world's first of more than 100 inches 110 inches OLED TV panel is satisfied with the development, but still not enough to ensure the level of the yield can not be conveyed in mass production to postpone.

LG Display 95-inch large OLED panels as the success of the development of this based on LG Electronics has a large screen OLED TV of 95 inches will likely start production_


Hard to understand why 95 incher is productable and the 110" has insufficient yields. Perhaps yields are overall very low so the 110" goes too close to zero and they can not even make a few pieces for demos.


----------



## sooke

So I'm in Livermore CA this weekend. Anyone know if there is a Best Buy in the bay area I can see an OLED with my own eyes? None in my home town.


Thanks.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sooke*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24010768
> 
> 
> So I'm in Livermore CA this weekend. Anyone know if there is a Best Buy in the bay area I can see an OLED with my own eyes? None in my home town.
> 
> 
> Thanks.


 

Doesn't bestbuy.com have a store locator???  You could then call for the specific models you're interested in.  Chances are every BB has at least one, especially if they have a Magnolia section.


----------



## Mr.SoftDome

San Jose. One of the stand alone Magnolias and not part of the Best Buy store.


Magnolia AV Santana Row on Stevens Creek Blvd. you do enter thru Best Buy but upstairs is strictly the standalone Magnolia.


This is where I got to see my first OLED.

http://www.magnoliaav.com 


Rick


----------



## sooke

^^^ Thanks Rick, I'll try and work that in to the family travels this weekend.


tgm1024, only a handful of BBs in the country have the OLEDs.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7530#post_24006882
> 
> 
> Forget it.  It's not said everywhere but it is an (IPS?) LCD afterall from other reviews.  Not much different from the triluminus.



Virtually identical implementations.


----------



## ynotgoal

Samsung, LG to unveil flexible TVs


By Kim Yoo-chul


Samsung and LG will unveil prototypes of remote-controlled flexible OLED TVs ㅡ considered the next big thing in the industry ㅡ at the International Consumer Electronics (ICES) next month.


The ICES is scheduled for Jan. 7 to 10 at the Las Vegas Convention Center.


Because the annual exhibition has long been considered as the place to see new trends and devices in the industry, attention is focused on which new technologies will stun the world.


The Korean electronics giants, which gained attention last year with 55-inch curved OLED TVs, are preparing to wow participants and dealers again this year by unveiling the flexible OLED TVs.


“Samsung will unveil a prototype of the flexible OLED TV at next month’s ICES,” said an industry official, who is familiar with the issue, Sunday. He declined to unveil specific details about the new TV ㅡ only saying that the display size will be “huge.”


The basic concept of the remote-controlled flexible TV is that users can use a control to bend the screen, enabling viewers to get a better viewing angle. Existing OLED TVs are just curved, not flexible and the viewing angle is fixed.


Samsung said the latest technology will use plastic-based OLED displays and a back panel that can deform the display.


The new product represents the advancement of TV technology and shows the company’s firm commitment to take the lead over key competitors, the official said.


“Samsung’s key local component partners obviously including Samsung Display, have already been in the process of supplying the needed parts. I don’t know yet whether the prototype will be displayed in a Samsung booth or only to major clients in closed meetings,” he said.


In May, the United States Patent Office (USPTO) granted Samsung a new patent for a flexible OLED TV.


The runner-up LG Electronics plans to adopt flexible OLED technology with the help of its panel-affiliate of LG Display, said LG officials.


“LG’s new TV chief will meet clients and reporters for the first time as president and will promote something new. We will also unveil a remote bendable OLED TV that hasn’t been seen before,” said an LG executive by telephone.


The flexible OLED TVs include customized software that adjusts the content and image; therefore, it’s not distorted.


But analysts and market participants agree that this new technology is “nowhere near mass production” as the technology is “two steps” farther than current mainstream TV technology.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2013/12/133_147181.html


----------



## tgm1024


^Stop it.  Just stop it you two dipstick companies.  Roll out onto the wall is one thing, but a regular tabletop or wall mounted TV that can bend?  Oh good grief.  Prediction: "In a surprise announcement at CES2017, LG announced that they're coming up with a new untested flat TV design.  Industry analysts remain skeptical."


----------



## homogenic

I want my inkjet OLED!


----------



## rogo

So they continue to distract from the fact they cannot actually mass produce the TVs. Good news? Nope.


----------



## Pres2play

Back to the Future televisions were cool, but even they are too box-y. Star Trek curved displays and wall-sized Vision Screens are the future.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> LG announced that they're coming up with a new untested flat TV design. Industry analysts remain skeptical."



The flat 55EA8809 is available in Germany and some other EU countries. I saw it saturday wall mounted without the gallery frame in the local market. Price: 8999€ ...


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*
> 
> 
> The flat 55EA8809 is available in Germany and some other EU countries. I saw it saturday wall mounted without the gallery frame in the local market. Price: 8999€ ...



This model is available in Europe since september. No owner *threads* found. My bet is that very few people bought this model


----------



## irkuck

"_She was so hot and sweety on my bendable 4K that I pushed button on my remote to the very end and wrapped her around me"_


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24020666
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*
> 
> 
> The flat 55EA8809 is available in Germany and some other EU countries. I saw it saturday wall mounted without the gallery frame in the local market. Price: 8999€ ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This model is available in Europe since september. No owner *threads* found. My bet is that very few people bought this model
Click to expand...

 

Guys.  I was joking about how by 2017 a flat panel would seem to be the novelty......


----------



## slacker711

I dont get the vitriol towards the companies showing prototypes. If you want a rollable television in 2025 (or whenever), they are going to have to develop bendable displays first. Why wouldnt they show them to get some attention at CES?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24021323
> 
> 
> I dont get the vitriol towards the companies showing prototypes. If you want a rollable television in 2025 (or whenever), they are going to have to develop bendable displays first. Why wouldnt they show them to get some attention at CES?


 

1. We're a cranky bunch here sometimes.

2. Sometimes cranky people are right.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7530#post_24019063
> 
> 
> So they continue to distract from the fact they cannot actually mass produce the TVs. Good news? Nope.



It's going to happen to many companies are investing in the future of OLED technology for it not to, such example's include. All of this in today's "The OLED-Info newsletter (December 2013)"


1. "Panasonic officially quits the plasma TV business, will focus on UHD and OLEDs

Panasonic will stop making PDP panels by the end of 2013, and the company aims to produce the first OLED TVs in 2015."


2. "A few days ago Samsung held their Analyst Day 2013 with a lot of fascinating information regarding the company's present business and its future plans. It was clear from Samsung Display's presentation that the company sees OLED as the leading future display technology and puts a great emphasis on flexible displays."


3. "Kateeva is a US based startup that was established in 2009 to develop OLED ink-jet deposition technology originally developed at MIT. The company has been been in stealth-mode for years, and now finally they have unveiled their technology and system, branded YIELDJet. Kateeva claims that their system, the first one engineered from the ground up for OLED mass production, will dramatically improve yields and drive production costs lower."


----------



## vinnie97

I don't think you're telling Rogo anything he doesn't already know. #1 itself is hardly a sure bet with a CEO amputating bleeding divisions without a second thought coupled with an intensely competitive LCD market. There may conceivably not be a Panasonic consumer display division remaining in 2015. I'll let him address the others (the third is the best news to come in a long time and already previously discussed here).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24021953
> 
> 
> I don't think you're telling Rogo anything he doesn't already know. #1 itself is hardly a sure bet with a CEO amputating bleeding divisions without a second thought coupled with an intensely competitive LCD market. There may conceivably not be a Panasonic consumer display division remaining in 2015. I'll let him address the others (the third is the best news to come in a long time and already previously discussed here).


 

On the topic of hemorrhaging corporate divisions, I have to wonder if this is a peculiar industry that will always race to the bottom.  Even if materials are dirt cheap and manufacturing the same, I have to wonder if this industry is on a collision course with zero-margin pricing.  Everyone will beat themselves up to see who can lose money the fastest by discounting themselves out of existence.  This might be a compelling reason for Panasonic to not produce their own TVs at all but instead license the printing technology.


----------



## vinnie97

With a new low reached over BF (40" for $200 at Target), I can't argue with most of that. The only fly in the ointment is they had been developing their own printing method, and I can't imagine them throwing those efforts away so soon (nothing's impossible these days).


----------



## rogo

I think flexible displays are really interesting, though not in most of the ways that a lot of people here probably do. There is almost no way it's interesting to be able to "roll up" your smartphone display. That's just inconvenient and pointless. And there is no roll up material ever invented that will lay flat without some sort of substructure. All the portability of our phones goes away if we have the equivalent of pull-down screens with tech to keep them laying flat.


On the other hand, a smartphone that has a hinge where you can click into place a seamless second panel that has a decent amount of rigidity built into it has interesting potential. If designed right, the device would "just work" as a phone all the time, but allow you to double the screen real estate whenever you wanted. Suddenly, mini-tablets look a lot less interesting and our phones get a lot more versatile. You can imagine screens like this on larger form factor tablets too to create instant workspaces where multiple people can touch a bigger screen or see it (think battlefields and boardrooms).


And, obviously, the resistance to breakage is going to be fantastic. No one is going to be sad about displays breaking less, not even the phone mfrs. who make money from doing the repairs. I know from talking to folks at the Apple stores that they don't generally deal with happy customers over broken screens.


Flexibility may provide other interesting uses, but it's easy to get carried away into believing it's going to be exciting for places it will probably never come. TVs are turned on and off several times a day. The idea of rolling and unrolling them each time is pretty ridiculously inefficient time-wise. But even if you were willing to wait 30 seconds each time, the electronics won't last anywhere near as long under that kind of environment. TVs are already too disposable and most people buy them for 5-10 year periods. The idea that people will pay premium prices to roll them up only to make them even less reliable than they currently are flies in the face of logic. And, quite frankly, we are nowhere near making most of the electronics you'll need transparent or flexible so ugly compromises will be required for a long while to make such TVs even plausible. Don't hold your breath.


But one thing that's lost in this equation, I think, is people don't really appreciate how fast the "television business" as we know it is dying. Across the developing world, cheap tablets with sideloaded content are exploding in usage. They are very likely going to be more popular than TVs there (if they aren't already) within a couple of years. In the U.S., 20somethings and teens have relatively little interest in traditional TV, getting most of their video online. None of this means that there is no room to sell TVs for the living room; of course there is. But there might well be fewer of those sold going forward than almost any forecast for the industry currently predicts.


Consider PC forecasts circa 2008, B.I (before iPad). They assumed _growth_ in the ensuing years. In the meantime PC sales are literally plummeting. It's very possible that TV sales will see a similar (albeit less steep) trajectory.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24024725
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, a smartphone that has a hinge where you can click into place a seamless second panel that has a decent amount of rigidity built into it has interesting potential. If designed right, the device would "just work" as a phone all the time, but allow you to double the screen real estate whenever you wanted. Suddenly, mini-tablets look a lot less interesting and our phones get a lot more versatile. You can imagine screens like this on larger form factor tablets too to create instant workspaces where multiple people can touch a bigger screen or see it (think battlefields and boardrooms).


Yep, that is exactly the future of mobile if the OLED companies can develop truly foldable displays. I see it as the most likely game changer on the hardware side. Samsung actually showed some prototypes at their analyst day but didnt let anybody take pictures of the devices. The question is how seamless they made the display when unfolded. There are some patents describing solutions but they have yet to show a prototype without a seam down the middle of the display and that doesnt even touch on the reliability issues.


As for the rollable television, it is definitely a niche market, but I would think it would be appealing to precisely the people who frequent this forum.


----------



## JWhip

I would love a rollable TV provided that it can be rolled onto a wall like wallpaper and remains fixed to the wall and doesn't need to be rolled up when not in use. Now that would be cool.


----------



## Rich Peterson

This company is apparently using LG's OLED panels.



*Skyworth Rolled out First OLED TV of Chinese Brand*


Source: http://www.skyworth.com/en/news-detail-3491.html 


On November 28, Skyworth Group officially announced to unveil the first OLED TV of Chinese brand in Shenzhen on its media briefing of semi-yearly report. This time, two series of OLED TV carrying Tianchi operating system were rolled out by Skyworth. The new products are as thin as 5mm. The new OLED products indicate that Skyworth has taken the lead to master the key technologies for displaying equipment of next generation and shown its strong capability of industry chain integration. The unveiling of China-made OLED TV is of substantial significance for spurring the technical innovation of China's color TV in the future.



Taking the lead to master key technologies, Skyworth unveiled the first OLED TV


Color TV has gradually evolved from the era of kinescope to today. Its core displaying screen gets increasingly advanced in technology. Correspondingly, it has posed a very high requirement on the production technologies and equipment of the whole machine. Viewed from experience, in the technical innovation of hardware of the products, Chinese brands are 2-3 years later than foreign brands to roll out new products. However, Skyworth, as a professional color TV business, has begun research and exploration into OLED technology early ago and accumulated a great technical reserve for the innovation of displaying technology of next generation. That it achieved debut in China reflects its full preparation and solid accumulation, which is expected to play a critical role in its leading the innovation of OLED TV in China.


With series releasing, Skyworth opens up OLED industry chain


On the press conference, Liu Tangzhi, the president of Color TV Division and vice president of Skyworth Group unveiled the first OLED TV of Chinese brand. Applauds echoed at the site hardly after his words were finished. Under expectations, the first OLED TV is set to attract attentions from the public. Another bright spot of the debut is that two series of OLED TV were released. Viewed from experience, when a consumption electronics manufacturer released concept product, it might be engineering samples which cannot be used by civilians, or might be too expensive for common customers to afford. That Skyworth rolled out the products with new technology in series this time indicates that Skyworth has already solved the problem of screen body resources at the upper stream, which can also be seen from the splendid performance of its profound strategic cooperation with LGD Company the upper panel supplier recently. Besides, that Skyworth can take the lead to turn new technology into new product also indicates that it has made full preparation in each link of research, production and sale and displayed its leading status in the field of color TV in China.


Ultra-thin Skyworth OLED boasts multiple advantages


The full form of OLED is "organic lighting emission diodes". It's the newest displaying technology. Since OLED is self-luminous, backlit modules and liquid crystal molecular layer are not required. As such, the thickness of the TV can be compressed within 1cm, which is far lower than the average thickness of LCD TV at 5cm-15cm. It achieves a surprising effect as thin as cicada's wing. Besides, OLED screen is solid substance formed from the arrangement of organic lighting emission diodes. Internally it does not require liquid molecules and glass base plates used for encapsulation. Therefore, though the body is very slim, the durability of its hardware has been enhanced distinctively, which has greatly reduced the risk of "shattered inner screen" and "liquid leakage" which are a problem often occurring in traditional LCD TV. Even if some minor damage occurs in the partial area, the whole can still work normally.


"More wonderful than the truth" was ever a slogan and goal for the innovation in the field of color TV displaying. Now, Tianchi OLED TV integrating the cutting-edge technologies of the industry and technology unique to Skyworth has turned the slogan into a reality. The first OLED TV adopts WRGB displaying scheme. White is added on the basis of three traditional primary colors, red, green and blue to make the color displaying richer and make the contrast ratio reach 10,000,000:1 which is beyond the reach of LCD TV. It can restore any dark night scene which is hard to be displayed clearly without any loss. Besides, based on the image processing technology developed by itself, Skyworth has made a deep excavation into its advantages in displaying of OLED TV, further reduced the choppiness of the video and enhanced the definition. It has enhanced the response speed of dynamic images to over 0.001ms, 1000 times faster than LCD TV, which has thoroughly solved the problems of trailing or shadowing in the dynamic images of traditional TV and enhanced the audio and video life to a new level.


In my view, that Skyworth's debut of a new generation of OLED TV signals that it has taken the lead to master key technologies of displaying equipment of next generation and grasped early opportunities in the research and development of new technologies and the integration of industrial chains and further solidified its leading status in the technologies of color TV industry. It has made another success for its high-end brand strategy. To the request of media and TV fans, Skyworth will soon hold an appreciating event of OLED new products to seek feedback of the market on the new products and better satisfy the demands of customers.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24024725
> 
> 
> I think flexible displays are really interesting, though not in most of the ways that a lot of people here probably do. There is almost no way it's interesting to be able to "roll up" your smartphone display. That's just inconvenient and pointless. And there is no roll up material ever invented that will lay flat without some sort of substructure. All the portability of our phones goes away if we have the equivalent of pull-down screens with tech to keep them laying flat.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, a smartphone that has a hinge where you can click into place a seamless second panel that has a decent amount of rigidity built into it has interesting potential. If designed right, the device would "just work" as a phone all the time, but allow you to double the screen real estate whenever you wanted. Suddenly, mini-tablets look a lot less interesting and our phones get a lot more versatile. You can imagine screens like this on larger form factor tablets too to create instant workspaces where multiple people can touch a bigger screen or see it (think battlefields and boardrooms).
> 
> 
> And, obviously, the resistance to breakage is going to be fantastic. No one is going to be sad about displays breaking less, not even the phone mfrs. who make money from doing the repairs. I know from talking to folks at the Apple stores that they don't generally deal with happy customers over broken screens.
> 
> 
> Flexibility may provide other interesting uses, but it's easy to get carried away into believing it's going to be exciting for places it will probably never come. TVs are turned on and off several times a day. The idea of rolling and unrolling them each time is pretty ridiculously inefficient time-wise. But even if you were willing to wait 30 seconds each time, the electronics won't last anywhere near as long under that kind of environment. TVs are already too disposable and most people buy them for 5-10 year periods. The idea that people will pay premium prices to roll them up only to make them even less reliable than they currently are flies in the face of logic. And, quite frankly, we are nowhere near making most of the electronics you'll need transparent or flexible so ugly compromises will be required for a long while to make such TVs even plausible. Don't hold your breath.
> 
> 
> But one thing that's lost in this equation, I think, is people don't really appreciate how fast the "television business" as we know it is dying. Across the developing world, cheap tablets with sideloaded content are exploding in usage. They are very likely going to be more popular than TVs there (if they aren't already) within a couple of years. In the U.S., 20somethings and teens have relatively little interest in traditional TV, getting most of their video online. None of this means that there is no room to sell TVs for the living room; of course there is. But there might well be fewer of those sold going forward than almost any forecast for the industry currently predicts.
> 
> 
> Consider PC forecasts circa 2008, B.I (before iPad). They assumed _growth_ in the ensuing years. In the meantime PC sales are literally lummeting. It's very possible that TV sales will see a similar (albeit less steep) trajectory.



I could think of a few areas a flexible screens would be useful, take the modern wristwatch for example, a wrist band that wraps around your wrist to fit any size and has a screen all around. Another example would be wearable technology with displays, it would have to be flexible as we'll to work properly.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24025556
> 
> 
> This company is apparently using LG's OLED panels.
> 
> 
> It has enhanced the response speed of dynamic images to over 0.001ms, 1000 times faster than LCD TV, which has thoroughly solved the problems of trailing or shadowing in the dynamic images of traditional TV and enhanced the audio and video life to a new level.


 

I'm leery of any statements regarding response times.  Response time is now more than fast enough with LCD as it is.  Where the rubber meets the road is the duty cycle of the sample-and-hold nature of the display.  It's no longer the transition timing from one pixel state to another.  And if it's not bright enough, it will not be able to flash too quickly without becoming very dark.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24025170
> 
> 
> Yep, that is exactly the future of mobile if the OLED companies can develop truly foldable displays. I see it as the most likely game changer on the hardware side. Samsung actually showed some prototypes at their analyst day but didnt let anybody take pictures of the devices. The question is how seamless they made the display when unfolded. There are some patents describing solutions but they have yet to show a prototype without a seam down the middle of the display and that doesnt even touch on the reliability issues.



Yes, reliability across 100,000 fold-unfold cycles is going to be very, very hard. And yet probably a bare minimum of what's needed.


> Quote:
> As for the rollable television, it is definitely a niche market, but I would think it would be appealing to precisely the people who frequent this forum.



There is so much hard about doing it technically and so little benefit, I have a tough time wondering why this niche gets satisfied by a manufacturer. Foldable and flexible are going to be hard to make reliable. Adding rollable to the equation is going to be nightmarish.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24025519
> 
> 
> I would love a rollable TV provided that it can be rolled onto a wall like wallpaper and remains fixed to the wall and doesn't need to be rolled up when not in use. Now that would be cool.



It would be cool. Necessary? I don't see it. And slow. Every time I want to watch TV I have to unroll the screen? I'm much more intrigued by a two-layer OLED that can be completely transparent when not in use, but have a back layer that can go opaque when turned on (for contrast reasons) and then allow for the TV to "appear" on the wall when needed. Such a screen could, eventually, adapt to several screen sizes for different content types (big for movies and sports, small when it's just CNN or Fox in the background).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24026384
> 
> 
> I could think of a few areas a flexible screens would be useful, take the modern wristwatch for example, a wrist band that wraps around your wrist to fit any size and has a screen all around. Another example would be wearable technology with displays, it would have to be flexible as we'll to work properly.



There is no question bendable is needed for a good watch. Whether it needs to flex in use is another question, but the ability to get whacked around without breaking would be nice. The idea that the screen would contour slightly different to people's wrists is intriguing, though I doubt very much it's needed. A screen that goes around your wrist is fairly pointless. Try to look at the outside edge of your wrist right now. How's that working for you? Not so good?


Wearable stuff with flexible displays is coming in some forms, though at least some will likely be gimmickry. We certainly don't need flexible displays for things like Google Glass, though we apparently need better ways to integrate the microdisplay and prism, because Google Glass looks awful and few normal humans with regular friends will be caught in public wearing it.


----------



## JWhip

No it would be rolled onto the wall like wallpaper and stayed fixed to the wall just like wallpaper is. It would not be rolled back up unless you wanted to remove it. It would remain fixed to the wall like a flat screen is now but could be made to fit your wall. Imagine a whole wall being turned into a screen without a projector with infinite blacks. I would love that!


----------



## slacker711

A bit OT, but this video of the LG G Flex screen is pretty awesome. It flexes much more than the housing allows.


----------



## mr. wally

can't wait for lg's oled condoms


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24028706
> 
> 
> No it would be rolled onto the wall like wallpaper and stayed fixed to the wall just like wallpaper is. It would not be rolled back up unless you wanted to remove it. It would remain fixed to the wall like a flat screen is now but could be made to fit your wall. Imagine a whole wall being turned into a screen without a projector with infinite blacks. I would love that!



So the end result sounds good, but why do I need it be rollable? Can't they just sell us super-flat screens in sheets and avoid all the technical problems of getting it onto a roll and then getting it to lay flat etc? If they could develop a seamless tile system (hard but not, in my opinion, impossible), you could buy sheets that are say 32 x 18 inches and add as many as you want.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24029472
> 
> 
> So the end result sounds good, but why do I need it be rollable? Can't they just sell us super-flat screens in sheets and avoid all the technical problems of getting it onto a roll and then getting it to lay flat etc?


Shipping a 120" display which is only 2mm thin would be a nightmare. Shipping a 120" display rolled up into a tube is trivial. It also makes the installation process much easier, and it would not be too difficult to design a frame which tensions the screen once it's installed.


As for the rollable display which is motorized, it takes all of 15-20 seconds for a screen to appear. My current television takes longer than that from when you turn it on, to when you have full access to the menus to change inputs. (I really hate that trend - I can adjust volume but nothing else for the first minute or so)

And maybe your habits are to turn the television on as background noise whenever you walk into a room, but I rarely have mine on more than once a day. If you want something that you turn on and off 20 times a day, maybe that would not be the screen for you - it doesn't mean there's no reason for them to exist.


When you're talking about very large displays like a 120" screen, it was bad enough when I had a white projection screen with a thick black velvet frame fixed to my walls.

With a large OLED display, you basically sacrifice a wall in your room to be a black slate. That's not going to happen in my house.


I'd rather have a smaller panel (say 32") in the room for people to watch if they're just putting it on for background noise or to check the news, and a large rollable display for films.


----------



## JWhip

My point exactly, easy to ship, roll it out to any size you want, no seams, perfect. Hopefully we will see it some day, maybe around the time a transporter is perfected.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24029635
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24029472
> 
> 
> So the end result sounds good, but why do I need it be rollable? Can't they just sell us super-flat screens in sheets and avoid all the technical problems of getting it onto a roll and then getting it to lay flat etc?
> 
> 
> 
> Shipping a 120" display which is only 2mm thin would be a nightmare. Shipping a 120" display rolled up into a tube is trivial. It also makes the installation process much easier, and it would not be too difficult to design a frame which tensions the screen once it's installed.
> 
> 
> As for the rollable display which is motorized, it takes all of 15-20 seconds for a screen to appear. My current television takes longer than that from when you turn it on, to when you have full access to the menus to change inputs. (I really hate that trend - I can adjust volume but nothing else for the first minute or so)
> 
> And maybe your habits are to turn the television on as background noise whenever you walk into a room, but I rarely have mine on more than once a day. If you want something that you turn on and off 20 times a day, maybe that would not be the screen for you - it doesn't mean there's no reason for them to exist.
> 
> 
> When you're talking about very large displays like a 120" screen, it was bad enough when I had a white projection screen with a thick black velvet frame fixed to my walls.
> 
> With a large OLED display, you basically sacrifice a wall in your room to be a black slate. That's not going to happen in my house.
> 
> 
> I'd rather have a smaller panel (say 32") in the room for people to watch if they're just putting it on for background noise or to check the news, and a large rollable display for films.
Click to expand...

 

Sometimes I hate it when someone else takes nearly every single word I was about to type and gets it posted before me.

 

Criminey.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24029313
> 
> 
> can't wait for lg's oled condoms


 

^{chuckle}  There's always someone to jump to the *real* money maker.

 

Reminds me of the theoretical 188 Petabyte size of a future CF card.  Not even vaporware, but Wired magazine was quick to point out that it could hold 200 years of porn.  This was parroted back endlessly by folks like techradar and the like.  Funny.  I ended up hearing it misquoted several times, even to 700 years.  Apparently technology is like everything else in life: regard the impact on sex first, ask questions later.  lol...


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24028111
> 
> 
> Yes, reliability across 100,000 fold-unfold cycles is going to be very, very hard. And yet probably a bare minimum of what's needed.
> 
> There is so much hard about doing it technically and so little benefit, I have a tough time wondering why this niche gets satisfied by a manufacturer. Foldable and flexible are going to be hard to make reliable. Adding rollable to the equation is going to be nightmarish.
> 
> It would be cool. Necessary? I don't see it. And slow. Every time I want to watch TV I have to unroll the screen? I'm much more intrigued by a two-layer OLED that can be completely transparent when not in use, but have a back layer that can go opaque when turned on (for contrast reasons) and then allow for the TV to "appear" on the wall when needed. Such a screen could, eventually, adapt to several screen sizes for different content types (big for movies and sports, small when it's just CNN or Fox in the background).
> 
> There is no question bendable is needed for a good watch. Whether it needs to flex in use is another question, but the ability to get whacked around without breaking would be nice. The idea that the screen would contour slightly different to people's wrists is intriguing, though I doubt very much it's needed. A screen that goes around your wrist is fairly pointless. Try to look at the outside edge of your wrist right now. How's that working for you? Not so good?
> 
> 
> Wearable stuff with flexible displays is coming in some forms, though at least some will likely be gimmickry. We certainly don't need flexible displays for things like Google Glass, though we apparently need better ways to integrate the microdisplay and prism, because Google Glass looks awful and few normal humans with regular friends will be caught in public wearing it.



I was actually thinking of the whole wristband as one giant display around the wrist that bends and raps around to fit. The band could be programmed by the user to display any numerous patterns or colors for decoration or design. Additionally the band itself could be used for notifications with rotating color patterns alerting you that you have a message waiting or something along those lines. I'm not saying it would be for everyone but I do see you market in this area. Also the use of a flexible display on clothing is again very necessary to work or fit properly for the individual.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24029667
> 
> 
> My point exactly, easy to ship, roll it out to any size you want, no seams, perfect. Hopefully we will see it some day, maybe around the time a transporter is perfected.



With all the excitement over flexible screens, I think we will see rollup screens within this decade. I have an OLED TV and I'm dying for a 120" OLED screen already.


Personally, nothing would beat a 120" OLED screen than a 120" OLED with speakers built in for near-field environments. Imagine that, a 120" screen with an array of miniature transducers hidden in the screen, much like the tiny speakers on phones that we never see. A screen such as this would replace our LCR satellites without loss of screen brightness, and cover the midrange and highs. Sounds would track the image perfectly and spawn a whole new Dolby format for enhanced dialog.


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560_60#post_24032041
> 
> 
> With all the excitement over flexible screens, I think we will see rollup screens within this decade.



"all the excitement"?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24029635
> 
> 
> Shipping a 120" display which is only 2mm thin would be a nightmare. Shipping a 120" display rolled up into a tube is trivial. It also makes the installation process much easier, and it would not be too difficult to design a frame which tensions the screen once it's installed.



Believe whatever makes you happy. Engineering a rollable screen that's 120 inches across that somehow stays perfectly flat and has the reliability of an actual flat panel is many, many orders of magntiude more difficult than building a 120 rigid display. Shipping is a well understood problem. Electronics that can flex not just once, but wrap around multiple bends and then be "unfurled" to lay flat with decade-plus reliability are not. Never mind that "tensioning" such a screen is an additional engineering challenge.


Never mind that as things currently stand demand for such screens would be well below 1 million annually for as far as the far can see. That doesn't generally yield the engineering needed to solve these problems that don't actually need solving.


> Quote:
> As for the rollable display which is motorized, it takes all of 15-20 seconds for a screen to appear. My current television takes longer than that from when you turn it on, to when you have full access to the menus to change inputs. (I really hate that trend - I can adjust volume but nothing else for the first minute or so)
> 
> And maybe your habits are to turn the television on as background noise whenever you walk into a room, but I rarely have mine on more than once a day. If you want something that you turn on and off 20 times a day, maybe that would not be the screen for you - it doesn't mean there's no reason for them to exist.



Actually, it does mean it shouldn't exist. How would you propose this be marketed: "Only for use 1x a day. Not recommended for viewers that turn the TV on and off regularly."


> Quote:
> When you're talking about very large displays like a 120" screen, it was bad enough when I had a white projection screen with a thick black velvet frame fixed to my walls.
> 
> With a large OLED display, you basically sacrifice a wall in your room to be a black slate. That's not going to happen in my house.



My proposed design would not require a wall to be sacrificed, although I am the first to admit my design also has loads of engineering issues, it could be built in a non-tiled manner and still not require the wall sacrifice. You could place pictures and what not behind the display and the display would be transparent when off.


> Quote:
> I'd rather have a smaller panel (say 32") in the room for people to watch if they're just putting it on for background noise or to check the news, and a large rollable display for films.



That already exists. Get a projector with a ceiling mount.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24030608
> 
> 
> I was actually thinking of the whole wristband as one giant display around the wrist that bends and raps around to fit. The band could be programmed by the user to display any numerous patterns or colors for decoration or design. Additionally the band itself could be used for notifications with rotating color patterns alerting you that you have a message waiting or something along those lines. I'm not saying it would be for everyone but I do see you market in this area. Also the use of a flexible display on clothing is again very necessary to work or fit properly for the individual.



Seems cool. I'm betting people are looking at solutions like what you describe.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24033269
> 
> 
> Believe whatever makes you happy. Engineering a rollable screen that's 120 inches across that somehow stays perfectly flat and has the reliability of an actual flat panel is many, many orders of magntiude more difficult than building a 120 rigid display. Shipping is a well understood problem. Electronics that can flex not just once, but wrap around multiple bends and then be "unfurled" to lay flat with decade-plus reliability are not. Never mind that "tensioning" such a screen is an additional engineering challenge.



OK, start with thinking about high-end rollable projector screens. They are sufficiently flat after rolling in-out? Priniting OLED pixels on such type of substrate sounds no big poblem and since each pixel would not be bended much this should be fine. Serious issue is with the power supply and control lines to the pixels. Question is if such highly conductive and narrowlines with very durable bending flexibility can be fabricated. I doubt if this can be done with traditional materials like copper or other metals. But there could be nontraditional materials, something like conductive polymers or graphene capable for this.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24033269
> 
> 
> Believe whatever makes you happy. Engineering a rollable screen that's 120 inches across that somehow stays perfectly flat and has the reliability of an actual flat panel is many, many orders of magntiude more difficult than building a 120 rigid display.


Well I can't comment on the reliability, but tensioning the screen across a frame should not be difficult. It's done with projection screens all the time.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24033269
> 
> 
> Actually, it does mean it shouldn't exist. How would you propose this be marketed: "Only for use 1x a day. Not recommended for viewers that turn the TV on and off regularly."


Well that depends. If the screen is rated for 100,000 uses, that would be 14 years of being used ten times a day. Certainly, a motorized screen like that is going to be less reliable than a fixed frame tensioned screen or a flat panel, but it only has to be reliable enough and priced well enough that it makes it worthwhile. No-one is saying that every television sold should be like that, but I think more people than you expect would be happy to be rid of a flat panel display from their living room - especially if you're looking at very large sizes.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24033269
> 
> 
> My proposed design would not require a wall to be sacrificed, although I am the first to admit my design also has loads of engineering issues, it could be built in a non-tiled manner and still not require the wall sacrifice. You could place pictures and what not behind the display and the display would be transparent when off.


Well Mitsubishi already sell tiled OLED displays. They are not transparent, and I don't see how you plan on making them into a seamless display. Not only do you have to figure out some way of making the seams between the tiles invisible, you also need perfect calibration across all tiles.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24033269
> 
> 
> That already exists. Get a projector with a ceiling mount.


Except a projector has much worse image quality than an OLED display, and requires you to be in a perfectly dark room with non-reflective black surfaces for optimal image quality. As soon as there is _any_ light in the room, image quality quickly deteriorates.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24034365
> 
> 
> OK, start with thinking about high-end rollable projector screens. They are sufficiently flat after rolling in-out?



They are sufficiently flat because there is a tensioning system.


> Quote:
> Priniting OLED pixels on such type of substrate sounds no big poblem and since each pixel would not be bended much this should be fine.



No one is worried about an individual pixel.


> Quote:
> Serious issue is with the power supply and control lines to the pixels. Question is if such highly conductive and narrowlines with very durable bending flexibility can be fabricated. I doubt if this can be done with traditional materials like copper or other metals. But there could be nontraditional materials, something like conductive polymers or graphene capable for this.



So in other words, materials that have never been used for mass producing electronics? And now you want to unroll and re-roll them thousands of times? And this is is to satisfy a niche videophile application that, honestly, still looks kind of ugly in a room? Got it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24034382
> 
> 
> Well I can't comment on the reliability, but tensioning the screen across a frame should not be difficult. It's done with projection screens all the time.



Yes, it's done. It's even easy. It's not attractive or completely free cost-wise. But it's doable.


The issue is going to be reliability. Every time you roll and unroll the millions of traces to the pixels, you'll be changing the stresses on them meaningfully. None of these technologies actually exist in mass production, but by all means let's perfect them.


> Quote:
> Well that depends. If the screen is rated for 100,000 uses, that would be 14 years of being used ten times a day. Certainly, a motorized screen like that is going to be less reliable than a fixed frame tensioned screen or a flat panel, but it only has to be reliable enough and priced well enough that it makes it worthwhile.



So $50,000 is OK?


> Quote:
> No-one is saying that every television sold should be like that, but I think more people than you expect would be happy to be rid of a flat panel display from their living room - especially if you're looking at very large sizes.



The goal price for OLED TVs is _below_ current LCD pricing. Now you are talking about saddling it with technology that will set that back by years (a decade?) and result in a higher end price. And this for a TV market that is certainly going to be shrinking over the next decade? No offense, but these kind of ideas are fantasy.


> Quote:
> Well Mitsubishi already sell tiled OLED displays. They are not transparent, and I don't see how you plan on making them into a seamless display. Not only do you have to figure out some way of making the seams between the tiles invisible, you also need perfect calibration across all tiles.



Well, I'm not an engineer, but I've already devised a way to do this that would work. If I can do that, I'm quite sure people who are display engineers can do a better job of what I've come up with. I'm, again, not saying this is a particularly useful idea, but it certainly seems doable with OLED eventually.


Except a projector has much worse image quality than an OLED display, and requires you to be in a perfectly dark room with non-reflective black surfaces for optimal image quality. As soon as there is _any_ light in the room, image quality quickly deteriorates.[/quote]


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24038853
> 
> 
> So in other words, materials that have never been used for mass producing electronics? And now you want to unroll and re-roll them thousands of times? And this is is to satisfy a niche videophile application that, honestly, still looks kind of ugly in a room? Got it.



I share your reservations. I looked from the technical point of view. Flexible OLED seems doable to me with new technoloiges, not with metal leads. If there is economical market for it is another question.

Prehaps printable OLED will make possible manufacturing with relatively low investment in printers, opening niche for small high-end manufacturers like in the audio area?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24038853
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Priniting OLED pixels on such type of substrate sounds no big poblem and since each pixel would not be bended much this should be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is worried about an individual pixel.
Click to expand...

 

I am.  Because he has 8,294,399 brothers in a similar situation.


----------



## *UFO*

Will we be seeing reasonably priced (2k-3k) OLED tvs come 2014?


----------



## vinnie97

I would wager a no. $5k to 6k given any luck.


----------



## *UFO*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560_40#post_24042536
> 
> 
> I would wager a no. $5k to 6k given any luck.



What about flat OLED's?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by **UFO**  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24041703
> 
> 
> Will we be seeing reasonably priced (2k-3k) OLED tvs come 2014?



No chance at all.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by **UFO**  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560#post_24043041
> 
> 
> What about flat OLED's?



Maybe.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*
> 
> Instead of huge roll up OLED panels, what I would prefer to see developed is a large OLED display that would function as a transparent picture window, when not being used as a TV. It probably will never happen, but I look at the large window in my living room and think: it sure would be nice if all that glass space could do double duty as a tv display.[/quote


----------



## Mark12547




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7590#post_24044064
> 
> 
> Instead of huge roll up OLED panels, what I would prefer to see developed is a large OLED display that would function as a transparent picture window, when not being used as a TV. It probably will never happen, but I look at the large window in my living room and think: it sure would be nice if all that glass space could do double duty as a tv display.


 

I really wouldn't want the neighbors to be able to watch my TV, especially if it has "for mature audience" content and minors might be watching.

 

Also, it could end up being a dead giveaway to the local criminal element of when the place is unoccupied.

 

The above two objections can be eliminated if there is another layer of liquid crystals that turn opaque to block the outside from looking in or seeing the TV when we want the "blinds" closed.









 

Another use may be to connect an exterior camera to the wall-mounted TV and, when not watching another source, let the TV present a live picture of outside.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark12547*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7500_100#post_24044370
> 
> 
> The above two objections can be eliminated if there is another layer of liquid crystals that turn opaque to block the outside from looking in or seeing the TV when we want the "blinds" closed.


 

A long time ago I posted a patent that Apple had regarding just this.  And you would *need* that ability anyway....there is no point in having a fully transparent OLED when every single light on in the neighborhood could shine through it and ruin your movie.

 

Apple's patent actually allowed for a fixed white background as well (not suitable for a window).

 


> Quote, from the long dead CES 2013 thread:
> Originally posted by *tgm1024*:
> 
> 
> Back at the end of 2011, Apple filed a patent that allows an opacity switching layer. It uses that idea slightly differently, A solid white back for white pixels, the opacity switching layer to provide black, and then the transparent OLED on top. Take away the backing white, and you have your basic transparent OLED with black.
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/new-apple-patent-describes-transparent-oled-solid-background-new-oled-iphone-rumors-emerge
> 
> 
> I don't like the patent's artwork, but here it is anyway:


----------



## rogo

Any OLED needs that kind of substrate to work at all. All of my above proposals assumed a second layer that could "go opaque" when needed. The weird/cool thing about doing it as a window is that in theory, the TV could show the outside world some entirely fake view of what was going on inside if you wanted (and weren't watching TV).


----------



## David_B

Yeeah. Think the kid that hits his baseball through that would get killed by his parents when they got the $8000 bill? LOL


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7590#post_24044176
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*
> 
> Instead of huge roll up OLED panels, what I would prefer to see developed is a large OLED display that would function as a transparent picture window, when not being used as a TV. It probably will never happen, but I look at the large window in my living room and think: it sure would be nice if all that glass space could do double duty as a tv display.[/quote
Click to expand...


----------



## wxman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7590#post_24044176
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*
> 
> Instead of huge roll up OLED panels, what I would prefer to see developed is a large OLED display that would function as a transparent picture window, when not being used as a TV. It probably will never happen, but I look at the large window in my living room and think: it sure would be nice if all that glass space could do double duty as a tv display.[/quote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would bet that tv wouldn't last a year. The changing temperature and humidity on the panel itself from being a window would ruin it. Front of panel would be room temperature, backside could be any temperature, from sub zero to over 100 degrees. Then watch out for flying birds, hailstones, driving rain and snow.
Click to expand...


----------



## mattg3

I dont need an Oled in my window but I do need an affordable flat 60 inch oled in my living room.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Another very thorough review of the LG OLED done by HDTVTest, a UK publication here .


I copied a couple sections here I thought interesting, but there's lots more in the article.


*Benchmark Test Results*

Dead pixels 2 dead subpixels

Screen uniformity Bottom-half brighter + banding at 5%-10% stimulus

Overscanning on HDMI 0% with Aspect Ratio set to “Just Scan”

Blacker than black Passed

Calibrated black level (black screen) 0 cd/m2

Calibrated black level (ANSI checkerboard) 0.0004 cd/m2

Black level retention Very mild – not visible outside test sequence

Primary chromaticity Very good

Scaling Excellent

Video mode deinterlacing Very effective jaggies reduction

Film mode deinterlacing Passed 3:2 & 2:2 cadence tests

Viewing angle Excellent

Motion resolution 600 with [TruMotion] engaged; 300 otherwise

Digital noise reduction Acceptable at baseline

Sharpness Defeatable edge enhancement

Luma/Chroma bandwidth (2D Blu-ray) Full Luma; Chroma horizontally blurred unless [PC] mode in 60Hz

1080p/24 capability No judder in 2D or 3D with [Real Cinema] engaged

Leo Bodnar input lag tester 55ms with [Game Mode] engaged

Full 4:4:4 reproduction (PC) Yes, with input label set to [PC]


*Conclusion*

The LG 55EA980W is the second OLED TV we’ve tested, and like the first, it delivers a picture that blows away any LED LCD television, and eclipses even the best-performing plasmas, owing largely to its ability to render true blacks. Should OLED displays come down in price and become more commonplace in the future, we may have to revise our review scoring system: do we still assign so high a weighting on contrast ratio if every TV’s black level is 0 cd/m2?


Until that day arrives though, the black-level performance of the LG EA980W stands head and shoulders above every other flat-screen TV except Samsung’s KE55S9C, the only other OLED television on the market in the UK. That we were enamoured by the supreme blacks didn’t mean the 55EA980′s other excellent attributes went unnoticed. Thanks to THX’s involvement, out-of-the-box greyscale accuracy in [THX Cinema] mode ranked as the best we’ve seen all year. The onboard video processing was first-rate, guaranteeing no degradation in both SD and HD quality. And did we mention how jawdroppingly gorgeous the design – what with its unbelievably slim, curved screen – looked? We didn’t even notice the subtle curvature after a while: such was the mesmerising effect the unreal blacks had on us.


The obvious question to ask is: which is better between this and the Samsung S9C, both being curved OLED displays that cost more than any other 55″ televisions on the market? Based on our indepth testing, we’d have to give the slight edge to the Samsung: its active 3D is full-res and not hampered by vertical off-axis limitation; it features black frame insertion (BFI) as a means to reduce motion blur without introducing interpolation artefacts; and we prefer the cleaner look of its true RGB subpixel structure even if it’s only apparent from up close. And the Samsung KE55S9C’s lower price to the tune of £1000 is not to be sniffed at too.


But let’s not take anything away from the LG 55EA980W, because it’s truly a fabulous TV in its own right. Underpinned by the inkiest blacks imaginable, the EA980W’s world-class picture quality is a giant step forward in the company’s effort to establish itself as a premium AV brand.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7590#post_24051645
> 
> 
> Another very thorough review of the LG OLED done by HDTVTest, a UK publication here .
> 
> 
> I copied a couple sections here I thought interesting, but there's lots more in the article.
> 
> 
> *Benchmark Test Results*
> 
> Dead pixels 2 dead subpixels
> 
> Screen uniformity Bottom-half brighter + banding at 5%-10% stimulus
> 
> Overscanning on HDMI 0% with Aspect Ratio set to “Just Scan”
> 
> Blacker than black Passed
> 
> Calibrated black level (black screen) 0 cd/m2
> 
> Calibrated black level (ANSI checkerboard) 0.0004 cd/m2
> 
> Black level retention Very mild – not visible outside test sequence
> 
> Primary chromaticity Very good
> 
> Scaling Excellent
> 
> Video mode deinterlacing Very effective jaggies reduction
> 
> Film mode deinterlacing Passed 3:2 & 2:2 cadence tests
> 
> Viewing angle Excellent
> 
> Motion resolution 600 with [TruMotion] engaged; 300 otherwise
> 
> Digital noise reduction Acceptable at baseline
> 
> Sharpness Defeatable edge enhancement
> 
> Luma/Chroma bandwidth (2D Blu-ray) Full Luma; Chroma horizontally blurred unless [PC] mode in 60Hz
> 
> 1080p/24 capability No judder in 2D or 3D with [Real Cinema] engaged
> 
> Leo Bodnar input lag tester 55ms with [Game Mode] engaged
> 
> Full 4:4:4 reproduction (PC) Yes, with input label set to [PC]
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> The LG 55EA980W is the second OLED TV we’ve tested, and like the first, it delivers a picture that blows away any LED LCD television, and eclipses even the best-performing plasmas, owing largely to its ability to render true blacks. Should OLED displays come down in price and become more commonplace in the future, we may have to revise our review scoring system: do we still assign so high a weighting on contrast ratio if every TV’s black level is 0 cd/m2?
> 
> 
> Until that day arrives though, the black-level performance of the LG EA980W stands head and shoulders above every other flat-screen TV except Samsung’s KE55S9C, the only other OLED television on the market in the UK. That we were enamoured by the supreme blacks didn’t mean the 55EA980′s other excellent attributes went unnoticed. Thanks to THX’s involvement, out-of-the-box greyscale accuracy in [THX Cinema] mode ranked as the best we’ve seen all year. The onboard video processing was first-rate, guaranteeing no degradation in both SD and HD quality. And did we mention how jawdroppingly gorgeous the design – what with its unbelievably slim, curved screen – looked? We didn’t even notice the subtle curvature after a while: such was the mesmerising effect the unreal blacks had on us.
> 
> 
> The obvious question to ask is: which is better between this and the Samsung S9C, both being curved OLED displays that cost more than any other 55″ televisions on the market? Based on our indepth testing, we’d have to give the slight edge to the Samsung: its active 3D is full-res and not hampered by vertical off-axis limitation; it features black frame insertion (BFI) as a means to reduce motion blur without introducing interpolation artefacts; and we prefer the cleaner look of its true RGB subpixel structure even if it’s only apparent from up close. And the Samsung KE55S9C’s lower price to the tune of £1000 is not to be sniffed at too.
> 
> 
> But let’s not take anything away from the LG 55EA980W, because it’s truly a fabulous TV in its own right. Underpinned by the inkiest blacks imaginable, the EA980W’s world-class picture quality is a giant step forward in the company’s effort to establish itself as a premium AV brand.



I would vote for the Samsung OLED technology, because that yields far superior off-axis viewing - as good as plasmas!

(Whereas LG's version does not...otherwise I think the two have tested out very similar as to picture quality).


----------



## Rich Peterson

 This Korea Times article suggests LG is working with Merck on OLED printing technology.


"Merck is among the few firms that can supply OLED material for both vacuum evaporation and ink-jet printing processes to fulfill LG’s requirements, said market analysts and sources."


"CIO Kim said Merck has already begun developing inkjet printing for mass-producing OLED TV panels in cooperation with Taiwanese panel makers, as well as the Koreans by offering materials, although he said no timetable has been set yet for mass production to begin."


----------



## *UFO*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_40#post_24054281
> 
> This Korea Times article suggests LG is working with Merck on OLED printing technology.
> 
> 
> "Merck is among the few firms that can supply OLED material for both vacuum evaporation and ink-jet printing processes to fulfill LG’s requirements, said market analysts and sources."
> 
> 
> "CIO Kim said Merck has already begun developing inkjet printing for mass-producing OLED TV panels in cooperation with Taiwanese panel makers, as well as the Koreans by offering materials, although he said no timetable has been set yet for mass production to begin."



Samsung already has an edge on LG in this regard. I believe OLED is going to be more affordable than people think come 2014, with 4K LCD being extremely affordable. A local major electronics store is offering $400 gift cards with the purchase of the sony HX850 or LG 4K sets as well as a few other sets. This is a tell-tell sign that they are getting rid of stock for newer, better models to come in (OLED).


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by **UFO**  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7590#post_24055222
> 
> 
> Samsung already has an edge on LG in this regard. I believe OLED is going to be more affordable than people think come 2014, with 4K LCD being extremely affordable. A local major electronics store is offering $400 gift cards with the purchase of the sony HX850 or LG 4K sets as well as a few other sets. This is a tell-tell sign that they are getting rid of stock for newer, better models to come in (OLED).



LOL. No there is still no improvements in OLED yields from LG or Samsung. OLED models are not going to be flooding the market anytime soon. Especially at larger sizes. The Chinese will try their hand at OLED and hope the can offset the low yields with their slave labor wages, but will still probably not be able to reach mass market. Best hope is the new OLED printing method which will probably take 2 more years to ramp up to mass market.


----------



## *UFO*

From a CNET article explaining the price differenced between LG's OLED sets and Samsungs OLED: "Samsung's price cut came as a result of i_mproved manufacturing yield_, and [Korean] customers that already purchased one will be refunded the difference". If you used google outside of North American searches you could read local press reports in korea and other countries. Business Korea wrote about Samsungs increasing yields as well as LG and expects yields to be above 70% by the end of _this year_. LG is expected to be mass producing their panels from their new Gen-8 plant by mid 2014. With the current rate things are moving, to squawk at the possibility of affordable OLED panels in 2014 is idiotic and pessimistic. Here one article out of many for you to read, disproving your statement that "there have been no increase in yields". Also, I did not say they would be "flooding the markets", only that they would become more affordable.

http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/article/1690/popularization-oled-tvs-oled-tvs-likely-become-mainstream-sooner-expected


----------



## *UFO*

Also, Sony has been keeping unusually quiet about their future plans. If Sony decided to roll out their crystal LED sets, OLED would most likely be out of the game for a while. Sony unveiled their crystal led tech in 2012, and have since remained extremely quiet about it. I guess we wont know until the time comes, but to say something cant happen is just being pessimistic. I remember from years ago, every technology advancement there was a large group of people saying "that will never happen soon" or "might as well buy now that wont be mainstream for years" ect. and never once has that been the case.


----------



## vinnie97

^And there are just as many, if not more, promising technological breakthroughs that have died on the vine for one reason or another (SED anyone?). Crystal LED, again? Criminey, hope springs eternal.


Hey, I hope the reports of 70% yields are true with the current manufacturing methods. I have just learned to take glorified PR puff pieces with a grain of salt after being burned many times prior.


----------



## *UFO*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_40#post_24055325
> 
> 
> ^And there are just as many, if not more, promising technological breakthroughs that have died on the vine for one reason or another (SED anyone?). Crystal LED, again? Criminey, hope springs eternal.
> 
> 
> Hey, I hope the reports of 70% yields are true with the current manufacturing methods. I have just learned to take glorified PR puff pieces with a grain of salt after being burned many times prior.



SED died because it has superior competing technologies, such as PDP's. There is no competition for OLED currently, with plasma coming close to being considered competition.


----------



## Artwood

Does anyone have enough brains to make FLAT OLED?


How about a TV with sound so great that it would put any separate system on planet Earth in the toilet?


What country has the lowest wages in the whole world?


If they attempted to make great 4K OLED at an affordable price would they be stopped by LL Cool JJ in NCIS Los Angeles?


If Auburn can beat Alabama like they did--ANYTHING is possible!


----------



## *UFO*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_40#post_24055358
> 
> 
> Does anyone have enough brains to make FLAT OLED?
> 
> 
> How about a TV with sound so great that it would put any separate system on planet Earth in the toilet?
> 
> 
> What country has the lowest wages in the whole world?
> 
> 
> If they attempted to make great 4K OLED at an affordable price would they be stopped by LL Cool JJ in NCIS Los Angeles?
> 
> 
> If Auburn can beat Alabama like they did--ANYTHING is possible!



LOL


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by **UFO**  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7590#post_24055350
> 
> 
> SED died because it has superior competing technologies, such as PDP's. There is no competition for OLED currently, with plasma coming close to being considered competition.


I don't know about that. While I agree it had its pros and cons like any display tech (with OLED the first one in a long time having mostly pros and few cons), the economic downturn and the patent trolling were what finished it off.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7590#post_24055358
> 
> 
> Does anyone have enough brains to make FLAT OLED?
> 
> 
> How about a TV with sound so great that it would put any separate system on planet Earth in the toilet?
> 
> 
> What country has the lowest wages in the whole world?
> 
> 
> If they attempted to make great 4K OLED at an affordable price would they be stopped by LL Cool JJ in NCIS Los Angeles?
> 
> 
> If Auburn can beat Alabama like they did--ANYTHING is possible!



Can I have a second to think about that?


----------



## *UFO*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_40#post_24055372
> 
> 
> I don't know about that. While I agree it had its pros and cons like any display tech (with OLED the first one in a long time having mostly pros and few cons), the economic downturn and the patent trolling were what finished it off.



Either way, the future is unseen and there is no point to discredit any possibility. For all we know, OLED could be another SED tragedy. Heck, we don't even know the longevity of OLED sets. If its anything like the current cell phone OLED's, its not going to be good.The bottom line though is that Samsung and other companies have one goal in mind: to make a profit off of a product that appeals to the masses. This is where 4K was born. It in incredibly easy to make 4K LCD sets because LCD is an extremely mature technology. This is both good and bad. Good because it means that it can be sold at low prices, but bad because it can only be improved upon to a certain point. There is obviously a hidden cost to 4K though, such as manufacturing new 4k media players.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7590#post_24055325
> 
> 
> ^And there are just as many, if not more, promising technological breakthroughs that have died on the vine for one reason or another (SED anyone?). Crystal LED, again? Criminey, hope springs eternal.
> 
> 
> Hey, I hope the reports of 70% yields are true with the current manufacturing methods. I have just learned to take glorified PR puff pieces with a grain of salt after being burned many times prior.



No kidding, bro.


I'm also getting tired of reading between the lines. Making my head hurt.










Can't help but wonder how much of the recent price drop of ZTs, VTs, and F8500s is that lower priced OLEDs are closer than we're being told and they want to flush existing plasmas out of the distribution system.


----------



## Artwood

No they want to flush out the plasmas so they can drop the real big logs into the toilet which are curved OLEDS that cost trillions!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by **UFO**  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24055390
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_40#post_24055372
> 
> 
> I don't know about that. While I agree it had its pros and cons like any display tech (with OLED the first one in a long time having mostly pros and few cons), the economic downturn and the patent trolling were what finished it off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, the future is unseen and there is no point to discredit any possibility. For all we know, OLED could be another SED tragedy.
Click to expand...

 

No.  SED never left the gate.  OLED did, despite all the grumblings about it's cost and longevity.


----------



## wco81

If you can get a good deal on a Panasonic plasma before they stop production or run out of inventory, would you do it or hold off for a couple of years for OLED or some other exotic displays to make it to market?


----------



## Orbitron

If you're willing to hold off on OLED and don't mind buying used - if it was me, i'd get a KURO.


----------



## *UFO*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_40#post_24058331
> 
> 
> If you can get a good deal on a Panasonic plasma before they stop production or run out of inventory, would you do it or hold off for a couple of years for OLED or some other exotic displays to make it to market?



The problem is no one can say if OLED will take a couple years. Just as 4K was thought to take years to get to affordable prices, yet 4k prices are falling extremely fast. I would not be surprised if we see a sub $2k 4K set in 2014. Plasma is still an excellent technology though, and it holds its own against OLED. The main advantage you will get with OLED is brightness, which leads to higher contrast ratios. The panasonic plasmas are selling fast because of their aggressive pricing, so waiting is a gamble as you may never be able to get one again.


----------



## rogo

Lots of misinformation / half fact running around here. No one ever demonstrated a process for manufacturing SED panels. The technology was interesting, the ability to build them never existed. The patent business was like the guy who adds poison to an IV on a patient already dying in an ICU.


As for OLED, I'm not sure how one can take a stance that "no one can say if OLED will take off" while simultaneously believing _claims_ from LG and Samsung that yields are magically soaring. If yields soar, OLED takes off, period. It's inherently cheaper to make than LCD _if you can get yields up and processes perfected_. There are simply fewer steps to make them.


The main advantage of OLED isn't brightness leading to higher CR, it's _blackness_. If it were brightness, LCDs would already have incredible CD. OLEDs have actually mediocre CR brightness (corrected, see bleow) compared to LCDs (somewhat better than the latest plasmas, primarily because they are less ABL limited), but can match/exceed the best plasma blacks.


Incidentally, it would be a major achievement for an LG Gen-8 fab that doesn't exist to be producing panels in 6 months. I'll just say that's extraordinarily unlikely and leave it at that.


As for Panasonic plasmas, while I wouldn't be shocked to see the high-end ZT60 disappear first, it doesn't seem likely the last of these are going to disappear especially fast. It's certainly not yet happening. If it were, pricing would be rising, which it isn't. And if someone gets shut out on a Panasonic (and wants high end), the Samsungs are a viable choice, which really limits the risk of waiting.


----------



## *UFO*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_40#post_24058721
> 
> 
> Lots of misinformation / half fact running around here. No one ever demonstrated a process for manufacturing SED panels. The technology was interesting, the ability to build them never existed. The patent business was like the guy who adds poison to an IV on a patient already dying in an ICU.
> 
> 
> As for OLED, I'm not sure how one can take a stance that "no one can say if OLED will take off" while simultaneously believing _claims_ from LG and Samsung that yields are magically soaring. If yields soar, OLED takes off, period. It's inherently cheaper to make than LCD _if you can get yields up and processes perfected_. There are simply fewer steps to make them.
> 
> 
> The main advantage of OLED isn't brightness leading to higher CR, it's _blackness_. If it were brightness, LCDs would already have incredible CD. OLEDs have actually mediocre CR compared to LCDs (somewhat better than the latest plasmas, primarily because they are less ABL limited), but can match/exceed the best plasma blacks.
> 
> 
> Incidentally, it would be a major achievement for an LG Gen-8 fab that doesn't exist to be producing panels in 6 months. I'll just say that's extraordinarily unlikely and leave it at that.
> 
> 
> As for Panasonic plasmas, while I wouldn't be shocked to see the high-end ZT60 disappear first, it doesn't seem likely the last of these are going to disappear especially fast. It's certainly not yet happening. If it were, pricing would be rising, which it isn't. And if someone gets shut out on a Panasonic (and wants high end), the Samsungs are a viable choice, which really limits the risk of waiting.



You actually thing the contrast ratio of an LCD is higher than OLED?  Talk about misinformation... The native contrast ratio of an LCD panel is at BEST 6000:1, while the native contrast ratio of an OLED was measured some where at 60,000:1. When I said the advantage over plasma is brightness, I mean they retain the deep blacks of plasma, but can at the same time achieve a higher white level, this increasing contrast ratio over plasma. No misinformation in my previous post. Im guessing you believe the claims on the box of LCD's that state 1 zillion:1 contrast ratio though...


----------



## wco81

I bought a Panny a little over a year ago, so wasn't looking to upgrade any time soon.


But if they're going to disappear soon, I may want to upgrade from my 50-inch to a 55 or 60 inch ST.


I guess even if we get an affordable OLED, it will probably take a couple of iterations before it's solid and consistent in the manufacturing process, not just resulting in lower prices but maybe more refined as far as burn-in issues and how the different colors degrade over time.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by **UFO**  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24058749
> 
> 
> You actually thing the contrast ratio of an LCD is higher than OLED?  Talk about misinformation...



Of course I don't. It was pretty plainly a typo/brain freeze, which has been corrected. (And would be obvious to anyone reading the next sentence.)


> Quote:
> When I said the advantage over plasma is brightness, I mean they retain the deep blacks of plasma, but can at the same time achieve a higher white level, this increasing contrast ratio over plasma.



It's possible I took your point out of context, but I promise you it is misleading. And the fact is if you want to be pedantic, the vast majority if OLED contrast ratio over plasmas is _still achieved_ by black levels, not brightness. You can calibrate modern plasmas to 40+ ft/L; no sane videophile would run double that for movie watching. Plasma ABL will limit some contrast to a lower number, yet plasma ANSI still obliterates LCD ANSI and human visual perception greatly limits one's ability to perceive much higher ANSI anyway.


> Quote:
> No misinformation in my previous post. Im guessing you believe the claims on the box of LCD's that state 1 zillion:1 contrast ratio though...



Again, it's pretty clear I had a typo. It's pretty clear (from your array of posts) you like to take both sides in every discussion for the purpose of ... _something_.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24058789
> 
> 
> I bought a Panny a little over a year ago, so wasn't looking to upgrade any time soon.
> 
> 
> But if they're going to disappear soon, I may want to upgrade from my 50-inch to a 55 or 60 inch ST.
> 
> 
> I guess even if we get an affordable OLED, it will probably take a couple of iterations before it's solid and consistent in the manufacturing process, not just resulting in lower prices but maybe more refined as far as burn-in issues and how the different colors degrade over time.



If you upgrade from a 50, buy the 60. You will not regret it, the cost difference is small, and there isn't even an OLED that large yet.


I'm still of the mind that 2016 is probably the first year OLED will become a reasonable choice. If there is product from Sony and Panasonic, it will reach the market as a practical matter not before 2015. LG and Samsung will make decisions about scaling in 2014 that begin to bear fruit in 2015. All of this suggests that 2015 might be the first real year of OLED on the market (2014 sales numbers will still be imperceptibly low). And 2016 ought to be when the competition begins to heat up.


(Not entirely ironically, this timetable more or less aligns with discussions we had _several years ago_ here at AVS.)


----------



## *UFO*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_40#post_24059201
> 
> 
> Again, it's pretty clear I had a typo. It's pretty clear (from your array of posts) you like to take both sides in every discussion for the purpose of ... _something_.



I dont choose a side, thats for fools, because one side has to lose


----------



## vinnie97

Misinfo? pfft, the patent trolling was still the final nail in the coffin, and the economic downturn put a significant dent in nearly every consumer electronic operation (speaking of SED).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24059742
> 
> 
> Misinfo? pfft, the patent trolling was still the final nail in the coffin,



I did say some misinfo and some half-fact.









> Quote:
> and the economic downturn put a significant dent in nearly every consumer electronic operation (speaking of SED).



Yep, but the fact remains Toshiba was never remotely close to a product. If they were, the patent business would've taken care of itself the way it always does.


----------



## Rich Peterson

To give an idea of the kind of volumes manufacturers are expecting for OLED TV sales, this article says LG plans to sell 500 OLED sets in India over the first two months it's avaialble there. That's 500 TVs in a country of over a billion people.


----------



## ferro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24060706
> 
> 
> That's 500 TVs in a country of over a billion people.



96.9% of whom live with less than $5.00 a day.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*
> 
> To give an idea of the kind of volumes manufacturers are expecting for OLED TV sales, this article says LG plans to sell 500 OLED sets in India over the first two months it's avaialble there.


10 Lakhs = 1.000.000 Rupee's = $16.276










500 OLEDs, that's 500.000.000 Rupee's









> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*
> 
> That's 500 TV's in a country of over a billion people


..of which 96.9% (1.179 million) live on less than US$ 5 per day.


----------



## Artwood

If LCD cost $16.76 would I buy it?


No!


----------



## rogo

500 sounds high, but in a country of many, that is few.


----------



## *UFO*

10 Lakhs is about _$16,000_ US dollars. My dreams of afforable OLED for 2014......crushed


----------



## Rich Peterson

I noticed a bunch of folks put in bogus reviews of the LG OLED on Amazon. I wonder how long it will take before they are removed?

http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-55EA9800-Cinema-Curved/product-reviews/B00E5U3YEK/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24069250
> 
> 
> I noticed a bunch of folks put in bogus reviews of the LG OLED on Amazon. I wonder how long it will take before they are removed?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-55EA9800-Cinema-Curved/product-reviews/B00E5U3YEK/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1


 

I reported them all.  I think curved TVs are nutty, and these are expensive, but they're not *stupid*, like the $1099 1m AudioQuest HDMI cable.


----------



## slacker711

A article from Korea indicating that LG and Samsung plan on tripling OLED production to approximately 15,000 units a month. No time frame given though besides sometime in 2014. My WAG would be that they need a sub-$6000 price point for the 55" television to hit those volumes.

http://english.etnews.com/device/2883532_1304.html 


> Quote:
> Having taken the lead by producing the OLED panel for TVs for the first time in the world, LG Display is already increasing the shipment volume, and determined to maintain the top position in the market. In the first half of this year, the shipment volume was less than 1,000 units a month, but recently it rose to more than 3,000 units a month. Next year LG Display is aiming to ship more than 10,000 units a month. In preparation for sharp increase of the shipment volume, it is checking parts suppliers as well. As the volume has been small, LG Display has received core parts from a single supplier. Now the company began to diversify the supply of core parts. Here, core parts refer to tuners, cases, semiconductors, etc. LG Display is also planning to produce models larger than 55 inches.
> 
> 
> Samsung Display will also increase the shipment volume of the OLED panels for TVs next year. Until now the company has placed more emphasis on the panels for mobile and table PCs than those for TVs, but plans to focus more on the products for TVs in 2014. It is known to plan on increasing the shipment volume from 1,000~2,000 a month to 5,000 a month. The line operating rate, which faltered in the 4th quarter, began to pick up again.


----------



## rogo

Good link, thanks Slacker.


Perspective (as always warranted on these). We've discussed above how more or less nothing would change in 2014. What is meant by that is that really tiny increases in volume (in the grand scheme) combine with just enough price cutting to get anything to move at those volumes equals not much. It's progress when you look back from 2015, but it's pretty disappointing when you consider this:

*Forecasts for 2013 contemplated 200,000 OLED units*. Now when we look ahead to 2014, we are looking at production reaching 15K units per month _sometime_ during the year. That means there is no chance that next year's number will hit the original projection for _this year_. Everyone the skeptics believed about timing remains truer than ever. Had we not been fooled (1/3 of high end sets), talk of 4K (which will seemingly be competitively required to take anywhere near that share of the high-end market in 2015), possibly entry by Sony or Panasonic (though the latter remains hard to take especially seriously as a global TV force after the plasma retreat), and a move under $4K (necessary for anywhere near that volume... truthfully, it will take a lower price to move 1 million units). But all of that seems like something to discuss next December. 2014 seems less interesting already.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24069250
> 
> 
> I noticed a bunch of folks put in bogus reviews of the LG OLED on Amazon. I wonder how long it will take before they are removed?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-55EA9800-Cinema-Curved/product-reviews/B00E5U3YEK/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24069428
> 
> 
> I reported them all.  I think curved TVs are nutty, and these are expensive, but they're not _stupid_, like the $1099 1m AudioQuest HDMI cable.



I hope they aren't removed. Some of them are hilarious.


Although I do feel sorry for poor Amanda. But at least she's earning a trade.....



On edit: What a shame, they've done away with the "good" ones.


----------



## *UFO*

As Rogo has stated, I feel that 4k LCD is going to be a big problem for OLED sets. Just from hearing people in the stores when they see a Sony 4k feed has me worried. Just like insects that fly towards the light, people gravitate to the brightest, sharpest tv set. Above that, there is a lot of money to be made in 4K. Imagine 4k media players, "4K HDMI cables" (note the quotation marks), ect. It is a gold mine for Sony and other manufacturers. Will 4k LCD be the end of 1080p OLED? Who knows, but it is more than possible.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24071642
> 
> 
> 
> Now when we look ahead to 2014, we are looking at production reaching 15K units per month _sometime_ during the year.



The key question to me is the timing. I think that there are fairly strong implications if LG is planning on dropping the price to $6000 and ramp capacity in the first half of the year. This is exactly the step I would expect if they are following through on their plans to build the commercial Gen 8 fab. A $6,000 price point on their pilot fab also gives a strong indication that they can hit a ~$3000 price point with their commercial fab that is needed to increase units into that million plus range for the year.


If this projection is for Christmas 2014, you can throw all of that out the window. The article certainly sounds like it is more of a near-term ramp but we'll find out more at CES.


With respect to 4K, the key is the IGZO yields. Adding transistors at these densities isnt a big deal if you have decent yields on the current substrate. LG has promised a 4K OLED next year and my guess is that the 2K version gets dropped entirely by the end of the year.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24072443
> 
> 
> The key question to me is the timing. I think that there are fairly strong implications if LG is planning on dropping the price to $6000 and ramp capacity in the first half of the year. This is exactly the step I would expect if they are following through on their plans to build the commercial Gen 8 fab. A $6,000 price point on their pilot fab also gives a strong indication that they can hit a ~$3000 price point with their commercial fab that is needed to increase units into that million plus range for the year.
> 
> 
> If this projection is for Christmas 2014, you can throw all of that out the window. The article certainly sounds like it is more of a near-term ramp but we'll find out more at CES.
> 
> 
> With respect to 4K, the key is the IGZO yields. Adding transistors at these densities isnt a big deal if you have decent yields on the current substrate. LG has promised a 4K OLED next year and my guess is that the 2K version gets dropped entirely by the end of the year.



I agree the 2K version will be replaced by 4K next year so that 4K vs OLED debate will disappear. It seems to me we can do the math and pretty well determine the volumes for both 2014 and 2015. The LG commercial fab will only be producing small quantities next year and that will be at the end of next year as they are going to roll it out in stages with full commercial production really starting at the beginning of 2015. It makes no sense for these numbers to reflect shipping volume from that fab. Ok, they might increase shipments a bit in time for Christmas next year but that's hardly a 2014 shipping rate and probably not even a number they know yet. In addition, the pilot fab consists of two lines, one of which is being used to test out new technologies such as 4K, different screen sizes, curved, etc. So for the majority of 2014 LG has capacity on their pilot line of 4000 sheets/month. They are planning on making some larger than 55" which means they will get less than 6 TVs per sheet. Since it's a pilot line they also won't be able to run them 100% of the time. Therefore, if you assume 4000 sheets * 5 TVs/sheet * 80% utilization = approximately 16,000 TVs per month capacity. If they are planning on shipping more than 10,000 per month it means their yield on the pilot line is 60-65%. It's not great but not bad for a pilot line and suggests a full commercial fab should do reasonably well (better yield than the pilot line). For 2015 the commercial fab is 26,000 sheets and assume it can be kept running full time. 26,000 sheets * 5 TVs/sheet * 75% yield = 1.2 million. Plus 200,000 from the pilot line means they should have about 1.4 million sets in 2015.


Samsung shipping 5,000 sets/month in 2014 implies their yields are about half that of LG which isn't good enough for a commercial gen 8 fab and they've indicated they aren't planning to build one yet. Since it would take a year and a half to build it and get it running Samsung is likely to still be shipping close to that 5,000 per month range for most of 2015. 5,000/month * 12 months = 60,000. Maybe they get 100,000 in 2015 by pulling some off of a gen 6 fab.


So there it is, approximately 200,000 in 2014, 1.5 million in 2015. All rough estimates of course. At this stage the price will be whatever is needed to sell that many, whether that is $6000 or $3000 or whatever. Maybe somebody here thinks they know what price it will take to sell 1.5 million 4K OLED TVs in 2015? Eventually price will determine volume so they can be profitable but at this stage they will produce what they can so they can claim to be first and then do what they have to in order to sell them. If they don't think they can make a profit they won't build more fabs but they aren't going to build the fab and have it sit idle because initially they aren't getting the price they want for the TVs. At least not for a while.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24072816
> 
> 
> Maybe somebody here thinks they know what price it will take to sell 1.5 million 4K OLED TVs in 2015?.



So most of your analysis strikes me as pretty sound even though I quibble with some details. I doubt, for example. the plan is to keep running the pilot once the commercial fab is up so I see 2015 capacity as somewhat lower than you do. It's not likely to be an efficient line for a lot of reasons.


But back to the quoted material, the answer would seem to be "less than $4,000". Consider that it's _currently_ true that a $4,000 4K OLED would sell reasonably well against 4K LCDs, but that you couldn't move 1.5 million OLEDs at that price today because 4K volumes are simply too small. So move forward a year (2015 is actually just a year away) and understand that 4K volumes grow, but _largely on lower prices_. To move 1.5 million units of 4K OLEDs, you'd need a 15-20% share of the 4K market (based on the most recent forecasts). You can achieve that at the premium end of the curve, but your price premium needs to be


----------



## mr. wally

how does oled compete if 80" 4k sets can be had for less than 4k next year?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr. wally*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24073395
> 
> 
> how does oled compete if 80" 4k sets can be had for less than 4k next year?


 

The 80" market is the 80" market.

 

A better question would be, how does an X" OLED compete when an X" LCD can be had cheaply.

 

And my guess for an answer to that would be simply: don't worry, it likely will soon enough.


----------



## 8mile13

We might see a 8K OLED prototype this year on CES or IFA. I would not be surprised if 4K OLEDs are for sale in 2015. I am having a hard time believing that there will be 4K OLED sets in 2014. There is no content so 4K is not much of a factor for the time being anyway..


2014 will be 4K flexible OLED year
http://www.techradar.com/news/television/tv/lg-and-samsung-tipped-to-unveil-flexible-tvs-at-ces-2014-1204290


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24073576
> 
> 
> The 80" market is the 80" market.
> 
> 
> A better question would be, how does an X" OLED compete when an X" LCD can be had cheaply.
> 
> 
> And my guess for an answer to that would be simply: don't worry, it likely will soon enough.


I think the power of advertising can play a big part in that( TV commercials, not print). You see very little electronic product advertising these days on TV but a product offering a undeniable new technology that "delivers" a noticeable jump in performance for a reasonable jump in price (perceived of course), may really grab the now generation of TV buyers. Hit the sports angle, the movie angle and have a trusted personality deliver the message. I think the 25 year old and up will spend up to 20% more if they are convinced they are getting good bang for the buck.


----------



## rogo

One challenge about advertising for OLED is that 4K is already "advertise-able". It's a real thing that people sort of understand, however slight the benefit for most. OLED is actually going to be a _less tangible_ benefit for the majority of people. It's a tech that offers viewing angles and contrast, two things the market rejected for years as important, selecting LCD over plasma (which clearly bested LCD on both).


----------



## xrox

Very good point. However, I won't underestimate marketing after watching them convince the masses that Hz is of vast importance regardless of what that means.


----------



## mtbdudex

Took a trip down memory lane.....I read page 1&2 of this 7 1/2 year old thread.

Brought back memories of CES 2007 and me seeing 1st hand OLED there.


Now talk here is 2015 or more likely 2016 is the inflection point on the silverstone stone curve to buy?



Sent from my iPad2 64GB using Tapatalk


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mtbdudex*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24076363
> 
> 
> Took a trip down memory lane.....I read page 1&2 of this 7 1/2 year old thread.
> 
> Brought back memories of CES 2007 and me seeing 1st hand OLED there. Now talk here is 2015 or more likely 2016 is the inflection point on the silverstone stone curve to buy?
> 
> Sent from my iPad2 64GB using Tapatalk



This is glass-is-half-empty' point of view. From the glass-is-half-full point : it's 2013, first OLED TVs are in shops and you have iPad 64GB with Tapatalk, this is absolutely incredible







.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24075783
> 
> 
> One challenge about advertising for OLED is that 4K is already "advertise-able". It's a real thing that people sort of understand, however slight the benefit for most. OLED is actually going to be a _less tangible_ benefit for the majority of people. It's a tech that offers viewing angles and contrast, two things the market rejected for years as important, selecting LCD over plasma (which clearly bested LCD on both).



In store, I'll bet the vast majority mistook the eye searing LED/LCD brightness as an indicator of brightness.

4K is easy to advertise but the benefits are not easy to demonstrate.


I wonder how much customers will pay for the 4K sticker.


- Rich


----------



## mtbdudex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24076373
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mtbdudex*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24076363
> 
> 
> Took a trip down memory lane.....I read page 1&2 of this 7 1/2 year old thread.
> 
> Brought back memories of CES 2007 and me seeing 1st hand OLED there. Now talk here is 2015 or more likely 2016 is the inflection point on the silverstone curve to buy?
> 
> Sent from my iPad2 64GB using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is glass-is-half-empty' point of view. From the glass-is-half-full point : it's 2013, first OLED TVs are in shops and you have iPad 64GB with Tapatalk, this is absolutely incredible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Yes it truly is incredible, technology, and communication with you and others via handheld devices, 100% agree.

No, my glass is not half-empty, as I'm 50 now and some life lessons behind me.......


I'm also the guy who spent out of my own pocket close to *$40k on computers 1984-1996* , hardware and software, and learned my lesson about being on the cutting edge of funding R&D vs waiting 1 or 2 generations for maturity.

Me in college circa early 1985











We were an "early" adopter of HDTV, have a 2005 Sony slim line 42" HDTV, 14" deep. Price was $2.2k on Feb-2005 Presidents' Day sale.

It has family room duty, used daily, replaced bulb only once.










I've gotten nearly 9 years of usage, been tempted a few times to "upgrade" but keep waiting and waiting.

Basement has our HT, so this is general viewing, not HT viewing.


Saw this at Costco the other day, what's not to like about 55" HDTV with these specs @ $780?










So buying in 2015, which is really 14-15 months away, IF, a big if, there is compelling reason to wait for a 50-55" OLED that will be $1.2k or less, then sure I'll wait.

>>As I expect the 55"class LED LCD to be down around $600 then, so I'm willing to pay 2x the cost for what will be superior viewing experience.

I mean, side by side it will be a clear leapfrog in technology.


Hence I asked about the technology curve inflection point, when it is clear the OLED will overtake LED LCD totally, performance, price, value, etc.


----------



## andy sullivan

The power of advertising is undeniable when you look at Samsung's stunning new LED Technology offerings from a few years ago. People ate that crap up like baby's to milk. A huge percentage of the population still think LED is an actual technology. That's with virtually zero TV advertising. "Organic Light Omitting Diodes"!!!! OMG how awesomely cool does that sound to the wanna be tech savey males of the 21st century?


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620_60#post_24076725
> 
> 
> 
> 4K is easy to advertise but the benefits are not easy to demonstrate.
> 
> 
> I wonder how much customers will pay for the 4K sticker.
> 
> 
> - Rich



The smart way to sell it is to place a 4K panel next to a 1080p one, in a tight aisle only a few feet wide. Then people are forced to compare the two from very close range. They see the difference and gotta have the 4K model.


Of course, back at home, at their typical 10 - 18ft regular viewing range, the resolution difference won't mean squat. But they'll still be feeling good about their purchase because they now have "the best".


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> In store, I'll bet the vast majority mistook the eye searing LED/LCD brightness as an indicator of brightness.



Every LCD looked like a washed out picture against OLED-TV in stores. Yes LCD is bright in stores, but OLED too and there is a point you can easily indicate an OLED-TV from a LCD-TV; Richer Colors! Don´t believe it? I saw it for my self, when the flat LG EA9809 hanging between the 4K-LCD-TV´s (Sony X9, Samsung F9 and the new Philips 4K-TV) and also to reports of reviewers and owners (even past owners from premium LCD-TV´s with glossy screens) you can clearly see the impressive color fascination of OLED which no LCD can match even in bright rooms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCW7FvZbupQ 


> Quote:
> It's a tech that offers viewing angles and contrast, two things the market rejected for years as important, selecting LCD over plasma (which clearly bested LCD on both).



Plasma is not bright enough to show the benefits of better contrast and viewing angle in bright stores. Compared to LCD, in stores Plasma has the washed out picture, but now OLED can compete with LCD in brightness. Also the viewing angle is now a deal breaker for LCD because directly compared to an OLED-TV it´s obviously. Also many LCD-TV´s are not well placed and often hanging too high or standing too low.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24077211
> 
> 
> Every LCD looked like a washed out picture against OLED-TV in stores. Yes LCD is bright in stores, but OLED too and there is a point you can easily indicate an OLED-TV from a LCD-TV; Richer Colors! Don´t believe it? I saw it for my self, when the flat LG EA9809 hanging between the 4K-LCD-TV´s (Sony X9, Samsung F9 and the new Philips 4K-TV) and also to reports of reviewers and owners (even past owners from premium LCD-TV´s with glossy screens) you can clearly see the impressive color fascination of OLED which no LCD can match even in bright rooms.


LCDs are pushing 300-600 nits brightness depending on the model. OLEDs are lucky to hit around 200 nits brightness.

It's true that when they are uncalibrated, OLEDs should be putting out much more vibrant colors - even when compared to the Sony X9 in its wide gamut mode (which was probably disabled - most LCDs are fairly accurate out of the box now) but when they are calibrated, both should have the same level of saturation/vibrancy. If not, one of them is not displaying the right image.


While plasma owners are quick to say that LCDs have "eye-searing brightness" there are still times where I have the backlight up at full brightness and the gamma control turned up just to have a clear image during the day at the weekends. I would not complain if my display had the ability to go even brighter than it does, and this is not even in a particularly bright room.

Just because it _can_ go extremely bright does not mean it has to. When I'm watching late at night, my display is dimmer than most plasma owners probably have their TVs set to. I do wish that displays had a "brightness" control on the remotes similar to their volume control though. (backlight for LCD, contrast/cell light for plasma/oled)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24077211
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCW7FvZbupQ


Well _of course_ you're going to see a huge difference between an iPhone 3GS (terrible LCD) a cheap netbook display and OLEDs set to their wide gamut modes.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24077211
> 
> 
> Plasma is not bright enough to show the benefits of better contrast and viewing angle in bright stores. Compared to LCD, in stores Plasma has the washed out picture, but now OLED can compete with LCD in brightness. Also the viewing angle is now a deal breaker for LCD because directly compared to an OLED-TV it´s obviously. Also many LCD-TV´s are not well placed and often hanging too high or standing too low.


It's not an issue of brightness with plasma. Due to the cell structure used, when light hits the front of the panel it dramatically reduces the contrast of the display. Even with a plasma switched _off_ in a bright room, you can clearly see that the screen turns gray.


When an LCD is in a bright room, the panel stays completely black. Bright light actually _helps_ LCD's black level performance, because once you have a moderate amount of light hitting the panel, it completely masks any amount of light the panel itself generates when displaying black. So in effect, LCDs have "perfect" black levels in a moderate-to-bright room.


Plasmas only have good black levels in the dark, but they are never _off_. The best plasmas approach 30,000:1 which can give you a nice image, but it's clearly _not_ black.

Local dimming LCDs are better than plasmas in most areas, in my opinion. The best Kuros were around 30,000:1 contrast, and 15,000:1 ANSI contrast. The Sharp Elite local dimming LCD was 80,000:1 contrast and just under 15,000:1 ANSI.

People made a big fuss about blooming, but the areas which did show blooming (and in person, when viewed on-axis this was minimal at best) are actually still generally higher contrast than the plasma is displaying. My Sony LCD actually turns the zones _off_ rather than just dimming to a low level like the Elites.



There's no doubt that OLED is better - especially when you consider off-axis viewing, but the question is not "is it better" the question is "is it so much better to demand a premium over LCD"?

Honestly, I'm happy enough with my Sony HX900. I don't ever sit off to the side when watching it, and while the black levels are not perfect, they're good enough that they are not distracting - and I found the black level of the Kuros distracting.

I would certainly like to upgrade to an OLED display at some point, but only once the manufacturing problems are sorted out, the prices are considerably lower, and we know how susceptible they are to things like image retention/burn-in.

They'll have to match LCD specs too - I won't buy anything that's not 4K or using a standard RGB subpixel layout.


If someone were to release an OLED display next year that was flat and had either a 4:3 or 21:9 aspect ratio, at $6000 or less, I would probably jump on it right away though, because anything that's not 16:9 is unlikely to stay on the market for long, unfortunately.

As time goes on, I've really come to hate 16:9. It's a poor compromise which means that you rarely ever have content which fills the screen.


With 4:3, content has a fixed width and simply changes in height. This is unlikely to return though, and will probably disappear forever if Apple ever changes the iPad aspect ratio. Considering that they changed the iPhone from 3:2 to 16:9 (a massive step backwards in my opinion) that's certainly possible.

With 21:9, content has a fixed height and changes in width. There's a possibility of this as there have been 21:9 flat panels in the past, and OLED is still a high-end product right now, as those displays were. 21:9 gives you the largest possible image with films, for the smallest TV "footprint".

With 16:9, content rarely fills the screen, so you effectively have a much smaller display than you're paying for. You either lose 1/4 of the display at the sides with 4:3 content, or 1/4 of the height with films.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24076725
> 
> 
> In store, I'll bet the vast majority mistook the eye searing LED/LCD brightness as an indicator of brightness.
> 
> 4K is easy to advertise but the benefits are not easy to demonstrate.
> 
> 
> I wonder how much customers will pay for the 4K sticker.
> 
> 
> - Rich





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24077138
> 
> 
> The smart way to sell it is to place a 4K panel next to a 1080p one, in a tight aisle only a few feet wide. Then people are forced to compare the two from very close range. They see the difference and gotta have the 4K model.
> 
> 
> Of course, back at home, at their typical 10 - 18ft regular viewing range, the resolution difference won't mean squat. But they'll still be feeling good about their purchase because they now have "the best".



Let us not forget, the ONE thing UHD (aka "4K") offers over 1080, at least for non-huge TV sizes, is improved 3D performance. This can be demonstrated. Now, will it be enough to boost 3D title sales, and they both benefit?



The power of Marketing:


A few years ago, I remember reading of a Marketing experiment. They took an item you usually only buy 1 or 2 of in a Supermarket, put it on an end cap with a sign "Limit 10." Sales increased.


But you can't do it too often.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24076725
> 
> 
> In store, I'll bet the vast majority mistook the eye searing LED/LCD brightness as an indicator of brightness.
> 
> 4K is easy to advertise but the benefits are not easy to demonstrate.
> 
> 
> I wonder how much customers will pay for the 4K sticker.



Consumers won't have to pay much. The premium is already down to about $1000. Today. When barely anyone even knows it exists. What do you think the premium will be next year? My guess is $500.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mtbdudex*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24076913
> 
> 
> Yes it truly is incredible, technology, and communication with you and others via handheld devices, 100% agree.
> 
> So buying in 2015, which is really 14-15 months away, IF, a big if, there is compelling reason to wait for a 50-55" OLED that will be $1.2k or less, then sure I'll wait.



There is a 0.00% chance of a 2015 OLED being priced like that.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24077068
> 
> 
> The power of advertising is undeniable when you look at Samsung's stunning new LED Technology offerings from a few years ago. People ate that crap up like baby's to milk. A huge percentage of the population still think LED is an actual technology. That's with virtually zero TV advertising. "Organic Light Omitting Diodes"!!!! OMG how awesomely cool does that sound to the wanna be tech savey males of the 21st century?



Sorry, but tech savvy (and even pseudo tech savvy) people buy pseudo technology when the pricing is reasonable. Not when the pricing is unreasonable. OLED at $4000 _barely_ begins to qualify as reasonable.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24077138
> 
> 
> The smart way to sell it is to place a 4K panel next to a 1080p one, in a tight aisle only a few feet wide. Then people are forced to compare the two from very close range. They see the difference and gotta have the 4K model.
> 
> 
> Of course, back at home, at their typical 10 - 18ft regular viewing range, the resolution difference won't mean squat. But they'll still be feeling good about their purchase because they now have "the best".



I think people will buy pixels on the placebo effect.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24077211
> 
> 
> Every LCD looked like a washed out picture against OLED-TV in stores. Yes LCD is bright in stores, but OLED too and there is a point you can easily indicate an OLED-TV from a LCD-TV; Richer Colors! Don´t believe it? I saw it for my self, when the flat LG EA9809 hanging between the 4K-LCD-TV´s (Sony X9, Samsung F9 and the new Philips 4K-TV) and also to reports of reviewers and owners (even past owners from premium LCD-TV´s with glossy screens) you can clearly see the impressive color fascination of OLED which no LCD can match even in bright rooms.



I'm confused by the universe you live in. I see LCDs in stores that look flat out amazing.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24078288
> 
> 
> When an LCD is in a bright room, the panel stays completely black. Bright light actually _helps_ LCD's black level performance, because once you have a moderate amount of light hitting the panel, it completely masks any amount of light the panel itself generates when displaying black. So in effect, LCDs have "perfect" black levels in a moderate-to-bright room.



That's what makes LCD so great. At this point, I don't much hesitate to recommend them to friends unless they tell me about off-axis issues in their setup or that they really spend most of their time movie watching in dim light or darkness.


> Quote:
> Local dimming LCDs are better than plasmas in most areas, in my opinion.



They mostly don't exist as a product however.


> Quote:
> As time goes on, I've really come to hate 16:9. It's a poor compromise which means that you rarely ever have content which fills the screen.



In the U.S., nearly all HDTV fills the screen perfectly on 16:9. This is a problem for you that most of us don't experience.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24078478
> 
> 
> 
> Let us not forget, the ONE thing UHD (aka "4K") offers over 1080, at least for non-huge TV sizes, is improved 3D performance. This can be demonstrated. Now, will it be enough to boost 3D title sales, and they both benefit?



Rejection of 3-D in the home isn't because the performance is bad. So improving the performance isn't a game changer. It is nice for 3-D fans and pretty much irrelevant otherwise.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24078570
> 
> 
> In the U.S., nearly all HDTV fills the screen perfectly on 16:9. This is a problem for you that most of us don't experience.


Who is buying these high end displays to watch broadcast content that's highly compressed and cropped to 16:9 rather than using high quality sources? You may as well be streaming Netflix on it.

If you're building a high end display, build it for high quality sources. (21:9)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24078570
> 
> 
> Rejection of 3-D in the home isn't because the performance is bad. So improving the performance isn't a game changer. It is nice for 3-D fans and pretty much irrelevant otherwise.


3D gaming when it's done right is _really_ impressive. I think it would convert most non-believers.

The problem is that almost nothing does 3D gaming right. You need to be using a PC as your source, and you need a high-end PC at that. You also need to avoid HDMI, as it's limited in framerate or resolution. (1080p24 or 720p60)


3D as a format for films or live TV has never impressed me in the slightest. Give me a high quality 2D image any day.


But 3D is still using active shutters on OLED so while crosstalk on the panel is no longer an issue, you still have the problem of flicker, and the LCDs used in the glasses are still likely to permit some amount of crosstalk.

And I don't think there are any 4K displays which take advantage of the extra resolution with passive 3D. I think they're still all displaying 540 lines.


With 3D losing support, I fear that we may not have high quality 3D at home on flat panel displays. It's probably going to be up to devices like the Oculus Rift to cater for high quality 3D gaming.


----------



## andy sullivan

When I said that "tech Savey" men would go for OLED I also mentioned that the new technology would have to be reasonably priced. I even mentioned a "up to 20%" higher than the competition, which would make a LCD going for $2500 compete with an OLED for $3,000.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24078751
> 
> 
> Who is buying these high end displays to watch broadcast content that's highly compressed and cropped to 16:9 rather than using high quality sources? You may as well be streaming Netflix on it.



You stream Netflix, I'll stick with broadcast HDTV, which is quite excellent, thanks. (Incidentally, Netflix is at least experimenting with much better quality formats.)


The idea that I (or anyone) should only watch BluRay is absurd. My TV is clearly on more than yours. Oh, and it's very often filled corner to corner with content. How you see yourself as "winning" because of better quality and black bars is completely lost on me.


> Quote:
> 3D gaming when it's done right is _really_ impressive. I think it would convert most non-believers.



So long as they're gamers to begin with. And, again, I've spoken highly of the prospects for 3-D gaming.


> Quote:
> The problem is that almost nothing does 3D gaming right. You need to be using a PC as your source, and you need a high-end PC at that. You also need to avoid HDMI, as it's limited in framerate or resolution. (1080p24 or 720p60)



So in other words, virtually no one has this kind of setup.


> Quote:
> But 3D is still using active shutters on OLED so while crosstalk on the panel is no longer an issue, you still have the problem of flicker, and the LCDs used in the glasses are still likely to permit some amount of crosstalk.
> 
> And I don't think there are any 4K displays which take advantage of the extra resolution with passive 3D. I think they're still all displaying 540 lines.



Well, someone should "fix" that.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24079282
> 
> 
> When I said that "tech Savey" men would go for OLED I also mentioned that the new technology would have to be reasonably priced. I even mentioned a "up to 20%" higher than the competition, which would make a LCD going for $2500 compete with an OLED for $3,000.



So I get your points on pricing and agree. Do me the courtesy of spelling it "savvy" from here on so I can continue to credit your most excellent and erudite analysis!


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> I'm confused by the universe you live in. I see LCDs in stores that look flat out amazing.



But not against OLED. If you can´t compare it directly then of course LCD can look amazing. But the differences directly compared even in well lit store demos is obviously. We have a owner of the Samsung OLED-TV in the German Hifi Forum and he also told about the same effect against his old Samsung 55F8090 LED-LCD-TV. The colors looked washed out and even to try more saturated colors on his LCD, it doens´t reach these vibrant OLED colors. More saturation on LCD looking only synthetically, more like fake colors. Also in the video I linked, you can see the same OLED color effect. Black also looks deeper. That´s a well lit room, like in a typically store demo and no dim lightning. If you don´t see it you must be blind. The Sony 65X9005 is a Triluminos-4K-LCD-TV and even this stands not a chance hanging side by side to the LG EA8809. It´s not only about a wider color gammut.


> Quote:
> LCDs are pushing 300-600 nits brightness depending on the model. OLEDs are lucky to hit around 200 nits brightness.



What are you talking? The LG and Samsung OLED-TV´s reaches 350cd/m²!

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/55ea980w-201312083487.htm 


> Quote:
> Strange as it may sound, black level also affects a TV’s colour reproduction, simply because the baseline black luminance is inevitably added to every single colour that needs to be displayed on screen. Here’s how we like to explain it: greyish blacks will have more “white” than pure blacks, which will be mixed with the colours, decreasing their saturations (e.g. red may look pink… an extreme example, but you get the idea) and washing out the image. Only the deepest blacks can allow colours to flourish with unadulterated richness and vibrancy.


 http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ke55s9c-201310273395.htm 


Im not talking about well calibrated displays. I´m talking about typically store demos (uncalibrated, dynamic mode), where even you can see that OLED looks vibrianter with better blacks. At home with better controlled lightning it´s of course more obviously.


In the German Forum we all to puzzle over it, why OLED looks even better in well lit roomes. Better contrast, better viewing angle? Even the press told the same. OLED is not only about black level, the color reproduction is much more fascinating.


> Quote:
> Local dimming LCDs are better than plasmas in most areas, in my opinion. The best Kuros were around 30,000:1 contrast, and 15,000:1 ANSI contrast. The Sharp Elite local dimming LCD was 80,000:1 contrast and just under 15,000:1 ANSI.



Show me a local dimmed LCD with a skyline at night. At this situation the fascination of LD effect is gone and the display is reduced to it´s native contrast ratio.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> In the German Forum we all to puzzle over it, why OLED looks even better in well lit roomes. Better contrast, better viewing angle?



Nokia did a study years ago that indicated that OLED's are perceived to be brighter than LCD's even when the two are calibrated to the same brightness level. Something about the increased contrast is perceived by our eyes as an increase in brightness. If your tests have calibrated the output level to similar levels, this might be one explanation.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24079385
> 
> 
> You stream Netflix, I'll stick with broadcast HDTV, which is quite excellent, thanks. (Incidentally, Netflix is at least experimenting with much better quality formats.)


I wouldn't watch either. (and don't)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24079385
> 
> 
> The idea that I (or anyone) should only watch BluRay is absurd. My TV is clearly on more than yours. Oh, and it's very often filled corner to corner with content. How you see yourself as "winning" because of better quality and black bars is completely lost on me.


I very much doubt that actually. But it's the idea that someone is paying $10,000 for a display only to use it for broadcast content which I have difficulty with. If you can afford a $10,000 display, you should be able to afford high quality sources to go along with it. (of course that doesn't count the people that have been putting aside money for years waiting for OLED) If you're going to build a $10,000 display, build it for the highest quality content, not the lowest quality.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24079466
> 
> 
> But not against OLED. If you can´t compare it directly then of course LCD can look amazing. But the differences directly compared even in well lit store demos is obviously. We have a owner of the Samsung OLED-TV in the German Hifi Forum and he also told about the same effect against his old Samsung 55F8090 LED-LCD-TV. The colors looked washed out and even to try more saturated colors on his LCD, it doens´t reach these vibrant OLED colors. More saturation on LCD looking only synthetically, more like fake colors. Also in the video I linked, you can see the same OLED color effect. Black also looks deeper. That´s a well lit room, like in a typically store demo and no dim lightning. If you don´t see it you must be blind. The Sony 65X9005 is a Triluminos-4K-LCD-TV and even this stands not a chance hanging side by side to the LG EA8809. It´s not only about a wider color gammut.


I see the differences in your video, but it is comparing some of the worst LCDs to OLED displays. The OLEDs are clearly operating in their wide gamut modes as well, which makes the color differences very obvious.

Once you are viewing calibrated displays, the OLEDs should not be any more vibrant than the LCDs when viewing them in bright conditions.

There is nothing any more "natural" about the oversaturated colors OLED is displaying - it's still out of spec and displaying the _wrong_ colors.


Off-axis, yes OLED has much richer colors and deeper black levels - even in bright conditions that should be obvious.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24079466
> 
> 
> What are you talking? The LG and Samsung OLED-TV´s reaches 350cd/m²!


You're talking about peak brightness, measured when only a small area of the screen is illuminated. I'm talking about their maximum brightness with a white screen.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24079466
> 
> 
> Im not talking about well calibrated displays. I´m talking about typically store demos (uncalibrated, dynamic mode), where even you can see that OLED looks vibrianter with better blacks. At home with better controlled lightning it´s of course more obviously.


Most LCDs now - Sony's in particular are effectively calibrated out of the box. The OLEDs are not.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24079466
> 
> 
> Show me a local dimmed LCD with a skyline at night. At this situation the fascination of LD effect is gone and the display is reduced to it´s native contrast ratio.


Find me a good example and I'll get you a photo. I've gone through a few discs now and couldn't really find anything that would be a good demonstration. Cities are too well illuminated these days...


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24078288
> 
> 
> When an LCD is in a bright room, the panel stays completely black. Bright light actually *helps* LCD's black level performance, because once you have a moderate amount of light hitting the panel, it completely masks any amount of light the panel itself generates when displaying black. So in effect, LCDs have "perfect" black levels in a moderate-to-bright room.


 

But whether it's the light hitting the panel or the light leaking through the LCD array it's still an effective dark level of gray isn't it?  I think the displaying of blackness in a lit room is more a function of what happens to your iris when there is even a moderate amount of ambient light or nearly any content on the screen.  Even in a pitch black room, all it takes is the super bright Sony logo to come on for my eyes to react strongly and push the rest of the screen closer to ink.


----------



## xrox

It has been a while but IIRC the presence of color filters and polarizing films in LCD is the source of the dark blacks in ambient light. This is something that PDP and CRT did not have and resulted in severe reflection of ambient light off the cell materials.


There was some research being done on putting color filters into emmissive displays like SED and PDP for the purpose of improving ambient light reflections.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24080183
> 
> 
> But whether it's the light hitting the panel or the light leaking through the LCD array it's still an effective dark level of gray isn't it? I think the displaying of blackness in a lit room is more a function of what happens to your iris when there is even a moderate amount of ambient light or nearly any content on the screen. Even in a pitch black room, all it takes is the super bright Sony logo to come on for my eyes to react strongly and push the rest of the screen closer to ink.


Well yes, it's not that it's actually getting darker, but it's darker relative to the rest of the room, and below the threshold where you can see that it's not completely black.


When light hits the front of emissive displays like PDP and SED, it actually makes the screen brighter.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24080258
> 
> 
> It has been a while but IIRC the presence of color filters and polarizing films in LCD is the source of the dark blacks in ambient light. This is something that PDP and CRT did not have and resulted in severe reflection of ambient light off the cell materials.
> 
> 
> There was some research being done on putting color filters into emmissive displays like SED and PDP for the purpose of improving ambient light reflections.


Pioneer were using polarizers on the higher-end Kuros - it's why they had limited vertical viewing angles. I think Panasonic have been doing that as well?


It can help, but I think the issue is simply internal reflections due to the deep cell structure these types of displays have to use.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24078288
> 
> 
> Plasmas only have good black levels in the dark,


Yes, we know you hate plasma, but I thought I'd snip this particularly false statement and properly label it as hogwash. In typical fashion, you completely ignored the shootout results from *2013* where this was shown to be demonstrably false. LCDs are never off either. Remember, full-array backlighting has been virtually discarded from the manufacturing process.


You should head over to the Kuro pictures thread and see the recent Sony W9 versus 500M photo comparisons. Basically, it makes your statement about LCD being oh so much better than plasma to be laughably inaccurate.


I saved you the trouble of searching. If this and/or this isn't eye-opening enough to you, nothing ever will be. I don't want my TV to compete with the sun. I want it to excel in a cinematic viewing environment. It's a shame about the continued issue of IR and the power requirements and other engineering challenges that make plasma unfeasible in 4K but unlike you, I am in no way happy with being saddled with LCD as a replacement.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24075783
> 
> 
> One challenge about advertising for OLED is that 4K is already "advertise-able". It's a real thing that people sort of understand, however slight the benefit for most. OLED is actually going to be a _less tangible_ benefit for the majority of people. It's a tech that offers viewing angles and contrast, two things the market rejected for years as important, selecting LCD over plasma (which clearly bested LCD on both).



But on paper OLED has the potential to be way more energy-efficient, way thinner and way less expensive than current display technology. And those are things people can find tangible


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24080735
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24078288
> 
> 
> Plasmas only have good black levels in the dark,
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we know you hate plasma, but I thought I'd snip this particularly false statement and properly label it as hogwash. In typical fashion, you completely ignored the shootout results from *2013* where this was shown to be demonstrably false. LCDs are never off either. Remember, full-array backlighting has been virtually discarded from the manufacturing process.
> 
> 
> You should head over to the Kuro pictures thread and see the recent Sony W9 versus 500M photo comparisons. Basically, it makes your statement about LCD being oh so much better than plasma to be laughably inaccurate.
> 
> 
> I saved you the trouble of searching. If this and/or this isn't eye-opening enough to you, nothing ever will be. I don't want my TV to compete with the sun. I want it to excel in a cinematic viewing environment. It's a shame about the continued issue of IR and the power requirements and other engineering challenges that make plasma unfeasible in 4K but unlike you, I am in no way happy with being saddled with LCD as a replacement.
Click to expand...


FALD is not dead. Only Sony stopped making em..



The W900A is an Edge Lit. What is interesting about this model is its Motion options and the fact that it is one of the first flatscreens that is using quantum dots. Even D-Nice was interested in quantum dots


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by CruelInventions
> 
> 
> The smart way to sell it is to place a 4K panel next to a 1080p one, in a tight aisle only a few feet wide. Then people are forced to compare the two from very close range. They see the difference and gotta have the 4K model.
> 
> 
> Of course, back at home, at their typical 10 - 18ft regular viewing range, the resolution difference won't mean squat. But they'll still be feeling good about their purchase because they now have "the best".





> Quote:
> Rogo : I think people will buy pixels on the placebo effect.



Oh I think the placebo effect may be true in some cases but not in all cases, as I can clearly see the difference myself for example. A similar example would be going from a non-retina to a retina display on an Apple device it's clearly noticeable.


----------



## vinnie97

Well, I'm unimpressed so far. Who is making FALD panels at anywhere near a reasonable cost? Samsung and/or LG? What's the price, $20k?


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> Most LCDs now - Sony's in particular are effectively calibrated out of the box. *The OLEDs are not*.



According to all well known reviews both OLED TVs have very good out of the box settings. The LG even has a pre calibrated THX mode.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*
> 
> Well, I'm unimpressed so far. Who is making FALD panels at anywhere near a reasonable cost? Samsung and/or LG? What's the price, $20k?


There will be a cheap Vizio FALD in 2014








http://www.soundandvision.com/content/vizio-add-full-array-led-backlighting-2014-tvs-0


----------



## vinnie97

Thanks, that's a start. I may have read about that previously but forgotten it. If there's a 70", I might be forced to grab one. The IR susceptibility on this ZT60 is ridiculous.


----------



## pg_ice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24078288
> 
> 
> While plasma owners are quick to say that LCDs have "eye-searing brightness"



most of them do but not the ones that own both










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24078288
> 
> 
> Plasmas only have good black levels in the dark, but they are never _off_. The best plasmas approach 30,000:1 which can give you a nice image, but it's clearly _not_ black.
> 
> Local dimming LCDs are better than plasmas in most areas, in my opinion. The best Kuros were around 30,000:1 contrast, and 15,000:1 ANSI contrast.



they have bad AG/AR filters thats the problem but they can show great blacks even with bright lights in the room.

it all depends on how the light hits the panel.

all direct lights at the same level as the panel will wash out the blacks.

light from the ceiling and from the sides of the tv will not.


My Kuro has an ANSI contrast of 38000:1

but thats not a standard Kuro.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24078288
> 
> 
> Local dimming LCDs are better than plasmas in most areas in my opinion.



in my opinion its the opposite


i own a Sony W9 that a praised like hell for its picture when i got it.

the colors and the blacks where so good compared to all other LCDs i have owned.

the last LCD i owned (LG 47 LX9500)was also good but it was miles after the W9 in colors.

(Both tvs where reference calibrated btw)

you can clearly see what Quantum Dots do to the colors on the W9.

the usual White/Blue light you get from the LEDs isnt there on the W9.

Quantum dots brings back the good old light from the incandescent lamp


Then i Bought a 5 year old Pioneer LX5090 Kuro.

the only time i use the W9 now is for comparisons.

things changed quickly.


the W9 is now out for sale


i still wonder why the hell i havnt bought a Kuro before?

the answer is that they where to expensive.

all LCD LED tvs i have bought before was completely wasted money.

you pay money for a fake flat overdone picture.


i have now seen the light

the light from AV Heaven!


Halelulia KURO !










if i would do a comparison to the DSLR world.

i would say that the Kuro is what Full Frame DSLRs are for Cameras.

LCD LEDs are the Cell Phone cameras that you just take with you when you want to shoot photos fast and easy to put on Instagram.


----------



## vinnie97

Chrono doesn't believe in those nonstandard Kuro measurements.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24082020
> 
> 
> Chrono doesn't believe in those nonstandard Kuro measurements.


 

Did you guys go by camel and find a Kuro by following a giant star in the sky or something?


----------



## vinnie97

I dumped mine actually because I wanted more SIZE. It's a shame that the panel is still relevant today, dont'cha'think? OLED is on the cusp of making it irrelevant.


----------



## pg_ice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24082032
> 
> 
> Did you guys go by camel and find a Kuro by following a giant star in the sky or something?



you need to pray to the Kuro God.

then one day you will own one










Kaaaaalima shahadaaa..


----------



## pg_ice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24082020
> 
> 
> Chrono doesn't believe in those nonstandard Kuro measurements.



im out of here.

i own a Kuro and i dont need to discuss "so called" tvs anymore


----------



## tubetwister




> Quote:
> *Merck* says that they are already collaborating with Taiwanese panel makers (probably *AU Optronics and Innolux*) on developing ink-jet printing of OLED TV panels. *Merck* is providing the local companies with soluble OLED materials. Merck believes that ink-jet printing will greatly reduce OLED panel production costs.
> 
> read more:
> http://www.oled-info.com/merck-says-lgs-oled-tv-uses-their-materials-working-taiwanese-companies-ink-jet-printed-oled-tvs
> 
> 
> 
> There are reports from China that *Skyworth* is set to release their first OLED TV next week (December 5). The company sent out invitations to reporters for the launch event:
> 
> 
> According to one report, *Skyworth* will use *LG Display's* WRGB panels. The second report actually says *Skyworth* are releasing a "*Samsung* OLED TV", but they still say it is an WRGB panel so this may be just a mistake.
> 
> 
> This second report also claims that *Haier* already released their first OLED TV in China. Perhaps they refer to *Haier's* 55' OLED TV prototype shown in IFA 2013 earlier this year. There were reports from Korea that say that *Haier* (and *Seik*i as well) actually obtained those panels without permission from Korean makers - they simply bought OLED TVs in the open market, took them apart and then reassembled the OLED panels themselves into their own designs.
> 
> read more:
> http://www.oled-info.com/chinas-skyworth-launch-oled-tv-next-week-panel-supplied-lgd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Haier And Seiki*
> 
> Did Two Chinese Electronics Companies Pass LG OLED TV Panels Off As Theirs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At IFA 2013 in Germany in September, the largest consumer electronics fair in Europe, the big question among those engaged in the global electronics industry was, “Where do the OLED TVs displayed by Chinese firms actually come from?”
> 
> 
> At that time, people had different theories. Some said that Chinese companies developed the necessary technology, while others argued that they might have obtained the displayed TVs from somewhere, rather than manufacturing those products themselves. People were wondering about the origin of those TVs, but nothing was revealed.
> 
> 
> However, it was reported that Chinese firms used products made by a Korean display maker. The TVs were not supplied officially. Instead, Chinese companies bought finished products, took them apart, and reassembled them.
> 
> 
> According to sources in the consumer electronics industry, the two Chinese electronics companies Haier and Seiki introduced 55 inch OLED TVs at IFA 2013. An industry source said, “Many suspected those TVs, due to poor quality in assembly. People were interested in the origin of those displays, since there were no local display manufacturers in China that can produce large OLED panels.”
> 
> 
> Market research firm DisplaySearch reported that Chinese companies’ OLED TV panels at IFA 2013 are presumed to belong to LG Electronics. Apparently, they purchased finished LG goods, removed the cases, and reassembled them. Currently, LG Display provides their OLED TV panels exclusively to LG Electronics.
> 
> 
> Among Chinese firms, BOE is constructing the 8th generation OLED line at factories in Chongqing and Hebei. So far, no local companies in China have successfully mass-produced OLED TVs.
> 
> 
> - See more at: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/article/1723/haier-and-seiki-did-two-chinese-electronics-companies-pass-lg-oled-tv-panels-theirs#sthash.ezvnccln.dpuf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just some interesting stuff I read. The Printed OLED process hopefully will eventually work well and bring panel costs down.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24079466
> 
> 
> But not against OLED. If you can´t compare it directly then of course LCD can look amazing. But the differences directly compared even in well lit store demos is obviously. \.



I'm confused. Should we all junk our plasmas because they don't look good in store demos? Should we all junk LCDs that look great in store demos because something looks a bit better in store demos? Once you have a TV at home, you have no eye-distorting wall of TVs to compare it to.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24079746
> 
> 
> Nokia did a study years ago that indicated that OLED's are perceived to be brighter than LCD's even when the two are calibrated to the same brightness level. Something about the increased contrast is perceived by our eyes as an increase in brightness. If your tests have calibrated the output level to similar levels, this might be one explanation.



Contrast always improves perceived image quality. The above makes perfect sense.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24079929
> 
> 
> I wouldn't watch either. (and don't)
> 
> I very much doubt that actually. But it's the idea that someone is paying $10,000 for a display only to use it for broadcast content which I have difficulty with. If you can afford a $10,000 display, you should be able to afford high quality sources to go along with it. (of course that doesn't count the people that have been putting aside money for years waiting for OLED) If you're going to build a $10,000 display, build it for the highest quality content, not the lowest quality.



First of all, pretty much everything is wrong with what you are saying here. No one is building $10,000 displays as an end. They are a means to an end, which is sub $3000 displays. Second of all, content is king, not some pretentious, videophile view of the world where "The Fifth Element" passes for art. When I (or most people) turn on the TV, we want to watch the things we want to watch. If that's Sunday Night Football, fine. If it's Scandal, fine. If it's Dancing with the Stars, fine. (Please note, these are examples). The point is, people are going to watch what they like, not what has the most pixels or color information or least compression _to the exclusion of what they like_. When we sit to watch a movie, our choice matrix goes like this:


1) Is it at Redbox on BluRay? If so, it's $1.62, BluRay quality and typically guarantees us a bit of exercise to walk and get it (or return it).

2) Is it on iTunes in HD? If so, it's usually $4.99 less 15-20% since iTunes gift cards mysteriously always go on sale.

3) Is it on Vudu HDX and worth paying the ridiculous extra $1 for HDX?

4) Is it on Vudu HD and only worth the $1 less?


And we watch a decent number of movies this way. But you know what, there aren't that many great movies. There's great NFL action every week for 17 weeks. (More than 20 if you include playoffs). Nearly every episode of Arrow is entertaining. Homeland is absurd but strangely compelling. The video quality of this stuff is the _last thing on my mind_ when I tune in or hit Play on the DVR. (I do record Arrow with my antenna because DirecTV does odd things with the signal on that channel and I'd prefer a cleaner copy.)


Incidentally, my TV was right around $3000. I suspect the OLED that replaces it will be right around $3000. I'm pretty indifferent to the $1 I save going iTunes over Vudu and the other $1 between HDX and HD on Vudu. But I'm pretty generally opposed to the sense I've been ripped off. I think that people a lot wealthier than me have a similar feeling about things. And from what I've seen, most of them have lower video quality standards than I do.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24080258
> 
> 
> It has been a while but IIRC the presence of color filters and polarizing films in LCD is the source of the dark blacks in ambient light. This is something that PDP and CRT did not have and resulted in severe reflection of ambient light off the cell materials.



Yup, attenuate the light hitting the panel and it will look blacker in bright light than a panel that doesn't.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24081128
> 
> 
> But on paper OLED has the potential to be way more energy-efficient, way thinner and way less expensive than current display technology. And those are things people can find tangible



I don't see it. LCD is already so good on this that the Energy Guide stickers often read $9-10 _per year_. I'm probably "greener" than most people here. We have solar panels, a plug-in hybrid car, all CFL or LED lighting, a modern gas furnace, Energy Star kitchen appliances and washing machine, etc. etc. The most embarrassing power hog in my house is the plasma. That said, if I had an LCD using $13 of electricity per year, there's simply no way you could convince me than an OLED using $8 was greener. And the gap isn't actually that big.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24081184
> 
> 
> FALD is not dead. Only Sony stopped making em..



And Sharp, which promised a mid-priced one for years, but failed to ever ship it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24081209
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I think the placebo effect may be true in some cases but not in all cases, as I can clearly see the difference myself for example. A similar example would be going from a non-retina to a retina display on an Apple device it's clearly noticeable.



Right, so when you _can_ see the pixels, it's even easier to sell 4K. Just basically furthering my point.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24081516
> 
> 
> Thanks, that's a start. I may have read about that previously but forgotten it. If there's a 70", I might be forced to grab one. The IR susceptibility on this ZT60 is ridiculous.



A 55" Vizio for $700 (the price mentioned in the press release) is not going to impress you, even if it has local dimming.


----------



## vinnie97

You're obviously correct, but Vizio never stated it would be limited to 55". I am running with an assumption that they'll offer it in larger sizes.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> 
> And Sharp, which promised a mid-priced one for years, but failed to ever ship it.


Sharp made two FALDs that is not much anyway. Those who made at least four FALDs are Sony, Samsung, LG and Vizio. Three of them are still making FALDs.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24081938
> 
> 
> i own a Sony W9 that a praised like hell for its picture when i got it.


This is an edge-lit LCD. (16-32 zones max) I should have specified a full-array local dimming LCD. (i.e. hundreds of zones)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24082020
> 
> 
> Chrono doesn't believe in those nonstandard Kuro measurements.


You're right, I still don't believe that people have gone from ~30,000:1 contrast as shipped, to 500,000:1 contrast via service menu tweaks as claimed. I think they're operating below the spec of the meter being used and have erroneous measurements.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24082603
> 
> 
> You're obviously correct, but Vizio never stated it would be limited to 55". I am running with an assumption that they'll offer it in larger sizes.



Sorry, Vinnie, I made my point badly. It's not that I expect them to limit the tech to 55 inches. It's that I expect the end result of anything sold that cheaply to be unimpressive. A 55" $700 LCD is already pretty low end. If they spend more of the budget for such a thing on a full-array local dimming controller (even if it's direct LED and therefore cheaper than older full array designs), it's going to be a middling performer. It's not going to wow you unless it's done on a higher-end product.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24082695
> 
> 
> Sharp made two FALDs that is not much anyway. Those who made at least four FALDs are Sony, Samsung, LG and Vizio. Three of them are still making FALDs.



Are they? I guess I'm naive, but it's my impression that Sony, Samsung and Vizio have no full array sets available for sale in the U.S. (with the possible exception of giant TVs.)


I see nothing on Sony's website that's full array.

Samsung seems to offer one model, which is 85 inches and costs $40,000.

Vizio seems to currently offer nothing, though they seem to intend to offer sets in 2014.

(LG seems to have it on a couple of models.)


I'd like to be bullish on the future of full array local dimming. It's prospects seem pretty marginal overall since it remains more costly to implement.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7650#post_24081465
> 
> 
> There will be a cheap Vizio FALD in 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.soundandvision.com/content/vizio-add-full-array-led-backlighting-2014-tvs-0





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24082543
> 
> 
> A 55" Vizio for $700 (the price mentioned in the press release) is not going to impress you, even if it has local dimming.



+1


I think I read somewhere that Vizio's definition of "local dimming" is 4x4 zones. That's not exactly "local" on a screen that large.


----------



## markrubin

is the Panasonic WT-60 series considered FALD? it has local dimming but not sure if it the same? I have the TC-47WT60


tia


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*
> 
> is the Panasonic WT-60 series considered FALD? it has local dimming but not sure if it the same? I have the TC-47WT60
> 
> 
> tia


I never seen a Panasonic FALD.


the TC-47WT60 is an Edgelit dimming
http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/panasonic-tc-l47wt60/4505-6482_7-35583322.html


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> Are they? I guess I'm naive, but it's my impression that Sony, Samsung and Vizio have no full array sets available for sale in the U.S. (with the possible exception of giant TVs.)


Samsung and LG have a 4K FALD this year. I do not know about this year but there will be another 1080p Vizio FALD next year. So they are still making them. From what i understand Sony quit making FALDs.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> I'd like to be bullish on the future of full array local dimming. It's prospects seem pretty marginal overall since it remains more costly to implement.


The thing is that FALD has always been marginal, three or four (max five) FALD models a year since 2008.


----------



## RobMacLennan

Ha ha hey Chrono my completely as standard KRP500a is 82,237:1 after calibration with a Klein K10 instruments meter, how about that, me and Chrono have had a few run ins over on the uk forum though







.


Having said that i would love a 4k uhd oled when they are at an affordable level, in the mean time i will just suffer with my KRP







.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24084462
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> Are they? I guess I'm naive, but it's my impression that Sony, Samsung and Vizio have no full array sets available for sale in the U.S. (with the possible exception of giant TVs.)
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung and LG have a 4K FALD this year. I do not know about this year but there will be another 1080p Vizio FALD next year. So they are still making them. From what i understand Sony quit making FALDs.
Click to expand...

 

Everything is edge with Sony EXCEPT ironically the bottom 3 models they make which are direct lit.  Certainly not FALD; Beats me what density they use.  Could be 2x2 for all I know.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobMacLennan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24084517
> 
> 
> Ha ha hey Chrono my completely as standard KRP500a is 82,237:1 after calibration with a Klein K10 instruments meter, how about that


I can only comment on what I measured back in 2008 when the panels were brand new. Those results matched up with what other professional calibrators were measuring at the time, and what reviewers have measured earlier this year when comparing the latest Panasonic plasmas to the Kuro they keep around as their in-house reference display.


A doubling of contrast ratio really doesn't mean much with the numbers you're posting though. Your results are showing 0.001 for black. Well, you're missing a digit of precision there for one thing.

0.001 could be 0.0014, so if another meter reads 0.002, it could be a reading of 0.0015 (or 0.0024) which instantly halves the contrast ratio if you're only using three decimal places.


So a measurement of 40,000:1 or 80,000:1 might sound like a big difference, but it's actually within the margin of error.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24084249
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I think I read somewhere that Vizio's definition of "local dimming" is 4x4 zones. That's not exactly "local" on a screen that large.


Yikes...well, that would certainly be in line with the price.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24085384
> 
> 
> Yikes...well, that would certainly be in line with the price.



Yeah, and hard to know if if it will be good at all. The effectiveness of the "strip style" edge-lit dimming is very muted. For what should be obvious reasons, it can't be very aggressive. (The screen is divided into 2 sets of horizontal strips that can be dimmed.)


A 4 x 4 array will certainly have the ability to be better than nothing, but will lack the ability to do "transition zones" well. As I said (and your point makes well vinnie), for that much money, I'm not expecting much.


----------



## Jason626

That sound and vision article of the vizio fald says "E Series models will have 16 zones of local dimming and a panel thickness of 2.5 inches. More details will be released in early January at the International CES."


So it has16 zones?


----------



## vinnie97

^I must've skimmed right over that detail (the site is down at the moment). Rogo, I agree the performance is more likely to match the price than not. My piqued expectations represent a rare spark of optimism.


----------



## IronManFan

My gut feeling is that the industry is backing itself into a niche with 4K -- I have a 65" VT50 and two houseguests in the past month have commented that it's an absurdly large TV.

4K really only becomes useful at screen sizes much larger than 65 inches, and 8K only makes sense if you have a dedicated home theater. Are average consumers with average-sized houses going to want a TV 80 inches and up? Now, videophiles will always want the biggest and best, but at what point do all these advancements add up to a profitable mass-market product? The only tech that makes any sense for the near-term is OLED printing, because people can always appreciate thinner, cheaper, and brighter, and 1080p OLED makes all the EXISTING content look better.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IronManFan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24088366
> 
> 
> My gut feeling is that the industry is backing itself into a niche with 4K -- I have a 65" VT50 and two houseguests in the past month have commented that it's an absurdly large TV.
> 
> 4K really only becomes useful at screen sizes much larger than 65 inches, and 8K only makes sense if you have a dedicated home theater. Are average consumers with average-sized houses going to want a TV 80 inches and up? Now, videophiles will always want the biggest and best, but at what point do all these advancements add up to a profitable mass-market product? The only tech that makes any sense for the near-term is OLED printing, because people can always appreciate thinner, cheaper, and brighter, and 1080p OLED makes all the EXISTING content look better.



I saw a 4K demo recently where they had a split screen of a newspaper. Half of it was in HD and half in 4K.


I stood at my normal viewing distance, 13', and there wasn't that much difference in the two. Stand 4 feet in front of it, and you can really see the difference. I'd wager that most people buy TVs based on what they see standing 4 feet in front of them.....and that's why they'll sell and it won't have anything to do with 80" screens.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7600_100#post_24088497
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IronManFan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24088366
> 
> 
> My gut feeling is that the industry is backing itself into a niche with 4K -- I have a 65" VT50 and two houseguests in the past month have commented that it's an absurdly large TV.
> 
> 4K really only becomes useful at screen sizes much larger than 65 inches, and 8K only makes sense if you have a dedicated home theater. Are average consumers with average-sized houses going to want a TV 80 inches and up? Now, videophiles will always want the biggest and best, but at what point do all these advancements add up to a profitable mass-market product? The only tech that makes any sense for the near-term is OLED printing, because people can always appreciate thinner, cheaper, and brighter, and 1080p OLED makes all the EXISTING content look better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw a 4K demo recently where they had a split screen of a newspaper. Half of it was in HD and half in 4K.
> 
> 
> I stood at my normal viewing distance, 13', and there wasn't that much difference in the two. Stand 4 feet in front of it, and you can really see the difference. I'd wager that most people buy TVs based on what they see standing 4 feet in front of them.....and that's why they'll sell and it won't have anything to do with 80" screens.
Click to expand...

 

Where?  And what size screen?????

 

And I'd like to make sure that they did it properly.

 

If it was 4:4:4 for both then ok.  If it was 4:2:0 for both, then ok.  If, however, they started with 4K 4:2:0, and merely used nearest-neighbor to select it downward to half resolution in both ways, then I think they might have accidentally tested [email protected]:2:0 vs. [email protected]:4:4, (is that right?) which is a mistake.

 

This is murky.  A 4K 4:2:0 image has four pixels in a box sharing chroma information.  The chroma is altered for all 4.  So hacking that downward will bring it to a 2K ....what.  2K at 4:4:4 with an altered chroma value?


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24088497
> 
> 
> I saw a 4K demo recently where they had a split screen of a newspaper. Half of it was in HD and half in 4K.
> 
> 
> I stood at my normal viewing distance, 13', and there wasn't that much difference in the two. Stand 4 feet in front of it, and you can really see the difference. I'd wager that most people buy TVs based on what they see standing 4 feet in front of them.....and that's why they'll sell and it won't have anything to do with 80" screens.



Will 4K is the future rather or not were going to fully utilize it right now or not it has to go that route you can't stay at 1080 much longer, if displays become wall size in the future you're going to need that resolution or higher and it's best to start sooner rather than later. I think we need to get these directors to start thinking in 4K quality A.S.A.P as computer graphics right now in current 1080 would just look terrible on a 1080 Rez wall size type display. Take the Lord of the rings movie for example on a 70" inch display right now I can clearly see the computer generated characters running around, now picture that on a 1080 wall size display it would look just terrible.


----------



## navychop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IronManFan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24088366
> 
> 
> ........-- I have a 65" VT50 and two houseguests in the past month have commented that it's an absurdly large TV.......



No one ever tells me that twice. I'm MEAN!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *navychop*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24090784
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IronManFan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24088366
> 
> 
> ........-- I have a 65" VT50 and two houseguests in the past month have commented that it's an absurdly large TV.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever tells me that twice. I'm MEAN!
Click to expand...

 

This time last year I thought 60" was nutty looking.  And then I got one.......


----------



## Chronoptimist

See, this is why we need 21:9 displays. You get a much larger image for films, with a much smaller footprint on the room.

Height is generally how we perceive the physical size of a display.


With a 21:9 aspect ratio, 62" is roughly the same size as a 65" 16:9 panel for films, but it's only 24" tall rather than 32" tall.


Alternatively, an 81" 21:9 panel has the same height as a 65" 16:9 panel, and is simply wider. You get a significantly larger image with films and it won't feel that much bigger in the room.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> See, this is why we need 21:9 displays. You get a much larger image for films, with a much smaller footprint on the room.


21:9 is not practical. Lots of TV and movie stuff is non 21:9, what you are gonna do about that







Besides that 21:9 TVs were a failure on the market..


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24091457
> 
> 
> 21:9 is not practical. Lots of TV and movie stuff is non 21:9, what you are gonna do about that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides that 21:9 TVs were a failure on the market..


Pillarboxing. As I said, the height of the image is the main thing we use to perceive its size, and all content fills the height of a 21:9 display, rather than it shrinking on 16:9.


----------



## 8mile13

[quote name="Chronoptimist"Pillarboxing. As I said, the height of the image is the main thing we use to perceive its size, and all content fills the height of a 21:9 display, rather than it shrinking on 16:9.[/quote]


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24091098
> 
> 
> See, this is why we need 21:9 displays.



And...here you go:

http://reviews.cnet.com/LG_105UB9/4505-5_7-35833722.html 

 

*LG 105UB9 TV.*
*105" diag.

21:9 Aspect Ratio

5,120x2,160 pixels*


Can you imagine what CinemaScope movies look like on that thing (potentially?)


Time to sell my projector to get one of these things.

And my car.

And my furniture.

And a few organs.

And....


----------



## mtbdudex

rich ya beat me by 2 minutes....


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IronManFan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24088366
> 
> 
> My gut feeling is that the industry is backing itself into a niche with 4K -- I have a 65" VT50 and two houseguests in the past month have commented that it's an absurdly large TV.



How rude!










But seriously, most people feel that way. Roughly 90% of TVs sold are smaller than 50 inches.


> Quote:
> 4K really only becomes useful at screen sizes much larger than 65 inches, and 8K only makes sense if you have a dedicated home theater. Are average consumers with average-sized houses going to want a TV 80 inches and up?



No. Not now or probably ever.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24088497
> 
> 
> I saw a 4K demo recently where they had a split screen of a newspaper. Half of it was in HD and half in 4K.
> 
> 
> I stood at my normal viewing distance, 13', and there wasn't that much difference in the two. Stand 4 feet in front of it, and you can really see the difference. I'd wager that most people buy TVs based on what they see standing 4 feet in front of them.....and that's why they'll sell and it won't have anything to do with 80" screens.



Yep.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24088798
> 
> 
> Where?  And what size screen?????
> 
> 
> And I'd like to make sure that they did it properly.
> 
> 
> If it was 4:4:4 for both then ok.  If it was 4:2:0 for both, then ok.  If, however, they started with 4K 4:2:0, and merely used nearest-neighbor to select it downward to half resolution in both ways, then I think they might have accidentally tested [email protected]:2:0 vs. [email protected]:4:4, (is that right?) which is a mistake.
> 
> 
> This is murky.  A 4K 4:2:0 image has four pixels in a box sharing chroma information.  The chroma is altered for all 4.  So hacking that downward will bring it to a 2K ....what.  2K at 4:4:4 with an altered chroma value?



Won't matter if the demo used a black-and-white newspaper since luma would always be at full resolution. Many TVs use processors that run at 4:2:2 internally so testing resolution is usually done best with grayscale material.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24092267
> 
> 
> And...here you go:
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/LG_105UB9/4505-5_7-35833722.html


Now if only it were OLED, flat, 2/3 the size, and made by someone else!


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24093582
> 
> 
> Now if only it were OLED, flat, 2/3 the size, and made by someone else!



So it's not only OLED that can be made into a curve.


Interesting that nobody made 65" LED LCDs in a curve but chose to do that with a 55" OLED.


----------



## 8mile13

Since LG and Samsung are twins there will also be a huge 21:9 curved Samsung LED at CES.
http://mashable.com/2013/12/19/samsung-105-inch-curved-ultra-hd-tv/?utm_campaign=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_cid=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=rss 


those are first indications that there will be no 4K OLEDs in 2014


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> those are first indications that there will be no 4K OLEDs in 2014



Wait and see. More is coming ;-)


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24093605
> 
> 
> So it's not only OLED that can be made into a curve.
> 
> Interesting that nobody made 65" LED LCDs in a curve but chose to do that with a 55" OLED.


Sony have a curved LCD display around that size, but it's generally easier to build a curved OLED - no need to worry about it affecting uniformity. Not that manufacturers really seem to care about that with LCD these days anyway.


----------



## tgm1024


They managed to make an absurd idea even more absurd.


----------



## ALMA

Massive price cut of the LG OLED tv from 7999£ to 4999£:

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/55ea980w-price-201312193525.htm


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7680#post_24091731
> 
> 
> [quote name="Chronoptimist"Pillarboxing. As I said, the height of the image is the main thing we use to perceive its size, and all content fills the height of a 21:9 display, rather than it shrinking on 16:9.











 [/quote]


The trouble with the 21:9 aspect ratio HDTVs is the extra width they require.

Because I think most people will be restricted by the width they have available for their HDTV, rather than the height.

I'd rather have a large 16:9 display and put up with the black bars...


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24093765
> 
> 
> Since LG and Samsung are twins there will also be a huge 21:9 curved Samsung LED at CES.
> http://mashable.com/2013/12/19/samsung-105-inch-curved-ultra-hd-tv/?utm_campaign=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_cid=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=rss
> 
> 
> those are first indications that there will be no 4K OLEDs in 2014



"Samsung claims its TV is "world's first, largest and most curved"


LOL. So most curved is a feature now. I want to see someone beat my circle halo tv. Where you have to put your head in the middle to watch it.


Seriously, can we stop with the prototypes that nobody wants. Look how poorly Vizio's 21:9 display did. Get going on flat 80" 4K OLED IGZO with MothEye for $2500. While large 60"-90" displays currently are not sales leaders, that is more a function of price rather than size. The large format segment is the only one with growing sales numbers.


----------



## irkuck

It looks very likely that curved panel used by LG and Samsung comes from a Chinese manufacturer, like the 110" flat panel shown earlier so not much effort by the LG and Sammy but yet another shrewed display of the Chinese technological might.


This curved stuff is nonsense not because its curved but because there won't be native content to display on it. 4K native content will be 16:9, wide-screen 4K content will be something like 3880x1500 which will require upconversion to the 2160p 21:9 display. Now if the 4K makes sense it is with pristine quality content which means native pixels, upconversion eliminates native pixels. Watching widescreen 4K format on a 16:9 display with black bars will make much more sense.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24094623
> 
> 
> Massive price cut of the LG OLED tv from 7999£ to 4999£:
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/55ea980w-price-201312193525.htm



Wow, that seems like they are going to bring the US price down to the $6000 range this year!


A dramatic increase in yields seems likely though I cant discount them clearing inventory ahead of the launch of a 4K version of the television at CES.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24094953
> 
> 
> 
> This curved stuff is nonsense not because its curved but because there won't be native content to display on it. 4K native content will be 16:9, wide-screen 4K content will be something like 3880x1500 which will require upconversion to the 2160p 21:9 display. Now if the 4K makes sense it is with pristine quality content which means native pixels, upconversion eliminates native pixels. Watching widescreen 4K format on a 16:9 display with black bars will make much more sense.



No different than been done on 21:9 TVs with HD material for years (and projectors with an anamorphic lens) stretching the picture vertical to get rid of the black bars and stretch horizontal to regain correct image geometry.


A 105" 21:9 TV has the same hight as a 85" 16:9 TV.


Makes a lot of sense to make these large like this. The big drawback with the previous 21:9 TVs was that they where too small.

It is also correct display of aspect ratio where a 21:9 image is larger (wider) than a 16:9 image. Constant-Image-Hight > CIH.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24094980
> 
> 
> Wow, that seems like they are going to bring the US price down to the $6000 range this year!
> 
> .



Yep. And this seems needed to hit the numbers we discussed earlier.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24094766
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, can we stop with the prototypes that nobody wants. Look how poorly Vizio's 21:9 display did. Get going on flat 80" 4K OLED IGZO with MothEye for $2500. While large 60"-90" displays currently are not sales leaders, that is more a function of price rather than size. The large format segment is the only one with growing sales numbers.



So, I agree with most of what you said. 80-inch sets, though, still won't sell. The evidence is that even 70-inch sets won't really sell. They are routinely available below $2000 and while volumes have risen, they haven't exactly soared. Even 60-inch sets, which have snuck under $1000 for more than 2 years are still somewhat niche-y.


All that said, a 70-inch Moth Eye, IGZO set with local dimming (also available in 60 inch for those without room and 80 inch for those with it) at $2500, $3500, and $1500 would seemingly sell by the truckload, relatively speaking. It would actually cause people to upgrade. The lack of such a set suggests it can't be built/sold at those price levels.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24096729
> 
> 
> Yep. And this seems needed to hit the numbers we discussed earlier.



The timing is well ahead of what I expected though.


Assuming the price cut isnt just to clear inventory, this increases the odds of getting a sub-$5000 4K set when LG's commercial fab ramps.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24094980
> 
> 
> Wow, that seems like they are going to bring the US price down to the $6000 range this year!



We've already hit these reduced UK prices (minus VAT tax) during the black-friday sales here in the U.S. With an official price cut looming, I expect sale/street prices here to be closer to $5K.


Hopefully you guys are right and they are clearing inventory in advance of announcing a 4K flat version.


----------



## rogo

Yes, Slacker, that seems believable. It doesn't seem like they intend to show a 4K version at CES, though. Maybe a closed-door demo will be there?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24096079
> 
> 
> No different than been done on 21:9 TVs with HD material for years (and projectors with an anamorphic lens) stretching the picture vertical to get rid of the black bars and stretch horizontal to regain correct image geometry. A 105" 21:9 TV has the same hight as a 85" 16:9 TV.
> 
> Makes a lot of sense to make these large like this. The big drawback with the previous 21:9 TVs was that they where too small.
> 
> It is also correct display of aspect ratio where a 21:9 image is larger (wider) than a 16:9 image. Constant-Image-Hight > CIH.



You do not see irony of first going to 4K where the argument is extreme detail of native pixels and then to obligatory upconversion for the 21:[email protected]? Clean logic tells that in the 4K preservation of native pixels is of utmost priority. And thus, having big 4K 16:9 display to watch widescreen natively makes much more sense. Yes, there are black bars so purists may wish to invent masking them to get an illusion of native 21:9 screen. If upconversion is in the picture then why go to the 4K at all, upconvert 2K and it will be fine. [email protected]:9 would make sense if there is content with its native resolution and there is no hope such content will ever be produced.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24094953
> 
> 
> 4K native content will be 16:9


It's rare that anything but broadcast is 16:9, and that will be lagging behind all the other 4K content.


I believe HDMI 2.0 adds official support for 21:9 native signals.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24094953
> 
> 
> wide-screen 4K content will be something like 3880x1500 which will require upconversion to the 2160p 21:9 display.


Most likely 3840x1620 if it's letterboxed.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24094953
> 
> 
> Now if the 4K makes sense it is with pristine quality content which means native pixels, upconversion eliminates native pixels. Watching widescreen 4K format on a 16:9 display with black bars will make much more sense.


I would certainly prefer to have native content on the displays, but you have enough pixel density now that content should not be seriously degraded.


It's a better compromise to use 5120x2160 than 3840x1620.


3840x1620 means that letterboxed 21:9 content can be displayed 1:1, but any other 4K content will be downscaled.


5120x2160 means that letterboxed 21:9 4K content - if we still have letterboxing - is upscaled, and 16:9 or 4:3 content can be displayed 1:1.

It also leaves the possibility for 21:9 native content, and having a higher resolution is always better for general image quality and PC connectivity.


Something else to consider is that _most_ video content you will be watching on 4K displays will be upscaled from 1080p - at least in the near future.

So it's really a difference between upscaling 1080p content to 4K vs upscaling to 5K, rather than harming native content.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24097463
> 
> 
> You do not see irony of first going to 4K where the argument is extreme detail of native pixels and then to obligatory upconversion for the 21:[email protected]? Clean logic tells that in the 4K preservation of native pixels is of utmost priority. And thus, having big 4K 16:9 display to watch widescreen natively makes much more sense.


1:1 mapping matters a lot more for PC/Game content than video content. Upscaling is not a bad thing for video when it's done well.


I don't want to pay for 1/4 of a TV I'm not even going to use most of the time, which significantly increases the footprint of the display, and will be susceptible to image retention/burn-in if it's an OLED set.


55" is about the largest a display can get in my home before it starts to look ridiculously oversized - even that is bordering on being too big.

A 70" 21:9 panel has roughly the same height and impact on the space, but gives you an 80% larger image with films.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24097463
> 
> 
> Yes, there are black bars so purists may wish to invent masking them to get an illusion of native 21:9 screen. If upconversion is in the picture then why go to the 4K at all, upconvert 2K and it will be fine. [email protected]:9 would make sense if there is content with its native resolution and there is no hope such content will ever be produced.


With OLED, black levels are no longer a concern so masking is unnecessary. (though that's more of a projector thing than a flat panel thing)


The problem is that when you display natively 21:9 content (the vast majority of films) on a 16:9 display, the image shrinks. The image is supposed to get _wider_.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24097714
> 
> 
> It's rare that anything but broadcast is 16:9, and that will be lagging behind all the other 4K content.
> 
> 
> I believe HDMI 2.0 adds official support for 21:9 native signals.
> 
> Most likely 3840x1620 if it's letterboxed.
> 
> I would certainly prefer to have native content on the displays, but you have enough pixel density now that content should not be seriously degraded.
> 
> 
> It's a better compromise to use 5120x2160 than 3840x1620.
> 
> 
> 3840x1620 means that letterboxed 21:9 content can be displayed 1:1, but any other 4K content will be downscaled.
> 
> 
> 5120x2160 means that letterboxed 21:9 4K content - if we still have letterboxing - is upscaled, and 16:9 or 4:3 content can be displayed 1:1.
> 
> It also leaves the possibility for 21:9 native content, and having a higher resolution is always better for general image quality and PC connectivity.
> 
> 
> Something else to consider is that _most_ video content you will be watching on 4K displays will be upscaled from 1080p - at least in the near future.
> 
> So it's really a difference between upscaling 1080p content to 4K vs upscaling to 5K, rather than harming native content.
> 
> 1:1 mapping matters a lot more for PC/Game content than video content. Upscaling is not a bad thing for video when it's done well.
> 
> 
> I don't want to pay for 1/4 of a TV I'm not even going to use most of the time, which significantly increases the footprint of the display, and will be susceptible to image retention/burn-in if it's an OLED set.
> 
> 
> 55" is about the largest a display can get in my home before it starts to look ridiculously oversized - even that is bordering on being too big.
> 
> A 70" 21:9 panel has roughly the same height and impact on the space, but gives you an 80% larger image with films.
> 
> With OLED, black levels are no longer a concern so masking is unnecessary. (though that's more of a projector thing than a flat panel thing)
> 
> 
> The problem is that when you display natively 21:9 content (the vast majority of films) on a 16:9 display, the image shrinks. The image is supposed to get _wider_.



If the 55" is the biggest you can get what is your point of being so articulated in 4K matters? 4K does not make sense with such a small display unless you live in a den. I consider 4K is making impactful sense in a normal living room at 2x55"=110" size. And that with native, pure, unmanipulated pixels, the Holy Grail would be minimally compressed or uncompressed pixels @10bit, 120 Hz etc. Using upconversion to fill other display proportions is then a dirty trick. Your liberal approach to this is likely due to forgetting that in the case of 4K vs. 2K we are talking really about minute difference, the difference which can be easily destroyed by treating pixels without enough care. In a brutal approach, e.g. high compression, upconversion, the 4K vs. 2K does not matter. As I see no chance for native filmed [email protected]:9 format It is then better to get the original pixels on a 16:9 4K. Obviously, my point would change completely if native [email protected]:9 content would appear somehow.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24097818
> 
> 
> If the 55" is the biggest you can get what is your point of being so articulated in 4K matters? 4K does not make sense with such a small display unless you live in a den.


I can clearly see the limits of 1080p resolution on my current display - which is smaller than 55".

Don't believe everything you read online about 4K, and if you cannot see the difference at your regular viewing distance, it does not mean that other people won't.


I don't "live in a den" but I also don't live in an oversized American home.

I can physically fit a larger display, but aesthetically anything larger than 55" or so will look so ridiculous, that I will not allow it into my home.


I would only allow a 55" panel (or equally-sized 21:9 display) if it was a bezel-free design as well. That would mean the total height of the display is not much larger than what I currently have.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24097818
> 
> 
> Using upconversion to fill other display proportions is then a dirty trick. Your liberal approach to this is likely due to forgetting that in the case of 4K vs. 2K we are talking really about minute difference, the difference which can be easily destroyed by treating pixels without enough care.


Perhaps you are forgetting how much better DVDs can look when upscaling is handled well, rather than displayed at their native resolution.

And what you may lose in absolute sharpness, you make up for with pixel density on the panel. (increased clarity)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24097818
> 
> 
> As I see no chance for native filmed [email protected]:9 format It is then better to get the original pixels on a 16:9 4K. Obviously, my point would change completely if native [email protected]:9 content would appear somehow.


Films are almost all natively shot in 21:9. They are only letterboxed for home distribution. We don't know yet whether we will have anamorphic, or 21:9 native discs available with 4K releases.


Where native resolution _really_ matters, is with PC/Game connections. As long as the display supports in signals at its native resolution at 60Hz or higher, you will get a better image from 5120x2160 than 3840x1620.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24097818
> 
> 
> If the 55" is the biggest you can get what is your point of being so articulated in 4K matters? 4K does not make sense with such a small display unless you live in a den.


 

I wonder what this looks like in 4K...


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24098316
> 
> 
> I can clearly see the limits of 1080p resolution on my current display - which is smaller than 55".



What is your VD and signal source, please?


Films are obviously shot in widescreen. The problem is nobody will produce commercial content in [email protected]:9 since there is no business in this.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24097463
> 
> 
> You do not see irony of first going to 4K where the argument is extreme detail of native pixels and then to obligatory upconversion for the 21:[email protected]?



No, I don't think it is ironic, because I know the method works very well and appear different than regular upscaling.


If content was coded anamorphic on disc it works even better. That Blu-Ray missed out on continuing anamorphic coding like we have on DVD was a huge technical oversight on the part by the BDA.


There has been many "powers" that has tried to get anamorphic coding into the BD specs.


One of the anamorphic technologies that has been working on getting their format into BD specs is *Folded Space.* 


That LG and Samsung both goes for 21:9 increased resolution beyond straight 4K, I hope is a sign that anamorphic coding might come to BD 4K.


Folded Space discussions here at AVS; http://www.avsforum.com/t/1436729/anamorphic-encoded-blu-rays-on-the-horizon 
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1412547/could-this-be-it-folded-space-enhanced-resolution


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24098316
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "live in a den" but I also don't live in an oversized American home.
> 
> I can physically fit a larger display, but aesthetically anything larger than 55" or so will look so ridiculous, that I will not allow it into my home.



Dude, you sound like my wife.










I remember back in 2001 my wife was totally was against ANY display larger than the 27" CRT TV I'd already owned. I started talking about a 42" plasma and it was "that's way bigger than our normal TV, are you kidding? Where would it go? It will look ridiculous in our small room." But once I set it up, she and guests were blown away, and very happy with the overall look in the room. And of course, now the TV seems small.


I see a lot of people saying that about how they feel significantly upgrading the size of their TV will look "weird" or awkward, aesthetically.

Of course, everyone has their own set of criteria and aesthetics they have to juggle for their own home. For many, TVs or home theater displays are not a big focus of interest. But that said, I think someone can underestimate how well a larger screen can be integrated into a room. It sort of depends on priorities. If someone's priorities is getting the most immersive experience he can into a room, then the aesthetics can be designed to accomidate that goal. Sure if perhaps you take the exact same wall location and change nothing at all in the room, then plunk down a giant new screen, it won't mesh. But that's what interior decorating is all about; creating new balances. I think that almost any sized screen can be integrated beautifully into a room, with the right planning or aesthetic touch.


(I had to integrate essentially a wall sized screen into an existing living room, and every guest thinks the end result is far nicer, and cooler, than the "normal looking" chairs-facing-sofa living room we had before).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24099523
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24098316
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "live in a den" but I also don't live in an oversized American home.
> 
> I can physically fit a larger display, but aesthetically anything larger than 55" or so will look so ridiculous, that I will not allow it into my home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you sound like my wife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember back in 2001 my wife was totally was against ANY display larger than the 27" CRT TV I'd already owned. I started talking about a 42" plasma and it was "that's way bigger than our normal TV, are you kidding? Where would it go? It will look ridiculous in our small room." But once I set it up, she and guests were blown away, and very happy with the overall look in the room. And of course, now the TV seems small.
> I see a lot of people saying that about how they feel significantly upgrading the size of their TV will look "weird" or awkward, aesthetically.
> Of course, everyone has their own set of criteria and aesthetics they have to juggle for their own home. For many, TVs or home theater displays are not a big focus of interest. But that said, I think someone can underestimate how well a larger screen can be integrated into a room. It sort of depends on priorities. If someone's priorities is getting the most immersive experience he can into a room, then the aesthetics can be designed to accomidate that goal. Sure if perhaps you take theexact same wall location and change nothing at all in the room, then plunk down a giant new screen, it won't mesh. But that's what interior decorating is all about; creating new balances. I think that almost any sized screen can be integrated beautifully into a room, with the right planning or aesthetic touch.
> (I had to integrate essentially a wall sized screen into an existing living room, and every guest thinks the end result is far nicer, and cooler, than the "normal looking" chairs-facing-sofa living room we had before).
Click to expand...

 

Yep.  Except for putting it over a fireplace.  Don't do that.


----------



## andy sullivan

This makes me wonder exactly what size and price would it take for me to seriously considering buying a new TV. The one I have now is a 2013 70" model so I think I would need a 75" for $3500.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24096729
> 
> 
> Yep. And this seems needed to hit the numbers we discussed earlier.
> 
> So, I agree with most of what you said. 80-inch sets, though, still won't sell. The evidence is that even 70-inch sets won't really sell. They are routinely available below $2000 and while volumes have risen, they haven't exactly soared. Even 60-inch sets, which have snuck under $1000 for more than 2 years are still somewhat niche-y.



That's interesting rogo. I had the impression...knowing no sales numbers whatsoever...that it has just been "up, up, up" in terms of the screen sizes people are buying. It certainly looks that way at least when you walk into a Best Buy type store. And yet the bigger models still aren't selling? Wow.


It's just such a weird time for AV equipment. At exactly the time when amazingly high res 4K displays and content resolution makes huge, cinema-quality images a reality for consumers,

the tide also turns toward a generation bent on looking at lower res content on ever tinier screens.


----------



## Orbitron

I remember back in 2001 my wife was totally was against ANY display larger than the 27" CRT TV I'd already owned. I started talking about a 42" plasma and it was "that's way bigger than our normal TV, are you kidding? Where would it go? It will look ridiculous in our small room." But once I set it up, she and guests were blown away, and very happy with the overall look in the room. And of course, now the TV seems small.


I see a lot of people saying that about how they feel significantly upgrading the size of their TV will look "weird" or awkward, aesthetically.

Of course, everyone has their own set of criteria and aesthetics they have to juggle for their own home. For many, TVs or home theater displays are not a big focus of interest. But that said, I think someone can underestimate how well a larger screen can be integrated into a room. It sort of depends on priorities. If someone's priorities is getting the most immersive experience he can into a room, then the aesthetics can be designed to accomidate that goal. Sure if perhaps you take the exact same wall location and change nothing at all in the room, then plunk down a giant new screen, it won't mesh. But that's what interior decorating is all about; creating new balances. I think that almost any sized screen can be integrated beautifully into a room, with the right planning or aesthetic touch.


(I had to integrate essentially a wall sized screen into an existing living room, and every guest thinks the end result is far nicer, and cooler, than the "normal looking" chairs-facing-sofa living room we had before).[/quote]


My solution to those who want immersive yet don't want the really large display in the living room - do a motorized 92" screen that lowers in front of the flat panel. Then, during the day with light coming into the room or if you just want to watch tv use the flat panel - at night or if the room is light controlled, when you want to watch a movie, push the button, the screen lowers and you're at the cinema.


----------



## R Harkness

^^^^^ Orbitron, try the "quote" button, please.










And I agree: the retractable screen is a killer solution to the "Big Screen" in a non-dedicated room.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24100199
> 
> 
> I remember back in 2001 my wife was totally was against ANY display larger than the 27" CRT TV I'd already owned. I started talking about a 42" plasma and it was "that's way bigger than our normal TV, are you kidding? Where would it go? It will look ridiculous in our small room." But once I set it up, she and guests were blown away, and very happy with the overall look in the room. And of course, now the TV seems small.
> 
> 
> I see a lot of people saying that about how they feel significantly upgrading the size of their TV will look "weird" or awkward, aesthetically.
> 
> Of course, everyone has their own set of criteria and aesthetics they have to juggle for their own home. For many, TVs or home theater displays are not a big focus of interest. But that said, I think someone can underestimate how well a larger screen can be integrated into a room. It sort of depends on priorities. If someone's priorities is getting the most immersive experience he can into a room, then the aesthetics can be designed to accomidate that goal. Sure if perhaps you take the exact same wall location and change nothing at all in the room, then plunk down a giant new screen, it won't mesh. But that's what interior decorating is all about; creating new balances. I think that almost any sized screen can be integrated beautifully into a room, with the right planning or aesthetic touch.
> 
> 
> (I had to integrate essentially a wall sized screen into an existing living room, and every guest thinks the end result is far nicer, and cooler, than the "normal looking" chairs-facing-sofa living room we had before).



My solution to those who want immersive yet don't want the really large display in the living room - do a motorized 92" screen that lowers in front of the flat panel. Then, during the day with light coming into the room or if you just want to watch tv use the flat panel - at night or if the room is light controlled, when you want to watch a movie, push the button, the screen lowers and you're at the cinema.[/quote]




At first, my 65" plasma looked huge, but now (after living with it for 2 years) its seems normal to 'smallish'!

Its all what you get used to having.

Even my wife thinks "it doesn't look that big anymore...".

(But I guess us Americans all _"...live in an oversized American home"._







).


----------



## tgm1024


And so the broken quoting continues on...

 


> Quote:
> 
> and on....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> and on....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> and on....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> and on....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Orbitron

Has anyone purchased the non curved 55" LG OLED from an European seller to use here in the USA? If so, please comment.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24099523
> 
> 
> Of course, everyone has their own set of criteria and aesthetics they have to juggle for their own home. For many, TVs or home theater displays are not a big focus of interest. But that said, I think someone can underestimate how well a larger screen can be integrated into a room. It sort of depends on priorities. If someone's priorities is getting the most immersive experience he can into a room, then the aesthetics can be designed to accomidate that goal. Sure if perhaps you take the exact same wall location and change nothing at all in the room, then plunk down a giant new screen, it won't mesh. But that's what interior decorating is all about; creating new balances. I think that almost any sized screen can be integrated beautifully into a room, with the right planning or aesthetic touch.
> 
> 
> (I had to integrate essentially a wall sized screen into an existing living room, and every guest thinks the end result is far nicer, and cooler, than the "normal looking" chairs-facing-sofa living room we had before).


I understand what it's like to get used to the size of a display over time, and even wanting to look for something bigger every time you upgrade.

I've had 120" fixed-frame projection screens before, and a few of the larger sets (55-60") in my home to demo/review, so I have a very good idea of how they look. I just don't want anything taller than a 55" panel, and even though my preference is to actually frame the image, something that size would have to be a bezel-free design.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24100199
> 
> 
> My solution to those who want immersive yet don't want the really large display in the living room - do a motorized 92" screen that lowers in front of the flat panel. Then, during the day with light coming into the room or if you just want to watch tv use the flat panel - at night or if the room is light controlled, when you want to watch a movie, push the button, the screen lowers and you're at the cinema.


This is why we need rollable OLED displays...


I've done the projection setup before, and even went all-out and totally blacked out the room for it, and that was an awesome setup.

I've seriously considered another projector setup a couple of times in the last year or two, but these days I don't want to deal with the fan noise, heat, and having to sit in a completely treated room to get reasonable contrast performance any more.

I don't like the softness of 3-chip projector designs, and I don't know that I'm willing to spend a lot of money for a high-end DLP. I was only able to put up with the dither and rainbowing with my previous DLP because it was my first projector, and it was cheap.


----------



## vinnie97

The dreaded dithering and phosphor trails/rainbowing again. That is a poison pill I don't mind swallowing given the alternatives.


----------



## rogo

"This is why we need rollable OLED displays..."


Please....


Oh, I mean, please don't hold your breath. They aren't coming this decade. At least not in the sense desired here.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24100153
> 
> 
> That's interesting rogo. I had the impression...knowing no sales numbers whatsoever...that it has just been "up, up, up" in terms of the screen sizes people are buying. It certainly looks that way at least when you walk into a Best Buy type store. And yet the bigger models still aren't selling? Wow.



I'm not saying they aren't selling _at all_. I'm saing that (a) the increase in average screen size is minimal at this point. (It may be close to zero in Europe and Japan.) (b) The number of really large sets being sold is increasing, but not by an especially big number. There isn't a secular trend toward larger sizes.


> Quote:
> It's just such a weird time for AV equipment. At exactly the time when amazingly high res 4K displays and content resolution makes huge, cinema-quality images a reality for consumers,
> 
> the tide also turns toward a generation bent on looking at lower res content on ever tinier screens.



And, yes, if anything the secular trend is toward 7" screens. It's just beginning, but it has a very, very long way to run.


----------



## JazzGuyy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7710#post_24098316
> 
> 
> Films are almost all natively shot in 21:9.



I believe far more theatrical films are shot or framed for 1.85:1 than for 21:9. 21:9 aspect ratio is mainly reserved for blockbusters. And these days many films are framed to also show on IMAX screens which are hardly 21:9. Unless one is only interested in watching certain blockbuster films, then 21:9 is a solution in search of a problem. If one is interested in seeing all kinds of movies then you really want to deal effectively with everything from 1.1:1 all the way to around 3.1:1 since all of these various aspect ratios have been part of the history of film. Even a 21:9 screen would not deal properly with a movie like _Ben-Hur_ for example, where you would still not have full image height on the screen.


Short of a very expensive solution like a variable-mask projection screen and various lenses, any display aspect ratio is going to require compromises which will be less than perfect. I just wish we had gotten a slightly wider aspect ratio for our displays (say around 2.1:1) which would have been a reasonable compromise. It is my understanding that such a ratio was impossible when the high definition standards were being developed because the CRT technology available at the time would have been unable to produce a picture tube with that ratio that would not implode and still be affordable.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> 
> I'm not saying they aren't selling _at all_. I'm saing that (a) the increase in average screen size is minimal at this point. (It may be close to zero in Europe and Japan.) (b) The number of really large sets being sold is increasing, but not by an especially big number. There isn't a secular trend toward larger sizes.



In Europe there is a decrease of the sales proportion of very small TVs ( 20'') and a constant increase for the two ''largest'' size categories ( between 40'' and 50'' -- between 50'' and 60'') between 2007 and 2012. Especially TVs between 40'' and 50'' became increasingly popular: the sales proportion of this size category doubled from 15% to 31%.

PDF European TV markt 2007 - 2012 (screen size developments - page 13)


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24101767
> 
> 
> I believe far more theatrical films are shot or framed for 1.85:1 than for 21:9. 21:9 aspect ratio is mainly reserved for blockbusters.


You have that backwards, or you must be watching broadcast or streaming services that are cropping the films rather than displaying them in their original aspect ratio.

The vast majority of films in my collection, and films that have ever been shot, are 21:9 or thereabouts.

I mainly see 16:9 in very mainstream US productions such as comedy films.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24101767
> 
> 
> And these days many films are framed to also show on IMAX screens which are hardly 21:9.


It's true, there have been a handful of blockbuster films recently which have had some scenes shot for IMAX and they switch between 21:9 and ~16:9. But this is rare, and IMAX scenes are generally shot with 21:9 framing in mind, and are really "open matte".


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24101767
> 
> 
> If one is interested in seeing all kinds of movies then you really want to deal effectively with everything from 1.1:1 all the way to around 3.1:1 since all of these various aspect ratios have been part of the history of film. Even a 21:9 screen would not deal properly with a movie like _Ben-Hur_ for example, where you would still not have full image height on the screen.


There have been some films which are shot even wider than 21:9, but those are generally very old titles, and quite rare. You still get a much larger image with them on a 21:9 screen than you do on a 16:9 display.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24101767
> 
> 
> Short of a very expensive solution like a variable-mask projection screen and various lenses, any display aspect ratio is going to require compromises which will be less than perfect. I just wish we had gotten a slightly wider aspect ratio for our displays (say around 2.1:1) which would have been a reasonable compromise. It is my understanding that such a ratio was impossible when the high definition standards were being developed because the CRT technology available at the time would have been unable to produce a picture tube with that ratio that would not implode and still be affordable.


Considering that very little if anything is shot in "2.1:1" I'm not sure I see the point in it. ~2.35:1 (21:9) has been fairly standardized for a long time now.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24102017
> 
> 
> In Europe there is a decrease of the sales proportion of very small TVs ( 20'') and a constant increase for the two ''largest'' size categories ( between 40'' and 50'' -- between 50'' and 60'') between 2007 and 2012. Especially TVs between 40'' and 50'' became increasingly popular: the sales proportion of this size category doubled from 15% to 31%.


This is not really surprising to me when you consider the quality of small displays available today. You used to be able to buy a cheap 14-21" CRT and you would get a fantastic image. Televisions in that size range are now using the lowest quality LCD panels imaginable, they're truly horrible to watch. Manufacturers only begin to use decent panels in their TVs from the 32-40" range and up.

The only decent TV in that size range has been LG's 15" OLED but that's no longer available and was hardly a cheap display.


We still have an old 14" CRT in use today, because we can't find anything else to replace it.


----------



## JazzGuyy

You are the one who has things backwards because your understanding of movies only seems to include the last 50 years or so and include only theatrical widescreen films. This only encompasses a very small segment of all the movies made, even if you limited yourself to only great ones.


Until the early 1950s, movies had an aspect ratio of 1.37 or less, with only a few exceptions. Starting in the '50s there were a number of widescreen formats that were tried out, varying all over the place so that you got everything from 3.15:1 to 1:66.1 as wide(r)screen formats. Even during the period of the '50s and '60s, many films were still shot in 1.37:1 or were shot that way and matted to some other format. This whole time period encompasses thousands of movies that would not fit the 21:9 format. After that 1.85:1 became the most generally used format with "big" movies going to wider ratios. Now, if your interest in films only extends to blockbuster films made since the 1950s, then 21:9 works. My interests are much broader and encompass the entire 100+ years of the history of commercial (and sometimes non-commercial) movies. I own a couple of thousand movies and they are in all sorts of aspect ratios and about half of them are in black and white so I need to get reasonable results for all of these movies. I also watch some broadcast television so I need to deal with that as well.


2.1:1 was proposed as a compromise ratio that would produce the best overall result for _all_ the possible film aspect ratios but would be native to just about none of them. But it was not possible technically when the HD standard was being developed all the way back in the late 1980s through the mid-'90s. Short of the variable masking and the use of multiple lenses on a projector, this would provide a reasonable compromise. Compromises are always just that and can't possibly meet everyone's requirements.


I won't say any more on this thread since we're getting off topic.


----------



## JazzGuyy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7740#post_24102358
> 
> 
> 
> Which means that you never fill the display and have a mixture of letterboxing and pillarboxing depending on the content.



This is exactly my point. There is _no_ TV screen fixed aspect ratio that will allow all types of films to be shown without either letterboxing or pillarboxing unless you limit your viewing to one specific aspect ratio that exactly matches the screen. Even 21:9 isn't perfect for Scope ratio films because these have varied over the years from 2.35:1 to 2.40:1. The obsession of some people with completely filling their screens can never be fully satisfied unless they have variable masking. Now, if you find pillarboxing less annoying than letterboxing, then 21:9 might work. My own preference would be for the minimal overall amount of black borders on a screen for the full range of aspect ratios used for movies which is why the 2.1:1 aspect ratio makes sense to me. even if it will never happen. I understand the CIH argument but I don't find it fully satisfactory. I wish I could afford a variable masking projection system.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24102455
> 
> 
> Now, if you find pillarboxing less annoying than letterboxing, then 21:9 might work.


Of course I do! Pillarboxing means that, with the exception of films wider than 21:9, everything has a constant height and varies in width.



http://imgur.com/IBG0ChF.gif%5B/IMG%5D



When you display "scope" films on a 16:9 display, the image shrinks in size.



http://imgur.com/yemGL36.gif%5B/IMG%5D



I don't see how 16:9 is appealing at all, and even if you have a few films which are wider than 21:9, the image will still be significantly larger than a 16:9 display.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24102455
> 
> 
> My own preference would be for the minimal overall amount of black borders on a screen for the full range of aspect ratios used for movies which is why the 2.1:1 aspect ratio makes sense to me. even if it will never happen. I understand the CIH argument but I don't find it fully satisfactory. I wish I could afford a variable masking projection system.


Keep in mind that OLED displays do not emit light when displaying pillarboxing.


----------



## DrDon

Enough with the ratio discussion. Let's get back on topic,please.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Another one from the "every little bit helps" file:

*LG's curved OLED TV now down to $8,499 in the US*

http://www.oled-info.com/lgs-curved-oled-tv-now-down-8499-us


----------



## JWhip

At least it is going in the right direction. Considering the original quoted price of this set , the price drop isn't too bad.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7740#post_24102017
> 
> 
> In Europe there is a decrease of the sales proportion of very small TVs ( 20'') and a constant increase for the two ''largest'' size categories ( between 40'' and 50'' -- between 50'' and 60'') between 2007 and 2012. Especially TVs between 40'' and 50'' became increasingly popular: the sales proportion of this size category doubled from 15% to 31%.
> 
> PDF European TV markt 2007 - 2012 (screen size developments - page 13)



Thanks for the amazing link. It will help with something I'm working on.


----------



## Spruce Goose

Last week I was at the Sony Pictures Studios in Culver City, where my wife competed in a special 30th season tournament of Jeopardy. I sat in the third row of the audience, and I had a clear view of the production staff table, which is just below the first row. Each of the ten or so production staffers has their own monitor - a Sony XEL-1 OLED TV. This must be the biggest surviving collection of XEL-1s in existence. These sets are at least five years old, but they're only used about six hours per day, 46 days per year. I paid close attention to the picture quality, and it was great on all of the monitors.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Best home theater product of 2013: Samsung KN55S9 curved OLED TV*


According to: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/best-home-theater-product-of-2013/ 


> Quote:
> there’s one product that stood out to me as the best of the year, and that’s the Samsung KN55S9 curved OLED television.
> 
> 
> I made it clear in my hands-on review that the 55S9 put out the most stunning picture I’ve seen from a television to date, but it takes more than just a pretty picture to earn my top pick for the year. The fact is, OLED is a disruptive, breakthrough technology. It put the final nail in plasma TV’s coffin. Sure LCD/LED TVs can be credited with slowly snuffing out plasma, but OLED’s long-awaited arrival in the living room was the beginning of plasma’s burial service. Also, OLED technology allows for unprecedentedly thin displays, unprecedented black levels, stunning brightness and a wide color gamut. The next great TVs won’t just be 4K Ultra HD sets, they’ll be 4K Ultra HD OLED TVs. When we look at OLED, we’re looking at the future.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7740#post_24112583
> 
> *Best home theater product of 2013: Samsung KN55S9 curved OLED TV*
> 
> 
> According to: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/best-home-theater-product-of-2013/


_"It put the final nail in plasma TV’s coffin. Sure LCD/LED TVs can be credited with slowly snuffing out plasma, but OLED’s long-awaited arrival in the living room was the beginning of plasma’s burial service"._


Hmmm,..._maybe so_, but that statement seems REALLY premature and bold when OLED can't yet seem to claw its way above a 55" size display, or below a $10,000 price tag!


----------



## Rich Peterson

*CES 2014: what to expect from the biggest tech show of the year*


Predictions made by techradar 


> Quote:
> LG and Samsung to unveil flexible TVs?
> 
> 
> Both LG and Samsung have been pegged to show off flexible OLED TV prototypes at CES, with one LG executive telling the Korea Times that the company's head of TV "will meet with clients and reporters ... and will promote something new" plus "unveil a remote bendable OLED TV that hasn't been seen before."
> 
> 
> It doesn't get much clearer than that.
> 
> 
> Samsung's flexible TV is said to have a "huge" display, and it too will have a remote that controls its bends.




Note that it's been previously reported that LG won a CES 2014 "Best Of Innovations" award for their 77" UHD curved OLED prototype.


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> ...OLED .. It put the final nail in plasma TV’s coffin.



I couldn't disagree with this more.LCD killed it, not OLED. That OLED is making an appearance at this time is marginally more than coincidental. Let me ask you this. If LCD disappeared tomorrow, do you think Plasma might make a comeback? Now if OLED disappeared tomorrow, do you think Plasma might make a comeback?


----------



## ynotgoal

TOKYO -- With steep technical hurdles still standing in the way of commercial production, Sony and Panasonic have decided to break off their OLED TV tie-up and focus instead on high-demand 4K technology.


The partnership, arranged in June of last year, involved developing mass-production methods for panels consisting of organic light-emitting diodes, a key component of the TVs.


The two companies had planned to combine Panasonic's production method, which involves printing organic material onto a substrate, with Sony's OLED technology. They aimed to establish a technological base for mass production in 2013, potentially working together on manufacturing thereafter.


But they were unable to make the panels durable enough, nor to cut production costs. The electronics firms decided not to renew their tie-up contract when it expires at the end of the year, and will instead pursue development independently.

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Technical-difficulties-foil-Sony-Panasonic-OLED-effort


----------



## vinnie97

Oops...as the Japanese giants sink further into oblivion. Guess we'll be stuck with Korean OLEDs for the near-term, with China to follow., until I see evidence otherwise.


----------



## Chris5028

Looks like the VT60 will be my last TV for a LONG time...


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7740#post_24113748
> 
> 
> TOKYO -- With steep technical hurdles still standing in the way of commercial production, Sony and Panasonic have decided to break off their OLED TV tie-up and focus instead on high-demand 4K technology.
> 
> 
> The partnership, arranged in June of last year, involved developing mass-production methods for panels consisting of organic light-emitting diodes, a key component of the TVs.
> 
> 
> The two companies had planned to combine Panasonic's production method, which involves printing organic material onto a substrate, with Sony's OLED technology. They aimed to establish a technological base for mass production in 2013, potentially working together on manufacturing thereafter.
> 
> 
> But they were unable to make the panels durable enough, nor to cut production costs. The electronics firms decided not to renew their tie-up contract when it expires at the end of the year, and will instead pursue development independently.
> 
> http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Technical-difficulties-foil-Sony-Panasonic-OLED-effort



The Rogo prediction machine strikes again.


----------



## Orbitron

Craig Ferguson's robot sidekick just heard the news- he said "Oh My".


----------



## irkuck

Before concluding that LG/Samsung massacred and bulldozhed the Japanese one should consider the claim OLED technology can not be economical.


----------



## vinnie97

It's fair to say the printing method is not as close to being economically or practically realized as certain outlets would have us believe. Any more delays, however, and we might just be stuck with an LCD edgelit (holocaust!) only world.


----------



## Jason626

Now Panasonic's tv division is looking grim unfortunately. I Was really hoping for another reason for them shutting down plasma production like making room for OLED production. 😥


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7740#post_24114068
> 
> 
> The Rogo prediction machine strikes again.



There are times I hate it when that happens. (This is one of those.)


----------



## 8mile13

The flat LG 55EA8809 is for sale for €7999 in my country.


+ OSF210 (Art Frame which includes a 70 watt 2.2 speakersystem) will cost ya only €1.000 extra









 
http://www.mediamarkt.nl/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/MultiChannelSearch?storeId=10259&langId=-11&searchProfile=onlineshop&query=lg%20oled


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7740#post_24114215
> 
> 
> Before concluding that LG/Samsung massacred and bulldozhed the Japanese one should consider the claim OLED technology can not be economical.



The fact that Korea Inc. is demoing nonsense like "remote control bendable TVs" lends credence to this belief. That said, others without an NIH mentality may pick up the ball and run with next-gen printable tech.


----------



## 8mile13




----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7560_40#post_24024725
> 
> 
> I think flexible displays are really interesting, though not in most of the ways that a lot of people here probably do. There is almost no way it's interesting to be able to "roll up" your smartphone display. That's just inconvenient and pointless. And there is no roll up material ever invented that will lay flat without some sort of substructure. All the portability of our phones goes away if we have the equivalent of pull-down screens with tech to keep them laying flat.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, a smartphone that has a hinge where you can click into place a seamless second panel that has a decent amount of rigidity built into it has interesting potential. If designed right, the device would "just work" as a phone all the time, but allow you to double the screen real estate whenever you wanted. Suddenly, mini-tablets look a lot less interesting and our phones get a lot more versatile. You can imagine screens like this on larger form factor tablets too to create instant workspaces where multiple people can touch a bigger screen or see it (think battlefields and boardrooms).
> 
> 
> And, obviously, the resistance to breakage is going to be fantastic. No one is going to be sad about displays breaking less, not even the phone mfrs. who make money from doing the repairs. I know from talking to folks at the Apple stores that they don't generally deal with happy customers over broken screens.
> 
> 
> Flexibility may provide other interesting uses, but it's easy to get carried away into believing it's going to be exciting for places it will probably never come. TVs are turned on and off several times a day. The idea of rolling and unrolling them each time is pretty ridiculously inefficient time-wise. But even if you were willing to wait 30 seconds each time, the electronics won't last anywhere near as long under that kind of environment. TVs are already too disposable and most people buy them for 5-10 year periods. The idea that people will pay premium prices to roll them up only to make them even less reliable than they currently are flies in the face of logic. And, quite frankly, we are nowhere near making most of the electronics you'll need transparent or flexible so ugly compromises will be required for a long while to make such TVs even plausible. Don't hold your breath.
> 
> 
> But one thing that's lost in this equation, I think, is people don't really appreciate how fast the "television business" as we know it is dying. Across the developing world, cheap tablets with sideloaded content are exploding in usage. They are very likely going to be more popular than TVs there (if they aren't already) within a couple of years. In the U.S., 20somethings and teens have relatively little interest in traditional TV, getting most of their video online. None of this means that there is no room to sell TVs for the living room; of course there is. But there might well be fewer of those sold going forward than almost any forecast for the industry currently predicts.
> 
> 
> Consider PC forecasts circa 2008, B.I (before iPad). They assumed _growth_ in the ensuing years. In the meantime PC sales are literally plummeting. It's very possible that TV sales will see a similar (albeit less steep) trajectory.



I'm thinking that adding extra panels is the way to go for both phones and TVs. Panels could slide out from both sides and increase the screen size by a factor of 3, without the problems of a flexible panel. A 120" OLED TV consisting of three panels, each side panel sliding over the center one, would be only 3' by 5' in size when minimized and, easily shipped and moved. The mechanism for the sliding would not be very complicated, and there would be only two seams to blend together. The yields on 3 panels, of essentially 70" diagonal, would be much higher than one 120" panel.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7700_100#post_24114874
> 
> 
> There are times I hate it when that happens. (This is one of those.)


I don't think it's surprising, but it's still very disappointing.


----------



## homogenic

Bring on High-Dynamic Range 4K LED-LCD panels. If we can't have OLED, the next best thing is improving the hobbled technology we have.


----------



## ynotgoal

This announcement shouldn't be a surprise. Panasonic was on the path to bankruptcy and it was because of the money losing TV business. They've shifted their focus to batteries landing a contract to supply Tesla and to solar panels. Cutting losses and focusing on growth businesses has started them on a much needed turnaround. As far as I know Panasonic has only demoed 1 OLED prototype of any kind ever. Further, Panasonic and Sony disagreed on the approach to OLED TV with Panasonic working on their printing method and Sony looking to expand the VTE approach used in their monitors. Finally, while Panasonic made great plasma TVs their approach to OLEDs, even if successful, would have resulted in lower quality TVs due to the materials they needed to do the printing. Perhaps the Kateeva system will have better results. While OLED TVs are taking longer than hoped this announcement is about Panasonic. Meanwhile, several Chinese display companies are setting up OLED production lines.


----------



## vinnie97

^Thanks, Mr. Bright Side.







The Tesla partnership could be a lucrative one, fo' sure. Meanwhile, Toshiba is actually interested in reviving its nosediving TV business: http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/ANALYSIS-Toshiba-plans-drastic-turnaround-for-TV-business


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24115076
> 
> 
> I'm thinking that adding extra panels is the way to go for both phones and TVs. Panels could slide out from both sides and increase the screen size by a factor of 3, without the problems of a flexible panel. A 120" OLED TV consisting of three panels, each side panel sliding over the center one, would be only 3' by 5' in size when minimized and, easily shipped and moved. The mechanism for the sliding would not be very complicated, and there would be only two seams to blend together. The yields on 3 panels, of essentially 70" diagonal, would be much higher than one 120" panel.



You can never make a seam design work for television. Ever. I have posited a "tile design" with single pixel seams that would blend by _permanently_ attaching the tiles and even that has registration issues that might render it nothing short of fantasy. But a design that has seams as a feature will never be accepted by consumers and will, therefore, never be contemplated by manufacturers. It's prospects for a smartphone/phablet design are much greater.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24115086
> 
> 
> I don't think it's surprising, but it's still very disappointing.



Expressing disappointment was the point of my parenthetical remark, in case that was unclear.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24115553
> 
> 
> This announcement shouldn't be a surprise. Panasonic was on the path to bankruptcy and it was because of the money losing TV business. They've shifted their focus to batteries landing a contract to supply Tesla and to solar panels. Cutting losses and focusing on growth businesses has started them on a much needed turnaround. As far as I know Panasonic has only demoed 1 OLED prototype of any kind ever.



That might be correct.


> Quote:
> Further, Panasonic and Sony disagreed on the approach to OLED TV with Panasonic working on their printing method and Sony looking to expand the VTE approach used in their monitors.



Sony has no path to mass production using VTE. But that doesn't matter. Sony hasn't made any flat panels of its own in 15 years (save a few small-ish LCDs). The idea that its broadcast OLED facilities are in any way related to eventual TV production is a flight of fancy. They have, from the start of the Panasonic collaboration, planned on outsourcing production. No one (other than Vizio) has ever profited in the flat-panel era using this strategy. Sony's situation is more or less as bad as Panasonic's with the dissolution of this deal.


> Quote:
> Finally, while Panasonic made great plasma TVs their approach to OLEDs, even if successful, would have resulted in lower quality TVs due to the materials they needed to do the printing. Perhaps the Kateeva system will have better results. While OLED TVs are taking longer than hoped this announcement is about Panasonic. Meanwhile, several Chinese display companies are setting up OLED production lines.



The Chinese also have no path to mass production (unless they are working with Kateeva). The hard part of OLED is making them, not contemplating how they might work. It's been the hard part for a decade. Yes, yes, blue is an issue, but if you could mass produce OLEDs, you'd have a solution to the blue problem, which is that displays would last long enough and would be affordable enough to replace (n.b. I don't consider this optimal, but it's _workable_).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24115646
> 
> 
> ^Thanks, Mr. Bright Side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tesla partnership could be a lucrative one, fo' sure. Meanwhile, Toshiba is actually interested in reviving its nosediving TV business: http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/ANALYSIS-Toshiba-plans-drastic-turnaround-for-TV-business



This is from the Toshiba article

"Toshiba will also significantly ramp up TV production outsourcing, with the percentage of TV sets made by other companies in Taiwan and elsewhere in overall Toshiba-brand products set to jump to 70% in fiscal 2014 from slightly over 40% at present."


Anyone thinking Toshiba's moves are any more than some financial engineering is mistaken. They aren't trying to "turn around their TV business" in the sense of getting serious about it. They are trying to stop losing hundreds of millions selling ~5% of the world's TVs.


We can't say for sure what Sony's alleged OLED timetable is at this point -- if it even still exists. But it's correct to err on the side of pessimism. There were people here who literally took the gibberish reports out of Asia that Panasonic was going to release an OLED _this year_ seriously. We can now reasonably conclude that Panasonic will never do that. In fact, the odds remain strong that Panasonic will exit the TV business, if not entirely, perhaps fundamentally, in that it might continue to brand product without having anything to do with making it.


Sony's TV business has long been unhealthy as well. Panasonic's _de facto_ exit from the OLED manufacturing tech partnership (and OLED by extension) doesn't make Sony's TV business healthy. Worse still, with 2013 poised to end as a remarkably down year for TV production overall, I have come to believe the TV business has entered a secular decline. While iHS still believes recovery is in the offing, every forecast is bleaker than the prior one and the people that make those forecasts do so for a living. It's not likely they'll be the ones to call "the end of the TV era". But here's a question: Do you think TV sales will be closer to 200 million annually or 300 million annually by the end of the decade?


My bet is the former. And that's not because I believe video watching is on the decline. The problem is emerging markets are increasingly watching video on very inexpensive tablets while established markets are buying _dramatically_ fewer TVs and catalysts like the Japan energy-credit scheme are unlikely to be repeated elsewhere, especially when TVs get replaced regularly enough to handle the downsizing of their power budgets.


What we have to hope for as videophiles is that someone/something picks up the ball and decides that the market that was being serviced by $3000 high-end product needs high-end $3000 product. Whatever technology allows that to be delivered, we'd all welcome.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24115874
> 
> 
> .While iHS still believes recovery is in the offing, every forecast is bleaker than the prior one and the people that make those forecasts do so for a living. It's not likely they'll be the ones to call "the end of the TV era". But here's a question: Do you think TV sales will be closer to 200 million annually or 300 million annually by the end of the decade?
> 
> My bet is the former. And that's not because I believe video watching is on the decline. The problem is emerging markets are increasingly watching video on very inexpensive tablets while established markets are buying _dramatically_ fewer TVs and catalysts like the Japan energy-credit scheme are unlikely to be repeated elsewhere, especially when TVs get replaced regularly enough to handle the downsizing of their power budgets.
> 
> What we have to hope for as videophiles is that someone/something picks up the ball and decides that the market that was being serviced by $3000 high-end product needs high-end $3000 product. Whatever technology allows that to be delivered, we'd all welcome.



Indeed, it seems portable, or even more, pocketable is the TV market, big screens are going way of dinos. Perhaps Kateeva printable OLED will create high-end market by enabling manufacturing without billions of dollars investments.


----------



## pqwk50


This is all so depressing

 

They're picking UHD over OLED. UHD is an insult to home-theater TV IMHO and Plasma is dead. **waaaaaaa*  :-(


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*
> 
> Perhaps the Kateeva system will have better results.


The guy from my link Steven Van Slyke, who co-invented OLED, is the Chief Technology Officer of Kateeva, that is the main reason why they got lots of funding IMO, does not mean Kateeva is going anywere..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A_PrKBiWxo 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*
> 
> This announcement shouldn't be a surprise. Panasonic was on the path to bankruptcy and it was because of the money losing TV business. They've shifted their focus to batteries landing a contract to supply Tesla and to solar panels. Cutting losses and focusing on growth businesses has started them on a much needed turnaround. As far as I know Panasonic has only demoed 1 OLED prototype of any kind ever. Further, Panasonic and Sony disagreed on the approach to OLED TV with Panasonic working on their printing method and Sony looking to expand the VTE approach used in their monitors. Finally, while Panasonic made great plasma TVs their approach to OLEDs, even if successful, would have resulted in lower quality TVs due to the materials they needed to do the printing.


According The Wall Street Journal sharing information had allowed Sony and Panasonic to enhance the speed of production for OLEDs. Dispite ending the Alliance for now, they may still explore cooperation on production technology for OLED panels in the future.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24115874
> 
> 
> Sony has no path to mass production using VTE. ... The Chinese also have no path to mass production (unless they are working with Kateeva).


Sony won't be producing TVs. Their program is about a path to production for their partner AUO. As long as its a new entrant that's a good thing. AUO's problem is the Chinese companies keep hiring all their engineers. What the Chinese companies have that Sony and Panasonic do not is money to invest. They are buying equipment from Korea and engineers from Taiwan. We'll have to wait a couple years to see if it works or not but they seem to be giving it a go.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24115874
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, blue is an issue, but if you could mass produce OLEDs, you'd have a solution to the blue problem, which is that displays would last long enough and would be affordable enough to replace (n.b. I don't consider this optimal, but it's _workable_).


There are advances being made in blue materials.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24116219
> 
> 
> The guy from my link Steven Van Slyke, who co-invented OLED, is the Chief Technology Officer of Kateeva, that is the main reason why they got lots of funding IMO, does not mean Kateeva is going anywere..


There have been several systems touted as the solution to ink jet printing and Kateeva is just the latest. The thing that is interesting in their solution is it is done in a nitrogen environment. One of the key reasons ink jet printing hasn't worked is exposure to air during printing degrades the OLED materials. One of they ways they turn an OLED powder into a solution is adding nitrogen so this is an interesting idea. The cost of the equipment is still comparable to VTE equipment. There is interest in it from the industry but it'll be a real solution only if we see production equipment orders.


----------



## slacker711

Personally, I dont think this should change anybody's idea of the viability of OLED's very much at all. Panasonic was never serious about following through with their announcement. It was a technology demo and nothing more.


A reasonably priced (sub-$4000) OLED television in 2015 depends on LG and to a lesser extent Samsung. The same will likely be true in 2016 though we'll know more after CES. Anybody getting a commercial Gen 8 fab ready for 2016 is going to need to have a real product announcement very soon.


All of the steps that could reasonably be expected to be taken in 2013 have been. LG and Samsung launched OLED televisions at exorbitant prices in limited geographies in the spring. Prices came down, much more rapidly than anybody expected, and geographies have expanded greatly. Reviews have been universally good and thus far, we have yet to see a duplication of the image retention that was seen on the demo at Harrod's. LG Display has announced their Gen 8 fab and expect to ramp it in the 2nd half of 2014. There was also an article in the Korean press about increased yields prior to the latest UK price cuts.


The question is whether LG follows through on their fab commitment. There are no guarantees but the fact that all of the above has happened makes me believe that there is a reasonably good chance that it will. I would be even more confident if we saw the UK price cut duplicated here though it must be said that you can now buy the LG television for $6750 (or best offer) on Ebay. That kind of pricing bodes well for competitive high-end pricing when a commercial Gen 8 fab ramps.


----------



## Pioneer Insider


I'm hopping Samsung and LG see this as an opportunity to bring their best game for plasma and OLED's 2104 line-up.  CES is less than 2 weeks away so we'll all learn what 2014 will bring us in these vital display categories.  I have very high hopes.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pqwk50*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24116141
> 
> 
> This is all so depressing
> 
> 
> They're picking UHD over OLED. UHD is an insult to home-theater TV IMHO and Plasma is dead. **waaaaaaa*  :-(


That's just great...









Plasma is dying, OLEDs remain hyper expensive (and too small), and so we'll all be condemned to the slow death of 'LCD/LED hell'...

Trouble is, the general HDTV buying public at large is too ignorant to care and too absorbed with their 'ibuds' and tablets...Grrrrr...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24116101
> 
> 
> Indeed, it seems portable, or even more, pocketable is the TV market, big screens are going way of dinos. Perhaps Kateeva printable OLED will create high-end market by enabling manufacturing without billions of dollars investments.



We can hope.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24116219
> 
> 
> The guy from my link Steven Van Slyke, who co-invented OLED, is the Chief Technology Officer of Kateeva, that is the main reason why they got lots of funding IMO, does not mean Kateeva is going anywere..



No, that doesn't. What might mean they're going somewhere is they've built a machine that allows someone to print OLEDs. No one else has done that.


> Quote:
> According The Wall Street Journal sharing information had allowed Sony and Panasonic to enhance the speed of production for OLEDs. Dispite ending the Alliance for now, they may still explore cooperation on production technology for OLED panels in the future.



Those kind of weasel words are always said when alliances end in business, especially among the Japanese. It's not possible to see them as bullish.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24116412
> 
> 
> Sony won't be producing TVs. Their program is about a path to production for their partner AUO. As long as its a new entrant that's a good thing. AUO's problem is the Chinese companies keep hiring all their engineers. What the Chinese companies have that Sony and Panasonic do not is money to invest. They are buying equipment from Korea and engineers from Taiwan. We'll have to wait a couple years to see if it works or not but they seem to be giving it a go.



So that's fair, but... Sony doing something to maybe get AUO to make OLED TVs is the a great example of the metaphor "pushing on a string." And as for the Chinese companies maybe doing something down the road, well, you are looking at product in 2018 or so -- at the earliest -- even if they are committed.


> Quote:
> There are advances being made in blue materials.



I'm not worried about that either, ynot. I tried to imply in my statement you replied to that I believe the problem will take care of itself.


> Quote:
> There have been several systems touted as the solution to ink jet printing and Kateeva is just the latest. The thing that is interesting in their solution is it is done in a nitrogen environment. One of the key reasons ink jet printing hasn't worked is exposure to air during printing degrades the OLED materials. One of they ways they turn an OLED powder into a solution is adding nitrogen so this is an interesting idea. The cost of the equipment is still comparable to VTE equipment. There is interest in it from the industry but it'll be a real solution only if we see production equipment orders.



Of course, money talks and the other stuff walks. The cost of equipment might be comparable to VTE, but the cost of production will be _far lower_ if the tech does even half what it's supposed to. Higher yields, higher throughput and far lower material waste all seem to be givens, the question is by what margin.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24116442
> 
> 
> Personally, I dont think this should change anybody's idea of the viability of OLED's very much at all. Panasonic was never serious about following through with their announcement. It was a technology demo and nothing more.



This is true and not true. The robustness of the ecosystem matters a lot. Removing Panasonic and mostly removing Sony from the ecosystem makes it less robust. And so instead of growing the ecosystem, they won't be.


> Quote:
> A reasonably priced (sub-$4000) OLED television in 2015 depends on LG and to a lesser extent Samsung. The same will likely be true in 2016 though we'll know more after CES. Anybody getting a commercial Gen 8 fab ready for 2016 is going to need to have a real product announcement very soon.



Yes, and we've been promised that fab for a while now. I'm going to reserve judgment and skip making a production.


> Quote:
> All of the steps that could reasonably be expected to be taken in 2013 have been. LG and Samsung launched OLED televisions at exorbitant prices in limited geographies in the spring. Prices came down, much more rapidly than anybody expected, and geographies have expanded greatly. Reviews have been universally good and thus far, we have yet to see a duplication of the image retention that was seen on the demo at Harrod's. LG Display has announced their Gen 8 fab and expect to ramp it in the 2nd half of 2014. There was also an article in the Korean press about increased yields prior to the latest UK price cuts.



That's certainly a glass-half-full view of the situation. I disagree fundamentally with you, however. The IHS and/or DisplaySearch forecasts a year ago had 200-300K OLED TV shipments as predicted for 2013. Those were based on talking to... Samsung and LG. Instead, there is scant evidence we reached 10,000. The 2013 forecasts are now the 2014 forecasts. We lost a year.


> Quote:
> The question is whether LG follows through on their fab commitment. There are no guarantees but the fact that all of the above has happened makes me believe that there is a reasonably good chance that it will.



Or, we can read things differently. They made a few, no one bought them at all. They lowered the prices to the move the few they bought. They teased the market about the future to make sure no one thought this would be an orphan technology. That sold curves and teased bendables because "better" got the tech nowhere. A "red herring", UHD, got the attention because it was marketable, and is now bringing in the money. In truth, nothing has been done about yields that matters, which is why you see prices still so high and more gimmicks like remote-control bending being discussed. Keep prices up to keep demand we can't satisfy down.


Is that happening? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I don't think it's an implausible read of 2013, however.


> Quote:
> I would be even more confident if we saw the UK price cut duplicated here though it must be said that you can now buy the LG television for $6750 (or best offer) on Ebay. That kind of pricing bodes well for competitive high-end pricing when a commercial Gen 8 fab ramps.



I'm struggling to read much into $6500 vs. $9000. I actually don't think the demand needle moves much there.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pioneer Insider*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24116789
> 
> 
> I'm hopping Samsung and LG see this as an opportunity to bring their best game for plasma and OLED's 2104 line-up.  CES is less than 2 weeks away so we'll all learn what 2014 will bring us in these vital display categories.  I have very high hopes.



J.K.? Is that you?


----------



## *UFO*

So I got a PS Vita as a gift for christmas. It is the OLED model with a 5" screen. I also have a PS4 and with the two I can mirror the PS4 to the vita and play on both screens, allowing me to compare the screens. I compared it to my plasma and was surprised just how much better it is than the plasma. Deeper colors, deeper blacks, and much brighter whites. If it was 65" it would be the perfect tv. Cant wait for OLED to become mainstream


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24117801
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly a glass-half-full view of the situation. I disagree fundamentally with you, however. The IHS and/or DisplaySearch forecasts a year ago had 200-300K OLED TV shipments as predicted for 2013. Those were based on talking to... Samsung and LG. Instead, there is scant evidence we reached 10,000. The 2013 forecasts are now the 2014 forecasts. We lost a year.
> 
> 
> Or, we can read things differently. They made a few, no one bought them at all. They lowered the prices to the move the few they bought. They teased the market about the future to make sure no one thought this would be an orphan technology. That sold curves and teased bendables because "better" got the tech nowhere. A "red herring", UHD, got the attention because it was marketable, and is now bringing in the money. In truth, nothing has been done about yields that matters, which is why you see prices still so high and more gimmicks like remote-control bending being discussed. Keep prices up to keep demand we can't satisfy down.
> 
> 
> Is that happening? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I don't think it's an implausible read of 2013, however.
> 
> I'm struggling to read much into $6500 vs. $9000. I actually don't think the demand needle moves much there.



How you see a price cut to $6500 depends on the context. It is meaningless if you define it in terms of the total television market or even the >50" market. OTOH, it matters quite a bit in terms of LG's total current capacity/shipments. I think you agreed that a $6000 price point could likely get them into the 10,000 units a month range. I dont see any point to cutting prices that dramatically to move more units from a pilot fab where you are losing money.


Personally, I dont find your explanation unreasonable though, I just think that that the sequence of events over the last year points to substantial progress. The proof will be in the timing of the LG fab. The last "real" news we heard was from August when they were installing their first production equipment. The rumors though pointed to the fact that management had yet to make some of the final decisions pertaining to timing/capacity. If LG has a chance of making a 2014 ramp, those decisions will have to have been made by their first quarter earnings call.


----------



## slacker711

An Australian retailer drops the price of the LG OLED from $12,000 AUD to $8000 AUD.

http://www.harveynorman.com.au/lg-55-full-hd-3d-capable-smart-curved-oled-tv.html?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Post&utm_campaign=HN%20LG%20OLED%20TV%20Dec13


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24118276
> 
> 
> How you see a price cut to $6500 depends on the context. It is meaningless if you define it in terms of the total television market or even the >50" market. OTOH, it matters quite a bit in terms of LG's total current capacity/shipments. I think you agreed that a $6000 price point could likely get them into the 10,000 units a month range. I dont see any point to cutting prices that dramatically to move more units from a pilot fab where you are losing money.



Yes. Agree with you (and haven't changed my belief from what I said earlier).


> Quote:
> Personally, I dont find your explanation unreasonable though, I just think that that the sequence of events over the last year points to substantial progress.



And, to be fair, it points to progress for sure. I was just painting a picture where the "progress" could be viewed through a glass-half-empty perspective.


> Quote:
> The proof will be in the timing of the LG fab. The last "real" news we heard was from August when they were installing their first production equipment. The rumors though pointed to the fact that management had yet to make some of the final decisions pertaining to timing/capacity. If LG has a chance of making a 2014 ramp, those decisions will have to have been made by their first quarter earnings call.



Which I know you'll do a good job of sussing out the details of/reading between the lines of. I look forward to it.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24118409
> 
> 
> An Australian retailer drops the price of the LG OLED from $12,000 AUD to $8000 AUD.
> http://www.harveynorman.com.au/lg-55-full-hd-3d-capable-smart-curved-oled-tv.html?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Post&utm_campaign=HN%20LG%20OLED%20TV%20Dec13



It looks this is one more sign of global clearing of too expensive OLED inventories clogging the retail channels. It is not an indicatíon progress been made on the manufacturing side justifying reduction of prices. Samsung and LG have very deep pockets and tankers full of company/national pride to subsidize manufacturing, but economy can not be avoided in the long run.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> "Sony and Panasonic end OLED TV partnership
> 
> Dec 26, 2013 Maan Pamintuan Business No Comments
> 
> 
> 
> Japan’s two largest consumer electric companies, Sony Corp and Panasonic Corp have announced that they will end their joint development of OLED (organic light emitting diode) TV screens. They will instead focus on making conventional LCD (liquid crystal display) screens for 4K ultra high-definition TVs which seem to be more marketable.
> 
> 
> The two companies have been struggling in recent years against their South Korean rivals who had a bigger share in the overseas market. They built the OLED alliance June of last year to create more mass-production technology by the end of 2013 but as the months passed, it was clear that they will not hit their target. OLED panels, which are used in Samsung tablets and smartphones are more expensive especially when used on bigger sized screens such as televisions.
> 
> 
> Sales of the OLED technology developed by both companies have failed to reach the growth they initially envisioned and seems to be not commercially viable in the near future. They will however continue to develop this technology independently as both have shown 56-inch OLED televisions in this year’s Consumer electronics show (CES). Even LG Electronics Inc, the leading OLED television maker, still has to get traction in their market sales as it is still relatively more expensive that its LCD counterparts."



Unfortunate bit of bad news.


----------



## irkuck

^Reality bit-es


----------



## vinnie97

And hardly surprising given the absolute blackout of developments since the partnership was engaged less than a year ago.


Also already being discussed:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7740#post_24113748
> 
> 
> TOKYO -- With steep technical hurdles still standing in the way of commercial production, Sony and Panasonic have decided to break off their OLED TV tie-up and focus instead on high-demand 4K technology.
> 
> 
> The partnership, arranged in June of last year, involved developing mass-production methods for panels consisting of organic light-emitting diodes, a key component of the TVs.
> 
> 
> The two companies had planned to combine Panasonic's production method, which involves printing organic material onto a substrate, with Sony's OLED technology. They aimed to establish a technological base for mass production in 2013, potentially working together on manufacturing thereafter.
> 
> 
> But they were unable to make the panels durable enough, nor to cut production costs. The electronics firms decided not to renew their tie-up contract when it expires at the end of the year, and will instead pursue development independently.
> 
> http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Technical-difficulties-foil-Sony-Panasonic-OLED-effort


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pioneer Insider*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24116789
> 
> 
> I'm hopping Samsung and LG see this as an opportunity to bring their best game for plasma and OLED's 2104 line-up.  CES is less than 2 weeks away so we'll all learn what 2014 will bring us in these vital display categories.  I have very high hopes.



LOL, I still remember 30 years ago buying my $199 19" Lucky Goldstar TV at the local Richway. If you would have told me then, that LG and Samsung would be the defenders of high quality displays, I would have laughed in your face. Sad truth is just like then, the low cost makers will someday be king. China has already gutted the Japanese makers and now Korea and Taiwan are next. There is no way to stop it. You can not compete against their prison and slave labor, government subsidized factories, raw materials and lacks environmental regulations. The only thing we can hope for is that they decide to produce OLED as halo tech. They can eat the poor yields or get the printing method going and still sell it at mass produced prices.


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24120479
> 
> 
> LOL, I still remember 30 years ago buying my $199 19" Lucky Goldstar TV at the local Richway. If you would have told me then, that LG and Samsung would be the defenders of high quality displays, I would have laughed in your face. Sad truth is just like then, the low cost makers will someday be king. China has already gutted the Japanese makers and now Korea and Taiwan are next. There is no way to stop it. You can not compete against their prison and slave labor, government subsidized factories, raw materials and lacks environmental regulations. The only thing we can hope for is that they decide to produce OLED as halo tech. They can eat the poor yields or get the printing method going and still sell it at mass produced prices.



This is why 3D printing is going to change everything.


----------



## tgm1024


The level of premature gloom and doom here is nutty.  Relax, put down the sharp instruments, and back slowly away from the ledge.

 

The rest of you, move along, nothing to see here.  We'll get them down when the fire department arrives with a ladder.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24120974
> 
> 
> The level of premature gloom and doom here is nutty.  Relax, put down the sharp instruments, and back slowly away from the ledge.



I don't know. The TV business itself is in the "doom and gloom" phase. The people that _invented_ the modern era of it, Japan Inc., are either gone or getting close to exiting. The "innovation" is pixels, which presaged the death of the standalone camera business as an interesting place. (Yes, yes, new improved models come out every year. What's remarkable about them is how little they improve at taking definitively better pictures however.)


For 10 years, many thought OLED would bring videophile picture quality to the masses. It does remain possible that day will never come. Perhaps it's even likely?


In the meantime, a fairly videophile-quality $3000 65-inch display is leaving the market. And in its place (assuming Samsung also drops plasma soon) is... _nothing_.


I'd say that warrants doom and gloom.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24121237
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, new improved models come out every year. What's remarkable about them is how little they improve at taking definitively better pictures however.


Sensitivity and dynamic range have improved dramatically in the past few years, and resolution has steadily increased. Manufacturers seem to be paying more attention to their optics now, and devices now have enough power to perform lens corrections themselves, rather than doing it on a PC later. (fixing distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberrations etc.)

I think it's disingenuous to say that camera technology has not improved much.


The problem is that everyone has switched from point & shoot cameras with moderately-sized sensors and reasonable optics to cell-phone cameras with tiny sensors and plastic lenses.

Due to the advances in sensor technology, you can now get image quality comparable to an older P&S in a phone now, which is quite an achievement when you consider the size of the sensors they're using.



http://imgur.com/vBUgpe4.jpg%5B/IMG%5D%5B/URL%5D




http://imgur.com/OeKQc8r.jpg%5B/IMG%5D%5B/URL%5D



You don't think that's "definitively better"?


Most of the point & shoot market has been left behind now though, so perhaps they have not seen such dramatic improvements - at least at the lower end. I think the higher-end Sony cameras like the RX100 still put out good image quality, but the stand-alone camera market seems more focused on compact interchangeable lens systems.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24121237
> 
> 
> For 10 years, many thought OLED would bring videophile picture quality to the masses. It does remain possible that day will never come. Perhaps it's even likely?


You say that as if CRTs never existed, where you could get better image quality than the majority of flat panels in existence, at much lower prices. (but also at smaller sizes)

While there was still a high-end market there, the gulf in image quality was not nearly so dramatic. The baseline CRT quality was much better than the baseline for flat panel image quality.

The problem is that for the last 10 years, people have compromised significantly on image quality with the move to flat panels.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24121237
> 
> 
> In the meantime, a fairly videophile-quality $3000 65-inch display is leaving the market. And in its place (assuming Samsung also drops plasma soon) is... _nothing_.
> 
> 
> I'd say that warrants doom and gloom.


It really does seem like there will be at least a couple of years of crappy edge-lit LCDs before the OLED panels are down near the price of the outgoing Panasonic plasmas. Without any pressure from Japan now, that could slow down even more. I really don't want to be buying an LG or Samsung as my next display.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24122103
> 
> 
> You don't think that's "definitively better"?
> 
> 
> Most of the point & shoot market has been left behind now though, so perhaps they have not seen such dramatic improvements - at least at the lower end. I think the higher-end Sony cameras like the RX100 still put out good image quality, but the stand-alone camera market seems more focused on compact interchangeable lens systems.



Lord, Chronoptimist, half the time I can't tell if you don't bother to read what I wrote or if you just want to make a pretty post to prove a point -- no matter whether the point is completely unrelated to what anyone else is talking about.


I was, of course, referencing standalone cameras and then you link a bunch of smartphones.


If you want to go ahead and find me some clear evidence to refute the claim that standalone cameras are dramatically improving in image quality, I'm certainly open to it. The fact you use phrases like "left behind" and "still put out" suggest that the category isn't improving much.


> Quote:
> You say that as if CRTs never existed, where you could get better image quality than the majority of flat panels in existence, at much lower prices. (but also at smaller sizes)



We're going to agree to disagree on the value of CRTs. They were good at a lot of things. They _sucked_ at a lot of things.


They had lousy geometry. They couldn't maintain focus especially well. They had convergence / chromatic aberration issues. They weren't very good at simultaneous contrast.


But worst of all, they were tiny. There's a recent post raving about sitting 5-7 feet (maybe more) from some 11-inch OLEDs and being impressed by them. I'm sorry, but so what? Anything small looks pretty good. I stand 15 feet from my laptop and it looks pretty awesome, too.


You cannot have home-theater-type experiences with a 30-something-inch screen. You cannot have a normal living room with a 2 1/2 foot thick, 250-pound TV.


The CRT was going to destroy the HDTV era. The flat panel saved it from oblivion.


> Quote:
> While there was still a high-end market there, the gulf in image quality was not nearly so dramatic. The baseline CRT quality was much better than the baseline for flat panel image quality.



Even if we accept that (and I'm not sure I do), the baseline CRT wasn't resolving anything remotely close to 2 million pixels worth of information.


> Quote:
> The problem is that for the last 10 years, people have compromised significantly on image quality with the move to flat panels.
> 
> It really does seem like there will be at least a couple of years of crappy edge-lit LCDs before the OLED panels are down near the price of the outgoing Panasonic plasmas. Without any pressure from Japan now, that could slow down even more. I really don't want to be buying an LG or Samsung as my next display.



Right, it could be a _lot more years_. It could actually be never. The move to 4K buys the industry a chance to earn profits of a few hundred extra dollars per unit with the most minimal re-tooling and investment. The lack of _any_ apparent pressure buys LG and Samsung another couple of years to keep doing more or less nothing. The real possibility the TV business is going to shrink rather than grow is now something that can be waited on. Should it happen (and it should now be clear I believe it will), the idea that billions will be spent re-tooling the industry for an entirely new technology whose primary benefits are that the picture is a little bitter (and, sorry, but the marketplace is never going to see it as any more than a little better... Chron's point basically proves that) and that if somehow 100 million TVs are built with it, it might be somewhat cheaper than a TV that already allows 60-inch TVs to be sold for well under $1000. Well, that's always been one of those, "Does anyone really believe this is driving the TV industry? Seriously?" kind of moments.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7770#post_24120479
> 
> 
> LOL, I still remember 30 years ago buying my $199 19" Lucky Goldstar TV at the local Richway. If you would have told me then, that LG and Samsung would be the defenders of high quality displays, I would have laughed in your face. Sad truth is just like then, the low cost makers will someday be king. China has already gutted the Japanese makers and now Korea and Taiwan are next. There is no way to stop it. You can not compete against their prison and slave labor, government subsidized factories, raw materials and lacks environmental regulations. The only thing we can hope for is that they decide to produce OLED as halo tech. They can eat the poor yields or get the printing method going and still sell it at mass produced prices.



This sounds nonsense with political agenda behind. As we know now, fast catching-up with developed economies requires colossal work and sacrifies from the population. This at time is as rough or rougher than early capitalism but there is no other way. But talking about prison and slave labor as driving economies is nonsense and government subsidies are form of concerted economic development policies. Instead of such one-sided view one should also see phenomenal work which has taken cheapy Lucky Goldstars to world-beating LG's or Chinese peasants into makers of 110"@4K panels. Technically these are fantastic achievements. From the philosophical perspective it is less so as the Japanese example shows that after reaching the nirvana they apparently lost the sense of purpose in an endless racing for more megapixels, more cores and bigger bandwidth, with the end result of large segment of young population indifferent to those things or anything, not even interested in sex.


----------



## ALMA

Only the partnership between Panasonic and Sony ends and NOT their own OLED development. Even booth 4K-OLED prototypes were build for them self without the involvement of one partner. Were is the cooperation if booth companies build their own prototypes?


There is a functioning printing system available, searching for partners, IGNIS has a solution for longer lifetime and against burn in issues so maybe there are currently options available for lower cost OLED developments than a partnership which never satisfied because of higher costs and differently interests of booth partners.

You know what happend to Trinitron?


Till 15 years because of a big mistake Sony never earns money with their TV business. HD-Ready to FullHD, CCFL to LED even RGB-LED and LD did not changed that situation. The last quarter earnings were also depressing, even with 4K . With LCD booth companies never will earn money and of course they knew that.

If they really want to stay in business, they have to develop OLED. Booth market leaders will do it, to counter the Chinese. Even Samsung and LG knew that LCD is coming to an end and a resolution update, which also possible with OLED, is not a long term solution.


> Quote:
> The source says that the companies may start cooperating again at a later point, but it seems unlikely based on the current situation. *It is also possible that the companies will continue separately. Panasonic said in September 2013 that their latest OLED prototype was produced without Sony's involvement.*


 http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1387965053 


> Quote:
> But they were unable to make the panels durable enough, nor to cut production costs. The electronics firms decided not to renew their tie-up contract when it expires at the end of the year, *and will instead pursue development independently.*


 asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Technical-difficulties-foil-Sony-Panasonic-OLED-effort


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24122559
> 
> 
> The move to 4K buys the industry a chance to earn profits of a few hundred extra dollars per unit with the most minimal re-tooling and investment.



The lack of barriers to entry for 4K mean those profits arent going to last particularly long. China has already made a big move to 4K with a minimal increase in price so I doubt that the ROW will be far behind.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24122559
> 
> 
> Lord, Chronoptimist, half the time I can't tell if you don't bother to read what I wrote or if you just want to make a pretty post to prove a point -- no matter whether the point is completely unrelated to what anyone else is talking about.
> 
> 
> I was, of course, referencing standalone cameras and then you link a bunch of smartphones.


Sorry, I thought you were talking about "cameras" in general, not the point & shoot camera market. And I would still argue that the higher-end P&S cameras are seeing meaningful improvements if you look at Sony's RX100 and The RX100-II. The RX100-II is considerably better in low light than its predecessor.



http://imgur.com/i9kYKpD.png%5B/IMG%5D



And we're still seeing a similar rate of improvement with "SLR" sensors that we are seeing in phones too. (I'm including micro 4/3 there)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24122559
> 
> 
> If you want to go ahead and find me some clear evidence to refute the claim that standalone cameras are dramatically improving in image quality, I'm certainly open to it. The fact you use phrases like "left behind" and "still put out" suggest that the category isn't improving much.


Largely though, the cheap P&S cameras people used to buy instead of using their phones _are_ being left behind though, because anyone that was happy with them, is happy with their phone.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24122559
> 
> 
> We're going to agree to disagree on the value of CRTs. They were good at a lot of things. They _sucked_ at a lot of things.
> 
> 
> They had lousy geometry. They couldn't maintain focus especially well. They had convergence / chromatic aberration issues.


These were problems with cheaply produced large CRTs. (in the 30" and up range) It was not a problem with smaller sizes, or more expensive CRTs. None of the CRTs I ever owned - and that included cheap, but small CRTs, had issues with things like convergence.


I suppose what also helped with CRTs is that I was in Europe where you basically went from using RF connectors straight to RGB with SCART.

Composite connections were rare (you would _maybe_ get one on the front or side of the TV) S-Video was basically unheard of, and Component did not exist. I really don't understand why the US market was so different in that regard.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24122559
> 
> 
> They weren't very good at simultaneous contrast.


That's true, but simultaneous contrast doesn't matter until you sort out on/off contrast first, which is something most flat panels have failed to do. For years, LCDs were the king of simultaneous contrast with their 600:1 and higher, but no-one would say those were high contrast displays.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24122559
> 
> 
> You cannot have home-theater-type experiences with a 30-something-inch screen. You cannot have a normal living room with a 2 1/2 foot thick, 250-pound TV.


It's only been in the last couple of years that people even consider flat panels for a "home theater" experience. If you want a real HT experience, you buy a projector. This was also true of CRTs.

With these large flat panels, you have people basically taking up an entire wall of their room with a shiny black rectangle, and having all their furniture pointed towards it.

With CRTs, most people had them in a corner of the room where depth is not an issue. (a flat panel would take up the same amount of space there)


I suppose people's opinions differ on this, but I don't consider it to be a "normal living room" when everything in the room is arranged around the television.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24122559
> 
> 
> The CRT was going to destroy the HDTV era. The flat panel saved it from oblivion.
> 
> Even if we accept that (and I'm not sure I do), the baseline CRT wasn't resolving anything remotely close to 2 million pixels worth of information.


HD certainly changed things, and I agree that we would have needed much better CRTs. I suppose it's possible that we had pushed the technology as far as it could go, but most HD CRTs were produced at the end of CRT's lifespan. I don't know that any even made it to Europe.

Interestingly though, it's the same situation we are in now. Plasma has reached its limits as far as resolution is concerned, so to move forward to 4K, we need other displays. Today that means LCD, hopefully in a few years, that will mean OLEDs.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24122559
> 
> 
> Right, it could be a _lot more years_. It could actually be never. The move to 4K buys the industry a chance to earn profits of a few hundred extra dollars per unit with the most minimal re-tooling and investment. The lack of _any_ apparent pressure buys LG and Samsung another couple of years to keep doing more or less nothing.


Well, at least they have done _something_. There are actually OLED displays you can buy today - you just need to _really_ want one.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24122559
> 
> 
> The real possibility the TV business is going to shrink rather than grow is now something that can be waited on. Should it happen (and it should now be clear I believe it will), the idea that billions will be spent re-tooling the industry for an entirely new technology whose primary benefits are that the picture is a little bitter (and, sorry, but the marketplace is never going to see it as any more than a little better... Chron's point basically proves that) and that if somehow 100 million TVs are built with it, it might be somewhat cheaper than a TV that already allows 60-inch TVs to be sold for well under $1000. Well, that's always been one of those, "Does anyone really believe this is driving the TV industry? Seriously?" kind of moments.


I don't know that it's a possibility - I would say that it's a certainty. For the mass market, televisions are thin enough, cheap enough, and large enough that there's nothing that will drive them to upgrade from their current set. Image quality is not a concern, as most are probably still watching SD.


There's no switch from analog to digital (which did not actually require a new TV, but did encourage sales) or a change from sets which are 2' thick to 2" thick to drive sales. What reason does any of the mass-market have to buy a new display now, other than wanting something bigger, or replacing a faulty set?


----------



## andy sullivan

Comparing a current 2K display to a current 4K display, how much improvement in broadcast TV PQ will the average viewer realize with a 50"-55" TV at 10-12 feet? How about with a high quality blu-ray movie?


----------



## tgm1024


 

In a couple years, we're going to look back on this momentary blip of chicken littles running in circles screaming as a rather funny spike in blood sugar.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24121237
> 
> 
> I don't know. The TV business itself is in the "doom and gloom" phase. The people that _invented_ the modern era of it, Japan Inc., are either gone or getting close to exiting. The "innovation" is pixels, which presaged the death of the standalone camera business as an interesting place. (Yes, yes, new improved models come out every year. What's remarkable about them is how little they improve at taking definitively better pictures however.)
> 
> 
> For 10 years, many thought OLED would bring videophile picture quality to the masses. It does remain possible that day will never come. Perhaps it's even likely?
> 
> 
> In the meantime, a fairly videophile-quality $3000 65-inch display is leaving the market. And in its place (assuming Samsung also drops plasma soon) is... _nothing_.
> 
> 
> I'd say that warrants doom and gloom.



Will I suppose it's not looking good for someone who's is in the market for an OLED right now, but for someone like me and you rogo who are still projecting 6-8 years down the road for a new 100" + OLED display I say it's still way to soon to tell. I still have faith that OLED will take off but who knows for sure as you mentioned right now the driving force is 4k technology and the cheapest solution is going LED/LCD Edge-Lit. You might see some Full-Array's as the screen sizes get larger but I don't see any Local-Dimming going on, that's unfortunately just to expensive and might as well be OLED as far as price is concerned. Unfortunately the best technology doesn't always win, most people usually choose price over quality that's why VHS won out over Beta.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24123669
> 
> 
> In a couple years, we're going to look back on this momentary blip of chicken littles running in circles screaming as a rather funny spike in blood sugar.



I sincerely hope you're right, realistically it's going to probably be more than a few years down the road if it happens. I'm in no hurry and I'm sure we have exciting times to look forward to down the road, OLED or not


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24123582
> 
> 
> Comparing a current 2K display to a current 4K display, how much improvement in broadcast TV PQ will the average viewer realize with a 50"-55" TV at 10-12 feet? How about with a high quality blu-ray movie?



Precisely zero. That said, it is evident 4K panels will become ubiquitous since there is no additional cost over 2K.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24122889
> 
> 
> Only the partnership between Panasonic and Sony ends and NOT their own OLED development



Believe what you want. Neither company is going to commercialize a product anytime soon. For Panasonic, it's most likely going to be never. For Sony, there's still a better-than-even chance they stop making TVs before they commercialize an OLED. They have no path to mass production.


> Quote:
> . Even booth 4K-OLED prototypes were build for them self without the involvement of one partner. Were is the cooperation if booth companies build their own prototypes?



The cooperation was on building tech to make it possible to mass produce TVs. It failed. Now, neither company has tech to mass produce TVs. Do you understand the ramifications of that?


> Quote:
> Till 15 years because of a big mistake Sony never earns money with their TV business. HD-Ready to FullHD, CCFL to LED even RGB-LED and LD did not changed that situation. The last quarter earnings were also depressing, even with 4K . With LCD booth companies never will earn money and of course they knew that.
> 
> If they really want to stay in business, they have to develop OLED.



The leap of logic there has never really made sense. "The world is selling 200-250 million TVs and we can't carve out a profitable niche of that, but if we start selling an entirely new type of TV that will require billion of investment to sell even one of, we'll suddenly be profitable." Ask yourself why you believe that. I don't.


> Quote:
> Booth market leaders will do it, to counter the Chinese. Even Samsung and LG knew that LCD is coming to an end and a resolution update, which also possible with OLED, is not a long term solution.



Here's the problem: "Both market leaders" = LG and Samsung. Panasonic and Sony are not market leaders of anything, unless we mean, "market leaders in losing the most money selling TVs."


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24122969
> 
> 
> The lack of barriers to entry for 4K mean those profits arent going to last particularly long. China has already made a big move to 4K with a minimal increase in price so I doubt that the ROW will be far behind.



True.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24123669
> 
> 
> In a couple years, we're going to look back on this momentary blip of chicken littles running in circles screaming as a rather funny spike in blood sugar.



I actually think in a couple of years everyone will agree that 250 million TVs was the peak and we won't revisit it and that the TV market is like the tractor market. It sees periodic innovation, but no one really gets too excited about it except for farmers, because it's not especially growing.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24123983
> 
> 
> Will I suppose it's not looking good for someone who's is in the market for an OLED right now, but for someone like me and you rogo who are still projecting 6-8 years down the road for a new 100" + OLED display I say it's still way to soon to tell. I still have faith that OLED will take off but who knows for sure as you mentioned right now the driving force is 4k technology and the cheapest solution is going LED/LCD Edge-Lit. You might see some Full-Array's as the screen sizes get larger but I don't see any Local-Dimming going on, that's unfortunately just to expensive and might as well be OLED as far as price is concerned. Unfortunately the best technology doesn't always win, most people usually choose price over quality that's why VHS won out over Beta.



Beta also lost because an older, less-wise Sony did stupid things regarding patent licenses, which helped contribute to the price disadvantage. And VHS won the race to more recording hours. I'm not sure how those lessons apply here, but it does point out that it's hard to see what will lead to victory.


I do tend to hold out hope that the next TV in my living room will be a large OLED. I don't see the technology dying off. But I will point out that when I suggested maybe last year that it wouldn't take over half the display business by end of decade, I got pretty well beat down for that. Now, I doubt there is any forecast in the entire industry calling for it to take over half the display business by decade's end. So, well, yeah.


As slacker is right to keep pointing out, by the way, the commitments of LG (and then Samsung) will go far in determining how quickly -- and seriously -- OLED enters the TV market. We'll learn more next year, even if we don't see much more. It's pretty optimistic, however, to believe anyone else is contributing to the OLED TV market before 2016 given that we can now drop Panasonic from the list effectively entirely and whatever vestiges of Sony's effort that might exist. _the company hasn't been a primary TV producer since the 1990s_. People that don't actually build TVs do not drive the industry forward typically. (And, as an aside, the implosion of Japan's TV makers has left the small opening that will continue to see people speculating on an Apple-branded TV. If such a thing materializes, it will be an LCD.)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24124568
> 
> 
> Precisely zero. That said, it is evident 4K panels will become ubiquitous since there is no additional cost over 2K.



Yep.


(Chron, I owe your post a longer reply later. Good stuff in there to talk about.)


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24124687
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do tend to hold out hope that the next TV in my living room will be a large OLED.
> 
> 
> (And, as an aside, the implosion of Japan's TV makers has left the small opening that will continue to see people speculating on an Apple-branded TV. If such a thing materializes, it will be an LCD.)



I hope so as well.


As for the Apple branded TV possibility that's probably not very likely to happen, at least not anytime soon. Apple won't do it unless they can find a reason for it's existence, meanwhile the AppleTV will suffice as that's still classified as "a hobby" to Apple as they call it and is still rapidly evolving.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24124568
> 
> 
> Precisely zero. That said, it is evident 4K panels will become ubiquitous since there is no additional cost over 2K.


1080 on a 4K panel should look better than 1080 on a 1080p panel.


This is not a perfect comparison due to the nature of these being photographs, but here's the difference you would see moving from a 1080p native panel displaying 1080 content, to a 4K panel displaying 1080 content _without_ any advanced upscaling going on. (nearest neighbor resampling was used)



http://imgur.com/5wpWWoD.jpg%5B/IMG%5D%5BIMG%5Dhttp%3A//i.imgur.com/jVkH8CU.jpg%5B/IMG%5D



This is what I mean when I talk about removing the "pixel grid" over the image.


There's far less color fringing and significantly higher clarity due to the higher resolution panel.

Any slight color/contrast/sharpness differences you see are due to these being photographs.


----------



## andy sullivan

The things is, can you see the difference from 10 feet on the average size TV which in 2013 is actually smaller than 55"? That being the case can 4K alone be a viable marketing hook for those not really needing a new TV? With no broadcast 4K why would I want to upgrade for the sake of upgrading?


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24125532
> 
> 
> The things is, can you see the difference from 10 feet on the average size TV which in 2013 is actually smaller than 55"? That being the case can 4K alone be a viable marketing hook for those not really needing a new TV? With no broadcast 4K why would I want to upgrade for the sake of upgrading?



That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? I've gotta decide if I wanna get the plasma now, or see if I can wait it out til some 4K broadcast content shows up. Doesn't look good...


----------



## *UFO*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_40#post_24124869
> 
> 
> 1080 on a 4K panel should look better than 1080 on a 1080p panel.
> 
> 
> This is not a perfect comparison due to the nature of these being photographs, but here's the difference you would see moving from a 1080p native panel displaying 1080 content, to a 4K panel displaying 1080 content _without_ any advanced upscaling going on. (nearest neighbor resampling was used)
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/5wpWWoD.jpg%5B/IMG%5D%5BIMG%5Dhttp%3A//i.imgur.com/jVkH8CU.jpg%5B/IMG%5D
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I mean when I talk about removing the "pixel grid" over the image.
> 
> 
> There's far less color fringing and significantly higher clarity due to the higher resolution panel.
> 
> Any slight color/contrast/sharpness differences you see are due to these being photographs.



I much prefer the first picture. The space between the pixels actually causes an illusion of increased sharpness. For this reason, the projector world has always had this phenomenon. The LCD projectors always have this crisp, razor sharp image, while a DLP or LCOS projector looks "soft" in comparison.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24124568
> 
> 
> Precisely zero. That said, it is evident 4K panels will become ubiquitous since there is no additional cost over 2K.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24124869
> 
> 
> 1080 on a 4K panel should look better than 1080 on a 1080p panel.This is not a perfect comparison due to the nature of these being photographs, but here's the difference you would see moving from a 1080p native panel displaying 1080 content, to a 4K panel displaying 1080 content _without_ any advanced upscaling going on. (nearest neighbor resampling was used)
> 
> This is what I mean when I talk about removing the "pixel grid" over the image.There's far less color fringing and significantly higher clarity due to the higher resolution panel.
> 
> Any slight color/contrast/sharpness differences you see are due to these being photographs.



Such statements are coagulating brains of people who have no expertise. First, the VD does not appear here, without specifying the VD there is no point talking about resolution. Elaborating on pixel grids visibility makes no sense since any sane VS (Viewing Scenario) is such that pixel grids are not visible. This means that 1080 displays are for VS>3PH and 2160 are for VS>1.5PH. So, 1080p will look better, from the pixel grid visibility perspective, if watched below 3PH on 4K display, say at 1.5PH. But then 1080p is anyway not an optimal source for such VS. Claiming that _There's far less color fringing and significantly higher clarity due to the higher resolution panel_ makes good impression only on people who have no deeper understanding, i.e. no grasp of signal processing theory behind those things. Color fringing comes from insufficient prefiltering of 1080p signal and proper prefiltering is essential for correct presentation of digitized signals. When converted to 4K the 1080p signal is filtered which removes fringing but 4K is not necessary for doing this, equally well the signal could be properly filtered at 1080p. Higher clarity can be achieved by slight high pass filtering and this it is also not related to 4K. General principle is that properly sampled signal is at its best when consumed at the original sampling. If this is not the case, there is something wrong with the signal, sampling, or signal consuming scenario. Here we have definitely wrong consuming scenario since VD is much below reasonable limits but the signal itself and its processing are also suspicious.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by **UFO**  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24126308
> 
> 
> I much prefer the first picture. The space between the pixels actually causes an illusion of increased sharpness.


I have always said that lower resolution panels do this. You are actually masking the true nature of the content being displayed when your brain is focused on processing the "pixel grid" rather than just the image itself.

Some people have gone as far as to say that you cannot accurately judge the quality of a source when it's 1:1 mapped as you're technically seeing a very aliased image which creates a false sense of sharpness.


In this comparison, it's partly caused by them being photographs, the second image is not quite as well focused as the first, and I don't think the display is quite as bright either. (the vertical lines are clearly brighter on the left)


Guess why people liked SD plasmas and CRTs so much? It's not because they actually displayed a better image, it's because a larger portion of their display was spent covering it up. (in the case of CRT, more than 50% at any one time, as they were interlaced and had a visible pixel structure)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by **UFO**  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24126308
> 
> 
> For this reason, the projector world has always had this phenomenon. The LCD projectors always have this crisp, razor sharp image, while a DLP or LCOS projector looks "soft" in comparison.


I'm not sure I follow you there. The only LCD projectors I've seen are Panasonic's which have very little "screen door". LCD and LCoS are all three-chip designs, and are inherently soft due to misconvergence.

DLP projectors have the most visible "screendoor" and are single-chip devices so they are razor sharp compared to any other projector.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24126900
> 
> 
> Such statements are coagulating brains of people who have no expertise.


Speak for yourself - I've actually done those comparisons.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24126900
> 
> 
> First, the VD does not appear here, without specifying the VD there is no point talking about resolution. Elaborating on pixel grids visibility makes no sense since any sane VS (Viewing Scenario) is such that pixel grids are not visible. This means that 1080 displays are for VS>3PH and 2160 are for VS>1.5PH. So, 1080p will look better, from the pixel grid visibility perspective, if watched below 3PH on 4K display, say at 1.5PH. But then 1080p is anyway not an optimal source for such VS. Claiming that _There's far less color fringing and significantly higher clarity due to the higher resolution panel_ makes good impression only on people who have no deeper understanding, i.e. no grasp of signal processing theory behind those things.


Yes, if you sit far enough away, you won't see the difference between 4K, 1080p, 720p, or SD resolution displays. You don't care for 4K, we get it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24126900
> 
> 
> Color fringing comes from insufficient prefiltering of 1080p signal and proper prefiltering is essential for correct presentation of digitized signals.


This is why I did not use photographs or captures from Blu-ray in the comparisons, but something which was drawn pixel-by-pixel and 1:1 mapped.


It's caused entirely by the lower resolution of the display, even though the image is being shown at its native resolution. (1:1 mapped)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24126900
> 
> 
> When converted to 4K the 1080p signal is filtered which removes fringing but 4K is not necessary for doing this, equally well the signal could be properly filtered at 1080p. Higher clarity can be achieved by slight high pass filtering and this it is also not related to 4K. General principle is that properly sampled signal is at its best when consumed at the original sampling. If this is not the case, there is something wrong with the signal, sampling, or signal consuming scenario. Here we have definitely wrong consuming scenario since VD is much below reasonable limits but the signal itself and its processing are also suspicious.


Nearest neighbor upsampling was used. 1 source pixel was mapped to a 2x2 square on the higher resolution panel. There was no filtering going on.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> The cooperation was on building tech to make it possible to mass produce TVs. It failed. Now, neither company has tech to mass produce TVs. Do you understand the ramifications of that?



You don't understand what Sony did with Trinitron? Easy calculation. If you are not able to develop, than searching for somebody who can and buy the technology. OLED is the future and there is no way out. Without OLED you can't stay in the display business for longer time. That's not a formatwar like HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray. It's the ordinary display evolution. SED failed because it was not a flexible display technology like OLED for furniture, architecture, lighting, mobile, cars, clothes etc. There is more about OLED than only TVs. It's also a greener tech than LCD and so it will be cheaper to produce long term.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24127079
> 
> 
> You don't understand what Sony did with Trinitron?



The relevance of 1970s technology to this conversation is completely lost on me.


> Quote:
> Easy calculation. If you are not able to develop, than searching for somebody who can and buy the technology.



But since yo are insisting it matters, the Sony of the 1970s _built TVs_. This Sony doesn't


> Quote:
> [/I] OLED is the future and there is no way out. Without OLED you can't stay in the display business for longer time.



We keep hearing that, but there isn't a scintilla of evidence to back it up. In fact, given that you can already buy a mediocre 60" LCD for well under $1000, who is to say that someday you won't be able to buy a great 60" LCD for under $1000 that has 4K and at least a modicum of local dimming? There's no meaningful difference in the BOM from today's mediocre LCD to the one I describe (save a few dollars for local dimming circuitry on a direct-LED set where I literally mean "a few dollars").


Now, let's talk about when OLED will have:


(a) a $1000 60-inch product

(b) any product at even 50 inches

(c) product below 50 inches


Now, let's remember that 90% of the TV business is 50" and below. So when we say, "you can't stay in the display business" without OLED and OLED currently has:


0.1% of the TV business

0% of the PC monitor business

0% of the commercial display business

0% of the laptop business


----------



## ALMA

In 3 years (counted from 2014) the currently Samsung 8-Series will be OLED. Of course it's meaningless what Sony and Panasonic will be doing if booth market leaders transform their LCD production to OLED.


You can't compare OLED and LCD to gaz and electric vehicles. Gaz has a big lobby. If you American have to pay European prices on gaz most of you would drive other cars. But the biggest lobby for LCD are Samsung and LG and they currently invest more than 70% in OLED development.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24127063
> 
> 
> I have always said that lower resolution panels do this. You are actually masking the true nature of the content being displayed when your brain is focused on processing the "pixel grid" rather than just the image itself.
> 
> Some people have gone as far as to say that you cannot accurately judge the quality of a source when it's 1:1 mapped as you're technically seeing a very aliased image which creates a false sense of sharpness.
> 
> 
> In this comparison, it's partly caused by them being photographs, the second image is not quite as well focused as the first, and I don't think the display is quite as bright either. (the vertical lines are clearly brighter on the left)
> 
> 
> Guess why people liked SD plasmas and CRTs so much? It's not because they actually displayed a better image, it's because a larger portion of their display was spent covering it up. (in the case of CRT, more than 50% at any one time, as they were interlaced and had a visible pixel structure)
> 
> .....
> 
> Yes, if you sit far enough away, you won't see the difference between 4K, 1080p, 720p, or SD resolution displays. You don't care for 4K, we get it.
> 
> This is why I did not use photographs or captures from Blu-ray in the comparisons, but something which was drawn pixel-by-pixel and 1:1 mapped.
> 
> 
> It's caused entirely by the lower resolution of the display, even though the image is being shown at its native resolution. (1:1 mapped)
> 
> 
> Nearest neighbor upsampling was used. 1 source pixel was mapped to a 2x2 square on the higher resolution panel. There was no filtering going on. Guess why people liked SD plasmas and CRTs so much? It's not because they actually displayed a better image, it's because a larger portion of their display was spent covering it up. (in the case of CRT, more than 50% at any one time, as they were interlaced and had a visible pixel structure).



People liked CRTs because they had a good refresh rate. People like LCDs because of the fake ghosting effect. People liked SD plasmas, because they might have lasted longer.

So I beg to differ. Liking the ghosting effect is the only dumb reason to love a TV.


----------



## Morning5

Is Scanning Backlight technology being used in the LG and Samsung OLEDs?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24127226
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24127063
> 
> 
> I have always said that lower resolution panels do this. You are actually masking the true nature of the content being displayed when your brain is focused on processing the "pixel grid" rather than just the image itself.
> 
> Some people have gone as far as to say that you cannot accurately judge the quality of a source when it's 1:1 mapped as you're technically seeing a very aliased image which creates a false sense of sharpness.
> 
> 
> In this comparison, it's partly caused by them being photographs, the second image is not quite as well focused as the first, and I don't think the display is quite as bright either. (the vertical lines are clearly brighter on the left)
> 
> 
> Guess why people liked SD plasmas and CRTs so much? It's not because they actually displayed a better image, it's because a larger portion of their display was spent covering it up. (in the case of CRT, more than 50% at any one time, as they were interlaced and had a visible pixel structure)
> 
> .....
> 
> Yes, if you sit far enough away, you won't see the difference between 4K, 1080p, 720p, or SD resolution displays. You don't care for 4K, we get it.
> 
> This is why I did not use photographs or captures from Blu-ray in the comparisons, but something which was drawn pixel-by-pixel and 1:1 mapped.
> 
> 
> It's caused entirely by the lower resolution of the display, even though the image is being shown at its native resolution. (1:1 mapped)
> 
> 
> Nearest neighbor upsampling was used. 1 source pixel was mapped to a 2x2 square on the higher resolution panel. There was no filtering going on. Guess why people liked SD plasmas and CRTs so much? It's not because they actually displayed a better image, it's because a larger portion of their display was spent covering it up. (in the case of CRT, more than 50% at any one time, as they were interlaced and had a visible pixel structure).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People liked CRTs because they had a good refresh rate. People like LCDs because of the fake ghosting effect. People liked SD plasmas, because they might have lasted longer.
> 
> So I beg to differ. Liking the ghosting effect is the only dumb reason to love a TV.
Click to expand...

 

I'm sorry, but........................what???!!!!


----------



## Goo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Morning5*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24129712
> 
> 
> Is Scanning Backlight technology being used in the LG and Samsung OLEDs?



No. OLED does not use a backlight; it is an emissive display, meaning that each pixel creates its own light.


It would be possible to have an OLED with black frame insertion where the pixels turn off in between frames to give a similar effect to what a scanning backlight is trying to achieve on LCD.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24127063
> 
> 
> I have always said that lower resolution panels do this. You are actually masking the true nature of the content being displayed when your brain is focused on processing the "pixel grid" rather than just the image itself.Some people have gone as far as to say that you cannot accurately judge the quality of a source when it's 1:1 mapped as you're technically seeing a very aliased image which creates a false sense of sharpness.



Digital signal should be properly bandlimited before any presentation. If that is not done, digitization makes no sense since there will be artefacts


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24127063
> 
> 
> DLP projectors have the most visible "screendoor" and are single-chip devices so they are razor sharp compared to any other projector.
> 
> Speak for yourself - I've actually done those comparisons. Yes, if you sit far enough away, you won't see the difference between 4K, 1080p, 720p, or SD resolution displays. You don't care for 4K, we get it. This is why I did not use photographs or captures from Blu-ray in the comparisons, but something which was drawn pixel-by-pixel and 1:1 mapped.



Heh, this is really cheap: "Yes, if you sit far enough away, you won't see the difference between 4K....". You can not escape the fact resolution can not be separated from the VS and the VD has major impact on it. Your judging of 4K vs. 2K merits based on inspecting pixels with magnifying glass is grotesque. According to a report the difference between the 4K/2K can be noticed only at VD=1.8PH with practical (i.e. compressed) content. In any case it should be below 3PH, I am assuming it becomes noticeable 2.5PH. Based on this, I calculated that for the VD of my living room I would need 100"+ class display to have a real benefit from the 4K, e.g. the demoed 110"@4K LCD. As a result, I promptly established the '100"+ class panels' thread to follow developments in this area. You should be able now to judge that my interest in 4K is of magnificent proportions, but for _4K which is sensible and bringing real added value_. That should be indication I am apotential buyer of 4K TV but since availability of the 100"+ panels at nonoligarchic prices is neboulus at this point, my attention is concentrated on computer monitors where 4K is a real basic need. It is very likely that prices of 4K monitors will become reasonable, and thus almost certain that I will switch to 4K monitor in 21014. That's about my interest in 4K, real 4K







.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24127063
> 
> 
> It's caused entirely by the lower resolution of the display, even though the image is being shown at its native resolution. (1:1 mapped)
> 
> Nearest neighbor upsampling was used. 1 source pixel was mapped to a 2x2 square on the higher resolution panel. There was no filtering going on.



Such upsampling is not bandlimited, it will show up with artefacts on other signals. You can not escape the theory here. But anyway, as said, inspecting pixels with a loupe has nothing to do with real VS.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24127138
> 
> 
> In 3 years (counted from 2014) the currently Samsung 8-Series will be OLED. Of course it's meaningless what Sony and Panasonic will be doing if booth market leaders transform their LCD production to OLED.
> 
> You can't compare OLED and LCD to gaz and electric vehicles. Gaz has a big lobby. If you American have to pay European prices on gaz most of you would drive other cars. But the biggest lobby for LCD are Samsung and LG and they currently invest more than 70% in OLED development.



There is still possibility that OLED can not be made economically vs. LCD. Samsung/LG have extremely deep pockets to subsidize OLED and by this they can finish the Japanese but I doubt if they can finish Chinese. Your remarks about gas prices are done with one eye, you do not other side of the equation where those gas taxes are going. Now, if Germans feel they have too little money it is not gas prices or taxations, it is due to their own paranoia of being supersavering thrifters with tons of money in the banks, balanced state budgets and economy running 6.5% GDP surplus. Compare this to the US where they are spending everything plus credits, running big deficits everywhere, trade deficit alone 40 billions bucks per month and printing money 80 billions bucks per month, making everybody happy







.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24130887
> 
> 
> Digital signal should be properly bandlimited before any presentation. If that is not done, digitization makes no sense since there will be artefacts


This is not about the signal, but about the display.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24130887
> 
> 
> Your judging of 4K vs. 2K merits based on inspecting pixels with magnifying glass is grotesque. According to a report the difference between the 4K/2K can be noticed only at VD=1.8PH with practical (i.e. compressed) content. In any case it should be below 3PH, I am assuming it becomes noticeable 2.5PH. Based on this, I calculated that for the VD of my living room I would need 100"+ class display to have a real benefit from the 4K, e.g. the demoed 110"@4K LCD. As a result, I promptly established the '100"+ class panels' thread to follow developments in this area.


Believe whatever reports you want, I'll trust my eyes.

There are a number of people who have been posting their impressions of 4K displays, and many have been surprised at how far back they can get and still see an improvement, compared to what many of the articles against 4K are saying.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24130887
> 
> 
> Such upsampling is not bandlimited, it will show up with artefacts on other signals.


Nearest Neighbor upsampling will not show artifacts. All it does is take one source pixel and turn it into a 2x2 square on a 4K display.

It probably won't look as nice as advanced upscaling algorithms when used with video, but it's essentially replicating how 1080p video looks 1:1 mapped on a 1080p display - only now you don't have the pixel grid overlaying the image.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24127138
> 
> 
> In 3 years (counted from 2014) the currently Samsung 8-Series will be OLED



As you are now talking about 2017, I'd tend to concur. I'd also note that 8-series LCDs are such a tiny portion of the TV market overall, I'd hope the OLED ecosystem is a lot more robust than just that.


> Quote:
> . Of course it's meaningless what Sony and Panasonic will be doing if booth market leaders transform their LCD production to OLED.



It's not at all meaningless. I'm sorry you can't understand why.


> Quote:
> You can't compare OLED and LCD to gaz and electric vehicles. Gaz has a big lobby. If you American have to pay European prices on gaz most of you would drive other cars.



This is laughably false. There are electric vehicles available in Europe today but they are hardly taking over with any great speed. (Disclaimer: I am a huge EV advocate and have a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle that is driven roughly 2/3 of its miles of electricity... And we generate roughly 2/3 of our own electricity from our own rooftop solar PV system). Gasoline cars continue to dominate for 50 reasons. LCD will continue to dominate mostly for two: It's cheap to make and there are no secrets in how to do it. If oxide/IGZO backplanes deliver on their promise, it will make LCD even cheaper to make. If direct LED is accepted in the developed economies, LCD gets cheaper again. The _idea_ that OLED is cheaper at some future point remains nothing more than an idea.


> Quote:
> But the biggest lobby for LCD are Samsung and LG and they currently invest more than 70% in OLED development.



That's because they don't have to invest anything in LCD development. TV is a declining business and the worldwide LCD capacity is (a) under-utilized and (b) growing, thanks to China. Why any sane company would invest in it is totally unclear. Truthfully, if TV sales do, indeed, fall to 200 million as a steady state rather than 250 million, the world will continue to decommission LCD fabs over the next decade without losing any ability to satisfy the worldwide demand for televisions. And if IGZO backplanes and quantum-dot films catch on, those LCDs will just get better and better and better... If local dimming returns, well, wow... they are going to be flat out great. And cheap.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24130935
> 
> 
> This is not about the signal, but about the display.
> 
> Believe whatever reports you want, I'll trust my eyes.
> 
> There are a number of people who have been posting their impressions of 4K displays, and many have been surprised at how far back they can get and still see an improvement, compared to what many of the articles against 4K are saying.
> 
> Nearest Neighbor upsampling will not show artifacts. All it does is take one source pixel and turn it into a 2x2 square on a 4K display.
> 
> It probably won't look as nice as advanced upscaling algorithms when used with video, but it's essentially replicating how 1080p video looks 1:1 mapped on a 1080p display - only now you don't have the pixel grid overlaying the image.



Your outpourings just prove you have no background knowledge in signal/image processing and so you can play chief creationist role in this forum. What people are saying about 4K is not relevant, what experts are saying is. People are often misled by the type of content and viewing distance.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24129870
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but........................what???!!!!


Technically speaking, of course.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24131046
> 
> 
> Your outpourings just prove you have no background knowledge in signal/image processing and so you can play chief creationist role in this forum.


You apply bandlimiting when downsampling (or at the time of capture in the camera) to avoid aliasing due to the nyquist limits.


This has _zero_ relevance to the images I have posted which are static computer generated images, intended to be displayed 1:1 on an LCD, rather than video or images captured at a higher resolution than the display.

It also has no relevance when upsampling to 4K, because you are _starting_ with a source which has less than half the resolution of the display.


This is actually why some people involved in video production have said to me that you're technically viewing an aliased image when watching video 1:1 mapped on any display - because it exceeds the nyquist limits. They can make a case for that if they want to, but I think it's an interesting perspective.


Looking at those two images I have posted - regardless of whether you think it's too close to the display, whether you would see it at your "normal viewing distance" or whatever else you can come up with - would you not agree that the underlying image is clearer on the higher resolution display?

It may not look as sharp (which is more of a photography issue than anything else) but would you agree that the actual text and images are clearer due to the lack of a grid over the image and lack of color fringing caused by the larger subpixels?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24131046
> 
> 
> What people are saying about 4K is not relevant, what experts are saying is. People are often misled by the type of content and viewing distance.


And yet I have done comparisons side-by-side with displays and carefully selected content, yet I can clearly see a difference. (from further than 3PH distance)


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24131155
> 
> 
> You apply bandlimiting when downsampling (or at the time of capture in the camera) to avoid aliasing due to the nyquist limits.
> 
> 
> This has _zero_ relevance to the images I have posted which are static computer generated images, intended to be displayed 1:1 on an LCD, rather than video or images captured at a higher resolution than the display.
> 
> It also has no relevance when upsampling to 4K, because you are _starting_ with a source which has less than half the resolution of the display.
> 
> 
> This is actually why some people involved in video production have said to me that you're technically viewing an aliased image when watching video 1:1 mapped on any display - because it exceeds the nyquist limits. They can make a case for that if they want to, but I think it's an interesting perspective.



It is obvious one can generate images which are not properly bandlimited. In simple case like e.g. vertical or horizontal one-pixel wide square waves there will be no artefacts. This however is misleading since practical signals will exhibit aliasing.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24131155
> 
> 
> Looking at those two images I have posted - regardless of whether you think it's too close to the display, whether you would see it at your "normal viewing distance" or whatever else you can come up with - would you not agree that the underlying image is clearer on the higher resolution display?
> 
> It may not look as sharp (which is more of a photography issue than anything else) but would you agree that the actual text and images are clearer due to the lack of a grid over the image and lack of color fringing caused by the larger subpixels?)



How much the grid visibility is relevant to any practical VS? As said before color fringing is type of aliasing error, you may eliminate it with higher resolution but other artefacts e.g. jaggies mya become more pronounced. Upsampling by pixel replication is not correct operation in signal processing terms and thus it does not guarantee perfect results.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24131155
> 
> 
> And yet I have done comparisons side-by-side with displays and carefully selected content, yet I can clearly see a difference. (from further than 3PH distance)



Yet e.g. one known expert who has [email protected] LG panel claims to see the benefit of 4K he had to move his sofa to 1.8PH. Taking your cavalier approach to other problems I am suspicious about your testing.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24131143
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24129870
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but........................what???!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Technically speaking, of course.
Click to expand...

 

LOL.  No.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24132738
> 
> 
> It is obvious one can generate images which are not properly bandlimited. In simple case like e.g. vertical or horizontal one-pixel wide square waves there will be no artefacts. This however is misleading since practical signals will exhibit aliasing.
> 
> How much the grid visibility is relevant to any practical VS? As said before color fringing is type of aliasing error, you may eliminate it with higher resolution but other artefacts e.g. jaggies mya become more pronounced. Upsampling by pixel replication is not correct operation in signal processing terms and thus it does not guarantee perfect results.


I give up. Clearly you do not have any experience in this area and have latched onto one thing you've read online somewhere. This is not worth my time.


Maybe when you see it yourself, you will finally accept that 4K can look better than 1080p, at much further distances than whatever articles you have read that agree with your beliefs.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24134338
> 
> 
> 
> .... 4K can look better than 1080p, at much further distances than whatever articles you have read....



Not that it matters, but I clipped the passage carefully and agree strongly with the portion I clipped.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24134338
> 
> 
> Maybe when you see it yourself, you will finally accept that 4K can look better than 1080p, at much further distances than whatever articles you have read that agree with your beliefs.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24134434
> 
> 
> Not that it matters, but I clipped the passage carefully and agree strongly with the portion I clipped.



OK guys, no other way to proceed now than bombing you with the first nuke which has written ' Katzmaier ' on its side:

_With video on a TV, the difference between 4K/UHD and 1080p/HD resolution is really hard to see. Many of the words in those reviews were written on a laptop in my lab at a theatrically close seating distance, comparing a 65-inch 1080p and a 65-inch 4K TV. Despite all the extra pixels I knew made up the 4K TV's screen, most of the time I didn't see any difference at all, especially with HD TV shows and Blu-rays. The differences in detail I did see were limited to the very best 4K demo material. Larger TVs or closer seating distances make that difference more visible, as do computer graphics, animation, and games, but even then it's not drastic.
_


Is Katzmaier, the chief tester of CNET, blind to your claimed huge 4K benefits or maybe you are in some delusional mode?


----------



## vinnie97

The most significant caveat was his emphasis of HDTV shows and Blu-rays, which are limited to 1080p. Frankly, his findings don't surprise me at all, and I am not interested in upscaling and the quantization it involves...I've never been one to be impressed by its previous incarnation (480p --> 1080p), but I know some here swear by it. Note he did see differences with actual 4K material, and I am curious how many feet away he was sitting. I couldn't find the distance listed in the article.


----------



## irkuck

He mentions '_theatrical viewing distance_' which means comfortably close and definitely not too far. He says in adding: The differences in detail I did see _were limited to the very best 4K demo material_. _Larger TVs or closer seating distances make that difference more visible_, as do computer graphics, animation, and games, _but even then it's not drastic_.


Now the "very best 4K demo" means very lightly or transparent, compressed content which is not delivered in practice.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*
> 
> He mentions '_theatrical viewing distance_' which means comfortably close and definitely not too far.



_theatrically_ close _seating distance_ does not means comfortably close. Its more like first/second row which are the ones that are hard to sell .


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24135274
> 
> *The most significant caveat was his emphasis of HDTV shows and Blu-rays, which are limited to 1080p. Frankly, his findings don't surprise me at all, and I am not interested in upscaling and the quantization it involves*...I've never been one to be impressed by its previous incarnation (480p --> 1080p), but I know some here swear by it. Note he did see differences with actual 4K material, and I am curious how many feet away he was sitting. I couldn't find the distance listed in the article.


 

Well Vinnie, you beat me to it again...


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24135205
> 
> 
> Is Katzmaier, the chief tester of CNET, blind to your claimed huge 4K benefits or maybe you are in some delusional mode?


While I think he does great work, there have been a number of things he has written which I disagree with.

And maybe for him, 4K is not worth it, but having seen it myself and discussed it with another prominent reviewer, I think 4K is absolutely worth it. (so did he)


And from another topic :


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by * http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/10/ultra-hd-vs-hd-tv-is-ultra-worth-the-extra-money/index.htm *
> 
> 
> Compared to the image on a 1080p TV, the same content upconverted to 4K gives you most of the benefits we saw with the true 4K image, minus the extra detail. When displayed on the 4K screen, the finest details in the HD image were better resolved, with edges that were visibly smoother and less jagged than on the HDTV’s coarser 1080p pixel grid. And I saw no obvious upconversion artifacts to speak of, which demonstrates that the benefits of an Ultra HD TV's higher pixel density can still be appreciated even without true 4K content to watch.
> 
> ​ ​ ​ ​
> 
> Looking at the upconverted images (photos 4 and 8) and comparing them to the HD versions (photos 3 and 7) and true 4K versions (photo 2 and 6), you'll see that while they don't recover all the detail shown in the 4K photos, you do get a smoother, less-coarse image and slightly better detail than you'd see on a regular HDTV.



Huh, would you look at that. They see the same thing I did when moving to a higher resolution panel, and reach the same conclusion - 1080p is better resolved on a 4K panel than a 1080p native one.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24135274
> 
> 
> I am not interested in upscaling and the quantization it involves...I've never been one to be impressed by its previous incarnation (480p --> 1080p), but I know some here swear by it.


I think you would be surprised at the difference you will see when using some of the better upscaling available today (my preference is using madVR on a HTPC) on a 1080p panel compared to DVDs being displayed at their native resolution on a lower resolution panel.


I was never really convinced by my original Oppo upscaling player - it looked better than the TV handling the upscaling, but I wouldn't say that it ever looked great.

Of course these days we have access to higher resolution sources for a lot of content, so SD upscaling is becoming less important. There are still a number of films I enjoy which don't have an HD release though, and television shows which will likely never see an HD release.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24135205
> 
> *[to Chronoptimist]* Is Katzmaier, the chief tester of CNET, blind to your claimed huge 4K benefits or maybe you are in some delusional mode?


 

I'm still missing something.  Irkuck, have *you* checked out the 4K displays yourself?  If you go to BB/Mag, compare the 65X900A to any 2K around (at the very least, they'll have a ZT60 nearby).  Even ask for the 2K upscale on the 900A, because it does a pretty darn good job by itself.  Count the paces backward.

 

Note: be somewhat careful of the displays you're choosing.  The last time I was there they had a samsung 4K that was *horribly* soft.  And of course be sure to ask what signal they're supplying.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800#post_24130959
> 
> 
> And if IGZO backplanes and quantum-dot films catch on, those LCDs will just get better and better and better... If local dimming returns, well, wow... they are going to be flat out great. And cheap.



Unfortunately your predictions on OLED seem accurate although I wish I could say otherwise my friend. However you also bring up a good note buddy and their would appear to be light at the end of the tunnel if they do end up bringing back local-dimming down the road with 4k I'd be ok with that.


----------



## vinnie97

You'll need a Magnolia to see a ZT60 unfortunately (probably the same for the 4K sets?).


Chrono, I've heard good things about MadVR, and I have not exactly been wowed by Oppo's (or, prior to that, Samsung's implementation of Silicon Optix's HQV, on the BDP-UP5000) QDEO implementation or prior AnchorBay chip on the BDP-83. Being spoiled by actual HD content from the beginning may be playing a role.


----------



## Desk.

So here's a question, following the gloom after the Panasonic/Sony split....


I guess most people reading this have an interest in owning an OLED TV. If it were to appear that production of OLED TVs was to be abandoned completely, would you then purchase a set at whatever price they cost at that point?


Desk


----------



## andy sullivan

No. That would be like buying an Edsel because they were no longer going to be made.


----------



## wco81

Well you can only hope that somebody revisits some of the other technologies like SED. Then again, maybe TVs just aren't lucrative enough to offer a big pie that patent holders would share amicably.


Already, the Panasonic site no longer offers the ST60 plasma models in most of the sizes.


So it's looking more like an LCD future ...


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24135820
> 
> 
> And from another topic :
> 
> Huh, would you look at that. They see the same thing I did when moving to a higher resolution panel, and reach the same conclusion - 1080p is better resolved on a 4K panel than a 1080p native one.
> 
> .



What is the VD to se the pixel grid? What it has to do with any normal VS? One can improve subjective PQ by clever processing. Now if one shows such cleverly processed 4K vs. unprocessed 2K to not-so-clever people they get their brains washed.


I looked at the 4K and 2K TVs in shops, obviously not in side-by-side calibrated conditions. What i was able to establish is that pixel grid visibility distance for 2K is twice the one for 4K which is trivial. Regarding the PQ any judgement should be reserved before knowing what kind of subjective PQ enhancement engines they use in 4K vs. 2K. According to statements, the 4K engines are way better than 2K. That does not mean 4K itself is so much better.


----------



## Desk.

Well, you know, I think I would buy an OLED set if they were about to halt production.


I've waited so long for this technology to arrive, foregoing plasma and LCD because I just didn't feel they represented a genuine advance over CRT - but were rather a step backwards, at least at first.


OLED seems to offer everything I want, and while I should probably be rushing out to buy one of the last Panny plasmas, I'd rather hold onto that cash and put it towards something I really want, as costly as it might prove to be.


Hell, I've waited this long - I'm not going to give up on getting one now.


Desk


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24137455
> 
> 
> Well, you know, I think I would buy an OLED set if they were about to halt production.
> 
> 
> I've waited so long for this technology to arrive, foregoing plasma and LCD because I just didn't feel they represented a genuine advance over CRT - but were rather a step backwards, at least at first.
> 
> 
> OLED seems to offer everything I want, and while I should probably be rushing out to buy one of the last Panny plasmas, I'd rather hold onto that cash and put it towards something I really want, as costly as it might prove to be.
> 
> 
> Hell, I've waited this long - I'm not going to give up on getting one now.
> 
> 
> Desk


 

Sounds like you would do well to just buy *something* and then buy again later.


----------



## 9179mhb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24137455
> 
> 
> Well, you know, I think I would buy an OLED set if they were about to halt production.
> 
> 
> I've waited so long for this technology to arrive, foregoing plasma and LCD because I just didn't feel they represented a genuine advance over CRT - but were rather a step backwards, at least at first.
> 
> 
> OLED seems to offer everything I want, and while I should probably be rushing out to buy one of the last Panny plasmas, I'd rather hold onto that cash and put it towards something I really want, as costly as it might prove to be.
> 
> 
> Hell, I've waited this long - I'm not going to give up on getting one now.
> 
> 
> Desk



I don't know what the future will hold for OLEDs but if Samsung can produce another PDP equivalent to it's F8500 series, w/o the buzz, I will buy one during 2014.


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24137476
> 
> 
> Sounds like you would do well to just buy _something_ and then buy again later.


Easier said than done.


I did finally cave this summer and bought a Samsung 55F8000 LED set. The picture was everything I could have hoped for... In the daytime. At night, the blacks became greys, and I was left wondering why I should spend so much money on a TV that cant't produce black levels to rival my 17-year-old CRT. So it went back.


Desk


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24137715
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24137476
> 
> 
> Sounds like you would do well to just buy *something* and then buy again later.
> 
> 
> 
> Easier said than done.
> 
> 
> I did finally cave this summer and bought a Samsung 55F8000 LED set. The picture was everything I could have hoped for... In the daytime. At night, the blacks became greys, and I was left wondering why I should spend so much money on a TV that cant't produce black levels to rival my 17-year-old CRT. So it went back.
> 
> 
> Desk
Click to expand...

 

Well if plasma's are out, consider the 2012 Sony HX950.  It may be the very best picture I've ever seen (still).  It's a full array too with spectacular motion handling.  They're 2K sets, and will more than "hold you over" well until you can make another decision.  Really though, IMO it's the closest you'll get to CRT.  You might never want to give it up.  I *might* have gotten one had it not been that the size was wrong (55 & 65, and I wanted 60), and that it was active 3d.  Other than that though.....>oooooof


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24137715
> 
> 
> Easier said than done.
> 
> 
> I did finally cave this summer and bought a Samsung 55F8000 LED set. The picture was everything I could have hoped for... In the daytime. At night, the blacks became greys, and I was left wondering why I should spend so much money on a TV that cant't produce black levels to rival my 17-year-old CRT. So it went back.
> 
> 
> Desk


So you haven't waited. Why did you forego plasma again?


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24138157
> 
> 
> So you haven't waited. Why did you forego plasma again?



Well, I briefly owned an LED, decided against it, and am back to waiting.


As for why I didn't adopt plasma, I've just never been that convinced by its image. To my eyes, the dithering creates a sense of unwelcome noise, movement and 'life' in the image, and also renders it rather soft. I also find the pictures, and their colours, rather 'dense' and 'heavy'.


But anyway, I'm conscious that this is all taking the discussion dangerously off-topic.


Here's hoping that CES gives some indications about what the future holds.


Desk


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24137062
> 
> 
> I guess most people reading this have an interest in owning an OLED TV. If it were to appear that production of OLED TVs was to be abandoned completely, would you then purchase a set at whatever price they cost at that point?


Assuming that we get 2014 models to pick from (hopefully Samsung will have a flat model next year) and not the ones currently shipping, I probably would. I don't think I would buy any of the current models even if they were more reasonably priced.

I don't want a curved display, and I absolutely will not buy a display using more than three subpixels per pixel. (LG's flat OLED is still using WRGB)


Sony have committed to a 4K OLED broadcast monitor in 2014, which I'm guessing is going to be a BVM in the $30,000-40,000 range.

If that leads to a PVM model in the $10,000 range later in the year, I would be _very_ tempted. But that's probably being far too optimistic on pricing.


I think that a professional OLED like that would be enough to basically sit out the next generation of displays until people are talking about 8K or something else 5+ years from now, which is why I would be willing to pay that kind of money for one.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24138157
> 
> 
> So you haven't waited. Why did you forego plasma again?


As someone that _really_ likes CRTs, I genuinely don't think a plasma display is a suitable replacement either. Even the best ones still won't produce black levels on par with a CRT, and there are all kinds of temporal artifacts which CRTs never had.

I know it's an unpopular opinion, but the closest thing we had to a CRT in most respects was a full array local dimming LCD which used backlight scanning.


----------



## vinnie97

 http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Samsung-Panasonic-Plasma-TVs-Trounce-the-LED-Competition-Again-at-Flat-Panel-Shootout-2013.shtml - had to do it because obviously there are some parameters in which plasma trumps even CRT and the tech with which we are soon to be saddled. Otherwise it wouldn't have had such a good showing, unless they laced the punch with hallucinogens.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Getting back to the subject of OLEDs...

This Business Week Article about the doom and gloom triggered by the Sony/Panasonic partnership has the following quote that seems to give some optimism about their future OLED plans:


> Quote:
> “From now on, each company will independently continue development of OLED, utilizing the results of their joint collaboration,” Panasonic spokesman Jim Reilly said in an e-mail, declining to comment on the company’s future plans for OLED sets. A Sony spokesman told Bloomberg News that the company would continue its OLED research.



Can't wait to see what comes out of CES. Press day is one week away.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24136738
> 
> 
> Unfortunately your predictions on OLED seem accurate although I wish I could say otherwise my friend.



Thanks, Rad. I also wish I could say otherwise. The best hope is that _eventually_ we get the OLED TV we want.


> Quote:
> However you also bring up a good note buddy and their would appear to be light at the end of the tunnel if they do end up bringing back local-dimming down the road with 4k I'd be ok with that.



It seems like we might get such a thing.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7830#post_24139277
> 
> 
> Getting back to the subject of OLEDs...
> 
> This Business Week Article about the doom and gloom triggered by the Sony/Panasonic partnership has the following quote that seems to give some optimism about their future OLED plans:
> 
> Can't wait to see what comes out of CES. Press day is one week away.



I know you want to read that quote as optimistic, but it isn't. It's corporate-speak that basically says, "We spent money and don't want you to construe that spending as having been for absolutely nothing."


The way I read the end of the collaboration (as did most people I spoke with) is: they got essentially nowhere in the part of OLED that remains the hard part. What's that? Making them. So instead of wasting time on developing technology to make them -- for 2 companies that don't even make anything -- they just stopped. Every industry forecast has 4K LCD outselling OLED through the end of the decade.


The conventional wisdom is that Panasonic is absolutely done with the project and Sony will continue _limited_ R&D because, well, they were first to commercialize OLED and they have a small division that supplies the broadcast and production industries which actually does make the displays. But the idea that Sony is commercializing OLED televisions in the foreseeable future is dead.


----------



## irkuck

What makes Sony/Pana decision even more telling is that they must have evaluated the Kateeva OLED printing technology among others. The end result had to be very pessimistic: "OLED panels future is a gamble in which pumping billions and billions for prolonged time may result in getting lead of the market. But profits will not be there and we have no money for gambling". Sony by the way knows OLED in-depth: they make extremely sophisticated miniature OLED displays with highest pixel density as electronic viewfinders in their cameras, e.g. recent A7 full frame compacts.


----------



## JimP

Rogo,


When it comes to Sony, is it plausible that they're just going to buy OLED panels from somebody else?


----------



## 8mile13

DIGITIMES: SAmsung Display expected to increase production capacity of OLED panels by 33% in 2014.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24140562
> 
> DIGITIMES: SAmsung Display expected to increase production capacity of OLED panels by 33% in 2014.


 

So help me, if they keep up this curved crap I'm liable to have a @#$%ing stroke...


----------



## andy sullivan

I think they will continue with the curved crap for one reason. It's different. From a marketing standpoint "it's different" is almost as good as "it's better".


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24140704
> 
> 
> I think they will continue with the curved crap for one reason. It's different. From a marketing standpoint "it's different" is almost as good as "it's better".


 

I mentioned it to a number of "non video" people this holiday week just to get a sense of what their gut reaction was to t he idea (without seeing it).  The overall response was a facial wince.  They couldn't imagine it looking right.

 

My favorite review of it said (gross paraphrasing): "If you look at it dead center carefully, you won't be bothered by the screen curve.  It will then look flat.  Which of course begs the question of why have a curved screen in the first place."  I posted it up there ↑ aways.


----------



## slacker711

I am fairly sure that LG has stated that they will have flat-panel OLED's in 2014. Of course, they technically have the framed OLED available now though only in limited geographies.


FWIW, I missed this article from September talking about an approval by the WiFi association of a 47" OLED from LG.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1380026065


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24140728
> 
> 
> I mentioned it to a number of "non video" people this holiday week just to get a sense of what their gut reaction was to t he idea (without seeing it).  The overall response was a facial wince.  They couldn't imagine it looking right.
> 
> 
> My favorite review of it said (gross paraphrasing): "If you look at it dead center carefully, you won't be bothered by the screen curve.  It will then look flat.  Which of course begs the question of why have a curved screen in the first place."  I posted it up there ↑ aways.


I think if you take those same "non video" people and sit them in front of a curved OLED and average flat LCD in a Magnolia type environment they will all choose the OLED. Now, when the sales person tells them that part of the better PQ is because of the "curved effect", they will most likely take that as gospel. Because the curved panel is so different it also gives the buyer a reasonable hard fact to justify his purchase to his friends. Instant gratification is a big carrot. Most of us here would need absolute proof of any benefit from a curved panel. But then again, look at that fantastic "new technology leap" called LED. Barf!


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24140562
> 
> DIGITIMES: SAmsung Display expected to increase production capacity of OLED panels by 33% in 2014.


Just to be clear, though, does this refer to TV-size panels? It's not a case of expanding production of phone-sized OLED screens?


If it's the former then it's been a bit of a roller coaster, but I at least go into a new year with some hope.


Desk


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> 
> FWIW, I missed this article from September talking about an approval by the WiFi association of a 47" OLED from LG.
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1380026065


The 47EA880W was certified januari 21 2013 and the 47EA8800 was certified februari 08 2013.
http://www.wi-fi.org/certified-products-results?cid=oled&items=30&start=30&curpage=2 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*
> 
> Just to be clear, though, does this refer to TV-size panels? It's not a case of expanding production of phone-sized OLED screens?
> 
> 
> If it's the former then it's been a bit of a roller coaster, but I at least go into a new year with some hope.
> 
> 
> Desk


For the most part it has to do with the tiny OLED stuff.


----------



## Orbitron

The LG47EA880W is good news. A perfect upgrade for our older displays in the 42" to 50" range, and it's flat. Let's hope it is shown at CES and available this Spring.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24141034
> 
> 
> The 47EA880W was certified januari 21 2013 and the 47EA8800 was certified februari 08 2013.
> http://www.wi-fi.org/certified-products-results?cid=oled&items=30&start=30&curpage=2



Thanks, should have gone to the source rather than trusted the article.


LG has said that they plan on broadening their OLED lineup in 2014, but I'm not sure if that means smaller or just larger and 4K.


----------



## cpc

Do I need to skim this thread or can somebody estimate when 50-65" OLED TV's will be available for less then $3000?

Two years? Three? Four? Five? Anybody have a guess or idea?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpc*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24143018
> 
> 
> Do I need to skim this thread or can somebody estimate when 50-65" OLED TV's will be available for less then $3000?
> 
> Two years? Three? Four? Five? Anybody have a guess or idea?


 

7 years, 4 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, and a couple of hours.  Give or take.

 

Actually we've been struggling on that very question for a very long time and it changes dramatically.  For instance, the question itself just shifted to whether or not it will happen *ever.*

 

Not a lot of answers to your question I'm afraid.  I will say that *prior* to the most recent gloom and doom episode, some of us might have said 3-ish years.  Now?  We're trying to keep sharp objects away from some folks here until they calm down...  By the way, who's turn is it to watch Artwood?


----------



## Jason Priestley

This is just rumors but I've heard that part of the reason you are seeing announcements like the SONY/Panasonic announcement is that they are looking at the timeframe in which they could get costs down to a level that the mainstream could afford this and by that time we could be entering a downcycle (recession) and it would be suicide to be heavily marketing $3K TV's at that time. Instead, it makes more sense to just pump through 4K today while we are starting to see an acceleration in global GDP growth and that they can capitalize on any acceleration in durable orders. By the time a global recession occurs those sets could be at the $1k mark (so still palatable for some consumers).


I'd be crushed to find out if this is true (i've been waiting years for this tech to materialize). I'm anxiously awaiting to hear all the CES news and if this appears to be the case I'm gonna have to decide whether to stick with my Kuro (50"), pickup a ZT60 (65"), or pray that LED gets black levels to a level I can appreciate (and also improve the motion that still bugs me).


----------



## vinnie97

^This pseudo recovery is fueled by funny money. Adding 0s will only help for so long.


I'm not sure the ZT stock will wait for CES...only 41 left at Amazon. Just watched the Wolverine this evening...the clarity plus monstrous contrast ratio was a delight and demanded I sit closer, nary a dither to be seen (when pausing and analyzing at a few feet out, I could see a trace). This account was more or less for Desk.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24139753
> 
> 
> What makes Sony/Pana decision even more telling is that they must have evaluated the Kateeva OLED printing technology among others. The end result had to be very pessimistic: "OLED panels future is a gamble in which pumping billions and billions for prolonged time may result in getting lead of the market. But profits will not be there and we have no money for gambling". Sony by the way knows OLED in-depth: they make extremely sophisticated miniature OLED displays with highest pixel density as electronic viewfinders in their cameras, e.g. recent A7 full frame compacts.



For what it's worth, if they believe in the Kateeva tech, they'd abandon what they were doing and let someone else buy the machines. _Neither_ company was ever going to make panels. Now, someone else can make panels. So I don't agree that the exit is negative for Kateeva; it could be construed as the opposite.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24140267
> 
> 
> Rogo,
> 
> 
> When it comes to Sony, is it plausible that they're just going to buy OLED panels from somebody else?



Yes. In fact, even if the Panasonic deal had worked out, they were going to buy panels from AUO.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24140562
> 
> DIGITIMES: SAmsung Display expected to increase production capacity of OLED panels by 33% in 2014.



It's hard to overstate how few TVs Samsung is planning on making in 2014. Those substrates make at most 2 panels. At 100% yield, they could make about 300,000 TVs (assuming that production ramps in some sort of linear fashion. Realistically, they are targeting TV production well under 200K.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24140917
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, though, does this refer to TV-size panels? It's not a case of expanding production of phone-sized OLED screens?
> 
> 
> If it's the former then it's been a bit of a roller coaster, but I at least go into a new year with some hope.



It's definitely referring to TV somewhat. But there is a rumor Samsung is planning on pushing into tablet-sized OLED screens next year. If that's the same capacity, figure on an infinitesimal quantity of televisions.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpc*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24143018
> 
> 
> Do I need to skim this thread or can somebody estimate when 50-65" OLED TV's will be available for less then $3000?
> 
> Two years? Three? Four? Five? Anybody have a guess or idea?



Two seems improbable. At the smaller sizes, though, 3-4 seems doable. If that _doesn't_ happen, it's more likely it never will. For the biggest sizes in your range, figure 5 years.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24143618
> 
> 
> ^This pseudo recovery is fueled by funny money. Adding 0s will only help for so long.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure the ZT stock will wait for CES...only 41 left at Amazon. Just watched the Wolverine this evening...the clarity plus monstrous contrast ratio was a delight and demanded I sit closer, nary a dither to be seen (when pausing and analyzing at a few feet out, I could see a trace). This account was more or less for Desk.



I wouldn't read into Amazon stock levels. They go down, they go up. It's not like you are seeing the last 41 ever. Well... you might be, but you can't possibly know that from seeing "only 41 left in stock" because that doesn't tell you more aren't coming. I just bought a cooking implement that had "only 2 left in stock." It's back at full stocking the day it arrived to me. That happens all the time on Amazon.


All that said, if I wanted a Panasonic plasma, I would not sit around till June hoping there's a blowout sale.


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24144153
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24139753
> 
> 
> What makes Sony/Pana decision even more telling is that they must have evaluated the Kateeva OLED printing technology among others. The end result had to be very pessimistic: "OLED panels future is a gamble in which pumping billions and billions for prolonged time may result in getting lead of the market. But profits will not be there and we have no money for gambling". Sony by the way knows OLED in-depth: they make extremely sophisticated miniature OLED displays with highest pixel density as electronic viewfinders in their cameras, e.g. recent A7 full frame compacts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, if they believe in the Kateeva tech, they'd abandon what they were doing and let someone else buy the machines. _Neither_ company was ever going to make panels. Now, someone else can make panels. So I don't agree that the exit is negative for Kateeva; it could be construed as the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24140267
> 
> 
> Rogo,
> 
> 
> When it comes to Sony, is it plausible that they're just going to buy OLED panels from somebody else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. In fact, even if the Panasonic deal had worked out, they were going to buy panels from AUO.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24140562
> 
> DIGITIMES: SAmsung Display expected to increase production capacity of OLED panels by 33% in 2014.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to overstate how few TVs Samsung is planning on making in 2014. Those substrates make at most 2 panels. At 100% yield, they could make about 300,000 TVs (assuming that production ramps in some sort of linear fashion. Realistically, they are targeting TV production well under 200K.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24140917
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, though, does this refer to TV-size panels? It's not a case of expanding production of phone-sized OLED screens?
> 
> 
> If it's the former then it's been a bit of a roller coaster, but I at least go into a new year with some hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's definitely referring to TV somewhat. But there is a rumor Samsung is planning on pushing into tablet-sized OLED screens next year. If that's the same capacity, figure on an infinitesimal quantity of televisions.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpc*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24143018
> 
> 
> Do I need to skim this thread or can somebody estimate when 50-65" OLED TV's will be available for less then $3000?
> 
> Two years? Three? Four? Five? Anybody have a guess or idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two seems improbable. At the smaller sizes, though, 3-4 seems doable. If that _doesn't_ happen, it's more likely it never will. For the biggest sizes in your range, figure 5 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24143618
> 
> 
> ^This pseudo recovery is fueled by funny money. Adding 0s will only help for so long.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure the ZT stock will wait for CES...only 41 left at Amazon. Just watched the Wolverine this evening...the clarity plus monstrous contrast ratio was a delight and demanded I sit closer, nary a dither to be seen (when pausing and analyzing at a few feet out, I could see a trace). This account was more or less for Desk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't read into Amazon stock levels. They go down, they go up. It's not like you are seeing the last 41 ever. Well... you might be, but you can't possibly know that from seeing "only 41 left in stock" because that doesn't tell you more aren't coming. I just bought a cooking implement that had "only 2 left in stock." It's back at full stocking the day it arrived to me. That happens all the time on Amazon.
> 
> 
> All that said, if I wanted a Panasonic plasma, I would not sit around till June hoping there's a blowout sale.
Click to expand...


5yrs? Sheesh, I'm considering picking up a Sammy 8500 just in case, but I'm finding it hard to justify a major purchase that's not even 4K compatible. Yeah, I know there's no content right now, but no future-proofing is hard to swallow...


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24144153
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, if they believe in the Kateeva tech, they'd abandon what they were doing and let someone else buy the machines. _Neither_ company was ever going to make panels. Now, someone else can make panels. So I don't agree that the exit is negative for Kateeva; it could be construed as the opposite.



In my view their strong intention was to make panels since Tier 1 makes its own panels, this is a must for new technology like OLED. Sony in fact is making OLEDs: small professional panels and small displays for their cameras. Panasonic obviously has long history of making panels. I believe they came to the conclusion OLED is a kind of high-risk terminal game of who is able to sustain pumping billions and billions in the development and manufacturing for longest time until all others go bankrupt. Sony and Pana have no money for such a game, decided they do not want to bleed their whole busines on panels and so they left. Samsung and LG are winners but without profits. Kateeva role in this thing is they apparently promise much cheaper investment and manufacturing but this is not clear now.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7800_100#post_24144153
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24139753
> 
> 
> What makes Sony/Pana decision even more telling is that they must have evaluated the Kateeva OLED printing technology among others. The end result had to be very pessimistic: "OLED panels future is a gamble in which pumping billions and billions for prolonged time may result in getting lead of the market. But profits will not be there and we have no money for gambling". Sony by the way knows OLED in-depth: they make extremely sophisticated miniature OLED displays with highest pixel density as electronic viewfinders in their cameras, e.g. recent A7 full frame compacts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, if they believe in the Kateeva tech, they'd abandon what they were doing and let someone else buy the machines. *Neither* company was ever going to make panels. Now, someone else can make panels. So I don't agree that the exit is negative for Kateeva; it could be construed as the opposite.
Click to expand...

 

This has been my thinking on Kateeva as well (regarding Sony/Panasonic).  But I'm still unsure of this position.  Just because Sony and Panasonic can't make it happen with LCD and Plasma, why does that mean that if they ended up with the right OLED tech & yields that they wouldn't *want* to be panel makers again?  I don't see that connection.  I would think that a different technology brings with it different issues from start to finish.  Is it because they've recognized that after all is said and done, brute force construction is best left to bottom dollar Chinese anyway?


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24144153
> 
> 
> I wouldn't read into Amazon stock levels. They go down, they go up. It's not like you are seeing the last 41 ever. Well... you might be, but you can't possibly know that from seeing "only 41 left in stock" because that doesn't tell you more aren't coming. I just bought a cooking implement that had "only 2 left in stock." It's back at full stocking the day it arrived to me. That happens all the time on Amazon.
> 
> 
> All that said, if I wanted a Panasonic plasma, I would not sit around till June hoping there's a blowout sale.


I realize their stock fluctuates, but this depletion seems to hold more weight than most (given the halt of production of these panels). Let's just say this has fallen from a high of nearly 200 two weeks ago to only 34 now.


----------



## JimP

Since Panasonic bailed on OLED, does anyone have eyes on the Panasonic factories that were suppose to shut down by the end of December and can tell us if they're still in production or not.


----------



## mfogarty5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24144153
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, if they believe in the Kateeva tech, they'd abandon what they were doing and let someone else buy the machines. _Neither_ company was ever going to make panels. Now, someone else can make panels. So I don't agree that the exit is negative for Kateeva; it could be construed as the opposite.



Rogo,


There are quite a few people who keep posting that Sony and Panasonic abandoned OLED development, but if I've been reading your posts correctly their joint venture was to figure out HOW to mass produce OLEDs using "ink jet" technology not actually produce them. It seems like many posters think they abandoned a joint venture to produce OLED panels which was never the case.


Anyway, my first thought when I read about the Sony and Panasonic announcement was that the cooperation was no longer needed because Kateeva figured it out for them which is similar to your quote above.


There was a quote a few pages ago about their being no "lobby" for OLED, but is that the case? Part, if not all of what is driving the current crop of OLED TVs seems to be showmanship between LG and Samsung which is not sustainable in the long run. In order to be sustainable, there has to be an economic lobby for OLED. I thought I read where 3M supplies the "ink" for OLED. If the Kateeva tech works, then 3M would have a large incentive to grow a new market for their product. What are your thoughts? Are there any other deep pocketed companies who would benefit from OLED becoming more mainstream?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24140562
> 
> DIGITIMES: SAmsung Display expected to increase production capacity of OLED panels by 33% in 2014.



To cool heads it is good to see the Digitimes report in extenso:

_Samsung Display is expected to increase its production capacity of OLED panels by 33% in 2014. Despite strong demand for TFT LCD technology in the market, Samsung believes that OLED will continue to possess technology advantages in the market. The company also reportedly plans to extend OLED panel use in smartphones and TVs developed by Samsung Electronics. The market for OLED panels is estimated to be worth US$450 million in 2014, up from about US$350 million in 2013, according to market observers. However, the observers believe OLED TV demand will still be weak in 2014, and that Ultra HD LCD TVs will instead lead the high-end TV segment. Digitimes Research meanwhile said as of the fourth quarter of 2013, Samsung's monthly production capacity of OLED panels as based on its 5.5G line will reach 140,000 substrates, up 30,000 units on year, and will increase another 37,000 units to 177,000 by fourth-quarter 2014._


Microscopic market and production volume, weak 2014, low growth from small base. For OLED dreamers 2014 is sleep over year.


----------



## tubby497

Samsung and LG are still committed on improving and developing OLED. The prices have come down and Samsung/LG have delivered OLED displays as promised. We will see more future upcoming models at 2014 CES.


----------



## ALMA

After the massive price cut in UK now the LG costs 5 Mio Won less in Korea.


Google translation:


> Quote:
> Come especially red (OLED) TV's first 700 won price dropped down significantly.
> 
> 
> Surface (curve DE) All Red TV is old went down from 11.9 to 7.9 million won fine frame is applied galleries coming Red TV fell from 12.9 to 7.9 million won, respectively.


 http://vip.mk.co.kr/news/view/21/20/1098441.html


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpc*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24143018
> 
> 
> Do I need to skim this thread or can somebody estimate when 50-65" OLED TV's will be available for less then $3000?
> 
> Two years? Three? Four? Five? Anybody have a guess or idea?


Maybe never?

(I'd want something at about 75" though...).

Could be that Panasonic may end up regretting getting out of the plasma business if OLED never seems to be able to justify itself!


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mfogarty5*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24145761
> 
> 
> Anyway, my first thought when I read about the Sony and Panasonic announcement was that the cooperation was no longer needed because Kateeva figured it out for them which is similar to your quote above.


Maybe, but the Panasonic insider @ HDJ recently claimed Panasonic's printing method was separate from Kateeva's solution.


----------



## work permit

Does anyone know how wide a color gamut the Samsung and LG panels are natively capable of displaying? Can they cover 100% of DCI? And how about Adobe RGB?


----------



## RandyWalters




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24145049
> 
> 
> Since Panasonic bailed on OLED, does anyone have eyes on the Panasonic factories that were suppose to shut down by the end of December and can tell us if they're still in production or not.



About a month ago AVJ said (paraphrasing here) that production on all Plasma models had already ended, and whatever was left in the marketplace is the last of em.


----------



## slacker711

LG is showing 55", 65" and 77" 4K OLED's at CES. Some articles in Korean indicate that the 77" model will ship in the 1st half.



http://www.newswire.co.kr/newsRead.php?no=730752 


> Quote:
> LG TO SHOWCASE INDUSTRY LEADING OLED TV LINEUP AT CES 2014
> 
> SEOUL--(Korea Newswire) January 2, 2014 -- LG Electronics (LG) is proud to present the most comprehensive OLED TV lineup on the planet at the International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas from January 7-10, 2014. Visitors to the company’s booth at CES will have the opportunity to see the world’s largest ULTRA HD CURVED OLED (model 77EC9800) TV along with the company’s various 55- and 65-inch OLED TV models. Also on display will be the elegant GALLERY OLED TV (model 55EA8800) and the CURVED OLED TV (model 55EB9600) with its friendly environmental footprint.
> 
> 
> “All of the exceptional OLED models we’re showcasing at CES 2014 offer the ultimate in picture quality and refined, modern aesthetics,” said In-kyu Lee, Senior Vice President and head of the TV Division at LG Electronics’ Home Entertainment Company. “Driving the evolution of television into the next generation, LG will continue to employ its technological and design expertise to bring impressive OLED TVs to market.”
> 
> 
> Unmatched Picture Quality
> *The 55-, 65- and 77-inch ULTRA HD CURVED OLED TVs combine LG’s proprietary WRGB OLED technology and 4K Ultra HD screen resolution (3840 x 2160 pixels) for a whole new level of picture quality and viewer immersion.* Filling the viewer’s field of vision with gorgeous, high-contrast images, the 77EC9800’s sensually curved screen is supported by a beautiful leaf-shaped stand. A standout product, the company’s mammoth 77-inch model is the recipient of the highly-prized Best of Innovations at the 2014 CES Innovations Awards.
> 
> 
> The color temperature of each pixel on the enormous 77-inch display is automatically controlled by the LG Color Refiner, resulting in superior consistency and balance. The TV’s infinite contrast ratio is adeptly managed by the company’s High Dynamic Range (HDR) algorithm. The striking ULTRA HD CURVED OLED TV also boasts the eye-popping visuals of ULTRA CINEMA 3D. Thanks to film-type patterned retarder (FPR) technology and Ultra HD resolution, the user can marvel at the most convincing 3D effects ever seen on a TV without having to endure distracting flickering or cross-talk.
> 
> 
> For more high resolution viewing options, the 77EC9800 has been equipped with LG’s own Tru-ULTRA HD Engine Pro, which can upscale SD, HD or Full HD content into breathtaking near-4K picture quality. The results are rendered even more seamless due to the error-correction capabilities of the enhanced super resolution algorithm to prevent blurred image from the upscaling process. The TV also incorporates Motion Estimation Motion Compensation (MEMC) to make the onscreen action appear smoother, clearer and more realistic.
> 
> 
> Consumers will appreciate that LG’s ULTRA HD CURVED OLED TVs are future-proof, able to decode broadcast signals in both H.264 and HEVC H.265 formats, at 30p or 60p. A convenient built-in decoder makes it possible to display Ultra HD content from external devices connected via the TV’s HDMI, USB or LAN ports. Model 77EC9800 also incorporates LG’s newest smart TV platform, enabling consumers to enjoy a refreshingly simple and intuitive user experience.
> 
> 
> Creative Concepts, Award Winning Products
> 
> Beautiful to behold, hidden behind the elegant frame of the GALLERY OLED TV is the Canvas Speaker, a powerful 2.2 channel, 100W forward-facing setup that guarantees a superb auditory experience unavailable on any other OLED TV. Honored with a CES 2014 Innovations Award, the artistically inspired EA8800 is the only unit that can make an average living room feel like an actual art gallery. The unit’s unique eGallery feature provides a variety of display modes that can be activated to create a specific mood. For instance, Gallery Mode turns the TV into a picture frame displaying some of the world’s most famous works of art while Healing & Remembering Mode helps to create a warm and inviting atmosphere through mood-lifting sounds and images.
> 
> 
> LG’s latest CURVED OLED TV, the 55EB9600, is a highly efficient, environmentally-friendly product. Demonstrating the company’s commitment to responsible manufacturing, the model is made with more recyclable materials and considerably fewer parts than its predecessor. Lightweight and energy conscious, the 55EB9600 has received a CES 2014 Innovations Award for its eco-friendliness and superior build quality.
> 
> 
> Investing in the Future of OLED
> *To prepare for the imminent growth in demand for OLED TVs around the world, LG is establishing production bases in a number of countries outside of Korea. The company has already completed the construction of new TV plants in Brazil, Poland, China and Thailand with an advanced facility in Mexico commencing operation this year producing OLED TVs for the North American market. Through the creation of this large-scale global OLED TV production network,* LG is building an early lead in the next generation TV technology. With strategic bases serving local and surrounding markets, LG aims to reduce export costs and increase price competitiveness.


----------



## Jason626

Now we're talkin. Large OLED with 4 k. Manufacturing plants around the globe for LG.

Now only if it's a reality that it happens soon is next thing without huge price tags.


----------



## JoeG44




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24140597
> 
> 
> So help me, if they keep up this curved crap I'm liable to have a @#$%ing stroke...



Exactly --- the curve garbage has to go right straight into the trash can. The curve adds nothing but ugliness and there's no practical way to mount that puppy on the wall.


----------



## Esox50

Same here...not interested in a curved 77" OLED. A flat 77" OLED around $5,000 (which those $$ aint gonna happen anyway) is another story. I'm gonna say this curved 77" will be $12,499 to $14,999 MSRP to start.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24147261
> 
> 
> LG is showing 55", 65" and 77" 4K OLED's at CES. Some articles in Korean indicate that the 77" model will ship in the 1st half.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> To prepare for the imminent growth in demand for OLED TVs around the world, LG is establishing production bases in a number of countries outside of Korea. The company has already completed the construction of new TV plants in Brazil, Poland, China and Thailand with an advanced facility in Mexico commencing operation this year producing OLED TVs for the North American market. Through the creation of this large-scale global OLED TV production network, LG is building an early lead in the next generation TV technology
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.newswire.co.kr/newsRead.php?no=730752
Click to expand...




How can this be true? Readers of this thread might conclude OLED TVs are dead and buried already based on many posts I've seen.


----------



## Orbitron

No mention of non curved OLED in the article, oh well.


----------



## ALMA

Pictures:



__
https://flic.kr/p/11697710673
​


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24147524
> 
> 
> How can this be true?.


Let me help: It's an LG PR. While there might be nuggets of truth, let's just say they have a track record for exaggeration.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24147634
> 
> 
> No mention of non curved OLED in the article, oh well.


That's because they have no intention of selling many.


----------



## ALMA

The EA880 is not curved but there will also be many curved 4K LCDs...


The EC-Series is 4K , the EB-Series 1080p. I guess the 55" and 65" UHD OLEDs coming after the IFA at the end of the year.

According to some korean press, the 77" will be launched soon. The 55EB9 is the successor of the EM980.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24144863
> 
> 
> In my view their strong intention was to make panels since Tier 1 makes its own panels



Sony has not made TV panels at any time in this millennium (except for some _very_ small sizes.) You are kidding yourself if you thought this was ever changing.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24145017
> 
> 
> I realize their stock fluctuates, but this depletion seems to hold more weight than most (given the halt of production of these panels). Let's just say this has fallen from a high of nearly 200 two weeks ago to only 34 now.



As I said, do not wait if you want one!


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24144876
> 
> 
> This has been my thinking on Kateeva as well (regarding Sony/Panasonic).  But I'm still unsure of this position.  Just because Sony and Panasonic can't make it happen with LCD and Plasma, why does that mean that if they ended up with the right OLED tech & yields that they wouldn't _want_ to be panel makers again?  I don't see that connection.  I would think that a different technology brings with it different issues from start to finish.  Is it because they've recognized that after all is said and done, brute force construction is best left to bottom dollar Chinese anyway?



Sony has not made TV panels at any time this millennium. Panasonic invested billions, made TV panels, saw themselves lose billions. Tell me again why anyone believes these two companies intended to make TV panels?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mfogarty5*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24145761
> 
> 
> There are quite a few people who keep posting that Sony and Panasonic abandoned OLED development, but if I've been reading your posts correctly their joint venture was to figure out HOW to mass produce OLEDs using "ink jet" technology not actually produce them. It seems like many posters think they abandoned a joint venture to produce OLED panels which was never the case.



The joint venture was to develop technology to be used in manufacturing panels. That's all the joint venture ever was. People who think it was more than that are simply wrong.


> Quote:
> Anyway, my first thought when I read about the Sony and Panasonic announcement was that the cooperation was no longer needed because Kateeva figured it out for them which is similar to your quote above.



I have no intel that Kateeva in any way entered into their thinking. What I know is that Sony and Panasonic made no real progress developing technology that could be used to manufacture high-volume, cost-effective OLED TVs. So they abandoned the project. That doesn't mean Kateeva has failed to develop such tech.


> Quote:
> There was a quote a few pages ago about their being no "lobby" for OLED, but is that the case? Part, if not all of what is driving the current crop of OLED TVs seems to be showmanship between LG and Samsung which is not sustainable in the long run. In order to be sustainable, there has to be an economic lobby for OLED. I thought I read where 3M supplies the "ink" for OLED. If the Kateeva tech works, then 3M would have a large incentive to grow a new market for their product. What are your thoughts? Are there any other deep pocketed companies who would benefit from OLED becoming more mainstream?



3M is not an important lobby group for OLED. There just isn't one. Universal Display would like to see it succeed. The problem here is the idea that someone important can want to see this succeed and make it happen. If they are important, they don't need it to succeed, they are successful,. If they are not successful, they can't will some other technology into succeeding.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24145904
> 
> 
> To cool heads it is good to see the Digitimes report in extenso:
> 
> Microscopic market and production volume, weak 2014, low growth from small base. For OLED dreamers 2014 is sleep over year.



Yep.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7860#post_24146332
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the Panasonic insider @ HDJ recently claimed Panasonic's printing method was separate from Kateeva's solution.



Yes, the primary difference between Kateeva's solution seems to work; Panasonic's solution clearly did not work.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RandyWalters*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24147022
> 
> 
> About a month ago AVJ said (paraphrasing here) that production on all Plasma models had already ended, and whatever was left in the marketplace is the last of em.



So, again, do not wait to buy.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24147261
> 
> 
> LG is showing 55", 65" and 77" 4K OLED's at CES. Some articles in Korean indicate that the 77" model will ship in the 1st half.
> 
> http://www.newswire.co.kr/newsRead.php?no=730752



Korean news has about a 0% accuracy rate reported on Korean OLED progress. #justsayin


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Esox50*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24147475
> 
> 
> Same here...not interested in a curved 77" OLED. A flat 77" OLED around $5,000 (which those $$ aint gonna happen anyway) is another story. I'm gonna say this curved 77" will be $12,499 to $14,999 MSRP to start.



Sounds much closer to correct if/when it ships. When it's flat and $5000, count me in, though....


----------



## Matthias Hutter




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24147634
> 
> 
> No mention of non curved OLED in the article, oh well.


The GALLERY OLED mentioned (EA8800) is flat.


----------



## michaelmichael

In Poland where I live when LG presented 55inch curved 9800 they said it was made in Poland so I think it is true for Europe market. It costs much more in Poland than in UK.


I am afraid that oled tvs will not be popular because they are curved. When they realise this it is a question.


Personally I do not want 4K curved oled tv because there is nothing to watch in ULTRA HD resolution and it takes long time to appear.


When I watched last Chelsea - Liverpool there where advertisements of OLED Samsung televisions on the stadium as there used to be advertisements of Samsung LED tv. So I think they introduce oled tv seriously.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24148161
> 
> 
> Korean news has about a 0% accuracy rate reported on Korean OLED progress. #justsayin



Sure on the timing, particularly in 2012.


OTOH, I do think it indicates that LG is planning on bringing the model to market. First or second half of 2014 is pretty immaterial in the grand scheme of things.


The pricing on the 4k 55" and 65" televisions are the real question. Also, whether they plan on continuing to sell the current 2K version.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24148027
> 
> 
> Pictures:
> 
> 
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/11697710673
> ​




Is it that the same 77" OLED they showed off last time?


----------



## slacker711

According to CNET, the 55EB9600 is actually the 2K successor to the current model.

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-35303_1-57616443/lg-oled-tvs-come-to-ces-in-multiple-sizes-curvatures-and-resolutions/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title 


> Quote:
> 55EB9600: 55-inch, curved, 1080p resolution. The successor to the first-generation 55EA9800, this set is "is made with more recyclable materials and considerably fewer parts than its predecessor" according to LG. That may mean it costs less than $8,500, but we're not getting our hopes up.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.cnet.com/8301-35303_1-57616443/lg-oled-tvs-come-to-ces-in-multiple-sizes-curvatures-and-resolutions/#ixzz2pFwmVtF6 ]


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24148764
> 
> 
> Is it that the same 77" OLED they showed off last time?


The stand is different.


Wish I can be there and see it in person, should be an amazing display.


----------



## Orbitron

Looks to me like the flat 55" LG OLED would fit in the same space as a 50" Kuro. We go bigger in the switch out.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> Is it that the same 77" OLED they showed off last time?



No.


> Quote:
> The GALLERY OLED mentioned (EA8800) is flat.



And it´s available in Europe for a long time. It hangs on an ordinary wall mount in our local electronic market for 8999€.

According to the handbook, it seems there are two variants. The ZA version has integrated loudspeakers and also the flamingo stand in the box.

http://www.lg.com/ch_de/service-produkt/lg-55EA8809# 


Hoping for a massive price cut for the 55" 1080p OLED-TV´s to 5500€. Thats a typical price range for all real premium TV´s in Europe like Loewe, Toshiba 55ZL1, 50" Kuro, Sony 55X4500, Samsung 55A9, Samsung 55C9090, LG 55LEX8 etc.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> Investing in the Future of OLED
> 
> To prepare for the imminent growth in demand for OLED TVs around the world, LG is establishing production bases in a number of countries outside of Korea. *The company has already completed the construction of new TV plants in Brazil, Poland, China and Thailand with an advanced facility in Mexico commencing operation this year producing OLED TVs for the North American market. Through the creation of this large-scale global OLED TV production network, LG is building an early lead in the next generation TV technology. With strategic bases serving local and surrounding markets, LG aims to reduce export costs and increase price competitiveness*.


 http://www.newswire.co.kr/newsRead.php?no=730752


----------



## slacker711

Those are television assembly plants. The pilot OLED fab is in Korea and is the one that is manufacturing the panels. The commercial fab, also in Korea, is supposed to be begin ramping in the 2nd half though Christmas or even early 2015 is probably more likely (assuming it is happening).


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> Those are television assembly plants.



Of course, like most LCD products outside Korea. But it brings costs down than build all complete TVs in Korea and ship it to the worldwide markets with different standards.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24148488
> 
> 
> Sure on the timing, particularly in 2012.
> 
> 
> OTOH, I do think it indicates that LG is planning on bringing the model to market. First or second half of 2014 is pretty immaterial in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> 
> The pricing on the 4k 55" and 65" televisions are the real question. Also, whether they plan on continuing to sell the current 2K version.



Rogo: I agree with Slacker on this. The article describes a logical plan for progressing to worldwide assembly and distribution taking advantage of lower import tariffs on panels (as compared to complete TVs) that are assembled locally. Secondly, if South Korea has any kind of effective investment regulation, OLED is becoming important enough to LG's future business that PR BS will start to draw real attention. Finally the USA Today article on the story had comments from LG head of new product development for the USA saying they expected sales of 30,000 to 50,000 units in 2014. What was unclear was whether this was worldwide or North America only.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24150621
> 
> 
> Rogo: I agree with Slacker on this. The article describes a logical plan for progressing to worldwide assembly and distribution taking advantage of lower import tariffs on panels (as compared to complete TVs) that are assembled locally.



Yes, it does.


> Quote:
> Secondly, if South Korea has any kind of effective investment regulation, OLED is becoming important enough to LG's future business that PR BS will start to draw real attention.



But it isn't important enough. And LG's PR BS is a "standard business practice."


> Quote:
> Finally the USA Today article on the story had comments from LG head of new product development for the USA saying they expected sales of 30,000 to 50,000 units in 2014. What was unclear was whether this was worldwide or North America only.



Whether it's north America (which is ~ 1/5 - 1/6 of the total TV market) or global, it's still a tiny number. It's a huge number compared to the


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24148901
> 
> 
> The stand is different.
> 
> 
> Wish I can be there and see it in person, should be an amazing display.



So basically it is the same 77" 4K OLED panel from last year with a different stand. More vaporware from LG. Interested to see the flat ones though. Until were hear of a Chinese/Tawianese manufacturer making large format OLED panels for resale, these will remain ultra low volume displays that you can't even order in the US, like LG's current flat 55" "gallery" OLED.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7320#post_23866545
> 
> Then you get images like this one, and you're sold on OLED...


Yes I want one 100" flat so I can hang it on the wall


----------



## RobertR1

The 77inch 4k oled for 10k would be perfect. Make it so!


----------



## Esox50




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24153594
> 
> 
> The 77inch 4k oled for 10k would be perfect *if it were not curved*. Make it so!


Fixed it for you in bold above.


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24153594
> 
> 
> The 77inch 4k oled for 10k would be perfect. Make it so!


I'd love one, too, but wouldn't you be a bit nervous about investing so much money in such a nascent technology?


We've still to see how an OLED set holds up over any great length of time and amount of use. As it is, while I'd prefer a Samsung set, for things like motion handling, I wonder if an LG would be a better bet because I understand it's less likely to suffer blue pixel fade?


All that said, if OLED was to become anywhere near affordable in the coming months I'd be seriously tempted to buy one. I just wish we could see how these sets will look in five years' time.


Desk


----------



## JWhip

I am waiting for the sets to be in use for a year to actually think about buying one. That and some more serious price reductions.


----------



## Whatstreet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7890#post_24154098
> 
> 
> I'd love one, too, but wouldn't you be a bit nervous about investing so much money in such a nascent technology?
> 
> 
> We've still to see how an OLED set holds up over any great length of time and amount of use. As it is, while I'd prefer a Samsung set, for things like motion handling, I wonder if an LG would be a better bet because I understand it's less likely to suffer blue pixel fade?
> 
> 
> All that said, if OLED was to become anywhere near affordable in the coming months I'd be seriously tempted to buy one. I just wish we could see how these sets will look in five years' time.
> 
> 
> Desk



In five years you will see the effects of age on the OLED displays being manufactured today. Not the effects of ageing on the displays being manufactures then. I suspect there will be improvements by then. It's going to be an ongoing experience gap for awhile.


----------



## coolscan

From LG CES press release for the 77" UHD OLED TV with a lot of nice blah. blah. blah.............and then...........

..............
*Investing in the Future of OLED*

To prepare for the imminent growth in demand for OLED TVs around the world, LG is establishing production bases in a number of countries outside of Korea.


The company has already completed the construction of *new TV plants in Brazil, Poland, China and Thailand with an advanced facility in Mexico* commencing operation this year producing OLED TVs for the North American market.


Through the creation of this large-scale global OLED TV production network, LG is building an early lead in the next generation TV technology. With strategic bases serving local and surrounding markets, LG aims to reduce export costs and increase price competitiveness.


My guess is that is assembly plants, not OLED panel manufacturing plants...................?


----------



## rogo

As dsinger mentioned above, yes, it's assembly plants.


They haven't even been able to greenlght one production fab, they're obviously more than a decade away from building fabs around the world.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Despite the need for some significant editing, there's lots of good information in this Forbes article entitled "*Is OLED Dead? Here's Why The Answer Is No*"


Here is some info the author wrote based on info provided by Kateeva's CEO Alain Harrus:


> Quote:
> Kateeva in a few months will ship its first commercial demonstration plant to a large manufacturer in a few weeks with more going to other manufacturers by the end of the year. By 2015, expect to see 5- to 10-inch tablets made with Kateeva-made OLED screens by 2015, he added.
> 
> 
> By 2016, Kateeva will be selling equipment for making pilot lines that can process 8,000 sheets of month, which will rise to 25,000 sheets a month. Several systems can fit into a single factory. As an added bonus, manufacturers can leverage a lot of the machinery and capacity for producing LCD now to produce OLEDs.
> 
> 
> TVs he added will follow.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7900_100#post_24158128
> 
> 
> Despite the need for some significant editing, there's lots of good information in this Forbes article entitled "*Is OLED Dead? Here's Why The Answer Is No*"
> 
> 
> Here is some info the author wrote based on info provided by Kateeva's CEO Alain Harrus:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Kateeva in a few months will ship its first commercial demonstration plant to a large manufacturer in a few weeks with more going to other manufacturers by the end of the year. By 2015, expect to see 5- to 10-inch tablets made with Kateeva-made OLED screens by 2015, he added.
> 
> 
> By 2016, Kateeva will be selling equipment for making pilot lines that can process 8,000 sheets of month, which will rise to 25,000 sheets a month. Several systems can fit into a single factory. As an added bonus, manufacturers can leverage a lot of the machinery and capacity for producing LCD now to produce OLEDs.
> 
> 
> TVs he added will follow.
Click to expand...

 

Interesting.  However, I doubt the part of this article where he states that OLED sales (of the 55") haven't met expectations.  I don't believe *anyone* in any company would have expected the results to be anything other than noise.  How could they think otherwise?


----------



## *UFO*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920_40#post_24158401
> 
> 
> Interesting.  However, I doubt the part of this article where he states that OLED sales (of the 55") haven't met expectations.  I don't believe _anyone_ in any company would have expected the results to be anything other than noise.  How could they think otherwise?



Doesn't everyone have $10,000 to spend on a 55" tv?


----------



## Esox50

It's less a question of "could you spend 10K on a TV" and more whether "should/would you spend 10K on a TV". For me the answer is no. I decided about 7 years ago that I would never spend a ton on a preamp/processor or a TV (after getting burned by Theta for $5,000, in 1999 dollars, on their "upgradable" Casanova). The most I'll spend in 2014 dollars on each is about $5,000, though I'd prefer it to be more like $3-4,000. Tech moves so fast...you wind up having to upgrade every 3-4 years anyway. I think money is better spent on the "foundation" of one's home theater system such as Amps and Speakers.


----------



## tgm1024


 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by **UFO**  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7900_100#post_24159239
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920_40#post_24158401
> 
> 
> Interesting.  However, I doubt the part of this article where he states that OLED sales (of the 55") haven't met expectations.  I don't believe *anyone* in any company would have expected the results to be anything other than noise.  How could they think otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't everyone have $10,000 to spend on a 55" tv?
Click to expand...




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Esox50*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7900_100#post_24159530
> 
> 
> It's less a question of "could you spend 10K on a TV" and more whether "should/would you spend 10K on a TV". For me the answer is no. I decided about 7 years ago that I would never spend a ton on a preamp/processor or a TV (after getting burned by Theta for $5,000, in 1999 dollars, on their "upgradable" Casanova). The most I'll spend in 2014 dollars on each is about $5,000, though I'd prefer it to be more like $3-4,000. Tech moves so fast...you wind up having to upgrade every 3-4 years anyway. I think money is better spent on the "foundation" of one's home theater system such as Amps and Speakers.


 

I'm fairly certain that UFO was joking.


----------



## Esox50




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920#post_24159817
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain that UFO was joking.


Of course he was (hence the big smiley), but my post was more in relation to those that could afford to buy one...would it necessarily make sense? It's like Ian Malcolm saidin Jurassic Park "Just because you could, doesn't mean you should." To me, it doesn't make sense to buy a 10K TV in any circumstance, but I also understand its a personal opinion/matter and "everyone" may feel different.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Esox50*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7900_100#post_24160376
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920#post_24159817
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain that UFO was joking.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was (hence the big smiley), but my post was more in relation to those that could afford to buy one...would it necessarily make sense? It's like Ian Malcolm saidin Jurassic Park "Just because you could, doesn't mean you should." To me, it doesn't make sense to buy a 10K TV in any circumstance, but I also understand its a personal opinion/matter and "everyone" may feel different.
Click to expand...

 

Oh sure.  We've discussed this at length.  Even billionaires don't like to be had.  I previously related this to a time when I refused to buy a very expensive candy bar.  I could afford it.  But I just wasn't going to pay that much for a candy bar no matter how hungry I was.


----------



## *UFO*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920_40#post_24160468
> 
> 
> Oh sure.  We've discussed this at length.  Even billionaires don't like to be had.  I previously related this to a time when I refused to buy a very expensive candy bar.  I could afford it.  But I just wasn't going to pay that much for a candy bar no matter how hungry I was.



Generally speaking, millionaires and billionaires are more stingy with their spending habits than the poorer classes. Someone who is going to be buying a $10,000 55" television is most likely going to be the person that puts it on three or four credit cards. (ie. money they dont really have to spend)


----------



## Esox50




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by **UFO**  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920#post_24160912
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, millionaires and billionaires are more stingy with their spending habits than the poorer classes. Someone who is going to be buying a $10,000 55" television is most likely going to be the person that puts it on three or four credit cards. (ie. money they dont really have to spend)


Bingo.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Esox50*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7900_100#post_24161039
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by **UFO**  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920#post_24160912
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, millionaires and billionaires are more stingy with their spending habits than the poorer classes. Someone who is going to be buying a $10,000 55" television is most likely going to be the person that puts it on three or four credit cards. (ie. money they dont really have to spend)
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.
Click to expand...

 

Sorry, not going that far---way too big a leap.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by **UFO**  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920#post_24159239
> 
> 
> Doesn't everyone have $10,000 to spend on a 55" tv?


Ppl who have have better things to do than hanging on avs


----------



## *UFO*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920_40#post_24162970
> 
> 
> Ppl who have have better things to do than hanging on avs



What could possibly be better than hanging on avs


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by **UFO**  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920#post_24163957
> 
> 
> What could possibly be better than hanging on avs



Hell if I know.


----------



## rogo

So this is a pointless sideshow, but there are plenty of people who _can_ spend $10,000 on a television. It's often not a great idea and it will often come at the expense of something else, but it's not like there's a straight function that says your TV:net worth ratio needs to be no higher than X.


I'm pretty sure my total dollars on computers and tablets:net worth ratio exceeds the average person's by quite a bit, and it's surely unnecessary from a pure need perspective, but it's how I chose to spend some money. That said, once you are talking (a) a television (b) $10,000... other factors tend to come into play.


Most people don't want to change out their TV very often. Heck, I was even told by a leading TV retailer _not_ to buy a new TV to replace by year-ish old Panasonic. ("Why would you go through that hassle? Yours is still great!") Given that, when considering a replacement TV, we tend to think in multi-year timeframes.... "Is this the right choice for the next _several_ years?" "Will I have buyers remorse with a 2013 versus a 2014?" One of the reasons why people still talk about their Pioneer Kuros is they never experienced that kind of regret (still don't?).


Add in the fact that at $10,000, you are buying a TV that is price like no other television products and it gets more challenging. Let's stop talking about the TV market circa 2000 where TVs used to cost much more. No one does this with PCs. I paid $2500 (much more valuable inflation-adjust dollars) for my first Macintosh; the idea of spending that on a computer now is patently absurd. I just spent $600 on what will almost certainly be the last Windows machine I ever buy and honestly it will not be replaced as quickly as that Mac was. (Aside: I use both types of computers as well as Apple and Android tablets. I am OS and brand agnostic, though use lots of Apple products in the mix.)


When the Sharp Elite was briefly available, the larger model was something you could buy for $6000-7000, which at the time was about twice what a 65-inch plasma cost. Even that seemed a bit absurd. There was a serious question (for me and apparently the market, which bought virtually none of them, leading to a rapid discontinuation of the product) as to whether the product delivered _more than twice_ what competing products offered and, for that matter, would be satisfactory for years to come. In the end, the Sharp proved an excellent product that was flawed by a lot of traditional LCD problems (reflectivity, viewing angles), a few bugs (color accuracy), and what will ultimately prove to feel like obsolescence (it's not 4K). At the time it was on sale, however, it was a reasonable enough choice for many AVSers, who bought them and continue to use them.


Given that LCD technology was so proven by then, the odds favored the longevity of those sets as well. That said, their orphan nature means a failure down the road might lead to an inability to get it repaired.


Compare this to the OLED, which competes with products that typically run around $2,500 (sometimes a bit less, depending on which comp we are using). It's at least 3x more expensive, arguably 4x. By next year, perhaps the multiple will shrink to under 3x, but it seems like it won't be much cheaper.


You get a set that _clearly_ will outperform the comparable LCD in things like contrast. But you don't get any clear guarantee of longevity, especially since this is bleeding-edge technology being manufactured with techniques that neither manufacture has shown much willingness to commit to long term. There reluctance isn't coincidental, either. While the performance of 2015's OLED is unlikely to be much better, its inclusion of 4K technology seems all-but certain. Similarly, you can be certain it will be much less expensive and built on much more mature processes.


When I recommend people don't buy one of today's OLEDs, it doesn't much matter to me if they are exceptionally well off. It matters to me that they would spend a great deal of money buying first-generation technology that is unlikely to have the longevity of second-generation technology. There are countless examples here from early plasmas to Sony's SXRD and the like. It matters to me that they would integrate into their systems and their homes a TV that is unlikely to satisfy them for the long haul. I don't believe in disposable technology and think a quality television should be good for 5-10 years. I'm not persuaded the current OLEDs fit that bill and don't see why anyone should support them. And, yes, I understand the ramifications of _no one_ supporting them. But that's not my problem; people who seek my counsel are.


In short, nothing about 2014's models is likely to change the equation vs. 2013's. They may be slightly different in features. If they are at least flat, well, the dealbreaker of the curve would go away (and, yes, I see that as a huge dealbreaker) but not much more. I am very skeptical you will actually see other sizes go on sale this year (and would be delighted to be mistaken). I have a feeling that a long time ago, I was of the mindset that the time this technology would be "ripe" was 2016-17. I have repeatedly confessed to being very fooled by CES 2012 into believing something had accelerated the timetable. It clearly did not. I don't have time to return to the archives to fully remind myself of the evolution of my thinking but I doubt it meaningfully differs from the beliefs I currently hold:


* Wait until the second or third generation of this technology

* Don't buy a size smaller than what you really want, especially not to get bleeding-edge tech

* When a major shift is in the middle of happening (to 4K), don't buy 2K convincing yourself you'll never care about 4K

* Don't talk yourself into accepting something weird just to get bleeding edge tech (e.g. a separate media box -- yuck; a curved screen -- double yuck)

* Don't thoroughly overpay for any of this even if you can afford it. The feeling of getting ripped off seems to really harm people's enjoyment of technology beyond any rational limits.


----------



## slacker711

Take this with a very large grain of salt as I trust little that comes from a marketing manager. The price of the LG OLED has dropped to $7999 AUD ($7163) on their official site though.

http://www.gadgetguy.com.au/lg-cracks-oled-production-drops-prices-accordingly/ 


> Quote:
> “We see OLED technology as the future of television, and we believe consumers with plasma and LED/LCD TV’s will look at superior OLED technology as a real option for their next purchase,” said Lambro Skropidis, General Manager for Marketing at LG Australia.
> 
> 
> “The new price point will bring our most innovative TV technology to more Australians seeking greater picture quality combined with absolute style.”
> 
> 
> To make the reduced price point happen, LG has had to work out how to make the Organic Light Emitting Diode panels in higher quantities, which was one of the problems that caused OLED to take so long to reach retail over the past few years.
> 
> 
> “Very few companies have been able to master the manufacture of OLED TV technology, and we’re incredibly excited that not only have we been able to innovate and lead in this new segment, *but we’ve worked out how to produce at high volumes,” said Skropidis, adding that he feels “like we’ve ‘cracked the code’ on OLED TV production efficiency.”*


----------



## Wizziwig

Cnet claims the LG 77" UHD Curved OLED is coming in June for an unknown price:

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/lg-77ec9800/4505-6482_7-35833699.html


----------



## vinnie97

Sorry, Rogo, but I'm salivating right now (not that I wouldn't have to take out a small loan to afford one of these curved monstrosities) and the infinite contrast ratio they promise. I remember being highly skeptical about LG's PR announcements last year (after they kept missing release windows), but then they surprised me with the actual unveiling of this curved nonsense. I'll forgive them that slight if they can find a way to bring a flat screen in 2015?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920#post_24166818
> 
> 
> Sorry, Rogo, but I'm salivating right now (not that I wouldn't have to take out a small loan to afford one of these curved monstrosities) and the infinite contrast ratio they promise. I remember being highly skeptical about LG's PR announcements last year (after they kept missing release windows), but then they surprised me with the actual unveiling of this curved nonsense. I'll forgive them that slight if they can find a way to bring a flat screen in 2015?



You owe me no apology.


I am providing my general sense of things; it is meant to convince no one who wishes to go in a different direction.


That you need to take out a loan, however, speaks volumes... In a few years, the price ought to be quite mainstream.


----------



## Rich Peterson

At LG's CES press conference they announced:


1. Their 77" curved 4K OLED is planned for June as previously suggested.


2. They will have a 55" and 65" 4K OLEDs this year (no date mentioned)


3. They will release the gallery flat screen in the US this spring.


No prices mentioned.


----------



## bonzichrille

Is it just me or is the latest design of the 77 inch OLED kind of ugly? I am kind of disappointed. Looks like the bastard was assembled at Vizio headquarters. FFS.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920#post_24167191
> 
> 
> You owe me no apology.
> 
> 
> I am providing my general sense of things; it is meant to convince no one who wishes to go in a different direction.
> 
> 
> That you need to take out a loan, however, speaks volumes... In a few years, the price ought to be quite mainstream.


Well, at $30k (the price I've seen quoted), you bet your bippy that would take a loan, lol


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7900_100#post_24168148
> 
> 
> Well, at $30k (the price I've seen quoted), you bet your bippy that would take a loan, lol


 

To put this into perspective, if you got that loan for 5 years at 0% (and the TV *managed* to last 5 years without terrible problems like blue fade), you'll have effectively rented the friggen thing for $500 a month.

 

I'll pass.  Artwood aside, LCD will be "good enough" for now.


----------



## vinnie97

I think my ZT60 is good enough as well.







77" sounds crazy....but I used to say the same about 65".


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920#post_24164932
> 
> 
> 
> When the Sharp Elite was briefly available, the larger model was something you could buy for $6000-7000, which at the time was about twice what a 65-inch plasma cost. Even that seemed a bit absurd. There was a serious question (for me and apparently the market, which bought virtually none of them, leading to a rapid discontinuation of the product) as to whether the product delivered _more than twice_ what competing products offered and, for that matter, would be satisfactory for years to come. In the end, the Sharp proved an excellent product that was flawed by a lot of traditional LCD problems (reflectivity, viewing angles), a few bugs (color accuracy), and what will ultimately prove to feel like obsolescence (it's not 4K). At the time it was on sale, however, it was a reasonable enough choice for many AVSers, who bought them and continue to use them.



I was was one of the original people to preorder the 70" Elite and receive it. Sure I paid almost full price and I was taking a risk but it sure paid off couldn't be happier today and I still think it's the best display out not only in its category but for its size. I say if people want to take a risk and be an early adapter of this new technology and can afford it, more power to them.


----------



## Rich Peterson

At Panasonic's CES press conference they made no mention at all of OLED TVs. But they did say they will deliver Plasma picture quality on LCDs. They say their engineers have worked long and hard on that and conquered it.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7900_100#post_24168814
> 
> 
> At Panasonic's CES press conference they made no mention at all of OLED TVs. But they did say they will deliver Plasma picture quality on LCDs. They say their engineers have worked long and hard on that and conquered it.


 

For sale, by Panasonic:


----------



## Chris5028

Maybe Panasonic intends to sell plasma TV's with an LED sticker on the bezel?


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920#post_24168424
> 
> 
> I think my ZT60 is good enough as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 77" sounds crazy....but I used to say the same about 65".



For some reason it doesn't look that big


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7900_100#post_24169893
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920#post_24168424
> 
> 
> I think my ZT60 is good enough as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 77" sounds crazy....but I used to say the same about 65".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason it doesn't look that big
Click to expand...

 

I think that it's perhaps a wide-angle lens used to film the guy.  So he's larger than he should be because he's closer to the camera.  Look at how very much his hand shrinks when he moves it closer to the TV.  His right hand (closest to the camera) is gargantuan by comparison.


----------



## Rich Peterson

At Samsung's CES press conference they pushed UHD and had no mention of OLED.


So nothing mentioned in the OLED TV arena from Sharp, Panasonic, or Samsung. Sony is coming up.


Oh, and Michael Bay walked off stage suddenly after they apparently had Teleprompter issues and without saying much of anything. It didn't look good.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24170360
> 
> 
> At Samsung's CES press conference they pushed UHD and had no mention of OLED.



And Michael Bay entered stage and started to talk about Transformers and the Samsung bendable display.............but his teleprompter text was all garbled so he promptly walked off stage again.


Hope he was handsomely paid beforehand, must have been the easiest pay in his career.


----------



## Orbitron

Bay could not answer a simple question on the curved screen from the director's perspective - wow.


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24170012
> 
> 
> I think that it's perhaps a wide-angle lens used to film the guy.  So he's larger than he should be because he's closer to the camera.  Look at how very much his hand shrinks when he moves it closer to the TV.  His right hand (closest to the camera) is gargantuan by comparison.



Ah, yes, that could be it. Just thought they mistakenly looked at the 65" version


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24170360
> 
> 
> At Samsung's CES press conference they pushed UHD and had no mention of OLED.


Wasn't there any mention of OLED at all? We've had a number of surprise product unveilings midway through a show before, but you'd think if they really *were* poised to compete with LG in this technology in 2014 they'd be more vocal about it.


I'm hoping Samsung is still set to reveal plans for flawless, giant 4K OLED sets at bargain prices in 2014 , but a lack of any reference at all during today's presentation would seem very troubling.


Desk


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7900_100#post_24170426
> 
> 
> Bay could not answer a simple question on the curved screen from the director's perspective - wow.


 

*"CES 2014 live: Michael Bay stumbles, stalks out of Samsung event"*

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-ces-2014-live-las-vegas-tv-cars-gadgets-20140106-dto,0,4634979.story#ixzz2pfNAGCKd

 

Oh jeez.  The poor guy.  This was a train wreck!


----------



## CheYC

Hahah, oh man that was painful.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24170585
> 
> 
> Wasn't there any mention of OLED at all?



I don't think Samsung mentioned OLED at all. They did show several TVs including one a flexible one that earlier reports had predicted would be OLED.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/samsung-and-lg-tipped-to-unveil-flexible-oled-tvs-at-ces-2014 


so maybe it is, but I don't think they mentioned anything about OLED.




Engadget's first look at LG's 77" curved OLED. Not much there but they call it "gorgeous".

http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/06/lg-77-inch-curved-oled-tv/


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7900_100#post_24170939
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24170585
> 
> 
> Wasn't there any mention of OLED at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Samsung mentioned OLED at all. They did show several TVs including one a flexible one that earlier reports had predicted would be OLED.
> 
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/samsung-and-lg-tipped-to-unveil-flexible-oled-tvs-at-ces-2014
> 
> 
> so maybe it is, but I don't think they mentioned anything about OLED.
Click to expand...

 

It's got to be.  I think anyway.

 

But maybe not: Here's Samsung's 85" motorized and bendable thing, including a video of it in motion.  Heck, at least it seems to go flat.

 

http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/06/samsung-85-inch-bending-tv/

 

I'm sorry, but this industry is just getting more and more ludicrous.


----------



## remush

So the samsung is a flexible led display, but apparently a prototype as per https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDrpW8Qk6gs&feature=youtube_gdata_player 



And the LG is an actual oled http://www.engadget.com/video/5min/518075158/


----------



## bonzichrille

Techradar says the prize of the 77-inch LG OLED is going to be 30K:


http://www.techradar.com/news/television/lg-launches-world-s-largest-curved-4k-oled-tv-1212352


----------



## vinnie97

Prize, very apt typo.


----------



## rogo

It's very, very clear Samsung intends to do nothing of any import (at all?) to advance OLED in 2014.


LG, for its part, intends to do a _something_ to advance OLED in 2014, though it's not clear how much.


----------



## Pioneer Insider


Actually I had the pleasure to speak with Joe Stinsiano, Samsung's EVP after his press conference and he said Samsung was not ready to show the 2014 plasma or OLED line at CES, but they are in the final stages of development and by q2 or no later than q3 they will launch a mid year plasma and OLED product lines.

 

LG is very bullish on OLED and is putting a lot of resources in OLED with 4 new 2014 models that are scheduled to ship q2 '14.

 

None of these companies what to show products that are not final or capable to be mass produced.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pioneer Insider*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24172175
> 
> 
> Actually I had the pleasure to speak with Joe Stinsiano, Samsung's EVP after his press conference



Thanks for the report. Did you discuss Samsung use of OLEDS in tablets and phones?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pioneer Insider*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24172175
> 
> 
> Actually I had the pleasure to speak with Joe Stinsiano, Samsung's EVP after his press conference and he said Samsung was not ready to show the 2014 plasma or OLED line at CES, but they are in the final stages of development and by q2 or no later than q3 they will launch a mid year plasma and OLED product lines.



OK.


> Quote:
> LG is very bullish on OLED and is putting a lot of resources in OLED with 4 new 2014 models that are scheduled to ship q2 '14.



The proof of the pudding is in the eating.


> Quote:
> None of these companies what to show products that are not final or capable to be mass produced.



And yet they do that at CES every year, so I'm not remotely sure what this supposed to mean.


----------



## JWhip

Given that Samsung showed OLED at last years CES and didn't put them out until late in 2013, the fact that they didn't even mention OLED at this years CES speaks volumes to me.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7900_100#post_24172819
> 
> 
> Given that Samsung showed OLED at last years CES and didn't put them out until late in 2013, the fact that they didn't even mention OLED at this years CES speaks volumes to me.


 

That might be an unwarranted extrapolation.  Different models bring with them different problems to solve.  And these problems are not all created equal.  I've been part of many engineering designs, and several where just one unforeseen obstacle derailed every demonstration by 6 months or more.


----------



## Rich Peterson

In case anyone is keeping score, Sony didn't mention OLED in their press conference either, but they only spent a tiny amount of time on their TV business, briefly introducing their upcoming 4K line.


It will be interesting to see if they demo their full LED TV again this year.


So of the major Japanese and Korean TV producers, only LG seems to be pushing OLED in 2014. I'm not sure about the Chinese companies.


----------



## Esox50

My thought is that the "theme" of CES was to be 4K, so the focus was on the cheapest and highest volume product that can deliver it...LCD. Why promote OLED, when you can sell 4K LCDs over the next few years...and then sell those same people OLEDs with 4K in 3-4 years time. But, some say I am cynical...


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Esox50*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24173053
> 
> 
> My thought is that the "theme" of CES was to be 4K, so the focus was on the cheapest and highest volume product that can deliver it...LCD. Why promote OLED, when you can sell 4K LCDs over the next few years...and then sell those same people OLEDs with 4K in 3-4 years time. But, some say I am cynical...



I would be that diabolical but I think the reality is if you put off a tech thinking you'll resell the same customers, you'll find a competitor eating your lunch by bringing it out earlier.


From what I've read, LG is pretty bad about showing vaporware at CES. Add that to LG not really being a high end company, I wouldn't necessarily want one if they were to release them.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7900_100#post_24173146
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Esox50*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24173053
> 
> 
> My thought is that the "theme" of CES was to be 4K, so the focus was on the cheapest and highest volume product that can deliver it...LCD. Why promote OLED, when you can sell 4K LCDs over the next few years...and then sell those same people OLEDs with 4K in 3-4 years time. But, some say I am cynical...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be that diabolical but I think the reality is if you put off a tech thinking you'll resell the same customers, you'll find a competitor eating your lunch by bringing it out earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> From what I've read, LG is pretty bad about showing vaporware at CES. Add that to LG not really being a high end company, I wouldn't necessarily want one if they were to release them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By vaporware, you mean prototypes that have no hope of deliverability?  All manufacturers do that.
Click to expand...


----------



## Esox50




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24173146
> 
> 
> I would be that diabolical but I think the reality is if you put off a tech thinking you'll resell the same customers, you'll find a competitor eating your lunch by bringing it out earlier.
> 
> 
> From what I've read, LG is pretty bad about showing vaporware at CES. Add that to LG not really being a high end company, I wouldn't necessarily want one if they were to release them.


To be clear...I didn't say "put off", I said "promote". I am sure both companies will release OLEDs in 2014, albeit in small volumes and to very few customers. It's possible to steer customers to one product, but still have both "on the shelves".


----------



## coolscan

TCL showing a 55" curved OLED screen at CES; http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/07/tcl-curved-4k-oled-tvs/


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24173313
> 
> 
> TCL showing a 55" curved OLED screen at CES; http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/07/tcl-curved-4k-oled-tvs/



The way I read the article, it's flat, not curved.


----------



## Chris5028

Goodness people will probably buy it thinking they are getting a good deal too.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24173146
> 
> 
> I would be that diabolical but I think the reality is if you put off a tech thinking you'll resell the same customers, you'll find a competitor eating your lunch by bringing it out earlier.
> 
> 
> From what I've read, LG is pretty bad about showing vaporware at CES. Add that to LG not really being a high end company, I wouldn't necessarily want one if they were to release them.


Is Samsung really that much more of one (and just because their plasmas suffer less from ABL doesn't make it so







)?


Concerning vaporware, LG misses lots of target dates in comparison to their PRs, but they did finally get around to releasing their flat 55" OLED last year even if it was in limited markets. I think a marketing decision obviously came into play between last year's CES showing and the arrival of the curves over the summer in the US. I hope they stay on track to right that wrong this year with the flat 55".


----------



## irkuck

The company to watch is Vizio. Their full lineup of LCDs with dense local dimming, sizes up to 120 inch and high diynamic range technology may challenge OLED on PQ.


----------



## ALMA

The Vizio will be crap against OLED. Poor picture electronics, banding, blooming, halos, poor viewing angle, DSE. Even 384 dimming zones is less than the 512 from Toshiba ZL1 and that was only a 55". That's ordinary LCD tech and not a miracle and the 120" will not be cheap. You forget what the 110" by Westinghouse costs?

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/09/westinghouse-110-inch-4k-hdtv/ 


And all big manufactures now called their old dimming tricks with LD-LED or LD-EDGE-LED "High Dynamic Range XYZ Feature". Even the "new" wide color gammut features aren't new. WCG-CCFL, RGB-LED, xvColor exists since years.


There is only one real innovation in display Technology after Pioneer Kuro and the Sharp XS1 and that's OLED. I was a big LD-LED-LCD supporter but c'mon OLED is so much better than this.


Back to OLED. There are OLED-TV's from Samsung at the CES:

http://samsungces2014.com/close-bendable-oled-tv/


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24175237
> 
> 
> Back to OLED. There are OLED-TV's from Samsung at the CES:
> 
> http://samsungces2014.com/close-bendable-oled-tv/



Wow, that's a Samsung-sponsored website so presumably it is accurate. That means the flexible TV displayed at the press conference was OLED. Nice!


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24175506
> 
> 
> Wow, that's a Samsung-sponsored website so presumably it is accurate. That means the flexible TV displayed at the press conference was OLED. Nice!



and you can also clearly see the Oled sign above the tv exhibit in the pictures, surprising that pretty much everyone that reported on the display mentioned it was led tech, they also said it was a prototype.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24175577
> 
> 
> and you can also clearly see the Oled sign above the tv exhibit in the pictures, surprising that pretty much everyone that reported on the display mentioned it was led tech, they also said it was a prototype.



Check out this AVS report and notice the pictures. No indication of OLED.


The picture that shows the OLED label you are referring to is probably from Samsung's exhibit on the CES show floor which just opened today. Previous reports were based on either the pre-show event at the Hyde nightclub in the Bellagio hotel or at the Samsung press conference where the sets were labeled differently.


----------



## ynotgoal

Would it be possible for anyone who is at CES to take a picture off the LG 4K OLED sets that captures the sub pixel layout?


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24176292
> 
> 
> Check out this AVS report and notice the pictures. No indication of OLED.
> 
> 
> The picture that shows the OLED label you are referring to is probably from Samsung's exhibit on the CES show floor which just opened today. Previous reports were based on either the pre-show event at the Hyde nightclub in the Bellagio hotel or at the Samsung press conference where the sets were labeled differently.



Interesting that there is not much info on those flexible Oled 's, I cant find anything actually, though they would be a bigger deal for them.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24176542
> 
> 
> Would it be possible for anyone who is at CES to take a picture off the LG 4K OLED sets that captures the sub pixel layout?



It might be, but LG has some pretty strict rules about photo taking in their booth, so probably not. You cannot get near the 4K OLEDs so you'd have to rely on a bit of distraction/subterfuge and have a very good camera.


----------



## rogo

The only company with product announcements in OLED TV is LG. And even those are half-baked announcements without explicit delivery dates and prices attached.


That said, 4K OLED is promised in 55", 65" and 77" -- all curved.


The set that flexes on command is not a product, but a prototype.


LG showed demo material that left a lot of questions unanswered to me, but the ID seemed close to (actually?) done.


----------



## Orbitron

Mark, to your naked eye, best guess on LG OLED color temp.?


My idea to replace a 50" Kuro with the flat 55" is not practical. It comes within a large picture frame, a design that requires stand alone wall mounting.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24176803
> 
> 
> Mark, to your naked eye, best guess on LG OLED color temp.?



Warm. But I don't want to make too much of demo units especially given the success I believe calibrators have had with the shipping sets.


I will set that the on-floor models lacked true red, which disappointed me greatly.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24172819
> 
> 
> Given that Samsung showed OLED at last years CES and didn't put them out until late in 2013, the fact that they didn't even mention OLED at this years CES speaks volumes to me.



They also didn't mention plasma. What does that tell you?


2014 looks like the year of 4K LCD. There must have been close to 100 announced 4K LCD products at CES (monitors, laptops, TVs, etc). Ranging the price gamut from $800+. It looks like 4K will soon become a standard feature with only low-budget sets relegated to 1080p.


All the OLED sets will need to include 4K or they might as well not bother showing up. Whether 4K makes any actual difference to picture quality is up for debate.


Regarding the flexible Samsung prototype. Looks like LG also has one:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/06/lg-77-inch-curved-oled-tv/


----------



## JWhip

I just hope my 141 lasts a few more years until OLED is a more mature tech, if it ever reaches that point. I have no interest in 4k anything until all the specs are set and it doesn't look like that will be anytime soon.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Panasonic is showing curved 55" flexible 4K OLED prototypes in their CES booth.

Panasonic's 4K OLED TV curves both ways


----------



## JWhip

Wow, the industry must not be selling many TVs for everyone to jump on the curved bandwagon. Too bad. I have NO interest in one and never will.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24176783
> 
> 
> The only company with product announcements in OLED TV is LG. And even those are half-baked announcements without explicit delivery dates and prices attached.
> 
> 
> That said, 4K OLED is promised in 55", 65" and 77" -- all curved.
> 
> 
> The set that flexes on command is not a product, but a prototype.
> 
> 
> LG showed demo material that left a lot of questions unanswered to me, but the ID seemed close to (actually?) done.



Hey buddy I got a question for you, if the 77" or larger OLED becomes available down the road but it's only available in the curved format would you still consider getting one?


PS: Still have very serious doubts about the current format under 100" but it diffidently seems it's going that route what are your thoughts on this topic?


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24178510
> 
> 
> Wow, the industry must not be selling many TVs for everyone to jump on the curved bandwagon. Too bad. I have NO interest in one and never will.



My Take:

Curved is for shows.

When they can finally produce them for sale, there will be flat OLEDs because people want to wall mount them and the customer provides the $$










- Rich


----------



## JimP

Isn't "curved" the new "thin" ????



What comes after curved?


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24179097
> 
> 
> My Take:
> 
> Curved is for shows.
> 
> When they can finally produce them for sale, there will be flat OLEDs because people want to wall mount them and the customer provides the $$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich



I hope you're correct, I fail to understand the obsession right now with curved home TV displays. For a wrist watch I suppose a display might work or on clothing like I mentioned before, and I'm sure there might be other applications such as lamps or lighting panels for show or design purposes but for a television in your front room? I meen unless this thing is a huge panoramic size like in the IMAX theater or something that fills up your entire wall for example I just don't see the benefit for it, in fact the opposite for off-access viewing it would be more difficult. I suppose if the screen bend's on command to become flat against your wall when you have no need for off axis viewing that could work but would it be worth the extra $$$?


PS: I was in Best Buy the other day in Magnolia video and was talking with a sales guy about the new 55" curved OLED and he was telling me how the curved screen matches the pupil of your eyes's format allowing a much better immersive viewing experience. Makes me wonder how many other people are actually buying this explanation because I really didn't see what he was talking about myself.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24179236
> 
> 
> Isn't "curved" the new "thin" ????
> 
> 
> 
> What comes after curved?



8K glasses free 4D, of course










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24179239
> 
> 
> PS: I was in Best Buy the other day in Magnolia video and was talking with a sales guy about the new 55" curved OLED and he was telling me how the curved screen matches the pupil of your eyes's format allowing a much better immersive viewing experience. Makes me wonder how many other people are actually buying this explanation because I really didn't see what he was talking about myself.



TV's that watch you should be convex










- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7900_100#post_24179236
> 
> 
> Isn't "curved" the new "thin" ????
> 
> 
> 
> What comes after curved?


 

Seriously, at this point, I'm afraid to ask.  8 Track Tapes seem possible now...


----------



## Rich Peterson

Watch the LG 77-inch flexible 4K OLED TV bend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsBjFgtw-K4


----------



## andy sullivan

It seems like curved displays are universally disliked here and many say they would never buy one. I understand the marketing concept of offering something new and different but somebody somewhere must have felt there is an advantage to a curved display. Is there any true advantage with a curved display?


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24179592
> 
> 
> It seems like curved displays are universally disliked here and many say they would never buy one. I understand the marketing concept of offering something new and different but somebody somewhere must have felt there is an advantage to a curved display. Is there any true advantage with a curved display?


It would be easier to create a 180 or 360 degree TV? If TV was shot with different lenses or more cameras wouldn't they be able to make realistic surround video if the displays were also 180 to 360 degrees?


----------



## Rich Peterson

From Displaysearch: OLED and Plasma Commitments at CES for LGE, Samsung Focuses on UHD and Curved 


> Quote:
> Why is LG pushing so hard on OLED now, when hyper-competitive 4K LCD pricing had caused a re-evaluation of the time frame for rollout of large-scale OLED TV manufacturing? It could be that LG has concluded that Samsung is more challenged on OLED investment, and sees an opportunity to differentiate. It could also be that LG is further along in its large-scale OLED manufacturing investment, already well underway with its 8G OLED factory. Indeed, a significant breakthrough in higher yields for even 4K models might have LG confident about competitive pricing, as some industry talk at the show suggested. Either way, it is interesting that there were no OLED TV announcements from Samsung today at its press conference.


----------



## JWhip




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24179592
> 
> 
> It seems like curved displays are universally disliked here and many say they would never buy one. I understand the marketing concept of offering something new and different but somebody somewhere must have felt there is an advantage to a curved display. Is there any true advantage with a curved display?



The short answer is no. Curved has is place in the projector world and has no place in the world of emissive displays. As for the curved 77incher, I would buy it if it was a grand. If I want distortion, I can get a RPTV real cheap.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24179763
> 
> 
> The short answer is no. Curved has is place in the projector world and has no place in the world of emissive displays. As for the curved 77incher, I would buy it if it was a grand. If I want distortion, I can get a RPTV real cheap.


Why for a projector but not an OLED type screen? If future TV was shot for these displays (eg. with the right lenses) shouldn't there not be any more distortion than current flatscreens - with a big enough display? Wouldn't 180-360 degree displays be the best way have picture in the eye's peripheral view (ie. with a big flat screen TV, like a 7680x4320 one, if pixels where in the peripheral view the pixels on the far left/right of the screen would be further away from you but be the same pixel size - wouldn't a curved display make better use of the pixels - so the pixels were always the about same relative size compared to the distance from your eyes?) as well as all around - ie. couldn't it be more realistic than a flat screen TV that never fills your peripheral vision? If surround sound is good, why not surround video? Though it would still be a flat screen even though it would be curved - ie. it wouldn't be like a hologram TV like they will probably have in the future instead.


----------



## JWhip

Projector screens of very large sizes have been curved because of the limitations involved with projectors. These limitations donor exist with a flat screen display. Geez why make video production even more complicated there are good resources on this issue


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24179763
> 
> 
> The short answer is no. Curved has is place in the projector world and has no place in the world of emissive displays. As for the curved 77incher, I would buy it if it was a grand. If I want distortion, I can get a RPTV real cheap.[/quote
> 
> So then are we to believe that the only reason curved is being developed is Market driven? Did LG and Samsung both come to this first time ever decision to bestow curved technology on the consumer at the same time? I have never heard of a gigantic decision like this being made without extensive market research. Not in the auto industry and especially in the electronics industry. And if they did do this research did they miss the boat by a country mile or are we here just out of touch with the masses?


----------



## JWhip

I think they simply desparate to sell more tvs and are looking for a way to differentiate their products. Sort of like oh yes, you have a flat screen but this is curved and you don't have that and you need one, you really do, curved is the new flat. Then they make up BS about your retina and a 55 inch curved screen filling your peripheral vision. The industry needs for sales and at higher prices. 3D failed in this same effort and curved screens will as well.


----------



## 9179mhb

3D, UHD, curved TVs? How about a nice 65" - 80" flat panel OLED for a price I can reasonably afford? Is this too much to ask?


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *9179mhb*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24180400
> 
> 
> 3D, UHD, curved TVs? How about a nice 65" - 80" flat panel OLED for a price I can reasonably afford? Is this too much to ask?



Yes in 2014. Ask again next year.










For me, an 80" OLED would be perfect.


- Rich


----------



## 9179mhb

I wonder how much longer my trusty old 05' Panasonic and 07' Pioneer PDP will last? Unless absolutely forced, I never plan on buying an LCD or LED TV.


----------



## Elvis Is Alive




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7920#post_24168814
> 
> 
> At Panasonic's CES press conference they made no mention at all of OLED TVs. But they did say they will deliver Plasma picture quality on LCDs. They say their engineers have worked long and hard on that and conquered it.



That is right up there with Toshiba's announcement of their "Super Upconverting" DVD player after HD-DVD's death. SUC technology was better than Blu-ray according to them.


----------



## andy sullivan

Location: board room of major TV manufacture: Present: all marketing VP's and several top engineers: Topic: release of OLED: VP#1: WE have to release this sucker in 2013. We can't keep putting it off even though it's still not perfect. VP#2: Man I hope we can sell them bnaby's at the prices we're going to have to sell em for. Even if we take a loss they will still be expensive. VP#3: The picture is fantastic and with Panasonic dropping plasma our picture will look even better. I'm not sure if outstanding PQ will be enough in today's market though. VP#1: So what can we do? We've got millions wrapped up in OLED but I agree, most people are quite content with mediocre LCD right now. Engineer#1; Well, we could probably curve the thing a little bit. VP#2: what's that going to do? Engineer#1: It's not going to do a damn thing but the customer won't know that, not if we spin it right. VP#1: You really think the public will buy that BS? Why not, they bought the" ha ha" new LED technology didn't they? Half the people still think LED TV's are some cool new technology. VP#1: Sounds good to me, curved it is.


----------



## Chris5028

You have a Bug in Samsung's board room?


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24181469
> 
> 
> Location: board room of major TV manufacture: Present: all marketing VP's and several top engineers: Topic: release of OLED: VP#1: WE have to release this sucker in 2013. We can't keep putting it off even though it's still not perfect. VP#2: Man I hope we can sell them bnaby's at the prices we're going to have to sell em for. Even if we take a loss they will still be expensive. VP#3: The picture is fantastic and with Panasonic dropping plasma our picture will look even better. I'm not sure if outstanding PQ will be enough in today's market though. VP#1: So what can we do? We've got millions wrapped up in OLED but I agree, most people are quite content with mediocre LCD right now. Engineer#1; Well, we could probably curve the thing a little bit. VP#2: what's that going to do? Engineer#1: It's not going to do a damn thing but the customer won't know that, not if we spin it right. VP#1: You really think the public will buy that BS? Why not, they bought the" ha ha" new LED technology didn't they? Half the people still think LED TV's are some cool new technology. VP#1: Sounds good to me, curved it is.



I don't doubt it at all.


They convinced the buying public that edge lit is better than full back panel.


----------



## DreamWarrior




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24182125
> 
> 
> I don't doubt it at all.
> 
> 
> They convinced the buying public that edge lit is better than full back panel.


I think the buying public did that to themselves, honestly. That was part of the "thinner is better" marketing fad. And, just look, Sony brings back full array, and already a few people are bitching about how thick it is and whether it'll look funny mounted on their walls. So...form over function, and too many people are willing to give up the latter for the former. Everyone immediately sees "oh, it's so thin and pretty" and only the videophiles really give half a damn about what the set looks like when scrutinized.


----------



## Chris5028

Well dang it why cant I have both awesome picture and a thin TV? Oh wait I do... My St50 is one of the thinnest TVs I have seen. Its like a sheet of paper compared to most LCD TVs.


----------



## Orbitron

Panasonic did show a flat 55" 4K OLED at IFA - oh well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5k8riW_e9fo


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> When they can finally produce them for sale, there will be flat OLEDs because *people want to wall mount* them and the customer provides the $$



Not all people and you can wall mount a curved TV. Samsung brings an adapter for their curved TV´s for wall mounting and I guess LG doing the same.

But when TVs getting bigger and bigger, a wall mounting in many viewing conditions makes no sense because the TV hangs to high with the top near the blanket. You can´t hang the bottom of a bigger TV in the same high position like a smaller one before to reach the same ideal viewing conditions. It´s better for your neck to looking with they eyes more downwards than upwards. That´s the reason why all manufactures now creates extravagant stand designs for their bigger TV´s.


Look at this viewing angle comparison:

http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/lg-55ea980w-p16197/test.html#full-review 


The flatter TV has much badder distorsions from the side (look at Daniel Craig in the right picture) because it´s flat and missing the depth like in real life. For 3D the curved design makes much more sense than a flat TV. It works against the papier-mâché effect.


Impressions from the LG OLED-TVs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X15Ys8w9MeU&feature=youtu.be 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r78Zp78vzWE&feature=youtu.be


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24179074
> 
> 
> Hey buddy I got a question for you, if the 77" or larger OLED becomes available down the road but it's only available in the curved format would you still consider getting one?



I doubt it, unless it was the model that could go flat (which is currently a prototype and not a product). Then I could leave it flat 99.999% of the time and show my friends the curving as "this jackass feature LG added". (The Samsung design is clunky by comparison, at least LG's curving mechanism is cool).


I don't believe that OLED is destined for curved only; I believe ultimately my design will win the hearts and minds of the industry (because it will sell more TVs).


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7980#post_24178362
> 
> 
> Panasonic is showing curved 55" flexible 4K OLED prototypes in their CES booth.
> 
> Panasonic's 4K OLED TV curves both ways



For me the most impressive part of this display is the uniformity. Even with different view angles, the colors match up very well across the different panels. Good sign for their printing tech.


----------



## Desk.

I've not had a chance to read through it thoroughly, but this article about the propsect of a new, cheaper approach to OLED technology seems worth a read...

http://www.thealmagest.com/novel-leds-pave-way-cheaper-displays/9422 


Desk


----------



## Wizziwig

"Consumers can expect to see new Panasonic OLED and LED LCD displays in stores in 2014..."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/06/panasonic-taking-ultra-hd-corporate/4343185/


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24184387
> 
> 
> "Consumers can expect to see new Panasonic OLED and LED LCD displays in stores in 2014..."
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/06/panasonic-taking-ultra-hd-corporate/4343185/



Quote:


> Quote:
> "Consumers can expect to see new Panasonic OLED and LED LCD displays in stores in 2014, even though the emphasis during the CES press event was on corporate products. New 4K consumer displays will let you customize your TV with Xbox-like functions that recognize who is watching and load appropriate content. The new Info Bar also displays weather and other timely and "relevant information when you walk by," says Julie Bauer, president of Panasonic Consumer Electronic Co. "We want to redefine ... 21st century TV."



Sounds good but is there any truth to it?


----------



## markrubin

WSJ headline: *TV is stuck in an innovation cul-de-sac*


TV Makers Are Out of Ideas

The Ultra HD and Curved Sets at CES Are Distractions, Not Innovations

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303393804579308801012230792?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop 


(may need subscription)


this is the headline in the WSJ article



By

Farhad Manjoo




excerpts:


Jan. 8, 2014 8:26 p.m. ET


TV makers are showing off the latest bells and whistles at the Consumer Electronics Show. But don't be fooled, Farhad Manjoo says, TV's innovations are stuck in a rut.

...


I've got a four-year-old, 42-inch flat-screen TV that hangs ostentatiously above the mantle. But, according to the news from the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week, flat is out.


Instead, according to the hucksters at CES, the latest and greatest TVs are curved, offering viewers a left-to-right concavity, like watching TV on a skateboarder's half-pipe. And, somehow, curved screens make TV better, TV makers say.


On a curved TV, Honey Boo Boo sounds like Einstein, MTV plays music videos, and "Saturday Night Live" is actually funny.


Well, no. TV is stuck in an innovation cul-de-sac. There are no new ideas in TV hardware that are worth paying for, so, thanks to competition and production efficiencies, good TVs keep getting cheaper. The cheaper they get, the more desperate TV makers become, filling their sets with more and more useless piffle...end


waiting for Art to respond...


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24184387 "Consumers can expect to see new Panasonic OLED and LED LCD displays in stores in 2014..."
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/06/panasonic-taking-ultra-hd-corporate/4343185/


Pinochio any one!


----------



## wse


Here is an interesting article http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/01/nobody-needs-a-new-tv-anymore.html


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24183065
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> When they can finally produce them for sale, there will be flat OLEDs because *people want to wall mount* them and the customer provides the $$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all people and you can wall mount a curved TV. Samsung brings an adapter for their curved TV´s for wall mounting and I guess LG doing the same.
> 
> But when TVs getting bigger and bigger, a wall mounting in many viewing conditions makes no sense because the TV hangs to high with the top near the blanket. You can´t hang the bottom of a bigger TV in the same high position like a smaller one before to reach the same ideal viewing conditions. It´s better for your neck to looking with they eyes more downwards than upwards. That´s the reason why all manufactures now creates extravagant stand designs for their bigger TV´s.
> 
> 
> Look at this viewing angle comparison:
> 
> http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/lg-55ea980w-p16197/test.html#full-review
> 
> 
> The flatter TV has much badder distorsions from the side (look at Daniel Craig in the right picture) because it´s flat and missing the depth like in real life. For 3D the curved design makes much more sense than a flat TV. It works against the papier-mâché effect.
Click to expand...

 

You're going to have to explain this one again.  Those images are showing the differences between a VA LCD screen vs. OLED.  Not curved vs. flat.

 

And if you're talking about dimensional distortions, I *still* don't see what you're saying about the flat being worse.  Here are the examples given in that article:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Viewing angles for the Samsung UE46F8000 , which uses a PSA screen panel (VA family).
> 
> The image is clearly affected when the screen is viewed from the side.*
> 
> 
> *Viewing angles for the LG 55EA980W OLED TV.
> 
> The image hardly changes at all when viewed from an angle. This OLED TV behaves in a similar way to plasma screens.*


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*
> 
> WSJ headline: *TV is stuck in an innovation cul-de-sac*
> 
> 
> TV Makers Are Out of Ideas
> 
> The Ultra HD and Curved Sets at CES Are Distractions, Not Innovations
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303393804579308801012230792?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop
> 
> 
> (may need subscription)
> 
> 
> this is the headline in the WSJ article
> 
> 
> 
> By
> 
> Farhad Manjoo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> excerpts:
> 
> 
> Jan. 8, 2014 8:26 p.m. ET
> 
> 
> TV makers are showing off the latest bells and whistles at the Consumer Electronics Show. But don't be fooled, Farhad Manjoo says, TV's innovations are stuck in a rut.
> 
> 
> I was splayed out in front of the tube the other day when I realized, with a start, that my life had lost all meaning. Or maybe it was just that "House Hunters" was on.
> 
> 
> I couldn't tell. So I flipped to "The Real Housewives of Poughkeepsie." ("All hell breaks loose when Kathy discovers a no-boil recipe for lasagna.") Yet I still couldn't shake my ennui.
> 
> 
> Then, like divine intervention, I realized what was wrong. Everything on TV was just too flat.
> 
> 
> I've got a four-year-old, 42-inch flat-screen TV that hangs ostentatiously above the mantle. But, according to the news from the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week, flat is out.
> 
> 
> Instead, according to the hucksters at CES, the latest and greatest TVs are curved, offering viewers a left-to-right concavity, like watching TV on a skateboarder's half-pipe. And, somehow, curved screens make TV better, TV makers say.
> 
> 
> On a curved TV, Honey Boo Boo sounds like Einstein, MTV plays music videos, and "Saturday Night Live" is actually funny.
> 
> 
> Well, no. TV is stuck in an innovation cul-de-sac. There are no new ideas in TV hardware that are worth paying for, so, thanks to competition and production efficiencies, good TVs keep getting cheaper. The cheaper they get, the more desperate TV makers become, filling their sets with more and more useless piffle...end
> 
> 
> waiting for Art to respond...


There must be an element of distraction in this year's CES line-up.


Lets throw folks lots of gimmicks in their face and hope they forget about the Plasma is superior/LCd is inferior mantra which has been in use for several years. ''Forget about Plasma! Take a look at these gimmicks!" seems to be this year's theme. Suddenly there are lots of FALD-ish TVs, curved, bendable curved, two ways bendable curved. Even the 21:9 TV is risen from the dead.


----------



## rightintel

Maybe the lack of interest will cause prices to plummet lol. I'd give an objective, honest look at that Toshiba full array/local dimming set at the very least(since no OLED).


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24185001
> 
> 
> You're going to have to explain this one again.  Those images are showing the differences between a VA LCD screen vs. OLED.  Not curved vs. flat.
> 
> 
> And if you're talking about dimensional distortions, I _still_ don't see what you're saying about the flat being worse.  Here are the examples given in that article:



Those pictures speak for themselves long live Plasmas


----------



## Audio Karma

Why buy a OLED when you can buy a Sony 4K with quantum-dot technology for far less money....









http://www.display-central.com/free-news/display-daly/time-to-buy-a-quantum-dot-tv/


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24184920
> 
> 
> WSJ headline: *TV is stuck in an innovation cul-de-sac*
> 
> 
> .



I don't do this, but his article was quite similar to mine... which ran earlier.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/01/07/tvs-that-bend-stretch-clear-signs-of-a-desperate-industry/ 


(Not saying he even read mine; just that we saw the same universe unfolding....)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24188025
> 
> 
> Why buy a OLED when you can buy a Sony 4K with quantum-dot technology for far less money....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.display-central.com/free-news/display-daly/time-to-buy-a-quantum-dot-tv/



Sony told Gary Merson the quantum-dot film was being removed from the 2014 models.


----------



## Audio Karma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24188118
> 
> 
> I don't do this, but his article was quite similar to mine... which ran earlier.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/01/07/tvs-that-bend-stretch-clear-signs-of-a-desperate-industry/
> 
> 
> (Not saying he even read mine; just that we saw the same universe unfolding....)
> 
> Sony told Gary Merson the quantum-dot film was being removed from the 2014 models.



Sony will use the quantum-dot film in their 2014 models....

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1510298/sony-uhdtvs-at--ces-2014


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> And if you're talking about dimensional distortions, I still don't see what you're saying about the flat being worse. Here are the examples given in that article:



Yes I spoke about dimensional distorions and they are more obviously at the flat one from side viewing because the depth is missing. The proportions of the people looks worser than on the curved model. Look at Craig, he is more streched than on the curved OLED. The curve generates depth and for 3D viewing its a plus.


----------



## michaelmichael




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24188025
> 
> 
> Why buy a OLED when you can buy a Sony 4K with quantum-dot technology for far less money....



Maybe because viewing angles , contrast ratio and black level. Look below


LG OLED
 


SONY X9 UHD 2013


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24188178
> 
> 
> Sony will use the quantum-dot film in their 2014 models....
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1510298/sony-uhdtvs-at--ces-2014



Depends on whose post you read.


Some say that quantum-dot film is deleted from the 2014s. Something about it being too expensive.


----------



## JWhip

Here is some rather bad news for OLED fans right from Samsung at CES.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/09/reviewed-ces-hs-kim/4400101/


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24188311
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> And if you're talking about dimensional distortions, I still don't see what you're saying about the flat being worse. Here are the examples given in that article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I spoke about dimensional distorions and they are more obviously at the flat one from side viewing because the depth is missing. The proportions of the people looks worser than on the curved model. Look at Craig, he is more streched than on the curved OLED. The curve generates depth and for 3D viewing its a plus.
Click to expand...

 

It doesn't though.  I've looked at those photos, and still can't figure out what you're talking about.

 

Dimensionally there is just not some "ta da" moment here at all.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24188720
> 
> 
> Here is some rather bad news for OLED fans right from Samsung at CES.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/09/reviewed-ces-hs-kim/4400101/



He placed 4K and OLED as both major improvements to picture quality.

IMHO, OLED is a major improvement and 4K *might* be a major improvement.


Aside from product issues, OLED does not require you to replace your player and AVR/Processor which is definitely a disadvantage










- Rich


----------



## slacker711

I had already written off Samsung for a real commercial ramp in either 2014 or 2015, but this essentially means that they have no idea if/when they are going to solve the technical problems around their OLED approach.


FWIW, there are quotes in the Korean media from LG Display's CEO that indicates that their Gen 8 fab is on track for a 2nd half launch. They mention deposition equipment which has been the open question around the launch of the fab.

http://www.zdnet.co.kr/news/news_view.asp?artice_id=20140107061708


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24188720
> 
> 
> Here is some rather bad news for OLED fans right from Samsung at CES.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/09/reviewed-ces-hs-kim/4400101/


To be honest, I'm not particularly surprised and I'm not overly distressed.


All it does is solidify my belief that the next TV I buy will be an LG OLED set (assuming, that is, that manufacture ramps up in the second half of this year and that prices match expectations set by the decline during 2013 in costs of their existing OLED sets).


My brand preference would probably be for Samsung over LG, given that I trust them more when it comes to conventional plasma and LED tech. But when it comes to OLED, all the reading I've done lately suggests that LG's approach is less problematic, and less likely to suffer over the long-term from issues such as blue-pixel fade. And on top of that, expert reviews suggest there is very little to split the LG and Samsung sets in terms of picture performance (which I've seen, and is amazing).


Of course, I should expect that prices might tumble dramatically not long afterwards as the technology is (hopefully) mastered, but given that I've nursed my faithful old CRT for so long, and could have bought two or maybe even three high-end replacements in that time, I reckon I might be able to justify an expenditure sooner rather than later.


Desk


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24188178
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24188118
> 
> 
> I don't do this, but his article was quite similar to mine... which ran earlier.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/01/07/tvs-that-bend-stretch-clear-signs-of-a-desperate-industry/
> 
> 
> (Not saying he even read mine; just that we saw the same universe unfolding....)
> 
> Sony told Gary Merson the quantum-dot film was being removed from the 2014 models.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sony will use the quantum-dot film in their 2014 models....
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1510298/sony-uhdtvs-at--ces-2014
Click to expand...

 


according C|NET _one_ model wil use quantum dots - *XBR X850B*


----------



## michaelmichael




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24188720
> 
> 
> Here is some rather bad news for OLED fans right from Samsung at CES.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/09/reviewed-ces-hs-kim/4400101/



He said there : "Not many consumers tried to purchase OLED TVs at that price," Kim said. "Price was our greatest barrier. So our attempt to expand the market didn't really go well."The unfriendly prices, he acknowledged, are due primarily to difficulties plaguing the OLED manufacturing process. "I'm really, really terribly sorry to say this, but it will take more time. … I believe it will take around three to four years."


I think that If as in the quota above Samsung makes us wait 4 years to buy their OLED tv for reasonable price I wait for LG 55 inch ( or eg 49 inch if appears one ) priced of 2500 euro on shelves and buy, I am not going to wait 4 years for OLED TV because Samsung, Sony or Panasonic has problems.


People from Polish forum were at CES and found out that by the end of 2014 Lg is going to offer in Europe ( assembled in POLAND ) 55 inch OLED TV ( new basic model ) for official price 5000 euro ( which means in reality 5000 $ in USA ) but you know that prices on shelves are lower so we can expect that one can buy 55 inch bacic OLED TV for 3500 to 4000 by the end of 2014. In UK 55 inch LG Oled tv costs 4999 pounds today so it is reality not dreams.


----------



## ynotgoal

It's only a matter of time before the Chinese TV manufacturers begin to have an impact.


Hisense even had a 55-inch Full HD OLED TV on show and although they said it was still in development it looked ready to launch as far as we could see. We watched a number of demos on the Hisense OLED and saw the same kind of superb images that we saw on OLED screens from both LG and Samsung


TCL also had a 55-inch OLED Full HD TV which, unlike Hisense, they plan to release soon. Again, all the demo material at the TCL stand looked excellent and there really was nothing to distinguish their performance from that of the more famous brands.

http://www.avforums.com/article/ces-2014-first-look-at-the-latest-chinese-ultra-hd-and-oled-tvs.9776 


Haier and Skyworth also showed OLED TVs. It is believed these are all based on LG's oled panel. LG's new line should be in production in Q4.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *michaelmichael*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24189277
> 
> 
> People from Polish forum were at CES and found out that by the end of 2014 Lg is going to offer in Europe ( assembled in POLAND ) 55 inch OLED TV ( new basic model ) for official price 5000 euro ( which means in reality 5000 $ in USA )


 

Why does 5000€ in Poland mean $5000 in USA?

 

The exchange changes by the second, but 5000€ is currently around $6800 USD.  Are the USA TV market prices typically deflated?


----------



## michaelmichael




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24189524
> 
> 
> Why does 5000€ in Poland mean $5000 in USA?
> 
> 
> The exchange changes by the second, but 5000€ is currently around $6800 USD.  Are the USA TV market prices typically deflated?



I sometimes compare prices in USA and in EU countries and because of taxes eg Value Added Tax from 19 % to even 23% in Poland , Television that costs 1000 $ in USA , has price of more or less close to 1000 euro in Europe. Duty matters as well I think.


----------



## 8mile13

 Ces 2014: _NO_ Samsung OLED TV for 3 to 4 years


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8010#post_24188720
> 
> 
> Here is some rather bad news for OLED fans right from Samsung at CES.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/09/reviewed-ces-hs-kim/4400101/





> Quote:
> "Not many consumers tried to purchase OLED TVs at that price," Kim said. "Price was our greatest barrier. So our attempt to expand the market didn't really go well."
> 
> 
> The unfriendly prices, he acknowledged, are due primarily to difficulties plaguing the OLED manufacturing process. "I'm really, really terribly sorry to say this, but it will take more time. … I believe it will take around three to four years."



I wonder what LG's response will be to this.


----------



## tubby497




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24189616
> 
> Ces 2014: _NO_ Samsung OLED TV for 3 to 4 years



So... I guess they are saying OLED will be ready and affordable in 3-4 years? That's quicker than I thought!


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24189616
> 
> Ces 2014: _NO_ Samsung OLED TV for 3 to 4 years



... from Samsung.


- Rich


----------



## mtbdudex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24189616
> 
> Ces 2014: _NO_ Samsung OLED TV for 3 to 4 years



That's it, I'm done waiting on OLED, moving over to the new 55" Vizio ASAP.

Sorry guys for bailing.



Via my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk


----------



## vinnie97

^Why does your decision hinge upon what Samsung's plans are? I might end up going the Chinese route at this rate. I only hope at least a 65" panel will arrive by next year.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24189930
> 
> 
> ... from Samsung.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Hello redundancy. Isn't that what the article already states? "No _Samsung_ OLED..."


----------



## Rich Peterson

I'm trying to understand what forum members here think has changed and why they think OLED isn't moving forward fast enough. Here's a couple posts from this thread back in June. It seems to me things are progressing pretty much as expected.


1. Panasonic had never planned to release anything in 2014 or even early in 2015. See post.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6000#post_23401139
> 
> *Panasonic Plans to Have OLED HDTVs by 2015*
> 
> 
> Source: (Article has been removed)
> 
> 
> Panasonic’s CTO, Yoshiyuki Miyabe, announced earlier this week that the company is looking to launch their first OLED TVs by the end of the 2015 fiscal year. That actually equates to sometime by March 2016. The only details known are from the demos that Panasonic has shown. Currently, the company is showing off a 56 inch display featuring 4K (3840 x 2160) resolution. We probably won’t hear more about the TVs until it get closer to a release date.




2. Prices have always expected to remain high for the next several years. Here's a clip of a post from Rogo describing his expectations for 55" OLED pricing based on the original $13K prince in 2013 and how that might compare with LCD prices.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/6060#post_23425281
> 
> 
> The history of TV price declines, for what it's worth, is that 30% compounded reductions are about the best you will ever see.
> 
> 
> Using that and starting with $13,000.....
> 
> 2014: $9100
> 
> 2015: $6370
> 
> 2016: $4450
> 
> 2017: $3121
> 
> 
> (Using $10,000 as a baseline, you get $7000, $4900, $3430, $2400 incidentally. Of course, 4 years of _compounded_ 30% reductions is a lot of "ifs" turning into reality.)
> 
> 
> That, of course, is nowhere near price parity as in 2013, a flagship 55-inch LCD _launches_ at $2500 and falls lower later in the model year. It's hard to imagine a flagship LCD will be anymore than that in 2017, but it's easy to imagine it will be


----------



## Audio Karma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24189274
> 
> 
> 
> 
> according C|NET _one_ model wil use quantum dots - *XBR X850B*



No, all three series of Sony's models will use quantum-dot technology


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24189524
> 
> 
> Why does 5000€ in Poland mean $5000 in USA? The exchange changes by the second, but 5000€ is currently around $6800 USD.  Are the USA TV market prices typically deflated?



In Europe there is typically ~20+% Value Added Tax on goods which in addition to fragmented country markets results in 1:1 €/$ exchange rate.


----------



## RichB

Nevermind.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24190818
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24189274
> 
> 
> 
> according C|NET *one* model wil use quantum dots - *XBR X850B*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, all three series of Sony's models will use quantum-dot technology
Click to expand...

 

He supplied a link.  If you're to counter it, please supply a link as well.


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24191056
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24190818
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24189274
> 
> 
> 
> 
> according C|NET _one_ model wil use quantum dots - *XBR X850B*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, all three series of Sony's models will use quantum-dot technology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He supplied a link.  If you're to counter it, please supply a link as well.
Click to expand...


Haha.... you guys are funny. The W950B series and up all have Triluminos backlighting! Sony says so on their own product page for the new models announced at CES 2014!

http://store.sony.com/-cms-ces.2014.television.landing.page?SR=hero:2:CEStelevision:4kUltraHD:ss


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24191128
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24191056
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24190818
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24189274
> 
> 
> 
> according C|NET *one* model wil use quantum dots - *XBR X850B*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, all three series of Sony's models will use quantum-dot technology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He supplied a link.  If you're to counter it, please supply a link as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.... you guys are funny. The W950B series and up all have Triluminos backlighting! Sony says so on their own product page for the new models announced at CES 2014!
> 
> http://store.sony.com/-cms-ces.2014.television.landing.page?SR=hero:2:CEStelevision:4kUltraHD:ss
Click to expand...

 

Yes, they're calling it Triluminus.  The problem is, that's marketing-speak (a trademark), not a scientific term.  There's no way to know what it is and we're getting conflicting information.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24188770
> 
> 
> It doesn't though.  I've looked at those photos, and still can't figure out what you're talking about.


Cameras have a flat sensor, and humans have a curved retina - so you won't see it in a photo.

I can definitely see why a curved display could actually provide a better experience... except nothing is shot on a curved sensor, so the curve distorts all our current content.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24189274
> 
> according C|NET _one_ model wil use quantum dots - *XBR X850B*


Yes - these are the edge-lit models.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24189524
> 
> 
> Are the USA TV market prices typically deflated?


This has always been the case - and it gets worse as you start looking at larger sizes. A 70" model might be $5,000 in the US but closer to €10,000 in Europe. At best you expect "parity" between the prices. ($5,000 = €5,000 - which is really $6800) Prices in Japan are often more expensive than most of Europe too.

This applies to almost all electronics, not just AV gear. (computer hardware etc.) For most of this, US is significantly cheaper than the rest of the world, and we subsidize your low cost.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24190354
> 
> 
> ^Why does your decision hinge upon what Samsung's plans are?


If Samsung are now saying OLED is not ready for 3-4 years, what hope is there for OLEDs from the better manufacturers like Sony and Panasonic?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24191128
> 
> 
> Haha.... you guys are funny. The W950B series and up all have Triluminos backlighting! Sony says so on their own product page for the new models announced at CES 2014!


Triluminos means "wide gamut" it does not require that it uses QD film.


----------



## vinnie97

^Has Samsung even stated they are investigating the printing method? The exec clearly seemed to be speaking regarding the method now in use (RGB). That's why I say Samdung's decision means little to nothing, especially in the case of Sony and Panasonic who seem to be much more interested in printing tech.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24191046
> 
> 
> Nevermind.


lol, no worries...I saw your original post thanks to the recent AVS notification upgrades.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24188828
> 
> 
> I had already written off Samsung for a real commercial ramp in either 2014 or 2015, but this essentially means that they have no idea if/when they are going to solve the technical problems around their OLED approach.
> 
> 
> FWIW, there are quotes in the Korean media from LG Display's CEO that indicates that their Gen 8 fab is on track for a 2nd half launch. They mention deposition equipment which has been the open question around the launch of the fab.
> 
> http://www.zdnet.co.kr/news/news_view.asp?artice_id=20140107061708





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24189616
> 
> Ces 2014: _NO_ Samsung OLED TV for 3 to 4 years



So let's just out with it: I told you so. Several times. And I stated the reason pretty clear: Samsung cannot mass produce TVs using their existing production technique and they have no clear knowledge of how they will use any other production technique at this point which might allow for the mass production of OLED TVs.


As for Panasonic, let's not get excited about any plans they have for 2016 when there exists a greater possibility they will not be selling TVs in North America than that they will be selling affordable OLED TVs anywhere by then.


As for LG, let's see if they stick to those timetables. The promise (broken several times, bent others) is that their WRGB approach allows for easier production and that once they debugged it and mastered IGZO, they'd be able to scale up reasonably well. If the 8G fab comes online and the 4K product starts to appear in multiple sizes (at any price), it's a sign they intend to at least push the technology. LG is very accustomed to playing catchup with Samsung. They would be more than delighted to have what will amount to a 3-year lead on their rival. All that said...


I remain of the opinion that printing OLEDs is more scalable/efficient than LG's method which is messy, slow, multi-step and, honestly a bit Rube Goldberg in the way it displays the picture.


If/when/whether OLEDs are to displace LCD TVs (and once again, it's pretty clearly the "if" we posited earlier in this decade that many just ignored), it will require a production process that delivers on the promised ease of manufacturing OLED offers as well as its full promise as a technology. Otherwise, the "good enough" of LCD TV, which will continue to get relentless cheaper thanks to China, will be difficult to displace.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24191221
> 
> 
> 
> If Samsung are now saying OLED is not ready for 3-4 years, what hope is there for OLEDs from the better manufacturers like Sony and Panasonic?



Ironic you use "better mfrs." to refer to people who don't manufacture any important parts of the TV.


> Quote:
> Triluminos means "wide gamut" it does not require that it uses QD film.



Yep, correct.


----------



## Audio Karma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24191056
> 
> 
> He supplied a link.  If you're to counter it, please supply a link as well.


 http://www.tvhistory.tv/index.html


----------



## rgb32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24191221
> 
> 
> Triluminos means "wide gamut" it does not require that it uses QD film.



Yes, my XBR8 is a "Triluminos" display and it has a FALD RGB LED BLU and not ColorIQ tech. Derp! Katzmeier's article stirred up speculation about implementation (i.e. shenanigans) amongst some of you, for which I strongly doubt much has changed other than with the X950B series having FALD.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24191263
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24191056
> 
> 
> He supplied a link.  If you're to counter it, please supply a link as well.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.tvhistory.tv/index.html
Click to expand...

 

LOL.  You have an interesting way of admitting you were wrong.  I'll take it.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgb32*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24191267
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24191221
> 
> 
> Triluminos means "wide gamut" it does not require that it uses QD film.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my XBR8 is a "Triluminos" display and it has a FALD RGB LED BLU and not ColorIQ tech. Derp! Katzmeier's article stirred up speculation about implementation (i.e. shenanigans) amongst some of you, for which I strongly doubt much has changed other than with the X950B series having FALD.
Click to expand...

 

I'm not sure anyone was crying foul; I think we were just interested in whether or not they felt it important to abandon QD or not.  And if so, why.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24191221
> 
> 
> Cameras have a flat sensor, and humans have a curved retina - so you won't see it in a photo.
> 
> I can definitely see why a curved display could actually provide a better experience... except nothing is shot on a curved sensor, so the curve distorts all our current content.


Curved screens have been used i cinemas since the 1950s, nobody have said they cause distortion.

In cinemas the curved screen even correct for certain geometric distortions caused by anamorphic lenses.

My guess is that it is from cinema tradition of curved screens this idea for using it on TVs comes from.


If you talk about screen curvature with high-end screen enthusiast Cineramax here on AVS, you will be told that the most perfect screen is the Torus screen.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24191367
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8040#post_24191221
> 
> 
> Cameras have a flat sensor, and humans have a curved retina - so you won't see it in a photo.
> 
> I can definitely see why a curved display could actually provide a better experience... except nothing is shot on a curved sensor, so the curve distorts all our current content.
> 
> 
> 
> Curved screens have been used i cinemas since the 1950s, nobody have said they cause distortion.
Click to expand...

 

I have.  I hated curved screens in theaters, unless they're very *very slight* (just enough to correct for focus).  In fact I used the same exact wording that Chronoptimist used here and conversationally in the distant past.  Words to the effect of "The film & sensors are flat."  If the resulting display vehicle is to contort the image, the light should have first struck a similarly contorted sensor: in this way any distortions introduced onto the sensor would be "un"-distorted from the screen to your eyes.


----------



## JWhip

The manufactures are clear where the ides for the curved screen comes from, namely, to differentiate the sets from flat screens in an effort to sell them. Pure and simple. I see no reason to keep arguing it is from anything else.


----------



## rgb32

I don't believe the CNet article should have been interpreted to speculate whether or not Sony is using QD for only one 2014 series TV.


EDIT:


That said, there appears to be some conflicting info coming from Gary Merson:

http://hdguru.com/hd-gurus-2014-ces-top-picks-awards/#more-12978 


> Quote:
> *Best LCD TV: Sony X950B Series*
> 
> 
> Sony’s top LED-lit LCDs over the past few years have been notably good performers, and its X950B Series UHDTVs look primed to carry on that tradition. The X950B Series has a full-array LED backlight with the company’s X-tended Dynamic Range Pro processing to boost both blacks and whites. *It also has the same Triluminos tech found in select Sony models from 2013*, which helps to improve color detail. Look for the X950B Series to arrive this spring in 65- and 85-inch screen sizes.



Yet, http://hdguru.com/sony-2014-tv-lineup-ultra-hd-4k-triluminos-and-more 


> Quote:
> According to a Sony rep, this year’s TVs don’t use quantum dots (a bummer). My guess is RGB LED, but when we find out the details, we’ll let you know.



Is that the final word, or was the rep mistaken? I await official word from Sony.










Back to OLED...


----------



## 8mile13

the ''real thing''


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24191367
> 
> 
> Curved screens have been used i cinemas since the 1950s, nobody have said they cause distortion.
> 
> In cinemas the curved screen even correct for certain geometric distortions caused by anamorphic lenses.
> 
> My guess is that it is from cinema tradition of curved screens this idea for using it on TVs comes from.
> 
> 
> If you talk about screen curvature with high-end screen enthusiast Cineramax here on AVS, you will be told that the most perfect screen is the Torus screen.



Flat panels do not project images on screen using lenses, anamorphic or otherwise. We can thus remove any concern about the need for screen curvature having correcting for any lens-related flaws.


There's actually a comment on an article out there explaining the curve is to correct for the "delay" associated with visual information reaching your eyes from the screen corners... The person is clearly unaware of just how fast light moves....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24191436
> 
> 
> The manufactures are clear where the ides for the curved screen comes from, namely, to differentiate the sets from flat screens in an effort to sell them. Pure and simple. I see no reason to keep arguing it is from anything else.



Correct. It is absolutely nothing else.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24192189
> 
> 
> Flat panels do not project images on screen using lenses, anamorphic or otherwise. We can thus remove any concern about the need for screen curvature having correcting for any lens-related flaws.


Don't take my response out of context.


My only reason for my respons was to correct the notion that was claimed; _............"except nothing is shot on a curved sensor, so the curve distorts all our current content."_ ..........and then I put curved screens in an historical context......nothing else.


The rest was just information about why curved screens was used in cinemas.


Even if curved TV screens is just a gimmick without any real purpose, the idea for this gimmick undoubtedly comes from the use of curved screens in cinema through the ages.


That's why I put







after _"Torus Screens"_.

Maybe I should have added that next year CES we will have Torus screen TVs, so you guys got the irony?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24192189
> 
> 
> There's actually a comment on an article out there explaining the curve is to correct for the "delay" associated with visual information reaching your eyes from the screen corners... The person is clearly unaware of just how fast light moves....


 

That may have been from the article I posted a while ago where the guy was so cranky about the curved TV concept that I found it a worthwhile read just for humor content.  He messed up in one spot and said in a theater it was valuable because it had to do with making sure that light reaches the screen at the same time, or something similar, and yeah, the speed of light is *way* beyond that as an issue.

 

But his article was the first time I heard someone say something like this:


> Quote:
> The curvature on both the Samsung S9C and LG 55EA9800 introduces a sweet spot which doesn't exist on a conventional panel. When you're in this, you don't actually notice the curve at all. It's as if the panel was flat, which makes the exercise rather pointless.


...which I thought was inspired.  LOL!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24192357
> 
> 
> Don't take my response out of context.



Sorry, I took it out of context because for a moment it seemed there was a defense of the idea here. We need to make it clear to everyone in the industry reading this that none of us like this idea and it's without merit.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24192414
> 
> 
> That may have been from the article I posted a while ago where the guy was so cranky about the curved TV concept that I found it a worthwhile read just for humor content.  He messed up in one spot and said in a theater it was valuable because it had to do with making sure that light reaches the screen at the same time, or something similar, and yeah, the speed of light is _way_ beyond that as an issue.
> 
> 
> But his article was the first time I heard someone say something like this:
> 
> ...which I thought was inspired.  LOL!



Yeah, it wasn't that article, it was something else I read today.


I can't tell if people are being serious or simply mental.


This is absolutely a dealbreakingly awful trend that needs to be stamped out in a hurry. It's bad enough OLED remains 3-5 years away -- again -- from being mainstream. If we have to go through a battle to get it into a form factor that's relevant, well, why even bother. We might as well focus on just getting LCD better.


----------



## Audio Karma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24192711
> 
> 
> Sorry, I took it out of context because for a moment it seemed there was a defense of the idea here. We need to make it clear to everyone in the industry reading this that none of us like this idea and it's without merit.
> 
> Yeah, it wasn't that article, it was something else I read today.
> 
> 
> I can't tell if people are being serious or simply mental.
> 
> 
> This is absolutely a dealbreakingly awful trend that needs to be stamped out in a hurry. It's bad enough OLED remains 3-5 years away -- again -- from being mainstream. If we have to go through a battle to get it into a form factor that's relevant, well, why even bother. We might as well focus on just getting LCD better.



The Sony 4K quantum-dot is just as good as a OLED and the new 2014 Sony even beats OLED on color.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24193074
> 
> 
> The Sony 4K quantum-dot is just as good as a OLED and the new 2014 Sony even beats OLED on color.



Have you actually measured both?


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24193074
> 
> 
> The Sony 4K quantum-dot is just as good as a OLED and the new 2014 Sony even beats OLED on color.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24191242
> 
> 
> Ironic you use "better mfrs." to refer to people who don't manufacture any important parts of the TV.


That's true - I suppose I mean companies which I'm actually interested in buying a television from.


----------



## Matthias Hutter

Right now I'm more hopeful that Highsense OR TCLs OLED will become cheaper than Samsungs.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24193074
> 
> 
> The Sony 4K quantum-dot is just as good as a OLED and the new 2014 Sony even beats OLED on color.


Hahaha oh wow ...


----------



## ALMA

The EU banned Cadmium. That seems to be the reason why no more QD in the new Sony series.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24193879
> 
> 
> The EU banned Cadmium. That seems to be the reason why no more QD in the new Sony series.



Might be..................

..............or maybe Sony is just doing a cynical marketing ploy.


In 2013 Sony established Triluminous as a marketing name for Quantum Dot LED in their most expensive models, a tech which they licensed from QD Vision .


With falling prices on their expensive models, Sony can continue marketing them as "Triluminous" without saying much about the fact that they dropped Quantum Dots tech to save some cost on not paying QD Vision's licensing fees, and hoping nobody take too much notice.










Next year for their 2015 models, they might launch new high-end models with QD Vision's new quantum-dot version of *Color IQ™* which QD Vision released new development packages as late as December 2013 .


So next year Sony match this with Dolby Vision HDR Tech, and can market their new models are "Super Vision Tremendous Triluminous".










Saving some dollars on each TV set for a year might be a nice contribute to the bottom line to a financially pressed TV manufacturer.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24193239
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24193074
> 
> 
> The Sony 4K quantum-dot is just as good as a OLED and the new 2014 Sony even beats OLED on color.
Click to expand...

 

Is there a full moon over AVS or something?  It's difficult to maintain a civil tone when you end up with people just throwing unsupported statements out there, and asking for links is just tiring.  And if someone in the industry *did* manage to conclude the above, I'd like to read about it.


----------



## tubby497




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24193074
> 
> 
> The Sony 4K quantum-dot is just as good as a OLED and the new 2014 Sony even beats OLED on color.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24193987
> 
> 
> In 2013 Sony established Triluminous as a marketing name for Quantum Dot LED in their most expensive models, a tech which they licensed from QD Vision .
> 
> 
> With falling prices on their expensive models, Sony can continue marketing them as "Triluminous" without saying much about the fact that they dropped Quantum Dots tech to save some cost on not paying QD Vision's licensing fees, and hoping nobody take too much notice.


Triluminos has been around since the Qualia 005 in 2004. It has nothing to do with the Quantum Dot film they used in the X9 LCDs last year.

If anything, the X9 was an exception to the rule, as _*Tri*luminos_ meant using Red, Green, and Blue LEDs in the backlight.


The Quantum Dot film between the blue backlight and the LCD panel created white light with very pure red, green, and blue components - similar in quality to what RGB LEDs give you.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24193987
> 
> 
> Next year for their 2015 models, they might launch new high-end models with QD Vision's new quantum-dot version of *Color IQ™* which QD Vision released new development packages as late as December 2013 .


Don't forget that Sony had exclusivity over this technology last year. This may simply be them offering it up to other companies now.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24193987
> 
> 
> Saving some dollars on each TV set for a year might be a nice contribute to the bottom line to a financially pressed TV manufacturer.


Who says that using RGB LEDs is cheaper than Blue LEDs and QD Film?

The new sets are full array local dimming, when the previous models were edge-lit "local dimming". That doesn't sound like cost-cutting to me.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24194432
> 
> 
> Triluminos has been around since the Qualia 005 in 2004. It has nothing to do with the Quantum Dot film they used in the X9 LCDs last year.
> 
> If anything, the X9 was an exception to the rule, as _*Tri*luminos_ meant using Red, Green, and Blue LEDs in the backlight.


In 2004 they used the name for one technology. Have they used it much since?

Last year they resurrected the name and used the name for the quantum-dot technology.

This year they used the name for marketing something else.


> Quote:
> Who says that using RGB LEDs is cheaper than Blue LEDs and QD Film?


Because they can use their own technology and don't need to pay someone else any extra licensing fees.


Don't be fooled by Sony's use of the marketing name Triluminos, which they will tag onto all kinds of different technologies.

One year ago............. 


> Quote:
> Three of Sony's 2013 TVs will use quantum dots in their backlighting, in the guise of QD Vision's Color IQ tech (the 65X900, 55X900, and 55W900). A traditional LED LCD uses blue LEDs, coated with a yellow phosphor, to create "white" light. While reasonably efficient compared to other technologies (i.e. CCFL LCDs and plasmas), this still creates a lot of "wasted" energy. Orange, for example, doesn't make it past the color filters on the front of the TV (instead, red and green are combined to create orange).
> 
> Triluminos uses blue LEDs, but instead of coating them with a yellow phosphor, the blue light from the LEDs passes through the Color IQ optical element containing red and green quantum dots. So the blue LEDs have two functions: create blue light, but also energize red- and green-emitting quantum dots so they in turn can create red and green light. About two-thirds of the light created by the blue LEDs is used to excite the QDs. Cool, right?
> 
> 
> *Oh, and if the "Triluminos" name sounds familiar, Sony has used it before. The 2013 version described here is referring to an edge-lit LED technology, not the RGB full-array LED backlighting from 2008.
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The current generation of quantum dot technology requires a primary light source like the blue LEDs in Sony's Triluminos.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24194492
> 
> 
> In 2004 they used the name for one technology. Have they used it much since?


Yes - the Triluminos RGB LED backlight in the XBR8 LCD in 2008.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24194492
> 
> 
> Last year they used the name for the quantum-dot technology.


No, they used it for a very wide gamut display using very pure sources of red, green, and blue light. QD film was _how_ they achieved this last year, it is not their branding _for_ QD film.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24194548
> 
> 
> Yes - the Triluminos RGB LED backlight in the XBR8 LCD in 2008.
> 
> No, they used it for a very wide gamut display using very pure sources of red, green, and blue light. QD film was _how_ they achieved this last year, it is not their branding _for_ QD film.


I just added something to my previous post.....read it.


.

.

.


Technology Advancements in Nano-Semiconductors to Drive the Market for Quantum Dots, According to a New Trend Report Published by Global Industry Analysts, Inc.

January 08, 2014


> Quote:
> Quantum dots or QDs are minute-sized spherical semiconductor nanocrystals, exhibiting the property to confine motion of carriers such as electrons, valence band holes and excitons, along all the three axes.
> 
> Moreover, QDs also exhibit a unique energy-harnessing ability that can be used to convert energy from various sources such as solar photons into electrical energy.
> 
> 
> There currently exists huge demand potential for high-quality and low-priced quantum dots in mass market applications in a range of consumer products.
> 
> 
> Commercialization of quantum dots in the coming years is expected to receive a major boost supported by technology developments that help facilitate mass production.
> 
> 
> Growth in the solar energy industry and the ensuing interest in quantum dot printed solar cells are also expected to spur demand in the market.



The rest is sadly behind a paywall.


----------



## pg_ice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24191677
> 
> 
> the ''real thing''



QD LED

its not there yet but im looking forward to it


----------



## pg_ice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24193074
> 
> 
> The Sony 4K quantum-dot is just as good as a OLED and the new 2014 Sony even beats OLED on color.



both has still digital colors so none of them is great









i asume you mean the wider gamut when you say it beats OLED?

yes the X9 and the W9 has a wider gamut than the other LCDs thanks to the quantum dots with blue leds.


but if you dont have almost zero blacks to back the wider colors up the colors will still look flat and boring.

contrast ratio is NR1 and the X9 and en W9 doesnt come close to the "real" contrast ratio that is needed to bring those wider colors to life.


----------



## pg_ice

Do you know that even the OLEDs uses ABL ?

just like the Plasmas do to reduce power consumtion.

so dont expect the OLEDs to be as bright as the LCD LED tvs.


i was surprised when i was reading this but then i understand why its needed.


from flatpanels hds review of the LG OLED tv


> Quote:
> On a 100% fully-lit screen we measured brightness to *89 cd/m2.*


Exactly the same brightness i get on my Kuro with a non standard ABL setting and a 100% white field.


but ok there is one difference









the LG OLED only uses 178W displaying a 100% white field

my Kuro uses 600W displaying a 90cd/m2 white field.


blame the OLEDs ABL on the ridiculous low power restrictions these days.

thats why they should have been released in 2008 instead










full review
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1388765934


----------



## Audio Karma

QD vs OLED

http://www.nanocotechnologies.com/content/CommercialApplications/QDDisplays.aspx


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8000_100#post_24194729
> 
> 
> the LG OLED only uses 178W displaying a 100% white field
> 
> my Kuro uses 600W displaying a 90cd/m2 white field.
> 
> 
> blame the OLEDs ABL on the ridiculous low power restrictions these days.
> 
> thats why they should have been released in 2008 instead


 

I still don't think I understand.  There are *legal* power restrictions in TVs that OLEDs exceed?


----------



## irkuck

OLED is beaten by itself if one takes what some Kim is saying, and this is not Kim Dzong Un, it is H S Kim Samsung vice-president for visual display: _Previously, the word was that Samsung and LG were making steady progress with this OLED manufacturing business, with significant improvements to production yields expected in the next couple of years. Sadly, that doesn’t appear to be the case any longer, after Kim admitted in an interview with USA Today that affordable OLED displays were still likely to be three or four years away. “I’m really, really terribly sorry to say this, but it will take more time… I believe it will take around three to four years ,” said Kim._


----------



## vinnie97

When did the Samsung vice president speak for LG? I remain cautiously optimistic.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24194983
> 
> 
> QD vs OLED
> 
> http://www.nanocotechnologies.com/content/CommercialApplications/QDDisplays.aspx


I'm not seeing a versus as much as I'm seeing a synergy being promoted.


----------



## 8mile13

^^ Kim speaks about OLED manufacturing costs a it stands now (that includes LG







)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24195000
> 
> 
> OLED is beaten by itself if one takes what some Kim is saying, and this is not Kim Dzong Un, it is H S Kim Samsung vice-president for visual display: _Previously, the word was that Samsung and LG were making steady progress with this OLED manufacturing business, with significant improvements to production yields expected in the next couple of years. Sadly, that doesn’t appear to be the case any longer, after Kim admitted in an interview with USA Today that affordable OLED displays were still likely to be three or four years away. “I’m really, really terribly sorry to say this, but it will take more time… I believe it will take around three to four years ,” said Kim._



So..this year Kim said ''three to four years away''. A year ago he said ''two to three years away''. Wonder what he will say next year







2015 ''I'm terribly sorry to say this, but it will take more time. I believe it will take around four to five years''









http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/09/reviewed-ces-hs-kim/4400101/


----------



## vinnie97

Samsung isn't even using the same manufacturing method...how would he know the manufacturing costs incurred by LG? If yields are as high as 70% (big IF) in the case of WOLED, his assessment can't be construed as universal. I doubt they've become amicable to the point of sharing balance sheets.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*
> 
> Samsung isn't even using the same manufacturing method...how would he know the manufacturing costs incurred by LG? If yields are as high as 70% (big IF) in the case of WOLED, his assessment can't be construed as universal. I doubt they've become amicable to the point of sharing balance sheets.



Few years from now all of them will use inkjet printing because that will bring down production costs. Till then OLED TVs remains expensive..

oled-display.net ''we think the solution is InkJet Printing'' 


- (16-12-2013) Merck is now involved in talks with LG Display to jointly develop a printing method for the production of OLED


- Kateeva (YIELDJet, inkjet printer) also plans to work with some Korean giant ->Samsung


----------



## Audio Karma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24195047
> 
> 
> When did the Samsung vice president speak for LG? I remain cautiously optimistic.
> 
> I'm not seeing a versus as much as I'm seeing a synergy being promoted.



We will find out in the coming years what technology wins out here....QD or OLED


----------



## vinnie97

^What if it's both? Will your head explode?









> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24195307
> 
> 
> 
> Few years from now all of them will use inkjet printing because that will bring down production costs. Till then OLED TVs remains expensive..
> 
> oled-display.net ''we think the solution is InkJet Printing''
> 
> 
> - (16-12-2013) Merck is now involved in talks with LG Display to jointly develop a printing method for the production of OLED
> 
> 
> - Kateeva (YIELDJet, inkjet printer) also plans to work with some Korean giant ->Samsung


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24195098
> 
> 
> ^^ Kim speaks about OLED manufacturing costs a it stands now (that includes LG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> So..this year Kim said ''three to four years away''. A year ago he said ''two to three years away''. Wonder what he will say next year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2015 ''I'm terribly sorry to say this, but it will take more time. I believe it will take around four to five years''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/09/reviewed-ces-hs-kim/4400101/



He is likely to say: Oh, ****, LG and the Chinese are way ahead of us.

Time ot borrow the technology and sort it out later in the courts










- Rich


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24195124
> 
> 
> Samsung isn't even using the same manufacturing method...how would he know the manufacturing costs incurred by LG? If yields are as high as 70% (big IF) in the case of WOLED, his assessment can't be construed as universal. I doubt they've become amicable to the point of sharing balance sheets.



It is logical to assume that Kim is on the very optimistic side of things, otherwise his vice-president position would be in danger. Realistically then it is 5+ ys to see if OLED ever matures to be ready for market share battle. Now, in 5 ys time the good ole' LCD tech will make yet another significant jump as it is always doing squeezing even more. OLED thus looks a niche at best. Flexibility of LCD is suich that even bending is not OLED exclusive anymore.


----------



## vinnie97

So you think LCD has limitless room for improvement? I hope it doesn't overstay its welcome like the old tubes. Next to resolution improvements, I just see a brick wall. There is a promise of improvement with projects like the Dolby initiative (and maybe even this Quantum Dots malarkey), but the actual performance of consumer models still leaves a lot to be desired. Why any videophile would be content with such a state of things, I have no idea.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audio Karma*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24195530
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24195047
> 
> 
> When did the Samsung vice president speak for LG? I remain cautiously optimistic.
> 
> I'm not seeing a versus as much as I'm seeing a synergy being promoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will find out in the coming years what technology wins out here....QD or OLED
Click to expand...

 

Are we talking about the same thing here?  I still think you're missing that the QD as used in (say) the X900A are still only providing the light to go through an LCD array.  It's *still* not an emissive display.  It's not the pie-in-the-sky hope of a fully QD display where each QD is a subpixel as with OLED/plasma.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by rogo View Post
> 
> 
> The history of TV price declines, for what it's worth, is that 30% compounded reductions are about the best you will ever see.
> 
> 
> Using that and starting with $13,000.....
> 
> 2014: $9100
> 
> 2015: $6370
> 
> 2016: $4450
> 
> 2017: $3121
> 
> 
> (Using $10,000 as a baseline, you get $7000, $4900, $3430, $2400 incidentally. Of course, 4 years of compounded 30% reductions is a lot of "ifs" turning into reality.)
> 
> 
> That, of course, is nowhere near price parity as in 2013, a flagship 55-inch LCD launches at $2500 and falls lower later in the model year. It's hard to imagine a flagship LCD will be anymore than that in 2017, but it's easy to imagine it will be Samsung


----------



## rmongiovi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24195705
> 
> 
> Why any videophile would be content with such a state of things, I have no idea.



And why would any audiophile be content with MP3? Hence the "sky is falling" reaction to the OLED failure to launch and the withdrawal of Panasonic from the plasma market.


Unfortunately, our commodity focused economy is the enemy of the enthusiast. It's especially disappointing when technological advances could deliver so much more.


----------



## vinnie97

True...though concerning the audiophile analogy, lossless audio can still be had for consumption. Perhaps a more apt analogy would be the demise of SACD and DVD-A (though, thankfully, there are also high-resolution audio downloads available). Sorry for the aside...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24195690
> 
> 
> It is logical to assume that Kim is on the very optimistic side of things, otherwise his vice-president position would be in danger. Realistically then it is 5+ ys to see if OLED ever matures to be ready for market share battle. Now, in 5 ys time the good ole' LCD tech will make yet another significant jump as it is always doing squeezing even more. OLED thus looks a niche at best. Flexibility of LCD is suich that even bending is not OLED exclusive anymore.



Yes, we are, again, back to 5 years for the battle. This tech has always been 5 years from truly doing battle.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8070#post_24195098
> 
> 
> ^^ Kim speaks about OLED manufacturing costs a it stands now (that includes LG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> So..this year Kim said ''three to four years away''. A year ago he said ''two to three years away''. Wonder what he will say next year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2015 ''I'm terribly sorry to say this, but it will take more time. I believe it will take around four to five years''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/09/reviewed-ces-hs-kim/4400101/



Like fusion, it's always ever more slightly out of our grasp....


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24196891
> 
> 
> Yes, we are, again, back to 5 years for the battle. This tech has always been 5 years from truly doing battle.



That depends on the battle. It is completely unknown whether OLED's will be able to replace LCD's. That is at least five years out and anything in tech that is five years out is a matter of if, not when. I agree that printing is the only likely solution here and while Kateeva's solution sounds good, I will need more evidence that they are a near-term possibility.


The battle for competitive pricing on the high-end of the television market is a very different battle. That is what matters to most on this thread so I think conflating the two issues does little good. A few years ago, I questioned whether LG's WRGB approach would have some performance issues that would mean it was unsuitable for production. The reviews from last year put that issue to rest. The question then becomes whether LG can manufacture the sets at a competitive price. Samsung has mastered vapour deposition using RGB, so that part of the manufacturing process is simply a matter of time. Sharp has done well enough with IGZO on LCD's to bring the technology to market but the OLED version of IGZO is slightly different. It is an open question whether LG will be able to master the technology but I doubt that they spend the money for the Gen 8 fab unless they have a roadmap that indicates that it is possible. As you have pointed out, IGZO with competitive yields will have pricing that is not substantially more than a-si.


I have pointed this out before but the fact that Samsung's mobile RGB LTPS OLED's are competitively priced with LTPS LCD's is a pretty good indicator that material costs are not a significant barrier to the ultimate pricing. If LG gets decent yields with their OLED's, they will grab a substantial chunk of the high-end television market.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24197245
> 
> 
> That depends on the battle. It is completely unknown whether OLED's will be able to replace LCD's. That is at least five years out and anything in tech that is five years out is a matter of if, not when. I agree that printing is the only likely solution here and while Kateeva's solution sounds good, I will need more evidence that they are a near-term possibility.



Right, "if" not "when". And, yes, Kateeva is a maybe.


> Quote:
> The battle for competitive pricing on the high-end of the television market is a very different battle. That is what matters to most on this thread so I think conflating the two issues does little good. A few years ago, I questioned whether LG's WRGB approach would have some performance issues that would mean it was unsuitable for production. The reviews from last year put that issue to rest. The question then becomes whether LG can manufacture the sets at a competitive price. Samsung has mastered vapour deposition using RGB, so that part of the manufacturing process is simply a matter of time. Sharp has done well enough with IGZO on LCD's to bring the technology to market but the OLED version of IGZO is slightly different. It is an open question whether LG will be able to master the technology but I doubt that they spend the money for the Gen 8 fab unless they have a roadmap that indicates that it is possible. As you have pointed out, IGZO with competitive yields will have pricing that is not substantially more than a-si.



The problem with all this is that we are talking about competing on price with high-end TVs despite much smaller volumes. Achieving that may mean choosing to forgo profits in the hope of achieving LCD replacement down the road. Otherwise. it seems implausible you can just will OLED to $2500 for a 55-inch screen despite having low-ish volumes to back it. The entire high-end TV market is currently only about 10-20% of the 50-inch-and-up market. The latter of those is a maybe 30 million unit market in the near term. So OLED is competing in a space that is ~3-5 million units _total_ per year. That's tough to get serious volume out of.


> Quote:
> I have pointed this out before but the fact that Samsung's mobile RGB LTPS OLED's are competitively priced with LTPS LCD's is a pretty good indicator that material costs are not a significant barrier to the ultimate pricing. If LG gets decent yields with their OLED's, they will grab a substantial chunk of the high-end television market.



So at $3000-5000, I'd say they could get maybe 20% of the market, assuming they (a) offer multiple sizes and (b) make them flat. You are looking at


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24195705
> 
> 
> So you think LCD has limitless room for improvement? I hope it doesn't overstay its welcome like the old tubes. Next to resolution improvements, I just see a brick wall. There is a promise of improvement with projects like the Dolby initiative (and maybe even this Quantum Dots malarkey), but the actual performance of consumer models still leaves a lot to be desired. Why any videophile would be content with such a state of things, I have no idea.



If you look at the LCD development from historical perspective it is amazingly shocking. My favorite is the claim "LCD will never get to big size which will be exclusive domain of plasma". This of course does not imply the same development pace in the future but there are many signs of it: breaking the size (with 110" and 120") and resolution barrier (ultra dense mobile panels).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24197245
> 
> 
> That depends on the battle. It is completely unknown whether OLED's will be able to replace LCD's. That is at least five years out and anything in tech that is five years out is a matter of if, not when. I agree that printing is the only likely solution here and while Kateeva's solution sounds good, I will need more evidence that they are a near-term possibility.



Yeah, talking now about replacement of LCD is sci-fi/fantasy. Even the Kim Dzong Un of displays, the vice-president of Samsung display H S Kim gives 5+ ys time frame to see what comes of OLED.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24197245
> 
> 
> I have pointed this out before but the fact that Samsung's mobile RGB LTPS OLED's are competitively priced with LTPS LCD's is a pretty good indicator that material costs are not a significant barrier to the ultimate pricing.



Competitive pricing of Samsung mobile OLED's might be due to hidden subsidies or not accounting for full costs of development. This is OK if there is perspective of OLED spreading out and mobile area is now the benchmark: if there are signs OLED displays showing in 2014 in more smartphones, in some phablets/tablets - even in an ultra high-end segment - that would be positive. Otherwise prospects are dim especially that comparisons show no clear advantage of mobile OLED over best mobile LCD displays.


----------



## David_B

4k has derailed OLED there's no doubt about it.


Both seem to be the next 3D TV though.


Unless..


Apple does either.


If I where Samsung or LG I'd be trying to convince Apple to make a 30 inch Retina OLED.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24198223
> 
> 
> The problem with all this is that we are talking about competing on price with high-end TVs despite much smaller volumes. Achieving that may mean choosing to forgo profits in the hope of achieving LCD replacement down the road. Otherwise. it seems implausible you can just will OLED to $2500 for a 55-inch screen despite having low-ish volumes to back it. The entire high-end TV market is currently only about 10-20% of the 50-inch-and-up market. The latter of those is a maybe 30 million unit market in the near term. So OLED is competing in a space that is ~3-5 million units _total_ per year. That's tough to get serious volume out of.
> 
> So at $3000-5000, I'd say they could get maybe 20% of the market, assuming they (a) offer multiple sizes and (b) make them flat. You are looking at


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24198522
> 
> 
> 4k has derailed OLED there's no doubt about it.


Rubbish!

4K hasn't derailed something nobody manage to manufacture to a reasonable price.


> Quote:
> Both seem to be the next 3D TV though.


Only in the sense that 8K is the next step regardless of technology.


> Quote:
> Unless..
> 
> 
> Apple does either.
> 
> 
> If I where Samsung or LG I'd be trying to convince Apple to make a 30 inch Retina OLED.


Apple isn't a company that magically solve technical problems other companies have problems with.


They are a design, repacking and marketing company, that is wholly dependent on what other companies manage to manufacture for them.

If Apple could solve the OLED manufacturing problems we would have seen Apple OLED monitors already.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24198812
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24198522
> 
> 
> 4k has derailed OLED there's no doubt about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish!
> 
> 4K hasn't derailed something nobody manage to manufacture to a reasonable price.
Click to expand...

 

Not "derailed", but to say that the coinciding higher resolution didn't complicate the emergence of a newly productized technology isn't fair either.  Even 4K LCD's are tougher to make than 2K LCD's.


----------



## andy sullivan

I think that if Vizio is successful with the new P Series (big sales) they will not sit on their laurels. What Vizio follows up the P Series with will force the development of OLED from Samsung, LG, or other Chinese Manufactures. The time frame will small and it will be sink or swim for OLED.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24198863
> 
> 
> Not "derailed", but to say that the coinciding higher resolution didn't complicate the emergence of a newly productized technology isn't fair either.



How do you get that argument to hang together?

They can't even mass-produce OLED TV size in any significant number, ............period.

That's the real and only problem for OLED.


How does the launch of 4K LCD influence that?


If OLED screens was available below fantasy prices, even in just HD resolution, they could compete with 4K LCD.


> Quote:
> Even 4K LCD's are tougher to make than 2K LCD's.


Seriously....No. The difference isn't even significant.


4K LCD has been manufactured and available since around 2001.


There is nothing new and unknown in the manufacturing of 4K LCD like it is for OLED.


> Quote:
> The IBM T220 was introduced in June 2001 and was the first monitor to natively support a resolution of 3840×2400.
> 
> 
> IBM T221 started out as an experimental technology from the flat panel display group at IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center. In 2000, a prototype 22.2 in TFTLCD, code-named "Bertha", was made in a joint effort between IBM Research and IBM Japan. This display had a pixel format of 3840×2400 (QUXGA-W) with 204 ppi. On 10 November 2000, IBM announced the shipment of the prototype monitors to U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. Later in 27 June 2001, IBM announced the production version of the monitor, known as T220. Later in November 2001, IBM announced its replacement, IBM T221. On 19 March 2002, IBM announced lowering the price of IBM T221 from US$17,999 to US$8,399. Later in 2 September 2003, IBM announced the availability of the 9503-DG5 model.
> 
> IBM and Chi Mei Group of Taiwan formed a joint venture called IDTech[5][6] in 2001 to manufacture the T221 in Japan.
> 
> WIKI
> Original Press release; ARMONK, N.Y. - 27 Jun 2001:


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24199274
> 
> 
> I think that if Vizio is successful with the new P Series (big sales) they will not sit on their laurels. What Vizio follows up the P Series with will force the development of OLED from Samsung, LG, or other Chinese Manufactures. The time frame will small and it will be sink or swim for OLED.



Other manufacturers cannot compete using OLED since it cannot be price competitve.

If for some reason, other manufacturers need to respond to Vizio (LCD) it would likely be with their own LCD products.




- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24199463
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24198863
> 
> 
> Not "derailed", but to say that the coinciding higher resolution didn't complicate the emergence of a newly productized technology isn't fair either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get that argument to hang together?
> 
> They can't even mass-produce OLED TV size in any significant number, ............period.
> 
> That's the real and only problem for OLED.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 

You're going to have to clarify this one.  So OLEDs of *any* resolution are equivalently easy to make?  Is that your position?


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24199595
> 
> 
> You're going to have to clarify this one.  So OLEDs of _any_ resolution are equivalently easy to make?  Is that your position?


How did you manage to extract that interpretation out of what I wrote?










The whole argument here is (and that's what I originally responded to) the launch of 4K TVs has no impact on the release, marketing or manufacturing problems of OLED.


Why is it that it seems to me that some people here don't get that OLED TVs can-not (for the time being) be manufactured (in any reasonable numbers or prices) and-that-is-the-only- (and very significant) -problem with OLED.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24199477
> 
> 
> Other manufacturers cannot compete using OLED since it cannot be price competitve.
> 
> If for some reason, other manufacturers need to respond to Vizio (LCD) it would likely be with their own LCD products.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich


I agree completely. I'm just guessing that Vizio may take a front runner position in whatever we consider the cutting edge of LCD display technology going into 2015. The P series offers a lot on paper but we'll have to see how it stacks up PQ wise with the competition. If the "After P series" product can provide even better dimming technology as well as reducing the off axis viewing problem then OLED better be readily available in stores at an affordable price or it will be left in the "What could have been" dust bin.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24199750
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24199595
> 
> 
> You're going to have to clarify this one.  So OLEDs of *any* resolution are equivalently easy to make?  Is that your position?
> 
> 
> 
> How did you manage to extract that interpretation out of what I wrote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole argument here is (and that's what I originally responded to) the launch of 4K TVs has no impact on the release, marketing or manufacturing problems of OLED.
Click to expand...

 

The advent of 4K LCD *means* that the public is aware of 4K.  It's the new technology.  This meant that the 2K OLED's, being of premium price, were already DOA as a concept.  This means that the nut to crack was in creating 4K OLED's at volume.  We've discussed this at length elsewhere.  David_B said it derailed OLED.  I don't think it derailed it---but I do think it complicated it.

 

You seem to think that assembling/depositing 6 million subpixels is the same as 24 million subpixels of 1/4th the size (along with all the additional circuitry needed to address them).  That is *just* not the case, particularly for a brand new technology.  They're already struggling with yields and then suddenly they had to deal with a radically tighter set of tolerances.  I'm sorry, but manufacturing just doesn't wave that stuff aside.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24198246
> 
> 
> Yeah, talking now about replacement of LCD is sci-fi/fantasy. Even the Kim Dzong Un of displays, the vice-president of Samsung display H S Kim gives 5+ ys time frame to see what comes of OLED.



Yep.


> Quote:
> Competitive pricing of Samsung mobile OLED's might be due to hidden subsidies or not accounting for full costs of development. This is OK if there is perspective of OLED spreading out and mobile area is now the benchmark: if there are signs OLED displays showing in 2014 in more smartphones, in some phablets/tablets - even in an ultra high-end segment - that would be positive. Otherwise prospects are dim especially that comparisons show no clear advantage of mobile OLED over best mobile LCD displays.



There are rumors Samsung is having yield issues with the full HD OLED panels for the Galaxy line and is going to go to part LTPS for the next generation to limit the number they need (presumably broken up by model, since Samsung does so many different models.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24198522
> 
> 
> 4k has derailed OLED there's no doubt about it.



I think this is true from a marketing point of view and the people that are disagreeing with you are missing that.


> Quote:
> If I where Samsung or LG I'd be trying to convince Apple to make a 30 inch Retina OLED.



Burn-in risk makes OLED a pretty bad computer monitor at this time. On smartphones (which shut off the screen all the time) and TVs sold in tiny volumes, the risk is manageable. It's less clear it is so on PCs.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24198634
> 
> 
> The capex associated with LG converting an a-si LCD fab to the world's first commercial Gen 8 IGZO OLED fab is ~$660 million. That buys you a total capacity of 1.87 million 55" televisions a year.
> 
> 
> That is cheap from a capex perspective and that is with the added burden of being the first to buy some of the equipment. That number should only go down if LG pursues further Gen 8 fabs.



OK, that's good info.


> Quote:
> So what exactly do you see being cost prohibitive due to the low volumes? I continue to see this being primarily a yield story. Get the yields, and the rest can fall into place...at least when we are talking about the high-end of the market.



I see low yield creating an anti-virtuous/vicious cycle. You improve yields with volume and then improve costs with yields and so on. With low production, you are not likely to improve yields very quickly and therefore not likely to improve costs very quickly.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24198812
> 
> 
> 4K hasn't derailed something nobody manage to manufacture to a reasonable price.



Except to the extent that the public's very limited attention span is now being directed to pixels.


> Quote:
> They are a design, repacking and marketing company, that is wholly dependent on what other companies manage to manufacture for them.
> 
> If Apple could solve the OLED manufacturing problems we would have seen Apple OLED monitors already.



Apple is awfully good at putting together pieces in ways others have dismissed/not contemplated to make products everyone thinks are ridiculous but then become hugely successful. None of this applies to OLED, per se, but it does suggest an Apple television is still a remote possibility.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24198863
> 
> 
> Not "derailed", but to say that the coinciding higher resolution didn't complicate the emergence of a newly productized technology isn't fair either.  Even 4K LCD's are tougher to make than 2K LCD's.



4K LCDs are lower resolution and use larger pixels than a 3-year-old iPhone. They are, quite honestly, trivial to make.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24199274
> 
> 
> I think that if Vizio is successful with the new P Series (big sales) they will not sit on their laurels. What Vizio follows up the P Series with will force the development of OLED from Samsung, LG, or other Chinese Manufactures. The time frame will small and it will be sink or swim for OLED.



I think it's a mistake to link anything here. Vizio's R&D budget is doubtless tiny. If they make a great LCD, everyone else can make a great LCD.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24199463
> 
> 
> How do you get that argument to hang together?
> 
> They can't even mass-produce OLED TV size in any significant number, ............period.
> 
> That's the real and only problem for OLED.



There's another very real problem: Consumers don't care. You can't sell "it's much better quality" for more than a small price premium. Consumers have spoken loudly on this topic over and over.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24199477
> 
> 
> Other manufacturers cannot compete using OLED since it cannot be price competitve.
> 
> If for some reason, other manufacturers need to respond to Vizio (LCD) it would likely be with their own LCD products.



Yep.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24199750
> 
> 
> Why is it that it seems to me that some people here don't get that OLED TVs can-not (for the time being) be manufactured (in any reasonable numbers or prices) and-that-is-the-only- (and very significant) -problem with OLED.



Again, it's more complex than that. If OLED was at price parity, it would still take time to actually win. Think about that for a second. At _any_ price premium, the path to success is slow because of lack of consumer interest.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24199976
> 
> 
> The advent of 4K LCD _means_ that the public is aware of 4K.  It's the new technology.  This meant that the 2K OLED's, being of premium price, were already DOA as a concept.



100% correct. We discussed this a year ago.


> Quote:
> You seem to think that assembling/depositing 6 million subpixels is the same as 24 million subpixels of 1/4th the size (along with all the additional circuitry needed to address them).  That is _just_ not the case, particularly for a brand new technology.  They're already struggling with yields and then suddenly they had to deal with a radically tighter set of tolerances.  I'm sorry, but manufacturing just doesn't wave that stuff aside.



Yes, this is true for OLED. It's just not true for LCD, where the volumes of smartphones already dramatically exceed that of TVs and many of those smartphones even have full HD resolution. They pack all that amazing circuitry into much, much smaller form factors. Making a 55-inch 4K LCD is beyond trivial.


----------



## RichB

Actually, 4K prematurely derailed Panasonic plasma, and probably Samsung and LG too (next year).

Panasonic decided that 4K Plasma could not be produced price competitive and within EU power usage requirements.



- Rich


----------



## Esox50

All I know after CES is that:

1.)OLED faces a massive uphill battle, and I have adjusted my expectations to 2017/2018 before OLED will see the light of day in my theater...if ever.


2.)Buying a TV right now is a "scary" proposition. Tremendous change is afoot in the industry, both from a product AND company financial situation standpoint. I think Panasonic will exit the TV business within 2-3 years. Sharp is in trouble. Sony came out big with UHD...but is it smoke and mirrors or one last ditch effort?


3.)Not one UHD TV from CES screams "buy me" right now. Whether its lack of 3D (Vizio), active 3D (WTF is with this? To me one of the huge benefits of potentially going 4K was for passive 3D), ridiculous side speakers (Sony 900 series), lack of 10 bit panels...the list goes on and on.


4.)4K Blu Ray is a no show. Seems we are destined for crappy streaming of 4K content.


So, what am I going to do? Absolutely nothing...I'm going to enjoy my current 2 year old 60" TV and hope maybe 2015 will be different. Good luck to all, including all the companies who can't seem to "get it right" for the videophiles among us.


----------



## andy sullivan

I agree that if Vizio can make a great LCD then anybody can make a great LCD. But from what I've seen, even though the technology is available to make a close to great LCD, Like the Elite from Sharp and Sony's Full Local Dimming, they can't make it cheap enough to offer an affordable end product. This is where Vizio may be headed. So far they seem to have adopted several new LCD improvements like at least some kind of local dimming and now 4K technology, which of course is now available to any manufacture wanting to buy it. Vizio has shown a penchant for combining any number of components to create a marketable product. I assume that all of the components that Vizio uses are also available to everyone else yet they manage to do it either more efficiently or at a lower acceptable profit margin. I do not own any Vizio products but I remember when they first burst on the market, many, including me, figured they would fall by the wayside quickly in a market controlled by a few Japanese giants and a couple of fast growing Korean companies. Think if Vizio comes out with an Elite quality display in 4K and incorporates a IGZO screen and then offers a 70" for under $3,000. What would that do to the future of OLED


----------



## vinnie97

Drive a stake through its heart?


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24200782
> 
> 
> Actually, 4K prematurely derailed Panasonic plasma, and probably Samsung and LG too (next year).
> 
> Panasonic decided that 4K Plasma could not be produced price competitive and within EU power usage requirements.
> 
> - Rich



Screw the EU's stupid 'power usage requirements' then I say!


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100#post_24200592
> 
> 
> I see low yield creating an anti-virtuous/vicious cycle. You improve yields with volume and then improve costs with yields and so on. With low production, you are not likely to improve yields very quickly and therefore not likely to improve costs very quickly.



You've lost me here. I might disagree with many of your arguments but I understand the logic, but I'm missing something on this one.


You really think it is impossible to develop the methods to get decent yields with a 26,000 substrate a month fab? Why?


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24201219
> 
> 
> Screw the EU's stupid 'power usage requirements' then I say!



Me too. The earth does not need saving. It will go on fine without us










- Rich


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24201447
> 
> 
> 
> You really think it is impossible to develop the methods to get decent yields with a 26,000 substrate a month fab? Why?



I never said any such thing.


What I was trying to get across (apparently not very clearly), is that you need high volume to drive costs down and you need high yields to drive volumes. You can't drive costs down on low volumes. Nor will you likely drive yields up much on low volumes, I'm sorry to say. You can't just wish this stuff into being true and you can't just tweak processes on the margin and make it true.


The problem here is that the desire to ramp production of OLED is not like the production ramp of other technologies that came before it, like LCDs (or PDPs) or semiconductor products. When you have something that truly disrupts a market, there is an almost automatic virtuous cycle of demand --> pushed production --> improved yields --> lower prices --> even more demand --> even more production --> even further yield improvements --> even lower prices --> etc. etc.


OLED has no automatic demand at any price level above the top end of the LCD market. The demand for OLED against the best LCDs if OLED is priced even $1000 more is infinitesimal. It does not drive the cycle shown above.


The reason for this is OLED is simply not disruptive for televisions. It improves contrast in ways most people (a) won't notice (b) won't experience due to watching with the the lights on (c) won't care. It may marginally improve color that is already reproduced with near-perfect accuracy by existing sets. It improves viewing angles (though not with curved sets!!!!!!!) over LCD, yet existing LCD viewing angles have not stopped that technology from marching toward a 95+% share of the TV market. It is currently incapable of producing industry-leading resolution. It is not the brightest TV you can buy. It does not deal any better with ambient light than LCD (perhaps it is actually worse). It's not currently clear it provides superior power consumption, but with LCDs sporting $8-12 Energy Guide stickers, this will not matter to consumers.


We heard patently absurd arguments here 2 years ago that people would value OLED TVs because they _weighed less_ as if anyone is moving their TV around! We heard the thinness would matter, yet manufacturers have already decided that curving the screen and making it have a deeper profile than existing sets is more interesting to consumers than taking advantage of the thinness.


The fundamental problem here is that the technology as currently constituted is simply not a disruption. We can look at that across two different dimensions.


1) _*If the features were disruptive, the price could easily be higher*_. Consider the market for a touchscreen phone that accesses the internet with a familiar browser and allows access to thousands of well-crafted apps in a world where the majority of cell phones make and receive calls and have a 1-3 line screen that displays phone numbers and lets you send a text message, albeit awkwardly. In that world, charging more money for the phone and the related service is hardly out of the question, _yet[ many will still question whether the new technology is appealing._


When flat panels were new, their extreme cost was almost entirely irrelevant to early adoption. There were people who needed them for embedded computing (laptops), small spaces (wall-mounted TVs), etc. They didn't even need to be good to be gigantically successful because some people would pay _any reasonable price_ to obtain them. Now that they have them, however, (and can replace them), the original anchoring price is gone as relevant.


This is why everyone who believes "Well plasmas used to cost $25,000 so it's OK OLEDs are $9000" is wrong. There was a market for the first one and yet there is simply not for the second one. (When I say "there is not a market", I don't mean sales are literally zero. But they are a number that approaches zero.) There are two problems here that are obvious and subtle. First, it should be clear than when the Pioneer 50-inch plasma was $20,000, if you needed a 50 inch flatscreen, the only price on earth was $20,000. Today, of course, you can buy one for ~$500. Second, when the price was $20,000 and there was no competition, nothing anchored expectations around cost. Now, that $500 TV does. It limits the maximum you can charge for the 50-inch TV, no matter how good it is (unless it was truly novel).


2) _*If there was a disruption in manufacturing that made the technology cheaper, it would not even need to be better*_. In fact, in classic disruption theory the new thing is often worse -- at least initially -- and uses cheapness/ease of availability/etc. to make its way in the world. Consider, for example, a world where digital cameras allow you to take 100s of photos at no marginal cost and then print only the good ones -- or print none at all!


One of the great OLED myths is that "it's inherently cheaper" to produce. This nonsense is based on a facile examination of the production processes of the two technologies that shows "fewer steps are required to make OLEDs than LCDs". The problem with these kinds of analyses is that they ignore countless real world examples of products that don't follow the logic. The steps required to make an Intel microprocessor are quite complex and numerous. Yet you can produce a wafer full of dozens of them for a few dollars apiece. The steps required to produce a vinyl shutter for a 24 x 36 window are quite a bit less complex, far less proprietary than Intel's processes (more competitors), and not especially precise. Yet the build cost is far higher and if, say, we make the windows 48 x 72, there is no consumer Intel chip that costs more than that shutter... If we switched to wood for the shutter, well, wow....


A significant reason for the different is volume, but that hardly accounts for all the difference. There are millions of shutters produced around the world each year such that most volume efficiencies should have been achieved. But shutters simply cost more than computer chips, despite being far less complex.


So when we talk about OLED, we need to understand that in the real world, it's more expensive to make than LCD. It's certainly possible that can change. Printing OLEDs in theory can not only save steps, but also cut waste, cut rework, increase yield, improve throughput and result in more uniform displays than LCD offers. In the meantime, we are left with a world where printing OLEDs is an idea, not a reality. The two existing OLED production methods are far less efficient than the worst LCD fab on earth. Samsung's method is simply not scaleable. Samsung's actions (and words) establish this, though it's a them I (and others) have repeated for years. You cannot slide a small screen around a huge substrate and produce a zero-pixel seam with any combination of repeatability and throughput. Time will not change this. It's possible a larger screen will be invented if a new material is developed that is rigid over a larger area, though that, too, is a fraught methodology.


LG's method uses no pixels so it simply relies on depositing three layers of OLED material as a vapor, in succession, with enough evenness to make for consistent performance. It's possible this technique will be mastered, though it seems improbable it will ever be fast. Similarly, because the LG OLED uses a color filter and a TFT backplane, the rest of the design is basically one of their LCDs. So to believe it will ever be cheaper, you have to believe the vapor deposition of the OLED material will eventually beat out the sputtering of the LC material into the pixel grid. This seems improbable. (Technically, there are other differing steps between the two technologies, but they generally don't favor OLED vs. LCD in this case. They tend to favor OLED when you don't need to do three slow, separate depositions and don't also need to manufacture color filters and add them to the mix.)


So, what I believe is that a disruption on either manufacture or user experience hasn't been produced. If/when it is, OLED will likely take over.


Until then, pushing volumes is going to be like pushing on a string. Every cost reduction will need to be passed along to consumers almost in its entirety to drive prices down anywhere near enough to allow for the next tier of demand to form. But these will be very, very small tiers and thus it is a tough slog to reach the volumes needed to perfect production. An easier strategy would be to drop prices to $4000 right now for a 55-inch set. LG would doubtless lose money, but it would drive OLED ahead 2-3 years for every calendar year and give it a huge leg up on competitors. LG is poorly capitalized, however, and seems unlikely to try this strategy. In a world where it wasn't Korean, it might be well served to partner with someone like Apple, take $10 billion, and engage in just this kind of "reckless" strategy.


----------



## David_B

Plenty if mass produced products who's cost to make only inched down cent by cent over the years. While many companies and products operate under the lower costs as fast as possible what is more important is demand.


Demand or lack of demand is what hurts OLED.


PS were did you get your engineering degree rogo that you can make claims that something can never be done?


Nothing worse then a second hand knowledge aggregator.


----------



## dsinger

Rogo: One of your very best thought pieces. Thinking about starting an investment letter?


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24201645
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by RichB
> 
> 
> Actually, 4K prematurely derailed Panasonic plasma, and probably Samsung and LG too (next year).
> 
> Panasonic decided that 4K Plasma could not be produced price competitive and within EU power usage requirements.
> 
> - Rich
> 
> 
> MN - Screw the EU's stupid 'power usage requirements' then I say!
> 
> 
> Me too. The earth does not need saving. It will go on fine without us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich


Hi Rich! - if expending a few more watts in order to have 4k Plasma will keep me out of 'LCD/LED hell' then I'm all for it! :-D

(And I really don't have much faith that OLED will ever become reliable enough, yield big enough displays, or come down far enough in price to be practical...but I hope I'm wrong though!).

And oh yeah, the plasmas of today use far less energy than similar sized units did even five/six years ago, so...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24202688
> 
> 
> Rogo: One of your very best thought pieces.



Thanks much!


> Quote:
> Thinking about starting an investment letter?



Hmm... interesting. I am thinking about expanding my media-ness beyond just the Forbes blog.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24202685
> 
> 
> Plenty if mass produced products who's cost to make only inched down cent by cent over the years. While many companies and products operate under the lower costs as fast as possible what is more important is demand.



They do, however you will find very few examples of products displacing a perfectly good incumbent using this kind of cost reduction as their MO.


> Quote:
> Demand or lack of demand is what hurts OLED.



Then OLED is in serious trouble by your logic.


> Quote:
> PS were did you get your engineering degree rogo that you can make claims that something can never be done?



I see you're an education snob... Alas.


> Quote:
> Nothing worse then a second hand knowledge aggregator.



Normally, I don't bother with your personal attacks. But this one is a new level of "huh"? There's reallly _nothing worse_? Not murderers? Rapists?


Oh, you just mean in a discussion. So it's not worse to just, say, make up facts. Or to draw conclusions that are completely unsupported by facts in evidence? Those are OK so long as you aggregated your knowledge at MIT or Cal Tech?


I have no real idea what the insult actually means. We're all knowledge aggregators. Few of us can synthesize much from what we know to form reasoned opinions or theses about how things might turn on based on what we know now.


Fortunately for this part of AVS, it has people like slacker, chronoptimist, irkuck and a few others who aggregate their second-hand knowledge in very interesting ways.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24202688
> 
> 
> Rogo: One of your very best thought pieces. Thinking about starting an investment letter?



How about AVS Columnist-In-Residence position?


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24202685
> 
> 
> Plenty if mass produced products who's cost to make only inched down cent by cent over the years. While many companies and products operate under the lower costs as fast as possible what is more important is demand.
> 
> 
> Demand or lack of demand is what hurts OLED.
> 
> 
> PS were did you get your engineering degree rogo that you can make claims that something can never be done?
> 
> 
> Nothing worse then a second hand knowledge aggregator.



I normally don't like to get involved with other people's disputes but rogo has really been a great source of information and I've been enjoying reading his daily posts here, in fact that's one of the reasons I come here. Rogo is extremely knowledgeable of OLED technology and the way they are produced you may not agree with everything he has to say and that's ok but I'd still enjoy hearing his educated opinion on the topic as I'm sure others do as we'll. I would encourage you to listen to what he has to say and if you don't agree with it then share your own opinion with us, or tell us why you don't agree with his opinion I'll read both posts and draw my own conclusions.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24204283
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*
> 
> 
> Nothing worse then a second hand knowledge aggregator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *[...]*
> 
> I have no real idea what the insult actually means. We're all knowledge aggregators.
Click to expand...

 

Yeah, this seems like one of the weirder jabs at someone I've seen.


----------



## greenland

I am starting to feel that large OLED TV displays may never break out beyond being high priced boutique items. If Plasma TVs could not capture enough market share to remain viable, once they are no longer available for a few years, how will OLED displays be able to takeover that niche in the market place, by at the earliest, 2016/2017, and take away market share from LED/LCD product, which will have had the consumer market cornered after Plasma makers have stopped making them? I prefer Plasma to LCD for my own home viewing, but the reality is that the vast majority of consumers have favored LED/LCD displays.


What will be the selling points for OLED displays three years from now to convince all those people that have found LED/LCD displays to meet their viewing needs to switch to OLED sets instead? Will OLED be able to compete with a low enough price point of 2017, and offer enough of a superior worry free viewing experience to even attract enough buyers to make it economically worthwhile for some manufacturers to ramp up mass production of OLED TVs, to where the price levels can compete with the LED/LCD sets? I don't know the answer to that, but I see the chance of OLED ever gaining a bigger market share than Plasma was able to, as highly unlikely. I hope I am wrong about that, but I fear that I am not.


----------



## RichB

If OLED ever gets price competitive, then I think it will succeed.


Plasma failed in the showroom because of limited full screen brightness (ABL) which OLED does not suffer from, at least not to the same degree.

I have an iPhone and iPads and when I saw my brother OLED phone, I was amazed. It was fantastic.


IMO, it comes down to production costs and solving longevity issues.


- Rich


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24205577
> 
> 
> If OLED ever gets price competitive, then I think it will succeed.
> 
> 
> Plasma failed in the showroom because of limited full screen brightness (ABL) which OLED does not suffer from, at least not to the same degree.
> 
> I have an iPhone and iPads and when I saw my brother OLED phone, I was amazed. It was fantastic.
> 
> 
> IMO, it comes down to production costs and solving longevity issues.
> 
> 
> - Rich




Rich


You've nailed it on the head.


Its very unlikely that OLED price curve can catch up with LED's.


I wouldn't be surprised if part of the loss of interest by the manufacturers for OLED has more to do with fighting a loosing battle. Build what sells and can be profitable and forget the rest.


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24204673
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24202685
> 
> 
> Plenty if mass produced products who's cost to make only inched down cent by cent over the years. While many companies and products operate under the lower costs as fast as possible what is more important is demand.
> 
> 
> Demand or lack of demand is what hurts OLED.
> 
> 
> PS were did you get your engineering degree rogo that you can make claims that something can never be done?
> 
> 
> Nothing worse then a second hand knowledge aggregator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I normally don't like to get involved with other people's disputes but rogo has really been a great source of information and I've been enjoying reading his daily posts here, in fact that's one of the reasons I come here. Rogo is extremely knowledgeable of OLED technology and the way they are produced you may not agree with everything he has to say and that's ok but I'd still enjoy hearing his educated opinion on the topic as I'm sure others do as we'll. I would encourage you to listen to what he has to say and if you don't agree with it then share your own opinion with us, or tell us why you don't agree with his opinion I'll read both posts and draw my own conclusions.
Click to expand...


At the very least he could've offered a point-by-point factual rebuttal. Why do you need a degree in engineering to observe the economics at play in regards to consumer electronics?


----------



## Orbitron

Amongst the regular posters here - who is planning to buy an OLED in 2014?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24202264
> 
> 
> So when we talk about OLED, we need to understand that in the real world, it's more expensive to make than LCD.



Yes, but this is meaningless unless you define the markets. The ability for LG to manufacture an OLED to compete with an $800 LCD is very different than their ability to compete in the $2000 price segment. The cost of the backlight in the high-end market dwarfs the cost of a CCFL. An IPS display costs more to manufacture than a TN display.


I have very clearly been saying LG has a chance in the high-end market but that I think that competitive pricing with respect to the low-end will likely require printing.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24202264
> 
> 
> 
> What I was trying to get across (apparently not very clearly), is that you need high volume to drive costs down and you need high yields to drive volumes.



Ok, so my question is with the first part of the statement. What exactly do you see needing the economies of scale associated with large volumes? This is not a rhetorical question. I look at the components of the cost of an OLED and I am not sure what is going to be driving outsized costs (assuming good yields for LG).


The capex number will drive depreciation and it is fairly small considering the total capacity. The fact that the process is slow and kludgy is incorporated into that capex number. If LG had a faster process they could buy less equipment with a similar capacity. There might some more man-hours due to the nature of the process but labor is a small component of the cost of running a fab.


Materials?

Glass?

RGB filters?

Driver IC's?

PCB?


With the exception of the materials and the IGZO substrate, OLED's are not reinventing the wheel here and the materials are similar enough to mobile that economies of scale will apply.


So yes, yields are an open question. However, if LG is able to drive good yields in their commercial fab (say >80%), then I see little reason that OLED's cannot compete successfully on the high-end of the market.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24205577
> 
> 
> Plasma failed in the showroom because of limited full screen brightness (ABL) which OLED does not suffer from, at least not to the same degree.


Actually, this is very likely to happen again. This year, all the LCD manufacturers seem to have a focus on either Dolby HDR displays or at least high brightness displays.

Sony's high-end LED models are 2-3x brighter than last year's - and those were already about twice as bright as the current OLED sets.


OLED may not be as dim as plasma displays, or suffer from the same problems in a bright room that plasma does, but they're still nowhere near as bright, and still use an ABL system.


And I have to say, I am coming around to the idea of brighter displays. When it's late at night, I still only want to be looking at a dim screen, but I tried turning up the backlight to its maximum setting earlier in the evening while watching a couple of films, and I have to say that it really did seem "right" for the content being shown. (e.g. scenes at a beach were really bright)

And even though my LCD is about 350cd/m2 maximum brightness (at D65) I would still prefer that it could get brighter during the daytime or on a summer's evening.


While I don't feel that I've done a complete 180 on my previous position on bright displays ("no need for anything more than 100cd/m2 if you watch in a dim environment") I'm now seriously considering one of the new 4K models from Sony rather than waiting for 4K OLED, which could still be five years away from being affordable, bright, and having the longevity/burn-in issues worked out.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24205890
> 
> 
> Amongst the regular posters here - who is planning to buy an OLED in 2014?


I had been seriously considering it, but not any more.


----------



## Chris5028

Just got back from CES 2018 and this is what Sony had to say.

Coming soon to LED, "Solar Bright Pro" Burn your eyes out of your head with our new "Solar Bright Pro" panel! 4x as bright as the sun!


----------



## vinnie97

Dr. Who, is that you?


----------



## Chris5028

Nope, Just dialed the Stargate through a solar flare.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24206720
> 
> 
> Just got back from CES 2018 and this is what Sony had to say.
> 
> Coming soon to LED, "Solar Bright Pro" Burn your eyes out of your head with our new "Solar Bright Pro" panel! 4x as bright as the sun!


Well actually that's the point - current displays are nowhere near bright enough to accurately convey something like a bright summer day. This is what Dolby HDR and its 4,000 cd/m2 demo is all about.

I was initially against this, even recently, but I'm starting to come around to the idea as long as the display is sufficiently large, and you're not watching in total darkness.


With Sony claiming peak brightness of 3x previous sets, I would expect the new displays to be reaching around 1,000 cd/m2 with the 2014 models.


----------



## work permit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24207005
> 
> 
> Well actually that's the point - current displays are nowhere near bright enough to accurately convey something like a bright summer day. This is what Dolby HDR and its 4,000 cd/m2 demo is all about.
> 
> I was initially against this, even recently, but I'm starting to come around to the idea as long as the display is sufficiently large, and you're not watching in total darkness.
> 
> 
> With Sony claiming peak brightness of 3x previous sets, I would expect the new displays to be reaching around 1,000 cd/m2 with the 2014 models.



So in a year or two's time oled look as dim, relative to lcd, as plasma does today? Brightness killed plasma. Will oled be stillborn?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *work permit*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24207175
> 
> 
> So in a year or two's time oled look as dim, relative to lcd, as plasma does today? Brightness killed plasma. Will oled be stillborn?


A year or two? A large number of the LCD displays to be released in 2014 will have much brighter images now. (at least 2x)


It's certainly looking more and more difficult for OLED to compete.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24204297
> 
> 
> How about AVS Columnist-In-Residence position?



Is that a paying gig?










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24204673
> 
> 
> I normally don't like to get involved with other people's disputes but rogo has really been a great source of information and I've been enjoying reading his daily posts here, in fact that's one of the reasons I come here. Rogo is extremely knowledgeable of OLED technology and the way they are produced you may not agree with everything he has to say and that's ok but I'd still enjoy hearing his educated opinion on the topic as I'm sure others do as we'll. I would encourage you to listen to what he has to say and if you don't agree with it then share your own opinion with us, or tell us why you don't agree with his opinion I'll read both posts and draw my own conclusions.



Thanks RadTech.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24205387
> 
> 
> I am starting to feel that large OLED TV displays may never break out beyond being high priced boutique items. If Plasma TVs could not capture enough market share to remain viable, once they are no longer available for a few years, how will OLED displays be able to takeover that niche in the market place, by at the earliest, 2016/2017, and take away market share from LED/LCD product, which will have had the consumer market cornered after Plasma makers have stopped making them? I prefer Plasma to LCD for my own home viewing, but the reality is that the vast majority of consumers have favored LED/LCD displays.
> 
> 
> What will be the selling points for OLED displays three years from now to convince all those people that have found LED/LCD displays to meet their viewing needs to switch to OLED sets instead? Will OLED be able to compete with a low enough price point of 2017, and offer enough of a superior worry free viewing experience to even attract enough buyers to make it economically worthwhile for some manufacturers to ramp up mass production of OLED TVs, to where the price levels can compete with the LED/LCD sets? I don't know the answer to that, but I see the chance of OLED ever gaining a bigger market share than Plasma was able to, as highly unlikely. I hope I am wrong about that, but I fear that I am not.



No, you aren't wrong. It's years (a decade?) before OLED can really compete with LCD... What slacker suggests (see below), is that it can compete in the high end market much sooner. He's right on that (I believe), but where we differ is how robust it will be as a technology trying to exist in that very small wedge of the TV business.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24205577
> 
> 
> If OLED ever gets price competitive, then I think it will succeed.



If....


> Quote:
> Plasma failed in the showroom because of limited full screen brightness (ABL) which OLED does not suffer from, at least not to the same degree.
> 
> I have an iPhone and iPads and when I saw my brother OLED phone, I was amazed. It was fantastic.
> 
> 
> IMO, it comes down to production costs and solving longevity issues.



The former isn't close to being solved; the latter is also going to be challenging not in terms of reality but in terms of perception. It's a burn-in-able technology. Period.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24205698
> 
> 
> Its very unlikely that OLED price curve can catch up with LED's.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if part of the loss of interest by the manufacturers for OLED has more to do with fighting a loosing battle. Build what sells and can be profitable and forget the rest.



That's absolutely correct. They also are better privy to the TV data than I am. And I see a TV market that's in serious decline.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24205782
> 
> 
> At the very least he could've offered a point-by-point factual rebuttal. Why do you need a degree in engineering to observe the economics at play in regards to consumer electronics?



Why does a credential mean anything? Isn't it about the quality of the argument? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg all lack engineering degrees, incidentally. (I'm nowhere near in their company; I'm making a point.)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24205969
> 
> 
> Yes, but this is meaningless unless you define the markets. The ability for LG to manufacture an OLED to compete with an $800 LCD is very different than their ability to compete in the $2000 price segment. The cost of the backlight in the high-end market dwarfs the cost of a CCFL. An IPS display costs more to manufacture than a TN display.



That's fair. The challenge is that the needle we're talking about threading is pretty small...


> Quote:
> Ok, so my question is with the first part of the statement. What exactly do you see needing the economies of scale associated with large volumes? This is not a rhetorical question. I look at the components of the cost of an OLED and I am not sure what is going to be driving outsized costs (assuming good yields for LG).



The "learning curve" is not about traditional scale economics in many ways, Slacker. We're not debating whether or not buying 10 million of a widget is cheaper enough than 1 million of that widget. What I'm trying to get across is that every photolitho/semiconductor-type technology in the history of the business has had similar economics: The more you make, the cheaper they get. Why? Because everything gets better when you do it. You refine step 11 to go 20% faster. You make step 14 use 10% less material. You figure out how to reduce the cycle time of the LC sputtering step from days to minutes... We can't know what it's going to be for LG, but there are some ripe areas for speculation. The vapor depo stage is (a) slow (b) material wasting (c) not very good at this point. You simply cannot get it as good at 1 million units as you can at 10 million units. They will reduce the cost of manufacture by more than half when they move from 1 million to 10 million. That is simply the way it works. You can't repeal these rules of manufacture with "but, but but....."


> Quote:
> The capex number will drive depreciation and it is fairly small considering the total capacity. The fact that the process is slow and kludgy is incorporated into that capex number. If LG had a faster process they could buy less equipment with a similar capacity. There might some more man-hours due to the nature of the process but labor is a small component of the cost of running a fab.
> 
> 
> Materials?
> 
> Glass?
> 
> RGB filters?
> 
> Driver IC's?
> 
> PCB?
> 
> 
> With the exception of the materials and the IGZO substrate, OLED's are not reinventing the wheel here and the materials are similar enough to mobile that economies of scale will apply.



Right, so all the non-unique steps _still_ benefit from specific-to-OLED volume. LG is really, really good at making color filters. When they make filters for their OLED, they are less good. Why? Because they make millions upon millions that are purpose built for the LCD and not as many for the OLED... Is this particular difference large? I'm sure it's quite small. I'm also quite sure it's non-zero.


> Quote:
> So yes, yields are an open question. However, if LG is able to drive good yields in their commercial fab (say >80%), then I see little reason that OLED's cannot compete successfully on the high-end of the market.



You can't hand wave away yield. It's all about yield. To get to 80% yield, they will probably need to make a few million displays. To get to 90%, they will need perhaps the 10 million mark. In the meantime, it's not price competitive with _anything_.


We could also spend some more time dissecting just how small this high end market really is.


Today, I have defined (based on some data), a TAM for displays of this size that is ~30 million units. Of those, very few are actually high end displays, most are simply large. Even if you believe the TAM will rise to 40 million (which is not very likely right now given TV sales data and the lack of interest in large displays in much of the world, but let's just go there)... you struggle to define a high-end market that is much larger than 5 million units...


Let's say you talk yourself into the fact that it's a 10 million unit market (I am being wildly generous) but your OLED product is $1000 above the current top end. What is the most you capture of that 10 million? _Even 1 million seems hard here._ This is going to be 2015's problem, not 2014's -- no one believes OLED sales will get much farther than the low six figures this year. But it's going to be a problem. That first million is needed desperately to push yield and lower prices, but it's going to be almost impossible to achieve that demand without pricing farther down the curve than you've currently reached. The Japanese used to do this -- back in the 1970s, when it was to enter a critical field. Is this really critical for Samsung or LG? The whole OLED argument was "make more profits than LCD". But if they are gaming the learning curve at the cost of billions of dollars to do that, well... That's not happening.


None of this means the end result isn't possible. What it means is that achieving that end result is very, very hard from here. This is the well known "valley of death" and, honestly, shipping the first few units only pushed OLED into that valley... It doesn't being to answer the question of whether the tech escapes it (for TVs.)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24206171
> 
> 
> Actually, this is very likely to happen again. This year, all the LCD manufacturers seem to have a focus on either Dolby HDR displays or at least high brightness displays.
> 
> Sony's high-end LED models are 2-3x brighter than last year's - and those were already about twice as bright as the current OLED sets.
> 
> 
> OLED may not be as dim as plasma displays, or suffer from the same problems in a bright room that plasma does, but they're still nowhere near as bright, and still use an ABL system.





> Quote:
> And the problem here is not that people need the brightness most of the time. It's the retail issue. You see a bunch of super brights and some dimmer thing... and you steer away from the dimmer thing.
> 
> While I don't feel that I've done a complete 180 on my previous position on bright displays ("no need for anything more than 100cd/m2 if you watch in a dim environment") I'm now seriously considering one of the new 4K models from Sony rather than waiting for 4K OLED, which could still be five years away from being affordable, bright, and having the longevity/burn-in issues worked out.
> 
> I had been seriously considering it, but not any more.



I have to say that there's no doubt in my mind if I had to buy a TV this year and was basically price indifferent, the Sony 950B would be an absolute no brainer. It's correct that the 4K OLED we want is years from (a) being affordable and (b) a couple of generations from being something I'd trust as a 5-10 year TV.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24207481
> 
> 
> And the problem here is not that people need the brightness most of the time. It's the retail issue. You see a bunch of super brights and some dimmer thing... and you steer away from the dimmer thing.


Exactly - which TV would you buy?



http://imgur.com/nmPrqKC.jpg%5B/IMG%5D%5B/URL%5D



A less dramatic comparison shows Sharp's HDR display, rather than Dolby's 4,000cd/m2 prototype, next to a regular LCD display:


http://imgur.com/6us2N69.jpg%5B/IMG%5D%5B/URL%5D



This would have been more dramatic if the camera had correctly exposed for the brighter display - it's a bit over-exposed here.

But just imagine seeing that next to OLEDs which are not even as bright as the regular LCD display.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24207481
> 
> 
> I have to say that there's no doubt in my mind if I had to buy a TV this year and was basically price indifferent, the Sony 950B would be an absolute no brainer. It's correct that the 4K OLED we want is years from (a) being affordable and (b) a couple of generations from being something I'd trust as a 5-10 year TV.


Wow, I just looked into this, and Sony's naming convention is a _mess_ this year.

It's completely different across regions, and the naming scheme is very complicated.

It seems that the 65X950 is billed as the "flagship" display in the US, even though it is actually a lower-end model than the 65X900 and does not include local dimming. In Europe, those models are the 65X85 (X950) and the 65X9. (X900)

Actually, that's reminiscent of the HX900 being positioned as a lower-end model than the LX900 LCDs back when I bought mine. The LX900 cost more, but was an edge-lit model rather than the local dimming HX900.


The 85X950 (85X95) is still the highest-end model with local dimming though. (and I think 3x peak brightness, rather than 2x on the X900/X9 models)

I also think it's stupid that the product line is X95, X9, X85, W95, W85, W8 etc. in Europe. Why not just go X95, X90, W85, W80 etc?


While I liked the previous design with the speakers on either side of the display, I'm not a fan of how they look this year, and those are the only models with full local dimming. (excluding the 85" which is too big, and probably costs far too much money)


----------



## rogo

"It seems that the 65X950 is billed as the "flagship" display in the US, even though it is actually a lower-end model than the 65X900 and does not include local dimming. "


No, the 950B is indeed the U.S. flagship. Nothing sits above it and the 950B is the only U.S. Sony with local dimming. (It comes in 65" and 84").


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24206720
> 
> 
> Just got back from CES 2018 and this is what Sony had to say.
> 
> Coming soon to LED, "Solar Bright Pro" Burn your eyes out of your head with our new "Solar Bright Pro" panel! 4x as bright as the sun!



Just to add to that.


Dolby Vision is based on technology developed by BrightSide Technologies Inc. which Dolby bought in 2007.


Whatever Sony choose to call it, in their usual style of putting their own marketing name on the same technology that many other manufacturers will also use, this is most likely Dolby Vision technology.


Sony announced in 2011 that they had licensed Dolby Vision "HDR" technology to use on their TVs in the future.

*Engadget* Dolby/Sony Press Release snippet;


> Quote:
> *Dolby Licenses High Dynamic Range Image Display Patents to Sony*
> 
> 
> San Francisco, June 6, 2011-
> 
> Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: DLB) today announced that Sony Corporation has licensed local dimming high dynamic range (HDR) image display patents from Dolby for select Sony BRAVIA™ LCD televisions with LED backlight technology.
> 
> 
> LCDs with Dolby's imaging technologies deliver enhanced dynamic contrast to produce vivid images that significantly surpass the picture quality of fluorescent tube backlit LCDs-providing consumers with the high-quality entertainment experience they have come to associate with the Dolby brand.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24202264
> 
> 
> We heard the thinness would matter, yet manufacturers have already decided that curving the screen and making it have a deeper profile than existing sets is more interesting to consumers than taking advantage of the thinness.



There is another way to look at this. The curved screens actually allows them to show off just how thin an OLED panel can get. I don't mean the profile of the entire set, just the screen. Without the curve, the screen would need to be thicker to stay rigid and maintain stability on a stand. It's also easier to see the thinness in a curved profile from above without having to look behind the set. Sure LG made a super thin flat version but that required some rather exotic carbon-fiber to achieve.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24205890
> 
> 
> Amongst the regular posters here - who is planning to buy an OLED in 2014?



I would if someone actually produced one with the features I require -


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24207762
> 
> 
> "It seems that the 65X950 is billed as the "flagship" display in the US, even though it is actually a lower-end model than the 65X900 and does not include local dimming. "
> 
> 
> No, the 950B is indeed the U.S. flagship. Nothing sits above it and the 950B is the only U.S. Sony with local dimming. (It comes in 65" and 84").


Oh, you're right. I could have sworn that when I looked at the page it did not mention local dimming.

It looks like they're either not bringing the 65" model to Europe, or they forgot to list it. The US shots of the X950 look just like the images of the European X85. (which does not have local dimming)


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24207826
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24207762
> 
> 
> "It seems that the 65X950 is billed as the "flagship" display in the US, even though it is actually a lower-end model than the 65X900 and does not include local dimming. "
> 
> 
> No, the 950B is indeed the U.S. flagship. Nothing sits above it and the 950B is the only U.S. Sony with local dimming. (It comes in 65" and 84").
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you're right. I could have sworn that when I looked at the page it did not mention local dimming.
> 
> It looks like they're either not bringing the 65" model to Europe, or they forgot to list it. The US shots of the X950 look just like the images of the European X85. (which does not have local dimming)
Click to expand...

 

It might not have been your fault if you were using sony.com.  I've been checking the Sony webpages for information often and they *do* change over time.  Currently some spec sheets are outright missing, and one even claims to give active-3D glasses for a passive-3D display (not sure which is correct).  There are a lot of last minute cut-and-paste errors going on I think.

 

This happened last year too.  At least they provide *some* information.  I can't dig a *thing* out of most of the manufacturers.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24207481
> 
> 
> ...I have to say that there's no doubt in my mind if I had to buy a TV this year and was basically price indifferent, the Sony 950B would be an absolute no brainer. ...snip....



That sounds like a heads up for a pretty good display. Thanks.


My one and only concern is following the Sony W900a thread, there seems to be an inordinate number of returns/exchanges due to screen uniformity. I know how complaints on forums are amplified, but it is more than you find on other threads/displays.


Do you have any insight into what causes these uniformity issues and if their W950B would be different?


----------



## Wizziwig

Keep in mind that like all early 4K LCD sets except those from Panasonic, these new Sony's have crippled half bandwidth HDMI 2.0. 10.2 Gbps, same as HDMI 1.4. This means you can't drive them at full native 4:4:4 resolution with 60 fps content. Currently such content only comes from PCs, but who knows what the future holds. I would hold out for real 18 Gbps HDMI 2.0 products.


----------



## Mike204


I've been following OLED technology for quite sometime now as I've been a huge plasma supporter since 42" plasma's were the "big thing" and personally I feel OLED is our only hope for PQ euphoria.

 

However the developments I've been seeing in the TV world are if anything very upsetting for me.

 

I'll explain my personal predictions for the technology, and I apologize now if I bring something up which has been previously discussed in the other 270+ pages...which is going to happen.

 

I think we really have to look at UHDTV as being the possible killer or "sleeping agent" of OLED at the moment. Many will immediately respond by saying "You cannot compare resolution with panel technology"

How-ever this is not what I am comparing. I'm comparing the 2 fighting in the real world of marketing as these will be marketed against each other. 

 

I predict as many have that UHDTV will be the new standard whether we the consumers want it or not. We saw 1080P become the new standard and in 2014 have almost no channels streaming 1080p content to us via: cable providers. The majority of our HDTV comes in 720p. However this simple fact proves we will be acceptable of whatever the manufacturers push.

 

Many will say UDHTV is a gimmick and like 3d so it will not stick around. While I agree 100% it is a gimmick, and with our eyes having "finite resolution" we cannot distinguish the difference of 1080p vs UHDTV at proper viewing distances with tv's 80" and under, this does not take away from the power UHDTV has from a marketing level.

 

When you walk into a store and see a UHDTV 2-3 feet from your face it's just amazing. With all our box stores showing off in aisles, this is where the war will be waged. While people sit amazed with the comparisons of the 2 tv's side by side (both being LCD/LED), they will not even hesitate to get the uhdtv as it will seem so impressive at first glance. When they take it home and watch tv, you can guarantee they will be making family and friends get up-close to see the detail. (hope they have udhtv material nearby to do this)

 

Using this same method, even if an OLED tv is sitting there being the superior technology, the general consumer won't think twice...that tv does 1080p, this tv is ULTRA hd....4 TIMES that one. OLED? LCD? LED? Who cares...With the lightning in the stores, the plasma's couldn't show off the blacks or picture well, how will OLED be any different? The store setting alone dictates the average consumer (the main driving force behind what we get in the future) doesn't care about blacks or the best picture.

 

We all know the death of plasma is coming, with Panasonic pulling the plug (I got a 65zt60 because of it) it's only a matter of time for the other few left to do the same. 

We ourselves, witnessed a superior/newer technology (plasma vs lcd/led) die due to the average consumer choosing marketing gimmicks and the "costco effect" which is the same as a moth flying to a light. Big box stores have LCD's pumping out the brightness and "pop" to suck people in, and oh yea, there's those dark things over there, those plasma tv's...Don't they have problems with things burning in???? "MY dads friend got one and it had a bunch of problems."

 

Unfortunately UHDTV will cause OLED to whither on the vine for the time being.


This is where it get's interesting. We can agree that UHDTV is the future whether we wish to accept it or not. That the giants are all jumping on board, while at the same time wetting our appetite for OLED with UHDTV OLED. Why show us a technology which isn't even surviving the market? One simple answer, future-proof.

 

We're at the whim of the big boys and average consumers. They need something that shocks, that on paper sounds awesome, and that up-close blows peoples socks off. From a marketing standpoint UHDTV is genius. 

We will THEN see OLED appear back at the higher end, with UHDTV sets. Then we will be offered the PQ dream we've all been dying for.

*Until OLED is provided as a UHDTV set at a price point which is "higher yet worthwhile and at the same time not substantially more" (around 500-1000 more then the competition) it will be on the backburner. Once this happens though, it will then perfectly setup OLED to be marketed on a level playing field as the superior technology comparing panel vs panel to LCD/LED. When they sit side by side, the average consumer can and will see the difference without having a powerful marketing gimmick of resolution playing 2-3 feet in front of them.*

 

*This also gives the manufacturers a "next step" after UHDTV becomes more normal in living rooms. I know this sounds somewhat "conspiracy-ish" but to not think billion dollar companies have a plan for the future is extremely naive.*

 

*Maybe I sound crazy but I think by choice the companies are choosing to not implement OLED right now but to juice the public on UHDTV for now and then fire out OLED after. It's the next level after UHDTV. They can capitalize on the prior technology of LCD/LED, juice the public for all they can until it becomes somewhat normal, then bring out the NEWEST IN UHDTV TECHNOLOGY....the OLED UHDTV. Extremely unfortunate as the evolution of the technology is being intentionally held back to capitalize on consumers....but when hasn't this happened in the market! haha*

 

*In the end we have no control anyway, its the joe, dick and sally walking in and walking out with a tv the same day. *

Lets just hope the yields come down, the blue led lifespan is fixed, and burnin/IR are kept in check (at a plasma level I'm fine with) but with another 4-5 years....this may be possible.

 

With everything in OLED's corner for PQ the unfortunate fact we may have to consider is will OLED be put on the back-burner for too long? Will the issues not be ironed out? Or will it be a technology we never have for a good price point due to the same average consumer that killed the plasma, killing OLED or pushing it so far back (10 years) that a different tech is now out. (which could be a good thing)

 

Meanwhile I'll sit cleaning my 4 panny plasma's like a madman praying they don't die. lol

 

*Cliff notes** *

 

*UDHTV will put OLED into a concussion for the time being. Once UHDTV using LCD/LED technology becomes the standard or close to it, OLED UHDTV will appear at a more reasonable price, show casing the best PQ possible and in a way that makes it marketable. Let's just hope it can stick it out and survive the onslaught of "Costco effect" and the average joe who doesn't care about PQ.*

 

Once again I apologize if I'm repeating others views, I just don't really have any buddies that are into PQ and tv's etc, so I have to talk to someone about the OLED madness haha...


----------



## vinnie97

Have you seen any 4K demos to come to your conclusion about its total lack of necessity under 80"? Because the reports do actually vary, and I am withholding judgement until I can see one in person.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24209802
> 
> 
> Have you seen any 4K demos to come to your conclusion about its total lack of necessity under 80"? Because the reports do actually vary, and I am withholding judgement until I can see one in person.


 

Vinnie, I'm betting if you saw one in person you'd see what I (and many others) are talking about.  These statements similar to "4K is not seeable unless you're close" are nonsense.  I know that there's no BB/Mag near you, but is there a Frys?  Maybe they'll have a 4K on display?

 

Take care to use your plasma calibrated eyeballs to make sure that the 2K and 4K are both sensibly set (nothing set to "stupid soft"---an industry term), and verify the feeds (is the 4K doing an upconvert), etc., etc., etc.  I'm fairly confident that you'll see a distinct difference at 9 feet.


----------



## Mike204




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24209802
> 
> 
> Have you seen any 4K demos to come to your conclusion about its total lack of necessity under 80"? Because the reports do actually vary, and I am withholding judgement until I can see one in person.


 

Yes, I have seen a few at different stores. The viewing distance will vary between people as will size. Some report 80" higher is necessary to see, others are saying over 65" 

 

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24210161
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vinnie, I'm betting if you saw one in person you'd see what I (and many others) are talking about.  These statements similar to "4K is not seeable unless you're close" are nonsense.  I know that there's no BB/Mag near you, but is there a Frys?  Maybe they'll have a 4K on display?
> 
> 
> 
> Take care to use your plasma calibrated eyeballs to make sure that the 2K and 4K are both sensibly set (nothing set to "stupid soft"---an industry term), and verify the feeds (is the 4K doing an upconvert), etc., etc., etc.  I'm fairly confident that you'll see a distinct difference at 9 feet.


 

Unfortunately this was not the case in my situation or many others. I think when it comes down to it, if you apply the biology of what our human eye can and cant see, it technically doesn't matter how "crisp" or sharp an image can actually be, but how much of that the human eye can actually absorb or comprehend.

Granted some people do have better then 20/20 so it may help them out slightly at farther distances.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike204*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24210399
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24209802
> 
> 
> Have you seen any 4K demos to come to your conclusion about its total lack of necessity under 80"? Because the reports do actually vary, and I am withholding judgement until I can see one in person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have seen a few at different stores. The viewing distance will vary between people as will size. Some report 80" higher is necessary to see, others are saying over 65"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24210161
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vinnie, I'm betting if you saw one in person you'd see what I (and many others) are talking about.  These statements similar to "4K is not seeable unless you're close" are nonsense.  I know that there's no BB/Mag near you, but is there a Frys?  Maybe they'll have a 4K on display?
> 
> 
> 
> Take care to use your plasma calibrated eyeballs to make sure that the 2K and 4K are both sensibly set (nothing set to "stupid soft"---an industry term), and verify the feeds (is the 4K doing an upconvert), etc., etc., etc.  I'm fairly confident that you'll see a distinct difference at 9 feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately this was not the case in my situation or many others. I think when it comes down to it, if you apply the biology of what our human eye can and cant see, it technically doesn't matter how "crisp" or sharp an image can actually be, but how much of that the human eye can actually absorb or comprehend.
> 
> Granted some people do have better then 20/20 so it may help them out slightly at farther distances.
Click to expand...

 

Most of that "can't see it" concept seems to stem from a chart made by Carlton Bale.  That was determined originally based upon eye charts and the calculations for static image acuity.  But among the problems there are that the eye charts were based upon being able to *recognize* a particular glyph, not determine if one looks better than another.

 

My eyes are 20/20 left and 20/25 right.  We've been around and around this one.  Far, far too many issues to rehash here.  Belongs in one of these threads instead, in order of recent activity, the largest and oldest thread being the 2nd one down.

 

Reasons To Be Optimistic about 4k: Viewing Distances and Viewing Conditions.

4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?

4K Resolution Is Visible vs 1080p on 55″ TV from 9′ Viewing Distance

Interest In A 1080 vs 4K Shootout? Can We Get to the Heart of the Matter?

Inexpensive:


----------



## vinnie97

The closest Fry's is probably as nearby as the most proximal Magnolia. I'll have to investigate if there are any boutique high-fi stores in the more local (25-mile radius) area (I haven't actually done an exhaustive search since moving here in 2011).


I'm not going out of my way just yet since I have no intention of upgrading in resolution until I can get a contrast ratio (particularly on the low end) to, at the minimum, match what I have now and without any irksome artifacts.


----------



## Mike204




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24210490
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of that "can't see it" concept seems to stem from a chart made by Carlton Bale.  That was determined originally based upon eye charts and the calculations for static image acuity.  But among the problems there are that the eye charts were based upon being able to *recognize* a particular glyph, not determine if one looks better than another.
> 
> 
> 
> My eyes are 20/20 left and 20/25 right.  We've been around and around this one.  Far, far too many issues to rehash here.  Belongs in one of these threads instead, in order of recent activity, the largest and oldest thread being the 2nd one down.
> 
> 
> 
> Reasons To Be Optimistic about 4k: Viewing Distances and Viewing Conditions.
> 
> 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?
> 
> 4K Resolution Is Visible vs 1080p on 55″ TV from 9′ Viewing Distance
> 
> Interest In A 1080 vs 4K Shootout? Can We Get to the Heart of the Matter?
> 
> Inexpensive:


----------



## xrox

I'd like to do a controlled 4K vs 2K demo (when I say controlled I mean controlled by me







). I'll have to check the display journals for any HVS research studies on this. If you know of any let me know the link










When talking strictly about video and film I have always believed that the biggest leap in PQ results from improving the signal quality and the display contrast. This came from a test I did a long time ago when I had the opportunity to compare 480p, 720p, and 1080p Plasma displays at varous viewing distances using a DVD vs BluRay of the same film. The improvement in PQ from increasing display resolution (definition) was visbile but minor compared to the improvement gained from the signal quality change. However, display resolution did become very significant when any text or graphics were involved.


----------



## Mike204




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24210551
> 
> 
> The closest Fry's is probably as nearby as the most proximal Magnolia. I'll have to investigate if there are any boutique high-fi stores in the more local (25-mile radius) area (I haven't actually done an exhaustive search since moving here in 2011).
> 
> 
> I'm not going out of my way just yet since I have no intention of upgrading in resolution until I can get a contrast ratio (particularly on the low end) to, at the minimum, match what I have now and without any irksome artifacts.


 

Unfortunately the most difficult thing I find with comparing is making sure the UDHTV has the proper material, while also having a top end plasma nearby to run 1080p on, while also having the necessary space to step back far enough.

 

It's definitely fun to go see whether you get a chance to compare it properly or not, it's always fun checking out what you'll have in your house one day haha.


----------



## Mike204




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24210693
> 
> 
> I'd like to do a controlled 4K vs 2K demo (when I say controlled I mean controlled by me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). I'll have to check the display journals for any HVS research studies on this. If you know of any let me know the link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When talking strictly about video and film I have always believed that the biggest leap in PQ results from improving the signal quality and the display contrast. This came from a test I did a long time ago when I had the opportunity to compare 480p, 720p, and 1080p Plasma displays at varous viewing distances using a DVD vs BluRay of the same film. The improvement in PQ from increasing display resolution (definition) was visbile but minor compared to the improvement gained from the signal quality change. However, display resolution did become very significant when any text or graphics were involved.


 

I would love to do the same as well. Just gotta pray the ZT60 I got is still kicking when I get the next udhtv set so I can do it

 

Then again, if OLED Hdtv is out, who cares, its gonna be mindblowingly awesome anyway. haha


----------



## andy sullivan

Some can argue with Mike204's PQ vs Distance but I firmly believe his overall premiss is spot on. IMO the future of OLED is in the the 4K category simply because the average customer will be convinced that anything less than 4K, regardless of the technology, is inherently inferior. 4K LCD/LED will become the absolute standard of excellence and every manufacture will eventually offer a flagship model, like Sony's 2014's 950b and 850b etc. Only when 4K has reached a sales saturation level, as they currently have with 2K LCD/LED, will the OLED product become relevant again. OLED will not be allowed fade too much from the public's awareness because the TV manufactures want to keep the pump primed for the inevitable next step in promoting the new gotta have, must have, can't live without it technology. The time frame may depend on the availability of broadcast 4K.


----------



## Mike204




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24210754
> 
> 
> Some can argue with Mike204's PQ vs Distance but I firmly believe his overall premiss is spot on. IMO the future of OLED is in the the 4K category simply because the average customer will be convinced that anything less than 4K, regardless of the technology, is inherently inferior. 4K LCD/LED will become the absolute standard of excellence and every manufacture will eventually offer a flagship model, like Sony's 2014's 950b and 850b etc. Only when 4K has reached a sales saturation level, as they currently have with 2K LCD/LED, will the OLED product become relevant again. OLED will not be allowed fade too much from the public's awareness because the TV manufactures want to keep the pump primed for the inevitable next step in promoting the new gotta have, must have, can't live without it technology. The time frame may depend on the availability of broadcast 4K.


 

Thank you sir, I wish I could have summed it up like that the first go around haha.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8130#post_24207815
> 
> 
> There is another way to look at this. The curved screens actually allows them to show off just how thin an OLED panel can get.



Yes, but that's kind of like making Miranda Kerr squeeze into a wetsuit to show off how skinny she is. Wouldn't you rather just let people admire her and wait until they realize she's skinny? Or in English: Why destroy the sex appeal of something to prove some point about it?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24207826
> 
> 
> Oh, you're right. I could have sworn that when I looked at the page it did not mention local dimming.
> 
> It looks like they're either not bringing the 65" model to Europe, or they forgot to list it. The US shots of the X950 look just like the images of the European X85. (which does not have local dimming)



Sony is apparently a mess. When you're so over-assorted you can't keep your own website completely straight, _you should look in the mirror and realize it's time to cut back_.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24208553
> 
> 
> That sounds like a heads up for a pretty good display. Thanks.
> 
> 
> My one and only concern is following the Sony W900a thread, there seems to be an inordinate number of returns/exchanges due to screen uniformity. I know how complaints on forums are amplified, but it is more than you find on other threads/displays.
> 
> 
> Do you have any insight into what causes these uniformity issues and if their W950B would be different?



First, the number of complaints is a function of the number of buyers. Hard to take that as a gauge of much, though it's hard to tell your brain not to.


Second, the 900a is an edge-lit set. Those are often (always?) prone to uniformity issues. The 950b is backlit.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24210161
> 
> 
> These statements similar to "4K is not seeable unless you're close" are nonsense.



Amen. You can see this easily at CES, where you often get side-by-side demos. And you can see it in many retailers.


I love how people trust a chart they don't understand the nature of vs. their own actual eyes.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24210693
> 
> 
> 
> When talking strictly about video and film I have always believed that the biggest leap in PQ results from improving the signal quality and the display contrast.



Of course. That pretty much goes without saying.


That said, when you can improve _other_ things as well, you do it. If you can get better (read: more lifelike) color, do you reject it because it's not higher contrast? No, you take that too.


This 4K bashing is weird. It's going to be free. It's going to actually improve existing content (however marginally) via upscaling. Over 5 years, more and more new content will be delivered in 4K.


Why are we complaining about this?


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24210693
> 
> 
> I'd like to do a controlled 4K vs 2K demo (when I say controlled I mean controlled by me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). I'll have to check the display journals for any HVS research studies on this. If you know of any let me know the link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When talking strictly about video and film I have always believed that the biggest leap in PQ results from improving the signal quality and the display contrast. This came from a test I did a long time ago when I had the opportunity to compare 480p, 720p, and 1080p Plasma displays at varous viewing distances using a DVD vs BluRay of the same film. The improvement in PQ from increasing display resolution (definition) was visbile but minor compared to the improvement gained from the signal quality change. However, display resolution did become very significant when any text or graphics were involved.



Why? 4K is coming whether needed or not. In 5 years, you will have a hard time finding a 2K only display for sale.


----------



## tgm1024


The only value in the debate is really in determining how the eye works.  The issue is beyond moot. 

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*
> 
> 
> Only when 4K has reached a sales saturation level, as they currently have with 2K LCD/LED, will the OLED product become relevant again.


 

No, *it's really not the case* that as soon as 4K (LCD) hits saturation that it'll somehow make room for OLED (also at 4K) to reach our consciousness.

 

OLED needs to have the *numbers* line up before that happens.  And currently there just isn't enough of a reason to go there given the cost.  If every single display on earth were magically 4K, it would not all of a sudden make OLED sensible nor be something to focus on.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24210824
> 
> 
> The only value in the debate is really in determining how the eye works.  The issue is beyond moot.
> 
> 
> 
> No, *it's really not the case* that as soon as 4K (LCD) hits saturation that it'll somehow make room for OLED (also at 4K) to reach our consciousness.
> 
> 
> OLED needs to have the _numbers_ line up before that happens.  And currently there just isn't enough of a reason to go there given the cost.  If every single display on earth were magically 4K, it would not all of a sudden make OLED sensible nor be something to focus on.


As you mentioned above, in 5 years 2K will be hard to find. As I mentioned, OLED will not be allowed to fade from the consumers mind. When I said that when 4K LCD/LED reaches it's saturation point I was alluding to the marketing geniuses knowing when to start fanning the OLED flames and when to bless us with the next holy grail. The saturation point comes when they feel the profits beginning slide. Probably in about 8 years.


----------



## JWhip

Then it will be 8k in a couple of years.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24210901
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24210824
> 
> 
> The only value in the debate is really in determining how the eye works.  The issue is beyond moot.
> 
> 
> 
> No, *it's really not the case* that as soon as 4K (LCD) hits saturation that it'll somehow make room for OLED (also at 4K) to reach our consciousness.
> 
> 
> OLED needs to have the *numbers* line up before that happens.  And currently there just isn't enough of a reason to go there given the cost.  If every single display on earth were magically 4K, it would not all of a sudden make OLED sensible nor be something to focus on.
> 
> 
> 
> As you mentioned above, in 5 years 2K will be hard to find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was actually sytech, not me.  But it's not a crazy guess by him.  Though 2K will likely "hang around" for awhile like 720p *still still still* does to this day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> As I mentioned, OLED will not be allowed to fade from the consumers mind. When I said that when 4K LCD/LED reaches it's saturation point I was alluding to the marketing geniuses knowing when to start fanning the OLED flames and when to bless us with the next holy grail. The saturation point comes when they feel the profits beginning slide. Probably in about 8 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's seems cart-before-the-horse to me.  I'd argue that not one of them is holding off on producing 4K OLED only because there aren't enough 4K LCDs around yet.  They're holding off because they can't get the price down far enough to support the volume they need (to compete with 4K LCD).  I don't see it as "marketing geniuses knowing when to start fanning the OLED flames"....OLED isn't being held off on purpose.  Nor is it due to being distracted by LCD.
Click to expand...


----------



## wse


OLED is the only technology to dethrone Plasmas for Image Quality now that Panasonic is gone oh well LED TVs are dancing. Quantity over quality


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24211134


They are putting the cart before the horse. But they can do that since they own the cart and the horse. Because they were a bit surprised at the level of acceptance by the public, and because the cost to them is very small when it come to upgrading from 2K to 4K, they no longer feel the pressure to quickly bring OLED to the masses. The key word here is "quickly". Now that 4K appears to be a more than originally anticipated solid profit maker, and considered by most consumers to be a reasonable next step up in performance, this allows the less costly and slower development of OLED. Once the current performance and manufacturing bugs are vanquished, then it will be time to create the next new market. In the mean time we will be kept wisely appraised of the progress. Keep our appetite in salivate mode.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24210817
> 
> 
> Why? 4K is coming whether needed or not. In 5 years, you will have a hard time finding a 2K only display for sale.


Because it would be both interesting and fun. The same reason I did the test with Plasma when 1080p was inevitable.


It is also interesting how my post was considered a complaint.


----------



## rogo

Not a "complaint" but a pretty thinly veiled knock on resolution.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pioneer Insider*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7950#post_24172175
> 
> 
> Actually I had the pleasure to speak with Joe Stinsiano, Samsung's EVP after his press conference and he said Samsung was not ready to show the 2014 plasma or OLED line at CES, but they are in the final stages of development and by q2 or no later than q3 they will launch a mid year plasma and OLED product lines.
> 
> 
> LG is very bullish on OLED and is putting a lot of resources in OLED with 4 new 2014 models that are scheduled to ship q2 '14.
> 
> 
> None of these companies what to show products that are not final or capable to be mass produced.



Here is an interview with Robert Zohn of Value Eelectronics and Samsung from CES. It is rather long and focuses mostly on the LCDs that are available now. In the last 5 minutes or so they mentioned the plasma lineup update later in the year, that curved tvs can be wall mounted. And that Samsung's curved OLED would clearly win the Value Electronics shootout this year with some question as to which model of oled would be available at the time of the shootout.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151955147638445&set=vb.107818673444&type=2&theater 


Separately, with so many fans of curved and bendable tv's I know you're all wondering how they made the bendable LCD. Well, they didn't really. Not that they will release it soon, if ever, but its an example of adding extra cost to LCD to make it do things that OLED can do naturally, for those that want that feature. All the things they do to LCD to make it marginally better, such as adding QD films for better color gamut, also adds costs to LCD.
http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2014/01/the-backlight-behind-samsungs-bendable-lcd-tv/ 


Regarding the OLED cost issue, it seems somewhat odd to compare costs and future efficiency gains of an OLED pilot line which probably has manual steps involved to that of a mature LCD production line. If you want the best deal on a tv this year, yeah buy the LCD (or plasma while they last). For the medium term, the question is who will pay 20-25% more in 2015 after an actual production line is running for an OLED with its advantages of better blacks, higher contrast, wider color gamut, wider viewing angle, etc. than for a comparable high end LCD? Once a real mass production line is running with baseline costs then you can compare efficiency gains of a mature technology to a new technology. It seems to me the improvements will be in the area where the R&D and capex is going and that is mostly OLED, at least from Samsung and LG. They both know they don't want to compete in a low cost LCD market as China's labor rates say who will win that. Thus the OLED product differentiation strategy is the battle to stay in the display business.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24211560
> 
> 
> Not a "complaint" but a pretty thinly veiled knock on resolution.


Same interest applies. Especially from you?


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24208824
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that like all early 4K LCD sets except those from Panasonic, these new Sony's have crippled half bandwidth HDMI 2.0. 10.2 Gbps, same as HDMI 1.4. This means you can't drive them at full native 4:4:4 resolution with 60 fps content. Currently such content only comes from PCs, but who knows what the future holds. I would hold out for real 18 Gbps HDMI 2.0 products.



Terrific. Just terrific.


----------



## rogo

Xrox, I'm not sure what you're getting at, so let me clarify.


It seemed you were "resolution bashing" in your post. Not overly harshly, but doing it nevertheless.


For me, I've moved on from that. I don't think buying a 55" 4K TV makes sense for nearly anyone. I'd recommend paying a $0 premium since the vast majority of people sit _nowhere near_ close enough to a screen of that size to get benefits from the pixels. But for bigger sizes, I simply reject the "chart data" and believe it's worth a certain (small) premium to get 4K now. And I'm confident the actual premium will be falling to $0 soon enough for _all premium sets_. Look at what Vizio has done, for example, and look at how Samsung's flagships are now 4K, not 2K.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8100_100#post_24210693
> 
> 
> I'd like to do a controlled 4K vs 2K demo (when I say controlled I mean controlled by me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). I'll have to check the display journals for any HVS research studies on this. If you know of any let me know the link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When talking strictly about video and film I have always believed that the biggest leap in PQ results from improving the signal quality and the display contrast. This came from a test I did a long time ago when I had the opportunity to compare 480p, 720p, and 1080p Plasma displays at varous viewing distances using a DVD vs BluRay of the same film. The improvement in PQ from increasing display resolution (definition) was visbile but minor compared to the improvement gained from the signal quality change. However, display resolution did become very significant when any text or graphics were involved.


It _is_ surprising how good 480p can look with a high quality source and good image scaling. The high compression and poor mastering techniques common with DVD (bad MPEG2 encoders, lots of sharpness and noise reduction added etc.) made it look a lot worse than it could.


I've done similar tests (encoding Blu-ray to 480p with x264 and high bitrates) and the results can look rather good with high quality image scaling. _Far_ better than any DVD would have you believe 480p could look.

That doesn't mean I want to be watching 480p sources, just that it's not as bad as that sounds.


It makes me wonder if streaming companies are going about things the wrong way.

When compression artifacts are visible, higher resolutions often look better, as an individual artifact has a smaller size on the display. (i.e. bit-starved 4K should look better than bit-starved 1080p if they're compressed by roughly the same amount)

But I think that rather than trying to compress a 4K image down to ~15mbps H.265, that bandwidth would be better utilized by encoding at 480p or maybe 720p and having very little visible compression in the image.

While detail may be lower, subjectively I think most people would prefer the much cleaner image this would provide rather than one which is sharper, but full of compression artifacts.

As you say though, there are still situations where resolution makes itself obvious - it's why I am still very interested in purchasing a 4K display.


And for me, while a high bitrate, high quality, but low resolution _source_ can look good, I do think it looks a lot better when displayed on a high resolution panel.

Low resolution displays have a masking effect which can be beneficial to low quality content, but it also means that you have a visible pixel structure over the image that hurts the image quality of good sources.


I'm curious to know if you have an opinion about displaying 1080p content on a 4K display. Personally, I think it can look better than 1080p on a 1080p display - but only if manufacturers avoid using horrible upscaling techniques. (I'm looking at you, LG...)


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24212280
> 
> 
> Xrox, I'm not sure what you're getting at, so let me clarify.
> 
> 
> It seemed you were "resolution bashing" in your post. Not overly harshly, but doing it nevertheless.
> 
> 
> For me, I've moved on from that. I don't think buying a 55" 4K TV makes sense for nearly anyone. I'd recommend paying a $0 premium since the vast majority of people sit _nowhere near_ close enough to a screen of that size to get benefits from the pixels. But for bigger sizes, I simply reject the "chart data" and believe it's worth a certain (small) premium to get 4K now. And I'm confident the actual premium will be falling to $0 soon enough for _all premium sets_. Look at what Vizio has done, for example, and look at how Samsung's flagships are now 4K, not 2K.


The topic reminded me of my test with PDPs. Just reminiscing about the results and how it shaped my thoughts. I find people in this argument tend to read and interpret from a defensive position. It is interesting. I also am interested in how many AVSers stick to the assumption that HVS does not vary widely. Not suggesting you do.


----------



## Chris5028

Rogo, in your opinion, will there be a 4k LED TV for sub $2000 that has comparable PQ to a VT60 within 3 years?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24212390
> 
> 
> The topic reminded me of my test with PDPs. Just reminiscing about the results and how it shaped my thoughts. I find people in this argument tend to read and interpret from a defensive position. It is interesting. I also am interested in how many AVSers stick to the assumption that HVS does not vary widely. Not suggesting you do.



I'm not defensive; I have no stake in this fight. I'm just not a big fan of dismissing things that are improvements just because better improvements exist elsewhere. It's very weird that at AVS we had to endure more than a year of people insisting upscaled DVDs were some sort of major picture quality advance and now we can't get consensus that _actual 4K_ is better than 2K. And why? Because someone has produced a chart explaining that your visual acuity prevents you from recognizing this?


I remember vividly looking at HDTVs in the early part of the 2000s. The different between 720p sets and 480p sets was clear well beyond the range at which you could detect pixels. The picture simply looked better. I used to have a friend who ran a Magnolia and we'd hang out some and ask regular customers "Which of those is better?" from a distance that no one could possibly be considered "in range" of a 42-inch set. The 720p sets (or 768, whatever it was) dominated.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24212551
> 
> 
> Rogo, in your opinion, will there be a 4k LED TV for sub $2000 that has comparable PQ to a VT60 within 3 years?



Probably. The 50, 55 and 60-inch Vizio P series for 2014 already meets your pricing criteria and will -- in some ways -- eclipse the VT60. It won't in many ways, but at least 2 more versions of it will ship within 3 years. I expect Vizio will exert severe pricing pressure on absolutely every making TVs for the U.S. market. Locally dimmed, 4K sets for under $2000 in 2014 are a certainty. A tweaked version of them beating the VT60 by 2017? Seems almost as certain.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24212356
> 
> 
> It _is_ surprising how good 480p can look with a high quality source and good image scaling. The high compression and poor mastering techniques common with DVD (bad MPEG2 encoders, lots of sharpness and noise reduction added etc.) made it look a lot worse than it could.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> I'm curious to know if you have an opinion about displaying 1080p content on a 4K display. Personally, I think it can look better than 1080p on a 1080p display - but only if manufacturers avoid using horrible upscaling techniques. (I'm looking at you, LG...)



So here's the reality. Using the bits for better quality rather than pixels has been a drum I've beaten here for a long time. In the brief discussion of 4K BluRay some time back, I was pretty adamant that if they try to jam it into a dual-layer disc, it will fail to be gigantically better than BluRay and will render the entire effort to introduce a new disc format moot. Seeing Netflix stream 4K at 15 megabits makes me pretty confident that for a 4K format to meaningfully separate itself from streaming, it will need to be more like 30 megabits.


But what if we took 15 megabits and streamed 2K? Well, even under H.264, we could make gigantic progress, bringing Vudu/iTunes very close to BluRay quality. If we switched 1080p encoding to H.265 and use multipass encoders and such, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn those kind of bits could outpoint what you find on most BluRays... In fact, it might not even take 15 megabits to do that.


But the problem with all this analysis is that unless Apple or Vudu or Netflix or Amazon decides to care, it will never happen. Apple could push H.265 with a new AppleTV and just decide to have great movie quality that was bit adaptive. It could go 10-20 megabits depending on connection quality. But will it find this important? Apple's TV efforts are frustrating as hell. They could announce, "We will be spending $1 billion over the next 24 months making AppleTV truly awesome" and it's pocket change. Instead, we get a few more channels -- something nice, but nothing important.


In short, I feel like this is tilting at windmills. People think pixels = better because an industry conditioned them to believe that. Now it sells them pixels.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160#post_24211210
> 
> 
> OLED is the only technology to dethrone Plasmas for Image Quality now that Panasonic is gone oh well LED TVs are dancing. Quantity over quality



In today's market I would agree based on what's now available, however don't forget about the "Elite PRO- 70X5FD" which in my opinion is still arguably the best display out for its 70" size.


----------



## Mike204




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24212952
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defensive; I have no stake in this fight. I'm just not a big fan of dismissing things that are improvements just because better improvements exist elsewhere. It's very weird that at AVS we had to endure more than a year of people insisting upscaled DVDs were some sort of major picture quality advance and now we can't get consensus that *actual 4K* is better than 2K. And why? Because someone has produced a chart explaining that your visual acuity prevents you from recognizing this?
> 
> 
> I remember vividly looking at HDTVs in the early part of the 2000s. The different between 720p sets and 480p sets was clear well beyond the range at which you could detect pixels. The picture simply looked better. I used to have a friend who ran a Magnolia and we'd hang out some and ask regular customers "Which of those is better?" from a distance that no one could possibly be considered "in range" of a 42-inch set. The 720p sets (or 768, whatever it was) dominated.
> 
> Probably. The 50, 55 and 60-inch Vizio P series for 2014 already meets your pricing criteria and will -- in some ways -- eclipse the VT60. It won't in many ways, but at least 2 more versions of it will ship within 3 years. I expect Vizio will exert severe pricing pressure on absolutely every making TVs for the U.S. market. Locally dimmed, 4K sets for under $2000 in 2014 are a certainty. A tweaked version of them beating the VT60 by 2017? Seems almost as certain.
> 
> So here's the reality. Using the bits for better quality rather than pixels has been a drum I've beaten here for a long time. In the brief discussion of 4K BluRay some time back, I was pretty adamant that if they try to jam it into a dual-layer disc, it will fail to be gigantically better than BluRay and will render the entire effort to introduce a new disc format moot. Seeing Netflix stream 4K at 15 megabits makes me pretty confident that for a 4K format to meaningfully separate itself from streaming, it will need to be more like 30 megabits.
> 
> 
> But what if we took 15 megabits and streamed 2K? Well, even under H.264, we could make gigantic progress, bringing Vudu/iTunes very close to BluRay quality. If we switched 1080p encoding to H.265 and use multipass encoders and such, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn those kind of bits could outpoint what you find on most BluRays... In fact, it might not even take 15 megabits to do that.
> 
> 
> But the problem with all this analysis is that unless Apple or Vudu or Netflix or Amazon decides to care, it will never happen. Apple could push H.265 with a new AppleTV and just decide to have great movie quality that was bit adaptive. It could go 10-20 megabits depending on connection quality. But will it find this important? Apple's TV efforts are frustrating as hell. They could announce, "We will be spending $1 billion over the next 24 months making AppleTV truly awesome" and it's pocket change. Instead, we get a few more channels -- something nice, but nothing important.
> 
> 
> In short, I feel like this is tilting at windmills. People think pixels = better because an industry conditioned them to believe that. Now it sells them pixels.


 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24212952
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defensive; I have no stake in this fight. I'm just not a big fan of dismissing things that are improvements just because better improvements exist elsewhere. It's very weird that at AVS we had to endure more than a year of people insisting upscaled DVDs were some sort of major picture quality advance and now we can't get consensus that *actual 4K* is better than 2K. And why? Because someone has produced a chart explaining that your visual acuity prevents you from recognizing this?


 

To be honest, I think the confusion is people thinking the discussion is about uhdtv not being better then 1080p. (like you say above)

 

We're not saying the "technology itself is not better" or a higher resolution is not "better" as it technically should be from an evolution standpoint.

 

It's about what the human eye can resolve with minute details and if it's even worthwhile to get.

 

My prediction was about what will happen with OLED, the comments about me personally feeling udhtv is a gimmick is my own view, and was not meant to start a debate again about it; it was just part of my talking points. Like suggested earlier the discussion on resolution should be kept to the other thread.

 

I will have to politely disagree with you about a TV coming out in the next 3 years to trump the VT/ZT60. While local dimming can be quite effective with higher end models, it is still getting mixed results, and in essence the technology itself does not allow it to get the level of black or PQ that plasma offers. It also does not take away the response times. While I feel excited about Panasonics prototype which is said to equal there plasma's. I'm very skeptical if this will make it to the market, and if it does will it be as good? Why dump tons of money into LCD/LED to simulate the black levels of plasma which did it naturally

If anything, in 3 years we will have numerous UHDTV sets selling like hot cakes with a "good/very good" black level due to local dimming, the black levels sought after by enthusiasts or people demanding top PQ will be put on hold until OLED comes out. We hardly effect their bottom lines. The interest to achieve those blacks won't make much sense as the average consumer doesn't care and the big boy's know it.

 

Why try to make lcd/led match a plasma in blacks, if plasma's are gone? Why make a technology which is not emissive, simulate it? Why even waste money "trying" to get to that benchmark when the superior tech (plasma) that offered it, is dying. It just doesn't make sense, especially with them all working quietly on OLED where they know black levels are close to perfect.

 

I feel OLED is technically the only way to get to where we want to be in trumping plasma for PQ as they share many more similarities then OLED and LCD/LED do. (both being emissive)

Then again in 8-10 years, we may have some other crazy tech, which is cheaper to produce and OLED never comes to fruition.


----------



## vinnie97

The Sharp Elite achieved a black level of 0.0007 actually, and the only plasma that can beat it is the Kuro, so I think full-array has some life in it yet since OLED still seems like a distant dream.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24215254
> 
> 
> The Sharp Elite achieved a black level of 0.0007 actually, and the only plasma that can beat it is the Kuro, so I think full-array has some life in it yet since OLED still seems like a distant dream.



Yep, meanwhile i'm still keeping my hopes up that someday we will see a 80" preferably 100" 4k OLED available down the road non curved of course.










PS: But if it doesn't happen like I said before I'll gladly take that 4k, 100", Full-Array w/ Local-Dimming Zones LED display.


----------



## rmongiovi

I had a Sharp Elite. It was quite disappointing in my setup with U-verse. The Sharp's problems with color manifested itself as unnatural skin tones. When the source was good, the picture was good, but if the source was bad faces were either washed out and a bit greenish or sunburn pink.


Black levels were good, but their local dimming algorithm would occasionally cause the backlight to flicker. You would see shadows move across the screen with nothing causing them. It lasted for only a moment and was gone, but once you noticed it there was no going back.


So if I had the choice, it would be a display with good black levels which require no special video processing to accomplish. I'm not excited by local dimming where the display has to determine how to set the backlight from the RGB data, and I'm not excited by technologies that use subpixels other than RGB. Cameras record RGB. Manufacturers seem to have great difficulty processing just that and adhering to the video standards. To me, adding extra processing requirements is just more opportunity to introduce inaccuracy and bugs.


----------



## vinnie97

I heard about the color error that was sadly never resolved. I simply can't sacrifice black levels after being spoiled by 0.0011 fTL. That said, I'm not sure I could tolerate additional artifacts either, so I may have no choice but to compromise in the next 5 years. OT but does anyone know the definitive word on the # of zones incorporated on the new FALD sets from Sony and Toshiba (Vizio purportedly has 384) versus the Sharp Elite? I've seen a lot of discussion, but most of it seems speculative.


----------



## drfreeman60

I know all of us are eager for OLED as am I. For OLED to be successful, it needs some type of reasonable market penetration. I am the local know it all when it comes to questions of audio and video and I use the term "know-it-all" as I consider myself simply someone who likes to stay informed with some reasonable level of knowledge as to what I am talking about.


In the past, when someone asked a question concerning the purchase of a new display, I typically directed them to a Plasma with my basic opinion of the three companies that were actively involved in the technology. I often received a counterpoint from my friend, co-worker or acquantance that while shopping at some big box store, the well-informed sales person had directed them to an "LED" television set as plasma was outdated and would soon be discontinued (they were finally right). I gave up long ago on correcting anyone on the actualy existence of "LED" television sets.


I believe that most of these people, and my guess, most of the buying public pay almost zero attention to the letter "O" from "OLED". I get the feeling that most people when they see a television set at a big box store costing closer to $ 10,000 than $ 1,000 they are not making any connection at all that there is a different technology involved and other than the curved screen, they are not paying a whole lot of attention to the differences in picture. I believe that Sharp suffered from this with their Elite series from three years ago. I know that my local BB store still has these units in their inventory and had them for lower prices that what I paid for my new ZT60 last summer.


Unless there is something that happens to educate the consumer, who basically does not care to be educated, OLED will not receive any considerable market presentation until the price is within easy striking distance of the other "LED" televisions.


I know that these points have been discussed regularly by ROGO and others from this forum. If someone has commented about the lack of differentiation of LED and OLED to an average consumer, I apologize for restating this. It seems that some of the big manufacturers and big box stores may have assisted the shot in the foot with their marketing of LCD's over the past four or five years since the introduction of LED backlighting.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike204*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24215188
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, I think the confusion is people thinking the discussion is about uhdtv not being better then 1080p. (like you say above)
> 
> 
> We're not saying the "technology itself is not better" or a higher resolution is not "better" as it technically should be from an evolution standpoint.
> 
> 
> It's about what the human eye can resolve with minute details and if it's even worthwhile to get.
> 
> 
> My prediction was about what will happen with OLED, the comments about me personally feeling udhtv is a gimmick is my own view, and was not meant to start a debate again about it; it was just part of my talking points. Like suggested earlier the discussion on resolution should be kept to the other thread.
> 
> 
> I will have to politely disagree with you about a TV coming out in the next 3 years to trump the VT/ZT60. While local dimming can be quite effective with higher end models, it is still getting mixed results, and in essence the technology itself does not allow it to get the level of black or PQ that plasma offers. It also does not take away the response times. While I feel excited about Panasonics prototype which is said to equal there plasma's. I'm very skeptical if this will make it to the market, and if it does will it be as good? Why dump tons of money into LCD/LED to simulate the black levels of plasma which did it naturally
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in 3 years we will have numerous UHDTV sets selling like hot cakes with a "good/very good" black level due to local dimming, the black levels sought after by enthusiasts or people demanding top PQ will be put on hold until OLED comes out. We hardly effect their bottom lines. The interest to achieve those blacks won't make much sense as the average consumer doesn't care and the big boy's know it.
> 
> 
> Why try to make lcd/led match a plasma in blacks, if plasma's are gone? Why make a technology which is not emissive, simulate it? Why even waste money "trying" to get to that benchmark when the superior tech (plasma) that offered it, is dying. It just doesn't make sense, especially with them all working quietly on OLED where they know black levels are close to perfect.
> 
> 
> I feel OLED is technically the only way to get to where we want to be in trumping plasma for PQ as they share many more similarities then OLED and LCD/LED do. (both being emissive)
> 
> 
> 
> Then again in 8-10 years, we may have some other crazy tech, which is cheaper to produce and OLED never comes to fruition.



1. Large-screen displays are going to be very common in the future and we will need 4K resolution or higher to accommodate them, this is a normal part of display evolution.


2. Plasma displays in the past have offered better black levels than LED/LCD true, however when they introduced full-arrays with local-dimming zones you're talking about a completely different story entirely.


3. Plasma displays have their own issues as well, remember the many reasons why Plasma failed in the eyes of the consumer? Well now unfortunately it's dead. Many people don't want to have to worry about, screen burn, image retention, buzzing, humming if you're to far above sea level, higher energy consumption, heating up the room etc. True many of these issues were resolved later on down the road but not in time in the eyes of the consumer anyway. Don't get me wrong here I love Plasma displays and I own a 55" Panasonic ST60 in my bedroom and just love it, especially the off axis viewing compared to my Elite.


Anyway back to OLED topic, nothing would make me happier than to purchase a 100" OLED display down the road I really want one. But it's looking rather grim right now, we seemed to have entered into some kind of dark ages for display technology right now.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rmongiovi*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24215504
> 
> 
> I had a Sharp Elite. It was quite disappointing in my setup with U-verse. The Sharp's problems with color manifested itself as unnatural skin tones. When the source was good, the picture was good, but if the source was bad faces were either washed out and a bit greenish or sunburn pink.
> 
> 
> Black levels were good, but their local dimming algorithm would occasionally cause the backlight to flicker. You would see shadows move across the screen with nothing causing them. It lasted for only a moment and was gone, but once you noticed it there was no going back.
> 
> 
> So if I had the choice, it would be a display with good black levels which require no special video processing to accomplish. I'm not excited by local dimming where the display has to determine how to set the backlight from the RGB data, and I'm not excited by technologies that use subpixels other than RGB. Cameras record RGB. Manufacturers seem to have great difficulty processing just that and adhering to the video standards. To me, adding extra processing requirements is just more opportunity to introduce inaccuracy and bugs.



Never had any of these issues with my 70" Elite but the later generations I heard had many problems unfortunately all over quality control otherwise the model may have still been available today.


> Quote:
> vinne97 "I heard about the color error that was sadly never resolved. I simply can't sacrifice black levels after being spoiled by 0.0011 fTL. That said, I'm not sure I could tolerate additional artifacts either, so I may have no choice but to compromise in the next 5 years. OT but does anyone know the definitive word on the # of zones incorporated on the new FALD sets from Sony and Toshiba (Vizio purportedly has 384) versus the Sharp Elite? I've seen a lot of discussion, but most of it seems speculative.
> 
> Edited by vinnie97 - Today at 12:51 pm



The color issue was blown way out of proportion Kevin Miller calibrated my display himself and told me the exact same thing, never have I look at my picture and said to myself that color looks wrong in fact just the opposite. All depends upon the source material and many people confuse poor source material for poor color accuracy when in fact It's not. Directors have artistic licenses as we'll which allow them to play around allot confusing people further. If you want to know how accurate your display is always ask a professional reputable calibrator they will tell you the truth. That or get a known accurate color display for comparison side-by-side with the exact same source material and judge for yourself.


----------



## vinnie97

Yes, I've read that opinion, too, particularly from Ken Ross (that the color coding issue was largely blown out of proportion). Having never seen one, I can only rely upon the impressions of others vicariously.







Thanks for weighing in. iMagic (Mark Henninger) claims the Elite has met its match in the new Vizio M series (with better viewing angles to boot), and Kevin Miller had a similar favorable impression. Bearing in mind this is still merely a CES demo, that's the only bright side to this OLED quagmire.


----------



## rogo

So long as plasma supporters pre-determine LCDs are inferior on very narrow ground, I'm quite sure they'll keep holding up OLED TVs they cannot buy against plasmas they've already bought, while dismissing LCDs....


It's so absurd to read criticisms like "cameras record RGB" to dismiss Sharp when none of the next generation LCDs we're discussing use Quattron. It's absurd to dismiss algorithms that set the backlight when every plasma relies on subfield modulation to create the illusion of grey levels at all... But, hey, PDP proponents have never been a rational lot.


The reality is the best plasmas you could buy had fantastic black levels and really good ANSI. They didn't offer much brightness or exceptional peak whites on mixed content, however. There is going to be what appears to be a battle for picture-quality supremacy on LCD coming. Maybe it produces a clear winner; more likely it produces several choices. The idea that LCD's state of the art hasn't moved is bizarre. The idea that it won't move because plasma is gone is just techno-depressiveness.


----------



## Weboh

The unfortunate thing is that Plasma is made out of glass. It seems to put out EM Light at a wide angle efficiently where LED just puts out a disgusting bright blue light through LC shutters. Since we are so impatient to get to the legendary 2160p/4K, plasma TVs are supposed to follow suit, and we are supposed to believe LCDs aren't cheap to make like OLED plastic, whatever that is. Omega LED, where are theke? So as 1080p60p plasma TVs get better briter and more reliable, I am supposed to hope for a discount on Plasma TVs.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24215939
> 
> 
> So long as plasma supporters pre-determine LCDs are inferior on very narrow ground, I'm quite sure they'll keep holding up OLED TVs they cannot buy against plasmas they've already bought, while dismissing LCDs....
> 
> 
> It's so absurd to read criticisms like "cameras record RGB" to dismiss Sharp when none of the next generation LCDs we're discussing use Quattron. It's absurd to dismiss algorithms that set the backlight when every plasma relies on subfield modulation to create the illusion of grey levels at all... But, hey, PDP proponents have never been a rational lot.
> 
> 
> The reality is the best plasmas you could buy had fantastic black levels and really good ANSI. They didn't offer much brightness or exceptional peak whites on mixed content, however. There is going to be what appears to be a battle for picture-quality supremacy on LCD coming. Maybe it produces a clear winner; more likely it produces several choices. The idea that LCD's state of the art hasn't moved is bizarre. The idea that it won't move because plasma is gone is just techno-depressiveness.



I think it will be very interesting to see just how much further they can push LCD technology or improve it? Could it ever get it to a point where it's so close to OLED picture quality you can't tell them apart at a glance? At that point would there be any reason to produce one given the cost factor? Off axis viewing would seem to be a major hurdle to overcome if it could ever reach that point. Sharp's IGZO display technology looks interesting as we'll down the road, great company for innovation that's for sure.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24215939
> 
> 
> So long as plasma supporters pre-determine LCDs are inferior on very narrow ground, I'm quite sure they'll keep holding up OLED TVs they cannot buy against plasmas they've already bought, while dismissing LCDs....
> 
> 
> It's so absurd to read criticisms like "cameras record RGB" to dismiss Sharp when none of the next generation LCDs we're discussing use Quattron. It's absurd to dismiss algorithms that set the backlight when every plasma relies on subfield modulation to create the illusion of grey levels at all... *But, hey, PDP proponents have never been a rational lot.*
> 
> 
> The reality is the best plasmas you could buy had fantastic black levels and really good ANSI. They didn't offer much brightness or exceptional peak whites on mixed content, however. There is going to be what appears to be a battle for picture-quality supremacy on LCD coming. Maybe it produces a clear winner; more likely it produces several choices. The idea that LCD's state of the art hasn't moved is bizarre. The idea that it won't move because plasma is gone is just techno-depressiveness.


Hmm, I thought you were a PDP proponent even as recently as 2012. The forward innovation hasn't been so striking since 2011 actually, and the shootout results bear this out (I know, I know, not scientifically sufficient to rule out variables like placebo effect and confirmation bias, but such a panel *did* actually win this competition many moons ago...and in 2014, if there is still no OLED competition on hand, it will win by default).


----------



## Mike204


What would be interesting, is if OLED eventually becomes feasible if they decide to call it something else. From people hearing "organic" and assuming it's a ploy, to the majority of consumers that automatically assume because its "LED" its all the same.

 

In reality the average joe doesn't care if Tim at bestbuy wants to "tell him" how the panel works, he just wants to be "wowed" into purchasing a TV he wants today.

 

Provide the next step, with a different name that differentiates from the whole LCD/LED section....Could actually be a pretty substantial move.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24215926
> 
> 
> Yes, I've read that opinion, too, particularly from Ken Ross (that the color coding issue was largely blown out of proportion). Having never seen one, I can only rely upon the impressions of others vicariously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for weighing in. iMagic (Mark Henninger) claims the Elite has met its match in the new Vizio M series (with better viewing angles to boot), and Kevin Miller had a similar favorable impression. Bearing in mind this is still merely a CES demo, that's the only bright side to this OLED quagmire.



I will use this for several of the Elite comments. Regarding zones, a Sharp engineer at 2012 CES was quoted as saying the 60" had ~ 300 zones and the 70" ~ 600. A photo supposedly showing a backlight panel for a 70" for sale on ebay was counted as having 284 zones. Shape of the panel indicated 2 would be required to have a complete backlight. As far as I now, no one has done an independent 3rd party count.


Regarding color accuracy, the cyan defect could only be seen in a side by side comparison to an accurate picture. I have a Lumagen Radiance video processor and thanks to lunagen's ongoing improvement efforts their 125 point 3D LUT (free) fixed the cyan issue on my set. What had previously appeared as nice shades of blue are now cyan. After calibration with the 3d LUT all de's are less than 2 for both primaries and secondaries measured at 5% increments from 25% luminance thru 100%.


The Visio model is their R series not the M.


----------



## Weboh

I will say something about the Pioneer Kuro Elite. It was a 60 inch diagonal, 900p60p PDP. It had artifacts and needed better hardware. Get a 60 inch Panasonic S60, if you don't believe me. It is 900p too.


----------



## vinnie97

Thanks for the correction on the Vizio notation, dsinger. I am more inclined to believe those like yourself who claim the Sharp cyan defect is not visible without an accurate picture to be honest. I'm excited to see how the new models measure up in spite of being surreptitiously labeled as irrational.


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160_60#post_24215793
> 
> 
> 1. Large-screen displays are going to be very common in the future and we will need 4K resolution or higher to accommodate them, this is a normal part of display evolution.



Upon what are you basing your prediction? From what I've read around here, probably from Rogo, there is a little indication that large screen displays are going to come anywhere close to, "very common". Except for a relatively small subset of enthusiasts, most people aren't interested in screen sizes beyond 42" - 60".


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24217635
> 
> 
> Upon what are you basing your prediction? From what I've read around here, probably from Rogo, there is a little indication that large screen displays are going to come anywhere close to, "very common". Except for a relatively small subset of enthusiasts, most people aren't interested in screen sizes beyond 42" - 60".



HDTVs in people's living rooms are already significantly larger on average than the CRT sets that preceeded them a decade ago.


As folks (the significant others with the decorating authority) become more comfortable with large displays, they'll be "allowed" in more and more living rooms. Plus as image quality continues to improve and prices continue to fall, the obstacles outside of convincing the other half to agree will diminsih as well.


Why wouldn't a sports enthusiast want an 80 inch display in his man-cave if it costs no more than his current 60"?


Large displays will become more and more common. 4K will help it along.


And none of this negates the benefits that OLED and other technologies will introduce once they become commercially viable (and they will, and they will also be 4K and up).


Making 4K into some sort of villan or marketing ploy with no benefit is as invalid as all the arguments we had to endure on this very forum telling us that 1080p was of no benefit and that the human eye couldn't see any detail beyond 720p. Most AVS members are a bit wiser now regarding the benefits of 1080p. Can't we just learn from that past silliness and accept that 4K is a good thing and be happy about it while we push the industry to develop OLED?


----------



## andy sullivan

Two points. I don't know anybody that has a Man Cave. I'm sure some certainly do but they are far and few between. Why is 4K such a good thing when nothing is broadcast is 4K? Actually, what is broadcast is 1080P?


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24218242
> 
> 
> Two points. I don't know anybody that has a Man Cave. I'm sure some certainly do but they are far and few between. Why is 4K such a good thing when nothing is broadcast is 4K? Actually, what is broadcast is 1080P?



The assumption is that broadcasters will convert to 4K which I doubt will happen any time soon.


At best, they'll put on Bluray or some of the streaming services.


----------



## mr. wally

whether there is 4k content or if the benefits of 4k can be discerned on a non-jumbo

screen are really moot at this point at this time 4k is fait accompli. look at ces. 4k is here and isn't going away any time soon


look at it this way, aside from a current oled or plasma, what 2k display would you feel compelled to buy this year?


if I'm getting a set this year or next it will be 4k with all the necessary 4k specs, not necessarily because I crave 4k, but if I'm dropping a grand or two, I want to avoid immediate obsolescence


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24216086
> 
> 
> I think it will be very interesting to see just how much further they can push LCD technology or improve it? Could it ever get it to a point where it's so close to OLED picture quality you can't tell them apart at a glance? At that point would there be any reason to produce one given the cost factor? Off axis viewing would seem to be a major hurdle to overcome if it could ever reach that point. Sharp's IGZO display technology looks interesting as we'll down the road, great company for innovation that's for sure.



So I've been questioning this since 2012 actually. When people were very excited about how good the Elite was (and how good LCD could be), it left me -- and others -- wondering about how much room there was "above" that to excite people.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24216091
> 
> 
> Hmm, I thought you were a PDP proponent even as recently as 2012. The forward innovation hasn't been so striking since 2011 actually, and the shootout results bear this out (I know, I know, not scientifically sufficient to rule out variables like placebo effect and confirmation bias, but such a panel *did* actually win this competition many moons ago...and in 2014, if there is still no OLED competition on hand, it will win by default).



I'm still a PDP fan, I'm just not a technology nostalgist. I own a 2012 plasma. It will be my TV until (a) it breaks or (b) until 2016-17. The reason for that date is both arbitrary (5 years is my personal TV replacement cycle) and not (I believe there'll be something worth buying by then at a price that isn't unreasonable).


One thing I think we are disregarding is that true local dimming was dead and gone. Then (thanks largely to the advent of "direct LED") it came back out of nowhere. Now, it's headed for inexpensive product. That product will put pressure on an entire industry. It will lead to a local-dimming arms race over the coming 24-36 months. The death of a-Si backplanes for high-end product is also in the offing. Whether IGZO/oxide comes to dominate or whether LTPS actually becomes affordable/viable at large sizes is TBD, but either way LCD gets better. Whether quantum-dot films become more common or whether light purity of whites improves, LCD gets better. Do we get IPS panels with the contrast of VA panels? Hard to know, but it's not impossible.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24217675
> 
> 
> HDTVs in people's living rooms are already significantly larger on average than the CRT sets that preceeded them a decade ago.



That's true. But big screens are not significantly larger than projection sets of more than a decade ago. And those used to sell into about 3% of households per year. They weren't especially uncommon.


> Quote:
> As folks (the significant others with the decorating authority) become more comfortable with large displays, they'll be "allowed" in more and more living rooms.



Evidence doesn't really support this. The increasing urbanization of the population and the increasing popularity of individual screens suggests macro trends that will act against this. That doesn't even account for the general dislike among most women of large screens. And a generation of younger women growing up without TV at all is unlikely to see things radically differently.


----------



## RichB

The viewing angle on the Elite was very limited before degradation set in.

My friend bought one and sold it a month later. Not my cup of tea either.


That said, if my ZT craps out, I will examine the local dimming LCD's options, unless someone pulls an efficient OLED manufacturing process out of their hat.


- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160_60#post_24217635
> 
> 
> Upon what are you basing your prediction? From what I've read around here, probably from Rogo, there is a little indication that large screen displays are going to come anywhere close to, "very common". Except for a relatively small subset of enthusiasts, most people aren't interested in screen sizes beyond 42" - 60".


 

I think the overall notion is that screens have been increasing as the cost per inch plummets.  People have shifted their notions over time.  As X inches becomes more common (no matter what the asymptote is for the rate of increase), X+5 inches *always* seems less weird.

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160_60#post_24218242
> 
> 
> Two points. I don't know anybody that has a Man Cave. I'm sure some certainly do but they are far and few between. Why is 4K such a good thing when nothing is broadcast is 4K? Actually, what is broadcast is 1080P?


 

There are always going to be co-dependent technologies.  It never pays for one technology to *completely* wait for another technology to catch up when that 2nd technology only needs to exist because of the first.  If 4K held off until content was available it would never arrive at all because content only needs to be there to satisfy the needs of the 4K users.

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8160_60#post_24218402
> 
> 
> That doesn't even account for the general dislike among most women of large screens.


 

Among the most amusing things I've ever seen in all of AVS was this concept of being "wifed".  This verb is absolutely hysterical in that nearly everyone can relate to it.  A guy bought a large TV, set it up completely only to be "wifed" later and forced to return it for a smaller size.

 
*LOL.....without getting too deep into evolutionary reasons, there are two reasons for this* (Click to show) 
1. Women have something largely referred to as the nesting instinct.  They typically are comfortable managing from the walls inward.  (Men have a provider instinct, from the walls outward.)  An interesting aside to this is that women are largely comfortable managing the cooking.....right up until it becomes a barbecue outside.  Then somehow, men feel an evolutionary need to take over.  This absolutely applies to the existence of gigantic rectangles within the walls of the home that most of the time are off and look garish.  Sorry, but gigantic chunks of electronics are just not pretty.

 

2. Women have become accustomed to "reigning in their men".  LOL....  And it's a complete riot that most of us accept as more than half sensible.  Because, quite frankly, we'd be spending most of our time blowing @#$% up for fun if we could.  I have two young boys, and my wife routinely comments that she's exhausted being "the sole voice of reason".  LOL....


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24218242
> 
> 
> Two points. I don't know anybody that has a Man Cave. I'm sure some certainly do but they are far and few between. Why is 4K such a good thing when nothing is broadcast is 4K? Actually, what is broadcast is 1080P?


It is not good; and nothing is broadcast in 1080p instead of 1080i.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220_60#post_24219223
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24218242
> 
> 
> Two points. I don't know anybody that has a Man Cave. I'm sure some certainly do but they are far and few between. Why is 4K such a good thing when nothing is broadcast is 4K? Actually, what is broadcast is 1080P?
> 
> 
> 
> It is not good; and nothing is broadcast in 1080p instead of 1080i.
Click to expand...

 

Careful with statements like that.  DirecTV does for some things.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24219355
> 
> 
> Careful with statements like that.  DirecTV does for some things.


I guess what I was really alluding to was that the major broadcast channels are quite content to broadcast in 1080i and 720P. From a financial stand point they have no incentive to even up the PQ to 1080P so why would they spend the multi millions of dollars to jump to 4K? Their customers just do not care. Now if the average 4K display can upgrade the current PQ to something truly and obviously stunning then I can see the advantage of 4K. It's really a moot point because as previously mentioned, 4K will be the only game in town for anything above the budget models within the next few years. 4K will be a catch phrase just like LED has become.


----------



## Elvis Is Alive




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24218242
> 
> 
> Two points. I don't know anybody that has a Man Cave. I'm sure some certainly do but they are far and few between. Why is 4K such a good thing when nothing is broadcast is 4K? Actually, what is broadcast is 1080P?



Nice meet you Andy. Now you know someone with a Man Cave.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elvis Is Alive*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24219726
> 
> 
> Nice meet you Andy. Now you know someone with a Man Cave.


I'm just jealous that's all. All my Man Cave has in it is a toilet.


----------



## Artwood

That's perfect for LCD--all you have to do is flush LCD down the toilet!


ANything else you put in the man cave will look nice.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24217635
> 
> 
> Upon what are you basing your prediction? From what I've read around here, probably from Rogo, there is a little indication that large screen displays are going to come anywhere close to, "very common". Except for a relatively small subset of enthusiasts, most people aren't interested in screen sizes beyond 42" - 60".



I'm a visionary I was thinking long-term in the future down the road, already we have screens that have increased in size big time over the years as the prices come down. I don't have a timetable in mind but I think it will happen sooner than later as the technology evolves. Think futuristically here where apartments get smaller in the future as more room is needed think China, people will have a big need for very large displays to fill up the entire walls so they can feel less claustrophobic. Example: Think of a real beautiful scenery of a garden or something that would make the entire apartment wall, it would disappear and give you the illusion that there's a whole other room etc., this would only be an illusion for sure but it would be a good one making your small apartment or home appear way larger. Maybe it would even serve as a window as well? We are going to need very high-resolution content in order to pull this illusion off, additionally for future movies to even look any good on very large displays it's going to be needed A.S.A.P, and this I'm talking very soon not way in the future I'm talking like now. Also it won't stop at 4k by any means but it is a start.










> Quote:
> andy sullivan
> 
> 
> Two points. I don't know anybody that has a Man Cave. I'm sure some certainly do but they are far and few between. Why is 4K such a good thing when nothing is broadcast is 4K? Actually, what is broadcast is 1080P?
> 
> ReplyQuote Multi



I guess you can call my place a man cave I have blackout curtains I can make it darker than the theater. 4K is a good thing and it will be needed in the future because as screens get larger and they will, the current content in 1080P won't look any good on them. Additionally the Apple TV the does broadcast thousand in 1080p not in 1080i and I'm sure they're working on 4k as we'll as we speak.










PS: I think there are a few others that also broadcast in 1080p though I have not looked into them.


----------



## JWhip

I reconfigured a room and it is my man cave. It is devoted to HT only. It is small but very intimate.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24219355
> 
> 
> Careful with statements like that.  DirecTV does for some things.


Movies in 1080p30p at best. Excuse me.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24219765
> 
> 
> I'm just jealous that's all. All my Man Cave has in it is a toilet.



I call that room the fortress of solitude. Women do not bother you in there.










- Rich


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8190#post_24219058
> 
> 
> I think the overall notion is that screens have been increasing as the cost per inch plummets.  People have shifted their notions over time.  As X inches becomes more common (no matter what the asymptote is for the rate of increase), X+5 inches _always_seems less weird.



Except as the size goes up, the equation is: Upgrade Size = X+10.

In my case, X =65 so evaluating, I come up with 75 inches.

Perfect.


- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220_60#post_24221164
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24219355
> 
> 
> Careful with statements like that.  DirecTV does for some things.
> 
> 
> 
> Movies in 1080p30p at best. Excuse me.
Click to expand...

 

Movies are almost always shot in 24p anyway.  Until we can get much more HFR....which seems increasing less likely the more and more bandwidth is used up on 4K, etc.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24221218
> 
> 
> Except as the size goes up, the equation is: Upgrade Size = X+10.
> 
> In my case, X =65 so evaluating, I come up with 75 inches.
> 
> Perfect.



10" makes earth-shaking difference??? For me a jump big enough from my 65" would be only to the 100"+ class and this is why I established a thread relevant to it, bonus is then that 4K makes sense







.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24221339
> 
> 
> Movies are almost always shot in 24p anyway.  Until we can get much more HFR....which seems increasing less likely the more and more bandwidth is used up on 4K, etc.



Note movies are more art than tech and somehow 24p is superbly fitting to the art. People report HFR is destroying cinematic effect possibly by being too real and detailed, at least in cinema.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24224133
> 
> 
> 10" makes earth-shaking difference??? For me a jump big enough from my 65" would be only to the 100"+ class and this is why I established a thread relevant to it, bonus is then that 4K makes sense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Sure.

http://www.displaywars.com/65-inch-16x9-vs-75-inch-16x9 


Danger, 4K may lead to larger displays










- Rich


----------



## Rich Peterson

Despite the sentiment in this forum, some forecasters are still optimistic about OLED, it's just going to take longer than many hoped. Here's a forecast by IHS Technology.

*AMOLED TV Panel Shipments to Grow to 10 Million by 2018*


Source: Novus Light Technologies]

 


> Quote:
> Despite a few false starts, television brands remain committed to the success of active matrix organic light emitting diode (AMOLED) sets, with the new impetus evident at the International CES expected to cause shipments to rise to more than 10 million units in 2018, according to a recent report on the AMOLED market by IHS Technology.. Global unit shipments of AMOLED television panels are expected to amount to about 50,000 this year, as the sets remain very expensive and only one manufacturer—LG Displays—is expected to ship large volumes of panels in 2014. However, several brands demonstrated a range of compelling AMOLED sets at CES. As the AMOLED display suppliers resolve their manufacturing challenges, and the brands enter higher-volume production, AMOLED TV panel shipments will rise to 700,000 in 2015, to 2.2 million in 2016 and to 5.1 million in 2017.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220_60#post_24224133
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24221339
> 
> 
> Movies are almost always shot in 24p anyway.  Until we can get much more HFR....which seems increasing less likely the more and more bandwidth is used up on 4K, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note movies are more art than tech and somehow 24p is superbly fitting to the art. People report HFR is destroying cinematic effect possibly by being too real and detailed, at least in cinema.
Click to expand...

 

We're talking about conveying that art, and that requires tech, which is what this discussion is.

 

And that "People report" business is *far* from a universal reaction.  You'll see some claims to that effect, and when you boil down what they're saying, it has nothing to do with them protecting the art of cinema, because what they're calling the art of cinema is really "the art of 24 fps cinema".  So by definition of course 48+ FPS isn't 24 FPS.  Cinema need not look precisely the same to be cinema.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220_60#post_24224133
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24221218
> 
> 
> Except as the size goes up, the equation is: Upgrade Size = X+10.
> 
> In my case, X =65 so evaluating, I come up with 75 inches.
> 
> Perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 10" makes earth-shaking difference???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know you're being glib, but actually, yes.  The conversation was about what was "too big", and that line moves.  Once you're at that line, even 5" more looks wrong.  Besides, I'm amazed at how much bigger my 60" looks over a 55" in my family room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> For me a jump big enough from my 65" would be only to the 100"+ class and this is why I established a thread relevant to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you're being serious here, you're pretty rare.  That's quite a jump.
Click to expand...


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24224529
> 
> 
> Despite the sentiment in this forum, some forecasters are still optimistic about OLED, it's just going to take longer than many hoped. Here's a forecast by IHS Technology.
> 
> *AMOLED TV Panel Shipments to Grow to 10 Million by 2018*
> 
> 
> Source: Novus Light Technologies]



Definitely estimating a hold out until about 2018 to 2020 for my next upgrade and I'm really hoping it will be a 4k 100" + or larger OLED. I think it will be way worth the wait.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24225512
> 
> 
> Definitely estimating a hold out until about 2018 to 2020 for my next upgrade and I'm really hoping it will be a 4k 100" + or larger OLED. I think it will be way worth the wait.



Here is my plan:


1) Stay alive until OLED is available in larger than 65 inches

2) check affordability, If not, affordable, repeat step 1.











- Rich


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24224388
> 
> 
> Sure.
> http://www.displaywars.com/65-inch-16x9-vs-75-inch-16x9
> 
> Danger, 4K may lead to larger displays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich



Instead of buying incrementally bigger TVs I have arm wall mount by Chief which expands up to 37" from the wall.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24225512
> 
> 
> Definitely estimating a hold out until about 2018 to 2020 for my next upgrade and I'm really hoping it will be a 4k 100" + or larger OLED. I think it will be way worth the wait.


Kinda depends on how old you are. My 75 year old neighbor might disagree with you.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24225579
> 
> 
> Instead of buying incrementally bigger TVs I have arm wall mount by Chief which expands up to 37" from the wall.



I am married and that is not going to happen









The good news is my wife wants an 85 inch screen. I may be forced to up-size sooner than OLED arrives.

I tried to talk her into a projector. No go, but, I suppose there are worse problems.











- Rich


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24225512
> 
> 
> Definitely estimating a hold out until about 2018 to 2020 for my next upgrade and I'm really hoping it will be a 4k 100" + or larger OLED. I think it will be way worth the wait.



By 2020 don't you think you will want an 8K?


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24225582
> 
> 
> Kinda depends on how old you are. My 75 year old neighbor might disagree with you.



True everything is relevant to your position in life, If I was 75 and needed a new  TV I'd get the largest one I could find and start enjoying it now.












> Quote:
> Rich Peterson
> 
> 
> By 2020 don't you think you will want an 8K?



If it's available sure, but it would also depend upon A few factors. t


1. How we'll would 8k scale 4k content? Right now 4k sets doesn't scale 1080 content very good.


2. How much 8k content if any would be available?


3. How much of an extra premium are you paying for 8k?


PS: Don't get me wrong here I'm sure it will happen in time but it's all about when you want to jump in and when it will benefit you for the cost.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220_60#post_24225895
> 
> 
> 1. How we'll would 8k scale 4k content? Right now 4k sets doesn't scale 1080 content very good.


 

Yes they do!  In the very worst case it's a 1x1 -> 2x2 NN replication.  But the upscaling algorithms are very good (at least on Sony hardware).


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*
> 
> 
> By 2020 don't you think you will want an 8K?


1080i broadcast started (in Europe) in 2004. Its 2014 and it will take several years for UHD to become mainstream. 4K might be the end of the road for Europa and North-America... Even if 8k becomes a standard over here it will be 2020/2025. So go ahead, get yourself a 8K TV in 2020...and enjoy all the upscaling...for several years


----------



## ynotgoal

A quick review of the commentary towards OLEDs for the past year.

#1 OLEDs are going to be great if we could get any.

#2 Check out these OLED TVs for sale.

#1 The experts all say they're great but too expensive.

#2 Price drops to $10,000. And we can make them curved.

#1 We hate curved. We want flat.

#2 Ok, we can flex them to be curved, flat, in between, whatever you like.

#1 That's ridiculous. Plus, they're too expensive.

#2 Ok, Price drops to $8500.

#1 Ridiculous, way too expensive. LCDs might get better.

#2 Ok, price drops to $6000 in UK.

#1 That must mean you can't sell any. Or make them.

#2 Price drops to $4900 in UK.

#1 Whoa, you're dropping the price way too fast. People won't think they're premium products anymore.
http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2014/01/lge-discounting-oled-tv-before-rolling-out-new-products/ 


Now it turns out the author apparently confused the price and discount. The stores list them as 3000 pounds off, rather than a selling price of 3000 pounds. It shows though that no matter what they do though, it will clearly be the wrong thing to do. High prices bad, low priced bad.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24225955
> 
> 
> Yes they do!  In the very worst case it's a 1x1 -> 2x2 NN replication.  But the upscaling algorithms are very good (at least on Sony hardware).



I'm sure they're making improvements ever day, I'm also the kind of guy who trusts his eyes over any technical claims however. From what little I've seen in store it's not very impressive so far but it's possible what you're claiming is true I just need to see it for myself.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220_60#post_24226555
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24225955
> 
> 
> Yes they do!  In the very worst case it's a 1x1 -> 2x2 NN replication.  But the upscaling algorithms are very good (at least on Sony hardware).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they're making improvements ever day, I'm also the kind of guy who trusts his eyes over any technical claims however. From what little I've seen in store it's not very impressive so far but it's possible what you're claiming is true I just need to see it for myself.
Click to expand...

 

IMO, it's impressive on the Sony.  At least when I was checking out the upconvert on the Sony 2013 XBR-65X900A ... I was surprised.

 

(The 4K Samsung I saw didn't do a very good upconvert from 2K AFAICT, but I didn't fiddle with the settings either, so it might have been able to, might not).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24224529
> 
> 
> Despite the sentiment in this forum, some forecasters are still optimistic about OLED, it's just going to take longer than many hoped. Here's a forecast by IHS Technology.
> 
> *AMOLED TV Panel Shipments to Grow to 10 Million by 2018*
> 
> 
> Source: Novus Light Technologies]



Actually, this is the very pessimism we've been expressing (well, almost).


It continues to assume that we're "just about ready" for exponential growth. We, of course, haven't seen evidence of that yet.


But let's say it's true. By 2020, extrapolating from that forecast, OLED TVs would be about 30 million annually (you can see the declining growth rates in the forecast). That's less than 15% of the TV market.


This is a TV many of you told us was taking over, was inevitable, was cheaper, etc. When I said it had no chance of reaching 50% of the large-size display industry by 2020 (back in 2012) I was insulted and mocked. Yet now, an "optimistic" forecast has it reaching 15% of the TV business by that time? Well, wow. I'd hate to see a pessimistic forecast.


I'd like to point out that IHS has pushed back that forecast each year for the past 3, so it basically just keeps taking the numbers and saying, "They'll come true, just later!"


If we want to believe this is all real and good, here's the optimistic spin.


"The high end of the TV business is more like 40 million total units. OLED will be 25% of that by 2018, according to IHS. It will be more than half of the high end market by 2020, perhaps as much as 3/4. Within a decade, all high-end TVs will be OLED."


Now, there are a lot of reasons why that isn't likely. You will be able to buy a fairly high end 70-inch LCD for just over $2000 this year. But perhaps OLED will get relentlessly cheaper and by 2024, you'll be buying a $2000 70-inch OLED, giving that LCD no reason to exist. Of course, that's a decade away, where OLED has been... for a decade.


----------



## Rich Peterson

We know that Merck and LG are working together on OLED printing and it looks like LG is the one company ramping up OLED panel production. I found slides from Merck on OLED Printing and their partnership with Epson from June 2013. I hadn't seen these before but maybe I missed it. I found it of interest.

*OLED status quo and Merck's position - A deep dive into Merck's LC and OLED business*

http://www.slideshare.net/MerckGroup/a-deep-dive-into-mercks-lc-oled-business 


Some quotes I pulled (but there's much much more there.)


> Quote:
> * OLED could capture 10-15% of total display market by 2019.
> 
> * We have positioned ourselves to be the market leader in OLED printing.
> 
> * If technical hurdles are overcome, an attractive cost per inch ratio could serve the whole display market.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24226694
> 
> 
> Actually, this is the very pessimism we've been expressing (well, almost).
> 
> 
> It continues to assume that we're "just about ready" for exponential growth. We, of course, haven't seen evidence of that yet.
> 
> 
> But let's say it's true. By 2020, extrapolating from that forecast, OLED TVs would be about 30 million annually (you can see the declining growth rates in the forecast). That's less than 15% of the TV market.



For most new technology, commercialization takes far longer than anybody thinks and then the ramp is far faster than anybody thinks.


You need to look no farther than mobile OLED's. Here is Displaysearch's projection for OLED revenues in September 2009. OLED's were being incorporated into mobile phones and we were about six months from the launch of the Galaxy S1.

 


Instead of $3.5 billion in 2013, OLED revenues were about $13 billion.


Inflection points are hard to predict. Personally, my guess is if that if (big if) OLED's ship 2.2 million television units in 2016 that the vast majority of high-end will be OLED by 2018.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24226694
> 
> 
> Actually, this is the very pessimism we've been expressing (well, almost).
> 
> 
> It continues to assume that we're "just about ready" for exponential growth. We, of course, haven't seen evidence of that yet.
> 
> 
> But let's say it's true. By 2020, extrapolating from that forecast, OLED TVs would be about 30 million annually (you can see the declining growth rates in the forecast). That's less than 15% of the TV market.
> 
> 
> This is a TV many of you told us was taking over, was inevitable, was cheaper, etc. When I said it had no chance of reaching 50% of the large-size display industry by 2020 (back in 2012) I was insulted and mocked. Yet now, an "optimistic" forecast has it reaching 15% of the TV business by that time? Well, wow. I'd hate to see a pessimistic forecast.
> 
> 
> I'd like to point out that IHS has pushed back that forecast each year for the past 3, so it basically just keeps taking the numbers and saying, "They'll come true, just later!"
> 
> 
> If we want to believe this is all real and good, here's the optimistic spin.
> 
> 
> "The high end of the TV business is more like 40 million total units. OLED will be 25% of that by 2018, according to IHS. It will be more than half of the high end market by 2020, perhaps as much as 3/4. Within a decade, all high-end TVs will be OLED."
> 
> 
> Now, there are a lot of reasons why that isn't likely. You will be able to buy a fairly high end 70-inch LCD for just over $2000 this year. But perhaps OLED will get relentlessly cheaper and by 2024, you'll be buying a $2000 70-inch OLED, giving that LCD no reason to exist. Of course, that's a decade away, where OLED has been... for a decade.



So are you saying those predicting that "this is a TV many of you told us was taking over, was inevitable, was cheaper, etc" are wrong? I don't recall anyone saying OLED was going to take over anytime soon. You are certainly right that it won't happen for many many years, but are you saying it won't happen at all?


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24226875
> 
> 
> For most new technology, commercialization takes far longer than anybody thinks and then the ramp is far faster than anybody thinks.
> 
> 
> You need to look no farther than mobile OLED's. Here is Displaysearch's projection for OLED revenues in September 2009. OLED's were being incorporated into mobile phones and we were about six months from the launch of the Galaxy S1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of $3.5 billion in 2013, OLED revenues were about $13 billion.
> 
> 
> Inflection points are hard to predict. Personally, my guess is if that if (big if) OLED's ship 2.2 million television units in 2016 that the vast majority of high-end will be OLED by 2018.



Cell phones are different business altogether much higher demand for them as many people upgrade yearly, but most people don't upgrade their televisions yearly more like every 5-10 years or when they break down. Sorry but I really don't see how this chart is relevant to the future projections of OLED expansion into the market.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24227578
> 
> 
> Cell phones are different business altogether much higher demand for them as many people upgrade yearly, but most people don't upgrade their televisions yearly more like every 5-10 years or when they break down. Sorry but I really don't see how this chart is relevant to the future projections of OLED expansion into the market.



The point is simply that predicting the adoption rate of technology is really damn hard and errors arent in only one direction.


If you look at Displaysearch's prediction on OLED's throughout the 2000's they were way too bullish, until 2009 when Samsung figured out how to manufacture mobile displays on a Gen 4 fab...and then Displaysearch was way too bearish. Samsung figured out how to use shadowmasks on a Gen 4 line with decent yields (and eventually Gen 5.5) and revenues exploded.


Will that happen with LG and OLED televisions? There isnt enough information to know. The best indication will be if LG is following through with building the full 26,000 substrates for their Gen 8 fab.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24227897
> 
> 
> The point is simply that predicting the adoption rate of technology is really damn hard and errors arent in only one direction.
> 
> 
> If you look at Displaysearch's prediction on OLED's throughout the 2000's they were way too bullish, until 2009 when Samsung figured out how to manufacture mobile displays on a Gen 4 fab...and then Displaysearch was way too bearish. Samsung figured out how to use shadowmasks on a Gen 4 line with decent yields (and eventually Gen 5.5) and revenues exploded.
> 
> 
> Will that happen with LG and OLED televisions? There isnt enough information to know. The best indication will be if LG is following through with building the full 26,000 substrates for their Gen 8 fab.



I see what you are saying but I think in this case the driving force behind OLED right now is competition, who will be the first to do what etc. Big companies like Samsung and LG always want to be the first company to do something new and can't stand it when the other company is producing something better than they are doing. Perhaps there will be a niche in the market soon that will allow us to get our OLED TV down the road.


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8200_100#post_24225573
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220#post_24225512
> 
> 
> Definitely estimating a hold out until about 2018 to 2020 for my next upgrade and I'm really hoping it will be a 4k 100" + or larger OLED. I think it will be way worth the wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my plan:
> 
> 
> 1) Stay alive until OLED is available in larger than 65 inches
> 
> 2) check affordability, If not, affordable, repeat step 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich
Click to expand...


You forgot step 3: when realizing that's not until 2020, open vein LOL!


----------



## andy sullivan

I think that the big push towards 4K LCD and it's acceptance by the public will allow for OLED to have it's bugs worked out before it hits the ground running in a few years. Right now the blue situation is not perfect and yields are way below required levels. Given a couple of years to mature at the manufacturer level should allow for competitive pricing and make for a nice alternative to 4K LCD. Just what the manufactures want.


----------



## Chris5028

I hope you are right, I am getting a VT or a ZT in a couple weeks (if there are any left), and I would love it if in a few years when I get the itch to go bigger it could be OLED.


----------



## R Harkness

I happened upon the LG 55" OLED display at a Future Shop (Canada). I'd seen the Samsung OLED at an AV show as I've mentioned previously in the thread, but it was another thrill to encounter the LG.

Of course it was just playing the standard demo: bright flowers and objects against a black background, night city scenes in Vancouver, etc. The settings were obviously not optimal.


But man, in terms of contrast, did it look great! I sat there staring thinking "Well...this is it, isn't it? I've always been a black level fiend and here I am, staring at perfect black levels! Pitch dark. Ain't nowhere to go. And it looks gorgeous, as

I'd always figured it would." The night city scenes had this gorgeous solidity and the black levels gave a sort of "infinite" sense of space to the night sky - where so many displays I get that feeling of "seeing" the display glowing, to produce not-quite-black. This had nothing to distract my eye, so it sort of removed that depth barrier. Really beautiful.


In pure picture quality terms, and making some mental adjustments for the fact it was under relatively bright lights and in a poor picture mode, it left me thinking it would be a display I could be happy with for a long time. I guess it's sort of the "holy grail" in terms of reproducing the sources we've been watching for so long. Though, ironically, we may have just reached this holy grail just as some new specs and technology raise their head (perhaps something like higher dynamic range displays, and the like).


And, though it seems a bit contradictory perhaps to also mention this: looking around at the many excellent plasma and top end LCD displays, I also had the feeling of "wow, look how far we've come in picture quality, generally." I mean, the OLED looked great, but it didn't look leaps and bounds better than the nearby displays, which also, under those conditions, seemed to look vibrant with good black levels. I think I'm reacting to a more video-phile level of discrimination when I see the OLEDs, just seeing some of the technical limitations I've lived with for so long, actually exceeded...even if they needed to be exceeded only by a little bit, it's still an "all the difference in the world" to someone who cares about these things.


Whether the average consumer in a Best Buy will notice the same things, or feel as wowed by OLED, that I'm less sure of.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8200_100#post_24226163
> 
> 
> 1080i broadcast started (in Europe) in 2004. Its 2014 and it will take several years for UHD to become mainstream. 4K might be the end of the road for Europa and North-America... Even if 8k becomes a standard over here it will be 2020/2025. So go ahead, get yourself a 8K TV in 2020...and enjoy all the upscaling...for several years


You forget that many of us couldn't care less about broadcast. And I look forward to viewing upscaled content. I feel like I've been saying it a lot recently, but 1080p looks better on a 4K display than it does on a 1080p native display. Fine details are much better resolved.


As long as the video connectors keep up with the display resolution (e.g. HDMI 3.0, DisplayPort 2.0, or some new connector) I will _immediately_ be able to take advantage of 8K with my PC.

Computers have their UI designed around 96 DPI, which is 1080p on a 23" display.


So when you move to 4K you have the option of either staying at the same size and being used as a "1080p Retina display" or doubling in size (46") and being used as a non-retina display with four times the workspace.

Move to 8K and a 46" display becomes a "4K Retina display" - this would be an _ideal_ monitor for people that want really high quality looking text and graphics (retina quality) _and_ more than the limited workspace that 1080p gives you.


I would buy an 8K display _today_ if it were available in that size and supported a native 8K input.


----------



## JimP

Rich H


I've gained a new appreciation for displays that perform well over a broad range of content.


OLED might very well be it but having bought my share of expensive displays, I'd be extremely careful about buying any tech where the demo only shows off one type of content such as the dark scenes you described.


If you think about the typical Best Buy demo where they have a Panasonic plasma next to a Samsung LCD. Certain content trashes one display and makes the other look superior. Other content does just the reverse.



....and I'm very cautious around demos that don't include motion, some high key scenes and a variety of skin tones. I don't watch that many black sky starfields and bowls of grapes....even though I do want them to look good when they do come up.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24226875
> 
> 
> For most new technology, commercialization takes far longer than anybody thinks and then the ramp is far faster than anybody thinks.



I second this notion.


> Quote:
> Inflection points are hard to predict. Personally, my guess is if that if (big if) OLED's ship 2.2 million television units in 2016 that the vast majority of high-end will be OLED by 2018.



Given the parameter "high end" I kind of think that's plausible. Given the IHS projection actually calls for (as I said above) up to 3/4 of the high-end market being OLED by around 2020, you're guesstimate is not dramatically different from that.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24226899
> 
> 
> So are you saying those predicting that "this is a TV many of you told us was taking over, was inevitable, was cheaper, etc" are wrong? I don't recall anyone saying OLED was going to take over anytime soon. You are certainly right that it won't happen for many many years, but are you saying it won't happen at all?



I continue to say that it might never happen. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. I spoke with the head of an OLED equipment maker again yesterday and his optimism about the future of OLED is quite cautious.


You pulled the Merck info.10-15% of the display business? That's not taking over; it's barely alive.


The theory around OLED right now is (a) LCD is a money loser (b) LCD plants will eventually be depreciated (c) with OLED we can sell premium displays by repurposing some of that depreciated investment. That's a pretty roundabout theory and it never yields dominance of the industry. At most, it yields a fraction of the business, which is what you find in the Merck forecast.


That's a far cry from the inevitable takeover of the world everyone was crowing about not long ago.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24227578
> 
> 
> Cell phones are different business altogether much higher demand for them as many people upgrade yearly, but most people don't upgrade their televisions yearly more like every 5-10 years or when they break down. Sorry but I really don't see how this chart is relevant to the future projections of OLED expansion into the market.



It's not relevant. But there's a legitimate point to be made about extrapolating the future, which is that it's part art, part science.


----------



## irkuck

You guys do not appreciate potential of LCD striking back at high-end. Vizio Reference series is a sign of it: dense FALD plus Dolby HDR not even mentioning price, size and 4K. Samsung and LG domination has led to hibernation of LCD PQ as they bet on OLED as savior from the Chinese. But now Vizio is challenging this, possibly forcing others to join. The end effect we may see as LCD PQ absolutely on par (or subjectively even better







) with OLED and OLED waning as fine in principle but economically not competitive.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24229349
> 
> 
> You guys do not appreciate potential of LCD striking back at high-end. Vizio Reference series is a sign of it: dense FALD plus Dolby HDR not even mentioning price, size and 4K. Samsung and LG domination has led to hibernation of LCD PQ as they bet on OLED as savior from the Chinese. But now Vizio is challenging this, possibly forcing others to join. The end effect we may see as LCD PQ absolutely on par (or subjectively even better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) with OLED and OLED waning as fine in principle but economically not competitive.


OLED is fake; and PDPs persist. I don't give a damn about the plastic LCDs.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> You forget that many of us couldn't care less about broadcast.


You and i do not care that much about broadcast, besides that, there will only be a few 8K movies available when 8K broadcast starts. It seems to me that even on AVS lot of folks watch a lot of broadcast stuff.


8K is not a done deal in Europe and North America. 4K might be the end of the road over here...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> And I look forward to viewing upscaled content. I feel like I've been saying it a lot recently, but 1080p looks better on a 4K display than it does on a 1080p native display. Fine details are much better resolved.


That might be the case. When i buy a 4K TV i want 4K content..and leave all the lower resolutions behind











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> As long as the video connectors keep up with the display resolution (e.g. HDMI 3.0, DisplayPort 2.0, or some new connector) I will _immediately_ be able to take advantage of 8K with my PC.
> 
> Computers have their UI designed around 96 DPI, which is 1080p on a 23" display.
> 
> 
> So when you move to 4K you have the option of either staying at the same size and being used as a "1080p Retina display" or doubling in size (46") and being used as a non-retina display with four times the workspace.
> 
> Move to 8K and a 46" display becomes a "4K Retina display" - this would be an _ideal_ monitor for people that want really high quality looking text and graphics (retina quality) _and_ more than the limited workspace that 1080p gives you.
> 
> 
> I would buy an 8K display _today_ if it were available in that size and supported a native 8K input.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220_60#post_24230069
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> And I look forward to viewing upscaled content. I feel like I've been saying it a lot recently, but 1080p looks better on a 4K display than it does on a 1080p native display. Fine details are much better resolved.
> 
> 
> 
> That might be the case. When i buy a 4K TV i want 4K content..and leave all the lower resolutions behind
Click to expand...

 

I just hope someone takes the effort to make the 4K playable on 2K devices (blu-ray/cable STB/netflix app/etc).  With proper downsampling, the 4:4:4 might really be something.  It might be a refreshing "whoa, 2K can do *this???"* moment.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24229751
> 
> 
> OLED is fake; and PDPs persist. I don't give a damn about the plastic LCDs.


How you figger (and who up-voted this post)?


----------



## Weboh

I figure LG is gearing up for something, not just LCDs. Perhaps, Panasonic sold their fabrication equipment to LG, and Samsung doesn't need it, having always been close with plasma panel efficiency.


----------



## vinnie97

Only a few months ago you were stating how Panasonic would not be halting plasma production, so I will take your hunches with a grain of salt.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24230602
> 
> 
> Only a few months ago you were stating how Panasonic would not be halting plasma production, so I will take your hunches with a grain of salt.


Technically, they have to continue supporting old TV models. And I don't remember saying anything other than how they would have to out-source from Japan. Don't try to bend my words.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*
> 
> I figure LG is gearing up for something, not just LCDs. Perhaps, Panasonic sold their fabrication equipment to LG, and Samsung doesn't need it, having always been close with plasma panel efficiency.


There is no ''gearing up''. In 2014 LG Plasma's are mediocre, LG LCd's are mediocre/average at best.


----------



## Weboh

The OLED equipment is either LCD fab or Plasma fab.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24230649 Technically, they have to continue supporting old TV models. And I don't remember saying anything other than how they would have to out-source from Japan. Don't try to bend my words.


They will but if the panel becomes defective that' it no replacement and we are OOL


----------



## Weboh

Considering that their is a spot on my TV which says Logo-burns are easy; and I have mild ones; I hope for something to replace my favorite TV.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24230649
> 
> 
> Technically, they have to continue supporting old TV models. And I don't remember saying anything other than how they would have to out-source from Japan. Don't try to bend my words.


Your words are malleable in and of themselves. Supporting old TVs will be fine if a board goes bad....but if the panel itself needs replacing, you're in deep @#$%.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24230679
> 
> 
> Your words are malleable in and of themselves.


I was responding to when, not if.


----------



## vinnie97

^You responded too quickly, I added some more content to that last post.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24230679
> 
> 
> Your words are malleable in and of themselves. Supporting old TVs will be fine if a board goes bad....but if the panel itself needs replacing, you're in deep @#$%.



My friend decided to sell his VT50 and replace it with a his second 65ZT60 because he had a buyer and plenty of money.


I supported this decision in case my ZT60 goes bad, I can make him an offer










- Rich


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24230654
> 
> 
> There is no ''gearing up''. In 2014 LG Plasma's are mediocre, LG LCd's are mediocre/average at best.


And you know this because you haven't seen them yet? I'd advise you to wait until its over.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*
> 
> And you know this because you haven't seen them yet? I'd advise you to wait until its over.


I know all i need to know about 2014 LG Plasma's and LCd's


----------



## Chris5028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24230832
> 
> 
> My friend decided to sell his VT50 and replace it with a his second 65ZT60 because he had a buyer and plenty of money.
> 
> 
> I supported this decision in case my ZT60 goes bad, I can make him an offer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich



I get it and would totally do the same, but part of me says **** all the people buying 2 or 3 of them, I don't think I will get a chance at a first one now.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24231517
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*
> 
> And you know this because you haven't seen them yet? I'd advise you to wait until its over.
> 
> 
> 
> I know all i need to know about 2014 LG Plasma's and LCd's
Click to expand...

Both Samsung and LG need a kick in the bum. I'll give you that.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24230832
> 
> 
> My friend decided to sell his VT50 and replace it with a his second 65ZT60 because he had a buyer and plenty of money.
> 
> 
> I supported this decision in case my ZT60 goes bad, I can make him an offer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich


Mine has no choice but to last.


----------



## Weboh


Make sure the air conditioner and zt60 fans work then. And whatever you do-- don't exceed the contrast and briteness of THX mode.


----------



## vinnie97

I'm pretty sure the ZT60 will shut down if the fans are faulty (hooray for failsafes).


----------



## RLBURNSIDE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8250#post_24230126
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8220_60#post_24230069
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> 
> And I look forward to viewing upscaled content. I feel like I've been saying it a lot recently, but 1080p looks better on a 4K display than it does on a 1080p native display. Fine details are much better resolved.
> 
> 
> 
> That might be the case. When i buy a 4K TV i want 4K content..and leave all the lower resolutions behind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just hope someone takes the effort to make the 4K playable on 2K devices (blu-ray/cable STB/netflix app/etc).  With proper downsampling, the 4:4:4 might really be something.  It might be a refreshing "whoa, 2K can do _this???"_ moment.
Click to expand...


Biggest bang for the buck for current 2k owners is getting off the 24p "back in my day"-mentality and moving up to a higher framerate, and suddenly 2k is much, MUCH better in terms of clarity. But, people persist in hating smoothness and chasing resolution. Contrast, black levels, dynamic range, are all important, but what about motion? What about reducing inherent blur in the source material? You have this terrific display and it usually isn't even using half of its capability. Fluidity is sexy, and is available now. 1080p / 60 can be done on Blurays already, can't it?


I don't care if LCD or OLED or whatever wins in the end, so long as stuff keeps progressing, eventually people will have a facepalm moment that, hey, guys, the biggest limitation on our display quality is one we imposed on ourselves : this antiquated addiction to 24hz material. That's a much, much bigger issue, I think, and every other tech you talk about would benefit that much more from being shot and displayed at a decent clip, instead of the now venerable framerate from circa 1920s silent films.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RLBURNSIDE*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280_60#post_24232317
> 
> 
> this antiquated addiction to 24hz material. That's a much, much bigger issue, I think, and every other tech you talk about would benefit that much more from being shot and displayed at a decent clip, instead of the now venerable framerate from circa 1920s silent films.


 

I've railed about this endlessly.  There a confusion about 24FPS being somehow intrinsic to the "cinematic artform", when what they really mean by that is that 24 FPS is merely intrinsic to the "24 FPS cinematic artform".  I have NO idea where this love-afair with substandard frame rates comes from, but it's patently absurd.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8200_100#post_24230069
> 
> 
> That might be the case. When i buy a 4K TV i want 4K content..and leave all the lower resolutions behind


Good luck with that. I assume you have a 1080p display now - have you stopped watching SD content?

There are _so many_ great films and television shows that will likely never see a 1080p Blu-ray release, let alone a 4K master, I couldn't do that. And believe me - I've tried.

There was a time when all I was watching was Blu-ray. But then I had seen all the titles which interested me, and I started buying DVDs again.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RLBURNSIDE*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8200_100#post_24232317
> 
> 
> Biggest bang for the buck for current 2k owners is getting off the 24p "back in my day"-mentality and moving up to a higher framerate, and suddenly 2k is much, MUCH better in terms of clarity. But, people persist in hating smoothness and chasing resolution. Contrast, black levels, dynamic range, are all important, but what about motion? What about reducing inherent blur in the source material? You have this terrific display and it usually isn't even using half of its capability.


The problem is that film makers are chasing 48fps rather than 60fps. Very few displays are capable of showing a 48Hz signal. At best, your display supports 50Hz (typically non-US display) and supports loose enough timings that it will sync to 48Hz. Mine will go down to 48.5Hz but no lower.


I am all for high framerate content though. 24fps sucks.


----------



## JazzGuyy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24233495
> 
> 
> Good luck with that. I assume you have a 1080p display now - have you stopped watching SD content?
> 
> There are _so many_ great films and television shows that will likely never see a 1080p Blu-ray release, let alone a 4K master, I couldn't do that. And believe me - I've tried.
> 
> There was a time when all I was watching was Blu-ray. But then I had seen all the titles which interested me, and I started buying DVDs again.
> 
> .


+1


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> Good luck with that. I assume you have a 1080p display now - have you stopped watching SD content?


75+% of what i watch is HD. On my 1080p laptops i watch some more of the lesser quality stuff.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> There are _so many_ great films and television shows that will likely never see a 1080p Blu-ray release, let alone a 4K master, I couldn't do that. And believe me - I've tried.
> 
> There was a time when all I was watching was Blu-ray. But then I had seen all the titles which interested me, and I started buying DVDs again.


Only a fraction of the movies i watch are DVDs these days, most movies that are DVD only i do not care about anyway. When movies are outdated, and lots of the older ones are, i easily lose my interest. I do have some comedy series on DVD but i do not watch those on a regular basis.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> I am all for high framerate content though. 24fps sucks.


I kind of agree.


----------



## vinnie97

Newer != better


----------



## gadgtfreek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24234260
> 
> 
> Newer != better


Unless you are talking about CE devices...


----------



## vinnie97

Nope, cinema/television, but on some CEM fronts I would wager it still applies (i.e. on matters like build quality). Display technology (available to the public) hasn't particularly improved much year-on-year either when you consider the benchmarks that have been set (Kuro, Sharp Elite), though 2013-2014 looks to be unseating those kings (for the most part).


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24234469
> 
> 
> Nope, cinema/television, but on some CEM fronts I would wager it still applies (i.e. on matters like build quality). Display technology (available to the public) hasn't particularly improved much year-on-year either when you consider the benchmarks that have been set (Kuro, Sharp Elite), though 2013-2014 looks to be unseating those kings (for the most part).


That was due there was no challenger to LCD and Samsung/LG dominated which resulted in cost-cutting based on edge-lit as the major battlefield. This year Vizio showing is indicating PQ battle in the LCD area may be back. If full arsenal of LCD potenial is used in the form of dense FALD with RGB backlight plus advanced HDR algorithms plus chinese manufacturing, OLED future may be written on the wall.


----------



## vinnie97

^It's a promising looking combination, but there is still the prospect of blooming. As one well renowned CES attendee put it: "Maybe next year..."


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24232491
> 
> 
> I've railed about this endlessly.  There a confusion about 24FPS being somehow intrinsic to the "cinematic artform", when what they really mean by that is that 24 FPS is merely intrinsic to the "24 FPS cinematic artform".  I have NO idea where this love-afair with substandard frame rates comes from, but it's patently absurd.



Change is always difficult, when people are used to seeing something a certain way and then it gets changed the results are often mixed. Often times people don't know what the change is exactly but they ether like it or don't like it, much like enabling the higher frame rate on television making it look soap operai-ish. Much of this can be blamed on the director, For Example: I don't think many directors do 3-D any justice, James Cameron is the one exception that comes to mind however. Other directors will just film their films in 2-D and then convert them later to 3-D missing the point entirely. It's just some directors don't have any experience in shooting 3-D and due to the pressure in Hollywood pushing 3-D everywhere they're forced to convert their films afterwords.


As you probably already know James Cameron, Peter Jackson and George Lucas got together and decided to push the frame rate higher, to 48fps but were even talking about 64fps. In fact James Cameron want's to shoot in 68fps in his next 3 Avatar movies coming out in 2016-2018. James Cameron is a big supporter of the higher frame rate and has been trying to push it for a-long time now, so I don't see why he wouldn't continue with his plan even after that horrible failure with the Hobbit movie directed by Peter Jackson. I think James Cameron might just be the first person to pull it off and make it look right, you can think of James Cameron like Apple computer in the same sense they show the world how things are done raising the bar for everyone else to follow.


PS: Of course he showed the world how a do 3-D correctly with Avatar and put it back on the map now everyone else is now mutilating it, so who who knows if it'll work out in the end? It may just be small niche for James Cameron only until we get other directors that know what they're doing.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280_60#post_24239215
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24232491
> 
> 
> I've railed about this endlessly.  There a confusion about 24FPS being somehow intrinsic to the "cinematic artform", when what they really mean by that is that 24 FPS is merely intrinsic to the "24 FPS cinematic artform".  I have NO idea where this love-afair with substandard frame rates comes from, but it's patently absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Change is always difficult, when people are used to seeing something a certain way and then it gets changed the results are often mixed. Often times people don't know what the change is exactly but they ether like it or don't like it, much like enabling the higher frame rate on television making it look soap operai-ish. Much of this can be blamed on the director, For Example: I don't think many directors do 3-D any justice, James Cameron is the one exception that comes to mind however. Other directors will just film their films in 2-D and then convert them later to 3-D missing the point entirely. It's just some directors don't have any experience in shooting 3-D and due to the pressure in Hollywood pushing 3-D everywhere they're forced to convert their films afterwords.
> 
> 
> As you probably already know James Cameron, Peter Jackson and George Lucas got together and decided to push the frame rate higher, to 48fps but were even talking about 64fps. In fact James Cameron want's to shoot in 68fps in his next 3 Avatar movies coming out in 2016-2018. James Cameron is a big supporter of the higher frame rate and has been trying to push it for a-long time now, so I don't see why he wouldn't continue with his plan even after that horrible failure with the Hobbit movie directed by Peter Jackson. I think James Cameron might just be the first person to pull it off and make it look right, you can think of James Cameron like Apple computer in the same sense they show the world how things are done raising the bar for everyone else to follow.
> 
> 
> PS: Of course he showed the world how a do 3-D correctly with Avatar and put it back on the map now everyone else is now mutilating it, so who who knows if it'll work out in the end? It may just be small niche for James Cameron only until we get other directors that know what they're doing.
Click to expand...

 

I agree, but not everyone F's it up.  I've seen a number of 3D films following suit now (with the emphasis on most of the imaging behind the screen instead of the hokey crap always flying around in front of your face forcing you to cross your eyes absurdly.

 

And Gravity absolutely *did it right.*  I can't say for sure because I gave it away without watching, but I've also heard that Life of Pi "did it right".  I can also vouch for even lesser blockbuster movies like Oz: Great and Powerful (very easy to "forget" it's 3D and just enjoy the immersion into the storyline) and even Monster's University was surprising in its smoothness (IMO).

 

ABOUT HFR:

 

I just saw an interesting video (I'll look for it) where a speaker pointed out that the biggest impact on that "video" look that people don't like so much was the angular sweep of the shutter.  The increase in frame rate impacted it somewhat, but by far the biggest impact was the change in shutter.  *Interesting.*

 

I have long since believed that HFR isn't 1:1 with Soap Opera Effect, because (and to honest, several don't believe me) if I set Sony MotionFlow to "high" (and get SOE) and then *pause the feed*, the SOE *remains.*  Further, completely stationary items in screen space with MotionFlow set to high remain with SOE.  Those should be immune to SOE if it were strictly HFR.

 

I'm guessing this has to do with a cut-out sort of effect.  With interpolation, perhaps there is a cut-n-paste mechanism that does not feather the result back into the object's new destination.  I wonder if this is roughly analogous to grabbing a region of a photograph, cutting it, and pasting it without careful blending.  You get a harsh cut-out look where the object just doesn't smoothly connect with its surroundings.

 

Perhaps the people who don't see what I'm seeing perhaps have high end TVs that do the blending properly to mitigate the SOE?


----------



## coolscan

All and only real HFR movie (The Hobbit) is judged by the 3D version where so many things can go wrong and have been going wrong in the cinema displaying it.


If The Hobbit was released in HFR 2D, we would have had a proper way of comparing it to 24fps movies. I believe the reactions would have been very different, particularly if HFR was not announced beforehand.


This is the report I saw on another forum recently and is similar to many other negative reports I'v seen. How many cinemas has had some type of variations of this?


> Quote:
> I saw the Hobbit HFR 3D in a normal theatre when it first came out. I thought it looks really nice.
> 
> 
> Recently I was incline to see it again at an IMAX theatre to see what it was like on a really big screen. The IMAX version was terrible.
> 
> 
> Not sure if it was because of the warped screen, or the two projector system it takes to run the IMAX…but there were some very unusual results.
> 
> 
> Objects that were supposed to be in the background would randomly flicker into the foreground. There are all kinds of watering distortions throughout the movie.
> 
> 
> It was so bad the much of the crowd would move their seats constantly, people kept taking off their glasses, kids were complaining…and my wife and I left with a headache (for the first time on a 3D movie.)
> 
> 
> Anyone else had that kind of experience watching 3D IMAX.
> 
> *Of course I tried to explain this to the manager…his response was…its supposed to be that way.*
> 
> 
> his was in Short Pump VA. Probably best to avoid that theatre.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24239215
> 
> 
> As you probably already know James Cameron, Peter Jackson and George Lucas got together and decided to push the frame rate higher, to 48fps but were even talking about *64fps*. In fact James Cameron want's to shoot in *68fps* in his next 3 Avatar movies coming out in 2016-2018. James Cameron is a big supporter of the higher frame rate and has been trying to push it for a-long time now, so I don't see why he wouldn't continue with his plan even after that horrible failure with the Hobbit movie directed by Peter Jackson. I think James Cameron might just be the first person to pull it off and make it look right, you can think of James Cameron like Apple computer in the same sense they show the world how things are done raising the bar for everyone else to follow.


He's been talking about 48 fps or *60* fps, and I think preferring 60 fps.


Though there was this quite recent article (16 Dec 2013):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/james-cameron-3-avatar-sequels-will-be-shot-in-new-zealand-1.2465494 

where it says "He said that he intends to make the movies in 3D and to shoot at least some sequences at *48* frames per second."

It could be they misquoted him or misunderstood him (ie. if he was talking about HFR which, to him, could be 48 or 60 fps). And it will be a shame if he only shoots _some_ (and not that many) scenes in a higher frame rate.


> Quote:
> All and only real HFR movie (The Hobbit) is judged by the 3D version


Ore Nyabagam was judged by the 2D version - or will be.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280_60#post_24239783
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24239215
> 
> 
> James Cameron is a big supporter of the higher frame rate and has been trying to push it for a-long time now, so I don't see why he wouldn't continue with his plan even after that horrible failure with the Hobbit movie directed by Peter Jackson. I think James Cameron might just be the first person to pull it off and make it look right, you can think of James Cameron like Apple computer in the same sense they show the world how things are done raising the bar for everyone else to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> He's been talking about 48 fps or *60* fps, and I think preferring 60 fps.
Click to expand...

 

I remember when he first started talking about it.  IIRC I believe the word on the [hollywood] street was that he was supposedly "going to demand 60 FPS for Avatar 2" but later caved in to 48 FPS because of either theater or blu-ray issues.

 

Pedants like him are wonderful to have on our side.

 

In any case, hopefully this will be only the start.  Mark Rejhon has been musing about 1000 fps for some time.  Not gonna be there for decades, and as soon as you say "decades", almost anything can happen to render the entire discussion moot.  Frankly, I first want a unified standard between Europe and America (choosing 30/60/120 and axing 25/50/100) and giving 24 and 23.(absurd fraction) the punt for all time.  *Then* larger frame rates will be smoother to implement (without all these compatibility and pulldown artifacts, etc.).

 

What thread are we in again?


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24240014
> 
> 
> I remember when he first started talking about it.  IIRC I believe the word on the [hollywood] street was that he was supposedly "going to demand 60 FPS for Avatar 2" but later caved in to 48 FPS because of either theater or blu-ray issues.


I remember the first article where he was talking about it (the Variety article from 2008: http://variety.com/2008/digital/news/james-cameron-supercharges-3-d-1117983864 - actually the shorter version of that article which displays differently now) he was talking all about 48 fps (for cinema).

Then later he was talking about 48 or 60 and presenting demonstrations of the same sequences at 24, 48 and 60, and saying he hadn't decided on which one to choose. It could be that if many cinemas wouldn't be able to do 60 but could do 48 that he'd do 48 (or whichever had been standardised on, which, since there are 2 big HFR Hollywood films now at 48 fps, he might now think (and I hope not) that 48 fps is now the "standard" for HFR cinema releases). I don't think he would do 48 fps because of "Blu-ray issues" (unless you're talking about ease of conversion to 24 fps) since 48 fps isn't exactly that compatible with Blu-ray (it would work but not evenly) whereas 60 fps (~59.94 fps) would work exactly.


I'm still not convinced that he's decided to go with 48 fps for the Avatar sequels though - I think he still _may_ do the HFR scenes (if it's not going to be the whole thing in HFR) at 60 fps.


> Quote:
> In any case, hopefully this will be only the start.  Mark Rejhon has been musing about 1000 fps for some time.  Not gonna be there for decades, and as soon as you say "decades", almost anything can happen to render the entire discussion moot.  Frankly, I first want a unified standard between Europe and America (choosing 30/60/120 and axing 25/50/100) and giving 24 and 23.(absurd fraction) the punt for all time.  _Then_ larger frame rates will be smoother to implement (without all these compatibility and pulldown artifacts, etc.).


Yes I agree to get rid of the fractional frame rates - though they've already added them to the ITU BT 2020 recommendations (~59.94p, ~29.97p, ~23.976p)







. And if we had to have 30/60 that would mess up our video. I think as long as it is high enough it should be okay - eg. choose >=150 fps. The trouble is some broadcasters/stations would probably go with the lower frame rates and that would look a lot worse when converted (since they're not going to totally remove all existing channels and throw away all existing content the moment the UHD format stars broadcasting). NHK have said that it needs to be no lower than 120 fps for good quality motion - so that basically rules out 100 fps (even though some members of the EBU are still considering it), and 120 fps could be a probelm with lighting requirements etc. in Europe. So I'd say stick to just one high enough number (no less than 150 fps if possible).


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24240169
> 
> 
> 
> Then later he was talking about 48 or 60 and presenting demonstrations of the same sequences at 24, 48 and 60, and saying he hadn't decided on which one to choose. It could be that if many cinemas wouldn't be able to do 60 but could do 48 that he'd do 48 (or whichever had been standardised on, which, since there are 2 big HFR Hollywood films now at 48 fps, he might now think (and I hope not) that 48 fps is now the "standard" for HFR cinema releases). I don't think he would do 48 fps because of "Blu-ray issues" (unless you're talking about ease of conversion to 24 fps) since 48 fps isn't exactly that compatible with Blu-ray (it would work but not evenly) whereas 60 fps (~59.94 fps) would work exactly.



I can guarantee that Cameron will not do 60fps. The reason being that now so many cinemas have upgraded their servers to 48fps 3D that they won't take another upgrade again, at least for a very long time.


Blu-ray HD will never get HFR, but the new coming 4K BD format will have no problem to incorporate 48fps in their specs, unless they have some political reason to not.


> Quote:
> Yes I agree to get rid of the fractional frame rates - though they've already added them to the ITU BT 2020 recommendations (~59.94p, ~29.97p, ~23.976p)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



There seems to be some misunderstanding about this.


When people write 60fps or 24fps, it is just a simplified way of writing 59.94fps or 23.97fps which are the right technical term for the actual framerate and how it actually functions in a camera and should be displayed with that count to be correct.

The milliseconds difference is the "blackout" between frames and how long it takes before a new frame is displayed.

It is the black bar between the frames of analog film.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280_60#post_24240169
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24240014
> 
> 
> I remember when he first started talking about it.  IIRC I believe the word on the [hollywood] street was that he was supposedly "going to demand 60 FPS for Avatar 2" but later caved in to 48 FPS because of either theater or blu-ray issues.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember the first article where he was talking about it (the Variety article from 2008: http://variety.com/2008/digital/news/james-cameron-supercharges-3-d-1117983864 - actually the shorter version of that article which displays differently now) he was talking all about 48 fps (for cinema).
> 
> Then later he was talking about 48 or 60 and presenting demonstrations of the same sequences at 24, 48 and 60, and saying he hadn't decided on which one to choose.
Click to expand...

 

That's interesting.  I have to wonder if the article you're referencing is *after* what I read.  That he had already decided on giving up on 60 for the time being (and going to 48) because he felt it important to remain compatible with print film standards and that (in his opinion) 60 was deep into the diminishing returns.

 

But thanks for that link.  I'm frankly not sure now where it was that I read he had caved on his initial goal of 60.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280_60#post_24240454
> 
> 
> When people write 60fps or 24fps, it is just a simplified way of writing 59.94fps or 23.97fps which are the right technical term for the actual framerate and how it actually functions in a camera and should be displayed with that count to be correct.
> 
> The milliseconds difference is the "blackout" between frames and how long it takes before a new frame is displayed.
> 
> It is the black bar between the frames of analog film.


 

My understanding was that the 59.94 and 23.97 came about only after NTSC established it for video (?)


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24240479
> 
> 
> My understanding was that the 59.94 and 23.97 came about only after NTSC established it for video (?)


Yes it's when they added colour to NTSC. Before they added colour to NTSC, it was 60.0 fps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC 


> Quote:
> Color information was added to the black-and-white image by adding a color subcarrier of 4.5 × 455/572 = 315/88 MHz (approximately 3.58 MHz) to the video signal. To reduce the visibility of interference between the chrominance signal and FM sound carrier required a slight reduction of the frame rate from 30 frames per second to 30/1.001 (approximately 29.97) frames per second...



Also the Andrew Lesnie said the the Hobbit was shot at 47.96 fps (if that's correct) not exactly 48.0 fps (you'd think that if it was a fractional frame rate, they'd also divide 48/1.001 and get ~47.95 fps). Obviously the used digital cameras for The Hobbit - I think film (not digital) cameras would shoot at whole number fps (or as close as their motor can get to that).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280_60#post_24240502
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24240479
> 
> 
> My understanding was that the 59.94 and 23.97 came about only after NTSC established it for video (?)
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it's when they added colour to NTSC. Before they added colour to NTSC, it was 60.0 fps
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC
Click to expand...

 

.....and the (printed) film rate was 24 FPS, correct?  I don't see them as universally swappable or synonymous numbers.  I see them as compromises we no longer need to endure(?)  Or will these dinky fractions below the even number always be there?

 

Unless the 60 Hz was interfering with ambient lights creating a beat frequency.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24240536
> 
> 
> .....and the (printed) film rate was 24 FPS, correct?


Yes, I think so, for film (not digital) cameras. I've just added that to my post







.


> Quote:
> I don't see them as universally swappable or synonymous numbers.  I see them as compromises we no longer need to endure(?)  Or will these dinky fractions below the even number always be there?
> 
> 
> Unless the 60 Hz was interfering with ambient lights creating a beat frequency.


----------



## coolscan

All movies are shot on those numbers, except when some idiot who doesn't know set the camera to 24fps.


There has been some complains about BD players that used 24fps as clock. Not so easy to detect, but stuttering end-rolls is one effect.


Anecdotal; First HD-DVD player that got 24fps was set to 24fps clock because the Toshiba engineers didn't know that it should be 23.97, so Microsoft had to tell them after people here on AVS complained.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24240591
> 
> 
> All movies are shot on those numbers, except when some idiot who doesn't know set the camera to 24fps.


Which numbers? 23.976 fps or 24.0 fps? Wouldn't it depend on whether it was shot on film (eg. 24.0 normally used) or digitally (23.976 used if that was how the cameras recorded it - that's how consumer cameras that record approx 24 fps and The Hobibit (shot digitally) wasn't exactly 48.0 fps)?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280_60#post_24240573
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Rec. 2020 specifies the following frame rates: 120p, 60p, 59.94p, 50p, 30p, 29.97p, 25p, 24p, 23.976p.
> 
> 
> 
> Though the above may change when they actually start broadcasts worldwide.
Click to expand...

 

Skipping over wikipedia,  , here's the ITU BT pdf .


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24240612
> 
> 
> Skipping over wikipedia,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , here's the ITU BT pdf .


Yes, I've seen that too. Are you saying Wikipedia is incorrect in this case? Maybe it should it have said "recommends" instead of "specifies" but the numbers were still approximately correct. (eg. if you accept that 59.94 isn't _exactly_ 60/1.001 etc.).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280_60#post_24240619
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24240612
> 
> 
> Skipping over wikipedia,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , here's the ITU BT pdf .
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I've seen that too. Are you saying Wikipedia is incorrect in this case?
Click to expand...

 

No, right now they're ok, but I'm saying that wikipedia is able to have anyone read that PDF and put down the wrong numbers later.  They actually use the ITU as the cited reference, but I don't trust bubba and dwight from Kansas to not decide that 23.mumble looks funny and remove it.  I avoid wikipedia at all costs.


----------



## rogo

I am baffled how 48 fps "doesn't work with BluRay" but 24 fps does. With the former, you just need to lose every other frame to get back down to 24 fps... But anyway....


I wonder why everyone is so sure there is a new disc format coming. The very idea was considered a bit ridiculous at CES 2014.


----------



## RadTech51

Edited thx.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24240887
> 
> 
> 
> I found this interesting article on OLED through Zite, sorry I couldn't get the URL but here it is anyway quoted enjoy.



Please edit your post to remove the article. Rogo wrote that article and he should get the benefit of the clicks for his research.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/01/20/if-this-startup-has-its-way-your-next-tv-wont-be-an-lcd/


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24240869
> 
> 
> I am baffled how 48 fps "doesn't work with BluRay" but 24 fps does. With the former, you just need to lose every other frame to get back down to 24 fps... But anyway....
> 
> 
> I wonder why everyone is so sure there is a new disc format coming. The very idea was considered a bit ridiculous at CES 2014.




Please expound on the disc format comment. Are you talking about 4k blu-ray?


----------



## gadgtfreek

I think now that HDMI 2.0 is out, the BDA has to come up with a new spec for the video side. We already know the larger (storage) discs are coming and players too. Not sure what their plans are or when however, because the BDA still hasnt decided whether they want to use HVEC 265 or google's codec...


They could spec the next gen for 4K/HDMI 2.0 (2160p up to 60fps), but Ive not read anything concrete.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24240869
> 
> 
> I wonder why everyone is so sure there is a new disc format coming. The very idea was considered a bit ridiculous at CES 2014.





> Quote:
> Jan 7 2014
> 
> 
> TWICE recently reached out to Andy Parsons, BDA spokesperson, and Victor Matsuda, the BDA’s global promotions committee chairman, for an update on where the Blu-ray format stands today and where it’s headed.
> 
> *TWICE:* What’s the status on the development of an Ultra HD spec for the Blu-ray Disc format?
> 
> *Parsons:* The BDA recently approved the addition of 4K/UHD to the Blu-ray Disc specifications, and the effort to get this done is moving forward in earnest. It’s too soon to know any of the details yet, as this all needs to be sorted out by the BDA technical groups. But we are excited to have a decision in hand, and are looking forward to sharing more news about it once the specification process has been completed.
> 
> *TWICE:* Does it look like this will be a fast process?
> 
> *Matsuda:* The technical group working on the specification includes representatives from the BDA’s board of director companies, so we have CE manufacturers and studios working side by side to complete the spec … As with the original specs, we need to make sure that we will deliver 4K/UHD performance that’s second to none, as this is what everyone will expect from Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> This means not just looking at delivering the requisite number of pixels, but at the range of features that contribute to the overall consumer experience – factors such as high dynamic range, bit depth, color gamut, content protection and mobility and digital bridge opportunities that encourage content ownership and collection and enable flexible enjoyment of that content in mobile environments. We’re looking at the entire range and will be prepared to talk about those features as the specification approaches completion.
> 
> http://www.twice.com/magazine-issue-type/current-issue/blu-ray-disc-association-4k-ultra-hd-blu-ray-way/109597


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24240969
> 
> 
> Please expound on the disc format comment. Are you talking about 4k blu-ray?



Yes.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gadgtfreek*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24240993
> 
> 
> I think now that HDMI 2.0 is out, the BDA has to come up with a new spec for the video side. We already know the larger (storage) discs are coming and players too. Not sure what their plans are or when however, because the BDA still hasnt decided whether they want to use HVEC 265 or google's codec...
> 
> 
> They could spec the next gen for 4K/HDMI 2.0 (2160p up to 60fps), but Ive not read anything concrete.



So, yes, the building blocks are in place...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24241349
> 
> 
> 
> Stuff....



Thanks for clipping that interview. Here's my take: On the one hand, 4K is moving slow enough there's plenty of time for a new 4K BluRay. As a videophile, I want a 4K BluRay. In a world where Redbox eventually stocks those discs, well, I'm pretty excited...


On the other hand, 4K might be moving slowly, but the decline of discs is moving more quickly. Between 2006 and 2011, DVD sales fell 25%. (This story tells some of the tale of how this is crushing Hollywood's profitability: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/lynda_obst_hollywoods_completely_broken/ ). The slide, if anything, appears to be accelerating.... In 2012, total industry revenues from home viewing actually rose for the first time in 7 years, but no thanks to discs: "Hollywood in 2012 was able to arrest a seven-year slide in sales of home entertainment—specifically movies—as online revenue grew enough to offset a continued drop in DVD sales and rentals.... Overall sales of packaged video goods—which include Blu-ray discs as well as DVDs—fell 5.8%, but spending on Blu-ray discs rose nearly 10% for the year." (From the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323706704578229911000744452 )


The trend, unbelievably, got even worse last year: "Meanwhile, physical media sales—a category that includes both DVDs and high-definition Blu-ray discs—dropped 8% to $7.78 billion." ( http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304887104579306440621142958 )


What's happening? Well, for one, disc rental is almost impossible in the U.S. unless you subscribe to Netflix via mail, which few days. The only alternative is kiosks which I personally love, but most people can't be bothered. $1.50 for BluRay or $4 to stream? The latter with no trips to the store instead of 2? So huge customers for discs are drying up... There is no video store anymore as a guaranteed customer for thousands of copies of discs. Netflix lets its DVDs-by-mail customers slowly dwindle and actively discourages even BluRay signups, nevermind a new 4K format. Redbox has BluRay, but in much of the country, the idea they'll rapidly adopt 4K is absurd -- the kiosks have no 3D of any kind.


None of this is to suggest there isn't room for a niche 4K format. There certainly is and, in the same way vinyl has made a weird comeback in music, the quality seekers will likely buy up some discs. But it's less clear that there'll be a robust market of $20-30 movies and even less clear that a regular source of rentals will materialize. I know many here are disc collectors, but that's a pretty small hobby and it seems to be headed smaller. I met folks at CES with "ownership" of 100+ digital films... no discs, just the online versions. The collector of tomorrow doesn't need to ever buy a physical disc with its associated inconveniences. He can pay once to stream Skyfall over and over. Yes, the quality is inferior to the BluRay, I get that, but there's a gap between what we want and what we'll get.


With disc-based movies already down below $8 billion, they are already billions below just U.S. box office, at $10.9 billion. The point of that isn't to compare apples to bananas but rather to show just how low disc sales are on the totem pole. They used to sit atop it.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24240869
> 
> 
> I wonder why everyone is so sure there is a new disc format coming. The very idea was considered a bit ridiculous at CES 2014.


I just wish someone would offer downloads as an alternative to streaming. I don't want to stream a highly compressed 10-15GB 4K encode - I want to download a 50-100GB 4K video which is equivalent to what a disc would offer.

You have almost the same convenience as streaming (allow users to pre-load films before their release, similar to how 20-40GB games are handled) and none of the problems that introducing a new disc format would cause.

Of course I would _prefer_ discs, where I can go to a store and pick up a handful at once, but if discs are not likely to succeed, it's the next best thing.


I have checked again, and the average size for the _main feature only_ in my Blu-ray library is 22.6GB. (from hundreds of films)

If you assume a switch from H.264 to H.265, which doubles the compression efficiency, that brings the size down to 11.3GB.

We're moving from 1080p to 4K, so assume that requires 4x the size (which is generous) and brings us to 45.2 GB for the main feature with HD audio and a Blu-ray equivalent level of compression/quality. (at 4x the resolution)


On a 40mb connection, you're looking at roughly 2.5 hours for the download, and assuming the film is around 2 hours long, you should be able to start watching it around 90 minutes into the download.

If you want something significantly better than Blu-ray - which I do, of course - double those numbers.


This may not be ideal, but if we're looking at a future without discs, it's a better alternative than streaming.


But as I have said before, and shown above, as long as you only use it for the main feature and HD audio, you could put 4K on _current_ dual layer Blu-ray discs, without needing a new disc format. (BDXL or something else)

Again, it's not what I want to see happen, but if discs are becoming marginalized, it's a cost-saving measure that would not sacrifice on quality over what we currently have - it just wouldn't push things forwards, beyond the increased resolution.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24240869
> 
> 
> I am baffled how 48 fps "doesn't work with BluRay" but 24 fps does. With the former, you just need to lose every other frame to get back down to 24 fps.


I think the point is that no displays or players have support for 48fps or decimation to 24fps.


Frankly, I think it's stupid to pursue multiples of 24fps if we are moving to a new format. Move to 60fps which is A) Higher than 48fps B) Supported on basically _every_ display produced in the last 20-30 years.


----------



## Luke M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24242048
> 
> 
> Frankly, I think it's stupid to pursue multiples of 24fps if we are moving to a new format. Move to 60fps which is A) Higher than 48fps B) Supported on basically _every_ display produced in the last 20-30 years.



Yes, the only reason for 48 is easy conversion to film, but film will be completely extinct within a couple years.


----------



## Dalumberjack

Didn't they just release a 100Gb bluray disk? I saw one on sale at Frys Electronics. I thought that was large enough to hold a 4k movie and additional content?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280#post_24232491
> 
> 
> I've railed about this endlessly. There a confusion about 24FPS being somehow intrinsic to the "cinematic artform", when what they really mean by that is that 24 FPS is merely intrinsic to the "24 FPS cinematic artform". I have NO idea where this love-afair with substandard frame rates comes from, but it's patently absurd.



There is good technical explanation for the 24fps cinematic artform. 24fps is about minimum rate with which motion is rendered without flicker (of course with black frame insertion). This provides equivalent of depth-of.focus in the time domain since when camera is tracking (slowly moving) object the background is blurred. Bothe dept-of-focus and 24 fps are important cinematic art effects allowing to concentrate on selected aspects of scenes. With higher frame rates the effect disappears. People report it as some 'magic' is lost but in fact it is not loss but added detail which is destroying the magic.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gadgtfreek*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24240993
> 
> 
> I think now that HDMI 2.0 is out, the BDA has to come up with a new spec for the video side. We already know the larger (storage) discs are coming and players too. Not sure what their plans are or when however, because the BDA still hasnt decided whether they want to use HVEC 265 or google's codec. They could spec the next gen for 4K/HDMI 2.0 (2160p up to 60fps), but Ive not read anything concrete.



Industry working on new physical media??? While at the same time Paramount Stops Shipping Film Prints to US Theaters ?


----------



## gadgtfreek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24243134
> 
> 
> There is good technical explanation for the 24fps cinematic artform. 24fps is about minimum rate with which motion is rendered without flicker (of course with black frame insertion). This provides equivalent of depth-of.focus in the time domain since when camera is tracking (slowly moving) object the background is blurred. Bothe dept-of-focus and 24 fps are important cinematic art effects allowing to concentrate on selected aspects of scenes. With higher frame rates the effect disappears. People report it as some 'magic' is lost but in fact it is not loss but added detail which is destroying the magic.
> 
> Industry working on new physical media??? While at the same time Paramount Stops Shipping Film Prints to US Theaters ?




One had nothing to do with the other. Many theaters have been getting their movies digitally for awhile. Im talking about blu-ray discs that are large enough to accommodate a 4K movie. Just need the players and the standards worked out.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gadgtfreek*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24243204
> 
> 
> One had nothing to do with the other. Many theaters have been getting their movies digitally for awhile. Im talking about blu-ray discs that are large enough to accommodate a 4K movie. Just need the players and the standards worked out.



You are not able to smell the signs of time: physical media are over and the example of cinema shows it. BR market is anemic and there are predictions its decline is about to start . Introducing 4K BR will not change it


----------



## gadgtfreek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24243248
> 
> 
> You are not able to smell the signs of time: physical media are over and the example of cinema shows it. BR market is anemic and there are predictions its decline is about to start . Introducing 4K BR will not change it



You are reaching or on a self serving agenda. This has nothing to do with the blu-ray sales, its about cost and ease of the delivery of film to theaters all over the country. It's been going on for awhile, and it makes sense to phase out non digital delivery. You act like this just happened, when it didnt, its just one group decided to make a little sense and deliver ALL of theirs the effecient way.


As far as digital blu-ray, you can buy a server that downloads the whole flick to you home now with lossless audio. Its bit for bit the same as a blu-ray, but the server is $3000. Im sure the blu-ray/dvd buying Walmart/Amazon crowd are really up for that one. $69 player and $15 disc vs $3000 server and still buying the movie...










Until HSI speeds picks up in the US, and providers release bandwidth caps, optical media will have a nice hold on things. HVEC 265 will help with all of this, but once again, their digital delivery of movies to a theater has zero to do with blu-ray sales. Its about saving money.



Regardless, this is way off topic and has nothing to do with *OLED*.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24241731
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> So, yes, the building blocks are in place...
> 
> Thanks for clipping that interview. Here's my take: On the one hand, 4K is moving slow enough there's plenty of time for a new 4K BluRay. As a videophile, I want a 4K BluRay. In a world where Redbox eventually stocks those discs, well, I'm pretty excited...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, 4K might be moving slowly, but the decline of discs is moving more quickly. Between 2006 and 2011, DVD sales fell 25%. (This story tells some of the tale of how this is crushing Hollywood's profitability: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/lynda_obst_hollywoods_completely_broken/ ). The slide, if anything, appears to be accelerating.... In 2012, total industry revenues from home viewing actually rose for the first time in 7 years, but no thanks to discs: "Hollywood in 2012 was able to arrest a seven-year slide in sales of home entertainment—specifically movies—as online revenue grew enough to offset a continued drop in DVD sales and rentals.... Overall sales of packaged video goods—which include Blu-ray discs as well as DVDs—fell 5.8%, but spending on Blu-ray discs rose nearly 10% for the year." (From the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323706704578229911000744452 )
> 
> 
> The trend, unbelievably, got even worse last year: "Meanwhile, physical media sales—a category that includes both DVDs and high-definition Blu-ray discs—dropped 8% to $7.78 billion." ( http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304887104579306440621142958 )
> 
> 
> What's happening? Well, for one, disc rental is almost impossible in the U.S. unless you subscribe to Netflix via mail, which few days. The only alternative is kiosks which I personally love, but most people can't be bothered. $1.50 for BluRay or $4 to stream? The latter with no trips to the store instead of 2? So huge customers for discs are drying up... There is no video store anymore as a guaranteed customer for thousands of copies of discs. Netflix lets its DVDs-by-mail customers slowly dwindle and actively discourages even BluRay signups, nevermind a new 4K format. Redbox has BluRay, but in much of the country, the idea they'll rapidly adopt 4K is absurd -- the kiosks have no 3D of any kind.
> 
> 
> None of this is to suggest there isn't room for a niche 4K format. There certainly is and, in the same way vinyl has made a weird comeback in music, the quality seekers will likely buy up some discs. But it's less clear that there'll be a robust market of $20-30 movies and even less clear that a regular source of rentals will materialize. I know many here are disc collectors, but that's a pretty small hobby and it seems to be headed smaller. I met folks at CES with "ownership" of 100+ digital films... no discs, just the online versions. The collector of tomorrow doesn't need to ever buy a physical disc with its associated inconveniences. He can pay once to stream Skyfall over and over. Yes, the quality is inferior to the BluRay, I get that, but there's a gap between what we want and what we'll get.
> 
> 
> With disc-based movies already down below $8 billion, they are already billions below just U.S. box office, at $10.9 billion. The point of that isn't to compare apples to bananas but rather to show just how low disc sales are on the totem pole. They used to sit atop it.



Rogo: Remembering the Watergate era, As Deepthroat said "follow the money". The studios are not going to give up a large source of profits from their movie investment. Think of it as a stool with legs. Many years ago the studio movie stool only had one leg; the theater $. Then they added a second leg; TV broadcast; The third leg was added with VHS/DVD/BD. As of now a forth leg steaming/download has been added. A four legged stool is much more stable than it's predecessors. IMO disc's will be around as long as the studios can get a significant profit stream from there sales.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24243330
> 
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> 
> IMO disc's will be around as long as the studios can get a significant profit stream from there sales.



That's how I see it as well. Even if its not significant, why pass up a revenue stream as long as its profitable.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280_60#post_24240619
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24240612
> 
> 
> Skipping over wikipedia,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , here's the ITU BT pdf .
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I've seen that too. Are you saying Wikipedia is incorrect in this case? Maybe it should it have said "recommends" instead of "specifies" but the numbers were still approximately correct. (eg. if you accept that 59.94 isn't *exactly* 60/1.001 etc.).
Click to expand...

 

I had detailed an entire post about the differences between 59.94 and 60/1.001 and used that as yet another rallying cry against wikipedia.  But I had deleted it.  I just noticed you edited this post and dropped it in, so I'll comment on it.

 

As fraught with peril as it is, it's still one thing for a person to read a source, do his best to interpret it, and write it down.  It's entirely another to *misquote a specification.*

 

The specification went out of its way to put down 60/1.001 for a reason.  They weren't lazy.  That's the defining standard.  It doesn't matter that 59.94 is accurate to 60/1.001 with a trail of zeros after the decimal point.  If the wikipedia contributor wanted to put down the frequencies, they should list them verbatim from the specification, and THEN *additionally* provide the post calculation versions afterward.  I may edit that article myself, but frankly, misinformationpedia is so exhausting to deal with it that it pushes me into the deep end.

 

It's still the case though that my point for bypassing the wiki link and going straight to the pdf wasn't the misquote issue above, but was simply because wikipedia pages can change for random reasons after you quote them.  Specification PDF's are at least tightly peer reviewed, and when they change it's usually in the form of revision numbers with clearly defined amendments.


----------



## DaViD Boulet

I'm sure that one day download content may dominate the movie watching landscape for home-viewers. But until you can do a *real time streaming download* that has the same image and sound qualtiy as Blu-ray Disc, the physical format will continue to survive.


In fact, with larger higher resolution displays, consumer awareness of image quality (and the compromise of over-compressed so-called "HD" download content) may actually create an increased demand for high-quality content (physical disc).


And even if "cloud" movies were the same qualtiy as physical ones, many consumers would still want physical for a variety reasons often discussed (collecting, gift-giving, movies that can't be "turned off" when a company cancels your service agreement or goes out of business etc.)


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280_60#post_24243703
> 
> 
> I'm sure that one day download content may dominate the movie watching landscape for home-viewers. But until you can do a *real time streaming download* that has the same image and sound qualtiy as Blu-ray Disc, the physical format will continue to survive.


 

No.  This is where engineers become disconnected from economic reality.

 

The survival rate has to do with *what people will buy.*  Only.  Not because of technical reason for superiority.  CD sales, for instance, are plumetting.   You couldn't make an argument that CD's are going to survive for technical reasons regarding their superior quality.  It doesn't change what people will buy.

 

It's entirely unclear what will happen to physical media in the coming decade.  4K might give it a bump.  But if quality matters, then the case *has to be made that quality will determine what people will buy.*  Quality by itself isn't enough, as sad as that may be.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24243821
> 
> 
> No.  This is where engineers become disconnected from economic reality.
> 
> 
> The survival rate has to do with _what people will buy._  Only.  Not because of technical reason for superiority.  CD sales, for instance, are plumetting.   You couldn't make an argument that CD's are going to survive for technical reasons regarding their superior quality.  It doesn't change what people will buy.
> 
> 
> It's entirely unclear what will happen to physical media in the coming decade.  4K might give it a bump.  But if quality matters, then the case _has to be made that quality will determine what people will buy._  Quality by itself isn't enough, as sad as that may be.



I *was* talking about what people will buy.


I'm suggesting that consumers will continue to desire/purchase high-quality content on physical media in the future. Folks will want content for their 80" 4K screens that will look great, and those large screens will reveal image problems when they "blow up" you-tube videos.


Besides this, physical media will continue along because there will always be a market where physical makes sense (having nothing to do with image quality). Gift-giving and collecting are two examples, and folks wishing to have content that's not held hostage by a service agreement is another.


Download content can exist along side phyisical media. they fullfill different consumer goals.


Music CD sales have fallen since download media has taken off, but that's a bit misleading. For one, CD sales, while decreased, are also steady and stil earn huge profits. Also, music CDs have always been overpriced in most consumer minds and music is often viewed as an on-the-go product where quality is not a key criteria.


In other words, CD and Blu-ray are not 1:1 comparable. But even so, CD sales are not vanishing, they are merely balancing out along side the new distribution option of download content that didn't exist when CD first hit the market (so naturally physical sales will slow as consumers who want what download has to offer shift their purchase power).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8280_60#post_24243872
> 
> 
> In other words, CD and Blu-ray are not 1:1 comparable.


Yes they are.
 


> Quote:
> But even so, CD sales are not vanishing, they are merely balancing out along side the new distribution option of download content that didn't exist when CD first hit the market (so naturally physical sales will slow as consumers who want what download has to offer shift their purchase power).


Fair enough.  It sounds as if you're making the case that there are things that will keep physical media a reality.  I can live with that.

 

But where is the evidence that *it's the quality* that is doing so?  The {whatever}philes at AVS are an incredibly small group.  I can guarantee you that the average person doesn't know of nor recognize a difference between streaming movies and blu-ray.  Doesn't come up ONCE in any conversation I've ever had with a non-technical person.  And they sure as hell don't complain about 1080i feeds.  Nor do they particularly care about CD quality vs. 256 kbps aac/wma/mp3.  I even know of people ripping at 128Kbps mp3 and claiming they can't hear a difference.

 

Non-physical media quality is *good enough* for the vast majority of the public, as hard as that is for the rest of us to  get our heads around.  Quality by itself will not keep physical media around at all.


----------



## wco81

Physical media and even 4k may be niches. Not as small a niche as Laser Discs but a small segment.


If streaming HD becomes good enough, then the sales decline of media will accelerate.


But when iTunes HD rentals are like $6 and purchases are like $20 and up while you can pick up Blu Ray movies a year after initial release for under $10, physical media will have a niche.


Quality will always follow convenience. And people will pay as much or more for convenience than the quality that packaged media offers.


----------



## DaViD Boulet

The role that "quality" of physical media can play is my prediction about the new landscape of 4K. Right now most AVSrs care about quality, and one reason is that most of us watch on large-screens with wide-angle viewing so we can actually see the differences that, from 3- screen widths away from a 40" set in a living room, would be moot.


4K telvisions are large and getting larger, and it's the purchase of the *big* highly revealing displays by more consumers that will actually help create a market for more quality video content.


I'm not suggesting that quality alone will sustain physical media, I'm just suggesting that as more and more regular consumers get larger and larger displays that resolve more details, that those same consumers will start to seek out content that looks good and juststifies the cost of purchasing those new displays.


Similar to how HDTVs helped drive the adoption of blu-ray among "average" consumers who've never heard of AVS.


I'm not suggesting that physical media will out-pace online content or exceed it, just that physical media will still have a place on our media-content ecosystem.


----------



## andy sullivan

A large part of marketing is convincing the consumer that the new product (4K, OLED etc)delivers a noticeably superior viewing experience. The key word here is Noticeably. If he or she can readily discern this difference then the consumer will absolutely want to experience this wonderful new technology in all of its configurations. He's already agreed to spend extra dollars on the TV and a 4K blu-ray player. If his only true option to get 4K quality is via a disc (at least for now) then that's what he will desire. Even if true 4K quality material can be streamed, the actual ownership of a collectable piece of art form will never disappear. That's why people want to own books and create personal libraries.


----------



## Otto Pylot

+1


----------



## Desk.

Kateeva expands its operations in Korea...

http://www.consumerelectronicsnet.com/article/Kateeva-Expands-Operation-in-Korea--3017033 


You know, thinking about OLED, something occurs to me... Consumer demand may not be driving the development of OLED TV sets at present, but OLED IS continuing to become established as a viable technology - from existing use in phones, in the Occulus Rift, the new flexible Apple watch, and potentially in the areas of tablets and in lighting.


As the technology becomes increasingly commonplace, and production techniques are improved, might it then become ever more natural, easy and affordable to see it employed in TV production? If this is the way it pans out, I can understand the likes of LG pushing ahead now to establish its long-term credibility as an early pioneer in this area.


Desk


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24244567
> 
> 
> A large part of marketing is convincing the consumer that the new product (4K, OLED etc)delivers a noticeably superior viewing experience. The key word here is Noticeably. If he or she can readily discern this difference then the consumer will absolutely want to experience this wonderful new technology in all of its configurations.


You are probably right but the way I see it is that you just have to convince the public it is better whether it actually is or not. One of the best examples to me is the marketing of Hz. The vast majority of consumers I come across say a higher Hz number is better without knowing what Hz means or being able to notice what is does to the picture or what it is even claimed to do. 600Hz PDP vs 120Hz LCD must mean that PDP is better LOL!!


----------



## 9179mhb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24244567
> 
> 
> A large part of marketing is convincing the consumer that the new product (4K, OLED etc)delivers a noticeably superior viewing experience. The key word here is Noticeably. If he or she can readily discern this difference then the consumer will absolutely want to experience this wonderful new technology in all of its configurations. He's already agreed to spend extra dollars on the TV and a 4K blu-ray player. If his only true option to get 4K quality is via a disc (at least for now) then that's what he will desire. Even if true 4K quality material can be streamed, the actual ownership of a collectable piece of art form will never disappear. That's why people want to own books and create personal libraries.



Will 4K/8K Ultra HD displays be compatible w/HDMI 2.0 or will there be new spec's, interfaces, cables to buy (the retailers will love that)? Isn't the whole 4K/8K broadcast specification YTBD? Seems like another expensive 2-way CableCARD debacle to me, no thanks.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *9179mhb*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340_60#post_24245057
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24244567
> 
> 
> A large part of marketing is convincing the consumer that the new product (4K, OLED etc)delivers a noticeably superior viewing experience. The key word here is Noticeably. If he or she can readily discern this difference then the consumer will absolutely want to experience this wonderful new technology in all of its configurations. He's already agreed to spend extra dollars on the TV and a 4K blu-ray player. If his only true option to get 4K quality is via a disc (at least for now) then that's what he will desire. Even if true 4K quality material can be streamed, the actual ownership of a collectable piece of art form will never disappear. That's why people want to own books and create personal libraries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will 4K/8K Ultra HD displays be compatible w/HDMI 2.0 or will there be new spec's, interfaces, cables to buy (the retailers will love that)? Isn't the whole 4K/8K broadcast specification YTBD? Seems like another expensive 2-way CableCARD debacle to me, no thanks.
Click to expand...

 

Outside of the initiative shown by NHK , 8K is little more than whimsy.


----------



## andy sullivan

It's possible that in say 2024 the TV manufactures will introduce 8K if OLED flops and they are in a quandary as to how to get consumers to buy a new TV. Most will probably be coming out of China and the problem of content will still be a major road block. Plus 8K better blow the doors off of 4K PQ wise.


----------



## wco81

Wonder if this is how the market will shake out, between low-cost, low-price dumb screens from Chinese makers along with "value-added" premium TVs from Apple and others, which use dumb screens to build access to content and or UI that's differentiated.


But the premium stuff may be priced never to reach more than a small segment of the market.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24245087
> 
> 
> Outside of the initiative shown by NHK , 8K is little more than whimsy.



NHK is developing full chain, there is no doubt the 8K will be ready for 2020 Olympics. Ready means full broadcast chain with content and displays. In 8K Japan there won't be situation like 4K displays without proper connectors or 4K displays with no content to watch.


----------



## 9179mhb

So no one is interested in buying a 65" (+/-) 1080p flat panel OLED anymore?


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *9179mhb*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24245599
> 
> 
> So no one is interested in buying a 65" (+/-) 1080p flat panel OLED anymore?



I am, but unfortunately, no one is interested in making one.

I suspect it would be a tough sell in a 4K world.


- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340_60#post_24245581
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24245087
> 
> 
> Outside of the initiative shown by NHK , 8K is little more than whimsy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NHK is developing full chain, there is no doubt the 8K will be ready for 2020 Olympics. Ready means full broadcast chain with content and displays. In 8K Japan there won't be situation like 4K displays without proper connectors or 4K displays with no content to watch.
Click to expand...

 

What do you need to effectively film in to supply an 8K chain?  Cameras have usually been a higher resolution than the final destination, no?


----------



## rogo

It's a huge mistake to say "CD sales are not vanishing" therefore a new disc format is coming.


Ditto BluRay and DVD. The fact is, CD and DVD sales are shrinking (apparently rapidly) and the prospects for a new disc format _have never been worse_.


BluRay is somewhat popular, but its popularity is a fraction that of DVD. Again, it's nearly impossible to rent in America and, contrary to what many of you experience, rental has been far and away the dominant experience associated with pre-recorded media. I can tell you as a regular Redbox customer in Silicon Valley, the kiosk is still dominate by DVD. When my last Blockbuster closed, the same was true. Netflix doesn't much rent BluRay, compared to DVD.


As for sales, they are only going in one direction. Though BluRay actually edged up to 124 million discs in the U.S. last year (a good sign and why it's not going away soon), DVD fell 13.6% on larger volumes. It's very likely BluRay will see that number as a peak, never to be reached again.


While I'm quite sure many of us would like a 4K disc format with lots of titles and reasonable prices, I'm going to tell you right now if it doesn't come with "Instant Movie Play" -- no menus, no previews, no nothing -- as an option, I personally will not adopt the format at all. It's bad enough to have to put a disc in a player and later remove that disc from the player to replace it in a box... Streaming is already so much better than that. But the part where you have to click furiously to just watch the movie is my dealbreaker. I don't buy most BluRays for that reason, choosing instead to just rent.


Anyway, for those who linked info on what the BDA is up to and people doing the math, I'm grateful to see (a) there's activity and (b) we all seem to agree that the format needs to be data rich or else there is no point whatsoever. Perhaps we'll hear something in 2014. But it's important to understand that if BluRay sales follow the path of DVD before them, we're not going to see inexpensive players and media with large numbers of titles likely ever... We might get some niche format instead, which is even less interesting to me.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24245752
> 
> 
> I am, but unfortunately, no one is interested in making one.
> 
> I suspect it would be a tough sell in a 4K world.



I really don't see the point. Samsung can't make that TV with 1080 or 4K....


LG can make the 4K just about as easily as the 1080...


Only the 4K would move any volume and drive costs down for the "rest of us".


So why bother with the 1080?


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24245915
> 
> 
> What do you need to effectively film in to supply an 8K chain?


For 8K broadcast a 8K sensor camera would be sufficient. Also saves camera size without the need to trans-code in-camera.


> Quote:
> Cameras have usually been a higher resolution than the final destination, no?


Most HD/2K broadcast cameras has barely 2K sensors or some kind of pixel shifting to get 2K pixel count. Most good 2K cameras resolve about 1.5K of resolution.


Several of the smaller new 4K cameras have only 4K sensors.


The only current 4K production camera that can be used for 4K broadcast (originally built as a lighter alternative to F65) is the Sony F55, which has a 4K sensor.


I believe Red Epic/Scarlet and Sony F65 are the only cameras that has a sensor with more pixels than 4K, except the "new" small 8K prototype camera that Astro Design Inc. made for NHK. http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/31/nhk-flaunts-8k-ultra-hd-compact-camera/


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24245975
> 
> 
> I really don't see the point. Samsung can't make that TV with 1080 or 4K....
> 
> 
> LG can make the 4K just about as easily as the 1080...
> 
> 
> Only the 4K would move any volume and drive costs down for the "rest of us".
> 
> 
> So why bother with the 1080?



If they made an OLED at the in striking distance of the price of my ZT60, I would have bought one.

I would take any OLED over a 4K LED/LCD.

But, there is no point since OLED will either be 4K or non-existent.


- Rich


----------



## wco81

I'm sure if a streaming or download format became popular enough, it will also be encumbered with ads and previews that you can't skip.


I also have more confidence that packaged media pricing will fall faster than online media. You see the long tail at work with Blu Ray now, with sales year round of movies released on video over a year ago falling under $10 regularly and TV box sets also approaching $10-20.


For instance, I picked up the first 4 seasons of Mad Men Blu Ray for under $9 each a couple of years ago and the first 2 seasons of Game of Thrones Blu Ray for $20 each.


I didn't see any sales on iTunes or Amazon Video like this.


That's why I'll support packaged media. It is a hassle to store this stuff but I do have the option of ripping if I want to invest in putting the content online. And also have the option to re-sell.


Now if I could stream movies for $2, with no re-watch or re-sale rights, I'd be fine with it. But $6 and you have to give time to download enough media? I don't know, as poor as DVD and Blu Ray sales are doing, how are streaming and media download sales doing?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340_60#post_24246041
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24245975
> 
> 
> I really don't see the point. Samsung can't make that TV with 1080 or 4K....
> 
> 
> LG can make the 4K just about as easily as the 1080...
> 
> 
> Only the 4K would move any volume and drive costs down for the "rest of us".
> 
> 
> So why bother with the 1080?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they made an OLED at the in striking distance of the price of my ZT60, I would have bought one.
Click to expand...

 

Do we know for sure what the longevity situation is?

Do we know for sure that the IR/BI isn't dramatically worse that PDP?

 

Seems like OLED is more than a great display.  It's a source of worry.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24246269
> 
> 
> Do we know for sure what the longevity situation is?
> 
> 2) Do we know for sure that the IR/BI isn't dramatically worse that PDP?
> 
> 
> Seems like OLED is more than a great display.  It's a source of worry.



We don't know, longevity and burn in are valid concerns.


I am very careful with my PDP's.


New technology is a crap shoot so it is best to be well heeled.

I bought 10K+ PDPs in my time, but that time has passed










- Rich


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8310#post_24241731
> 
> 
> Here's my take: On the one hand, 4K is moving slow enough there's plenty of time for a new 4K BluRay. As a videophile, I want a 4K BluRay. In a world where Redbox eventually stocks those discs, well, I'm pretty excited...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, 4K might be moving slowly, but the decline of discs is moving more quickly. Between 2006 and 2011, DVD sales fell 25%. (This story tells some of the tale of how this is crushing Hollywood's profitability: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/lynda_obst_hollywoods_completely_broken/ ). The slide, if anything, appears to be accelerating.... In 2012, total industry revenues from home viewing actually rose for the first time in 7 years, but no thanks to discs: "Hollywood in 2012 was able to arrest a seven-year slide in sales of home entertainment—specifically movies—as online revenue grew enough to offset a continued drop in DVD sales and rentals.... Overall sales of packaged video goods—which include Blu-ray discs as well as DVDs—fell 5.8%, but spending on Blu-ray discs rose nearly 10% for the year." (From the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323706704578229911000744452 )
> 
> 
> The trend, unbelievably, got even worse last year: "Meanwhile, physical media sales—a category that includes both DVDs and high-definition Blu-ray discs—dropped 8% to $7.78 billion." ( http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304887104579306440621142958 )
> 
> 
> What's happening? Well, for one, disc rental is almost impossible in the U.S. unless you subscribe to Netflix via mail, which few days. The only alternative is kiosks which I personally love, but most people can't be bothered. $1.50 for BluRay or $4 to stream? The latter with no trips to the store instead of 2? So huge customers for discs are drying up... There is no video store anymore as a guaranteed customer for thousands of copies of discs. Netflix lets its DVDs-by-mail customers slowly dwindle and actively discourages even BluRay signups, nevermind a new 4K format. Redbox has BluRay, but in much of the country, the idea they'll rapidly adopt 4K is absurd -- the kiosks have no 3D of any kind.
> 
> 
> None of this is to suggest there isn't room for a niche 4K format. There certainly is and, in the same way vinyl has made a weird comeback in music, the quality seekers will likely buy up some discs. But it's less clear that there'll be a robust market of $20-30 movies and even less clear that a regular source of rentals will materialize. I know many here are disc collectors, but that's a pretty small hobby and it seems to be headed smaller. I met folks at CES with "ownership" of 100+ digital films... no discs, just the online versions. The collector of tomorrow doesn't need to ever buy a physical disc with its associated inconveniences. He can pay once to stream Skyfall over and over. Yes, the quality is inferior to the BluRay, I get that, but there's a gap between what we want and what we'll get.
> 
> 
> With disc-based movies already down below $8 billion, they are already billions below just U.S. box office, at $10.9 billion. The point of that isn't to compare apples to bananas but rather to show just how low disc sales are on the totem pole. They used to sit atop it.



Is just my opinion but the days of the Blu-Ray disc's are dying no one wants them anymore, they take up space in your home or apartment that you don't have, then when you want to watch a movie you have to take them out put them in the player, change the disk if there are multiple disc, take the disc out of the player when the movies over and put it back on the shelf. It's too much work for people nowadays, we live in a very convenient world where everyone is spoiled with the convenience of technology, people much rather stream it online with one click of a button and not have to worry about storing it or going through the trouble of finding the disc again later when you want it etc.


I recently conducted an experiment, I've purchased several movies on the Apple store and streamed them through my AppleTV in 1080p. I must say I was very impressed with the picture and surround sound quality and found there was very little difference if any in comparison tests to warrant carrying or storing the disk anymore. I'm also convinced that in time there will be no more Blu-Ray disc's 4k or otherwise, at least not in mass quantity like your used to seeing today. You might see a small niche like you do with records in the past who claim they sound better than CDs but that's about it. I know many people argue that, or that we don't have the bandwidth to push for 4k content or higher in the future but that's not entirely true, we actually do using the right compression algorithms in conjunction with good local hardware decoding. Netflix and a few other's are already working on it right now as we speak so it's going to happen and quite quickly I think.


It's also important to note that the compression algorithms and hardware to decoded it in real time locally is key. Take for example the AppleTV, it does the best job of streaming Netflix I've ever seen. I used to stream Netflix through my Blu-ray player and or my television and was never impressed, that is until I got my Apple TV and was shocked to see such a noticeable difference in picture quality it was. I knew there would be some difference because the other devices only did 1080i not 1080p but wow what a difference. And I'm sure as we speak Apple and other's are working on a 4K one right now.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24245968
> 
> 
> It's a huge mistake to say "CD sales are not vanishing" therefore a new disc format is coming.
> 
> 
> Ditto BluRay and DVD. The fact is, CD and DVD sales are shrinking (apparently rapidly) and the prospects for a new disc format _have never been worse_.
> 
> 
> BluRay is somewhat popular, but its popularity is a fraction that of DVD. Again, it's nearly impossible to rent in America and, contrary to what many of you experience, rental has been far and away the dominant experience associated with pre-recorded media. I can tell you as a regular Redbox customer in Silicon Valley, the kiosk is still dominate by DVD. When my last Blockbuster closed, the same was true. Netflix doesn't much rent BluRay, compared to DVD.
> 
> 
> As for sales, they are only going in one direction. Though BluRay actually edged up to 124 million discs in the U.S. last year (a good sign and why it's not going away soon), DVD fell 13.6% on larger volumes. It's very likely BluRay will see that number as a peak, never to be reached again.
> 
> 
> While I'm quite sure many of us would like a 4K disc format with lots of titles and reasonable prices, I'm going to tell you right now if it doesn't come with "Instant Movie Play" -- no menus, no previews, no nothing -- as an option, I personally will not adopt the format at all. It's bad enough to have to put a disc in a player and later remove that disc from the player to replace it in a box... Streaming is already so much better than that. But the part where you have to click furiously to just watch the movie is my dealbreaker. I don't buy most BluRays for that reason, choosing instead to just rent.
> 
> 
> Anyway, for those who linked info on what the BDA is up to and people doing the math, I'm grateful to see (a) there's activity and (b) we all seem to agree that the format needs to be data rich or else there is no point whatsoever. Perhaps we'll hear something in 2014. But it's important to understand that if BluRay sales follow the path of DVD before them, we're not going to see inexpensive players and media with large numbers of titles likely ever... We might get some niche format instead, which is even less interesting to me.



That's exactly right, and some of the many inconvenient reasons why with Blu-ray Disc movie's nowadays you have to spend time fast forwarding through all the commercials and junk adds just to get to the main menu which often have spoilers involved. And sometimes it won't even let you fast-forward through them making it even more infuriating. Like a said before I don't think disc will go away overnight it's going take time and there will always be a small niche in the market who will argue it's way better than streaming and worth the inconvenience but this is going to be small percentage.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340_60#post_24246402
> 
> 
> That's exactly right, and some of the many inconvenient reasons why with Blu-ray Disc movie's nowadays you have to spend time fast forwarding through all the commercials and junk adds just to get to the main menu which often have spoilers involved. And sometimes it won't even let you fast-forward through them making it even more infuriating.


 

That's what I've usually found to be true.  If at all possible, get right to the main menu and do a "scene select" and choose scene 1.

 

All that said, just tonight I played the 3D Disney Cars 2 for the neighborhood kids, and I put it in, and >poof


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24246402
> 
> 
> That's exactly right, and some of the many inconvenient reasons why with Blu-ray Disc movie's nowadays you have to spend time fast forwarding through all the commercials and junk adds just to get to the main menu which often have spoilers involved. And sometimes it won't even let you fast-forward through them making it even more infuriating. Like a said before I don't think disc will go away overnight it's going take time and there will always be a small niche in the market who will argue it's way better than streaming and worth the inconvenience but this is going to be small percentage.



"shrinking" and "vanishing" are not the same thing. Of course hard-copy software sales will shrink as online-cloud/download solutions become available. That's "shrinking" because of a market-share shift. But "vanishing" implies that the hard-copy will go away completely. Which it won't.... at least for a very long time. Because that would mean 100% of consumers would switch to download content exclusively.


The HT crowd alone can support physical media viably. We did that with laserdisc which had far less market share than blu-ray. And blu-ray and 4K disc will be made more viable as screens get larger in consumer homes (the 4K push by the industry will increase the size of the average display... which is a good thing IMO)


Also, I'm curious why you think that the forced-ads on blu-ray disc and DVD won't also plague the landscape of download content. IMO experience, the forced-ad issue is even worse with download content.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24245968
> 
> 
> While I'm quite sure many of us would like a 4K disc format with lots of titles and reasonable prices, I'm going to tell you right now if it doesn't come with "Instant Movie Play" -- no menus, no previews, no nothing -- as an option, I personally will not adopt the format at all. It's bad enough to have to put a disc in a player and later remove that disc from the player to replace it in a box...


This is why I've been using a HTPC for playback for years now. With the right player (I use JRiver) menus are completely bypassed and the film starts immediately. No trailers or ads.

I've been doing it so long now that I forgot how much of a nightmare it was to play them on dedicated hardware. I wouldn't be buying discs either if I had to put up with that.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24246050
> 
> 
> I also have more confidence that packaged media pricing will fall faster than online media. You see the long tail at work with Blu Ray now, with sales year round of movies released on video over a year ago falling under $10 regularly and TV box sets also approaching $10-20.
> 
> For instance, I picked up the first 4 seasons of Mad Men Blu Ray for under $9 each a couple of years ago and the first 2 seasons of Game of Thrones Blu Ray for $20 each.
> 
> I didn't see any sales on iTunes or Amazon Video like this.


This is another very good reason to stick with discs. Bought a film that was well reviewed, but didn't like it? Put it on eBay. Or similarly, you can pick up people's old TV boxsets at a great price. Stores often have sales, and are competing with each other, rather than having a single price determined by the publisher. I can loan out discs to friends and family. I can import films which are not available in my region in the format I want - even some fairly mainstream stuff is not available to buy here, or took _years_ to become available.


I hate discs, I hate having to keep shelves full of them, and I hate the amount of resources wasted creating them.

But what I hate _more_ is the lack of quality available for download/streaming, the lack of competition/sales driving down prices, the inability to resell or loan what I have purchased, restrictions on where I can play it (no, I don't want to use iTunes' terrible video renderer) and the ability for content providers to remove content I have purchased due to a licensing agreement expiring, or human error.


I'm still buying CD's for that reason too. Everyone is either offering less than CD quality (e.g. iTunes) for CD or _higher than_ CD prices.

If you actually want CD-quality downloads or better, be prepared to pay $20-40 per album!

Don't want the heavily compressed, terrible sounding "remaster" of your favorite album? You have to seek out the CD.

Want that limited edition of an album with extra tracks on it that was only sold in Japan, or the albums an artist made when they were with another band before they became famous? You need to seek out the CDs.


Digital media is fleeting. Physical media is a snapshot in time.

OK, it's not as timeless as something like vinyl records where it's completely analog and easy to play back - eventually there will probably only be so many devices which can play back CD/DVD/Blu-rays, just like there will probably be a shortage of Laserdisc or Betamax players and those things will be lost forever, but it's far more permanent than digital where content can be replaced or disappear forever on a whim.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24246339
> 
> 
> It's also important to note that the compression algorithms and hardware to decoded it in real time locally is key. Take for example the AppleTV, it does the best job of streaming Netflix I've ever seen. I used to stream Netflix through my Blu-ray player and or my television and was never impressed, that is until I got my Apple TV and was shocked to see such a noticeable difference in picture quality it was.


All H.264 decoders should produce the exact same result. The only real way I've seen them differ is in error handling.

I suppose it's possible that the player processes the image it gets out of the decoder differently though, but it should not be a drastic difference.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24246041
> 
> 
> If they made an OLED at the in striking distance of the price of my ZT60, I would have bought one.
> 
> I would take any OLED over a 4K LED/LCD.
> 
> But, there is no point since OLED will either be 4K or non-existent.



The point is, going to 1080p instead of 4K doesn't put the price in striking distance any faster...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24246050
> 
> 
> I'm sure if a streaming or download format became popular enough, it will also be encumbered with ads and previews that you can't skip.



Vudu and iTunes simply do not work this way.


> Quote:
> I also have more confidence that packaged media pricing will fall faster than online media. You see the long tail at work with Blu Ray now, with sales year round of movies released on video over a year ago falling under $10 regularly and TV box sets also approaching $10-20.



You don't think digital sales could be discounted even faster/easier?


> Quote:
> That's why I'll support packaged media. It is a hassle to store this stuff but I do have the option of ripping if I want to invest in putting the content online. And also have the option to re-sell.



I fancied myself ripping movies. Then I realized it takes time (yes... it takes time... sorry, you don't magically just rip your movies... you spend time inserting, running the software, replacing... it takes times). Then I gave up.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24246441
> 
> 
> That's what I've usually found to be true.  If at all possible, get right to the main menu and do a "scene select" and choose scene 1.



My requirement is a setting on the player that automagically does this or I'll just pass on 4K BluRay.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24247206
> 
> 
> This is why I've been using a HTPC for playback for years now. With the right player (I use JRiver) menus are completely bypassed and the film starts immediately. No trailers or ads.
> 
> I've been doing it so long now that I forgot how much of a nightmare it was to play them on dedicated hardware. I wouldn't be buying discs either if I had to put up with that.



Right, so let me be clear with respect to the above. I wanted to do this. I really did. But it's not free to have that experience. Every movie needs to be processed.


> Quote:
> I'm still buying CD's for that reason too.



The industry thanks you. And your few friends.









> Quote:
> Digital media is fleeting. Physical media is a snapshot in time.



This is true, of course, but it's also starting to seem like nostalgia. It just feels like more and more people care less and less. We all used to have shelves full of records (or at least our parents did) and now, my mother, aunts, uncles all want to get clarity on "how we can get all the music digitally and get rid of all those discs".


> Quote:
> OK, it's not as timeless as something like vinyl records where it's completely analog and easy to play back - eventually there will probably only be so many devices which can play back CD/DVD/Blu-rays, just like there will probably be a shortage of Laserdisc or Betamax players and those things will be lost forever, but it's far more permanent than digital where content can be replaced or disappear forever on a whim.



This disappearing content is a problem. I mean, I completely agree that it is. But in a world of digital streaming, eventually you should be able to get everything online. OK, maybe you'll need to spend something for a short-term subscription to Netflix or Showtime to get a particular piece of content, but it will be there.


I will say that the current state of affairs where the digital version of a film may not be findable anywhere is pretty stupid -- especially in a world where many people have already removed discs from their lives. But I'm cautiously optimistic it will eventually be possible to stream every Hollywood release at high quality at a moment's notice.


----------



## wco81

Not seeing too many digital media sales. I'm sure they happen and they certainly have the margins to cut prices.


Rather, it seems retailers are willing to use sales of older titles as loss leaders to draw people into stores.


So BB, Target, Frys, etc . all advertise Blu Rays under $10 regularly of titles which are usually still $15 or more to purchase on iTunes.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24247885
> 
> 
> I fancied myself ripping movies. Then I realized it takes time (yes... it takes time... sorry, you don't magically just rip your movies... you spend time inserting, running the software, replacing... it takes times). Then I gave up.


It takes 30-60 minutes per disc. Obviously it might take a while to catch up if you haven't been building up your library over time. Blu-ray readers are cheap now, so it's easy to have multiple drives and rip many discs at once.

Unlike CD's or DVD's, it takes 30-60 minutes to rip a disc (depending on the size and speed of the drive) so it's not like you have to monitor it and change discs every 5 minutes. You start the rip and can continue working or leave it alone in the background.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24247885
> 
> 
> Right, so let me be clear with respect to the above. I wanted to do this. I really did. But it's not free to have that experience. Every movie needs to be processed.


With AnyDVD HD running (to decrypt the discs and allow any player to access the video) and the JRiver player, you put the disc in and it will play immediately. There's no "processing" to be done, and you don't have to rip the film first.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24247885
> 
> 
> This is true, of course, but it's also starting to seem like nostalgia. It just feels like more and more people care less and less. We all used to have shelves full of records (or at least our parents did) and now, my mother, aunts, uncles all want to get clarity on "how we can get all the music digitally and get rid of all those discs".


And I completely understand that. Don't get me wrong, I _hate_ having shelves and boxes full of discs. I don't keep them out on display, they get ripped and then stored away out of sight.

But I think we're giving up far too much with the move to digital distribution.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24247885
> 
> 
> This disappearing content is a problem. I mean, I completely agree that it is. But in a world of digital streaming, eventually you should be able to get everything online. OK, maybe you'll need to spend something for a short-term subscription to Netflix or Showtime to get a particular piece of content, but it will be there.


Good luck with that. In theory, you should be able to access everything ever created, but there's so much content that will be lost due to rights management (X company has the rights for this region, Y company has it there, Z company has it in another region etc.) companies going out of business and the content being pulled or disappearing entirely (this has already happened a number of times in the last few years with video games) the content not being "high profile" enough to even make it onto the service, the content may have been banned or cut in some regions, streaming services often don't bother to preserve the original aspect ratio etc.


For music, I should be able to select an album and pick from any version ever released - but that just doesn't happen.

On iTunes I can only buy whatever the latest remaster is of an album.

If I use a service like iTunes match, using my original CD from the 80's as a source will have the tracks _replaced_ with the modern master. (which is often worse)


Try looking over a site like Discogs to see just how bad it can get. Using an obvious example like Dark Side of the Moon, there are 251 versions listed .

Now many of these are going to be identical other than region-specific packaging, or simply format changes, but I'm sure it's been remastered at least twice.

Other albums may have a single bonus track in one region, multiple bonus tracks in another, and the bonus tracks themselves may not be the same etc.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24247885
> 
> 
> I will say that the current state of affairs where the digital version of a film may not be findable anywhere is pretty stupid -- especially in a world where many people have already removed discs from their lives. But I'm cautiously optimistic it will eventually be possible to stream every Hollywood release at high quality at a moment's notice.


Every major Hollywood release, perhaps, but what about the European/Asian films I want to see? Probably less than half of what I watch these days is a Hollywood production.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24248035
> 
> 
> Not seeing too many digital media sales.


Steam is about the only digital platform I know of that regularly has sales, and actually has _good_ sales equivalent to what you might see in physical stores. Another thing that's good with Steam is that keys can be sold outside of their service on other sites (e.g. the Humble Store) so you have competition there too.


But even Steam is not what it used to be. It used to be that sales happened infrequently, and when an item was on sale, it would be 75% off.

Now there is always a daily item on sale, in addition to weekly sales, and regular holiday sales. In the holiday sales, 75% off is becoming rare, and 25-50% off is more common.

Prices on the platform are gradually creeping up as well, and the big publishers are keeping prices high for much longer.


It's still very good when you compare that to the console market, but it's not quite as cheap as it used to be, and you can see that if it continues the way it's headed, in a few years you'll be paying console prices for games.

Indie stuff is regularly $20 rather than $10 these days (which happened on consoles a few years back) and it feels like big releases are at least $10 more than they used to be.


----------



## mypretty1

I'm going off this thread.










I know little about OLED, which is why I watch this thread and am always interested in what folk have to say about OLED; how it works, problems with it and its possible future. Thank you for that.


What I find intensely boring is all the chatter about such things as frame rates, streaming, which to my mind (correct me if I am wrong) has nothing to do with OLED.


Winge over.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340_60#post_24247206
> 
> 
> All H.264 decoders should produce the exact same result. The only real way I've seen them differ is in error handling.
> 
> I suppose it's possible that the player processes the image it gets out of the decoder differently though, but it should not be a drastic difference.


 

I of course can't claim he's doing this (he could be 100% right), but I can absolutely assure anyone that there is a psychosomatic "bump" for many just having the apple logo show up.

 

Apple has done a tremendous number of things right.  But...

 



 

....if you hear the "whaaaaaaa" choir of angles sound when you see it, you'll know you're susceptible to the effect.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mypretty1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340_60#post_24248335
> 
> 
> I'm going off this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know little about OLED, which is why I watch this thread and am always interested in what folk have to say about OLED; how it works, problems with it and its possible future. Thank you for that.
> 
> 
> What I find intensely boring is all the chatter about such things as frame rates, streaming, which to my mind (correct me if I am wrong) has nothing to do with OLED.
> 
> 
> Winge over.


 

Not to sidetrack the thread about the topic of offtopic sidetracks , but I've been wondering about this in forums overall.  *I don't think there's a solution.*

 

It's *incredibly hard* to keep threads focused on one topic not because people have an unstoppable urge to get their 2¢ in about their phone bill, but because *absolutely every topic is tightly connected.*

 

In the days of USENET, you could cross-post.  Not only that, you could change the topic subject at any time, and an entirely new sub-branch could be born, which could then exist in two places just for that branch to have people from another group chime in just for that sub-sub-sub-topic.  The renaming of the branch also "dropped" it out visually from the existing branch (usually, depending on your settings), and it all was a much better fit for how discussions and topics form.

 

Now, we have a gigantic box named "OLED", and we talk within there.  And as soon as any of the tightly associated topics shows up (blur reduction, for instance), we are faced with: "oh no, should we have to move this?"  That cannot work, because the connection was presumably started with OLED blur, which brings in blur technology overall, which brings in the current state, which brings in LCD, which which which which which.  The gigantic box model just doesn't work for such things.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24248491
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340_60#post_24247206
> 
> 
> All H.264 decoders should produce the exact same result. The only real way I've seen them differ is in error handling.
> 
> I suppose it's possible that the player processes the image it gets out of the decoder differently though, but it should not be a drastic difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I of course can't claim he's doing this (he could be 100% right), but I can absolutely assure anyone that there is a psychosomatic "bump" for many just having the apple logo show up.
> 
> 
> 
> Apple has done a tremendous number of things right.  But...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....if you hear the "whaaaaaaa" choir of angles sound when you see it, you'll know you're susceptible to the effect.
Click to expand...

Iphones in China?


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24248551
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mypretty1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340_60#post_24248335
> 
> 
> I'm going off this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know little about OLED, which is why I watch this thread and am always interested in what folk have to say about OLED; how it works, problems with it and its possible future. Thank you for that.
> 
> 
> What I find intensely boring is all the chatter about such things as frame rates, streaming, which to my mind (correct me if I am wrong) has nothing to do with OLED.
> 
> 
> Winge over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to sidetrack the thread about the topic of offtopic sidetracks , but I've been wondering about this in forums overall.  *I don't think there's a solution.*
> 
> 
> 
> It's *incredibly hard* to keep threads focused on one topic not because people have an unstoppable urge to get their 2¢ in about their phone bill, but because *absolutely every topic is tightly connected.*
> 
> 
> 
> In the days of USENET, you could cross-post.  Not only that, you could change the topic subject at any time, and an entirely new sub-branch could be born, which could then exist in two places just for that branch to have people from another group chime in just for that sub-sub-sub-topic.  The renaming of the branch also "dropped" it out visually from the existing branch (usually, depending on your settings), and it all was a much better fit for how discussions and topics form.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we have a gigantic box named "OLED", and we talk within there.  And as soon as any of the tightly associated topics shows up (blur reduction, for instance), we are faced with: "oh no, should we have to move this?"  That cannot work, because the connection was presumably started with OLED blur, which brings in blur technology overall, which brings in the current state, which brings in LCD, which which which which which.  The gigantic box model just doesn't work for such things.
Click to expand...

Sounds like LCD on flexible plastic.


----------



## mypretty1

Thank you, tgm1024 .


MPOV is that too tight a constraint tends to stifle discussion. A little leeway can enliven a thread as long as it pertains to the thread theme.


I appreciate there will always be matters that folk will want to talk about, the problem is that this tends to lead to another topic, which like Topsy, 'growed into another'. There are even discussions on this thread about the price of BR disks.










As I said, what I know about OLED can be written on my fingernail and I bow to the expertise of others and it may be that frame rate, streaming, BR disk prices are all relvant to OLED.










Good intentions.










As this is OT, I will stop.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24246551
> 
> 
> "shrinking" and "vanishing" are not the same thing. Of course hard-copy software sales will shrink as online-cloud/download solutions become available. That's "shrinking" because of a market-share shift. But "vanishing" implies that the hard-copy will go away completely. Which it won't.... at least for a very long time. Because that would mean 100% of consumers would switch to download content exclusively.
> 
> 
> The HT crowd alone can support physical media viably. We did that with laserdisc which had far less market share than blu-ray. And blu-ray and 4K disc will be made more viable as screens get larger in consumer homes (the 4K push by the industry will increase the size of the average display... which is a good thing IMO)
> 
> 
> Also, I'm curious why you think that the forced-ads on blu-ray disc and DVD won't also plague the landscape of download content. IMO experience, the forced-ad issue is even worse with download content.




1. Might go as far to say the format will be gone permanently down the road, you could say shrinking but vanishing also works.


2. I was speaking presently, but yes it's quite possible commercials or advertisements will make it's way in to online streaming movies as we'll, so far though that hasn't happened which is looking promising.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24247206
> 
> 
> 
> All H.264 decoders should produce the exact same result. The only real way I've seen them differ is in error handling.
> 
> I suppose it's possible that the player processes the image it gets out of the decoder differently though, but it should not be a drastic difference.



Nope they don't, and to my knowledge the only device out right now that can accurately stream 1080p is the Apple TV. Big difference visually check out the other devices in comparison if you don't believe.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24248491
> 
> 
> I of course can't claim he's doing this (he could be 100% right), but I can absolutely assure anyone that there is a psychosomatic "bump" for many just having the apple logo show up.
> 
> 
> Apple has done a tremendous number of things right.  But...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....if you hear the "whaaaaaaa" choir of angles sound when you see it, you'll know you're susceptible to the effect.



Some might, but people know me as a reputable video enthusiast and I'm not influenced by such things. It's best that you just check it out for yourself and share your opinions with us about it if you wish. You and everyone else is absolutely entitled to your own opinion on the matter and if you can't see any difference between the devices more power to you.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340_60#post_24249437
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24248491
> 
> 
> I of course can't claim he's doing this (he could be 100% right), but I can absolutely assure anyone that there is a psychosomatic "bump" for many just having the apple logo show up.
> 
> 
> Apple has done a tremendous number of things right.  But...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....if you hear the "whaaaaaaa" choir of angles sound when you see it, you'll know you're susceptible to the effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some might, but people know me as a reputable video enthusiast and I'm not influenced by such things. It's best that you just check it out for yourself and share your opinions with us about it if you wish. You and everyone else is absolutely entitled to your own opinion on the matter and if you can't see any difference between the devices more power to you.
Click to expand...

 

Fair enough.  Like I said: you "could be 100% right".


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24249392
> 
> 
> Nope they don't, and to my knowledge the only device out right now that can accurately stream 1080p is the Apple TV. Big difference visually check out the other devices in comparison if you don't believe.


Video encoding/decoding is not my field of expertise, but people that I have spoken with that do it for a living, tell me that the H.264 spec is designed so that decoding is bit-perfect and that decoders should all output the same image.

Error handling is one area where I have seen a difference between decoders, but that's minimal, and errors should be rare.


Now there might be other reasons why the Apple TV looks better (faster hardware to better handle streaming, pulling higher bitrates from netflix vs the blu-ray player, additional processing stages - or fewer, etc.) but there really shouldn't be much of a difference at all if you're streaming 1080p video.


----------



## Orbitron

I plan on buying a 4K OLED in the next 3 years and will watch on a 4K Blu-ray player for best picture and sound. Big deal if it takes 5 minutes for the movie to start - i put the disc in, go to the bathroom, have a snack - when i'm ready so is the movie!


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24250127
> 
> 
> I plan on buying a 4K OLED in the next 3 years and will watch on a 4K Blu-ray player for best picture and sound. Big deal if it takes 5 minutes for the movie to start - i put the disc in, go to the bathroom, have a snack - when i'm ready so is the movie!


I'm paying to watch the movie, not 10 minutes of adverts and trailers to try and sell me something else before I get to see what I paid for. That's part of the reason I don't watch broadcast.


----------



## Orbitron

I agree we should be able to jump right to the movie. That said, while I usually leave the room while the disc advances, watching the trailers after the movie is perfectly ok.


Do we now wait for 2014 IFA or CEDIA for news on new OLED models?


----------



## andy sullivan

If OLED becomes the go to main stream display how do you think they will be marketed. What will separate the low end, mid level, and flagship models from a manufacture? Won't the OLED technology itself deliver stunning PQ at even the lowest level?


----------



## sodaboy581




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8370#post_24250746
> 
> 
> If OLED becomes the go to main stream display how do you think they will be marketed. What will separate the low end, mid level, and flagship models from a manufacture? Won't the OLED technology itself deliver stunning PQ at even the lowest level?


Probably a purposefully bad color decoder, lack of CMS, lack of motion interpolation... missing adjustments in general, really. Oh, also lack of "SMART" TV... etc., etc.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8370#post_24250167
> 
> 
> I'm paying to watch the movie, not 10 minutes of adverts and trailers to try and sell me something else before I get to see what I paid for. That's part of the reason I don't watch broadcast.


I agree that I don't like watching the advertising (or especially preachy PSAs!), but I DO like the previews (and yeah, I know they're a sort of ad too), its just that previews add to the 'going to the movies' atmosphere!). If you don't like them, pressing >>I on the remote allows you to skip the previews if you want to.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sodaboy581*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8370#post_24251238
> 
> 
> Probably a purposefully bad color decoder, lack of CMS, lack of motion interpolation... missing adjustments in general, really. Oh, also lack of "SMART" TV... etc., etc.


I don't think a lack of smartness will have much effect since you can buy a brand name smart blu=ray player for less than $70. Probably shouldn't need too much in the way of adjustments with a brand name OLED. Maybe eliminate 3D on some models. Sound quality shouldn't matter to most. I think messing with overall PQ on less than flagship models would be a big mistake. I really can't think of much value that you can ad to a upper level model.


----------



## mfogarty5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24245968
> 
> 
> It's a huge mistake to say "CD sales are not vanishing" therefore a new disc format is coming.
> 
> 
> Ditto BluRay and DVD. The fact is, CD and DVD sales are shrinking (apparently rapidly) and the prospects for a new disc format _have never been worse_.
> 
> 
> BluRay is somewhat popular, but its popularity is a fraction that of DVD. Again, it's nearly impossible to rent in America and, contrary to what many of you experience, rental has been far and away the dominant experience associated with pre-recorded media. I can tell you as a regular Redbox customer in Silicon Valley, the kiosk is still dominate by DVD. When my last Blockbuster closed, the same was true. Netflix doesn't much rent BluRay, compared to DVD.
> 
> 
> As for sales, they are only going in one direction. Though BluRay actually edged up to 124 million discs in the U.S. last year (a good sign and why it's not going away soon), DVD fell 13.6% on larger volumes. It's very likely BluRay will see that number as a peak, never to be reached again.



As OT as this 4K Blu Ray discussion is, I have to agree with Rogo on this one. Netflix announced earnings today and the subscriber metrics below were included.


"Netflix Inc. ended December with 33.4 million U.S. subscribers who stream video over high-speed Internet connections, up from 31.1 million in September.... Meanwhile, the DVD-by-mail service is gradually dying as more subscribers abandon watching video on physical discs. The company ended December with 6.9 million DVD subscribers, down from 13.9 million in September 2011."

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/2014/01/22/netflix-adds-more-subscribers-banner/T2I43qmyFD2JVRkvdIsweP/story.html 


So Netflix lost 50% of its DVD customers in 2 years!


Furthermore Blockbuster discontinued its DVD by mail service in December to which I was a subscriber. It cost $5 a month for 2 Blu Rays. So now the options to rent Blu Rays are as follows.

1. Local video store.
2. Blockbuster by Mail

3. Netflix DVD at twice the price ($10 a month) as long as it lasts.

4. Redbox (only new releases.)


What is the business case for 4K Blu Ray? That a few avsforum members are going to replace their Blu Ray collections that just replaced their DVD collections?


My guess is that a substantial group of people who purchase 4K LCDs(or flat OLEDs when they are available!) also have the high speed internet connections necessary to support 4K streaming.


----------



## Orbitron

6.9 million customers renting is a lot of customers, that's over $80 million a month


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> _LG Display’s OLED manufacturing yield to rise sharply. It is no secret that the manufacturing yields of LGD’s OLED TV panels were so low last year — estimates were between 10% and 30% — that they severely impacted the number of panels that could be produced and kept their cost high. Now, LGD executives tell me the internal yield target for the new OLED plant opening in Q3 is 75% -
> _


See more at: http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2014/01/hdtv-expert-display-surprises-at-ces-2014.php#sthash.S5Zm8iRy.dpuf


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8370#post_24252490
> 
> 
> 6.9 million customers renting is a lot of customers, that's over $80 million a month



You understand that on Netflix, of those 6.9 million very, very few pay the upcharge to rent BluRays.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8370#post_24252763
> 
> 
> See more at: http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2014/01/hdtv-expert-display-surprises-at-ces-2014.php#sthash.S5Zm8iRy.dpuf



Let's hope that yield _wish_ comes true. Right now, it's a goal though.


----------



## vinnie97

Such bleakness that I find hard to argue with, but this just makes 4K virtually stillborn with so little in the way of quality content.


LG purportedly was at 70% last year, so 75% would be the minimum bump I'd expect a year later.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24247206
> 
> 
> This is why I've been using a HTPC for playback for years now. With the right player (I use JRiver) menus are completely bypassed and the film starts immediately. No trailers or ads.
> 
> I've been doing it so long now that I forgot how much of a nightmare it was to play them on dedicated hardware. I wouldn't be buying discs either if I had to put up with that.



So you're saying you won't be buying a 4K disc format if pirates don't hack it first? None of what you mentioned above would be possible otherwise.


I think piracy is another reason why streaming will take over. It's much easier to DRM. Just look at what's happening with 4K streaming now. Netflix will only be making it available through the integrated players inside newer TVs because this method is secure. They have stated they have no plans to offer it on any other platforms due to lacking proper DRM (in addition to lacking HEVC decoders).


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24253135
> 
> 
> So you're saying you won't be buying a 4K disc format if pirates don't hack it first? None of what you mentioned above would be possible otherwise.


Pirates? I have the right to back up my media, or format-shift it, as long as I retain the original disc. I am not living in the US where the law is made for corporations rather than citizens' rights.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24253135
> 
> 
> I think piracy is another reason why streaming will take over. It's much easier to DRM.


If it can be decoded for playback, there will be a way to capture the decoded stream. DRM never works - it only harms legitimate customers, restricting what devices they can use to play back their media, or what they can do with it. (e.g. transfer it to a mobile device, stream the video around their home etc.)



But no, I won't be buying 4K discs if they are locked down and I can't use my media player of choice to bypass the menus and play the film directly, or back it up to my media server so that I don't need to have shelves full of discs on display, or stream it to multiple devices around the house.


----------



## sa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8370#post_24253161
> 
> 
> If it can be decoded for playback, there will be a way to capture the decoded stream. DRM never works.



If Netflix only allows 4K streaming using the internal Netflix app on selected smart TV's, not on external devices, the signal never goes over HDMI. How will capture be done?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sa*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24253217
> 
> 
> If Netflix only allows 4K streaming using the internal Netflix app on selected smart TV's, not on external devices, the signal never goes over HDMI. How will capture be done?


Capture the data going over your network and break the DRM? Capture the signal going between the processor board and the LVDS (or similar?) connector? Extract the keys from the hardware?


I'm not saying it would be easy, I'm saying that someone will figure it out, if it's the only way to get 4K content.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340_60#post_24253161
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24253135
> 
> 
> So you're saying you won't be buying a 4K disc format if pirates don't hack it first? None of what you mentioned above would be possible otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Pirates? I have the right to back up my media, or format-shift it, as long as I retain the original disc. I am not living in the US where the law is made for corporations rather than citizens' rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24253135
> 
> 
> I think piracy is another reason why streaming will take over. It's much easier to DRM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it can be decoded for playback, there will be a way to capture the decoded stream. DRM never works - it only harms legitimate customers, restricting what devices they can use to play back their media, or what they can do with it. (e.g. transfer it to a mobile device, stream the video around their home etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> But no, I won't be buying 4K discs if they are locked down and I can't use my media player of choice to bypass the menus and play the film directly, or back it up to my media server so that I don't need to have shelves full of discs on display, or stream it to multiple devices around the house.
Click to expand...

 

When I buy a movie, after the first viewing (I make sure that it can play) I put it into a very large CD binder and throw out everything else.  The extra discs I give away or also put into the binder.  Alphabetizing the binder isn't a huge priority, and it's very easy to flip through to find the one I want.  If alphabetizing *is* a huge priority then just keep a list of movies and the page # they're on.

 

For me this is better than

Having a massive shelf full of BD retail boxes.  This is a TON of space, and I'm sorry, but it looks @#$%ing ridiculous.  I know there are people that must display this kind of thing with a sense of pride, but frankly, they're mental.  And,
Having 4 gig (for BD) of hard-drive space wasted *for every single movie* that I'll hardly ever see more than once***.  That space is plugged in and always on too.

 

I don't get the rationale.

 

***Note: this goes out the window for kids movies, where there are classics that they like to view endlessly.  I could maybe see that.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340_60#post_24253232
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sa*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24253217
> 
> 
> If Netflix only allows 4K streaming using the internal Netflix app on selected smart TV's, not on external devices, the signal never goes over HDMI. How will capture be done?
> 
> 
> 
> Capture the data going over your network and break the DRM? Capture the signal going between the processor board and the LVDS (or similar?) connector? Extract the keys from the hardware?
> 
> 
> I'm not saying it would be easy, I'm saying that someone will figure it out, if it's the only way to get 4K content.
Click to expand...

 

We're talking about *within* the display device?  Forget that pirate fantasy now.  It would likely have some sort of changing symmetric keys for just the handshaking that might change every 100 seconds.  It'd be *very* tough, and further, once broken it could instantly be changed worldwide.  Further it could include the sending of actual byte-code instructions for the host side to execute.  This requires that you not only watch the data, but that you *implement your own virtual machine*.  Depending upon what they're willing to do, there's "not easy" and then there's *give up trying. * DRM isn't designed by idiots.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24253650
> 
> 
> We're talking about _within_ the display device?  Forget that pirate fantasy now.


Being against DRM is not the same thing as being _for_ piracy. I have no interest in piracy.


What I want is to be able to back up my own discs, so they can be accessed anywhere in my home - streamed to any television, tablet, or notebook device. Transferred onto a mobile device so I can watch a film when I'm away on a trip.

Why should I be limited to watching the films I have purchased on Windows machines or stand-alone players, and not the Macs or iPads I own, or notebooks which don't have an optical drive?

I want playback via an HTPC so I have instant access to any of the films in my library rather than hunting around for the disc, keeping binders of discs or shelves full of discs on display, and seeking through 5-10 minutes of ads. ("trailers" are just ads for other movies)

I don't want to be locked down to a specific player, so that I can take advantage of advanced upscaling algorithms (more relevant to DVD than Blu-ray right now) or post-processing such as debanding which creates smooth gradation far in excess of the 8-bits stored on the disc, or audio processing to provide a better experience when listening using headphones.

I don't want someone else in control of media that I have legally purchased, being able to revoke access at some point down the line, or replace it with another version.


As far as 4K is concerned, why should I be restricted to buying a brand new 4K television that's locked into this 4K streaming service. If I want to stream 4K and downsample that to 1080p on my current display, I should be able to.

15mbps H.265 is going to look far better than whatever they're using for 1080p just now, whether you have a 4K display or not.


If a new 4K disc format is completely locked down so that all I can do is spend $400 on a new player and only be able to watch a film I've purchased on my main TV, having to keep discs at hand to be able to watch the films, then I simply won't buy it.

Just like I won't be buying a new television simply to use a new streaming service if that's the only way to get 4K native content.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24253650
> 
> 
> It would likely have some sort of changing symmetric keys for just the handshaking that might change every 100 seconds. It'd be very tough, and further, once broken it could instantly be changed worldwide. Further it could include the sending of actual byte-code instructions for the host side to execute. This requires that you not only watch the data, but that you implement your own virtual machine. Depending upon what they're willing to do, there's "not easy" and then there's give up trying. DRM isn't designed by idiots.


No, but if there's a demand for it, someone will figure out a way around it. My point was that the data has to be decrypted at some point.

Capturing the video signal that's being sent to the display panel would be one possible way of getting around it. (not an easy or realistic way, but an example)


In the end, DRM does nothing but restrict what legitimate customers can do. It's not going to have a major impact on piracy. Only one person needs to crack it and then the content is on the internet with the DRM removed.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340_60#post_24253855
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8300_100#post_24253650
> 
> 
> We're talking about *within* the display device?  Forget that pirate fantasy now.
> 
> 
> 
> Being against DRM is not the same thing as being *for* piracy. I have no interest in piracy.
Click to expand...

 

I don't read the above as defensive, but to be clear, I wasn't saying you were interested in piracy, nor was I implying that it was your dream.  However, breaking an in-display DRM *would* be a pirate fantasy.


----------



## coolscan

OLED was the "ultimate" display technology promised many years ago but shows out to be hard to mass manufacture in large sizes.


Many other proof of concepts display technologies have been coming and going since the start of OLED use.


Now Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has come with a new proof-of-concept Transparent on plastic display technology based on silver Nanoparticles, which I will guess is very similar to Quantum-Dots.


They don't tell much about how they trigger these, but lasers are mentioned.

They also never mentions the possibility to use this for full scale moving images.



MIT explains their technology;
*Seeing things: A new transparent display system could provide heads-up data* 

.
_The secret to the new system: Nanoparticles are embedded in the transparent material. These tiny particles can be tuned to scatter only certain wavelengths, or colors, or light, while letting all the rest pass right through. That means the glass remains transparent enough to see colors and shapes clearly through it, while a single-color display is clearly visible on the glass.


While the team’s demonstration used silver nanoparticles — each about 60 nanometers across — that produce a blue image, they say it should be possible to create full-color display images using the same technique. Three colors (red, green, and blue) are enough to produce what we perceive as full-color, and each of the three colors would still show only a very narrow spectral band, allowing all other hues to pass through freely.


"The glass will look almost perfectly transparent,” Soljačić says, “because most light is not of that precise wavelength” that the nanoparticles are designed to scatter.


Soljačić says that his group’s demonstration is just a proof-of-concept, and that much work remains to optimize the performance of the system. Silver nanoparticles, which are commercially available, were selected for the initial testing because it was “something we could do very simply and cheaply,” Soljačić says. The team’s promising results, even without any attempt to optimize the materials, “gives us encouragement that you could make this work better,” he says.


Such displays might be used, for example, to project images onto store windows while still allowing passersby to see clearly the merchandise on display inside, or to provide heads-up windshield displays for drivers or pilots, regardless of viewing angle.


The particles could be incorporated in a thin, inexpensive plastic coating applied to the glass, much as tinting is applied to car windows. This would work with commercially available laser projectors or conventional projectors that produce the specified color._


In the video they also say this film can be attached to any surface, but they never discuss the possibility to use this for full resolution images like TVs.

So to me, it can also be attached to a black surface and function as non-transparent display.


The big question is how do they trigger the silver Nanoparticles to create an moving image of picture quality?

Do they need to project the whole image in full size from the front, or can they just use laser embedded in the side of the film and trigger color pixels with various laser frequencies?


These questions might be stupid, and it is still a very simple proof-of-concept, but maybe this get the thread back on track and resue it from becoming a Blu-Ray thread with discussions that have been re-argued again and again for many years.

There is a separate Blu-Ray 4K thread at the projector forum where the blu-ray discussion can continue, or start a new separate thread in this section?










At least this new technology from MIT is interesting, and might trigger some people in R&D departments in some of the larger display companies to move this forward, even if it in the end up being nothing.










.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8370#post_24253614
> 
> 
> When I buy a movie, after the first viewing (I make sure that it can play) I put it into a very large CD binder and throw out everything else.  The extra discs I give away or also put into the binder.  Alphabetizing the binder isn't a huge priority, and it's very easy to flip through to find the one I want.  If alphabetizing _is_ a huge priority then just keep a list of movies and the page # they're on.
> 
> 
> For me this is better than
> 
> Having a massive shelf full of BD retail boxes.  This is a TON of space, and I'm sorry, but it looks @#$%ing ridiculous.  I know there are people that must display this kind of thing with a sense of pride, but frankly, they're mental.  And,
> Having 4 gig (for BD) of hard-drive space wasted _for every single movie_ that I'll hardly ever see more than once***.  That space is plugged in and always on too.
> 
> 
> I don't get the rationale.
> 
> 
> ***Note: this goes out the window for kids movies, where there are classics that they like to view endlessly.  I could maybe see that.



Be careful, just because you don't understand the rationale of someone's thinking doesn't make them mental it just makes them different from you. I happen to have a very organized wall of Blu-ray movies and it's very easy for me to visually go through them like I would in a video store to select what I wish to view. Your way seems nice as well, it definitely seems to have the advantage of taking up less space perhaps I'll try that some day.

PS: Try to keep an open mind my friend. 


----------



## Weboh


The MIT demo looks like some took a projector to the plastic.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340_60#post_24254392
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8370#post_24253614
> 
> 
> When I buy a movie, after the first viewing (I make sure that it can play) I put it into a very large CD binder and throw out everything else.  The extra discs I give away or also put into the binder.  Alphabetizing the binder isn't a huge priority, and it's very easy to flip through to find the one I want.  If alphabetizing *is* a huge priority then just keep a list of movies and the page # they're on.
> 
> 
> For me this is better than
> 
> Having a massive shelf full of BD retail boxes.  This is a TON of space, and I'm sorry, but it looks @#$%ing ridiculous.  I know there are people that must display this kind of thing with a sense of pride, but frankly, they're mental.  And,
> Having 4 gig (for BD) of hard-drive space wasted *for every single movie* that I'll hardly ever see more than once***.  That space is plugged in and always on too.
> 
> 
> I don't get the rationale.
> 
> 
> ***Note: this goes out the window for kids movies, where there are classics that they like to view endlessly.  I could maybe see that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be careful, just because you don't understand the rationale of someone's thinking doesn't make them mental it just makes them different from you. I happen to have a very organized wall of Blu-ray movies and it's very easy for me to visually go through them like I would in a video store to select what I wish to view. Your way seems nice as well, it definitely seems to have the advantage of taking up less space perhaps I'll try that some day.
> 
> PS: Try to keep an open mind my friend. 
Click to expand...

 

Point taken well and thumbed-up.  I shall.


----------



## slacker711

LG Display confirmed the planned ramp of their Gen 8 OLED fab in the 2nd half of this year during their earnings call yesterday. The evaporation capacity is in place though I am not sure if this is for 20k or 26k substrates a month. The conversion of a-si to IGZO will happen in the 2nd half but the pace at which they move to the full 26k substrates will depend on LCD demand. The ramp to 26k substrates a month will be completed in 2015.


I doubt LCD demand is going to be much of a barrier to conversion. The question will be whether they can fill the OLED capacity with positive gross margins.


----------



## HYMER DAXTER

*LGE Discounting OLED TV Before Rolling Out New Products?*

www.displaysearchblog.com


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8370#post_24258251
> 
> 
> LG Display confirmed the planned ramp of their Gen 8 OLED fab in the 2nd half of this year during their earnings call yesterday. The evaporation capacity is in place though I am not sure if this is for 20k or 26k substrates a month. The conversion of a-si to IGZO will happen in the 2nd half but the pace at which they move to the full 26k substrates will depend on LCD demand. The ramp to 26k substrates a month will be completed in 2015.
> 
> 
> I doubt LCD demand is going to be much of a barrier to conversion. The question will be whether they can fill the OLED capacity with positive gross margins.


\


I did some cool math here, but the forum ate it...


In short, it appears LG is planning on selling about 1 - 1.2 million OLEDs _next year_. Very roughly, that's 80-100% of the TV market in the $4000+ band. This will be interesting to follow.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24261506
> 
> 
> \
> 
> 
> I did some cool math here, but the forum ate it...
> 
> 
> In short, it appears LG is planning on selling about 1 - 1.2 million OLEDs _next year_. Very roughly, that's 80-100% of the TV market in the $4000+ band. This will be interesting to follow.



It's nice to see LG so optimistic anyway, did they mention any price projections yet or is it all still rumor?


It will also be interesting to see if LG takes a loss initially on OLED sales in order to get proper penetration in the market.


----------



## cougar75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8370#post_24250746
> 
> 
> If OLED becomes the go to main stream display how do you think they will be marketed. What will separate the low end, mid level, and flagship models from a manufacture? Won't the OLED technology itself deliver stunning PQ at even the lowest level?







It will be like a return to the vacuum tube days. Tubes were tubes. Pricing depended on screen size.


----------



## cougar75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *9179mhb*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8340#post_24245599
> 
> 
> So no one is interested in buying a 65" (+/-) 1080p flat panel OLED anymore?






I watch 1080p on my 4k all the time.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24261506
> 
> 
> \
> 
> 
> I did some cool math here, but the forum ate it...
> 
> 
> In short, it appears LG is planning on selling about 1 - 1.2 million OLEDs _next year_. Very roughly, that's 80-100% of the TV market in the $4000+ band. This will be interesting to follow.



I'm not sure about the pace of the ramp, but they are certainly going to need to see some drastic price declines to sell the amount of capacity that will come on-line by Christmas 2015.


I think an interesting question will be what happens to the LCD vendors if LG were to manage to hit the necessary price points to sell the capacity. What percentage of industry profits are generated by the high-end of the market? Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, and the various Taiwanese players would have to attempt to live between the Chinese LCD players and OLED's. Not much room there.


----------



## Chris5028

I almost hate how much I am rooting (American) for LG right now!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24263118
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about the pace of the ramp, but they are certainly going to need to see some drastic price declines to sell the amount of capacity that will come on-line by Christmas 2015.



I took a fairly conservative ramp rate, by the way. 26,000 = 156K per month = 1.87 million in a year at 100% yield. Now, obviously, yield won't be 100% and they could certainly shut down the current pilot production which would _limit_ production to just the 8G fab next year. But that would still give them 1.3 million annualized by year end 2105 (at 75% yield) and a start of presumably something like half that... If you divide those two, you are still looking at a target of 1 million. I can imagine them targeting as little as 750K, but not much less.


> Quote:
> I think an interesting question will be what happens to the LCD vendors if LG were to manage to hit the necessary price points to sell the capacity. What percentage of industry profits are generated by the high-end of the market? Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, and the various Taiwanese players would have to attempt to live between the Chinese LCD players and OLED's. Not much room there.



There's a good question there. We know if mobile phones, Apple's "paltry" 13%ish global market share is more than half industry profits. But that's partly an artifact of the weird economics of phones being sold by carriers. In TVs, we'd need to redefine "high end" to look at the equation/


That said. it's certainly true that money-losing Sony (in TVs) would lose far, far more without the profits from high-end TVs. As you may not be reading elsewhere, it is my firm theory that Sony, Panasonic, Sharp, Toshiba are all doomed in TVs. They need out. None of them make money selling TVs (and, in fact, at least three of them lose money at it) and none has a chance of the TV business being a profit contributor.


I don't actually know how important the very few percent of expensive TVs are to overall market profitability, but I think we can agree that if ~1 million OLEDs are in fact sold next year, they will entirely come at the expense of a huge portion of those. And beyond that, if LG can press the pricing down to $2500 in 2016 and sell 2 million in a variety of sizes, it essentially decimates the high-end competition. Now, of course, there is the challenge of both producing those _and_ selling them, but that seems to be the landscape.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24263950
> 
> 
> I almost hate how much I am rooting (American) for LG right now!



I'm not sure you even have jingoistic reasons to feel bad. There is no American company to root for and South Korea is a strong economic ally of the U.S. It's not like you're rooting for the Iranian state oil company.


----------



## Orbitron

As I see it, a huge obstacle is that we already have large screen displays that we like. We can easily wait a few years for prices to come down as well as the technology to mature.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24265537
> 
> 
> As I see it, a huge obstacle is that we already have large screen displays that we like. We can easily wait a few years for prices to come down as well as the technology to mature.



That is already incorporated into the current size of the high-end television market. The projections would be much different if there was any evidence that OLED's were going to create a massive upgrade cycle.


Hmmm, thinking about it, I guess there would be a possibility of a significant increase in the replacement rate if the prices fell low enough. The incremental upgrade over current televisions looks much more enticing at $1500 (for example) than they do at >$5000. We are a long long way from there though.


----------



## Chris5028

Rogo, my use of (American) was to denote the context of the word rooting. Wouldn't want to offend and Aussies reading.







I guess I should have been more clear.


----------



## Artwood

Root for anything that can stop the horror of LCD.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24265665
> 
> 
> Hmmm, thinking about it, I guess there would be a possibility of a significant increase in the replacement rate if the prices fell low enough. The incremental upgrade over current televisions looks much more enticing at $1500 (for example) than they do at >$5000. We are a long long way from there though.



To be honest, what Vizio is doing to pricing in the U.S. in 2014 should end any doubt that price won't accelerate the upgrade cycle. The high-end P series 70-inch will be $2500 or so and everything else will, necessarily, be less. It seems very unlikely this will motivate enough people that weren't going to buy something to do so.


The problem with the "but OLED is sooooo much better argument" is that (a) a Vizio P series is much, much better than what most people currently have and (b) OLED won't be that much better than a Vizio P series in the eyes of the average Joe. (Insert other high-end TV of your choosing in this analogy.)


In fact, one challenge for OLED is that yet another few million high-end TVs will be sold before most people ever have a chance to buy OLEDs. Those won't likely be replaced for 5-10 years. The ones that are really good LCDs, most especially....


I've espoused my "peak TV" theory here before. DisplaySearch and IHS don't yet agree with me. But then IDC and Gartner didn't buy into peak PC two years ago, either.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24263950
> 
> 
> I almost hate how much I am rooting (American) for LG right now!


I hate the fact that they may be future R&D for something which they originally didn't and still don't give much a damn about.


----------



## Desk.

I can only pray that LG quickly adopts black frame insertion (BFI) into the software for its OLED sets.


I've experienced it in Samsung's 1000hz F8000 range, and the motion, for me, was more than acceptable. The only thing that let those sets down were the black levels and viewing angles - something I can't wait for OLED to resolve.


Desk


----------



## domm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24267042
> 
> 
> To be honest, what Vizio is doing to pricing in the U.S. in 2014 should end any doubt that price won't accelerate the upgrade cycle. The high-end P series 70-inch will be $2500 or so and everything else will, necessarily, be less. It seems very unlikely this will motivate enough people that weren't going to buy something to do so.
> 
> 
> The problem with the "but OLED is sooooo much better argument" is that (a) a Vizio P series is much, much better than what most people currently have and (b) OLED won't be that much better than a Vizio P series in the eyes of the average Joe. (Insert other high-end TV of your choosing in this analogy.)
> 
> 
> In fact, one challenge for OLED is that yet another few million high-end TVs will be sold before most people ever have a chance to buy OLEDs. Those won't likely be replaced for 5-10 years. The ones that are really good LCDs, most especially....
> 
> 
> I've espoused my "peak TV" theory here before. DisplaySearch and IHS don't yet agree with me. But then IDC and Gartner didn't buy into peak PC two years ago, either.



I went to the Vizio web site & looked around but I did not find anything regarding the P Series. They had an E & M series but no mention of a P Series?


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24263950
> 
> 
> I almost hate how much I am rooting (American) for LG right now!


I actually much prefer Samsung's approach to OLED, as it affords *far superior* 'off-axis' viewing (plasma like) than does LG's OLED design...


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24267868
> 
> 
> I actually much prefer Samsung's approach to OLED, as it affords *far superior* 'off-axis' viewing (plasma like) than does LG's OLED design...


I'd be looking at a Samsung, too, were it not for the concerns over blue pixel fade. Sorry, but simply adding extra-large blue pixels seems like a bit of crude, naive attempt at a solution.


From what I understand, the LG set may sidestep this problem thanks to its approach to OLED.


Interestingly, a site in the UK is offering the curved OLED for under £4000 this weekend, bringing it within the bounds of reasonable affordability (and that's BEFORE LG ramps up mass production later this year...)

http://www.totaldigital.biz/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=43_160&products_id=5040 


C'mon, Samsung - fight back! 


Desk


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24267156
> 
> 
> I can only pray that LG quickly adopts black frame insertion (BFI) into the software for its OLED sets.
> 
> Desk



It's not a software issue. They simply don't have enough excess brightness for a useful BFI implementation. They need to match LED LCD brightness before we see any real solution to motion blur on OLED.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *domm*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24267407
> 
> 
> I went to the Vizio web site & looked around but I did not find anything regarding the P Series. They had an E & M series but no mention of a P Series?



There's an extensive thread in the LCD area on the P series Vizios... Full array local dimming with a decent zone count is the signature feature... That combined with ~$2500 pricing for a 70-inch set.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24267868
> 
> 
> I actually much prefer Samsung's approach to OLED, as it affords *far superior* 'off-axis' viewing (plasma like) than does LG's OLED design...



We'll agree to disagree.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24269045
> 
> 
> It's not a software issue. They simply don't have enough excess brightness for a useful BFI implementation. They need to match LED LCD brightness before we see any real solution to motion blur on OLED.



While I tend to agree this is a brightness-limitation issue, I will reiterate a point made much earlier: For many (the vast majority of?) people, motion blur is just not going to be a serious issue.


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24269090
> 
> 
> While I tend to agree this is a brightness-limitation issue, I will reiterate a point made much earlier: For many (the vast majority of?) people, motion blur is just not going to be a serious issue.


My concern is not so much motion blur but rather soap opera effect (SOE).


My experience with high-end Samsung LED sets is that they offer decent motion, and in doing so can be configured so that SOE is not a problem. I've also read in reviews that this is the case with Samsung's OLED set and thought this was also due to black frame insertion.


How do LG and Samsung OLED sets differ in this regard, if at all?


Desk


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24269090
> 
> 
> We'll agree to disagree.


Sound & Vision magazine tested both LG's and Samsung's OLED technologies and decided that there was indeed a definite difference in the two in the quality of their 'off-axis viewing':
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/sowhat’s-oled 

In this area, Samsung's won hands down while LG's off-axis viewing was very much like a typical LCD/LED...

Part of this (also excellent overview of how OLEDs work in general) includes:
_"Samsung’s RGB method is more traditional: it uses separate red, green, and blue OLED subpixels. RGB OLED is rumored to be more difficult to manufacture and potentially holds a greater chance for faster aging on the historically fragile blue OLED material. But this method doesn’t have WRGB’s potential for poor off-axis viewing that’s introduced by the use of the color filters. It also has the potential to be slightly more efficient given the lack of color filters that otherwise block much of the light created"._


----------



## Desk.

Almost in answer to my own post above, the following excerpt from a review of an LG set on the usually very reliable hdtvtest website states that the Samsung set DOES use black frame insertion.....

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/55ea980w-201312083487.htm 


> Quote:
> The obvious question to ask is: which is better between this and the Samsung S9C, both being curved OLED displays that cost more than any other 55″ televisions on the market? Based on our indepth testing, we’d have to give the slight edge to the Samsung: its active 3D is full-res and not hampered by vertical off-axis limitation; it features black frame insertion (BFI) as a means to reduce motion blur without introducing interpolation artefacts; and we prefer the cleaner look of its true RGB subpixel structure even if it’s only apparent from up close. And the Samsung KE55S9C’s lower price to the tune of £1000 is not to be sniffed at too.



Desk


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24269243
> 
> 
> Sound & Vision magazine tested both LG's and Samsung's OLED technologies and decided that there was indeed a definite difference in the two in the quality of their 'off-axis viewing':


Digitalversus suggests off-axis viewing on the LG is comparable to a plasma, and has pictures to back it up http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/lg-55ea980w-p16197/test.html 


> Quote:
> As you can see from the images above, this OLED TV has very wide viewing angles. In fact, it's on par with plasma technology. From 45 degrees, we measured an average variation in brightness of just 10%. In comparison, with LCD screens based on VA technology (PVA, PSA, UV²A, etc.), the black can vary up to +300% and the white to -60%, which makes contrast drop markedly when watching the TV screen from the side. IPS technology does a little better, although variations can still reach 70%.



Desk


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24268818
> 
> 
> I'd be looking at a Samsung, too, were it not for the concerns over blue pixel fade. Sorry, but simply adding extra-large blue pixels seems like a bit of crude, naive attempt at a solution.
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the LG set may sidestep this problem thanks to its approach to OLED.



How does sandwiching the OLED's to create white solve the blue longevity problem?


- Rich


----------



## piquadrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24269546
> 
> 
> How does sandwiching the OLED's to create white solve the blue longevity problem?
> 
> 
> - Rich


It effectively converts it to RGB longevity problem.

But it could be that some inter-layer interactions make sandwich white more stable than blue alone.

Beside, the blue in sandwich could be a different material than blue in RGB.

More efficient means more stable in this case.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24269214
> 
> 
> My concern is not so much motion blur but rather soap opera effect (SOE).



So I dunno... In my time with the LG, I believe you can do enough to the setting to mitigate/eliminate the SOE.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24269312
> 
> 
> Digitalversus suggests off-axis viewing on the LG is comparable to a plasma, and has pictures to back it up http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/lg-55ea980w-p16197/test.html
> 
> Desk



Again, I concur.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24269243
> 
> 
> Sound & Vision magazine tested both LG's and Samsung's OLED technologies and decided that there was indeed a definite difference in the two in the quality of their 'off-axis viewing':
> http://www.soundandvision.com/content/sowhat’s-oled
> 
> In this area, Samsung's won hands down while LG's off-axis viewing was very much like a typical LCD/LED...
> 
> Part of this (also excellent overview of how OLEDs work in general) includes:
> _"Samsung’s RGB method is more traditional: it uses separate red, green, and blue OLED subpixels. RGB OLED is rumored to be more difficult to manufacture and potentially holds a greater chance for faster aging on the historically fragile blue OLED material. But this method doesn’t have WRGB’s potential for poor off-axis viewing that’s introduced by the use of the color filters. It also has the potential to be slightly more efficient given the lack of color filters that otherwise block much of the light created"._



I mean there is just so much gibberish in that paragraph. The LG's use of color filters simply doesn't resemble the way LCDs work at all. In an LCD, you have light --> polarizer--> LC --> polarizer --> color filter. There is literally physical distance in between things. The light is beamed through the polarizers via plastic light guides or polarizing films. It's a miracle of modern technology that the thing works at all.


The LG OLED has the OLED material sandwiched at nanoscale. And then... also at nanoscale, the color "refiner" is applied above that. It's almost absurd to compare it to LCD. The reason there's a problem in LCD is because the "light valve" is the LC material, the light is _behind_ that, while the color filter is in front of it In the LG it's more accurate to compare it to the frosting on a light bulb... or even the phosphor on a plasma (though that's depressed, not on top). If the Samsung has better off-axis performance -- a fact I'm not arguing -- so be it, but the LG is simply nowhere near as bad as LCD TVs.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24269546
> 
> 
> How does sandwiching the OLED's to create white solve the blue longevity problem?



The OLED sandwich uses a fluorescent blue with better longevity than the phosphorescent ones.. And since it's only being asked to drive it in a white to produce a single hue (the white at varying intensities), it's possible to make some sort of compensation-over-time algorithm.


That said, none of this addresses burn in. And none of this addresses the fact that an OLED is more like a 30K hour display than a 100K hour one....


----------



## Artwood

LCD off axis stinks!


Why buy OLED if off axis it stinks, too?


Goodbye Plasma--Hello picture Quality regression.


Yes folks--sometimes technology does go backwards--anyone bought a 1974 Mustang or a 1975 Corvette lately?


----------



## slacker711

Some aggressive comments from LG Electronics about OLED television sales going forward.

http://www.lg.com/global/pdf/4Q13_Earnings_English_FINAL.pdf 


> Quote:
> 2014 Outlook
> 
> 
> Market: Expect OLED TV market to pick up from 2014, gradually
> 
> becoming the main growth driver of the display business and
> 
> replacing the LED TV market . In addition, we expect
> 
> Ultra HD TV to penetrate more into the mass market
> 
> 
> LGE: Plan to extend distribution network and to strengthen regionally
> 
> differentiated marketing activities in order to increase sales of
> 
> OLED TV. Also, we plan to improve profitability by strengthening
> 
> the line-up of Ultra HD TVs both in the premium and mass
> 
> -tier segments


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HYMER DAXTER*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8370#post_24261301
> 
> *LGE Discounting OLED TV Before Rolling Out New Products?*
> 
> www.displaysearchblog.com



For what it's worth, my local BestBuy says the LG OLEDs are now "on backorder" in my area and the earliest people here can take delivery of the sets is March.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24269546
> 
> 
> How does sandwiching the OLED's to create white solve the blue longevity problem?
> 
> 
> - Rich


Stacking the layers to make a WOLED means there must be a charge generating layer in between stacked emitters. My interpretation is that this structure enables reduction of current density for each emitting layer (due to multiplication of brightness) and thus longer lifetime for each emitter. Note - This also helps (not solves) burn-in as well.


In other words a single white emitting layer would need much higher current density than that of a stacked emitting layer.



The blue is a fluorescent material because there are not any pure color long lasting phosphorescent emitters yet.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24269312
> 
> 
> Digitalversus suggests off-axis viewing on the LG is comparable to a plasma, and has pictures to back it up http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/lg-55ea980w-p16197/test.html
> 
> Desk


So we then have conflicting opinions (Sound & Vision, vs. digitalversus) in the off-axis viewing capabilities of these two OLED brands then. Who's right, or who's wrong? Maybe with more exposure we'll get more reviews of both types to nail it down. Ideally, bith turn out to be good in this regard.

But at least which ever way it ends up going, either will still be better than LCDs I believe...but what isn't? ;-D


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400_60#post_24272485
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24269546
> 
> 
> How does sandwiching the OLED's to create white solve the blue longevity problem?
> 
> 
> - Rich
> 
> 
> 
> Stacking the layers to make a WOLED means there must be a charge generating layer in between stacked emitters.
Click to expand...

 

Could you clarify this for me....  Both emitting layers are (necessarily) still between the anode & cathode.  Doesn't that mean that current is free to flow throughout the entirety of the stack without an additional charging layer?

 

Every time I try to dig up an answer to that fundamental question, I end up mired in the differences between singlet and triplet states.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24272685
> 
> 
> Could you clarify this for me....  Both emitting layers are (necessarily) still between the anode & cathode.  Doesn't that mean that current is free to flow throughout the entirety of the stack without an additional charging layer?
> 
> 
> Every time I try to dig up an answer to that fundamental question, I end up mired in the differences between singlet and triplet states.


Think of the generating layer as an anode/cathode in the centre of the device. It generates holes and electrons. This will clear things up.


For light to be emitted the electrons and holes must recombine in the emitter layers. In a stacked device this means there are two layers where this must occur. Without a generating layer there would only be one recombination site.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400_60#post_24272792
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24272685
> 
> 
> Could you clarify this for me....  Both emitting layers are (necessarily) still between the anode & cathode.  Doesn't that mean that current is free to flow throughout the entirety of the stack without an additional charging layer?
> 
> 
> Every time I try to dig up an answer to that fundamental question, I end up mired in the differences between singlet and triplet states.
> 
> 
> 
> Think of the generating layer as an anode/cathode in the centre of the device. It generates holes and electrons. This will clear things up.
> 
> 
> For light to be emitted the electrons and holes must recombine in the emitter layers. In a stacked device this means there are two layers where this must occur. Without a generating layer there would only be one recombination site.
Click to expand...

 

So basically the electrons and hole charges would be "used up" by the initial layer and there'd be nothing left to combine for the above layer?


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24272878
> 
> 
> So basically the electrons and hole charges would be "used up" by the initial layer and there'd be nothing left to combine for the above layer?


I would say that it is ok to think of it this way for understanding. In reality the injecting/blocking layers are used to isolate where the electrons and holes recombine. The stacked device is essentially two seperate OLEDs on top of each other. The center layer acts as an anode for one half and a cathode for the other half.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400_60#post_24273026
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24272878
> 
> 
> So basically the electrons and hole charges would be "used up" by the initial layer and there'd be nothing left to combine for the above layer?
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that it is ok to think of it this way for understanding. In reality the injecting/blocking layers are used to isolate where the electrons and holes recombine. The stacked device is essentially two seperate OLEDs on top of each other. The center layer acts as an anode for one half and a cathode for the other half.
Click to expand...

 

No, I believe I understand that part ok, and it's an easy model to see (thank you), but it's begging this question then:

 

Even in this case of disparate emitters (fluorescent & phosphorescent), *if they were sandwiched together* why would one layer be biased over the other?  Why does the recombination favor one emitter layer and not the other?  Is it because of the boundary between them?

 

And if this is so, isn't it current biased?  That is, if the first layer were thin enough given the current level, doesn't the 2nd layer then start recombination?  (Again, if they were sandwiched together).  I'm wondering why there needs to be a charging layer at all if there is "enough" current for them both.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24272486
> 
> 
> So we then have conflicting opinions (Sound & Vision, vs. digitalversus) in the off-axis viewing capabilities of these two OLED brands then. Who's right, or who's wrong? Maybe with more exposure we'll get more reviews of both types to nail it down. Ideally, bith turn out to be good in this regard.



Sorry, but we don't need to weigh the opinions of these reviews. Many of us have actually seen these TVs and have enough expertise to form our own accurate assessments. Just because you choose to disregard them and place more weight on Sound and Vision (which contains obvious gibbering in their commentary) doesn't make our direct observations any less valid.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *domm*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24267407
> 
> 
> I went to the Vizio web site & looked around but I did not find anything regarding the P Series. They had an E & M series but no mention of a P Series?



Vizio had a special site devoted to the 2014 Line-up announced at CES (including the P Series): http://ces.vizio.com/p-series.html#skip 


-fafrd


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24273422
> 
> 
> Even in this case of disparate emitters (fluorescent & phosphorescent), _*if they were sandwiched together*_ why would one layer be biased over the other?  Why does the recombination favor one emitter layer and not the other?  Is it because of the boundary between them?


Sorry I'm a little slow today. I'm still learning this stuff as I go. It has been 10+ years since I worked with OLED materials and we are starting again this year.


From what I understand if all the emitters are mixed into one layer the preference will be determined by the dopant concentration.


If the layers are sandwiched on top of each other then host vs dopant energy level increases the likelyhood of recombination (from my current basic understanding).


If the layers are stacked as in the LG case then there must be a charge generation layer added between emitter structures to supply holes and electrons.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24273613
> 
> 
> Sorry, but we don't need to weigh the opinions of these reviews. Many of us have actually seen these TVs and have enough expertise to form our own accurate assessments. Just because you choose to disregard them and place more weight on Sound and Vision (which contains obvious gibbering in their commentary) doesn't make our direct observations any less valid.



I may have missed it, what is your assessment of the viewing angles of the LG and Samsung OLEDs?


- Rich


----------



## domm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24273652
> 
> 
> Vizio had a special site devoted to the 2014 Line-up announced at CES (including the P Series): http://ces.vizio.com/p-series.html#skip
> 
> 
> -fafrd



Thanks for the link. It is interesting that there is no mention of this P-Series on the regular Vizio web site. I even entered P-Series in the Vizio search box but no mention of the P-Series on the result page. The link below is the one I was on.

http://www.vizio.com/m-series/overview


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24273613
> 
> 
> Sorry, but we don't need to weigh the opinions of these reviews. Many of us have actually seen these TVs and have enough expertise to form our own accurate assessments. Just because you choose to disregard them and place more weight on Sound and Vision (which contains obvious gibbering in their commentary) doesn't make our direct observations any less valid.


^ wow.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *domm*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24274001
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link. It is interesting that there is no mention of this P-Series on the regular Vizio web site. I even entered P-Series in the Vizio search box but no mention of the P-Series on the result page. The link below is the one I was on.
> 
> http://www.vizio.com/m-series/overview



Yeah, the new Series (P) probably doesn't get added to the regular Vizio website until just before it is released...


-fafrd


p.s. the link you provided is referring to the 2013 M Series (with 3D). Presumably just before the 2014 M Series gets released in the next couple months or so, that promotional video will be updated as well (FALD, no 3D).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24273719
> 
> 
> I may have missed it, what is your assessment of the viewing angles of the LG and Samsung OLEDs?



The Samsung seems marginally superior to the LG. But the LG is superior to any LCD on the market in a "it's not even close" comparison. I have a couch on my side wall that I'd say is 30-40 degrees off axis. It would not remotely concern me to put an LG OLED on the wall with it (save for the stupid curve). If we are talking angles of 50+ degrees, it's _possible_ the Samsung might have a noticeable edge on the LG. Does anyone watch TV that far off axis regularly? I'm asking sincerely.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24274390
> 
> 
> ^ wow.



14 years here. Countless fellow videophiles. We just don't have to establish our credentials. You can ignore us all you want to, but we just don't have to establish our credentials.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24274775
> 
> 
> The Samsung seems marginally superior to the LG. But the LG is superior to any LCD on the market in a "it's not even close" comparison. I have a couch on my side wall that I'd say is 30-40 degrees off axis. It would not remotely concern me to put an LG OLED on the wall with it (save for the stupid curve). If we are talking angles of 50+ degrees, it's _possible_ the Samsung might have a noticeable edge on the LG. Does anyone watch TV that far off axis regularly? I'm asking sincerely.



Thanks, I thought they were good but the discussion got me worried.

I have a side couch as well and avoid sitting in the 40 degree seat. I don't care how good the viewing angle is, the angular distortion is unpleasant.


- Rich


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24275013
> 
> 
> Thanks, I thought they were good but the discussion got me worried.
> 
> I have a side couch as well and avoid sitting in the 40 degree seat. I don't care how good the viewing angle is, the angular distortion is unpleasant.



Yes. Let me say I'm _often_ in a seat that is 20-25 degrees off axis depending on precisely where the couch has slid to and where I happen to land on it. You can sit all the way at 40 degrees easily but I agree completely. The picture looks stupid from there, for reasons that have nothing to do with loss of contrast (and of course I have no loss of contrast).


The curved TV, in my opinion, looks stupid from about 10-15 degrees off axis if you are close and 20-25 degrees if you are 8-10 feet away. Once you get 12-15 feet out, the curve on the current set merely becomes stupid but you are far enough that it's less distracting.


----------



## JimP

Rogo,


Do you have any numbers showing how well or how poorly the curved sets are selling?


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24270989
> 
> 
> The OLED sandwich uses a fluorescent blue with better longevity than the phosphorescent ones.. And since it's only being asked to drive it in a white to produce a single hue (the white at varying intensities), it's possible to make some sort of compensation-over-time algorithm.
> 
> 
> That said, none of this addresses burn in. And none of this addresses the fact that an OLED is more like a 30K hour display than a 100K hour one....





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24272485
> 
> 
> Stacking the layers to make a WOLED means there must be a charge generating layer in between stacked emitters. My interpretation is that this structure enables reduction of current density for each emitting layer (due to multiplication of brightness) and thus longer lifetime for each emitter. Note - This also helps (not solves) burn-in as well.
> 
> 
> In other words a single white emitting layer would need much higher current density than that of a stacked emitting layer.
> 
> 
> 
> The blue is a fluorescent material because there are not any pure color long lasting phosphorescent emitters yet.



Look for updates to the new models coming out this year from both LG and Samsung that increases blue performance and therefore overall TV lifetime and a longer time until burn-in.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400_60#post_24273718
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24273422
> 
> 
> Even in this case of disparate emitters (fluorescent & phosphorescent), *if they were sandwiched together* why would one layer be biased over the other?  Why does the recombination favor one emitter layer and not the other?  Is it because of the boundary between them?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I'm a little slow today. I'm still learning this stuff as I go. It has been 10+ years since I worked with OLED materials and we are starting again this year.
> 
> 
> From what I understand if all the emitters are mixed into one layer the preference will be determined by the dopant concentration.
> 
> 
> If the layers are sandwiched on top of each other then host vs dopant energy level increases the likelyhood of recombination (from my current basic understanding).
> 
> 
> If the layers are stacked as in the LG case then there must be a charge generation layer added between emitter structures to supply holes and electrons.
Click to expand...

 

Please don't be sorry....I'm just trying to peer into a house with very few windows, and you've been a tremendous help.


----------



## andy sullivan

I just read a comment regarding the real reason many of these sets are curved. So folks will notice them when they walk into a store. Most average shoppers will notice the curve before they notice any PQ improvement. Makes sense.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400_60#post_24276769
> 
> 
> I just read a comment regarding the real reason many of these sets are curved. So folks will notice them when they walk into a store. Most average shoppers will notice the curve before they notice any PQ improvement. Makes sense.


 

Well, IMO, that doesn't make complete sense.  While it's true that if you don't notice something at all that you're relying on people knowing ahead of time what  they want, it's still the case that customers aren't going to buy something because they noticed it.  They're going to buy something they can afford that they trust.  I'm convinced that this curved thing is two things (weighted in order):

 

The image of

•  "we can do it too" *or*

•  "we have that leading edge technology as well" *or*

•  "we're a top tier technology company" *along with*

•  "we need stuff for shows"

is important from a marketing perspective (even if the technology is fundamentally stupid).

 
It's a distraction from the "we can't make OLED cheaply yet and need stuff for shows" problem.


----------



## tgm1024


BTW, speaking of absurdly stupid.

 

Has anyone seen a curved TV mounted on a wall yet?  I can't find any images online of such a thing except for the curved TV mounted on curved walls in shows.  Which I find funny in its own way.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24276925
> 
> 
> Well, IMO, that doesn't make complete sense.  While it's true that if you don't notice something at all that you're relying on people knowing ahead of time what  they want, it's still the case that customers aren't going to buy something because they noticed it.  They're going to buy something they can afford that they trust.  I'm convinced that this curved thing is two things (weighted in order):
> 
> The image of
> 
> 
> •  "we can do it too" *or*
> 
> 
> •  "we have that leading edge technology as well" *or*
> 
> 
> •  "we're a top tier technology company" *along with*
> 
> 
> •  "we need stuff for shows"
> 
> 
> is important from a marketing perspective (even if the technology is fundamentally stupid).
> 
> 
> 
> It's a distraction from the "we can't make OLED cheaply yet and need stuff for shows" problem.


Yesterday I walked through a Magnolia display area and no TV's had a noticeable tech ad. I had to look at the tiny tag to see what was 4K. There is no doubt in my mind that if my wife was with me and they had any kind of curved TV she would have noticed it right away. This particular Magnolia used to have a 70" Elite sitting at the entrance and the PQ alone was it's calling card. The $7,000+ price tag was its "see ya later" card. If they expect to sell a $9,000 65" OLED it better be more than pretty. So it will be pretty and curved. Quality sells and looking exclusive ads to the pride of ownership. I think most of us here see no PQ advantage to curved so what else could be the motivation?


----------



## KidHorn

The curved TVs also make the image appear larger. At least if you're sitting dead center. Not sure if this was the primary driver for it or not.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400_60#post_24277175
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24276925
> 
> 
> Well, IMO, that doesn't make complete sense.  While it's true that if you don't notice something at all that you're relying on people knowing ahead of time what  they want, it's still the case that customers aren't going to buy something because they noticed it.  They're going to buy something they can afford that they trust.  I'm convinced that this curved thing is two things (weighted in order):
> 
> The image of
> 
> 
> •  "we can do it too" *or*
> 
> 
> •  "we have that leading edge technology as well" *or*
> 
> 
> •  "we're a top tier technology company" *along with*
> 
> 
> •  "we need stuff for shows"
> 
> 
> is important from a marketing perspective (even if the technology is fundamentally stupid).
> 
> 
> 
> It's a distraction from the "we can't make OLED cheaply yet and need stuff for shows" problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterday I walked through a Magnolia display area and no TV's had a noticeable tech ad. I had to look at the tiny tag to see what was 4K. There is no doubt in my mind that if my wife was with me and they had any kind of curved TV she would have noticed it right away. This particular Magnolia used to have a 70" Elite sitting at the entrance and the PQ alone was it's calling card. The $7,000+ price tag was its "see ya later" card. If they expect to sell a $9,000 65" OLED it better be more than pretty. So it will be pretty and curved. Quality sells and looking exclusive ads to the pride of ownership. I think most of us here see no PQ advantage to curved so what else could be the motivation?
Click to expand...

 

The two Items I listed above.

 

BTW,  what is the generally accepted radius of the arc?  Is the arc elliptical or circular?


----------



## andy sullivan

LG--My Arcs better than your Arc. Samsung--- Oh yeah, well my Arcs adjustable. Taylor Made ---- Hey, we were adjustable first. Pioneer--Damn, why didn't we think of that?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24276128
> 
> 
> Rogo,
> 
> 
> Do you have any numbers showing how well or how poorly the curved sets are selling?



Neither of the OLEDs is selling at all so far. Tiny numbers of units... I don't have data, however.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24276551
> 
> 
> 
> Look for updates to the new models coming out this year from both LG and Samsung that increases blue performance and therefore overall TV lifetime and a longer time until burn-in.



Great news.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24276769
> 
> 
> I just read a comment regarding the real reason many of these sets are curved. So folks will notice them when they walk into a store. Most average shoppers will notice the curve before they notice any PQ improvement. Makes sense.



This is correct.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24276952
> 
> 
> BTW, speaking of absurdly stupid.
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen a curved TV mounted on a wall yet?  I can't find any images online of such a thing except for the curved TV mounted on curved walls in shows.  Which I find funny in its own way.



They look so stupid up against something... We got wall-mountable TVs that didn't mess up room decor -- finally -- and now these wizards think we want these ugly curves that essentially can't be hung on walls.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400_60#post_24280371
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24276769
> 
> 
> I just read a comment regarding the real reason many of these sets are curved. So folks will notice them when they walk into a store. Most average shoppers will notice the curve before they notice any PQ improvement. Makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is correct.
Click to expand...

 

I don't know....adding a weird technology *just* to be seen?  If they really wanted to be noticed they could add a flashing pink bezel.  I guarantee you that this would be noticed far before any other set.  But it wouldn't sell many.

 

Though frankly, the advent of curved TVs is 100% proof that we're already in the twilight zone.  So who knows what'll happen next.  Look for the Sony vs. LG flashing pink bezel showdown in CES-2015.  Seriously, if 10 years ago someone had told me that the industry would be competing with each other to make a bent TV, I'd have hidden the sharp objects and pointed them in the direction of a hospital.


----------



## dsinger

IMO a strong indicator that LG is being successful with mass production of OLED TVs will be the announcement of several new models with FLAT screens.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400_60#post_24281547
> 
> 
> IMO a strong indicator that LG is being successful with mass production of OLED TVs will be the announcement of several new models with FLAT screens.


 

Yes, this has been theorized before, and I agree.


----------



## andy sullivan

The thing with the curved screen setting these TV's apart from everything else kind of goes to the sales persons presentation to the customer. Just like with the acceptance of LED lighting as a quasi new technology the curved feature combined with the new OLED technology gives the sales person more ammunition to dazzle the customer. I look forward to hearing some of the reasons given for the awesome advantages of a curved screen.


----------



## JimP

Those same salesmen sold edge lit LCDs as an improvement over fully lit.


----------



## Mark12547




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24281547
> 
> 
> IMO a strong indicator that LG is being successful with mass production of OLED TVs will be the announcement of several new models with FLAT screens.


 

And to think I remember when flat screens were a great selling point ... in CRT days! (Back then, TVs were normally convex for structural integrity of the CRT and no one had any delusions of that curvature improving improving the viewing experience.) I'm interested in seeing if real-world experience of concave screens does anything to improve the viewing experience.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark12547*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460_60#post_24282446
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24281547
> 
> 
> IMO a strong indicator that LG is being successful with mass production of OLED TVs will be the announcement of several new models with FLAT screens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to think I remember when flat screens were a great selling point ... in CRT days! (Back then, TVs were normally convex for structural integrity of the CRT and no one had any delusions of that curvature improving improving the viewing experience.) I'm interested in seeing if real-world experience of concave screens does anything to improve the viewing experience.
Click to expand...

 

.....Structural integrity was gained with a curve, but it was not the compelling reason.  Getting an beam to emanate from a point source in the back outward to a flat rectangle requires a continuity of positional adjustments.  And the intensity of the beam varies on angle as well.

 

Positional issues alone though, the first days of the "flat screen" CRTs were a disaster!  They were in deed flat but looked oddly bowed inward in places because of how they didn't quite get the columnation down.


----------



## Weboh


It's called bad geometrics.


----------



## mtbdudex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24276952
> 
> 
> BTW, speaking of absurdly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen a curved TV mounted on a wall yet?  I can't find any images online of such a thing except for the curved TV mounted on curved walls in shows.  Which I find funny in its own way.



What? You missed the fine print where your expected to re-do your viewing room to have a curved wall ?



Via my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk


----------



## RandyWalters




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24276769
> 
> 
> I just read a comment regarding the real reason many of these sets are curved. So folks will notice them when they walk into a store. Most average shoppers will notice the curve before they notice any PQ improvement. Makes sense.



Back in mid-December i stopped in Video & Audio Center (an old-school higher-end AV store that i hadn't been to in years) and it was like being in flat panel heaven - it's a gorgeous showroom with like 3 dozen TVs. I was wandering around and sure enough that curved TV in the middle caught my eye (it was the LG OLED) then i spotted the curved Samsung OLED (both sitting on credenzas). The salesman (an old pro who i knew many years ago from Ken Crane's) remembered me and we chatted a bit then he asked me what i think about the curve and before i could think about being polite, i blurted out "It looks absolutely ridiculous". He kinda laughed and said that it does get a lot of attention but ultimately the curve is not popular among shoppers.


----------



## andy sullivan

The only thing I can ad to that scenario is that the vast majority of possible buyers will not have their initial experience with "curved" at a high end video store. That same set up in a Best Buy type environment will be much more successful. Once you get past the cost factor, and that will be a big factor, you have the wife factor. Female acceptance of "curved" will go a long long way to its acceptability in the home.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RandyWalters*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460#post_24286945
> 
> 
> Back in mid-December i stopped in Video & Audio Center (an old-school higher-end AV store that i hadn't been to in years) and it was like being in flat panel heaven - it's a gorgeous showroom with like 3 dozen TVs. I was wandering around and sure enough that curved TV in the middle caught my eye (it was the LG OLED) then i spotted the curved Samsung OLED (both sitting on credenzas). The salesman (an old pro who i knew many years ago from Ken Crane's) remembered me and we chatted a bit then he asked me what i think about the curve and before i could think about being polite, i blurted out "It looks absolutely ridiculous". He kinda laughed and said that it does get a lot of attention but ultimately the curve is not popular among shoppers.


Amazing (and nice!) to hear that there are still a few independant, dedicated A/V stores left out there.


As an aside, I did stop in Best Buy's flagship store near their headquarters in Richfirled, MN on Tuesday the 28th and they had the LG's 55" curved OLED on display and running.

I extensively tested the 'off-axis' capabilities of this display while there, and it actually performs quite well in that regard which is a relief for any future decison I may make concerning OLEDs since plasmas are sadly on the way out...now to get these things in bigger (flat) panels and at a (much) better price!


----------



## KidHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460#post_24287918
> 
> 
> Amazing (and nice!) to hear that there are still a few independant, dedicated A/V stores left out there.
> 
> 
> As an aside, I did stop in Best Buy's flagship store near their headquarters in Richfirled, MN on Tuesday the 28th and they had the LG's 55" curved OLED on display and running.
> 
> I extensively tested the 'off-axis' capabilities of this display while there, and it actually performs quite well in that regard which is a relief for any future decison I may make concerning OLEDs since plasmas are sadly on the way out...now to get these things in bigger (flat) panels and at a (much) better price!



I'm glad off axis viewing was OK, but I can't imagine watching a curved screen off axis. The far away parts would be OK, but looking along the curve closest to me would drive me nuts.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460#post_24287058
> 
> 
> Female acceptance of "curved" will go a long long way to its acceptability in the home.



Well, all I can say is your wife is pretty different from mine. As far as WAF in my home, the TV needs to be as unobtrusive and invisible as possible, and the last thing my wife would want is a curved screen in the living room drawing even more attention to itself...


I would suggest that anyone using a 'TV-cozy' will never bring a curved panel into their home (unless, of course, they have a dedicated HT room. That is a different story...).


-fafrd


----------



## JWhip

I have a dedicated HT room and I would NEVER bring a curved screen into my home. I have seen the curved OLEDs with their distorted image and would NEVER buy one. I wouldn't take one is they gave it to me.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460#post_24288281
> 
> 
> Well, all I can say is your wife is pretty different from mine. As far as WAF in my home, the TV needs to be as unobtrusive and invisible as possible, and the last thing my wife would want is a curved screen in the living room drawing even more attention to itself...
> 
> 
> I would suggest that anyone using a 'TV-cozy' will never bring a curved panel into their home (unless, of course, they have a dedicated HT room. That is a different story...).
> 
> 
> -fafrd


Ha. My wife is exactly like yours. Actually what I meant was that the wife's unacceptability of curved will insure it's death. Curved = Edsel.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460#post_24288986
> 
> 
> Ha. My wife is exactly like yours. Actually what I meant was that the wife's unacceptability of curved will insure it's death. Curved = Edsel.



Got you - so we're perfectly aligned. Perhaps Korean wives get excited about the idea of a curved TV in the home, but I guess that here in the US, getting a curved TV over the minimum WAF threshold is going to prove to be an even greater challenge that getting a larger diagonal panel through the front door










-fafrd


'what do you mean it's too big????'


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460#post_24289069
> 
> 
> Got you - so we're perfectly aligned. Perhaps Korean wives get excited about the idea of a curved TV in the home, but I guess that here in the US, getting a curved TV over the minimum WAF threshold is going to prove to be an even greater challenge that getting a larger diagonal panel through the front door
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -fafrd
> 
> 
> 'what do you mean it's too big????'


OMG! That's a pure genius ploy. Take your wife into a store and show her the curved that you really really want (NOT). When she says"over my dead body", you kind of him haw around and look ever so sad and say "well OK i guess but can I at least go a little bit bigger than we had planned"? Somebody please try this ASAP and report back. Now I wish I hadn't just got a 70".


----------



## rogo

"Large LCD Sales Jump As Wives Come To Realize Anything Is Better Than Having a Hideous Curved TV In Their Living Rooms; Rejuvenated Industry Claims, 'That Was Our Plan All Along, Mu-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha' "


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KidHorn*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460#post_24288195
> 
> 
> I'm glad off axis viewing was OK, but I can't imagine watching a curved screen off axis. The far away parts would be OK, but looking along the curve closest to me would drive me nuts.


Yeah, I agree about the curved screen being a problem.

But at least I confirmed that (even despite the curve) I could certainly live with an OLED display in my HT (converted living room!) should they ever _come down in price, up in size, and fix the production problems and blue color longevity issues._

The off-axis viewing quality didn't deteriorate at all that I could tell - even when 45 degrees off center.

A nice 75" OLED 4K would be just about perfect...


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460#post_24289625
> 
> 
> "Large LCD Sales Jump As Wives Come To Realize Anything Is Better Than Having a Hideous Curved TV In Their Living Rooms; Rejuvenated Industry Claims, 'That Was Our Plan All Along, Mu-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha' "



My prediction:


By the time they can produce OLEDs are reasonable prices, curved screens will be as prevalent as 3D glasses at BB.


> Quote:
> Honey, that TV is bent, lets get one that isn't broken




- Rich


----------



## tenthplanet

Even if OLED's were flat they are not affordable for many. Let the electronics companies play around a bit. Think of curved Tv's as those concept cars at auto shows, if they were for sale how many would actually be sold. When OLED's are affordable there will be flat ones (and maybe a couple of curved ones).


----------



## vinnie97

Well, the difference between the concept cars and the curved OLEDs is the latter are for sale, for better or for worse.


----------



## irkuck

Well. even if those curved OLEDs do not sell there was enough media noise that general public is now educated there is something called OLED and it is different from LED







.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460_60#post_24289369
> 
> 
> OMG! That's a pure genius ploy. Take your wife into a store and show her the curved that you really really want (NOT). When she says"over my dead body", you kind of him haw around and look ever so sad and say "well OK i guess but can I at least go a little bit bigger than we had planned"? Somebody please try this ASAP and report back. Now I wish I hadn't just got a 70".


 

Men worry more about how a TV looks when it's on.  Wives worry more about how it looks when it's off.

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460_60#post_24289625
> 
> 
> "Large LCD Sales Jump As Wives Come To Realize Anything Is Better Than Having a Hideous Curved TV In Their Living Rooms; Rejuvenated Industry Claims, 'That Was Our Plan All Along, Mu-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha' "


 

Beat me to it.


----------



## Artwood

Everything in the universe nowadays favors LCD that sucks--I need to change universes.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460_60#post_24293714
> 
> 
> Everything in the universe nowadays favors LCD that sucks--I need to change universes.


 

Probably.  As I have read your foaming at the mouth tirades over the many months, I've done so on a circa 2006 LCD notebook screen.  If I shift my head to the left or right a single inch, the opposing side darkens.  In fact, the middle is brightest because of the viewing angle alone.  I chuckle inwardly about how well you'd deal with this situation.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460#post_24294492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460_60#post_24293714
> 
> 
> Everything in the universe nowadays favors LCD that sucks--I need to change universes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably.  As I have read your foaming at the mouth tirades over the many months, I've done so on a circa 2006 LCD notebook screen.  If I shift my head to the left or right a single inch, the opposing side darkens.  In fact, the middle is brightest because of the viewing angle alone.  I chuckle inwardly about how well you'd deal with this situation.
Click to expand...

It didn't stop you from making a stupid joke about 60 inch microwaves.


----------



## dsinger

^ The best joke I have seen in weeks on this forum. Better than needing a jock strap with the larger SVS subwoofers.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460#post_24297644
> 
> 
> ^ The best joke I have seen in weeks on this forum. Better than needing a jock strap with the larger SVS subwoofers.


Whatever ... evidently you didn't like the vacuum cleaner joke.


----------



## rogo

I have to say, I LOL-ed on the microwave joke. As in, actual, audible laughing.


----------



## Weboh


^ But I laughed at the vacuum cleaner joke.


----------



## RandyWalters




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460#post_24288785
> 
> 
> I have a dedicated HT room and I would NEVER bring a curved screen into my home. I have seen the curved OLEDs with their distorted image and would NEVER buy one. I wouldn't take one is they gave it to me.



I couldn't stand the curve when i saw the LG and Sammy, it just looked really stupid and it seemed to make the geometry look a little off (a sort of "Bow Tie" effect) when sitting with my eye level at mid-screen (the top bows upward and bottom bows downward). It's just weird. I even told the salesman there's no way i'd buy a curved TV even at 1/10th the price. The TV makers cannot be serious about this curved crap. At least i hope they're not.


----------



## JWhip

They will be serious about it until they don't sell any or very little.


----------



## tubby497

So much hate towards curve tv's.... I know 99.9% avsforum members hate it but I guess I'm that 00.1%.










I think it's very nice. If I have the money I would buy one. I sit directly in the middle when I watch my tv so a curve screen won't be a problem.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tubby497*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24302049
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's very nice. If I have the money I would buy one. I sit directly in the middle when I watch my tv so a curve screen won't be a problem.



You explained perfectly why many of us hate them. The vast majority of viewing does not occur directly in the sweet spot.


(Anyone doubting this should observe the panoply of seating positions at their friends' homes over the coming weeks.)


----------



## Pres2play

  

My Samsung OLED is awesome. Quit trippin' and get yourself a curved screen.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460_60#post_24302746
> 
> 
> My Samsung OLED is awesome. Quit trippin' and get yourself a curved screen.


 

What's making your screen awesome is the OLED part.  You mean you really wouldn't rather the thing were flat?


----------



## JWhip

I have watched the Sammy in the sweet spot and the image is still distorted. I also don't like sitting too close to the screen, which is too small anyway. The blacks on my modified 141 are superb tonight. Great job by Fox.


----------



## Pres2play

I wanted my next set to be an OLED. When I saw the Samsung on display I didn't find the curve drastic enough to stop me from buying it. My only real concern at the time was motion blur and I'm happy to report that images are smooth and I never think about blur anymore.


Strangely, family and friends never comment on the curve or the floating frame. To them it's just another big-screen television, UNTIL you turn it on.


----------



## rogo

My friends would mock me because it _isn't_ really a big screen and they know I'd be downgrading, size-wise.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24302887
> 
> 
> I have watched the Sammy in the sweet spot and the image is still distorted. I also don't like sitting too close to the screen, which is too small anyway. The blacks on my modified 141 are superb tonight. Great job by Fox.




I have to disagree with you. The overscan pattern in these images show very little distortion; circles and squares appear accurately drawn on the display. What's more, distortion existed well before OLED curved screens so let's stop feeding this lie that only curved screens distort. Stop spreading pooh-pooh and questioning salespeople for no reason other than to make fun. Who knows, maybe someday you yourself may come around to EMBRACE THE CURVE.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24303343
> 
> 
> My friends would mock me because it _isn't_ really a big screen and they know I'd be downgrading, size-wise.



Well, colloquially, it's a big-screen. I don't go into a store and say "l want to see a mid-size screen." There's small screen and there's big screen. That's it. If I said jumbo screen, you know I was taking about scoreboards or stadium screens, right?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24303449
> 
> 
> Well, colloquially, it's a big-screen. I don't go into a store and say "l want to see a mid-size screen." There's small screen and there's big screen. That's it. If I said jumbo screen, you know I was taking about scoreboards or stadium screens, right?



Yes, I'm not really here to start an argument about screen-size definitions.


But I'd call 55 inches a "mid size" since you've coined the term.


----------



## JWhip




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24303400
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with you. The overscan pattern in these images show very little distortion; circles and squares appear accurately drawn on the display. What's more, distortion existed well before OLED curved screens so let's stop feeding this lie that only curved screens distort. Stop spreading pooh-pooh and questioning salespeople for no reason other than to make fun. Who knows, maybe someday you yourself may come around to EMBRACE THE CURVE.
> 
> 
> 
> [/quot
> 
> 
> To each his own. If you can't see that the screen is curved from the straight on picture that you posted, so be it. I do and will never accept a curved screen, especially one that is only 55 inches. Also note the discoloration on the left side of the second picture you posted. Not great off axis viewing either.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460_60#post_24303400
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with you. The overscan pattern in these images show very little distortion; circles and squares appear accurately drawn on the display.


 

Huh?  What?  The thing looks like a bow-tie.  I'd be scared to death of watching that for so long that I no longer see it.  After watching for a few hours, when you look around your house do non-curved things suddenly look *larger* in the middle?


----------



## RandyWalters




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24303400
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with you. The overscan pattern in these images show very little distortion; circles and squares appear accurately drawn on the display.



Well of course the test pattern will properly fit the screen, but in actual viewing the curve makes the left and right sides of the screen appear taller than the center does. I saw it in person, and now i see it in your photo. I don't want to see this in my home.



> Quote:
> What's more, distortion existed well before OLED curved screens so let's stop feeding this lie that only curved screens distort.



Yes, distortion existed back when we had tube TVs with their curved screens and resultant geometry problems. But with the advent of Plasma and LCD Flat Panel TVs, distortion was eliminated because they're fixed-pixel displays which don't distort or bend the image, so curving is causing a sort of visual distortion that is simply non-existent on a flat panel TV.




> Quote:
> Stop spreading pooh-pooh and questioning salespeople for no reason other than to make fun.



I wasn't questioning the salespeople to make fun, i'm letting him know that there is no way in hell i'd ever accept a curved TV nor would i ever buy one from him. And i do hope he passes that on to his manufacturer reps. I do question the judgement of the people at LG and Samsung and even Sony about their decisions to release a flat panel TV that is no longer flat. The whole idea just seems so stupid. Probably the stupidest thing i've seen from the TV industry in the last 15 years.




> Quote:
> Who knows, maybe someday you yourself may come around to EMBRACE THE CURVE.



No, i know for sure that that will never happen. I hope my mid-sized 55ST60 and small 50GT50 last a long time, at least long enough for the manufacturers to come to their senses and abandon this stupid curved crap before it becomes a thing.


----------



## markrubin

next they will say the reason for curved screens is because our eyeballs are curved...or have they used that one yet?


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24304933
> 
> 
> next they will say the reason for curved screens is because our eyeballs are curved...or have they used that one yet?



But of course, that means the top and bottom must also curve..

They only solved half the problem










- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8460_60#post_24304933
> 
> 
> next they will say the reason for curved screens is because our eyeballs are curved...or have they used that one yet?


 

I still like the one about making sure that the light from all parts of the screen arrives at our eyes at the same time.  (LOL)


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24304933
> 
> 
> next they will say the reason for curved screens is because our eyeballs are curved...or have they used that one yet?



I expect detailed math to show the precision of the curve is designed to match the curvature of the human eye within 0.00001 degrees.


Never mind that the human visual perception system is "constructed" by the brain and automagically sees flat just fine. (And thank goodness, too... Can you imagine if everything in the world had a fish-eye-lens effect?)


----------



## greenland

The OLED bendable models that consumers can make either flat or curved, are even more absurd. In a way, they are really a tacit admission by the manufacturers that their fixed curved displays are hated by the vast majority of potential future TV buyers. So in order to save face, instead of admitting that they screwed up badly by introducing curved sets, they instead said; fine then here is a new model that allows you to get rid of that hated curve. Idiots; all of them!


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24307489
> 
> 
> The OLED bendable models that consumers can make either flat or curved, are even more absurd. In a way, they are really a tacit admission by the manufacturers that their fixed curved displays are hated by the vast majority of potential future TV buyers. So in order to save face, instead of admitting that they screwed up badly by introducing curved sets, they instead said; fine then here is a new model that allows you to get rid of that hated curve. Idiots; all of them!



And also introduces another potential point of failure... Honey, I can't straighten out the TV anymore - better call Samsung...










-fafrd


----------



## tubby497

Samsung must be doing something right, their still making money when other companies are struggling.....










And curved tv's are not even out for sale yet (except for OLED) and how can you say it failed? There's no scientific data proving that. It's just bunch of opinions and rumors. I know what you guys will say, curve tv's are just a trend, nobody will buy it, blah, blah.......










All I'm saying is keep an open mind. Many people think the curved tv's are stupid but there are others that don't feel the same.


I think that curved tv's (excluding OLED's) will be a success for the "average consumer" market. It's going to look great in Best Buy stores!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tubby497*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24307914
> 
> 
> Samsung must be doing something right, their still making money when other companies are struggling.....



Very little of it in TVs, especially when you consider they are vertically integrated.


> Quote:
> And curved tv's are not even out for sale yet (except for OLED) and how can you say it failed? There's no scientific data proving that. It's just bunch of opinions and rumors. I know what you guys will say, curve tv's are just a trend, nobody will buy it, blah, blah.......



Well, of course, no one is buying it, making it easy to make the snap judgments. But we wouldn't want to be facile.


So we could simply argue that pretty much every post here is negative. But then we'd only be pointing to a bunch of anecdotes.


But we could say "a bunch of anecdotes start to look like data."


Or we could simply point out that, you know, after 15 years of flat panels, the market demand for a non-flat TV has been successfully satisfied by offering 0% non-flat TVs lately. That'd be more data, of sorts.


> Quote:
> All I'm saying is keep an open mind. Many people think the curved tv's are stupid but there are others that don't feel the same.



This argument is especially not strong. It could be used to justify making only pink automobiles too. "Many people think pink automobiles are ridiculous, but there are others that don't feel the same."


> Quote:
> I think that curved tv's (excluding OLED's) will be a success for the "average consumer" market. It's going to look great in Best Buy stores!



They look stupid in stores, actually. There is a wall of TVs and then some weird thing sticking out. Yes, it gets attention, but in all the wrong ways.


"We finally got the TV out of the way and now you want _that thing_?"


I'd like to go out on a limb here since I've done that at AVS for years.


1) There is no chance curved TVs will dominate the next era. Zero.


2) Even with OLEDs, this will prove to be a weird fad.


3) When it fails to gain any consumer traction, at least one manufacturer will admit it was an attempt to get the technology to stand out but now that the technology stands out on its own, 'We concluded we didn't need it anymore.' "


The thing is, I'm not really that far out on the limb. No reviewer of any reputation likes the curved TV. They "solve a problem" no one had.


This is not the "people are pooh-poohing the iPad but it's going to succeed anyway" situation. There, people wanted a tablet computer they just didn't believe the iPad was going to be it,


There was simply no one asking for a curved TV. They still aren't asking for it. OLED sales would be no lower if they were available flat here instead of curved. In fact, they'd almost certainly be higher.


----------



## Pres2play

Distortion? Discoloration? Small, crap, stupid??? Please! This TV is on display at Value Electronics in Scarsdale NY and it blows away everything in the store. What are you guys smoking in your pipes!


----------



## vinnie97

Geometry, it's what's for breakfast (also, size is relative and an ever-changing benchmark in the broader cultural scope, or at least that's what I think she said).


----------



## JimP

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the OLEDs are all curved is because they are having problems making them flat and making them curved helps buy time till they get flat OLEDs worked out?


----------



## slacker711

One interesting comment from a new review of the LG television. Could LG have installed new firmware to reduce the lag? I have to assume that all of the previous reviews couldnt have been wrong about the lag.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/lg-55ea980w_TV_review_3d-sound-and-conclusions_Page-3 


> Quote:
> The 55EA980W's picture quality and the immersive effects of the curve for a lone viewer make it a potentially spectacular gaming monitor. So we're very happy indeed to find that when using its game picture preset and turning off as much video processing as we could find the 55EA980W avoided LG's usual input lag problems, turning in an input lag measurement of just 33ms on average. This is low enough not to substantially damage your gaming abilities.
> 
> 
> We have seen measurements higher than this in other tests of the 55EA980W elsewhere on the internet, but we checked and rechecked our results, and they were always the same. We can only assume the other testers hadn't turned off all of the set's video processing circuits when they took their measurements.
> 
> Read more at http://www.trustedreviews.com/lg-55ea980w_TV_review_3d-sound-and-conclusions_Page-3#HL877yL6JOI3fiED.99


----------



## pg_ice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24302746
> 
> 
> My Samsung OLED is awesome. Quit trippin' and get yourself a curved screen.



great!

who cares about the small curve.

if you watching testpatterns day in and day out it can be a problem.


do you have a colormeter?

i wonder how aggressive Samsungs ABL is compared to LGs OLED tv ?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8500_100#post_24308904
> 
> 
> One interesting comment from a new review of the LG television. Could LG have installed new firmware to reduce the lag? I have to assume that all of the previous reviews couldnt have been wrong about the lag.


What method do Trusted Reviews use for measuring latency?


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24308859
> 
> 
> Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the OLEDs are all curved is because they are having problems making them flat and making them curved helps buy time till they get flat OLEDs worked out?



I think so: mentioned it here:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1493578/lg-55ea9800-55-oled-owners-thread/30#post_23936015 


I still think it plays a part in this: I cannot believe the manufacturers really think the curved screen is better than flat


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8500_100#post_24308859
> 
> 
> Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the OLEDs are all curved is because they are having problems making them flat and making them curved helps buy time till they get flat OLEDs worked out?




I doubt it, because they have now introduced curved LCD TVs, and they have had no difficulties in churning out flat versions of them.


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24309679
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8500_100#post_24308859
> 
> 
> Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the OLEDs are all curved is because they are having problems making them flat and making them curved helps buy time till they get flat OLEDs worked out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it, because they have now introduced curved LCD TVs, and they have had no difficulties in churning out flat versions of them.
Click to expand...


I'm sure the curved LCD's will fly off the store shelves just as fast as the curved OLED's


----------



## tgm1024


There are only a few times in technology where a product line *really* takes me by surprise.  The attempt at curving a flat panel, a device that we've waited for DECADES to exist (AS. A. *FLAT*. PANEL).....wow.


----------



## greenland

LG OLED TV (CURVED) REVIEW

By Rasmus Larsen (@flatpanels)

03 Jan 2014

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1388765934 


A very detailed hands on review, so use the link to read it all.


With regards to the curved aspect, he stated this:



"Once you sit down and start watching a movie you rarely notice that the panel is curved, but it becomes apparent when sitting/standing above, below or out to the side, as the photos below show. Straight lines become curved and the picture gets a bit distorted. We saw no real advantages of a curved panel, at least not on this relatively small 55-inch panel, and we hope that it is a temporary trend and that TV makers will start producing flat OLED TVs in the coming years."


----------



## Desk.

Another new review of the LG OLED set, reporting an average input lag of just 33ms...

http://www.trustedreviews.com/lg-55ea980w_TV_review 


Things are getting interesting.


My remaining hopes for LG's OLED sets are...


1) flat panels

2) black frame insertion

3) either active 3D or improved passive 3D due to 4k resolution

4) reasonable prices


Desk


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24310730
> 
> 
> My remaining hopes for LG's OLED sets are...
> 
> 
> 1) flat panels
> *2) black frame insertion*
> 
> 3) either active 3D or improved passive 3D due to 4k resolution
> 
> 4) reasonable prices
> 
> 
> Desk



Do the current crop of LG OLEDs put out sufficient brightness to allow for black frame insertion without becoming too dim?


-fafrd


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24310858
> 
> 
> Do the current crop of LG OLEDs put out sufficient brightness to allow for black frame insertion without becoming too dim?
> 
> 
> -fafrd



There are references in reviews to the Samsung OLED set employing black frame insertion, resulting in improved motion, such as this review on HDTVTest.co.uk...

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ke55s9c-201310273395.htm 


> Quote:
> The other method to reduce motion blur on the Samsung curved OLED entails turning on the [Clear Motion] feature in the “Custom” [Motion Plus] submenu, which activates black frame insertion (BFI). Again, this improved motion resolution to 1080 lines, but not without its own caveats due to the way this technology works. The addition of black frames in-between the original video frames increases flicker and reduces screen luminance, though the KE55S9C still managed to pump out 160 cd/m2 on a 100% white windowed pattern with both [Cell Light] and [Contrast] cranked up to maximum, which says a lot about OLED’s inherent brightness.



I've used Clear Motion on a Samsung F8000 OLED, and it was great, so I'd very much want this on an OLED set, if brightness allows.


Come on, LG! 


Desk


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24311615
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24310858
> 
> 
> Do the current crop of LG OLEDs put out sufficient brightness to allow for black frame insertion without becoming too dim?
> 
> 
> -fafrd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are references in reviews to the Samsung OLED set employing black frame insertion, resulting in improved motion, such as this review on HDTVTest.co.uk...
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ke55s9c-201310273395.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> The other method to reduce motion blur on the Samsung curved OLED entails turning on the [Clear Motion] feature in the “Custom” [Motion Plus] submenu, which activates black frame insertion (BFI). Again, this improved motion resolution to 1080 lines, but not without its own caveats due to the way this technology works. The addition of black frames in-between the original video frames increases flicker and reduces screen luminance, though the KE55S9C still managed to pump out 160 cd/m2 on a 100% white windowed pattern with both [Cell Light] and [Contrast] cranked up to maximum, which says a lot about OLED’s inherent brightness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've used Clear Motion on a Samsung F8000 OLED, and it was great, so I'd very much want this on an OLED set, if brightness allows.
> 
> 
> Come on, LG!
> 
> 
> Desk
Click to expand...


Sounds like insertion of a single frame is about the most the current OLED's have the brightness for. Inserting more black frames would make the flicker unnoticeable and further improve motion blur, but would also result in an even dimmer image...


160 Nits makes it sound like they _might_ have additional brightness to spare, but all white was really not the best test to use - checkerboard would probably have been better.


Anyway, if LG has already implemented BFI on the KE55S9C, I don't see why they would not continue to offer the capability on their other OLEDs going forward...


-fafrd


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24308712
> 
> 
> Distortion? Discoloration? Small, crap, stupid??? Please! This TV is on display at Value Electronics in Scarsdale NY and it blows away everything in the store. What are you guys smoking in your pipes!



You're suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance, which is fine. Everyone here wants you to enjoy your TV. Sincerely.


That said, 55 inches is small for many of us. Way too small. A 70-inch can be had for ~$1500. An 80-inch can be had for


----------



## Mr.SoftDome

Boy I guess I am one of the few that likes the curved look. Just from purely an appearence point of view and not the picture itself I find the LG to be the sexiest set I have seen hands down.


I would like to see a 70 wall mounted but to me the ultra modern look along with other modern furniture in the room makes for an awesome look.


I will save my final judgement until I can see one wall mounted some day but the LG is one sexy and modern looking set. Very 2014 and beyond.


Leave the floral couches and traditional look at the door!


Love it and surprised it bothers so many folks. I thought the curvature was subtle after looking at it a while in store.


Rick


----------



## tubby497




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.SoftDome*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24312864
> 
> 
> Boy I guess I am one of the few that likes the curved look. Just from purely an appearence point of view and not the picture itself I find the LG to be the sexiest set I have seen hands down.
> 
> 
> I would like to see a 70 wall mounted but to me the ultra modern look along with other modern furniture in the room makes for an awesome look.
> 
> 
> I will save my final judgement until I can see one wall mounted some day but the LG is one sexy and modern looking set. Very 2014 and beyond.
> 
> 
> Leave the floral couches and traditional look at the door!
> 
> 
> Love it and surprised it bothers so many folks. I thought the curvature was subtle after looking at it a while in store.
> 
> 
> Rick



I feel the same way. I like the curve and LG is one slick looking tv.


----------



## piquadrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24311938
> 
> 
> Sounds like insertion of a single frame is about the most the current OLED's have the brightness for. Inserting more black frames would make the flicker unnoticeable and further improve motion blur, but would also result in an even dimmer image...
> 
> -fafrd


Why? Brightness depends on the filing factor not the frequency. Especially in such a short transient state time.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8490#post_24308978
> 
> 
> What method do Trusted Reviews use for measuring latency?



Since they didn't post their method, there is no way to verify. I'm guessing they compared against another display which also had lag (plasma or lcd). I'd trust the numbers from hdtvtest over this any day.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24312804
> 
> 
> You're suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance, which is fine. Everyone here wants you to enjoy your TV. Sincerely.
> 
> 
> That said, 55 inches is small for many of us. Way too small. A 70-inch can be had for ~$1500. An 80-inch can be had for


----------



## Rich Peterson

Interesting KoreaITTimes article about a new display technology coming out of Korea called *OLET* for Organic Light-Emitting Transistor.


Source: http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/34927/advent-olet-will-send-oled-market-doldrums 


> Quote:
> The South Korean display industry has come out on top in LCD and OLED, becoming the envy of the world. Yet, Profession Lee is already making preparations for the future, refusing to sit on his laurels. What he is currently keen on is an organic light-emitting transistor (OLET).
> 
> 
> In contract to OLED that has two electrodes (the cathode and anode), OLET, a new light-emission concept, comes with three electrodes, giving it a competitive edge over OLED. OLET uses network electrodes, so it can emit light in the same structure without being affected by the type of substrates.
> 
> 
> The centerpiece of OLET lies with addressing OLED’s shortcomings. The supply of light though vertical-type organic transistors can solve OLED’s problems, so OLET will soon take over from OLED.
> 
> 
> Though China, armed with LCD technologies, is fast closing in on South Korea, equipped with OLED technology, China still lags far behind South Korea in OLET technology. Professor Lee has already applied for a patent on his OLET technology. Once he gets his OLET technology patented, the OLED market will decline sharply.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8500_100#post_24313942
> 
> 
> Since they didn't post their method, there is no way to verify. I'm guessing they compared against another display which also had lag (plasma or lcd). I'd trust the numbers from hdtvtest over this any day.


That seems likely. HDTVtest use the Leo Bodnar lag tester (a simple device that sends a signal, and has a photosensor which is held on the display, and the time delay is measured) and I believe they measure the whole screen and use the worst result.

Plasmas update the entire screen at once, so it does not make a difference whether you use the top, center, or bottom measurement.

LCDs, and likely OLEDs, typically measure higher latency at the bottom of the screen than the top, because the image is updated line-by-line rather than the whole screen at once.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520_60#post_24314219
> 
> 
> Interesting KoreaITTimes article about a new display technology coming out of Korea called *OLET* for Organic Light-Emitting Transistor.
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/34927/advent-olet-will-send-oled-market-doldrums
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> The South Korean display industry has come out on top in LCD and OLED, becoming the envy of the world. Yet, Profession Lee is already making preparations for the future, refusing to sit on his laurels. What he is currently keen on is an organic light-emitting transistor (OLET).
> 
> 
> In contract to OLED that has two electrodes (the cathode and anode), OLET, a new light-emission concept, comes with three electrodes, giving it a competitive edge over OLED. OLET uses network electrodes, so it can emit light in the same structure without being affected by the type of substrates.
> 
> 
> The centerpiece of OLET lies with addressing OLED’s shortcomings. The supply of light though vertical-type organic transistors can solve OLED’s problems, so OLET will soon take over from OLED.
> 
> 
> Though China, armed with LCD technologies, is fast closing in on South Korea, equipped with OLED technology, China still lags far behind South Korea in OLET technology. Professor Lee has already applied for a patent on his OLET technology. Once he gets his OLET technology patented, the OLED market will decline sharply.
Click to expand...

 

Ok, I love any alternative display technology and I want to thank you for bringing another acronym to my world, but list out what that article really says:

 

Some academic has an idea, (so)
He's "already" applied for a patent, (means nothing)
and when he gets it the world will be upended. (huh?)

 

Is there something else besides "Go Korea" here?


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> but they are quite likely correct that it's about solving the overall problem of making lots of displays.


I would think another advantage of curved screens would be to get people talking and thinking about them. Someone in BestBuy who know nothing about oled might look at one and start asking questions. Even if they have no desire for a curved screen, they might find they want oled. Without the curved screen they might just have walked by and ignored it. They can't make many and they aren't going to sell a lot at the high prices, but at least getting people interested now might convince them to buy a year or two down the road, when they are more plentiful, less costly, and flatter.










> Quote:
> Do the current crop of LG OLEDs put out sufficient brightness to allow for black frame insertion without becoming too dim?


Don't forget that when you reduce the duty cycle of oled, you can increase the drive current. So if they did black frame insertion which would take up, say 25% of the time the frame would otherwise be displayed, they can probably drive the oleds hard enough to get 85% or 90% of the brightess without shortening the life of it. Which admittedly might still be "too dim". I would think that 3d would be a bigger concern as far as brightness goes.


----------



## Artwood

The emperor truly has no clothes.


The Video Display Industry is so absurd nowadays that people who used to be thought of as having some sort of credibility around here are defending the lunacy of curved displays!


Even some of the sellouts to LCD because it is fast becoming the ONLY technology that you can buy are becoming speechless when it comes to curved screens!


I'll tell all of those people how it will play out around here:


It'll start out with low post count folks saying how they like the LOOK of curved screens.


Then you'll hear more posts of science sounding mumbo jumbo from the eye glass chart visual acuity PhDs people extolling curved screen virtues.


When they finally figure out over 5 or 10 years that OLED will cost so MUCH because LCD is so cheap--the Korean/LG OLED producers will go out of business just like the Japanese Panasonic Sony..whoever else is Japanese producers of today.


They'll change what they call OLED once only China makes ALL LCDs--isn't that what they did when going from LCD to LED?


OLED called something else will THEN finally get here because China will have NO ONE undercutting them in price.


That future grandson of OLED will only go down if Vietnam ever gets into the display business.


The business financial know it alls will still be here 20 years from now--the LICKERS will still be here like the LCD Lickers of today--it may be some of the kids of the ones who post here now who claim to understand the so called Greatness of LCD and then are surpised by OLED curved screens!


IF there is an OLED successor it will happen because of an alliance between Wal-Mart and China and the place that will sell these will be a new venture called Wal-Lux!


The only thing guaranteed when ti comes to the TV business is it cycles through cheaper and cheaper and cheaper ALWAYS on the way towards worse quality DEFENDED by people at this enthusiast forum.


Is that crazy or what?


----------



## madtapper

Here to defend my low post count and say I hate the curve.


----------



## Randomoneh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24320957
> 
> 
> The emperor truly has no clothes...


Everything fine with curved displays in use cases where one person is the user.

In hardware benchmarks, free performance is always welcomed (recent example: Mantle API), even when performance increase is as low as few percentage points. Then who could complain about the ability to curve your monitor and gain free immersion in form of higher FOV coverage? No sane person, really.


----------



## NLPsajeeth

If you live in the LA area, are free tomorrow (Feb 7, 2014) and have $275 to spend, you might be interested in the

SID LA Chapter One-Day Symposium on Advanced TV Technologies


The first presentation is titled "Why is OLED-TV Taking so Long?" and is being made by Ho Kyoon Chung, Chair Professor and Director of the Samsung SMD OLED Center, Sungkyunkwan University.

http://www.sidlachapter.org/Technologies%20for%20Adavanced%20Generatiion%20Television.htm


----------



## Artwood

I'm proud of you madtapper.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Randomoneh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24321548
> 
> 
> Everything fine with curved displays in use cases where one person is the user.
> 
> In hardware benchmarks, free performance is always welcomed (recent example: Mantle API), even when performance increase is as low as few percentage points. Then who could complain about the ability to curve your monitor and gain free immersion in form of higher FOV coverage? No sane person, really.


Not if it distorts the image more than a flat screen, because the content isn't being shot to display correctly with a curved screen.


----------



## Randomoneh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24323661
> 
> 
> Not if it distorts the image more than a flat screen, because the content isn't being shot to display correctly with a curved screen.


Well we encounter it every day with video content on flat screens (camera's effective FOV not matching the FOV display is covering = perspective distortion ) and I don't see anyone complaining.

Direct3D, OpenGL and other APIs allow for projection methods to match the surface (in this case curved, cylindrical) and user interfaces are orthogonal anyway so there will be no distortion there (not horizontally).


For video content, it's catch-22, isn't it? If you think about it, curve will be a huge success in monitor market.

The way I see it, watching video content is increasingly becoming a one-person thing so having the ability to switch between flat and concave (for computer content, future video content) is a bonus and nothing to be afraid of.


Honestly i don't even care If curved TV's take off. As I said, computer monitors is where I'll be.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Randomoneh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520_60#post_24324130
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24323661
> 
> 
> Not if it distorts the image more than a flat screen, because the content isn't being shot to display correctly with a curved screen.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we encounter it every day with video content on flat screens (camera's effective FOV not matching the FOV display is covering = distortion)
Click to expand...

 

No, and I'm not sure where on earth you're getting this from.  The geometric distortion that's to be avoided is when that video content is captured to a flat sensor and then displayed on a non-flat device. In the case of movie theaters, it can't be realistically avoided because of focus issues.

 

And while we're at it, all other already existing flat panel "distortion" that people errantly seem to think is equivalent in this discussion (such as viewing a flat panel on angle) are linear in nature.  Distorting a rectilinear object (the display) to a trapezoid results in no unusual distortion that we're not already accustomed to.  As we see in real life, we can easily reconcile objects that are on angle and recede into the distance and therefore have lines drawn back to a vanishing point.  Note: Those are *straight lines! * What we're not particularly good at is seeing lines that should be straight suddenly curve around.

 

Had the sensor been curved to start with, and the display to match, with your eyes positioned in the exact viewing spot, you would be able to have curved information displayed properly.  To start with flat sensor information and then go and *bend* that information before it reaches our eyes is just silly.


----------



## Randomoneh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24324269
> 
> 
> ...


As you already know, with rectilinear lens, light is falling to the sensor at an angle. When image is finally displayed, that angle is to be preserved, this time with position of our head IF we want to preserve a proper projection and scale. Deviating from this position will result in either stretching or shrinking parts of the image, *even though straight lines will remain straight*. In other words, it'll result in perspective distortion .


Perfect way to experiment with this is to artificially increase or decrease field of view of a virtual 3D game camera. But you already know this, of course.


If you don't want to call stretching & shrinking _distortion_, what do you want to call it?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Randomoneh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520_60#post_24324352
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24324269
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> As you already know, with rectilinear lens, light is falling to the sensor at an angle. When image is finally displayed, that angle is to be preserved, this time with position of our head IF we want to preserve a proper projection and scale. Deviating from this position will result in either stretching or shrinking parts of the image, *even though straight lines will remain straight*. In other words, it'll result in perspective distortion .
> 
> 
> Perfect way to experiment with this is to artificially increase or decrease field of view of a virtual 3D game camera. But you already know this, of course.
> 
> 
> If you don't want to call stretching & shrinking *distortion*, what do you want to call it?
Click to expand...

 

Call it something *other* than the distortion produced by curved screens.  If the lines are straight, that "stretching" you're referring to is no different from what we encounter from moment to moment.  What's *not* acceptable is taking information with straight lines and curving them.

 

If you want to have a semantic argument about terminology, knock yourself out.  But the problem with curved displays is centric to the term *curve,* and that term is clear.


----------



## Randomoneh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24324417
> 
> 
> If you want to have a semantic argument about terminology, knock yourself out.


It's exactly what I want to avoid here. Obviously, there are different types of distortion. It was never my intention to say that the distortion produced by the curve is *equal* to the perspective distortion (which is a result of incorrect viewing distance, or surface size - of course).


Both of these distortions, when present, are standing in the way of proper (1:1) representation of the 3D world. That's all.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Randomoneh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24324130
> 
> 
> For video content, it's catch-22, isn't it? If you think about it, curve will be a huge success in monitor market.



We probably need to define terms here, but I'd go with "it will be somewhat successful in an increasingly small monitor market."


> Quote:
> The way I see it, watching video content is increasingly becoming a one-person thing so having the ability to switch between flat and concave (for computer content, future video content) is a bonus and nothing to be afraid of.



One-person video is on a handheld screen, not a fixed, stand-up monitor or TV. Curved iPads anyone?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24327120
> 
> 
> 
> One-person video is on a handheld screen, not a fixed, stand-up monitor or TV. Curved iPads anyone?



Please, don't joke! I'm starting to feel like I'm in an episode of 'The Prisoner'...


-fafrd


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24327397
> 
> 
> Please, don't joke! I'm starting to feel like I'm in an episode of 'The Prisoner'...



The longer I hang out on AVS, the more I feel like No. 6.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24327120
> 
> 
> We probably need to define terms here, but I'd go with "it will be somewhat successful in an increasingly small monitor market."
> 
> One-person video is on a handheld screen, not a fixed, stand-up monitor or TV. Curved iPads anyone?



Curved phones might be around soon.


----------



## Artwood

Since everyone thinks that the future will be smaller sizes and CURVED--is a CRT comeback right around the corner?


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24328334
> 
> 
> Since everyone thinks that the future will be smaller sizes and CURVED--is a CRT comeback right around the corner?


Maybe if they are as light and thin as LCD/OLED and curve inwards


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24328328
> 
> 
> Curved phones might be around soon.



LG G-Flex (6" Curved & flexible P-OLED (Plastic organic light-emitting diodes) Available in Europe, coming to the US in April.


----------



## JWhip

Wow, that will be a PITA in your pocket. What total stupidity.


----------



## Rich Peterson

I noticed there's an LG authorized online dealer selling the LG OLED for $6999 delivered with no tax when purchased through a well-known online retailer's marketplace. That's lower than I've seen it online before. At the time I'm writing this they say they have only one new one in stock at that price.


----------



## tubby497




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24328705
> 
> 
> I noticed there's an LG authorized online dealer selling the LG OLED for $6999 delivered with no tax when purchased through a well-known online retailer's marketplace. That's lower than I've seen it online before. At the time I'm writing this they say they have only one new one in stock at that price.



I believe Cleveland Plasma is having sale, LG OLED for $6500. It's great that the prices are coming down!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520_60#post_24327120
> 
> 
> One-person video is on a handheld screen, not a fixed, stand-up monitor or TV. Curved iPads anyone?


 

I routinely chuckle at the concept of someone trying to close the cover of a curved screen notebook.

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*
> 
> 
> Please, don't joke! I'm starting to feel like I'm in an episode of 'The Prisoner'...


 

My favorite simile regarding this increasingly absurd industry is that much of this is like being on board the I.S.S. Enterprise.  But that's a bit of a geeky reference.

 

Seriously, I never would have guessed they'd want to actually bend a TV.


----------



## RandyWalters




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24328632
> 
> 
> Wow, that will be a PITA in your pocket. What total stupidity.



Actually, i think the curved phone would be popular with women who wear tight designer jeans but keep their bulky phone in the back pocket (thereby ruining my view).


A curved phone would follow the contour of their booty much better than the flat ones do so i'm all for it.


----------



## JimP

And for guys that wear their phones on a belt clip, putting in a bit of a curve would be a good thing....especially as these phones keep getting larger.


Before you know it, you'll be wearing a curved pablet on your hip.


----------



## JWhip




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RandyWalters*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24329484
> 
> 
> Actually, i think the curved phone would be popular with women who wear tight designer jeans but keep their bulky phone in the back pocket (thereby ruining my view).
> 
> 
> A curved phone would follow the contour of their booty much better than the flat ones do so i'm all for it.



Sure, you can make phone butt implants and have the best of both worlds.


----------



## slacker711

LG cuts the price of their 55" OLED from $8500 to $7000 in the US.

http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-55EA9800-Cinema-Curved/dp/B00E5U3YEK


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24333465
> 
> 
> LG cuts the price of their 55" OLED from $8500 to $7000 in the US.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-55EA9800-Cinema-Curved/dp/B00E5U3YEK



And some of Amazon's marketplace sellers have dropped the price to $6499.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24333465
> 
> 
> LG cuts the price of their 55" OLED from $8500 to $7000 in the US.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-55EA9800-Cinema-Curved/dp/B00E5U3YEK



Gotta love the "reviews" on Amazon.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520#post_24314247
> 
> 
> That seems likely. HDTVtest use the Leo Bodnar lag tester (a simple device that sends a signal, and has a photosensor which is held on the display, and the time delay is measured) and I believe they measure the whole screen and use the worst result.



Late reply but I was browsing some other reviews on that site and compared their numbers from other TVs they tested.

They measured 33ms for the VT65 plasma. HDTVTest got ~42ms using the bodnar. I also saw that trustedreviews uses PC gaming LCDs (6-8ms lag) as their reference so the numbers make sense.


So now I'm confused how they managed to achieve 33ms from the LG OLED. Using the bodnar, that would have been equivalent to ~42ms.










If the street price hits $5K, I might need to investigate this one further.


----------



## rogo

So obviously demand is somewhat elastic, but do we seriously think there is going to be a meaningful uptick in demand at $6500-7000? The Sharp Elite (at 70 inches, mind you), could move barely any units... low tens of thousands... for one year... before disappearing.


I realize LG can push the price down again, but I don't see global demand at $6500 being 200,000 units. Anyone else think different?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520_60#post_24335188
> 
> 
> So obviously demand is somewhat elastic, but do we seriously think there is going to be a meaningful uptick in demand at $6500-7000? The Sharp Elite (at 70 inches, mind you), could move barely any units... low tens of thousands... for one year... before disappearing.
> 
> 
> I realize LG can push the price down again, but I don't see global demand at $6500 being 200,000 units. Anyone else think different?


 

Only when I look at the demand and sales charts on one of their curved displays.  Makes things kinda better toward the right.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24335188
> 
> 
> So obviously demand is somewhat elastic, but do we seriously think there is going to be a meaningful uptick in demand at $6500-7000? The Sharp Elite (at 70 inches, mind you), could move barely any units... low tens of thousands... for one year... before disappearing.
> 
> 
> I realize LG can push the price down again, but I don't see global demand at $6500 being 200,000 units. Anyone else think different?



I'd take the under on 200,000 units. The key question though is how many units they can move at $3500 flat screen version during Christmas 2015. That looks like a realistic price now.


It would have been an absolute slam dunk before but 4K does complicate things. The OLED will likely have better reviews for image quality than any of the 4K sets but it is entirely possible that 4K will be a requirement for most high-end consumers by next year. I am not sure how much of a premium the 4K OLED sets are going to require. They dont cost much more if your substrate yields are good but that might be a limiting factor for LG.


----------



## vinnie97

"Who can take it?"


----------



## SeLfMaDe111985




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RandyWalters*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24329484
> 
> 
> Actually, i think the curved phone would be popular with women who wear tight designer jeans but keep their bulky phone in the back pocket (thereby ruining my view).
> 
> 
> A curved phone would follow the contour of their booty much better than the flat ones do so i'm all for it.



Personally makes more sense to have a curved phone, might be a little more comfortable hence the slight curve from your ear to mouth. I'm all for that but not curved TVs. If all OLED comes curved then like shark tank...I'm out


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24335328
> 
> 
> I'd take the under on 200,000 units. The key question though is how many units they can move at $3500 flat screen version during Christmas 2015. That looks like a realistic price now.



It does. To clarify, though, that's about 19 months from now because to impact that quarter's sales, the price needs to be in place by October of 2015. I'm not doubting the price is doable, just putting a time frame on it. However....


> Quote:
> It would have been an absolute slam dunk before but 4K does complicate things. The OLED will likely have better reviews for image quality than any of the 4K sets but it is entirely possible that 4K will be a requirement for most high-end consumers by next year. I am not sure how much of a premium the 4K OLED sets are going to require. They dont cost much more if your substrate yields are good but that might be a limiting factor for LG.



.... I believe 100% of high-end LCDs sold in the world's leading economies will be 4K by the end of next year. If your product is not 4K, it will be a sub $2000 product -- period. In the U.S., Vizio is going to make it impossible to sell 2K above $3000, in my opinion, no matter who your brand is this year (not sure if this really affects anyone, just saying that will become the absolute maximum possible this year). And by 2015, the lack of 4K will simply take the product out of the premium category.


There's a secondary moving target here which is that although the OLEDs will be the best reviewed, the return of local-dimming LCDs is toes in the water this year for Sony and Toshiba and up-to-the-waist for Vizio. There is no reason why it can't grow next year, stay with 4K, and be $2500 for 55" (with Vizio, you'll either get 70" for that much or spend $1000 less for the smaller size).


Now, of course, LG could go to 4K and keep the pricing constant, i.e. still reach $3500 at 55 inches by next year's holiday season. It would be the most expensive display, but it would be a reasonable alternative at that scenario. If it's $4500 for the 4K, it will still be "unreasonable" and limited only to people with really discerning eyes, I think, who are few and far between.


I believe they need to focus on killing the 2K model as soon as possible. It's really not worth trying to establish it when the basis for competition has moved to 4K.


----------



## dsinger

"I believe they need to focus on killing the 2K model as soon as possible. It's really not worth trying to establish it when the basis for competition has moved to 4K."


Perhaps this has an influence on the price drop. There can't be much inventory for the 2k sets. Hope this is true and the replacement is 4k, FLAT and at the same price. If this happens I would see it as an indication that yields have improved significantly.


----------



## slacker711

Chinese vendors are expecting to release 55" OLED televisions (panels from LG) by October.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140210PD208.html


----------



## Rich Peterson

Those wondering about OLED yields may get some info in this article which doesn't specify sources but includes this line:


> Quote:
> Sources are now saying that LG is approaching 70% yield, and Samsung is at 40-50%.


.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8520_60#post_24336839
> 
> 
> Those wondering about OLED yields may get some info in this article which doesn't specify sources but includes this line:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Sources are now saying that LG is approaching 70% yield, and Samsung is at 40-50%.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 

LG's yield number is for 2K OLED or 4K?  I had thought LG was remaining in the 2K OLED game for another year, or do I have this wrong?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24336870
> 
> 
> LG's yield number is for 2K OLED or 4K?  I had thought LG was remaining in the 2K OLED game for another year, or do I have this wrong?



The yields cited have to be a 2K number. The question is how much worse is the 4K number and that depends on what is driving the current 30% 2K failure rate. If it is primarily the IGZO backplane, then 4K is going to need a significant premium but if it is vapor deposition, then LG will be able to bring down the prices rapidly.


Regardless though, I expect a big premium when the first 4K OLED's debut.


----------



## slacker711

CNET says that the current version of LG's 55" OLED will be on sale through mid-year.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-6482_7-57618638/lg-slashes-curved-oled-tv-price-in-half/


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24335188
> 
> 
> So obviously demand is somewhat elastic, but do we seriously think there is going to be a meaningful uptick in demand at $6500-7000? The Sharp Elite (at 70 inches, mind you), could move barely any units... low tens of thousands... for one year... before disappearing.
> 
> 
> I realize LG can push the price down again, but I don't see global demand at $6500 being 200,000 units. Anyone else think different?



They only hard sales numbers I have is that in Korea they are selling around 100 units a month. So the Korean market is what, maybe 10% the world market? So total guess, they are moving 1000 units a month worldwide.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24336482
> 
> 
> *I believe 100% of high-end LCDs sold in the world's leading economies will be 4K by the end of next year. If your product is not 4K, it will be a sub $2000 product -- period.* In the U.S., Vizio is going to make it impossible to sell 2K above $3000, in my opinion, no matter who your brand is this year (not sure if this really affects anyone, just saying that will become the absolute maximum possible this year). And by 2015, the lack of 4K will simply take the product out of the premium category.
> 
> 
> There's a secondary moving target here which is that although the OLEDs will be the best reviewed, the return of local-dimming LCDs is toes in the water this year for Sony and Toshiba and up-to-the-waist for Vizio. There is no reason why it can't grow next year, stay with 4K, and be $2500 for 55" (with Vizio, you'll either get 70" for that much or spend $1000 less for the smaller size).
> 
> 
> Now, of course, LG could go to 4K and keep the pricing constant, i.e. still reach $3500 at 55 inches by next year's holiday season. It would be the most expensive display, but it would be a reasonable alternative at that scenario. If it's $4500 for the 4K, it will still be "unreasonable" and limited only to people with really discerning eyes, I think, who are few and far between.
> 
> 
> I believe they need to focus on killing the 2K model as soon as possible. It's really not worth trying to establish it when the basis for competition has moved to 4K.



I think what you've written is spot-on and I also believe that Panasonic came to more or less the same conclusion mid last year, which is the real reason they decided to pull the plug on their plasma business...


-fafrd


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24338221
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24336482
> 
> 
> *I believe 100% of high-end LCDs sold in the world's leading economies will be 4K by the end of next year. If your product is not 4K, it will be a sub $2000 product -- period.* In the U.S., Vizio is going to make it impossible to sell 2K above $3000, in my opinion, no matter who your brand is this year (not sure if this really affects anyone, just saying that will become the absolute maximum possible this year). And by 2015, the lack of 4K will simply take the product out of the premium category.
> 
> 
> There's a secondary moving target here which is that although the OLEDs will be the best reviewed, the return of local-dimming LCDs is toes in the water this year for Sony and Toshiba and up-to-the-waist for Vizio. There is no reason why it can't grow next year, stay with 4K, and be $2500 for 55" (with Vizio, you'll either get 70" for that much or spend $1000 less for the smaller size).
> 
> 
> Now, of course, LG could go to 4K and keep the pricing constant, i.e. still reach $3500 at 55 inches by next year's holiday season. It would be the most expensive display, but it would be a reasonable alternative at that scenario. If it's $4500 for the 4K, it will still be "unreasonable" and limited only to people with really discerning eyes, I think, who are few and far between.
> 
> 
> I believe they need to focus on killing the 2K model as soon as possible. It's really not worth trying to establish it when the basis for competition has moved to 4K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what you've written is spot-on and I also believe that Panasonic came to more or less the same conclusion mid last year, which is the real reason they decided to pull the plug on their plasma business...
> 
> 
> -fafrd
Click to expand...

*You don't think Japanese labor costs had anything to do with it?*


----------



## vinnie97

Not that much because their manufacturing base expanded in the name of globalization like most other multinational firms.


----------



## Weboh


But the Plasma TV factory was in Japan!!


----------



## vinnie97

THE factory? What factory were they using in Mexico then?


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24334840
> 
> 
> And some of Amazon's marketplace sellers have dropped the price to $6499.



Well, you snooze you lose... price is back up to $6999 (at the time I'm writing this).


----------



## vinnie97

^I'm still seeing it available from Beach Camera, but only one. Hardly low enough to make me jump (or many others I would imagine).


----------



## RandyWalters




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24338551
> 
> 
> But the Plasma TV factory was in Japan!!


No it wasn't. They built the plasma panel modules there, but they manufactured the TVs in Mexico.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24336936
> 
> 
> The yields cited have to be a 2K number. The question is how much worse is the 4K number and that depends on what is driving the current 30% 2K failure rate. If it is primarily the IGZO backplane, then 4K is going to need a significant premium but if it is vapor deposition, then LG will be able to bring down the prices rapidly.
> 
> 
> Regardless though, I expect a big premium when the first 4K OLED's debut.



This makes sense... but....


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24337721
> 
> 
> CNET says that the current version of LG's 55" OLED will be on sale through mid-year.
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-6482_7-57618638/lg-slashes-curved-oled-tv-price-in-half/



The way I read that -- and I admit I am reading between the lines, which I have a better-than-average track record of doing -- is that they are keeping the 2K model until mid year and then killing it in favor of the 4K models.


If this is correct -- and yes, it's a big if.


1) I can't see them raising the prices of the replacement models. Sales would actually _fall_ if they did. $7000 still sounds like a ridiculous amount for a 55-inch TV.

2) It suggests the bigger yield problems are still on the vapor depo side and not on the IGZO side. It's worth noting that while there are probably issues with refining IGZO, it should become very straightforward sometime soon (from a yield perspective). The vapor depo step is a mess, however, and will likely never be ideally. They will tweak the process and get better at it. But it will always be a weakness of this manufacturing method.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24338038
> 
> 
> They only hard sales numbers I have is that in Korea they are selling around 100 units a month. So the Korean market is what, maybe 10% the world market? So total guess, they are moving 1000 units a month worldwide.



I dunno, sytech. But that sounds believable.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8550#post_24338262
> 
> *You don't think Japanese labor costs had anything to do with it?*



No, module labor costs are a tiny portion of flat-panel TV costs. TV assembly wasn't even done in Japan for most markets. And, besides, the yen has been falling under Abenomics. So, no, it wasn't labor.


The killer moment was this: Once sales started to slip, factory utilization went below an acceptable threshold. That creates a cost problem. You can't run the fab at 20% utilization and make money. You can't run the fab at higher utilization but only for a few months and make money. Both create impossible labor-scheduling/cost issues even with low labor. And they create supply-chain problems/balance-sheet issues, too.


The math stopped working below a certain capacity. Plasma's demise killed plasma.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24339940
> 
> 
> The way I read that -- and I admit I am reading between the lines, which I have a better-than-average track record of doing -- is that they are keeping the 2K model until mid year and then killing it in favor of the 4K models.
> 
> 
> If this is correct -- and yes, it's a big if.
> 
> 
> 1) I can't see them raising the prices of the replacement models. Sales would actually _fall_ if they did. $7000 still sounds like a ridiculous amount for a 55-inch TV.
> 
> 2) It suggests the bigger yield problems are still on the vapor depo side and not on the IGZO side. It's worth noting that while there are probably issues with refining IGZO, it should become very straightforward sometime soon (from a yield perspective). The vapor depo step is a mess, however, and will likely never be ideally. They will tweak the process and get better at it. But it will always be a weakness of this manufacturing method.



LG announced a 2nd generation 1080p set at CES. It is supposed to be a streamlined set with fewer components and lower power consumption.


I cant guarantee that they'll launch it but I'm also not sure why their plans would have changed in the last month. I hope you are right though about LG's primary problems being with vapor deposition because I think that the quick move to 4K is likely going to be OLED's biggest obstacle.


----------



## Weboh


Then, the value of the Yen, plus assembly costs which is most of it is what did it. Panasonic is now more interested more in durable goods. I think their interest in getting out of the Japanese TV making market was supreme. LG would have left the market if it was plasma undoing plasma. There are still fundamental burn-in problems with Panasonic's TVs too, but their TVs have not went down in price before selling through. And I am, of course, skeptical of OLED. The indicators aren't obvious, and plasma TVs will likely persist to exist past 2015, despite the anti-hype.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RandyWalters*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24339749
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24338551
> 
> 
> But the Plasma TV factory was in Japan!!
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't. They built the plasma panel modules there, but they manufactured the TVs in Mexico.
Click to expand...

The screens were in Japan? Interesting, and I am surprised by the fact that Mexico was used to assemble PDPs. I wonder if LG and Samsung use Chinese or Mexican labor as of now.


----------



## vinnie97

Whatever's the cheapest you bet they do.


----------



## irkuck

 They have now bent OLED in mind.


----------



## Weboh


Yes, but Chinese or Mexican labor? I don't know which.


----------



## 9179mhb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24340951
> 
> 
> 
> The screens were in Japan? Interesting, and I am surprised by the fact that Mexico was used to assemble PDPs. I wonder if LG and Samsung use Chinese or Mexican labor as of now.



I have a (9) year old PDP that was made in Japan and a (7) year old PDP that was assembled in America. Both displays, each w/more than 10,000 hours of operation, still render a very nice picture.


Now, don't get me started on H1B visa foreign workers.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Members might be interested to know Kateeva has a link to Rogo's Forbes article on their website.

http://kateeva.com/news-events/in-the-news/


----------



## Jason626




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24345982
> 
> 
> Members might be interested to know Kateeva has a link to Rogo's Forbes article on their website.
> 
> http://kateeva.com/news-events/in-the-news/


Great article. Well written.

Can other tv manufactures make there own printing method without infringing on kateeva patents? It would seem like Samsung with all there struggling would do something unless the don't want to pay up for kateeva tech and develop there own thinking they can save money.


----------



## vinnie97

Panasonic has purportedly developed their own method already. A lot of good it's done them given all they've delivered are prototypes.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24340473
> 
> 
> LG would have left the market if it was plasma undoing plasma.



LG will likely leave it soon enough. And your conclusion is in error, anyway. Just because someone leaves first doesn't mean the entire industry isn't suffering.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jason626*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24346066
> 
> 
> Great article. Well written.



Thanks!


> Quote:
> Can other tv manufactures make there own printing method without infringing on kateeva patents? It would seem like Samsung with all there struggling would do something unless the don't want to pay up for kateeva tech and develop there own thinking they can save money.



Others can certainly develop printing, but if Kateeva has an edge, there is no reason to. Let's clarify something: When you build a fab for anything (chips, displays, whatever), you buy equipment from other manufacturers. You don't make everything in house. In semiconductors, for example, Applied Materials, KLA Tencor, many others sell equipment to companies to build fabs. That's the business Kateeva is trying to be in for OLED displays.


You would either (a) buy their stuff (b) buy someone else's (c) develop your own _only if_ the market offered nothing attractive enough. Now, to date LG and Samsung have had to roll their own OLED mfg. solutions, but even there all the parts are surely not sourced in house. For one thing, the OLED materials are not.


Kateeva probably has some patents that make it hard to do things the way they do, but others can develop competing printable OLED fabricating machines.


Incidentally, it's no coincidence that Kateeva just opened in Korea and the world's largest OLED makers are in Korea. The company wants to do business with them.


----------



## coolscan

More details on how LG flexible OLED displays are made:

http://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-details-their-flexible-oled-process-expects-flexible-oled-market-reach-41-billion-2020 


> Quote:
> LGD explains the structure of their flexible OLED panel (see below). It is based on a plastic (polyimide) substrate as we already know, and LG gives some more information about their Face Seal method which was discussed before but with very little details.
> 
> 
> 
> So it turns out that Face Seal (developed by LG themselves) is a multi-layered organic and in-organic film. LG's scheme (shown above) also explains why those plastic OLEDs are thinner than glass-based OLEDs, with the Face-Seal film encapsulating over the organic materials directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LGD also shows us the manufacturing process (see above). They first coat the polyimide on a a glass sheet. The TFTs are formed on the polyimide, and then the organic layers and the encapsulation layers are deposited. Finally, the glass is removed (delaminated) which makes the panel flexible. LG also adds a "back plate" to the flexible panel to make it stronger, it's not clear what that back plate is exactly.


----------



## coolscan

I don't know if I understand this right; Seems to me _a Dr. Jorge Guillermo Dominguez Chavez, researcher at the Faculty of Bioanalysis UV at Mexico's Universidad Veracruzana developed a new OLED emitter molecule that can produce both Red, Green and Blue colors.


These so-called multicromoforico molecules may enable simpler OLED material fabrication._


Does this mean that in the future instead of three separate RGB pixels, it will be possible to have one RGB pixel emitting the whole color spectrum?


From Spanish vis google translate; 

There is also a YouTube video in the original link explaining further, but unfortunately only in Spanish.

_UV Researchers develop a molecule capable of producing the three colors needed to detonate the color range within the OLED diodes. This novel development is far to the way that the organic coloring emitting diodes, since currently such technology requires the excitation of electrons of various organic molecules, which expose the green, red and blue color (RGB color system) to generate luminescence.


But Dr. Jorge Guillermo Dominguez Chavez, researcher at the Faculty of Bioanalysis UV, seeks to obtain a system called multicromofórico, ie the creation of a single molecule to emit three colors RGB system without the need to synthesize three separate molecules. That development will achieve energy savings which will contribute to the new OLED-based technologies, such as flexible displays, extend their operating time.


Multicromofórica synthesizing a molecule could provide an organic diode capable of emitting the entire color spectrum. This is possible because the UV experts developed a system that can change the desired color (red, green or blue) without the need to chemically alter the molecule.


Dominguez Chavez said: "For an RGB LED has to synthesize a compound different for each color. We employ a single molecule capable of changing its color through the addition of small chromophoric molecules that bind to the host, through supramolecular interactions "._


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8500_100#post_24346704
> 
> 
> Does this mean that in the future instead of three separate RGB pixels, it will be possible to have one RGB pixel emitting the whole color spectrum?


Hopefully - this is one of the big advantages projectors have over flat panels. (single-chip DLPs in particular, as there are no convergence issues)


----------



## Weboh




> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24346374
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24340473
> 
> 
> LG would have left the market if it was plasma undoing plasma.
> 
> 
> 
> LG will likely leave it soon enough. And your conclusion is in error, anyway. Just because someone leaves first doesn't mean the entire industry isn't
Click to expand...

The entire flat panel industry is supposedly suffering, so your conclusion is bunk. Good point, nonetheless. But to say Panasonic didn't want to sell car-parts and appliances instead is a total misunderstanding of their economics. Everyone thought LG would be the next one to give, and it has turned out to be a false prophecy. Samsung would be the first to give after successfully killing LG. Not even close yet.


----------



## ynotgoal

A number of people have posted regarding a particular price where they would buy an OLED TV. My question is if the LG 55" OLED TV by December this year were priced at $4500 for 2K or $7500 for 4K, would you buy it and if so, which one? Assume it's curved and I already know those of you who will never ever buy a curved set won't buy it.


----------



## bigcoupe2003

I would purchase the 4K model personally however I'm not opposed to the 1080p either $4500 would be reasonable for myself, however if it was wall mountable I would definitely jump on it. I would pay $6500 for a 1080p 65inch oled if were available.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24346220
> 
> 
> Panasonic has purportedly developed their own method already. A lot of good it's done them given all they've delivered are prototypes.



This is the reason I am not holding out much hope for Kateeva and OLED in general. It seems like Sony and Panasonic have been trying various things for a decade to get viable yields for OLED with no luck. They even tried the printing method. So now comes along Kateeva and with the addition of the sealed nitrogen chamber to reduce defects, they have claimed success. I really hope it is true, but the fact neither Sony nor Panasonic figured it out is reason for concern. Kateeva could wind up being a modern day Spatialight. Like when they claimed advancement in LCOS yields when Phillips and other electronic giants could not.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24346933
> 
> 
> The entire flat panel industry is supposedly suffering, so your conclusion is bunk.



We'll agree to disagree. Feel free to put your track record here up against mine anytime.


> Quote:
> Everyone thought LG would be the next one to give, and it has turned out to be a false prophecy.



Apparently, not everyone thought that. I never even think about LG plasma at all. I always presumed Panasonic would give up first.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24349674
> 
> 
> This is the reason I am not holding out much hope for Kateeva and OLED in general. It seems like Sony and Panasonic have been trying various things for a decade to get viable yields for OLED with no luck.



Kateeva looked a the problem with different eyes and came up with very different solutions. Those solutions basically never occurred to Panasonic and Sony.


> Quote:
> So now comes along Kateeva and with the addition of the sealed nitrogen chamber to reduce defects, they have claimed success.



Kateeva looked at why printing fails. And it deciding that having nearly inert nitrogen in a closed system that was moisture free was the solution. Again, this idea never occurred to Panasonic or Sony, which basically tried to advance methods that have gotten nowhere for 10 years.


> Quote:
> Kateeva could wind up being a modern day Spatialight. Like when they claimed advancement in LCOS yields when Phillips and other electronic giants could not.



It could, but LCOS was a solution in search of a problem. Projection was already a dead tech by the time the LCOS revolution was supposed to somehow resurrect it. Why was that going to happen?


The projector industry is in dire straits, too, by the way. It's banking on personal and pico projectors (which are tiny price and tiny margin) to make up for the fact that nearly all of the rest of the market has (or will) disappear.


Just check this out...


Forecast for 2012:

Pacific Media Associates Forecasts 31% Growth Rate for Worldwide Projector Shipments in 2012 (to 12.4 million)


Oops...

Pacific Media Finds Worldwide Projector Market Neared 10 Million Units in 2011


But, hey, we'll grow in 2012, right?

Pacific Media Associates Expects Worldwide Projector Market to Top 11 Million Units in 2012


Oops!

PMA Reports Projector Market Hit 9.5 Million in 2012


But hey, we'll grow in 2013... I mean, oops, we won't grow....

Worldwide Projector Market to Hit 9.5 Million Units in 2013


Looking forward to the final numbers next week or so....


----------



## catonic

The Chinese will save us rogo!









I say that as a happy home theatre projector owner, who hopes to upgrade to a 4k projector system when all the dust settles.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*
> 
> 
> This is the reason I am not holding out much hope for Kateeva and OLED in general. It seems like Sony and Panasonic have been trying various things for a decade to get viable yields for OLED with no luck. They even tried the printing method. So now comes along Kateeva and with the addition of the sealed nitrogen chamber to reduce defects, they have claimed success. I really hope it is true, but the fact neither Sony nor Panasonic figured it out is reason for concern. Kateeva could wind up being a modern day Spatialight. Like when they claimed advancement in LCOS yields when Phillips and other electronic giants could not.



Keep in mind that the co-inventer of OLED is tech chief at Kateeva. All that Sony and Panasonic concluded is that for the time being affordable OLED is out of the question.This is also what H.S. Kim from Samsung concluded. Kateeva finding a solution does not mean there will be cheap inkjet printing TVs next year or two years from now..


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580_60#post_24352122
> 
> 
> Kateeva finding a solution does not mean there will be cheap inkjet printing TVs next year or two years from now..


And if a solution means cheaper OLEDs will be available 3 years from now, it's not obvious that enough people will want to buy them 3 years from now. Because LCD-LED will have moved on, also.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24352122
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that the co-inventer of OLED is tech chief at Kateeva. All that Sony and Panasonic concluded is that for the time being affordable OLED is out of the question.This is also what H.S. Kim from Samsung concluded. Kateeva finding a solution does not mean there will be cheap inkjet printing TVs next year or two years from now..



The pivotal question here is with the Kateeva process, will that drop cost for manufacturers to the level that they can be competitive.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24352483
> 
> 
> The pivotal question here is with the Kateeva process, will that drop cost for manufacturers to the level that they can be competitive.



A printable OLED with good yields means we can start projecting the end of LCD's.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24352907
> 
> 
> A printable OLED with good yields means we can start projecting the end of LCD's.



On this we completely agree. The timetable would still be long-ish due to lead times and the sheer amount of LCDs out there, but we could see it.


----------



## slacker711

Does anybody know whether the new LG UltraHD OLED's are going to support the Rec 2020 color space? A quick Google search doesnt pick up any info either way.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580_60#post_24355880
> 
> 
> Does anybody know whether the new LG UltraHD OLED's are going to support the Rec 2020 color space? A quick Google search doesnt pick up any info either way.


I wasn't able to find out about LG UHD, either, but I think the answer to your question must be "no", since according to The Pointer's Gamut , not even high quality wide-gamut monitors cover the entire color space of Rec. 2020. A table near the end of this article gives roughly 75-80% coverage of the Rec. 2020 gamut for the monitor panels it lists (including several from LG).


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24352907
> 
> 
> A printable OLED with good yields means we can start projecting the end of LCD's.



I doubt that OLED will completely take over the display marked.


Printable OLED will mostly benefit OLED, but will lag behind LCD in brightness within a year or two.

In addition to brightness, LCD's improved improved color rendition based on second generation Quantum Dot/LED backplanes with local dimming will be close to OLED color reproduction.


The biggest "revolution" in electronics manufacturing which will also largely benefit displays manufacturing and lower cost will be Printable Electronics (including IGZO on plastic), which will benefit LCD and OLED equally.


As soon as one of the big players invest some money in large scale roll-to roll manufacturing of Printable Electronics we will see displays that are made of just a bunch of plastic sheets. All the solution for printing advanced electronics circuits are in place, including components like Transistors, LED(non-phosphor coated), re-writable memory, sensors, batteries and other useful components.


Roll-to-roll Printable Electronics can today be printed at a speed of several meters a second. Imagine what impact this will have on manufacturing of electronics.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8580#post_24346704
> 
> 
> I don't know if I understand this right; Seems to me _a Dr. Jorge Guillermo Dominguez Chavez, researcher at the Faculty of Bioanalysis UV at Mexico's Universidad Veracruzana developed a new OLED emitter molecule that can produce both Red, Green and Blue colors.
> 
> 
> These so-called multicromoforico molecules may enable simpler OLED material fabrication._
> 
> 
> Does this mean that in the future instead of three separate RGB pixels, it will be possible to have one RGB pixel emitting the whole color spectrum?


The way I understand this press release is that this discovery enables one simple manufacturing process to produce all three OLED materials. This will save a ton of money and might help reduce the price we pay but OLED displays will still need separate RGB emitters.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> Does anybody know whether the new LG UltraHD OLED's are going to support the Rec 2020 color space? A quick Google search doesnt pick up any info either way.


 http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/lg-hevc-201401033549.htm


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8610#post_24356278
> 
> 
> I doubt that OLED will completely take over the display marked.
> 
> 
> Printable OLED will mostly benefit OLED, but will lag behind LCD in brightness within a year or two.
> 
> In addition to brightness, LCD's improved improved color rendition based on second generation Quantum Dot/LED backplanes with local dimming will be close to OLED color reproduction.



How much are those increased brightness LCD's going to cost? or the 4K LCD's covering the rec 2020 color space? or local dimming? LCD's have managed to create a number of innovative ways to make up for their shortcomings but they all involve adding another layer of cost. I believe that vapour deposition based OLED's can compete on price in the high-end. If you switch to printable, you are going to bring prices down in the mainstream television market.


Lifetime will still be an issue so laptop LCD's would remain, but I dont think that it is an exaggeration to say that we could start projecting the end of LCD. As rogo said, it will take a while, but that's no different than the transition to any new display technology. CRT's stuck around for years after it had become clear that they were a dead technology.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8610#post_24356454
> 
> 
> How much are those increased brightness LCD's going to cost? or the 4K LCD's covering the rec 2020 color space? or local dimming? LCD's have managed to create a number of innovative ways to make up for their shortcomings but they all involve adding another layer of cost. I believe that vapour deposition based OLED's can compete on price in the high-end. If you switch to printable, you are going to bring prices down in the mainstream television market.


It is no reason that LCD with QDF back-light should have an increased cost. Quantum Dot material and QD film products might be expensive right now because it is new, but the technology of making QDF back-light for LCD displays is not a technological complicated process.

You even save on the phosphor which they need for conventional LED back-light products.










It is the properties of the Quantum Dot materials ability to produce increased light output compared to other phosphorus materials that make them better suited.


> Quote:
> Lifetime will still be an issue so laptop LCD's would remain, but I dont think that it is an exaggeration to say that we could start projecting the end of LCD. As rogo said, it will take a while, but that's no different than the transition to any new display technology. CRT's stuck around for years after it had become clear that they were a dead technology.



I believe when Quantum Dot technology (not to be confused with the QDF back-light technology for LCD) mature some more and take over OLED's position as a material of choice for making displays, preferably printed, first then we will see real competition for LCD.


----------



## 8mile13

Plasma was cheaper than LCd, had better PQ + burn-in, just like OLED...I do not see OLED taking over the Display market. Seems to me that _

a no to Plasma is a no to OLED_.


----------



## Artwood

What is a no to LCD?


----------



## vinnie97

Soon to be a world with no displays.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8610#post_24356616
> 
> 
> It is no reason that LCD with QDF back-light should have an increased cost. Quantum Dot material and QD film products might be expensive right now because it is new, but the technology of making QDF back-light for LCD displays is not a technological complicated process.
> 
> You even save on the phosphor which they need for conventional LED back-light products.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the properties of the Quantum Dot materials ability to produce increased light output compared to other phosphorus materials that make them better suited.
> 
> I believe when Quantum Dot technology (not to be confused with the QDF back-light technology for LCD) mature some more and take over OLED's position as a material of choice for making displays, preferably printed, first then we will see real competition for LCD.



So why has Sony dropped all reference to QD in their 2014 televisions? HDGuru reports that it isnt in their lineup. I would have expected that QD would have spread into more of their high-end lineup this year.


While I have my doubts on whether QD will compete with printable OLED's, I am surprised at the lack of progress in 2014.


Longer term, I expect that they'll need to solve the issues with Cadmium.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> 
> So why has Sony dropped all reference to QD in their 2014 televisions? HDGuru reports that it isnt in their lineup. I would have expected that QD would have spread into more of their high-end lineup this year.



hdguru makes non such claim. All they are saying is ''according to a Sony rep''
https://www.google.nl/search?q=sony+quantum+dots+2014&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:nl-NL:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=&gfe_rd=cr&ei=uWr-Ut6_EIWk0AW1-ICQBg 


hdguru Sony 2014 TV Lineup
http://hdguru.com/sony-2014-tv-lineup-ultra-hd-4k-triluminos-and-more/


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8610#post_24357594
> 
> 
> hdguru makes non such claim. All they are saying is ''according to a Sony rep''



I think you are splitting hairs here. HDGuru reported what they were told as is the case with most reports that arent directly in a press release.


I have looked for reports with statements directly from Sony or its reps but have yet to find anything. If it is QD, they seem to be hiding that fact. No idea why.


----------



## vinnie97

^And to hide it would be dumb, IMO, especially if you want to make your set more appealing to the high-end buyer.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> I think you are splitting hairs here. HDGuru reported what they were told as is the case with most reports that arent directly in a press release.


I have seen two hdguru mistakes in 2013. One was the mentioning of Gorilla Glass in the 2013 Sony line up and the other one was refering to the Samsung S9 as being a Edge Lit. There is no Gorilla Glass in 2013 Sony's and the Samsung S9 is a FALD..


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> I have looked for reports with statements directly from Sony or its reps but have yet to find anything. If it is QD, they seem to be hiding that fact. No idea why.


For what its worth, according C|NET TRILUMINOS is Sony's term for a technology also known as Quantum Dots. And there will be several of them in the 2014 line up.
http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/sony-kdl-55w900a/4505-6482_7-35561946.html


----------



## Artwood

Notice the ONLY LCD world you hear about around here nowadays--


Sounds like New World Order TVs to me!


The black helicopters have already landed and they're forcing non minded people to express their support for LCD.


When mighty Sony can't stop the mindless LCD automatons (but has joined them) you know that the New World Order has also taken over Hollywood.


No one can stop the madness.


The countdown to the world's end at Wrestlermania LXIX has begun!


Who can take it?


----------



## comtrend

Have there been any confirmations about hdmi 2.0 on the upcomming LG UHD OLED 65EC9800 ?


----------



## vaktmestern




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *comtrend*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8610#post_24361026
> 
> 
> Have there been any confirmations about hdmi 2.0 on the upcomming LG UHD OLED 65EC9800 ?



2.0hdmi on all 2014 Lg udhd oleds


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8600_100#post_24358140
> 
> 
> For what its worth, according C|NET TRILUMINOS is Sony's term for a technology also known as Quantum Dots. And there will be several of them in the 2014 line up.


This is a common misconception. Triluminos has been used since the Qualia 005 in 2004. Prior to the 2013 displays, it has always indicated that the display was using individual red, green, and blue LEDs for its backlight.


QD Film was able to create similarly pure RGB light from blue LEDs in the 2013 models, which is presumably why they stuck with the Triluminos name.

Some places have been reporting that the 2014 models are back to using RGB LEDs rather than QD Film.


----------



## wjchan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vaktmestern*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8610#post_24361740
> 
> 
> 2.0hdmi on all 2014 Lg udhd oleds



18Gbps receivers?


----------



## irkuck

^What is the 18Gb/s content you wanna push and from where it is coming? All new receivers definitely support current HDMI 2.0 specs, problems is there is nothing on the content side to fulfill it. There is even no computer with HDMI 2.0.


----------



## dsinger

^ No 18.3 Gbit content that I am aware of at the moment. However if I was going to spend the amount of $ these sets will cost in the next year or so I would want to have them as future proof as possible. Regarding support for current 2.0 spec, there seems to be more than one 2.0 spec. The new Sony top of the line 950B's in the fine print of the detailed specs show that they only support 2160 p60 input with 4:2:0 color space at 8 bits and 10.2 Gbit. An Australian site when Sony released the firmware update for their 2013 4k sets called it 2.0b.


----------



## 8mile13

seems to me that no TV fully supports HDMI 2.0


----------



## dsinger

^ Panasonic claims to make their own HDMI 2.0 hardware and their 65" 4k LCD when released last Fall supposedly meets the full 2.0 spec. However, I do not have links to independent tests that prove this.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8610#post_24364690
> 
> 
> ^ No 18.3 Gbit content that I am aware of at the moment. However if I was going to spend the amount of $ these sets will cost in the next year or so I would want to have them as future proof as possible. Regarding support for current 2.0 spec, there seems to be more than one 2.0 spec. The new Sony top of the line 950B's in the fine print of the detailed specs show that they only support 2160 p60 input with 4:2:0 color space at 8 bits and 10.2 Gbit. An Australian site when Sony released the firmware update for their 2013 4k sets called it 2.0b.



That was exactly the reason of my question. No 4:2:0 60p content even yet but chances you will ever see 4:4:4 or 4:2:2: on your planned TV are slim, very slim. Theoretically 4:4:4 is natural and required for computer generated content but no computer hardware/monitor manufacturer announced support for HDMI 2.0. This may happen soon if some brave company will dare to do this but it seems that computer industry is waiting for the new DisplayPort 1.3 standard which is not ready yet on paper yet but getting close. Then they will offer DP1.3/HDMI2.0 connectors bundled. But even if one would count on games, for games played at [email protected] and 4:4:4 one needs a very beefy computer, 2xTitan is entry level. The conclusion is either to buy now and enjoy the present 1080p content or waiting 2 years when this chaos will hopefully settle. But then first rumors about the coming 8K technology will be emerging so there is no anything future-proof anymore







.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*
> 
> ]^ Panasonic claims to make their own HDMI 2.0 hardware and their 65" 4k LCD when released last Fall supposedly meets the full 2.0 spec. However, I do not have links to independent tests that prove this.


so the TX L65WT600 is the first TV that has a HDMI 2.0 input


and at CES 2014 their Ultra HD 4K AX800 series is the first one with the ability to decode Full Ultra HD 4K content. So the TX L65WT600 is not able to decode Full Ultra HD 4K content









http://efytimes.com/e1/126554/ViXS-XCode--SoC-Powers-Panasonics-New-Ultra-HD-K-Television-With-Support-For-True-Ultra-HD-K-Decoding


----------



## NLPsajeeth




> Quote:
> Does anybody know whether the new LG UltraHD OLED's are going to support the Rec 2020 color space? A quick Google search doesnt pick up any info either way.



It won't. Nothing short of laser TVs are capable of supporting the full Rec 2020 color space. OLED displays have a wider color gamut that most typical LCD displays but no where near full Rec 2020 yet.


> Quote:
> 18Gbps receivers?



It is possible, the chips are out there, however they may choose to be cheap and only go for 10 Gbps.


> Quote:
> seems to me that no TV fully supports HDMI 2.0



Incorrect, the Panasonic TX-L65WT600 does support everything up to [email protected] RGB/4:4:4. It does NOT have HDCP 2.2 support nor support for [email protected] RGB over DP 1.2 via SST.


> Quote:
> Panasonic claims to make their own HDMI 2.0 hardware



This is a fact
http://panasonic.co.jp/corp/news/official.data/data.dir/2013/09/en130912-4/en130912-4.html 


> Quote:
> This may happen soon if some brave company will dare to do this but it seems that computer industry is waiting for the new DisplayPort 1.3 standard which is not ready yet on paper yet but getting close. Then they will offer DP1.3/HDMI2.0 connectors bundled.



The problem is not DisplayPort 1.3. The problem is that TCON technology is not mature enough to handle the high bandwidth rates required for 4K 60p RGB/4:4:4 at 8 bit and beyond. Such chips will be available towards the end of the year.

The DisplayPort 1.2 spec was released in 2009 and has support for up to 4K 60p RGB 10-bit. It is 2014 and we still don't have a monitor that supports the maximum of DP1.2. The DisplayPort 1.3 spec will be released this year (2014). Who knows how long it will take for chips to arrive that support the max of that spec.


> Quote:
> and at CES 2014 their Ultra HD 4K AX800 series is the first one with the ability to decode Full Ultra HD 4K content. So the TX L65WT600 is not able to decode Full Ultra HD 4K content



"Full Ultra HD 4K" isn't a thing, it is pure marketing fluff.

The TX -L65WT600 can certainly support [email protected] RGB over DP 1.2 via MST. It should be able to support [email protected] RGB over HDMI 2.0 with out HDCP 2.2 however there are no public source devices to test this. It also doesn't not have an HVEC decoder.


Hollywood has mandated that HDCP 2.2 is a requirement to display any of its 4K content. A 4K display without HDCP 2.2 support will not be able to display such content. Streaming video services are standardizing on HVEC for 4K content.


The Panasonic AX800 has support for HDCP 2.2 and a built in HVEC decoder. It is not know whether it has support for [email protected] RGB over DP 1.2 via SST.


----------



## Ron Jones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8610#post_24365084
> 
> 
> so the TX L65WT600 is the first TV that has a HDMI 2.0 input
> 
> 
> and at CES 2014 their Ultra HD 4K AX800 series is the first one with the ability to decode Full Ultra HD 4K content. So the TX L65WT600 is not able to decode Full Ultra HD 4K content
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://efytimes.com/e1/126554/ViXS-XCode--SoC-Powers-Panasonics-New-Ultra-HD-K-Television-With-Support-For-True-Ultra-HD-K-Decoding



The decoding of 4K UHD content within the UHD TV only comes into play for supporting 4K UHD streaming services, such as the Netflix 4K UHD services which will use the HEVC codec that Panasonic, and many others, already announced they will be including in their 2014 UHD TVs. Sources such as the upcoming Blu-ray 4K UHD players will surely have the decoders within the player and thus will not need, nor use, the HEVC decoder within the TV. I also expect the same situation for the upcoming DirecTV UHD DVRs.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8600_100#post_24364754
> 
> 
> seems to me that no TV fully supports HDMI 2.0
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/content/type/61/id/376031/width/500/height/700


Thanks for this image - it looks like anything in orange is optional, as I have seen a number of displays using "HDMI 2.0" which do not even have 8-bit 4:4:4 support at 60Hz, only 4:2:0 support.

I don't know why the HDMI standards are so lax. It seems like the main goal for HDMI 2.0 was an HDCP update rather than anything to do with better image quality.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> Thanks for this image - it looks like anything in orange is optional, as I have seen a number of displays using "HDMI 2.0" which do not even have 8-bit 4:4:4 support at 60Hz, only 4:2:0 support.
> 
> I don't know why the HDMI standards are so lax. It seems like the main goal for HDMI 2.0 was an HDCP update rather than anything to do with better image quality.



its an image from HDMI.org - *What are the 4K formats supported by HDMI 2.0?* 

 

_NOTE_

. *BOLD* texts are new with HDMI 2.0


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NLPsajeeth*
> 
> 
> 
> the Panasonic TX-L65WT600 does support everything up to [email protected] RGB/4:4:4. It does NOT have HDCP 2.2 support nor support for [email protected] RGB over DP 1.2 via SST.
> 
> 
> The TX -L65WT600 can certainly support [email protected] RGB over DP 1.2 via MST. It should be able to support [email protected] RGB over HDMI 2.0 with out HDCP 2.2 however there are no public source devices to test this. It also doesn't not have an HVEC decoder.
> 
> 
> Hollywood has mandated that HDCP 2.2 is a requirement to display any of its 4K content. A 4K display without HDCP 2.2 support will not be able to display such content. Streaming video services are standardizing on HVEC for 4K content.


So the TX-L65WT600 is not able to play Hollywood 4K stuff (no HDCP 2.2 support). And because it has no HVEC decoder it is not able to do 4K streaming. Basically the TX-L65WT600 has very limited 4K abilities dispite its full HDMI 2.0 support. To me such a TV is not a UHD TV.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8600_100#post_24366271
> 
> 
> its an image from HDMI.org - *What are the 4K formats supported by HDMI 2.0?*
> _NOTE_
> 
> . *BOLD* texts are new with HDMI 2.0


Oh, I see. It might have been useful to post that.


It would also have been a lot more useful if the HDMI site had posted which formats are _required_ for HDMI 2.0 certification.

With Sony doing 60Hz at 4:2:0 for example, clearly RGB/4:4:4 are not required. (and they're the only ones which matter)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8600_100#post_24366391
> 
> 
> So the TX-L65WT600 is not able to play Hollywood 4K stuff (no HDCP 2.2 support). And because it has no HVEC decoder it is not able to do 4K streaming. Basically the TX-L65WT600 has very limited 4K abilities dispite its full HDMI 2.0 support. To me such a TV is not a UHD TV.


Well that assumes HDCP 2.2 will be required. HTPC software bypasses the HDCP requirements for current Blu-rays, as do many cheap HDMI switches.

I'm sure that there will be external streaming solutions in the not-too-distant future - if you even care about streaming. I don't.


----------



## rightintel

So which new displays(at CES or otherwise) have a 2.0 that allows for the new HVEC 2.65 codec?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8610#post_24356278
> 
> 
> Printable OLED will mostly benefit OLED, but will lag behind LCD in brightness within a year or two.
> 
> In addition to brightness, LCD's improved improved color rendition based on second generation Quantum Dot/LED backplanes with local dimming will be close to OLED color reproduction.
> 
> 
> The biggest "revolution" in electronics manufacturing which will also largely benefit displays manufacturing and lower cost will be Printable Electronics (including IGZO on plastic), which will benefit LCD and OLED equally.
> 
> 
> As soon as one of the big players invest some money in large scale roll-to roll manufacturing of Printable Electronics we will see displays that are made of just a bunch of plastic sheets. All the solution for printing advanced electronics circuits are in place, including components like Transistors, LED(non-phosphor coated), re-writable memory, sensors, batteries and other useful components.
> 
> 
> Roll-to-roll Printable Electronics can today be printed at a speed of several meters a second. Imagine what impact this will have on manufacturing of electronics.



So this is fascinating stuff and I tend to agree it's exciting. The thing about printable OLED that's true, though, is fundamentally, OLED is a "simpler" display to build than LCD. The reason why it doesn't seem that way now is that yields are still awful for the OLED deposition and the cycle times are still slow-ish. Fix those things, and OLED should get fundamentally cheaper. And assuming this comes with even slightly better power consumption, and you find few applications where LCD is superior.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8610#post_24356454
> 
> 
> How much are those increased brightness LCD's going to cost? or the 4K LCD's covering the rec 2020 color space? or local dimming? LCD's have managed to create a number of innovative ways to make up for their shortcomings but they all involve adding another layer of cost. I believe that vapour deposition based OLED's can compete on price in the high-end. If you switch to printable, you are going to bring prices down in the mainstream television market.



Well, I think it goes perhaps farther. The likelihood is that if printing ends up working out, it will make the screens for smartphones and tablets clearly cheaper than LCDs, which should rapidly diffuse OLED down to cheaper and cheaper devices. If LCD loses those segments, it begins to lose most of the important part of the market.


> Quote:
> Lifetime will still be an issue so laptop LCD's would remain, but I dont think that it is an exaggeration to say that we could start projecting the end of LCD. As rogo said, it will take a while, but that's no different than the transition to any new display technology. CRT's stuck around for years after it had become clear that they were a dead technology.



Yep, it would still probably take a decade, but it would be clearer that it was happen. Again, we're saying, "If printables become commonplace." And the reason then becomes economic.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8610#post_24357193
> 
> 
> Plasma was cheaper than LCd, had better PQ + burn-in, just like OLED...I do not see OLED taking over the Display market. Seems to me that _
> 
> a no to Plasma is a no to OLED_.



I think Slacker points out that laptops would likely remain LCD. But in things with 2-4 lifespans like smartphones, longevity concerns don't seem very important. Maybe tablets bifurcate into "laptop-like" units and "others" and only the former becomes OLED-centric. Or maybe OLED lifespan improves by small-ish amounts which are more than enough.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8610#post_24357500
> 
> 
> So why has Sony dropped all reference to QD in their 2014 televisions? HDGuru reports that it isnt in their lineup. I would have expected that QD would have spread into more of their high-end lineup this year.
> 
> 
> While I have my doubts on whether QD will compete with printable OLED's, I am surprised at the lack of progress in 2014.



Sony probably did this for money reasons. That's bad for improving economies of scale on QD films. Still, the stuff is in the el cheapo Amazon tablet.....


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8610#post_24358140
> 
> 
> I have seen two hdguru mistakes in 2013.....l



So, I couldn't get anyone at Sony to tell me the QD film was there, suggesting it probably isn't.


----------



## Artwood

Rogo: Is there hope for an OLED world--one where at least 20% of consumers get a great picture from it at an affordable price?


I don't care if the other 80% of the morons EVER get it--let them watch LCD monstrosities! They DESERVE video Hades!


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8640#post_24366591
> 
> 
> It would also have been a lot more useful if the HDMI site had posted which formats are _required_ for HDMI 2.0 certification.
> 
> With Sony doing 60Hz at 4:2:0 for example, clearly RGB/4:4:4 are not required. (and they're the only ones which matter).



Once again this illustrates well the 4K chaos. RGB/4:4:[email protected] input in TV is theoretically absolute must for computer/gaming, and low delay for that matter. But at present this is pure theory as there is no computer device having HDMI 2.0 output. Still theoretically, such devices could be made, e.g. graphics adapter cards. This however gets on the level of turf wars between the computer and TV industry. Computer industry hates to be on the mercy of HDMI and thus provides HDMI only in a bundle with its own DisplayPort. For the equivalence with full specs of HDMI 2.0 they need new DisplayPort 1.3 specs which should be finalized only later this year. Then there is hope that sometime in 2015 there will be DisplayPort 1.3 and HDMI 2.0 support in computers.Then, provided somebody buys very heavy iron for [email protected] gaming, the RGB/4:4:[email protected] input on a TV will become an absolute must.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Not much new here, but a couple quotes I thought might be of interest.

*A Tech Too Soon - Samsung Electronics Taking a Pause in OLED TV Business*


Source: BusinessKorea 


G Electronics has recently lowered the prices of its OLED TVs by a large margin. Under the circumstances, much attention is being paid to Samsung Electronics’ next-generation TV business strategy.


At present, LG Electronics is continuing its R&D and investment in OLED TV for price cut, but Samsung Electronics is focusing on ultra high-definition (UHD) TV rather than OLED TV. Still, the UHD TV market is a tough battle as well because the mid-end segment of the market has already been dominated by Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturers.


Samsung Electronics brought UHD TVs to the fore at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 2014 in Las Vegas. *“There is no doubt that OLED is a very nice technology, but we think that technological perfection should come before its commercialization,” said a high-ranking executive of the company, adding, “It seems that three to five more years will be taken until the market will be in full bloom.”* Samsung Electronics is planning to release a full line-up of UHD TVs this year and concentrate on them for a while as its next-generation TV products.


Experts say that this is associated with the product yield and some technological challenges. The average price of its OLED TVs is approximately 100 million won (US$94,300), which is quite burdensome for many customers. The unit cost of production has to be cut in order to address this matter, but there are not a few technological problems. This is why Samsung has not been able to make a decision for investment in the manufacturing of large screen OLED TVs. Samsung Display President Park Dong-geon has announced that he will finalize its plan for investment in the A3 plant located in Asan City, South Chungcheong Province, before the end of the first half, but the plant is dedicated to small and mid-sized OLED panels.


“Samsung Electronics has no confidence in investment in large-screen OLED panels,” said an industry insider. However, LG Electronics is showing an aggressive stance these days, marking down the price of its 55-inch OLED TV to 6.2 million won (US$5,847).


Samsung is unlikely to distinguish itself in the UHD TV market, at least for the time being. The global demand for UHD TVs reached three million units last year, and the Chinese market accounted for more than 80% of it.


LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics focused on the high-end market last year, releasing mainly 55-inch or larger products. In the meantime, Taiwanese and Chinese companies such as Innolux found their way into the mass-market segment to increase their presence to the point of threatening both of the Korean manufacturers.


----------



## vinnie97

LG going it alone...lesse if they release all those new models as intimated at CES this year.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8640#post_24368227
> 
> 
> Rogo: Is there hope for an OLED world--one where at least 20% of consumers get a great picture from it at an affordable price?
> 
> 
> I don't care if the other 80% of the morons EVER get it--let them watch LCD monstrosities! They DESERVE video Hades!



Try keep an open mind, there are good LCD displays out there specifically the ones with full-array's and local-dimming. OLED does exhibit many of the issues that plague Plasmas and the better technology doesn't always win out so consider that. Company's will continue to improve LCD picture quality it's not going anywhere anytime soon from the look of things.










PS: Currently I'm holding out for my next display to be an OLED preferably 100+ in size 4k is a must but the way things are looking it's way more likely I'll see an 100+ or larger 4k LED with a full-array and local-dimming and with very comparable picture quality much sooner then I'll ever see an OLED version. Price is also huge factor to consider as we'll, i'm all for the best picture quality possible but pice always factors in.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8640#post_24369916
> 
> 
> Try keep an open mind, there are good LCD displays out there specifically the ones with full-array's and local-dimming. OLED does exhibit many of the issues that plague Plasmas and the better technology doesn't always win out so consider that. Company's will continue to improve LCD picture quality it's not going anywhere anytime soon from the look of things.


Trouble is, as nice as some LCDs can be when viewed 'head-on', LCDs will always have that lousy off-axis viewing/deterioration to contend with which is a deal breaker for many...


----------



## vinnie97

The Elite was bad on that front...the Vizio master series is purportedly much better (from a prototype perspective anyway). The question is will it see release this year?


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8640#post_24371218
> 
> 
> The Elite was bad on that front...the Vizio master series is purportedly much better (from a prototype perspective anyway). The question is will it see release this year?



I'm assuming you're referring to the cost?


As for the rumored new Visio, your referencing who knows? It would be nice to see such a display although there's not much (concrete) information to go on as of yet just hype / talk. The Vizio (R> series reference display looks good but it's sure to be pricy.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8600_100#post_24368530
> 
> 
> Once again this illustrates well the 4K chaos. RGB/4:4:[email protected] input in TV is theoretically absolute must for computer/gaming, and low delay for that matter. But at present this is pure theory as there is no computer device having HDMI 2.0 output. Still theoretically, such devices could be made, e.g. graphics adapter cards. This however gets on the level of turf wars between the computer and TV industry. Computer industry hates to be on the mercy of HDMI and thus provides HDMI only in a bundle with its own DisplayPort. For the equivalence with full specs of HDMI 2.0 they need new DisplayPort 1.3 specs which should be finalized only later this year. Then there is hope that sometime in 2015 there will be DisplayPort 1.3 and HDMI 2.0 support in computers.Then, provided somebody buys very heavy iron for [email protected] gaming, the RGB/4:4:[email protected] input on a TV will become an absolute must.


There's nothing theoretical about it. Anything less than 4:4:4/RGB is unsuitable for PC/gaming use. Panasonic seems to manage 4K at 60Hz just fine via DisplayPort 1.2 on its displays.

The problem is that all the other television manufacturers seem to have stuck with HDMI, despite it being an inferior interface. I don't expect HDMI ports to be replaced with DisplayPort, but at least including one would be nice.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8600_100#post_24371218
> 
> 
> The Elite was bad on that front...the Vizio master series is purportedly much better (from a prototype perspective anyway). The question is will it see release this year?


If you are using local dimming, viewing angles are going to be terrible. There's no way around it, unless you can build an LCD panel that doesn't lose any contrast as the viewing angle changes.


----------



## vinnie97

^The aforementioned prototype suggests improvement over the last 3 years.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8600_100#post_24371576
> 
> 
> I'm assuming you're referring to the cost?
> 
> 
> As for the rumored new Visio, your referencing who knows? It would be nice to see such a display although there's not much (concrete) information to go on as of yet just hype / talk. The Vizio (R> series reference display looks good but it's sure to be pricy.


Viewing angles. Those who saw the prototype at CES felt the Vizio was much improved, and there were Sharp Elites on hand to compare. Hopefully, the Vizio will be no more than $4500 (Sony has an SRP'ing their equivalently sized FALD unit at $8000). Still too pricy, but you can be sure it will affect Sony at the high end if the set lives up to the hype.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8640#post_24368970
> 
> 
> Not much new here, but a couple quotes I thought might be of interest.
> 
> 
> ....



So, again, to be clear, Samsung has no technology to manufacture OLED TVs. They simply don't. They have a hacked method that has allowed them to build a few hundred (maybe) prototype TVs and even put them on sale. But the idea this is scalable has always been laughable to people (like myself) who understand how incredibly hacky the method is.


Without either (a) licensing what LG is doing (b) developing a method to print OLED TVs (c) developing an entirely different method to use a mask than anything they use for mobile phone/tablet-sized displays, Samsung cannot mass produce large TVs. And this is the best display manufacturer in the world.


----------



## Rich Peterson

You may have noticed the Samsung OLED is getting harder and harder to find for sale now in the US. At the time I'm writing this you no longer can order from Amazon and many other on-line retailers indicate it's out of stock. It's possible they have stopped manufacturing them altogether (but I really don't know that).


----------



## vinnie97

....who can take it?!


----------



## Chris5028

With all the doom and gloom around here I sure hope my new F8500 lasts forever...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8640#post_24372922
> 
> 
> You may have noticed the Samsung OLED is getting harder and harder to find for sale now in the US. At the time I'm writing this you no longer can order from Amazon and many other on-line retailers indicate it's out of stock. It's possible they have stopped manufacturing them altogether (but I really don't know that).



It would not shock me to learn they have stopped manufacturing them altogether.


That said, like you, I have no intelligence whatsoever to indicate that.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8640#post_24371600
> 
> 
> There's nothing theoretical about it. Anything less than 4:4:4/RGB is unsuitable for PC/gaming use. Panasonic seems to manage 4K at 60Hz just fine via DisplayPort 1.2 on its displays.
> 
> The problem is that all the other television manufacturers seem to have stuck with HDMI, despite it being an inferior interface. I don't expect HDMI ports to be replaced with DisplayPort, but at least including one would be nice.



Panasonic is indeed but one manuf which adds DP1.2 to their UHD TVs. But DP 1.2 is not a clean, sastisfactory solution to the [email protected] driving. DP 1.2 can drive [email protected] Hz only via a feature called MST (Multi Stream Transport) which was originally devised to use with multiple monitors. For the MST the 4K display is logically divided into two vertical half-displays which are driven with different streams. This obviously may lead to all kind of problems like tearing pictures. Graphic cards manufs are perfecting their drivers for the MST but the first question here is if Panasonic TVs support MST or they can only run DP 1.2 in the [email protected] mode? In any case, clean solution requires DP 1.3.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8600_100#post_24373222
> 
> 
> Panasonic is indeed but one manuf which adds DP1.2 to their UHD TVs. But DP 1.2 is not a clean, sastisfactory solution to the [email protected] driving. DP 1.2 can drive [email protected] Hz only via a feature called MST (Multi Stream Transport) which was originally devised to use with multiple monitors. For the MST the 4K display is logically divided into two vertical half-displays which are driven with different streams. This obviously may lead to all kind of problems like tearing pictures. Graphic cards manufs are perfecting their drivers for the MST but the first question here is if Panasonic TVs support MST or they can only run DP 1.2 in the [email protected] mode? In any case, clean solution requires DP 1.3.


This hasn't been a problem for a long time now. It was only an issue when the first 4K displays launched, prior to proper driver support for MST.


----------



## Artwood

So we don't really have Samsung OLED--we don't really have support for 4:4:4--what we basically have is LCD that sucks with the Chinese taking over and dominating.


The outlook is so bleak that the geniuses around here can only talk about little phone screens and argue about FANTASY OLED production possibilities.


Yes--Who can take it?!


Is LG the last hope in a LCD that sucks world?


----------



## mattg3

I feel your pain.Im so ready to say goodby to my 5 year old Samsung 8500 LED.Even full lit and calibrated by D-Nice it still at times has those flashlight effects in a black screen when an object begins to appear.By now i felt Oled would at least show up somewhere we could see it but in Ma. its still a no show at Best Buy.When Tweeter etc. went out of business so did the fun of this video obsession.


----------



## tubby497

So many bad news about OLED.

It makes me think that it will be just another vaporware in display technology.

Come on LG!, you are my last hope!

I guess I have to hold on to my 50" Kuro......sigh....


----------



## Rich Peterson

Because of LG I think there's still a lot of optimism. They say they will be coming out with a flat screen in april, they are updating they current curved models, they say they will be adding larger screen systems, they are selling panels to a couple Chinese companies who should be releasing TVs by the end of the year. I think there is still a lot of positive momentum from LG.


----------



## comtrend

Maybe I'm to much of an optimist, but I'm hoping to buy the LG 65EC9800 OLED in late 2015 at $4000-$5000. The 55" OLED have dropped from $15000 to $6000-$6500 and it hasn't been a year since its release yet. With LGs new OLEDs scheduled to be released in the summer this might be possible ?


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8640#post_24373024
> 
> 
> With all the doom and gloom around here I sure hope my new F8500 lasts forever...


Agreed - and I'm just hoping my 65" Panny ST30 plasma will keep on going for a long time yet then too!


----------



## JWhip

I doubt we will see much in the way of OLED until 2016 at the earliest. I just hope my 141 lasts that long. Knock on wood.


----------



## Mr.SoftDome

I think things will be just fine in a couple of years. We will probably all dig this thread up and get a good laugh. I am sure there will be large high end displays for all and I hope it's OLED leading the way.


It is kind of bizarre how all of this played out and so many manufactures are being pushed out. I just am not a Samsung fan for personal reasons and LG? I never in a million years thought I would have that brand in my house. My stable has been Sony and last purchase Sharpe.


Sales may have tanked to a degree but a new technology isn't going to change that for the most part no matter it be OLED or 4k. Most people including me, or at least my friends I should say are set for now.


I am far from rich, dang I wish but I do get a decent bonus every year. It seems every other year I was paying cash for a higher end display. Heck that had to end. I am sure it's the same for many others.


Can't quite remember the years but:


1st purchase Sony 34XBR960 HD CRT with stand I think $2500

Two years later: Pioneer 5071 50 inch Plasma and new stand. $3300 I believe?

Two years later: Sony 55 XBR8 $4100 I believe?

Two years later: Sharpe Elite 70 $6100 I believe ?


Who can sustain this insanity? It takes folks a lot richer than I. The great thing about it all and I love reading the negativity about the Sharpe but it is that good. Period. Yeah, off-angle fades a bit and yeah calibrators state that there is an issue with cyan but this set is so good it got me off the roller coaster madness. I hit 70 inches which for me and my smaller rooms is perfect but I could see an 80 but that would be it. 70 has finally totally satisfied me. The picture quality going from the XBR8 to the Elite was mind blowing. Just an incredible awesome picture in HD.


What's next? Nothing for now? I will never go backwards in size. HDMI 2.0 not ready. No 4k content. No OLED that matched this criteria and no LCD that matches my Elite. Up converting UHD? Reminds me of the DVD days prior to Blu-Ray. What a joke.


Yup it seems we are in a lull. That won't last. We have all been here long enough to know that. We are just in a bizarre place now. Perhaps like in the final years of CRT with 42 inch crappy plasma's selling for $12k. I am sure OLED will eventually take off. And look that dropped price on the LG is a lot of money still I know but I compare it to the XBR8 I bought. A lot of money but not bad for a new tech and it's in reach for many but 55 is just too small.


If I needed a set I would have bought one of the last Panasonic plasma. Take a break and let it play out and maybe go work on your audio for a while if you still have the bug.


Not too worried about gloom and doom in the display world. We are just in transition. If you are sitting on a five year old display it may be a tough call. I get it but there were excellent display choices available from both camps over the years to hold us over.


Rick


----------



## 9179mhb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.SoftDome*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8640#post_24375224
> 
> 
> It is kind of bizarre how all of this played out and so many manufactures are being pushed out. I just am not a Samsung fan for personal reasons and LG? I never in a million years thought I would have that brand in my house.



IMO LG makes a very fine front-loading clothes washer. I am also interested in seeing the LG 65EC9700.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *9179mhb*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8640#post_24375394
> 
> 
> IMO LG makes a very fine front-loading clothes washer. I am also interested in seeing the LG 65EC9700.



Irrational dislike of the Korean brands dates back to much earlier eras when their quality was low.


Some people's parents and grandparents won't buy Toyotas for the same illogical reasons even though Toyota builds the world's best cars.


Someday, the same will be said about Chinese brands, I'm sure.


(My fridge is Kenmore, but made by LG, incidentally.)


----------



## Mr.SoftDome

My issues with Samsung / LG are all personal and not preconceived notions from the ole days.


I bought a Samsung right before the XBR8. It's the only set/brand that was DOA on arrival. One of my friends same thing. Okay it was a fluke. But whatever.


LG- I am quite sure it was LG, my dad's first plasma. 55 was rare and he had to have it. He could not afford the Pioneer Elite. I tried to talk him in a different direction to no avail. That was one of worst Plasma's I think I have ever seen. So once again personal opinions form.


Look don't care if it's China if that is the way it must be but I expect top notch quality and no issues. My Classe SSP-800 is assembled in China. It has been issue free for 2.5 years and has the quality I expect from Classe. Then there is the other extreme. I bought an awesome Howard Miller chiming mantel clock and it was delivered via Fedx this week. Really ultra modern for that brand. It is quartz and battery powered so chime is a speaker. First when it arrived I was surprised to see made in China and second where you install the batteries and set chimes etc is the speaker that is held in place with two brackets. The speaker was just flopping around. Not secure in the brackets. Really? I mean it was an easy fix and it works fine but come on. It was a $700 clock. So China goes both ways for me.


And what I would miss most is competition. It will suck for us all if all there are is a couple of mfgs competing in the higher end. It's just what I perceive as the best, Sony, Panasonic and Sharpe and long ago, Pioneer are being pushed out. It's just too bad despite the new world order.


And edit- May owe an apology to LG. My dad's horrible display may have been Hitachi? I just don't remember and he past a couple of years ago so I don't quite remember. But my feelings are the same for whatever the reason and yes their current OLED is sexy.

Rick


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8640#post_24376179
> 
> 
> Irrational dislike of the Korean brands dates back to much earlier eras when their quality was low.
> 
> 
> Some people's parents and grandparents won't buy Toyotas for the same illogical reasons even though Toyota builds the world's best cars.
> 
> 
> Someday, the same will be said about Chinese brands, I'm sure.
> 
> 
> (My fridge is Kenmore, but made by LG, incidentally.)



My Oppo and Parasound products are made in China and the quality and customer support are excellent.


Some Korean brands have taken hits for their produce support, but so have companies from Japan, the US, and everywhere else










- Rich


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24376630
> 
> 
> My Oppo and Parasound products are made in China and the quality and customer support are excellent.
> 
> 
> Some Korean brands have taken hits for their produce support, but so have companies from Japan, the US, and everywhere else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich


RichB is right, it all depends on the level of quality control the U.S. (or other) manufacturer wants to exercise over their Chinese factory. It varies wildly. You can make high quality products there if you're willing to put in the oversight, and work hard to keep control of the things in manufacturing that are important.

(And oh yeah, Toyotas are nice cars - but Hondas are even better!







).


----------



## rogo

The vast majority of Apple products are made in China and even Apple haters have to acknowledge that build quality is the industry standard for nearly everything the company sells.


I think it's correct that the company paying Foxconn (or whomever) has a lot of say in what the end product looks like. It's also true that a Chinese-built auto will not -- today -- be Honda/Toyota quality because the machinery/techniques/tooling are simply not equivalent.


I just hate the broad brush. Samsung and LG build great products. A lot of them. Is everything they make great? No, of course not. And in my house, you'll never again see something branded Maytag. (We can be irrational, too!). But bashing all of LG or Samsung because you got one bad one -- without qualifying it with, "I personally won't ever buy HP again because my last 2 HP printers and last 3 HP laptops all sucked and the customer support was freaking terrible" doesn't help the discourse here.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24378304
> 
> 
> The vast majority of Apple products are made in China and even Apple haters have to acknowledge that build quality is the industry standard for nearly everything the company sells.
> 
> 
> I think it's correct that the company paying Foxconn (or whomever) has a lot of say in what the end product looks like. It's also true that a Chinese-built auto will not -- today -- be Honda/Toyota quality because the machinery/techniques/tooling are simply not equivalent.
> 
> 
> I just hate the broad brush. Samsung and LG build great products. A lot of them. Is everything they make great? No, of course not. And in my house, you'll never again see something branded Maytag. (We can be irrational, too!). But bashing all of LG or Samsung because you got one bad one -- without qualifying it with, "I personally won't ever buy HP again because my last 2 HP printers and last 3 HP laptops all sucked and the customer support was freaking terrible" doesn't help the discourse here.



Apple designs, builds & assembles the Mac Pro in United States, however unfortunately many of the parts like the Flash Storage were shipped to the United States over seas to later be integrated into the Pro. But many of the parts for the Mac Pro were built here in the United States factory like the shell for example that we saw in the Mac Pro video, i'm also assuming other things like the power supply and some of electronics were all built here in the United States as well. Even though not all the parts were built in the United States it's definitely 100% designed and assembled in the United States which is a great accomplishment in itself.


Apple also built a sapphire glass plant here in the United States and mentioned future endeavors as well so we'll see what happens.










PS: Had a terrible experience with HP as well but it wasn't with the hardware just the software interface, I upgraded to a Color-Laser which I really like only HP's technical support for Apple has much to be desired.


----------



## wco81

But it's not a high-volume product. Probably in the thousands per quarter, if that. Not hundreds of thousands, maybe not tens of thousands of units per quarter.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24382353
> 
> 
> But it's not a high-volume product. Probably in the thousands per quarter, if that. Not hundreds of thousands, maybe not tens of thousands of units per quarter.



I'd imagine it's much more than that at least thousands per month servicing nationwide, right now they can't make enough the soonest available ship date is August atm.


----------



## irkuck

OLED is not dead. Samsung keeps OLED alive in high volume product: 5.1" Super AMOLED display of 1080p resolution is in the new Galaxy S5 flagship phone . The display is apparently different from the last year Galaxy S4 due to the 0.1" size increase.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*
> 
> OLED is not dead. Samsung keeps OLED alive in high volume product: 5.1" Super AMOLED display of 1080p resolution is in the new Galaxy S5 flagship phone . The display is apparently different from the last year Galaxy S4 due to the 0.1" size increase.


LG keeps Samsung alive







No. LG keeps OLED alive. Samsung sucks in this regard.


----------



## irkuck

^Except that apart of blunt words and visions LG has yet to deliver any high volume OLED product







.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24402583
> 
> 
> OLED is not dead. Samsung keeps OLED alive in high volume product: 5.1" Super AMOLED display of 1080p resolution is in the new Galaxy S5 flagship phone . The display is apparently different from the last year Galaxy S4 due to the 0.1" size increase.



This is good news. indeed. That said, it would not shock me completely to learn that the S5 barely outsells the S4 or even sells a slightly smaller unit count.


----------



## vinnie97

So you sense a departure from the Galaxy with a destination of planet Apple? Or just approaching a smartphone saturation point and/or a lessening desire to upgrade phones yearly (I'm still happy enough with an S3)?


----------



## irkuck

S5 shows the mobile area has reached plateau in terms of hardware and innovation, this is also true for Apple. Samsung just wants to keep commanding position at much lower expense then before by sticking with the same basics and adding gimmicks (like blood pulse monitor). Perhaps there is some breaktrhough lurking somewhere but it is hard to see it in the device itself, maybe something is coming on the service and apps side.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24405322
> 
> 
> This is good news. indeed. That said, it would not shock me completely to learn that the S5 barely outsells the S4 or even sells a slightly smaller unit count.



I think a smaller unit count is pretty much a given. The high-end is shrinking right now. The iPhone unit numbers would have shrank in the December quarter if not for pushing the China release up and getting a new operator (Docomo).


With regards to OLED's, the question is whether Samsung was unable to supply a higher resolution display or simply decided that the cost wasnt worth the return. The S5 seems like a much more focused handset than the S4. They figured out that the crap gimmicks were hurting the overall experience. The S5 looks like what the S4 should have been. It is also a handset that would allow Samsung to start a price war if they so choose.


The Gear Fit is the most interesting product that Samsung announced yesterday.


----------



## slacker711

A data point from a recent LG Display presentation at a Korean conference....they expect their OLED television production to be profitable by the end of 2015 or early 2016. I would expect that is the target for full production of the M2 fab with reasonable yields. Perhaps $3500-$4000 for a 4K 55" OLED would move the ~150,000 units a month?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24405346
> 
> 
> So you sense a departure from the Galaxy with a destination of planet Apple? Or just approaching a smartphone saturation point and/or a lessening desire to upgrade phones yearly (I'm still happy enough with an S3)?



No, I don't think people are leaving Samsung for Apple. I believe people in the market for high-end Android, however, will choose Galaxy _among several choices_.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24405359
> 
> 
> S5 shows the mobile area has reached plateau in terms of hardware and innovation, this is also true for Apple. Samsung just wants to keep commanding position at much lower expense then before by sticking with the same basics and adding gimmicks (like blood pulse monitor). Perhaps there is some breaktrhough lurking somewhere but it is hard to see it in the device itself, maybe something is coming on the service and apps side.



Service and apps will certainly not be Samsung's breakthrough.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24405576
> 
> 
> I think a smaller unit count is pretty much a given. The high-end is shrinking right now. The iPhone unit numbers would have shrank in the December quarter if not for pushing the China release up and getting a new operator (Docomo).



Take this to the bank: iPhone 6 outsells iPhone 5s.


> Quote:
> With regards to OLED's, the question is whether Samsung was unable to supply a higher resolution display or simply decided that the cost wasnt worth the return. The S5 seems like a much more focused handset than the S4. They figured out that the crap gimmicks were hurting the overall experience. The S5 looks like what the S4 should have been. It is also a handset that would allow Samsung to start a price war if they so choose.



They are not starting a price war with the flagship phone. That's not part of the plan at all. The Galaxy S carries a huge portion of all of Samsung's profitability on its back.


> Quote:
> The Gear Fit is the most interesting product that Samsung announced yesterday.



Definitely 100% agreed.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24405836
> 
> 
> A data point from a recent LG Display presentation at a Korean conference....they expect their OLED television production to be profitable by the end of 2015 or early 2016. I would expect that is the target for full production of the M2 fab with reasonable yields. Perhaps $3500-$4000 for a 4K 55" OLED would move the ~150,000 units a month?



I have a tough time getting to 1.8M units with that product at that price. Total worldwide market for TVs of that size is ~25 million (it's probably much less right now, but let's set it that big by then). If you figure the "flagship" portion of that market is ~10%, that's 2.5 million units total. Incidentally, a portion of that market is for people who want 60", 65", 70", 75", 80", 90" -- all of which are currently available -- and the forthcoming mainstream-ish 78" and 79" TVs, as well as the not-so-mainstream 84"-ers.


So we are talking about getting to 1.8M of a market that's 2.5M without being to compete in anything but one size of it? That just doesn't seem plausible, _especially because LCD flagships will be cheaper by then_ at the same size.


You can play some games with the market size, but too much more starts making up a market that isn't really there. And you are still looking at a price disadvantage even on the high end. If we were talking about 1M units at that price, it would feel more plausible. If we were talking about ~1.5M units at $3000, it would feel more plausible.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24410046
> 
> 
> Take this to the bank: iPhone 6 outsells iPhone 5s.
> 
> .



But Apple will continue loosing its global market share. That will have consequences in the long term.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24410046
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24405346
> 
> 
> So you sense a departure from the Galaxy with a destination of planet Apple? Or just approaching a smartphone saturation point and/or a lessening desire to upgrade phones yearly (I'm still happy enough with an S3)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think people are leaving Samsung for Apple. I believe people in the market for high-end Android, however, will choose Galaxy _among several choices_.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24405359
> 
> 
> S5 shows the mobile area has reached plateau in terms of hardware and innovation, this is also true for Apple. Samsung just wants to keep commanding position at much lower expense then before by sticking with the same basics and adding gimmicks (like blood pulse monitor). Perhaps there is some breaktrhough lurking somewhere but it is hard to see it in the device itself, maybe something is coming on the service and apps side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Service and apps will certainly not be Samsung's breakthrough.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24405576
> 
> 
> I think a smaller unit count is pretty much a given. The high-end is shrinking right now. The iPhone unit numbers would have shrank in the December quarter if not for pushing the China release up and getting a new operator (Docomo).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take this to the bank: iPhone 6 outsells iPhone 5s.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> With regards to OLED's, the question is whether Samsung was unable to supply a higher resolution display or simply decided that the cost wasnt worth the return. The S5 seems like a much more focused handset than the S4. They figured out that the crap gimmicks were hurting the overall experience. The S5 looks like what the S4 should have been. It is also a handset that would allow Samsung to start a price war if they so choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not starting a price war with the flagship phone. That's not part of the plan at all. The Galaxy S carries a huge portion of all of Samsung's profitability on its back.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> The Gear Fit is the most interesting product that Samsung announced yesterday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definitely 100% agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24405836
> 
> 
> A data point from a recent LG Display presentation at a Korean conference....they expect their OLED television production to be profitable by the end of 2015 or early 2016. I would expect that is the target for full production of the M2 fab with reasonable yields. Perhaps $3500-$4000 for a 4K 55" OLED would move the ~150,000 units a month?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a tough time getting to 1.8M units with that product at that price. Total worldwide market for TVs of that size is ~25 million (it's probably much less right now, but let's set it that big by then). If you figure the "flagship" portion of that market is ~10%, that's 2.5 million units total. Incidentally, a portion of that market is for people who want 60", 65", 70", 75", 80", 90" -- all of which are currently available -- and the forthcoming mainstream-ish 78" and 79" TVs, as well as the not-so-mainstream 84"-ers.
> 
> 
> So we are talking about getting to 1.8M of a market that's 2.5M without being to compete in anything but one size of it? That just doesn't seem plausible, _especially because LCD flagships will be cheaper by then_ at the same size.
> 
> 
> You can play some games with the market size, but too much more starts making up a market that isn't really there. And you are still looking at a price disadvantage even on the high end. If we were talking about 1M units at that price, it would feel more plausible. If we were talking about ~1.5M units at $3000, it would feel more plausible.
Click to expand...


Totally agree with your analysis. And if it takes 1.8M units at $3500-4000 to be 'profitable' (read break-even), then 1.5M units at $3000 represents less revenue to the tune of $1.8 - 2.7B (29-38%). Plug in whatever assumption you want to make regarding the manufacturing margin on that revenue, but it translates into almost certain continuing $1B+ losses through at least 2015...



-fafrd


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24410082
> 
> 
> But Apple will continue loosing its global market share. That will have consequences in the long term.



I think Apple has increased their global market share and it's actually growing if I'm not mistaken, China moble has opened up recently and it's looking promising. But anyway Apple has never been about trying to conquer the market globally or flooding it with useless devices, their Philosophy has always been to release a product only when they feel it has a reason for existence. Apple's goal is to make high-end devices that work and enrich peoples lives, they also tend to set the bar for everyone else to follow in the same process.


I think Samsung has made some good innovation decisions of their own as well, namely I really like their MOLED display on the Galaxy Note and they did put a much larger screen on it as well. The larger screen isn't for everyone but they have proven there is a market for it. Samsung is really good at making a brainstorm idea a reality quickly creating it and then throwing out there for the market to make the decision. You can kind a look at it like this, they throw stuff up against the wall to see if it sticks or not.









It's just two different approaches to what people are calling innovation, there are obvious advantages to both but I much prefer Apples method as I don't enjoy seeing the market flooded with what most would call useless junk.


Speaking of problems Samsung's got a big one, while using Googles free Android operating system it continue to face big issues in fragmentation. And while this all spirals out-of-control there is is much debate going on right now about the benefits of a close system versus an open ended system.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24410046
> 
> 
> Take this to the bank: iPhone 6 outsells iPhone 5s.



I agree.


Apple will sell more iPhones in 2014 than 2013 because of the addition of the two carriers. They will sell more in 2015 than 2014 because they will launch new screen sizes which will appeal to a whole set of customers that wont consider a 4" screen as well increase the upgrade rate in their base. That is basically a share game though and much of the gains are likely to come from Samsung.


There are still rumors that Samsung plans on launching a "Prime" version of the S5 with a higher resolution and a metal housing but we'll have to see how that plays out.


> Quote:
> I have a tough time getting to 1.8M units with that product at that price. Total worldwide market for TVs of that size is ~25 million (it's probably much less right now, but let's set it that big by then). If you figure the "flagship" portion of that market is ~10%, that's 2.5 million units total. Incidentally, a portion of that market is for people who want 60", 65", 70", 75", 80", 90" -- all of which are currently available -- and the forthcoming mainstream-ish 78" and 79" TVs, as well as the not-so-mainstream 84"-ers.
> 
> 
> So we are talking about getting to 1.8M of a market that's 2.5M without being to compete in anything but one size of it? That just doesn't seem plausible, _especially because LCD flagships will be cheaper by then_ at the same size.
> 
> 
> You can play some games with the market size, but too much more starts making up a market that isn't really there. And you are still looking at a price disadvantage even on the high end. If we were talking about 1M units at that price, it would feel more plausible. If we were talking about ~1.5M units at $3000, it would feel more plausible.



Are flagships really only 10% of the >50" market? I would have expected more of a barbell kind of distribution. I am going to have to dig up some numbers about the high-end market.


Regardless though, a sub-$4000 price is clearly required to move anywhere near that many units. They will need to have very good yields on their backplane to get there for 4K.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24410133
> 
> 
> Totally agree with your analysis.



You are clearly a gentleman and a scholar!










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24411898
> 
> 
> I think Apple has increased their global market share and it's actually growing if I'm not mistaken, China moble has opened up recently and it's looking promising.



The data is mixed. We'll know more in coming months. Also, absolute market share is tricky. Apple _really_ doesn't care about $150 smartphones. But it probably needs to start caring about the market for $300 and up ones instead of just $450 and up ones...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24412095
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> Apple will sell more iPhones in 2014 than 2013 because of the addition of the two carriers. They will sell more in 2015 than 2014 because they will launch new screen sizes which will appeal to a whole set of customers that wont consider a 4" screen as well increase the upgrade rate in their base. That is basically a share game though and much of the gains are likely to come from Samsung.



Seems right to me.


> Quote:
> There are still rumors that Samsung plans on launching a "Prime" version of the S5 with a higher resolution and a metal housing but we'll have to see how that plays out.



Interesting. Samsung is big on having _lots_ of Galaxy variants, so this wouldn't shock me. It's weird not to tease it at MWC, though, if you're doing it given the S5 reveal. I mean if it were low volume, it wouldn't hurt sales of anything... Odd...


> Quote:
> Are flagships really only 10% of the >50" market? I would have expected more of a barbell kind of distribution. I am going to have to dig up some numbers about the high-end market.



if you find better data, let me know. What I know is mostly gleaned from retailers and some very limited CEA data. I think that 10% is _pretty close_ to correct, especially when you consider a couple of things:


1) "Rest of world" has low tolerance for any expensive models at all

2) Samsung has a huge product lineup. There are probably a dozen SKUs at each size when you consider all the retailer sub-SKUs. As you move up, you find single SKUs for the very top of the curve. When I talk to retailers, they tell me things like, "almost no one buys the 8000s, but they help us sell a lot of 6000s and 7000s."


I'm not sure my basic analysis changes much if it's 15% (which I'm skeptical it is). It doesn't really go away at 20% (which I'm _nearly certain_ it isn't.)


> Quote:
> Regardless though, a sub-$4000 price is clearly required to move anywhere near that many units. They will need to have very good yields on their backplane to get there for 4K.



You would think that the backplane yield should be good by then. I mean that feels to me like a very solvable problem. And, again, we may be debating between 1.8M units and half that, which in the grand scheme is huge progress from the tens of thousands we are talking about for 2014. If the ~2M market is a 2016 or 2017 phenomenon, I'm not sure in the grand scheme that matters terribly much. We'd both agree that was a substantial step toward establishing mainstream OLED television making and from there, a very plausible path to 10M can be seen, presuming $4000 leads to $3000 leads to $2000.


If, on the other hand, the ~2M deliveries don't happen for several more years, we get back into the chatter where we start to doubt they ever will.


----------



## RadTech51

LG Display details their flexible OLED process, expects the flexible OLED market to reach $41 billion by 2020.

http://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-details-their-flexible-oled-process-expects-flexible-oled-market-reach-41-billion-2020


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24433077
> 
> 
> LG Display details their flexible OLED process, expects the flexible OLED market to reach $41 billion by 2020.
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-details-their-flexible-oled-process-expects-flexible-oled-market-reach-41-billion-2020



Interesting forecast. Seems to imply that _significantly_ less than 1/4 of smartphones will use flexible displays (based on $50 display value and market size of >1.5 billion) and that virtually no tablets will at all.


This goes back to something I've been explaining for a long while: There is no near-term-horizon solution for the "front cover" problem at all. In smartphones, flexible displays can still be interesting for certain kinds of yet-to-be-invented products like a possible, very clever hinged device. And, of course, they can enable some unique form factors and provide a modicum of resiliency if you consider that it's cheaper to replace front glass than a screen. In tablets, that's all true, however less so. And OLEDs in tablets still have huge issues.


----------



## Rich Peterson

This seems to be somewhat OLED related:

Sony to expand TV-panel procurement from AUO 


Source: Ofweek.com


> Quote:
> Industry sources said that Sony and AUO have been in close partnership in active matrix organic light-emit diode (AMOLED) and curved TV panel technology and product development projects.
> 
> 
> In 2013, Sony's TV-panel procurement ratio from Samsung was about 48.5%, and from LGD about 16%, or a total of 65% from Korean suppliers; compared to AUO's 25%, Innolux's 6.5%, and Sharp of Japan's 4%. Sharp shipped 60- and 70-inch extra-large panels to Sony mainly through Hon Hai, the major contract assembler of Sony TVs and the parent of Innolux.
> 
> 
> This year, Sony's TV-panel procurements from Samsung, LGD, and AUO are expected to be 35%-38%, 20% and 30%, respectively. Sony's total TV-panel procurements from Taiwan are expected to be 5.5 million units, including high-end products such as 4K2K and curved panels.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24441668
> 
> 
> This seems to be somewhat OLED related:
> 
> Sony to expand TV-panel procurement from AUO
> 
> 
> Source: Ofweek.com



What I find fascinating is why marketing thinks the OLED curved format is a good thing? I'd think that someone willing to pay this much money for a display is probably going to know something about picture quality and not want a curved screen. In fact I've yet to find any reputable reviewers stating that the curved OLED format supplies any real benefit to the viewing experience at all. This really makes me wonder if the companies designing these displays really have our best interest in mind when making them.


----------



## fafrd

In case it has not been posted on the forum yet, I just found this: http://global.ofweek.com/news/LG-s-white-OLED-tipped-to-win-technical-battle-of-large-displays-8736 


A highlights on LG versus Samsung:
*

"Further evidence that LG is winning the battle of OLED display technologies emerged in February as the company announced it was cutting the price of its 55 inch (1,400mm) screens by 50%. Meanwhile Samsung is reported to have followed the example of Japanese television makers Sony and Panasonic in reorienting its research towards ultra-high-definition TV (UHD-TV) instead.*



And some market forecast data:
*

"Now worth only $745 million worldwide, WOLED displays will surge to $17 billion in 2018 and $31 billion by 2020. "*
*

"As the OLED TV market matures between 2018 and 2020 there will be a shift towards larger units. Over this period the value of 65 inch (1,650mm) screens sold will rise more than 5-fold to become roughly a third of a market threating the long-term dominance of 55 inch models. "*


-fafrd


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24443802
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some market forecast data:
> *
> 
> "Now worth only $745 million worldwide, WOLED displays will surge to $17 billion in 2018 and $31 billion by 2020. "*
> *
> 
> "As the OLED TV market matures between 2018 and 2020 there will be a shift towards larger units. Over this period the value of 65 inch (1,650mm) screens sold will rise more than 5-fold to become roughly a third of a market threating the long-term dominance of 55 inch models. "*



So let's leave aside the fact that the source of this forecast appears to be LG itself... Using an ASP of $2500 (which seems reasonable for a blend of 55" and 65" TVs), that's 12.5 million TVs by 2020. Use a slightly lower ASP and you get a slightly higher total.


Against a TV market that I suspect will not exceed 250 million units again anytime soon (probably ever), that's still consistent with the "10% of TVs" number. Of course, it doesn't include other manufacturers, which going out to 2020 is fine. LG likely dominates due to its head start. OLED likely gets to 25 million with the help of others. It dominates high-end TVs and is still basically held in that niche -- according to this forecast (as well as mine).


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24445150
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24443802
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some market forecast data:
> *
> 
> "Now worth only $745 million worldwide, WOLED displays will surge to $17 billion in 2018 and $31 billion by 2020. "*
> *
> 
> "As the OLED TV market matures between 2018 and 2020 there will be a shift towards larger units. Over this period the value of 65 inch (1,650mm) screens sold will rise more than 5-fold to become roughly a third of a market threating the long-term dominance of 55 inch models. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's leave aside the fact that the source of this forecast appears to be LG itself... Using an ASP of $2500 (which seems reasonable for a blend of 55" and 65" TVs), that's 12.5 million TVs by 2020. Use a slightly lower ASP and you get a slightly higher total.
> 
> 
> Against a TV market that I suspect will not exceed 250 million units again anytime soon (probably ever), that's still consistent with the "10% of TVs" number. Of course, it doesn't include other manufacturers, which going out to 2020 is fine. LG likely dominates due to its head start. OLED likely gets to 25 million with the help of others. It dominates high-end TVs and is still basically held in that niche -- according to this forecast (as well as mine).
Click to expand...


I was counting on someone like you to put these numbers into focus, Rogo, thanks.


Without having your background on the market, I interpreted this to mean more or less the same thing: this is LGs most optimistic forecast for the market share taken by OLED by 2020 (and your sizing to 5-10% of the overall TV market sounds infinitely reasonable) and assumes that LG races ahead of Samsung and takes the lions share of the niche market for OLEDs over the coming 6 years...


Of course, if LED/LCD succeeds to further close the gap versus OLED in the meantime and is able to do it in a way that is more attractive from a price/performance point of view, this optimistic forecast may prove to be out of reach. And in addition, if Samsung finds ways to innovate and compete more effectively against LG in OLED, that smaller piece of 2020 OLED pie is going to have to be shared more evenly than LG is expecting...


-fafrd


p.s. if LG's WOLED forecast of $745M in worldwide in 2014 is approximately accurate, do I understand that correctly to mean that LG expects to sell about 100,000 OLED TVs this year? So WOLED (LG) will account for less than 0.1% of the TV market this year?


----------



## rogo

Yes, LG's forecast (and everyone's) for 2014 is for


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8640_60#post_24445795
> 
> 
> It's certainly the case that LG is not claiming OLED is taking over the TV market on a volume basis this decade (a reality I explained close to 2 years ago here, to much derision).


 

I remember disagreement.  Something more akin to a *shock to our systems* actually.  But not derision...perhaps that slipped by me.

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8640_60#post_24445795
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to see much more down the road. But what all these 2018, 2020 and beyond kind of things remind us is just how far down the road we're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone really in the market for an affordable OLED who wants to buy a new TV should look at buying an LCD now...


Regarding buying an LCD now...with it's potential impact or dent on OLED(?):

I find it interesting that the buzz (I'm assuming) that Panasonic was hoping for was completely eclipsed by Vizio.  Not surprising at all, but interesting.
I think that Vizio may discover that there was more of a *"Glad I got one just in case"* logic to people buying 3D TVs than any poll indicated.  It won't make them change their minds, nor will it impact them greatly, but I'm guessing it'll matter more than they thought.  That said, does Vizio really have anything other than a zero footprint in the OLED world?  Perhaps their "our design and price strategy to kill off everyone else" is more of a defensive Hail Mary?
LCD's really are better than most video-o-philes want to believe, and (perhaps sadly), more than enough for the general public.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Here's a link to an LG PR article explaining why they think curved screen make sense. Please don't shoot the messenger...

http://lgdnewsroom.com/products-solutions/next-generation-display/3580?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LGDisplayNewsroomProductsSolutions+%28LG+Display+Newsroom%C2%BB+Products+%26+Solutions%29 


> Quote:
> Due to its curved design, Curved OLED TVs have several advantages. First of all, the biggest characteristic of the Curved OLED TV is its ability to enhance the viewer’s immersive experience with its curved form. Because the screen ‘wraps around’ the viewer, the viewer gets the feeling of stability and being immersed in the image as if he/she is at the amphitheater.
> 
> 
> The curved form of the screen is similar to the ‘Horopter Line’ seen by human eyes. The ‘Horopter Line’ refers to the hypothetical line connecting the dots one sees as being in the same focal distance when our eyes focus on an image.
> 
> 
> This means that curved OLED TVs have a screen with a curved trajectory similar to a person’s ‘Horopter Line’ allowing the maintenance of a constant focus, and because of this, the viewer can enjoy more comfortable viewing without tiring their eyes.
> 
> 
> Second, the distance of viewer’s gaze between the center of the screen and each end of the screen isn’t steep due to the gradually curved form of the Curved OLED TV. For example when watching a flat screen TV, the viewer’s gaze when sitting in front of the center of the screen would require more distance when watching each ends of the screen, compared to the middle of the screen.
> 
> 
> The viewer will not sense a big difference because he/she sees the center and end of the screen at the same time, but in reality, there is a subtle distortion of image and color due to this distance. The larger the screen and the closer the distance from the screen, the distortion becomes more noticeable.
> 
> 
> In comparison, for Curved OLEDs, the center of the screen that is closest to the viewer’s eyes is pushed back and the farthest ends of the screen are bent forward, the distance between the viewer’s eyes and every point of the screen can be maintained almost the same!
> 
> 
> Because of this, we can enjoy more realistic images without color or image distortion. This difference in the form also affects the expression of 3D images. In case of Curved OLED TVs, the user can enjoy more realistic and comfortable viewing of 3D images since the 3D depth at any point of the screen is the same, as the distance between the user’s eyes to the any point on the screen is also kept the same.
> 
> 
> Thirdly, Curved OLEDs compared to flat screen TVs of the same size feels larger and brighter, resulting in the immersive experience similar to that of the movie theater. Though the sizes may be the same, a curved screen offers a larger viewing angle than a flat screen, and therefore, the viewer will feel that the size of a curved TV screen is larger than its actual size. Curved OLED TV also feels brighter because the light coming from the screen is focused on the center of the screen.


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> What I find fascinating is why marketing thinks the OLED curved format is a good thing? I'd think that someone willing to pay this much money for a display is probably going to know something about picture quality and not want a curved screen. In fact I've yet to find any reputable reviewers stating that the curved OLED format supplies any real benefit to the viewing experience at all. This really makes me wonder if the companies designing these displays really have our best interest in mind when making them.



I wonder if this might be a smarter marketing decision than people think. They aren't going to move any units at those prices anyway, but they will generate buzz. You go in, you start looking at the screen with your friends, you complain about the curve, but you DO stand and watch it for a while. Maybe you really like the other aspects of the screen, and when a flat one comes along next year at a more reasonable price, you want one. Or, they could market flat ones now and you'd just walk right by.


Or maybe not


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> 
> From LG, Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*, merely a messenger /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_60#post_24446457
> 
> the distance between the viewer’s eyes and every point of the screen can be maintained almost the same!
> 
> Because of this, we can enjoy more realistic images without color or image distortion.


 

Why do they continually try to connect these two statements?  Nothing they say prior to this establishes any credibility to it.  They continually try to establish this as a some kind of obvious causal relationship.

 

As if it can be stated as evidence that establishes a self obvious proof.  That it can speak for itself.  It does not.  It does not connect.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24446501
> 
> 
> Why do they continually try to connect these two statements?  Nothing they say prior to this establishes any credibility to it.  They continually try to establish this as a some kind of obvious causal relationship.
> 
> 
> As if it can be stated as evidence that establishes a self obvious proof.  That it can speak for itself.  It does not.  It does not connect.



Just marketing, when it does not sell, and screens are flat again, they can use the same statement










For years, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up with Panasonic created Infinite Black panels only to be succeeded my Infinite Black Pro. Apparently, their marketing department failed math.

Remember 6,000,000 to 1 contrast ratios










I think marketing groups have decided that everyone thinks they are completely full of it anyway, so they might as well and try to out BS the competition.


- Rich


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8670#post_24445795
> 
> 
> Yes, LG's forecast (and everyone's) for 2014 is for


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24446485
> 
> 
> I wonder if this might be a smarter marketing decision than people think. They aren't going to move any units at those prices anyway, but they will generate buzz. You go in, you start looking at the screen with your friends, you complain about the curve, but you DO stand and watch it for a while. Maybe you really like the other aspects of the screen, and when a flat one comes along next year at a more reasonable price, you want one. Or, they could market flat ones now and you'd just walk right by.
> 
> 
> Or maybe not



Used as an educational piece to show people who are not educated about display technology the difference? To get them to start talking about that curve screen they saw in the store the other day with friends and family?


Here's how I think that would play out in most cases.










"Hey budy I saw a funny looking curved flatscreen TV the other day that was way overpriced!" "And you know what?" "I couldn't even see the difference in picture quality between the way cheaper and larger ones for only a quarter of that price right next to it." "In fact I like the other ones better I thought the picture looked so much better on those larger ones, the picture was so much brighter." "Why anybody would want to buy that smaller over-priced curved one is beyond me, what a waste of money!"


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24446354
> 
> 
> I remember disagreement.  Something more akin to a _shock to our systems_ actually.  But not derision...perhaps that slipped by me.



I very much remember derision.


> Quote:
> Regarding buying an LCD now...with it's potential impact or dent on OLED(?):
> 
> I find it interesting that the buzz (I'm assuming) that Panasonic was hoping for was completely eclipsed by Vizio.  Not surprising at all, but interesting.
> I think that Vizio may discover that there was more of a _*"Glad I got one just in case"*_ logic to people buying 3D TVs than any poll indicated.  It won't make them change their minds, nor will it impact them greatly, but I'm guessing it'll matter more than they thought.  That said, does Vizio really have anything other than a zero footprint in the OLED world?  Perhaps their "our design and price strategy to kill off everyone else" is more of a defensive Hail Mary?
> LCD's really are better than most video-o-philes want to believe, and (perhaps sadly), more than enough for the general public.


[/quote]


The last point is simply reality, Most people think LCDs are perfectly fine already. Add in better color, local dimming, more pixels, etc. etc... and they're only going to think they are better still. As for Vizio, they don't do basic R&D. If OLED catches on, they'll buy panels from people who make panels. With respect to 3-D, I'm sure their market research is strong. They know it's barely used and are willing to take the risk of a few lost sales. I still have Life of Pi in shrink wrap.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24446457
> 
> 
> Here's a link to an LG PR article explaining why they think curved screen make sense. Please don't shoot the messenger...



There's just a lot of made up nonsense in there. In a world where people sat about 6 feet from their TV, in the sweet spot, we could maybe have a conversation about whether the curved screen might be marginally preferable to the flat screen. In the real world (a) almost no one sits in the sweet spot -- check your neighbors set ups, their couches, etc. (b) almost no one sits that close. Your eye doesn't refocus to look at the corner of a 55-inch screen from 10 feet vs. the middle. Your brain absolutely, however, goes "WTF" when viewing such a screen from 30 degrees off axis and having to look inside the "barrel". It also sees all the optical distortion the curve brings on.


The word that comes to mind is gibberish....


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24446485
> 
> 
> I wonder if this might be a smarter marketing decision than people think....
> 
> 
> Or maybe not



You nailed the theory... But the "maybe not" seems about right.


In fact, they are basically pissing off a huge portion of the videophile/early-adopter community that should be going "Hallelujah! There's an OLED on the market!"


Instead, we're mostly just annoyed.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24446501
> 
> 
> Why do they continually try to connect these two statements?  Nothing they say prior to this establishes any credibility to it.  They continually try to establish this as a some kind of obvious causal relationship.
> 
> 
> As if it can be stated as evidence that establishes a self obvious proof.  That it can speak for itself.  It does not.  It does not connect.



Exactly. I'd invoke a 1930s Germany analogy about repeating the lie often enough to prove Godwin's Law here, but really LG is just being facile... "This is something, therefore that is something" is not an argument. The pseudo-scientific hokum about the Horopter Line is meant to make this sound like it's real stuff you should really pay attention to. Kind of like the toxins you need to cleanse from your colon!


----------



## greenland

I still cannot shake the lingering feeling that by the time OLED prices drop enough for those without deep pockets to be able to afford to purchase them, many of them will already have purchased 4K LED/LCD sets, and will be out of the TV market for too long for OLED numbers to be able to grow enough for it avoid the same fate that Plasma has. High Def is such a fresh treat for so many consumers with limited disposable income, that OLED might not look like such a vast improvement to them, that they will be willing to ditch their reasonably new LCD sets, and go purchase new OLED sets in big enough numbers to keep the manufacturers producing them. Then of course we have such a big shift to people watching downloads on tiny phone and pad displays, that the demand for large displays might in fact start to shrink, and keep on shrinking.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24448893
> 
> 
> I still cannot shake the lingering feeling that by the time OLED prices drop enough for those without deep pockets to be able to afford to purchase them, many of them will already have purchased 4K LED/LCD sets, and will be out of the TV market for too long for OLED numbers to be able to grow enough for it avoid the same fate that Plasma has. High Def is such a fresh treat for so many consumers with limited disposable income, that OLED might not look like such a vast improvement to them, that they will be willing to ditch their reasonably new LCD sets, and go purchase new OLED sets in big enough numbers to keep the manufacturers producing them. Then of course we have such a big shift to people watching downloads on tiny phone and pad displays, that the demand for large displays might in fact start to shrink, and keep on shrinking.



I agree (and this is a point I was trying to make). LGs forecast for 2020 is an optimistic one, and counts on the fact that LED/LCD basically treads water in performance and in cost while OLED slowly but steadily industrializes...


Said another way, imagine that Sony begins selling the 65" X950B for below $2000 by the end of this year and going forward - I believe this would seriously slow down the adoption and industrialization of OLED...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24448893
> 
> 
> I still cannot shake the lingering feeling that by the time OLED prices drop enough for those without deep pockets to be able to afford to purchase them, many of them will already have purchased 4K LED/LCD sets, and will be out of the TV market for too long for OLED numbers to be able to grow enough for it avoid the same fate that Plasma has. High Def is such a fresh treat for so many consumers with limited disposable income, that OLED might not look like such a vast improvement to them, that they will be willing to ditch their reasonably new LCD sets, and go purchase new OLED sets in big enough numbers to keep the manufacturers producing them. Then of course we have such a big shift to people watching downloads on tiny phone and pad displays, that the demand for large displays might in fact start to shrink, and keep on shrinking.



Well I'm personally of the opinion that we're at "peak TV" and the market is going to start shrinking from here. The major analysts don't see what I believe -- at least not yet. But then, they're not in the business of doing that.


I guess we'll see how it plays out. IDC has lowered its PC forecast every few months for the past couple of years. It keeps not believing the permanent decline isn't here, until the data says otherwise.


We'll see if TVs follow the same curve over the next 24 months. And, yes, ironically the success of 4K LCD is going to play a major role in this. If one buys a new set now -- or really in 2015/16 as volumes start to expand -- isn't that almost certainly an 8-year TV? Doesn't that compound hugely into 20117-19? Yes, it does. So the question then is... What really is the steady-state high-end demand? We've spent 15 years not precisely knowing that. There is some small set of people who buy frequently -- it's really small in TVs -- and then some portion of the market that buys high whenever they buy.


But let's not pretend that people just buy the expensive one when they can afford it. Most expensive TVs have failed in the marketplace to move numbers, including the Kuro, the Elite, the old Fujitsu plasmas. The theory with OLED is that it leaves "expensive" and moves down to merely "high end" and that allows it to capture that top 10% (or at least most of it).


The question is, what if there's then a $2,000 4K, full array LCD that is really good? Sony won't be making one this year. Not a chance. But someone easily could by 2015-16. And that could just become a standard sub $2000, 65-inch product. That creates a marketing squeeze on OLED....


----------



## Artwood

Wow folks! Guess all we have to look forward to is LCD that sucks forever! How many years will it take til D-nice buys one?


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24449702
> 
> 
> Well I'm personally of the opinion that we're at "peak TV" and the market is going to start shrinking from here. The major analysts don't see what I believe -- at least not yet. But then, they're not in the business of doing that.



Usual 10/10 hit by Rogo







. What the conservatives don't notice there is a tremendous shift to high density displays portable devices. The question now is if OLED will soon make some inroads into this class: smartphones, phablets, tabletes, notebooks. There are no signs of this.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> If one buys a new set now -- or really in 2015/16 as volumes start to expand -- isn't that almost certainly an 8-year TV? Doesn't that compound hugely into 20117-19? Yes, it does.



Your calculation is wrong, because you forget that many TVs today not last long enough as they should. The big question is, what´s the real lifetime of a LED-LCD today? LED backlight defects (brightness decrease is also a LED problem, could DFI/BFI results in a shorter lifetime of LED-backlight?), elko defects, quality problems in cheaper TVs and planned obsolescence are some factors to calculate.


And why you think OLED will be so expensive in 3-5 years? There is no reason to believe that. Your first OLED price to year calculation was also wrong.







OLED is now much cheaper than you thought. Now we have also a new EA9709 for 5999€ list price in Europe and that´s not the entry OLED-TV EB960/EC930 which will have a lower list price. In 5 years a OLED TV in the same size will have 4K and will be in sub 2000€ price range and will be also better than every high-end LCD. And don´t calculate size with price. The budget don´t rise with the size. If you have only 3000 $/€, than you have to buy what´s out for your budget and bigger is not always better (room size, picture quality).


For video enthusiast in picture quality I see a big decrease on current LCD-TVs. For 5-7 years you got more picture quality for the money than today. LCDs now are only cheap, slim and smart. 4K is a waste on smaller TV´s and not all cares for 3D. The fact is, that even today current LCD tech has not a better native contrast ratio or black level than for a example a Samsung B650-Series with CCFL from 2009. No FALD LCD ist better than a Sharp XS1 (2008!) in contrast and black level. The Sharp XS1 was also the only with LED-Local- and Color-Dimming. The truth is, that all LCD manufactures want to resell old features as new. Triluminos QD results in the same like XvYCC and RGB-LED before, the new called HDR-features is LD-LED. There is no more real innovation in picture quality on LCD side. Brighter and smarter for what?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24450279
> 
> 
> Usual 10/10 hit by Rogo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . What the conservatives don't notice there is a tremendous shift to high density displays portable devices. The question now is if OLED will soon make some inroads into this class: smartphones, phablets, tabletes, notebooks. There are no signs of this.



Well, high-end smartphones/phablets, yes. The rest, not at all. Thanks for recognizing my brilliance, irkuck. .










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24450302
> 
> 
> Your calculation is wrong, because you forget that many TVs today not last long enough as they should.



Actually, no I don't. I presume that you'll replace the TV, on average, when it breaks. And that outside of maybe 5-10% of people, no one will buy an upgrade. I think that's probably right.


> Quote:
> The big question is, what´s the real lifetime of a LED-LCD today?



Longer than you believe, I'm sure.


> Quote:
> LED backlight defects (brightness decrease is also a LED problem, could DFI/BFI results in a shorter lifetime of LED-backlight?), elko defects, quality problems in cheaper TVs and planned obsolescence are some factors to calculate.



No one is building TVs to break on purpose. That's paranoia.


> Quote:
> And why you think OLED will be so expensive in 3-5 years? There is no reason to believe that. Your first OLED price to year calculation was also wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED is now much cheaper than you thought.



It actually isn't. I drew a linear extrapolation curve and because LG sold basically zero units at the opening price, they moved the second year's price cut up. My entire point about future price is how tiny the market is at $3000. The market isn't getting bigger at $3000. If anything, that market will just shrink further.


> Quote:
> For video enthusiast in picture quality I see a big decrease on current LCD-TVs. For 5-7 years you got more picture quality for the money than today. LCDs now are only cheap, slim and smart. 4K is a waste on smaller TV´s and not all cares for 3D. The fact is, that even today current LCD tech has not a better native contrast ratio or black level than for a example a Samsung B650-Series with CCFL from 2009. No FALD LCD ist better than a Sharp XS1 (2008!) in contrast and black level. The Sharp XS1 was also the only with LED-Local- and Color-Dimming. The truth is, that all LCD manufactures want to resell old features as new. Triluminos QD results in the same like XvYCC and RGB-LED before, the new called HDR-features is LD-LED. There is no more real innovation in picture quality on LCD side. Brighter and smarter for what?



I like how you think any of this matters to the typical buyer. Enthusiasts are perhaps 1-3% of all TV buyers. If you are expecting them to drive down OLED prices by driving up volumes, there will not be OLEDs at all. That's for certain.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> It actually isn't.



Sorry your calculation was wrong. That´s a fact.

I saw these price cuts coming because it´s LG. It´s the same aggressive strategie like Samsung did with LCD for so 8 or 9 years before and LED backlighting since the LE(N)40M91. LG want to be number one in the OLED race. If you think OLED will be only a niche for enthusiasts in 3-5 years, than you underestimate LG. For both Koreans LCD has no future. Both companies invests more in OLED than LCD (75% to 25%). They make 4K LCDs because they can (enough money background to compete against Sony and the Chinese in the 4K race) and not because they want. Their real focus as upcoming display technology is OLED and not 4K LCD.


----------



## tgm1024


Are the initial absurd prices purposefully put there by manufacturers *just so* *they can gain the attention that comes with a later "aggressive" price cut?*

 

I'm thinking Sony's high end displays here.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24450245
> 
> 
> Wow folks! Guess all we have to look forward to is LCD that sucks forever! How many years will it take til D-nice buys one?



You should be more specific and qualify your statements regarding generalization of LCD technology. An LCD with a full-array and local-dimming is quite nice for example, if they could produce such a display at an affordable price and make them very large that prospect looks good as well. I think OLED will eventually take hold is just going to take time I think we all need to sit back and be patient good things come to those who wait.










PS: Regarding D-Nice I don't like to speak for anyone else but given his general-dislike in the past for LCD he probably won't be upgrading his Kuro for anything less than an OLED. As for myself I wouldn't upgrade my 70" Elite for anything less then a 90" preferably 100" 4k OLED, so I might be in for a long wait myself.


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24450410
> 
> 
> Sorry your calculation was wrong. That´s a fact.
> 
> I saw these price cuts coming because it´s LG. It´s the same aggressive strategie like Samsung did with LCD for so 8 or 9 years before and LED backlighting since the LE(N)40M91. LG want to be number one in the OLED race. If you think OLED will be only a niche for enthusiasts in 3-5 years, than you underestimate LG. For both Koreans LCD has no future. Both companies invests more in OLED than LCD (75% to 25%). They make 4K LCDs because they can (enough money background to compete against Sony and the Chinese in the 4K race) and not because they want. Their real focus as upcoming display technology is OLED and not 4K LCD.[/quoteI
> 
> I kind pf agree with your bottom line premise. 4K LCD will not keep the TV industry afloat, only OLED has any chance of doing that. To me 4K is a nice little uptake from 1080 LED/LCD and most will go for it because that's all that will be available in the 50"+ range in a couple of years. That being said, if companies like LG, Samsung, and a few Chinese companies want to be major players in the TV market it will have to be with OLED. Copy cat wannabes can only exist for so long. Vizo is a wild card because of the structure of the company (the way they build and market). Bottom line, OLED will succeed because for those above mentioned companies, it absolutely must succeed.


----------



## andy sullivan

Don't know how that happened (above post) but I must have hit a wrong button somewhere. Sorry.


----------



## vinnie97

^You messed up the quote tag. Add a closed bracket at the end of the incomplete quote tag, and it should be good.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24450895
> 
> 
> Are the initial absurd prices purposefully put there by manufacturers _just so_ _they can gain the attention that comes with a later "aggressive" price cut?_
> 
> 
> I'm thinking Sony's high end displays here.



If only that were true WRT Samsung. Their price never dropped.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24450410
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> It actually isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry your calculation was wrong. That´s a fact.
> 
> I saw these price cuts coming because it´s LG. It´s the same aggressive strategie like Samsung did with LCD for so 8 or 9 years before and LED backlighting since the LE(N)40M91. LG want to be number one in the OLED race. If you think OLED will be only a niche for enthusiasts in 3-5 years, than you underestimate LG. For both Koreans LCD has no future. Both companies invests more in OLED than LCD (75% to 25%). They make 4K LCDs because they can (enough money background to compete against Sony and the Chinese in the 4K race) and not because they want. Their real focus as upcoming display technology is OLED and not 4K LCD.
Click to expand...


At least one very recent (this week!) market report disputes your claim that Samsung is continuing to invest more in LED than LCD: http://global.ofweek.com/news/LG-s-white-OLED-tipped-to-win-technical-battle-of-large-displays-8736 


"Further evidence that LG is winning the battle of OLED display technologies emerged in February as the company announced it was cutting the price of its 55 inch (1,400mm) screens by 50%. Meanwhile *Samsung is reported to have followed the example of Japanese television makers Sony and Panasonic in reorienting its research towards ultra-high-definition TV (UHD-TV) instead."
*


If the market continues to steer strongly towards 4K, it appears that LG may be forging forward in OLED all alone, which means the arrival of affordable, mainstream OLED will take longer than expected in the best case (and may never really make it in the worst case).


----------



## ALMA

Thats old news and that´s how marketing works. Samsung launched all new LCDs at CES but no new OLED and no new Plasma TVs. There will be news about new Plasma TVs and OLED later this year. Of course the marketing now pushed that what will be available and officially launched. Samsung was even next year relatively quiet about their OLED development compared to LG. So be patient, they give us more detailed information about their new OLED TV when it´s done.


Wait for the IFA in September: But yes, I expect that Samsung currently can´t compete or undercut LG OLED prices before their own 8G process works. Now it´s only a 6G process.


----------



## rogo

Alma, you're still mistaken, but it's really irrelevant. The point about LG is that you can (a) consider the initial price real, which is fine (I do) and acknowledge that it was intended to be the 2012 price by the way (b) accept that they moved virtually zero units globally at that price (c) understand that two price cuts is two years worth of price cuts, not a function of any technological development.


That's just ridiculous. The forecast for 2014 sales is now lower than the forecast for 2013 sales was. Meaningfully so. If they go to $5000 or so (another 30% of price cutting, aka another "year" of price cutting) that's fine. None of it changes the long-term outlook. It doesn't magically make $3000 down the road into $2000.


Now, of course, if they can get to $2000 by 2017-18 instead of $3000, they can sell more than 5-10% of the TVs out there. The market at that price is probably closer to 15%?


The idea that they made a pricing move late last year because they are making progress is absurd. The reality is that sales were so incredibly low, it wasn't driving the fab at all. And without the fab being driven, there are no process improvements.


You enthusiasts think there is _some_ market at these high prices, but LG quickly learned there was none. Even at $8000, I am sure they are going to get seriously reality-checked. It's a small TV that somewhat outperforms a flagship 1080p Samsung LG that costs 1/3 as much. This isn't like you are getting a Ferrari instead of a Renault.


Oh, and the Samsung is less weird. And brighter.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24452191
> 
> 
> Don't know how that happened (above post) but I must have hit a wrong button somewhere. Sorry.



You _do_ know how to use the edit feature, don't you?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24449702
> 
> 
> The question is, what if there's then a $2,000 4K, full array LCD that is really good? Sony won't be making one this year. Not a chance. But someone easily could by 2015-16. And that could just become a standard sub $2000, 65-inch product. That creates a marketing squeeze on OLED....



Totally agree, and in addition I believe Vizio has already signaled their intention to do exactly that.


They are launching the 65" 4K FALD Series panel this year for $2200.


They are also (hopefully







) intending to launch the 65" 4K uber-FALD/HDR Reference Series for a higher price (but unlikely to be more than 2X the price of the P Series)


Their CTO is already on record stating one of their goals in developing the Reference Series is to develop a pipeline of improved technologies to feed into their lower-end product lines in the future.


So if the 65" Reference Series _does_ materialize this year and if it comes anywhere _close_ to being as good as first impressions and preliminary specs indicate, it is almost a certainty that Vizio will be working to have a 65" 2016 P Series panel which offers as much of the performance of the 2014 Reference Series as possible for a price approaching $2000 (and my prediction is that the 2016 P Series will basically be _identical_ to the 2014 Reference Series minus the integrated soundbar and 'hand-polished' metal stand).


So yeah, I think the marketing squeeze coming from high-PQ FALD 4K HDR LED/LCD at prices approaching $2000 for 65" by 2016 is very real, and I think that possibility is one of the factors driving LG to attempt to accelerate the market-uptake / industrialization timeline for their OLED technology by getting increasingly aggressive with their pricing before Vizio's 2014 4K products are out...


----------



## vinnie97

Good for LG. I have to echo the sentiments of my compadre Artwood on this...







I refuse to believe in a demo. We already know the OLEDs are the best TVs reviewed yet.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24454483
> 
> 
> Good for LG. I have to echo the sentiments of my compadre Artwood on this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refuse to believe in a demo. We already know the OLEDs are the best TVs reviewed yet.



And you are absolutely correct to remain skeptical until proven otherwise. I believe 2014 will go down as an especially formative year in the evolution of flat-panel TV technology and I believe that all of these moves, including those of Vizio, Sharp, LG, and even the announced spin-off of the Sony TV business are reflections of that fact...


Between Vizio proving their ability to actually deliver and industrialize the 65" Reference Series 'demo' they made at CES in January and LGs ability to deliver OLED in volume at the pricepoints they are heading towards and at the quality and lifetime required, I'd have to give a slight edge to Vizio at the moment...


But in any case, 2014 is going to be a very interesting year for TV technology!


----------



## conan48

You guys make me laugh. It's too expensive.....*****....it's too cheap.....*****.....I haven't seen one but it's not much better then a Samsung plasma.....*****.


The best TV is OUT THERE RIGHT NOW and it's only 4600 right now. Do you remember how long it took plasma too get to that point? How many freaking years?


Now suddenly ****ing Vizio is a contender!?! LOL and savior of LCD. Sorry, LOL x 10. Just because they showed a fancy demo using Dolby HDR tech doesn't even mean jack ****. Peel off, that Vizio badge and it's probably the LED TV prototype Dolby was showing years ago. Suddenly, Vizio goes from having mediocre to crap TVs, to having the OLED killer. WOW. I'm sure LGs biggest concern is Vizio, and their Dolby prototype. I hope they are so scared that they release the 77" OLED for less then 10k. I love these forums


You guys should be running out to grab this LG at 4600 before it's gone. (hopefully that price is here to stay)


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24454261
> 
> 
> You _do_ know how to use the edit feature, don't you?



No, but maybe after another couple of thousand posts I'll learn.


----------



## latreche34




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24454751
> 
> 
> You guys make me laugh. It's too expensive.....*****....it's too cheap.....*****.....I haven't seen one but it's not much better then a Samsung plasma.....*****.
> 
> 
> The best TV is OUT THERE RIGHT NOW and it's only 4600 right now. Do you remember how long it took plasma too get to that point? How many freaking years?
> 
> 
> Now suddenly ****ing Vizio is a contender!?! LOL and savior of LCD. Sorry, LOL x 10. Just because they showed a fancy demo using Dolby HDR tech doesn't even mean jack ****. Peel off, that Vizio badge and it's probably the LED TV prototype Dolby was showing years ago. Suddenly, Vizio goes from having mediocre to crap TVs, to having the OLED killer. WOW. I'm sure LGs biggest concern is Vizio, and their Dolby prototype. I hope they are so scared that they release the 77" OLED for less then 10k. I love these forums
> 
> 
> You guys should be running out to grab this LG at 4600 before it's gone. (hopefully that price is here to stay)



If it is full array 4k than yes, otherwise go run alone.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24454751
> 
> 
> The best TV is OUT THERE RIGHT NOW and it's only 4600 right now. Do you remember how long it took plasma too get to that point? How many freaking years?
> 
> 
> Now suddenly ****ing Vizio is a contender!?! LOL and savior of LCD. Sorry, LOL x 10. Just because they showed a fancy demo using Dolby HDR tech doesn't even mean jack ****. Peel off, that Vizio badge and it's probably the LED TV prototype Dolby was showing years ago. Suddenly, Vizio goes from having mediocre to crap TVs, to having the OLED killer. WOW. I'm sure LGs biggest concern is Vizio, and their Dolby prototype. I hope they are so scared that they release the 77" OLED for less then 10k. I love these forums
> 
> *You guys should be running out to grab this LG at 4600 before it's gone*. (hopefully that price is here to stay)



If that happens, I believe it is an indication of a problem...


----------



## bigcoupe2003




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24454751
> 
> 
> You guys make me laugh. It's too expensive.....*****....it's too cheap.....*****.....I haven't seen one but it's not much better then a Samsung plasma.....*****.
> 
> 
> The best TV is OUT THERE RIGHT NOW and it's only 4600 right now. Do you remember how long it took plasma too get to that point? How many freaking years?
> 
> 
> Now suddenly ****ing Vizio is a contender!?! LOL and savior of LCD. Sorry, LOL x 10. Just because they showed a fancy demo using Dolby HDR tech doesn't even mean jack ****. Peel off, that Vizio badge and it's probably the LED TV prototype Dolby was showing years ago. Suddenly, Vizio goes from having mediocre to crap TVs, to having the OLED killer. WOW. I'm sure LGs biggest concern is Vizio, and their Dolby prototype. I hope they are so scared that they release the 77" OLED for less then 10k. I love these forums
> 
> 
> You guys should be running out to grab this LG at 4600 before it's gone. (hopefully that price is here to stay)



I would have to agree although I do not own the LG I do own the Samsung oled and have owned the pioneer 141, sharp elite, and currently own a panasonic vt50 and 8th gen kuro the OLED is hands down a better set I would never purchase another set unless it was OLED no fully backlit LCD can touch an oled or a plasma and I am speaking from experience not from going to a store asking a bunch of questions and recently I purchased my father a panasonic zt60 and that pales in comparison to the OLED as well.


----------



## bigcoupe2003

I would not put my cards into a vizio set until the reviews come out


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigcoupe2003*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24454905
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700#post_24454751
> 
> 
> You guys make me laugh. It's too expensive.....*****....it's too cheap.....*****.....I haven't seen one but it's not much better then a Samsung plasma.....*****.
> 
> 
> The best TV is OUT THERE RIGHT NOW and it's only 4600 right now. Do you remember how long it took plasma too get to that point? How many freaking years?
> 
> 
> Now suddenly ****ing Vizio is a contender!?! LOL and savior of LCD. Sorry, LOL x 10. Just because they showed a fancy demo using Dolby HDR tech doesn't even mean jack ****. Peel off, that Vizio badge and it's probably the LED TV prototype Dolby was showing years ago. Suddenly, Vizio goes from having mediocre to crap TVs, to having the OLED killer. WOW. I'm sure LGs biggest concern is Vizio, and their Dolby prototype. I hope they are so scared that they release the 77" OLED for less then 10k. I love these forums
> 
> 
> You guys should be running out to grab this LG at 4600 before it's gone. (hopefully that price is here to stay)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to agree although I do not own the LG I do own the Samsung oled and have owned the pioneer 141, sharp elite, and currently own a panasonic vt50 and 8th gen kuro the OLED is hands down a better set *I would never purchase another set unless it was OLED* no fully backlit LCD can touch an oled or a plasma and I am speaking from experience not from going to a store asking a bunch of questions and recently I purchased my father a panasonic zt60 and that pales in comparison to the OLED as well.
Click to expand...


If you represent a significant market segment, then LG should be in great shape!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigcoupe2003*
> 
> I would not put my cards into a vizio set until the reviews come out



And neither would I. But that doesn't mean a certain amount of scenario analysis isn't warranted. If low-cost higher-quality 4K LCD is _not_ delivered by Vizio this year, LGs prospects increase and even look excellent. On the other hand, if Vizio _does_ deliver higher-PQ 4K for close to $2000 this year, LG and OLED need to speed up their adoption rate or I believe the barriers to mass-market penetration before the decade is out will prove formidable...


----------



## ALMA

Vizio changes nothing in worldwide sales, it's not available outside US and it's also a company often missing their deadlines. The display world is in the hand of Samsung and LG. They have a duopoly in the market.


----------



## conan48

I may have been a bit harsh in my last post, but until you guys get an OLED in your home, you don't really know how awesome the picture is. My last TV was a VT60 before I went to projectors full time. Now, I own one of the best projectors out there that has higher native contrast then even a Kuro, and the OLED BLOWS it away. I think LG is gonna lead the way for OLED, and they may have recently upped their yields considerably.


Now, if Samsung suddenly lowered their OLED price to 4600, I'd be worried because they have NO NEW product coming, they have publicly stated that it's not the right time for OLED. LG on the otherhand announced 4 new models for this year, and has a very optimistic outlook on OLEDs future. Their process of developing their OLED was much more economical then Samsung and they released a REAL product. The Samsung by all reports is basically a prototype that they released into the wild. Even though some claim that LG is a "fake" OLED because of the white backpane, I'll take a fake OLED over a real LCD or plasma anyday


----------



## conan48

I've been following OLED ever since by hopes for a perfect display were dashed with the demise of SED. I'm beyond ecstatic that we have now reached the pinnacle (for now) of picture fidelity, and we can actually have it in our homes! How long have you guys been into televisions? why do you spend so much time at AVS? For me it was about finding that perfect display and I've found it. Will future OLEDs be even better? Probably, but being this close to perfection now is amazing. You guys gotta get some excitement going in these threads.


The Kuro era is DEAD. LONG LIVE OLED!


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24455241
> 
> 
> I may have been a bit harsh in my last post, but until you guys get an OLED in your home, you don't really know how awesome the picture is. My last TV was a VT60 before I went to projectors full time. Now, I own one of the best projectors out there that has higher native contrast then even a Kuro, and the OLED BLOWS it away. I think LG is gonna lead the way for OLED, and they may have recently upped their yields considerably.
> 
> 
> Now, if Samsung suddenly lowered their OLED price to 4600, I'd be worried because they have NO NEW product coming, they have publicly stated that it's not the right time for OLED. LG on the otherhand announced 4 new models for this year, and has a very optimistic outlook on OLEDs future. Their process of developing their OLED was much more economical then Samsung and they released a REAL product. The Samsung by all reports is basically a prototype that they released into the wild. Even though some claim that LG is a "fake" OLED because of the white backpane, I'll take a fake OLED over a real LCD or plasma anyday




I keep hearing about how OLED blows plasma away but you never hear the "why".


Care to elaborate?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24454954
> 
> 
> Vizio changes nothing in worldwide sales, it's not available outside US and it's also a company often missing their deadlines. The display world is in the hand of Samsung and LG. They have a duopoly in the market.



Clearly, with 1 out of every 6 televisions worldwide, the U.S. market is irrelevant.

Not to mention that with something like 1 out of 4 high-end shipments worldwide (or perhaps even more), it's especially irrelevant to enthusiasts and videophiles!


Oh, and of course there is no chance that Vizio will ever expand to other countries, too!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24455241
> 
> 
> Even though some claim that LG is a "fake" OLED because of the white backpane,



Those people are fools.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_60#post_24455241
> 
> 
> Even though some claim that LG is a "fake" OLED because of the white backpane


 

*Who? * I've only heard one person errantly tirade about a backlight that doesn't exist, but haven't heard a thing from folks griping that the way LG is doing it is fake.  Having OLED produce a dichromatic/trichromatic white which is then filtered *does not in any way change the fact that it is an OLED device.*  Fully emissive, etc., etc.


----------



## RichB

The Visio Pro has me interested should I need to buy a display before OLED arrives.


It is comforting that the exit of Plasma produced a tiny vacuum that Visio had decided to fill.


- Rich


----------



## zzoli

Off topic:


I don't get this Vizio thing. They choose some OEM parts and have them built by manufacturing companies. Where is the research and development activity? Where's the added value? They may have an appeal in the US as an American company, but they have no name anywhere else. Sure, they can expand their sales to other countries, but I think they should choose a brand name which is familiar to the consumers in the targeted market. Think of Grundig - they are not what they were used to be, but the brand is familiar to the audience. Turkish Beko bought Grundig - mostly for the name. Vizio could buy an European brand name - if there's any brand left not sold to Chinese companies.


----------



## Mad Norseman

My 'Holy Grail' TV would be a 4K OLED 75" model for under $5,000.

Wake me when its here...


----------



## andy sullivan

The Vizio thing isn't that hard to get. They buy the components that have already been tested and proven, just like Sony does.. If they wanted to duplicate the Sharp Elite they could, just buy the same components. So if they offer basically a 70" Elite in a 4K package along with the new R Series technology in the $3500-$4000 range who wouldn't want one?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24456237
> 
> 
> The Vizio thing isn't that hard to get. They buy the components that have already been tested and proven, just like Sony does.. If they wanted to duplicate the Sharp Elite they could, just buy the same components. So if they offer basically a 70" Elite in a 4K package along with the new R Series technology in the $3500-$4000 range who wouldn't want one?



Well, this year at least there will not be a 70" Reference Series, only 65" (we hope







) but since Vizio has not yet announced pricing on the 65" Reference Series, I wonder if this most recent price drop by LG on the 55" OLED may cause Vizio to be more aggressive with pricing on the 65" R Series.


65" Reference Series that is Elite-like and 4K (based on spec - all to be proven of course) versus the 55" LG OLED for the same price, I think most might give the nod to the OLED.


Same choice but the 65" Reference Series costing 2/3 of the price of the OLED (and breaking below $3000), many of those sales probably head back towards the R Series...


I believe LG is making their price moves now to drive as many purchase decisions a possible in the vacuume and uncertainty surrounding the 65" Vizio Reference Series and it would not surprise me at all to see Vizio respond with more information about the 65" Reference Series within a matter of weeks, including pricing and planned launch date...


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_60#post_24456262
> 
> 
> ... , I think most might give the nod to the OLED.


Maybe, but I want HDR.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24456299
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_60#post_24456262
> 
> 
> ... , I think most might give the nod to the OLED.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but I want HDR.
Click to expand...


Yeah, there is that. For people who have already made up their mind that what they want is OLED but it is out of reach because of the high price, this latest price drop on the 55" LG OLED to more affordable levels probably accelerates some sales in the near term.


For those not just looking for OLED-quality 1080p on a 55" screen but considering their next purchase from the perspectives of:


1/ dark-level performance and wide viewing angle (double nod to OLED)

2/ screen size (nod to LED/LCD)

3/ 4K (nod to LED/LCD, at least for now)

4/ Wide color gamut / HDR (still jump ball until standards and content emerge and we can understand what it will mean)


all in the context of a specific level of affordability, there are big reasons to wait and see what some of the new LED/LCD panels deliver later this year. If anyone (like me) is not in immediate need of a new TV and just looking to upgrade into a new generation of technology, there are a lot of moving balls in the air right now and there should be more clarity before the end of the year.


So if 1080p with the best picture quality possible on a 55" screen is what floats your boat, the 55" LG OLED at $4500 is probably as good as it is going to get this year. But between 4K streaming, 4K Blue-ray, HDR, and larger screen sizes to better take advantage of 4K resolution, there are good reasons to hold off on making decisions until later this year if one is in a position to do so...


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24455280
> 
> 
> I keep hearing about how OLED blows plasma away but you never hear the "why".
> 
> 
> Care to elaborate?



Contrast. There is a huge difference between TOTAL black and DARK GREY. You may be fooled into thinking that something like the Kuro, or even my JVC projector is approaching black, but it's really a much bigger difference then you would think.


Colour.







The purity and range is just amazing on OLED. PURE and SOLID is my technical answer










Plasma has too much trickery going on to produce a nice clean picture to me. I'm really bothered by flicker, dithering, phophor trails, double judder, etc.


Even FALD LCD is still limited by it's native contrast which rarely exceeds 3000:1. The contrast on OLED is truly infinite.


OLED is a true HDR display. Per pixel illumination is the only way to go.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24456369
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24456299
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_60#post_24456262
> 
> 
> ... , I think most might give the nod to the OLED.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but I want HDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is that. For people who have already made up their mind that what they want is OLED but it is out of reach because of the high price, this latest price drop on the 55" LG OLED to more affordable levels probably accelerates some sales in the near term.
> 
> 
> For those not just looking for OLED-quality 1080p on a 55" screen but considering their next purchase from the perspectives of:
> 
> 
> 1/ dark-level performance and wide viewing angle (double nod to OLED)
> 
> 2/ screen size (nod to LED/LCD)
> 
> 3/ 4K (nod to LED/LCD, at least for now)
> 
> 4/ Wide color gamut / HDR (still jump ball until standards and content emerge and we can understand what it will mean)
> 
> 
> all in the context of a specific level of affordability, there are big reasons to wait and see what some of the new LED/LCD panels deliver later this year. If anyone (like me) is not in immediate need of a new TV and just looking to upgrade into a new generation of technology, there are a lot of moving balls in the air right now and there should be more clarity before the end of the year.
> 
> 
> So if 1080p with the best picture quality possible on a 55" screen is what floats your boat, the 55" LG OLED at $4500 is probably as good as it is going to get this year. But between 4K streaming, 4K Blue-ray, HDR, and larger screen sizes to better take advantage of 4K resolution, there are good reasons to hold off on making decisions until later this year if one is in a position to do so...
Click to expand...


Just ran into this review of the 55" LG OLED (prior to the recent price drop): http://www.cnet.com.au/lg-55ea9800-curved-oled-tv-339345633.htm 


Final paragraph is basically a paraphrase of what I have outlined above:

*"At the moment, it's just not clear where the OLED market is going to go in terms of pricing, sizing and resolution, nor is it clear what time frame it's all working to, so we're not really in a position to tell people to wait six months for prices to fall and flat screens to arrive. Those things may happen, but given the lengthy delays for OLED TVs of any description, there's no guarantee.


Perhaps it's best to put it this way: dedicated early adopters with deep pockets will be purchasing a truly great TV panel that's also a design talking point when featured in the lounge room.

No one will blame the rest of us for waiting a little while to see what happens down the track."
*


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24455453
> 
> _Who? _ I've only heard one person errantly tirade about a backlight that doesn't exist, but haven't heard a thing from folks griping that the way LG is doing it is fake.  Having OLED produce a dichromatic/trichromatic white which is then filtered _does not in any way change the fact that it is an OLED device._  Fully emissive, etc., etc.



Samsung themselves even implied that LG OLED was not the real deal in an interview. Some reviewers mention that Samsung OLED tech is superior and Colours can be even more saturated (higer colour gamut) then the LG OLED. They say that true RGB samsung OLED pixel is better, but then you also have issue with blue decaying to quick, and it's much more expensive to produce then LG. Someone here also mentioned that they know someone who works for Keeteva (sp?) that says neither Samsung or LG or producing the real deal. I don't think it really matters, and their seem to be many ways to create an OLED display, and at least LG has a real product.


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24456403
> 
> 
> Just ran into this review of the 55" LG OLED (prior to the recent price drop): http://www.cnet.com.au/lg-55ea9800-curved-oled-tv-339345633.htm
> 
> 
> Final paragraph is basically a paraphrase of what I have outlined above:
> 
> *"At the moment, it's just not clear where the OLED market is going to go in terms of pricing, sizing and resolution, nor is it clear what time frame it's all working to, so we're not really in a position to tell people to wait six months for prices to fall and flat screens to arrive. Those things may happen, but given the lengthy delays for OLED TVs of any description, there's no guarantee.
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's best to put it this way: dedicated early adopters with deep pockets will be purchasing a truly great TV panel that's also a design talking point when featured in the lounge room.
> 
> No one will blame the rest of us for waiting a little while to see what happens down the track."
> *



whats your point? that review was written when the LG was 15 000. I wouldn't have bought one either at that price. We did wait and now it's 4500.


I understand that some people don't like the size, or the curve, or that it's not 4k, but if your in the market for a 55" 1080p display then the LG is it.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24456421
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24456403
> 
> 
> Just ran into this review of the 55" LG OLED (prior to the recent price drop): http://www.cnet.com.au/lg-55ea9800-curved-oled-tv-339345633.htm
> 
> 
> Final paragraph is basically a paraphrase of what I have outlined above:
> 
> *"At the moment, it's just not clear where the OLED market is going to go in terms of pricing, sizing and resolution, nor is it clear what time frame it's all working to, so we're not really in a position to tell people to wait six months for prices to fall and flat screens to arrive. Those things may happen, but given the lengthy delays for OLED TVs of any description, there's no guarantee.
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's best to put it this way: dedicated early adopters with deep pockets will be purchasing a truly great TV panel that's also a design talking point when featured in the lounge room.
> 
> No one will blame the rest of us for waiting a little while to see what happens down the track."
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whats your point?
Click to expand...


My point was that others had expressed the same sentiment that I did in my post #4789 (so I was not alone in that view)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24456421
> 
> 
> that review was written when the LG was 15 000. I wouldn't have bought one either at that price. We did wait and now it's 4500.



The review was written in October 2013 before the recent price reduction in the 55EA9800 when the price in Australia was AU $12000 (under $11,000 US, probably full MSRP in Australia versus our full MSRP of $9000 here in the US).


The price has apparently been reduced to about half of that level now, but that is in the context of new product announcements made at CES, several of which involved significant price reductions on new technologies like 4K versus what they cost in 2013. As an example, the 65" Vizio P Series FALD LED/LCD has an MSRP of $2200 - less than half the price of any comparable product in 2013. So since the time of that review, the ratio of '55EA9800 price / 65" 4K LED/LCD price' has really not changed that much (> factor of 2) despite LGs recent price reduction.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24456421
> 
> 
> I understand that some people don't like the size, or the curve, or that it's not 4k, *but if your in the market for a 55" 1080p display then the LG is it*.



I believe you and I are actually in perfect agreement, both in terms of some of the factors that may cause people to hold off as well as the point from your quote that I have highlighted in bold (for 55" 1080p the LG is it).


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24455832
> 
> 
> My 'Holy Grail' TV would be a 4K OLED 75" model for under $5,000.
> 
> Wake me when its here...



I hope they make plenty of Grails because I am right there with you










- Rich


----------



## JWhip

UNtil there is an OLED that is at least 65 inches, I will pass. I have seen all the OLEDS and frankly, 55' is not big enough.I will keep my D=Nice enhanced 141 until there is a 65 inch or larger OLED.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_60#post_24456410
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24455453
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*
> 
> 
> Even though some claim that LG is a "fake" OLED because of the white backpane
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Who? * I've only heard one person errantly tirade about a backlight that doesn't exist, but haven't heard a thing from folks griping that the way LG is doing it is fake.  Having OLED produce a dichromatic/trichromatic white which is then filtered *does not in any way change the fact that it is an OLED device.*  Fully emissive, etc., etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Samsung themselves even implied that LG OLED was not the real deal in an interview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a competitor actually implying that their technique was better?  Stop the presses!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Some reviewers mention that Samsung OLED tech is superior and Colours can be even more saturated (higer colour gamut) then the LG OLED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not saying it was "fake".
> 
> 
> 
> That word "fake" with regards to LG OLED should not have been picked up and parroted by you, because it started with ONE person here (who was mistaken) and it is *not* something you're going to hear mentioned elsewhere.  *None* of what you quoted supports that.  You're trying to broaden the credibility of one person's misstatements of {X} into "some claim {X}" and that is how nonsense snowballs into mythos.
Click to expand...


----------



## conan48

Fake, fake, fake, fake. I love my FAKE LG OLED

















LG is still only ONE way of making OLED and even though it's FAKE, It's still better then any other TV out there (possible exception of Samsung OLED, REAL)


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_60#post_24459712
> 
> 
> Fake, fake, fake, fake. I love my FAKE LG OLED


 

>phew


----------



## Weboh


LG still sux.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_60#post_24460226
> 
> 
> 
> LG still sux.


 

^........and right on cue.......


----------



## vinnie97

LOL. Yet they're the only one who is putting their money where their mouth is on the OLED front.


----------



## Weboh


As if it were new display technology. It's an Organic LED backlight that burns out faster. Perhaps, they now have Panasonic patents for plasma, but their track record has actually been mediocre.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760_60#post_24461014
> 
> 
> LOL. Yet they're the only one who is putting their money where their mouth is on the OLED front.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760_60#post_24461023
> 
> 
> 
> As if it were new display technology. It's an Organic LED backlight that burns out faster. Perhaps, they now have Panasonic patents for plasma, but their track record has actually been mediocre.
Click to expand...

 

What does "as if it were a new display technology" mean with respect to what Vinnie said?  What does it matter *when* OLED was created?  It hasn't been larger screen viable until now.  Seriously, do you have a point in this?


----------



## vinnie97

Seems like an ancillary nonpoint to me. 2013 was the first year a big-screen OLED TV was ever made available commercially. Also, plasma can be dated back to the 70s, LCD at least as long (longer depending on what development you cite).


----------



## rogo

I'm bored by this nonsense LG innuendo. These pointless claims about color gamut when the LG has incredibly accurate color and as wide a gamut as most any other TV you can buy are pretty pointless. it also "out contrasts" basically every other TV on the market.


Samsung is -- for the time being -- essentially out of the OLED TV business. LG is not. Which one of those is more interesting to videophiles? Oh, right....


----------



## conan48

Sorry to bore you rollo. Of course I was being mostly sarcastic and yes LG version of OLED will be the only version for the foreseeable future. I'm already planning on buying either the 65" 4K or 77" 4k LG OLED, depending on price. Once you go OLED, you never go back.


LG is not true RGB OLED, rather it is LG's WRGB (White-OLED with color filters, or WOLED-CF) design used in their OLED TVs is based on technology developed at Kodak. WRGB TVs are less efficient than direct-emission OLEDs (because the color filters absorb some of the light) but they are easier to fabricate because there's no need to pattern subpixels.


Now, what would the advantages be in Samsung OLED, other then brightness? I wonder why I can see some banding on very rare occasions on my LG?


For a first gen product, my LG is hands down the best picture I've ever seen!! Can't imagine it getting much better! Hopefully them implement some kind of DFI or scanning, or pulse, etc to completely get rid of the sample and hold effect.


Also, you guys do know that Best Buy has a 30 day return policy right? How can you guys not resist trying one out?


----------



## vinnie97

Just a wild shot in the dark, but the banding may be caused by the same phenomenon resulting in the misfiring pixels on grayscale patterns, the TFT backplane that LG informed Digital Trends about.


HDTVTest theorized the problem might be a side effect of the panel's thin profile, but is the Samsung any more thick? I haven't compared dimensions. HDTVTest mentioned this banding wasn't visible in actual content, so it's a little disconcerting to hear you're seeing it, even if rarely (of course you've had much more time to spend with the panel).


Best Buy actually has a 15-day return policy these days.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760#post_24461490
> 
> 
> LG is not true RGB OLED,



Samsung's OLED is not "true WRGB WOLED".


> Quote:
> rather it is LG's WRGB (White-OLED with color filters, or WOLED-CF) design used in their OLED TVs is based on technology developed at Kodak. WRGB TVs are less efficient than direct-emission OLEDs (because the color filters absorb some of the light) but they are easier to fabricate because there's no need to pattern subpixels.



This thread has hundreds of posts on this topic. We're all quite familiar with it. It's very marginally less efficient.


> Quote:
> Now, what would the advantages be in Samsung OLED, other then brightness?



Well, since it's not mass production ready at all, it's moot anyway.


> Quote:
> I wonder why I can see some banding on very rare occasions on my LG?



That has nothing to do with any perceive shortcomings of the basic technology. I'm not sure what kind of banding you mean, however, so I'm not going to speculate on what _you_ are seeing.


Know that vapor deposition of an OLED layer is not going to perfectly even, however, so mura-type effects are going to exist for the time being.


> Quote:
> For a first gen product, my LG is hands down the best picture I've ever seen!! Can't imagine it getting much better! Hopefully them implement some kind of DFI or scanning, or pulse, etc to completely get rid of the sample and hold effect.



I can imagine it getting better.


----------



## Masterbrew2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760#post_24462259
> 
> 
> 
> I can imagine it getting better.


 

In what ways?


----------



## vinnie97

One of the biggest areas right now is motion rez. While Samsung's BFI method seems to work pretty satisfactorily, they don't really seem ready to gear up production with their poor yields. LG will hopefully introduce something similar in this year's model. Other areas where there is room for improvement on the LG are referenced in reviews. They seem relatively minor (screen uniformity at specific low light levels and pixel laziness visible from 1.5 feet out).


----------



## Chris5028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760#post_24462204
> 
> 
> Just a wild shot in the dark, but the banding may be caused by the same phenomenon resulting in the misfiring pixels on grayscale patterns, the TFT backplane that LG informed Digital Trends about.
> 
> 
> HDTVTest theorized the problem might be a side effect of the panel's thin profile, but is the Samsung any more thick? I haven't compared dimensions. HDTVTest mentioned this banding wasn't visible in actual content, so it's a little disconcerting to hear you're seeing it, even if rarely (of course you've had much more time to spend with the panel).
> 
> 
> Best Buy actually has a 15-day return policy these days.



BestBuys return policy is different depending on your membership status, buying this TV would put you in the highest tier so you would actually have a 45 day return window. Assuming you sign up for the rewards program that is.


----------



## GotHDTV?




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760#post_24461490
> 
> 
> Sorry to bore you rollo. Of course I was being mostly sarcastic and yes LG version of OLED will be the only version for the foreseeable future. I'm already planning on buying either the 65" 4K or 77" 4k LG OLED, depending on price. Once you go OLED, you never go back.



If you would rather have a 4K OLED instead of a car, then you can buy it at the end of the year. On the last day of CES, the LG rep told me that they were targeting around $25k for the 77" 4K OLED UHDTV (they didn't talk pricing until the last day). He didn't mention price on the others.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_100#post_24462805
> 
> 
> BestBuys return policy is different depending on your membership status, buying this TV would put you in the highest tier so you would actually have a 45 day return window. Assuming you sign up for the rewards program that is.


I'm fairly confident that does not apply retroactively (at the point of purchase, if you don't have such membership, you will still only have 15 days to evaluate).


----------



## Chris5028

They honored it for my purchase of a F8500 recently. It could depend on the management at the store I suppose.


----------



## vinnie97

Very true concerning the management comment, especially if they want to retain customers as opposed to driving them away.


----------



## latreche34




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8730#post_24455832
> 
> 
> My 'Holy Grail' TV would be a 4K OLED 75" model for under $5,000.
> 
> Wake me when its here...


A 75" full array LED with local dimming 4K under $4K is good enough for me, wake me up when you see one.


----------



## vinnie97

Then you're in the wrong thread.







A couple of questions about that full-array LED include how wide is the viewing angle before there is a noticeable drop-off in contrast and color reproduction, how many dimming zones are there, and if there aren't at least as many as can be found on the Sharp Elite, will the dimming algorithm be advanced enough to avoid blooming artifacts? With OLED, none of these are a concern (but yes, the tech has its own untested concerns as well).


----------



## rogo

Good(ish) news: The latest IHS forecast for OLED is 8.1 million units in 2018. That's (in my mind) a really big number given that even 2015 will have a tough time reaching 1 million... It's almost certainly also something resembling 100% of the high-end TV market.


Bad news: The global TV market is absolutely coming apart at the seams. It's starting to look like PCs where every forecast gets revised downward (because the previous one was too optimistic. The numbers came in from IHS at 225 million (vs. a forecast of 227 million as of November). That doesn't seem like a lot, but it was down almost 6% overall -- and a whopping 10% among HD sets!


Every region saw declines, with North America down 9%, Asia down 7% and both sides of Europe suffering.


This is generally awful for new technology. It's trying to grow into a shrinking pool.


IHS thinks this is all going to turn out OK, specifically because of China and emerging-market demand. It does not see things turning in the developed world. That's good for people buying cheap LCDs, but honestly it has no impact on the high end of the market which it tacitly has begun to agree with me about -- that segment is at best flat from here, and quite possibly shrinking further as replacement cycles _get even longer_.


In short,
My belief the Japanese TV makers are all dead is stronger than ever. None has any means of withstanding even flat markets in the developed world and none are strong in China. Even if they were there are no margins to be had in China.
The U.S. and China are probably getting close to even on "revenue share" in the TV market at this point. The collapse of the U.S. market is especially bad news for brands focused here and premium products.
I suspect that IHS is wrong about the market size and that it will continue to shrink -- even with growth of demand in China. It would not surprise me even slightly to see global TV demand fall to 200 million by the end of the decade. Shipments were regularly below this figure through 2007. Everyone in the developed world has bought into the flat-panel / digital era by now -- even for most secondary rooms. There are simply no catalysts to maintain an accelerated rate of purchases.
Tablets are taking a huge portion of TV-type viewing, further depressing demand. This is a developed and developing-world phenomenon.
Every forecaster is calling for OLED to basically completely dominate the high end of the flat-panel world within 5 years. They are presuming that high-end LCD will simply not be able to compete with OLED.


----------



## dsinger

Every forecaster is calling for OLED to basically completely dominate the high end of the flat-panel world within 5 years. They are presuming that high-end LCD will simply not be able to compete with OLED.


Rogo: Hope this is correct regarding OLED in that it assumes that mass production is successful from a profitability standpoint. On the other hand, however, I believe we as consumers need high end LCD to be somewhat competitive because of the pressure that would put on OLED prices. LG, if they are the main source of OLED and have little or no competition will be able to charge higher prices than would be the case if there were still high PQ quality LCDs around.


----------



## Artwood

I know I've asked this a million times but I never have got an answer to it--Why can audio equipment be produced and sold at astronomical prices--the companies that do so continue to make money and continue to produce such equipment but it is 100% against SALES FORCE law here at AVS forum to conceive of ANY company being able to do the same when it comes to TVs...


Why is that?!


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*
> 
> I know I've asked this a million times but I never have got an answer to it--Why can audio equipment be produced and sold at astronomical prices--the companies that do so continue to make money and continue to produce such equipment but it is 100% against SALES FORCE law here at AVS forum to conceive of ANY company being able to do the same when it comes to TVs...
> 
> 
> Why is that?!


  
http://izismile.com/2010/06/08/the_most_expensive_and_the_coolest_home_theatre_in_the_world_22_pics.html


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760#post_24484039
> 
> 
> Good(ish) news: The latest IHS forecast for OLED is 8.1 million units in 2018. That's (in my mind) a really big number given that even 2015 will have a tough time reaching 1 million... It's almost certainly also something resembling 100% of the high-end TV market.



Thanks for the info Rogo - is the IHS report/forecast publicly available? Is there a link?


I believe you are correct is assuming that this forecast represents something close to 100% of the high-end TV market by 2018, and in my view this is a pretty optimistic forecast. Here's a quick list of some risk factors I see that could cause the OLED penetration of the high-end TV market to be significantly less than 100% by 2018:


1/ technical challenges associated with low-cost manufacturing of large panels take longer to resolve than expected - for UHD panels 65" and above, LED/LCD remains substantially less expensive than OLED, even by 2018.


2/ the speed of industrialization and mass-manufacturing of OLED is slower than assumed by this forecast - I believe this forecast must be basically assuming that investments in mass-market manufacturing facilities is starting this year and I am not yet sure that is the case. If LG decides to be more cautious and invest in new manufacturing capacity only when they are confident that they have a market to absorb the volume of resulting products, the entire ramp to the volumes needed to supply 100% of the high-end TV market by 2018 could take longer than they are assuming...


3/ OLED for consumer TVs remains a far less mature technology than LED/LCD and a technical issue could still emerge that slows it adoption. Between aging of blue phosphors, burn-in/IR, or some other lifetime / reliability issue, until OLED has a much longer history of high-volume / low-cost products in the hands of millions of consumer for a period of several years, there remains the possibility that a technical problem could emerge that slows its progress.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760#post_24484039
> 
> 
> Bad news: The global TV market is absolutely coming apart at the seams. It's starting to look like PCs where every forecast gets revised downward (because the previous one was too optimistic. The numbers came in from IHS at 225 million (vs. a forecast of 227 million as of November). That doesn't seem like a lot, but it was down almost 6% overall -- and a whopping 10% among HD sets!
> 
> 
> Every region saw declines, with North America down 9%, Asia down 7% and both sides of Europe suffering.
> 
> 
> This is generally awful for new technology. It's trying to grow into a shrinking pool.
> 
> 
> IHS thinks this is all going to turn out OK, specifically because of China and emerging-market demand. It does not see things turning in the developed world. That's good for people buying cheap LCDs, but honestly it has no impact on the high end of the market which it tacitly has begun to agree with me about -- that segment is at best flat from here, and quite possibly shrinking further as replacement cycles _get even longer_.
> 
> 
> In short,
> *My belief the Japanese TV makers are all dead is stronger than ever. None has any means of withstanding even flat markets in the developed world* and none are strong in China. Even if they were there are no margins to be had in China.
> The U.S. and China are probably getting close to even on "revenue share" in the TV market at this point. The collapse of the U.S. market is especially bad news for brands focused here and premium products.
> I suspect that IHS is wrong about the market size and that it will continue to shrink -- even with growth of demand in China. It would not surprise me even slightly to see global TV demand fall to 200 million by the end of the decade. Shipments were regularly below this figure through 2007. Everyone in the developed world has bought into the flat-panel / digital era by now -- even for most secondary rooms. There are simply no catalysts to maintain an accelerated rate of purchases.
> Tablets are taking a huge portion of TV-type viewing, further depressing demand. This is a developed and developing-world phenomenon.
> Every forecaster is calling for OLED to basically completely dominate the high end of the flat-panel world within 5 years. They are presuming that high-end LCD will simply not be able to compete with OLED.



I had posted this link in another thread, but it seems appropriate to complement your post by repeating it here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/samsung-vizio-control-u-smart-182100660.html 


This report is focused on the US market and shows Q4'13 market share data in the US as follows:


Top 5 United States Smart TV Vendors



United States Smart TV Vendor Market Share (%) __________ Q4 '12 __________ Q4 '13 __________ Change Y/Y

1. Samsung _________________________________________ 29.5% __________ 29.6% ___________ 0.2%
2. Vizio ____________________________________________ 22.8% __________ 24.4% ____________ 1.7%
3. Sony ____________________________________________ 20.9% _________ 17.6% ____________ -3.3%
4. LG _______________________________________________ 7.9% _________ 13.0% ____________ 5.1%
5. Panasonic _________________________________________7.9% __________ 6.9% _____________-1.0%
__ Others __________________________________________ 11.1% ___________ 8.5% ____________ -2.6%


Source: Strategy Analytics, Connected Home Devices Service


So based on this data, at least for the US market if there is any Japanese brand able to hang on for another year or two, it would appear to be Sony. On the other hand, Sony lost more market share Q4'12-Q4'13 than any other brand and it looks like a done deal that LG will pass Sony to become #3 in US Smart TV share by Q1'15. And the fact that neither Sharp nor Toshiba even made the top 5, as well as the fact that Panasonic had less than 7% share before the ended sales of their plasma TVs, would make me very hesitant to consider buying a new TV from any Japanese brand other than possibly Sony (if I was concerned about long-term technical support and continued presence in the US market).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760#post_24484039
> 
> Every forecaster is calling for OLED to basically completely dominate the high end of the flat-panel world within 5 years. They are presuming that high-end LCD will simply not be able to compete with OLED.



If OLED is fundamentally (and significantly on a % basis) less expensive to manufacture than high-quality LED/LCD, this is eventually going to happen, no question. I believe that the _time_ required for OLED manufacturing to deliver products based on that fundamental manufacturing cost advantage is a risk factor, as I stated in the beginning of this post, so 'within 5 years' is probably a best-case estimate and it could take longer.


In the scenario that OLED does not have a fundamental manufacturing cost advantage versus high-quality LED/LCD, the entire equation becomes a great deal more complicated and who knows where we will be in 2018...


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760#post_24486501
> 
> 
> 
> 2/ the speed of industrialization and mass-manufacturing of OLED is slower than assumed by this forecast - I believe this forecast must be basically assuming that investments in mass-market manufacturing facilities is starting this year and I am not yet sure that is the case. If LG decides to be more cautious and invest in new manufacturing capacity only when they are confident that they have a market to absorb the volume of resulting products, the entire ramp to the volumes needed to supply 100% of the high-end TV market by 2018 could take longer than they are assuming...



LG is absolutely building a mass market fab. Their Gen 8 fab with capacity for ~1.85 million 55" televisions a year is supposed to ramp in the 2nd half of this year.


Assuming that the initial fab hits their yield/sales goals, I would expect that they would start another fab conversion sometime late in 2015 with a goal for commercial production in late 2016 or early 2017. The size of the 2nd fab will be determined by just how low LG Display believes they can get their costs using vapor deposition combined with IGZO/WRGB. I think that the approach can dominate the high-end of the television market, but can it produce a sub-$1500 television? No idea, but ultimately, that is where the really big volumes lie.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760_60#post_24486501
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 1/ technical challenges associated with low-cost manufacturing of large panels take longer to resolve than expected ...
> 
> 
> 2/ the speed of industrialization and mass-manufacturing of OLED is slower than assumed ...
> 
> 
> 3/ ... a technical issue could still emerge that slows it adoption. ...



4/ LED-LCD improves faster than envisioned.


(I'm thinking more brightness, Dolby Vision, Vizio.)


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760#post_24486622
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760#post_24486501
> 
> 
> 
> 2/ the speed of industrialization and mass-manufacturing of OLED is slower than assumed by this forecast - I believe this forecast must be basically assuming that investments in mass-market manufacturing facilities is starting this year and I am not yet sure that is the case. If LG decides to be more cautious and invest in new manufacturing capacity only when they are confident that they have a market to absorb the volume of resulting products, the entire ramp to the volumes needed to supply 100% of the high-end TV market by 2018 could take longer than they are assuming...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG is absolutely building a mass market fab. Their Gen 8 fab with capacity for ~1.85 million 55" televisions a year is supposed to ramp in the 2nd half of this year.
> 
> 
> Assuming that the initial fab hits their yield/sales goals, I would expect that they would start another fab conversion sometime late in 2015 with a goal for commercial production in late 2016 or early 2017. The size of the 2nd fab will be determined by just how low LG Display believes they can get their costs using vapor deposition combined with IGZO/WRGB. I think that the approach can dominate the high-end of the television market, but can it produce a sub-$1500 television? No idea, but ultimately, that is where the really big volumes lie.
Click to expand...


This is helpful detail, slacker711. And I think it helps make my point more concrete.


This definitely an investment in a mass-market manufacturing facility, but is it only one such investment.


If your numbers are correct, this plant has sufficient capacity to pump out 1.85 million 55" TVs. Perhaps the market late this year will surprise us and LG will sell a high number of 55" OLED TVs, but there is a high probability that at the price points they have indicated, the market interest for the 55" will be less than the market interest for the 77". I, for one, would not be interested to invest $5000+ in a 55" OLED this year because I know that my real goal is a panel 65" or larger, so I would likely be following that first 55" OLED purchase with another one as soon as the 65"+ OLED become affordable and mainstream (and perhaps 4K as well...). If I am likely gong to have to sell a new TV at a loss within the next 2-3 years, I'd much rather sell a used 65" LED/LCD that cost me less than half the price of a 55" OLED than trying to sell that 55" OLED used...


1.85M 55" OLEDs equals about 1.3M 65" OLEDs or about 1.0M 75" OLEDs (assuming identical yields, which is an unrealistically optimistic assumption).


So in the scenario that the 2015 'High-end' TV market is for panels 75" or more, LGs new plant will give them the capacity to a demand of up to 1M 75" OLEDs, aligned with the forecast of 1M OLED TVs sold in 2015.


If that first plant is maxed out, selling everything it can produce, and the market is growing as LG hopes, your expectation that LG would invest in another even higher-volume manufacturing facility, likely linked to an even lower-cost manufacturing process such as the vapor deposition + IGZO/WRGB al sounds very realistic and likely. So the virtuous cycle of increased investment in manufacturing capacity resulting in increased volume of sales and business and profit would be established on a timeframe consistent with OLED dominating the high-end TV market by 2018 as forecast by IHS.


But that is a lot of 'ifs' and that was my point. It is possible, even realistic, but I am not sure that scenario can be called likely.


Another forecast is that LG is that is unable to produce OLED panels inexpensively enough by 2015 to sell them at a price point competitive against high-end LED/LCD to sell anywhere close to even 50% of this first plants manufacturing capacity. n that scenario, they are unlikely to feel the business confidence to invest in another manufacturing until later than you have forecast. This first manufacturing plant might be sufficient for the OLED TV business they are serving through 2015 and 2016 and perhaps into 2017 before they are running out of OLED TV manufacturing capacity.


Today we know that LG can sell a 55" OLED for ~$4500 which hopefully represents a break-even price, at least. That is very expensive for 1 55" 1080p TV in todays market. The 55" Vizio M Series FALD TV will not have the same picture quality, but it will cost $900 - 20% of the price. And for those who want the best PQ and are ready to pay for it, I don't believe 55" is the target size they will be interested in.


So on to larger panels. LG will be offering a 77" OLED this year, but we don't what it will cost yet. The 70" Vizio P Series 4K FALD will be available for $2600 this year. By next year, the P Series will cost less and will probably be offering many more of the PQ enhancements introduced (we hope  by the R Series this year. So for the sake of argument, let's assume that Vizio has a 70" R Series for $2600 or less available on the market next year and it offers Sony X950B / Sharp Elite class PQ with 4K, HDR, WCG, etc...


In the case that a competing 70" 4K OLED costs $10K or more in 2015 (which is already a pretty aggressive assumption), I'm not sure LG sells 1M of those OLEDs...


Having to scratch market share away from an established and pretty low-cost technology like LED/LCD, even if PQ is not as good, makes a very big challenge for LG.


So the ramp-up of OLED _could_ happen as quickly as you have outlined, or it could happen more slowly than that - that was my point. And my secondary point was that, I see the IHS forecast (supported by your forecast) as relatively optimistic and believe there at least an equal chance of the ramp-up of OLED going more slowly...


----------



## conan48

FALD LCD is **** compared to OLED. OLED will be the only high end display now. Wait for the Value electronics shootout this year and it will be proven.


----------



## bigcoupe2003

Agreed


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_100#post_24484039
> 
> 
> ...depressing...


.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_100#post_24486210
> 
> 
> I know I've asked this a million times but I never have got an answer to it--Why can audio equipment be produced and sold at astronomical prices--the companies that do so continue to make money and continue to produce such equipment but it is 100% against SALES FORCE law here at AVS forum to conceive of ANY company being able to do the same when it comes to TVs... Why is that?!


I'm not sure that's true. The audiophile market is basically dead and they haven't even realized it yet. Their only market is getting older and upgrading to more expensive equipment with huge margins, which is keeping the money coming in for now, but there are very few _new_ customers entering the market at any point (low-end, mid-range etc.) to work their way up the ladder as it were.


The new generation of potential customers just aren't interested in it, with their headphones and lossy downloads which sound bad on a high-end system, and the focus on convenience with sound bars and portable bluetooth speakers.

The new generation simply can't afford high-end audio either, even if they did see the value in it. But music is just background noise to that generation rather than being something they will sit down and focus their attention on. Just try and get anyone under 30 to sit down and listen to an album start to finish without them pulling out their phones and focusing their attention somewhere else.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760#post_24487337
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'm not sure that's true. The audiophile market is basically dead and they haven't even realized it yet. Their only market is getting older and upgrading to more expensive equipment with huge margins, which is keeping the money coming in for now, but there are very few _new_ customers entering the market at any point (low-end, mid-range etc.) to work their way up the ladder as it were.
> 
> 
> The new generation of potential customers just aren't interested in it, with their headphones and lossy downloads which sound bad on a high-end system, and the focus on convenience with sound bars and portable bluetooth speakers.
> 
> The new generation simply can't afford high-end audio either, even if they did see the value in it. But music is just background noise to that generation rather than being something they will sit down and focus their attention on. Just try and get anyone under 30 to sit down and listen to an album start to finish without them pulling out their phones and focusing their attention somewhere else.



I have a more positive spin on the DAC/Headphone market. Many DACs are also preamps that can be connected to powered speakers or directly to an amp and speakers.

Eventually, they will get good jobs, leave their cramped dwellings, buy a house, and want to walk around and listen to music without gear on their heads.

In the meantime, they are developing a taste for fidelity. Excellent!










- Rich


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760#post_24486751
> 
> 
> 
> Another forecast is that LG is that is unable to produce OLED panels inexpensively enough by 2015 to sell them at a price point competitive against high-end LED/LCD to sell anywhere close to even 50% of this first plants manufacturing capacity. n that scenario, they are unlikely to feel the business confidence to invest in another manufacturing until later than you have forecast. This first manufacturing plant might be sufficient for the OLED TV business they are serving through 2015 and 2016 and perhaps into 2017 before they are running out of OLED TV manufacturing capacity.



Fundamentally, we will have no certainty until any of this happens. This will be the first commercial OLED fab and projecting anything about it is naturally going to be more uncertain than projecting the 100th LCD fab. However, your comment about "business confidence" is precisely why I do have some confidence in the ramp of OLED shipments over the next two years. LG Display has a fairly good idea about the price targets they will need to hit to sell the Gen 8 fab capacity and yet they spent the $700 million or so required to convert the a-si LCD capacity to IGZO OLED. The losses that they are going to take this year are large enough to lead them to cancel their dividend. While this isnt a bet the company event, it isnt a side project either.


They must have some business confidence in their roadmap to hit the yields and price points necessary to make this investment viable. It doesnt guarantee anything, but neither is it a shot in the dark.


As for screen size/cost, somewhere up thread is a breakdown of television sales by size. My cursory search didnt find it, but I am pretty sure that sales of >70" screens is absolutely tiny. There is going to be quite a bit of premium for OLED's of that size but my guess is that is precisely the market that is going to be willing to pay extra for the absolute top of the line picture quality. The real test for LG will be whether they can bring down the price of the 55" version far enough to appeal to non-AV enthusiasts who were previously buying Sony based on their reputation for quality. That market is going to be necessary to justify a 2nd fab.


----------



## vinnie97

Doesn't the potential customer pool for 55" panels expand when you factor in the void created by Panasonic's disappearance (in the case of the VT60)? Now you did state non-AV enthusiasts, but I rather doubt Sony's LCDs are/were a greater bargain than said Panasonic's (haven't done the actual pricing research).


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24487977
> 
> 
> They must have some business confidence in their roadmap to hit the yields and price points necessary to make this investment viable. It doesnt guarantee anything, but neither is it a shot in the dark.



Absolutely agree - it is not a shot in the dark and they have some business confidence in roadmap and yield to hit defined pricepoint objectives.


On the other hand, decision are being made in the context of a moving target, so accuracy of market forecast is a major risk factor. Kind of like skiing down an avalanche. When decision were made to invest in this first plant and what objectives were in terms of yields, costs, etc, that was likely last year before anyone could have forecasted what has happened to pricing in 2014.


If LG had forecasted 55" 4K FALD LED/LCD being available in 2014 for $1400, they knew what they were getting into and should come out fine (assuming yields and costs hit the targets they believed would be achievable).


On the other hand, if LG made those investment decisions in the context of an assumption that prices in 2014 and 2015 for 55" 4K FALD LED/LCD would be in the $4-5 range, that wlll mean that they are either going to have to sell at a lower price than they had expected (and probably face even greater losses at this stage of the ramp-up than they had planned for), r they are going to have a lower volume of sales than they had expected (and the ramp-up will be slower than they had expected).


Either way, I suspect that the emergence of the Chinese and the drop in 4K pricing being driven by Vizio has likely made the business challenge greater than it appeared when these investment decisions were made last year.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24487977
> 
> 
> As for screen size/cost, somewhere up thread is a breakdown of television sales by size. My cursory search didnt find it, but I am pretty sure that sales of >70" screens is absolutely tiny. There is going to be quite a bit of premium for OLED's of that size but my guess is that is precisely the market that is going to be willing to pay extra for the absolute top of the line picture quality. The real test for LG will be whether they can bring down the price of the 55" version far enough to appeal to non-AV enthusiasts who were previously buying Sony based on their reputation for quality. That market is going to be necessary to justify a 2nd fab.



Remember that we are talking about the premium market only, not the overall market. So 'tiny' is all relative (and it is important to be clear about relative to what), but we were talking about a premium market of about 8 million units in 2018 - so the highest-end 3-4% of the overall market. It would surprise me if the average screen size within that highest-end of the display market is only 55-inches...


Nobody including IHS and Rogo seems to be projecting that OLED will drop prices quickly enough to appeal to the mass-market by 2018. so premium pricing for 65-75" OLED TVs that dominate that high-end segment by 2018 seems to be the more realistic target.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488007
> 
> 
> Doesn't the potential customer pool for 55" panels expand when you factor in the void created by Panasonic's disappearance (in the case of the VT60)? Now you did state non-AV enthusiasts, but I rather doubt Sony's LCDs are/were a greater bargain than said Panasonic's (haven't done the actual pricing research).



What about the Samsung plasmas (for as long as they last)???


It's an interesting and important question as to how many people would be willing to shell out $7500 for a fantastic 55" TV this year...


The price drops to $4500 of the 55-inch 2013 model are no doubt generating some increased sales, but it is not yet clear if that is a sustainable price and I believe the expectation is that the 2014 55" OLED will be priced higher than that. And as an example of that the LG 55EA8800 is available on Amazon now at an MSRP of $10,000 discounted down to $7500.


That is more likely a sustainable price, but it is unclear what volume of demand is going to be generated at that price for such a small screen size...


$7500 for a 55" 1080p OLED versus less than a third of that for a 60" F8500 - not sure that decision is such a no-brainer for anyone inclined to see how the dust settles over the next 12-18 months before being stuck with a very expensive and quickly obsolete 2014 OLED...


It's all just not an obvious slam-dunk yet - that is the only point I am trying to make.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488007
> 
> 
> Doesn't the potential customer pool for 55" panels expand when you factor in the void created by Panasonic's disappearance (in the case of the VT60)? Now you did state non-AV enthusiasts, but I rather doubt Sony's LCDs are/were a greater bargain than said Panasonic's (haven't done the actual pricing research).



I didnt explain that comment well. I was trying to get across that the perception of OLED picture quality needs to move beyond the average AVS Forum vistor to the general high-end customer. It seems to me that plasma never managed to make this jump. While plasma's won the various shoot-outs and Kuro's were considered best of breed, the average upper middle class consumer never perceived much of a difference between plasmas and LCD's. There are all sorts of reasons for this, but whatever the explanation, OLED's will absolutely have to deliver that kind of differentiation if/when they move into the $2500 type of price point.


Looking back a few years, there was a time when Sony was automatically perceived to have the best quality. If you asked who made the best quality TV's, regardless of price, Sony was the answer for the general public (regardless if this was actually true). The question was simply whether you were willing to pay the premium to buy the Sony.


I think that OLED's need to get to a similar position. If you ask which technology has the best picture quality, the answer for the general public needs to clearly be OLED's. It is that kind of perception that will allow OLED"s to dominate the high-end while still having at least some price premium to LCD's.


----------



## vinnie97

Thanks for the clarification, Slack. I actually loathe the fact that the public is largely ignorant of the better panels from Pioneer, Panasonic, and Sharp over the past half-decade and are brainwashed into believing the justification of the Sony premium.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_100#post_24488273
> 
> 
> What about the Samsung plasmas (for as long as they last)???


They're okay....however, I was only including the premium offerings from both companies, and the F8500 isn't manufactured in the 55" variety.


> Quote:
> $7500 for a 55" 1080p OLED versus less than a third of that for a 60" F8500 - not sure that decision is such a no-brainer for anyone inclined to see how the dust settles over the next 12-18 months before being stuck with a very expensive and quickly obsolete 2014 OLED...


$7500 is too hard a pill too swallow for the vast majority. It'll be interesting how quickly it takes to reach last year's current clearance price. I find the obsolescence angle to be a bit artificially manufactured by the CEMs due to the lack of content. No guarantee of a BD 4K disc, and streaming is just not a viable solution for anyone without the most robust of connections. Factor in the typical lesser quality of 1080p streaming in comparison to disc-based media and a set that is 55", and the screams of obsolescence don't have that much in the way of resonance. Depending on how well the CEMs manage to convince the public of the need to upgrade, it could be that I'll hold the minority opinion.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488250
> 
> 
> On the other hand, decision are being made in the context of a moving target, so accuracy of market forecast is a major risk factor. Kind of like skiing down an avalanche. When decision were made to invest in this first plant and what objectives were in terms of yields, costs, etc, that was likely last year before anyone could have forecasted what has happened to pricing in 2014.
> 
> 
> If LG had forecasted 55" 4K FALD LED/LCD being available in 2014 for $1400, they knew what they were getting into and should come out fine (assuming yields and costs hit the targets they believed would be achievable).
> 
> 
> On the other hand, if LG made those investment decisions in the context of an assumption that prices in 2014 and 2015 for 55" 4K FALD LED/LCD would be in the $4-5 range, that wlll mean that they are either going to have to sell at a lower price than they had expected (and probably face even greater losses at this stage of the ramp-up than they had planned for), r they are going to have a lower volume of sales than they had expected (and the ramp-up will be slower than they had expected).



If $1400 for a 4k FALD LCD is the line in the sand on price, then everybody outside of Vizio is doomed. I have my doubts that it is going to play out like that. Sony, Samsung, and the rest of the vendors still have 4K televisions selling for a substantial premium to Vizio and those will be the first to be challenged by OLED's.


I do agree about the moving target though. The quick transition to 4K had to complicate LG's plans. They will need to hit very good yields on their backplane to bring down the premium for 4K. As with LCD, there is no fundamental reason for 4K to cost much more than 1080p.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488297
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification, Slack. I actually loathe the fact that the public is largely ignorant of the better panels from Pioneer, Panasonic, and Sharp over the past half-decade and are brainwashed into believing the justification of the Sony premium.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_100#post_24488273
> 
> 
> What about the Samsung plasmas (for as long as they last)???
> 
> 
> 
> They're okay....however, I was only including the premium offerings from both companies, and the F8500 isn't manufactured in the 55" variety.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> $7500 for a 55" 1080p OLED versus less than a third of that for a 60" F8500 - not sure that decision is such a no-brainer for anyone inclined to see how the dust settles over the next 12-18 months before being stuck with a very expensive and quickly obsolete 2014 OLED...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> $7500 is too hard a pill too swallow for the vast majority. It'll be interesting how quickly it takes to reach last year's current clearance price. *I find the obsolescence angle to be a bit artificially manufactured by the CEMs due to the lack of content.* No guarantee of a BD 4K disc, and streaming is just not a viable solution for anyone without the most robust of connections. Factor in the typical lesser quality of 1080p streaming in comparison to disc-based media and a set that is 55", and the screams of obsolescence don't have that much in the way of resonance. Depending on how well the CEMs manage to convince the public of the need to upgrade, it could be that I'll hold the minority opinion.
Click to expand...


My apologies, I should have been more clear - I was actually referring to obsolescence not tied to 4K/UHD/content-evolution-related, but OLED technology-related. What is out there today (2013's, first 2014's) and will be coming out this year is still first-generation technology in terms of volume sales and use by consumers, so I don't think it is a safe assumption to assume that this first generation is 'fully-baked' and that there will not be some attractive enhancements offered in next-generation OLEDs introduced a year from now.


The 4K stuff is in addition to that (though there should be 4K OLEDs soon).


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488308
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488250
> 
> 
> On the other hand, decision are being made in the context of a moving target, so accuracy of market forecast is a major risk factor. Kind of like skiing down an avalanche. When decision were made to invest in this first plant and what objectives were in terms of yields, costs, etc, that was likely last year before anyone could have forecasted what has happened to pricing in 2014.
> 
> 
> If LG had forecasted 55" 4K FALD LED/LCD being available in 2014 for $1400, they knew what they were getting into and should come out fine (assuming yields and costs hit the targets they believed would be achievable).
> 
> 
> On the other hand, if LG made those investment decisions in the context of an assumption that prices in 2014 and 2015 for 55" 4K FALD LED/LCD would be in the $4-5 range, that wlll mean that they are either going to have to sell at a lower price than they had expected (and probably face even greater losses at this stage of the ramp-up than they had planned for), r they are going to have a lower volume of sales than they had expected (and the ramp-up will be slower than they had expected).
> 
> 
> 
> *If $1400 for a 4k FALD LCD is the line in the sand on price, then everybody outside of Vizio is doomed.* I have my doubts that it is going to play out like that. Sony, Samsung, and the rest of the vendors still have 4K televisions selling for a substantial premium to Vizio and those will be the first to be challenged by OLED's.
> 
> 
> I do agree about the moving target though. The quick transition to 4K had to complicate LG's plans. They will need to hit very good yields on their backplane to bring down the premium for 4K. As with LCD, there is no fundamental reason for 4K to cost much more than 1080p.
Click to expand...


You are finally beginning to get it










All kidding aside, if Visio delivers the P Series and establishes 55" 4K FALD with good PQ for $1400, they will have shifted the market. They have not done it yet, they need to deliver and the resulting product needs to perform, but within 3-6 months that shift will either have happened or it will have been a false alarm. It would be suicidal to be betting on Vzio's failure - to do so in the case you were wrong would mean being totally out of alignment with the market shift.


Look at what Sharp has been doing. They introduced the SQ Quatron+ 1080p+/4K- line to offer 'near 4K' at a much more affordable price to a growing population of consumers interested in 4K but unable to afford the premium being charged by Sony and Samsung.


Those sets were introduced at CES and the 60" SQ had an MSRP of $2400. That's a pretty attractive price compared to the prices Sony and Samsung are charging for 'true' 4K.


That was only two months ago - those panels have just started hitting the market this month and with less than 2 weeks of sales under their belt, they are already available for a street price of $1740. That is a discount of 27.5% within the first 2 weeks of sales! The price of the Vizio 60" P Series? $1800.


For the 70" Sharp SQ, MSRP is $3400 currently discounted by 35% to $2200 against a 70" Vizio P Series that has an MSRP of $2600.


Sharp understands how Vizio's 2014 pricing has changed the world and they are reacting accordingly in an effort to not be left holding the bag.


LG is no doubt aware of this shift as well and so we'll see how it plays out as they introduce their larger OLED panels and the year unfolds...


If Sony is able to sell their 65" X950B for $8,000 in 2014 despite the fact that that is 'old' pricing, then LG should be fine. If you see that price slashed in half soon after introduction, it's a clear indication of blood in the water. Samsung 'leaked' pricing for their 65-inch H9000 and H8500 later than Sony and at $5000 and $4000, so they have already taken a big step towards adjusting to the new reality (compared to Sony). With a 55" Samsung H9000 edge-lit UHD selling for $4000 against an 55" Vizio P Series FALD UHD priced at $1400, it will be interesting to see how long Samsung is able to maintain their price premium of 185%...


Samsung will survive. LG will survive. Sharp may or may not survive. Sony should be able to survive for at least another year unless they stick their head in the sand. But odds are that $1400 for a 55-inch 4k FALD LCD is becoming a reality this year and all of these company's are going to be under significant financial strain (in terms of pricing and margins). It is likely to be a bloodbath. Looking at Sharp, it is likely already a bloodbath.


What this new reality will end up meaning for LGs OLED plans it is too early to say. By this year's Black Friday the dust will probably have settled even though it will probably take another 2-3 months for all of us to understand how.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_100#post_24488352
> 
> 
> My apologies, I should have been more clear - I was actually referring to obsolescence not tied to 4K/UHD/content-evolution-related, but OLED technology-related. What is out there today (2013's, first 2014's) and will be coming out this year is still first-generation technology in terms of volume sales and use by consumers, so I don't think it is a safe assumption to assume that this first generation is 'fully-baked' and that there will not be some attractive enhancements offered in next-generation OLEDs introduced a year from now.
> 
> 
> The 4K stuff is in addition to that (though there should be 4K OLEDs soon).


Ah, you mean like motion resolution enhancements and/or the like?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488412
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8700_100#post_24488352
> 
> 
> My apologies, I should have been more clear - I was actually referring to obsolescence not tied to 4K/UHD/content-evolution-related, but OLED technology-related. What is out there today (2013's, first 2014's) and will be coming out this year is still first-generation technology in terms of volume sales and use by consumers, so I don't think it is a safe assumption to assume that this first generation is 'fully-baked' and that there will not be some attractive enhancements offered in next-generation OLEDs introduced a year from now.
> 
> 
> The 4K stuff is in addition to that (though there should be 4K OLEDs soon).
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, you mean like motion resolution enhancements and/or the like?
Click to expand...


That would be an example, but a relatively benign one. Burn-in and/or image retention would be a more serious example...


----------



## vinnie97

Oh, more basic function improvements. There was only one instance of burn-in documented thus far and on a demo. As owners begin to accumulate hours, we'll begin to see how problematic that phenomenon really is.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488420
> 
> 
> Oh, more basic function improvements. There was only one instance of burn-in documented thus far and on a demo. *As owners begin to accumulate hours, we'll begin to see how problematic that phenomenon really is*.



That was exactly my point.


----------



## vinnie97

Right, and I'm just betting (and hoping) it won't be a showstopper for the early adopters so that they don't feel too stung.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488408
> 
> 
> You are finally beginning to get it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All kidding aside, if Visio delivers the P Series and establishes 55" 4K FALD with good PQ for $1400, they will have shifted the market. They have not done it yet, they need to deliver and the resulting product needs to perform, but within 3-6 months that shift will either have happened or it will have been a false alarm. It would be suicidal to be betting on Vzio's failure - to do so in the case you were wrong would mean being totally out of alignment with the market shift.
> 
> 
> Look at what Sharp has been doing. They introduced the SQ Quatron+ 1080p+/4K- line to offer 'near 4K' at a much more affordable price to a growing population of consumers interested in 4K but unable to afford the premium being charged by Sony and Samsung.
> 
> 
> Those sets were introduced at CES and the 60" SQ had an MSRP of $2400. That's a pretty attractive price compared to the prices Sony and Samsung are charging for 'true' 4K.
> 
> 
> That was only two months ago - those panels have just started hitting the market this month and with less than 2 weeks of sales under their belt, they are already available for a street price of $1740. That is a discount of 27.5% within the first 2 weeks of sales! The price of the Vizio 60" P Series? $1800.
> 
> 
> For the 70" Sharp SQ, MSRP is $3400 currently discounted by 35% to $2200 against a 70" Vizio P Series that has an MSRP of $2600.
> 
> 
> Sharp understands how Vizio's 2014 pricing has changed the world and they are reacting accordingly in an effort to not be left holding the bag.
> 
> 
> LG is no doubt aware of this shift as well and so we'll see how it plays out as they introduce their larger OLED panels and the year unfolds...
> 
> 
> If Sony is able to sell their 65" X950B for $8,000 in 2014 despite the fact that that is 'old' pricing, then LG should be fine. If you see that price slashed in half soon after introduction, it's a clear indication of blood in the water. Samsung 'leaked' pricing for their 65-inch H9000 and H8500 later than Sony and at $5000 and $4000, so they have already taken a big step towards adjusting to the new reality (compared to Sony). With a 55" Samsung H9000 edge-lit UHD selling for $4000 against an 55" Vizio P Series FALD UHD priced at $1400, it will be interesting to see how long Samsung is able to maintain their price premium of 185%...
> 
> 
> Samsung will survive. LG will survive. Sharp may or may not survive. Sony should be able to survive for at least another year unless they stick their head in the sand. But odds are that $1400 for a 55-inch 4k FALD LCD is becoming a reality this year and all of these company's are going to be under significant financial strain (in terms of pricing and margins). It is likely to be a bloodbath. Looking at Sharp, it is likely already a bloodbath.
> 
> 
> What this new reality will end up meaning for LGs OLED plans it is too early to say. By this year's Black Friday the dust will probably have settled even though it will probably take another 2-3 months for all of us to understand how.



Regarding Sharp, most Japanese companies have a fiscal year that ends March 31. This may have something to do with the steep price drops in that they want to boost 2013 earnings as much as possible because their financing/ability to barrow in fiscal 2014 may depend on improving 2013 results. Poor results = no new borrowing = bankruptcy.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488408
> 
> 
> 
> All kidding aside, if Visio delivers the P Series and establishes 55" 4K FALD with good PQ for $1400, they will have shifted the market. They have not done it yet, they need to deliver and the resulting product needs to perform, but within 3-6 months that shift will either have happened or it will have been a false alarm. It would be suicidal to be betting on Vzio's failure - to do so in the case you were wrong would mean being totally out of alignment with the market shift.
> 
> 
> Look at what Sharp has been doing. They introduced the SQ Quatron+ 1080p+/4K- line to offer 'near 4K' at a much more affordable price to a growing population of consumers interested in 4K but unable to afford the premium being charged by Sony and Samsung.



Isnt Sharp's Gen 10 fab the source of Vizio's 4K panels?


We'll see what kind of picture quality Vizio manages to deliver at those prices. The premium for 4K was never going to be maintained, so the real question is how they have managed to deliver a FALD backlight at that price.


----------



## vinnie97

Auo is providing a lot of the 4k panels (apparently for Sony, Toshiba, and Vizio).


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488273
> 
> 
> And as an example of that the LG 55EA8800 is available on Amazon now at an MSRP of $10,000 discounted down to $7500.



Showing $5999 for me on 3/16 as of 9:52 am (PT) plus 2% cash back credit. Let's hope the price drop sticks this time.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488843
> 
> 
> Regarding Sharp, most Japanese companies have a fiscal year that ends March 31. This may have something to do with the steep price drops in that they want to boost 2013 earnings as much as possible because their financing/ability to barrow in fiscal 2014 may depend on improving 2013 results. Poor results = no new borrowing = bankruptcy.



You may be right about that - I believe I read somewhere that Sharp's bailout loan is tied to a condition that they maintain profitability, so a financial loss in 2013 could equal the end of the game...


On the other hand, if you believe street prices on the SQ are likely to be increasing after March 31st, that is a side bet I'd be interested to take.


----------



## Masterbrew2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488289
> 
> 
> I didnt explain that comment well. I was trying to get across that the perception of OLED picture quality needs to move beyond the average AVS Forum vistor to the general high-end customer. It seems to me that plasma never managed to make this jump. While plasma's won the various shoot-outs and Kuro's were considered best of breed, the average upper middle class consumer never perceived much of a difference between plasmas and LCD's. There are all sorts of reasons for this, but whatever the explanation, OLED's will absolutely have to deliver that kind of differentiation if/when they move into the $2500 type of price point.



I'm not too worried about that. The thin profile with striking viewing angles and black levels will take care of that.


Plasma never presented itself that well in retail environments.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24489553
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488273
> 
> 
> And as an example of that the LG 55EA8800 is available on Amazon now at an MSRP of $10,000 discounted down to $7500.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Showing $5999 for me on 3/16 as of 9:52 am (PT) plus 2% cash back credit. Let's hope the price drop sticks this time.
Click to expand...


Wow! That's a 40% discount off of MSRP within the first 2 weeks of sale. Even more 'Sharp-like' than Sharp!










But $6000 for a 55" TV is still a lot.


Isn't there a 70"+ LG OLED coming out as well? Has pricing on that been announced yet?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Masterbrew2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24489591
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488289
> 
> 
> I didnt explain that comment well. I was trying to get across that the perception of OLED picture quality needs to move beyond the average AVS Forum vistor to the general high-end customer. It seems to me that plasma never managed to make this jump. While plasma's won the various shoot-outs and Kuro's were considered best of breed, the average upper middle class consumer never perceived much of a difference between plasmas and LCD's. There are all sorts of reasons for this, but whatever the explanation, OLED's will absolutely have to deliver that kind of differentiation if/when they move into the $2500 type of price point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not too worried about that. The thin profile with striking viewing angles and black levels will take care of that.
> 
> 
> Plasma never presented itself that well in retail environments.
Click to expand...


Well said - I was thinking exactly the same thing. Plasma's lack of brightness made showing off superior PQ on the showroom floor basically impossible.


At a minimum, that is a major advantage OLED will have over plasma - it should look strikingly superior to LED/LCD and in the very worst case, look close enough to being the same that the price premium is difficult to justify...


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24489593
> 
> 
> Wow! That's a 40% discount off of MSRP within the first 2 weeks of sale. Even more 'Sharp-like' than Sharp!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But $6000 for a 55" TV is still a lot.
> 
> 
> Isn't there a 70"+ LG OLED coming out as well? Has pricing on that been announced yet?


I'm still seeing $6.5k for the Gallery OLED. The curve is down to $6k, yes.


CES announcements for the 77" ranged from $25 to 30k.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760_60#post_24489598
> 
> 
> Well said - I was thinking exactly the same thing. Plasma's lack of brightness made showing off superior PQ on the showroom floor basically impossible.
> 
> 
> At a minimum, that is a major advantage OLED will have over plasma - it should look strikingly superior to LED/LCD and in the very worst case, look close enough to being the same that the price premium is difficult to justify...


So you say OLED is brighter than LED/LCD. Is that true? I'm not saying it isn't, but it surprises me a little. In describing an LG 55" OLED in May 2012, hdguru wrote:


> Quote:
> Maximum brightness -was specified at 116.475 ft. lamberts (equal to 400 nits). This is brighter than any recent LED LCD we’ve seen or read from other tests (typically 200 to 250 nits with highest around 350).
> http://hdguru.com/hands-on-lgs-55-inch-55em9600-oled-hdtv-part-ii/8080/


And this is consistent with what you say, but LED/LCD can get brighter. IIRC, the Vizio Reference TVs supposedly have 800 nits of brightness, the professional IMLED monitors have 4000 nits, the display that Dolby rigged up for their tests had 20,000 nits.


Added: Hdguru in his review of the LG 55EA9800 reported a maximum 105 foot-lamberts, or 360 nits, of brightness.


----------



## Masterbrew2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24489904
> 
> 
> 
> the display that Dolby rigged up for their tests had 20,000 nits.


 

But wasn't that lit by a cinema projector?


----------



## vinnie97

And the Vizio Reference is little more than a lab creation at this juncture.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Masterbrew2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760_60#post_24489980
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24489904
> 
> 
> the display that Dolby rigged up for their tests had 20,000 nits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But wasn't that lit by a cinema projector?
Click to expand...

No, 18,000 leds. See Geoffrey Morrison's Behind the scenes with Dolby's new HDR TV tech :


> Quote:
> To showcase its tech, Dolby built a prototype television. Based on its broadcast monitor, it's essentially a local-dimming backlight LCD on steroids. Where the $40,000 broadcast monitor has 4,500 individually addressable red, green, and blue LEDs, this prototype has 18,000 , and each one is addressable. To put that in perspective, top-of-the-line LED LCDs on the market now have a few hundred, and they are definitely not individually addressable.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24489904
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760_60#post_24489598
> 
> 
> Well said - I was thinking exactly the same thing. Plasma's lack of brightness made showing off superior PQ on the showroom floor basically impossible.
> 
> 
> At a minimum, that is a major advantage OLED will have over plasma - it should look strikingly superior to LED/LCD and in the very worst case, look close enough to being the same that the price premium is difficult to justify...
> 
> 
> 
> *So you say OLED is brighter than LED/LCD.* Is that true? I'm not saying it isn't, but it surprises me a little. In describing an LG 55" OLED in May 2012, hdguru wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Maximum brightness -was specified at 116.475 ft. lamberts (equal to 400 nits). This is brighter than any recent LED LCD we’ve seen or read from other tests (typically 200 to 250 nits with highest around 350).
> http://hdguru.com/hands-on-lgs-55-inch-55em9600-oled-hdtv-part-ii/8080/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is consistent with what you say, but LED/LCD can get brighter. IIRC, the Vizio Reference TVs supposedly have 800 nits of brightness, the professional IMLED monitors have 4000 nits, the display that Dolby rigged up for their tests had 20,000 nits.
> 
> 
> Added: Hdguru in his review of the LG 55EA9800 reported a maximum 105 foot-lamberts, or 360 nits, of brightness.
Click to expand...


I did not mean to imply that OLED was brighter than LED/LCD, only that is was much closer to the brightness of LED/LCD than plasma was - no disadvantage versus LED/LCD on the showroom floor in terms of brightness, while I would hope that there should at least be easily-visible advantages in terms of contrast and off-angle viewing.


The key point about LED/LCD brightness is that is can be cranked up as high as needed subject only to increasing cost. At 800 Nits, the Vizio Reference Series will be one of the brightest consumer LED/LCDs ever produced. The E-Series is 300 Nits, by way of comparison, and that level of brightness is more typical of the LED/LCDs seen on the showroom floor. OLED can appear as bright as even the Vizio Reference Series for most typical content, but it I subject to limitation on total scene brightness, so if there is ever a need for increased brightness over the entire panel, LED/LCD has that latitude while OLED does not...


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24490099
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Masterbrew2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760_60#post_24489980
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24489904
> 
> 
> the display that Dolby rigged up for their tests had 20,000 nits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But wasn't that lit by a cinema projector?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, 18,000 leds. See Geoffrey Morrison's Behind the scenes with Dolby's new HDR TV tech :
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> To showcase its tech, Dolby built a prototype television. Based on its broadcast monitor, it's essentially a local-dimming backlight LCD on steroids. Where the $40,000 broadcast monitor has 4,500 individually addressable red, green, and blue LEDs, this prototype has 18,000 , and each one is addressable. To put that in perspective, top-of-the-line LED LCDs on the market now have a few hundred, and they are definitely not individually addressable.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


To my point - LED/LCD offers the latitude to crank up brightness to essentially unlimited levels (subject only to power consumption and cost limitations). OLED is plenty bright (certainly compared to Panasonic plasma) but has far less headroom to increase brightness further should that ever prove necessary for HDR or motion blur reduction or whatever...


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760_60#post_24490166
> 
> 
> To my point - LED/LCD offers the latitude to crank up brightness to essentially unlimited levels (subject only to power consumption and cost limitations). OLED is plenty bright (certainly compared to Panasonic plasma) but has far less headroom to increase brightness further should that ever prove necessary for HDR or motion blur reduction or whatever...


In his article on the LG 55EA9800, Dr. Raymond M. Soneira gives more brightness test results: LG OLED TV Display Technology Shoot-Out - Lab Tests . The highest brightness he gives for the LG is 372 nits. When large areas of the screen are lit, the brightness is reduced, but I don't think that matters. For natural scenes, we want very high brightness (if we want it at all) for highlights.


I know that not everyone shares my fixation on brightness, but I dwell on it because I think it might be the key point in whether OLED comes to dominate the high end TV market. I want lots of brightness, and I don't think OLED can keep up with LED/LCD. But who knows? Maybe HDR will not become popular, or even if it does, maybe OLED can be brought up to 1000 nits or so (which I see some claims of).


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24491705
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8760_60#post_24490166
> 
> 
> To my point - LED/LCD offers the latitude to crank up brightness to essentially unlimited levels (subject only to power consumption and cost limitations). OLED is plenty bright (certainly compared to Panasonic plasma) but has far less headroom to increase brightness further should that ever prove necessary for HDR or motion blur reduction or whatever...
> 
> 
> 
> In his article on the LG 55EA9800, Dr. Raymond M. Soneira gives more brightness test results: LG OLED TV Display Technology Shoot-Out - Lab Tests . The highest brightness he gives for the LG is 372 nits. *When large areas of the screen are lit, the brightness is reduced, but I don't think that matters*. For natural scenes, we want very high brightness (if we want it at all) for highlights.
> 
> 
> I know that not everyone shares my fixation on brightness, but I dwell on it because I think it might be the key point in whether OLED comes to dominate the high end TV market. I want lots of brightness, and I don't think OLED can keep up with LED/LCD. But who knows? Maybe HDR will not become popular, or even if it does, maybe OLED can be brought up to 1000 nits or so (which I see some claims of).
Click to expand...


Peak brightness can be traded off for against motion blur. If the backlight is bright enough (let's say 800 Nits for the Vizio Reference Series), pixel on time can be reduced to 50%, 25%, even 10% of the overall 67ms frame time. An 800 Nit display with an action rate reducing maximum pixel on time to 10% results in a maximum light output of only 80Nits and an effective motion blur of a 600Hz refresh rate ('plasma-like').


I don't understand if OLED has the same flexibility to increase peak light output for a shorter amount of time in order to reduce pixel hold time, and a live-action broadcast of a hockey game would be a good example of a scenario where both high average brightness and reduced motion blur might both be desired.


For HDR and bright highlights, you are correct, but brightness offers advantages to reduce motion blur in sample-and-hold displays as well...


p.s. the Reference Series has an LCD with a 120Hz native refresh rate, so either through frame repeat or single-frame frame interpolation, brightness will probably be doubled to 160 Nits max for the same 600Hz effective refresh rate and motion blur...


----------



## gmarceau

Hello flat OLED http://www.adorama.com/LOT55EA8800.html


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24488898
> 
> 
> Isnt Sharp's Gen 10 fab the source of Vizio's 4K panels?
> 
> 
> We'll see what kind of picture quality Vizio manages to deliver at those prices. The premium for 4K was never going to be maintained, so the real question is how they have managed to deliver a FALD backlight at that price.



Someone claimed that even 70-inch panels were now coming from someone else, but I have a very tough time believing that. 70-inch panels on an 8G fab are basically like throwing money away. Of course, 65s aren't a ton better, so who knows?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8790#post_24489432
> 
> 
> Auo is providing a lot of the 4k panels (apparently for Sony, Toshiba, and Vizio).



Yes, but you'd think Sharp's cost advantage at 60 and 70 -- as well as a very strong pre-existing relationship with Vizio -- means that many of Vizio's panels in at least those two sizes are coming from Sharp.


You'd think that... but I admit to uncertainty.


----------



## mfogarty5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24494947
> 
> 
> Hello flat OLED http://www.adorama.com/LOT55EA8800.html



Nice find. I really like that gallery OLED. It has high PQ and high WAF.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24494947
> 
> 
> Hello flat OLED http://www.adorama.com/LOT55EA8800.html



Same $6499 price but also with a $1300 credit toward another purchase at Value Electronics so net price is $5200.
http://www.lg-55ea9800.com/LG_55EA8800_Flat_OLED.php


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24496622
> 
> 
> Same $6499 price but also with a $1300 credit toward another purchase at Value Electronics so net price is $5200.
> http://www.lg-55ea9800.com/LG_55EA8800_Flat_OLED.php



Certainly a good deal, though it presumes you can make use of $1300 on other electronics they sell in the reasonably near future.


I wouldn't call that net price of $5200.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24497069
> 
> 
> Certainly a good deal, though it presumes you can make use of $1300 on other electronics they sell in the reasonably near future.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call that net price of $5200.



I would probably put it at around $5500. My assumption is that you can sell the credit for somewhere close to 75% of its value.


My guess is that this gives you a pretty good idea of street pricing on the new model within a month or so.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24496622
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gmarceau*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24494947
> 
> 
> Hello flat OLED http://www.adorama.com/LOT55EA8800.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same $6499 price but also with a $1300 credit toward another purchase at Value Electronics so net price is $5200.
> http://www.lg-55ea9800.com/LG_55EA8800_Flat_OLED.php
Click to expand...

Seems that the frame is included in the price. In Europe you can buy this model without the (€1.000) frame.

 

€1.000 frame..


----------



## Rich Peterson

Because there's been a lot of talk about the curved OLEDs, I think this article is somewhat relevant:

*Why curved TVs might not be the devil's work after all. After 10 days with a curved TV, I actually quite like it.*


Source: techradar.com 

 


> Quote:
> Back in August, we posted an article on TechRadar with the headline 'why curved OLED TVs are a bad idea'.
> 
> 
> At the time there was a general sense of bafflement in the AV business about a strange new trend in TV design - yep, curved screens were making a back. It seemed like a strange move.
> 
> 
> But here we are seven months later, and I have a confession to make: I've lived with a curved TV, and I didn't hate it. At all.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24497772
> 
> 
> Because there's been a lot of talk about the curved OLEDs, I think this article is somewhat relevant:
> 
> *Why curved TVs might not be the devil's work after all. After 10 days with a curved TV, I actually quite like it.*
> 
> 
> Source: techradar.com



Probably just a case of Stockholm Syndrome?!


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820_60#post_24497772
> 
> *Why curved TVs might not be the devil's work after all. After 10 days with a curved TV, I actually quite like it.*


Reading the negative opinions about curved screens, it has seemed to me that the arguments were excessively theoretical -- not based on experience viewing the display -- and in a way naive. We're used to the distortions involved in looking at a painting or a photograph, which differ very substantially from the real world scenes they depict, and we can learn to use what we see to reconstruct what the actual scene would look like. So it's not like the ordinary animated photos we see with regular TV didn't involve any distortion. What matters is whether, given some time, we can adapt to the distortions involved and stop noticing them as irritating distractions.


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24498371
> 
> 
> Probably just a case of Stockholm Syndrome?!



LOL


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24497298
> 
> 
> I would probably put it at around $5500. My assumption is that you can sell the credit for somewhere close to 75% of its value.
> 
> 
> My guess is that this gives you a pretty good idea of street pricing on the new model within a month or so.



Could be. We'll see soon enough.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24497772
> 
> 
> Because there's been a lot of talk about the curved OLEDs, I think this article is somewhat relevant:
> 
> *Why curved TVs might not be the devil's work after all. After 10 days with a curved TV, I actually quite like it.*
> 
> 
> Source: techradar.com



He basically argues that they still suck, just somewhat less.


The Stockholm Syndrome comment by greenland is really quite on point.


----------



## Orbitron

If anyone has seen this 25" OLED, how would you compare it's image to the larger consumer model OLED that were shown at CES?

https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-oledmonitors/product-PVMA250/ 


A 25" OLED would be perfect in a high end kitchen.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24499740
> 
> 
> If anyone has seen this 25" OLED, how would you compare it's image to the larger consumer model OLED that were shown at CES?
> 
> https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-oledmonitors/product-PVMA250/
> 
> 
> A 25" OLED would be perfect in a high end kitchen.



A very nice size, now divide the price by 10 and I will order 1.










- Rich


----------



## Matthias Hutter




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24499740
> 
> 
> If anyone has seen this 25" OLED, how would you compare it's image to the larger consumer model OLED that were shown at CES?


That's a professional broadcast monitor, and won't be cheap regardless of panel.

AFAIK the old version (non-'A') has some issues (e.g. drifting red channel, poor viewing angle), but the new version is pretty much the reference.


----------



## slacker711

From Robert Zohn on another forum, the 77" OLED is supposed to debut in late August for $24,999. No price yet on the 65" version which will likely be available in September.


----------



## Chris5028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24500573
> 
> 
> From Robert Zohn on another forum, the 77" OLED is supposed to debut in late August for $24,999. No price yet on the 65" version which will likely be available in September.


I may have to sell a kidney...


----------



## vinnie97

Well, that's not exactly news unfortunately. Major markdown coming in 2015?







I take it none of the 4K OLEDs will be available in time for the shootout.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24500573
> 
> 
> From Robert Zohn on another forum, the 77" OLED is supposed to debut in late August for $24,999. No price yet on the 65" version which will likely be available in September.



I guess we can give LG credit for more or less leaking the price at CES.


It'd be nice if they hit the delivery date, not that the market for $25,000 TVs is more than a few thousand units either way.


Still, a flat version of this is pretty much the TV I'd next buy. Take about 80% off the price and call me.


----------



## JimP

Lets see some of these sets in the wild before presuming that everything that LG says is true.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820_60#post_24501697
> 
> 
> Lets see some of these sets in the wild before presuming that everything that LG says is true.


 

^^^^^^^^Don't worry.  Chances are you'll never find a more LG-skeptical group than the denizens of this thread.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24502032
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820_60#post_24501697
> 
> 
> Lets see some of these sets in the wild before presuming that everything that LG says is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^Don't worry.  Chances are you'll never find a more LG-skeptical group than the denizens of this thread.
Click to expand...


Just ran into this article from late February and have not seen it posted (at least since I've been following this thread): http://www.hdtvexpert.com/qd-vision-co-founder-predicts-death-of-oled-tv/ 


Of the several arguments and counterarguments made, this is the one I found most important (if true):

*'Argument 6: New OLED manufacturing processes will further reduce costs. Counter-argument: Fine metal masks waste material and generate dust. The anticipated new low-cost processes — such as ink-jet printing, laser transfer, nozzle jet, and OVJP — are harder than we thought, and roll-to-roll isn’t amenable to high-resolution displays. In short, “OLED manufacturing is a yield and cost negative compared to mature LCD fabs.”'*


----------



## Bazzy

Hi All,


Interesting interview with a Panasonic guy about OLED amongst other things:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/oled-tvs-still-just-not-there-says-panasonic 


Bazzy!


----------



## Rich Peterson

^^^


I think the key thing from that article for all the OLED naysayers to note is


> Quote:
> “Without a doubt OLED will be the future of TV, there’s no question about that,” Cunningham told us.


----------



## 8mile13

It is a statement by _^^the guy_ who claims that the Panasonic 4K LED TVs can beat Plasma picture quality.


----------



## cajieboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24497772
> 
> 
> Because there's been a lot of talk about the curved OLEDs, I think this article is somewhat relevant:
> 
> *Why curved TVs might not be the devil's work after all. After 10 days with a curved TV, I actually quite like it.*
> 
> 
> Source: techradar.com



I haven't watched a curved screen OLED, or any curved TV for that matter, but I can only imagine the extremely poor off-axis viewing. Not for me.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24502032
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^Don't worry.  Chances are you'll never find a more LG-skeptical group than the denizens of this thread.



I'd call myself an OLED skeptic, yet a clear long-time believer that LG would outdo Samsung based on mfg. approach. I'd say that belief is vindicated.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24503290
> 
> 
> Just ran into this article from late February and have not seen it posted (at least since I've been following this thread): http://www.hdtvexpert.com/qd-vision-co-founder-predicts-death-of-oled-tv/
> 
> 
> Of the several arguments and counterarguments made, this is the one I found most important (if true):
> 
> *'Argument 6: New OLED manufacturing processes will further reduce costs. Counter-argument: Fine metal masks waste material and generate dust. The anticipated new low-cost processes — such as ink-jet printing, laser transfer, nozzle jet, and OVJP — are harder than we thought, and roll-to-roll isn’t amenable to high-resolution displays. In short, “OLED manufacturing is a yield and cost negative compared to mature LCD fabs.”'*



So... he may be right, but, of course, his whole business is based on OLED failing. And LG's tech is neither FMM nor ink-jet...


I mean, looking at the 2014 numbers, you could consider OLED TV a joke... But LG seems to be clearly saying that 2015 will be bigger and that by 2016 they intend to really hit what we'd call mass production levels. If that doesn't happen, I suppose obits might be in order. Until then, I'll call OLED a "very, very, very delayed technology that still seems to be the future of the high end"


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24503441
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> 
> I think the key thing from that article for all the OLED naysayers to note is ....



I'm going to generally ignore a guy whose company will be out of the TV business before that future comes around when he's talking about certainties.


His whole spiel in that article is a bunch of marketing-talk anyway.


----------



## slacker711

A small amount of info on the 2014 models. The max luminance looks to have been boosted to 500 nits at a 25% APL or 200 nits at a 100% APL. According to Displaymate's review, the max brightness in the 2013 models was 372 nits.


They also state that the 55ea980v (curved, no speakers) is supposed to be sold for 4500 euros in May.

http://www.dday.it/redazione/12182/TV-OLED-LG-sconto-mondiale-a-4490-euro.html


----------



## ALMA

TEL and Epson launched a new 8G-OLED-Printer...


> Quote:
> Tokyo Electron Limited (TEL™) today announced that it has begun accepting orders for Elius™2500 inkjet printing system for manufacturing organic light-emitting diode (OLED) panels.
> 
> 
> Based upon the joint development agreement concluded between TEL and Seiko Epson Corporation (Epson®) in 2010, a demonstration line was established at Tokyo Electron Yamanashi Limited to conduct inkjet method production of OLED panels, and the companies have worked together to advance the development of manufacturing technology. Now, in view of future expansion in the OLED display market, TEL has started accepting orders for inkjet printing system for production of OLED panels using 8th generation substrates.
> 
> 
> Inkjet printing system significantly improves the productivity of organic luminescent layer formation for OLED panels. Currently, the organic luminescent layer of panels for large-screen televisions are formed in a vacuum using technology based on vacuum thermal evaporation (VTE), however the inkjet method adopted for the Elius2500 forms film by discharging the required amount of organic material onto large glass substrates in regular atmospheric conditions. Consequently, it will facilitate future handling of larger size television screens and cost reduction.
> 
> 
> TEL and Epson aim to continue contributing to the growth of the OLED display market in the future.


 http://www.tel.com/news/2014/0318_001.htm


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24505494
> 
> 
> A small amount of info on the 2014 models. The max luminance looks to have been boosted to 500 nits at a 25% APL or 200 nits at a 100% APL. According to Displaymate's review, the max brightness in the 2013 models was 372 nits.


This looks like LG is comparing their screen to Samsung's OLED, rather than a comparison between 2013 and 2014 models.


So 200 nits at 100% APL - 1/4 of the brightness of the new LCDs?


While it's good that LG are sticking with OLED and producing displays, I want nothing to do with their WRGB pixel structure.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820_60#post_24506641
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24505494
> 
> 
> A small amount of info on the 2014 models. The max luminance looks to have been boosted to 500 nits at a 25% APL or 200 nits at a 100% APL. According to Displaymate's review, the max brightness in the 2013 models was 372 nits.
> 
> 
> 
> This looks like LG is comparing their screen to Samsung's OLED, rather than a comparison between 2013 and 2014 models.
> 
> 
> So 200 nits at 100% APL - 1/4 of the brightness of the new LCDs?
> 
> 
> While it's good that LG are sticking with OLED and producing displays, I want nothing to do with their WRGB pixel structure.
Click to expand...

 

You pointed similar things out before.  Curious: What if it were oriented as 2x2 instead of 4x1?

 

My gripe is smaller: I personally don't like how (in the beginning) I kept hearing the word "efficiency" attached to a *filtered* design.  Filters *throw away light.*  Thankfully, they've finally seemed to have backed down from that, or so it seems to me.


----------



## pg_ice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24505494
> 
> 
> A small amount of info on the 2014 models. The max luminance looks to have been boosted to 500 nits at a 25% APL or 200 nits at a 100% APL. According to Displaymate's review, the max brightness in the 2013 models was 372 nits.
> 
> They also state that the 55ea980v (curved, no speakers) is supposed to be sold for 4500 euros in May.
> 
> http://www.dday.it/redazione/12182/TV-OLED-LG-sconto-mondiale-a-4490-euro.html
> 
> ]



500 nits ?

thats crazy high

could be getting some serious contrast ratio there










they had 100 nits on a full white field before and now 200 ?

200 is good enough for me.

you can then have a really bright picture in daytime with almost no ABL dimming.

just like an LCD tv.


200 nits on a full white field requires twice the power compared to 100 nits

in other words they have raised the power consumtion 100% for the 2014 models


i read some numbers of 170 watts for the 2013 model

should be around 350W now peak.


more power to the people!


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24506641
> 
> 
> This looks like LG is comparing their screen to Samsung's OLED, rather than a comparison between 2013 and 2014 models.
> 
> 
> So 200 nits at 100% APL - 1/4 of the brightness of the new LCDs?
> 
> 
> While it's good that LG are sticking with OLED and producing displays, I want nothing to do with their WRGB pixel structure.



At the very bottom you can see a footnote which says the luminance is for 2nd half 2014 models.


I havent read many complaints about the 2013 model due to the brightness and the 200 nits number looks like it is at least twice the brightness of that model. Moveover, the perceived brightness of the OLED will be higher than an equivalent LCD due to the higher contrast ratio.


At the very least, this should allow OLED's to look fairly good under the lights at Costco/BB.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24506938
> 
> 
> 200 nits on a full white field requires twice the power compared to 100 nits
> 
> in other words they have raised the power consumtion 100% for the 2014 models



I dont believe that they spec the power consumption based on the worst case scenario. Mobile OLED's use a 40% APL and most television usage should be even lower.


Also, I believe that there is a decent probability that LG will be using more efficient materials in the 2014 models. One question is whether we will see a longer lifetime specification for the new 4K units.


----------



## pg_ice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24506968
> 
> 
> Also, I believe that there is a decent probability that LG will be using more efficient materials in the 2014 models.



why do you think that?

you still have 2073600 lamps that needs power just like a Plasma TV.

its hard to reduce power consumtion if you want the same brightness level.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24506980
> 
> 
> why do you think that?
> 
> you still have 2073600 lamps that needs power just like a Plasma TV.
> 
> its hard to reduce power consumtion if you want the same brightness level.



I am not sure what you mean by "lamps".


There is an emitting layer of materials that emit white light that is run through the WRGB filter to produce the pixels that you see. The materials continue to get better in terms of power consumption/lifetime. If LG is still using the same material set as they were when they first showed their OLED televisions at CES 2012 (which is likely) then they should be able to show some meaningful progress on both numbers in their 4K units.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24506733
> 
> 
> You pointed similar things out before.  Curious: What if it were oriented as 2x2 instead of 4x1?


Because computers render text and graphics with the assumption that it's being displayed on a screen with a specific subpixel layout. If you change the layout, it completely breaks this.


It's difficult to say what would happen if you changed the arrangement from 4x1 to 2x2.

As it is now with a standard RGB display, if you draw a vertical line using a single color (e.g. red) you get a straight continuous line. If you draw a horizontal line, only every third subpixel is being lit up, so there is 2/3 of a pixel break in the line.

In some ways 2x2 might actually be better, as it would mean that things are more uniform because you would never have subpixels connecting in either direction and the gap would only ever be half a pixel.

However it would introduce ugly artifacts as soon as you start using subpixel combinations that don't use either a single subpixel, or all four. As you draw horizontal or vertical lines which only use two or three of the subpixels, you would get a "sawtooth" edge on the lines.

You would have to disable subpixel rendering on the computer which then considerably lowers your resolution on text.


Sharp have been using 3x2 (4x2 with Quattron) for years now, and selectively disable the upper or lower half of the subpixel (presumably for efficiency reasons) and the resulting "sawtooth" edge can be quite noticeable on horizontal lines.

However they are now using that 4x2 structure to their advantage and addressing it as a panel which has double the vertical resolution on the new models. (which is not trickery, they really do have 2160 vertical pixels)

There are some advantages to using non-standard subpixel layouts, as Sharp are now utilizing subpixel rendering to display much higher effective resolution than 1080p on their Quattron panels now (yellow can replace green in some color mixes) but that only works with video. It would look quite bad with computer graphics.


Ideally displays would not even have subpixels at all, and simply replace them with full color pixels.

Until that happens, sticking to the standard RGB stripe layout is the best thing to do.


If you're at a far enough distance, or have a high enough resolution display that you can no longer see these subpixel artifacts, then they don't matter so much. But I don't believe we are at that point yet. If you can see the advantage of 4K, then it means you can resolve the subpixels on a 1080p screen. (and vice-versa)

Perhaps 4K screens will be able to get away with non-standard subpixel layouts, but I suspect it will require 8K.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24506733
> 
> 
> My gripe is smaller: I personally don't like how (in the beginning) I kept hearing the word "efficiency" attached to a _filtered_ design. Filters _*throw away light.*_ Thankfully, they've finally seemed to have backed down from that, or so it seems to me.


Well I don't know how they are using the subpixels, but I can think of a couple of scenarios where it may be more efficient.


If you're reducing the saturation of blue for example, on a normal display you maybe have 100% blue, 50% red, and 50% green.

With LG's design you might use 100% blue and 50% white instead.

Or perhaps they use 100% blue, 25% white, 12.5% red and 12.5% green. (numbers used for illustration, I did no calculations there whatsoever so they're very likely wrong)


One of those is probably more efficient than a standard RGB display.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820_60#post_24507042
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24506733
> 
> 
> My gripe is smaller: I personally don't like how (in the beginning) I kept hearing the word "efficiency" attached to a *filtered* design. Filters *throw away light.* Thankfully, they've finally seemed to have backed down from that, or so it seems to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't know how they are using the subpixels, but I can think of a couple of scenarios where it may be more efficient.
> 
> 
> If you're reducing the saturation of blue for example, on a normal display you maybe have 100% blue, 50% red, and 50% green.
> 
> With LG's design you might use 100% blue and 50% white instead.
> 
> Or perhaps they use 100% blue, 25% white, 12.5% red and 12.5% green. (numbers used for illustration, I did no calculations there whatsoever so they're very likely wrong)
> 
> 
> One of those is probably more efficient than a standard RGB display.
Click to expand...

 

This was my original guess as well, but I think it only pans out for cases very low in saturation.  Mathematically, too much light is being thrown away every time one of the primaries is used.

 

Make that desaturated blue of yours a very light light light blue.  Perhaps RGB %'s of 95/95/100.  If they're using this the way I think they are, they're taking out the "gray component" (95/95/95) out of the triad, handing that to the white, and yielding the remaining blue to push the hue.  This would nominally yield a (95/0/0/5), but the math is tricky because it doesn't take into account the decreased relative area of each subpixel when there are 4 of them, and the blue is filtered so needs more.  So perhaps (95/0/0/10).  Here, *if the white is unfiltered entirely*, then there is a big win.....But is it?:

 

A single white subpixel cannot provide enough light total surrounded by 3 dim or off subs.  So perhaps it's more like (95/5/5/15).  (the triad part is still filtered)

 

I keep running into the situation where it only seems to work as the color is desaturated, but the more desaturated it is the more it requires more of the primaries than I thought.

 

IF ANYTHING, LG is making the argument for Samsung to use WRGB (all unfiltered).  But as soon as you throw a filter on a white, you're throwing away *most of the light, and hence, most of the energy used in that subpixel's white.*

 

In that example of (something/5/5/15), nominally (a very rough estimate of) 2/3rds of the light used in that (/5/5/15) is thrown away.  *Always.*

 

EDIT: Perhaps if it is a win, the white was added because it was the *only* way to keep the power consumption from being *atrociously high.*  LG is locked into the creation of a massive white OLED layer (which means filters are required), which means a ton of energy is thrown away.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820_60#post_24507042
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24506733
> 
> 
> You pointed similar things out before.  Curious: What if it were oriented as 2x2 instead of 4x1?
> 
> 
> 
> Because computers render text and graphics with the assumption that it's being displayed on a screen with a specific subpixel layout. If you change the layout, it completely breaks this.
Click to expand...

 

All subpixel rendering assumes a layout of some kind.  A different layout would require a different algorithm, but one could still be used.


----------



## Masterbrew2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24507042
> 
> 
> 
> Because computers render text and graphics with the assumption that it's being displayed on a screen with a specific subpixel layout. If you change the layout, it completely breaks this.


 

Is ClearType really that relevant on a TV?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24507270
> 
> 
> All subpixel rendering assumes a layout of some kind.  A different layout would require a different algorithm, but one could still be used.


Not when you are using an RGB signal and the display is calculating what happens with the white (or yellow) subpixel.

Subpixel rendering would require the source to output an RGBW or RGBY signal.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Masterbrew2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24507419
> 
> 
> Is ClearType really that relevant on a TV?


My HTPC is the only source I have used for years.


Even at a distance and when using large type, I find the difference between using subpixel rendering or not to be quite noticeable.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24507214
> 
> 
> Perhaps if it is a win, the white was added because it was the _*only*_ way to keep the power consumption from being _atrociously high._ LG is locked into the creation of a massive white OLED layer (which means filters are required), which means a ton of energy is thrown away.


Yes, that's probably it. If your display is comprised of a white layer using filters, adding a white subpixel increases your efficiency compared to not having it.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> i read some numbers of 170 watts for the 2013 model
> 
> should be around 350W now peak.



At 129cd/m2 the EA980 only needs 76 watts at an average level. Impressive result for a tv with 8,3 million self-emissive subpixels.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1388765934 


LG claimed with their new 2014 OLEDs they reduced the power consumption by over 30%.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24504331
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24503290
> 
> 
> Just ran into this article from late February and have not seen it posted (at least since I've been following this thread): http://www.hdtvexpert.com/qd-vision-co-founder-predicts-death-of-oled-tv/
> 
> 
> Of the several arguments and counterarguments made, this is the one I found most important (if true):
> 
> *'Argument 6: New OLED manufacturing processes will further reduce costs. Counter-argument: Fine metal masks waste material and generate dust. The anticipated new low-cost processes — such as ink-jet printing, laser transfer, nozzle jet, and OVJP — are harder than we thought, and roll-to-roll isn’t amenable to high-resolution displays. In short, “OLED manufacturing is a yield and cost negative compared to mature LCD fabs.”'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... he may be right, but, of course, his whole business is based on OLED failing. And LG's tech is neither FMM nor ink-jet...
> 
> 
> I mean, looking at the 2014 numbers, you could consider OLED TV a joke... But LG seems to be clearly saying that 2015 will be bigger and that by 2016 they intend to really hit what we'd call mass production levels. If that doesn't happen, I suppose obits might be in order. Until then, I'll call OLED a "very, very, very delayed technology that still seems to be the future of the high end"
Click to expand...


Of course he has an agenda, but I think the fact that between quantum dots and the new red phosphors out of Westinghouse, the fact that wider color gamut is no longer an advantage of OLED and LCD has closed that gap and perhaps even edged in front is a fact, regardless.


And if I understand correctly, the new red phosphors weaken the outlook for QD in any case...


But all of that just speaks to the incremental ways in which LED/LCD is chipping away at the gaps versus OLED year by year. So every year there is further delay in the take-off of OLED is anther year for LED/LCD to narrow the gaps.


Viewing angle is pretty fundamental and should always remain a distinct advantage of OLED (or any emissive display).


'The best' black and contrast ratio is another pretty fundamental advantage and should also remain a distinct advantage of OLED (though by throwing more dimming zones and cost into an LED backlight, that gap can be narrowed as well).


So in the end, I believe OLED only wins out in the end if it is truly less expensive to manufacture (which is why the comments on problems realizing that lower manufacturing cost were the most interesting to me).


Believe me, I really want OLED to win, I really want low-cost high-PQ OLED TVs to be a reality, I am just trying to be wide-eyed about the challenges LG is facing in industrializing their OLED manufacturing technology this year and next: http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/131219_4k2k_tv_shipments_to_rise_dramatically_in_china.asp 

 


When you look at that graph and consider what it means in terms of the billions and billions of dollars flowing to LED/LCD manufacturers and the billions and billions of dollars that has been invested by that industry in cost-optimized manufacturing facilities over the past decade, that is a huge uphill battle LG is facing. If OLED is fundamentally cost-equivalent to LED/LCD, I don't think the battle is ever won - the investment required is too large and the risk of payback based on better PQ alone too risky (just look at plasma). If an OLED TV can be manufactured for half the cost of an LED/LCD, the technology will win in the end (even if it might take longer than expected). And in between 0% cost advantage and 50% cost advantage, it is anybody's guess.


I hope LG succeeds to get their prices for 2014 OLED panels down quickly - that would be a very good sign. If the 65" OLED can price match the 65" Sony 950B by Black Friday, the race is clearly on and LG has a fighting chance. If LGs 65" OLED is priced at 150% or more of the 65" 950B, everything will go slower and LG may end up discovering themselves in a next-generation 'plasma-class' business than never reaches mass-market acceptance despite having the best picture quality...


----------



## fafrd

 *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/7620#post_24071642
> 
> 
> Good link, thanks Slacker.
> 
> 
> Perspective (as always warranted on these). We've discussed above how more or less nothing would change in 2014. What is meant by that is that really tiny increases in volume (in the grand scheme) combine with just enough price cutting to get anything to move at those volumes equals not much. It's progress when you look back from 2015, but it's pretty disappointing when you consider this:
> 
> *Forecasts for 2013 contemplated 200,000 OLED units*. Now when we look ahead to 2014, we are looking at production reaching 15K units per month _sometime_ during the year. That means there is no chance that next year's number will hit the original projection for _this year_. Everyone the skeptics believed about timing remains truer than ever. Had we not been fooled (1/3 of high end sets), talk of 4K (which will seemingly be competitively required to take anywhere near that share of the high-end market in 2015), possibly entry by Sony or Panasonic (though the latter remains hard to take especially seriously as a global TV force after the plasma retreat), and a move under $4K (necessary for anywhere near that volume... truthfully, it will take a lower price to move 1 million units). But all of that seems like something to discuss next December. 2014 seems less interesting already.



I had not seen this post before, Rogo - it is very well written and I see you have already effectively made all of the arguments I have been trying to make.


Since you wrote this in mid December 2013, there have been a few changes:


1/ Vizio's price for the 4K P Series was lower than anyone expected possible for 2014 (so the bar for OLED has been raised quite a bit higher than even you had foreseen).


2/ Samsung appears to be pulling back and may not even make the modest investments in expanded OLED capacity for TVs that appeared likely late last year.


3/ LG seems to have stepped up and accelerated their investments to industrialize OLED in 2014, probably more than making up for the slow-down of Samsung.


4/ Within the context of LG's accelerated OLED initiative, price points for 55" OLED below $6K are already a reality (probably earlier than anyone had expected).


All that being said, the recently published data from displaysearch indicates that the OLED forecast for 2014 has dropped significantly, from 500,000 units being forecast for 2014 late last year (by I am not sure who) to a new forecast of what looks to be below 100,000 units this year (don't have access to the source data - just guessing by looking at the graph), a tiny fraction of the 2014 forecast for plasma. 2015 looks like OLED is being forecasted somewhere in the 200,000-300,000 range, still lower than the reduced volumes of plasmas forecasted to ship next year. And 2016 looks to be the first year where forecasted OLED sales are expected to get to about 1M units (finally passing the last shipments of plasma).


If the million OLED shipments materialize in 2016, the growth to what looks like about 3M units in 2017 seems reasonable - at that point OLED would represent something like 1-1.5% of the overall TV market. would represent something like 10-15% of the high-end TV market (based on your 10% estimate), and would hopefully be 'out of the woods' as far as being on it's way to at least take over the share of the market that was once held by plasma over the next several years.


Compared to whoever was forecasting 500,000 OLED sales in 2014 late last year, I would say that this displaysearch forecast represents a delay of 2 years, which is probably realistic assume LG can get prices down closer 4K FALD LED/LCD levels by year-end...


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24508372
> 
> 
> When you look at that graph and consider what it means in terms of the billions and billions of dollars flowing to LED/LCD manufacturers and the billions and billions of dollars that has been invested by that industry in cost-optimized manufacturing facilities over the past decade, that is a huge uphill battle LG is facing. If OLED is fundamentally cost-equivalent to LED/LCD, I don't think the battle is ever won - the investment required is too large and the risk of payback based on better PQ alone too risky (just look at plasma). If an OLED TV can be manufactured for half the cost of an LED/LCD, the technology will win in the end (even if it might take longer than expected). And in between 0% cost advantage and 50% cost advantage, it is anybody's guess..



If the bill of materials for LCD's and OLED's is the same, then the additional cost for OLED's will be determined by the amount of capex needed to convert a-si LCD fabs to IGZO OLED fabs.


LG is spending ~$700 million to convert 1.85m 55" units worth of capacity. Accounting isnt my strong point, but that works out to about $75 extra a unit over the course of seven years (you would also need to add in the cost of capital). This is the cost for the first commercial Gen 8 fab. Equipment costs will only fall over time so that number is only going one way. The premium due to converting the fabs should be fairly easy to justify considering the various advantages of OLED's.


The premise is too simple though. You really do have to look at the tiers of the LCD market. First OLED's need to prove that they can match the bill of material costs of FALD 4K LCD's. Those costs are quite different than a low-end CCFL LCD.


Fundamentally though, there is no way that OLED's will need to have a 50% price advantage to dislodge LCD's.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24508698
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24508372
> 
> 
> When you look at that graph and consider what it means in terms of the billions and billions of dollars flowing to LED/LCD manufacturers and the billions and billions of dollars that has been invested by that industry in cost-optimized manufacturing facilities over the past decade, that is a huge uphill battle LG is facing. If OLED is fundamentally cost-equivalent to LED/LCD, I don't think the battle is ever won - the investment required is too large and the risk of payback based on better PQ alone too risky (just look at plasma). If an OLED TV can be manufactured for half the cost of an LED/LCD, the technology will win in the end (even if it might take longer than expected). And in between 0% cost advantage and 50% cost advantage, it is anybody's guess..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bill of materials for LCD's and OLED's is the same, then the additional cost for OLED's will be determined by the amount of capex needed to convert a-si LCD fabs to IGZO OLED fabs.
> 
> 
> LG is spending ~$700 million to convert 1.85m 55" units worth of capacity. Accounting isnt my strong point, but that works out to about $75 extra a unit over the course of seven years (you would also need to add in the cost of capital). This is the cost for the first commercial Gen 8 fab. Equipment costs will only fall over time so that number is only going one way. The premium due to converting the fabs should be fairly easy to justify considering the various advantages of OLED's..
Click to expand...


Yeah, I was not even accounting for the recovery of Capex investments - I believe it's understood to be a part (and perhaps the major part) of the increased gross margins OLED sales need to generate versus LED/LCD.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24508698
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The premise is too simple though. You really do have to look at the tiers of the LCD market. First OLED's need to prove that they can match the bill of material costs of FALD 4K LCD's. Those costs are quite different than a low-end CCFL LCD.
> 
> 
> Fundamentally though, there is no way that OLED's will need to have a 50% price advantage to dislodge LCD's.



You are correct that everywhere I made reference to LED/LCD I mean FALD LED/LCD.


But I did not say that OLED will need to have a 50% COGs advantage versus FALD LED/LCD to take over, only that a 50% advantage was certainly enough to guarantee that they would. The minimum cost advantage to justify the investments in Capex are anybody's guess, but they are certainly greater than 0%.


If we use you example, let's say just to break even there is an added cost of $75 per panel to recover Capex. Vizio is selling the 55" FALD P Series for $1400 and at least 20% of that price is going to the channel, so let's say Vizio is netting $1100. Most companies would be targeting 40%-50% gross margin (on top of COGs) to cover operating costs, but Vizio is leaner, so lets say gross margin of 25%. Meaning the cost to manufacture that TV is in the range of $800 or so.


So if the OLED in volume costs 10% less to manufacture, they are barely able to cover the $75 Capex overhead. Poor investment decision because they will never pay them selves back in the worst case and they will just pay themselves back and not generate any profit in the best case.


On this example, you would probably need at least a lower COGs of 20-25% versus FALD LED/LCD to justify the investment in Capex.


This was all based off of your $75/unit Capex number but you get the idea - OLED need to be lower cost by at least double the Capex requirement to justify the investment to begin with.


Being the best technology will not be a guarantee of winning (just look at plasma). Being the best technology and being equal cost will not be a guarantee of winning (just look at plasma again). But being the best technology and being the less expensive technology to manufacture can be a guarantee of winning (as long as the lower manufacturing costs are sufficient to recoup the capex investment and then some).


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24508606
> 
> 
> Rogo's always been an OLED bear.



Well my views align pretty closely with his, so I guess I'd have to put myself in that camp as well.


And to be clear, it's not that I am a bear on OLED technology - I think OLED is fantastic and would love to own one.


It's being a bear on 2014 being the 'year' for OLED.


LG certainly appears to be making a run at it this year. I think the pricing on their 65" OLED panel by Black Friday will be a pretty good indicator of their chances of pulling it off this year or not. If their 65" OLED costs as much as 150% the cost of the best 65" FALD LED/LCD (hopefully the Vizio Reference Series and otherwise probably the Sony X950), that would be outstanding and a solid indication that they have a chance to pull this off.


On the other hand, if the 65" costs 2X or 3X the price of the best 65" FALD LED/LCD this Black Friday, this is all going to unfold more slowly that the OLED believers (non-bears) would like to believe (and might even never unfold at all :-(


I believe the barriers to entry get higher with each passing year, I believe what we are seeing from LG in 2014 is an indication that they have understood this, and I believe LG is going for it all out this year and next.


----------



## vinnie97

It is painfully slow, but I'm not ready to accept the "never unfold at all" vocabulary just yet. I take it you mean street prices when you reference Black Friday, and I suppose Sony has a shot at finally winning the shootout this year (among 4K panels); that is, if they can manage production in time. It'll be an interesting comparison.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24508912
> 
> 
> It is painfully slow, but I'm not ready to accept the "never unfold at all" vocabulary just yet. I take it you mean street prices when you reference Black Friday, and I suppose Sony has a shot at finally winning the shootout this year (among 4K panels); that is, if they can manage production in time. It'll be an interesting comparison.



That would only be the case if OLED proved to be more expensive to manufacture than FALD LED/LCD on a fundamental basis. But in any case, the smaller the manufacturing cost advantage of OLED versus FALD LED/LCD, the longer this is all going to take.


And yes, I mean the promotional prices being offered on Black Friday. Even if the 65" LG OLED were to be priced at $12000 (150% the MSRP of the 65" X950B), If Sony ends up discounting the X950B to $4000-5000 on Black Friday and the LG OLED is still priced at $12,000, not would not be a good sign...


And yes (again , it is going to be interesting to watch - I believe the direction the flat panel industry will be taking for the next 3-5 years will be determined by the end of this year.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24508842
> 
> 
> 
> This was all based off of your $75/unit Capex number but you get the idea - OLED need to be lower cost by at least double the Capex requirement to justify the investment to begin with.



I think implicit in your comment is that OLED's arent going to be able to command any premium to the cheapest FALD set. I very much doubt that will be the case. We dont know the precise number but I doubt that LCD's will compete particularly well if there is an OLED within 20% of the price of the LCD. That premium will cover the capex costs and justify investment in new fabs if/when OLED's match the bill of material of FALD LCD's.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pg_ice*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820_60#post_24506938
> 
> 
> 200 nits on a full white field requires twice the power compared to 100 nits
> 
> in other words they have raised the power consumtion 100% for the 2014 models
> 
> 
> i read some numbers of 170 watts for the 2013 model
> 
> should be around 350W now peak.


You mean because 170 * 2 = 350?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24509041
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24508842
> 
> 
> 
> This was all based off of your $75/unit Capex number but you get the idea - OLED need to be lower cost by at least double the Capex requirement to justify the investment to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> I think implicit in your comment is that OLED's arent going to be able to command any premium to the cheapest FALD set. I very much doubt that will be the case. We dont know the precise number but I doubt that LCD's will compete particularly well if there is an OLED within 20% of the price of the LCD. That premium will cover the capex costs and justify investment in new fabs if/when OLED's match the bill of material of FALD LCD's.
Click to expand...


No, that's not the point exactly. OLED will be able to command a premium to FALD LED/LCD, it will just take less market share the higher the premium and will never completely knock FALD LED/LCD out of the game as long as it sells at a price premium. To completely 'win' (the way that LED/LCD has 'won' against plasma) is going to require matching LED/LCD prices across the board.


----------



## rogo

1) OLED power consumption from LG is fine. Is it as good as the best LCDs today? No. But those are so good it's a silly bar to chase. And yet LG is chasing it because more light = better. And more light = lower power most of the time... So let's stop worrying about that. It will not be an advantage for LCD.


2) I don't know if I'm an OLED bear, but I sure have called a lot of this right. And the only time I was horribly wrong was when I went way too bullish.


3) Slacker is right OLED can sell some units at a small premium to the best LCDs. But it can't sell millions of units at any premium. The math isn't there. When you start looking at 10% of 10% of the market, the numbers look small for the high end. Double them, you are still talking 5 million units annually. If you are the premium category _in the premium category_ you are limited to ~1 million units annually. For OLED to really take off, it needs to reach $3000 or so, based on what seems to be clearly happening to premium LCD thanks to Vizio, the rapid commoditization of 4K and what I believe will be the commoditization of full array.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24509133
> 
> 
> 1) OLED power consumption from LG is fine. Is it as good as the best LCDs today? No. But those are so good it's a silly bar to chase. And yet LG is chasing it because more light = better. And more light = lower power most of the time... So let's stop worrying about that. It will not be an advantage for LCD.
> 
> 
> 2) I don't know if I'm an OLED bear, but I sure have called a lot of this right. And the only time I was horribly wrong was when I went way too bullish.
> 
> 
> 3) Slacker is right OLED can sell some units at a small premium to the best LCDs. But it can't sell millions of units at any premium. The math isn't there. When you start looking at 10% of 10% of the market, the numbers look small for the high end. Double them, you are still talking 5 million units annually. If you are the premium category _in the premium category_ you are limited to ~1 million units annually. *For OLED to really take off, it needs to reach $3000 or so, based on what seems to be clearly happening to premium LCD thanks to Vizio, the rapid commoditization of 4K and what I believe will be the commoditization of full array*.



Well said (as usual







)


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24509133
> 
> 
> 1) OLED power consumption from LG is fine. Is it as good as the best LCDs today? No. But those are so good it's a silly bar to chase. And yet LG is chasing it because more light = better. And more light = lower power most of the time... So let's stop worrying about that. It will not be an advantage for LCD.
> 
> 
> 2) I don't know if I'm an OLED bear, but I sure have called a lot of this right. And the only time I was horribly wrong was when I went way too bullish.
> 
> 
> 3) Slacker is right OLED can sell some units at a small premium to the best LCDs. But it can't sell millions of units at any premium. The math isn't there. When you start looking at 10% of 10% of the market, the numbers look small for the high end. Double them, you are still talking 5 million units annually. If you are the premium category _in the premium category_ you are limited to ~1 million units annually. For OLED to really take off, it needs to reach $3000 or so, based on what seems to be clearly happening to premium LCD thanks to Vizio, the rapid commoditization of 4K and what I believe will be the commoditization of full array.



Why would the commoditzation of full array have an impact? How many consumers even know what that is?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24509332
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24509133
> 
> 
> 1) OLED power consumption from LG is fine. Is it as good as the best LCDs today? No. But those are so good it's a silly bar to chase. And yet LG is chasing it because more light = better. And more light = lower power most of the time... So let's stop worrying about that. It will not be an advantage for LCD.
> 
> 
> 2) I don't know if I'm an OLED bear, but I sure have called a lot of this right. And the only time I was horribly wrong was when I went way too bullish.
> 
> 
> 3) Slacker is right OLED can sell some units at a small premium to the best LCDs. But it can't sell millions of units at any premium. The math isn't there. When you start looking at 10% of 10% of the market, the numbers look small for the high end. Double them, you are still talking 5 million units annually. If you are the premium category _in the premium category_ you are limited to ~1 million units annually. For OLED to really take off, it needs to reach $3000 or so, based on what seems to be clearly happening to premium LCD thanks to Vizio, the rapid commoditization of 4K and what I believe will be the commoditization of full array.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the commoditzation of full array have an impact? How many consumers even know what that is?
Click to expand...


Commoditization = lower price.


And FALD = better picture quality (blacker blacks) = less obvious gap from OLED.


At the same price as FALD LED/LCD, OLED should sell well. For any price premium over FALD LED/LCD, OLED will sell less well.


----------



## ynotgoal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24507895
> 
> 
> LG claimed with their new 2014 OLEDs they reduced the power consumption by over 30%.



Just curious where you saw this?


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> Just curious where you saw this?



At there press release to the 77" and 55EB9600. They use Adaptive SSVD to reduce power consumption.


> Quote:
> In CES 2014, LG announced a new 55" curved OLED TV (the 55EB9600) that is more energy efficient than the current 55EA9800 model. Now LG Display details a new power reduction technology for OLED TVs (called Adaptive SVDD) that may be behind the new TV. Adaptive SVDD is an external compensation technology that substantially reduces the number of TFTs and capacitors. LG Display reports that this technology decreased the power consumption by 30.6%, the voltage by 25% and it also increases the gray scale by 25.8%.


 http://www.oled-info.com/new-oled-development-be-discussed-sid-2014 


> Quote:
> At the same price as FALD LED/LCD, OLED should sell well. For any price premium over FALD LED/LCD, OLED will sell less well.



You Americans always forget that Vizio is not availbale outside US and can´t compete in worldwide sales to LG or Samsung and for example in Europe prices are much higher than US. The prices for the new UHD TVs by Sony and Samsung are insane. Even the 1080p 65" Samsung 8090 costs her 3999 EUR! There aren´t many FALD sets under 5000 EUR here in Europe, currently nothing. Sharp is like non existent in Europe. Nobody buys their TVs in Europe and bigger sreens than 55" are a niche. In May LG will cut the price for the EA9700 to 4990 €. If next year will be a 4K OLED for 4990 €, the high end LCD market will be dead in Europe. That means also a 1080p 55" OLED will be available under 3000 €. The Samsung 55H8090 costs here 2599€...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24510584
> 
> 
> You Americans always forget that Vizio is not availbale outside US



You non-Americans seem to think it's impossible that a company that only sells in one country today can't sell in more than one down the road.


By this logic, Hisense, TCL, et al. are never going to sell to U.S. consumers!


> Quote:
> and can´t compete in worldwide sales to LG or Samsung



So, about 2 in 10 TVs are already sold in the U.S.


Nearly 1/2 the high-end TVs in the world are sold in the U.S.


> Quote:
> sreens than 55" are a niche. In May LG will cut the price for the EA9700 to 4990 €. If next year will be a 4K OLED for 4990 €, the high end LCD market will be dead in Europe. That means also a 1080p 55" OLED will be available under 3000 €. The Samsung 55H8090 costs here 2599€...



Yes, um, sure. In the U.S., the LCDs will be cheaper by thousands than the OLEDs, but someone in Europe, the OLEDs will be cheaper!


That's quite sensible.


----------



## Rich Peterson

There's a somewhat interesting Korea Times article here .


> Quote:
> “Samsung Display is still struggling to improve production yield defect rates in OLED panels,” said an official at Samsung Display by telephone. The company is putting more resources on strengthening its research and development (R&D) activities for large-sized OLED TVs.





> Quote:
> “While LG Electronics plans to maintain a dual-strategy ― focusing on both OLED and UHD TVs ― with the support of LG Display, Samsung plans to put more emphasis on UHD TVs by slashing its investment in large OLED panels for pricey OLED TVs,” according to the Samsung official.



If I'm reading this right it sounds like Samsung is continuing (and possibly increasing?) their OLED R&D but not investing as much production capacity as planned.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820_60#post_24510584
> 
> 
> You Americans always forget that Vizio is not availbale outside US


 

Please don't use phrasing like this unless you want to start seeing "You Europeans...", etc.  As in "You Europeans always whine about your high prices."


----------



## stas3098


*I'm sorry guys, but  the rant had to go. It already got me in trouble with a high placed source in one of the top TV manufacturers from which it came in the first place.*


----------



## RichB

^^^


A friendly suggestion: Use paragraphs if you want people to read your posts.


- Rich


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24511256
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> 
> A friendly suggestion: Use paragraphs if you want people to read your posts.
> 
> 
> - Rich


 It was not a post it was THE RANT, now I imagine rants ,as a rule, don't have paragraphs


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24511284
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a post it was THE RANT, now I imagine rants ,as a rule, don't have paragraphs



In that case, I am glad I read only the bold items.

I prefer pithy rants.


Move along, nothing to see here










- Rich


----------



## remush

Not all Americans live in the States, so some of us are well aware that we can't get Vizio tv's bought localy.


They used to sell them up here in Canada but they pulled out a few years ago, so not sure if they plan on returning anytime soon.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24511289
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, I am glad I read only the bold items.
> 
> I prefer pithy rants.
> 
> 
> Move along, nothing to see here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich


Whereas I am a stickler of crazy rants and crazy rants can't be pithy, now can they?


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24511549
> 
> 
> 
> Crazy rants are always pitiful.


 

*I'm sorry guys, but the rant had to go for it got me in trouble with a high placed source in one of the top TV manufacturers from which it came in the first place.







*


----------



## tgm1024


^^^^I still see it as mostly a bunch of bad guessing.

 

No, don't repost it this time in even more paragraphs.


----------



## Masterbrew2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24511227
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *P.S. The takeaway massage here is that OLED TECH IS STILLBORN JUST LIKE plasma with infinite contrast ration was, PERIOD!!!! FOR IT IS PERFECT hence it is impossible to "improve"!*


 

Please use paragraphs when you write. OLED as it is today is not perfect, there are many improvements they can make down the line, more pixels, more color space, more brightness. A 2016 OLED will be better than a 2015 OLED in enough ways that are significant.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24511631
> 
> 
> P.S. *The takeaway massage here is that* OLED TECH IS STILLBORN JUST LIKE plasma with infinite contrast ration was, PERIOD!!!! FOR IT IS PERFECT hence it is impossible to "improve"!


It's an interesting analysis, but omits two factors. (1) As more people in the developing countries move into the middle class, more will also be moving into the rich videophile class. (2) Displays with infinite contrast ratios can actually be improved in contrast (counterintuitive though this may be), by increasing their peak brightness.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24510584
> 
> 
> At there press release to the 77" and 55EB9600. They use Adaptive SSVD to reduce power consumption.
> http://www.oled-info.com/new-oled-development-be-discussed-sid-2014
> 
> You Americans always forget that Vizio is not availbale outside US and can´t compete in worldwide sales to LG or Samsung and for example in Europe prices are much higher than US. The prices for the new UHD TVs by Sony and Samsung are insane. Even the 1080p 65" Samsung 8090 costs her 3999 EUR! There aren´t many FALD sets under 5000 EUR here in Europe, currently nothing. Sharp is like non existent in Europe. Nobody buys their TVs in Europe and bigger sreens than 55" are a niche. In May LG will cut the price for the EA9700 to 4990 €. If next year will be a 4K OLED for 4990 €, the high end LCD market will be dead in Europe. That means also a 1080p 55" OLED will be available under 3000 €. The Samsung 55H8090 costs here 2599€...


Ouch (on those prices!).

But that's what ya get with super high taxes, crazy VAT fees, and other competition killing policies...


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24511990
> 
> 
> 
> It's an interesting analysis, but omits two factors. (1) As more people in the developing countries move into the middle class, more will also be moving into the rich videophile class. (2) Displays with infinite contrast ratios can actually be improved in contrast (counterintuitive though this may be), by increasing their peak brightness.


1. OLED is only viable as a high tech that goes for 6000 dollars. It will take about 100 years for the developing countries to reach the current US level of life in order to develop a class of rich videophiles, the oled will be ,more likely than not,  long dead by that time.2. Current OLED gen TVs have the peak brightness of 400 candela per square meter, whereas perfect brightness for darkrooms is 150 to 200 candela. 400 brightness is very painful and unconformable to watch.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24512190
> 
> 
> 400 brightness is very painful and unconformable to watch.


Oh yeah? Dolby says they built an experimental display capable of 20,000 nits of brightness and did an experiment to determine how much brightness people prefer. They gave their subjects a control for the peak brightness and asked them to adjust the display until it looked best. Result? People like _lots_ of brightness. But it has to be brightness of the sort you see in natural scenes -- not what you get when you turn up the brightness control of your TV.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24512190
> 
> 
> Current OLED gen TVs have the peak brightness of 400 candela per square meter, whereas perfect brightness for *darkrooms is 150 to 200 candela*.



Personally, I find even 120 cd/m2 uncomfortable in a dark room after about an hour.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Masterbrew2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24511842
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please use paragraphs when you write. OLED as it is today is not perfect, there are many improvements they can make down the line, more pixels, more color space, more brightness. A 2016 OLED will be better than a 2015 OLED in enough ways that are significant.


 No it won't for all content for the next 20 to 50 years is gonna be rec.2020( content crafter will not be changing standards every year). 4k is more than enough for 55 incher. 300 candela is a perfect brightness value (all current OLEDs can boast the brightness of 350 to 450).

 

*     OLED is a marketing nightmare* for once you get one to buy an OLED tv he will most likely be content with his TV for the duration of lifespan (10 to 20 years) and there's no way in the hell you will be able to get him to buy a new OLED TV that has the same PQ for any one with a half of brain will consider buying such a TV as a waste of money.

 

     *Here's the very painful realization Samsung, LG and Vizio coming to*: Well, it seems as though all the OLED TVs have the same good PQ ( a high-end OLED and the lowest end OLED have the same PQ) so if they all are the same how the hell can we segment OLEDs, who can we get people to buy high end sets when there's no real different (except design) between high end and low end sets.

  

   *The other issue TV manufactures scared ****less of is market saturation and overproduction.* Ok let's assume LG has sold 1 billion OLED TV sets over 10 years

and lifespan of that sets is 20 years or greater (LG has said their sets have 50000 hours to half brightness and can even live longer provided you don't max out brightness)  and the maximum capability of a given market is 1 billion sets. So the market is saturated to its max meaning there's no way LG can sell anything on that market for the next 10 plus years and the next thing that happens in 5 or 6 years once LG's resources exhausted is LG goes broke...

 

   *P.S.* Do I need to remind you about what happened to Pioneer plasma TV business once they have saturated the videophile market and couldn't cut the cost down to get into the middle class?


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24512244
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah? Dolby says they built an experimental display capable of 20,000 nits of brightness and did an experiment to determine how much brightness people prefer. They gave their subjects a control for the peak brightness and asked them to adjust the display until it looked best. Result? People like *lots* of brightness. But it has to be brightness of the sort you see in natural scenes -- not what you get when you turn up the brightness control of your TV.


if you have a Samsung's note 3 then please humor me by maxing out brightness on it in the utterly dark room and then drawing conclusions... (For most people 150 of brightness is more than enough, hell it is even enough for ME).


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24512415
> 
> 
> if you have a Samsung's note 3 then please humor me by maxing out brightness on it in the utterly dark room and then drawing conclusions... (For most people 150 of brightness is more than enough, hell it is even enough for ME).


That would not be a relevant test. Dolby Vision depends on having an HDR source signal as well as an HDR display. I'll repeat my recommendation from the other thread of the nice article in _The Verge_ explaining how HDR works for TV: Dolby Vision: the future of TV is really, really bright .


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850_50#post_24511327
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24511289
> 
> 
> In that case, I am glad I read only the bold items.
> 
> 
> I prefer pithy rants.
> 
> 
> 
> Move along, nothing to see here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas I am a stickler of crazy rants and crazy rants can't be pithy, now can they?
Click to expand...

You are the newest contributor to AVS that I've ever blocked. Thanks for the early warning.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24512559
> 
> 
> That would not be a relevant test. Dolby Vision depends on having an HDR source signal as well as an HDR display. I'll repeat my recommendation from the other thread of the nice article in _The Verge_ explaining how HDR works for TV: Dolby Vision: the future of TV is really, really bright .


The trouble with Dolby Vision is they say there is more judder
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25663425 


So maybe it would be better if/only with higher frame rate video, since you wouldn't want even more judder than normal. Also, just because things in real life can be really bright, it doesn't necessarily mean things on TV should be around the same brightness. In the article it says when the sun shows he says " I actually squinted". You don't want it to be so bright it means you have to squint/or that it could damage your eyes like the sun could in real life (even though that will really be much brighter). If they colour grade everything so it should look correct at a much higher TV brightness that might be bad for your eyes if it's so much brighter than current TVs but may be inaccurate/lose details if they allow you to lower it.


edit: Also, wouldn't it be better having a system where it wasn't [the current system+an enhancement layer]? eg. shouldn't it be more efficient to just make UHDTV allow more brightness/colour ranges and not have Dolby Vision at all - since in theory you should be able to store more brightness/colour ranges in a new format more efficiently/better than with Dolby's system?


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24512559
> 
> 
> 
> That would not be a relevant test. Dolby Vision depends on having an HDR source signal as well as an HDR display. I'll repeat my recommendation from the other thread of the nice article in *The Verge* explaining how HDR works for TV: Dolby Vision: the future of TV is really, really bright .Ho


Man. Dolby Vision is useless and irrelevant for OLEDs. Do I have to break down why( think of OLEDs dynamic range)?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24512190
> 
> 
> Current OLED gen TVs have the peak brightness of 400 candela per square meter, whereas perfect brightness for darkrooms is 150 to 200 candela. 400 brightness is very painful and unconformable to watch.


"Peak" brightness doesn't matter. What matters is the brightness they can put out when displaying a full screen, and whether they can be set to maintain a consistent brightness that does not change with average picture level. (the OLEDs released so far _do_ appear to be capable of this - which is better than any PDP)


For viewing in a dark room, the reference brightness is 100 nits.



I have mentioned it before, but with all the talk of high brightness local dimming displays and HDR, I decided to do a test on my display.

Normally, it is calibrated to a peak white of 100 nits. This is what I have been using on all my displays for _years_.

It's an LCD so the peak brightness does not vary whether it's a small area of the screen that is lit, or the entire picture. (OLED and PDP will dim the screen as more surface area is lit up)


I set it to the maximum backlight brightness - around 300-350 nits when calibrated, and decided to persevere with it for a week, even though I have never been very comfortable with having my display set to a high brightness like this.


After sticking with it for a week, I didn't want to go back. This really surprised me, because I would not have predicted that at all before doing this test.

I still drop it to 100 nits for PC content, but the movie mode on the TV is staying at maximum brightness.

I now understand why manufacturers are moving towards 800 nits with local dimming/HDR displays, and am starting to see the appeal of the extreme brightness HDR that Dolby has been demonstrating.


This concerns me, as OLED cannot compete in this regard.

OLED is brighter than PDP, and until I had done this test, I would have said that 150 nits was plenty - it's 50% more than I would normally have my display calibrated to. (which means I can keep it at 100 nits as the display ages)

But 150 nits cannot compete with the 300-400 nits of current displays, and 800 nits that upcoming models have. It's starting to look like Plasma vs LCD all over again.



And that's ignoring daylight viewing, where you generally want to have the brightest display possible.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24512709
> 
> 
> The trouble with Dolby Vision is they say there is more judder


It doesn't _introduce_ judder into the picture, it's just that judder is always more noticeable the brighter the display gets, and the larger the image is.


----------



## vinnie97









at the brightness race. How ever did we get along before Dolby Vision blinded us by the light?


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24512709
> 
> 
> Also, just because things in real life can be really bright, it doesn't necessarily mean things on TV should be around the same brightness.


True, true. But with the Vizio reference display supposedly at 800 nits peak, the Dolby test display at 4,000 nits, and the Sun at 1.6 billion nits, perhaps it's too soon to get seriously worried about vision damage.


I don't know anything about judder on Dolby Vision displays.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24512722
> 
> 
> It doesn't _introduce_ judder into the picture, it's just that judder is always more noticeable the brighter the display gets, and the larger the image is.


So there is still going to be more judder noticable to the viewer. Which is going to be a problem for the format if it's intended to make 24 fps films look 'better'. So it may make films look brighter/better colours but also makes them look more juddery. Will consumers go for a format that looks more juddery - or will they, as the EBU said, prefer less juddery (higher frame rate) TV? So I still think something like this will be better with higher frame rates (>=48 fps) as I don't think it will be that successful if it makes 24 fps films look worse than now in terms of judder.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24512722
> 
> 
> 
> "Peak" brightness doesn't matter. What matters is the brightness they can put out when displaying a full screen, and whether they can be set to maintain a consistent brightness that does not change with average picture level. (the OLEDs released so far *do* appear to be capable of this - which is better than any PDP)
> 
> 
> For viewing in a dark room, the reference brightness is 100 nits.
> 
> 
> 
> I have mentioned it before, but with all the talk of high brightness local dimming displays and HDR, I decided to do a test on my display.
> 
> Normally, it is calibrated to a peak white of 100 nits. This is what I have been using on all my displays for *years*.
> 
> It's an LCD so the peak brightness does not vary whether it's a small area of the screen that is lit, or the entire picture. (OLED and PDP will dim the screen as more surface area is lit up)
> 
> 
> I set it to the maximum backlight brightness - around 300-350 nits when calibrated, and decided to persevere with it for a week, even though I have never been very comfortable with having my display set to a high brightness like this.
> 
> 
> After sticking with it for a week, I didn't want to go back. This really surprised me, because I would not have predicted that at all before doing this test.
> 
> I still drop it to 100 nits for PC content, but the movie mode on the TV is staying at maximum brightness.
> 
> I now understand why manufacturers are moving towards 800 nits with local dimming/HDR displays, and am starting to see the appeal of the extreme brightness HDR that Dolby has been demonstrating.
> 
> 
> This concerns me, as OLED cannot compete in this regard.
> 
> OLED is brighter than PDP, and until I had done this test, I would have said that 150 nits was plenty - it's 50% more than I would normally have my display calibrated to. (which means I can keep it at 100 nits as the display ages)
> 
> But 150 nits cannot compete with the 300-400 nits of current displays, and 800 nits that upcoming models have. It's starting to look like Plasma vs LCD all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's ignoring daylight viewing, where you generally want to have the brightest display possible.
> 
> It doesn't *introduce* judder into the picture, it's just that judder is always more noticeable the brighter the display gets, and the larger the image is.


 I have been working with 1500 nits bright medical grade monitors for quite some time, now, and I can say that my eyes after a couple of days can get used and adjusted to 1000 nits also I understand the appeal of 1000 nits of non-HDR brightness easily. What 1500 nits of brightness does is it improves *perceivable dynamic range* making subtlest details stand out. It does it by contracting(shrinking) your pupils hence the brighter display the more your pupils get contracted which in turn increases perceived PQ, but here's the deal though with OLEDs their dynamic range is perfect AS IS so they have no need for brightness higher than 300 nits meaning it is only a viable option for LCDs and one more thing you can't mass produce 1500 nits OLED displays due to their proclivity to permanently burn in...


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24512794
> 
> 
> So there is still going to be more judder noticable to the viewer. Which is going to be a problem for the format if it's intended to make (24 fps) films look 'better'. So it may make films look brighter/better colours but also makes them look more juddery. Will consumers go for a format that looks more juddery - or will they, as the EBU said, prefer less juddery (higher frame rate) TV? So I still think something like this will be better for with higher frame rates (>=48 fps) as I don't think it will be that successful if it makes (24 fps) films look worse than now in terms of judder.


I did not notice any significant change in judder when going from 100 nits to 350 or so on my display. Moving to 800 or 4000 might cause some problems though.

However, I have always found judder to be a problem at 24fps, so it's simply not getting any worse for me when I increase the brightness. It's not that 24fps has ever appeared to display a smooth judder-free image for me on any display.


Interpolation systems are getting pretty good at avoiding artifacts and the "sped-up" look now, while still helping to smooth out judder. (at least they can be configured that way - many are still extremely smooth and unnatural looking at the default setting)


My aging 2010 Sony display does a good job of mostly avoiding artifacts and judder in the "Clear" modes which combine backlight scanning and subtle interpolation to improve motion clarity and reduce judder while avoiding the sped-up look many LCDs have.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24512817
> 
> 
> I have been working with 1500 nits bright medical grade monitors for quite some time, now, and I can say that my eyes after a couple of days can get used and adjusted to 1000 nits also I understand the appeal of 1000 nits of non-HDR brightness easily. What 1500 nits of brightness does is it improves *perceivable dynamic range* making subtlest details stand out. It does it by contracting(shrinking) your pupils hence the brighter display the more your pupils get contracted which in turn increases perceived PQ, but here's the deal though with OLEDs their dynamic range is perfect AS IS so they have no need for brightness higher than 300 nits meaning it is only a viable option for LCDs and one more thing you can't mass produce 1500 nits OLED displays due to their proclivity to permanently burn in...


You can't accurately represent a bright summer's day when your display can only do 150 nits full-screen brightness. Even going from 100 to 350 or so makes a huge difference in that regard.


OLED has no problem displaying the darkest scenes in a film - much better than any other display to date.

But it cannot represent these bright scenes as well as an LCD.


I think you will find that most people will pick the 800 nits full array local dimming LCD which trades off _some_ contrast near black for high brightness, to an OLED which does the dark scenes better, but is significantly dimmer in the bright scenes.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Masterbrew2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24511842
> 
> 
> Please use paragraphs when you write. OLED as it is today is not perfect, there are many improvements they can make down the line, more pixels, more color space, more brightness. A 2016 OLED will be better than a 2015 OLED in enough ways that are significant.



Please don't feed the trolls. Doing so only increases their hunger for attention. Like a baby that's picked up every time it cries.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24512353
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Masterbrew2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24511842
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please use paragraphs when you write. OLED as it is today is not perfect, there are many improvements they can make down the line, more pixels, more color space, more brightness. A 2016 OLED will be better than a 2015 OLED in enough ways that are significant.
> 
> 
> 
> No it won't for all content for the next 20 to 50 years is gonna be rec.2020( content crafter will not be changing standards every year). 4k is more than enough for 55 incher. 300 candela is a perfect brightness value (all current OLEDs can boast the brightness of 350 to 450).
> 
> 
> 
> *     OLED is a marketing nightmare* for once you get one to buy an OLED tv he will most likely be content with his TV for the duration of lifespan (10 to 20 years) and there's no way in the hell you will be able to get him to buy a new OLED TV that has the same PQ for any one with a half of brain will consider buying such a TV as a waste of money.
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's the very painful realization Samsung, LG and Vizio coming to*: Well, it seems as though all the OLED TVs have the same good PQ ( a high-end OLED and the lowest end OLED have the same PQ) so if they all are the same how the hell can we segment OLEDs, who can we get people to buy high end sets when there's no real different (except design) between high end and low end sets.
> 
> 
> 
> *The other issue TV manufactures scared ****less of is market saturation and overproduction.* Ok let's assume LG has sold 1 billion OLED TV sets over 10 years
> 
> and lifespan of that sets is 20 years or greater (LG has said their sets have 50000 hours to half brightness and can even live longer provided you don't max out brightness)  and the maximum capability of a given market is 1 billion sets. So the market is saturated to its max meaning there's no way LG can sell anything on that market for the next 10 plus years and the next thing that happens in 5 or 6 years once LG's resources exhausted is LG goes broke...
> 
> 
> 
> *P.S.* Do I need to remind you about what happened to Pioneer plasma TV business once they have saturated the videophile market and couldn't cut the cost down to get into the middle class?
Click to expand...

 

I'm sorry, but very little of what you write makes any sense to me at all.  You pull statements out as if they're accepted fact, and draw conclusions I can't understand.  20 years (as if half brightness is the only factor....here's a clue stas3098: technology changes and electronics fail), something about Pioneer, a high end OLED having the same PQ as a low end OLED (completely ignoring blur mitigation issues), and it seems to go on.....

 

You need to spend more time listening to folks here than just talking.  You might learn an awful lot.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8910#post_24512916
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but very little of what you write makes any sense to me at all.  You pull statements out as if they're accepted fact, and draw conclusions I can't understand.  20 years (as if half brightness is the only factor....here's a clue stas3098: technology changes and electronics fail), something about Pioneer, a high end OLED having the same PQ as a low end OLED (completely ignoring blur mitigation issues), and it seems to go on.....
> 
> 
> 
> You need to spend more time listening to folks here than just talking.  You might learn an awful lot.


1. That's totally my bad I just assumed you know how marketing works.

2. Motion issues on OLEDs can't be solved, not without utilizing PWM and current gen of  OLEDs can't employ PWM hence there are two solutions left: a) Black Frame Insertion(think flicker) b) Interpolation( think, soap opera effect and artifacts). Motion point is moot for it'll most likely be the same on all the OLEDs.

3. All OLEDs after calibration will have the same PQ( the same infinite contrast and zero candela blacks and the wide color gamut, the same color fidelity unless manufacturers, on purpose, will cap color gamut, will temper with contrast, blacks and color fidelity).

 

If it still doesn't make any sense to you then tell me what the difference between low end and high end OLEDs will be?


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880#post_24512824
> 
> 
> You can't accurately represent a bright summer's day when your display can only do 150 nits full-screen brightness. Even going from 100 to 350 or so makes a huge difference in that regard.
> 
> 
> OLED has no problem displaying the darkest scenes in a film - much better than any other display to date.
> 
> But it cannot represent these bright scenes as well as an LCD.
> 
> 
> I think you will find that most people will pick the 800 nits full array local dimming LCD which trades off *some* contrast near black for high brightness, to an OLED which does the dark scenes better, but is significantly dimmer in the bright scenes.


You're missing my point here at 800 nits the contrast trade-off will not be perceivable, because your pupils will be contracted(shrunk) enough to not notice the difference in fact contrast, during daytime scenes, will seem even higher and more realistic( provided the TV has a good light filter) due to the way our brains processes visual input. The trade-off will be not inky, greyish blacks during very dark scenes in the pitch black darkroom and that's for some (me) a deal breaker... On the side note 800 nits LCD TV holds the promise of making, for the first ever, daytime watching as immersive and frisson-giving as watching movies in the utter darkness on an OLED tv or an Imax projector. 4000 nits HDR TVs may prove to be a game-changer after all...

 

   By the way I have no doubt that 95 percent of the buyers will prefer "sun" bright Vizio when they see it in their local stores playing so very good "demo" that highlights the advantages of high brightness and HDR.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24512985
> 
> 
> 1. That's totally my bad I just assumed you know how marketing works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It more about how economics works, and you're the one giving examples of TVs lasting 20 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24512985
> 
> 
> Motion issues on OLEDs can't be solved, not without utilizing PWM and current gen of  OLEDs can't employ PWM hence there are two solutions left: a) Black Frame Insertion(think flicker) b) Interpolation( think, soap opera effect and artifacts). Motion point is moot for it'll most likely be the same on all the OLEDs.
Click to expand...

 

[email protected]#$%.

 

Why would *any* generation of OLED's use PWM?  Do you even understand what PWM is when used in displays?  PWM is *not* the pulse mechanism specifically used to defeat the sample-and-hold blur.  PWM (for displays) is a technique used to simulate varying output levels from emitters that can only be full on or full off (or have very limited variation).  Plasma cells have this issue: plasma uses a combination of PWM and dithering for this very reason.  OLED has no such limitation.  A OLED subpixel can glow in varying amounts.

 

The pulse mechanisms for blur mitigation (*not* PWM) will work with OLED (assuming that the OLED is bright enough) by having the picture exist briefly, thus limiting the smear against the retina.  BFI for OLED (that "think flicker" comment of yours) will be fine so long as the OLED can manage the overall loss in brightness.  Interpolations are no bad idea either.  A 30FPS sourced thrown ball from left to right on a 4 foot wide screen in a 1/10th of a second will strobe 3 times (plus the trailing fence-post-error) at 16" apart without interpolation!  And not all interpolations are created equally.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8910#post_24513131
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected]#$%.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would *any* generation of OLED's use PWM?  Do you even understand what PWM is when used in displays?  PWM is *not* the pulse mechanism specifically used to defeat the sample-and-hold blur.  PWM (for displays) is a technique used to simulate varying output levels from emitters that can only be full on or full off (or have very limited variation).  Plasma cells have this issue: plasma uses a combination of PWM and dithering for this very reason.  OLED has no such limitation.  A OLED subpixel can glow in varying amounts.
> 
> 
> 
> The pulse mechanisms for blur mitigation (*not* PWM) will work with OLED (assuming that the OLED is bright enough) by having the picture exist briefly, thus limiting the smear against the retina.  BFI for OLED (that "think flicker" comment of yours) will be fine so long as the OLED can manage the overall loss in brightness.  Interpolations are no bad idea either.  A 30FPS sourced thrown ball from left to right on a 4 foot wide screen in a 1/10th of a second will strobe 3 times (plus the trailing fence-post-error) at 16" apart without interpolation!  And not all interpolations are created equally.


What I was trying to say that once BFI or some good form of interpolation is implemented or when OLEDs are made to drive motion the way plasma does (having the picture exist briefly, but like I said plasma's way is out of the question for OLEDs for now) what's to stop TV makers from implementing one the aforementioned ways to mitigate the blur issue on all OLEDs be that high end or low end or middling one for LG implements interpolation that is as good as high end even on its low end LCDs the same goes for Sony and Samsung?

 

   And still you haven't pointed out the difference in "static" PQ that low end and high end OLEDs will have! There's no good way to segment OLEDs! However there's very good way to segment LCDs into low end(worst PQ), middling(a few inches away from being worst PQ) and high end (bad PQ).

 

   OLEDs are a worst marketer's nightmare.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24513196
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8910#post_24513131
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected]#$%.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would *any* generation of OLED's use PWM?  Do you even understand what PWM is when used in displays?  PWM is *not* the pulse mechanism specifically used to defeat the sample-and-hold blur.  PWM (for displays) is a technique used to simulate varying output levels from emitters that can only be full on or full off (or have very limited variation).  Plasma cells have this issue: plasma uses a combination of PWM and dithering for this very reason.  OLED has no such limitation.  A OLED subpixel can glow in varying amounts.
> 
> 
> 
> The pulse mechanisms for blur mitigation (*not* PWM) will work with OLED (assuming that the OLED is bright enough) by having the picture exist briefly, thus limiting the smear against the retina.  BFI for OLED (that "think flicker" comment of yours) will be fine so long as the OLED can manage the overall loss in brightness.  Interpolations are no bad idea either.  A 30FPS sourced thrown ball from left to right on a 4 foot wide screen in a 1/10th of a second will strobe 3 times (plus the trailing fence-post-error) at 16" apart without interpolation!  And not all interpolations are created equally.
> 
> 
> 
> What I was trying to say that once BFI or some good form of interpolation is implemented or when OLEDs are made to drive motion the way plasma does (having the picture exist briefly, but like I said plasma's way is out of the question for OLEDs for now) *what's to stop TV makers from implementing one the aforementioned ways to mitigate the blur issue on all OLEDs be that high end or low end or middling one for LG implements interpolation that is as good as high end even on its low end LCDs the same goes for Sony and Samsung?*
Click to expand...

 

I'm sorry, but what on earth was that last phrase supposed to mean?   LOL....  Are you intentionally writing this way?  I'll retract my comment if English is your 2nd language.

 

BTW, if it helps you to understand this better, BFI can work *with* interpolation, not instead of.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24513021
> 
> 
> ..in fact contrast, during daytime scenes, will seem even higher and more realistic( provided the TV has a good light filter) due to the way our brains processes visual input.


Absolutely


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24513021
> 
> 
> The trade-off will be not inky, greyish blacks during very dark scenes in the pitch black darkroom and that's for some (me) a deal breaker...


Full array local dimming should mean that is _not_ the case. While it is not going to give you _perfect_ black levels, it can come very close to it in low APL scenes, especially if the content is mixed between dark and light scenes.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24513021
> 
> 
> By the way I have no doubt that 95 percent of the buyers will prefer "sun" bright Vizio when they see it in their local stores playing so very good "demo" that highlights the advantages of high brightness and HDR.


Which is why I am concerned about the future of OLED, when it doesn't seem like it will be able to compete on brightness at all. LEDs are continuing to get more and more efficient.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24513221
> 
> 
> Which is why I am concerned about the future of OLED, when it doesn't seem like it will be able to compete on brightness at all. LEDs are continuing to get more and more efficient.


 

We're hopefully at the start of the curve of eventual OLED emission, not the tail end of it.

 

And we really need that brightness for blur mitigation over any HDR hopes.  HDR is only a pseudo-hope for a device using ABL anyway, no?  At least ABL won't affect motion processing if they allow it turned off for short durations: pulsing a full-screen-full-on won't upset any power worriers.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24513021
> 
> 
> You're missing my point here at 800 nits the contrast trade-off will not be perceivable, because your pupils will be contracted(shrunk) enough to not notice the difference in fact contrast, during daytime scenes, will seem even higher and more realistic( provided the TV has a good light filter) due to the way our brains processes visual input. The trade-off will be not inky, greyish blacks during very dark scenes in the pitch black darkroom and that's for some (me) a deal breaker.


I think I understand your point, but I think you're wrong about a crucial factual assumption. You're supposing that there is a good match between the local contrast our eyes can perceive and the contrast allowed for by current TV standards and current displays. If that were true, then jacking up the peak brightness would not increase perceived contrast, because our eyes would just light-adapt, and what we'd see would be qualitatively pretty much what we saw on the old displays with lower peak brightness.


It's a cogent argument, but the supposition is wrong. Our eyes can see more local contrast than current standards and displays can show us. Look, with hardly any exception, knowledgeable observers who have seen the Dolby Vision demos have reported than they look great. Doesn't that impress you at all?


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24513230
> 
> 
> HDR is only a pseudo-hope for a device using ABL anyway, no?


No. With the possible exception of things like hockey and the winter Olympics, we want highlights -- not vast fields of brightness.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8910#post_24513210
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but what on earth was that last phrase supposed to mean?   LOL....  Are you intentionally writing this way?  I'll retract my comment if English is your 2nd language.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, if it helps you to understand this better, BFI can work *with* interpolation, not instead of.


BFI *FLICKERS,* I'm a purist who feels the strong aversion towards any form of interpolation. Here's a breakdown for you: what's to stop TV makers( why wouldn't TV manufacturers) from implementing(make use of) one the aforementioned ways(the methods which I have presented above herein) to mitigate the blur issue(to eliminate or reduce blur) on all OLEDs be that high end( on the upper end of the price spectrum) or low end( on the lower end of the price spectrum) or middling( run-of-the-mill) one(OLED display) for(because) LG implements(uses) interpolation that is as good as high end(LG uses the same software and hardware on some low end and some high end TV sets) even on its low end LCDs( means cheap LCDs )  the same goes for(means what I have said about one person or thing is also true for or relates to another person or thing) Sony and Samsung( meaning the same thing does Samsung and Sony with their TVs)

 

  *Are you intentionally writing this way? No I don't intentionally write this way  it just turns out to be this way! *Do I sound to you as if my first language is not English?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24513326
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8910#post_24513210
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but what on earth was that last phrase supposed to mean?   LOL....  Are you intentionally writing this way?  I'll retract my comment if English is your 2nd language.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, if it helps you to understand this better, BFI can work *with* interpolation, not instead of.
> 
> 
> 
> BFI *FLICKERS,* I'm a purist who feels the strong aversion towards any form of interpolation. Here's a breakdown for you: what's to stop TV makers( why wouldn't TV manufacturers) from implementing(make use of) one the aforementioned ways(the methods which I have presented above herein) to mitigate the blur issue(to eliminate or reduce blur) on all OLEDs be that high end( on the upper end of the price spectrum) or low end( on the lower end of the price spectrum) or middling( run-of-the-mill) one(OLED display) for(because) LG implements(uses) interpolation that is as good as high end(LG uses the same software and hardware on some low end and some high end TV sets) even on its low end LCDs( means cheap LCDs )  the same goes for(means what I have said about one person or thing is also true for or relates to another person or thing) Sony and Samsung( meaning the same thing does Samsung and Sony with their TVs)
> 
> 
> 
> *Are you intentionally writing this way? No I don't intentionally write this way  it just turns out to be this way! *Do I sound to you as if my first language is not English?
Click to expand...

Yes it does.  I'm still not sure what that gobbledygook above is saying, but if what you mean is akin to "Once everyone has the same technology put into every model, why does anyone buy anything higher than the lowest end", then you need to understand that 1. the demands that people place upon technology increases over time, 2. as such there is more coming that displays will need to adapt to, 3. electronics fail at differing rates dependent largely upon quality and cost, 4. manufacturers have long intentionally held back software abilities for lower end models and 5. we shouldn't have to go over all of this.

 

As for your "BFI FLICKERS" thing, well, guess what?  That's the point of pulse mechanisms.  If you're not flickering, guess what you have?  *Sample and hold.*  Guess what happens then?  *A smear against the retina as the eye tracks.*

 

Until we get very high native source frame rates (120+) we're going to have to live with interpolation + pulse, and one we do get such native HFR pulse may be enough.  Interpolation, being additional tweened frames, can reduce the "hold of the sample", but not as much as a very quick pulse does.  Further, interpolation (when done properly) will gain you a shrinking of the strobe distances.  That is also very important.  Mixing the two, and you'll exhibit a much reduced motion blur.  Please refer to Mark Rejhon's work in blurbusters.com.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24513320
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24513230
> 
> 
> HDR is only a pseudo-hope for a device using ABL anyway, no?
> 
> 
> 
> No. With the possible exception of things like hockey and the winter Olympics, we want highlights -- not vast fields of brightness.
Click to expand...

 

Ah, of course.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24513326
> 
> 
> BFI *FLICKERS,*


The only way to improve motion handling is to reduce the image persistence. There are three ways this can be done:


1. Introduce flicker.

2. Use interpolation to increase the framerate.

3. Move to a higher native framerate.


Both 1 & 2 have trade-offs.

With LCDs, it is possible to use backlight scanning/strobing at a high enough rate that flicker is very subtle, but still yields big improvements in motion sharpness/clarity.

Interpolation improves motion handling without flicker, but has the potential for artifacts (interpolation errors) and may cause the image to appear smoother than the original, depending on the algorithms used.


Moving to a higher native framerate increases motion handling performance without having to use 1 or 2, though unless you move to a high enough framerate (1000fps+) high framerate content will still benefit from 1 & 2.



Striking a balance between 1 & 2 is the best solution until higher framerate source content is produced. Use flicker at 240Hz or so which will not bother most people, and combine that with small amounts of interpolation to increase the framerate.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24513326
> 
> 
> I'm a purist who feels the strong aversion towards any form of interpolation.


I was very much against interpolation until seeing Sony's "Clear" motionflow options, which combine backlight scanning with interpolation. Most of the time it does not introduce the "sped-up" look at all, and still looks very filmic, while reducing judder and improving sharpness.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24513196
> 
> 
> What I was trying to say that once BFI or some good form of interpolation is implemented or when OLEDs are made to drive motion the way plasma does (having the picture exist briefly, but like I said plasma's way is out of the question for OLEDs for now) what's to stop TV makers from implementing one the aforementioned ways to mitigate the blur issue on all OLEDs be that high end or low end or middling one for LG implements interpolation that is as good as high end even on its low end LCDs the same goes for Sony and Samsung?


The pulse-width modulation that Plasmas use to draw their image is not desirable at all, nor is it any better than the scanning/strobing techniques employed by current displays.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24513320
> 
> 
> No. With the possible exception of things like hockey and the winter Olympics, we want highlights -- not vast fields of brightness.


I would say that both are important. When you start looking at extremely bright displays, it may matter less, but I suspect that you will notice the same differences between one display which needs an ABL and one which does not, regardless of the brightness level.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8910#post_24513309
> 
> 
> 
> I think I understand your point, but I think you're wrong about a crucial factual assumption. You're supposing that there is a good match between the local contrast our eyes can perceive and the contrast allowed for by current TV standards and current displays. If that were true, then would not jacking up the peak increase perceived contrast, because our eyes would just light-adapt, and what we'd see would be qualitatively pretty much what we saw on the old displays with lower peak brightness.
> 
> 
> It's a cogent argument, but the supposition is wrong. Our eyes can see more local contrast than current standards and displays can show us. Look, with hardly any exception, knowledgeable observers who have seen the Dolby Vision demos have reported than they look great. Doesn't that impress you at all?


People can even make out objects even in  .00000000001 candela dark rooms and the reflection of the sun in the puddle usually has brightness of 50000 nits! Jacking up the peak brightness doesn't increase perceived contrast a) due to low dynamic range of the medium it was shot with b) you'd have jack up brightness to 3000 or 4000 nits (not for 300 or 400) to cause your pupils to contract(shrink). Here's the link you might find interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_imaging . Try going out and putting your hand up against the noonday sun( sun's brightness is 1.6 billion nits) and what you will see is that your palm glows really dark and your pupils pinpoint and once you turn away from the sun will find that everything seems really dim while your pupils readjust.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24513438
> 
> 
> Moving to a higher native framerate increases motion handling performance without having to use 1 or 2, though unless you move to a high enough framerate (1000fps+) high framerate content will still benefit from 1 & 2.


 

I remember Mark Rejhon's discussions of the single ms frames.  If only it were here now....


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24513438
> 
> 
> The pulse-width modulation that Plasmas use to draw their image is not desirable at all, nor is it any better than the scanning/strobing techniques employed by current displays.


It's more than adequate for *me*, thank you very much.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24513481
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24513438
> 
> 
> The pulse-width modulation that Plasmas use to draw their image is not desirable at all, nor is it any better than the scanning/strobing techniques employed by current displays.
> 
> 
> 
> It's more than adequate for *me*, thank you very much.
Click to expand...


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24513481
> 
> 
> It's more than adequate for *me*, thank you very much.


PWM is used to work around a limitation in plasma displays (pixels can only be switched on or off, giving you 1-bit precision) and the image is built up over multiple sub-frames of varying length, _relying_ on image persistence to create the image.


OLEDs and LCDs can modulate the brightness of their pixels individually (e.g. set a pixel to 50% rather than simply on or off) with 10-bit or greater precision.

By default these displays are 100% sample and hold (high motion blur, but zero flicker) and you can then alter the backlight/scanning rate of the display depending on the balance between flicker, brightness, and motion clarity that you want.



Reducing persistence on the retina is a side-effect of how plasmas draw their image (I seem to recall that it works out to be about 30-50% duty cycle) it is not an intended effect.

It would be a terrible waste to drive OLEDs as if they were a 1-bit display and rely on retinal persistence to build up the image over multiple sub-frames, when there is absolutely no need to do so.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24513444
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8910#post_24513309
> 
> 
> ... You're supposing that there is a good match between the local contrast our eyes can perceive and the contrast allowed for by current TV standards and current displays....
> 
> 
> 
> ... Jacking up the peak brightness doesn't increase perceived contrast a) due to low dynamic range of the medium it was shot with ...
> 
> ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_imaging .
Click to expand...

So then how do current displays, film/camera, and our eyes match up for seeing contrast? Dolby says current film/camera record much more of the contrast we can see than current distribution and displays can show us. You seem to disagree. Look at what your own reference says about the stops usable by LCD (9.5), film (13), human eye (10-14).


Maybe you can find some facts on your side, here, but so far I'm not seeing any.


----------



## rogo

The vast, vast majority of TV buyers are perfectly content with the contrast and motion handling of existing LCDs.


I realize this is confusing to AVSers, but the continued selling of 200+ million TVs every year proves this. Even as TV sales are falling, those totals are higher than every year every before the last 5 or so....


The idea that solving these problems on the margins -- stuff I think most all of us want -- is some sort of game-changing innovation that has any sort of significant economic implications for any part of the display business is simply wrong.


It will neither meaningfully impact sales nor hurt any important investment. Practically every LCD fab on earth of any capacity is fully amortized.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24513592
> 
> 
> PWM is used to work around a limitation in plasma displays (pixels can only be switched on or off, giving you 1-bit precision) and the image is built up over multiple sub-frames of varying length, _relying_ on image persistence to create the image.
> 
> 
> OLEDs and LCDs can modulate the brightness of their pixels individually (e.g. set a pixel to 50% rather than simply on or off) with 10-bit or greater precision.
> 
> By default these displays are 100% sample and hold (high motion blur, but zero flicker) and you can then alter the backlight/scanning rate of the display depending on the balance between flicker, brightness, and motion clarity that you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Reducing persistence on the retina is a side-effect of how plasmas draw their image (I seem to recall that it works out to be about 30-50% duty cycle) it is not an intended effect.
> 
> It would be a terrible waste to drive OLEDs as if they were a 1-bit display and rely on retinal persistence to build up the image over multiple sub-frames, when there is absolutely no need to do so.


The thing is, the best plasmas have mastered the PWM technique so well as to make the flickering side effect virtually invisible. I prefer this to the added motion blur that sample and hold represents (I have yet to find any interpolation method that has looked favorable to me, but I have not seen the sets that purportedly have the best implementation either). The good news is the BFI method can go some ways in making us both happy.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24512721
> 
> 
> Man. Dolby Vision is useless and irrelevant for OLEDs. Do I have to break down why( think of OLEDs dynamic range)?


Yes, you do. It will be interesting to compare why you think Dolby Vision is useless for OLEDs with what Dolby says about this. (Imagic says he'll ask them shortly.)


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24513797
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8880_60#post_24512721
> 
> 
> Man. Dolby Vision is useless and irrelevant for OLEDs. Do I have to break down why( think of OLEDs dynamic range)?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do. It will be interesting to compare why you think Dolby Vision is useless for OLEDs with what Dolby says about this. (Imagic says he'll ask them shortly.)
Click to expand...


While you're at it, try explaining how a country(China) w/ 900 million people who make less than 4K a year will be rushing out to buy $1000 displays in 2025.


----------



## catonic

As per Scott's latest Home Theatre Geeks show, Dolby Vision does apply and work with OLED. ( http://www.avsforum.com/t/1523637/dolbys-vision-with-roland-vlaicu#post_24514552 )

And that is straight from Roland Vlaicu of Dolby Vision.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8910#post_24514281
> 
> 
> While you're at it, try explaining how a country(China) w/ 900 million people who make less than 4K a year will be rushing out to buy $1000 displays in 2025.



That still leaves 400 million + people who have incomes well over 4k, just as India has a middle class of 300 million + which is growing rapidly and both are a huge market for top end tv's.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8910#post_24514281
> 
> 
> 
> While you're at it, try explaining how a country(China) w/ 900 million people who make less than 4K a year will be rushing out to buy $1000 displays in 2025.


Frist of all here's the link to the information you'll need to possess to understand what I will say next ( http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/07/china-us-how-superpowers-compare-datablog). Chinese average household income( income per one family per year) is 12000 bucks( for 200 million households) and there's about 430 households in china and them 430 million households are expected to make 16000 bucks per year by 2025 according the research that unnamed company conducted. They also unsurprisingly found that US TV market is oversaturated with brands and models and is on the decline.A high placed source in one of the top TV manufacturers that served as an inspiration for my rant by pissing me off to the point where I felt an uncontrollable urge to post here by telling me why his company was going to stay out of OLED business( for the next five to ten years) and how they are going to cash in on LCDs by advertising themselves as company that makes best TVs in the world and how they are going to omit the fact that those best TVs are not LCD ones, but OLED ones. He also said that his company has every intention of pandering to the lowest common denominator and as you could draw from my removed rant that common denominator is developing countries with 1.5 billion of potential buyers in the forthcoming 20-30 years. *The high placed employee of one of the TOP TV manufacturers put it this way: Listen, man we got ourselves 200 million Chinese to screw (the word he actually used started with an F and ended in UCK) over the fence by foisting (by foisting he meant marketing)* *low-quality cheap-ass sets* *on them and the most awesome thing here is that those poor bastards will never know that the crap we are selling* *to them is nowhere near a good TV*. *HOW DOES THAT A-HOLE MAKE YOU FEEL, HUH? *

 

 

   I could go on to tell you about why the prices on their TVs in Europe twice as pricier than they are in the US, but something tells me I don't want to hear about it.


----------



## markrubin

^^^


with all due respect:


-your link does not work


-there is no need for the bad language: be it yours or someone else's


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8910#post_24514281
> 
> 
> While you're at it, try explaining how a country(China) w/ 900 million people who make less than 4K a year will be rushing out to buy $1000 displays in 2025.



Indeed.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *catonic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8910#post_24514792
> 
> 
> That still leaves 400 million + people who have incomes well over 4k, just as India has a middle class of 300 million + which is growing rapidly and both are a huge market for top end tv's.



"Middle class" in those countries still doesn't mean "can buy a $1000 TV. Sure, some can... But it's foolish to think the $1000 TV market is expanding much, even as China and India get wealthier. It's expanding a bit, but not a ton.


What's exploding is watching video on tablets. And that's happening everywhere.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8910#post_24514894
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> 
> with all due respect:
> 
> 
> -your link does not work
> 
> 
> -there is no need for the bad language: be it yours or someone else's


here's the working link  http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/07/china-us-how-superpowers-compare-datablog . Point about bad language taken!


----------



## tgm1024


....meanwhile, back on Earth....

 

Does anyone have any initial numbers as to how the few flat OLEDs available are selling in contrast to the few curved OLEDs available?


----------



## conan48

I've seen lots of 4k TVs in the store, and seen lots of 4k clips, and........1080p OLED still creates a better, more 3D like picture, with the most amazing looking out a window effect I've ever seen.


1080p OLED > 4K LCD


4K OLED > Real Life










All this talk of motion resolution, and OLED motion problems, made me go to a Best Buy and Futureshop to check out all the "high end" LCDs and I was able to get remotes for most of the TVs (I know the manager at BB) and spent a few hours playing with all the motion settings. I tried getting most of the TV's into a BFI or scanning only mode and looked at how motion compared to my OLED. I also only tested TV's with their own feed and not on the split store feed. Too many motion issues can also be caused by crappy sources.


I wasn't too surprised with the results. I've posted before about the difference between pixel response and motion res, and YES I can confirm that pixel response is a BIGGER problem then motion res. I could clearly see pixel smear on the Sony, Sharp and Samsung sets. These sets all use VA or a variation of it and I couldn't believe how bad some of the red smearing was on dark backgrounds. Either most people don't notice it or they are not sensitive to it at all. The smearing almost always occurs in high contrast scenes, with light on dark movement. I can see general smearing very often as well. Think of the Kill Bill famous walking scene with the crazy 88s. You have lots of head bobbing with a camera thats close up. You can actually see the features on peoples faces smearing as they move their heads up and down. I seriously can't believe all this talk about motion res when smearing is STILL such an issue on LCD.


The only good news is that LGs LCDs which use IPS have way better response time then VA panels and have almost 0 issues with pixel speed and smearing. However, they also have the least amount of contrast and generally don't look as good as the Sony and Samsung Panels. An LG FALD should make for a decent LCD set.


Plasma has it's own big issues for motion, but why beat a dead horse?


To me OLED has the BEST motion of any tech out there. Having FI on with all settings at 0 gives NO SOAP effect and gives a very good motion res. Between 600-900 lines and ZERO pixel response issues! BFI would be nice, but why add flicker that would potentially ruin that looking out a window effect? Our eyes are very sensitive to flicker, even subconsciously the slightest flicker will effect you.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940_60#post_24515162
> 
> 
> I wasn't too surprised with the results. I've posted before about the difference between pixel response and motion res, and YES I can confirm that pixel response is a BIGGER problem then motion res. I could clearly see pixel smear on the Sony, Sharp and Samsung sets.


 

The problem is that GtG response time on competent LCDs is already below the 120Hz 8.33 ms frame clock.  Interpolation will sometimes yield a very similar set of smearing artifacts: are you sure that's not what's going on?

 


> Quote:
> BFI would be nice, but why add flicker that would potentially ruin that looking out a window effect? Our eyes are very sensitive to flicker, even subconsciously the slightest flicker will effect you.


 

What our eyes are very sensitive to is a sample that is held too long.  That "looking out a window" effect is hurt horribly by that; we have no evolutionary neuro-optics to cope with the stuttering effect.  We are far more sensitive to that oddball smear against the retina than a very high frequency pulse.


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24515188
> 
> 
> The problem is that response time on competent LCDs is already below the 120Hz 8.33 ms frame clock.  Interpolation will sometimes yield a very similar set of smearing artifacts: are you sure that's not what's going on?



I'm sure it's a pixel response issue as I TURNED OFF motion interpolation and ONLY used black frame insertion, or backlight scanning, etc. I had to buy a Panasonic LCD a few years ago for the bedroom because they were using IPS panels, because all the Sony and Samsung sets had too much smearing. Once you notice the smearing, there is no going back. You will ALWAYS see it.


I don't believe they have made any improvements to pixel response time on LCD panels for a very long time now. All this 240hz, and 960hz is all ******** if they cant fix the native pixel response time. Doesn't matter how much FI you try to push when the pixel is to slow to respond to changes.


I'm very happy with OLED motion, and the ONLY reason not to use FI on the LG would be for gaming and gaming still looks great on the LG. If you can get very good motion res on the LG OLED, with NO side effects, then why do you really obsess over BFI? It would be nice as a feature to try out, but it's not a deal breaker at all. I'd rather have 600-900 lines of motion res with no flicker then a few extra hundred lines with flicker. BTW, the reason I say 600-900 lines is because you can still see detail and line seperation between 600 -900 lines with the motion test. The motion res test is NOT exact, so you have to use your own opinion on where the lines blur.


There is ZERO issue with actually content on the LG, while LCD, even with BFI has issues because of it's slow pixel response.


Guys, I can't be the only one to see these issue with LCD right? A simple test like moving a white mouse cursor over a black background will REVEAL ALL







BTW, don't do this test unless you wanna ruin LCD forever for yourself


----------



## tgm1024


^^^It's not that you're the only one to see something; I think it's that you're misattributing what you're seeing to response time.

 

It could be that you're one of the lucky ones that is not sensitive to sample-and-hold.  You will have horrible motion blur (without pulse mechanisms in play) if the sample is held for the duration of the frame *even if you had theoretical 0 ms (infinitely fast) GtG response.*


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24515269
> 
> 
> ^^^It's not that you're the only one to see something; I think it's that you're misattributing what you're seeing to response time.
> 
> 
> It could be that you're one of the lucky ones that is not sensitive to sample-and-hold.  You will have horrible motion resolution (without pulse mechanisms in play) if the sample is held for the duration of the frame _*even if you had theoretical 0 ms (infinitely fast) GtG response.*_



I'm not misattributing anything










How is 600-900 lines without BFI horrible?


Why is DLP considered one of the best, if not the best tech for motion and it only passes 330 lines? Because it has a very high pixel refresh rate! People always said how great DLP is Compared to LCD, and still do. Why does a DLP with no motion interpolation have superior motion then an LCOS projector (with FI, and BFI), which BTW has much better native pixel response (less then 2ms) then a flat panel LCD?


I think YOU ARE misattributing Sample and hold with slow native pixel response time for issues with motion.


If you can tell me why a DLP which only passes 330 lines, and suffers from Sample and Hold, has superior motion to any LCD then you win!


I've had a ton of experience with almost every display tech out there. I "OWN" a JVC LCOS, an LG OLED, a Pansaonic LCD (with BFI), and used to own a vt60, and I own 2 DLP projectors. I'm tired of people with no experience talking crap about what I should be seeing based on NO FIRST HAND experience. I don't care what a motion test says when my EYE'S and many others with HANDS ON experience say something similar.


OLED > then LCD with BFI.


----------



## stas3098

Quote:Originally Posted by *conan48* 

I've seen lots of 4k TVs in the store, and seen lots of 4k clips, and........1080p OLED still creates a better, more 3D like picture, with the most amazing looking out a window effect I've ever seen.

1080p OLED > 4K LCD

4K OLED > Real Life









All this talk of motion resolution, and OLED motion problems, made me go to a Best Buy and Futureshop to check out all the "high end" LCDs and I was able to get remotes for most of the TVs (I know the manager at BB) and spent a few hours playing with all the motion settings. I tried getting most of the TV's into a BFI or scanning only mode and looked at how motion compared to my OLED. I also only tested TV's with their own feed and not on the split store feed. Too many motion issues can also be caused by crappy sources.

I wasn't too surprised with the results. I've posted before about the difference between pixel response and motion res, and YES I can confirm that pixel response is a BIGGER problem then motion res. I could clearly see pixel smear on the Sony, Sharp and Samsung sets. These sets all use VA or a variation of it and I couldn't believe how bad some of the red smearing was on dark backgrounds. Either most people don't notice it or they are not sensitive to it at all. The smearing almost always occurs in high contrast scenes, with light on dark movement. I can see general smearing very often as well. Think of the Kill Bill famous walking scene with the crazy 88s. You have lots of head bobbing with a camera thats close up. You can actually see the features on peoples faces smearing as they move their heads up and down. I seriously can't believe all this talk about motion res when smearing is STILL such an issue on LCD.

The only good news is that LGs LCDs which use IPS have way better response time then VA panels and have almost 0 issues with pixel speed and smearing. However, they also have the least amount of contrast and generally don't look as good as the Sony and Samsung Panels. An LG FALD should make for a decent LCD set.

Plasma has it's own big issues for motion, but why beat a dead horse?

To me OLED has the BEST motion of any tech out there. Having FI on with all settings at 0 gives NO SOAP effect and gives a very good motion res. Between 600-900 lines and ZERO pixel response issues! BFI would be nice, but why add flicker that would potentially ruin that looking out a window effect? Our eyes are very sensitive to flicker, even subconsciously the slightest flicker will effect you.


Just to prove my point to some I feel beholden to ask you a couple of questions and I'd be very appreciative if you could answer them for me:
1. Is the OLED TV you own the best TV you've ever owned?
2.Is there anything to improve in OLEDs?
3. IS there any way in the hell you'd buy another OLED TV before your current has run its course (which I guess 10 or even more years from now)?


----------



## slacker711

Assuming that everything you say is true, why would LG stop producing OLED's so Samsung and the Chinese/Taiwanese vendors can dominate LCD sales?


Note that I dont think your assumptions are right, but even if they are, LG would still do everything that they can to commercialize OLED's.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*
> 
> 
> All this talk of motion resolution, and OLED motion problems, made me go to a Best Buy and Futureshop to check out all the "high end" LCDs and I was able to get remotes for most of the TVs (I know the manager at BB) and spent a few hours playing with all the motion settings. I tried getting most of the TV's into a BFI or scanning only mode and looked at how motion compared to my OLED.


You cannot compare the motion on your OLED at the house with LCd motion options on al kinds of LCd models in a store. Best thing to do is to compare motion using the same source and a comparable motion enhancer tech (a LG LCd with similar motion enhancement options).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*
> 
> To me OLED has the BEST motion of any tech out there. Having FI on with all settings at 0 gives NO SOAP effect and gives a very good motion res.


Here you are controdicting yourself: best motion out there _but FI needs to be activated_ to get that BEST motion.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*
> 
> Between 600-900 lines and ZERO pixel response issues!...very good motion resolution.


The LG OLED has 600 lines of motion resolution which is not good. Don't know were you got the 700/800/900 lines of Motion Resolution from.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*
> 
> Having FI on with all settings at 0 gives NO SOAP effect


You do know that FI = fake frames and motion smoothing? The effect is somehow visible.


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24515587
> 
> 
> You cannot compare the motion on your OLED at the house with LCd motion options on al kinds of LCd models in a store. Best thing to do is to compare motion using the same source and a comparable motion enhancer tech (a LG LCd with similar motion enhancement options).
> 
> Here you are controdicting yourself: best motion out there _but FI needs to be activated_ to get that BEST motion.
> 
> The LG OLED has 600 lines of motion resolution which is not good. Don't know were you got the 700/800/900 lines of Motion Resolution from.
> 
> You do know that FI = fake frames and motion smoothing? The effect is somehow visible.



1. LG, doesn't do any type of BFI on any model it seems.....Also, I ran the same clips on the Panasonic LED LCD IPS panel at home which does have BFI, and I ran the same clips on my friends current Samsung as well. I just needed to see some other sets at store as well, and the smearing is there. Don't need the same clips to see smearing as a result of slow pixel response time.


2. Your the expert that 600 lines is not good







Because you've directly compared an OLED (MINIMUM 600 line with FI optionon) to an LCD with 1080 lines (BFI) right? Or you just talking ****. I'm tired of people just reading stuff online and they automatically think they are experts. Just because a motion res test shows that LCD is doing 1080 lines during a TEST, that it automatically makes it better WITH ACTUAL VIEWING. Theres a big difference between test patterns and actual content right, you do know that right? I ALREADY explained that motion res test is NOT 100% accurate. Have you ever run a motion test (I'd guess not, as you don't seem to know much about how they work) there is STILL detail between 600-900 lines. It falls somewhere in between.


3. I'm NOT contradicting myself. I clearly said that even without FI, the OLED still has GREAT motion for gaming. With FI, it brings up the numbers during the test patterns, which is all that you folks seem to care about and thats why I bring it up.


4. YES, I know FI = interpolated frames or frame interpolation. BUT, the LG has direct control over this from settings of 0 to 10. All I know is that YES even at settings of 0 it does not "seem" to add frames and still brings up motion res. There is no artifacting or SOAP effect or anything of the sort with settings at 0. Not sure exactly how LG does this (maybe they are doing some sort of BFI in conjunction with the traditional FI)


I"m really tired of people on this forum having an opinion and thinking they are right when they HAVE NOT EVEN TESTED or SEEN what they are blabbing about. Thats why I don't post here for months at a time, because too many people just like to talk ****. "Oh, motion can't be better on OLED then LCD, because LCD passes 1080 lines on a test, and OLED only does 300. I haven't run the tests, or seen the TVs in question, but I must be right because thats what the numbers tell me. I know everything because I spend 10 hours a day on AVS, and I read about stats and numbers."


How many owners have complained about motion blur on here? How many have owned high end kuro, and panasonics and have no issue with motion blur on the LG OLED? Either believe people who OWN the TV or internet "experts".




ALL YOU MOTION "EXPERTS" CANNOT ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION. WHY DOES DLP WHICH ONLY PASSES AROUND 300 LINES AND SUFFERS FROM SAMPLE AND HOLD IS REGARDED AS HAVING BETTER MOTION THEN LCD WHICH CAN PASS 1080 LINES? HMMMM....CAN IT BE PIXEL RESPONSE/REFRESH HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT..........










I'm done talking about motion know and not gonna respond to any more "experts" on here.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940_60#post_24515758
> 
> 
> Thats why I don't post here for months at a time


 

I support you in this endeavor.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*
> 
> 
> 2. Your the expert that 600 lines is not good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you've directly compared an OLED (MINIMUM 600 line with FI optionon) to an LCD with 1080 lines (BFI) right?


Plasma has 1080 lines of Motion Resolution _without_ using motion enhancement tech. OLED has currently 300 lines of motion resolution without using motion enhancement tech. You can claim that OLED Motion Resolution is good as much as you want. I do not need to be an expert to see that current state of LG and Samsung OLED mOtion Resolution is poor..


----------



## stas3098

Quote:Originally Posted by *slacker711* 

Assuming that everything you say is true, why would LG stop producing OLED's so Samsung and the Chinese/Taiwanese vendors can dominate LCD sales?

Note that I dont think your assumptions are right, but even if they are, LG would still do everything that they can to commercialize OLED's.

1 Case scenario:

LG is not going out of OLED business any time soon in fact they're building a new plant to mass produce 4k OLEDs and purported price point of those OLEDs is 6000 dollars a pop. Those OLEDs most likely will be sold in the US only and will be aimed at videophiles. LG expects to sell at least 5 million OLED TV sets before saturating videophile market to the limit then they will either slow down or quit OLED production, because no one will want to upgrade theirs holy Gail TV sets until they break down. This scenario is only possible if OLEDs cost 6,purported,grand and can maintain superb PQ for 10-20 years. (you may ask what about Europe, well as you know in Europe everything costs twice as much in comparison with the US hence not many people will be able to buy sets for 12000 dollars, LG's OLEDs cost 8000 bucks in Germany and at my local fry's they cost 4300 bucks) 

2 case scenario is

By some miracle they manage to bring costs down to the LCD level i.e less than one grand which will allow them access to more than 1.5 billion potential buyer and provide endless demand for their sets.it'll take them about 10 years to saturate Indian market to the limit and by that time sets in the US will start dying so people in the US will start buying sets again and on and on will it go. By the way in this scenario LCD dies a slow death by a million cuts.

These two scenarios are equally possible at the moment...


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24515504
> 
> 
> 
> Just to prove my point to some I feel beholden to ask you a couple of questions and I'd be very appreciative if you could answer them for me:
> 
> 1. Is the OLED TV you own the best TV you've ever owned?
> 
> 2.Is there anything to improve in OLEDs?
> 
> 3. IS there any way in the hell I'd buy another OLED TV before your current has run its course (which I guess 10 or even more years from now)?



1. YES, by far. I've owned too many TV's to list here but I can tell you that it is better then the VT60 I recently sold. I've been into projectors the past few years, and currently own the JVC RS4910 which has higher native contrast then a Kuro, and the OLED blows it away.


2. It can probably use some more brightness, so that it will be compatible with Dolby HDR. An OLED HDR would be awesome! For all the people who need there test patterns to show 1080 lines of moving res, they can add some BFI or something similar. I think the motion is aready amazing, but 1080 lines would shut up most people.


3. Are you asking if I'd buy another OLED within 10 years. LOL. Yes, I'm already planning on getting a 4K, hopefully this year. Also, I could care less when tech I'm using. I ONLY care about the best picture possible, and OLED is that 100% right now. If Sony released thier TRUE LED Crystal TV and it was better then OLED then I'd buy that in an instant. I'm pretty sure the Crystal LED will just stay as a prototype and never see the light of day. BTW, the Sony used RGB LED PER PIXEL!!


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24515758
> 
> 
> 1. LG, doesn't do any type of BFI on any model it seems.....Also, I ran the same clips on the Panasonic LED LCD IPS panel at home which does have BFI, and I ran the same clips on my friends current Samsung as well. I just needed to see some other sets at store as well, and the smearing is there. Don't need the same clips to see smearing as a result of slow pixel response time.
> 
> 
> 2. Your the expert that 600 lines is not good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you've directly compared an OLED (MINIMUM 600 line with FI optionon) to an LCD with 1080 lines (BFI) right? Or you just talking ****. I'm tired of people just reading stuff online and they automatically think they are experts. Just because a motion res test shows that LCD is doing 1080 lines during a TEST, that it automatically makes it better WITH ACTUAL VIEWING. Theres a big difference between test patterns and actual content right, you do know that right? I ALREADY explained that motion res test is NOT 100% accurate. Have you ever run a motion test (I'd guess not, as you don't seem to know much about how they work) there is STILL detail between 600-900 lines. It falls somewhere in between.
> 
> 
> 3. I'm NOT contradicting myself. I clearly said that even without FI, the OLED still has GREAT motion for gaming. With FI, it brings up the numbers during the test patterns, which is all that you folks seem to care about and thats why I bring it up.
> 
> 
> 4. YES, I know FI = interpolated frames or frame interpolation. BUT, the LG has direct control over this from settings of 0 to 10. All I know is that YES even at settings of 0 it does not "seem" to add frames and still brings up motion res. There is no artifacting or SOAP effect or anything of the sort with settings at 0. Not sure exactly how LG does this (maybe they are doing some sort of BFI in conjunction with the traditional FI)
> 
> 
> I"m really tired of people on this forum having an opinion and thinking they are right when they HAVE NOT EVEN TESTED or SEEN what they are blabbing about. Thats why I don't post here for months at a time, because too many people just like to talk ****. "Oh, motion can't be better on OLED then LCD, because LCD passes 1080 lines on a test, and OLED only does 300. I haven't run the tests, or seen the TVs in question, but I must be right because thats what the numbers tell me. I know everything because I spend 10 hours a day on AVS, and I read about stats and numbers."
> 
> 
> How many owners have complained about motion blur on here? How many have owned high end kuro, and panasonics and have no issue with motion blur on the LG OLED? Either believe people who OWN the TV or internet "experts".
> 
> 
> ALL YOU MOTION "EXPERTS" CANNOT ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION. WHY DOES DLP WHICH ONLY PASSES AROUND 300 LINES AND SUFFERS FROM SAMPLE AND HOLD IS REGARDED AS HAVING BETTER MOTION THEN LCD WHICH CAN PASS 1080 LINES? HMMMM....CAN IT BE PIXEL RESPONSE/REFRESH HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done talking about motion know and not gonna respond to any more "experts" on here.


I was enjoying reading your post until you went personal. Totally unnecessary. So I have one of these curved bad boys in a bedroom now. Watching 24 fps content last night, I have no complaints about motion. 60 fps could be another story, but since I don't watch much content in that range, I doubt whatever performance hit it involves will be anywhere close to a dealbreaker.


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24515769
> 
> 
> I support you in this endeavor.



NO problem. If more then 5 people here feel the same then I'm done posting. I'll let the expert on Golden Retrievers take over from now on. LOL.


No wonder people like Dnice stopped posting here.


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24515824
> 
> 
> I was enjoying reading your post until you went personal. Totally unnecessary. So I have one of these curved bad boys in a bedroom now. Watching 24 fps content last night, I have no complaints about motion. 60 fps could be another story, but since I don't watch much content in that range, I doubt whatever performance hit it involves will be anywhere close to a dealbreaker.



I just can't stand when someone tells me what I'M seeing or not seeing or why. I KNOW what I'm seeing. Don't need people to tell me.


Also, you would be surprised how much motion blur their is in source material. It's very hard to find clips without motion blur in them or caused by faulty TV conversions.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24515805
> 
> 
> If Sony released thier TRUE LED Crystal TV and it was better then OLED then I'd buy that in an instant. I'm pretty sure the Crystal LED will just stay as a prototype and never see the light of day. BTW, the Sony used RGB LED PER PIXEL!!


I'd like to see a RAINBOW + TRUE WHITE(RED, ORANGE, YELLOW, GREEN, BLUE, INDIGO, VIOLET) LED PER PEXIL that can produce zero candela blacks. I do, too, think it's high time for us to cut the RGB middleman out. Also it'd be great if peak brightness of it was at least 12000 nits so that we can see HDR in its full panoply.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24515162
> 
> 
> The only good news is that LGs LCDs which use IPS have way better response time then VA panels and have almost 0 issues with pixel speed and smearing. However, they also have the least amount of contrast and generally don't look as good as the Sony and Samsung Panels. An LG FALD should make for a decent LCD set.


Actually, IPS panels have quite slow response times. However, their response time is _far_ more uniform than other LCD panel types, so while a VA panel might do better on gray-to-gray transitions, it might do worse with red moving over black or yellow moving over green for example. This lack of uniformity may be more noticeable than a panel which is slow, but has a more even response.

IPS panels do not have enough contrast to reduce the halo effect with local dimming, so those displays don't look very good compared to a high contrast VA panel using local dimming.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24515162
> 
> 
> To me OLED has the BEST motion of any tech out there. Having FI on with all settings at 0 gives NO SOAP effect and gives a very good motion res. Between 600-900 lines and ZERO pixel response issues! BFI would be nice, but why add flicker that would potentially ruin that looking out a window effect? Our eyes are very sensitive to flicker, even subconsciously the slightest flicker will effect you.


I would not consider that to be especially good motion handling. These tests were basically tailor-made for PDP response times, so that the PDP would score top marks and the LCD would only be scoring 300. (prior to the introduction of interpolation, black frame insertion, and backlight scanning)

A display can score top marks in this test and still blur the image with fast moving content in films, or more obviously, in games. (where the movement is often _much_ faster than films)

And using interpolation rather than black frame insertion means that you have considerable input lag, making the display unsuitable for gaming.


What I hope is that newer panels will accept higher than 60Hz inputs. That allows you to use black frame insertion but halve the flicker if you use 120Hz for example.

I would also really like it if displays allowed you to set the duty cycle. (how long the image is illuminated) Set it to 50% and you would double the motion resolution to 600 lines with only very subtle amounts of flicker, while avoiding interpolation. Or combine it with interpolation for 1200 lines etc.


If you don't want interpolation and don't mind flicker, drop the duty cycle to 10%. It will flicker a lot, but you will be approaching CRT-like motion quality.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24515236
> 
> 
> I'm sure it's a pixel response issue as I TURNED OFF motion interpolation and ONLY used black frame insertion, or backlight scanning, etc. I had to buy a Panasonic LCD a few years ago for the bedroom because they were using IPS panels, because all the Sony and Samsung sets had too much smearing. Once you notice the smearing, there is no going back. You will ALWAYS see it.


I agree - the S-PVA panels Sony/Samsung were using a few years back were absolute garbage. I bought an LCD from every range Sony put out from 2006 until 2010, and it was only in 2010 when they switched to Sharp UV2A panels that they had acceptable motion handling and color accuracy. Since 2010, I think they have switched to mostly using AUO panels now. (I'm not certain, as I am happy with my HX900 and stopped following LCDs so closely)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24515236
> 
> 
> I'm very happy with OLED motion, and the ONLY reason not to use FI on the LG would be for gaming and gaming still looks great on the LG. If you can get very good motion res on the LG OLED, with NO side effects, then why do you really obsess over BFI? It would be nice as a feature to try out, but it's not a deal breaker at all.


Without black frame insertion or scanning the image, OLED is 100% sample & hold just like LCDs, and will score 300 on these tests - just like any other 60Hz display with 100% persistence.


One thing which is rather nice about the LG OLED design though, is that the pixel response will be uniform for _all_ subpixels, as everything is created from the same white OLED layer. I doubt that is true for Samsung's OLEDs.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24515236
> 
> 
> There is ZERO issue with actually content on the LG, while LCD, even with BFI has issues because of it's slow pixel response.


Black frame insertion doesn't really work with LCD. It _maybe_ helps improve perceived sharpness, but has all sorts of other problems. Backlight scanning/strobing, however, can 100% eliminate motion blur on the LCD panel, as long as the response time is less than one frame. (16.67ms at 60Hz) All you have to do is sync the strobing to the panel response time so that the image is not visible while the pixel is in a transition state (blurring/smearing) and only illuminate the backlight once it has changed. However a display which does this is likely to have very noticeable flicker as the duty cycle will be very low.


It is possible that systems which have a higher persistence (less flicker) or use panels which are very slow on some transitions (slower than 16.67ms) may still exhibit some blur.

The UV2A panel my display uses is almost blur-free with most pixel transitions, but can still exhibit trails (but not smearing) if a bright red moves over a white background, and without backlight scanning enabled there can be some overshoot near black. This is miniscule compared to what most panels display though. It totally avoids the smearing of skintones (particularly in dark scenes) which was a problem on all the panels Samsung produced (and may still be? I haven't checked out a Samsung TV in years) which is a far bigger issue than what remains. It passes your Kill Bill test for example.


I am led to believe that the aggressive strobing used in 120Hz Lightboost monitors - which are truly native 120fps displays and not 60Hz input with interpolation - will almost entirely eliminate panel response time, at the expense of potentially noticeable flicker.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24515236
> 
> 
> Guys, I can't be the only one to see these issue with LCD right? A simple test like moving a white mouse cursor over a black background will REVEAL ALL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, don't do this test unless you wanna ruin LCD forever for yourself


Are you saying that when you do this test on an OLED display, you only ever see a single cursor? Because I have not seen any other display which would pass this test. (LCD, CRT, DLP, PDP etc)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24515353
> 
> 
> Why is DLP considered one of the best, if not the best tech for motion and it only passes 330 lines? Because it has a very high pixel refresh rate! People always said how great DLP is Compared to LCD, and still do. Why does a DLP with no motion interpolation have superior motion then an LCOS projector (with FI, and BFI), which BTW has much better native pixel response (less then 2ms) then a flat panel LCD?


I have never considered DLP to have good motion handling. It has fast pixel response times, but there are a lot of other problems with motion. It's definitely better than LCoS though which - at least on all the projectors I have seen - have that same issue with horrible smearing of skintones, especially in dark scenes. (e.g. someone turning their head in a dimly lit scene)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24515823
> 
> 
> BTW, plasma is not even close to perfect for motion. It suffers from a slow green phosphor decay which results in green trailing. It has visible flicker. It makes judder stand out much more then any other tech (often referred to as double judder) Also, has issues with rainbow like flashes during high contrast movement. BUT IT PASSES 1080 LINES, so IT MUST BE BETTER THEN EVERYTHING ELSE!


I agree.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24515874
> 
> 
> I'd like to see a RAINBOW + TRUE WHITE(RED, ORANGE, YELLOW, GREEN, BLUE, INDIGO, VIOLET) LED PER PEXIL that can produce zero candela blacks. I do, too, think it's high time for us to cut the RGB middleman out.


If only it were not for those pesky rods & cones...


----------



## fafrd

^^^^ Thanks for a well-written response to Conan48's repeated questions (and confusion) regarding motion blur.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> Backlight scanning/strobing, however, can 100% eliminate motion blur on the LCD panel, as long as the response time is less than one frame. (16.67ms at 60Hz) All you have to do is sync the strobing to the panel response time so that the image is not visible while the pixel is in a transition state (blurring/smearing) and only illuminate the backlight once it has changed. *However a display which does this is likely to have very noticeable flicker as the duty cycle will be very low.
> *



Everything you wrote is spot-on but I would like to correct the sentence I highlighted in bold.


Motion blur is all about the hold time. The brighter the backlight, the greater reduction in hold time is possible through reduced duty cycle. The effective duty cycle does not need to be continuous.


The Vizio reference Series has an 800Nit backlight, a 120Hz native refresh panel, and an 1800 action rate. Until the panel issues (if ever), we won't know exactly what it is capable of, but as an example, here is what could be done with a panel with these specifications:


8-segment scanning backlight, scanning at a rate of 960Hz with full backlight blanking between each inter-frame strobe (resulting in 800 Hz). If the 'ON' section is a rolling 3 out of 8 segments and we assume equal times for blanking an backlight ON, the backlight, pixel 'ON' time would be reduced to 3/15ths of the full 120Hz panel refresh time, meaning 1.7ms, and brightness would be reduced from 800 Nits to 160Nits. This 1.7ms pixel 'ON' time would be composed of a sequence of 3 strobes of 0.55ms followed with blanking time of 0.55ms in between, so the strobe flashes are at 1.8Khz for segments that are cycling between active (able to strobe) and inactive (unable to strobe, being refreshed & settling) at more than 300 Hz - this is likely to result in no more noticeable flicker than is seen on plasma (meaning virtually none).


Oh, and one more thing - getting the full benefit of an Effective Refresh rate of 600Hz as outlined above ('plasma-like') would require the use of motion interpolation so the native refresh rate of 120Hz is being fed distinct frames. If frame interpolation is not used, frame repeat can be used instead and the result will be some increase in motion blur, but probably less than double and in any case similar to what happens on plasma which is also only changing distinct frames at 60Hz (We'll need to get Mark R. to comment).


----------



## conan48

 http://www.displaymate.com/LG_OLED_TV_ShootOut_1.htm The way he did the motion tests with a camera clearly show the advantage of OLED. Please scroll down to the motion section.


I do use gaming as the ultimate test for motion blur and the OLED passes even with 300 lines and no FI. I'm still not sure how LG does over 600 lines with FI at 0? I'm thinking they must be doing something to get the motion res up with no added (visible) frames.


I actually own 3 lightboost monitors for surround gaming. They are great and they are true 120hz monitors but running them in 120hz mode reduces picture quality substantially. The OLED has less trailing then the lightboost monitors.


The newer LCOS projectors are now smear free. Only the older JVC had a big issue with that. The current one I own has no smearing and better then LCD response time.


Not sure why you're not a fan of DLP motion handling? Most agree that motion handling is top notch on DLP, but a few projectors do exhibit coloured fringing on high contast scenes. Similar to phophor trails on plasma. Are you seeing the coloured fringing? It doesn't exist on all DLP models.


I'm not seeing a single cursor, unless FI is on HIGH, but I'm not seeing any afterglow. Even my lightboost shows some afterglow on that test.


I'm pretty sure the Panasonic LCD at CES, the AX900 used an IPS panel? and it was the best rated LCD at the show. You may be right about the consistency of IPS over VA.


I know for a fact that the Sony 65" 900a panel has red trailing. Some people in the official thread mentioned also seeing red trailing, and claiming a slow panel. It seems like manufactures are jumping around from one type of panel to another without any reason. Supposedly the new 1080p XBR has IPS panel and horrible contrast this year.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24516085
> 
> 
> ^^^^ Thanks for a well-written response to Conan48's repeated questions (and confusion) regarding motion blur.


It also highlights that every motion resolution solution comes with its own set of visual compromises, and not everyone is equally affected by the artifacts that are created.


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24516085
> 
> 
> ^^^^ Thanks for a well-written response to Conan48's repeated questions (and confusion) regarding motion blur.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24516101
> 
> http://www.displaymate.com/LG_OLED_TV_ShootOut_1.htm The way he did the motion tests with a camera clearly show the advantage of OLED. Please scroll down to the motion section.
> 
> 
> I do use gaming as the ultimate test for motion blur and the OLED passes even with 300 lines and no FI. I'm still not sure how LG does over 600 lines with FI at 0? I'm thinking they must be doing something to get the motion res up with no added (visible) frames.
> 
> 
> I actually own 3 lightboost monitors for surround gaming. They are great and they are true 120hz monitors but *running them in 120hz mode reduces picture quality substantially.* The OLED has less trailing then the lightboost monitors.
> 
> 
> The newer LCOS projectors are now smear free. Only the older JVC had a big issue with that. The current one I own has no smearing and better then LCD response time.
> 
> 
> Not sure why you're not a fan of DLP motion handling? Most agree that motion handling is top notch on DLP, but a few projectors do exhibit coloured fringing on high contast scenes. Similar to phophor trails on plasma. Are you seeing the coloured fringing? It doesn't exist on all DLP models.
> 
> 
> I'm not seeing a single cursor, unless FI is on HIGH, but I'm not seeing any afterglow. Even my lightboost shows some afterglow on that test.
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure the Panasonic LCD at CES, the AX900 used an IPS panel? and it was the best rated LCD at the show. You may be right about the consistency of IPS over VA.
> 
> 
> I know for a fact that the Sony 65" 900a panel has red trailing. Some people in the official thread mentioned also seeing red trailing, and claiming a slow panel. It seems like manufactures are jumping around from one type of panel to another without any reason. Supposedly the new 1080p XBR has IPS panel and horrible contrast this year.



Can you explain why? What is the backlight brightness on the lightboost monitors you have, what is their action rate, and how may segments have they implemented in their scanning backlights?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24516120
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24516085
> 
> 
> ^^^^ Thanks for a well-written response to Conan48's repeated questions (and confusion) regarding motion blur.
Click to expand...


p.s. it's the first time I have ever used the ^^^^ so I wanted to post quickly before someone else's post got in in front of me. I've circled back and added quite a bit to that post, especially to correct the statement by Chronomptimist that reducing motion blur through the use of a scanning backlight will introduce noticeable flicker. I don't believe this is the case if the backlight is bright enough and the implementation of the action rate is well-conceived (as I hope some of the newer FALD LED/LCDs coming out later this year will demonstrate).


----------



## whityfrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24515802
> 
> 
> 1 Case scenario:
> 
> 
> 
> LG is not going out of OLED business any time soon in fact they're building a new plant to mass produce 4k OLEDs and purported price point of those OLEDs is 6000 dollars a pop. Those OLEDs most likely will be sold in the US only and will be aimed at videophiles. LG expects to sell at least 5 million OLED TV sets before saturating videophile market to the limit then they will either slow down or quit OLED production, because no one will want to upgrade theirs holy Gail TV sets until they break down. This scenario is only possible if OLEDs cost 6,purported,grand and can maintain superb PQ for 10-20 years. (you may ask what about Europe, well as you know in Europe everything costs twice as much in comparison with the US hence not many people will be able to buy sets for 12000 dollars, LG's OLEDs cost 8000 bucks in Germany and at my local fry's they cost 4300 bucks)
> 
> 
> 2 case scenario is
> 
> 
> By some miracle they manage to bring costs down to the LCD level i.e less than one grand which will allow them access to more than 1.5 billion potential buyer and provide endless demand for their sets.it'll take them about 10 years to saturate Indian market to the limit and by that time sets in the US will start dying so people in the US will start buying sets again and on and on will go. By the way in this scenario LCD dies a slow death by a million cuts.
> 
> 
> These two scenarios are equally possible at the moment...




well I don't think OLED can survive if you continually put it out of the price range of most of humanity. you want to be pioneer? has anyone seen pioneer? lol


they need to cut the crap and stop putting this tech on a pedestal. The exit of plasma leaves the tv marked wide open for the first time in a long time, carpe diem.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whityfrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24516349
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24515802
> 
> 
> 1 Case scenario:
> 
> 
> 
> LG is not going out of OLED business any time soon in fact they're building a new plant to mass produce 4k OLEDs and purported price point of those OLEDs is 6000 dollars a pop. Those OLEDs most likely will be sold in the US only and will be aimed at videophiles. LG expects to sell at least 5 million OLED TV sets before saturating videophile market to the limit then they will either slow down or quit OLED production, because no one will want to upgrade theirs holy Gail TV sets until they break down. This scenario is only possible if OLEDs cost 6,purported,grand and can maintain superb PQ for 10-20 years. (you may ask what about Europe, well as you know in Europe everything costs twice as much in comparison with the US hence not many people will be able to buy sets for 12000 dollars, LG's OLEDs cost 8000 bucks in Germany and at my local fry's they cost 4300 bucks)
> 
> 
> 2 case scenario is
> 
> 
> By some miracle they manage to bring costs down to the LCD level i.e less than one grand which will allow them access to more than 1.5 billion potential buyer and provide endless demand for their sets.it'll take them about 10 years to saturate Indian market to the limit and by that time sets in the US will start dying so people in the US will start buying sets again and on and on will go. By the way in this scenario LCD dies a slow death by a million cuts.
> 
> 
> These two scenarios are equally possible at the moment...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well I don't think OLED can survive if you continually put it out of the price range of most of humanity. you want to be pioneer? has anyone seen pioneer? lol
> 
> 
> they need to cut the crap and stop putting this tech on a pedestal. The exit of plasma leaves the tv marked wide open for the first time in a long time, carpe diem.
Click to expand...


Well said.


If this new plant is not able to produce OLEDs at costs below FALD LED/LCD (given a year for ramp-up and yield improvements), then this entire 2014/2015 OLED initiative of LGs was a giant science experiment (possibly justified out of the marketing budget, as some have already observed) which will end up having even less impact on the flat panel TV market than plasma did in the long run.


Either OLED truly can be manufactured at lower cost than FALD LED/LCD or it can't. Hopefully LG truly believes that it can and they will gain the manufacturing efficiencies and confidence to demonstrate that to all by getting prices down to FALD LED/LCD levels by the end of next year.


By the end of this year, Vizio will hopefully have proven that a 65" 4K FALD LED/LCD can be profitably sold at a price of $2200. This raises the bar on LG but not in a fundamental way - if they are not able to produce OLED for less than FALD LED/LCD, the technology was always going to peter out before taking and significant market share. The aggressive FALD, 4K, LED/LCD price reductions that have been driven by the Chinese and Vizio and which LG keeps referring to as 'not their strategy' and 'not their choice') merely accelerate the timeline and shortens then period LG has until the window starts closing on them.


65" OLED for under $3000 by Black Friday 2015 - the race is on...


p.s. at least the recent and significant price drops on the 2014 OLEDs provide an indication that LG is aware of the challenge they are facing and are making the right moves to meet it.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24516029
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> If only it were not for those pesky rods & cones...


How do you mean rods & cones? Why would you go beyond visible spectrum (400 - 700 nm) in the first place? Rods perceive light intensity cones perceive wave length?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24516448
> 
> 
> 
> By the end of this year, Vizio will hopefully have proven that a 65" 4K FALD LED/LCD can be profitably sold at a price of $2200. This raises the bar on LG but not in a fundamental way - if they are not able to produce OLED for less than FALD LED/LCD, the technology was always going to peter out before taking and significant market share. The aggressive FALD, 4K, LED/LCD price reductions that have been driven by the Chinese and Vizio and which LG keeps referring to as 'not their strategy' and 'not their choice') merely accelerate the timeline and shortens then period LG has until the window starts closing on them.
> 
> 
> 65" OLED for under $3000 by Black Friday 2015 - the race is on...
> 
> 
> p.s. at least the recent and significant price drops on the 2014 OLEDs provide an indication that LG is aware of the challenge they are facing and are making the right moves to meet it.



I am going to go out on a limb and say that Vizio will not own 90% of the high-end television market by Christmas 2015. There will be millions of non-Vizio units sold at a substantial premium to whatever benchmark price Vizio has established.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whityfrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24516349
> 
> 
> well I don't think OLED can survive if you continually put it out of the price range of most of humanity. you want to be pioneer? has anyone seen pioneer? lol
> 
> 
> they need to cut the crap and stop putting this tech on a pedestal. The exit of plasma leaves the tv marked wide open for the first time in a long time, carpe diem.


Pioneer had all their eggs in the one expensive display basket, high-end plasma. LG fortunately has a few other avenues of revenue to supplement this commendable effort.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24516448
> 
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> 
> If this new plant is not able to produce OLEDs at costs below FALD LED/LCD (given a year for ramp-up and yield improvements), then this entire 2014/2015 OLED initiative of LGs was a giant science experiment (possibly justified out of the marketing budget, as some have already observed) which will end up having even less impact on the flat panel TV market than plasma did in the long run.
> 
> 
> Either OLED truly can be manufactured at lower cost than FALD LED/LCD or it can't. Hopefully LG truly believes that it can and they will gain the manufacturing efficiencies and confidence to demonstrate that to all by getting prices down to FALD LED/LCD levels by the end of next year.
> 
> 
> By the end of this year, Vizio will hopefully have proven that a 65" 4K FALD LED/LCD can be profitably sold at a price of $2200. This raises the bar on LG but not in a fundamental way - if they are not able to produce OLED for less than FALD LED/LCD, the technology was always going to peter out before taking and significant market share. The aggressive FALD, 4K, LED/LCD price reductions that have been driven by the Chinese and Vizio and which LG keeps referring to as 'not their strategy' and 'not their choice') merely accelerate the timeline and shortens then period LG has until the window starts closing on them.
> 
> 
> 65" OLED for under $3000 by Black Friday 2015 - the race is on...
> 
> 
> p.s. at least the recent and significant price drops on the 2014 OLEDs provide an indication that LG is aware of the challenge they are facing and are making the right moves to meet it.


I'll eat my hat if LG is producing OLEDs as not a marketing move to get a leg up in LCD sales!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940_60#post_24516485
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24516029
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> If only it were not for those pesky rods & cones...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you mean rods & cones? Why would you go beyond visible spectrum (400 - 700 nm) in the first place? Rods perceive light intensity cones perceive wave length?
Click to expand...

 

I'm fairly certain that what he means is that you generally want to emit what the eye can see.  For the color side, more or less the eye has cones that peak at certain wavelengths (that we consider red/green/blue).  Sending out wavelengths that trigger more than one cone at once (such as spectral yellow, and the other colors mentioned) as a kind of display primary (their own subpixel) is of questionable worth.


----------



## wse


*65" OLED for under $3000 by Black Friday 2015 - the race is on...*

 

 

I wish but don't hold your breath


----------



## whityfrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24516448
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> 
> If this new plant is not able to produce OLEDs at costs below FALD LED/LCD (given a year for ramp-up and yield improvements), then this entire 2014/2015 OLED initiative of LGs was a giant science experiment (possibly justified out of the marketing budget, as some have already observed) which will end up having even less impact on the flat panel TV market than plasma did in the long run.
> 
> 
> Either OLED truly can be manufactured at lower cost than FALD LED/LCD or it can't. Hopefully LG truly believes that it can and they will gain the manufacturing efficiencies and confidence to demonstrate that to all by getting prices down to FALD LED/LCD levels by the end of next year.
> 
> 
> By the end of this year, Vizio will hopefully have proven that a 65" 4K FALD LED/LCD can be profitably sold at a price of $2200. This raises the bar on LG but not in a fundamental way - if they are not able to produce OLED for less than FALD LED/LCD, the technology was always going to peter out before taking and significant market share. The aggressive FALD, 4K, LED/LCD price reductions that have been driven by the Chinese and Vizio and which LG keeps referring to as 'not their strategy' and 'not their choice') merely accelerate the timeline and shortens then period LG has until the window starts closing on them.
> 
> 
> 65" OLED for under $3000 by Black Friday 2015 - the race is on...
> 
> 
> p.s. at least the recent and significant price drops on the 2014 OLEDs provide an indication that LG is aware of the challenge they are facing and are making the right moves to meet it.



recent price drops are merely liquidation, dare I say it, for unsold sets before the next wave of overpriced tech rolls in. they will be there at a "steal of a price" whether you buy it or not.


----------



## whityfrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24516527
> 
> 
> Pioneer had all their eggs in the one expensive display basket, high-end plasma. LG fortunately has a few other avenues of revenue to supplement this commendable effort.



and they have those avenues by playing it safe, historically being literally an aftermarket product of those who actually gambled and put R&D into the mix, had a run, and died in the process. who would have thought friggin LG would hold the keys to the city? power does strange things to people. If LG drops this opportunity, continues with the greedy pricing, then this is a complete waste, nothing more than a fad, and everyone loses in the process.


and I hate to break it to you all, but low yields in manufacturing is a complete line of BS. Its just an publicized excuse to make you pay an extremely high premium. How can you literally print TV's and have a low yield? At the same time they are intentionally curving these things at will? Do you honestly think anyone would invest in plants for low yields? stop thinking as an ignorant consumer and dig deeper. Plasma didn't have its hay day until it became meaningfully affordable. LG/Samsung thinks everyone on the planet will buy a new tv before they consider buying a car. If they continue thinking this way, they will be on the street, and we will be stuck with old tech for years to come. Artwood, please stay well away from my post. thanks.


----------



## vinnie97

You haven't broken anything to us. If yields weren't a problem, everyone would be doing it (see Samsung who have scaled it all back). A couple of other crucial points: 1) Not everything a company reports is a conspiracy to excuse high prices. 2) LG is not printing anything.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24516649
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain that what he means is that you generally want to emit what the eye can see.  For the color side, more or less the eye has cones that peak at certain wavelengths (that we consider red/green/blue).  Sending out wavelengths that trigger more than one cone at once (such as spectral yellow, and the other colors mentioned) as a kind of display primary (their own subpixel) is of questionable worth.


Have you ever seen deltaE that can stay a flat line at from zero intensity to 100 percent? If you assign more than one bit per color(a value for the intensity of color) you may as well forget about this color ever having 100 percent consistency at different intensities with the real life color. Let's take orange( 560nm) for example to make orange we are right now mixing yellow a (550) and red (650) the total of that mix is a lot of invisible ultraviolet and the perceivable waves length of about 563.2453454354354354175465713465741365716459164357496571436518743651784659143651743651746578143657134657134657816457864573465972346578436578634753467591346574365784367546 ect. and ect. nm. So recreated orange by RBB  deviates for about 3.2453454354354354175465713465741365716459164357496571436518743651784659143651743651746578143657134657134657816457864573465972346578436578634753467591346574365784367546 nm from the color we intended to make in the first place. And make no mistake our eyes can catch (and our brains process) even the slightest deviation they are simply just that good even if we don't notice it on the conscious level we still feel there's something off subconsciously!  If we are ever to "trick" our eyes and brains into finding what they are seeing on the screen being no different from what they are seeing out a window we need to flat line delta E from zero (candela) to 1.6 billion candela so that the wave length of orange stayed the same 560 nm no matter what intensity! So we need either a good million of color filters and a white backlights or a couple of million different backlights LCD ...  This tech never gets implemented would be my guess.

 

   Does any of this sound makes any sense to you?


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24517015
> 
> 
> You haven't broken anything to us. If yields weren't a problem, everyone would be doing it (see Samsung who have scaled it all back). A couple of other crucial points: 1) Not everything a company reports is a conspiracy to excuse high prices. 2) LG is not printing anything.


If yield rates weren't on the mend why LG would ever be investing (wasting) money in OLEDs in the first? If you are right then OLEDs are doomed.


----------



## vinnie97

Yup, doomed! *flails hands in the air erratically* In my opinion, "on the mend" doesn't mean there's no room for further improvement. Last I heard, they were in the 70% range. That is not quite to the level of your run-of-the-mill LCD fab. A mere speculation on my part, but the introduction of a higher resolution might have even resulted in a setback.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24518127
> 
> 
> Yup, doomed! *flails hands in the air erratically while running around and yelling on the top of his lungs WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!* In my opinion, "on the mend" doesn't mean there's no room for further improvement. Last I heard, they were in the 70% range. That is not quite to the level of your run-of-the-mill LCD fab. A mere speculation on my part, but the introduction of a higher resolution might have even resulted in a setback.


From what I heard from a good trustable acquaintance of the girlfriend of mine in Samsung their yield rates for their full HD 5.7" "diamond" OLEDs are in the ballpark of 70% however they just loosened quality control to achieve 85 percent yield rates (if luminance distribution is higher than 70 percent than the display is good to go into the phone!). The actual manufacturing cost of those displays is 100 bucks a pop. As a owner of the Notes 3 I can say that note 3's OLED display ranks the disgraceful sixth place amongst  the worst displays I've ever used, first being my first TN LCD monitor and the second OLED on the first Nexus, third OLED on PS Vita and fourth Sony W900 (bough it for 1300 ( http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-KDL-55W802A-55-Class-3D-1080p-LED-HDTV-with-WiFi-Black-/221399005823 ? )pt=Televisions&hash=item338c68ba7f bucks plus a "mandatory" extended warranty for 200 bucks on a clearance sale just couldn't help myself in Europe it still goes for 4500 bucks here's the link for the listed price without mad VATs and all the other stuff included  http://www.amazon.com/Sony-KDL-55W900A-55-Inch-240Hz-Internet/dp/B00AWKBZ0M  







 and here comes the moment when I burst into crazed laughter 







, come on guys there's no way not to rub it in!!!), fifth Sharp Elite FALD LCD (7000 bucks). There is a dozen of medical grade and professional displays in between. Whereas the second best for me being a ST60 Panny plasma( the only plasma that I've ever used) and the best of all times being Sony Trinitron 36 CRT ( I cross my heart and pray to god she( I can't just bring myself to calling this bulky thing of beauty IT)  never dies), respectively. I can do a YU video to show you the reason why note 3 ranks so low if you don't own a note 3 yourself.

 

   By the way I'd have bough myself a 5000 dollar LG OLED right away if I hadn't had a little one on the way...


----------



## vinnie97

I've been fortunate to grab the creme a le cream of plasma (the Kuro 9G and presently a ZT60). Sorry to hear you suffered through poor early OLED mobile modules. I own the Galaxy 3...other than a glow on blacks that is unbecoming to the tech (perhaps this luminance is emanating from another component within the phone), I don't have any complaints. I don't use it extensively, however, to the point of torture testing (major battery drain!). I can assure you the LG does not suffer any such glow. Congrats on the kid...nothing wrong with aligning your priorities responsibly.


----------



## JazzGuyy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24516527
> 
> 
> Pioneer had all their eggs in the one expensive display basket, high-end plasma. LG fortunately has a few other avenues of revenue to supplement this commendable effort.


Pioneer also didn't have the money and production capacity LG has. Pioneer was never big enough to be able to get economies of scale. Pioneer just wasn't big enough to compete.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940_60#post_24518081
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24516649
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain that what he means is that you generally want to emit what the eye can see.  For the color side, more or less the eye has cones that peak at certain wavelengths (that we consider red/green/blue).  Sending out wavelengths that trigger more than one cone at once (such as spectral yellow, and the other colors mentioned) as a kind of display primary (their own subpixel) is of questionable worth.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen deltaE that can stay a flat line at from zero intensity to 100 percent? If you assign more than one bit per color(a value for the intensity of color) you may as well forget about this color ever having 100 percent consistency at different intensities with the real life color. Let's take orange( 560nm) for example to make orange we are right now mixing yellow a (550) and red (650) the total of that mix is a lot of invisible ultraviolet and the perceivable waves length of about 563.2453454354354354175465713465741365716459164357496571436518743651784659143651743651746578143657134657134657816457864573465972346578436578634753467591346574365784367546 ect. and ect. nm. So recreated orange by RBB  deviates for about 3.2453454354354354175465713465741365716459164357496571436518743651784659143651743651746578143657134657134657816457864573465972346578436578634753467591346574365784367546 nm from the color we intended to make in the first place. And make no mistake our eyes can catch (and our brains process) even the slightest deviation they are simply just that good even if we don't notice it on the conscious level we still feel there's something off subconsciously!  If we are ever to "trick" our eyes and brains into finding what they are seeing on the screen being no different from what they are seeing out a window we need to flat line delta E from zero (candela) to 1.6 billion candela so that the wave length of orange stayed the same 560 nm no matter what intensity! So we need either a good million of color filters and a white backlights or a couple of million different backlights LCD ...  This tech never gets implemented would be my guess.
> 
> 
> 
> Does any of this sound makes any sense to you?
Click to expand...

 

You're walking *way* off track.  Yes, our brains can detect a difference between composite yellow and spectral yellow, but the data still requires a mapping because the sensors within a camera don't feed back frequency, they feed back composite information.  When spectral yellow hits a camera sensor, we get back an array of information from which we *then* compute the eventual YCC or RGB sent to the TV.  Nowhere in the camera sensor is an orange cell.  Nowhere in the camera sensor is indigo.  It does no good to have a display with these characteristics because *any accuracy we hope to achieve from the real world has already been lost before the data has even been made.*

 

I cannot entertain a continuing argument about what someone else meant by a statement.  But I believe he was indicating that you want to send to the eye what the eye can directly receive at its lowest level (rods/cones).


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24516863
> 
> *65" OLED for under $3000 by Black Friday 2015 - the race is on...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish but don't hold your breath


Give me a 75" 4K OLED UHDTV for under $5,000 and I'm there!

(Might be a few years, but I do think we'll get there...







).


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24518200
> 
> 
> I've been fortunate to grab the creme a le cream of plasma (the Kuro 9G and presently a ZT60). Sorry to hear you suffered through poor early OLED mobile modules. I own the Galaxy 3...other than a glow on blacks that is unbecoming to the tech (perhaps this luminance is emanating from another component within the phone), I don't have any complaints. I don't use it extensively, however, to the point of torture testing (major battery drain!). I can assure you the LG does not suffer any such glow. Congrats on the kid...nothing wrong with aligning your priorities responsibly.


So American edition note 3 doesn't have zero blacks







? I bough my note 3 in Ukraine right before x-mas for 950 bucks for 32gb unlocked version (in Germany they asked maddening 1270 bucks for it, so I let loose a string of German expletives and forwent buying it there https://www.otto.de/p/samsung-galaxy-note-3-n9005-smartphone-lte-4g-nfc-touchscreen-android-4-3-13-0-megapixel-393646977/#variationId=420676508&t=%7B%22san_ListPosition%22%3A9%7D  SIE SPAERN 140 Euro my ASS ), because I wanted to have a phone with an octa-core SoC. Here's the link for a video showing "purple movement (motion) effect"    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU1viTDZonU (I have to say that this video doesn't even begin doing justice this effect) This has caused a lot of commotion in RU-net (Russian internet)  on videophile forums like this one. After I'd discovered this purple movement effect I went back to the store to sort thing out( the manager of Эльдорадо (it's like fry's in the US or OTTO in Germany) called it this way( purple movement effect) and said that all the note 3s had it. Of course I didn't take his word for it and after 20 munities of checking out seven other note 3s they had in store I came to the conclusion that all east European note 3s sport this effect and get an I-told-you-so from otherwise the nice manager).

 

     On the side note. The manager's only perspicuous expiation as to why was:" because it has perfect blacks and you just can't have your pie and eat it, can you now (it's a rough and redacted translation of what I chose to hear, though) ". Russian and Polish forums say that it is due to an inherent pentile (diamond arrangement) shortcoming...


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*
> 
> Yup, doomed! *flails hands in the air erratically* In my opinion, "on the mend" doesn't mean there's no room for further improvement. Last I heard, they were in the 70% range. That is not quite to the level of your run-of-the-mill LCD fab. A mere speculation on my part, but the introduction of a higher resolution might have even resulted in a setback.


Seems to my that for the most part what LG is doing is ''keep OLED going'' till OLED printing is ready for mass production (when everybody jumps in). LG _OLED printing research project_ .


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24518949
> 
> 
> Seems to my that for the most part what LG is doing is ''keep OLED going'' till OLED printing is ready for mass production (when everybody jumps in). LG _OLED printing research project_ .



You dont build commercial Gen 8 fabs as placeholders or research projects.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> 
> You dont build commercial Gen 8 fabs as placeholders or research projects.


Ok. So what if in a year from now OLED printing mass production can be done much cheaper? What will LG do with that $650 investment? Isn't LG just taking a risk and hopes that it will turn out well?


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24518800 Give me a 75" 4K OLED UHDTV for under $5,000 and I'm there!  (Might be a few years, but I do think we'll get there...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).


Yes me too ideally I would like the 100" 2:35 OLED 4K for $5,000


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519419
> 
> 
> Ok. So what if in a year from now OLED printing mass production can be done much cheaper? What will LG do with that $650 investment? Isn't LG just taking a risk and hopes that it will turn out well?



There is almost no chance that somebody is going to be printing OLED televisions in volume next year. We are hearing plenty of announcements from vendors about equipment but we arent hearing anything about actual sales. Kateeva and the rest first need to get sales into a pilot/R&D facility. Kateeva's CEO mentioned possible tablet sales in 2015. Sales into some sort of pilot facility will start the clock. If everything went absolutely right, we might see commercial volumes two years later...but that is likely a very aggressive timeframe. That sort of timeframe assumes that building the printing equipment has very short lead times and that the IGZO/LTPS capacity is already in place. Both are shaky assumptions.


If you plan on buying an OLED before 2017, I would assume that you are going to be buying a television with a panel from LG Display.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24518850
> 
> 
> So American edition note 3 doesn't have zero blacks ? I bough my note 3 in Ukraine right before x-mas for 950 bucks for 32gb unlocked version (in Germany they asked maddening 1270 bucks for it, so I let loose a string of German expletives and forwent buying it there https://www.otto.de/p/samsung-galaxy-note-3-n9005-smartphone-lte-4g-nfc-touchscreen-android-4-3-13-0-megapixel-393646977/#variationId=420676508&t=%7B%22san_ListPosition%22%3A9%7D  SIE SPAERN 140 Euro my ASS ), because I wanted to have a phone with an octa-core SoC. Here's the link for a video showing "purple movement (motion) effect"    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU1viTDZonU (I have to say that this video doesn't even begin doing justice this effect) This has caused a lot of commotion in RU-net (Russian internet)  on videophile forums like this one. After I'd discovered this purple movement effect I went back to the store to sort thing out( the manager of Эльдорадо (it's like fry's in the US or OTTO in Germany) called it this way( purple movement effect) and said that all the note 3s had it. Of course I didn't take his word for it and after 20 munities of checking out seven other note 3s they had in store I came to the conclusion that all east European note 3s sport this effect and get an I-told-you-so from otherwise the nice manager).
> 
> 
> On the side note. The manager's only perspicuous expiation as to why was:" because it has perfect blacks and you just can't have your pie and eat it, can you now (it's a rough and redacted translation of what I chose to hear, though) ". Russian and Polish forums say that it is due to an inherent pentile (diamond arrangement) shortcoming...



Are you sure they weren't knockoffs?


I've never heard of this purple effect you described.


Something obviously isn't right.


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940_60#post_24518850
> 
> 
> 
> On the side note. The manager's only perspicuous expiation as to why was:" because it has perfect blacks and you just can't have your pie and eat it, can you now (it's a rough and redacted translation of what I chose to hear, though) ". Russian and Polish forums say that it is due to an inherent pentile (diamond arrangement) shortcoming...



Impressive use of, "perspicuous expiation" in a sentence. Particularly for someone where English is (presumably) not your native language.


----------



## vinnie97

^Indeed. I had to look those up!







Of expatiation, I'm aware.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519419
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> 
> You dont build commercial Gen 8 fabs as placeholders or research projects.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. So what if in a year from now OLED printing mass production can be done much cheaper? What will LG do with that $650 investment? Isn't LG just taking a risk and hopes that it will turn out well?
Click to expand...


When is this new plant supposed to be up and running? I thought we'd already been discussing LG having the volume for 1M units/year - is that based on this new plant of existing capacity?


The Toshiba 55L7400U 55" 1080p FALD WCG 'Radiance' TV just showed up online with an MSRP of $1500 and an 'out-of-the-chute' street price of $1200.


If the entire 'high-end' market is ~20M TVs and out of that 10% are going to be 55" 1080p (which is a best-best-case assumption, probably far fewer premium 55" 1080p sets get sold in the next 12 months), that would mean a total available market of 2M units for this class of product.


I believe Toshiba's pricing move on the 55L7400U is going to mean that LG will need to discount the price of their 55" 1080p OLEDs by another 50% before late this year if they want to have any hope of selling them in the 100s of thousands and not the 10's of thousands.


Even for 'perfect' blacks and 'perfect' viewing angles, I believe very few buyers of a premium 55" 1080p TV would be willing to shell out ~4x the price of the Toshiba 55L7400U for that incremental improvement in PQ.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8900_100#post_24519631
> 
> 
> When is this new plant supposed to be up and running?


2nd half of 2014...


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> 
> There is almost no chance that somebody is going to be printing OLED televisions in volume next year. We are hearing plenty of announcements from vendors about equipment but we arent hearing anything about actual sales. Kateeva and the rest first need to get sales into a pilot/R&D facility. Kateeva's CEO mentioned possible tablet sales in 2015. Sales into some sort of pilot facility will start the clock. If everything went absolutely right, we might see commercial volumes two years later...but that is likely a very aggressive timeframe. That sort of timeframe assumes that building the printing equipment has very short lead times and that the IGZO/LTPS capacity is already in place. Both are shaky assumptions.
> 
> 
> If you plan on buying an OLED before 2017, I would assume that you are going to be buying a television with a panel from LG Display.


A lot of the OLED printing business stuff is kept secret so i wonder what do we actually know aside from the fact that OLED printing is still a few years away? What is going on behind the scenes?


I understand that the next few years LG is the OLED king, but i do not expect them to sell large quantities of larger sized OLEDs in that time period. So they will make not a lot of money from that investment till 2017/ 2018 IMO.


If OLED printing is gonna make it we will hopefully see mass production in 2018/ 2019. Lets say there is OLED printing mass production in 2019/ 2020, how much money did the $650.000.000 investment return in 4.5/ 5.5 years? And what will LG do? Replace the equipment it now is installing?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*
> 
> When is this new plant supposed to be up and running? I thought we'd already been discussing LG having the volume for 1M units/year - is that based on this new plant of existing capacity?


 _LG says_ that they are still on track to start production in middle 2014_


2nd half of 2014..


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519751
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> 
> There is almost no chance that somebody is going to be printing OLED televisions in volume next year. We are hearing plenty of announcements from vendors about equipment but we arent hearing anything about actual sales. Kateeva and the rest first need to get sales into a pilot/R&D facility. Kateeva's CEO mentioned possible tablet sales in 2015. Sales into some sort of pilot facility will start the clock. If everything went absolutely right, we might see commercial volumes two years later...but that is likely a very aggressive timeframe. That sort of timeframe assumes that building the printing equipment has very short lead times and that the IGZO/LTPS capacity is already in place. Both are shaky assumptions.
> 
> 
> If you plan on buying an OLED before 2017, I would assume that you are going to be buying a television with a panel from LG Display.
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the OLED printing business stuff is kept secret so i wonder what do we actually know aside from the fact that OLED printing is still a few years away? What is going on behind the scenes?
> 
> 
> I understand that the next few years LG is the OLED king, but i do not expect them to sell large quantities of larger sized OLEDs in that time period. So they will make not a lot of money from that investment till 2017/ 2018 IMO.
> 
> 
> If OLED printing is gonna make it we will hopefully see mass production in 2018/ 2019. Lets say there is OLED printing mass production in 2019/ 2020, how much money did the $650.000.000 investment return in 4.5/ 5.5 years? And what will LG do? Replace the equipment it now is installing?
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*
> 
> When is this new plant supposed to be up and running? I thought we'd already been discussing LG having the volume for 1M units/year - is that based on this new plant of existing capacity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _LG says_ that they are still on track to start production in middle 2014_
> 
> 
> 2nd half of 2014..
Click to expand...


Thanks guys (8mile13 and vinnie97).


So that plant is going to be in production 3 months from now. And if I have understood the capacity correctly, that means close to 100,000 LG 55" OLEDs pumping out every month starting in July, August, or September depending on whether 'running' means 'ramping / beginning to run' or 'ramped / in full production'. Either way there are going to start to be a whole heck of a lot more LG OLEDs hitting the market by Q4 then there are today.


And LG will need to sell them, which is why I believe we are witnessing them playing with the pricing on the current products to determine the market elasticity. Cleveland Plasma is in the best position to know, but I wonder how may OLEDs he has sold since the drop to $4600 for the 55" 1080p?


I suspect that those 55" 1080p TVs are going to have to be priced far below that level by Black Friday 2014 to sell anywhere near the volumes LG will need to keep the new plant running.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519631
> 
> 
> I believe Toshiba's pricing move on the 55L7400U is going to mean that LG will need to discount the price of their 55" 1080p OLEDs by another 50% before late this year if they want to have any hope of selling them in the 100s of thousands and not the 10's of thousands.



How many units do you think that Samsung is going to sell of the H8000/H7150 series? Those are priced at a huge premium to the Toshiba set and they dont have any of the advantages of OLED.


I assume you are predicting that both Vizio and Toshiba will have a higher share of the high-end market than Samsung this year. Just curious how low you think that Samsung's share will go...10%?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519796
> 
> 
> Thanks guys (8mile13 and vinnie97).
> 
> 
> So that plant is going to be in production 3 months from now. And if I have understood the capacity correctly, that means close to 100,000 LG 55" OLEDs pumping out every month starting in July, August, or September depending on whether 'running' means 'ramping / beginning to run' or 'ramped / in full production'. Either way there are going to start to be a whole heck of a lot more LG OLEDs hitting the market by Q4 then there are today.
> 
> 
> And LG will need to sell them, which is why I believe we are witnessing them playing with the pricing on the current products to determine the market elasticity. Cleveland Plasma is in the best position to know, but I wonder how may OLEDs he has sold since the drop to $4600 for the 55" 1080p?
> 
> 
> I suspect that those 55" 1080p TVs are going to have to be priced far below that level by Black Friday 2014 to sell anywhere near the volumes LG will need to keep the new plant running.



I doubt LG will be fully ramped until the fall of 2016. EDIT...meant fall of 2015.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940_60#post_24519816
> 
> 
> I doubt LG will be fully ramped until the fall of 2016. EDIT...meant fall of 2015.


 

What makes 2015 particularly interesting to me is that we will have had a very small but not insignificant number of OLEDs in the field for over a year.  We'll see if anything fails horribly---yes, I'm worried about the affect burn in will have on the public.  IR/BI hung around plasma's neck like a rotting albatross, and while it *still* happened till present day it didn't happen anywhere near the degree even non-technical people were aware of and worried by it.


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519796
> 
> 
> I suspect that those 55" 1080p TVs are going to have to be priced far below that level by Black Friday 2014 to sell anywhere near the volumes LG will need to keep the new plant running.


That and a creative marketing campaign, haven't seen much in terms of advertising for this tech, hopefully once they can increase production well see something


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519861
> 
> 
> What makes 2015 particularly interesting to me is that we will have had a very small but not insignificant number of OLEDs in the field for over a year.  We'll see if anything fails horribly---yes, I'm worried about the affect burn in will have on the public.  IR/BI hung around plasma's neck like a rotting albatross, and while it _still_ happened till present day it didn't happen anywhere near the degree even non-technical people were aware of and worried by it.



Agreed, they need to avoid the obvious pitfalls of plasma. The two biggest were the perceptions about burn-in and the performance in harsh lighting.


I said it in another thread, OLED's have to be the no-brainer answer if you want the best performance. Plasma never achieved that among the general public.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CruelInventions*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519568
> 
> 
> 
> Impressive use of, "perspicuous expiation" in a sentence. Particularly for someone where English is (presumably) not your native language.


What's that to betoken? As far as I know "expiation" is an ancient rite of apologizing for wrongs done intentionally or otherwise used by achaemenids, romans, greeks and many others which I shall omit to list for the purposes of saving everyone's time where a man gives an explanation to GOD or to its superior (for example to a judge during the trial) that in itself makes amends or justifies some part of the ill deed at the very least. Perspicuous simply means clear in expression, pellucid comes to mind as a more frequently used synonym. Well, once we've broken down each part of the  "perspicuous expiation" we can safely infer that in the context it was put in it cursorily translates into other words as a pretty satisfactorily explanation that strips some guilt off of the person who gave it. I just thought you guys would know better







, I guess...

 

 

   I speak a quite few languages native-speaker like which I was to "born" into and English is one of them. I came into contact with English first at 4 years of age.


----------



## vinnie97

No, I fully understood where you were coming from with that particular expression and its context (well, not to the above historical extent, lol) once I did a vocab refresh.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519812
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519631
> 
> 
> I believe Toshiba's pricing move on the 55L7400U is going to mean that LG will need to discount the price of their 55" 1080p OLEDs by another 50% before late this year if they want to have any hope of selling them in the 100s of thousands and not the 10's of thousands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many units do you think that Samsung is going to sell of the H8000/H7150 series? Those are priced at a huge premium to the Toshiba set and they dont have any of the advantages of OLED.
> 
> 
> I assume you are predicting that both Vizio and Toshiba will have a higher share of the high-end market than Samsung this year. Just curious how low you think that Samsung's share will go...10%?
Click to expand...


I think we need to narrow down if I am going to try to make a meaningful response to your question.


We are talking about 55" panels in the US market ONLY (not worldwide, not larger panel sizes) but we will consider both 1080p and 4K panels (as well as the 1080p+/4K- Q+ stuff from Sharp).



Samsung H8000 curved edge-lit 1080p LED/LCD @ $2500 versus


LG 55" 1080p OLEDs (55EA9800 and the gallery model) @ $4600 (and falling fast 


Sharp LC60UQ17U edge-lit 1080p+/4K- LED/LCD @ $2500 (60" is smallest size offered)


Sharp LC60SQ17U edge-lit 1080p+/4K- LED/LCD @ $1600 (60" is smallest size offered)


Vizio 55" P Series FALD 4K LED/LCD @ $1400


Toshiba 55" L7400U FALD 1080p LED/LCD @ $1200


Vizio 55" M Series FALD 1080p LED/LCD @ $900



So I predict that Samsung H8000 will have 100% market share for those who want a curved LED/LCD, but I don't think that will be a very large share of customers for a high-end 55" panel. So yes, I believe that the two Vizio panels, the Toshiba panel, and the Sharp SQ will outsell the Samsung H8000 this year in terms of number of TVs sold (assuming the 3 FALD panels are not disastrous implementations like the 2013 LG FALD).


For this specific subclass (US 55" premium), I would be surprised if the Samsung H8000 gets more than 10-15% of the volume in 2014 [based on current pricing - if they lower the price on the H8000 (as I expect by Black Friday) that would change everything.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519567
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure they weren't knockoffs?
> 
> 
> I've never heard of this purple effect you described.
> 
> 
> Something obviously isn't right.


1. More than 10 thousand units were reported in RU-net to have such an issue and the Samsung's reaction to that was: it is due to an inherent problem of a diamond arrangement combined with zero blacks (true zero candela blacks, none of that glowing in the dark American edition note 3 blacks)  blah-blah and the issue is not covered by your warranty, because it works as it is supposed to work so please stop reporting it. How would my unit score 36042 points in AnTuTu test and have true blacks and the best gray scale tracking I've seen to day and cover 103 present of Adobe RGB color space if it were a knockoff? I put phones in Krasnoyarsk(DNS one of the biggest and most respected electronics retailer in Russia)  and Krakow(Media Markt should sum it all up for you) through the same test and they all had purple movement ( motion ) effect which only happens when a gray bar (or object) driven across the black screen when a bight green(red, blue or white) bar is driven across the blacks screen PME does not make itself known. The only way to eliminate to problem is glowing blacks over which I take PME every single time.

 

2. Do you often visit Russian tech forums or Eastern European countries for that matter?

 

3. Most definitely something isn't right. In a couple of days when I'm finished with business in Kemerovo and have a day to myself and I'm gonna go to check out if new shipments of note 3s have this issue and report back.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:





> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24519984
> 
> 
> No, I fully understood where you were coming from with that particular expression and its context (well, not to the above historical extent, lol) once I did a vocab refresh.


By the way, it is a bit off topic, but trying reading Nabokov's Lolita and I bet even on the first page you will find a dozen of words and a couple of idioms that I've never seen nor will never see again, It shows how highfalutin and yet pulchritudinous English really is!

 

P.S the turn of phrase "perspicuous expiation" is a textbook example of  highfalutin language. And one more thing now you can say to some one: "does any of this come off (sound, appear) as perspicuous to you?" and then when your interlocutor fails to understand what you are saying you'll explain that the phrase "does any of this come off as perspicuous to you?" simply means : does any of this make any sense to you?


----------



## RandyWalters




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24519974
> 
> 
> I came into contact with English first at 4 years of age.



Pfft, i first came into contact with English at 1 second of age


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RandyWalters*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24520253
> 
> 
> 
> Pfft, i first came into contact with English at 1 second of age


Pfft, At a day of age, though, I came into contact with Hebrew, Russian and Ukrainian







 .How's that for a *perspicuously adroit expiation* (whateva that means)?


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24520208
> 
> 
> P.S the turn of phrase "perspicuous expiation" is a textbook example of  highfalutin language.


No, it isn't. It was simply a mistake, in the sense being non-idiomatic. You used "expiation" to mean some sort of apology, but in current day English, it doesn't mean apology. It means atonement.


But it's okay. It was an interesting turn of phrase. I enjoy interesting language (in moderation).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519269
> 
> 
> You dont build commercial Gen 8 fabs as placeholders or research projects.



100% agree.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519419
> 
> 
> Ok. So what if in a year from now OLED printing mass production can be done much cheaper? What will LG do with that $650 investment? Isn't LG just taking a risk and hopes that it will turn out well?



0% chance of that happening.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519560
> 
> 
> There is almost no chance that somebody is going to be printing OLED televisions in volume next year. We are hearing plenty of announcements from vendors about equipment but we arent hearing anything about actual sales. Kateeva and the rest first need to get sales into a pilot/R&D facility. Kateeva's CEO mentioned possible tablet sales in 2015. Sales into some sort of pilot facility will start the clock. If everything went absolutely right, we might see commercial volumes two years later...but that is likely a very aggressive timeframe. That sort of timeframe assumes that building the printing equipment has very short lead times and that the IGZO/LTPS capacity is already in place. Both are shaky assumptions.
> 
> 
> If you plan on buying an OLED before 2017, I would assume that you are going to be buying a television with a panel from LG Display.



I think if you actually talk to Kateeva (as I have), you'd find that they would not claim any TVs based on their tech are likely (possible?) before 2016. I'd have to check my notes to get the CEO's exact words; but it's a fair characterization to say that nothing meaningful is coming for 2-3 years.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8970#post_24519751
> 
> 
> A lot of the OLED printing business stuff is kept secret so i wonder what do we actually know aside from the fact that OLED printing is still a few years away? What is going on behind the scenes?



We know it for a fact, yes.


> Quote:
> I understand that the next few years LG is the OLED king, but i do not expect them to sell large quantities of larger sized OLEDs in that time period. So they will make not a lot of money from that investment till 2017/ 2018 IMO.



It's pretty clear the investment is supposed to start paying back in 2016 and really paying back in 2017-18.


> Quote:
> If OLED printing is gonna make it we will hopefully see mass production in 2018/ 2019. Lets say there is OLED printing mass production in 2019/ 2020, how much money did the $650.000.000 investment return in 4.5/ 5.5 years? And what will LG do? Replace the equipment it now is installing?



Well... Let's use a conservative set of projections... 1 million in 2016, 1.5 million in 2017, 2 million in 2018, 2.5 million in 2019, 3 million in 2020. The idea that because there is printable OLED it will even be better is a fallacy. The idea that it will drive the value of LG's OLEDs to zero is a huge fallacy.


OK, so we got 10 million displays through 2020. That's


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear the investment is supposed to start paying back in 2016 and really paying back in 2017-18.
> 
> 
> Well... Let's use a conservative set of projections... 1 million in 2016, 1.5 million in 2017, 2 million in 2018, 2.5 million in 2019, 3 million in 2020. The idea that because there is printable OLED it will even be better is a fallacy. The idea that it will drive the value of LG's OLEDs to zero is a huge fallacy.
> 
> 
> OK, so we got 10 million displays through 2020. That's


----------



## mfogarty5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24515162
> 
> 
> I've seen lots of 4k TVs in the store, and seen lots of 4k clips, and........1080p OLED still creates a better, more 3D like picture, with the most amazing looking out a window effect I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> 1080p OLED > 4K LCD
> 
> 
> 4K OLED > Real Life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk of motion resolution, and OLED motion problems, made me go to a Best Buy and Futureshop to check out all the "high end" LCDs and I was able to get remotes for most of the TVs (I know the manager at BB) and spent a few hours playing with all the motion settings. I tried getting most of the TV's into a BFI or scanning only mode and looked at how motion compared to my OLED. I also only tested TV's with their own feed and not on the split store feed. Too many motion issues can also be caused by crappy sources.
> 
> 
> I wasn't too surprised with the results. I've posted before about the difference between pixel response and motion res, and YES I can confirm that pixel response is a BIGGER problem then motion res. I could clearly see pixel smear on the Sony, Sharp and Samsung sets. These sets all use VA or a variation of it and I couldn't believe how bad some of the red smearing was on dark backgrounds. Either most people don't notice it or they are not sensitive to it at all. The smearing almost always occurs in high contrast scenes, with light on dark movement. I can see general smearing very often as well. Think of the Kill Bill famous walking scene with the crazy 88s. You have lots of head bobbing with a camera thats close up. You can actually see the features on peoples faces smearing as they move their heads up and down. I seriously can't believe all this talk about motion res when smearing is STILL such an issue on LCD.
> 
> 
> The only good news is that LGs LCDs which use IPS have way better response time then VA panels and have almost 0 issues with pixel speed and smearing. However, they also have the least amount of contrast and generally don't look as good as the Sony and Samsung Panels. An LG FALD should make for a decent LCD set.
> 
> 
> Plasma has it's own big issues for motion, but why beat a dead horse?
> 
> 
> To me OLED has the BEST motion of any tech out there. Having FI on with all settings at 0 gives NO SOAP effect and gives a very good motion res. Between 600-900 lines and ZERO pixel response issues! BFI would be nice, but why add flicker that would potentially ruin that looking out a window effect? Our eyes are very sensitive to flicker, even subconsciously the slightest flicker will effect you.



Conan,


I first want to thank you for providing your opinions on the OLED set you purchased.


I agree with you wholeheartedly on your point about LCD smearing and plasma flicker being distracting. Your comment about smearing on SPVA panels with red and dark backgrounds matches my own observations of my Sony XBR5 which uses an SPVA panel.


Please don't stop posting about your OLED because you let the trolls, arm chair quarterbacks and vizio salesforce get to you.


----------



## wse

OLED IS THE MOTHER LOAD OF ALL SCREENS


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24520550
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> I understand that the next few years LG is the OLED king, but i do not expect them to sell large quantities of larger sized OLEDs in that time period. So they will make not a lot of money from that investment till 2017/ 2018 IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear the investment is supposed to start paying back in 2016 and really paying back in 2017-18.
Click to expand...


Rogo, does this mean you do not foresee the new LG Gen 8 fab being ramped up to full production before the end of 2015?


Do you know what capacity they have available currently?


What volume of OLEDs do you foresee LG selling in 2015? If 1 million in 2016, does that mean 0.5M in 2015? Or less than that?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24520550
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> If OLED printing is gonna make it we will hopefully see mass production in 2018/ 2019. Lets say there is OLED printing mass production in 2019/ 2020, how much money did the $650.000.000 investment return in 4.5/ 5.5 years? And what will LG do? Replace the equipment it now is installing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... Let's use a conservative set of projections... 1 million in 2016, 1.5 million in 2017, 2 million in 2018, 2.5 million in 2019, 3 million in 2020. The idea that because there is printable OLED it will even be better is a fallacy. The idea that it will drive the value of LG's OLEDs to zero is a huge fallacy.
> 
> 
> OK, so we got 10 million displays through 2020. That's
Click to expand...


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24519954
> 
> 
> Agreed, they need to avoid the obvious pitfalls of plasma. The two biggest were the perceptions about burn-in and the performance in harsh lighting.
> 
> 
> I said it in another thread, OLED's have to be the no-brainer answer if you want the best performance. Plasma never achieved that among the general public.


Yes, but 'the general public' is profoundly stupid...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24520794
> 
> 
> 
> My point is this:
> 
> Printed OLED is suppost to be cheaper. So when printed OLED is mass produced, once it arrives in the store these OLEDs will be cheaper than the OLEDs mass produced by the techniques used by LG in this $650.000.000 fab.



Here we go again with "supposed to be cheaper." If I had a dollar for every technology that was supposed to be cheaper, I'd have a lot more dollars.


> Quote:
> When folks are able to mass produce printed OLEDs it is just a matter of time that the Vaporation method will be outdated because it will be to costly in comparison.



This is nonsense on a million levels. But the most important one is this: The vapor deposition method LG is using is being perfected -- albeit slowly. Over the next 5 years, it's going to be perfected. When the printable OLED shows up _for the first time_ in 2-3 years, it's going to need its own time to get to the point of even as good, let alone better. The idea that its going to come in and suddenly be cheaper and wipe away the existing technology with its cheapness is wrong. It doesn't work that way -- ever.


The caveats to this are:


1) The existing technology hasn't actually succeeded so it doesn't really even need to be disrupted, it can just be displaced.

2) The "cheaper" technology will disrupt the more expensive. But even that will take some amount of time. Perhaps 3-5 years. The LG fab -- in this example -- will be fully amortized before this happens unless it has completely failed to be useful (see #1).


> Quote:
> What you say is that LG made enough money by the time that happens _if OLED succeeds that is. And that will only happen when price come down folks say..



Yes. If OLED fails completely, LG is out the bulk of the $650M. Of course, if that happens, I'm not sure the printable OLED is going to succeed either.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24520512
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. It was simply a mistake, in the sense being non-idiomatic. You used "expiation" to mean some sort of apology, but in current day English, it doesn't mean apology. It means atonement.
> 
> 
> But it's okay. It was an interesting turn of phrase. I enjoy ).


   I ,too, enjoy interesting language (in moderation) for on one finds immoderate "interesting" language either perspicacious(insightful) or sapient(enlightening)  ... So we have to keep English language limpid for everybody's sake, because very well we all know that turbid and turgid language is simply too much for some people ( believe me I would know







)...  

 

   By the way, seeing as we both know what the phrase "perspicuous expiation" means (when more that one person can understand and recognize a phrase as idiomatic it atomically turns into an idiom in any language)  we just basically came up with a new idiomatic expression which we (if we have a desire to) can spread freely provided we explain the meaning to those for whom is not clear!  

 

  Here's the perfect example of an explication of the meaning of perspicuous expiation:

   What's that to betoken( What's that supposed to mean?)? As far as I know "expiation" is an ancient rite of apologizing for wrongs done intentionally or otherwise used by achaemenids, romans, greeks and many others which I shall omit to list for the purposes of saving everyone's time where a man gives an explanation to GOD or to its superior (for example to a judge during the trial) that in itself makes amends or justifies some part of the ill deed at the very least. Perspicuous simply means clear in expression, pellucid comes to mind as a more frequently used synonym. So basically it means a satisfactorily excuse (or explanation)


----------



## aj32581




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8940#post_24516527
> 
> 
> 
> Pioneer had all their eggs in the one expensive display basket, high-end plasma. LG fortunately has a few other avenues of revenue to supplement this commendable effort.


Kind of like how Panasonic put all of their eggs in the VT/ZT Basket then unfortunately

they had to cut them huh. Now the owners have sets that are *DISCONTINUED*.

Luckily the winner in 2013 at Value Electronics the *Samsung F8500* still lives on

and is in fact being kept in production for *2014*. Lucky for us as we can have the best Plasma

of 2013 still, although I think Plasmas just about gone for good in the next couple of years,

but at least we can enjoy the F8500 until then. Hopefully UHD will come down in price.

Also the F8500 is *H.265 Ready* and will be able to take advantage of the

new Compression Technologies too.

 

Source for H.265: http://www.hdtv-news.com/samsung/f8500-plasma/


----------



## vinnie97

Another off-topic nonpoint from my stalker aka Alaskan AV Guy.


1) Panasonic still sells displays unlike Pioneer.

2) Panasonic produced arguably the biggest bargain panel of 2013 with the S60, so it can hardly be said they had all of their eggs in the VT/ZT basket. The latter was even profitable for them. It's the years of overall lack of profitability that caused them to shutter it along with not having a profitable LCD business to supplement the losses, a mistake our Korean friends didn't make (not to mention their cutthroat marketing strategy).


Don't be jealous because you missed out on owning the best plasma displays ever made. Just be content with having the third best. OLED makes all but the tweaked Kuro look like a child's toy.


----------



## Masterbrew2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24520550
> 
> 
> 
> I think if you actually talk to Kateeva (as I have), you'd find that they would not claim any TVs based on their tech are likely (possible?) before 2016. I'd have to check my notes to get the


 

What's preventing some deep-wallet player (like Apple or Samsung or china company X) from buying exclusivity on Kateeva's fabrication method and going at it *today*?


----------



## RichB

Sshhh. My 65ZT60 does not know it was discontinued

















- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24521900
> 
> 
> Another off-topic nonpoint from my stalker aka Alaskan AV Guy.
> 
> 
> 1) Panasonic still sells displays unlike Pioneer.
> 
> 2) Panasonic produced arguably the biggest bargain panel of 2013 with the S60, so it can hardly be said they had all of their eggs in the VT/ZT basket. The latter was even profitable for them. It's the years of overall lack of profitability that caused them to shutter it along with not having a profitable LCD business to supplement the losses, a mistake our Korean friends didn't make (not to mention their cutthroat marketing strategy).
> 
> 
> Don't be jealous because you missed out on owning the best plasma displays ever made. Just be content with having the third best. OLED makes all but the tweaked Kuro look like a child's toy.


 

LOL!  Hey, do they assign you a stalker when you reach 500 thumbs up?  Cool.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Masterbrew2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24521981
> 
> 
> What's preventing some deep-wallet player (like Apple or Samsung or china company X) from buying exclusivity on Kateeva's fabrication method and going at it _today_?



1) Kateeva wouldn't sell an exclusive. They'd have to buy Kateeva.


2) Even if this happened, you couldn't suddenly overnight magically have a fab that was producing millions of OLED TVs. It still takes time.


3) Even if you took the time, you'd still have to work down the cost curve, even with your "inherently cheaper" technology. (Never mind the risk factor that this some unknown deal breaker about this and it's not so inherently cheaper after all.)


Otherwise, it could happen. That is hasn't happened suggests (a) that the industry is very skeptical about OLEDs competing with mass market LCD anytime soon -- as are most of us -- and see it as a high-end only product for at least the next five years (b) that given that, there is no reason to be the pioneer. When you sit and wait, all the equipment gets perfected on someone else's dime and you buy it cheaply later. Even fab building gets perfected by others and the cost of the nth +1 fab is cheaper than the nth and n -1th fab.


----------



## Rudy1

Panasonic on OLED:

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/television/panasonic-current-oled-tvs-are-a-strange-compromise-1236925


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*
> 
> Panasonic on OLED:
> 
> http://www.techradar.com/us/news/television/panasonic-current-oled-tvs-are-a-strange-compromise-1236925


Craig Cunningham has not lots of street cred.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_100#post_24527316
> 
> 
> Craig Cunningham has not lots of street cred.


He's right though. Why would you want 1080p OLED when 4K is already here? Especially when they are using non-standard subpixel arrangements, the effects of which would be at least partially masked at higher resolutions.


----------



## markrubin

I am concerned about this quote from the article:
*

One of the reasons given is how quickly the panels lose their quality, with Cunningham noting: "I've seen OLED from other companies and six months after they have been bought the deterioration in the quality of the panel was phenomenal.*


any reports to back this up?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24527316
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*
> 
> Panasonic on OLED:
> 
> http://www.techradar.com/us/news/television/panasonic-current-oled-tvs-are-a-strange-compromise-1236925
> 
> 
> 
> Craig Cunningham has not lots of street cred.
Click to expand...


Panasonic clearly has an pro-4K agenda (understandable, since 4K is the reason they dropped plasma).


Also, more from their event reported by HDTVTEST yesterday: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ax900-201403243688.htm 


Panasonic is introducing not one but two models of 4K LED/LCDs this year:


AX800 edge-lit with 32 dimming zones

AX900 FALD with 128 local dimming zones


----------



## JWhip




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24527457
> 
> 
> I am concerned about this quote from the article:
> *
> 
> One of the reasons given is how quickly the panels lose their quality, with Cunningham noting: "I've seen OLED from other companies and six months after they have been bought the deterioration in the quality of the panel was phenomenal.*
> 
> 
> any reports to back this up?



Frankly I haven't and I try to monitor these things. There are a few members of AVS who have these sets. It would be interesting for them to chime in on whether they have noticed any issues with their sets that would confirm Mr. Cunningham's comments. Maybe a separate thread asking this very questions of AVS OLED owners? Frankly, while I have great concerns with the longevity of the blue picture elements on OLEDs, I would be shocked if there were issues this soon. As for Panasonic, I wouldn't be surprised if Panasonic was out of the TV business entirely in 2 years.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*
> 
> He's right though. Why would you want 1080p OLED when 4K is already here? Especially when they are using non-standard subpixel arrangements, the effects of which would be at least partially masked at higher resolutions.



A_ telling people that a TV must be 4K.

B_ telling people that OLED is no good.


Looks to me like Panasonic wants people to buy their 4K LEDs


----------



## markrubin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24527457
> 
> 
> I am concerned about this quote from the article:
> *
> 
> One of the reasons given is how quickly the panels lose their quality, with Cunningham noting: "I've seen OLED from other companies and six months after they have been bought the deterioration in the quality of the panel was phenomenal.*
> 
> 
> any reports to back this up?



actually I received an email from Robert who I view as an industry expert: unfortunately he cannot post this so i am taking the liberty of quoting from his email to me:

*The statement re deterioration is incorrect: It is based on the common knowledge that the Blue OLED does not have the same longevity as red and green OLED. Samsung's engineers use double sized OLED blue pixels and drive them with 1/2 of the voltage. They tell me the math they did will make the red, green and blue OLEDs age evenly and the 1/2 life is expected to be 30k hours.


LG uses all white OLED so they are not effected by the faster decaying Blue OLED issue.


More importantly, we received our Samsung store demo OLED TV and I decided to sacrifice my sample by leaving it on since we received it back in early September 2013. The picture is just as beautiful as the day we received it. Effectually we have about three years of normal use on our Samsung OLED TV.
*


so much for the article...


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_100#post_24527867
> 
> 
> The statement re deterioration is incorrect: It is based on the common knowledge that the Blue OLED does not have the same longevity as red and green OLED. Samsung's engineers use double sized OLED blue pixels and drive them with 1/2 of the voltage. They tell me the math they did will make the red, green and blue OLEDs age evenly and the 1/2 life is expected to be 30k hours.
> 
> ..
> 
> Effectually we have about three years of normal use on our Samsung OLED TV.


If the half life is expected to be 30,000 hours then that means you have three and a half years of 24/7 usage before the brightness drops _to half_.

I don't know of any long-term studies which track the aging properties of these displays - whether they track linearly or not.


Let's say that an average person uses the television six hours a day - now six hours a day seems ridiculous to me if you're using it as a television, but that brings the time to half brightness to... almost 14 years.


And that is to _half brightness_ - or approximately the same brightness as Plasma displays _when they are new_.


Saying that there are aging problems showing themselves six months in is absolute bull****.



Complain about the low resolution, risk of burn-in, the use of ABL, the use of non-standard subpixel structures, the curving of the display etc. but 30,000 hours to half brightness is nothing to be concerned about.

If I recall correctly, that's about the same half-life as a typical CRT television. How many people were worried about the lifespan of those? How many people kept their CRTs around _far_ longer than any of the flat panels they have bought?


----------



## tubetwister

Lots of the newer LED/LCD panels are specified for 30K hours now also instead of 50K .


----------



## rogo

I am deeply concerned a company who spent years combating myths about plasmas is now spreading OLED FUD at a time when OLED is just getting off the ground.


In fact, I'm willing to call it deplorable. Or despicable. Or desperate.


Pick a d-word. I can think of another one, but it's not very family friendly to call someone by it, so I'll refrain from using it to describe Mr. Cunningham.


Anyway.... Panasonic won't be selling any TV -- 4K, LCD, OLED, plasma, anything -- soon enough. So we won't have listen to that guy's nonsense.


----------



## Artwood

Just think about it folks--it won't be long til they kill off OLED and all we'll hear around here is how great LCD is while it continues to forever suck!


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24532139
> 
> 
> Just think about it folks--it won't be long til they kill off OLED and all we'll hear around here is how great LCD is while it continues to forever suck!



Your statement shows your lack of display experience and or understanding of LCD technology, you should not put all LCD technology in the same boat there are many different types and variations. While it's true most LCD display's are horrible right now especially when you get into the lower price range it's also important to note that not all LCD display's are built equally. One can also say the same thing for most technologies as well, so it's pointless to generalize here.










I'll repeat what I said before many times since it warrants here again, LCD's with full-array's and Local-Dimming Zone's are comparable to the best, in fact if it's done correctly there's no reason why most shouldn't be. Cost is obviously the number one reason why but that may likely all change in the near future. I still hold out hope for OLED so we'll see what happens down the road to soon to panic.


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24530942
> 
> 
> I am deeply concerned a company who spent years combating myths about plasmas is now spreading OLED FUD at a time when OLED is just getting off the ground.
> 
> 
> In fact, I'm willing to call it deplorable. Or despicable. Or desperate.
> 
> 
> Pick a d-word. I can think of another one, but it's not very family friendly to call someone by it, so I'll refrain from using it to describe Mr. Cunningham.
> 
> 
> Anyway.... Panasonic won't be selling any TV -- 4K, LCD, OLED, plasma, anything -- soon enough. So we won't have listen to that guy's nonsense.



It's unfortunate but many people attack things that are not in their best interest. Take for example the individual who spoke out against 64-bit architecture not only is he now unemployed but now everyone's doing it.







Or Gorilla Glass for another example slamming Sapphire Glass technology.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24528315
> 
> 
> 
> If the half life is expected to be 30,000 hours then that means you have three and a half years of 24/7 usage before the brightness drops *to half*.
> 
> I don't know of any long-term studies which track the aging properties of these displays - whether they track linearly or not.
> 
> 
> Let's say that an average person uses the television six hours a day - now six hours a day seems ridiculous to me if you're using it as a television, but that brings the time to half brightness to... almost 14 years.
> 
> 
> And that is to *half brightness* - or approximately the same brightness as Plasma displays *when they are new*.
> 
> 
> Saying that there are aging problems showing themselves six months in is absolute bull****.
> 
> 
> 
> Complain about the low resolution, risk of burn-in, the use of ABL, the use of non-standard subpixel structures, the curving of the display etc. but 30,000 hours to half brightness is nothing to be concerned about.
> 
> If I recall correctly, that's about the same half-life as a typical CRT television. How many people were worried about the lifespan of those? How many people kept their CRTs around *far* longer than any of the flat panels they have bought?


 My note 1's display has noticeably "greened" over more than 2 years of use. Aren't they using the same pentile arrangement on THEIR TVs and if so wouldn't that have meant that after of 2 years of using it 2-4 hours a day the same fate would befall THEIR OLED TVs? 

 

 

   P.S. I'm not knocking OLED or anything in fact I'm rooting for it at its first time at the bat and hoping it hits a home run and never gets struck out. What  I'm doing is I'm simply sharing my immediate experience with the tech, that's all there's to it.


----------



## rogo

Well the sub-pixel arrangement has nothing to do with the life of the OLED material per se so drawing conclusions from that is odd.


The fact that Samsung is more or less out of the OLED TV market, however, says something pretty significant.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24533738
> 
> 
> Well the sub-pixel arrangement has nothing to do with the life of the OLED material per se so drawing conclusions from that is odd.
> 
> 
> The fact that Samsung is more or less out of the OLED TV market, however, says something pretty significant.




 

As you can see the green pixels are smaller than the red and blue to counter the uneven aging problem which obliviously doesn't work


----------



## rogo

Yes, I understand that. But the fact that blue ages faster is a known known, it's not some new revelation.


Just because the blue in the Note 1 was totally inadequate doesn't in any way prove the blue in the Samsung OLED TV is totally inadequate.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24533768
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand that. But *the fact that blue ages faster is a known known*, it's not some new revelation.
> 
> 
> Just because the blue in the Note 1 was totally inadequate doesn't in any way prove the blue in the Samsung OLED TV is totally inadequate.



No, but it just might give Cunningham enough cover for not being labeled an outright liar when he stated that: "I've seen OLED from other companies and six months after they have been bought the deterioration in the quality of the panel was phenomenal."


It's called FUD, and as they say, 'desperate times call for desperate measures'...


----------



## rogo

Well, I certainly didn't call him an outright liar.


----------



## Rudy1

A little more from Panasonic on 4K...and OLED:

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/television/tv/bombshell-at-panasonic-resolution-doesn-t-matter-it-s-all-about-the-colour--1237586


----------



## Rich Peterson

^^^ The article quotes TV calibration guru Joel Silver on stage at Panasonic's huge pan-European dealer convention in Amsterdam to support the company's new 4K TV launches.


> Quote:
> "Resolution is actually the fourth and least important of the big four image parameters," declared Silver.
> 
> 
> "The single most apparent thing you see in an image isn't detail but dynamic range, followed by color saturation and fidelity. If fleshtones are off or there's even a hint of a greenish cast in yellows, images have no chance of looking lifelike. These factors make or break TV images."



Must have been kinda shocking for the Panasonic folks who were trying to push 4K.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24535203
> 
> 
> Well, I certainly didn't call him an outright liar.



Didn't mean to imply you did - only that there is enough history and differing OLED technologies that if Cunningham were ever asked to back up his statement, he probably could without having to lie.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536290
> 
> 
> A little more from Panasonic on 4K...and OLED:
> 
> http://www.techradar.com/us/news/television/tv/bombshell-at-panasonic-resolution-doesn-t-matter-it-s-all-about-the-colour--1237586



Thanks for the link. Saw this statement in the article:

*"At this moment consumers can buy a curved OLED TV but it's only 1080p and its DCI colour space coverage is limited to something like 71 per cent."*


Is this true? What is the DCI coverage of the LG EA9800?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536600
> 
> 
> ^^^ The article quotes TV calibration guru Joel Silver on stage at Panasonic's huge pan-European dealer convention in Amsterdam to support the company's new 4K TV launches.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> "Resolution is actually the fourth and least important of the big four image parameters," declared Silver.
> 
> 
> "The single most apparent thing you see in an image isn't detail but dynamic range, followed by color saturation and fidelity. If fleshtones are off or there's even a hint of a greenish cast in yellows, images have no chance of looking lifelike. These factors make or break TV images."
> 
> 
> 
> *Must have been kinda shocking for the Panasonic folks who were trying to push 4K*.
Click to expand...


And think of the reaction of the poor plasma engineers now working on the AX900 who were told by their bosses that Panasonic had to get out of plasma because it couldn't do 4K...


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24536673
> 
> 
> And think of the reaction of the poor plasma engineers now working on the AX900 who were told by their bosses that Panasonic had to get out of plasma because it couldn't do 4K...


 

I doubt that's what they were told.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536706
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24536673
> 
> 
> And think of the reaction of the poor plasma engineers now working on the AX900 who were told by their bosses that Panasonic had to get out of plasma because it couldn't do 4K...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that's what they were told.
Click to expand...


They may not have been told anything, but the fact remains that Panasonic decided to get out of plasma largely because of the industry trend towards 4K, where plasma cannot follow...


And in all fairness, it's not anyone at the Panasonic event said that 4K is not _coming_, what was said is that UHD is coming (including 4K) and the increased resolution the least important improvement of UHD over HDTV (wide color gamut and higher framerate both being more important).


I don't know whether plasma would have had any problem supporting wide color gamut or higher framerate (though I suspect not).


I do know plasma was never going to be able to support 4K resolution due to power consumption limitations.


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536882
> 
> 
> They may not have been told anything, but the fact remains that Panasonic decided to get out of plasma largely because of the industry trend towards 4K, where plasma cannot follow...
> 
> 
> And in all fairness, it's not anyone at the Panasonic event said that 4K is not _coming_, what was said is that UHD is coming (including 4K) and the increased resolution the least important improvement of UHD over HDTV (wide color gamut and higher framerate both being more important).
> 
> 
> I don't know whether plasma would have had any problem supporting wide color gamut or higher framerate (though I suspect not).
> 
> 
> I do know plasma was never going to be able to support 4K resolution due to power consumption limitations.



Additional technical info on the difficulties of making a plasma panel with 4K resolution:

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-plasma-201311133417.htm 


So...couldn't they just aim for larger screen sizes? Apparently, 84" is the optimal size for UHD, so why even worry about making anything smaller?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24537009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536882
> 
> 
> They may not have been told anything, but the fact remains that Panasonic decided to get out of plasma largely because of the industry trend towards 4K, where plasma cannot follow...
> 
> 
> And in all fairness, it's not anyone at the Panasonic event said that 4K is not _coming_, what was said is that UHD is coming (including 4K) and the increased resolution the least important improvement of UHD over HDTV (wide color gamut and higher framerate both being more important).
> 
> 
> I don't know whether plasma would have had any problem supporting wide color gamut or higher framerate (though I suspect not).
> 
> 
> I do know plasma was never going to be able to support 4K resolution due to power consumption limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Additional technical info on the difficulties of making a plasma panel with 4K resolution:
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-plasma-201311133417.htm
> 
> 
> So...couldn't they just aim for larger screen sizes? Apparently, 84" is the optimal size for UHD, so why even worry about making anything smaller?
Click to expand...


Aside from the fact that the market for 84" 4K plasmas is even more of a niche than the niche plasma was already in, it still wouldn't fly:


"Considering that a 4K plasma features four times the number of pixels that need to be driven, not to mention a smaller pixel pitch which will demand more energy to deliver the same brightness, we’d say there’s virtually no chance of a 4K Ultra HD plasma TV keeping under the EU’s power consumption limit, unless manufacturers dim down the default, out-of-the-box picture mode so much that it’s unusable for normal viewing."


The energy limitation is a function of size, so making the panel larger _does_ allow for more power consumption, but brightness is _also_ a function size (cd/m2) so you don't gain anything in terms of finding additional power available to power the 4 times as many 1/4 times as large pixels needed for 4K...


----------



## Rudy1

Damn!!! Totally forgot about the energy thing. Oh well, never mind.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24536882
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536706
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24536673
> 
> 
> And think of the reaction of the poor plasma engineers now working on the AX900 who were told by their bosses that Panasonic had to get out of plasma because it couldn't do 4K...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that's what they were told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They may not have been told anything, but the fact remains that Panasonic decided to get out of plasma largely because of the industry trend towards 4K, where plasma cannot follow...
Click to expand...

 

I don't see that as a fact at all.  Plasma was a losing proposition for a while now, and the Panasonic president was clear about axing money losing divisions.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24537131
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24537009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536882
> 
> 
> They may not have been told anything, but the fact remains that Panasonic decided to get out of plasma largely because of the industry trend towards 4K, where plasma cannot follow...
> 
> 
> And in all fairness, it's not anyone at the Panasonic event said that 4K is not *coming*, what was said is that UHD is coming (including 4K) and the increased resolution the least important improvement of UHD over HDTV (wide color gamut and higher framerate both being more important).
> 
> 
> I don't know whether plasma would have had any problem supporting wide color gamut or higher framerate (though I suspect not).
> 
> 
> I do know plasma was never going to be able to support 4K resolution due to power consumption limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Additional technical info on the difficulties of making a plasma panel with 4K resolution:
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-plasma-201311133417.htm
> 
> 
> So...couldn't they just aim for larger screen sizes? Apparently, 84" is the optimal size for UHD, so why even worry about making anything smaller?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that the market for 84" 4K plasmas is even more of a niche than the niche plasma was already in, it still wouldn't fly:
> 
> 
> "Considering that a 4K plasma features four times the number of pixels that need to be driven, not to mention a smaller pixel pitch which will demand more energy to deliver the same brightness, we’d say there’s virtually no chance of a 4K Ultra HD plasma TV keeping under the EU’s power consumption limit, unless manufacturers dim down the default, out-of-the-box picture mode so much that it’s unusable for normal viewing."
> 
> 
> The energy limitation is a function of size, so making the panel larger *does* allow for more power consumption, but brightness is *also* a function size (cd/m2) so you don't gain anything in terms of finding additional power available to power the 4 times as may 1/4 times as large pixels needed for 4K...
Click to expand...

 

I remember when that article came out.  I had an issue with it then too.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24537195
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24537131
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24537009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536882
> 
> 
> They may not have been told anything, but the fact remains that Panasonic decided to get out of plasma largely because of the industry trend towards 4K, where plasma cannot follow...
> 
> 
> 
> And in all fairness, it's not anyone at the Panasonic event said that 4K is not _coming_, what was said is that UHD is coming (including 4K) and the increased resolution the least important improvement of UHD over HDTV (wide color gamut and higher framerate both being more important).
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know whether plasma would have had any problem supporting wide color gamut or higher framerate (though I suspect not).
> 
> 
> 
> I do know plasma was never going to be able to support 4K resolution due to power consumption limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Additional technical info on the difficulties of making a plasma panel with 4K resolution:
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-plasma-201311133417.htm
> 
> 
> 
> So...couldn't they just aim for larger screen sizes? Apparently, 84" is the optimal size for UHD, so why even worry about making anything smaller?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that the market for 84" 4K plasmas is even more of a niche than the niche plasma was already in, it still wouldn't fly:
> 
> 
> 
> "Considering that a 4K plasma features four times the number of pixels that need to be driven, not to mention a smaller pixel pitch which will demand more energy to deliver the same brightness, we’d say there’s virtually no chance of a 4K Ultra HD plasma TV keeping under the EU’s power consumption limit, unless manufacturers dim down the default, out-of-the-box picture mode so much that it’s unusable for normal viewing."
> 
> 
> 
> The energy limitation is a function of size, so making the panel larger _does_ allow for more power consumption, but brightness is _also_ a function size (cd/m2) so you don't gain anything in terms of finding additional power available to power the 4 times as may 1/4 times as large pixels needed for 4K...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember when that article came out.  *I had an issue with it then too*.
Click to expand...


Please explain the issue - you think it _would_ have been possible for Panasonic to make a 4K plasma that was not so dim it could only be watched in a dark room?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24537179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24536882
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536706
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24536673
> 
> 
> And think of the reaction of the poor plasma engineers now working on the AX900 who were told by their bosses that Panasonic had to get out of plasma because it couldn't do 4K...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that's what they were told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They may not have been told anything, but the fact remains that Panasonic decided to get out of plasma largely because of the industry trend towards 4K, where plasma cannot follow...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see that as a fact at all.  Plasma was a losing proposition for a while now, and the Panasonic president was clear about axing money losing divisions.
Click to expand...


The usual way to bow out of a money-losing business would be stop investing in them. This would typically mean cutting all of the R&D and marketing expenses and milking the fully-matured product line for as long as there is market demand (as Samsung is doing with their plasma business). The only reason for Panasonic to kill the product line right at its pinnacle is that they concluded there would not be sufficient demand to keep the manufacturing line running, even at the prices they were selling at the end which were pretty compelling ($2800 for a 65" ZT60, $2100 for a 65" VT60, even less for the lower-end models). The industry trend toward UHD and 4K is the only rational explanation for this decision - without 4K becoming the major industry initiative at the high-end, Panasonic could have kept profitably selling (by cutting all development and marketing costs) their class-leading plasmas for another several years...


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24537418
> 
> 
> The usual way to bow out of a money-losing business would be stop investing in them. This would typically mean cutting all of the R&D and marketing expenses and milking the fully-matured product line for as long as there is market demand (as Samsung is doing with their plasma business). The only reason for Panasonic to kill the product line right at its pinnacle is that they concluded there would not be sufficient demand to keep the manufacturing line running, even at the prices they were selling at the end which were pretty compelling ($2800 for a 65" ZT60, $2100 for a 65" VT60, even less for the lower-end models). The industry trend toward UHD and 4K is the only rational explanation for this decision - without 4K becoming the major industry initiative at the high-end, Panasonic could have kept profitably selling (by cutting all development and marketing costs) their class-leading plasmas for another several years...


 

A "pinnacle" is a point of greatest success.  Given that plasma was a money loser for a long time, I doubt that you could refer to any part of recent years sensibly as a pinnacle.

 

Plasma was going to die off anyway at Panasonic....at any resolution.  And their new president had made clear that he was going to sever any hemorrhaging limbs of the company.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24537713
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24537418
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pinnacle" is a point of greatest success.  Given that plasma was a money loser for a long time, I doubt that you could refer to any part of recent years sensibly as a pinnacle.
> 
> 
> Plasma was going to die off anyway at Panasonic....at any resolution.  And their new president had made clear that he was going to sever any hemorrhaging limbs of the company.
Click to expand...


Well, I was referring to the technological pinnacle - the ZT60 is viewed by many as being the best plasma ever made and possibly also the best TV ever made.


And I agree with you that Panasonic could not sell their plasmas at high enough volumes and high enough prices to continue to invest in R&D and marketing and still make a profit.


I suspect they did make a profit in Q1 of this year after they had cut all development and marketing and just needed to sell at prices above manufacturing cost to generate a profit.


And they could have continued in that (profitable) way for while but decided it was not worth it, both because they probably guessed that already-low sales volumes at the high-end would dwindle quickly due to the emergence of 4K/UHD, as well as the fact that they apparently made a decision to make a run at the 4K/UHD market with LED/LCD technology and probably did not want to find themselves marketing against their own technology.


Panasonic is continuing to invest in LED/LCD 4K/UHD technology and if you or Panasonic's President thinks that division is going to be profitable this year or next, you're in for a surprise.


58" AX800 edge-lit 4K has an MSRP of $3800 (down from an initial MSRP of $4500). If Panasonic thinks they are going to sell enough of these or their flagship 65" FALD AX900 (which will probably have an MSRP closer to the $8000 MSRP of the Sony X950B) to be profitable - good luck is all I can say...


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000_60#post_24537768
> 
> 
> 58" AX800 edge-lit 4K has an MSRP of $3800 (down from an initial MSRP of $4500). If Panasonic thinks they are going to sell enough of these or their flagship 65" FALD AX900 (which will probably have an MSRP closer to the $6000 MSRP of the Sony X950B) to be profitable - good luck is all I can say...


 

Correct.  No chance.  As the Monty Python skit goes: "If you hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up the daisies."


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536600
> 
> 
> ^^^ The article quotes TV calibration guru Joel Silver on stage at Panasonic's huge pan-European dealer convention in Amsterdam to support the company's new 4K TV launches.
> 
> Must have been kinda shocking for the Panasonic folks who were trying to push 4K.



Yeah, well, Silver is no B.S. Too bad for Panasonic. They should've gotten Michael Bay. At least he would've walked off the stage instead!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536625
> 
> 
> Didn't mean to imply you did - only that there is enough history and differing OLED technologies that if Cunningham were ever asked to back up his statement, he probably could without having to lie.



Right. Gotcha.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536673
> 
> 
> And think of the reaction of the poor plasma engineers now working on the AX900 who were told by their bosses that Panasonic had to get out of plasma because it couldn't do 4K...



Had nothing to do with it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536882
> 
> 
> They may not have been told anything, but the fact remains that Panasonic decided to get out of plasma largely because of the industry trend towards 4K, where plasma cannot follow...
> 
> 
> And in all fairness, it's not anyone at the Panasonic event said that 4K is not _coming_, what was said is that UHD is coming (including 4K) and the increased resolution the least important improvement of UHD over HDTV (wide color gamut and higher framerate both being more important).
> 
> 
> I don't know whether plasma would have had any problem supporting wide color gamut or higher framerate (though I suspect not).
> 
> 
> I do know plasma was never going to be able to support 4K resolution due to power consumption limitations.



Still had nothing to with it.


Plasma sales were falling before a single 4K set was on the market. Fact.


This was due to relentless competition from LCD. Fact.


Once plasma sales fell below a certain threshold Panasonic had a problem with utilization at its _main fab_ (they'd already cut back on secondary production locations). Fact.


At a certain utilization ratio, the plant becomes an economic nightmare. You can't make a profit on it even if the depreciation cost is zero. This is an accounting problem to a point, but it's also a personnel problem. And it's been true of Sharp ever since the 10G fab opened, which is why that company has pushed the brink of bankruptcy.


Given that there was no reasonable scenario for plasma sales to meaningfully increase -- and, sorry, but 4K or not, the volumes there are so low right now, that wasn't going to make any difference -- Panasonic had a bit of an impossible choice: Either continue to lose money or cut its only internal display production. They chose the latter.


Sure, you can make a case than the long-term roadmap was bad: Already large plasmas are no longer earning Energy Star in the U.S. or the equivalent in Europe. Yes, 4K plasma would have been harder to do. But at the time the decision was made, it was about continue to bleed money vs. the desire to stop that.


----------



## 8mile13

 _according the HDJ Panasonic insider__ 



''the potential expenses involved in developing a 4K or UHD Plasma panel made the manufacturer's mind up'' ''we simply cannot make a 4K Plasma in a reasonable manner for Retail without significant investment and that'll carry a big time price tag''.


As the Panasonic employee noted, the company has been ''bleeding money'' in recent years, which means that it isn't really in a position to plough its own furrow by advancing the unpopular Plasma standard.


Instead, the company will ''mitigate risk and go with established technologies and also pursue future ones.'' Which, as of the beginning of 2014, means LCd-only.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24538447
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536600
> 
> 
> ^^^ The article quotes TV calibration guru Joel Silver on stage at Panasonic's huge pan-European dealer convention in Amsterdam to support the company's new 4K TV launches.
> 
> Must have been kinda shocking for the Panasonic folks who were trying to push 4K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, Silver is no B.S. Too bad for Panasonic. They should've gotten Michael Bay. At least he would've walked off the stage instead!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536625
> 
> 
> Didn't mean to imply you did - only that there is enough history and differing OLED technologies that if Cunningham were ever asked to back up his statement, he probably could without having to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. Gotcha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536673
> 
> 
> And think of the reaction of the poor plasma engineers now working on the AX900 who were told by their bosses that Panasonic had to get out of plasma because it couldn't do 4K...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9030#post_24536882
> 
> 
> They may not have been told anything, but the fact remains that Panasonic decided to get out of plasma largely because of the industry trend towards 4K, where plasma cannot follow...
> 
> 
> And in all fairness, it's not anyone at the Panasonic event said that 4K is not _coming_, what was said is that UHD is coming (including 4K) and the increased resolution the least important improvement of UHD over HDTV (wide color gamut and higher framerate both being more important).
> 
> 
> I don't know whether plasma would have had any problem supporting wide color gamut or higher framerate (though I suspect not).
> 
> 
> I do know plasma was never going to be able to support 4K resolution due to power consumption limitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still had nothing to with it.
> 
> 
> Plasma sales were falling before a single 4K set was on the market. Fact.
> 
> 
> This was due to relentless competition from LCD. Fact.
> 
> 
> Once plasma sales fell below a certain threshold Panasonic had a problem with utilization at its _main fab_ (they'd already cut back on secondary production locations). Fact.
> 
> *At a certain utilization ratio, the plant becomes an economic nightmare. You can't make a profit on it even if the depreciation cost is zero.* This is an accounting problem to a point, but it's also a personnel problem. And it's been true of Sharp ever since the 10G fab opened, which is why that company has pushed the brink of bankruptcy.
> 
> 
> Given that there was no reasonable scenario for plasma sales to meaningfully increase -- and, sorry, but 4K or not, the volumes there are so low right now, that wasn't going to make any difference -- Panasonic had a bit of an impossible choice: Either continue to lose money or cut its only internal display production. They chose the latter.
> 
> 
> Sure, you can make a case than the long-term roadmap was bad: Already large plasmas are no longer earning Energy Star in the U.S. or the equivalent in Europe. Yes, 4K plasma would have been harder to do. But at the time the decision was made, it was about continue to bleed money vs. the desire to stop that.
Click to expand...


So whether it's only an accounting problem or not, I think your saying that just in terms of manufacturing costs, sales volumes of Panasonic plasmas were so low that they were unable to sell at a positive manufacturing margin. I didn't think it was that bad but will take your word for it - if those last plasmas sold over the past few months were all sold at a loss (in terms of manufacturing cost including all expenses associated with an unloaded fab), then of course they would want to stop the hemorrhaging as quickly as they could.


I had assumed that by gutting all R&D in future generations and all marketing expenses, Panasonic could sell at net positive manufacturing margin and also hopefully net profitability, but if the demand had already disappeared to the point that manufacturing costs were higher than net sales price, I retract everything I've said on the subject.


----------



## ChadThunder

While we sit and take shots at some Panasonic PR guy the criminal panel lottery dating back to 2007 is never ending


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24539534
> 
> 
> So whether it's only an accounting problem or not, I think your saying that just in terms of manufacturing costs, sales volumes of Panasonic plasmas were so low that they were unable to sell at a positive manufacturing margin. I didn't think it was that bad but will take your word for it - if those last plasmas sold over the past few months were all sold at a loss (in terms of manufacturing cost including all expenses associated with an unloaded fab), then of course they would want to stop the hemorrhaging as quickly as they could.



Their TV division was losing money. That's public information.


> Quote:
> I had assumed that by gutting all R&D in future generations and all marketing expenses, Panasonic could sell at net positive manufacturing margin and also hopefully net profitability, but if the demand had already disappeared to the point that manufacturing costs were higher than net sales price, I retract everything I've said on the subject.



Plasma sales were falling. Also public information.


----------



## fluxo

Back in 2012 Panasonic quadrupled the drive frequency of their plasma sets. That had a beneficial impact on some aspects of 1080p PQ, but I wonder if, when they did that, they had 4k in mind?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fluxo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060_60#post_24539694
> 
> 
> Back in 2012 Panasonic quadrupled the drive frequency of their plasma sets. That had a beneficial impact on some aspects of 1080p PQ, but I wonder if, when they did that, they had 4k in mind?


 

Unrelated


----------



## Weboh


I am still wondering what Larry F Weber is doing. He is silent, and said to be working on a version 3.0 of PDP technology. So far, all I get is an increase in blue effeciency, and reduction in blue heat. I will know more, as everyone will, June 3rd or 4th.


----------



## ynotgoal

China's Skyworth becomes the first to sell OLED TV using LG's panel.
http://www.skyworth.com/en/news-detail-3624.html


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24541718
> 
> 
> China's Skyworth becomes the first to sell OLED TV using LG's panel.
> http://www.skyworth.com/en/news-detail-3624.html



Any word on pricing of these Skyworth OLEDs?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24539547
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24539534
> 
> 
> So whether it's only an accounting problem or not, I think your saying that just in terms of manufacturing costs, sales volumes of Panasonic plasmas were so low that they were unable to sell at a positive manufacturing margin. I didn't think it was that bad but will take your word for it - if those last plasmas sold over the past few months were all sold at a loss (in terms of manufacturing cost including all expenses associated with an unloaded fab), then of course they would want to stop the hemorrhaging as quickly as they could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their TV division was losing money. That's public information.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> I had assumed that by gutting all R&D in future generations and all marketing expenses, Panasonic could sell at net positive manufacturing margin and also hopefully net profitability, but if the demand had already disappeared to the point that manufacturing costs were higher than net sales price, I retract everything I've said on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plasma sales were falling. Also public information.
Click to expand...


New article on CNET from a couple days age: http://www.cnet.com/news/push-for-ultra-hd-4k-forces-picture-quality-tradeoffs/ 

*"One of the reasons Panasonic ended plasma manufacturing, was reported to be the difficulty of making a cost- (and likely, energy-) efficient 4K plasma. Samsung told David Katzmaier roughly the same thing at CES, though they're still making plasmas (this year at least).


So picture quality fanatics lost some of the best-looking televisions ever, because the industry wanted to move to a higher resolution. "*


You could be right that this is all just face-saving, but it may also have been the last nail in the coffin...


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ynotgoal*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24541718
> 
> 
> China's Skyworth becomes the first to sell OLED TV using LG's panel.
> http://www.skyworth.com/en/news-detail-3624.html



Beautiful set. But until they're flat, 3D and 4K, I'm not interested.


----------



## vinnie97

4k has about as much use currently as teats on a bull, and LG already has 3D support.







I'd be surprised to hear these don't have the passive 3D that LG utilizes.


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24542615
> 
> 
> 4k, has about as much use currently as teats on a bull, and LG already has 3D support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be surprised to hear these don't have the passive 3D that LG utilizes.



When we went to a tech fair hosted by TigerDirect a few months ago we saw several models from different manufacturers, but there weren't any that were 4K. The reps we spoke to gave me the impression that prices weren't going to go down anytime soon, so I figure if I'm going to spend "real money" on a 55" TV, it has to be 4K. But I'll admit, 4K or not, the images were stunning.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24542615
> 
> 
> 4k, has about as much use currently as teats on a bull, and LG already has 3D support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be surprised to hear these don't have the passive 3D that LG utilizes.


So, you're saying that teats are useful on a bull? weird.


----------



## Rudy1

LOL


----------



## vinnie97

I botched that sentence structure with the misplaced punctuation big time. In passive 3D's case, 4K will actually be a visual blessing.


----------



## hotskins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24541715
> 
> 
> I am still wondering what Larry F Weber is doing. He is silent, and said to be working on a version 3.0 of PDP technology. So far, all I get is an increase in blue effeciency, and reduction in blue heat. I will know more, as everyone will, June 3rd or 4th.



I did not know this.


----------



## Masterbrew2




 

Looks good with the curved stand in the curved penthouse apartment 

 

Is that room temperature champagne on the left? 

 

I'd actually like a stand like that, even though my apartment is just a simple rectangle


----------



## KOF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24542615
> 
> 
> 4k has about as much use currently as teats on a bull, and LG already has 3D support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be surprised to hear these don't have the passive 3D that LG utilizes.



And guess what? It's probably the reason Samsung gave up committing to the OLED for awhile. The manufacturers can no longer charge a premium on a 1080p TV, and not even OLEDs are exception to this rule.


We've heard from 4k/8k supporters that resolution is supposed to bring PQ forward. As of now, it has only impeded such change.


----------



## RandyWalters




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Masterbrew2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060_60#post_24543673
> 
> 
> Looks good with the curved stand in the curved penthouse apartment



Who places their TV on the floor like that?


----------



## 8mile13

That is really bad placement. The sun will shine and set the banana TV on fire.


----------



## JimP

Looks like it was done for a photo shoot....rather than to watch.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24544060
> 
> 
> Looks like it was done for a photo shoot....rather than to watch.



That about sizes up curved displays










- Rich


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24542566
> 
> 
> 
> New article on CNET from a couple days age: http://www.cnet.com/news/push-for-ultra-hd-4k-forces-picture-quality-tradeoffs/
> 
> *"One of the reasons Panasonic ended plasma manufacturing, was reported to be the difficulty of making a cost- (and likely, energy-) efficient 4K plasma. Samsung told David Katzmaier roughly the same thing at CES, though they're still making plasmas (this year at least).
> 
> 
> So picture quality fanatics lost some of the best-looking televisions ever, because the industry wanted to move to a higher resolution. "*
> 
> 
> You could be right that this is all just face-saving, but it may also have been the last nail in the coffin...


1) Let me get this straight. Are you saying that an "AS IS" poor German "schmuck" who has to shell out 10-12 bucks per gallon of unleaded and whose Plasma TV runs him up a 400 bucks( energy in Europe costs 4 times( 35-45 cents) of that in the US(10 cents excluding Alaska and Hawaii ), and now tell me that Bush went down the path of war for naught!)  bill a years would have had to dish out about *2 large per* *year* had he bough a 4k plasma?

 

2) Are OLEDs that energy-efficient that a 4 time spike in energy-consumption would go unnoticed?


----------



## RichB

AVJ stated that engineering was tasked to investigate a 4K Plasma.

Actually, I believe the 4k Energy efficiency was the last nail in the coffin.

These large manufacturers are very sensitive to market trends, they are all there for 3D and now 4K.


Panasonic tried to be green with Plasma and made a standard mode so dim it was unusable with the lights out.


A 4K Plasma becomes more expensive with a larger power supply and even moderate greenies get a bit concerned by displays with a maximum power draw in the kill-o-watt range.


- Rich


----------



## Masterbrew2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RandyWalters*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24543982
> 
> 
> 
> Who places their TV on the floor like that?


 

I have a 40 cm high stand right now, I want lower. It makes for comfortable viewing and it is the best way to make a huge black rectangle somewhat discreet.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24544228
> 
> 
> AVJ stated that engineering was tasked to investigate a 4K Plasma.
> 
> Actually, I believe the 4k Energy efficiency was the last nail in the coffin.
> 
> These large manufacturers are very sensitive to market trends, they are all there for 3D and now 4K.
> 
> 
> Panasonic tried to be green with Plasma and made a standard mode so dim it was unusable with the lights out.
> 
> 
> A 4K Plasma becomes more expensive with a larger power supply and even moderate greenies get a bit concerned by displays with a maximum power draw in the kill-o-watt range.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Right.

But there are MANY 'videophiles' who would be more than willing to pay the energy usage increase to be able to have a large screen 4K plasma - just like there are many who buy low gas mileage sports cars for the added performance enjoyment. Who's the EU to say they can't have them if they can afford to run them?

(But I know that's not at the core of this argument, but it is related...).

Instead, I understand its a marketing decision based upon R&D, vs. how many can be sold to a smaller 'videophile' market like that.

And there probably just wouldn't be enough of a worldwide market for those with that high an energy consumption, (particularly given Europe's 'boot heel on the neck' approach to consumer choice...).


Maybe someday, larger screen (over 70") 4K plasmas will be a reality?, but for a niche market.

Trouble is then they'd also likely also be very expensive...

It's just that over the last six months or so of reading this thread I'm feeling far less confident that OLED will ever 'get there', seeing as they've stumbled out of the gates so badly with small very expensive displays, and with all the remaining doubts as to successful production percentages, developers dropping out of researching these sets, (to concentrate on LCDs!







).

The future of larger size affordable and long lasting excellent quality picture displays just seems so depressing...


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24544342
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> It's just that over the last six months or so of reading this thread I'm feeling far less confident that OLED will ever 'get there', seeing as they've stumbled out of the gates so badly with small very expensive displays, and with all the remaining doubts as to successful production percentages, developers dropping out of researching these sets, (to concentrate on LCDs!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> The future of larger size affordable and long lasting excellent quality picture displays just seems so depressing...


 

Well, it took me only a month of reading this tread to painfully realize that OLEDs are, most likely in all likelihood, never getting there and this realization makes the future seem so "bleak" and tear-jerking saddening to the core so full of LCDs. However I still keep hope alive for if our world were a place ruled by a reason we would never see crème de la crème of plasmas like 9.5g Pioneers or VT60 and ZV60, because Pioneer and Panasonic both saw at some point that the demand for plasma was shrinking fast, but despite all the reasons to the contrary stayed in plasma business and thought the tide would turn! (of course we all know where that approach led them). Now, I guess, no one will ever repeat their mistake by going into risky OLED business which, in the end, may very well turn out to be a financial disaster...


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24544342
> 
> 
> It's just that over the last six months or so of reading this thread I'm feeling far less confident that OLED will ever 'get there', seeing as they've stumbled out of the gates so badly with small very expensive displays, and with all the remaining doubts as to successful production percentages, developers dropping out of researching these sets, (to concentrate on LCDs!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> The future of larger size affordable and long lasting excellent quality picture displays just seems so depressing...



I have a hard time understanding the last six months making you more pessimistic about OLED's.


The prices have dropped far more rapidly than anybody expected which is a good reason to believe that yields have risen substantially. There are some issues with the sets, but the reviews are pretty much universal that the first gen units have the best picture quality on the market. We are going to have 4K units this year at multiple sizes and I expect both picture quality and lifetime to increase. The 77" set will be outrageously expensive but that is to be expected at its debut. I think the consensus would have been that we would have to wait much longer for an OLED of that size to even make it on the market. As far as I know, a 70"+ plasma was never manufactured so if you hate LCD's, this is the first time you will have even have another option.


Of course, I do wish there were going to be multiple suppliers for the panels. Rest assured though that if LG is even remotely successful in their plans that this will only increase the amount of R&D dollars that other vendors will put into printable OLED's.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24544474
> 
> 
> 
> I have a hard time understanding the last six months making you more pessimistic about OLED's.
> 
> 
> The prices have dropped far more rapidly than anybody expected which is a good reason to believe that yields have risen substantially. There are some issues with the sets, but the reviews are pretty much universal that the first gen units have the best picture quality on the market. We are going to have 4K units this year at multiple sizes and I expect both picture quality and lifetime to increase. The 77" set will be outrageously expensive but that is to be expected at its debut. I think the consensus would have been that we would have to wait much longer for an OLED of that size to even make it on the market. As far as I know, a 70"+ plasma was never manufactured so if you hate LCD's, this is the first time you will have even have another option.
> 
> 
> Of course, I do wish there were going to be multiple suppliers for the panels. Rest assured though that if LG is even remotely successful in their plans that this will only increase the amount of R&D dollars that other vendors will put into printable OLED's.


*Yield rates are not that important if you cannot achieve economies of scale, Panasonic has just proved it to the whole world!  And people are very doubtful that LG can do that! Economies of scale are the deciding factor now on whether OLED makes or not!* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24544488
> 
> *Yield rates are not that important if you cannot achieve economies of scale, Panasonic has just proved it to the whole world!  And people are very doubtful that LG can do that! Economies of scale are the deciding factor now on whether OLED makes or not!*



You dont get economies of scale overnight. There has to be a first fab that gets good yields. A year ago, we had no evidence on whether this was possible. It now looks like LG has a decent chance of making that happen. It is a step by step process to commercialize a new display technology and it is always going to take years to happen.


Moreover, there are any number of reasons that plasma failed. Fundamentally, the economics of any single fab are terrible if you arent running at close to capacity. Sliding plasma sales killed any chance of Panasonic making a profit. The same is true for Sharp's Gen 10 LCD fab where they have all the economies of scale that you are looking for, but are close to bankruptcy because they are running far below their potential capacity,


Nothing is guaranteed, but the odds of LG beings successful today are considerably higher than a year ago.


----------



## RichB

I am not that pessimistic.

Manufacturing techniques and yields are a problem, but there are companies working on solutions.


IMO, If they a company provides a solution and the Japanese or Koreans pass on it, the Chinese will welcome to opportunity to seize control over the display market.


- Rich


----------



## ChadThunder

Will future manufacturers care about longevity? documentation? serviceability? will panel lotteries become the norm? will there be meaningful differentiation between low and mid range other than "smart features"?


If the Japanese are pushed out this year I only hope Taiwanese or someone will step up and do things properly without all the gimmicks and glitz.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24544604
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24544488
> 
> *Yield rates are not that important if you cannot achieve economies of scale, Panasonic has just proved it to the whole world!  And people are very doubtful that LG can do that! Economies of scale are the deciding factor now on whether OLED makes or not!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont get economies of scale overnight. There has to be a first fab that gets good yields. A year ago, we had no evidence on whether this was possible. It now looks like LG has a decent chance of making that happen. It is a step by step process to commercialize a new display technology and it is always going to take years to happen.
> 
> 
> Moreover, there are any number of reasons that plasma failed. Fundamentally, the economics of any single fab are terrible if you arent running at close to capacity. *Sliding plasma sales killed any chance of Panasonic making a profit.* The same is true for Sharp's Gen 10 LCD fab where they have all the economies of scale that you are looking for, but are close to bankruptcy because they are running far below their potential capacity,
> 
> 
> Nothing is guaranteed, but the odds of LG beings successful today are considerably higher than a year ago.
Click to expand...

  


If you believe this forecast data, OLED shipments in 2017 will still be a fraction of plasma shipments in 2014 (and less than 25% of what they were in 2012 and 2013, the year that led to Panasonics decision to pull the plug on their plasma business).


If Panasonics plasma factory running at these volumes was so unprofitable that they had to pull the plug, the new LG gen 8 fab will be running in a similar loss-making position through at least the next 5 years. If they have the deep pockets and the runway to make that kind of a sustained run, they have a chance to establish a sustainable business.


So while I agree with your last statement that the odds of LG being successful today are considerably higher that a year ago, that still doesn't mean the odds of their success are anywhere close to 50/50 yet...


----------



## ChadThunder

That chart gives me the creeps, what is wrong with me


----------



## Weboh


The chart is loaded; at least, they aren't calling LCDs just LEDs


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ChadThunder*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544789
> 
> 
> That chart gives me the creeps, what is wrong with me



Nothing.


- Rich


----------



## vinnie97

Artwood has been the LCD apocalypse doom prophet for some time now, and it seems it will be very difficult to derail the abominable freight train.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544772
> 
> 
> 
> If Panasonics plasma factory running at these volumes was so unprofitable that they had to pull the plug, the new LG gen 8 fab will be running in a similar loss-making position through at least the next 5 years. If they have the deep pockets and the runway to make that kind of a sustained run, they have a chance to establish a sustainable business.



The comparisons to plasma are utterly overblown. Fundamentally, consumers chose LCD's over plasmas even in the high-end of the market. If OLED's hit the same price point as plasmas and consumers are still picking LCD's, then they will also fail. I have made the point a number of times that OLED's absolutely have to be perceived as having the absolute best picture quality by the general public. That is table stakes for their success.


Panasonic had plenty of excess capacity when they chose to shut down their fab. LG Display will be in a very different position if they manage to operate at their Gen 8 fab at full capacity with good yields.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544855
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544772
> 
> 
> If Panasonics plasma factory running at these volumes was so unprofitable that they had to pull the plug, the new LG gen 8 fab will be running in a similar loss-making position through at least the next 5 years. If they have the deep pockets and the runway to make that kind of a sustained run, they have a chance to establish a sustainable business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comparisons to plasma are utterly overblown. Fundamentally, consumers chose LCD's over plasmas even in the high-end of the market. *If OLED's hit the same price point as plasmas and consumers are still picking LCD's, then they will also fail.* I have made the point a number of times that OLED's absolutely have to be perceived as having the absolute best picture quality by the general public. That is table stakes for their success.
Click to expand...


Can't argue with that statement.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544855
> 
> 
> Panasonic had plenty of excess capacity when they chose to shut down their fab. *LG Display will be in a very different position if they manage to operate at their Gen 8 fab at full capacity with good yields*.



Can't argue with that statement either.


From earlier discussions n the subject, I believe someone had indicated that the new fab would be capable of pumping out something like 1.3M 55" OLEDs of ~1M 65" OLEDs.


So once LG has achieved the pricepoints to successfully sell 1.3M 55" OLEDs or 1M 65" OLEDs (or a mixture of whatever sizes) a year, that's what I would call having established a sustainable business.


The time it takes them to get there from where they are today is where all the risk lies...


----------



## ChadThunder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544855
> 
> 
> The comparisons to plasma are utterly overblown. Fundamentally, consumers chose LCD's over plasmas even in the high-end of the market. If OLED's hit the same price point as plasmas and consumers are still picking LCD's, then they will also fail. *I have made the point a number of times that OLED's absolutely have to be perceived as having the absolute best picture quality by the general public. That is table stakes for their success.
> *



The best chance of that happening is with more companies pushing the technology, with plasma you had LG and Samsung standing behind but not with Panasonic because openly admitting plasma is better would threaten their market dominance, if LG goes alone it will probably end as a suicide mission.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544855
> 
> 
> 
> The comparisons to plasma are utterly overblown. Fundamentally, consumers chose LCD's over plasmas even in the high-end of the market. If OLED's hit the same price point as plasmas and consumers are still picking LCD's, then they will also fail. I have made the point a number of times that OLED's absolutely have to be perceived as having the absolute best picture quality by the general public. That is table stakes for their success.
> 
> 
> Panasonic had plenty of excess capacity when they chose to shut down their fab. LG Display will be in a very different position if they manage to operate at their Gen 8 fab at full capacity with good yields.


1) They already cost the same as some high end LCD sets and yet people are picking LCDs over them left and right for if they were not than Sony wouldn't have sold even one of their FALDs since Samsung or LG released their OLEDs...

 

2)LG Display will be in a very different position if they manage to operate at their Gen 8 fab at full capacity with good yields and if the capacity will be less than 100000 4k OLED units for 2015 or 2016. And eventually their OLED business will end up the same exact way Pioneer's plasma business did.

 

3) I have seen about 10 posts say here that unless LG gets the price to the level of mid range LCDs (1500 bucks a pop to achieve economies of sales and "endless" unrelieving demand) and fast in a matter of 2 to 4 years their OLED business will flounder just like Pioneer's plasma business did!


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ChadThunder*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544944
> 
> 
> The best chance of that happening is with more companies pushing the technology, with plasma you had LG and Samsung standing behind but not with Panasonic because openly admitting plasma is better would threaten their market dominance, if LG goes alone it will probably end as a suicide mission.



LG Display will be the only one selling panels but there will be multiple different vendors for the televisions. Besides the Chinese, I have seen rumors that both Sony and Panasonic will buy OLED panels from LGD.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> 
> LG Display will be the only one selling panels but there will be multiple different vendors for the televisions. Besides the Chinese, I have seen rumors that both Sony and Panasonic will buy OLED panels from LGD.


 _Panasonic_ was very negative about LG OLED recently so i do not see Panasonic buying LG OLED panels any time soon.


There is _a link_ that confirmes LG and Sony talks about OLED panel outsourcing. but that was 01-02-2012 ( a few months before Sony Panasonic OLED collaboration started).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544772
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe this forecast data, OLED shipments in 2017 will still be a fraction of plasma shipments in 2014 (and less than 25% of what they were in 2012 and 2013, the year that led to Panasonics decision to pull the plug on their plasma business).



That chart is likely too optimistic, i'd point out.


> Quote:
> If Panasonics plasma factory running at these volumes was so unprofitable that they had to pull the plug, the new LG gen 8 fab will be running in a similar loss-making position through at least the next 5 years. If they have the deep pockets and the runway to make that kind of a sustained run, they have a chance to establish a sustainable business.



I'm 100% with Slacker on this. The comparisons to Panasonic are not relevant.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544971
> 
> 
> LG Display will be the only one selling panels but there will be multiple different vendors for the televisions. Besides the Chinese, I have seen rumors that both Sony and Panasonic will buy OLED panels from LGD.



So, I still barely see this as mattering. So much of the high end in the U.S. is Samsung and Sony, it's not like having more than 1-2 vendors is important to establish a product. In fact, there's an argument that exclusivity is better than commoditizing it for a time.


Further, I'm not remotely persuaded Panasonic and Sony are in the TV business come 2016-17. And why they will be any more successful buying commodity panels in OLED vs. LCD (no one is successful doing this, save, Vizio, which for reasons we've discussed before is barely so and not replicable) is totally unclear to me.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24545132
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544772
> 
> 
> If Panasonics plasma factory running at these volumes was so unprofitable that they had to pull the plug, the new LG gen 8 fab will be running in a similar loss-making position through at least the next 5 years. If they have the deep pockets and the runway to make that kind of a sustained run, they have a chance to establish a sustainable business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 100% with Slacker on this. The comparisons to Panasonic are not relevant.
Click to expand...


It's only relevant from the point of view of the financial stress caused by an underutilized fab. In the case of Panasonic, it was that burden at the tail end of a business that never achieved profitability that caused them to pull the plug. In LGs case it will be the leading-edge financial burden of that underutilized capacity in the period before market demand has ramped to fully/mostly absorb that capacity that will determine the financial runway that LG will need to achieve sustainability.


If the LG OLED business never achieves sustainability, it will be because achieving significant fab utilization took longer than they could afford (or because of some unresolvable technical issue associated with lifetime or whatever, still a risk factor for any immature technology).


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24545132
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544772
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe this forecast data, OLED shipments in 2017 will still be a fraction of plasma shipments in 2014 (and less than 25% of what they were in 2012 and 2013, the year that led to Panasonics decision to pull the plug on their plasma business).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That chart is likely too optimistic, i'd point out.
Click to expand...


I know your view in terms of that chart being overly optimistic in terms of overall TV volumes. That chart shows the dip in 2013 to 225 million TVs sold recovering by 2016 back to 250 million, and I know you believe the downward trend is likely to continue with a levelling out around 200 M (an assessment I agree with).


Did you mean 'too optimistic' only in that sense or in some way specific to OLED?


Hard to read off the graphic without the table, but I believe that chart is showing something like 3M OLED TV sales in 2017 and 1M OLED TV sales in 2016 (and something in the 200K - 300K range in 2015).


So if I'm right about the new fab capacity being 1M - 1.3M, that would mean that this chart is forecasting that that new fab is at full capacity in 2016 and new capacity is needed by 2017.


I think I may have seen a post from you where you were suggesting 1M unit demand for LG OLED later, maybe 2018, right?


So about a 2 year shift from this forecast in terms of the time period before OLED cracks the 1Mu per year volume threshold - is that what you meant by this chart being too optimistic?


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24545132
> 
> 
> 
> That chart is likely too optimistic, i'd point out.
> 
> I'm 100% with Slacker on this. The comparisons to Panasonic are not relevant.
> 
> So, I still barely see this as mattering. So much of the high end in the U.S. is Samsung and Sony, it's not like having more than 1-2 vendors is important to establish a product. In fact, there's an argument that exclusivity is better than commoditizing it for a time.
> 
> 
> Further, I'm not remotely persuaded Panasonic and Sony are in the TV business come 2016-17. And why they will be any more successful buying commodity panels in OLED vs. LCD (no one is successful doing this, save, Vizio, which for reasons we've discussed before is barely so and not replicable) is totally unclear to me.


How is it not relevant it shows that when you invest billions into production and D&R and you don't have enough demand for your goods by whatever reason you will face insolvency in a matter of years. If LG believes that a lot of people will come around and line up for their new OLED TVs with a hefty price tag, just because of better PQ they are in for a bumpy ride down the "broke road". I might add that Sony for one is losing money in their TV business, too along with Panasonic and Sharp  and in fact the only divisions that are raking it in for Sony are Sony's American subsidiaries that make software, video games and involved in film-making industry. And if I'm not mistaken Samsung's TV business barely broke even in 2013,too. 

 

By the way Sharp manages to be unprofitable even despite ginormous Apple's orders for dozens of millions of units for their MacBooks, ipads, iPhone ect, meaning economies of scale not always make for a sustainable operation if you have to cut price tags to the bone.  In fact Apple is the only thing keeping Sharp afloat and Sony's entertainment business ( American business) is the only thing keeping it afloat. Panasonic professional business is the only thing keeping it afloat.


----------



## Pres2play




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markrubin*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9000#post_24527457
> 
> 
> I am concerned about this quote from the article:
> *
> 
> One of the reasons given is how quickly the panels lose their quality, with Cunningham noting: "I've seen OLED from other companies and six months after they have been bought the deterioration in the quality of the panel was phenomenal.*
> 
> 
> any reports to back this up?



So will my five month old OLED turn into a pumpkin in 30 days?


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pres2play*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24545539
> 
> 
> 
> So will my five month old OLED turn into a pumpkin in 30 days?


NO, but in two or three years when magic gets restored and established why NOT!


----------



## Pres2play

3 - 4 years solid operation is fine. By that time, larger size should be available at today's 55" price or cheaper.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24545132
> 
> 
> So, I still barely see this as mattering. So much of the high end in the U.S. is Samsung and Sony, it's not like having more than 1-2 vendors is important to establish a product. In fact, there's an argument that exclusivity is better than commoditizing it for a time.
> 
> 
> Further, I'm not remotely persuaded Panasonic and Sony are in the TV business come 2016-17. And why they will be any more successful buying commodity panels in OLED vs. LCD (no one is successful doing this, save, Vizio, which for reasons we've discussed before is barely so and not replicable) is totally unclear to me.



I agree with you about Sony and Panasonic, but as the last ten years have shown, these companies continue with their broken strategies for far longer than anybody expects.


I dont think that the LCD comparison applies though. The LCD industry has any number of companies that own their own fabs so the market can naturally segment into into its various layers. A consumer who wants an LCD has many different options covering all aspects of performance and industrial design. I think it would be tough for LG to have the number of models needed to do that on their own. I think having multiple vendors also addresses questions like brand power and distribution networks. I have zero idea about LG Electronic's brand/share/distribution in China. That becomes much less of a worry once you have multiple vendors selling the LG Display panels.


We'll have a better idea about how this plays out as the specs/features/price of the Chinese vendors start to appear. Are they nearly identical to the LGE sets? or have they figured out a way to differentiate them?


----------



## catonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24546398
> 
> 
> I agree with you about Sony and Panasonic, but as the last ten years have shown, these companies continue with their broken strategies for far longer than anybody expects.



One reason for that is that the losses in their tv division can be used to offset profits in their other divisions, which is handy for taxation purposes. Of course that only works if the losses are not too great and the other divisions are doing well.

And then there is the" lets move to Ireland and pay taxes there" trick.

But that's another story.


----------



## JazzGuyy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544855
> 
> 
> 
> I have made the point a number of times that OLED's absolutely have to be perceived as having the absolute best picture quality by the general public. That is table stakes for their success.


This assumes that the general public cares about the absolute best picture quality. I don't think this is the case. The general public is quite tolerant of merely good picture quality, provided it is cheap and seen as reasonably reliable. Beyond that, the percentage of the public that cares about having the very best picture possible is very small.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24547071
> 
> 
> This assumes that the general public cares about the absolute best picture quality. I don't think this is the case. The general public is quite tolerant of merely good picture quality, provided it is cheap and seen as reasonably reliable. Beyond that, the percentage of the public that cares about having the very best picture possible is very small.



While they arent willing to pay for the best picture quality possible, neither would they actively choose a worse option. I think the average mid to high-end consumer still goes to Best Buy/Costco, stands in front of the tv's they are considering in their price/size range and tries to figure out which television has the best picture.


The problem is that this is a terrible way to figure out which television will actually look best when you get it home. In particular, plasma failed miserably under these conditions so even when the size and price were similar, customers were picking LCD's. OLED's need to pass this test and become the answer when people ask which television is going to have the best picture.


An example would be when LED backlit televisions first became available. The marketing campaign by Samsung ingrained the fact that "LED televisions" were better than regular LCD's with many consumers. They walked into Best Buy expecting that the LED television would have the better picture quality. That is a huge leg up and I expect that it boosted unit sales substantially.


----------



## JazzGuyy

The public often judges quality based on what they have been led to believe, whether true or not. Manufacturers were able to create the perception that LEDs were newer and better and the public mostly bought into that. LED sets also became attractive to many people because they were thinner and lighter in weight. This "sleekness" was taken as a positive by many purchasers.


The fact is that few people know what great picture quality is and show little interest in learning in my experience. To them it is what they personally find most appealing which is often an overly bright and overly saturated picture. If the picture is clear, bright and colorful, this will be the preference for the majority of viewers. In an era when most TVs will meet these criteria (rather than being accurate), then price, style, availability and maybe manufacturer reputation become the deciding factors with price and style probably the two most important ones. As long as OLED (or any other technology) is perceived as merely being different with no obvious improvements then the public will have little reason to purchase it, even if the price of OLED were to be the same as LCD TVs. Absolute picture quality just doesn't sell TVs to the bulk of the buying public and never has.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060_60#post_24547286
> 
> 
> If the picture is clear, bright and colorful, this will be the preference for the majority of viewers. In an era when most TVs will meet these criteria (rather than being accurate), ...


I agree with your reading of the popular taste. I also want clear, bright and colorful. I don't agree that these are in opposition to accuracy, or that most TVs already meet these criteria. We have a long way to go before we can get TV displays to rival the real world in clarity, brightness, and color. That's what I hope we will work toward.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ChadThunder*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544789
> 
> 
> That chart gives me the creeps, what is wrong with me


Gives me the creeps too - probably because of those steadily climbing damn LCD sales that are suffocating the market for better quality panels!


----------



## mtbdudex

There is so much information in this thread, it's impossible to grasp.

IMO a FAQ needs to gather the facts and point to the posts where key discussion/ conclusions are.


Who's the ring leader of this thread?



Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## turnbowm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24547071
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544855
> 
> 
> 
> I have made the point a number of times that OLED's absolutely have to be perceived as having the absolute best picture quality by the general public. That is table stakes for their success.
> 
> 
> 
> This assumes that the general public cares about the absolute best picture quality. I don't think this is the case. *The general public is quite tolerant of merely good picture quality, provided it is cheap and seen as reasonably reliable.* Beyond that, the percentage of the public that cares about having the very best picture possible is very small.
Click to expand...


I think that statement holds true for 95% of the buying public and it makes LG's OLED efforts all the more difficult.


----------



## stas3098




> Have you guys forgotten why plasma was seen as inferior to LCD by so many (it had almost nothing to do with PQ)? First it was due to numerous smearing campaigns against it about low plasmas' lifespan (Please remember what that Craig Cunningham shmuck was telling about OLEDs lately) . Then it was and "still is" burn-in. Third was the price 1080p plasma in 2006-08 went for 4000-6000 bucks whereas 1080p LCDs were thrice as cheaper. After that they played the energy-consumption card. And the ever-waning demand has served as a proverbial final straw that broke camel's back . If Craig Cunningham is going to launch a smearing campaign against OLEDs and others will follow him in lockstep (like Vizo or Samsung or Sony and the likes) to try and sell some crappy LCDs. OLED might not have long...


----------



## jayarrgee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Masterbrew2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24543673
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks good with the curved stand in the curved penthouse apartment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that room temperature champagne on the left?
> 
> 
> I'd actually like a stand like that, even though my apartment is just a simple rectangle





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RandyWalters*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24543982
> 
> 
> Who places their TV on the floor like that?



Someone who sits very close to the floor?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jayarrgee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24548296
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Masterbrew2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24543673
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks good with the curved stand in the curved penthouse apartment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that room temperature champagne on the left?
> 
> 
> I'd actually like a stand like that, even though my apartment is just a simple rectangle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RandyWalters*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9060#post_24543982
> 
> 
> Who places their TV on the floor like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone who sits very close to the floor?
Click to expand...


Oh, you guys didn't understand? That's the dog's TV


----------



## JazzGuyy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *turnbowm*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24547945
> 
> 
> I think that statement holds true for 95% of the buying public and it makes LG's OLED efforts all the more difficult.


I think it might even be higher than 95% -- maybe more like 98%. Quality has never been the primary aim of the American consumer.


----------



## vinnie97

*channeling my Artwood* That doesn't preclude the high-end from existing in the audio reproduction market as well as automobiles, for instance. There ought to be a similar niche for TVs (I wonder how many rebadged Panasonic plasmas Bang & Olufsen sell







)


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24545132
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544772
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe this forecast data, OLED shipments in 2017 will still be a fraction of plasma shipments in 2014 (and less than 25% of what they were in 2012 and 2013, the year that led to Panasonics decision to pull the plug on their plasma business).
> 
> 
> 
> *That chart is likely too optimistic, i'd point out.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> If Panasonics plasma factory running at these volumes was so unprofitable that they had to pull the plug, the new LG gen 8 fab will be running in a similar loss-making position through at least the next 5 years. If they have the deep pockets and the runway to make that kind of a sustained run, they have a chance to establish a sustainable business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm 100% with Slacker on this. The comparisons to Panasonic are not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24544971
> 
> 
> LG Display will be the only one selling panels but there will be multiple different vendors for the televisions. Besides the Chinese, I have seen rumors that both Sony and Panasonic will buy OLED panels from LGD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I still barely see this as mattering. So much of the high end in the U.S. is Samsung and Sony, it's not like having more than 1-2 vendors is important to establish a product. In fact, there's an argument that exclusivity is better than commoditizing it for a time.
> 
> 
> Further, I'm not remotely persuaded Panasonic and Sony are in the TV business come 2016-17. And why they will be any more successful buying commodity panels in OLED vs. LCD (no one is successful doing this, save, Vizio, which for reasons we've discussed before is barely so and not replicable) is totally unclear to me.
Click to expand...


JerryW found this link to a recent article on TV sales on the Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/24/tv_sales_dropping/ 



From Faultline, 24 Mar 2014: *"According to our forecast, TV sales will fall below 200 million this year..."*


which supports Rogo's view that that the forecast data in the Chart I posted and the forecast of a recovery in TV sales in 2014 and beyond by IHS and Displaysearch are optimistic...


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24548456
> 
> 
> *channeling my Artwood* That doesn't preclude the high-end from existing in the audio reproduction market as well as automobiles, for instance. There ought to be a similar niche for TVs (I wonder how many rebadged Panasonic plasmas Bang & Olufsen sell


They don't sell plasmas! as far as I know they sell home theater setups with high-end audio plus a plasma. And those plasmas are 300 nits bright and have the best light filter I've ever seen (it even beats retina MacBook's light filter and those of OLEDs) and they have really great blacks( the blacks are way better that those of my st60). They also add to the price rigging of the (dark) room, delivery, calibration, installation ect. They don't make money off selling plasmas they make money off selling and rigging home theater setups. They don't post plasma TV sales per se I don't know why. All I could find in their 2012-2013 annul report was that Biovsion 11 TVs performed well at the end of 2013. http://www.bang-olufsen.com/UserFiles/File/Investor/AR2012-13_UK.pdf


----------



## vinnie97

There is no need to argue semantics. They most certainly DO (or at least did) sell plasmas.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24548614
> 
> 
> They most certainly DO (or at least did) sell plasmas.


Yes, they do, but those plasmas come with high-end audio setups and stands and installation and some other stuff, too. It is NOT BESTBUY where you can buy a 55 inch TV, put it in the back of a truck and drive off into the sunset! you should really check this out  http://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/home-integration



 

Rooms like this is what they sell.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24545158
> 
> 
> It's only relevant from the point of view of the financial stress caused by an underutilized fab. In the case of Panasonic, it was that burden at the tail end of a business that never achieved profitability that caused them to pull the plug. In LGs case it will be the leading-edge financial burden of that underutilized capacity in the period before market demand has ramped to fully/mostly absorb that capacity that will determine the financial runway that LG will need to achieve sustainability.
> 
> 
> If the LG OLED business never achieves sustainability, it will be because achieving significant fab utilization took longer than they could afford (or because of some unresolvable technical issue associated with lifetime or whatever, still a risk factor for any immature technology).



To me, if LG fails it will be because of yields, not utilization. If they can hit 85-90% yields, they will be able to lower prices enough to get utilization high enough. They aren't going to sit there on a low-defect fab and fail because they are unwilling to trim price the last $500.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24545185
> 
> 
> I know your view in terms of that chart being overly optimistic in terms of overall TV volumes. That chart shows the dip in 2013 to 225 million TVs sold recovering by 2016 back to 250 million, and I know you believe the downward trend is likely to continue with a levelling out around 200 M (an assessment I agree with).
> 
> 
> Did you mean 'too optimistic' only in that sense or in some way specific to OLED?



Yes, the OLED number is unrealistically high. OLED will catch up to those forecasts, but not in the timeframe of the chart.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24545420
> 
> 
> How is it not relevant it shows that when you invest billions into production and D&R and you don't have enough demand for your goods by whatever reason you will face insolvency in a matter of years. If LG believes that a lot of people will come around and line up for their new OLED TVs with a hefty price tag, just because of better PQ they are in for a bumpy ride down the "broke road". I might add that Sony for one is losing money in their TV business, too along with Panasonic and Sharp  and in fact the only divisions that are raking it in for Sony are Sony's American subsidiaries that make software, video games and involved in film-making industry. And if I'm not mistaken Samsung's TV business barely broke even in 2013,too.



I kind of wish I knew what point you are making. But I think I mostly agree. There is no chance that LG is going to develop a large market of high-end consumers. That's a fantasy, so I hope no one has. it.


> Quote:
> By the way Sharp manages to be unprofitable even despite ginormous Apple's orders for dozens of millions of units for their MacBooks, ipads, iPhone ect, meaning economies of scale not always make for a sustainable operation if you have to cut price tags to the bone.  In fact Apple is the only thing keeping Sharp afloat and Sony's entertainment business ( American business) is the only thing keeping it afloat. Panasonic professional business is the only thing keeping it afloat.



Sharp is more complex than that facile analysis. The Sakai fab is still way, way below full utilization. All those little screens for Apple, etc. are made at Kameyama and elsewhere on repurposed 8G lines (also likely running way below capacity, by the way).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24546398
> 
> 
> I agree with you about Sony and Panasonic, but as the last ten years have shown, these companies continue with their broken strategies for far longer than anybody expects.



Yes, it's weird.

[qupte]

I dont think that the LCD comparison applies though. The LCD industry has any number of companies that own their own fabs so the market can naturally segment into into its various layers. A consumer who wants an LCD has many different options covering all aspects of performance and industrial design. I think it would be tough for LG to have the number of models needed to do that on their own. I think having multiple vendors also addresses questions like brand power and distribution networks. I have zero idea about LG Electronic's brand/share/distribution in China. That becomes much less of a worry once you have multiple vendors selling the LG Display panels.[/quote]


So, this is valid to a point. But LG's 8G fab is relatively speaking tiny. History says when you are trying to build a market at this stage, you don't dilute the brand and the message this way. You just get a lot of chatter, without anyone making much noise. If LG could make 10 million panels but couldn't retail them, we'd be having a different conversation. I don't see what they're doing as valid at this stage.


> Quote:
> We'll have a better idea about how this plays out as the specs/features/price of the Chinese vendors start to appear. Are they nearly identical to the LGE sets? or have they figured out a way to differentiate them?



Yes, this will be very interesting and could change my outlook.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24547206
> 
> 
> While they arent willing to pay for the best picture quality possible, neither would they actively choose a worse option. I think the average mid to high-end consumer still goes to Best Buy/Costco, stands in front of the tv's they are considering in their price/size range and tries to figure out which television has the best picture.



The median customer, the mode customer, nearly all customers?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *turnbowm*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24547945
> 
> 
> I think that statement holds true for 95% of the buying public and it makes LG's OLED efforts all the more difficult.



Maybe closer to 99%?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24548675
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9090#post_24545158
> 
> 
> It's only relevant from the point of view of the financial stress caused by an underutilized fab. In the case of Panasonic, it was that burden at the tail end of a business that never achieved profitability that caused them to pull the plug. In LGs case it will be the leading-edge financial burden of that underutilized capacity in the period before market demand has ramped to fully/mostly absorb that capacity that will determine the financial runway that LG will need to achieve sustainability.
> 
> 
> If the LG OLED business never achieves sustainability, it will be because achieving significant fab utilization took longer than they could afford (or because of some unresolvable technical issue associated with lifetime or whatever, still a risk factor for any immature technology).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me, if LG fails it will be because of yields, not utilization. If they can hit 85-90% yields, they will be able to lower prices enough to get utilization high enough. They aren't going to sit there on a low-defect fab and fail because they are unwilling to trim price the last $500.
Click to expand...


The two kind of go hand-in-hand: Higher volume continuous throughput leads to better yields, leads to lower costs, leads to lower prices, leads to higher volume of demand, leads to higher volume continuous throughput, etc...


Now if there is some technical problem impacting yields significantly that can be debugged and fixed even at low volumes, that is a different issue, but in terms of optimizing yields anywhere close to theoretical levels at scale, you need a steady relatively high level of utilization.


If they can get to the yields levels of 85-90% running 5Ku per month through the new fab (meaning ~10% utilization), that would change the equation significantly, but even to get to a level where they can manufacture and sell 5Ku per month is going to take significantly lower pricing than they are offering now.


This article gives some forecast data from LG: http://news.oled-display.net/why-lg-display-will-dominate-the-oled-tv-panel-market-in-2014/ 

*"LG can mass produce 8.000 sheets per month on the 8G fab"*


I'm not an exert on panel sizes, but it seems like a single 8G sheet should be able to produce 6 55" OLEDs, so 8,000 sheets a month would translate to a raw production of 48,000 55" TVs a month or 576,000 55" TVs a year (raw meaning assuming 100% yield - equaling yielded production of about 500,000 a year at your target yields).


I thought folks were saying this new 8G fab would have the capacity to produce 1.3Mu of 55" OLED TVs a year, and the article mentions that: *the company plans to expand with more fabrication lines up to 26.000 per month* but it is not clear if that is on the same 8G fab or not. If 26,000 8G panels a month is the full capacity of the new 8G fab, that would translate to a raw production capacity of 1.9Mu of 55" TVs or a yielded production of 1.6Mu, so perhaps that is the number others were referring to.


In any case, getting the yields up to the range you say will be needed will be close to impossible if the initial line is only running at 10%, so let's say getting the first line to 50% sustainable runrate is a critical threshold to getting over the industrialization 'hump' and getting steady sustainable improvements in yield towards your targets. That means a raw production level of 24,000 55" TVs or a yielded production rate of 20,000 a month or so (depending on what assumption you want to make about yield).


I don't know about you, but I don't believe there is any way LG is going to drive sustainable demand for 20,000 55" OLEDs a month even at the greatly 'discounted' prices they are offering today of ~$4600 for a 2013 model-year 55" 1080p OLED.


The same article I found makes reference to iSuppli forecast data: *isuppli inform in their new forecast that the OLED-Tv shipments will rise to 700,000 in 2015, to 2.2 million in 2016 and to 5.1 million in 2017 and 10M in 2018.*


There is a great deal of optimism in that forecast, especially if the new 8G fab is not really coming online until late this year, as you expect, and it basically assumes LG selling all of the production off of the first 8000-sheets-per-month line as well as half that many sheets off of a second line in the first year of production from the new fab.


There is no way it happens until pricing on 55" drops significantly further. The 65" or 77" 4K OLEDs may be better products for the premium market, but they will need to be priced no more than double the price of comparable high-end 4K LED/LCDs to drive the required volumes (and ideally should match those prices).


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24548853
> There is no way it happens until pricing on 55" drops significantly further. The 65" or 77" 4K OLEDs may be better products for the premium market, but they will need to be priced no more than double the price of comparable high-end 4K LED/LCDs to drive the required volumes (and ideally should match those prices).I don't know about you, but I don't believe there is any way LG is going to drive sustainable demand for 20,000 55" OLEDs a month even at the greatly 'discounted' prices they are offering today of ~$4600 for a 2013 model-year 55" 1080p OLED.


On the side note I'd like to add that Samsung's 4k 55 incher was priced at 7000 bucks and it goes now for little more than 2 grand and by the end of the years I guess it'll come down to 1500 bucks and less ( http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN65F9000-65-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DV51DYS ) hence 4k OLEDs should be priced at less than 4k to be competitive.

 

My question is: can LG pull this off ( mass-produce 4k OLEDs that go for 4k) ?


----------



## Wizziwig

So you all agree that 95-99% of consumers don't care about picture quality. Yet everyone is upset that we only got curved OLED's at launch. What else were they supposed to do to attract the public if picture quality was not a major factor? I suspect that the crazy designs will continue for a while longer. Expect to see more curves, flexing, extreme thinness, picture frames, and any other gimmick they can think of. I don't really blame LG or Samsung. At least we now have one flat OLED on the market for the small minority that actually care about PQ.


I think LG/Samsung could produce a marketing campaign to educate the consumer about PQ but this is a risky proposition because of their huge involvement in LCD. They can't exactly attack a technology which is their current bread and butter so they are limited in only using positive OLED advertising without pointing out the LCD negatives. Can you imagine if they made a commercial that showed an OLED and LCD side-by-side in a darkened room? Or showed them both from extreme angles to demonstrate the gamma shift?


We need an OLED champion who isn't part of the LCD establishment.


----------



## Rudy1

In my experience, the average consumer purchases a TV based on which one has the brightest, gaudiest picture on the showroom floor...even when the colors bear little resemblance to objects in the real world.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24549216
> 
> 
> In my experience, the average consumer purchases a TV based on which one has the brightest, gaudiest picture on the showroom floor...even when the colors bear little resemblance to objects in the real world.


I've got a really interesting chart to back your experience up



In my experience most people tend to buy TVs whose picture bear little or none resemblance to the real world,too and if a TV has a lot of screen bleeding, clouding and unbearable motion blur to go along with skewered colors than that TV sells best







... When OLEDs achieve the poorest blacks and gaudiest colors they will be selling in a heart-beat, Hell people will buy 3 or 4 of them just for the kicks of it!


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24549201
> 
> 
> So you all agree that 95-99% of consumers don't care about picture quality.


As of 2016 99.5% of consumers will not care about PQ. I've got this cliché chart to prove it


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120_60#post_24549201
> 
> 
> So you all agree that 95-99% of consumers don't care about picture quality. Yet everyone is upset that we only got curved OLED's at launch.


No, maybe practically everyone, but not me. Everyone cares about picture quality, but some people have a different ideas about what quality consists in than the ideas typically expressed here. A quality picture should approach the appearance of the real world. Curved screens? Well, is the real world as flat as a picture you hang on a wall? Bright screens that "make you squint"? Walk outside and notice how bright things are. Gaudy colors? Compare the gamut of Rec709 with the Pointer's Gamut of visible colors that occur in nature.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24548619
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they do, but those plasmas come with high-end audio setups and stands and installation and some other stuff, too. It is NOT BESTBUY where you can buy a 55 inch TV, put it in the back of a truck and drive off into the sunset! you should really check this out  http://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/home-integration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rooms like this is what they sell.


Thanks...I realize that you can't grab one from Best Buy or even Magnolia for that matter.







It's beneficial to them to offer a full package like that, especially considering the market they cater.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24549378
> 
> 
> Bright screens that "make you squint"? Walk outside and notice how bright things are.


Why buy something that so clearly would cause eyestrain? Maybe a masochist goes this route.


> Quote:
> Gaudy colors? Compare the gamut of Rec709 with the Pointer's Gamut of visible colors that occur in nature.


With no media or content to support them, it's another useless bullet point.


----------



## Wizziwig

So we've established that LG's OLED shows some non-uniformity at low IRE levels (10-30%). See the LG owner's thread for some pictures.


Here's one from HDTVTests's review for example.

 


Can any of the experts here speculate on what might be causing this? It must be something specific to LG's manufacturing (IGZO, WRGB, etc.) since it isn't there on the Samsung. Do you think they can solve this or will it be a constant issue we'll need to live with similar to LCD backlight bleed?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24549620
> 
> 
> It must be something specific to LG's manufacturing (IGZO, WRGB, etc.) since it isn't there on the Samsung.


Samsung's mobile OLEDs have this problem too. I remember it being a big complaint about the PS Vita.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24549620
> 
> 
> So we've established that LG's OLED shows some non-uniformity at low IRE levels (10-30%). See the LG owner's thread for some pictures.
> 
> 
> Can any of the experts here speculate on what might be causing this? It must be something specific to LG's manufacturing (IGZO, WRGB, etc.) since it isn't there on the Samsung. Do you think they can solve this or will it be a constant issue we'll need to live with similar to LCD backlight bleed?


Do you think this has the potential of keeping you on the CRT sidelines for another decade?


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120_60#post_24549575
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24549378
> 
> 
> Gaudy colors? Compare the gamut of Rec709 with the Pointer's Gamut of visible colors that occur in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> With no media or content to support them, it's another useless bullet point.
Click to expand...

Right. So it's the lack of suitable media or content that is the problem. We should fix that. It's not people's bad taste or the ability of some displays to crank up the color or brightness that we should be complaining about. That's not the problem. We need more color and brightness, but controlled better.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24549620
> 
> 
> So we've established that LG's OLED shows some non-uniformity at low IRE levels (10-30%). See the LG owner's thread for some pictures.
> 
> 
> Here's one from HDTVTests's review for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can any of the experts here speculate on what might be causing this? It must be something specific to LG's manufacturing (IGZO, WRGB, etc.) since it isn't there on the Samsung. Do you think they can solve this or will it be a constant issue we'll need to live with similar to LCD backlight bleed?


LCD backlight bleeding on any high-end display is basically non-existent nowadyas



Here's the overexposed picture of MacBook pro retina in utter darkness with brightness maxed out to show problem areas   

 

 

Here's the picture of PS vita's OLED


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24549931
> 
> 
> 
> Right. So it's the lack of suitable media or content that is the problem. We should fix that. It's not people's bad taste or the ability of some displays to crank up the color or brightness that we should be complaining about. That's not the problem. We need more color and brightness, but controlled better.


As I said many times before our eyes assign only one bit per color (for intensity) and as long as we carry on with this 10 or 12 bit per color BS will never achieve perfectly flat delta E. When I was in college I was doing PET Scans with some medical grade professionally-calibrated monitors, in the docs room there were two absolutely the same prof-calibrated monitors with delta E lower than 1 (at least it was what I was told) and yet after a month of doing PET scans I'd noticed slight differences in colors between two monitors meaning that what I was seeing on both of them mostly likely did not look like it did in the real life.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_imaging  the suitable media have been around for about 40 years now, but it was analog though.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120_60#post_24549620
> 
> 
> So we've established that LG's OLED shows some non-uniformity at low IRE levels (10-30%). See the LG owner's thread for some pictures.
> 
> 
> Here's one from HDTVTests's review for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can any of the experts here speculate on what might be causing this? It must be something specific to LG's manufacturing (IGZO, WRGB, etc.) since it isn't there on the Samsung. Do you think they can solve this or will it be a constant issue we'll need to live with similar to LCD backlight bleed?


 

There are a few things that this could be, in fact I'm 80% certain on 80% of it, , but I'll keep the speculation game out of it for now.

 

What I'm wondering though is do manufacturers point a very high resolution camera at the panels on the assembly line and attempt to perform a sort of per-subpixel "CLUT" style gray ramp?

 

If they don't, then why not?  It would be fairly easy to implement and could exercise each subpixel through 0 to 100% in 1% increments allowing them to level the bottom layer emission algorithms.

 

Of course, the overall wear is uneven still, but it would make the response something closer to flat, no?


----------



## slacker711

Displaymate names the S5 as having the best smartphone display that they have ever tested. Interesting to see the evolution of OLED's over the last four years of their testing.


For the brightness fanatics, the S5 can hit 700 nits when outside and using automatic brightness control.

http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_S5_ShootOut_1.htm
 


> Quote:
> Galaxy S5 Conclusions: An Impressive Display…
> 
> The primary goal of this Display Technology Shoot-Out article series has always been to point out which manufactures and display technologies are leading and advancing the state-of-the-art of displays by performing comprehensive and objective Lab tests and measurements together with in-depth analysis. We point out who is leading, who is behind, who is improving, and sometimes (unfortunately) who is back pedaling… all based solely on the extensive objective measurements that we also publish, so that everyone can judge the data for themselves as well…
> 
> 
> OLED Evolution: What is especially significant and impressive is that Samsung has been systematically and significantly improving their OLED display performance with every single Galaxy generation since 2010, when we started tracking OLEDs, summarized in our Galaxy S I,II,III OLED Display, Galaxy S4 OLED Display, and Galaxy Note 3 OLED Display Technology Shoot-Out article series. The Galaxy S5 continues the rapid and impressive improvement in OLED displays and technology. The first notable OLED Smartphone, the Google Nexus One, came in decidedly last place in our 2010 Smartphone Display Shoot-Out. In a span of just four years OLED display technology is now challenging and even exceeding the performance of the best LCDs across the board in brightness, contrast, color accuracy, color management, picture quality, performance in high ambient light, screen uniformity, and viewing angles.
> 
> 
> Newest Performance Improvements: The Galaxy S5 has the newest generation of Samsung OLED displays since the Galaxy Note 3 Smartphone, which launched in October 2013, and the Galaxy S4 Smartphone, which launched in April 2013. While many people have assumed that the Galaxy S5 has basically the same display as the Galaxy S4, but just a bit bigger, that isn’t the case… Our detailed Lab tests show that the Galaxy S5 display is a major improvement over the Galaxy S4 and a significant improvement over the Galaxy Note 3 in almost every single test and measurement category – a good reason to consider upgrading.
> 
> 
> Best Smartphone Display: Based on our extensive Lab tests and measurements, the Galaxy S5 is the Best performing Smartphone display that we have ever tested. It has a long list of new records for best Smartphone display performance including: Highest Brightness, Lowest Reflectance, Highest Color Accuracy, Infinite Contrast Ratio, Highest Contrast Rating in Ambient Light, and smallest Brightness Variation with Viewing Angle. The Galaxy S5 has raised the bar for top display performance up by another notch – an impressive achievement for OLED technology!
> 
> 
> Most Accurate Colors: The Galaxy S5 Cinema Mode has the most accurate colors for any Smartphone or Tablet display that we have ever measured. This is especially important when viewing photos from family and friends (because you often know exactly what they actually should look like), for some TV shows, movies, and sporting events with image content and colors that you are familiar with, and also for viewing online merchandise, so you have a good idea of exactly what colors you’re buying and are less likely to return them.
> 
> 
> Beautiful Picture Quality: The Galaxy S5 Cinema Mode provides very nice, pleasing and accurate colors, and picture quality. Although the Image Contrast and Color Saturation are slightly too high (due to a slightly too steep Intensity Scale), the very challenging set of DisplayMate Test and Calibration Photos that we use to evaluate Picture Quality looked Beautiful, even to my experienced hyper-critical eyes. The Cinema Mode is recommended for indoor and low ambient light viewing of most standard consumer content for digital camera, HDTV, internet, and computer content, including photos, videos, and movies. The Adapt Display Mode has significantly more vibrant and saturated colors. Some people like that. It is also particularly recommended for medium and high levels of ambient light viewing because it offsets some of the reflected glare that washes out the images.
> 
> 
> Power Efficiency: OLEDs need to continue improving their power efficiency, which is critically important for mobile displays. We measured an impressive 27 percent improvement in display power efficiency between the Galaxy S5 and S4. According to Samsung, this increase is due to more efficient OLED materials and also to improvements in the display electronics and optics. While LCDs remain more power efficient for images with mostly white content (like text screens, for example), OLEDs are now more power efficient for most other content, which are typically darker, because they are emissive displays rather than transmissive like LCDs. In fact, the Galaxy S5 is 27 percent more power efficient than the Full HD LCD Smartphones we recently tested for mixed image content (that includes photos, videos, and movies, for example) with a typical 50 percent Average Picture Level, APL. If this keeps up then OLEDs may pull ahead of LCDs in total power efficiency in the near future…


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120_60#post_24550850
> 
> 
> As I said many times before our eyes assign only one bit per color (for intensity) and as long as we carry on with this 10 or 12 bit per color BS will never achieve perfectly flat delta E.


I have no idea what this means or what you think its relevance is. "One bit per color"? Why should we care whether we can achieve "perfectly flat delta E"? How does this all show that 10/12 bit color is BS? I suppose you've noticed that 10/12 bit color implies 10/12 bit grey levels.


----------



## fafrd

Just found this (Caption is *'Figure: Cost Analysis of 6-Up 55" FHD AMOLED TV versus TFT LCD TV. Source: NPD DisplaySearch Quarterly AMOLED Panel Cost Report'*):

 


If accurate, the good news is that yielded OLED panel costs have come down by more than 40% over the past year.


The bad news is that 55" yielded OLED panel costs are still more than 8x the cost of 55" LCD panels.


I'm not sure that this is the LG technology or not, but it shows the challenge LG faces in getting their prices down quickly enough to grow demand.


On the other hand, the data indicates the total cost to manufacture a 55" FHD AMOLED TV to be just over $1500. If this is true, LG probably has room to get more aggressive on pricing when they need to ...


By way of comparison, the data shows total cost to produce a 55" TFT LCD TV to be about $375, consistent, for example, with Vizio's pricing of the 55" E-Series TV at $700...


We don't have the yield data that corresponds to these costs, but we can make some triangulation based on asumptions:


If we assume that the OLED panel materials don't fundamentally cost any more than the LCD panel costs (and are the same for the purpose of this analysis) and all of the increased cost is due to poorer yield on OLED, (so the fundamental cost limit of OLED once it is completely industrialized would be to match the LCD panel costs), then this data shows that OLED yield loss in Q1'14 was about 9 times worse than LCD yield loss. If we assume the LCD yields were at 100%, then the OLED yields would be at 11% (OLED threw away 8 panels for every 1 good panel).


I've seen numbers being thrown around for current OLED yield in the 30% range. If that was true, it should mean that OLED panel costs are already significantly lower than this data indicates and OLED panel cost should be about 1/3 of what this data shows, ~$400 per OLED panel instead of ~$1100. This should mean total 55" OLED manufacturing cost would be under $800 or a little over 2X LCD manufacturing cost, and at an ASP of 3X manufacturing cost, those 55" OLED TV should be priced in the range of $2500.


I don't think they are there yet (at 30% panel yield), but as the new fab comes online late this year, pricing at the level be the first indicator that LG has improved OLED panel yields to that level.


The other interesting thing to see from this data is that the 'Yielded Module Materials' for OLED is about half of what it is for LCD. This is probably dominated by the backlight cost which does not exist for OLED.


So as an asymptote, once OLED has matched the ore mature LCD in areas like Production Expense and Personnel, and the panel yields have improved to the point that OLED panels match the cost of LCD panels, the savings OLED gets from lower 'Yielded Module Materials' will be enough to cover the additional Depreciation Costs OLED faces for the next 5 years while the new manufacturing facility is depreciated.


And once the OLED facility is full depreciated like the LCD facilities and panel yields have reached similar levels as LCD has today, OLED should fundamentally be less expensive to manufacture than LCD by as much as 25%...


[EDIT: Just ran into this from late 2012: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/low-oled-4k-tv-201212182469.htm 

*"Now, for the first time, DisplaySearch has revealed just how shockingly bad these problems are, and how much work there is to be done. Recent pilot production runs of 55-inch AMOLED panels showed astonishingly low yield rates, owing to the fragility of large-sized backplanes. Straight yield (i.e. prior to repair) came in at less than 10%, meaning that at least 9 out of 10 panels were damaged in some form or another. Mending the defective panels (either physically or electronically) merely improved yield rates to under 30% – to put it another way, more than 70% of all panels had to be discarded. Even those that do make the grade are reported to have their lifespan cut short by the bonding process which causes further instability to the organic compounds."*


So the DisplaySearch data I found above seems to be related to the Samsung AMLED technology and not the LG WOLED technology.


So from that point of view, LG is hopefully in better shape.


----------



## vinnie97

Yes, LG on last report was at 70% yield or higher. If LG was still only at 30% yield at this juncture (like Samsung), I suspect they would have thrown in the towel.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24551960
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what this means or what you think its relevance is. "One bit per color"? Why should we care whether we can achieve "perfectly flat delta E"? How does this all show that 10/12 bit color is BS? I suppose you've noticed that 10/12 bit color implies 10/12 bit grey levels.


1) delta E ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_difference ) in layman's terms is the thing that measures color accuracy. Here's how deltaE (dE) of a color accurate display looks like.



 

 The lower (flatter) delta E the more real-life like colors look like.

 



 

10 bit  i.e 30 bit (wide color gamut) per pixel displays can produce all the colors of the world ( 1 billion to be exact) by mixing colors. But when you mix colors you can never recreate the exact wavelength (color) in question you can only get the approximate wavelength ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth ). For example the wavelength (color) is 480 nm and the wavelength (mix of red and blue with a tinge of UV light looks like purple to us humans)  recreated by the aforementioned 10 bit per sub pixel display varies approx. from 480.34234 to 482.00235. So with current displays you only get the real-life color (wavelength) once in a lifetime.

 

*Does that make any sense to you so far?*


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24552365
> 
> 
> Yes, LG on last report was at 70% yield or higher. If LG was still only at 30% yield at this juncture (like Samsung), I suspect they would have thrown in the towel.


Not if they are going for broke


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24552365
> 
> 
> Yes, LG on last report was at 70% yield or higher. If LG was still only at 30% yield at this juncture (like Samsung), I suspect they would have thrown in the towel.



If that were true (70% yield already today on the pilot manufacturing line), then something does not add up.


Everything I am saying is based on the data from DisplaySearch, so if that data is flawed, ignore everything to follow.


The display search data showed Samsung's AMOLED manufacturing costs with AMOLED yields in the 11-12.5% range (1-out-of-8 to 1-out-of-7).


If LGs yields for the same size panels are at 70%, that would mean more than 5X better than the DisplaySearch Data, so OLED panel cost would be ~$200 instead of ~$1100.


And if all of the data is accurate and we assume LG faces similar costs in the areas of Production Expense, Depreciation, Personnel, and Yielded Module Expense to Samsung, this would mean that the total cost for LG to manufacture a 55" OLED TV would already be below $700.


If true, that is great and it means LG is pricing high to reduce demand while their production capacity is low.


And it means that when the new Gen 8 manufacturing line is up and running at a similar yield, LG will be able to produce close to 40,000 55" OLED TVs a month and will be able to price them as low as $2100 to drive demand.


If all of that happens within the next 12 months, I will start to believe they have a chance to pull this off...


And if pricing remains much higher than these level while LG is still not selling 40,000 OLEDs a month, we know yields are not really at 70% yet...


p.s. for the sake of argument, I've extrapolated what these manufacturing costs would mean for 65" and 77" TVs based on all f the same assumptions and 70% yield.


65" OLED would have a manufacturing cost of less than $1000 meaning it could be priced at less than $3000


77" OLED would have a manufacturing cost of less than $1200 meaning it could be priced below $3600


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24552650
> 
> 
> 77" OLED would have a manufacturing cost of less than $1200 meaning it could be priced below $3600


 I'D buy a 77 OLED for 36 bills in a jiffy! Hell I'd buy a 55 OLED for 21 hundred to go along with it







 

 

I so hope you are right about everything artwood with his LCD apocalypse is dead wrong


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120_60#post_24552599
> 
> *Does that make any sense to you so far?*


Not really. I have a rough idea of what Delta E is -- I looked it up and tried to figure out what you were saying (I failed to figure that out). I question the relevance of a measure of color difference which just considers two-color matches when we know that context makes a tremendous difference to how we perceive color. But even if I thought that minimizing all the pairwise color disparities between screen and scene were a reasonable goal (which I do not), how would this make 10/12 bit color "BS"? There is no coherent idea coming through to me, here. And what is this "one bit per color" stuff?

I wish you wouldn't write "flat" when apparently you mean "zero".


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24548479
> 
> 
> JerryW found this link to a recent article on TV sales on the Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/24/tv_sales_dropping/
> 
> 
> 
> From Faultline, 24 Mar 2014: *"According to our forecast, TV sales will fall below 200 million this year..."*
> 
> 
> which supports Rogo's view that that the forecast data in the Chart I posted and the forecast of a recovery in TV sales in 2014 and beyond by IHS and Displaysearch are optimistic...



So I don't know who Faultline is, but we are basic agreement. That said, they are convinced that there's a near-term sales drop off coming that has yet to manifest itself. While they may be right, we'll know a lot more after Q1 and Q2 whether this is really happening this fast.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24549620
> 
> 
> Can any of the experts here speculate on what might be causing this? It must be something specific to LG's manufacturing (IGZO, WRGB, etc.) since it isn't there on the Samsung. Do you think they can solve this or will it be a constant issue we'll need to live with similar to LCD backlight bleed?



So, judging from some limited sample pool and concluding this "must be something specific to LG" is a certain kind of fallacy that I'd rather not get into too deeply except to say that Samsung could easily have thrown away every non-uniform display because they were all terrible. Samsung's manufacturing doesn't lend itself to being even slightly non-uniform... But anyway, we digress....


The LG problem is either something that's allowing for additional current to flow where it ought not be doing that (a backplane problem) or is due to OLED material non-uniformity (a vapor deposition problem). One of those is happening most likely. Fixable? Maybe. I doubt vapor deposition will ever be completely perfect in terms of layering on uniform OLED material -- especially since they have to place multiple micro-thin layers in a chamber.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24552265
> 
> 
> Just found this (Caption is *'Figure: Cost Analysis of 6-Up 55" FHD AMOLED TV versus TFT LCD TV. Source: NPD DisplaySearch Quarterly AMOLED Panel Cost Report'*):
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that this is the LG technology or not, but it shows the challenge LG faces in getting their prices down quickly enough to grow demand.



The tech description in the graph means it can only be LG. Samsung doesn't use white and doesn't use oxide.


> Quote:
> On the other hand, the data indicates the total cost to manufacture a 55" FHD AMOLED TV to be just over $1500. If this is true, LG probably has room to get more aggressive on pricing when they need to ...



Ugh. Stop with this. LG and Vizio have entirely different retail models. LG cannot be Vizio and therefore cannot match Vizio's production:selling price ratio. Especially not when comparing a high-end TV (the LG) to an entry model (the Vizio.)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24552650
> 
> 
> p.s. for the sake of argument, I've extrapolated what these manufacturing costs would mean for 65" and 77" TVs based on all f the same assumptions and 70% yield.
> 
> 
> 65" OLED would have a manufacturing cost of less than $1000 meaning it could be priced at less than $3000
> 
> 
> 77" OLED would have a manufacturing cost of less than $1200 meaning it could be priced below $3600



Once you make bigger panels, the yield drops on the process. If you have a 6-up sheet for a 55-inch and you lose one to an OLED material defect, you have a yield of 5/6. That same error will cut your yields on 77-inch panels to 1/2. Now, look at a worse sheet where each side loses one panel of the 6-up... You get 4/6 on the 55s and you 0/2 on the 77s, or 0% yield. Yes, it works this way.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24552824
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. I have a rough idea of what Delta E is -- I looked it up and tried to figure out what you were saying (I failed to figure that out). I question the relevance of a measure of color difference which just considers two-color matches when we know that context makes a tremendous difference to how we perceive color. But even if I thought that minimizing all the pairwise color disparities between screen and scene were a reasonable goal (which I do not), how would this make 10/12 bit color "BS"? There is no coherent idea coming through to me, here. And what is this "one bit per color" stuff?
> 
> I wish you wouldn't write "flat" when apparently you mean "zero".


   Well, at least I gave it a half court shot. Delta E in any textbook I've read was presented a function... Zero Delta E is impossible to achieve every techie knows it. Flat Delta E in techie world means the perfect color representation. One bit per color stuff means that we should assign only one value intensity to one pixel.

 

  Images are all recorded in RGB format and displayed in RGB format. However, they are typically stored and transmitted in YPbPr (analog) or YCbCr (digital) format. These formats compress the native RGB signal with minimal loss of signal quality. Since RGB is converted to a compressed format and that format must be uncompressed prior to its final destination on the display screen, somewhere along the chain signal processing must occur. Sometimes, when the signal is improperly uncompressed or "decoded" errors are introduced. These are called color decoding errors. They typically present themselves as errors in the brightness of primary colors and hues of secondary colors. All NTSC displays have both a Color and Tint/Hue control. The main Color control primarily affects the brightness of the primary colors and the Tint/Hue control primarily affects the hue of the secondary colors. Thus, these controls are ideal for addressing color decoding errors. Unfortunately, Color and Tint affect ALL of the colors and color decoding errors are generally not evenly distributed amongst all of the colors. For this reason, Color and Tint are of only marginal use in resolving color decoding errors. Some displays have dedicated color decoding controls, which are essentially independent color/tint controls for red and green. These supplement the set's standard color/tint control, which will have already presumably been set correctly according to blue. However, MOST displays do not have this. In such cases, the best a calibrator can do is set the main color/tint control for one of the reference colors and hope that the other two are within specifications. ( http://www.displaycalibrationonline.com/colorscience_color.asp )

 

So in our RGB world green color will almost always have red or blue tint to it  

 

   In a non-RGB world for instance if we have a 512 nm wavelength or sometimes written this way .512 (grass green) of 3000 candela intensity (brightness) in the noon when we take a picture of it with a camera that can never exist in the real life all that camera should do is assign to the pixel one bit of information (that says that the pixel in question should have the following values: intensity(brightness) of 3000 cdm2 and the wavelength of 512nm ( color: grass green)) for displaying later on on the TV that could never exist for obvious reasons (like you'd need 1 billion subpixels to one pixel kind of obvious reasons). What it means is that the less "bits( a lot of information simply gets lost, however if information were not getting lost than there would be almost no difference between what we see on the "sliver screen" and out a window)" the more accurate colors and intensity of the colors are!

 

*Does it start making sense now?*

 

*Please read this* http://www.techradar.com/us/news/television/tv/bombshell-at-panasonic-resolution-doesn-t-matter-it-s-all-about-the-colour--1237586


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24553005
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24552265
> 
> 
> Just found this (Caption is *'Figure: Cost Analysis of 6-Up 55" FHD AMOLED TV versus TFT LCD TV. Source: NPD DisplaySearch Quarterly AMOLED Panel Cost Report'*):
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that this is the LG technology or not, but it shows the challenge LG faces in getting their prices down quickly enough to grow demand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tech description in the graph means it can only be LG. Samsung doesn't use white and doesn't use oxide.
Click to expand...


Good - thanks. Any reason to believe this data is not accurate? Does just over $1500 to produce a 55" LG OLED TV in Q1'14 sound accurate to you?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24553005
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120#post_24552265
> 
> 
> On the other hand, the data indicates the total cost to manufacture a 55" FHD AMOLED TV to be just over $1500. If this is true, LG probably has room to get more aggressive on pricing when they need to ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh. Stop with this. LG and Vizio have entirely different retail models. LG cannot be Vizio and therefore cannot match Vizio's production:selling price ratio. Especially not when comparing a high-end TV (the LG) to an entry model (the Vizio.)
Click to expand...


You are the one who said in an earlier post that LG would never let volumes of their new OLED production go unsold over $500...


My point was that, if manufacturing cost is ~$1500 and they are not selling the required vlumes to ramp production n the new lone at a price of $4600 (or higher), they've got room to grow demand by lowering prices further (if they need to). LG doesn't need to sell at the same low-margin model as Vizio. LG does need to sell a significantly higher volume of OLED TVs then they are selling today once the new manufacturing line comes up to speed later this year... Having to do that by making less margin is a much better position to be than having to do that by losing money.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24553005
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24552650
> 
> 
> p.s. for the sake of argument, I've extrapolated what these manufacturing costs would mean for 65" and 77" TVs based on all f the same assumptions and 70% yield.
> 
> 
> 65" OLED would have a manufacturing cost of less than $1000 meaning it could be priced at less than $3000
> 
> 
> 77" OLED would have a manufacturing cost of less than $1200 meaning it could be priced below $3600
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you make bigger panels, the yield drops on the process. If you have a 6-up sheet for a 55-inch and you lose one to an OLED material defect, you have a yield of 5/6. That same error will cut your yields on 77-inch panels to 1/2. Now, look at a worse sheet where each side loses one panel of the 6-up... You get 4/6 on the 55s and you 0/2 on the 77s, or 0% yield. Yes, it works this way.
Click to expand...


Yes, I understand that. If you want to take the simplest worst-case model of 100% of panels having a single defect and 80% of panels having a second defect, then the resulting worst-case yields (and manufacturing costs) would be:


55": 70% yield and overall cost of ~$1500 (~$4500 ASP)

65": 40% yield and overall cost of ~$4250 (~$13,000 ASP)

77": 10% yield and overall cost of ~$23,500 (??? ASP)


Hopefully the situation is not as bad as this worst-case model (meaning multiple defects on a single sheet land in the same OLED panel a meaningful % of the time, especially for 77" panels).


Looking at a worst-case model when yields achieve 90% on 55" panels gives this (assuming 60% of panels have a single defect and 40% of panels have 0 defects):


55": 90% yield and overall cost of ~$1250 (~$4500 ASP)

65": 80% yield and overall cost of ~$2325 (~$8000 ASP)

77": 70% yield and overall cost of~ $3700 (~$13,000 ASP)


It will be interesting to see where LG ends up pricing the 65", but looking at this, it's pretty clear LG can't be in a position to introduce the 77" OLED until yields on the 55" are better than 85%...


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120_60#post_24553209
> 
> 
> One bit per color stuff means that we should assign only one value intensity to one pixel.


"One bit" means there are only two possible values, not that a value is unique. ("Functional" means that a unique value is assigned.)


I appreciate the effort you go to in outlining your understanding of calibration and color accuracy. But it really doesn't seem relevant to anything I asked about. What's the point?


----------



## fafrd

Just found this dated January 23rd, 2014: http://www.oled-info.com/tags/oled_production 

*"LG Display to expand flexible OLED production towards the end of 2014


During LG Display's quarterly conference call, the company's officials updated on the LGD's OLED program. They confirmed again that the current flexible OLED monthly capacity is 6,000 4.5-gen substrates each month, and said that they have plans to expand the capacity towards the end of 2014. It seems that they mean to double the capacity, but their plans aren't fixed yet.


Regarding their M2 8-Gen OLED TV fab, it is progressing as planned and they still expect to ramp up that line in the second half of 2014. The capacity will not reach the full 26,000 monthly substrates at first, they will ramp up in two stages. The full capacity will only be reached in 2015."*


So if the Q1 production cost data if for the Gen 4.5 gen pilot plant and that is where the 70" production yield has been achieved, that equates to a capacity of 6000 unyielded or 4200 yielded 55" OLEDs a month (only 1 55" OLED per Gen 4.5 substrate, right?).


And it means that the 65" and 77" OLEDs will be introduced until the Gen 8 fab is up and running.


It also means that 70% yield on the gen 4.5 line translates to 70% defect-free panels.


I think I also read somewhere that the initial capacity at the new M2-8-Gen OLED fab will be 9000 substrates a month. And they will probably keep running only 55" panels until yields surpass the 70% level currently achieved on the Gen 4.5 line.


At that point, they will be producing an additional 40,000 55" OLEDs per month. No way those get sold until pricing is much lower than even today's discounted pricing.


If they can ever get the new line running at the level of 70% defect-free panels (similar to the defect-free rate of the current 4.5 gen line), that would translate into some interesting yield and TV cost numbers:


55": 95% yield; TV cost of ~$1200 (ASP ~$3600)

65": 90% yield; TV cost of ~$2100 (ASP ~$6300)

77": 85% yield; TV cost of ~$3100 (ASP ~$9300)


First availability of 65" panels and the price point at which they are introduced will give great insight as to how LG's plan to ramp the new M2 8-Gen OLED TV fab is progressing...


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24553348
> 
> 
> 
> "One bit" means there are only two possible values, not that a value is unique. ("Functional" means that a unique value is assigned.)
> 
> 
> I appreciate the effort you go to in outlining your understanding of calibration and color accuracy. But it really doesn't seem relevant to anything I asked about. What's the point?


  The first point is that we can never make a 100 percent color accurate display and displays that called color accurate, right now, are not that color accurate as you are had to believe ( 60% at best) that's why most people prefer the gaudiest colors over "accurate colors". It's because most people don't see those "accurate colors" as "accurate colors" on the subconscious level, they instinctively feel that there's something off about those "accurate colors, but can never quite put their finger on it.

 

   My professor used to conduct experiments on us he'd lead us first to the room with two plasmas with slightly skewered colors that were labeled as 100% color accurate and then he'd lead us to the second room where two professionally calibrated plasma TVs were set that were labeled as color inaccurate. In each room we'd view the same 10 minute video and after we were done watching video in the second room he asked if any one noticed if there was something wrong with PQ and every one belted out: NO everything is OK or everything as it should be. Then he said that we couldn't make the distinction between color accurate and color inaccurate TVs, because TVs in both rooms were fundamentally color inaccurate...  (after a while though we were able to tell the difference) 

 

 The second point is after 5 years of learning how brain works, how it processes inputs( visual, audio, tactile) I can say that human eye (a well-trained human eye to be frank) can spot even the slightest deviations of colors which in turn means absolutely nothing to absolutely everybody







 by the looks of it.


----------



## mattg3

Very true just in the way a professionally calibrated screen looks to most people.After mine was done i was underwhelmed by what i was seeing but i stayed with my cal-night setting on my LED and today i cant look at an uncalibrated screen because it looks fake and much too bright.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24553471
> 
> 
> Just found this dated January 23rd, 2014: http://www.oled-info.com/tags/oled_production
> 
> 
> 
> So if the Q1 production cost data if for the Gen 4.5 gen pilot plant and that is where the 70" production yield has been achieved, that equates to a capacity of 6000 unyielded or 4200 yielded 55" OLEDs a month (only 1 55" OLED per Gen 4.5 substrate, right?).
> 
> 
> And it means that the 65" and 77" OLEDs will be introduced until the Gen 8 fab is up and running.



LG Display has a Gen 8 pilot fab that is producing all of the televisions for sale right now. That fab (M1) has a capacity of 8,000 substrates a month. Some portion of that is being used for R&D while the rest is for commercial production.


Their Gen 8 commercial fab (M2) will begin ramping production in the 2nd half. It has capacity of 26,000 substrates a month but LG has indicated that a portion of the total capacity will be in place by the end of 2014 with the rest in 2015. They are projecting profitability in late 2015/early 2016.


As for the DisplaySearch numbers, the Q1 2014 number is an estimate that they made in the spring of 2013. I doubt LG knew exactly what their yields were going to be nine months ahead of time, much less a 3rd party research outfit. Those numbers are a complete shot in the dark. Moreover, your initial assumption that LG's OLED process would be able to match the cost structure of a low-end 55" LCD is way too aggressive.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24553599
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24553471
> 
> 
> Just found this dated January 23rd, 2014: http://www.oled-info.com/tags/oled_production
> 
> 
> 
> So if the Q1 production cost data if for the Gen 4.5 gen pilot plant and that is where the 70" production yield has been achieved, that equates to a capacity of 6000 unyielded or 4200 yielded 55" OLEDs a month (only 1 55" OLED per Gen 4.5 substrate, right?).
> 
> 
> And it means that the 65" and 77" OLEDs will be introduced until the Gen 8 fab is up and running.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG Display has a Gen 8 pilot fab that is producing all of the televisions for sale right now. That fab (M1) has a capacity of 8,000 substrates a month. Some portion of that is being used for R&D while the rest is for commercial production.
> 
> 
> Their Gen 8 commercial fab (M2) will begin ramping production in the 2nd half. It has capacity of 26,000 substrates a month but LG has indicated that a portion of the total capacity will be in place by the end of 2014 with the rest in 2015. They are projecting profitability in late 2015/early 2016.
> 
> 
> As for the DisplaySearch numbers, the Q1 2014 number is an estimate that they made in the spring of 2013. I doubt LG knew exactly what their yields were going to be nine months ahead of time, much less a 3rd party research outfit. Those numbers are a complete shot in the dark. Moreover, your initial assumption that LG's OLED process would be able to match the cost structure of a low-end 55" LCD is way too aggressive.
Click to expand...


This is helpful and interesting. Slacker - do you have any pointers to the source of this information?


If the current production is already on a gen 8 pilot line, is there any knowledge about the capacity being used for OLED TVs? I read about 6000 sheets a month somewhere - could that be it?


6000 sheets of Gen 8 substrate is a heck of a lot more volume than 6000 sheets of a Gen 4.5 substrate, so if they are 70% on 55" panels from 6000 Gen 8 substrates a month already, that should amount to 25,000 55" OLED TVs being produced a month already (or 300,000 a year) and I just don't believe the demand is already there to absorb that kind of production...


I just found this from the beginning of the year: http://news.oled-display.net/samsung-display-increase-oled-production-capacity-in-2014/ 


The table down below makes reference to


Company Factory Phase Mother Glass size Generation TFT OLED Equipment Production Capacity 000/month


LG Display AP2-E2 2 730×460 4G (Half) LTPS RGB 2Q10 2Q11 5

M1 1 2200×1250 8G(Half) Oxide White 1Q11 3Q12 8

M2 1 2200×2500 8G Oxide White 4Q12 2Q14 26

2 2200×2500 8G Oxide White 2Q14 2Q15 40


So this ties to the M1 8G line you reference but states that is it only 8K half-sheets a month (which would be ~17000 yielded 55" TVs a month at 70% yield if all 8K half-sheet were being used to produce 55" OLED TVs).


Also, I think I read somewhere that the initial phase 1 production volume off of the M2 line would be 9000 sheets per month - anyone know where that was stated?


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120_60#post_24553506
> 
> 
> The first point is that we can never make a 100 percent color accurate display ...
> 
> The second point is ... that human eye (a well-trained human eye to be frank) can spot even the slightest deviations of colors ...


I accept both those points. Thank you.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24553722
> 
> 
> 
> 6000 sheets of Gen 8 substrate is a heck of a lot more volume than 6000 sheets of a Gen 4.5 substrate, so if they are 70% on 55" panels from 6000 Gen 8 substrates a month already, that should amount to 25,000 55" OLED TVs being produced a month already (or 300,000 a year) and I just don't believe the demand is already there to absorb that kind of production...



Will you please stop trying to relate current prices to unit production? LGD has not been producing at anywhere near all of its capacity, even after you take into account yields. That may change as they launch the 4K sets but as of right now, sales are still a fraction of capacity.


Nobody disputes this and LGD is likely still making constant updates to its process.


> Quote:
> So this ties to the M1 8G line you reference but states that is it only 8K half-sheets a month (which would be ~17000 yielded 55" TVs a month at 70% yield if all 8K half-sheet were being used to produce 55" OLED TVs).
> 
> 
> Also, I think I read somewhere that the initial phase 1 production volume off of the M2 line would be 9000 sheets per month - anyone know where that was stated?



The pilot fab cuts the Gen 8 substrates in half because their equipment (cant remember whether it was IGZO or vapor deposition related) couldnt handle the full sized substrates. However, they are starting with 8,000 Gen 8 sized sheets.


The M2 commercial fab will handle the full sized substrate. It is likely just one of any number of improvements that should impact both throughput and yield.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24553802
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24553722
> 
> 
> 
> 6000 sheets of Gen 8 substrate is a heck of a lot more volume than 6000 sheets of a Gen 4.5 substrate, so if they are 70% on 55" panels from 6000 Gen 8 substrates a month already, that should amount to 25,000 55" OLED TVs being produced a month already (or 300,000 a year) and I just don't believe the demand is already there to absorb that kind of production...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you please stop trying to relate current prices to unit production? LGD has not been producing at anywhere near all of its capacity, even after you take into account yields. That may change as they launch the 4K sets but as of right now, sales are still a fraction of capacity.
> 
> 
> Nobody disputes this and LGD is likely still making constant updates to its process.
Click to expand...


Manufacturing cost is related to monthly unit production because of the amortization of facility depreciation. The NPD DisplaySearch data I found indicated ~$75 per OLED TV cost associated with depreciation in Q1'14 - to make sense of that number, you need to have some idea over what volume the fixed depreciation has been amortized. Is there any data indicating what volume of 55" OLED TVs LG is manufacturing off of the M1 8G (1/2 sheet) pilot line?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24553802
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24553722
> 
> 
> So this ties to the M1 8G line you reference but states that is it only 8K half-sheets a month (which would be ~17000 yielded 55" TVs a month at 70% yield if all 8K half-sheet were being used to produce 55" OLED TVs).
> 
> 
> Also, I think I read somewhere that the initial phase 1 production volume off of the M2 line would be 9000 sheets per month - anyone know where that was stated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pilot fab cuts the Gen 8 substrates in half because their equipment (cant remember whether it was IGZO or vapor deposition related) couldnt handle the full sized substrates. However, they are starting with 8,000 Gen 8 sized sheets.
> 
> 
> The M2 commercial fab will handle the full sized substrate. It is likely just one of any number of improvements that should impact both throughput and yield.
Click to expand...


OK, thanks - so M1 is 8Ku/month full Gen 8 sheet capacity but processed in half-sheets (so 16K half-sheets per month), I suppose you are right - the amortization can be amortized over the entire 16K half sheets being produced regardless of how many of those half sheets were used to produce TVs...


Is it known that the entire M2 production line will be devoted to the production of OLED TVs?


Is it known whether there will be any production of 65" or 77" OLED TVs on the M1 pilot line?


Is the phase 1 panel production on the M2 line known (I believe I read 9K panels per month somewhere)?


Many of you have been tracking this OLED evolution story for far longer then me and I am just trying to come up to speed. Much of this information is not easily findable on the web...


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24550781
> 
> 
> LCD backlight bleeding on any high-end display is basically non-existent nowadyas
> 
> 
> Here's the overexposed picture of MacBook pro retina in utter darkness with brightness maxed out to show problem areas


IPS LCDs rarely ever have issues with this. It's still a problem on other panel types.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24550851
> 
> 
> What I'm wondering though is do manufacturers point a very high resolution camera at the panels on the assembly line and attempt to perform a sort of per-subpixel "CLUT" style gray ramp?
> 
> 
> If they don't, then why not? It would be fairly easy to implement and could exercise each subpixel through 0 to 100% in 1% increments allowing them to level the bottom layer emission algorithms.


You probably wouldn't use a camera for this, but it's certainly possible. Sony and Eizo both do this with their professional displays.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24551329
> 
> 
> For the brightness fanatics, the S5 can hit 700 nits when outside and using automatic brightness control.


While the measurement is not _entirely_ irrelevant, the one which matters is how bright a full screen can get. Displaymate measure this to be 351 nits.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24552599
> 
> 
> The lower (flatter) delta E the more real-life like colors look like.


Delta E is a measure of error from a specific color target, not an indicator of how "realistic" color is.

A dE of 0 with BT.709 content simply means that BT.709 content is being reproduced with total accuracy - not that real life is.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24550850
> 
> 
> As I said many times before our eyes assign only one bit per color (for intensity) and as long as we carry on with this 10 or 12 bit per color BS will never achieve perfectly flat delta E.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.

1-bit per channel simply means that each subpixel can be on or off, or that it's an 8-color image.

2-bits per channel means that there are four levels of brightness for each subpixel, and it's a 64-color image.

3-bits per channel means that there are eight levels of brightness for each subpixel, creating a 512-color image.


And so on.


When testing parameters for the DCI specification, it was found that some people could discern differences in shade up to 11-bits, so 12-bit was chosen.

The wider your gamut, the further each bit is from the last, and so you need more precision as your display gamut gets wider.

DCI is pretty wide, but does not cover our entire range of vision. You would probably need more than 12-bit for that.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24553209
> 
> 
> In a non-RGB world for instance if we have a 512 nm wavelength or sometimes written this way .512 (grass green) of 3000 candela intensity (brightness) in the noon when we take a picture of it with a camera that can never exist in the real life all that camera should do is assign to the pixel one bit of information (that says that the pixel in question should have the following values: intensity(brightness) of 3000 cdm2 and the wavelength of 512nm ( color: grass green)) for displaying later on on the TV that could never exist for obvious reasons (like you'd need 1 billion subpixels to one pixel kind of obvious reasons). What it means is that the less "bits( a lot of information simply gets lost, however if information were not getting lost than there would be almost no difference between what we see on the "sliver screen" and out a window)" the more accurate colors and intensity of the colors are!
> 
> *Does it start making sense now?*


Color can be broken up into three components. Hue (wavelength) saturation, and brightness. (intensity)

How do you propose reducing the saturation in such a model?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24553909
> 
> 
> Manufacturing cost is related to monthly unit production because of the amortization of facility depreciation. The NPD DisplaySearch data I found indicated ~$75 per OLED TV cost associated with depreciation in Q1'14 - to make sense of that number, you need to have some idea over what volume the fixed depreciation has been amortized. Is there any data indicating what volume of 55" OLED TVs LG is manufacturing off of the M1 8G (1/2 sheet) pilot line?



There is zero official data on how much volume LGD might be producing right now. There is also nothing official yet on the pace of the ramp of the M2 fab. Everything you have read with respect to those numbers are educated guesses on the part of analysts. It is a nice place to start but fundamentally the numbers dont matter right now. The question is what kind of price point LGD may be able to hit by Christmas 2015. They will have had a chance to ramp the M2 fab to full capacity and work out some of the issues associated with ramping up new processes. How much can they reduce costs from the current street pricing of $5000 for the Gallery OLED while also moving up to 4K?


We'll see, but fundamentally, I believe that LGD can compete with high-end LCD's using their current production process. The yields on IGZO wont match a-si but they can eventually be very good and the depreciation per set isnt big considering the target market. Samsung's ability to match LTPS LCD costs shows that vapor deposition alone isnt an automatic disqualifier in terms of costs. None of this means that they will be able to match the low-end pricing that is shown in the DisplaySearch numbers. I think some form of printing will be necessary to do that.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554113
> 
> 
> There is also nothing official yet on the pace of the ramp of the M2 fab.



Damn, I cant even keep track of my own posts on this subject anymore.


There is an analyst report from JP Morgan that was covering a presentation from LG Display's president which indicates that they will have 8K of Gen 8 capacity on M2 by the end of the year. There are no direct quotes but I assume/believe that it came directly from LGD.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554181
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554113
> 
> 
> There is also nothing official yet on the pace of the ramp of the M2 fab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, I cant even keep track of my own posts on this subject anymore.
> 
> 
> There is an analyst report from JP Morgan that was covering a presentation from LG Display's president which indicates that they will have 8K of Gen 8 capacity on M2 by the end of the year. There are no direct quotes but I assume/believe that it came directly from LGD.
Click to expand...


Thanks - that kind of jibes with what I remember seeing (which I believe is linked to somewhere on the forum, but none of the obvious searched found it yet). I thought it was 9000 per month, but 8000 sounds close enough. As long as we (or JP Morgan) are not confusing 8000 sheets per month on the M2 fab with the current 8000 sheets per month capacity of the M1 half0sheet pilot fab...


If they have 70% yield running on the half-sheet pilot line today, I would think they should be able to get to a similar yield level relatively quickly (


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554181
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554113
> 
> 
> There is also nothing official yet on the pace of the ramp of the M2 fab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, I cant even keep track of my own posts on this subject anymore.
> 
> 
> There is an analyst report from JP Morgan that was covering a presentation from LG Display's president which indicates that they will have 8K of Gen 8 capacity on M2 by the end of the year. There are no direct quotes but I assume/believe that it came directly from LGD.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the pointer - I found this: https://markets.jpmorgan.com/research/email/-ob992pl/GPS-1327865-0 

*"· AM-OLED business and UHD: LGD expects AM-OLED related loss to increase to W600 billion in 2014 from W300 billion in 2013 and they are going to double OLED TV capacity (8K/month at 8G line) by the end of 2014. They will also add 7K/month at 4.5G for plastic display from 6K/month in 2014. They target to make money with OLED TV from late-2015 or early-2016. For UHD TV, they target to ship ~4 million units (30% M/S) in 2014. Due to conversion of existing LCD lines to AM-OLED and LTPS, despite China fab ramps, they expect total capacity to remain unchanged in the next two years. "*


Unless the DisplaySearch data is far off (which is very possible), and/or the yields are still well below 70%, and/or LG believe they will need 18 months or more to get the M2 line running at the yields of the current pilot line, something does not add up.


If the DisplaySearch data indicating a manufacturing cost for a 55" OLED TV of ~$1500 in Q1'14 is accurate, LG should already be in a position to 'make money with OLED TV' today with an ASP of $4600 or more.


My suspicion (unfortunately) is that the DisplaySearch data is deeply flawed in some way.


[EDIT: figured this out in my next post (flaw in DisplaySearch data, and why LG will not 'make money' until late 2015). The $70 per unit they are showing in depreciation expense assumes full 26,000 sheet-per-month production running at 100% yield (ie: 156,000 55" OLED TVs per month). When actual yielded production is far below that level, depreciation expense will be higher than everything else combined. As an example, when production rate is only 5000 55" OLEDs a month, depreciation expense alone will be $2200 and total 55" TV cost based on 70% yield will be over $3500]


----------



## Artwood

Will OLEDS last? If you watch one 12 hours a day how will the blue look 5 years later?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554181
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554113
> 
> 
> There is also nothing official yet on the pace of the ramp of the M2 fab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, I cant even keep track of my own posts on this subject anymore.
> 
> 
> There is an analyst report from JP Morgan that was covering a presentation from LG Display's president which indicates that they will have 8K of Gen 8 capacity on M2 by the end of the year. There are no direct quotes but I assume/believe that it came directly from LGD.
Click to expand...


I still swear that there was a Korean news article linked to by some post that did attribute a direct quote to LG on some of these production numbers, but I have been unable to track it down. I did re-find this January 2014 article: http://news.oled-display.net/why-lg-display-will-dominate-the-oled-tv-panel-market-in-2014/ 

*"LG can mass produce 8.000 sheets per month on the 8G fab, but the company plans to expand with more fabrication lines up to 26.000 per month."*


So between JP Morgan and this, the roadmap towards a first production level of 8000 8G sheets per month by the end of 2014 increasing to 26,000 8G sheets per month by the end of 2015 seems to be pretty solid as a target.


And 26,000 8G sheets at 70% yield translates into 12 x 26,000 x 6 x 70% = 1.3M 55" OLED TVs per year, so LG will be looking to sell that level of volume in 2016. And if yield increase to 85% by them, that translates to 1.6M 55" OLED TVs per year.


8000 8G sheets equates to 400,000 55" TVs per year (or 34,000 per month), so that is the production rate (and sales rate) they want to hit by the end of this year if they were using all of the capacity by then.


34,000 55" 1080p TVs priced at $4600 selling every month is a dog that is not going to hunt in my book.


At 65" (and assuming 4K does not result in additional yield loss), 40% yield (equivalent to 55" at 70% yield) would result in just under 10,000 TVs a month at a cost (based on DisplaySearch data) of ~$4250. Selling 10,000 65" 4K OLEDs at a price of $8500 or so _might_ have a chance of materializing.


As Rogo had said earlier, this all looks more believable if they get the yield loss down by half. If the yield on the 55" panels is increased from 70% to 85%, the yield on the 65" panels increases from 40% to 70% (and as a result yielded production capacity increases to 17,000 per month). Manufacturing cost drops from ~$4250 to ~$2600 and selling 17,000 of those 65" 4K OLEDs a month at prices in the range of $5000 by 2015 starts to look downright possible.


I don't see how they can commit to the capacity expansion to the full 26,000 sheets a month before they are confident that they can get the 65" yields to 70% (55" yields to 85%) soon after that additional capacity comes on line. At that stage, they will have capacity to produce 55,000 65" 4K TVs a month or over 650,000 a year.


And I just realized what the earlier reference to 'making money by the end of 2015' is all about - the DisplaySearch data shows only $75 per unit in depreciation, but this is a fully loaded value. As long as the capacity is much less than 26,000 sheets a month, the actual depreciation expense amortized on every OLED TV produced will be far higher than $75 a TV.


If we guestimate $11 million dollars a month in depreciation expense, at a full yielded production based on 8000 panels a month of 34,000 55" OLED TVs a month, that $11 million in depreciation translates into $323 per TV. Only once production is expanded to 26,000 panels a month & 109,000 55" OLEDs a month does that $11M in depreciation drop to about ~$100 per TV. In fact, the DisplaySearch depreciation of $70 a unit is based on raw unyielded production of 26,000 x 6 = 156,000 OLED being produced a month. And if LG is producing only 5000 55" OLEDs a month on the M2 line, depreciation cost per OLED skyrockets to $2200 (so total cost for 55" OLED based on 70% yield increases from the $1500 shown by DisplaySearch to more than $3600)...


Hence the chicken and egg situation LG will be facing once the new M2-line is operational: LG needs to get the volumes up so that they can get the costs down (due to depreciation expense) and LG needs to get the costs down so that they can get the volume up. It'll be interesting to watch and pricing announced for the 65" should give an interesting perspective on where they stand and how quickly they expect to progress.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24554401
> 
> 
> Will OLEDS last? If you watch one 12 hours a day how will the blue look 5 years later?


So now that you're anti-OLED as well as anti-LCD, what do you expect your next display to be? And when do you think that will be?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554493
> 
> 
> 
> 34,000 55" 1080p TVs priced at $4600 selling every month is a dog that is not going to hunt in my book.
> 
> 
> At 65" (and assuming 4K does not result in additional yield loss), 40% yield (equivalent to 55" at 70% yield) would result in just under 10,000 TVs a month at a cost (based on DisplaySearch data) of ~$4250. Selling 10,000 65" 4K OLEDs at a price of $8500 or so _might_ have a chance of materializing.



Nobody thinks that they are going to sell 34,000 55" 1080p OLED's a month at $4600 a unit.


Prices have come down dramatically and they need to continue to do so. They also need to add 4K and multiple screen sizes. If the IGZO yields are high enough, then 4K will ultimately add little to the cost of the display. That is a minimum bar they need to hit before the M2 fab ramps to full capacity. They would be unlikely to be adding any capacity at all if they didnt think this was achievable.


I think most of the disagreement you are getting is simply the price point that OLED's need to hit. You are stuck on Vizio's pricing while I think that Sony/Samsung pricing are for more relevant to OLED's initial success in the high-end. Perhaps Vizio wipes the floor with Sony/Samsung in the high-end by the end of 2015, but I'll need more evidence that this is happening before I'd commit to it as a baseline scenario.


----------



## rogo

1) LG is not changing its margin structure to meet Vizio's anytime soon. Maybe not ever. Almost certainly not on OLED by 2015. It makes no sense. Please don't quote me out of context to try to show I said they would consider this; I didn't.


2) I'm with Slacker on the short term. The OLED competes with flagship Sony/Samsung/etc, product. Here's what I want to be explicit about however: *There is no volume at a premium to those.* What that means -- and please be careful here -- is that if the global market for that tier is 10% of 10% of the TV market, or 2 million units, LG will capture practically no volume at a premium of $1000 to those competing products. Even at a $500 premium, it will capture hardly any volume. If LG wants to sell 2 million units, *it needs to price at or below those competing products*. Now, you can insert whatever market size you want here, but even if you believe the market is 5 million units (and it isn't), LG at a $1000 premium would be in position to sell maybe 500K units annually.


3) 26,000 x 6 x 12 x 70% = 1.26 million. That's some reasonable low-end number for the target production for LG on a run-rate basis by the end of 2015/early 2016 I'd guess. To sell that much product, they need to be very, very close to competing LCD products in price. I'd put the 55-inch price at ~$3000. You want to argue it's $3500? I'd say I'm having a tough time seeing 1 million TVs selling for that price when the market in the U.S. has gotten conditioned to think that a flagship 55-inch Samsung runs $2500. Now, that said, the 4K shift has pushed that price up _but it's also caused the volumes to plummet_ for flagships.


It might be more useful to say that whatever the price in holiday 2015, I'm firmly of the opinion that the 55" model has to reached $3000 by 2016 in order for LG to continue justify investing in the technology and growing its capacity. If it can do that, it can begin to look at moving capacity to the 5 million level by 2018 or so. While that's "only" ~2% of the TV market, it's not terribly off from where plasma was in its out years and would be reasonably considered an achievement.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554037
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.
> 
> 1-bit per channel simply means that each subpixel can be on or off, or that it's an 8-color image. One string in Monochrome  of information 1 or 0 (on or off)
> 
> 2-bits per channel means that there are four levels of brightness for each subpixel, and it's a 64-color image.
> 
> 3-bits per channel means that there are eight levels of brightness for each subpixel, creating a 512-color image.
> 
> 
> And so on.
> 
> 
> When testing parameters for the DCI specification, it was found that some people could discern differences in shade up to 11-bits, so 12-bit was chosen.
> 
> The wider your gamut, the further each bit is from the last, and so you need more precision as your display gamut gets wider.
> 
> DCI is pretty wide, but does not cover our entire range of vision. You would probably need more than 12-bit for that.
> 
> Color can be broken up into three components. Hue (wavelength) saturation, and brightness. (intensity)
> 
> How do you propose reducing the saturation in such a model?


  Fixed wavelengths would be assigned to one sub-pixel for example data assigned to one sub pixel would look like this :green grass (code of color: 0100100110101010101010, decoded: 512 nm): Pixel number: (code of pixel: 0100100110101010101010101010010100101010110100110000,decoded: Pixel number 1342334)  ( code :010010011010101010101010101001010010101011010011000010101010101010101010101111010101010101010101010101010101111, decoded: intensity: 3000 cd/m2, (SUB)Pixel number: 10123123123123, color:512nm)  with the approximate size of maybe 150 bytes per pixel meaning there would be only one (long, but not necessarily ) string of information per pixel not 10 or 12 which causes decoding problems(mostly due to compression) some data simply gets lost in the shuffle during decoding.



Display would be 1 bit per sub-pixel i.e color (one string for intensity), but it would aslo be 1 billion bits per pixel meaning the about 999 million of sub pixels would be responsible for hues, saturation etc. (for bright red there would be  one sub-pixel dark red there would be another etc.)

 

   Quattron ( marketing gimmick)  is the brand name of an LCD color display technology produced by Sharp Electronics. In addition to the standard RGB (Red Green and Blue) color subpixels, the technology utilizes a yellow fourth color subpixel (RGBy) which Sharp claims increases the range of displayable colors,[1][2] and *which may mimic more closely the way the brain processes color information.*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattron

 

 Does it make sense, now?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120_60#post_24555475
> 
> 
> Quattron ( marketing gimmick)  is the brand name of an LCD color display technology produced by Sharp Electronics. In addition to the standard RGB (Red Green and Blue) color subpixels, the technology utilizes a yellow fourth color subpixel (RGBy) which Sharp claims increases the range of displayable colors,[1][2] and *which may mimic more closely the way the brain processes color information.*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattron
> 
> 
> 
> Does it make sense, now?


 

Quoting wikipedia only makes me have to go through the article and make sure that those guys are properly interpreting their cited sources (indeed if citations are even there).

 

By the way, not all the colors we see are tightly spectral in nature.  Many are additives themselves (which then approximate sine waves that trigger the cones that peak in red green and blue regions).  The yellow of my wooden desk is colored by the colors of the items on it.  These deform the sine wave subtly.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24555570
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, not all the colors we see are tightly spectral in nature.  Many are additives themselves (which then approximate sine waves that trigger the cones that peak in red green and blue regions).  The yellow of my wooden desk is colored by the colors of the items on it.  These deform the sine wave subtly.


Yes, it does change the oscillations of a wave a bit hence it changes the length, but our brains ( what we see is what our conscious brains see not our eyes) are not stupid they know that the table is yellow and most likely has the wavelength of 580nm no matter what "cones" say even if you cover your table with the green cloth and cut a 4 inch square in the middle of it the 4 visible inches will still be "unadulterated" yellow despite the prevalence of  green in the air. Our brains are very apt (think cerebellum) when it comes to distinguishing colors in spite of our cones being very poor at it (doesn't that seem impressive to you?







).

 

 That's why the following statement is true : In addition to the standard RGB (Red Green and Blue) color subpixels, the technology utilizes a yellow fourth color subpixel (RGBy) which Sharp claims increases the range of displayable colors,[1][2] and *which may mimic more closely the way the brain processes color information. *


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Quote:Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9120_60#post_24555713
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24555570
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, not all the colors we see are tightly spectral in nature.  Many are additives themselves (which then approximate sine waves that trigger the cones that peak in red green and blue regions).  The yellow of my wooden desk is colored by the colors of the items on it.  These deform the sine wave subtly.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does change the oscillations of a wave a bit hence it changes the length, but our brains ( what we see is what our conscious brains see not our eyes) are not stupid they know that the table is yellow and most likely has the wavelength of 580nm no matter what "cones" say even if you cover your table with the green cloth and cut a 4 inch square in the middle of it the 4 visible inches will still be "unadulterated" yellow despite the prevalence of  green in the air. Our brains are very apt (think cerebellum) when it comes to distinguishing colors in spite of our cones being very poor at it (doesn't that seem impressive to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If what you're talking about is color constancy, then yes, it is indeed very impressive.  But that this assertion that our brains "know that the table is yellow and most likely has the wavelength of 580nm no matter what "cones" say" only serves to defeat the notion that spectral replication matters at all.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, be careful with the wording: color doesn't "exist" in the physical world at all.  It's *entirely* a neuro-optic construct.  An alien with 4 cone-like sensors with peak sensitivities at 300nm, 400nm, 500nm, and smack dab in the middle of Xrays, would have a completely different sense of the EM spectrum than we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> That's why the following statement is true : In addition to the standard RGB (Red Green and Blue) color subpixels, the technology utilizes a yellow fourth color subpixel (RGBy) which Sharp claims increases the range of displayable colors,[1][2] and *which may mimic more closely the way the brain processes color information. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That statement is far from true.  If a camera comes in as RGB information from RGB sensors, it does no good to crock the additive yellow from that and then display it *as if it were a sensor dedicated to it.*  None.
Click to expand...


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554618
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554493
> 
> 
> 
> 34,000 55" 1080p TVs priced at $4600 selling every month is a dog that is not going to hunt in my book.
> 
> 
> At 65" (and assuming 4K does not result in additional yield loss), 40% yield (equivalent to 55" at 70% yield) would result in just under 10,000 TVs a month at a cost (based on DisplaySearch data) of ~$4250. Selling 10,000 65" 4K OLEDs at a price of $8500 or so _might_ have a chance of materializing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks that they are going to sell 34,000 55" 1080p OLED's a month at $4600 a unit.
> 
> 
> Prices have come down dramatically and they need to continue to do so. They also need to add 4K and multiple screen sizes. If the IGZO yields are high enough, then 4K will ultimately add little to the cost of the display. That is a minimum bar they need to hit before the M2 fab ramps to full capacity. They would be unlikely to be adding any capacity at all if they didnt think this was achievable.
Click to expand...


Sounds like we are pretty much in agreement. I'm not sure 4K is _needed_ for a 55" TV but it certainly is for 77" and probably also for 65" (and it seems that LG has committed to 4K at all 3 screen sizes this year).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554618
> 
> 
> I think most of the disagreement you are getting is simply the price point that OLED's need to hit. You are stuck on Vizio's pricing while I think that Sony/Samsung pricing are for more relevant to OLED's initial success in the high-end. Perhaps Vizio wipes the floor with Sony/Samsung in the high-end by the end of 2015, but I'll need more evidence that this is happening before I'd commit to it as a baseline scenario.



Rogo says $3000 for a 55" OLED by late 2015 / early 2016. That ;s more realistic that $4600, but I still have difficulty seeing LG selling 34,000 55" OLEDs a month at that price by Christmas 2015. I mean, it's already getting more and more difficult to even find a 55" flagship in the 2014 market. Sony's got the 55X900B priced at $4000 this year but by 2015 they probably won't even have a 55" flagship or sub flagship in the market (and if they do, it's unlikely to be selling for $3000 by Christmas 2015). Samsung's also priced their 55" U9000 curved flagship at $4000 but I suspect we'll see significant discounts on both 55X900B and the U9000 by Black Friday and by 2015 I question whether 4K 55" Flagship TVs will even be in the market at all.


From that point of view, I think the 65" Premium market is the more important segment to focus on for 2015, since arguing about pricepoints about a market subsegment that may not even exist 20 months from seems pointless.


Sony has their 65"X95-B priced at $8000 MSRP this year. Samsung has their 65" U9000 priced at $5000 street ($6000 MSRP). If LG can make a 55" OLED for $1500 and sell it for $3000, then they ought to be able to make a 65" OLED for $4000 and sell it for $8000. They could probably sell a good number of 65" OLEDs at that price this year, but I have difficulty seeing that pricing holding up until late 2105. We'll have to see as this year unfolds where Panasonic prices the 65" AX900, Toshiba prices the 65" L9400U, and Vizio prices the 65" Reference Series and how that pricing evolves as we approach Black Friday, but my suspicion is that once the dust settles on 2014, we will see that the market for $8000 65" Flagship TVs is gone forever and even at $6000 the market may be shrinking fast.


It's about much more than Vizio's pricing - it's about the evolution of the market pricing for 65" Flagship TVs. And when we look at 65" Flagships, Samsung's $5000 price for the 65" U9000 should be of much greater concern to LG than Vizio's as-yet-unannounced pricing for the 65" R Series...


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554505
> 
> 
> So now that you're anti-OLED as well as anti-LCD, what do you expect your next display to be? And when do you think that will be?


I'm not anti-OLED or anti-LCD and I also wonder what is the anticipated condition of blues after 5 years of 12 hour a day use.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24556147
> 
> 
> If what you're talking about is color constancy, then yes, it is indeed very impressive. But that this assertion that our brains "know that the table is yellow and most likely has the wavelength of 580nm no matter what "cones" say" only serves to defeat the notion that spectral replication matters at all. By the way, be careful with the wording: color doesn't "exist" in the physical world at all. It's entirely a neuro-optic construct. An alien with 4 cone-like sensors with peak sensitivities at 300nm, 400nm, 500nm, and smack dab in the middle of Xrays, would have a completely different sense of the EM spectrum than we do.
> 
> Quote: That's why the following statement is true : In addition to the standard RGB (Red Green and Blue) color subpixels, the technology utilizes a yellow fourth color subpixel (RGBy) which Sharp claims increases the range of displayable colors,[1][2] and which may mimic more closely the way the brain processes color information. That statement is far from true. If a camera comes in as RGB information from RGB sensors, it does no good to crock the additive yellow from that and then display it as if it were a sensor dedicated to it. None.


1) Yes, if a camera is RGB then there's absolutely no point in having Yellow sub pixel. But in the future there

might appear RGBy or RAINBOW types of camera.

 

2) Color constancy is color accuracy per se! If colors are consistent then our brains can temper with them a little bit to make them match colors from the real-life . All the calibration does is it increases the constancy of colors (a deviation of color from the target color).

 

3) RGBy type of display significantly(noticeably) improves perceivable color gamut and color constancy. "RAINBOW" types of displays will improve color constancy even further and so on.

 

4) Color constancy is a desirable feature of computer vision, and many algorithms have been developed for this purpose. These include several retinex algorithms.[7] These algorithms receive as input the red/green/blue values of each pixel of the image and attempt to estimate the reflectances of each point. One such algorithm operates as follows: the maximal red value rmax of all pixels is determined, and also the maximal green value gmax and the maximal blue value bmax. Assuming that the scene contains objects which reflect all red light, and (other) objects which reflect all green light and still others which reflect all blue light, one can then deduce that the illuminating light source is described by (rmax, gmax, bmax). For each pixel with values (r, g, b) its reflectance is estimated as (r/rmax, g/gmax, b/bmax). The original retinex algorithm proposed by Land and McCann uses a localized version of this principle.[8][9] Although retinex models are still widely used in computer vision, *they (RGB) have been shown not to accurately model human color perception*.[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_constancy


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554811
> 
> 
> 1) LG is not changing its margin structure to meet Vizio's anytime soon. Maybe not ever. Almost certainly not on OLED by 2015. It makes no sense. Please don't quote me out of context to try to show I said they would consider this; I didn't.



The focus is not on Vizio, the focus is on the market. Where the 65" Sony and Samsung flagships are priced by late 2015 is as good of a benchmark as any. From what you write below, I believe that you and I are in agreement than LG's OLED's need to be priced smack on the average of the Sony and Samsung flagship to have any chance of significant share of the flagship subsegment (regardless of what that means for margin structure, as long as it is positive).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554811
> 
> 
> 2) I'm with Slacker on the short term. The OLED competes with flagship Sony/Samsung/etc, product. Here's what I want to be explicit about however: *There is no volume at a premium to those.* What that means -- and please be careful here -- is that if the global market for that tier is 10% of 10% of the TV market, or 2 million units, LG will capture practically no volume at a premium of $1000 to those competing products. Even at a $500 premium, it will capture hardly any volume. If LG wants to sell 2 million units, *it needs to price at or below those competing products*. Now, you can insert whatever market size you want here, but even if you believe the market is 5 million units (and it isn't), LG at a $1000 premium would be in position to sell maybe 500K units annually.



I'm not sure if that boldface was directed at me, since we are in violent agreement on everything you have written here in 2). Using 2014 65" Flagships as a reference, Sony 65" X950B has an MSRP of $8000 (certain to be lower when street pricing materializes) while Samsung 65" U9000 has a street of $5000 and an MSRP of $6000. If LG wants to capture any significant share f the 65" Flagship market this year, the 65" EC9800 needs to be priced below $6500 (which they almost certainly cannot do in 2014). By late 2015, corresponding pricing on 65" Flagship TVs is difficult to divine, but it is almost certainly going to be lower...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554811
> 
> 
> 3) 26,000 x 6 x 12 x 70% = 1.26 million. That's some reasonable low-end number for the target production for LG on a run-rate basis by the end of 2015/early 2016 I'd guess. To sell that much product, they need to be very, very close to competing LCD products in price. I'd put the 55-inch price at ~$3000. You want to argue it's $3500? I'd say I'm having a tough time seeing 1 million TVs selling for that price when the market in the U.S. has gotten conditioned to think that a flagship 55-inch Samsung runs $2500. Now, that said, the 4K shift has pushed that price up _but it's also caused the volumes to plummet_ for flagships.



By late 2015, I have difficulty seeing much of any market for 55" flagship models at all. Sony did not offer a 55" X950B flagship this year, only the sub-flagship X9000 (with an MSRP of $4000). Samsung did have a 55" U9000 flagship also priced at $4000. Panasonic will not have a 55" Flagship this year. By 2015, it will surprise me to see any 55" flagship models in the market. I think this entire discussion is more effectively based on 65" Flagship pricing given the time horizon to late 2015.


If LG is only able to produce 55" OLEDs at high yield by late 2015, maybe they can sell 109,200 a month at $3000 each, but it's not a slam dunk.


By late 2015, I suspect the sweet spot in terms of flagship volume is likely to be at 65", so hopefully LG is confident that they can get the yields on those larger panels sizes to acceptable levels by late 2015.


If $3000 is your pricepoint for 55" OLED by late 2015, I'd be interested on your thoughts regarding pricepoints for 65" OLED by late 2015. Based on today's 65" Flagship pricing by Sony and Samsung, it would seem that the 65" OLED price would have to be below $6500. By late 2015, I believe there will have been further decline in this 65" flagship pricing level. Your thoughts appreciated.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9150#post_24554811
> 
> 
> It might be more useful to say that whatever the price in holiday 2015, I'm firmly of the opinion that the 55" model has to reached $3000 by 2016 in order for LG to continue justify investing in the technology and growing its capacity. If it can do that, it can begin to look at moving capacity to the 5 million level by 2018 or so. While that's "only" ~2% of the TV market, it's not terribly off from where plasma was in its out years and would be reasonably considered an achievement.



In general, I agree with everything you have written, I just have some difficulty seeing 55" being the sweat spot of the high-end Flagship market by 2016.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24556349
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not anti-OLED or anti-LCD and I also wonder what is the anticipated condition of blues after 5 years of 12 hour a day use.


Nothing will happen!   If you calibrate your TV at 150 nits of luminance (it's a (current) reference standard for not really brightly lit rooms and  dark rooms)  then after 5 years of 12 hours a day on the brightness will drop to 130-140 (assuming white OLED ages linearly) and all you will have to do in five years be crank the brightness up a few notches and your TV will be good to go for another 5 years. In another 5 years will repeat the same thing. My guess is OLEDs with 450 nits can go for 20-30 years of 12 hours a day watching if set at 150 nits of luminance.

 

And blue after 5 years of 12 hour a day will be the same blue


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24556273
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like we are pretty much in agreement. I'm not sure 4K is _needed_ for a 55" TV but it certainly is for 77" and probably also for 65" (and it seems that LG has committed to 4K at all 3 screen sizes this year).



To be clear, it's _needed_ from a marketing perspective. It's probably not needed from a technical perspective. But marketing / perception > everything else when it comes to selling stuff.


> Quote:
> Rogo says $3000 for a 55" OLED by late 2015 / early 2016. That ;s more realistic that $4600, but I still have difficulty seeing LG selling 34,000 55" OLEDs a month at that price by Christmas 2015. I mean, it's already getting more and more difficult to even find a 55" flagship in the 2014 market.



So this is a fascinating point -- to a degree. If there is nothing at 55 inches that runs more than $2000 by the time the LG is in mass production, the price ceiling they have to reach is lower.


> Quote:
> It's about much more than Vizio's pricing - it's about the evolution of the market pricing for 65" Flagship TVs. And when we look at 65" Flagships, Samsung's $5000 price for the 65" U9000 should be of much greater concern to LG than Vizio's as-yet-unannounced pricing for the 65" R Series...



Here's some important information to chew on. First, let's go with your thesis that "flagshippery" moves to 65 inches. That's good news for LG in terms of competing on price. It'll be a lot easier to make a $6000 TV that competes with $5000 TVs somewhat reasonably... But there are huge caveats. (1) The TV market is vanishingly small at $6000, no matter how good the TV is. Ask Sharp how the Elite sold. (Hint: It never sniffed 100K sales in the U.S.). (2) The 65-inch market is really quite minuscule compared to the 55-inch market. I don't have numbers handy, but I'd guess it's about 5:1 in terms of difference. LG can't drive production-scale economics on 65-inch panels.


If your theory is right that 55-inch flagships are going to be rarer and rarer, LG may be making the right move to commoditize the panels sooner rather than later. Selling a lot of really decent 55-inch TVs in multiple brands for $2500 may be absolutely necessary to drive fab utlilization.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24556462
> 
> 
> The focus is not on Vizio, the focus is on the market. Where the 65" Sony and Samsung flagships are priced by late 2015 is as good of a benchmark as any. From what you write below, I believe that you and I are in agreement than LG's OLED's need to be priced smack on the average of the Sony and Samsung flagship to have any chance of significant share of the flagship subsegment (regardless of what that means for margin structure, as long as it is positive).



Yeah, in the example above, if they price $1000 above Sony, they capture maybe 2% of the 2% of the market that is premium 65" TVs. Whatever that number is, it's statistical noise.


> Quote:
> I'm not sure if that boldface was directed at me, since we are in violent agreement on everything you have written here in 2). Using 2014 65" Flagships as a reference, Sony 65" X950B has an MSRP of $8000 (certain to be lower when street pricing materializes) while Samsung 65" U9000 has a street of $5000 and an MSRP of $6000. If LG wants to capture any significant share f the 65" Flagship market this year, the 65" EC9800 needs to be priced below $6500 (which they almost certainly cannot do in 2014). By late 2015, corresponding pricing on 65" Flagship TVs is difficult to divine, but it is almost certainly going to be lower...



It was general boldfacing for emphasis. Without spending serious time on your numbers, they seem about right to me. Irkuck and I have been beating this drum since I don't know when: LCD keeps making it harder for OLED to gain a fooothold. That was true in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.... and it will be true for years to come. The idea that LCD is going to go and make it easy is wrong. The only way it gets easy for OLED is when it's genuinely less expensive to make a basic panel than a basic LCD panel. Because at that point, OLED can compete -- and win -- at every price band.


But as we explained in gory detail in 2012, to get there you need to product millions at higher prices and sell them. Without starting the learning curve, you can never graduate. LG will face this problem through the end of the decade. The Gen 8 fab is basically step 2 of their "12 step" program.


> Quote:
> By late 2015, I have difficulty seeing much of any market for 55" flagship models at all. Sony did not offer a 55" X950B flagship this year, only the sub-flagship X9000 (with an MSRP of $4000). Samsung did have a 55" U9000 flagship also priced at $4000. Panasonic will not have a 55" Flagship this year. By 2015, it will surprise me to see any 55" flagship models in the market. I think this entire discussion is more effectively based on 65" Flagship pricing given the time horizon to late 2015.



Again, if this becomes true, LG might well be limited to something like a $2500 price. It's hard to math this out... I've figured that market at 2 1/2 million (including everything larger than 55 inches that's premium as well). But that's crude math. Can LG move 1 million units annualized at $3000 next year? It seems believable. It's a lot more believable than $3500. Would $2500 be a lot easier? Well sure.


> Quote:
> If $3000 is your pricepoint for 55" OLED by late 2015, I'd be interested on your thoughts regarding pricepoints for 65" OLED by late 2015. Based on today's 65" Flagship pricing by Sony and Samsung, it would seem that the 65" OLED price would have to be below $6500. By late 2015, I believe there will have been further decline in this 65" flagship pricing level. Your thoughts appreciated.
> 
> In general, I agree with everything you have written, I just have some difficulty seeing 55" being the sweat spot of the high-end Flagship market by 2016.



So, yeah, I don't see it as a sweet spot, I see it as necessary for volume. As for pricing on larger, I suppose we'll see what happens to the premium end of the market in 2014. So far, those Sony prices look incredibly dumb and untenable to me. But, then, Sony is happy moving 50K units of stuff like the top-end XBR. They see the market as small and prove it's small. If the world changes under them, then we'll see what happens.


My sense is that the price on the 65-inch and 77-inch looks ridiculous compared to the 55s. People will say, "Why is it so much more for just 10 inches?"


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557215
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing will happen!   If you calibrate your TV at 150 nits of luminance (it's a (current) reference standard for not really brightly lit rooms and  dark rooms)  then in 5 years of 12 hour a day watching the brightness will drop to 130-140 (assuming white OLED ages linearly) and all you will have to do in five years be crank the brightness up a few notches and your TV will be good to go for another 5 years. In another 5 years will repeat the same thing. My guess is OLEDs with 450 nits can go for 20-30 years of 12 hour a day watching if set at 150 nits of luminance.
> 
> 
> And blue after 5 years of 12 hour a day watching will be the same blue



This seems to be a fundamental misapprehension of what "white" is on the LG. White is a combination color produced by multiple layers of OLED material, including a fluorescent blue that doesn't have anywhere near the lifespan of the red/green (which many have speculated or confirmed is applied as a yellow). Whenever you activate any pixel in the LG, the blue part of the stack dies a little bit faster than the rest of the stack.


LG has hand-waved about this a bit and made a lot of claims -- and there are some ridiculous papers that have been linked here that are also thoroughly absurd on this topic -- but none have been overly persuasive.


5 x 365 x 12 = 22K hours. That's a lot of the alleged life of the blue. The idea the TV would be very good after this kind of use is a bit hard to swallow. At minimum, it will need multiple recalibrations to be workable with that kind of use. In all likelihood, you will not be able to find a satisfactory white if you use an LG that way and therefore you will not be able to make any kind of satisfactory colors.


That said... For the majority of people who use a TV half or less this amount, I would not be over worried about lifespan in considering the current LG product.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180_60#post_24557393
> 
> 
> 5 x 365 x 12 = 22K hours. That's a lot of the alleged life of the blue. The idea the TV would be very good after this kind of use is a bit hard to swallow. At minimum, it will need multiple recalibrations to be workable with that kind of use. In all likelihood, you will not be able to find a satisfactory white if you use an LG that way and therefore you will not be able to make any kind of satisfactory colors.


 

Hardly matters.  After 12 years you'd be able to replace it for $125.  I have to wonder what would my $1700 60" LCD have cost 12 years ago (2002).  $100,000?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557393
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24556273
> 
> 
> Rogo says $3000 for a 55" OLED by late 2015 / early 2016. That ;s more realistic that $4600, but I still have difficulty seeing LG selling 34,000 55" OLEDs a month at that price by Christmas 2015. I mean, it's already getting more and more difficult to even find a 55" flagship in the 2014 market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this is a fascinating point -- to a degree. If there is nothing at 55 inches that runs more than $2000 by the time the LG is in mass production, the price ceiling they have to reach is lower.
Click to expand...


That is exactly the point I have been trying to make. There was a time when you could find a flagship 50" or even 48" TV in the market a few years ago, but those days are gone. We are seeing more and more evidence of the best technologies only being used for flagship TVs 58" and above. So in addition to whatever the pricing trend is over the next 20 months, there is also a risk that the premium market moves beyond 55" by late 2015.


But in any case, we are in agreement - LG will need to match whatever market price exists for premium / flagship 55" TVs by late 2015 if they want to have any chance to sell 1M+ of them in 2016...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557393
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24556273
> 
> 
> It's about much more than Vizio's pricing - it's about the evolution of the market pricing for 65" Flagship TVs. And when we look at 65" Flagships, Samsung's $5000 price for the 65" U9000 should be of much greater concern to LG than Vizio's as-yet-unannounced pricing for the 65" R Series...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some important information to chew on. First, let's go with your thesis that "flagshippery" moves to 65 inches. That's good news for LG in terms of competing on price. It'll be a lot easier to make a $6000 TV that competes with $5000 TVs somewhat reasonably... But there are huge caveats. (1) The TV market is vanishingly small at $6000, no matter how good the TV is. Ask Sharp how the Elite sold. (Hint: It never sniffed 100K sales in the U.S.). (2) The 65-inch market is really quite minuscule compared to the 55-inch market. I don't have numbers handy, but I'd guess it's about 5:1 in terms of difference. LG can't drive production-scale economics on 65-inch panels.
> 
> 
> If your theory is right that 55-inch flagships are going to be rarer and rarer, LG may be making the right move to commoditize the panels sooner rather than later. Selling a lot of really decent 55-inch TVs in multiple brands for $2500 may be absolutely necessary to drive fab utlilization.
Click to expand...


I don't want to challenge your assertions because you have been following these markets a lot longer than me. On the other hand, I do want to point out that the number of 70" Elites that Sharp sold in 2011 and 2012 is unlikely to be very relevant to the number of 65" Flagship TVs sold in 2016. And while I am sure you are correct that the 65-inch market is miniscule compared to the 55-inch market, I suspect that statement applies to the overall market and would love to know the percentage of the premium/flagship market that is 55" and lower in 2014 compared to the premium/flagship market above 55-inches. My suspicion is that the over 55" subsequent is more than miniscule and may be significant already in 2014. More important is the trend - if the relative size of the >55" Flagship/Premium market has been increasing relative to the 55" Flagship/Premium market, then that might provide some insight as to what the mix may be in 2016, which is what matters for this discussion regarding LGs OLED plan.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557393
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24556462
> 
> 
> The focus is not on Vizio, the focus is on the market. Where the 65" Sony and Samsung flagships are priced by late 2015 is as good of a benchmark as any. From what you write below, I believe that you and I are in agreement than LG's OLED's need to be priced smack on the average of the Sony and Samsung flagship to have any chance of significant share of the flagship subsegment (regardless of what that means for margin structure, as long as it is positive).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, in the example above, if they price $1000 above Sony, they capture maybe 2% of the 2% of the market that is premium 65" TVs. Whatever that number is, it's statistical noise.
Click to expand...


Agree, and with Sony with their head in the sand on pricing this year, I suspect where Samsung prices their 65" Flagship TVs may be of more importance to LGs 65" OLED pricing by late 2015.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557393
> 
> 
> 
> Without spending serious time on your numbers, they seem about right to me. Irkuck and I have been beating this drum since I don't know when: LCD keeps making it harder for OLED to gain a fooothold. That was true in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.... and it will be true for years to come. *The idea that LCD is going to go and make it easy is wrong*. The only way it gets easy for OLED is when it's genuinely less expensive to make a basic panel than a basic LCD panel. Because at that point, OLED can compete -- and win -- at every price band.
> 
> 
> But as we explained in gory detail in 2012, to get there you need to product millions at higher prices and sell them. Without starting the learning curve, you can never graduate. LG will face this problem through the end of the decade. The Gen 8 fab is basically step 2 of their "12 step" program.



I don't believe you're attributing that idea to me - I've been beating exactly the same drum as you on all of this. LG needs to move hard and fast now because the road only gets harder the longer they drag things out.


Do you have an opinion on the DisplaySearch OLED TV cost versus LCD TV cost numbers that I found? They are claiming OLED cost 4X LCD in Q1'14 (down from 6X in Q1'13). That is probably for low-end LCDs because the total 55" OLED cost they show is only $1500 (with idealized depreciation). If there is any accuracy to those numbers and LG can drop costs by another 1/3 over the next year, so a 55" OLED costs $1000 in Q1'15, they should be in good shape to sell at your $3000 target by late 2015 and even $2000 if needed due to market pressure.


If those DisplaySearch numbers are way off, it going to be a bigger challenge.


One key question for me is whether the $4600 'discounted' price LG is using to moving the 2013 inventory of 55" OLEDs right now is artificially high to limit demand while their production capacity is low, or whether that price is more reflective of current manufacturing costs. I guess we'll see when the 2014 panels are introduced and priced...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557393
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24556462
> 
> 
> 
> By late 2015, I have difficulty seeing much of any market for 55" flagship models at all. Sony did not offer a 55" X950B flagship this year, only the sub-flagship X9000 (with an MSRP of $4000). Samsung did have a 55" U9000 flagship also priced at $4000. Panasonic will not have a 55" Flagship this year. By 2015, it will surprise me to see any 55" flagship models in the market. I think this entire discussion is more effectively based on 65" Flagship pricing given the time horizon to late 2015.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if this becomes true, LG might well be limited to something like a $2500 price. It's hard to math this out... I've figured that market at 2 1/2 million (including everything larger than 55 inches that's premium as well). But that's crude math. Can LG move 1 million units annualized at $3000 next year? It seems believable. It's a lot more believable than $3500. Would $2500 be a lot easier? Well sure.
Click to expand...


It all comes down to where manufacturing costs really are in the M1 pilot fab today and where LG can get them to in the M2 production fab by late 2015. If they can get their costs for a 55" OLED down below $1000 by late 2015 (which seems doable if the Q1 DisplaySearch data of $1500 cost is accurate), I would think that if LG had to to move their production volume of 100,000+ a month, they could price at $2500 or even lower if they needed to.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557393
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24556462
> 
> 
> If $3000 is your pricepoint for 55" OLED by late 2015, I'd be interested on your thoughts regarding pricepoints for 65" OLED by late 2015. Based on today's 65" Flagship pricing by Sony and Samsung, it would seem that the 65" OLED price would have to be below $6500. By late 2015, I believe there will have been further decline in this 65" flagship pricing level. Your thoughts appreciated.
> 
> In general, I agree with everything you have written, I just have some difficulty seeing 55" being the sweat spot of the high-end Flagship market by 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, yeah, I don't see it as a sweet spot, I see it as necessary for volume. As for pricing on larger, I suppose we'll see what happens to the premium end of the market in 2014. So far, those Sony prices look incredibly dumb and untenable to me. But, then, Sony is happy moving 50K units of stuff like the top-end XBR. They see the market as small and prove it's small. If the world changes under them, then we'll see what happens.
> 
> 
> My sense is that the price on the 65-inch and 77-inch looks ridiculous compared to the 55s. People will say, "Why is it so much more for just 10 inches?"
Click to expand...


Agree that Sony's pricing looks untenable - let's see how they respond to Samsung's more aggressive 65" Flagship pricing on the U9000 of $5000.


The 77" OLED has been CES-priced at $30,000. That's ultra-high-end niche pricing and will probably be irrelevant to LG's volume challenge, even by late 2015.


The 65" has not been priced yet and it won't surprise me to see LG holds off on announcing pricing until they have product to ship. By late 2015, I believe it will be important for LG to match the price of whatever the most expensive 65" Flagship is on the market by then. Maybe Sony's pricing of $8000 holds for another 20 months (highly doubtful) and maybe the entire 65" Flagship end of the market shifts to Samsung's pricing of $5000 - we should know by the holiday season this year.


If LG can sell a 55" OLED for $2500 by late 2015, they should be able to sell a 65" OLED for $5000 if they need to.


----------



## stas3098


*As far as I know LG purchased Kodak's OLED (WOLED) business and their OLED TV's could potentially have a lifespan of 100000 to 200000 hours without any color shifts at this stage and I'm not even talking about how high future lifetime can get.*

 

*IF I am right ABOUT LG USING Kodak's tech (white OLEDs and color filters) then their TVs should go for 20 years of continuously being on without color shifts, if LG uses stacked RBG OLED than I'd say 1 to 3 years tops and then you'd have to recalibrate it. Please set me straight if I'm wrong!*


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557631
> 
> 
> The 65" has not been priced yet and it won't surprise me to see LG holds off on announcing pricing until they have product to ship. By late 2015, I believe it will be important for LG to match the price of whatever the most expensive 65" Flagship is on the market by then. Maybe Sony's pricing of $8000 holds for another 20 months (highly doubtful) and maybe the entire 65" Flagship end of the market shifts to Samsung's pricing of $5000 - we should know by the holiday season this year.
> 
> 
> If LG can sell a 55" OLED for $2500 by late 2015, they should be able to sell a 65" OLED for $5000 if they need to.



I was discussing the price and availability with a local retailer, you can study the posted prices yourself from their website link below just look for the Oled tvs, and keep in mind those are the Canadian prices, so it's usually more up here. I was also offered $8600 for the 65 set if I preordered with an $800 deposit, but no world on availability, I told him I'll wait but I hope the price for the 65 is around what I was currently offered, because that is a lot less than what I expected for an 65 4k Oled set this early up here.

http://www.ncix.com/search/?q=Oled


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557393
> This seems to be a fundamental misapprehension of what "white" is on the LG. White is a combination color produced by multiple layers of OLED material, including a fluorescent blue that doesn't have anywhere near the lifespan of the red/green (which many have speculated or confirmed is applied as a yellow). Whenever you activate any pixel in the LG, the blue part of the stack dies a little bit faster than the rest of the stack. LG has hand-waved about this a bit and made a lot of claims -- and there are some ridiculous papers that have been linked here that are also thoroughly absurd on this topic -- but none have been overly persuasive.
> 
> 
> 5 x 365 x 12 = 22K hours. That's a lot of the alleged life of the blue. The idea the TV would be very good after this kind of use is a bit hard to swallow. At minimum, it will need multiple recalibrations to be workable with that kind of use. In all likelihood, you will not be able to find a satisfactory white if you use an LG that way and therefore you will not be able to make any kind of satisfactory colors.
> 
> 
> That said... For the majority of people who use a TV half or less this amount, I would not be over worried about lifespan in considering the current LG product.




Here's a pic to give some idea to some about what White-OLED is. White OLED can live for way more than 100000 hours. To render blue, red and green there are light filters. So I just assumed that since white OLEDs can live a lot longer than Blue OLEDs or RED LG would go with it. It does not make much sense to me to assume that they would go with True RGB OLEDs stacked atop each other, because blue dies like 7 or 8 times faster than green.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24557813
> 
> 
> I was discussing the price and availability with a local retailer, you can study the posted prices yourself from their website link below just look for the Oled tvs, and keep in mind those are the Canadian prices, so it's usually more up here. I was also offered $8600 for the 65 set if I preordered with an $800 deposit, but no world on availability, I told him I'll wait but I hope the price for the 65 is around what I was currently offered, because that is a lot less than what I expected for an 65 4k Oled set this early up here.
> 
> http://www.ncix.com/search/?q=Oled


$8600 already for the 65"? That's fantastic.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557824
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> This seems to be a fundamental misapprehension of what "white" is on the LG. White is a combination color produced by multiple layers of OLED material, including a fluorescent blue that doesn't have anywhere near the lifespan of the red/green (which many have speculated or confirmed is applied as a yellow). Whenever you activate any pixel in the LG, the blue part of the stack dies a little bit faster than the rest of the stack. LG has hand-waved about this a bit and made a lot of claims -- and there are some ridiculous papers that have been linked here that are also thoroughly absurd on this topic -- but none have been overly persuasive.
> 
> 
> 
> 5 x 365 x 12 = 22K hours. That's a lot of the alleged life of the blue. The idea the TV would be very good after this kind of use is a bit hard to swallow. At minimum, it will need multiple recalibrations to be workable with that kind of use. In all likelihood, you will not be able to find a satisfactory white if you use an LG that way and therefore you will not be able to make any kind of satisfactory colors.
> 
> 
> 
> That said... For the majority of people who use a TV half or less this amount, I would not be over worried about lifespan in considering the current LG product.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a pic to give some idea to some about what White-OLED is. White OLED can live for way more than 100000 hours. To render blue, red and green there are light filters. So I just assumed that since white OLEDs can live a lot longer than Blue OLEDs or RED LG would go with it. It does not make much sense to me to assume that they would go with True RGB OLEDs stacked atop each other, because blue dies like 7 or 8 times faster than green.
Click to expand...


This link may help: http://www.cnet.com/news/seven-problems-with-current-oled-televisions/ 


Look at the picture in section *7. There are competing OLED technologies*


It shows the White OLED actually composed of separate greed, red, and blue layers and the text says:


"LG's way around the "blue" problem is also potentially more cost-effective. *It uses a grid made up of white OLEDs (which is actually compressed layers of red, green and blue OLEDs).* Over these the company overlays a series of color filters to produce four different subpixels: red, green, blue and white. The advantage, LG says, is that the panel can produce a much higher brightness, which could give it the edge in a brightly lit environment over Samsung's method."


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557891
> 
> 
> $8600 already for the 65"? That's fantastic.



Yup, and probably lower Stateside. Too bad that the 77 is hovering in the stratosphere with that $27k price, that would be the perfect size for me


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This link may help: http://www.cnet.com/news/seven-problems-with-current-oled-televisions/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the picture in section *7. There are competing OLED technologies*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows the White OLED actually composed of separate greed, red, and blue layers and the text says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "LG's way around the "blue" problem is also potentially more cost-effective. *It uses a grid made up of white OLEDs (which is actually compressed layers of red, green and blue OLEDs).* Over these the company overlays a series of color filters to produce four different subpixels: red, green, blue and white. The advantage, LG says, is that the panel can produce a much higher brightness, which could give it the edge in a brightly lit environment over Samsung's method."




So It's basically the same old horse only with a different saddle slapped on and all that Kodak's research was out-right BS there is no true white OLED or like that one that said that red OLEDs can live way more than 1 million hours http://www.novaled.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/downloadcenter/Novaled_long_lifetime_01.pdf  *WAS KODAK LYING?* I have to admit I thought they used true white OLEDs and not stacked (red, green and blue piled atop each other) white OLEDs. I am really confused right now for my whole world has been turned on its head... 



 



*    Based on years of experience, Kodak is convinced the path to a low cost, high performing AMOLED display is through the use of WOLED (white-emitting OLED). The benefits include scalability, no need for shadow mask (faster TACT time), and overall better production yield. For OLED to compete successfully in the large-size TV market, the manufacturing approach chosen must be low cost and high yield. Part of "low-cost" means that OLED deposition process must be practiced on the same large glass sizes that are used for LCD TV's (e.g. Gen 8 2160X2400mm, – glass the size of a queen sized bed) in machines with very high throughput. Kodak has focused its development (OLED materials, white formulations, Tandem Architecture, deposition sources, sub-pixel layouts, display designs, and color filter materials) to enable scale-up to these large sizes with high throughput. The key difference between the Kodak approach and the approach pursued by others is that the Kodak approach is based upon uniform deposition of white-emitting OLED materials (WOLED), whereas others are pursuing the precision patterned deposition of red, green, and blue emitting materials according to the sub-pixel pattern inside the display area (the so-called RGB approach).*



 



*~~Improvements in OLED device performance via material and architectural changes are critical for the success of the OLED display industry. The continual invention of new and better performing materials and novel architectures for their incorporation into devices has led to significant advances in this industry in recent years. Kodak has been, and continues to be a leader in innovation for improved display performance, which reinforces Kodak’s IP position not only in materials, but also all across the OLED value chain. Recent improvements in fluorescent devices includes: *



*•Deep Blue: 6.6% E.Q.E, 8 cd/A, CIEx,y = 0.14, 0.13, 5,000 hours lifetime at 10 mA/cm2 •Blue: 8% E.Q.E., 11cd/A, CIEx,y = 0.15, 0.18, 10,000 hours lifetime at 1,000 cd/m2*



 



*•Green: 8.5% E.Q.E., 30 cd/A, > 50,000 hours lifetime at 1,000 cd/m2 •Red: 9.4% E.Q.E., 12.7 cd/A, > 35,000 hours lifetime at 1,000 cd/m2*



 



*•White tandem: 10.7% E.Q.E., 24.5 cd/A, CIEx,y = 0.33, 0.35, 100,000 hours lifetime at 1,000 cd/m2 For full-color pixilated RGB displays, new materials in development at*



 



*    Kodak provide outstanding lifetime and power consumption. Critical new technologies include Electron Transfer Layer and Electron Injection Layer materials enabling low OLED voltage and high efficiency; high-efficiency blue and green dopants that reduce the operating current density; and stable host materials for blue and green emitters. For displays, Kodak has pioneered the W-RGBW pixel architecture. This consists of a WOLED with four sub-pixels per pixel. Three sub-pixels emit through red, green or blue color filters, and the fourth has no filter, leaving it white. This scheme delivers high efficiency, enables larger displays and significantly improves manufacturing yield for displays of all sizes. In addition, Kodak's proprietary set of color filters enables a previously unattainable level of color gamut, while maintaining high efficiency. Combining Kodak's pixel architecture, color filter, OLED materials and architecture advancements yields displays that have high power efficiency, greater than 100% NTSC x,y color gamut, and are estimated to have a half-life much greater than 100,000 hours.* http://www.oled-info.com/kodak/kodak_oled_systems_information_and_interview



 



 



P.S I heard a lot of talk about WOLED stability and lifetime, but no one ever talked about how WOLEDs are composed of red, green and blue OLEDs sandwiched together...


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This link may help: http://www.cnet.com/news/seven-problems-with-current-oled-televisions/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the picture in section *7. There are competing OLED technologies*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows the White OLED actually composed of separate greed, red, and blue layers and the text says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "LG's way around the "blue" problem is also potentially more cost-effective. *It uses a grid made up of white OLEDs (which is actually compressed layers of red, green and blue OLEDs).* Over these the company overlays a series of color filters to produce four different subpixels: red, green, blue and white. The advantage, LG says, is that the panel can produce a much higher brightness, which could give it the edge in a brightly lit environment over Samsung's method."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So It's basically the same old horse only with a different saddle slapped on and all that Kodak's research was out-right BS there is no true white OLED or like that one that said that red OLEDs can live way more than 1 million hours http://www.novaled.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/downloadcenter/Novaled_long_lifetime_01.pdf  *WAS KODAK LYING?* I have to admit I thought they used true white OLEDs and not stacked (red, green and blue piled atop each other) white OLEDs. I am really confused right now for my whole world has been turned on its head...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *    Based on years of experience, Kodak is convinced the path to a low cost, high performing AMOLED display is through the use of WOLED (white-emitting OLED). The benefits include scalability, no need for shadow mask (faster TACT time), and overall better production yield. For OLED to compete successfully in the large-size TV market, the manufacturing approach chosen must be low cost and high yield. Part of "low-cost" means that OLED deposition process must be practiced on the same large glass sizes that are used for LCD TV's (e.g. Gen 8 2160X2400mm, – glass the size of a queen sized bed) in machines with very high throughput. Kodak has focused its development (OLED materials, white formulations, Tandem Architecture, deposition sources, sub-pixel layouts, display designs, and color filter materials) to enable scale-up to these large sizes with high throughput. The key difference between the Kodak approach and the approach pursued by others is that the Kodak approach is based upon uniform deposition of white-emitting OLED materials (WOLED), whereas others are pursuing the precision patterned deposition of red, green, and blue emitting materials according to the sub-pixel pattern inside the display area (the so-called RGB approach).*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *~~Improvements in OLED device performance via material and architectural changes are critical for the success of the OLED display industry. The continual invention of new and better performing materials and novel architectures for their incorporation into devices has led to significant advances in this industry in recent years. Kodak has been, and continues to be a leader in innovation for improved display performance, which reinforces Kodak’s IP position not only in materials, but also all across the OLED value chain. Recent improvements in fluorescent devices includes: *
> 
> 
> 
> *•Deep Blue: 6.6% E.Q.E, 8 cd/A, CIEx,y = 0.14, 0.13, 5,000 hours lifetime at 10 mA/cm2 •Blue: 8% E.Q.E., 11cd/A, CIEx,y = 0.15, 0.18, 10,000 hours lifetime at 1,000 cd/m2*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *•Green: 8.5% E.Q.E., 30 cd/A, > 50,000 hours lifetime at 1,000 cd/m2 •Red: 9.4% E.Q.E., 12.7 cd/A, > 35,000 hours lifetime at 1,000 cd/m2*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *•White tandem: 10.7% E.Q.E., 24.5 cd/A, CIEx,y = 0.33, 0.35, 100,000 hours lifetime at 1,000 cd/m2 For full-color pixilated RGB displays, new materials in development at*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *    Kodak provide outstanding lifetime and power consumption. Critical new technologies include Electron Transfer Layer and Electron Injection Layer materials enabling low OLED voltage and high efficiency; high-efficiency blue and green dopants that reduce the operating current density; and stable host materials for blue and green emitters. For displays, Kodak has pioneered the W-RGBW pixel architecture. This consists of a WOLED with four sub-pixels per pixel. Three sub-pixels emit through red, green or blue color filters, and the fourth has no filter, leaving it white. This scheme delivers high efficiency, enables larger displays and significantly improves manufacturing yield for displays of all sizes. In addition, Kodak's proprietary set of color filters enables a previously unattainable level of color gamut, while maintaining high efficiency. Combining Kodak's pixel architecture, color filter, OLED materials and architecture advancements yields displays that have high power efficiency, greater than 100% NTSC x,y color gamut, and are estimated to have a half-life much greater than 100,000 hours.* http://www.oled-info.com/kodak/kodak_oled_systems_information_and_interview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S I heard a lot of talk about WOLED stability and lifetime, but no one ever talked about how WOLEDs are composed of red, green and blue OLEDs sandwiched together...
Click to expand...


I'm confused too. The key sentence on the article you sighted is this: "The key difference between the Kodak approach and the approach pursued by others is that the Kodak approach is based upon uniform deposition of *white-emitting OLED materials* (WOLED), whereas others are pursuing the precision patterned deposition of red, green, and blue emitting materials according to the sub-pixel pattern inside the display area (the so-called RGB approach)."


So it is multiple unpatterned OLED materials to emit white (consistent with unpatterned layers of R G and B OLED material).


On the other hand, they explicitly state that the Blue OLED material has a lifetime of 10,000 hours at 1000cd/m2, the Green OLED material has a lifetime of 50,000 hours at 1000cd/m2, and the Red OLED material has a lifetime of 35,000 hours at 1000cd/m2, so whether the 'White Tandem' OLED material is another distinct material with a lifetime of 100,000 hours, or it is intended to be a stack of the RGB layers in a way that somehow delivers a lifetime of 100,000 hours is a very unclear.


If the LG OLED is based on an RGB stack, it is hard to see how it has a lifetime of 10,000 hours (especially the Blue). If white OLED material exists and provides a lifetime of 1,000,000 hours, that would be great, but it is hard to jibe with the layered picture I found in the CNET article...


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558393
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused too. The key sentence on the article you sighted is this: "The key difference between the Kodak approach and the approach pursued by others is that the Kodak approach is based upon uniform deposition of *white-emitting OLED materials* (WOLED), whereas others are pursuing the precision patterned deposition of red, green, and blue emitting materials according to the sub-pixel pattern inside the display area (the so-called RGB approach)."
> 
> 
> So it is multiple unpatterned OLED materials to emit white (consistent with unpatterned layers of R G and B OLED material).
> 
> 
> On the other hand, they explicitly state that the Blue OLED material has a lifetime of 10,000 hours at 1000cd/m2, the Green OLED material has a lifetime of 50,000 hours at 1000cd/m2, and the Red OLED material has a lifetime of 35,000 hours at 1000cd/m2, so whether the 'White Tandem' OLED material is another distinct material with a lifetime of 100,000 hours, or it is intended to be a stack of the RGB layers in a way that somehow delivers a lifetime of 100,000 hours is a very unclear.
> 
> 
> If the LG OLED is based on an RGB stack, it is hard to see how it has a lifetime of 10,000 hours (especially the Blue). If white OLED material exists and provides a lifetime of 1,000,000 hours, that would be great, but it is hard to jibe with the layered picture I found in the CNET article...


I did some further research into Kodak and stacked WOLED and I came up kinda empty-handed (most of the sites on WOLEDs were in Korean or Japanese)  even Wikipedia has nothing on both, but I clearly remember hearing a lot of talk (my roommate wouldn't shut up about it) about how white OLED was gonna solve lifespan problems for OLED based displays once and for all back in college in 2009. One more thing the accumulative of 35,000, 10,000 and 50,000 doesn't add up to 100,000 that's what and the other thing lead me to believe that maybe, just maybe CNET was somewhat "off" on this one... the other thing being a "who the hell would ever buy a 65 TV for like 6.5k that has the total lifespan (not to half brightness) of about 10,000 to 20,000 (blue DIES after about 20,000 hours according to all the sites I've come across http://www.novaled.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/downloadcenter/Novaled_long_lifetime_01.pdf )  hours?!" kind of thing. But I admit that I may be wrong on this, as well...


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558624
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558393
> 
> 
> I'm confused too. The key sentence on the article you sighted is this: "The key difference between the Kodak approach and the approach pursued by others is that the Kodak approach is based upon uniform deposition of *white-emitting OLED materials* (WOLED), whereas others are pursuing the precision patterned deposition of red, green, and blue emitting materials according to the sub-pixel pattern inside the display area (the so-called RGB approach)."
> 
> 
> 
> So it is multiple unpatterned OLED materials to emit white (consistent with unpatterned layers of R G and B OLED material).
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, they explicitly state that the Blue OLED material has a lifetime of 10,000 hours at 1000cd/m2, the Green OLED material has a lifetime of 50,000 hours at 1000cd/m2, and the Red OLED material has a lifetime of 35,000 hours at 1000cd/m2, so whether the 'White Tandem' OLED material is another distinct material with a lifetime of 100,000 hours, or it is intended to be a stack of the RGB layers in a way that somehow delivers a lifetime of 100,000 hours is a very unclear.
> 
> 
> 
> If the LG OLED is based on an RGB stack, it is hard to see how it has a lifetime of 10,000 hours (especially the Blue). If white OLED material exists and provides a lifetime of 1,000,000 hours, that would be great, but it is hard to jibe with the layered picture I found in the CNET article...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did some further research into Kodak and stacked WOLED and I came up kinda empty-handed (most of the sites on WOLEDs were in Korean or Japanese)  even Wikipedia has nothing on both, but I clearly remember hearing a lot of talk (my roommate wouldn't shut up about it) about how white OLED was gonna solve lifespan problems for OLED based displays once and for all back in college in 2009. One more thing the accumulative of 35,000, 10,000 and 50,000 doesn't add up to 100,000 that's what and the other thing lead me to believe that maybe, just maybe CNET was somewhat "off" on this one... the other thing being a "who the hell would ever buy a 65 TV for like 6.5k that has the total lifespan (not to half brightness) of about 10,000 to 20,000 (blue DIES after about 20,000 hours according to all the sites I've come across http://www.novaled.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/downloadcenter/Novaled_long_lifetime_01.pdf )  hours?!" kind of thing. But I admit that I may be wrong on this, as well...
Click to expand...


Another CNET article making explicit reference to the while OLED being composed of sandwiched R G and B OLED layers: http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-oled-tv/ 

*'There are some claims that this white sandwich has longer life and less chance of color shift versus separate R, G, and B OLEDs. LG wouldn't commit to a lifespan claim when I asked it directly, however, saying only that while "long-life testing is still under way, we believe our WOLED will perform quite well vis-»-vis other displays ."'*


There is a possibility that these two CNET references are incorrect, but I doubt it (especially since a stale link points to a source at Kodak).


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558677
> 
> 
> 
> Another CNET article making explicit reference to the while OLED being composed of sandwiched R G and B OLED layers: http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-oled-tv/
> 
> *'There are some claims that this white sandwich has longer life and less chance of color shift versus separate R, G, and B OLEDs. LG wouldn't commit to a lifespan claim when I asked it directly, however, saying only that while "long-life testing is still under way, we believe our WOLED will perform quite well vis-»-vis other displays ."'*
> 
> 
> There is a possibility that these two CNET references are incorrect, but I doubt it (especially since a stale link points to a source at Kodak).


It looks like CNET is right ,after all. I found one article on OLEDs that says definitively that WOLEDs are made by sandwiching red, green and blue OLEDs together  http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5995882 it also puts the lifespan of WOLEDs somewhere in between of 8000 hours. Let's just hope that the same lifespan doesn't apply to WOLED TVs especially since LEDs can go as high as 50000 hours.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558715
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558677
> 
> 
> Another CNET article making explicit reference to the while OLED being composed of sandwiched R G and B OLED layers: http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-oled-tv/
> 
> *'There are some claims that this white sandwich has longer life and less chance of color shift versus separate R, G, and B OLEDs. LG wouldn't commit to a lifespan claim when I asked it directly, however, saying only that while "long-life testing is still under way, we believe our WOLED will perform quite well vis-»-vis other displays ."'*
> 
> 
> 
> There is a possibility that these two CNET references are incorrect, but I doubt it (especially since a stale link points to a source at Kodak).
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like CNET is right ,after all. I found one article on OLEDs that says definitively that WOLEDs are made by sandwiching red, green and blue OLEDs together  http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5995882 it also puts the lifespan of WOLEDs somewhere in between of 8000 hours. Let's just hope that the same lifespan doesn't apply to WOLED TVs especially since LEDs can go as high as 50000 hours.
Click to expand...


Well, the reference to WOLED lifespan is a bit unclear: *"Today, an OLED panel lasts about 8000 hours."* without specifying WOLED in particular.


From earlier in the article: *"OLEDs create white by combining red, green, and blue semiconductor films—either stacked on top of each other or laid down in thin, alternating stripes."*


So perhaps the reference to an OLED panel lifetime of 8000 hours is for either type of OLED panel...


8000 hours is les than 1 year of continuous 24/7 use, so hopefully the lifetime of the stacked WOLED technology is not that bad...


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558739
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the reference to WOLED lifespan is a bit unclear: *"Today, an OLED panel lasts about 8000 hours."* without specifying WOLED in particular.
> 
> 
> From earlier in the article: *"OLEDs create white by combining red, green, and blue semiconductor films—either stacked on top of each other or laid down in thin, alternating stripes."*
> 
> 
> So perhaps the reference to an OLED panel lifetime of 8000 hours is for either type of OLED panel...
> 
> 
> 8000 hours is les than 1 year of continuous 24/7 use, so hopefully the lifetime of the stacked WOLED technology is not that bad...


 

Then what is the reason behind LG being so adamant about not releasing the official lifespan of their OLED panels I can only guess









 

8000 hours for white OLEDs is what I've inferred from the article from 2011. However wiki says in 2007, *experimental* OLEDs were created which can sustain 400 cd/m2 of luminance for over 198,000 hours for green OLEDs and 62,000 hours for blue OLEDs. The other source says that green's time to haft brightness at 1000 nits is less than 100k hours and for blue about 22000 hours   http://www.cdtltd.co.uk/technology/status/

 

If you have any other information about OLED lifespan I'd very appreciative of you if you shared it with me.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558766
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558739
> 
> 
> Well, the reference to WOLED lifespan is a bit unclear: *"Today, an OLED panel lasts about 8000 hours."* without specifying WOLED in particular.
> 
> 
> 
> From earlier in the article: *"OLEDs create white by combining red, green, and blue semiconductor films—either stacked on top of each other or laid down in thin, alternating stripes."*
> 
> 
> 
> So perhaps the reference to an OLED panel lifetime of 8000 hours is for either type of OLED panel...
> 
> 
> 
> 8000 hours is les than 1 year of continuous 24/7 use, so hopefully the lifetime of the stacked WOLED technology is not that bad...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is the reason behind LG being so adamant about not releasing the official lifespan of their OLED panels I can only guess
> 
> 
> 8000 hours for white OLEDs is what I've inferred from the article from 2011. However wiki says in 2007, _experimental_ OLEDs were created which can sustain 400 cd/m2 of luminance for over 198,000 hours for green OLEDs and 62,000 hours for blue OLEDs. The other source says that green's time to haft brightness at 1000 nits is less than 100k hours and for blue about 22000 hours   http://www.cdtltd.co.uk/technology/status/
> 
> 
> If you have any other information about OLED lifespan I'd very appreciative of you if you shared it with me.
Click to expand...


Well, I just stumbled onto this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1386410/lg-oled-vs-samsung-super-oled/30 


The entire thread is interesting if you have the time to slog through it, but check out post #41 by Rogo on the topic of color shift and lifetime of the LG WOLED technology.


There is also a reference somewhere to the LG WOLED using a different type of OLED material for blue that has a longer lifetime than the Samsung blue OLED material.


p.s. reading through a thread like that from over two years ago also provides some perspective for how long may of the folks on this thread including Rogo and Slacker have been tracking this story - talk about an exercise in patience!!!


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558790
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I just stumbled onto this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1386410/lg-oled-vs-samsung-super-oled/30
> 
> 
> The entire thread is interesting if you have the time to slog through it, but check out post #41 by Rogo on the topic of color shift and lifetime of the LG WOLED technology.
> 
> 
> There is also a reference somewhere to the LG WOLED using a different type of OLED material for blue that has a longer lifetime than the Samsung blue OLED material.
> 
> 
> p.s. reading through a thread like that from over two years ago also provides some perspective for how long may of the folks on this thread including Rogo and Slacker have been tracking this story - talk about an exercise in patience!!!


Yep, the thread does provides a lot of insightful info on the topic of OLED lifespan by the first look of it. I reckon I'm gonna go through it with a fine-tooth comb


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557631
> 
> 
> That is exactly the point I have been trying to make. There was a time when you could find a flagship 50" or even 48" TV in the market a few years ago, but those days are gone. We are seeing more and more evidence of the best technologies only being used for flagship TVs 58" and above. So in addition to whatever the pricing trend is over the next 20 months, there is also a risk that the premium market moves beyond 55" by late 2015.



Again, it's a fascinating point. It just goes back to what I (and irkuck) have said for years now. The bar keeps moving and OLED keeps targeting the old bar.


> Quote:
> I don't want to challenge your assertions because you have been following these markets a lot longer than me. On the other hand, I do want to point out that the number of 70" Elites that Sharp sold in 2011 and 2012 is unlikely to be very relevant to the number of 65" Flagship TVs sold in 2016.



The market for $6000 TVs is actually probably even smaller than it was then, not larger.


> Quote:
> And while I am sure you are correct that the 65-inch market is miniscule compared to the 55-inch market, I suspect that statement applies to the overall market and would love to know the percentage of the premium/flagship market that is 55" and lower in 2014 compared to the premium/flagship market above 55-inches.



So let's leave aside the question of flagshippiness (I keep coining words!) and just discuss size. Globally 50" sets are ~10% of the market. In the U.S., the figure is higher and creeping up, but there isn't much evidence it's heading for 65" anytime soon (or perhaps ever.... ). If you take the subset of TVs that are large, you are already down to 25 million units globally. If you then segment _those_ by size, the vast, vast, vast majority are either (a) cheap (b) smaller than 60" or (c) both. That's why whenever we start talking about how big the market is for premium TVs, I never can get a TAM larger than 5 million units (define premium as the $2500 and up category). That requires a lot of aggressive assumptions, too.


If you now want to talk about the TAM of flagship TVs of 65" and up, well we have a smaller market because it's hard to imagine that 65" TVs altogether comprise more than about 3-4% of global TV sales and a huge number of really big TVs are warehouse store cheapies.


> Quote:
> Do you have an opinion on the DisplaySearch OLED TV cost versus LCD TV cost numbers that I found?



OLED costs are outrageous today. Someday they may not be. DisplaySearch is taking limited data and making a bunch of graphs that imply precision. I'm not bothering.


> Quote:
> The 65" has not been priced yet and it won't surprise me to see LG holds off on announcing pricing until they have product to ship. By late 2015, I believe it will be important for LG to match the price of whatever the most expensive 65" Flagship is on the market by then. Maybe Sony's pricing of $8000 holds for another 20 months (highly doubtful) and maybe the entire 65" Flagship end of the market shifts to Samsung's pricing of $5000 - we should know by the holiday season this year.
> 
> 
> If LG can sell a 55" OLED for $2500 by late 2015, they should be able to sell a 65" OLED for $5000 if they need to.



Should and will remain different things.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557760
> 
> *As far as I know LG purchased Kodak's OLED (WOLED) business and their OLED TV's could potentially have a lifespan of 100000 to 200000 hours without any color shifts at this stage and I'm not even talking about how high future lifetime can get.*



Again, this is nonsense. There is no such thing as a white OLED.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557824
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a pic to give some idea to some about what White-OLED is. White OLED can live for way more than 100000 hours. To render blue, red and green there are light filters. So I just assumed that since white OLEDs can live a lot longer than Blue OLEDs or RED LG would go with it. It does not make much sense to me to assume that they would go with True RGB OLEDs stacked atop each other, because blue dies like 7 or 8 times faster than green.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557891
> 
> 
> $8600 already for the 65"? That's fantastic.



Agreed, that sounds like a strong opening price.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558010
> 
> 
> "LG's way around the "blue" problem is also potentially more cost-effective. *It uses a grid made up of white OLEDs (which is actually compressed layers of red, green and blue OLEDs).* Over these the company overlays a series of color filters to produce four different subpixels: red, green, blue and white. The advantage, LG says, is that the panel can produce a much higher brightness, which could give it the edge in a brightly lit environment over Samsung's method."



So, yes, this is correct and I realize this thread is long, but if you look back to the CES 2012 posts, you'll see I (and others) sleuthed all this out without the help of articles written after the fact by other people.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558179
> 
> 
> So It's basically the same old horse only with a different saddle slapped on and all that Kodak's research was out-right BS there is no true white OLED or like that one that said that red OLEDs can live way more than 1 million hours http://www.novaled.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/downloadcenter/Novaled_long_lifetime_01.pdf  *WAS KODAK LYING?* I have to admit I thought they used true white OLEDs and not stacked (red, green and blue piled atop each other) white OLEDs. I am really confused right now for my whole world has been turned on its head...




So it is multiple unpatterned OLED materials to emit white (consistent with unpatterned layers of R G and B OLED material).


> Quote:
> On the other hand, they explicitly state that the Blue OLED material has a lifetime of 10,000 hours at 1000cd/m2, the Green OLED material has a lifetime of 50,000 hours at 1000cd/m2, and the Red OLED material has a lifetime of 35,000 hours at 1000cd/m2, so whether the 'White Tandem' OLED material is another distinct material with a lifetime of 100,000 hours, or it is intended to be a stack of the RGB layers in a way that somehow delivers a lifetime of 100,000 hours is a very unclear.
> 
> 
> If the LG OLED is based on an RGB stack, it is hard to see how it has a lifetime of 10,000 hours (especially the Blue). If white OLED material exists and provides a lifetime of 1,000,000 hours, that would be great, but it is hard to jibe with the layered picture I found in the CNET article...



There is no "white tandem" OLED material. Please stop with this misinformation, which we spent more than a year correcting. There are layers of OLED primary color material deposited on the substrate. The blue is blue. Whatever the life of the blue limits the life of the light stack. Period.


There is no distinct lifespan. There is no combined lifespan. This is like a person. If you have a bad liver and it's going to give out when you turn 80, your lifespan in 80. It's not 100 because your heart and lungs have 100 years of life on them. It's not 85. It's 80.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558715
> 
> 
> It looks like CNET is right ,after all. I found one article on OLEDs that says definitively that WOLEDs are made by sandwiching red, green and blue OLEDs together  http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5995882 it also puts the lifespan of WOLEDs somewhere in between of 8000 hours. Let's just hope that the same lifespan doesn't apply to WOLED TVs especially since LEDs can go as high as 50000 hours.



Sorry, but the lifespan does apply. Whatever the blue is limits the life of the TV. My guess is the 20,000 hour example is going to prove to be somewhere around the useful life of the TV, though I suspect recalibrating would be needed. That LG has nothing to say on the topic is not bullish. That someone is complaining about burn-in in the other thread is not bullish.


----------



## vinnie97

20,000 hours...gulp.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9100_100#post_24555475
> 
> 
> Fixed wavelengths would be assigned to one sub-pixel for example data assigned to one sub pixel would look like this :green grass (code of color: 0100100110101010101010, decoded: 512 nm): Pixel number: (code of pixel: 0100100110101010101010101010010100101010110100110000,decoded: Pixel number 1342334) ( code :010010011010101010101010101001010010101011010011000010101010101010101010101111010101010101010101010101010101111, decoded: intensity: 3000 cd/m2, (SUB)Pixel number: 10123123123123, color:512nm) with the approximate size of maybe 150 bytes per pixel meaning there would be only one (long, but not necessarily ) string of information per pixel not 10 or 12 which causes decoding problems(mostly due to compression) some data simply gets lost in the shuffle during decoding.
> http://www.avsforum.com/content/type/61/id/404537/
> 
> Display would be 1 bit per sub-pixel i.e color (one string for intensity), but it would aslo be 1 billion bits per pixel meaning the about 999 million of sub pixels would be responsible for hues, saturation etc. (for bright red there would be one sub-pixel dark red there would be another etc.)
> 
> 
> Quattron ( marketing gimmick) is the brand name of an LCD color display technology produced by Sharp Electronics. In addition to the standard RGB (Red Green and Blue) color subpixels, the technology utilizes a yellow fourth color subpixel (RGBy) which Sharp claims increases the range of displayable colors,[1][2] and *which may mimic more closely the way the brain processes color information.* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattron
> 
> 
> Does it make sense, now?


I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by "10-bits per channel" for example.

We do not mean "10 bits of information per channel" we mean that the values have a 10-bit range - that is 2^10, or 1024.

This means that the brightness of a subpixel (red, green, or blue) can be specified in the range of 0-1023.


A "1-bit" display would mean that each channel only has 2 states. On or off.

With three color channels, that results in eight possible values. (2^3)

8-bit image with dither 
7-bit image with dither 
6-bit image with dither 
5-bit image with dither 
4-bit image with dither 
3-bit image with dither 
2-bit image with dither 
1-bit image with dither 


I don't know what you thought something like "1-bit per channel" was supposed to mean, or why using 10 or 12 bits per channel would cause decoding errors.


----------



## slacker711

HD Guru says that LG stated 30,000 hours for the lifetime.

http://hdguru.com/hands-on-lg-55ea9800-oled-hdtv/ 


> Quote:
> We are are still waiting for full specifications for the 55EA9800 however, they did provide us with a life expectancy of 30,000 hours (to half-brightness, the industry standard of measurement). Today’s Panasonic plasmas are rated at 100,000 hours (LG and Samsung do not provide lifespan for their plasma models). We have yet to see a lifespan spec for the LEDs in LED LCDs, however it does not seem to be an issue based on the total absence of consumer complaints of LED bulb wear or failure.
> 
> 
> As for uneven color wear, LG claims its RGB sandwich OLED will not have blue deficiency over time (i.e., a shift towards yellow), a problem in OLED development that factored into a delay of HDTV OLED for sale to the public.



Of course, the question is at what brightness they run the half-life tests.


After six hours in THX mode, I would question whether there was a failure with the backplane more than the materials.


----------



## Rudy1

*From USA Today:*

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/03/20/reviewed-oled-tv-made-in-america/6568445/


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> HD Guru says that LG stated 30,000 hours for the lifetime.
> 
> http://hdguru.com/hands-on-lg-55ea9800-oled-hdtv/
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> We are are still waiting for full specifications for the 55EA9800 however, they did provide us with a life expectancy of 30,000 hours (to half-brightness, the industry standard of measurement). Today’s Panasonic plasmas are rated at 100,000 hours (LG and Samsung do not provide lifespan for their plasma models). We have yet to see a lifespan spec for the LEDs in LED LCDs, however it does not seem to be an issue based on the total absence of consumer complaints of LED bulb wear or failure.
> 
> 
> As for uneven color wear, LG claims its RGB sandwich OLED will not have blue deficiency over time (i.e., a shift towards yellow), a problem in OLED development that factored into a delay of HDTV OLED for sale to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the question is at what brightness they run the half-life tests.
> 
> 
> After six hours in THX mode, I would question whether there was a failure with the backplane more than the materials.
Click to expand...

The blu LEDs with yellow phosphor coating will shift towards yellow over time. So the RGB sandwich OLED seems to be an improvement over that


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180_60#post_24558807
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558790
> 
> 
> p.s. reading through a thread like that from over two years ago
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the thread does provides a lot of insightful info on the topic of OLED lifespan by the first look of it. I reckon I'm gonna go through it with a fine-tooth comb
Click to expand...

 

Yes, I was just going to suggest that you go back through *this* thread (the one we're in now) and search for kodak.  A lot of this has been beaten up significantly.

 

Most importantly for this current discussion however is this concept of a "white OLED".  *There is no such thing* as a natively driven white OLED any more than there is a white LED (radically different technologies, but good analogs of each other).  Both technologies are spectral emitters: this doesn't change....you pick a frequency.  There is no fundamental frequency (single sine waveform) that will trigger the 3 cones in your eyes to have you see white.  In the case of LED, white was first achieved by using a yellow phosphor activated by a blue LED underneath producing a dichromatic white.  In the case of OLED, layering is different----the patents will refer to both a "yellow" and a "red/green" layer almost as pseudonyms.  Early on I myself confused the two technologies, but it was later cleared up.

 

Pay attention to particular posters: 3 folks here have been instrumental in uncovering what this all means at the nitty-gritty technical layer and I believe they *may* be actually engineers in that specific industry: ynotgoal, xrox, and slacker.  Rogo of course is instrumental in uncovering what the manufacturers are attempting.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180_60#post_24559425
> 
> 
> The blu LEDs with yellow phosphor coating will shift towards yellow over time. So the RGB sandwich OLED seems to be an improvement over that


 

I've never been 100% certain of this----can't find it.  In the LED (note: sans O) case, the yellow is *activated* by the blue.  As the blue fades, the yellow does as well.  Because of an efficiency change in the "stokes shift" energy levels it might bias either way as blue lowers.  Did you see a chart on this?  (I'd *love* to see the emission graph.)


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24559097
> 
> 
> HD Guru says that LG stated 30,000 hours for the lifetime.
> 
> http://hdguru.com/hands-on-lg-55ea9800-oled-hdtv/
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> We are are still waiting for full specifications for the 55EA9800 however, they did provide us with a life expectancy of 30,000 hours (to half-brightness, the industry standard of measurement). Today’s Panasonic plasmas are rated at 100,000 hours (LG and Samsung do not provide lifespan for their plasma models). We have yet to see a lifespan spec for the LEDs in LED LCDs, however it does not seem to be an issue based on the total absence of consumer complaints of LED bulb wear or failure.
> 
> 
> As for uneven color wear, LG claims its RGB sandwich OLED will not have blue deficiency over time (i.e., a shift towards yellow), a problem in OLED development that factored into a delay of HDTV OLED for sale to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the question is at what brightness they run the half-life tests.
> 
> 
> After six hours in THX mode, I would question whether there was a failure with the backplane more than the materials.
Click to expand...


I would have another concern based on a life expectancy spec defined by the time to half brightness. Brightness is defined by the total output from R G ad B OLED layers. Let's say that they all start out at 1.0 (so the intensity of blue - green = red)


I found this from post #43 of the 2012 thread: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1386410/lg-oled-vs-samsung-super-oled/30 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SiGGy*
> 
> Here' some older 2007 specs I had of OLED wearing to 1/2 brightness. (I wouldn't use these numbers to figure TV wearing rates, who knows what they're using for materials)
> 
> Red 150,000 hours
> 
> Green 120,000 hours
> 
> Blue 60,000 hours



So for the sake of argument, let's take these half-brightness numbers and assume that blue has half the life of green and 40% the life of red.


Let's age to the half-brightness lifetime of Blue (60,000 hours according to these numbers, I have seen other numbers as low as 20,000 for blue).


At that point blue will be 0.5, Green will be somewhere 0.5 > 0.75, and Red will be R > G


Just for this example, let's put Green at 0.7 and Green at 0.8


My point is that the composition of white is going to shift significantly approaching the half brightness point. When blue is at half brightness (in this made up example) we'll have 0.5, 0.7. 0.8 and brightness will be 67%, but more importantly, blue intensity has shifted from being 100% of red to only 63% of red and green has shifted from being 100% of red to only 88% of red.


Let's make up another example where green is at half brightness, so G=0.5 and let's say B=0.4 and R=0.6. Now brightness is at half but the intensity of blue is only 67% the intensity of red and green is only 83% the intensity of red.


If the colors all degraded at the same rate, a time to half brightness spec would not be a concern, but if they are degrading at different rates, it is going to mean a significant shift in the composition of the 'white' light as the materials age, meaning a need for frequent re-calibration in the best case and a color-distorted panel in the worst case.


Just think about it, when overall brightness is half, green brightness will be just above half, blue brightness must be well below half, and red brightness must still be a bit more above half (assuming these numbers or something like them is correct).


Without some measure of white-light composition associated with a spec to half-brightness, I see this as potentially a big red flag...


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24560382
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that the composition of white is going to shift significantly approaching the half brightness point. When blue is at half brightness (in this made up example) we'll have 0.5, 0.7. 0.8 and brightness will be 67%, but more importantly, blue intensity has shifted from being 100% of red to only 63% of red and green has shifted from being 100% of red to only 88% of red.



The lifetime doesnt work like this for a stacked OLED. The blue is the limiting factor in the half-life for the white emissions but the light output along the entire spectrum degrades at roughly the same rate. The color stability of white is an advantage of LG's approach.


----------



## gmarceau

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2014/04/01/samsung-galaxy-s5-best-display-ever/ 


This is the first I've seen of OLED actually winning on the brightness and energy fronts. Now let's convert this to 55"


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558999
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by "10-bits per channel" for example.
> 
> We do not mean "10 bits of information per channel" we mean that the values have a 10-bit range - that is 2^10, or 1024.
> 
> This means that the brightness of a subpixel (red, green, or blue) can be specified in the range of 0-1023.
> 
> 
> A "1-bit" display would mean that each channel only has 2 states. On or off.
> 
> With three color channels, that results in eight possible values. (2^3)
> 
> 8-bit image with dither
> 7-bit image with dither
> 6-bit image with dither
> 5-bit image with dither
> 4-bit image with dither
> 3-bit image with dither
> 2-bit image with dither
> 1-bit image with dither
> 
> 
> I don't know what you thought something like "1-bit per channel" was supposed to mean, or why using 10 or 12 bits per channel would cause decoding errors.


1) One bits means ON and all we really need for a pixel to do is to light up. We attach one binary coded sting of info (101101010101010101010101010011101010110101010100101) to one sub-pixel of the pixel responsible for production of the dark blue of the intensity of n ( we  or a camera specify ( first of course we have to write a simple compression-free algorithm for decoding and other one for encoding, however considering how well high 5.1 encoding algorithm performs we just might go down the road of h.265 compression and never look back) . The intensity of color should be a the coded string straight for *the controller (, but of course we really need a very powerful controller to process 100 hundreds of TBs on the fly)* along with other info like pixel number, it basically works as solid state drives with its blocks. Like I said multiple times the end image will have 1 billion bits to it i.e one pixel will have to have 1 billion sub pixels at the vey least whereas our current image has 36 bits to pixel (I already posted the pic of how 8 bit image is processed). And this in theory could provide delta E of zero and real-life color constancy, because I said multiple times RGB can not  mimic the way the brain processes color information and if we wanna trick our brains into processing the info they see on the screen the way our brains process the info they see out the window this is the only reasonable way to go.

 

2) Why using 10 or 12 bits per channel would cause decoding errors? Because controllers are not good "enuf" at decoding info (although with h.265 coming thing could change), because cameras are no good at encoding a lot of color information gets lost because algorithms (like I said h.265 is very promising and could very possibly solve this problem) are not good enough I already posted links that confirm what  I say here so I am not gonna do it again.

 

 *We're also currently losing three quarters of all colour information on televisions. Even with Blu-ray, we're only getting one out of every four pixels of colour information.*

 

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/television/tv/bombshell-at-panasonic-resolution-doesn-t-matter-it-s-all-about-the-colour--1237586

 

*3)Why do you think most medical grade monitors are used in monochrome mode only?   *

 

 

*P.S.* I admit that if you never worked with monochrome medical grade monitors and their software it is almost impossible to swallow what I'm talking about in fact there's only a handful of people in the world that could appreciate what I'm saying . I also have the sinking feeling that hard I try to make my point the less people understand what I'm talking about.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Quote:Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180_60#post_24560634
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558999
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by "10-bits per channel" for example.
> 
> We do not mean "10 bits of information per channel" we mean that the values have a 10-bit range - that is 2^10, or 1024.
> 
> This means that the brightness of a subpixel (red, green, or blue) can be specified in the range of 0-1023.
> 
> 
> A "1-bit" display would mean that each channel only has 2 states. On or off.
> 
> With three color channels, that results in eight possible values. (2^3)
> 
> 8-bit image with dither
> 7-bit image with dither
> 6-bit image with dither
> 5-bit image with dither
> 4-bit image with dither
> 3-bit image with dither
> 2-bit image with dither
> 1-bit image with dither
> 
> 
> I don't know what you thought something like "1-bit per channel" was supposed to mean, or why using 10 or 12 bits per channel would cause decoding errors.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) One bits means ON and *all we really need for a pixel to do is to light up.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Using a plasma style technology employing PWM, this is arguable.  This is not true in general however for either sensors or displays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> because I said multiple times RGB can not  mimic the way the brain processes color information
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The brain processes information feed from cones that peak in 3 areas: RGB.  That is why we have displays that emit that---that is no mere accident.  And *that* emission is from information that originated from sensors (cameras) that usually peak in those same areas.  I'm fond of the theory that ideally we would latch one sensor to an output subpixel, but that would require a tight coupling of the display subpixel pattern to the camera's sensor cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> *3)Why do you think most medical grade monitors are used in monochrome mode only?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pass off speculation as fact.  Here, let me hit *you* with speculation that is *properly* labeled as "I'm not sure but..."------It's possible that the medical grade monitors that are monochrome are such often because they are fed only monochrome information to begin with (sonograms/CT scans/MRI) and in general want the precision that comes with having a "single sub pixel per pixel".
Click to expand...


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558813
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557631
> 
> 
> That is exactly the point I have been trying to make. There was a time when you could find a flagship 50" or even 48" TV in the market a few years ago, but those days are gone. We are seeing more and more evidence of the best technologies only being used for flagship TVs 58" and above. So in addition to whatever the pricing trend is over the next 20 months, there is also a risk that the premium market moves beyond 55" by late 2015.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's a fascinating point. It just goes back to what I (and irkuck) have said for years now. The bar keeps moving and OLED keeps targeting the old bar.
Click to expand...


Good, I'm in violent agreement with you and irkuck on this. On price and on spec (4K) and maybe also on size. Price is the most important (but it is tied to size)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558813
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557631
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to challenge your assertions because you have been following these markets a lot longer than me. On the other hand, I do want to point out that the number of 70" Elites that Sharp sold in 2011 and 2012 is unlikely to be very relevant to the number of 65" Flagship TVs sold in 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The market for $6000 TVs is actually probably even smaller than it was then, not larger.
Click to expand...


That is not doubt true, but it is not really the point. I believe there are far more 60"-70" TVs being sold today than there were in 2011 and 2012. Heck you see the 60"-70" TVs front and center in mass-market channels like Costco (and even 80" sets from Sharp and Vizio!) which would have been unimaginable 3 years ago. Size keeps going up while price keeps going down - back to the moving bar we just discussed. So I am pretty confident that there will be significantly more 60-70" TVs sold in 2016 than in 2011 and I am also pretty confident the average selling price for all 60"-70" TVs sold in 2016 will be significantly lower than it was in 2012 (when it very well may have been $6000).


The problem is how you subsegment this subsegment into 'premium' and 'basic' levels. In 2012 I believe it was all essentially premium - there were no 'basic' 70" TVs on the market. So let's say the miniscule market for 60-70" TVs in 2011 was 99% premium and 1% whatever (dancing in front of a 65" mirror . This year, you can get a 70" Vizio E Series for $1600 and a 70" Sharp SQ for $2100, so again, I believe there will be a much larger number of 60-70" TVs sold in 2014 than in 2011 and that the average selling price for those TVs will be far lower than the $6000 it was in 2011.


Let's take a stab at subsegmenting and define a $2500 price threshold to separate a 'premium' 60-70" TV from a 'basic' 60-70" TV in 2014. My guess is that the ASP for 'basic' 60-70" TVs would be around $2000 and the ASP for 'premium 60-70" TVs would be somewhere around $3000. The average selling price for all 60-70" TVs sold for more than $2500 is certainly not going to be anywhere near $6000 this year - there are not enough brain-dead customers willing to pay Sony $8000 for the 65" X950B to make that happen.


So again, I agree with you, the market for $6000 TVs is vanishingly small and getting smaller every year. But the market for 60-70" TVs (sold a lower prices) is growing and will be more significant in 2016 than it was in 2011.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558813
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557631
> 
> 
> 
> And while I am sure you are correct that the 65-inch market is miniscule compared to the 55-inch market, I suspect that statement applies to the overall market and would love to know the percentage of the premium/flagship market that is 55" and lower in 2014 compared to the premium/flagship market above 55-inches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's leave aside the question of flagshippiness (I keep coining words!) and just discuss size. Globally 50" sets are ~10% of the market. In the U.S., the figure is higher and creeping up, but there isn't much evidence it's heading for 65" anytime soon (or perhaps ever.... ). If you take the subset of TVs that are large, you are already down to 25 million units globally. If you then segment _those_ by size, the vast, vast, vast majority are either (a) cheap (b) smaller than 60" or (c) both. That's why whenever we start talking about how big the market is for premium TVs, I never can get a TAM larger than 5 million units (define premium as the $2500 and up category). That requires a lot of aggressive assumptions, too.
> 
> 
> If you now want to talk about the TAM of flagship TVs of 65" and up, well we have a smaller market because it's hard to imagine that 65" TVs altogether comprise more than about 3-4% of global TV sales and a huge number of really big TVs are warehouse store cheapies.
Click to expand...


And that's why I hesitate to challenge you on any of these numbers - you have been tracking these markets for far longer than me and are full of facts, where I am full of speculation and observations from my local Costco and Best Buy










When you said '50" sets' it not clear if you meant 50" only or 50" and above. I'll assume 50" and above until you tell me otherwise. So OK, 10% of the global market or 25 million TVs 50" and above in 2013.


I just found this: http://electroiq.com/blog/2013/04/us-tv-market-set-for-second-consecutive-year-of-decline-in-2013/ indicating that the US TV market was 36.6M n 2013, so about 15% of the global market, is that accurate?


And if we assume that in the US, % of screens 50" and above is double the global average, that would mean 20% or about 7Mu of TVs 50" and above in the US.


In 2011, whatever the number and % of TVs 55" and above sold in the US, I would guess that it was hugely dominated by 55" TVs and >55" was a miniscule %.


In 2013, that mix has probably shifted, so that the % of TVs 50" and above sold in the US that were >55" was probably meaningful (as evidenced by >55" TVs showing up in Costco, etc...).


And in 2014 I expect that trend to continue. No data to go on, but just based on wall-space exposure at Best Buy, it's gone from 0% in 2011 to maybe 10% last year to 20% this year (wall space devoted to promoting TVs >55" as a % of overall wallspace devoted to promoting TVs).


Wall space is a leading indicator and I am just guestimating off the top of my head, but let's run with it. So 10% in 2013 would mean 700,000 TVs sold in the US last year were >55". Doesn't seem outrageous to me and may even sound a bit low, but I would appreciate your view.


And based on my 20% swag in 2014, that number may double to 1.4M TVs >55" sold in the US in 2014. Most of those will probably be going to non-premium TVs by Vizio, Sharp and others and if we use your $2500 'premium' threshold, let's take a stab at 25% premium/75% non-premium, which would mean 350,000 TVs >55" >$2500 sold in 2014 in the US.


In fact, rather than using a price threshold to distinguish premium fro m not premium, a % threshold makes more sense since the price keeps declining year over year. So we can debate about whether 25%/75% or 10%/90% is more appropriate, but the point is that the % mix is probably more important than the specific price threshold that defines that mix.


So circling back to you overall market numbers, the 700,000 TVs >55" sold in the US would constitute only 0.3% of global TV sales - maybe that get's tripled around the world to 1% but it still seems overly conservative versus your estimate of 3-4% of global TV sales going to 65" and above TVs.


I'm not sure where your 3-4% estimate came from, but that translates to 7.5-10 million TVs 65" and above sold globally - if there were ~37M TVs sold in the US last year, how many of those 7.5-10M 65" and above TVs do you believe were sold here?


If we had crystal balls, knowing the trend of 55" TVs sold at prices above $2500 and 65" TVs sold at prices above $2500 would be the most important thing to extrapolate to 2016 and see whether LG is better off aiming at 55" TVs selling for $2500-3000 or 65" TVs selling for prices over $3000. Your data makes me think that for the worldwide market, the 55" target may well be the better one to aim for by 2016, while for the US market, I have the suspicion that 55" is unlikely to be very successful by 2016 even at that price point and the growth in the premium market at 65" may make that the better target for LG (whih may be why they are planning on targeting both).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558813
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557631
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an opinion on the DisplaySearch OLED TV cost versus LCD TV cost numbers that I found?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED costs are outrageous today. Someday they may not be. DisplaySearch is taking limited data and making a bunch of graphs that imply precision. I'm not bothering.
Click to expand...


OK, well I'll take that as an indication that their data is meaningless and should be ignored. Back to operating in a vacuum.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24558813
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180#post_24557631
> 
> 
> 
> The 65" has not been priced yet and it won't surprise me to see LG holds off on announcing pricing until they have product to ship. By late 2015, I believe it will be important for LG to match the price of whatever the most expensive 65" Flagship is on the market by then. Maybe Sony's pricing of $8000 holds for another 20 months (highly doubtful) and maybe the entire 65" Flagship end of the market shifts to Samsung's pricing of $5000 - we should know by the holiday season this year.
> 
> 
> If LG can sell a 55" OLED for $2500 by late 2015, they should be able to sell a 65" OLED for $5000 if they need to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should and will remain different things.
Click to expand...


They are related in terms of yields and manufacturing costs, and in terms of the losses or reduced profits that LG can _afford_ to take (if they need to), they will thus be related as well. If and when LG gets to discounted prices on the 2014 55" and 65" TVs, I believe it will give some insight as to where they stand with yields and manufacturing costs...


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24560421
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24560382
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that the composition of white is going to shift significantly approaching the half brightness point. When blue is at half brightness (in this made up example) we'll have 0.5, 0.7. 0.8 and brightness will be 67%, but more importantly, blue intensity has shifted from being 100% of red to only 63% of red and green has shifted from being 100% of red to only 88% of red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lifetime doesnt work like this for a stacked OLED. The blue is the limiting factor in the half-life for the white emissions but the light output along the entire spectrum degrades at roughly the same rate. The color stability of white is an advantage of LG's approach.
Click to expand...


You've been looking at this OLED stuff for so long that I have to trust your statement, but I would appreciate to understand the reason, as it is not obvious.


If true, it is obviously good news and means recalibration would not be needed (and perhaps this is what you mean about the LG approach having a fundamental advantage versus the Samsung approach).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24560421
> 
> 
> The lifetime doesnt work like this for a stacked OLED. The blue is the limiting factor in the half-life for the white emissions but the light output along the entire spectrum degrades at roughly the same rate. The color stability of white is an advantage of LG's approach.



They claim this, but unfortunately there is no reason to believe this is true.


Simply stacking the material doesn't make this true. If the blue "wears out" faster, the colors will absolutely shift.


Filtering doesn't solve the problem because the white you are filtering would still be different, nevermind the transparent section.


There needs to be a specific technical reason why you can "use up" the blue far faster than the red / green and yet not have a different color white coming out of the stack. An example would be, "Our red and green degrade similarly quickly to the blue over the first 30,000 hours before leveling off... " This would be nearly impossible to achieve technically (it presumes you can apply the OLED material with a precision they cannot and that it has a neat, clean curve whose first third matches the 30,000 hours of blue beautifully. It doesn't work this way, but I was merely describing a hypothetical that _could explain a mechanism for the fundamental idea to be workable._


Alternatively, LG could be compensating for the blue losing brightness throughout the display's lifespan by driving the red / green and blue differently over time. This would allow it to create the same white over time even as the blue ages "prematurely" relative to the other light primaries.


Absent some specific solution, however, LG's claim is bizarre. Merely stacking the materials doesn't change their fundamental nature.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24560714  ~~Using a plasma style technology employing PWM, this is true. This is not true in general however for either sensors or displays. Quote: because I said multiple times RGB can not mimic the way the brain processes color information The brain processes information feed from cones that peak in 3 areas: RGB. That is why we have displays that emit that---that is no mere accident. And that emission is from information that originated from sensors (cameras) that usually peak in those same areas. I'm fond of the theory that ideally we would latch one sensor to an output subpixel, but that would require a tight coupling of the display subpixel pattern to the camera's sensor cells. Quote: 3)Why do you think most medical grade monitors are used in monochrome mode only? Please don't pass off speculation as fact. Here, let me hit you with speculation that is properly labeled as "I'm not sure but..."------It's possible that the medical grade monitors that are monochrome are such often because they are fed only monochrome information to begin with (sonograms/CT scans/MRI) and in general want the precision that comes with having a "single sub pixel per pixel".


1) Here's the excerpt from wiki  saying the same saying I've saying in about 10 posts:  *In photography and computing, a grayscale or greyscale digital image is an image in which the value of each pixel is a single sample, that is, it carries only intensity information. Images of this sort, also known as black-and-white, are composed exclusively of shades of gray, varying from black at the weakest intensity to white at the strongest*.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayscale

 

2) Forget about  *the CONES,* and think of *cerebellums*! Our brains are so good that we think that we can't see UV light! http://www.extremetech.com/computing/118557-the-eyes-have-it-seeing-ultraviolet-exploring-color/2  . My neuro professor once told us that the reason why human heads start to hurt after prolonged exposure of UV is that most likely that it overstrains (overloads) our brains. Our eyes (cones and rods) can actually register UV light, but our brains simply "cut it out" the picture of the world wee see for limited resources reason (MRIs have shown that when people are exposed to UV light in the dark rooms with no other light present their cerebellums light up like 100 watts light bulb, because they have to cut it all out of the picture of what we see to maintain color constancy). People with messed up vision can see UV light post-OP while they brains are getting acclimatized, however if they never saw the light of day their brains may never stop seeing UV light and about extra 100 millions of colors which it puts a huge strain and stress on their brains. By the way, the only reason why we can't see in the dark is because our brains ( think perceptive recognition methods) are not that powerful to create the "illusion" of the world we see (in the brightly lit rooms are brains are less "loaded" strained than in dimly lit rooms, that's why it is easier to read, see and even "be" in brightly lit rooms that in dark rooms), however some animals like cats(felids) have tapeta lucida to help their little brains see in the dark although at comes at the cost of the net visual acuity. Arachnid's (spiders) night vision is quite interesting,  too, but it's too off-topic...

 

3) We are in the rut. There's not even one programmer in the world who knows who to (cost-efficiently) solve the problem of losing most color data during encoding and decoding...

 

4) OLEDs use the same 25 years old technique of decoding and that's a crying shame! REC god-damed .709!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180_60#post_24561392
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24560714  ~~Using a plasma style technology employing PWM, this is true. This is not true in general however for either sensors or displays. Quote: because I said multiple times RGB can not mimic the way the brain processes color information The brain processes information feed from cones that peak in 3 areas: RGB. That is why we have displays that emit that---that is no mere accident. And that emission is from information that originated from sensors (cameras) that usually peak in those same areas. I'm fond of the theory that ideally we would latch one sensor to an output subpixel, but that would require a tight coupling of the display subpixel pattern to the camera's sensor cells. Quote: 3)Why do you think most medical grade monitors are used in monochrome mode only? Please don't pass off speculation as fact. Here, let me hit you with speculation that is properly labeled as "I'm not sure but..."------It's possible that the medical grade monitors that are monochrome are such often because they are fed only monochrome information to begin with (sonograms/CT scans/MRI) and in general want the precision that comes with having a "single sub pixel per pixel".
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Here's the excerpt from wiki  saying the same saying I've saying in about 10 posts:  *In photography and computing, a grayscale or greyscale digital image is an image in which the value of each pixel is a single sample, that is, it carries only intensity information. Images of this sort, also known as black-and-white, are composed exclusively of shades of gray, varying from black at the weakest intensity to white at the strongest*.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayscale
Click to expand...

 

No kidding.  But that's not what you're saying.  You've been saying things such as "One bits means ON and all we really need for a pixel to do is to light up", which is completely false.  You need to re-read Chron's explanation because you're becoming dramatically confused over what bit fields really represent regarding intensity values.

 

We're done here.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180_60#post_24560421
> 
> 
> The lifetime doesnt work like this for a stacked OLED. The blue is the limiting factor in the half-life for the white emissions but the light output along the entire spectrum degrades at roughly the same rate. The color stability of white is an advantage of LG's approach.


 

I know why that's the case with LED, but in layered OLED I'm assuming that because the sandwiching between layers causes the anode of one layer to be the cathode of the other (as xrox was explaining some time ago) that as blue fades the electron/hole recombination diminishes for the upper layer?  This might cause that near linear decrease in yellow emission as blue decreases(?)


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24561390
> 
> 
> They claim this, but unfortunately there is no reason to believe this is true.
> 
> 
> Simply stacking the material doesn't make this true. If the blue "wears out" faster, the colors will absolutely shift.
> 
> 
> Filtering doesn't solve the problem because the white you are filtering would still be different, nevermind the transparent section.
> 
> 
> There needs to be a specific technical reason why you can "use up" the blue far faster than the red / green and yet not have a different color white coming out of the stack. An example would be, "Our red and green degrade similarly quickly to the blue over the first 30,000 hours before leveling off... " This would be nearly impossible to achieve technically (it presumes you can apply the OLED material with a precision they cannot and that it has a neat, clean curve whose first third matches the 30,000 hours of blue beautifully. It doesn't work this way, but I was merely describing a hypothetical that _could explain a mechanism for the fundamental idea to be workable._
> 
> 
> Alternatively, LG could be compensating for the blue losing brightness throughout the display's lifespan by driving the red / green and blue differently over time. This would allow it to create the same white over time even as the blue ages "prematurely" relative to the other light primaries.
> 
> 
> Absent some specific solution, however, LG's claim is bizarre. Merely stacking the materials doesn't change their fundamental nature.



I thought we had come to agreement on this the last time we debated it, but then again I am often confused







.


Just to lay out my understanding of the issue.


1) Throw up an all white picture on the LG television for 30,000 hours. You will find that the brightness has been cut in half but that the white point and color gamut will be the same. This is what the paper is talking about. The tandem OLED has very good color stability for white for any single subpixel.


2) OTOH, throw up a screen that is all blue for 30,000 hours. The blue will still be the same coordinates but only half the brightness. Now throw up a scene with a "pure" blue sky and green grass. The scene is not going to look the same as there is differential aging between the pixels.


In regards to point 1, it isnt just LG that says it. You can find the same claim from a number of different sources.


Page 119.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yLy07tnBZ90C&pg=PA117&dq=white+oled+%22color+stability%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=25Y8U-LxFcnw2gWT9IHQAg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=white%20oled%20%22color%20stability%22&f=false 


With respect to point 2, I dont know whether LG drives the sub pixels differently as they age to compensate for the lower blue lifetime. Possible, but of course, that would further reduce the lifetime of the blue subpixel.


----------



## slacker711

Amazon has more from the book that I linked above and the missing page gives a hypothesis for why white has such good color stability.


Page 121.

http://www.amazon.com/Luminescent-Materials-Applications-Adrian-Kitai/dp/0470058188


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24559439
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180_60#post_24559425
> 
> 
> The blu LEDs with yellow phosphor coating will shift towards yellow over time. So the RGB sandwich OLED seems to be an improvement over that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been 100% certain of this----can't find it.  In the LED (note: sans O) case, the yellow is _activated_ by the blue.  As the blue fades, the yellow does as well.  Because of an efficiency change in the "stokes shift" energy levels it might bias either way as blue lowers.  Did you see a chart on this?  (I'd _love_ to see the emission graph.)
Click to expand...

My impression was that there would be a yellow shift.. I never trusted the (yellow) phosphor coating. _They degrade over time and with heat, typically getting yellower and dimmer with age._


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180_60#post_24561790
> 
> 
> Amazon has more from the book that I linked above and the missing page gives a hypothesis for why white has such good color stability.
> 
> 
> Page 121.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Luminescent-Materials-Applications-Adrian-Kitai/dp/0470058188


 

It doesn't come up for me.  Bummer.  :-/


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24561408
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding.  But that's not what you're saying.  You've been saying things such as "One bits means ON and all we really need for a pixel to do is to light up", which is completely false.  You need to re-read Chron's explanation because you're becoming dramatically confused over what bit fields really represent regarding intensity values.
> 
> 
> 
> We're done here.


I'm sorry you didn't understand any of whatever it was 









 

24 bits (IPS and VA); 16 million colors, 8 bits per pixel, although in most cases it is 7 bits and with the last bit used to denote alpha, it also has different bit order from all the others  

18 bits give you 262,144 colors; 18 possible level (TN matrix only); each sub pixel gets to have 6 bits here; 111111 for R, 111111 for G and 111111 blue make up white color on TN LCD displays

16 bits you have 65536 colors; 16 possible levels for each sub-pixel of an RGB pixel and 16 levels of transparency; where 1111 for R, 1111 for G, 1111 for B and  1111 for T  make up white; 1111 for R, 0000 for G, 0000 for B and 1111 for Alpha is red; 1111 for RED, 1111 for GREEN, 0000 for BLUE and 1110 for T make up yellow; 0000 for R, 0000 for G and 0000 for B is black, 0001 for R, 0001 for G, 0001 for B, 0001 for alpha is darkish gray  ect.

12 BITs means that there are 4096 possible values for intensity or possible colors in RGB system 

10 BITs translates into 1024 colors where each sub pixel has 10 possible levels of intensity  and one level for T or Alpha; 111 for R, 111 for G,111 for B and 1 for Alpha is white

9 bits are 512 colors

8 bits give you 256 

etc.

etc.

 

Is this right binary representation of how colors are made in RGB? 

 

P.S.  I don't really remember what I was talking about so I need to freshen up on that


----------



## Artwood

So can all you geniuses out there answer a simple question: if you view OLED 12 hours a day--how long does it take until the picture sucks? How many years?


P.S. Yes folks--LCD is not the ONLY technology that can suck--OLED can suck, too. I'm against ALL technologies that suck!


Now let's hear from the LCD fanboys and the OLED fanboys tell us how their beloved technologies can't suck--then listen to the people who need to go to personality school and GET ONE tell us how each technology has its strengths and weaknesses--then let's hear from the BANAL party who say it's in each individual's OWN EYES--and then maybe finish up with the intelligentsia ACTING like they've ignored what I've written and continue arguing about colorspace math--or worldwide production figures and theoretical margins!!!


This is an OLED advancements thread--remember the question: with present OLED technology how long will it take with 12 hour viewing a day until the OLED set sucks?


If any people really do try to attempt to answer that simple question with a reasoned and thought out simple answer then at that point this forum will be the state of the art when it comes to all kinds of forums!


Thanks everyone---I do love some of you out there!


----------



## wse


This is Panasonic response to dropping Plasma and aborting OLED 

 

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/128065-panasonic-flagship-viera-ax900-4k-uhd-tv-coming-q3-ax800-and-as800-series-for-world-cup


----------



## catonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24561392
> 
> 
> 
> 3) We are in the rut. There's not even one programmer in the world who knows who to (cost-efficiently) solve the problem of losing most color data during encoding and decoding...



IMO your absolutely correct here stas3098.


All the complex data (colours, tones, contrast, brightness, sharpness, detail, shadows etc) found in each frame of a movie cannot nor ever will be understood using simple linear analysis. It requires highly complex non-linear tools and analysis but almost all so-called scientists avoid such analysis like the plague and instead fall back to crude, simple linear hacks. Moving images consist of dynamic changes in all the factors that make up an image and just as the sounds we hear that come out of our speakers and reflect around our rooms require complex non-linear systems such as computational fluid dynamics, so do moving images.


Until we face up to reality in these areas and stop trying to cram complex non-linear reality into a crude, linear digital framework we are cutting off our nose to spite our face, and that is not a pretty sight.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9200_100#post_24560634
> 
> 
> 1) One bits means ON and all we really need for a pixel to do is to light up. We attach one binary coded sting of info (101101010101010101010101010011101010110101010100101) to one sub-pixel of the pixel responsible for production of the dark blue of the intensity of n


You don't seem to understand how this works.


1-bit means pixels can have values of 0 or 1

2-bit means that pixels can have values of 0, 1, 2, 3

3-bit means that pixels can have values of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


The bit-depth is what controls the level of intensity of the pixel.

Your "binary coded string of info" for intensity is _significantly_ more than 1-bit per channel.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9200_100#post_24560634
> 
> _We're also currently losing three quarters of all colour information on televisions. Even with Blu-ray, we're only getting one out of every four pixels of colour information._
> 
> http://www.techradar.com/us/news/television/tv/bombshell-at-panasonic-resolution-doesn-t-matter-it-s-all-about-the-colour--1237586


This is referring to chroma subsampling, because video is encoded using 4:2:0. It has nothing to do with the bit-depth, or the display.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9200_100#post_24560634
> 
> *3)Why do you think most medical grade monitors are used in monochrome mode only?   *
> 
> *P.S.* I admit that if you never worked with monochrome medical grade monitors and their software it is almost impossible to swallow what I'm talking about in fact there's only a handful of people in the world that could appreciate what I'm saying . I also have the sinking feeling that hard I try to make my point the less people understand what I'm talking about.


Replacing three RGB subpixels with three monochrome subpixels gives you significantly more resolution when displaying monochrome images.


I don't see why this discussion belongs in the OLED topic, and you seem to have some crazy ideas about how things work, or should work.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9200_100#post_24560714
> 
> 
> Using a plasma style technology employing PWM, this is arguable. This is not true in general however for either sensors or displays.


Plasmas are 1-bit displays, but draw the image 10+ times every frame, varying the duration of each subfield to adjust intensity - so they are effectively combining 10x 1-bit images per frame. (relying on persistence of vision to combine the subframes)

This is why you don't ever see an image which looks as bad as the 1-bit image I posted, but why the images are generally noisy, as they use a _lot_ of dithering to make up for it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9200_100#post_24562476
> 
> 
> 24 bits (IPS and VA); 16 million colors, 8 bits per pixel, although in most cases it is 7 bits and with the last bit used to denote alpha, it also has different bit order from all the others


Displays do not have an alpha channel, computers do. A 24-bit display is 8-bits per channel. On a computer, 32-bits is used because you have 8-bits for RGB and an 8-bit alpha channel to calculate transparency when rendering items on the screen. This does not need to be passed on to the display.

8-bit is 2^8 or 256 levels of intensity for the red, green, and blue channels.

256^3 means that there are 16.7 million possible combinations of these three channels.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9200_100#post_24562800
> 
> 
> So can all you geniuses out there answer a simple question: if you view OLED 12 hours a day--how long does it take until the picture sucks? How many years?
> 
> 
> P.S. Yes folks--LCD is not the ONLY technology that can suck--OLED can suck, too. I'm against ALL technologies that suck!
> 
> 
> Now let's hear from the LCD fanboys and the OLED fanboys tell us how their beloved technologies can't suck--then listen to the people who need to go to personality school and GET ONE tell us how each technology has its strengths and weaknesses--then let's hear from the BANAL party who say it's in each individual's OWN EYES--and then maybe finish up with the intelligentsia ACTING like they've ignored what I've written and continue arguing about colorspace math--or worldwide production figures and theoretical margins!!!
> 
> 
> This is an OLED advancements thread--remember the question: with present OLED technology how long will it take with 12 hour viewing a day until the OLED set sucks?
> 
> 
> If any people really do try to attempt to answer that simple question with a reasoned and thought out simple answer then at that point this forum will be the state of the art when it comes to all kinds of forums!
> 
> 
> Thanks everyone---I do love some of you out there!


Well, now I would even have to say you're becoming unhinged with the labels.







I like supreme PQ first and foremost, whatever tech "flavor" is involved (hence why I have a plasma AND an OLED). Do you remember the first big-screen plasmas? What lifespan did they possess before attaining total suckage? Time will tell but I'll wager the 1st gen OLED are at least on par. Is that something to celebrate? No, but it's a start and a reminder how breakthroughs in technology come in waves and not all at once. LG isn't forthcoming about the lifespan so one has to use the context clues of what is known to reach an estimation (which I'd say has been done in the last several pages at the very least). I'll take the bait, though, and give you an estimate based on what we do know (basing a usable lifespan anywhere between 20,000 and 30,000 hours). The set should theoretically look fantastic in every aspect anywhere from 4-1/2 to 7 years. I'm really, really, really hoping the latter applies here (since I bought in, like a good fanboy of PQ!).


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180_60#post_24562800
> 
> 
> If any people really do try to attempt to answer that simple question with a reasoned and thought out simple answer then at that point this forum will be the state of the art when it comes to all kinds of forums!!


Two years.


But of course every technology has its advantages and disadvantages, and only your own eyes can be trusted.


The reasoning? Someone earlier in the thread estimated one year with usage 24/7, and for your case with 12/7, we have 24/12 * 1 year = 2 years.


----------



## catonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24562800
> 
> 
> So can all you geniuses out there answer a simple question: if you view OLED 12 hours a day--how long does it take until the picture sucks? How many years?



1. Comparing OLED with LED / LCD: Answer = Never, as anything is better than LED / LCD.









2. Comparing OLED with the latest and greatest Plasma: Answer = Probably the same time, but only time will tell.

3. Answer = Never, since watching what is on tv in these times for 12 hours a day for years on end will cause your brain and eyes to suck so badly that the state of your OLED tv will be the least of your worries.










Hope that helps Artwood.


----------



## Artwood

Wow--I thought that was my son posting in and I don't have a son!


All anyone really has to know is buy anything that is not LCD!


Maybe there will be something other than LCD to buy come the year 2030?


----------



## Broken-arrow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *catonic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24563130
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Comparing OLED with LED / LCD: Answer = Never, as anything is better than LED / LCD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Comparing OLED with the latest and greatest Plasma: Answer = Probably the same time, but only time will tell.
> 
> 3. Answer = Never, since watching what is on tv in these times for 12 hours a day for years on end will cause your brain and eyes to suck so badly that the state of your OLED tv will be the least of your worries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope that helps Artwood.


 Great if oled is same or better an Plasma is brutally good


----------



## catonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24563195
> 
> 
> Wow--I thought that was my son posting in and I don't have a son!



Never in my 61 years of life have I ever been paid such a valuable compliment Artwood !


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Coming Soon: Affordable Inkjet-Printed OLED UHDTVs*


Source: hdguru.com 


> Quote:
> The current situation with expensive OLEDs is about to change, however. At the recent FlexTech Alliance’s Flexible and Printed Electronics conference, exciting new fabrication techniques were presented that promise to make big-screen OLED HDTVs—and UHDTVs—more affordable. The key developments include new manufacturing equipment, processes and inks.





> Quote:
> Current big-screen OLEDs manufactured using vapor deposition reportedly have yields of under 40 percent, meaning that more than 6 out of every 10 panels produced are tossed out due to defects. Ricks expects that inkjet-printed big-screen OLEDs will have yields similar to sub-10-inch panels: in the 90-95 percent range, though achieving that yield will take some time.
> 
> 
> If the information provided by Merck is on target, HD Guru expects that prices for big-screen OLEDs will dip down to the point where the tech can compete with LCD by 2017. We intend to follow this story closely, so check back for additional details.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180_60#post_24562476
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24561408
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding.  But that's not what you're saying.  You've been saying things such as "One bits means ON and all we really need for a pixel to do is to light up", which is completely false.  You need to re-read Chron's explanation because you're becoming dramatically confused over what bit fields really represent regarding intensity values.
> 
> 
> 
> We're done here.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you didn't understand any of whatever it was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 24 bits (IPS and VA); 16 million colors, 8 bits per pixel, although in most cases it is 7 bits and with the last bit used to denote alpha, it also has different bit order from all the others
> 
> 18 bits give you 262,144 colors; 18 possible level (TN matrix only); each sub pixel gets to have 6 bits here; 111111 for R, 111111 for G and 111111 blue make up white color on TN LCD displays
> 
> 16 bits you have 65536 colors; 16 possible levels for each sub-pixel of an RGB pixel and 16 levels of transparency; where 1111 for R, 1111 for G, 1111 for B and  1111 for T  make up white; 1111 for R, 0000 for G, 0000 for B and 1111 for Alpha is red; 1111 for RED, 1111 for GREEN, 0000 for BLUE and 1110 for T make up yellow; 0000 for R, 0000 for G and 0000 for B is black, 0001 for R, 0001 for G, 0001 for B, 0001 for alpha is darkish gray  ect.
> 
> 12 BITs means that there are 4096 possible values for intensity or possible colors in RGB system
> 
> 10 BITs translates into 1024 colors where each sub pixel has 10 possible levels of intensity  and one level for T or Alpha; 111 for R, 111 for G,111 for B and 1 for Alpha is white
> 
> 9 bits are 512 colors
> 
> 8 bits give you 256
> 
> etc.
> 
> etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this right binary representation of how colors are made in RGB?
> 
> 
> 
> P.S.  I don't really remember what I was talking about so I need to freshen up on that
Click to expand...

 

I'm sorry, but you are a bit confused.  Some of the numbers line up, but statements like this "*10 BITs translates into 1024 colors where each sub pixel has 10 possible levels of intensity*" are completely incorrect.

 

A quick refresher on binary.

 

1 bit.  2 Possible values.  Options are:

0  (usually off) AKA "0"

1  (usually on) AKA "1"

 

2 bits.  4 possible values: (incrementing in base 2):

00 - AKA "0"

01 - AKA "1"

10 - AKA "2"

11 - AKA "3"

 

3 bits.  8 possible values

000 - 0

001 - 1

010 - 2

011 - 3

100 - 4

101 - 5

110 - 6

111 - 7

 

Take the number 2 and put it to the Nth power, where N is the number of bits.  And THAT is the number of levels available for a pixel of "depth N" in grayscale.  In color, we apply that same single number across each color component.  Note: this isn't universally referred to this way:  In PCs, the nomenclature for 8 bits red, 8 bits green, and 8 bits blue is to refer to that as 24 bit color.  In TVs it's referred to as 8 bit color.

 

8 bits grayscale.  2^8 possible values  (256):

00000000

00000001

00000010

00000011

(etc.)

 

8 bit color.  Taking YCC out of the mix for now, we have 2^8 (256) possible values for each of red, green, blue, resulting in 24 bits.  Thus the number of all possible values (all possible colors) are 2^24 which is what's known as "16 million", but arithmetically works out to 16,777,216 (possible colors).

 

Note: think of these bits as being "gathered" into 8 bit groups if you want, and each group therefore having 256 values.  But please be aware, I'm completely bypassing YCC, color models and correction, native panel depth, HDMI, and a *ton* of additional variables that can be involved in getting image information from source to destination.

 

So there is an *enormous* amount more than this, but you need to start with these fundamentals before arguing further points about pixels, colors, and vision, with regard to displays.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180_60#post_24562905
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9200_100#post_24560714
> 
> 
> Using a plasma style technology employing PWM, this is arguable. This is not true in general however for either sensors or displays.
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmas are 1-bit displays, but draw the image 10+ times every frame, varying the duration of each subfield to adjust intensity - so they are effectively combining 10x 1-bit images per frame. (relying on persistence of vision to combine the subframes)
> 
> This is why you don't ever see an image which looks as bad as the 1-bit image I posted, but why the images are generally noisy, as they use a *lot* of dithering to make up for it.
Click to expand...

 

Yes, but keep in mind that when I made this comment I had thought that stas3098 understood the basics of bit representation of gray levels, which he did not.  I thought he was going in a completely different direction than he apparently was.


----------



## tgm1024


 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9180_60#post_24561790
> 
> 
> Amazon has more from the book that I linked above and the missing page gives a hypothesis for why white has such good color stability.
> 
> 
> Page 121.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Luminescent-Materials-Applications-Adrian-Kitai/dp/0470058188


 

*Slacker*, as always, thanks for the PM----yes I can read that page now!

 

To others who couldn't read this, here's the section regarding why a stacked OLED maintains a fairly stable white even when blue fades.

 


> Quote:
> Also, *because of the energy transfer from the blue to yellow emitters, both emitters decrease at the same rate and the ratio of blue to yellow remains the same.*  This provides a stable color as a function of aging time.  This is one of the important considerations for a full-color display and minimizes the effects on color balance and gray scale for the RGB and RGBW formats.


 

They go further with the techie theory....stuff I find fascinating, but it might glaze over the eyes of some folks, so I separated it here:

 


> Quote:
> It is hypothesized that the non-emitting assist dopants, such as anthracene, which was doped in the hole transporting yellow emitting layer, has electron-transporting properties and adjusts the carrier balance to enhance emission.


 

Goes on from there.  But you can see that *LG is not blowing smoke on how they mitigate the blue fade.*


----------



## tgm1024


All this aside, I still think Samsung's rgB method will win over this in the long run.  Hope I coined a term there (captial B).

 

But just enlarging the blue makes perfect sense to me thus far.


----------



## vinnie97

It's definitely a tidier solution over all that stacking.


----------



## ChadThunder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24563450
> 
> 
> Yes, but keep in mind that when I made this comment I had thought that stas3098 understood the basics of bit representation of gray levels, which he did not.  I thought he was going in a completely different direction than he apparently was.
> 
> 
> Also, theoretically there'd be no point in any dithering if the PWM were able to be fine tuned (and fast) enough for any particular cell.  If the time-resolution were high enough, in theory it'd be able to approximate the levels needed with no dithering.  I don't believe that plasma has ever been able to do this.


Plasma is fast enough to do that, noise is added as a final video processing step to remove banding artifacts in compressed signals but also probably for legacy reasons, since moving to "neopdp" Panasonic has used 10-bit driving and processing but only in certain modes, why 10-bit when there is almost no content? because you won't run into rounding errors when playing in your CMS, most pdps look noisy because they drop a few bits of color in favor of brightness and make it up again with spatial dithering, thank the plasma gods my monitor only uses frc which is far less objectionable but it should be optional, or even configurable.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ChadThunder*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24563793
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24563450
> 
> 
> Yes, but keep in mind that when I made this comment I had thought that stas3098 understood the basics of bit representation of gray levels, which he did not.  I thought he was going in a completely different direction than he apparently was.
> 
> 
> Also, theoretically there'd be no point in any dithering if the PWM were able to be fine tuned (and fast) enough for any particular cell.  If the time-resolution were high enough, in theory it'd be able to approximate the levels needed with no dithering.  I don't believe that plasma has ever been able to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> Plasma is fast enough to do that, noise is added as a final video processing step to remove banding artifacts in compressed signals but also probably for legacy reasons, since moving to "neopdp" Panasonic has used 10-bit driving and processing but only in certain modes, why 10-bit when there is almost no content? because you won't run into rounding errors when playing in your CMS, most pdps look noisy because they drop a few bits of color in favor of brightness and make it up again with spatial dithering, thank the plasma gods my monitor only uses frc which is far less objectionable but it should be optional, or even configurable.
Click to expand...

 

Ah......ok.....thanks.

 

I remember Chron mentioning something about the 10 bit needed for CMS computation before (I don't want to put words in his mouth, but does it have to do with RGB->YCC->RGB roundtrip conversion?)

 

This still doesn't make sense to me because any CMS system is free to do everything in floating point for the conversion part.  Unless it's because once the data is written, the precision is lost?  I've seen such things in software many times.  The additional 2 bits function effectively (in a way) to the right of the decimal point providing 4 fractional values to the 8 bit main number to prevent compounding rounding errors.


----------



## sstephen




> Quote:
> All this aside, I still think Samsung's rgB method will win over this in the long run. Hope I coined a term there (captial B).
> 
> But just enlarging the blue makes perfect sense to me thus far.



Unfortunately what we have from Samsung so far is mostly rgBS


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sstephen*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24564509
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> All this aside, I still think Samsung's rgB method will win over this in the long run. Hope I coined a term there (captial B).
> 
> But just enlarging the blue makes perfect sense to me thus far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately what we have from Samsung so far is mostly rgBS
Click to expand...

 

Are you referring to their pentile grids?


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24563431
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you are a bit confused.  Some of the numbers line up, but statements like this "*10 BITs translates into 1024 colors where each sub pixel has 10 possible levels of intensity*" are completely incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> A quick refresher on binary.
> 
> 
> 
> 1 bit.  2 Possible values.  Options are:
> 
> 0  (usually off) AKA "0"
> 
> 1  (usually on) AKA "1"
> 
> 
> 
> 2 bits.  4 possible values: (incrementing in base 2):
> 
> 00 - AKA "0"
> 
> 01 - AKA "1"
> 
> 10 - AKA "2"
> 
> 11 - AKA "3"
> 
> 
> 
> 3 bits.  8 possible values
> 
> 000 - 0
> 
> 001 - 1
> 
> 010 - 2
> 
> 011 - 3
> 
> 100 - 4
> 
> 101 - 5
> 
> 110 - 6
> 
> 111 - 7
> 
> 
> 
> Take the number 2 and put it to the Nth power, where N is the number of bits.  And THAT is the number of levels available for a pixel of "depth N" in grayscale.  In color, we apply that same single number across each color component.  Note: this isn't universally referred to this way:  In PCs, the nomenclature for 8 bits red, 8 bits green, and 8 bits blue is to refer to that as 24 bit color.  In TVs it's referred to as 8 bit color.
> 
> 
> 
> 8 bits grayscale.  2^8 possible values  (256):
> 
> 00000000
> 
> 00000001
> 
> 00000010
> 
> 00000011
> 
> (etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> 8 bit color.  Taking YCC out of the mix for now, we have 2^8 (256) possible values for each of red, green, blue, resulting in 24 bits.  Thus the number of all possible values (all possible colors) are 2^24 which is what's known as "16 million", but arithmetically works out to 16,777,216 (possible colors).
> 
> 
> 
> Note: think of these bits as being "gathered" into 8 bit groups if you want, and each group therefore having 256 values.  But please be aware, I'm completely bypassing YCC, color models and correction, native panel depth, HDMI, and a *ton* of additional variables that can be involved in getting image information from source to destination.
> 
> 
> 
> So there is an *enormous* amount more than this, but you need to start with these fundamentals before arguing further points about pixels, colors, and vision, with regard to displays.


 10 bits per pixel have 1024 possible values which I called colors in binary system (the system is binary because it the controllers based on transistors)  

0000000000

0000000001

0000000011

0000000111

0000001111

1111111110

ect.

 Well, if 2 to the power of 10 is 1024, then the hypothetical monochromatic matrix (10 sub pixels per pixel)  can create 1024 different shades of gray as follows:

1 for first sub pixel, 1 for second and etc. 11111111 is white, 0000011111 middle gray etc.

 For RGB would be 3levels for R, 3 levels for G and 3 levels for B, 1 level for Alpha hence the total of 1024

*How is it completely wrong?*


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24562905
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand how this works.
> 
> 
> 1-bit means pixels can have values of 0 or 1
> 
> 2-bit means that pixels can have values of 0, 1, 2, 3
> 
> 3-bit means that pixels can have values of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
> 
> 
> The bit-depth is what controls the level of intensity of the pixel.
> 
> Your "binary coded string of info" for intensity is *significantly* more than 1-bit per channel.
> 
> This is referring to chroma subsampling, because video is encoded using 4:2:0. It has nothing to do with the bit-depth, or the display.
> 
> Replacing three RGB subpixels with three monochrome subpixels gives you significantly more resolution when displaying monochrome images.
> 
> 
> I don't see why this discussion belongs in the OLED topic, and you seem to have some crazy ideas about how things work, or should work.
> 
> Plasmas are 1-bit displays, but draw the image 10+ times every frame, varying the duration of each subfield to adjust intensity - so they are effectively combining 10x 1-bit images per frame. (relying on persistence of vision to combine the subframes)
> 
> This is why you don't ever see an image which looks as bad as the 1-bit image I posted, but why the images are generally noisy, as they use a *lot* of dithering to make up for it.
> 
> Displays do not have an alpha channel, computers do. A 24-bit display is 8-bits per channel. On a computer, 32-bits is used because you have 8-bits for RGB and an 8-bit alpha channel to calculate transparency when rendering items on the screen. This does not need to be passed on to the display.
> 
> 8-bit is 2^8 or 256 levels of intensity for the red, green, and blue channels.
> 
> 256^3 means that there are 16.7 million possible combinations of these three channels.


 

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+111111+11111+1 is the number of the sub pixels of the same intensity in one pixel it shows what kind of dynamic range you can achieve with monochromatic displays, where 1 stands for ON and zero stands OFF. For example 1 for the first RED sub pixel, 0 for the second RED sub- pixel and etc 1101010101010101010101010011101010110101010100101 is really cool-looking red with huge dynamic range that is unachievable for RGB!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24561759
> 
> 
> I thought we had come to agreement on this the last time we debated it, but then again I am often confused
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Just to lay out my understanding of the issue.
> 
> 
> 1) Throw up an all white picture on the LG television for 30,000 hours. You will find that the brightness has been cut in half but that the white point and color gamut will be the same. This is what the paper is talking about. The tandem OLED has very good color stability for white for any single subpixel.
> 
> 
> 2) OTOH, throw up a screen that is all blue for 30,000 hours. The blue will still be the same coordinates but only half the brightness. Now throw up a scene with a "pure" blue sky and green grass. The scene is not going to look the same as there is differential aging between the pixels.
> 
> 
> In regards to point 1, it isnt just LG that says it. You can find the same claim from a number of different sources.
> 
> 
> Page 119.
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=yLy07tnBZ90C&pg=PA117&dq=white+oled+%22color+stability%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=25Y8U-LxFcnw2gWT9IHQAg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=white%20oled%20%22color%20stability%22&f=false
> 
> 
> With respect to point 2, I dont know whether LG drives the sub pixels differently as they age to compensate for the lower blue lifetime. Possible, but of course, that would further reduce the lifetime of the blue subpixel.



It all sounds good. It would be a lot more impressive if there were some displays with 30,000 hours on them. Or, you know, 5000 hours.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24563402
> 
> *Coming Soon: Affordable Inkjet-Printed OLED UHDTVs*



Where have I heard that before?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24563507
> 
> 
> Goes on from there.  But you can see that *LG is not blowing smoke on how they mitigate the blue fade.*



Really? The blue is magically affecting the "yellow" (which as far as we know is not how LG is doing it, since they appear to be using red and green, not yellow, but whatever). That sounds very smoke and mirrors-y.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24563711
> 
> 
> All this aside, I still think Samsung's rgB method will win over this in the long run.  Hope I coined a term there (captial B).
> 
> 
> But just enlarging the blue makes perfect sense to me thus far.



Samsung's method has exactly zero chance to win. That it works for 5-inch displays despite using a technique out of the 1910s or so (I used Wikipedia for the date, so take that with a grain of salt) is almost beside the point.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24563721
> 
> 
> It's definitely a tidier solution over all that stacking.



It's actually way messier. When printable OLEDs come (assuming they do) and the OLED material can be applied with precision. there is hope for RGB solutions being "tidier." Right now they are a mess and make what LG is doing seem elegant by comparison.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Quote:Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24565796
> 
> 
> 10 bits per pixel have 1024 possible values which I called colors in binary system (the system is binary because it the controllers based on transistors)
> 
> 0000000000
> 
> 0000000001
> 
> 0000000011
> 
> 0000000111
> 
> 0000001111
> 
> 1111111110
> 
> ect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely wrong.  In the case of 10 bits, you would do well to think of values from 0 to 1023.
> 
> 
> 
> The system is binary because the entire framework is digital, not because of transistors.
Click to expand...




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if 2 to the power of 10 is 1024, then the hypothetical monochromatic matrix (10 sub pixels per pixel)  can create 1024 different shades of gray as follows:
> 
> 1 for first sub pixel, 1 for second and etc. 11111111 is white, 0000011111 middle gray etc.
> 
> For RGB would be 3levels for R, 3 levels for G and 3 levels for B, 1 level for Alpha hence the total of 1024
> 
> *How is it completely wrong?*
Click to expand...

 

Sigh.  I'm beginning to wonder if you're doing this on purpose.

 

In a hypothetical 10 subpixels "pixel" where each sub is on or off, then those values you're talking about wouldn't work at all.  0101010101 would be the same gray level as 1010101010.

 

Please stop this.

 

You're thinking in streams of bits completely without thinking in terms of how they are grouped into larger numbers.  I'm not sure where on earth you got your ideas from, but you need to start from scratch on this.  For 10 bit color, think of 3 numbers, each from 0 to 1023.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24565987
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24563507
> 
> 
> Goes on from there.  But you can see that *LG is not blowing smoke on how they mitigate the blue fade.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The blue is magically affecting the "yellow" (which as far as we know is not how LG is doing it, since they appear to be using red and green, not yellow, but whatever). That sounds very smoke and mirrors-y.
Click to expand...

 

No, not magically.  We have no definitive schematic from LG (I've seen a few diagrams, but they change), but in a stacked design, it's likely to be just as xrox pointed out some time ago:  The emitters are tandem in nature; the cathode of one layer connects to the anode of the next.  IMO it's hardly smoke and mirrors to suggest that the electrical characteristics of the blue changes as it wears.  And given that, it's not difficult to imagine how that could readily affect the next layers....they're dependent upon what the blue outputs electrically.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24565902
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9210#post_24562905
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand how this works.
> 
> 
> 1-bit means pixels can have values of 0 or 1
> 
> 2-bit means that pixels can have values of 0, 1, 2, 3
> 
> 3-bit means that pixels can have values of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
> 
> 
> The bit-depth is what controls the level of intensity of the pixel.
> 
> Your "binary coded string of info" for intensity is *significantly* more than 1-bit per channel.
> 
> This is referring to chroma subsampling, because video is encoded using 4:2:0. It has nothing to do with the bit-depth, or the display.
> 
> Replacing three RGB subpixels with three monochrome subpixels gives you significantly more resolution when displaying monochrome images.
> 
> 
> I don't see why this discussion belongs in the OLED topic, and you seem to have some crazy ideas about how things work, or should work.
> 
> Plasmas are 1-bit displays, but draw the image 10+ times every frame, varying the duration of each subfield to adjust intensity - so they are effectively combining 10x 1-bit images per frame. (relying on persistence of vision to combine the subframes)
> 
> This is why you don't ever see an image which looks as bad as the 1-bit image I posted, but why the images are generally noisy, as they use a *lot* of dithering to make up for it.
> 
> Displays do not have an alpha channel, computers do. A 24-bit display is 8-bits per channel. On a computer, 32-bits is used because you have 8-bits for RGB and an 8-bit alpha channel to calculate transparency when rendering items on the screen. This does not need to be passed on to the display.
> 
> 8-bit is 2^8 or 256 levels of intensity for the red, green, and blue channels.
> 
> 256^3 means that there are 16.7 million possible combinations of these three channels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+111111+11111+1 is the number of the sub pixels of the same intensity in one pixel it shows what kind of dynamic range you can achieve with monochromatic displays, where 1 stands for ON and zero stands OFF. For example 1 for the first RED sub pixel, 0 for the second RED sub- pixel and etc 1101010101010101010101010011101010110101010100101 is really cool-looking red with huge dynamic range that is unachievable for RGB!
Click to expand...

 

^^^Did a small animal just walk across your keyboard?  I have no clue what you're trying to say.

I've got two choices here in understanding you:

 

1. You're either not understanding the issue at all and have a completely different notion of what bits are and how they group into values.  You seem to be getting hung up on the bits themselves instead of seeing how X number of bits can make a field that holds a range from 0 to 2^n-1.

 

or 2. You're doing this on purpose.

 

Either way, I'm not at all sure what can be done here.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566018
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24565987
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24563507
> 
> 
> Goes on from there.  But you can see that *LG is not blowing smoke on how they mitigate the blue fade.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The blue is magically affecting the "yellow" (which as far as we know is not how LG is doing it, since they appear to be using red and green, not yellow, but whatever). That sounds very smoke and mirrors-y.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not magically.  We have no definitive schematic from LG (I've seen a few diagrams, but they change), but in a stacked design, it's likely to be just as xrox pointed out some time ago:  *The emitters are tandem in nature; the cathode of one layer connects to the anode of the next.*  IMO it's hardly smoke and mirrors to suggest that *the electrical characteristics of the blue changes as it wears.  And given that, it's not difficult to imagine how that could readily affect the next layers....they're dependent upon what the blue outputs.
> *
Click to expand...


If that is the explanation for even chroma aging of stacked OLED white, I don't buy it.


Even if the blue aging fastest result in a lower % of the drive dropping across the blue and more of the drive dropping across the slower-aging layers (red and green), so what? For the blue subpixel, it is only the blue output that matters (since red and green are filtered out), so even if it is aging slower now, this is because it is putting out less blue light, so blue has become a less strong color and needs to be recalibrated to be driven more strongly if you want the panel putting out the same image (same intensity of blue relative to red and green in terms of calibration).


The white pixels are even worse - once blue has weakened, the white point will have shifted, even if the speed of further aging of blue has slowed down relative to the green and the red, and there is no easy way to compensate for this through the drive - white has moved and is less blue.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Quote:Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24566073
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566018
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24565987
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24563507
> 
> 
> Goes on from there.  But you can see that *LG is not blowing smoke on how they mitigate the blue fade.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The blue is magically affecting the "yellow" (which as far as we know is not how LG is doing it, since they appear to be using red and green, not yellow, but whatever). That sounds very smoke and mirrors-y.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not magically.  We have no definitive schematic from LG (I've seen a few diagrams, but they change), but in a stacked design, it's likely to be just as xrox pointed out some time ago:  *The emitters are tandem in nature; the cathode of one layer connects to the anode of the next.*  IMO it's hardly smoke and mirrors to suggest that *the electrical characteristics of the blue changes as it wears.  And given that, it's not difficult to imagine how that could readily affect the next layers....they're dependent upon what the blue outputs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is the explanation for even chroma aging of stacked OLED white, I don't buy it.
> 
> 
> Even if the blue aging fastest result in a lower % of the drive dropping across the blue and more of the drive dropping across the slower-aging layers (red and green), so what? For the blue subpixel, it is only the blue output that matters (since red and green are filtered out), so even if it is aging slower now, this is because it is putting out less blue light, so blue has become a less strong color and needs to be recalibrated to be driven more strongly if you want the panel putting out the same image (same intensity of blue relative to red and green in terms of calibration).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's always the case.  The point is that the blue subs are driven just like the red & green & white subs and therefor they *all* decrease.
Click to expand...




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> The white pixels are even worse - once blue has weakened, the white point will have shifted, even if the speed of further aging of blue has slowed down relative to the green and the red, and there is no easy way to compensate for this through the drive - white has moved and is less blue.
Click to expand...

 

That's just it: that "white point" as you call it, won't shift.

 

The issue is to maintain a "white balance".  The shift is theoretically always close to a non biased gray.  They're not saying that the blue doesn't wear, they're saying that the red/green output (I've seen both references red/green & yellow) follows the blue wear.

 

Look, I didn't write the book that Slacker linked to.  I'm just pointing out that LG might be right here.  In any case, their claim is not a completely crocked together result of too many bong hits----there are electrical reasons for this that have in prior cases panned out.  There's no reason to simply laugh that off.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566106
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24566073
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> If that is the explanation for even chroma aging of stacked OLED white, I don't buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the blue aging fastest result in a lower % of the drive dropping across the blue and more of the drive dropping across the slower-aging layers (red and green), so what? For the blue subpixel, it is only the blue output that matters (since red and green are filtered out), so even if it is aging slower now, this is because it is putting out less blue light, so blue has become a less strong color and needs to be recalibrated to be driven more strongly if you want the panel putting out the same image (same intensity of blue relative to red and green in terms of calibration).
> 
> 
> 
> That's always the case.  The point is that the blue subs are driven just like the red & green & white subs and therefor they _all_ decrease.
Click to expand...


The blue sub pixels are drive by the need for blue light output. Any other OLED colors in the white sandwich over the blue subpixles will be driven will be driven as well, but that doesn't matter because all of the non-blue light will get filtered out of the blue subpixels.


The point is that the red and the green and the white pixels will be drive by the need for rad and green and white light output. If the display is displaying blue only (uniform field) the all of the blue subpixels will be driven, but not of the red, green and white subpixels will be driven.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566106
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24566073
> 
> 
> The white pixels are even worse - once blue has weakened, the white point will have shifted, even if the speed of further aging of blue has slowed down relative to the green and the red, and there is no easy way to compensate for this through the drive - white has moved and is less blue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it: that "white point" as you call it, won't shift.
> 
> 
> The issue is to maintain a "white balance".  The shift is theoretically always close to a non biased gray.  They're not saying that the blue doesn't wear, they're saying that the red/green output (I've seen both references red/green & yellow) follows the blue wear.
> 
> 
> Look, I didn't write the book that Slacker linked to.  I'm just pointing out that LG might be right here.  In any case, *their claim is not a completely crocked together result of too many bong hits*----there are electrical reasons for this that have in prior cases panned out.  *There's no reason to simply laugh that off*.
Click to expand...


I'm not laughing anything off - I am just trying to understand. I read Slacker's reference again and was allowed to go further this time before my 'page limit' kicked in.


The book is describing a white OLED created out of a stack of a blue OLED and a yellow OLED. The blue alone ages quickly, the yellow alone ages much more slowly, and the sandwich of blue + yellow ages even a bit slower than the yellow alone, and most importantly, the white point does not change during the aging process. This would be good, this would be what would be needed, this comes close the 'White OLED' discussed earlier.


Section 4.2.3.2. talks about a 'non-emitting' blue assist dopant in the yellow layer that has 'negligible effect on white emission chromaticity change with current density, but has a strong effect on operational stability and luminance efficiency.' And page 118 talks about a half-lifetime of 15,000 hours at a high drive level and 50,000 hours at a more limited bright drive level. If they can really compose a stable white output OLED with a lifetime of 15,000 or 30,000 or 50,000 hours, that is really all we care about.


So this all sounds great, but I am confused now that the Kodak technology appears to be a blue+yellow technology while all picture of the LG stack show red+green+blue. Is LG using what is shown in the Kodak book or something different?


Based on this reference, I believe that Kodak was working on a true white OLED transmission layer composed of a sandwich of a blue + a yellow OLED layer. If LG has adopted this same technology, it comes close to the idea of a dedicated white OLED layer (composed out of two sublayers for whitepoint accuracy and lifetime stability). And then LGs pictures of separate r+g+b layers is for marketing and just to show that white light contains blue light and red light and green light.


If LG is actually using distinct red + green + blue OLED layers, then what they are doing has nothing to do with this Kodak technology described in this reference.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566067
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^Did a small animal just walk across your keyboard?  I have no clue what you're trying to say.
> 
> I've got two choices here in understanding you:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You're either not understanding the issue at all and have a completely different notion of what bits are and how they group into values.  You seem to be getting hung up on the bits themselves instead of seeing how X number of bits can make a field that holds a range from 0 to 2^n-1.
> 
> 
> 
> or 2. You're doing this on purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, I'm not at all sure what can be done here.


 

1) From what I see I can say you and me do have different concepts of BITs (However I'm not really now sure what you mean by bits)!

  

2) It's getting really old ! It's like talking to the hand! And it is getting a bit off-the-chain in here. too hence it needs to stop! (on this one we see to agree)

 

3)  I am not pattering (means talk at length for hours on end without saying anything significant at all) about BITs as you see and know them I'm pontificating about how A GOD-DAMNED controller sees and knows i.e in physical terms. Intel Sandy Bridge E septacore transistor's count is 2.3 billion and at 1 Hertz i.e one cycle per second it can process 2.3 billion "bits". These 2.3 billion transistors create patterns like this one

10101010101010

10100000010001

10101010010100

01010101010101

10101010101010

where 1 stand for letting the god-damned current flow and zero stands for not letting the current flow meaning (in the narrow sense) a transistor can only have two states (ON or OFF) this is the very reason for the binary system ( THERE ARE Ternary systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer and someday quaternary, quinary, senary sytems might just up and come along if we learn how to cost effetely produce fets, but that day seems only to be getting farther and farther away from us with each year, though) ! *But If you want to keep on believing that the reason behind binary systems is the digital* (yes in some part it is actually) *one* then I'm not gonna go ahead and, you know, burst your bubble or harsh your mellow by lifting the skirt, shaving the cat, spilling the beans, opening the box or shedding the light









 

4) 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566018


   *You're thinking in streams of bits completely without thinking in terms of how they are grouped into larger numbers* *well because thinking in terms of how they are grouped into larger numbers at the controller level would be simply impossible because they (controllers) are composed of transistors* (you can only think of one transistor at that level) which may only have 0 or 1 values which then form strings(patterns) and the frequency regulates the voltages per cycle.(physics 101)

 

*Physical representation*

  A bit can be stored by a digital device or other physical system that exists in either of two possible distinct states (here's the reference to transistors) . These may be the two stable states of a flip-flop, two positions of an electrical switch, two distinct voltage or current levels allowed by a circuit, two distinct levels of light intensity, two directions of magnetization or polarization, the orientation of reversible double stranded DNA, etc. Bits can be implemented in many forms. *In most modern computing devices, a bit is usually represented by an electrical voltage or current pulse, or by the electrical state of a flip-flop circuit*. For devices using positive logic, a digit value of 1 (or a logical value of true) is represented by a more positive voltage relative to the representation of 0. The specific voltages are different for different logic families and variations are permitted to allow for component aging and noise immunity. For example, in transistor–transistor logic (TTL) and compatible circuits, digit values 0 and 1 at the output of a device are represented by no higher than 0.4 volts and no lower than 2.6 volts, respectively; while TTL inputs are specified to recognize 0.8 volts or below as 0 and 2.2 volts or above as 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit

 

  If one doesn't even know what a controller IS how can you possibly fathom how it works and the way it makes a display display colors? Well the only one answer that comes to mind is: THERE'S NO WAY IN THE HELL one can fathom IT i.e it is unfathomable for one just like human soul is









 

5) DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT *BOOLEAN LOGIC* (the thing I , in some part, base my ideas on) MEANS? ( If you do then please break the aforementioned concept down for me, so that I can be sure we are on the same page at least on one thing, well if you do not then I *believe you and me will never be able to get on the same page or see eye to eye for that matter and we'll just have to let it go and go our separate ways on this one or as some might say: agree to disagree, accept it and move on)*


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566619
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566067
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^Did a small animal just walk across your keyboard?  I have no clue what you're trying to say.
> 
> 
> 
> I've got two choices here in understanding you:
> 
> 
> 1. You're either not understanding the issue at all and have a completely different notion of what bits are and how they group into values.  You seem to be getting hung up on the bits themselves instead of seeing how X number of bits can make a field that holds a range from 0 to 2^n-1.
> 
> 
> or 2. You're doing this on purpose.
> 
> 
> Either way, I'm not at all sure what can be done here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) From what I see I can say you and me do have different concepts of BITs (However I'm not really now sure what you mean by bits)!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) It's getting really old ! It's like talking to the hand! And it is getting a bit off-the-chain in here. too hence it needs to stop! (on this one we see to agree)
> 
> 
> 3)  I am not pattering (means talk at length for hours on end without saying anything significant at all) about BITs as you see and know them I'm pontificating about how A GOD-DAMNED controller sees and knows i.e in physical terms. Intel Sandy Bridge E septacore transistor's count is 2.3 billion and at 1 Hertz i.e one cycle per second it can process 2.3 billion "bits". These 2.3 billion transistors create patterns like this one
> 
> 10101010101010
> 
> 10100000010001
> 
> 10101010010100
> 
> 01010101010101
> 
> 10101010101010
> 
> where 1 stand for letting the god-damned current flow and zero stands for not letting the current flow meaning (in the narrow sense) a transistor can only have two states (ON or OFF) this is the very reason for the binary system ( THERE ARE Ternary systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer and someday quaternary, quinary, senary sytems might just up and come along if we learn how to cost effetely produce fets, but that day seems only to be getting farther and farther away from us with each year, though) ! *But If you want to keep on believing that the reason behind binary systems is the digital* (yes in some part it is actually) *one* then I'm not gonna go ahead and, you know, burst your bubble or harsh your mellow by lifting the skirt, shaving the cat, spilling the beans, opening the box or shedding the light
> 
> 
> 4)
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566018
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're thinking in streams of bits completely without thinking in terms of how they are grouped into larger numbers* _well because thinking in terms of how they are grouped into larger numbers at the controller level would be simply impossible because they (controllers) are composed of transistors_ (you can only think of one transistor at that level) which may only have 0 or 1 values which then form strings(patterns) and the frequency regulates the voltages per cycle.(physics 101)
> 
> _*Physical representation*_
> 
> A bit can be stored by a digital device or other physical system that exists in either of two possible distinct states (here's the reference to transistors) . These may be the two stable states of a flip-flop, two positions of an electrical switch, two distinct voltage or current levels allowed by a circuit, two distinct levels of light intensity, two directions of magnetization or polarization, the orientation of reversible double stranded DNA, etc. Bits can be implemented in many forms. *In most modern computing devices, a bit is usually represented by an electrical voltage or current pulse, or by the electrical state of a flip-flop circuit*. For devices using positive logic, a digit value of 1 (or a logical value of true) is represented by a more positive voltage relative to the representation of 0. The specific voltages are different for different logic families and variations are permitted to allow for component aging and noise immunity. For example, in transistor–transistor logic (TTL) and compatible circuits, digit values 0 and 1 at the output of a device are represented by no higher than 0.4 volts and no lower than 2.6 volts, respectively; while TTL inputs are specified to recognize 0.8 volts or below as 0 and 2.2 volts or above as 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit
> 
> 
> If one doesn't even know what a controller IS how can you possibly fathom how it works and the way it makes a display display colors? Well the only one answer that comes to mind is: THERE'S NO WAY IN THE HELL one can fathom IT i.e it is unfathomable for one just like human soul is
> 
> 
> 5) DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT *BOOLEAN LOGIC* (the thing I , in some part, base my ideas on) MEANS? ( If you do then please break the aforementioned concept down for me, so that I can be sure we are on the same page at least on one thing, well if you do not then I *believe you and me will never be able to get on the same page or see eye to eye for that matter and we'll just have to let it go and go our separate ways on this one or as some might say: agree to disagree, accept it and move on)*
Click to expand...


I've not been following the details of this 'exchange' because frankly, it looks like a big waste of time. That being said, the drive voltages to an LED or OLED panel are analog voltages driven to one of several distinct analog voltage levels through a D/A (digital-to-analog) converter. If a panel supports a 'true' 8 bits, that means that each drive signal can be driven to one of 256 distinct analog values, generally equidistant in terms of voltage steps (meaning that they form a 256-step uniform staircase).


Speaking (I hope







) for many on this thread, most would probably much rather see both of you putting an equal amount of energy (and posts!) into helping track down whether LGs gen 1 OLED products have a real issue with lifetime and/or burn-in or not.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566018
> 
> 
> No, not magically.  We have no definitive schematic from LG (I've seen a few diagrams, but they change), but in a stacked design, it's likely to be just as xrox pointed out some time ago:  The emitters are tandem in nature; the cathode of one layer connects to the anode of the next.  IMO it's hardly smoke and mirrors to suggest that the electrical characteristics of the blue changes as it wears.  And given that, it's not difficult to imagine how that could readily affect the next layers....they're dependent upon what the blue outputs electrically.



It's difficult to imagine actually.


Let's just talk about two layers, since it's simpler.


One last 30,000 hours, one lasts 100,000 hours.


Let's assume they decline linearly in brightness / luminous intensity (again, for simplicity's sake).


Move ahead 20,000 hours in the future. The 30K hour layer has just 1/3 of its power left. The other layer has 80% of its power left.


It's not even a little clear to me what voodoo is supposed to be occurring that causes the red/green to magically become old as fast. The blue is definitely getting old every bit as fast here; no one is claiming that stacking makes the blue last longer. Why is stacking / sharing electrodes / whatever also butchering the lifespan of the other layers?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566106
> 
> 
> That's just it: that "white point" as you call it, won't shift.



And yet it must when the blue layer starts outputting less light....


> Quote:
> The issue is to maintain a "white balance".  The shift is theoretically always close to a non biased gray.  They're not saying that the blue doesn't wear, they're saying that the red/green output (I've seen both references red/green & yellow) follows the blue wear.



.... but why is this happening? Stacking is causing premature aging of the red/green? What's the mechanism?


> Quote:
> Look, I didn't write the book that Slacker linked to.  I'm just pointing out that LG might be right here.  In any case, their claim is not a completely crocked together result of too many bong hits----there are electrical reasons for this that have in prior cases panned out.  There's no reason to simply laugh that off.



I'm struggling to understand the "electrical reasons". It's not clear to me how tandem electrodes would make any difference here. And if excess current is making its way into the other layer(s) over time to burn them out, it should still be screwing up the white point.


What those linked pages lack is a simple explanation of the 20,000 hour problem I explain above: How does stacking the colors change the fact that normally blue would be essentially gone at that point while red/green would be basically new.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9200_100#post_24565902
> 
> 
> 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+111111+11111+1 is the number of the sub pixels of the same intensity in one pixel it shows what kind of dynamic range you can achieve with monochromatic displays, where 1 stands for ON and zero stands OFF. For example 1 for the first RED sub pixel, 0 for the second RED sub- pixel and etc 1101010101010101010101010011101010110101010100101 is really cool-looking red with huge dynamic range that is unachievable for RGB!


OK, it is clear that you do not understand what is meant by "8-bit"


8-bit means there are _eight bits_ (1 or 0) per channel. (or 24-bits per pixel with an RGB display)

2^8 = 256 possible values of intensity for each subpixel.


There are three color channels, red, green, and blue.

256^3 = 16,777,216 possible combinations of these values.



Your theoretical "1-bit" display with a value of "1101010101010101010101010011101010110101010100101" per channel would be *50-bit* (or 150-bits per pixel)


I am still utterly confused by the way you think that color and intensity work though.

You seem to think that each bit corresponds to a different subpixel, rather than setting the intensity for a subpixel.



Today we are dealing with 8-bit and 10-bit displays, because that's already a lot of data, and because it's difficult to build displays with finer gradation.

Internal calculations are often higher precision than that (e.g. 16-bit) which then gets dithered down to an 8-bit or 10-bit output to the panel itself.


A 150-bit display, or video to support that, is totally infeasible any time in the near future.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566951
> 
> 
> 
> OK, it is clear that you do not understand what is meant by "8-bit"
> 
> 
> 8-bit means there are *eight bits* (1 or 0) per channel. (or 24-bits per pixel with an RGB display)
> 
> 2^8 = 256 possible values of intensity for each subpixel.
> 
> 
> There are three color channels, red, green, and blue.
> 
> 256^3 = 16,777,216 possible combinations of these values.
> 
> 
> 
> Your theoretical "1-bit" display with a value of "1101010101010101010101010011101010110101010100101" per channel would be *50-bit* (or 150-bits per pixel)
> 
> 
> I am still utterly confused by the way you think that color and intensity work though.
> 
> You seem to think that each bit corresponds to a different subpixel, rather than setting the intensity for a subpixel.
> 
> 
> 
> Today we are dealing with 8-bit and 10-bit displays, because that's already a lot of data, and because it's difficult to build displays with finer gradation.
> 
> Internal calculations are often higher precision than that (e.g. 16-bit) which then gets dithered down to an 8-bit or 10-bit output to the panel itself.
> 
> 
> A 150-bit display, or video to support that, is totally infeasible any time in the near future.


  *I am still utterly confused by the way you think that color and intensity work though*. A bit is associated with a transistor and its workings for me.  transistors have two state ON and OFF. 8 bits to pixel means that the current can pass through a transistor 8 times in a single cycle ( you can set any time you want for a cycle, but usually it is a second and one passage or non-passage of current per cycle is one hertz, two passages or non-passages or one passage and one non-passage of current per cycle and are two hertz etc.) to the pixel to light up and dim it down and I'm not talking about LCDs here, because it is an absolute different story with them. Physical representation   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit

 

  *You seem to think that each bit corresponds to a different subpixel, rather than setting the intensity for a subpixel.* I "think" that each bit (transistor) corresponds to a different subpixel to simplify the grand scheme of things. i.e to remove coding, ducks (DACs) and circuitry out of the picture for the simplicity's sake!

 

  *Your theoretical "1-bit" display with a value of "1101010101010101010101010011101010110101010100101" per channel would be 50-bit (or 150-bits per pixel)* my theoretical 1 bit display has a 1MHz transistor per pixel.

 

  Okay, just for the sake of argument bear with me here. Quadro 6000 can transmit 144 GB per second for about a few minutes before it dramatically overheats and breaks down! and then you have about 8 billion of transistors onboard (and for simplicity we assume that they operate at 1 Hz while in reality they are clocked at 1800 MHz meaning multiply everything by 1 800 000 000 to see how many bits one hypothetical pixel can have with current tech) with it and only 8,294,400 pixels (divide 8 billions by 8 million and you will get the number of "bits" per color i.e 964 bits per second, we are talking monochrome here or 40 bits (2 to the power of 40 is the number of the shades of gray the display in question can in theory render) per frame for 24p or 16 bits for 60 fps (2 to the power of 16 is the number of the shades of gray the display in question can in theory render) for 4k (a string of bits (transistors) is assigned to every pixel which in turn means that one pixel gets the same voltage(bit) n-times to regulate intensity (transistors can only be, very crudely speaking, in two states ON or OFF) (the longer the cycle the more "bits" the image gets)  and you can set the amount of voltage you wish so, too of course).

 

   Well all the above written can't be implemented in the real world because one second of the video in that case would have the size of about 144 GB and you can extrapolate from that the size of a minute of video or an hour it would be simply totally, down-god-damn-right off-the-damn-chain crazy uncountably big and it is for *the monochrome image*









 

  Now you repeat this exercise by yourself, but only instead of using the 144 GB bandwidth you are to use the total memory bandwidth of 100 exabytes  and see what you will get (well basically what you'll get be 100 exabytes (exabits) PER SECOND OF VEDIO







 other than that and a few hundreds of other reasons it is totally doable (*feasible unlike going at the speed of light*) in the couple of billions of years from now at least that's what the meth and math say in unison


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566811
> 
> 
> 
> I've not been following the details of this 'exchange' because frankly, it looks like a big waste of time. That being said, the drive voltages to an LED or OLED panel are analog voltages driven to one of several distinct analog voltage levels through a D/A (digital-to-analog) converter. If a panel supports a 'true' 8 bits, that means that each drive signal can be driven to one of 256 distinct analog values, generally equidistant in terms of voltage steps (meaning that they form a 256-step uniform staircase).
> 
> 
> Speaking (I hope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) for many on this thread, most would probably much rather see both of you putting an equal amount of energy (and posts!) into helping track down whether LGs gen 1 OLED products have a real issue with lifetime and/or burn-in or not.


1) One would've thought they'd be using 16-bit DACs(ducks







) by now what with the advent of 4k and stuff at least for OLEDs (if LG wants their TVs to have the rec.2020 color gamut they'd need to use 16 bit DACs or at the very least 12 bit DACs).  *IS LG using 12 bit DACs for their new OLED TVs and if NOT then how are they gonna achieve rec.2020 color gamut? IS LG gonna be making Rec.2020 compliant OLED TV sets at their 8G fab?*

* *

2) *This 'exchange' frankly looks like a big waste of time*, yes it seems a bit wasteful, there's no denying that







 

 

3) Speaking of lifespan can OLEDs live, at 150 nits maintained throughout the whole 50000 hours, over 50000 hours without any color sh

16 bit color gamut


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Quote:Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24566619
> 
> 
> 
> 1) From what I see I can say you and me do have different concepts of BITs (However I'm not really now sure what you mean by bits)!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word "bit" is not written in all upper case.  It is not an acronym: it stands for "binary digit".  Secondly, look it up in any dictionary.  Here's Merriam-Webster's definition , but they're all the same.  Lower case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> If one doesn't even know what a controller IS how can you possibly fathom how it works and the way it makes a display display colors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know what a controller is.  Apparently you do not.  Further, this discussion is not about the controlers per se.  It's about the bit representations that feed them.  You are once again trying to obfuscate the discussion.  You've even said this: "10 BITs translates into 1024 colors where each sub pixel has 10 possible levels of intensity" which you're dancing around because you're embarrassed that it's nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> (Again "bit" doesn't have to be in upper case).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 5) DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT *BOOLEAN LOGIC*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Of course I know what boolean logic means.  Again, it's not the issue.  You're trying to duck and cover from the conversation.

 

Remember saying "10 BITs translates into 1024 colors where each sub pixel has 10 possible levels of intensity"?  I was trying to address this and related mistakes.  You go and cover that with *more* smoke about boolean logic and controlers.

 

I have tried, Chron has tried, and I can't speak for him but I give up treating you like you're sincere.  He can continue talking to you as if you are trying to learn, *but I am now convinced you are intentionally trying to stir up confusion.*


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24566283
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24566106
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24566073
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> If that is the explanation for even chroma aging of stacked OLED white, I don't buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the blue aging fastest result in a lower % of the drive dropping across the blue and more of the drive dropping across the slower-aging layers (red and green), so what? For the blue subpixel, it is only the blue output that matters (since red and green are filtered out), so even if it is aging slower now, this is because it is putting out less blue light, so blue has become a less strong color and needs to be recalibrated to be driven more strongly if you want the panel putting out the same image (same intensity of blue relative to red and green in terms of calibration).
> 
> 
> 
> That's always the case.  The point is that the blue subs are driven just like the red & green & white subs and therefor they *all* decrease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The blue sub pixels are drive by the need for blue light output. Any other OLED colors in the white sandwich over the blue subpixles will be driven will be driven as well, but that doesn't matter because all of the non-blue light will get filtered out of the blue subpixels.
> 
> 
> The point is that the red and the green and the white pixels will be drive by the need for rad and green and white light output. If the display is displaying blue only (uniform field) the all of the blue subpixels will be driven, but not of the red, green and white subpixels will be driven.
Click to expand...

 

Yes, and that's what I mean by: "that's always the case".  If you drive an entire screen with solid blue for years, the white OLED under the blue filter will fade and the white OLED's under the other subs will not.  You'll see the blue subpixel fade and the red and green say up.

 

But you do that with a solid red screen for years.  What do you have?  The white OLED's under the red filters (the red subpixels) will fade.  And the other subpixels won't.  So what?  Keep in mind, for a solid red screen, the blue in the stack still needs to be used because that RGB layer still needs to fire.  That red subpixel will fade *at the same rate that the blue subpixels did in the paragraph above this one because it's still driven by a blue OLED layer (+red and green).*

 

Now to the broader point that *you already seem to understand*, but to be completely clear about the rest of it, just in case it's lost before moving on.

 

Let's create an overly simple example where the blue half-life (the blue OLED layer) has been reached uniformly across the screen, and use the number "50%" strictly for clarity.  Further, we'll keep the additional layers listed as "red and green" to keep it as congruent to the latest LG diagrams).

 

Blue now emits at 50% for all the pixels on the screen.  *This causes the red and green layers to emit at 50% each. * (Again, I'm simplifying the numbers...the true measurements for these things would be way off from this).

 

The blue subpixels have a filter that throws out the red and green: the blue subpixel appears at half luminosity.
The red subpixels have a filter that throws out the green and the blue: the red subpixel appears at half luminosity.
The green subpixels have a filter that throws out the blue and red: the green subpixel appears at half luminosity.
The white subpixel is using the ½R+½G+½B to create a "half white": a gray.  Note: this gray is theoretically not steered toward any primary.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24566916
> 
> 
> I'm struggling to understand the "electrical reasons". It's not clear to me how tandem electrodes would make any difference here. And if excess current is making its way into the other layer(s) over time to burn them out, it should still be screwing up the white point.
> 
> 
> What those linked pages lack is a simple explanation of the 20,000 hour problem I explain above: How does stacking the colors change the fact that normally blue would be essentially gone at that point while red/green would be basically new.


 

Ah, I think see the confusion with what the text is claiming.  Yeah, we'll call it yellow for now.

 

It's not claimed that the yellow is being prematurely *aged*.  It's that as the blue outputs less, the yellow will output less.  They have a theory as to why in that text.  It could well be that when the blue finally fizzles out to zero (if possible) that the yellow stops entirely, *even though if it were wired up separately it'd be perfectly fine.*

 

The current flows from layer to layer to layer in a stacked design.

 

I'm sure slacker, xrox, or ynotgoal would know for sure.


----------



## greenland

From HDGuru



"Coming Soon: Affordable Inkjet-Printed OLED UHDTVs"

http://hdguru.com/coming-soon-affordable-inkjet-printed-oled-uhdtvs/ 


"The current situation with expensive OLEDs is about to change, however. At the recent FlexTech Alliance’s Flexible and Printed Electronics conference, exciting new fabrication techniques were presented that promise to make big-screen OLED HDTVs—and UHDTVs—more affordable. The key developments include new manufacturing equipment, processes and inks. We’ve gleaned details on these from a presentation provided by the FlexTech Alliance and trade publication CE Daily.........."


"Coming Soon" is questionable, since they will not be available this year.


----------



## vinnie97

That all depends upon you how define soon. Already covered, though:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9200_100#post_24563402
> 
> *Coming Soon: Affordable Inkjet-Printed OLED UHDTVs*
> 
> 
> Source: hdguru.com


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24568265
> 
> 
> That all depends upon you how define soon. Already covered, though:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9200_100#post_24563402
> 
> *Coming Soon: Affordable Inkjet-Printed OLED UHDTVs*
> 
> 
> Source: hdguru.com
Click to expand...

 

True, but it certainly doesn't hurt to repeat *that* kind of news.  I know, I know, "soon" could be not so soon.....


----------



## 8mile13

 _*link*_ 
*OLED Device Architecture Solutions:*

Kodak’s proprietary approach to providing highly stable, manufacturable AMOLED displays utilizes a white emitting OLED architecture. In this method, a four sub-pixel (RGBW) is utilized, with the color being provided by appropriately filtering the white emission. Compared to the conventional approach of pattering the individual RGB emitters, the white-based architecture offers advantages in manufacturability as well as higher levels of operational stability and color gamut. In particular, the white-RGBW (W-RGBW) architecture avoids the differential aging problem commonly encountered with the direct patterned emitter approach, which typically results from the more rapid degradation of the blue emitting sub-pixel (compared to the red and green. Kodak’s W-RGBW approach does not suffer from this problem because Kodak’s white emitting structure is highly stable and the white spectrum does not shift in color during long term operation. Hence the color emitted by the OLED display remains constant over time. “Based on years of experience, we believe that the path to a low-cost, high-performing AMOLED display is through the use of the WOLED (white-emitting OLED) architecture. The benefits include scalability, no need for shadow mask, lower manufacturing cycle time and better production yield. This technology is also directly applicable for future solid-state lighting applications,” said Dr. James Buntaine, Chief Technology Officer and Vice President of Kodak’s Display Business.



_*PDF*_ 
*System considerations for RGBW OLED displays*

In RGBW OLED displays, the white subpixel will be significantly higher in efficiency than the red, green, and blue subpixels and, may be used much more frequently than the colored subpixel. Therefor, it is desirable to form a white subpixel that has a different SAR (Subpixel Aperture Ratio) than the red, green, and blue subpixels to balance the lifetimes of each subpixel. Since the emitting material in each subpixel is identical _(i.e._, white), the lifetimes of the subpixels can be approximately balanced - by balancing the SAR's (Subpixel Aperture Ratio) to produce the same time-avaraged current density for each subpixel.


----------



## rogo

8mile, everything in that is still a lot of handwaving... It claims it doesn't shift because, well, it doesn't... Mmmm, k.


TGM, what you espouse is certainly a mechanism. I'm having a tough time buying it, but it's a mechanism.


The blue emitter "wears", reducing the luminous intensity of the sub pixel and simultaneously, some kind of feedback loop occurs causing the amount of current to fall in the electrode and therefore the yellow intensity to fall with it. I mean that's something. It presumes the pixels are somehow part of some incredibly elegant dance whereby the extra electrons are not getting absorbed in the blue and turning to heat instead of light and somehow the flow of current being "impeded" is also "informing" the neighbors in the stack to also receive less current.


Honestly, if this works, it's voodoo. That doesn't mean it doesn't work. There are lots of things in modern electronics that skate on the edge of voodoo. I'd very much like to see evidence of this voodoo on an LG display, however.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24569494
> 
> 
> 8mile, everything in that is still a lot of handwaving... It claims it doesn't shift because, well, it doesn't... Mmmm, k.
> 
> 
> TGM, what you espouse is certainly a mechanism. I'm having a tough time buying it, but it's a mechanism.
> 
> 
> The blue emitter "wears", reducing the luminous intensity of the sub pixel and simultaneously, some kind of feedback loop occurs causing the amount of current to fall in the electrode and therefore the yellow intensity to fall with it. I mean that's something. It presumes the pixels are somehow part of some incredibly elegant dance whereby the extra electrons are not getting absorbed in the blue and turning to heat instead of light and somehow the flow of current being "impeded" is also "informing" the neighbors in the stack to also receive less current.
> 
> 
> Honestly, if this works, it's voodoo. That doesn't mean it doesn't work. There are lots of things in modern electronics that skate on the edge of voodoo. I'd very much like to see evidence of this voodoo on an LG display, however.


 

No, not informing the neighbors in the stack; the "neighbor" (yellow) is being *fed* by the current exiting the blue layer.  I believe that in simplistic terms the entire stack can be thought of as a *single* circuit.  But voodoo or not, we're still *deep* in speculation land either way.  That's certainly important for everyone to remember.

 

Keep in mind though that it's not uncommon for electrical characteristics to change as things wear or even just turn on.  It's a loose and crummy analogy, but to dig up the simplest of extremes I can think of: maybe consider what happens when you have two disparate light bulbs in series.  A light bulb is just a resister and the resistance increases as it heats up.  One of the bulbs is designed differently to not dissipate heat as well so it will heat up quicker than the other causing a higher resistance temporarily which then affects everything on the circuit.  Then, of course, everything hits a state for a long time until one bulb starts to croak before the other, which also affects the other bulb.

 

Again, it's a horrendous analogy, truly is, but it at least shows that one object can modify the output of the other downstream without a feedback voodoo of any kind.

 

Don't get me wrong: This is really heady stuff.  I'm *not* the one to speculate further on the electron/hole recombination process between OLED layers.  All I'm saying is that LG didn't just go and make up something insane that no one heard of before...there's a science behind this that shows it has been duplicated elsewhere and we can't dismiss LG's claim offhand without knowing more.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24569494
> 
> 
> 8mile, everything in that is still a lot of handwaving... It claims it doesn't shift because, well, it doesn't... Mmmm, k.
> 
> 
> TGM, what you espouse is certainly a mechanism. I'm having a tough time buying it, but it's a mechanism.
> 
> 
> The blue emitter "wears", reducing the luminous intensity of the sub pixel and simultaneously, some kind of feedback loop occurs causing the amount of current to fall in the electrode and therefore the yellow intensity to fall with it. I mean that's something. It presumes the pixels are somehow part of some incredibly elegant dance whereby the extra electrons are not getting absorbed in the blue and turning to heat instead of light and somehow the flow of current being "impeded" is also "informing" the neighbors in the stack to also receive less current.
> 
> 
> Honestly, if this works, it's voodoo. That doesn't mean it doesn't work. There are lots of things in modern electronics that skate on the edge of voodoo. I'd very much like to see evidence of this voodoo on an LG display, however.



Figure 4.8 on page 118: http://books.google.com/books?id=yLy07tnBZ90C&pg=PA117&dq=white+oled+%22color+stability%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=25Y8U-LxFcnw2gWT9IHQAg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=white%20oled%20%22color%20stability%22&f=false 

shows the white electro-luminescent spectra of the Kodak blue+yellow OLED stack. If someone with one of these LG OLEDs could throw a spectrometer on it, it ought to be straightforward to confirm or deny that the spectral fingerprint of LGs white light is similar or not.


Among other things, the spectral footprint has two peaks, and while I am by no means an expert, I suspect that a 3-layer r+g+b oled stack would produce a white light that has a spectral footprint with three peaks.


And aside from handwaving, figure 4.11 on page 119: http://books.google.com/books?id=yLy07tnBZ90C&pg=PA117&dq=white+oled+%22color+stability%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=25Y8U-LxFcnw2gWT9IHQAg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=white%20oled%20%22color%20stability%22&f=false 

is data showing the spectral footprint before and after aging ('fading') to 50% decay in luminance output.


I'll also repeat what I pointed out earlier: section 4.2.3.2 describes the yellow layer being doped with a 'non-emitting' 'blue host material' that has a negligible effect on white emission chromaticity but has a strong effect on operational stability and luminance efficiency.


Maybe it's all voodoo, maybe it's all been made up, and maybe LG is doing something completely different. But given that this reference does provide some data on chromaticity, I for one would be interested to know what the chromaticity signature of the LG white light is and how closely it matches (or doesn't) the data shown in this reference...


p.s. maybe someone could ask Chad about this - I know he has a spectrometer and I believe he helped Cleveland Plasma calibrate one of these LG 55EA9800s...


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24569738
> 
> 
> I'll also repeat what I pointed out earlier: section 4.2.3.2 describes the yellow layer being doped with a 'non-emitting' 'blue host material' that has a negligible effect on white emission chromaticity but has a strong effect on operational stability and luminance efficiency.


 

Yeah, but I'm not sure that part has to do with *white* stability.  I could be wrong, but I believe they mean merely *operational* stability (that it stays going without break down), not that it stays true to white.  And of course that it increases luminance efficiency.  Beats me really, but given the way it's worded, I'm not convinced that particular non-emitting dopant is part of the blue-to-yellow energy transfer.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24569774
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24569738
> 
> 
> I'll also repeat what I pointed out earlier: section 4.2.3.2 describes the yellow layer being doped with a 'non-emitting' 'blue host material' that has a negligible effect on white emission chromaticity but has a strong effect on operational stability and luminance efficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but I'm not sure that part has to do with _white_ stability.  I could be wrong, but I believe they mean merely _operational_ stability (that it stays going without break down), not that it stays true to white.  And of course that it increases luminance efficiency.  Beats me really, but given the way it's worded, I'm not convinced that particular non-emitting dopant is part of the blue-to-yellow energy transfer.
Click to expand...


Well, on the one hand, I would interpret 'operational stability' to mean both stability in time (longer lifetime) and stability in spectrum (stable white point), but it doesn't really matter either way.


I think the point is that there is some 'voodoo' going on - the chemical and molecular structure of these OLED layers and what makes them work is probably going to go far beyond what any of we AV enthusiasts are going to be able to truly understand in our spare time, so all of that science is 'voodoo' to us - and more importantly, either these Kodak references are publishing real data or it is all make-believe (like that 'cold-fusion' episode in the early 90's) and secondly either LG is building TVs based on that Kodak 'White OLED from blue-stacked-on-yellow-OLED' technology or they are not.


If LG is doing something different than what has been published on the Kodak approach, it would be practically impossible to figure out what it is. On the other hand, if LG is using something similar to this Kodak technology that has been published, that should be relatively easy for some owner to confirm.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24569806
> 
> 
> Well, on the one hand, I would interpret 'operational stability' to mean both stability in time (longer lifetime) and stability in spectrum (stable white point), but it doesn't really matter either way.


 

Hmmmm....I suspect that if they meant to say that particular dopant helped to the maintain the blue/yellow balance, then they would have said so.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24569844
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24569806
> 
> 
> Well, on the one hand, I would interpret 'operational stability' to mean both stability in time (longer lifetime) and stability in spectrum (stable white point), but it doesn't really matter either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm....I suspect that if they meant to say that particular dopant helped to the maintain the blue/yellow balance, then they would have said so.
Click to expand...


I can't cut and paste but here it is retyping:


"It was found that both the yellow and blue assist host /dopant concentrations are important for both the *color* and device operational stability."


Interesting - I just noticed that pages 114 and 115 are not 'shown in this preview' - right at the beginning of section 4.2.1 where they begin describing the High Performance 2-Layer White OLED Architecture...


Is this the only reference out there?


----------



## 8mile13

 http://www.oled-info.com/lg-oled 


In december 2009 LG paid $100.000.000 for Kodak's OLED business, mainly for the OLED IP. LG's WRGB (White-OLED with color filters, or WOLED-CF) design is based on technology developed at Kodak.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24569894
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/lg-oled
> 
> 
> In december 2009 LG paid $100.000.000 for Kodak's OLED business, mainly for the OLED IP. *LG's WRGB (White-OLED with color filters, or WOLED-CF) design is based on technology developed at Kodak*.



That's what I would have thought, but Rogo is questioning whether the LG White OLED is a dual-layer stack composed of blue and yellow or a tri-layer stack composed of red + green + blue.


I just found this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1889/1.3069794/abstract 


"Efficient blue OLEDs with stability similar to white OLEDs were obtained by introducing a non-emitting buffer layer between the yellow- and blue-emitting layers of the 2-layer white OLED. This buffer layer is capable of transporting both holes and electrons. The stabilized blue OLED was then combined with another stack emitting in the G-R region, resulting in a high efficiency tandem white OLED. *By appropriate optical tuning, the 2-stack tandem gives* luminance efficiency greater than 23 cd/A at near D65 color temperature, *very high operational stability, and almost no differential color change with current density or aging.* These white structures can be used to fabricate low-power full-color AMOLED displays with excellent lifetime. Modeled performance for a 32″ OLED TV with 450 nits peak luminance with these tandem white OLEDs predicts an average power consumption of 40 W, a lifetime of 160,000 h, and color gamut of 102% NTSCx,y.


----------



## vinnie97

160k! Based on LG's silence concerning panel lifetimes, it would seem LG is *not* using that specific Kodak patent or were unable to recreate the results of the model in question. They bought the company in 2009 but the study was conducted in 2012...does that mean the R&D uncovered in that abstract also benefited LG?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24569887
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24569844
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24569806
> 
> 
> Well, on the one hand, I would interpret 'operational stability' to mean both stability in time (longer lifetime) and stability in spectrum (stable white point), but it doesn't really matter either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm....I suspect that if they meant to say that particular dopant helped to the maintain the blue/yellow balance, then they would have said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't cut and paste but here it is retyping:
> 
> 
> "It was found that both the yellow and blue assist host /dopant concentrations are important for both the *color* and device operational stability."
Click to expand...

 

Well I suppose they said it.  LOL...


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24569919
> 
> 
> 160k! Based on LG's silence concerning panel lifetimes, it would seem LG is *not* using that specific Kodak patent or were unable to recreate the results of the model in question. They bought the company in 2009 but the study was conducted in 2012...does that mean the R&D uncovered in that abstract also benefited LG?


 

That's a Society for Information Display abstract for what are probably many such white papers (no pun intended) around all with various stack approaches.


----------



## vinnie97

OK, but the author of the abstract is listed as Eastman Kodak Company, so it seems like they had the most to contribute.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24569983
> 
> 
> OK, but the author of the abstract is listed as Eastman Kodak Company, so it seems like they had the most to contribute.


 

I don't see Kodak listed in that page.  All I see for authorship are "Tukaram K. Hatwar and Jeffrey P. Spindle".

 

EDIT: I wasn't clear.  I was referring to the link fafrd supplied:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1889/1.3069794/abstract

...not the Kodak patent.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> I was referring to the link fafrd supplied


Yea, me too.







Click on "Additional Information" to expand the exposition on the authors. Maybe that's just their employer and they conducted it independently, but it's not at all obvious to me.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240_60#post_24570114
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> I was referring to the link fafrd supplied
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, me too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click on "Additional Information" to expand the exposition on the authors. Maybe that's just their employer and they conducted it independently, but it's not at all obvious to me.
Click to expand...

 

Ah....gotcha.

 

Additional Information
*Author Information*


Eastman Kodak Company, 1999 Lake Avenue, Rochester, NY 14650-2110 USA


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9240#post_24567433
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I know what boolean logic means.  Again, it's not the issue.  You're trying to duck and cover from the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember saying "10 BITs translates into 1024 colors where each sub pixel has 10 possible levels of intensity"?  I was trying to address this and related mistakes.  You go and cover that with *more* smoke about boolean logic and controlers.
> 
> 
> 
> I have tried, Chron has tried, and I can't speak for him but I give up treating you like you're sincere.  He can continue talking to you as if you are trying to learn, *but I am now convinced you are intentionally trying to stir up confusion.*


"10 BITs translates into 1024 colors where each sub pixel has 10 possible levels of intensity" does NOT really make any sense! ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?

 

It should have been written like this to make some:

10 bits is 2 to the power of and it is 1024 possible values (levels of intensity which rise uniformly, including 0) for one monochromatic pixel (red, for example) where 1111111111 is the most intense red , 1000000000 is the least intense red and 1000000000 would be the less intense red than 0000000001 red (due the increasing step(gain) of every consequential transistor, basically what that means is that the higher voltage the more current transistors let flow through (i.e the more transistors get activated) a (micro)controller in a single cycle) and 0000000000 is black, How it all integrates into the binary system is explained by BOOLEAN LOGIC.

 

Now let's just stop at that, OK.

 

P.S I'm still not sure what a bit really is







  for it has so many meanings


----------



## JazzGuyy

Bit (in the context of digital technology) only has one meaning. It is not open to interpretation.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*
> 
> OK, but the author of the abstract is listed as Eastman Kodak Company, so it seems like they had the most to contribute.


LG probably has a agreement with Kodak about post 2009 OLED patents. So, its seems that lots of that OLED LG stuff is american


----------



## Mad Norseman

OMG! - STOP with the 'bit/byte' 1s & 0s talk already!!!


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24571906
> 
> 
> OMG! - STOP with the 'bit/byte' 1s & 0s talk already!!!


I don't mind the bits and bytes talk







. If it's accurate, informative and respectful. eg. if talking about the bits used by a chip being in a certain order, surely that will depend on the chip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_significant_bit 

Maybe all the bits and bytes stuff could be in a different thread?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24571952
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24571906
> 
> 
> OMG! - STOP with the 'bit/byte' 1s & 0s talk already!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind the bits and bytes talk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . If it's accurate, informative and respectful. eg. if talking about the bits used by a chip being in a certain order, surely that will depend on the chip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_significant_bit
> 
> Maybe all the bits and bytes stuff could be in a different thread?
Click to expand...


No. As of the last post, I became 100% sure that all stas3098 wanted to do was save face by throwing one unrelated issue after another into the air as obfuscation. My discussion with him is over.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24572244
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24571952
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24571906
> 
> 
> OMG! - STOP with the 'bit/byte' 1s & 0s talk already!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind the bits and bytes talk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . If it's accurate, informative and respectful. eg. if talking about the bits used by a chip being in a certain order, surely that will depend on the chip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_significant_bit
> 
> Maybe all the bits and bytes stuff could be in a different thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. As of the last post, I became 100% sure that all stas3098 wanted to do was save face by throwing one unrelated issue after another into the air as obfuscation. *My discussion with him is over*.
Click to expand...


Amen to that!


Back on topic of OLED TV technology, does anyone understand what the failure mode is of the LG OLED pixels dying in the field? I would have thought that an OLED pixel dying in the field in a manner that it was stuck 'OFF' would result from a transistor on the backplane failing and no loner being able to be turned on, but since it seems that the backplane used for the LG OLED is basically the same as the backplane used for LCD, I don't understand how these failures could be occurring based on that simple explanation and would like to know if there is any OLED-specific aspect of these pixel failures in the field.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24572413
> 
> 
> 
> Amen to that!
> 
> 
> Back on topic of OLED TV technology, does anyone understand what the failure mode is of the LG OLED pixels dying in the field? I would have thought that an OLED pixel dying in the field in a manner that it was stuck 'OFF' would result from a transistor on the backplane failing and no loner being able to be turned on, but since it seems that the backplane used for the LG OLED is basically the same as the backplane used for LCD, I don't understand how these failures could be occurring based on that simple explanation and would like to know if there is any OLED-specific aspect of these pixel failures in the field.


In LCDs, "white" (transistor on "OFF") is the state of total relaxation for (sub) pixel. In OLEDs (we are assuming there's such thing as a WHITE OLED for the simplicity's sake), though white happens when transistor is "FULL-ON" meaning *IF A TRANSISTOR STUCK ON "OFF" A PIXEL WON'T LIGHT UP and vice versa!*


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24573105
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24572413
> 
> 
> Amen to that!
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic of OLED TV technology, does anyone understand what the failure mode is of the LG OLED pixels dying in the field? I would have thought that an OLED pixel dying in the field in a manner that it was stuck 'OFF' would result from a transistor on the backplane failing and no loner being able to be turned on, but since it seems that the backplane used for the LG OLED is basically the same as the backplane used for LCD, I don't understand how these failures could be occurring based on that simple explanation and would like to know if there is any OLED-specific aspect of these pixel failures in the field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In LCDs, "white" (transistor on "OFF") is the state of total relaxation for (sub) pixel. In OLEDs (we are assuming there's such thing as a WHITE OLED for the simplicity's sake), though white happens when transistor is "FULL-ON"(if the voltages below the gain range the "gates" are closed and that's how we get to have 0 blacks) meaning *IF A TRANSISTOR STUCK ON "OFF" A PIXEL WON'T LIGHT UP and vice versa!*
Click to expand...


Yes, this is what I had understood. The pixel failures people are reporting are black pixels (stuck 'OFF') not lighted pixels (stuck 'ON' so they glow like stars even on an all-black screen).


So if this is the right description for the failures people are seeing n the field, it means that the transistors get stuck in the 'OFF" position and the subpixel always remains black and cannot be lighted.


I'm still mystified why this field failure is occurring, since the backplane (where the transistors are) is basically the same as the backplane for an LCD (where such field failures are very rare).


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24573130
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is what I had understood. The pixel failures people are reporting are black pixels (stuck 'OFF') not lighted pixels (stuck 'ON' so they glow like stars even on an all-black screen).
> 
> 
> So if this is the right description for the failures people are seeing n the field, it means that the transistors get stuck in the 'OFF" position and the subpixel always remains black and cannot be lighted.
> 
> 
> I'm still mystified why this field failure is occurring, since the backplane (where the transistors are) is basically the same as the backplane for an LCD (where such field failures are very rare).


The difference is in transistors per se in OLEDs they act like switches(either, let current flow or not) in LCDs they act more as "amplifiers"( I'm gonna go into detail on this one, no matter what voltage is fed to them they will ,once enough of a charge accumulated, let it through, basically what it means is that the field failure is non-existent for LCDs if implemented right). Transistors in OLEDs get stuck on "OFF", because they are more "precise" meaning if the voltage fed to them is below 0.9 volts then the pixel won't light up meaning they need more precise controllers( which can't exist at this stage) that's all.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24573192
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24573130
> 
> 
> Yes, this is what I had understood. The pixel failures people are reporting are black pixels (stuck 'OFF') not lighted pixels (stuck 'ON' so they glow like stars even on an all-black screen).
> 
> 
> 
> So if this is the right description for the failures people are seeing n the field, it means that the transistors get stuck in the 'OFF" position and the subpixel always remains black and cannot be lighted.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still mystified why this field failure is occurring, since the backplane (where the transistors are) is basically the same as the backplane for an LCD (where such field failures are very rare).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is in transistors per se in OLEDs they act like switches(either, let current flow or not) in LCDs they act more as "amplifiers"( I'm gonna go into detail on this one, no matter what voltage is fed to them they will ,once enough of a charge accumulated, let it through, basically what it means is that the field failure is non-existent for LCDs if implemented right). Transistors in OLEDs get stuck on "OFF", because they are more "precise" meaning if the voltage fed to them is below 0.9 volts then the pixel won't light up meaning they need more precise controllers( which can't exist at this stage) that's all.
Click to expand...


Well you are right, I believe I read somewhere that the Liquid Crystals operate on voltage where OLEDs operate on current, so that may have something to do with the failure mode. But beyond that, I'm afraid I don't fully understand your explanation.


For voltage mode in a sample-and-hold display, that would typically mean opening a switch to charge a storage capacitor up to the desired analog voltage level and then closing the switch, so the access transistor must turn fully ON and fully OFF.


For current mode, you would typically need two transistors - one to act in the same way as in the LCD to store an analog voltage level, and a second to act as an amplifier and voltage-to-current converter. So I guess I can see how the second transistor converting voltage to current could burn out or could get stuck in an always OFF position, which would result in an OLED subpixel that would no longer turn on.


Don't know if there is some reference somewhere showing the typical backplane circuit for an LCD and an OLED, but I think you've helped me to understand the key difference. OLEDs operate n current mode and that means at least one additional transistor. And since that transistor is essentially passing a continuous current, that is more constant tress than just switching ON and OFF to store voltage levels, so that could explain a significantly greater likelihood of failure.


This has scared me a bit until the field pixel failures are understood in more detail - seems like this is at least one important way by which OLEDs may be fundamentally less robust then LCDs...


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:





> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24573291
> 
> 
> 
> Well you are right, I believe I read somewhere that the Liquid Crystals operate on voltage where OLEDs operate on current, so that may have something to do with the failure mode. But beyond that, I'm afraid I don't fully understand your explanation.
> 
> 
> For voltage mode in a sample-and-hold display, that would typically mean opening a switch to charge a storage capacitor up to the desired analog voltage level and then closing the switch, so the access transistor must turn fully ON and fully OFF.
> 
> 
> For current mode, you would typically need two transistors - one to act in the same way as in the LCD to store an analog voltage level, and a second to act as an amplifier and voltage-to-current converter. So I guess I can see how the second transistor converting voltage to current could burn out or could get stuck in an always OFF position, which would result in an OLED subpixel that would no longer turn on.
> 
> 
> Don't know if there is some reference somewhere showing the typical backplane circuit for an LCD and an OLED, but I think you've helped me to understand the key difference. OLEDs operate n current mode and that means at least one additional transistor. And since that transistor is essentially passing a continuous current, that is more constant tress than just switching ON and OFF to store voltage levels, so that could explain a significantly greater likelihood of failure.
> 
> 
> This has scared me a bit until the field pixel failures are understood in more detail - seems like this is at least one important way by which OLEDs may be fundamentally less robust then LCDs...


*The field pixel failures are understood in more detail...*

 

The failures occur, because the first transistor( or (micro) controller ) operates as "amplifiers" on voltage, but the problem with that is that this type of transistors have the fluctuating current at output, hence the "unevenness" and failures...  That's where all my pessimism about OLEDs comes from...



 

 

 When the first OLED monitor had been sent to the FDA (where I was an intern at the time) for approval I got a chance to get a first-hand in-depth look with an easy-to-understand explanation at how OLED backplane works.


----------



## vinnie97

The acid test for unevenness is on actual content as opposed to test patterns. The plasma I have will show obvious DSE on horizontal scans, and the LG OLED is more uniform in that scenario than the plasma could ever hope to be.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24573484
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24573291
> 
> 
> Well you are right, I believe I read somewhere that the Liquid Crystals operate on voltage where OLEDs operate on current, so that may have something to do with the failure mode. But beyond that, I'm afraid I don't fully understand your explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> For voltage mode in a sample-and-hold display, that would typically mean opening a switch to charge a storage capacitor up to the desired analog voltage level and then closing the switch, so the access transistor must turn fully ON and fully OFF.
> 
> 
> 
> For current mode, you would typically need two transistors - one to act in the same way as in the LCD to store an analog voltage level, and a second to act as an amplifier and voltage-to-current converter. So I guess I can see how the second transistor converting voltage to current could burn out or could get stuck in an always OFF position, which would result in an OLED subpixel that would no longer turn on.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know if there is some reference somewhere showing the typical backplane circuit for an LCD and an OLED, but I think you've helped me to understand the key difference. OLEDs operate n current mode and that means at least one additional transistor. And since that transistor is essentially passing a continuous current, that is more constant tress than just switching ON and OFF to store voltage levels, so that could explain a significantly greater likelihood of failure.
> 
> 
> 
> This has scared me a bit until the field pixel failures are understood in more detail - seems like this is at least one important way by which OLEDs may be fundamentally less robust then LCDs...
> 
> 
> 
> *The field pixel failures are understood in more detail...*
> 
> 
> The failures occur, because the first transistor( or (micro) controller ) operates as "amplifiers" on voltage, but the problem with that is that this type of transistors have the fluctuating current at output, hence the "unevenness" and failures...  That's where all my pessimism about OLEDs comes from...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the first OLED monitor had been sent to the FDA (where I was an intern at the time) for approval I got a chance to get a first-hand in-depth look with an easy-to-understand explanation at how OLED backplane works.
Click to expand...


I believe we are using slightly different language to say the same thing. To operate in current mode, an additional transistor must be used within each subixel as a voltage-to-current converter and this involves greater electrical stress than using a transistor as a switch (especially considering the analog nature of voltage to current conversion and the need for repeatability and uniformity).


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24573504
> 
> 
> The acid test for unevenness is on actual content as opposed to test patterns. The plasma I have will show obvious DSE on horizontal scans, and the LG OLED is more uniform in that scenario than the plasma could ever hope to be.



I am less concerned with non-uniformity (which can be compensated for) than I am with field failures of subpixels (which cannot). _Variation_ in non-uniformity over time and/or temperature is another more serious concern, but pixels failing in the field is a showstopper (at least for me).


----------



## vinnie97

I care about all of the above.







You betta' believe I'm running color slides nonstop before the local tech arrives on Monday to see if anymore transistors decide to go belly up. Still holding steady at 3 last I checked (only 2 pixels worse than two of the plasmas I've owned).


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24573521
> 
> 
> I care about all of the above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You betta' believe I'm running color slides nonstop before the local tech arrives on Monday to see if anymore transistors decide to go belly up. Still holding steady at 3 last I checked (only 2 pixels worse than two of the plasmas I've owned).



Don't know how plasmas worked, but generating light generally requires current and not only voltage, so the backplane of a plasma had a similar voltage-to-current generating transistor.


If plasma had a greater likelihood of subpixels failing in the field, it's possible that that same failure mode may carry over to OLED...


I know about running color slides on plasma to evenly wear the primary colors early in their lifetime (where wear as a function of time is greatest), but is running color slides on plasma also supposed to be a way to expose weak pixels and cause them to fail while still under warranty?


----------



## vinnie97

^I would say, most definitely. It's a stress test of sorts. However, I must say that didn't seem enough to trigger the weak point in my ZT60 whose single subpixel failure in the lower left-hand corner wasn't noticed until 3 months into ownership (well after I had committed a 300-hour break-in). That's still under warranty but almost not worth fighting Panasonic over if it's only one (haven't seen any others fortunately...


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_60#post_24573676
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24573521
> 
> 
> I care about all of the above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You betta' believe I'm running color slides nonstop before the local tech arrives on Monday to see if anymore transistors decide to go belly up. Still holding steady at 3 last I checked (only 2 pixels worse than two of the plasmas I've owned).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know how plasmas worked, but generating light generally requires current and not only voltage, so the backplane of a plasma had a similar voltage-to-current generating transistor.
Click to expand...

 

All electricity has both or it's in a very undefined state.  Usually references of something using one or the other refers to the *driving* characteristic.  DC motors, for instance, are almost always voltage driven: they of course require current, but their speed is determined by voltage.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24573694
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_60#post_24573676
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24573521
> 
> 
> I care about all of the above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You betta' believe I'm running color slides nonstop before the local tech arrives on Monday to see if anymore transistors decide to go belly up. Still holding steady at 3 last I checked (only 2 pixels worse than two of the plasmas I've owned).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know how plasmas worked, but generating light generally requires current and not only voltage, so the backplane of a plasma had a similar voltage-to-current generating transistor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All electricity has both or it's in a very undefined state.  Usually references of something using one or the other refers to the _driving_ characteristic.  DC motors, for instance, are almost always voltage driven: they of course require current, but their speed is determined by voltage.
Click to expand...


That's all true, but from what I've understood about LCDs, they are activated (or untwisted, or opened) based on voltage state alone (so no current is required). An LCD does not generate light, but merely blocks or passes through light that was generated by the backlight. The backlight (usually composed of LEDs) _does_ generate light and so the backlight does require power (meaning current at some appropriate voltage).


I'm interested to understand the failure mode of plasma pixels and to understand if there is any relation to the failure mode of OLED pixels - both plasma and OLED are emissive, meaning that the subpixels must consume power (currant at an appropriate voltage).


That is a big difference with LCDs.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24573724
> 
> 
> 
> That's all true, but from what I've understood about LCDs, they are activated (or untwisted, or opened) based on voltage state alone (so no current is required). An LCD does not generate light, but merely blocks or passes through light that was generated by the backlight. The backlight (usually composed of LEDs) *does* generate light and so the backlight does require power (meaning current at some appropriate voltage).
> 
> 
> I'm interested to understand the failure mode of plasma pixels and to understand if there is any relation to the failure mode of OLED pixels - both plasma and OLED are emissive, meaning that the subpixels must consume power (currant at an appropriate voltage).
> 
> 
> That is a big difference with LCDs.


I may be wrong here, but from what I know plasma generates light by sending pulses of electric current at high voltages and these high voltages are much higher(sometimes multiple times higher) than the voltage required for a sub pixel transistor "to "open its gates" and let the current flow through. That's why running color slides may kill a "weak" transistor...


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24573693
> 
> 
> ^I would say, most definitely. It's a stress test of sorts. However, I must say that didn't seem enough to trigger the weak point in my ZT60 whose single subpixel failure in the lower left-hand corner wasn't noticed until 3 months into ownership (well after I had committed a 300-hour break-in). That's still under warranty but almost not worth fighting Panasonic over if it's only one (haven't seen any others fortunately...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24569716
> 
> 
> No, not informing the neighbors in the stack; the "neighbor" (yellow) is being _fed_ by the current exiting the blue layer.  I believe that in simplistic terms the entire stack can be thought of as a _single_ circuit.  But voodoo or not, we're still _deep_ in speculation land either way.  That's certainly important for everyone to remember.
> 
> 
> Keep in mind though that it's not uncommon for electrical characteristics to change as things wear or even just turn on.  It's a loose and crummy analogy, but to dig up the simplest of extremes I can think of: maybe consider what happens when you have two disparate light bulbs in series.  A light bulb is just a resister and the resistance increases as it heats up.  One of the bulbs is designed differently to not dissipate heat as well so it will heat up quicker than the other causing a higher resistance temporarily which then affects everything on the circuit.  Then, of course, everything hits a state for a long time until one bulb starts to croak before the other, which also affects the other bulb.
> 
> 
> Again, it's a horrendous analogy, truly is, but it at least shows that one object can modify the output of the other downstream without a feedback voodoo of any kind.



Yeah, that's still feedback of sort. Maybe short on voodoo, but feedback.


> Quote:
> Don't get me wrong: This is really heady stuff.  I'm *not* the one to speculate further on the electron/hole recombination process between OLED layers.  All I'm saying is that LG didn't just go and make up something insane that no one heard of before...there's a science behind this that shows it has been duplicated elsewhere and we can't dismiss LG's claim offhand without knowing more.



I'm not actually dismissing it. I'm just finding it awfully convenient that whatever is going on is automagically providing an equivalent linear response in the non-blue OLED material as to the response of the blue material. Even if you believe the one is affecting the other by whatever mechanism, it's just flat out remarkable that the two are operating in some kind of harmony such that the decline of the blue is being mirrored with precision in the green/red.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24569844
> 
> 
> Hmmmm....I suspect that if they meant to say that particular dopant helped to the maintain the blue/yellow balance, then they would have said so.



I would tend to agree.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24569887
> 
> 
> I can't cut and paste but here it is retyping:
> 
> 
> "It was found that both the yellow and blue assist host /dopant concentrations are important for both the *color* and device operational stability."



So it's important for color stability, but it doesn't explain it in and of itself....


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24569894
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/lg-oled
> 
> 
> In december 2009 LG paid $100.000.000 for Kodak's OLED business, mainly for the OLED IP. LG's WRGB (White-OLED with color filters, or WOLED-CF) design is based on technology developed at Kodak.



Right, still not all that much money, but something meaningful.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24569907
> 
> 
> That's what I would have thought, but Rogo is questioning whether the LG White OLED is a dual-layer stack composed of blue and yellow or a tri-layer stack composed of red + green + blue.



It's something that isn't a straight-up white, that's certain.


"Efficient blue OLEDs with stability similar to white OLEDs were obtained by introducing a non-emitting buffer layer between the yellow- and blue-emitting layers of the 2-layer white OLED. This buffer layer is capable of transporting both holes and electrons. The stabilized blue OLED was then combined with another stack emitting in the G-R region, resulting in a high efficiency tandem white OLED. *By appropriate optical tuning, the 2-stack tandem gives* luminance efficiency greater than 23 cd/A at near D65 color temperature, *very high operational stability, and almost no differential color change with current density or aging.* These white structures can be used to fabricate low-power full-color AMOLED displays with excellent lifetime. Modeled performance for a 32″ OLED TV with 450 nits peak luminance with these tandem white OLEDs predicts an average power consumption of 40 W, a lifetime of 160,000 h, and color gamut of 102% NTSCx,y.[/quote]


And, yeah, it ain't this cause if the TV had a 160,000 hour lifetime, LG _would be shouting it from every rooftop._


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9270#post_24569919
> 
> 
> 160k! Based on LG's silence concerning panel lifetimes, it would seem LG is *not* using that specific Kodak patent or were unable to recreate the results of the model in question. They bought the company in 2009 but the study was conducted in 2012...does that mean the R&D uncovered in that abstract also benefited LG?



Absolutely.


----------



## slacker711

Some comments on the discussion.


1) The non-uniformity and pixel failures are not intrinsic to OLED's. The HDTV test review of the Samsung didnt show the non-uniformity that they saw in the LG. Samsung also explicitly advertised their OLED TV as having "zero pixel defect". I think it is apparent that they chose to do this because it was something that LG couldnt match yet. Samsung is using a LTPS backplane which is what they are also using for their mobile OLED's. LG is using an IGZO backplane and it is clear that they are working on reliability as well as yields.


2) LG Display gave a presentation at SID 2013 (cant link) where they indicated that they are using a compensation circuit. This is to compensate for the inital non-uniformity as well as to compensate for a loss of luminance due to aging. Samsung also says they have a compenation circuit. .


3) LG has claimed that the dead or "lazy" subpixels were caused by TFT current variation and I believe it. My speculation is that they are driving the different subpixels at different currents. If blue/white is run at lower currents, perhaps that explains why Plague/Vinnie have only seen issues with those colors. Moreover, the DigitalVersus unit that had 50 problematic pixels had zero issues with red. That seems very unlikely to be a material issue since all of the pixels have the same white OLED (WOLED) stack driving them.


4) I tend to think that the uneven wear issue after 6 hours of THX mode (and ABL) is a backplane issue as well. Rogo pointed out the fact that iPad Mini's were also seeing image retention due to their IGZO backplanes. Another possibility is issues with the brightness compensation circuit. OTOH, I did some more research and found sources talking about OLED's having rapid initial luminance decay. LG has given so little information about lifetime that it is tough to say what is happening here.


Hopefully, Plague's replacement unit performs better and we get some indication that as LG Display's IGZO yields have risen, that we see a similar rise in reliability.


----------



## slacker711

Korean firm makes sample panels for Apple’s iTV

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20140406000338#9to5mac 


> Quote:
> An unnamed local display maker is reportedly making sample display panels for Apple’s iTV, which is expected be mass-produced next year, analysts said this week.
> 
> 
> “The company is making 65-inch organic light-emitting diode sample panels for Apple’s iTV in collaboration with Apple,” said Lee Seung-woo, an analyst at Seoul-based IBK Securities.
> 
> 
> “However, it is not certain whether Apple will use it for the mass production of its long-rumored iTV as it is still running tests,” he added.
> 
> 
> Speculation has been mounting that Apple‘s iTVs will be rolled out this year following numerous delays. However, multiple sources say that the plan has once again been deferred to 2015.
> 
> 
> “Around 2 million Apple‘s iTVs with 65- and 77-inch liquid crystal displays were expected to hit the market in the second half of this year. However, Apple employees visited this local company in October 2013 to delay the plans to next year,” said a source close to the matter on Saturday. “Following the visit, the display maker’s stock prices plunged.”
> 
> 
> The delay is reportedly due to Apple’s attempt to shift LCD panels to OLED apart from the shortage of content supply.
> 
> 
> If Apple chooses OLED panels for its TV, this local manufacturer will become the first vendor, the sources said. Other display makers such as Japan Display and Sharp ― which are also reportedly suppliers of Apple’s iPhone 6 -― are not yet capable to mass-produce OLED panels for television sets.
> 
> 
> “Though the yield rate of OLED panels is still not high for mass production, they are considered to be the best panels for TVs because of its high definition and the potential of curvedness,” said John Seo, an analyst at Shinhan Investment.
> 
> 
> Apple has been eyeing its television business as a new profit source. Apple TV reportedly generated $1 billion last year and it has high potential to grow further thanks to iTunes’ abundant music, movie and television content.
> 
> 
> Addressing the labels slapped on Apple TV as being a “hobby” for the Cupertino-based iPhone maker, Apple’s chief executive Tim Cook said during the company’s shareholders’ meeting last month, “That hobby was over $1 billion of revenue last year. It’s a little hard to call it a hobby anymore.”
> 
> 
> The company is also in talks with the U.S. cable giant Comcast about offering a streaming TV service, although the talks are reportedly still in an early stage.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_100#post_24574808
> 
> 
> 3) LG has claimed that the dead or "lazy" subpixels were caused by TFT current variation and I believe it. My speculation is that they are driving the different subpixels at different currents. If blue/white is run at lower currents, perhaps that explains why Plague/Vinnie have only seen issues with those colors. Moreover, the DigitalVersus unit that had 50 problematic pixels had zero issues with red. That seems very unlikely to be a material issue since all of the pixels have the same white OLED (WOLED) stack driving them.


For the record, my transistors seem to be bunk on shades of gray as well (gray is white, only in a dimmer state, so I suppose this still aligns with your theory)...perfect on the primary colors including blue (other than the "laziness" issue reported, which is only temporary). Concerning what this means technically speaking, I like fafrd's explanation as well.







And there are four in total now, 3 that can be see only on white, 4 that can be see on shades of gray. Two of them emit white while displayed on a grayer background, and the other 2 are black (off?) on both gray and white backgrounds. Two slightly different mechanisms of failure based on this observation.


I have a technician from a shop coming on Monday with hopefully a replacement panel to be ordered as well. I hope the learning curve isn't too great...will probably be the first OLED they've serviced.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_60#post_24575046
> 
> 
> I have a technician from a shop coming on Monday with hopefully a replacement panel to be ordered as well. I hope the learning curve isn't too great...will probably be the first OLED they've serviced.


 

With something this new, perhaps the replacement panel will already be a different hardware revision?

 

Crossing my fingers for you man.


----------



## vinnie97

Thanks...here's to hoping. The TV was manufactured in November 2013, so I'm not sure much could have changed but I'm holding out hope that they've further improved reliability in the last 5 months and/or the panels we received are actually defective and not a common occurrence (maybe I should have waited until near the end of my warranty expiration to call?







).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_60#post_24575212
> 
> 
> Thanks...here's to hoping. The TV was manufactured in November 2013, so I'm not sure much could have changed but I'm holding out hope that they've further improved reliability in the last 5 months and/or the panels we received are actually defective and not a common occurrence (maybe I should have waited until near the end of my warranty expiration to call?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).


 

Lemme guess: color slides started in the first 10 minutes after unpacking?    "Just in case"?


----------



## vinnie97

After installing, you mean? Certainly. I'm probably going to engage a break-in this go around.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24574808
> 
> 
> Some comments on the discussion.
> 
> 
> 1) The non-uniformity and pixel failures are not intrinsic to OLED's. The HDTV test review of the Samsung didnt show the non-uniformity that they saw in the LG. Samsung also explicitly advertised their OLED TV as having "zero pixel defect". I think it is apparent that they chose to do this because it was something that LG couldnt match yet. Samsung is using a LTPS backplane which is what they are also using for their mobile OLED's. LG is using an IGZO backplane and it is clear that they are working on reliability as well as yields.
> 
> 
> 2) LG Display gave a presentation at SID 2013 (cant link) where they indicated that they are using a compensation circuit. This is to compensate for the inital non-uniformity as well as to compensate for a loss of luminance due to aging. Samsung also says they have a compenation circuit. .
> 
> *3) LG has claimed that the dead or "lazy" subpixels were caused by TFT current variation and I believe it. My speculation is that they are driving the different subpixels at different currents. If blue/white is run at lower currents, perhaps that explains why Plague/Vinnie have only seen issues with those colors. Moreover, the DigitalVersus unit that had 50 problematic pixels had zero issues with red. That seems very unlikely to be a material issue since all of the pixels have the same white OLED (WOLED) stack driving them.*
> 
> 
> 4) I tend to think that the uneven wear issue after 6 hours of THX mode (and ABL) is a backplane issue as well. Rogo pointed out the fact that iPad Mini's were also seeing image retention due to their IGZO backplanes. Another possibility is issues with the brightness compensation circuit. OTOH, I did some more research and found sources talking about OLED's having rapid initial luminance decay. LG has given so little information about lifetime that it is tough to say what is happening here.
> 
> 
> Hopefully, Plague's replacement unit performs better and we get some indication that as LG Display's IGZO yields have risen, that we see a similar rise in reliability.



It is strange that the two reports of LG OLEDs with field failures had all the failed pixels with identical color (red in one case and blue in another) - a truly random backplane problem should result in failures of random color subpixels. Maybe it has something to do with higher currents being used to drive specific colors, as you suggest, but that would not explain why the failures are blue on one panel and red on another. Strange (and concerning).


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24575046
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_100#post_24574808
> 
> 
> 3) LG has claimed that the dead or "lazy" subpixels were caused by TFT current variation and I believe it. My speculation is that they are driving the different subpixels at different currents. If blue/white is run at lower currents, perhaps that explains why Plague/Vinnie have only seen issues with those colors. Moreover, the DigitalVersus unit that had 50 problematic pixels had zero issues with red. That seems very unlikely to be a material issue since all of the pixels have the same white OLED (WOLED) stack driving them.
> 
> 
> 
> *For the record, my transistors seem to be bunk on shades of gray as well* (gray is white, only in a dimmer state, so I suppose this still aligns with your theory)...perfect on the primary colors including blue (other than the "laziness" issue reported, which is only temporary). Concerning what this means technically speaking, I like fafrd's explanation as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there are four in total now, 3 that can be see only on white, 4 that can be see on shades of gray. Two of them emit white while displayed on a grayer background, and the other 2 are black (off?) on both gray and white backgrounds. Two slightly different mechanisms of failure based on this observation.
> 
> 
> I have a technician from a shop coming on Monday with hopefully a replacement panel to be ordered as well. I hope the learning curve isn't too great...will probably be the first OLED they've serviced.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you are getting failure modes in both blue and white subpixels. It sounds like you've got few different failure modes going on: two brighter 'ON' white subpixels, 2 stuck 'OFF' white pixels, and a temporary laziness problem with some blue subpixels (does it reoccur? how long does it last?).


From what Plague reported, it sounded like he had only stuck off pixels and they were all red.


----------



## vinnie97

No, blue is fine. That's all Plague. Just white and shades of gray are where my permanent pixel failures are visible. There seem to be two different types of failures (in my case) based on what I outlined in my observations above.


I am not concerned by the lazy pixel problem...it can happen with any color. It occurs for no more than a second, if that. DigitalTrends received word from LG directly as to the cause of this anomaly:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DigitalTrends*
> 
> Update: Since this review was published, LG contacted Digital Trends claiming that the sub-pixel anomaly we noted was due to TFT drive current deviation, explained as: " [a] phenomenon where some sub-pixels look brighter than the other ones in the area at the very low gray levels. It is only observed at extremely low gray levels, since it is a phenomenon related to TFT micro current control, and in other circumstances (as you go away from those extremely low gray levels) those brighter-looking sub-pixels are totally invisible.”


However, there is visibility of this phenomenon outside of the aforementioned gray levels, so they may be minimizing its effect, or it's a more systemic problem than they're admitting. Oh, the joys of pixel peeping.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24574808
> 
> 
> Some comments on the discussion.
> 
> 4) I tend to think that the uneven wear issue after 6 hours of THX mode (and ABL) is a backplane issue as well. Rogo pointed out the fact that iPad Mini's were also seeing image retention due to their IGZO backplanes.



I doubt the iPad issues have anything to do with this. IPS LCD panels have had retention problems for more than a decade now, long before IGZO. Most IPS monitor user manuals even have warranty disclaimers warning about static images.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24575638
> 
> 
> No, blue is fine. That's all Plague. Just white and shades of gray are where my permanent pixel failures are visible. There seem to be two different types of failures (in my case) based on what I outlined in my observations above.



I bet your problems are entirely with the white sub-pixels. When displaying shades of white, they probably don't even turn on the other 3 (rgb) sub-pixels. You could verify with a magnifying glass or macro lens camera.


----------



## vinnie97

^Good idea...I have the former available. 2/4 do create a rather faint ghostly appearance on shades of gray, however.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24575638
> 
> 
> No, blue is fine. That's all Plague. Just white and shades of gray are where my permanent pixel failures are visible. There seem to be two different types of failures (in my case) based on what I outlined in my observations above.
> 
> 
> I am not concerned by the lazy pixel problem...it can happen with any color. It occurs for no more than a second, if that. DigitalTrends received word from LG directly as to the cause of this anomaly:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DigitalTrends*
> 
> Update: Since this review was published, LG contacted Digital Trends claiming that the sub-pixel anomaly we noted was due to TFT drive current deviation, explained as: " [a] phenomenon where some sub-pixels look brighter than the other ones in the area at the very low gray levels. It is only observed at extremely low gray levels, since it is a phenomenon related to TFT micro current control, and in other circumstances (as you go away from those extremely low gray levels) those brighter-looking sub-pixels are totally invisible.”
> 
> 
> 
> However, there is visibility of this phenomenon outside of the aforementioned gray levels, so they may be minimizing its effect, or it's a more systemic problem than they're admitting. Oh, the joys of pixel peeping.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that does not sound like a field failure, just a non-uniformity problem. The non-uniformity of OLED has already been noted as one of the fundamental weaknesses of the technology and compensation technology has been developed to deliver a uniform image despite these manufacturing variations (I think it is called 'Mura' or something like that).


So if lazy pixels only show up at very low grey levels and disappear once the image gets brighter, that is probably just some residual non--uniformity at low excitation levels that they do not (yet  characterize and compensate for.


If it changes over time, even with the same dark grey screen, that could be something different, but could be related to the temperature of the panel, for example.


The digital trends description describes a non-uniformity that always shows up only when low grey levels are displayed. If the behavior changes over time, their description is no longer a good fit.


What is the pixel problem you are going to use to get new panel? The stuck OFF white pixels?


----------



## vinnie97

The main contention I'm making is I see the phenomenon described by DigitalTrends on more than just low grayscale reproduction and not on any colors in particular (red was where I most recently noticed it), but this problem in its current state is so elusive as to not elicit anymore of my OCD tendencies. If it progresses further, then I'll definitely report back.


All 4 of the defective subpixels should be a valid reason for panel replacement according to LG support's discussion with Plague (I didn't ask them in particular what the threshold would be, though I probably should have for confirmation), the 2 that are black on white and the 2 that are off-white on gray screens.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24574808
> 
> 
> Some comments on the discussion.
> 
> 
> 1) The non-uniformity and pixel failures are not intrinsic to OLED's. The HDTV test review of the Samsung didnt show the non-uniformity that they saw in the LG. Samsung also explicitly advertised their OLED TV as having "zero pixel defect". I think it is apparent that they chose to do this because it was something that LG couldnt match yet. Samsung is using a LTPS backplane which is what they are also using for their mobile OLED's. LG is using an IGZO backplane and it is clear that they are working on reliability as well as yields.



Agreed on all of this.


> Quote:
> 2) LG Display gave a presentation at SID 2013 (cant link) where they indicated that they are using a compensation circuit. This is to compensate for the inital non-uniformity as well as to compensate for a loss of luminance due to aging. Samsung also says they have a compenation circuit. .



So with some clever compensation, they could mitigate the problems I've been yammering about....


> Quote:
> 3) LG has claimed that the dead or "lazy" subpixels were caused by TFT current variation and I believe it. My speculation is that they are driving the different subpixels at different currents. If blue/white is run at lower currents, perhaps that explains why Plague/Vinnie have only seen issues with those colors. Moreover, the DigitalVersus unit that had 50 problematic pixels had zero issues with red. That seems very unlikely to be a material issue since all of the pixels have the same white OLED (WOLED) stack driving them.



So the fact that that they are always making white makes it weird that this would be the case, but maybe it's true that to make the white for the blue they need a slightly different mix of white to hit the blue filter?


> Quote:
> 4) I tend to think that the uneven wear issue after 6 hours of THX mode (and ABL) is a backplane issue as well. Rogo pointed out the fact that iPad Mini's were also seeing image retention due to their IGZO backplanes. Another possibility is issues with the brightness compensation circuit. OTOH, I did some more research and found sources talking about OLED's having rapid initial luminance decay. LG has given so little information about lifetime that it is tough to say what is happening here.
> 
> 
> Hopefully, Plague's replacement unit performs better and we get some indication that as LG Display's IGZO yields have risen, that we see a similar rise in reliability.



If there's extreme fall off in the first 100-200 hours that's bad. If there's an IGZO issue that can be solved with mfg. changes or "burn-in" (of the opposite kind than we usually talk about here), that's good.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24575859
> 
> 
> I doubt the iPad issues have anything to do with this. IPS LCD panels have had retention problems for more than a decade now, long before IGZO. Most IPS monitor user manuals even have warranty disclaimers warning about static images.



Just because IPS has had issues doesn't mean they aren't worse with IGZO.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24575859
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt the iPad issues have anything to do with this. IPS LCD panels have had retention problems for more than a decade now, long before IGZO. Most IPS monitor user manuals even have warranty disclaimers warning about static images.


However, I have never heard of TN suffering from IP and here's why http://download.lenovo.com/express/HT051485.html

 

By the way, high end IPS displays (professional IPS) usually don't have any problem with image persistence. IP is a blight of cheap LG produced IPSs only like that Dell uses in their monitors...


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24576702
> 
> 
> By the way, high end IPS displays (professional IPS) usually don't have any problem with image persistence. IP is a blight of cheap LG produced IPSs only like that Dell uses in their monitors...



So you're saying Apple uses cheap IPS panels? They've had retention issues on many of their past displays too. I have a professional grade (including hardware LUT calibration) NEC monitor that also suffers from it. Granted these are all LG produced panels since they are the largest IPS supplier.


Also, contrary to the link you provided, this retention does not always dissipate as quickly as they claim. As the panel ages, it takes longer and longer for the images to fade. We have many very old (10+ years) Dell IPS monitors are work with permanent retention that looks like plasma-style burn-in.


I only brought this up because we don't know what part of the current iPad burn-in issues are caused by IGZO and which are inherent to IPS itself. That makes it hard to apply those results to whatever is happening with LG's OLED.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24577502
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying Apple uses cheap IPS panels? They've had retention issues on many of their past displays too. I have a professional grade (including hardware LUT calibration) NEC monitor that also suffers from it. Granted these are all LG produced panels since they are the largest IPS supplier.
> 
> 
> Also, contrary to the link you provided, this retention does not always dissipate as quickly as they claim. As the panel ages, it takes longer and longer for the images to fade. We have many very old (10+ years) Dell IPS monitors are work with permanent retention that looks like plasma-style burn-in.
> 
> 
> I only brought this up because we don't know what part of the current iPad burn-in issues are caused by IGZO and which are inherent to IPS itself. That makes it hard to apply those results to whatever is happening with LG's OLED.


If Apple hadn't than ipad's display alone would cost a couple of thousands dollars!  

 

My HP dreamcolor suffers from IR big time, my MacBook retina suffers a bit from it,too and I've seen some pretty nasty image persistence on my brother's LG IPS fald. For me high end IPS is one that costs over 10 grand. In my experience you can't possibly expect to have uniform, bright, accurate and artifacts free( imager persistence, trailing ect,) picture from an LCD that costs less that 15 thousand dollars (they would still have THE IPS GLOW, though).   

I have never seen image persistence on any of medical grade IPS monitors and I've seen a lot of them in my born days even 5 years old Barco monitors (that cost about 35000 dollars a pop at the time of purchase) that basically displayed FDA logo for 24 hours on end for 5 years at max luma had none IP and 950 candela out of 1100 brightness left. If you have 37000 bucks lying around than you ,either, can buy yourself an IPS IP-free monitor or a new BMW and TN or VA monitor for 300 bucks that would have no IP, no glow, but skewered colors

 

P.S The link I provided is ,at bottom, a disclaimer from Lenovo saying they would not change IPS monitors on their notebooks even if they permanently burn-in. However it also gives some insight in why image persistence happens in the first place. Also I don't know much about how IGZO backplanes work so that's why I don't have the answer to how IGZO affects image persistence on IPS. Ask Rogo he seems to know more about what affects IGZO bears on IP in IPS


----------



## Artwood

Does mighty Apple have the power to produce an OLED TV and save the world from 100% only LCD?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_60#post_24578311
> 
> 
> Does mighty Apple have the power to produce an OLED TV and save the world from 100% only LCD?


 

LCD bothers you?  I always thought you kind of liked it.


----------



## Artwood

The only thing I like less than LCD is the people who push it--who also apologize for it--who also try to sell it--those people who also KNOW that it sucks! DO those people exist? Of course they do!


There is another thing I have witnessed at this forum--there are many people here who will boldly pontificate on all sorts of companies and the possibilites that they will try this or that technology. Those same people seem reluctant and scared to ever comment on what Apple may or may not do?


Why is that?


Apple is the most respected brand in the world and they have cash reserves out the wazoo--but you don't hear much around here about what they could do when it comes to TV.


Why is that?


I wish Apple would get behind OLED--I know LCD will be here--I just don't want it to be the ONLY thing here.


Is that crazy?


----------



## markrubin

Art


I think there is room on AVS for all: including those who prefer plasma, LCD, OLED,front projector, rear projector et al


I think you should not disparage any member who does not agree with your preferences...


----------



## Rich Peterson

*After Years of Flattening, Curved TV Screens Leap into the Global Market, According to NPD DisplaySearch*


Source: displaysearch.com 



> Quote:
> According to the latest NPD DisplaySearch Quarterly TV Design and Features Report, curved TV display shipments are now forecast to reach nearly 800K units in 2014, and are expected to exceed 6M units by the end of 2017. Curved TV is a design differentiator that is expected to reach its peak in LCD TVs in 2016, and growing shipments of OLED TVs are forecast to boost curved TV shipments in 2017.





> Quote:
> In addition to curved screens, TV manufacturers are leveraging other technologies to increase TV sales. Although widely promoted, OLED TVs still face significant manufacturing problems and at best only 100K will ship in 2014, with annual shipments exceed a million only in 2016.



They show a graph that indicates of the 6 million predicted curved screens sold in 2017, about 2 million of those will be OLED.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_100#post_24578865
> 
> *After Years of Flattening, Curved TV Screens Leap into the Global Market, According to NPD DisplaySearch*
> 
> 
> Source: displaysearch.com
> 
> 
> They show a graph that indicates of the 6 million predicted curved screens sold in 2017, about 2 million of those will be OLED.



From that same report:


“The novelty of curved screens is expected to wear off with time, leading to shipments peaking and then trailing off,” said Paul Gray, director of European TV research for NPD DisplaySearch. “Even so, curved screens will have completed the important task of differentiating new high-end models, thereby helping to boost overall value in the global television market.”


In other words; it is just a marketing gimmick. I would like to have seen them offer consumers a choice of both flat and curved screens in all the same sizes, and we then would have been able to determine which type consumers actually opted for. I feel that a majority of them would purchase the flat versions, especially all those who prefer to wall mount their sets.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24579093
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_100#post_24578865
> 
> *After Years of Flattening, Curved TV Screens Leap into the Global Market, According to NPD DisplaySearch*
> 
> 
> Source: displaysearch.com
> 
> 
> They show a graph that indicates of the 6 million predicted curved screens sold in 2017, about 2 million of those will be OLED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From that same report:
> 
> 
> “The novelty of curved screens is expected to wear off with time, leading to shipments peaking and then trailing off,” said Paul Gray, director of European TV research for NPD DisplaySearch. “Even so, curved screens will have completed the important task of differentiating new high-end models, thereby helping to boost overall value in the global television market.”
> 
> 
> In other words; it is just a marketing gimmick. I would like to have seen them offer consumers a choice of both flat and curved screens in all the same sizes, and we then would have been able to determine which type consumers actually opted for. I feel that a majority of them would purchase the flat versions, especially all those who prefer to wall mount their sets.
Click to expand...


I think you are right. If the best TV designs are reserved for curved screens and all curved TVs are premium high-performance TVs, then guess what - anyone who wants a premium TV is going to have to buy a curved TV.


Between the way this has been written as well as their prior and current forecasts for OLED, I am becoming less and less enamored with NPD DisplaySearch - they seem to just be a mouthpiece for the industry leaders like Samsung.


When Vizio introduces curved TVs, I'll take the trend seriously. Until then, I'll just remember that the same company that is driving this trend is the one that was responsible for the attempted abortion of FALD and the emergence and dominance of edge-lit LED/LCDs...


In a head-to-head matchup of equal quality for equal price, I'd be very surprised if a majority of consumers selected a curved TV. And if the curved TV costs anything more than the flat TV (as it should - there are additional manufacturing steps involved and likely also some additional yield loss), I'm pretty certain there are very few consumers who would want to take any additional $$$s out of their pockets to have a curved TV.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24578865
> 
> *After Years of Flattening, Curved TV Screens Leap into the Global Market, According to NPD DisplaySearch*
> 
> 
> They show a graph that indicates of the 6 million predicted curved screens sold in 2017, about 2 million of those will be OLED.



I hate to sound apocalyptic, but we are entering a dark, dark age of television buying. An industry desperate and on a precipice is resorting to gimmick after gimmick to try to convince people to buy things. Two thoughts come to mind:


1) Buy the last of the great technologies if you're a picture-quality nut (i.e. the last plasmas)

2) Buy cheaper otherwise and vote with your wallets.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24579093
> 
> 
> From that same report:
> 
> 
> “The novelty of curved screens is expected to wear off with time, leading to shipments peaking and then trailing off,” said Paul Gray, director of European TV research for NPD DisplaySearch. “Even so, curved screens will have completed the important task of differentiating new high-end models, thereby helping to boost overall value in the global television market.”
> 
> 
> In other words; it is just a marketing gimmick. I would like to have seen them offer consumers a choice of both flat and curved screens in all the same sizes, and we then would have been able to determine which type consumers actually opted for. I feel that a majority of them would purchase the flat versions, especially all those who prefer to wall mount their sets.



Right, so basically everyone knows this is terrible and pointless. But, hey, they need their margins. The silver lining here, the words "peaking and then trailing off."


The dark clouds, however, the 2016 forecast and the text seems to imply that basically 100% of OLEDs will be curved in 2016.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24579193
> 
> 
> I think you are right. If the best TV designs are reserved for curved screens and all curved TVs are premium high-performance TVs, then guess what - anyone who wants a premium TV is going to have to buy a curved TV.



Well, the "near premium" category will likely remain flat. Just buy that.


> Quote:
> Between the way this has been written as well as their prior and current forecasts for OLED, I am becoming less and less enamored with NPD DisplaySearch - they seem to just be a mouthpiece for the industry leaders like Samsung.



Who do you think buys their reports? That's why they always forecast a rebound in shipments. I mean they can't write, "TV industry in permanent decline" and charge $5K for that. I can write it and charge zero for it.


> Quote:
> In a head-to-head matchup of equal quality for equal price, I'd be very surprised if a majority of consumers selected a curved TV.



I'd bet a fortune they wouldn't


> Quote:
> And if the curved TV costs anything more than the flat TV (as it should - there are additional manufacturing steps involved and likely also some additional yield loss), I'm pretty certain there are very few consumers who would want to take any additional $$$s out of their pockets to have a curved TV.



Correct, it definitionally costs more in a number of key ways, mostly logistics and manufacturing. And, yes, they surely break a few, lowering yields.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24579935
> 
> 
> I hate to sounds apocalyptic, but we are entering a dark, dark age of television buying. An industry desperate and on a precipice is resorting to gimmick after gimmick to try to convince people to buy things. Two thoughts come to mind:
> 
> 
> 1) Buy the last of the great technologies if you're a picture-quality nut (i.e. the last plasmas)
> 
> 2) Buy cheaper otherwise and vote with your wallets.
> 
> Right, so basically everyone knows this is terrible and pointless. But, hey, they need their margins. The silver lining here, the words "peaking and then trailing off."
> 
> 
> The dark clouds, however, the 2016 forecast and the text seems to imply that basically 100% of OLEDs will be curved in 2016.
> 
> Well, the "near premium" category will likely remain flat. Just buy that.
> 
> Who do you think buys their reports? That's why they always forecast a rebound in shipments. I mean they can't write, "TV industry in permanent decline" and charge $5K for that. I can write it and charge zero for it.
> 
> I'd bet a fortune they wouldn't
> 
> Correct, it definitionally costs more in a number of key ways, mostly logistics and manufacturing. And, yes, they surely break a few, lowering yields.



I will buy a curved 100" OLED







when they are down to earth in pricing







. 2020 maybe?


Until then I will upgrade my JVC RS-35U and enjoy the 2:35 135" screen


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_60#post_24579935
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the curved TV costs anything more than the flat TV (as it should - there are additional manufacturing steps involved and likely also some additional yield loss), I'm pretty certain there are very few consumers who would want to take any additional $$$s out of their pockets to have a curved TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, it definitionally costs more in a number of key ways, mostly logistics and manufacturing. And, yes, they surely break a few, lowering yields.
Click to expand...

 

I'm still mystified that this industry even attempted this in the first place.  But all other attributes being equal, I would bet that the majority of people would pay a small amount *extra* to have a TV be flat.


----------



## Rudy1

I wish I could find that article I read months ago where a reviewer suggested that there was a manufacturing reason for the curve in the OLED TVs. Apparently this was not entirely a design choice but a necessity due to the low yields on the flat versions. But it doesn't really matter anyway since even the LED-LCDs are now being curved. I wonder what new "gimmick" they'll dream up next... 😊


----------



## Jason626




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24579983
> 
> 
> I will buy a curved 100" OLED
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when they are down to earth in pricing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . 2020 maybe?
> 
> 
> Until then I will upgrade my JVC RS-35U and enjoy the 2:35 135" screen



Maybe in 2030 if the nations of the world don't implode.







6 years for a hundred inch OLED tv to be down to earth pricing (under 10k) doesn't even happen in my dreams. Lol


----------



## RadTech51




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300#post_24578311
> 
> 
> Does mighty Apple have the power to produce an OLED TV and save the world from 100% only LCD?



If you believe in rumors Apple is testing 65" OLED displays as we speak.


----------



## wco81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24581192
> 
> 
> If you believe in rumors Apple is testing 65" OLED displays as we speak.



They can't even get OLEDs into their 4, 8 and 10-inch devices.


They're going to put out 65-inch OLED display?


Not bloody likely.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24580233
> 
> 
> I'm still mystified that this industry even attempted this in the first place.  But all other attributes being equal, I would bet that the majority of people would pay a small amount _extra_ to have a TV be flat.



Agreed.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24580423
> 
> 
> I wish I could find that article I read months ago where a reviewer suggested that there was a manufacturing reason for the curve in the OLED TVs. Apparently this was not entirely a design choice but a necessity due to the low yields on the flat versions. But it doesn't really matter anyway since even the LED-LCDs are now being curved. I wonder what new "gimmick" they'll dream up next... 😊



You might have read that from an ill-informed reviewer. You didn't read it from anyone who knows at all what they are talking about. You have to manufacture the displays flat. Period. There is no technology that allows them to build these TV on a curved substrate. In fact, _there is no curved substrate_. After the display is made, it is curved. There is no possible the way the yield is higher. It is lower, even if just slightly.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24581192
> 
> 
> If you believe in rumors Apple is testing 65" OLED displays as we speak.



I believe they are testing. Apple tests a lot of things.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24581208
> 
> 
> They can't even get OLEDs into their 4, 8 and 10-inch devices.



Are you sure you don't mean Samsung? I mean they make the OLEDs and can't get one into a single volume tablet or the vast majority of their smartphone lineup.


Apple chooses not to use OLED at this point because, well, the lone volume manufacturer is a company they despise.


> Quote:
> They're going to put out 65-inch OLED display?
> 
> 
> Not bloody likely.



If they do a TV, it's pretty likely actually.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_50#post_24581495
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24580423
> 
> 
> I wish I could find that article I read months ago where a reviewer suggested that there was a manufacturing reason for the curve in the OLED TVs. Apparently this was not entirely a design choice but a necessity due to the low yields on the flat versions. But it doesn't really matter anyway since even the LED-LCDs are now being curved. I wonder what new "gimmick" they'll dream up next... 😊
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might have read that from an ill-informed reviewer. You didn't read it from anyone who knows at all what they are talking about. You have to manufacture the displays flat. Period. There is no technology that allows them to build these TV on a curved substrate. In fact, _there is no curved substrate_. After the display is made, it is curved. There is no possible the way the yield is higher. It is lower, even if just slightly.
Click to expand...

Rudy1, you should pay attention to Rogo, and the kid I raised. They are curving panels after they are cut, because then can, and because they think it will work for their marketing. They are now curving LCD panels for the same reason.










Help protect our environment and refrain from passing on BS.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24581208
> 
> 
> 
> They can't even get OLEDs into their 4, 8 and 10-inch devices.
> 
> 
> They're going to put out 65-inch OLED display?
> 
> 
> Not bloody likely.


They can! they just don't want, because OLEDs are more expensive than LCDs and that would mess with their margins and it also is due to the fact that they've invested over 2 billion dollars into LCD display production over the past few years. Look up iwatch it uses OLED!


----------



## Desk.

Also, bear in mind that an iPad is arguably more fundamentally concerned with functionality than it is with screen quality, and such issues as contrast ratios and black levels.


In a large-screen TV, the quality of the image should be the paramount concern, explaining why Apple could be looking at OLEDs for its new project. It's also perhaps telling that the rumoured screen sizes for these iTVs are 64" and 77", which just happen to be the exact same sizes as LG's two larger OLED panels.


Apple adopting OLED for its TV would be a great boost for the technology, and I think consumers, myself included, would anticipate a well-built, reliable and quality product. If Apple do announce plans to sell a 65" 4K OLED TV next year, and if I haven't purchased an LG OLED by then, I'll definitely be very eagerly considering that option.


They'll need to get a move on, though.


Desk


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_60#post_24580233
> 
> 
> I would bet that the majority of people would pay a small amount _extra_ to have a TV be flat.


I doubt that. Reading over comments about curved screens from several reviewers, my impression is they boil down to: "Curved is not flat; anything not flat is distorted; we don't like new things."


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_60#post_24582269
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_60#post_24580233
> 
> 
> I would bet that the majority of people would pay a small amount *extra* to have a TV be flat.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that. Reading over comments about curved screens from several reviewers, my impression is they boil down to: "Curved is not flat; anything not flat is distorted; we don't like new things."
Click to expand...

 

(??) You agree with me then?


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24581664
> 
> 
> Also, bear in mind that an iPad is arguably more fundamentally concerned with functionality than it is with screen quality, and such issues as contrast ratios and black levels.
> 
> 
> In a large-screen TV, the quality of the image should be the paramount concern, explaining why Apple could be looking at OLEDs for its new project. It's also perhaps telling that the rumoured screen sizes for these iTVs are 64" and 77", which just happen to be the exact same sizes as LG's two larger OLED panels.
> 
> 
> Apple adopting OLED for its TV would be a great boost for the technology, and I think consumers, myself included, would anticipate a well-built, reliable and quality product. If Apple do announce plans to sell a 65" 4K OLED TV next year, and if I haven't purchased an LG OLED by then, I'll definitely be very eagerly considering that option.
> 
> 
> They'll need to get a move on, though.
> 
> 
> Desk


also you have forgotten to mention the poor PQ most of mobile OLEDs have http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-3-SM-N9005-Smartphone.104798.0.html . Retail Euro Note 3 only manages to get 0,1 candela blacks (it is nowhere near good in my humble opinion, my ST60's MLL is 0.0044 candela per square meter and it still is not enough for me). The best was galaxy 2 with the black level less than 0.001 candela. Galaxy 3 had 0.03 http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Samsung-Galaxy-S3-GT-I9300-Smartphone.90970.0.html  

 

(about galaxy 4) Subjectively, image rendition is not only extremely colorful, but also extremely sharp due to the high resolution and pixel density of the Galaxy S4. Its contrast and its deep black levels are extraordinary, with a contrast ratio of 2478:1 and great black levels of 0.119 cd/m². None of its competitors can compete with these values. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Samsung-Galaxy-S4-GT-I9505-Smartphone.92829.0.html

 

Why would Apple go to the trouble of equipping its handhelds with OLEDs if they are not that much better than LCD?


----------



## greenland

LG'S 2014 TV LINE-UP

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1396941506 


"Let us start with the most exciting things first. LG is determined to take the lead in OLED technology and will release several new OLED TVs in 2014. First off, LG is planning to release a cheaper version of its existing curved 55” OLED TV, without the speakers in the see-through base.


Later this year, LG will release the first 4K OLED TVs with a new 77” EC980 and two 65 and 55” EC970 models, complete with all of LG’s most advanced features, including webOS. LG tell us to expect the 4K OLED TVs this autumn, which probably means that they will launch at IFA 2014 in September."


Details at the link on the models which will be released in the USA.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_60#post_24582424
> 
> 
> LG'S 2014 TV LINE-UP
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1396941506
> 
> 
> "Let us start with the most exciting things first. LG is determined to take the lead in OLED technology and will release several new OLED TVs in 2014. First off, LG is planning to release a cheaper version of its existing curved 55” OLED TV, without the speakers in the see-through base.
> 
> 
> Later this year, LG will release the first 4K OLED TVs with a new 77” EC980 and two 65 and 55” EC970 models, complete with all of LG’s most advanced features, including webOS. LG tell us to expect the 4K OLED TVs this autumn, which probably means that they will launch at IFA 2014 in September."


 

"Gallery Frame"


----------



## Rudy1

*THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME*

http://www.twice.com/articletype/news/report-curved-screen-tv-shipments-hit-800k/110514


----------



## Desk.

Great news with the LG line-up, and the following site appears to be offering the 65" 4K set for pre-order at 9999 Euros, which translates to £8241 or $13,799.


This is down from a RRP of 10,999 Euros and isn't as bad as I'd feared as a starting point, especially when you consider how much the existing 1080p set has fallen by in the past six months...


If this is also down almost 50 per cent by this time next year, I'm in!

http://www.plattetvdiscounter.nl/led-tv/lg/65-inch/lg-65ec970v 


Desk


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24582574
> 
> *THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME*
> 
> http://www.twice.com/articletype/news/report-curved-screen-tv-shipments-hit-800k/110514



NPD DisplaySearch is so obviously in Samsung's back pocket it ain't even funny...


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_60#post_24582660
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24582574
> 
> *THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME*
> 
> http://www.twice.com/articletype/news/report-curved-screen-tv-shipments-hit-800k/110514
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPD DisplaySearch is so obviously in Samsung's back pocket it ain't even funny...
Click to expand...

 

I was wondering about them years ago when everyone was so convinced that they were incorruptible.


----------



## wco81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24581664
> 
> 
> 
> Apple adopting OLED for its TV would be a great boost for the technology, and I think consumers, myself included, would anticipate a well-built, reliable and quality product. If Apple do announce plans to sell a 65" 4K OLED TV next year, and if I haven't purchased an LG OLED by then, I'll definitely be very eagerly considering that option.
> 
> 
> Desk



Well then it wouldn't be a high-volume product, at least not in the next year or two.


Apple likes it's premiums but the market for TVs over $5000 may not be big enough to be of interest to them.


If Apple is to innovate in TV, it will likely be more in the way of UI or user experience and some new kind of subscription/distribution model. Maybe a fully on-demand model and a la carte.


Problem is, the TV and cable cartels isn't going to play ball with Apple for something like that. HBO isn't going to let Apple customers get access to HBO Go unless they subscribe to HBO through cable or satellite, for instance. At least in the near future.


----------



## Chronoptimist

It's a shame that LG use that stupid pink logo when branding their products, as this set looks stunning otherwise.

It's an even bigger shame that their 4K OLEDs are still curved, and that the flagship 21:9 display is an LCD.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24582940
> 
> 
> It's a shame that LG use that stupid pink logo when branding their products, as this set looks stunning otherwise.
> 
> It's an even bigger shame that their 4K OLEDs are still curved, and that the flagship 21:9 display is an LCD.



A small piece of black electrical tape if you think you might ever be selling the panel in the future and a black permanent marker if not...


For the curved OLEDs, it's a sign of LGs ongoing inferiority complex versus their big cousin. If their OLEDs take off by 2016, hopefully they will discover the confidence to head off in their own direction. One could argue that LG is already heading in their own direction with their OLED initiative, though in fairness they started by just wanting to parrot Samsung and so they've really only decided not to pull the plug (or delay or whatever) on their OLED initiative just because that is what their big cousin did...


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24583308
> 
> 
> A small piece of black electrical tape if you think you might ever be selling the panel in the future and a black permanent marker if not...
> 
> 
> For the curved OLEDs, it's a sign of LGs ongoing inferiority complex versus their big cousin. If their OLEDs take off by 2016, hopefully they will discover the confidence to head off in their own direction. One could argue that LG is already heading in their own direction with their OLED initiative, though in fairness they started by just wanting to parrot Samsung and so they've really only decided not to pull the plug (or delay or whatever) on their OLED initiative just because that is what their big cousin did...



Samsung was first in mobile OLED's, but with respect to televisions, it has been LG pushing almost all of the development since CES 2012.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_100#post_24583308
> 
> 
> A small piece of black electrical tape if you think you might ever be selling the panel in the future and a black permanent marker if not...
> 
> 
> For the curved OLEDs, it's a sign of LGs ongoing inferiority complex versus their big cousin. If their OLEDs take off by 2016, hopefully they will discover the confidence to head off in their own direction. One could argue that LG is already heading in their own direction with their OLED initiative, though in fairness they started by just wanting to parrot Samsung and so they've really only decided not to pull the plug (or delay or whatever) on their OLED initiative just because that is what their big cousin did...


Well, both companies released curved OLED in concert last year, and LG already had the curved OLED strategy in place by CES, so this announcement doesn't seem like some epiphany in response to Samsung's recent curved hot air seminar.


More importantly, they need to get the pixel failure and theorized uneven backplane wear/uniformity issues resolved before anyone gets too excited.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*
> 
> Great news with the LG line-up, and the following site appears to be offering the 65" 4K set for pre-order at 9999 Euros, which translates to £8241 or $13,799.
> 
> 
> Desk


That is not how it translates. In The US TVs are cheaper..


----------



## rohrbaughra




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24582574
> 
> *THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME*
> 
> http://www.twice.com/articletype/news/report-curved-screen-tv-shipments-hit-800k/110514



If a curved display is good, wouldn't a cylindrical display be better? How about going all the way and marketing a spherical display? As for myself, I would prefer the largest, highest resolution FLAT panel (100" 4K would be nice) that will fit through a standard doorway.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_60#post_24582319
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_60#post_24582269
> 
> 
> ... "Curved is not flat; ...
> 
> 
> 
> (??) You agree with me then?
Click to expand...

It's possible, if you were suggesting that many people, having curved retinas, might welcome the opportunity to get beyond old-fashioned linear perspective:

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvilinear_perspective


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_100#post_24583725
> 
> 
> It's possible, if you were suggesting that many people, having curved retinas, might welcome the opportunity to get beyond old-fashioned linear perspective:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/content/type/61/id/409201/width/500/height/700
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvilinear_perspective


Content is shot on cameras with flat sensors.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9300_50#post_24582442
> 
> 
> 
> "Gallery Frame"


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24583869
> 
> 
> Content is shot on cameras with flat sensors.


Uh-huh. And so since videos should reproduce images on camera sensors, rather than real scenes, then we need flat TV screens. Is that the reasoning? (This is what I elsewhere called "engineer's fidelity".)


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24583869
> 
> 
> Content is shot on cameras with flat sensors.


CGI animated films are generally made in a virtual 3D (polygon) world that could easily be rendered to a different shaped display (eg. 360 degree surround). There's also nothing stopping them shooting live action films/TV programmes for the new types of display, including adding 360 degree lenses to some of the cameras - or something like the Google streetview cameras. You could also have the main front view flat but the rest of the display(s) making up a 360 degree (or less eg. 180 degree) surround.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24584076
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24583869
> 
> 
> Content is shot on cameras with flat sensors.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. And so since videos should reproduce images on camera sensors, rather than real scenes, then we need flat TV screens. Is that the reasoning? (This is what I elsewhere called "engineer's fidelity".)
Click to expand...

 

You're not completely following but Chronoptimist's statement is correct in that information gathered on a flat sensor should not be sent to a curved display, and information gathered on a curved sensor should not be sent to a flat display.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24584885
> 
> 
> You're not completely following but Chronoptimist's statement is correct in that information gathered on a flat sensor should not be sent to a curved display, and information gathered on a curved sensor should not be sent to a flat display.


That depends on how the light that arrived at the sensors on the flat sensor got there. eg. what other lenses etc. were in front of it.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24585000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24584885
> 
> 
> You're not completely following but Chronoptimist's statement is correct in that information gathered on a flat sensor should not be sent to a curved display, and information gathered on a curved sensor should not be sent to a flat display.
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on how the light that arrived at the sensors on the flat sensor got there. eg. what other lenses etc. where in front of it.
Click to expand...

 

I originally wrote, but deleted to keep it simple: The sensor of any topology should not be expected to produce images for both flat and curved displays.  Though by sensor, I mean all that goes into collecting the light.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24582694
> 
> 
> I was wondering about them years ago when everyone was so convinced that they were incorruptible.



They take info from the major manufacturers. They then compile it and tell the guys what they want to hear. It's not that they are corrupt, in my opinion. It's that they extrapolate from what production exists, what the mfrs. expect to build, what those folks know based on customer requests (mostly major customers, e.g. Apple, Sony).


They can't see the forest for the trees however. If a shift is occurring out in consumer-ville, DisplaySearch is blind to it until it trickles back up the chain. That's why they always overestimate TV sales in a trend like we are seeing now. And, honestly, they pretty much never underestimate them.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*
> 
> It's possible, if you were suggesting that many people, having curved retinas, might welcome the opportunity to get beyond old-fashioned linear perspective:
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvilinear_perspective



That painting comes probably from experimenting with optical technology.


interesting docu in search of technology used by a 17th century painter (trailer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS_HUWs9c8c 


This is what the retina 'sees' independent of optic nerve and striate cortex processing.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24585442
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*
> 
> It's possible, if you were suggesting that many people, having curved retinas, might welcome the opportunity to get beyond old-fashioned linear perspective:
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvilinear_perspective
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That painting comes probably from experimenting with optical technology.
> 
> 
> interesting docu in search of technology used by a 17th century painter (trailer)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS_HUWs9c8c
> 
> 
> This is what the retina 'sees' independent of optic nerve and striate cortex processing.
Click to expand...


Talk about DSE...


----------



## Artwood

Wow! Picture quality is going to look like the picture above!


I bet there will be know it alls here that will claim it is great quality!


----------



## Rudy1

*LG’s 55″ Gallery OLED TV Goes on Sale at Harrods for £7k*


http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/55ea880w-201404093716.htm


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24585442
> 
> 
> This is what the retina 'sees' independent of optic nerve and striate cortex processing.


 

 

Yeah, but that doesn't mean anything.  You only see super clearly where you have to (dead center).  But the very last thing in the world you want to distort the image before hand.

 

BTW, as a kid I we saw a "documentary" in class that actually had the ignorance to say: "We understand how the eye focuses, but we're still not sure how we convert an upside down image to right side up".


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24587666
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but that doesn't mean anything.  You only see super clearly where you have to (dead center).  But the very last thing in the world you want to distort the image before hand.
> 
> 
> BTW, as a kid I we saw a "documentary" in class that actually had the ignorance to say: "We understand how the eye focuses, but we're still not sure how we convert an upside down image to right side up".
> LOL!  Talk about missing the ball.  I raised my hand afterward and said "Huh?"


I don't get it. Aren't they meaning that we see / or the image we believe we see via our brain, everything vertically flipped compared to what you see in the image above, and that they don't know (or didn't) exactly how the vertical flipping occurs. eg. (exactly) how the neurons and dendrites process the "images" received by the eyes.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24587839
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24587666
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but that doesn't mean anything.  You only see super clearly where you have to (dead center).  But the very last thing in the world you want to distort the image before hand.
> 
> 
> BTW, as a kid I we saw a "documentary" in class that actually had the ignorance to say: "We understand how the eye focuses, but we're still not sure how we convert an upside down image to right side up".
> LOL!  Talk about missing the ball.  I raised my hand afterward and said "Huh?"
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get it. Aren't they meaning that we see / or the image we believe we see via our brain, everything vertically flipped compared to what you see in the image above, and that they don't know (or didn't) exactly how the vertical flipping occurs. eg. (exactly) how the neurons and dendrites process the "images" received by the eyes.
Click to expand...

 

There is no vertical flipping.  It's not upside down to start with.  Or, to put it another way, the back of the eye is upside down.  Take your pick.  Either way, the issue is that there's a pairing between how the eye's "sensors" are arranged and how they are fed to the brain: the image against the back of the eye might as well be something you'd think of as sideways: it'd still appear the same if the sensors were oriented properly for it.

 

I really didn't want to get too deeply into this, but might as well: Turns out it's even *more* complicated than that, but it doesn't change the silliness of that crockumentary I saw as a kid.  The brain can retrain to learn a different region of sensors are the "up" ones.  You can even skew the information and we'll adjust.  But this is not what the film was talking about: they were completely confusing the situation and even if there were no adaptive perception mechanism, there would be no issue.

 

Here's an interesting overview.  http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/nov/12/improbable-research-seeing-upside-down


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24588419
> 
> 
> I really didn't want to get too deeply into this, but might as well: Turns out it's even _more_ complicated than that, but it doesn't change the silliness of that crockumentary I saw as a kid.  The brain can retrain to learn a different region of sensors are the "up" ones.  You can even skew the information and we'll adjust.


So it's sort of like if you find your camera is making images upside down on the film, you can fix that either by turning the film upside down before putting it in the camera, or after the film is developed, turning the finished photos upside down. Or you could stand on your head.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24588847
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24588419
> 
> 
> I really didn't want to get too deeply into this, but might as well: Turns out it's even *more* complicated than that, but it doesn't change the silliness of that crockumentary I saw as a kid.  The brain can retrain to learn a different region of sensors are the "up" ones.  You can even skew the information and we'll adjust.
> 
> 
> 
> So it's sort of like if you find your camera is making images upside down on the film, you can fix that either by turning the film upside down before putting it in the camera, or after the film is developed, turning the finished photos upside down. Or you could stand on your head.
Click to expand...

 

There really is no good camera analogy for this.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I still disagree. I still think we interpret the world as a sort of vertically flipped version of the picture above (though obviously not quite like that). Even though that may be because the neurons that first get the vertically highest up light (the interpreted version of it, eg. electrical/chemical impulses representing it?) happen to be lowest in terms of height (of those that first get those signals). Our brain will learn to interpret it in a particular way, but what we believe we "see" or the patterns that our neurons/groups of neurons are recognising still interpret it as something sort of opposite of the picture.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24589062
> 
> 
> I still disagree. I still think we interpret the world as a sort of vertically flipped version of the picture above (though obviously not quite like that). Even though that may be because the neurons that first get the vertically highest up light (the interpreted version of it, eg. electrical/chemical impulses representing it?) happen to be lowest in terms of height (of those that first get those signals). Our brain will learn to interpret it in a particular way, but what we believe we "see" or the patterns that our neurons/groups of neurons are recognising still interpret it as something sort of opposite of the picture.


 

The position of those sensors are precisely the issue (this is all assuming we don't dynamically adapt, which we do).

 

But what we believe we see is the opposite of the picture *why*?  Because the retina closest to our feet happen to be holding the light closest to the top of the head in the image?  I think if you were to think about it, it's a correction that isn't taking place.  Taking away our *dynamic* ability to adapt and let's assume that our brain cannot adapt (that there's permanent meaning to locations on the retina), it's still the case that if the lens put a picture sideways that the sensors would have evolved to be aligned sideways to receive it.  We wouldn't know the difference....we couldn't.


----------



## David_B

Guess you missed the upcoming line of amoled tablets Samsung is coming out with?


Shocking, you don't actually keep up on the oled news..


The SM-T800 will sport a 10.5-inch Super AMOLED display of 2560×1600 resolution, and will be powered by a quad-core Snapdragon processor (likely the S801) accompanied by 2GB of RAM.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24581495
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24580233
> 
> 
> I'm still mystified that this industry even attempted this in the first place.  But all other attributes being equal, I would bet that the majority of people would pay a small amount _extra_ to have a TV be flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24580423
> 
> 
> I wish I could find that article I read months ago where a reviewer suggested that there was a manufacturing reason for the curve in the OLED TVs. Apparently this was not entirely a design choice but a necessity due to the low yields on the flat versions. But it doesn't really matter anyway since even the LED-LCDs are now being curved. I wonder what new "gimmick" they'll dream up next... 😊
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might have read that from an ill-informed reviewer. You didn't read it from anyone who knows at all what they are talking about. You have to manufacture the displays flat. Period. There is no technology that allows them to build these TV on a curved substrate. In fact, _there is no curved substrate_. After the display is made, it is curved. There is no possible the way the yield is higher. It is lower, even if just slightly.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RadTech51*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24581192
> 
> 
> If you believe in rumors Apple is testing 65" OLED displays as we speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe they are testing. Apple tests a lot of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9330#post_24581208
> 
> 
> They can't even get OLEDs into their 4, 8 and 10-inch devices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure you don't mean Samsung? I mean they make the OLEDs and can't get one into a single volume tablet or the vast majority of their smartphone lineup.
> 
> 
> Apple chooses not to use OLED at this point because, well, the lone volume manufacturer is a company they despise.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> They're going to put out 65-inch OLED display?
> 
> 
> Not bloody likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they do a TV, it's pretty likely actually.
Click to expand...


Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## vinnie97

Samsung moving up to 10-inch mass production? Good for them. Onward to 15"!


----------



## Rich Peterson

Press Release:

*LG-HARMAN/KARDON COLLABORATION INTRODUCES EXTRAORDINARY SOUND TO OLED AND ULTRA HD TVS*


LG & Harman/Kardon Join Forces to Deliver a More Immersive Auditory Experience


CITY, APR. 9, 2014 — LG Electronics (LG) announced a partnership with Harman/Kardon® to develop an advanced audio technology which will be employed in two of its OLED TV models and five of its ULTRA HD TVs. A perfect complement to the LG’s acclaimed picture quality, the ULTRA Surround system is expected to deliver a level of viewer immersion previously only found in cinemas.


ULTRA Surround technology adds a three-dimensional quality to audio that is nothing short of spell binding. The advanced technology utilizes a state-of-the-art algorithm to produce convincingly real soundscapes. The speakers cleverly distribute sound in multiple directions, balancing foreground and background noises to match the on screen action while keeping dialog perfectly clear. In a scene featuring heavy rain, for example, viewers will feel as though drops are falling all around them, yet still be able to hearon-screen dialog clearly.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9350_50#post_24590466
> 
> 
> Press Release:
> 
> *LG-HARMAN/KARDON COLLABORATION INTRODUCES EXTRAORDINARY SOUND TO OLED AND ULTRA HD TVS*


... and redo the laws of Physics as we know them.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:





> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24589371
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The position of those sensors are precisely the issue (this is all assuming we don't dynamically adapt, which we do).
> 
> 
> 
> But what we believe we see is the opposite of the picture *why*?  Because the retina closest to our feet happen to be holding the light closest to the top of the head in the image?  I think if you were to think about it, it's a correction that isn't taking place.  Taking away our *dynamic* ability to adapt and let's assume that our brain cannot adapt (that there's permanent meaning to locations on the retina), it's still the case that if the lens put a picture sideways that the sensors would have evolved to be aligned sideways to receive it.  We wouldn't know the difference....we couldn't.


Are you saying our brains operate at the speed photons move , in other words, speed of light? (No they don't) The input to thalamus comes at 12-24 milliseconds per scan, yes it comes in scans and it is processed in scans!

 

 Cones feed data to the thalamus through the optic nerve and there's no direct correlation between location of the cones and the fibers of the optic nerve. Basically what cones do is they excite the thalamus (so called conscious brain) first which cause the release neurotransmitters to activate unconscious parts of brain from V1 to V5 depending on which task is required of us ( for example if it is pattern recognition S1 cells and cerebellum get activated most like when we are reading) and then the raw data from the visual cortex goes back to the thalamus and gets processed by it one more time and after that data was processed we see.

 

  Visions not a completely understood thing it most likely has nothing to do with what our visual cortexes "see" and the same goes for our eyes which makes the question of whether we see the inverted  image of the world meaningless. We  know for a fact that our eyes react to UV light and the thalamus(it releases melanin when we see UV light ) with them, but however our visual cortexes for some reason can't see  UV, meaning the thalamus filters UV out, however if you do some MDMA your serotonin levels will sky rocket and ya will be able to see UV light( or at least that's what a lot of heavy users of LSD say they can see). the take away massage is that one small part of the (conscious) brain (thalamus) controls the senses we got (vision, hearing, tactile etc.) going on for us and we see what our conscious brain lets us only and how it does no one in the world knows we just know that it does it, but have no idea how it does it.Also it turns out that the amygdala (primitive brain) gets activated when we see naked people or blood, or a predator runs toward us etc. before neo-cortex does, how ever when we read the neo-cortex beats amygdala to the punch.

 

 

P.S Visual adaption  is a mostly human trait most animals can't adapt to inverted vision...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24589538
> 
> 
> Guess you missed the upcoming line of amoled tablets Samsung is coming out with?
> 
> 
> Shocking, you don't actually keep up on the oled news..
> 
> 
> The SM-T800 will sport a 10.5-inch Super AMOLED display of 2560×1600 resolution, and will be powered by a quad-core Snapdragon processor (likely the S801) accompanied by 2GB of RAM.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk



So that's one model then? Out of well over a dozen tablet models? And it will have what kind of production? Shocking you're still an abject a--... Well, not really shocking.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24589662
> 
> 
> Samsung moving up to 10-inch mass production? Good for them. Onward to 15"!



Doubtful.


----------



## vinnie97

It's the first I've heard of OLED's use outside of a mobile phone or a TV. One model's not a trend, but hopefully the beginning of a breakout.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24589538
> 
> 
> Guess you missed the upcoming line of amoled tablets Samsung is coming out with?
> 
> 
> Shocking, you don't actually keep up on the oled news..
> 
> 
> The SM-T800 will sport a 10.5-inch Super AMOLED display of 2560×1600 resolution, and will be powered by a quad-core Snapdragon processor (likely the S801) accompanied by 2GB of RAM.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


Don't forget that the Samsung OLED tablet is ,in all likelihood, gonging to have a diamond AMOLED which will have 0.1 blacks and 350 nits of brightness and 3500 contrast. so I don't think it can be seen as a really good thing, do you?


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24590781
> 
> 
> It's the first I've heard of OLED's use outside of a mobile phone or a TV. One model's not a trend, but hopefully the beginning of a breakout.


Samsung 7.7 had OLED and it had proved to be a total failure, because it cost twice the price the competing tablets went for. I don't think they sold more than 100 thousands worldwide


----------



## JazzGuyy

I have a Cowon J3 music player that has an AMOLED screen. Cowon (a Chinese company) has used them in several players over the years. I bought a couple a few years ago because it was the only player at the time that played .flac files (though not hi-res .flac).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24590581
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24589371
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The position of those sensors are precisely the issue (this is all assuming we don't dynamically adapt, which we do).
> 
> 
> 
> But what we believe we see is the opposite of the picture *why*?  Because the retina closest to our feet happen to be holding the light closest to the top of the head in the image?  I think if you were to think about it, it's a correction that isn't taking place.  Taking away our *dynamic* ability to adapt and let's assume that our brain cannot adapt (that there's permanent meaning to locations on the retina), it's still the case that if the lens put a picture sideways that the sensors would have evolved to be aligned sideways to receive it.  We wouldn't know the difference....we couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying our brains operate at the speed photons move , in other words, speed of light? (No they don't) The input to thalamus comes at 12-24 milliseconds per scan, yes it comes in scans and it is processed in scans!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't saying that.  Wasn't implying that.  If you thought that's what I said, then you missed the issue entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Visions not a completely understood thing it most likely has nothing to do with what our visual cortexes "see" and the same goes for our eyes which makes the question of whether we see the inverted  image of the world meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question is horribly meaningless, but no, it has nothing to do with how understood vision is.  What renders the question "Why don't we see an inverted image" meaningless is because *had the image actually been right side up* on the back of the eye we could easily have asked the same thing: "why does a right side up image on the back of our eye look right side up".  Just as big a (non) mystery.  In other words, people put some intrinsic value to the image being upside down as if it were something that needed to be corrected or flipped, it does not.
Click to expand...


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9390#post_24591247
> 
> The question is horribly meaningless, but no, it has nothing to do with how understood vision is. What renders the question "Why don't we see an inverted image" meaningless is because had the image actually been right side up on the back of the eye we could easily have asked the same thing: "why does a right side up image on the back of our eye look right side up". Just as big a (non) mystery. In other words, people put some intrinsic value to the image being upside down as if it were something that needed to be corrected or flipped, it does not.


Yes, it does not.

 

Some theories state that inverted image is the result of our pupils and lens trying to align the image with the fovea (place where the most of the cones are)

 



 

What we need to remember is that the thalamus (conscious brain (called conscious because it is active only when we are awake and when we sleep or in the coma the thalamus shuts down however it does not necessarily means that it has to do something with consciousness per se. We know even less about consciousness than we do about vision) decodes the data received from the low capacity optic nerve which (optic nerve) gets the data fed via the ganglion cells (100 cone cells per one ganglion cell, that ,either, means that the ganglion cells compress visual data or they simply send 1/100 of all the data received from cones and the funniest thing about it is that there's no correlation between the fovea (cones) and the ganglion cells, meaning a cone from at the top of the fovea might feed data to the ganglion cell that is located in the middle of fovea or and that betokens that the chemoaffinity hypothesis (it says that every cone has its own chemical marker which is used to identify each cone in the thalamus and that renders question of inverted image as one of no import, because all that thalamus gets is some sort of chemical compound) is correct, but no markers yet found however the fact that the thalamus is full of monoamine receptors still keeps  the theory afloat)  and then the thalamus sends that data to the visual cortex (if anything moving in the picture than the cerebellum gets involved, if we read than V1-V4 and frontal lobe gets involved etc.)  and than it receives the feed from the visual cortex back where it gets processed once again *and that is all we know about how vision works*. *IT IN NO WAY CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE WHY the image being upside down!*


----------



## Rich Peterson

I noticed the gallery OLED is now being sold by Amazon along with a couple other Amazon marketplace sellers.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24591247
> 
> 
> In other words, people put some intrinsic value to the image being upside down as if it were something that needed to be corrected or flipped, it does not.


I did say something earlier that implied there is something wrong with being upside down. I am now coming to think that everything is actually upside down, so I agree that it's all for the best.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24592333
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24591247
> 
> 
> In other words, people put some intrinsic value to the image being upside down as if it were something that needed to be corrected or flipped, it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> I did say something earlier that implied there is something wrong with being upside down. I am now coming to think that everything is actually upside down, so I agree that it's all for the best.
Click to expand...

 

The "upside down"ed-ness of the image against the retina is the simple function of a lens.  All lenses (including the pin-hole in the pin-hole camera) will invert the image onto a focal plane.  The point though is that there is nothing to even ponder about regarding it.  It's not any more curious than if it were sideways or even right-side up.  To illustrate, if it magically were the case that the image were right side up in the back of the eye, not one person would say: "Gee, how come we don't perceive it as upside down?"  The film I saw as a kid was a joke.  How the image lands on the back of the eye *does not matter even if we were non adaptive.  The eye's sensors would always have evolved to be in the right place and orientation.*

 
*Not the only time I've been let down by science in my lifetime.* (Click to show) I was a young child in the 70's and every scientist in the world was convinced that the "energy crisis" was real and a true function of a perceived limited amount of oil on the planet.  And in fact, get this: One of the films they showed us actually said: "If the world were hollow and completely filled with oil, it'd be used up by the year 2020".


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9390#post_24592684
> 
> 
> The "upside down"ed-ness of the image against the retina is the simple function of a lens.  All lenses (including the pin-hole in the pin-hole camera) will invert the image onto a focal plane.  The point though is that there is nothing to even ponder about regarding it.  It's not any more curious than if it were sideways or even right-side up.  To illustrate, if it magically were the case that the image were right side up in the back of the eye, not one person would say: "Gee, how come we don't perceive it as upside down?"  The film I saw as a kid was a joke.  How the image lands on the back of the eye _does not matter even if we were non adaptive.  The eye's sensors would always have evolved to be in the right place and orientation._



Indeed the whole issue of upside down comes form the misleading notion that there is a screen in the brain on which "we" are watching movies of external world. However, what is really in the brain is a mass of processing cells which builds some kind of representation of external world. This representation is so marvelous that it tricks us to perceive a movie, how this is exactly done is an unsolved billion $ question. To illustrate that there is representation and no movies one can notice that the perceived movie is stable, independent of head position. Even when we are on our head, the movie we we see is not upside down. There were experiments made where people were wearing goggles inverting pictures upside down. After several days of constant wearing the goggles, the perceived pictures reversed and the world was again in correct position. After taking the goggles off, the preceived world was upside down and flipped back after some time.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24592684
> 
> 
> To illustrate, if it magically were the case that the image were right side up in the back of the eye, not one person would say: "Gee, how come we don't perceive it as upside down?"


Not even one?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24592814
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9390#post_24592684
> 
> 
> The "upside down"ed-ness of the image against the retina is the simple function of a lens.  All lenses (including the pin-hole in the pin-hole camera) will invert the image onto a focal plane.  The point though is that there is nothing to even ponder about regarding it.  It's not any more curious than if it were sideways or even right-side up.  To illustrate, if it magically were the case that the image were right side up in the back of the eye, not one person would say: "Gee, how come we don't perceive it as upside down?"  The film I saw as a kid was a joke.  How the image lands on the back of the eye *does not matter even if we were non adaptive.  The eye's sensors would always have evolved to be in the right place and orientation.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed the whole issue of upside down comes form the misleading notion that there is a screen in the brain on which "we" are watching movies of external world. However, what is really in the brain is a mass of processing cells which builds some kind of representation of external world. This representation is so marvelous that it tricks us to perceive a movie, how this is exactly done is an unsolved billion $ question. To illustrate that there is representation and no movies one can notice that the perceived movie is stable, independent of head position. Even when we are on our head, the movie we we see is not upside down. There were experiments made where people were wearing goggles inverting pictures upside down. After several days of constant wearing the goggles, the perceived pictures reversed and the world was again in correct position. After taking the goggles off, the preceived world was upside down and flipped back after some time.
Click to expand...

 

Yep.  That's the adaption I was referring to.  Pretty cool stuff that, and that experiment was very famous.  What I hope for someday is for the poor folks with macular degeneration that we can one day transfer the image (broken up as it might have to be) to the functioning part of the retina, with the hopes that the brain would learn to patch it back together for them over time.  A friend of mine has been interested in this for some time.

 
*I'll make this its own thread if there is interest in identifying the common vision misconceptions* (Click to show) 
BTW Irkuck: This statement of yours: "*Indeed the whole issue of upside down comes form the misleading notion that there is a screen in the brain on which "we" are watching movies of external world.*" is *dead-on* and is in fact nearly word for word how I explain that the following square #2 reasoning is a mistake.  It's a concept I hear once in awhile from folks still:

Square 1 folks: "I see blue.  It's blue.  Blue is blue for everyone."

Square 2 folks (thinking harder): "What I see as blue, you might see as orange, but because you've always known it as blue, you know no different"

Square 3 folks (realizing the flaw): "No, step 1 guys are right for reasons they might not suspect.  Blue is optic/neurologic in nature and forms particular neurological pathways.  *That defines what blue is.*  There is no screen in our minds showing orange and then another "us" viewing that and merely calling it blue".


----------



## 8mile13

 *SOP* (Spatial Orientation Phenomenon)


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24593082
> 
> *SOP* (Spatial Orientation Phenomenon)


 

It's how my monitor is set up.


----------



## mfogarty5

Is this the OLED thread or the opthamology thread?


----------



## mfogarty5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24590466
> 
> 
> Press Release:
> 
> *LG-HARMAN/KARDON COLLABORATION INTRODUCES EXTRAORDINARY SOUND TO OLED AND ULTRA HD TVS*
> 
> 
> LG & Harman/Kardon Join Forces to Deliver a More Immersive Auditory Experience
> 
> 
> CITY, APR. 9, 2014 — LG Electronics (LG) announced a partnership with Harman/Kardon® to develop an advanced audio technology which will be employed in two of its OLED TV models and five of its ULTRA HD TVs. A perfect complement to the LG’s acclaimed picture quality, the ULTRA Surround system is expected to deliver a level of viewer immersion previously only found in cinemas.
> 
> 
> ULTRA Surround technology adds a three-dimensional quality to audio that is nothing short of spell binding. The advanced technology utilizes a state-of-the-art algorithm to produce convincingly real soundscapes. The speakers cleverly distribute sound in multiple directions, balancing foreground and background noises to match the on screen action while keeping dialog perfectly clear. In a scene featuring heavy rain, for example, viewers will feel as though drops are falling all around them, yet still be able to hearon-screen dialog clearly.



Thanks RIch. I wonder if this will be incorporated into a gallery frame.


At a minimum, between this announcement and the gallery oled it is nice to see LG focus on audio for those not interested in 5.1 or 7.1 systems.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mfogarty5*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360_60#post_24593505
> 
> 
> Is this the OLED thread or the opthamology thread?


 

+1 and thumbed up.  I'm very sorry everyone.


----------



## catonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9390#post_24593983
> 
> 
> Too many esoteric technobabble disputes keep erupting, which shed no light on OLED developments.



Due to the long history of this thread over the many years when certain manufacturers proclaimed that OLED was about to appear but didn't, there has grown a rich and venerable tradition of speculation, red herrings, waffling and time wasting whilst we waited for an actual OLED tv to come forth into existence.

Since that blessed event has finally transpired it is not surprising that certain long term posters here have great difficulty in breaking their old, well-ingrained habits and are likely to wander of on some tangent.

Please be forgiving for such transgressions.


----------



## Artwood

I forgive all you transgressors out there!


I applaud tgm1024 for speaking of opthamology for it holds the hope of one day curing the LCD blind!


----------



## 8mile13

  (ophthalmology)


----------



## comtrend

Product manager for the LG nordic countries, Erik Ålhsgren, saies in an interview with TU.no (norwegian magazine), that LGs OLED production yield is at 90% atm. He also mentions OLED share of everything LG sells this year will be between 10%-15%.


Source: http://www.tu.no/t2/2014/04/10/-svartnivaet-pa-oled-er-overlegent-lcd-og-plasma (Norwegian)


Hopefully this means OLED prices will drop even faster


----------



## vinnie97

90%...it's been about 6 months since the last report, so I could see that conceivably being the truth. I hope they aren't neglecting all the premature pixel failures and are also improving the aging/wearing characteristics.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *comtrend*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9390#post_24596399
> 
> 
> Product manager for the LG nordic countries, Erik Ålhsgren, saies in an interview with TU.no (norwegian magazine), that LGs OLED production yield is at 90% atm. He also mentions OLED share of everything LG sells this year will be between 10%-15%.
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.tu.no/t2/2014/04/10/-svartnivaet-pa-oled-er-overlegent-lcd-og-plasma (Norwegian)
> 
> 
> Hopefully this means OLED prices will drop even faster



I'm not going to bother to translate and attempt to parse the poor translation, but I suspect there is some confusion in how this is being interpreted.


The sales forecast of 10-15% of LGs total TV volume is certainly that - a forecast,. Depending on how quickly the new manufacturing line is brought online and a host of other things, there are a lot of reasons that that forecast may not materialize as hoped.


I suspect that the statement regarding 90% yields is a forecast as well.


If LG is already at 90% yields today then they will take over the TV world for a while and they should be selling their WOLED TVs for far lower prices than they are currently offering, but I highly suspect that this is not the case.


Something like 'we expect yields in our OLED TV production to reach 90% this year and expect OLED TVs to make up 10-15% or total LG TV sales in 2014' is probably a more accurate translation (whether that is what Erik Ålhsgren intended to say or not).


----------



## vinnie97

On last report it was in the 70s. With their apparently aggressive stance/ramp-up, yields in the 80s in April wouldn't surprise me in the least.


----------



## 8mile13

Translation kind of states that error rate is reduced to 10 percent of what it was (no comment on what error rate was).

-> har vi redusert feilprosenten til 10 prosent av hva den var


The LG product manager Erik Åhsgren also claims that OLED percentage will be 10/15% of their 2014 TV sales, which is complete nonsense IMO



And he claims that LG is building a OLED factory in Poland right now that will have 8.000 employees. There was _news in 2012_ that LG used a plant in Poland to assemble OLED TVs. LG invested $51.6m _in a factory_ in Mlawa in 2013-2014.

http://translate.google.nl/translate?hl=nl&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tu.no%2Ft2%2F2014%2F04%2F10%2F-svartnivaet-pa-oled-er-overlegent-lcd-og-plasma


----------



## comtrend




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9390#post_24596598
> 
> 
> Translation kind of states that error rate is reduced to 10 percent of what it was (no comment on what error rate was).
> 
> -> har vi redusert feilprosenten til 10 prosent av hva den var
> 
> 
> The LG product manager Erik Åhsgren also claims that OLED percentage will be 10/15% of their 2014 TV sales, which is complete nonense.
> 
> 
> 
> And he claims that LG is building a OLED factory in Poland right now that will have 8.000 employees. There was _news in 2012_ that LG used a plant in Poland to assemble OLED TVs.
> 
> http://translate.google.nl/translate?hl=nl&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tu.no%2Ft2%2F2014%2F04%2F10%2F-svartnivaet-pa-oled-er-overlegent-lcd-og-plasma




I read it as a reduction to 10% error rate , from what it was (20%, 30%, 40% etc). I'm not sure LG would be close to selling 10%-15% OLED of their 2014 TV sales, even with 90% yields, I believe thats more of a guess from the LG product manager Erig Årsgren.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9390#post_24596598
> 
> 
> The LG product manager Erik Åhsgren also claims that OLED percentage will be 10/15% of their 2014 TV sales, which is complete nonsense IMO



Beyond complete nonsense, it's completely non possible.


----------



## stas3098




> *The LG product manager Erik Åhsgren also claims that OLED percentage will be 10/15% of their 2014 TV sales, which is complete nonsense IMO*
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9390#post_24598523
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond complete nonsense, it's completely non possible.


It's beyond completely non possible, it's total BS


----------



## Masterbrew2


It sounds like the guy is guessing, but it might be a realistic guess in the case of the Nordic countries? As far as I know LG's LED TVs aren't super popular around here, and coupled with the rich norwegians, it might be that OLED manages to do 10-15% of LG TV revenue in Denmark, Sweden, Norway?

 

The OLED TVs are featured quite prominently in shops. That's at least a first for an LG TV. It used to be mainly Samsung and Sony who got the prominent spots, and some times Philips.


----------



## Masterbrew2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9390#post_24599245
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^Please don't bash particular nationalities.


 

I wasn't calling them stupid, just stupid rich ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stupid%20rich ). I like norwegians!

 

I'll edit it if it causes confusion.


----------



## Artwood

The perfect name for a Chinese OLED company--Okidoki!


It's corny enough to sell!


----------



## vaktmestern

As a Norwegain i dont think the Lg oled been selling well here, been following the online shop stocs n they been stabile for a long while.

Been on hold myself for a good while regarding if its really worth to get one of the first bigger oled screens, vs waiting for 4k oleds to arrive. I belive many is holding back to get the two techs into one product.


And the news that Samsung dont stock any spare parts on they oled tv making me look vs Lg


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9390#post_24599306
> 
> 
> Okidoki, thanks.  Actually, I'm half-Norwegian, and aside from pillaging the English region for 450 years, they're pretty good folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....I'll delete my post above, and this one after a short while.



In the past, the English have been know to leave home









Now, the Italians (of which I am largely descended) have been out of the game for about 2000 years

















The Norwegian/Dutch/Holland people are great










- Rich


----------



## JimShaw

An interesting OLED tid bit.


I stopped by my Best Buy Magnolia store today hoping they might have an OLED show up. They didn't. Maybe someday but the rep in Magnolia mentioned that the store in Riverside (the next town over) had just received a Samsung OLED and it was on display.


A customer, who had read OLED's were bendable, tested to see it was. He grab the edge of the set to bend and cracked the glass. The store in Riverside no longer has an OLED.


Another BB store also had one on display. It wasn't up for long when it fell over and broke.


My getting to see an OLED in my general area is getting tough to do.


----------



## Orbitron

Same thing happened to the curved LG OLED at the big Magnolia on Old Country Rd in LI. How long before the manufacturers get their heads on straight and elimanate the silly curve?


----------



## htwaits

Our Fry's has the LG on display behind a decorative chain fence. They also have a "Please Do Not Touch" sign attached to the fence.


----------



## ChadThunder

So how many consumers are buying LED backlits thinking they are getting OLED? the fact they are both curved probably adds to the general confusion


When will Samsung stop manufacturing mass delusions and get on with just making good products


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ChadThunder*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420_60#post_24606449
> 
> 
> So how many consumers are buying LED backlits thinking they are getting OLED? the fact they are both curved probably adds to the general confusion
> 
> 
> When will Samsung stop manufacturing mass delusions and get on with just making good products


 

I'm surprised that Samsung was able to call their TVs "LED"s for so long.


----------



## andy sullivan

I cannot help but hold Samsung in a very bad light because of the way they presented LED to the public. Legal, barely, But disrespectful. I will place Samsung on my never buy list but they would need to offer one big ass bang for the buck advantage for me to bite.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*
> 
> I cannot help but hold Samsung in a very bad light because of the way they presented LED to the public. Legal, barely, But disrespectful. I will place Samsung on my never buy list but they would need to offer one big ass bang for the buck advantage for me to bite.


It is a business. All of them would have done it this way if they had the chance. Basically all flatscreen manufacturers should be on your never buy list


----------



## MikeBiker

I'm waiting for a TV manufacturer to use and OLED backlight on an LCD screen and starting labeling it as an OLED TV.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9400_50#post_24613105
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for a TV manufacturer to use and OLED backlight on an LCD screen and starting labeling it as an OLED TV.


I think I must have missed the class on OLED back-lights.


----------



## slacker711

Sony and Panasonic might supply OLED televisions with panels from LGD this year.

http://english.etnews.com/device/2946487_1304.html 


> Quote:
> Japan to enter OLED TV market following Korea and China, anticipated to vitalize market
> 
> 2014/04/17 By Mun Bo-gyeong
> 
> 
> Following Korea and China, Japanese TV makers have entered active matrix (AM) organic light emitting diode (OLED) TV market. As Japanese companies, which have been rather slow in performance, join the market following the breaking of alliance between Sony and Panasonic, attention is drawn to whether or not AM OLED TV market will enjoy a blooming season.
> 
> *According to the industry on the 16th, Japanese TV makers, such as Sony and Panasonic, are preparing for OLED TV business as of late by receiving OLED panels from outside and internally developing picture quality improvement algorithms. The companies, according to sources, are negotiating for supply of panels from LG Display.*
> 
> 
> This is not the first time Sony and Panasonic set out for AM OLED TV development. The companies attempted joint AM OLED panel development following a partnership establishment in 2012. Sony and Panasonic expressed their will and enthusiasm for the market entry by showcasing a 56” ultra high-definition (UHD) OLED TV at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in the U.S. in 2013. Although using different methods for an emitting layer development, the companies showed possibility as they used the same substrate. However, the joint development was put to a full stop last year by reasons concerning cost and others.
> 
> *Accordingly, although having displayed movement to pull out from OLED TV development, Japanese companies, Japanese companies are hurrying to get ready for market entry again as of late. A TV release is expected to take place as early as within the year.*
> 
> 
> As Japanese companies join Korea and China in the market, AM OLED TV has once again come into the limelight. LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics released OLED TV models in 2012 and Chinese TV makers are scheduled to showcase OLED TVs simultaneously on May 1.
> 
> *With the market showing signs of change, Samsung Display is also active in developing a panel for OLED TV. Samsung Display is focusing only on development, virtually suspending mass-production in its pilot line (V1). The strategy is to release a new model in time for the market opening. However, there are signs of Samsung Display starting preparation for mass-production again recently, such as an increase in the order of materials for OLED TV.*
> 
> 
> According to a market surveyor, NPD Display Search, the forwarding volume of OLED panels for TV is forecast to increase rapidly from 50,000 last year to 200,000 this year and again to 1.2 million and 2.3 million by 2015 and 2016 respectively.
> 
> 
> “OLED TV price is still high and the panels are not being supplied smoothly. So, it is in fact true that there are many obstacles for the market opening,” said an industry insider. “The marketing opening will be accelerated when Chinese and Japanese TV makers release new products and the products win favorable responses in the market.”


----------



## Rich Peterson

^^^ I wish I knew how much of that to believe.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24616724
> 
> 
> ^^^ I wish I knew how much of that to believe.



It is just a rumor but this is the 2nd time I have read that Sony and Panasonic might be bringing OLED televisions from LG Display to market fairly quickly.


----------



## Rudy1

*A SOMEWHAT PESSIMISTIC VIEW OF THE FUTURE OF OLED TVs:*

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/oled-tv-troubles,news-18653.html


----------



## vinnie97

^It seems to me they're working with outdated info concerning yields. For Samsung, I have no doubt it's true (maybe 50/50 by now with any luck/perseverance)...but LG is at over 70%.


----------



## SeLfMaDe111985

My god Panasonic just go back to making plasma please. Just put a VT series back in production. They would sell like hot cakes man


----------



## slacker711

I have trouble understanding how Displaysearch thinks that the average price for a 55" 1080p OLED is going to be $6600 when prices are below that today. I doubt prices are going up between now and Christmas.


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24616186
> 
> 
> Sony and Panasonic might supply OLED televisions with panels from LGD this year.
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/device/2946487_1304.html


It makes perfect sense to me that companies such as Sony and Panasonic would buy OLED panels from LG. Even if they're not totally sure of the future of the technology, it allows them to keep a foot in the OLED waters in which time they can continue to explore their own proprietary approach.


LG meanwhile get to offset the financial risks of setting up their mass-manufacturing facility and also help fuel the need for ever-increasing OLED production, knowing that they retain complete control over what is so far the only successful manufacturing approach as the goose that lays the golden eggs.


It'll be interesting to see what the next 12 months bring.


Desk


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeLfMaDe111985*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420_60#post_24617141
> 
> 
> My god Panasonic just go back to making plasma please. Just put a VT series back in production. They would sell like hot cakes man


 

Actually, no, they wouldn't.  Why?  Because they didn't before when LCD display tech was even worse.


----------



## lukemanstalker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24606524
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised that Samsung was able to call their TVs "LED"s for so long.


 



It's not some conspiracy, LCD sales were tanking until LED backlights came around and customers quickly recognized the benefits.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lukemanstalker*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9400_50#post_24619769
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24606524
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised that Samsung was able to call their TVs "LED"s for so long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not some conspiracy, LCD sales were tanking until LED back lights came around and customers quickly recognized the benefits.
Click to expand...

It's true that manufactures wanted to boost sales, but what the consumer's noticed was that the TVs got thinner, and with LED edge lighting they also got cheaper. And to top it off, consumers thought they were getting a new TV technology (LED), instead of a new black back light. It's marketing baby, and there doesn't seem to be any foreseeable time when consumers won't be swayed by the new "show/gimmick" in town.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lukemanstalker*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24619769
> 
> 
> 
> It's not some conspiracy, LCD sales were tanking until LED backlights came around and customers quickly recognized the benefits.



Maybe we should start marking posts with completely made up "facts" using some sort of [ /fiction] tag?


LCD sales never fell until 2013, so clearly "tanking" was not occurring at the advent of the LED backlighting era.

http://business.time.com/2013/04/05/boob-tube-saturation-after-tv-sales-decline-worldwide-will-price-drops-follow/ 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *htwaits*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24619828
> 
> 
> It's true that manufactures wanted to boost sales, but what the consumer's noticed was that the TVs got thinner, and with LED edge lighting they also got cheaper. And to top it off, consumers thought they were getting a new TV technology (LED), instead of a new black light. It's marketing baby, and there doesn't seem to be any foreseeable time when consumers won't be swayed by the new "show/gimmick" in town.



Yep. There was a substantial period where obsession with thinness was the thing in marketing and customers clearly were believing in it, for whatever reason.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420_60#post_24619870
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lukemanstalker*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24619769
> 
> 
> 
> It's not some conspiracy, LCD sales were tanking until LED backlights came around and customers quickly recognized the benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should start marking posts with completely made up "facts" using some sort of [ /fiction] tag?
> 
> 
> LCD sales never fell until 2013, so clearly "tanking" was not occurring at the advent of the LED backlighting era.
> 
> http://business.time.com/2013/04/05/boob-tube-saturation-after-tv-sales-decline-worldwide-will-price-drops-follow/
Click to expand...

 

That's right.  I like the article you posted here ^^^ for another reason: it's bringing to light the counter effects of prior purchasing surges.

 

On the subject of fiction tags though: does your page come up with this link at the top of the article?


> (*MORE:* Analyst Says 60-Inch Apple iTV to Launch This Year )


 

.....which leads to a missing page?


----------



## RandyWalters




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lukemanstalker*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420_60#post_24619769
> 
> 
> It's not some conspiracy, LCD sales were tanking until LED backlights came around and customers quickly recognized the benefits.



What benefits? If i remember right, when LEDs first started being used in the LCD TVs they were Edge-lights, not backlights, and with that came big problems with flashlighting from the corners and light bleeding from the edges of the bezel. They marketed LED as if it was superior, but I liked CFL backlighting much better than edge-lighting. Edge lighting was also cheaper to build but prices of the new edge-lit models were higher. Yeah they were thinner and lighter, but picture quality suffered.


Full Array is a different story, but edge lighting sucks.


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24617490
> 
> 
> Actually, no, they wouldn't.  Why?  Because they didn't before when LCD display tech was even worse.


Really?!

LCD display tech has been worse??? ;-D


----------



## Rudy1

At the Fort Lauderdale BestBuy's Magnolia store, I saw one of the Samsung OLED sets playing "Frozen", next to an LG LCD and a Samsung plasma. The LCD had the absolute worst PQ of the 3, but even the high-end plasma paled in comparison to the OLED in every imaginable way...color fidelity, black levels, shadow detail, etc. I hope they will some day find a way to make this technology viable for mass production.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24621447
> 
> 
> At the Fort Lauderdale BestBuy's Magnolia store, I saw one of the Samsung OLED sets playing "Frozen", next to an LG LCD and a Samsung plasma. The LCD had the absolute worst PQ of the 3, but even the high-end plasma paled in comparison to the OLED in every imaginable way...color fidelity, black levels, shadow detail, etc. I hope they will some day find a way to make this technology viable for mass production.


I bet my kingdom that they simply rigged the whole thing. LG IPS TV sets have just as good shadow detail, color fidelity and in-showroom black levels as OLEDs do the same applies to the Sammy PDP TV sets. My point is that if a LG LCD, a Sammy PDP set and an OLED set are well-calibrated then the difference in well-lit showroom between them will be a bit more than marginal at best...


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9360#post_24590782
> 
> 
> Don't forget that the Samsung OLED tablet is ,in all likelihood, gonging to have a diamond AMOLED which will have 0.1 blacks and 350 nits of brightness and 3500 contrast. so I don't think it can be seen as a really good thing, do you?



We shall see if it's that, or just a bigger version of the S5's "best phone screen ever".


Note 3 has a great screen too. I think Samsung can make a 10 inch screen that good.


Also, I believe this is an attempt to get a jump (again) on Apple with the rumors of an AMOLED screened device.


Samsung seems hell bent on beating Apple into certain markets. I'm sure this tablet will cost a lot too.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24625329
> 
> 
> 
> We shall see if it's that, or just a bigger version of the S5's "best phone screen ever".
> 
> 
> Note 3 has a great screen too. I think Samsung can make a 10 inch screen that good.
> 
> 
> Also, I believe this is an attempt to get a jump (again) on Apple with the rumors of an AMOLED screened device.
> 
> 
> Samsung seems hell bent on beating Apple into certain markets. I'm sure this tablet will cost a lot too.


I posted about 5 posts on the transition color shift theme http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QskpJDvA7zc  . The S5 is no stranger to the hue shifts at 0 candela brightness due to the inherent weaknesses of the diamond layout. The solution Sammy came up with was to utilize "idle blacks" to prevent hue shifts hence blacks have about .1 candela  http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-3-SM-N9005-Smartphone.104798.0.html  . The so-called "review units" one of which you might witness on the YT video for which I've kindly provided the link above have perfect zero blacks to stir up a hype for the time retail units hit the shelves .

 

P.S. As far as I know most people here don't really care about handhelds using OLED much, because most of them are video-philes who do all their critical viewing on 50-65 inch big plasmas or falds and a chosen few have the pleasure of "ogling" 55" OLED TV sets and I'm sure as hell that none of them will ever up and start doing their critical viewing on 10 inch OLED handhelds, because the kick out of doing so (watching stuff on a 10 inch handheld) in no way comes close to the kick one gets out of watching ,for example, episode 3 of season 4 of Game of Thrones on a 60 inch ST60 with Bose 5.1 Dolby Surround...


----------



## David_B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24628127
> 
> 
> 
> I posted about 5 posts on the transition color shift theme http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QskpJDvA7zc  . The S5 is no stranger to the hue shifts at 0 candela brightness due to the inherent weaknesses of the diamond layout. The solution Sammy came up with was to utilize "idle blacks" to prevent hue shifts hence blacks have about .1 candela  http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-3-SM-N9005-Smartphone.104798.0.html  . The so-called "review units" one of which you might witness on the YT video for which I've kindly provided the link above have perfect zero blacks to stir up a hype for the time retail units hit the shelves .
> 
> 
> P.S. As far as I know most people here don't really care about handhelds using OLED much, because most of them are video-philes who do all their critical viewing on 50-65 inch big plasmas or falds and a chosen few have the pleasure of "ogling" 55" OLED TV sets and I'm sure as hell that none of them will ever up and start doing their critical viewing on 10 inch OLED handhelds, because the kick out of doing so (watching stuff on a 10 inch handheld) in no way comes close to the kick one gets out of watching ,for example, episode 3 of season 4 of Game of Thrones on a 60 inch ST60 with Bose 5.1 Dolby Surround...



My point isn't that OLED small screens are a replacement for large screens, just that Samsung seems committed to OLED tech, and the fact that they continue to push them in to larger mass produced products is a good indication they will more than likely have the wish to produce OLED TVs that are mass produced.


I'm sure they are somewhat happy 4k came out, it gives them time to improve big screen OLED manufacture, and making a 10 inch screen can get them closer to that goal.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24629514
> 
> 
> 
> My point isn't that OLED small screens are a replacement for large screens, just that Samsung seems committed to OLED tech, and the fact that they continue to push them in to larger mass produced products is a good indication they will more than likely have the wish to produce OLED TVs that are mass produced.
> 
> 
> I'm sure they are somewhat happy 4k came out, it gives them time to improve big screen OLED manufacture, and making a 10 inch screen can get them closer to that goal.


 Ok, OLED in 2014 in a nutshell.

 

1) 2014 Samsung buys Kateeva http://news.oled-display.net/kateeva-yieldjet-to-print-cost-effective-flexible-large-oled-tv-displays/ inkjet printers that are able to produce 5 to 10 (maybe even 15) inch OLED displays. The drawback of the Kateeva's tech is glowing blacks. The shadow masks and evaporation method which proves to be superior is getting ditched by Samsung.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2014/01/03/is-oled-dead-heres-why-the-answer-is-no/

 

2) The end of 2014 LG's 8g fab comes on line and makes about 8,000 OLED sheets.

 

The third is a total unknown   

 

 

P.S. Neither Samsung nor LG have a lot to do with development of OLEDs Universal Display from the US  and Kateeva from the US do. I don't like it when people give credit to Samsung or LG for developing OLED tech when all they really do is give money an push the tech...


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24617308
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24616186
> 
> 
> Sony and Panasonic might supply OLED televisions with panels from LGD this year.
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/device/2946487_1304.html
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense to me that companies such as Sony and Panasonic would buy OLED panels from LG. Even if they're not totally sure of the future of the technology, it allows them to keep a foot in the OLED waters in which time they can continue to explore their own proprietary approach.
> 
> 
> LG meanwhile get to offset the financial risks of setting up their mass-manufacturing facility and also help fuel the need for ever-increasing OLED production, knowing that they retain complete control over what is so far the only successful manufacturing approach as the goose that lays the golden eggs.
> 
> 
> It'll be interesting to see what the next 12 months bring.
> 
> 
> Desk
Click to expand...

Sony and Panasonic are in survival mode. Why start buying LG panels, making larger sized OLEDs and start selling them when you know that only a few of them will be sold?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24629816
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, OLED in 2014 in a nutshell.
> 
> 
> 1) 2014 Samsung buys Kateeva http://news.oled-display.net/kateeva-yieldjet-to-print-cost-effective-flexible-large-oled-tv-displays/ inkjet printers that are able to produce 5 to 10 (maybe even 15) inch OLED displays. The drawback of the Kateeva's tech is glowing blacks. The shadow masks and evaporation method which proves to be superior is getting ditched by Samsung.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2014/01/03/is-oled-dead-heres-why-the-answer-is-no/
> 
> 
> 2) The end of 2014 LG's 8g fab comes on line and makes about 8,000 OLED sheets.
> 
> 
> The third is a total unknown
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. Neither Samsung nor LG have a lot to do with development of OLEDs Universal Display from the US  and Kateeva from the US do. I don't like it when people give credit to Samsung or LG for developing OLED tech when all they really do is give money an push the tech...




Kateeva is just one of a number of different companies that are attempting to commercialize printable displays. They may yet revolutionize displays but they havent contributed anything yet. As for Universal Display, they own the patents on the most important part of the material stack but that is only one component in commercializing displays. LG and Samsung have invested huge sums into R&D and capex to create everything else (backplanes, manufacturing methods, non-emitter materials, and ultimately capacity). They have taken very big risks in OLED's.


Samsung is supposed to bring OLED tablets to market in the next few months which means it wont be made using Kateeva's tech.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9400_100#post_24629896
> 
> 
> Sony and Panasonic are in survival mode. Why start buying LG panels, making larger sized OLEDs and start selling them when you know that only a few of them will be sold?


You think Sony will sale more than a few of those XBR-65X950Bs? The AX900 hasn't even been priced yet as far as I know.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24630034
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9400_100#post_24629896
> 
> 
> Sony and Panasonic are in survival mode. Why start buying LG panels, making larger sized OLEDs and start selling them when you know that only a few of them will be sold?
> 
> 
> 
> You think Sony will sale more than a few of those XBR-65X950Bs? The AX900 hasn't even been priced yet as far as I know.
Click to expand...

The Sony 4k LED FALD Flagship will help to sell more Sony 4K LED TVs. At least that seems to be the idea behind it.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420_60#post_24629816
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David_B*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420#post_24629514
> 
> 
> 
> My point isn't that OLED small screens are a replacement for large screens, just that Samsung seems committed to OLED tech, and the fact that they continue to push them in to larger mass produced products is a good indication they will more than likely have the wish to produce OLED TVs that are mass produced.
> 
> 
> I'm sure they are somewhat happy 4k came out, it gives them time to improve big screen OLED manufacture, and making a 10 inch screen can get them closer to that goal.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, OLED in 2014 in a nutshell.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) 2014 Samsung buys Kateeva http://news.oled-display.net/kateeva-yieldjet-to-print-cost-effective-flexible-large-oled-tv-displays/ inkjet printers that are able to produce 5 to 10 (maybe even 15) inch OLED displays. The drawback of the Kateeva's tech is glowing blacks. The shadow masks and evaporation method which proves to be superior is getting ditched by Samsung.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2014/01/03/is-oled-dead-heres-why-the-answer-is-no/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that this link ^^^ was written at the very start of the year, and refers back to two articles one written in November 2013, but the other written in January of 2012.  I also don't like the way this guy writes: he's being a little quick with how he draws his conclusions.
Click to expand...




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. Neither Samsung nor LG have a lot to do with development of OLEDs Universal Display from the US  and Kateeva from the US do. I don't like it when people give credit to Samsung or LG for developing OLED tech *when all they really do is give money an push the tech*...
Click to expand...

 

(Huh?)

 

We're dealing with large companies.  What's the difference precisely between what the guys in lab coats with Samsung written on them do vs. guys that say "Wizbang Display" on their coats that are owned or licensed by Samsung???


----------



## stas3098




>


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24630946
> 
> 
> 
> LG have taken a lot of risk for mostly naught for they don't have 3000 patents that Universal Display Corporation have and they UDC will impose royalty on LG for every panel made which  most likely will be many times more that what LG make off every set sold in the end of the day when OLED takes off. FOR GOD'S SAKE APPLE GETS 10 to 30 bucks from every Samsung smartphone sold in the world and sueing its way up to 50 to 100 bucks off every unit sold whereas Sammy get about 70 now.
> 
> 
> A few hundreds of people in UD will make hundreds of  mils out of  OLED taking off whereas all of those LG "engineers" will not see a cent. Kateeva owns means of production of inkjet printers as well as the patent of the tech hence all the 50 guys in its employ will be millionaires come  2016-2017  and by 2025 a few of them will be billionaires.
> 
> Qualcomm from the US basically owns the IGZO tech and Texas Instruments from the US make equipment in China that  LG use to make their TVs.
> 
> 
> Here are the four companies that stand to benefit most from OLED whereas LG and Sammy and others are making OLEDs out of the unabating need to survive...
> 
> 
> 1. Universal Display Corporation
> 
> 2. Kateeva
> 
> 3. Qualcomm
> 
> 4. Texas Instruments
> 
> 
> What that means a couple of thousands of  people will get rich off of OLEDs, but nobody will ever know it except a few wall street fat cats while LG and Sammy and  others  will be forced to make OLEDs for "peanuts" to make ends meet which will ultimately widen the wealth gap in the US a bit more, but that's a totally different story...
> 
> 
> Samsung have no  engineers per se   http://www.sisa.samsung.com/   .  Engineers which work for Sammy  live and work in the US mostly and if Sammy trip,tumble and fall on its face they will flock to LG or some one  else. They are simply contracted  by Samsung or LG or Sony.
> 
> 
> 
> P.S Sometimes to see the whole picture one has to look close-up at the finest details of one first...



This is painful to read. There is so much in here that is simply wrong. If you own shares in the stock market, please sell them and invest in mutual funds.


1) Assuming LG ever manages to create a viable business out of OLED's, they will earn far more per unit than Universal Display.


2) Qualcomm doesnt own squat when it comes to IGZO.


3) Texas Instruments isnt making any "equipment" for OLED's.


4) LG isnt manufacturing OLED's in China.


5) Samsung has thousands of engineers in South Korea.


6) Apple doesnt get any royalties from the sale of Samusung handsets right now (though they are trying).


My guess is there is more but rereading your post might make my head explode.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24631030
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24630946
> 
> 
> 
> LG have taken a lot of risk for mostly naught for they don't have 3000 patents that Universal Display Corporation have and they UDC will impose royalty on LG for every panel made which  most likely will be many times more that what LG make off every set sold in the end of the day when OLED takes off. FOR GOD'S SAKE APPLE GETS 10 to 30 bucks from every Samsung smartphone sold in the world and sueing its way up to 50 to 100 bucks off every unit sold whereas Sammy get about 70 now.
> 
> 
> A few hundreds of people in UD will make hundreds of  mils out of  OLED taking off whereas all of those LG "engineers" will not see a cent. Kateeva owns means of production of inkjet printers as well as the patent of the tech hence all the 50 guys in its employ will be millionaires come  2016-2017  and by 2025 a few of them will be billionaires.
> 
> Qualcomm from the US basically owns the IGZO tech and Texas Instruments from the US make equipment in China that  LG use to make their TVs.
> 
> 
> Here are the four companies that stand to benefit most from OLED whereas LG and Sammy and others are making OLEDs out of the unabating need to survive...
> 
> 
> 1. Universal Display Corporation
> 
> 2. Kateeva
> 
> 3. Qualcomm
> 
> 4. Texas Instruments
> 
> 
> What that means a couple of thousands of  people will get rich off of OLEDs, but nobody will ever know it except a few wall street fat cats while LG and Sammy and  others  will be forced to make OLEDs for "peanuts" to make ends meet which will ultimately widen the wealth gap in the US a bit more, but that's a totally different story...
> 
> 
> Samsung have no  engineers per se   http://www.sisa.samsung.com/   .  Engineers which work for Sammy  live and work in the US mostly and if Sammy trip,tumble and fall on its face they will flock to LG or some one  else. They are simply contracted  by Samsung or LG or Sony.
> 
> 
> 
> P.S Sometimes to see the whole picture one has to look close-up at the finest details of one first...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is painful to read. There is so much in here that is simply wrong. If you own shares in the stock market, please sell them and invest in mutual funds.
> 
> 
> 1) Assuming LG ever manages to create a viable business out of OLED's, they will earn far more per unit than Universal Display.
> 
> 
> 2) Qualcomm doesnt own squat when it comes to IGZO.
> 
> 
> 3) Texas Instruments isnt making any "equipment" for OLED's.
> 
> 
> 4) LG isnt manufacturing OLED's in China.
> 
> 
> 5) Samsung has thousands of engineers in South Korea.
> 
> 
> 6) Apple doesnt get any royalties from the sale of Samusung handsets right now (though they are trying).
> 
> *My guess is there is more but rereading your post might make my head explode*.
Click to expand...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24630030
> 
> 
> Kateeva is just one of a number of different companies that are attempting to commercialize printable displays. They may yet revolutionize displays but they havent contributed anything yet.



They've contributed something, actually. Even if their tech never makes it, by showing the path to a nitrogen-chamber approach, they have surely sent a bunch of people scurrying off in similar directions. That will almost certainly prove important.


> Quote:
> LG and Samsung have invested huge sums into R&D and capex to create everything else (backplanes, manufacturing methods, non-emitter materials, and ultimately capacity). They have taken very big risks in OLED's.



In fact, it's fair to say that without Samsung commercializing OLEDs in smartphones and LG commercializing them in TVs (if we can jump ahead a few months on that one and believe they are sticking with it), there would be no OLEDs. Suggesting that LG and Samsung are anything less than the two most important companies in this equation is absurd.


> Quote:
> Samsung is supposed to bring OLED tablets to market in the next few months which means it wont be made using Kateeva's tech.



Likely Samsung is pushing existing tech to slightly larger panel sizes, for sure.


That said, the first manifestations of Kateeva tech are going to be in the smaller sizes and perhaps sooner than some think.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24631103
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the first manifestations of Kateeva tech are going to be in the smaller sizes and perhaps sooner than some think.



The news out of South Korea indicates that Samsung has been placing orders for their Gen 6 fab to be ready in time for S6 production. Any chance that Kateeva would be ready for that kind of timeline? I have assumed no, but we are going to need to hear about orders soon if they are going to be producing screens in 2015.


Samsung is going to have quite a bit of mobile capacity after this addition so I'm not sure when their next capacity expansion will come...though of course, Kateeva could end up simply replacing current production equipment.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420_60#post_24631030
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24630946
> 
> *.....[horrendously broken logic snipped out].....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is painful to read. There is so much in here that is simply wrong. If you own shares in the stock market, please sell them and invest in mutual funds.
> 
> 
> 1) Assuming LG ever manages to create a viable business out of OLED's, they will earn far more per unit than Universal Display.
> 
> 
> 2) Qualcomm doesnt own squat when it comes to IGZO.
> 
> 
> 3) Texas Instruments isnt making any "equipment" for OLED's.
> 
> 
> 4) LG isnt manufacturing OLED's in China.
> 
> 
> 5) Samsung has thousands of engineers in South Korea.
> 
> 
> 6) Apple doesnt get any royalties from the sale of Samusung handsets right now (though they are trying).
> 
> 
> My guess is there is more but rereading your post might make my head explode.
Click to expand...

 

You saved me a lot of typing.  I was half surprised that he didn't try to say it had to do with "boolean logic".


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420_60#post_24631103
> 
> 
> In fact, it's fair to say that without Samsung commercializing OLEDs in smartphones and LG commercializing them in TVs (if we can jump ahead a few months on that one and believe they are sticking with it), there would be no OLEDs.


 

Maybe not right now there wouldn't be, but all discoveries and inventions are *always* only a matter of time.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24631030
> 
> 
> 
> *My guess is there is more but rereading your post might make my head explode.*
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by tgm1024
> 
> 
> *You saved me a lot of typing. I was half surprised that he didn't try to say it had to do with "boolean logic".*
Click to expand...

 

 


































































 

 

P.S You wouldn't have believed how much more is there between the lines that is written in Invisible ink which has heaps of stuff to do with boolean logic (I was just stirring up some head-exploding obfuscation 







 thanks for understanding)


----------



## stas3098


For all interested here's the Kateeva's way of making OLEDs  http://www.google.com/patents/US20140087507

 

Here's for those who are interested how Stacked OLED works  http://www.google.com/patents/US7750561


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420_60#post_24632491
> 
> 
> 
> For all interested here's the Kateeva's way of making OLEDs  http://www.google.com/patents/US20140087507


 

That seems to be for the hole-injection layer.

 

This one seems to the depositing of the OLED material itself:

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US20120237679?dq=kateeva&ei=tMdVU_urC8iNyASv64LIDw&cl=en

 


> Quote:
> *Apparatus and methods for depositing one or more organic materials on a substrate
> 
> US 20120237679 A1*
> Abstract
> Embodiments are disclosed of apparatus and methods for depositing one or more organic materials onto a substrate. One or more thin films can thereby be formed. The organic materials can be those employed in organic LED (OLED) technologies.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24631277
> 
> 
> The news out of South Korea indicates that Samsung has been placing orders for their Gen 6 fab to be ready in time for S6 production.



Any chance that Kateeva would be ready for that kind of timeline? I have assumed no, but we are going to need to hear about orders soon if they are going to be producing screens in 2015. [/quote]


I think this is possible, but unlikely. If it were for a lower-volume product, I'd be more sanguine. But the fact that the Galaxy flagship always sells in the tens of millions means you'd have to hit the ground running. I imagine that the very first Kateeva-based screens will go into a single model of tablet or a niche-y phone. But I'm skeptical that Samsung (and for that matter Kateeva) would try to make this happen so quickly with so many screens on the S6.


> Quote:
> Samsung is going to have quite a bit of mobile capacity after this addition so I'm not sure when their next capacity expansion will come...though of course, Kateeva could end up simply replacing current production equipment.



What does seem probable is that Samsung is gearing up to produce tablet screens in reasonable numbers. But that said, the other part of the business that Samsung hasn't really focused on is winning 3rd party smartphone scree business. In a way, that's a better business than selling for tablets, where OLED longevity issues (and size) still exist.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24631295
> 
> 
> Maybe not right now there wouldn't be, but all discoveries and inventions are _always_ only a matter of time.



I merely meant right now. I mean we can credit Sony and Kodak for all their OLED inventions. But without LG and Samsung's commercial efforts, we'd have inventions. Not products.


----------



## irkuck

 Here is the proof there are no infinitely deep pockets in our Universe


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420_60#post_24633604
> 
> Here is the proof there are no infinitely deep pockets in our Universe


 

"According to the Korea Herald".


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24632539
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems to be for the hole-injection layer.
> 
> 
> 
> This one seems to the depositing of the OLED material itself:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/patents/US20120237679?dq=kateeva&ei=tMdVU_urC8iNyASv64LIDw&cl=en


https://www.google.com/patents/US20120237679?dq=kateeva&ei=tMdVU_urC8iNyASv64LIDw&cl=en  which is nothing new i.e shadow mask and spraying organic material  on it to from a pattern. The only way in which Kateeva's method any different from Universal Display which ,as far as I know, LG use now is how HILs deposition  http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20140227ptan20140057390.php

 

Abstract

Ink compositions comprising polythiophenes and methicone that are formulated for inkjet printing the hole injecting layer (HIL) of an organic light emitting diode (OLED) are provided. *Also provided are methods of inkjet printing the HILs using the ink compositions. * http://www.google.com/patents/US20140087507   . 

 

In sooth Katteva found a way to improve life span of OLEDs at least that's what they claim in their patent...


----------



## stas3098


Here's a bit more about Kateeva

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/521656/ink-jet-printing-could-be-the-key-to-next-generation-oled-displays/


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9420_60#post_24633693
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24632539
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems to be for the hole-injection layer.
> 
> 
> 
> This one seems to the depositing of the OLED material itself:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/patents/US20120237679?dq=kateeva&ei=tMdVU_urC8iNyASv64LIDw&cl=en
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/patents/US20120237679?dq=kateeva&ei=tMdVU_urC8iNyASv64LIDw&cl=en  which is nothing new i.e shadow mask and spraying organic material  on it to from a pattern. The only way in which Kateeva's method any different from Universal Display which ,as far as I know, LG use now is how HILs deposition  http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20140227ptan20140057390.php
Click to expand...

 

It *is* new; it's part of how they regiment the process enough to have it be printable.  LG isn't using a discrete method at all for the OLED material.

 

By the way, individual patents are difficult to draw conclusions from.  They are not design specs, they are huge buckets of every conceivable "what-if" they can imagine with the sole charter of protection.  They always become large umbrellas of many differing techniques and it's a guess as to which part of which patent is being used at any given time.  In fact, Kateeva could well be using 70% of what's written and licensing 30% of it from someone else who patented a subprocess they need.  We can't tell----we can *never* tell.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24631295
> 
> 
> Maybe not right now there wouldn't be, but all discoveries and inventions are _always_ only a matter of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I merely meant right now. I mean we can credit Sony and Kodak for all their OLED inventions. But without LG and Samsung's commercial efforts, we'd have inventions. Not products.
Click to expand...

Without inventions you have nothing. Invention is the fundament where you build upon.


----------



## slacker711

Skyworth has launched their 55" OLED TV in China for 29,999 Yuan (~$4800). According to Google Translate, they said that they are launching six months early because LG Display ramped yields more quickly than they expected. It was originally supposed to go on sale in October.


http://hea.163.com/14/0421/14/9QC59NU60016656A.html


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG Display plans to produce 90 inch or larger OLED-Tv panels*

*LG DIsplay start ramping up M2 production line to expand the OLED-Television production*


Source: http://news.oled-display.net/lg-display-plans-to-produce-90-inch-oled-tv-panels/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OLED-Display-News+(OLED-Tv+AMOLED+Display+NEWS) 



At the Korea Display Conference 2014 LG-Display informed the people in their presentation about the status of large sized OLED-Tv technology.


- Business Opportunity of OLED TV

- The Progress of Large-sized OLED TV Technology and Its Benefits

- Technical Challenge Points for the Competitiveness of OLED TV


LG DIsplay informed us also that the korean company is ready to produce also larger OLED-Tv panels than 77 inch.

The new M2 production line 8G (2200x2500mm) can produce organic light emitting diode Television panels with a size more than 100 inch.


LG Display use the WRGB (white, red, green, blue) pixel technology and plans to develop also a 8K resolution (7680×4320 pixel)

Therefore the OLED material must be improved permanently to maximizie light efficiency.


LG Display will start ramping up the M2 production line in the second half of this year to expand the OLED TV product line-up as well as the customer base. At the same time, LG Display will maintain its competitive advantage in the LCD business with its IPS and copper line technology. In addition, it will further strengthen its future competitiveness by expanding differentiated technologies, such as LTPS and plastic OLED.

The M2 production line is important if Apple plans to use OLED panels for their iTv!

LG DIsplay reports also their first quarter 2014 results they shipped a total of 8.33 million square meters of net display area in the first quarter 2014. This is a decrease of 13 percent quarter on quarter. LCD TV panels accounted for 41% of revenues in the first quarter of 2014, while monitors made up 20%, mobile applications 17%, notebook PCs 12% and tablets 10%.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG Display puts hefty bets on Chinese OLED TV market*

http://itersnews.com/?p=74988


----------



## slacker711

Confirmation that LGD has hit 70% yields, as least if Google Translate has this right.

http://tech.china.com/jiadian/news/11025684/20140423/18463153.html 


> Quote:
> LG Display (LGD) Choi Dong Yuan, president of global marketing, told reporters yesterday, said that with the increased involvement of the manufacturers, *OLED TV prices will be gradually reduced, "is expected mid-next year will be significantly decreased."*
> 
> 
> Choi Dong Yuan told reporters that the first OLED TV panel production line has been put into LGD, the monthly production capacity is 8000 glass substrate; second production line is still under construction, plans to put into operation later this year, the monthly production capacity of 26,000 glass substrates. Together, LGD will have OLED TV panel production capacity of 34,000 glass substrates per month. "Every piece OLED glass substrate can be cut 6 55 inches OLED TV screen." By Choi Dong-yuan said, which means that if LGD full capacity, providing nearly a month to 200,000 55 inches OLED TV panels.
> 
> *Choi Dong-yuan said that now yield LGD's OLED TV panel has been raised to 70%*, the future will continue to improve, with the upgrading of production, prices will fall.


----------



## 8mile13

 _Japanese OLED plans_ ..


For the time being it is a rumour. Already mentioned by slacker711. In 2012 there were also speculations about Sony buying LG OLED panels. Never happened..




On the one hand the article says that Panasonic's printing technology method might be ready in 2015 to start production of cheap large panels. On the other hand the article states that Panasonic and Sony plan to buy OLED TV panels from LG. And the goal is to improve the WRGB Panel picture quality with some new algorithms.


So it looks like Panasonic plan on using LG panels till they are able to massproduce larger sized OLEDs themselves. And Sony might planning uses LG panels till printing method can do the job.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24640434
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the one hand the article says that Panasonic's printing technology method might be ready in 2015 to start production of cheap large panels.



That is certainly false.


> Quote:
> On the other hand the article states that Panasonic and Sony plan to buy OLED TV panels from LG. And the goal is to improve the WRGB Panel picture quality with some new algorithms.



That sounds believable.


> Quote:
> So it looks like Panasonic plan on using LG panels till they are able to massproduce larger sized OLEDs themselves. And Sony might planning uses LG panels till printing method can do the job.



Neither Sony nor Panasonic has any active work going on with respect to printable OLEDs. Both companies abandoned their joint-venture on _manufacturing technology_ because they concluded they could not build any interesting technology to manufacture printable OLEDs. They are waiting for someone else to commercialize the fabrication processes to allow for OLED printing, it appears.


And it remains extraordinarily likely neither company will be making TVs by decade's end anyway, especially Panasonic who should announce a near complete retreat from the TV market before the next summer Olympics (if you want an "out of left field" prediction).


----------



## slacker711

 http://english.etnews.com/device/2949268_1304.html 


> Quote:
> LG Display confident about 100-inch or greater OLED TVs…Favorable first quarter results
> 
> 2014/04/24 By Mun Bo-gyeong | Sung Hyeon-hee
> 
> 
> LG Display showed confidence that they can produce OLED TVs with 100 inch or larger screens. They claim that they have secured technical abilities for mass production of OLED TVs with the size of LCD TVs.
> 
> 
> In the 2014 Korea Display Conference organized by the market research firm IHS on the 23rd, Lim Joo-soo, Leader of the OLED Technical Strategy Team of LG Display said confidently, "We don't have any technical difficulty with the production of OLED TVs with the size of the existing LCD TVs because we do not use micro-mask process in the deposition of organic matters. We can even produce 90-inch OLED TVs in the present stage."
> 
> 
> LG Display launched 55-inch full-HD OLED TV last year and will unveil 77-inch OLED TV this year. Once their M2 line goes into operation in the second half of this year, they can also produce 110-inch superlarge TV with the aspect ratio of 16:9 from the 8th generation (2200×2500㎜) mother glass substrate.
> 
> 
> LG Display not only increased the size, but also improved the image quality to UHD-class. "We can even implement the 8K (7680×4320) image quality through the WRGB (White-Red-Green-Blue) pixel process,” said Mr. Lim. “However, the aperture opening ratio drops when the number of pixels is quadrupled. We urgently need to develop OLED materials with longer life." Moreover, LG Display decided to apply the out coupling method which had been used in the conventional OLED lights in order to maximize luminance efficiency."


----------



## mr. wally

if these reports are accurate and Sony, Panasonic and Chinese

companies getting ready to sell lg oled panels


and with samsung not really in the game currently,


can't think of a much better time for Apple to get in the large panel display market

Mr. Cook, time to grow some huevos


methinks apple would sell more oled panels than lg, panny and sony combined


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9450#post_24640434
> 
> 
> On the other hand the article states that Panasonic and Sony plan to buy OLED TV panels from LG. And the goal is to improve the WRGB Panel picture quality with some new algorithms.



I wonder in what way picture quality could be improved? Would it relate to motion handling, perhaps?


If you were going to buy one of the LG's upcoming 4K OLED sights at an initially high price, you'd want it to have just about the best picture you could imagine with that new technology. The prospect of Sony or Panasonic improving on that picture quality, and perhaps very quickly, might make one pause before splashing out on a 65" or 77" beast.


I have to say, out of the various companies, it's Samsung's handling of Sample and Hold-based pictures that impresses me most. However, I don't expect to see LG selling them OLED panels anytime soon.


Desk


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Merck consortium develops new process for OLED production*


Source: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20140425000725 


> Quote:
> A consortium led by Merck, a German-based chemicals giant, has developed a new printing process that enables more efficient production of organic light-emitting diodes and solar cells than conventional manufacturing techniques.
> 
> 
> Merck said that it has completed the development of the printed OLED technology process that will pave the way for the display industry to apply it and roll out “highly specialized applications” such transparent OLEDs.
> 
> 
> The project, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, took five years of research in printed organic electronics, the company said.
> 
> 
> The consortium is also comprised of BASF SE, the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology, OSRAM, Philips Technologie GmbH, the Technical University of Braunschweig and the Technical University of Darmstadt as well as Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG as an associated partner.



I'm trying to determine whether or not this is a significant milestone of note for OLED TV production. Note that some time ago, this article , reported that


> Quote:
> Merck and LG-Display plans to produce large OLED Displays via inkjet printing which resolve the production problems of vapor-deposition processes.


.


----------



## slacker711

Some papers that LG Display will present at SID. I think that there is a reasonable chance that these cover technologies that will be in the 4K OLED's. We'll have to wait and see if they manage to solve the pixel issue.


https://www.sheridanprinting.com/pcm/sid/sessionlist.cfm 


> Quote:
> 50.1 - Invited Paper: Technological Progress of Panel Design and Compensation Methods for Large-Size UHD OLED TVs ( - )
> 
> Hong-Jae Shin
> 
> LG Display Co., Ltd. Gyeonggi-do South Korea
> 
> 
> 
> The technical issues and challenges of the pixel design and driving method, including new technologies, will be introduced. These technologies enable panel-size scalability as well as an increase in the lifetime reliability for commercializing large-sized OLED TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 50.3 - A Novel Power Saving Technology for OLED TV with External TFT Compensation ( - )
> 
> Tae-Gung Kim, Seung-Tae Kim, Sang-Ho Yu, Kyung-Don Woo, Woo-Suk Ha, Bum-Sik Kim, Byung-Chul Ahn
> 
> LG Display Co., Ltd. Gyeonggi-do South Korea
> 
> 
> 
> The latest technology called "Adaptive SVDD" which helps to reduce power consumption and also to increase the gray scale for OLED displays will be presented. This method is equipped with "external compensation technology" that is suitable for large-sized OLED displays in that it substantially reduces the number of TFTs and capacitors. This external compensation technology requires arithmetic operation, which needs to be driven externally, of Vth and the mobility of TFTs. Since Vth has a tendency to move toward the positive direction and to have a much wider variation by TFT degradation, the input voltage range has to be considered with a marginal Vth which is expected to increase. And this marginal voltage results in an increase in the supply voltage of a source driver IC and to reduce gray scale. This technology details the overhead optimization that corresponds to the Vth margin so that the power consumption is reduced and the image quality is increased. This technology was applied to a 55-in. OLED TV. It decreased the voltage by 25% and the power consumption by 30.6%. Furthermore, it increased the gray scale by 25.8%.
> 
> 
> 58.2 - 55-inch OLED TV using Optimal Driving Method for Large-Size Panel based on InGaZnO TFTs ( - )
> 
> Joong-Sun Yoon, Sung-Jin Hong, Ji-hun Kim, Dae-hyun Kim, Ryosuke Tani, Woo-Jin Nam, Byung-Chan Song, Jin-Mog Kim, Pan-Youl Kim, Kwan-Ho Park, Chang-Ho Oh, Byung-Chul Ahn
> 
> LG Display Co., Ltd Gyeonggi-do South Korea
> 
> 
> 
> A new way to drive a 55” commercial OLED panel will be discussed. The method compensates for variations in the on-current and threshold voltage by extracting the TFT characteristics of each pixel of the panel. Corrected image-data composed of gain and offset has been generated, improving the panel brightness, uniformity and lifetime.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24648156
> 
> 
> Some papers that LG Display will present at SID. I think that there is a reasonable chance that these cover technologies that will be in the 4K OLED's. We'll have to wait and see if they manage to solve the pixel issue.
> 
> 
> https://www.sheridanprinting.com/pcm/sid/sessionlist.cfm
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 50.1 - Invited Paper: Technological Progress of Panel Design and Compensation Methods for Large-Size UHD OLED TVs ( - )
> 
> Hong-Jae Shin
> 
> LG Display Co., Ltd. Gyeonggi-do South Korea
> 
> 
> 
> The technical issues and challenges of the pixel design and driving method, including new technologies, will be introduced. These technologies enable panel-size scalability as well as an increase in the lifetime reliability for commercializing large-sized OLED TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 50.3 - A Novel Power Saving Technology for OLED TV with External TFT Compensation ( - )
> 
> Tae-Gung Kim, Seung-Tae Kim, Sang-Ho Yu, Kyung-Don Woo, Woo-Suk Ha, Bum-Sik Kim, Byung-Chul Ahn
> 
> LG Display Co., Ltd. Gyeonggi-do South Korea
> 
> 
> 
> The latest technology called "Adaptive SVDD" which helps to reduce power consumption and also to increase the gray scale for OLED displays will be presented. This method is equipped with "external compensation technology" that is suitable for large-sized OLED displays in that it substantially reduces the number of TFTs and capacitors. This external compensation technology requires arithmetic operation, which needs to be driven externally, of Vth and the mobility of TFTs. Since Vth has a tendency to move toward the positive direction and to have a much wider variation by TFT degradation, the input voltage range has to be considered with a marginal Vth which is expected to increase. And this marginal voltage results in an increase in the supply voltage of a source driver IC and to reduce gray scale. This technology details the overhead optimization that corresponds to the Vth margin so that the power consumption is reduced and the image quality is increased. This technology was applied to a 55-in. OLED TV. It decreased the voltage by 25% and the power consumption by 30.6%. Furthermore, it increased the gray scale by 25.8%.
> 
> 
> 58.2 - 55-inch OLED TV using Optimal Driving Method for Large-Size Panel based on InGaZnO TFTs ( - )
> 
> Joong-Sun Yoon, Sung-Jin Hong, Ji-hun Kim, Dae-hyun Kim, Ryosuke Tani, Woo-Jin Nam, Byung-Chan Song, Jin-Mog Kim, Pan-Youl Kim, Kwan-Ho Park, Chang-Ho Oh, Byung-Chul Ahn
> 
> LG Display Co., Ltd Gyeonggi-do South Korea
> 
> 
> 
> A new way to drive a 55” commercial OLED panel will be discussed. The method compensates for variations in the on-current and threshold voltage by extracting the TFT characteristics of each pixel of the panel. Corrected image-data composed of gain and offset has been generated, improving the panel brightness, uniformity and lifetime.
Click to expand...


These all seem to be compensation-related, which may result in increased yield, improved uniformity, and possibly reduced power consumption. Since these all appear to be factory-calibration and compensation based, it doesn't appear that there is anything here that would allow an OLED to track and compensate for changes after it has left the factory, which is what would be required to address the reported problems with burn-in of the current products.


And more importantly, the dying subpixel issue is the 1000-pound gorilla, as you note.


Hopefully these research and development efforts on compensation technologies are the result of confidence that the subpixel issue has been resolved and not a head-in-the-sand mentality


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24648510
> 
> 
> These all seem to be compensation-related, which may result in increased yield, improved uniformity, and possibly reduced power consumption. Since these all appear to be factory-calibration and compensation based, it doesn't appear that there is anything here that would allow an OLED to track and compensate for changes after it has left the factory, which is what would be required to address the reported problems with burn-in of the current products.



My understanding is that the compensation circuit allows for compensation for the initial non-uniformity of the backplane and for compensation of differential aging.


Here is an example of some research into compensation circuits that makes the point directly.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1889/1.3256489/abstract 


> Quote:
> Abstract
> 
> AMOLED displays suffer from differential aging of pixels, leading to image burn-in on a display. *Vth shift ofa-Si TFT can be utilized as a stress monitor of an OLED to compensate for differential aging.* A Vth shift overcompensation pixel circuit is proposed and simulation results are provided. The simulation indicates that the Vth overcompensation improves burn-in lifetime by a factor of 10 compared with a conventional Vth compensation.



We dont know what is causing the burned out subpixels but I continue to think that it is the IGZO backplane so anything that increases the reliability of the backplane could be a factor in solving the subpixel issue. These are Gen 1 units on the market so the test of the technology will be whether we see progress in solving them as they bring new models to market.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24648510
> 
> 
> These all seem to be compensation-related, which may result in increased yield, improved uniformity, and possibly reduced power consumption. Since these all appear to be factory-calibration and compensation based, it doesn't appear that there is anything here that would allow an OLED to track and compensate for changes after it has left the factory, which is what would be required to address the reported problems with burn-in of the current products.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that the compensation circuit allows for compensation for the initial non-uniformity of the backplane and for compensation of differential aging.
> 
> 
> Here is an example of some research into compensation circuits that makes the point directly.
> 
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1889/1.3256489/abstract
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Abstract
> 
> AMOLED displays suffer from differential aging of pixels, leading to image burn-in on a display. *Vth shift ofa-Si TFT can be utilized as a stress monitor of an OLED to compensate for differential aging.* A Vth shift overcompensation pixel circuit is proposed and simulation results are provided. The simulation indicates that the Vth overcompensation improves burn-in lifetime by a factor of 10 compared with a conventional Vth compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes, this is differential aging of pixels from use that could explain the burn-in experienced by Plague and Vinnie. It is unrelated to color and is an entirely different problem we have not focused on up to now. As a pixel is used through it's TFT, sounds like the threshold voltage shift resulting in decreased light output for the same voltage and these techniques attempt to monitor for and correct for that. All good, but speaks to the relative immaturity of the technology LG has launched into the marketplace today and also appears to be completely unrelated to the dying subpixel issue.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649016
> 
> 
> We dont know what is causing the burned out subpixels but I continue to think that it is the IGZO backplane so anything that increases the reliability of the backplane could be a factor in solving the subpixel issue.



Threshold shift is not a good thing. It can cause burn-in. It can cause lazy subpixels. And it can cause stuck-off pixels. If the manufacturing process of the backplane can result in some TFT subpixels which are significantly more susceptible to threshold shift through use than they are supposed to be, this could form the basis of a 'unifying theory' of all of the quality problems that have been reported (as well as LG's focus on compensating for threshold drift).


I believe that there are also LCD backplanes that are based on IGZO, but the difference is that LCD backplanes are voltage-only and so the TFT do not pass much current, where the TFTs on the backplane of an OLED pass current directly related to light output. If the shift in threshold voltage of an OLED TFT is at all a function of the current passed through that TFT, that would represent a differential aging effect that would result in burn-in if it was not compensated. And if there is a wide variation in the sensitivity of individual TFTs on the backplane to this current-based threshold shift, that could also be compensated for with the same techniques but only up to a point. Once the threshold of an individual TFT has shifted enough, there would no longer be any possibility to overcome the shift and the resulting subpixel would be stuck off.


Unfortunately, compensation techniques do nothing to improve the reliability of the backplane but are merely attempts to hide that underlying weakness (and at most can result in improving the uniformity and extending the useful lifetime of the panel).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649016
> 
> 
> These are Gen 1 units on the market so the test of the technology will be whether we see progress in solving them as they bring new models to market.



Agreed. With new M2 manufacturing facility scheduled to begin full production by late next year, LG has at most a year to prove they understand how to fix these gen 1 problems.


It would be great if the UHD OLEDs scheduled to reach the market later this year already exhibit demonstrable improvements in this dying subpixel problem and can be considered Gen 2.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649130
> 
> 
> I believe that there are also LCD backplanes that are based on IGZO, but the difference is that LCD backplanes are voltage-only and so the TFT do not pass much current, where the TFTs on the backplane of an OLED pass current directly related to light output. If the shift in threshold voltage of an OLED TFT is at all a function of the current passed through that TFT, that would represent a differential aging effect that would result in burn-in if it was not compensated. And if there is a wide variation in the sensitivity of individual TFTs on the backplane to this current-based threshold shift, that could also be compensated for with the same techniques but only up to a point. Once the threshold of an individual TFT has shifted enough, there would no longer be any possibility to overcome the shift and the resulting subpixel would be stuck off.



Add in the fact that I think that the different subpixels are driven at different currents and I think that could explain the fact that the failures are skewed by color.


Note that LG stated that TFT current variation was the reason for the "lazy" subpixels in the DigitalVersus review.


> Quote:
> Unfortunately, compensation techniques do nothing to improve the reliability of the backplane but are merely attempts to hide that underlying weakness (and at most can result in improving the uniformity and extending the useful lifetime of the panel).
> 
> Agreed. With new M2 manufacturing facility scheduled to begin full production by late next year, LG has at most a year to prove they understand how to fix these gen 1 problems.
> 
> 
> It would be great if the UHD OLEDs scheduled to reach the market later this year already exhibit demonstrable improvements in this dying subpixel problem and can be considered Gen 2.



I think that the 4K sets are all going to be manufactured in the M2 fab.


If there is zero improvement, then I would start to worry about OLED's ability to overcome these issues. LG knows about the problems and should have made at least some progress in fixing them.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480_60#post_24649237
> 
> 
> Add in the fact that I think that the different subpixels are driven at different currents and I think that could explain the fact that the failures are skewed by color.


 

We were deep in speculation land, but I was going to chime in with this very same point.  I think people have confused the notions a little: having the same kind of stack under each color filter does not mean that those stacks need to be driven at the same level (of voltage or current.....not sure how the OLED material excites).


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649237
> 
> 
> 
> Add in the fact that I think that the different subpixels are driven at different currents and I think that could explain the fact that the failures are skewed by color.



Yes, and the fact that for normal viewing content, the white subpixel is probably driven less, on average, than any of the colored subpixels, could explain why the reported failures have been less often on the white subpixel than on any of the other colors.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649237
> 
> 
> Note that LG stated that TFT current variation was the reason for the "lazy" subpixels in the DigitalVersus review.



Yes, I had noticed that. But it makes a big difference whether those variations were present when the panel left the factory or whether they were not there when the panel was first fired up and developed quickly during the initial use.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649237
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Unfortunately, compensation techniques do nothing to improve the reliability of the backplane but are merely attempts to hide that underlying weakness (and at most can result in improving the uniformity and extending the useful lifetime of the panel).
> 
> Agreed. With new M2 manufacturing facility scheduled to begin full production by late next year, LG has at most a year to prove they understand how to fix these gen 1 problems.
> 
> 
> It would be great if the UHD OLEDs scheduled to reach the market later this year already exhibit demonstrable improvements in this dying subpixel problem and can be considered Gen 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the 4K sets are all going to be manufactured in the M2 fab.
> 
> 
> If there is zero improvement, then I would start to worry about OLED's ability to overcome these issues. LG knows about the problems and should have made at least some progress in fixing them.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure. It sounds like LG has committed to getting a 77" UHD panel into the Value Electronics Shootout in June and I believe that is earlier than the M2 fab will be up and running.


Agree - if panels shipping late this year off of the new M2 fab show the same subpixel-level lifetime issue, that would be a very bad sign.


The other mystery, though, is why only some of the early OLED customers are seeing this problem. If it truly is a panel-by-panel issue and 80% of the panels shipping don't have this vulnerability, I'm confident this will get sorted out quickly (though a pre-shipment stress-test if nothing else). But if is actually equally likely to occur on all currently shiping panels and it is just that some customers are more sensitive to it and picky than others, I would start to worry too.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649237
> 
> 
> Add in the fact that I think that the different subpixels are driven at different currents and I think that could explain the fact that the failures are skewed by color.



So, yeah, this is a good theory. I dismissed other theories above as completely wrong and will note that the one idea I speculated on was not something I particularly cared for as a concept. This one I like a bit more.


> Quote:
> If there is zero improvement, then I would start to worry about OLED's ability to overcome these issues. LG knows about the problems and should have made at least some progress in fixing them.



Agreed 100%.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649303
> 
> 
> We were deep in speculation land, but I was going to chime in with this very same point.  I think people have confused the notions a little: having the same kind of stack under each color filter does not mean that those stacks need to be driven at the same level (of voltage or current.....not sure how the OLED material excites).



No, they don't need to be driven the same, but they are the same exact stacks. And I think people are getting a bit confused still. LG controls what kind of color filter sits in front of the white. It shouldn't be hard to make blue or green or red. There should not be a particularly large difference in how red or green or blue is made. In fact, the difference should be absolutely minimal. But white is not filtered. And therefore, it will be driven a lot less hard.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649316
> 
> 
> Yes, and the fact that for normal viewing content, the white subpixel is probably driven less, on average, than any of the colored subpixels, could explain why the reported failures have been less often on the white subpixel than on any of the other colors.



Yep. Less hard + less often = less problems = a sound theory.


> Quote:
> Agree - if panels shipping late this year off of the new M2 fab show the same subpixel-level lifetime issue, that would be a very bad sign.



It would suggest to me that LG's current production method + design is absolutely not a valid schema for producing long-lasting TVs. So I hope against hope this doesn't happen.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649303
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480_60#post_24649237
> 
> 
> Add in the fact that I think that the different subpixels are driven at different currents and I think that could explain the fact that the failures are skewed by color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were deep in speculation land, but I was going to chime in with this very same point.  I think people have confused the notions a little: *having the same kind of stack under each color filter does not mean that those stacks need to be driven at the same level (of voltage or current*).
Click to expand...


No, even for a uniform multi-color output, the current supplied to each color will be proportional to the intensity of that color desired in the output. And in addition, if the subpixels have equal size and any color is less transmissive than the others, the subpixels of that color will require greater drive (on average) that the subpixels of the other colors.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649303
> 
> 
> voltage or current.....not sure how the OLED material excites.



Pretty much certain that OLED excites through current drive and that is the fundamental difference between the IGZO backplane used in an LCD and the IGZO backplane used in an OLED.


The generation of light requires power which requires current.


In the case of an LED/LCD, current is directed to the BLU where the individual LEDs generate light from the current being driven into them.


The IGZO backplane to the LCD is transparent, letting the light from the BLU pass through to the LCD layer which uses voltage control to hold the individual LCD shutter of each subpixel OPEN or CLOSED or somewhere in between depending on the 8 or 10-bit voltage level for that specific subpixel.


In the case of an OLED, the same subpixel-specific voltage level used to control the LCD shutter instead controls an individual IGZO TFT configured to drive current through the OLED light-emitting layer where the OLED layer below a specific subpixel generates light from the current being driven into it at that location.


I had always thought that the fact that LG's WOLED technology made use of the same IGZO backplane technology used to manufacture LED/LCD meant that the maturity and reliability of that part of the process was relatively low-risk. But now that I think about, there is never any real current being driven through the TFT of an LCD IGZO backplane (it is voltage mode) where there is significant current being driven through the drive TFTs of an OLED IGZO backplane (it is current-mode), and that is a significant difference.


Non-uniform and accelerated voltage-shift of some subpixels would explain the lazy subpixels and stuck-off subpixels that have been reported and current-related dependency of threshold shift would explain the burn-in that has been reported.


If LG already knew how to screen out these vulnerable panels (through a stress test), I don't understand why they wouldn't already be doing so, so I am beginning to get concerned that this is a universal problem that only some have been OCD enough to notice.


We'll know by the end of the year.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649389
> 
> 
> I had always thought that the fact that LG's WOLED technology made use of the same IGZO backplane technology used to manufacture LED/LCD meant that the maturity and reliability of that part of the process was relatively low-risk. But now that I think about, there is never any real current being driven through the TFT of an LCD IGZO backplane (it is voltage mode) where there is significant current being driven through the drive TFTs of an OLED IGZO backplane (it is current-mode), and that is a significant difference.



I''d just barely call IGZO LCD's mature. It took Sharp at least 18 months longer than they expected to bring it to market and they still had trouble supplying Apple with the number of displays that they needed. I believe that they have now worked out the problems as LG noted that they had lost share inside the iPad during the 1st quarter.


I have always been more worried LG's ability to perfect IGZO than vapor deposition.


> Quote:
> I'm not sure. It sounds like LG has committed to getting a 77" UHD panel into the Value Electronics Shootout in June and I believe that is earlier than the M2 fab will be up and running.



I dont think that the sets will be for sale in June so that is very likely to be a one-off unit. They could produce it on the M1 pilot fab (as with the CES units) or it could be a very early unit off of the M2 fab. While commercial sales might begin in September, there has to be some trial production prior to that.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649482
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649389
> 
> 
> I had always thought that the fact that LG's WOLED technology made use of the same IGZO backplane technology used to manufacture LED/LCD meant that the maturity and reliability of that part of the process was relatively low-risk. But now that I think about, there is never any real current being driven through the TFT of an LCD IGZO backplane (it is voltage mode) where there is significant current being driven through the drive TFTs of an OLED IGZO backplane (it is current-mode), and that is a significant difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I''d just barely call IGZO LCD's mature. It took Sharp at least 18 months longer than they expected to bring it to market and they still had trouble supplying Apple with the number of displays that they needed. I believe that they have now worked out the problems as LG noted that they had lost share inside the iPad during the 1st quarter.
> 
> 
> I have always been more worried LG's ability to perfect IGZO than vapor deposition.
Click to expand...


If thee are other more mature, less bleeding-edge backplane technologies than IGZO, do you know what the tradeoffs would have been and why LG felt compelled to go with IGZO?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649482
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649389
> 
> 
> ]I'm not sure. It sounds like LG has committed to getting a 77" UHD panel into the Value Electronics Shootout in June and I believe that is earlier than the M2 fab will be up and running.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think that the sets will be for sale in June so that is very likely to be a one-off unit. They could produce it on the M1 pilot fab (as with the CES units) or it could be a very early unit off of the M2 fab. While commercial sales might begin in September, there has to be some trial production prior to that.
Click to expand...


Well if that is the way it goes, hopefully that is made explicitly clear and the WOLED is barred from being the winner. Having a one-off unit crowned the winner would make the entire exercise meaningless. Maybe Panasonic should try to get the AX900 in, I mean we know they have at least one of them from CES, right?







Heck, maybe Dolby could even enter their 20,000 Nit Dolby Vision proof-of-concept.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649572
> 
> 
> If thee are other more mature, less bleeding-edge backplane technologies than IGZO, do you know what the tradeoffs would have been and why LG felt compelled to go with IGZO?



Cost. An IGZO fab is significantly cheaper than a low-temperature poly silicon (LTPS) fab. Almost all of the high-end mobile displays use LTPS (both OLED's and LCD's) but that comes at steep price. The industry has been working for years on IGZO to try and get some of the performance of LTPS but at only a slight higher cost structure than a-si backplanes (that is what is used for all LCD televisions).


Sharp has managed to commercialize IGZO for LCD's and LG is working on it for OLED's.


> Quote:
> Well if that is the way it goes, hopefully that is made explicitly clear and the WOLED is barred from being the winner. Having a one-off unit crowned the winner would make the entire exercise meaningless. Maybe Panasonic should try to get the AX900 in, I mean we know they have at least one of them from CES, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heck, maybe Dolby could even enter their 20,000 Nit Dolby Vision proof-of-concept.



Zohn has said that the 77" OLED wont be on the market until late August so they must know that they will be getting a preproduction unit.


----------



## rogo

"No, even for a uniform multi-color output, the current supplied to each color will be proportional to the intensity of that color desired in the output. And in addition, if the subpixels have equal size and any color is less transmissive than the others, the subpixels of that color will require greater drive (on average) that the subpixels of the other colors."


It's a serious mistake to presume that there is a difference in transmissivity of colors in a color filter. In fact, it simply cannot realistically be the case. How do I know? LCD!


For 15 years, LCD has been making 100% of its color with white backlights and color filters. That's how LG is making colors. It doesn't matter that the white "backlights" in the OLED are single sub-pixel sized. Or that they are not "valved" by a TFT layer. They are being color by color filters, whose transmissivity necessarily had to be made uniform a long, long time ago to work with a single luminous intensity of white light.


Again, different rules apply for the white subpixel, I'd agree. But the red, green and blue? No way I believe there are differences. Certainly none of any importance.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24650228
> 
> 
> "No, even for a uniform multi-color output, the current supplied to each color will be proportional to the intensity of that color desired in the output. And in addition, if the subpixels have equal size and any color is less transmissive than the others, the subpixels of that color will require greater drive (on average) that the subpixels of the other colors."
> 
> 
> It's a serious mistake to presume that there is a difference in transmissivity of colors in a color filter. In fact, it simply cannot realistically be the case. How do I know? LCD!
> 
> 
> For 15 years, LCD has been making 100% of its color with white backlights and color filters. That's how LG is making colors. It doesn't matter that the white "backlights" in the OLED are single sub-pixel sized. Or that they are not "valved" by a TFT layer. They are being color by color filters, whose transmissivity necessarily had to be made uniform a long, long time ago to work with a single luminous intensity of white light.
> 
> 
> Again, different rules apply for the white subpixel, I'd agree. But the red, green and blue? No way I believe there are differences. Certainly none of any importance.



I think we are talking about different things.


I interpret what you have written to mean that the transitivity of a specific color filter is uniform over the entire panel, and I agree.


I do not believe it is the case that the transmitivity of R and G and B color filters needs to be identical. If G, for example, is 10% more transmissive than R or B, it would mean that the LCD valves of the G LCD subpixels would need to be opened only 91% as much as the R and B LCD valves to have equal light output.


In the case of an OLED, it would mean than the OLEDs underlying the G subpixels would (on average) need to be driven only 91% as strongly as the other color subpixels.


White is a larger subpixel and is clearly much more transmissive than any of the primary-colored subpixels, but if used properly, the white subpixel could be used to drive all of the common color components of a pixel output so that at least one of the primary-colored subpixels is 'OFF" at any time (the one possible exception being brightest white, which may require light output from all four of the subpixels).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480_60#post_24649389
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649303
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480_60#post_24649237
> 
> 
> Add in the fact that I think that the different subpixels are driven at different currents and I think that could explain the fact that the failures are skewed by color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were deep in speculation land, but I was going to chime in with this very same point.  I think people have confused the notions a little: *having the same kind of stack under each color filter does not mean that those stacks need to be driven at the same level (of voltage or current*).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, even for a uniform multi-color output, ...
Click to expand...

 

fafrd, don't do this.  While I see that you've added the rest of my sentence later in your post, what you've done here is rewritten what I wrote.  I did not end that sentence as "(of voltage or current)." which appears as a statement of fact that either voltage or current are enough to drive it.  *You* closed the parenthesis, *added* the period, and as a result changed the tenor of what I was saying.  Not good.

 

What I wrote was this:


> Quote:
> *tgm1024*'s REAL quote:
> 
> 
> I think people have confused the notions a little: having the same kind of stack under each color filter does not mean that those stacks need to be driven at the same level (of voltage or current.....not sure how the OLED material excites).


----------



## stas3098


*  2. Description of the Related Art*

 

*   Various flat panel displays have recently been developed as alternatives to a relatively heavy and bulky cathode ray tube (CRT) display. The flat panel display includes a liquid crystal display (LCD), a field emission display (FED), a plasma display panel (PDP), an organic light emitting diode display (OLED), etc. Among the flat panel displays, the organic light emitting diode display can emit light for itself by electron-hole recombination.*

 

*   Such an organic light emitting diode display has advantages in that response time is relatively fast and power consumption is relatively low. Generally, the organic light emitting diode display employs a transistor provided in each pixel for supplying current corresponding to a data signal to a light emitting device, thereby allowing the light emitting device to emit light. * http://www.google.com.tr/patents/US7742066  

 

1) We know for a fact that OLEDs are driven by current

 

2) I think rogo is right


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24650228
> 
> 
> "No, even for a uniform multi-color output, the current supplied to each color will be proportional to the intensity of that color desired in the output. And in addition, if the subpixels have equal size and any color is less transmissive than the others, the subpixels of that color will require greater drive (on average) that the subpixels of the other colors."
> 
> *It's a serious mistake to presume that there is a difference in transmissivity of colors in a color filter*. In fact, it simply cannot realistically be the case. How do I know? LCD!
> 
> 
> For 15 years, LCD has been making 100% of its color with white backlights and color filters. That's how LG is making colors. It doesn't matter that the white "backlights" in the OLED are single sub-pixel sized. Or that they are not "valved" by a TFT layer. They are being color by color filters, whose transmissivity necessarily had to be made uniform a long, long time ago to work with a single luminous intensity of white light.
> 
> 
> Again, different rules apply for the white subpixel, I'd agree. But the red, green and blue? No way I believe there are differences. Certainly none of any importance.


 

3) Dacs (controllers) lack precision and reconstruction filters don't really do anything hence the current fluctuations. Add to that capacitors developing resistance over time and the charge retaining of cathodes and anodes http://m.iopscience.iop.org/0508-3443/17/5/306



 

4) Capacitors Values can change by 10-20% or more as temperatures increase and drift as the component ages i.e transistors in "Ducks" age way faster than the LED material does. I guess, the same is applicable to OLEDs, especially since they are both current driven.

 

http://www.ledtransformations.com/Lightfair_5-28-08.pdf ( *page 34* )

 

I think the thing that causes burn-in in OLEDs causes burn-in in plasmas, too, which is crappy controllers that develop resistance under continuous load. 

If a phosphor in CRTs after 100, 000 hours loses no luminance, that plasma burning-in after 5 hours of displaying the static image makes no sense at all for one'd have to display the static for more than 100,000 hours on end to age phosphor differently (yes, I know the absorption and thinning out of noble gases is the second reason why plasmas might burn-in)  and if OLEDs total lifespan is about 40,000 than one'd have to display the static image for about 1000 hours on end to make a barely visible dent .   http://books.google.ru/books?id=aAQBIuPrudQC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=phosphor+in+CRT++lifetime&source=bl&ots=ihMrypOott&sig=I5stsuetNDQe2wYMfP7zXlJ7dyA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qAJcU6LeOdDV4QTPtoCYAQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=phosphor%20in%20CRT%20%20lifetime&f=false  (*3.4 Lifetime of CL in Phosphor screens CRTs*)

 

 

 Well, what I'm getting at is that plasmas and OLEDs most likely burn-in for the same reasons (they are both current driven only in a  different way) ergo it is every unlikely OLEDs will ever be burn-in free.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24651772
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what I'm getting at is that plasmas and OLEDs most likely burn-in for the same reasons (they are both current driven only in a  different way) ergo it is every unlikely OLEDs will ever be burn-in free.
> _



Plasma's have image persistence and burn-in.

They do not burn-in in 5 hours. Image retention is reversible.


I have no idea if OLEDs have image persistence like Plasma but since they martials used for RGB age differently they likely will have burn-in issues. However, I don't see why the relative use of each subpixel could not be recorded and used to adjust the display as a whole or the individual pixel to avoid visual degradation.


At some point, even that will be unable to compensate without seriously dimming the display.

I'd be happy with this type of solution if the overall panel life with 30K+ hours.


- Rich


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24651978
> 
> 
> 
> Plasma's have image persistence and burn-in.
> 
> They do not burn-in in 5 hours. Image retention is reversible.
> 
> 
> I have no idea if OLEDs have image persistence like Plasma but since they martials used for RGB age differently they likely will have burn-in issues. However, I don't see why the relative use of each subpixel could not be recorded and used to adjust the display as a whole or the individual pixel to avoid visual degradation.
> 
> 
> At some point, even that will be unable to compensate without seriously dimming the display.
> 
> I'd be happy with this type of solution if the overall panel life with 30K+ hours.
> 
> 
> - Rich




 

Here's the sample of image persistence on my Note after displaying the keyboard for 1 minute on end

 



Here's the sample of image persistence on my Note after displaying the keyboard for 10 minutes on end 

 

If I let the keyboard be displayed for 1 hour the image persistence would take about an hour to go away. Also the  older phones gets the worse image persistence gets.

 

*However, I don't see why the relative use of each subpixel could not be recorded and used to adjust the display as a whole or the individual pixel to avoid visual degradation.*

 

* *This might actually work if you have your TV set at low brightness I guess.

 

 

P.S. You can ask the owners of OLED TVs to show you IP, but I don't think they will be very keen about burning their TVs in on purpose...


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24651978
> 
> 
> 
> Plasma's have image persistence and burn-in.
> 
> They do not burn-in in 5 hours. Image retention is reversible.
> 
> 
> - Rich


 

Image persistence as far as I know is synonymous to burn-in in general sense.

 

Of course Image Retention is reversible. If memory serves me right F8500 went about 20 hours without any sign of Image Retention in an unplanned and unfortunate burn-in test performed by CNET. Neither my MacBook Pro nor Note 3 are capable of such a truly remarkable feat and my guess is f8500 could go the whole 30 or maybe 40 hours based on what I hear from my friends who opted out for F8500 and never came across even a trace of Image Retention...

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-plasma-wins-cnets-accidental-burn-in-test/


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24651412
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480_60#post_24649389
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24649303
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480_60#post_24649237
> 
> 
> Add in the fact that I think that the different subpixels are driven at different currents and I think that could explain the fact that the failures are skewed by color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were deep in speculation land, but I was going to chime in with this very same point.  I think people have confused the notions a little: *having the same kind of stack under each color filter does not mean that those stacks need to be driven at the same level (of voltage or current*).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, even for a uniform multi-color output, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fafrd, don't do this.  While I see that you've added the rest of my sentence later in your post, what you've done here is rewritten what I wrote.  I did not end that sentence as "(of voltage or current)." which appears as a statement of fact that either voltage or current are enough to drive it.  _You_ closed the parenthesis, _added_ the period, and as a result changed the tenor of what I was saying.  Not good.
> 
> 
> What I wrote was this:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> *tgm1024*'s REAL quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I think people have confused the notions a little: having the same kind of stack under each color filter does not mean that those stacks need to be driven at the same level (of voltage or current.....not sure how the OLED material excites).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You're right - my apologies. I was trying to make my response more clear by breaking it up and breaking up your text accordingly. I understand how removing the phrase expressing uncertainty changed the intent of what you originally expressed and will be more careful with such recomposition in the future.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24652392
> 
> 
> Image persistence as far as I know is synonymous to burn-in in general sense.
> 
> 
> Of course Image Retention is reversible. If memory serves me right F8500 went about 20 hours without any sign of Image Retention in an unplanned and unfortunate burn-in test performed by CNET. Neither my MacBook Pro nor Note 3 are capable of such a truly remarkable feat and my guess is f8500 could go the whole 30 or maybe 40 hours based on what I hear from my friends who opted out for F8500 and never came across even a trace of Image Retention...
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-plasma-wins-cnets-accidental-burn-in-test/



FYI, that's the E6500, not F8500 in the cnet test. I've seen plenty of F8500 units in various stores with station logos and banners stuck on the screen. It is definitely not immune to IR. I think there is some variance in IR resistance between panels for all manufacturers.


Your Macbook probably uses LG IPS LCD. They are known to suffer from IR. It seems all current displays with good viewing angles suffer from some IR. Weird coincidence.


----------



## wse

LG: WE CAN MAKE 110" OLED TVS LATER THIS YEAR

By Rasmus Larsen (@flatpanels)

28 Apr 2014


LG.Display will be able to produce 110-inch OLED TVs later this year, when a new 8G OLED factory starts production. LG is also able to produce 8K OLED panels and has reached production yields of 70%. Cheaper OLED TVs are expected by mid-2015.


LG PUSHES FORWARD WITH OLED PLANS


LG’s Lim Joo-son of LG’s OLED Technical Strategy Team, commented on their recent advances in OLED technology and production during their earnings report in Korea. LG says that their current WRGB OLED technology can support very, very large panels and much higher resolution.


LG can produce 8K OLED panels today, but admits that the high pixel density comes at expense of lifetime, so they are seeking to develop better OLED materials for these panels.


During the conference call, LG also confirmed that the new 8th generation (8G) M2 OLED factory is still expected to start production in the second half of 2014 as planned. When this factory goes online, LG will be able to produce gigantic 110-inch OLED TV – four times larger than the current 55-inch OLED TVs. LG’s coming 4K OLED TVs will also be produced at this factory.


LOWER PRICES AND BETTER YIELDS


Another LG.Display spokesperson says that LG.Display has reached 70% production yield, meaning that 70% of the OLED panels produced can be sold as consumer products. Rumors in the industry suggested that LG has managed to improve yields to these levels some months ago, but many observers remained skeptical. As the LCD market is entered a slower growth phase, LG will also convert existing LCD production line to OLED production lines instead of building new factories.


Samsung is said to have far lower yields at around 40-50% and is also said to have halted production.


Lastly, LG told the market to expect more Chinese OLED TVs soon. LG.Display is supplying the OLED panels for the Chinese OLED TVs, which helps LG ramp up production volume.


LG tells us to be patient as it will still take some time before mid-range OLED TVs will be financially viable, but they expect significant price reductions by the middle of 2015.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24651161
> 
> 
> do not believe it is the case that the transmitivity of R and G and B color filters needs to be identical. If G, for example, is 10% more transmissive than R or B, it would mean that the LCD valves of the G LCD subpixels would need to be opened only 91% as much as the R and B LCD valves to have equal light output.



There is no way that LCD works like that, sorry. Liquid crystal twisting is a black enough art as it is. Getting just a set of reliable, repeatable values to create the various color shades is hard enough. You can't also expect 1/3 of the pixels on an LCD to have some sort of different set of values that doesn't create an entirely different set of brightnesses. I'm sure if we talk to any color filter company, we'd learn that transmissivity is very nearly identical across the light primaries. In fact, I'd imagine they spent a lot of years honing that to be the case.


> Quote:
> White is a larger subpixel and is clearly much more transmissive than any of the primary-colored subpixels, but if used properly, the white subpixel could be used to drive all of the common color components of a pixel output so that at least one of the primary-colored subpixels is 'OFF" at any time (the one possible exception being brightest white, which may require light output from all four of the subpixels).



Again, the white isn't filtered at all. Let's agree that it's unique to the OLED design and very different from the way LCDs have historically worked.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24658341
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24651161
> 
> 
> do not believe it is the case that the transmitivity of R and G and B color filters needs to be identical. If G, for example, is 10% more transmissive than R or B, it would mean that the LCD valves of the G LCD subpixels would need to be opened only 91% as much as the R and B LCD valves to have equal light output.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way that LCD works like that, sorry. Liquid crystal twisting is a black enough art as it is. Getting just a set of reliable, repeatable values to create the various color shades is hard enough. You can't also expect 1/3 of the pixels on an LCD to have some sort of different set of values that doesn't create an entirely different set of brightnesses. I'm sure if we talk to any color filter company, we'd learn that transmissivity is very nearly identical across the light primaries. In fact, I'd imagine they spent a lot of years honing that to be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> White is a larger subpixel and is clearly much more transmissive than any of the primary-colored subpixels, but if used properly, the white subpixel could be used to drive all of the common color components of a pixel output so that at least one of the primary-colored subpixels is 'OFF" at any time (the one possible exception being brightest white, which may require light output from all four of the subpixels).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the white isn't filtered at all. Let's agree that it's unique to the OLED design and very different from the way LCDs have historically worked.
Click to expand...


Well that the designers were motivated to choose materials for the primary color filters that were as closely matched as possible, I can't argue with you. But they are not perfectly matched. If they were, you are going to have to explain to me what you believe the process of calibration is for.


As black enough as the art of LCD twisting is, the manufacturers believe they can deliver a consistent, repeatable, and uniform array of LCD light valves which they can control to at lest 8-bit precision and in many cases to 10-bit precision.


Making up for a range of manufacturing variations as well as any small intrinsic differences in the transmitivity of the primary color filters and any nonlinearity in the LCD lightvalves is exactly what calibration compensates for (as well as the composition of three primaries within the white light of the backlight and changes in that composition as the backlight ages).


Among other things, even if the fundamental transmitivity of the materials used to compose the primary color filters were perfectly matched, the actual transitivity is a function of filter layer thickness, which cannot be perfectly controlled.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24656962
> 
> 
> LG: WE CAN MAKE 110" OLED TVS LATER THIS YEAR
> 
> By Rasmus Larsen (@flatpanels)
> 
> 28 Apr 2014
> 
> 
> LG.Display will be able to produce 110-inch OLED TVs later this year, when a new 8G OLED factory starts production. LG is also able to produce 8K OLED panels and has reached production yields of 70%. Cheaper OLED TVs are expected by mid-2015.
> 
> 
> LG PUSHES FORWARD WITH OLED PLANS
> 
> 
> LG’s Lim Joo-son of LG’s OLED Technical Strategy Team, commented on their recent advances in OLED technology and production during their earnings report in Korea. LG says that their current WRGB OLED technology can support very, very large panels and much higher resolution.
> 
> 
> LG can produce 8K OLED panels today, but admits that the high pixel density comes at expense of lifetime, so they are seeking to develop better OLED materials for these panels.
> 
> 
> During the conference call, LG also confirmed that the new 8th generation (8G) M2 OLED factory is still expected to start production in the second half of 2014 as planned. When this factory goes online, LG will be able to produce gigantic 110-inch OLED TV – four times larger than the current 55-inch OLED TVs. LG’s coming 4K OLED TVs will also be produced at this factory.
> 
> 
> LOWER PRICES AND BETTER YIELDS
> 
> *Another LG.Display spokesperson says that LG.Display has reached 70% production yield, meaning that 70% of the OLED panels produced can be sold as consumer products*. Rumors in the industry suggested that LG has managed to improve yields to these levels some months ago, but many observers remained skeptical. As the LCD market is entered a slower growth phase, LG will also convert existing LCD production line to OLED production lines instead of building new factories.
> 
> 
> Samsung is said to have far lower yields at around 40-50% and is also said to have halted production.
> 
> 
> Lastly, LG told the market to expect more Chinese OLED TVs soon. LG.Display is supplying the OLED panels for the Chinese OLED TVs, which helps LG ramp up production volume.
> 
> 
> LG tells us to be patient as it will still take some time before mid-range OLED TVs will be financially viable, but they expect significant price reductions by the middle of 2015.



So if we take this LG statement about achieving 70% yields at face value, it means 4.2 defect-free 55" OLED panels on each 8G substrate, or about 2 defects per substrate on average. The first defect wipes out one 55" panel and if a second defect is assumed to be located randomly, it has a 16.7% chance of landing in the same panel and an 83.3% chance of wiping out a second panel. So about 16.7% of substrates yield 5 good panels and 83.3% yield only 4 good panels for a total of about 4.2 defect-free panels per substrate on average (70% yield).


This is still too high of a defectivity rate to produce 65" let alone 77" WOLEDs.


There are 3 65"panels per substrate and they cover an area that is equivalent to 4.2 55" panels or 70% of the area taken up by a full 6 55" panels.

So out first defect has a 30% chance of not landing in any 65" panel and a 70% chance of wiping out a first one of the 65" panels.


The second defect also has a 30% chance of not landing in any of the 65" panels, a 33% x 70% = 23% chance of landing in the same already-defective panel, and a 67% x 70% = 47% chance of wiping out a second 65" panel. That equates to an average yield of:


3 defect-free 65" panels x 9% + 2 defect-free panels x (42% + 16%) + 1 defect-free 65" panel x 33% = 3x0.09 + 2x0.58+1x0.33 = 1.76 defect-free 65" panels per substrate on average or a yield of 59%


This would mean that the cost of a 65" panel would be 70%x6/59%x3 = 2.4x the cost of a 55" panel.


If the WOLED panel makes up 2/3 of the production cost of a 55" WOLED TV, as some have reported, that would mean that a 65" WOLED would cost about double the cost of a 55" WOLED. High but not insane.


Repeating the same exercise for 77" panels results in a 12% probability of yielding 2 defect-free panels per substrate and a 67% probability of yielding only 1 defect-free panel per substrate (and a 21% probability of yielding 0 defect-free panels per substrate) equating to an average of only .91 defect-free panels per substrate or an average yield of only 45.5%.


And this would mean that the cost of a 77" panel would be 70%x6/45.5%x2 = 4.6x the cost of a 55" panel or that a 77" WOLED TV would cost about 3.4x the cost of a 55" WOLED TV to manufacture.


Not absolutely insane, but pretty close. I think they need to get the 55" yields above at least 80% before they can seriously consider producing the 77" panel in anything other than demonstration volumes.


From the article, it sounds like they are expecting to get yields to a more viable level by mid 2015.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24659886
> 
> 
> So if we take this LG statement about achieving 70% yields at face value, it means 4.2 defect-free 55" OLED panels on each 8G substrate, or about 2 defects per substrate on average. The first defect wipes out one 55" panel and if a second defect is assumed to be located randomly, it has a 16.7% chance of landing in the same panel and an 83.3% chance of wiping out a second panel. So about 16.7% of substrates yield 5 good panels and 83.3% yield only 4 good panels for a total of about 4.2 defect-free panels per substrate on average (70% yield).
> 
> 
> This is still too high of a defectivity rate to produce 65" let alone 77" WOLEDs.
> 
> 
> There are 3 65"panels per substrate and they cover an area that is equivalent to 4.2 55" panels or 70% of the area taken up by a full 6 55" panels.
> 
> So out first defect has a 30% chance of not landing in any 65" panel and a 70% chance of wiping out a first one of the 65" panels.
> 
> 
> The second defect also has a 30% chance of not landing in any of the 65" panels, a 33% x 70% = 23% chance of landing in the same already-defective panel, and a 67% x 70% = 47% chance of wiping out a second 65" panel. That equates to an average yield of:
> 
> 
> 3 defect-free 65" panels x 9% + 2 defect-free panels x (42% + 16%) + 1 defect-free 65" panel x 33% = 3x0.09 + 2x0.58+1x0.33 = 1.76 defect-free 65" panels per substrate on average or a yield of 59%
> 
> 
> This would mean that the cost of a 65" panel would be 70%x6/59%x3 = 2.4x the cost of a 55" panel.
> 
> 
> If the WOLED panel makes up 2/3 of the production cost of a 55" WOLED TV, as some have reported, that would mean that a 65" WOLED would cost about double the cost of a 55" WOLED. High but not insane.
> 
> 
> Repeating the same exercise for 77" panels results in a 12% probability of yielding 2 defect-free panels per substrate and a 67% probability of yielding only 1 defect-free panel per substrate (and a 21% probability of yielding 0 defect-free panels per substrate) equating to an average of only .91 defect-free panels per substrate or an average yield of only 45.5%.
> 
> 
> And this would mean that the cost of a 77" panel would be 70%x6/45.5%x2 = 4.6x the cost of a 55" panel or that a 77" WOLED TV would cost about 3.4x the cost of a 55" WOLED TV to manufacture.
> 
> 
> Not absolutely insane, but pretty close. I think they need to get the 55" yields above at least 80% before they can seriously consider producing the 77" panel in anything other than demonstration volumes.
> 
> 
> From the article, it sounds like they are expecting to get yields to a more viable level by mid 2015.



GOT MATH it does the brain some good, yes by 2015 we will see a100" OLED for $5,000!


I wish but I stopped believing in Santa when I was five


----------



## fafrd

 *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24660168
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24659886
> 
> 
> So if we take this LG statement about achieving 70% yields at face value, it means 4.2 defect-free 55" OLED panels on each 8G substrate, or about 2 defects per substrate on average. The first defect wipes out one 55" panel and if a second defect is assumed to be located randomly, it has a 16.7% chance of landing in the same panel and an 83.3% chance of wiping out a second panel. So about 16.7% of substrates yield 5 good panels and 83.3% yield only 4 good panels for a total of about 4.2 defect-free panels per substrate on average (70% yield).
> 
> 
> This is still too high of a defectivity rate to produce 65" let alone 77" WOLEDs.
> 
> 
> There are 3 65"panels per substrate and they cover an area that is equivalent to 4.2 55" panels or 70% of the area taken up by a full 6 55" panels.
> 
> So out first defect has a 30% chance of not landing in any 65" panel and a 70% chance of wiping out a first one of the 65" panels.
> 
> 
> The second defect also has a 30% chance of not landing in any of the 65" panels, a 33% x 70% = 23% chance of landing in the same already-defective panel, and a 67% x 70% = 47% chance of wiping out a second 65" panel. That equates to an average yield of:
> 
> 
> 3 defect-free 65" panels x 9% + 2 defect-free panels x (42% + 16%) + 1 defect-free 65" panel x 33% = 3x0.09 + 2x0.58+1x0.33 = 1.76 defect-free 65" panels per substrate on average or a yield of 59%
> 
> 
> This would mean that the cost of a 65" panel would be 70%x6/59%x3 = 2.4x the cost of a 55" panel.
> 
> 
> If the WOLED panel makes up 2/3 of the production cost of a 55" WOLED TV, as some have reported, that would mean that a 65" WOLED would cost about double the cost of a 55" WOLED. High but not insane.
> 
> 
> Repeating the same exercise for 77" panels results in a 12% probability of yielding 2 defect-free panels per substrate and a 67% probability of yielding only 1 defect-free panel per substrate (and a 21% probability of yielding 0 defect-free panels per substrate) equating to an average of only .91 defect-free panels per substrate or an average yield of only 45.5%.
> 
> 
> And this would mean that the cost of a 77" panel would be 70%x6/45.5%x2 = 4.6x the cost of a 55" panel or that a 77" WOLED TV would cost about 3.4x the cost of a 55" WOLED TV to manufacture.
> 
> 
> Not absolutely insane, but pretty close. I think they need to get the 55" yields above at least 80% before they can seriously consider producing the 77" panel in anything other than demonstration volumes.
> 
> 
> From the article, it sounds like they are expecting to get yields to a more viable level by mid 2015.
Click to expand...

GOT MATH it does the brain some good, yes by 2015 we will see a100" OLED for $5,000!


I wish but I stopped believing in Santa when I was five










Yeah, dream-on







But if they get the yields on the 55" up near 90% (where they should be) by mid-2015, that would mean that the cost of manufacturing the 55" would have dropped by 15% and the yield on the 65" will be up around 86%, meaning that the 65" WOLED TV will cost only about 40% more to manufacture than the 55" costs today. That may not get us all the way down to $2500 for the 65", but it ought to get us down to below $7000, which is a start. There are also a host of other manufacturing inefficiencies they can work on, so getting the 65" down to the $5000 being asked for the EA8800 today by late 2015 seems very doable.(assuming there are no other issues in the meantime).


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24660247
> 
> 
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Yeah, dream-on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if they get the yields on the 55" up near 90% (where they should be) by mid-2015, that would mean that the cost of manufacturing the 55" would have dropped by 15% and the yield on the 65" will be up around 86%, meaning that the 65" WOLED TV will cost only about 40% more to manufacture than the 55" costs today. That may not get us all the way down to $2500 for the 65", but it ought to get us down to below $7000, which is a start. There are also a host of other manufacturing inefficiencies they can work on, so getting the 65" down to the $5000 being asked for the EA8800 today by late 2015 seems very doable.(assuming there are no other issues in the meantime).


I bought a Panasonic Plasma ZT60 for $2,300 so until I see that with OLED I will wait patiently plus 4K BluRay are likely to be at least $40 when they come out.


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480#post_24656962
> 
> *LG tells us to be patient as it will still take some time before mid-range OLED TVs will be financially viable*


#sadface


----------



## vinnie97

Selective quoting is fun!


> Quote:
> *...but they expect significant price reductions by the middle of 2015.*


I thought they were full of crap a year ago...I'm a stone cold believer now.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9500_50#post_24660553
> 
> 
> Selective quoting is fun!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> *...but they expect significant price reductions by the middle of 2015.*
> 
> 
> 
> I thought they were full of crap a year ago...I'm a stone cold believer now.
Click to expand...

How about the middle of 2016 plus or minus a bit?


----------



## Rich Peterson

Skyworth's 55" OLED is supposed to go on sale in China at the end of April or early May for a reported $4,800 US price.


Skyworth has plans to release a 65-inch OLED TV in China during the nation's October 1 holiday period in 2014 that will use panels from LG as well.


Source: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140429PD211.html


----------



## greenland

"LG can produce 8K OLED panels today, but admits that the high pixel density comes at expense of lifetime, so they are seeking to develop better OLED materials for these panels."

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1398670501 


Will their upcoming 4K OLED panels also have a shorter lifetime, compared to their 1080P models?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24661021
> 
> 
> "LG can produce 8K OLED panels today, but admits that the high pixel density comes at expense of lifetime, so they are seeking to develop better OLED materials for these panels."
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1398670501
> 
> *Will their upcoming 4K OLED panels also have a shorter lifetime, compared to their 1080P models*?



That is a very good question (and unfortunately the answer is probably yes







)


----------



## Desk.

This probably seems more appropriate for this thread...


I've just noticed that a retailer listing for the 65" 4K LG OLED has being at 240hz, instead of the 120hz for the current 55" 1080p set.


Have I missed something, or does this suggest improved motion handling...?

http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=95334 


Desk


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480_60#post_24661001
> 
> 
> Skyworth's 55" OLED is supposed to go on sale in China at the end of April or early May for a reported $4,800 US price.
> 
> 
> Skyworth has plans to release a 65-inch OLED TV in China during the nation's October 1 holiday period in 2014 that will use panels from LG as well.
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140429PD211.html


 

I'm guessing (


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24666427
> 
> 
> I'm guessing (


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9480_60#post_24667472
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24666427
> 
> 
> I'm guessing (
Click to expand...


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24668065
> 
> 
> I know LGD is manufacturing them, but who was fronting the bill for the R&D/development of OLED?  LGD or LG?  Where do the patents reside, and does LG control the licensing?



LG group formed a patent licensing company and it looks like they split up the ownership among their affiliates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_OLED_Technology_LLC 


The patents apply at the manufacturing level so once LG Display sells the OLED panel to Skyworth, they arent going to owe royalties to Global OLED or any of the other patent owners.


As for R&D/capex, it looks like it was primarily done at LG Display. They are the ones that have indicated that they are sustaining heavy losses due to OLED right now and they are the company listed on the academic papers. I know that LG Electronics has a big incentive to keep some exclusivity, but LG Display is the one paying the bills right now. We'll see how that works out by the end of the year, but the fact that they are supplying the Chinese vendors and talking to Sony/Panasonic gives us the possibility that they will supply whatever the market wants.


----------



## Rich Peterson

oled-info.com is reporting that at least one seller on ebay is selling the LG OLED for $3999.


They are also reporting that China's Changhong is the second company to release a 55" OLED set in China using LG's panel.

http://www.oled-info.com/


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24684305
> 
> 
> oled-info.com is reporting that at least one seller on ebay is selling the LG OLED for $3999.
> 
> 
> They are also reporting that China's Changhong is the second company to release a 55" OLED set in China using LG's panel.
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/


4000 bucks still cost about 50 % more than LED  completion (4K LED LCD TVs) . Sony's and Sammy's 4ks go now for about 2500 http://www.frys.com/product/7653197?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG   . http://www.frys.com/product/7797508?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG


----------



## ALMA

The LG also gets a pricedrop in Italy. Now only 4000€ officially listprice. Same like the Samsung 55HU8509 4K-LCD-TV. The market for high end LCD over 4000€ is now dead!


----------



## tubby497




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24685128
> 
> 
> 
> 4000 bucks still cost about 50 % more than LED  completion (4K LED LCD TVs) . Sony's and Sammy's 4ks go now for about 2500 http://www.frys.com/product/7653197?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG   . http://www.frys.com/product/7797508?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG



Those are edge lit. Not even in the same league. Better comparison is the $8000 Sony XBR950B


----------



## tubby497

And some of us thought it would take 4-6 years to get the prices below $5000....










Come out, come out, wherever you are. lol


----------



## tgm1024


Today's news (tomorrow's actualy, it's on the other side of the world), hasn't seemed to have hit this thread yet, so here:

 


> Quote:
> May 6, 2014 1:30 am JST
> 
> *Samsung hits the pause button on OLED TVs*
> 
> 
> KENTARO OGURA, Nikkei staff writer
> 
> SEOUL -- Samsung Electronics has abandoned plans for a new facility to manufacture next-generation display panels for televisions, deterred by the inefficiency of production amid intense price competition in the TV market.


 

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Samsung-hits-the-pause-button-on-OLED-TVs


----------



## 8mile13

The only shocker for me in the article was that there were 4.400 OLEDs sold in 2013. Did not know that. You read all these predictions, one million this, ten million that, while actually less than 5.000 were sold. Long way to go i guess..


----------



## catonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24686524
> 
> 
> The only shocker for me in the article was that there were 4.400 OLEDs sold in 2013. Did not know that. You read all these predictions, one million this, ten million that, while actually less than 5.000 were sold. Long way to go i guess..



And what's more, there were 7861 posts in this thread alone about those 4,400 OLEDs up to the 31/12/2013.










Hopefully the future will bring more watching and less talking.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9500_100#post_24685661
> 
> 
> Today's news (tomorrow's actualy, it's on the other side of the world), hasn't seemed to have hit this thread yet, so here:
> 
> 
> http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Samsung-hits-the-pause-button-on-OLED-TVs



I doubt if Samsung will ever be able to get back to producing OLED TVs, because they just will not be able to recoup start up costs without starting at a price level that will not be competitive with the price levels that LG will setting on all their models in the next few years. In fact, I think LG will have to rapidly start setting prices on all their models that will not be too much higher than the prices of LED/LCD units, especially the 4K resolution items, or else they will not be able to sell enough units to continue to manufacturing OLED units.


----------



## tubby497




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24685661
> 
> 
> Today's news (tomorrow's actualy, it's on the other side of the world), hasn't seemed to have hit this thread yet, so here:
> 
> 
> http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Samsung-hits-the-pause-button-on-OLED-TVs



Another rumor perhaps?


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tubby497*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24687052
> 
> 
> Another rumor perhaps?



This is the second article I've read in the past week or so which indicated that Samsung is not having the success they'd hoped for with their OLED panel production. It wouldn't surprise me if both Samsung and LG completely abandoned OLED in the next couple of years...SED was "the next big thing" for such a long time then it just seemed to vanish almost overnight.


----------



## vinnie97

OLED is well beyond where SED ultimately ended up in a practical sense. However, it could be stillborn yet if LG can't resolve the matter of uneven wear. Their first gen OLED sets are more susceptible to letterbox content than plasmas have been in some time (at least 2008 when I bought my first plasma and probably well before), at least on the two OLED panels I have owned (the original and the replacement).


----------



## Artwood

We're moving closer and closer to the LCD only apocalypse!


Who can take it?


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24687642
> 
> 
> We're moving closer and closer to the LCD only apocalypse!
> 
> 
> Who can take it?



Depends on what it looks like.










Can you say you've seen all the new LED LCDs and every last one of them looks awful?


Didn't think so. lol


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24687652
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what it looks like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you say you've seen all the new LED LCDs and every last one of them looks awful?
> 
> 
> Didn't think so. lol


 As one great Russian poet once said about LCDs and life in whole:

 

Some night and street, some chemist's lantern

Is bringing senseless weary light.

WELL, NOTHING CHANGES, THAT'S THE PATTERN,

LIVE EXTRA TWENTY-FIVE AND FIND.


You die to start a life all over,

All things repeat as did before.

That night, cold waters at quay border,

That light, that street, that chemist's store.

 

 It's high time to stock up the ammo, pack up a bug-out bag with food and bare essentials and brace ourselves while we are still in the lull leading up to the looming ineluctable "LCD" apocalypse...


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24687689
> 
> 
> 
> As one great Russian poet once said about LCDs and life in whole:
> 
> 
> Some night and street, some chemist's lantern
> 
> 
> Is bringing senseless weary light.
> 
> 
> WELL, NOTHING CHANGERS, THAT'S THE PATTERN,
> 
> 
> LIVE EXTRA TWENTY-FIVE AND FIND.
> 
> 
> 
> You die to start a life all over,
> 
> 
> All things repeat as did before.
> 
> 
> That night, cold waters at quay border,
> 
> 
> That light, that street, that chemist's store.
> 
> 
> It's high time to stock up the ammo, pack up a bug-out bag with food and bare essentials and brace ourselves while we are still in the lull leading up to the looming ineluctable "LCD" apocalypse...



Russian poets have refined the art of doom and gloom. Can't quite tell if it's their history or the vodka.....or maybe a combination of the two.


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24686883
> 
> 
> I doubt if Samsung will ever be able to get back to producing OLED TVs, because they just will not be able to recoup start up costs without starting at a price level that will not be competitive with the price levels that LG will setting on all their models in the next few years. In fact, I think LG will have to rapidly start setting prices on all their models that will not be too much higher than the prices of LED/LCD units, especially the 4K resolution items, or else they will not be able to sell enough units to continue to manufacturing OLED units.




Given Samsung's history regarding, Apple, Sharp and Pioneer, they will find a way to make OLED if LG is successful in the market. Deal with the lawsuits afterward.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:





> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24687812
> 
> 
> 
> Given Samsung's history regarding, Apple, Sharp and Pioneer, they will find a way to make OLED if LG is successful in the market. Deal with the lawsuits afterward.


Apple is gonna be the death of Sammy http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-thinks-these-5-ios-features-are-worth-2-billion-2014-4#!JrPOV . Last year it was 1 billion, two years ago it was 500 million, and this year it is already 2 billion I don't think Sammy is gonna step in the same proverbial snake pit, again for from now on, I believe, Sammy is gonna be treading lightly and looking out for snake pits.

 

P.S A burned child dreads the fire.


----------



## tubby497




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24687843
> 
> 
> Apple is gonna be the death of Sammy http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-thinks-these-5-ios-features-are-worth-2-billion-2014-4#!JrPOV . Last year it was 1 billion, two years ago it was 500 million, and this year it is already 2 billion I don't think Sammy is gonna step in the same proverbial snake pit, again for from now on, I believe, Sammy is gonna be treading lightly and looking out for snake pits.
> 
> 
> P.S A burned child dreads the fire.



Huh? What does this have to do with OLED?


----------



## Theplague13

Hey guys. I've got the curved LG and am on my second panel. The first had 13 dead sub pixels and image burn from an aspect ratio left on for six hours. My second panel I broke in with slides fairly meticulously, though I'm not sure it matters. After 250 hours of break in time I received a small line only visible on grayscale, denoting a letterbox after just 2 hours of viewing the Hobbit in 2:40:1. It isn't a problem as it isn't noticeable during content yet, but I'm afraid of compounding it over time with various aspect ratios.


At the same time, I've been gaming on the tv and all my static huds have not affected it in the slightest. Instead of repeating everything I'm going to link you to this page of the ea9800 owners thread


http://www.avsforum.com/t/1493578/lg-55ea9800-55-oled-owners-thread/2370#post_24688501 



Ive also got a pic of the line caused to my second panel on there. All of my chronicles with the set are on that thread, though some things may be more appropriate here, in fact. People with extensive knowledge of pixel design and aging may be able to form some speculations as to what is happening in terms of uneven wear with the LG OLED.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tubby497*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9510#post_24688433
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? What does this have to do with OLED?


It means Sammy won't be infringing any patents any more hence either they will have to come with their own technique to mass produce OLEDs (which they most likely won't be able to do, "then" if they are unable to do it now) or pay exorbitant royalties LG, Universal Display and others will impose on Sammy, because LG Display and others won't be in the mood to share their hard-worked-out manufacturing techniques so either way Sammy is screwed.

 

I also think that the OLED jet-printing everybody was talking about isn't all that what some hyped it up to be...


----------



## tubby497




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24688786
> 
> 
> 
> It means Sammy won't be infringing any patents any more hence either they will have to come with their own technique to mass produce OLEDs (which they most likely won't be able to do, "then" if they are unable to do it now) or pay exorbitant royalties LG, Universal Display and others will impose on Sammy, because LG Display and others won't be in the mood to share their hard-worked-out manufacturing techniques so either way Sammy is screwed.
> 
> 
> I also think that the OLED jet-printing everybody was talking about isn't all that what some hyped it up to be...



That's funny! Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24688546
> 
> 
> Hey guys. I've got the curved LG and am on my second panel. The first had 13 dead sub pixels and image burn from an aspect ratio left on for six hours. My second panel I broke in with slides fairly meticulously, though I'm not sure it matters. After 250 hours of break in time I received a small line only visible on grayscale, denoting a letterbox after just 2 hours of viewing the Hobbit in 2:40:1. It isn't a problem as it isn't noticeable during content yet, but I'm afraid of compounding it over time with various aspect ratios.
> 
> 
> At the same time, I've been gaming on the tv and all my static huds have not affected it in the slightest. Instead of repeating everything I'm going to link you to this page of the ea9800 owners thread
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1493578/lg-55ea9800-55-oled-owners-thread/2370#post_24688501
> 
> 
> 
> Ive also got a pic of the line caused to my second panel on there. All of my chronicles with the set are on that thread, though some things may be more appropriate here, in fact. People with extensive knowledge of pixel design and aging may be able to form some speculations as to what is happening in terms of uneven wear with the LG OLED.


It's most likely caused due to "faulty" IGZO backplanes with drifting transistors (or should I say sub-pixels) which develop resistance over time. Well simply put, when you display 0 zero blacks transistors are still fed a little bit of current which is so low that transistors won't let it flow through and over time transistors will get so used to this low level of current that when they are fed more current they will require that low amount of current that was fed to them during displaying black be added to the mix to display ,for instance, 300 nits of brightness and without that low amount of current that was fed to them during displaying black the brightness will be hovering around 290 nits.

 

What I mean it's not aspect ration that kills the panel it's "black" in any form. So never display true blacks an OLED TV and you'll be ok


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tubby497*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24688854
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny! Thanks for the laugh!


You're welcome


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24688871
> 
> 
> It's most likely caused due to "faulty" IGZO backplanes with drifting transistors (or should I say sub-pixels) which develop resistance over time. Well simply put, when you display 0 zero blacks transistors are still fed a little bit of current which is so low that transistors won't let it flow through and over time transistors will get so used to this low level of current that when they are fed more current they will require that low amount of current that was fed to them during displaying black be added to the mix to display ,for instance, 300 nits of brightness and without that low amount of current that was fed to them during displaying black the brightness will be hovering around 290 nits.
> 
> 
> What I mean it's not aspect ration that kills the panel it's "black" in any form. So never display true blacks an OLED TV and you'll be ok



Lol, never display true black on the one display which has perfect blacks...


So you're sayibgbits a memory thing in a sense though, the same way a brain when exposed to dopamine enhancers for too long can no longer produce its own?


If that's true eventually the nits should return over time as the panel gets reaccustomed to full screen content


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9500_100#post_24688871
> 
> 
> It's most likely caused due to "faulty" IGZO backplanes with drifting transistors (or should I say sub-pixels) which develop resistance over time. Well simply put, when you display 0 zero blacks transistors are still fed a little bit of current which is so low that transistors won't let it flow through and over time transistors will get so used to this low level of current that when they are fed more current they will require that low amount of current that was fed to them during displaying black be added to the mix to display ,for instance, 300 nits of brightness and without that low amount of current that was fed to them during displaying black the brightness will be hovering around 290 nits.
> 
> 
> What I mean it's not aspect ration that kills the panel it's "black" in any form. So never display true blacks an OLED TV and you'll be ok


I think you're onto something, though the conclusion is a little off (true black is okay as long as it's not in the form of an aspect ratio that one leaves on-screen for extended periods of time), but this is unacceptable.








It would suggest an irreversible cumulative effect that every owner will face over time. I am one of the afflicted with the AR disaster and have apparently ruined my $4600 TV. I have to presume LG will leave me out to dry since this most likely qualifies as burn-in. I need to revisit the viewing warnings in the manual.


On the other hand, I do hope it's only temporary as the plague surmises.


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24688871
> 
> 
> It's most likely caused due to "faulty" IGZO backplanes with drifting transistors (or should I say sub-pixels) which develop resistance over time. Well simply put, when you display 0 zero blacks transistors are still fed a little bit of current which is so low that transistors won't let it flow through and over time transistors will get so used to this low level of current that when they are fed more current they will require that low amount of current that was fed to them during displaying black be added to the mix to display ,for instance, 300 nits of brightness and without that low amount of current that was fed to them during displaying black the brightness will be hovering around 290 nits.
> 
> 
> What I mean it's not aspect ration that kills the panel it's "black" in any form. So never display true blacks an OLED TV and you'll be ok


Interesting.


So what if, instead of running coloured slides, you were instead to feed the OLED set nothing but six hours of a completely black screen?


Would the drifting transistors then equalise, or continue to drift at different rates depending on exposure to an all-black image?


Desk


----------



## herpderp

Maybe something like this may help:

 



Slides with white bars and blacks inside.


----------



## vinnie97

^That scares me, especially at the margins. I think I'd try Desk's recommendation first, lol.


----------



## Masterbrew2


vinnie, didn't you say the line only shows up on grey/white slides, and not on red, green or blue? I don't see how that would correspond with stas' suggestion


----------



## Theplague13

I would never try the static "reverse uneven wear" slide. There's almost no chance of it landing 100% perfectly over the lines, and while it may mitigate the brightness difference the lines themselves would surely be compounded. If we can compare machinery to metabolic functions, as can actually be done in a surprising number of instances, "washing" that memory off might best be done with either a pure black, or a pure white slide for an extended period of time. I actually like that suggestion from desk, but since the area outside the letterbox is darker than the center, I would say a pure white one instead. It could potentially revitalize the ability of the bottom and top bars to produce peak lighting. And at the very least, it wouldnt cause any further burn.


----------



## Theplague13

Small OT question: is it proper to use the measurement nits instead of lumens when referring to pixel light output?


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Masterbrew2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9500_100#post_24689134
> 
> 
> vinnie, didn't you say the line only shows up on grey/white slides, and not on red, green or blue? I don't see how that would correspond with stas' suggestion


I did, but LG uses a unique architecture where a similar problem could be manifesting.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689043
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, never display true black on the one display which has perfect blacks...


   

Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689067
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're onto something, though the conclusion is a little off (true black is okay as long as it's not in the form of an aspect ratio that one leaves on-screen for extended periods of time), but this is unacceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would suggest an irreversible cumulative effect that ever owner will face over time. I am one of the afflicted with the AR disaster and have apparently ruined my $4600 TV. I have to presume LG will leave me out to dry since this most likely qualifies as burn-in. I need to revisit the viewing warnings in the manual.


 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689085
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> 
> So what if, instead of running coloured slides, you were instead to feed the OLED set nothing but six hours of a completely black screen?
> 
> 
> Would the drifting transistors then equalise, or continue to drift at different rates depending on exposure to an all-black image?
> 
> 
> Desk


 

Well, transistors in Solid State Drives (when one rewrites (deletes) data on an SSD (which consists of little batteries with transistors attached to them) the voltages that are fed to transistors first are negative to discharge a sector and thena continuous low positive voltages are fed that are below the threshold level that make the transistors drift before the controller feeds higher voltages for the "battery" to retain)  continue to drift until they "die"...

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Masterbrew2*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689134
> 
> 
> 
> vinnie, didn't you say the line only shows up on grey/white slides, and not on red, green or blue? I don't see how that would correspond with stas' suggestion


It just means that "stacked" white is driven at lower current levels precisely thrice lower than the ampage of red or blue and a slight drift is negligible at that amperage. I know exactly how a transistor works ergo I'm able to make an educated guess about how OLED should work


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689256
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it



I thought you were joking. If you're actually serious about that then there is zero point to buying an OLED tv. You buy an oled tv mostly for its effortless ability to produce true black. If I can't eat my own cake then why did I buy it?


When calibrated to any test pattern black is pure, jet black on this tv; So you think one should intentionally miscalibrate the tv so that all blacks are gray, utterly ruining pq? That is.....not a solution


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689283
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689256
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were joking. If you're actually serious about that then there is zero point to buying an OLED tv. You buy an oled tv mostly for its blacks. If I can't eat my own cake why did I buy it? So you think one should intentionally miscalibrate the tv so that all blacks are gray? That sounds.....like not a solution
Click to expand...

LG is working on a solution. Heck  flash drives 25 years ago had only 100 "  writes" and could retain data for a month at most  due to drifting transistors that couldn't contain voltages of sectors and now there's tech to make flash drives that can withstand 100,000 PEs (writes)  and can retain data for 10 years on end which cost next to nothing. Now it's just a matter of coming up with right compensation circuitry to counter "uneven wear"


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689342
> 
> 
> 
> LG is working on a solution. Heck  flash drives 25 years ago had only 100 "  writes" and could retain data for a month at most  due to drifting transistors that couldn't contain voltages of sectors and now there's tech to make flash drives that can withstand 100,000 PEs (writes)  and can retain data for 10 years on end which cost next to nothing. Now it's just a matter of coming up with right compensation circuitry to counter "uneven wear"



But that won't hit in these models...So are you actually suggesting we miscalibrate our tv's intentionally, bypass every reason we bought them and render them looking like westinghouses? Just trying to follow what you're actually suggesting.....


Unless if course the suggestion is living with uneven wear which is probably a lesser evil, and if it stays ONLY visible on grayscale may be the only real option we have but, in the meantime there's no harm in trying to find our own remedies. I personally think I'm going to try the reverse of desks suggestion, and retain a white slide on screen for some time.


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689164
> 
> 
> I actually like that suggestion from desk, but since the area outside the letterbox is darker than the center, I would say a pure white one instead. It could potentially revitalize the ability of the bottom and top bars to produce peak lighting. And at the very least, it wouldnt cause any further burn.



Can I suggest trying an all-black screen first, rather than white?


If what Stas says is true, then the problem is with transistors drifting when showing black, not any other colour. I'd be interested if feeding black across the whole screen helps equalise out the letterbox impact Vinnie is reporting.


I find it hard to believe the drift could possibly continue at the same initial pace Vinnie has witnesses after just two letterbox films. If it did, surely the bars would be a light grey after just a couple of hundred films?


Is it instead possible that the level of drift could increasingly slow, and that by feeding an all-black image any initial discrepancies early into its lifespan would be evened out so as to be almost I imperceptible? Could the run-in for an OLED set not be colour sides, but instead prolonged entirely black screens?


Desk


----------



## vinnie97

Given the lack of progress I'm seeing with colored slides so far, I am also willing to give Desk's suggestion a fighting chance.


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689407
> 
> 
> Can I suggest trying an all-black screen first, rather than white?
> 
> 
> If what Stas says is true, then the problem is with transistors drifting when showing black, not any other colour. I'd be interested if feeding black across the whole screen helps equalise out the letterbox impact Vinnie is reporting.
> 
> 
> I find it hard to believe the drift could possibly continue at the same initial pace Vinnie has witnesses after just two letterbox films. If it did, surely the bars would be a light grey after just a couple of hundred films?
> 
> 
> Is it instead possible that the level of drift could increasingly slow, and that by feeding an all-black image any initial discrepancies early into its lifespan would be evened out so as to be almost I imperceptible? Could the run-in for an OLED set not be colour sides, but instead prolonged entirely black screens?
> 
> 
> Desk



Sure I'd be willing to try it either way just on the small mark I have from 2 hours of letterboxed material. But wouldn't retaining an all black image on screen render the whole panel unable to produce peak brightness, and subsequently just permanently dim it every time you do so? After a couple hundred films those bars would be a darker shade than the rest of the panel, not a lighter one.


----------



## vinnie97

Another valid concern. As for myself, I will exhaust any and all solutions before contacting LG again, including herpderp's just to see what effect it causes (since there's little to lose at this point).


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689386
> 
> 
> 
> But that won't hit in these models...So are you actually suggesting we miscalibrate our tv's intentionally, bypass every reason we bought them and render them looking like westinghouses? Just trying to follow what you're actually suggesting.....
> 
> 
> Unless if course the suggestion is living with uneven wear which is probably a lesser evil, and if it stays ONLY visible on grayscale may be the only real option we have but, in the meantime there's no harm in trying to find our own remedies. I personally think I'm going to try the reverse of desks suggestion, and retain a white slide on screen for some time.


Well, Samsung's OLED mobile displays actually have blacks of 0.1 nits and I've never heard any one complain about sidebars burn-in...

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689473
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I'd be willing to try it either way just on the small mark I have from 2 hours of letterboxed material. But wouldn't retaining an all black image on screen render the whole panel unable to produce peak brightness, and subsequently just permanently dim it every time you do so? After a couple hundred films those bars would be a darker shade than the rest of the panel, not a lighter one.


 1) I'm sure that there's some form of compensation in place to prevent the panel from losing its brightness. 

 

2) If LG G flex is anything like the real thing than anything short of miracle is not gonna help.

 

3) However I hope sidebars burn-in will go away, because I'm planning to buy an OLED TV to revisit great 21:9 movies like Flight Club, Pulp Fiction, Se7en,* * Batman movies, and many other. Also I want to rewatch The Wire, OZ and Sex and the City  because movies with sidebars don't look too great on plasma owing to glowing blacks


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689667
> 
> 
> Another valid concern. As for myself, I will exhaust any and all solutions before contacting LG again, including herpderp's just to see what effect it causes (since there's little to lose at this point).



Well try desk's first, then mine with the white....then derp's as a last hail Mary because it's the most apt to cause more damage.


----------



## vinnie97

That I will.







Will probably give each method a 24-hour trial (not yet done with the traditional color slides now).


Stas, the black sidebars on a modern plasma (ZT60) will only glow on lower APL content. And if you can find (and tweak) a Kuro, you can achieve near OLED blacks.


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689726
> 
> 
> Well, Samsung's OLED mobile displays actually have blacks of 0.1 nits and I've never heard any one complain about sidebars burn-in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I'm sure that there's some form of compensation in place to prevent the panel from losing its brightness.
> 
> 
> 2) If LG G flex is anything like the real thing than anything short of miracle is not gonna help.
> 
> 
> 3) However I hope sidebars burn-in will go away, because I'm planning to buy an OLED TV to revisit great 21:9 movies like Flight Club, Pulp Fiction, Se7en,* * Batman movies, and many other. Also I want to rewatch The Wire, OZ and Sex and the City  because movies with sidebars don't look too great on plasma owing to glowing blacks



I highly doubt there is any compensation in place to keep it from losing brightness as that's what extended periods of time on blacks are causing: reduced brightness. This tv doesn't even have a screensaver, or a pixel shifter so as far as hidden compensation from faults are concerned, I'm not holding any breath. I'd go so far as to say it's pure neglect not having thought of these very simple methods of compensation which have been and continue to be (via firmware) overlooked.


There's an infinite amount of 21:9 content to view, and just the fact that the anamorphic bars themselves completely dissappear, giving the impression that the whole screen changed shape makes that content so much more immersive. Viewing those letterboxed movies with zero light output from the bars has changed the way I feel about directors choosing to film anything wider than 16:9 altogether. Plasma may have gotten close, but the rift between almost completely black to completely black is very large in regards to how I remember the film.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689762
> 
> 
> That I will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will probably give each method a 24-hour trial (not yet done with the traditional color slides now).
> 
> 
> Stas, the black sidebars on a modern plasma (ZT60) will only glow on lower APL content. And if you can find (and tweak) a Kuro, you can achieve near OLED blacks.


That's a crying shame that there's no way one can get his hands on a tweaked Kuro nowadays...

 

By the way I wonder about how Samsung OLEDs fare with letterbox content


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689803
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crying shame that there's no way one can get his hands on a tweaked Kuro nowadays...
> 
> 
> By the way I wonder about how Samsung OLEDs fare with letterbox content



Are there any owners of the Sammy on here? That set is really in short supply.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689256
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just means that "stacked" white is driven at lower current levels precisely thrice lower than the ampage of red or blue and a slight drift is negligible at that amperage. I know exactly how a transistor works ergo I'm able to make an educated guess about how OLED should work



Oh dear...

*"Stacked white" is made the exact same way red or green or blue is made*. Every one of them is made from stacked white which is then filtered (or not, in the case of pure whites). Most of your greys are made without the subpixel, I'd imagine too -- referring, here to the dark ones.


Regardless, there is no red pixel. There is no green pixel. There is no blue pixel. There are only white pixels. They are all driven the same (with the possible exception of the unfiltered whites, which, again, are not going to be in a significant plurality of colors).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540_60#post_24688871
> 
> 
> It's most likely caused due to "faulty" IGZO backplanes with drifting transistors (or should I say sub-pixels) which develop resistance over time. Well simply put, when you display 0 zero blacks transistors are still fed a little bit of current which is so low that transistors won't let it flow through and over time transistors will get so used to this low level of current that when they are fed more current they will require that low amount of current that was fed to them during displaying black be added to the mix to display ,for instance, 300 nits of brightness and without that low amount of current that was fed to them during displaying black the brightness will be hovering around 290 nits.
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean it's not aspect ration that kills the panel it's "black" in any form. So never display true blacks an OLED TV and you'll be ok


 

Let's assume for a moment that the idea you're proposing is correct: that the minute amounts of current (that correspond to a black that isn't actually shut off but just trickle-charged) raises the 0-point threshold for the transistor.

 

If this is the case, then the differences would be extraordinarily slight.  But let's say that those differences actually amount to something visible anyway.

 

What this would do is merely raise the point at which a current can force an emission, not raise the entirety of the requirement all the way up.  It wouldn't behave as if there were a microresister in the chain.  Actually, perhaps more like a very dinky capacitor.  For instance, there is no continual current subtraction causing the normally full-on white to be slightly less.  The bottom-most grays would not show up, but all higher values would plow through as normal, no?  That "memory" effect would be there at the bottom, but as a mere threshold---there is nothing there for it to impede it's ability to allow current flow at higher levels.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540_60#post_24689839
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689256
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just means that "stacked" white is driven at lower current levels precisely thrice lower than the ampage of red or blue and a slight drift is negligible at that amperage. I know exactly how a transistor works ergo I'm able to make an educated guess about how OLED should work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear...
> 
> *"Stacked white" is made the exact same way red or green or blue is made*. Every one of them is made from stacked white which is then filtered (or not, in the case of pure whites). Most of your greys are made without the subpixel, I'd imagine too -- referring, here to the dark ones.
> 
> 
> Regardless, there is no red pixel. There is no green pixel. There is no blue pixel. There are only white pixels. They are all driven the same (with the possible exception of the unfiltered whites, which, again, are not going to be in a significant plurality of colors).
Click to expand...

 

I'm not convinced of his guesses here either Rogo, but in his defense, I could see how the white stacks under the color filters might be driven harder than the white stack without a filter.  A filter's job is to throw away substantial amounts of light, and if they were trying to make it a very tight spectral "emission" (filter transmission) then that filter might have to be overly dark forcing the relative overdrive.  Or throttled down white.


----------



## SeLfMaDe111985

All TVs mins as well just hault and bow down to LED...tear. Just sad that people are to dumb to realize how great plasma was


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeLfMaDe111985*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24690451 All TVs mins as well just hault and bow down to LED...tear. Just sad that people are to dumb to realize how great plasma was


Yes nobody cares, only few fanatics on AVS like us!

 

I read that OLED is doomed and will go down just like plasma, oh well there is always front projection and that is great for movies


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9500_100#post_24689729
> 
> 
> Well try desk's first, then mine with the white....then derp's as a last hail Mary because it's the most apt to cause more damage.


I'm actually going with your method for the next 24 hours, and I'll shift to Desk's next, then the pixel flipper, and finally Derp's inverse letterbox image as a last resort. The 12 plasma slides didn't seem to bring any resolution after 24 hours. I suspect the one white on loop won't either. Getting desperate here.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689839
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear...
> 
> *"Stacked white" is made the exact same way red or green or blue is made*. Every one of them is made from stacked white which is then filtered (or not, in the case of pure whites). Most of your greys are made without the subpixel, I'd imagine too -- referring, here to the dark ones.
> 
> 
> Regardless, there is no red pixel. There is no green pixel. There is no blue pixel. There are only white pixels. They are all driven the same (with the possible exception of the unfiltered whites, which, again, are not going to be in a significant plurality of colors).


I've worked under the assumption that LG uses the "SOLED" method (driving each layer of a stacked OLED separately) to  drive their OLED TVs http://google.com/patents/US5917280 .  if you are right (I've seen a lot of evidence that you are right while I was doing my stacked OLED research) then what causes burn-in to occur? There's no rational explanation for burn-in not being present during displaying primary colors like red or blue I can come up with if you are right.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540#post_24689892
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's assume for a moment that the idea you're proposing is correct: that the minute amounts of current (that correspond to a black that isn't actually shut off but just trickle-charged) raises the 0-point threshold for the transistor.
> 
> 
> 
> If this is the case, then the differences would be extraordinarily slight.  But let's say that those differences actually amount to something visible anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> What this would do is merely raise the point at which a current can force an emission, not raise the entirety of the requirement all the way up.  It wouldn't behave as if there were a microresister in the chain.  Actually, perhaps more like a very dinky capacitor.  For instance, there is no continual current subtraction causing the normally full-on white to be slightly less.  The bottom-most grays would not show up, but all higher values would plow through as normal, no?  That "memory" effect would be there at the bottom, but as a mere threshold---there is nothing there for it to impede it's ability to allow current flow at higher levels.


It's a valid point, What I mean by a transistor developing resistance is that the collector's conductance is lowering due to being constantly subjected to a low current flow ( I bet it gets hot in there) i.e heat after all the (copper, golden or any other material) wire the collector is made of if subjected to heat for long enough (a transistors that doesn't let current flow turns into a diode or simply put a heater and we all know that diodes can get hot) *it will get damaged meaning that , for instance, if .05 amp, that stop at the base, is continuously fed to a collector for a couple of hours then when  1 amp is fed to a collector afterwards .95 amp will be put out by an emitter i.e .05 amp will be lost due to the damaged "cooked" collector.*  *That's way running all black screen on an OLED will be fruitless and might even do more damage than good in the long run.*

 

This is the way it works with SSDs (solid state drives) and I think that transistors in SSDs are not that different from transistors in OLEDs

 

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24691125
> 
> 
> 
> I'm actually going with your method for the next 24 hours, and I'll shift to Desk's next, then the pixel flipper, and finally Derp's inverse letterbox image as a last resort. The 12 plasma slides didn't seem to bring any resolution after 24 hours. I suspect the one white on loop won't either. Getting desperate here.
> From what I hear on the net displaying all-white screen or all-black screen on an LG OLED is as fruitful as beating a dead horse, putting poultice on a wooden leg, closing the stable door after the horse has bolted or being wise in hindsight...


----------



## vinnie97

It's all speculation at this point, info gleamed on theories based on the limited technical information that is available. Come what may, I'll exhaust all the above efforts before involving LG again. What's interesting to me is the color slides on the previous panel (I had a replacement installed due to 4 failed subpixels...oops?) were able to reduce by at least 90% the presence of previous uneven wear acquired over a similar viewing period (6 letterbox films) in the first 50 hours of said panel's life. I broke in the current panel, but it seems to have had the opposite effect (seemingly causing more susceptibility to letterbox wear). Who knows what this means (i.e. should a factory reset have been completed after the installation of that panel, because this was the technician's first OLED servicing), but I am afraid I'm in over my head.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24691155
> 
> 
> It's all speculation at this point, info gleamed on theories based on the limited technical information that is available. Come what may, I'll exhaust all the above efforts before involving LG again. What's interesting to me is the color slides on the previous panel (I had a replacement installed due to 4 failed subpixels...oops?) were able to reduce by at least 90% the presence of previous uneven wear acquired over a similar viewing period (6 letterbox films) in the first 50 hours of said panel's life. I broke in the current panel, but it seems to have had the opposite effect (seemingly causing more susceptibility to letterbox wear). Who knows what this means (i.e. should a factory reset have been completed after the installation of that panel, because this was the technician's first OLED servicing), but I am afraid I'm in over my head.


 I really hope things work out for you, man.

 

And the fact that burn-in escalated with the new panel is very alarming for me...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24689901
> 
> 
> I'm not convinced of his guesses here either Rogo, but in his defense, I could see how the white stacks under the color filters might be driven harder than the white stack without a filter.  A filter's job is to throw away substantial amounts of light, and if they were trying to make it a very tight spectral "emission" (filter transmission) then that filter might have to be overly dark forcing the relative overdrive.  Or throttled down white.



I get that part. I (a) don't believe white is that critical to the equation and (b) don't believe it's driven _exceptionally_ harder.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24691145
> 
> 
> I've worked under the assumption that LG uses the "SOLED" method (driving each layer of a stacked OLED separately) to  drive their OLED TVs http://google.com/patents/US5917280 .



So I'm not going to spend an hour with the patent, but I suspect if it says what I think it does, you're completely wrong.


LG's stack makes white light. Period. It always, 100% of the time, makes white light. It certainly varies the intensity of the white light, but it never varies the color. In other words, the proportion of red, green and blue is always the same.


> Quote:
> if you are right (I've seen a lot of evidence that you are right while I was doing my stacked OLED research) then what causes burn-in to occur?



So we've wildly speculated here, but there are a couple of interesting avenues to look at.


1) The blue layer is going to die off faster. I get that there are research papers that somehow claim this doesn't matter. I've skimmed them. They are remarkably unpersuasive. Even if those papers are true....


2) Any used pixels are going to die off faster than less used pixels... That's just simply the case.


3) Something is going on with the backplane that's causing some kind of temporary or permanent burn-in.


None of these theories are ruled in or out by our correct understanding of how LG's stack works.


----------



## Wizziwig

We need a more objective analysis of the problem in order to understand what's going on. Does anyone with the LG own calibration equipment? If you could measure the center of the screen and the letter-box bar area while displaying color slides, we might find some useful data.


If I'm reading the comments correctly, the letter-box area is actually getting darker? That does not sound like phosphor style burn-in which would cause the opposite effect - making the center area darker.


----------



## vinnie97

That is correct in my case, backplane shenanigans have been surmised to be the blame. I wish I had a colorimeter to verify but eyeballing it certainly points in that direction.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540_60#post_24691145
> 
> 
> I've worked under the assumption that LG uses the "SOLED" method (driving each layer of a stacked OLED separately) to  drive their OLED TVs http://google.com/patents/US5917280 .  if you are right (I've seen a lot of evidence that you are right while I was doing my stacked OLED research) then what causes burn-in to occur? There's no rational explanation for burn-in not being present during displaying primary colors like red or blue I can come up with if you are right.


 

The SOLED stuff from Princeton is now owned by Universal Display Corporation .  It's a direct result of the TOLED research, and it's where I hope displays will soon end up (a single subpixel per pixel).  However, I *strongly* (


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540_60#post_24691305
> 
> 
> We need a more objective analysis of the problem in order to understand what's going on. Does anyone with the LG own calibration equipment? If you could measure the center of the screen and the letter-box bar area while displaying color slides, we might find some useful data.


 

Indeed.

 


> Quote:
> 
> If I'm reading the comments correctly, the letter-box area is actually getting darker? That does not sound like phosphor style burn-in which would cause the opposite effect - making the center area darker.


 

Phosphor style.  Hmmm.....  This rings true for all the burned monitors I've seen decades ago with the Sun logo emblazoned on them.

 

But for plasma I would swear my friend's old plasma has the pillarboxes darker.  Similar to how it's depicted here:

 

http://www.techhive.com/article/168225/worry_about_burnin.html


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9500_100#post_24691660
> 
> 
> But for plasma I would swear my friend's old plasma has the pillarboxes darker.


It would typically be the other way around - the edges would be lighter, because they have not dimmed with age as they're displaying black all the time.

Unless his TV is one which forced the screen to display gray bars all the time, and that gray was brighter than the average level of the screen in the center.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540_60#post_24691916
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9500_100#post_24691660
> 
> 
> But for plasma I would swear my friend's old plasma has the pillarboxes darker.
> 
> 
> 
> It would typically be the other way around - the edges would be lighter, because they have not dimmed with age as they're displaying black all the time.
> 
> Unless his TV is one which forced the screen to display gray bars all the time, and that gray was brighter than the average level of the screen in the center.
Click to expand...

 

Ah.....ok, that must be it.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24691660
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phosphor style.  Hmmm.....  This rings true for all the burned monitors I've seen decades ago with the Sun logo emblazoned on them.
> 
> 
> 
> But for plasma I would swear my friend's old plasma has the pillarboxes darker.  Similar to how it's depicted here:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.techhive.com/article/168225/worry_about_burnin.html


I watch a lot of 4:3 content on ST60 (now I'm watching twilight zone from late 1950s http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3635118 ) and yet I haven't noticed any pillar-box burn-in yet I had burn-in from HUDs, though. There's gotta be something special about ST60's panel if it can handle 4 hours of 4:3 content with flying colors.

Does his plasma have grey sidebars?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24691916
> 
> 
> 
> It would typically be the other way around - the edges would be lighter, because they have not dimmed with age as they're displaying black all the time.
> 
> Unless his TV is one which forced the screen to display gray bars all the time, and that gray was brighter than the average level of the screen in the center.


I categorically agree with you here. 5000 hours of watching 4:3 plus 10000 hours of watching 16:9 equals lighter sidebars. I've read somewhere that noble gases thin out in 20000 hours for like 20 percent meaning plasmas circa 2003 lost about 25% of their brightness in 20000 hours.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9500_100#post_24691960
> 
> 
> I watch a lot of 4:3 content on ST60 (now I'm watching twilight zone) and yet I haven't noticed any pillar-box burn-in yet I had burn-in from HUDs, though. There's gotta be something special about ST60's panel if it can handle 4 hours of 4:3 content with flying colors.


Uneven wear from pillarboxed or letterboxed content is a gradual build-up over time. You are unlikely to notice it within a few days or weeks of use.

Things like logos are obvious because they are typically bright, so they "wear" quicker, and something like text is a lot more obvious than a large patch of the screen being slightly brighter or dimmer than the rest.


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24692073
> 
> 
> Uneven wear from pillarboxed or letterboxed content is a gradual build-up over time. You are unlikely to notice it within a few days or weeks of use.



The strange thing here is that the apparent effect Vinnie is seeing comes after watching just *two* letterbox movies.


I find it very hard to believe that the effect could continue to progressively worsen at this same initial rate, because after 50 letterbox movies the contrasting difference would surely be incredibly obvious when viewing 16:9 content, and we'd be seeing lots of reports from folk who've had this set for several months?


Vinnie had been running colour slides continously up until now - never showing any black images for any length of time, as far as I'm aware.


So is it possible that either the OLED cells or backplane undergo a slight change when required to display a black image for any length of time (chemical or electrical), that they then settle down once they've been called upon to do so, and that it's simply the case that the centre of Vinnie's display has not been called upon to do so for any length of time which would equalise the entire panel?


That's why I'll be interested to see what effect subjecting the entire panel to a black screen for a period of time has on this reported phenomena.


Desk


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540_60#post_24692220
> 
> 
> That's why I'll be interested to see what effect subjecting the entire panel to a black screen for a period of time has on this reported phenomena.


 

^^^To clarify (in case someone's tuning in late), he means a *powered on black*, or an active signal black, not the thing turned off (even though it might choose to do so).


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24692220
> 
> 
> 
> The strange thing here is that the apparent effect Vinnie is seeing comes after watching just *two* letterbox movies.
> 
> 
> I find it very hard to believe that the effect could continue to progressively worsen at this same initial rate, because after 50 letterbox movies the contrasting difference would surely be incredibly obvious when viewing 16:9 content, and we'd be seeing lots of reports from folk who've had this set for several months?
> 
> 
> Vinnie had been running colour slides continously up until now - never showing any black images for any length of time, as far as I'm aware.
> 
> 
> So is it possible that either the OLED cells or backplane undergo a slight change when required to display a black image for any length of time (chemical or electrical), that they then settle down once they've been called upon to do so, and that it's simply the case that the centre of Vinnie's display has not been called upon to do so for any length of time which would equalise the entire panel?
> 
> 
> That's why I'll be interested to see what effect subjecting the entire panel to a black screen for a period of time has on this reported phenomena.
> 
> 
> Desk


 I'm just gonna throw it our there.

Well, as I said before if some amount of current that's below the threshold of a transistor is continuously fed to the transistor it turns the collector of the said transistor into a heating element (or a diode) (for in this case the only way for energy to dissipate is to turn into "heat") which in turn damages the collector and reduces its conductance and , in short, ruins the transistor! And one more thing if a transistor is "damaged (lost some of its conductance) " it ,as a rule, stays that way forever more just as "damaged" people do

 

Well, I guess I gave you enough knowledge now to know what happens If current is continuously fed to an OLED transistor while it displays true blacks


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9500_100#post_24692220
> 
> 
> The strange thing here is that the apparent effect Vinnie is seeing comes after watching just *two* letterbox movies.
> 
> 
> I find it very hard to believe that the effect could continue to progressively worsen at this same initial rate, because after 50 letterbox movies the contrasting difference would surely be incredibly obvious when viewing 16:9 content, and we'd be seeing lots of reports from folk who've had this set for several months?
> 
> 
> Vinnie had been running colour slides continously up until now - never showing any black images for any length of time, as far as I'm aware.
> 
> 
> So is it possible that either the OLED cells or backplane undergo a slight change when required to display a black image for any length of time (chemical or electrical), that they then settle down once they've been called upon to do so, and that it's simply the case that the centre of Vinnie's display has not been called upon to do so for any length of time which would equalise the entire panel?
> 
> 
> That's why I'll be interested to see what effect subjecting the entire panel to a black screen for a period of time has on this reported phenomena.
> 
> 
> Desk


Just to be clear, I watched the entire LOTR extended trilogy as a sort of stress test. Plague has noticed it after 2 such movies, but the effect is less severe (mine is visible on full-screen content).


I will employ your theorized solution next to be sure (currently on the all white).


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24692575
> 
> 
> I'm just gonna throw it our there.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I said before if some amount of current that's below the threshold of a transistor is continuously fed to the transistor it turns the collector of the said transistor into a heating element (or a diode) (for in this case the only way for energy to dissipate is to turn into "heat") which in turn damages the collector and reduces its conductance and , in short, ruins the transistor! And one more thing if a transistor is "damaged (lost some of its conductance) " it ,as a rule, stays that way forever more just as "damaged" people do
> 
> 
> Well, I guess I gave you enough knowledge now to know what happens If current is continuously fed to an OLED transistor while it displays true blacks


I understand your argument, but by that same logic you're saying that watching any letterbox movie will continue the damage to those sections of the screen displaying a black image. Accepting that is the case, then there's surely nothing to be lost by experimenting with feeding the panel an entirely black image and seeing what happens?


If the rate of visible change Vinnie reports is constant, then both the letterbox and non-letterbox areas will be equally 'damaged' and the perceived difference already established between those two areas will remain constant.


If there is a 'levelling off' of the effect, then the difference will be diminished or removed entirely, perhaps explaining why some other users are not seeing the effect, and that it's not beginning to intrude on their 16:9 viewing.


One thought - might it be necessary to require the panel to perhaps display single white pixel, so as to ensure it remains active and maintaining contrast during this period?


Desk


----------



## stas3098


You know, what guys, I've been thinking about how poor humans eyes are at recognizing the *brightness discrepancies* of short wavelengths like that of blue or green (rods determine the relative brightness of what see and rods are not susceptible to red) . That might as well be the reason why Vinie can't see shadows on solid green or blue his eyes trick him, but however red doesn't really impede human's ability to recognize the relative brightness so I'd like to know how the solid 5 to 50 percent red and green in an utterly darkroom looks like on Vinie's set and if the sidebars burn-in is visible on low luma red?


----------



## vinnie97

Yea, I'd need a color generator.







Valkyrie had some lower level greenish earth tones, and the line demarcating the 2.35:1 letterbox was plainly visible (the difference in brightness much less so) on them.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24692666
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your argument, but by that same logic you're saying that watching any letterbox movie will continue the damage to those sections of the screen displaying a black image. Accepting that is the case, then there's surely nothing to be lost by experimenting with feeding the panel an entirely black image and seeing what happens?
> 
> 
> If the rate of visible change Vinnie reports is constant, then both the letterbox and non-letterbox areas will be equally 'damaged' and the perceived difference already established between those two areas will remain constant.
> 
> 
> If there is a 'levelling off' of the effect, then the difference will be diminished or removed entirely, perhaps explaining why some other users are not seeing the effect, and that it's not beginning to intrude on their 16:9 viewing.
> 
> 
> One thought - might it be necessary to require the panel to perhaps display single white pixel, so as to ensure it remains active and maintaining contrast during this period?
> 
> 
> Desk


If transistors could take the "heat" without drifting , I guess, they would. The problem with heat is that it makes structural bonds between the atoms (in a collector) collapse thus causing reduced conductivity...


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24692992
> 
> 
> If transistors could take the "heat" without drifting , I guess, they would. The problem with heat is that it makes structural bonds between the atoms (in a collector) collapse thus causing reduced conductivity...


Interestingly, here's a link to a patent from 2009 for an OLED voltage driving pixel unit expressly aimed at preventing transistor drift...

http://www.google.st/patents/US8525759 


Desk


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540_60#post_24692736
> 
> 
> 
> You know, what guys, I've been thinking about how poor humans eyes are at recognizing the brightness of short wavelengths like that of blue or green (rods determine the relative brightness of what see and rods are not susceptible to red) . That might as well be the reason why Vinie can't see shadows on solid green or blue his eyes trick him, but however red doesn't really impede human's ability to recognize the relative brightness so I'd like to know how the solid 5 to 50 percent red and green in an utterly darkroom looks like on Vinie's set and if the sidebars burn-in is visible on low luma red?


 

You've got that wrong: Our eyes actually see green as the brightest.  Then red.  And then as a distant 3rd blue.

 

In fact, that is how the YIQ color model works, which is what allowed black and white TV to move to color while continuing to allow the existing black and white TVs to be compatible.

 

The Y stands for the luma part, which is the only part that the black and white TVs pick up.  It produces luminosity very close to the raw sensitivities of both rods and cones.

 

Given R, G, and B components, the overall luminosity of a color is computed:

 

Y = (.30 * R) + (.59 * G) + (.11 * B)


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540_60#post_24693101
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24692992
> 
> 
> If transistors could take the "heat" without drifting , I guess, they would. The problem with heat is that it makes structural bonds between the atoms (in a collector) collapse thus causing reduced conductivity...
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, here's a link to a patent from 2009 for an OLED voltage driving pixel unit expressly aimed at preventing transistor drift...
> 
> http://www.google.st/patents/US8525759
> 
> 
> Desk
Click to expand...

 

Interesting about that patent too is that it's for a voltage driven OLED, not current.  I'll have to read through this one some.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24693113
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've got that wrong: Our eyes actually see green as the brightest.  Then red.  And then as a distant 3rd blue.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, that is how the YIQ color model works, which is what allowed black and white TV to move to color while continuing to allow the existing black and white TVs to be compatible.
> 
> 
> 
> The Y stands for the luma part, which is the only part that the black and white TVs pick up.  It produces luminosity very close to the raw sensitivities of both rods and cones.
> 
> 
> 
> Given R, G, and B components, the overall luminosity of a color is computed:
> 
> 
> 
> Y = (.30 * R) + (.59 * G) + (.11 * B)


I meant that blue or green throw our perception of *brightness discrepancies* off by triggering rods (green throws the prepetition of brightness off more than others)  hence it is harder to distinguish brightness discrepancies. Red is universally known not to trigger rods hence it is easier to see discrepancies in brightness on a solid red in total darkness.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540_60#post_24693287
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24693113
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've got that wrong: Our eyes actually see green as the brightest.  Then red.  And then as a distant 3rd blue.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, that is how the YIQ color model works, which is what allowed black and white TV to move to color while continuing to allow the existing black and white TVs to be compatible.
> 
> 
> 
> The Y stands for the luma part, which is the only part that the black and white TVs pick up.  It produces luminosity very close to the raw sensitivities of both rods and cones.
> 
> 
> 
> Given R, G, and B components, the overall luminosity of a color is computed:
> 
> 
> 
> Y = (.30 * R) + (.59 * G) + (.11 * B)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant that blue or green throw our perception of *brightness discrepancies* off by triggering rods (green throws the prepetition of brightness off more than others)  hence it is harder to distinguish brightness discrepancies. Red is universally known not to trigger rods hence it is easier to see discrepancies in brightness on a solid red in total darkness.
Click to expand...

 

Do have a link to this?  I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## stas3098




>


 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24693467
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do have a link to this?  I have no idea what you're talking about.


The human eye can function from very dark to very bright levels of light; its sensing capabilities reach across nine orders of magnitude . This means that the brightest and the darkest light signal that the eye can sense are a factor of roughly 1,000,000,000 apart. However, in any given moment of time, *the eye can only sense a contrast ratio of one thousand*. *What enables the wider reach is that the eye adapts its definition of what is black*.

 

The eye takes approximately 20–30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness and become ten thousand to one million times more sensitive than at full daylight. In this process, the eye's perception of color changes as well (this is called the Purkinje effect ). However, it takes approximately five minutes for the eye to adapt to bright sunlight from darkness. This is due to cones obtaining more sensitivity when first entering the dark for the first five minutes but the rods take over after five or more minutes. [1] 

 

Dark adaptation is far quicker and deeper in young people than the elderly. [2] 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_(eye)#Dark_Adaptation

 

http://www.aoa.org/optometrists/tools-and-resources/clinical-care-publications/aviation-vision/the-eye-and-night-vision

 

 

 

In the dark sensitivity of cones increases

 

*Google Night vision and Red!*

 

1) Eyes or cones ( parts of eyes are cones) have the lowest sensitivity (contrast) when they see green  because it triggers a lot of rods and *when* *a lot of rods are triggered our brains think that we are in the daylight *which in turn raises lowest perceivable blacks significantly and makes green seems a bit brighter. Green seems brighter that blue because most of the photoreceptors are activated when we see green

 

2) Red has high sensitivity (or contrast) to human eyes (or should I say cones) because it doesn't trigger a lot of rods, that's why we are able to preserve our night vision (or should I say the perception of lowest perceivable blacks as if we are in the utter darkness)  while using red flashlights http://www.flashlightreviews.com/qa/nightvision.htm


----------



## herpderp

When I watch movies with a lot of green (like Tropic Thunder) I find the blacks really good even on LED TV. I always wondered why... stas3098's explanation makes sense to me


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24693139
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desk.*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540_60#post_24693101
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24692992
> 
> 
> If transistors could take the "heat" without drifting , I guess, they would. The problem with heat is that it makes structural bonds between the atoms (in a collector) collapse thus causing reduced conductivity...
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, here's a link to a patent from 2009 for an OLED voltage driving pixel unit expressly aimed at preventing transistor drift...
> 
> http://www.google.st/patents/US8525759
> 
> 
> 
> Desk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting about that patent too is that it's for a voltage driven OLED, not current.  I'll have to read through this one some.
Click to expand...


The pixel may be driven (or better 'controlled') by voltage, but the OLED itself can not be 'driven' by voltage. I've seen several OLED designs with voltage-to-current conversion within the pixel itself (often designed with some sort of drift compensation circuit to deliver more uniform current to the OLED despite drift in threshold voltages).


It's a pretty simple principle: for any light-emitting device, no current = no light.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24693762
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty simple principle: for any light-emitting device, no current = no light.



Thank you.


To generalize this further. Any electrical device: No current = no nothing.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24693620
> 
> 
> However, in any given moment of time, *the eye can only sense a contrast ratio of one thousand*. *What enables the wider reach is that the eye adapts its definition of what is black*.



It's much more than 1,000:1. It's on the order of 10-15,000:1.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24695341
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24693620
> 
> 
> However, in any given moment of time, *the eye can only sense a contrast ratio of one thousand*. *What enables the wider reach is that the eye adapts its definition of what is black*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's much more than 1,000:1. It's on the order of 10-15,000:1.
Click to expand...


A good little primer on the subject: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm#sensitivity 


"*most estimate that our eyes can see anywhere from 10-14 f-stops of dynamic range*"


an f-stop is a factor of 2, so 10-14 f-stops = 1000:1 to 16:000:1




So to some extent I think you are both right on this, with stas3098 focusing on the minimum dynamic range and rogo the maximum.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24695377
> 
> 
> 
> A good little primer on the subject: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm#sensitivity
> 
> 
> "*most estimate that our eyes can see anywhere from 10-14 f-stops of dynamic range*"
> 
> 
> an f-stop is a factor of 2, so 10-14 f-stops = 1000:1 to 16:000:1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to some extent I think you are both right on this, with stas3098 focusing on the minimum dynamic range and rogo the maximum.


Static contrast is even less than 100 .1000 contrast per scan (or 14f-stop by the way I don't really know what an f-stop means) equals 16000 of contrast per one frame (if there's 16 scans and there can be less or more if there's some extra opsin present) hence 16000 times 24 is 384000 contrast per second ........... 1,000,000,000 of contrast per 30 minutes

 

Contrast per scan (in neuroscientific parlance) or f-stop (in photographer's parlance)  is actually in the ballpark of 1000 for 20-something males with only pregnant teenagers being able to register even less than 500 of contrast per f-stop (some say it has to do with males in the old ages having to be able to spot a polar bear in winter time or a lion in a steppe before one of them spotted him) . http://www.livescience.com/22894-men-and-women-see-things nes ages -differently.html

 



 A stone-age hunter-gather who couldn't spot a lion in time most likely didn't live long enough to have kids who wouldn't able to stop a lion in time









 



The same applies to ice age human-monkeys and bears


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24695325
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> To generalize this further. Any electrical device: No current = no nothing.


To put in perspective







. Any human brain. No current = no brain activity (no vision, no hearing, no nothing)


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_60#post_24693762
> 
> 
> The pixel may be driven (or better 'controlled') by voltage, but the OLED itself can not be 'driven' by voltage. I've seen several OLED designs with voltage-to-current conversion within the pixel itself (often designed with some sort of drift compensation circuit to deliver more uniform current to the OLED despite drift in threshold voltages).
> 
> 
> It's a pretty simple principle: for any light-emitting device, no current = no light.


 

Of course not.  That's not what driven by voltage means.  A DC motor is voltage driven.  No one would say "no current" = "no motion", because of course current plays a distinct role.

 

Further your assertion on "any light emitting device" is also oversimplifying.  Voltage can be the changing factor (and the *only* changing factor) in a dimmable bulb DC circuit.

 

However, in the case of OLED, the design (I'm referring to the stacked case) is very much about the electron-hole recombination process.  This means that their light emission is directly related to electrons-per-second, which is precisely how amperage (current) is defined.

 

That's why I needed to look more closely at what those guys in the patent were talking about.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9540_60#post_24693620
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9570#post_24693467
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do have a link to this?  I have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The human eye can function from very dark to very bright levels of light; its sensing capabilities reach across nine orders of magnitude . This means that the brightest and the darkest light signal that the eye can sense are a factor of roughly 1,000,000,000 apart. However, in any given moment of time, *the eye can only sense a contrast ratio of one thousand*. *What enables the wider reach is that the eye adapts its definition of what is black*.
> 
> 
> 
> The eye takes approximately 20–30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness and become ten thousand to one million times more sensitive than at full daylight. In this process, the eye's perception of color changes as well (this is called the Purkinje effect ). However, it takes approximately five minutes for the eye to adapt to bright sunlight from darkness. This is due to cones obtaining more sensitivity when first entering the dark for the first five minutes but the rods take over after five or more minutes. [1]
> 
> 
> 
> Dark adaptation is far quicker and deeper in young people than the elderly. [2]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_(eye)#Dark_Adaptation
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.aoa.org/optometrists/tools-and-resources/clinical-care-publications/aviation-vision/the-eye-and-night-vision
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the dark sensitivity of cones increases
> 
> 
> 
> *Google Night vision and Red!*
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Eyes or cones ( parts of eyes are cones) have the lowest sensitivity (contrast) when they see green  because it triggers a lot of rods and *when* *a lot of rods are triggered our brains think that we are in the daylight *which in turn raises lowest perceivable blacks significantly and makes green seems a bit brighter. Green seems brighter that blue because most of the photoreceptors are activated when we see green
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Red has high sensitivity (or contrast) to human eyes (or should I say cones) because it doesn't trigger a lot of rods, that's why we are able to preserve our night vision (or should I say the perception of lowest perceivable blacks as if we are in the utter darkness)  while using red flashlights http://www.flashlightreviews.com/qa/nightvision.htm
Click to expand...

 

Flashlight reviews?  Night vision?  And you're actually providing links to contrast and "orders of magnitude"?  You have GOT to be kidding me.

 

I'm not getting into this.  There is far too much of this that reminds me of your assertions in what you thought pixel depth means....I'm not going into that kind of arguing circle again.


----------



## Theplague13

Wow.....


I thought I was a videophile and yet I never knew just how deep the rabbit hole went....it was a very interesting read


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24695798
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flashlight reviews?  Night vision?  And you're actually providing links to contrast and "orders of magnitude"?  You have GOT to be kidding me.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not getting into this.  There is far too much of this that reminds me of your assertions in what you thought pixel depth means....I'm not going into that kind of arguing circle again.


1)The links were simply provided as background information.

 

2) Rhodopsin of the rods is less susceptible to any wavelength longer than 650nm. Period. There's nothing to get into this time around. Here's a scientific lecture on night vision.   http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~salmonto/vs2_lectures/Lecture10.pdf

 

3) How the hell was I supposed to know that bits in TVs and solid state drives are two different things, huh?


----------



## Theplague13

So in light of Vinnies new finding that the white slide has washed away most of his retention, as posted on the owner's thread, can we then surmise that this is related to pixel memory? That when the transistors continuously put out extraordinarily low voltages for extended periods of time, the pixels become accustomed and temporarily lose their ability to do so on their own until "rejuvinated" by the complete opposite: full lighting....? (even if that's a gross oversimplification)


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_60#post_24697541
> 
> 
> So in light of Vinnies new finding that the white slide has washed away most of his retention, as posted on the owner's thread, can we then surmise that this is related to pixel memory? That when the transistors continuously put out extraordinarily low voltages for extended periods of time, the pixels become accustomed and temporarily lose their ability to do so on their own until "rejuvinated" by the complete opposite: full lighting....?


 

I doubt it.

 

But I am believing more and more that it's related to two things:

1. a compounding effect of the neighboring pixels

2. the heat generated from the OLED's changing state.

 

If this were true, then a quick pulsing of the entire screen would work quicker than slides, but white slides will still work.

 

Colored slides might have given the white subs too much "rest"?


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24697579
> 
> 
> Nope.  It's still squarely within the domain of uneven wear at this point.



Care to explain a bit?


If the pixels were actually _worn_, how would they return to normal, and why would they lose brightness to begin with? What about displaying that white slide helped him so much?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_60#post_24697598
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24697579
> 
> 
> Nope.  It's still squarely within the domain of uneven wear at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain a bit?
> 
> 
> If the pixels were actually *worn*, how would they return to normal, and why would they lose brightness to begin with? What about displaying that white slide helped him so much?
Click to expand...

 

You replied before I edited that part because I wasn't personally sold on it yet.

 

They would return to normal because the early stage uneven wear would level them out relatively.  But I want to shift thinking away from that and constant change, and perhaps that's from heat.  But the low-level driving of the transistors thing is a very huge leap, which I don't think would affect the entirety of the signal anyway.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24697579
> 
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> 
> But I am believing more and more that it's related to two things:
> 
> 1. a compounding effect of the neighboring pixels
> 
> 2. the heat generated from the OLED's changing state.
> 
> 
> If this were true, then a quick pulsing of the entire screen would work quicker than slides, but white slides will still work.
> 
> 
> Colored slides might have given the white subs too much "rest"?


Like you suggested in the other thread, I might try the pixel flipper (degaussing effect?) when I get another bout of "unevenness."


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_60#post_24697628
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24697579
> 
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> 
> But I am believing more and more that it's related to two things:
> 
> 1. a compounding effect of the neighboring pixels
> 
> 2. the heat generated from the OLED's changing state.
> 
> 
> If this were true, then a quick pulsing of the entire screen would work quicker than slides, but white slides will still work.
> 
> 
> Colored slides might have given the white subs too much "rest"?
> 
> 
> 
> Like you suggested in the other thread, I might try the pixel flipper (degaussing effect?) when I get another bout of "unevenness."
Click to expand...

 

Don't run it overnight, run it while in short bursts first.

 

And can you configure a fast pulse fullscreen white-black-white-black strobe to the screen?  Don't look at it if you have seizure disorder!


----------



## vinnie97

haha, of course..no epilepsy here.







I actually do have such a strobing video file on the same USB drive as the slides that I can put to use. If the unevenness occurs after a single letterbox film, I'll try a 30-minute run first.


----------



## Theplague13

Is there anyway you could either upload or link me to that strobing file?


Definitely on the short bursts of the flipper...I'm pretty sure it was the day after I ran it overnight that a couple more of my blues died


----------



## vinnie97

Sure, but it just so turns out the strober I was talking about is something coined as the pixel jogger: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5ZfIsiWAF2uWDdXc1NWYVBuWGM/edit?usp=sharing 


It appears to be strobing from on to off...the frequency is so high that it's hard to be 100% sure.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_60#post_24697874
> 
> 
> Sure, but it just so turns out the strober I was talking about is something coined as the pixel jogger: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5ZfIsiWAF2uWDdXc1NWYVBuWGM/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> 
> It appears to be strobing from on to off...the frequency is so high that it's hard to be 100% sure.


 

AAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

>clunk


----------



## ALMA

After Chinese, now Sony and Toshiba with an OLED TV with LG panel?


> Quote:
> Skyworth, a unit of Hong Kong Skyworth Digital Holdings Co., launched OLED TV in March for the first time as a Chinese company. This comes nearly a year after LG Electronics Inc. rolled out OLED TV in January 2013 for the first time in the world. *As Sony Corp, Toshiba Corp, Konka Group Co. and Sichuan Changhong Electric Co. are also moving to launch OLED TVs one after another within this year*


 http://www.displaybank.com/_eng/research/display_dynamics_view.html?id=7287 


Samsung OLED TV is still in production?


> Quote:
> But Li Yaqin, *the news News expression is not necessarily accurate, as far as she knows, on its 8.5-generation cables Samsung in the experimental production of OLED panels could not too fast pace of expansion, but did not stop production.*
> 
> On this news, Samsung TVs are people as well as to the national grid, ?said its internal has not received such a notice?.


 http://tools.learnatchina.com/tag/industry-experts-say-the-samsung-cannot-abandon-oled-tv-panel-research


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24699453
> 
> 
> After Chinese, now Sony and Toshiba with an OLED TV with LG panel?
> http://www.displaybank.com/_eng/research/display_dynamics_view.html?id=7287
> 
> 
> Samsung OLED TV is still in production?
> http://tools.learnatchina.com/tag/industry-experts-say-the-samsung-cannot-abandon-oled-tv-panel-research


 Every one who followed the developments closely knows that Sammy is gonna concentrate on making OLEDs for smartphones and tablets in the foreseeable future. They are gonna do R&D for small OLEDs not for the TVs. They gently "S*!T-canned" their OLED TVs plans, accept it and move on!


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24699691
> 
> 
> 
> Every one who followed the developments closely knows that Sammy is gonna concentrate on making OLEDs for smartphones and tablets in the foreseeable future. They are gonna do R&D for small OLEDs not for the TVs. They gently "S*!T-canned" their OLED TVs plans, accept it and move on!



They likely have shut down production of their televisions. No chance that they have shut down R&D on OLED televisions.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24699702
> 
> 
> 
> They likely have shut down production of their televisions. No chance that they have shut down R&D on OLED televisions.


Are you saying a Samsung is gonna keep on pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the OLED TV R&D for the next god-only-knows-how-many years without even knowing if, how or when they are gonna be able to get R&D money back?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24699858
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying a Samsung is gonna keep on pouring hundreds of million dollars into the OLED TV R&D for the next god-only-knows-how-many years without even knowing if, how or when they are gonna be able to get R&D money back?



Of course, that is the nature of R&D.


They have been spending large amounts of money on OLED R&D over the last decade without "knowing" that they were going to get their money back and they will likely continue to do so as long as they think it is probable that they will eventually be able to manufacture OLED televisions at competitive prices. That will likely shift their focus to printing but I imagine that they will be looking at WOLED/IGZO in case they need to get to market quickly.


----------



## greenland

The longer they wait to get back to manufacturing OLED TVs, the less likely it will become that they will ever do so, because LG OLED displays will have come down in prices so low, that Samsung could not afford to match them at the outset. I doubt if they will ever resume manufacturing large OLED TVs.


It actually might make more economic sense for them to do what some companies in China are doing; get their OLED panels from LG and put their own badge on them.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_60#post_24700677
> 
> 
> The longer they wait to get back to manufacturing OLED TVs, the less likely it will become that they will ever do so, because LG OLED displays will have come down in prices so low, that Samsung could not afford to match them at the outset. I doubt if they will ever resume manufacturing large OLED TVs.
> 
> 
> It actually might make more economic sense for them to do what some companies in China are doing; get their OLED panels from LG and put their own badge on them.


 

I normally would have agreed with this, except do you remember how long and arduous the LCD progress was?  They were horrendous in the beginning (ugly monochrome small monitors with 1.1:1 contrast ratio  ).  The first folks out the gate with color weren't the only ones on the block.  There ended up being more than one manufacturing technique, that eventually matured despite the early gains from the one first out the gate.

 

Confined to TVs, Philips was ahead of everyone for making plasma as large as they did.....they didn't hold onto that for long.

 

Unless you think I'm comparing apples and oranges.....


----------



## Mad Norseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24699691
> 
> 
> 
> Every one who followed the developments closely knows that Sammy is gonna concentrate on making OLEDs for smartphones and tablets in the foreseeable future. They are gonna do R&D for small OLEDs not for the TVs. They gently "S*!T-canned" their OLED TVs plans, accept it and move on!


"All aboard!, all aboard to LCD Hell! - no stops available anymore for Plasma City, or OLEDville, 'cause we're all heading straight to LCD-only Hell - all aboard!, all aboard!...". ;-D


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mad Norseman*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24700994
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24699691
> 
> 
> 
> Every one who followed the developments closely knows that Sammy is gonna concentrate on making OLEDs for smartphones and tablets in the foreseeable future. They are gonna do R&D for small OLEDs not for the TVs. They gently "S*!T-canned" their OLED TVs plans, accept it and move on!
> 
> 
> 
> "All aboard!, all aboard to LCD Hell! - no stops available anymore for Plasma City, or OLEDville, 'cause we're all heading straight to LCD-only Hell - all aboard!, all aboard!...". ;-D
Click to expand...


I see that the 'Artwood perspective' is now devolving into a religion...


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600#post_24701171
> 
> 
> 
> I see that the 'Artwood perspective' is now devolving into a religion...


I guess, it's because Artwood's prophecies come true


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24700822
> 
> 
> I normally would have agreed with this, except do you remember how long and arduous the LCD progress was?  They were horrendous in the beginning (ugly monochrome small monitors with 1.1:1 contrast ratio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).  The first folks out the gate with color weren't the only ones on the block.  There ended up being more than one manufacturing technique, that eventually matured despite the early gains from the one first out the gate.
> 
> 
> Confined to TVs, Philips was ahead of everyone for making plasma as large as they did.....they didn't hold onto that for long.
> 
> 
> Unless you think I'm comparing apples and oranges.....



I think you can not compare when no company had made a giant leap ahead of the rest in the LCD development process to having LG already having the large OLED TV panels manufacturing and supply market all to itself, which will make it almost impossible for Samsung to jump back in later, and offer their OLED TVs at a competitive retail price level, compared to what LG will be able to set for their product.


Lots of Plasma manufacturers fell by the wayside, and none of them ever returned to manufacturing their own Plasma panels again. Some famous Brands have also stopped manufacturing their own LCD panels, and instead have resorted to purchasing them from other producers, and putting their own badges on them. Sony for example. Not one of those companies who stopped making their own units, have gone back to producing them. I still doubt if Samsung will ever resume manufacturing their own large OLED TV panels. They will have fallen two far behind to be able to catch up with LG.


----------



## homogenic

Does LG supplying most manufacturers mean that mid priced OLED becomes a reality in less than two years?


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24702706
> 
> 
> Does LG supplying most manufacturers mean that mid priced OLED becomes a reality in less than two years?



Hardly likely if LG winds up being "the only game in town" as it pertains to suppliers of quality OLED panels. They'll probably charge the other manufacturers a premium for their OLED panels, which I suspect they will feature in only their top-tier models, filling the rest of their lineup with a variety of LCD panels. I don't see any manufacturers abandoning LCD tech entirely until long after production costs for OLED panels match that of LCDs.


----------



## Artwood

Will the day come when China dictates everything panel wise?


If OLED ends and LCD goes curved--what will happen to this forum?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_60#post_24702642
> 
> 
> I think you can not compare when no company had made a giant leap ahead of the rest in the LCD development process to having LG already having the large OLED TV panels manufacturing and supply market all to itself, which will make it almost impossible for Samsung to jump back in later, and offer their OLED TVs at a competitive retail price level, compared to what LG will be able to set for their product.


 

But that's exactly what happened: the later LCD companies "jumped in later" and managed to be just fine creating a competitive retail price level.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24703493
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's exactly what happened: the later LCD companies "jumped in later" and managed to be just fine creating a competitive retail price level.


1) Did those "late to the party" LCD companies have the same LCD tech as the pioneering ones?

 

Samsung (pentile RGB) and LG (WOLED) have, in sooth, the same tech in the sense that they have the same contrast, lifespan (I guess, blue in LG TVs live as long as blue in Sammy's), color gamut, viewing angles, the same sample&hold "motion blur", the same burn-in etc...

 

2) I mean if , for instance, one LCD company went first with the popularizing TN tech and in a couple of years another company went with the visibly improved version of TN or VA tech and the third company went with IPS I can see how there was place for every one. (However I don't know anything about LCD getting out there and becoming what it is today I'm just guessing)

 

I don't think there's anything Samsung can do to make their OLED TVs look any better than LG's.

 

 

3) The demand on LCDs was so high that any one could build a fab ( I guess, there was some kinda supplier of production equipment from whom every one could get "cheap" stuff they needed to make LCDs)  and have all of their merch sold in a heart beat.

 

4) There's not a lot of demand for OLEDs for now. As far as  I know, there's no production equipment supplier that can sell you stuff you need to make OLEDs ergo you have to come up with your own stuff which means Samsung are gonna have to reinvent the proverbial wheel to be able to make retail competitive OLED TVs, but as we all know reinventing such things costs money, boatloads of money.

 

LG's already starting to get some of portion of the R&D money back.

 

Sammy still keeps on pouring and pouring their money into R&D

 

5) Well, what that means is that Sammy is racing against the clock, here, the longer they wait (the more money they spend on R&D) the pricier their TVs are gonna have to be get returns on R&D money in a certain period of time...


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24702642
> 
> 
> I think you can not compare when no company had made a giant leap ahead of the rest in the LCD development process to having LG already having the large OLED TV panels manufacturing and supply market all to itself, which will make it almost impossible for Samsung to jump back in later, and offer their OLED TVs at a competitive retail price level, compared to what LG will be able to set for their product.



Everybody in the industry is working on exactly that "giant leap". Printing would allow a much lower cost structure than LG's approach and Samsung has likely poured more money into their efforts than anybody else in the industry. It doesnt guarantee a break through but we are seeing incremental steps in both the materials and the equipment.


Moreover, Samsung could duplicate LG's approach if they wished. LG is using the same method to lay down the OLED materials as Samsung does with their mobile OLED's, and Samsung is much much more efficient at it right now. The question would be how long it it would take Samsung to get commercial yields for an IGZO backplane. They have already invested in Sharp and a larger investment would likely buy them access to much of Sharp's know-how.


I guarantee there will be some reaction from Samsung if LGD manages to dominate the majority of the high-end television market by the end of next year.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24703592
> 
> 
> As far as  I know, there's no production equipment supplier that can sell you stuff you need to make OLEDs ergo you have to come up with your own stuff which means Samsung are gonna have to reinvent the proverbial wheel to be able to make retail competitive OLED TVs, but as we all know reinventing such things costs money, boatloads of money.



There is an OLED capital equipment supply chain made up mostly of Korean and Japanese companies. Samsung and LG arent creating the equipment on their own. That is how you see Chinese vendors putting up OLED pilot fabs right now.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_60#post_24703592
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24703493
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's exactly what happened: the later LCD companies "jumped in later" and managed to be just fine creating a competitive retail price level.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Did those "late to the party" LCD companies have the same LCD tech as the pioneering ones?
Click to expand...

 

Not the manufacturing techniques (which is where the rubber meets the road), not by a long shot.

 

And to a large extent to follow my point, it doesn't matter.  The point is that we cannot jump right to assuming that being first out the gate (especially with a bleeding edge yet to be proven technology) will somehow prevent another company from ever gaining entrance.  Using history as a judge, that would be placing far too much weight on our own ability to foresee all technological achievements to come in the next 5 years.


----------



## JazzGuyy

Historically, the first company to produce a technology has not always been the most successful. In fact, the first company has often been bypassed over time and even disappeared.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24703634
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24702642
> 
> 
> I think you can not compare when no company had made a giant leap ahead of the rest in the LCD development process to having LG already having the large OLED TV panels manufacturing and supply market all to itself, which will make it almost impossible for Samsung to jump back in later, and offer their OLED TVs at a competitive retail price level, compared to what LG will be able to set for their product.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody in the industry is working on exactly that "giant leap". Printing would allow a much lower cost structure than LG's approach and Samsung has likely poured more money into their efforts than anybody else in the industry. It doesnt guarantee a break through but we are seeing incremental steps in both the materials and the equipment.
> 
> 
> Moreover, *Samsung could duplicate LG's approach if they wished*. LG is using the same method to lay down the OLED materials as Samsung does with their mobile OLED's, and Samsung is much much more efficient at it right now. The question would be how long it it would take Samsung to get commercial yields for an IGZO backplane. They have already invested in Sharp and a larger investment would likely buy them access to much of Sharp's know-how.
> 
> 
> I guarantee there will be some reaction from Samsung if LGD manages to dominate the majority of the high-end television market by the end of next year.
Click to expand...


It would surprise me if that is correct. LG spent a great deal of money on the Patent Portfolio for WOLED and I doubt they have any interest in licensing those patents to Samsung or anyone anytime soon.


----------



## greenland

Historically: many companies have stopped manufacturing their own LCD and Plasma Panels, and not a single one of them has ever resumed making them.


Samsung would have to be the first company to do it, should they start manufacturing large OLED TV panels again. Too many things would have to break their way, for such a move to look financially attractive to them, and those breaks would have to be uniquely beneficial for Samsung, and not for other companies including those in China, for Samsung to be able to return to manufacturing OLED panels. It is a very long shot at best, that they ever will.


Keep in mind that it has yet to be proven that OLED can capture a larger segment of the market than Plasma was able to. There is a good chance that it will not.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24704085
> 
> 
> It would surprise me if that is correct. LG spent a great deal of money on the Patent Portfolio for WOLED and I doubt they have any interest in licensing those patents to Samsung or anyone anytime soon.



Samsung pretty clearly has a corporate philosophy of bringing products to market and letting the chips fall where they may. It makes sense considering the risk/reward of being excluded from a market versus the likely monetary damages for patent infringement (injunctions have become exceedingly rare).


Also, Samsung and LG already have a partial licensing agreement that was basically forced on them by the Korean government. If it doesnt already include WOLED, then I would imagine more pressure from the government if that is the path that Samsung chooses.


FWIW, there are a few different companies that are planning on using WOLED for mobile/TV's. Nothing on the market yet, but AUO, Japan Display and some Chinese vendors seem to think that they will be able to sell the products.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24704088
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that it has yet to be proven that OLED can capture a larger segment of the market than Plasma was able to. There is a good chance that it will not.


A little early to make a prediction either way since OLED has just now hit the $4k price floor whereas plasma did that years ago.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_60#post_24704088
> 
> 
> Historically: many companies have stopped manufacturing their own LCD and Plasma Panels, and not a single one of them has ever resumed making them.
> 
> 
> Samsung would have to be the first company to do it, should they start manufacturing large OLED TV panels again.


 

Greenland, I see the first sentence is a disconnect from the 2nd.

 

That there were LCD makers who left the field doesn't itself mean that the first one out the gate prevented others from entering.

 

I'm sorry, but LG is not going to necessarily prevent any other new approach to OLED.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> Also, Samsung and LG already have a partial licensing agreement that was basically forced on them by the Korean government. If it doesnt already include WOLED, then I would imagine more pressure from the government if that is the path that Samsung chooses.



That´s right and it could be Samsung switched the technology to produce an OLED TV to compete with LG (also IGZO and even WOLED is possible):


> Quote:
> Samsung officials in China have denied recent market rumors that “the company is terminating OLED TV production capacity expansion plans,”





> Quote:
> Samsung is just halting this year’s OLED production expansion plans, but this doesn’t mean it has given up on future expansion plans,” said Display Search China Analyst Robin Wu. “Those outside the industry have misunderstood.”





> Quote:
> The possibility of Samsung swapping large-sized OLED panel technology is still on the table, according to officials from leading Chinese display manufacturers BOE Technology Group and CSOT. Samsung’s halt of OLED TV panel production might be a sign of switching technology development routes, said Zheng Zhiyuan, Director, R&D, CSOT. An industry source commented Samsung’s actions “will not affect our OLED research progress, and allow us to define our development direction.





> Quote:
> The company had to halt OLED TV production because of risks associated to continual production expansions. It is possible that the company will turn to WOLED technology to manufacture large-sized OLEDs,” explained Zeng. *Samsung has signed many oxide-TFT backplane technology patent licenses, and has conducted plenty of research in this field, he continued. If Samsung clearly “changes course”, it will carve out a definite path for Chinese OLED manufacturers to develop large-sized OLED panels using oxide-TFT and small to midsized panels using FMM LTPS backplane technologies.*


 http://www.ledinside.com/news/2014/5/chinese_experts_samsung_large_sized_oled_panels_takes_a_break_from_rgb_technology 


Speculations that Samsung will abandon OLED technology for TVs and larger displays is completely wrong. They will be back with their own technology and their plan to abandon LCD for OLED in the premium and future display market is not changed.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24704395
> 
> 
> Greenland, I see the first sentence is a disconnect from the 2nd.
> 
> 
> That there were LCD makers who left the field doesn't itself mean that the first one out the gate prevented others from entering.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but LG is not going to necessarily prevent any other new approach to OLED.



Please quote my entire comment, and not just the start of it, which takes it out of context. You got upset recently when someone did that same thing to you.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_60#post_24706790
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24704395
> 
> 
> Greenland, I see the first sentence is a disconnect from the 2nd.
> 
> 
> That there were LCD makers who left the field doesn't itself mean that the first one out the gate prevented others from entering.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but LG is not going to necessarily prevent any other new approach to OLED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please quote my entire comment, and not just the start of it, which takes it out of context. You got upset recently when someone did that same thing to you.
Click to expand...

 

*No*, I got upset when someone *changed* the comment.  It's a different thing entirely.  He had removed a section of a sentence, closed the parenthesis, and put in a period.

 

People shouldn't be quoting entire strings of messages when there's only one part is being answered.

 

But you're right in that care must be taken, and I thought I did in your case.  How did I take you out of context?

 

EDIT: Retracted....I do see how I misunderstood what he was talking about.


----------



## greenland

Here is what I actually said, and it is very brief, and did not need to be shortened by you.


"Historically: many companies have stopped manufacturing their own LCD and Plasma Panels, and not a single one of them has ever resumed making them.


Samsung would have to be the first company to do it, should they start manufacturing large OLED TV panels again. Too many things would have to break their way, for such a move to look financially attractive to them, and those breaks would have to be uniquely beneficial for Samsung, and not for other companies including those in China, for Samsung to be able to return to manufacturing OLED panels. It is a very long shot at best, that they ever will.


Keep in mind that it has yet to be proven that OLED can capture a larger segment of the market than Plasma was able to. There is a good chance that it will not."



You took two lines of my comment out of context, when I posted a very brief comment, which focused entirely on the probability of Samsung returning to making their own OLED panels, after they had tried doing so once, and failed at it. I still feel that they will have a harder time persuading their management and board to try OLED TVs again.


Stop trying to draw me into long pointless arguments. I have a right to my opinion, and while on that subject, you got upset with Conan for being so condescending to others, yet you felt free to condescend to me with " I am sorry but" as your opening words when you truncated my comment merely to accommodate what you wished say.


I am done going back and forth with you.


----------



## markrubin

post (s) deleted


time to move on please


----------



## tgm1024


I go away for a short while and come back and discover a full moon over AVS.

 

Obviously I don't accept the analogy to Conan: me being upset with a post changed by fafrd (that he didn't intend as such) and Greenland being upset at me truncating his quote is not in any way similar to what transpired in Conan's tirade.

 

But to the point at hand, Beats me what Mark Rubin removed while I was gone briefly, but I do apologize for misunderstanding what Greenland was getting at.

 

It wasn't that I was *trying* to put him out of context specifically, it's that I mistook what he was saying for something dramatically different than what it was----so to me the post trim-down was a clean one.  Took a few reads for me to see what he meant, and he's right.  I'll be more careful next time.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24704088
> 
> 
> Historically: many companies have stopped manufacturing their own LCD and Plasma Panels, and not a single one of them has ever resumed making them.



But did Samsung ever really start manufacturing OLED in the first place? I'm not sure that a couple prototypes really count. This is not the same thing as companies who used to mass produce LCD or Plasma and then quit. Samsung never got to the mass-production stage.


I still hope they return because I think it's unlikely LG will ever produce a premium quality product. They are better as a budget brand.


LG's approach sucks for brightness due to the filters and low fill-factor/SDE. Since there is not much brightness headroom, you're forced to endure ABL and can't support pulsing/strobing for improved motion. They also seems to suffer from more uniformity issues.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24708112
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24704088
> 
> 
> Historically: many companies have stopped manufacturing their own LCD and Plasma Panels, and not a single one of them has ever resumed making them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did Samsung ever really start manufacturing OLED in the first place? I'm not sure that a couple prototypes really count. This is not the same thing as companies who used to mass produce LCD or Plasma and then quit. Samsung never got to the mass-production stage.
> 
> 
> I still hope they return because I think it's unlikely LG will ever produce a premium quality product. They are better as a budget brand.
> 
> 
> LG's approach sucks for brightness due to the filters and low fill-factor/SDE. Since there is not much brightness headroom, you're forced to endure ABL and can't support pulsing/strobing for improved motion. They also seems to suffer from more uniformity issues.
Click to expand...

Well Vinnie and Plague sure do seem to be having a rough time getting the thing to behave, that's for sure... :-/


----------



## Vegas oled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24708112
> 
> 
> 
> I still hope they return because I think it's unlikely LG will ever produce a premium quality product. They are better as a budget brand.
> 
> 
> LG's approach sucks for brightness due to the filters and low fill-factor/SDE. Since there is not much brightness headroom, you're forced to endure ABL and can't support pulsing/strobing for improved motion. They also seems to suffer from more uniformity issues.



The current LG approach to OLED blows the doors off of every LED and Plasma manufactured to date. I know someone who has seen the Samsung and LG OLED side by side and he felt the Samsung had a slightly better picture. It looks like the approach LG has taken will soon bring us a 77" 4K OLED that will again blow the doors off of any current 4K tv to date while Samsung's approach might have been better, it appears It was not cost effective and has caused them to have to stop OLED production.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> LG's approach sucks for brightness due to the filters and low fill-factor/SDE. Since there is not much brightness headroom, you're forced to endure ABL and can't support pulsing/strobing for improved motion. They also seems to suffer from more uniformity issues.



The 2014-Series from LG reaches 500cd/m² maximum brightness (before 350cd/m²) and the ABL is reduced to 200cd/m² (before 90cd/m²). The SDE effect even in 2D mode has something to do with the filtering mask for passive 3D (more space between the pixels is needed). You can see the same effect on their LCDs. With 4K the SDE is gone.


> Quote:
> I think it's unlikely LG will ever produce a premium quality product.



The same many said about Samsung not long time ago...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24709067
> 
> 
> The 2014-Series from LG reaches 500cd/m² maximum brightness (before 350cd/m²) and the ABL is reduced to 200cd/m² (before 90cd/m²).



That sounds pretty amazing. And very exciting.


> Quote:
> The SDE effect even in 2D mode has something to do with the filtering mask for passive 3D (more space between the pixels is needed). You can see the same effect on their LCDs.



You're talking about the film pattern retarded tech. You can see a small example of the vertical inter-pixel space that it "costs" to do this here:

 


> Quote:
> With 4K the SDE is gone.



It seems like there's still going to be some inter-pixel losses with the FPR technology, though. I mean I agree the screen-door is likely to be minimized/invisible due to tiny pixels. I'm just not sure the tech is "free" to use given it appears highly detrimental to fill factor.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24709109
> 
> 
> That sounds pretty amazing. And very exciting.



Yes, it´s even better than Samsung´s OLED-TV. Here is the press conference from the InnoFest 2014 in Europe (OLED developments at ca. 7:00):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ax7hv6R3uTU 


Samsung´s RGB solution only reaches an higher color gamut but in viewing angles, possible resolution, efficiency, ambient contrast and brightness LG´s WOLED solution is superior.


> Quote:
> It seems like there's still going to be some inter-pixel losses with the FPR technology, though. I mean I agree the screen-door is likely to be minimized/invisible due to tiny pixels.



That´s right and I hope LG will have also a passive 3D 1080p solution for their smaller 55" 4K OLED TVs. On the Sony 55X9005 - with passive 3D 4K panel from AUO, exists the same resolution loss than their passive 1080p panels, because AUO was not able to produce the FPR mask small enough. According to some owners even the SDE seems to be more visible than on the 65". Only the 65" reaches the full resolution in 1080p for passive 3D. But I don´t know how LG itself solved it on their current 4K LCDs under 65".


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24709067
> 
> 
> The 2014-Series from LG reaches 500cd/m² maximum brightness (before 350cd/m²) and the ABL is reduced to 200cd/m² (before 90cd/m²).



That's very interesting. Do you know if that would allow LG to introduce a black frame insertion (BFI) mode on their 2014 OLED models similar to that used on some LED sets? It would be a welcome alternative option to the current sample and hold technique.


> Quote:
> The SDE effect even in 2D mode has something to do with the filtering mask for passive 3D (more space between the pixels is needed). You can see the same effect on their LCDs. With 4K the SDE is gone.



Yeah, I can't help but think 4K is going to offer a number of advantages - not only in viewing passive 3D but also 2D, too.


Some listings for the new 2014 models have them at 240hz, in comparison with the 1080p set's 120hz. If true, I wonder what difference that will have as well.


Desk


----------



## conan48

I mentioned way back in the owners thread that I thought the visible lines were because of the FPR tech but Rogo shot that down right away and nobody brought it up again, even though someone else mentioned a similar effect on their LCD passive display.


I assume on a 4K display that lines will be equivalent to 1080 spacing, so you should not be able to see the SDE type horizontal lines unless you can see SDE on your current 1080p set. We should be good to go! unless you are bothered by SDE on a 1080p set.


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24707382
> 
> 
> I go away for a short while and come back and discover a full moon over AVS.
> 
> 
> Obviously I don't accept the analogy to Conan: me being upset with a post changed by fafrd (that he didn't intend as such) and Greenland being upset at me truncating his quote is not in any way similar to what transpired in Conan's tirade.
> 
> 
> But to the point at hand, Beats me what Mark Rubin removed while I was gone briefly, but I do apologize for misunderstanding what Greenland was getting at.
> 
> 
> It wasn't that I was _trying_ to put him out of context specifically, it's that I mistook what he was saying for something dramatically different than what it was----so to me the post trim-down was a clean one.  Took a few reads for me to see what he meant, and he's right.  I'll be more careful next time.



I don't tirade, merely speak the truth in a very AGGRESSIVE way










It's great that the thread I was banned from, finally proved OLEDs superior motion. apology accepted


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegas oled*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24708699
> 
> 
> The current LG approach to OLED blows the doors off of every LED and Plasma manufactured to date.


In many ways, but not all. There are still a number of issues to be addressed, and as such, one of their current OLEDs would not be suitable for my use.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24709067
> 
> 
> The 2014-Series from LG reaches 500cd/m² maximum brightness (before 350cd/m²) and the ABL is reduced to 200cd/m² (before 90cd/m²).


Well, it means that they have reduced the ABL effect from 75% brightness loss, to 60%. That's roughly on par with plasmas now.

Still far from CRTs with 5-10% loss, or LCDs with 0% loss though.


It also depends _when_ the ABL kicks in. Is it a gradual decline from 1% APL to 100% or can it maintain 500 nits brightness up to say 20% APL?

If I set the output to 200 nits, is the ABL still in effect (as it was with most plasmas) or is it disabled? (as with most CRTs)


The Kuro pro monitors had stability to about 50% APL before they started to dim the image, and that's the only plasma where I found the ABL to be remotely tolerable.

The regular Kuros started to dim the image at about 25% APL and it was very obvious to me with normal program content.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24710213
> 
> 
> I assume on a 4K display that lines will be equivalent to 1080 spacing, so you should not be able to see the SDE type horizontal lines unless you can see SDE on your current 1080p set.


Uh, that's a huge part in why I want 4K.

If it's as bad as you say, then I hope they start offering active 3D sets, so I can continue to ignore it and not have 3D support affect 2D image quality.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24710542
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegas oled*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24708699
> 
> 
> The current LG approach to OLED blows the doors off of every LED and Plasma manufactured to date.
> 
> 
> 
> In many ways, but not all. There are still a number of issues to be addressed, and as such, one of their current OLEDs would not be suitable for my use.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24709067
> 
> 
> The 2014-Series from LG reaches 500cd/m² maximum brightness (before 350cd/m²) and the ABL is reduced to 200cd/m² (before 90cd/m²).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it means that they have reduced the ABL effect from 75% brightness loss, to 60%. That's roughly on par with plasmas now.
> 
> Still far from CRTs with 5-10% loss, or LCDs with 0% loss though.
> 
> *It also depends when the ABL kicks in. Is it a gradual decline from 1% APL to 100% or can it maintain 500 nits brightness up to say 20% APL?
> 
> If I set the output to 200 nits, is the ABL still in effect (as it was with most plasmas) or is it disabled? (as with most CRTs)
> *
> 
> The Kuro pro monitors had stability to about 50% APL before they started to dim the image, and that's the only plasma where I found the ABL to be remotely tolerable.
> 
> The regular Kuros started to dim the image at about 25% APL and it was very obvious to me with normal program content.
Click to expand...


These are very good points you have raised regarding ABL. Has anyone characterized the ABL performance of the current Gen-1 LG WOLED TVs?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24710542
> 
> 
> Well, it means that they have reduced the ABL effect from 75% brightness loss, to 60%. That's roughly on par with plasmas now.
> 
> Still far from CRTs with 5-10% loss, or LCDs with 0% loss though.
> 
> 
> It also depends _when_ the ABL kicks in. Is it a gradual decline from 1% APL to 100% or can it maintain 500 nits brightness up to say 20% APL?
> 
> If I set the output to 200 nits, is the ABL still in effect (as it was with most plasmas) or is it disabled? (as with most CRTs)
> 
> 
> The Kuro pro monitors had stability to about 50% APL before they started to dim the image, and that's the only plasma where I found the ABL to be remotely tolerable.
> 
> The regular Kuros started to dim the image at about 25% APL and it was very obvious to me with normal program content.



The slide quotes 500 nits at 25% APL and 200 nits at 100% APL.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24709171
> 
> 
> Yes, it´s even better than Samsung´s OLED-TV. Here is the press conference from the InnoFest 2014 in Europe (OLED developments at ca. 7:00):
> 
> 
> Samsung´s RGB solution only reaches an higher color gamut but in viewing angles, possible resolution, efficiency, ambient contrast and brightness LG´s WOLED solution is superior.



Some of us have long been skeptical about the idea that Samsung = superior "because RGB."


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24710213
> 
> 
> I mentioned way back in the owners thread that I thought the visible lines were because of the FPR tech but Rogo shot that down right away and nobody brought it up again, even though someone else mentioned a similar effect on their LCD passive display.



Perhaps Rogo was hasty. He did, after all, go track down that slide he quoted in the above post.


> Quote:
> I assume on a 4K display that lines will be equivalent to 1080 spacing, so you should not be able to see the SDE type horizontal lines unless you can see SDE on your current 1080p set. We should be good to go! unless you are bothered by SDE on a 1080p set.



So let's not go there. If the vertical inter-pixel spacing is as bad on a 4K as it is on a 1080, that's really going to be unacceptable. The amount of light loss the 1080 experiences for the FPR (and whatever else is in the "rows") is pretty extreme... It looks like it's giving up perhaps 1/3 of the display to darkness). If it needs to put in twice as many of those rows on a 4K display because it can't shrink them anymore, that would be really bad. I'm just going to guess that the 4K FPR uses a much smaller vertical inter-pixel line.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24710542
> 
> 
> Well, it means that they have reduced the ABL effect from 75% brightness loss, to 60%. That's roughly on par with plasmas now.



There are plasmas that can do 500 nits? Not in any kind of real-world use.


> Quote:
> If I set the output to 200 nits, is the ABL still in effect (as it was with most plasmas) or is it disabled? (as with most CRTs)



It would seem to be unneeded, but your question is important.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24710606
> 
> 
> These are very good points you have raised regarding ABL. Has anyone characterized the ABL performance of the current Gen-1 LG WOLED TVs?


Plasma ABL irritates a minority as it is...OLED ABL will be even less noticeable due to its inherent ability to go brighter.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660_60#post_24710707
> 
> 
> So let's not go there. If the vertical inter-pixel spacing is as bad on a 4K as it is on a 1080, that's really going to be unacceptable. The amount of light loss the 1080 experiences for the FPR (and whatever else is in the "rows") is pretty extreme... It looks like it's giving up perhaps 1/3 of the display to darkness). If it needs to put in twice as many of those rows on a 4K display because it can't shrink them anymore, that would be really bad. I'm just going to guess that the 4K FPR uses a much smaller vertical inter-pixel line.


 

.......as evidenced by the 2013 XBR-65X900A.  That was a 4K FPR (1080 vertical in 3d) and I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that the interspacial black-out was in any way a concern.  The TV was awesome and the 3D spectacular.  Note: don't confuse this with the 55" version of the same model, which is 540 vertical in 3D.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24710764
> 
> 
> Plasma ABL irritates a minority as it is...OLED ABL will be even less noticeable due to its inherent ability to go brighter.



The 600M seems to have much more aggressive ABL than the 65ZT60. It bothers me on the Pioneer because often changes to other areas of the image cause a change in flesh tones.

ABL is not always bad, especially for dark-room movie viewing, but then again, you could just turn the brightness down and the display look hopeless dim in the showroom.


I changed my mind, ABL is bad

















- Rich


----------



## vinnie97

That's interesting to hear that stock ABL is worse on the 600M versus the ZT60. You should ring up pg_ICE and get that sorted.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660_60#post_24710823
> 
> 
> That's interesting to hear that stock ABL is worse on the 600M versus the ZT60. You should ring up pg_ICE and get that sorted.


 

BTW, just for yucks I was just looking up prices on the remaining 65" ST/VT/ZT's on amazon.  Holy crap, they're going up.  Bit of a panic out there?


----------



## vinnie97

haha, yes. The ZT hit $10k at one point. Less panic and more opportunism methinks.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660_60#post_24710849
> 
> 
> haha, yes. The ZT hit $10k at one point. Less panic and more opportunism methinks.


 

....or people are googling "apocalypse" and reading Artwood's 3000 posts on LCD....


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24710542
> 
> 
> In many ways, but not all. There are still a number of issues to be addressed, and as such, one of their current OLEDs would not be suitable for my use.
> 
> Well, it means that they have reduced the ABL effect from 75% brightness loss, to 60%. That's roughly on par with plasmas now.
> 
> Still far from CRTs with 5-10% loss, or LCDs with 0% loss though.
> 
> 
> It also depends _when_ the ABL kicks in. Is it a gradual decline from 1% APL to 100% or can it maintain 500 nits brightness up to say 20% APL?
> 
> If I set the output to 200 nits, is the ABL still in effect (as it was with most plasmas) or is it disabled? (as with most CRTs)
> 
> 
> The Kuro pro monitors had stability to about 50% APL before they started to dim the image, and that's the only plasma where I found the ABL to be remotely tolerable.
> 
> The regular Kuros started to dim the image at about 25% APL and it was very obvious to me with normal program content.
> 
> 
> Uh, that's a huge part in why I want 4K.
> 
> If it's as bad as you say, then I hope they start offering active 3D sets, so I can continue to ignore it and not have 3D support affect 2D image quality.



It's not really that bad, and I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker unless you are very sensitive to SDE. I don't think you would notice it if you were to sit more then 7 feet away. I don't think most people would notice it, unless your are one of us "freaks". LOL (yes, I'm one too) I sit within 6 feet and it's occasionally visible. I REALLY want the 4k set for the 3D though. I can't imagine how great it would look with 1080p per eye, and passive.


LG will never offer active as the FPR layer is their tech, and all LG will be passive for the foreseeable future. Passive is 100% better then active on a 4k set, and I doubt we will even ever see 3D at 4k, and if ever came out, then I'd have to wait for an 8k OLED (4K each eye)


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24710707
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ALMA*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24709171
> 
> 
> Yes, it´s even better than Samsung´s OLED-TV. Here is the press conference from the InnoFest 2014 in Europe (OLED developments at ca. 7:00):
> 
> 
> Samsung´s RGB solution only reaches an higher color gamut but in viewing angles, possible resolution, efficiency, ambient contrast and brightness LG´s WOLED solution is superior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us have long been skeptical about the idea that Samsung = superior "because RGB."
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9630#post_24710213
> 
> 
> I mentioned way back in the owners thread that I thought the visible lines were because of the FPR tech but Rogo shot that down right away and nobody brought it up again, even though someone else mentioned a similar effect on their LCD passive display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Perhaps Rogo was hasty. He did, after all, go track down that slide he quoted in the above post.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> I assume on a 4K display that lines will be equivalent to 1080 spacing, so you should not be able to see the SDE type horizontal lines unless you can see SDE on your current 1080p set. We should be good to go! unless you are bothered by SDE on a 1080p set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's not go there. If the vertical inter-pixel spacing is as bad on a 4K as it is on a 1080, that's really going to be unacceptable. The amount of light loss the 1080 experiences for the FPR (and whatever else is in the "rows") is pretty extreme... It looks like it's giving up perhaps 1/3 of the display to darkness). If it needs to put in twice as many of those rows on a 4K display because it can't shrink them anymore, that would be really bad. I'm just going to guess that the 4K FPR uses a much smaller vertical inter-pixel line.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24710542
> 
> 
> Well, it means that they have reduced the ABL effect from 75% brightness loss, to 60%. That's roughly on par with plasmas now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plasmas that can do 500 nits? Not in any kind of real-world use.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> If I set the output to 200 nits, is the ABL still in effect (as it was with most plasmas) or is it disabled? (as with most CRTs)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would seem to be unneeded, but your question is important.
Click to expand...


Rogo,


thanks for tracking down that old slide. I am still confused about one point: is this FPR (or whatever - the large black gaps needed between rows) only needed because of the passive 3D technology or would these gaps also be needed in a 2D-only WOLED?


If the gaps are needed in any case, then fine, and 3D capability is icing on the cake.


If these large inter-line gaps are only needed because of the passive 3D and a 2D-only WOLED would both be brighter and have less visible DSE, then LG has been boneheaded and would have been better served by taking a page out of VIzio's 2014 playbook (or at least offered both brighter 2D-only and standard 2D/3D sets...).


3D is fine, but not when it means sacrificing 2D PQ.


----------



## tgm1024

Fight'n words they be...


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24710707
> 
> 
> There are plasmas that can do 500 nits? Not in any kind of real-world use.


The ABL performance (how much it dims, and when that starts) sounds like it will be similar to plasmas - the amount of light output seems like it would be quite a bit brighter with the 2014 OLEDs though.

If it starts to dim the display around 25% APL, then it's going to be too noticeable for me. Around 50% is when it stops being something I notice _all the time_, and only becomes an annoyance some of the time.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24710707
> 
> 
> It would seem to be unneeded, but your question is important.


I wish they would just have an "ABL Off" option buried somewhere in the menus that limits the maximum light output (to say 200 nits instead of 500) rather than hoping that reducing the contrast enough will eliminate it, or having to spend the time to figure out what point the ABL stops being in effect.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24710764
> 
> 
> Plasma ABL irritates a minority as it is...OLED ABL will be even less noticeable due to its inherent ability to go brighter.


Some people just think that's how television is supposed to look - especially if they're used to global dimming LCDs.

The higher brightness may make the effects of ABL more noticeable, rather than less.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24710982
> 
> 
> It's not really that bad, and I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker unless you are very sensitive to SDE. I don't think you would notice it if you were to sit more then 7 feet away. I don't think most people would notice it, unless your are one of us "freaks". LOL (yes, I'm one too) I sit within 6 feet and it's occasionally visible.


Well you say that SDE on a 4K display with passive 3D is equivalent to a 1080p native display, which removes one of the big advantages of 4K.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24710982
> 
> 
> LG will never offer active as the FPR layer is their tech, and all LG will be passive for the foreseeable future.


I would rather do without 3D then. Perhaps they can leave passive 3D to their curved displays, keep the flat ones for people that want the best image quality.

I would sacrifice some brightness to do without that white subpixel too.


----------



## Desk.

Nobody,'s answered this yet, but does the increased brightness in the upcoming 2014 models suggest that they might be capable of a black frame insertion means of handling motion?


Desk


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24711249
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24710707
> 
> 
> There are plasmas that can do 500 nits? Not in any kind of real-world use.
> 
> 
> 
> The ABL performance (how much it dims, and when that starts) sounds like it will be similar to plasmas - the amount of light output seems like it would be quite a bit brighter with the 2014 OLEDs though.
> 
> If it starts to dim the display around 25% APL, then it's going to be too noticeable for me. Around 50% is when it stops being something I notice _all the time_, and only becomes an annoyance some of the time.
Click to expand...


What is the technical basis of ABL? Too much power / heat associated with a high enough APL result in damage? And if so, why is there not just a hard limit at the appropriate APL? Because the want to try to 'smooth out' the effect of the ABL kicking in? Maybe that is the point you were trying to make.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24710707
> 
> 
> It would seem to be unneeded, but your question is important.


I wish they would just have an "ABL Off" option buried somewhere in the menus that limits the maximum light output (to say 200 nits instead of 500) rather than hoping that reducing the contrast enough will eliminate it, or having to spend the time to figure out what point the ABL stops being in effect..[/quote]


Yeah, or have a brightness threshold where you want it to kick in at a reduce level (maybe 10%).


So then you could either keep it off all the way to 200 Nits and then have it kick in 100% or if you did want something less abrupt, you could set a threshold of 150 Nits (75% APL) where it could dim by 10% of APL-150 Nits and go linearly from there (so dim by 50% of APL - 175 Nits, 90% of APL - 195 Nits, etc...).


In any case, the increase to 200 Nits ought to be good news.


----------



## rogo

1) It would seem certain that vertical inter-pixel spacing could be reduced if the film-patterned retarder were left out. That would, of course, mean no 3-D. It's also true there would still be some gapping between pixels, just likely much less.


2) I just think Chron is wrong about ABL on many levels. It doesn't go on for giggles. It goes on because the power budget was finite on plasmas (and might be for OLEDs). If you can have a full-screen 200 nits image, you can certainly have an ABL free image at 200 nits. Now, Chron is right that you'd need an option to make that so. But it's very doable. On most plasmas made after 2009 (or so, someone would have to confirm when the second-to-last round of Energy Star hit), you could not make an ABL-free plasma that would be acceptably bright at all. It was not possible.


3) It's certainly possible LG will implement ABL really really poorly and make it take out a fixed percentage of brightness as the average picture level rises. I'd say that's crazy, but then I'd also note that 2 years ago it would have been easy to write,"It's also possible they'll do something insane like focus on making curved displays almost to the exclusion of flat ones. And they'll claim that's better."


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24711527
> 
> 
> 1) It would seem certain that vertical inter-pixel spacing could be reduced if the film-patterned retarder were left out. That would, of course, mean no 3-D. It's also true there would still be some gapping between pixels, just likely much less..



There were some posts while back comparing the LG WOLED 'single-street-per-line' layout versus the Sharp 'single-street per dual-line' layout. If that issue just comes down film-patterned retarder to support passive 3D and without it the WOLED panels could be brighter and would have less noticeable SDE (like the Sharp Q+ panels), I think LG made a bad call. Maybe after Vizio proves that there is demand for TVs with better PQ and no 3D, LG will take a page out of Vizio's playbook. Among other things, more brightness for the same power consumption would result in higher ABL limits in terms of brightness as well as more latitude in the use of BFI to reduce persistence/motion blur.


Maybe for generation 3 mid 2015? (right when WOLED prices are supposed to drop by 50%







)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24711527
> 
> 
> 2) I just think Chron is wrong about ABL on many levels. It doesn't go on for giggles. It goes on because the power budget was finite on plasmas (and might be for OLEDs). If you can have a full-screen 200 nits image, you can certainly have an ABL free image at 200 nits. Now, Chron is right that you'd need an option to make that so. But it's very doable. *On most plasmas made after 2009 (or so, someone would have to confirm when the second-to-last round of Energy Star hit), you could not make an ABL-free plasma that would be acceptably bright at all. It was not possible.
> *
> 
> 3) It's certainly possible LG will implement ABL really really poorly and make it take out a fixed percentage of brightness as the average picture level rises. I'd say that's crazy, but then I'd also note that 2 years ago it would have been easy to write,"It's also possible they'll do something insane like focus on making curved displays almost to the exclusion of flat ones. And they'll claim that's better."



So is ABL purely to meet Energy Star requirements? Nothing related to panel reduced lifetime or damage/reliability when power consumption goes too high?


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24711527
> 
> 
> 2) I just think Chron is wrong about ABL on many levels. It doesn't go on for giggles.


I don't suggest otherwise. I know that it's there for a reason.

However, it bothers me so much that I would take a dimmer display which does not have a fluctuating brightness based on picture content, than a brighter set which does.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24711527
> 
> 
> It goes on because the power budget was finite on plasmas (and might be for OLEDs). If you can have a full-screen 200 nits image, you can certainly have an ABL free image at 200 nits. Now, Chron is right that you'd need an option to make that so. But it's very doable. On most plasmas made after 2009 (or so, someone would have to confirm when the second-to-last round of Energy Star hit), you could not make an ABL-free plasma that would be acceptably bright at all. It was not possible.


This is the key thing - whether or not it's possible to bypass the ABL at lower brightness outputs.


With any of the CRTs I previously owned, when you reduced the contrast, you also reduced the strength of the ABL - so that any of the CRTs I encountered dimmed the image by less than 10% between a 1% APL and 100% APL pattern, when calibrated to a reference brightness level. (which is only 100 nits)

With any of the plasmas that I tested, reducing the contrast _did not_ reduce the strength of the ABL. It simply reduced the light output, but they would still dim the image by 60%, going from 100 nits at 1% APL to 40 nits at 100% APL. (very dim) There was no need for them to do this, other than it seemingly being a fixed circuit rather than a dynamic one based on power consumption.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9600_100#post_24711527
> 
> 
> 3) It's certainly possible LG will implement ABL really really poorly and make it take out a fixed percentage of brightness as the average picture level rises. I'd say that's crazy, but then I'd also note that 2 years ago it would have been easy to write,"It's also possible they'll do something insane like focus on making curved displays almost to the exclusion of flat ones. And they'll claim that's better."


While I can't be certain until one has been measured, from the information we have here it sounds like the 2014 OLEDs start at 500 nits, should be reasonably stable out to 25% APL where the limiter kicks in, at which point it gradually dims the brightness down to 40%. (200 nits)


This sounds almost exactly like the ABL behavior of the "9G" Kuro televisions, but at a higher brightness. (therefore better)

The "9.5G" Kuro monitors had a more robust power supply and while they still dimmed the image down to 40% brightness at 100% APL, the brightness limiter did not kick in until 50% APL rather than 25%.


But what you could do with the pro monitors, was enable one of the energy saving modes, which would cause its ABL to operate very similarly to the "9G" consumer models.

So I have first-hand experience comparing what it is like to have an ABL that starts at ~25% or ~50% depending on how it is set. (and my Sony LCD also has a 100% optional ABL with three levels)


I found the brightness fluctuations to be very obvious when the limiter was set to activate at 25% APL.

It was still noticeable at 50% APL, but _far_ less intrusive - something I could live with if it were necessary, but which I would still prefer to avoid.


With a computer hooked up or playing a bright video game, rather than watching films, dimming by anything more than about 10% could be very obvious.


----------



## rogo

Sony, which wasn't actually doing anything on OLED TVs, is now still not doing anything to produce OLED TVs....

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/12/5711470/sony-reportedly-ditching-pricey-oled-tvs-for-cheaper-4k-lcd-sets 


----


Also, Chron, good post above. Noted and upvoted.


----------



## Rich Peterson

^^^ Here's the article that most of the reports were based on: http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Sony-benches-OLED-TVs-for-4K-sets 


If this article is accurate, it doesn't look good for Sony selling consumer OLEDs for a long time.


> Quote:
> Sony continued development work alone this year after it dissolved its collaborative tie-up with Panasonic at the end of 2013. Sony will reassign the people now working to develop OLED TVs at the Atsugi Technology Center and elsewhere to other tasks, including development of 4K-related products.


.


----------



## ALMA

For me ABL reduction only to 200cd/m² (white picture) is very good and more than enough. Even in daylight I never need more than that (100-150cd/m² is fine for me) and also in stores it´s bright enough to compete with LCD. 500cd/m² is also comparable to LCD maximum brightness. LG´s OLED first generation looks very good in stores against all the LCDs around it. Colors are bright and pop, high contrast, perfect black level, much better viewing angle, even in well lit stores:

http://www.hifi-forum.de/bild/2014-05-09-112421_432194.html (on the left side that´s the Samsung 55HU8509 for 3999€, the LG costs the same and I know what I would prefer picture wise in this comparision...)


I can´t really see a problem here with the 200cd/m² limitation for a white screen. Currently Plasmas only reaches 40-60cd/m² and it´s 110cd/m² more than the 2013 OLED generation.


About SDE: Talked with some LG 55" 4K-LCD owners and they said their 55" sets doesn´t have the SDE effect from the Sony. It´s seems to be an exclusive Sony and AUO problem with their passive tech.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24712323
> 
> 
> If this article is accurate, it doesn't look good for Sony selling consumer OLEDs for a long time.
> 
> .



This remains confusing people, so let me remind....

*Sony hasn't developed a flat panel TV since, well, basically ever.**


They sold other people's PDPs and other people's LCDs. They still sell the latter; they long ago stopped selling the former.


The idea they were going to become a primary supplier of OLED modules was _always_ a fantasy. Now, we can lay that fantasy to rest for good.


Perhaps people can get similarly real about Panasonic, too.


I remain firmly of the opinion that neither company will even be a TV maker within a few years (though the Sony brand will likely be licensed to a Chinese company and put on their products for sale as a "prestige" line).


* If you total up every single XEL-1 11" OLED sold with every single OLED broadcast monitor Sony has sold, you will not be anywhere near 100,000 units.


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> If this article is accurate, it doesn't look good for Sony selling consumer OLEDs for a long time.



It doesn´t mean that they never will sell an OLED consumer TV. They´ll only not produced the panel itself, like currently did with LCD.


----------



## 8mile13

So, Sony is not going to buy LG OLED panels..


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24712661
> 
> 
> This remains confusing people, so let me remind....
> 
> *Sony hasn't developed a flat panel TV since, well, basically ever.**
> 
> 
> They sold other people's PDPs and other people's LCDs. They still sell the latter; they long ago stopped selling the former.
> 
> 
> The idea they were going to become a primary supplier of OLED modules was _always_ a fantasy. Now, we can lay that fantasy to rest for good.
> 
> 
> Perhaps people can get similarly real about Panasonic, too.
> 
> 
> I remain firmly of the opinion that neither company will even be a TV maker within a few years (though the Sony brand will likely be licensed to a Chinese company and put on their products for sale as a "prestige" line).
> 
> 
> * If you total up every single XEL-1 11" OLED sold with every single OLED broadcast monitor Sony has sold, you will not be anywhere near 100,000 units.



Too bad they didn't pursue their true LED TV. I think they called it Crystal or something. Had RGB LEDs per pixel and supposedly even bested OLED picture, but the cost......


Sony did develop SXRD, which is a great projection technology, but I was always surprised they couldn't get thier own flat panel tech going, or even make there own panels. Still have two trinitron CRTs, those were some nice TVs.


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24711681
> 
> 
> There were some posts while back comparing the LG WOLED 'single-street-per-line' layout versus the Sharp 'single-street per dual-line' layout. If that issue just comes down film-patterned retarder to support passive 3D and without it the WOLED panels could be brighter and would have less noticeable SDE (like the Sharp Q+ panels), I think LG made a bad call. Maybe after Vizio proves that there is demand for TVs with better PQ and no 3D, LG will take a page out of Vizio's playbook. Among other things, more brightness for the same power consumption would result in higher ABL limits in terms of brightness as well as more latitude in the use of BFI to reduce persistence/motion blur.
> 
> 
> Maybe for generation 3 mid 2015? (right when WOLED prices are supposed to drop by 50%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> So is ABL purely to meet Energy Star requirements? Nothing related to panel reduced lifetime or damage/reliability when power consumption goes too high?



I hope Vizio goes down in flames for not supporting 3D. If you look in the forums, many people actually really liked there Vizio, BECAUSE it had passive 3D, compared to Samsung and Sony who were mostly active. While 3D didn't help sell many TVs, people who are now upgrading because they want/need to and not because of 3D, are actually finding they are really enjoying it! I have 3 friends who within the last year have purchased televisions, and all of them finally gave 3D a try and they all really enjoy it. So, they didn't buy specifically for 3D, but now that they have it, they are purchasing 3D blurays, and I'm noticing this trend throughout the forums. Vizio, made a mistake, and I REALLY hope people don't buy thier non 3D models.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660_60#post_24713067
> 
> 
> Too bad they didn't pursue their true LED TV. I think they called it Crystal or something. Had RGB LEDs per pixel and supposedly even bested OLED picture, but the cost......


 

"Crystal LED".  That is something that I've lamented for a long time now.  Rogo quickly squashed those dreams with his infernal experience in this industry though.  LOL....


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660_60#post_24713081
> 
> 
> I hope Vizio goes down in flames for not supporting 3D.


 
+1.  The @#$%ers....
 


> Quote:
> If you look in the forums, many people actually really liked there Vizio, BECAUSE it had passive 3D, compared to Samsung and Sony who were mostly active. While 3D didn't help sell many TVs, people who are now upgrading because they want/need to and not because of 3D, are actually finding they are really enjoying it! I have 3 friends who within the last year have purchased televisions, and all of them finally gave 3D a try and they all really enjoy it. So, they didn't buy specifically for 3D, but now that they have it, they are purchasing 3D blurays, and I'm noticing this trend throughout the forums. Vizio, made a mistake, and I REALLY hope people don't buy thier non 3D models.


 

Again, +1 to all the points you've made (+3?).  I've also seen similar comments in the R550A thread.  Yes, it's likely a small number.  But for me, no 3D, and no way Jose am I buying it.


----------



## Mrke1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24713081
> 
> 
> I hope Vizio goes down in flames for not supporting 3D. If you look in the forums, many people actually really liked there Vizio, BECAUSE it had passive 3D, compared to Samsung and Sony who were mostly active. While 3D didn't help sell many TVs, people who are now upgrading because they want/need to and not because of 3D, are actually finding they are really enjoying it! I have 3 friends who within the last year have purchased televisions, and all of them finally gave 3D a try and they all really enjoy it. So, they didn't buy specifically for 3D, but now that they have it, they are purchasing 3D blurays, and I'm noticing this trend throughout the forums. Vizio, made a mistake, and I REALLY hope people don't buy thier non 3D models.



3D never caught on by masses.(Vizio's target) Therefore dropping 3D will not impact which TV the masses chose to buy.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24712661
> 
> *Sony hasn't developed a flat panel TV since, well, basically ever.**
> 
> 
> They sold other people's PDPs and other people's LCDs. They still sell the latter; they long ago stopped selling the former.
> 
> 
> The idea they were going to become a primary supplier of OLED modules was _always_ a fantasy. Now, we can lay that fantasy to rest for good.
> 
> .



The key point is: according to the article, earlier this year they had engineers assigned to produce OLED TV and now they have reassigned them.


----------



## slacker711

Not that it means much at all, but a Sony spokesman denied the rumor.


Regardless, I would guess that the absolute earliest that Sony might have produced their own OLED televsion would have been 2016, and even that would have been stretch. The only real question they have for the next two years is whether they will resell LG Display's panels and I have no idea whether this rumor impacts that rumor







.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660_60#post_24713435
> 
> 
> Not that it means much at all, but a Sony spokesman denied the rumor.
> 
> 
> Regardless, I would guess that the absolute earliest that Sony might have produced their own OLED televsion would have been 2016, and even that would have been stretch. The only real question they have for the next two years is whether they will resell LG Display's panels and I have no idea whether this rumor impacts that rumor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


 

I have to wonder if Sony/Panasonic/Samsung crowd have long been panicking about having their flagships suddenly be beholden to LG and as a result are re-tripling their efforts in other emission-based tech (CLED/QD/whatever).  If those three above decide to stay in, regardless of how ludicrous the idea of them surviving might seem right now, perhaps a sink-or-swim thing has been going on that will eventually benefit everyone.

 

The last thing in the world I want is a single manufacturer of something considered "the" TV technology, so I hope the "top-tier" guys survive this one.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24713465
> 
> 
> I have to wonder if Sony/Panasonic/Samsung crowd have long been panicking about having their flagships suddenly be beholden to LG and as a result are re-tripling their efforts in other emission-based tech (CLED/QD/whatever).  If those three above decide to stay in, regardless of how ludicrous the idea of them surviving might seem right now, perhaps a sink-or-swim thing has been going on that will eventually benefit everyone.
> 
> 
> The last thing in the world I want is a single manufacturer of something considered "the" TV technology, so I hope the "top-tier" guys survive this one.



Sony is irrelevant from a manufacturing perspective. Samsung matters, and I think that they will have to figure out a way to respond if LGD hits their targets. My guess is that any monopoly that LGD has over OLED television production would only last for two years or so until Samsung and the Chinese vendors either duplicated LG's approach or managed to move to printable displays.


That being said, if you want an OLED television in 2015 or 2016, you are going to be buying a panel from LG Display.


----------



## virusc

 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/13/sony_bosses_return_bonuses/ 


"Sony said it will put a hold on development of OLED (organic-light emitting diode) tellies and focus on 4K high-def goggleboxes to get its business back on track."



Not good.


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24713963
> 
> 
> Yes, I see that now. Here's one of the retraction articles: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/home-theater/sony-denies-abandoning-oled-tv-market/777



And here's yet another article stating the contrary from Nikkei Asian Review:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/05/sony-puts-oled-tv-development-on-hold-focuses-on-4k-tvs/


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24713136
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> +1.  The @#$%ers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Again, +1 to all the points you've made (+3?).  I've also seen similar comments in the R550A thread.  Yes, it's likely a small number.  But for me, no 3D, and no way Jose am I buying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


At least we agree on something. LOL.



I think the problem was all the TV manufacturers were trying to push 3D REEEAAALLLY hard as the reason to buy a TV and replace the TV you just bought last year for example. When TV sales didn't go up (mostly economic) they just blame 3D, but I find that once people give 3D a chance at home, the consensus is generally positive, especially when it comes to passive.


So while people were not buying TVs JUST for 3D, I think now that they have experienced at home, or a friends house, etc, It's a feature that they will be interested in at the very least, and Vizio will not even offer an option to the consumer. I hope Vizio sales drop as a result and people send them a message, and while 3D is not huge in North America, it's doing much better in Europe and Asia, so 3D will be around for the foreseeable future.


Even if only a few great 3D movies come out each year (Life of Pi, Gravity, etc) that are praised by fans and critics for their use of 3D, then I'd want the option to view them in 3D. Vizio is silly for dropping 3D because passive is much better regarded by the generally public, half resolution and all. How much could that extra FPR layer really cost? cheap bastards.


Back on topic......the 3D on the LG OLED is best in class, and it's one of the reasons I'm buying the 65" model when it comes out. If LG dropped 3D from thier OLED then they will lose me as a customer 100%


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660_60#post_24713494
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24713465
> 
> 
> I have to wonder if Sony/Panasonic/Samsung crowd have long been panicking about having their flagships suddenly be beholden to LG and as a result are re-tripling their efforts in other emission-based tech (CLED/QD/whatever).  If those three above decide to stay in, regardless of how ludicrous the idea of them surviving might seem right now, perhaps a sink-or-swim thing has been going on that will eventually benefit everyone.
> 
> 
> The last thing in the world I want is a single manufacturer of something considered "the" TV technology, so I hope the "top-tier" guys survive this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sony is irrelevant from a manufacturing perspective.
Click to expand...

 

Sure, but that's been true for years.  Never stopped them from producing fantastic high end TVs: they are not irrelevant from a *technology* perspective.  They are certainly free to develop something whizzbang (


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24714381
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24713998
> 
> 
> And here's yet another article stating the contrary from Nikkei Asian Review:
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/05/sony-puts-oled-tv-development-on-hold-focuses-on-4k-tvs/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's keep this in sequencial order. First, Nikkei Asian Review published this article claiming Sony had pulled back on OLED. Then several web sites picked up the article quoting Nikkei as the source (including this link). I saw it at least a dozen sites. Then later a Sony spokesperson denied it was true and I just posted a link to that denial.
Click to expand...


I suspect all of the confusion here is being caused by confabulating the manufacturing of OLED TVs and the manufacturing of the OLED panels from which those TVs are made.


Sony and Panasonic were dabbling in finding new and better ways to manufacture OLED panels and all of that is apparently dead now. There were some engineers involved in that work and they are now going to be reassigned to other tasks.


Sony is likely still interested in the OLED TV market and is likely to be working on and will possibly enter the market with OLED TVs they have designed around LGs WOLED panels. Those engineers are probably continuing to work on the design (and improvement) of WOLED TVs.


As Rogo has already pointed out several times, it was exceedingly unlikely that Sony was ever going to get into the manufacture of OLED panels to begin with. And it is almost a certainty that as the OLED market matures (we hope







), it will follow the pattern already established in the Plasma and LCD markets: one or more OLED panel manufacturers supplying the OLED panels for the OEMs like Sony and others to design and market OLED TV products.


[EDIT: The only comment at odds with this reading is the comment by the 'U.S. Sony Electronics spokesperson' regarding the XEL-1. What size is the XEL-1 and what larger size follow-up of the XEL-1 did Sony showcase at this years CES? Whatever that was, they are trying to imply that it is not dead, but I suspect it was not a TV in any case. - *I know see that that entire referenced article including the quote was from 2009 - so this entire paragraph can be ignored.* OLED panel development at Sony dead, OLED TV development based on panels from other suppliers such as LG probably not dead (yet)]


----------



## slacker711

The article about the XEL-1 was from 2009.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24714707
> 
> 
> The article about the XEL-1 was from 2009.



You are right and I posted that. I removed my post.


So where did you see that Sony denied it?


----------



## rmongiovi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24710707
> 
> 
> Some of us have long been skeptical about the idea that Samsung = superior "because RGB."



Please. It's not "Samsung = superior because RGB." It's "Samsung = superior because Math."


----------



## slacker711

Note that I dont think that this kind of denial means much, just that there is nothing official. The original report came from the Japanese version of the WSJ so while they might be wrong, they have a good track record.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/international/sony-execs-lose-bonuses/1104052.html 


> Quote:
> A Sony spokesman denied a Kyodo News report on Tuesday that the company will suspend the development of OLED (organic light-emitting diode) televisions.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24714707
> 
> 
> The article about the XEL-1 was from 2009.



Oh, the entire article including the quote was from 2009 - I'll edit my post as well...


----------



## barth2k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24713494
> 
> 
> Sony is irrelevant from a manufacturing perspective. Samsung matters, and I think that they will have to figure out a way to respond if LGD hits their targets. My guess is that any monopoly that LGD has over OLED television production would only last for two years or so until Samsung and the Chinese vendors either duplicated LG's approach or managed to move to printable displays.
> 
> 
> That being said, if you want an OLED television in 2015 or 2016, you are going to be buying a panel from LG Display.



It's bizarre to me that everyone has ceded manufacturing of display panels to one country. Seems like it's a pretty important business to be in.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barth2k*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24715454
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24713494
> 
> 
> Sony is irrelevant from a manufacturing perspective. Samsung matters, and I think that they will have to figure out a way to respond if LGD hits their targets. My guess is that any monopoly that LGD has over OLED television production would only last for two years or so until Samsung and the Chinese vendors either duplicated LG's approach or managed to move to printable displays.
> 
> 
> That being said, if you want an OLED television in 2015 or 2016, you are going to be buying a panel from LG Display.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's bizarre to me that everyone has ceded manufacturing of display panels to one country. Seems like it's a pretty important business to be in.
Click to expand...


Well, 2 things:


It's only for now (still early days).
FALD LED/LCD will keep LG honest (55" 1080p FALD for $1000 and 65" 4K FALD for $3-4K will keep LG from trying to raise OLED prices artificially high - they're plate will be full just trying to keep their manufacturing line filled while trying to compete against those prices for the next few years).


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*
> 
> Note that I dont think that this kind of denial means much, just that there is nothing official. The original report came from the Japanese version of the WSJ so while they might be wrong, they have a good track record.
> 
> http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/international/sony-execs-lose-bonuses/1104052.html
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> A Sony spokesman denied a Kyodo News report on Tuesday that the company will suspend the development of OLED (organic light-emitting diode) televisions.
Click to expand...

Sony will still be working on their OLED monitors. And probably will stop OLED TV plans for the time being.


btw In april there should have been a 30'' (and 56'') 4K Sony OLED monitor launch.
http://www.oled-info.com/more-details-sonys-new-30-4k-and-class-oleds


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24713465
> 
> 
> I have to wonder if Sony/Panasonic/Samsung crowd have long been panicking about having their flagships suddenly be beholden to LG and as a result are re-tripling their efforts in other emission-based tech (CLED/QD/whatever).  If those three above decide to stay in, regardless of how ludicrous the idea of them surviving might seem right now, perhaps a sink-or-swim thing has been going on that will eventually benefit everyone.
> 
> 
> The last thing in the world I want is a single manufacturer of something considered "the" TV technology, so I hope the "top-tier" guys survive this one.



"The" TV technology remains LCD. I think much of the confusion here lies in the fact that will be true for years to come, whether LG is successful or not. At current forecasts, LG will produce perhaps 1% of the world's TVs in 2 years using OLED. If 10% of the world's TVs are OLED by decade's end, that will be an achievement. And LG won't be alone by that point -- guaranteed.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24715539
> 
> 
> Sony will still be working on their OLED monitors. And probably will stop OLED TV plans for the time being.
> 
> 
> btw In april there should have been a 30'' (and 56'') 4K Sony OLED monitor launch.
> http://www.oled-info.com/more-details-sonys-new-30-4k-and-class-oleds



It's weird that you chose to pull up a year-old article as a source, but anyway....


That year-old article is (1) from an OLED hype site (2) in no way suggests they were going to produce the 56-inch model.


Sony did show off the 30-inch broadcast monitor at NAB again this year (in April). It's still nowhere near ready, but it's still expected by late 2014/2015:

_Also on display was a 30″ 10-bit, 4096 x 2160 resolution 4K OLED panel. Though no pricing has been set yet, Gary did hint that we could expect a true production model to be ready sometime this year._


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9660#post_24713067
> 
> 
> Too bad they didn't pursue their true LED TV. I think they called it Crystal or something. Had RGB LEDs per pixel and supposedly even bested OLED picture, but the cost......
> 
> 
> Sony did develop SXRD, which is a great projection technology, but I was always surprised they couldn't get thier own flat panel tech going, or even make there own panels. Still have two trinitron CRTs, those were some nice TVs.



Sony foolishly abandoned flat-panel making more than 15 years ago. That they built a marginally successfully projection tech (their own LCOS, called SXRD, which came in time to watch projection TV die, but lives in tiny volume home-theater projectors and digital cinema) shows they can do cool things.


I really believe Sony's attachment to the Trinitron era is the only reason they haven't already stopped building and selling TVs. I don't think this romanticism will live on too much longer.


----------



## vinnie97

At least they've been at it for 15+ years. Their Japanese cohorts (aka Pioneer and Panasonic) died on the vine as soon as they reached their apex (Panasonic's 2014 LCD-LED plasma equivalence claims notwithstanding).


----------



## Artwood

vinnie97: How afraid are you that OLED will fail and that the LCD only apocalypse might really happen?


I remember people talking about how SXRD would last and how plasma would last--how SED would solve its problems--well none of those things took place.


OLED is hanging on by a thread--if it fails--if LCD takes total control---could you take it? I couldn't take it!


----------



## vinnie97

On a scale from 1 to 10, my fear is at 5/10. If LG happens to fail with their venture into OLED, I wouldn't take it easy...and I'd probably hold onto my current sets for dear life. I would lend my ear to the sales force but more importantly, I would pay close attention to the coming shootout before flailing my arms about and going completely balls out chicken little. A Sharp Elite like LCD in 2014 with better viewing angles might *not* be the end of the display world as we know it. It wouldn't be easy to take for a couple ole' plasma stalwarts like us, but if blooming is 99% undetectable and there's a half-decent viewing angle so that I don't have to place the TV on an adjustable stand/mount or have to horizontally reposition the TV every time I want to view a few degrees off axis, my mind just might be deceived enough to succumb to the LCD NWO. Wow, that felt dirty to say.


----------



## Vegas oled

I really don't see OLED going nowhere but up. Thanks to LG being able to cut the price by 60% the first year. Once the larger 4k sets come out everyone who is buying and can afford them will chose them over LED/LCD. The problem is now Best Buys has them displayed next to 65" 4K sets making them look smaller than they are and the run their stupid video loop which dose not make any TV look good and their holding out at $6K when the set is all over the internet for $4k . Then those 4k sets from Sony look darn good for less money and they are 65" so most people never even see that there is a 55" OLED next to it that in the real world of 720p, 1080I and 1080P the Little OLED will clean. The 4K's clock in picture quality. To boot the Best Buys guys feeding people a bunch of smoke and mirrors about 4k bluray players that don't really exist.


----------



## Vegas oled

This is why OLED is here to stay


----------



## vinnie97

For a cool $26k!







All that being said, nothing is assured in this life, and with only a single manufacturer putting rubber to the road, there is still plenty to go wrong (especially in this uneven wear dept...observed by multiple owners now, with photographic proof to match).


Some "nearly as good" 4K LCD sets under Best Buy's showroom lights won't help OLED's cause (Magnolia store lighting would likely be a different story). I am admittedly laughing at Sony, though, as they are going to keep the price of their 65" flagship at $8k and coin it as a limited run model. The LG of the same size will be nipping at its heels upon release if the estimations about street price are correct.


----------



## Vegas oled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24716691
> 
> 
> For a cool $26k!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that being said, nothing is assured in this life, and with only a single manufacturer putting rubber to the road, there is still plenty to go wrong (especially in this uneven wear dept...observed by multiple owners now, with photographic proof to match).
> 
> 
> Some "nearly as good" 4K LCD sets under Best Buy's showroom lights won't help OLED's cause (Magnolia store lighting would likely be a different story). I am admittedly laughing at Sony, though, as they are going to keep the price of their 65" flagship at $8k and coin it as a limited run model. The LG of the same size will be nipping at its heels upon release if the estimations about street price are correct.



The uneven wear is clearly overstated and image retention, You do not have uneven wear in 2 hours. There will never be a perfect display but the picture quality of OLED is so much better them LED it is not even funny. Plasma on the other hand are much closer but the public has considered them out dated for 5 years which show how much the average TV buyer really know. Most people buying a TV only know what the Best Buys sale a person tells them and the problem is while some are true experts, most are very uninformed.


----------



## vinnie97

You can call it a memory effect if you want, and you are entitled to your opinion that it is overstated, but to insinuate it's of little to no concern is doing a disservice to prospective owners and is an insult to those of us who have seen it (yes, even in regular content), especially when factoring in cumulative concerns. I'm happy to not be seeing it now, but knowledge is power when forking out this kind of cash for a display, including the fact that it requires a rigorously equitable mix of content if you want to preserve screen uniformity, even more rigorous than the last great plasmas. I can also say undoubtedly that the best plasma on the market last year still pales in comparison to the LG OLED in low APL scenes. Greater LCD brightness and thinness on the showroom floor is what killed plasma in the marketplace.


----------



## mattg3

So if uneven wear is going to be the norm with Oled then they have to figure out a new aspect ratio that fills screen on every kind of content with no weird stretching and cropping of the picture.If they can figure out how to make an OLED Im sure they could come up with this or the whole technology will fail.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> 
> It's weird that you chose to pull up a year-old article as a source, but anyway....
> 
> 
> That year-old article is (1) from an OLED hype site (2) in no way suggests they were going to produce the 56-inch model.
> 
> 
> Sony did show off the 30-inch broadcast monitor at NAB again this year (in April). It's still nowhere near ready, but it's still expected by late 2014/2015:
> 
> _Also on display was a 30″ 10-bit, 4096 x 2160 resolution 4K OLED panel. Though no pricing has been set yet, Gary did hint that we could expect a true production model to be ready sometime this year._


That article was backup information (in which they promised a 4k 30'' (56'') OLED monitor product in april 2014) for the Youtube clip i posted (Sony OLED monitors at NAB april 2014) in which Sony stated that they are working on a real 4K 30'' OLED monitor product that will be available this year. No word on the 56'' OLED monitor..


----------



## Rich Peterson

Yesterday I mistakenly posted a very old article about Sony denying they are pulling back on consumer OLED TV development. Here's a current article where they kind of deny it. And Slacker posted another article yesterday

http://www.whathifi.com/news/sony-denies-reports-oled-development-is-on-hold 


> Quote:
> Sony has made no announcement in this regard. Sony continues developing and looking into reliable ways to mass produce OLED displays for consumers while continuing to build experience via providing OLED displays for professional, medical and broadcast use.


----------



## Artwood

Currently--besides LG and Samsung--who are the current companies that are producing OLED and actually selling it to the public?


When is the end date for Samsung production?


The reason I ask is that prices of OLEDs will only come down quickly--which might be necessary for OLED technology survival--if LG has enough true competitors.


When Samsung ends production--will LG have true competitors?


----------



## vinnie97

That's all she wrote but don't forget, LG also has to contend with high-end LCD. Again, it will be interesting to see how the new Toshiba and X950B stack up against the OLED...2 months is too far away!


----------



## slacker711

UK television shootout.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/shootout-201405143775.htm 


> Quote:
> British audio-visual and electrical goods retailer Crampton and Moore are holding a shootout event in Leeds at the end of this month, pitching some of the top television models available to buy at the moment against each other. The proposed lineup of TVs is extremely impressive.
> 
> 
> Representing the 4K Ultra HD camp are the Panasonic AX802, the Samsung HU7500 and HU8500 series, as well as the recently reviewed Sony X9005B – all being 65 inches for a level playing field. Flying the OLED flag will be LG’s 55EA980W curved TV. And for nostalgic reasons, there’ll even be a now-discontinued Panasonic ZT – arguably the best plasma ever made (though Pioneer Kuro owners might disagree) – on show.
> 
> 
> The shootout will be held in a light-controlled, theatre-like environment. The calibrated TVs will be screening a wide range of material including native 4K content. We have been invited to talk through the pros and cons of each TV and display technology for watching Blu-ray, sports programme and playing video games.
> 
> 
> The Crampton and Moore 2014 TV shootout event will take place at Leeds Trinity University (post code LS18 5HD) on Saturday the 31st of May from 11am to 5pm. The preliminary schedule is as follows:


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24717203
> 
> 
> Yesterday I mistakenly posted a very old article about Sony denying they are pulling back on consumer OLED TV development. Here's a current article where they kind of deny it. And Slacker posted another article yesterday
> 
> http://www.whathifi.com/news/sony-denies-reports-oled-development-is-on-hold
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Sony has made no announcement in this regard. Sony continues developing and looking into reliable ways to mass produce OLED displays for consumers while continuing to build experience via providing OLED displays for professional, medical and broadcast use.
Click to expand...


This is not really a denial:


"Sony says *no such change of focus has been confirmed*, and the company continues to investigate improving OLED TV production in order to ensure the technology's consumer future."


They have not confirmed the report and they do confirm that they continue to 'investigate improving OLED TV production' (which is compatible with the initiative to possibly introduce OLED TVs based on LG WOLED panels).


If they had denied that any OLED engineers had been reassigned as reported, the denial would have been much more definitive, but as it is, they are just unwilling to confirm that OLED engineers have been reassigned as reported.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24717592
> 
> 
> Currently--besides LG and Samsung--who are the current companies that are producing OLED and actually selling it to the public?
> 
> 
> When is the end date for Samsung production?
> 
> 
> The reason I ask is that prices of OLEDs will only come down quickly--which might be necessary for OLED technology survival--if LG has enough true competitors.
> 
> 
> When Samsung ends production--will LG have true competitors?



LG has all the competition they need with LED/LCD.


Prices for 4K 55" are below $1000 this year and prices for 4K 65" are below $2500 this year. Until LG is able to offer their WOLED TVs at prices whose premiums are measure in 10s of % and not 100s of % beyond the levels of LED/LCD, their ability to sell the volumes they will soon be producing and the success of their entire WOLED venture is not assured.


Forced by the LED/LCD juggernaught, LG will be driving down their prices as quickly as they can economically afford to do so for at least the next 2-3 years...


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24718196
> 
> 
> UK television shootout.
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/shootout-201405143775.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> British audio-visual and electrical goods retailer Crampton and Moore are holding a shootout event in Leeds at the end of this month, pitching some of the top television models available to buy at the moment against each other. The proposed lineup of TVs is extremely impressive.
> 
> 
> Representing the 4K Ultra HD camp are the Panasonic AX802, the Samsung HU7500 and HU8500 series, as well as the recently reviewed Sony X9005B – all being 65 inches for a level playing field. Flying the OLED flag will be LG’s 55EA980W curved TV. And for nostalgic reasons, there’ll even be a now-discontinued Panasonic ZT – arguably the best plasma ever made (though Pioneer Kuro owners might disagree) – on show.
> 
> 
> The shootout will be held in a light-controlled, theatre-like environment. The calibrated TVs will be screening a wide range of material including native 4K content. We have been invited to talk through the pros and cons of each TV and display technology for watching Blu-ray, sports programme and playing video games.
> 
> 
> The Crampton and Moore 2014 TV shootout event will take place at Leeds Trinity University (post code LS18 5HD) on Saturday the 31st of May from 11am to 5pm. The preliminary schedule is as follows:
Click to expand...


A preview of the VE Shootout! Unfortunately, aside from confirming that the WOLED is leagues better than everything else, it's largely going to be a repeat of the 2013 VE Shootout that will just show how close the best edge lit pseudo-local dimming LED/LCDs come to measuring up against the VT60.


At least we should get a preview of how competitive Panasonic is against the best Samsung and Sony ELPDs now that they have decided to put their full efforts into LED/LCD.


----------



## tgm1024


^^^Let them shoot out with either Vinnie's or ThePlague's sets.....


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24718379
> 
> 
> ^^^Let them shoot out with either Vinnie's or ThePlague's sets.....



Maybe 'The Blob' will rear it's ugly head during the Shootout - that would be something, wouldn't it










As I think more about it, perhaps 'The Blob' is a virus that was developed by Samsung


----------



## fafrd

[deleted mispost]


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9700_100#post_24718438
> 
> 
> Maybe 'The Blob' will rear it's ugly head during the Shootout - that would be something, wouldn't it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I think more about it, perhaps 'The Blob' is a virus that was developed by Samsung


I've never seen a blob before...hope to never do so (aka knocking on wood). The appearance of what looks like uneven wear, on the other hand...


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24720083
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9700_100#post_24718438
> 
> 
> Maybe 'The Blob' will rear it's ugly head during the Shootout - that would be something, wouldn't it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I think more about it, perhaps 'The Blob' is a virus that was developed by Samsung
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a blob before...hope to never do so (aka knocking on wood). The appearance of what looks like uneven wear, on the other hand...
Click to expand...


Maybe you need to find an old episode of 'The Prisoner' to watch on your LG WOLED (in 4:3







)...


----------



## vinnie97

Maybe...? The reference is lost on me. ;D I have yet to see that series nor am I familiarized with it. ;(


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24720277
> 
> 
> Maybe...? The reference is lost on me. ;D I have yet to see that series nor am I familiarized with it. ;(


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2kTg8hx_VY 


skip to 3:19 (until about 3:44) - that's Patrick McGoohan but in my minds eye I picture it being Plague


----------



## vinnie97

Very good...I have a soft spot for some campy sci-fi, and that fits the bill.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24720413
> 
> 
> Very good...I have a soft spot for some campy sci-fi, and that fits the bill.



It's a classic cold-war era sci-fi series if you've got some nights with nothing better to do. Afraid it's unlikely to make good use of your LG WOLED, however... Probably from the time when color broadcast TV just became mainstream.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9690#post_24717177
> 
> 
> That article was backup information (in which they promised a 4k 30'' (56'') OLED monitor product in april 2014) for the Youtube clip i posted (Sony OLED monitors at NAB april 2014) in which Sony stated that they are working on a real 4K 30'' OLED monitor product that will be available this year. No word on the 56'' OLED monitor..



There is no 56" OLED monitor.


And the 30" monitor is maybe going to arrive this year.


You sound a bit like Sony itself, sort of suggesting they're in the OLED business, when they are barely so... There's so much in the way of weasel words there.


Sony broadcast is satisfying the world's tiny demand for broadcast OLED monitors. They are -- apparently -- planning on producing a 30-inch display only 18-21 months after sort of announcing it in 2013. Let's not get excited about that, whatever we think of Sony.


On a loosely related note, whoever thinks Samsung is still producing TVs should disabuse themselves of that notion. There isn't evidence it's occurring. And Samsung, like Sony, has no apparent active OLED TV program. Unlike Sony, Samsung has more aggressively suggested they will be in the OLED TV business in 2016 or so. But it's hard to take those kinds of statements seriously.


Right now, there is one OLED TV producer and this year and it is slated to build fewer than 1 in 1,000 of the world's TVs from its OLED production line. To call OLED TV "hanging by a thread" is hardly an exaggeration. Every single year for the next 3-4 will be make or break for the technology. Each needs to see huge increases in volume and by 2016-17, it's absolutely critical that someone joins LG in beginning primary OLED TV panel production -- not the rebadging of LG's panels, which adds absolutely nothing to the OLED TV ecosystem.


----------



## htwaits

 *Sony backs off OLED*


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *htwaits*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720_60#post_24720531
> 
> *Sony backs off OLED*


 

^^^Based on articles that are very hotly contested and of dubious worth.  The only thing I truly trust in cases like this are actual press releases.


----------



## slacker711

All of the Sony articles are based from a single source, the Nikkei article.


Sony made no mention of OLED's at all in their earnings report yesterday. So we are left with an article from a good newspaper and a denial from a spokesman.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> There is no 56" OLED monitor.


That is kind of what i said.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> And the 30" monitor is maybe going to arrive this year.


high probability.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> You sound a bit like Sony itself, sort of suggesting they're in the OLED business, when they are barely so... There's so much in the way of weasel words there.


How can i sound like Sony when i show in my post that they made a promise, a 30'' _and_ 56'' 4K OLED monitor for sale in april 2014, that they did not kept.


You said yourself that Sony sold 100.000 OLEDs (monitors). So they are definitely *in* the OLED business. You are in or you are not in.. not barely so.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> Sony broadcast is satisfying the world's tiny demand for broadcast OLED monitors. They are -- apparently -- planning on producing a 30-inch display only 18-21 months after sort of announcing it in 2013. Let's not get excited about that, whatever we think of Sony.


Why is it that Sony can be leading in OLED monitors and is absent in the OLED TV sector? I am pretty shure that they would love to be a part of it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> On a loosely related note, whoever thinks Samsung is still producing TVs should disabuse themselves of that notion. There isn't evidence it's occurring. And Samsung, like Sony, has no apparent active OLED TV program. Unlike Sony, Samsung has more aggressively suggested they will be in the OLED TV business in 2016 or so. But it's hard to take those kinds of statements seriously.
> 
> 
> Right now, there is one OLED TV producer and this year and it is slated to build fewer than 1 in 1,000 of the world's TVs from its OLED production line. To call OLED TV "hanging by a thread" is hardly an exaggeration. Every single year for the next 3-4 will be make or break for the technology. Each needs to see huge increases in volume and by 2016-17, it's absolutely critical that someone joins LG in beginning primary OLED TV panel production -- not the rebadging of LG's panels, which adds absolutely nothing to the OLED TV ecosystem.


My prediction for 2015 is 50.000 (MAX) OLED TVs sold. Seems to me that for huge increases in volume in 2016/2017 price needs to be $1,500 -$2,000 for a 55''.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24721193
> 
> 
> My prediction for 2015 is 50.000 (MAX) OLED TVs sold. Seems to me that for huge increases in volume in 2016/2017 price needs to be $1,500 -$2,000 for a 55''.



I'll take the over.


----------



## Artwood

I remember seeing the same sort of posts when people were wondering if plasma would continue.


There were many hints of plasma's demise and many other posts saying it would stay around. Well it won't.


Why should OLED be different?


Don't call me crazy--Rogo even said To Call OLED TV "hanging by a thread" is hardly an exaggeration.


Given LG's performance with plasmas--and their paltry production of 1,000 OLEDs this year--what makes one want to bet on their future with OLEDs?


Artwood says: to say that there might be an LCD only apocalypse is hardly an exaggeration!


----------



## greenland

Art,


You have gone on record over and over about how much you dread the thought of LCD panels being the only option remaining. Do you really think that if you just make the same complaint a few thousand times that will alter the course of the market. People buy what they want to buy, so if the vast majority opt to buy LCD sets, instead of Plasma or OLED, then that is what the manufacturers will produce.


The laws of supply and demand are not going to be repealed by your tiresome carping. I prefer Plasma, and hope that OLED does catch on, but if a large majority of the consumers still prefer to own LCD displays, then that is what manufacturers will respond to. Buy an OLED to help the cause. That will contribute more to the chances it will take off, than a million more postings about how much you hate LCDs will.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*
> 
> Buy an OLED to help the cause. That will contribute more to the chances it will take off, than a million more postings about how much you hate LCDs will.


This kernel of wisdom deserves repeating. Way better use of your time than lamenting over what may come to pass.


Signed,


The OLED salesforce.


----------



## tgm1024


Well, I did some searching and I'm surprised to only find 15 posts by Artwood containing the word "apocalypse".

 

Huh.

 

However when I look for the word "sucks" I get 301 posts from him.  And 14 more with the word "sux" instead.  All posts nearly the same in tenor and message.

 

But I'm a little surprised at it being so low....I would have thought it'd be in the thousands by now.

 

Maybe it just seems that way.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24720973
> 
> 
> All of the Sony articles are based from a single source, the Nikkei article.
> 
> 
> Sony made no mention of OLED's at all in their earnings report yesterday. So we are left with an article from a good newspaper and *a denial from a spokesman*.



'Refusing to confirm' and 'denying' are two different things.


The Sony spokesperson did not deny, they refused to confirm.


'So we are left with an article from a good newspaper which a Sony spokesman refused to confirm' would be a more accurate statement.


----------



## slacker711

Sony did deny the report.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/international/sony-execs-lose-bonuses/1104052.html 


> Quote:
> A Sony spokesman denied a Kyodo News report on Tuesday that the company will suspend the development of OLED (organic light-emitting diode) televisions.


----------



## greenland

Why bother to keep arguing over it? Sony is not manufacturing OLED TVs now. Until they start doing so, or at least putting their badge on panels that they purchase from some other company, they can be safely ignored.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24721938
> 
> 
> Why bother to keep arguing over it? Sony is not manufacturing OLED TVs now. Until they start doing so, or at least putting their badge on panels that they purchase from some other company, they can be safely ignored.



FWIW, I agree with this.


Sony is irrelevant to OLED manufacturing in any reasonable timeframe, and that is true whether they have stopped OLED development or not.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24721380
> 
> 
> I remember seeing the same sort of posts when people were wondering if plasma would continue.
> 
> 
> There were many hints of plasma's demise and many other posts saying it would stay around. Well it won't.
> 
> 
> Why should OLED be different?
> 
> 
> Don't call me crazy--Rogo even said To Call OLED TV "hanging by a thread" is hardly an exaggeration.
> 
> 
> Given LG's performance with plasmas--and their paltry production of 1,000 OLEDs this year--what makes one want to bet on their future with OLEDs?
> 
> 
> Artwood says: to say that there might be an LCD only apocalypse is hardly an exaggeration!



Artwood, I've only been following actively since January (though I have seen the occasional posts from you that go way back, so I know you are a long-time AVS Member , but I have to say that this post of yours has been the most reasonable and effective I have seen.


You're not crazy, you just sometimes have a tendency to express yourself in ways that are repetitive and don't really contribute at all to the dialog.


LG has a major challenge on their plate and success is very, very far from guaranteed, so I agree with pretty much everything you have stated above regarding OLED.


Technology choice and competition is good, but your other blind spot is that LED/LCD continues to make strides that you refuse to acknowledge or even to witness firsthand.


I wasn't following the board actively in the 2012-2013 timeframe, but your dire warnings regarding an all edge-lit world would have been very appropriate then and I would have been one of your supporters.


In 2014, LED/LCD has miraculously recovered from this significant distraction and degradation in picture quality and is finally heading back to FALD and Sharp-Elite-class PQ.


So if you were to write 'Edge-Lit LCD-only apocalypse' I might even consider being signed up as one of you acolytes, though my gut tells me that battle will largely be won before the year is out.


If you want to focus your war cry on the real issue, here is how I see it:


-Edge-lit LED/LCD will define the lowest common denominator - in price, in 'acceptable' PQ (for J6P), in 'thin and sleek' for the masses


-FALD LED/LCD will define the best bang-for-the-buck - PQ and black levels matching the standard set by plasma and the Sharp Elite, nominal cost premiums over ELPD, off-angle-viewing performance is always going to be the one Achilles Heel of LCD technology that remains despite the research $$$$s thrown at it.


-OLED is the great hope for the perfect display - the absolute best PQ in terms of zero black levels and infinite contrast ratios, perfect off-angle viewing because it is emissive, a champion in all regards but facing three challenges if it is going to take hold with the masses and avoid slipping into oblivion:


1/ the premium the masses will pay for even better black and fantastic off-angle-viewing is very nominal - let's say 2X the premium of FALD over ELPD at most - so LG/WOLED needs to get much less expensive very quickly (as has already been commented on many times on this thread). Ideally, WOLED needs to be less expensive than LED/LCD - that would allow it to overcome any small remaining challenges in the second two areas below.


2/ if the 'care and feeding' of an OLED is closer to the 'care and feeding' of a plasma than it is to the 'care and feeding' of an LED/LCD, OLED will be a niche product (as was plasma following the emergence of LED/LCD) and will ultimately suffer the same fate (since demand will be incapable of keeping a manufacturing line full)


3/ the technology needs to be ready for prime time and have no Achilles Heal of it's own - between dead pixels & dying pixels, lifetime/reliability, IR/BI, motion handling, and whatever else, OLED needs to quickly gain the reputation of being as solid and reliable as LED/LCD or it will slip back into the darkness. If the Gen2 WOLED products from LG show all of the same issues as these Gen1 products, that will be a very bad sign.


So I don't think there is much chance of us ending up in an edge-lit LCD-only apocalypse at this stage, and I think if you would get out more and open up your mind a bit, you would see that an LCD-only world that includes the new generation of FALD LCDs does not constitute an apocalypse. If you truly need a wide viewing angle for a large audience there are always projectors and while ultimate blacks are fantastic, they don't bring an infinite increase to the value of a TV.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24721835
> 
> 
> Well, I did some searching and I'm surprised to only find 15 posts by Artwood containing the word "apocalypse".
> 
> 
> Huh.
> 
> 
> However when I look for the word "sucks" I get 301 posts from him.  And 14 more with the word "sux" instead.  All posts nearly the same in tenor and message.
> 
> 
> But I'm a little surprised at it being so low....I would have thought it'd be in the thousands by now.
> 
> 
> Maybe it just seems that way.



Many of you members no doubt have a much longer history with Artwood and his posts than I do, but I also think we all should make an effort to not pattern-match in our responses to him.


If you read his last post, I believe it has a different tone and is more constructive than virtually every other post I have seen from him since January.


Prior to that, there was a pretty loud complaint directed to him and some members may have even flagged him to the moderators.


So perhaps I am being naïve, but when I read his recent post carefully, I see a genuine attempt on his part to join the dialog on this thread in a more constructive manner.


Let's give him a chance before reflexively shooting down his most recent post as 'more of the same'


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720_60#post_24722063
> 
> 
> Many of you members no doubt have a much longer history with Artwood and his posts than I do, but I also think we all should make an effort to not pattern-match in our responses to him.
> 
> 
> If you read his last post, I believe it has a different tone and is more constructive than virtually every other post I have seen from him since January.


 

I'm not at all sure what you're talking about.  That post you're referring to looks nearly the same as most posts of his in recent memory. They go up and down in mouth-foam to be sure, but they're far more the same than different.


----------



## markrubin

move on please: limit the discussion to the thread title


----------



## barrelbelly

Back to the topic. I don't think OLED is going to make it. And it pains me. I sure hate to say or imagine this. But OLED just may be dead as a mainstream display technology. Meaning HDTV's in the 32"-55" range. When consumers in that shopping range can buy a HDTV like Hisense 55" Class LED 1080p; 120hz; 4 x HDMI Ports; Smart TV Apps; for $599 ($499 w/rebate) at Tiger Direct...Amazon...Microcenter, its not even a competition. Not today or tomorrow. OLED is a non starter for the people shopping that range. Even for expensive, high end Mobile phones. At the OLED nose bleed prices of $5000-$10000 for comparable display sizes they will do nothing but collect dust on showroom floors. Companies like Sony, Vizio, Pannasonic and others know this. And are wisely retreating from a potential debacle. If OLED can't make it as a very high end and esoteric platform, it will go the way of SED within 2-3 years IMO.

*THE REAL OPPORTUNITY for OLED* is to set the bar and maintain what high end display tech really is. And maintain it there. Taking it ever higher and higher. That is a market for well financed *"Boutique"* companies that can build high and charge even higher.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24721724
> 
> 
> Art,
> 
> 
> Buy an OLED to help the cause. That will contribute more to the chances it will take off, than a million more postings about how much you hate LCDs will.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24721781
> 
> 
> This kernel of wisdom deserves repeating. Way better use of your time than lamenting over what may come to pass.
> 
> 
> Signed,
> 
> 
> The OLED salesforce.



I served already buying Plasma in 2001 and about every other year after that. Now it is time to pass the torch.

Three cheers for the early adopters.










- Rich


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barrelbelly*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24722346
> 
> 
> Back to the topic. I don't think OLED is going to make it. And it pains me. I sure hate to say or imagine this. But OLED just may be dead as a mainstream display technology. Meaning HDTV's in the 32"-55" range. When consumers in that shopping range can buy a HDTV like Hisense 55" Class LED 1080p; 120hz; 4 x HDMI Ports; Smart TV Apps; for $599 ($499 w/rebate) at Tiger Direct...Amazon...Microcenter, its not even a competition. Not today or tomorrow. OLED is a non starter for the people shopping that range. Even for expensive, high end Mobile phones. At the OLED nose bleed prices of $5000-$10000 for comparable display sizes they will do nothing but collect dust on showroom floors. Companies like Sony, Vizio, Pannasonic and others know this. And are wisely retreating from a potential debacle. If OLED can't make it as a very high end and esoteric platform, it will go the way of SED within 2-3 years IMO.
> 
> *THE REAL OPPORTUNITY for OLED* is to set the bar and maintain what high end display tech really is. And maintain it there. Taking it ever higher and higher. That is a market for well financed *"Boutique"* companies that can build high and charge even higher.



Good post, but I see it differently in several ways.


First, a boutique market will never keep a manufacturing line full, so it is a non-starter. That is what happened to plasma and if OLED can only be a niche product for the well-heeled and well-informed consumer, OLED will be doomed to the same fate.


Now Bang & Oluffson (sp?) with their uber-expensive boutique TVs is in a different situation, because what they are selling is based on mainstream LED/LCD manufacturing lines that are kept filled to capacity by the mainstream market. OLED is a different manufacturing line and it is either capable of reaching full volume production nd economies of scale on its own accord or it will end up being shut down like plasma.


And second, while you are correct with the pricing challenge OLED faces against LED/LCD, the only reason the technology has a hope of making it is because in identical volumes and maturing, OLED is less expensive to manufacture (assuming there are no unsolvable issues). For the cost of the LCD or a bit more, OLED delivers a full display panel without requiring the additional cost of an LED backlight. So guaranteed it can be as inexpensive to manufacture as LED/LCD and it can probably be significantly (~25%) less expensive to manufacture (to say nothing of the possibility of printable manufacturing technologies which could drive down costs even more).


My point is that the price gap is not a fundamental disadvantage but a significant industrialization 'hump' that OLED needs to get to the other side of if it is going to make it.


And the key milestone in that industrialization hump will be LGs M2 manufacturing line running at it's full capacity of more than 4000 55" OLEDs per day and successfully finding demand and customers for that volume of product. And as you point out, that means those products are going to have to be selling at least 1% as well as LED/LCDs costing $500. Who knows what price that ends up being, but for only 1% of the total volume, it's probably at least $1000 and possibly as high as $2000. But no way they make it if they are selling 55" OLED TVs for $3000 or more by late 2015.


I think it is too early to give up hope that they will make it.


They have already signaled a 50% price reduction by mid-2015. The new M2 manufacturing line will be using full panels instead of half panels which may cut yield loss in half (from 70% yield to 85% yield). If they can sell a 55" 4K WOLED for $2000-2500 by mid-2015, they would be on track to get over the hump by 2016.


So I would feel they had a fighting chance except for these darned reliability issues some of the early adopters are experiencing.


You only get one chance to make a first impression. The gen 1 products have not made a good impression so far, but that has been limited to a very select (and sorry, inconsequential) audience. The gen 2 sets will be making a first impression with a much wider audience, certainly by mid-2015 if not before. So either all of these early problems with failing pixels, letterbox IR/BI, etc... have been resolved in the gen2 sets launching later this year, or if they have not, I would then join you in your pessimism (though for different reasons).


But in any case, I am absolutely aligned with your comment regarding Vizio. I disagree about Sony and Panasonic - I think they are dinosaurs living in the past that will quickly find themselves relegated to rebadging like JVC and Philips. But Vizio, and with them Sharp and Samsung, have sensed the new world order and are driving down prices for high-quality LED/LCDs as quickly as they can to hopefully cut off LG WOLED's air supply before they can get too far up the hump over the next 12-18 months.


I suggest to stay tuned until this time next year by then I predict that the tea leaves as to where LGs entire WOLED initiative is going will be a great deal more clear...


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9700_100#post_24721193
> 
> 
> How can i sound like Sony when i show in my post that they made a promise, a 30'' _and_ 56'' 4K OLED monitor for sale in april 2014, that they did not kept.


Reporting on the web is generally poor. You should try and get information from the source.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by * http://blog.sony.com/press/sony-unveils-prototype-professional-4k-oled-monitor-at-nab-2013/ *
> 
> 
> Sony is developing 4K OLED monitors that can reproduce video signals with the highest degree of accuracy.
> 
> This R&D technology will be demonstrated at NAB with 30-inch (4096 x 2160) and 56-inch (3840 x 2160) prototypes.
> 
> Sony’s 30-inch 4K OLED monitor is planned to be launched in 2014.


There is nothing about a planned launch in April, or saying that the 56" model is anything more than a prototype.

I can't find anything on Sony.net about this either - only the US Sony site. (which means it's less reliable)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9700_100#post_24721193
> 
> 
> Why is it that Sony can be leading in OLED monitors and is absent in the OLED TV sector? I am pretty shure that they would love to be a part of it.


Because a broadcast monitor sells for about 10x what a television does. That helps offset the high costs of OLED production quite a bit.

It's also a valuable market that Sony used to be at the top of, and lost when producing LCDs. Being the only company with true CRT replacements could be quite lucrative.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9700_100#post_24721883
> 
> 
> 'Refusing to confirm' and 'denying' are two different things.
> 
> The Sony spokesperson did not deny, they refused to confirm.
> 
> 'So we are left with an article from a good newspaper which a Sony spokesman refused to confirm' would be a more accurate statement.


This is standard operating procedure for Sony:

 http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201402/14-0201E/index.html 
 http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201402/14-0205E/index.html 
 http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201405/14-0502E/index.html


----------



## barrelbelly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24722445
> 
> 
> Good post, but I see it differently in several ways.
> 
> 
> First, a boutique market will never keep a manufacturing line full, so it is a non-starter. That is what happened to plasma and if OLED can only be a niche product for the well-heeled and well-informed consumer, OLED will be doomed to the same fate.
> 
> 
> Now Bang & Oluffson (sp?) with their uber-expensive boutique TVs is in a different situation, because what they are selling is based on mainstream LED/LCD manufacturing lines that are kept filled to capacity by the mainstream market. OLED is a different manufacturing line and it is either capable of reaching full volume production nd economies of scale on its own accord or it will end up being shut down like plasma.
> 
> 
> And second, while you are correct with the pricing challenge OLED faces against LED/LCD, the only reason the technology has a hope of making it is because in identical volumes and maturing, OLED is less expensive to manufacture (assuming there are no unsolvable issues). For the cost of the LCD or a bit more, OLED delivers a full display panel without requiring the additional cost of an LED backlight. So guaranteed it can be as inexpensive to manufacture as LED/LCD and it can probably be significantly (~25%) less expensive to manufacture (to say nothing of the possibility of printable manufacturing technologies which could drive down costs even more).
> 
> 
> My point is that the price gap is not a fundamental disadvantage but a significant industrialization 'hump' that OLED needs to get to the other side of if it is going to make it.
> 
> 
> And the key milestone in that industrialization hump will be LGs M2 manufacturing line running at it's full capacity of more than 4000 55" OLEDs per day and successfully finding demand and customers for that volume of product. And as you point out, that means those products are going to have to be selling at least 1% as well as LED/LCDs costing $500. Who knows what price that ends up being, but for only 1% of the total volume, it's probably at least $1000 and possibly as high as $2000. But no way they make it if they are selling 55" OLED TVs for $3000 or more by late 2015.
> 
> 
> I think it is too early to give up hope that they will make it.
> 
> 
> They have already signaled a 50% price reduction by mid-2015. The new M2 manufacturing line will be using full panels instead of half panels which may cut yield loss in half (from 70% yield to 85% yield). If they can sell a 55" 4K WOLED for $2000-2500 by mid-2015, they would be on track to get over the hump by 2016.
> 
> 
> So I would feel they had a fighting chance except for these darned reliability issues some of the early adopters are experiencing.
> 
> 
> You only get one chance to make a first impression. The gen 1 products have not made a good impression so far, but that has been limited to a very select (and sorry, inconsequential) audience. The gen 2 sets will be making a first impression with a much wider audience, certainly by mid-2015 if not before. *So either all of these early problems with failing pixels, letterbox IR/BI, etc... have been resolved in the gen2 sets launching later this year, or if they have not, I would then join you in your pessimism (though for different reasons).
> *
> 
> But in any case, I am absolutely aligned with your comment regarding Vizio. I disagree about Sony and Panasonic - I think they are dinosaurs living in the past that will quickly find themselves relegated to rebadging like JVC and Philips. But Vizio, and with them Sharp and Samsung, have sensed the new world order and are driving down prices for high-quality LED/LCDs as quickly as they can to hopefully cut off LG WOLED's air supply before they can get too far up the hump over the next 12-18 months.
> 
> 
> I suggest to stay tuned until this time next year by then I predict that the tea leaves as to where LGs entire WOLED initiative is going will be a great deal more clear...



An exceptional response. I highlighted the area I want to embellish just a bit. I'm not so much pessimistic as I am resigned somewhat to a looming fate. Or a looming certainty that the real high end A/V opportunities for mainstream consumers is being confounded by OLED false steps along with extreme predatory pricing tactics by the Big Box Shop importers/exporters. I personally would love to see a few companies like Apple, ASUS and Dell really sink their teeth into OLED. And carve out a high end space in the 42"-55" area with OLED priced in a range of $1500-$3000. They could bridge the multi-user gap. And attract PC monitor and HDTV aspirants who want the very best fidelity. And sustain a market with even stronger PC monitor focus.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720_60#post_24722499
> 
> 
> This is standard operating procedure for Sony:
> 
> http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201402/14-0201E/index.html
> http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201402/14-0205E/index.html
> http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201405/14-0502E/index.html


 

Sounds like "misinformation warfare" to me (or whatever similar term to that effect applies).  Basically it's why I'm really starting to doubt everyone online except for patient-0 (in this case Sony) or a very select few folks.  And digitaltrends is not on that list.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barrelbelly*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24722666
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24722445
> 
> 
> Good post, but I see it differently in several ways.
> 
> 
> First, a boutique market will never keep a manufacturing line full, so it is a non-starter. That is what happened to plasma and if OLED can only be a niche product for the well-heeled and well-informed consumer, OLED will be doomed to the same fate.
> 
> 
> Now Bang & Oluffson (sp?) with their uber-expensive boutique TVs is in a different situation, because what they are selling is based on mainstream LED/LCD manufacturing lines that are kept filled to capacity by the mainstream market. OLED is a different manufacturing line and it is either capable of reaching full volume production nd economies of scale on its own accord or it will end up being shut down like plasma.
> 
> 
> And second, while you are correct with the pricing challenge OLED faces against LED/LCD, the only reason the technology has a hope of making it is because in identical volumes and maturing, OLED is less expensive to manufacture (assuming there are no unsolvable issues). For the cost of the LCD or a bit more, OLED delivers a full display panel without requiring the additional cost of an LED backlight. So guaranteed it can be as inexpensive to manufacture as LED/LCD and it can probably be significantly (~25%) less expensive to manufacture (to say nothing of the possibility of printable manufacturing technologies which could drive down costs even more).
> 
> 
> My point is that the price gap is not a fundamental disadvantage but a significant industrialization 'hump' that OLED needs to get to the other side of if it is going to make it.
> 
> 
> And the key milestone in that industrialization hump will be LGs M2 manufacturing line running at it's full capacity of more than 4000 55" OLEDs per day and successfully finding demand and customers for that volume of product. And as you point out, that means those products are going to have to be selling at least 1% as well as LED/LCDs costing $500. Who knows what price that ends up being, but for only 1% of the total volume, it's probably at least $1000 and possibly as high as $2000. But no way they make it if they are selling 55" OLED TVs for $3000 or more by late 2015.
> 
> 
> I think it is too early to give up hope that they will make it.
> 
> 
> They have already signaled a 50% price reduction by mid-2015. The new M2 manufacturing line will be using full panels instead of half panels which may cut yield loss in half (from 70% yield to 85% yield). If they can sell a 55" 4K WOLED for $2000-2500 by mid-2015, they would be on track to get over the hump by 2016.
> 
> 
> So I would feel they had a fighting chance except for these darned reliability issues some of the early adopters are experiencing.
> 
> 
> You only get one chance to make a first impression. The gen 1 products have not made a good impression so far, but that has been limited to a very select (and sorry, inconsequential) audience. The gen 2 sets will be making a first impression with a much wider audience, certainly by mid-2015 if not before. *So either all of these early problems with failing pixels, letterbox IR/BI, etc... have been resolved in the gen2 sets launching later this year, or if they have not, I would then join you in your pessimism (though for different reasons).
> *
> 
> But in any case, I am absolutely aligned with your comment regarding Vizio. I disagree about Sony and Panasonic - I think they are dinosaurs living in the past that will quickly find themselves relegated to rebadging like JVC and Philips. But Vizio, and with them Sharp and Samsung, have sensed the new world order and are driving down prices for high-quality LED/LCDs as quickly as they can to hopefully cut off LG WOLED's air supply before they can get too far up the hump over the next 12-18 months.
> 
> 
> I suggest to stay tuned until this time next year by then I predict that the tea leaves as to where LGs entire WOLED initiative is going will be a great deal more clear...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An exceptional response. I highlighted the area I want to embellish just a bit. I'm not so much pessimistic as I am resigned somewhat to a looming fate. Or a looming certainty that the real high end A/V opportunities for mainstream consumers is being confounded by OLED false steps along with extreme predatory pricing tactics by the Big Box Shop importers/exporters. I personally would love to see a few companies like Apple, ASUS and Dell really sink their teeth into OLED. And carve out a high end space in the 42"-55" area with OLED priced in a range of $1500-$3000. They could bridge the multi-user gap. And attract PC monitor and HDTV aspirants who want the very best fidelity. And sustain a market with even stronger PC monitor focus.
Click to expand...


I agree, Apple joining forces with LG could be a game-changer (as has already ben commented by several on the board).


And while I think it is too much of a long-shot to be counting on it at this stage, I also think it is too early to 'be resigned' based on where things stand today.


If I put myself LGs shoes and assume that there are some marginalities in the gen 1 products that have been addressed in the gen 2 products (coming off of the actual volume manufacturing line rather than the pilot manufacturing line), I would use the gen1 products that I have to explore market elasticity, discover customer reaction to the various technical issues being addressed, and begin to get the word out on fantastic picture quality.


Now you could argue that they would have been better off to wait until the but gen 2 products were out LED/LCD Inc. hit the pedal to the metal and didn't give them the luxury to wait. And also, it seems like the exposure they are taking in 2014 on the gen1 products is pretty limited (a total of 10,000 - 20,000 gen 1 units will probably end up getting sold total).


So I believe they can survive these early hiccups / missteps assuming:


1/ the gen 2 units are as easy in the 'care and feeding' department as LED/LCD (meaning all of these pixel failure & letterbox IR/BI issues have been addressed).


2/ they continue the aggressive price-down trend and get down to the level of FALD LED/LCD Flagship pricing by next years rollouts a year from now.


Your ideas about PC monitor focus are intriguing, but you have to remember, the bar for LG is to establish sustainable demand for 4000 55" OLEDs a day by late 2015. Using that same capacity to manufacture 27" PC monitors just ups the stakes to 20,000 27" PC monitors per day. And also, if you have the capacity in place to manufacture large panels cost-effectively, much of that advantage is lost when making smaller screens (versus competing technologies limited to smaller screens). If it were truly more attractive for LG to be manufacturing PC monitors rather than flat-panel TVs, I suspect they would be focused on using the M2 manufacturing line to manufacture products for the cell-phone and tablet markets as well...


----------



## vinnie97

The subpixel failure issue has already been left behind in 2013 AFAIC.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barrelbelly*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24722666
> 
> 
> And carve out a high end space in the 42"-55" area with OLED priced in a range of $1500-$3000. .



That is precisely what LG is aiming to do.


It was never ever going to happen on day one. It was also extremely unlikely that there were going to be zero issues with a first generation display technology. The problems that have been encountered thus far absolutely need to be addressed, and fortunately, LGD's SID papers indicate that they have new solutions to attempt to address them. I believe it is likely that we'll see these changes in the 4K televisions. We'll have to wait and see about how they perform, but overall, anybody who has been watching OLED for a while should be more optimistic today than they were six months ago (or a year ago).


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24723066
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barrelbelly*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24722666
> 
> 
> And carve out a high end space in the 42"-55" area with OLED priced in a range of $1500-$3000. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely what LG is aiming to do.
> 
> 
> It was never ever going to happen on day one. It was also extremely unlikely that there were going to be zero issues with a first generation display technology. The problems that have been encountered thus far absolutely need to be addressed, and fortunately, LGD's SID papers indicate that they have new solutions to attempt to address them. I believe it is likely that we'll see these changes in the 4K televisions. We'll have to wait and see about how they perform, but overall, *anybody who has been watching OLED for a while should be more optimistic today than they were six months ago (or a year ago*).
Click to expand...


Agree (though reality often leaves less to the imagination than dreaming).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barrelbelly*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24722346
> 
> 
> Back to the topic. I don't think OLED is going to make it.



It might not.


> Quote:
> But OLED just may be dead as a mainstream display technology. Meaning HDTV's in the 32"-55" range. When consumers in that shopping range can buy a HDTV like Hisense 55" Class LED 1080p; 120hz; 4 x HDMI Ports; Smart TV Apps; for $599 ($499 w/rebate) at Tiger Direct...Amazon...Microcenter, its not even a competition. Not today or tomorrow. OLED is a non starter for the people shopping that range.



I think it's important to understand that there probably is no intention to even target this market in this decade. At all. And it's the vast majority of the TV market. And it will be as far as the eye can see.


> Quote:
> If OLED can't make it as a very high end and esoteric platform, it will go the way of SED within 2-3 years IMO.



SED was a fantasy. Nothing more than a hand-built prototype ever existed and absolutely no technique for manufacturing it ever did exist. There is simply no comparison between the two.


> Quote:
> *THE REAL OPPORTUNITY for OLED* is to set the bar and maintain what high end display tech really is. And maintain it there. Taking it ever higher and higher. That is a market for well financed *"Boutique"* companies that can build high and charge even higher.



No, there isn't. See below.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24722445
> 
> 
> Good post, but I see it differently in several ways.
> 
> 
> First, a boutique market will never keep a manufacturing line full, so it is a non-starter. That is what happened to plasma and if OLED can only be a niche product for the well-heeled and well-informed consumer, OLED will be doomed to the same fate.



This is 100% correct. You need the technology to scale to the million-plus level soon and to the millions to be / remain viable. There is no "niche" display technology.


> Quote:
> And second, while you are correct with the pricing challenge OLED faces against LED/LCD, the only reason the technology has a hope of making it is because in identical volumes and maturing, OLED is less expensive to manufacture (assuming there are no unsolvable issues). For the cost of the LCD or a bit more, OLED delivers a full display panel without requiring the additional cost of an LED backlight. So guaranteed it can be as inexpensive to manufacture as LED/LCD and it can probably be significantly (~25%) less expensive to manufacture (to say nothing of the possibility of printable manufacturing technologies which could drive down costs even more).



I want to point out that this remains one of those things that is "true from a materials standpoint, but completely unproved in the real-world."


> Quote:
> My point is that the price gap is not a fundamental disadvantage but a significant industrialization 'hump' that OLED needs to get to the other side of if it is going to make it.



Yes, that "hump" is in the 10+ million annually volume, which is OLEDs "valley of death".


> Quote:
> They have already signaled a 50% price reduction by mid-2015. The new M2 manufacturing line will be using full panels instead of half panels which may cut yield loss in half (from 70% yield to 85% yield). If they can sell a 55" 4K WOLED for $2000-2500 by mid-2015, they would be on track to get over the hump by 2016.



I wonder if that price is good enough in 2016 to get the needed volumes.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720#post_24721193
> 
> 
> How can i sound like Sony when i show in my post that they made a promise, a 30'' _and_ 56'' 4K OLED monitor for sale in april 2014, that they did not kept.



There was no promise of a 56" OLED monitor. There was some vague hand waving. Sony is expert at vague hand waving.


> Quote:
> You said yourself that Sony sold 100.000 OLEDs (monitors).



Is that what I said? I don't think so.


> Quote:
> So they are definitely *in* the OLED business. You are in or you are not in.. not barely so.



Not really. Sony is in the professional OLED monitor business. They are not -- and will not be -- in the consumer OLED TV business. There is no premium TV business below 50" or so and Sony's biggest OLED through at least next year will be 30". See the mismatch?


> Quote:
> Why is it that Sony can be leading in OLED monitors and is absent in the OLED TV sector? I am pretty shure that they would love to be a part of it.



They lack any ability to manufacture an OLED TV at a size and price that would allow them to sell to consumers. One major reason is they have absolutely no expertise mass producing flat panels as they have absolutely never mass produced flat panels. This is why the idea that Sony (or Panasonic) was going to become a major OLED player was always fantasy.


> Quote:
> My prediction for 2015 is 50.000 (MAX) OLED TVs sold. Seems to me that for huge increases in volume in 2016/2017 price needs to be $1,500 -$2,000 for a 55''.



Huge volume increases, indeed. Well into the millions. I think you might be bearish for 2015, however.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*
> 
> You said yourself that Sony sold 100.000 OLEDs (monitors).





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> 
> Is that what I said? I don't think so.


Not proper reading on my part. You said ''not anywhere near 100,000 units''.


They made a thousand units a month of the XEL-1 during two years (november 2007 - february 2010). In september 2012 Sony sold over 15.000 professional OLED monitors.
http://www.oled-info.com/sony-oled 


They might as well sold 20.000 XEL-1 OLEDs. And by now they sold at least 30.000 professional OLED monitors.


----------



## tgm1024


I wonder if there is any IR/BI on the majority of 1st and 2nd year XEL-1's.  Or what number of them are still in existence.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24725966
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if there is any IR/BI on the majority of 1st and 2nd year XEL-1's.  Or what number of them are still in existence.


As far as I know there is no  IR/BI sidebar-wise on Sony OLEDs, I guess, it has something to do with mura on their early OLED monitors ( I don't know anything about the PQ of their current line-up). Image persistence however is similar to that of IPS HP dreamcolor


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24724552
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24722445
> 
> 
> My point is that the price gap is not a fundamental disadvantage but a significant industrialization 'hump' that OLED needs to get to the other side of if it is going to make it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that "hump" is in the 10+ million annually volume, which is OLEDs "valley of death".
Click to expand...


You and I have many views in common and you know I respect your opinion, but I think you are being a bit to extreme with this definition of the 'hump' LG is facing.


The M2 manufacturing line has a monthly capacity of 26,000 substrates, equating to 150,000 55" WOLED panels monthly or an annual volume of 1.8M. Keeping that line filled to capacity is how I would define the 'hump' LG is facing. Still a big challenge from where they sit today, but it amounts to ~1% of the overall TV market or 10% of the premium TV market as opposed to your 10+ million annual volume 'hump' which is a full 50% of the premium TV market.


If LG can reach the point of selling ~2M WOLEDs per year (or the equivalent for larger panel sizes) and keeping the M2 line running at anything close to full capacity, I believe they will be over the 'hump' and their WOLED business will be sustainable (at least until a better, cheaper technology comes along).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24724552
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24722445
> 
> 
> They have already signaled a 50% price reduction by mid-2015. The new M2 manufacturing line will be using full panels instead of half panels which may cut yield loss in half (from 70% yield to 85% yield). If they can sell a 55" 4K WOLED for $2000-2500 by mid-2015, they would be on track to get over the hump by 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if that price is good enough in 2016 to get the needed volumes.
Click to expand...


Well, yeah, I said that pricing would mean they were 'on track' in mid-2015, but I don't believe that pricing gets them to the ~2M annual volume level and there are probably going to need to be further price reductions by 2016 to get them over the 'hump'


This year, a reasonable 55" LED/LCD can be had for under $1000 and a premium 55' LED/LCD for under $1500. If that pricing were to hold through 2016, perhaps the $2000-$2500 for a 55" WOLED would be good enough to make it in 2016, but it is pretty much a certainty that LED/LCD pricing will have further declined by then.


As a minimum, I predict that the price for a premium 55" LED/LCD in 2016 will match the pricing for a reasonable 55" LED/LCD today - meaning under $1000.


I don't see LG driving the sales volumes they will need if the WOLED premium is more than 50% of the closest comparable LED/LCD, so if premium 55" LED/LCDs are available for under $1000 by 2016, it means LG will need to be in a position to sell their 55" WOLEDs for under $1500 by then if they are going to make it over the 'hump' (10% of premium TV sales).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24724552
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*
> *My prediction for 2015 is 50.000 (MAX) OLED TVs sold.* Seems to me that for huge increases in volume in 2016/2017 price needs to be $1,500 -$2,000 for a 55''.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huge volume increases, indeed. Well into the millions. *I think you might be bearish for 2015, however*.
Click to expand...


It sounds like LG sold something in the range of 3000 WOLEDs in 2013.


I'd be curious in your prediction for 2014 WOLED sales volumes, but I can't see it being much beyond the 9000-12,000 level this year.


Until the price drop in the middle of 2015, run rate probably won't be much different, so perhaps 10,000 units in H1'15. When they drop pricing by 50% in mid-year, that will surely drive additional demand, but I don't see a 10X increase in any case. With a 5X increase in demand, they'd hit 50,000 units in H2'15 and 60,000 WOLEDs for the year - you see them selling 100,000 units in 2015?


All of the above is based on an assumption of $2500 pricing for 55" by mid 2015 - if LG comes out more aggressively and gets down in the range of $1500 for 55" by mid-215, that would change everything (and be great news for LGs likelihood of success in their WOLED initiative).


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720_60#post_24726182
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24724552
> 
> 
> Yes, that "hump" is in the 10+ million annually volume, which is OLEDs "valley of death".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I have many views in common and you know I respect your opinion, but I think you are being a bit to extreme with this definition of the 'hump' LG is facing.
Click to expand...

 

Well I can say that as is often the case, I'm finding myself *hoping* that Rogo is being too extreme.  He's right a lot of the time in such regards though.  And *that* sucks in this case.

 

I do rather like though that a hump is apparently also a valley.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726232
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720_60#post_24726182
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24724552
> 
> 
> Yes, that "hump" is in the 10+ million annually volume, which is OLEDs "valley of death".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I have many views in common and you know I respect your opinion, but I think you are being a bit to extreme with this definition of the 'hump' LG is facing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I can say that as is often the case, I'm finding myself _hoping_ that Rogo is being too extreme.  He's right a lot of the time in such regards though.  And _that_ sucks in this case.
> 
> 
> I do rather like though that a hump is apparently also a valley.
Click to expand...


'Getting over the hump', 'making it through the valley of death', 'crossing the chasm' - there's lots of ways to say it but there is no doubt that LG has to get through some major challenges if they are going to shepherd their WOLED initiative into the green pastures of sustainability over the next 18-24 months...


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726182
> 
> 
> It sounds like LG sold something in the range of 3000 WOLEDs in 2013.
> 
> 
> I'd be curious in your prediction for 2014 WOLED sales volumes, but I can't see it being much beyond the 9000-12,000 level this year.



Pricing was about $9000 for most of 2013 with limited availability.


We have already hit $4000 with six months left and OLED's have shown up in a variety of retail outlets. The street pricing will likely be close to $3000 by the end of the year, and you think they'll only sell 10000 units? If that happens, I dont think we'll need to wait until 2015 to declare that OLED's are dead.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726556
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726182
> 
> 
> It sounds like LG sold something in the range of 3000 WOLEDs in 2013.
> 
> 
> I'd be curious in your prediction for 2014 WOLED sales volumes, but I can't see it being much beyond the 9000-12,000 level this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pricing was about $9000 for most of 2013 with limited availability.
> 
> 
> We have already hit $4000 with six months left and OLED's have shown up in a variety of retail outlets. The street pricing will likely be close to $3000 by the end of the year, and you think they'll only sell 10000 units? If that happens, I dont think we'll need to wait until 2015 to declare that OLED's are dead.
Click to expand...


I'm assuming that the 55" 4K Gen 2 WOLEDs will be $5000 through this year. If street pricing on those sets reaches $3000 by Black Friday I would agree, a 2014 sales volume of 10,000 units would probably be too conservative.


----------



## fafrd

Don't shoot the messenger, but Mark Henninger just posted this over in the LCD Forum: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1532039/panasonic-beats-plasma-picture-quality-with-tc-ax800u-series#post_24726546 


"In such bright light, the TV's picture was gorgeous; to be frank, it looked as nice as the LG UHD/4K OLEDs I saw at CES. Color saturation was exemplary, as was screen uniformity. Off-angle viewing posed no problems whatsoever within a 90-degree cone. I tried to find fault, but I must confess I could not. In a bright room, Panasonic's best LCD offers an image that's competitive with OLED TVs I've seen."


"It's time to start the debate, which centers on a simple premise—that well-implemented LCD can look better than plasma in both dark and bright environments; it can even compete with OLED picture quality when viewed in a bright room. Based on what I saw, Panasonic has pulled it off. "


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726630
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that the 55" 4K Gen 2 WOLEDs will be $5000 through this year. If street pricing on those sets reaches $3000 by Black Friday I would agree, a 2014 sales volume of 10,000 units would probably be too conservative.



I am also assuming 55" 4K Gen 2 units at $5000 with the 1080p unit at $3000.


and if they only sell 10,000 units, then OLED's are dead.


The market for bleeding edge high-end televisions is extremely small, but it isnt zero.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726648
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726630
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that the 55" 4K Gen 2 WOLEDs will be $5000 through this year. If street pricing on those sets reaches $3000 by Black Friday I would agree, a 2014 sales volume of 10,000 units would probably be too conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am also assuming 55" 4K Gen 2 units at $5000 with the 1080p unit at $3000.
> 
> 
> and if they only sell 10,000 units, then OLED's are dead.
> 
> 
> The market for bleeding edge high-end televisions is extremely small, but it isnt zero.
Click to expand...


It is not even clear if LG will be manufacturing any 1080p products on the M2 line, so I don't see how they will be able to sell the 1080p sets for $3000 - if they could and not lose their shirt, why wouldn't they be doing that today?


Cost-wise, there is no real difference between the 1080p sets and the 4K sets when manufactured on the same line, but for sure the 4K sets can command a premium in terms of price.


I believe LG will do everything they can to capture as much of the 4K market as possible with their new gen-2 4K products. The gen 1 1080p sets will probably stay available into next year, but it would surprise me if LG focused on selling more of those gen-1 1080p sets by aggressively lowering prices more than on the gen-2 4K sets.


Among other things, it seems like the gen-1 products have some questionable performance areas that are hopefully successfully addressed in the gen-2 products - why would LG want to take the risk of pushing more gen-1 products out by offering discounted prices versus selling as many gen-2 products as possible once they are available?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720_60#post_24726648
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726630
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that the 55" 4K Gen 2 WOLEDs will be $5000 through this year. If street pricing on those sets reaches $3000 by Black Friday I would agree, a 2014 sales volume of 10,000 units would probably be too conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am also assuming 55" 4K Gen 2 units at $5000 with the 1080p unit at $3000.
> 
> 
> and if they only sell 10,000 units, then OLED's are dead.
Click to expand...

 

If they only sell 10,000 units, then there would be a reason for only selling 10,000 units.  And that reason could get better over time, no?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726698
> 
> 
> It is not even clear if LG will be manufacturing any 1080p products on the M2 line, so I don't see how they will be able to sell the 1080p sets for $3000 - if they could and not lose their shirt, why wouldn't they be doing that today?
> 
> 
> Cost-wise, there is no real difference between the 1080p sets and the 4K sets when manufactured on the same line, but for sure the 4K sets can command a premium in terms of price.
> 
> 
> I believe LG will do everything they can to capture as much of the 4K market as possible with their new gen-2 4K products. The gen 1 1080p sets will probably stay available into next year, but it would surprise me if LG focused on selling more of those gen-1 1080p sets by aggressively lowering prices more than on the gen-2 4K sets.
> 
> 
> Among other things, it seems like the gen-1 products have some questionable performance areas that are hopefully successfully addressed in the gen-2 products - why would LG want to take the risk of pushing more gen-1 products out by offering discounted prices versus selling as many gen-2 products as possible once they are available?



They will continue to be manufacturing units on the M1 line. They do have a Gen 2 1080p unit though it is still unclear if they will actually launch it.


Regardless though, I expect them to continue to sell a 1080p version this year and bring down pricing as yields continue to rise.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726700
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9720_60#post_24726648
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726630
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that the 55" 4K Gen 2 WOLEDs will be $5000 through this year. If street pricing on those sets reaches $3000 by Black Friday I would agree, a 2014 sales volume of 10,000 units would probably be too conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am also assuming 55" 4K Gen 2 units at $5000 with the 1080p unit at $3000.
> 
> 
> 
> and if they only sell 10,000 units, then OLED's are dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they only sell 10,000 units, then there would be a reason for only selling 10,000 units.  And that reason could get better over time, no?
Click to expand...


I agree, only selling 10,000 units in 2014 does not at all mean OLEDs are dead.


2016 is the make-or-break year. Less than 1M 55" WOLEDs in 2016, and OLED probably is dead.


2015 is important to set the stage, so if they don't at least get in to the 50,000 - 100,000 range by 2015, 1M+ by 2016 seems unattainable.


But the sales volume in 2014 doesn't really matter as long as the products prove their reliability and quality in the hands of consumers. Another year of selling 3000 would be disastrous, but delivering a 3-4x increase in volume and proving they have no reliability issues in the wild would make 2014 a year of success in terms of being on-track.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726700
> 
> 
> If they only sell 10,000 units, then there would be a reason for only selling 10,000 units.  And that reason could get better over time, no?



Well, I expect that OLED's will sell significantly more units than 10,000 this year.


If they did sell only 10,000 units, I would expect it to be because of dramatic quality issues (worse than we are currently seeing) or perhaps high-end 4K LCD pricing fell drastically while matching OLED's in terms of picture quality. Both of those scenarios would make me question the long-term viability of LG's WOLED architecture.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9700_100#post_24726645
> 
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger, but Mark Henninger just posted this over in the LCD Forum: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1532039/panasonic-beats-plasma-picture-quality-with-tc-ax800u-series#post_24726546
> 
> 
> "In such bright light, the TV's picture was gorgeous; to be frank, it looked as nice as the LG UHD/4K OLEDs I saw at CES. Color saturation was exemplary, as was screen uniformity. Off-angle viewing posed no problems whatsoever within a 90-degree cone. I tried to find fault, but I must confess I could not. In a bright room, Panasonic's best LCD offers an image that's competitive with OLED TVs I've seen."
> 
> 
> "It's time to start the debate, which centers on a simple premise—that well-implemented LCD can look better than plasma in both dark and bright environments; it can even compete with OLED picture quality when viewed in a bright room. Based on what I saw, Panasonic has pulled it off. "


Sounds like malarkey to me...in the case of OLED anyway, he's going by visual *memory*, notoriously unreliable no matter how much of a video buff you are.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark*
> 
> In a black room, the ZT60 edged out the AX800U in terms of ultimate black levels, but the difference was tiny. When it came to detail rendition, I saw no real benefit to the UHD/4K upscaling on the AX800U; however, it was at least as sharp and detailed as the ZT60.


That's all I need to see to know that OLED will decimate them both. It still didn't sink the plasma in the low level detail department.


----------



## Artwood

Is it harder to efficiently produce reliable OLED panels or to mine Di-Lithium crystals?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726726
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726698
> 
> 
> It is not even clear if LG will be manufacturing any 1080p products on the M2 line, so I don't see how they will be able to sell the 1080p sets for $3000 - if they could and not lose their shirt, why wouldn't they be doing that today?
> 
> 
> Cost-wise, there is no real difference between the 1080p sets and the 4K sets when manufactured on the same line, but for sure the 4K sets can command a premium in terms of price.
> 
> 
> I believe LG will do everything they can to capture as much of the 4K market as possible with their new gen-2 4K products. The gen 1 1080p sets will probably stay available into next year, but it would surprise me if LG focused on selling more of those gen-1 1080p sets by aggressively lowering prices more than on the gen-2 4K sets.
> 
> 
> Among other things, it seems like the gen-1 products have some questionable performance areas that are hopefully successfully addressed in the gen-2 products - why would LG want to take the risk of pushing more gen-1 products out by offering discounted prices versus selling as many gen-2 products as possible once they are available?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will continue to be manufacturing units on the M1 line. They do have a Gen 2 1080p unit though it is still unclear if they will actually launch it.
> 
> 
> Regardless though, I expect them to continue to sell a 1080p version this year and bring down pricing as yields continue to rise.
Click to expand...


Yields are not going to improve much further on the M1 pilot line - it is only running half-panels and switching between a range of different OLED products.


I would expect 1080p 55" Gen 1 WOLEDs manufactured on the M1 pilot line to have lower yields and higher costs than 4K 55" Gen 2 WOLEDs manufactured on the M2 dedicated WOLED-TV production line.


That is why I don't see why LG would have an incentive to deeply discount the price of the 55" Gen 1 1080p products - if they did, it would only cut into sales of the Gen 2 4K products where they would make more margin.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726182
> 
> 
> You and I have many views in common and you know I respect your opinion, but I think you are being a bit to extreme with this definition of the 'hump' LG is facing.
> 
> 
> The M2 manufacturing line has a monthly capacity of 26,000 substrates, equating to 150,000 55" WOLED panels monthly or an annual volume of 1.8M. Keeping that line filled to capacity is how I would define the 'hump' LG is facing. Still a big challenge from where they sit today, but it amounts to ~1% of the overall TV market or 10% of the premium TV market as opposed to your 10+ million annual volume 'hump' which is a full 50% of the premium TV market.



So here's the confusion. I don't dispute your math, but the "hump" isn't the "valley of death". And this is very confusing in pursuing new technology. There comes a moment where it appears some sort of scale has been achieved and therefore "the problems are solved." And that would be around the time when the M2 fab is cooking at near capacity. But that isn't actually going to prove to be a viable business.


Now, you are going to say, "But it will be! At those levels, LG can hold a chunk of the premium market just fine!"


It cannot. Volumes will be far too small to move down the learning curve and in the meantime, 4K LCD will continue to both explode in volumes and improve. These twin pressure will marginalize a tiny OLED to the point that it again is completely non-competitive.


This is the "valley of death". It is where you can see a path to glory, but you must slog through some long, ugly period of growth with massive investment and very uncertain prospects. It is not an impossible valley to traverse. Tesla, for example, is in it right now and well capitalized and optimistic. But they are not out of it either. Really expensive touchscreen phones exited it with aplomb as did LCD monitors once before and many other techs... But many never make it.


> Quote:
> I'd be curious in your prediction for 2014 WOLED sales volumes, but I can't see it being much beyond the 9000-12,000 level this year.



If it's that low, Slacker is correct. We can write the epitaphs.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726232
> 
> 
> Well I can say that as is often the case, I'm finding myself _hoping_ that Rogo is being too extreme.  He's right a lot of the time in such regards though.  And _that_ sucks in this case.
> 
> 
> I do rather like though that a hump is apparently also a valley.



If we're going for strained analogies, think of making it over the hump only to find a giant valley in front of you. On the other side is a glorious, lush region where you can live in peace and prosperity for years to come. But in the interim, it's nothing but work. And it will always seem easier to quit or turn back than to move forward.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726648
> 
> 
> I am also assuming 55" 4K Gen 2 units at $5000 with the 1080p unit at $3000.
> 
> 
> and if they only sell 10,000 units, then OLED's are dead.
> 
> 
> The market for bleeding edge high-end televisions is extremely small, but it isnt zero.



Yep. I'm sort of much more interested in the 2015 numbers than the 2014 ones personally. All the 4K product isn't coming till late in 2014 and I think the lack of it automatically dampens demand for the 2K one.


----------



## tgm1024


When looking at the existing numbers and predictions, has everyone considered the "OMG hold off until the dust settles" effect?

 

I mean, there's a lot of confusing things out there for the public to get a grip on all at once.  4K, OLED, curved, and I suppose I could add to a lesser extent they're learning about "motion handling" improvements, but it's unnecessary to do so.

 

They could well see 4K and think "ok, now what......do I kick myself later if I buy 2K or will I if I invest in 4K?"  And 100 questions show up that they're unqualified to understand.  Things we take for granted like: will a 4K set show regular content (I promise you this has occurred to some).  Or will I never be able to watch anything again if the world goes 4K?  I can't tell you how many people thought that when I bought a 3D TV that I was somehow screwed when "3D was going away" (run in circles, scream and shout).

 

There must be enough confusion going on right now to make anyone pause.  Even pause a year.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24727573
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726182
> 
> 
> You and I have many views in common and you know I respect your opinion, but I think you are being a bit to extreme with this definition of the 'hump' LG is facing.
> 
> 
> The M2 manufacturing line has a monthly capacity of 26,000 substrates, equating to 150,000 55" WOLED panels monthly or an annual volume of 1.8M. Keeping that line filled to capacity is how I would define the 'hump' LG is facing. Still a big challenge from where they sit today, but it amounts to ~1% of the overall TV market or 10% of the premium TV market as opposed to your 10+ million annual volume 'hump' which is a full 50% of the premium TV market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So here's the confusion. I don't dispute your math, but the "hump" isn't the "valley of death". And this is very confusing in pursuing new technology. There comes a moment where it appears some sort of scale has been achieved and therefore "the problems are solved." And that would be around the time when the M2 fab is cooking at near capacity. But that isn't actually going to prove to be a viable business.
> 
> 
> Now, you are going to say, "But it will be! At those levels, LG can hold a chunk of the premium market just fine!"
> 
> 
> It cannot. *Volumes will be far too small to move down the learning curve* and in the meantime, 4K LCD will continue to both explode in volumes and improve. These twin pressure will marginalize a tiny OLED to the point that it again is completely non-competitive.
> 
> 
> This is the "valley of death". It is where you can see a path to glory, but you must slog through some long, ugly period of growth with massive investment and very uncertain prospects. It is not an impossible valley to traverse. Tesla, for example, is in it right now and well capitalized and optimistic. But they are not out of it either. Really expensive touchscreen phones exited it with aplomb as did LCD monitors once before and many other techs... But many never make it.
Click to expand...


The only 'learning curve' I see is to continue to drive up yields and drive down costs, and a full-scale factory running at full capacity is all that is needed to move down that learning curve.


If there are new technology requirements, that changes everything, but I assume 4K will be sufficient for the next decade. If glass-free 3D takes hold for real this time and there is some technical reason why it is more troublesome to integrate onto OLED than LED/LCD, the all bets are off. But short of that, OLED is the perfect display, so I am not sure what 'learning curve' you are referring to other than manufacturing efficiencies and realizing the promise of being less expensive to manufacture than LED/LCD. And again, a single full-scale factory running near full capacity for at least a full year should be enough to get through that 'valley of death'.


Now if the learning curve you are referring to is to address lifetime and reliability problems such as pixel failures in the field, image retention and burn-in, or other IGZO-backlplane-related image non-uniformity problems, then I am afraid they will never make it over the 'hump' of getting the M2 manufacturing line running at full capacity, let along continuing at the runrate for at least a year to make it through the 'valley of death' to get manufacturing costs below those of LED/LCD.


In my view, if the 'care and feeding' of the gen 2 4K OLEDs hitting the market later this year are not much more similar to the 'care and feeding requirements' of LED/LCD than they are to the 'care and feeding requirements' of plasma, OLED will never make it over the hump and will be doomed to the same fate as plasma. As they say, "you get one chance to make a first impression", and that chance is coming this Christmas with the Gen 2 products.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24727573
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726182
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be curious in your prediction for 2014 WOLED sales volumes, but I can't see it being much beyond the 9000-12,000 level this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's that low, Slacker is correct. We can write the epitaphs.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750#post_24726648
> 
> 
> I am also assuming 55" 4K Gen 2 units at $5000 with the 1080p unit at $3000.
> 
> 
> and if they only sell 10,000 units, then OLED's are dead.
> 
> 
> The market for bleeding edge high-end televisions is extremely small, but it isnt zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. I'm sort of much more interested in the 2015 numbers than the 2014 ones personally. All the 4K product isn't coming till late in 2014 and I think the lack of it automatically dampens demand for the 2K one.
Click to expand...


Your two statements above are a bit at odds with each other. I agree with the second - 2014 volumes don't matter much but 2015 volumes matter a great deal.


For 2014, I don't agree that OLED is dead if sales only reach 10,000 units, as long as whatever sales are achieved prove to the marketplace that these LG WOLED products are ready for prime time and can deliver fantastic picture quality and perfect blacks without suffering from reliability problems or entailing 'care and feeding' requirements that go much beyond those required of LED/LCD.


By this Christmas, if owners are needing to run color slides after watching a widescreen movie (or massaging their screens or heating them up with a hair dryer before beginning movie nite with their families or whatever), that epitaph can be cast in stone and it won't matter how many WOLEDs were sold in 2014.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24727619
> 
> 
> 
> When looking at the existing numbers and predictions, has everyone considered the "OMG hold off until the dust settles" effect?
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, there's a lot of confusing things out there for the public to get a grip on all at once.  4K, OLED, curved, and I suppose I could add to a lesser extent they're learning about "motion handling" improvements, but it's unnecessary to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> They could well see 4K and think "ok, now what......do I kick myself later if I buy 2K or will I if I invest in 4K?"  And 100 questions show up that they're unqualified to understand.  Things we take for granted like: *will a 4K set show regular content* (I promise you this has occurred to some).  Or will I never be able to watch anything again if the world goes 4K?  I can't tell you how many people thought that when I bought a 3D TV that I was somehow screwed when "3D was going away" (run in circles, scream and shout).
> 
> 
> 
> There must be enough confusion going on right now to make anyone pause.  Even pause a year.


 

1)  *Will a 4K set show regular content?*

 

*Yes regular 1080p content and 4k content (use the same AVC/ISO codec)!*

 

1080p goes in h.264,AVC(MPEG4), high4.0, ~24fps (constant), 5000kbps, 4.2.0.(Chroma) 8 bit(depth) on Netflix.

 

Well, ok 4k now goes in h.264,AVC(MPEG4), high4.0, ~24fps (constant), 7000kbps, 4.2.0.(Chroma) 8 bit(depth) which means that every modern TV is gonna be able to play downscaled 4k content from ,lets say, Netflix with sufficient software upgrade for hardware should allow it.

 

 

 

Most today broadcasts right now (HB0, showtime etc) are using 10 year-old (well, we should thank god they didn't go with XVID for broadcasting) 1080i MPEG2







20-30mbps, 30fps, which means that there's no true full HD broadcasting on HBO or other channels going on. Unfortunately, There's a possibility that 4k might be broadcasted in MPEG2 









 

Here's the MI of an average HBO broadcast in its full panoply.

 

 

ID                             : Game of Thrones S04E06 1080i HDTV MPEG2 DD5.1-CtrlHD

Format                         : MPEG Video

Format version                 : Version 2

Format profile                 : [email protected] 

Format settings, BVOP          : No

Format settings, Matrix        : Default

Codec ID                       : V_MPEG2

Codec ID/Info                  : MPEG 1 or 2 Video

Duration                       : 53mn 10s

Bit rate mode                  : Variable

Bit rate                       : 12.7 Mbps

Maximum bit rate               : 38.8 Mbps

Width                          : 1 920 pixels

Height                         : 1 080 pixels

Display aspect ratio           : 16:9

Frame rate mode                : Constant

Frame rate                     : 29.970 fps

Color space                    : YUV

Chroma subsampling             : 4:2:0

Bit depth                      : 8 bits

Scan type                      : Interlaced

Scan order                     : Bottom Field First

Compression mode               : Lossy

Bits/(Pixel*Frame)             : 0.205

Time code of first frame       : 00:00:00;00

Time code source               : Group of pictures header

Stream size                    : 4.73 GiB (95%)

Default                        : Yes

 

*Will I never be able to watch anything again if the world goes 4K?*

 

*No the hardware in the TV would not allow it (if it's gonna be true 4k)!!!* But I guess there's gonna be some kinda conversion box (4k to 1080p) selling out there separately to solve the problem.

 

The h.265 is not coming for the next 2-3 years and add to that a couple of years for h.265 to become mainstream and what you have is: there's not  gonna be any true 4k broadcasting at least for the next 5 years.

 

P.S Most people won't understand even 20 percent of the information I've provided, because one has to put in a lot of time into understanding this and most people simply don't care for that. You can't educate people that don't want be educated. Unfortunately,  people who ask these questions most of the time don't care enough to find the answers to them


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24727860
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24727619
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When looking at the existing numbers and predictions, has everyone considered the "OMG hold off until the dust settles" effect?
> 
> 
> I mean, there's a lot of confusing things out there for the public to get a grip on all at once.  4K, OLED, curved, and I suppose I could add to a lesser extent they're learning about "motion handling" improvements, but it's unnecessary to do so.
> 
> 
> They could well see 4K and think "ok, now what......do I kick myself later if I buy 2K or will I if I invest in 4K?"  And 100 questions show up that they're unqualified to understand.  Things we take for granted like: *will a 4K set show regular content* (I promise you this has occurred to some).  Or will I never be able to watch anything again if the world goes 4K?  I can't tell you how many people thought that when I bought a 3D TV that I was somehow screwed when "3D was going away" (run in circles, scream and shout).
> 
> 
> There must be enough confusion going on right now to make anyone pause.  Even pause a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  *Will a 4K set show regular content?*
> 
> *Yes regular 1080p content and 4k content (use the same AVC/ISO codec)!*
> 
> 
> 1080p goes in h.264,AVC(MPEG4), high4.0, ~24fps (constant), 5000kbps, 4.2.0.(Chroma) 8 bit(depth) on Netflix.
> 
> 
> Well, ok 4k now goes in h.264,AVC(MPEG4), high4.0, ~24fps (constant), 7000kbps, 4.2.0.(Chroma) 8 bit(depth) which means that every modern TV is gonna be able to play downscaled 4k content from ,lets say, Netflix with sufficient software upgrade for hardware should allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most today broadcasts right now (HB0, showtime etc) are using 10 year (well, we should thank god they didn't go with XVID for broadcasting) 1080i MPEG2 20-30mbps, 30fps, which means that there's no true full HD broadcasting on HBO or other channels going on. Unfortunately, There's a possibility that 4k might be broadcasted in MPEG2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the MI of an average HBO broadcast in its full panoply.
> 
> 
> 
> ID                             : Game of Thrones S04E06 1080i HDTV MPEG2 DD5.1-CtrlHD
> 
> 
> Format                         : MPEG Video
> 
> 
> Format version                 : Version 2
> 
> 
> Format profile                 : [email protected]
> 
> 
> Format settings, BVOP          : No
> 
> 
> Format settings, Matrix        : Default
> 
> 
> Codec ID                       : V_MPEG2
> 
> 
> Codec ID/Info                  : MPEG 1 or 2 Video
> 
> 
> Duration                       : 53mn 10s
> 
> 
> Bit rate mode                  : Variable
> 
> 
> Bit rate                       : 12.7 Mbps
> 
> 
> Maximum bit rate               : 38.8 Mbps
> 
> 
> Width                          : 1 920 pixels
> 
> 
> Height                         : 1 080 pixels
> 
> 
> Display aspect ratio           : 16:9
> 
> 
> Frame rate mode                : Constant
> 
> 
> Frame rate                     : 29.970 fps
> 
> 
> Color space                    : YUV
> 
> 
> Chroma subsampling             : 4:2:0
> 
> 
> Bit depth                      : 8 bits
> 
> 
> Scan type                      : Interlaced
> 
> 
> Scan order                     : Bottom Field First
> 
> 
> Compression mode               : Lossy
> 
> 
> Bits/(Pixel*Frame)             : 0.205
> 
> 
> Time code of first frame       : 00:00:00;00
> 
> 
> Time code source               : Group of pictures header
> 
> 
> Stream size                    : 4.73 GiB (95%)
> 
> 
> Default                        : Yes
> 
> *Will I never be able to watch anything again if the world goes 4K?*
> 
> *No the hardware in the TV would not allow it (if it's gonna be true 4k)!!!* But I guess there's gonna be some kinda conversion box (4k to 1080p) selling out there separately to solve the problem.
> 
> 
> The h.265 is not coming for the next 2-3 years and add to that a couple of years for h.265 to become mainstream and what you have is: there's not  gonna be any true 4k broadcasting at least for the next 5 years.
> 
> 
> P.S Most people won't understand even 20 percent of the information I've provided, because one has to put in a lot of time into understanding this and most people simply don't care for that. You can't educate people that don't be educated. Unfortunately,  people who ask these questions most of the time don't care enough to find the answers to them
Click to expand...


I believe tgm1024's questions were intended to be rhetorical, but thanks for the effort you put into responding


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24727866
> 
> 
> 
> I believe tgm1024's questions were intended to be rhetorical, but thanks for the effort you put into responding


So were my answers


----------



## stas3098


It may be a bit off-topic, but I'm gonna go ahead with it anyway. Bear with me , please









 

Some people at rutracker.org http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4635538  (people who make torrents in their down time and do post-production for a living) already have had enough time with 4k to know that the difference between 4k and 1080p content on a 55" 4k TV is rather negligible. They think 4k has all the chances of working out about as well as 3D did with only Netflix and Hulu and other streaming services like that streaming 4k that looks worse than 1080p blue ray especially since as one prominent member of rutacker noticed:" it takes at least a gtx670 and an i5 3450 to *decode (playback)* blue ray level 4k content encoded in HEVC, that's why I went with h.264 for the release, please stopping asking why it isn't h.265".

http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4553420

 

P.S. They also tried to "rip" Netflix's 4k content (House of Cards) just to see what it looks like, but unfortunately there was none of 4k content on Netflix's servers as of late of April of this year meaning Netflix couldn't have possibly been streaming 4k content at the time, although they said they did if memory serves right. By the way Netflix denied it and forced rutracker's moderators to remove the thread because it contained instructions on how to "hack( hack is the very strong word for it it was always within *DMCA* and there was no apparent reason at all for Netflix to go bananas and fly off the handle) " Netflix's servers which were up there for like 1 year before and it didn't seem to bother them then...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24727701
> 
> 
> The only 'learning curve' I see is to continue to drive up yields and drive down costs, and a full-scale factory running at full capacity is all that is needed to move down that learning curve.



Learning curve effects are cumulative over time. They aren't an "OMG we're out of lessons" type of thing. They are quite literally a function of volume.


I suggest reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects 


> Quote:
> Now if the learning curve you are referring to is to address lifetime and reliability problems such as pixel failures in the field, image retention and burn-in, or other IGZO-backlplane-related image non-uniformity problems, then I am afraid they will never make it over the 'hump' of getting the M2 manufacturing line running at full capacity, let along continuing at the runrate for at least a year to make it through the 'valley of death' to get manufacturing costs below those of LED/LCD.



It's a thousand little things in making an OLED TV that LG (and everyone else) gets better at with volume -- and only with volume. Check the Wikipedia page for a start on this.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24728838
> 
> 
> Learning curve effects are cumulative over time. They aren't an "OMG we're out of lessons" type of thing. They are quite literally a function of volume.
> 
> 
> I suggest reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects
> 
> It's a thousand little things in making an OLED TV that LG (and everyone else) gets better at with volume -- and only with volume. Check the Wikipedia page for a start on this.



The assumption in this conversation is that LG becomes profitable with their single M2 fab.


Assuming that is true, LG would then need to match the cost reductions going forward of high-end LCD's. It seems to me that the experience curve indicates that LG would see larger cost reductions going from 4 million total units produced to 6 million total produced than LCD's will going from 2 billion to 2.25 billion (or whatever the real volumes are). The big hurdle that LG has to overcome is economies of scale and if they are able to do that while running 2 million units a year, I dont think that the experience curve is going to be the issue going forward.


Thought that this was good link on the subject as well.

http://www.economist.com/node/14298944 


Regardless though, once you take this out of the theoretical, it makes little difference. It is unlikely in the extreme that LG is going to hit the exact rate of profitability on the M2 fab that justifies continuing to run that fab while not justifying investment into a M3 fab. The capex costs are only going to drop on the 2nd fab and they arent that big in the first place.


----------



## greenland

It seems to me that for OLED to become a viable competitive commodity, it will have to capture a larger share of the market, than merely the share that Plasma has vacated. That means that it will have to win over a sizable portion of the market now belonging to LCD sets.


Will it be able to do that? Worries about Image Retention issues scared away a lot of people from Plasma, and it may do the same with OLED. I am willing to baby an OLED display, just as I have done for my Plasma sets, but I am in the minority, so if OLED makers do not find a way to make their displays less IR prone, they will have trouble winning over most current LCD lovers.


This review of Panasonic's 4K LCD offerings, by Mark Henninger, may be a harbinger of even tougher competition emerging for OLED, in a battle for the pocket books of current LCD lovers.


"Panasonic Beats Plasma Picture Quality with TC-AX800U Series"

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1532039/panasonic-beats-plasma-picture-quality-with-tc-ax800u-series/0_100


----------



## 8mile13

^^What we have seen lately is folks praising the 2014 top Vizio, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic etc... based upon specs and impressions of those TVs at CES, manufacturers presentations etc.. It really does not matter if those who speak highly of those TVs are Katzmaier and Henninger.


Only thing one should focus on is critical reviews and user *threads*..


----------



## Chris5028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24729254
> 
> 
> ^^What we have seen lately is folks praising the 2014 top Vizio, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic etc... based upon specs and impressions of those TVs at CES, manufacturers presentations etc.. It really does not matter if those who speak highly of those TVs are Katzmaier and Henninger.
> 
> 
> Only thing one should focus on is critical reviews and user *threads*..



I keep reading about these sets, I have serious doubts. Has anyone seen them outside of controlled manufacturer demos? Until that happens it is all just smoke and mirrors to me. Not only that but what happens when Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba etc sets don't sell for a damn. Those manufacturers wont have much incentive to keep improving and we may end up back at square one with poorly implemented edge lit 4K LCD being the only thing out there. I may be looking at this wrong but it seems to me that if OLED fails there wont be much to hold the manufactures to task.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780_60#post_24727878
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24727866
> 
> 
> 
> I believe tgm1024's questions were intended to be rhetorical, but thanks for the effort you put into responding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were my answers
Click to expand...

 

Why bother though?  To hear yourself speak?  The point I was making was what the public has for worries.  You were explaining a lot to the wind.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780_60#post_24728284
> 
> 
> 
> It may be a bit off-topic, but I'm gonna go ahead with it anyway. Bear with me , please


 

Everyone goes OT once in a while, but for a good discussion with appropriate replies, you would really want that post to be in one of the 4K threads.  The *only* reason I mentioned 4K recently above (and it seems to have launched you in a 4K direction) was as an example of how the public thinks, and the degree to which they are prepared to make decisions.  Not because the subject of 4K *itself* was of importance.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24728838
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24727701
> 
> 
> The only 'learning curve' I see is to continue to drive up yields and drive down costs, and a full-scale factory running at full capacity is all that is needed to move down that learning curve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learning curve effects are cumulative over time. They aren't an "OMG we're out of lessons" type of thing. They are quite literally a function of volume.
> 
> 
> I suggest reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Now if the learning curve you are referring to is to address lifetime and reliability problems such as pixel failures in the field, image retention and burn-in, or other IGZO-backlplane-related image non-uniformity problems, then I am afraid they will never make it over the 'hump' of getting the M2 manufacturing line running at full capacity, let along continuing at the runrate for at least a year to make it through the 'valley of death' to get manufacturing costs below those of LED/LCD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a thousand little things in making an OLED TV that LG (and everyone else) gets better at with volume -- and only with volume. Check the Wikipedia page for a start on this.
Click to expand...


Think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. We're kind of saying the same think and we're kind of not. If LG can sell enough WOLEDs in 2016 to keep the M2 line running at close to capacity for 12+ months, they will be over the hump and pretty much across the valley in my view. A single large factory running at close to capacity will allow them to achieve the lion's share of what you are describing.


My fear is that they never make it over that hump and never reach the point of selling 150,000 OLEDs per month.


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750_50#post_24729462
> 
> 
> Not only that but what happens when Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba etc sets don't sell for a damn. Those manufacturers wont have much incentive to keep improving and we may end up back at square one with poorly implemented edge lit 4K LCD being the only thing out there. I may be looking at this wrong but it seems to me that if OLED fails there wont be much to hold the manufactures to task.


Make sure you do your part and buy one then.


----------



## Chris5028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Stereodude*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24729997
> 
> 
> Make sure you do your part and buy one then.


. I am saving my pennies. Maybe I should try winning the lotto.


----------



## stas3098


pseudo


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24729601
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone goes OT once in a while, but for a good discussion with appropriate replies, you would really want that post to be in one of the 4K threads.  The *only* reason I mentioned 4K recently above (and it seems to have launched you in a 4K direction) was as an example of how the public thinks, and the degree to which they are prepared to make decisions.  Not because the subject of 4K *itself* was of importance.


The reason behind me going on a tangent was that I had a very interesting discussion a couple of days ago with the people who are making 4k happen and I just wanted to share what I'd learnt with you guys (seems to be that most of these people are Russian expatriates, though). They say that true 4K should have at least  500 to 5000mbps (now it is 15 to 20mbps), 48 to 60fps, 4:4:4, and 12 bit or even 16 bit ( it translates into 500 to 2000GB an hour and even a 2000 buck set-up with cross-fire R290X at times is struggling with playing back true 4K)  to have the same wow effect which people had when they were switching from SD to HD. They also said that Netflix's 4K is a joke...

 

 I'm gonna move my 4k posts to the appropriate thread. And by the way if you have a desire to check out what pseudo 4k looks like you can find 100 percent *DMCA* compliant pseudo 4K demo courtesy of one of the main 4K "makers" on the following site http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4635538   (although you'll have to register on the site first) I promise it'll rock your world even on a standard 1080p monitor!

 

P.S *In sooth, 4K holds the promise of delivering real-life-like picture if implemented right,* 4K has right now a chance to revolutionize TV!  That's why I'm waiting with bated breath for the arrival of 4K OLED and true 4K ( full-on rec.2020)

 

Here's the MI of the pseudo 4k file:

 

General

Complete name : E:\TimeScapes 4k CineForm\TimeScapes 4k CineForm.avi

Format : AVI

Format/Info : Audio Video Interleave

Format profile : *OpenDML*

File size : 307 GiB

Duration : 48mn 22s
*Overall bit rate : 909 Mbps*

Video #0

ID : 0

Format : CineForm

Codec ID : CFHD

Codec ID/Info : CineForm 10-bit Visually Perfect HD (Wavelet)

Duration : 48mn 21s

Bit rate : 908 Mbps

Width : 4 096 pixels

Height : 2 304 pixels

Display aspect ratio : 16:9

Frame rate : 23.976 fps

Scan type : Progressive

Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 4.013

Stream size : 307 GiB (100%)


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9750_50#post_24730108
> 
> 
> . I am saving my pennies. Maybe I should try winning the lotto.


I've got the pennies saved... I just need something decent to buy. I guess I will wait for the 2014 VE shoot-out and see how some of the sets I'm interested in fare.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780_60#post_24730237
> 
> 
> I'm gonna move my 4k posts to the appropriate thread.


 

And I think you have something valuable to say.  I look forward to those posts elsewhere.  I just felt like I set you off on the wrong offramp here by accident when I was just picking an example tech out of the air, so I felt responsible.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24728926
> 
> 
> The assumption in this conversation is that LG becomes profitable with their single M2 fab.
> 
> 
> Assuming that is true, LG would then need to match the cost reductions going forward of high-end LCD's. It seems to me that the experience curve indicates that LG would see larger cost reductions going from 4 million total units produced to 6 million total produced than LCD's will going from 2 billion to 2.25 billion (or whatever the real volumes are). The big hurdle that LG has to overcome is economies of scale and if they are able to do that while running 2 million units a year, I dont think that the experience curve is going to be the issue going forward.



It's not that the experience curve itself is a big issue. It's that putting billions on the table while waiting for the billions to come back off the table is hard to do, even for a big company like LG. It's just not a given that they can / will do this with uncertain returns on investment.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24729096
> 
> 
> It seems to me that for OLED to become a viable competitive commodity, it will have to capture a larger share of the market, than merely the share that Plasma has vacated. That means that it will have to win over a sizable portion of the market now belonging to LCD sets.
> 
> 
> Will it be able to do that? Worries about Image Retention issues scared away a lot of people from Plasma, and it may do the same with OLED. I am willing to baby an OLED display, just as I have done for my Plasma sets, but I am in the minority, so if OLED makers do not find a way to make their displays less IR prone, they will have trouble winning over most current LCD lovers.



And reasons like this are a problem....


> Quote:
> This review of Panasonic's 4K LCD offerings, by Mark Henninger, may be a harbinger of even tougher competition emerging for OLED, in a battle for the pocket books of current LCD lovers.
> 
> 
> "Panasonic Beats Plasma Picture Quality with TC-AX800U Series"
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1532039/panasonic-beats-plasma-picture-quality-with-tc-ax800u-series/0_100



... But as I've been saying for several years now, reasons like this are actually a bigger problem.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24729462
> 
> 
> I keep reading about these sets, I have serious doubts. Has anyone seen them outside of controlled manufacturer demos? Until that happens it is all just smoke and mirrors to me. Not only that but what happens when Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba etc sets don't sell for a damn. Those manufacturers wont have much incentive to keep improving and we may end up back at square one with poorly implemented edge lit 4K LCD being the only thing out there. I may be looking at this wrong but it seems to me that if OLED fails there wont be much to hold the manufactures to task.



And yet I share these doubts until much more data / experience comes in.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9700_100#post_24729254
> 
> 
> ^^What we have seen lately is folks praising the 2014 top Vizio, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic etc... based upon specs and impressions of those TVs at CES, manufacturers presentations etc.. It really does not matter if those who speak highly of those TVs are Katzmaier and Henninger.
> 
> 
> Only thing one should focus on is critical reviews and user *threads*..



Here is one of those reviews.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/tx-50ax802b-201405193778.htm


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780_60#post_24735599
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9700_100#post_24729254
> 
> 
> ^^What we have seen lately is folks praising the 2014 top Vizio, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic etc... based upon specs and impressions of those TVs at CES, manufacturers presentations etc.. It really does not matter if those who speak highly of those TVs are Katzmaier and Henninger.
> 
> 
> Only thing one should focus on is critical reviews and user *threads*..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one of those reviews.
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/tx-50ax802b-201405193778.htm
Click to expand...

 

Active 3D   , but thanks: I am now paying *much* tighter attention to Pana.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9800_100#post_24735622
> 
> 
> Active 3D
> , but thanks: I am now paying *much* tighter attention to Pana.



I know that you are a big fan of 3D home viewing, so at least Panasonic is not dropping it, like Vizio has. The big question remains, will such improvements in LCD displays be enough to keep current LCD owners from defecting to OLED or not? If they can purchase a 4K LCD set, such as the Panansonic offerings, for half the price they would have to pay for a comparable sized LG 4K OLED? I am afraid that they will stick with LCD. This could be a make or break year for OLED.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780_60#post_24735666
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9800_100#post_24735622
> 
> 
> Active 3D
> 
> , but thanks: I am now paying *much* tighter attention to Pana.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you are a big fan of 3D home viewing, so at least Panasonic is not dropping it, like Vizio has. The big question remains, will such improvements in LCD displays be enough to keep current LCD owners from defecting to OLED or not? If they can purchase a 4K LCD set, such as the Panansonic offerings, for half the price they would have to pay for a comparable sized LG 4K OLED? I am afraid that they will stick with LCD. This could be a make or break year for OLED.
Click to expand...

 

I worry that LCD might already be "terrible but good enough to kill off OLED"...but that's only a short term issue.  I don't subscribe to the notion that volume has to be there for a technology to march forward....The theory on that is heady but really smacks of forming mathematical theories on bark formation but losing concept of the forest.  Yes, a lack of volume kills products, but the critical point is always that money is what volume produces, and money comes from other places even if at much slower pace sometimes.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9800_100#post_24735757
> 
> 
> I worry that LCD might already be "terrible but good enough to kill off OLED"...but that's only a short term issue.  I don't subscribe to the notion that volume has to be there for a technology to march forward....The theory on that is heady but really smacks of forming mathematical theories on bark formation but losing concept of the forest.  Yes, a lack of volume kills products, but the critical point is always that money is what volume produces, and money comes from other places even if at much slower pace sometimes.



You are speaking in the abstract. The specific reality is that Plasma, though critically acclaimed as being superior to LCD, was never able to attract enough market share to survive once LCD took off. How will OLED be able to gain more market share than LCD in the 4K panel arena, if it is going to cost so much more than the LCD models if will have to compete against. Remember that the middle class does not have the deep pockets and amount of disposable income that it had before the great crash. Almost everyone would love to own a top of the line luxury car, but most have to settle for what they can afford. Champagne taste, but Beer Budget is the reality for the vast majority of consumers these days.


OLED prices are going to have to drop to near top of the line LCD prices very rapidly, if it is to have any chance at all to take off. I hope it does but I do not like the odds.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780_60#post_24736012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9800_100#post_24735757
> 
> 
> I worry that LCD might already be "terrible but good enough to kill off OLED"...but that's only a short term issue.  I don't subscribe to the notion that volume has to be there for a technology to march forward....The theory on that is heady but really smacks of forming mathematical theories on bark formation but losing concept of the forest.  Yes, a lack of volume kills products, but the critical point is always that money is what volume produces, and money comes from other places even if at much slower pace sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are speaking in the abstract. The specific reality is that Plasma, though critically acclaimed as being superior to LCD, was never able to attract enough market share to survive once LCD took off. How will OLED be able to gain more market share than LCD in the 4K panel arena, if it is going to cost so much more than the LCD models if will have to compete against. Remember that the middle class does not have the deep pockets and amount of disposable income that it had before the great crash. Almost everyone would love to own a top of the line luxury car, but most have to settle for what they can afford. Champagne taste, but Beer Budget is the reality for the vast majority of consumers these days.
> 
> 
> OLED prices are going to have to drop to near top of the line LCD prices very rapidly, if it is to have any chance at all to take off. I hope it does but I do not like the odds.
Click to expand...

 

I don't see what I said as any less "abstract" than what you did, but I'd point out that the "critically acclaimed as being superior" just isn't as universally held as true, despite what it may sound like here at times.

 

Or did I take you out of context again?

 

In the case of plasma, the public became quickly armed with the bad of plasma, (right or wrong):
They felt terrified of what their friends told them of pictures becoming burned into the screen.  It's the first question I was asked about when folks came to me beweildered about any TV.  They knew absolutely nothing, but they knew that.
The plasma screens were dim in the uber-bright showrooms and next to LCD's running the pathetic BB high contrast stupidness-loop.
It was horribly thick right when the thinness wars were taking place.

 

OLED might collect the first albatross around its neck (hope not), but it's not likely to collect the latter two.  So it'll have a different start entirely.

 

Will it hit volume right away.  Nope.  Will that kill it?  Rogo seems to think that's likely.  The economic theorists who place a ton of faith in volume (and only volume) driving reality seem to think so.  I don't.

 

Money will be there to pursue printing.  Money will be there to pursue RGB droplets (or whatever Samsung is doing).  Etc., etc.  It's just a matter of how long it'll take IMO.


----------



## wco81

Don't they need volume for economies of scale and pushing down costs?


Why would they invest the capital on new plants and processes if there isn't going to be volume?


There's no such thing as boutique electronics products is there?


Problem is, LCD is good enough, just as MP3 and cell phone cameras are, for most of the people.


You won't win market share by offering better quality than the entrenched formats. OLED could be the Laser Disc or those super digital formats of the 21st century.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780_60#post_24736272
> 
> 
> Don't they need volume for economies of scale and pushing down costs?
> 
> 
> Why would they invest the capital on new plants and processes if there isn't going to be volume?
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as boutique electronics products is there?
> 
> 
> Problem is, LCD is good enough, just as MP3 and cell phone cameras are, for most of the people.
> 
> 
> You won't win market share by offering better quality than the entrenched formats. OLED could be the Laser Disc or those super digital formats of the 21st century.


 

Understood, but my initial point was about whether or not it would kill it off.  I believe any "killing off" would only be a short term thing because I think that the technology can march on.

 

Does anyone remember the state of plasma displays the decades before Philips' landmark commercial for their $13,000 SD unit?  Monochrome and no where near the low cost of CRTs.  My uncle sold them in the 70's.  No volume there.

 

Plasma didn't suddenly show up in 1997 with astounding success.  And it had no volume to bring it there.  In 1986 UNH had one, --->ONE


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9800_100#post_24736272
> 
> 
> Don't they need volume for economies of scale and pushing down costs?
> 
> 
> Why would they invest the capital on new plants and processes if there isn't going to be volume?
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as boutique electronics products is there?
> 
> 
> Problem is, LCD is good enough, just as MP3 and cell phone cameras are, for most of the people.
> 
> 
> You won't win market share by offering better quality than the entrenched formats. OLED could be the Laser Disc or those super digital formats of the 21st century.



Not to be overlooked is the reality that there will be only one OLED brand name on display in the stores this year, and it will be surrounded by several 4K LCD displays, and the price of the OLED units will give a lot of people severe sticker shock, when they compare it to the price tags on the LCD models.


How long will retail chains be willing to provide showroom space for the LG OLED model, if it is not selling in large numbers? I wonder how many vendors would even take a chance on an OLED TV from Samsung again, after they bought into their initial product launch, only to have the rug pulled out from under them, when Samsung abruptly stopped making the product. Surely Samsung must have promised those corporate buyers that they were going to keep OLED units coming for the foreseeable future, which would make those buyers feel like they were burned, and less likely to jump on the Samsung bandwagon again. Fool me once, and you know how the rest of it goes!


----------



## wco81

Yeah but when plasmas first appeared, there were no flat panel displays. People were willing to pay the premium to hang it on their walls, rich people.


Now, there is a viable competing product which has been commoditized.


In fact, one could argue that the popularity of LCD and plasma is more about the form factor than picture quality.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24736012
> 
> 
> OLED prices are going to have to drop to near top of the line LCD prices very rapidly, if it is to have any chance at all to take off. I hope it does but I do not like the odds.



I'm much more optimistic about OLED than many here. Sure, it will take time, but I can't really envision a scenario where OLED TV doesn't become a significant market force. And I'm not alone. Remember what Panasonic Product Manager Craig Cunningham said a couple months ago below. This from a company that doesn't even have a product to sell and likely won't for some time if ever:


> Quote:
> “Without a doubt OLED will be the future of TV, there’s no question about that,”


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780_60#post_24736373
> 
> 
> Yeah but when plasmas first appeared, there were no flat panel displays. People were willing to pay the premium to hang it on their walls, rich people.
> 
> 
> Now, there is a viable competing product which has been commoditized.
> 
> 
> In fact, one could argue that the popularity of LCD and plasma is more about the form factor than picture quality.


 

Yes, this is always a valid point.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24735599
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9700_100#post_24729254
> 
> 
> ^^What we have seen lately is folks praising the 2014 top Vizio, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic etc... based upon specs and impressions of those TVs at CES, manufacturers presentations etc.. It really does not matter if those who speak highly of those TVs are Katzmaier and Henninger.
> 
> 
> Only thing one should focus on is critical reviews and user *threads*..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one of those reviews.
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/tx-50ax802b-201405193778.htm
Click to expand...


Not a Plasma or FALD beater..


----------



## slacker711

I dont think that anybody on these forums is arguing that the current price premium is sustainable. I think they can sell more than 10,000 units this year but it isnt going to get us to the ~2 million units of capacity that LG has in the pipeline.



The question is whether OLED's can get within 10-20% of high-end LCD pricing and what portion of the ultra-premium market it would capture with that premium.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9800_100#post_24736431
> 
> 
> I dont think that anybody on these forums is arguing that the current price premium is sustainable. I think they can sell more than 10,000 units this year but it isnt going to get us to the ~2 million units of capacity that LG has in the pipeline.
> 
> 
> 
> The question is whether OLED's can get within 10-20% of high-end LCD pricing and what portion of the ultra-premium market it would capture with that premium.




Precisely, and it would help if there was more than one company manufacturing OLED panels, to give customers brand options, since some people might love LG but some also have had bad experiences with their products, and might be reluctant to buy another one of their TVs.


----------



## greenland

LG OLED TV (FLAT) REVIEW

By Rasmus Larsen (@flatpanels)

19 May 2014

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1400497729


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24736454
> 
> 
> Precisely, and it would help if there was more than one company manufacturing OLED panels, to give customers brand options, since some people might love LG but some also have had bad experiences with their products, and might be reluctant to buy another one of their TVs.



LG Display is the company that is manufacturing the OLED's and they have already made clear that they will supply external (non-LG) customers. If LGD hits the price premiums that I listed above, you will have multiple different brand options to choose from.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9800_100#post_24736599
> 
> 
> LG Display is the company that is manufacturing the OLED's and they have already made clear that they will supply external (non-LG) customers. If LGD hits the price premiums that I listed above, you will have multiple different brand options to choose from.



Have any other companies announced that they will be shipping OLED sets to the USA this year? I have not heard of any having done so, but I may have missed such an announcement.


----------



## vinnie97

Nope...just China. The rest has been speculation.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24736610
> 
> 
> Have any other companies announced that they will be shipping OLED sets to the USA this year? I have not heard of any having done so, but I may have missed such an announcement.



Nope, and while there are rumors about Sony and Panasonic, I doubt that it happens this year.


Perhaps some product announcements at CES 2015? Regardless, a lack of brand options wont be a significant barrier to OLED's ultimate success.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24736373
> 
> 
> Yeah but when plasmas first appeared, there were no flat panel displays. People were willing to pay the premium to hang it on their walls, rich people.
> 
> 
> Now, there is a viable competing product which has been commoditized.



The important of this cannot be overstated. I've explained scores of times here: There _was_ a market for a premium-price flat panel (>$10,000) when you couldn't buy any other flat panel at all. The market for $10,000 TVs now simply does not exist at all (and really the market for $5,000 TV essentially does not exist, though someone at Sony apparently missed the memo). The only way it could be replicated is by developing a TV that did something revolutionary, not one that offer 20% better picture quality.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24736397
> 
> 
> I'm much more optimistic about OLED than many here. Sure, it will take time, but I can't really envision a scenario where OLED TV doesn't become a significant market force. And I'm not alone. Remember what Panasonic Product Manager Craig Cunningham said a couple months ago below. This from a company that doesn't even have a product to sell and likely won't for some time if ever:



Of course, you are now basing your argument on a guy from a company that won't likely be selling TVs at all... but regardless of that, I can envision many scenarios where OLED doesn't become a significant market force.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24736431
> 
> 
> I dont think that anybody on these forums is arguing that the current price premium is sustainable. I think they can sell more than 10,000 units this year but it isnt going to get us to the ~2 million units of capacity that LG has in the pipeline.
> 
> 
> The question is whether OLED's can get within 10-20% of high-end LCD pricing and what portion of the ultra-premium market it would capture with that premium.



Let me suggest that's a two-part question:


1) How big is the ultra-premium market to even begin with? (I suspect LG's math here is off because I have trouble getting a number much above 2-3 million...)


2) What portion of it can they take _given a 10-20% price premium_? (... and this is where it gets tricky... Even if the market is 5 million, what portion will a single-brand product take when charging more? I don't believe the fraction is anywhere near half... Marketing alone will stop that.)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780#post_24736217
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of plasma, the public became quickly armed with the bad of plasma, (right or wrong):
> They felt terrified of what their friends told them of pictures becoming burned into the screen.  It's the first question I was asked about when folks came to me beweildered about any TV.  They knew absolutely nothing, but they knew that.
> The plasma screens were dim in the uber-bright showrooms and next to LCD's running the pathetic BB high contrast stupidness-loop.
> It was horribly thick right when the thinness wars were taking place.



There wasn't competing LCD of any size for the first several years of plasma sales. It took a long time to even get a 40-inch out and plasma started at 40 inches, with 50s available nearly from the get go too.


> Quote:
> OLED might collect the first albatross around its neck (hope not), but it's not likely to collect the latter two.  So it'll have a different start entirely.
> 
> 
> Will it hit volume right away.  Nope.  Will that kill it?  Rogo seems to think that's likely.  The economic theorists who place a ton of faith in volume (and only volume) driving reality seem to think so.  I don't.



There is so much wrong with what you wrote here, I don't actually know where to begin. I'll just summarize where you're wrong:


1) I didn't say OLED was likely to be killed. I say the challenge remains extreme. It's the same position I've had for years. An extreme challenge can be overcome, it's just hard. Very hard. And with Samsung basically "out" for the next 2-3 years, it's actually much harder. Most of the progress in the recent era was due to the "manhood measuring" contest between those two firms.


2) There is nothing said about "volume driving reality" and this is not economic theory. The discussion is about volume driving cost reduction and it's a fact, proved on pretty much every semiconductor/display/clean-room fabbed product, well, ever. There is not any chance it's going to be repealed on TV-sized OLEDs. Read that last sentence again. Costs will fall with volume. Period. They will not fall without volume. There is a single caveat to this, which is that a _discontinuous innovation_ could be developed which allows a step-wise cost reduction as opposed to a linear/logarithmic/parabolic one. An example would be "Instead of vapor depositing the OLED material, we will print it with inkjet printers in a nitrogen chamber, yielding 90%". (Some may recognize parts of that story as relating to a certain equipment supplier.)


LG currently is not relying on any discontinuous innovations, but instead is relying on tried-and-true methods of making more, getting better at making them, thereby lowering the costs, thereby selling more, thereby making more, and repeating the cycle over again. You are entitled to believe anything you want -- e.g. that vaccines are bad for kids, worse even than them dying from rubella -- but that belief doesn't mean you're correct. Costs will not decline without volumes. In fact, there are rules of thumb about how much costs do decline with volumes, though the end numbers will vary for different processes. Typically, industry looks for things like 30% lower costs with every doubling of production. As you can imagine, that yields nice results from 1 --> 2 million. But once you get from 10 --> 20 million, it's harder to come by. And typically, you'll find yourself asymptotically approaching a minimum.


> Quote:
> Money will be there to pursue printing.  Money will be there to pursue RGB droplets (or whatever Samsung is doing).  Etc., etc.  It's just a matter of how long it'll take IMO.



This, in my mind, is also a mistaken belief. OLED printing has been pursued now since at least 2001. It's not wholly inaccurate to say that virtually no progress has been made. Nearly everyone pursuing it has, in fact, _abandoned efforts to commercialize it_. There are ecosystem players still working on it because they have financial incentives to see it become viable. But ink makers no more have the ability to make inkjet OLED printing become viable than tire makers have to make electric cars become viable.


As for Samsung, no, their method of small-mask scanning on large substrates will absolutely never become viable. It is fundamentally awful and will never work at scale. That's why Samsung stopped. Could they develop a screen-printing method that uses large masks and avoids the sagging problem? Maybe. Perhaps graphene masks will be so light and so rigid that could someday work. That said, there is little evidence Samsung is working on perfecting mask-based OLEDs for large scale use. There is no real economic incentive right now because so long as the only way to make OLED TVs is via LG fabs, OLED TVs do no threaten the LCD TV industry. They threaten to capture a major portion of the high end of said industry -- only. And Samsung can live with that if it has to.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24736643
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps some product announcements at CES 2015? Regardless, a lack of brand options wont be a significant barrier to OLED's ultimate success.



Well, it will certainly be one in the long run. Proliferation of choice will be necessary for the technology to make significant gains in whatever portion of the market it's after.


In the short run, I agree with your sentiment, however.


----------



## tgm1024


Quote:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780_60#post_24737676
> 
> 
> There is nothing said about "volume driving reality" and this is not economic theory.


 

Yes there was, and yes it is.

 


> Quote:
> 
> The discussion is about volume driving cost reduction and it's a fact, proved on pretty much every semiconductor/display/clean-room fabbed product, well, ever. There is not any chance it's going to be repealed on TV-sized OLEDs. Read that last sentence again. Costs will fall with volume. Period. They will not fall without volume.


 

Of course, right up until there's a technological breakthrough.  What I'm also saying though is that it just not as dire as everyone seems to think it is.  I cannot see OLED going away, immediate volume or not.  If they *never* achieve volume, then they will *never* succeed.  The issue is what happens in that gray area between non workable volume and workable volume: the money is continued to be spent on the technology, and it progresses and the question is at what speed.  The *only* thing I'm pushing back on is the dire implications and tone being used here.  It's at 11 at times and needs to dial back a bit.

 

There's a conceptual inertia here: Can OLED be 55" and closer to $4000 than we ever thought possible this early?  Yep.  Proven at 2K.  Given that, we're now in that gray area of how long it takes to proceed.  Or so it seems to me.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24737778
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Yes there was, and yes it is.



Here, in fact, is the quote:


"Learning curve effects are cumulative over time. They aren't an "OMG we're out of lessons" type of thing. They are quite literally a function of volume."


It doesn't say, "volume drives reality" at all. It says "learning curve effects... are quite literally a function of volume."


And, no, it's not a theory. It's a theory when someone posits it before there are generations of experience to back it up. Then, when we've gone through the memory chip, microprocessor, LCD, solar panel, etc. eras... and they all exhibit the exact same behavior, we no longer have to consider it a theory. Empirical evidence overwhelmingly shows it to be true.


> Quote:
> Of course, right up until there's a technological breakthrough.



We're 14 or so years into this and we're 0 for 14 with what would constitute a "technological breakthrough". The idea one is coming is wishful thinking, not fact.


> Quote:
> What I'm also saying though is that it just not as dire as everyone seems to think it is.



I think your critical reading skills are suddenly not in line with your clearly demonstrated high intellect.


> Quote:
> I cannot see OLED going away, immediate volume or not.  If they *never* achieve volume, then they will *never* succeed.



You can't see it going away in TVs where it's yet to sell even 0.1% of TVs in any given year? You _can't_ see that at all? Really? The technology world is littered with interesting technologies that have gone away.


> Quote:
> The issue is what happens in that gray area between non workable volume and workable volume: the money is continued to be spent on the technology, and it progresses and the question is at what speed.  The _only_ thing I'm pushing back on is the dire implications and tone being used here.  It's at 11 at times and needs to dial back a bit.



There is no grey area in the long run. It's either profitable or not. If LG goes through the next 3-4 years, tries to ramp up production, sells a few hundred thousand TVs, maybe even 1-2 million... and then _loses money at it_, why are they still bothering? Because someone keeps insisting if you can make tens of millions, they are cheaper than LCDs? Sorry, but the world just doesn't work that way.


The problem with this from the beginning has been the availability of substitutes. Markets don't like it when your replacement costs more and will someday be interesting. The typical way around this is to subsidize the substitute for some period of time -- _so that it can move down the experience curve_. A great example is solar panels, which are now 60 cents per watt wholesale. They used to be $30 per watt or more. Essentially the only thing that has change the cost is making more of them. Essentially the only economic way to push production to get costs down was to have governments muck with markets and subsidize them for a time. (Note that in the U.S. that time runs out for consumers in 2016, by which time solar-generated power will be a "grid parity" in about 1/3 of the country, perhaps even a bit more.)


LG is not that rich an entity. LG Display even less so. They cannot run the OLED TV business at a loss for several years on the hope that it drives volumes to eventually make it cheap to build them and then -- woohoo! -- it can compete with LCDs. LCDs are simply too good a substitute.


> Quote:
> There's a conceptual inertia here: Can OLED be 55" and closer to $4000 than we ever thought possible this early?  Yep.  Proven at 2K.  Given that, we're now in that gray area of how long it takes to proceed.  Or so it seems to me.



How much earlier is this than we thought? It seems to me it's about a year ahead of schedule...


But here's the critical thing: It has nothing to do with the success of the technology. It has to do with the fact that they ramped up some small-scale production _and didn't sell any of it._ That's actually exactly what irkuck, myself and others said would happen back in 2012 and 2013. That there was no market at all at those prices. None. Not some, but none. We were dead on correct.


LG, stuck with what amounts to inventory and a fab threatened with zero utilization decided to keep making more, push the experience curve a bit, and then lower prices in an effort to clear some inventory. And you know what? At $4000, the market is still essentially zero. Some here think it's less than 10,000 globally for the entire year. Yikes. I mean yikes. Does anyone still naively believe there is a market for 1 million of these at $3000? Because if so, I have a lovely, well-used bridge spanning the East River I'd like to offer for sale.


The problem that LG has is the problem is has had from the beginning. The price needs to be lower still. The costs only get lower if they make more. They can't make more without selling a bunch. They can't sell much without lowering the price below where it currently stands. They can't decide to lose money.


This is a rock-and-a-hard-place scenario. It's a very good reason to be gloomy because it doesn't lend itself to easier solutions now than it did in 2012. The reason LG is selling panels to everyone who wants them for third-party models is because it can do things like demand minimum order quantity and try to push volume that way. It's not that it wants to be doing this now.


Look, if LG could wave a wand and start offering $2500 TVs, that would help. But even that wouldn't help as much as people here think. The market is still small for premium 55-inch sets. And LG could not realistically capture 100% of it. (Never mind that it would make no profits -- and likely incur losses -- at that price.) The path from $4000 to $2500 is going to be harder than the path was from $6000 to $4000. First, it requires a lot more volume to achieve. Second, a decision to "lose money at it" costs far more given the volumes it entails.


The idea this is a foregone conclusion is wrong. Nowhere outside of the video enthusiast community is anyone clamoring for OLED televisions. Heck, it's probably worse than that. Nowhere outside the video enthusiast community are people clamoring for televisions at all.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24738199
> 
> 
> We're 14 or so years into this and we're 0 for 14 with what would constitute a "technological breakthrough". The idea one is coming is wishful thinking, not fact.



The technological breakthrough is IGZO. The industry spent a decade working on OLED's on a-si before moving on to LTPS. While LTPS is technically amazing, the economics dont work for televisions.


IGZO allows for economics similar to a-si LCD fabs. The incremental capex required by LG to build a Gen 8 OLED fab is a fraction of the amount that Samsung is spending to build a Gen 6 LTPS fab.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24738516
> 
> 
> The technological breakthrough is IGZO. The industry spent a decade working on OLED's on a-si before moving on to LTPS. While LTPS is technically amazing, the economics dont work for televisions.



We can quibble over whether IGZO is really related at all to OLED. I mean the first significant commercialization of IGZO has been in LCDs.


> Quote:
> IGZO allows for economics similar to a-si LCD fabs. The incremental capex required by LG to build a Gen 8 OLED fab is a fraction of the amount that Samsung is spending to build a Gen 6 LTPS fab.



DisplaySearch seems to think LTPS is going to dominate by decade's end and it's outperforming IGZO on almost every metric right now (perhaps save cost). Sharp keeps getting rejected by Apple as a display maker.


While I'm certainly not arguing the obvious fact LG is using IGZO for its OLEDs, I'm simply not persuaded it constitutes a meaningful technological breakthrough. Yields have been awful, performance has been unimpressive, progress has been awfully slow.


Let's just say you're correct that fab cap ex is lower. Maybe even a lot lower. And maybe that's significant. But a technological breakthrough related to OLED? I'm not sold.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780_60#post_24738199
> 
> 
> Quote (by tgm1024):
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, right up until there's a technological breakthrough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're 14 or so years into this and we're 0 for 14 with what would constitute a "technological breakthrough". The idea one is coming is wishful thinking, not fact.
Click to expand...

 

I wanted to start with this, to focus on one thing at a time and because I really don't understand your position on this part.

 

Why is there this supposition that 14 years is somehow a long time?  It just isn't, and it's not as though it's been one mini prototype 14 years ago, a long sea of absolutely nothing, and then >whamprofitably get current PPI density in a 5" AMOLED screen was a breakthrough; the 5" becomes 10.5", etc., etc. And while it's a discontinuous jump to larger sizes, it's still the case that now LG is actually selling an OLED TV.

 

Where exactly is the wishful thinking?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780_60#post_24739106
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24738516
> 
> 
> The technological breakthrough is IGZO. The industry spent a decade working on OLED's on a-si before moving on to LTPS. While LTPS is technically amazing, the economics dont work for televisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can quibble over whether IGZO is really related at all to OLED. I mean the first significant commercialization of IGZO has been in LCDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That IGZO was first used for LCD's has no bearing on whether or not it's a breakthrough for OLED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote (Slacker771):
> IGZO allows for economics similar to a-si LCD fabs. The incremental capex required by LG to build a Gen 8 OLED fab is a fraction of the amount that Samsung is spending to build a Gen 6 LTPS fab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DisplaySearch seems to think LTPS is going to dominate by decade's end and it's outperforming IGZO on almost every metric right now (perhaps save cost). Sharp keeps getting rejected by Apple as a display maker.
> 
> 
> While I'm certainly not arguing the obvious fact LG is using IGZO for its OLEDs, I'm simply not persuaded it constitutes a meaningful technological breakthrough. Yields have been awful, performance has been unimpressive, progress has been awfully slow.
> 
> 
> Let's just say you're correct that fab cap ex is lower. Maybe even a lot lower. And maybe that's significant. But a technological breakthrough related to OLED? I'm not sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 

What was possible before IGZO, and what is possible as a result of IGZO?  If the answer to that is "nothing is different" or "prior to IGZO, the LG TV would have been produced just fine (as it stands and at similar pricing)" then IGZO is no breakthrough.  If you cannot say that, then it is.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24739106
> 
> 
> We can quibble over whether IGZO is really related at all to OLED. I mean the first significant commercialization of IGZO has been in LCDs.
> 
> DisplaySearch seems to think LTPS is going to dominate by decade's end and it's outperforming IGZO on almost every metric right now (perhaps save cost). Sharp keeps getting rejected by Apple as a display maker.
> 
> 
> While I'm certainly not arguing the obvious fact LG is using IGZO for its OLEDs, I'm simply not persuaded it constitutes a meaningful technological breakthrough. Yields have been awful, performance has been unimpressive, progress has been awfully slow.
> 
> 
> Let's just say you're correct that fab cap ex is lower. Maybe even a lot lower. And maybe that's significant. But a technological breakthrough related to OLED? I'm not sold.



We have focused endlessly on the need for OLED's to drive costs down and yet you are unsure about the significance of IGZO? I cant guarantee that they will solve the greyscale issues that users are seeing, but I can guarantee that the cost structure is meaningfully different than LTPS. The yields have also reportedly risen to the 80% range.


LG's biggest cost issue right now is likely that they need to match Samsung's efficiency with vapour deposition. Samsung has had huge efficiency increases over the years and LG is just starting that process.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24739449
> 
> 
> What was possible before IGZO, and what is possible as a result of IGZO?  If the answer to that is "nothing is different" or "prior to IGZO, the LG TV would have been produced just fine (as it stands)" then IGZO is no breakthrough.  If you cannot say that, then it is.



IGZO is no different than printing. OLED's can be manufactured without either technology but both change the economics.


There are still questions whether OLED's can compete on price with LG only spending $700 million on their fab. Imagine those questions if they had spent a few billion outfitting a new LTPS fab. I very much doubt that the fab gets built if LG was using LTPS.


Assuming that the technical issues get worked out, IGZO absolutely qualifies as a technological breakthrough for OLED's.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780_60#post_24739728
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24739449
> 
> 
> What was possible before IGZO, and what is possible as a result of IGZO?  If the answer to that is "nothing is different" or "prior to IGZO, the LG TV would have been produced just fine (as it stands)" then IGZO is no breakthrough.  If you cannot say that, then it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IGZO is no different than printing. OLED's can be manufactured without either technology but both change the economics.
> 
> 
> There are still questions whether OLED's can compete on price with LG only spending $700 million on their fab. Imagine those questions if they had spent a few billion outfitting a new LTPS fab. I very much doubt that the fab gets built if LG was using LTPS.
> 
> 
> Assuming that the technical issues get worked out, IGZO absolutely qualifies as a technological breakthrough for OLED's.
Click to expand...

 

Sure, but that's why I said "as it stands".  If the prior tech could produce the panel, but only at $10K for 55", then the current tech (sub $5K) is a dramatic win.

 

Moving back to raw technology for a sec (away from economics): the current LG OLED purchasers who report here the most (Vinnie/ThePlague/Coopson/et.al.) are seeing a dramatically uneven gray when the gray they're attempting is very close to black.  Does the purity/impurity of IGZO and other substrate techs relate to this, or is the "body buried" only in the OLED stack itself?


----------



## Rich Peterson

The SID Display Week annual convention starts on June 1 in San Diego. There are several papers being presented in the OLED TV category by LG Display and also AU Optonics, Samsung Display, Shenzhen China Star Optoelectronics, and Pansonic.

http://displayweek.org/


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24739738
> 
> 
> Sure, but that's why I said "as it stands".  If the prior tech could produce the panel, but only at $10K for 55", then the current tech (sub $5K) is a dramatic win.
> 
> 
> Moving back to raw technology for a sec (away from economics): the current LG OLED purchasers who report here the most (Vinnie/ThePlague/Coopson/et.al.) are seeing a dramatically uneven gray when the gray they're attempting is very close to black.  Does the purity/impurity of IGZO and other substrate techs relate to this, or is the "body buried" only in the OLED stack itself?



I am fairly sure that this a backplane/compensation circuit issue. I dont believe that Samsung's LTPS OLED saw these issues with greyscale.


LTPS is unequivocally better, but that doesnt matter much when you cant build televisions at competitive prices. We'll have to wait and see how much progress LG has made when the 4K televisions debut.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24739438
> 
> 
> I wanted to start with this, to focus on one thing at a time and because I really don't understand your position on this part.
> 
> 
> Why is there this supposition that 14 years is somehow a long time?  It just isn't, and it's not as though it's been one mini prototype 14 years ago, a long sea of absolutely nothing, and then >whamprofitably get current PPI density in a 5" AMOLED screen was a breakthrough; the 5" becomes 10.5", etc., etc. And while it's a discontinuous jump to larger sizes, it's still the case that now LG is actually selling an OLED TV.



You make my point. In 14 years, we've had a series of small improvements without any discontinuous innovation at all.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24739449
> 
> 
> What was possible before IGZO, and what is possible as a result of IGZO?  If the answer to that is "nothing is different" or "prior to IGZO, the LG TV would have been produced just fine (as it stands and at similar pricing)" then IGZO is no breakthrough.  If you cannot say that, then it is.



It's sort of pointless to quibble over IGZO. Yes, it's new. No, it's not part of OLED per se. Yes, it enables cheaper OLEDs. No, it's not working well right now.


(And it's no more a part of OLED than low rolling resistance tires are a part of hybrid car technology. Yes, they are used in hybrid cars; no they are not exclusive to them nor are they part of the actual hybrid technology. IGZO is not part of OLED either.)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24739543
> 
> 
> We have focused endlessly on the need for OLED's to drive costs down and yet you are unsure about the significance of IGZO? I cant guarantee that they will solve the greyscale issues that users are seeing, but I can guarantee that the cost structure is meaningfully different than LTPS. The yields have also reportedly risen to the 80% range.



Ok, slacker, I'm going to concede the point that matters. It's kind of important to understand what "meaningfully different" means. We're not seeing "meaningfully different" on small LCDs. That Amazon uses LTPS in a Kindle it sells at cost speaks volumes. That Apple keeps rejecting Sharp's IGZO displays and replacing them with LTPS from other manufacturers says a lot too. Maybe the cost differentials add up at bigger sizes? Maybe this is more on the cap ex side than the op ex side? In that case, it's an economics problem for "poor" companies but unless we're talking >$100 per unit, I'm still not sure how much it matters (see below).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24739728
> 
> 
> IGZO is no different than printing. OLED's can be manufactured without either technology but both change the economics.
> 
> 
> There are still questions whether OLED's can compete on price with LG only spending $700 million on their fab. Imagine those questions if they had spent a few billion outfitting a new LTPS fab. I very much doubt that the fab gets built if LG was using LTPS.
> 
> 
> Assuming that the technical issues get worked out, IGZO absolutely qualifies as a technological breakthrough for OLED's.



And so, again, I'll concede the bigger point because absent LG, OLED TV doesn't exist. Not now and probably not ever.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24739738
> 
> 
> 
> Moving back to raw technology for a sec (away from economics): the current LG OLED purchasers who report here the most (Vinnie/ThePlague/Coopson/et.al.) are seeing a dramatically uneven gray when the gray they're attempting is very close to black.  Does the purity/impurity of IGZO and other substrate techs relate to this, or is the "body buried" only in the OLED stack itself?



See above my comments about Apple. IGZO was pioneered by Sharp and persnickety Apple keeps sending Sharp home without a contract to make displays (it has used some Sharp displays with IGZO, but far fewer than Sharp had hoped by now and it appears that Sharp was disqualified from iPhone 6).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24739934
> 
> 
> I am fairly sure that this a backplane/compensation circuit issue. I dont believe that Samsung's LTPS OLED saw these issues with greyscale.
> 
> 
> LTPS is unequivocally better, but that doesnt matter much when you cant build televisions at competitive prices. We'll have to wait and see how much progress LG has made when the 4K televisions debut.



Well, it does matter. We were just talking about selling a high-end premium product at 10-20% more than anything else on the market. And that was going to need to capture 50% of the market or so to have the volumes necessary to push that fab's utilization. And so if IGZO's quality is causing those TVs to be not very consistent/good/reliable, it could actually be the undoing of the very product it supposedly "saved" with its lower cost.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24739738
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but that's why I said "as it stands".  If the prior tech could produce the panel, but only at $10K for 55", then the current tech (sub $5K) is a dramatic win.
> 
> 
> 
> Moving back to raw technology for a sec (away from economics): the current LG OLED purchasers who report here the most (Vinnie/ThePlague/Coopson/et.al.) are seeing a dramatically uneven gray when the gray they're attempting is very close to black.  Does the purity/impurity of IGZO and other substrate techs relate to this, or is the "body buried" only in the OLED stack itself?


LTPS is "annealed or hardened" polisilicon  capable to sustain prolonged exposures to low current (voltages) i.e cosmic background radiation and EMPs with flying colors. LTPS has a *higher melting point and electron mobility *( the higher melting point the lower the drift is )  which enables LTPS to have the capacitors that are less prone to drift other than that LTPS and IGZO are mostly identical in their properties.

 

P.S I don't think I've ever heard of LTPS transistors drifting. Heck, even google can't find instances of LTPS drift


----------



## stas3098


By the way LTPS is still a mainly military tech making inroads into commercial arenas.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24741111
> 
> 
> By the way LTPS is still a mainly military tech making inroads into commercial arenas.



LTPS was in 200+ million consumer devices last year... Probably close to 400 million. If you want to say things like it's "still a mainly military tech" you are free to do so. But no combination of militaries across the gross bought hundreds of millions of LTPS-display devices last year.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9780_60#post_24741730
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24741111
> 
> 
> By the way LTPS is still a mainly military tech making inroads into commercial arenas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTPS was in 200+ million consumer devices last year... Probably close to 400 million. If you want to say things like it's "still a mainly military tech" you are free to do so. But no combination of militaries across the gross bought hundreds of millions of LTPS-display devices last year.
Click to expand...

 

Yeah, LTPS TFT LCD's in mobile phones by revenue share in 2013 reached 37%.  That in industry terms, is a @#$%-load.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24741730
> 
> 
> 
> LTPS was in 200+ million consumer devices last year... Probably close to 400 million. If you want to say things like it's "still a mainly military tech" you are free to do so. But no combination of militaries across the gross bought hundreds of millions of LTPS-display devices last year.


I'm just saying LTPS is still not as commonplace as a-Si or p-Si are in consumer displays larger than 10" , whereas almost all military and medical grade displays are made using LTPS, nowadays. I can see why LG can't use a-Si to make OLED, but I can't see why LG can't use LTSP to make OLEDs...


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9810#post_24740876
> 
> 
> We're not seeing "meaningfully different" on small LCDs. That Amazon uses LTPS in a Kindle it sells at cost speaks volumes. That Apple keeps rejecting Sharp's IGZO displays and replacing them with LTPS from other manufacturers says a lot too. Maybe the cost differentials add up at bigger sizes? Maybe this is more on the cap ex side than the op ex side? In that case, it's an economics problem for "poor" companies but unless we're talking >$100 per unit, I'm still not sure how much it matters (see below).



LG was expected to spend around $1.2 billion to convert 20,000 substrates of Gen 6 a-si capacity to LTPS LCD capacity. The Gen 6 substrates are only half the size of a Gen 8 substrate so the LTPS screen area is only about 40% of the IGZO fab. The LTPS fab would also have been reusing LCD equipment while the $700 million figure includes the capex for all of the capital equipment needed to manufacture the OLED's.


You can play with those numbers in a variety of different ways, but it would have been a minimum of an extra billion dollars. If costs scale closer to area, it would have been an extra two billion. I dont know the depreciation schedule for fabs or LGD's cost of capital, but I think those numbers are going to get you to that delta of $100 per unit (and likely more)


That matters if your ultimate goal is going to be get prices down to at least a $2000 price point.


----------



## fafrd

Just saw this article on HDTVTEST: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-million-201405163779.htm 


Since we often bandy about market forecasts on this thread, I thought a few of the numbers from the IHS report quoted in the last paragraph might be of interest:


"By the end of the year, IHS says 4K Ultra HD shipments should top some 15.2 million units, which would give them *6 percent of the world’s total LCD television market.* Surprisingly quite a few of these will fall into the *“massive” category, with 27 percent of all shipments expected to be 60-inch+ displays.*


So IHS seems to be forecast a total of about 250M LCD TVs shipped in 2014 out of which 15.2M units or 6% are forecasted to be be UHD.


Of these 15.2M UHD LCD TVs shipped, 27% or 4.1M are forecasted to be "massive" screens 60 inches and above.


This definition of 'massive UHD' TVs is a good proxy for the 'premium large-screen' segment where LG needs to make significant headway by 2016 if their WOLED initiative is going to have a chance to take off.


Even if we credit LG's 55" WOLEDs as qualifying in this premium large screen segment because of their premium price), this year they will probably sell far less than 41,000 units or well below 1% of this segment.


2014 doesn't really count because they do not have their 4K products and larger screen products out until late this year. But 2015 is another story - in my view they need to drive sales of at least 5% of this subsegment in 2015 or they are at serious risk of 'missing out' on the 4K Tsunami and being left behind. This would mean sales of at least 200,000 units in 2015 (and this is assuming no growth in the premium large screen segment, which will likely double next year).


LG has stated that there will be sharp price declines in WOLED prices by mid-next year (probably something to do with the M2 fab coming fully on-line), so even if we discount the first half of the year, it still means they need to sell more than 100,000 WOLEDs in the second half of next year or it looks like they may miss the 4K wave.


My view is that by 2016, LG needs to capture at least 10% of the premium large-screen market or the whole WOLED thing is not happening. 10% would amount to 410,000 units if there was no growth for two years, but that is not realistic. The premium large-screen segment will probably be at least 10,000,000 units by 2016 (4-5% of the overall TV market), meaning that LG needs to sell at least 1M WOLEDs in 2016 or the initiative is not on track.


At current yields of 70%, the M2 line has a capacity for 1.3M 55" or 0.6M 65" or 0.3M 77" WOLEDs (at current yields, which should have improved significantly by the end of 2015), so selling 1M WOLEDs in 2016 should be realistic and achievable if the technology is taking off.


I don't see that happening if they are unable to sell at least 100,000 WOLEDs in H2 2015.


This year, they just need to get the 4K products out, prove to early customers and reviewers that they are ready for prime time, and get the M2 manufacturing lined ramped up to acceptable yields (at least 70% like the pilot line).


If they were able to get the pilot line up to 70% yield on an annual volume of only a few 100 WOLEDs per month, they have proven that they can get yields to an acceptable starting base level on very modest production volumes, so I expect continued high prices (and low sales volumes) at least until the 70% M2 yield milestone has been reached.


Interestingly, the 65" TV has the most to gain from the move from the half-8G-panel pilot line to the full-8G-panel M2 line, so it will be interesting to see where they initially price that product. Producing the 65" on the half-8G-panel pilot line, where they can only make a single 65" WOLED per half-panel, is horribly inefficient and means that the cost of a 65" WOLED is almost 4 times that of a 55" WOLED manufactured on the same half-panel pilot line.


By the time they are being manufactured on the full-8G-panel M2 line (which can hold a full 3 65" WOLEDs per 8G-panel), the 65" WOLED panels will cost only a bit more than twice the 55" WOLED panels.


It will be interesting to see the pricing LG finally announces for the UHD WOLEDs later this year...


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24742149
> 
> 
> LG was expected to spend around $1.2 billion to convert 20,000 substrates of Gen 6 a-si capacity to LTPS LCD capacity. The Gen 6 substrates are only half the size of a Gen 8 substrate so the LTPS screen area is only about 40% of the IGZO fab. The LTPS fab would also have been reusing LCD equipment while the $700 million figure includes the capex for all of the capital equipment needed to manufacture the OLED's.
> 
> 
> You can play with those numbers in a variety of different ways, but it would have been a minimum of an extra billion dollars. If costs scale closer to area, it would have been an extra two billion. I dont know the depreciation schedule for fabs or LGD's cost of capital, but I think those numbers are going to get you to that delta of $100 per unit (and likely more)
> 
> 
> That matters if your ultimate goal is going to be get prices down to at least a $2000 price point.



So that seems like a pretty good "back of the envelope" math exercise to me, slacker. It obviously contains some pretty big guesswork but I think it helps.


Without considering cost of capital (especially given global interest rates are skating near zero), I'll say that I'd expect most of these fabs to have a 10-year schedule or so. The LCD fabs from the 2000s don't seem to have been decommissioned in any major way, though it's possible the depreciation was already complete. If we look at a Gen 8 with 2 million displays per year and 10 years, that's 20 million displays. If you throw in your $2 billion figure, that neatly corresponds to $100 per unit (again not including any cost of capital). Certainly, $100 is important at these levels, especially considering the many prior discussions where I've tried to explain the extreme ratio between build cost and retail prices.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24742504
> 
> 
> Just saw this article on HDTVTEST: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-million-201405163779.htm
> 
> 
> Since we often bandy about market forecasts on this thread, I thought a few of the numbers from the IHS report quoted in the last paragraph might be of interest:
> 
> 
> "By the end of the year, IHS says 4K Ultra HD shipments should top some 15.2 million units, which would give them *6 percent of the world’s total LCD television market.* Surprisingly quite a few of these will fall into the *“massive” category, with 27 percent of all shipments expected to be 60-inch+ displays.*
> 
> 
> So IHS seems to be forecast a total of about 250M LCD TVs shipped in 2014 out of which 15.2M units or 6% are forecasted to be be UHD.



It will be interesting to see if the worldwide TV market rebounds to that level. As for the rest, I wouldn't be surprised.


> Quote:
> Of these 15.2M UHD LCD TVs shipped, 27% or 4.1M are forecasted to be "massive" screens 60 inches and above.



I'm not sure how that ratio is applicable to anything else, but it'd be great to get the number _after_ the year.


> Quote:
> 2014 doesn't really count because they do not have their 4K products and larger screen products out until late this year. But 2015 is another story - in my view they need to drive sales of at least 5% of this subsegment in 2015 or they are at serious risk of 'missing out' on the 4K Tsunami and being left behind. This would mean sales of at least 200,000 units in 2015 (and this is assuming no growth in the premium large screen segment, which will likely double next year).
> 
> 
> LG has stated that there will be sharp price declines in WOLED prices by mid-next year (probably something to do with the M2 fab coming fully on-line), so even if we discount the first half of the year, it still means they need to sell more than 100,000 WOLEDs in the second half of next year or it looks like they may miss the 4K wave.



So let's try this another way. You just defined a market of 4.1 million "massive" screens in 2014. If we do two things (1) add in 55" screens (2) assume growth, the market would seem to be much, much larger next year, right? Let's say the market for "premium-ish 55" and up displays" is 6 million by this way. I'm defining premium-ish as UHD/4K here, which means it includes a bunch of inexpensive displays by next year, but still, that's pretty big.


Now, you want LG to reach 200,000 units out of 6 million. That doesn't seem especially hard does it?


> Quote:
> My view is that by 2016, LG needs to capture at least 10% of the premium large-screen market or the whole WOLED thing is not happening. 10% would amount to 410,000 units if there was no growth for two years, but that is not realistic. The premium large-screen segment will probably be at least 10,000,000 units by 2016 (4-5% of the overall TV market), meaning that LG needs to sell at least 1M WOLEDs in 2016 or the initiative is not on track.
> 
> 
> At current yields of 70%, the M2 line has a capacity for 1.3M 55" or 0.6M 65" or 0.3M 77" WOLEDs (at current yields, which should have improved significantly by the end of 2015), so selling 1M WOLEDs in 2016 should be realistic and achievable if the technology is taking off.



So this math seems totally reasonable.


> Quote:
> Interestingly, the 65" TV has the most to gain from the move from the half-8G-panel pilot line to the full-8G-panel M2 line, so it will be interesting to see where they initially price that product. Producing the 65" on the half-8G-panel pilot line, where they can only make a single 65" WOLED per half-panel, is horribly inefficient and means that the cost of a 65" WOLED is almost 4 times that of a 55" WOLED manufactured on the same half-panel pilot line.
> 
> 
> By the time they are being manufactured on the full-8G-panel M2 line (which can hold a full 3 65" WOLEDs per 8G-panel), the 65" WOLED panels will cost only a bit more than twice the 55" WOLED panels.



And yet, it seems like more than 2x the 55-inch price will be completely non-competitive, right? I suppose that changes it the 55 inch moves to $3000.


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, a Korean analyst stated today that yields have now hit 80%.


Prices on the 1080p version have fallen much faster than anybody expected, now we'll have to see how quickly they can get 4K pricing down to a reasonable premium to 1080p.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Who do you believe????

Here's an article that suggests that Sony will be buying LG's 4K OLED panels and selling them in a TV in 2015.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840_60#post_24743152
> 
> 
> Who do you believe????
> 
> Here's an article that suggests that Sony will be buying LG's 4K OLED panels and selling them in a TV in 2015.


 

I'll be willingly naive, but I don't believe for a second that it's somehow *obvious* that Sony is out of the OLED world the way many people here seem to be insisting that they have to be.  Gen this fab.  Gen that fab.  No tech working.  Capex this/that/the other thing.  Speculation upon speculation upon re-speculated guessed speculation....  Nothing wrong with that at all (it's what the forum is for, educated discussion), but no, *nothing* is in the obvious category yet.

 

But I don't trust that article you posted either (I suspect you don't either).  Don't get me wrong, I *like* seeing these things, so thanks for the article.  But here's a hint to the author: when say things like "Sony said this", or "Sony is expected to do that", then you SUPPLY LINKS TO SUPPORT IT.  (Those links he supplies at the bottom don't support anything.)

 

Otherwise, you're just one more guy making a webpage and pretending to be important.


----------



## Rich Peterson

^^^ Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm thinking also.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24742610
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24742149
> 
> 
> LG was expected to spend around $1.2 billion to convert 20,000 substrates of Gen 6 a-si capacity to LTPS LCD capacity. The Gen 6 substrates are only half the size of a Gen 8 substrate so the LTPS screen area is only about 40% of the IGZO fab. The LTPS fab would also have been reusing LCD equipment while the $700 million figure includes the capex for all of the capital equipment needed to manufacture the OLED's.
> 
> 
> You can play with those numbers in a variety of different ways, but it would have been a minimum of an extra billion dollars. If costs scale closer to area, it would have been an extra two billion. I dont know the depreciation schedule for fabs or LGD's cost of capital, but I think those numbers are going to get you to that delta of $100 per unit (and likely more)
> 
> 
> That matters if your ultimate goal is going to be get prices down to at least a $2000 price point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that seems like a pretty good "back of the envelope" math exercise to me, slacker. It obviously contains some pretty big guesswork but I think it helps.
> 
> 
> Without considering cost of capital (especially given global interest rates are skating near zero), I'll say that I'd expect most of these fabs to have a 10-year schedule or so. The LCD fabs from the 2000s don't seem to have been decommissioned in any major way, though it's possible the depreciation was already complete. If we look at a Gen 8 with 2 million displays per year and 10 years, that's 20 million displays. If you throw in your $2 billion figure, that neatly corresponds to $100 per unit (again not including any cost of capital). Certainly, $100 is important at these levels, especially considering the many prior discussions where I've tried to explain the extreme ratio between build cost and retail prices..
Click to expand...


Just to make sure I correctly understand the point you are both making here, if LG had gone with an LTPS backplane rather than IGZO, the investment in the fab would have been $2B rather than $0.7B which would have translated into a CAPEX cost of ~$100 per WOLED over 10 years rather than ~$35 per panel (so an additional $65 in CAPEX cost for LTPS, plus any additional manufacturing cost for LTPS over IGZO), right?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24742610
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24742504
> 
> 
> Just saw this article on HDTVTEST: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-million-201405163779.htm
> 
> 
> Since we often bandy about market forecasts on this thread, I thought a few of the numbers from the IHS report quoted in the last paragraph might be of interest:
> 
> 
> "By the end of the year, IHS says 4K Ultra HD shipments should top some 15.2 million units, which would give them *6 percent of the world’s total LCD television market.* Surprisingly quite a few of these will fall into the *“massive” category, with 27 percent of all shipments expected to be 60-inch+ displays.*
> 
> 
> So IHS seems to be forecast a total of about 250M LCD TVs shipped in 2014 out of which 15.2M units or 6% are forecasted to be be UHD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see if the worldwide TV market rebounds to that level. As for the rest, I wouldn't be surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Of these 15.2M UHD LCD TVs shipped, 27% or 4.1M are forecasted to be "massive" screens 60 inches and above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how that ratio is applicable to anything else, but it'd be great to get the number _after_ the year.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 2014 doesn't really count because they do not have their 4K products and larger screen products out until late this year. But 2015 is another story - in my view they need to drive sales of at least 5% of this subsegment in 2015 or they are at serious risk of 'missing out' on the 4K Tsunami and being left behind. This would mean sales of at least 200,000 units in 2015 (and this is assuming no growth in the premium large screen segment, which will likely double next year).
> 
> 
> LG has stated that there will be sharp price declines in WOLED prices by mid-next year (probably something to do with the M2 fab coming fully on-line), so even if we discount the first half of the year, it still means they need to sell more than 100,000 WOLEDs in the second half of next year or it looks like they may miss the 4K wave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's try this another way. You just defined a market of 4.1 million "massive" screens in 2014. If we do two things (1) add in 55" screens (2) assume growth, the market would seem to be much, much larger next year, right? Let's say the market for "premium-ish 55" and up displays" is 6 million by this way. I'm defining premium-ish as UHD/4K here, which means it includes a bunch of inexpensive displays by next year, but still, that's pretty big.
> 
> 
> Now, you want LG to reach 200,000 units out of 6 million. That doesn't seem especially hard does it?
Click to expand...


Are you saying 6 million for "premium 55" and above" in 2014 or 2015? I'd think figure reasonable (based on the IHS forecast) for 2014 and conservative for 2015. More to the point, if there is a forecast number that provides a decent proxy, I don't think it makes sense to pollute it by speculating to far away - I'd see more value in discussing LGs share of the 60" and above premium market including their 55" WOLEDs within that segment (despite the fact that strictly speaking, their screen size doesn't qualify), rather that try to guesstimate how many premium 55" displays might be sold and add that to the IHS 60" and above figure. Among other things, no one but LG WOLED is offering a premium 4K 55" TV this year.


In the end, it doesn't matter so much whether we are talking about sales figure of 200,000 out of 4.1 million or 6 million - in my view it would take a miracle for LG to sell 200,000 WOLEDs in 2015 from where they sit today (so yes, sales of 200,000 units of WOLED in 2015 does seem especially hard).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24742610
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24742149
> 
> 
> 
> My view is that by 2016, LG needs to capture at least 10% of the premium large-screen market or the whole WOLED thing is not happening. 10% would amount to 410,000 units if there was no growth for two years, but that is not realistic. The premium large-screen segment will probably be at least 10,000,000 units by 2016 (4-5% of the overall TV market), meaning that LG needs to sell at least 1M WOLEDs in 2016 or the initiative is not on track.
> 
> 
> At current yields of 70%, the M2 line has a capacity for 1.3M 55" or 0.6M 65" or 0.3M 77" WOLEDs (at current yields, which should have improved significantly by the end of 2015), so selling 1M WOLEDs in 2016 should be realistic and achievable if the technology is taking off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this math seems totally reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Interestingly, the 65" TV has the most to gain from the move from the half-8G-panel pilot line to the full-8G-panel M2 line, so it will be interesting to see where they initially price that product. Producing the 65" on the half-8G-panel pilot line, where they can only make a single 65" WOLED per half-panel, is horribly inefficient and means that the cost of a 65" WOLED is almost 4 times that of a 55" WOLED manufactured on the same half-panel pilot line.
> 
> 
> By the time they are being manufactured on the full-8G-panel M2 line (which can hold a full 3 65" WOLEDs per 8G-panel), the 65" WOLED panels will cost only a bit more than twice the 55" WOLED panels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, it seems like more than 2x the 55-inch price will be completely non-competitive, right? I suppose that changes it the 55 inch moves to $3000.
Click to expand...


In my view, if LG is pricing the 65" WOLED at more than 2X the price of the 55" WOLEDs, it is because they don't yet have the full-panel manufacturing running on the M2 line yet and so the 65" costs are prohibitive coming off of the half-panel pilot line and they do not want to sell any actual volume.


1X for 55", 2X for 65", 3X for 77" is the natural price points for the various panel sizes once manufacturing and yields have stabilized. Also note that this is based on estimated yielded WOLED panel costs and the ratio of full flat-panel TV costs will be less than that (meaning that LG will be making higher margins on the 65" and 77" TVs at these price ratios).


LG has already signaled a major price drop to 'affordable levels' in mid-2015. If they can get the prices for the 55" down to $3000 before then (and $6000 for the 65" and $9000 for the 77"), I would see that as a very positive sign and it would increase my confidence that LG would be able to sell 100,000-200,000 WOLEDs in 2015.


By mid 2015, I see that [email protected]" pricepoint as the minimum they need to offer if they are to have any chance at all of filling the fab to capacity by the end of the year. Since LG is currently selling 55" WOLEDs for $4000 (and presumably not losing money at that price), I would see half that pricing (meaning $2000) by mid-2015 as a much more serious sign that this WOLED initiative is for real. I believe that $2000 for the 55", $4000 for the 65" and $6000 for the 77" would represent double the prices of LED/LCD and put WOLED at a modest premium over the 2015 flagship offerings. I'd be bullish on LGs chances to hit the 1M unit sales in 2016 if they can hit these prices in 2015.


Even $2500 for 55", $5000 for 65" and $7500 for 77" would signal that they are catching up to LCD cost structure more quickly that $3000, $6000, $9000 pricing would. And mid-2015 prices above that level would mean that this LG WOLED initiative is a slow train to a dead end (Plasma II).


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24742790
> 
> 
> FWIW, *a Korean analyst stated today that yields have now hit 80%.
> *
> 
> Prices on the 1080p version have fallen much faster than anybody expected, now we'll have to see how quickly they can get 4K pricing down to a reasonable premium to 1080p.



Source?


----------



## slacker711

The analyst expects the price premium to shrink to less than 50% to LCD, though that is really an amorphous target since we dont know what he is using as a baseline.

http://vip.mk.co.kr/newSt/news/news_view2.php?t_uid=6&c_uid=22239&sCode=12


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24742790
> 
> 
> FWIW, a Korean analyst stated today that yields have now hit 80%.
> 
> 
> Prices on the 1080p version have fallen much faster than anybody expected, now we'll have to see how quickly they can get 4K pricing down to a reasonable premium to 1080p.



I generally ignore Korean analysts, but let's just agree that if true that's good news.


As for prices on 1080 falling faster than anyone expected, I still disagree. The argument here has _always_ been the same: If you took the normal extrapolation of price declines, LG would simply have never sold the TVs. That was the skepticism of myself, irkuck, et al. That it would not happen.


LG saw that. So it cut prices (likely below some sustainable level in the short run) and still hasn't found demand. There is nothing bullish about the fact that even at "next year's prices" people aren't buying 1080p OLEDs. It's entirely consistent with the original thesis.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24743239
> 
> 
> I'll be willingly naive, but I don't believe for a second that it's somehow _*obvious*_ that Sony is out of the OLED world the way many people here seem to be insisting that they have to be.  Gen this fab.  Gen that fab.  No tech working.  Capex this/that/the other thing.  Speculation upon speculation upon re-speculated guessed speculation....  Nothing wrong with that at all (it's what the forum is for, educated discussion), but no, _nothing_ is in the obvious category yet.



Again, it's a free country but Sony:


1) Never has made flat panels for TV

2) Clearly disbanded its joint venture to develop OLED _manufacturing_ technology

3) Clearly has no investments in OLED fabrication anywhere in the world other than the tiny production it does for broadcast


You can play anti-intellectual as you did above, but that doesn't make it educated discussion. Sony is clearly not in the OLED business for panel making for TVs. If they re-badge LGs panels and sell them as TVs, so what? They will likely charge a ton (it's Sony) and sell very few. I've said before that having more brands selling OLED is good, generally. But Sony doesn't help here. It's a perennial "mixed messager". It's always selling _this_ and _that_ and telling you how great both are.


Maybe they'll rebadge LG panels; maybe they won't. It's no sort of game changer either way.


> Quote:
> Otherwise, you're just one more guy making a webpage and pretending to be important.



Or one guy making a webpage who thinks he's helping to inform people. But by all means assume the worst.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24744176
> 
> 
> Just to make sure I correctly understand the point you are both making here, if LG had gone with an LTPS backplane rather than IGZO, the investment in the fab would have been $2B rather than $0.7B which would have translated into a CAPEX cost of ~$100 per WOLED over 10 years rather than ~$35 per panel (so an additional $65 in CAPEX cost for LTPS, plus any additional manufacturing cost for LTPS over IGZO), right?



I dunno. I was really doing a quick-and-dirty off slacker's numbers. They seemed in the universe of good enough.


> Quote:
> Are you saying 6 million for "premium 55" and above" in 2014 or 2015? I'd think figure reasonable (based on the IHS forecast) for 2014 and conservative for 2015. More to the point, if there is a forecast number that provides a decent proxy, I don't think it makes sense to pollute it by speculating to far away - I'd see more value in discussing LGs share of the 60" and above premium market including their 55" WOLEDs within that segment (despite the fact that strictly speaking, their screen size doesn't qualify), rather that try to guesstimate how many premium 55" displays might be sold and add that to the IHS 60" and above figure. Among other things, no one but LG WOLED is offering a premium 4K 55" TV this year.



Are you saying there are no 4K 55" LCDs from anyone else? As to the numbers, it's an estimate, I wouldn't get too caught up in it.


> Quote:
> In the end, it doesn't matter so much whether we are talking about sales figure of 200,000 out of 4.1 million or 6 million - in my view it would take a miracle for LG to sell 200,000 WOLEDs in 2015 from where they sit today (so yes, sales of 200,000 units of WOLED in 2015 does seem especially hard).



Why would that take a miracle? They (1) Get 4K (2) Get 3 screen sizes (3) Get to keep dumping some 2K that is backing up in some Korean warehouse as they work out yield glitches.


> Quote:
> In my view, if LG is pricing the 65" WOLED at more than 2X the price of the 55" WOLEDs, it is because they don't yet have the full-panel manufacturing running on the M2 line yet and so the 65" costs are prohibitive coming off of the half-panel pilot line and they do not want to sell any actual volume.



65 inch displays have always been the bastard child of 8G fabs, to be honest. The math has been awful from the beginning of time and it remains awful, half sheets or not. No one has ever really want to sell them in volume. The only thing that changed in the recent era was that so much overcapacity existed, some fab owners stopped caring much. Utilization ratio for the overall fab > utilization ratio for sheets.


> Quote:
> 1X for 55", 2X for 65", 3X for 77" is the natural price points for the various panel sizes once manufacturing and yields have stabilized. Also note that this is based on estimated yielded WOLED panel costs and the ratio of full flat-panel TV costs will be less than that (meaning that LG will be making higher margins on the 65" and 77" TVs at these price ratios).



Those prices are not very natural at retail at all. Looking at LCD, the premiums are nowhere near that high.


> Quote:
> LG has already signaled a major price drop to 'affordable levels' in mid-2015. If they can get the prices for the 55" down to $3000 before then (and $6000 for the 65" and $9000 for the 77"), I would see that as a very positive sign and it would increase my confidence that LG would be able to sell 100,000-200,000 WOLEDs in 2015.



I'm still lost on this pessimism. You're saying a $3000, 4K OLED at 55" wouldn't sell 200K units on its own next year? Really? I completely disagree.


> Quote:
> By mid 2015, I see that [email protected]" pricepoint as the minimum they need to offer if they are to have any chance at all of filling the fab to capacity by the end of the year. Since LG is currently selling 55" WOLEDs for $4000 (and presumably not losing money at that price),



I suspect that is a money-losing price, actually. It's very likely they are just amortizing a lot of the current costs as "R&D" to push volume to get the line perfected.


> Quote:
> I would see half that pricing (meaning $2000) by mid-2015 as a much more serious sign that this WOLED initiative is for real. I believe that $2000 for the 55", $4000 for the 65" and $6000 for the 77" would represent double the prices of LED/LCD and put WOLED at a modest premium over the 2015 flagship offerings. I'd be bullish on LGs chances to hit the 1M unit sales in 2016 if they can hit these prices in 2015.



So that pricing a bit over one year from now seems really unlikely to me. But if reached, I have no doubt at all sales would eclipse 1M in 2016. I'd probably talk my wife into the 77 inch, even though she'd think I was crazy.


> Quote:
> Even $2500 for 55", $5000 for 65" and $7500 for 77" would signal that they are catching up to LCD cost structure more quickly that $3000, $6000, $9000 pricing would. And mid-2015 prices above that level would mean that this LG WOLED initiative is a slow train to a dead end (Plasma II).



Again, I'm confused by the pessimism here. If they are only at 3/6/9 next year, why can't they get to 2/4/6 a year later?


To me, the bigger problem is 2/4/6 is still a tiny sliver of the market, not some sort of mainstream volumes. It's actually likely below plasma volumes (at least the good days of plasma) by a good margin. Sure, it supports a small Gen 8 fab or two. But it doesn't really support an industry and it's unlikely to keep driving down costs much through a virtuous cycle.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840_60#post_24745109
> 
> 
> You can play anti-intellectual as you did above, but that doesn't make it educated discussion.


 

Thanks a lot.  Oye.


----------



## greenland

Will not the price of large 4K LCD panels keep dropping also, and fairly likely dropping more rapidly than LG can drop prices on their 4K OLED offerings? That could make it almost impossible for them to get to within a 20% higher price than for the 4k LCD sets.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745378
> 
> 
> Will not the price of large 4K LCD panels keep dropping also, and fairly likely dropping more rapidly than LG can drop prices on their 4K OLED offerings?


There's no doubt in any one's mind that 4K LCD panel's prices will be dropping way faster that 4K OLED prices due to the gigantic volumes 4K LCDs are gonna have.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9800_100#post_24745397
> 
> 
> 
> There's no doubt in any one's mind that 4K LCD panel's prices will be dropping way faster that 4K OLED prices due to the gigantic volumes 4K LCDs are gonna have.



And the competitive pressures of having several brand names competing for the 4K LCD consumers, as opposed to LG having no other brand competing for the 4K OLED consumers.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745378
> 
> 
> Will not the price of large 4K LCD panels keep dropping also, and fairly likely dropping more rapidly than LG can drop prices on their 4K OLED offerings? That could make it almost impossible for them to get to within a 20% higher price than for the 4k LCD sets.



Definitely. They expect 4K LCD to only be 1.2x the price of the same sized higher end 1080p sets by the end of the year. In 5 years it will be hard to find a 1080p large format display. Also, LCD tech is continuing to advance closing the performance gap between it and OLED. Unless there is a major break through in large format OLED production it will remain a low volume niche product that will eventually get discontinued. Look at Sharp with the Elite. There are no big profits in the high end niche market. You need huge volume.


----------



## vinnie97

There are, at most, 3 panels from 2014 that I'd deem worthy as closing the OLED performance gap. Let's try to decimate the Sharp Elite from 2011 before we get too exuberant about creaming OLED.


----------



## Artwood

sytech: Do monkeys like OLED or LCD?


----------



## Vegas oled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745758
> 
> 
> sytech: Do monkeys like OLED or LCD?



You have some strange obsession with LCD. Next post by Artwood, " What if someone forced to watch LCD, would it kill you?"


----------



## vinnie97

He does have a fixation (can you blame him with the 5 posts that preceded his, what with them all alluding to LCD killing off OLED prematurely?).


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745109
> 
> 
> 
> As for prices on 1080 falling faster than anyone expected, I still disagree. The argument here has _always_ been the same: If you took the normal extrapolation of price declines, LG would simply have never sold the TVs. That was the skepticism of myself, irkuck, et al. That it would not happen.
> 
> 
> LG saw that. So it cut prices (likely below some sustainable level in the short run) and still hasn't found demand. There is nothing bullish about the fact that even at "next year's prices" people aren't buying 1080p OLEDs. It's entirely consistent with the original thesis.



Did I ever give the impression that I thought that OLED's could sustain any sort of substantial price premium to high-end LCD's? I think I have generally been in the range of 10-20% for quite a while. My clear mistake though was not anticipating the quick rise of 4K.


The current pricing for 1080p pricing has dropped substantially but is still close to 100% above high-end 1080p LCD's. The entire ultra-premium 1080p market has disappeared.


I think our fundamental disagreements were about a few other things.


1) I think that the OLED cost structure is substantially better than you do.


2) I think that a single fab producing 1.8 million televisions a year can ramp yields close to maturity and continue to see cost improvements matching high-end LCD's over time.


3) At anywhere close to parity in pricing, I think that OLED's will grab a dominant share of that market segment. There will be very few LCD sales for equivalent sizes at prices above the OLED (assuming that technical issues are worked out).


The amazing part here is that LG has been able to ramp yields to anywhere close to 80% while presumably only producing a few thousand televisions a month. The IGZO portion of those yields are particularly important as compressing the premium for 4K is going to be key to sales going forward.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745160
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot.  Oye.



You started this round for whatever reason. My counter-punch was just that, but was pretty objective nevertheless.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745378
> 
> 
> Will not the price of large 4K LCD panels keep dropping also, and fairly likely dropping more rapidly than LG can drop prices on their 4K OLED offerings? That could make it almost impossible for them to get to within a 20% higher price than for the 4k LCD sets.



Impossible? No.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745397
> 
> 
> 
> There's no doubt in any one's mind that 4K LCD panel's prices will be dropping way faster that 4K OLED prices due to the gigantic volumes 4K LCDs are gonna have.



That's the challenge for sure.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745410
> 
> 
> And the competitive pressures of having several brand names competing for the 4K LCD consumers, as opposed to LG having no other brand competing for the 4K OLED consumers.



And that's the math... It's a numbers game.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745434
> 
> 
> Definitely. They expect 4K LCD to only be 1.2x the price of the same sized higher end 1080p sets by the end of the year. In 5 years it will be hard to find a 1080p large format display.



Probably near impossible in 5 years, except maybe in the "el cheapo, but huge" category.


> Quote:
> Also, LCD tech is continuing to advance closing the performance gap between it and OLED. Unless there is a major break through in large format OLED production it will remain a low volume niche product that will eventually get discontinued. Look at Sharp with the Elite. There are no big profits in the high end niche market. You need huge volume.



Yes, you do need huge volume. Even 4-5 million won't sustain a market.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745707
> 
> 
> There are, at most, 3 panels from 2014 that I'd deem worthy as closing the OLED performance gap. Let's try to decimate the Sharp Elite from 2011 before we get too exuberant about creaming OLED.



It doesn't have to be better, it has to be good enough for most people. And it probably already is that, yet still improving.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24746347
> 
> 
> Did I ever give the impression that I thought that OLED's could sustain any sort of substantial price premium to high-end LCD's?



No, nor did I intend to imply you did.


> Quote:
> I think I have generally been in the range of 10-20% for quite a while. My clear mistake though was not anticipating the quick rise of 4K.



Well, I'm not sure where I stood on the adoption of this last year, but I'm sure where I stood on the "this feature will be free and people will believe pixels are good" side of things. But anyway...


> Quote:
> The current pricing for 1080p pricing has dropped substantially but is still close to 100% above high-end 1080p LCD's. The entire ultra-premium 1080p market has disappeared.



But that's the point. To say 1080p pricing has fallen faster than we anticipated implies that LG has achieved something to make this happen. We don't agree on that. We agree the 1080p ultra-premium market is gone and LG couldn't sell _any_ units at the old pricing. But then, I basically said this last year and probably in 2012 too.


> Quote:
> I think our fundamental disagreements were about a few other things.
> 
> 
> 1) I think that the OLED cost structure is substantially better than you do.



I don't actually disagree with you. I just don't agree that some theoretical future cost structure automatically happens without the millions of units actually getting made. And I don't believe the millions of units getting made automatically happens to deliver the cost structure just because if they get made then someday the cost structure automatically happens. The chicken doesn't automatically produce an egg; nor does the egg automatically produce a chicken. This is what this is a hard problem.


> Quote:
> 2) I think that a single fab producing 1.8 million televisions a year can ramp yields close to maturity and continue to see cost improvements matching high-end LCD's over time.



Right, we disagree there. I don't think that level of volume will ever be competitive with LCD pricing.


> Quote:
> 3) At anywhere close to parity in pricing, I think that OLED's will grab a dominant share of that market segment. There will be very few LCD sales for equivalent sizes at prices above the OLED (assuming that technical issues are worked out).



I actually think this is an area of disagreement, but it's more subtle. First of all, at _any premium_ there is no chance of OLED grabbing a dominant share. If it's $2500 for an LCD and $3000 for an OLED, there is simply no chance OLED will grab a dominant share of that segment. It's just not "better enough" and that's a huge amount of money when most people already have to talk themselves into paying $2500 for a TV.


Second of all, if the price reaches parity and / or we are talking about $1500 vs. $1650 say (i.e. where the gap is small enough to generate less sticker shock), there is no way OLED can get the lion's share of the market on a single brand in any short period of time. That's doubly true if the brand is LG, which has dominated TV in no important region of the world, well, ever. Now, if OLED costs the same as high-end LCD and is sold only by LG, it will, over time, capture more and more share. But you are talking 3-5 years before it captures the lion's share of _any_ segment solely under the LG banner. That's a market reality. Again, OLED is not good enough that everyone will suddenly start buying LG TVs.


This is why LG is whoring out panels already. They know this. And they know the numbers we've bandied about above better than we do. Let's go back to that 6 million-ish market segment and say LG wants 3 million of it by 2017. They will not get there alone but if 4-5 brands sell what amounts to the same TV, distribution, marketing, and -- most critically -- validation will make that possible.


> Quote:
> The amazing part here is that LG has been able to ramp yields to anywhere close to 80% while presumably only producing a few thousand televisions a month. The IGZO portion of those yields are particularly important as compressing the premium for 4K is going to be key to sales going forward.



So I don't know anything about these yield stats except that the idea this some kind of point of disagreement should be disregarded. When I went to CES in 2012 and spoke with LG, UDC, et al. about the LG tech and mfg. method, I explained here in great detail why this would be a high-yield method of display production. It's wasteful. It's not especially high throughput. It's not clear it yields very good uniformity. But it's fundamentally high yield.


----------



## wco81

Large volumes of 4K?


Has there been a 4K home video format announced? I know there's been talk of work being done to add extensions to Blu-Ray?


Or for that matter a way to transmit 4K programs?


If we remember, one of the things which drove HDTV adoption was live sports. I've heard the ATSC may be talking about a standard which supports 4k, using presumably H.265 or more advanced codecs?


But of course, local TV stations and production companies had a hard enough time transitioning to 720p and 1080i because of the capital costs. In fact, many of them still aren't doing too well with 1080i. Look at CSN Bay Area broadcasts for example.



D* doesn't seem to be in a position to add bandwidth and Comcast and AT&T seem unwilling unless forced to in individual markets by Google Fiber or something else.


So where is the 4K content that is going to drive 4K TVs?


----------



## vinnie97

^Netflix and uber-expensive and proprietary STBs.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24746538
> 
> 
> Large volumes of 4K?
> 
> 
> Has there been a 4K home video format announced? I know there's been talk of work being done to add extensions to Blu-Ray?
> 
> 
> Or for that matter a way to transmit 4K programs?
> 
> 
> If we remember, one of the things which drove HDTV adoption was live sports. I've heard the ATSC may be talking about a standard which supports 4k, using presumably H.265 or more advanced codecs?
> 
> 
> But of course, local TV stations and production companies had a hard enough time transitioning to 720p and 1080i because of the capital costs. In fact, many of them still aren't doing too well with 1080i. Look at CSN Bay Area broadcasts for example.
> 
> 
> 
> D* doesn't seem to be in a position to add bandwidth and Comcast and AT&T seem unwilling unless forced to in individual markets by Google Fiber or something else.
> 
> 
> So where is the 4K content that is going to drive 4K TVs?


There's none! H.265 is very resource hungry. Netflix's 4K is a joke with worse than or similar to Blue ray quality.

 

cabac=1 / ref=5 / deblock=1:0:9 / analyse=0x3:0x117 / me=umh / subme=8 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.20 / mixed_ref=3 / me_range=19 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=2 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=-3 / threads=6 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=1 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=2 / b_adapt=2 / b_bias=0 / direct=4 / wpredb=1 / wpredp=0 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=40 / rc=2pass / mbtree=1 / bitrate=5094 / ratetol=1.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=57 / qpstep=4 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00 / pulldown=0 *high 5.0 h.264 looks almost the same as SUPER  converted h.265 at the same bit rate to me.*

 

what I mean is that H.265 is not much better than fine-tuned h.264. H.264 is rec.2020 compliant and with some fine-tuning it can be ,maybe, only 30 percent less efficient than h.265 and more then twice less power hungry.

 

I don't see how any modern TV with their piss-poor possessors can handle high bitrate h.265 for it takes at least a 1500 buck PC right now with a high-end possessor and mid-range graphics card to handle it. I don't think even new-gen PS and X-box can handle ,like, 1GB per second h.265 (true 4K), but I have no doubt that they can handle 1.5 Gb per second h.264


----------



## KidHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24746564
> 
> 
> 
> There's none! H.265 is very resource hungry. Netflix's 4K is a joke with worse than or similar to Blue ray quality.
> 
> 
> cabac=1 / ref=5 / deblock=1:0:9 / analyse=0x3:0x117 / me=umh / subme=8 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.20 / mixed_ref=3 / me_range=19 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=2 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=-3 / threads=6 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=1 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=2 / b_adapt=2 / b_bias=0 / direct=4 / wpredb=1 / wpredp=0 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=40 / rc=2pass / mbtree=1 / bitrate=5094 / ratetol=1.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=57 / qpstep=4 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00 / pulldown=0 *high 5.0 h.264 looks almost the same as SUPER  converted h.265 at the same bit rate to me.*
> 
> 
> what I mean is that H.265 is not much better than fine-tuned h.264. H.264 is rec.2020 compliant and with some fine-tuning it can be ,maybe, only 30 percent less efficient than h.265 and more then twice less power hungry.
> 
> 
> I don't see how any modern TV with their piss-poor possessors can handle high bitrate h.265 for it takes at least a 1500 buck PC right now with a high-end possessor and mid-range graphics card to handle it. I don't think even new-gen PS and X-box can handle ,like, 1GB per second h.265 (true 4K), but I have no doubt that they can handle 1.5 Gb per second h.264



H.265 requires more processing power to decode than h.264, but you don't need to process anywhere near 1 GB per second. Where did you come up with that requirement? Think about it, 1 hour of video would require 3600 GB just to store it.


----------



## wco81

What are the bitrates going to be, if they're relying on newer codecs to deliver higher resolution (and higher image quality) at the same nitrates we have now, that might make it viable, not having to increase the bandwidth for the various distribution mediums we have.


But yeah, more CPU-intensive codecs doesn't allow for affordable display or playback hardware.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KidHorn*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840_60#post_24747114
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24746564
> 
> 
> *collapsed* (Click to show) There's none! H.265 is very resource hungry. Netflix's 4K is a joke with worse than or similar to Blue ray quality.
> 
> 
> cabac=1 / ref=5 / deblock=1:0:9 / analyse=0x3:0x117 / me=umh / subme=8 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.20 / mixed_ref=3 / me_range=19 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=2 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=-3 / threads=6 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=1 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=2 / b_adapt=2 / b_bias=0 / direct=4 / wpredb=1 / wpredp=0 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=40 / rc=2pass / mbtree=1 / bitrate=5094 / ratetol=1.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=57 / qpstep=4 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00 / pulldown=0 *high 5.0 h.264 looks almost the same as SUPER  converted h.265 at the same bit rate to me.*
> 
> 
> what I mean is that H.265 is not much better than fine-tuned h.264. H.264 is rec.2020 compliant and with some fine-tuning it can be ,maybe, only 30 percent less efficient than h.265 and more then twice less power hungry.
> 
> 
> I don't see how any modern TV with their piss-poor possessors can handle high bitrate h.265 for it takes at least a 1500 buck PC right now with a high-end possessor and mid-range graphics card to handle it. I don't think even new-gen PS and X-box can handle ,like, 1GB per second h.265 (true 4K), but I have no doubt that they can handle 1.5 Gb per second h.264
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H.265 requires more processing power to decode than h.264, but you don't need to process anywhere near 1 GB per second. Where did you come up with that requirement? Think about it, 1 hour of video would require 3600 GB just to store it.
Click to expand...

 

I'd like to know what he means as well.  Even if he's referring to Gb instead of GB, it's not quite right.  Stas3098, are you looking at the *before encoding sizes? * Those don't happen in real time in the display---that's done by the source before it ever hits your TV.

 

Or are you referring to the effective data output once the signal is *decoded?*  (The effective data size produced within the TV from decoding an H.265 stream)?  That I think I can understand.  But otherwise the numbers are much much lower:

 

H.265 benchmarked: Does the next-generation video codec live up to expectations?


----------



## Artwood

Apple puts their name on LG OLEDs. AT&T buys DirecTV and then charges out the wazoo to give people 4K programming.


Remember--you heard it here first!


I hate AT&T--anytime they have a chance to charge out the a$$ they will. If they have a promotion for $29.99 a month I guarantee you the first bill will be $197.00!


Apple could save OLED--people will pay trillions for them, too--but they will pay trillions and LIKE Apple--that is the difference between Apple and AT&T.


I thought the FCC was going to make the Internet a two level tier system--you might wind up having 4K for the rich folks and 1080p for everyone else.


1080p will be Edge lit crapola only.


4K will be 5% OLED.


Two tiers.


Unfair--yes--but just remember--money rules everything!


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24747276
> 
> 
> But otherwise the numbers are much much lower:
> 
> H.265 benchmarked: Does the next-generation video codec live up to expectations?



H.265 is great for streaming low-bitrate/low-quality video (aka Netflix). That's where you see the biggest bitrate savings. As you move across to the higher bit-rates, you see the 3 plots converge. So the primary advantages of this codec will be for streamers, not as much for optical storage if that ever comes out.


I remember reading somewhere that Netflix will use a maximum of 15 Mbps for their 4K h.265 content.


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24746538
> 
> 
> Large volumes of 4K?
> 
> 
> Has there been a 4K home video format announced? I know there's been talk of work being done to add extensions to Blu-Ray?
> 
> 
> Or for that matter a way to transmit 4K programs?
> 
> 
> If we remember, one of the things which drove HDTV adoption was live sports. I've heard the ATSC may be talking about a standard which supports 4k, using presumably H.265 or more advanced codecs?
> 
> 
> But of course, local TV stations and production companies had a hard enough time transitioning to 720p and 1080i because of the capital costs. In fact, many of them still aren't doing too well with 1080i. Look at CSN Bay Area broadcasts for example.
> 
> 
> 
> D* doesn't seem to be in a position to add bandwidth and Comcast and AT&T seem unwilling unless forced to in individual markets by Google Fiber or something else.
> 
> 
> So where is the 4K content that is going to drive 4K TVs?


*LIVE-ACTION 4K TRANSMISSION DEMOED IN THE UK:*

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-hevc-201405213781.htm


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wco81*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24747224
> 
> 
> What are the bitrates going to be, if they're relying on newer codecs to deliver higher resolution (and higher image quality) at the same nitrates we have now, that might make it viable, not having to increase the bandwidth for the various distribution mediums we have.
> 
> 
> But yeah, more CPU-intensive codecs doesn't allow for affordable display or playback hardware.



Japan is begin 4K transmissions in the next few days. The have chosen to go with the Main 10 HEVC profile. 10-bit color. 20/MBs. I don't know if this includes any HDR data or full WCG data, or if its 30/50/60fps.


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24748139
> 
> 
> Japan is begin 4K transmissions in the next few days. The have chosen to go with the Main 10 HEVC profile. 10-bit color. 20/MBs. I don't know if this includes any HDR data or full WCG data, or if its 30/50/60fps.



Sharp has announced a 4K video recorder with HEVC capability:

http://www.sharp.co.jp/corporate/news/140520-a.html 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2157141/sharp-debuts-recorder-for-4k-tv-shows.html


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840_60#post_24747922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24747276
> 
> 
> But otherwise the numbers are much much lower:
> 
> H.265 benchmarked: Does the next-generation video codec live up to expectations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H.265 is great for streaming low-bitrate/low-quality video (aka Netflix). That's where you see the biggest bitrate savings. As you move across to the higher bit-rates, you see the 3 plots converge. So the primary advantages of this codec will be for streamers, not as much for optical storage if that ever comes out.
Click to expand...

 

Never thought that through before, but now that you mention it, there's an obvious asymptote to all 3 curves that looks fairly close.  So H.265 will be slightly better (more or less) at the higher rates, but only significantly better lower down.


----------



## irkuck

 Samsung to invest over $3b in new OLED plant 


Samsung will not produce OLED TV panels at the new plant, but instead use it to produce slightly larger OLED panels for tablets as well as OLED displays for wearables such as smartwatches, indicating that Samsung wants to produce flexible OLED panels, too. LG is also investing in flexible OLEDs.


Samsung has not confirmed Yonhap’s report.


In any case, sounds reasonable from business point of view.


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9850_50#post_24746564
> 
> 
> I don't see how any modern TV with their piss-poor possessors can handle high bitrate h.265 for it takes at least a 1500 buck PC right now with a high-end possessor and mid-range graphics card to handle it. I don't think even new-gen PS and X-box can handle ,like, 1GB per second h.265 (true 4K), but I have no doubt that they can handle 1.5 Gb per second h.264


They're not using general purpose processors for video decoding. They're using SoC's that have purpose built silicon in them for video decompression or using external video decompressor chips that are specifically designed to decode video of certain formats.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Stereodude*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24748317
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9850_50#post_24746564
> 
> 
> I don't see how any modern TV with their piss-poor possessors can handle high bitrate h.265 for it takes at least a 1500 buck PC right now with a high-end possessor and mid-range graphics card to handle it. I don't think even new-gen PS and X-box can handle ,like, 1GB per second h.265 (true 4K), but I have no doubt that they can handle 1.5 Gb per second h.264
> 
> 
> 
> They're not using general purpose processors for video decoding. They're using SoC's that have purpose built silicon in them for video decompression or using external video decompressor chips that are specifically designed to decode video of certain formats.
Click to expand...

I doubt they'll do that at first, at least any ASIC they build will likely supply helper "routines". Unless you have a link? It would prevent them from fixing decoding bugs in firmware.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24748299
> 
> Samsung to invest over $3b in new OLED plant
> 
> 
> Samsung will not produce OLED TV panels at the new plant, but instead use it to produce slightly larger OLED panels for tablets as well as OLED displays for wearables such as smartwatches, indicating that Samsung wants to produce flexible OLED panels, too. LG is also investing in flexible OLEDs.
> 
> 
> Samsung has not confirmed Yonhap’s report.
> 
> 
> In any case, sounds reasonable from business point of view.



If this report is true, this is most likely in the city of Cheonan since that's about 100 km south of Seoul as the article suggests. See this article and this *old* article for info on Cheonan's Samsung plant.


But what I find interesting is there have been rumors that Kateeva's first installation was in the city of Cheonan. Remember back in January in this Forbes article Kateeva's CEO said


> Quote:
> Kateeva in a few months will ship its first commercial demonstration plant to a large manufacturer in a few weeks with more going to other manufacturers by the end of the year. *By 2015, expect to see 5- to 10-inch tablets made with Kateeva-made OLED screens by 2015*, he added.



It's just speculation, but I would find it very exiting if the tablets end up being printed OLEDs. Hopefully we will find that out soon.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745090
> 
> 
> The analyst expects the price premium to shrink to less than 50% to LCD, though that is really an amorphous target since we dont know what he is using as a baseline.
> 
> http://vip.mk.co.kr/newSt/news/news_view2.php?t_uid=6&c_uid=22239&sCode=12



Thanks. The improvement to 80% yield on the pilot line is impressive (give the very run run-rate of less than 1000 55" WOLEDS per month), but I found this tidbit from the translated article to be very interesting:


"However, *from the third quarter*, LG Electronics 55, 65, 77 inches UHD OLED TV is diversified product mix and quarter cut from 30% to 40% *price premium compared to the LED TV is expected to shrink to less than 1.5 times* the weaknesses of these is expected to be largely mitigated. "


If LG shrinks the price premium for OLED to less than 1.5X the corresponding LED TV price by Q3, that would be fantastic.


The LG 65UB9800 UHD LED has an MSRP of $6000 and a current street price of $4500, so if the 65EC9700 comes out at an MSRP below $9000 and a street price below $6750, I'd call that darned good progress (and exceeding expectations).


In Korea, the 55" 55UB8500 has an MSRP of $3000 (no US pricing yet), so if this translates into an MSRP below $4500 for the 55EC9700 (and street pricing likely below $4000), that would also be exceeding expectations.


If pricing for the UHD WOLEDs being introduced in Q3 reach MSRPs of 55"@$4500, 65"@9000 and 77"@$13,500 and street prices of 55"@$3400, 65"@$6800, and 77"@$10,000 I would be far more bullish about LGs chances to sell several 10,s of thousands of WOLEDs in the latter half of this year (rather than less than only 10 thousand). More importantly, 100,000 WOLEDs sold in 2015, or even 200,000, would look much realistic.


----------



## Wizziwig

Is the LG 55ec9300 considered a 1st or 2nd gen product? They have it listed as end of June for $5K at B&H. At least it indicated LG will not jack up prices once their inventory of 2013 sets runs dry. Hopefully the 4K models won't be far behind.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1028758-REG/lg_electronics__55_1080p_smart_3d.html


----------



## fafrd





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745109
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24744176
> 
> 
> LG has already signaled a major price drop to 'affordable levels' in mid-2015. If they can get the prices for the 55" down to $3000 before then (and $6000 for the 65" and $9000 for the 77"), I would see that as a very positive sign and it would increase my confidence that LG would be able to sell 100,000-200,000 WOLEDs in 2015.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still lost on this pessimism. You're saying a $3000, 4K OLED at 55" wouldn't sell 200K units on its own next year? Really? I completely disagree.
Click to expand...


I'm obviously not expressing myself well. I'm saying that if LG can get the price of the 55" down to $3000 before mid-2015, I would have increased confidence that they could sell 100K-200K units in 2015. If the pricepoint remains for a 55" remains much higher than $3000 and/or the price cut down to that level comes much later in the year than beginning of Q3, then I would pessimistic of LGs chances to sell 100,000 WOLEDs in 2015.


Now if the Korean article that Slacker found is accurate, I am much more bullish on LGs chances overall and on these minutia in particular.


If LG has succeeded to improve 55" yields on the half-panel pilot line from 70% to 80% running at a very low production volume of only ~300 half-panels per month, that is fantastic progress and likely means further yield improvements on the pilot line while the M2 fab is getting started. If the M2 fab is able to get to 80% or 85% 55" full-panel yield before the end of this year, that is going to mean that LG has significantly greater WOLED capacity available earlier than expected. I think I read somewhere that the M2 line will have an initial capacity of 8000 full-sheets per month. At 6 55" WOLEDs per sheet at 80% yield, that translates to almost 40,000 WOLEDs per month. That is a huge capacity increase from the ~1000 WOLEDs per month they are manufacturing today on the pilot line, and they are no doubt aware that there is no way they will be able to sell anywhere close to that volume at current pricing of $4000-5000 for 55".


So if they are already signaling a Q3 2014 price premium of less than 50% over LED/LCD, that means pricing on the UHD WOLEDs far below what anyone has been expecting. Frankly, it means that the lion's share of the price decrease they had signaled for mid 2015 will be delivered with the launch of the new UHD products this year. If all of that process to materialize, it means they have undercommitted and overdelivered and I would have a totally different outlook on their chances for a successful 2015, 2016, and beyond.


Any pessimism I have is tied to pricing - if WOLED prices are high today because LG is capacity constrained on the pilot line so they could not serve increased demand, as soon as the M2 facility comes on line that capacity constraint will be completely lifted. And so if prices undergo a significant drop to drive increased demand as M2 production starts, I will be optimistic and not pessimistic. If those dramatic price drops don't unfold until late 2015 (or at all) I will be pessimistic, and if they materialize to the 1.5X LED/LCD premium level by mid 2015, I would be guardedly optimistic.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745109
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24744176
> 
> 
> By mid 2015, I see that [email protected]" pricepoint as the minimum they need to offer if they are to have any chance at all of filling the fab to capacity by the end of the year. Since LG is currently selling 55" WOLEDs for $4000 (and presumably not losing money at that price),
> 
> 
> 
> *I suspect that is a money-losing price*, actually. It's very likely they are just amortizing a lot of the current costs as "R&D" to push volume to get the line perfected.
Click to expand...


I'm only interested in gross manufacturing margin - that is all that matter for the next several years. If the manufacturing margin is not positive on 55" WOLEDs being sold for $4000 and manufactured on the half-sheet pilot line at 80% yield, then I swing back from optimism to pessimism. I suspect the manufacturing margin is positive at those prices and that LG is capacity constrained maintaining high prices to match demand to pilot line capacity. Once the M2 true production facility comes online, LG will be able to turn on the spigot which I expect to be reflected in another dramatic price cut (to the level of 1.5X LED/LCD, as they have already apparently already started to signal).


I don't think LG can push volume until M2 starts to produce (meaning a minimum acceptable yield level of 70%).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745109
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24744176
> 
> 
> I would see half that pricing (meaning $2000) by mid-2015 as a much more serious sign that this WOLED initiative is for real. I believe that $2000 for the 55", $4000 for the 65" and $6000 for the 77" would represent double the prices of LED/LCD and put WOLED at a modest premium over the 2015 flagship offerings. I'd be bullish on LGs chances to hit the 1M unit sales in 2016 if they can hit these prices in 2015.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that pricing a bit over one year from now seems really unlikely to me. But if reached, I have no doubt at all sales would eclipse 1M in 2016. I'd probably talk my wife into the 77 inch, even though she'd think I was crazy.
Click to expand...


The minimum target I now believe LG needs to deliver is 1.5X premium to LED/LCD by mid-2015.


It's easiest to look at 65" for that - this year, premium 65" UHD is being priced in the $4000 range. So 65" WOLED for $6000. I believe that pricing by mid-2015 is realistic and even do-or-die. I now think we may see prices close to that level than the 2X+ prices folks have been forecasting for the 65" WOLED before the end of this year.


Better start making space for a 77-incher










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745109
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24744176
> 
> 
> 
> Even $2500 for 55", $5000 for 65" and $7500 for 77" would signal that they are catching up to LCD cost structure more quickly that $3000, $6000, $9000 pricing would. And mid-2015 prices above that level would mean that this LG WOLED initiative is a slow train to a dead end (Plasma II).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm confused by the pessimism here. If they are only at 3/6/9 next year, why can't they get to 2/4/6 a year later?
Click to expand...


If they are capacity constrained and using high pricing to control demand, no problem to lower prices a year later. If they are close to break-even on pricing and pricing is limited by their cost/yield, the 33% price drop you are hoping for is inconsistent with stated yields. Yields can't exceed 100%, so the biggest yield-drive price decrease you could hope for if you are running at 80% yield is 25%. Hitting 100% yield is impossible and the panel does not constitute 100% of the TV costs, so even hitting a 25% cost reduction based on yield improvements alone is unrealistic, let alone the 33% cost reduction you are looking for.


If they get to 1.5X LED/LCD (for the premium 60"+ UHD segment) by 2015, I'm not pessimistic and I believe they will be selling enough volume to further close the gap to LED/LCD pricing over the following year. If by mid 2015, pricing for WOLED is more than double pricing for the corresponding premium 60"+ UHD premium 60"+ UHD, I repeat my 'train' comment.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745109
> 
> 
> To me, the bigger problem is 2/4/6 is still a tiny sliver of the market, not some sort of mainstream volumes. It's actually likely below plasma volumes (at least the good days of plasma) by a good margin. Sure, it supports a small Gen 8 fab or two. But it doesn't really support an industry and it's unlikely to keep driving down costs much through a virtuous cycle.



OK, so you are a WOLED bull in the short-term and a WOLED bear in the longer-term. I think if LG can achieve parity will LED/LCD costs on their single production fab (or even a 10-20% cost-premium), their OLED business will be sustainable enough for them to justify investments in further fabs (conversions, from what they have stated). I'm more interested in whether the business is sustainable than I am in if/when/how it can become the dominant flat panel display technology for all TVs. The 'premium 4K 60"+' market of 4 million units (and growing) is the right market for LG to target for now. If they can take 10% or more of this market by 2016, I believe they can continue to dominate the segment over the coming 3-5 years. Once OLED has a dominant position in that segment, I see it very unlikely that LED/LCD could ever threaten them and eventually displace them from that position the way LED/LCD displaced plasma with 4K.


I'm very bullish n WOLED actually, with the only caveat being that all reliability & lifetime problems have been resolved and there are no more shoes to drop. We'll know by this time next year!


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24746347
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745109
> 
> 
> 
> As for prices on 1080 falling faster than anyone expected, I still disagree. The argument here has _always_ been the same: If you took the normal extrapolation of price declines, LG would simply have never sold the TVs. That was the skepticism of myself, irkuck, et al. That it would not happen.
> 
> 
> LG saw that. So it cut prices (likely below some sustainable level in the short run) and still hasn't found demand. There is nothing bullish about the fact that even at "next year's prices" people aren't buying 1080p OLEDs. It's entirely consistent with the original thesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I ever give the impression that I thought that OLED's could sustain any sort of substantial price premium to high-end LCD's? I think I have generally been in the range of 10-20% for quite a while. My clear mistake though was not anticipating the quick rise of 4K.
> 
> 
> The current pricing for 1080p pricing has dropped substantially but is still close to 100% above high-end 1080p LCD's. The entire ultra-premium 1080p market has disappeared.
> 
> 
> I think our fundamental disagreements were about a few other things.
> 
> *1) I think that the OLED cost structure is substantially better than you do.*
> 
> 
> 2) I think that a single fab producing 1.8 million televisions a year can ramp yields close to maturity and continue to see cost improvements matching high-end LCD's over time.
> 
> 
> 3) At anywhere close to parity in pricing, I think that OLED's will grab a dominant share of that market segment. There will be very few LCD sales for equivalent sizes at prices above the OLED (assuming that technical issues are worked out).
> 
> *The amazing part here is that LG has been able to ramp yields to anywhere close to 80% while presumably only producing a few thousand televisions a month.* The IGZO portion of those yields are particularly important as compressing the premium for 4K is going to be key to sales going forward.
Click to expand...


Well expressed and I agree with everything you have stated.


In terms of your first point, I believe LG has been severely capacity-constrained on the half-sheet pilot line and so has been pricing high to limit demand. I mean, why would they want to get the larger market excited about their WOLED products before they are in a position to serve that demand. So 4K products running on the M2 production facility are a gating factor that I believe will result is significant price drops over the coming 3-9 months.


And the last point of your I highlighted is very amazing. The pilot line is running half-sheets and 1000 55" WOLEDs per month translates into just over 200 half-sheets per month. I don't know about glass-production, but in silicon, there are minimum production lots, usually of 5 wafers at a time, and maintaining yields on a silicon line generally requires running a minimum of at least one production lot per week. So using that as a proxy, LG has succeeded to improved yields from 70% to 80% running only 50 half-sheets per week for a period of less than 13 weeks.


I believe the M2 line will begin production before year-end at the starting level of 8000 full-sheets per month and we will get early warning of that coming WOLED tsunami (of *80X the WOLED production capacity of the pilot line*) through much steeper price discounts than anyone has expected.


----------



## Yappadappadu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24748862
> 
> 
> Is the LG 55ec9300 considered a 1st or 2nd gen product? They have it listed as end of June for $5K at B&H. At least it indicated LG will not jack up prices once their inventory of 2013 sets runs dry. Hopefully the 4K models won't be far behind.
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1028758-REG/lg_electronics__55_1080p_smart_3d.html


Hope it turns out to look exactly like that. I fear that it's simply another placeholder picture.

Who knows if, apart from WebOS and the different stand, it'll really be any different from the 2013 Full HD OLEDs. Might be that the real improvements are reserved for the 4K sets?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24748951
> 
> 
> OK, so you are a WOLED bull in the short-term and a WOLED bear in the longer-term.



I'm not a bear at all. Skepticism != bearishness


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24749365
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24748951
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24749365
> 
> 
> To me, the bigger problem is 2/4/6 is still a tiny sliver of the market, not some sort of mainstream volumes. It's actually likely below plasma volumes (at least the good days of plasma) by a good margin. Sure, it supports a small Gen 8 fab or two. But it doesn't really support an industry and it's unlikely to keep driving down costs much through a virtuous cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so you are a WOLED bull in the short-term and a WOLED bear in the longer-term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a bear at all. Skepticism != bearishness
Click to expand...


Now _that_ is some serious hair-splitting!


I think LG has a reasonably good chance to grab a dominant share of the 'Massive UHD" market over the next 5 years. That's not a bad toe-hold and once there, I see LG being better positioned to nibble away share in the mainstream market than I see LED/LCD being positioned to knock the off of their (little hill).


All of my comments are predicated on 'care and feeding' concerns of WOLED being no different than those of LED/LCD - if WOLED requires careful attention, needs to be wiped after letterbox content, or can suffer noticeable IR from logos, HUD, or whatever, all bets are off...


p.s. and another thing - being based on an IGZO backplane with LCD-like color-filtered subpixels means that the vast majority of the 'virtuous cycle' driving down costs of the LED/LCD industry will also benefit LG WOLED. Plasma was never in that position since the manufacturing technology was much more 'different'.


----------



## wco81

I'll be curious to see how good the first generation real-time 4k encoders are for sports -- as well as the various other equipment like switches and so forth for transmitting.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24748704
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745090
> 
> 
> The analyst expects the price premium to shrink to less than 50% to LCD, though that is really an amorphous target since we dont know what he is using as a baseline.
> 
> http://vip.mk.co.kr/newSt/news/news_view2.php?t_uid=6&c_uid=22239&sCode=12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. The improvement to 80% yield on the pilot line is impressive (give the very run run-rate of less than 1000 55" WOLEDS per month), but I found this tidbit from the translated article to be very interesting:
> 
> 
> "However, *from the third quarter*, LG Electronics 55, 65, 77 inches UHD OLED TV is diversified product mix and quarter cut from 30% to 40% *price premium compared to the LED TV is expected to shrink to less than 1.5 times* the weaknesses of these is expected to be largely mitigated. "
> 
> 
> If LG shrinks the price premium for OLED to less than 1.5X the corresponding LED TV price by Q3, that would be fantastic.
> 
> 
> The LG 65UB9800 UHD LED has an MSRP of $6000 and a current street price of $4500, so if the 65EC9700 comes out at an MSRP below $9000 and a street price below $6750, I'd call that darned good progress (and exceeding expectations).
> 
> 
> In Korea, the 55" 55UB8500 has an MSRP of $3000 (no US pricing yet), so if this translates into an MSRP below $4500 for the 55EC9700 (and street pricing likely below $4000), that would also be exceeding expectations.
> 
> 
> If pricing for the UHD WOLEDs being introduced in Q3 reach MSRPs of 55"@$4500, 65"@9000 and 77"@$13,500 and street prices of 55"@$3400, 65"@$6800, and 77"@$10,000 I would be far more bullish about LGs chances to sell several 10,s of thousands of WOLEDs in the latter half of this year (rather than less than only 10 thousand). More importantly, 100,000 WOLEDs sold in 2015, or even 200,000, would look much realistic.
Click to expand...


I've been reading over the translation of this report more carefully (too bad I don't know Korean







).


Here are a few more interesting tidits:


"The latest OLED TV panel production yield and cost reduction of 80% in speed faster than expected" so it sounds like they hit the 80% level earlier than expected.


"LG Electronics OLED TV set prices have led to the rate of decline in the past because LED TV is steep when compared." Would love a better translation of this bit.


"LG Electronics, UHD OLED TV to product diversification, price cuts expected" - this is the heading - product diversification with the UHD line and price cuts both expected!


"OLED TV is LED TV Full HD ① Compared with the central weakness of the uniform product configuration, ②, such as the high price of a TV set. " Another bit that makes me wish I could read Korean, but I assume this means that because they have only had a 1080p OLED which had a relatively high price, LG has been in a 'weak' position up to now.


"However, from the third quarter, LG Electronics 55, 65, 77 inches UHD OLED TV is diversified product mix and quarter cut from 30% to 40% price premium compared to the LED TV is expected to shrink to less than 1.5 times the weaknesses of these is expected to be largely mitigated. " 55", 65" and 77" UHD OLEDs to be introduced in the 3rd quarter along with a 30-40% price reduction which is expected to result in OLED prices shrinking to less than 1.5 times that of the corresponding LED/LCD UHD TV.


"The new LG OLED TV panel production line display (M2) *began operations* in earnest sufficient production capacity (55-inch standard lead 2 million) is because the possible. " It sounds like manufacturing operations have already started in M2 and that the M2 production facility has sufficient capacity to produce 2 million 55" WOLEDs. 26,000 substrates per month x 6 55" WOLED panels per substrates amounts to an annual unyielded capacity of 1.9M, so this ties pretty well.


"However, the LGD ① OLED TV panels 55, 65, 77 inches UHD OLED TV to diversify the product mix, ② the existing 55-inch OLED TV prices available in the fourth quarter to a level realistic expected to show an aggressive reduction of the global TV 1 supplier competitiveness" - another one that is different to parse, but I suspect that in addition to a repeat on the 'product diversification' coming with the arrival of the new panel sizes, it is also a reference to a price drop to levels 'realistically' expected to drive aggressive growth through increased competitiveness.



So if this is at all right, there are a few important takeaways:

80% yields achieved on the pilot line production (corresponding to a 10%+ reduction in 55" 1080p WOLED costs).
30-40% price drop coming in the 3rd quarter of this year (this should translate into a street price of $2400-2800 for the 55" 1080p products).
UHD products in 3 screen sized expected to launch in the 3rd quarter.
By the 3rd quarter, prices on LG WOLEDs expected to be less than 150% the price of corresponding LED/LCD products.
M2 operations have already been launched (ahead of schedule for H2'14 launch).
From the new products being introduced and the price drops, LG is expecting aggressive WOLED growth in the 4th quarter.


If M2 is already in production before the end of this year and prices on the 55" 1080p products drop to the $2500 level before the end of this year, I'd think it is safe to say that LG is far exceeding expectations and going to make some waves much earlier than expected.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24749650
> 
> 
> Now _that_ is some serious hair-splitting!



It's not hair splitting at all.


Bearishness is the belief that something won't happen and / or something will decline.


"I'm bearish on the prospects for Japanese companies to remain in the TV business through decade's end."


"I'm bearish on the prospects for Twitter ever having a user base anywhere near as large as Facebook."


Skepticism expresses uncertainty. In this case, uncertainty due to continuing challenges that need to be overcome.


"I'm skeptical that solar power will generate 35% of U.S. electricity by mid century (even though some forecasts say that's possible."


"I'm skeptical that Facebook will maintain a valuation premium over Google as the years pass even though the market affords it one now."


In the latter two, I believe in solar power and Facebook. (Note, I'm not actually taking those positions. they are examples). In the former two, I'm expressing a belief in negative scenarios coming to pass.


It's not hair splitting. I'm not even sure it's nuance. It is, however, precision. And that's why the rare times I don't choose words carefully, I try to make sure to let the corrections to those poor choices be known. This is not one of those times.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24748630
> 
> 
> If this report is true, this is most likely in the city of Cheonan since that's about 100 km south of Seoul as the article suggests. See this article and this *old* article for info on Cheonan's Samsung plant.
> 
> 
> But what I find interesting is there have been rumors that Kateeva's first installation was in the city of Cheonan. Remember back in January in this Forbes article Kateeva's CEO said
> 
> It's just speculation, but I would find it very exiting if the tablets end up being printed OLEDs. Hopefully we will find that out soon.



I haven't a clue if this is what's happening, but it would be exciting. If Samsung uses the Kateeva tech for even _part_ of the new production (and that's all it will be if any), it could set the stage for the growth of that tech and Samsung's return to OLED TV manufacturing in the latter part of the decade.


----------



## htwaits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9850_50#post_24750551
> 
> 
> I haven't a clue if this is what's happening, but it would be exciting. If Samsung uses the Kateeva tech for even _part_ of the new production (and that's all it will be if any), it could set the stage for the growth of that tech and Samsung's return to OLED TV manufacturing in the latter part of the decade.


I'll be stupendously excited too.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24749980
> 
> 
> 
> So if this is at all right, there are a few important takeaways:
> 80% yields achieved on the pilot line production (corresponding to a 10%+ reduction in 55" 1080p WOLED costs).
> 30-40% price drop coming in the 3rd quarter of this year (this should translate into a street price of $2400-2800 for the 55" 1080p products).
> UHD products in 3 screen sized expected to launch in the 3rd quarter.
> By the 3rd quarter, prices on LG WOLEDs expected to be less than 150% the price of corresponding LED/LCD products.
> M2 operations have already been launched (ahead of schedule for H2'14 launch).
> From the new products being introduced and the price drops, LG is expecting aggressive WOLED growth in the 4th quarter.
> 
> 
> If M2 is already in production before the end of this year and prices on the 55" 1080p products drop to the $2500 level before the end of this year, I'd think it is safe to say that LG is far exceeding expectations and going to make some waves much earlier than expected.



I agree that if the price of OLED TVs ends up about 50% higher than LCD in the near future, OLED sales will start to become significant. That seems to be a pretty big "IF" though.


In my area, OLED sets aren't even displayed at the local Best Buy stores or any other retailers I'm aware of. I asked the BB manager why and he said it would take a very large investment by BB to put a $6000 set in each of the stores. But if the price drops enough I think that would change. And I think when people see the OLED side-by-side with the LCD, while most may not choose to buy the OLED, some will. But without a display unit in the stores I don't see how any would sell to anyone other than enthusiasts who seek them out.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24750551
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24749650
> 
> 
> Now _that_ is some serious hair-splitting!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hair splitting at all.
> 
> 
> Bearishness is the belief that something won't happen and / or something will decline.
> 
> 
> "I'm bearish on the prospects for Japanese companies to remain in the TV business through decade's end."
> 
> 
> "I'm bearish on the prospects for Twitter ever having a user base anywhere near as large as Facebook."
> 
> 
> Skepticism expresses uncertainty. In this case, uncertainty due to continuing challenges that need to be overcome.
> 
> 
> "I'm skeptical that solar power will generate 35% of U.S. electricity by mid century (even though some forecasts say that's possible."
> 
> 
> "I'm skeptical that Facebook will maintain a valuation premium over Google as the years pass even though the market affords it one now."
> 
> 
> In the latter two, I believe in solar power and Facebook. (Note, I'm not actually taking those positions. they are examples). In the former two, I'm expressing a belief in negative scenarios coming to pass.
> 
> 
> It's not hair splitting. I'm not even sure it's nuance. It is, however, precision. And that's why the rare times I don't choose words carefully, I try to make sure to let the corrections to those poor choices be known. This is not one of those times.
Click to expand...


I suppose you are right.


When you are bearish on a stock, you short it (confidence it will decline)


When you are skeptical on a stock, you don't buy it (lack of confidence in either bearish or bullish sentiment).


My mistake (and thanks for the precision







).



Now back OT, I suppose I have become reasonably bullish that LG will be lowering prices on the new 4K panels in Q3 to levels far below what anyone has speculated on this board (1.5X UHD LCD) and I'd be curios as to how skeptical you are about that.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24749980
> 
> 80% yields achieved on the pilot line production (corresponding to a 10%+ reduction in 55" 1080p WOLED costs).
> 30-40% price drop coming in the 3rd quarter of this year (this should translate into a street price of $2400-2800 for the 55" 1080p products).
> UHD products in 3 screen sized expected to launch in the 3rd quarter.
> By the 3rd quarter, prices on LG WOLEDs expected to be less than 150% the price of corresponding LED/LCD products.
> M2 operations have already been launched (ahead of schedule for H2'14 launch).
> From the new products being introduced and the price drops, LG is expecting aggressive WOLED growth in the 4th quarter.
> 
> 
> If M2 is already in production before the end of this year and prices on the 55" 1080p products drop to the $2500 level before the end of this year, I'd think it is safe to say that LG is far exceeding expectations and going to make some waves much earlier than expected.



IMO, you are making too much of a single analyst report. Discerning the kernels of truth in their reports is as much art as science. I put much more trust into their pronouncements of current fact (example, the yields) than their projections for the future. Moreover, you have no idea what baseline the analyst is using for the future prices. Perhaps he is using the $8000 65" LCD from Sony as his starting point.


While the analyst may end up being correct, I wouldnt let a single report set my expectations for pricing through the rest of the year. The number I had seen mentioned previously was $3000 but even that just seemed like a number thrown out by the analyst/journalist rather than something coming from a source. ]I'll be happily surprised if they hit $2500 this year for a 55K 1080p unit, but that is definitely not my expectations.


----------



## rogo

It's worth mentioning that most of the time these analysts are taking wild guesses and then making extrapolations based on them, too.


About 63 days ago, some Wall Street guy said Apple is "finished" if it doesn't get an iWatch out within 60 days, which had a 0% chance of happening. He's still employed. Apple is not out of business. The iWatch is likely still coming later this year.


----------



## mo949




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24752775
> 
> 
> It's worth mentioning that most of the time these analysts are taking wild guesses and then making extrapolations based on them, too.
> 
> 
> About 63 days ago, some Wall Street guy said Apple is "finished" if it doesn't get an iWatch out within 60 days, which had a 0% chance of happening. He's still employed. Apple is not out of business. The iWatch is likely still coming later this year.



wasn't 4/1 around that time period?


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24749365
> 
> 
> I'm not a bear at all.


Of course you're not. I've seen your picture.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24752175
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24749980
> 
> 80% yields achieved on the pilot line production (corresponding to a 10%+ reduction in 55" 1080p WOLED costs).
> 30-40% price drop coming in the 3rd quarter of this year (this should translate into a street price of $2400-2800 for the 55" 1080p products).
> UHD products in 3 screen sized expected to launch in the 3rd quarter.
> By the 3rd quarter, prices on LG WOLEDs expected to be less than 150% the price of corresponding LED/LCD products.
> M2 operations have already been launched (ahead of schedule for H2'14 launch).
> From the new products being introduced and the price drops, LG is expecting aggressive WOLED growth in the 4th quarter.
> 
> 
> If M2 is already in production before the end of this year and prices on the 55" 1080p products drop to the $2500 level before the end of this year, I'd think it is safe to say that LG is far exceeding expectations and going to make some waves much earlier than expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, you are making too much of a single analyst report. Discerning the kernels of truth in their reports is as much art as science. I put much more trust into their pronouncements of current fact (example, the yields) than their projections for the future. Moreover, you have no idea what baseline the analyst is using for the future prices. Perhaps he is using the $8000 65" LCD from Sony as his starting point.
> 
> 
> While the analyst may end up being correct, I wouldnt let a single report set my expectations for pricing through the rest of the year. The number I had seen mentioned previously was $3000 but even that just seemed like a number thrown out by the analyst/journalist rather than something coming from a source. ]I'll be happily surprised if they hit $2500 this year for a 55K 1080p unit, but that is definitely not my expectations.
Click to expand...




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24752775
> 
> 
> It's worth mentioning that most of the time these analysts are taking wild guesses and then making extrapolations based on them, too.
> 
> 
> About 63 days ago, some Wall Street guy said Apple is "finished" if it doesn't get an iWatch out within 60 days, which had a 0% chance of happening. He's still employed. Apple is not out of business. The iWatch is likely still coming later this year.



I took that article as a report of what the Analyst had been told by LG (or that LG announced). If it was purely analyst speculation then my optimism plummets once again (possibly to skepticism







)


Aren't their any Koreans on the Forum who can chime in?


----------



## vinnie97

^You're bringing your own rollercoaster of expectations to this thread now! There certainly is a Korean who was posting here, but he was chronicling his experience with the abject abandonment of parts/service by Samsung of their sole 55" OLED.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *homogenic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9800_100#post_24753106
> 
> 
> Of course you're not. I've seen your picture.


Stalker.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24753713
> 
> 
> ^You're bringing your own rollercoaster of expectations to this thread now! There certainly is a Korean who was posting here, but he was chronicling his experience with the abject abandonment of parts/service by Samsung of their sole 55" OLED.




Well, if we can't entice him to give us a more meaningful translation, I guess we'll just have to wait for late July and LG's Q2 financial report...


p.s. the 'rollercoaster' is associated with whether the LG OLED technology is ready for prime-time or not.


What LG need to do price-wise, volume-wise, and time-wise to succeed and whether they are going to get it done or not drives optimism, pessimism and skepticism of the sustainability of their WOLED initiative










1.5X curved 4K LCD by yearend is a realistic objective - whether LG s aiming at that or not remains unclear. If they are not at that level by md-next year, I become a confident pessimist.


Meanwhile, I'm going to be monitoring what you, Plague and Coopson (the 'Canaries' or the 'Guinea Pigs', I'm not sure which







) have to report to decide whether the WOLED water is warm enough to consider coming in...


----------



## vinnie97

I can't even remember his username at this point (he was posting in the Samsung OLED owner thread),







but it would indeed be nice to get some reports from the ground so to speak. However, if he's not an insider, I'm not sure he'll be able to acquire much info beyond what we already know here.


And yes, I fully realize there are two different rollercoasters involved across the aforementioned threads, but I think (and I already know you agree) that they are both housed at the same OLED theme park, with the success of LG WOLED itself hanging in the balance as we expectantly wait to hear more and pray for no derailments.


----------



## mo949

Vinnie. There is no need to convince the blind of what they see.


----------



## greenland

Panasonic to pull out of OLED business: sources

http://www.4-traders.com/JAPAN-DISPLAY-INC-16043763/news/Panasonic-to-pull-out-of-OLED-business-sources-18493541/ 


"Panasonic Corp. has decided to withdraw from the organic light-emitting diode business as it cannot expect to raise profitability amid high production costs, sources familiar with the matter said Sunday.


Panasonic is arranging the sale of its OLED business to Japan Display Inc., the world's largest manufacturer of liquid crystal displays for smartphones and tablets, the sources said, adding the two companies are likely to reach an accord in June."


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900_60#post_24757495
> 
> 
> Panasonic to pull out of OLED business: sources
> 
> http://www.4-traders.com/JAPAN-DISPLAY-INC-16043763/news/Panasonic-to-pull-out-of-OLED-business-sources-18493541/
> 
> 
> "Panasonic Corp. has decided to withdraw from the organic light-emitting diode business as it cannot expect to raise profitability amid high production costs, sources familiar with the matter said Sunday.
> 
> 
> Panasonic is arranging the sale of its OLED business to Japan Display Inc., the world's largest manufacturer of liquid crystal displays for smartphones and tablets, the sources said, adding the two companies are likely to reach an accord in June."


 

"according to the sources".....  I don't disbelieve this article, but I sure wish there were more actual press releases from these guys (Sony/Pana/et. al.).

 

The whole situation of Japanese technology is disturbing.


----------



## Artwood

Where is all of this heading?


Japanese out--Koreans hanging by a thread--and you know what will be coming out of China?


Who can take it?!


I wonder if it felt this way after the first sack of Rome?


----------



## homogenic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24757745
> 
> 
> Where is all of this heading?
> 
> 
> Japanese out--Koreans hanging by a thread--and you know what will be coming out of China?
> 
> 
> Who can take it?!
> 
> 
> I wonder if it felt this way after the first sack of Rome?


Dolby Vision.

High Dynamic Range.

LCD/LED back-lit displays in 4K.


Your future. Unless you're considering suicide because the rainbow is not enough.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900_60#post_24757745
> 
> 
> Where is all of this heading?
> 
> 
> Japanese out--Koreans hanging by a thread--and you know what will be coming out of China?
> 
> 
> Who can take it?!
> 
> 
> I wonder if it felt this way after the first sack of Rome?


 

Could be.  I'm fairly certain I remember learning about Artwoodius Maximus and his crusade against inferior aqueducts....


----------



## catonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24757745
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if it felt this way after the first sack of Rome?



I'm sure that the Visigoths, Vandals and the other pre-Punk rockers had a great time Artwood.

And I think that probably Rome got what it deserved.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24757926
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain I remember learning about Artwoodius Maximus and his crusade against inferior aqueducts....



Yes tgm, Artwood has a lot to live up to, and he is doing it with great dedication and commitment, as his 4784 posts on the failings of LCD show.


----------



## Mikazaru

 http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/05/26/japan-display-oled-idINL3N0OA06R20140526 


Still hope yet.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikazaru*
> http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/05/26/japan-display-oled-idINL3N0OA06R20140526
> 
> 
> Still hope yet.


 _Japan Display Inc_ is owned by _INCJ_ (a public-private partnership between the Japanese government and 19 major corporations), Sony, Hitachi and Toshiba. No involvement of Panasonic.


According this article Japan Display Inc is considering setting up a joint venture with Sony Corp and Panasonic Corp to develop organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays. In the _article_ that Greenland posted Panasonic is arranging the sale of its OLED business to Japan Display Inc. So what is it? joint venture or sale?


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikazaru*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24759920
> 
> http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/05/26/japan-display-oled-idINL3N0OA06R20140526
> 
> 
> Still hope yet.


*If there were one thing that'd always be there it would have to be hope for hope dies last*... but come on, really? you think Japanese  can by some magical turn of events come up with a completive OLED TV when the jury's still out on whether or not LG can pull that trick off, huh









 

I haven't as of late really been following this thread, but I've heard that Solvay are investing into OLED and opening up a new research facility in Korea. I guess that means they are optimistic about this whole OLED thing. However it makes me wonder about what people at Merck think of OLED, what with Merck being the biggest OLED materials suppler and all...


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *catonic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24759541
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that the Visigoths, Vandals and the other pre-Punk rockers had a great time Artwood.
> 
> And I think that probably Rome got what it deserved.
> 
> Yes tgm, Artwood has a lot to live up to, and he is doing it with great dedication and commitment, as his 4784 posts on the failings of LCD show.


 *4784 posts on the failings of "LCD show*







*"* (I've never liked *LCD show*







too, by the way. It's boring as hell even though it's a horror show) what a blindly zealous fellow you paint of him! and just to think that people used to say in the olden times that blind zeal can only do harm







 

 

 

P.S Artwood doesn't seem to be a blindly zealous hater of LCD with great dedication and commitment, I think he just don't like them LCD apples much


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24759992
> 
> _Japan Display Inc_ is owned by _INCJ_ (a public-private partnership between the Japanese government and 19 major corporations), Sony, Hitachi and Toshiba. No involvement of Panasonic.
> 
> 
> According this article Japan Display Inc is considering setting up a joint venture with Sony Corp and Panasonic Corp to develop organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays. In the _article_ that Greenland posted Panasonic is arranging the sale of its OLED business to Japan Display Inc. So what is it? joint venture or sale?



Perhaps sale followed by joint venture. Panasonic moves OLED out from the corporate umbrella along with employees and overhead costs and puts them in a separate independent company in which they happen to have some ownership interest. If we could see the numbers ($) they probably would explain the move.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*
> 
> 
> Perhaps sale followed by joint venture. Panasonic moves OLED out from the corporate umbrella along with employees and overhead costs and puts them in a separate independent company in which they happen to have some ownership interest. If we could see the numbers ($) they probably would explain the move.


btw Panasonic has invested 500 million yen ($5 million) in Japan Display Inc which is peanuts since Japan Display Inc is worth $5 billion.


----------



## catonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24760011
> 
> 
> *.... what a blindly zealous fellow you paint of him! .....  *



I have always found Artwood's undoubted zeal to be humorous and usually concise and interesting.

No doubt that comes from his Roman ancestors.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *catonic*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24760047
> 
> 
> *I have always found Artwood's undoubted zeal to be humorous and usually concise and interesting*.


Me too, bro







. Especially that bit about *monkeys* couple of pages ago


----------



## markrubin

Art has admitted to engaging in hyperbole here:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1516802/i-saw-4k-tvs-today-now-im-interested/30#post_24377119


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24757745
> 
> 
> Where is all of this heading?


It's all heading straight to the LCD hell


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9840#post_24745758
> 
> 
> sytech: Do monkeys like OLED or LCD?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24760040
> 
> 
> btw Panasonic has invested 500 million yen ($5 million) in Japan Display Inc which is peanuts since Japan Display Inc is worth $5 billion.



The companies put in their facilities and people but most of the cash was put up by the Japanese government when Japan Display was formed. It was basically the government not wanting these three companies to completely exit the mobile LCD market. So the government had the biggest stake, by far. It has been a success so far, but then again, everything mobile related has done well over the last few years.


I assume that they are looking to do something similar with OLED's. The companies give the people and facilities away rather than shuttering the divisions. They'll get small stakes in the JV and the government (or Japan Display) puts up the money to try and commercialize the technology.


Japan Display just completed a small pilot fab for mobile OLED's but they have never talked about any television plans. This would be a good move for the long-term but the only way it means anything more in the next few years is if the government were injecting a very large sum of cash.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9870#post_24747751
> 
> 
> *I hate AT&T--anytime they have a chance to charge out the a$$ they will. If they have a promotion for $29.99 a month I guarantee you the first bill will be $197.00!*


Well, and before you know it AT&T is repossessing your car, foreclosing your house and taking you behind the woodshed


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24760242
> 
> 
> 
> The companies put in their facilities and people but most of the cash was put up by the Japanese government when Japan Display was formed. It was basically the government not wanting these three companies to completely exit the mobile LCD market. So the government had the biggest stake, by far. It has been a success so far, but then again, everything mobile related has done well over the last few years.
> 
> 
> I assume that they are looking to do something similar with OLED's. The companies give the people and facilities away rather than shuttering the divisions. They'll get small stakes in the JV and the government (or Japan Display) puts up the money to try and commercialize the technology.
> 
> 
> Japan Display just completed a small pilot fab for mobile OLED's but they have never talked about any television plans. This would be a good move for the long-term but the only way it means anything more in the next few years is if the government were injecting a very large sum of cash.


And where would Japanese gov get the dough to keep the cameras rolling and lights on, I mean, it's sure as hell Sony and other fossilizing Japanese companies don't have any , (borrow)?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24760273
> 
> 
> 
> And where would Japanese gov get the dough to keep the cameras rolling and lights on, I mean, it's sure as hell Sony and other fossilizing Japanese companies don't have any , (borrow)?



Yes, borrow. Just as they have been doing for decades.


BTW, what exactly do you think Merck is supplying to Samsung that makes them the "biggest OLED materials supplier"?


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24760308
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, borrow. Just as they have been doing for decades.
> 
> 
> BTW, what exactly do you think Merck is supplying to Samsung that makes them the "biggest OLED materials supplier"?


http://www.merck-performance-materials.com/en/display/oled_materials/oled_materials.html

 

*OLED Materials – for Revolutionary High-Performance Displays*


Organic light emitting diodes – OLEDs for short – have opened up whole new dimensions in display technology. They allow displays with brilliant colors and sharp picture quality that catch the eye from every angle, as well as being very energy efficient and long-lasting. As a leading manufacturer, Merck offers a complete portfolio of premium materials for OLED displays under the livilux® brand name. These include small molecules for vacuum processing and soluble material systems for printing processes.

 

More than ten years of experience in manufacturing OLED materials and a strong portfolio of global patents give Merck a solid foundation for its range of high-purity and high-stability materials that are customized to meet customer requirements precisely. Furthermore, Merck cooperates closely with market leaders and is a reliable partner in the development of innovative materials for the future technology of OLEDs.


----------



## slacker711

Your link is just standard company marketing. They have done quite a bit of research into OLED materials, but they are not the largest, or even a particularly significant, OLED materials supplier.


I dont know where you get your OLED facts.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24760340
> 
> 
> Your link is just standard company marketing. They have done quite a bit of research into OLED materials, but they are not the largest, or even a particularly significant, OLED materials supplier.
> 
> 
> I dont know where you get your OLED facts.


Merck is a global pharmaceutical and chemical company based in Germany, with a history that goes back to 1668. The company designs, develops and manufactures a wide range of specialised materials including high performance OLED materials.

In February 2005, Merck acquired Covion, and in October 2008 Merck acquired all of OLED-T's IP . The company supplies OLED materials (evaporable) *to LG Display*, Fraunhofer's COMEDD and other companies. Merck expects OLEDs to take a significant share of the display market in the future, and they plan to become a solution provider and not just a material producer. The company's OLED research program focuses on solution-processable materials.

 

http://www.oled-info.com/chemical_companies/covion_organic_semiconductors

 

http://www.azonano.com/suppliers.aspx?SupplierID=889

 

http://news.oled-display.net/merck-oled-materials/

 

P.S I could go on and on


----------



## slacker711

Yes, you could, keep going, and you would still be wrong. Merck wants to be the biggest OLED materials supplier but they are currently a second tier supplier.


This is relatively unimportant to anybody on this thread, but you continue to say things with such confidence and yet are so laughably wrong that it just has to be pointed out. I hope nobody actually believes anything you write.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24760615
> 
> 
> Yes, you could, keep going, and you would still be wrong. *Merck wants to be the biggest OLED materials supplier but they are currently a second tier supplier.*
> 
> 
> This is relatively unimportant to anybody on this thread, but you continue to say things with such confidence and yet are so laughably wrong that it just has to be pointed out. I hope nobody actually believes anything you write.


But every other site says they are one of the largest OLED suppliers for a reason. I know that UDC, Sumitomo, DuPont, Cheil, Novaled (bought by Cheil as of late)  combined are supplying the loins share of all OLED materials, but Merck is supplying compounds (it supplies formulas of organic compounds to companies like Samsung/Cheil, it's like ,for one, NVidia selling the designs to manufacturers for graphics cards) to UDC, Sumitomo, DuPont, Cheil, Novaled so-called top tier of OLED materials producers for processing (they prepare organic compounds for deposition and after that those materials are sent to Samsung, LG or whoever to deposit). Merck is not a solution processer like DuPont, Cheil, Novaled are and it plays the same role as Solvay does i.e creating organic compounds and that's it, but Merck is interested into getting into solution processing, too.

 

Merck KGaA is a German company with the total assets of about 40 billion dollars. It is a big pharma diversifying. Yes, it is a second rate solution provider, but it is a large organic compound producer (although most of the time it just sells its compound formulas to other companies) with Solvay making slow progress into OLED organic compound production.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24760615
> 
> 
> you continue to say things with such confidence and yet are so laughably wrong that it just has to be pointed out.


I think you misunderstood what I meant by a supplier. I didn't mean a company that supplies materials to LG or Sammy I meant a company that comes up (makes) with the compounds from which "materials" are made up which then are deposited onto TFT backplanes of LGs or Sammy's OLED displays.   

 

I hope this clears things up a little.


----------



## Randomoneh

Can we expect WOLED-s to change color temperature as they degrade?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Randomoneh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24761509
> 
> 
> Can we expect WOLED-s to change color temperature as they degrade?



That's a good million-dollar question. I don't believe we'll know by how much until there is a much longer history with the technology. If you are going to invest in one of these WOLEDs, it probably makes sense to get a colorimeter and learn to perform a basic calibration, since you'll probably want to check for color drift at least yearly.


----------



## Rich Peterson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24759992
> 
> _Japan Display Inc_ is owned by _INCJ_ (a public-private partnership between the Japanese government and 19 major corporations), Sony, Hitachi and Toshiba. No involvement of Panasonic.
> 
> 
> According this article Japan Display Inc is considering setting up a joint venture with Sony Corp and Panasonic Corp to develop organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays. In the _article_ that Greenland posted Panasonic is arranging the sale of its OLED business to Japan Display Inc. So what is it? joint venture or sale?



Here's the Wall Street Journal's version of the story. They are saying it's for cellphones and tablets (but who really knows?).

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304811904579585762460019656?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304811904579585762460019656.html


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24762333
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24759992
> 
> _Japan Display Inc_ is owned by _INCJ_ (a public-private partnership between the Japanese government and 19 major corporations), Sony, Hitachi and Toshiba. No involvement of Panasonic.
> 
> 
> According this article Japan Display Inc is considering setting up a joint venture with Sony Corp and Panasonic Corp to develop organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays. In the _article_ that Greenland posted Panasonic is arranging the sale of its OLED business to Japan Display Inc. So what is it? joint venture or sale?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the Wall Street Journal's version of the story. They are saying it's for cellphones and tablets (but who really knows?).
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304811904579585762460019656?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304811904579585762460019656.html
Click to expand...


Invisible without subscribing - what are the key points?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24760882
> 
> 
> But every other site says they are one of the largest OLED suppliers for a reason. I know that UDC, Sumitomo, DuPont, Cheil, Novaled (bought by Cheil as of late)  combined are supplying the loins share of all OLED materials, but Merck is supplying compounds (it supplies formulas of organic compounds to companies like Samsung/Cheil, it's like ,for one, NVidia selling the designs to manufacturers for graphics cards) to UDC, Sumitomo, DuPont, Cheil, Novaled so-called top tier of OLED materials producers for processing (they prepare organic compounds for deposition and after that those materials are sent to Samsung, LG or whoever to deposit). Merck is not a solution processer like DuPont, Cheil, Novaled are and it plays the same role as Solvay does i.e creating organic compounds and that's it, but Merck is interested into getting into solution processing, too.



First off all, writing that Merck is the largest OLED material supplier and then changing that to supplying organic compounds to actual OLED material suppliers are two completely different things. It would be like saying that Foxconn is the world's second largest smartphone seller since they are the one's who manufacture the iPhone.


Honestly, considering your prior post history, I cant believe anything you write. You wrote a post claiming that Qualcomm owned the IGZO technology and that Apple makes royalties off of Samsung's handset sales. You obviously have a technical background but that means little since you care so little for attempting to post actual facts. I really have no idea if I am getting trolled or if you believe what you write.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24762416
> 
> 
> 
> First off all, writing that Merck is the largest OLED material supplier and then changing that to supplying organic compounds to actual OLED material suppliers are two completely different things. It would be like saying that Foxconn is the world's second largest smartphone seller since they are the one's who manufacture the iPhone.
> 
> 
> Honestly, considering your prior post history, I cant believe anything you write. You wrote a post claiming that Qualcomm owned the IGZO technology and that Apple makes royalties off of Samsung's handset sales. You obviously have a technical background but that means little since you care so little for attempting to post actual facts. I really have no idea if I am getting trolled or if you believe what you write.


1) Yes, I have a tendency to thicken the plot when I get bored to spice things up and that helps a lot at parties and at selling stuff, but seriously Merck has a little to do with OLED materials (it's just like you said) that are deposited onto TFT backplanes it makes "components" (and other put together those components and then cure them to make them deposition ready so called solution processing) that make up the OLEDs deposition-ready materials via third parties most of the time. It just comes up with chemicals which it then sells through middlemen like Parchem with which I'm closely familiar so does Solvay, Hodogaya Chemicals and others. There's a very close circle jerk. None of these companies depend much on OLED. I'm not asking you to believe me I just hope you can go and do your own research...

 

http://www.parchem.com/polymer-oled-chemistry/oled-material-polymer-oleds~1.aspx   

 

2) I also said that before you know it *AT&T* is repossessing your car, foreclosing your house and taking you behind the woodshed (to kneecap you)







 (it was a joke)

 

 Apple and QUALCOMM bits were clear as a bell just purple prose and embellishment on my part. *Does Pope believe everything he says?*

 

By the way, I've removed the posts about Qualcomm owning the IGZO technology.

And if you ever dare to ask any LCD TV salesperson about truth he'll tell that the truth is what you can get other people to believe it to be


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900_60#post_24763070
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24762416
> 
> 
> 
> First off all, writing that Merck is the largest OLED material supplier and then changing that to supplying organic compounds to actual OLED material suppliers are two completely different things. It would be like saying that Foxconn is the world's second largest smartphone seller since they are the one's who manufacture the iPhone.
> 
> 
> Honestly, considering your prior post history, I cant believe anything you write. You wrote a post claiming that Qualcomm owned the IGZO technology and that Apple makes royalties off of Samsung's handset sales. You obviously have a technical background but that means little since you care so little for attempting to post actual facts. I really have no idea if I am getting trolled or if you believe what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Yes, I have a tendency to thicken the plot when I get bored to spice things up and that helps a lot at parties and at selling stuff,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People make mistakes here all the time, it's no big deal, but what you're doing is not acceptable practice here if by "thickening the plot" you mean "making things up".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Apple and QUALCOMM bits were clear as a bell just purple prose and embellishment on my part. *Does Pope believe everything he says?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but where exactly do you think you are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> By the way, I've removed the posts about Qualcomm owning the IGZO technology.
> 
> And if you ever dare to ask any LCD TV salesperson about truth he'll tell that the truth is what you can get other people to believe it to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> (???)
Click to expand...


----------



## Artwood

Eureka! Maybe there is hope! Merck makes drugs.


If they can't make OLED come true--maybe they can make a drug that bombs me out of my mind so much that it makes me love LCD!


I think it could happen but only if LCD producers buy Merck--they must make ALL the money you know!


The drug's name will be Artwoodinium. The generic name will be Falsifus Pictorius!


There should be no problem getting approval from the LCD Sales Force Council of the Borg Empire!


----------



## Rich Peterson

Amazon and many of their marketing partners have dropped the price of the LG OLED from $6K to $5K.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24763283
> 
> People make mistakes here all the time, it's no big deal, but what you're doing is not acceptable practice here if by "thickening the plot" you mean "making things up".


I'm not making any things up that have not already been made up beforehand like the articles that Apple are asking Sammy to pay Royalties and neither I'm speaking in tongues here    http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/10/3234909/apple-samsung-patent-royalty-rates I'm just providing the good people of AVS forum with the other side of the story be that side from the land of make-believe like that one about Japan display making OLED TVs or be that one that originated in the land of indelible truth  like that one about Sammy discarding their OLED TV plans, but it does matter much at the end of the day, because both can be presented as the infallible truth at a different place at a different time without canceling each other out, if both truths do not collide to spawn the in-between truth. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/movies/14dargis.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0  There's no need to get up close and personal just because I tend ,from time to time, to turn things up side down and on its head with what might be called provocative shaggy-dog stories. I just wish people would care enough to read the stuff I present via links I provide to back up my stuff...

 

P.S. I guess I just never stopped to think that some might find some of my one-off stuff rather offensive and inappropriate or even feelings-hurting and went straight on to acting on the spur of the moment taken over by an urging impulse to *thicken the plot* just for the plot-thickening's sake rather than for the truth's infallibility's sake which was quite wrong of me I have to admit.

 

 The article in a rather shady Polish newspaper I fancy reading that QUALCOMM were buying the IGZO tech had been removed which had ,in turn, moved me to remove the bit I couldn't provide with the reference.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24763306
> 
> 
> Eureka! Maybe there is hope! Merck makes drugs.
> 
> 
> If they can't make OLED come true--maybe they can make a drug that bombs me out of my mind so much that it makes me love LCD!
> 
> 
> I think it could happen but only if LCD producers buy Merck--they must make ALL the money you know!
> 
> 
> The drug's name will be Artwoodinium. The generic name will be Falsifus Pictorius!
> 
> 
> There should be no problem getting approval from the LCD Sales Force Council of the Borg Empire!


There's already a drug powerful enough to make you love LCD called LSD







 

 

Heck LSD is powerful enough to kill off LCD and OLED combined if implemented right


----------



## mo949




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24763333
> 
> 
> Amazon and many of their marketing partners have dropped the price of the LG OLED from $6K to $5K.



Its been 3999 at the store I saw it at - not even on sale.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mo949*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900_60#post_24763486
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24763333
> 
> 
> Amazon and many of their marketing partners have dropped the price of the LG OLED from $6K to $5K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its been 3999 at the store I saw it at - not even on sale.
Click to expand...

 

Perhaps Amazon is still factoring in the cost of the returns?


----------



## mo949

If you have any credible source where amazon has factored in the cost of returns on a product, I'd love to see it.


----------



## tgm1024

Of course not: That would be company-proprietary information. That's why I said "perhaps" and asked it as a question. The "still" refers to it being a new technology...and them not yet having a track record with it.


----------



## mo949

So you think that products with high returns on amazon can increase the sales price? I would expect to see that phenomenon on garbage tvs like the SONY HX950 and the Samsung ES8000 where everyone (including amazon reviewers) were playing panel lottery.


----------



## tgm1024

Well now we're in reasoned guessing territory of course, but I can't imagine a functioning business model that ignored the rate of returns, can you?


----------



## Chronoptimist

The LG OLEDs have a lot of problems. While $4000 may seem more reasonable than the price they were released at, they are not worth it.

Don't forget that these are now old models, to be replaced with 2014 OLEDs.


----------



## vinnie97

They are definitely worth it in spite of their two most glaring problems. YMMV.


----------



## barth2k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24764278
> 
> 
> They are definitely worth it in spite of their two most glaring problems. YMMV.



Those would be IR and ???


----------



## mo949




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24764059
> 
> 
> Well now we're in reasoned guessing territory of course, but I can't imagine a functioning business model that ignored the rate of returns, can you?



Believe what you want of course. I don't see anything to suggest that the sales price is where they are accounting for manufacturers that release shoddy products with high rates of returns; it would be a poor business model for a reputable dealer like amazon to do it that way as well imo.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24764273
> 
> 
> The LG OLEDs have a lot of problems. While $4000 may seem more reasonable than the price they were released at, they are not worth it.
> 
> Don't forget that these are now old models, to be replaced with 2014 OLEDs.


I think it's just a little too new for my comfort. But I do wish there was some easy way to chart the problems vin/plague/coopson are seeing along with serial numbers, build dates, etc.


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barth2k*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900_100#post_24764432
> 
> 
> Those would be IR and ???


Motion handling issues, forced image processing that can't be disabled, a number of other things.


It will be interesting to see the results of the HDTVtest shootout this weekend.


----------



## 8mile13

^^^ are you talking about the _Crampton an Moore_ ''their home & kitchen range is growing fast!'' Shootout? Because there is no hdtvtest Shootout.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/shootout-201405143775.htm


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24762333
> 
> 
> Here's the Wall Street Journal's version of the story. They are saying it's for cellphones and tablets (but who really knows?).
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304811904579585762460019656?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304811904579585762460019656.html





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900#post_24760242
> 
> 
> The companies put in their facilities and people but most of the cash was put up by the Japanese government when Japan Display was formed. It was basically the government not wanting these three companies to completely exit the mobile LCD market. So the government had the biggest stake, by far. It has been a success so far, but then again, everything mobile related has done well over the last few years.
> 
> 
> I assume that they are looking to do something similar with OLED's. The companies give the people and facilities away rather than shuttering the divisions. They'll get small stakes in the JV and the government (or Japan Display) puts up the money to try and commercialize the technology.
> 
> 
> Japan Display just completed a small pilot fab for mobile OLED's but they have never talked about any television plans. This would be a good move for the long-term but the only way it means anything more in the next few years is if the government were injecting a very large sum of cash.



It's critical to understand these posts. Rich, we know. There is absolutely, positively no intention of Japan Display toward making OLED televisions at this time (if ever).


As Slacker points out, even getting involved in smartphone/tablet OLED making is going to be a difficult bridge for JDI to cross. It's not like they can wave a wand and make this happen. The consortium was one of those "barely saved" kinds of things and has thrived because of the twin revolutions of smartphones and tablets. It has a vulnerability in that it lacks any capability to satisfy growing OLED demand.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barth2k*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900_100#post_24764432
> 
> 
> Those would be IR and ???


...uneven grayscale uniformity.


----------



## Vegas oled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24762333
> 
> 
> Here's the Wall Street Journal's version of the story. They are saying it's for cellphones and tablets (but who really knows?).
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304811904579585762460019656?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304811904579585762460019656.html



Who goes to the Wall Street Journal for home theater advise?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24765912
> 
> 
> ...uneven grayscale uniformity.



.... and defective pixels no?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegas oled*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24765924
> 
> 
> Who goes to the Wall Street Journal for home theater advise?



The article isn't about home-theater advice, it's about business.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24765957
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24765912
> 
> 
> ...uneven grayscale uniformity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... and defective pixels no?
Click to expand...


Yeah, the full list includes:


IR (with remaining concerns about possible BI)


Uneven grayscale uniformity


Defective pixels and dyeing pixels


Motion handling issues



It's getting to be a long list - here's to hoping that LG has succeeded in correcting all (or at least the 3 most important) of these issues by the time the Gen 2 4K products roll out in a few months.


If not, 2015 is going to be a rough year for WOLED.


Right now, there are so few customers for these Gen-1 WOLED products, that these issues are really only known 'in the family' (including AVS Forum).


By the time the M2 manufacturing line starts into continuing dedicated WOLED TV production (aligned with the timing for the release of the Gen 2 products), there will (presumably) be a much greater number of customers and greatly increased exposure for LG if these problems persist and the 'word gets out'


Plasma never recovered from its reputation for IR/BI and delicate 'care and feeding' and as they say 'you get only one chance to make a first impression' Let's hope LG is in position to make a positive first impression by this Christmas.


----------



## vinnie97

Subpixels, yes, but I am convinced that issue is overblown (along with motion handling concerns...a higher framerate will go some way in decreasing blur for those who can't tolerate it). It's a long uphill battle if you expect all this to be ironed out in one generation, fafrd, so you are best advised to grab a Vizio for a few years. As for me, I'd take a 77" OLED as soon as it became available (and I had the funds to afford it).


----------



## Chris5028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24765115
> 
> 
> ^^^ are you talking about the _Crampton an Moore_ ''their home & kitchen range is growing fast!'' Shootout? Because there is no hdtvtest Shootout.
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/shootout-201405143775.htm



I look forward to seeing the results of that shoot out. Might be a bit embarrassing for some of the participating manufactures if the ZT beats them too handily.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24766138
> 
> 
> Subpixels, yes, but I am convinced that issue is overblown (along with motion handling concerns...a higher framerate will go some way in decreasing blur for those who can't tolerate it). It's a long uphill battle if you expect all this to be ironed out in one generation, fafrd, so you are best advised to grab a Vizio for a few years. As for me, I'd take a 77" OLED as soon as it became available (and I had the funds to afford it).



The first issue (IR) is the only real showstopper for me.


It sounds like the greyscale issue is only visible on specific 'just-above-black' viewing content


As long as there are only a few dying subpixels and they express themselves early on (and don't continue to multiply with age and viewing) I can probably live with that (especially on a 4K panel)


And while I'd like better motion handling, I'm not interested in a OLED primarily for watching hockey games or playing video games (and the issue of motion handling should also be the most trivial are to improve upon between gen 1 and gen 2).


If there is not a significant improvement in the area of IR by Gen 2, I _will_ probably tuck into a Vizio P or R for a couple years (and also, visible IR from normal viewing is the most likely problem to sink LG if they don't have it fixed by the time they go from selling 100's of WOLEDs per month to selling 1000's).


----------



## vinnie97

I hope both that issue and the grayscale uniformity is fixed. That dying subpixel occurrence that afflicted Plague was an outlier as far as I can tell (and in my experience with two panels so far).


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24766335
> 
> 
> I hope both that issue and the grayscale uniformity is fixed. That dying subpixel occurrence that afflicted Plague was an outlier as far as I can tell (and in my experience with two panels so far).



I agree, greyscale uniformity is probably the second most important issue (but possibly one of the most complex to resolve).


If the dying subpixel issue gets no worse as you guys continue to use your set over the coming months, it is not a showstopper either (and will probably be much less visible on a 4K WOLED in any case).


So in order of importance, I would probably rank these issues as follows:


#1 severely shortened lifespan and/or continued subpixel degradation over the use of the set (hopefully a non-issue, but still too early to tell)


#2 image retention (especially visible during normal viewing after normal content viewing)


#3 grey-scale uniformity


#4 color temperature shift as WOLED ages (the 'blue' problem - still to early to tell how severe it is on these WOLEDs)


#5 a few stuck-off subpixels (assuming no continued degradation as in 1#)


#6 improved motion handling and reduced motion blur


The first two of these are show-stoppers for me. The third (grey uniformity) would be a reason to hold off if I believe improvements were 1-2 generations away. But based on what you guys have reported so far, it might be something I could live with if it appears to be intrinsic to the IGZO WOLED technology and it only becomes visible on rare and specific content.


----------



## Artwood

I think they'll make OLED to where Blue goes bad after 3 years--they'll only give a two year warranty--and then they'll hope that a significant percentage continues to buy to avoid...


every moniker I use seems to be a curse word according to the video correct police--


how about LCD catastrophe?


----------



## vinnie97

Soz, Art, but your hypothetical doomverse is bunk. Pioneer was the last display manufacturer to provide 2-year warranties.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900_100#post_24766379
> 
> 
> I agree, greyscale uniformity is probably the second most important issue (but possibly one of the most complex to resolve).
> 
> 
> If the dying subpixel issue gets no worse as you guys continue to use your set over the coming months, it is not a showstopper either (and will probably be much less visible on a 4K WOLED in any case).
> 
> 
> So in order of importance, I would probably rank these issues as follows:
> 
> 
> #1 severely shortened lifespan and/or continued subpixel degradation over the use of the set (hopefully a non-issue, but still too early to tell)
> 
> 
> #2 image retention (especially visible during normal viewing after normal content viewing)
> 
> 
> #3 grey-scale uniformity
> 
> 
> #4 color temperature shift as WOLED ages (the 'blue' problem - still to early to tell how severe it is on these WOLEDs)
> 
> 
> #5 a few stuck-off subpixels (assuming no continued degradation as in 1#)
> 
> 
> #6 improved motion handling and reduced motion blur
> 
> 
> The first two of these are show-stoppers for me. The third (grey uniformity) would be a reason to hold off if I believe improvements were 1-2 generations away. But based on what you guys have reported so far, it might be something I could live with if it appears to be intrinsic to the IGZO WOLED technology and it only becomes visible on rare and specific content.


Sounds good to me. #2 and 3 seem to be related since that is where the IR manifests and hopefully, like you inferred, this is related to backplane immaturity versus anything OLED-specific.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24766186
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing the results of that shoot out. Might be a bit embarrassing for some of the participating manufactures if the ZT beats them too handily.


I bet ZT 60 will beat every LCD by a long shot and be beaten by an OLED by a small (low-APL content) shot ( when watching 21:9 content the difference  between OLED and plasma will be really noticeable)


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24766448
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900_100#post_24766379
> 
> 
> I agree, greyscale uniformity is probably the second most important issue (but possibly one of the most complex to resolve).
> 
> 
> If the dying subpixel issue gets no worse as you guys continue to use your set over the coming months, it is not a showstopper either (and will probably be much less visible on a 4K WOLED in any case).
> 
> 
> So in order of importance, I would probably rank these issues as follows:
> 
> 
> #1 severely shortened lifespan and/or continued subpixel degradation over the use of the set (hopefully a non-issue, but still too early to tell)
> 
> 
> #2 image retention (especially visible during normal viewing after normal content viewing)
> 
> 
> #3 grey-scale uniformity
> 
> 
> #4 color temperature shift as WOLED ages (the 'blue' problem - still to early to tell how severe it is on these WOLEDs)
> 
> 
> #5 a few stuck-off subpixels (assuming no continued degradation as in 1#)
> 
> 
> #6 improved motion handling and reduced motion blur
> 
> 
> The first two of these are show-stoppers for me. The third (grey uniformity) would be a reason to hold off if I believe improvements were 1-2 generations away. But based on what you guys have reported so far, it might be something I could live with if it appears to be intrinsic to the IGZO WOLED technology and it only becomes visible on rare and specific content.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good to me. #2 and 3 seem to be related since that is where the IR manifests and *hopefully*, like you inferred, *this is related to backplane immaturity versus anything OLED-specific*.
Click to expand...


That would be nice, wouldn't it - resolve both the IR concerns and grey-scale uniformity for 'just-above-black' scenes with some basic improvements and stabilization of the IGZO backplane - if the gen-2 4K WOLEDs demonstrate those improvements, I almost certainly in


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24766379
> 
> 
> I agree, greyscale uniformity is probably the second most important issue (but possibly one of the most complex to resolve).



LCD has never solved this issue after how many years on the market? I think it's the least likely issue to be solved from your list. There's never really been any display tech that had consistently perfect grayscale uniformity from unit to unit. CRT had landing/magnetic-field issues, plasma green blobs, LCD uneven illumination and backplane problems. None of this prevented successful sales of each product.


IR/BI is the only real problem that has the potential to sink LG OLED if not solved in a timely fashion.


----------



## vinnie97

That green blob problem wasn't universal, was it? I saw no evidence of it on the panels I owned anyway.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24766701
> 
> 
> 
> LCD has never solved this issue after how many years on the market? I think it's the least likely issue to be solved from your list. There's never really been any display tech that had consistently perfect grayscale uniformity from unit to unit. CRT had landing/magnetic-field issues, plasma green blobs, LCD uneven illumination and backplane problems. None of this prevented successful sales of each product.
> 
> 
> IR/BI is the only real problem that has the potential to sink LG OLED if not solved in a timely fashion.


Not true at all. Any modern medical grade LCD monitor has perfect grey scale uniformity due to p-Si backplanes and uniformity circuitry , but they cost about 30 large, though


----------



## dsinger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24766438
> 
> 
> Soz, Art, but your hypothetical doomverse is bunk. Pioneer was the last display manufacturer to provide 2-year warranties.



Actually, the Sharp Elites have a 2 year warranty extended to 2 years 3 months if the set was registered at Sharp.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960_60#post_24766719
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24766701
> 
> 
> 
> LCD has never solved this issue after how many years on the market? I think it's the least likely issue to be solved from your list. There's never really been any display tech that had consistently perfect grayscale uniformity from unit to unit. CRT had landing/magnetic-field issues, plasma green blobs, LCD uneven illumination and backplane problems. None of this prevented successful sales of each product.
> 
> 
> IR/BI is the only real problem that has the potential to sink LG OLED if not solved in a timely fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all. Any modern medical grade LCD monitor has perfect grey scale uniformity due to p-Si backplanes and uniformity circuitry , but they cost about 30 large, though
Click to expand...

 

We are talking about TVs.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960_60#post_24766379
> 
> 
> #1 severely shortened lifespan and/or continued subpixel degradation over the use of the set (hopefully a non-issue, but still too early to tell)
> 
> 
> #2 image retention (especially visible during normal viewing after normal content viewing)
> 
> 
> #3 grey-scale uniformity
> 
> 
> #4 color temperature shift as WOLED ages (the 'blue' problem - still to early to tell how severe it is on these WOLEDs)
> 
> 
> #5 a few stuck-off subpixels (assuming no continued degradation as in 1#)
> 
> 
> #6 improved motion handling and reduced motion blur


 

We need a distinction between what that list would be for a videophiles and imaging scientists (like nearly all of us) vs. the general public.  However, if an averaging of the two groups are needed, here's how I would redo that list:

 

Image Retention
Dead/Flakey/etc. pixels
Motion
(a distant dead last) Low level gray uniformity

 

Something I used to worry the most about, but no longer worry much about (for either stacked or RGB-emitter approaches):
blue aging

 

Add to all of this though are two pronounced and weird wildcards
Curved.  Good or bad, and for real or imagined reasons, I just can't see the public accepting this concept in volume.  And do we yet know enough to even speculate if curving the display is *causing* some of the trouble the LG folks have been having?
4K: can it be done at acceptable light levels, etc., etc.


----------



## greenland

I view the problems that owners are reporting with their LG OLED sets, as just birthing pangs, just like all first generation large flat panel displays have always tended to have. Wait and see how their second and third generation panels perform. I expect that steady improvements and corrections will be made on the product each year that passes, just like what happened with Plasmas and LCD sets.


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24766335
> 
> 
> I hope both that issue and the grayscale uniformity is fixed. That dying subpixel occurrence that afflicted Plague was an outlier as far as I can tell (and in my experience with two panels so far).



Only happened to a large degree on my first panel. I thought a few died during the first 50 hours for you too though. Masterbrew had a floor model with over 30 out.


I really just think some panels are complete garbage, randomly. As per coopson's dse problems as well. Perhaps we should add that to the list.


...I do realize there's always been a panel lottery but this, to me, goes beyond the norm


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24766186
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24765115
> 
> 
> ^^^ are you talking about the _Crampton an Moore_ ''their home & kitchen range is growing fast!'' Shootout? Because there is no hdtvtest Shootout.
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/shootout-201405143775.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing the results of that shoot out. Might be a bit embarrassing for some of the participating manufactures if the ZT beats them too handily.
Click to expand...

According schedule there is only 4K LED vs 4K LED and Plasma vs. OLED.

*11:00* opening statement.
*11:15* 4K TV comparisons with test patterns plus UHD and blu-ray content.
*13:00* break for lunch
*13:30* 4K TV comparisons for gaming and watching sports.
*14:30* OLED vs. Plasma part 1.
*15:15* coffee break.
*15:30* OLED vs. Plasma part 2.
*16:30* closing statement plus Q&A
*17:00* event ends


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960_60#post_24767314
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24766186
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9930#post_24765115
> 
> 
> ^^^ are you talking about the *Crampton an Moore* ''their home & kitchen range is growing fast!'' Shootout? Because there is no hdtvtest Shootout.
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/shootout-201405143775.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing the results of that shoot out. Might be a bit embarrassing for some of the participating manufactures if the ZT beats them too handily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According schedule there is only 4K LED vs 4K LED and Plasma vs. OLED.
> 
> *11:00* opening statement.
> *11:15* 4K TV comparisons with test patterns plus UHD and blu-ray content.
> *13:00* break for lunch
> *13:30* 4K TV comparisons for gaming and watching sports.
> *14:30* OLED vs. Plasma part 1.
> *15:15* coffee break.
> *15:30* OLED vs. Plasma part 2.
> *16:30* closing statement plus Q&A
> *17:00* event ends
Click to expand...

 

If they don't find a way to conceal the display bezel itself, then the test is hopeless IMO.  This would be near impossible, with curved, but poster board cutouts would go a long way to making this more of a single-blind study.


----------



## Desk.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24767314
> 
> 
> According schedule there is only 4K LED vs 4K LED and Plasma vs. OLED.



Given the fact that we seem to be heading towards almost complete LED dominance within the market, at least within the short term, I'd have much rather seen LED being assessed in direct comparison with many people's hope for the future - OLED.


Okay, there may not be any 4K OLEDs available right now, but I'd still welcome a side-by-side scrutiny of OLED vs the best LED has to offer, rather than comparing it against plasma tech which, it appears, may shortly be defunct.


Desk


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9950_50#post_24767141
> 
> 
> I view the problems that owners are reporting with their LG OLED sets, as just birthing pangs, just like all first generation large flat panel displays have always tended to have. Wait and see how their second and third generation panels perform. I expect that steady improvements and corrections will be made on the product each year that passes, just like what happened with Plasmas and LCD sets.


Yes, but the problem here is that these issues don't get sorted out without refinement. Refinement takes money and volume. Volume requires people buying them. People buying them requires consumer demand. Most AVSforum type videophiles aren't going to buy these because of the warts and are waiting for the warts to get fixed. So we're left pinning our hopes that the wealthy will take the arrows & buy the flawed first gen products in sufficient volumes to have LG see the value in pumping the money to refine the product and fix the warts.


Don't misunderstand, I want OLED to succeed. However, I'm skeptical that OLED has enough unique market appeal to get the wealthy, specifically the wealthy who won't care about the warts, to buy enough of the TVs to get it over the hump. It worked for plasma, but the market is totally different today than it was for plasma. If you wanted a "sleek" big TV that you could hang on your wall the only game was plasma and it was expensive. People paid it because they wanted it, warts and all, because it made a statement.


What unique feature does OLED have that is going to get the wealthy to buy it over a much cheaper LCD, especially when it can't be hung on the wall thanks to the curve? It's not bigger, it doesn't look sleeker on the wall... Most of the people who care about the image quality gains of OLED care too much about the warts to shell out a significant chunk of money on one.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24767089
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about TVs.


I was just saying that the LCD tech is ,today, advanced enough to offer 100 percent uniformity, but the caveat is that it is multiple times pricier than OLEDs to make http://www.cnet.com/products/barco-coronis-fusion-10mp-lcd-monitor-10mp-grayscale-29-6/prices/


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsinger*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900_100#post_24767051
> 
> 
> Actually, the Sharp Elites have a 2 year warranty extended to 2 years 3 months if the set was registered at Sharp.


My mistake! Sharp taking a page outta' the Pioneer playbook.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900_100#post_24767204
> 
> 
> Only happened to a large degree on my first panel. I thought a few died during the first 50 hours for you too though. Masterbrew had a floor model with over 30 out.
> 
> 
> I really just think some panels are complete garbage, randomly. As per coopson's dse problems as well. Perhaps we should add that to the list.
> 
> 
> ...I do realize there's always been a panel lottery but this, to me, goes beyond the norm


Yes, they did, but the deaths stopped like you stated, though I haven't checked in quite a while. Might be time for a visual update since I'm probably around the 500-hour mark.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Stereodude*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24767440
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the problem here is that these issues don't get sorted out without refinement. Refinement takes money and volume. Volume requires people buying them. People buying them requires consumer demand. Most AVSforum type videophiles aren't going to buy these because of the warts and are waiting for the warts to get fixed. So we're left pinning our hopes that the wealthy will take the arrows & buy the flawed first gen products in sufficient volumes to have LG see the value in pumping the money to refine the product and fix the warts.
> 
> 
> Don't misunderstand, I want OLED to succeed. However, I'm skeptical that OLED has enough unique market appeal to get the wealthy, specifically the wealthy who won't care about the warts, to buy enough of the TVs to get it over the hump. It worked for plasma, but the market is totally different today than it was for plasma. If you wanted a "sleek" big TV that you could hang on your wall the only game was plasma and it was expensive. People paid it because they wanted it, warts and all, because it made a statement.
> 
> 
> What unique feature does OLED have that is going to get the wealthy to buy it over a much cheaper LCD, especially when it can't be hung on the wall thanks to the curve? It's not bigger, it doesn't look sleeker on the wall... Most of the people who care about the image quality gains of OLED care too much about the warts to shell out a significant chunk of money on one.


From my vintage I can see that a lot of rich folk nowadays buy Vizios with which most of them are happy


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24766718
> 
> 
> That green blob problem wasn't universal, was it? I saw no evidence of it on the panels I owned anyway.



Probably not. But that's why I said "consistently perfect grayscale uniformity from unit to unit". I would call a problem "solved" if the majority of the units purchased at retail have no green/pink blobs, bands, DSE, or any other non-uniformity. I don't think Plasma ever got to that level of consistency but it was probably the best among the display tech mentioned.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24767443
> 
> 
> 
> I was just saying that the LCD tech is ,today, advanced enough to offer 100 percent uniformity, but the caveat is that it is multiple times pricier than OLEDs to make http://www.cnet.com/products/barco-coronis-fusion-10mp-lcd-monitor-10mp-grayscale-29-6/prices/





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24767089
> 
> 
> We are talking about TVs.



Exactly. What's practical on a tiny and very expensive monitor, does not necessarily scale to a large consumer panel. Given those constraints, who knows if one couldn't build an OLED just as good. But nobody would buy it to use as a television.


I'm sure LG will eventually employ some kind of compensation tech. Some front projectors have a grid of a few hundred "zones" and you can adjust grayscale individually in each zone. But given the high frequency/detail of the LG streaking/DSE, that's going to be tough to hide via sampling a few points and adjusting RGBA levels to compensate. It might work for larger areas like that motherboard imprint in the center but not if it drifts while in use.


----------



## Theplague13

It is a catch 22. Nowadays "making a statement" is as easy as buying an 80" Wal-Mart tv and hanging it on your wall in a nice room. Nobody cares about picture quality, certainly not rich people. The average person, regardless of how much money they have, isn't going to give two craps about OLED, or even understand why they should buy one when they can get a muchlarger tv for a fraction of the price. However, people who don't know any better will notice the thinness, the bezellessness (not a word, at all), and as much as I hate to say it and nobody wants to hear it: the curve. It stands out and everyone who has seen my tv just automatically assimilated it in their minds with quality (these are not videophiles, obviously. But who in the real world is?)


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9950_50#post_24767626
> 
> 
> It is a catch 22. Nowadays "making a statement" is as easy as buying an 80" Wal-Mart tv and hanging it on your wall in a nice room. Nobody cares about picture quality, certainly not rich people. The average person, regardless of how much money they have, isn't going to give two craps about OLED, or even understand why they should buy one when they can get a muchlarger tv for a fraction of the price. However, people who don't know any better will notice the thinness, the bezellessness (not a word, at all), and as much as I hate to say it and nobody wants to hear it: the curve. It stands out and everyone who has seen my tv just automatically assimilated it in their minds with quality (these are not videophiles, obviously. But who in the real world is?)


I don't see it. You really think people are going to buy much more expensive OLED TVs because their curved? Even if someone was just enamored by the curve, there are much cheaper curved LCDs.


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Stereodude*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24767633
> 
> 
> I don't see it. You really think people are going to buy much more expensive OLED TVs because their curved? Even if someone was just enamored by the curve, there are much cheaper curved LCDs.



No, I don't really think it's going to make people buy them, but it's one thing that will make them stand out in the store. Otherwise you've just got a smaller tv which costs 3 times as much. Nobody is going to buy that except people like us which are in ridiculously short supply. Curved LCD's though? Never heard of one. Which one?


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9950_50#post_24767667
> 
> 
> Curved LCD's though? Never heard of one. Which one?


Samsung has some. 1080p (H8000) and UHD variants (HU9000). Sony has a curved 1080p set also (S990). They're in stores if you want to see one in person.


----------



## Theplague13

Wow.....that Sony looks gorgeous....


They weren't in any stores I went to when I went tv shopping. Weird it isn't even in the XBR line. But I do stand corrected, they exist.


----------



## mo949

the slimness of the OLED is incredible and is very flattering to the curve. My first preference was flat, but the looks of it is part of the reason that I have 100% WAF for a more expensive set


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mo949*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9990#post_24767828
> 
> 
> the slimness of the OLED is incredible and is very flattering to the curve. My first preference was flat, but the looks of it is part of the reason that I have 100% WAF for a more expensive set



My point exactly. I'll actually be moving in with my girlfriend sometime this year and I knew I needed to upgrade my tv before that happened as once it does I know she'd never understand such a purchase. But it's so darn svelte










.......FWAF.


----------



## Theplague13

Okay, I see your point on that one. For once.


PS: never mind you just added that PS and I lost you again. Lol


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24766335
> 
> 
> I hope both that issue and the grayscale uniformity is fixed. That dying subpixel occurrence that afflicted Plague was an outlier as far as I can tell (and in my experience with two panels so far).



OK, well if that's true then it's a good thing... I would not tolerate even 1 dead subpixel at this point, let alone several.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24766680
> 
> 
> That would be nice, wouldn't it - resolve both the IR concerns and grey-scale uniformity for 'just-above-black' scenes with some basic improvements and stabilization of the IGZO backplane - if the gen-2 4K WOLEDs demonstrate those improvements, I almost certainly in



My gut (and slacker's, I believe) is that there is a relationship between this and the backplane. It should be a solvable problem if that's true. If it turns out it's related to something in LG's OLED design (let's just say that's possible), it will be a thornier one to fix.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24767124
> 
> 
> We need a distinction between what that list would be for a videophiles and imaging scientists (like nearly all of us) vs. the general public.  However, if an averaging of the two groups are needed, here's how I would redo that list:
> 
> Image Retention
> Dead/Flakey/etc. pixels
> Motion
> (a distant dead last) Low level gray uniformity



So I see nothing on this list that's problematic unless pixels really were failing (which seems unlikely at this point per the above) -- other than image retention. If these TVs require coddling or come with in-store warnings about not playing games for too long or watching widescreen movies, they are basically DOA. No, really, DOA.


> Quote:
> Something I used to worry the most about, but no longer worry much about (for either stacked or RGB-emitter approaches):
> blue aging



I see this, however, as a potential deal breaker. If the longevity of these products is not a clear 8-10 years -- like an LCD TV offers, unless it literally fails -- again they will basically be DOA. Interestingly, however, this is a "we won't know for a while" caveat. A reasonable home use scenario is 2000 hours per year. Some homes push 3500, though few of those are likely to own OLEDs right now. Somewhere, I presume competitors own a few of these and are torture testing them. Perhaps by 2015-16, we'll hear about longevity.


Consumers, incidentally, won't care that it's "blue" again. They'll just care about lost brightness, screwed up color, etc.


> Quote:
> Add to all of this though are two pronounced and weird wildcards
> Curved.  Good or bad, and for real or imagined reasons, I just can't see the public accepting this concept in volume.  And do we yet know enough to even speculate if curving the display is _causing_ some of the trouble the LG folks have been having?
> 4K: can it be done at acceptable light levels, etc., etc.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Stereodude*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960#post_24767633
> 
> 
> I don't see it. You really think people are going to buy much more expensive OLED TVs because their curved? Even if someone was just enamored by the curve, there are much cheaper curved LCDs.



I grouped these last two. The curve is marketing drivel. There is no early evidence at all it's bringing consumers into showrooms, let alone causing them to buy. There isn't even really evidence 4K is causing buying, though there is clear evidence that "if buying --> certainly placing some value on 4K." That puts 4K in a category curved TV is not in.


Katzmaier at Cnet is halfway through a test that appears headed for "curved TVs are tolerable, but why anyone would spend even a small premium on them is beyond me, let alone a large premium." I suspect most consumers will be in a similar position. A portion of the bell curve -- most of us here and likely some people out in the world who simply possess good taste -- will say, "I'm never buying a curved TV, period; what a dumb idea." A tinier portion of the bell curve will likely embrace the curve and its futuristic nature. That it will be a footnote in CE and never made again after the end of the decade won't bother the people buying it now. They're the people who bought cars designed to mimic rockets and other "space age" innovations before....


With respect to 4K, there simply is no evidence that there's a light-level concern. The high-resolution Galaxy S5 is plenty competitive on brightness, both overall and per watt. Granted, LG is using a totally different method and perhaps results will differ. It seems doubtful, however, given that ultimately IGZO should perform quite well on large substrates and whatever magic they are doing with the white appears to be working. I remain concerned about LG's huge inter-pixel vertical spacing and would like to see that reduced. But I'm not of the mind to believe that's a dealbreaker.


----------



## Theplague13

Every one of us still has dead sub pixels. He just meant how on my first panel they continuously kept dying. We both lost a few in the first 50 hours then it stopped, but on my first it just kept on going relentlessly. That specific anomaly seems to have been just with that panel.


----------



## vinnie97

^Correct.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9900_100#post_24768422
> 
> 
> OK, well if that's true then it's a good thing... I would not tolerate even 1 dead subpixel at this point, let alone several.


It's a good thing you're sitting on the sidelines then.


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9950_50#post_24768422
> 
> 
> A reasonable home use scenario is 2000 hours per year. Some homes push 3500, though few of those are likely to own OLEDs right now.


They'll get way more than those number of hours if you have to run wiping patterns overnight to reverse the IR that watching a few hours of letterboxed content.


----------



## tgm1024


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960_60#post_24768422
> 
> 
> A tinier portion of the bell curve will likely embrace the curve and its futuristic nature. That it will be a footnote in CE and never made again after the end of the decade won't bother the people buying it now. They're the people who bought cars designed to mimic rockets and other "space age" innovations before....


 

Funny....I've often had the simile in my head that these TVs were like the Raymond Loewy stuff....LOL....

 


> Quote:
> With respect to 4K, there simply is no evidence that there's a light-level concern. The high-resolution Galaxy S5 is plenty competitive on brightness, both overall and per watt. Granted, LG is using a totally different method and perhaps results will differ. It seems doubtful, however, given that ultimately IGZO should perform quite well on large substrates and whatever magic they are doing with the white appears to be working. I remain concerned about LG's huge inter-pixel vertical spacing and would like to see that reduced. But I'm not of the mind to believe that's a dealbreaker.


 

I was mostly referring to precisely that: That inter-row mask that seems excessive, though I'm sure is there for critical reasons.  This hasn't solidified into a "problem" quite yet in my mind, but more of a warning flag of something to verify later.


----------



## Theplague13

If I want anything for the future its an end to the incessant panel lottery that goes on in this industry. Excluding Samsung whose been known to actually put different panels in the _same exact_ model (which should just be illegal), every tv's got its own unique lottery and with the OLED it's worse than ever. The amount of bizzarities (again, not a word. Deal with it







) happening here should be a deal breaker for anyone who just wants to go home and enjoy their tv without worrying that there's a good chance they'll have to replace it until they get a good one. How in the hell does this go on without qc putting a stop to it? If it were like this with cars it'd be the end of the company.


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9950_50#post_24768784
> 
> 
> If I want anything for the future its an end to the incessant panel lottery that goes on in this industry. Excluding Samsung whose been known to actually put different panels in the _same exact_ model (which should just be illegal), every tv's got its own unique lottery and with the OLED it's worse than ever. The amount of bizzarities (again, not a word. Deal with it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) happening here should be a deal breaker for anyone who just wants to go home and enjoy their tv without worrying that there's a good chance they'll have to replace it until they get a good one. How in the hell does this go on without qc putting a stop to it? If it were like this with cars it'd be the end of the company.


They're hoping they don't get too many customers like you, vinnie and coopson. LG is hoping they get customers who don't care the slightest about the image quality and will just admire the sleek design and love whatever crap they put in the box. LG needs to recoup some money on their OLED investment and selling their marginal, not quite ready for primetime, product is one way to do that. They literally can't afford to wait until it is near perfect to start selling it.


----------



## mo949

^and which tv manufacturer doesn't do that? I'd argue that LCD after all these years is only now approaching 'ready for primetime'.


----------



## Theplague13

I dunno. Put me in a tu-tu and call me Lucy, but to my eyes CCFL was way more uniform than LED. Sure, they _can_ make LCD's better than ever now if they wanted but well, they don't.


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mo949*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10000_50#post_24768930
> 
> 
> ^and which tv manufacturer doesn't do that? I'd argue that LCD after all these years is only now approaching 'ready for primetime'.


I have a 52" CCFL backlit Samsung from several years ago and it's quite uniform on both black screen and grey screen. Way better than most of the edgelit stuff I see getting posted. It was the first one I got too. Then again, it was $2k not $750.


That said, this stuff is generally a race to the bottom. In general, consumers in North America won't pay for quality. The manufacturers have found the point that maximizes profit (or minimizes losses). The sets don't have to be AVSforum videophile "perfect", they only have to be good enough so the vast majority of consumers won't return them. It's just like cable / satellite TV. Is your cable / satellite company obsessed with delivering you highest quality audio and video, or are they only trying to deliver something that's just good enough so most people won't cancel?


----------



## mo949

Completely agree. It's the reason vizios not only exist, but sell high volumes even.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9990#post_24768956
> 
> 
> I dunno. Put me in a tu-tu and call me Lucy, but to my eyes CCFL was way more uniform than LED. Sure, they *can* make LCD's better than ever now if they wanted but well, they don't.


They can't. Those better than ever big LCD TVs would have to be ,basically, hand-made (like some medical grade monitors are) and would cost like BMW + Mercedes and nobody would ever buy them and they would be really thick. And my first Samsung S5 had dirty screen effect, visible uniformity issues so I returned it, but the second one I got was no better though. Now I think that there's on point in playing the panel lottery any more for odds are always against you especially with OLEDs


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9990#post_24768464
> 
> 
> ^Correct.
> 
> It's a good thing you're sitting on the sidelines then.



The size is way too small for me anyway.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Stereodude*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9990#post_24768586
> 
> 
> They'll get way more than those number of hours if you have to run wiping patterns overnight to reverse the IR that watching a few hours of letterboxed content.



I know you were joking, but normals never run those patterns anyway. It's odd they even offer such a feature.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9990#post_24768753
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was mostly referring to precisely that: That inter-row mask that seems excessive, though I'm sure is there for critical reasons.  This hasn't solidified into a "problem" quite yet in my mind, but more of a warning flag of something to verify later.



We need to file this under "time will tell".


----------



## vinnie97

LG doesn't offer said feature, lol. We've been using external sources like solid colors and the pixel jogger to mitigate the nasties.


----------



## stas3098


By the way here's the 42 1080p LCD that has near perfect uniformity http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-videoproduction/product-LMD4251TDPAC2/ and it only costs some meager 10 grand







 

 

Here's another one for measly 8.6 grand http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-videoproduction/product-LMD4251TD/ . By the way these are CCFL not LED displays. I don't think they even make pro displays that use LED backlights (and guess why?)...

 

Please, stop saying all LCDs are bad for it's only all consumer LCDs are bad. They've been this way since the dawn of LCD and they are bound to stay that way 'till the end of time would be my guess what with the perilous and looming LCD apocalypse Artwood has been unrelievingly prophesizing


----------



## stas3098


However on a more down-to-earth note I want to add that when I pointed out to a "normie" that her notebook's display had too much screen bleeding she said something that put me in a shock: "*who cares, man"*


----------



## vinnie97

^So does mine (Toshiba). Prime example of desensitization. However, I don't watch movies on my display or do any serious graphical work, so I can't help but find agreement with her assessment.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9990#post_24768753
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> I was mostly referring to precisely that: That inter-row mask that seems excessive, though I'm sure is there for critical reasons.  This hasn't solidified into a "problem" quite yet in my mind, but more of a warning flag of something to verify later.
Click to expand...


I used to think that LG vertical spacing/screen-door was excessive too. Bu then you look at something like the Samsung F8500 plasma (which is the brightest plasma ever produced):

 


Also, if you look a the entire history of LG IPS LCD panels, you see a similar pattern:

http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/screen-technology-sub-pixels-up-close-a1547.html 


This it not a new phenomenon or unique to the LG OLED. Makes me doubtful if they will even attempt to solve it unless they become desperate for brightness (unlike their LCD products).


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9990#post_24770207
> 
> 
> 
> They can't. Those better than ever big LCD TVs would have to be ,basically, hand-made (like some medical grade monitors are) and would cost like BMW + Mercedes and nobody would ever buy them and they would be really thick. And my first Samsung S5 had dirty screen effect, visible uniformity issues so I returned it, but the second one I got was no better though. Now I think that there's on point in playing the panel lottery any more for odds are always against you especially with OLEDs



Or they could just make really good FALDs like the hx 950 and Sharp Elite only instead of continuously removing zones and moving to edge lighting they could add more and more each year. You know, to try and do the unthinkable and top themselves. No, not in this industry.


Stas that's funny. Oh, the normies. Haha. Wish I could be one.


----------



## 8mile13

Wall Street Journal interview with LG's head of OLED business Jin Huh. Must login to read, so Google min jeong lee LG bendable..



- plans to sell three new TV models in the second half of 2014.


- Flexible OLED TVs planned for next year.


- LG sold 3000 OLED TVs last year.


- The new OLED sets that LG plans for this year will be 4K 65'' and 77'' curved screen and a 1080p 55''.


- LG continues to release OLED television sets dispite the technical and cost difficulties because it hopes to gain expertise and be ahead of rivals by the time the technology takes off.


- Mr Huh declined to comment on wether LG is making money on its OLED television sets, saying only that profitability is a factor in decisions. He also said the company would use profit generated by its overall television business to help support next-generation sets.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960_60#post_24770469
> 
> 
> Also, if you look a the entire history of LG IPS LCD panels, you see a similar pattern:
> 
> http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/screen-technology-sub-pixels-up-close-a1547.html
> 
> 
> This it not a new phenomenon or unique to the LG OLED. Makes me doubtful if they will even attempt to solve it unless they become desperate for brightness (unlike their LCD products).


 

Hey, those guys are to be commended.  We've been using that page for years (as have other sites), and as evidenced by their mini PSA below, *they're willing to identify their mistakes boldly. * This could be the reason that everyone was so convinced that IPS *meant* chevron shaped pixels, and chevron shaped pixels *meant* IPS for so long.


> Quote:
> *We Were Wrong!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our investigations into the shape of sub-pixels in various types of screen technology showed that for years we've been incorrectly identifying the screens used in certain products. In fact, there are more types of panel than we had initially thought, with technology such as PSA and UV²A that we were unaware of. This investigation has helped clear things up!


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Kateeva Grows Infrastructure to Support Sales (press release)*


Appoints SVP of Customer Satisfaction; Expands Manufacturing Space in Silicon Valley



MENLO PARK, Calif., May 28, 2014—To support sales of its inkjet printing manufacturing solution for OLED applications, Kateeva, Inc. today announced two key moves. First, the company named expert sales executive, Larry Timm, as Senior Vice President of Customer Satisfaction. Timm’s strength is selling complex capital equipment and related process technologies to marquee electronics manufacturing customers in Asia and Europe. At Kateeva he’ll drive business in Asia, manage customer relationships, and create a world-class infrastructure to support key accounts.


Second, *Kateeva announced the planned expansion of its Silicon Valley facilities to create dedicated manufacturing space. The first YIELDjet™ tools for mass production will be built at this location.* YIELDjet is the world’s first inkjet printer designed from the ground up to mass produce flexible and large-size OLED panels. With unique precision deposition capabilities, YIELDjet makes production of such ultra-light, paper-thin OLED displays economically viable – for the first time.


Kateeva President Dr. Conor Madigan called the decision to build the first tools in Silicon Valley a practical move. “Here, we can access top-class engineers and proven suppliers, while also establishing copy-exact protocols for future manufacturing in other locations,” he said. “Moving into production is a big milestone for Kateeva. And it’s the right point to add a global customer satisfaction executive to the team. We’re pleased to welcome Larry.”


Timm said, “Kateeva has pioneered a product that’s energizing the OLED manufacturing community. It’s a rare opportunity to join a start-up with such a compelling offering. I’m excited to build the support infrastructure and help customers leverage the value of YIELDjet.”


Today’s developments aim to position YIELDjet for smooth near-term deployment. They’re the latest in a series of initiatives that began with the establishment of Kateeva Korea earlier this year. That’s when Kateeva, Inc. absorbed the team and assets of OLED Plus, a Seoul-based OLED equipment design, sales, service and support company. The move created an “instant on” local infrastructure equipped to deliver expert support to YIELDjet customers in Korea – the center of gravity for OLED manufacturing.


About Larry Timm


For two-plus decades, Larry Timm has helped US technology companies build strong businesses in Asia and Europe. At venture-backed start-ups and large public corporations, he built international operations, closed complex sales, found new markets for advanced technologies, and facilitated multi-level customer relationships. He has particular expertise in wafer fab process equipment having helped companies like Novellus Systems, Tencor Instruments and Teradyne debut transformational technologies and then engineer speedy sales ramps.


Timm earned a Bachelor’s degree in Biology from Binghampton University in New York, and a Master’s degree in Management from MIT. He served in the United States Navy as an Intelligence Officer, departing with the rank of Lieutenant Commander.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG Display Highlights Next-Generation Display Products and Technology Leadership at SID 2014* (Press Release)


LG Display, the world’s leading innovator of display technologies, will showcase the future of display technology, including its ground-breaking OLED panels, at the Society for Information Display’s (SID) Display Week 2014 from June 3 to June 5 at the San Diego Convention Center.


The company will showcase line-ups of curved Ultra HD OLED and LCD TV panels, along with high-definition IT and mobile panel products and commercial display panels during the SID exhibition.


On exhibit will be 55-inch, 65-inch and 77-inch Ultra HD curved OLED TV panels which provide superior picture quality.


[Lots of UHD stuff removed]


Apart from the exhibition, LG Display will deliver six presentations on OLED panel technology, including three invited technical papers, at the SID technology conference from June 1 to June 7, which highlights the company’s leadership on OLED technologies.


The subjects of the three invited technical papers include ▶Development of Commercial Flexible AMOLEDs, ▶Advanced Technologies for Large-sized OLED TVs, and ▶Technological Progress of Panel Design and Compensation Methods for Large-sized Ultra HD OLED TVs.


LG Display will deliver a total of 14 presentations to the conference, which will be attended by more than 6,000 global leaders in the display industry, including industry executives, academics and researchers, underscoring the company’s leading technical expertise in the display sector.


“With our cutting-edge OLED products being showcased and with our expertise in OLED technologies being highlighted in the six conference papers at SID, I believe that LG Display will reaffirm that OLED will lead the next-generation display market,” said Sang-Deog Yeo, LG Display’s Chief Technical Officer and Executive Vice President. “LG Display has become the global display leader as shown by developing many of the world’s first products that incorporate IPS, FPR 3D and OLED technologies and we will continue to do our best in being the world’s leader in next-generation technology.”


----------



## Artwood

How many models of Flat OLED are currently being produced?


How well does OLED do 3-D?


----------



## JWhip

I flat OLED and it is only 55". I don't care about 3D.


----------



## Theplague13

I still remember the days when anything over 40, and especially 50, was a freaking huge tv.....they weren't even that long ago. Sigh.


I was beginning to think I was the only one who didn't didn't give 2 craps about 3d. Tried it once, looked good I guess. I'm over it.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9960_60#post_24771433
> 
> 
> I still remember the days when anything over 40, and especially 50, was a freaking huge tv.....they weren't even that long ago. Sigh.
> 
> 
> I was beginning to think I was the only one who didn't didn't give 2 craps about 3d. Tried it once, looked good I guess. I'm over it.


 

You're hardly alone.  We hear that kind of crap  endlessly around these parts.

 

If a TV doesn't have 3D, I'm not buying it unless there's no other option available at all.


----------



## Theplague13

Well you're in luck because every tv has it, which inflates the price for those of us who dont care. Except the 2014 Vizios and well, we've already discussed those. For the third time I'm simply going to use the word barf.


The brain was never meant to process images at different spatial positions from the eye's source. It's what gives some people headaches.


Now get me autostereoscopic with no resolution or contrast loss and maybe I'll reconsider. But we're too many years away from that to even consider it a factor and autostereoscopic already failed on the 3DS.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020_60#post_24771592
> 
> 
> Well you're in luck because every tv has it,


 

Huh?  No they don't.  I'm currently getting a handle on the 2014's as the information comes out, and there are a *lot* without 3D at all.  Believe me, keeping this list up to date is a pain in the ass, but it's far from true that "every TV as it".

 

2014 ---3D TVs List--- ...Passive / Active / and no-3D


----------



## Theplague13

Maybe 2014 is the year it changes then. But okay let me revise my statement: Thus far, the vast majority of tv's, especially those people like us would ever consider, have had it.


Just checked out your thread btw, awesome and informative. More sets than I imagined are indeed abandoning 3d. Still at least all flagships seem to have it save vizio.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9990#post_24770749
> 
> 
> Wall Street Journal interview with LG's head of OLED business Jin Huh. Must login to read, so Google min jeong lee LG bendable..
> 
> 
> 
> - plans to sell three new TV models in the second half of 2014.
> 
> 
> - Flexible OLED TVs planned for next year.
> 
> 
> - LG sold 3000 OLED TVs last year.
> 
> 
> - The new OLED sets that LG plans for this year will be 4K 65'' and 77'' curved screen and a 1080p 55''.
> 
> 
> - LG continues to release OLED television sets dispite the technical and cost difficulties because it hopes to gain expertise and be ahead of rivals by the time the technology takes off.
> 
> 
> - Mr Huh declined to comment on wether LG is making money on its OLED television sets, saying only that profitability is a factor in decisions. He also said the company would use profit generated by its overall television business to help support next-generation sets.



Nothing new (other than confirmation directly by LG that the only sole 3000 WOLEDs last year). Though I guess the statement about introducing 'flexible OLED TVs' in 2015 is a bit of news. Is Samsung chasing LG or is LG chasing Samsung? The image I have in mind is of a dog chasing its tail,.


I'm actually disappointed to see them putting any investments into that boneheaded direction (unless they have already resolved the entire list of gen-1 issues that have been highlighted and those improvements become clear for all to see in the gen-2 introductions).


A flexible WOLED that still suffers from IR and/or dying subpixels would be the most bone-headed product strategy I could imagine.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24772166
> 
> 
> Nothing new (other than confirmation directly by LG that the only sole 3000 WOLEDs last year).



That is an IHS estimate, not from LG.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24772166
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9990#post_24770749
> 
> 
> Wall Street Journal interview with LG's head of OLED business Jin Huh. Must login to read, so Google min jeong lee LG bendable..
> 
> 
> 
> - plans to sell three new TV models in the second half of 2014.
> 
> 
> - Flexible OLED TVs planned for next year.
> 
> 
> - LG sold 3000 OLED TVs last year.
> 
> 
> - The new OLED sets that LG plans for this year will be 4K 65'' and 77'' curved screen and a 1080p 55''.
> 
> 
> - LG continues to release OLED television sets dispite the technical and cost difficulties because it hopes to gain expertise and be ahead of rivals by the time the technology takes off.
> 
> 
> - Mr Huh declined to comment on wether LG is making money on its OLED television sets, saying only that profitability is a factor in decisions. He also said the company would use profit generated by its overall television business to help support next-generation sets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing new (other than confirmation directly by LG that the only sole 3000 WOLEDs last year). Though I guess the statement about introducing 'flexible OLED TVs' in 2015 is a bit of news. Is Samsung chasing LG or is LG chasing Samsung? The image I have in mind is of a dog chasing its tail,.
> 
> 
> I'm actually disappointed to see them putting any investments into that boneheaded direction (unless they have already resolved the entire list of gen-1 issues that have been highlighted and those improvements become clear for all to see in the gen-2 introductions).
> 
> 
> A flexible WOLED that still suffers from IR and/or dying subpixels would be the most bone-headed product strategy I could imagine.
Click to expand...


Good for LG. Let them fix the production costs of OLED and then reap the benefits : roll-down 100 inch printed screens while everyone else is stuck trying to figure out how to make LCDs not stink to high heaven. (apparently LCD is getting much better now, but those are still niche models which cost way more than typical LCDs that people buy).


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10000_100#post_24771184
> 
> 
> How well does OLED do 3-D?


Really fricking well, some might say the best they've ever seen.


----------



## Theplague13

Most likely R&D will be 99% how to mass produce them larger while keeping costs down and the other 1%, maybe one lone videophile annoyed in his office, will be spent on actually improving the panel issues.


----------



## conan48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24772308
> 
> 
> Really fricking well, some might say the best they've ever seen.



+1


That's the main reason I want the 4K 65", not for the 4k in particular, but the 1080p Passive for 3D.


The LG has the best 3D I've seen and I've had too many 3D devices to count..........Here's a few, multiple Plasmas, multiple DLPs, multiple LCOS projectors, multiple LCD projectors, a few LCD monitors (lightboost), The Sony HMZ T1, T2, T3, etc. I have not yet tried the Oculus Rift, but Have the DK2 on preorder.


The LG's infinite contrast, combined with really high brightness, and passive is in my opinion the best 3D experience out there.


A Sony HMZ that was 1080p and more comfortable might be better! Hopefully they announce an new HMZ soon.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24772232
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24772166
> 
> 
> Nothing new (other than confirmation directly by LG that the only sole 3000 WOLEDs last year).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an IHS estimate, not from LG.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to subscribe to the WSJ just for this article, so are you saying that the 3000 WOLED figure came from IHS and not LG? (meaning that there is truly no new news in that department) or are you saying that the earlier estimate was from IHS and has now been confirmed directly by LG (which was my assumption based on the post)?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24772417
> 
> 
> I'm not going to subscribe to the WSJ just for this article, so are you saying that the 3000 WOLED figure came from IHS and not LG? (meaning that there is truly no new news in that department) or are you saying that the earlier estimate was from IHS and has now been confirmed directly by LG (which was my assumption based on the post)?



The WSJ quotes somebody from IHS for the 3000 unit estimate. It is not confirmed by LG.


Internet protip, or maybe cheapskate tip







...you can read any WSJ article by doing a Google search on the title of the article (just copy the title and right click if you are using Chrome).


----------



## dsinger

^ Or set up a Google news alert for OLED! Got all of the above this AM in an email.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020_60#post_24772408
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24772308
> 
> 
> Really fricking well, some might say the best they've ever seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> That's the main reason I want the 4K 65", not for the 4k in particular, but the 1080p Passive for 3D.
Click to expand...

 

Just verify that they're indeed using the "every other" approach to achieve 1080p passive.  Remember, Sony in 2013 p1$$ed off everyone by *quietly* releasing their 55" version of the X900A as 540p passive.  Nice, huh?  The 65" was 1080p passive, and truly *truly* spectacularrrrrr.....

 

yeahthatwasfromsouthpark...


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24772445
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24772417
> 
> 
> I'm not going to subscribe to the WSJ just for this article, so are you saying that the 3000 WOLED figure came from IHS and not LG? (meaning that there is truly no new news in that department) or are you saying that the earlier estimate was from IHS and has now been confirmed directly by LG (which was my assumption based on the post)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The WSJ quotes somebody from IHS for the 3000 unit estimate. It is not confirmed by LG.
> 
> 
> Internet protip, or maybe cheapskate tip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...you can read any WSJ article by doing a Google search on the title of the article (just copy the title and right click if you are using Chrome).
Click to expand...


IHS's Mr Kang estimated that LG sold about 3,000 OLED television sets globally


the second link. for free








https://www.google.nl/search?q=min+jeong+lee+lg&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:nl-NL:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=&gfe_rd=cr&ei=PLKHU_mFNIOc-wazg4HYAg#q=min+jeong+lee+lg+bendable&rls=com.microsoft:nl-NL:IE-SearchBox


----------



## Vegas oled


I am just happy I am one of the lucky people enjoying this TV.  It does not help the general public when CNET has seemed to fall asleep at the wheel with no reviews of any 4K sets or OLED.


----------



## mo949




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24772408
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24772308
> 
> 
> Really fricking well, some might say the best they've ever seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> That's the main reason I want the 4K 65", not for the 4k in particular, but the 1080p Passive for 3D.
> 
> 
> The LG has the best 3D I've seen and I've had too many 3D devices to count..........Here's a few, multiple Plasmas, multiple DLPs, multiple LCOS projectors, multiple LCD projectors, a few LCD monitors (lightboost), The Sony HMZ T1, T2, T3, etc. I have not yet tried the Oculus Rift, but Have the DK2 on preorder.
> 
> 
> The LG's infinite contrast, combined with really high brightness, and passive is in my opinion the best 3D experience out there.
> 
> 
> A Sony HMZ that was 1080p and more comfortable might be better! Hopefully they announce an new HMZ soon.
Click to expand...


My doppelgänger


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24773042
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24772445
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24772417
> 
> 
> I'm not going to subscribe to the WSJ just for this article, so are you saying that the 3000 WOLED figure came from IHS and not LG? (meaning that there is truly no new news in that department) or are you saying that the earlier estimate was from IHS and has now been confirmed directly by LG (which was my assumption based on the post)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The WSJ quotes somebody from IHS for the 3000 unit estimate. It is not confirmed by LG.
> 
> 
> Internet protip, or maybe cheapskate tip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...you can read any WSJ article by doing a Google search on the title of the article (just copy the title and right click if you are using Chrome).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IHS's Mr Kang estimated that LG sold about 3,000 OLED television sets globally
> 
> 
> the second link. for free
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.nl/search?q=min+jeong+lee+lg&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:nl-NL:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=&gfe_rd=cr&ei=PLKHU_mFNIOc-wazg4HYAg#q=min+jeong+lee+lg+bendable&rls=com.microsoft:nl-NL:IE-SearchBox
Click to expand...


Thanks (I'd only followed the first link







).


Here I one other tidbit I had not seen before: "IHS estimates that global shipments for OLED television panels will rise to 100,000 this year,..."


That seems very, very optimistic to me and essentially out of reach without dramatic price cuts on the current 1080p 55" products and much lower pricing on the new 4K products than anyone has forecasted.


At the pricing levels they have offered so far this year, I would be surprised to learn that LG has sold many more than another 3000 units or so, year-to-date (which still represents over 100% growth versus 2013 so far). Will the recent price drop of another 5% get them to 5000 or 6000 by mid-year? Doubtful.


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/9990#post_24770370
> 
> 
> By the way here's the 42 1080p LCD that has near perfect uniformity http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-videoproduction/product-LMD4251TDPAC2/ and it only costs some meager 10 grand
> 
> 
> Here's another one for measly 8.6 grand http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-videoproduction/product-LMD4251TD/ . By the way these are CCFL not LED displays. I don't think they even make pro displays that use LED backlights (and guess why?)...
> 
> 
> Please, stop saying all LCDs are bad for it's only all consumer LCDs are bad. They've been this way since the dawn of LCD and they are bound to stay that way 'till the end of time would be my guess what with the perilous and looming LCD apocalypse Artwood has been unrelievingly prophesizing



Interesting product links....I wonder how one even tracks something like that down. Can they function as regular displays to regular Joe's; I mean, who are they marketed towards?. I wasn't saying all LCD is bad, it has the potential to be incredible and I don't think it requires those prices. I just think for the most part at the consumer level they've been going downhill instead of up. Without FALD CCFL beats LED to me and according to that, in the professional world as well. FALD is the savior at the consumer level though, and it's basically an illusion. It's way to trick the eyes into seeing a uniform backlight when in fact it isn't. But you know what? It works so who cares. If you completely disable local dimming on the hx950 there are clouds EVERYwhere. Did I ever see them, even one time? No, because why would you buy that tv and disable it. I just think they could be making falds with over 200 zones now if they'd been trying to add more each year and that's what LCD R&D was going towards. Lol please out of basic respect do not compare me to art!


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24773340
> 
> 
> Thanks (I'd only followed the first link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> 
> Here I one other tidbit I had not seen before: "IHS estimates that global shipments for OLED television panels will rise to 100,000 this year,..."
> 
> 
> That seems very, very optimistic to me and essentially out of reach without dramatic price cuts on the current 1080p 55" products and much lower pricing on the new 4K products than anyone has forecasted.
> 
> 
> At the pricing levels they have offered so far this year, I would be surprised to learn that LG has sold many more than another 3000 units or so, year-to-date (which still represents over 100% growth versus 2013 so far). Will the recent price drop of another 5% get them to 5000 or 6000 by mid-year? Doubtful.



GIGO.


I would not take the 3,000 unit estimate as anything but what it is, an educated guess, and that might be generous. Just as an example, Displaysearch came out with an estimate for OLED material revenues in 2013 that could have been determined to be wrong simply by checking companies earnings reports. This was the absolute simplest form of collecting data and they screwed it up.


Let's say that the 3,000 unit estimate is correct though. How do you think that broke down by quarter?


Here is the timeline for LG's rollout last year...this is mostly from memory.


- Launched in Korea in late February for $15,000.


- Showed up in a single store in the UK (Harrod's) in the spring


- Launched in the US/Europe in the middle of summer.


- They cut the price to ~$10,000 in early September. This was still a thousand more than the Samsung television which was generally considered better.


- They then cut the price to ~$6000 in late December (though I am not even sure that this showed up in the US until January).


For more than 95% of the year, they were either selling the television for $15,000 or at a price more expensive than the Samsung. They also had very little distribution. This year, the price started at $6000 and has now fallen to $3800 while distribution is fairly wide (Fry's, UK Costco, more Best Buy's).


I dont know if they will sell 100,000 but I would wager that the odds are substantially higher of them hitting that number than only selling 10,000 units this year.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24773340
> 
> 
> 
> At the pricing levels they have offered so far this year, I would be surprised to learn that LG has sold many more than another 3000 units or so, year-to-date (which still represents over 100% growth versus 2013 so far). Will the recent price drop of another 5% get them to 5000 or 6000 by mid-year? Doubtful.



It's really a mistake to report percentage growth figures (a) at this early stage and (b) when the base figure is pulled from thin air.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24774800
> 
> 
> GIGO.
> 
> 
> I would not take the 3,000 unit estimate as anything but what it is, an educated guess, and that might be generous.



Exactly.... Talking about this number like it's interesting implies that it's interesting. We have no way of verifying and really why do we care? 2013 was a wash. Let's focus on what's happening in 2014.


I dont know if they will sell 100,000 but I would wager that the odds are substantially higher of them hitting that number than only selling 10,000 units this year.[/quote]


So yes, in 2014, the TV was widely distributed but only a single size at 1080p will be available for the vast majority of the year. It's hard to state how (1) that product is completely non-competitive with anything else sold and is therefore ignored by about 99% of buyers as even a consideration and yet (2) *that TV is a first-of-its-kind breakthrough with an amazing picture that mesmerizes videophiles*; for $5,000 at Best Buy or equivalent, it's only mildly "insane" to buy one.


Add in two larger sizes by what LG apparently hopes is fall (and the timing is critical, because failure to deliver by the beginning of October will blow up any chance of hitting whatever their forecast is) and a presumed price cut on the 55 inch and you seemingly have a scenario where they can snip off the very tail end of the bell curve and own that.


Is that 100,000? It seems somewhat absurd to me unless the 55 creeps down to $3000 -- at real retail, not where you only know about that price if you are aware that Chris exists or are friendly with Robert -- or the 65 is priced much, much aggressively than most of us think it will be. When you hear about how many 4K sets will be sold this year, you need to realize Sony has 3 models at 65 inches that are under $4000 on their website right now and more 55-inch models, too. And you need to keep in mind that Vizio will sell a significant number of the 4K sets.... The same logic applies everywhere: Even in 4K, most sales won't be the most expensive stuff.


I still think this is mostly an irrelevant year because of the timing of these products, however. Next year appears to be a critical make or break time. Volume will need to increase to justify the investment made and prices will need to fall to get those volume increases. There was talk even back in 2012 (here, by me and others) of needing to reach some sort of pricing parity almost by 2016 to make this whole thing roll downhill. 2015 will set the stage for that to happen in the subsequent year or two -- or it won't. Success means the "high-end" strategy has a very strong chance of happening. The high-end strategy gives the low-end strategy some ultimate chance of happening much further down the road.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24775887
> 
> 
> 
> Is that 100,000? It seems somewhat absurd to me unless the 55 creeps down to $3000 -- at real retail, not where you only know about that price if you are aware that Chris exists or are friendly with Robert -- or the 65 is priced much, much aggressively than most of us think it will be.



Fry's does have the set at $4000, but you are right that the fact that Amazon and Best Buy are still at $5000 is a serious inhibitor to sales. A model in Costco would be also be a big help to overall recognition/sales in the target market.


The original report on 70% yields (later confirmed by LG) indicated that IGZO yields were at 80%. If they are seeing continued progress there, perhaps the 4K premium will be smaller than we expect.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24775987
> 
> 
> Fry's does have the set at $4000, but you are right that the fact that Amazon and Best Buy are still at $5000 is a serious inhibitor to sales. A model in Costco would be also be a big help to overall recognition/sales in the target market.



Fry's is also very regional, for what it's worth. It's so regional that while we have them in the Bay Area, to a San Franciscan, the store might as well not exist. I'm really not exaggerating. (That's not to say $4,000 at a credible chain like that isn't valuable; I didn't even realize it was priced that at Fry's.)


> Quote:
> The original report on 70% yields (later confirmed by LG) indicated that IGZO yields were at 80%. If they are seeing continued progress there, perhaps the 4K premium will be smaller than we expect.



Yep. I was thinking more that the larger sizes are just going to be very expensive due to the inefficient substrate usage multiplied by yields that are still, honestly, low for that kind of wasteful cutting. Even 80% overall yield makes for very expensive 65-inch displays on 8G. This has been a long-running bugaboo of 65-inch stuff.


----------



## mo949

It's priced like that through reputable avs retailers even










And best buy and amazon price match typically.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24776769
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24775987
> 
> 
> Fry's does have the set at $4000, but you are right that the fact that Amazon and Best Buy are still at $5000 is a serious inhibitor to sales. A model in Costco would be also be a big help to overall recognition/sales in the target market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fry's is also very regional, for what it's worth. It's so regional that while we have them in the Bay Area, to a San Franciscan, the store might as well not exist. I'm really not exaggerating. (That's not to say $4,000 at a credible chain like that isn't valuable; I didn't even realize it was priced that at Fry's.)
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> The original report on 70% yields (later confirmed by LG) indicated that IGZO yields were at 80%. If they are seeing continued progress there, perhaps the 4K premium will be smaller than we expect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. I was thinking more that the larger sizes are just going to be very expensive due to the inefficient substrate usage multiplied by yields that are still, honestly, low for that kind of wasteful cutting. Even 80% overall yield makes for very expensive 65-inch displays on 8G. This has been a long-running bugaboo of 65-inch stuff.
Click to expand...


At 80% yield for 55" panels on full 8G substrates, my back-of-the-envelope estimates show the 65" panels costing about 2.2x the 55" panel and at close to 75% yield (at 100% yield for both it would be exactly 2X). That is just for WOLED panel cost - since many of the costs of completing a WOLED TV from a panel are shared and independent of panel size, the difference in TV cost should be less than that (2x if the panel cost makes up 75% of the TV costs).


So if yields on the 55" are really at 80% and if the 55" WOLEDs are priced at $3-4K, it should be possible for the 65" WOLEDs to be priced at $6-8K.


On the half-8G-substrate pilot line, the 65" WOLED is much less viable (well over 3X the cost of the 55").


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24777200
> 
> 
> At 80% yield for 55" panels on full 8G substrates, my back-of-the-envelope estimates show the 65" panels costing about 2.2x the 55" panel and at close to 75% yield (at 100% yield for both it would be exactly 2X). That is just for WOLED panel cost - since many of the costs of completing a WOLED TV from a panel are shared and independent of panel size, the difference in TV cost should be less than that (2x if the panel cost makes up 75% of the TV costs).
> 
> 
> So if yields on the 55" are really at 80% and if the 55" WOLEDs are priced at $3-4K, it should be possible for the 65" WOLEDs to be priced at $6-8K.



I saw an estimate a while back that indicated that the LCD module only made up around 1/3 of the retail price of the television.


If 1080p televisions are retailing for $3000 at the end of the year and LGD is getting $1500 for the module (just to be conservative), they would be generating $7650 per substrate at 85% yields.


If yields on the 4K 65" version are at 66%, then the module would cost $3825. If the supply chain (LGE, retailer) requires the same margin, that would put retail pricing at $7650. If LGE or the retailer is willing to sacrifice margin and look simply at profit per unit, then we could see lower pricing.


----------



## vinnie97

Anyone care to extrapolate for the 77"?


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24775887
> 
> 
> Is that 100,000? It seems somewhat absurd to me unless the 55 creeps down to $3000 -- at real retail, not where you only know about that price if you are aware that Chris exists or are friendly with Robert -- or the 65 is priced much, much aggressively than most of us think it will be.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24775987
> 
> 
> Fry's does have the set at $4000, but you are right that the fact that Amazon and Best Buy are still at $5000 is a serious inhibitor to sales. A model in Costco would be also be a big help to overall recognition/sales in the target market.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24776769
> 
> 
> Fry's is also very regional, for what it's worth. It's so regional that while we have them in the Bay Area, to a San Franciscan, the store might as well not exist. I'm really not exaggerating. (That's not to say $4,000 at a credible chain like that isn't valuable; I didn't even realize it was priced that at Fry's.)



Newsflash: Our local Fry's has now dropped the price to $2997. Wow.. I didn't expect it to hit that price until black friday. I guess next price target is $2K for BF!?


What do you guys make of this? Is LG really serious about selling these is huge volumes in 2014 or did it not sell at all at $4k? Really tempted...


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24777510
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash: Our local Fry's has now dropped the price to $2997. Wow.. I didn't expect it to hit that price until black friday. I guess next price target is $2K for BF!?
> 
> 
> What do you guys make of this? Is LG really serious about selling these is huge volumes in 2014 or did it not sell at all at $4k? Really tempted...



Wow.


That seems like it almost has to be pricing to clear inventory. It has been really unclear though whether LG is planning on launching a 2nd gen 1080p television. They showed it at CES, but we havent heard much until the WSJ article on Wednesday. Maybe the launch of the new 55" model will be in the next month or two?


----------



## vinnie97

Even though I'm at least 2 hours from any Fry's, I'm feeling like a chump right about now. Who knew waiting two months would've yielded these kinds of savings?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24777552
> 
> 
> Even though I'm at least 2 hours from any Fry's, I'm feeling like a chump right about now. Who knew waiting two months would've yielded these kinds of savings?



On the small bright side, if this is sustainable pricing, then your potential 77" is also a lot cheaper than you were expecting.


FWIW, you can only fit two 77" panels on a Gen 8 substrate. If the average substrate yielded a single panel, then the retail pricing would be $15,300. 1.5 panels per substrate would take it down close to $10,000.


I am really just playing with the numbers here. There are so many assumptions in my guesstimates that I could probably come up with $5000 to $25000 as a range.


----------



## Morning5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24777610
> 
> 
> On the small bright side, if this is sustainable pricing, then your potential 77" is also a lot cheaper than you were expecting.
> 
> 
> FWIW, you can only fit two 77" panels on a Gen 8 substrate. If the average substrate yielded a single panel, then the retail pricing would be $15,300. 1.5 panels per substrate would take it down close to $10,000.
> 
> 
> I am really just playing with the numbers here. There are so many assumptions in my guesstimates that I could probably come up with $5000 to $25000 as a range.



Mr. Slacker,


what would be the estimate price for the LG OLED 55EC9300?


Thank you.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24777424
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24777200
> 
> 
> At 80% yield for 55" panels on full 8G substrates, my back-of-the-envelope estimates show the 65" panels costing about 2.2x the 55" panel and at close to 75% yield (at 100% yield for both it would be exactly 2X). That is just for WOLED panel cost - since many of the costs of completing a WOLED TV from a panel are shared and independent of panel size, the difference in TV cost should be less than that (2x if the panel cost makes up 75% of the TV costs).
> 
> 
> So if yields on the 55" are really at 80% and if the 55" WOLEDs are priced at $3-4K, it should be possible for the 65" WOLEDs to be priced at $6-8K.
> 
> 
> 
> *I saw an estimate a while back that indicated that the LCD module only made up around 1/3 of the retail price of the television.
> *
> 
> If 1080p televisions are retailing for $3000 at the end of the year and LGD is getting $1500 for the module (just to be conservative), they would be generating $7650 per substrate at 85% yields.
> 
> 
> If yields on the 4K 65" version are at 66%, then the module would cost $3825. If the supply chain (LGE, retailer) requires the same margin, that would put retail pricing at $7650. If LGE or the retailer is willing to sacrifice margin and look simply at profit per unit, then we could see lower pricing.
Click to expand...


For an LCD, that is probably true, but a big part of that is the cost of the LED backlight, which probably makes up at least another 1/3 of the cost.


For WOLED, the panel cost itself replaces both the LCD panel and the LED backlight, so there is no way the WOLED panel constitutes only 1/3 of the cost. 2/3 to 3/4 of the total cost of the TV is likely a more realistic estimate.


So if we take $3000 as sustainable pricing for a 55" WOLED at 80% panel yield and assume the WOLED panel is 3/4 of the total cost of the TV, this translates into a 65" WOLED panel at 74% yield resulting in a WOLED panel costing 2.2X and a TV costing 1.9x or priced at $5700. The same exercise applied to the 77" panel would result in a yield of 65%, a WOLED panel cost of 3.75x of a 55", and a WOLED TV cost of 3.1x or priced at $9200.


So if the 80% yield figure is for real, the $3K price for 55" is sustainable, and the M2 Gen8 manufacturing facility is up and running, $3K, $6K, $9K pricing before the end of this year is not completely unrealistic


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24777552
> 
> 
> Even though I'm at least 2 hours from any Fry's, I'm feeling like a chump right about now. Who knew waiting two months would've yielded these kinds of savings?



Nobody could know. Heck, has anyone ever seen a flagship TV drop to 20% of original price ($15K to $3K) in less than a year? It's unreal.


I'm sure you would have a much easier time accepting some of the LG issues at this price point. Even I'm very tempted.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24777755
> 
> 
> So if the 80% yield figure is for real, the $3K price for 55" is sustainable, and the M2 Gen8 manufacturing facility is up and running, $3K, $6K, $9K pricing before the end of this year is not completely unrealistic



I hope you're right. Their pricing is quickly becoming competitive with recent flagship LCD prices. I remember the Sony 55" 1080p FALD retailing for around $3K not too long ago. HX950 I think. Not sure if they have a 1080p FALD for this year. Fry's had the edge-lit 55" Sony w950b 1080p flagship model for $1800.


I saw the 2014 1080p LG Oled listed for pre-order for end of June on the internet. So this could just be a fire-sale to clear inventory. But if they do intend to sell 100,000 units this year, then maybe this price will stick. We won't know for sure until a 2014 model shows up at Fry's.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Morning5*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24777662
> 
> 
> what would be the estimate price for the LG OLED 55EC9300?
> 
> 
> Thank you.



Again, there are so many assumptions in this that you need take the number with a boulder of salt.


So for whatever its worth, if LGD was generating $7650 per substrate, you can cut 6 55" 4K panels per substrate. The yields would drop because you need 4x the transistors. If yields fell all the way to 50%, each 4K module would need to be priced at $2550, giving us retail pricing of $5100. If yields were at 67%, then you would end up with retail pricing of $3824.


You are quadrupling the number of pixels so your 1080p backplane yields have to be really high to get decent 4K pricing.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020_60#post_24777552
> 
> 
> Even though I'm at least 2 hours from any Fry's, I'm feeling like a chump right about now. Who knew waiting two months would've yielded these kinds of savings?


 

There are always weird in-store blow-out prices.....don't kick yourself too much.  Online they're still offering the TV for ~$5k, which is what I'm hearing both Amazon and BB are hovering at consistently(?)  Here's the Samsung along with it for reference.

 

Frys doesn't seem to be offering the flat one (55EA8800) online.  Do they offer it in stores?

 









LG 55EA9800 - 55" Class (54.6 Actual Diagonal Size) EA9800 Series OLED 1080P Smart TV 




   







SAMSUNG 55" Class (54.6" Actual Diagonal Size) S9C Series Smart OLED TV (KN55S9CAFXZA) 




 







 







 




Frys # 7846239Mfr: LG

[TD='rowspan:2'] 
$4,999.00
Was:
$10,999.00

[/TD]




*Shipping:* Same Business Day    *Store Pickup:* Check Availability





Frys # 7852729Mfr: SAMSUNG

[TD='rowspan:2']$8,999.99
 

[/TD]




*Shipping:* Preorder    *Store Pickup:* Not Available


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24777755
> 
> 
> For an LCD, that is probably true, but a big part of that is the cost of the LED backlight, which probably makes up at least another 1/3 of the cost.
> 
> 
> For WOLED, the panel cost itself replaces both the LCD panel and the LED backlight, so there is no way the WOLED panel constitutes only 1/3 of the cost. 2/3 to 3/4 of the total cost of the TV is likely a more realistic estimate.



A quick search of my computer/Google didnt dig up the source but I am fairly sure that it included the cost of the LCD backlight (note it was pricing for the LCD module, not panel). LG Display does provide the completed module with backlight to some customers though I would guess that some also get the raw LCD panel.


Regardless though, I would wager quite a bit that LG Display isnt getting $3000 for an OLED module when the retail price is $4000. LG Display sells the module to LG Electronics which assembles the television, electronics, and speakers (though perhaps LGD does this step as well) . LGE adds on their margins before selling it to the retailer which adds on their margins. While net margins for LGE might be 5%, the gross margins have to be significantly higher. Retailer net margins are also terrible but they have to pay for their salaries, inventory, shipping, etc. Both Amazon and Best Buy have gross margins above 20%. Amazon is in the high 20's.


Work backwards and I dont think LG Display can be getting more than half of the final retail price and even there, some of the costs wont scale directly with size.


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020#post_24777534
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> 
> That seems like it almost has to be pricing to clear inventory. It has been really unclear though whether LG is planning on launching a 2nd gen 1080p television. They showed it at CES, but we havent heard much until the WSJ article on Wednesday. Maybe the launch of the new 55" model will be in the next month or two?



Some retailers i talked to in Canada are expecting it in July, also B&H in the Sates listed in on their site, with ETA June 30, so we should see it soon


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24778631
> 
> 
> Some retailers i talked to in Canada are expecting it in July, also B&H in the Sates listed in on their site, with ETA June 30, so we should see it soon



Thanks. I just took a look and B&H lists the 55ec9300 as a 1080p television shipping in June.


My reading of LG's CES press release was that the 55ec9300 was going to be 4K. I had thought that the 55eb9600 was going to be the new 1080p model.


> Quote:
> SEOUL, Jan. 2, 2014 — LG Electronics (LG) is proud to present the most comprehensive OLED TV lineup on the planet at the International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas from January 7-10, 2014. *Visitors to the company’s booth at CES will have the opportunity to see the world’s largest ULTRA HD CURVED OLED (model 77EC9800) TV along with the company’s various 55- and 65-inch OLED TV models. Also on display will be the elegant GALLERY OLED TV (model 55EA8800) and the CURVED OLED TV (model 55EB9600) with its friendly environmental footprint.*
> 
> 
> “All of the exceptional OLED models we’re showcasing at CES 2014 offer the ultimate in picture quality and refined, modern aesthetics,” said In-kyu Lee, Senior Vice President and head of the TV Division at LG Electronics’ Home Entertainment Company. “Driving the evolution of television into the next generation, LG will continue to employ its technological and design expertise to bring impressive OLED TVs to market.”
> 
> 
> Unmatched Picture Quality
> *The 55-, 65- and 77-inch ULTRA HD CURVED OLED TVs combine LG’s proprietary WRGB OLED technology and 4K Ultra HD screen resolution (3840 x 2160 pixels)* for a whole new level of picture quality and viewer immersion. Filling the viewer’s field of vision with gorgeous, high-contrast images, the 77EC9800’s sensually curved screen is supported by a beautiful leaf-shaped stand. A standout product, the company’s mammoth 77-inch model is the recipient of the highly-prized Best of Innovations at the 2014 CES Innovations Awards.
> 
> 
> The color temperature of each pixel on the enormous 77-inch display is automatically controlled by the LG Color Refiner, resulting in superior consistency and balance. The TV’s infinite contrast ratio is adeptly managed by the company’s High Dynamic Range (HDR) algorithm. The striking ULTRA HD CURVED OLED TV also boasts the eye-popping visuals of ULTRA CINEMA 3D. Thanks to film-type patterned retarder (FPR) technology and Ultra HD resolution, the user can marvel at the most convincing 3D effects ever seen on a TV without having to endure distracting flickering or cross-talk.
> 
> 
> For more high resolution viewing options, the 77EC9800 has been equipped with LG’s own Tru-ULTRA HD Engine Pro, which can upscale SD, HD or Full HD content into breathtaking near-4K picture quality. The results are rendered even more seamless due to the error-correction capabilities of the enhanced super resolution algorithm to prevent blurred image from the upscaling process. The TV also incorporates Motion Estimation Motion Compensation (MEMC) to make the onscreen action appear smoother, clearer and more realistic.
> 
> 
> Consumers will appreciate that LG’s ULTRA HD CURVED OLED TVs are future-proof, able to decode broadcast signals in both H.264 and HEVC H.265 formats, at 30p or 60p. A convenient built-in decoder makes it possible to display Ultra HD content from external devices connected via the TV’s HDMI, USB or LAN ports. Model 77EC9800 also incorporates LG’s newest smart TV platform, enabling consumers to enjoy a refreshingly simple and intuitive user experience.
> 
> 
> Creative Concepts, Award Winning Products
> 
> Beautiful to behold, hidden behind the elegant frame of the GALLERY OLED TV is the Canvas Speaker, a powerful 2.2 channel, 100W forward-facing setup that guarantees a superb auditory experience unavailable on any other OLED TV. Honored with a CES 2014 Innovations Award, the artistically inspired EA8800 is the only unit that can make an average living room feel like an actual art gallery. The unit’s unique eGallery feature provides a variety of display modes that can be activated to create a specific mood. For instance, Gallery Mode turns the TV into a picture frame displaying some of the world’s most famous works of art while Healing & Remembering Mode helps to create a warm and inviting atmosphere through mood-lifting sounds and images.
> 
> *LG’s latest CURVED OLED TV, the 55EB9600, is a highly efficient, environmentally-friendly product. Demonstrating the company’s commitment to responsible manufacturing, the model is made with more recyclable materials and considerably fewer parts than its predecessor. Lightweight and energy conscious, the 55EB9600 has received a CES 2014 Innovations Award for its eco-friendliness and superior build quality.
> *


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24778761
> 
> 
> Thanks. I just took a look and B&H lists the 55ec9300 as a 1080p television shipping in June.
> 
> 
> My reading of LG's CES press release was that the 55ec9300 was going to be 4K. I had thought that the 55eb9600 was going to be the new 1080p model.



Maybe this will clarify things?

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.php?subaction=showfull&id=1396941506 


> Quote:
> USA: LG’s 4K OLEDs will be available in 55, 65, and 77” called 55EC9700, 65EC9700, and 77EC9800.



I have no idea where this 55ec9300 model has come from but it's only referenced by B&H. I think the "EC" refers to model year. The 9300 could mean a step-down model from the current 9800 1080p. Maybe with transparent speakers removed?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24778214
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24777755
> 
> 
> For an LCD, that is probably true, but a big part of that is the cost of the LED backlight, which probably makes up at least another 1/3 of the cost.
> 
> 
> For WOLED, the panel cost itself replaces both the LCD panel and the LED backlight, so there is no way the WOLED panel constitutes only 1/3 of the cost. 2/3 to 3/4 of the total cost of the TV is likely a more realistic estimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A quick search of my computer/Google didnt dig up the source but I am fairly sure that it included the cost of the LCD backlight (note it was pricing for the LCD module, not panel). LG Display does provide the completed module with backlight to some customers though I would guess that some also get the raw LCD panel.
> 
> 
> Regardless though, I would wager quite a bit that LG Display isnt getting $3000 for an OLED module when the retail price is $4000. LG Display sells the module to LG Electronics which assembles the television, electronics, and speakers (though perhaps LGD does this step as well) . LGE adds on their margins before selling it to the retailer which adds on their margins. While net margins for LGE might be 5%, the gross margins have to be significantly higher. Retailer net margins are also terrible but they have to pay for their salaries, inventory, shipping, etc. Both Amazon and Best Buy have gross margins above 20%. Amazon is in the high 20's.
> 
> 
> Work backwards and I dont think LG Display can be getting more than half of the final retail price and even there, some of the costs wont scale directly with size.
Click to expand...


I don't see much point in trying to reverse-engineer the entire chain. We can gain insight as to the relative cost of the 65" and 77" WOLED panels compared to the 55" based on stated yields (assuming they are accurate). To go from WOLED panel costs to OLED TV costs, we need to wave our hands in the air and speculate about things we know nothing about (though it is true that after the WOLED panel or the LCD+BLU panel costs, much is similar between WOLED and LED/LCD TVs).


And then there is this (which may or may not be accurate):  


That data (which I believe is from DsiplayMate) indicates that the BLU+processor boards actually costs a bit more than the LCD and that the LCD panel alone makes up a bit over 1/3 of the cost of an LED/LCD TV.


For the AMOLED, the 'Module Materials' are significantly lower than in the case of the LED/LCD (which makes sense because there is no BLU) and there are much higher costs for 'Depreciation', 'Personnel' and 'Production Expense' which can all be ignored as they are all a function of low volume and will compress to near-LCD levels when M2 is running at full capacity.


So this data from Q1'14 shows the WOLED panel being 2/4-3/4 of the total TV cost and if you compress the 'Depreciation', 'Personnel' and 'Production Expense' expenses, the WOLED panel is over 80% of the cost.


That was from Q1 when the WOLED panel alone was estimated to cost more than 3 times the cost of the equivalent LED/LCD TV. With the improvements in yields to 70% and then 80% there should have been significant decreases in the cost of the WOLED panel and hopefully DisplayMate will come out with a Q2 report soon to give us their swag of that.


p.s. the Displaymate data indicates that the LCD panel alone makes up about 1/3 of the cost of an LED/LCD TV and that the LCD & module (BLU+processor) together make up over 90% of the cost, all of which makes sense to me.


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24778825
> 
> 
> Maybe this will clarify things?
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.php?subaction=showfull&id=1396941506




Unless LG makes a press statement, we wont be sure, the recent WSJ article (tiled "At LG, More Bendable TVs Lie Straight Ahead"), which interviewed the head of LG's OLED television business mentioned this


> Quote:
> The new OLED sets that LG plans for this year will be 65-inch and 77-inch curved-screen models with ultra-high-definition resolution, and a 55-inch model with lower resolution. LG has yet to disclose how much they will cost.



so the 3 new panels they are referring to are likely the 65ec9700, 77ec9800 and either the 55ec9300 or the 55eb9600 that slacker mentioned



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24778825
> 
> 
> I have no idea where this 55ec9300 model has come from but it's only referenced by B&H. I think the "EC" refers to model year. The 9300 could mean a step-down model from the current 9800 1080p. Maybe with transparent speakers removed?



I saw two other retailers that also listed the 55ec9300, NCIX and Gibbys Electronics


----------



## tgm1024


Man, this thread just *flew* up to and by 10,000 posts, huh?


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24779011
> 
> 
> Man, this thread just _flew_ up to and by 10,000 posts, huh?



Thread was started on 5/24/06 and this post #10,063 is being posted on 5/31/14 - that's an average of close to 3.5 posts per day sustained over 2,929 consecutive days


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24779043
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24779011
> 
> 
> Man, this thread just _flew_ up to and by 10,000 posts, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thread was started on 5/24/06 and this post #10,063 is being posted on 5/31/14 - that's an average of close to 3.5 posts per day sustained over 2,929 consecutive days
Click to expand...

with next to nothing happening in the first batch of years. ...


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24779268
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24779043
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24779011
> 
> 
> Man, this thread just _flew_ up to and by 10,000 posts, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thread was started on 5/24/06 and this post #10,063 is being posted on 5/31/14 - that's an average of close to 3.5 posts per day sustained over 2,929 consecutive days
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *with next to nothing happening in the first batch of years.* ...
Click to expand...


*Post # 8441 on 1/28/14:
*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8430#post_24273652
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *domm*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8400#post_24267407
> 
> 
> I went to the Vizio web site & looked around but I did not find anything regarding the P Series. They had an E & M series but no mention of a P Series?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vizio had a special site devoted to the 2014 Line-up announced at CES (including the P Series): http://ces.vizio.com/p-series.html#skip
> 
> 
> -fafrd
Click to expand...


Since my first post on the thread, we've been averaging over 13 posts per day










When the 4K models materialize later this year, I'm worried that the AVS system may get overwhelmed


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24778214
> 
> 
> A quick search of my computer/Google didnt dig up the source but I am fairly sure that it included the cost of the LCD backlight (note it was pricing for the LCD module, not panel). LG Display does provide the completed module with backlight to some customers though I would guess that some also get the raw LCD panel..



You are correct. Some LCD customers buy "raw panels" and many buy integrated modules, which include BLUs.


----------



## catonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24779011
> 
> 
> Man, this thread just _flew_ up to and by 10,000 posts, huh?



Never have so many said so much about so little.


----------



## 8mile13

Some comments on the (european) LG 55EA980W curved OLED at a UK 4K LED - Plasma - OLED Shootout on a _UK Forum:_ 

 



OLED has issues displaying the blue sky in some content, they were too dark and had a tinge of red.


OLED blacks the best.


OLED had the worst Whites. LG showed a reddish tinge to snow (the LG should be able to display perfect Whites, they might employed ABL to prevent the OLED from burning in).


OLED had the best colour, but struggled a bit with blues, with a purplish tinge.


OLED did Motion Resolution worst, 300 lines, with all motion processing turned off, and with motion processing to standard, 700 lines.


OLED had the worst screen uniformity, with bad DSE.


OLED had perfect Viewing Angles, even in extreme angles.




Contestants:

Panasonic AX802 4K Edge Lit LED

Samsung 65HU7500 and 65HU8500 (curved) series 4K Edge Lit LED

Sony 65X9005B 4K Edge Lit LED

LG 55EA980W (curved) OLED

Panasonic 65ZT65 Plasma



The Panasonic ZT65 won overall. Mark Henninger believes that the Samsung F8500 Plasma has a good chance winning the VE Shootout again.


----------



## Yappadappadu

No mention of the IR (bars, backplate) discussed in the 55EA980W thread? Or is that what they saw as DSE?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Yappadappadu*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020_60#post_24781453
> 
> 
> No mention of the IR (bars, backplate) discussed in the 55EA980W thread? Or is that what they saw as DSE?


 

How is the ZT65 different from the American versions?


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24781292
> 
> 
> Some comments on the (european) LG 55EA980W curved OLED at a UK 4K LED - Plasma - OLED Shootout on a _UK Forum:_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED has issues displaying the blue sky in some content, they were too dark and had a tinge of red.
> 
> 
> OLED blacks the best.
> 
> 
> OLED had the worst Whites. LG showed a reddish tinge to snow (the LG should be able to display perfect Whites, they might employed ABL to prevent the OLED from burning in).
> 
> 
> OLED had the best colour, but struggled a bit with blues, with a purplish tinge.



These aspects can easily be measured.


- Rich


----------



## Wizziwig

Overall it looks like the LG suffered because of poor motion and uniformity. The uniformity probably varies from unit-to-unit so they may have picked a particularly bad panel.


Still bad news for LG overall. People were expecting a slam-dunk win for OLED before the event. Things didn't turn out that way. It's going to be a tough road for LG selling these TVs. They really need 4K and larger sizes to at least level the playing field.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020_60#post_24781718
> 
> 
> Overall it looks like the LG suffered because of poor motion and uniformity. The uniformity probably varies from unit-to-unit so they may have picked a particularly bad panel.
> 
> 
> Still bad news for LG overall. People were expecting a slam-dunk win for OLED before the event. Things didn't turn out that way. It's going to be a tough road for LG selling these TVs. They really need 4K and larger sizes to at least level the playing field.


 

I don't think the average person knows or cares about these shootouts.  This is all heady videophile stuff, and if the average consumer were concerned with this stuff then Vizio would never have survived.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24782191
> 
> 
> I don't think the average person knows or cares about these shootouts.  This is all heady videophile stuff, and if the average consumer were concerned with this stuff then Vizio would never have survived.



I agree but the fact that OLED wasn't able to impress videophiles (who can appreciate what OLED brings) does not bode well for winning over the average joe. The average person is even less likely to notice OLED vs. the cheap LEDs.


I think this is the primary reason for the continuing price cuts. Most people just can't see why they should pay a higher premium price for it.


----------



## Vegas oled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24782549
> 
> 
> I agree but the fact that OLED wasn't able to impress videophiles (who can appreciate what OLED brings) does not bode well for winning over the average joe. The average person is even less likely to notice OLED vs. the cheap LEDs.
> 
> I think this is the primary reason for the continuing price cuts. Most people just can't see why they should pay a higher premium price for it.



The OLED received 7 out of 17 votes for best tV. The OLED is 55" and curved and it was going against a World Champion that was 65" and flat and the current belt holder. A 65" flat OLED would do much better against the Champion.


----------



## Orbitron

 http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/result-201406013793.htm


----------



## vinnie97

Besides, it failed the technical motion test (well known according to reviews), but many attendees were impressed with how little that affected actual content, which also correlates with Conan's findings and is likely due to the fast response times.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24782580
> 
> 
> Besides, it failed the technical motion test (well known according to reviews), but many attendees were impressed with how little that affected actual content, which also correlates with Conan's findings and is likely due to the fast response times.



Good point.


----------



## Wizziwig

It's a good thing the winner is not actually available for sale anymore. I guess OLED wins by default?


I agree it wasn't totally fair. That's why I said they needed a 4K, 65" OLED to level the field. Size trumps everything for many people.


I'm also glad they called out the uniformity issue. Hopefully LG is aware they need to improve it.


----------



## Rudy1

Is there absolutely NOTHING else??? Are we really stuck with LCDs if manufacturers fail to achieve the production quotas necessary to bring prices down enough to make these sets an option for the average consumer? I like what little I've seen of these sets, but from what I've read here and in trade publications there is ample room for improvement. I just wonder if they'll keep throwing money at a technology that has turned out to be too expensive and too flawed to be considered a viable successor to the best plasma panels ever produced. Can LCDs be made any better than the current state of the art?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020_60#post_24782580
> 
> 
> Besides, it failed the technical motion test (well known according to reviews), but many attendees were impressed with how little that affected actual content, which also correlates with Conan's findings and is likely due to the fast response times.


 

Yes.  And it furthers my belief that the *tests themselves that we place so much faith in* might *themselves* be based on something errant.  Or missing the mark.  I understand and am a believer of the SnH issue, but I don't believe that our tests are 100% aligned with how we actually see, let alone perceive.

 

We need to take people like Conan into account and to take people like Conan into account shouldn't be an exercise in saying "well some people are ok with sample and hold and others are ok with slow response", true though it may be.  What it *should* prompt us to do is say "we need to re-examine what we're assuming to be true".  And that means *all* of those tests that we're so convinced of.

 

Because I think we're definitely missing something, and it isn't because some people are outliers.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24782580
> 
> 
> Besides, it failed the technical motion test (well known according to reviews), but many attendees were impressed with how little that affected actual content, which also correlates with Conan's findings and is likely due to the fast response times.



Mesmerised by the LG OLED's awesome dynamic range, _a few_ attendees commented that football was highly enjoyable on the TV dispite featuring the lowest motion resolution even with [TruMotion] engaged.


----------



## Vegas oled

Th


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24782897
> 
> 
> Mesmerised by the LG OLED's awesome dynamic range, _a few_ attendees commented that football was highly enjoyable on the TV dispite featuring the lowest motion resolution even with [TruMotion] engaged.


. That is what contrast gives you, a better picture. The experts have been saying that black levels and contrast add more to a picture than resolution and everyone call them 4k haters.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegas oled*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24782923
> 
> 
> Th
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24782897
> 
> 
> Mesmerised by the LG OLED's awesome dynamic range, _a few_ attendees commented that football was highly enjoyable on the TV dispite featuring the lowest motion resolution even with [TruMotion] engaged.
> 
> 
> 
> . That is what contrast gives you, a better picture. The experts have been saying that black levels and contrast add more to a picture than resolution and everyone call them 4k haters.
Click to expand...

When i watch TV there is Always some motion going on. When that doesn't look to well it is over for me no matter how awesome contrast is ..


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10000_100#post_24782897
> 
> 
> Mesmerised by the LG OLED's awesome dynamic range, _a few_ attendees commented that football was highly enjoyable on the TV dispite featuring the lowest motion resolution even with [TruMotion] engaged.


OK, but no comments were elicited (or at least shared in the writeup) by the other viewers. Perhaps they made no remarks whatsoever.


----------



## Vegas oled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24782951
> 
> 
> When i watch TV there is Always some motion going on. When that doesn't look to well it is over for me no matter how awesome contrast is ..


Then purchase an LED that looks loses in the most important areas. There is always plasma but LCD is not getting any better even with 4K.


----------



## Vegas oled

The Bottom line is OLED received 7 votes for the best TV and 4K LCD-LED none. Sell it how you want but LCD is a poor performer.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegas oled*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24782971
> 
> 
> The Bottom line is OLED received 7 votes for the best TV and 4K LCD-LED none. Sell it how you want but LCD is a poor performer.


I'm not selling anything. When motion sucks it is over period


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10000_100#post_24782851
> 
> 
> Yes.  And it furthers my belief that the _tests themselves that we place so much faith in_ might _*themselves*_ be based on something errant.  Or missing the mark.  I understand and am a believer of the SnH issue, but I don't believe that our tests are 100% aligned with how we actually see, let alone perceive.
> 
> 
> We need to take people like Conan into account and to take people like Conan into account shouldn't be an exercise in saying "well some people are ok with sample and hold and others are ok with slow response", true though it may be.  What it *should* prompt us to do is say "we need to re-examine what we're assuming to be true".  And that means _all_ of those tests that we're so convinced of.
> 
> 
> Because I think we're definitely missing something, and it isn't because some people are outliers.


Quoted for truth since the thread is headed toward the gutter of late.










Do moving images look blurrier on my LG OLED than my ZT60? I would have to say yes, but this is expected behavior, and I think there is some validity to the test used at the shootout based on this observation. Does it detract from the overall visual experience that the LG provides with its infinite contrast ratio in comparison to the ZT60? I would honestly have to say no.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10020_60#post_24782566
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/result-201406013793.htm


I don't think the contrast comparison was fair. They calibrated all the sets to have the same peak white level, which means the contrast comparison was in effect really just a comparison of black levels. This just cancels out the advantage the LCD/LED sets have in contrast due to greater brightness, and it counts only the contrast advantage of plasma/oled due to better black levels.


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783037
> 
> 
> I don't think the contrast comparison was fair. They calibrated all the sets to have the same peak white level, which means the contrast comparison was in effect really just a comparison of black levels. This just cancels out the advantage the LCD/LED sets have in contrast due to greater brightness, and it counts only the contrast advantage of plasma/oled due to better black levels.


Uh no... The white level of a LCD is set by adjusting the backlight. The contrast is the same regardless of the backlight setting.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Stereodude*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080_60#post_24783107
> 
> 
> Uh no... The white level of a LCD is set by adjusting the backlight. The contrast is the same regardless of the backlight setting.


Uh, maybe you're thinking of the the user "contrast" control? Contrast is the ratio of bright objects to dark ones in a scene. If you make an object brighter, by whatever means, then you increase its contrast with respect to other darker surrounding objects. Which user level control is used isn't relevant.


> Quote:
> Contrast is the difference in luminance and/or color that makes an object (or its representation in an image or display) distinguishable. In visual perception of the real world, contrast is determined by the difference in the color and brightness of the object and other objects within the same field of view.


from the Wikipedia article on "contrast".


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783203
> 
> 
> Uh, maybe you're thinking of the the user "contrast" control? Contrast is the ratio of bright objects to dark ones in a scene. If you make an object brighter, by whatever means, then you increase its contrast with respect to other darker surrounding objects. Which user level control is used isn't relevant.
> 
> from the Wikipedia article on "contrast".


It seems you don't understand how LCD technology works. The contrast ratio of a LCD panel is fixed. If it can do 3500:1 it does not matter if the white levels are 400nits or 120nits you still get 3500:1. The black level changes with the whites level at the same ratio.


This invalidates the claim you were trying to make earlier that calibrating the LCDs dimmer than they are capable limits their contrast ratio.


----------



## mo949

^ he might be thinking of ON OFF contrast. Although there's still no point in bemoaning that metric given how some TVs just turn OFF when sent an all black screen signal anyway.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Stereodude*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080_60#post_24783271
> 
> 
> It seems you don't understand how LCD technology works. The contrast ratio of a LCD panel is fixed. If it can do 3500:1 it does not matter if the white levels are 400nits or 120nits you still get 3500:1. The black level changes with the whites level at the same ratio.


Well, it doesn't, because the LEDs are dimmed differentially.


----------



## rightintel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10000_100#post_24783010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10000_100#post_24782851
> 
> 
> Yes.  And it furthers my belief that the _tests themselves that we place so much faith in_ might _*themselves*_ be based on something errant.  Or missing the mark.  I understand and am a believer of the SnH issue, but I don't believe that our tests are 100% aligned with how we actually see, let alone perceive.
> 
> 
> We need to take people like Conan into account and to take people like Conan into account shouldn't be an exercise in saying "well some people are ok with sample and hold and others are ok with slow response", true though it may be.  What it *should* prompt us to do is say "we need to re-examine what we're assuming to be true".  And that means _all_ of those tests that we're so convinced of.
> 
> 
> Because I think we're definitely missing something, and it isn't because some people are outliers.
> 
> 
> 
> Quoted for truth since the thread is headed toward the gutter of late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do moving images look blurrier on my LG OLED than my ZT60? I would have to say yes, but this is expected behavior, and I think there is some validity to the test used at the shootout based on this observation. Does it detract from the overall visual experience that the LG provides with its infinite contrast ratio in comparison to the ZT60? I would honestly have to say no.
Click to expand...


It's EXTREMELY difficult to enjoy great contrast(or any picture qualities) when any substantive blur is in present. It's just so hard not to notice. I certainly notice poor contrast, but it's not nearly as distracting as something that distorts the actual image.


----------



## vinnie97

Once you achieve infinite contrast, there is obviously not a consensus on that point (especially when it relates to more natural-looking forms of blur). "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."


----------



## Vegas oled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783552
> 
> 
> It's EXTREMELY difficult to enjoy great contrast(or any picture qualities) when any substantive blur is in present. It's just so hard not to notice. I certainly notice poor contrast, but it's not nearly as distracting as something that distorts the actual image.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783552
> 
> 
> It's EXTREMELY difficult to enjoy great contrast(or any picture qualities) when any substantive blur is in present. It's just so hard not to notice. I certainly notice poor contrast, but it's not nearly as distracting as something that distorts the actual image.



All I know is when I tried out the Sony XBR65X850B, I really wanted to like it and the majority time I did. But when the left side about 1" all the way down the screen was brighter than anything else with darker images I could not watch it. Then from 10 feet away I could actually see an LED on the bottom left lighting like a Xmas tree bulb leaving a flash-lighting effect I was even more upset. The final straw was the set just could not display a dark black screen. Now the 900B and 950B I am sure are better but I realized 4K has done nothing to improve upon the challenge of trying to light a TV screen with tiny LED bulbs.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegas oled*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783595
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783552
> 
> 
> It's EXTREMELY difficult to enjoy great contrast(or any picture qualities) when any substantive blur is in present. It's just so hard not to notice. I certainly notice poor contrast, but it's not nearly as distracting as something that distorts the actual image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783552
> 
> 
> It's EXTREMELY difficult to enjoy great contrast(or any picture qualities) when any substantive blur is in present. It's just so hard not to notice. I certainly notice poor contrast, but it's not nearly as distracting as something that distorts the actual image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I know is when I tried out the Sony XBR65X850B, I really wanted to like it and the majority time I did. But when the left side about 1" all the way down the screen was brighter than anything else with darker images I could not watch it. Then from 10 feet away I could actually see an LED on the bottom left lighting like a Xmas tree bulb leaving a flash-lighting effect I was even more upset. The final straw was the set just could not display a dark black screen. Now the 900B and 950B I am sure are better but *I realized 4K has done nothing to improve upon the challenge of trying to light a TV screen with tiny LED bulbs*.
Click to expand...


I would not have had to buy a 4K LED/LCD to figure that out. Contrast/backlight/local-dimming have nothing to do with the number of transmissive pixels filtering the light output.


Higher resolution is easier to sell on the showroom floor than better black levels and shadow detail and there is really not much more to it than that.


Heck, even curved screens appear to be easier to sell than better black levels and shadow detail (though I'm hoping that one dies a quick and quiet death).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24782191
> 
> 
> I don't think the average person knows or cares about these shootouts.  This is all heady videophile stuff, and if the average consumer were concerned with this stuff then Vizio would never have survived.



If OLEDs are not clearly superior, the idea of selling them at premium prices becomes especially absurd.


----------



## mo949




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783657
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10050#post_24782191
> 
> 
> I don't think the average person knows or cares about these shootouts.  This is all heady videophile stuff, and if the average consumer were concerned with this stuff then Vizio would never have survived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If OLEDs are not clearly superior, the idea of selling them at premium prices becomes especially absurd.
Click to expand...


Then it's absurd since you can interchange the words 4k, LCD, or Curves for the word 'OLEDs' in your statement.


Of course that just goes back to TGM's point rather nicely


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10000_100#post_24783657
> 
> 
> If OLEDs are not clearly superior, the idea of selling them at premium prices becomes especially absurd.


Fortunately, the attendees couldn't see any DSE on typical content and, lets face it, typical joes aren't going to analyze test patterns and gray slides. And it also turns out the motion blur didn't phase all of the attendees either, which should be even further improved for gen 2.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783720
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, the attendees couldn't see any DSE on typical content and, lets face it, typical joes aren't going to analyze test patterns and gray slides. And it also turns out the motion blur didn't phase all of the attendees either, which should be even further improved for gen 2.


With all due respect I feel somewhat beholden to point out the fact I've pointed out about 1000 posts ago that thalamus (the first thing and most important one average joe's brain does is motion possessing then goes geometry reconstruction and  then and only then croma (color) possessing)  possesses moving inputs in "scans" at 6-11ms (billions of ospins  are gathering data for about 6ms  for conversion into current and then that data gets sent it to thalamus in analog form) meaning if  one TV has .1ms  and the other  5ms response time (TNs less than 1ms and there's a few IPSs with RT under 6ms)  both TVs  have basically the same motion blur, however if TV flickers at the speed of light there's no motion blur for some reason...

 

*There's no way one can mitigate motion blur on OLEDs artifacts-free without introducing some form of pulse width modulation, period!*

 

Now a few things about plasma. The response time of one pulse in plasma is near to the speed of light meaning that once noble gases are excited they emit UV light which excites phosphors which in turn emit visible light  (all genius is simple, ain't it) and all this happens at the speed close to that of light.  That's exactly why human brains see one bright picture instead of a host of flickering ones. By the way I was always amazed at the fact that no one ever tried to pitch plasma by saying something like "speed of light fast" I bet that would catch average joe's attention (of course not taking into account the fact that phosphors decay at different rates) . Ultimately poor marketing and indifferent average joe killed plasma!

 

Here's a bit of info on ospins and I earnestly urge every one here to make their own research on how brains/eyes work to understand the reasoning behind flawed as they might be  motion "tests" for those tests don't  account for tastes







(which makes tastes the only variable in those tests)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opsin


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rightintel*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080_60#post_24783552
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10000_100#post_24783010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10000_100#post_24782851
> 
> 
> Yes.  And it furthers my belief that the *tests themselves that we place so much faith in* might *themselves* be based on something errant.  Or missing the mark.  I understand and am a believer of the SnH issue, but I don't believe that our tests are 100% aligned with how we actually see, let alone perceive.
> 
> 
> We need to take people like Conan into account and to take people like Conan into account shouldn't be an exercise in saying "well some people are ok with sample and hold and others are ok with slow response", true though it may be.  What it *should* prompt us to do is say "we need to re-examine what we're assuming to be true".  And that means *all* of those tests that we're so convinced of.
> 
> 
> Because I think we're definitely missing something, and it isn't because some people are outliers.
> 
> 
> 
> Quoted for truth since the thread is headed toward the gutter of late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do moving images look blurrier on my LG OLED than my ZT60? I would have to say yes, but this is expected behavior, and I think there is some validity to the test used at the shootout based on this observation. Does it detract from the overall visual experience that the LG provides with its infinite contrast ratio in comparison to the ZT60? I would honestly have to say no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's EXTREMELY difficult to enjoy great contrast(or any picture qualities) when any substantive blur is in present. It's just so hard not to notice. I certainly notice poor contrast, but it's not nearly as distracting as something that distorts the actual image.
Click to expand...

 

+1 for both of you.  Clarification: my complaint with the "tests" was not to do with the shootout....that's the only valid test for motion IMO because it's a bottom-line reaction, and bottom-line reactions are naturally the sum of all potential causes:
Sample and Hold
GtG
*something we don't yet even know we don't know*

 

My complaint that I put under the umbrella term "tests" has to do with how we're determining the effects of the terms above, and frankly, I'm losing faith that we can even properly test SnH or GtG, let alone that DKDK catch-all.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080_60#post_24783914
> 
> 
> Now a few things about plasma. The response time of one pulse in plasma is near to the speed of light meaning that once noble gases are excited they emit UV light which excites phosphors which in turn emit visible light  (all genius is simple, ain't it) and all this happens at the speed close to that of light.


 

Response time is time.  That is expressed in a unit of, for instance, seconds.  "The speed of light" is a speed.  That is in units of distance per time unit, as in meters per second.  No response time can be "near to the speed of light".  And frankly I can't even pretend to understand what you mean the moment you say things like this.


----------



## greenland

The Shootout results leave me with the strong impression that the OLED cup is more than half full. It actually was voted the best display that is now being manufactured, and only the defunct top of the line Panasonic Plasma did a bit better, in the opinions of the voters. Keep in mind that it took Panasonic many generations, and building on top of generations of Pioneer Plasma R&D,to get Plasma to the point where it edged out a first generation OLED display, so I feel rather positive about the prospects for future improvements in the next ten generations of OLED panels, provided that enough of each generation is sold to keep them in production.


Bottom line is OLED routed all the 4K LCD panels, and it does not have to compete for sales against Plasma.


Even at this stage, I would rather own and OLED display than any of the 4k LCD competition.


----------



## Rudy1

*DOWN BUT NOT OUT...*

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/oled-tvs-arent-dead/#!TDPsB


----------



## Chronoptimist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10100_100#post_24784251
> 
> 
> Bottom line is OLED routed all the 4K LCD panels, and it does not have to compete for sales against Plasma.
> 
> 
> Even at this stage, I would rather own and OLED display than any of the 4k LCD competition.


Keep in mind that all of the LCDs on display were edge-lit local dimming, rather than the high-end full array local dimming sets from Sony and Panasonic.


There also seems to have been a few things overlooked like the forced noise reduction on the LG OLEDs, or the motion handling problems. (beside the low motion resolution)


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783914
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect I feel somewhat beholden to point out the fact I've pointed out about 1000 posts ago that thalamus (the first thing and most important one average joe's brain does is motion possessing then goes geometry reconstruction and  then and only then croma (color) possessing)  possesses moving inputs in "scans" at 6-11ms (billions of ospins  are gathering data for about 6ms  for conversion into current and then that data gets sent it to thalamus in analog form) meaning if  one TV has .1ms  and the other  5ms response time (TNs less than 1ms and there's a few IPSs with RT under 6ms)  both TVs  have basically the same motion blur, however if TV flickers at the speed of light there's no motion blur for some reason...
> 
> *There's no way one can mitigate motion blur on OLEDs artifacts-free without introducing some form of pulse width modulation, period!*
> 
> 
> Now a few things about plasma. The response time of one pulse in plasma is near to the speed of light meaning that once noble gases are excited they emit UV light which excites phosphors which in turn emit visible light  (all genius is simple, ain't it) and all this happens at the speed close to that of light.  That's exactly why human brains see one bright picture instead of a host of flickering ones. By the way I was always amazed at the fact that no one ever tried to pitch plasma by saying something like "speed of light fast" I bet that would catch average joe's attention (of course not taking into account the fact that phosphors decay at different rates) . Ultimately poor marketing and indifferent average joe killed plasma!
> 
> 
> Here's a bit of info on ospins and I earnestly urge every one here to make their own research on how brains/eyes work to understand the reasoning behind flawed as they might be  motion "tests" for those tests don't  account for tastes (which makes tastes the only variable in those tests)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opsin



With all due respect, this sounds contradictory. First you say that the average Joe processes motion first and with primary importance, and then you say he killed plasma. If the average Joe's brain is so sensitive to motion processing in exactly the way you described, then he would have picked the superior format en masse subconsciously and it would be LCD dying, not plasma. If there are different tastes, and many still voted for OLED over plasma then it makes all this a non sequitur, and surely only taste _should_ determine the test's outcome. I mean I'm far pickier than the average Joe, while clearly not as technically knowledgeable as you, and my eyes prefer OLED to plasma if only by a margin (and when not afflicted by panel issues), as do many others.I see the motion as above average with only a small amount of de-blur applied, not accounting for any of that technical reasoning.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24784170
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Response time is time.  That is expressed in a unit of, for instance, seconds.  "The speed of light" is a speed.  That is in units of distance per time unit, as in meters per second.  No response time can be "near to the speed of light".  And frankly I can't even pretend to understand what you mean the moment you say things like this.


I understand it is very easy to get totally lost in semantics, but please bear with me.

 

*the speed of light is absolute. There's nothing that can happen faster than the speed of light. *

 

What I meant by speed of light fast was that one pulse has an unmeasurably low response "time" i.e one pulse happens in a ,lets say, yoctosecond or in other words very fast. (not taking into account the fact that phosphors decay at different rates, but that's a different story)


----------



## tgm1024


^^^And the speed of light being absolute has nothing to do with it either.  I'm sure some physicists will argue with you on that point as well, but that's to the side of this conversation entirely.

 

And you have no understanding of speed.  Speed is *not* time.

 

And besides, all of the neurological effects have to travel across nerves which do not operate at the speed of light anyway.

 

You cannot throw enormous amounts of data out there, drop in wikipedia link after wikipedia link, in an effort to spin the argument into a puff of smoke and expect to not be called on it.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24784330
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, this sounds contradictory. First you say that the average Joe processes motion first and with primary importance, and then you say he killed plasma. If the average Joe's brain is so sensitive to motion processing in exactly the way you described, then he would have picked the superior format en masse subconsciously and it would be LCD dying, not plasma. If there are different tastes, and many still voted for OLED over plasma then it makes all this a non sequitur, and surely only taste *should* determine the test's outcome. I mean I'm far pickier than the average Joe, while clearly not as technically knowledgeable as you, and my eyes prefer OLED to plasma if only by a margin (and when not afflicted by panel issues), as do many others.I see the motion as above average with only a small amount of de-blur applied, not accounting for any of that technical reasoning.


There's no denying the fact that OLED is marginally better than plasma at this juncture and that OLED has all the chances to be way batter than plasma.

Well, from I've heard in my vision science class the motion processed in two steps and that it somehow explains everythin'. Unfortunately, these two steps are too dense for any one to really understand (too much psychobabble and unknown weird words. Apparently, there was never no need for any one to try and explain to any one else what motion is. Hell out of all languages I know only English has a neat dedicated word for "motion" the rest make use of moving, passing or concepts which are absent in English)


----------



## mo949




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24784467
> 
> 
> *the speed of light is absolute. There's nothing that can happen faster than the speed of light. *



^ minus that whole quantum entanglement thingy


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24784549
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^And the speed of light being absolute has nothing to do with it either.  I'm sure some physicists will argue with you on that point as well, but that's to the side of this conversation entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> And you have no understanding of speed.  Speed is *not* time.
> 
> 
> 
> And besides, all of the neurological effects have to travel across nerves which do not operate at the speed of light anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot throw enormous amounts of data out there, drop in wikipedia link after wikipedia link, in an effort to spin the argument into a puff of smoke and expect to not be called on it.


All you say it is true. *all of the neurological effects (what ever that means) have to travel across nerves which do not operate at the speed of light anyway .* Of course electrons don't travel at the speed of light. They have mass.

 

By speed of light fast I meant lightning fast (god damned semantics can be really obfuscatingly confusing at times) .

 

Perhaps just perhaps, I'm using "foreign" concepts to an English man to describe the fact that plasma's one pulse is "lightning fast", but a host of pulses at 96Hz is ~10ms fast.

 

Here's some food for your thought:

 how come we can see motion blur on OLEDs with their less than 1ms "response time" and why we can't see any motion blur on plasmas with ~10ms at 96Hz,huh (retinal smearing my ass)? Why can't we see flickering past 100Hz on CRTs? Do brains adapt to "motion blur" like they do with colors (color constancy) and orientation (inverted vision and such)? Why can't our brains adapt to motion blur? . Why do opsins convert "physical" data into analog and what purpose do they ultimately serve? How thalamus reacts to moving objects?  Why occipital lobe lights ups like an x-mas light when we see moving objects? How come we can't see bullet-fast objects (3000 miles per hour) up-close, but we can see them in distance (if they big enough)?  How come objects in distance seem to move slower than they are? What are the underpinnings in the brain that allow for this to happens *What are two step of motion processing in the brain? What's the difference between them?*

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mo949*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24784653
> 
> 
> 
> ^ minus that whole quantum entanglement thingy


http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/speed_of_light

 

high school physics

 

On the previous pages, relativity reigned supreme. Although we usually think of lengths and times as absolute, they turned out to be observer-dependent. On this page, the shoe is on the other foot. Ordinarily, we think of velocities as relative, but one of them *turns out to be absolute: the speed of light.*

 

It seems to be as though in high school the speed of light is absolute, but in the rest of the world it is not


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24784330
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, this sounds contradictory. First you say that the average Joe processes motion first and with primary importance, and then you say he killed plasma.


*Indifferent* average joe killed plasma! *Indifferent* joe doesn't care much for contrast, uniformity and motion handling. He is glad with blacks bright enough to read by with terrible clouding and very poor like less 100 poor contrast ratio, still and all even indiferrent joe finds plasma's motion handling superior to be on the subconscious level...


----------



## mo949

^ but if you make the bezel really skinny, put big 4K signs up, and advertise SmartApps on top of them you probably could charge him another 1-2k


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080_60#post_24784744
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24784549
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^And the speed of light being absolute has nothing to do with it either.  I'm sure some physicists will argue with you on that point as well, but that's to the side of this conversation entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> And you have no understanding of speed.  Speed is *not* time.
> 
> 
> 
> And besides, all of the neurological effects have to travel across nerves which do not operate at the speed of light anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot throw enormous amounts of data out there, drop in wikipedia link after wikipedia link, in an effort to spin the argument into a puff of smoke and expect to not be called on it.
> 
> 
> 
> All you say it is true. *all of the neurological effects (what ever that means) have to travel across nerves which do not operate at the speed of light anyway .* Of course electrons don't travel at the speed of light. They have mass.
Click to expand...

 

Electrons?  Nerves are not electrical conduits.  They operate ionically by cascading sodium and potassium interchange.  It's usually reported that the best you'll get hovers around 300-350 feet per second, but other even significantly slower speeds exist.  Here is not a bad compilation of speeds (not wikipedia).  Not even a *tiny* fraction the speed of electron propagation.  You're way *way* off.

 


> Quote:
> 
> By speed of light fast I meant lightning fast (god damned semantics can be really obfuscatingly confusing at times) .


 

Except that you then went out of your way to then declare that the speed of light is "absolute".  Please, this is just ridiculous.  I can't imagine what else you're going to dig up next.


----------



## Theplague13

This thread has gone so far off the rails sometimes, teetering between informative and pretentious; applicable and nonsense....tv's and not tv's. It's a fine line, I guess.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24784910
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electrons?  Nerves are not electrical conduits.  They operate ionically by cascading sodium and potassium interchange.  It's usually reported that the best you'll get hovers around 300-350 feet per second, but other even significantly slower speeds exist.  Here is not a bad compilation of speeds (not wikipedia).  Not even a *tiny* fraction the speed of electron propagation.  You're way *way* off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you then went out of your way to then declare that the speed of light is "absolute".  Please, this is just ridiculous.  I can't imagine what else you're going to dig up next.


I can't believe this. I really can't.  Axons ( nerve fibers) are electric conduits. I use wiki links only because they are always the first thing that pop up and I'm too lazy to keep digging.

 

A *nerve* is an enclosed (in *Myelin)*, cable-like bundle of axons

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve

 

 

An *axon* (from Greek, axis) also known as a nerve fibre; is a long, slender projection of a nerve cell, or neuron , that typically *conducts electrical impulses *away from the neuron's cell body . The function of the axon is to transmit information to different neurons, muscles and glands.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axon

 

 

Human brains (nous)  like any other sophisticated enough device operate on current. Everything you eat gets converted into electricity at the end of the day. All the muscles and bones and organs are there only for one reason the need for electricity for your brains (nous) to be operable. I believe the thought of you having the body only as a secondary apparatus meant for producing electricity from handy items is blowing your mind right now, but it is the truth, nevertheless.

 

Yes you are right using an Arabic concept in English was wrong of me (some language just don't have such a neat distinction between speed and time as English does)


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10100_100#post_24785033
> 
> 
> This thread has gone so far off the rails sometimes, teetering between informative and pretentious; applicable and nonsense....tv's and not tv's. It's a fine line, I guess.


The infusion of pseudoscience is what caused it. I was only referring to audience impressions of motion blur across the techs and wasn't looking for a science lesson, though we are at AV*S* to be fair.







I still prefer the manner in which plasma addresses motion because it entails less blur, but I simultaneously find that the infinite contrast ratio afforded by the LG OLED largely negates the effect of added motion blur.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080_60#post_24785140
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24784910
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electrons?  Nerves are not electrical conduits.  They operate ionically by cascading sodium and potassium interchange.  It's usually reported that the best you'll get hovers around 300-350 feet per second, but other even significantly slower speeds exist.  Here is not a bad compilation of speeds (not wikipedia).  Not even a *tiny* fraction the speed of electron propagation.  You're way *way* off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you then went out of your way to then declare that the speed of light is "absolute".  Please, this is just ridiculous.  I can't imagine what else you're going to dig up next.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe this. I really can't.  Axons ( nerve fibers) are electric conduits. I use wiki links only because they are always the first thing that pop up and I'm too lazy to keep digging.
> 
> 
> 
> A *nerve* is an enclosed (in *Myelin)*, cable-like bundle of axons
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An *axon* (from Greek, axis) also known as a nerve fibre; is a long, slender projection of a nerve cell, or neuron , that typically *conducts electrical impulses *away from the neuron's cell body . The function of the axon is to transmit information to different neurons, muscles and glands.
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human brains (nous)  like any other sophisticated enough device operate on current. Everything you eat gets covered into electricity at the end of the day. All the muscles and bones and organs are there only for one reason the need for electricity for your brains (nous) to be operable. I believe the thought of you having the body only as a secondary apparatus meant for producing electricity from handy items is blowing your mind right now, but it is the truth, nevertheless.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right using an Arabic concept in English was wrong of me (some language just don't have such a neat distinction between speed and time as English does)
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be a bit confused about how brain works
Click to expand...

 

I'm afraid you have a very limited understanding of what is happening here.  That current you're talking about is are likely the action potentials, and those are *not* the nerve signals.  The nerve signals are managed by ions.

 

Look further down under the category of classifications.  At that point you'll see a chart on *conduction velocity*.  Everything depends upon the *signal* sent.  Note that those are very low numbers, of order 100m/sec or so.  Nothing at all close to electron propagation which is closer to a sizable fraction of the speed of light in a vacuum, depending upon your definition of electricity.

 

You're being confused by how the action potential flows and starts the nerve. The nerve is *not* a wire.  The optic nerve is *not* a wire.  And the myelin sheath directly controls the propagation speed through its gaps.  You're oversimplifying how the brain functions.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080_60#post_24785236
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10100_100#post_24785033
> 
> 
> This thread has gone so far off the rails sometimes, teetering between informative and pretentious; applicable and nonsense....tv's and not tv's. It's a fine line, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> The infusion of pseudoscience is what caused it. I was only referring to audience impressions of motion blur across the techs and wasn't looking for a science lesson, though we are at AV*S* to be fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still prefer the manner in which plasma addresses motion because it entails less blur, but I simultaneously find that the infinite contrast ratio afforded by the LG OLED largely negates the effect of added motion blur.
Click to expand...

 

Yeah, I too value the audience reaction over all.  But what I'm not willing to put up with is this one-man obfuscation campaign.  Speed of light being time, etc., etc., etc., diving further into territories that don't matter.  I feel compelled to answer the nonsense and as a result I further the OT divergence for which I am truly sorry.

 

I'm bowing out of this nonsense offramp of his now.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10100_100#post_24784308
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that all of the LCDs on display were edge-lit local dimming, rather than the high-end full array local dimming sets from Sony and Panasonic.
> 
> 
> There also seems to have been a few things overlooked like the forced noise reduction on the LG OLEDs, or the motion handling problems. (beside the low motion resolution)



And you should keep in mind that the LCD technology is a mature one, while the OLED in the shootout was just a first generation product, and it was not a 4K OLED which is coming later in the year.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080_60#post_24785347
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chronoptimist*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10100_100#post_24784308
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that all of the LCDs on display were edge-lit local dimming, rather than the high-end full array local dimming sets from Sony and Panasonic.
> 
> 
> There also seems to have been a few things overlooked like the forced noise reduction on the LG OLEDs, or the motion handling problems. (beside the low motion resolution)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you should keep in mind that the LCD technology is a mature one, while the OLED in the shootout was just a first generation product, and it was not a 4K OLED which is coming later in the year.
Click to expand...

 

I do agree with the glass more than half full analogy, and I also think that LCD has been pushed just about as far as it can go.  I honestly can't see PQ getting better, haloing getting better from zones, static contrast ratio getting much better, etc., etc., etc, where with OLED I get two senses:

 

1. That if it weren't for the fact that manufacturers are so compelled (understandably) to release a new model every single year, that perhaps we'd see more stable incremental improvements.  (Just a guess).  And

2. They're closing in rapidly.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24785247
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid you have a very limited understanding of what is happening here.  That current you're talking about is are likely the action potentials, and those are *not* the nerve signals.
> 
> 
> 
> Look further down under the category of classifications.  At that point you'll see a chart on *conduction velocity*.  Everything depends upon the *signal* sent.  Note that those are very low numbers, of order 100m/sec or so.  Nothing at all close to electron propagation which is closer to a sizable fraction of the speed of light in a vacuum, depending upon your definition of electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> You're being confused by how the action potential flows and starts the nerve. The nerve is *not* a wire.  The optic nerve is *not* a wire.  And the myelin sheath directly controls the propagation speed through its gaps.  You're oversimplifying how the brain functions.


You are forgetting that the signal has to be converted into analog form to be sent (you seem to be forgetting that the signal has to be analog to be processed, too) and converting the signal takes time.. Sodium and potassium simply create voltage to send an electric impulse.  Action potential refers to the spike of electricity or electric impulse.  *The conversion takes time* *Sodium potassium channels opening and closing  to generate action potential (voltages) take time generating electric potential takes time etc. that's what limits conduction velocities .*

 

I don't think you get what action potential really is

 

Action potential in layman's terms is an "event" of creating an electric impulse and of course it takes time to create an impulse

 

Saying that the electrons (electric current) that result from ionization (which takes its sweet time) propagate at speeds as low as 100m/sec doesn't make any sense to me. *Just think for yourself how can electrons propagate at such speed? *


----------



## mo949

How about we avoid all this science nonsense and do what the politicians do and keep the reading at a 6th grade level or lower? That way we can get back to slinging the **** and watching TVs


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783914
> 
> *There's no way one can mitigate motion blur on OLEDs artifacts-free without introducing some form of pulse width modulation, period!*


I guess compression of the emission time per unique frame can be interpreted as a type of PWM. Otherwise your statement seems false to me.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783914
> 
> 
> Now a few things about plasma. The response time of one pulse in plasma is near to the speed of light meaning that once noble gases are excited they emit UV light which excites phosphors which in turn emit visible light  (all genius is simple, ain't it) and all this happens at the speed close to that of light.  That's exactly why human brains see one bright picture instead of a host of flickering ones. By the way I was always amazed at the fact that no one ever tried to pitch plasma by saying something like "speed of light fast" I bet that would catch average joe's attention (of course not taking into account the fact that phosphors decay at different rates) .


You are way off here. Ignoring phosphor decay as you say, even the response time of the glow discharge is delayed relative to application of voltage. If you take into account the rise time of the phosphors the response is in the milliseconds.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783914
> 
> 
> how come we can see motion blur on OLEDs with their less than 1ms "response time" and why we can't see any motion blur on plasmas with ~10ms at 96Hz,huh (retinal smearing my ass)?


The answer is weighted subfields vs a hold display.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24785689
> 
> 
> 
> I guess compression of the emission time per unique frame can be interpreted as a type of PWM. Otherwise your statement seems false to me.
> 
> You are way off here. Ignoring phosphor decay as you say, even the response time of the glow discharge is delayed relative to *application of voltage*. If you take into account the rise time of the phosphors the response is in the milliseconds.
> 
> The answer is weighted subfields vs a hold display.


I don't really understand what "I guess compression of the emission time per unique frame can be interpreted as a type of PWM" means.

  should you care to elaborate, please.

Voltage? Are you For Real







 Voltage doesn't make any things glow at all as a matter of fact there's no even one sophisticated enough electronic device that run on voltage .  Some one about 500 posts ago here said *no current no nothin'.*

 

Here's a little heads-up for you photons move at the frickin' speed of light, electrons move at the speed close to that of light now put two and two together and get the "response time(please note I use the phrase response time for the lack of a better word, here) " of a single pulse. Here's the picture for you there are holes and there are electrons to feel them in and that's how photons are born.

 

Don't you think *tgm1024* would call me out on that if I was wrong about it? Hell 60% of all of my posts are me and *tgm1024* calling each other out on the most trivial stuff.

 

You seem to be confusing CRTs and Plasmas. Rise time (green) on CRT was 10ms if memory serves right.


----------



## fafrd

Back OT - I just fount this: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140529PD216.html 


"Digitimes Research: Ultra HD TV panel shipments expected to reach 17.83 million units in 2014


Tony Huang, DIGITIMES Research, Taipei [Thursday 29 May 2014]


Ultra HD TV panel shipments are expected to reach 17.83 million units in 2014, up 475% on year, according to Digitimes Research.


The average Ultra HD TV panel size shipped in 2014 is expected to be 50.8-inch, while the average-size LCD TV panel is expected to be 39.8-inch.


Taiwan makers have been responsible for most Ultra HD TV panel shipments in the past but Samsung Display and LG Display are expected to hold almost a 40% share in 2014.


Ultra HD TV panel shipments are expected to reach 72.5 million in 2017, with most 50-inch and above size TVs expected to be Ultra HD, added Digitimes Research."


If true, this would mean that UHD shipments will have grown to account for 7-9% of the flat-panel TV market in a little over a year (depending on whether you believe there will be 250M or only 200M flat panels TVs sold this year).


By way of comparison, LGs M2 manufacturing line at 100% yield and producing only 55" panels would only be able to make 1.9M TVs per year (less that 1% of the overall TV market).


The forecast for 2017 would mean that about 1 out of every 3 TVs sold would be 4K by then, and this seems exceedingly unrealistic unless the cost premium for 4K versus 1080p drops to $0 and 4K technology penetrates down to much smaller screen sizes.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mo949*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080_60#post_24785473
> 
> 
> How about we avoid all this science nonsense and do what the politicians do and keep the reading at a 6th grade level or lower? That way we can get back to slinging the **** and watching TVs


 

LOL....admirable goal.  {chuckle}...Don't worry about me in all that....I blocked him back when I said I was out.  I have no clue *what* he's writing or if he's writing anything at all.  That "peace of mind" addon is pretty cool that way.


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24785946
> 
> 
> I don't really understand what "I guess compression of the emission time per unique frame can be interpreted as a type of PWM" means.
> 
> should you care to elaborate, please.


The compression of the display hold-time through various means. This information is ubiquitous in the scientific literature so you can look it up.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24785946
> 
> 
> Voltage? Are you For Real


Yes, yes I am.


 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24785946
> 
> 
> Voltage doesn't make any things glow...


I don't recall saying it did? When the targeted pixel is turned on (i.e. - voltage applied) there is a delay until glow discharge (ionization) of the gas occurs. (known as discharge-delay). Again, in the literature so look it up. So yes, your assertions about Plasma response times are way off (and quite silly BTW).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24785946
> 
> 
> Here's a little heads-up for you photons move at the frickin' speed of light, electrons move at the speed close to that of light now put two and two together and get the "response time(please note I use the phrase response time for the lack of a better word, here) " of a single pulse. Here's the picture for you there are holes and there are electrons to feel them in and that's how photons are born.


You can't speak this way and expect to be taken seriously. Pretty much everything you have stated about response time and how Plasma displays operate relative to response time is false.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24785946
> 
> 
> You seem to be confusing CRTs and Plasmas. Rise time (green) on CRT was 10ms if memory serves right.


Not at all. If I did I would not have a job for very long. BTW, CRT rise times are in the microseconds and the fall times are much shorter than PDP phosphors. IIRC around 1ms.


----------



## fafrd

Looks like LG is going to be showing the 55", 65" and 77" 4K products tomorrow at SID 2014 in San Diego: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140529VL200.html 


It also appears that they are shadowing Samsung in terms of introducing curved LCD TVs:


"*On exhibit will be 55-, 65- and 77-inch Ultra HD curved OLED TV panels* in addition to *65- and 105-inch Ultra HD curved LCD TV panels based on IPS technology* that achieve wide viewing angles without color distortion when viewed from the side."


----------



## Theplague13

Only problem is we all know those tv's exist and will look great already, panel issues undoubtedly not popping up at such an event. So what they _need_ to tell us is the pricing!


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24786702
> 
> 
> Only problem is we all know those tv's exist and will look great already, panel issues undoubtedly not popping up at such an event. So what they _need_ to tell us is the pricing!



Also more detailed specs and availability would be nice


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24786702
> 
> 
> Only problem is we all know those tv's exist and will look great already, panel issues undoubtedly not popping up at such an event. So what they _need_ to tell us is the pricing!



I hear ya' - if they expect to be launching 'in Q3' they better at least be getting pricing information out before the end of Q2.


Maybe they are waiting to see where Vizio prices the 65" R Series


----------



## fafrd

Just found this that I had not seen before: http://olednet.com/eng/sub02.php?mid=1&r=view&uid=117&ctg1=3 


Makes is sound like a year ago, LG was only able to produce one 55" WOLEDs per half-panel on M2 pilot line (due to 'low uniformity of oxide TFT') where now they can produce a full 3 per half panel.


Price forecasts have been tracking pretty accurately up to now and indicate that once the 55" 4K WOLED is out, the price of the 55" 1080p WOLED is expected to drop to $3000...


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24786812
> 
> 
> Just found this that I had not seen before: http://olednet.com/eng/sub02.php?mid=1&r=view&uid=117&ctg1=3
> 
> 
> Makes is sound like a year ago, LG was only able to produce one 55" WOLEDs per half-panel on M2 pilot line (due to 'low uniformity of oxide TFT') where now they can produce a full 3 per half panel.
> 
> 
> Price forecasts have been tracking pretty accurately up to now and indicate that once the 55" 4K WOLED is out, the price of the 55" 1080p WOLED is expected to drop to $3000...



Another more interesting one from late last week: http://olednet.com/eng/sub02.php?mid=1&r=view&uid=143&ctg1=3 


"2014 is the turning point of OLED TV market


등록인 : OLEDNET | 2014.05.26


Chinese makers began selling FHD OLED TV at around $5,000 starting this month, though hope to use 4K OLED panel. A number of set makers from Japan and China is increasing who want to purchase the 4K OLED panel of LG Display (LGD). Especially for the Chinese market which accounts for more than 50% of the world market, about six companies such as Skyworth, TCL and Konka are planning to enter it, hence it is expected that the OLED TV market in China will expend in full-scale.


To satisfy such love calls of the clients, *LGD plans to produce the 4K OLED panel in M2 equipment*, which is under test operation, *from August*. It is projected that LGD will run evaporation system of the *M2 as the 4K OLED exclusive line* as a number of companies wish to produce the 4K OLED TV increases. Considering operation rate and yield rate, it is analyzed that about *100,000 of 55” 4K OLED panel can be supplied by the end of this year*. Thus, *it is expected to produce 65” and 77” OLED panels in M1 line*.


Sounds like they believe M2 will begin putting out product starting in August, but will be exclusively 55" 4K through the end of 2014 (over which time they are forecasting 100,000 to be produced).


According to this article, the 65" and 77" OLED will continue to be produced on the M1 pilot line (which would not be good for prices :-(


p.s. have to love the translation of 'customer demand' don't you


----------



## fafrd

The most sensible article I have found on the Sony/OLED initiative and evolution: http://olednet.com/eng/sub02.php?mid=1&r=view&uid=141&ctg1=1 


"SONY will start OLED TV business in 2015


등록인 : OLEDNET | 2014.05.19


It is expected that Sony, the representative Japanese electronics industry, will enter OLED TV business in 2015. Recent news of Korea and international media reported that Sony and Panasonic had given up developing the OLED TV though, it was turned out to be a wrong information by checking with Sony. It was also confirmed that Sony would begin developing business and the OLED TV in the latter half of this year, when the 4K OLED panel would mass-produce.


Although Sony’s OLED business lacks in terms of market performance, it is still a maker that leads the OLED technology of the world. Sony developed and displayed the 10” OLED panel in 2001 for the first time in the world and supplied the AMOLED for the 4” PDA Clie panel in 2004. It sold the 11” TV in the market, and currently produces the 25” and 40” OLED monitors.


SONY boosted its technology at the CES2013 by exhibiting the world’s first 56” 4K OLED TV, which is with WRGB OLED of top emission structure and oxide TFT. Then *OLED panel was a pilot product which was manufactured with Gen 6 R&D facility of AUO*. Panasonic was also able to display at the same time because the same oxide TFT substrate had been supplied to it.


Sony decided to focus on the TV business by switching to display panel purchasing from self-manufacturing at the time of S-LCD establishment with Samsung Electronics (SSE). However, Sony developed the OLED panel in its R&D center to secure its own panel that competitors can’t have, and the technology was realized through AUO at the CES2013.

*Sony had planned the TV business to have AUO produce the OLED panel, but it ended the joint-development in March 2014 when the agreed period of development was expired because AUO was not able to invest in Gen8 line*, which is for the OLED panel manufacturing, with the financial structure. Joint-development with Panasonic was also ended. Such ends of relationships in OLED misled the Korea and international media that Sony will soon withdraw from the OLED TV business. In fact, it is confirmed that Sony is expecting the 4K OLED panel of LG Display (LGD).


Not only Sony, but Panasonic continues discussions with LGD to receive LGD’s OLED panel. The supply price of the FHD OLED that the three companies are negotiating is a stable price to sell the FDH OLED TV at around $3500. Though, they want to focus more on the 4K OLED TV, which becomes the main product in the current TV market, than the FHD TV.

Sony concerned the competition with SSE in the OLED TV market, but the OLED TV manufacturing of SSE stopped. For Sony, the OLED TV market is now a piece of cake. To optimize this opportunity, Sony is establishing a business plan for the 4K OLED TV."



According to this, AUO was the manufacturing partner at the prototyping phase on a Gen 6 manufacturing line but the initiative fell apart when AUO refused to foot the bill for establishing a Gen 8 production line for OLED (like LG is doing).


So Sony is now planning to enter the OLED TV market based on WOLED panels from LG (with LG technology) rather than OLED panels from AUO with Sony technology).


----------



## tubby497

Some comparisons:

http://news.oled-display.net/lg-display-ultra-hd-oled-at-sid-2014-displayweek/


----------



## Artwood

Regardless of Speed, Space, Time, and Brain physiology there is only One perfect absolute in the video universe: LCD completely, absolutely, perfectly and eternally sucks!


The only thing more astounding than that are the people who given this absolute still try to sell it!


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24786859
> 
> 
> The most sensible article I have found on the Sony/OLED initiative and evolution:
> 
> So Sony is now planning to enter the OLED TV market based on WOLED panels from LG (with LG technology) rather than OLED panels from AUO with Sony technology).



So Sony is maybe going to re-badge some LG panels instead of basically becoming a panel maker, where AUO would essentially be a fab partner


One of those scenarios had a chance of yielding interesting profits. One does not.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mo949*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783712
> 
> 
> Then it's absurd since you can interchange the words 4k, LCD, or Curves for the word 'OLEDs' in your statement.
> 
> 
> Of course that just goes back to TGM's point rather nicely



I think this misses the point. OLED is going to sell entirely on picture quality or price parity. There is no pixel spec to sell it on nor any uniqueness to its curvedness anymore.


If it's not clearly superior in performance, it cannot sell as a premium product. Period.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10080#post_24783720
> 
> 
> Fortunately, the attendees couldn't see any DSE on typical content and, lets face it, typical joes aren't going to analyze test patterns and gray slides. And it also turns out the motion blur didn't phase all of the attendees either, which should be even further improved for gen 2.



Yeah, so that sounds fine.


What I'm missing from anecdotal reports is, "The picture blew people away."


Of course, the truth is I know it can't / won't. Still, it needs to get into the "this is obviously superior" realm so that most people see it. The idea of OLED capturing the premium market while still costing more depends on it.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10110#post_24786413
> 
> 
> 
> The compression of the display hold-time through various means. This information is ubiquitous in the scientific literature so you can look it up.
> 
> Yes, yes I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying it did? When the targeted pixel is turned on (i.e. - voltage applied) there is a delay until glow discharge (ionization) of the gas occurs. (known as discharge-delay). Again, in the literature so look it up. So yes, your assertions about Plasma response times are way off (and quite silly BTW).
> 
> You can't speak this way and expect to be taken seriously. Pretty much everything you have stated about response time and how Plasma displays operate relative to response time is false.
> 
> Not at all. If I did I would not have a job for very long. BTW, CRT rise times are in the microseconds and the fall times are much shorter than PDP phosphors. IIRC around 1ms.


It can't be just voltage, unless some one has repealed laws of physics and that whole electron-hole thingy can work now without electrons (current is a flow of electrons).

Voltage just is used in some schematics to simplify things, but you ought to know better than that. 

 

I just said that response time of plasma at level of one pulse is very fast. I oversimplified the whole thing, of course it takes time to do all those things, still and all it has to in be the neighborhood of us maybe even ns not ms. For Crist's sake even CRT response is a couple of us or even ns  

 

Think whatever I wanna think. But just fo*r your information neon or xenon are ionized upon turn-on of the TV and they glow (ionized, charged) all the time to enable fast response times for it is necessity for PWM.*


----------



## xrox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24787392
> 
> 
> Voltage just is used in some schematics to simplify things.


Quite wrong. Voltage (potential) is what enables discharge. When the breakdown voltage is reached the gas will ionize and current will flow (think lightning or fluorescent bulbs) causing emission of light.


The "Response Time" of a display is the amount of time it takes from the application of voltage to the emission of light of a desired amount.


For a plasma this includes discharge delay, and the rise time of the phosphor.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24787392
> 
> 
> I just said that response time of plasma at level of one pulse is very fast. I oversimplified the whole thing, of course it takes time to do all those things, still and all it has to be the neighborhood of us maybe even ns not ms. For Crist's sake even CRT response is a couple of us or even ns


Blue phosphor rise time is in the microseconds and the green and red are in the milliseconds. As per above the rise time is part of the response time.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24787392
> 
> 
> Think whatever I wanna think.[/B]


I don't just think this. It is PDP science and it is from the literature.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24787392
> 
> 
> But just fo*r your information neon or xenon are ionized upon turn-on of the TV and they glow (ionized, charged) all the time to enable fast response times for it is necessity for PWM*


This is the priming (exo) electrons purpose and it is what reduces discharge delay and increases discharge probability. What it is necessary for is to enable predictable and high speed control of the on/off states of the pixels.


----------



## tgm1024


^^^Xrox has such tremendous patience.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24787891
> 
> 
> ^^^Such tremendous patience.



Or obsession.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140_60#post_24788063
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24787891
> 
> 
> ^^^Such tremendous patience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or obsession.
Click to expand...

 

??????  Xrox is showing incredible patience, not obsession.


----------



## Rich Peterson

^^^ Yes, I prefer to use the block list. Guess I have no patience.


----------



## greenland

Why do so many people keep feeding the thread derailing troll? He arrived here just three months ago, and all he has done is flood the forum with nonsensical techno babble, some of which he admits he just makes up out of whole cloth. There is something wrong with the guy, so everyone please stop taking his bait. Exercise some restraint, and he may just go away.


----------



## mo949




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24787213
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's not clearly superior in performance, it cannot sell as a premium product. Period.



Excellent sense of humor there


----------



## rmongiovi

Apparently he's never shopped audio cable....


----------



## tubetwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24787202
> 
> 
> So Sony is maybe going to re-badge some LG panels instead of basically becoming a panel maker, where AUO would essentially be a fab partner
> 
> 
> One of those scenarios had a chance of yielding interesting profits. One does not.



Good question but ..............Sony is buying LGD,AUO,Samsung and CHI Mei Innolux panels now so given their financial situation and low OLED yields and unit sales why wouldn't they just buy OEM /ODM OLED panels as well instead of designing them ? Just saying..

They haven't made TV panels in a good while anyway .


It's obviously a business decision right or wrong and more in line with their recently spinning off the TV business unit into an owned subsidiary .................... With that in mind it makes a good business case to buy ready made panels .That's probably the rationale behind this along with AUO reluctance to allocate capital investment in a new process.



I would have liked to see the Sony Crystal LED panels come to fruition though .


> Quote:
> Taiwan-based AU Optronics (AUO) will reportedly receive most of Sony's LCD TV panel orders in 2014, according to industry sources.
> 
> Sony will reportedly purchase LCD panels from Innolux in addition to LG Display and Samsung Display,also the sources noted.
> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140224PD206.html



Like this article says Sony and Panasonic can possibly tool up Japan display later on for OLEDTV panels


----------



## tubetwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by rogo View Post
> 
> 
> If it's not clearly superior in performance, it cannot sell as a premium product. Period.



What about Beats headphones ?


----------



## Elvis Is Alive

Agreed on Beats. Bose is another that comes to mind.


Can't remember the company but someone used to sell rebadged Oppo Blu-ray players for thousands of dollars too.


----------



## tubetwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elvis Is Alive*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24789236
> 
> 
> Agreed on Beats. Bose is another that comes to mind.
> 
> 
> Can't remember the company but someone used to sell rebadged Oppo Blu-ray players for thousands of dollars too.



Bose oh yea I bought some of those , 301's and 701's they worked OK and all didn't sound bad but in hindsight pretty overpriced for what you get .



Oh yeah that was Lexicon That was hilarious lotta audiophool snobs got screwed on that one I bet ha ha ha serves them right !
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4051 


Based on that would I buy anything from Lexicon ......................... hell no!


ofc I would not pay well over 3 G's for something a $499.00 Oppo or $150.00 Sony or Panasonic BD player or PC BD ODD can do .

PS3 can do it all just as good as all the above for ~ $300.00 I have one ! ...........nothing plays a BD any better than a PS3 .


Toshiba re badged a Sony SACD player once when they first came out , with Sonys permission ofc. They put the mostly Sony insides into a Toshiba case but they did not overcharge for it much less by $3K more !


I have a Sony ES SACD/DVD player I bought in 2001 ,I don't use it much anymore though . It sure wasn't $3K . It sounds good TBH no better than the PS3 though .


----------



## vinnie97

You get perks with the Oppo that the PS3 doesn't have, however, like superior video processing (mainly important for DVDs mind you), multichannel high-rez audio support (in the form of discs and file playback), *faster loading times*, dual HDMI outputs, etc.







Concerning strictly Blu-ray playback, I suppose the only parameter that applies is the faster loading times.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrox*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24787870
> 
> 
> 
> This is the priming (exo) electrons purpose and it is what reduces discharge delay and increases discharge probability. What it is necessary for is to enable predictable and high speed control of the on/off states of the pixels.


 On the second thought. You know, have it your way, I'm gonna argue with you over such BS

 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24788211
> 
> 
> Why do so many people keep feeding the thread derailing troll? He arrived here just three months ago, and all he has done is flood the forum with nonsensical techno babble, some of which he admits he just makes up out of whole cloth. There is something wrong with the guy, so everyone please stop taking his bait. Exercise some restraint, and he my just go away.


Trolling, well I'm kinda guilty of that. I've not made anything up I've just made one mistake and was labelled right away the kid that cried wolf too many times. I feel kind of discriminated against here.

Come on man stop being such an insensitive human being. I have well over 5 years under my belt on forums like this all over the world. Well, the thing that is wrong with me is certainly my job.

 

*Exercise some restraint, and he my just go away.*

 

I wish I could just up and go away







, however I'm gonna stop posting anything here for a while


----------



## remush

So it appears that LG changed the stand of the 77 oled, wonder if this is the final design


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/473916815270084608%5B%2FURL%5D


----------



## fafrd

I thought the Society of Information Display (SID) was a reasonably professional organization.


This makes me wonder: http://www.abc27.com/story/25678957/sid-applauds-winners-of-the-prestigious-2014-display-industry-awards-the-elite-the-best-of-the-best 


"Display of the Year: Granted to a display with novel and outstanding features such as new physical or chemical effects, or a new addressing method


Silver Award Winner: LG Display's 55-in. FHD Curved OLED TV Panel


LG's 55-in. FHD curved OLED TV panel offers exceptionally vibrant imagery in *a curved format that offers viewers a comfortably immersive environment*. LG's curved OLED TV was introduced last year, and uses the company's WRGB OLED technology with an oxide TFT backplane, the company's technical solution of choice for large-sized OLED panels. The panel is slim – only 4 mm thick with side bezel widths of 11 mm. At 19.2 pounds, the TV is also substantially lighter than competitive products. At the same time, it offers superior picture quality, achieving remarkably rich and natural colors. In addition to the vivid and enhanced picture-quality experience, the curved structure of the new OLED TV panel offers viewing comfort. *The curvature mimics a human's normal line of vision, which makes it more eye friendly and allows viewers to feel less fatigue even when watching the screen*, while also allowing for a wider and brighter field of view."


So according to the experts at SID, we finally now know the reason for (and the importance of) curved flat-panel TVs - to reduce our fatigue while watching. Who knows, thanks to this brilliant innovation by Samsung and LG, perhaps more consumers can now successfully sit through the entire LOTR trilogy without having to take a break to rest their poor eyes


----------



## Yappadappadu

There's


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24789444
> 
> 
> So it appears that LG changed the stand of the 77 oled, wonder if this is the final design
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/473916815270084608%5B%2FURL%5D



Looks like the stand of last year's Samsung 4K TV. Didn't the previous stand shown at the CES house part of the speakers/subwoofers?

Any photos of the 55" and 65" 4K OLED? Wonder if those now have the same stand.



@fafrd:

I thought that the SID was supposed to be an event for true experts who know that curved, especially at "small" 55" is a marketing gimmick.

There's also no mention whether they're talking about last year's LG 55EA9800 Full HD OLED or the upcoming 2014 model.


----------



## vinnie97

Money talks...


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Yappadappadu*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24789533
> 
> 
> There's
> 
> Looks like the stand of last year's Samsung 4K TV. Didn't the previous stand shown at the CES house part of the speakers/subwoofers?
> 
> Any photos of the 55" and 65" 4K OLED? Wonder if those now have the same stand.



I believe the bottom of the screen did contain the speaker/subs which were shown in this CES prototype shown below
 



The new design of the 77 looks more like the the smaller sizes shown at CES, but i havnt seen pics of them at SID.


----------



## mo949

Funny enough the base and bezel are things I have to worry about with WAF lol. If they could manage to curve the 77 even a tad bit more I might be able to fit it into my WAF width constraints.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Yappadappadu*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24789533
> 
> 
> 
> @fafrd:
> 
> I thought that the SID was supposed to be an event for true experts who know that curved, especially at "small" 55" is a marketing gimmick.
> 
> There's also no mention whether they're talking about last year's LG 55EA9800 Full HD OLED or the upcoming 2014 model.



I think there are referring to the 2013 model (read the bold below):


"Silver Award Winner: LG Display's *55-in. FHD Curved OLED TV* Panel


LG's 55-in. FHD curved OLED TV panel offers exceptionally vibrant imagery in a curved format that offers viewers a comfortably immersive environment. *LG's curved OLED TV was introduced last year*, and uses the company's WRGB OLED technology with an oxide TFT backplane, the company's technical solution of choice for large-sized OLED panels. The panel is slim – only 4 mm thick with side bezel widths of 11 mm. At 19.2 pounds, the TV is also substantially lighter than competitive products. At the same time, it offers superior picture quality, achieving remarkably rich and natural colors. In addition to the vivid and enhanced picture-quality experience, the curved structure of the new OLED TV panel offers viewing comfort. The curvature mimics a human's normal line of vision, which makes it more eye friendly and allows viewers to feel less fatigue even when watching the screen, while also allowing for a wider and brighter field of view."


As far as your comment regarding 'experts' and 'gimmicks' that was the intention of my post as well - it's so blatant that you need to wonder which flat panel manufacturers foot most of the bill for this annual SID event...


I was hoping LG would announce pricing for the 2014 4K WOLEDs to be introduced next quarter, but nothing so far.


----------



## Yappadappadu

Oops, only concentrated on the bolded parts.

Nobody with an account on this forum visiting SID? We need more information/photos.


----------



## remush

Ya, I'm surprised too there is so little press coverage


Here is a pic of all the 4k Oled sets together, interesting that all the stands are different

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/473960132720603136%5B%2FURL%5D


----------



## Yappadappadu

Thanks for the link.

Oh man, why couldn't they keep using a normal stand for the 55".







And I'd be surprised if you could move those feet inwards like in the case of the Sony TVs.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24789886
> 
> 
> Ya, *I'm surprised too there is so little press coverage*
> 
> 
> Here is a pic of all the 4k Oled sets together, interesting that all the stands are different
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/473960132720603136%5B%2FURL%5D



Yeah, pretty sad when occasional twitter feeds are the only sources of news from a show...


p.s. so has 'QUHD' been adopted as the official name for 8K???


----------



## JWhip

What a great idea, let's roll out 8K before we even set the standards for 4K!


----------



## Yappadappadu

Hm, is this what the 65" looks like? http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/lg-ces-201401023545.htm


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Yappadappadu*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24790003
> 
> 
> Hm, is this what the 65" looks like? http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/lg-ces-201401023545.htm



That link is from CES - so much can change in 9 months, I'd probably suggest to look for newer pictures from what LG is apparently showing this week at SID'14


----------



## mo949

I like the skinnier bottom bezel in that pic. The previous one had a thick band at the bottom (on the 77 at least) and that was causing some concern from the other half. Is that black ?


----------



## tubetwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24789418
> 
> 
> You get perks with the Oppo that the PS3 doesn't have, however, like superior video processing (mainly important for DVDs mind you), multichannel high-rez audio support (in the form of discs and file playback), *faster loading times*, dual HDMI outputs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning strictly Blu-ray playback, I suppose the only parameter that applies is the faster loading times.




Nothing against OPPOs good stuff lots of features quality stuff . From what I have read the Oppo darbee model is supposed to be real good at fixing up DVD's some of them need it maybe the Oppos are better with DVD's and audio also . I won't argue that ..


The PS3 is *painfully slow* loading anything . upscaled DVD playback is decent . I could see where an OPPO might be better there on DVD .

In the bedroom I use the PC ODD it has a discrete video card with HDMI set to 1080p on the TV side it scales up DVD's very well and VLC media player offers lots of video enhancements if you want to fool around with them otherwise WMC/WMP works

OK also .


All my CD 's are ripped to metal now. I could well imagine an OPPO is excellent with CD also especially the 105 models .


----------



## Yappadappadu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafrd*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10170#post_24790011
> 
> 
> That link is from CES - so much can change in 9 months, I'd probably suggest to look for newer pictures from what LG is apparently showing this week at SID'14


Yeah, I know, but doesn't it look like the 65" to you? Well, we won't know until the twitter account posts some more photos of 55" and 65".

We also have yet to see the new Full HD OLED, but since it wasn't mentioned it might not even be there.


----------



## tgm1024


That 65" looks awesome.....I just keep telling myself it's flat so I don't get depressed....


----------



## vinnie97

I like the looks of that 77" m'self...gonna' have to start hooking NOW to finance that behemoth.


----------



## mo949

^ ur gonna give me envy as usual at this rate. Damn WAF!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140_60#post_24790049
> 
> 
> I like the looks of that 77" m'self...gonna' have to start hooking NOW to finance that behemoth.


 

Dude, gross.  (LOL)....besides, by the time you save up, the price will have shrunk down and met you 80% of the way...


----------



## vinnie97

^Most probable, and I was of course kidding. Sorry for the bad visual imagery.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140#post_24789886
> 
> 
> Ya, I'm surprised too there is so little press coverage
> 
> 
> Here is a pic of all the 4k Oled sets together, interesting that all the stands are different
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/473960132720603136%5B%2FURL%5D



This does confirm that they are at least showing a 55" 4K set.


From the model numbers announced at CES, it would make sense if this set is actually the 55EC9300 (rather than 1080p tv as listed on B&H).


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10170#post_24790344
> 
> 
> This does confirm that they are at least showing a 55" 4K set.
> 
> 
> From the model numbers announced at CES, it would make sense if this set is actually the 55EC9300 (rather than 1080p tv as listed on B&H).



It would, all EC models would therefore be 4k, and if all three sizes have different designs, it would make sense that they end with different model numbers. And if they do release a 2014 1080p set it might be the 55eb9600.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*SID Applauds Winners Of The Prestigious 2014 Display Industry Awards - The Elite, The Best Of The Best*


Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/prnewswire/press_releases/California/2014/06/03/NY38797 


Display of the year:

Gold Award Winner: Samsung Display's 5.68-in. Curved (Flexible) AMOLED Display

Silver Award Winner: LG Display's 55-in. FHD Curved OLED TV Panel


Display component of the year:

Gold Award: UDC's Green Phosphorescent UniversalPHOLED® Emitter Material

Silver Award: Canatu Oy's Carbon NanoBud® (CNB™) Film


This is last year's LG 55" OLED. No mention of any of LG's 4K OLEDs.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10170#post_24790437
> 
> 
> It would, all EC models would therefore be 4k, and if all three sizes have different designs, it would make sense that they end with different model numbers. And if they do release a 2014 1080p set it might be the 55eb9600.



That is how I see it.


Who knows though? It is listed as 1080p on multiple retailers but that would mean that there is no 4K 55" model coming. That seems unlikely.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10140_60#post_24791155
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *remush*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10170#post_24790437
> 
> 
> It would, all EC models would therefore be 4k, and if all three sizes have different designs, it would make sense that they end with different model numbers. And if they do release a 2014 1080p set it might be the 55eb9600.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is how I see it.
> 
> 
> Who knows though? It is listed as 1080p on multiple retailers but that would mean that there is no 4K 55" model coming. That seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

 

I usually count on quite a bit of confusion regarding models and their release dates on bleeding edge things like this.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10170#post_24791155
> 
> 
> That is how I see it.
> 
> 
> Who knows though? It is listed as 1080p on multiple retailers but that would mean that there is no 4K 55" model coming. That seems unlikely.



It would be odd. About 1/3 of Sony's 4K models currently listed are 55". Samsung seems to offer 55" in 4 of 4 current UHD models and even 50" in 2 of 4.


----------



## Lethean

I've read about OLED in TV shootouts and everything but news on them being available at retailers has died down and the focus is on 4K I don't think I've even seen coverage of any OLED sets on CNET. Did I miss something? I'm not in the market for a new t.v at the moment but am leaning towards OLED when I am.


----------



## Vegas oled

T


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lethean*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10170#post_24792942
> 
> 
> I've read about OLED in TV shootouts and everything but news on them being available at retailers has died down and the focus is on 4K I don't think I've even seen coverage of any OLED sets on CNET. Did I miss something? I'm not in the market for a new t.v at the moment but am leaning towards OLED when I am.


There soon will be 4K OLED sets. 4K has to do with resolution not the type of display.

Samsung is really the only 4K adds I have seen with the curve.


----------



## Lethean




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegas oled*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10170#post_24792959
> 
> 
> T
> 
> There soon will be 4K OLED sets. 4K has to do with resolution not the type of display.
> 
> Samsung is really the only 4K adds I have seen with the curve.



Oh yeah. I phrased it poorly. What I meant was I heard a ton about OLED sets a couple of months ago with 1080P resolution and now I hear not a word, haven't even seen a review of any on CNET. But I'm hearing lots of talk of 1080p LED 4K sets still. I expected it to be the other way around. Sorry, my post made it seem like I was mixing one up with another.


But 4K OLED? That sounds promising. Currently, there is no reason for me to consider 4K given the black levels aren't quite where I want them to be and they're still LED technology (which I have nothing against but having an ST60 I don't see the need to switch yet.)


OLED 4K would be nice, albeit pricey I imagine at first. As long as they do away with the curved screens haha!


----------



## tubetwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lethean*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10170#post_24792942
> 
> 
> I've read about OLED in TV shootouts and everything but news on them being available at retailers has died down and the focus is on 4K I don't think I've even seen coverage of any OLED sets on CNET. Did I miss something? I'm not in the market for a new t.v at the moment but am leaning towards OLED when I am.



A few OLED articles at Cnet albeit they are probably spread out so they will seem to be infrequent because of that and also there just aren't that many OLED sets available. Ofc. the majority of their coverage has always been LCD and Plasma for some years now . I've seen some LGD OLED at BB/Magnolia pretty decent but above my pay grade and I'm not about a curved screen .

I bought a Sony LED and Samsung Plasma instead . Nothing wrong with a Panny Plasma.

http://www.cnet.com/search/?query=oled+tv


----------



## mo949




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lethean*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10170#post_24792992
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegas oled*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10170#post_24792959
> 
> 
> T
> 
> There soon will be 4K OLED sets. 4K has to do with resolution not the type of display.
> 
> Samsung is really the only 4K adds I have seen with the curve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah. I phrased it poorly. What I meant was I heard a ton about OLED sets a couple of months ago with 1080P resolution and now I hear not a word, haven't even seen a review of any on CNET. But I'm hearing lots of talk of 1080p LED 4K sets still. I expected it to be the other way around. Sorry, my post made it seem like I was mixing one up with another.
> 
> 
> But 4K OLED? That sounds promising. Currently, there is no reason for me to consider 4K given the black levels aren't quite where I want them to be and they're still LED technology (which I have nothing against but having an ST60 I don't see the need to switch yet.)
> 
> 
> OLED 4K would be nice, albeit pricey I imagine at first. As long as they do away with the curved screens haha!
Click to expand...


I think what you are seeing is that a few manufacturers have put their OLED efforts on hold, or given up entirely, on producing consumer ready displays this year. There's only one that's releasing any that I know of, LG. Obvsiouly the competitors would like to see OLED not interfere with their competing LCD models, so you won't see them talking about OLED much most likely.


----------



## Artwood

LG seems to be the only thing standing against...you put a name on it!


----------



## tubetwister

I read Sony is talking about buying some LGD WRGB OLED panels or maybe AUO 4K panels maybe both ? probably others like Panasonic,Sharp and Toshiba will as well ? .


I think maybe TCL and Hisense also probably AUO though just a guess ?t Samsung is on hold . for now. I can't see them buying LGD panels ,maybe AUO ofc one never knows what panel you are going to get in a Samsung of they sell a lot of sets and panels they probably have to get panels where they can .

*Here is the latest OLED news from Digital Trends* http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/oled-tvs-arent-dead/#!UFFIH 


EDIT just read that AUO and Sharp are going to partner on OLED panels and Panasonic has some future plans ,,Sony is out for the count and will buy AUO 4K panels for now as will Panasonic , Samsung is on hold , they say.............. that could change .?

I don't know what's up with Toshiba 4K if anything, probably LGD maybe AUO if they jump in ........or both ?


*Latest from HDTV GURU*


> Quote:
> *LG plans* to add to its two 55-inch OLED HDTV line (one is curved) with the introduction of 65- and 77-inch curved Ultra HD (4K) OLEDs for the second half of 2014. To make it a happen, LG plans to make over $3 billion in capital expenditures for development of these UHDTV OLED panels. These will be the first UHD OLED TVs available for purchase.
> 
> 
> 
> *Sharp OLED TV*
> 
> 
> Sharp and Taiwan- based AU Optronics have capital expenditures of $830 million this year toward OLED development. We have yet to see Sharp OLEDs.
> 
> *Panasonic OLED TV*
> 
> 
> It is also reported Panasonic will move forward with its inkjet printed UHD (3840 x 2160) OLED panels. However, it delayed mass production from 2015 to 2016. This timeline aligns with our article regarding an unnamed company taking delivery of printed large screen OLED manufacturing equipment.
> 
> *Samsung OLED TV Plans*
> 
> 
> According to various reports, Samsung is currently not producing its 55-inch OLED panels (we could not find any inventory of its 55-inch OLED HDTV). However, according to Digitimes Research this week, Samsung made $4 billion investment into the technology last year and plans to spend $3-5 billion in 2014. This includes both small panels that can be used in portable devices as well as large screen OLED 4K televisions. However, there was another report this week that Samsung cancelled the planned construction of a new “large-panel” OLED factory scheduled for this year.
> 
> *Sony*
> 
> 
> Sony lost $248 million its TV division during its last fiscal year. By jettisoning its OLED development and concentrating on LED LCD HD and 4K technologies it plans to regain profitability. We believe this will be challenging, as 4K TV prices already have begun to erode due to the stiff competition from Samsung and LG and others.
> http://hdguru.com/sony-reportedly-stopping-oled-development-other-tv-makers-increase-investments/#more-13745


Sony will be buying 4K panels from AUO .maybe LGD also ?


----------



## Weboh


I believe OLED is a perhaps higher color and a wideviewing angle LCD. So it doesn't surprise me, that it still has the LCD motion blur, and is used already in smart phones. The DLP projectors in a theater have a higher refresh, but there is the issue of LCD having fewer frame rate issues in small sizes. I wouldn't be surprised if motion blur is still in small LCDs in smaller amounts too.


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10170#post_24794530
> 
> 
> I believe OLED is a perhaps higher color and a wideviewing angle LCD.



....what in the heck does that mean?


----------



## Weboh


It means pulse width modulation would fry the OLED back lights.


----------



## vinnie97

More theoretical gobbledygook. That doesn't make it an LCD, anything, as it's self-emissive. I think AVS should give stas and weboh their own show. It'd be a hoot!


----------



## Weboh


The way "LED" TVs are self-emissive?


----------



## Theplague13

Just so I understand...."oled is a higher color wider viewing angle LCD, which means that pulse width modulation would fry the backlight, because they're self emissive the way LED tv's are."


You have _got_ to be kidding me. Have you learned English?



If we were going to make a show out of those two we can't leave Art out either


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10100_100#post_24794616
> 
> 
> The way "LED" TVs are self-emissive?


Since when?


----------



## Theplague13

Maybe he's a proponent of the "hidden backlight" conspiracy theory.


....but I'm putting my money on jibberish.


----------



## Weboh


OLED is jibberish.


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10100_100#post_24794643
> 
> 
> Maybe he's a proponent of the "hidden backlight" conspiracy theory.


Fortunately, I think our European Kuro fiend (pg_ice) at least dumped that theory, but he has been mysteriously silent of late (he was planning on purchasing one of the LGs).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Theplague13*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10100_100#post_24794618
> 
> 
> If we were going to make a show out of those two we can't leave Art out either


That would go from hoot to riot...I'm not sure Art would give them the floor/mic.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tubetwister*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10170#post_24793696
> 
> 
> *Here is the latest OLED news from Digital Trends* http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/oled-tvs-arent-dead/#!UFFIH



Love this graf:

_In other words, manufacturers can’t sell more OLED TVs until they get cheaper, and they can’t get cheaper until they sell more. It’s a chicken-or-the-egg scenario that requires a company with deep pockets to keep pushing forward, even when the juice isn’t worth the squeeze today. No wonder so many manufacturers are stepping back from OLED._


You've been reading that here for *years*. Just saying.


> Quote:
> *Latest from HDTV GURU*
> 
> Sony will be buying 4K panels from AUO .maybe LGD also ?
> 
> 
> rest edited...



Most of that feels like fiction to be honest.


Panasonic is out. They made that clear. Could they be testing a Kateeva machine? I suppose maybe. No one else is close to an inkjet printable OLED

There is no AUO panel to source. AUO is struggling to ramp up smartphone screen production. They have no capability whatsoever to produce a TV panel in quantity.

Samsung's plan did not involve TV panels. It was always about smartphones and tablets. The part about TV being in then out is just made up.

Sharp is in no position to invest a major part of a billion in OLED TVs with AUO or anyone else. Maybe they have an incipient JV for phone screens? Media reports don't seem to exist on this, other than the Digitimes article which actually (a) doesn't say those companies are spending $830M it says they are spending $670M -- it's Innolux that's spending $830M and (b) doesn't say any of that money is going for OLED. It almost certainly is not going for OLED and Digitimes -- which has the reporting accuracy of a weathervane -- seems to be just using estimates for those companies.


Again, most of those OLED reports are just fiction.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200_60#post_24794798
> 
> 
> There is no AUO panel to source. AUO is struggling to ramp up smartphone screen production. They have no capability whatsoever to produce a TV panel in quantity.


 

You mean for 4K panels?  Wow, I find this surprising.  It wasn't too long ago that I was reading about how 2K AUO panels had ended up in a myriad of TVs.


----------



## Chris5028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vinnie97*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24794648
> 
> 
> Fortunately, I think our European Kuro fiend (pg_ice) at least dumped that theory, but he has been mysteriously silent of late (he was planning on purchasing one of the LGs).
> 
> That would go from hoot to riot...I'm not sure Art would give them the floor/mic.



Sign me up! I find Arts posts both unbiased and informative.


----------



## slacker711

Sony's keynote speaker at SID talked quite a bit about OLED's.

http://www.display-central.com/free-news/display-daily/sony-delivers-immersive-keynote-sid-display-week-2014/ 


> Quote:
> Dr. Nomoto listed Sony’s current solutions for providing Immersive Expression including the firm’s Triluminos back light technology using quantum dots, combined with their current 4K resolution televisions. The speaker then went on to provide an overview of Sony’s efforts in content creation, distribution and consumption for the “4K world.” In describing Sony’s development efforts for large size 4K displays, he cited Sony’s 4K, LCD, OLED and Ultra Shot Throw Projector products (and prototypes?). The speaker then used a substantial fraction of his remaining time to highlight Sony’s efforts and approach for developing OLED displays and televisions in particular. The good deal of attention paid by Dr. Nomoto to OLED display development in his keynote address is in contrast to some recent press speculation that Sony might be ready to withdraw from OLED television development.
> 
> 
> Sony’s long history of OLED display development as cited in his talk by Dr. Nomoto, the firm’s continual quest for high quality displays and the Immersive viewing experience, as well as Dr. Nomoto’s attention to OLED display technology together suggest that the firm may continue their efforts to offer OLED televisions in future. We will have to stay tuned to see how this story ends, but as Dr. Nomoto noted in his keynote address, OLED televisions appear to offer many of the ”Immersiveness” display attributes that display developers as well as consumers are seeking. - Phil Wright


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris5028*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200_50#post_24795316
> 
> 
> Sign me up! I find Arts posts both unbiased and informative.


Who can take it?


----------



## Theplague13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Stereodude*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24796959
> 
> 
> Who can stand it?



Correction: who can _take_ it???!!???


Haha


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24795203
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200_60#post_24794798
> 
> 
> There is no AUO panel to source. AUO is struggling to ramp up smartphone screen production. They have no capability whatsoever to produce a TV panel in quantity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean for 4K panels?  Wow, I find this surprising.  It wasn't too long ago that I was reading about how 2K AUO panels had ended up in a myriad of TVs.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure Rogo was referring to OLED only. AUO is a major supplier of LED/LCD (both 1080p and 4K).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24795203
> 
> 
> You mean for 4K panels?  Wow, I find this surprising.  It wasn't too long ago that I was reading about how 2K AUO panels had ended up in a myriad of TVs.



As fafrd pointed out, I was only referring to OLED. AUO is a major player in LCD and has been for many, many years. I suspect they will ramp up 4K quite well, too, as I don't see anything even a little hard about doing that. The resolution (in terms of pixel pitch) of 4K TVs is still remarkably low by modern LCD standards.


----------



## rogo

As to Sony, one could easily read that as "We aren't really doing anything, but we are not oblivious to the universe either."


This would dovetail nicely with releasing a TV based on LG's panels soon -- again, Sony has never had TVs based on its own panels at any point in the flat-panel era -- and claiming they are testing the market demand for such things.


----------



## mo949

^ I was thinking that too, hedging. It also comes into play nicely with the iTV OLED rumors and helping diffuse that type of attention.


----------



## Vegas oled

A


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24794647
> 
> 
> OLED is jibberish.


nother post from someone who just likes to be negative


----------



## barth2k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24797502
> 
> 
> As to Sony, one could easily read that as "We aren't really doing anything, but we are not oblivious to the universe either."
> 
> 
> This would dovetail nicely with releasing a TV based on LG's panels soon -- again, Sony has never had TVs based on its own panels at any point in the flat-panel era -- and claiming they are testing the market demand for such things.



A Sony OLED will have the Sony premium on top of the OLED premium. It will be totally unaffordable to me, but I want to see what someone besides LG can do with an LG OLED panel. LG is not known for making great displays, and maybe some of the problems plaguing their current OLEDs are LG issues and not OLED panel issues.


----------



## Vegas oled




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barth2k*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24797593
> 
> 
> 
> A Sony OLED will have the Sony premium on top of the OLED premium. It will be totally unaffordable to me, but I want to see what someone besides LG can do with an LG OLED panel. LG is not known for making great displays, and maybe some of the problems plaguing their current OLEDs are LG issues and not OLED panel issues.


Lot of your opinion  which is fine.  There are many who believe the current LG 4K 659700 with Full-array back lit is much better than the Sony 4K sets and I would agree with them except for the Sony 950 4K set.  A few years back LG manufactured a LX9500 and LE8500 which had excellent black levels.  The fact is Sony is the original manufacture of very little in Video displays, they purchase their LCD panel from third party companies and quite frankly in the past couple years Sony have slid backwards in performance.  Now Sony has so many different XBR models with the 850, 900 and 950 they are taking their top tier product and hurting its reputation.  LG deserves a lot of credit for being the only company that has invest in OLED and has taken it to a point they can actually sell a 55" OLED for $4,000, Sony and Samsung are out of the OLED game. 

 

I was at Fry's and someone was about to purchase a Sony 4K TV when the sales rep took the Sony loop from the thumb drive and ran it on the Samsung right next to the Sony.  The Samsung 4K set clearly had a much better picture than the Sony so the customer of course purchased the Samsung.  The Sony rep was so pissed off he had all the Samsung's removed from the roll and replaced with non-4K Sony sets.  So the next time you think Sony is the best thing since slide bread, read one of the Shootout results or actually look at the sets for yourself with an open mind.


----------



## Vegas oled




> Quote:


----------



## Rich Peterson

Did you all notice this thread recently topped over a million views?


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200_60#post_24797982
> 
> 
> Did you all notice this thread recently topped over a million views?


 

It's hard to predict what threads will have a lot of views.  For instance, apparently the R550A thread I started (a 2013 model of Sony LCD of which there are only 3 sizes) is about 450,000 views.  Huh?  Why?


----------



## vinnie97

Sony


----------



## Theplague13

Yeah but this and the ea9800 thread have both been moving like wildfire


----------



## work permit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24794798
> 
> 
> Samsung's plan did not involve TV panels. It was always about smartphones and tablets. The part about TV being in then out is just made up..



Why would Samsung pull an OLED TV head fake? To sucker LG into pouring resources down an OLED black hole?


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *work permit*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24798768
> 
> 
> Why would Samsung pull an OLED TV head fake? To sucker LG into pouring resources down an OLED black hole?



There is no head fake. The article's speculation / commentary is just wrong. Samsung is a gigantic supplier of OLED displays -- for smartphones. They'd like (for obvious reasons) to extend that supply to tablets. This is costing them a lot of capital expenditures, but it's worth it. The display in the Galaxy S5 is fantastic and right now, the lower cost of LTPS -- and broader supplier choice -- is what gives LTPS LCD the market lead. Samsung would be very pleased to see that lead go away by supplying as many mfrs. as it can.


They're investing, while using the best displays they can currently make to promote their own flagship products.


The TV dalliance was definitely about keeping pace with LG back in 2012. But Samsung had to know it's production method would not work for TVs. It didn't, despite Samsung's amazing force of will and resources. It can't double down on OLED TV now as it *lacks any means to produce them*. It's probably delighted that LG is spending time on TV and less on mobile, but I suspect that's a happy side effect and not some grand design.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*TCL Bets on OLED TV Despite Asian Manufacturers Exodus*


Source: http://www.ledinside.com/news/2014/6/tcl_bets_on_oled_tv_despite_asian_manufacturers_exodus 


TCL’s subsidiary China Star Optoelectronics Technology (CSOT) recently announced plans to begin mass producing OLED panels by 2016.


TCL’s Marketing Director Europe Antonie Salome revealed the news during the IFA 2014 Global Press Conference. CSOT plans to construct a 8.5-Gen Oxide-TFT OLED TV fab in Shenzhen. The company anticipates the new fabrication line to manufacture 70 percent LED panels and 30 percent OLED panels, according to OLED-Display.


CSOT will also add an additional production line in 2016 to specifically manufacture OLED TVs to satisfy OLED market demands. TCL has high hopes for the OLED TV market, despite the recent exodus by large TV manufacturers including Sony, Samsung and Panasonic.


----------



## sytech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24799191
> 
> *TCL Bets on OLED TV Despite Asian Manufacturers Exodus*
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.ledinside.com/news/2014/6/tcl_bets_on_oled_tv_despite_asian_manufacturers_exodus
> 
> 
> TCL’s subsidiary China Star Optoelectronics Technology (CSOT) recently announced plans to begin mass producing OLED panels by 2016.
> 
> 
> TCL’s Marketing Director Europe Antonie Salome revealed the news during the IFA 2014 Global Press Conference. CSOT plans to construct a 8.5-Gen Oxide-TFT OLED TV fab in Shenzhen. The company anticipates the new fabrication line to manufacture 70 percent LED panels and 30 percent OLED panels, according to OLED-Display.
> 
> 
> CSOT will also add an additional production line in 2016 to specifically manufacture OLED TVs to satisfy OLED market demands. TCL has high hopes for the OLED TV market, despite the recent exodus by large TV manufacturers including Sony, Samsung and Panasonic.



If true this is really good news for OLED. I have been one of the biggest skeptics of OLED becoming a mass market item in large format, but once the Chinese get involved it may just happen further down the road. The Chinese have the abilty to survive poor yields with their slave labor wages and lower operating costs. Hopefully, they are using the new printing method or have had some breakthroughs in increasing yields with WOLED. So if they are just now building the factories, 2018 could be the year OLED final becomes affordable for the mass market.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sytech*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24799888
> 
> 
> If true this is really good news for OLED. I have been one of the biggest skeptics of OLED becoming a mass market item in large format, but once the Chinese get involved it may just happen further down the road. The Chinese have the abilty to survive poor yields with their slave labor wages and lower operating costs. Hopefully, they are using the new printing method or have had some breakthroughs in increasing yields with WOLED. So if they are just now building the factories, 2018 could be the year OLED final becomes affordable for the mass market.



I don't see how, without a lot of R&D, the Chinese have developed a thing here. This isn't expertise you can just go read about in some SID papers and translate into a fab.


There exist three possibilities that seem realistic:


1) This is an announcement with nothing backing it yet. In other words, "We will make OLEDs, but we have no idea how whatsoever". That's tricky because there is no OLED ecosystem at all yet. When everyone and their brother got into LCD in the early 2000s, this was possible because all the fab equipment was able to be sourced from third parties (well, nearly all of it).


2) They are planning to steal LG's technology and infringe its patents. China has a track record here that's less than laudable. "Our W-OLED design is not yours, we don't know what you are talking about." That said, LG has had a tough time getting this dialed in. TCL cannot possibly be at mass production in 2016 copying LG, unless it has already been copying LG on the sly. I don't see much evidence this has been going on, however. n.b. There is a nascent, but real IGZO ecosystem to play off of. But backplanes are not panels.


3) They are planning on sourcing printing equipment. It is my semi-qualified opinion that the only company whose equipment would allow 2016 mass production is Kateeva's. The fact that Sony and Panasonic worked with what amounts to everyone else's printing equipment and failed to get anywhere says a lot. The fact that Epson -- who knows a thing or two about inkjet printing -- got nowhere in a decade says a lot. There is simply no reason to believe that a Chinese company with no particular track record in inkjet printing has solved what is apparently the hardest problem in inkjet printing on earth.


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24798826
> 
> 
> The TV dalliance was definitely about keeping pace with LG back in 2012. But Samsung had to know it's production method would not work for TVs. It didn't, despite Samsung's amazing force of will and resources. It can't double down on OLED TV now as it *lacks any means to produce them*. It's probably delighted that LG is spending time on TV and less on mobile, but I suspect that's a happy side effect and not some grand design.


Well, I reckon Samsung never saw 4K coming on so "fast" when they were working on their OLED TVs.

I think that the reason behind Samsung pulling out of OLED TVs is that Samsung couldn't possibly be making large high pixel count(4K) displays in bulk quantities with stenciling. I heard some people say that Sammy's tech could reach high yield rates with 1080p panels and from what I've been reading about it on the tech forums of the world it is impossible to make 4k TVs with stenciling. I even saw one guy that was writing that even graphene (or something that starts with "g") shadow masks will never be able to handle 4K at 55in size. I also heard people saying that Samsung's tech is superior to WOLED in that the evaporation "purifies" materials "real good"  hence it lets achieve near perfect uniformity and some other good stuff,too (others were saying, though, that WOLED is better, because it isn't supposed to drift over time and has long lifetime)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24801130
> 
> 
> 
> 2) They are planning to steal LG's technology and infringe its patents. China has a track record here that's less than laudable. "Our W-OLED design is not yours, we don't know what you are talking about." That said, LG has had a tough time getting this dialed in. TCL cannot possibly be at mass production in 2016 copying LG, unless it has already been copying LG on the sly. I don't see much evidence this has been going on, however. n.b. There is a nascent, but real IGZO ecosystem to play off of. But backplanes are not panels.


I totally agree with that. LG would simply seek sales bans in courts against TCL if TCL stole the LG's tech. I just can't see how TCL can be stupid enough to try and steal the WOLED tech (infringe hundreds of patents when even a few infringed patents can serve as grounds for a sales ban)  considering the fact that their panels ( products) would be banned in most civilized counties.


----------



## fafrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24801573
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> The TV dalliance was definitely about keeping pace with LG back in 2012. But Samsung had to know it's production method would not work for TVs. It didn't, despite Samsung's amazing force of will and resources. It can't double down on OLED TV now as it *lacks any means to produce them*. It's probably delighted that LG is spending time on TV and less on mobile, but I suspect that's a happy side effect and not some grand design.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I reckon Samsung never saw 4K coming on so "fast" when they were working on their OLED TVs.
> 
> I think that the reason behind Samsung pulling out of OLED TVs is that Samsung couldn't possibly be making large high pixel count(4K) displays in bulk quantities with stenciling. I heard some people say that Sammy's tech could reach high yield rates with 1080p panels and from what I've been reading about it on the tech forums of the world it is impossible to make 4k TVs with stenciling. I even saw one guy that was writing that even graphene (or something that starts with "g") shadow masks will never be able to handle 4K at 55in size. I also heard people saying that Samsung's tech is superior to WOLED in that the evaporation "purifies" materials "real good"  hence it lets achieve near perfect uniformity and some other good stuff,too (others were saying, though, that WOLED is better, because it isn't supposed to drift over time and has long lifetime)
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24801130
> 
> 
> 2) They are planning to steal LG's technology and infringe its patents. China has a track record here that's less than laudable. "Our W-OLED design is not yours, we don't know what you are talking about." That said, LG has had a tough time getting this dialed in. TCL cannot possibly be at mass production in 2016 copying LG, unless it has already been copying LG on the sly. I don't see much evidence this has been going on, however. n.b. There is a nascent, but real IGZO ecosystem to play off of. But backplanes are not panels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I totally agree with that. LG would simply seek sales bans in courts against TCL if TCL stole the LG's tech. I just can't see how TCL can be stupid enough to try and steal the WOLED tech (infringe hundreds of patents when even a few infringed patents can serve as grounds for a sales ban)  considering the fact that their panels ( products) would be banned in most civilized counties.
Click to expand...


Unless TCL is only planning on selling into the Chinese market (in which case LG could never get a Chinese court injunction even if they tried)...


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24801130
> 
> 
> I don't see how, without a lot of R&D, the Chinese have developed a thing here. This isn't expertise you can just go read about in some SID papers and translate into a fab.
> 
> 
> There exist three possibilities that seem realistic:
> 
> 
> 1) This is an announcement with nothing backing it yet. In other words, "We will make OLEDs, but we have no idea how whatsoever". That's tricky because there is no OLED ecosystem at all yet. When everyone and their brother got into LCD in the early 2000s, this was possible because all the fab equipment was able to be sourced from third parties (well, nearly all of it).
> 
> 
> 2) They are planning to steal LG's technology and infringe its patents. China has a track record here that's less than laudable. "Our W-OLED design is not yours, we don't know what you are talking about." That said, LG has had a tough time getting this dialed in. TCL cannot possibly be at mass production in 2016 copying LG, unless it has already been copying LG on the sly. I don't see much evidence this has been going on, however. n.b. There is a nascent, but real IGZO ecosystem to play off of. But backplanes are not panels.
> 
> 
> 3) They are planning on sourcing printing equipment. It is my semi-qualified opinion that the only company whose equipment would allow 2016 mass production is Kateeva's. The fact that Sony and Panasonic worked with what amounts to everyone else's printing equipment and failed to get anywhere says a lot. The fact that Epson -- who knows a thing or two about inkjet printing -- got nowhere in a decade says a lot. There is simply no reason to believe that a Chinese company with no particular track record in inkjet printing has solved what is apparently the hardest problem in inkjet printing on earth.



I doubt 2016 is likely, but I also dont think you can discount the Chinese vendors. The Chinese government seems to have made developing OLED's a priority so there are all sorts of projects that are being announced or underway.


A couple of thoughts.


1) Japan Display has built a pilot Gen 4.5 fab that is using WRGB. Production is expected by the end of the year. So either LG has licensed WRGB or vendors are comfortable violating the patents and taking their chances.


2) There have been various references in Korean/Taiwanese articles about Chinese vendors poaching quite a few OLED scientists/engineers. They are going to hire the knowledge, and since money isnt much of a barrier, this will work to some extent.


3) Recently I have read some comments about Korean equipment vendors beginning to work with the Chinese. Samsung locked down much of their supply chain but the exclusivity only lasts so long.


OLED's are still really really hard to manufacture but I think the above probably gives them a chance to be successful (just unlikely by 2016).


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stas3098*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24801573
> 
> 
> Well, I reckon Samsung never saw 4K coming on so "fast" when they were working on their OLED TVs.



I suspect they did, but anyway....


> Quote:
> I think that the reason behind Samsung pulling out of OLED TVs is that Samsung couldn't possibly be making large high pixel count(4K) displays in bulk quantities with stenciling.



They can't make 1080p with their small mask scanning method. Period.


> Quote:
> I heard some people say that Sammy's tech could reach high yield rates with 1080p panels and from what I've been reading about it on the tech forums of the world it is impossible to make 4k TVs with stenciling.



It's the scanning that's a problem, not the pixel count.


> Quote:
> I even saw one guy that was writing that even graphene (or something that starts with "g") shadow masks will never be able to handle 4K at 55in size.



That might be true. The point is they are not using single masks for an entire panel because no 55-inch mask currently exists with that kind of rigidity. I doubt you could make a viable graphene mask at this point, but scanning a smaller mask and keeping the registration perfect and getting throughput is a problem the world will not solve.


> Quote:
> I also heard people saying that Samsung's tech is superior to WOLED in that the evaporation "purifies" materials "real good"  hence it lets achieve near perfect uniformity and some other good stuff,too (others were saying, though, that WOLED is better, because it isn't supposed to drift over time and has long lifetime)



That sounds like a lot of blah blah.


> Quote:
> I totally agree with that. LG would simply seek sales bans in courts against TCL if TCL stole the LG's tech. I just can't see how TCL can be stupid enough to try and steal the WOLED tech (infringe hundreds of patents when even a few infringed patents can serve as grounds for a sales ban)  considering the fact that their panels ( products) would be banned in most civilized counties.



It depends how strong the IP protection is.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24801803
> 
> 
> I doubt 2016 is likely, but I also dont think you can discount the Chinese vendors. The Chinese government seems to have made developing OLED's a priority so there are all sorts of projects that are being announced or underway.



I'm not discounting the Chinese. I'm discounting 2016.


> Quote:
> A couple of thoughts.
> 
> 
> 1) Japan Display has built a pilot Gen 4.5 fab that is using WRGB. Production is expected by the end of the year. So either LG has licensed WRGB or vendors are comfortable violating the patents and taking their chances.



Or the IP protection is weaker than we think,


> Quote:
> 2) There have been various references in Korean/Taiwanese articles about Chinese vendors poaching quite a few OLED scientists/engineers. They are going to hire the knowledge, and since money isnt much of a barrier, this will work to some extent.



Yes it will.


> Quote:
> 3) Recently I have read some comments about Korean equipment vendors beginning to work with the Chinese. Samsung locked down much of their supply chain but the exclusivity only lasts so long.



How valuable is that chain though? It's based on SMS and LTPS. The future is IGZO and vapor depo WRGB or printables. I just don't see what you could do with Samsung's entire fab that Samsung couldn't do.


> Quote:
> OLED's are still really really hard to manufacture but I think the above probably gives them a chance to be successful (just unlikely by 2016).



Sure, it's a chance to be successful. But the market is racing to 4K LCD and the Chinese are also going there. I'm mostly skeptical of anything happening quickly, which has always been the issue with OLED.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24802551
> 
> 
> How valuable is that chain though? It's based on SMS and LTPS. The future is IGZO and vapor depo WRGB or printables. I just don't see what you could do with Samsung's entire fab that Samsung couldn't do.



There are likely some differences in formulation for a WRGB stack versus a RGB stack but these are differences of degree and not kind. The R&D for a HTL material is going to be usable for both WRGB and RGB.


I doubt that there is much difference at all in terms of the vapor deposition equipment. If the Chinese vendors had to build a supply chain from scratch, the odds of success would be even lower.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200_60#post_24802969
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24802551
> 
> 
> How valuable is that chain though? It's based on SMS and LTPS. The future is IGZO and vapor depo WRGB or printables. I just don't see what you could do with Samsung's entire fab that Samsung couldn't do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are likely some differences in formulation for a WRGB stack versus a RGB stack but these are differences of degree and not kind. The R&D for a HTL material is going to be usable for both WRGB and RGB.
> 
> 
> I doubt that there is much difference at all in terms of the vapor deposition equipment. If the Chinese vendors had to build a supply chain from scratch, the odds of success would be even lower.
Click to expand...

 

AIUI, Samsung wasn't using an RGB *stack* at all in their current attempts.  They were using discrete RGB OLED "droplet" emitters.  No?  Did I lose track of your conversation?

 

It's always silly for me to put it this way because manufacturing means everything to product existence, but *if* they find a way to manufacturer it, I would trust Samsungs RGB subpixels over the stack-and-filter and contiguous sheet of OLED material design by LG.  I like the Samsung approach: if you want blue to last longer, make it wider (or perhaps taller).


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24803006
> 
> 
> AIUI, Samsung wasn't using an RGB _stack_ at all in their current attempts.  They were using discrete RGB OLED "droplet" emitters.  No?  Did I lose track of your conversation?



I probably should have used a different word since a "stacked" OLED refers to a specific architecture.


The RGB emitters are discrete and are not stacked on top of each other. On the other hand, there are materials layered above and below the emitter which are needed (HTL, HIL, etc) and will be similar to the materials used in a WRGB design.


----------



## Weboh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegas oled*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24797511
> 
> 
> A
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200#post_24794647
> 
> 
> OLED is jibberish.
> 
> 
> 
> nother post from someone who just likes to be negative
Click to expand...

Another worthless post believing the hype.


----------



## Weboh


Gee, what version of LCD do you want? IPS, IGZO, and should it be based on LTPS? And did Sony really do any in-house research on it?


----------



## stas3098




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24803100
> 
> 
> 
> I probably should have used a different word since a "stacked" OLED refers to a specific architecture.
> 
> 
> The RGB emitters are discrete and are not stacked on top of each other. On the other hand, there are materials layered above and below the emitter which are needed (HTL, HIL, etc) and will be similar to the materials used in a WRGB design.


What makes me wonder is  what rise/fall times of OLED are. Has any one ever measured it?


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Weboh*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200_100#post_24803206
> 
> 
> 
> Another worthless post believing the hype.


To be fair, he owns one and is in a better position to make a judgement call than from an armchair general like yerself.


----------



## Rich Peterson

This sounds like it was written by an AVS reader. Covers pretty much everthing we have discussed in this thread.

*Today’s Most Promising Display Technology May Already Be Dead*


Source: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/oled-could-be-dead/ 


A couple sentences I found interesting, but these are out of context and there is much more in the article.


> Quote:
> OLED was sexy. OLED was the ultimate. And alas, OLED was DOA.





> Quote:
> But LCD’s backlight system isn’t all bad news, and it introduces one big advantage that LCD sets have in comparison to OLED TVs. They can get really bright without fear of burn-in. If LCD manufacturers are able to solve the black-level problems, they could conceivably produce sets with contrast ratios that surpass those of OLED.


----------



## RichB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24813549
> 
> 
> This sounds like it was written by an AVS reader. Covers pretty much everthing we have discussed in this thread.
> 
> *Today’s Most Promising Display Technology May Already Be Dead*
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/oled-could-be-dead/
> 
> 
> A couple sentences I found interesting, but these are out of context and there is much more in the article.



Apparently, LCD already solved the angle viewing problem










- Rich


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rich Peterson*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200_60#post_24813549
> 
> 
> This sounds like it was written by an AVS reader. Covers pretty much everthing we have discussed in this thread.
> 
> *Today’s Most Promising Display Technology May Already Be Dead*
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/oled-could-be-dead/
> 
> 
> A couple sentences I found interesting, but these are out of context and there is much more in the article.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> OLED was sexy. OLED was the ultimate. And alas, OLED was DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> But LCD’s backlight system isn’t all bad news, and it introduces one big advantage that LCD sets have in comparison to OLED TVs. They can get really bright without fear of burn-in. If LCD manufacturers are able to solve the black-level problems, they could conceivably produce sets with contrast ratios that surpass those of OLED.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 

I hate it when writers and reviewers use word combinations soley because they sound good.  Like:
"OLED was sexy. OLED was the ultimate. And alas, OLED was DOA."

 

He *only* wrote that because of how clever it rolls out, *not* because it's accurate.  There's a shipping product.  That's not DOA.


----------



## andy sullivan

It can't be DOA if there is no arrival. Perhaps the better term associated with DOA should be Doomed on Arrival. I don't personally think it's doomed but I do think it will be a few years out and require the Chinese manufactures to bring it home.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200_60#post_24813751
> 
> 
> It can't be DOA if there is no arrival. Perhaps the better term associated with DOA should be Doomed on Arrival. I don't personally think it's doomed but I do think it will be a few years out and require the Chinese manufactures to bring it home.


 

If there's no arrival, then how come there are products?


----------



## vinnie97

^These are not the OLEDs you're looking for?


----------



## andy sullivan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24813848
> 
> 
> If there's no arrival, then how come there are products?
> 
> [/quot
> 
> 
> Sorry. My point was that since there is indeed product being shipped and purchased then perhaps "Doomed on Arrival" might be a better term, than "Dead on Arrival". Doomed because the product was rushed to market while certain problems have not been sufficiently overcome yet and the price is beyond the average buyers window. I think all will be overcome which is why I said I personally do not feel the product is doomed. As has been mentioned countless times here, if the problems are not fixed and the price cannot become realistic for the masses then OLED is doomed and will become dead. It's certainly not dead or doomed yet. I think that OLED has a better chance of existing in 2020 than plasma does.


----------



## mo949

From that article I found the part about motion handling interesting:


"OLED’s Aces in the Hole


So if LCD sets continue to close the picture-quality gap at a lower price, is OLED already dead? Not if you care about the following things.


Although LCD black levels can be improved with local-dimming features, they won’t ever be able to match OLED’s pure-black perfection until individual pixels can be directly turned on or turned off. That’s really the secret of OLED’s stunning picture quality: A pure black pixel can appear right next to a bright white pixel with no light bleed. That translates to razor-sharp contrast.


Another one of OLED’s advantages is that its pixels have a near-instantaneous response time, which translates into buttery-smooth onscreen motion. The first-generation OLED TVs currently need the same kind of motion-enhancing tweaks as your average LCD set when watching fast-moving video. This results in a “soap-opera effect” or a darker or flickering image. Still, that’s bound to improve."



The razor sharp contrast between dark and light spots is what people like me care about (no, drool about) - of course the black levels themselves are good too


----------



## Rudy1

*Interesting read on Universal Display's Latest Efforts:*

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/oled-architecture-201406103809.htm


----------



## turnbowm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RichB*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24813572
> 
> 
> Apparently, LCD already solved the angle viewing problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich



Nothing could be further from the truth. Limited viewing angles is inherent in LCD display technology.


----------



## KidHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24814227
> 
> *Interesting read on Universal Display's Latest Efforts:*
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/oled-architecture-201406103809.htm



So cutting the manufacturing steps from 3 to 2 makes the panel last up to 8 times longer and makes them much easier to manufacture. I hate to say it, but this seems like the words from a desperate company that, without Samsung, won't be making anything.


----------



## mo949




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KidHorn*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24814600
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24814227
> 
> *Interesting read on Universal Display's Latest Efforts:*
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/oled-architecture-201406103809.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So cutting the manufacturing steps from 3 to 2 makes the panel last up to 8 times longer and makes them much easier to manufacture. I hate to say it, but this seems like the words from a desperate company that, without Samsung, won't be making anything.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if you caught that its not just from 3 to 2, but that the 3 used High Resolution patterning steps and the 'to be' 2 would use low resolution masking steps. Obviously we'd need more detail, but it doesn't seem like just the reduction of one step but a whole different way of taking that step.


----------



## slacker711

65" and 77" 4K are projected for the third quarter by a LG spokesman. The fact that they dont mention a 55" 4K model makes me think that they may stick with a single 55" model that is 1080p.

http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2990429&cloc=joongangdaily%7Chome%7Cnewslist1 


> Quote:
> Will OLED UHD spell success?
> 
> LG plans second-half assault to energize flagship TV business
> 
> 
> snip...................
> 
> 
> A company spokesman said yesterday it will launch the 77-inch and 65-inch curved UHD OLED TVs as soon as the third quarter.


----------



## vinnie97

The reaffirmations are reassuring! G'wan, LG. Now to start my own personal LG OLED fundraiser...


----------



## mo949

Maybe 4k in a 55 inch size places the pixels too close together for their manufacturing method.


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mo949*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24816593
> 
> 
> Maybe 4k in a 55 inch size places the pixels too close together for their manufacturing method.



The ppi on a 55" 4K television is around 80. That is a fifth of the densities we are seeing in some smartphones.


Increased pixel density is actually an advantage for WRGB vs. RGB. The highest pixel density prototypes with OLED's have been using WRGB.


----------



## catonic

I was in a tv retail store the other day and saw LG's 55" OLED and whilst it looked good, especially the black levels, it did not look noticeably better than the best quality LCD sets, and I am no fan of LCD.

I think that LG are going to need to -

1. Make sure they price OLED at the same levels as (or very close to) top end LCD and also maintain price parity with the bottom end of the LCD market if they choose to compete in that market segment.

2. Heavily promote OLED via all media (television, magazines, newspapers etc) driving home all the advantages of OLED over LCD.

3. Make sure that they are available from every retail outlet that has LCD's for sale, ie. market saturation.


Even then I feel that they are going to have a tough job ahead of them, which is unfortunate.


----------



## mo949

What LCD sets are you comparing the lg to specifically, ie which ones are better?


----------



## mo949




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24816629
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mo949*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24816593
> 
> 
> Maybe 4k in a 55 inch size places the pixels too close together for their manufacturing method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ppi on a 55" 4K television is around 80. That is a fifth of the densities we are seeing in some smartphones.
> 
> 
> Increased pixel density is actually an advantage for WRGB vs. RGB. The highest pixel density prototypes with OLED's have been using WRGB.
Click to expand...


Sounds good to me when you put it like that. Any insight on why lgs pixel structure seems to get criticized for being spaced out/ more obvious from a distance?


----------



## hotskins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24814227
> 
> *Interesting read on Universal Display's Latest Efforts:*
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/oled-architecture-201406103809.htm



things are looking up


----------



## ALMA




> Quote:
> Any insight on why lgs pixel structure seems to get criticized for being spaced out/ more obvious from a distance?



Because of LG´s FPR tech for passive 3D. The polarize filter needs more space between the pixels. You can also see the same screen door effect on their passive 3D LCDs, even in 2D mode. With 4K resolution the "issue" will be solved.


----------



## mo949

^ thank you. That makes perfect sense.


----------



## Wizziwig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24816520
> 
> 
> 65" and 77" 4K are projected for the third quarter by a LG spokesman. The fact that they dont mention a 55" 4K model makes me think that they may stick with a single 55" model that is 1080p.
> 
> http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2990429&cloc=joongangdaily%7Chome%7Cnewslist1



"as soon as the third quarter.". Or as late as?? And since this is a Korean source, I'm assuming they are talking about dates in Korea - not global.


I found this kind of interesting:


> Quote:
> “LG’s strategy of enhancing its UHD TV lineup is aimed at raising the market presence, which has lagged behind Samsung,” said a market analyst. “In addition, LG also secured price competitiveness as its production efficiency for OLED panels has reached nearly 80 percent.”
> 
> 
> In order to maintain the price competitiveness, production efficiency must reach 90 percent, meaning that only 10 percent or less of displays produced fail to meet quality standards for sale to consumers. LG’s current production yield for LCD panels is 90 percent



Isn't 90% yield for LCD really bad? Given how cheap they are, I assumed they would be hitting like 99% by now. Maybe this is specific to LG IPS UHD LCD panels?


----------



## slacker711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wizziwig*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10230#post_24817092
> 
> 
> "as soon as the third quarter.". Or as late as?? And since this is a Korean source, I'm assuming they are talking about dates in Korea - not global.
> 
> 
> I found this kind of interesting:
> 
> Isn't 90% yield for LCD really bad? Given how cheap they are, I assumed they would be hitting like 99% by now. Maybe this is specific to LG IPS UHD LCD panels?



There have been various Korean articles that indicate that the 2nd OLED fab will begin ramping in July/August so this matches that forecast. While it is possible that the launch will be Korea only, I am not sure that there is much reason to for it to match the initial OLED launch exactly. A new fab ramp is complicated, but it pales in comparison with start up pains when the technology is brand new. They simply couldnt make very many units in the spring of 2013.


90% seems low to me as well, but the number might be possible for a specific high-end panel. It cant be right as an average for their entire LCD production.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slacker711*  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/10200_60#post_24816629
> 
> 
> The ppi on a 55" 4K television is around 80. That is a fifth of the densities we are seeing in some smartphones.


 
But I'm not sure that this means that the pixel pitch of 80 isn't a dramatic issue on something as large as a TV.  Making a 2K 55" OLED at acceptable yields took quite an effort.  Quadrupling those pixels, with all the tolerances tightened along the way, must be exceedingly difficult.  I'm guessing higher tolerance requirements = lower yields even if you've already mastered even higher tolerances on smaller devices.
 


> Quote:
> Increased pixel density is actually an advantage for WRGB vs. RGB. The highest pixel density prototypes with OLED's have been using WRGB.


 

I wonder if this is because of LG's unified layer approach to the OLED material?


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> 
> But I'm not sure that this means that the pixel pitch of 80 isn't a dramatic issue on something as large as a TV.  Making a 2K 55" OLED at acceptable yields took quite an effort.  Quadrupling those pixels, with all the tolerances tightened along the way, must be exceedingly difficult.  I'm guessing higher tolerance requirements = lower yields even if you've already mastered even higher tolerances on smaller devices.


The yields will certainly go down for 4K at all sizes, but the discussion began as to why LGD might be manufacturing a 65" and 77" 4K but skip 55" 4K I dont think that pixel density is the answer. 

It seems like an odd decision if that is the route that they take for the Christmas 2014 lineup.
 


tgm1024 said:


> I wonder if this is because of LG's unified layer approach to the OLED material?


Samsung is using shadow masks to create the RGB pattern, basically a thin metal screen with holes corresponding to each pixel. You can imagine as the distance between holes and the diameter of the holes both get smaller, that the issues only go up. No problem for 4K on televisions, but they must be performing some neat tricks to create the next wave of ~5" quad-hd smartphones panels.


----------



## slacker711

Patent talks between Samsung and LG break down. It is definitely possible that this is due to Samsung wanting a deal that covers WRGB. 

http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/arti...samsung-and-lg-display-break-down-over-patent


----------



## ynotgoal

slacker711 said:


> 65" and 77" 4K are projected for the third quarter by a LG spokesman. The fact that they dont mention a 55" 4K model makes me think that they may stick with a single 55" model that is 1080p.
> 
> http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com...aid=2990429&cloc=joongangdaily|home|newslist1
> Quote:Will OLED UHD spell success?
> LG plans second-half assault to energize flagship TV business
> 
> snip...................
> 
> A company spokesman said yesterday it will launch the 77-inch and 65-inch curved UHD OLED TVs as soon as the third quarter.



This may have to do with which lines are producing the various TVs. The reports I've seen is the 65" and 77" 4K models are being produced on one of the the M1 lines now while the M2 line is being optimized for the 55" 4K model. The idea being to make the 55" 4K model priced competitively. This would mean the 65" and 77" models could be available sooner though they would be smaller volume and more expensive. It might be q4 before the 55" 4K model is available.


----------



## slacker711

ynotgoal said:


> This may have to do with which lines are producing the various TVs. The reports I've seen is the 65" and 77" 4K models are being produced on one of the the M1 lines now while the M2 line is being optimized for the 55" 4K model. The idea being to make the 55" 4K model priced competitively. This would mean the 65" and 77" models could be available sooner though they would be smaller volume and more expensive. It might be q4 before the 55" 4K model is available.


Thanks, that would make more sense. A 55" model with 4K seems like a requirement considering the quick move to higher resolutions in the US and China.

LG Display's 20F lists the M1 fab as being used for 55", 65", and 77" production but I wasnt sure if that was just referring to prototypes. 

FWIW, Robert Zohn just said on another site to expect the larger 4K models in mid-September.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> FWIW, Robert Zohn just said on another site to expect the larger 4K models in mid-September.


Do you have faith that it'll be that soon?


----------



## vinnie97

Even so, with the shootout set for mid-July, it appears a 4K OLED might not make it in time (of course it will likely win such a contest by default ).


----------



## 8mile13

The VE Shootout list of TVs will be posted on june 16 so all participants were signed before that date.


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> Do you have faith that it'll be that soon?


As a general rule, always bet on delays for any new technology.

That being said, my over/under would probably be around Black Friday. As of now, I have yet to hear of anything indicating a delay so hopefully, that means there are no major showstoppers for the 4K models.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> As a general rule, always bet on delays for any new technology.
> 
> That being said, my over/under would probably be around Black Friday. As of now, I have yet to hear of anything indicating a delay so hopefully, that means there are no major showstoppers for the 4K models.


I'm half worried about this ending badly.

I think everyone gets screwed simply by the need to release a new model every year and to have a presence at the time of the shows (even if they're not _in_ the show technically).


----------



## slacker711

Samsung's not dead yet. Of course, this doesnt say that they will actually ship the 4K OLED televisions, but the first step to getting into the game is to demonstrate something at a show. 

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2014/06/133_158982.html
_



An executive of another local Samsung partner said the company is set to wow the industry and participants at the new independent venue as the company will unveil wearable devices, the Galaxy Note3 sequel, home appliances and curved OLED TVs. 

"Samsung will unveil the Galaxy Note4 phablet, UHD OLED TVs, a Google Glass rival, and home appliances at the upcoming IFA," said the executive. 

Samsung is in the progress of fixing details about its new announcements, he said. 

"The Note4 will have two versions ― one with a curved OLED display for niche markets and the other a flat OLED display for mass marketing," said the executive.

Click to expand...

_


----------



## 8mile13

slacker711 said:


> Samsung's not dead yet. Of course, this doesnt say that they will actually ship the 4K OLED televisions, but the first step to getting into the game is to demonstrate something at a show.
> 
> http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2014/06/133_158982.html


Do you really believe that there will be Samsung OLED TVs at IFA 2014?


These are quotes by a unnamed Samsung executive. So basically the guy is starting a rumor. Is he not?


----------



## slacker711

8mile13 said:


> Do you really believe that there will be Samsung OLED TVs at IFA 2014?
> 
> 
> These are quotes by a unnamed Samsung executive. So basically the guy is starting a rumor. Is he not?


A few thoughts.

1) The Korea Times didnt start the rumor. I read an analyst say that Samsung would be getting back into OLED televisions in Q3. That was about a month ago. 

2) The Korea Times is not one of the newspapers that I trust the most but I put more weight on this because they attributed direct quotes to an exec at a Samsung partner rather than just putting an unsourced statement into the article.

3) Rather than a yes/no statement, I view rumored events in terms of probability. The rumored iWatch might be at 80-90% for a fall launch. I would have put the odds of Samsung announcing an OLED television at IFA at near zero back in March, but now might put it at 30-40%. 

One way to evaluate the comments from the source will be to see whether there is any confirmation of multiple Note models. This is the first I have heard of that rumor and I am sure that there are multiple mobile sites trying to confirm whether that is true.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG Display Said in Talks to Supply TV Panels to Panasonic *

Source: Bloomberg news: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...n-talks-to-supply-tv-panels-to-panasonic.html

LG Display Company is in talks to supply Panasonic Corp with big-screen TV panels using its next-generation technology as the Japanese company tries to lower production costs, people familiar with the matter said. 
LG Display, already a provider of smaller screens to Apple Inc., is seeking to boost adoption of organic light-emitting diode technology, the people said, asking not to be identified because the talks are private. The Seoul-based company is seeking to add other Japanese customers, the people said. 

[snip]

Chieko Gyobu, a spokeswoman for Osaka-based Panasonic, said the company is considering options for its OLED business and nothing has been decided.


----------



## Rich Peterson

This is almost too outrageous to post, but in the interest of possible discussion:

*LGD sees more than 5 million OLED TV panels produced in 2015*

Source: http://www.oled-info.com/lgd-sees-more-5-million-oled-tv-panels-produced-2015



> There's an interesting article posted in Korea's eDaily News, quoting an LGD senior official - saying that LGD plans to produce over 5 million OLED TVs in 2015 (in fact they hope to sell between 5 and 6 million).


----------



## irkuck

Finally OLED where it should be moving up: Samsung 8.5" and 10" tablets @2560x1600 res :angel:


----------



## slacker711

Rich Peterson said:


> This is almost too outrageous to post, but in the interest of possible discussion:
> 
> *LGD sees more than 5 million OLED TV panels produced in 2015*
> 
> Source: http://www.oled-info.com/lgd-sees-more-5-million-oled-tv-panels-produced-2015


I believe the original source for the 10% number was a Chinese article and I can only assume that it was a misquote of an LGD official.


----------



## slacker711

irkuck said:


> Finally OLED where it should be moving up: Samsung 8.5" and 10" tablets @2560x1600 res :angel:


The impressive part about this is the price. A MSRP of $499 for the 10.5" display means that street pricing should be meaningfully below the iPad Air.


----------



## rogo

Rich Peterson said:


> This is almost too outrageous to post, but in the interest of possible discussion:
> 
> *LGD sees more than 5 million OLED TV panels produced in 2015*
> 
> Source: http://www.oled-info.com/lgd-sees-more-5-million-oled-tv-panels-produced-2015


So this is an OLED hype site which understands LG's _total_ capacity is 1.8 million panels, but it reports this drivel anyway? Got it.



irkuck said:


> Finally OLED where it should be moving up: Samsung 8.5" and 10" tablets @2560x1600 res :angel:


Yep, but these are going to be super low production models, I'd imagine.

And, slacker, whether they street below the iPad Air or not, Samsung has now added _yet more_ tablet models to a lineup that (a) no one can possibly comprehend already (b) needs to be sold at deep discounts to move at all. I don't see these making any dents into iPad market share for higher-end tablets to be honest. 

I do like that OLED is moving up the food chain, though.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> And, slacker, whether they street below the iPad Air or not, Samsung has now added _yet more_ tablet models to a lineup that (a) no one can possibly comprehend already


As a general rule this is something that mystifies me. It's almost as if some technology companies are trying to occupy shelf space the way food companies try to. Apple products routinely annoy me, but one of the things I do have to say that SJ got right was the concept of offering _few_ options. Having a selection of models #s run off the page only makes people leery. There are exceptions to this however. Intel seems to have done really well even though they have a product line so large that it makes IT guys dizzy.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> And, slacker, whether they street below the iPad Air or not, Samsung has now added yet more tablet models to a lineup that (a) no one can possibly comprehend already (b) needs to be sold at deep discounts to move at all. I don't see these making any dents into iPad market share for higher-end tablets to be honest.
> 
> I do like that OLED is moving up the food chain, though.


I wont claim to understand Samsung's strategy with respect to the number of models but it has to be said that they have been successful with it in both smartphones and tablets.

I think we need to define "super low" production model. I think of the 7.7" AMOLED tablet when I hear those words and that unit clearly never had any chance to generate any real volume. These tablets are priced much more aggressively so have a chance to sell well for a premium Android tablet. Samsung is also planning to put some marketing muscle behind the tablets and the AMOLED screens do provide some differentiation between it and the competitive models in a similar price range. AV enthusiasts and review sites might not like the oversaturated colors in the Galaxy smartphone line but I have always thought they provided some eye candy for consumers when they walked into stores and were presented with a dozen similar Android options.

That doesnt mean volumes anywhere near the iPad's but a million units a month would take up around 12% of their mobile OLED production capacity.


----------



## irkuck

irkuck said:


> Finally OLED where it should be moving up: Samsung 8.5" and 10" tablets @2560x1600 res :angel:





slacker711 said:


> The impressive part about this is the price. A MSRP of $499 for the 10.5" display means that street pricing should be meaningfully below the iPad Air.


Even more: According to Samsung, the 10.5” model features a full RGB stripe. Plus: Battery 7900mAh.


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> Even more: According to Samsung, the 10.5” model features a full RGB stripe.


I no longer see this as an advantage at all; in fact an RGB stripe is a step back. Their latest pentile-like sub arrangements were fantastic if the pictures posted from Chron do them justice. It really defeats the natural aliasing that comes from a rectilinear grid of uniform subs. Also, my Note II (a completely different arrangement) is phenomenal.


----------



## stas3098

Note 2 is RGB S-stripe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOLED


In defense of RGB stripe I wanna say that my pentile note 1's colors have drifted a bit(noticeably) into the green zone over 2 years of 1-5 hours of use a day. I guess Sammy can't see any point any more in using pentile when it doesn't really help to tackle the color drifting over time issue.
In my humble opinion the move to RGB stripe is a good thing. Samsung have been criticized harshly all over the net for their parchment-like looking whites, transition color shifts ect. RGB stripe solves all those problems.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> As a general rule this is something that mystifies me. It's almost as if some technology companies are trying to occupy shelf space the way food companies try to. Apple products routinely annoy me, but one of the things I do have to say that SJ got right was the concept of offering _few_ options. Having a selection of models #s run off the page only makes people leery. There are exceptions to this however. Intel seems to have done really well even though they have a product line so large that it makes IT guys dizzy.


So I think Intel is different because they mostly don't sell to consumers. And I think _they_ are over-assorted too.



slacker711 said:


> I wont claim to understand Samsung's strategy with respect to the number of models but it has to be said that they have been successful with it in both smartphones and tablets.


So I'm going to state with little equivocation: They'd be _even more successful with fewer SKUs._


> I think we need to define "super low" production model. I think of the 7.7" AMOLED tablet when I hear those words and that unit clearly never had any chance to generate any real volume. These tablets are priced much more aggressively so have a chance to sell well for a premium Android tablet.


Yes, this isn't the 7.7". But I think we ought to be careful before we start claiming there is some meaningful "premium Android tablet" market. Samsung takes its existing tablets and whores them out for $100 or more below MSRP at every outlet it can find (e.g. Costco). That's (a) not a premium strategy (b) evidence there isn't a market at $100 higher. Businesses are not buying Android tablets much, nor is education.

There are a lot of Android tablets selling, the vast majority of which are cheap. There are a lot of Samsung tablets selling, the vast majority of which are cheap.


> Samsung is also planning to put some marketing muscle behind the tablets and the AMOLED screens do provide some differentiation between it and the competitive models in a similar price range.


I see this as a very limited differentiation. People don't look at the iPad and find the screen wanting.


> AV enthusiasts and review sites might not like the oversaturated colors in the Galaxy smartphone line but I have always thought they provided some eye candy for consumers when they walked into stores and were presented with a dozen similar Android options.


The S5 screen is amazing. It's less clear the new tablets are as good.


> That doesnt mean volumes anywhere near the iPad's but a million units a month would take up around 12% of their mobile OLED production capacity.


I'm very skeptical these tablets are heading for those volumes, but maybe.

* Hmm, multi-part quoting seems pretty broken with the new forum software.*


----------



## NintendoManiac64

tgm1024 said:


> I no longer see this as an advantage at all; in fact an RGB stripe is a step back. Their latest pentile-like sub arrangements were fantastic if the pictures posted from Chron do them justice. It really defeats the natural aliasing that comes from a rectilinear grid of uniform subs.


Contrary to popular belief, using three rectangle stripes isn't the only way to arrange your red, green, and blue subpixels.


----------



## stas3098

NintendoManiac64 said:


> tgm1024 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I no longer see this as an advantage at all; in fact an RGB stripe is a step back. Their latest pentile-like sub arrangements were fantastic if the pictures posted from Chron do them justice. It really defeats the natural aliasing that comes from a rectilinear grid of uniform subs.
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, using three rectangle stripes isn't the only way to arrange your red, green, and blue subpixels.
Click to expand...

I think what the people who said Tab S would have an RGB stripe arrangement meant that it would have an S-RGB stripe pixel-arrangement like note 2 did.

Although it might as well be a good, old standard RGB stripe arrangement which is a good thing, however you slice it, in short-term (1-2 years)


----------



## irkuck

stas3098 said:


> Note 2 is RGB S-stripe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOLED
> In defense of RGB stripe I wanna say that my pentile note 1's colors have drifted a bit(noticeably) into the green zone over 2 years of 1-5 hours of use a day. I guess Sammy can't see any point any more in using pentile when it doesn't really help to tackle the color drifting over time issue. In my humble opinion the move to RGB stripe is a good thing. Samsung have been criticized harshly all over the net for their parchment-like looking whites, transition color shifts ect. RGB stripe solves all those problems.


Still more incredible is that according to the source the 8.4” Tab S has a diamond PenTile subpixel structure.  Lovers of Pentile just buy the smaller beast. It will be fun to test both displays side-by-side to see if differences are visible.


----------



## tgm1024

Quoting remains broken, so I'll put your quotes in bold to keep them separate from my comments. What a mess otherwise.



stas3098 said:


> *Note 2 is RGB S-stripe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOLED*


Yep. And I love the way it looks. Like I said, the note 2 is a completely different arrangement; for me the way that it helps defeat the natural aliasing that forms from stripe arrangement grids. I'm not convinced that the way it does this was entirely on their radar at the time.




> *In defense of RGB stripe I wanna say that my pentile note 1's colors have drifted a bit(noticeably) into the green zone over 2 years of 1-5 hours of use a day. I guess Sammy can't see any point any more in using pentile when it doesn't really help to tackle the color drifting over time issue.
> In my humble opinion the move to RGB stripe is a good thing. Samsung have been criticized harshly all over the net for their parchment-like looking whites, transition color shifts ect. RGB stripe solves all those problems.*


Your Note 1 is quite old in OLED terms. That color shift sounds like a simple blue fade. Changing to a stripe arrangement by itself will not solve that problem unless it's specifically enlarging the blue, which in any arrangement would help that fade.

Their S5 grid will do a better job IMO. Admittedly it's not from a site I believe to be non biased: http://news.oled-display.net/samsung-galaxy-s5-oled-pixel-structure/


----------



## Audio Karma

It might take years to work out all these  BUGS with these OLED TV's 

I will wait until they do. :crying:


----------



## Rudy1

*NO NEW MODELS FOR 2014/2015 FROM SAMSUNG?*

http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/no-new-oled-tvs-works-samsung-2014-2015-n34724.html


----------



## tgm1024

Rudy1 said:


> *NO NEW MODELS FOR 2014/2015 FROM SAMSUNG?*
> 
> http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/no-new-oled-tvs-works-samsung-2014-2015-n34724.html


Not much new in that article.

However, I am interested in this concept of the TCL's of the world coming up with their own OLED design. It was laughable at one point, but I keep hearing word of this stuff online and am wondering if the world will very soon be past the "gotta rebrand the LG" phase.


----------



## Morning5

Audio Karma said:


> It might take years to work out all these  BUGS with these OLED TV's
> 
> I will wait until they do. :crying:


LOL LCDs still have a lot of "bugs" like flashlighting, clouding, and a big etc. and you are bothered by the bugs found in a new tech.


----------



## theatredaz

4K should be marketed in a 70" 100" market because the market would recognizably demand such displays. Recognizing the issue with larger current LED displays, one understands there's a vaccum of error to bring home a 70" that fits wonderfully on any wall only to find out that in order to enjoy that large screen size one requires to sit 9+ feet away from their set.

IMO the whole point of a larger display is to sit close to the set, not everyone has the living space to enjoy +15 feet of viewing area.

4K solves the vaccum caused by this anomoly.

If a higher pixel desnity can allow such viewing areas with 6 ft @ 90" display then that would be a step in the right direction.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> The S5 screen is amazing. It's less clear the new tablets are as good.


A datapoint on the quality of the Tab S display. Samsung Display says that the 10.5" version has been tested by UL and shown to be 100% Adobe RGB accurate (this is in the translated text). 

http://blog.samsungdisplay.com/752

During the Tab S introduction, I believe that they claimed greater than 90% Adobe RGB accuracy, so I can only assume that the 8.4" version doesnt quite 100%. Hopefully, Displaymate gets a chance to test both versions in fairly short order.


----------



## Audio Karma

Morning5 said:


> LOL LCDs still have a lot of "bugs" like flashlighting, clouding, and a big etc. and you are bothered by the bugs found in a new tech.


 You see the problems some are having with these new OLED's.. that's why it's always BETTER to WAIT three or four generations before buying this new technology....


----------



## Morning5

Audio Karma said:


> You see the problems some are having with these new OLED's.. that's why it's always BETTER to WAIT three or four generations before buying this new technology....


For me worse problems are LCD's blooming, flashlighting, poor black color and of course the worst of all: edge lits. I will no doubt buy the second generation 2014 LG OLEDerfect black colors, perfect contrast, better motion than LCDs, better colors.


----------



## Vegas oled

Audio Karma said:


> It might take years to work out all these  BUGS with these OLED TV's
> 
> I will wait until they do. :crying:


 
You may be correct, even with the BUGS, they Smoke any LCD/LED made. In 15 years all the bugs are still in LCD/LED panels to some extent, the world of the perfect TV's will never exist.


----------



## Vegas oled

Morning5 said:


> For me worse problems are LCD's blooming, flashlighting, poor black color and of course the worst of all: edge lits. I will no doubt buy the second generation 2014 LG OLEDerfect black colors, perfect contrast, better motion than LCDs, better colors.


Ditto


----------



## Vegas oled

Audio Karma said:


> You see the problems some are having with these new OLED's.. that's why it's always BETTER to WAIT three or four generations before buying this new technology....


Nothing more exciting than being the first. Same with 4K set owner, although 2014 models dropped in price and improved slightly, I bet you the 2013 buyers had a little more excitement being the first.


----------



## Audio Karma

Vegas oled said:


> Nothing more exciting than being the first. Same with 4K set owner, although 2014 models dropped in price and improved slightly, I bet you the 2013 buyers had a little more excitement being the first.


 I hear you...I was very excited too when I got my first LAY at 9 years old .


----------



## remush

So I'm reading(amazon and other online retailers) that the new panels will at least have some improvements over the 2013 ones, like 10 bit, 240hz, wall mounting capabilities. Hopefully other improvements will be included as well, especially improving uniformity, ir etc. 
Has anyone pre-ordered or is thinking of buying the new 1080p model once it arrives?


----------



## Wizziwig

http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rd...sions_driven_by_picture_and_sound_quality.asp

Not sure how to interpret that data. Supposedly people value picture quality above everything else yet the market is flooded with poor quality LCD panels.

At least this shows that consumers have zero interest in curved so that trend will likely be very short lived. They also don't care much for 3D, OLED, or UHDTV.


----------



## slacker711

Straight from a LG Display blog, yields have hit 80% and it seems we can expect price cuts of 30% to 40% in Q4.

https://translate.google.com/transl...8B%9C%EC%9E%A5-%EC%A0%84%EB%A7%9D/&edit-text=


----------



## greenland

BOE produces sample 55" 4K OLED TV panels at their Gen-8 pilot line in Hefei

http://www.oled-info.com/boe-produces-sample-55-4k-oled-tv-panels-their-gen-8-pilot-line-hefei


Do any of you have any other sources that have reported this? I would like to have some further confirmation, just to make sure that it is not just another vapor rumor.


----------



## theatredaz

OLED doesn't require backlit or edgelit tech (which adds to the cost every year).

*Here's an OLED review LG'shttp://www.techradar.com/reviews/au...s/lg-55ea9800-1178660/review/2#articleContent

4K OLED!


----------



## slacker711

greenland said:


> BOE produces sample 55" 4K OLED TV panels at their Gen-8 pilot line in Hefei
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/boe-produces-sample-55-4k-oled-tv-panels-their-gen-8-pilot-line-hefei
> 
> 
> Do any of you have any other sources that have reported this? I would like to have some further confirmation, just to make sure that it is not just another vapor rumor.


BOE definitely showed a 55" 4K OLED at SID, but OLED-Info had previously speculated that this was supplied by LG Display. That never really made much sense. BOE is a panel supplier and the specs on the television were worse than the other sets using LGD's OLED panels. The only real question I had was whether BOE had used a Gen 8 pilot fab or a Gen 5.5 one....this report seems to confirm that the sets were made using a Gen 8 facility, though there is no source cited.

It is a long way from a first demo to real production, but it looks like BOE has taken the first step.


----------



## Orbitron

Is is possible for an OLED display to be built with a matte finish and not the super smooth and reflective glossy glass? 

It isn't that OLED isn't plenty sharp, it's the smoothness of glass and lack of a textured look and crispness that bothers me.


----------



## rogo

Wizziwig said:


> http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rd...sions_driven_by_picture_and_sound_quality.asp
> 
> Not sure how to interpret that data. Supposedly people value picture quality above everything else yet the market is flooded with poor quality LCD panels.
> 
> At least this shows that consumers have zero interest in curved so that trend will likely be very short lived. They also don't care much for 3D, OLED, or UHDTV.


To quote Dr. House: "Everybody lies." Or they are ignorant. Mostly that, I suspect. People have no idea what good picture quality is. They tolerate almost anything. That's why I'm not bullish on picture quality selling TVs. It never really has.



slacker711 said:


> Straight from a LG Display blog, yields have hit 80% and it seems we can expect price cuts of 30% to 40% in Q4.


So, first, obviously good news assuming the translation says what it seems to say.

Second, price cuts on what? On the unannounced, unpriced models? Or are you saying the 55-inch existing models are heading below $3000?


----------



## Audio Karma

I'm waiting on the "FLAT" 8K OLED's to come on the market by 2020 and be done with it !


----------



## ynotgoal

There was a panel discussion at CE Week today. OLED was discussed from around the 26 minute mark. LG's Tim Alessi:

The successor to the 55" 1080p set will be rolled out nationally within the next 30 days at $4999.
The 65" and 77" UHD sets will be available in 3rd quarter.
Expanding distribution to more outlets and selling all the OLED TVs they can make at current prices while expanding production.
Lifetime is equal to current plasma models with no uneven aging due to WRGB system.


----------



## Morning5

ynotgoal said:


> There was a panel discussion at CE Week today. OLED was discussed from around the 26 minute mark. LG's Tim Alessi:
> 
> The successor to the 55" 1080p set will be rolled out nationally within the next 30 days at $4999.
> The 65" and 77" UHD sets will be available in 3rd quarter.
> Expanding distribution to more outlets and selling all the OLED TVs they can make at current prices while expanding production.
> Lifetime is equal to current plasma models with no uneven aging due to WRGB system.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW1389JVPjQ



Thank you for the information


----------



## rogo

I still don't think LG understands what they are talking about with respect to uneven aging, sorry.

The rest sounds great, though. (Well, the $5000 55" 1080p set doesn't sound exactly great.)


----------



## vinnie97

Audio Karma said:


> I hear you...I was very excited too when I got my first LAY at 9 years old .


Egads, sounds like something out of Brave New World.


----------



## Stereodude

vinnie97 said:


> Egads, sounds like something out of Brave New World.


He's not talking about potato chips?


----------



## slacker711

ynotgoal said:


> There was a panel discussion at CE Week today. OLED was discussed from around the 26 minute mark. LG's Tim Alessi:
> 
> The successor to the 55" 1080p set will be rolled out nationally within the next 30 days at $4999.
> The 65" and 77" UHD sets will be available in 3rd quarter.
> Expanding distribution to more outlets and selling all the OLED TVs they can make at current prices while expanding production.
> Lifetime is equal to current plasma models with no uneven aging due to WRGB system.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW1389JVPjQ


I guess we have the explanation on why Amazon has been out of stock for two weeks. The sets started selling fairly well when prices hit $3999, but all of those vendors are out of stock and prices are back up to $4999. 

I am a little disappointed in what seems like a lack of a 4K model at 55". Assuming that the 30-40% price cut applies to the starting price on the 1080p model, we would see $3000-$3500 lists prices by the end of they year. That would probably allow sales/online retailers to be well below $3000. Very good prices, but I'd still like to see a 4K version.

Are they really selling everything they can make? That is impressive if true. I think the latest dates reported on the owners thread have March build dates. Not sure how that compares to the normal lag time from build date to sales.


----------



## ynotgoal

The VE Shootout will have LG's new 55" 1080p EC9700 which has higher dynamic range and extra brightness than the current model. The LG OLED and last years winner Panasonic plasma are the only two included that are less than 79". The date is tentatively July 19-20 unless they can wait for another model they are hoping to include.


----------



## vinnie97

That's nutty. Might as well have bypassed the 55" OLED altogether and used the more equitably sized 77-incher. Oh well, onward to the reviews.


----------



## Wizziwig

slacker711 said:


> Are they really selling everything they can make? That is impressive if true.


Not at $5K. The Micro-Center stores have sold 0 since they returned to MSRP pricing.

At $4K, Fry's usually sells a couple each week. That's similar to what you observed at Amazon. I think if they can get the MSRP pricing down to $3K, they will easily sell whatever they can produce.



vinnie97 said:


> That's nutty. Might as well have bypassed the 55" OLED altogether and used the more equitably sized 77-incher. Oh well, onward to the reviews.


The 77" is not available and I doubt they want to postpone the shootout indefinitely. But I agree that having such a huge size discrepancy is going to bias the results. It's just unavoidable and human nature to favor larger screens. Maybe they could position the larger TV's farther from the audience so they all appear the same size?


----------



## Rich Peterson

LG is reportedly increasing their investment in OLED production beyond the capacity coming on line next quarter.

*LG Display to increase their OLED TV capacity in a new $788 million investment*



> LGD is still constructing its $650 million Gen-8 M2 OLED TV production line, but the company's CEO announced yesterday that LGD will invest a further 700 billion Won (over $788 million) to increase the capacity of that fab to 34,000 monthly substrates (up from 26,000).


 
There's more info in this article also: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2014/06/133_159850.html


----------



## slacker711

Rich Peterson said:


> LG is reportedly increasing their investment in OLED production beyond the capacity coming on line next quarter.
> 
> *LG Display to increase their OLED TV capacity in a new $788 million investment*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's more info in this article also: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2014/06/133_159850.html


I dont think that interpretation of the remarks is accurate. I think that the CEO was talking about the cost of the current expansion which adds 26,000 substrates to the existing capacity of 8,000 for a total of 34,000 substrates.

Nevertheless, the comments from the CEO were very aggressive. They arent backing off their bet on OLED's. They are telling their investors to expect significant contributions from OLED's in the next 18 months.


----------



## stas3098

I feel like my previous post (which I've deleted to nip the S-storm in the bud) might be a bit misleading in that the real lifetime of "cut with dopants" blue OLED can reach 40,000 to 50,000 (and this isn't even close to the lifetime one can squeeze with "cutting" Dupont got 1 million hours out of red oled with "cutting http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v3/n8/full/nphoton.2009.133.html ), whereas the life time of pure blue oled ranges from 10,000 to 15,000 hours. The same thing with red for example, the uncut red oled has lifetime of 80,000 hours when the "cut" sports lifetime of 40,000 to 50,000 hours. 

Cutting OLED materials called doping 
Lifetime of oled also depends highly on deposition method.

Here's the perfect example of an OLED manufacturer lying about lifetime 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/13/displaysearch_sony_oled/


By the way, I wouldn't hold my breath on the upcoming LG 4K OLEDs having plasma-grade lifespan. At least for now


----------



## 5x10

stas3098 said:


> I feel like my previous post (which I've deleted to nip the S-storm in the bud) might be a bit misleading in that the real lifetime of "cut with dopants" blue OLED can reach 40,000 to 50,000 (and this isn't even close to the lifetime one can squeeze with "cutting" Dupont got 1 million hours out of red oled with "cutting http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v3/n8/full/nphoton.2009.133.html ), whereas the life time of pure blue oled ranges from 10,000 to 15,000 hours. The same thing with red for example, the uncut red oled has lifetime of 80,000 hours when the "cut" sports lifetime of 40,000 to 50,000 hours.
> 
> Cutting OLED materials called doping
> Lifetime of oled also depends highly on deposition method.
> 
> Here's the perfect example of an OLED manufacturer lying about lifetime
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/13/displaysearch_sony_oled/
> 
> 
> By the way, I wouldn't hold my breath on the upcoming LG 4K OLEDs having plasma-grade lifespan. At least for now


What's your opinion of the longevity of LG's oled technology?
Any guesstimates?


----------



## stas3098

5x10 said:


> What's your opinion of the longevity of LG's oled technology?
> Any guesstimates?


If LG use novaled dopants and my guess is they do use novaled dopants as do Samsung( http://www.novaled.com/novaled/doping_technology_for_oled/ few of them you can find here http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/materials-science/material-science-products.html?TablePage=19353482)
then my guess would be anywhere from 25,000 to 40,000 (or maybe even longer) to half brightness.


----------



## 5x10

stas3098 said:


> If LG use novaled dopants and my guess is they do use novaled dopants as do Samsung( http://www.novaled.com/novaled/doping_technology_for_oled/ few of them you can find here http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/materials-science/material-science-products.html?TablePage=19353482)
> then my guess would be anywhere from 25,000 to 40,000 (or maybe even longer) to half brightness.


thank you sir, based on my avg viewing hours a week of anywhere between 20-30 hrs, that gives me an aprox life span of 16-38 years


----------



## Audio Karma

I hope the life span is a lot better in 6 years when I buy one..


----------



## Morning5

Audio Karma said:


> I hope the life span is a lot better in 6 years when I buy one..


Oh so you buy a tv every 20 years?


----------



## Audio Karma

Morning5 said:


> Oh so you buy a tv every 20 years?


Every 10 or 11


----------



## Morning5

Audio Karma said:


> Every 10 or 11


Well you should be ok with LG OLED's 30.000 hours. 20+ years before brightness goes down by a wide margin.


----------



## Orbitron

Morning5 said:


> Well you should be ok with LG OLED's 30.000 hours. 20+ years before brightness goes down by a wide margin.


Is this a concern? Don't we here at AVS upgrade long before it's an issue...


----------



## Wizziwig

That 30,000 hour claim is likely theoretical. I doubt they've actually been running these panels 24/7 for the past 3.5 years to confirm those claims. It also doesn't guarantee that all the pixels will still be functioning after all that time since they seem to be dying randomly even past 1000 hours.


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> That 30,000 hour claim is likely theoretical. I doubt they've actually been running these panels 24/7 for the past 3.5 years to confirm those claims. It also doesn't guarantee that all the pixels will still be functioning after all that time since they seem to be dying randomly even past 1000 hours.


Are the manufacturing departments of LGD bi-polar? 

But I'm confused: I was under the impression that the later purchases of the TV were substantially better in some of the otherwise crummy regards (IR, the weird motherboard imprint IR, dead pixels).


----------



## Morning5

Orbitron said:


> Is this a concern? Don't we here at AVS upgrade long before it's an issue...


No concern for me.



Wizziwig said:


> That 30,000 hour claim is likely theoretical. I doubt they've actually been running these panels 24/7 for the past 3.5 years to confirm those claims. It also doesn't guarantee that all the pixels will still be functioning after all that time since they seem to be dying randomly even past 1000 hours.


I will believe what the manufacturer says until someone proves they didnt test it the years you mention. I hope they solve the subpixels issue some people mentioned.


----------



## tgm1024

Morning5 said:


> I will believe what the manufacturer says until someone proves they didnt test it the years you mention. I hope they solve the subpixels issue some people mentioned.


This I don't follow. We're talking about people _actually reporting on dead pixels very recently after purchasing their TV as well as out of the box._ That trumps any such theory or statement from a manufacturer, no?

Frankly, the _dying_ subpixels would freak me out the most. I could live with the idea that manufacturing these things can cause some dead subs better than I could this unknown axe over my TV that subs may croak at a moment's notice.

_"'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This subpixel is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the display 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-SUBPIXEL!!"_


----------



## Morning5

tgm1024 said:


> This I don't follow. We're talking about people _actually reporting on dead pixels very recently after purchasing their TV as well as out of the box._ That trumps any such theory or statement from a manufacturer, no?


We are talking about two different things: one is hours before the panel gets darker and the other thing is stuck subpixels. Thats why I said I believe LG in their claim the OLED tv gets darker after 30.000 hours of use.


----------



## tgm1024

Morning5 said:


> We are talking about two different things: one is hours before the panel gets darker and the other thing is stuck subpixels. Thats why I said I believe LG in their claim the OLED tv gets darker after 30.000 hours of use.


Okidoki. It looked to me like you were responding to the 2nd statement in the quote, not the first, hence the confusion.


----------



## Vegas oled

I checked a set with 3000 hours on it and I must have had 20-30 dead sub-pixels. They jumped out at you with the slides form 2 feet away but were not visible when watching the set.

Dead sub pixels are my biggest worry, A nice cluster in blue can mess up a skyline.


----------



## Wizziwig

Beyond just brightness, we should also be concerned about color shift as the set ages. Hopefully it won't get bad enough that it can no longer be calibrated.


----------



## vinnie97

Vegas oled said:


> I checked a set with 3000 hours on it and I must have had 20-30 dead sub-pixels. They jumped out at you with the slides form 2 feet away but were not visible when watching the set.
> 
> Dead sub pixels are my biggest worry, A nice cluster in blue can mess up a skyline.


Demo unit, I take it? Those go through some serious stress tests. Plague has, I think, 5 after 1000+ hours. I hope this doesn't mean the frequency of subpixel failure increases beyond 1000 hours (just when we thought we were out of the woods after the first 50).


----------



## Chris5

I wonder if dead pixels etc will be less visible on 4k screen compared to 2k screen due to smaller pixels (but 4x as meany to go wrong)


----------



## Audio Karma

Maybe they should have waited just a little bit longer before putting these OLED's on the market to work out some of theseproblems.. FIRST...


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> Beyond just brightness, we should also be concerned about color shift as the set ages. Hopefully it won't get bad enough that it can no longer be calibrated.


Shouldn't be a big issue with LG's that much (in this stacked design, as the blue layer fades, the red/yellow does with it----or so we've discussed ad infinitum a couple years ago). But in reality we just don't know how these things are going to hold up.

What freaks me out the most are the dead (and dying) pixels.


----------



## stas3098

Wizziwig said:


> Beyond just brightness, we should also be concerned about color shift as the set ages. Hopefully it won't get bad enough that it can no longer be calibrated.


 There are ways to make R,G,B pixels age at the same rate with doping (that's what Samsung are doing right now). Novaled are pioneering the doping field and simultaneously Merck and DuPont and others are working on new hydrogen-turn (unlike phosphor OLED materials tend to turn to hydrogen when ionized) resistant OLED materials. However, right now there's no way of really knowing how doping affects OLED materials in the long run ...


By the way, hydrogen turn free OLED can never die, in theory though


----------



## Stereodude

Chris5 said:


> I wonder if dead pixels etc will be less visible on 4k screen compared to 2k screen due to smaller pixels (but 4x as meany to go wrong)


Of course they will be less visible (unless you sit twice as close).


----------



## Stereodude

Audio Karma said:


> Maybe they should have waited just a little bit longer before putting these OLED's on the market to work out some of theseproblems.. FIRST...


Nonsense! They're fine as long as you're using the right HDMI cable. These guys are all just using cheap Monoprice cables instead of ones from Mapleshade. That's why they're having so many problems.


----------



## Audio Karma

Stereodude said:


> Nonsense! They're fine as long as you're using the right HDMI cable. These guys are all just using cheap Monoprice cables instead of ones from Mapleshade. That's why they're having so many problems.


 And the WORLD is really FLAT too...

Like I said before...the Mapleshade HDMI PLUS cable is better BUT TALK IS CHEAP !


----------



## Theplague13

Audio Karma said:


> And the WORLD is really FLAT too...
> 
> Like I said before...the Mapleshade HDMI PLUS cable is better BUT TALK IS CHEAP !


It isn't talk, it's applying logic.

You know you can't trust someone when they refer to products in the full name evey time. "Mapleshade HDMI" and "Quislver Gold" where normal people would say "that **** works good". You constantly sound like a commercial, AK.


----------



## wco81

What, the type of HDMI cable affects pixels dying?


----------



## dsinger

wco81 said:


> What, the type of HDMI cable affects pixels dying?


The one that provides 120 volts!!


----------



## Theplague13

wco81 said:


> What, the type of HDMI cable affects pixels dying?


Lol of course not, that's impossible. I'm assuming stereodude was being sarcastic.

I could most definitely see 20-30 dead from a reasonable viewing distance of 6-7 feet. I could see the 13 (blue) I had on my other panel during sea and sky pans.

On my first panel I started with 3 out and they kept on dying.

My second panel started with zero dead. In the first 50 hours 3 died, then one came back to life. It's even weirder that this happened, because it's usually thought to be impossible. But I assure you it was dead, not stuck, and it came back. After 1000 hours three more blues died for a total of 5, which is still not really noticeable but a little worrisome.


----------



## Audio Karma

Theplague13 said:


> It isn't talk, it's applying logic.
> 
> You know you can't trust someone when they refer to products in the full name evey time. "Mapleshade HDMI" and "Quislver Gold" where normal people would say "that **** works good". You constantly sound like a commercial, AK.


 Someone has to set you all straight about > your way of thinking here.. that all HDMI cables are the same...THEY ARE NOT ALL THE SAME!! If I had another Mapleshade HDMI PLUS cable, I would pass it around here so you all could find out for yourself that all HDMI cables are not the same!!

Can't you see I'm trying to help you all out here! Don't believe everything you hear on these forums..

And NO, I'm not connected in any way with these products.

Maybe some day someone will try one and post about here.


----------



## htwaits

Audio Karma said:


> Maybe some day someone will try one and post about here.


Your post is enough.


----------



## Audio Karma

htwaits said:


> Your post is enough.


----------



## PooperScooper

Please get back on the thread subject. There's a whole forum dedicated to HDMI: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/168-hdmi-q-one-connector-world/ Please take HDMI discussion there. Thanks.

larry


----------



## ynotgoal

A major innovation of the OLED process…a ray of light begins to shine on the next-generation display
2014/06/30 By Mun Bo-gyeong | Sung Hyun-hee

LG Display, which has been aggressive in the OLED TV market, has had more difficulties with the oxide substrate than with the evaporation process. If the oxide substrate is applied, it is not very different than the existing amorphous silicon (a-Si) line. So investments can be reduced, but the material itself is vulnerable to the etchant process. ... LG Display attracted public attention because the company went a step further from increasing the yield using the existing method and succeeded in developing a new technology for solving the reliability problem of the oxide.

LG Display also developed various technologies that can reduce costs, thereby accelerating the opening of the OLED TV market. The company will apply the atomic layer deposition, not the 2-partition deposition starting with the M2 line. It reduced not only costs but also process time.

LG Display also developed the technology for using a laser beam to revive dead pixels, improving the yield. It is also attracting our attention. 

Samsung Display has had the biggest difficulty with the encapsulation process over the years. Ordinary OLED used glass encapsulation, but flexible displays with plastic substrates cannot use glass encapsulation. ... Samsung Display succeeded in reducing the number of layers from 7 to 3. To reduce the number of layers to three, the company is known to have changed the material of the inorganic layer from ceramide to nitride.

http://english.etnews.com/device/2964005_1304.html

Note, Samsung reported their OLED TV yield to be 80% but are still working on reducing costs.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Statement from the head of Sony's new spun-off TV business Masashi Imamura 

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/30/us-sony-tv-idUSKBN0F50FV20140630



> "Whether LG Display is our supplier or not, if an OLED panel matched our product strategy then I can't say we wouldn't use the technology," Imamura said. "Right now we have no plans to invest in any OLED or LCD factory."


----------



## Rich Peterson

ynotgoal said:


> LG Display also developed the technology for using a laser beam to revive dead pixels, improving the yield. It is also attracting our attention.


Wow, can that work???


----------



## stas3098

Rich Peterson said:


> Wow, can that work???


 The word on the street has it as "re-evaporation" or laser evaporation. It ,supposedly, works by evaporatin' "un-evaporated" stuff in pixels. 


But please take it with a gain of salt, because I heard about not from the horse's mouth, but from the word of mouth


----------



## Jason626

Would be funny to see tech come into your house with lasers to fix oleds. Picturing Austin powers dr. Evil. Freakin lasers. 

Sounds more like something done at the factory to inflate yields. But as long as it works and is lasting I guess.


----------



## rogo

ynotgoal said:


> LG Display, which has been aggressive in the OLED TV market, has had more difficulties with the oxide substrate than with the evaporation process. If the oxide substrate is applied, it is not very different than the existing amorphous silicon (a-Si) line. So investments can be reduced, but the material itself is vulnerable to the etchant process. ... LG Display attracted public attention because the company went a step further from increasing the yield using the existing method and succeeded in developing a new technology for solving the reliability problem of the oxide.


I don't wish to be overly critical of the language barrier here, but the above paragraph -- while using English-language words -- contains essentially no English. It seems to say, "We have found ways to be better at IGZO." But it doesn't really say that, nor does it state why/how.


> LG Display also developed various technologies that can reduce costs, thereby accelerating the opening of the OLED TV market. The company will apply the atomic layer deposition, not the 2-partition deposition starting with the M2 line. It reduced not only costs but also process time.


This could be important. The existing deposition method is doubtless both wasteful and slow. How the new method is better is totally unclear. But any improvement will likely reduce the "Herbie" factor of this step.


> LG Display also developed the technology for using a laser beam to revive dead pixels, improving the yield. It is also attracting our attention.


This can't be important. Depositing the OLED layers flawlessly has to be the end goal, not some pixel-by-pixel rework to fix yields. That can (a) only be a semi-functional process (b) involves an entirely separate set of process steps that are only necessary when things go wrong. It's probably allowing some number of entirely wasted panels to be rescued, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement.


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> I don't wish to be overly critical of the language barrier here


You couldn't've possibly been overly critical of the language barrier here, Sir.


Forbye, this whole thing, even without broken English, feels and reads like a total rigmarole (confused and meaningless article), anyways...


----------



## slacker711

DisplaySearch is reporting that Samsung will launch a 55" 4K OLED at IFA. This is the fourth report I have seen with the same date so I think the odds are now that Samsung is indeed going to restart their OLED production. Interesting to note that if Samsung launched this year that they would have the only 55" model with 4K.

http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2014/07/marketwise-lcd-industry-dynamics-update-june-2014/

_



Samsung VD decided to try OLED TV again with a 55″ 4K OLED TV. In our view, this is well timed for IFA and a big PR campaign.

Click to expand...

_It was also reported by Barry Young at OLED-A that Samsung has hit 80% yields for their OLED process but needs to reduce the costs associated with their LTPS backplanes before they will build another fab.


----------



## JWhip

Really? Who needs a 55" 4K OLED? If they had announced a 70" I would have some interest. Until they do, not remotely interested. Frankly, I am rather sick of Samsung at this point and doubt I will ever buy another one of their products. Memo to Chelsea FC, might be time for a new shirt sponsor!


----------



## tgm1024

JWhip said:


> Really? Who needs a 55" 4K OLED? If they had announced a 70" I would have some interest. Until they do, not remotely interested.


It's not as though a 4K OLED will display 2K content poorly.


----------



## JWhip

at 9 feet away, I have no need for a 55" TV, 4k or 2K. I ant bigger than my 141. I have no interest under 70.


----------



## slacker711

This is still from Samsung's pilot fab. At a minimum, they would still be 18 months behind LG in terms of a real commercial fab. More likely than not, they would need a new fab to begin production on larger sizes.

All of that being said, restarting production at a somewhat competitive price would be a big step forward. That is a necessary precursor to having any real possibility of building a commercial fab.


----------



## 5x10

tgm1024 said:


> It's not as though a 4K OLED will display 2K content poorly.


lol, i dont see the oled displaying any content poorly


----------



## Rich Peterson

slacker711 said:


> DisplaySearch is reporting that Samsung will launch a 55" 4K OLED at IFA. This is the fourth report I have seen with the same date so I think the odds are now that Samsung is indeed going to restart their OLED production. Interesting to note that if Samsung launched this year that they would have the only 55" model with 4K.
> 
> http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2014/07/marketwise-lcd-industry-dynamics-update-june-2014/
> 
> It was also reported by Barry Young at OLED-A that Samsung has hit 80% yields for their OLED process but needs to reduce the costs associated with their LTPS backplanes before they will build another fab.


If this is true this is very big news indeed. I'm skeptical based on what I've read. I just can't see them able to competively produce the panels anytime soon and I can't see them buying from LG display either so how?


----------



## tgm1024

Rich Peterson said:


> If this is true this is very big news indeed. I'm skeptical based on what I've read. I just can't see them able to competively produce the panels anytime soon and I can't see them buying from LG display either so how?


Beats me, but I can't wait to see the results. I want dedicated red/green/blue OLEDs for subpixels. This stacked WRGB thing gives me the heebeegeebees....


----------



## slacker711

Rich Peterson said:


> If this is true this is very big news indeed. I'm skeptical based on what I've read. I just can't see them able to competively produce the panels anytime soon and I can't see them buying from LG display either so how?


I dont think there is any chance that they are buying panels. I would wager quite a bit that LG Display would manage to leak that kind of news. 

The question is whether Samsung is simply launching a model to save face. The speed at which LG has managed to bring down prices may have surprised Samsung and the rest of the industry. The pricing on the Samsung set will be telling. If they are serious about selling any units, the price will need to come in between the 55" 1080p model ($5000) and the 65" 4K model (maybe $8000?).

Here are the comments from Barry Young. OLED-A is an industry association so you have to take some of this with a grain of salt, but it certainly sounds like the 80% figure came directly from Samsung. 

http://oled-a.org/images/pdfs/OLED-A 2014 White Paper.pdf

_



On the other hand, Samsung has opted to delay mass production, even as the yields have increased to 
~80%. The rationale provided by Samsung is that the production costs remain too high. Comparing LG’s 
costs with SDC’s costs, the major culprit is likely to be the backplane, where LTPS is close to twice as 
expensive as IGZO in terms of Capex. It is likely that Samsung’s Frontplane is less expensive than LG’s 
Frontplane because of the added organic layers in the tandem structure and the use of a color filter. 
LG’s TV also uses twice the switching voltage as Samsung although the current across the OLEDS is close 
to the same. In trying to mitigate the cost disadvantage of LTPS, Samsung has determined that only a 
portion of the a-Si layer needs to be converted to p-Si using excimer layers and is now able to reduce the

Click to expand...

_As I said with LG though, this is all about proving out the process so they can justify building a much larger fab. They are 18 months behind LGD and the clock is ticking.


----------



## rogo

There remains no way Samsung can scale 10-figure production volumes using SMS. Sorry.

So this story is missing a fundamental detail (new tech) or doesn't add up.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> There remains no way Samsung can scale 10-figure production volumes using SMS. Sorry.
> 
> So this story is missing a fundamental detail (new tech) or doesn't add up.


Young claims that they have hit acceptable yields using SMS in that link.

I have never had your definitiveness on this issue. Samsung believed that they could do it and clearly failed in their first attempt. Could they have had a manufacturing breakthrough? We'll know if/when they start spending on a Gen 8 RGB fab.


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> I dont think there is any chance that they are buying panels. I would wager quite a bit that LG Display would manage to leak that kind of news.
> 
> As I said with LG though, this is all about proving out the process so they can justify building a much larger fab. They are 18 months behind LGD and the clock is ticking.


*Please take a minute to read this report before you read the following if done otherwise all that I say won't make any sense to any of you at all*


http://www.slideshare.net/NanoMarkets/oled-mater#&skip=true


First of all Samsung doesn't have any more access to Merck materials (Merck blue to be exact) due to giant LG orders and I can't see in good conscience how they can make TVs with UDC blue impure hosts that live for 7000 hours tops. Well, of course they can go with Dupont or even Solvay (although I'm sure Solvay have facilities to meet demand at the moment) , but their hosts are not the ****, too. Looks like Samsung's leaving the OLED TV business blew up in their face somethin' fierce. 


Second, how can Samsung be making OLED TVs if Samsung don't seem to be placing any extra orders for OLED materials. Merck, UDC and even Novaled (LG seem to want to try some doping) have seen some pretty big and I mean like hundreds of tones big orders from LG lately. When Samsung start buying oled materials by boatloads than I'll believe they are serious about their oled plans. 


However where there's a will there's a way, so if Samsung truly want to make OLED TVs then I can't see why they can't (I just can't see how they can make cheap TVs with stenciling)


----------



## slacker711

OTOH, your sig is the absolute truth.


----------



## slacker711

stas3098 said:


> *Please take a minute to read this report before you read the following if done otherwise all that I say won't make any sense to any of you at all*
> 
> 
> http://www.slideshare.net/NanoMarkets/oled-mater#&skip=true
> 
> First of all Samsung doesn't have any more access to Merck materials (Merck blue to be exact) due to giant LG orders and I can't see in good conscience how they can make TVs with UDC blue impure hosts that live for 7000 hours tops. Well, of course they can go with Dupont or even Solvay (although I'm sure Solvay have facilities to meet demand at the moment) , but their hosts are not the ****, too. Looks like Samsung's leaving the OLED TV business blew up in their face somethin' fierce.
> 
> Second, how can Samsung be making OLED TVs if Samsung don't seem to be placing any extra orders for OLED materials. Merck, UDC and even Novaled (LG seem to want to try some doping) have seen some pretty big and I mean like hundreds of tones big orders from LG lately. When Samsung start buying oled materials by boatloads than I'll believe they are serious about their oled plans.
> 
> However where there's a will there's a way, so if Samsung truly want to make OLED TVs then I can't see why they can't (I just can't see how they can make cheap TVs with stenciling)


First answer me this, how do you think you know whether Samsung is ordering anything right now?


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> First answer me this, how do you think you know whether Samsung is ordering anything right now?


 Well, I know a few people whose job description kind of requires them to know what OLED manufacturers order material-wise and I myself rather deal with logistics of how and when chemical/organic compounds get to their respective orderers. And to be perfectly honest I don't deal with OLED materials directly I simply keep tabs on them


----------



## slacker711

stas3098 said:


> Well, I know a few people whose job description kind of requires them to know what OLED manufacturers order material-wise and I myself rather deal with logistics of how and when chemical/organic compounds get to their respective orderers.


So then you should know that if Samsung was planning on selling 25,000 OLED televisions in the 4th quarter (never going to happen), the screen area required would be about 1/5th of their mobile OLED capacity. Any possible launch is likely to be much smaller than that number.

Beyond that, I have no idea why you mention UDC's blue lifetimes. Nobody thinks that they are going to use a phosphorescent blue. They have used Chisso/Dow for their blue emitter/host and may have switched some business to Idemitsu Kosan.


----------



## ynotgoal

slacker711 said:


> Comparing LG’s
> costs with SDC’s costs, the major culprit is likely to be the backplane, where LTPS is close to twice as expensive as IGZO in terms of Capex.


Just to clarify this a bit. They are comparing the cost to convert an existing aSi fab to IGZO or to LTPS. To convert from aSi to IGZO they only really need to replace two machines whereas to convert from aSi to LTPS they basically need to replace the entire fab. Thus far Samsung has always built new fabs for its small/medium size OLEDs and its pilot line so this is the first time conversion costs is really an issue for them. Samsung has made a vocal case for using LTPS and you would think they knew the costs associated with it at the time. But that is the capex to build/convert a fab whereas the incremental cost off of the pilot line should be similar to LG's pilot line provided yields and throughput are similar.


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> So then you should know that if Samsung was planning on selling 25,000 OLED televisions in the 4th quarter (never going to happen), the screen area required would be about 1/5th of their mobile OLED capacity. Any possible launch is likely to be much smaller than that number.
> 
> Beyond that, I have no idea why you mention UDC's blue lifetimes. Nobody thinks that they are going to use a phosphorescent blue. They have used Chisso/Dow for their blue emitter/host and may have switched some business to Idemitsu Kosan.


It's my bad I thought you meant Samsung were gonna start mass producing OLED TVs.


Of course, If Samsung wanted to make 25,000 OLED TVs in 2014-15 they could make do just fine with Dow (transporters and maybe emitters, too) and Idemitsu Kosan(emitters). Well, it's kind of possible that if they were trying to make 25,000 OLED TVs this years, I guess, I might have missed them placing extra orders (or they haven't even placed any orders yet) especially since the company's database doesn't even include Idemitsu Kosan.


I mentioned UDC's blue lifetime to prove a point that Samsung are currently out of the loop and that it would take mouths or maybe years for them to get to the LG's level material-wise ,you know, to find (create) a supplier which can make pure enough materials for them if they plan to mass-produce OLED TVs on a large scale like millions of them type of a large scale. And ,for sure, they are tons of companies that can make OLED materials for Samsung, but it will take some time (we are talking 9 to 16 mouths) for them to build facilities to make enough materials for Samsung's mass production of OLED TVs. 


LG are right now in the sweetest spot in that they have suppliers that can provide them with enough materials for millions of OLED TVs.


----------



## Wizziwig

Maybe Samsung decided to resume OLED TVs to fill the void after they quit Plasma production in November?


----------



## wco81

Wizziwig said:


> Maybe Samsung decided to resume OLED TVs to fill the void after they quit Plasma production in November?


So buy plasmas before inventory runs out or hold out hope that OLED pans out?


----------



## SiGGy

wco81 said:


> So buy plasmas before inventory runs out or hold out hope that OLED pans out?


If you have the $$ there will be 4K OLEDs out this year. And they will be better than any plasma ever made. I doubt you'll get much of a deal on the 2014 OLED displays until sometime in 2015.


----------



## fafrd

'Much of a deal' is relative. Once the M2 line ramps to full production, LG will need to price at a level to sell 4000 55" OLEDs a day. That price is almost certain to be lower than the lowest prices we have seem to date.

When M2 is fully ramped is the big question mark, but there is no question that pricing will need to be much lower than it is now to drive the demand needed to absorb that level of ongoing production.


----------



## stas3098

fafrd said:


> 'Much of a deal' is relative. Once the M2 line ramps to full production, LG will need to price at a level to sell 4000 55" OLEDs a day. That price is almost certain to be lower than the lowest prices we have seem to date.
> 
> When M2 is fully ramped is the big question mark, but there is no question that pricing will need to be much lower than it is now to drive the demand needed to absorb that level of ongoing production.


Well, if I told you that it takes about 10 bucks worth of OLED materials ( they kinda cost 10 bucks at PPG's plant in Ohio and by the time they get to LG they may very well cost 20 bucks (they are just too many middlemen)) for 1 square inch, then how realistic is it a 4k 77" costing under 2 grand?


----------



## slacker711

stas3098 said:


> Well, if I told you that it takes about 10 bucks worth of OLED materials ( they kinda cost 10 bucks at PPG's plant in Ohio and by the time they get to LG they may very well cost 20 bucks (they are just too many middlemen)) for 1 square inch, then how realistic is it a 4k 77" costing under 2 grand?


If you told me that, I would tell you to go get a new calculator.

and nobody expects the 4K 77" model to cost under $2000.


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> If you told me that, I would tell you to go get a new calculator.
> 
> and nobody expects the 4K 77" model to cost under $2000.


Then what's the lowest price point 4k 77" can achieve?


Any guesstimate would be appreciated


----------



## wco81

SiGGy said:


> If you have the $$ there will be 4K OLEDs out this year. And they will be better than any plasma ever made. I doubt you'll get much of a deal on the 2014 OLED displays until sometime in 2015.


But how long will they last? Paying a high price is one thing but if that set lasts just a couple of years or has burn-in problems ...


----------



## Morning5

wco81 said:


> But how long will they last? Paying a high price is one thing but if that set lasts just a couple of years or has burn-in problems ...


30.000 hours, and afaik people here have reported temporal Image Retention and not Burn in.


----------



## stas3098

wco81 said:


> But how long will they last? Paying a high price is one thing but if that set lasts just a couple of years or has burn-in problems ...


I totally agree with you, man. Forking over a huge chunk of hard-earned cash for something that lasts ,purportedly, 30,000 hours and burns in from letter/pillar-boxed content and also runs the risk of color shifts and sub-pixels dying one by one over time doesn't seem too appealing now, does it....



But ever since I'd rather poke my eye out with a sharpie than buy another LCD TV I reckon I have no choice, but to play the OLED lottery...


----------



## slacker711

stas3098 said:


> Then what's the lowest price point 4k 77" can achieve?
> 
> 
> Any guesstimate would be appreciated


Any guesstimate would have a such a huge error range as to be fairly worthless. 

I can say that any price projection under $2000 is not happening anytime soon and I will also say that the pricing gap between the 65" 4K (6000 pounds) and the 77" 4K (20000 pounds) means that LG is charging a gigantic premium for the privilege of owning the largest model on the market. If the MSRP is 6000 pounds on the 65" model, it shouldnt be more than 10,000 pounds for the 77" model. I expect that the price on the 77" model will fall faster than either the 55" or 65"

With respect to materials per square inch, IHS estimates that the S5 has an ASP of $63. That includes the bill of material costs, manufacturing costs, margins, depreciation etc. The material cost is well below $10 on a 11 square inch display. LGD is very inefficient with their material deposition right now, but there is no reason that they wont ultimately be able to match Samsung (though they do need a thicker material layer for WRGB).


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> Young claims that they have hit acceptable yields using SMS in that link.
> 
> I have never had your definitiveness on this issue. Samsung believed that they could do it and clearly failed in their first attempt. Could they have had a manufacturing breakthrough? We'll know if/when they start spending on a Gen 8 RGB fab.



Slacker, I don't actually doubt that the yields are acceptable.

What I doubt is that the throughput is acceptable. And I doubt strongly it ever will be acceptable. 

My definitiveness goes to Operations 101. In order to produce a screen using mask scanning, you need to move a finite number of small masks over a larger substrate (1-4 seems plausible, with 2 being a likely maximum). Whatever the number, however, the process is inherently slow. You can improve the deposition of OLED through the screens, but it's still a mechanical process in two ways (1) the pushing of the OLED materials (2) the movement of the screens. The screens need to be move in perfect registration or else the panel / substrate is ruined. 

You can get this kind of precision because, well, in clean-room type manufacturing, nearly any level of precision is possible. You cannot, however, have that level of precision while also having high throughput. The very movement of the masks has to be deliberate to keep the registration perfect. The OLED deposition has to be cautious to avoid errant material. 

The decision to go with a full RGB design makes this even worse as you have to deposit each color separately.

Samsung gets away with this on mobile because, honestly (1) there is no mask scanning and (2) they have brute forced the production of mask-based OLED production to the point they are good at it. And they can afford to just toss out bad screens. And the screens don't have to be very high quality. Now, I don't mean they are low quality in terms of image reproduction because obviously the latest ones are just flat-out excellent. I do mean in terms of longevity, however. A smartphone screen needs to work for


----------



## stas3098

First and foremost, Merck are gonna go with LG to make printable OLED not Samsung that's why I can't see how Samsung could've made a breakthrough. 
Unfortunately, for you all guys I'm not at liberty to talk about Merck's OLED printing.


According to this report http://www.slideshare.net/MerckGroup/a-deep-dive-into-mercks-lc-oled-business on Merck (which by the looks of it have now >60% http://www.slideshare.net/MerckGroup/1-lc-oledday2013reckmanntcm1612108818 and in cohorts with all the other companies that make up the rest >40 of LCD materials market and god only knows how much of OLED materials market they've cornered by now, oh wait a minute why would they need to corner anything if any one who makes OLED materials uses their processes and chemicals) the cost per square inch is 10 bucks. 


From my vantage Merck seem to have OLED materials market in chokehold with their 1400 patents and licensing a lot of UDC's patents plus a burning desire to get rid of countless middlemen. We all know Merck have sunk billions of dollars into making OLED possible. First, they bought Millipore http://www.biospace.com/company_profile.aspx?CompanyId=1003962 to build facilities able to produce OLED materials (there were also other reasons for buying Millipore as well) . Then they got EMD Chemicals Gibbstown to get brains to make OLED materials last longer. The last was AZ Electronic Materials to make OLED printing possible. All done for OLED's sake.



If Merck say Samsung are not making OLED TVs at the moment then Samsung are not making them, period!!!!!


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> Any guesstimate would have a such a huge error range as to be fairly worthless.
> 
> I can say that any price projection under $2000 is not happening anytime soon and I will also say that the pricing gap between the 65" 4K (6000 pounds) and the 77" 4K (20000 pounds) means that LG is charging a gigantic premium for the privilege of owning the largest model on the market. If the MSRP is 6000 pounds on the 65" model, it shouldnt be more than 10,000 pounds for the 77" model. I expect that the price on the 77" model will fall faster than either the 55" or 65"
> 
> With respect to materials per square inch, IHS estimates that the S5 has an ASP of $63. That includes the bill of material costs, manufacturing costs, margins, depreciation etc. The material cost is well below $10 on a 11 square inch display. LGD is very inefficient with their material deposition right now, but there is no reason that they wont ultimately be able to match Samsung (though they do need a thicker material layer for WRGB).


 20,000 pounds . Looks like I'm gonna have to go with 65'' when they go down in price a bit


----------



## stas3098

I've again stepped into the same snakepit by saying: " if Merck say Samsung are not making OLED TVs at the moment then Samsung are not making them, period!". 


Merck simply supply a lot of LCD and OLED materials to Samsung and its suppliers. 


*What I meant was that if Samsung were making OLED TVs Merck would be the first to know and that they'd be very happy to do all they can to help Samsung get going.*


Merck and UDC would be happy to license their techniques and processes to any one who wishes to make OLED materials.


Merck would also be very happy to have more buyers for their compounds and formulas for it is beneficial for everybody. What you might call a win-win situation.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> What I doubt is that the throughput is acceptable. And I doubt strongly it ever will be acceptable.
> 
> My definitiveness goes to Operations 101. In order to produce a screen using mask scanning, you need to move a finite number of small masks over a larger substrate (1-4 seems plausible, with 2 being a likely maximum). Whatever the number, however, the process is inherently slow. You can improve the deposition of OLED through the screens, but it's still a mechanical process in two ways (1) the pushing of the OLED materials (2) the movement of the screens. The screens need to be move in perfect registration or else the panel / substrate is ruined.


Interestingly, I think your take on this matches the comments in the OLED-A whitepaper. If throughput to hit a certain yield is even slower than expected, it would further increase the capex gap between IGZO and Samsung's LTPS approach. I agree that this is not going to be an approach that allows prices to support 20 million unit sales, whether it may be good enough to hit a million units is probably debatable. 

The pilot fab is a sunk cost so we'll see how aggressive Samsung gets with pricing. Fundamentally, I think that LGD is forcing the industry to scramble for an OLED strategy. I dont think that there is going to be a market for a LCD sequel to the 950b at its current price.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> Interestingly, I think your take on this matches the comments in the OLED-A whitepaper.


I don't know what that is, but I hope I'm in good company. 


> *
> If throughput to hit a certain yield is even slower than expected, it would further increase the capex gap between IGZO and Samsung's LTPS approach. I agree that this is not going to be an approach that allows prices to support 20 million unit sales, whether it may be good enough to hit a million units is probably debatable. *




Well, there are at least two key differences at 1 million (vs. 20 million)

1) A terrible throughput process can still probably net 1 million panels over a year. There is slow-but-good-enough and then there is simply-too-slow-to-allow-that. For 1 million, it's possible this technique will fit the former.

2) If the true cost of a process is money losing at 1 million (or not profitable), you can eat the losses. Maybe you lose $50-500 per display, but that's sustainable to push volume/grow the business/etc. There is justification for this kind of thing and it can be affordable. Over 20 million, however, even a $50 loss per unit would likely prove untenable. It's not dramatically more than 1 million x $500, but it's a bigger lose on 20x the scale. And that would likely be unacceptable in accounting.


> *
> The pilot fab is a sunk cost so we'll see how aggressive Samsung gets with pricing. Fundamentally, I think that LGD is forcing the industry to scramble for an OLED strategy. I dont think that there is going to be a market for a LCD sequel to the 950b at its current price.*




I'm not sure there's a market for the 950b at its current price with/without OLED.

(Jeez, this quoting thing is ridiculous. Note that my bolds are intended to be further quoted sections. Fix this please AVS.)


----------



## Stereodude

rogo said:


> (Jeez, this quoting thing is ridiculous. Note that my bolds are intended to be further quoted sections. Fix this please AVS.)


Just use the QUOTE tag with an =name. The one with the quote=who? in this case.


who? said:


> I didn't really post this


----------



## tgm1024

Stereodude said:


> Just use the QUOTE tag with an =name. The one with the quote=who? in this case.


Still looks completely horrendous.

What's ridiculous is how every vbulletin site I've been on for over a decade has quoting down cold, yet somehow in 2014 even when you employ the "=" hack it is difficult to see clearly and has no drawn bounding box.


----------



## Stereodude

tgm1024 said:


> Still looks completely horrendous.
> 
> What's ridiculous is how every vbulletin site I've been on for over a decade has quoting down cold, yet somehow in 2014 even when you employ the "=" hack it is difficult to see clearly and has no drawn bounding box.


I see a white drawn bounding box now.


----------



## tgm1024

Stereodude said:


> I see a white drawn bounding box now.


That's a background; a bounding-box is a line drawn around the whole thing. And a white box over a pale blue background, .....and it just doesn't look clear to me where things end and where things start to me.


----------



## stas3098

By the way here's more information on LG OLED printing. http://news.oled-display.net/lg-display-and-merck-plans-to-print-oled-tvs/


http://news.oled-display.net/merck-is-ready-to-print-3-meter-per-second-semiconducting-oled-layers/


Merck do not really believe there are any big money to be made for them in the OLED TVs business. They are hell-bent now on making hydrogen-turn free OLED materials that can last for hundreds of years on end. They first planed to use OLED printing to make lighting devices, but since they have had almost no progress in making blue OLEDs last significantly longer I guess they've just lost the hope of OLED ever living for millions of hours and are trying to get into the OLED display business while they can.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Well Vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, got one of these. I wonder how much longer before I get such a message...
> *You have been banned for the following reason:** No reason was specified.
> Date the ban will be lifted: Never*



I've gotta be kiddin' ,right!? 


If there ever was any one who deserved a ban here it was me...


----------



## SiGGy

stas3098 said:


> I totally agree with you, man. Forking over a huge chunk of hard-earned cash for something that lasts ,purportedly, 30,000 hours and burns in from letter/pillar-boxed content and also runs the risk of color shifts and sub-pixels dying one by one over time doesn't seem too appealing now, does it....
> 
> 
> 
> But ever since I'd rather poke my eye out with a sharpie than buy another LCD TV I reckon I have no choice, but to play the OLED lottery...


It's way premature to say stuff like this... Lots of unfounded FUD in your post. All tv's drift... Manufacturers usually account for some of it in the drive system. Plasmas change a lot over time.

OLED is new, you know this. LG's design is different than Samsung's. Early adopters always have some issues. What they are isn't clear yet... And will probably be different depending on the manufacturer.


----------



## Orbitron

Some perspective, let's say you watch 5 hours a day every day for 16.43 years - that's 30,000 hours!


----------



## wco81

But what does that 30,000 hours represent? The point at which the pixels all die or when they start to noticeably fade?

Big difference between the two. If the brightness and saturation begins to decline at say 15,000 or even 10,000 hours?


----------



## Tobbeo

Hmm
http://english.etnews.com/device/2964163_1304.html


> Samsung Display will release a new UHD resolution OLED TV panel within the year. ...making plans to reenter the market with products ranging from a 55” UHD version.


----------



## JWhip

That article reads like it was written by LG and Samsung.


----------



## tubetwister

Audio Karma said:


> Someone has to set you all straight about > your way of thinking here.. that all HDMI cables are the same...THEY ARE NOT ALL THE SAME!! If I had another Mapleshade HDMI PLUS cable, I would pass it around here so you all could find out for yourself that all HDMI cables are not the same!!
> 
> Can't you see I'm trying to help you all out here! Don't believe everything you hear on these forums..
> 
> And NO, I'm not connected in any way with these products.
> 
> *re tubtwisteer*
> 
> *Just a bit of friendly advise :*
> 
> If someone gave me a maple s**t cable I would sell it to some fool for some grit and buy something useful instead !
> 
> Disinformation doesn't fly as well over here at *AVS * as some other forums just saying (fellow AK member here the difference being they are just a little more tolerant of disinfonation and nonsense without scientific proof )
> *Hence the name AV SCIENCE HERE ! * *I doubt too many here are impressed by the fact you over spend for cables .
> OTOH there is much to learn here besides the usual marketing disinformation your choice .
> *
> 
> Of course one can always waste money on maple s**t (or other)phatt cables if they choose to while I buy my ~ $5.00 -$10.00 Monoprice cables that work just the same and I will keep the change and continue to bask in my already reasonably comfortable retirement that I was able to afford at 55 and can still afford some decent cubans now and then because I didn't spend foolishly *( at least on cables anyway ☺) fast pretty women are a lot more fun than overpriced cables that don't do much beyond looking overpriced and wasting phools money anyway kinda like some women I've known still lot's more fun than cables though! ☺☺
> 
> The DOW (DJA) busted 17,000 again today (lots of short covering though ) Imagine that ? Life is good running with the bulls ! (for now) not a good time to be shorting ! OTOH there might be some decent downside opportunity !


----------



## tubetwister

> Anyway enough my of participating in a thread hi jacking here ( I couldn't resist that one ☺ ) and back to the subject at hand ...... the reason I spun up this thread in the first place was to post this article below maybe it was already posted here but I looked back ,did not see it so if I missed it in this thread please accept my apologies .
> 
> *EDIT : looks like Tobbeo beat me to it ..................I must be losing it !
> we can probably all just reply to his post to keep it fair and simple *
> TBH his link actually is the source for the Digital Flat Panel article listed below anyway
> 
> 
> I can't remember what I had for lunch (or was it breakfast) and I don't want to have the same thing for dinner !
> 
> 
> *SAMSUNG TO RELEASE 4K OLED TV THIS YEAR - RUMOR*
> 
> 
> Amid rumors of Samsung putting its OLED TV plans on hold, Samsung is said to release a 4K OLED TV before year’s end, according to ETNews.
> 
> IS SAMSUNG IN OR OUT?
> 
> Rumors in the industry suggest that Samsung has stopped OLED TV production, but according to ETNews Samsung is actually planning to launch a 4K OLED TV later this year.
> 
> read more :
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1404730207&newsletter





Seems on the surface at least to accomplish 2 things (maybe more ) at least this gives Samsung a halo product for the well heeled faithful (if they bring it to market ) and at the same time
saves them some face which is understandably in their cultural DNA it would seem this panel is apparently within their means and abilities to produce .

I haven't figured out how to print my own money quite yet (having a devilish time with getting the new 100 bills right and all you know ) So at this point I can't quite see one in my immediate future ☺☺

Now if they could just make it both flat and cheap that would be something

The DOW (DJA) busted 17,000 again today looks like the bulls figured out how to get Wall st. to print money again !


----------



## ynotgoal

ynotgoal said:


> The date is tentatively July 19-20 unless they can wait for another model they are hoping to include.


The date for the Value Electronics shootout has been pushed back to August 16-17. It will include "at least one OLED model".

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/2...ED-LED-Curved-and-Flat-HDTVs-and-UHDTVs.shtml


----------



## JWhip

While there will be an OLED, from what I have heard, I doubt that it will be the 77" 4K. It will probably only be the new 55 from LG.


----------



## tubetwister

ynotgoal said:


> The date for the Value Electronics shootout has been pushed back to August 16-17. It will include "at least one OLED model".
> 
> http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/2...ED-LED-Curved-and-Flat-HDTVs-and-UHDTVs.shtml


Good you know I'm on the other left coast ( calif) so I will be watching it on a web stream ......unfortunately my Gulfstream 5 is going in to the MRO for it's annual A & P/ M & R just about then!.


----------



## JWhip

First one I will miss in years. I will try to watch it later when I return from vacation. If I have to miss one, this is probably the one to miss.


----------



## Artwood

Is OLED going all curved? Where there be any Flat OLED produced in 2015?


----------



## 15feetAway

Artwood said:


> Is OLED going all curved? Where there be any Flat OLED produced in 2015?


LG will be producing their bend-able OLED sets that go from curved to flat with at touch from the remote. I guess it's the closest thing to a flat we are going to get. Gas anyone heard that curved OLED panels are easier to fabricate? Does that make sense at all?


----------



## Orbitron

15feetAway said:


> LG will be producing their bend-able OLED sets that go from curved to flat with at touch from the remote. I guess it's the closest thing to a flat we are going to get. Gas anyone heard that curved OLED panels are easier to fabricate? Does that make sense at all?


55" LG OLED Gallery is FLAT, has been available since April, and you can mount it without the Soundframe.


----------



## dougri

Orbitron said:


> 55" LG OLED Gallery is FLAT, has been available since April, and you can mount it without the Soundframe.


Alas, 55" is the only available size.


----------



## htwaits

15feetAway said:


> LG will be producing their bend-able OLED sets that go from curved to flat with at touch from the remote. I guess it's the closest thing to a flat we are going to get. Gas anyone heard that curved OLED panels are easier to fabricate? Does that make sense at all?


My understanding from an inside Kateeva source is that all panels are manufactured flat and any extra effort to curve them is for marketing purposes.


----------



## JWhip

Your insider is 100% correct on both counts.


----------



## tubetwister

htwaits said:


> My understanding from an inside Kateeva source is that all panels are manufactured flat and any extra effort to curve them is for marketing purposes.


makes sense


----------



## tubetwister

JWhip said:


> First one I will miss in years. I will try to watch it later when I return from vacation. If I have to miss one, this is probably the one to miss.


I'm not sure exactly when I will watch it but I will (probably cheat also and find the results right away like last year) 
not to mention they will be all over the forums here anyway as soon as the results are known !


----------



## htwaits

JWhip said:


> Your insider is 100% correct on both counts.


Of course he/she is.


----------



## timc1475

JWhip said:


> While there will be an OLED, from what I have heard, I doubt that it will be the 77" 4K. It will probably only be the new 55 from LG.


I think the 77" 4k OLED is actually coming in about 3 months IMO. Feel free to check my recent posting at the below thread page for more great info:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...9911-lg-77a-curved-uhd-oled-ces-2014-a-5.html


----------



## vinnie_RIP

JWhip was referencing what will be present at the Value Electronics shootout in a little over a month, at which time the 77" panel will still be almost 2 months away from release.


----------



## irkuck

Forget curviness: You shall be rolled in your display soon, man


----------



## NickTheGreat

irkuck said:


> Forget curviness: You shall be rolled in your display soon, man


My electric retractable PJ screen is a real crowdpleaser. I can only imagine what people would think of this


----------



## irkuck

Curvy news dead, it's all about rolling now: Giant rollables on the horizon


----------



## Rich Peterson

And notice the talk of "transparent" TV. What is that??? LG to Develop 60″+ Flexible, Transparent 4K OLED TV by 2017


----------



## rogo

The LG quote, notably, talks of rollable panels -- not rollable TVs. 

The utility of the former is completely clear: You wrap panels around things that aren't flat, that's got a lot of commercial (and art?) uses.

The utility of the latter remains non-existent. The market for people who want to sit and wait for a TV to unfurl -- especially one that's as small as 60 inches -- when you can otherwise just have it go on is incomprehensibly small. Especially since this mythic TV would need an encasement that still hangs on the wall.

On the other hand, the transparent design has interesting lifestyle implications. If you coupled it with a second active layer behind it that wasn't transparent when on, you could have a TV that would disappear into the wall when off. Turn it on, the backing layer goes black, the OLED goes on and the TV magically appears.

The uses for transparent in HUDs, displays over mirrors, and numerous other applications are very real. They will make poor TVs unless they can be coupled with a second layer because the magic contrast of OLED goes away without the backing. But that doesn't render them less useful for a lot of other things.

Rollable displays have the same reality vis a vis TVs. It doesn't remove other use cases. And, for what it's worth, a fascinating use case for a high-flex OLED is readily clear in our mobile world. If you could "unfold" your device to double the display and then return the "top half" when not in use and do this seamlessly, reliably with a thin rigid backing and a clever hinge, you could double mobile display area on an ad hoc basis when you need it. That's powerful as smartphones, phablets and tablets become the primary digital tools.


----------



## tubetwister

Rich Peterson said:


> And notice the talk of "transparent" TV. What is that??? LG to Develop 60″+ Flexible, Transparent 4K OLED TV by 2017


Transparent Porn the lastest thing .................... "you can't see it! "


----------



## tubetwister

Rich Peterson said:


> And notice the talk of "transparent" TV. What is that??? LG to Develop 60″+ Flexible, Transparent 4K OLED TV by 2017


Athletes and celebs will be wrapping their Slades and Lambo's wit them


----------



## barth2k

For home use, a rollable display could be very desirable at large size 100"+


----------



## tubetwister

barth2k said:


> For home use, a rollable display could be very desirable at large size 100"+


+ 1 good idea lets fair use patent it and make LG give us some for the first royalty payments !


----------



## rogo

barth2k said:


> For home use, a rollable display could be very desirable at large size 100"+


It could be marginally desirable in that size. I suspect the global market would still be below 1 million units annually. 

I also believe the cost would be astronomical for at least the next decade, even compared to a flat version.


----------



## irkuck

Another future app is for rollable tunable wallpaper displays, doubling as a heating system.


----------



## 8mile13

For now we must do with rollable Toilet paper.


----------



## tubetwister

8mile13 said:


> For now we must do with rollable Toilet paper.


You will need lots of this to buy one ! maybe even one of these !


----------



## Orbitron

tubetwister said:


> Transparent Porn the lastest thing .................... "you can't see it! "


If you make it, they will come


----------



## stas3098

8mile13 said:


> For now we must do with rollable Toilet paper.


 I am still reeling from the fact that it's come down to the acme of absurdity i.e curved TV. The people ever since the cinema's invention were trying to make cinema's screen flat, however pincushion effect wouldn't let "the" flat screen happen. The curved screen is the most absurd and F***ed-up thing to ever happen to a TV.


----------



## tubetwister

Rollable transparent porn .................... you can't see it but at the same time you can roll it up and put it in the closet or under your bed in a hurry if someone walks in on you eyeing the Invisible Woman getting busy with the Invisibe Man


----------



## rolldog

rogo said:


> The LG quote, notably, talks of rollable panels -- not rollable TVs.
> 
> The utility of the former is completely clear: You wrap panels around things that aren't flat, that's got a lot of commercial (and art?) uses.
> 
> The utility of the latter remains non-existent. The market for people who want to sit and wait for a TV to unfurl -- especially one that's as small as 60 inches -- when you can otherwise just have it go on is incomprehensibly small. Especially since this mythic TV would need an encasement that still hangs on the wall.
> 
> On the other hand, the transparent design has interesting lifestyle implications. If you coupled it with a second active layer behind it that wasn't transparent when on, you could have a TV that would disappear into the wall when off. Turn it on, the backing layer goes black, the OLED goes on and the TV magically appears.
> 
> The uses for transparent in HUDs, displays over mirrors, and numerous other applications are very real. They will make poor TVs unless they can be coupled with a second layer because the magic contrast of OLED goes away without the backing. But that doesn't render them less useful for a lot of other things.
> 
> Rollable displays have the same reality vis a vis TVs. It doesn't remove other use cases. And, for what it's worth, a fascinating use case for a high-flex OLED is readily clear in our mobile world. If you could "unfold" your device to double the display and then return the "top half" when not in use and do this seamlessly, reliably with a thin rigid backing and a clever hinge, you could double mobile display area on an ad hoc basis when you need it. That's powerful as smartphones, phablets and tablets become the primary digital tools.


Why don't you read my post here http://www.avsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1601657 about Mirasol.


----------



## rolldog

Isochroma said:


> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is for news about technological advancements in and commercial production of OLED TVs and OLED technology in general. It will be regularly updated with relevant news about leading-edge advancements.
> 
> Currently, it is the largest single repository in the world for OLED display news, device information and imagery.
> 
> Other threads in this group on the AVS Forum:
> *▪* *LCD TVs: Fab News Thread*
> *▪* *LCD TVs: Market Price Stats Thread*
> *▪* *LCD TVs: Technology Advancements Thread*
> *▪* *Plasma TVs: Market Price Stats Thread*Background:
> *▪* *Wikipedia: OLEDs*
> *▪* *History of OLED Technology*Video:
> *▪ Sony Moves a Step Closer to OEL TV (11" & 27")* [ *Stream* / *AVI* / *MKV* : 6.6 MB ]
> *▪ Epson 40" OLED Display* [ *MKV* : 0.8 MB ]
> *▪ Wil Wheaton praises Sony's 1,000,000:1 Contrast OLED TVs* [ *Stream* / *AVI* / *MKV* : 5.2 MB ]
> 
> *▪ lemaroc.org: OLED Videos*
> *▪ takatv.com: OLED Videos*To start off, some recent and (surprisingly), not-so-recent news:
> --------------------------------------
> 
> *Universal Display Corporation and Sony Corporation Announce Joint Development Agreement Aimed at Organic LED Television Monitors*
> *18 April 2001*
> 
> Universal Display Corporation (UDC) (Nasdaq: PANL PHLX: PNL) and Sony Corporation (NYSE: SNE) have announced a joint development agreement for high efficiency active matrix Organic LED (OLED) display devices for use in large area monitor applications. Under the Agreement, the parties will develop active matrix OLED displays with extremely high power efficiency combining UDC's proprietary high efficiency electrophosphorescent materials and Sony's proprietary low temperature poly silicon active matrix OLED technology (TAC: Top emission Adaptive Current drive).
> 
> Sony has developed a 13-inch active matrix OLED display using its novel TAC technology. That display is a little thicker than a credit card and has the potential to replace the bulky TV tube. UDC's portfolio of innovative OLED technologies include its world record high efficiency electrophosphorescent material system, which can be up to four times more power efficient than conventional OLED systems; transparent cathodes, and flexible plastic display technologies. It has the sole and exclusive licensing rights to over 380 issued and pending OLED patents worldwide.
> 
> "The opportunity to work with the Sony team is a very exciting event. We believe that their vision of a thin, lightweight OLED television monitor is a dramatic confirmation of the essential attributes of OLED technology and their position as a premier developer of high quality large area consumer electronic display products," stated Steven V. Abramson, President and Chief Operating Officer of UDC.
> 
> Tetsuo Urabe, General Manager of Sony's OLED development department stated "UDC and their research partners have been developing extraordinary and innovative OLED technologies for more than 7 years and the combination of Sony's advanced AM-OLED technology and UDC's high expertise in OLED research and development will accelerate the realization of this revolutionary flat panel display technology for large area applications."
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology introduces world's largest polymer organic light-emitting diode display*
> *16 April 2002*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Display:* Polymer Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display
> *Size:* 17” diagonal
> *Pixel count:* 1280 x 768 (XGA wide)
> *Grayscale/Color:* 64 grayscale (6-bit RGB) / 262,144 colors
> *Brightness:* 100-300 cd/m2
> *Contrast:* 200:1 (dark room)​
> Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd. (TMD) today announced the world's first full-color 17-inch XGA wide polymer organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display, a breakthrough display achieved forming a light-emitting polymer film on low temperature polysilicon thin film transistor (TFT).
> 
> OLED display data via an organic light-emitting diode in pixels formed on a TFT array. The display itself emits light and has no need of the backlight required by LCDs, opening the way to thinner, lighter display panels that consume less power. OLED displays also offer the faster response time required for motion pictures and support a wider viewing angle.
> 
> The newly developed 17-inch XGA wide OLED display was made possible by breakthroughs in ink-jet printing and solvent-material technologies for depositing a polymer film. Both advances can be applied to the achievement of large size, high resolution displays and efficient mass production without any need for a vacuum environment. The resulting display is the largest OLED display yet achieved and offers the highest resolution, 1280 x 768 pixels.
> 
> TMD expects OLED displays to find their initial market in cellular phones and small- and medium-sized PDAs, but development of a 17-inch wide OLED confirms application as larger displays for audio-visual equipment, including TVs.
> 
> The new display is on exhibit at Electronic Display Forum 2002 held at Tokyo Big Site, Tokyo, Japan from April 16-18, 2002.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *At the Society for Information Display (SID) show in Baltimore, two manufacturers claim to have built the largest organic LED display ever seen*
> *29 May 2003*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *20-inch OLED*​
> Organic LED displays were much in evidence at last week’s Society for Information Display (SID) show in Baltimore, US, with two companies claiming to have built the largest yet.
> 
> International Display Technology (IDTech), a joint venture between Chi Mei Optoelectronics of Taiwan and IBM Japan, demonstrated a 20 inch display driven by what it calls ‘super amorphous silicon’ technology. Meanwhile, Sony showed off its 24 inch screen, which consists of a 2 x 2 tiled array of OLED displays.
> 
> Unlike most OLED displays, the device developed by IDTech is based on amorphous silicon transistors. According to the company, this enables much lower fabrication costs than the polycrystalline transistors generally used in OLED technology.
> 
> Amorphous silicon is already used in liquid-crystal display (LCD) manufacture, and IDTech says that its development makes commercial production of OLED displays with existing TFT-LCD manufacturing facilities possible.
> 
> “TFT-LCD companies can easily transform their products into OLED without massive investment in new facilities. This will result in a very competitive production cost for OLED displays,” said the company.
> 
> IDTech also claims that its display consumes half the power of a typical high-end LCD, has better color saturation and a wider viewing angle. It features WXGA resolution (1280x768 pixels) and draws 25W power at 300 cd/m2.
> 
> Although substantially bigger at 24.2 inches, the active-matrix OLED display developed by Sony is actually four separate displays. However, the company says that its tiling technology makes the join between each display appear seamless. However, the resolution of the Sony display is slightly less at 1024 x 768 pixels.
> 
> Both companies say that their developments open the door to OLED displays being used in televisions.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *Epson Creates World's First Large Full-Color OLED Display Using Original Inkjet Technology*
> *PDF*
> *18 May 2004*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seiko Epson Corporation ("Epson") today announced that it has used its original inkjet printing technology to successfully develop the world's first large-screen (40-inch) full-color organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display prototype.
> 
> Self-luminescent OLED displays, which offer outstanding viewing characteristics, including high contrast, wide viewing angle, and fast response times, are widely seen as the leading candidate for the next generation of thin, lightweight displays. One of the major obstacles to their realization, however, has been the perceived difficulty of forming organic layers on large-sized TFT (thin film transistor) substrates. Thus the question of when fabrication processes for large-sized OLED flat panel displays would become technically feasible had been anyone's guess.
> 
> Epson has been actively working to develop and commercialize next-generation OLED displays. The company, long a leader in inkjet printers, has developed an original inkjet process for depositing organic layers on large-size TFT substrates. Using this adapted inkjet technology to form organic layers on large-size substrates in a simple process, Epson has now developed the world's largest (40-inch diagonal) full-color OLED display prototype.
> 
> By establishing an OLED display manufacturing system and process that can handle oversized substrates, Epson has beaten a path to large-size OLED displays, as well as to lower cost small- and medium-sized panels cut from larger TFT substrates.
> 
> Epson believes that the characteristics of OLED displays make them the ideal device for entertainment applications, whether in equipment for the road or living room. The company is thus gearing up towards commercialization in 2007.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *LG Philips lays claim to biggest OLED*
> *19 October 2004*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The company, which manufactures thin-film-transistor, or TFT, LCD screens in South Korea, unveiled a prototype 20.1-inch active matrix OLED display at the FPD International trade show in Japan on Tuesday.
> 
> It is based on "low-temperature polysilicon," a technique also used in TFT-LCD production, where active components are integrated across the display glass. This lets the OLED display be made using modifications of existing techniques and production lines. Because OLED displays do not need a separate backlight, the power consumption of the finished unit should be lower than that of an LCD counterpart.
> 
> LG Philips, a joint venture between LG Electronics and Royal Philips Electronics, wasn't able to provide full technical details of the device at the time of writing. According to reports, the OLED display contains 3 million pixels, suggesting that it has a resolution of 2,028 pixels by 1,536 pixels.
> 
> Until now, Samsung had the honor of having created the largest OLED display. In May it announced a 17-inch active matrix OLED display with a resolution of 1,600 pixels by 1,200 pixels.
> 
> Other companies have announced OLED displays that are larger than 20.1 inches, but these have actually contained a number of smaller units stuck together.
> 
> Kodak and Sony have also shown interest in OLED production.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *Samsung Develops World's Largest 21" OLED Panel for Digital TV*
> *4 January 2005*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competition is heating up as companies accelerate their moves to develop the next generation of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays.
> 
> OLED display responses are 1,000 times faster than liquid crystal displays (LCDs), thus enabling greater resolution. The display's ability to function perfectly without a backlight means that monitors can be produced with one-third the depth of their LCD rivals.
> 
> Samsung Electronics announced Tuesday that it has developed the world's largest active matrix-based (AM) OLED display panel for digital televisions. Souk Jun-hyung, senior vice president of the LCD research and development center, said that the 21-inch OLED display features the highest resolution at 6.22 million pixels.
> 
> Last October, LG Philips LDC developed a 20.1-inch OLED television in conjunction with LG Electronics, and last May, Samsung SDI released its own 17-inch OLED product. The two companies adopted low temperature poly-silicon (LTPS) for their products to ensure they have longer life spans and higher resolution.
> 
> At present, OLED displays are largely restricted to mobile phone use, but it is likely that large OLED-paneled televisions will replace PDP and LCD TVs in a few years.
> 
> According to a survey by Display Search, the global OLED market is expected to grow in scale from US$330 million (W343.8 billion) last year to $830 million in 2005 and $2.2 billion by 2008.


You should read my post here regarding Mirasol. http://www.avsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1601657


----------



## UUronl

Fipels are going to be sick.... I had the good fortune of talking to David Carroll of Wake Forest who was explaining the advantages over OLED. It may take a while before we see them in consumer televisions, but it's going to be insane.

Most of the press you can find on the technology centers around lighting, but he said it's trivial to manufacture a panel with pixels and they're in talks with several vendors. The manufacturing tolerances are more forgiving too so you won't get dead spots where the tolerances are off as badly as you do with OLED. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## vinnie_RIP

Right...just as OLED is launching, something else that performs equivalently or greater is going to leapfrog it. Look how long it took OLED to reach this level.


----------



## 8mile13

rolldog said:


> You should read my post here regarding Mirasol. http://www.avsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1601657


 Isochroma wrote his last AVS post in 2011. You should do some reading first before you start posting. Hurry Hurry Hurry..


----------



## tubetwister

8mile13 said:


> Isochroma wrote his last AVS post in 2011. You should do some reading first before you start posting. Hurry Hurry Hurry..


*+1 True* FWIW that posting is ancient as OLED goes. Sony's out,Samsung is out (for the most part) Panasonic is out , LGD is the only one making OLED TV panels right now in any volume and that ain't a lot ,maybe one Samsung 4K OLED panel model (that Samsung *may make * for a few 4K OLED halo set that one would have to probably be able to print their own money to buy ! 

Here is some current LGD OLED news 
http://news.oled-display.net/lg-launch-curved-ultra-hd-4k-oled-tv-in-q4-2014/


----------



## tubetwister

UUronl said:


> Fipels are going to be sick.... I had the good fortune of talking to David Carroll of Wake Forest who was explaining the advantages over OLED. It may take a while before we see them in consumer televisions, but it's going to be insane.
> 
> Most of the press you can find on the technology centers around lighting, but he said it's trivial to manufacture a panel with pixels and they're in talks with several vendors. The manufacturing tolerances are more forgiving too so you won't get dead spots where the tolerances are off as badly as you do with OLED.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


FWIW so far all I can find on Fipels is for lighting uses but I don't see any reasons other than production and encapsulation costs that Fipel nano tubes couldn't somday be used for a TV panel that could be pretty sick for the 1% that might be able to afford them


----------



## UUronl

tubetwister said:


> FWIW so far all I can find on Fipels is for lighting uses but I don't see any reasons other than production and encapsulation costs that Fipel nano tubes couldn't be used for a TV panel could be pretty sick for the 1% that might be able to afford them


Like I said, this guy invented it. I asked him specifically if it could be used like OLED for displays. He said yes and rattled off the big panel manufacturers who are talking with him... 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## tubetwister

UUronl said:


> Like I said, this guy invented it. I asked him specifically if it could be used like OLED for displays. He said yes and rattled off the big panel manufacturers who are talking with him...
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


cool keep us posted ! I can just imagine Feipel panel widow /display walls like on the original Total recall ☺


----------



## UUronl

tubetwister said:


> cool keep us posted !


I may never talk with him again. He happened into a cigar shop when I was there and we struck up a conversation. If I see him again I'll definitely strike up the dialog again but I won't have any occasion to speak with him outside of random chance. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## tubetwister

UUronl said:


> I may never talk with him again. He happened into a cigar shop when I was there and we struck up a conversation. If I see him again I'll definitely strike up the dialog again but I won't have any occasion to speak with him outside of random chance.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


Other than that AVS should keep us informed anyway it's all good!


----------



## ynotgoal

The full list of models in the VE shootout is available on their website. OLED models ...

Likely to be added if available:
LG 65EC9800 or the 77" 4K OLED

1080p models:
LG OLED 55EC9300 55" OLED
Samsung KN55S9 55" OLED


----------



## slacker711

Mea culpa. It seems that the rumors that Samsung was going to launch a 4K OLED this year were wrong. A statement by a Samsung Display exec says no OLED this year. The question is whether the DisplaySearch/Korean rumors were completely off base or whether the launch was canceled. 

https://translate.google.com/transl...view.htm?idxno=2014071311533681309&edit-text=


----------



## Desk.

slacker711 said:


> Mea culpa. It seems that the rumors that Samsung was going to launch a 4K OLED this year were wrong. A statement by a Samsung Display exec says no OLED this year. The question is whether the DisplaySearch/Korean rumors were completely off base or whether the launch was canceled.


Ah well - that leaves LG as the only game in town, and helps focus the options for a prospective buyer like myself.

As for the shootout, I really do hope they can get either the 65" or 77" 4K set. It'd be great to see these scrutinised up against a large number of alternatives.

Desk


----------



## Rich Peterson

slacker711 said:


> Mea culpa. It seems that the rumors that Samsung was going to launch a 4K OLED this year were wrong. A statement by a Samsung Display exec says no OLED this year. The question is whether the DisplaySearch/Korean rumors were completely off base or whether the launch was canceled.
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...view.htm?idxno=2014071311533681309&edit-text=


Yeah, this Korean Business article confirms that also. They quote Yoon Boo-geun, CEO of Samsung Electronics’ Consumer Electronics (CE) unit:



> “Although we are continuously developing OLED TV, there is no specific plan for additional releases.”


----------



## ynotgoal

Desk. said:


> As for the shootout, I really do hope they can get either the 65" or 77" 4K set. It'd be great to see these scrutinised up against a large number of alternatives


“We will release the UHD OLED TV next month,” said a high-ranking executive in charge of TV at LGE on July 13. “We are highly likely to launch it abroad first before releasing it in Korea.” 

LGE is highly likely to introduce three models, 55, 65 and 77 inches, at the same time. As for their prices, the smallest 55-inch TV is forecast to be more expensive than KRW10 million. “The price is much more than KRW10 million,” said another LGE executive. “The 65 and 77-inch TV product will be several tens of millions of Korean Won.” 

However, the price is highly likely to fall quickly.


----------



## wco81

Samsung is seeing declines in their cash cow mobile business.

Maybe that makes them more likely to invest in OLED as a new line of business?

Or less?


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> Mea culpa. It seems that the rumors that Samsung was going to launch a 4K OLED this year were wrong. A statement by a Samsung Display exec says no OLED this year. The question is whether the DisplaySearch/Korean rumors were completely off base or whether the launch was canceled.
> 
> https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asiae.co.kr%2Fnews%2Fview.htm%3Fidxno%3D2014071311533681309&edit-text=


Yes, the rumor was completely off base. There were no orders from Samsung for additional materials! Samsung have place orders only for OLED materials for production of 5 to 15 inch panels up to 2016. From what I see they have a plan that stretches up to 2016 and it incudes no 55 or more inchers. Of course things may change, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. We are stuck with LG for the time being.


----------



## tubetwister

wco81 said:


> Samsung is seeing declines in their cash cow mobile business.
> 
> Maybe that makes them more likely to invest in OLED as a new line of business?
> 
> Or less?


Samsung is selling so many TV's they don't need to worry about OLED for a while they can ramp up production 
at any time they already have the plants making Amoleds for PDP devices and tard phones .I'm sure the boffins over there will still try to get the costs down eventually .


----------



## fafrd

Not sure if it is a scan more not, but this place (Gibbys Electronic Supermarket) is offering the 65EC9700 for $10,000: http://www.gibbyselectronicsupermarket.ca/65ec9700-passive-smart-oled-65ec9700-p-10213.html


----------



## vinnie_RIP

They are Canadian based. They've had it listed for months, but I can't remember if you could add to cart and initiate an order prior as you can now.


----------



## fafrd

vinnie_RIP said:


> They are Canadian based. They've had it listed for months, but I can't remember if you could add to cart and initiate an order prior as you can now.



Found another one as well (NCIXUS) with the same $10,000 price: http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=95334


The fact that both of these online retailers are offering a price which is virtually identical to the 'official' MSRP that has been announced by LG in the UK (£6000) is probably no coincidence...


----------



## tubetwister

fafrd said:


> Not sure if it is a scan more not, but this place (Gibbys Electronic Supermarket) is offering the 65EC9700 for $10,000: http://www.gibbyselectronicsupermarket.ca/65ec9700-passive-smart-oled-65ec9700-p-10213.html


*Don't tell Vinnie97 or Oledvegas *


----------



## vinnie_RIP

^Neither shop's entry is a revelation.  

Also, as Slacker already stated in the specific product thread, VAT as well as typical price differential between the two markets is not being accounted for.


----------



## fafrd

vinnie_RIP said:


> ^Neither shop's entry is a revelation.
> 
> Also, as Slacker already stated in the specific product thread, *VAT as well as typical price differential between the two markets is not being accounted for*.



I hadn't seen that. So does that that mean that the £6000 announced in the UK includes 20% VAT and corresponds to a pre-tax price of $8333 here in the states?


----------



## vinnie_RIP

MSRP includes VAT, so yes, it should be lower stateside.


----------



## tubetwister

rogo said:


> As to Sony, one could easily read that as "We aren't really doing anything, but we are not oblivious to the universe either."
> 
> This would dovetail nicely with releasing a TV based on LG's panels soon -- again, Sony has never had TVs based on its own panels at any point in the flat-panel era -- and claiming they are testing the market demand for such things.


Makes sense Sony's been using some LGD panels for a few years now so it wouldn't be the first LGD panels they used .


----------



## tgm1024

tubetwister said:


> Makes sense Sony's been using some LGD panels for a few years now so it wouldn't be the first LGD panels they used .


Which models have been LGD?


----------



## Yappadappadu

For example last year's Sony W802A. Which is why it scored so badly in reviews, compared to the other Sony models with VA panels.
I have no idea about 2012 and earlier though.


----------



## tgm1024

Yappadappadu said:


> For example last year's Sony W802A. Which is why it scored so badly in reviews, compared to the other Sony models with VA panels.
> I have no idea about 2012 and earlier though.


He said "for years" and I was wondering if there was a reason he said so.

As for the FPR sony's (starting in 2013), it's only been a guess that they were LG panels because previously LG was the only one making FPR. But I don't believe that's the case any longer.


----------



## rogo

I never much believed the Samsung rumor was real, so I really doubt -- now -- that it was real.

It seems much easier to conclude that the rumor was false than that Samsung canceled something deep in development.

As I've explained on numerous occasions, I don't believe Samsung has any technology at present to mass produce OLED TVs.


----------



## tubetwister

tgm1024 said:


> Which models have been LGD?


I believe any of the passive 3 D Sony (or anything ) are LGD panels that's exclusive to LGD AFAIK 

The W600B are all Samsung SPVA rear lit 

the w800B are AUO AMVA edge lit with the exception of some of the EU /AE 42" being LGD passive 3D 

the w850 are mostly active 3D AUO AMVA edge lit there may be a passive 3D LGD panel or two in the mix .

Sony* 9x and 9.5x this year are AUO or LGD dynamic edge light panel mostly 

LGD panel in a Sony can be either edge or rear light depending on the model AFAIK

I believe *some TOTL 9.5x are LGD rear light FALD also 

65 X950B Flagship 4K is active 3D I think AUO ?

The new 79" 9.5x Sony is an LGD panel 

The 50R550 and few other models used LGD panels last year mostly some of the the premium models . 

70W850B is active 3D could ba AUO AMVA or Samsung panel maybe ? 

the 9.5x 85" is supposed to be active 3D CMO Innolux panel unless they changed it but AFAIK CMO Innolux the only 85" around 

Sonys been spreading the love to LGD for a while now ( couple of years anyway ) I believe the Sony 4K *may* mostly be LGD don't hold me to that though I could be wrong ☺ 


In any event I believe all the LCD passive 3D are LGD panel no matter the brand of set .
.

regards


----------



## tubetwister

rogo said:


> I never much believed the Samsung rumor was real, so I really doubt -- now -- that it was real.
> 
> It seems much easier to conclude that the rumor was false than that Samsung canceled something deep in development.
> 
> As I've explained on numerous occasions, I don't believe Samsung has any technology at present to mass produce OLED TVs.


It could be only they can't do 4K cost effective with their allegedly superior OLED technology . I'm no expert at panel making but since they have the AMOLED plants making smaller panels in volume maybe it would just be a matter of ordering larger OLED substrate material and ramping up some new lines or re tooling existing lines in existing plants.


I think they they have the technology ( maybe to expensive , maybe poor yields or both ? ) but maybe it is more of a conscious business decision with little risk *at this point* because of their sales volume . OTOH Sony is committed to the premium market and would have to offer OLED same with Panasonic they can both get from LGD .

OTOH I think Samsung can do pretty much what it wants *for now * because of their scale 
but if OLED works out well down the road they will have to save face and ramp up some panels .

2 things I don't like about Samsung though are curved screen and stupid chicken foot TV stands


----------



## Rudy1

*Could this new tech be a successor to OLED?*

http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/11/nano-pixel/#comments


----------



## stas3098

tubetwister said:


> It could be only they can't do 4K cost effective with their allegedly superior OLED technology . I'm no expert at panel making but since they have the AMOLED plants making smaller panels in volume maybe it would just be a matter of ordering larger OLED substrate material and ramping up some new lines or re tooling existing lines in existing plants.
> 
> 
> I think they they have the technology ( maybe to expensive , maybe poor yields or both ? ) but maybe it is more of a conscious business decision with little risk *at this point* because of their sales volume . OTOH Sony is committed to the premium market and would have to offer OLED same with Panasonic they can both get from LGD .
> 
> OTOH I think Samsung can do pretty much what it wants *for now * because of their scale
> but if OLED works out well down the road they will have to save face and ramp up some panels .
> 
> 2 things I don't like about Samsung though are curved screen and stupid chicken foot TV stands


Samsung makes small OLEDs via stenciling( putting a "shadow" mask over a substrate and "showering" it with OLED material stuff). The problem with their process is that it has too many time-consuming steps (scans) to mass produce OLED TVs, because you'd have move a shadow mask up to 5 times at best to make a 55 inch panel which slows things down significantly and the higher the resolution gets the smaller the shadow mask gets hence the more time consuming steps there are to preform


----------



## stas3098

Rudy1 said:


> *Could this new tech be a successor to OLED?*
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/11/nano-pixel/#comments


 It seems like a disruptive tech, a game changer. I think it can be the next big things only if it's easily mass produced, though. 200 inch 2000k wall TVs...


----------



## tgm1024

tubetwister said:


> I believe any of the passive 3 D Sony (or anything ) are LGD panels that's exclusive to LGD AFAIK
> 
> *[...]*
> 
> In any event I believe all the LCD passive 3D are LGD panel no matter the brand of set.


That's where I thought you were headed: but that's only a matter of licensing though. There were some folks in the Sony R550A and W802A threads insisting that the FPR technology had been licensed to AUO. Beats me how accurate that notion is. But the licensing game is confusing: I can tell you that everyone was expecting my R550A to be IPS (complete with chevron shaped pixels) and it isn't.


----------



## tubetwister

tgm1024 said:


> That's where I thought you were headed: but that's only a matter of licensing though. There were some folks in the Sony R550A and W802A threads insisting that the FPR technology had been licensed to AUO. Beats me how accurate that notion is. But the licensing game is confusing: I can tell you that everyone was expecting my R550A to be IPS (complete with chevron shaped pixels) and it isn't.


I'm no expert I just try to assimilate what I read here and there ( sometimes correctly ,sometimes not ☺) it seems 
Have you figured out the panel in your R550A ? could be interesting I thought I read here it was LGD ? 
ofc what I thought I read and what I actually read could be two different things ☺ ? It's very easy to find in the service menu . 

AFAIK I haven't seen any passive 3D from AUO or any other LCD yet ....but don't take that to the bank either !

regards


----------



## Yappadappadu

IIRC last year's Sony 55/65X900A fits the bill.
We also have my current TV, last year's Sony 50W685 that has an AUO VA panel with passive 3D, see http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/content/cnt-specs/KDL-50W685A/list
Confirmed it myself in the service menu. Not available in the US though.


----------



## tubetwister

stas3098 said:


> Samsung makes small OLEDs via stenciling( putting a "shadow" mask over a substrate and "showering" it with OLED material stuff). The problem with their process is that it has too many time-consuming steps (scans) to mass produce OLED TVs, because you'd have move a shadow mask up to 5 times at best to make a 55 inch panel which slows things down significantly and the higher the resolution gets the smaller the shadow mask gets hence the more time consuming steps there are to preform


Interesting I didn't know they had to 'piss out the panels ' though stencils multiple times .............. you think LG does it 
the other way and just poops them out all at once ?


----------



## tubetwister

Yappadappadu said:


> IIRC last year's Sony 55/65X900A fits the bill.
> We also have my current TV, last year's Sony 50W685 that has an AUO VA panel with passive 3D, see http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/content/cnt-specs/KDL-50W685A/list
> Confirmed it myself in the service menu. Not available in the US though.



Interesting ...good to know and loose the incorrect assumption I believed ,guess *some of the stuff I read or thought I read was wrong (forum postings this instance ) wouldn't be the first time 

Thanks for posting that !


----------



## tubetwister

Rudy1 said:


> *Could this new tech be a successor to OLED?*
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/11/nano-pixel/#comments



Don't know about the artificail retina thing but the rest sounds interesting regarding displays ........ maybe a 64K TV ?


----------



## stas3098

tubetwister said:


> Interesting I did't know they had to 'piss out the panels ' though stencils multiple times .............. you think LG does it
> the other way and just poops them out all at once ?


LG pump out OLED sheets I don't remember exactly how big they are, but they are 100 inches and bigger. You should ask slacker or Rogo if you wanna know more about how big these sheets are or you can go back a couple thousands posts, one by one, (unfortunately, I don't really remember when we were discussing it, too) to when we were discussing the LG's 8G line to find the exact info on it yourself.


----------



## tubetwister

> Originally Posted by* stas3098* View Post
> Samsung makes small OLEDs via stenciling( putting a "shadow" mask over a substrate and "showering" it with OLED material stuff). The problem with their process is that it has too many time-consuming steps (scans) to mass produce OLED TVs, because you'd have move a shadow mask up to 5 times at best to make a 55 inch panel which slows things
> down significantly and the higher the resolution gets the smaller the shadow mask gets hence the more time consuming steps there are to preform
> 
> *re/tubetwister*
> Interesting I didn't know they had to 'piss out the panels ' though stencils multiple times .............. you think LG does it
> the other way and just poops them out all at once ?





stas3098 said:


> LG pump out OLED sheets I don't remember exactly how big they are, but they are 100 inches and bigger. You should ask slacker or Rogo if you wanna know more about how big these sheets are or you can go back a couple thousands posts, one by one, (unfortunately, I don't really remember when we were discussing it, too) to when we were discussing the LG's 8G line to find the exact info on it yourself.


Much easier 2 find with Google boolean operators just type 

avs: lg 8g oled + oled technology advancements + 8g

OR type for more without AVS to fetch more articles 

 lg 8g oled + oled technology advancements + 8g


or this with quotations wrapping phrase 
avs: lg 8g oled +" oled technology advancements "+ 8g



I could add the oporators "+ rogo+slacker +lg " to drill down a little further also but no need to in this case .
little easier than it used to be in that Google understands *some phrases ( sometimes better within quotation marks ) now . 
anyway thanks for the discussion info . 


Some quotes from LG at CES 2014 from first Google query above with panel size info only took a few seconds 2 find 


> "LG will be able to produce gigantic 110-inch OLED TV, "
> 
> Another LG.Display spokesperson says that "LG.Display has reached 70% production yield,"
> 
> " Samsung is said to have far lower yields at around 40-50%"


----------



## rogo

LG uses the 8G substrate size for their planned production, which will have a capacity of 26,000 sheets per month (if memory serves).

8G substrates are 2200 x 2500mm. You can make 6 55-inch TVs from one of them. If you don't cut the top four pieces, you get a single 110-inch display.

LG is currently moving towards full production on 8G (they've been processing "half substrates" apparently), but the way their method works is that they vaporize the OLED material and then allow it to solidify on the sheets. They need to do this for each OLED primary (there were debates about whether they were using r/g/b/ or just y/b; I always believed it was a three-layer design). *Please note, this is the manufacturing stage and has nothing at all to do with the WRGB part you end up with. LG makes giant "white" sheets using primary light colors, then filters them back to get red, green and blue -- as well as white. It does this because it's easier to manufacture.*

Vapor deposition of an entire layer is orders of magnitude easier than what Samsung is trying to do, especially on large substrates.


----------



## tubetwister

rogo said:


> LG uses the 8G substrate size for their planned production, which will have a capacity of 26,000 sheets per month (if memory serves).
> 
> 8G substrates are 2200 x 2500mm. You can make 6 55-inch TVs from one of them. If you don't cut the top four pieces, you get a single 110-inch display.
> 
> 
> Vapor deposition of an entire layer is orders of magnitude easier than what Samsung is trying to do, especially on large substrates.


Interesting thanks for posting I've read The Samsong process is thought to produce a superior but less cost effecting and 
poorer yield panel than the LGD panel . I wonder if they will still try to improve on the current process at the prototype level or just stay out of the OLED TV product all together until further notice . hard to imagine they would not hedge their bets

I could imagine Samsung buying LGD OLED panels would cause them to loose face in light of their past (maybe present) adversarial relationships with LG and ofc their culture . OTOH they are not (or at least haven't been) to shy about copying some things every now and then I coulden imagine them doing that with the LG OLED though I would imagine there are alot of patents involved in the LGD product. .

PS , cool sig !


----------



## tgm1024

tubetwister said:


> PS , cool sig !


Yes, Rogo's sig (regarding HDMI cables) is spot on. Many of us have tried and tried to get this concept across to people, and the closest I've ever been able to get to having the stubbornest of people understand this concept is to propose the similie that it's like emailing a file and having it show up 100% ok, and then emailing it again over a more expensive cable and expecting it to say something better.

Other than that it's an endless battle. Even among people who should know better. The psychosomatic effects involved in looking for an improvement and finding it are tremendously powerful.


----------



## vinnie_RIP

Belief is a more potent force than gravity.


----------



## tubetwister

tgm1024 said:


> Yes, Rogo's sig (regarding HDMI cables) is spot on. Many of us have tried and tried to get this concept across to people, and the closest I've ever been able to get to having the stubbornest of people understand this concept is to propose the similie that it's like emailing a file and having it show up 100% ok, and then emailing it again over a more expensive cable and expecting it to say something better.
> 
> Other than that it's an endless battle. Even among people who should know better. The psychosomatic effects involved in looking for an improvement and finding it are tremendously powerful.



ha ha ha ......E mail analogy is priceless ............ but true  The believers have expectation bias ☺

Had an EE ( that owns a well regarded Speaker co . ) tell me in a forum discussion over at AK once about expensive audio cables . they still have members over there that are believers though but they are a litle more tolerant of mis information/disinformation there so there are two firmly divided camps there ,the smart ones and the audiophools 
funny thing is (and unsurprisingly ) the EE's there are always in the former group 

Anyway he said " You cant hear the wires " !
He said they tested all kinds with and without measurements years ago. He also said "just keep buying inexpensive decent ones like you have been" .


----------



## tubetwister

vinnie_RIP said:


> Belief is a more potent force than gravity.




History and current events today bears that out (wars and all ! )


----------



## tgm1024

Well to not derail the OLED thread any further, please take a look at these hysterical posts from some time ago in yet another thread regarding HDMI quality, etc., etc., hooey, hooey, ....

I had found a beauty of a nutjob online seriously saying that wrapping his power cords in cotton yielded a softer sound.

Place further HDMI cable comments there maybe.


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> This goes back to something I've been explaining for a long while: There is no near-term-horizon solution for the "front cover" problem at all.


The two companies are attempting to replace the existing tempered glass with the optical plastic, which was recently developed by a local company, and use it for the cover glass. The optical plastic is more break-resistant and scratch-resistant than the existing tempered glass. It is more durable, but costs less than half that of the tempered glass. “Both companies had good test results in terms of performance,” said an insider from the company that developed the optical plastic. “They are conducting final tests before application.” 

SEC and LGE are known to seriously consider using this optical plastic for not only low-end phones, but also streamlined flexible displays scheduled to be released in the second half. 

http://english.etnews.com/device/2964419_1304.html


----------



## Wizziwig

rogo said:


> Vapor deposition of an entire layer is orders of magnitude easier than what Samsung is trying to do, especially on large substrates.


Unfortunately, this method seems to have poor uniformity as seen in the streaky and patchy dark grays on the LG OLED. It look like neither LG or Samsung have an ideal solution.


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> LG uses the 8G substrate size for their planned production, which will have a capacity of 26,000 sheets per month (if memory serves).
> 
> 8G substrates are 2200 x 2500mm. You can make 6 55-inch TVs from one of them. If you don't cut the top four pieces, you get a single 110-inch display.
> 
> LG is currently moving towards full production on 8G (they've been processing "half substrates" apparently), but the way their method works is that they vaporize the OLED material and then allow it to solidify on the sheets. They need to do this for each OLED primary (there were debates about whether they were using r/g/b/ or just y/b; I always believed it was a three-layer design). *Please note, this is the manufacturing stage and has nothing at all to do with the WRGB part you end up with. LG makes giant "white" sheets using primary light colors, then filters them back to get red, green and blue -- as well as white. It does this because it's easier to manufacture.*
> 
> Vapor deposition of an entire layer is orders of magnitude easier than what Samsung is trying to do, especially on large substrates.


And just for the sake of making the "why" of "why Samsung are not very likely to up&start making OLED TVs any time soon if ever" perfectly clear I'm gonna put in my two cents by saying that Samsung at present have no facilities to produce enough LTPS backplanes to meet the demand on LTPS backplanes if they decide to get back to making OLED TVs. They'd have to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into LTPS production facilities first before they'd able to make any sensible number of OLED TVs and we don't really see that happening (Samsung building LTPS facilities for large-sized panel), do we, now?


----------



## tgm1024

*vinnie_RIP has been banned*. The mark of a junior moderator is to forget that his role is one of a resource and not one of an authority. If this represents a systemic attitude here then the forum itself is no longer about the members but about the administration structure. They seem to have inverted this paradigm over time.


----------



## Elvis Is Alive

ynotgoal said:


> The two companies are attempting to replace the existing tempered glass with the optical plastic, which was recently developed by a local company, and use it for the cover glass. The optical plastic is more break-resistant and scratch-resistant than the existing tempered glass. It is more durable, but costs less than half that of the tempered glass. “Both companies had good test results in terms of performance,” said an insider from the company that developed the optical plastic. “They are conducting final tests before application.”
> 
> SEC and LGE are known to seriously consider using this optical plastic for not only low-end phones, but also streamlined flexible displays scheduled to be released in the second half.
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/device/2964419_1304.html


 Interesting article. My experience is in optics and I've never seen any plastic that has better scratch resistance than glass. Glass has superior clarity as well. It is rarely used anymore in US eyewear due to weight and poor shatter-resistance. Many asian countries still prominently use high-index glass but here we are subject to minimum thickness regulations (OSHA) that other countries don't have to adhere too.


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, a Korean company claims to have developed a plastic with a hardness rating of 9H.

http://english.etnews.com/device/2964185_1304.html


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> FWIW, a Korean company claims to have developed a plastic with a hardness rating of 9H.
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/device/2964185_1304.html


This is a long discussion, but hardness isn't usually equated with impact resistance as they seem to in that article.

Anyone who has ever tried to drill through anything made of ceramic has quickly learned that something _*impossibly *_hard can be brittle as all hell. If that bit isn't made of diamond, it'll just spin and spin and spin with no purchase.


----------



## rogo

I'm glad to hear that a company that has developed an optical plastic claims it's better than glass and half the price. Whew.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, however.


----------



## htwaits

rogo said:


> I'm glad to hear that a company that has developed an optical plastic claims it's better than glass and half the price. Whew.
> 
> The proof of the pudding is in the eating, however.


No way am I eating any stinking plastic.


----------



## tubetwister

htwaits said:


> No way am I eating any stinking plastic.


what about scratch resistance ?


----------



## stas3098

tubetwister said:


> what about scratch resistance ?


This should you give some idea about scratch resistance of plastic
http://www.ideaconnection.com/new-i...istant-plastic-could-replace-glass-06537.html


----------



## tubetwister

stas3098 said:


> This should you give some idea about scratch resistance of plastic
> http://www.ideaconnection.com/new-i...istant-plastic-could-replace-glass-06537.html


*Wow that's a lot harder* at 9H than the typical ~ 2H - 3H of an LCD panel ! 

they could use it on a new _eye phone_ ☺☺


----------



## Yappadappadu

@stas : I know that this is OT, but loving cats I have to know if you have link to a bigger version of your avatar.


----------



## stas3098

Yappadappadu said:


> @stas : I know that this is OT, but loving cats I have to know if you have link to a bigger version of your avatar.


 Here it is in the best quality I have.


----------



## tubetwister

stas3098 said:


> Here it is in the best quality I have.


pretty resourceful cat there ha ha


----------



## HomerJau

I was talking to a Samsung employee who was showing off Samsung 2014 TVs at a big local retailer here and he said Samsung will have new OLEDs coming out 'in the near future'. Not sure if he was full of BS but he seemed confident about the statement. I didn't drill him on it or ask for more info though.


----------



## fafrd

HomerJau said:


> I was talking to a Samsung employee who was showing off Samsung 2014 TVs at a big local retailer here and he said Samsung will have new OLEDs coming out 'in the near future'. Not sure if he was full of BS but he seemed confident about the statement. I didn't drill him on it or ask for more info though.



I had a guy at the new Magnolia in my local Best Buy show of the Sony 65X950 and tell me that Sony was coming out with a version that would have 'one LED behind each individual pixel' by next year. When I pressed him on how unlikely that was and he was probably talking about some form of OLED rather than an LED/LCD he doubled down and told me that he was certain it was not OLED and was an LCD with improved LED 1:1 backlight.


These poor sales guys are trained to always appear confident but unfortunately they often are told the wrong thing or come out with the incorrect understanding.


----------



## barth2k

fafrd said:


> I had a guy at the new Magnolia in my local Best Buy show of the Sony 65X950 and tell me that Sony was coming out with a version that would have 'one LED behind each individual pixel' by next year. When I pressed him on how unlikely that was and he was probably talking about some form of OLED rather than an LED/LCD he doubled down and told me that he was certain it was not OLED and was an LCD with improved LED 1:1 backlight.
> 
> .


It's the matrix display!


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> I had a guy at the new Magnolia in my local Best Buy show of the Sony 65X950 and tell me that Sony was coming out with a version that would have 'one LED behind each individual pixel' by next year. When I pressed him on how unlikely that was and he was probably talking about some form of OLED rather than an LED/LCD he doubled down and told me that he was certain it was not OLED and was an LCD with improved LED 1:1 backlight.
> 
> These poor sales guys are trained to always appear confident but unfortunately they often are told the wrong thing or come out with the incorrect understanding.


I agree, I no longer blame these guys. Look at how difficult it is for US to get things straight sometimes based on how the misinformation gets swirled around. Remember LG's ridiculous claim that passive 3D allows you to view 3D laying down? (Oye).

Regarding the guy at your BB/Mag: further in his defense I must state that the first few iterations I took in reading what the QD version of Sony's Triluminus offerings really seemed to me to be stating just that----a single QD emitter behind every LCD pixel. Threw me for a short time....some of their early diagrams I believe to be deceiving.


----------



## Rudy1

_*FINALLY: VIDEO WALLPAPER*_


----------



## Rich Peterson

I thought this was an interesting article which suggests ink-jet printing of OLEDs is moving forward. The implication of 2015 is for smaller displays but in other articles Kateeva has suggested TV-sized panel production in 2016.

*Inkjet printing of OLEDs on track for 2015*

http://www.plusplasticelectronics.c...inting-of-oleds-on-track-for-2015-116461.aspx



> What remains to be seen is whether Yieldjet can indeed achieve the kind of mass-production performance standards that will encourage consumer electronics firms to invest further. If it proves itself as a deposition process for commercial-scale, thin-film encapsulation, the ability to then progress to glass-free screens for smartphones, tablets and wearables will likely be compelling enough to see commercial use to Kateeva's 2015 timescale.


----------



## rogo

I'm a big fan of Kateeva, but I wish that piece contained more news and less old info.

Good to see they are ramping up production capabilities for the YieldJet stuff, but that's several steps away from seeing products based on it.


----------



## htwaits

rogo said:


> I'm a big fan of Kateeva, ...


Yea!!!


----------



## ynotgoal

LGCanada hosted an LGHolidays event and tweeted photos of the upcoming 55" and 77" OLED TVs and pegged the price of the 77" at $27k Canadian ($25k US).

https://twitter.com/alexbdavies/status/492085235241472001

https://twitter.com/alexbdavies/status/492082857486352384


----------



## Yappadappadu

There's a photo of a TV that looks exactly like the EA9800. I hope that's really just the old model and not the new 55EC9300 Full HD OLED TV. I don't like the stand.


----------



## remush

Yappadappadu said:


> There's a photo of a TV that looks exactly like the EA9800. I hope that's really just the old model and not the new 55EC9300 Full HD OLED TV. I don't like the stand.


It looks like the EA9700, which replaced the EA9800 in Canada this year, so technically its a 2014 model here but the specs are the same as the EA9800, minus the bottom speakers.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxvuYvLQqwVbOEtYdEFHRmdFWGVjaVdnOExjYi0yemlkckYw/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## HomerJau

ynotgoal said:


> LGCanada hosted an LGHolidays event and tweeted photos of the upcoming 55" and 77" OLED TVs and pegged the price of the *77" at $27k Canadian ($25k US).*


I was putting off my next purchase until this pricing was known. I was hoping for around 10k. I think I'll buy a 65" LED and wait another couple of years...


----------



## ynotgoal

For videophiles, the highlight had to be three new OLED TVs. The price for this technology is becoming much less prohibitive. LG launched a curved 55" OLED HDTV in Canada last October for $11,000. It is now rolling out a second-generation 55-incher for $5,000. The panels are the same, but the new model has down-firing speakers instead of front-firing film speakers.

The price drop is the result of improving yields on OLED displays, said Kevin Andrews, Senior Brand Marketing Manager for LG Canada's Home Entertainment Division (shown in picture at top of story, along with Brand Marketing Manager Greg Belina). "So far, we've been able to meet demand," Andrews added. "We've had no supply constraints."

*Coming in about six weeks is a wall-mountable 55" OLED television, for $8,000.* The supplied hanging mount has two magnetic clasps that let the display swing out from the wall for making connections. As the photo at right shows, the OLED TV is literally pencil-thin (it's actually thicker than Belina's pen!)

Both 55-inchers are HD displays, with 1,920x1,080-pixel resolution. Coming late in the year (in time for the holiday season, Andrews says) is the curved 77" OLED 4K TV that LG first showed at CES back in January. It will carry a $27,000 price tag, and will sport LG's new webOS-based smart-TV platform. As expected, all three OLED displays had gorgeous pictures, with anthracite-deep blacks and brilliant colours.

http://www.wifihifi.ca/LatestNewsHeadlines/SmartWatch,OLEDTVsTopLGsHolidayProductLaunches.html




HomerJau said:


> I was putting off my next purchase until this pricing was known. I was hoping for around 10k. I think I'll buy a 65" LED and wait another couple of years...


The 65" OLED might be around 10k if you're looking for something that size. Otherwise prices will certainly be lower by end of next year.


----------



## tgm1024

ynotgoal said:


> (it's actually thicker than Belina's pen!)


Bah, all my TVs over the years have been thicker than my pens.


----------



## Stereodude

tgm1024 said:


> Bah, all my TVs over the years have been thicker than my pens.


Judging from the picture I'm pretty sure they meant thinner.


----------



## wco81

$10k or $27k, how long will these displays last before the half life of the display is reached and certain colors are no longer as bright as they used to be?


----------



## slacker711

ynotgoal said:


> LGCanada hosted an LGHolidays event and tweeted photos of the upcoming 55" and 77" OLED TVs and pegged the price of the 77" at $27k Canadian ($25k US).
> 
> https://twitter.com/alexbdavies/status/492085235241472001
> 
> https://twitter.com/alexbdavies/status/492082857486352384


If the 65" version has the same price ratio from the UK to the US, it would be $7500.

The price premium for the 77" version is insane.


----------



## dsinger

wco81 said:


> $10k or $27k, how long will these displays last before the half life of the display is reached and certain colors are no longer as bright as they used to be?


If someone has the $ to buy either set, longer than they are likely to keep it before buying the next set.


----------



## rogo

dsinger said:


> If someone has the $ to buy either set, longer than they are likely to keep it before buying the next set.


I simply don't agree that people with lots of money go and replace televisions frequently. Sure, certain wealthy videophiles do. 

But most wealthy folks I know buy a TV very rarely. If they bought a $10,000 TV and it was not as good as new in 2-3 years, they'd pretty much go ballistic.


----------



## dsinger

^ Mark: What I had in mind when writing that was more like 5 years. At 2000 hours per year we are talking about 10,000 usage by the time the set is replaced or moved to a less important viewing area. Don't remember anyone claiming OLED will suffer significant PQ degradation at 10,000 hours although, if IR/ burn in turns out to be a real issue, that may change.


----------



## JimP

dsinger said:


> ....snip...
> Don't remember anyone claiming OLED will suffer significant PQ degradation at 10,000 hours although, if IR/ burn in turns out to be a real issue, that may change.


That's the other shoe many of us are waiting to drop.

Which brings up a question. How long does it take for time related issues such as burn in and IR to occur before its safe to go out and buy one?????


----------



## Audio Karma

JimP said:


> That's the other shoe many of us are waiting to drop.
> 
> Which brings up a question. How long does it take for time related issues such as burn in and IR to occur before its safe to go out and buy one?????


 Who knows.. Sometimes we are in a rush to bring these new technologies to market before we really should.

Long term testing should be done on these new technologies before putting them on the market so they can work out THESE big problems


----------



## 5x10

JimP said:


> That's the other shoe many of us are waiting to drop.
> 
> Which brings up a question. How long does it take for time related issues such as burn in and IR to occur before its safe to go out and buy one?????


I would think ir or burn in would show itself after extensive use with a picture that would warrant it(heads up display on a video game, scrolling boxes on the bottom,meson, etc)
I know their was no logic or timeframe on plasma burn ins, so I'm not sure oled would have a methodical pattern of ir
If it's very susceptible to it, I would guess it would show itself sooner rather than later


----------



## tgm1024

5x10 said:


> I would think ir or burn in would show itself after extensive use with a picture that would warrant it(heads up display on a video game, scrolling boxes on the bottom,meson, etc)
> I know their was no logic or timeframe on plasma burn ins, so I'm not sure oled would have a methodical pattern of ir
> If it's very susceptible to it, I would guess it would show itself sooner rather than later


As you know from the ea9800 thread, we're far from understanding what is going on with some releases of the LG 2K devices. There were reports of gaming HUDs not causing a bit of IR, but the letterboxes doing so after a single viewing. Once we thought that this implied that static imagery was not the problem and that initial uneven wear was, but the experiments folks (ThePlague13, Vinnie97 (RIP) et. al.) were doing only showed that prepping the screen with slides only partly to mostly worked.


----------



## tgm1024

JimP said:


> That's the other shoe many of us are waiting to drop.
> 
> Which brings up a question. How long does it take for time related issues such as burn in and IR to occur before its safe to go out and buy one?????





Audio Karma said:


> Who knows.. Sometimes we are in a rush to bring these new technologies to market before we really should


I really think that some products just don't lend themselves well to a yearly release cycle. Shows tick off like clockwork every year, and every year there is this pressure to release something new or be viewed as out of the game. It's really absurd, but unfortunately seems the way of things.


----------



## markrubin

thread cleanup


----------



## fafrd

In case this has not been posted yet: http://global.ofweek.com/news/LG-Display-on-mission-to-reshape-flexible-screens-15406


begin quote


“LCD has no future. The Chinese can make even ultra high-definition TVs at lower costs,” says Oh Chang-ho, senior vice-president of LG’s OLED TV development division. “We cannot win this price war. For survival, we have to make products that they cannot make.”


...

“LG has resolved most of the technological challenges but high prices remain a problem for OLED TVs to reach the mass market,” says Soh Hyun-chul, an analyst at Shinhan Investment. *LG’s 55-inch full HD curved OLED TVs cost $4,999, while its same-size ultra high-definition LCD TVs go for $2,999.
*
* Mr Oh forecasts 2017 will be the year OLED TVs hit the big time*, as rising production finally brings prices down to affordable levels. Market researcher IHS Technology forecasts OLED TV shipments to grow from 92,000 units this year to 9m units in 2019.

Many analysts are less sanguine. While they expect Samsung Display to eventually join LG in the race – even if only to avoid falling behind – they caution that OLED is unlikely to replace LCD any time soon.

“Consumers will not buy OLED TVs no matter how high quality the products are if they are expensive,” says Jerry Kang, an analyst at IHS.

“The question is how far and how fast prices can be cut. *If they can’t find a low-cost way to produce OLEDs, we cannot rule out the possibility that the technology may face the same fate as plasma.”*

end quote


Hard to find a 55" 1080p for $2999 anywhere, while LGs flagship 55" 1080p TV, the 55UB9500, can be found for under $2000...


So while the article implies that the premium for WOLED over LED/LCD is currently only 67% (1.7X), at $5000 for the WOLED, it's more like 150% (2.5X).


And the reference to 2017 being the 'year of OLED' rather than 2016 as has been stated in the past, is disturbing. To say the least - LG WOLED may not make it that long if they can not sell the full M2 production of 1.5M 55" WOLEDs (or equivalent) in 2016...


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> “LCD has no future. The Chinese can make even ultra high-definition TVs at lower costs,” says Oh Chang-ho, senior vice-president of LG’s OLED TV development division. “We cannot win this price war. For survival, we have to make products that they cannot make.”


LG LCd has not future because the chinese can make them at lower costs. For survival LG must make products that the chinese cannot make. 


Is this is the drive behind LG OLED..survival?


----------



## stas3098

8mile13 said:


> LG LCd has not future because the chinese can make them at lower costs. For survival LG must make products that the chinese cannot make.
> 
> 
> Is this is the drive behind LG OLED..survival?


By the way, neither Kateeva (equipment) nor Merck (the ones who are behind Kateeva and who can and are gonna supply OLED materials ( singles from which OLED materials are made) for printing ) believe that there's a lot of money in TV making. 

I remember attending a presentation by Merck years ago back in 2009, if memory serves right, Merck said that OLED was all about lighting, a "futuristic" light bulb that can go on for millions of hours on end that can't be broken by a 20 foot fall and draws just a fraction of what a traditional light bulb draws power-wise. It's kinda funny and tragic at the same to see how they are not saying such things about OLEDs any more after a billion of R&D money spent...

Here's an interesting article about OLED printing http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrog...rtup-has-its-way-your-next-tv-wont-be-an-lcd/


----------



## wco81

If OLED lighting last lifetimes, how is it such an attractive ROI?

GE didn't make money by making light bulbs which were never replaced.


----------



## Morning5

8mile13 said:


> LG LCd has not future because the chinese can make them at lower costs. For survival LG must make products that the chinese cannot make.
> 
> 
> Is this is the drive behind LG OLED..survival?


Name a non Chinese LCD brand that can compete in prices with China. If we take the time to think about it, yeah, LG's may be doing a smart move.


----------



## tgm1024

Morning5 said:


> Name a non Chinese LCD brand that can compete in prices with China. If we take the time to think about it, yeah, LG's may be doing a smart move.


Vizio


----------



## Morning5

tgm1024 said:


> Vizio


Yes. As far as I know Vizio only sells their tvs in USA.


----------



## 8mile13

Morning5; said:


> Name a non Chinese LCD brand that can compete in prices with China. If we take the time to think about it, yeah, LG's may be doing a smart move.


right. maybe.. doing a smart move, maybe OLED wil be going the way of Plasma - once promising technology that has been expensive to develop and utimately not wide adopted.

The thing is LG OLED undertaken comes across here as being an act of desperation instead of confidence. I never looked at it that way.


----------



## Morning5

8mile13 said:


> right. maybe.. doing a smart move, maybe OLED wil be going the way of Plasma - once promising technology that has been expensive to develop and utimately not wide adopted.
> 
> The thing is LG OLED undertaken comes across here as being an act of desperation instead of confidence. I never looked at it that way.


I'm not sure, but I think a lot of people didn't buy Plasmas cause they found them dim and not as bright as LCDs. Not all people calibrate their tvs, a lot of them like their tvs in torch mode, ultra bright. Only issue with OLED right now, is Image Retention.

Well, at least LG has managed to keep producing WOLEDS. We cannot say the same for Samsung's RGB OLED. Blue color's short life?


----------



## stas3098

wco81 said:


> If OLED lighting last lifetimes, how is it such an attractive ROI?
> 
> GE didn't make money by making light bulbs which were never replaced.


Well, high end LEDs already offer over 70,000 hours to 70 percent of its original brightness and MTBF of 100,000 hours which is about 70 times more than incandescent lighting devices do. 

http://www.lumec.com/newsletter/architect_06-08/led.htm


----------



## rogo

stas3098 said:


> Here's an interesting article about OLED printing http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrog...rtup-has-its-way-your-next-tv-wont-be-an-lcd/


That _is_ an interesting article


----------



## JimP

8mile13 said:


> LG LCd has not future because the chinese can make them at lower costs. For survival LG must make products that the chinese cannot make.
> 
> 
> Is this is the drive behind LG OLED..survival?


Why exactly will the Chinese not make OLEDs too?

Doesn't seem that difficult. They could use the Kateeva machines or steal the tech from LG and they're on their way.


----------



## JimP

rogo said:


> That _is_ an interesting article


Well written article rogo.

Thought you were taller, though.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> That _is_ an interesting article


LOL, by the way. Your caption under the pic in the Michael Bay Meltdown article: "LG’s $70,000 105-inch TV. Model not included."


----------



## stas3098

8mile13 said:


> right. maybe.. doing a smart move, maybe OLED wil be going the way of Plasma - once promising technology that has been expensive to develop and utimately not wide adopted.
> 
> The thing is LG OLED undertaken comes across here as being an act of desperation instead of confidence. I never looked at it that way.


 
Here's a quote from another must-read 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrog...-stretch-clear-signs-of-a-desperate-industry/




Sony, for its part, had a more polished presentation to talk up “4K,” the increased resolution that will be coming soon to a TV near you — or at least a TV in China. Like 3D before it, the cost to add the additional pixels to your TV is low, so most sets will eventually be built with 4K inside. In the meantime, the technology is getting popular in China quickly because domestic brands there are selling it especially cheaply. Elsewhere, the old guard is hoping the additional margin from selling it will prop out their flagging profits. Those Chinese brands, on the other hand, are planning on taking their low prices worldwide, as the Koreans once did to the Japanese. And the Japanese once did to the Americans.


In the meantime, everyone hopes you’ll even notice the difference in picture quality.

By the way, I've underlined the most _interesting _part


----------



## 8mile13

JimP said:


> Why exactly will the Chinese not make OLEDs too?
> 
> Doesn't seem that difficult. They could use the Kateeva machines or steal the tech from LG and they're on their way.


right. By the time the chinese take over OLED LG is working on a new tech. Desperation is the drive..


stas3098 said:


> Here's a quote from another must-read
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrog...-stretch-clear-signs-of-a-desperate-industry/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sony, for its part, had a more polished presentation to talk up “4K,” the increased resolution that will be coming soon to a TV near you — or at least a TV in China. Like 3D before it, the cost to add the additional pixels to your TV is low, so most sets will eventually be built with 4K inside. In the meantime, the technology is getting popular in China quickly because domestic brands there are selling it especially cheaply. Elsewhere, the old guard is hoping the additional margin from selling it will prop out their flagging profits. Those Chinese brands, on the other hand, are planning on taking their low prices worldwide, as the Koreans once did to the Japanese. And the Japanese once did to the Americans.
> 
> 
> In the meantime, everyone hopes you’ll even notice the difference in picture quality.
> 
> By the way, I've underlined the most _interesting _part


I am still waiting for rogo to start a *thread *on that important subject - Japanse take over from americans, koreans take over from japanese, chinese taking over from koreans. And of course the alien invasion, when the aliens take over from the chinese  - so we can post 'when another one bites the dust' in one place.


----------



## stas3098

8mile13 said:


> right. By the time the chinese take over OLED LG is working on a new tech. Desperation is the drive..
> 
> I am still waiting for *rogo* to* start a thread on that important subject* - Japanse take over from americans, koreans take over from japanese, chinese taking over from koreans. And of course the alien invasion, when the aliens take over from the chinese  - so we can post 'when another one bites the dust' in one place.


The worst that could've happened would be if those aliens took over from the Chinese with even cheaper 8k LCDs with barely noticeable differences in PQ


----------



## mreendoor

*Dr. Taewon Kim’s team 
developed an original technology to refine organic light-emitting materials in bulk for fine OLED TV at low price
and it can solve issues of high cost·low yield rate arisen in production of the organic light-emitting material for the OLED TV

**Dr. Taewon Kim, said, “this technology increased the yield rate and decreased the production cost by more than 50%. And an ultimate goal is to reduce the current price by one tenth” and “technology development is in progress with companies.” He also said, “the success is a game changer with enormous potential to turn the OLED TV market-to-explosively grow” and “based on the low-cost and large scale refining original technology, domestic businesses will largely contribute to preoccupy the global market of forward-backward industry regarding the OLED TV.”*

http://olednet.com/eng/sub02.php?mid=1&r=view&uid=182&ctg1=2


----------



## htwaits

mreendoor said:


> Dr. Taewon Kim, said, “this technology increased the yield rate and decreased the production cost by more than 50%. And an ultimate goal is to reduce the current price by one tenth”


Reducing the current price by "one tenth" doesn't seem like much. Could there be a translation problem?


----------



## fafrd

htwaits said:


> Reducing the current price by "one tenth" doesn't seem like much. Could there be a translation problem?



Probably - I took it to mean reducing the price to 'one tenth' below comparable LED/LCD.


At most, I expect it meant reducing the price to 'one tenth' _more_ than comparable LED/LCD.


So either 0.9X or 1.1X comparable LED/LCD pricing rather than 0.9X current OLED pricing.


Wouldn't hold my breath, though...


----------



## htwaits

fafrd said:


> Wouldn't hold my breath, though...


I'm breathing deep, and conducting sacrificial ceremonies in front of our Kuro three times each day.


----------



## Jason626

Does sound wierd. You reduce production cost by 50% but only reduce price for the tv by 10%. Maybe they want big profit margins for couple years to pay for the start up of OLED. Unless the are saying 50% is just one slice of the product like OLED materials.


----------



## 8mile13

JOLED Inc


Tokyo,Juli 31, 2014--Innovation Network Corporation of Japan, Japan Display Inc, Sony Corporation, and Panasonic Corporation announced today that they have executed a definitive agreement to establish a new company, JOLED Inc, to integrate Sony and Panasonic's R&D functions for organic light-emitting diode display panels.
Through this collaboration, the companies aim to accelerate the development and early commercialization of OLED display panels.
JOLED is scheduled to be launched in January 2015, subject to receipt of any necessary approvals.


----------



## stas3098

Did you know guys know that the process of producing OLED materials involves over 20 unit-operations performed on three difference continents? Come on guys, logistics alone would never allow for a 50 percent price drop not until UDC and EMD ramp up their US production facilities which won't happen until there's enough orders. Basically what I'm saying is that the more OLED materials are getting bought the lower the price on them will get. Economies of scale in action.


----------



## rogo

I have discussed several times the challenge here for "economies of scale" to kick in.

You need this cycle volume --> lower prices --> more volumes --> lower prices --> repeat.

But when there is already a perfectly adequate substitute good (i.e. the LCD), the process of even getting to "volume" is challenging. What LG is trying to do is go straight to "lower prices" in an attempt to get "more volumes," but so far that hasn't happened.

That doesn't mean it won't but it's very, very hard.


----------



## fafrd

It sounds like LG is not planning to have M2 up to full capacity before late 2015: http://olednet.com/eng/sub02.php?mid=1&r=view&uid=181&ctg1=4


*"OLEDNET* | * 2014.07.30*








*OLED TV market is expected to begin flourishing from the end of 2015.*
At the presentation of LG Display’s performance in Q2 held on 23rd at LG Twin-Tower, Yeouido, an executive director of strategic marketing group of LG Display (LGD), Youngkwon Song, emphasized, “LGD is putting efforts to realize the economy of scale and to cut cost including lowering material cost regarding the OLED TV business” and *“a significant condition will be developed by the end of 2015 and early 2016.”*
Mr. Don Kim, the CFO and a senior vice president of LGD said that “from our point of view on the OLED, the current levels of expected performance and yield rate are at satisfaible level, but *innovation in pricing is what we concentrate more”* and *“by the end of 2015 or early 2016, when the operation is in full capa., we can reach the economy of scale and bring a significant performance.”* Mr. Kim also hinted a soon-to-be bloomed of LGD’s OLED TV market. 
LGD started supplying panels for the OLED TV to major Chinese TV set makers and *plans to operate M2 line for mass-production in this third quarter.* It also continuously leads the OLED market with scheduled launch of 55”/65”/77” curved UHD OLED TV. 
In the meantime, sales for Q2 in 2014 was 5.979 trillion won which is declined by 9% from the Q2 in 2013 but increased by 7% from the Q1 in 2014. And operating profit was recorded surplus consecutively for nine quarters at 163.1 billion won."


----------



## fafrd

An interesting comment made by AUO in their Q2 earnings call: http://seekingalpha.com/article/236...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single


"I know that LCD TV has a much lower cost than OLED TVs. In terms of the differences in feature and performances, I think it really depends on the preferences of the customers. *With the exception of response time, I think LCD TV is quite similar to OLED TVs.* So if we look at, for example, the price comparison at the moment, LCD TV still have an advantage over OLED TVs."


----------



## wandering_star

Very UNinteresting to me (and not even the whole truth). That's all his firm makes. Of course he wants to play down alternatives. To hell with him.


----------



## fafrd

wandering_star said:


> Very UNinteresting to me (and not even the whole truth). That's all his firm makes. * Of course he wants to play down alternatives*. To hell with him.



It was exactly this 'bending of the truth' that made the comment interesting to me - it provides a sense of how AUO (and with them, the entire LED/LCD behemoth) is planning to position themselves against LGs WOLED initiative...


----------



## wandering_star

I see...it just causes my hatred to boil over.


----------



## fafrd

wandering_star said:


> I see...it just causes my hatred to boil over.



Hatred is a bit extreme - it's just human nature for the king of the hill to want to stay there as long as possible.


LG has their work cut out for them and that should have been obvious to anyone from the get-go - hopefully the superiority of LG's WOLED TVs sell themselves on the showroom floor much more effectively than plasma ever could and they are able to get the price premium for WOLED over LED/LCD down to the level that many consumers think it is attractive sooner rather than later.


If there are any true reliability concerns as these Gen-2 WOLEDs begin rolling off of the M2 manufacturing line, them I am afraid LGs WOLED initiative is likely to end up in a bloody mess. But if these Gen-2 WOLEDs are able to deliver near-LED/LCD care-and-feeding advantages, and better-than-LED/LCD image quality on the showroom floor, at near-LED/LCD prices (


----------



## mo949

a 65 inch tv is very similar to a 56 inch tv as well 

its always interesting to watch the "idiots" spewing their slants though


----------



## slacker711

Assuming that LG succeeds, his comments will be interesting in 12 months when every analyst is asking what their strategy is try and hold onto their high-end share. My guess is we are going to be hearing quite a bit about quantum dots very soon.


----------



## 5x10

fafrd said:


> But if these Gen-2 WOLEDs are able to deliver near-LED/LCD care-and-feeding advantages, and better-than-LED/LCD image quality on the showroom floor, at near-LED/LCD prices (


----------



## fafrd

For what it is worth: http://www.oled-info.com/ubi-amoled...4-oled-lighting-revenue-reach-47-billion-2020


"UBI says that LGD sold 50% more OLED TVs in the quarter compared to Q4 2013 (this is by revenue, which means that shipments almost doubled as the price keeps dropping). UBI expects LGD's OLED TV sales to grow by more than 60% in Q2 2014 as Chinese TV start marketing TVs with LGD's OLED panels, and LG Electronics expand OLED TV sales to more countries."


So if we assume 4K OLEDs sold in all of 2013 and assume 3K of those were LG OLEDs sold in Q4'13, UBI's forecast would translate to 6K LG OLEDs in Q1'14 and 9.6K sold last quarter.


Sounds possible but I doubt it was any more than that.


If LG has sold 15K OLED TVs in H1'14, they are going to have to sell a boatload in H2 to reach 100,000 by year-end.(more than 5X the sales rate in H2'14 versus H1'14).


The surprisingly aggressive pre-introduction prices on the 55EC9300 and 65EC9700 become more understandable when that challenge is brought into focus.


----------



## wandering_star

Don't count on that 100k forecast being met.


----------



## fafrd

wandering_star said:


> Don't count on that 100k forecast being met.



Believe me - I'm not. It's going to take a hope and a prayer (and an end to the quality concerns with the Gen-2 products)!


----------



## wandering_star

The quality concerns are fairly minor. A diminished prevalence and severity is more likely than an outright disappearance.


----------



## fafrd

wandering_star said:


> The quality concerns are fairly minor. A diminished prevalence and severity is more likely than an outright disappearance.



Good point. Seems like the Gen-1 sets are about 50/50 (subject to analysis of different build dates, etc, so that is far from definitive yet), which is not going to be good enough to fly - as long as the Gen-2 sets demonstrate a marked improvement in either severity and/or prevalence that should be good enough to give LG a chance for a successful hockey stick in sales following the introduction of the Gen-2 products (as you note).


----------



## greenland

People should not overlook the fact that the end of Plasma has widened the market opportunity for LG OLED sales, since there are a lot of Plasma lovers who will be attracted to OLED, especially since LG has now dropped the price of their new 55 inch 1080P model to where it is affordable for a lot more consumers.


----------



## Ken Ross

fafrd said:


> Good point. Seems like the Gen-1 sets are about 50/50 (subject to analysis of different build dates, etc, so that is far from definitive yet), which is not going to be good enough to fly - as long as the Gen-2 sets demonstrate a marked improvement in either severity and/or prevalence that should be good enough to give LG a chance for a successful hockey stick in sales following the introduction of the Gen-2 products (as you note).


Of course many of the Gen 2 OLEDs will be 4K with 4X the pixels. Will this mean 4X the pixel failures if nothing has changed?


----------



## fafrd

Ken Ross said:


> Of course many of the Gen 2 OLEDs will be 4K with 4X the pixels. Will this mean 4X the pixel failures if nothing has changed?



Right, but each failing sub-pixel will be only 25% as visible.


This is actually an additional benefit of a 4K screen over a 1080p screen that few have mentioned - and pixel defects will be far harder to spot. I'd rather have 4 or 8 failing sub-pixels on a 4K OLED than 1 or 2 on a 1080p OLED...


----------



## jman425

fafrd said:


> Right, but each failing sub-pixel will be only 25% as visible.
> 
> 
> This is actually an additional benefit of a 4K screen over a 1080p screen that few have mentioned - and pixel defects will be far harder to spot. I'd rather have 4 or 8 failing sub-pixels on a 4K OLED than 1 or 2 on a 1080p OLED...


You're really trying to make me pony up to the 4k 65" aren't you ?


----------



## tubetwister

*Sony & panasonic form new oled collaboration*
Fell on this when I was cleaning out my in box came in @05: 56 2 day fresh from HDFlatpanels 
You saw it first here unless saw it somewhere else already ☺☺☺



*EDIT looks like no large OLED TV *
Looks like tablets, mobile PCs,and small signage as outlined at HD guru link and and *maybe (other )speculated below* in post 10582

http://hdguru.com/panasonic-and-sony-are-back-together-for-new-oled-venture/#more-14051

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-fl...ogy-advancements-thread-353.html#post26365993 POST 10582
Anybody know when Vizio Pee reference 4K is coming out ? Wal mart people wants to know ...............☺☺☺☺




> SONY & PANASONIC FORM NEW OLED COLLABORATION
> 
> Panasonic, Sony, Japan Display and a innovation fund owned by the Japanese government and private companies have established JOLED Inc. in a goal to develop and mass produce OLED for handheld devices.
> 
> The new company will start operating in January 2015, but no technical details regarding the OLED displays were announced. Panasonic and Sony recently tried to collaborate to bring OLED TVs to the market, but the partnership has since been cancelled. However, both Sony and Panasonic are said to be in talks with LG.Display about using its OLED panels for selling TV.
> more:http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...957&newsletter


----------



## tubetwister

Morning5 said:


> Name a non Chinese LCD brand that can compete in prices with China. If we take the time to think about it, yeah, LG's may be doing a smart move.





tgm1024 said:


> Vizio


Good point (sort of ) but Vizio supply chain and production is in China ,(actually PRC is proper name) 
e.g, TPV, Wistron,Foxconn and maybe other PRC facilities.

I forgot to add TPV has at least a 25% equity stake in Vizio et al maybe more , which would in effect make them at least
partly (~25%) PRC brand ownership their may be other PRC equity stake holders. While it's true that Vizio 
only sells stateside here for most part there is much to see below the surface, always interesting things below
the radar in PRC  In the long term they may not be able to compete with PRC brand depends. 
and now their prices trend high than PRC brands as it is in a lot if cases just not *as much as other brands . 

Anybody know when Vizio Pee reference 4K is coming out ? Wal mart people wants to know ...............☺☺☺☺

regards


----------



## tubetwister

Morning5 said:


> Name a non Chinese LCD brand that can compete in prices with China. If we take the time to think about it, yeah, LG's may be doing a smart move.


Morning5 ,

To answer your question I believe there are none , are you speaking of domestic unit sales in PRC (China) or export unit sales ? two different things and sometimes different brands but not affecting answer to your quest. anyway. The largest domestic TV brands in PRC are virtually unknown US e.g, no. 2 Chanhong , Changhong TV exceeded 10 million sets in 2013 In 2004, 90% of the television sets exported from China to the United States were made by Changhong. they are global except in US but are eventually coming to a store or website near you . 
Who heard of LG or Samsung in 1990? Remember japan CE and other technology transfer went to Malaysia.Taiwan 
So. Korea and is now is emergent in PRC. 

Huge brand one of larger ones by unit sales Imagine that ? LG can not compete with them domestically or anywhere else price wise as a rule despite their considerable vertical integration much like Samsung .

Japan and so. Korea tier one brand strategy in the short tern is to move up market (that is why 4K thing) not so sure their will be long term for them at scale however beyond brand licencing . Sony TV is owned subsidiary now and not Sony inc. anymore next logical step is sale. (sometime) Good fit for Hon Hai /Foxconn P.I. they make most of Sony's TV and other CE product now . Supply chain ,materials, and tooling are already in place . 

The very same unfavorable geopolitical conditions ,aging population and currency exchange rates affecting Japan and US will soon play and are starting to play out in so. Korea it is the natural order of things . 

One must keep in mind PRC business is usually on a 5 year earnings call interval rather than 6 mo. as is common in much of the developed western world . Additionally they have strict tariff protections, local and national subsidies and incentives not usually afforded to much of the competition. Also lower costs of goods wage,health and welfare benefits costs are lower in PRC .

ofc there is the longstanding artificial devaluation of the Chinese Yuan to consider also ,all these things together afford very favorable competitive advantages.

This information is speculative and should not be considered as advise and should not be used for trading.

regards


----------



## RandyWalters

tubetwister said:


> *Sony & panasonic form new oled collaboration*
> Fell on this when I was cleaning out my in box came in @05: 56 2 day fresh from HDFlatpanels
> 
> You saw it first here unless saw it somewhere else already ☺☺☺


Someone posted the story here back on 8/1:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...ny-panasonic-together-again.html#post26228729

Sony and Panasonic are only dipping a toe in, and it looks like it's more about OLED displays for tablets and phones, not TVs. 


.


----------



## tgm1024

RandyWalters said:


> Someone posted the story here back on 8/1:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...ny-panasonic-together-again.html#post26228729
> 
> Sony and Panasonic are only dipping a toe in, and it looks like it's more about OLED displays for tablets and phones, not TVs.



They didn't say something as small as phones, but rather "medium" sized OLEDs, as their primary focus. I only bring this up because it seems to me that this medium size might have technology that lends itself to larger displays more readily than phone (small display) technology does.



Press Release said:


> "JOLED plans to focus primarily on development of medium-size OLED displays for use in tablets, mobile PCs, and signage"


----------



## RandyWalters

tgm1024 said:


> They didn't say something as small as phones, but rather "medium" sized OLEDs, as their primary focus. I only bring this up because it seems to me that this medium size might have technology that lends itself to larger displays more readily than phone (small display) technology does.


Ah, i apparently remembered it wrongly as i'd read it a week ago and had quickly dismissed it since it seems to have little to nothing to do with them actually manufacturing OLED Panels or Television sets. 



.


----------



## tubetwister

RandyWalters said:


> Someone posted the story here back on 8/1:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...ny-panasonic-together-again.html#post26228729
> 
> Sony and Panasonic are only dipping a toe in, and it looks like it's more about OLED displays for tablets and phones, not TVs.
> 
> 
> .


Good info in above postings regarding panel types at joint venture not surprising in light of current and anticipated business conditions at Sony TV and Panasonic TV................. ( Maybe I got faked out by click bait again ) 

OTOH could 55" 65" be the new medium OLED ? .............. wishful thinking no doubt ☺☺
although smaller OLED panels < ~40" could align with Sony inc. strategic moves into medical equip / device business 
+ hospital and patient data management strategy's and Panasonic avation/miltary/industrial and other OEM/ODM same 
HD guru link 

*EDIT *In light of new information as outlined above and from other posts here probably no TV panels anyway they are both in talkes with LGD about WOLED supply for TV's
These panels will be for mobile and small PC ,small commercial signage, maybe tard pads , maybe consumer PDP., 
B2B commercial and industrial , automotive , Panasonic Aviation military and industrial , other aviation/ military/industrial , Sony inc. Medical and PDP ,+many other OEM/ODM ...... B2B margins and opportunities are much better than C.E. (TV)



This information is speculative and should not be considered as advise and should not be used for trading.


Not surprised it was posted here being dated 8/1 and all , late to in box though maybe they do that ?
I was lazy and did not look here for prior posting . Seems like nothing much gets by AVS good thing ! 
better story (more info at your link also )

regards


----------



## Weboh

fafrd said:


> In case this has not been posted yet: http://global.ofweek.com/news/LG-Display-on-mission-to-reshape-flexible-screens-15406
> 
> 
> begin quote
> 
> 
> *“LCD has no future. The Chinese can make even ultra high-definition TVs at lower costs,” says Oh Chang-ho, senior vice-president of LG’s OLED TV development division. “We cannot win this price war. For survival, we have to make products that they cannot make.”*
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> “LG has resolved most of the technological challenges but high prices remain a problem for OLED TVs to reach the mass market,” says Soh Hyun-chul, an analyst at Shinhan Investment. *LG’s 55-inch full HD curved OLED TVs cost $4,999, while its same-size ultra high-definition LCD TVs go for $2,999.*
> 
> * Mr Oh forecasts 2017 will be the year OLED TVs hit the big time*, as rising production finally brings prices down to affordable levels. Market researcher IHS Technology forecasts OLED TV shipments to grow from 92,000 units this year to 9m units in 2019.
> 
> Many analysts are less sanguine. While they expect Samsung Display to eventually join LG in the race – even if only to avoid falling behind – they caution that OLED is unlikely to replace LCD any time soon.
> 
> “Consumers will not buy OLED TVs no matter how high quality the products are if they are expensive,” says Jerry Kang, an analyst at IHS.
> 
> “The question is how far and how fast prices can be cut. *If they can’t find a low-cost way to produce OLEDs, we cannot rule out the possibility that the technology may face the same fate as plasma.”*
> 
> end quote
> 
> 
> Hard to find a 55" 1080p for $2999 anywhere, while LGs flagship 55" 1080p TV, the 55UB9500, can be found for under $2000...
> 
> 
> So while the article implies that the premium for WOLED over LED/LCD is currently only 67% (1.7X), at $5000 for the WOLED, it's more like 150% (2.5X).
> 
> 
> And the reference to 2017 being the 'year of OLED' rather than 2016 as has been stated in the past, is disturbing. To say the least - LG WOLED may not make it that long if they can not sell the full M2 production of 1.5M 55" WOLEDs (or equivalent) in 2016...


I can see why LG hedged its bets with Plasma for a while now. The Chinese are not good at making the technology. If OLED is supposed to blow Plasma out of the water, why hang on to it? LG doesn't want a price war with LCD. very interesting.


----------



## fafrd

First I've heard of any plans for an M3 production line: http://olednet.com/eng/sub02.php?mid=1&r=view&uid=185&ctg1=1


"However, it is expected that LG Display will place orders for Gen6 line for plastic OLED and *M3 line for large size TV over 55 inches*"

The article was dated today.


And More: http://www.oled-info.com/ubi-research-amoled-resume-fast-growth-2016


"UBI also expects LGD to start constructing a new OLED TV fab, the M3 line (in addition to the M2 fab which is very close to mass production). "


----------



## jman425

tubetwister said:


> Good info in above postings regarding panel types at joint venture not surprising in light of current and anticipated business conditions at Sony TV and Panasonic TV................. ( Maybe I got faked out by click bait again )
> 
> OTOH could 55" 65" be the new medium OLED ? .............. wishful thinking no doubt ☺☺
> although smaller OLED panels < ~40" could align with Sony inc. strategic moves into medical equip / device business
> + hospital and patient data management strategy's (terminals and pads )
> and current Panasonic avionics ,military and or industrial business ? + OLED TV broadcast /prod equip for both and others also OEM /ODM OLED supply joint venture for much of same things for others and mfr tooling+prod
> and automotive OLED supply points +strategy's ?. IOW not much low margin consumer product other
> than tablets, mobile PCs,and small signage as outlined at HD guru link
> 
> This information is speculative and should not be considered as advise and should not be used for trading.
> 
> 
> Not surprised it was posted here being dated 8/1 and all , late to in box though maybe they do that ?
> I was lazy and did not look here for prior posting . Seems like nothing much gets by AVS good thing !
> better story (more info at your link also )
> 
> regards


I work with Panasonic Avionics. They have a big chunk of the booming worldwide IFE (Inflight Entertainment) business. Those OLED panels may well become those screens they install behind every seat/headrest. That's several hundred panels per plane. Some are also being retrofitted to existing planes. They range in size from 7 - 10.5 inches for economy cabin.
If they are thinner and lighter than LCD, then it also means less fuel being burned on every flight.


----------



## mo949

^ tell them to get their act together with Microsoft CE so we can actually make it through a whole flight without so many problems in the entertainment system


----------



## theatredaz

I saw the LG model at a local shop, the color and black backround contrast differentiation between the lit pixels and unlit was optically un-retinaly-viewable. It was very fine gradients> although it was still only a 1080p resolution and the lit / unlit effect had more pixel gradients as you stood closer to the panel.


----------



## tgm1024

theatredaz said:


> I saw the LG model at a local shop, the color and black backround contrast differentiation between the lit pixels and unlit was optically un-retinaly-viewable. It was very fine gradients> although it was still only a 1080p resolution and the lit / unlit effect had more pixel gradients as you stood closer to the panel.


There were more pixel gradients the closer you stood to it? I don't understand.


----------



## mo949

I think he was saying that he couldn't make out the pixel structure until he got up really close to it - so he was impressed even in a 1080 form factor.


----------



## tubetwister

jman425 said:


> I work with Panasonic Avionics. They have a big chunk of the booming worldwide IFE (Inflight Entertainment) business. Those OLED panels may well become those screens they install behind every seat/headrest. That's several hundred panels per plane. Some are also being retrofitted to existing planes. They range in size from 7 - 10.5 inches for economy cabin.
> If they are thinner and lighter than LCD, then it also means less fuel being burned on every flight.


if they can save enough weight thus fuel vs cost they might put those in all the planes !

As you already know lots more to Panasonic than consumer electronics (TV's) , margins are way better in B2B sales also !


----------



## tubetwister

Weboh said:


> I can see why LG hedged its bets with Plasma for a while now. The Chinese are not good at making the technology. If OLED is supposed to blow Plasma out of the water, why hang on to it? LG doesn't want a price war with LCD. very interesting.


Developed Western nations and Japan,so. Korea ascendance and decline cycle is unfortunately in the natural order of things from a historical perspective e.g, Egypt,Rome,the Barbarians ,Europe,Spain,France England,USA,Japan, so Korea............ (many of these trends can be broken down into smaller regions also )..historically speaking someone always fills the voids.....tragically it's happening in the middle east as we speak .not hard to guess which nation is ascending starts with a C that fact has not escaped big business either they are always ahead of curve in that respect we were there doing J.V's early on when things opened up, eastern Europe also. Viet Nam is getting trendy now !

PS by the time the folks get wind of ( global bus. trends) it's already happening for a good while


----------



## conan48

Just posting some info that I posted in the EC659700 65" OLED thread in the main OLED thread as I think some people who subscribe to this thread would like to Know the expected availability in Canada. Any other Canadians please add what you've heard about Canadian availability.

Looks like I'll be getting my 65" OLED the first week (ETA) of September 

Just got confirmation from my dealer, and got the Canadian pricing which is better then the US pre-order (6250) when you factor in the exchange rate!

There is a limited supply in the first batch and it looks like Canada may receive the initial shipment. I'm so pumped. In about a month I should have my dream TV LG has been doing demos and shows aggressively in Canada. I wouldn't be surprised if Canada had more OLED sales volume then other regions. Canadian 4K adoption has also been higher then that of the US. 

Anyone else gonna pre-order in Canada? and have you gotten pricing yet? My dealer says the first batch is tiny with more coming at the end of September and every month will have an increase as I assume the production of the 65" is still limited. He is already filling up on pre-order deal, but he knows to contact me first and I love getting pre-order specials.

I hope to be the first person in the world to own it Not sure how but my dealer constantly gets products before anyone else. I was the first owner of a production JVC X70 in the world (not just north america, but the actual world), and was going to get the very first Sony 500es in the world as well, but had to back out and the lucky guy after me ended up getting it. I'm not exaggerating or bragging either, just excited to hopefully get it first. 

Also would like to know if anyone has gotten an ETA of first week of September or earlier. Seems like initial shipments to the US will be end of September, and the rest of the world? Surprised they aren't launching these in Korea first.


----------



## tubetwister

fafrd said:


> First I've heard of any plans for an M3 production line: http://olednet.com/eng/sub02.php?mid=1&r=view&uid=185&ctg1=1
> 
> 
> "However, it is expected that LG Display will place orders for Gen6 line for plastic OLED and *M3 line for large size TV over 55 inches*"
> 
> The article was dated today.
> 
> 
> And More: http://www.oled-info.com/ubi-research-amoled-resume-fast-growth-2016
> 
> 
> "UBI also expects LGD to start constructing a new OLED TV fab, the M3 line (in addition to the M2 fab which is very close to mass production). "


Good info as usual


----------



## theatredaz

tgm1024 said:


> There were more pixel gradients the closer you stood to it? I don't understand.


Of course, it's only a 1080p set, thats why 4k solves this issue, you can sit within 3ft of a 60" panel and you won't see those issues, as I noticed with LG's 4k (LED) model.


----------



## tubetwister

mo949 said:


> ^ tell them to get their act together with Microsoft CE so we can actually make it through a whole flight without so many problems in the entertainment system


*Ford motor* finally got wise and dumped M$ altogether going forward for in car infotainment and controls 
I don't know who they R using now could be Bosh (doubtful ain't cheap ) ,Visteon,Panasonic or maybe in house with a little help, could even be Bose or HK for I know maybe not they both like to brand everything but AFAIK they have the tech. .
Probably better off with forked Linux than embedded windows for that kind of stuff anyway .


----------



## tgm1024

theatredaz said:


> Of course, it's only a 1080p set, thats why 4k solves this issue, you can sit within 3ft of a 60" panel and you won't see those issues, as I noticed with LG's 4k (LED) model.


I'm still confused by "pixel gradients". Do you mean the color depth contouring or the ability to see the individual subs? An _image gradient_, or just _gradient_ is usually about exposing how color/gray ramps look and what was done to mitigate the contouring from too low a bit depth.

4K does _not_ solve the contouring issue, unless it's employing a scattering or dithering kind of approach in which case the dither itself is at a higher resolution and is less obvious. But even at 2K resolutions, that dithering is nearly impossible to discern anyway even with equipment because it's a dither of neighboring output levels.


----------



## tubetwister

tgm1024 said:


> I'm still confused by "pixel gradients". Do you mean the color depth contouring or the ability to see the individual subs? An _image gradient_, or just _gradient_ is usually about exposing how color/gray ramps look and what was done to mitigate the contouring from too low a bit depth.
> 
> 4K does _not_ solve the contouring issue, unless it's employing a scattering or dithering kind of approach in which case the dither itself is at a higher resolution and is less obvious. But even at 2K resolutions, that dithering is nearly impossible to discern anyway even with equipment because it's a dither of neighboring output levels.


Interesting about the dithering thing I have a 2013 40" Sony R4 in the bedroom I got the panel number outa 
the service menu and looked it up at panelook it's a Samsung SPVA-2 ,6 bit + high frc panel on a 10 bit interface in 8 bit display overdrive mode . I was pissed thinking it wasn't any good almost sent it back till I figured it out ! 

I wasn't all that happy with the colors at the time till I figured out just use Cinema mode ,neut color and max out contrast and back light and go from there and then everything fell into line . This panel has .022 cd/m2 black and 4750:1 contrast and V.G. picture now little better and little brighter than 2014 W600B sets IMO. ofc that was in the store vs mine at home .
.Sony R4 can resolve 0-255 color also . I'll trade off 8 bit for 6 bit + high frc for better contrast and black levels if given the choice of having to choose one over the other. 


Not knowing much (nothing at all ) about these (6 bit + high frc) things I read up on it and AFAIK found out modern 6 bit high frc panels can do all of 8 bit color just fine with modern algorithms and fast dithering , grey scale and color gradients looked V.G. on AVS HD.709 test patterns also. On solids only  slight radial banding U can't see on program 
back light uniformity is real decent also. only rub is Cyan is pushing a little blue nothing noticeable on pgm though . 
don't know if it's the TV silicon or the panel . 


At least for this set it worked out fine wouldent be surprised if Sony and others were doing the 6 bit + high frc thing a lot now in the 1080p sets with VA and maybe similar for *some 4K sets with Sammy or AUO VA panels .No clue if LGD even makes those .

FWIW here are some interesting Sony black /contrast comparison from Rtings.co.

5 Sony black level + contrast Comparison
http://www.rtings.com/reviews/tv/lcd-led/sony

2013 Sony R450A Black: 0.022 cd/m2 Contrast: 4750 : 1 Samsung SPVA 

2014 Sony W600B Black: 0.026 cd/m2 Contrast: 3500 : 1 Samsing SPVA 

2014 Sony W800B Black: 0.020 cd/m2 Contrast: 5260 : 1 AUO AMVA5

2014 Sony W850B Black: 0.026 cd/m2 Contrast: 4273 : probably AUO AMVA *panel mfr/type/spec may vary by size 

2014 Sony W950B Black: 0.111 cd/m2 Contrast: 942 : 1 >>>>maybe LGD S- IPS


----------



## tgm1024

tubetwister said:


> Not knowing much (nothing at all ) about these (6 bit + high frc) things I read up on it and AFAIK found out modern 6 bit high frc panels can do all of 8 bit color just fine with modern algorithms and fast dithering


"fast"? I'm going to have to look this up to see what they're doing at the hardware level: There might be a temporal-domain dithering taking place (a kind of PWM), but I can't imagine why. That's the trouble that plasma runs into. The dithering I was referring to was spatial in nature. But yeah, it's really a non-issue these days. What is a royal PITA is when you have a TV that doesn't do anything at all and you end up with severe contouring. Talk about absolutely annoying.


----------



## tubetwister

tgm1024 said:


> "fast"? I'm going to have to look this up to see what they're doing at the hardware level: There might be a temporal-domain dithering taking place (a kind of PWM), but I can't imagine why. That's the trouble that plasma runs into. The dithering I was referring to was spatial in nature. But yeah, it's really a non-issue these days. What is a royal PITA is when you have a TV that doesn't do anything at all and you end up with severe contouring. Talk about absolutely annoying.


I'm not even sure I fully understood what I read about ( no surprise there at least in these things)There was something mentioned about dithering adjacent pixels at a very high rate of speed to make 8 bit color on a six bit panel .

I would imagine it would need some fast panel driver or switching circuits ,I might of even read that for all I know ?.
If you check it out let us know in layman terms if you know what I mean . 

I know what PWM is not so sure about temporal domain dithering or the spatial thing as it relates to panel dither both are something I'm unfamiliar with,not surprisingly , maybe I should read a bit on those at least what I might be able to understand half way anyway. .


----------



## tgm1024

tubetwister said:


> I'm not even sure I fully understood what I read about ( no surprise there at least in these things)There was something mentioned about dithering adjacent pixels at a very high rate of speed to make 8 bit color on a six bit panel .
> I would imagine it would need some fast panel driver or switching circuits ,I might of even read that for all I know ?.


You may be seeing that from a plasma discussion (plasma cells _can_ pulse very fast...it's how they work), but the lowest level GtG times, even from adjacent levels take far too much time that they just wouldn't attempt to do in LCD. At least I can't stretch reality enough to understand how. Perhaps I'm missing something myself here...spatial dithering not only works well, but is nearly imperceptible.


----------



## tubetwister

tgm1024 said:


> You may be seeing that from a plasma discussion (plasma cells _can_ pulse very fast...it's how they work), but the lowest level GtG times, even from adjacent levels take far too much time that they just wouldn't attempt to do in LCD. At least I can't stretch reality enough to understand how. Perhaps I'm missing something myself here...spatial dithering not only works well, but is nearly imperceptible.


Actually I was reading about LCD panels specifically the high FRC overdrive thing 
I think I read that the adjacent pixel dithering additive color thing has to happen much faster than
the normal frame rate so maybe they are also using faster TFT's in these overdrive panels?


----------



## tgm1024

tubetwister said:


> Actually I was reading about LCD panels specifically the high FRC overdrive thing
> I think I read that the adjacent pixel dithering additive color thing has to happen much faster than
> the normal frame rate so maybe they are also using faster TFT's in these overdrive panels?


Hmmmm....

This collides with what I've read in the past. I'll have to dig this up when I have time. Maybe I'll PM Chron about it. Love learning/re-learning/un-learning etc. new stuff!


----------



## tubetwister

tgm1024 said:


> Hmmmm....
> 
> This collides with what I've read in the past. I'll have to dig this up when I have time. Maybe I'll PM Chron about it. Love learning/re-learning/un-learning etc. new stuff!


I may have it all wrong on the overdrive panel thing but that's what I took away from the little reading I did
hopefully I interpreted what I read some what cogently ofc I can't guarantee that either


----------



## theatredaz

tgm1024 said:


> I'm still confused by "pixel gradients". Do you mean the color depth contouring or the ability to see the individual subs? An _image gradient_, or just _gradient_ is usually about exposing how color/gray ramps look and what was done to mitigate the contouring from too low a bit depth.
> 
> 4K does _not_ solve the contouring issue, unless it's employing a scattering or dithering kind of approach in which case the dither itself is at a higher resolution and is less obvious. But even at 2K resolutions, that dithering is nearly impossible to discern anyway even with equipment because it's a dither of neighboring output levels.


* I mean the color / white levels to dark levels, the gradients are finer, compared to a backlit LED display, which some have haloing(whites around bright scenes etc)> my Elite panel has a faint glow, and only noticable when the lighting is attenuated 70%. *But unoticable in brighter room. Off angle the LG didn't show these halo'ing anomolies etc.

It's also the thinnest Panel I have ever seen @ thinner than an ipad.


----------



## R Harkness

I was watching the 55" LG OLED a couple days ago (Futureshop) and I had the same experience as every other time: loved the contrast and color!
My problem is I'm now too sensitive to the pixel structure in 1080p flat panels. To get even a hint of the immersion I'm used at home (JVC projector) I start seeing the pixel structure and it just makes the image look a tad crude. It's just a fact of life with flat panels that their pixel structure is more vivid and obvious than you get with certain projection technologies (e.g. newer JVCs, where pixels are impossible to perceive from any rational viewing distance). Once you get used to a totally smooth image there's no going back IMO. So for me if I ever got a flat panel for "critical viewing" it would have to be a 4K model where I could enjoy a more immersive image without the obvious pixel structure. That's one thing at least that all these new 4K displays have going for them, even if 4K sources aren't available yet in any useful degree.


----------



## 5x10

R Harkness said:


> I was watching the 55" LG OLED a couple days ago (Futureshop) and I had the same experience as every other time: loved the contrast and color!
> My problem is I'm now too sensitive to the pixel structure in 1080p flat panels. To get even a hint of the immersion I'm used at home (JVC projector) I start seeing the pixel structure and it just makes the image look a tad crude. It's just a fact of life with flat panels that their pixel structure is more vivid and obvious than you get with certain projection technologies (e.g. newer JVCs, where pixels are impossible to perceive from any rational viewing distance). Once you get used to a totally smooth image there's no going back IMO. So for me if I ever got a flat panel for "critical viewing" it would have to be a 4K model where I could enjoy a more immersive image without the obvious pixel structure. That's one thing at least that all these new 4K displays have going for them, even if 4K sources aren't available yet in any useful degree.


 4k oled sounds like heaven


----------



## theatredaz

* I've been reading on the e-shift projectors and their pixel structure at 1ft is practically non existent, I enjoy watching a movie from 5ft away from the screen, but 1080p is only watchable up close on 55" and smaller, 70" and up and you see the grain structure, unless you sit 9ft back , which is not an option in every home because of space limitions.

* I picked up a 70" panel and had to return it because I had to be 9ft-12 ft from it to view it, that when I discovered that large panel technology is insufficient to deal with closer sitting capabilities etc.

* 4K + OLED panels solve this issue, so it's like go from an ipad to an ipad with retina display.


----------



## R Harkness

theatredaz said:


> * I've been reading on the e-shift projectors and their pixel structure at 1ft is practically non existent, I enjoy watching a movie from 5ft away from the screen, but 1080p is only watchable up close on 55" and smaller, 70" and up and you see the grain structure, unless you sit 9ft back , which is not an option in every home because of space limitions.
> 
> * 4K + OLED panels solve this issue, so it's like go from an ipad to an ipad with retina display.


Yes, once you get used to essentially no pixel structure it's hard to go back, like once people got used to retina
screens going back to older res smartphones. (Again, all this is predicated on viewing distance of course - but since many of us here appreciate some immersion in our viewing experience, pixel structure becomes a real issue and possible detriment. Like I said when I view OLED I want to get closer, as I do with the 4K displays, but the 1080p pixel structure starts degrading the experience).


----------



## theatredaz

* I agree it does ruin the experience up close, it's taken this long to realize that ipads retina technology can be implemented onto large panel displays, so far everyone in the Industry feels there's not a market for Large displays, possibly because of the max resolution acheivable or people don't prefer large panels to watch on.


----------



## barth2k

R Harkness said:


> Yes, once you get used to essentially no pixel structure it's hard to go back, like once people got used to retina
> screens going back to older res smartphones. (Again, all this is predicated on viewing distance of course - but since many of us here appreciate some immersion in our viewing experience, pixel structure becomes a real issue and possible detriment. Like I said when I view OLED I want to get closer, as I do with the 4K displays, but the 1080p pixel structure starts degrading the experience).


Is it any worse than plasma or LCD?


----------



## fafrd

barth2k said:


> Is it any worse than plasma or LCD?



I don't believe we ill ever see 4K plasmas (and that fact likely contributed to Panasonic's and Samsung's decision to abandon plasma technology).


I have not seen a 4K OLD yet, but I believe the pixel structure should look as smooth / hard to discern as the current crop of 4K LCDs that can be seen in any Best Buy now...


----------



## fafrd

15feetAway said:


> LG will be producing their bend-able OLED sets that go from curved to flat with at touch from the remote. I guess it's the closest thing to a flat we are going to get. Gas anyone heard that curved OLED panels are easier to fabricate? Does that make sense at all?


 
I don't call ever seeing an answer to this question, but David Susilo just indicated in another thread that the OLED manufacturing process results in a natural curvature of the sheet which will have an increased probability of failure when flattened (either increased yield loss or increased probability of failure when cycling power in the field): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-fl...hnology/1638377-uhd-4k-first-impressions.html (post #47 )

Has anyone else heard anything to this effect? If true, it will probably mean that some curvature of the screen will be a inevitable byproduct of OLED TVs for some time...

[EDIT: according to Rogo, this may all be nonsense. I don't have an opinion (or any knowledge) on the matter and am just a bit concerned/upset that there are not more flat OLED TVs...]


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> I don't call ever seeing an answer to this question, but David Susilo just indicated in another thread that the OLED manufacturing process results in a natural curvature of the sheet which will have an increased probability of failure when flattened (either increased yield loss or increased probability of failure when cycling power in the field): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-fl...hnology/1638377-uhd-4k-first-impressions.html (post #47 )
> 
> 
> Has anyone else heard anything to this effect? If true, it will probably mean that some curvature of the screen will be a inevitable byproduct of OLED TVs for some time...


It's nonsense and nothing but urban legend.

The screens are made on flat substrates. They are curved only after being manufactured flat.

I find it odd he repeated this urban legend as if it was fact but it isn't.


----------



## htwaits

rogo said:


> It's nonsense and nothing but urban legend.
> 
> The screens are made on flat substrates. They are curved only after being manufactured flat.
> 
> I find it odd he repeated this urban legend as if it was fact but it isn't.


... and my family connection at Kateeva agrees with Rogo word for word. 

It might also be a marketing legend.


----------



## MikeBiker

OLED prices are still going down. $3500 for a 55" LG.

In a few years I might be able to afford a 60" 4K OLED.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/lg-oled-cheapest-yet,news-19300.html#xtor=RSS-5


----------



## wco81

And there might actually be native 4K content widely available.

Unless we're saying 4K OLEDs will make 720p and up content look better than the 1080p displays we have now.


----------



## mo949

wco81 said:


> And there might actually be native 4K content widely available.
> 
> Unless we're saying 4K OLEDs will make 720p and up content look better than the 1080p displays we have now.


OLEDs will make it look better, that's part of the oeveral PQ gains the technology represents. The resolution is negligible.


----------



## wco81

Supposedly the 4K standard includes improvements in color.

Issue is whether 4K TVs have good enough scalers.

An article noted the Chinese were buying up cheap 4K TVs, made by unknown (in the West) brands and these models didn't have the "electronics" that the Japanese and Korean makers integrated into premium-priced 4K TVs.


----------



## mo949

Right now it's just resolution. And really it's just up scaled resolution with the practically nonexistent quality content available; pretty much heavily compressed streaming is the main source of content too.


----------



## 15feetAway

mo949 said:


> OLEDs will make it look better, that's part of the oeveral PQ gains the technology represents. The resolution is negligible.


Either way 4k or 1080P 65 inch OLED will look good. Eh?


----------



## SiGGy

5x10 said:


> 4k oled sounds like heaven


I can only imagine. I watched a LG OLED next to a f8500. It put it to shame IMO. I of course changed settings to the best OOB you can on both tv's. I'll just say I won't miss plasma... Of course if LG drops OLED I'll change my mind on that  but maybe not, I'll miss OLED now that I have seen it.


----------



## kache

wco81 said:


> An article noted the Chinese were buying up cheap 4K TVs, made by unknown (in the West) brands and these models didn't have the "electronics" that the Japanese and Korean makers integrated into premium-priced 4K TVs.


Any other info on this? A 50" bypassed, DP1.2-only display for a low price would be a godsend for gamers, as the old 27" 1440p bypassed koreans were many years ago.


----------



## tubetwister

SiGGy said:


> I can only imagine. I watched a LG OLED next to a f8500. It put it to shame IMO. I of course changed settings to the best OOB you can on both tv's. i'll just say I won't miss plasma... Of course if LG drops OLED I'll change my mind on that


That says a lot right there f8500 are real good. I have a 60 f5300 it spanks lots of way more expensive LCD including a new Sony LED here . 

With LG WOLED coming down price wise I might have go have another look at those .I wish they made more than one overpriced flat model with a picture frame though


----------



## tubetwister

tgm1024 said:


> Hmmmm....
> 
> This collides with what I've read in the past. I'll have to dig this up when I have time. Maybe I'll PM Chron about it. Love learning/re-learning/un-learning etc. new stuff!


Did some reading , 

*EDIT* this information is in an article about PC monitor TN LCD panels some of this information may or may not not exactly apply to VA and IPS LCD TV panels most of it will . The 262,144 liquid crystal rotation color limitation may not apply to IPS and VA panels 


I took away this, interesting :
The maximum amount of colors achievable from liquid crystal ( LCD) pixel rotation alone without dithering is 262,144.
*EDIT*Again this number may not apply to VA and IPS panels see below .

Also I've read The latest algorithms allow the full color 8 or 10 bit color palettes to display on 6 or 8 bit panels respectively . 
more:



> Dithering and Frame Rate Control (FRC) relate to the colour depth of a monitor panel and are technologies used to boost the colours which the matrix can display. For instance TN Film screens are traditionally more economical than other technologies when it comes to colour depth. In fact, they only display 64 red, 64 blue and 64 true green shades by default through pixel rotations. The maximum amount of colours achievable from liquid crystal rotation alone is 262,144. In order to reach 16 million colours and above, panel manufacturers commonly use two technologies: Dithering and Frame Rate Control (FRC). These terms are often interchanged, but strictly can mean different things.
> http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/features....htm#dithering


----------



## tubetwister

> Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
> An article noted the Chinese were buying up cheap 4K TVs, made by unknown (in the West) brands and these models didn't have the "electronics" that the Japanese and Korean makers integrated into premium-priced 4K TVs.


I read something like that as well (maybe it's 4K lite like the HDMI 1.4 Seiki sets ☺☺) and will (not unlike here ) spend the majority of it's time just up scaling 720p, 1080i/p anyway they may be lacking HDMI 2.0 1080i/60 , 1080p/60 ☺☺

I think I read recently TPV / Phillips is coming out with economy 4Ksets maybe something like that not sure just what they are lacking (maybe HDMI 2.0 1080i/60 , 1080p/60 ) also IIRC .


----------



## Stereodude

tubetwister said:


> Did some reading ,
> 
> I took away this, interesting :
> The maximum amount of colors achievable from liquid crystal ( LCD) pixel rotation alone without dithering is 262,144.


That's not true. Also, TVs don't use TN panels. They use IPS or VA panels. Cheap LCD monitors use TN panels where they're skimping on the electronics and using 6 bit drivers + FRC to get 8-bit color, but there's no inherent limit in LCD technology, TN or not to 6 bit color.


----------



## tubetwister

Stereodude said:


> That's not true. Also, TVs don't use TN panels. They use IPS or VA panels. Cheap LCD monitors use TN panels where they're skimping on the electronics and using 6 bit drivers + FRC to get 8-bit color, but there's no inherent limit in LCD technology, TN or not to 6 bit color.


I'm no expert (not my day job ☺☺ ) above is just what I read. Thanks for reminding me of the TN,VA,IPS thing . 

(TBH I believe I confused TN with TFT incorrectly thinking TN panel liquid crystal rotation limitation applied to all LCD panels ☺☺) 

Samsung and maybe others make 6 bit +high frc TV panels in 8 bit display mode . 

I believe quite a few 4k UHD 2160P panels are also 8 bit panels with +high frc in 10 bit display mode that's what I've read anyway .

AFAIK the +high frc electronics are part of the panel assy. at least in the newer Samsung TV panels . 

I have one in a 2013 Sony R450A in thr BR FWIW it makes full rec709 color according to published Cal man reports 
and full 8 bit per Samsung specifications. it's a Samsung 6 bit + high frc SPVA panel in 8 bit display mode with a 10 bit signal interface .


TBH before I got the TV and got the panel no. from serv menu and looked it up I never ran across the + frc thing.
in TV am Still reading about it glad you clarified a couple of things. I will edit my above post in light of this info .

My 2013 Sony R450A Sammy panel makes a real good picture even though it's 6 bit + frc . It doesn't seem to be an issue here grey scale and color gradation are smooth and color banding is minimal when compared to other sets with 8 bit and 10 bit SPVA panels here using AVS HD709 . 

I read the newest + high frc TV panels work better than earlier overdrive panels and can do full 8 bit or 10 bit color due to recent advances in electronics and algorithms e.g, 6 bit + high frc in 8 bit mode and 8 bit + high frc in 10 bit mode .


The Sony R4 set actually has better pix than the other 4 including a late 2012 Toshiba w/ SPVA panel and and 2013 LG IPS panel set probably partly due to low black level and decent contrast see below these panels (at least in Sony's case ) are Samsung LCD cells with Foxconn back light assys. 


some comparisons :
2013 Sony R450A Black: 0.022 cd/m2 Contrast: 4750 : 1 Samsung SPVA cell 6 bit + high frc 

2014 Sony W600B Black: 0.026 cd/m2 Contrast: 3500 : 1 Samsing SPVA ( *may also be 6 bit overdrive panel )

2014 Sony W800B Black: 0.020 cd/m2 Contrast: 5260 : 1 AUO AMVA5

2014 Sony W850B Black: 0.026 cd/m2 Contrast: 4273 : 1 AUO AMVA5 (*some sizes may be Samsung SPVA-4)


----------



## tubetwister

Something else I just read interesting article all in all . Date of article is 2009 however but they do mention OLED. 


> The maximum color reproducibility currently achievable for an LCD panel based on control solely using a color filter layer is about 90–95% of the National Television System Committee (NTSC) color scheme. This is higher than that for both PDPs and CRT displays, but less than the 120% of NTSC achievable by OLED-based displays. By combining a thick color filter with a LED backlight system, the color reproducibility can be extended to 150% of the NTSC standard, which is at present the best color reproducibility available for flat panel displays.
> more : http://www.nature.com/am/journal/v1/n1/full/am200925a.html


----------



## fafrd

tubetwister said:


> Something else I just read interesting article all in all . Date of article is 2009 however but they do mention OLED.
> 
> 
> 
> The maximum color reproducibility currently achievable for an LCD panel based on control solely using a color filter layer is about 90–95% of the National Television System Committee (NTSC) color scheme. This is higher than that for both PDPs and CRT displays, but less than the 120% of NTSC achievable by OLED-based displays. By combining a thick color filter with a LED backlight system, the color reproducibility can be extended to 150% of the NTSC standard, which is at present the best color reproducibility available for flat panel displays.
> more : http://www.nature.com/am/journal/v1/...am200925a.html
Click to expand...


So a well-made LED/LCD (with 'thick color filter' is able to achieve 125% of the color gamut of OLED??? (150% NTSC for thick LED/LCD / 120% LED/LCD for OLED - 125% or 1.25X


Would be interesting to know how these numbers translate into '% of Rec.2020' - the Vizio Reference Series is supposed to be 80% of Rec.2020. Do we know how the gamut of the LG OLEDs measures up n terms of % of Rec.2020?


----------



## mo949

Another vizio reference, that's a surprise. Have you even found out what the current Vizio's on the market are capable of % of Rec.2020 wise? I think comparing apples to apples is better than Apples to Unicorns IMO.


----------



## tubetwister

fafrd said:


> So a well-made LED/LCD (with 'thick color filter' is able to achieve 125% of the color gamut of OLED??? (150% NTSC for thick LED/LCD / 120% LED/LCD for OLED - 125% or 1.25X
> 
> 
> Would be interesting to know how these numbers translate into '% of Rec.2020' - the Vizio Reference Series is supposed to be 80% of Rec.2020. Do we know how the gamut of the LG OLEDs measures up n terms of % of Rec.2020?


Not me . bet the Sony 4K Triluminous sets hits at least 100% of rec 2020 though. Vizio always cuts corners somewhere that's the business model they operate under always have . hafta to do what ya have to ,to make retail price targets its a legitimate strategy. Maybe 80% of rec 2020 is plenty for all I know .


----------



## tubetwister

LG 1080p OLED beat out all the LCD 4K's even the $120,000 5K (5,120 x 2,160) Samsung UN105S9W at VE shootout , I wonder what the 4K LCD fanboys around here think about that now? ofc they will change the narrative to suite them and defend their position as usual . ☺☺☺

Wonder how the Samsung people are liking the crow LG just served them with a $3500.00 1080p set right about now ha ha 

2014 Value Electronics Shootout Results


----------



## stas3098

tubetwister said:


> Not me . bet the Sony 4K Triluminous sets hits at least 100% of rec 2020 though. Vizio always cuts corners somewhere that's the business model they operate under always have . hafta to do what ya have to ,to make retail price targets its a legitimate strategy. Maybe 80% of rec 2020 is plenty for all I know .


The plasma and RGB LED backlit LCDs can cover rec.2020 OLED can do it, but the only plasma can spectrally cover the whole visible spectrum with a few small and simple, however expensive phosphor alterations. I'm gonna attach a pic depicting the band of colors plasma can render and the best LED and if you pay close attention you will see that plasma is far more color accurate (its band of color has more colors) than anything else as was confirmed by VE-shotout


----------



## tubetwister

stas3098 said:


> The plasma and RGB LED backlit LCDs can cover rec.2020 OLED can do it, but the only plasma can spectrally cover the whole visible spectrum with a few small and simple, however expensive phosphor alterations. I'm gonna attach a pic depicting the band of colors plasma can render and the best LED and if you pay close attention you will see that plasma is far more color accurate (its band of color has more colors) than anything else as was confirmed by VE-shotout


No surprise there I have a Samsung 620f5300 Plasma in the stable here along with the LCD/LEDs it plays nice for an inexpensive plasma ,better than many more expensive LCD


----------



## stas3098

tubetwister said:


> No surprise there I have a Samsung 620f5300 Plasma in the stable here along with the LCD/LEDs it plays nice for an inexpensive plasma ,better than many more expensive LCD


The funniest thing is that F8500 despite being hanged up in the most disadvantageous of positions still managed to better 120 grand OLED TV in the general content category and to be the best Samsung TV present in that category (which I find most important because one ain't gon' be watchin' all back screen all the time)... I bet if they had a ZT60 or some Kuro 9G it would come in neck to neck with LG's OLED in the general content category. 


And about colors I know that comparing 10.5 OLED and 60inch plasma is not the best idea ever, however I still find colors and contrast (general content contrast as in FX's Wilfred or Californication or Game of Thrones and countless others, because on OLED for some reason at a high brightness there's just to much noise that mars experience, something never observed on plasma) on plasma to be better and unless I close myself in my bathroom of total and utter darkness  I can't see really any difference in black level what with the turnpike lights light slightly penetrating through my den's widow-blinds even at night.


----------



## Rich Peterson

tubetwister said:


> LG 1080p OLED beat out all the LCD 4K's even the $120,000 5K (5,120 x 2,160) Samsung UN105S9W at VE shootout , I wonder what the 4K LCD fanboys around here think about that now? ofc they will change the narrative to suite them and defend their position as usual . ☺☺☺
> 
> Wonder how the Samsung people are liking the crow LG just served them with a $3500.00 1080p set right about now ha ha
> 
> 2014 Value Electronics Shootout Results


The fact that an OLED won really isn't a big surprise. It matches what reviewers and early-adopter owners have almost uniformly said since the first sets were available last year: the OLEDs are spectacular.

I think once BestBuy and other retailers get their OLED displays operational, the difference will be very visible to consumers. Please don't take that to mean I think sales will be really big cause the price is still going to be high. But retail presentation is the first step toward what I believe will be a big shift to OLED in the coming years.


----------



## tubetwister

Rich Peterson said:


> The fact that an OLED won really isn't a big surprise. It matches what reviewers and early-adopter owners have almost uniformly said since the first sets were available last year: the OLEDs are spectacular.
> 
> I think once BestBuy and other retailers get their OLED displays operational, the difference will be very visible to consumers. Please don't take that to mean I think sales will be really big cause the price is still going to be high. But retail presentation is the first step toward what I believe will be a big shift to OLED in the coming years.


I've only Seen OLED at BB/Magnolia but I was impressed with what I saw . Now if LG could flatten the screen on the ones like the 55EC9300 without the stupid looking picture frames and get rid of the stupid LG chin and as long as they don't put something stupid like a Samsung Chicken foot stand on my PN60f5300  on them ) they could be way cool ! ☺☺


----------



## tubetwister

stas3098 said:


> The funniest thing is that F8500 despite being hanged up in the most disadvantageous of positions still managed to better 120 grand OLED TV in the general content category and to be the best Samsung TV present in that category (which I find most important because one ain't gon' be watchin' all back screen all the time)... I bet if they had a ZT60 or some Kuro 9G it would come in neck to neck with LG's OLED in the general content category.
> 
> 
> And about colors I know that comparing 10.5 OLED and 60inch plasma is not the best idea ever, however I still find colors and contrast (general content contrast as in FX's Wilfred or Californication or Game of Thrones and countless others, because on OLED for some reason at a high brightness there's just to much noise that mars experience, something never observed on plasma) on plasma to be better and unless I close myself in my bathroom of total and utter darkness  I can't see really any difference in black level what with the turnpike lights light slightly penetrating through my den's widow-blinds even at night.


I've only seen OLED briefly at Best Buy Magnolia a few times but again I was fairly impressed every time I saw them colorfull, bright and contrasty and good blacks even in normal light. 

The 9x Sonys and TOTL Samsung LED were good as well just not as good IMO, same but to a lesser extent for the V.G. Samsung f8500's ,The Sharp elite and the V.G. Panny VT/ZT models. 

The TOTL PDP's were all impressive in the dark with the Samsung PDP 's and ofc the LEDs and OLED being better with more or more normal light IMO . The high V.E.shoot out scores of the f8500 certainly speak well of it .

That being said my Sammie 5xxx PDP handles (or masks) noisy signals and artifacts better than my other 5 LCD/LED's here .
I wonder if the LG OLED at B.B Magnolia are calibrated or out of box or store mode pre set ?


----------



## stas3098

tubetwister said:


> I've only seen OLED briefly at Best Buy Magnolia a few times but again I was fairly impressed every time I saw them colorfull, bright and contrasty and good blacks even in normal light.
> 
> The 9x Sonys and TOTL Samsung LED were good as well just not as good IMO, same but to a lesser extent for the V.G. Samsung f8500's ,The Sharp elite and the V.G. Panny VT/ZT models.
> 
> The TOTL PDP's were all impressive in the dark with the Samsung PDP 's and ofc the LEDs and OLED being better with more or more normal light IMO . The high V.E.shoot out scores of the f8500 certainly speak well of it .
> 
> That being said my Sammie 5xxx PDP handles (or masks) noisy signals and artifacts better than my other 5 LCD/LED's here .
> I wonder if the LG OLED at B.B Magnolia are calibrated or out of box or store mode pre set ?


You might wanna consider Samsung Tab S 10.5" for a dry run, just to see what OLED is all about ( it really gives you an idea about OLEDs). I ,first, wanted to get a 55" LG 1080p OLED, but then I decided to go with a 10.5 OLED tablet for 500 bucks to see how much better OLED is on the general content and not on the show floor. Turns it's not that better than plasma when viewing general content (16:9 as in Game of Thrones etc.) and rather better at cinemascope content (Pulp Fiction etc.), but not that better. A couple days ago I also did some viewing on a Samsung's 55 inch OLED which only further strengthened my conviction that it is not worth upgrading from ST60 to 1080p OLED. That's why I am gonna wait a year or two until the price on 4K OLEDs comes down and until there's at least some reasonable amount of 4K content out there.

An passant there's one pitfall to Samsung's 10.5 OLED which is shadowing at low brightness

Here's also some pics taken with the poor quality camera of note 1 which OLED makes look great.


----------



## tubetwister

stas3098 said:


> You might wanna consider Samsung Tab S 10.5" for a dry run, just to see what OLED is all about ( it really gives you an idea about OLEDs). I ,first, wanted to get a 55" LG 1080p OLED, but then I decided to go with a 10.5 OLED tablet for 500 bucks to see how much better OLED is on the general content and not on the show floor. Turns it's not that better than plasma when viewing general content (16:9 as in Game of Thrones etc.) and rather better at cinemascope content (Pulp Fiction etc.), but not that better. A couple days ago I also did some viewing on a Samsung's 55 inch OLED which only further strengthened my conviction that it is not worth upgrading from ST60 to 1080p OLED. That's why I am gonna wait a year or two until the price on 4K OLEDs comes down and until there's at least some reasonable amount of 4K content out there.
> 
> An passant there's one pitfall to Samsung's 10.5 OLED which is shadowing at low brightness
> 
> Here's also some pics taken with the poor quality camera of note 1 which OLED makes look great.


I'm not about pads OLED or otherwise I call them tard pads, useful in the work place at times away from a PC or for embedded workplace functions /apps but much beyond that I don't have any use for them.

I believe my Galaxy smart phone can do pretty much everything tard pads can just smaller for $500.00 you can get a decent serviceable small form factor Windows laptop these days anyway . 

I'm in no hurry too go OLED or anything right now with 6 sets here and out of 5 the oldest is late 2012 
with the rest being 2013 . The newest is a Sony LED in the home office/BD , I spend more time watching than anything else it's real decent and plays nice in the dark for an LCD . 

My Sammy 5xxx PDP is cool with the PS3 and G27 wheel and game chair it's a good gamer ,good for watching ball and movies also and along with the others good for my needs right now .

Arguably there are better sets but beyond going bigger with maybe a few exceptions they usually provide diminishing returns in most cases especially with mpeg compressed 1080i Dish TV, OTA HDTV and 1080p low bit rate streaming iptv even the sets I have now are not working at or near their potential most of the time anyway except for the occasional Blue Ray even at that some Blue Rays are much better than others . IMO right now with content delivery being what it is and the capabilities of even a decent modest HDTV these days being what it is the cart is ahead of the horse if you will. 

It would probably be nice to have a 707 HP, 650 lb-ft ... Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat but how often are you going to be able to use that H.P. ?


----------



## outer galaxian

stas3098 said:


> You might wanna consider Samsung Tab S 10.5" for a dry run, just to see what OLED is all about ( it really gives you an idea about OLEDs). I ,first, wanted to get a 55" LG 1080p OLED, but then I decided to go with a 10.5 OLED tablet for 500 bucks to see how much better OLED is on the general content and not on the show floor. Turns it's not that better than plasma when viewing general content (16:9 as in Game of Thrones etc.) and rather better at cinemascope content (Pulp Fiction etc.), but not that better. A couple days ago I also did some viewing on a Samsung's 55 inch OLED which only further strengthened my conviction that it is not worth upgrading from ST60 to 1080p OLED. That's why I am gonna wait a year or two until the price on 4K OLEDs comes down and until there's at least some reasonable amount of 4K content out there.
> 
> An passant there's one pitfall to Samsung's 10.5 OLED which is shadowing at low brightness
> 
> Here's also some pics taken with the poor quality camera of note 1 which OLED makes look great.


A controlled lighting environment will paint the OLED in a whole new light. As a Panasonic flagship plasma owner, I'm ready for its OLED replacement now.


----------



## theatredaz

4K LED is asking for the same headaches that 1080p edge lit technology has, such as haloing and crappy blacks, LG's edge lit 4K is nice, the picture is sharp standing 1ft from the screen , but...off angle viewing is still not optimal, and doesn't really solve any issues other than pixel moire and color sharpness.

*If your not concerned with whiteout black levels and bad off angle viewing then spend the money and Rent the display for 1 - 2 years, then sell it and get 4K OLED panels that don't have those black level issue's etc. Thats basically what your gonna end up doing if you can't wait for OLED panels to reach Market.

*I'm gonna wait till 4K OLED's hit the market, no need to to repeat the same issues with a Larger more expensive display.


----------



## stas3098

tubetwister said:


> I'm not about pads OLED or otherwise I call them tard pads, useful in the work place at times away from a PC or for embedded workplace functions /apps but much beyond that I don't have any use for them.
> 
> I believe my Galaxy smart phone can do pretty much everything tard pads can just smaller for $500.00 you can get a decent serviceable small form factor Windows laptop these days anyway .
> 
> I'm in no hurry too go OLED or anything right now with 6 sets here and out of 5 the oldest is late 2012
> with the rest being 2013 . The newest is a Sony LED in the home office/BD , I spend more time watching than anything else it's real decent and plays nice in the dark for an LCD .
> 
> My Sammy 5xxx PDP is cool with the PS3 and G27 wheel and game chair it's a good gamer ,good for watching ball and movies also and along with the others good for my needs right now .
> 
> Arguably there are better sets but beyond going bigger with maybe a few exceptions they usually provide diminishing returns in most cases especially with mpeg compressed 1080i Dish TV, OTA HDTV and 1080p low bit rate streaming iptv even the sets I have now are not working at or near their potential most of the time anyway except for the occasional Blue Ray even at that some Blue Rays are much better than others . IMO right now with content delivery being what it is and the capabilities of even a decent modest HDTV these days being what it is the cart is ahead of the horse if you will.
> 
> It would probably be nice to have a 707 HP, 650 lb-ft ... Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat but how often are you going to be able to use that H.P. ?


 
I actually get myself an OLED tablet to displace rather sh!tty in-flight displays as my means of passing time on a plane, but most of all of course because in-flight movies suck! And it had also to do with the fact that most airlines I fly like Aeroflot or some local Arabic airlines like notorious Air Algerie don't have any in-flight entertainment whatsoever...


----------



## tubetwister

stas3098 said:


> I actually get myself an OLED tablet to displace rather sh!tty in-flight displays as my means of passing time on a plane, but most of all of course because in-flight movies suck! And it had also to do with the fact that most airlines I fly like Aeroflot or some local Arabic airlines like notorious Air Algerie don't have any in-flight entertainment whatsoever...


That's certainly a good use with in flight movies and screens being what they are and all . I could see the need for a good screen also so you could watch air disaster movies in flight and scare the %$^# outta whoever is sitting next to you 

Maybe Panasonic Aviation will get some of that new Sony and Panasonic joint venture med size OLED panel love once they start production and air carriers could retrofit the existing fleets and put in all the new aircraft . The weight/energy savings alone might defer costs a fair amount and at least they will have decent screens . 

*PS:* Second thought you probably don't want to be watching air disaster movies on Aeroflot or local Arabic airlines like notorious Air Algerie ! .......I was wondering ......... do they have parachutes ? ☺☺☺

I'm retired now so no frequent flying (or free miles) anymore


----------



## stas3098

tubetwister said:


> That's certainly a good use with in flight movies what they are and all . I could see the need for a good screen also
> so you could watch air disaster movies in flight and scare the S outta whoever is sitting next to you


Well, Western airlines (even budget ones) are ok most of the time and Russian regional airlines tend to have Soviet made planes with books for in-flight entrainment and back-breaking cramping seats and non-working toilets. It's Arabic airlines( especially regional ones) I have a real problem with. They seem to think that in-flight entrainment means reciting القرآن (quran) or some other religious هراء (pronounced as khara means BS, nonsense, the big S ) for 5 hours on end. I used to challenge myself on each flight, and I just wouldn't let Arabic in-flight entrainment fill my head with *BS* (and it's harder than you might think somehow all that crazy هراء seems to make sense in Arabic) and now I don't have to go through that ever again and all thanks to OLED ( I would never buy me an LCD slate, F that noise ). All hail OLED and may it never die! 


This how OLED changed my life for the better. I bet there are thousands similar stories out there of OLED making everything ,well, look better...


----------



## tubetwister

stas3098 said:


> Well, Western airlines (even budget ones) are ok most of the time and Russian regional airlines tend to have Soviet made planes with books for in-flight entrainment and back-breaking cramping seats and non-working toilets. It's Arabic airlines( especially regional ones) I have a real problem with. They seem to think that in-flight entrainment means reciting القرآن (quran) or some other religious هراء (pronounced as khara means BS, nonsense, the big S ) for 5 hours on end. I used to challenge myself on each flight, and I just wouldn't let Arabic in-flight entrainment fill my head with *bullsh*t* (and it's harder than you might think somehow all that crazy هراء seems to make sense in Arabic) and now I don't have to go through that ever again and all thanks to OLED ( I would never buy me an LCD slate, F that noise ). All hail OLED and may it never die!
> 
> 
> This how OLED changed my life for the better. I bet there are thousands similar stories out there of OLED making everything ,well, look better...


Under those adverse conditions OLED screen seems like a well deserved link to civilization ,the real world and the 21st century and sanity cheerio gov nor


----------



## rogo

Rich Peterson said:


> I think once BestBuy and other retailers get their OLED displays operational, the difference will be very visible to consumers..


I don't.

Even as a videophile, I believe the differences are actually pretty subtle. I think they are especially subtle under bright lights.

Quality has been barely detectable to consumers since the start of the HDTV era. Consumers embraced non-upscaling DVDs on HD sets for years. 

OLED is -- in absolute terms -- a very small improvement over the state of the art. 

Sure we're excited about it. But the idea that it's going to be noticeable to the masses seems decidedly unlikely to me.


----------



## tubetwister

rogo said:


> I don't.
> 
> Even as a videophile, I believe the differences are actually pretty subtle. I think they are especially subtle under bright lights.
> 
> Quality has been barely detectable to consumers since the start of the HDTV era. Consumers embraced non-upscaling DVDs on HD sets for years.
> 
> OLED is -- in absolute terms -- a very small improvement over the state of the art.
> 
> Sure we're excited about it. But the idea that it's going to be noticeable to the masses seems decidedly unlikely to me.


when Wall mart starts selling an Emerson 55" oled for $399.00 they will be mainstream maybe in 2035


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> I don't.
> 
> Even as a videophile, I believe the differences are actually pretty subtle. I think they are especially subtle under bright lights.
> 
> Quality has been barely detectable to consumers since the start of the HDTV era. Consumers embraced non-upscaling DVDs on HD sets for years.
> 
> OLED is -- in absolute terms -- a very small improvement over the state of the art.
> 
> Sure we're excited about it. But the idea that it's going to be noticeable to the masses seems decidedly unlikely to me.


OLED is so good now that on the show floor OLED Tab S and IPS Microsoft surface pro 3 displays look totally the same while playing a demo video. I bet your average Joe will not be able to tell the difference between a good LCD and an OLED (like one with wide color gamut and local dimming with at least 384 zones and good off-axis performance) even in under the soft lighting conditions like in Magnolia.


----------



## wco81

Even if people can tell the difference in the showroom, they'll notice the price difference a lot more.

Again, there is no mass market for quality.

What we've seen, especially in the last 10 years, is that consumers will choose price and convenience over quality every time.

So people have widely settled for lossy audio, lower bit rate video streaming and phone camera photos.


The only reason LG must be pursuing OLED is that they fear the race to the bottom with the Chinese if they stay with LCD.


----------



## stas3098

wco81 said:


> Even if people can tell the difference in the showroom, they'll notice the price difference a lot more.
> 
> Again, there is no mass market for quality.
> 
> What we've seen, especially in the last 10 years, is that consumers will choose price and convenience over quality every time.
> 
> So people have widely settled for lossy audio, lower bit rate video streaming and phone camera photos.
> 
> 
> The only reason LG must be pursuing OLED is that they fear the race to the bottom with the Chinese if they stay with LCD.


I'd say that the things are the worst for audio than anything else, basically because truly lossless audio can only be found on torrents.


Try finding a legal version of Nirvana in lossless/studio quality and you'll end up with zilch. On most torrents Nirvana and countless others can be easily found in Lossless Quality like this (thanks to lossless audio buffs):


General
Complete name : D:\Nirvana - Nevermind (ORG Pallas)\11 - On A Plain.flac
Format : FLAC
Format/Info : Free Lossless Audio Codec
File size : 77.4 MiB
Duration : 3mn 17s
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 3 289 Kbps
Album : Nevermind
Track name : On A Plain
Track name/Position : 11
Performer : Nirvana
Genre : Rock
Recorded date : 1991


Not that I would download it


For high quality video there's iTunes where there's almost everything in 1080p 5000kbps, not quite Blue ray but really close to it( ITunes uses HiP (5.1 or even high10) for compression which is tantamount to 10000 to 15000 BP (baseline 3.0 or main 3.0) which is used for streaming)


P.S if you truly care about quality of your audio than torrents are the only places where you can find really high quality audio. I guess it is this way because most people care about quality only when comes for free.


----------



## wco81

I haven't tried to sit down and really listen to differences between AC3 and DTS HD MA. My speakers probably aren't optimally placed and I care more about dialogue than effects or soundtrack most of the time.

But I know a lot of AVS members are more exacting on this.


As for the general consumer, even if 4K OLED looked way better, say comparable to the jump between old NTSC and ATSC, unless the prices are under $1k for a 42-inch display (and $1500 or less for 60-inch), people generally aren't going to be motivated enough to upgrade on a scale similar to the SD to HD transition, which was driven partly by the shutting off of analog broadcasts.

More than movies and TV shows, a new display type would have to demonstrate noticeable improvements for live sporting events (especially the spectacles like the Superbowl, Olympics, World Cup, etc.) at the same or lower price point.

Can OLED deliver equal or better motion resolution as plasma? Then again, most people are watching sports on LCDs and they don't seem to care.


----------



## stas3098

wco81 said:


> I haven't tried to sit down and really listen to differences between AC3 and DTS HD MA. My speakers probably aren't optimally placed and I care more about dialogue than effects or soundtrack most of the time.
> 
> But I know a lot of AVS members are more exacting on this.
> 
> 
> As for the general consumer, even if 4K OLED looked way better, say comparable to the jump between old NTSC and ATSC, unless the prices are under $1k for a 42-inch display (and $1500 or less for 60-inch), people generally aren't going to be motivated enough to upgrade on a scale similar to the SD to HD transition, which was driven partly by the shutting off of analog broadcasts.
> 
> More than movies and TV shows, a new display type would have to demonstrate noticeable improvements for live sporting events (especially the spectacles like the Superbowl, Olympics, World Cup, etc.) at the same or lower price point.
> 
> Can OLED deliver equal or better motion resolution as plasma? Then again, most people are watching sports on LCDs and they don't seem to care.


No OLED can't deliver better motion than plasma, but for me the motion on OLEDs is ok as is(certainly better than on LCD), but than again I'm not a big sports fan.


For me there's a quite noticeable difference between AC3 and DTS especially where dialogues are concerned. On DTS voices sound more natural at least in Game of Thrones. I have the third season of Game of Thrones in two qualities one HBO on demand (AC3) and the other BD rips from my Blu Ray (DTS) and DTS sounds noticeably better (more depth and clearer which is great for voices)


----------



## SiGGy

stas3098 said:


> No OLED *can't* deliver better motion than plasma, but for me the motion on OLEDs is ok as is(certainly better than on LCD), but than again I'm not a big sports fan.


Can't or Doesn't?

The response time on the OLEDs is really fast, because of this they can change the drive to make the motion as good and perhaps better. You make it sound like plasma motion is perfect. When plasma motion suffers from motion dithering, phosphor lag, and flickering. I didn't see them playing any video which exacerbates the plasma's phosphor lag, motion dithering or flickering. 

I guess it depends on how you define "better"...

If they add black frame insertion in and try some other techniques it can be just as good or better. Question is what other sacrifices are made to achieve better motion.

In the material I watched I didn't notice much motion bluring at all on the LG OLED.


----------



## rogo

wco81 said:


> Even if people can tell the difference in the showroom, they'll notice the price difference a lot more.
> 
> Again, there is no mass market for quality.
> 
> What we've seen, especially in the last 10 years, is that consumers will choose price and convenience over quality every time.
> 
> So people have widely settled for lossy audio, lower bit rate video streaming and phone camera photos.
> 
> 
> The only reason LG must be pursuing OLED is that they fear the race to the bottom with the Chinese if they stay with LCD.


So spot on.

I do look forward to the mainstreaming of better quality if/when OLED begins to displace LCD. But when I say that, I realize most people still won't care.


----------



## stas3098

SiGGy said:


> Can't or Doesn't?
> 
> The response time on the OLEDs is really fast, because of this they can change the drive to make the motion as good and perhaps better. You make it sound like plasma motion is perfect. When plasma motion suffers from motion dithering, phosphor lag, and flickering. I didn't see them playing any video which exacerbates the plasma's phosphor lag, motion dithering or flickering.
> 
> I guess it depends on how you define "better"...
> 
> If they add black frame insertion in and try some other techniques it can be just as good or better. Question is what other sacrifices are made to achieve better motion.
> 
> In the material I watched I didn't notice much motion bluring at all on the LG OLED.


I don't have any substantial complaints about the motion on OLEDs and I wouldn't change anything associated with it. I can just be a bit nit-picky at times that's all.


I never really observed phosphor trailing or flickering on ST60, however there's a dithering problem at hand. From what I can see Samsung's OLED TV doesn't suffer from these issues, howbeit it had some very slight blurring in Flight Club and I don't recall there being any blurring on plasma. 


Driving OLED the way plasma is driven i.e via PWM or using something that imitates it (black frame insertion ) is madness in its purest unadulterated form.

* Disclaimer*

_The following is hard to fathom for one that has high-school-only knowledge of chemistry and physics and no higher education on the following matters,__ noteworthy is the fact that for the sake of simplicity I've left out a lot of secondary specifics that contribute to the below-described process withal._


Plasma is driven via PWM (something BFI mimics) because you must first charge a phosphor by UV light through ionization of noble gases by applying voltage to noble gases i.e. turning gases into plasma and thus creating electron-holes via electron Number 1 which (UV light) kicks phosphors atoms to a higher energy level where they stay as long as gases stay ionized(charged). The second step is to apply current (electrons to fill the holes) using electron Number 2 which discharges ionized gases which in turn lets phosphors get back to their normal energy level and release energy in the form of photons (light). 


With oleds you can simply make them release light (photons) by applying current! No hoop-jumping here. All genius is simple, ain't it...


----------



## tubetwister

> Originally Posted by wco81
> Even if people can tell the difference in the showroom, they'll notice the price difference a lot more.
> 
> Again, there is no mass market for quality.
> 
> What we've seen, especially in the last 10 years, is that consumers will choose price and convenience over quality every time.
> 
> So people have widely settled for lossy audio, lower bit rate video streaming and phone camera photos.
> 
> 
> The only reason LG must be pursuing OLED is that they fear the race to the bottom with the Chinese if they stay with LCD.


That's probably also why we are seeing 4K sets with virtually no content yet from most of the big boys (cart before the horse if you will ) mfr strategy : ( move up from 1080p product put 4K in premium space) for better margins and product differentiation and lets hope it generates more unit sales whether there are tangible benefits or not . 

In LG case do that (like everybody else ) LG can't loose face or sales logically they have no choice but to go along for the 4K ride . Add in WOLED put in premium space strategy move 55" maybe 65" downstream some and they have a new premium market only they are serving (for now )
predictable logical (maybe not long term ?) survival strategy's so far (for the time being ) .............. until domestic PRC brands start making OLED and 4K in volume for export that is .Everybody else is in same boat except without OLED . 

LG spokesperson has publicly stated they can't compete with PRC in 1080P 2K forgot where I read that one of the usual suspect trade web sites .


----------



## SiGGy

stas3098 said:


> I don't have any substantial complaints about the motion on OLEDs and I wouldn't change anything associated with it. I can just be a bit nit-picky at times that's all.
> 
> 
> I never really observed phosphor trailing or flickering on ST60, however there's a dithering problem at hand. From what I can see Samsung's OLED TV doesn't suffer from these issues, howbeit it had some very slight blurring in Flight Club and I don't recall there being any blurring on plasma.
> 
> 
> Driving OLED the way plasma is driven i.e via PWM or using something that imitates it (black frame insertion ) is madness in its purest unadulterated form.
> 
> * Disclaimer*
> 
> _The following is hard to fathom for one that has high-school-only knowledge of chemistry and physics and no higher education on the following matters,__ noteworthy is the fact that for the sake of simplicity I've left out a lot of secondary specifics that contribute to the below-described process withal._
> 
> 
> Plasma is driven via PWM (something BFI mimics) because you must first charge a phosphor by UV light through ionization of noble gases by applying voltage to noble gases i.e. turning gases into plasma and thus creating electron-holes via electron Number 1 which (UV light) kicks phosphors atoms to a higher energy level where they stay as long as gases stay ionized(charged). The second step is to apply current (electrons to fill the holes) using electron Number 2 which discharges ionized gases which in turn lets phosphors get back to their normal energy level and release energy in the form of photons (light).
> 
> 
> With oleds you can simply make them release light (photons) by applying current! No hoop-jumping here. All genius is simple, ain't it...


You and I are in the same boat.

Really it's the flashing of the image on the screen that makes the motion appear better visually. The OLED(s) will definetly take a beating doing either method you mentioned but it would impove things visually from a motion standpoint.


----------



## stas3098

tubetwister said:


> That's probably also why we are seeing 4K sets with virtually no content yet from most of the big boys (cart before the horse if you will ) mfr strategy : ( move up from 1080p product put 4K in premium space) for better margins and product differentiation and lets hope it generates more unit sales whether there are tangible benefits or not .
> 
> In LG case do that (like everybody else ) LG can't loose face or sales logically they have no choice but to go along for the 4K ride . Add in WOLED put in premium space strategy move 55" maybe 65" downstream some and they have a new premium market only they are serving (for now )
> predictable logical (maybe not long term ?) survival strategy's so far (for the time being ) .............. until domestic PRC brands start making OLED and 4K in volume for export that is .Everybody else is in same boat except without OLED .
> 
> LG spokesperson has publicly stated they can't compete with PRC in 1080P 2K forgot where I read that one of the usual suspect trade web sites .


Well, despite losing some patents to Merck and licensing/buying a lot more the future of OLED still lies in the grabby hands of UDC which will sell anything to any one who cares enough to buy from them meaning that Chinese companies can soon go to UDC to get their own chain of supply, production technics and equipment. My guess is that Chinese or anyone else will soon enough be able get into OLED just as easy as they can get into the LCD business now thanks to UDC (the patent troll) and Merck (the production ( of OLED and LCD materials alike) usurper).


http://blogs.barrons.com/techtrader...patent-loss-canaccord-piper-see-consequences/


----------



## slacker711

stas3098 said:


> Well, despite losing some patents to Merck and licensing/buying a lot more the future of OLED still lies in the grabby hands of UDC which will sell anything to any one who cares enough to buy from them meaning that Chinese companies can soon go to UDC to get their own chain of supply, production technics and equipment.


UDC doesnt sell production equipment. The Chinese companies will have to use the same companies for most of the materials and equipment that are in Samsung and LG's supply chain. The same is true for their LCD fabs. The question is how long it will take the Chinese vendors to learn the techniques that will allow them to ramp yields and material efficiency. Thus far, manufacturing OLED's has been extremely difficult. One thing is for sure though, the Chinese government has made manufacturing OLED's a priority and they are throwing a huge amount of money at the effort. 

You are right that UDC will license and sell phosphorescent materials to any and all OLED vendors.


----------



## tubetwister

> Originally Posted by stas3098 View Post
> Well, despite losing some patents to Merck and licensing/buying a lot more the future of OLED still lies in the grabby hands of UDC which will sell anything to any one who cares enough to buy from them meaning that Chinese companies can soon go to UDC to get their own chain of supply, production technics and equipment.


Interesting about the patents 



slacker711 said:


> UDC doesnt sell production equipment. The Chinese companies will have to use the same companies for most of the materials and equipment that are in Samsung and LG's supply chain. The same is true for their LCD fabs. The question is how long it will take the Chinese vendors to learn the techniques that will allow them to ramp yields and material efficiency. Thus far, manufacturing OLED's has been extremely difficult. One thing is for sure though, the Chinese government has made manufacturing OLED's a priority and they are throwing a huge amount of money at the effort.
> 
> You are right that UDC will license and sell phosphorescent materials to any and all OLED vendors.


We can bet the PRC panel makers will eventually figure it out after all they reverse engineered or engineered their Chengdu J-20 air frame 'that is arguably as capable as our Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air frame wise 
lots of clever folks over there .


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> UDC doesnt sell production equipment. The Chinese companies will have to use the same companies for most of the materials and equipment that are in Samsung and LG's supply chain. The same is true for their LCD fabs. The question is how long it will take the Chinese vendors to learn the techniques that will allow them to ramp yields and material efficiency. Thus far, manufacturing OLED's has been extremely difficult. One thing is for sure though, the Chinese government has made manufacturing OLED's a priority and they are throwing a huge amount of money at the effort.
> 
> You are right that UDC will license and sell phosphorescent materials to any and all OLED vendors.


UDC can get you in touch with those who sell production equipment like Kateeva or Merck/Epson for printing or Inficon for vapor deposition. I read somewhere also that UDC have quite a few patents associated with LG's WOLED. 


UDC and Merck already built two chains of supply one for Samsung the other for LG that's why building another one for Chinese will be even cheaper and easier.


----------



## dsinger

^ And clever hackers as well.


----------



## slacker711

stas3098 said:


> UDC can get you in touch with those who sell production equipment like Kateeva or Merck/Epson for printing or Inficon for vapor deposition. I read somewhere also that UDC have a quite few patents associated with LG's WOLED.
> 
> UDC and Merck already built two chains of supply one for Samsung the other for LG that's why building another one for Chinese will be even cheaper and easier.
> *
> *


"Can get you in touch"? 

I am pretty sure that OLED vendors will contact Kateeva or Epson without going through UDC. It isnt like trying to get a fake driver's license where you need to know somebody. It isnt great for Samsung/LG but commoditizing the supply chain for both materials and equipment is great for consumers. This will take a while though. We need to see more vendors actually shipping commercial displays.

With respect to the patents, LG owns the WOLED architecture patents but I would wager that quite a bit of UDC's work on lighting has applicability to the underlying material stack for LGD. It goes beyond their patents on phosphorescent materials.


----------



## greenland

wco81 said:


> Even if people can tell the difference in the showroom, they'll notice the price difference a lot more.
> 
> Again, there is no mass market for quality.
> 
> What we've seen, especially in the last 10 years, is that consumers will choose price and convenience over quality every time.
> 
> So people have widely settled for lossy audio, lower bit rate video streaming and phone camera photos.
> 
> 
> The only reason LG must be pursuing OLED is that they fear the race to the bottom with the Chinese if they stay with LCD.


LG is reported to have stated that is their main reason for focusing on bringing OLED TVs to market.



“LCD has no future. The Chinese can make even ultra high-definition TVs at lower costs,” says Oh Chang-ho, senior vice-president of LG’s OLED TV development division. “We cannot win this price war. For survival, we have to make products that they cannot make.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/068b8d02-08c3-11e4-9d3c-00144feab7de.html#axzz3B1sMtVoe


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> "Can get you in touch"?
> It isnt great for Samsung/LG but commoditizing the supply chain for both materials and equipment is great for consumers.


I think it's better for LG/Samsung than you do. Historically, the manufacturing ramp up of new technologies has only come when the supply chain has been commoditized. The early moves still have an advantage in process optimization, brand, et al. But without supply-chain commoditization, they can't drive costs down to get past early adopters. This is a case where enabling competition is actually good for the competitors.


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> "Can get you in touch"?
> 
> I am pretty sure that OLED vendors will contact Kateeva or Epson without going through UDC. It isnt like trying to get a fake driver's license where you need to know somebody. It isnt great for Samsung/LG but commoditizing the supply chain for both materials and equipment is great for consumers. This will take a while though. We need to see more vendors actually shipping commercial displays.
> 
> With respect to the patents, LG owns the WOLED architecture patents but I would wager that quite a bit of UDC's work on lighting has applicability to the underlying material stack for LGD. It goes beyond their patents on phosphorescent materials.


I read somewhere that UDC got OLED to last for over 60,000 hours at 1000 candela meaning OLED might be already ready for lighting which might prompt Merck (Merck are the ones who have a couple of billions to go around) to take a leap of faith and try to commercialize OLED for lighting (through UDC, LG, Epson, Philips and very likely they will want to include a few Chinese companies down the road http://www.oled-info.com/tags/companies/merck) which will bring materials costs down rapidly. And seeing how Merck already got into solution processing for printing and cut deals with Epson and LG I can image that OLED lighting might take off soon enough.


In my mind when OLED lighting takes off OLED TV takes right off shortly thereafter owing to the costs of materials falling significantly and rapidly. 


I don't think LG can ever on their own bring OLED prices down below the LCD levels ( for as everybody here astutely noticed OLED can displace LCD only if OLED costs less than LCD) and all seems to indicate that printed OLEDs may cost dirt-cheap.


P.S there's still no official word on mass OLED lighting commercialization from Merck only radio silence...


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> I think it's better for LG/Samsung than you do. Historically, the manufacturing ramp up of new technologies has only come when the supply chain has been commoditized. The early moves still have an advantage in process optimization, brand, et al. But without supply-chain commoditization, they can't drive costs down to get past early adopters. This is a case where enabling competition is actually good for the competitors.


 
I totally agree. The more manufacturers are buying materials and equipment the cheaper M&E gets for everyone meaning, for example, that the next ramp up from one mil to 10 might be cheaper for LGD than it is now if Samsung and JOLED ramp their production up first and vice versa or it can be multiple times cheaper if Merck and co. start making tens of millions of OLED lighting fixtures. Plus materials account for about 60 percent of the total cost of an OLED TV and if materials' costs get halved TVs prices will have fallen by at least 30 percent. 


It's economies of scale e.g. the more you make the cheaper you can make it.

Here's a fly in the ointment, though: http://www.cnet.com/news/oled-tv-growth-slower-than-expected/ 


Maybe the difficulty of producing OLED materials is the reason why Merck and UDC don't seem too keen to take a headlong leap into OLED lighting or even to build OLED manufacturing facilities unless there are sure-fire orders for OLED materials placed for years ahead and if that is so than OLED TV might be, just, might be even doomed. I clearly remember Merck saying that they see no future in vapor-deposited OLED TVs. And the irony is that the only reason why there's no OLED printing is because there's basically no materials for OLED printers...


----------



## ynotgoal

stas3098 said:


> Well, despite losing some patents to Merck and licensing/buying a lot more the future of OLED still lies in the grabby hands of UDC...
> 
> And when polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes from UDC make it to the mass market(2 to 4 years) we may very well expect 100-140k hours at 400 nits and over 60,000 hours at 1000 nits.


Is that why the attack on UDC .. Merck believes their fluorescent blue material is being replaced by UDC material in the next 2 years?


----------



## stas3098

ynotgoal said:


> Is that why the attack on UDC .. Merck believes their fluorescent blue material is being replaced by UDC material in the next 2 years?


 
Let me put it this way UDC make 1.3 bucks off every AMOLED display made and Merck and companies they supply (the whole chain of supply for Samsung including UCD) make over 7 bucks per AMOLED display.



Merck supply "ingredients" for OLED materials just like they supply "ingredients" for LCD materials. UDC mix these ingredients and sell them either directly to Samsung or their chain of supply. So what I'm saying is that UDC "blue" is for the most part made up from EMD Millipore's (Merck didn't spend US$ 7.2 billion for nothing ) singles. Howbeit UDC have amassed a lot of patents concerning OLED which means if Merck sell fluorescent blue UDC get a percentage or if UDC sell fluorescent blue made up of Merck's materials (and there's no alternative), well Merck get paid, either way. 


Merck and UDC play in the totally different leagues and if one sunny day UDC become big enough to threaten Merck's positions Merck will do what they do best they will buy it.
On the second thought I think there might be anti-trust issues if Merck decided to buy UDC.


----------



## stas3098

And just because UDC called dibs on polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes and patented it first (or got patents associated with it) doesn't mean they don't have to get the rest 100 singles that make up "blue" to make "blue".


----------



## stas3098

Here's some more on why Kateeva's or anybody else's printing equipment is useless and may stay this way for a long while.

*Even with the availability of production ready IJP printing equipment, the industry still lacks emitting materials that perform as well in solution as in the more typical powder form. However, a number of companies are working on proving solution based material comparable to the powder, including Universal Display (dopants like polyhedral oligomeric silsesquixanes and solution processing technics)**DuPont(dopants), Sumitomo (polymers) and Merck (both small molecule and polymers). On December 13, the Korea Herald announced that Merck (EMD in the US), a leading material producer, is in talks with LGD (LG Display) to develop a solution based materials for the large size OLED displays. Merck solutions are designed to process in air without performance reduction. *

*http://www.oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=799*


----------



## rogo

The linked article uses no words like "useless".


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> The linked article uses no words like "useless".


I was just about to say the same thing. Stas, all that article says is that the industry lacks materials that perform *as well as* powder. Nothing about "useless". In fact there is nothing in that article regarding the degree to which it underperforms.


----------



## sooke

Well I finally say my first OLED television. My local Best Buy finally got a 55" LG. Forgot to note the model number. This is probably ho-hum to folks on this thread, but I've been wanting to see one for a long time.


Blacks looked great, as far as I could tell in a showroom (Magnolia room, slightly darker than rest of store). They had the OLED showing a different loop than all the other TVs so any direct comparison wasn't possible. I noticed some motion artifacts (kinda like judder) which I'm going to assume is the source material for now. Hope so at any rate.


I also noticed screen door effect. Even from about 10' back with my old eyes the pixel structure was evident on solid colors. I've not seen SDE discussed in regards to OLED. Is there something about the way LG structures their pixels that makes SDE more visible? I hope this improves. I bring it up because I am not someone who is particularly sensitive SDE. I haven't been able to discern pixel structure from 10' back since the LCD RPTV days. I could not detect SDE on the LCDs and one plasma right next to the OLED.


One final note, just for giggles. Best Buy always puts up these big handy placards for each manufacturer showing all their models and the features for each. It's set up as a table with a column for each model and rows for each feature (eg. size, smart TV, 3D, refresh rate, yada yada). For LG there were 3 OLEDs listed, the 55" and 2 other bigger sizes. For 2 of the 3 OLEDs there was a bullet indicating LOCAL DIMMING. Whaa??? Okay... I guess you could make the argument that each pixel is its own zone... But then why 2 of the 3 models marked that way? And local dimming implies a backlight to me anyways. Keep in mind this placard is not some white board drawn up by some junior salesman. I'm talking about the big pre-printed placards that are in every BB. Doing their part to bring confusion to consumers I guess. Or am I not understanding something?


----------



## tgm1024

No, it's common to have marketing write-up stuff that is technically nonsense. LG once said you could watch 3D lying down. Comcast insisted to me on the phone in the early days of their cable-modems, that their connection rate was 3 megaBYTES per second. (Etc.)


----------



## rogo

Sooke, the pixel fill factor is pretty awful on that first-generation set. That could be why you detected "screen door." 

It's worth noting if it gets better on the 4K sets, for sure.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Sooke, the pixel fill factor is pretty awful on that first-generation set. That could be why you detected "screen door."
> 
> It's worth noting if it gets better on the 4K sets, for sure.



Agree. Saw my first OLED (55EC9300) at Best Buy yesterday as well and one of the only small negatives was how much worse the screen door was than on an equivalent LED/LCD. Hoping that the interpixel spacing is reduced by at least 50% on the 4K panels and that alone is a reason to go for a 4K OLED even if there is not 4K content (in addition to the significantly less visible dead/stuck-off subpixels)...


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> I was just about to say the same thing. Stas, all that article says is that the industry lacks materials that perform *as well as* powder. Nothing about "useless". In fact there is nothing in that article regarding the degree to which it underperforms.


It's not about performance and kinda is at the same time. Merck themselves say that their materials for printed OLEDs (which coincidentally happen to be very hard to produce) outperform their materials for vapor deposited OLEDs (which are hard enough to produce, too). http://hdguru.com/coming-soon-affordable-inkjet-printed-oled-uhdtvs/


"P*erform as well in solution as in the more typical powder form" *was about the fact that there are a lot of impurities in materials and after those impure soluble OLED materials are deposited they tend to precipitously turn to sh!t or in other words into hydrogen. 


The problem with solubles is that they are mighty hard to produce and even harder to come by at present. Why do you think every isn't rushing into printing?. Well, for one, you'd have to jump 3 burning hoops to make something like 2-phenyplyridine (the process of making it involves 3 unit-operations alone and even a slight disturbance like presence of the air spoils the whole batch) and big pharma doesn't like overcoming difficulties very much. 


I'm very hopeful, though, that EMD Millipore (Merck's US branch or something like that) can mass produce materials needed for OLED printing in tandem with UDC/Dupont (dopants) and others with Merck at the forefront. I'm just not seeing it happening for the next few years, because first they obviously need to build (or at least upgrade their facilities) new production facilities for existing are obviously no bueno. I think we will see printing taking off by late 2015 or 2016 if not then I don't think we will ever see it take off.


En passant, in reality they are not that hard to produce. They are just that hard to produce without impurities.


----------



## Aja

I came across an article about a new plasma etching system that was supplied to LG earlier this month for OLED television production. "It greatly improves the yield as compared to existing etching systems including the vacuum plasma method, and drastically reduces etching costs." 

An even better etcher is planned for release in the first half of 2015.

http://global.ofweek.com/news/APP-su...-Display-17038


----------



## fafrd

Aja said:


> I came across an article about a new plasma etching system that was supplied to LG earlier this month for OLED television production. "It greatly improves the yield as compared to existing etching systems including the vacuum plasma method, and drastically reduces etching costs."
> 
> An even better etcher is planned for release in the first half of 2015.
> 
> http://global.ofweek.com/news/APP-su...-Display-17038


 
One small variable in the complicated equation of how LG is going to further improve yields and drive down costs in order to hit their target of getting their OLED prices down below the '1.5X of premium LED/LCD' level by mid 2015...

Good find.


----------



## rogo

Of course, the number one factor for LG will be to push up volumes, which will push down costs, which will allow them to hit that target.

So we're back to a chicken-and-egg scenario, yes. But brute force + aggressive pricing + good marketing will go a long way.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Of course, the number one factor for LG will be to push up volumes, which will push down costs, which will allow them to hit that target.
> 
> So we're back to a chicken-and-egg scenario, yes. But brute force + aggressive pricing + good marketing will go a long way.


Can't argue with you on that. 

Still, this is the 'OLED TV: Technology Advancements Thread' and it is nice to see that LG has some manufacturing improvements in the M2 pipeline that will further increase yields and drive down costs (beyond the ever-important volume-driven economies of scale).


----------



## irkuck

Should one still be concerned about dead/stucked pixels? 4K means total amount of pixels like in 4 2K sets. So 4x higher probability for bad pixels comparing to a 2K set. I hope LG has gone up not only on size but pixel reliability too.


----------



## JimP

irkuck said:


> Should one still be concerned about dead/stucked pixels? 4K means total amount of pixels like in 4 2K sets. So 4x higher probability for bad pixels comparing to a 2K set. I hope LG has gone up not only on size but pixel reliability too.


Wouldn't that also mean that the subpixels are 1/4th the previous size and may be fairly hard to see?


----------



## irkuck

JimP said:


> Wouldn't that also mean that the subpixels are 1/4th the previous size and may be fairly hard to see?


That brings us back to the question how much sense the 4K really makes . If pixels are invisible it does not matter they are dead or not . But it would not be for my taste if LG has liberal attitude to sick 4K pixels just because people won't see them anyway. Either all pixels healthy or no panels.


----------



## 8mile13

It is the sheer thought of having a dead pixel that can drive people crazy.


----------



## rogo

One "stuck" pixel even on a 4K set will be visible at a great distance.

A dead one might not be, but I would return a TV with a single dead pixel out of 8 million on general principles.


----------



## fafrd

A small tidbit from the WSJ: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/08/26/lg-vows-to-bring-oled-tv-prices-down/


"Without providing specific figures, LG said that its monthly OLED TV shipments currently top what it sold during all of 2013. Research firm IHS estimates LG sold about 3,000 units in 2013."


So with the launch of the 55EC9300 at $3000-3500, they are currently selling more than 3000 a month (36,000 annual runrate). A factor of 10 is not bad start but they need to get up to a factor off 100 soon.


The M2 production line will be pumping out 140,000 OLEDs per month once it is running at full capacity of 26,000 Gen-8 sheets per month.


Even at 30,000 55" OLEDs per month, LG will be using only ~20% of the M2 production capacity...


----------



## SiGGy

JimP said:


> Wouldn't that also mean that the subpixels are 1/4th the previous size and may be fairly hard to see?


Yes... In all honesty I have never owned a Panasonic or Samsung that didn't have at least one dead pixel or some sort of screen defect. And this is with 5 Panasonics and 4 Samsungs... I just came to expect it after awhile, and it's good I did. Obsessing about it is pointless IMO.

I believe it's not an issue... From 12' on a 65" 1080p screen I can not see the dead pixel we have unless I have a calibration slide up and I'm specifically looking for it. I never notice it with normal material. Ever.

Stuck pixels would be another story though; I would return for that reason. However, with 4K I bet it would be less of an issue, as you said the sub-pixels would be so tiny. I can't say until I experience it myself.


----------



## andy sullivan

Regarding LG's ability to produce OLED panels, how long before they begin supplying panels for other TV brands (private label) like Panasonic, Sony, Vizio?


----------



## fafrd

andy sullivan said:


> Regarding LG's ability to produce OLED panels, how long before they begin supplying panels for other TV brands (private label) like Panasonic, Sony, Vizio?



Believe they are just starting the Chinese brands and early stages with one or two of the Japanese brands. First partner products probably announced at CES 2015...


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> A small tidbit from the WSJ: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/08/26/lg-vows-to-bring-oled-tv-prices-down/
> 
> 
> "Without providing specific figures, LG said that its monthly OLED TV shipments currently top what it sold during all of 2013. Research firm IHS estimates LG sold about 3,000 units in 2013."
> 
> 
> So with the launch of the 55EC9300 at $3000-3500, they are currently selling more than 3000 a month (36,000 annual runrate). A factor of 10 is not bad start but they need to get up to a factor off 100 soon.
> 
> 
> The M2 production line will be pumping out 140,000 OLEDs per month once it is running at full capacity of 26,000 Gen-8 sheets per month.
> 
> 
> Even at 30,000 55" OLEDs per month, LG will be using only ~20% of the M2 production capacity...


3000 is just an estimation. Has nothing to do with actual OLED sales. Nobody knows how many LG OLEDs were sold in 2013. So 3000 might be correct but it also could be 1000 or 5000..

I have seen no user on a Forum who owned a 2013 LG OLED. Less than 1000 sold might be realistic..


----------



## Wizziwig

rogo said:


> One "stuck" pixel even on a 4K set will be visible at a great distance.
> 
> A dead one might not be, but I would return a TV with a single dead pixel out of 8 million on general principles.


Have you actually checked your plasma for dead/stuck pixels? Either it is normal or my luck is very bad. Over the years, I've checked for it on 2 plasmas (sammy and panasonic) as well as Sharp Elite LCD. They all had 2+ malfunctioning pixels. Several LCOS projectors I've owned also had some. I've never actually seen a zero defect panel other than some small LCDs.


----------



## rogo

Yes, my plasma has zero pixel defects. I have checked it with various appropriate test patterns. My previous one (which wasn't 1080p) was same.


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> One "stuck" pixel even on a 4K set will be visible at a great distance. A dead one might not be, but I would return a TV with a single dead pixel out of 8 million on general principles.


If LG is able to mass produce OLEDs with 4K of pristine, long-life pixels I am floored. No other thing to do then than waiting for their 110" 4K OLED to buy it as the last and final display in this life.


----------



## Rudy1

*LG BEGINS TAKING KOREAN PRE-ORDERS FOR UHD OLED TVs INCORPORATING WRGB TECH:*

http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-tel...re-orders-oled-uhd-4k-televisions-n35674.html


----------



## rohrbaughra

irkuck said:


> If LG is able to mass produce OLEDs with 4K of pristine, long-life pixels I am floored. No other thing to do then than waiting for their 110" 4K OLED to buy it as the last and final display in this life.


That is also my ultimate display goal and it appears to finally be possible, perhaps within the next decade. A 110" panel would be just the right size to make it through the door frame. 4K OLED (flat panel) would be the ideal technology, or at least would appear to be for the near future. An additional caveat is that the price would be no greater than $10K, but given the precipitous drop in display prices this no longer seems to be an impossibility. The biggest problem with all of this is that I have a finite lifespan and the clock is ticking.


----------



## andy sullivan

irkuck said:


> If LG is able to mass produce OLEDs with 4K of pristine, long-life pixels I am floored. No other thing to do then than waiting for their 110" 4K OLED to buy it as the last and final display in this life.


When you look at your last sentence and realize the ramifications of " final display in this life" what does this say about the future of the TV industry? If anybody/everybody can mass produce OLED's with 4K of pristine long-life pixels, what differences can the competing brands like sony, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Vizio, anybody else that wants to private lable, offer that will differentiate themselves from the pack? Where do we go from a baseline that offers OLED's with 4K of pristine long -lived pixels? 8K?


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> If LG is able to mass produce OLEDs with 4K of pristine, long-life pixels I am floored. No other thing to do then than waiting for their 110" 4K OLED to buy it as the last and final display in this life.


I'm good with a display that will last 7-10 years, irkuck. I'll go to 77 inches this time... Then 110 for the next one... Have to work up the curve. 

42 --> 50 --> 65* --> 77 --> 110

* Current flat panel in the rogo household, prior and future sizes listed


----------



## Matthias Hutter

77 to 110 is a pretty huge step compared to the rest. You better hope for a massive price drop (printable OLED etc)
edit: better comparision
65 v 77








65 v 110


----------



## priuscat

my current tv is 55 so 65 is next for me besides i got new tv cabinet and it fits 65 so no brainer


----------



## fafrd

Matthias Hutter said:


> 77 to 110 is a pretty huge step compared to the rest. You better hope for a massive price drop (printable OLED etc)
> edit: better comparision
> 65 v 77
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 65 v 110


 
LG can manufacture a 110" OLED, but it will require an entire Gen-8 sheet (one TV per sheet):http://www.auo.com/?lang=en-US&sn=188

What is interesting is that the 2 77" OLEDs currently being manufactured on a single panel only consume about 2/3 of the panel. The maximum size for a 2-up Gen-8 panel configuration is about 98" (so 2 98" OLEDs per Geb-8 sheet, just like 2 77" OLEDs per sheet currently).

This to say I think it is very unlikely we will see 110" OLEDs brought into real production before one or two larger sizes from the 2-up configuration are introduced first.

My prediction is for an 80-something inch OLED introduced in 2015. 84" and 85" is available through Samsung and LG this year, so I would expect a 2015 LG OLED to be announced somewhere in the range of 87-88"


----------



## andy sullivan

fafrd said:


> LG can manufacture a 110" OLED, but it will require an entire Gen-8 sheet (one TV per sheet):http://www.auo.com/?lang=en-US&sn=188
> 
> What is interesting is that the 2 77" OLEDs currently being manufactured on a single panel only consume about 2/3 of the panel. The maximum size for a 2-up Gen-8 panel configuration is about 98" (so 2 98" OLEDs per Geb-8 sheet, just like 2 77" OLEDs per sheet currently).
> 
> This to say I think it is very unlikely we will see 110" OLEDs brought into real production before one or two larger sizes from the 2-up configuration are introduced first.
> 
> My prediction is for an 80-something inch OLED introduced in 2015. 84" and 85" is available through Samsung and LG this year, so I would expect a 2015 LG OLED to be announced somewhere in the range of 87-88"


Why not offer a 98 inch display if they can get exactly two out of one sheet?


----------



## fafrd

andy sullivan said:


> Why not offer a 98 inch display if they can get exactly two out of one sheet?



There is a second-order yield impact from using more of the sheet, but more importantly, LG gains nothing by introducing a new product that is not going to sell. The 110" prototype they will show off at CES will be for bragging rights only (like the 105" $120 Samsung S9 at CES 2014), but if they introduce a new size, they will want it to drive incremental sales, so following or slightly leading the existing large-size LED/LCD market makes much more sense...


----------



## andy sullivan

I think I understand what you're saying but two 98" panels that come from one sheet is different than one 104" panel that comes from the same sheet but with a lot of wasted material. If they are going to market a 84" panel and sell it for a profit long range, what are they going to do with the rest of the OLED sheet? It seems like it might actually be more cost effective to make the 98" and sell it for the same price you were going to sell the 84" for.


----------



## fafrd

andy sullivan said:


> I think I understand what you're saying but two 98" panels that come from one sheet is different than one 104" panel that comes from the same sheet but with a lot of wasted material. If they are going to market a 84" panel and sell it for a profit long range, what are they going to do with the rest of the OLED sheet? It seems like it might actually be more cost effective to make the 98" and sell it for the same price you were going to sell the 84" for.


 
This is already the case with the 77" (2 per Gen-8 sheet; 33% of the sheet wasted).

Going from 98" to 99" results in going from 2 OLEDs per Gen-8 sheet to only a single OLED for Gen-8 sheet (same as for a 110" panel, the maximum possible on a Gen-8 sheet).

Until yields reach 99.99%, there is always some lost yield associated with using more of the sheet, and then there re also secondary considerations/costs like shipping & handling, mechanical support structure, etc...

I think LG will follow or slightly lead the market for premium large-screen TVs (but not get too far in front of it, as Samsung is with their 105" $120,000 S9


----------



## irkuck

rohrbaughra said:


> That is also my ultimate display goal and it appears to finally be possible, perhaps within the next decade. A 110" panel would be just the right size to make it through the door frame. 4K OLED (flat panel) would be the ideal technology, or at least would appear to be for the near future. An additional caveat is that the price would be no greater than $10K, but given the precipitous drop in display prices this no longer seems to be an impossibility. The biggest problem with all of this is that I have a finite lifespan and the clock is ticking.


Next decade??? LG most likely will show a prototype next year , possibly at the CES. From then on, I, optimistically, see the price setting below $20K in a 2ys time .



andy sullivan said:


> When you look at your last sentence and realize the ramifications of " final display in this life" what does this say about the future of the TV industry? If anybody/everybody can mass produce OLED's with 4K of pristine long-life pixels, what differences can the competing brands like sony, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Vizio, anybody else that wants to private lable, offer that will differentiate themselves from the pack? Where do we go from a baseline that offers OLED's with 4K of pristine long -lived pixels? 8K?


At this point only LG is able to mass produce and even Samsung is left behind so it is rather premature y to talk about world in which everybody is stamping big OLEDs like pancakes. The question what will be after 4K OLED is not concerning me as I have set my final display target as even if the 8K comes this will not be my thing,. I am just looking from the point of view of current discussions of 2K vs. 4K, any discussion about benefits of 8K vs. 4K in a standard living room viewing conditions will surely be just waste of time. There is of course possibility for invention of earth-shattering super displays, real 3D, holography and so on. But I do not see it likely before my EOL, though that may look different for somebody with projected long time before EOL, like extending to the second half of the century. Just I think it is reasonable and logical to set the final target as 4K OLED of the size where benefits of the 4K should be visible and absolving oneself from any 8K fever.




rogo said:


> I'm good with a display that will last 7-10 years, irkuck. I'll go to 77 inches this time... Then 110 for the next one... Have to work up the curve.
> 42 --> 50 --> 65* --> 77 --> 110
> * Current flat panel in the rogo household, prior and future sizes listed


77" does not fulfill the 4K visibility criteria so strictly speaking this is just a step in upgrading PQ and size a bit and equally well it could be a 77"@2K which does the job. 



fafrd said:


> LG can manufacture a 110" OLED, but it will require an entire Gen-8 sheet (one TV per sheet):http://www.auo.com/?lang=en-US&sn=188 .What is interesting is that the 2 77" OLEDs currently being manufactured on a single panel only consume about 2/3 of the panel. The maximum size for a 2-up Gen-8 panel configuration is about 98" (so 2 98" OLEDs per Geb-8 sheet, just like 2 77" OLEDs per sheet currently). This to say I think it is very unlikely we will see 110" OLEDs brought into real production before one or two larger sizes from the 2-up configuration are introduced first. My prediction is for an 80-something inch OLED introduced in 2015. 84" and 85" is available through Samsung and LG this year, so I would expect a 2015 LG OLED to be announced somewhere in the range of 87-88"


Since LG said 110" OLED can be done they will do it, especially when the Chinese will be pushing 110" and 120" LCDs. Obviously the question is price. At this moment however the milestone is when LG may show a prototype of 110"[email protected]



fafrd said:


> There is a second-order yield impact from using more of the sheet, but more importantly, LG gains nothing by introducing a new product that is not going to sell. The 110" prototype they will show off at CES will be for bragging rights only (like the 105" $120 Samsung S9 at CES 2014), but if they introduce a new size, they will want it to drive incremental sales, so following or slightly leading the existing large-size LED/LCD market makes much more sense...


The prototype will be important just to show it is doable. Then there will be question of price and here it seems LG will have significant manufacturing advantage to lower the cost. We may expect their 77" OLED moving into the reasonable price range territory late next year. Then why not 110" starting down on the price curve ? LG is trying to beat Samsung, OLED is now their nuclear weapon and they are briskly moving into attacking high-end line. 



andy sullivan said:


> I think I understand what you're saying but two 98" panels that come from one sheet is different than one 104" panel that comes from the same sheet but with a lot of wasted material. If they are going to market a 84" panel and sell it for a profit long range, what are they going to do with the rest of the OLED sheet? It seems like it might actually be more cost effective to make the 98" and sell it for the same price you were going to sell the 84" for.


Of course 98" panels would qualify as honorary members of the 100"+ class and thus could be seen as a cheap alternative to the ultimate size of 110"


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> 77" does not fulfill the 4K visibility criteria so strictly speaking this is just a step in upgrading PQ and size a bit and equally well it could be a 77"@2K which does the job.


Well, there won't ever be one at 2K, so I really don't care about some arbitrary "visibility criteria" being tossed about it.

I do like your prediction of affordability next year on that 77 inch. Maybe I'll push my upgrade to 2016. 

As for those concerned about my big jump to 110 from 77, I'm actually not worried that product is coming anytime soon at anything other than "addition to your home" pricing. And truth be told, I'd probably put the 110 in a media room and keep a 77 (or so) in the family room indefinitely. My 65 is not currently on the wall of my current home. And if we stay here, I'd eventually rebuilt that wall with a built-in shelving unit which would push the TV back 18 inches or so. That would make the jump to 77 even a bit smaller... I suppose I could dream of an 85.


----------



## Ken Ross

irkuck said:


> 77" does not fulfill the 4K visibility criteria so strictly speaking this is just a step in upgrading PQ and size a bit and equally well it could be a 77"@2K which does the job.


"Standards"? Guidelines are not standards and the 'guidelines' are hinged to viewing distance. So yes, you can 'fulfill the 4K visibility criteria' with the appropriate viewing distance with a 77" 4K OLED.


----------



## Orbitron

Well, now a silly curved soundbar for the silly curved OLEDs.
http://www.avforums.com/news/samsung-to-launch-world-s-first-curved-soundbar-at-ifa-2014.10632


----------



## 8mile13

Orbitron said:


> Well, now a silly curved soundbar for the silly curved OLEDs.
> http://www.avforums.com/news/samsung-to-launch-world-s-first-curved-soundbar-at-ifa-2014.10632


+ the silly curved HDTV antenna...










http://www.crutchfield.com/S-XD3uYlkACXH/p_792CURVE30/Mohu-Curve-30.html


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> + the silly curved HDTV antenna...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/S-XD3uYlkACXH/p_792CURVE30/Mohu-Curve-30.html


You guys should all stop joking about this. Combine a curved TV with a curved Soundbar and a curved Antenna and we all might finally be able to stand down from code red and actually enjoy the content we are viewing: http://globalnews.ca/news/1380703/new-samsung-curve-ultra-hd-tv-technology-impresses/

p.s. how exactly does one become a 'curve experience spokesperson'?


----------



## barth2k

fafrd said:


> http://globalnews.ca/news/1380703/new-samsung-curve-ultra-hd-tv-technology-impresses/
> 
> p.s. how exactly does one become a 'curve experience spokesperson'?


Yo, Dude married to Christina Hendricks, call your agent!


----------



## stas3098

irkuck said:


> At this point only LG is able to mass produce and even Samsung is left behind so it is rather premature y to talk about world in which everybody is stamping big OLEDs like pancakes. The question what will be after 4K OLED is not concerning me as I have set my final display target as even if the 8K comes this will not be my thing,. I am just looking from the point of view of current discussions of 2K vs. 4K, any discussion about benefits of 8K vs. 4K in a standard living room viewing conditions will surely be just waste of time. There is of course possibility for invention of earth-shattering super displays, real 3D, holography and so on. But I do not see it likely before my EOL, though that may look different for somebody with projected long time before EOL, like extending to the second half of the century. Just I think it is reasonable and logical to set the final target as 4K OLED of the size where benefits of the 4K should be visible and absolving oneself from any 8K fever.


I think OLED is here to stay. I've attended a meeting at Parchem http://www.parchem.com/about-us.aspx about OLED's future i.e. marketing where I had a first glimpse on how OLED will be marketed. There was a man from Merck who said that Merck are gonna sell 30,000 hours (low-end), 50,000h (mid-end) and 80,000 hours (not for mass-market) materials for printing by 2016 and by 2020 they expect to move to 50,000h for low-end, 100,000h mid-end over 500,000h for high-end (specialty materials aimed for military and medical grade lighting devices and displays which are not expected to be sold to civilians in the foreseeable future) plus they work on their "century" materials 1 million hours, however they have no plans to ever commercialize or mass-produce those. The main takeaway for me was, though, there is no upper limit to OLED's lifespan meaning there might even be a chance that current generations may get a chance to own one TV that lasts for life.


----------



## tom669

OLED is "the perfect technology". I think manufacturers are somewhat afraid to introduce it, because it's essentially perfection.


very high brightness
very large colour gamut
infinite contrast ratio
energy efficient
can do 4K and 8K
can do both passive & active 3D
works from almost any viewing angle
long-life
curvable (...)
ultra-thin

The question is... where do you go from there? They've got to be careful not to create a product they can't compete with. Smart TV platforms were introduced, in part, to attempt to make TVs obsolete after every year. But not everyone wanted a Smart TV.

Sort of like we see Samsung introducing "quantum dot" LED TVs, it's just a marketing term to try and differentiate themselves, OLED manufacturers might be stuck in the same position, relying only on marketing rather than any substantial difference to sell next year's technology. The introduction of LED-backlit LCD TVs was a huge boon to the industry, making a lot more people jump ship from CRT. OLED will probably do the same thing to LED. Plasma TVs had a similar issue with being seen as "old technology", hence one of the reasons for their demise. (Even though it's arguable plasma display panels developed far more than LCD ever did.)

Remember how CRT was dominant for 60+ years? Yeah, they definitely DON'T want a repetition of that.


----------



## wco81

Don't forget expensive.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Here's one to file under "what could they possibly think of next".


*LG to release Swarovski-encrusted OLED TV in Europe.*


Source: http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/01/lgs-swarovski-oled/


Other links: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/02/lg-oled-tv-crystals_n_5750788.html
http://news.oled-display.net/lg-and-swarovski-ultimate-premium-oled-tv/





> LG claims the 460-crystal pattern "turns a cutting-edge television into a work of art."


----------



## tgm1024

tom669 said:


> OLED is "the perfect technology". I think manufacturers are somewhat afraid to introduce it, because it's essentially perfection.



Some more distance to travel before "perfection" (whatever that is) is reached. I'll put my responses in bold.


very high brightness*: Part of the reason that the brightness is at the level it's at is that they're extending the persistence time. This hurts motion dramatically. It is not yet bright enough to pull off the very tight pulse-style motion mitigation that you can find with, say, Sony MotionFlow Impulse.
*
very large colour gamut*: Unclear. This isn't specific to OLED
*
infinite contrast ratio*: Yep
*
energy efficient*: Yep
*
can do 4K and 8K*: High PPI (as with phones), but "8K"? The first prototypes of 8K (and that's all they were) were LCD.
*
can do both passive & active 3D*: Yep. Though LCD can, and the concept that only IPS could pull it off is long gone.
*
works from almost any viewing angle*: Yep.
*
long-life*: Keep in mind that we actually need to have these displays in the hands of consumers for long periods in order to know that for sure. But it does seem that the lifetime is good.
*
curvable (...)*: Religious war bait. (lol)
*
ultra-thin*: The thinness wars are over (thank goodness). LCDs are thin enough.
*


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Some more distance to travel before "perfection" (whatever that is) is reached. I'll put my responses in bold.
> 
> 
> very high brightness*: Part of the reason that the brightness is at the level it's at is that they're extending the persistence time. This hurts motion dramatically. It is not yet bright enough to pull off the very tight pulse-style motion mitigation that you can find with, say, Sony MotionFlow Impulse.*
> 
> very large colour gamut*: Unclear. This isn't specific to OLED*
> 
> infinite contrast ratio*: Yep*
> 
> energy efficient*: Yep*
> 
> can do 4K and 8K*: High PPI (as with phones), but "8K"? The first prototypes of 8K (and that's all they were) were LCD.*
> 
> can do both passive & active 3D*: Yep. Though LCD can, and the concept that only IPS could pull it off is long gone.*
> 
> works from almost any viewing angle*: Yep.*
> 
> long-life*: Keep in mind that we actually need to have these displays in the hands of consumers for long periods in order to know that for sure. But it does seem that the lifetime is good.*
> 
> curvable (...)*: Religious war bait. (lol)*
> 
> ultra-thin*: The thinness wars are over (thank goodness). LCDs are thin enough.*


[/QUOTE]


And just to round out this very good post, on the negative side we potentially have:

-yellow-push / white-balance non-uniformity (and potential panel lottery)
-image-retention (potentially more finicky 'care-and-feeding' requirements than LED/LCD)
-color inaccuracy / difficulty to calibrate accurately
-near-dark greyscale non-uniformity and/or black-crush
-stuck-off sub-pixels and sub-pixel degradation over time
-large inter-row gap (SDE)
-Automatic Brightness Limiter

Compared to LED/LCD, the only of these that might be 'worse' would be IR/care-and-feeding, the larger inter-row gap, and the dying sub-pixels if continued degradation proves to be possible/likely even on the Gen-2 WOLEDs - everything else might be a clear negative compared to class-leading plasmas like the Samsung F8500, but would probably be well-within the norms for even class-leading LED/LCDs...


----------



## tom669

Fundamentally speaking, OLED is capable of fixing all of these issues.

Low level non-uniformity and motion response can be fixed by moving to a sub-field drive scheme - this is similar to how plasma displays work and will improve motion. (OLED will also not require dithering due to the pixels having a wide intensity range.) This will require some changes to the technology but ultimately will be a big boon to panel efficiency and reliability (reduced panel heat.) 

ABL will always be present, but from what I have seen it is not that aggressive. Manufacturers will always include ABL because it can make the panel brighter on average content for the same power budget, which is more attractive. In theory, it'll be possible to lower the equivalent of "cell light" to eliminate it, which will reduce the panel brightness slightly.

Sub-pixel degradation remains to be seen...


----------



## tgm1024

tom669 said:


> Fundamentally speaking, OLED is capable of fixing all of these issues.


It doesn't _yet_, which is the point. Lots of road to travel before perfection, but wow am I looking forward to it.

I still half-expect something weird to happen in between though: some strange emissive tech to show up that's cheap. Or maybe an odd kind of multi-level plasma with no IR. Now wouldn't _that _be wild.


----------



## andy sullivan

I do think that the manufactures are afraid to release OLED, even though it's too late now because the monster has been released. tom669 mentions that OLED is perfection. Now we know it's not really perfection but I think that the current major brand TV manufactures have every reason to fear that by the time the third or fouth generation of OLED hits the public it will be perceived as perfection. What can they offer except some bells and whistles and slap the high end label on it?


----------



## tom669

tgm1024 said:


> I still half-expect something weird to happen in between though: some strange emissive tech to show up that's cheap. Or maybe an odd kind of multi-level plasma with no IR. Now wouldn't _that _be wild.


AUO said they were still developing surface electron emitter displays (SED) in 2009 - nothing seemed to come of it. Canon killed off FED. LG are killing off plasma... no manufacturer wanted to release a 4K plasma.

And what about Crystal LED? Huge SDE issue, and probably too expensive to mass produce...

I think the future for emissive displays is looking rather dim until OLED falls further in price. That being said, isn't the 55" OLED cheaper than Pioneer's 50" 9G plasmas near release?


----------



## andy sullivan

tom669 said:


> AUO said they were still developing surface electron emitter displays (SED) in 2009 - nothing seemed to come of it. Canon killed off FED. LG are killing off plasma... no manufacturer wanted to release a 4K plasma.
> 
> And what about Crystal LED? Huge SDE issue, and probably too expensive to mass produce...
> 
> I think the future for emissive displays is looking rather dim until OLED falls further in price. That being said, isn't the 55" OLED cheaper than Pioneer's 50" 9G plasmas near release?


$2199 right now at Fry's Electronics. The avalanche is coming.


----------



## tgm1024

tom669 said:


> AUO said they were still developing surface electron emitter displays (SED) in 2009 - nothing seemed to come of it. Canon killed off FED. LG are killing off plasma... no manufacturer wanted to release a 4K plasma.
> 
> And what about Crystal LED? Huge SDE issue, and probably too expensive to mass produce...
> 
> I think the future for emissive displays is looking rather dim until OLED falls further in price. That being said, isn't the 55" OLED cheaper than Pioneer's 50" 9G plasmas near release?


My half-expectation was that a _new_ technology would show up (before OLED became bullet proof), not the flopped old ones.

SED/FED: Both of these necessitate PWM, which removes them from my interest.

CLED: I was _so so SO_ hoping for that tech from Sony years ago. Back then, Rogo was the one breaking the bad news to us, insisting that there was no chance in Hades that it could be made. Alas, he was right.​


----------



## fafrd

andy sullivan said:


> $2199 right now at Fry's Electronics. The avalanche is coming.


 
That sale price is for the discontinued 55EA9800.

$2200 for a fantastic out-of-production 55" 1080p TV.

Versus $1350 for a 55" 1080p Samsung F8000, or $1250 for the 55" 1080p Sony W950B or $850 for a 55" 1080p Vizio M - still more than a 50% premium for the 55EA9800 even at this 'special' price...

Or versus the new Hisense 55" 4K TV for $800 at Best Buy right now (which was getting far more interest than the 55EC9300 at my local Best Buy this weekend).

Even every single videophile here on AVS Forum does not an avalanche make...


----------



## mo949

Always interesting to see that bitter side 

Thanks!


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> That sale price is for the discontinued 55EA9800.
> 
> $2200 for a fantastic out-of-production 55" 1080p TV.
> 
> Versus $1350 for a 55" 1080p Samsung F8000, or $1250 for the 55" 1080p Sony W950B or $850 for a 55" 1080p Vizio M - still more than a 50% premium for the 55EA9800 even at this 'special' price...


Sobering reality. It wasn't long ago the "bar" for a premium 55-inch 1080p TV was, in fact, right around $2500. And as I said then, it was likely that market was going away. Well, it's gone baby gone.

(Still, if someone wants a 55-inch OLED, that's a sweet deal on the LG. Go pick one up!)



mo949 said:


> Always interesting to see that bitter side


fafrd, bitter? Not even a little.


----------



## tom669

tgm1024 said:


> My half-expectation was that a _new_ technology would show up (before OLED became bullet proof), not the flopped old ones.
> 
> SED/FED: Both of these necessitate PWM, which removes them from my interest.
> 
> CLED: I was _so so SO_ hoping for that tech from Sony years ago. Back then, Rogo was the one breaking the bad news to us, insisting that there was no chance in Hades that it could be made. Alas, he was right.​


Sub-field multiplexing (not PWM) is how plasmas worked.

Unfortunately, most PDPs had no control over pixel intensity - except for the Kuros and some Panny Pro monitors, the pixel could only be ON or OFF, hence dithering was fairly significant, even with the sub-fields giving them many levels to play with. (Kuros used spatial discharge for panel initialisation, plus 1st SF and 2nd SF, which essentially eliminated the need for dithering in the lower subfields. The Pro Panasonic monitors did an addressed discharge in a reset field, which halved the normal emission intensity, though not as much as Kuro tech. Not sure if Panasonic used spatial discharge in later panels - I'd expect they did somewhat, to get down to the VT60 black levels.)

With OLED, there is no need to have a fixed intensity. Each "subfield" can have a different display pulse width to reduce apparent emission intensity. A multiplex-type scheme will be necessary to improve motion, power efficiency, low-level intensity and panel life... and no dithering should be apparent to the human eye. (Because the WHOLE field will be varying in pulse-width, not individual pixels. So there will be one field of length "1", one of length "2", etc. Although they'd probably use plasma-type subfield widths to eliminate false contouring effects.)


----------



## tgm1024

tom669 said:


> Sub-field multiplexing (not PWM) is how plasmas worked.


Actually, if we're at odds with the terminology, the term "pulse-width modulation" includes the pulsing mechanism used by plasma, subfield or not_. _Geoffrey Morrison breaks this term down, and how it applies to plasma, fairly well here. A little on the layman side, but a good enough article.


----------



## tom669

tgm1024 said:


> Actually, if we're at odds with the terminology, the term "pulse-width modulation" includes the pulsing mechanism used by plasma, subfield or not_. _Geoffrey Morrison breaks this term down, and how it applies to plasma, fairly well here. A little on the layman side, but a good enough article.



Yeah... except that's wrong, unfortunately. It's not 10 dim images, but 10 images which progressively increase in brightness. (Some plasmas split the intensity variation into two halves, so it goes: 135792468, this reduces flicker. 3D display also reduces image to 5 subfields per eye, but relies on human vision perception to encode dithering between the eyes, so it appears nearly the same as 2D.)

The lower SFs contain almost no recognisable information (mostly 1SF graduation, noise etc.) As the SF number changes, the SF width increases and the displayed image changes.

So the same image only flashes on the screen at 60Hz, although the screen does flash at 600Hz, the intensity varies in each sub field.

See page 13;
http://www.toms-service-manuals.com...eq=LG_50PV450_2011_PDP_[TM].pdf&mfg=LG-Zenith

(The image is exaggerated - the lower sub fields produce very little light.)

Hopefully, this is how future OLED will work, with many more subfields (at least 20) and more variation in the intensity in each subfield. Massive improvement in panel response time necessary first, though. Current panel capacitance is too high to allow this.


----------



## tgm1024

tom669 said:


> Yeah... except that's wrong, unfortunately. It's not 10 dim images, but 10 images which progressively increase in brightness. (Some plasmas split the intensity variation into two halves, so it goes: 135792468, this reduces flicker. 3D display also reduces image to 5 subfields per eye, but relies on human vision perception to encode dithering between the eyes, so it appears nearly the same as 2D.)
> 
> The lower SFs contain almost no recognisable information (mostly 1SF graduation, noise etc.) As the SF number changes, the SF width increases and the displayed image changes.
> 
> So the same image only flashes on the screen at 60Hz, although the screen does flash at 600Hz, the intensity varies in each sub field.
> 
> See page 13;
> http://www.toms-service-manuals.com...eq=LG_50PV450_2011_PDP_[TM].pdf&mfg=LG-Zenith
> 
> (The image is exaggerated - the lower sub fields produce very little light.)


Thanks for that. But that image is showing the cumulative effect of the pulses, not a change in the pulse itself, no?



> Hopefully, this is how future OLED will work, with many more subfields (at least 20) and more variation in the intensity in each subfield. Massive improvement in panel response time necessary first, though. Current panel capacitance is too high to allow this.


Really interesting; and perhaps. I still feel that a better approach is to increase the brightness of the OLED to allow for ever shorter single pulsing _for each full frame_. As far as our understanding of motion goes, it would likely be the ultimate in motion processing to date: low response time for the GtG haters due to the nature of OLED, and very short single frame information pulse for the persistence haters, and the combination would likely be the best we could ever see. It would avoid a repeated flashing of the same frame information which would stutter across the retina as the eye attempts tracking.


----------



## tom669

tgm1024 said:


> Thanks for that. But that image is showing the cumulative effect of the pulses, not a change in the pulse itself, no?


No... trust me here, that's how plasma displays work. I repair them occasionally, as a hobby. Each subfield has different content and different brightness. I'll try and find a good video that demos it - someone took one with a 2000fps camera I think.


----------



## tom669

tgm1024 said:


> Really interesting; and perhaps. I still feel that a better approach is to increase the brightness of the OLED to allow for ever shorter single pulsing _for each full frame_. As far as our understanding of motion goes, it would likely be the ultimate in motion processing to date: low response time for the GtG haters due to the nature of OLED, and very short single frame information pulse for the persistence haters, and the combination would likely be the best we could ever see. It would avoid a repeated flashing of the same frame information which would stutter across the retina as the eye attempts tracking.


Ultimately, they're going to have to move towards sub-field multiplexed OLED in some way or another. It doesn't have to be exactly like plasma, but with a whole lot of R&D behind it, I think we'll see something similar to conventional PDP. 

The reason current plasmas appear to judder is because the upper subfields tend to be very similar. OLED has no need for that, it can have many more subfields and they can be a lot more variable. In fact the intensity could also vary in the middle of any one subfield...


----------



## tgm1024

tom669 said:


> Ultimately, they're going to have to move towards sub-field multiplexed OLED in some way or another. It doesn't have to be exactly like plasma, but with a whole lot of R&D behind it, I think we'll see something similar to conventional PDP.


Yes, but that's still PWM. In PWM, the pulses are still free to change in width. Looking at all the drive graphs (looks like they're readings from a scope), the amplitudes are entirely constant but the pulses are mostly so, but have multiple _widths _in some places. This is all PWM. The pictures you've indicated seem to be the _net effect_ of PWM.


----------



## tom669

I've probed a live 9G kuro, it uses 28 SFs (26 conventional, 2 spatial.) The 2 spatial fields are for low level intensity light plus panel initialisation (MLL.) The 26 conventional fields slowly increase in brightness. This is also why some plasmas buzz... and why switching 9Gs to energy save mode can reduce the buzzing (the subfield count is halved, but each subfield increases in length, about 2x. Reduces addressing power and reset discharge losses, improving efficiency slightly.)

Time in X-axis, this is how a Kuro drives the panel. Each subfield sustain period is the yellow block, the initial portion of the waveform is the panel initialisation (erase and priming MLL.) This is repeated at 60Hz or 72Hz.

From my own PDP-LX5090 before tweaking.


----------



## tgm1024

tom669 said:


> I've probed a live 9G kuro, it uses 28 SFs (26 conventional, 2 spatial.) The 2 spatial fields are for low level intensity light plus panel initialisation (MLL.) The 26 conventional fields slowly increase in brightness. This is also why some plasmas buzz... and why switching 9Gs to energy save mode can reduce the buzzing (the subfield count is halved, but each subfield increases in length, about 2x. Reduces addressing power and reset discharge losses, improving efficiency slightly.)
> 
> Time in X-axis, this is how a Kuro drives the panel. Each subfield sustain period is the yellow block, the initial portion of the waveform is the panel initialisation (erase and priming MLL.) This is repeated at 60Hz or 72Hz.
> 
> From my own PDP-LX5090 before tweaking.


Perfect. _That's PWM at work.

_


----------



## tom669

tgm1024 said:


> Perfect. _That's PWM at work.
> 
> _


Again, it's not really PWM.

PWM would be able to set the pulse width of every pixel independently. PWM would also give people horrible headaches, like looking at a 60Hz CRT monitor. (Well, we managed with CRTs for years... but it's still not nice.)

Plasma displays can't set the width of each pixel independently... the width is fixed to one of a few sub field widths. In the case of the Kuros, it's 26 + 2, Panny Pro was 13 + 1 at one point... modern VT60 is 14 + 1 I suspect... budget models are fixed 10 or 12.

You could PWM OLED... but there are many issues from an engineering point of view.

Don't even try 60Hz. You'll give people headaches.

Say you decide to eliminate flicker by using 120Hz PWM. OK, but now you're drawing pulses of current from your power supply at 120Hz. If you go for example 50% intensity across the whole panel, the current drawn would be at 120Hz. Power supply designers would hate you, and this load modulation would feed back into the power grid making FCC certification harder.

So, ... why not faster? How about 1kHz PWM? OK, that works... but for 50% grey, again you're wasting huge amounts of power switching unnecessarily... plus, you're still drawing huge current ripple from your PSU. The power supply needs to be capable of supplying 100% of load then 0% of load at 1kHz, this is not easy! Plus, you can really hear 1kHz!!

OK, let's go to 25kHz... out of human hearing, right? Sure! And PSU is fine, because this load can be locally decoupled. But now your pixels are driven very fast, you have to really optimise your panel and driver design. Efficiency falls off with switching speed.

OK, so why not split the panel into a few halves and phase shift each? Very difficult from a gate driver point of view; it'd be a lot nicer if you could just sequentially drive each row, rather than having complex multi-phase designs. And you still need the fast source drivers...

Subfield multiplexing allows you to have the benefits of PWM (efficiency, precise low level control, lower heat dissipation) whilst having a more predicable and friendly-to-the-PSU ripple current (the current is drawn over one frame at 60Hz or 120Hz but increases gradually under all possible patterns.)


----------



## stas3098

tom669 said:


> Again, it's not really PWM.
> 
> PWM would be able to set the pulse width of every pixel independently. PWM would also give people horrible headaches, like looking at a 60Hz CRT monitor. (Well, we managed with CRTs for years... but it's still not nice.)
> 
> Plasma displays can't set the width of each pixel independently... the width is fixed to one of a few sub field widths. In the case of the Kuros, it's 26 + 2, Panny Pro was 13 + 1 at one point... modern VT60 is 14 + 1 I suspect... budget models are fixed 10 or 12.
> 
> You could PWM OLED... but there are many issues from an engineering point of view.
> 
> Don't even try 60Hz. You'll give people headaches.
> 
> Say you decide to eliminate flicker by using 120Hz PWM. OK, but now you're drawing pulses of current from your power supply at 120Hz. If you go for example 50% intensity across the whole panel, the current drawn would be at 120Hz. Power supply designers would hate you, and this load modulation would feed back into the power grid making FCC certification harder.
> 
> So, ... why not faster? How about 1kHz PWM? OK, that works... but for 50% grey, again you're wasting huge amounts of power switching unnecessarily... plus, you're still drawing huge current ripple from your PSU. The power supply needs to be capable of supplying 100% of load then 0% of load at 1kHz, this is not easy! Plus, you can really hear 1kHz!!
> 
> OK, let's go to 25kHz... out of human hearing, right? Sure! And PSU is fine, because this load can be locally decoupled. But now your pixels are driven very fast, you have to really optimise your panel and driver design. Efficiency falls off with switching speed.
> 
> OK, so why not split the panel into a few halves and phase shift each? Very difficult from a gate driver point of view; it'd be a lot nicer if you could just sequentially drive each row, rather than having complex multi-phase designs. And you still need the fast source drivers...
> 
> Subfield multiplexing allows you to have the benefits of PWM (efficiency, precise low level control, lower heat dissipation) whilst having a more predicable and friendly-to-the-PSU ripple current (the current is drawn over one frame at 60Hz or 120Hz but increases gradually under all possible patterns.)


Plus add to that the fact that it takes up to 3 times more energy to get  (small molecule and polymer based light emitting materials) OLED materials to release the same amount of (visible) light in comparison with phosphors excited by noble gases' UV light and you have yourself a winner. 


But all BS aside there's no way in hell we are getting a PWM-based OLED.


----------



## tom669

stas3098 said:


> Plus add to that the fact that it takes up to 3 times more energy to get  (small molecule and polymer based light emitting materials) OLED materials to release the same amount of (visible) light in comparison with phosphors excited by noble gases' UV light and you have yourself a winner.
> 
> 
> But all BS aside there's no way in hell we are getting a PWM-based OLED.


I think the first few generations will definitely be pure analog drive like they currently are. But I'd completely support subfield multiplexing for all the benefits: faster motion response (quick sub-field like look, with minimal/no double images if done right), greater efficiency (and thus higher average brightness), greater linearity and uniformity in low intensities and longer panel life.

It remains to be seen, of course, if this will actually be implemented, but I'm hopeful it will.


----------



## rogo

tom669 said:


> I think the first few generations will definitely be pure analog drive like they currently are. But I'd completely support subfield multiplexing for all the benefits: faster motion response (quick sub-field like look, with minimal/no double images if done right), greater efficiency (and thus higher average brightness), greater linearity and uniformity in low intensities and longer panel life.
> 
> It remains to be seen, of course, if this will actually be implemented, but I'm hopeful it will.


This is an interesting notion. You think maybe that's a 5 years out thing, if someone decides it allows them to market high-end features all over again?


----------



## tom669

rogo said:


> This is an interesting notion. You think maybe that's a 5 years out thing, if someone decides it allows them to market high-end features all over again?


Of course, it's how consumer electronics works. Of course it depends on the pace of technology. I think OLED has the possibility of perfecting flat-panel displays for videophiles, but they'll still be able to market the silly features (e.x. PenTouch on LG plasmas, Smart TV features, 3D, etc) as upgrades further along down the line.


----------



## slacker711

This isnt really new, but both the author and speaker are better sources than most of the quotes on yields. 

http://www.display-central.com/subscription-news/editorial-categories/flat-panel/imid-numbers/



> At SID Display Week late last May, Changho Oh (SVP for LG Display’s OLED TV Development Division 1) told me LGD’s Fab 1 was producing panels for LG’s 55-inch OLED TV at a 70-80% yield. (Yield for other sizes may differ.) This is an impressive (and critical) improvement over last year’s 10% and this past January’s 50%. Oh told me that most of the yield problems and improvements were in the oxide TFT backplane, so you can see that the hard-won knowledge represented in those IMID papers on improving the reliability and stability of oxide TFTs really is reflected in the display quality and price of the products you buy.


----------



## greenland

Samsung IFA Press Conference Video.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1409671928

Check out the guy at just past the 21st minute of the video. He states that the upshot of all the studies done, have shown that people prefer curved objects because they find them less threatening.

My flat panel plasma keeps attacking me all the time, as soon as I let down my guard, much like Cato kept attacking Peter Sellers in the Pink Panther.


----------



## rogo

Slacker, interesting that the yield issues appear to be almost entirely related to IGZO growing pains. I expect IGZO backplane yields to be ~99% within a very short period from here. There is no showstopper with respect to them and the push to IGZO/oxide was predicated on lower costs... To drive that reality, it will be necessarily to approach 100% and I have no doubt that's achievable.

It sounds like they are still losing some displays at the vapor depo stage, although how many is unclear. That problem will be worse on the bigger sizes, too, due to potential uniformity issues. But, again, this feels solvable.

The promise of LG's tech was always "it can be made at high yield." Nothing in 2012 indicated that promise would be achieved and 2013 was hardly better. 2014 has clearly been a revelation. Now that the sauce recipe has been perfected, there is little reason to doubt yields can remain high.


----------



## Stereodude

tgm1024 said:


> Perfect. _That's PWM at work._


No, it's not. It's a version of PAM, Pulse Amplitude Modulation.


----------



## fafrd

greenland said:


> Samsung IFA Press Conference Video.
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1409671928
> 
> Check out the guy at just past the 21st minute of the video. He states that the upshot of all the studies done, have shown that people prefer curved objects because they find them less threatening.
> 
> My flat panel plasma keeps attacking me all the time, as soon as I let down my guard, much like Cato kept attacking Peter Sellers in the Pink Panther.


 
Yeah, this got posted a few days ago: http://globalnews.ca/news/1380703/new-samsung-curve-ultra-hd-tv-technology-impresses/

It's worth listening to for laughs if nothing else, but the upshot of all of this is that according to a 'curve-experience expert', watching flat TVs has been keeping us on the verge of triggering a 'fight-or-flight' response over all of these years without our even knowing it. No wonder society is all screwed up, just think about the angular houses we all live in 

The frightening thing out of all of this is how completely full of **** Samsung is and yet how confident they are in their ability to spoon-feed whatever drivel they need to move the market in the direction of their choice.


----------



## mo949

Ummm we did go to war shortly after the flat panel mass adoption; they may be onto something...

Pray that the curve will bring us all peace again


----------



## stas3098

mo949 said:


> Ummm we did go to war shortly after the flat panel mass adoption; they may be onto something...
> 
> Pray that the curve will bring us all peace again


I don't know about war, but Logistics companies have interrupted servicing some Near East countries due to an _ongoing armed conflict_ ( meaning you can't get not only new Samsung TVs or LG TVs in those countries, but also medicine and stuff) just about the time curved TVs made an appearance...


----------



## Wizziwig

Saw this posted on another forum. Thanks Patrik!

Translated labels:
100% Red/ 100% Green / 100% Blue / 100% White
Cyan/Magenta/Yellow/30% White

It is a rather shocking image of the flat LG EA8800. On some colors like red and blue, you have what amounts to ~13% pixel fill ratio. That is horrendous by any standard and explains why so many users complain of screen-door effect. I don't think even my ancient 720p LCD projector was this bad. Even if they slightly improve this on the 4K panel, that is still very poor. Maybe they need an 8K OLED after all.

It's also interesting that many colors are not a pure mix of primaries. There is some blue in yellow, blue/red in white, red/white in green, etc. I wonder if that is some kind of color bleed or deliberate. This helps explain why uniformity errors are more visible in certain colors. Also why it's so hard to calibrate these things - similar to the difficulty with Sharp's Quatron panels.

So given this low fill factor, they must be driving those red and blue pixels like crazy to get any decent brightness since most of the pixel is black. Seems very inefficient and might contribute to higher power requirements and ABL. Or maybe early wear/burn-in on those colors.


----------



## stas3098

Wizziwig said:


> Saw this posted on another forum. Thanks Patrik!
> 
> Translated labels:
> 100% Red/ 100% Green / 100% Blue / 100% White
> Cyan/Magenta/Yellow/30% White
> 
> It is a rather shocking image of the flat LG EA8800. On some colors like red and blue, you have what amounts to ~13% pixel fill ratio. That is horrendous by any standard and explains why so many users complain of screen-door effect. I don't think even my ancient 720p LCD projector was this bad. Even if they somehow improve this on the 4K panel to say 50%, that is still very poor. Maybe they need an 8K OLED after all.
> 
> It's also interesting that many colors are not a pure mix of primaries. There is some blue in yellow, blue/red in white, red/white in green, etc. I wonder if that is some kind of color bleed or deliberate. This helps explain why uniformity errors are more visible in certain colors. Also why it's so hard to calibrate these things - similar to the difficulty with Sharp's Quatron panels.
> 
> So given this low fill factor, they must be driving those red and blue pixels like crazy to get any decent brightness since most of the pixel is black. Seems very inefficient and might contribute to higher power requirements and ABL. Or maybe early wear/burn-in on those colors.


Well now I know why I can see SDE from about 12 feet away on LG 1080p OLEDs and almost none on 1080p LCDs even from half that distance.


----------



## rogo

Wizziwig said:


> Saw this posted on another forum. Thanks Patrik!
> 
> Translated labels:
> 100% Red/ 100% Green / 100% Blue / 100% White
> Cyan/Magenta/Yellow/30% White
> 
> It is a rather shocking image of the flat LG EA8800. On some colors like red and blue, you have what amounts to ~13% pixel fill ratio. That is horrendous by any standard and explains why so many users complain of screen-door effect. I don't think even my ancient 720p LCD projector was this bad. Even if they slightly improve this on the 4K panel, that is still very poor. Maybe they need an 8K OLED after all.
> 
> It's also interesting that many colors are not a pure mix of primaries. There is some blue in yellow, blue/red in white, red/white in green, etc. I wonder if that is some kind of color bleed or deliberate. This helps explain why uniformity errors are more visible in certain colors. Also why it's so hard to calibrate these things - similar to the difficulty with Sharp's Quatron panels.
> 
> So given this low fill factor, they must be driving those red and blue pixels like crazy to get any decent brightness since most of the pixel is black. Seems very inefficient and might contribute to higher power requirements and ABL. Or maybe early wear/burn-in on those colors.


Several of those images are identical to what you'd see on any LCD, save for perhaps a slightly greater inter-pixel vertical and the slightly greater inter-pixel horizontal when the "white" isn't active.

I can easily manage a ~25% fill factor on my LCD using your metric. I don't get why you think this is so different from LCDs. The gaps are slightly unusual; the use of sub pixels isn't even slightly unusual.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG pushes 4K OLED at IFA, demos concept 8K TV*

Source: http://www.cnet.com/news/lg-pushes-4k-oled-at-ifa-demos-8k-tv-concept/



> BERLIN -- There are plenty of 4K TVs around, and there are a fair few OLED TVs too. But LG says there aren't many 4K TVs that are OLED as well, and the company is right in the middle of unleashing a bunch of them. Given the wow factor OLED offers and the extra quality and bragging rights you get from 4K, LG reckons it's got one over the competition.
> 
> This belief in 4K OLED is reflected at LG's stand at the IFA show in Berlin. For the past few years, 3D has featured heavily on the company's stand, but this year, the focus is all on 4K OLED TVs. 3D is still present, but it's definitely been relegated to the subs bench.
> 
> Although 4K is LG's main focus this year, it's looking much further ahead too, using IFA to show off its 8K [LCD] TV for the first time. A 98-inch 8K TV is being shown behind closed doors, more to show off the company's technology than as something you're going to be able to buy soon.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG’s 65-inch 4K OLED TV will be first to hit the U.S. market, priced at $7,000*

Source: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/lg-prices-65-inch-curved-4k-oled-tv/#!bP4SSN



> t IFA 2014 today, LG confirmed with Digital Trends that its 65-inch curved 4K OLED television (model: 65EC9700) could start appearing on US store shelves as early as the end of this month, priced at $7,000. That makes LG’s Ultra High Definition OLED television the first to hit the consumer market, and it won’t be the last, either.
> 
> Later this year, we can expect to see LG’s 77-inch curved 4K OLED — which won Digital Trends’ Best of CES 2014 award — made available for purchase as well. That television, which was originally referred to as the 77EC9800, will now be released as the 77EG9700. Exact pricing has not yet been disclosed for the US market, but is rumored to be around $20,000.
> 
> LG is also toying around with a 55-inch curved 4K OLED TV, which it showed for the first time here at IFA 2014. In our video, you can see that it is one of the thinnest televisions ever made. Even LG, though, is questioning how well a 55-inch Ultra HD television may be received, considering many believe the benefits of the heightened resolution are unnoticeable at the smaller size.


----------



## Rich Peterson

This is from the Emirates, but I'm assuming it also applies to the US market:

*For Sony, OLED TV is no priority for now*

Souce: http://www.emirates247.com/business/for-sony-oled-tv-is-no-priority-for-now-2014-09-05-1.561857



> When specifically asked about Sony launching an OLED TV in the 55, 65 and higher range models he said, “Currently out focus is on advancing 4K and LED technology. However we eill continue working on developing other technology. But there are no plans for now to release an OLED or a curved YV,” he said.


----------



## tgm1024

Stereodude said:


> No, it's not. It's a version of PAM, Pulse Amplitude Modulation.


The amplitudes were entirely static in _every _waveform in that document he posted. It was the pulse _widths_ that were altered. The subfield drive mechanism he's talking about relies upon that.


----------



## tom669

tgm1024 said:


> The amplitudes were entirely static in _every _waveform in that document he posted. It was the pulse _widths_ that were altered. The subfield drive mechanism he's talking about relies upon that.


The pulse width directly determines brightness, though. The pulses are 500us long at the greatest, far too fast for the human eye to perceive.

It's not really PAM or PWM or PCM. It's an additive and accumulative code, with dithering for low-APL detail. The closest it is sort of like a time-multiplexed version of PCM, or like the old "1-bit DAC" designs that were big about 10 years ago (Delta-Sigma type DACs) but with 14/28 levels instead of just 1.

Plasma displays would not work at all if they had 10 fixed levels... you would just be staring at noise all the time.


----------



## tgm1024

tom669 said:


> The pulse width directly determines brightness, though.


Of course.




> The pulses are 500us long at the greatest, far too fast for the human eye to perceive.


Sure. Doesn't change that they are pulse determined.




> It's not really PAM or PWM or PCM. It's an additive and accumulative code, with dithering for low-APL detail. The closest it is sort of like a time-multiplexed version of PCM, or like the old "1-bit DAC" designs that were big about 10 years ago (Delta-Sigma type DACs) but with 14/28 levels instead of just 1.
> 
> Plasma displays would not work at all if they had 10 fixed levels... you would just be staring at noise all the time.


How you gang up the information is up to the implementation. The term for PWM comes from the fact that any _individual cell_ cannot achieve partial excitation at point in time. You _can_ however, tightly define its duration.

Digital to Analog circuitry and the like are an example I almost brought up yesterday. Each line is a power of 2 greater than the line next to it, and each line is 100% gated by their corresponding bit in the source field. They're all added together. But the simile falls short; it's not like the plasma excitation at the lowest level.

BTW, there's a question I have about plasma material, related, that you've jogged my memory on. A white paper I remember at one point: there was this idea that a plasma cell could have several plasma types in it, basically multiply doped to have different excitation rates, yet the plasma material remained all mixed together. Such a device would have allowed two or four output levels (_again,_ _at any specific point in the time domain). _That ever materialize?


----------



## tom669

tgm1024 said:


> BTW, there's a question I have about plasma material, related, that you've jogged my memory on. A white paper I remember at one point: there was this idea that a plasma cell could have several plasma types in it, basically multiply doped to have different excitation rates, yet the plasma material remained all mixed together. Such a device would have allowed two or four output levels (_again,_ _at any specific point in the time domain). _That ever materialize?



In a way but completely differently. Pioneer use spatial discharge on the 9G and I think 8G Kuros to achieve good low APL detail (no point having low black level if the detail near black is horribly dithered.) The spatial discharge is considerably lower light output. The spatial discharge in 1SF and 2SF is represented by the far-spaced pulses in the X-waveform seen just after reset. Interestingly, when I was tweaking the voltages of my Kuro down to lower the black level, I found that lowering YKNOFSA4 let me see this spatial discharge only - it's kind of like a varying black level but for the low detail - with no dithering at all - and of course follows the content, rather than it just being the whole panel.

Panasonic had some technology that allowed them to achieve 1/2 luminance in a single subfield - this was done by using a reset field (which determines panel MLL) selectively to apply low APL detail. They only used 1 subfield, unlike Pioneer, so needed to use dithering to make up the rest of the detail. I'm not sure if this was used in the VT60. (Incidentally, the Panasonic Focus Field Drive is complete marketing bullcrap; it's just a different name for 600Hz. There's no difference between it and conventional subfield drive, with the possible exception of having 12 or 14 subfields instead of 10 - but that would just be 720/840Hz drive.)


----------



## Wizziwig

rogo said:


> Several of those images are identical to what you'd see on any LCD, save for perhaps a slightly greater inter-pixel vertical and the slightly greater inter-pixel horizontal when the "white" isn't active.
> 
> I can easily manage a ~25% fill factor on my LCD using your metric. I don't get why you think this is so different from LCDs. The gaps are slightly unusual; the use of sub pixels isn't even slightly unusual.


So I picked a random 55" 1080p LCD - a Sony w950b. This LCD also features passive 3D just to put them both on a level playing field. Attached is the pixel layout I found here:
https://www.rtings.com/reviews/tv/lcd-led/sony/w950b

If you look at that image in an editor, you will see that for white, you have ~96 % coverage or about 32% per color sub-pixel.

You don't see a difference between 32% filled by red and 13% filled by red?

Looking at this OLED in the store, the aliasing on text, lines, and color edges is hard to miss. Due to the way the store was setup, I wasn't able to move far enough away to hide the issue. My guess is that it's beyond 10 feet. When I saw the LG for the very first time, I had assumed the set had the worst upscaling I had ever seen. It didn't occur to me until later that it was actually aliasing from the pixel structure.

I also recall an EA8800 owner on this forum being forced to sell the set immediately upon receipt because he found the SDE unbearable.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Of course.
> 
> 
> BTW, there's a question I have about plasma material, related, that you've jogged my memory on. A white paper I remember at one point: there was this idea that a plasma cell could have several plasma types in it, basically multiply doped to have different excitation rates, yet the plasma material remained all mixed together. Such a device would have allowed two or four output levels (_again,_ _at any specific point in the time domain). _That ever materialize?


_*Please note that I've simplified the sh!t out of ionization here*_


It doesn't make any sense to go through all that trouble seeing how you can just adjust IE (ionization levels) thus regulating brightness output of ionized gases (plasma). I don't know nothing about how plasma is driven beyond basics, but I know for sure that "ionization level" is proportional to current ,in other words, the higher amperage is the higher brightness output is and vise versa. By the way, this is how OLED works (by changing the ionization levels of emitters you can regulate the brightness output)


----------



## tom669

stas3098 said:


> It doesn't make any sense to go through all that trouble seeing how you can just adjust IE (ionization levels) thus regulating brightness output of ionized gases (plasma). I don't know nothing about how plasma is driven beyond basics, but I know for sure that "ionization level" is proportional to current ,in other words, the higher amperage is the higher brightness output is. By the way, this is how OLED works (by changing the ionization levels of emitters you can regulate the brightness output)


Conventional PDP has one sustain voltage - that's what makes most of the light - and reset voltages which produce MLL. Those are the only two levels available. Kuro/Panny plasmas have the initial additional levels created by different energisation voltages.


----------



## rogo

Wizziwig said:


> So I picked a random 55" 1080p LCD - a Sony w950b. This LCD also features passive 3D just to put them both on a level playing field. You don't see a difference between 32% filled by red and 13% filled by red?


I didn't say there was no difference at all... but your math is absurd. The LCD shows gaps between the r-g-b horizontally and a vertical gap. At most your red pixel is in the upper 20s, it's not 32%. In the magenta picture of the LG, you can see the horizontal sub-pixels basically touch there, like they do on the Sony LCD. So your "red only" would be losing a bit horizontally and a bit vertically... Maybe it's 20%? 

The difference is not 13% vs. 32% at all; that math is silly.

Quite frankly, people have somehow survived LCDs producing pixels of "28% fill" without bitching and moaning. That the LG has too much space vertically is something we have discussed in many threads. We are all disappointed by it. We'd like to see it reduced on the 4K models. We'll see if it is.


----------



## catonic

rogo said:


> Quite frankly, people have somehow survived LCDs producing pixels of "28% fill" without bitching and moaning. .


Probably because with so many other things to complain about no one has got around to that particular issue yet.


----------



## gmarceau

Any thoughts as to whether it'll be 4k OLED only from here on out? With the 55" 4k panel at IFA and a more more affordable 2k model just released that should go into much of 2015, once LG becomes more efficient in OLED, I could see them sticking with $3500 on a 55" 4k set and staying around that flagship price point. The same would go for the 65" and 77"+ sets. 

The price cuts have been necessary to drive sales and amazing for consumers, but I don't think we're going to see budget OLED sets ($1k and under) any time soon. Please let me be wrong


----------



## SiGGy

gmarceau said:


> The price cuts have been necessary to drive sales and amazing for consumers, but I don't think we're going to see budget OLED sets ($1k and under) any time soon. Please let me be wrong


Chinese seem to copy everything; it's only a matter of time... Might be awhile though; since it seems there are tech issues with both LG & Saumsung... I can't imagine Chinese OLED being better quality to start...


----------



## rogo

gmarceau said:


> Any thoughts as to whether it'll be 4k OLED only from here on out? With the 55" 4k panel at IFA and a more more affordable 2k model just released that should go into much of 2015, once LG becomes more efficient in OLED, I could see them sticking with $3500 on a 55" 4k set and staying around that flagship price point. The same would go for the 65" and 77"+ sets.
> 
> The price cuts have been necessary to drive sales and amazing for consumers, but I don't think we're going to see budget OLED sets ($1k and under) any time soon. Please let me be wrong


The one wildcard, I think, might be fab utilization. LG can make 1+ million TVs (annualized) once the new capacity is all online. If they _can't_ sell that many as premiums, maybe they do a 1080p set and push the pricing down to $1500?

If they stick with $3500 as the lowest price, they cannot possibly sell 1+ million in a year, let alone 10x that.


----------



## irkuck

gmarceau said:


> The price cuts have been necessary to drive sales and amazing for consumers, but I don't think we're going to see budget OLED sets ($1k and under) any time soon. Please let me be wrong


There is no reason for OLED to be moving to low-end too soon. Positioning at high-end is the best strategy right now. Lowering the prices and moving down the ladder may start when OLED eats LCD at the high-end. 



SiGGy said:


> Chinese seem to copy everything; it's only a matter of time... Might be awhile though; since it seems there are tech issues with both LG & Saumsung... I can't imagine Chinese OLED being better quality to start...


If you mean the Chinese are copying patented technologies currently and selling products in world markets it is plain wrong. Talk about the chinese OLED quality is premature at the moment since even Samsung has huge problems with this technology.



rogo said:


> The one wildcard, I think, might be fab utilization. LG can make 1+ million TVs (annualized) once the new capacity is all online. If they _can't_ sell that many as premiums, maybe they do a 1080p set and push the pricing down to $1500?If they stick with $3500 as the lowest price, they cannot possibly sell 1+ million in a year, let alone 10x that.


Obviously the best strategy is to sell as many OLEDs as possible at high-end for premium price using argument it is much better than LCD. Once grabbing significant part of the high-end market one can move downstream. LG seems to have now the technology and manufacturing capability to start such process. 

The key question for now is: How much premium for OLED display over LCD is willing to pay significant part of the segment of high-end buyers? For example $6-7K for a 65" 4K OLED looks acceptable for this segment.


----------



## andy sullivan

Acceptable to who? Not me.


----------



## Jason626

6-7k is far to much for a 65" even for uhd tv to remain viable for long. History has already bore this out in the high end tv segment.


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> The one wildcard, I think, might be fab utilization. LG can make 1+ million TVs (annualized) once the new capacity is all online. If they _can't_ sell that many as premiums, maybe they do a 1080p set and push the pricing down to $1500?
> 
> If they stick with $3500 as the lowest price, they cannot possibly sell 1+ million in a year, let alone 10x that.


I'm pretty sure LGD will be shipping 55 inchers under 2 grand by the end of 2015 in a bid to corner the market share in order to achieve sustainability provided their manufacturing costs are under 2 grand for those. I don't think they can ,at present, afford any mark-up to the asking price if they really want OLED to succeed in the long run. They might even have to operate at deficit (I'm certain that they operate at a loss and the good question is how long can they operate at a loss) while they seek to achieve economies of scale.


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> There is no reason for OLED to be moving to low-end too soon. Positioning at high-end is the best strategy right now. Lowering the prices and moving down the ladder may start when OLED eats LCD at the high-end.


That would be true if the maintaining a high-end market were something any manufacturer was interested in financially. I don't think that's true at all.

It might also be true if there were some magic dust around the term OLED to the buying public. There isn't. It's around AVSers to be sure, but the public at large? They have neither the interest in what it means, nor a clue as to how it's different from "LED". And for $$: They've got Vizio thinking already engrained. It's a fact of life now. Big TVs _cannot_ cost an arm and a leg.

And what defines an arm and a leg?

(............wait for it............)



irkuck said:


> For example $6-7K for a 65" 4K OLED looks acceptable for this segment.


^^^That does.


----------



## wco81

If you get at least 10 years out of a $6-7k TV, that would be acceptable.

But uncertainties about burn in and the decay of different colors make that a dicey proposition.


----------



## irkuck

andy sullivan said:


> Acceptable to who? Not me.





Jason626 said:


> 6-7k is far to much for a 65" even for uhd tv to remain viable for long. History has already bore this out in the high end tv segment.





wco81 said:


> If you get at least 10 years out of a $6-7k TV, that would be acceptable. But uncertainties about burn in and the decay of different colors make that a dicey proposition.


Note that in the original message the talk was about _part of the segment of high-end buyers_. You guys can not even imagine such segment exists.



tgm1024 said:


> That would be true if the maintaining a high-end market were something any manufacturer was interested in financially. I don't think that's true at all.


What, what??? Every manufacturer is dreaming to be in the high-end since this is were the money is, high-end premium. Below high-end it is very hard to squeeze any profit.



tgm1024 said:


> It might also be true if there were some magic dust around the term OLED to the buying public. There isn't. It's around AVSers to be sure, but the public at large? They have neither the interest in what it means, nor a clue as to how it's different from "LED". And for $$: They've got Vizio thinking already engrained. It's a fact of life now. Big TVs _cannot_ cost an arm and a leg.


This why we are taking about high-end segment, OLED is not for general public yet since general public is focused on price. OLED had until now a problem due to the size of sets (55") being too small for high-end and obviously 4K is now a must there. But with the appearence of the [email protected] OLED and 77" showing up (at price which is too high) OLED has good chance for ruling the high-end.


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> What, what??? Every manufacturer is dreaming to be in the high-end since this is were the money is, high-end premium. Below high-end it is very hard to squeeze any profit.


I don't think any company these days will push enough $6-7K 65"ers to matter much at all on the balance sheet.



> This why we are taking about high-end segment, OLED is not for general public yet since general public is focused on price. OLED had until now a problem due to the size of sets (55") being too small for high-end and obviously 4K is now a must there. But with the appearence of the [email protected] OLED and 77" showing up (at price which is too high) OLED has good chance for ruling the high-end.


IMO, this is an AVS myopic view. You're talking about the expensive segment as if the business-as-usual days were rosy for manufacturers over the last few years. It wasn't. I don't have the numbers handy, but I remember rogo saying something about 15 out of 16 quarters were a loss from Sony. Expensive TVs are the means to a bad end, not something to strive for, especially when the buying public _couldn't yet give two @#$%s _about OLED quality. I really think that for the average person, the cheap LCD will win over that every time.


----------



## andy sullivan

If handled properly OLED has a good chance, no, excellent chance to become the only technology available by 2020. If as many manufacturing experts say, that OLED will become less expensive to produce than LCD's, why would any company continue to build LCD's?


----------



## tgm1024

andy sullivan said:


> If handled properly OLED has a good chance, no, excellent chance to become the only technology available by 2020. If as many manufacturing experts say, that OLED will become less expensive to produce than LCD's, why would any company continue to build LCD's?


Sure. But it's still all about the price, and all the profit margin in the world on expensive TVs won't matter if you sell only a few of them.


----------



## andy sullivan

tgm1024 said:


> Sure. But it's still all about the price, and all the profit margin in the world on expensive TVs won't matter if you sell only a few of them.


Absolutely 100% correct about the price, and by saying all OLED by 2020 I'm not talking about selling a few expensive TV's. I tend to agree that OLED will become cheaper to build than LCD by 2020, likely due to advances in the printing technology. If it's cheaper to build an entry level 32" OLED (probably 4K) then there will be no incentive for any manufacture continue to market LCD's of any size. 2020 is a long way off and OLED is just beginning to gather momentum. I don't think the buying public in mass will go OLED because of superior PQ but because it will be the only available technology.


----------



## fafrd

andy sullivan said:


> If handled properly OLED has a good chance, no, excellent chance to become the only technology available by 2020. * If as many manufacturing experts say, that OLED will become less expensive to produce than LCD's, why would any company continue to build LCD's?*


Because there is a massive up-front investment required in the form of capital and manufacturing capacity and those investments will not be made until the payoff is certain.

LG has chosen to dip their toe in the water with such an investment ($650M) while Samsung has decided they could invest far, far less in curving their LED/LCD TVs and capture some or all of the same return at much lower risk.

It looks as though Samsung is going to make money over the next 15 months on curved LED/LCD TVs and it looks far less certain that LG is going to avoid massive losses on their OLED TV initiative over the same time period.

Very sad, but also very true.


----------



## tgm1024

^^^Anyone have any ideas on when the next Sammy OLED TV announcement will show up?


----------



## andy sullivan

fafrd said:


> Because there is a massive up-front investment required in the form of capital and manufacturing capacity and those investments will not be made until the payoff is certain.
> 
> LG has chosen to dip their toe in the water with such an investment ($650M) while Samsung has decided they could invest far, far less in curving their LED/LCD TVs and capture some or all of the same return at much lower risk.
> 
> It looks as though Samsung is going to make money over the next 15 months on curved LED/LCD TVs and it looks far less certain that LG is going to avoid massive losses on their OLED TV initiative over the same time period.
> 
> Very sad, but also very true.


LG has also announced they will dip two toes into the 4K LCD market. When using 2020 as the OLED point of domination From both a price standpoint and market standpoint I am accepting the addition of at least one Chinese manufacture if not two. Also panel sales to perhaps Sony, Panasonic and maybe but not likely Samsung. It all depends on low cost manufacturing and, well, nothing. Just manufacturing cost.


----------



## fafrd

andy sullivan said:


> LG has also announced they will dip two toes into the 4K LCD market. When using 2020 as the OLED point of domination From both a price standpoint and market standpoint I am accepting the addition of at least one Chinese manufacture if not two. Also panel sales to perhaps Sony, Panasonic and maybe but not likely Samsung. It all depends on low cost manufacturing and, well, nothing. Just manufacturing cost.



Panel sales to the two Chinese TV manufacturers already identified as well as Sony and Panasonic can be taken as a given (and are a positive development), but don't necessarily move the needle. As you point out, it all comes down to the price LGD sells OLED panels at relative to the price of LED/LCD panels (so yes, manufacturing cost).


Another OLED manufacturing plant coming online into the marketplace would be a significant development (whether by LGD or another panel manufacturer) but the challenge through 2015 is for LGD to saturate the 8000 sheet capacity they have already installed and then bring M2 up to the full 26000 sheet capacity it has been designed for...


----------



## tgm1024

andy sullivan said:


> LG has also announced they will dip two toes into the 4K LCD market. When using 2020 as the OLED point of domination From both a price standpoint and market standpoint I am accepting the addition of at least one Chinese manufacture if not two. Also panel sales to perhaps Sony, Panasonic and maybe but not likely Samsung. It all depends on low cost manufacturing and, well, nothing. Just manufacturing cost.


I wonder how the 4K LCD pricing vs. 4K OLED pricing strategy will play itself out at LG.....


----------



## andy sullivan

fafrd said:


> Panel sales to the two Chinese TV manufacturers already identified as well as Sony and Panasonic can be taken as a given (and are a positive development), but don't necessarily move the needle. As you point out, it all comes down to the price LGD sells OLED panels at relative to the price of LED/LCD panels (so yes, manufacturing cost).
> 
> 
> Another OLED manufacturing plant coming online into the marketplace would be a significant development (whether by LGD or another panel manufacturer) but the challenge through 2015 is for LGD to saturate the 8000 sheet capacity they have already installed and then bring M2 up to the full 26000 sheet capacity it has been designed for...


I'm sure there are some folks at Vizio salivating at the prospects how they can market OLED in a matter similar to how they market LCD. Depending on Vizio's dedication to OLED they could help move that needle. 2016-2017 could see something special in television both from the display standpoint but also the broadcasting standpoint.


----------



## Wizziwig

rogo said:


> I didn't say there was no difference at all... but your math is absurd. The LCD shows gaps between the r-g-b horizontally and a vertical gap. At most your red pixel is in the upper 20s, it's not 32%. In the magenta picture of the LG, you can see the horizontal sub-pixels basically touch there, like they do on the Sony LCD. So your "red only" would be losing a bit horizontally and a bit vertically... Maybe it's 20%?
> 
> The difference is not 13% vs. 32% at all; that math is silly.
> 
> Quite frankly, people have somehow survived LCDs producing pixels of "28% fill" without bitching and moaning. That the LG has too much space vertically is something we have discussed in many threads. We are all disappointed by it. We'd like to see it reduced on the 4K models. We'll see if it is.


Look, just load those images into an editor and have it count the black pixels. I'm not making these numbers up. Even with some margin for error, the LCD is well about 30% fill per color. The LG is nowhere near that value for certain colors. It is not just a problem with the vertical gaps. The white subpixel only adds to the problem when it's not utilized.

I will admit that in typical video content, this issue is probably not a problem for the majority of viewers. Most colors do not utilize just one subpixel. The TV also tends to light up neighboring subpixels to create a sort of "anti-aliasing" effect which reduces it further.

It's just sad to me that a traditional subpixel structure could not be mass produced. We've got WRGB from LG and mostly pentile variations from Samsung.


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> I wonder how the 4K LCD pricing vs. 4K OLED pricing strategy will play itself out at LG.....


 
It's funny, LG has had a strange strategy as far as LED/LCD lineup and pricing this year.

At 75-80", they have the 79UB9800 which can be found for under $5000 (so pretty competitive).

At 65", they have the 65UB9800 which can be found bur $3800, making it one of the most expensive 65" LED/LCDs this season (compared to the UN65HU9000 Samsung flagship that can be found for under $3000, for example).

But then they also have the 65UB9500 which can be found for close to $2300 (so quite competitive) and this TV appears to be pretty much identical to the 65UB9800 without the 'Harmon Kardon' premium sound system. (Also note that this TV is priced pretty close to the 65" Vizio P Series)

And then at 55", they have the 55UB9500 which can be found for under $1650 and is 4K.


The most expensive 65" TVs in the market today are the Sony X950B, Panasonic AX800 (and probably also AX900 once it is priced), and then the LG 65UB9800 - seems like LG may be struggling to decide their 65" pricing strategy across the entire produce line including the 65EC9700 once it is introduced...


----------



## andy sullivan

tgm1024 said:


> I wonder how the 4K LCD pricing vs. 4K OLED pricing strategy will play itself out at LG.....


That will be very interesting for sure. Right now the ROI is mostly a known quantity for LCD, even 4K. But LG is pretty much sitting in the catbird seat with OLED. Kind of a shakey unstable catbird seat but still better than any other seat I guess. Until they get the mfg cost of OLED down close to LCD they will probably push the premium handle for OLED. As long as they are the lone wolf and making a profit LG can dictate the market for both OLED and to a lesser degree LCD. By mid 2017 you may see a choice of 65" Samsung LCD 4K Quanton Dot FALD or a 65" LG fifth generation 4K OLED for the same price. Say $2800. Which would you choose if all features were equal?


----------



## Rf13

andy sullivan said:


> That will be very interesting for sure. Right now the ROI is mostly a known quantity for LCD, even 4K. But LG is pretty much sitting in the catbird seat with OLED. Kind of a shakey unstable catbird seat but still better than any other seat I guess. Until they get the mfg cost of OLED down close to LCD they will probably push the premium handle for OLED. As long as they are the lone wolf and making a profit LG can dictate the market for both OLED and to a lesser degree LCD. By mid 2017 you may see a choice of 65" Samsung LCD 4K Quanton Dot FALD or a 65" LG fifth generation 4K OLED for the same price. Say $2800. Which would you choose if all features were equal?


Then we have the Chinese companies that are trying to work they're way up. Looks like they may have beat samsung to the punch with QD. Still I don't see them beating oled the difference is very clear.

http://televisions.reviewed.com/features/hands-on-with-hisenses-unique-uled-tvs


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> There is no reason for OLED to be moving to low-end too soon. Positioning at high-end is the best strategy right now. Lowering the prices and moving down the ladder may start when OLED eats LCD at the high-end.


This isn't Apple and iPhones. The segment you think exists is vanishingly small. And will lead to 10-30% fab utilization. 

The key question for now is: How much premium for OLED display over LCD is willing to pay significant part of the segment of high-end buyers? For example $6-7K for a 65" 4K OLED looks acceptable for this segment.[/QUOTE]

LOL.



andy sullivan said:


> Acceptable to who? Not me.


Right.



Jason626 said:


> 6-7k is far to much for a 65" even for uhd tv to remain viable for long. History has already bore this out in the high end tv segment.


Actually, what we know is _no product has succeeded at that price point at all_ in years. Not even niche products. Do those niche products make a few $$$ for Sony from the naive or the monied crowd? Maybe. But that's not a business.



stas3098 said:


> I'm pretty sure LGD will be shipping 55 inchers under 2 grand by the end of 2015 in a bid to corner the market share in order to achieve sustainability provided their manufacturing costs are under 2 grand for those. I don't think they can ,at present, afford any mark-up to the asking price if they really want OLED to succeed in the long run. They might even have to operate at deficit (I'm certain that they operate at a loss and the good question is how long can they operate at a loss) while they seek to achieve economies of scale.


Sounds plausible.



tgm1024 said:


> That would be true if the maintaining a high-end market were something any manufacturer was interested in financially. I don't think that's true at all.
> 
> It might also be true if there were some magic dust around the term OLED to the buying public. There isn't. It's around AVSers to be sure, but the public at large? They have neither the interest in what it means, nor a clue as to how it's different from "LED". And for $$: They've got Vizio thinking already engrained. It's a fact of life now. Big TVs _cannot_ cost an arm and a leg.


I don't think there is a marker there. I don't think it's about desire of mfrs., but about reality.




wco81 said:


> If you get at least 10 years out of a $6-7k TV, that would be acceptable.
> 
> But uncertainties about burn in and the decay of different colors make that a dicey proposition.


Honestly, people wouldn't pay that for a 10-year TV. You and I might, but people don't buy high for a long-term payback. If they did, hybrids and EVs would be dominating the market. 



irkuck said:


> Note that in the original message the talk was about _part of the segment of high-end buyers_. You guys can not even imagine such segment exists.


It doesn't.


> What, what??? Every manufacturer is dreaming to be in the high-end since this is were the money is, high-end premium. Below high-end it is very hard to squeeze any profit.


You're confusing the $1500-2500 LCD market -- which exists, albeit at still small qtys. -- with a $6500 market, which on math alone could not sustain even a company like Loewe.



tgm1024 said:


> I don't think any company these days will push enough $6-7K 65"ers to matter much at all on the balance sheet.


If it comprised 1% of the world's TVs (which it clearly doesn't), and given what dealers get on product like that, you could possibly generation about $5B in gross margin overall on that kind of thing (~2M x ~$2500). If it comprises .1% of the world market, which is much more likely, you can divide by 10.


> IMO, this is an AVS myopic view. You're talking about the expensive segment as if the business-as-usual days were rosy for manufacturers over the last few years. It wasn't. I don't have the numbers handy, but I remember rogo saying something about 15 out of 16 quarters were a loss from Sony. Expensive TVs are the means to a bad end, not something to strive for, especially when the buying public _couldn't yet give two @#$%s _about OLED quality. I really think that for the average person, the cheap LCD will win over that every time.


Look at what Vizio is doing to U.S. market share.



Wizziwig said:


> Look, just load those images into an editor and have it count the black pixels. I'm not making these numbers up. Even with some margin for error, the LCD is well about 30% fill per color. The LG is nowhere near that value for certain colors. It is not just a problem with the vertical gaps. The white subpixel only adds to the problem when it's not utilized.
> 
> I will admit that in typical video content, this issue is probably not a problem for the majority of viewers. Most colors do not utilize just one subpixel. The TV also tends to light up neighboring subpixels to create a sort of "anti-aliasing" effect which reduces it further.
> 
> It's just sad to me that a traditional subpixel structure could not be mass produced. We've got WRGB from LG and mostly pentile variations from Samsung.


So, again, it's "about 30%" where by eye alone, I can tell you it's less than 30%.

The LG has 4 sub-pixels and some lost vertical space. Assume 20% is lost vertical space. I get to 18-19% for a single sub-pixel color. 18% and 28% are different. They are not otherworldly different.


----------



## catonic

Whilst I own a projector and not a TV, the 65" and 77" 4k OLED's from LG seem to me to have the potential to make a huge improvement in the audio/visual world and be something really special. 
Hopefully LG will be able to pull off the technical and economic challenges facing them and make a success of their OLED division.
Good on them for trying anyway.


----------



## irkuck

To all of you naysayers to my prophecies look at reality. LG is positioning OLED at a very high-end with 4K @65" and 77", no 55" anymore. This segment is small but allows for collecting premium, 65" is minimum size high-end buyers take. Now LG has virtual monopoly in OLED, they can grab high-end and then move down the ladder.


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> To all of you naysayers to my prophecies look at reality. LG is positioning OLED at a very high-end with 4K @65" and 77", no 55" anymore. This segment is small but allows for collecting premium, 65" is minimum size high-end buyers take. Now LG has virtual monopoly in OLED, they can grab high-end and then move down the ladder.


Aren't the introductory prices of new technologies placed necessarily high because of high manufacturing cost? I don't see anything of strategic design here. At least not the way you're implying.


----------



## dsinger

^ LG would also be trying to recapture R&D costs. Not small in this case.


----------



## tgm1024

dsinger said:


> ^ LG would also be trying to recapture R&D costs. Not small in this case.


Yep. I pretty much include that in the manufacturing costs of new things though. I always remember this line about the pharmaceutical industry: "The _second_ pill costs 25 cents to make. The first one cost 400 million dollars."


----------



## Rudy1

*FROM IFA: A WORTHY COMPETITOR TO OLED?*

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140903005179/en/OLED-Color-13-Price-QD-Vision%E2%80%99s-Quantum#.VA3PP6MXMrp

http://www.computerworld.com/articl...to-sell-for-one-third-the-price-of-oleds.html


----------



## mo949

I thought with QD tech that it came with incredibly bad black levels? If so, comparing it to an OLED for color is like saying that a honda civic shares the same light bulbs as a Bentley. (sorry for yet another terrible car analogy, but it seems to be the culture here)


----------



## irkuck

rudy1 said:


> *from ifa: A worthy competitor to oled?*


_*from experience: Not worthy talking before it is productized*_.


----------



## Rf13

irkuck said:


> _*from experience: Not worthy talking before it is productized*_.


Hisense's Uled or version of QD displays look impressive, but still the OLED's contrast is hard to compete with although it got pretty close.


----------



## andy sullivan

Even though I am extremely bullish on the future of OLED, and I've said it will be the only technology available in 2020. I will look to the several people on this forum who's technical knowledge and opinion seems to be impeccable. When these people say that the longevity issue is settled and motion is very very good I will consider OLED to be the go to format for PQ and price. Hopefully by 2018 or 2019.


----------



## 8mile13

Rf13 said:


> Hisense's Uled or version of QD displays look impressive, but still the OLED's contrast is hard to compete with although it got pretty close.


ULED means Ultra LED (LCd). It is just a chinese LCd presented as some kind of super LCd (which it is not). I bet it is not even among the best 2014 LEDs.


----------



## Rf13

8mile13 said:


> ULED means Ultra LED (LCd). It is just a chinese LCd presented as some kind of super LCd (which it is not). I bet it is not even among the best 2014 LEDs.


Yes I'm aware it's an LCD, another member posted a thread about it with an article. I believe I posted the article here as well. If you see the demos I believe you would be quite surprised at the quality. Still nothing trumps oleds contrast but they can get close. This could mean a problem for oled.


----------



## rogo

irkuck, you're claims don't line up here.

If they made zero 55-inch displays, fine.

They are literally using the 55-inch to drive volumes which is how they will bring down costs on the others.

The idea that selling tiny numbers of 65s and 77s is some "strategy" to capture value and then move downmarket isn't true. There is barely any value at all to capture up there. And fab utilization would be in the low double digits at best, which is hardly a recipe for perfecting manufacturing.


----------



## greenland

If Panasonic decides to market the 65inch 4K OLED that they showed at IFA 2014, that would help to increase global OLED sales numbers, and might help to bring down the price of them to the $3k range by this time next year. That is the price point that I am waiting for, in order to purchase a 65inch 4K OLED set.


----------



## tgm1024

greenland said:


> if panasonic decides to market the 65inch 4k oled that they showed at ifa 2014, that would help to increase global oled sales numbers, and might help to bring down the price of them to the $3k range by this time next year. That is the price point that i am waiting for, in order to purchase a 65inch 4k oled set.


^^^^Imagine that!!!!!


----------



## fafrd

greenland said:


> If Panasonic decides to market the 65inch 4K OLED that they showed at IFA 2014, that would help to increase global OLED sales numbers, and might help to bring down the price of them to the $3k range by this time next year. That is the price point that I am waiting for, in order to purchase a 65inch 4K OLED set.


I believe one thing just about every member here on AVS Forum can agree on is that a 65" 4K OLED being available for $3000 would be an almost certain market-leading product.

The question is how long it will take LG to get there and whether they have the financial runway to make it.

And for what it is worth, once a 65" 4K OLED costs $3000, a 55" 1080p OLED should cost less than $1000...


----------



## tubetwister

I want to see a Panasonic and Sony OLED AFAIK at this point they will be using LGD WOLED panels I still want to see them though .


----------



## fafrd

tubetwister said:


> *I want to see a Panasonic and Sony OLED* AFAIK at this point *they will be using LGD WOLED panels I still want to see them though* .


 
And who wouldn't? 

The point is that Panasonic and Sony are not in business to give demonstrations but to sell TVs.

They are clearly exploring now, but whether they decide to enter the market with a product in 2015 or hold off until 2016 when LG has forecasted that their OLEDs will be 'here to stay' remains to be seen...


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> And who wouldn't?
> 
> The point is that Panasonic and Sony are not in business to give demonstrations but to sell TVs.


Sony seems to be trying their level best to kill themselves.


Wedge is beyond fugly. I just stared at one today and tried _very_ hard to like it to no avail.
 TVs are absurdly priced.
 Built in speakers are ridiculous looking.
 Sketchy PQ, at least for all but their top model.
 Even most of their blu-ray players are shaped like pyramids.
What's going on over there? They legalize pot in Japan too?


----------



## 8mile13

Rf13 said:


> Yes I'm aware it's an LCD, another member posted a thread about it with an article. I believe I posted the article here as well. If you see the demos I believe you would be quite surprised at the quality. Still nothing trumps oleds contrast but they can get close. This could mean a problem for oled.


Those demo's are probably manipulated by the manufacturer. Those articles are basically non-critical. It ain't gonna happen any time soon that the chinese bring a LCd on the market that outperforms a top korean/japanese LED LCd.

There is no critical review of the ULED TV. Till there is such review we basically know nothing. btw only the Sharp Elite Pro and several Plasma's come close to OLED contrast..


----------



## Rf13

8mile13 said:


> Those demo's are probably manipulated by the manufacturer. Those articles are basically non-critical. It ain't gonna happen any time soon that the chinese bring a LCd on the market that outperforms a top korean/japanese LED LCd.
> 
> There is no critical review of the ULED TV. Till there is such review we basically know nothing. btw only the Sharp Elite Pro and several Plasma's come close to OLED contrast..


The article aside what could they possible do to make the oled look worse or their set any better. There's a video of both in a dark environment, like I said you can still clearly see the oled has the advantage. Regardless of who makes it I believe it's unwise to grossly underestimate any companies potential. Besides the x950 has sony made anything outside the norm? let's be honest here Japan is asleep. While the Koreans like samsung are doing everything possible to stay relevant. LG being the exception, but it's got a lot of competition. 

The significance of all of this is if they can't make oleds they will try to get as close as possible. 

What's going to make oled stand out besides the curve, infinite contrast, and it's price? 

We're only a small percent of buyers... Most of which that aren't as critical as us.


----------



## 8mile13

Rf13 said:


> The article aside what could they possible do to make the oled look worse or their set any better. There's a video of both in a dark environment, like I said you can still clearly see the oled has the advantage. Regardless of who makes it I believe it's unwise to grossly underestimate any companies potential. Besides the x950 has sony made anything outside the norm? let's be honest here Japan is asleep. While the Koreans like samsung are doing everything possible to stay relevant. LG being the exception, but it's got a lot of competition.
> 
> The significance of all of this is if they can't make oleds they will try to get as close as possible.
> 
> What's going to make oled stand out besides the curve, infinite contrast, and it's price?
> 
> We're only a small percent of buyers... Most of which that aren't as critical as us.


From what i understand the Hisense top of the line XT900 ULED is a direct LED (without Local Dimming) with 5000:1 contrast..Tells me all i need to know


----------



## Rf13

8mile13 said:


> From what i understand the Hisense top of the line XT900 ULED is a direct LED (without Local Dimming) with 5000:1 contrast..Tells me all i need to know


So with that logic ppl could have thought the same about sony, samsung, or LG when they first started. You have to crawl before you walk.... I'm not saying they're going to automatically be a huge player just saying don't sleep on the smaller companies. There appetite for success is quite ambitious in they're infancy.


----------



## tubetwister

fafrd said:


> And who wouldn't?
> 
> The point is that Panasonic and Sony are not in business to give demonstrations but to sell TVs.
> 
> They are clearly exploring now, but whether they decide to enter the market with a product in 2015 or hold off until 2016 when LG has forecasted that their OLEDs will be 'here to stay' remains to be seen...


Maybe 2016. I don't think they are moving on 2015 OLED maybe not 2016 for all I know. I only know what I see around here and the web which ain't much a far as Sony and Panny OLED goes .


----------



## UUronl

tom669 said:


> OLED is "the perfect technology". I think manufacturers are somewhat afraid to introduce it, because it's essentially perfection.
> 
> 
> very high brightness
> very large colour gamut
> infinite contrast ratio
> energy efficient
> can do 4K and 8K
> can do both passive & active 3D
> works from almost any viewing angle
> long-life
> curvable (...)
> ultra-thin
> 
> The question is... where do you go from there? They've got to be careful not to create a product they can't compete with. Smart TV platforms were introduced, in part, to attempt to make TVs obsolete after every year. But not everyone wanted a Smart TV.
> 
> Sort of like we see Samsung introducing "quantum dot" LED TVs, it's just a marketing term to try and differentiate themselves, OLED manufacturers might be stuck in the same position, relying only on marketing rather than any substantial difference to sell next year's technology. The introduction of LED-backlit LCD TVs was a huge boon to the industry, making a lot more people jump ship from CRT. OLED will probably do the same thing to LED. Plasma TVs had a similar issue with being seen as "old technology", hence one of the reasons for their demise. (Even though it's arguable plasma display panels developed far more than LCD ever did.)
> 
> Remember how CRT was dominant for 60+ years? Yeah, they definitely DON'T want a repetition of that.


"Perfect" until they adopt Fipels. You go to Fipel next. I know that the major manufacturers are already talking with the inventor. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## rogo

Yes, some technology that hasn't been developed at all is going to matter in a business where exactly three technologies have successfully been commercialized ever. And one of those hasn't yet actually made it as a TV tech... 

Call me in a decade or so and let me know how those "fipel" displays are doing.


----------



## gmarceau

Saw another EC9300 end cap at BestBuy with no picture. This is the second time. First, I saw this in a Brooklyn location and now at their Manhattan flagship store. Come on LG! Both stores have had the tv completely removed from the Magnolia Home Theater section. A CNET review would be nice.


----------



## mr. wally

if most of us here don't own 4k oleds by
the end of 2016, I don't think it'll make it


----------



## fafrd

mr. wally said:


> if most of us here don't own 4k oleds by
> the end of 2016, I don't think it'll make it



I don't know if they have that long. If most AVS members purchasing a new TV in 2015 don't purchase an OLED, I don't think they make it.


----------



## barth2k

What's an end cap?


----------



## fafrd

barth2k said:


> What's an end cap?


 
In most stores including Best Buy, long rows full of products 'end' on either side. The products displayed on either end of those rows are called 'end caps' (they end the row with a cap, I suppose . End caps in general are supposed to be premium product exposure space (since everyone walking pas the row will those products, not only the customers walking down the length of the row). But not all end caps are created equally - an endcap on a row in the corner of the store that gets no foot traffic is much less valuable than an endcap on the central throughway through the middle of the store.

The endcap displaying the 55EC9300 at my local BestBut is directly behind the help desk / sales desk for TVs. No one is going to see that 55EC9300 without asking for it and going out of their way to walk behind the sales desk. It's non-promotion.


----------



## Wizziwig

rogo said:


> So, again, it's "about 30%" where by eye alone, I can tell you it's less than 30%.
> 
> The LG has 4 sub-pixels and some lost vertical space. Assume 20% is lost vertical space. I get to 18-19% for a single sub-pixel color. 18% and 28% are different. They are not otherworldly different.


The image quality on that WRGB pic is too poor for totally automated pixel counting. I ran it again with some manual pixel selection and got 18% for red and 25% on blue. Much closer to your approximation.  I've concluded this image is too poor to get any definitive numbers. It may also have been taken at an angle which would skew the results due to perspective.

There is a strange bleed that shows up from most colors. If you zoom in on the red pixel image, you see pixels next to red that are slightly lit up. Maybe it's just an artifact of the photo or light reflecting from the color filters. Or some kind of deliberate video processing algorithm used by LG.

This is an interesting shot from the 65" 4K OLED:
http://imgur.com/kqpmani


----------



## babyparrot

Has there been any traction on the Japanese side of the panel equation? Sony announced in their investor meeting earlier this year that they were working to form an organiztion to investigate OLED's. Part of the reason I don't own any Xperia devices is because they don't have OLED offerings.


----------



## 8mile13

Rf13 said:


> So with that logic ppl could have thought the same about sony, samsung, or LG when they first started. You have to crawl before you walk.... I'm not saying they're going to automatically be a huge player just saying don't sleep on the smaller companies. There appetite for success is quite ambitious in they're infancy.


Hisense (state owned) is number four globally, they are number one in China (1,392,472,656 people _last count). 
http://www.businessweek.com/article...o-surpass-sony-be-no-dot-3-tv-maker-worldwide


----------



## stas3098

andy sullivan said:


> If handled properly OLED has a good chance, no, excellent chance to become the only technology available by 2020. If as many manufacturing experts say, that OLED will become less expensive to produce than LCD's, why would any company continue to build LCD's?


LCD is already striking back with IPS-Neo http://www.xperiablog.net/2014/07/1...tion-of-ips-neo-displays-for-mobile-products/ and it's only a matter of time before photo-aleignment makes it to TVs. You can get up to 10,000 of contrast with PA (photo-aleignment) true 178 wide-viewing angles (no contrast drops, no glowing, no clouding, no brightness loss etc.) add to that a 2000 zone local dimming backlight and you have PQ as good as on OLEDs in the showroom (but not in really of course). It will be a close one and of that I'm sure.
LCD manufacturers will do all they can and some things they used to think they couldn't to create the illusion of LCD being superior on the showfloor. 

By the way, I'm really excited about IPS-Neo for my next monitor ever since I had burn-in on both my OLED PS VITA and my OLED 10.5 Tab S (status bar after a month of use) there's no way I'm getting an OLED monitor. It should offer over 2,000 of contrast (double the contrast my current HP dream color offers and which is huge for IPS) about 2ms response (gray to gray) time and true 178 viewing angles and be out by the end of 2015.


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> LCD is already striking back with IPS-Neo http://www.xperiablog.net/2014/07/1...tion-of-ips-neo-displays-for-mobile-products/ and it's only a matter of time before photo-aleignment makes it to TVs. You can get up to 10,000 of contrast with PA (photo-aleignment) true 178 wide-viewing angles (no contrast drops, no glowing, no clouding, no brightness loss etc.)


Where are you finding the (static) contrast numbers and the "true 178°" viewing angles (etc.)? JDI's own pages are vague: http://www.j-display.com/english/technology/jdilcd/pictureq.html


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Where are you finding the (static) contrast numbers and the "true 178°" viewing angles (etc.)? JDI's own pages are vague: http://www.j-display.com/english/technology/jdilcd/pictureq.html


I know that there are many white-pappers out there on the benefits of Photo Alignment which I admit I didn't really read. All I know comes from word of mouth. Well, people said it was possible to get 10,000 contrast with PA and when they tried to explain how I didn't really listen (they talked about quite a few alterations to VA matrix it's all I can recall). Howbeit, they say that the only way to get true 178 viewing angles and low response times from LCD is by using PA. Of course it all might just turn out to be a bunch of PR hooey I mean one can never know, right...


----------



## tgm1024

^^^Thanks for the technology heads up. But let's just tread carefully then. Too much stuff swirling around this forum that morph themselves into facts. Though I am interested in seeing where this photo alignment stuff ends up.


----------



## tubetwister

Panasonic shows 65" 4K OLED TV prototypes at 2014 IFA



> Panasonic unveiled new 65" 4K OLED TV prototypes at the IFA 2014 trade show. These are just concept models (panels in a stand), and the company's director of home entertainment business says Panasonic is waiting for IFA attendees feedback before they decide to release those commercially.
> more:
> http://www.oled-info.com/panasonic-shows-65-4k-oled-tv-prototypes



Just thought I would put this up if it hasn't been posted yet


----------



## tgm1024

tubetwister said:


> Panasonic shows 65" 4K OLED TV prototypes at 2014 IFA
> 
> Just thought I would put this up if it hasn't been posted yet


...I was hoping that Panasonic wouldn't fall for the curved thing. Oye. Were these LG or Samsung OEMS? Printed?


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> ...I was hoping that Panasonic wouldn't fall for the curved thing. Oye. Were these LG or Samsung OEMS? Printed?


They are LG Display panels. 

There have been rumors that Panasonic would use LGD's OLED panels for quite a while. I would actually be surprised if they dont come out with a set in 2015.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> They are LG Display panels.


....what I figgered. :-/ Ah well....


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> ....what I figgered. :-/ Ah well....


Personally, it is better that they are LGD panels. These have a chance to become real products in the near-term unlike another printed OLED demo. I think it will be interesting to see what kind of improvements Panasonic can make on the LG Electronics models.

I know though that you are hoping that some form of RGB OLED gets to market.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> Personally, it is better that they are LGD panels. These have a chance to become real products in the near-term unlike another printed OLED demo. I think it will be interesting to see what kind of improvements Panasonic can make on the LG Electronics models.
> 
> I know though that you are hoping that some form of RGB OLED gets to market.


I do. I want spectral emitters, not light thrown away by filters.

Actually, my biggest medium term hope is a form of independently controlled TOLED layers (now called SOLED) that has no subpixels whatsoever. But I'll hope for either a stripe or one of Samsung's weirder S-stripe or pentile arrangements in the meantime. I'm not particularly psyched about the WRGB thing, but I'm not ruling it out either.


----------



## tubetwister

tgm1024 said:


> ...I was hoping that Panasonic wouldn't fall for the curved thing. Oye. Were these LG or Samsung OEMS? Printed?


I don't know article only says they suspect they were LGD panels . Agree ,flat ones would be cool.


----------



## catonic

"The milkweed we've left growing out...... "

Weeds are good tgm1024. 

Plus a rare bit of hard data in this most speculative of AVS threads.


----------



## UUronl

Any chance of a 40" offering? More appropriate for the 1080p resolution and who wouldn't want a high(er) quality set for the bedroom or office? 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## rogo

stas3098 said:


> LCD is already striking back with IPS-Neo http://www.xperiablog.net/2014/07/1...tion-of-ips-neo-displays-for-mobile-products/ and it's only a matter of time before photo-aleignment makes it to TVs. You can get up to 10,000 of contrast with PA (photo-aleignment) true 178 wide-viewing angles (no contrast drops, no glowing, no clouding, no brightness loss etc.) add to that a 2000 zone local dimming backlight and you have PQ as good as on OLEDs in the showroom (but not in really of course). It will be a close one and of that I'm sure.
> LCD manufacturers will do all they can and some things they used to think they couldn't to create the illusion of LCD being superior on the showfloor.





tgm1024 said:


> ^^^Thanks for the technology heads up. But let's just tread carefully then. Too much stuff swirling around this forum that morph themselves into facts. Though I am interested in seeing where this photo alignment stuff ends up.


What's interesting about stuff like this is that if it proves possible to build a significantly better LCD without increasing LCD costs and that blunts OLED growth, it can seriously hurt OLED's path to getting cheaper / getting invested in by more mfrs. But that has to happen soon or else OLED will start moving down the cost curve.



slacker711 said:


> Personally, it is better that they are LGD panels. These have a chance to become real products in the near-term unlike another printed OLED demo. I think it will be interesting to see what kind of improvements Panasonic can make on the LG Electronics models.
> 
> I know though that you are hoping that some form of RGB OLED gets to market.


I tend to agree about them using LGD panels. Importantly, LGD needs volume to drive its fab. And driving its fab will push it so far ahead of everyone else, it will force a reaction.



tgm1024 said:


> I do. I want spectral emitters, not light thrown away by filters.
> 
> Actually, my biggest medium term hope is a form of independently controlled TOLED layers (now called SOLED) that has no subpixels whatsoever. But I'll hope for either a stripe or one of Samsung's weirder S-stripe or pentile arrangements in the meantime. I'm not particularly psyched about the WRGB thing, but I'm not ruling it out either.


I wonder if SOLED can't be manufactured without patterned OLED pixels, the same way WRGB is today. There is a fundamental difference in that the WRGB requires no independent control of the two layers so the transistors can "blindly" control the OLED layers on top of it to make white while the SOLED would need granular control, but it wouldn't need the red layer to be discretely patterned... It could be vapor deposited the way LG does it today... so long as there was "porting" for transistor control.

Is that even remotely possible?


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> What's interesting about stuff like this is that if it proves possible to build a significantly better LCD without increasing LCD costs and that blunts OLED growth, it can seriously hurt OLED's path to getting cheaper / getting invested in by more mfrs. But that has to happen soon or else OLED will start moving down the cost curve.
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree about them using LGD panels. Importantly, LGD needs volume to drive its fab. And driving its fab will push it so far ahead of everyone else, it will force a reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if SOLED can't be manufactured without patterned OLED pixels, the same way WRGB is today. There is a fundamental difference in that the WRGB requires no independent control of the two layers so the transistors can "blindly" control the OLED layers on top of it to make white while the SOLED would need granular control, but it wouldn't need the red layer to be discretely patterned... It could be vapor deposited the way LG does it today... so long as there was "porting" for transistor control.
> 
> Is that even remotely possible?


I would assume it'd require a crazy-accurate layering of electronics; this requires crazy accurate tolerances (including thermal-dimensional stability) and I can see it requiring Star Trek level clean rooms for any TV display size. DSE is _still_ a nuisance in LCD, I can't imagine what layering 3 grids on top of each other would do. I would love to see what xrox/slacker/ynotgoal have to say about this possibility.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> I would assume it'd require a crazy-accurate layering of electronics; this requires crazy accurate tolerances (including thermal-dimensional stability) and I can see it requiring Star Trek level clean rooms for any TV display size. DSE is _still_ a nuisance in LCD, I can't imagine what layering 3 grids on top of each other would do. I would love to see what xrox/slacker/ynotgoal have to say about this possibility.


I think it's as possible as a FALD with 8 million zones for 1 to 1 pixel per zone ratio or as possible as a plasma cell having its own independent from the panel "floating sustain voltage" or as possible as a flat CRT or put another way FED (field emission display). It's possible only not very practical at the moment.


----------



## tgm1024

^^^^Like 99% of all the hopeful wishes around here..... :-/


----------



## greenland

LG Dazzles IFA with OLED TV Lineup: 4K, Curved, Flexible

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/lg-dazzle-201409093904.htm


"If the glittering collection of OLED (organic light-emitting diode) TVs gracing LG’s showhall at the IFA 2014 consumer electronics trade show in Berlin is anything to go by, the South Korean brand is set to thrust itself into the minds of many video enthusiasts, especially those who are on the lookout for a viable replacement for Panasonic and Samsung plasmas which are no longer being made"


"LG Display has been supplying its “white OLED” panel to Chinese manufacturers and more recently Panasonic,"


----------



## 8mile13

greenland said:


> LG Dazzles IFA with OLED TV Lineup: 4K, Curved, Flexible
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/lg-dazzle-201409093904.htm
> 
> 
> "If the glittering collection of OLED (organic light-emitting diode) TVs gracing LG’s showhall at the IFA 2014 consumer electronics trade show in Berlin is anything to go by, the South Korean brand is set to thrust itself into the minds of many video enthusiasts, especially those who are on the lookout for a viable replacement for Panasonic and Samsung plasmas which are no longer being made"
> 
> 
> "LG Display has been supplying its “white OLED” panel to Chinese manufacturers and more recently Panasonic,"


Right. LG supplied three panels to Panasonic (maybe a few more). They also supplied a (few) panel (s) to the turks (Grundig). And of course the chinese.

It shows that it is very important for these manufacturers _to keep up the appearance_ that their stuff is cutting edge..


----------



## greenland

8mile13 said:


> Right. LG supplied three panels to Panasonic (maybe a few more). They also supplied a (few) panel (s) to the turks (Grundig). And of course the chinese.
> 
> It shows that it is very important for these manufacturers _to keep up the appearance_ that their stuff is cutting edge..


Since LG is currently the only OLED game in town, what choice do companies have but to purchase the panels from LG "Why do you rob banks? Because that's where the money is." Willie Sutton.

Lots of companies purchase LCD panels from other manufacturers and rebadge them. Sony and Vizio do, so why should OLED be any different?


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> I would assume it'd require a crazy-accurate layering of electronics; this requires crazy accurate tolerances (including thermal-dimensional stability) and I can see it requiring Star Trek level clean rooms for any TV display size. DSE is _still_ a nuisance in LCD, I can't imagine what layering 3 grids on top of each other would do. I would love to see what xrox/slacker/ynotgoal have to say about this possibility.


I'm already bored with the idea if you think it's that complex.

Trading one hard part (patterning of OLED) for "crazy-accurate tolerances" doesn't sound like a win.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> I'm already bored with the idea if you think it's that complex.
> 
> Trading one hard part (patterning of OLED) for "crazy-accurate tolerances" doesn't sound like a win.


I hear ya. The _effort _would still be there, but the pixels being whole in nature are big. The effort then goes into vertical alignment. If it ever happens we'd have to see if bigger fatter in x,y helps the layering in z issues enough. The win, is for the net visual effect.


----------



## agkss

Great news from IFA, the following list of brands introduce OLED prototypes based on WRGB OLED Panel from LG.
Grundig with a 65 4K OLED.
Haier with a 55 1080p OLED.
Skyworth with a 55 1080p OLED.
Hisense with 55 1080p & 65 4K OLED.
Changhong with 55 1080p & 65 4K OLED.
All have differents UI of smart tv and different type of marketing.
Panasonic was the most surprising of the more renamed brands with 65 4K. 
I think this could be great news because LG maybe in the next years can improve their production and they show confidence with start providing panels to diferents brands around the world, i know that right now are just prototypes but is good to see more brands interesting in OLED.

Obviously all these brands also show 4K curved LCD, Va/IPS in big sizes (79-85).
Greetings and you can check vídeos from these displays on youtube


----------



## rogo

More points of distribution and more brands certainly should drive adoption and acceptance, even if the consumer is -- fundamentally -- buying the same thing from anyone.

This is kind of akin to early PCs.


----------



## slacker711

http://www.cnet.com/news/lg-says-white-oled-gives-it-ten-years-on-tv-competition/



> LG says white OLED puts it a decade ahead of competitors
> LG believes it will be "impossible" for other RGB OLED manufacturers to successfully compete with its white OLED technology.
> by Seamus Byrne
> @seamus September 11, 2014 6:21 PM PDT
> 
> snip.......................
> 
> "The reason other companies have said they're going to put OLED on hold, it's because their yields are pitiful," says Hong. "Now they're all saying 'No, consumers aren't ready.' No, I don't think consumers are not ready, I think they're not ready. They don't know how to do it, they missed the boat and now the ones who are stuck with regular RGB OLED are never going to get 80 percent."


----------



## Wizziwig

Sorry to beat at dead horse, but here's another shot of WRGB OLED vs RGB Sony LCD. Displaying the same content and captured with same camera.


----------



## rogo

Wizziwig said:


> Sorry to beat at dead horse, but here's another shot of WRGB OLED vs RGB Sony LCD. Displaying the same content and captured with same camera.


I get that you think that proves something important. Not to beat a dead horse, but I do not agree.


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> Sorry to beat at dead horse, but here's another shot of WRGB OLED vs RGB Sony LCD. Displaying the same content and captured with same camera.


Do you mean that the white is better because it's not a composite, or that the RGB stripe is better because of how filled in it is?


----------



## ferro

Wizziwig said:


> Sorry to beat at dead horse, but here's another shot of WRGB OLED vs RGB Sony LCD. Displaying the same content and captured with same camera.


It's interesting to see that the RGB subpixels are not used at all to display white. This is what Kodak (now LG) had to say about this topic in 2006 (I apologize in advance for the amount of text). The bold parts are probably why LG made this decision.



> *System considerations for RGBW OLED displays*
> 
> A free parameter within an RGBW system is the proportion of RGB luminance that is allocated to the white subpixel. An algorithm, which converts the incoming RGB signal to drive signals for the RGBW display, controls the proportion. It is important that this algorithm not sacrifice saturation of high luminance colors if image quality is a dominant concern. A preferred algorithm for this process has been described elsewhere; however, a brief summary of its key functions is provided here to aid in the understanding of its effect. This algorithm generally performs the steps of linearizing the input image data to relative intensity, rotating the color of the input RGB image to the RGB intensity of the display primaries, and normalizing the RGB signal to the color of the white subpixel. The minimum of the three R, G, B signals at an individual pixel site is then determined. A proportion, referred to as the white mixing ratio (WMR), is multiplied by this minimum value, and the product is subtracted from the R, G, B signals and added to the white signal. The new RGB values are renormalized to the white point of the display, and finally, a gamma correction is applied based on the luminance characteristics of the display. In performing these operations, the colorimetric accuracy of the image is preserved.
> 
> Using this algorithm, any value between 0 and 1.0 might be selected for the WMR without affecting the color rendition (i.e., the display will produce colors that are metameric matches to those produced on a RGB display having the same color primaries). Applying a WMR of 0 produces an image using only the RGB subpixels, while a WMR of 1.0 utilizes the W subpixel as much as possible without affecting the output color. Intermediate values shift varying amounts of energy to the W subpixel.
> 
> On average, when the WMR is 1.0, the power required to display a given image on the RGBW display is approximately one-half the power needed to display the same image on the RGB display. This power difference is larger for images with large numbers of pixels that are nearly neutral, and smaller for images with large numbers of pixels that are highly saturated. *Reducing the WMR reduces the power savings.* Figure 3 shows how the average power varies for a reference RGBW display with different WMRs. Notice that the average power consumption decreases linearly as the WMR is varied from 0.25 to 1.0. This trend would continue for WMRs less than 0.25, as long as there is still a white emitter included in the display. A nonlinearity occurs at a WMR of 0 because this is essentially an RGB display and RGB displays inherently have a larger emitting area. This larger emitting area reduces the peak current densities in the subpixels and lowers the voltage requirements for the display, resulting in the nonlinear behavior near a WMR of 0.0.
> 
> *The WMR has a similar effect on the lifetime of the RGBW display. As the WMR increases from 0.25 to 1.0, the average lifetime for an RGBW display increases.* Figure 4 shows the effect of WMR on average lifetime. The nonlinearity near a WMR of 0.0 is due to the larger emitting area in an RGB display, which reduces the average current density in the subpixels and results in a longer lifetime. At higher WMRs, the effect of the larger PAR is outweighed by the benefits of a more-efficient white emitter.
> 
> While a higher WMR provides higher power efficiency, it also influences the perceived image quality of the display as luminance is moved from the RGB to the white subpixel. The source of this effect can be seen in Fig. 5. This figure contains a photograph with a yellow square overlaid upon it. To the right of the photograph are two magnified views of rendered display pixel patterns that could be used to represent the portion of the photograph indicated within the yellow square. Looking at the photograph, one can see that the region from which each of the magnified pixel patterns were extracted contains information that is relatively low in saturation. The two panels on the right were created to represent a RGBW display with a WMR of 1.0 (top) and a RGBW display having a WMR of 0.5 (bottom). The four subpixels (red, green, blue, and white) are all illuminated on the RGBW display when the WMR is 0.5. However, when the WMR is 1.0, the RGBW display produces the majority of the luminance with the white subpixel, produces a significantly smaller proportion of the luminance with two additional color subpixels within each pixel (e.g., G and B), and produces no luminance at the fourth subpixel (R). At low resolutions, the fact that at least one of the subpixels will be black within bright areas of the image can produce the impression that the resulting image is less uniform within some areas compared to the RGBW display having a WMR of 0.5. However, the magnitude of this impression decreases significantly as the resolution of the display is increased.
> 
> Image simulations and psychophysical assessments were used to determine the effect of WMR on perceived image quality, and the results are shown in Fig. 6 for two typical pixel patterns. As shown in this figure, independent of the pixel pattern, the perceived image quality of the display generally decreases as the WMR is increased from 0.5 to 1.0. However, the decrease in image quality would appear to be slightly more rapid as the WMR is increased to between 0.75 and 1.0 than when the WMR is increased from 0.5 to 0.75. It is also noteworthy that an RGB display having the same pixel resolution would have an image quality of about 0.7 JNDs relative to an image quality value of 0 for the RGBW stripe pixel pattern with a WMR of 1.0. Therefore, the image quality of the RGBW display would appear comparable for the RGB displays for WMRs with less than 0.75 and only a fraction of a JND lower than the RGB display when a WMR of 1.0 is applied. *However, the RGBW display is comparable in image quality to the RGB display, regardless of the WMR, and any difference in perceived image quality is likely to be smaller for higher resolution displays*.


----------



## tgm1024

^^^ It looks like they're simply applying a scalar to the "grey component" after subtracting it out from the primaries.

I believe the _entire_ reason for them using the W was to make up for the power loss inherent in using a dichromatic (or trichromatic) white with a filter. A filter's job after all, is to throw away light.


----------



## stas3098

Guys, I have been watching only two-four-oh (2.40:1 aspect ratio) movies on my OLED 10.5 Tab S for the past month and a half at 210 candela of brightness totaling in over 30 movies watched with *no burn-in*. I hope to see the same on LG OLED TVs.


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> Guys, I have been watching only two-four-oh (2.40:1 aspect ratio) movies on my OLED 10.5 Tab S for the past month and a half at 210 candela of brightness totaling in over 30 movies watched with *no burn-in*. I hope to see the same on LG OLED TVs.


Good news. Samsung sure does seem to know what they're doing with small displays, I'll give them that. They're just stunning to me.

BTW: did you check it with gray slides? It's what I'd use to look for it.


----------



## mo949

is a tablet really in movie mode at all times? If not, then its a pretty good example of what mixing content looks like.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Good news. Samsung sure does seem to know what they're doing with small displays, I'll give them that. They're just stunning to me.
> 
> BTW: did you check it with gray slides? It's what I'd use to look for it.


Yes I did and while I was at it I also noticed that Tab S had almost 100% uniformity.

P.S the dark streaks caused due to the fact that my camera picks up flicker which is imperceivable in reality


----------



## stas3098

mo949 said:


> is a tablet really in movie mode at all times? If not, then its a pretty good example of what mixing content looks like.


The only movies I watched on it were 2.40:1 expect "The Zero Theorem" and "Four Rooms" . I watched up to 3 movies at time for about 9 days while I was on the train from Warsaw to Krasnoyarsk plus I'm gonna be spending about two month away from my plasma in hellholes where internet is a rare occurrence and TV has one noisy channel that's why I wanna revisit The Sopranos and a lot of other movies in the coming months provided I can get some free time.


----------



## Rf13

stas3098 said:


> Yes I did and while I was at it I also noticed that Tab S had almost 100% uniformity.
> 
> P.S the dark streaks caused due to the fact that my camera picks up flicker which is imperceivable in reality


the smaller samsung displays seem extremely resilent to burn in or ir, the last gen wasnt so lucky. Ive had my s5 since launch and ive pretty much put it through hell and its fine. I actually left google maps displayed on it for over 12 hours during a road trip and its still fine. I also had the auto dimming etc.turned off.


----------



## sooke

tgm1024 said:


> ^^^ It looks like they're simply applying a scalar to the "grey component" after subtracting it out from the primaries.
> 
> I believe the _entire_ reason for them using the W was to make up for the power loss inherent in using a dichromatic (or trichromatic) white with a filter. A filter's job after all, is to throw away light.


 
Hmm... I read it as the WMR (the scalar) determines how much of the "grey component" is subtracted out of the primaries (so applied before subtraction). I wonder if there is any picture control on the LG OLED TVs that influences WMR, or if it is just set by the firmware.

Also sounds like the screen door effect (which they called non-uniformity) should be much reduced with the 4k models.

Really fascinating stuff ferro, thanks for posting it. Cleared up a lot of the "why do it that way?" questions I was having. Although, I still have a lot of "why is that easier to build?" type questions. Seems way more complicated.


----------



## fafrd

sooke said:


> Hmm... I read it as the WMR (the scalar) determines how much of the "grey component" is subtracted out of the primaries (so applied before subtraction). I wonder if there is any picture control on the LG OLED TVs that influences WMR, or if it is just set by the firmware.
> 
> Also sounds like the screen door effect (which they called non-uniformity) should be much reduced with the 4k models.
> 
> Really fascinating stuff ferro, thanks for posting it. Cleared up a lot of the "why do it that way?" questions I was having. Although, *I still have a lot of "why is that easier to build?" type questions. Seems way more complicated*.


 
Depositing a single uniform sheet of white OLED material (even composed of 2 or 3 OLED layers stacked on top of one another avoids the need for patterning and the alignment requirements that entails.

In the case of the Samsung RGB OLED structure, stripes of R then G then B OLED material needed to be selectively patterned on top of the IGZO electrode layer in close to perfect alignment. This is possible for small screen sizes but patterning to the required precision over the larger surface are of a TV proved close to impossible (at any reasonable yield).

This same colored-stipe patterning alignment problem exists for the RGB filter of LCD TVs and also for the RGB filter of LG WOLED TVs, but the process of patterning RGB filters is well developed and easily able to deliver very high yields at the required levels of precision.


----------



## sooke

^^^^^^ Thanks fafrd. That makes sense.


----------



## Wizziwig

tgm1024 said:


> Do you mean that the white is better because it's not a composite, or that the RGB stripe is better because of how filled in it is?


You be the judge. I only know that I've seen many complaints from owners (or former ones) about distracting SDE. My vision is not good enough where I could make it out at my usual viewing distance on the curved model. I'm more concerned by the brightness lost in all that black dead space and the image quality degradation discussed in ferro's research paper. But I guess they don't have the power reserve to drive all 4 pixels anyway.



stas3098 said:


> Guys, I have been watching only two-four-oh (2.40:1 aspect ratio) movies on my OLED 10.5 Tab S for the past month and a half at 210 candela of brightness totaling in over 30 movies watched with *no burn-in*. I hope to see the same on LG OLED TVs.


Current LG OLED (that '1' pixel comparison I posted was from EC9300) would not survive such a test without visible IR. Not sure if it would be bad enough to reach burn-in but many owners have had a very difficult time removing IR after just 2-3 movies.

I suspect most of the Samsung advantage lies from their superior LTPS backplanes.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> You be the judge. I only know that I've seen many complaints from owners (or former ones) about distracting SDE. My vision is not good enough where I could make it out at my usual viewing distance on the curved model. I'm more concerned by the brightness lost in all that black dead space and the image quality degradation discussed in ferro's research paper. But I guess they don't have the power reserve to drive all 4 pixels anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> *Current LG OLED* (that '1' pixel comparison I posted was from EC9300)* would not survive such a test without visible IR*. Not sure if it would be bad enough to reach burn-in but *many owners have had a very difficult time removing IR after just 2-3 movies.*
> 
> I suspect most of the Samsung advantage lies from their superior LTPS backplanes.



You have made two statements in bold that I believe are substantive overstatements. If you have evidence to back up either statement, that evidence would be appreciated. LG has enough challenges with their WOLED initiative as it is, without unsupported rumors being spread willy-nilly (and without proof).


----------



## agkss

Is like every single thing the LG make with OLED for some people is bad...and thats from people that doesnt have one (I dont have one but i prefer to support this technology) maybe if samsung, sony or panasonic made them it will be perfect for them. So much people said bad things about OLED but with the fail of Plasma, i dont know maybe they want a future with an LCD with 8 local dimming zones, ips and edgelit. If not even videophiles supports this technology and LG doesnt make a great marketing campaign this will fail too.

There are people happy with their LG OLED and is very obvious they prefer the Stellar PQ than worried about watch pixels, look for issues...


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Depositing a single uniform sheet of white OLED material (even composed of 2 or 3 OLED layers stacked on top of one another avoids the need for patterning and the alignment requirements that entails.
> 
> In the case of the Samsung RGB OLED structure, stripes of R then G then B OLED material needed to be selectively patterned on top of the IGZO electrode layer in close to perfect alignment. This is possible for small screen sizes but patterning to the required precision over the larger surface are of a TV proved close to impossible (at any reasonable yield).
> 
> This same colored-stipe patterning alignment problem exists for the RGB filter of LCD TVs and also for the RGB filter of LG WOLED TVs, but the process of patterning RGB filters is well developed and easily able to deliver very high yields at the required levels of precision.


So just to be clear, the problem isn't patterning the R/G/B for Samsung. It's moving a small mask (smaller than the size of the TV) across the TV and having that line up perfectly each time while still maintaining good throughput. 

When Samsung makes small screens, they use the exact same technology for patterning the R/G/B, but they don't have to move the masks because the screens are the same size (or smaller) than the mask itself. 

In short, it's an alignment issue, but not the one you think it is.



Wizziwig said:


> You be the judge. I only know that I've seen many complaints from owners (or former ones) about distracting SDE. My vision is not good enough where I could make it out at my usual viewing distance on the curved model. I'm more concerned by the brightness lost in all that black dead space and the image quality degradation discussed in ferro's research paper. But I guess they don't have the power reserve to drive all 4 pixels anyway.


It's possible some people find the SDE distracting. I find that unlikely to be a real problem for most viewers at most normal viewing distances, however. I believe it will be even less likely with the finer resolution of 4K.


> I suspect most of the Samsung advantage lies from their superior LTPS backplanes.


If/when Samsung re-enters OLED TV production, it will not be using LTPS backplanes, it will be using oxide/IGZO. So even if your theory is correct, it's not particularly important for TV.



agkss said:


> There are people happy with their LG OLED and is very obvious they prefer the Stellar PQ than worried about watch pixels, look for issues...


I think criticism is fair game, but I tend to agree that picture-quality complaints by proxy are weird. If there are screen-door complaints about the LG, fine (I haven't read them, but perhaps they're around). There have been image retention complaints about it. Mentioning that isn't "looking for issues" it's acknowledging them. Harping on any concern that most people won't have ("I can't stand the ABL of the LG" "The SDE is driving me mad" "I get IR every time I watch a movie") seems pointless since there isn't evidence that any of those are overwhelming concerns.

It's a fine line, however.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> You have made two statements in bold that I believe are substantive overstatements. If you have evidence to back up either statement, that evidence would be appreciated. LG has enough challenges with their WOLED initiative as it is, without unsupported rumors being spread willy-nilly (and without proof).


Have you read the EA9800 owners thread? Plague's and Vinnie's experience among others posted early on in that thread. I'm referring specifically to stubborn letterbox IR that was seen after viewing leterbox movie marathons. It's exactly the same test that Stas did on his tablet.

The experience posted in that thread was actually rather mild. I saw much worse. I could post pictures of a EA9800 with only 50 hours on the panel with heavy letterbox BI or IR that would not go away even after 8+ hours of full-screen content. I have no idea if these panels were anomalies/defective but clearly there is some kind of stubborn IR problem out there for some owners.

Maybe it's like plasma IR/BI. You've got owners like Rogo who don't experience it and yet huge threads of other owners who suffer from it. I've never seen an explanation for that one either.


----------



## 8mile13

Wizziwig said:


> Maybe it's like plasma IR/BI. You've got owners like Rogo who don't experience it and yet huge threads of other owners who suffer from it. I've never seen an explanation for that one either.


Some panels are more susceptible so there will be troubles no matter what you do.

Also watching black bar stuff a lot, one specific channel with logo all the time, and gaming for hours without babysitting the Plasma is not helping either.


----------



## agkss

Are you ever gonna buy an OLED tv Wizziwig or you just want to criticize everything just because you hate this tech...maybe you prefer LCD tech, thats fine.

I talk with vinnie in the other forum, he is happy with his OLED by the way.


----------



## tgm1024

agkss said:


> Are you ever gonna buy an OLED tv Wizziwig or you just want to criticize everything just because you hate this tech...maybe you prefer LCD tech, thats fine.


WHERE precisely did he say anything remotely similar to hating OLED tech? If he was over-relying on early EA9800 owners' troubles, then say so. But don't go jumping on the OLED defense wagon with _that_ kind of reply.

We have got to stop this "stop looking for defects, stop bashing OLED, and just enjoy it" knee-jerk response that seems to have shown up in THIS thread as well now. I've seen this attitude poison the 9800 and 9300 threads for months.


----------



## agkss

It look like in this forum some people not everyone of course, buy a tv and then is looking for defects...and then i am the one is wrong, and he even desnt own the display...

When i buy a tv i know that it will not be perfect...i prefer to enjoy the PQ..ENJOY


----------



## tgm1024

agkss said:


> It look like in this forum some people not everyone of course, buy a tv and then is looking for defects...and then i am the one is wrong, and he even desnt own the display...
> 
> When i buy a tv i know that it will not be perfect...i prefer to enjoy the PQ..ENJOY


This thread is and always has been about the technology of OLED. We research this thing to death here and have for years. That involves reporting on any problems we've seen _as well_ as reporting on complaints from others. If someone reports on something that is no longer a concern, then say that. But statements like yours above make no sense even in an owners thread and they make even _less_ sense here.


----------



## agkss

For me this is not a healthy behavior, you dont even own the tv and look defects...just for what...make a point. Is like me a plasma owner enter to a LCD/LED thread to start posting defects of that tech...why disturb people that prefer other choices if im happy with my plasma...i just thinking i cant understand that type of behavior because he is in every single OLED owner thread looking for defects.
Well, i now understand why vinnie left this forum, so do i...Some people here thinks they know it all, i want to thank rogo for all the valuable info and research he make, and all the other guys.


----------



## tgm1024

agkss said:


> For me this is not a healthy behavior, you dont even own the tv and look defects...just for what...make a point. Is like me a plasma owner enter to a LCD/LED to start posting defects of that tech...why disturb people that prefer other choices if im happy with my plasma...i just thinking i cant understand that type of behavior because *he* is in every single OLED owner thread looking for defects.
> Well, i now understand why vinnie left this forum, so do i...Some people here thinks they know it all, i want to thank rogo for all the valuable info and research he make, and all the other guys.


The "*he*" above, is Wizziwig? Because looking for the details (positive and negative) are how you determine how something functions. This is a brand new technology. It does no one any good at all to have a strictly "feel good, be happy" thread when people are trying to figure out how a technology works, if it has any staying power, where the potential problems are down the road, etc.


----------



## markrubin

New Forum added for OLED Pricing/ Deals:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/322-oled-technology-great-found-deals/

please post all non MSRP price talk there

we may move some posts during the next few days

Many members come to AVS for technical information, and object to having the thread overrun with price talk, so AVS asks that technical threads limit price talk: Thanks


----------



## wco81

Defect rate does pertain to the technology.

The premium pricing OLED will command will make people more vigilant about defects.


----------



## rightintel

Link wouldn't work...

try

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/322-oled-technology-great-found-deals/


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> *Have you read the EA9800 owners thread?* Plague's and Vinnie's experience among others posted early on in that thread. I'm referring specifically to stubborn letterbox IR that was seen after viewing leterbox movie marathons. It's exactly the same test that Stas did on his tablet.
> 
> The experience posted in that thread was actually rather mild. I saw much worse. I could post pictures of a EA9800 with only 50 hours on the panel with heavy letterbox BI or IR that would not go away even after 8+ hours of full-screen content. I have no idea if these panels were anomalies/defective but clearly there is some kind of stubborn IR problem out there for some owners.
> 
> Maybe it's like plasma IR/BI. You've got owners like Rogo who don't experience it and yet huge threads of other owners who suffer from it. I've never seen an explanation for that one either.



I have (and contributed quite a few posts during the ups and downs of Plague's early OLED roller-coaster ride .


There were a couple early reports this spring that justify the IR concern you are raising, but at least one of those was in the face of abuse (Plague fell asleep and left a static letterbox image on over night) and even those early examples of IR were easily resolved (in most cases by cycling power, in the most extreme cases by running slides).


The main point is that what you are referring to is old news and between the fact that a/ none of those early 55EA9800 owners returned their OLED because of IR and b/ with the 10-20x number of members that are now owners of the 55EC9300 there has been no significant repeat of some of those early warning signs are reasons to believe the early concerns were over blown.


I called you out on two statements you made in an earlier post: *Current LG OLED* (that '1' pixel comparison I posted was from EC9300)* would not survive such a test without visible IR*. 


If your evidence for that statement is Plague and Vinnies early IR experience, I repeat my contention that your statement is overblown. If you have more recent evidence of IR or you 'could post pictures of a EA9800 with only 50 hours on the panel with heavy letterbox BI or IR that would not go away even after 8+ hours of full-screen content" then please do.




And your second statement was that '*many owners have had a very difficult time removing IR after just 2-3 movies.' *Again, if by 'many owners' you are just referring to Plague and Vinnie this spring, that statement is grossly overblown (especially since Plague fell asleep with his set on). There are many, many more owners now, so if you know of any of them experiencing difficulty in removing visible IR after watching only 2-3 movies, please share that information.


----------



## andy sullivan

Basically we've been talking about two different manufactures (LG & Samsung) with two different approaches for implementing OLED technology. Can somebody explain the advantages either approach has over the other in regards strictly to PQ? I've read here that some new methods of production (printing) will reduce manufacturing cost but will it have any effect on PQ?


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> You be the judge. I only know that I've seen many complaints from owners (or former ones) about distracting SDE. My vision is not good enough where I could make it out at my usual viewing distance on the curved model.


Now that you've got me looking for SDE, I'm afraid it's all I'll ever see on the 9300. I was just looking at a white section, and even 5 feet away the SDE is as clear as day to me. At 9 feet I couldn't really tell, nor could I tell on most colors unless they were only using one of the 4 subpixels. And if the set were 4K, forget it, no way.


----------



## tgm1024

agkss said:


> Well, i now understand why vinnie left this forum, so do i...Some people here thinks they know it all, i want to thank rogo for all the valuable info and research he make, and all the other guys.


You might want to ask Vinnie why "he left" the forum.

In any case, by email I asked him to comment on the 9800 he owns and whether or not he is still getting the IR he previously spoke of when he was here. He responded with:

Vinnie97 (by email): "*Same as last time. *_[Vinnie means same as the last time I asked him]._* It happens (both from static imagery and letterbox movies), but I nurse it away with the pixel flippage/pixel jogging. Overall, it's easier to nurse away than the static imagery that wrecks the ZT60 (though the latter suffers not from the letterbox demarcations).*"


----------



## agkss

tgm1024 said:


> You might want to ask Vinnie why "he left" the forum.
> 
> In any case, by email I asked him to comment on the 9800 he owns and whether or not he is still getting the IR he previously spoke of when he was here. He responded with:
> 
> Vinnie97 (by email): "*Same as last time. *_[Vinnie means same as the last time I asked him]._* It happens (both from static imagery and letterbox movies), but I nurse it away with the pixel flippage/pixel jogging. Overall, it's easier to nurse away than the static imagery that wrecks the ZT60 (though the latter suffers not from the letterbox demarcations).*"


First i already know why he leaves (The autoban)
Second if you want to think and sugest im a liar, ask vinnie if he knows a peruvian guy with my username
Third i dont know what point you want to make but honestly you are a good lawyer...
About IR i am in the other forum i already know that zt60 is a problem, OLED almost nothing.
I was not enter anymore to this thread but if you keep quoting me i have to answer
Greetings and bye
Post #1148 
http://www.avforums.com/threads/lg-ea980-owners-thread.1874952/page-39#post-20997575

About zt60 IR in the owner thread of ZT65 he found a former member too and thats why i already know what you want to clarify on your email conversation


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> I called you out on two statements you made in an earlier post: *Current LG OLED* (that '1' pixel comparison I posted was from EC9300)* would not survive such a test without visible IR*.
> 
> 
> If your evidence for that statement is Plague and Vinnies early IR experience, I repeat my contention that your statement is overblown. If you have more recent evidence of IR or you 'could post pictures of a EA9800 with only 50 hours on the panel with heavy letterbox BI or IR that would not go away even after 8+ hours of full-screen content" then please do.


http://www.lydogbilde.no/test/lg-55ec930v-oled-tv



> So-called image retention, temporary "burn" of objects on the screen, has also become an issue in the first user reports 55EC930V. We also here confirm that our OLED screen displays clear signs of temporary image retention, residues from channel Logos and light menu object.


There are conflicting reports that LG increased ABL on the EC9300 to combat IR. That may explain fewer owner reports on that model.

To the people who think I'm an OLED hater. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't own a single LCD or Plasma TV. I've been praying for years to a viable CRT replacement and I think OLED finally has the potential to deliver. But I'm not going to gloss over any defects in the tech. Each display tech has problems and I see no problem in discussing and comparing those issues. An educated buyer will have to make their own choice as to which issues he can live with.

I was actually able to test drive an EA9800 in my home last weekend. It was being returned by a friend of mine specifically because of IR/BI and he offered to let me play with it before he took it back. I have not had the time to type up a full report and organize/upload the IR pictures I took. Maybe later this weekend.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> http://www.lydogbilde.no/test/lg-55ec930v-oled-tv
> 
> 
> 
> There are conflicting reports that LG increased ABL on the EC9300 to combat IR. That may explain fewer owner reports on that model.
> 
> To the people who think I'm an OLED hater. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't own a single LCD or Plasma TV. I've been praying for years to a viable CRT replacement and I think OLED finally has the potential to deliver. But I'm not going to gloss over any defects in the tech. Each display tech has problems and I see no problem in discussing and comparing those issues. An educated buyer will have to make their own choice as to which issues he can live with.
> 
> I was actually able to test drive an EA9800 in my home last weekend. It was being returned by a friend of mine specifically because of IR/BI and he offered to let me play with it before he took it back. I have not had the time to type up a full report and organize/upload the IR pictures I took. Maybe later this weekend.


 
I agree with everything you say above and look forward on what you have to say from your own hands-on experience with the EA9800.

The sample size is very, very small and attempting to get an accurate assessment of this Gen2 LG WOLED technology has been a challenge. I think all I can ask is that your efforts to discuss and compare issues remain strongly weighted towards recent experience and not dredge up old probably/possibly unrepresentative anecdotes from the 'ancient times' of this spring.

I have been one of the earliest and loudest voices stating that if the care and feeding requirements of LG OLED are more similar to plasma than they are to LCD, the technology may be doomed to the same fate. The fact that with so many new owner's here on the forum there have been few complaints regarding visible persistent IR from normal viewing habits is slowly causing me to conclude that those early fears may have been overblown.

Again, looking forward to your report.


----------



## dsinger

^ I don't look forward to it. Wizziwig's comments about not owning a plasma or LCD because he has been looking for years for a viable CRT replacement tell me he is the ultimate perfectionist. While 99.999% would be satisfied with a display he is more than likely to find serious flaws that prohibit ownership. He certainly has that right but casual readers need to be aware of this perfectionism or they may come away with a worse than justified (to the 99.999%) opinion of OLED.


----------



## andy sullivan

Kind of agree. The only people that I know that still rely on CRT for their only viewing technology are seniors in their 80's and they are far and few between. I live in a retirement community and spend a lot of time helping folks buy and set up new TV's. Even most of those are up sizing from a LCD or plasma.


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> I was actually able to test drive an EA9800 in my home last weekend. It was being returned by a friend of mine specifically because of IR/BI and he offered to let me play with it before he took it back. I have not had the time to type up a full report and organize/upload the IR pictures I took. Maybe later this weekend.





fafrd said:


> Again, looking forward to your report.





dsinger said:


> ^ I don't look forward to it.


I do. I want the biggest microscope possible placed on every last detail of this burgeoning technology, from as many scientifically minded folks as conceivably possible. Not because I want it to fail. But because I want something better than LCD to succeed, and you don't have a technology succeed through cover up. Wiz might just give the thing a big "no worries" stamp. All the better. But it'll be by careful observation, not by looking away.

I think the average person reading such dissections appreciates the effort involved. They're the ones on the edge of this field with their wallets open: they have no idea if they're wandering into a pit of buyer's remorse or not. They need to be fully armed.


----------



## tgm1024

Are you guys seeing the LG OLED's in a darkened room at BB (and elsewhere)? They didn't put the EC9300 at my local BB in the Magnolia room....they put it out on an end cap on the main floor. This is absurd! It's so bright out there that your iris shrinks to nothing and you can't see hardly any difference between its blacks and that those of a neighboring LCD. Total shame really----completely absurd place to showcase this set. Doesn't take away from it's overall stunning PQ, but it's really not showing off what this kind of emissive based device can do.


----------



## andy sullivan

I did just see from HD Guru that LG has increased the msrp on the 65ec9700 from $6999 to $9999, and delayed shipping until mid October. They also upped the msrp for the 77inch to $25,000.


----------



## 8mile13

dsinger said:


> ^ I don't look forward to it. Wizziwig's comments about not owning a plasma or LCD because he has been looking for years for a viable CRT replacement tell me he is the ultimate perfectionist. While 99.999% would be satisfied with a display he is more than likely to find serious flaws that prohibit ownership. He certainly has that right but casual readers need to be aware of this perfectionism or they may come away with a worse than justified (to the 99.999%) opinion of OLED.


 I am having a hard time believing that there are still folks out there that can't let go of CRT. I left CRT behind seven years ago. Bought me five flatscreens. Wizziwig should talk to chron, he also waited a long time before replacing his CRT.


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Are you guys seeing the LG OLED's in a darkened room at BB (and elsewhere)? They didn't put the EC9300 at my local BB in the Magnolia room....they put it out on an end cap on the main floor. This is absurd! It's so bright out there that your iris shrinks to nothing and you can't see hardly any difference between its blacks and that those of a neighboring LCD. Total shame really----completely absurd place to showcase this set. Doesn't take away from it's overall stunning PQ, but it's really not showing off what this kind of emissive based device can do.



Yeah, I've been seeing that and raising alarm bells about it since just after the 55EC9300 came out last month.


The Magnolia Store at my Best Buy has said that the 55EC9300 will not be displayed in the Magnolia section because it is too small and is not being sold by Magnolia.


So piss-poor endcap displays on the bright showroom floor is about as good as it is going to get at Best Buy :-(


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Yeah, I've been seeing that and raising alarm bells about it since just after the 55EC9300 came out last month.
> 
> 
> The Magnolia Store at my Best Buy has said that the 55EC9300 will not be displayed in the Magnolia section because it is too small and is not being sold by Magnolia.
> 
> 
> So piss-poor endcap displays on the bright showroom floor is about as good as it is going to get at Best Buy :-(


They might not get anyone to even venture in there to see it in Magnolia. The Mag store is deserted most of the time. I know I always avoided it long ago thinking that it was for the over-priced stuff.


----------



## Desk.

8mile13 said:


> I am having a hard time believing that there are still folks out there that can't let go of CRT. I left CRT behind seven years ago. Bought me five flatscreens. Wizziwig should talk to chron, he also waited a long time before replacing his CRT.


Well, I'm someone who still only owns only a CRT display, despite being comfortably enough off to be able to purchase a top-of-the range alternative.

In actual fact, I did audition a 55" F8000 Samsung LED last year, but while it was great during daytime, when the light faded its blacks turned into muddy greys.

As a result, I went back to my 28" SD Panasonic CRT, and have been 'happily' living with it for the last 13 months as I continue to wait for an OLED replacement (ideally a flat, 65" 4K display with motion handling to match the best of the LCDs - which, in my experience, has been the F8000).

Call me nuts, but although I could afford it, I could just never bring myself to replace my old CRT with an inferior technology.

Desk


----------



## tgm1024

Desk. said:


> Well, I'm someone who still only owns only a CRT display, despite being comfortably enough off to be able to purchase a top-of-the range alternative.
> 
> In actual fact, I did audition a 55" F8000 Samsung LED last year, but while it was great during daytime, when the light faded its blacks turned into muddy greys.
> 
> As a result, I went back to my 28" SD Panasonic CRT, and have been 'happily' living with it for the last 13 months as I continue to wait for an OLED replacement (ideally a flat, 65" 4K display with motion handling to match the best of the LCDs - which, in my experience, has been the F8000).
> 
> Call me nuts, but although I could afford it, I could just never bring myself to replace my old CRT with an inferior technology.
> 
> Desk












I miss the way CRT's looked with color & motion, but I couldn't go back. And the thing that still amazes me is that the early CRTs worked without a single digital circuit in them.


----------



## 8mile13

Desk. said:


> Well, I'm someone who still only owns only a CRT display, despite being comfortably enough off to be able to purchase a top-of-the range alternative.
> 
> In actual fact, I did audition a 55" F8000 Samsung LED last year, but while it was great during daytime, when the light faded its blacks turned into muddy greys.
> 
> As a result, I went back to my 28" SD Panasonic CRT, and have been 'happily' living with it for the last 13 months as I continue to wait for an OLED replacement (ideally a flat, 65" 4K display with motion handling to match the best of the LCDs - which, in my experience, has been the F8000).


 Motion handling isn't that good on LCd therfor LCd uses motion smoothing tricks. So the F8000 isn't that good in the motion department unless motion smoothing stuff is turned on. Current OLED has the same problem, it also uses motion smoothing tricks. Has to do with sample & hold which LCd and OLED uses. On top of that LCd has slow pixel response (which OLED has not).


Desk said:


> Call me nuts, but although I could afford it, I could just never bring myself to replace my old CRT with an inferior technology.
> 
> Desk


 Several Plasma's and at least one LCd will outperform any CRT..


----------



## Desk.

8mile13 said:


> Motion handling isn't that good on LCd therfor LCd uses motion smoothing tricks. So the F8000 isn't that good in the motion department unless motion smoothing stuff is turned on. Current OLED has the same problem, it also uses motion smoothing tricks. Has to do with sample & hold which LCd and OLED uses. On top of that LCd also has slow pixel response (which OLED has not).


I'm not uneducated on this, and am very aware that OLED is sample and hold, the same as LCD. As you say, LCDs use techniques to smooth out the motion, and the very best, such as the Samsung F8000, employ black frame insertion, which I have found extremely effective in producing a pleasing viewing experience. Motion was not an issue with the set I auditioned.

I had hoped that the 4K LG OLEDs would employ the same quality of motion processing as the top LCDs (if not black frame insertion), as motion is the one aspect of the LG OLED sets that I've found slightly lacking when viewing them in store.



> Several Plasma's and at least one LCd will outperform any CRT..


I'm sorry, but this is your own highly subjective opinion, and should be described as such. While I might feel there are sets which are superior in some aspects, I've never cared for the picture of any plasma or LCD on the whole to the point that I'd replace my CRT. The Samsung came very close, and if it were not for the issues with black levels and restricted viewing angles, I would have kept it.

Hopefully, an upcoming OLED TV from at least one manufacturer will give me what I'm looking for.

Desk


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 8mile13

Desk. said:


> I'm sorry, but this is your own highly subjective opinion, and should be described as such.
> 
> Desk
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


It is more like your highly subjective opinion. There are only a few experts left out there that feel that CRT outperforms top flatscreens.


----------



## Desk.

8mile13 said:


> It is more like your highly subjective opinion. There are only a few experts left out there that feel that CRT outperforms top flatscreens.



Guess I'm part of an exclusive group, then, huh? 

Expert opinion is always of interest, but it's me that's buying the TV and living with it.

Desk


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## tgm1024

I was just looking over the first few posts in this thread (from 2006!)

Jeez, what ever happened to folks using Salmon DNA to make it 30x brighter and 10x longer lasting?


----------



## valvaholic

Question regarding the upscaler...
I've pre-ordered LG's 65EC9700 4K OLED. Any info on the quality of upscaler used? I just see the usual LG marketing terms. I'm wondering if say, an OPPO 103 may offer a superior 4K scaler to that of the LG? The OPPO could tide me over till 4K BluRay appears...


----------



## rogo

andy sullivan said:


> I did just see from HD Guru that LG has increased the msrp on the 65ec9700 from $6999 to $9999, and delayed shipping until mid October. They also upped the msrp for the 77inch to $25,000.


I don't care for delayed shipping, but can someone define for me how they could "raise" the price on something they had absolutely, positively never announced any official pricing for before?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## andy sullivan

rogo said:


> I don't care for delayed shipping, but can someone define for me how they could "raise" the price on something they had absolutely, positively never announced any official pricing for before?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


It's not like him to make an unsubstantiated statement based on what I at least consider coming from someone with a pretty good reputation. The statement is currently on his site.


----------



## dsinger

valvaholic said:


> Question regarding the upscaler...
> I've pre-ordered LG's 65EC9700 4K OLED. Any info on the quality of upscaler used? I just see the usual LG marketing terms. I'm wondering if say, an OPPO 103 may offer a superior 4K scaler to that of the LG? The OPPO could tide me over till 4K BluRay appears...


Not known at this point. What most people do even if the LG appears to be good is try both and then decide which to use.


----------



## dsinger

andy sullivan said:


> It's not like him to make an unsubstantiated statement based on what I at least consider coming from someone with a pretty good reputation. The statement is currently on his site.


Our forum sponsor has not changed his price posting. My conclusion is LG is using the high prices to gain publicity.


----------



## andy sullivan

dsinger said:


> Our forum sponsor has not changed his price posting. My conclusion is LG is using the high prices to gain publicity.


That can't be right about LG. They wouldn't do that. Would they?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Question about black bar IR.

Why does it even exist? I mean, a truly black pixel on OLED is an off pixel. So by that definition, leaving your TV off for any extended period of time should also result in burn-in.


----------



## barth2k

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Question about black bar IR.
> 
> Why does it even exist? I mean, a truly black pixel on OLED is an off pixel. So by that definition, leaving your TV off for any extended period of time should also result in burn-in.


It's not the black bars that "burn in". It's uneven wear.

Picture a freshly paved road. If you have people drive down the middle of the road and force them to stay off the sides, eventually the middle will be faded while the sides remain black. It looks like the sides have "burned in"


----------



## NintendoManiac64

(I actually know what uneven wear is, but thanks for explaining it to anyone who may not know)




barth2k said:


> It's not the black bars that "burn in". It's uneven wear.


...then why are people using the terms "image retention" and "burn-in"?


Oh, and btw, since you guys were talking about it, my primary PC monitor is a Trinitron CRT. However, CRT monitors are arguably much better than CRT TVs (I own an LCD HDTV as well for HTPC duties, I would have liked a Plasma but I needed a VGA input as well).


----------



## rogo

andy sullivan said:


> It's not like him to make an unsubstantiated statement based on what I at least consider coming from someone with a pretty good reputation. The statement is currently on his site.


So I checked out the site. The entirety of the claim is based on a screen grab they obtained earlier, which it's not clear they were ever supposed to see.

The screen grab certainly suggests LG was considering a $6999 MSRP. It doesn't prove whether they were ever going to run with that MSRP, however.

I tend to agree that Cleveland A/V has apparently learned there was no change in dealer price. That suggests there was no real change in the price of the display.


----------



## barth2k

> ...then why are people using the terms "image retention" and "burn-in"?
> .


Because it /is/ IR. If you watch a channel with logo or news ticker too long, you can get IR of that logo or ticker. That's obvious. If you watch movies that don't fill the screen (ie with black bars), you can get IR of the entire movie frame. The confusion comes from thinking it's the black bars that "burn in", but it's actually the content.


----------



## mo949

tgm1024 said:


> I miss the way CRT's looked with color & motion, but I couldn't go back. And the thing that still amazes me is that the early CRTs worked without a single digital circuit in them.


Not to mention once you went larger and then upgraded to bluray on 1080p there's just no going back only $$$$$$$$ forward to replace all your VHS/dvds


----------



## Wizziwig

To set the record straight, while I don't own LCD or Plasma TVs, I do own several other displays: Sony 34" HD CRT and 2 front projectors (LCOS and DLP based) that I use for various applications. While the CRT is my favorite, I did once consider a plasma because I found their static picture to be close to CRT. Unfortunately, I'm plagued with vision that can't handle plasma phosphor lag without major eye fatigue and discomfort. LCD viewing angles, uniformity, and dark room performance always made them a non-starter.

If you consider me a perfectionist, that's fine by me. As someone who spends 8 hour days analyzing video images, maybe I'm more critical than most. But none of the displays I own are perfect and I'm more than happy to list their faults if anyone is interested. For me, their positives outweighed their negatives and I'm sure the same thing applies for people who buy LCD or plasma. We each have different priorities.

I posted my experience with the EA9800 here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...-55-oled-owner-s-thread-207.html#post27419858

Unfortunately, I spent most of my time with the set trying to figure out how to remove the IR. This didn't leave much time for subjective or objective (with calibration gear) testing.


----------



## Ken Ross

andy sullivan said:


> Kind of agree. The only people that I know that still rely on CRT for their only viewing technology are seniors in their 80's and they are far and few between. I live in a retirement community and spend a lot of time helping folks buy and set up new TV's. Even most of those are up sizing from a LCD or plasma.


Well I can tell Wizz and I have very different tastes. This has nothing to do with being a 'perfectionist', but rather seeing things differently. No right or wrong here. Despite the flaws of plasma, I've never seen or owned a consumer/prosumer CRT, that could match the overall PQ of the best latter gen plasmas.

This doesn't even address the lack of a cinematic experience with CRTs.


----------



## tgm1024

Ken Ross said:


> Well I can tell Wizz and I have very different tastes. This has nothing to do with being a 'perfectionist', but rather seeing things differently. No right or wrong here. Despite the flaws of plasma, I've never seen or owned a consumer/prosumer CRT, that could match the overall PQ of the best latter gen plasmas.
> 
> This doesn't even address the lack of a cinematic experience with CRTs.


Motion. Motion. Motion. The 3 M's of what drives me nuts with current displays. We're still in the "When things were rotten" period of flat panels...they haven't been around very long. In 10 years or so, we'll look back at these days, remember, and _wince_.


----------



## catonic

tgm1024 said:


> Motion. Motion. Motion. The 3 M's of what drives me nuts with current displays. We're still in the "When things were rotten" period of flat panels...they haven't been around very long. In 10 years or so, we'll look back at these days, remember, and _wince_.


As long as films, tv shows etc are shot at 24 fps then unfortunately motion is always going to be a problem, IMO.


----------



## tgm1024

catonic said:


> As long as films, tv shows etc are shot at 24 fps then unfortunately motion is always going to be a problem, IMO.


_One _aspect of motion will be (the strobing travel in screen space). But the sample-and-hold is a killer for folks like me, and pixel response is a killer for other folks.


----------



## stas3098

8mile13 said:


> Motion handling isn't that good on LCd therfor LCd uses motion smoothing tricks. So the F8000 isn't that good in the motion department unless motion smoothing stuff is turned on. Current OLED has the same problem, it also uses motion smoothing tricks. Has to do with sample & hold which LCd and OLED uses. On top of that LCd has slow pixel response (which OLED has not).
> 
> 
> Several Plasma's and at least one LCd will outperform any CRT..


OLED has almost perfect motion to me despite what all those motion tests say and it needs no out-side help with it. I don't know about LG OLED TVs ( I only saw them on the show floors and I liked what I saw), but I have hands on experience with a 55" Samsung OLED TV, Sony medical 24.5 OLED monitor, 10.5 and 8.4 Samsung OLED Tablets, Toshiba excite 7.7 OLED-based Tablet, LG G flex 6" OLED phablet and all galaxy Notes and OLED PS Vita and believe me when I say OLED has great motion even with sample&hold and in fact motion on Tab S totally blew my mind! I would change nothing about motion on Tab S.


OLED just blows CRT, Plasma and LCD out of water in almost every aspect of PQ. In the perfect world or at least in a fair one the bright future awaits OLED just around the corner. 


And by the way I have decided to get a 65 OLED TV whatever the cost once I return back home.


----------



## Ken Ross

tgm1024 said:


> Motion. Motion. Motion. The 3 M's of what drives me nuts with current displays. We're still in the "When things were rotten" period of flat panels...they haven't been around very long. In 10 years or so, we'll look back at these days, remember, and _wince_.


I guess I'm not sensitive to it. I have no motion issues with either my F8500 or Sharp Elite. What can I say? 

Sometimes I think people are looking for totally smooth, totally 'dejuddered' motion from 24p movies, despite the fact that judder is inherent in many of these same movies. I see it still in the movie theater with some pans. 

Everyone always says "I want to see the movie as the director intended". Well, if judder is in the original movie, then judder is what you will get. It's what the director intended.


----------



## Ken Ross

tgm1024 said:


> Are you guys seeing the LG OLED's in a darkened room at BB (and elsewhere)? They didn't put the EC9300 at my local BB in the Magnolia room....they put it out on an end cap on the main floor. This is absurd! It's so bright out there that your iris shrinks to nothing and you can't see hardly any difference between its blacks and that those of a neighboring LCD. Total shame really----completely absurd place to showcase this set. Doesn't take away from it's overall stunning PQ, but it's really not showing off what this kind of emissive based device can do.


It really is nuts. My BBs are still showing the 9800, but they have the brains to put them in the Magnolia section where you can really appreciate the blacks...at least to a far better degree than you can on the bright sales floor.


----------



## Ken Ross

tgm1024 said:


>


The heck with that post, I love the picture!


----------



## Ken Ross

valvaholic said:


> Question regarding the upscaler...
> I've pre-ordered LG's 65EC9700 4K OLED. Any info on the quality of upscaler used? I just see the usual LG marketing terms. I'm wondering if say, an OPPO 103 may offer a superior 4K scaler to that of the LG? The OPPO could tide me over till 4K BluRay appears...


I did see one review recently (can't recall which one) that said the upscaling quality was excellent. I have no idea how it compares to the OPPO. I too was looking for that information as that will obviously be very important for quite some time to come.


----------



## mattg3

Yes upscaling quality is the whole thing for me since I have a huge collection of dvd concerts that I love and using the Oppo 83 along with a darbee has given me amazing results on my calibrated Samsung 8500 LED.I dont want to sacrifice PQ on standard discs that will have to upscale to 4K.Plan on using my Oppo 83 on the 65 Oled to upscale my dvds.Hope this will work out.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Printed OLED TVs from Kateeva's manufacturing systems reportedly several years away*

Unless I'm reading this wrong, this is disappointing news: According to oled-info.com, Kateeva expects many orders for their OLED printing manufacturing systems in 2015 but they are for flexible and small-screen applications. They say OLED printed TVs are not expected until 2020.



> Kateeva's plan is to produce encapsulation systems for flexible OLEDs in the near term (forecasting sales of over $100 million per year). In 2020, they will start offering OLED TV printing systems - and this is a much bigger opportunity (over $1 billion per year).


But one positive thing is that Samsung is one of the investors in Kateeva.


----------



## greenland

LG Display Sees OLED Profit as Talks Continue With Sony

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-oled-profit-as-talks-continue-with-sony.html

They are counting on companies such as Sony and Panasonic to generate a wider acceptance of OLED TVs.


----------



## 8mile13

Rich Peterson said:


> Unless I'm reading this wrong, this is disappointing news: According to oled-info.com, Kateeva expects many orders for their OLED printing manufacturing systems in 2015 but they are for flexible and small-screen applications. They say OLED printed TVs are not expected until 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> _Kateeva's plan is to produce encapsulation systems for flexible OLEDs in the near term (forecasting sales of over $100 million per year). In 2020, they will start offering OLED TV printing systems - and this is a much bigger opportunity (over $1 billion per year)._
> 
> 
> 
> But one positive thing is that Samsung is one of the investors in Kateeva.
Click to expand...

 
What actually was said is ''Research company IHS says the market for flexible displays is expected to grow rapidly this year and reach nearly $100 million. But the bigger market is OLED TVs, says Harrus, who estimates it will be more than $1 billion annually after 2020.''
http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisc...ung-as-investor&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss

According rogo Alain Harrus (CEO Kateeva) said that timetable for Kateeva-based TVs is about 2 years out.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/09/15/investment-from-samsung-kateeva/


----------



## stas3098

8mile13 said:


> What actually was said is ''Research company IHS says the market for flexible displays is expected to grow rapidly this year and reach nearly $100 million. But the bigger market is OLED TVs, says Harrus, who estimates it will be more than $1 billion annually after 2020.''
> http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisc...ung-as-investor&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss
> 
> According rogo Alain Harrus (CEO Kateeva) said that timetable for Kateeva-based TVs is about 2 years out.
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/09/15/investment-from-samsung-kateeva/


I hate to sound like a broken record, but where exactly are the manufacturers that will buy production equipment from Kateeva gonna get materials from?


Word on the street is PPG (UDC) are years away from being able to make enough to soluble materials to meet demand of any kind and rumor has that PPG may even drop out. EMD Millipore (Merck) are having troubles with solubles, too although they still plan to enter the market in 2015, however they (UDC and Merck) are getting more and more sick and tired of sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into OLED with no returns by day. Merck and UDC will be the ones shipping soluble materials for Kateeva's printers in 2015 in limited quantities. 


http://www.ppg.com/en/newsroom/news/Pages/20131122A.aspx


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> Printables for TV still have issues around materials longevity -- ironically not a problem for smartphones -- but the hope is that steady progress is being made there too.





stas3098 said:


> I hate to sound like a broken record, but where exactly are the manufacturers that will buy production equipment from Kateeva gonna get materials from?
> 
> Word on the street is PPG (UDC) are years away from being able to make enough to soluble materials to meet demand of any kind and rumor has that PPG may even drop out. EMD Millipore (Merck) are having troubles with solubles, too although they still plan to enter the market in 2015, however they (UDC and Merck) are getting more and more sick and tired of sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into OLED with no returns by day. Merck and UDC will be the ones shipping soluble materials for Kateeva's printers in 2015 in limited quantities.


Rogo, you talked to Kateeva.. any comment on this? Or on encapsulation materials being used with Kateeva equipment? Or on Kateeva and LG?


----------



## rogo

Rich Peterson said:


> Unless I'm reading this wrong, this is disappointing news: According to oled-info.com, Kateeva expects many orders for their OLED printing manufacturing systems in 2015 but they are for flexible and small-screen applications. They say OLED printed TVs are not expected until 2020.
> 
> But one positive thing is that Samsung is one of the investors in Kateeva.


Should probably read posts from other sources. I dunno who else wrote about this Kateeva thing, but I think I read somewhere that they expect systems for TV production to be in place by 2016. That doesn't mean you'll be buying a TV in 2016, but perhaps close to that.

They also seem to think that a 10% +/- premium to existing high-end stuff is the price target around then for such TVs.



ynotgoal said:


> Rogo, you talked to Kateeva.. any comment on this? Or on encapsulation materials being used with Kateeva equipment? Or on Kateeva and LG?


Well, as I wrote above, 2020 is way later than Kateeva is targeting. And in 2015, they expect customers to take their equipment and make flexible displays. Obviously, they will need OLED material to do that, but to describe this as a "non-concern" in the short run wouldn't be completely off base.

As for 2016, when the TV-based stuff is expected to be ready to go to market with the TVs themselves to follow soon after, I'd say you might think about it this way: You can't justify upping production of soluble OLED material without a market for soluble OLED material. You can't make a market for it without a way of making the displays. The world has that way now. It's going to start making displays. That will start making the money. That should attract investment in the material making.

Maybe there are issues with ramping production and it could well be that between everything, there's a reason you _won't_ see TVs in 2016, but I'm pretty sanguine that if there's a TV customer for YIELDjet, there'll be material to make OLEDs on it.

And without speaking for Kateeva, I'd say they likely believe the same thing.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> Maybe there are issues with ramping production and it could well be that between everything, there's a reason you _won't_ see TVs in 2016, but I'm pretty sanguine that if there's a TV customer for YIELDjet, there'll be material to make OLEDs on it.
> 
> And without speaking for Kateeva, I'd say they likely believe the same thing.


As long as they have qualified materials with sufficient lifetime/efficiency, ramping material supply is not going to be a gating factor. If nothing else, printing is going to bring down the amount of material needed by 80% for a given area.


----------



## Wizziwig

Ken Ross said:


> Well I can tell Wizz and I have very different tastes. This has nothing to do with being a 'perfectionist', but rather seeing things differently. No right or wrong here. Despite the flaws of plasma, I've never seen or owned a consumer/prosumer CRT, that could match the overall PQ of the best latter gen plasmas.
> 
> This doesn't even address the lack of a cinematic experience with CRTs.


We're actually not that different in that regard. I NEVER watch movies on my CRT. It is way too small for that purpose. I use it primarily for gaming because it offers the ideal combination of zero input lag and perfect motion resolution. Second best black level performance doesn't hurt either - although OLED has finally beaten it on that measure. To hit the same black levels without crushing dark details would require some external gamma compensation with my CRT.

tgm1024 is correct that motion is probably the main issue left unsolved in modern displays. We took a giant hit when the flat panel era started and have never recovered to the same level of performance. You don't really need any fancy tests to prove it. Just play your favorite 60 fps content and pause it. If you see additional detail compared to when it was moving, you're losing motion resolution. It's a very obvious difference if you have a CRT next to any other display type.

Because of limitations with 24fps content, there is nothing anyone can do to make that look perfect. If that's your primary source of content, then I would not worry about motion resolution with most modern displays.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> As long as they have qualified materials with sufficient lifetime/efficiency, ramping material supply is not going to be a gating factor. If nothing else, printing is going to bring down the amount of material needed by 80% for a given area.


We are in violent agreement.


----------



## Matthias Hutter

DisplayMate posted their Samsung Galaxy Note 4 screen review: 
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note4_ShootOut_1.htm

I'm impressed by the high rate by which Samsung SDI has improved their OLED technology.
It's a shame that they don't have a public plan to get back to large screen OLEDs with their technology.


----------



## Ken Ross

rogo said:


> We are in violent agreement.


Does that mean you throw things when you 'really' agree with someone.


----------



## mo949

holy matrimony batman


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> As long as they have qualified materials with sufficient lifetime/efficiency, ramping material supply is not going to be a gating factor. If nothing else, printing is going to bring down the amount of material needed by 80% for a given area.


Well, there is a lot of bad stuff surrounding OLED soluble material production. One needs hydroxyphenyls and butanones (whose production of course will be outsourced to Mexico as always) be so pure to able to make OLED materials that it is so pure that it allows a possibility of turning Heroin into hydromorphone (more potent and way more addictive and Merck or UDC can't afford to have Zogenix reputation) hence you have FDA and DEA all up your ass plus you run the risk of theft or illegal sales. Then of course you have to work with very high octane benzenes (which are highly explosive and flammable), plus you have to have an airtight environment to make some singles. 


But howbeit I agree that once there is enough demand for it Merck and UDC and others shall rise up to the challenge.


----------



## rogo

Ken Ross said:


> Does that mean you throw things when you 'really' agree with someone.


If you come, maybe we can find an LCD dumping ground and throw a bunch of those around (with safety gear on, of course), to express our hope that era comes to an end!


----------



## rogo

stas3098 said:


> But howbeit I agree that once there is enough demand for it Merck and UDC and others shall rise up to the challenge.


Good to know slacker (and maybe a teeny bit of me) has fixed your "broken record."


----------



## 8mile13

Wizziwig said:


> Because of limitations with 24fps content, there is nothing anyone can do to make that look perfect. If that's your primary source of content, then I would not worry about motion resolution with most modern displays.


Folks keep saying that. I don't know about that. My Plasma's motion looks better than my LCd's motion. Motion interpolation is turned off on my european 100hz LCd (no fake frames for me while watching 24fps). LCd motion is good enough but it is not like ''not worry''. I am not convinced that 24fps looks ok on current OLEDs either.


----------



## ynotgoal

LG: OLED TVS CAN BECOME CHEAPER THAN LCD TVS

By the time LG hits 95% yields, the company should be able to produce OLED TVs at lower production costs than LCD TVs - if everything goes according to plan that is. This kind of optimism leads LG to believe that in about three years from now sales of OLED TVs and LCD TVs will be 50/50.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1411039923


----------



## catonic

^ ^ Artwood will be happy if this is what happens. He may yet escape the apocalyptic horror of an LCD only world.


----------



## tgm1024

catonic said:


> ^ ^ Artwood will be happy if this is what happens. He may yet escape the apocalyptic horror of an LCD only world.


No, I think he'll be miserable. 99% of what he's spoken about for years has been centered on what won't happen. He'll need his day job back.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> LG: OLED TVS CAN BECOME CHEAPER THAN LCD TVS
> 
> By the time LG hits 95% yields, the company should be able to produce OLED TVs at lower production costs than LCD TVs - if everything goes according to plan that is. This kind of optimism leads LG to believe that in about three years from now sales of OLED TVs and LCD TVs will be 50/50.
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1411039923


This seems to be a campaign by LG to explain the recent price increase on the 4K TVs:

"Later this year, LG’s new ultra-modern production facilities will start operating, and by that time LG will be able to produce larger and cheaper OLED displays. *The plant is currently in a testing phase, which is why we are seeing LG slowly roll out its first 4K OLED TVs at the moment*."

Everything I have read has said that the 4K panels would only be produced in M2, and if it is not in production yet (but only 'testing phase') that means that despite LGs desire to launch the 4K products, they don't yet have any to sell.

Also, everything I have read pointed to M2 being up an running 'in Q3' (which ends in less than 2 weeks), so the reference to 'start operating' 'later this year' suggests there have been delays in getting M2 up and running...


----------



## rogo

ynotgoal said:


> By the time LG hits 95% yields, the company should be able to produce OLED TVs at lower production costs than LCD TVs - if everything goes according to plan that is.


So, since it never has with any display tech, and certainly not with OLED, let's assume a couple of things:

1) It will take longer than LG hopes.
2) There's a good chance that OLED will never meaningfully eclipse LCD on production costs and might be fortunate to reach parity. Because, again, "everything" rarely goes according to plan.
3) Someday, parity will be good enough.



> This kind of optimism leads LG to believe that in about three years from now sales of OLED TVs and LCD TVs will be 50/50.


So, I assume they mean for LG itself.

Because clearly there is not any chance they mean the TV industry, unless they mean to be 100% wrong.

Even for LG, this is a very, very aggressive target. LG sells ~30 million TVs a year (perhaps 35). To get to 15 million annually in 2017 from the


----------



## alfredlordbleep

*OLED costs vs LCD costs (from a generally pessimistic column)*



> First, OLEDs are ridiculously difficult to make. OLEDs need four or five times more transistors than LCDs (LCDs for TVs have one transistor for each red, green and blue dot, OLEDs have as many as five). That means an UltraHD OLED TV has around 40 million transistors – around eight times the number of Intel’s original Pentium chip!
> 
> Furthermore, those transistors have to be made of very high grade materials. On an LCD, the transistor doesn’t have to carry the energy for the image, just control a switch in front of the backlight, so can be low quality. On an OLED, all the energy for the image has to go through the transistor cluster, so it has to be much higher quality.


http://www.display-central.com/subscription-news/editorial-categories/pro-av/dd-12th-sept/

It would be useful to have a *parts budget*---just for starters. Then come questions of *panel yields* etc....


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> So, since it never has with any display tech, and certainly not with OLED, let's assume a couple of things:
> 
> 1) It will take longer than LG hopes.
> 2) There's a good chance that OLED will never meaningfully eclipse LCD on production costs and might be fortunate to reach parity. Because, again, "everything" rarely goes according to plan.
> 3) Someday, parity will be good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I assume they mean for LG itself.
> 
> Because clearly there is not any chance they mean the TV industry, unless they mean to be 100% wrong.
> 
> Even for LG, this is a very, very aggressive target. *LG sells ~30 million TVs a year* (perhaps 35). *To get to 15 million annually in 2017* from the


----------



## rogo

alfredlordbleep said:


> http://www.display-central.com/subscription-news/editorial-categories/pro-av/dd-12th-sept/
> 
> It would be useful to have a *parts budget*---just for starters. Then comes questions of *panel yields* etc....


Yeah, well put. It's hard to take much of this seriously....



fafrd said:


> Unless LG is blowing smoke, even 'half of LG TVs' doesn't make any sense.
> 
> 'Half of LG shipments of same-sized TVs' may begin to make some sense. From the current lineup, that would mean 50/50 for 55" and 65" and 77" TVs. I have no idea how many 55" + 65" + 77" LED/LCD TVs LG is shipping this year, but I suspect it is a fraction of those 30 million (1/4? 1/5th? even less?)


OK, while I think LG is just talking gibberish, I like the way you're thinking, too.

Half of "things in the categories where we ship OLEDs that are also branded by us" starts to smack of plausible.

Anything else does, indeed, some absurd.


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Unless LG is blowing smoke, even 'half of LG TVs' doesn't make any sense.
> 
> 'Half of LG shipments of same-sized TVs' may begin to make some sense. From the current lineup, that would mean 50/50 for 55" and 65" and 77" TVs.


Yes, this is my guess as well. However I don't believe there is anything similar to an "honest mistake" in marketing. I don't think there is an honest _anything_ in marketing. I think they're leaving themselves a lawyer-esque out if they are called upon to produce numbers at some point.




rogo said:


> OK, while I think LG is just talking gibberish, I like the way you're thinking, too.
> 
> Half of "things in the categories where we ship OLEDs that are also branded by us" starts to smack of plausible.
> 
> Anything else does, indeed, some absurd.


Seems that way.


----------



## fafrd

I didn't know thread was most appropriate for this, so I guess I'll post it here:


Just returned from my local Best Buy. Spoke to the manager and they have not sold a single 55EC9300 at the 'old' price of $3500 and they have only sold a single 55EC9300 since the drop to the 'sale' price of $3000.


His comment to me was: "That TV looks great but it's only 1080p, and that's not what customers are looking for, especially at that price."


If the 55EC9300s aren't selling well, even at $3000, and the 65EC9700s are delayed (and priced for window-shopping only), I think we can expect another price drop sooner rather than later...


p.s. and once again, there were more customers clustered around the 55" 1080p Hisense costing less than 1/4 of the 55EC9300 on 'sale' (the two set's have been positioned on adjacent non-prime endcaps).


----------



## catonic

^ ^ Makes sense to me.

If LG really want to make OLED a success, which they obviously do, they need to make their OLED tv's the most advanced in all possible areas.
4k, the widest possible color gamut, at least proper 10 bit (no dithering) or better yet, 12 bit, HDR, HDMI 2.0a (18 Gbps) and Display Port 1.3.
Being the best in one area (black levels, contrast ratios) is not enough, especially in the premium market and when they are trying to establish a market based on higher quality.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> I didn't know thread was most appropriate for this, so I guess I'll post it here:
> 
> 
> Just returned from my local Best Buy. Spoke to the manager and they have not sold a single 55EC9300 at the 'old' price of $3500 and they have only sold a single 55EC9300 since the drop to the 'sale' price of $3000.


You're in the bay area right? Down here in socal the situation is exactly the same. The stores I visit near work have a box sitting on the floor next to he TV. Those boxes have not moved since launch. One AVS member local to me bought one and then returned it to wait for the 4K 65" model. I also see no drop in their online store-pickup inventory for my area.

I think we've pretty much established that the MicroCenter and Fry's closeout prices of $2K on the EA9800 are the only way to move these TVs. We've already seen a $500 drop and I would not be shocked if they are at $2K by Black Friday.

Good news for potential shoppers. I also think they will introduce an equivalent to the flat European 55EA870v for an even lower price than the curved. It's a much simpler design that should be cheaper to produce without the stupid gallery frame.

$8.5K+ for the 65" is complete insanity and is basically just a paper launch. It probably means we won't see any reviews for many months. The first EA9800 owners here on AVS didn't show up until 6 months later when it hit ~$5K from the original $15K

Edit: You also have to consider that in the areas where the EA9800 is still available for less, it is probably killing sales of the EC9300. I expect sales will pick up somewhat once the older inventory is exhausted.


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> p.s. and once again, there were more customers clustered around the 55" 1080p Hisense costing less than 1/4 of the 55EC9300 on 'sale' (the two set's have been positioned on adjacent non-prime endcaps).


I don't doubt this at all. I'll ask at my local BB (Massachusetts) and see what he says.

I was really surprised at how the black levels of the EC9300 looked compared to the nearby LCD on that bright floor of theirs. They were very close. It's just not the place for it.

But as I had that thought at BB I quickly remembered that black levels aren't actually in the forefront of the public's consciousness anyway. It is here, but frankly, I don't think the average person looks for it or knows what it is. Besides, as a few of us have mentioned, when your iris is shrunk down to a pinhole, they all look great.


----------



## ynotgoal

Rogo,
From your article on Kateeva: "Kateeva expects customers to use its machines to build flexible displays that can be bent and even folded in half. The end result would be nearly unbreakable smartphones and possibly even devices that allow you to fold out an extra display when you need more workspace. The larger display could be seamless and nearly allow your phone to be transformed into a tablet and back again. Kateeva’s CEO Alain Harrus believes products using this type of display will reach the market as soon as next year."

From oled-info http://www.oled-info.com/kateeva-ra...ay-flexible-oled-and-oled-tv-ink-jet-printing
Kateeva expects to ship the first commercial systems towards the end of 2014. YieldJET systems can be used to mass-produce flexible OLED thin-film encapsulation, one of the major technology hurdles towards flexible OLEDs.


Samsung has suggested displays like you describe for next year and is building a gen 6 flexible line with equipment delivery at the end of the year and expected to be ready for production in q2. LG is planning one but hasn't ordered equipment. If Kateeva is building a machine for a flexible line for delivery this year with product next year, then it is for Samsung's gen 6 line. So, rather than for the RGB OLED, is this Kateeva machine for thin film encapsulation for Samsung's gen 6 flexible line? Samsung's main problem with flexible displays has been the thin film encapsulation so I could see where they would be interested in this.


----------



## rogo

Hi, ynot, your theory sounds very correct. That said, Kateeva (and I believe Samsung) are not confirming an explicit commercial relationship at this point. It seems very likely that that Samsung's Gen 6 line for flexible displays will, in fact, use Kateeva's equipment. It is certainly the case that Kateeva is clear on the fact that it's first delivers are focused on customers looking to use thin-film encapsulation and make said displays. 

So, let me be clear: I can't confirm or deny because they didn't confirm. But I agree with your conclusions.


----------



## ChaosCloud

Wizziwig said:


> Good news for potential shoppers. I also think they will introduce an equivalent to the flat European 55EA870v for an even lower price than the curved.


What makes you think so? Is there a source for this info you can share?


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> You're in the bay area right? Down here in socal the situation is exactly the same. The stores I visit near work have a box sitting on the floor next to he TV. Those boxes have not moved since launch. One AVS member local to me bought one and then returned it to wait for the 4K 65" model. I also see no drop in their online store-pickup inventory for my area.
> 
> *I think we've pretty much established that the MicroCenter and Fry's closeout prices of $2K on the EA9800 are the only way to move these TVs.* We've already seen a $500 drop and *I would not be shocked if they are at $2K by Black Friday.*
> 
> Good news for potential shoppers. I also think they will introduce an equivalent to the flat European 55EA870v for an even lower price than the curved. It's a much simpler design that should be cheaper to produce without the stupid gallery frame.
> 
> $8.5K+ for the 65" is complete insanity and is basically just a paper launch. It probably means we won't see any reviews for many months. The first EA9800 owners here on AVS didn't show up until 6 months later when it hit ~$5K from the original $15K
> 
> Edit: You also have to consider that in the areas where the EA9800 is still available for less, it is probably killing sales of the EC9300. I expect sales will pick up somewhat once the older inventory is exhausted.



Yeah (Berkeley). 


And totally agree on pricing (in fact, had he thought the first time I heard about the $2K McMall pricing 'mistake' on the 55EA9800...).


----------



## Rich Peterson

fafrd said:


> Just returned from my local Best Buy. Spoke to the manager and they have not sold a single 55EC9300 at the 'old' price of $3500 and they have only sold a single 55EC9300 since the drop to the 'sale' price of $3000.


My experience was a little different. I went back to the BB where I bought mine and the endcap that had the display was empty. I asked where the demo unit was and the salesperson said it broke and went back for repair some time ago. I mentioned it must be tough trying to sell an OLED given that there's no display and the salesperson quickly said they hadn't sold any at all. I guess they didn't count the one they sold me.


----------



## fafrd

Rich Peterson said:


> My experience was a little different. I went back to the BB where I bought mine and the endcap that had the display was empty. I asked where the demo unit was and the salesperson said it broke and went back for repair some time ago. I mentioned it must be tough trying to sell an OLED given that there's no display and the salesperson quickly said they hadn't sold any at all. I guess they didn't count the one they sold me.


 
Not too different. Two Best Buys each having sold only a single OLED over the past 6+ weeks. If we get enough other anecdotal evidence from other members to believe there is any validity to thinking this poor level of sales may generalize to all 4000 Best Buy stores, it means things are looking pretty grim for LG...

4000 in sales over 6 weeks would translate into a runrate of ~32,000 annually, or well under 3000 per month.

M2, when it is finally ramped up to the Phase-I production level of 8000 Gen8 sheets per month, will be producing over 38,000 55EC9300s per month (at stated yields of 80%).

That kind of mismatch is going to result in a return to MicroCenter 'mistake' prices of $2K sooner rather than later...


----------



## Jason626

Rich Peterson said:


> My experience was a little different. I went back to the BB where I bought mine and the endcap that had the display was empty. I asked where the demo unit was and the salesperson said it broke and went back for repair some time ago. I mentioned it must be tough trying to sell an OLED given that there's no display and the salesperson quickly said they hadn't sold any at all. I guess they didn't count the one they sold me.


Sounds like best buy employees don't know how many units are sold among themselves. A part timer might say he hasn't sold any while full time employee may sold a few or someone working weekends get more traffic. I doubt regular blue shirts keep tabs on who sell what.


----------



## mo949

^they're pushing 4k at best buy. OLED isn't in 4k yet at bestbuy. Just to add to your thought.


----------



## Wizziwig

ChaosCloud said:


> What makes you think so? Is there a source for this info you can share?


http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1410102139



> LG is selling a flat OLED TV in most markets, too. The 55EA8800 “Gallery” TV is currently more expensive than the curved TV, but in select markets LG will soon introduce a new EA870 model without the Gallery frame and less powerful speakers. On the other hand, you will have live without the webOS platform. LG expects it to retail at *around the same price as the new curved model*.





fafrd said:


> Not too different. Two Best Buys each having sold only a single OLED over the past 6+ weeks. If we get enough other anecdotal evidence from other members to believe there is any validity to thinking this poor level of sales may generalize to all 4000 Best Buy stores, it means things are looking pretty grim for LG...
> 
> 4000 in sales over 6 weeks would translate into a runrate of ~32,000 annually, or well under 3000 per month.
> 
> M2, when it is finally ramped up to the Phase-I production level of 8000 Gen8 sheets per month, will be producing over 38,000 55EC9300s per month (at stated yields of 80%).
> 
> That kind of mismatch is going to result in a return to MicroCenter 'mistake' prices of $2K sooner rather than later...


I think the situation is grim indeed. Ignoring BB, let's take a look at MicroCenter. They also have an online inventory system. If you look at the EA9800 stock, you will see that only 2 out of 25 stores have sold out at $2K pricing that has been in effect for a few weeks now. The others still have plenty of stock (some over 10 units). I think lack of marketing is also a huge problem for LG. I see those stupid Samsung ads for curved LCD almost every day. I have yet to see a single ad for OLED. Most people have no clue what it is or its advantages. The tiny number of people on this forum are not enough to sustain sales for long.

I was hoping the 4K models would spark more interest but at the proposed pricing, that's just not going to happen.


----------



## rogo

I don't think it's just lack of marketing. I think the market for 55-inch $2000 TVs is drying up. I think the market for 2K TVs is drying up as premium products, period.

I reported this in another thread, but it's hard to find evidence that there is much discernible volume at $2000+ for the 55-and-up category -- even in 4K. I'd say volume at least _exists_ in 4K, but the 2K stuff that's super-premium is edging down toward $1500-1700. 

And those of us who told you that regular consumers would not see OLED in stores as sufficiently differently are seeing strong confirmation for that belief at this point.

LG will need to get 4K going in a hurry and, likely, drive the 2K models down below $2000 to move its projected volumes. There's a lot of reason why they are slashing forecasts for 2015. It can't deliver what it was once supposed to. Even pushing M2 to capacity won't make sense without some structural changes.


----------



## kucharsk

I know several people (not just enthusiasts) who would purchase a 55"+ OLED for $4K or so ($5K for 4K)… if it was flat. 

We'll see if they bite when the gallery model becomes available, though it's not 4K… assuming LG fixes the judder issue and has a way to defeat the firmware brightness limiting.

From what I've seen, interest in WebOS is near zero, as most people have other devices that do all that and don't need their TV to do anything more than be a display and receive OTA signals (*no* speakers would be a nice plus as virtually no one spending that kind of money for a display ever uses the TV speakers.)


----------



## JimP

kucharsk said:


> … assuming LG fixes the judder issue and has a way to defeat the firmware brightness limiting.


What makes you think that the brightness limiter will be defeated? 

It was put in to extend the life of the panel.

Personally....that's a big negative but I guess it depends a lot on how aggressive it is. If its F8500 aggressive, I wouldn't worry. If its Pioneer 6070 aggressive, I'd pass on it.


----------



## kucharsk

JimP said:


> What makes you think that the brightness limiter will be defeated?
> 
> It was put in to extend the life of the panel.
> 
> Personally....that's a big negative but I guess it depends a lot on how aggressive it is. If its F8500 aggressive, I wouldn't worry. If its Pioneer 6070 aggressive, I'd pass on it.


That's exactly why; if I want to shorten the life of my panel in favor of full dynamic range of my LEDs, shouldn't I be able to?

It's no different than running a projector at a higher output setting at the cost of bulb life.


----------



## JimP

kucharsk said:


> That's exactly why; if I want to shorten the life of my panel in favor of full dynamic range of my LEDs, shouldn't I be able to?
> 
> It's no different than running a projector at a higher output setting at the cost of bulb life.


That depends on whether or not you expect the manufacturer to pony up another display while under warranty. The bulb example only works because you're the one paying for replacement bulbs.


----------



## barth2k

JimP said:


> That depends on whether or not you expect the manufacturer to pony up another display while under warranty. The bulb example only works because you're the one paying for replacement bulbs.


Then the ABL isn't there to extend life but to prevent early sudden death, which means it will not be disabled unless something changes.


----------



## JimP

barth2k said:


> Then the ABL isn't there to extend life but to prevent early sudden death, which means it will not be disabled unless something changes.


I don't see a lot of difference between "to extend life" and "prevent early sudden death."


----------



## htwaits

JimP said:


> I don't see a lot of difference between "to extend life" and "prevent early sudden death."


Ask me! Ask me!

Extended life degradation is the hope that it wouldn't happen until after the warranty expires, and sudden death would be expensive to the manufacturer if it happened during the warranty.


----------



## ChaosCloud

Wizziwig said:


> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1410102139


Thanks, I have seen that page before, but based on the quoted statement I would not assume that an equivalent to the European model is headed for the North American market.

However - googling 55EA8700, the logical name for such a product, a result of wifi certification appears. So perhaps LG _is_ planning to release it this side of the ocean.
http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=55ea8700


----------



## Wizziwig

ChaosCloud said:


> Thanks, I have seen that page before, but based on the quoted statement I would not assume that an equivalent to the European model is headed for the North American market.
> 
> However - googling 55EA8700, the logical name for such a product, a result of wifi certification appears. So perhaps LG _is_ planning to release it this side of the ocean.
> http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=55ea8700


To give further evidence, I can tell you that the supply of 55EA8800 is quickly drying up. One of the largest dealers near me cleared their entire inventory at $3K and has not restocked in weeks. You can also see Cleveland Plasma slowly raising prices (from a low of $3K) as supply runs low.

Either LG is dropping flat entirely, or they have a replacement model coming. I'm betting on the latter.


----------



## mfogarty5

kucharsk said:


> I know several people (not just enthusiasts) who would purchase a 55"+ OLED for $4K or so ($5K for 4K)… if it was flat.
> 
> We'll see if they bite when the gallery model becomes available, though it's not 4K… assuming LG fixes the judder issue and has a way to defeat the firmware brightness limiting.
> 
> From what I've seen, interest in WebOS is near zero, as most people have other devices that do all that and don't need their TV to do anything more than be a display and receive OTA signals (*no* speakers would be a nice plus as virtually no one spending that kind of money for a display ever uses the TV speakers.)


I'm confused. The gallery OLED is available today for less than $4k from Cleveland Plasma. The frame housing the speakers does not have to be used.


----------



## kucharsk

mfogarty5 said:


> I'm confused. The gallery OLED is available today for less than $4k from Cleveland Plasma. The frame housing the speakers does not have to be used.


Great...except most people would want to see one in person before buying and I don't know of retailers showing it.


----------



## john stephens

htwaits said:


> Ask me! Ask me!
> 
> Extended life degradation is the hope that it wouldn't happen until after the warranty expires, and sudden death would be expensive to the manufacturer if it happened during the warranty.


Send PM.


----------



## mo949

mfogarty5 said:


> I'm confused. The gallery OLED is available today for less than $4k from Cleveland Plasma. The frame housing the speakers does not have to be used.


It is pretty strange. Glad someone else noticed this too. Also, I happen to like having the tv speakers, but don't care about their quality. I've always felt that when watching the news I prefer it coming from the TV speakers and engaging the sound system was not only overkill, but unpleasant to listen to the news with.


----------



## barth2k

^^^ also if you live in an appt or condo you don't necessarily want to treat your neighbors to thumping bass for two hours every time you watch a movie.


----------



## mfogarty5

OLED pricing has declined so much in the last year that I thought a little sanity was warranted. This is from 15 months ago. 



rogo said:


> The history of TV price declines, for what it's worth, is that 30% compounded reductions are about thebest you will ever see.
> 
> Using that and starting with $13,000.....
> 
> 2014: $9100
> 2015: $6370
> 2016: $4450
> 2017: $3121
> 
> (Using $10,000 as a baseline, you get $7000, $4900, $3430, $2400 incidentally. Of course, 4 years of _compounded_ 30% reductions is a lot of "ifs" turning into reality.)
> 
> That, of course, is nowhere near price parity as in 2013, a flagship 55-inch LCD _launches_ at $2500 and falls lower later in the model year. It's hard to imagine a flagship LCD will be anymore than that in 2017, but it's easy to imagine it will be


----------



## rogo

mfogarty5 said:


> The LG OLED is already below the 2017 price projection of Mr. Snark. So much for those maximum 30% price reductions!


Hey, who you calling Mr. Snark! 

The prices in my post are list prices, not street prices. You should compare apples to apples on current models, not street pricing on closeout models.

The current 55 inch seems to have a list price of $7000. That's between the 2014 and 2015 prices, which seems consistent for end September 2014.

I recognize it streets for much less, but I think it's easy to misinterpret that by cherrypicking one post. If you read the many (hundreds?) of posts on this, you'd understand there's a consistent theme since 2011: OLED would never get to where it needed to be on price if it had to use volume to get there because at the normal pricing curve, the volumes would never come....

Something had to give, and it has given. LG has simply moved down the pricing curve without (a) achieving any discernible volume (b) without admitting it by lowering the list prices.

Incidentally, if you look carefully at that post there's a reference to "using $10,000 as a baseline" and then mentioning a $7000 price this year. Well, that wasn't a throwaway. It was that after intro-ing at $13,000, LG did lower the price to $10,000 rather quickly. And now, one year later, we are at $7000.... That's entirely consistent.

What's inconsistent is the gap between street and list. Everyone should consider that welcome, except perhaps LG, which clearly didn't want to be here at this point. They have failed to understand what many AVSers (myself included) did: There was no market to be had at the planned prices. None at all.


----------



## JimP

....or they understood the market and deliberately trying to not get that many OLEDs sold. Maybe manufacturing capacity wasn't anywhere near what they were claiming or they are concerned about some aspect of the display and didn't want to be on the hook for a lot of warranty claims.


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> I don't think it's just lack of marketing. I think the market for 55-inch $2000 TVs is drying up. I think the market for 2K TVs is drying up as premium products, period.
> 
> I reported this in another thread, but it's hard to find evidence that there is much discernible volume at $2000+ for the 55-and-up category -- even in 4K. I'd say volume at least _exists_ in 4K, but the 2K stuff that's super-premium is edging down toward $1500-1700.
> 
> And those of us who told you that regular consumers would not see OLED in stores as sufficiently differently are seeing strong confirmation for that belief at this point.
> 
> LG will need to get 4K going in a hurry and, likely, drive the 2K models down below $2000 to move its projected volumes. There's a lot of reason why they are slashing forecasts for 2015. It can't deliver what it was once supposed to. Even pushing M2 to capacity won't make sense without some structural changes.


Yeah, like some average Joe will ever buy a 1080p OLED for under 2 grand when that same some average Joe can get a better deal ( in his very own average Joeey mind ,of course on a 4K Vizo or some other piece-of-sh!t 4k LCD TV set for 1500 bucks. 


4k is the thing that makes OLED or breaks it. Them's the breaks fellas, Them's the breaks...


P.S My in-laws are really loaded and yet all of them to a man still to this day have piece-of-sh!t LCDs at home and some of them think that OLED is an empty hype and, paradoxically, they believe that 4k is better than just LCD. Go figure that, huh...


----------



## stas3098

Look here guys, everybody on German, Russian, US, Polish, Arabic forums sing the same song in unison that LG ain't selling no one cool mil of OLED TVs per month* any time soon unless those OLED TVs in question are way cheaper than LCDs on the shelves so to speak.


In my mind retailing 1080p OLEDs for under 2 grand when 1080p LCDs are retailing at under 1000 bucks is like putting poultice on a wooden leg or slaying the slain for the third time. I don't believe LG are just beating their head against the wall with OLED, either, I'm pretty sure them Korean guys know what the heck they're doing what with them going to great lengths to make OLED work. I think we just gotta adopt that "wait&see" 'tude for a while to let the market ,not LG, set the price and to see if LG are up to the task of meeting the price "market" is ready for.

*all parties agree that one million a month is a sustainable volume anything short of that volume doesn't make the game worth the candle on a large scheme of things or as one Polish dude put it" "anything south of one mil is tantamount to "slaughtering the sheep for its skin" and as every Polack son of a ***** including me knows "slaughtering the sheep to just make sheepskin" never got anyone anywhere".


----------



## Rudy1

_*Samsung Invests in Kateeva:*_

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/samsung-inkjet-201409233919.htm


----------



## tgm1024

Rudy1 said:


> _*Samsung Invests in Kateeva:*_
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/samsung-inkjet-201409233919.htm


"a whopping 38 million"

I don't like this article very much....too much of it smacks of statements that are supposed to sound self-evident when they're not.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> "a whopping 38 million"
> 
> I don't like this article very much....too much of it smacks of statements that are supposed to sound self-evident when they're not.


I liked some other article better; not sure where I wrote read it though.


----------



## mreendoor

*Blue LED breakthrough*

The LEDs' lifetime has been enhanced by a factor of ten, allowing for more efficient use. The model of the evolutionary chain in the physical model of the blue PHOLED is intended to represent its ability to live an extended period of time


http://phys.org/news/2014-09-phosphor-blue-breakthrough-efficient-electronics.html


----------



## tgm1024

mreendoor said:


> *Blue LED breakthrough*
> 
> The LEDs' lifetime has been enhanced by a factor of ten, allowing for more efficient use. The model of the evolutionary chain in the physical model of the blue PHOLED is intended to represent its ability to live an extended period of time
> 
> 
> http://phys.org/news/2014-09-phosphor-blue-breakthrough-efficient-electronics.html


Hey *thanks*for that.

I love the title ("Live long and phosphor"), but they misnamed the article (LED vs OLED)...the differences were discussed some years ago here. But very interesting. I'm surprised it hasn't already been attempted though....it does seem a tad obvious.

I wonder what happens if they apply the same technique to the red and green? Will they then end up with blue relatively dying sooner all over again? I know it won't matter much if the length is long enough....no one needs a 40 year TV.

....But....isn't the lifetime problem already solved by simply having a larger blue (driven less) the way the S9C does?


----------



## stas3098

mreendoor said:


> *Blue LED breakthrough*
> 
> The LEDs' lifetime has been enhanced by a factor of ten, allowing for more efficient use. The model of the evolutionary chain in the physical model of the blue PHOLED is intended to represent its ability to live an extended period of time
> 
> 
> http://phys.org/news/2014-09-phosphor-blue-breakthrough-efficient-electronics.html


 


Well, that's some breakthrough they had rearranging the good old-fashioned small molecule Blue emitting materials in a different way. I bet that only works at low-to-mid brightness (as in 200 nits) and is no good for lighting, but is good for TVs ,though, however *the Polymers are the future of OLED not small molecules for they truly may never die.* I mean who'd want an OLED TV with 300 nits with small molecules when you can get 30,000 nits with polymers.Let's just hope this "breakthrough" won't kill polymer research...


_In collaboration with researchers at Universal Display Corp. in 2008, Forrest's group proposed an explanation for why blue PHOLEDs' lives are short. The team showed that the high energies required to produce blue light are more damaging when the brightness is increased to levels needed for displays or lighting._
_This is because a concentration of energy on one molecule can combine with that on a neighbor, and the total energy is enough to break up one of the molecules. It's less of a problem in green- and red-emitting PHOLEDs because it takes lower energies to make these colors of light._


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> ....But....isn't the lifetime problem already solved by simply having a larger blue (driven less) the way the S9C does?


It is mitigated but I wouldnt say it is solved. 

Ultimately, I am sure the goal is to get 100,000 hour lifetime. Besides televisions, this opens up laptops and monitors as markets. A phosphorescent blue with a long lifetime also allows them to increase the max brightness, eliminate the ABL, and possibly use BFI if they so choose. All of those become a series of tradeoffs rather than a hard cap because you need to do everything possible to extend the lifetime of blue.

This is still an R&D project and they were using a light blue to prove out the technique but it seems fairly simple to do. There is a quote at the end of the article from UDC who helps fund Michigan's research about this being a significant step in getting a commercial blue.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> It is mitigated but I wouldnt say it is solved.
> 
> Ultimately, I am sure the goal is to get 100,000 hour lifetime. Besides televisions, this opens up laptops and monitors as markets. A phosphorescent blue with a long lifetime also allows them to increase the max brightness, eliminate the ABL, and possibly use BFI if they so choose. All of those become a series of tradeoffs rather than a hard cap because you need to do everything possible to extend the lifetime of blue.
> 
> This is still an R&D project and they were using a light blue to prove out the technique but it seems fairly simple to do. There is a quote at the end of the article from UDC who helps fund Michigan's research about this being a significant step in getting a commercial blue.


Will the power savings be enough to eliminate ABL? Or is the current OLED ABL more about IR/BI?


----------



## alfredlordbleep

*Efficiency and contrast advance for organic LED (etc)*

What good, if any, is all this for your favorite application?


> Princeton University researchers have developed a new method to increase the brightness, efficiency and clarity of LEDs, which are widely used on smartphones and portable electronics as well as becoming increasingly common in lighting.
> 
> ...In fact, a rudimentary LED emits only about 2 to 4 percent of the light it generates. The trapped light not only makes the LEDs dim and energy inefficient, it also makes them short-lived because the trapped light heats the LED, which greatly reduces its lifespan.
> "A holy grail in today's LED manufacturing is light extraction," Chou said.
> 
> Engineers have been working on this problem. By adding metal reflectors, lenses or other structures, they can increase the light extraction of LEDs. For conventional high-end, organic LEDs, these techniques can increase light extraction to about 38 percent. But these light-extraction techniques cause the display to reflect ambient light, which reduces contrast and makes the image seem hazy.
> 
> To combat the reflection of ambient light, engineers now add light-absorbing materials to the display. But Chou said such materials also absorb the light from the LED, reducing its brightness and efficiency by as much as half.
> 
> The solution presented by Chou's team is the invention of a nanotechnology structure called PlaCSH (plasmonic cavity with subwavelength hole-array). The researchers reported that PlaCSH increased the efficiency of light extraction to 60 percent, which is 57 percent higher than conventional high-end organic LEDs. At the same time, the researchers reported that PlaCSH increased the contrast (clarity in ambient light) by 400 percent. The higher brightness also relieves the heating problem caused by the light trapped in standard LEDs.
> 
> Chou said that PlaCSH is able to achieve these results because its nanometer-scale, metallic structures are able to manipulate light in a way that bulk material or non-metallic nanostructures cannot.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140924113527.htm


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> It is mitigated but I wouldnt say it is solved.


It is actually solved ,at least on paper, by using larger (thicker) strip of blue material provided that the overall lifetime of an OLED display is around 30,000 hours. What I draw from it is that it might increase the overall lifetime of an OLED display beyond 30,000 at 200-300 nits. 


I'm taking this "breakthrough" with a grain of salt, because there were such breakthroughs before in 2009( Dupont and million hours red) and 2010 (http://maxwellsci.com/print/rjaset/v2-589-591.pdf), 2011 (spin-OLED) and 2012 (http://www.dupont.com/content/dam/a...terials/assets/DEC-DuPont_OLED_Technology.pdf) and most of these never get adopted nor implemented. Well what I'm saying is that there's no guarantee anyone will adopt it especially since it seems (by the first look of it) to add some complexity to the process of doping.


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> Will the power savings be enough to eliminate ABL? Or is the current OLED ABL more about IR/BI?


I think there are different modes of failure. One is the line that people have seen after letterbox movies. I think that has to be backplane related. The second is burn-in/IR related to differential aging of the pixels. 

The ABL is designed to help the latter. As you increase the lifetime of the materials, you should be able to increase the ABL (if not eliminate it). It is also possible that increased power efficiency will help with the reliability of the backplane as I always wonder about the role that heat may play in the backplane failures. 

FWIW, I am still hoping that the 4K OLED's do have the increased ABL that was shown by LG in the spring.


----------



## sooke

mreendoor said:


> *Blue LED breakthrough*
> 
> The LEDs' lifetime has been enhanced by a factor of ten, allowing for more efficient use. The model of the evolutionary chain in the physical model of the blue PHOLED is intended to represent its ability to live an extended period of time
> 
> 
> http://phys.org/news/2014-09-phosphor-blue-breakthrough-efficient-electronics.html


From the artice:

"researchers at the University of Michigan have extended the lifetime of blue organic light emitting diodes by a factor of 10."

Heh, go Blue!



Sorry, couldn't resist. Alma mater, and all that..


----------



## rogo

It's hard not to see these continued research projects as a positive now that there are both commercial OLED smartphones _and_ the first commercial TVs. You want to see research into the basics of making longevity, power, and the stubborn little issues (like ABL, image retention, et al.) all being improved in a robust ecosystem.

This is OLED growing up. And that's a win all around.

And, honestly, a much bigger blue stripe always felt like a hack.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> And, honestly, a much bigger blue stripe always felt like a hack.


Nah, not to me....I have precisely the opposite reaction. It's an _inherent _characteristic of these materials emitting a higher frequency, as discussed in the article. With their solution, you can "hack" your way around this inherent characteristic by changing how the deposits are shaped, but I don't see it as a hack to physically have more (and drive less) of some thing that naturally wears quicker.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> I think there are different modes of failure. One is the line that people have seen after letterbox movies. I think that has to be backplane related. The second is burn-in/IR related to differential aging of the pixels.
> 
> The ABL is designed to help the latter. As you increase the lifetime of the materials, you should be able to increase the ABL (if not eliminate it). It is also possible that increased power efficiency will help with the reliability of the backplane as I always wonder about the role that heat may play in the backplane failures.


Are IGZO based technologies particularly sensitive to temperature?


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Are IGZO based technologies particularly sensitive to temperature?


Of course IGZO is way more heat sensitive than poly-Si for metals melt (due ZnO admixture to improve election mobility) and (pure) Silicon crystalizes ("melting (heating)" reduces electron mobility and crystallization doesn't really affect it (up to a certain point))


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc_oxide#Electrical_properties


Electron mobility of ZnO (Zinc Oxide) *strongly varies with temperature...*


----------



## stas3098

By the way, guys, I've always found this English electron-hole thing down-right ununderstandable.


I'm gonna use simple English to try and explain this whole electron-hole thing in a way other not English people see it.


First, we have substance number-one (S1) that emits electrons on top of another substance ( that doesn't emit anything and which hereafter we shall call AS for the simplicity's sake) and then we have substance number two (S2) at the bottom of AS that emits holes (which are simply positrons (positrons are just anti-electrons)). 


After positrons and electrons are emitted they rush towards each other (opposites attract kind of thing) and when they inevitably collide ( they annihilate each other) they die and release two gamma rays (photons).


And here comes the most interesting thing. When photons are released within AS they just bounce off of molecules in AS and by this bouncing they somehow acquire their frequency or simply put photons bounce off of molecules in AS until they become "certain visible light" and after that they leave AS and propagate.


I hope this helps some of you guys understand how this whole electron-hole thing works and how OLED works at this smallest of scales.


----------



## rogo

The use of the word "hole", given its other meaning in English, makes it even less logical than I think you give it credit for. 

Your explanation was most useful.


----------



## mreendoor

*Atehene developed a strong FMM mask*



Japanese semiconductor technology maker developed a new shadow mask to make higher resolution OLEDs.


can enable the production of OLED panels with pixel densities of over 500 PPI


if this new mask can be made larger compared to current masks, it means that Samsung and other makers may scale-up their OLED production lines to higher substrate sizes, which means higher throughput and lower cost production.


http://www.oled-info.com/atehene-de...will-start-offering-it-oled-makers-early-2015


http://www.ledinside.com/news/2014/...gy_upgrades_oled_panels_resolution_to_500_ppi


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> First, we have substance number-one (S1) that emits electrons on top of another substance ( that doesn't emit anything and which hereafter we shall call AS for the simplicity's sake) and then we have substance number two (S2) at the bottom of AS that emits holes (which are simply positrons (positrons are just anti-electrons)).


I really do like the totality of your post, but I gotta stop you here; it's not _exactly _right. The positive "hole charges" are not positrons just because they are positive entities. Whenever you have a hole within a sea of one type of charge, it's often referred to as a "_quasiparticle_", not a particle which is what a positron is.

What's _really_ odd about holes is that they _can _behave like particles, but they are not.

Basically, using your nomenclature, you could not have a positron exist within a vacuum...you would need it to be a hole within a sea of negative particles. But this isn't the case with positrons---they're particles within their own right. Put the appropriate spin on it and it can exist with nothing else around it at all.

I remember when I first asked a subatomic particle physicist about this very issue and his explanation became horrendously complicated. He basically did a verbal face-palm and said if you look at if from the point of a quantum field it's completely different...if you look classically, they behave similarly but not identically. I then got a very long discussion of the original arguments against the proton as the anti-electron.

This discussion here is worth a read, where they basically say "....uh....", which of course is everyone's _*favorite *_answer from theoretical physicists.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> I really do like the totality of your post, but I gotta stop you here; it's not _exactly _right. The positive "hole charges" are not positrons just because they are positive entities. Whenever you have a hole within a sea of one type of charge, it's often referred to as a "_quasiparticle_", not a particle which is what a positron is.
> 
> What's _really_ odd about holes is that they _can _behave like particles, but they are not.
> 
> Basically, using your nomenclature, you could not have a positron exist within a vacuum...you would need it to be a hole within a sea of negative particles. But this isn't the case with positrons---they're particles within their own right. Put the appropriate spin on it and it can exist with nothing else around it at all.
> 
> I remember when I first asked a subatomic particle physicist about this very issue and his explanation became horrendously complicated. He basically did a verbal face-palm and said if you look at if from the point of a quantum field it's completely different...if you look classically, they behave similarly but not identically. I then got a very long discussion of the original arguments against the proton as the anti-electron.
> 
> This discussion here is worth a read, where they basically say "....uh....", which of course is everyone's _*favorite *_answer from theoretical physicists.





In some sense there is a semantic issue in a "hole" and in other sense there is a conceptual issue in it, too. 


See in _positron_ posi- denotes "carrying/having positive charge" and -tron denotes "subatomic particle (of any kind be that quasi-, anti-, or even verito (true)- particle)". "Hole" according to wiki is an actual particle of antimatter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole ) so if a "hole" is ultimately a particle that has a positive charge (positive defined as in attract negatively charged particles) it can roughly be called a "positron (subatomic particle with positive charge) ".


Wow that made my head spin for a moment when I read it. It's truly mind-boggling. Undeniably today I've done my fair share of fighting the windmills and ploughing the sands for the next couple of years with this hole is a positron thingy...


----------



## tgm1024

^LOL. Yeah, well, theoretical physics will do that.


----------



## Weboh

I have heard of this theory, but this isn't the discussion forum for it.


----------



## rogo

mreendoor said:


> *Atehene developed a strong FMM mask*
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese semiconductor technology maker developed a new shadow mask to make higher resolution OLEDs.
> 
> 
> can enable the production of OLED panels with pixel densities of over 500 PPI
> 
> 
> if this new mask can be made larger compared to current masks, it means that Samsung and other makers may scale-up their OLED production lines to higher substrate sizes, which means higher throughput and lower cost production.


There isn't even a claim it's more rigid than existing ones... Just that it allows more resolution.

I don't see any evidence this solves the TV problem, where resolution isn't even remotely an issue... It's going at an entirely different (non-existent?) problem.

You need a mask that can defy gravity to make FMM/SMS work for TV. There are fundamental reasons why that's not going to happen no matter what it's made from. Once you suspend the edges (necessary) the interior is going to sag... The bigger it is, the more that will happen. It's true that increasing rigidity can mitigate this, but given the thinness necessary, so far it hasn't proved scaleable beyond a certain size.

Also, FMM wastes a lot of material. It's not a great way to make OLEDs anyway -- even for Samsung today on small sizes. They make it work, but that doesn't actually make it a good method.


----------



## catonic

Weboh said:


> I have heard of this theory, but this isn't the discussion forum for it.



Of course it is. We have gone from years of learned discussion about vapourware to "holes", "quasiparticles" and "positive and negative spins", not to mention Einstein's concept of curved or warped space and it's relationship to Samsung's use of the curve in their tv's. 
Clearly this is just the place for such a discussion that continues on the great traditions of this famous thread, a thread so exalted in the AVS pantheon that it was formally elevated to "Sticky" status some time back, relatively speaking.
And I use the term "Sticky" here in a strictly scientific sense of course, as all you good theoretical physicists and cosmologists will understand. 
Past quotes from many contributors to this thread show that we are extremely capable of expounding on the matters raised by stas3098, and no doubt actually contributing to the advancement of science in this most fascinating and entertaining field.
There is every chance that a worthwhile contribution here could result in your ideas being included in some scientific or cosmological abstract published by the leading scientific journals of the day.
Or even better yet, appear on one of Michio Kaku's science programmes. 

P.S. The relationship between black holes, dark matter and OLED black levels/contrast ratios (both ANSI and on/off) is just one area where I am sure that the upper echelon of AVS OLED pundits have much to contribute. 
I especially look forward to hearing Vegas oled's thoughts and experiences on this matter, certainly in regards to probability theory and the decay rates of OLED picture quality over time.


----------



## tgm1024

^^^ Try decaff son. It'll help with moments like these. LOL...


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> Also, FMM wastes a lot of material. It's not a great way to make OLEDs anyway -- even for Samsung today on small sizes. They make it work, but that doesn't actually make it a good method.


Question about that. Material is wasted on the blocking parts of the mask, correct (and then presumably discarded)? But isn't that the same material that LG is supplying in its contiguous sheets of OLED material.....I would have thought that the parts that aren't lit up (subpixel & scanline gaps) in an LG OLED are similarly wasted. Plus LG isn't just doing a full sheet, it's doing 2 (for a dichromatic white). Or 3 if you read the Kodak patent a certain way.

Printing _absolutely _wins here, but LG doesn't seem like a better utilizer of OLED material than Samsung (if I understand the process properly).


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Question about that. Material is wasted on the blocking parts of the mask, correct (and then presumably discarded)? But isn't that the same material that LG is supplying in its contiguous sheets of OLED material.....I would have thought that the parts that aren't lit up (subpixel & scanline gaps) in an LG OLED are similarly wasted. Plus LG isn't just doing a full sheet, it's doing 2 (for a dichromatic white). Or 3 if you read the Kodak patent a certain way.
> 
> Printing _absolutely _wins here, but LG doesn't seem like a better utilizer of OLED material than Samsung (if I understand the process properly).


 
LG uses a full continuous sheet of white (meaning the stack of yellow+blue or red+green+blue or whatever). There is no patterning of the OLED layers.

With masking 67% of each layer being applied is completely wasted.

Any subpixel and scanline gaps is common to LG and Samsung processes and an additional source of wastage, but that is not the main source of wastage in the masked process...


----------



## rogo

fafrd, I think gets this mostly right.

To apply each color with Samsung's method you end up covering the mask with essentially enough material to cover the whole sheet. Three times you do this. Each time you waste 2/3 of it because you're only patterning one color and you also waste whatever inter-pixel space there is.

With LG's technique, you get only the interpixel waste, though I'm not sure I believe vapor deposition is exactly frugal either.

The larger point is neither method is especially a good choice for decades worth of OLED production. LG's is better for production, but perhaps less good for things like pixel fill unless they can get more efficient and drop the W subpixel.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> fafrd, I think gets this mostly right.
> 
> To apply each color with Samsung's method you end up covering the mask with essentially enough material to cover the whole sheet. Three times you do this. Each time you waste 2/3 of it because you're only patterning one color and you also waste whatever inter-pixel space there is.



Thanks----I of course know how the screens are arranged, but I had forgotten the (obvious) fact that in the Samsung case, this necessitates applying the mask 3 separate times, each time discarding material. There are 3 separate substances involved, so of course. But the waste should be far more than 2/3 on each pass, no? The area of any one of the 3 subpixels is substantially less than 1/3rd of all the screen space allotted to the pixel (and gaps). The area in mm² of all the red is much less than 1/3rd the area of the entire screen.

So they just apply the material, wipe off the excess and throw it away between every single lift-and-place of the mask?




> With LG's technique, you get only the interpixel waste, though I'm not sure I believe vapor deposition is exactly frugal either.



Yes, _*but *_that interpixel waste is multiplied by the number of (vertical stack) layers involved. (2 or 3 depending upon how you read the Kodak patents).




> The larger point is neither method is especially a good choice for decades worth of OLED production. LG's is better for production, but perhaps less good for things like pixel fill unless they can get more efficient and drop the W subpixel.


That would be nice, because I think we appropriately guessed years ago that the white was entirely needed to reclaim some of the efficiency you lose by the filtering (read: the wholesale throwing away of) light.

If Samsung's mask thing could _ever_ work, then some kind of _clean_ reclamation of material would be good_,_ because there's _no_ way to reclaim lost (unused) material in the LG case.

One more question though: the flexing of the mask you mentioned previously. Shouldn't the flex be 100% predictable and thus built into the equation? The perforation of the holes in the first place should be initially made _while_ flexed, etc. (?)

EDIT: Nevermind. I'm assuming that the flex isn't a problem with the arrangement of holes, but with how close they can get to the substrate. Why can't they make this mask thicker again? A hole-plugging problem?


----------



## tgm1024

Regarding LG: There was some speculation in one or two of the model threads (EA9800/EC9300) that the LG OLED's from Mexico might behave differently than the ones from S. Korea.

Are these just "assembly/integration" plants (pick the proper term for me), or are the actual _OLED panels themselves _made in countries other than South Korea?


----------



## UltraBlack

rogo said:


> You need a mask that can defy gravity to make FMM/SMS work for TV. There are fundamental reasons why that's not going to happen no matter what it's made from. Once you suspend the edges (necessary) the interior is going to sag... The bigger it is, the more that will happen.


What about a mask made of carbon nanotubes?


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Regarding LG: There was some speculation in one or two of the model threads (EA9800/EC9300) that the LG OLED's from Mexico might behave differently than the ones from S. Korea.
> 
> *Are these just "assembly/integration" plants* (pick the proper term for me), or are the actual _OLED panels themselves _made in countries other than South Korea?


 

Yes.

The OLED panels themselves come only off of LGs M1 WOLED pilot line (and hopefully soon also off of LGs new M2 WOLED production line)


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> fafrd, I think gets this mostly right.
> 
> *To apply each color with Samsung's method you end up covering the mask with essentially enough material to cover the whole sheet. Three times you do this. Each time you waste 2/3 of it because you're only patterning one color* and you also waste whatever inter-pixel space there is.
> 
> With LG's technique, you get only the interpixel waste, though I'm not sure I believe vapor deposition is exactly frugal either.
> 
> The larger point is neither method is especially a good choice for decades worth of OLED production. LG's is better for production, but perhaps less good for things like pixel fill unless they can get more efficient and drop the W subpixel.


 

Thanks for the more detailed explanation - that is exactly what I meant.

I don't see the 4th white subpixel as that big of a deal (I know, the color purists get tweaked by it, but is a smart way to extend lifetime for common-mode output and increase brightness). The excessive inter-row space, on the other hand, is significant. As we'd said earlier, I suspect it may be related to electromigration and the high-current requirements of rows of OLED pixels (compared to LCD pixels), but I will be interested to see what improvements LG has made on the 4K panels...


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> Thanks----I of course know how the screens are arranged, but I had forgotten the (obvious) fact that in the Samsung case, this necessitates applying the mask 3 separate times, each time discarding material. There are 3 separate substances involved, so of course. But the waste should be far more than 2/3 on each pass, no? The area of any one of the 3 subpixels is substantially less than 1/3rd of all the screen space allotted to the pixel (and gaps). The area in mm² of all the red is much less than 1/3rd the area of the entire screen.


Sometimes, the "explanation" part of a post isn't directed at the person being responded to, it's there for anyone reading it.

And, yes, it certainly would seem to be a great deal of material waste on each "mask worth."


> So they just apply the material, wipe off the excess and throw it away between every single lift-and-place of the mask?


I don't know how the "clean and reset" works or whether there is any ability to recycle material. I know a ton is wasted and because of "clogging" you can't just keep shoving material into the mask. It's also a really slow process, which is a testament to the achievement of making enough to satisfy the Galaxy series demand and even adding some low-volume tablets to the mix. Samsung is a great manufacturer, but brute force goes only so far.


> Yes, _*but *_that interpixel waste is multiplied by the number of (vertical stack) layers involved. (2 or 3 depending upon how you read the Kodak patents).


Agreed.


> That would be nice, because I think we appropriately guessed years ago that the white was entirely needed to reclaim some of the efficiency you lose by the filtering (read: the wholesale throwing away of) light.


I'm sure it was needed initially. I'm less sure it will needed in 2-5 years, you know?


> One more question though: the flexing of the mask you mentioned previously. Shouldn't the flex be 100% predictable and thus built into the equation? The perforation of the holes in the first place should be initially made _while_ flexed, etc. (?)
> 
> EDIT: Nevermind. I'm assuming that the flex isn't a problem with the arrangement of holes, but with how close they can get to the substrate. Why can't they make this mask thicker again? A hole-plugging problem?


Yes, if it's too thick the holes (literally holes, not the quantum mechanics kind  ) become a material bottleneck. You could absolutely get a more rigid substrate with a thicker substrate; it's just clear that doesn't work. 



tgm1024 said:


> Regarding LG: There was some speculation in one or two of the model threads (EA9800/EC9300) that the LG OLED's from Mexico might behave differently than the ones from S. Korea.
> 
> Are these just "assembly/integration" plants (pick the proper term for me), or are the actual _OLED panels themselves _made in countries other than South Korea?





fafrd said:


> Yes.
> 
> The OLED panels themselves come only off of LGs M1 WOLED pilot line (and hopefully soon also off of LGs new M2 WOLED production line)


I'm equally certain this is correct.



fafrd said:


> Thanks for the more detailed explanation - that is exactly what I meant.
> 
> I don't see the 4th white subpixel as that big of a deal (I know, the color purists get tweaked by it, but is a smart way to extend lifetime for common-mode output and increase brightness). The excessive inter-row space, on the other hand, is significant. As we'd said earlier, I suspect it may be related to electromigration and the high-current requirements of rows of OLED pixels (compared to LCD pixels), but I will be interested to see what improvements LG has made on the 4K panels...


The white is its own kind of waste in that when it's not used, the fill factor is lower and generally it increases the transistor count by 1/3. Overall, it's kind of a bummer. 

I'd be interested to know what the duty cycle is of the white sub-pixel. It actually seems to get relatively light use on normal content. But either way, I bet they are working to engineer it out of the display -- if/when that's possible.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Sometimes, the "explanation" part of a post isn't directed at the person being responded to, it's there for anyone reading it.
> 
> And, yes, it certainly would seem to be a great deal of material waste on each "mask worth."
> 
> 
> I don't know how the "clean and reset" works or whether there is any ability to recycle material. I know a ton is wasted and because of "clogging" you can't just keep shoving material into the mask. It's also a really slow process, which is a testament to the achievement of making enough to satisfy the Galaxy series demand and even adding some low-volume tablets to the mix. Samsung is a great manufacturer, but brute force goes only so far.
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> I'm sure it was needed initially. I'm less sure it will needed in 2-5 years, you know?
> 
> 
> Yes, if it's too thick the holes (literally holes, not the quantum mechanics kind  ) become a material bottleneck. You could absolutely get a more rigid substrate with a thicker substrate; it's just clear that doesn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm equally certain this is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> The white is its own kind of waste in that when it's not used, the fill factor is lower and generally it increases the transistor count by 1/3. Overall, it's kind of a bummer.
> 
> *I'd be interested to know what the duty cycle is of the white sub-pixel. It actually seems to get relatively light use on normal content. *But either way, I bet they are working to engineer it out of the display -- if/when that's possible.


 
How do you know the white subpixel gets 'relatively light us on normal content'???

That's what I meant by common-mode - any grey-scale in a pixel value (equal levels of red and green and blue) can be provided by the white subpixel allowing the colored subpixels to add just the chroma component beyond grey.

For saturated colors including Red or Green or Blue or also Red+Green or Red+Blue or Green+Blue, the whit pixel will be off, but for any pixel output containing a combination of R+G+B it can contribute.

I'm surprised that in normal content the White Subpixel gets light use - where is that from???


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> How do you know the white subpixel gets 'relatively light us on normal content'???
> 
> That's what I meant by common-mode - any grey-scale in a pixel value (equal levels of red and green and blue) can be provided by the white subpixel allowing the colored subpixels to add just the chroma component beyond grey.
> 
> For saturated colors including Red or Green or Blue or also Red+Green or Red+Blue or Green+Blue, the whit pixel will be off, but for any pixel output containing a combination of R+G+B it can contribute.
> 
> I'm surprised that in normal content the White Subpixel gets light use - where is that from???


My impression based on closeups of the screen was that it wasn't much used. And, honestly, it can't be used unless a color has all three light primaries, presumably above a threshold value for which it's interesting to use, right? If you used it all the time to "save" the other sub-pixels, you'd be doing the reverse and actually blitzing the white. 

I've presumed (and based on a very limited set of closeups, I admit) that the white was only used when you'd have to drive all of R / G / B above a value (50%?) to avoid driving those hard.

When you start looking at content, it feels like that's a low-ish duty cycle.


----------



## tgm1024

AVS member Chad B did a thorough review of the 55EC9300 in the EC9300 thread.


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> How do you know the white subpixel gets 'relatively light us on normal content'???





rogo said:


> When you start looking at content, it feels like that's a low-ish duty cycle.


I too tried to figure that out by looking at it but couldn't quite grab the threshold they're using. It might well be the entire grey component, it might not. I know there's a paper or two on the scaler they apply when subtracting the grey component from the primaries, but it's just not detailed enough, and I'm not sure I trust it to be 100% accurate with what's produced anyway.

Someone will need to hit it with color ramps.

EDIT: Here's the issue AIUI. When I saw the various grays on the display, it really looked like they were entirely offloaded to the white sub. This was evident to me because the screen door effect shoots through the roof even from 5 feet away on such shades. So if we then add a smidgeon of red to that gray, does that offloading then become less even though there's the same gray component in both cases?


----------



## tgm1024

BTW, curve-ball pondering: I wonder if the YIELDjet technology could be quickly adaptable to whatever _other_ emissive material shows up down the road...


----------



## AuDiOBoY529

Hey guys, 

Can anybody tell the difference between the types of OLED: RGB OLED vs White OLED? I believe one is suppose to replicate a plasma in terms how they illuminate light. I believe the other is supposedly brighter, more energy efficient, and cost effective? 

Any input would be nice.

Thanks,


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> Sometimes, the "explanation" part of a post isn't directed at the person being responded to, it's there for anyone reading it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how the "clean and reset" works or whether there is any ability to recycle material. I know a ton is wasted and because of "clogging" you can't just keep shoving material into the mask. It's also a really slow process, which is a testament to the achievement of making enough to satisfy the Galaxy series demand and even adding some low-volume tablets to the mix. Samsung is a great manufacturer, but brute force goes only so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately recycling vaporized OLED material is akin to recycling dried paint...
Click to expand...


----------



## sooke

rogo said:


> My impression based on closeups of the screen was that it wasn't much used. And, honestly, it can't be used unless a color has all three light primaries, presumably above a threshold value for which it's interesting to use, right? *If you used it all the time to "save" the other sub-pixels, you'd be doing the reverse and actually blitzing the white.*



Good point. And although the white has a clear filter so they don't have to drive it as hard as the RGB subs, I guess it becomes a trade off between white's better efficiency vs. sharing the load across the 3 subs.

@fafrd, loved your use of the term common-mode. Perfect.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> BTW, curve-ball pondering: I wonder if the YIELDjet technology could be quickly adaptable to whatever _other_ emissive material shows up down the road...


 
You see OLED is a kind of "paint/ink" in its own stead, you know. 

I don't have a lot of time on my hands right now so I'm gonna have to be sweet, short and _simple_ on this one, so please if I omit some detail don't hold it against me.


First, how does Paint/Ink work, hmm? Good question, guys, isn't it?!. 


Well, above all, paint is ,at its innermost, just little invisible molecules and when photons of a "certain" frequency hit those "molecules" they just bounce right off of those molecules and when other less lucky photons of a different frequency hit those molecules they bounce off of them, too, but they get (their frequency) all F-ed up beyond recognition by those molecules in the process (or put another way they stop being "visible light"). Here's a good example of what I talking about: When Sun Light* hits the molecules of Green Paint "mostly" Green Light (photons are what Light is made of) is _reflected off of it_ or in other words photons that have frequency of 520THz bounce off of Green Paint molecules untouched with their hides intact in one piece and photons that have frequency other than 520THz get their frequency changed to the point where most of them stop being "visible light". 

Now seeing how Paint/Ink and OLED materials do the same thing (_which is ,of course, charging the frequency of photons_) we can see that OLED material is just a kind of Paint at its core i.e. OLED is organic like Paint/Ink (organic means carbon-based) and if mixed with right solvent it becomes soluble like Paint/Ink and after "deposition" as a result of being exposed to the elements it dries up like Paint/Ink and *that's exactly why OLED can be "printed".* 






_*Light is __photons of many frequencies and, by the way, frequency and color have a direct correlation for instance F of 520THz is green color_


----------



## tgm1024

^^^......and......(?)


----------



## stas3098

_And _OLED just happened to be one of kind _*and *_no other tech can ever be printable (unless it's soluble)*. *
In 50 years ,give or take millennia, I choose to believe that OLED (if it survives LCD) will be replaced with *Free-Electron Laser TVs or FEL TVs. *It ,in theory, can get as bright as the sun and as black as OLED and it has not lifespan limitation and high efficiency, the only rub here is that right now one pixel is the size of a two story-building. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser#Dye_lasers


Free-electron lasers, or FELs, generate coherent, high power radiation, that is widely tunable, currently ranging in wavelength from microwaves, through terahertz radiation and infrared, *to the visible spectrum, to soft X-rays*. They have *the widest frequency range* of any laser type. While FEL beams share the same optical traits as other lasers, such as coherent radiation, FEL operation is quite different. Unlike gas, liquid, or solid-state lasers, which rely on bound atomic or molecular states, FELs use a relativistic electron beam as the lasing medium, hence the term _free-electron_.


----------



## Wizziwig

tgm1024 said:


> I too tried to figure that out by looking at it but couldn't quite grab the threshold they're using. It might well be the entire grey component, it might not. I know there's a paper or two on the scaler they apply when subtracting the grey component from the primaries, but it's just not detailed enough, and I'm not sure I trust it to be 100% accurate with what's produced anyway.
> 
> Someone will need to hit it with color ramps.


 
Take a look at the picture I posted here again:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...ogy-advancements-thread-359.html#post27152610


You will see there is never a case where they only use the white sub-pixel, even on gray ramps. Only pure red and blue seem to use a single sub-pixel.


Someone quoted a paper earlier in this thread that said color "quality" degrades as you offload more light to the white sub-pixel.


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> Take a look at the picture I posted here again:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...ogy-advancements-thread-359.html#post27152610
> 
> 
> You will see there is never a case where they only use the white sub-pixel, even on gray ramps. Only pure red and blue seem to use a single sub-pixel.
> 
> 
> Someone quoted a paper earlier in this thread that said color "quality" degrades as you offload more light to the white sub-pixel.


The link you supplied landed me elsewhere. (Either a bug or the wrong link). Can you resupply?


----------



## Wizziwig

tgm1024 said:


> The link you supplied landed me elsewhere. (Either a bug or the wrong link). Can you resupply?


 
Strange. It's post 10751 in this same thread.


I'll attach the pic again here.


Translated labels:
100% Red/ 100% Green / 100% Blue / 100% White
Cyan/Magenta/Yellow/30% White


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> Strange. It's post 10751 in this same thread.
> 
> 
> I'll attach the pic again here.
> 
> 
> Translated labels:
> 100% Red/ 100% Green / 100% Blue / 100% White
> Cyan/Magenta/Yellow/30% White


I understand. But I'm not sure if the settings are asking for this or not. For instance, in the "100% white" there's a lean toward magenta. It doesn't ask for equivalent amounts of G.

What I'd be looking for is _in the case_ where it happens to be a R/G/B of 50/50/50% that is required, (post settings, post CMS), how does this translate to the white sub?


----------



## rogo

It's pretty telling that in multiple 100% colors, the white isn't used at all.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> It's pretty telling that in multiple 100% colors, the white isn't used at all.


You mean for the 100% primaries? It wouldn't normally unless the color needed to be desaturated (moved toward white) or shifted for some reason (like the green). The issue is when there needs to be all 3 lit up to some degree (again, _after settings, after CMS), _does it utilize white with the full gray component.

Notice that both the "100% green" and "100% white" (_pre settings, pre CMS_) needed to be pulled away from pure green a tad.


----------



## Wizziwig

tgm1024 said:


> I understand. But I'm not sure if the settings are asking for this or not. For instance, in the "100% white" there's a lean toward magenta. It doesn't ask for equivalent amounts of G.
> 
> What I'd be looking for is _in the case_ where it happens to be a R/G/B of 50/50/50% that is required, (post settings, post CMS), how does this translate to the white sub?


Have not seen anyone take such a picture. You can't really turn off calibration on most TVs. They are all factory calibrated to some extent and user calibrations are just offsets to that. Maybe the store torch mode might be close to full-blast on all 3 subs when displaying white.


This is a shot of white text on a black background. OLED next to LCD. The text is obviously anti-aliased so you can see some small grayscale ramp on the edges. Not sure if that's helpful to your analysis.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> It's pretty telling that in multiple 100% colors, the white isn't used at all.



Which makes sense - 100% any color has no grey ('common mode')


If they are smart, 100% white can be distributed to all 4 sub pixels to avoid over driving and over aging the white subpixel.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> You mean for the 100% primaries? It wouldn't normally unless the color needed to be desaturated (moved toward white) or shifted for some reason (like the green). The issue is when there needs to be all 3 lit up to some degree (again, _after settings, after CMS), _does it utilize white with the full gray component.
> 
> Notice that both the "100% green" and "100% white" (_pre settings, pre CMS_) needed to be pulled away from pure green a tad.


Cyan and magenta are not light primaries... They are "print" primaries that are made by mixing red, green and blue. Those examplars use no white pixel... Not sure what you think the white pixel is for, but it's pretty apparently not to "save the other pixels" as a matter of course. If it were, this is precisely when you'd use it. All three are turned on, use some white pixel, turn them on less, voila... same color.... 



fafrd said:


> Which makes sense - 100% any color has no grey ('common mode')


I have no idea why we are talking about "grey", but let's talk about some fake color rigabee... If it's made with 40% red, 60% green, 30% blue... you could run the white at 30% (or some adjusted factor for the light output), the green at 30% and the red at 10% while running blue at 0%. You'd get the same result. This is precisely how you'd use the white pixel to "save" the others... Clearly, that's not the way it works on a regular basis.

Wizziwig's example, however shows that on "whites", the white is used in lieu of r + g + b... That's a pretty crude mechanism if that's really when it's used... 


> If they are smart, 100% white can be distributed to all 4 sub pixels to avoid over driving and over aging the white subpixel.


Scant evidence to back that up... Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

If we see screenshots to the contrary, we'll know much more.


----------



## dsinger

What I'd be looking for is in the case where it happens to be a R/G/B of 50/50/50% that is required, (post settings, post CMS), how does this translate to the white sub?

TGM1024: RGB at 50% each is the same as 50% white. Interpolate between the 30% vit and the 100% vit. If I am correct the white in 30% becomes a bit brighter as does red and blue given the example provided.


----------



## tgm1024

dsinger said:


> TGM1024: RGB at 50% each is the same as 50% white. Interpolate between the 30% vit and the 100% vit. If I am correct the white in 30% becomes a bit brighter as does red and blue given the example provided.


Only if that 50% white outputs as much as the three RGB's at 50%, yes. But that's not where I'm going with this.

Trust me, I understand color models---I've been coding color translations in software for various RGB/CMY/HSB/HSV/YIQ models since the 80's. What I'm saying is that we can't tell what the scheme really is because we don't have access to what the CMS and settings are.

For instance, we can make assumptions about "100% green", but they'd only be assumptions. Is the skew away from the OLED's natural green (in that example) because of settings or because of an inherent compensation built into the circuitry (or both). We cannot tell. What I _can _say _*solely *_from the limited examples posted by Wizziwig, is there is _no case_ where all 3 primaries are engaged. This by iteself suggests an algorithm that performs a full 100% subtraction of the gray component (at least in those cases), because that mechanism will always wipe clean _at least _one of primaries if all 3 are needed.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> Cyan and magenta are not light primaries... They are "print" primaries that are made by mixing red, green and blue. Those examplars use no white pixel... Not sure what you think the white pixel is for, but it's pretty apparently not to "save the other pixels" as a matter of course. If it were, this is precisely when you'd use it. All three are turned on, use some white pixel, turn them on less, voila... same color....


I think you're missing what I'm saying. See my last paragraph below. And I suspect that the white is there to save power (and _only_ there to save power). By "save power" I mean "gain back the efficiency lost by the filters", but we've been through all that already.




> I have no idea why we are talking about "grey", but let's talk about some fake color rigabee... If it's made with 40% red, 60% green, 30% blue... you could run the white at 30% (or some adjusted factor for the light output), the green at 30% and the red at 10% while running blue at 0%. You'd get the same result. This is precisely how you'd use the white pixel to "save" the others... Clearly, that's not the way it works on a regular basis.


The gray that fafrd is talking about is the "gray component". He's using the term "common mode", but in the 80's when I first started my computer graphics career, it was regarded as the "gray component". Note: "gray component" is often associated with subtractive primaries (CMY) for "gray component replacement" to create black (CMYK)----wikipedia makes the mistake of assuming it's the only usage for it, but it's usage is accepted for the additives as well (RGB to RGBW). Basically it's what you're describing: the commonality (the gray) portion of each of the additives. "Common mode" is fine by me as well.

Given this desired color:

 R: ############---------------------
 G: #################----------------
 B: ######---------------------------​ 
The bold #'s represent the "gray" that is in common with all 3 primaries:

 R: *######*######---------------------
 G: *######*###########----------------
 B: *######*--------------------------- ​ 
And as you suggest, this moves to white and is subtracted from RGB. Note they have a scalar as part of the algorithm to alter the amount taken from RGB, and presumably they might have a separate one to apply to white. In this case we'll assume that the scalar(s) is(are) 1.0:

 R: ######---------------------------
 G: ###########----------------------
 B: --------------------------------- 
 W: *######*--------------------------- ​


> Wizziwig's example, however shows that on "whites", the white is used in lieu of r + g + b... That's a pretty crude mechanism if that's really when it's used...
> 
> Scant evidence to back that up... Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make.
> 
> If we see screenshots to the contrary, we'll know much more.


We will always have the problem of not knowing what the interior of the CMS & settings are truly doing. In any case, from the _*scant *_information presented, there is _no case_ where all 3 primaries are engaged. This lends itself toward an algorithm that performs a full 100% subtraction of the gray component (at least in those cases), because that process will always ensure that at least one of the primaries are blank.


----------



## darinp2

rogo said:


> Cyan and magenta are not light primaries... They are "print" primaries that are made by mixing red, green and blue. Those examplars use no white pixel... Not sure what you think the white pixel is for, but it's pretty apparently not to "save the other pixels" as a matter of course. If it were, this is precisely when you'd use it.


They aren't light primaries, but they are secondaries that consist of only 2 primaries and the absence of a third. So, if the R, G, and B pixels exactly matched their primaries you would not want to add any white pixel for cyan or magenta or you would pull them into the triangle instead of being on the lines between their 2 primaries.

Reality is that the primary (non-white) pixels probably don't match their primaries, so it is possible that a small amount of white could be used for cyan or magenta, just like a small amount of white might be able to be used for one or more the primaries and still meet the correct CIE values.


rogo said:


> If it's made with 40% red, 60% green, 30% blue... you could run the white at 30% (or some adjusted factor for the light output), the green at 30% and the red at 10% while running blue at 0%. You'd get the same result. This is precisely how you'd use the white pixel to "save" the others...


I agee.


rogo said:


> Clearly, that's not the way it works on a regular basis.


Yoj may be right from some other values, but the cyan and magenta don't allow that because 100% cyan is 0% red, 100% green, and 100% blue, while 100% magenta is 100% red, 0% green, and 100% blue, so no room for adding red or green like that.

Some displays may add white to their secondaries to make them brighter, but at the expense of pulling them towards white.

Also, you probably know this, but just to be clear for others, the 40% moved to 30% plus 10% needs to be post gamma (since 40% IRE or stimulation level is much less than 40% luminance).

--Darin


----------



## rogo

Darin (good to hear from you) and TGM, good points from both of you. I basically agree across the board. 

Fundamentally, my sense is that the white serves a pretty limited function. And I think TGM, you agree here, too. Getting back some lost output more than trying to "save the pixels from themselves". 

I doubt very much the long-run plan is to keep using the white for this reason. The design gets a lot simpler over time without it and given that you can lose the corresponding transistors, you probably don't need much improvement in overall light output to justify dropping it (if you're overall goal is a power budget). 

Of course, to the extent that driving the material harder has some effect on lifespan, that's also a concern. But it seems probable that, too, will be mitigated over time.

One other random thought. LG uses a color-filter design that is not a million miles removed from their LCD technology because they're exceptionally good at patterning and producing that layer. The OLED makes light really differently from LCDs, however. It might make sense over time to rethink the color-filter layer and/or add a special film in between the light and the CF. Some sort of purpose-built OLED BEF (brightness enhancer) that takes advantage of the way OLED works. It looks like a lot of potential light is lost to the rigid lines of the color filter and/or the electrodes. That seems like an area where long-term improvement is more than a hypothetical.


----------



## sooke

rogo said:


> Darin (good to hear from you) and TGM, good points from both of you. I basically agree across the board.
> 
> Fundamentally, my sense is that the white serves a pretty limited function. And I think TGM, you agree here, too. Getting back some lost output more than trying to "save the pixels from themselves".


Hhmm... I guess I'm going to be the odd man out. Increasing light output for colors with a common grey component, but not for colors without a common grey component, does not seem like you could get much benefit without hurting PQ. I would think you would want to normalize all your colors with how bright you could make your primaries. I don't have the experience with displays and color you folks do, I'm just going by inuition, but adding the white pixel to make some colors brighter does not seem likely. I agree if that is why it is there, it probably won't be around long.

On the other hand, if you look at the diagrams TGM made in is last post, there is much less total wear when the grey component is illuminated with the white pixel compared to doing it with the primaries thanks to the clear filter. I have no idea how hard the white would need to be driven to equal the light output of the combined 3 primaries, but using TGM's conceptual diagrams as an example, you can see there is 1/3 the total wear compared to using the primaries. This seems like a good reason to add the white pixel.

As for the terms "common mode" and "grey component", sounds like TGM has much working experience with colors and displays, so if he is used to "grey component" that is what I will use. I liked fafrd's use of common mode because it is a EE term and so I understood immediately what he was saying.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Darin (good to hear from you) and TGM, good points from both of you. I basically agree across the board.
> 
> Fundamentally, *my sense is that the white serves a pretty limited function*. And I think TGM, you agree here, too. *Getting back some lost output more than trying to "save the pixels from themselves".*
> 
> I doubt very much the long-run plan is to keep using the white for this reason. The design gets a lot simpler over time without it and given that you can lose the corresponding transistors, you probably don't need much improvement in overall light output to justify dropping it (if you're overall goal is a power budget).
> 
> Of course, to the extent that driving the material harder has some effect on lifespan, that's also a concern. But it seems probable that, too, will be mitigated over time.
> 
> One other random thought. LG uses a color-filter design that is not a million miles removed from their LCD technology because they're exceptionally good at patterning and producing that layer. The OLED makes light really differently from LCDs, however. It might make sense over time to rethink the color-filter layer and/or add a special film in between the light and the CF. Some sort of purpose-built OLED BEF (brightness enhancer) that takes advantage of the way OLED works. It looks like a lot of potential light is lost to the rigid lines of the color filter and/or the electrodes. That seems like an area where long-term improvement is more than a hypothetical.


 
I'm just not understanding why you are saying this (in bold above) - do you have some other specific information or are you just commenting on the same examples that have been posted.

Extracting the 'grey component' (or 'common mode' if you are EE like sooke and I) is a pretty important function and leads to significantly less use of the primaries (especially blue).

And since the examples shown never show all three primaries lit up, it's pretty strong evidence that this is exactly how the white sub is used (as pointed out by TGM).

When there is no grey component, the white sub must be off by definition (including the case of any two of the primaries being used all the way up to 100%).

But let's consider the color composed of 100% R + 100% G + 100% B (ie: a white).

Let's assume the color filters are 50% efficient and further that the light output fro the WOLED layer is evenly divided 33% into each primary (as far as the color filters are concerned).

So each of the colored subs is only going to be ~17% efficient and driving the R & G & B primaries at 100% is only going to result in light output which is ~17% of that produced or ~50% of the light output of a single sub.

That means if the white sub pixel is going to be used to drive that same white light output, it only needs to be driven to the 50% level (because none of the primaries are filtered out and there is no color filter to further degrade efficiency.

Both for reduced power consumption as well as increased lifetime, I would think LG would want to make use of the white sub whenever possible and as strongly as possible (meaning to the limit offered by the grey component).

We can debate this ad nauseum, but the easiest thing would be to convince an owner to run color ramps or a color palette and check with a magnifying glass for any examples where all 4 subs are used. My guess is that there are none (with the possible exception of the brightest possible white which would be ~150% of what the white sub could put out all by itself driven to max).

By way of comparison, if LG sacrifices the white sub and increased the size of the other primary subs (to 133% of the current size), max white output would increase from ~50% of the current white sub to ~67%.

To me, a white subpixel makes a heck of a lot more sense than a yellow subpixel (as in Sharp) and I won't be at all surprised to see it hanging around for a long while.

All of this analysis glosses over the impact of the inter-subpixel spacing which would make the 'eliminate the white sub' scenario a bit more favorable (but not enough to change the overall message).


----------



## tgm1024

Well one thing's for sure, I really wish I knew what the LG engineers know. I bet there's quite a bit of "learning the hard way" type information about all of this that would be cool to know.


----------



## ChaosCloud

Wizziwig said:


> You will see there is never a case where they only use the white sub-pixel, even on gray ramps. Only pure red and blue seem to use a single sub-pixel.


The white subpixel alone is used for dull greens/browns. In my brief time with a 55EA9700 I did some testing. See pics below.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17098378/P1010045.JPG


----------



## rogo

"Both for reduced power consumption as well as increased lifetime, I would think LG would want to make use of the white sub whenever possible and as strongly as possible (meaning to the limit offered by the grey component)."

This makes no sense to me. If you overdrive and utilize the white subpixel, you just torch that one instead. It's the same exact chemistry as any other subpixel -- they all have the exact same OLED "stuff" in there. If you keep using it "as strongly as possible" you will just kill it off.

You have to always remember the "blue subpixel" isn't blue. It has nothing to do with blue lifetime. It's white. Ditto the red. Ditto the green. You have to balance your use of the white one, or else it just lives fast and dies hard, and again you have an uneven wear problem and you're no longer going to get the expected colors out of the display when you use it.


----------



## Wizziwig

LG slashes 55-inch OLED TV price (In Korea)
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2014/09/133_165343.html


That's roughly $3784. Still much cheaper here in the U.S.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> We can debate this ad nauseum, but the easiest thing would be to convince an owner to run color ramps or a color palette and check with a magnifying glass for any examples where all 4 subs are used. My guess is that there are none (with the possible exception of the brightest possible white which would be ~150% of what the white sub could put out all by itself driven to max).


 
If there really are no cases where all 4 sub-pixels are lit, doesn't that mean that 1/4 of the panel is off on average?


Looks like we finally have some proof that LG is starting to change the pixel structure a little.

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-tel...-hd-200-hz-est-arrive-laboratoire-n36031.html




> This year, LG reviews the architecture of its Oled tiles. While the 55EA970V and 55EA980V proposed the sub-pixels of equivalent sizes, the 55EC930V has white and blue two times larger than the Green and red.
> 
> Also of note, green, blue, and Red sub-pixels now consist of two under cells, but according to what we have seen, the top and bottom are not controlled separately.


First 2 pics are from 2013 (55EA970V and 55EA980V). Third pic is from 2014 (55EC930V).


In the oldest 2013 pic, you actually do see several pixels with all 4 subs enabled.


----------



## darinp2

Wizziwig said:


> If there really are no cases where all 4 sub-pixels are lit, doesn't that mean that 1/4 of the panel is off on average?


1/4 of the sub-pixels would be off at minimum, so the average would be even more off than that.

However, the first picture you attached has an example of all 4 sub-pixels lit a little above the center of the picture.

--Darin


----------



## rogo

It's very clear there are times when all sub-pixels are very much alive. But those test images show they are rare. 

What they don't necessarily show is a lot of very representative content.


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> In the oldest 2013 pic, you actually do see several pixels with all 4 subs enabled.





darinp2 said:


> However, the first picture you attached has an example of all 4 sub-pixels lit a little above the center of the picture.
> 
> --Darin





rogo said:


> It's very clear there are times when all sub-pixels are very much alive. But those test images show they are rare.



I'm not sure they're there at all. They actually look like two pixels neighboring each other that look like there are 4 subs on because of their proximity. This is what allows subpixel rendering to work in RGB stripe layouts; it looks like they're borrowing from each other.

Somewhere LG did post a quote indicating that the scalar was present (I don't think they used the word scalar) which would allow for that if the scalar was less than 1.0, but are you sure you can see a place where that happens? Be careful to identify what is likely the start and end sub of the group of 4.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> This makes no sense to me. If you overdrive and utilize the white subpixel, you just torch that one instead. It's the same exact chemistry as any other subpixel -- they all have the exact same OLED "stuff" in there. If you keep using it "as strongly as possible" you will just kill it off.
> 
> You have to always remember the "blue subpixel" isn't blue. It has nothing to do with blue lifetime. It's white. Ditto the red. Ditto the green. You have to balance your use of the white one, or else it just lives fast and dies hard, and again you have an uneven wear problem and you're no longer going to get the expected colors out of the display when you use it.


I'm fairly certain fafrd knows that. We need to keep in mind that the calculation for this is outside our current information set----we have no data on the pass-through specs of the filters, and the white pixel (and this is likely very important) is unencumbered by any loss due to a filter. Or if there is a filter on it, it's likely very close to clear.

It might well be that you're right, and that scalar I (and LG) speak of is "a work in progress". It's also at least _conceivable _that the firmware keeps track of the white usage over time and throttles that scalar down appropriately in an effort to achieve "wear balancing".

The interesting thing about that scalar is that if it's done properly, no matter what it is it won't change the color of the overall pixel (as a whole); or very minimally so. So it's free to change dynamically as the firmware sees fit.


----------



## darinp2

tgm1024 said:


> I'm not sure they're there at all. They actually look like two pixels neighboring each other that look like there are 4 subs on because of their proximity. This is what allows subpixel rendering to work in RGB stripe layouts; it looks like they're borrowing from each other.


I'm not following how one of the pixels on the bottom of this crop doesn't have 4 subs on. Seems to me that on the bottom row there is a single green sub on and it either belongs to the left pixel or the right pixel. Whether they borrow or not I see 7 subpixels in a row on the bottom right that are turned on, which to me means that at least one of the pixels has 4 subs on.

I think there are 9 pixels in this cropped image. Are you seeing a different number?

--Darin


----------



## tgm1024

darinp2 said:


> I'm not following how one of the pixels on the bottom of this crop doesn't have 4 subs on. Seems to me that on the bottom row there is a single green sub on and it either belongs to the left pixel or the right pixel. Whether they borrow or not I see 7 subpixels in a row on the bottom right that are turned on, which to me means that at least one of the pixels has 4 subs on.
> 
> I think there are 9 pixels in this cropped image. Are you seeing a different number?
> 
> --Darin


Nope, lol, I'm seeing it now. Not sure how I missed it---I didn't see it when I looked through the images before. Well, it's consistent with their scalar approach anyway, so I'm not "surprised"....I just wish I knew the precise algorithm used, and especially whether or not there is any kind of dynamic wear balancing.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> I'm fairly certain fafrd knows that.


Again, sometimes the explanation isn't directed at the person whose post is being commented on. It's there for anyone who might read this.


> We need to keep in mind that the calculation for this is outside our current information set----we have no data on the pass-through specs of the filters, and the white pixel (and this is likely very important) is unencumbered by any loss due to a filter. Or if there is a filter on it, it's likely very close to clear.


There is still some polarizing going on with the LG design, for whatever reason that's needed. Exactly what it's doing to output, I'm less sure.


> It might well be that you're right, and that scalar I (and LG) speak of is "a work in progress". It's also at least _conceivable _that the firmware keeps track of the white usage over time and throttles that scalar down appropriately in an effort to achieve "wear balancing".


Definitely possible. It seems less likely that something is monitoring usage across 2 million pixels, heading for 8 million, and storing that data then algorithmically adjusting how the display works based on it... But possible.


> The interesting thing about that scalar is that if it's done properly, no matter what it is it won't change the color of the overall pixel (as a whole); or very minimally so. So it's free to change dynamically as the firmware sees fit.


This may be true. I'm less sure than you are.



darinp2 said:


> I'm not following how one of the pixels on the bottom of this crop doesn't have 4 subs on. Seems to me that on the bottom row there is a single green sub on and it either belongs to the left pixel or the right pixel. Whether they borrow or not I see 7 subpixels in a row on the bottom right that are turned on, which to me means that at least one of the pixels has 4 subs on.


This of course was correct. Glad we came to consensus.


----------



## fafrd

Just found this: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140929PD210.html

"LG slashes pricing for 55-inch OLED TV to US$3,775, says report

Amy Fan, Taipei; Alex Wolfgram, DIGITIMES [Monday 29 September 2014]

LG Electronics' 55-inch curved OLED TV (55EC9300) will be sold for 3.99 million won (US$3,775) per unit through major retail channels and department stores in Korea, according to a statement from LG that was reported in Korea-based _ET News_.
The new price tag is more than a 70% drop since its original price of 15 million won back in April 2013. The move is in order to push LG OLED TVs further into the market, as the company believes OLED is the "future of TVs," the report said.

*LG added that global OLED TV shipments reached about 5,000 units in 2013 and are expected to reach 10,000 in 2014. The report also quoted LG stating that going into 2015, shipments will reach one million followed by four million units in 2017."*



First time I've seen a quote on shipments attributed to LG.

If it is to be believed, only 10,000 units in 2014 means LG has not really begun volume production yet. 850 units a month is not real production.

Don't expect any significant price reductions in 2014.

On the other hand, from 10,000 OLEDs in 2014 to 1,000,000 in 2015 seems pretty much impossible.

At phase I production of 8000 sheets / month, M2 is 'only' able to produce 38,400 55" OLEDs a month at stated yields of 80% and that only increases to 43,200 if LG improves yields to 90%. So through 2014, M2 phase I is only able to produce 460-520K OLEDs maxed out. Hard to imagine LG ramps to phase 2 production of 16,000 sheets per month (total) until they are selling-through more than 50% of those 40,000 OLEDs they can produce every month, so sales will need to increase to 20,000 per month before they invest in phase 2 production.

If we assume all 10,000 of those OLEDs sold in 2014 were sold since the introduction of the 55EC9300 in early September, that would mean a maximum of 2500 per month selling right now (which seems very believable).

Sales levels need to increase by a factor of close to 10 by early 2015 (or late 2014) if LG is going to have any chance at all of producing 1,000,000 OLED TVs next year (let alone selling them).

CES should be interesting.

Also, for 4 Million Units in 2017, LG will need another couple M2-class OLED fabs to be up and running by the end of 2016. There is at least a 1-year lag time to invest in, equip, and bring up a new OLED fab (as we learned with M2), so we would get early visibility on any capacity increase for M3 and M4 by late 2015. (At full capacity of 26,000 sheets per months and producing only 55" OLEDs at 90% yield, M2 has capacity to produce only 1.7M OLEDs annually).


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> LG added that global OLED TV shipments reached about 5,000 units in 2013 and are expected to reach 10,000 in 2014. The report also quoted LG stating that going into 2015, shipments will reach one million followed by four million units in 2017."


Please dont let these numbers become gospel. The numbers make zero sense and I have yet to be able to find the original source. I very much doubt that LG suddenly gave their real unit shipment numbers and I absolutely guarantee that sales will more than double in 2014 vs. 2013.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Please dont let these numbers become gospel. The numbers make zero sense and I have yet to be able to find the original source. I very much doubt that LG suddenly gave their real unit shipment numbers and I absolutely guarantee that sales will more than double in 2014 vs. 2013.



I think 2013 is probably exaggerated and 2014 is (hopefully) underestimated. The Digitimes article said this: 'according to a *statement from LG* that was *reported in* Korea-based _*ET News*_.'


My Korean is not that good but it would be great to track down the original ET News article everyone has been referring to...


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> I think 2013 is probably exaggerated and 2014 is (hopefully) underestimated. The Digitimes article said this: 'according to a *statement from LG* that was *reported in* Korea-based _*ET News*_.'
> 
> 
> My Korean is not that good but it would be great to track down the original ET News article everyone has been referring to...


I doubt that Digitimes Korean is much better. I give them some trust when they quote an article from a Chinese source, far less when they are attempting to use a Korean newspaper as a source. I did search for the original article but didnt turn anything up.

My bet is that it is a 3rd party estimate...and they probably meant 100,000 in 2014.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> *LG added that global OLED TV shipments reached about 5,000 units in 2013 and are expected to reach 10,000 in 2014. The report also quoted LG stating that going into 2015, shipments will reach one million followed by four million units in 2017."*
> 
> ..
> ..
> 
> If we assume all 10,000 of those OLEDs sold in 2014 were sold since the introduction of the 55EC9300 in early September, that would mean a maximum of 2500 per month selling right now (which seems very believable).


 
Your quote states 10,000 *shipped* for 2014. Not necessarily sold through. Stores like MicroCenter keep getting restocked with older EA9800. For all we know, some dealers may still be trying to unload those 5000 units "shipped" in 2013. If these numbers are accurate, they need some serious price cutting to meet their forecasts. Also release more flat models that the majority of shoppers are looking for.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Your quote states 10,000 *shipped* for 2014. Not necessarily sold through. Stores like MicroCenter keep getting restocked with older EA9800. For all we know, some dealers may still be trying to unload those 5000 units "shipped" in 2013. If these numbers are accurate, they need some serious price cutting to meet their forecasts. Also release more flat models that the majority of shoppers are looking for.



Good point. They may have *shipped* 5000 in 2013 but only 2000-3000 of those *sold* through in 2013 (and the balance this year).


In any case, if it's true that they only ship 10,000 OLEDs in 2014, it's pretty much confirmation that M2 will not get ramped up to phase I production levels of 8000 sheets/per month until 2015. At phase I production levels, M2 will be producing close to 10,000 OLEDs in a single _week_ (at LGs stated yields of 80%).


----------



## wco81

Sounds like people who buy OLEDs may end up with rare collector's items.

It seems conceivable that LG could quit OLED production if they can't ramp up production and scale down costs, leaving people who bought with the remnants of boutique production runs.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> On the other hand, from 10,000 OLEDs in 2014 to 1,000,000 in 2015 seems pretty much impossible.


That would be as close to impossible as the display industry has in the "impossible" category. 


> At phase I production of 8000 sheets / month, M2 is 'only' able to produce 38,400 55" OLEDs a month at stated yields of 80% and that only increases to 43,200 if LG improves yields to 90%. So through 2014, M2 phase I is only able to produce 460-520K OLEDs maxed out. Hard to imagine LG ramps to phase 2 production of 16,000 sheets per month (total) until they are selling-through more than 50% of those 40,000 OLEDs they can produce every month, so sales will need to increase to 20,000 per month before they invest in phase 2 production.


I'm not double-checking your math, but I think you've identified the challenge in ramping up.


> Sales levels need to increase by a factor of close to 10 by early 2015 (or late 2014) if LG is going to have any chance at all of producing 1,000,000 OLED TVs next year (let alone selling them).


I'm not clear how this happens regardless. Certainly, prices would need to fall a great deal from where they are for it to be remotely possible.


> Also, for 4 Million Units in 2017, LG will need another couple M2-class OLED fabs to be up and running by the end of 2016. There is at least a 1-year lag time to invest in, equip, and bring up a new OLED fab (as we learned with M2), so we would get early visibility on any capacity increase for M3 and M4 by late 2015. (At full capacity of 26,000 sheets per months and producing only 55" OLEDs at 90% yield, M2 has capacity to produce only 1.7M OLEDs annually).


Right, as we've discussed, we can know the possible shipments well in advance. If there isn't an M3 "bought" and commissioned in 2015, there is no upgrade in production for 2016. But I'm sensing that given the plans around M2, the push to start selling will begin in earnest sometime soon. It's going to get seriously aggressive pricing to get there, but that will come once there are serious yields to make it plausible.

The thing is LG needs 4K working. It has none of that yet. 

EDIT: Looking at the existing market, I think this creates a gigantic problem for LG. Consumers simply have no intelligent way of valuing OLED over 4K. Both are nebulous, videophile-y features and consumers "know" that bigger numbers are better. They're often not, but it doesn't matter. That creates a huge problem for LG in the 55-inch category. I believe that to move volume of the "best 1080p 55 incher" you can't be above even $2000 anymore. The market is just too small. At $3000 or so, LG is fighting with a fairly small sliver of even the 4K market, and it has few arrows in its quiver. It will have to (a) develop 4K at that size, irrespective of the merits and (b) it will have to engage in significant price cutting in the meantime.



slacker711 said:


> Please dont let these numbers become gospel. The numbers make zero sense and I have yet to be able to find the original source. I very much doubt that LG suddenly gave their real unit shipment numbers and I absolutely guarantee that sales will more than double in 2014 vs. 2013.


Sure, I agree on sales. But shipments? It's likely sales in 2013 were very, very close to zero. It's likely that sales in 2014 haven't been dramatically improved. We have evidence that the typical Best Buy is selling somewhere around 0-1 per month. I'm sure many are selling none. When it went to $2000 at MicroCenter, it's not like they all disappeared overnight... 

Sure, more are selling. But not tons more.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> Please dont let these numbers become gospel. The numbers make zero sense and I have yet to be able to find the original source. I very much doubt that LG suddenly gave their real unit shipment numbers and I absolutely guarantee that sales will more than double in 2014 vs. 2013.


Correct: I _*hate *_stuff like this, I really do. These numbers will no doubt be repeated 100,000 times before they finally die off, or become mooted by the calendar.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> That would be as close to impossible as the display industry has in the "impossible" category.


It's either an honest yet absurd mistake somewhere in the information chain, or just further proof of the "two drink minimum" of marketing departments.


----------



## 8mile13

In my local electronic store there was one flat OLED. Recently it was sold and the store has become OLEDless 

My guess would be that in my country, 20 million people, lots of money, max 50 OLEDs will be sold in 2014.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> Sure, I agree on sales. But shipments? It's likely sales in 2013 were very, very close to zero. It's likely that sales in 2014 haven't been dramatically improved. We have evidence that the typical Best Buy is selling somewhere around 0-1 per month. I'm sure many are selling none. When it went to $2000 at MicroCenter, it's not like they all disappeared overnight...
> 
> Sure, more are selling. But not tons more.


I have no issue with the idea that LG isnt selling enough units considering their capacity, but using that data is pretty much the pinnacle of garbage in, garbage out. The data makes zero sense and is second hand in a language that is neither ours nor the language of the newspaper covering the source and I cant find the original article using these numbers either. Here is the article from ETnews talking about the price cut with no mention of those shipment numbers.

https://translate.google.com/transl...tp://www.etnews.com/20140928000019&edit-text=

Amazon finally has some units so we'll get a better idea of comparative sales versus other high-end sets fairly soon. Considering the month long sale at $3000, I dont expect much until Amazon hits that price but at least the sales rank will provide concrete data.


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> Hard to imagine LG ramps to phase 2 production of 16,000 sheets per month (total) until they are selling-through more than 50% of those 40,000 OLEDs they can produce every month, so sales will need to increase to 20,000 per month before they invest in phase 2 production.


The investment has already been made. The OLED part has been in place for a while and the IGZO equipment was set up to arrive in phases as they move LCD equipment to China.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> I have no issue with the idea that LG isnt selling enough units considering their capacity, but using that data is pretty much the pinnacle of garbage in, garbage out. The data makes zero sense and is second hand in a language that is neither ours nor the language of the newspaper covering the source and I cant find the original article using these numbers either. Here is the article from ETnews talking about the price cut with no mention of those shipment numbers.
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...tp://www.etnews.com/20140928000019&edit-text=
> 
> Amazon finally has some units so we'll get a better idea of comparative sales versus other high-end sets fairly soon. Considering the month long sale at $3000, I dont expect much until Amazon hits that price but at least the sales rank will provide concrete data.



I completely agree with you on this, for what it's worth.


----------



## XPSTester

fafrd said:


> Just found this: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140929PD210.html
> 
> *LG added that global OLED TV shipments reached about 5,000 units in 2013 and are expected to reach 10,000 in 2014. The report also quoted LG stating that going into 2015, shipments will reach one million followed by four million units in 2017."*
> .



I am not aware of any product (that is not consumable such as food, etc.) where the sales increased hundred times over the previous year...









In the TV market, there are so few First Time buyers (low cost probably), for the great majority of buyers it is a replacement purchase, so that TV needs to be or could be bigger and better.

I let rogo and fafrd to crunch the numbers but my guestimate for NA: max 100K units

P.S. I went to a big store today and they had the curved OLED 9300; it was not even on! How can they sell them? To whom except to someone already aware of them: tech enthusiasts!


----------



## Wizziwig

Low sell-through for 2013 can be easily explained. These sets were selling for outrageous prices for most of that year. Seems reasonable that most of those "shipped" sets remained unsold until 2014. Their actual 2014 sales will be much more telling. Approximate pricing history:


$15K July 2013
$9K Nov 2013 
$7K Feb 2014
$6K March
$5K May
$4K June
$3.5K Aug
$3K Sep


----------



## ALMA

> LG explain why OLED TVs are better than LED LCD or plasma and take us through their plans for Full HD and Ultra HD 4K OLED TVs in 2015.



https://www.avforums.com/article/lg-explain-why-oled-tvs-full-hd-ultra-hd-4k-3d-are-the-future.10746


----------



## slacker711

ALMA said:


> https://www.avforums.com/article/lg-explain-why-oled-tvs-full-hd-ultra-hd-4k-3d-are-the-future.10746


Great article. Interesting to hear them confirm a 30,000 hour lifetime with a possible extension to 50,000 hours. I would love to see a slide to see if they actually used the words "before there's any decay". That is much different than a half life and would be due to the compensation circuit boosting blue output as illumination declined. Would be great if this claim is true. 

_The other issue that has been highlighted in the past is colour decay, especially in the case of blue. Once again, LG feel that their use of WRGB OLED has eliminated this problem and that their OLED TVs will retain 100% of their colour fidelity for 30,000 hours before there’s any decay. In fact, as we have again pointed out in PicturePerfect, putting the TV into the Cinema or Movie mode will increase this and LG think that their OLED TVs optimum performance can be extended to 50,000 hours in Cinema mode and also use even less energy._


----------



## JimP

slacker711 said:


> _The other issue that has been highlighted in the past is colour decay, especially in the case of blue. Once again, LG feel that their use of WRGB OLED has eliminated this problem and that their OLED TVs will retain 100% of their colour fidelity for 30,000 hours before there’s any decay. In fact, as we have again pointed out in PicturePerfect, putting the TV into the Cinema or Movie mode will increase this and LG think that their OLED TVs optimum performance can be extended to 50,000 hours in Cinema mode and also use even less energy._


Any bets on just how dim "Cinema mode" will be?


----------



## fafrd

XPSTester said:


> I am not aware of any product (that is not consumable such as food, etc.) where the sales increased hundred times over the previous year...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the TV market, there are so few First Time buyers (low cost probably), for the great majority of buyers it is a replacement purchase, so that TV needs to be or could be bigger and better.
> 
> I let rogo and fafrd to crunch the numbers but my guestimate for NA: max 100K units
> 
> P.S. *I went to a big store today and they had the curved OLED 9300; it was not even on!* How can they sell them? To whom except to someone already aware of them: tech enthusiasts!


 
I was in another part of the Bay Area and decided to stop by a different Best Buy than my usual one. Tons of Samsung LED/LCDs everywhere. Also tons of LG LED/LCDs (way more than my local BB). No 55EC9300 anywhere to be found. I finally asked and was told that they had one on display way over in the corner in the back. In the farthest corner of the video section the very last TV in line was the 55EC9300 playing Spiderman with absolutely no indication of any kind that it was an OLED (or even an LG). It was marked down to $2750.

It's almost like BB made a half-decent/half-hearted attempt to promote the 55EC9300 during their exclusivity period, and continued with the $500 discount to $3000 but when they didn't fly off the shelves, they've moved on to bigger and better things...


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> https://www.avforums.com/article/lg-explain-why-oled-tvs-full-hd-ultra-hd-4k-3d-are-the-future.10746



Good find. I found these tidbits interesting:


CURVED SCREENS: "*To help differentiate OLED from the rest of the pack*, the early models such as LG’s 55EA980 and Samsung’s KE55S9C used curved screens. Why curved screens? Well *it had nothing to really do with improving your viewing experience or immersing you and more to do with the fact that it was relatively easy to bend an OLED panel.* However, even this distinction has been lost as the majority of manufacturers now offer curved LED LCD TVs, leaving the poor consumer bewildered and confused."


"OLED panels are also very flexible, hence *the reason that the first models were curved*, which is *easy to do with OLED panels* but much harder with LCD panels."


"LG are confident they can *expand their Ultra HD 4K OLED line-up*, with a *55” and 65” flat versions* and a 55” and 77” curved versions, as well as a flexible 77” model"


So first, interesting to hear LG confirm that the curve thing started as a way to easily differentiate OLED, but Samsung put a stop to that by curving LCDs and selling them as 'immersive'. And second, interesting that now LG may actually calling the whole kibosh on the 'immersive' thing and going back to offering flat OLEDs (while keeping their curved offering just in case Samsung is successful).




*WOLED STACK*: "On their latest generation OLED panels, LG are also *using a 2-stack WRGB* device. So instead of a single stack of red, green and blue, the *latest panels have two stacks, one green and red and one blue.* "


So if the article is to be believed, the 2-layer yellow+blue OLED stack appears to be confirmed.


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> https://www.avforums.com/article/lg-explain-why-oled-tvs-full-hd-ultra-hd-4k-3d-are-the-future.10746


 
Also found this being referenced in the article: https://www.avforums.com/interview/...ng-head-of-tv-business-ultra-hd-4k-oled.10706

"_Of course OLED is still being developed, whilst LED LCD is a more mature technology that might ultimately be able to produce a picture quality that exceeds that of OLED. For this reason Samsung is looking at new technology to improve the picture quality of LCD TVs. *Technology has been developed that can not only go beyond the picture quality of OLED but can do so at a more affordable price when compared to OLED*"._


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> Also found this being referenced in the article: https://www.avforums.com/interview/...ng-head-of-tv-business-ultra-hd-4k-oled.10706
> 
> "_Of course OLED is still being developed, whilst LED LCD is a more mature technology that might ultimately be able to produce a picture quality that exceeds that of OLED. For this reason Samsung is looking at new technology to improve the picture quality of LCD TVs. *Technology has been developed that can not only go beyond the picture quality of OLED but can do so at a more affordable price when compared to OLED*"._


LCd basically matured in 2008/2009. From there only baby steps improvement. Even the Sharp Elite was only a few babysteps beyond its predecessors. I do not believe that the Elite Pro will be equaled any time soon. Don't be surprised if the Elite Pro will still ends on top (in the LCd hierachy) five years from now.. So i do not believe there will be LCd technology that will go beyond pq of OLED, not even expensive LCd's. LCd will Always having a hard time shining in the dark.

I look at it this way: For the moment Samsung can not make larger sized OLEDs so it pretends it LCd's pq is beyond OLED.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> LCd basically matured in 2008/2009. From there only baby steps improvement. Even the Sharp Elite was only a few babysteps beyond its predecessors. I do not believe that the Elite Pro will be equaled any time soon. Don't be surprised if the Elite Pro will still ends on top (in the LCd hierachy) five years from now.. So i do not believe there will be LCd technology that will go beyond pq of OLED, not even expensive LCd's. LCd will Always having a hard time shining in the dark.
> 
> *I look at it this way: For the moment Samsung can not make larger sized OLEDs so it pretends it LCd's pq is beyond OLED*.



That's how I read it as well (in addition to Samsung's campaign to undermine LGs WOLED based on 'limited lifetime').


Desperate times call for desperate measures...


----------



## mo949

Wouldn't it be awesome to hear this from the Samsung reps own mouths while listening to them speak at a Value Electronics Shootout?


----------



## barth2k

8mile13; said:


> LCD will Always having a hard time shining in the dark.


LCDs shine in the dark alright. That's their problem.


----------



## tgm1024

barth2k said:


> LCDs shine in the dark alright. That's their problem.


^^^LOL

Yes, that's the LCD's problem, but the problem that OLED's face is that the general public apparently couldn't give a @#$%.


----------



## mo949

they just care about how it looks in the store compared to the other TV's on the shelf. Once home they just deal with it. Of course every once in a while you get the rare bloke who gets slightly annoyed by something on his set. Who knows, maybe he just notices that peoples faces are red or purple and that the 'white' he's been seeing just seems awfully damn blue. Or he just can't seem to find the right settings and the manual is gibberish on what all those acronyms in the menu really do and then he takes to the interweb and inevitably finds us. *POOF* and we all know what happens after that


----------



## XPSTester

fafrd said:


> Good find. I found these tidbits interesting:...


As for me, in the same article quoted above, I found these statements interesting and educative: 

- "... LG Display - who are now the largest panel manufacturer in the world. ..." *= the future of OLED & LG is more certain*

- "... they listed the various benefits of the technology before demonstrating them in reality with both flat and curved Full HD OLEDs..." *= got tricked, they only displayed the 55EA8800* 

- "... One interesting thing that LG pointed out was that an OLED panel has less blue light in its visible spectrum, which the manufacturer feels is more comfortable to the human eye. They also said that they intended to study the relationship between blue light and eye fatigue in greater detail. ..." *= hmmm.... interesting*

- "... They seemed less convinced by claims of an improved viewing experience or a more immersive image and plan to offer OLED TVs in both flat and curved varieties - thus letting the consumer decide...." *= Thank you Lord! and I will pray it will be the truth and reality* 

- "... LG are confident they have solved the traditional OLED problems of image retention, screen burn and colour decay. ..." *Thank you Lord, again! and I will pray it will be the truth and reality*


----------



## wco81

Went to BB to look at some other stuff but then happened on the TV section where they had the LG 55-inch OLED set up, the curved one, pretty much in front.

It was running some kind of demo loop, with close shots of a black horse running, then some time lapse shots of flowers blooming, including against a pitch black background.

Initially the content didn't wow me but the saturated close up shots of the flowers were impressive.

Looking closely, the pixels didn't seem very sharp. Also looked at a Samsung 4K LCD where the pixels did look sharp but the colors were more faded.

Some of the dark sequences did show some halos and banding.

With they had some sports or fast motion sequences. Or even aerial panning over some terrain, which LCDs always fail to render without a smearing look.


----------



## jterp5

Best guess for when OLED will become "mainstream"?


----------



## htwaits

jterp5 said:


> Best guess for when OLED will become "mainstream"?


Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
And the dreams that you dreamed of
Once in a lullaby


----------



## tgm1024

htwaits said:


> Somewhere over the rainbow
> Way up high
> And the dreams that you dreamed of
> Once in a lullaby


......and then in 2017 they figure out how to make a 65" CRT 1" thick and flat with no backscatter and >poof


----------



## mo949

You can no longer just upload pics from your phone to a post here?


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> ......and then in 2017 they figure out how to make a 65" CRT 1" thick and flat with no backscatter and >poof


----------



## andy sullivan

stas3098 said:


> I wouldn't bet on that. In fact a couple of years ago I had participated in a remarkable discussion of "What's next" which ended with the consensus that OLED is the end of the line for all of us and nothing better ,display-wise, can't be ever done.
> 
> 
> And here where most people go" holographic TV" and where I say to make those you need good lasers and good lasers can't be made small enough (at least in our lifetimes)


I guess the question should be, what can make OLED PQ itself better? Better screen material? 8k?


----------



## fafrd

andy sullivan said:


> I guess the question should be, what can make OLED PQ itself better? Better screen material? 8k?



better uniformity and better motion performance (reduced pixel persistence)


----------



## andy sullivan

fafrd said:


> better uniformity and better motion performance (reduced pixel persistence)


Could better uniformity result from better screen material and motion performance from better video processing?


----------



## fafrd

andy sullivan said:


> Could better uniformity result from better screen material and motion performance from better video processing?



I don't know the cause of the two uniformity issues that have been reported. 


The color non-uniformity is supposedly not related to the curved screen - if this is true, then process variations over the full sheet may be the underlying cause and if so, perhaps better process control will lead to improvements.


The near-black greyscale non-uniformity is probably also process-related.


Motion performance is a different animal entirely and between better processing, and higher peak brightness, they should be able to implement black frame insertion in order to deliver at least state-of-the-art LED-like levels of motion resolution...


----------



## JimP

wco81 said:


> Went to BB to look at some other stuff but then happened on the TV section where they had the LG 55-inch OLED set up, the curved one, pretty much in front.
> 
> It was running some kind of demo loop, with close shots of a black horse running, then some time lapse shots of flowers blooming, including against a pitch black background.
> 
> Initially the content didn't wow me but the saturated close up shots of the flowers were impressive.
> 
> Looking closely, the pixels didn't seem very sharp. Also looked at a Samsung 4K LCD where the pixels did look sharp but the colors were more faded.
> 
> Some of the dark sequences did show some halos and banding.
> 
> With they had some sports or fast motion sequences. Or even aerial panning over some terrain, which LCDs always fail to render without a smearing look.


I think I saw a similar display at the Opelika BB yesterday.

The color richness must have been from having it in vivid mode. Once you get to part of the demo where it showed a couple, the flesh tones were over done.

It was kind of neet to finally see an OLED but I think that I'd rather wait another generation of two and go with a 4K OLED in a size between 65" and say 70". I think I'd also lean towards a Panasonic as I prefer how some of their smart features are implemented.


----------



## stas3098

andy sullivan said:


> I guess the question should be, what can make OLED PQ itself better? Better screen material? 8k?


Because OLED is just an organic phosphorescent (phosphorescent kind of OLED is currently used in our TVs and phones) dye at its core the possibilities of OLED are truly endless meaning if you mix right _components_ you can get OLED that never dies or that is as bright as the sun and the kicker is that OLED can be made electro-luminescent ,spin-luminescent (spin-OLED or holographic OLED http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/...st-spin-oled-a-giant-step-towards-a-new-light) and even incandescent I mean there's no end of possibilities with OLED


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> I don't know the cause of the two uniformity issues that have been reported.
> 
> 
> The color non-uniformity is supposedly not related to the curved screen - if this is true, then process variations over the full sheet may be the underlying cause and if so, perhaps better process control will lead to improvements.
> 
> 
> The near-black greyscale non-uniformity is probably also process-related.
> 
> 
> Motion performance is a different animal entirely and between better processing, and higher peak brightness, they should be able to implement black frame insertion in order to deliver at least state-of-the-art LED-like levels of motion resolution...


 
Agreed those are the main areas with room for improvement. Let's also not forget the viewing angles are still not as good as CRT or Plasma. I'm not sure why this is the case for an emissive display but they do have a slight issue with off-angle color tint.


----------



## Wizziwig

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/lg-usher-201410053928.htm


"LG has invested heavily in OLED research and development (R&D), and that shows no sign of slowing down. There will be a second OLED production line coming onstream in the *second half of 2015*, and we get the feeling that is just the beginning."


Wasn't the M2 line supposed to come online this year? Maybe this explains the high pricing of the new 4K models.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Agreed those are the main areas with room for improvement. Let's also not forget the viewing angles are still not as good as CRT or Plasma. I'm not sure why this is the case for an emissive display but they do have a slight issue with off-angle color tint.



That may be intrinsic to LGs WOLED. The white light passes through a color filter layer like with LCD and so that passage through a layer of color filters may degrade off-angle viewing at some stage (as opposed the Samsung's RGB OLED where there is no color filter layer and the light is emitted right out of the OLED and heads straight for your eyes (except passing through the clear encapsulation layer)).


The off-angle viewing of WOLED may never be 100% as good as plasma and RGB OLED, but it is significantly better than LED/LCD (because there is no LCD layer in addition).


----------



## barth2k

IIRC it was the Samsung OLED that had the horrible pink screen when viewed off angle, at least from the photos. ???


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/lg-usher-201410053928.htm
> 
> 
> "LG has invested heavily in OLED research and development (R&D), and that shows no sign of slowing down. There will be a second OLED production line coming onstream in the *second half of 2015*, and we get the feeling that is just the beginning."
> 
> 
> Wasn't the M2 line supposed to come online this year? Maybe this explains the high pricing of the new 4K models.


 
M2 was supposed to be in production 'in the 3rd quarter' of this year, and 4K production OLEDs are only manufactured on M2, so it is almost certain that M2 is the 'first OLED production line' which is now onstream and this may be a reference to M3.

This article from a few days ago quotes the President of LGE stating that M2 is in production now: http://www.techradar.com/us/news/te...a-breakthrough-in-oled-tv-production--1267431

"And as you have seen we now have our M2 line factory which can make six 55-inch modules in one piece of glass and for 65-inch three from one piece of glass at the same time, whereas in M1 65-inch can make 1.5 each time which means that one third of the glass [is wasted]. So I believe the price and yield rate will be higher immediately and the price will be down."

And this article from August is the only reference we have seen yet to M3: http://www.oled-info.com/ubi-research-amoled-resume-fast-growth-2016

UBI also expects LGD to start constructing a *new OLED TV fab*, the *M3 line* (*in addition to the **M2 fab* which is very close to mass production). So the market is expected to recover its growth in mid 2015.

If LG is truly beginning to make plans for investing in an additional OLED production line in 2015, we should hear something about it in their Q3 earnings call about a month from now...


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd;27964226Motion performance is a different animal entirely and between better processing said:


> The Oculus Rift DK2 already does black frame insertion, so the only issue is likely peak brightness (which wouldn't be an issue for a HMD).


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> The Oculus Rift DK2 already does black frame insertion, so the only issue is likely peak brightness (which wouldn't be an issue for a HMD).



Even if we can only get improved motion resolution when watching in the dark, I'd take it in a heartbeat...


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Even if we can only get improved motion resolution when watching in the dark, I'd take it in a heartbeat...


 
Careful what you ask for. The Samsung OLEDs have roughly double the brightness of the LG design. This made their BFI mode still practical for most people. I'm not sure running an LG at half brightness would still be useful. Even some of the Sony LED LCDs with Impulse are practically useless because they are so dim. I suspect that's the main reason LG has avoided adding this mode. Hopefully they will figure out a way to boost brightness in the future without impacting lifetime.


----------



## mreendoor

oled breakthrough

*Molecular Glasses Files Novel NONcrystallizable™ Organic Semiconductors Patents for OLED Applications*

It is projected that solution processing will reduce manufacturing cost of a 55” OLED display by 44.4% compared to the traditional thermal evaporation process




Easily tuned charge-transporting properties for balanced electron and hole transport resulting in highly efficient devices


Reduced emitter aggregation for higher internal conversion



Increased dopant concentration in compatible and noncrystallizable hosts for longer-live devices



Dual Solvent and vacuum coatability for manufacturing flexibility



Green solvent solubility to protect the environment



Efficient single layer devices for lower cost


http://www.ledinside.com/news/2014/..._semiconductors_patents_for_oled_applications


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Careful what you ask for. The Samsung OLEDs have roughly double the brightness of the LG design. This made their BFI mode still practical for most people. I'm not sure running an LG at half brightness would still be useful. Even some of the Sony LED LCDs with Impulse are practically useless because they are so dim. I suspect that's the main reason LG has avoided adding this mode. * Hopefully they will figure out a way to boost brightness in the future without impacting lifetime*.


 
Remember, when it comes to BFI, higher peak brightness translates into reduced pixel ON time, so total light output (and any impact on lifetime) should be roughly equivalent...

If the Samsung RGB OLED is 100%, I would have expected the LG WOLED to be 50% (because of the three color filters absorbing 2/3 of the white light produced). Not sure there is any easy way to make up for that (though it is still hopefully to drive at double brightness for half the time...).


----------



## JimP

barth2k said:


> IIRC it was the Samsung OLED that had the horrible pink screen when viewed off angle, at least from the photos. ???


That what I recall as well.

Frankly, between the off angle color shifts, ABL, and pain in calibration, I would question whether or not the gain in black level offsets the loss in other areas when compared to plasma.


----------



## stas3098

JimP said:


> That what I recall as well.
> 
> Frankly, between the off angle color shifts, ABL, and pain in calibration, I would question whether or not the gain in black level offsets the loss in other areas when compared to plasma.


On two-four-oh( 2.40:1) and 4:3 content OLED is better then Plasma, that being said I can't call OLED a clear winner on 16:9 content and can't call a loser, too.


----------



## rgb32

John Carmack had many interesting points regarding the Samsung OLED displays used for Gear VR, the prior Oculus HW revisions, and proposing new approaches for driving low persistence displays. After watching I'm wondering if we will hear future reports regarding 1080i120 or higher interlaced refresh rates.


----------



## 8mile13

OLED inventors tipped for 2014 Nobel prize for Chemistry. The Nobel committee's final decision will be announced in Stockholm on 8 oktober.
http://www.plusplasticelectronics.c...-inventors-tipped-for-nobel-prize-121470.aspx


----------



## mo949

stas3098 said:


> On two-four-oh( 2.40:1) and 4:3 content OLED is better then Plasma, that being said I can't call OLED a clear winner on 16:9 content and can't call a loser, too.


 
If you left him with an OLED in his house for a month and then came back and tried to take it away from him, you'd probably be left with one upset individual


----------



## stas3098

mo949 said:


> If you left him with an OLED in his house for a month and then came back and tried to take it away from him, you'd probably be left with one upset individual


 Still I'm somewhat disillusioned with OLED after 2 and half months of use and I'm disillusioned by OLED not because it doesn't deliver the best PQ ever, but because there's next to none content that takes full advantage of OLED. It's a crying shame actually...


----------



## dabotsonline

The comments here about LGE's OLED TVs being tucked away shamefully in dark recesses of Best Buy stores - and sometimes not even turned on - suggest that their US Sales and Product Training Teams really ought to be being more persistent with the Store Managers.


----------



## mo949

stas3098 said:


> Still I'm somewhat disillusioned with OLED after 2 and half months of use and I'm disillusioned by OLED not because it doesn't deliver the best PQ ever, but because there's next to none content that takes full advantage of OLED. It's a crying shame actually...


What type of content would do it for you? 

I have a boatload of Blurays that I can't wait to watch on it. I have some in the plastic that I kind of tell myself to hold off opening even just in case I get one of these by Xmas


----------



## stas3098

mo949 said:


> What type of content would do it for you?
> 
> I have a boatload of Blurays that I can't wait to watch on it. I have some in the plastic that I kind of tell myself to hold off opening even just in case I get one of these by Xmas


I don't know I guess I've started taking OLED for grantedI mean it doesn't seem to be that impressive to me any more it kinda got old and , you know, the fact that OLED is the best there is gives me no solace any more. For me for some reason Zero blacks is not enough I want more! I want higher dynamic range, real life color fidelity and real life motion (no judder or blur) from content and display alike and ultimately I want a holographic "TV".


----------



## mo949

stas, you sure make disillusionment sound like a sweet deal


----------



## mattg3

stas3098 said:


> I don't know I guess I've started taking OLED for grantedI mean it doesn't seem to be that impressive to me any more it kinda got old and , you know, the fact that OLED is the best there is gives me no solace any more. For me for some reason Zero blacks is not enough I want more! I want higher dynamic range, real life color fidelity and real life motion (no judder or blur) from content and display alike and ultimately I want a holographic "TV".



Have you had it professionally calibrated yet?I felt same about my old Samsung 8500 LED and then I had D-Nice calibrate it and the WOW factor came back.Im not going near an OLED without professional calibration.


----------



## IanD

Wizziwig said:


> Let's also not forget the viewing angles are still not as good as CRT or Plasma. I'm not sure why this is the case for an emissive display but they do have a slight issue with off-angle color tint.


IIRC, WOLED uses a blue OLED with a yellow phosphor so the resulting light output is white (similar to many white LEDs). Blue photons emitted perpendicular to the surface travel through less phosphor thickness than those at increasing angles, so the increasing angle light output may have less blue and more yellow. I expect this is why the colour tint at large viewing angles, which a curved screen also tends to distort.

I'm waiting for them to try blue OLED with quantum dots for red and green: should provide higher and more linear light output, but if quantum dot technology is expensive over large areas, it may not happen (I think Sony used a small number of discrete blue LEDs with quantum dots for red and green for their Triluminos). Also, WOLED uses many LCD fabrication techniques that can be borrowed from existing structures, whereas quantum dot or other technology would require new fabrication techniques and facilities, so I can see why LG initially went WOLED to re-use some of its existing LCD methodology.


----------



## rogo

Sony absolutely did not use quantum dots in lieu of LEDs. It used LEDs with a quantum-dot film. Not at all the same thing.


----------



## Rich Peterson

A lot of interesting information in this quote from Barry Young from the OLED Association here.



> LG chose to implement the metal oxide/White OLED approach and has succeeded, where Samsung’s choice of LTPS/Small Mask Scanning (SMS) has proven too expensive to pursue even with ~80% yields.
> 
> Samsung has not given up; they are just going back to the R&D drawing board to come up with a more cost effective solution. LG now has 55”, 65” and 77” AMOLED TVs with FHD and UHD resolution. When introduced, the OLED TVs were constrained by low volumes, low yields and the associated high costs. LG claims their yields have reached 80% from


----------



## wco81

mo949 said:


> What type of content would do it for you?
> 
> I have a boatload of Blurays that I can't wait to watch on it. I have some in the plastic that I kind of tell myself to hold off opening even just in case I get one of these by Xmas


For OLED or any large display to do well, it must do a good job with live sports.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Sony absolutely did not use quantum dots in lieu of LEDs. It used LEDs with a quantum-dot film. Not at all the same thing.



Oh, so you mean Sony used ULED


----------



## fafrd

Rich Peterson said:


> A lot of interesting information in this quote from Barry Young from the OLED Association here.


 
Seems like a more informed source than the usual industry 'analysts':

"We expect that LG’s mass production *Gen 8.5 fab will come on line in 2015* and that capacity will reach an initial level of 1.5M to 1.8M displays per year."

M2 was supposed to come on line in Q3'14 (ie: now), but if there is any truth to that statement then I believe we have the explanation for the unexpected 'price-up' of the 65EC9700...

The 'initial level' of production is way off, though. Phase I production of 8000 sheets/month results in only 567,000 55" OLEDs (assuming unrealistic 100% yield levels) and full Phase III production of 26,000 sheets/month results in 1.872M 55" OLEDs unyielded and 1.5M 55" OLEDs at stated yields of 80%. So it seems like they have confused 'initial level' at M2 with 'full final level'...


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG continuing to develop Ultra HD TVs to keep up its TV shipment goal of 34 million*

Source: DigiTimes



> LG Electronics is continuing to develop Ultra HD TVs in order to keep up its TV shipment goal of 34 million amid less-than-expected shipments of OLED TVs, according to sources as reported in the Korea-based _D-Daily_.
> 
> 
> As OLED has yet to take off in the TV segment, Ultra HD has been the new technology for vendors to maintain market share and overall shipments in the TV industry. LG previously had high hopes for OLED for 2014 but due to low yields end-pricing remaining high, limiting shipments as a result.
> 
> 
> *The sources were quoted as stating OLED TV shipments are expected to reach 100,000 in 2014 and 600,000 in 2015 followed by 2.8 million in 2017. Other market observers believe that OLED TV shipments will reach around 3.3 million in 2017. OLED TV shipments are expected to be limited in 2014 while Ultra HD TV shipments are expected to reach 17.83 million, up 475% on year, according to Digitimes Research, which also noted that in 2017 global Ultra HD TV panel shipments will reach 72.5 million.*
> 
> 
> Ultra HD TVs have since been LG's main focus for the high-end TV segment and the company is expanding its lineup well into the 100-inch and above size range, the report noted.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, Korea-based vendors are developing quantum dot TVs in order to expand their high-end TV range, according to sources quoted in a report from Korea-based _Digital Times_.


----------



## rogo

Ugh, ugh, ugh... Us bears were, well, right....

It's going to take longer to get there because you can't magically solve the chicken-and-egg problem of yields --> utilization --> demand --> yields --> etc. etc. etc. 

And Young appears to have confirmed what I've been saying for eons about Samsung: You can stop Herbie from wandering off into the woods, but you can't make him run fast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goal_(novel)

It's disappointing that we don't have a clear answer on soluble materials and lifetime yet.

For its par, I think Kateeva believes we will by 2016, but I don't have insight into whether that's confidence or hope.


----------



## mo949

^ you have a broken link that needs the missing ")" tacked on to the end. As always, it would seem that 1984 holds the answers.


----------



## fafrd

Rich Peterson said:


> *LG continuing to develop Ultra HD TVs to keep up its TV shipment goal of 34 million*
> 
> Source: DigiTimes


 
"*LG Electronics* is continuing to develop Ultra HD TVs in order to keep up its TV shipment goal of 34 million amid less-than-expected shipments of OLED TVs, *according to sources* as reported in the Korea-based _D-Daily_.

...LG previously had high hopes for OLED for 2014 but due to low yields end-pricing remaining high, limiting shipments as a result.

*...The sources* were quoted as stating OLED TV shipments are expected to reach *100,000 in 2014* and *600,000 in 2015* followed by 2.8 million in 2017. "

The article makes is sound as thought 'the sources' are from LG, but whose to know (as usual )

100,000 in 2014 seems very unlikely, unless there is an abrupt return to $2000 pricing on the 55" soon (and even in that case seems out of reach). So I'd have to speculate that 'the source' is an optimistic sort.

So let's imagine that we are about to see the pricing needed to drive sustainable demand at the level of 50,000 55" OLEDs per month. November and December could still get us to 100,000 in 2014 and running at that level through 2015 could get us to 600,000 next year.

The Phase I of M2 to 8000 Gen-8 sheets per month translates to 48,000 55" OLEDs per month unyielded or 38,400 yielded. Phase II to 16,000 Gen-8 sheets per month would double that.



So a forecast of 600,000 OLEDs in 2015 pretty much means M2 will not get beyond Phase II in all of 2015:


Phase I = 460K/year @ 80% yield (or 576,000 before yield loss)
Phase II = 920K/year @ 80% yield (or 1.15M before yield loss)
Phase III = 1.5M/year @80% yield (or 1.87M before yield loss)

All of LGs marketing effort is focused on 4K LED/LCD now - you can see it when you go to Best Buy. I was shocked to see more than 10 LG LED/LCDs throughout the store and only a single 55EC9300 tucked away in the corner with no indication of any kind as to what it was other than the model number.

Looks like two steps forward, one step back...


----------



## mo949

You should post a photo of that 'tucked away ec9300' at BestBuy 

Which best buy is it in San Francisco again?


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> M2 was supposed to come on line in Q3'14 (ie: now), but if there is any truth to that statement then I believe we have the explanation for the unexpected 'price-up' of the 65EC9700...


 
Isn't that exactly what I stated a couple days ago but you seemed to think they were talking about some mythical M3 line?
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...ogy-advancements-thread-371.html#post27974882


That's 2 sources both claiming what appears to be a delay in M2. The limited run of UHD sets coming out now could all be from M1. The BB price of the 55" climbing back up slightly may also indicate they are diverting their limited capacity to the larger panels.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

wco81 said:


> For OLED or any large display to do well, it must do a good job with live sports.


If a display does well on BlurBusters and TestUFO then it should do well with live sports.


----------



## fafrd

mo949 said:


> You should post a photo of that 'tucked away ec9300' at BestBuy
> 
> Which best buy is it in San Francisco again?



Mountain View - will try to swing by and snap a picture next time I am in the area...


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Isn't that exactly what I stated a couple days ago but you seemed to think they were talking about some mythical M3 line?
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...ogy-advancements-thread-371.html#post27974882
> 
> 
> That's 2 sources both claiming what appears to be a delay in M2. The limited run of UHD sets coming out now could all be from M1. The BB price of the 55" climbing back up slightly may also indicate they are diverting their limited capacity to the larger panels.


 
It's true that while a65EC9700 coming off of M2 should cost about 2X the cost of a 55EC9300, if LG was to try to produce the 65EC9700 on the half-sheet M1 pilot line, each 65EC9700 would cost about 3X the cost of a 55EC9300.

At $7000, the 65EC9700 was priced at about 2X the price of the 55EC9300, and with the price increase to $10,000, it is now priced at about 3X the 55EC9300...

But there is no way LG gets anywhere close to 100,000 OLEDs in 2014 on M1 alone, so if the speculation is correct about a delay in M2 getting up to Phase I, the delay should not be for more than 4-6 weeks...


----------



## greenland

Post-4K OLED TV: Where does picture quality go from here?
Now that there are 4K OLED televisions, can picture quality get any better? Have we achieved perfection? If so, where do we go from here? Here's a list of next steps.

by Geoffrey Morrison

http://www.cnet.com/news/post-4k-oled-tv-where-does-picture-quality-go-from-here/


----------



## mo949

Let's see if I've figured out this new photo attaching thing. 

Here's the EC9300 display I've seen all around San Diego and Orange County at the Best Buys I've been to:

this one is from a small BB that's out in Carmel Mtn Area.


----------



## fafrd

greenland said:


> Post-4K OLED TV: Where does picture quality go from here?
> Now that there are 4K OLED televisions, can picture quality get any better? Have we achieved perfection? If so, where do we go from here? Here's a list of next steps.
> 
> by Geoffrey Morrison
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/post-4k-oled-tv-where-does-picture-quality-go-from-here/



Not a bad list, but he forgot improved OLED uniformity (both color and near-black greyscale)...


----------



## mo949

In the store no matter how hard I tried I couldn't detect the color shift from extreme off angles; believe I'd need a solid background to detect it.


----------



## fafrd

mo949 said:


> In the store no matter how hard I tried I couldn't detect the color shift from extreme off angles; believe I'd need a solid background to detect it.


 
Or to be watching B&W content (Marty???).

For the near-black greyscale non-uniformity, you'd need to be watching in the dark...


----------



## mo949

BnW has lots of solid coloring so it should be easier to see it there. I'm curious when I own one if I'll see it in landscapes, sky settings, ocean settings et. I'm very sensitive to the uniformity issues which is why I can't tolerate any of the LCD's I've had since the vertical banding and uniformity start to show themselves more than a little bit during those settings I just mentioned.

If I notice it, I'll post back though. I'm sure it will be visible once I get the right content and pause the screen and then go stand at an extreme off angle position similar to what Marty showed in his almost directly off to the side photos. For near black uniformity you would not only need to be watching in the dark but you would need a very special type of scene that takes up enough of the tv at near black (its like 3% which is normally crushed by a lot of sets) to see it during normal content from a normal spot. Then it'd also have to be a uniform/solid enough image in your normal content to see it in that shadow detail - and it'd likely be fleeting.

Ken, I think you'd agree with me that it may even be harder to spot this black uniformity than the High Frequency noise reduction.

Fafrd, I believe your LG LCD now already has the High Frequency noise reduction built in and you've never noticed it or thought to comment on it either, correct? Normally I just hear you say things like it appears sharper than a ZT60 .


----------



## wco81

greenland said:


> Post-4K OLED TV: Where does picture quality go from here?
> Now that there are 4K OLED televisions, can picture quality get any better? Have we achieved perfection? If so, where do we go from here? Here's a list of next steps.
> 
> by Geoffrey Morrison
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/post-4k-oled-tv-where-does-picture-quality-go-from-here/


None of the sources he mentioned, such as 4K Blu Ray or streaming sources are going to get people to spend thousands on 4K TVs, let alone 4K OLED.

They have to get broadcast networks on board, to broadcast the biggest sporting events in 4K -- NFL, SuperBowl, World Cup, Olympics, etc.

A 4K broadcast (or at least cable/satellite) standard is more important than 4K Blu Ray, though of course, 4K Blu Ray will provide the best source picture quality.

We know some European TV networks experimented with some 4K broadcasts of the WC matches this past summer and some Japanese broadcasters have tested 4K and 8K broadcasts. But we're not hearing much about pushing forward and implementing new ATSC standards.

Because of course, spectrum is being contested and being repurposed for mobile broadband, as broadcast TV has become stagnant.


It sounds more and more like 4K OLED is going to be relegated to the Laser Disc ghetto of enthusiasts willing to spend way more than most people, on limited selection of native content. We'll be lucky to see good content support from a 4K Blu Ray format.


----------



## mo949

fafrd said:


> "*LG Electronics* is continuing to develop Ultra HD TVs in order to keep up its TV shipment goal of 34 million amid less-than-expected shipments of OLED TVs, *according to sources* as reported in the Korea-based _D-Daily_.
> 
> ...LG previously had high hopes for OLED for 2014 but due to low yields end-pricing remaining high, limiting shipments as a result.
> 
> *...The sources* were quoted as stating OLED TV shipments are expected to reach *100,000 in 2014* and *600,000 in 2015* followed by 2.8 million in 2017. "
> 
> The article makes is sound as thought 'the sources' are from LG, but whose to know (as usual )
> 
> 100,000 in 2014 seems very unlikely, unless there is an abrupt return to $2000 pricing on the 55" soon (and even in that case seems out of reach). So I'd have to speculate that 'the source' is an optimistic sort.
> 
> So let's imagine that we are about to see the pricing needed to drive sustainable demand at the level of 50,000 55" OLEDs per month. November and December could still get us to 100,000 in 2014 and running at that level through 2015 could get us to 600,000 next year.
> 
> The Phase I of M2 to 8000 Gen-8 sheets per month translates to 48,000 55" OLEDs per month unyielded or 38,400 yielded. Phase II to 16,000 Gen-8 sheets per month would double that.
> 
> 
> 
> So a forecast of 600,000 OLEDs in 2015 pretty much means M2 will not get beyond Phase II in all of 2015:
> 
> 
> Phase I = 460K/year @ 80% yield (or 576,000 before yield loss)
> Phase II = 920K/year @ 80% yield (or 1.15M before yield loss)
> Phase III = 1.5M/year @80% yield (or 1.87M before yield loss)
> All of LGs marketing effort is focused on 4K LED/LCD now - you can see it when you go to Best Buy. I was shocked to see more than 10 LG LED/LCDs throughout the store and only a single 55EC9300 tucked away in the corner with no indication of any kind as to what it was other than the model number.
> 
> Looks like two steps forward, one step back...


Not to be anymore bearish than already is the case, but I believe you should factor in an additional 2-5% for defects that are still included in the yield and get delivered to customers and possibly even a slightly higher % if replacement parts will be stocked. IE, the 80% yield is kind of the best case number for potential sales.


----------



## fafrd

mo949 said:


> Not to be anymore bearish than already is the case, but I believe you should factor in an additional 2-5% for defects that are still included in the yield and get delivered to customers and possibly even a slightly higher % if replacement parts will be stocked. IE, the 80% yield is kind of the best case number for potential sales.


 
It's an interesting question whether LGE includes exchanges and replacements for defective sets within 'shipments' - generally not. Companies are generally only able to recognize revenue (and shipments) net of any returns/exchanges.

On the other hand (and speaking of bearishness), LGE is referring to shipments, and that is not the same as end-user sales. So they well 'ship' 100,000 units into the channels in 2014 while the volume of units shipped-through to end customers is likely a fraction of that.

I don't believe that there is any way that the number of end-users who have purchased an LG OLED in 2014 is anywhere close to even 50,000 year-to-date...


----------



## Desk.

VERY interesting article here on LG's approach to manufacture of its OLEDs, even going into detail about things like the algorithms designed to prevent "staining" resulting from a deterioration of voltage over time....

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs/1401612/why-your-next-tv-should-be-oled

Desk


----------



## fafrd

Desk. said:


> VERY interesting article here on LG's approach to manufacture of its OLEDs, even going into detail about things like the algorithms designed to prevent "staining" resulting from a deterioration of voltage over time....
> 
> http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs/1401612/why-your-next-tv-should-be-oled
> 
> Desk


 
Good find.

I believe 'staining' is a reference to IR/BI and as we have suspected, it appears to be related to threshold shift of transistors in the IGZO backplane.

It sounds like they have implemented a pixel-level sensing and compensation structure (which I believe was the subject of several of the technical papers presented by LG at whichever display conference earlier this year - SIGGRAPH??), but unfortunately, this passage makes is sound like 'staining' is more permanent (and BI-like) than temporary (and IR-like):

"*To prevent the threshold voltage from deteriorating over time* and causing an imbalance in luminance, LG has also developed special circuit algorithms to sense any potential changes in the threshold voltage of each pixel. This will adjust luminance levels on a real-time basis, *helping the panel last longer and prevent staining*."

It's also interesting to me that this article dated today expresses a stronger commitment to curved OLEDs that the other article found late last week: 

"This is particularly important, as LG believes that *OLED is the best suited for curved TVs.* "We are aware that *there's a high level of interest for curved TVs*," says Han."

"Don't hold your breath for a flat 4K OLED TV, though, as *LG told us its primary focus for now is developing curved 4K displays*. "Flat 4K OLED is something that we've not 100 per cent discontinued," said Robert Taylor, Product Manager for LG Electronics, "but *the key message around OLED is that it's best for curved*. We have the capability to make them curved and flat so depending on what the market demands, *we might put a flat product into the line-up*."

I suspect that this interview may have been from before the recent difficulties and is only now being published following the shift in course and strategy...


----------



## mo949

Desk. said:


> VERY interesting article here on LG's approach to manufacture of its OLEDs, even going into detail about things like the algorithms designed to prevent "staining" resulting from a deterioration of voltage over time....
> 
> http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs/1401612/why-your-next-tv-should-be-oled
> 
> Desk


Fafrd, I think this is 'you' and not 'we'. The staining and voltage algorithm sound exactly like the voltage adjustments in plasmas that take place over time, sometimes the algorithm can be jarring in that people have noticed that their sets get brighter after the first few thousand hours and a voltage increase takes place. If similar then nothing to do with IR/BI specifically. It actually doesn't sound like anything new at all. Even the black optimizer of the F8500 is essentially an algorithm that deals with the voltage being used....


----------



## rogo

They make no argument whatsoever for the TVs being curved other than that they can curve them.

I'm growing to vehemently dislike LG.


----------



## barth2k

rogo said:


> They make no argument whatsoever for the TVs being curved other than that they can curve them.
> 
> I'm growing to vehemently dislike LG.


Would you prefer they feed us techno malarkey a la Samsung? I give them props for basically admitting it's pure marketing and not touting "innovation".


----------



## htwaits

rogo said:


> They make no argument whatsoever for the TVs being curved other than that they can curve them.
> 
> I'm growing to vehemently dislike LG.


About any OLED panel:

"They curve it because they can." ... _Kateva ME_


----------



## rogo

barth2k said:


> Would you prefer they feed us techno malarkey a la Samsung? I give them props for basically admitting it's pure marketing and not touting "innovation".


Samsung does not currently manufacture OLED televisions. So....



htwaits said:


> About any OLED panel:
> 
> "They curve it because they can." ... _Kateva ME_


Yeah, exactly. And apparently, like the geniuses at Apple who spent the past two years not selling the extra 50 million iPhones because people didn't really want big screens, LG can not sell the extra several million TVs because people um, yeah, whatever...

Who exactly pays these people?


----------



## Wizziwig

mo949 said:


> In the store no matter how hard I tried I couldn't detect the color shift from extreme off angles; believe I'd need a solid background to detect it.


 
You need brighter gray or white content. All OLEDs no matter the tech (LG, Samsung, or Sony) show visible color shift in this case. Kind of a bummer since many of us were expecting perfect view angles like older emissive displays.



fafrd said:


> For the near-black greyscale non-uniformity, you'd need to be watching in the dark...


Dark is not really required. I have not played with the EC9300 menus but on the older EA9800, you could see the banding and dark spots in the dark gray background of all their menus. Kind of stupid of LG to set the background color of their menus to a shade the TV can't actually reproduce uniformly. I saw it as soon as I turned on the set. 



mo949 said:


> For near black uniformity you would not only need to be watching in the dark but you would need a very special type of scene that takes up enough of the tv at near black (its like 3% which is normally crushed by a lot of sets) to see it during normal content from a normal spot. Then it'd also have to be a uniform/solid enough image in your normal content to see it in that shadow detail - and it'd likely be fleeting.


 
See above. It's a lot more common than you think - especially in TV series shot indoors where there are many solid colored gray walls. It's also way above just 3%. I could still tell it was there up to 30%. Better than typical LCD DSE? Yes.


----------



## Wizziwig

Desk. said:


> VERY interesting article here on LG's approach to manufacture of its OLEDs, even going into detail about things like the algorithms designed to prevent "staining" resulting from a deterioration of voltage over time....
> 
> http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs/1401612/why-your-next-tv-should-be-oled
> 
> Desk


 
I thought this part was interesting:


"LG has also managed to lower the power consumption and increase the light output of its WRGB patterning method by using a newly developed two-stack structure of its materials. Previously, LG used a one-stack structure whose luminance efficiency was only 10 candelas per ampere. The company's two-stack structure, on the other hand, has increased this figure to 25cd/A. "


If that's true, then I guess the new 4K sets will be 2.5x as bright at equivalent power draw? Good news for a potential BFI mode in the future or at the very least a less aggressive ABL. Can't wait to see some reviews to confirm this.


----------



## Wizziwig

mo949 said:


> Not to be anymore bearish than already is the case, but I believe you should factor in an additional 2-5% for defects that are still included in the yield and get delivered to customers and possibly even a slightly higher % if replacement parts will be stocked. IE, the 80% yield is kind of the best case number for potential sales.


I've actually wondered about their yield claims for a while. Here in the U.S., LG considers an OLED defective if it has any dead pixels and they replace them under warranty. If you read any of the owner threads, you will see that virtually everyone has some dead pixels. So were those sets counted as part of the 80% non-defective yield? If so, what is their true yield if we define yield as the percentage of sets that would not qualify for warranty repair.


----------



## sooke

Wizziwig said:


> I thought this part was interesting:
> 
> 
> "LG has also managed to lower the power consumption and increase the light output of its WRGB patterning method by using a newly developed two-stack structure of its materials. Previously, LG used a one-stack structure whose luminance efficiency was only 10 candelas per ampere. The company's two-stack structure, on the other hand, has increased this figure to 25cd/A. "
> 
> 
> If that's true, then I guess the new 4K sets will be 2.5x as bright at equivalent power draw? Good news for a potential BFI mode in the future or at the very least a less aggressive ABL. Can't wait to see some reviews to confirm this.


This caught my eye as well and made me wonder when the double stack was/will be introduced. Is it already in the 55" 1080 models? I did not see anywhere in the article that said the double stack will be introduced with the 4K models.


----------



## Feirstein

Like all UHD sets, there is not yet set in stone a final spec. Dolby Vision, color gamut, interconnects, still need to be worked out. Many say that developments like Dolby Vision is more meaningful than an increase in resolution.


----------



## 8mile13

"Even with a slight descent from the axis of the screen appears a greenish hue, and at larger angles mercilessly poisons the entire screen."


----------



## mo949

Wizziwig said:


> I've actually wondered about their yield claims for a while. Here in the U.S., LG considers an OLED defective if it has any dead pixels and they replace them under warranty. If you read any of the owner threads, you will see that virtually everyone has some dead pixels. So were those sets counted as part of the 80% non-defective yield? If so, what is their true yield if we define yield as the percentage of sets that would not qualify for warranty repair.


Exactly! 

And thanks for the extra info on the near black uniformity. If its really 30% like you are saying, that's not really anywhere near black like Chad B was claiming in his writeup  

Is it uniformity issues like Plasma, where you get extremely faint areas towards the edges of the screen, or closer to say LCD where you straight get giant stripes down it all throughout?


----------



## Wizziwig

sooke said:


> This caught my eye as well and made me wonder when the double stack was/will be introduced. Is it already in the 55" 1080 models? I did not see anywhere in the article that said the double stack will be introduced with the 4K models.


 
The 55EC9300 was measured for brightness by multiple sites. Zero improvement from first gen. Power usage has actually gotten worse:


113W EA9800 vs. 148W EC9300.


See: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1388765934#5 and http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1411378140


Seems highly unlikely that the EC9300 has any of the changes discussed in the article.




mo949 said:


> Exactly!
> 
> 
> And thanks for the extra info on the near black uniformity. If its really 30% like you are saying, that's not really anywhere near black like Chad B was claiming in his writeup
> 
> Is it uniformity issues like Plasma, where you get extremely faint areas towards the edges of the screen, or closer to say LCD where you straight get giant stripes down it all throughout?


 
I should have mentioned I was talking about the EA9800. I have not personally tested the EC9300 for dark uniformity.


----------



## mo949

I'll be weary of it, since anything uniformity related that can mess with stuff like and underwater shot etc, is not somthing I'm ok with.


----------



## sooke

Wizziwig said:


> The 55EC9300 was measured for brightness by multiple sites. Zero improvement from first gen. Power usage has actually gotten worse:
> 
> 
> 113W EA9800 vs. 148W EC9300.
> 
> 
> See: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1388765934#5 and http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1411378140
> 
> 
> Seems highly unlikely that the EC9300 has any of the changes discussed in the article.


Thanks Wizz. I hope you're right, gives even more to look forward to with the 4Ks.


----------



## fafrd

mo949 said:


> Fafrd, I believe your LG LCD now already has the High Frequency noise reduction built in and you've never noticed it or thought to comment on it either, correct? Normally I just hear you say things like it appears sharper than a ZT60 .


 
Correct, my family and I did not like the 'softer' more 'filmlike' image of the ZT60 compared to the 'sharper' more digital image of the LG LEDLCD. 

I've assumed that that was just the distinct pixels of the LCD versus the PWM emissive pixels of the plasma, but I suppose it's possible there is some image enhancement going on that I was not aware of. I have the setting for Noise Reduction, MPEG Noise Reduction, Super Resolution and Edge Enhancer all set to OFF. There are also settings for H Sharpness and V Sharpness which are at the default of 50. The TV is a 55LW5600 from 2011 - how long has LG been hard-coding this High Frequency Noise Reduction into their TVs???

We all loved the image of the 55EC9300, we seemed to us more 'LCD-like' than 'plasma-like' in this specific respect ('sharp' and 'digital').


----------



## fafrd

sooke said:


> This caught my eye as well and made me wonder when the double stack was/will be introduced. Is it already in the 55" 1080 models? I did not see anywhere in the article that said the double stack will be introduced with the 4K models.


 
Honestly, I took that to be a reference to what they did since they first began working on OLED - I'm pretty sure the 55EC9300 is '2-stack' and I suspect the 55EA9800 is '2-stack' as well. The '1-stack' method, whatever/whenever it was, sounds like it was a dead end. Every picture I have seen regarding LGs OLED structure since I started looking into it at the beginning of this year has shown the '2-stack' structure.

So perhaps the 55EC9300 is '1-stack' and there are great improvements from '2-stack' in the pipeline, but it would surprise me.


----------



## stas3098

fafrd said:


> Good find.
> 
> I believe 'staining' is a reference to IR/BI and as we have suspected, it appears to be related to threshold shift of transistors in the IGZO backplane.
> 
> It sounds like they have implemented a pixel-level sensing and compensation structure (which I believe was the subject of several of the technical papers presented by LG at whichever display conference earlier this year - SIGGRAPH??), but unfortunately, this passage makes is sound like 'staining' is more permanent (and BI-like) than temporary (and IR-like):
> 
> "*To prevent the threshold voltage from deteriorating over time* and causing an imbalance in luminance, LG has also developed special circuit algorithms to sense any potential changes in the threshold voltage of each pixel. This will adjust luminance levels on a real-time basis, *helping the panel last longer and prevent staining*."
> 
> It's also interesting to me that this article dated today expresses a stronger commitment to curved OLEDs that the other article found late last week:
> 
> "This is particularly important, as LG believes that *OLED is the best suited for curved TVs.* "We are aware that *there's a high level of interest for curved TVs*," says Han."
> 
> "Don't hold your breath for a flat 4K OLED TV, though, as *LG told us its primary focus for now is developing curved 4K displays*. "Flat 4K OLED is something that we've not 100 per cent discontinued," said Robert Taylor, Product Manager for LG Electronics, "but *the key message around OLED is that it's best for curved*. We have the capability to make them curved and flat so depending on what the market demands, *we might put a flat product into the line-up*."
> 
> I suspect that this interview may have been from before the recent difficulties and is only now being published following the shift in course and strategy...


Any compensation circuitry at the transistor level will never work I could go into the why of it, but it would be redundant seeing how I've identified the origin of the problem from the onset (first reports of IR/BI) and couldn't identify any solution. Suffice it to say it that compensation circuitry never worked on Plasma and Solid State Drives (SDD's capacitors/transistors suffer from threshold shifts).


By the looks of it OLED (in its current form) will always suffer from IR/BI. The only way for LG to overcome sidebar BI/IR is by employing LTPS for backplanes as for good ol' uneven wear there's no _verbis explicatum ad presentum _as men of science used to say way back in the day (there's no reasonable solution at present for that)


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> Any compensation circuitry at the transistor level will never work I could go into the why of it, but it would be redundant seeing how I've identified the origin of the problem from the onset (first reports of IR/BI) and couldn't identify any solution. Suffice it to say it that compensation circuitry never worked on Plasma and Solid State Drives (SDD's capacitors/transistors suffer from threshold shifts).
> 
> 
> By the looks of it OLED (in its current form) will always suffer from IR/BI. The only way for LG to overcome sidebar BI/IR is by employing LTPS for backplanes as for good ol' uneven wear there's no _verbis explicatum ad presentum _as men of science used to say way back in the day (there's no reasonable solution at present for that)



I'm not buying that. Given that the EA9800 had letterbox IR/BI horrendously in the beginning and the EC9300 seems to not have it at all (or at least there is no large list of complaints about it in its thread), there is at least something amiss in your calculations.

For something to radically improve from one model to the next implies that there is a solution to some degree. So now it becomes a matter of tailoring that degree to use cases. In the case of the EA9800, Vinnie reported it happening _after one movie._ That hasn't happened in a while.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> I'm not buying that. Given that the EA9800 had letterbox IR/BI horrendously in the beginning and the EC9300 seems to not have it at all (or at least there is no large list of complaints about it in its thread), there is at least something amiss in your calculations.
> 
> For something to radically improve from one model to the next implies that there is a solution to some degree. So now it becomes a matter of tailoring that degree to use cases. In the case of the EA9800, Vinnie reported it happening _after one movie._ That hasn't happened in a while.


You are right. The degree of it has purportedly improved. To what extent, in sooth, unknown but after taking into consideration the fact that people don't complain about it any more we can infer that BI/IR resistance has been improved considerably and my educated guess be that it happened due to the fundamental hardware improvements of IGZO backplanes.


When I said that compensation circuitry wouldn't work I kinda meant it wouldn't work as well as you might be led to believe it would. It for certain won't be panacea to BI/IR like that pixel (jogger or rotator or whatever it's called) _something _on plasma did basically nothing to combat BI/IR_. _


In all fairness, I didn't say that you couldn't improve IGZO architecture itself to a certain degree. Look at SDDs they went from 100 writes to 100,000 over 30 years all due to improvements in transistors themselves in fact improvements to transistors made SDDs possible. 


What I said/meant was: the laws of physics dictate that there always be some BI/RI from sidebar (pillarboxed/letterboxed) content for the Latin word on the street has it that _De legibus physicis non possit irrumaverint __esse_ (The laws of physics cannot be F-ed with) with IGZO *I said nothing about the degree of it.*

Hey guys if you have some free time I violently suggest you look up the word _irrumate _just for the hell of it and_ s_orry if I overused Latin here I just ,you know, haven't used for like over 5 years...


----------



## Wizziwig

JWhip said:


> He looked up how many of the sets they (meaning BB) have. He told me that the warehouse which supplies the entire east coast had only 6. If that is true, they are either flying off the shelves ( he told me that have yet to sell one) or LG can't make many at all, even with their claims of 80% yield. I really want to see this tech survive and thrive but I have my concerns. Hopefully 2015 will see more models from more manufacturers and much better supply and pricing. It is certainly an exciting tech.


 


Wizziwig said:


> Interesting. I'm on the west coast. I just checked the BB web site and only 1/10 stores within 25 mile radius has any in stock. Either they no longer stock them in their stores (and just order them on-demand from LG) or there are some supply problems.
> 
> While selling much more than BB, MC is not exactly selling out even at almost half the price. The market for 55" 1080p $2K+ TV's seems very limited, especially when they're curved.


 

Cross posting this on this thread since it seems a more appropriate topic here. Anyone else notice a drop in 55EC9300 supply? Any idea why? Prices have also gone up at both BB and Cleveland.


Edit: Amazon is also now showing "Usually ships within 1 to 2 months"


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Cross posting this on this thread since it seems a more appropriate topic here. Anyone else notice a drop in 55EC9300 supply? Any idea why? Prices have also gone up at both BB and Cleveland.
> 
> 
> Edit: Amazon is also now showing "Usually ships within 1 to 2 months"


 
Yes, notice here as well (Bay Area).

My suspicion is that problems with expected M2 ramp-up schedule have resulted in increased production volumes of EC9300 not arriving on the schedule expected (as well as the pricing increase in the 65EC9300). Looks to me like LG did everything masterfully for a strong launch of both the 55EC9300 (including building up the required inventory for a strong Best Buy launch on the pilot line as well as the $500 'sale price' last month) and the 65EC9700 (including the surprising low introductory pricing that got all of used excited) but then when it came time for required production to begin rolling off of M2, there was a problem. So since then the supply of 55EC9300s seems to have dropped, the 'sale' has ended, and they have launched the 65EC9700 and 77EC9700 at 'if you need to ask don't bother' pricing, and they have sold a small token number of 4K TV's that were probably produced on the M1 pilot line.

Time will tell - when M2 is back on track I suspect we will know immediately because of significant price drops across the OLED product line...

p.s. all of the above is also possible with M2 ramping up on schedule but to much, much worse initial yields than what was expected.


----------



## stas3098

fafrd said:


> Yes, notice here as well (Bay Area).
> 
> My suspicion is that problems with expected M2 ramp-up schedule have resulted in increased production volumes of EC9300 not arriving on the schedule expected (as well as the pricing increase in the 65EC9300). Looks to me like LG did everything masterfully for a strong launch of both the 55EC9300 (including building up the required inventory for a strong Best Buy launch on the pilot line as well as the $500 'sale price' last month) and the 65EC9700 (including the surprising low introductory pricing that got all of used excited) but then when it came time for required production to begin rolling off of M2, there was a problem. So since then the supply of 55EC9300s seems to have dropped, the 'sale' has ended, and they have launched the 65EC9700 and 77EC9700 at 'if you need to ask don't bother' pricing, and they have sold a small token number of 4K TV's that were probably produced on the M1 pilot line.
> 
> Time will tell - when M2 is back on track I suspect we will know immediately because of significant price drops across the OLED product line...
> 
> p.s. all of the above is also possible with M2 ramping up on schedule but to much, much worse initial yields than what was expected.


I think M2 is just fine. Yes LG got ahead of themselves with M2 through no fault of their own, though, it's UDC and its partners ( some of the companies UDC commissioned to make OLED material dropped out) and Merck and its partners have delays with mass-production of Iridium-based OLED material. Plus the fact that BAFS having what some call unsolvable problems with their OLED
production, too.


By the way, I don't know if it's even true but* rumor* is that if Merck continues hitting the walls with mass-production of OLED material (_Aspera non Spernit_ (spare no expense) works only for so long ) they might exit OLED business altogether which might mean the end of OLED as we know it for Samsung. But let us not despair and hope that Merck shall prevail...




http://www.basf-new-business.com/en/businesses/organic-electronics/oled/




http://www.oled-info.com/basf-hopes...rescent-blue-emitter-2014-open-oled-lab-korea


UDC have been trying to do so (create better blue) for years and a company official once said *they have tried over 2,000 ways to achieve it without the success *and it is nothing compared to the colossal number of ways Merck have tried to make improved OLEDs and then after they have miserably failed the fact that they are having serious trouble with mass-production of OLEDs just only seems to add insult to injury...


----------



## fafrd

stas3098 said:


> I think M2 is just fine. Yes LG got ahead of themselves with M2 through no fault of their own, though, it's UDC and its partners ( some of the companies UDC commissioned to make OLED material dropped out) and Merck and its partners have delays with mass-production of Iridium-based OLED material. Plus the fact that BAFS having what some call unsolvable problems with their OLED
> production, too.
> 
> 
> By the way, I don't know if it's even true but* rumor* is that if Merck continues hitting the walls with mass-production of OLED material (_Aspera non Spernit_ (spare no expense) works only for so long ) they might exit OLED business altogether which might mean the end of OLED as we know it for Samsung. But let us not despair and hope that Merck shall prevail...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.basf-new-business.com/en/businesses/organic-electronics/oled/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/basf-hopes...rescent-blue-emitter-2014-open-oled-lab-korea
> 
> 
> UDC have been trying to do so (create better blue) for years and a company official once said *they have tried over 2,000 ways to achieve it without the success *and it is nothing compared to the colossal number of times Merck have tried to make improved OLEDs and then after they have miserably failed the fact that they are having serious trouble with mass-production of OLEDs just only seems to add insult to injury...


 
I'm the newbie on this storied thread and posted everything I did assuming that the manufacturing flow LG had established in M1 over the past 18 months was ready for prime-time and to be scaled-up.

Assuming you are correct that there are supplier issues fundamental to LGs WOLED process which may difficulty in supporting the M2 ramp, that would also explain everything that has unfolded over the past month and would be far more concerning in my view.

If LG is having unexpected internal difficulties that they now they can resolve, it is likely that they will soldier on.

If the problems LG is facing with M2 are based upon dependencies from which they can have no direct assurance of a quick resolution, I fear you may be correct that LG may decide to pull the plug on the whole thing.

The visible increase in promotion of LG LED/LCDs at Best Buy and the decrease in promotion of the EC9300 takes on a whole new light and I fear we'll need to just wait to see what LG is promoting at CES 2015 to get a sense of where LG WOLED is headed over the next year...


----------



## stas3098

fafrd said:


> I'm the newbie on this storied thread and posted everything I did assuming that the manufacturing flow LG had established in M1 over the past 18 months was ready for prime-time and to be scaled-up.
> 
> Assuming you are correct that there are supplier issues fundamental to LGs WOLED process which may difficulty in supporting the M2 ramp, that would also explain everything that has unfolded over the past month and would be far more concerning in my view.
> 
> If LG is having unexpected internal difficulties that they now they can resolve, it is likely that they will soldier on.
> 
> If the problems LG is facing with M2 are based upon dependencies from which they can have no direct assurance of a quick resolution, I fear you may be correct that LG may decide to pull the plug on the whole thing.
> 
> The visible increase in promotion of LG LED/LCDs at Best Buy and the decrease in promotion of the EC9300 takes on a whole new light and I fear we'll need to just wait to see what LG is promoting at CES 2015 to get a sense of where LG WOLED is headed over the next year...


I asked around and found that Pennsylvania plant (Merck) has hit some major road bumps but still is expected to start production in H1 2015 for LG (originally it was H2 2014 although if Merck fails to start production by 2016 they will think about exiting OLED), Ohio (UDC) plant is slated to start production in H1 2015 although the production start might be moved all the way to 2016, Wisconsin plant (BASF) is not likely to start production any time soon and that Virginia (DuPont) plant has been put on hold. I've also found that for the time being they all are sourcing Iridium mostly from South Africa (not the most reliable source) via Johnson Matthey




OLED chain of supply for sure has some production-related problems, but people I talked to are mildly optimistic about OLED's future and they know nothing about whether LG is having any problems with M2 , though.


However, the good news is that the chain of supply seems to start to diversify and by 2020 there may be as many as 6 major producers of OLED material in the play.


----------



## wco81

Merck is used to high profit margins in their main business.

They must think production of OLED material could be lucrative? Could they be producing for products other than displays? Maybe OLED lighting?

Either high volume or high margins?


----------



## stas3098

wco81 said:


> Merck is used to high profit margins in their main business.
> 
> They must think production of OLED material could be lucrative? Could they be producing for products other than displays? Maybe OLED lighting?
> 
> Either high volume or high margins?


Yes Merck's goal is to produce OLED material for lighting. OLED material for the TVs is just a byproduct of the production of OM for lighting for them. 


By the way, did you know that OLED has been dogged by bad luck since the day one unlike all the other TV techs some even go as far as to say that OLED is cursed?


http://spie.org/x110287.xml 


It all starts here with everybody missing out on copper complexes and then they go ahead and miss out on benzene-doping, too, and after that Kodak starts pouring billions of dollars into OLED, but they go about it the wrongest way as well. Then for a decade BASF are spending two billions of dollars fiddling with small molecules and totally miss out on moieties and polymers and after that Merck come along and start researching phosphorescent OLEDs via a trial and error method but they never luck into anything worthy, by this time of course UDC gobbles up just enough OLED-related patents to make OLED research _pointless_ for most. But wait that's not all then we have ourselves DuPont "inventing" OLED material that can live long _enough_ but it cannot unfortunately be mass-produced then UDC _develops_ a stenciling technic for manufacturing, but a shame it is when Samsung finds it impossible to make large-sized OLED panels with it and if you think that the story ends with that then you are in for a bumpy ride. 


Well, the long story short 12 years ago blue lived up to 20,000 hours and today after god only knows how many billions of dollars spent blue can live for about 19,999 hours.


The urban legend has it that the trio of Merck, BASF and UDC might've even tried to make improved blue 1,000,000 different ways and not even once they caught a break and ,in sooth, 999,000 times they got blue that lived thrice as less than the original. What a case of bad luck do we got ourselves here, huh!?


*What I'm saying is that OLED material business is back to the square one. They have completed the full circle by now* and now if they want to make OLED materials that last longer they're gonna have to start from the scratch. Of course, No CEO will ever admit to chasing their tail, but it doesn't change the fact that ,basically, that's what they've been doing for the last ten years. 


The most ironic thing is though that most breakthroughs in OLED have been made by sheer accident...


----------



## barth2k

Isn't that how most discoveries are made? Of course you need to be doing/looking for something to stumble on to a discovery. Accidents don't just fall into your laps . Not the good ones anyway


----------



## tgm1024

barth2k said:


> Isn't that how most discoveries are made? Of course you need to be doing/looking for something to stumble on to a discovery. Accidents don't just fall into your laps . Not the good ones anyway


That's an interesting question all by itself. Thanks for this post: I had to stop and really think about that for a minute.

A discovery isn't something that you form. A discovery is something you happen upon. Often _because_ you're trying hard to work on a theory, or prove something, but the discovery part itself is a >tada< "holy moley!" moment.


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> That's an interesting question all by itself. Thanks for this post: I had to stop and really think about that for a minute.
> 
> A discovery isn't something that you form. A discovery is something you happen upon. * Often because you're trying hard to work on a theory, or prove something, but the discovery part itself is a >tada< "holy moley!" moment*.


 
Yes, like when you are busy working to prove your theory, and when you 'discover' that you were wrong and understand why, you may have stumbled upon something even more fantastic (and completely unexpected).

The key point is that you only have a chance of 'stumbling upon' something if you are on the move and trying to get somewhere - the journey itself is often more important than the pre-conceived destination...


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Yes, like when you are busy working to prove your theory, and when you 'discover' that you were wrong and understand why, you may have stumbled upon something even more fantastic (and completely unexpected).
> 
> The key point is that you only have a chance of 'stumbling upon' something if you are on the move and trying to get somewhere - the journey itself is often more important than the pre-conceived destination...



^^^ what he said.


----------



## fafrd

Another visit to another Best Buy today. This one had the 55EC9300 displayed at an end-cap playing the demo loop. The problem is that the end-cap was directly the sales desk, so to see the TV, you had to be standing within 2-3 feet of it (so SDE and very visible pixels were very noticeable and made it appear that something was wrong). There was another LG endcap to the side with a 55" 4K LED/LCD. It extended out past the sales desk so it could easily be viewed from a more comfortable viewing distance, but more importantly, if you squeezed back there to view the 55EC9300 and then shifted over to view the 4K LG LED/LCD from the same 'too-close' distance, you could not notice any pixels or SDE on the 4K LED/LCD and would come away thinking it was the better display.

I'm not sure if it is ineptitude or malicious intent, but it sure seems like LG and Best Buy is doing everything they can to assure that few/no 55EC9300s get sold...


----------



## stas3098

I saw world over in Kiev not so long ago an LG 55EA970V (Euro version of 55EC9300) set next to a 65 4k Sony FALD in a showroom with dimmed lights to show TVs _in the light they will look back home _according to the billboard next to the store where one could plainly see the obvious black crush of LG 55EA970V, SDE (if one stood close enough to the TV like 11-14 feet away, however there were about 30-35 feet of space from one wall of the TVs to another) and no difference in the black level between Sony FALD and LG OLED. Salesman said that all of the TVs in their store were set to the default cinema mode and that they weren't allowed to fiddle with the settings. I didn't think to ask him how many of the OLED TVs they'd sold, though.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> I'm not sure if it is ineptitude or malicious intent, but it sure seems like LG and Best Buy is doing everything they can to assure that few/no 55EC9300s get sold...


I promise there is no conspiracy to avoid selling the high-margin OLED TVs.



stas3098 said:


> By the way, did you know that OLED has been dogged by bad luck since the day one unlike all the other TV techs some even go as far as to say that OLED is cursed?
> 
> 
> http://spie.org/x110287.xml


That link is a cool story. Worth reading, even if one skims (as I did) past some of the "science oven" discussion.

It's pretty clear as time goes by, the idea that OLED "will be cheaper than LCD, because..." is based on a lot of half truths about processes, materials, etc. that have yet to be invented or perfected -- and might never be.

I look forward to the perfection of printable OLEDs and cheaper OLED materials.


----------



## stas3098

fafrd said:


> Another visit to another Best Buy today. This one had the 55EC9300 displayed at an end-cap playing the demo loop. The problem is that the end-cap was directly the sales desk, so to see the TV, you had to be standing within 2-3 feet of it (so SDE and very visible pixels were very noticeable and made it appear that something was wrong). There was another LG endcap to the side with a 55" 4K LED/LCD. It extended out past the sales desk so it could easily be viewed from a more comfortable viewing distance, but more importantly, if you squeezed back there to view the 55EC9300 and then shifted over to view the 4K LG LED/LCD from the same 'too-close' distance, you could not notice any pixels or SDE on the 4K LED/LCD and would come away thinking it was the better display.
> 
> I'm not sure if it is ineptitude or malicious intent, but it sure seems like LG and Best Buy is doing everything they can to assure that few/no 55EC9300s get sold...


Last time I've been to the BB in the valley (L.A.) about a month ago there were no OLEDs hidden away at the end caps, because there were no OLEDs at all. At least your BBs _still_ have OLEDs in stock.


Also check out the Magnolia page (they have a feature on 4k, but nothing on OLED) on Best Buy's site. It's little things like these that make one wonder...


http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Electro...term=magnolia&searchresults=1&DCMP=rdr0002376


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Another visit to another Best Buy today. This one had the 55EC9300 displayed at an end-cap playing the demo loop. The problem is that the end-cap was directly the sales desk, so to see the TV, you had to be standing within 2-3 feet of it (so SDE and very visible pixels were very noticeable and made it appear that something was wrong). There was another LG endcap to the side with a 55" 4K LED/LCD. It extended out past the sales desk so it could easily be viewed from a more comfortable viewing distance, but more importantly, if you squeezed back there to view the 55EC9300 and then shifted over to view the 4K LG LED/LCD from the same 'too-close' distance, you could not notice any pixels or SDE on the 4K LED/LCD and would come away thinking it was the better display.
> 
> I'm not sure if it is ineptitude or malicious intent, but it sure seems like LG and Best Buy is doing everything they can to assure that few/no 55EC9300s get sold...


If they insist on this bright room technique of theirs (OYE!) then what they absolutely MUST do is put one of these things inside the Mag room _right next to a budget LCD.

_Perhaps a little underhanded, but it will drive the point home.

The problem for them is largely that the people on the floor aren't thinking $3000 for 55", and they don't tend to venture into the magnolia room. At least not that I can tell: it's almost always relatively vacant.


----------



## andy sullivan

The only way for OLED to be truly successful is if it can completely supplant LCD as a technology. I do not see any manufacture spending money on R&D and production for two technologies at the same time. OLED must become less expensive to produce than LCD. OLED must destroy LCD to survive.


----------



## tgm1024

andy sullivan said:


> The only way for OLED to be truly successful is if it can completely supplant LCD as a technology. I do not see any manufacture spending money on R&D and production for two technologies at the same time. OLED must become less expensive to produce than LCD. OLED must destroy LCD to survive.


Yeah, I'm running out of reasons for the Walmart public to buy the thing. Perhaps regardless of whether or not it's completely replaced LCD, once it gets to be comparably priced the sheer thinness and "woah it's different" will carry it over the water mark set by budget buyers?


----------



## UltraBlack

stas3098 said:


> one could plainly see the obvious black crush of LG 55EA970V, SDE (if one stood close enough to the TV like 11-14 feet away


Visible SDE at 14 feet away from the screen? Wow!


----------



## mo949

fafrd said:


> Another visit to another Best Buy today. This one had the 55EC9300 displayed at an end-cap playing the demo loop. The problem is that the end-cap was directly the sales desk, so to see the TV, you had to be standing within 2-3 feet of it (so SDE and very visible pixels were very noticeable and made it appear that something was wrong). There was another LG endcap to the side with a 55" 4K LED/LCD. It extended out past the sales desk so it could easily be viewed from a more comfortable viewing distance, but more importantly, if you squeezed back there to view the 55EC9300 and then shifted over to view the 4K LG LED/LCD from the same 'too-close' distance, you could not notice any pixels or SDE on the 4K LED/LCD and would come away thinking it was the better display.
> 
> I'm not sure if it is ineptitude or malicious intent, but it sure seems like LG and Best Buy is doing everything they can to assure that few/no 55EC9300s get sold...


its hard to get a sense of what you are saying. If you just snapped a photo from your phone and posted it, it'd be a lot easier. I know, 'next time' .


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> *It's pretty clear as time goes by, the idea that OLED "will be cheaper than LCD, because..." is based on a lot of half truths about processes, materials, etc. that have yet to be invented or perfected -- and might never be.*
> 
> I look forward to the perfection of printable OLEDs and cheaper OLED materials.


You are wrong about that* the idea that OLED "will be cheaper than LCD, because..." is based on a lot of half truths about processes, materials **etc. that have yet to be invented or perfected -- and might never be**. *It is based on the only thing we know to be sure which is everything in this Universe progresses through random luck . Sooner or later those processes and materials will be improved and UDC, Merck and the rest know it. 


In case if they don't there are different processes and materials (take copper complexes for one) out there to try out.


Just look at how Humans _evolve _. Well, in order for a _Human_ to evolve it has to first expand its DNA. Ok but how does a Human expand its DNA you might ask, right? The thing is that Human has no way of expanding its DNA. You see Human DNA is expanded either by the _sneakiest_ of the viruses that manage to make it through the immune system unnoticed and manage to bind themselves with Human DNA in order to propagate or by another _class_ of viruses that brute-force their way through the immune system and once those brute-forcers bind with Human DNA the immune system (some times though these brute-forcers fail to bind with Human DNA and when that happens Human dies) stops attacking them. There are also Lentiviruses (HIV) that F up immune system for good, however they give their host about 10 years to proliferate and _they_ make sure that the host's progeny (progeny is just a carrier) will not be afflicted by AIDs. But the kicker is that only one virus out of 10 to power of 1000000000000000 manages to bind with Human DNA. *What I'm saying that virus has to randomly change an unfathomable number of times to bind itself with DNA or in other words some viruses one way or another manage to get lucky.*


Well, the thinking behind what UDC, Merck and all the rest are doing is that OLED molecules only need a small push to become _stronger_ and that if you try enough times sooner or later you will luck into that _stronger molecule ._What they didn't consider though was that Mother Nature had billions of years to _prefect_ its improvement skills and that organic stuff is very hard to improve.


*And the second reason why they are doing what they are doing is because simply there is no other way to improve OLED. *


By the way, about 8 percent of humanDNA consists of _known_ viruses and over 50 of other mobile elements (vestiges of _unknown_ viruses) . They also seem to enable pregnancy among all other things.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/06/14/we-are-viral-from-the-beginning/#.VD57XhbLKSo


P.S Sorry in advance for derailing this thread a bit, but without all that background information it would be very hard to get across why UDC, Merck, BASF, DuPont and others do what they do with OLED.


----------



## stas3098

UltraBlack said:


> Visible SDE at 14 feet away from the screen? Wow!


Ain't nothing new about it. I could make out SDE at 10 to 14 feet away (I don't know the distance for sure, because I took measurements by my eye) a) when the wall of fog came on on both LG OLED and Sony 4k FALD at the same time b) because of the stark contrast created by the Sony's 65" 4k FALD's smooth picture. It was the extreme case scenario which is very unlikely to repeat again. In really, 90 percent of the time SDE is barely discernable at about 10 feet on LG OLED.


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> You are wrong about that* the idea that OLED "will be cheaper than LCD, because..." is based on a lot of half truths about processes, materials **etc. that have yet to be invented or perfected -- and might never be**. *It is based on the only thing we know to be sure which is everything in this Universe progresses through random luck . Sooner or later those processes and materials will be improved and UDC, Merck and the rest know it.
> 
> 
> In case if they don't there are different processes and materials (take copper complexes for one) out there to try out.
> 
> 
> Just look at how Humans _evolve _. Well, in order for a _Human_ to evolve it has to first expand its DNA. Ok but how does a Human expand its DNA you might ask, right? The thing is that Human has no way of expanding its DNA. You see Human DNA is expanded either by the _sneakiest_ of the viruses that manage to make it through the immune system unnoticed and manage to bind themselves with Human DNA in order to propagate or by another _class_ of viruses that brute-force their way through the immune system and once those brute-forcers bind with Human DNA the immune system (some times though these brute-forcers fail to bind with Human DNA and when that happens Human dies) stops attacking them. There are also Lentiviruses (HIV) that F up immune system for good, however they give their host about 10 years to proliferate and _they_ make sure that the host's progeny (progeny is just a carrier) will not be afflicted by AIDs. But the kicker is that only one virus out of 10 to power of 1000000000000000 manages to bind with Human DNA. *What I'm saying that virus has to randomly change an unfathomable number of times to bind itself with DNA or in other words some viruses one way or another manage to get lucky.*
> 
> 
> Well, the thinking behind what UDC, Merck and all the rest are doing is that OLED molecules only need a small push to become _stronger_ and that if you try enough times sooner or later you will luck into that _stronger molecule ._What they didn't consider though was that Mother Nature had billions of years to _prefect_ its improvement skills and that organic stuff is very hard to improve.
> 
> 
> *And the second reason why they are doing what they are doing is because simply there is no other way to improve OLED. *
> 
> 
> By the way, about 8 percent of humanDNA consists of _known_ viruses and over 50 of other mobile elements (vestiges _unknown_ of viruses) . They also seem to enable pregnancy among all other things.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/06/14/we-are-viral-from-the-beginning/#.VD57XhbLKSo
> 
> 
> P.S Sorry in advance for derailing this thread a bit, but without all that background information it would be very hard to get across why UDC, Merck, BASF, DuPont and others do what they do with OLED.


----------



## tgm1024

^^^Holy Mother of God.


----------



## mattg3

If someone on the forum doesnt receive and review a 4K Oled soon we are all going to loose our minds churning around in this theoretical stuff.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> ^^^Holy Mother of God.


 

Below's a direct quote from wiki that proves that _African SIV-effected monkeys i.e AIDs monkeys_ may, in millions of years, evolve into superhumans for they seem to have their genome changed at a much faster pace then we HIV-negative humans do and maybe they (superhuman African monkeys) will be able to make a perfect TV one day if we all fail...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV

*Genetic variability*


_HIV differs from many viruses in that it has very high __genetic variability__. This diversity is a result of its fast __replication cycle__, with the generation of about 1010 virions every day, coupled with a high __mutation rate__ of approximately 3 x 10−5 per nucleotide base per cycle of replication and __recombinogenic__ properties of reverse transcriptase.__[63]__[64]__[65]_

_This complex scenario leads to the generation of many variants of HIV in a single infected patient in the course of one day.__[63]__ This variability is compounded when a single cell is simultaneously infected by two or more different strains of HIV. When simultaneous infection occurs, the genome of progeny virions may be composed of RNA strands from two different strains. This hybrid virion then infects a new cell where it undergoes replication. As this happens, the reverse transcriptase, by jumping back and forth between the two different RNA templates, will generate a newly synthesized retroviral __DNA sequence__ that is a recombinant between the two parental genomes.__[63]__ This recombination is most obvious when it occurs between subtypes.__[63]_

_The closely related __simian immunodeficiency virus__ (SIV) has evolved into many strains, classified by the natural host species. SIV strains of the __African green monkey__ (SIVagm) and __sooty mangabey__ (SIVsmm) are thought to have a long evolutionary history with their hosts. _

_*These hosts (AIDs monkeys) have adapted to the presence of the virus,*__*[66]*__* which is present at high levels in the host's blood but evokes only a mild immune response,*__*[67]*__* does not cause the development of simian AIDS,*__*[68]*__ and does not undergo the extensive mutation and recombination typical of HIV infection in humans._



Sorry guys I just couldn't help it


----------



## mfogarty5

andy sullivan said:


> The only way for OLED to be truly successful is if it can completely supplant LCD as a technology. I do not see any manufacture spending money on R&D and production for two technologies at the same time. OLED must become less expensive to produce than LCD. OLED must destroy LCD to survive.


Why? LG has stated that LCD production will shift to the Chinese and that OLED is the key to their display future.

How will all production shift to OLED when LG has all the patents on the only process currently capable of making OLEDs?

Let me phrase it differently, why can't LG just run their new M2 line indefinitely as long as they can get the OLED materials and as long as that line earns decent margins?


----------



## mfogarty5

tgm1024 said:


> Yeah, I'm running out of reasons for the Walmart public to buy the thing. Perhaps regardless of whether or not it's completely replaced LCD, once it gets to be comparably priced the sheer thinness and "woah it's different" will carry it over the water mark set by budget buyers?


Why would LG target budget buyers?


----------



## andy sullivan

mfogarty5 said:


> Why? LG has stated that LCD production will shift to the Chinese and that OLED is the key to their display future.
> 
> How will all production shift to LCD when LG has all the patents on the only process currently capable of making LCDs?
> 
> Let me phrase it differently, why can't LG just run their new M2 line indefinitely as long as they can get the OLED materials and as long as that line earns decent margins?


Because they won't earn decent margins. LCD will always be the elephant in the room. As long as you can find a 4k LCD in the 50 inch range for under $600 at Wal-mart or on-line then OLED will always be the other guy. It's only a matter of time before several Chinese manufactures produce printed panel OLED TV's and LCD will go the way of plasma.


----------



## stas3098

mfogarty5 said:


> Why? LG has stated that LCD production will shift to the Chinese and that OLED is the key to their display future.
> 
> How will all production shift to LCD when LG has all the patents on the only process currently capable of making LCDs?
> 
> Let me phrase it differently, why can't LG just run their new M2 line indefinitely as long as they can get the OLED materials and as long as that line earns decent margins?


Because there are such things as economies of scale that dictate that it's next to impossible to achieve sustainable (competitive) business (*as in mass-production business which is the business LG are in*) with low volumes. LG will never earn decent margins off of M2 and because of high prices they won't be able to move their inventory efficiently and when that happens they will have to significantly discount their inventory to make it move faster. 


We've already seen this happen with their 2013 OLED models in the form of sharp price cuts.


----------



## fafrd

mfogarty5 said:


> Why? LG has stated that LCD production will shift to the Chinese and that OLED is the key to their display future.
> 
> *How will all production shift to LCD when LG has all the patents on the only process currently capable of making LCDs?*
> 
> Let me phrase it differently, why can't LG just run their new M2 line indefinitely as long as they can get the OLED materials and as long as that line earns decent margins?



Uhhh, think that's a typo - didn't you mean: "How will all production shift to *OLED* when LG has all the patents on the only process currently capable of making *OLEDs*?"


----------



## mfogarty5

fafrd said:


> Uhhh, think that's a typo - didn't you mean: "How will all production shift to *OLED* when LG has all the patents on the only process currently capable of making *OLEDs*?"


Yes, I meant OLED. Thanks. I updated my post.


----------



## mfogarty5

stas3098 said:


> Because there are such things as economies of scale that dictate that it's next to impossible to achieve sustainable (competitive) business (*as in mass-production business which is the business LG are in*) with low volumes. LG will never earn decent margins off of M2 and because of high prices they won't be able to move their inventory efficiently and when that happens they will have to significantly discount their inventory to make it move faster.
> 
> 
> We've already seen this happen with their 2013 OLED models in the form of sharp price cuts.


Perhaps you are thinking M2 is the pilot line, but M2 is a mass production line capable of producing (help me out here fafrd) 55 inch OLEDs annually.

How many of their LCD lines do they have to convert to achieve "mass production?"


----------



## mfogarty5

andy sullivan said:


> Because they won't earn decent margins. LCD will always be the elephant in the room. As long as you can find a 4k LCD in the 50 inch range for under $600 at Wal-mart or on-line then OLED will always be the other guy. It's only a matter of time before several Chinese manufactures produce printed panel OLED TV's and LCD will go the way of plasma.


Look, not everyone buys no name LCDs at Wal Mart.

If I was running LG display I would try hard to convince Panasonic and Sony not to just buy OLED panels, but to abandon LCD entirely. Both companies lose money on LCD TV production and they have abandoned their OLED joint venture because mass production techniques other than LGs aren't happening anytime soon so it should be easy to convince them.

Both brands still have cachet, have
Distribution networks and are certainly more respected than LG.

They should both come out at CES 2015 and say something like "LCD had its time, but the future is OLED."


----------



## fafrd

mfogarty5 said:


> Perhaps you are thinking M2 is the pilot line, but M2 is a mass production line capable of producing (*help me out here fafrd*) 55 inch OLEDs annually.
> 
> How many of their LCD lines do they have to convert to achieve "mass production?"


 
M2 has full capacity for 26,000 Gen 8 sheets per month which translates into annual production of 1.872M before yield loss and 1.5M at stated yield levels of 80%.

M2 is only ramping up to phase I production levels of 8000 sheets per month at the moment, which translates into 560K annually or 461K at 80% yield.


----------



## fafrd

mfogarty5 said:


> Look, not everyone buys no name LCDs at Wal Mart.
> 
> If I was running LG display I would try hard to* convince Panasonic and Sony not to just buy OLED panels, but to abandon LCD entirely*. Both companies lose money on LCD TV production and they have abandoned their OLED joint venture because mass production techniques other than LGs aren't happening anytime soon so it should be easy to convince them.
> 
> Both brands still have cachet, have
> Distribution networks and are certainly more respected than LG.
> 
> *They should both come out at CES 2015 and say something like "LCD had its time, but the future is OLED*."


 
Yeah, until it becomes clear that LG is in this OLED thing for the long haul (which is certainly not before M2 reaches Phase II and may not be until LG has committed to M3), don't see any way this is going to happen.

If LG decides to pull the plug on OLED in 2015, they still have LED/LCD (just like Samsung in 2014) but this would leave Sony and Panasonic out to dry.

I'm not that optimistic about Japan Inc's staying in the US market over the next couple years (including Sony and Panasonic), but it would surprise me to see them taking the risk of placing the all-in bet you are suggesting.


----------



## stas3098

mfogarty5 said:


> Perhaps you are thinking M2 is the pilot line, but M2 is a mass production line capable of producing (help me out here fafrd) 55 inch OLEDs annually.
> 
> How many of their LCD lines do they have to convert to achieve "mass production?"


The thing you need to understand is that LG ain't no Ferrari. LG are Toyota. LG are no super expensive restaurant. They are McDonalds'. *LG's business model cannot be sustainable with low volumes! *


So if they plan to make OLEDs then they are gonna have to constantly increase production otherwise they will go into red and after a couple of years they will go belly-up.


They are gonna have to convert enough lines to make OLEDs at a cost of 500 to 1000 bucks per 55 inch OLED TV. 


M2 is gonna put out 1.5 mil of 55 inchers a year at its full capacity at a cost of about 2000 to 3000 dollars per unit (maybe even 1500 by the end of 2015) and it's about 40 times less than what they need to have sustainable business.


----------



## andy sullivan

When it comes to LG, Panasonic and Sony keep in mind that two of these competitors are Japanese companies and one is a Korean company. Don't discount politics and national prejudice here. They really really don't like each other. Both governments have been subsidizing electronic companies and have a huge interest in their success. See Sharp for instance.


----------



## vultur

stas3098 said:


> Ain't nothing new about it. I could make out SDE at 10 to 14 feet away (I don't know the distance for sure, because I took measurements by my eye) a) when the wall of fog came on on both LG OLED and Sony 4k FALD at the same time b) because of the stark contrast created by the Sony's 65" 4k FALD's smooth picture. It was the extreme case scenario which is very unlikely to repeat again. In really, 90 percent of the time SDE is barely discernable at about 10 feet on LG OLED.


I would wager that almost any human (as opposed to a hawk or other beast renowned for visual acuity) would have trouble seeing the SDE from any further than 5 feet out much less 10 or 14.


----------



## stas3098

vultur said:


> I would wager that almost any human (as opposed to a hawk or other beast renowned for visual acuity) would have trouble seeing the SDE from any further than 5 feet out much less 10 or 14.


 
What can I say to this, besides that it seems as though GOD Almighty hisself has graced me with the gift of the average person's sight which has in turn enabled me to see SDE from about 10 feet away on 55EC9300 on the very specific content as in content seen on this site http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/massive-wall-fog-swallows-lake-michigan-article-1.1804340  . 


But seriously all BS aside the SDE has been witnessed firsthand by few and secondhand recounted by many on this thread. From the distance of 8 to 10 feet many have truly seen it and some stepped forward and reported it.


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> Below's a direct quote from wiki that proves.....
> 
> *(yada³)*​



I wasn't entertaining a debate. My comment was that you took that offramp in the first place with that volume of ..... stuff.


----------



## tgm1024

mfogarty5 said:


> Why would LG target budget buyers?


Because the market for expensive TVs is (relatively) vanishingly small.


----------



## tgm1024

vultur said:


> I would wager that almost any human (as opposed to a hawk or other beast renowned for visual acuity) would have trouble seeing the SDE from any further than 5 feet out much less 10 or 14.


I agree: I have 20/20 left and 20/25 right eyesight and the SDE on a 2K 55" was discernible up to 5 ft. away and past that, not at all on any backdrop including grays and whites. A 4K 65" device has a higher pixel density than a 2K 55"er, so do the math. I can't imagine 10 or 14 feet visibility of SDE in any circumstance even at 2K until the displays get _huge_.


----------



## BSTNFAN

stas3098 said:


> What can I say to this, besides that it seems as though GOD Almighty hisself has graced me with the gift of the average person's sight which has in turn enabled me to see SDE from about 10 feet away on 55EC9300 on the very specific content as in content seen on this site http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/massive-wall-fog-swallows-lake-michigan-article-1.1804340  .
> 
> 
> But seriously all BS aside the SDE has been witnessed firsthand by few and secondhand recounted by many on this thread. From the distance of 8 to 10 feet many have truly seen it and some stepped forward and reported it.


Are you 100% sure you were seeing SDE and not some DSE. I could see a wall of fog causing DSE problems.


----------



## Ken Ross

stas3098 said:


> Below's a direct quote from wiki that proves that _African SIV-effected monkeys i.e AIDs monkeys_ may, in millions of years, evolve into superhumans for they seem to have their genome changed at a much faster pace then we HIV-negative humans do and maybe they (superhuman African monkeys) will be able to make a perfect TV one day if we all fail...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
> 
> *Genetic variability*
> 
> 
> _HIV differs from many viruses in that it has very high __genetic variability__. This diversity is a result of its fast __replication cycle__, with the generation of about 1010 virions every day, coupled with a high __mutation rate__ of approximately 3 x 10−5 per nucleotide base per cycle of replication and __recombinogenic__ properties of reverse transcriptase.__[63]__[64]__[65]_
> 
> _This complex scenario leads to the generation of many variants of HIV in a single infected patient in the course of one day.__[63]__ This variability is compounded when a single cell is simultaneously infected by two or more different strains of HIV. When simultaneous infection occurs, the genome of progeny virions may be composed of RNA strands from two different strains. This hybrid virion then infects a new cell where it undergoes replication. As this happens, the reverse transcriptase, by jumping back and forth between the two different RNA templates, will generate a newly synthesized retroviral __DNA sequence__ that is a recombinant between the two parental genomes.__[63]__ This recombination is most obvious when it occurs between subtypes.__[63]_
> 
> _The closely related __simian immunodeficiency virus__ (SIV) has evolved into many strains, classified by the natural host species. SIV strains of the __African green monkey__ (SIVagm) and __sooty mangabey__ (SIVsmm) are thought to have a long evolutionary history with their hosts. _
> 
> _*These hosts (AIDs monkeys) have adapted to the presence of the virus,*__*[66]*__* which is present at high levels in the host's blood but evokes only a mild immune response,*__*[67]*__* does not cause the development of simian AIDS,*__*[68]*__ and does not undergo the extensive mutation and recombination typical of HIV infection in humans._
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry guys I just couldn't help it


OK, NOW I'm convinced OLED will be cheaper than LCD...dirt cheap in fact. It all makes sense now. 

Vegas, where are you when I need you!


----------



## vultur

stas3098 said:


> What can I say to this, besides that it seems as though GOD Almighty hisself has graced me with the gift of the average person's sight which has in turn enabled me to see SDE from about 10 feet away on 55EC9300 on the very specific content as in content seen on this site http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/massive-wall-fog-swallows-lake-michigan-article-1.1804340  .
> 
> 
> But seriously all BS aside the SDE has been witnessed firsthand by few and secondhand recounted by many on this thread. From the distance of 8 to 10 feet many have truly seen it and some stepped forward and reported it.


Can you reference some of these other SDE witnesses who have allegedly "stepped forward?" Aside from @tgm1024, which contradicts your findings...


----------



## mfogarty5

tgm1024 said:


> Because the market for expensive TVs is (relatively) vanishingly small.


So you are saying there is no middle ground between expensive TVs and budget brands at Wal Mart?

Why can't LG OLEDs be compared to name brand LCDs like Samsung and Sony?

Certainly there is a large, not vanishingly small group of buyers who buy name brand LCDs.


----------



## fafrd

vultur said:


> Can you reference some of these other *SDE witnesses who have allegedly "stepped forward*?" Aside from @tgm1024, which contradicts your findings...


 
I'll be happy to step forward. 

I am talking about Screen Door Effect (the visible black lines between rows of pixels / noticeable pixel structure) and not Dirty Screen Effect or anything else.

SDE is more noticeable on the 55EC9300 than on any 55" LCD - the inter-row gaps are wider and more noticeably black than on an LCD.

I can easily see SDE at 1 screen diagonal (55" or 4'7") on the 55EC9300, to the point of being objectionable/distracting so that video gaming from that distance would not be acceptable to me (let alone movie watching).

I can still make out SDE at 1.5 screen diagonals (82.5" or 6'10.5") but I have to consciously be looking for it and while I might find it objectionable when watching a movie, I could probably live with it for gaming at that distance.

By 2 screen diagonals (110" or 9'2"), I can no longer see SDE and movie watching would be fine.

SDE is one of the major factors that has led me to hold off on the 55EC9300 and hold out to see the 4K OLEDs. I have an articulating arm/hinge and could have extended the 55" 1080p screen to get the equivalent field of view of a 65" viewed from 8' but unfortunately, that translates into the 55EC9300 being viewed from 6'9" and anyone with good eyesight will notice pixel structure and SDE on the 55EC9300 from that distance... That, and impossible to game from even closer.


----------



## fafrd

mfogarty5 said:


> So you are saying there is no middle ground between expensive TVs and budget brands at Wal Mart?
> 
> Why can't LG OLEDs be compared to name brand LCDs like Samsung and Sony?
> 
> Certainly there is a large, not vanishingly small group of buyers who buy name brand LCDs.



It's not a question of brand, it's a question of price. How many 65X950Bs do you think Sony is going to sell into the US this year (compared to Samsung 65HU9000s)?


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> It's not a question of brand, it's a question of price. How many 65X950Bs do you think Sony is going to sell into the US this year (compared to Samsung 65HU9000s)?


Correct. The term "Walmart" is one I was using in a broad sense to indicate the public awareness that seems to be "you can get a 65 inch TV that is just as good as the expensive brands for $1000" (or thereabouts). Note that some of the words I am using actually morph in impact over time: "65" is growing, "$1000" is shrinking, and "just as good" seems to remain statically the public opinion AFAICT. Most people just don't see the big deal with expensive TVs.


----------



## vultur

fafrd said:


> I'll be happy to step forward.
> 
> I am talking about Screen Door Effect (the visible black lines between rows of pixels / noticeable pixel structure) and not Dirty Screen Effect or anything else.
> 
> SDE is more noticeable on the 55EC9300 than on any 55" LCD - the inter-row gaps are wider and more noticeably black than on an LCD.
> 
> I can easily see SDE at 1 screen diagonal (55" or 4'7") on the 55EC9300, to the point of being objectionable/distracting so that video gaming from that distance would not be acceptable to me (let alone movie watching).
> 
> I can still make out SDE at 1.5 screen diagonals (82.5" or 6'10.5") but I have to consciously be looking for it and while I might find it objectionable when watching a movie, I could probably live with it for gaming at that distance.
> 
> By 2 screen diagonals (110" or 9'2"), I can no longer see SDE and movie watching would be fine.
> 
> SDE is one of the major factors that has led me to hold off on the 55EC9300 and hold out to see the 4K OLEDs. I have an articulating arm/hinge and could have extended the 55" 1080p screen to get the equivalent field of view of a 65" viewed from 8' but unfortunately, that translates into the 55EC9300 being viewed from 6'9" and anyone with good eyesight will notice pixel structure and SDE on the 55EC9300 from that distance... That, and impossible to game from even closer.


OK, so you are able to make it out by up to almost 7 feet only by making a conscious effort...which is still a far cry from 10 feet. I have vision corrected to 20/20 and am not bothered beyond 5 feet (though I no longer game) because it takes a backseat to the content being displayed on the screen.


----------



## mo949

^I have 20/15 vision and I can't make it out past 4 ft in stores. I'm sure if I was home in the dark I could, but the point where it vanishes in Bestbuy is about 4ft - half step past arms length. I took a photo of one of the displays at bestbuy and posted it a few pages back 

I'm dubious of observances at bestbuy of 4ft 7 inches and 9ft 2inches. I'd need to see some real evidence after the recent anecdotes, maybe some photos with him and his measuring tape in front of the display that's tucked in a corner behind a desk?


----------



## stas3098

BSTNFAN said:


> Are you 100% sure you were seeing SDE and not some DSE. I could see a wall of fog causing DSE problems.


NO it was SDE in fact I saw next to none of DSE. 


*I guess I'd seen it because it was one of those times when mostly the white subpixels were active and the rest were off which significantly decreased pixel density.*


I agree with Fafrd that from about 8 feet on like 98 percent of content SDE would imperceivable to almost every human eye.


----------



## stas3098

vultur said:


> OK, so you are able to make it out by up to almost 7 feet only by making a conscious effort...which is still a far cry from 10 feet. I have vision corrected to 20/20 and am not bothered beyond 5 feet (though I no longer game) because it takes a backseat to the content being displayed on the screen.



Then again, _to each his own_ . Some like me just can't help it, but pay attention to things like SDE. Even a slightest hint of it let's say on a _solid_ green baseball field from 7 or 8 feet away really bothers me and others don't even notice it or simply pay no mind to it.


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> Then again, _to each his own_ . Some like me just can't help it, but pay attention to things like SDE. Even a slightest hint of it let's say on a _solid_ green baseball field from 7 or 8 feet away really bothers me and others don't even notice it or simply pay no mind to it.


Let's make sure we're square on the terms here. I think you are, but would like to clarify just in case.

I like that you mentioned the "solid" color, however to be sure: You're not talking about the jaggies caused by resolution-induced aliasing of slants and curves, correct? The "staircase" effect? Because that's not SDE.


----------



## vultur

stas3098 said:


> Then again, _to each his own_ . Some like me just can't help it, but pay attention to things like SDE. Even a slightest hint of it let's say on a _solid_ green baseball field from 7 or 8 feet away really bothers me and others don't even notice it or simply pay no mind to it.


It's just another symptom of imperfect display tech, but the cloudiness inherent in edgelit LCDs is the kind of defect that I would describe as a showstopper.


----------



## mo949

I keep hearing DSE when he describes it too....


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Let's make sure we're square on the terms here. I think you are, but would like to clarify just in case.
> 
> I like that you mentioned the "solid" color, however to be sure: You're not talking about the jaggies caused by resolution-induced aliasing of slants and curves, correct? The "staircase" effect? Because that's not SDE.


By SDE I meant visible pixel structure . 


I was about maybe 7-8 feet away from the TV (and the TV itself was set to the cinema mode) when it started displaying Carpathian Mountains and the highlands of The Western Ukraine. Well, I could see (almost)none of the SDE (pixel structure) at that distance on that polychromatic ( consisting of two or more colors) content and that *polychromatic content* must've taken two to three sub-pixels on to be displayed, but then ,suddenly, the blue sky grew overcast with drab cumulonimbus clouds and the off-white wall of ominous fog came over the whole screen of the TV for like 10 to 15 seconds and then SDE had shown itself in full panoply. 


My best over-educated white-privileged guess as to why it had happened is that a freakish concatenation of circumstances caused this OLED TV to have mostly white sub-pixels on which in turn caused a sharp drop in pixel density and enabled me to eyewitness the SDE on an LG OLED from give-or-take 10 feet. 


And guys please stop saying that I didn't see what I saw for I saw exactly what I saw!


----------



## vultur

I don't disbelieve anyone...I've been lurking for a while and found it peculiar that this suddenly became a concern (beyond 5 feet out). I don't recall any reports of such obvious perception prior to the said two reports (maybe it's even more obvious on the 9300 than the 9800).


----------



## stas3098

vultur said:


> I don't disbelieve anyone...I've been lurking for a while and found it peculiar that this suddenly became a concern (beyond 5 feet out). I don't recall any reports of such obvious perception prior to the said two reports (maybe it's even more obvious on the 9300 than the 9800).


If I were to divine the reason why SDE is being turned into such a big deal all of a sudden I'd have to say that it has a lot to do with certain people here going a little bit stir-crazy in anticipation of the first 4K OLED TV review


Also if you sit 7 feet away from 9300 than SDE like 90 percent of the time won't rear its ugly head. Black crush might though...


----------



## sooke

vultur said:


> I don't disbelieve anyone...I've been lurking for a while and found it peculiar that this suddenly became a concern (beyond 5 feet out). I don't recall any reports of such obvious perception prior to the said two reports (maybe it's even more obvious on the 9300 than the 9800).


I noticed SDE when I saw the 9300 for the first time in august. See post 10675 in this thread, 3rd paragraph.

I've not seen the 9800. Looking forward to the 4k models.


----------



## vultur

OK, sure enough, you're at least #3 (or #1 if we order it chronologically). I also inadvertently saw Rogo's response to your referenced post about this being first gen except that's obviously not the case (this is 2nd gen). I wouldn't hold out too much hope for 4K, though I hope I'm wrong (the sheer pixel size reduction alone should elicit some benefit).

Stas, that's undoubtedly true.


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> And guys please stop saying that I didn't see what I saw for I saw exactly what I saw!


I'm not. I'm verifying.




vultur said:


> I don't disbelieve anyone...I've been lurking for a while and found it peculiar that this suddenly became a concern (beyond 5 feet out). I don't recall any reports of such obvious perception prior to the said two reports (maybe it's even more obvious on the 9300 than the 9800).


Bingo. I get curious around general consensuses suddenly switching directions. Fact finding mission, plain and simple. @stas3098, you saw what you saw; no worries.


----------



## sooke

vultur said:


> OK, sure enough, you're at least #3 (or #1 if we order it chronologically). I also inadvertently saw Rogo's response to your referenced post about this being first gen except that's obviously not the case (this is 2nd gen). *I wouldn't hold out too much hope for 4K, though I hope I'm wrong (the sheer pixel size reduction alone should elicit some benefit).*
> .


Assuming the pixel fill ratio doesn't get worse, I would think the 4K set will almost cut in half the distance at which pixel structure is visible. "Almost" because we're comparing a 55" to a 65" screen, so pixel pitch on the 65" will be a little more than half that on the 55".


----------



## Wizziwig

If you're interested in SDE discussion, you may want to re-read the EA9800 owner thread. There was a guy named "bustmethat" who was forced to Ebay hit set at a large loss because he couldn't deal with the SDE at 12 feet back. Discussion starts around here and continues for a few pages:


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...0-55-oled-owner-s-thread-48.html#post24595528


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> If you're interested in SDE discussion, you may want to re-read the EA9800 owner thread. There was a guy named "bustmethat" who was forced to Ebay hit set at a large loss because he couldn't deal with the SDE at 12 feet back. Discussion starts around here and continues for a few pages:
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...0-55-oled-owner-s-thread-48.html#post24595528


^^^Wiz, is that the right link? I can't find it or that user.


----------



## 8mile13

*hdtvpolska LG EA980V OLED*
http://translate.google.nl/translat...ed-lg-ea980v-telewizor-idealny-r953&sandbox=1


----------



## Ken Ross

vultur said:


> I don't disbelieve anyone...I've been lurking for a while and found it peculiar that this suddenly became a concern (beyond 5 feet out). I don't recall any reports of such obvious perception prior to the said two reports (maybe it's even more obvious on the 9300 than the 9800).


I suspect that those that do see it are far outnumbered by those that don't. To me it's really a non-issue.


----------



## Ken Ross

tgm1024 said:


> Bingo. * I get curious around general consensuses suddenly switching directions. * Fact finding mission, plain and simple. @stas3098, you saw what you saw; no worries.


It's amazing how often that can happen. I've seen few technologies that have been more under the microscope on AVS than OLED. I hate to bring it up again as I've used it as an example for other 'mass hysteria' issues in other threads, but the "Great Elite Cyan Caper" comes to mind.

Here we had the Sharp Elite that was fabulously reviewed everywhere. Nobody mentioned any issues with color. All was great. Everyone that saw it said "WOW". Then after I mentioned I saw a cyan issue with one of the sets on the Today Show on my Elite, all the non-owners saw it. I mean it was the apocalypse, it was Art Wood's 'end of the world' scenario. All of a sudden comments like "I wouldn't touch that thing with a 10' pole" or "Wow, that color is whacked" became common. Absolutely hysterical.

So this was truly a stellar example of the general consensus suddenly switching directions. Of course most non-owners continued to see it as a non-issue. They wished it wasn't there, but it didn't distract from their enjoyment.


----------



## Ken Ross

Wizziwig said:


> If you're interested in SDE discussion, you may want to re-read the EA9800 owner thread. There was a guy named "bustmethat" who was forced to Ebay hit set at a large loss because he couldn't deal with the SDE at 12 feet back. Discussion starts around here and continues for a few pages:
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...0-55-oled-owner-s-thread-48.html#post24595528


There will always be one or two with superhuman vision. For the vast majority of people, this is simply a non-issue, certainly at 12'! More 'under the microscope' stuff. The only time I can recall being cognizant of SDE was on my first Fujitsu plasma. That's was not a full HD display, and there it wasn't overly difficult to see the SDE.

I would also say that certainly a guy like this must also have issues with SDE on other displays, not just the OLED. SDE is not exactly a new phenomena that's been discussed on AVS.


----------



## JimP

Ken Ross said:


> It's amazing how often that can happen. I've seen few technologies that have been more under the microscope on AVS than OLED. I hate to bring it up again as I've used it as an example for other 'mass hysteria' issues in other threads, but the "Great Elite Cyan Caper" comes to mind.
> 
> Here we had the Sharp Elite that was fabulously reviewed everywhere. Nobody mentioned any issues with color. All was great. Everyone that saw it said "WOW". Then after I mentioned I saw a cyan issue with one of the sets on the Today Show on my Elite, all the non-owners saw it. I mean it was the apocalypse, it was Art Wood's 'end of the world' scenario. All of a sudden comments like "I wouldn't touch that thing with a 10' pole" or "Wow, that color is whacked" became common. Absolutely hysterical.
> 
> So this was truly a stellar example of the general consensus suddenly switching directions. Of course most non-owners continued to see it as a non-issue. They wished it wasn't there, but it didn't distract from their enjoyment.


Ken,
Have you seen anyone run a large color checker verification on the OLEDs?????


----------



## rogo

Ken Ross said:


> It's amazing how often that can happen. I've seen few technologies that have been more under the microscope on AVS than OLED. I hate to bring it up again as I've used it as an example for other 'mass hysteria' issues in other threads, but the "Great Elite Cyan Caper" comes to mind.


Unlike, say, plasma and the "Great ABL Caper" which, though some people see it... How might you put it... "that do see it are far outnumbered by those that don't."


> Here we had the Sharp Elite that was fabulously reviewed everywhere. Nobody mentioned any issues with color. All was great. Everyone that saw it said "WOW". Then after I mentioned I saw a cyan issue with one of the sets on the Today Show on my Elite, all the non-owners saw it. I mean it was the apocalypse, it was Art Wood's 'end of the world' scenario. All of a sudden comments like "I wouldn't touch that thing with a 10' pole" or "Wow, that color is whacked" became common. Absolutely hysterical.
> 
> So this was truly a stellar example of the general consensus suddenly switching directions. Of course most non-owners continued to see it as a non-issue. They wished it wasn't there, but it didn't distract from their enjoyment.


The bigger issue with the Sharp Elite was the pulsing, which at least some non-owners saw and meant they couldn't become owners. Here's a comment from another forum by a fellow named Ken Ross on the pulsing issue and how it basically was sort of out there, dangling: "As for pulsing, after the update from Sharp, the issue was mitigated and for some solved."


----------



## Yappadappadu

Does SDE have nothing to do with a TV using passive 3D?
My Sony LED TV, the 50W685 (only sold in Europe), has a AUO VA display with passive 3D and I see lines on bright screens. The 3D scanlines? But those don't really bother me.


----------



## fafrd

Yappadappadu said:


> *Does SDE have nothing to do with a TV using passive 3D?*
> My Sony LED TV, the 50W685 (only sold in Europe), has a AUO VA display with passive 3D and I see lines on bright screens. The 3D scanlines? But those don't really bother me.


 
When actually _using_ passive 3D, yes (since each eye only sees every other line).

When watching a passive 3D screen in 2D mode (and without wearing polarized 3D glasses), no.


----------



## Wizziwig

tgm1024 said:


> ^^^Wiz, is that the right link? I can't find it or that user.


Just clicked that link and it worked fine in IE11. You can find it manually starting at post 1438 (page 48) of the EA9800 owner's thread. I think further down a few pages he changed his estimate from 12 feet to 9 feet for still seeing the SDE. It might be worse for him because he's using the flat version of the TV which will appear slightly larger horizontally without the curve compressing the image.


For me, the SDE was the very first thing I noticed when I saw the EA9800 for the first time at BB. But that was from typical store distance standing a few feet in front of it. Not enough isle space to measure distance where it disappeared. At the time I thought it was just crappy upscaling or something making it look so aliased compared to other TVs around it. Didn't ever occur to me that SDE could be that bad on any modern TV. At home, it would not be an issue for me since I view from ~10 feet back. Might suck for those who like to sit on the floor in front of their TV - same folks who complain about louvre filters on plasmas.


----------



## Ken Ross

rogo said:


> Unlike, say, plasma and the "Great ABL Caper" which, though some people see it... How might you put it... "that do see it are far outnumbered by those that don't."


Remember my post was in response to this *"I get curious around general consensuses suddenly switching directions."* That's why I brought up the cyan issue. Nobody saw it, the unit was praised for its color and then, all of a sudden, many non-owners thought the display was virtually unwatchable due to these color errors. ABL is a different thing entirely and has nothing to do with a reversal of general consensus. 

However, in response to your post, and more specifically in regards to ABL and cyan, it's a question of the right material being presented. The cyan caper () was real, otherwise I wouldn't have posted my observations. However, without the presence of cyan and without a reference point to know the proper shade if cyan was presented, the issue could easily (and did) go unnoticed. That's not the same as the saying the issue didn't exist. Same thing with ABL. You might not see it, but the presence of ABL is undeniable. It's 'engineered' into plasma as it is into OLED. Of course the magnitude of it varies with display and manufacturer, but not being sensitive to it doesn't preclude its existence. Yes, we can also get into the issue of 'rainbows' that some say make plasma unwatchable, and SDE which some appear to be able to see from 10 miles away...well, you see what I'm saying. 



rogo said:


> The bigger issue with the Sharp Elite was the pulsing, which at least some non-owners saw and meant they couldn't become owners. Here's a comment from another forum by a fellow named Ken Ross on the pulsing issue and how it basically was sort of out there, dangling: "As for pulsing, after the update from Sharp, the issue was mitigated and for some solved."


The pulsing issue was only present in certain picture modes. Avoiding those modes avoided the issue for nearly everyone. There were only a few who claimed to see it regardless of picture mode. But yes, an update by Sharp did mitigate and/or solve the issue for many. Again though, it really has no relevance to the thrust of my original response to 'reversal of consensus'.


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> Just clicked that link and it worked fine in IE11. You can find it manually starting at post 1438 (page 48) of the EA9800 owner's thread.


I land on an entirely different post. I think it's because the number of posts per page is different.

Using Firefox, with my configured 40 posts per page, I land at the top of page 48, and this is post #1881 .

Using IE, which uses defaults because it contains no cookies to show me even logged in, at the post you suggest, but 3/4 of the way down page 48.

I think there's a combination of bugs in this.


----------



## Wizziwig

tgm1024 said:


> I land on an entirely different post. I think it's because the number of posts per page is different.
> 
> Using Firefox, with my configured 40 posts per page, I land at the top of page 48, and this is post #1881 .
> 
> Using IE, which uses defaults because it contains no cookies to show me even logged in, at the post you suggest, but 3/4 of the way down page 48.
> 
> I think there's a combination of bugs in this.



To be honest, this forum has been buggy as hell for me since they switched software a few months back. I've also noticed different bugs in Chrome vs. IE. Oh well...


Regarding the whole SDE topic, one should also keep in mind that using the SMPTE recommendation of 30 degree FOV, one would need to sit ~7.5 feet from a 55" screen (possibly less if it's curved). THX calls for an even closer sitting distance of ~6.1 feet for a 36 degree FOV. On the 65" UHD model, the numbers are 8.8 and 7.3 feet. On 77" UDH model, 10.4 and 8.6 feet.


----------



## darinp2

Wizziwig said:


> Regarding the whole SDE topic, one should also keep in mind that using the SMPTE recommendation of 30 degree FOV, one would need to sit ~7.5 feet from a 55" screen (possibly less if it's curved). THX calls for an even closer sitting distance of ~6.1 feet for a 36 degree FOV.


I'm not sure how you meant the 30 degree SMPTE number, but I've seen the numbers for theaters from SMPTE get misrepresented many times as a recommendation from SMTPE that people sit where they have a 30 degree FOV.

SMPTE has a required viewing angle for the lowest value in a movie theater and a recommended lowest value for any seat in a movie theater. This does not mean they are recommending people sit in the furthest seat in the theater. Sitting 3' from a 55" screen would still be within both SMPTE's recommended and required values for viewing angle for commercial theaters since those theaters generally have many choices available and those 30 and 36 degree values were limits for the lowest angles. I believe it can be properly interpreted as "sit here or closer", but not as "sit right here".

Maybe there is a SMPTE standard I don't know about that recommends where people should place their viewing angle when they have a choice, but the standard for the worst case seat in a commercial theater isn't that, even if some people outside of SMPTE decided to interpret it as that.

On the THX one, when I asked at a trade show years ago how they came up with the number they told me they moved back until they couldn't see any SDE with a 1080p display. So, to me that one would really only apply properly with displays like the one(s) they tested at the time (so not 4k or higher displays). Maybe they have updated it since then though. At the time they told me how they came up with their number I figured that in the future people would likely apply the number to situations it didn't properly apply to.

None of this is meant as a knock on any one person. In some cases it is good to understand why certain rules were made as many times that gets lost and groups run off believing certain facts that aren't really facts.

--Darin


----------



## rogo

Ken Ross said:


> Remember my post was in response to this *"I get curious around general consensuses suddenly switching directions."* That's why I brought up the cyan issue. Nobody saw it, the unit was praised for its color and then, all of a sudden, many non-owners thought the display was virtually unwatchable due to these color errors. ABL is a different thing entirely and has nothing to do with a reversal of general consensus.


I agree most people still are not bothered by ABL. I disagree there wasn't a "sudden reversal" among those who are bothered by it. It became a huge _cause celebre_ out of nearly nowhere.


> Lots of good info clipped here...
> 
> It's 'engineered' into plasma as it is into OLED. Of course the magnitude of it varies with display and manufacturer, but not being sensitive to it doesn't preclude its existence. Yes, we can also get into the issue of 'rainbows' that some say make plasma unwatchable, and SDE which some appear to be able to see from 10 miles away...well, you see what I'm saying.


I do and I don't. The very substantial pixel grid is absolutely "engineered into the LG OLED" -- at least the 1080p models. And the WRGB architecture helps make said grid more visible more often than otherwise.

Many are unlikely to be sensitive to it, but the vertical spacing is -- relatively -- huge and the horizontal fill is automatically compromised by the architecture. It's quite baked it.


> Again though, it really has no relevance to the thrust of my original response to 'reversal of consensus'.


We're going to agree, again, to disagree on what's going on here (with the important caveat that I'm not personally sure I care about the screen-door effect on these anymore than you). The longer you look at a display like the LG OLED, with its world-leading contrast, the more time you have to find the flaws you don't see in the opening minutes / hours / days. And given LG's weird insistence on curving the TVs and encouraging people to plant their butts just feet away from them, the fact that people are discovering the prevalence of the screen door later rather than sooner doesn't make that a conspiracy. It just doesn't.

Now, it's possible the grid is smaller (proportionally, not just in absolute terms) on the 4K. It's likely (certain?) that like with all of these "issues" many people will never/rarely see any of them (e.g. ABL, "dirty screen effect", pixel structure/screen-door, color errors, whatever). But there are three things I just don't agree with at all:

1) That the later discovery of an issue and the formation of a consensus around that is sinister. I think it's normal for things to manifest over time and have seen that in a lot of my other electronics products. ("You know what, the touchscreens on these Samsung XYZs do suck after all... At first, I thought maybe it was just me.")

2) That we shouldn't consider the discussion of this with the same kind of back-and-forth we talk about anything else. I have absolutely no trouble making my plasma activate its ABL, for example, but I have a difficult time seeing ABL affect anything I'm actually watching and lowering that enjoyment even 2-3%. If people are getting bugged by something about the LG OLED, they should totally talk about it and beat the damn dead horse and the people who disagree should set the horse free and enjoy life.

3) The constant disparagement of the opinions of non-owners is often offensive. Owners have gigantic cognitive dissonance effects much (most? nearly all?) of the time. They are often not objective. When they dare get objective and have a problem set, they are dismissed by the faithful as having "rare" issues. Non-owners are nearly always less familiar with the products, but have very specific reasons for not choosing it in many cases. Sometimes, that is money. If you want me to be completely objective about flaws with the Bugatti Veyron, I'll admit up front I can't buy one so.... But it's often, "This flaw was a _dealbreaker_ for me." And hearing about that is important.

When I'm shopping Amazon and I find a 4.5-star product, I pretty much only read the 1 and 2-star reviews. I know the product is mostly a winner. What I need reassurance around is why the people who _didn't_ like had issues. That's the only thing that might stop me from making a purchase. The back-slapping and the "it's great" stuff I've already discerned once I see the star rating and review count.


----------



## darinp2

rogo said:


> 3) The constant disparagement of the opinions of non-owners is often offensive.


This is only somewhat related to what you mentioned here, but reminded me of something I've been thinking about because I've seen it on one of the projector forums before, and believe I've seen some of it here and amongst some professionals in this industry.

It is the notion that if somebody has seen something they must be right. Seeing does matter, but unfortunately there are some people who if they went to a magic show would swear that a woman got cut in half. Sometimes understanding why a certain thing was perceived matters and can avoid the situation of mistakenly generalizing something to situations it doesn't apply to.

One person can own something and not understand why they are seeing a certain thing while a non-owner can understand why and some ways to mitigate it, and vis versa.

--Darin


----------



## JWhip

Reading imagic's article on the Panny 900 LCD shows why I want to see Panny come out with an OLED, even with one of LG's WRGB panels. Their attention to detail, use of displayport, etc. We need to have more than one player in OLED other than LG for the tech to succeed. Hopefully, competition from the 900 and the R series from Vizio will help push LG to another level with OLED.


----------



## gmarceau

At the rate the other manufacturers are going, we're going to need a phablet/tv shootout:

http://displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note4_ShootOut_1.htm


I've seriously considered picking up a Galaxy Tab S 10" or the next iteration just for some movies now and again.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> I agree most people still are not bothered by ABL. I disagree there wasn't a "sudden reversal" among those who are bothered by it. It became a huge _cause celebre_ out of nearly nowhere.
> 
> 
> I do and I don't. The very substantial pixel grid is absolutely "engineered into the LG OLED" -- at least the 1080p models. And the WRGB architecture helps make said grid more visible more often than otherwise.
> 
> Many are unlikely to be sensitive to it, but the vertical spacing is -- relatively -- huge and the horizontal fill is automatically compromised by the architecture. It's quite baked it.
> 
> 
> We're going to agree, again, to disagree on what's going on here (with the important caveat that I'm not personally sure I care about the screen-door effect on these anymore than you). The longer you look at a display like the LG OLED, with its world-leading contrast, the more time you have to find the flaws you don't see in the opening minutes / hours / days. And given LG's weird insistence on curving the TVs and encouraging people to plant their butts just feet away from them, the fact that people are discovering the prevalence of the screen door later rather than sooner doesn't make that a conspiracy. It just doesn't.
> 
> Now, it's possible the grid is smaller (proportionally, not just in absolute terms) on the 4K. It's likely (certain?) that like with all of these "issues" many people will never/rarely see any of them (e.g. ABL, "dirty screen effect", pixel structure/screen-door, color errors, whatever). But there are three things I just don't agree with at all:
> 
> 1) That the later discovery of an issue and the formation of a consensus around that is sinister. I think it's normal for things to manifest over time and have seen that in a lot of my other electronics products. ("You know what, the touchscreens on these Samsung XYZs do suck after all... At first, I thought maybe it was just me.")
> 
> 2) That we shouldn't consider the discussion of this with the same kind of back-and-forth we talk about anything else. I have absolutely no trouble making my plasma activate its ABL, for example, but I have a difficult time seeing ABL affect anything I'm actually watching and lowering that enjoyment even 2-3%. If people are getting bugged by something about the LG OLED, they should totally talk about it and beat the damn dead horse and the people who disagree should set the horse free and enjoy life.
> 
> 3) The constant disparagement of the opinions of non-owners is often offensive. Owners have gigantic cognitive dissonance effects much (most? nearly all?) of the time. They are often not objective. When they dare get objective and have a problem set, they are dismissed by the faithful as having "rare" issues. Non-owners are nearly always less familiar with the products, but have very specific reasons for not choosing it in many cases. Sometimes, that is money. If you want me to be completely objective about flaws with the Bugatti Veyron, I'll admit up front I can't buy one so.... But it's often, "This flaw was a _dealbreaker_ for me." And hearing about that is important.
> 
> When I'm shopping Amazon and I find a 4.5-star product, I pretty much only read the 1 and 2-star reviews. I know the product is mostly a winner. What I need reassurance around is why the people who _didn't_ like had issues. That's the only thing that might stop me from making a purchase. The back-slapping and the "it's great" stuff I've already discerned once I see the star rating and review count.





darinp2 said:


> This is only somewhat related to what you mentioned here, but reminded me of something I've been thinking about because I've seen it on one of the projector forums before, and believe I've seen some of it here and amongst some professionals in this industry.
> 
> It is the notion that if somebody has seen something they must be right. Seeing does matter, but unfortunately there are some people who if they went to a magic show would swear that a woman got cut in half. Sometimes understanding why a certain thing was perceived matters and can avoid the situation of mistakenly generalizing something to situations it doesn't apply to.
> 
> One person can own something and not understand why they are seeing a certain thing while a non-owner can understand why and some ways to mitigate it, and vis versa.
> 
> --Darin



I'm sorry for quoting the entirety of these two posts, but quite frankly they are the _perfect_ example of why _this_ thread is of such a higher quality than any of the LG model threads. Perhaps it's the nature of a discussion centric to technology and science and not one particular item on a store shelf.

I've struggled in those LG model threads endlessly trying to push back on the few insisting that being an owner grants them with some kind of techno-omniscience. It doesn't reach them. It can't. It's not how they think.


----------



## Wizziwig

darinp2 said:


> I'm not sure how you meant the 30 degree SMPTE number, but I've seen the numbers for theaters from SMPTE get misrepresented many times as a recommendation from SMTPE that people sit where they have a 30 degree FOV.
> 
> SMPTE has a required viewing angle for the lowest value in a movie theater and a recommended lowest value for any seat in a movie theater. This does not mean they are recommending people sit in the furthest seat in the theater. Sitting 3' from a 55" screen would still be within both SMPTE's recommended and required values for viewing angle for commercial theaters since those theaters generally have many choices available and those 30 and 36 degree values were limits for the lowest angles. I believe it can be properly interpreted as "sit here or closer", but not as "sit right here".
> 
> Maybe there is a SMPTE standard I don't know about that recommends where people should place their viewing angle when they have a choice, but the standard for the worst case seat in a commercial theater isn't that, even if some people outside of SMPTE decided to interpret it as that.
> 
> On the THX one, when I asked at a trade show years ago how they came up with the number they told me they moved back until they couldn't see any SDE with a 1080p display. So, to me that one would really only apply properly with displays like the one(s) they tested at the time (so not 4k or higher displays). Maybe they have updated it since then though. At the time they told me how they came up with their number I figured that in the future people would likely apply the number to situations it didn't properly apply to.
> 
> None of this is meant as a knock on any one person. In some cases it is good to understand why certain rules were made as many times that gets lost and groups run off believing certain facts that aren't really facts.
> 
> --Darin


Thanks for clarifying this topic. I was trying to give LG the benefit of the doubt and be as conservative as possible with my numbers. So yes, those were *maximum* recommended distances and *minimum* recommended FOV. If owners see SDE at those distances or larger, then there is a real problem because you're supposed to be sitting at those distances or *closer* for an optimal experience.

I used this calculator: http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html


----------



## ynotgoal

JWhip said:


> We need to have more than one player in OLED other than LG for the tech to succeed


BOE has a pilot gen 8 OLED line and has been showing prototype TVs built there. It has been reported BOE's gen 8.5 fab for 2nd half 2015 includes one OLED line. This week BOE received a government subsidy to assist with a $1 billion investment for large size OLED display production. As noted below they are using white OLED with oxide backplane. The second company to actually produce OLED TVs is probably going to be BOE rather than Samsung. Of course, other companies will probably use LG's panel in the meantime.

"More than just low cost manufacturing, mainland China will play an important role in growing the most advanced panels. At present, we can both produce high-performance a-Si LCD panels, and make new display devices like LTPS LCD, Oxide LCD and AMOLED. In 2014, 4 new display panel fabs will be put into operation in mainland China. Two of them belong to BOE. Also in this year, mainland China has 2 more GEN8.5 fabs under construction, of which BOE's fab will start production in the 2nd half of 2015." -BOE website

"According to a Notice released by the Economy & Trade Development Bureau and the Finance Bureau of Hefei Xinzhan General Pilot Zone, implemented by Hefei Xinsheng Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., the large-sized OLED touch display production line with a total investment of RMB 6.669 billion will receive RMB 123.6 in government designated subsidy."


----------



## rogo

darinp2 said:


> This is only somewhat related to what you mentioned here, but reminded me of something I've been thinking about because I've seen it on one of the projector forums before, and believe I've seen some of it here and amongst some professionals in this industry.
> 
> It is the notion that if somebody has seen something they must be right. Seeing does matter, but unfortunately there are some people who if they went to a magic show would swear that a woman got cut in half. Sometimes understanding why a certain thing was perceived matters and can avoid the situation of mistakenly generalizing something to situations it doesn't apply to.
> 
> One person can own something and not understand why they are seeing a certain thing while a non-owner can understand why and some ways to mitigate it, and vis versa.


This point is quite well made. And that's why it's important to understand that things that can occur with a particular display don't necessarily mean they will or be determinative. (Here, Ken and I will agree resoundingly, for example, that "Cyangate" is overblown.)



tgm1024 said:


> I'm sorry for quoting the entirety of these two posts, but quite frankly they are the _perfect_ example of why _this_ thread is of such a higher quality than any of the LG model threads. Perhaps it's the nature of a discussion centric to technology and science and not one particular item on a store shelf.
> 
> I've struggled in those LG model threads endlessly trying to push back on the few insisting that being an owner grants them with some kind of techno-omniscience. It doesn't reach them. It can't. It's not how they think.



There's a lot of (normal?) emotional/psychological stuff that goes on when someone buys something. Much of it hinders objectivity, unfortunately. Doesn't make those people bad people, just makes it hard to have a dispassionate conversation.


----------



## barth2k

^^^ buying a product definitely affects my objectivity. I become hyper critical


----------



## R Harkness

Ken Ross said:


> There will always be one or two with superhuman vision. For the vast majority of people, this is simply a non-issue, certainly at 12'! More 'under the microscope' stuff. The only time I can recall being cognizant of SDE was on my first Fujitsu plasma. That's was not a full HD display, and there it wasn't overly difficult to see the SDE.
> 
> I would also say that certainly a guy like this must also have issues with SDE on other displays, not just the OLED. SDE is not exactly a new phenomena that's been discussed on AVS.


I certainly think you are right about SDE being a non-issue for the vast majority of viewers.

Though we (especially us AVSers) can become more sensitive to some display issues over time.

My ED Panny plasma used to just marginally bother me in terms of pixel structure from my regular viewing distance. Once 1080p plasmas came on the scene the SDE seemed for all practical purposes "solved" for me.
I remember some anti-flat panel folks, especially owners of CRT RPTVS as I remember, complaining of SDE, even on the 1080p panels. To me this had my inner eye-roll activated. I had a hard time believing anyone was so sensitive to SDE as to actually reject 1080p plasmas over it.

Like I've mentioned before here: now that I've lived with an essentially invisible pixel structure (JVC projector with E-shift) for years, SDE now sticks out to me like a sore thumb on the typical 1080p flat panel, especially when I try to get anywhere near to get some immersion. It really does intrude, making the picture look a bit more crude to me. That unfortunately includes the OLEDs I've viewed. And strangely enough, when I move close to the 4K flat panels to start getting the type of field of view expected to benefit 4K viewing, I even start noticing the extremely fine pixel structure in those displays! (Certainly not from the viewing distance I'd use for a 1080p display, though). 

This goes against my expectations I had years back. Live and learn. (Or live long enough, and you pick up new AV curses...)


----------



## fafrd

More on this 'Blue Light is Harmful' story: http://global.ofweek.com/news/LCD-TVs-may-emit-3x-harmful-light-than-OLED-TVs-19986


'An article on blue light published by Harvard Medical School in May 2012 said, “Research shows that the exposure to blue light at night may contribute to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and obesity, in addition to insomnia.”'


----------



## barth2k

^^^ I'm doomed.


----------



## stas3098

I have a good one, too it goes like this (though I wholeheartedly recommend to pop a brew before reading it to see it in the favorable light) :


A man walks into the bar and sits his ass on the barstool next to a real hottie.


Then he strikes up a conversation, buys her a drink and sweettalks her into ditching the scene and going back to his place. 


When they arrive at his place they start makin' out, undressing and mollycoddling and when the girl pulls down her undies dude freaks out, jumps right off the bed and starts hyperventilatin'.


The girl asks him what's wrong and Dude yells out: you don't have a *dick* that's what's wrong!


But messing around aside LG is so full of shît that it's not even funny. Human body has very good protection mechanisms in place to counter effects of low frequency UV and high frequency blue light i.e nonionizing radiation. In fact only X-ray grade frequencies (ionizing radiation) can circumvent human anti-radiation protection mechanisms and extremes like super high frequency black hole grade gamma rays will melt your face right off in a few seconds.


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> More on this 'Blue Light is Harmful' story: http://global.ofweek.com/news/LCD-TVs-may-emit-3x-harmful-light-than-OLED-TVs-19986
> 
> 
> 'An article on blue light published by Harvard Medical School in May 2012 said, “Research shows that the exposure to blue light at night may contribute to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and obesity, in addition to insomnia.”'


Is this because people who don't exercise but _*sit all day *_in front of displays are more prone to cancer, diabetes, heart disease and obesity in addition to insomnia?

I really question the causal relationships implied by some of these things.

Besides, the article itself is sloppy: The quote you get above is referenced from the source this way: "An article on blue light published by Harvard Medical School in May 2012 said [...]" with no link to the article.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Is this because people who don't exercise but _*sit all day *_in front of displays are more prone to cancer, diabetes, heart disease and obesity in addition to insomnia?
> 
> I really question the causal relationships implied by some of these things.
> .


 I firmly with all my heart believe that you are onto something here with _because people who don't exercise but *sit all day *in front of displays are more prone to cancer, diabetes, heart disease and obesity in addition to insomnia_


----------



## 8mile13

tgm1024 said:


> Is this because people who don't exercise but _*sit all day *_in front of displays are more prone to cancer, diabetes, heart disease and obesity in addition to insomnia?
> 
> I really question the causal relationships implied by some of these things.
> 
> Besides, the article itself is sloppy: The quote you get above is referenced from the source this way: "An article on blue light published by Harvard Medical School in May 2012 said [...]" with no link to the article.


Then i've got something for ya 
*The effects of blue light on ocular health* *(*Elaine Kitchel, M.Ed. American printing House for The Blind).


----------



## stas3098

8mile13 said:


> Then i've got something for ya
> *The effects of blue light on ocular health* *(*Elaine Kitchel, M.Ed. American printing House for The Blind).


Most modern LED backlights are made from a combination of a blue and yellow phosphor thus canceling out most of the _bad effects_ of near UV. What I'm saying is don't let them get your head all screwed up with fear-mongering


----------



## 8mile13

stas3098 said:


> Most modern LED backlights are made from a combination of a blue and yellow phosphor thus canceling out most of the _bad effects_ of near UV. What I'm saying is don't let them get your head all screwed up with fear-mongering


Seems to me that LED LCd TVs from the start had blue led's with yellow phosphors  They probably are talking about blue light wavelengths from the TV reaching your eyes.


----------



## wco81

The Harvard Medical School study surmises that blue light upsets circadian rhythms, disturbing sleep but more importantly disrupting the release of melatonins, without which you could have the health problems they allude to.


----------



## stas3098

8mile13 said:


> Seems to me that LED LCd TVs from the start had blue led's with yellow phosphors  They probably are talking about blue light wavelengths from the TV reaching your eyes.


Well, if we are talking about eyes your lenses will prevent most of the harmful wavelengths from reaching your retina and LED doesn't use any _deep_ blue or UV that's why they are harmless to the eyes. LED's blue is mostly 450-460nm which is harmless by any stretch of imagination even at 1000 nits.


People in these studies simply _manipulate _the facts by calling 350nm (350nm is harmful to the eye even at very low intensities, because it doesn't get absorbed and it builds up on the retina) blue which is blue in their classification but it is not blue in LED classification (450nm).


http://www.cresttech.com.au/led_info_wavelength.html


----------



## Logibaird

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...isn-t-the-best-tv-we-ve-ever-tested/index.htm


----------



## fafrd

I've been reading through the transcript of the recent LGD earnings call here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/258...arnings-call-transcript?page=3&p=qanda&l=last


Where I found this tidbit: 


"The first question will be provided by Andrew Abrams from JG Capital. Please go ahead, sir.
*Andrew Abrams* - JG Capital
Hi. Thank you for taking my questions. First, I was just trying to get a little color on the status of the OLED fabs. I'm assuming that you're still producing TVs on the pilot line. Is that correct? And also, *when would you expect the new gen-8 line to start taking over some of that production capability?*
*Hee Yeon Kim* - Head of IR Department
As we continue to comment, *we will add additional OLED production base at the end of this year*. There might be a similar scale at around *6K on top of the 8K*. So this is our schedule.
And then if our production [indiscernible] improvement [indiscernible] we will add more *20K at the end of next year*. That's our plan. And all the progress is in line with our original plan."


So if we take this at face value, it means they will have only the 8K half-Gen8-sheet M1 pilot capacity until the end of this year, M2 will be ramped to a first phase of 6000 full Gen8 sheets by the end of this year, and then (after whatever indiscernible improvements are achieved) will be ramped with an additional 20K sheets per month to the full capacity of 26,000 sheets per month by the end of 2015.


If LG will truly only be running M2 at 6000-sheet phase I capacity through 2015, that equates to a maximum of 460,000 55" OLEDs from M2 in 2015...


----------



## rogo

"By the end of 2015" doesn't mean "at the very end of 2015."

I may be confused by your math.


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> I've been reading through the transcript of the recent LGD earnings call here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/258...arnings-call-transcript?page=3&p=qanda&l=last
> 
> If LG will truly only be running M2 at 6000-sheet phase I capacity through 2015, that equates to a maximum of 460,000 55" OLEDs from M2 in 2015...


The transcript also makes it sound like they will be running the full 8K that is currently in place which would give them an unyielded capacity of about a million 55" televisions next year. 

My understanding is that they are upgrading some of the M1 equipment on the vapour deposition side to allow it to match the efficiency of the M2 line. That would likely explain why we are seeing shortages on all of the current models as any issues they are facing are hitting both lines.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> The transcript also makes it sound like they will be running *the full 8K that is currently in place* which would give them an unyielded capacity of about a million 55" televisions next year.


Yeah, the 8K available from M1 pilot line has always been a bit of a mystery. That line is not dedicated to OLED TV - they are manufacturing other OLED products on it. So it is difficult to know what capacity is dedicated to OLED TV production.

M1 is half Gen8 sheet, so only 3 55" OLEDs per half sheet.

8000 half-sheets per month would translate to 38,400 55" OLEDs per month, and there is no way LG has produced even a quarter of that level on an ongoing basis.





slacker711 said:


> My understanding is that *they are upgrading some of the M1 equipment on the vapour deposition side to allow it to match the efficiency of the M2 line*. That would likely explain why we are seeing shortages on all of the current models as any issues they are facing are hitting both lines.


Making changes in the one line that has been stable before the new line has been stabilized sounds like a pretty bone-headed move, but what do I know Maybe they think that cutting off the flow of products will increase demand 

You seem to have a pretty deep knowledge of what is going on at the manufacturing level - I had understood that LG planned to only manufacture 4K OLEDs (along with 1080p OLEDs) on M2 (and only 1080p OLEDs on M1) but with this upgrading of M1, I'm curious whether that has changed - do you know if they will be manufacturing 4K OLEDs on M1 (despite the inefficiency, especially for 65")?

What is your overall sense as to whether things are unfolding 'as planned' versus having to revise the plan to adjust to some bumps in the road?


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Yeah, the 8K available from M1 pilot line has always been a bit of a mystery. That line is not dedicated to OLED TV - they are manufacturing other OLED products on it. So it is difficult to know what capacity is dedicated to OLED TV production.


The M1 line is completely dedicated to televisions. LG has a flexible Gen 4.5 line that is being used for the handset and smartwatch products. The only question with the M1 line is how much capacity they might be using for R&D.


> I had understood that LG planned to only manufacture 4K OLEDs (along with 1080p OLEDs) on M2 (and only 1080p OLEDs on M1) but with this upgrading of M1, I'm curious whether that has changed - do you know if they will be manufacturing 4K OLEDs on M1 (despite the inefficiency, especially for 65")?
> 
> What is your overall sense as to whether things are unfolding 'as planned' versus having to revise the plan to adjust to some bumps in the road?


There was an SEC filing a while back that listed both the 55" and 77" models as being manufactured on the M1 line. The M2 line isnt commercial so it didnt have a listing so I dont know if that will also show the 55" and 77" models. 

It is possible that the upgraded M1 line would no longer cut sheets in half. If vapour deposition was the limiting factor, then it is possible that an upgraded M1 line will handle full sheets. Just speculation on my part though.

One thing is absolutely certain though, LGD hit a significant unexpected issue with the manufacture of the 2014 models. I am not sure I can ever remember an announced price being increased as happened in the UK. That just doesnt happen. I dont know the source of the issue but the fact that we are seeing shortages across all models suggests that it might be vapour deposition related. I believe that LG indicated that the backplane on the 55EC9300 was the same as for the 55EA9800. 

Absent more facts, it is impossible to say how big a deal this is. If they really do ramp the M2 line by the end of the year and bring down prices to the original projections then the delay is a minor issue. Beyond that, and LG has to deal with damage to the OLED brand as well as the fact that matching LCD's pricing is a moving target. It isnt going to get any easier as time goes on.


----------



## rogo

Smart, sober analysis as usual.


----------



## ynotgoal

Well Amazon has started to get some 55" sets back in stock. The status was 1-2 months for delivery but now it says they have 1 and more are on the way. I know, its just one but they likely also filled some that had been ordered while they were out of stock. They are actually selling some. Anyway, its an improvement and means they aren't completely shut down for an extended period.

Since capacity is constrained by the oxide backplane production equipment they are probably starting to use the new M2 OLED deposition equipment rather than the M1 equipment. Its there, they may as well use it, eh. The added investment they announced a while back is partly to make M2 capacity 34k so it probably means they will update that pilot line OLED deposition equipment this coming year.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> Well Amazon has started to get some 55" sets back in stock. The status was 1-2 months for delivery but now it says they have 1 and more are on the way. I know, its just one but they likely also filled some that had been ordered while they were out of stock. They are actually selling some. Anyway, its an improvement and means they aren't completely shut down for an extended period.
> 
> Since capacity is constrained by the oxide backplane production equipment they are probably starting to use the new M2 OLED deposition equipment rather than the M1 equipment. Its there, they may as well use it, eh. * The added investment they announced a while back is partly to make M2 capacity 34k* so it probably means they will update that pilot line OLED deposition equipment this coming year.


Believe that was a misread. M2 has capacity for up to 26,000 per month which makes a total of 34,000 per month when added to the 8000 per month of the M1 pilot line.

And as far as using the deposition equipment of M2, it's pretty much impossible that they are manufacturing anything using a mixture of equipment from M1 and M2 - they start and complete all of the manufacturing steps within the same facility.

Agree with Slacker, if they are back on track (including both product availability and price reductions) by year-end, this delay is probably no big deal. If this issue ends up dragging into 2015 a tough situation will probably get tougher...


----------



## rogo

I find it very unlikely the solution to a "Herbie" problem would be to take stuff that normally needs near clean-room-level protection and to start boxing it up by the thousands, moving it to another facility, unboxing it and then continuing its fabrication.

That said, I'm not even understanding what you think you can solve here. A system's capacity is constrained by its bottleneck. Full stop.

If Herbie is that you can make, say, 5000 backplanes per month. You can make 5000 displays per month.

If Herbie is that you can deposit OLED on 5000 displays per month. You can make 5000 displays per month.

If LG is constained by backplane production, it makes absolutely no difference which line's deposition equipment those backplanes are processed on (so long as the depo equipment is running).


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> And as far as using the deposition equipment of M2, it's pretty much impossible that they are manufacturing anything using a mixture of equipment from M1 and M2 - they start and complete all of the manufacturing steps within the same facility.


M1 and M2 are just two lines inside the same P9 building in Paju.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> I find it very unlikely the solution to a "Herbie" problem would be to take stuff that normally needs near clean-room-level protection and to start boxing it up by the thousands, moving it to another facility, unboxing it and then continuing its fabrication.
> 
> That said, I'm not even understanding what you think you can solve here. A system's capacity is constrained by its bottleneck. Full stop.
> 
> If Herbie is that you can make, say, 5000 backplanes per month. You can make 5000 displays per month.
> 
> If Herbie is that you can deposit OLED on 5000 displays per month. You can make 5000 displays per month.
> 
> If LG is constained by backplane production, it makes absolutely no difference which line's deposition equipment those backplanes are processed on (so long as the depo equipment is running).


Is this a reference to Herbie Overflow?


----------



## mfogarty5

tgm1024 said:


> Is this a reference to Herbie Overflow?


It is a reference to a book called "the Goal". Herbie is the bottleneck.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goal_(novel)


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> M1 and M2 are just two lines inside the same P9 building in Paju.


 
I did not know that - thanks. 

Are the two lines within the same clean room, or must one leave one clean room, travel through 'dirty' space and then enter another cleanroom?


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> I did not know that - thanks.
> 
> Are the two lines within the same clean room, or must one leave one clean room, travel through 'dirty' space and then enter another cleanroom?


P9 has LCD equipment which is moving to China and being replaced by OLED M2 (3 lines) and the OLED M1 pilot line. When they started M2 they ordered all 3 lines of OLED equipment but didn't order the oxide equipment til much later and in stages. To make it short, I'm suggesting the possibility (though I don't know) that with the LCD space available and since they are setting up two lines it would make sense for both of those to have the new OLED equipment that they have on site though one may still have the pilot line oxide equipment. In effect, merging M1 and M2 into one with a 34k capacity (the reason for the supplemental investment they announced a few months ago). They may have had to move some equipment to make that happen and that may have taken longer than expected which may be the reason for the lack of deliveries. At any rate, in their conference calls all year they have been consistent that would be adding capacity at the end of the year and that is still what they said this week so the "delay" seems to have more to do with the original line than with the new M2 line.

Companies have issues all the time that seem like it's going to completely derail the company but once it is resolved people forget about it. Anybody not buying a Toyota because of the unintended acceleration that turns out wasn't really an issue with Toyotas?


----------



## rogo

It's a false comparison to draw a parallel between a fake problem with existing products (the unintended acceleration nonsense with the Prius) and the real issue with LG not actually have the capacity they planned.

Whatever LG's delay, it's not going to resolve overnight. All of this takes time to phase in / ramp up. If they are behind 3 months now, they are behind 3 months at this point next year too. That doesn't mean some future plant can't be on schedule. But this production line will never get to full capacity at the originally planned date. It will be at full capacity later than intended. You can't accelerate that.


----------



## wco81

I'm not actively looking but had occasion to see 4K TVs.

With the demo material, it looks pretty good. Whatever Samsung was playing really showed off the higher resolution well, like a highly detailed cityscapes.

Of course the real test would be how it would handle upscales of current content, since for the foreseeable future, that's all you would be able to play on them.

But if they got good 60-inch UHDs under $1500, there would probably be a lot of takers, some of whom might have been customers of OLED.


----------



## Asmo42

*OLED computer monitors?*

So why does there seem to be almost zero news or discussion about OLED computer monitors? I mean we have had them in smartphones now for several years and finally in large TV's, the 55" LG is even fairly affordable now. So why nothing for 13"-30" computer monitors? I don't remember ever even reading about a prototype or something like that being shown. Closest I've seen are those Sony broadcast reference monitors but those are obviously not intended for desktop computer use. 

Surely all the regular OLED benefits like black level/contrast, viewing angles and also supposedly CRT like input lag for gaming makes them just as desirable for computer use? Personally at least I've been waiting for one since the first time I heard about OLED many years ago.

Is it the burn in that is such a problem that they're not feasible? If that's the case how come smartphones doesn't seem to be particularly sensitive? I have a 3+ year old Galaxy S2 that has had the status bar sitting in the same place the whole time so pretty much worst possible scenario and I don't see any burn in or possibly just very very faint.

Does anyone of the experts posting in this thread maybe have some insight?


----------



## dabotsonline

Asmo42 said:


> So why does there seem to be almost zero news or discussion about OLED computer monitors? I mean we have had them in smartphones now for several years and finally in large TV's, the 55" LG is even fairly affordable now. So why nothing for 13"-30" computer monitors? I don't remember ever even reading about a prototype or something like that being shown. Closest I've seen are those Sony broadcast reference monitors but those are obviously not intended for desktop computer use.


This article was published in August 2014:

http://www.oled-info.com/where-are-oled-monitors-and-oled-laptops


----------



## Asmo42

dabotsonline said:


> This article was published in August 2014:


Thanks, seems like that article is also asking why there aren't any OLED monitors and not really finding an answer either though. I'm mostly curious if it's a technical reason like burn in problems or if it's just a (imo strange) marketing decision.


----------



## CATYPH202

-I'll just stop myself here  - "55 inch brandname OLED TV for $3500..." -Dreams come true!..


----------



## rogo

CATYPH202 said:


> -Can't stop myself  - "55 inch brandname OLED TV for $3500..." -EAT MY SHORTS!!! "myghty" Rogo...


What?


----------



## kucharsk

This is interesting…












> In the CPI design, familiar rectelliptical airplane windows are replaced with giant OLED displays lining the inside of the plane’s fuselage.


http://qz.com/287445/windowless-planes-are-coming-and-they-look-amazing/


----------



## catonic

^ ^ Ahhh vapourware.....ain't it grand ! 
Continuing the great OLED tradition.


----------



## Stereodude

Asmo42 said:


> Thanks, seems like that article is also asking why there aren't any OLED monitors and not really finding an answer either though. I'm mostly curious if it's a technical reason like burn in problems or if it's just a (imo strange) marketing decision.


Probably burn-in concerns. Screen door effect might be an issue too.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> Besides, it would never look anywhere near as good as that picture. You can't look toward the front and see things in proper perspective from a 2D display. The thing would be horrendous and likely just make most people shut their eyes from dizziness.


Yeah, the vertigo would likely render something like 5% of people incapable of flying normally.

That said, windowless planes are all-but inevitable.


----------



## fafrd

Just ran into this: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20141024PD210.html?chid=2


"Tony Huang, DIGITIMES Research, Taipei [Friday 24 October 2014]

*OLED TV pricing is expected to remain double that of Ultra HD TVs through 2016*"


----------



## fafrd

Don't know where this guy gets his information (or misinformation ) but there are a few interesting tidbits: http://www.computerworld.com/articl...hnology-may-smother-oled-tvs-in-the-crib.html


'IHS Research predicts that around *14,000 OLED TV units will ship in the US during 2014*, and that number will increase to almost 1.2 million units in 2018.'


*'Like OLEDs, quantum dot technology supplies light on demand*, which enables more efficient displays than more common light emitting diode (LED) or liquid crystal diode (LCD) displays.' 

Say WHAT


'According to DisplaySearch, a 55-in conventional LCD TV costs about $400, *a 55-in LCD TV with QD technology retails for about $500*, while a 55-in OLED TV runs about $1,750.'

Sounds like there is some mixing up between 'costs' (cost of goods sold) and 'retail' cost. Ignoring that one probable typo, the rest sounds sensible (all referring to COGs).


'The additional cost for OLED TVs can mainly be attributed to low manufacturing yields: about *40% of all production turns into scrap material*, according to Gray.'

Sounds like Grey did not receive the recent 'official' announcement by LG of OLED yields improving to within the 70-80% range...


'Paul O'Donovan, a principal analyst with Gartner's Consumer Electronics Research unit, said quantum dot technology at the very least helps to lengthen the lifespan of LCDs as a big screen technology as the industry moves into 4K resolution and eventually beyond.

"*That could be a significant factor in delaying OLED displays in terms of possible cost reduction in manufacturing as volume sales remain limited*," O'Donovan said.'

Unfortunately, that last quote appears spot -on


----------



## rogo

The continued conflation of quantum dot displays (fantasy-land stuff) with quantum-dot-film enhanced LED-LCDs is frustrating.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> The continued conflation of quantum dot displays (fantasy-land stuff) with quantum-dot-film enhanced LED-LCDs is frustrating.


 
The conflation is not an accident. Fear, uncertainly and doubt will prevail in the face of transition (especially when the price for 'real' OLED is 2X), and the Chinese LCD juggernaught is fanning the flames with ULED, GLED, your-favorite-capital-letter-LED.

Seems pretty much the entire TV industry with the possible exception of Sony and Panasonic is united in wanting to do everything they can to keep the LG WOLED train waiting at the station...


p.s. I missed it until just rereading now, but did you notice the reference to 'liquid crystal diode (LCD) displays'


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> The conflation is not an accident. Fear, uncertainly and doubt will prevail in the face of transition (especially when the price for 'real' OLED is 2X), and the Chinese LCD juggernaught is fanning the flames with ULED, GLED, your-favorite-capital-letter-LED.
> 
> Seems pretty much the entire TV industry with the possible exception of Sony and Panasonic is united in wanting to do everything they can to keep the LG WOLED train waiting at the station...
> 
> 
> p.s. I missed it until just rereading now, but did you notice the reference to 'liquid crystal diode (LCD) displays'


Re-reading your own post? You missed it the first time? {chuckle} j/k j/k.... 

The degree to which folks have to jump through hoops to avoid the term "LCD" so that the public doesn't confuse it with CCFL-LCD, is just freakshow nutty, and I'm fairly certain the blame on Samsung for this "LED" nonsense is well placed.

@rogo , yes, that QD thing is annoying as hell to straighten out. In fact, there are times where I think 90% of what the industry guys at AVS are forced to do here is _clarify_ public confusions that should never have occurred in the first place.

The terminology collisions are absolutely endless.


----------



## NickTheGreat

rogo said:


> Yeah, the vertigo would likely render something like 5% of people incapable of flying normally.
> 
> That said, windowless planes are all-but inevitable.


All but inevitable? I don't know about that.


----------



## 8mile13

NickTheGreat said:


> All but inevitable? I don't know about that.


Maybe you do not care about a window in an airplaine, most people would feel very uncomfortable without it. Reminds me of the first rocket to the moon. Austronauts insisted that engineers added a window..why oh why


----------



## NickTheGreat

8mile13 said:


> Maybe you do not care about a window in an airplaine, most people would feel very uncomfortable without it. Reminds me of the first rocket to the moon. Austronauts insisted that engineers added a window..why oh why


Yeah I know. I don't know why he said a windowless plane is "all but inevitable." I'd wager that they'll always have windows. 

Maybe he meant "far from inevitable." Or maybe I have a different interpretation of the word "inevitable."


----------



## sooke

NickTheGreat said:


> ..
> 
> Maybe he meant "far from inevitable." Or maybe I have a different interpretation of the word "inevitable."


Or maybe he meant "inconceivable!"





Sorry, Princess Bride fan..


----------



## barth2k

I think claustrophobia comes into play when your mind knows you're stuck in an aluminum tube with a faux view to the outside. At the same time, depending on how they implement the display, they could easily induce vertigo in many people.

But hey bring it on. I want that USAF VR helmet that lets you see all around your plane like it is not there. Wonder Woman!


----------



## work permit

barth2k said:


> I think claustrophobia comes into play when your mind knows you're stuck in an aluminum tube with a faux view to the outside. At the same time, depending on how they implement the display, they could easily induce vertigo in many people.
> 
> But hey bring it on. I want that USAF VR helmet that lets you see all around your plane like it is not there. Wonder Woman!


in case of emergencies, its very useful to look outside a window. So you don't, for example, evacuate onto a burning wing. 

Its also useful to look inside a window if, for example, you're a ground emergency crewman.

Windows are here to stay.


----------



## wco81

Hey I'd be happy with OLED screens for the entertainment systems on planes but that's not going to happen, maybe not even in first class.


----------



## rogo

NickTheGreat said:


> All but inevitable? I don't know about that.


I do. Both Boeing and Airbus are looking to get rid of them. 



tgm1024 said:


> A plane like the one portrayed in the picture? Imagine being next to huge displays on both sides of you that are moving for 4 hours. It'll be a lot more than 5% with screens that large and on that long.
> 
> Heck, I'm not convinced I could survive 1/2 an hour of that and I'm not "prone" to vertigo.
> 
> Perhaps they could probably draw the window of your choice on the side and black out everything else.


Maybe it's worse than 5%. Clearly, that design is not happening.



8mile13 said:


> Maybe you do not care about a window in an airplaine, most people would feel very uncomfortable without it. Reminds me of the first rocket to the moon. Austronauts insisted that engineers added a window..why oh why


Lots of things are put there to mollify old people, that's true. "I will never get on a Subway train that's doesn't have a man at the controls!" (Don't ride BART in San Francisco. Or the L train in New York.) "People won't get that stove without the flames!" (Except that induction is faster and more efficient, too.)

When Mercury started, the state of the art in video cameras and screens was, um, yeah... Not so good. 



NickTheGreat said:


> Yeah I know. I don't know why he said a windowless plane is "all but inevitable." I'd wager that they'll always have windows.
> 
> Maybe he meant "far from inevitable." Or maybe I have a different interpretation of the word "inevitable."


I mean all but inevitable.

Windows = thicker, heavier fuselage. That yields a narrower passenger space but a greater fuel burn. In other words, it's lose + lose so that fewer than 1/3 of seats can have an exterior view (on average, across the various configs 2/3, 3/3, 2/3, 2/5/2, etc. etc.). 

Removing the windows will ultimately yield a lighter, more rigid (safer) plane that consumes less fuel and will motivate the offering of every-seat, external-view displays. Exit doors, incidentally, will likely retain windows so as to allow for a visual inspection of the exterior in the unlikely event of an incident. 

By the way, the future is unlikely to have traditional fuselage as we know it too. Blended-wing body designs are also more efficient, but will require some rethinking of airports. That said, they render windows _even more obsolete_.

http://www.twitt.org/bldwing.htm


----------



## 8mile13

I guess we will end up with something like this..


----------



## mo949

The windows are going to go away mostly and of course there will still be a few left. The cabin crew will be happy as well since they can control the cabin atmosphere easier. I doubt they'll give us any 'virtual windows' to start. I'm sure they'll just compromise and add more cameras to the exterior of the plane that you can view feeds from on your display or on the wireless network and make up for the rest with more novel design and décor.

Ironically the astronaut example reminds me of the Apollo 13 crew and their power outage. If it weren't for the window and the sextant they had on board they would not have been able to navigate; whoever insisted on that windows contributed to saving their butts.

And, induction is better than gas, I switched over 3 years ago and its not only significantly faster than gas but has more accurate control, especially on the low end (no more double boilers needed). However, you do have to say goodbye to certain techniques and the cooking is a bit more clinical


----------



## wco81

Interesting since one of the things Boeing is touting on the 787 is the big windows.

I don't know if Airbus' answer to the 787 has big windows.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Interesting since one of the things Boeing is touting on the 787 is the big windows.
> 
> I don't know if Airbus' answer to the 787 has big windows.



I've only really been active on AVS over the past year, but over that span, I can't think of a better example of straying off-topic in the face of OLED technology doldrums...


----------



## rogo

A lot of things get exaggerated as they head for the exits.... Tail fins on cars come to mind. Airplane windows might well be the "tail fins" of the jet age.

Airbus, incidentally, doesn't seem to tout window area on the A330neo from what a quick glance at the marketing material showed. They are excited about 3-D films on the in-flight entertainment system however!


----------



## wco81

Looks like the A350, is their 787 competitor. Pictures show standard small windows.


----------



## darinp2

rogo said:


> They are excited about 3-D films on the in-flight entertainment system however!


I wonder if that will have any effect on the number of air sickness bags that get used.

I imagine that with the amount of time it takes to get a plane to market they can be quite a bit behind the trends if they lock in to a technology, such as 3D as it seems to be on the decline elsewhere.

I wonder if they are getting excited about putting curved screens on planes next. 

--Darin


----------



## rogo

wco81 said:


> Looks like the A350, is their 787 competitor. Pictures show standard small windows.


Yes, the A330neo was the stopgap. The A350XWB has bigger-than-average windows but not 787 big.

"They're one of the first feature passengers notice about the Dreamliner - they're up to 70 per cent bigger than older aircraft and about 30 per cent bigger than its contemporaries. The A350's windows are larger than any other Airbus model, are wide and but noticeably smaller than the Boeing."

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11304892



darinp2 said:


> I wonder if that will have any effect on the number of air sickness bags that get used.
> 
> I imagine that with the amount of time it takes to get a plane to market they can be quite a bit behind the trends if they lock in to a technology, such as 3D as it seems to be on the decline elsewhere.
> 
> I wonder if they are getting excited about putting curved screens on planes next.


Heh, probably. One thing about IFE is that (a) it's late in the development cycle (b) it's customized by carriers. They probably have a reference design early, but that's unlikely to be taken by too many customers of the actual planes.

I'd imagine there would be a strong push, for example, for OLED screens if they ever actually reach price parity. The reduction in weight would be highly desirable as would any reduction in power consumption. 

Let's hope not on curved screens, though.


----------



## slacker711

Small datapoint on OLED sales. LG sold 1000 units in South Korea in the first month after its debut.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2014/11/133_167371.html

I have never seen an estimate of television sales in South Korea so it is hard to put this into much context.


----------



## slacker711

Small datapoint on OLED sales. LG sold 1000 units in South Korea in the first month after its debut.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2014/11/133_167371.html

I have never seen an estimate of television sales in South Korea so it is hard to put this into much context.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Small datapoint on OLED sales. LG sold 1000 units in South Korea in the first month after its debut.
> 
> http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2014/11/133_167371.html
> 
> I have never seen an estimate of television sales in South Korea so it is hard to put this into much context.


 
The population of Korea is about 1/6th of the US population, so we can reasonably estimate that 1000 in a month in Korea equates to something like 6000 in a month here in the US. I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that LG sold 6000 55EC9300 in the month they were discounted to $3000.

The statement I found most significant was this:

'"Sales of 55EC9300 OLED TVs exceeded 1,000 units on local shelves since the TV sets became available at major local outlets channels late in Sept. at *3.99 million won each*," the LG statement said.

The cost of the 55-inch OLED TV is* not much more* than that of top-end 55-inch LCD TVs from Samsung and Sony, which *cost about 3 million won*. But OLED offers a considerably enhanced picture quality.'

So in Korea, LG sold 1000 OLEDs in a month when they were priced at 1.3X the price of top-end 55" LED/LCDs.

The 4 most expensive 55" LED/LCDs you can find here are the Sony 55X900B for $2800, the Samsung 55HU9000 for $2500 and the LG 55UB9500 for $2000 (which is also the price of the Sony 55X850B), so priced at $3500, the 55EC9300 is priced at 1.5X the average of these 4 top-end LED/LCDs and the only TV that comes within the lower 1.3X price gap of Korea is the 55X900B. 

When the 55EC9300 was discounted to $3000, that represented a price gap that was less that 1.1X the stratospheric Sony 55X900B, 1.2X the Samsung 55HU9000, and 1.2X the average of those same 4 top-tier TVs. I can believe LG was selling 6000 55EC9300s per month in the US market while that price lasted, but doubt they continue to sell at that level since the 'discount' ended and the price retuned to $3500.

If we don't see a return to the discounted price of $3000 by Black Friday (or hopefully even lower), I can't wrap my head around any other explanation other than that LG has cut of production either because of a problem or to make significant changes in the M1 pilot fab as some have speculated.

The next month should be interesting


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> The population of Korea is about 1/6th of the US population, so we can reasonably estimate that 1000 in a month in Korea equates to something like 6000 in a month here in the US. I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that LG sold 6000 55EC9300 in the month they were discounted to $3000.


I very much doubt that high-end television sales in South Korea are remotely proportional by population to US sales. I have seen regional data from DS based on screen size and the US and China make up the vast majority of sales of >50" screens. Japan was probably less than 1/10th US sales. 

OTOH, the LG OLED may have received a boost in South Korea due to its novelity and increased press coverage in its home country. Overall, I think it is tough to extrapolate much from this data without some more context.


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that LG sold 6000 55EC9300 in the month they were discounted to $3000.
> ...
> I can believe LG was selling 6000 55EC9300s per month in the US market while that price lasted, but doubt they continue to sell at that level since the 'discount' ended and the price retuned to $3500.
> 
> If we don't see a return to the discounted price of $3000 by Black Friday (or hopefully even lower), I can't wrap my head around any other explanation other than that LG has cut of production either because of a problem or to make significant changes in the M1 pilot fab as some have speculated.
> 
> The next month should be interesting





slacker711 said:


> I very much doubt that high-end television sales in South Korea are remotely proportional by population to US sales. I have seen regional data from DS based on screen size and the US and China make up the vast majority of sales of >50" screens. Japan was probably less than 1/10th US sales.
> 
> OTOH, the LG OLED may have received a boost in South Korea due to its novelity and increased press coverage in its home country. Overall, I think it is tough to extrapolate much from this data without some more context.


A little context is a great thing. If LG is running the pilot line at 100% capacity (doubtful) and 80% yield they can make 38,000 55" sets per month. It will of course be less capacity if they try to switch over and make 65" sets and do anything else (like make models to show at CES) too.

I agree with Slacker there's not a lot of data but if they sold 6,000 each in US, China, Europe, and a similar amount for the rest of the world (Japan, Korea, South America, etc), that would be 24,000. Then they had to stock all the retail outlets with a demo unit. Best Buy alone has over 1,000 stores just in the US. I could see where they would be pushing the limit of probably 30,000 unit production.

I've been watching Amazon this week. While it seems like LG isn't shipping any sets, the inventory goes up every morning and they sell most of them that day. They had 5 in stock this morning and are now sold out again. Based on this week (a very poor sample set), it would be a sales rate of about 200/month for Amazon in the US and seems to be limited by inventory. I would guess Best Buy is selling more (they have more reviews on their site). Reviews on Amazon and Best Buy have been showing up at a pretty steady pace throughout October (without exception they all give it 5 stars). 

While there has clearly been a delay in the 65" model I'm not sure the data fits exactly with a big shutdown of production. And, again, LG has been clear in the investor calls all year that they would be adding capacity at the end of the year (not the 3rd quarter).

From their q1 call on April 23:
"now we are providing a limited volume scale that comes from our first stage OLED facility for TV and then at the end of this year we will provide a second phase production for OLED"
http://seekingalpha.com/article/215...sses-q1-2014-results-earnings-call-transcript


----------



## slacker711

Some context from LG around the Korean shipment number.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/11/03/2014110301463.html

_LG Sees Booming OLED TV Sales

Sales of LG Electronics' 55-inch curved OLED TVs surpassed 1,000 a month, the electronics company said Sunday.

The TVs, which boast full HD picture quality, do not require a light source, which makes for a much slimmer product, but they are forbiddingly expensive. 

LG launched the OLED TVs early last year for W15 million (US$1=W1,067) and managed to sell about 50 per month. The price tag was three or four times higher than an LCD TV with similar picture quality. Also, the release of a series of ultra high definition TVs this year made OLED TVs less competitive.

But LG and affiliate LG Display bolstered output, allowing them to slash prices to around W3.99 million, a quarter of the original amount, in late September. 

An LG spokesman said, "Given that LCD TVs of the same size are selling 1,000 to 2,000 units a month, you could say OLED TVs have gone mainstream." _


----------



## dabotsonline

Cho Mu-hyun said:


> Kim Hyun-seok, head of Samsung Electronics' TV business, has told reporters in Seoul that it's still too early for the company to launch OLED TVs and that Samsung's "strategy on OLED TV this year as well as next year remains unchanged."...
> 
> Samsung Display, meanwhile, is focusing on small and mid-sized OLED panels for smartphones. For OLED panels to be used in TVs, the company is developing a "printing" method over the current "doping method" to make mass production easier and cheaper...
> 
> A Samsung spokesman confirmed Kim's statements but declined to elaborate further.


http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/samsung-says-no-oled-tvs-next-year/


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Some context from LG around the Korean shipment number.
> 
> http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/11/03/2014110301463.html
> 
> _LG Sees Booming OLED TV Sales_
> 
> _Sales of LG Electronics' 55-inch curved OLED TVs surpassed 1,000 a month, the electronics company said Sunday._
> 
> _The TVs, which boast full HD picture quality, do not require a light source, which makes for a much slimmer product, but they are forbiddingly expensive. _
> 
> _LG launched the OLED TVs early last year for W15 million (US$1=W1,067) and managed to sell about 50 per month. The price tag was three or four times higher than an LCD TV with similar picture quality. Also, the release of a series of ultra high definition TVs this year made OLED TVs less competitive._
> 
> _But LG and affiliate LG Display bolstered output, allowing them to slash prices to around W3.99 million, a quarter of the original amount, in late September. _
> 
> _*An LG spokesman said, "Given that LCD TVs of the same size are selling 1,000 to 2,000 units a month, you could say OLED TVs have gone mainstream."* _



Talk about wishful thinking...


----------



## barth2k

Wait are they talking about all LCDs sold in Korea or LG branded LCDs.

I don't know whether to be impressed by the LCD:OLED ratio or surprised by the small size of the market.


----------



## slacker711

I have no idea what the rules are about cross posting from other forums, but Zohn on the Blu-Ray forum says that there is no 55EC9300 shortage and that LG has always meant to sell units through the "thousands" of independent retailers. He has sold 24 55EC9300's, 6 55EA9800's and 8 55EA8800. 

He expects shipments of another 2 dozen 55EC9300's shortly.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> I have no idea what the rules are about cross posting from other forums, but Zohn on the Blu-Ray forum says that there is no 55EC9300 shortage and that LG has always meant to sell units through the "thousands" of independent retailers. * He has sold 24 55EC9300's, 6 55EA9800's and 8 55EA8800.*
> 
> He expects shipments of another 2 dozen 55EC9300's shortly.



since when? since they were first introduced


----------



## rogo

I'm sure that's since introduction. And he's a leading dealer because of his national reputation and proximity to the wealthy New York market. 

Make of that what you will. 38 is a lot for a small guy. But it's not many given his prominence.


----------



## Rudy1

_*LG TO SELL QUANTUM DOT TVs:*_

http://hometheaterreview.com/lg-to-sell-quantum-dot-tvs/

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-t...uantum-dot-display-tech-next-gen-televisions/


----------



## rogo

From the Digital Trends article:

_"Presently, Quantum Dots are used to change the color of LEDs into other colors, eliminating the need for a color filter in an LCD planel, and producing more accurate, well-saturated colors, along with purer whites."_

Um, no. Every LCD that has used quantum dots or will use them has color filters. So this is completely wrong.

_. According to the CNET report, the company is fighting back by pouring R&D money into Quantum Dot televisions which, like OLEDs, are a self-emitting technology (they can generate their own light)."_

Um, no. There isn't evidence Samsung is building quantum-dot-based emissive displays. There is evidence they are building quantum-dot-film enhanced LED-LCD displays. When Samsung announces an emissive display based on quantum dots, that would be big news.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> From the Digital Trends article:
> 
> _"Presently, Quantum Dots are used to change the color of LEDs into other colors, eliminating the need for a color filter in an LCD planel, and producing more accurate, well-saturated colors, along with purer whites."_
> 
> Um, no. Every LCD that has used quantum dots or will use them has color filters. So this is completely wrong.
> 
> _. According to the CNET report, the company is fighting back by pouring R&D money into Quantum Dot televisions which, like OLEDs, are a self-emitting technology (they can generate their own light)."_
> 
> Um, no. There isn't evidence Samsung is building quantum-dot-based emissive displays. There is evidence they are building quantum-dot-film enhanced LED-LCD displays. When Samsung announces an emissive display based on quantum dots, that would be big news.



I suppose you could argue that Quantum Dots are 'analog' rather than 'digital' and so we should be forgiving of the fact that DigitalTrends is completely off the ball on this (and apparently way beyond their depth ).


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> I suppose you could argue that Quantum Dots are 'analog' rather than 'digital' and so we should be forgiving of the fact that DigitalTrends is completely off the ball on this (and apparently way beyond their depth ).


Won't stop them from being quoted endlessly for the next year. (Aye, abandon all hope ye who frequent here).

I wonder if the pie-in-the-sky idea of QD as_ themselves_ being the variable emitters is what the manufacturers were talking about pursuing. (..........nah.)


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> I wonder if the pie-in-the-sky idea of QD as_ themselves_ being the variable emitters is what the manufacturers were talking about pursuing. (..........nah.)


It isn't, as no one has any idea how to build/manufacture a display that would work that way.


----------



## mo949

QDs as their own emitters, how's their light output (theoretically) relative to OLED, plasma, basic LED?


----------



## fafrd

Just ran into this: http://news.oled-display.net/lg-sold-1000-oled-tv-units-in-october-2014/

The information on the 1000 OLEDs sold in Korea has already been reported elsewhere, but this is the first time I have seen reference to a product code for a 55" UHD curved OLED (55EB9600):

77 inch 4K Ultra HD Curved 77EC9800 (3840 x 2160 pixels)
65 inch OLED TV UHD
*55 inch Curved EB9600 UHD/FULL-HD*
55 inch Full HD EA8809
55 inch Full HD 55EC9300 (third generation)
55 inch Full HD EA9709
55 inch Full HD EA9809 THX zertifiziert
55 inch Full HD EA9800


Also, found this bit interesting (for what it is worth): 

"Panasonic use printing technology to produce their panels, at CES-2014 they introduce 55 inch curved 4K panels with different bending points and radiuses. *Panasonics panel are with Oxide TFT and the company is working with Sony and Auo to develop a mass production ready version*. Panasonic stopped their joint venture with Sony in 2013, and *plan now with AUO to develop large **AMOLED** panels."*

Is this just a very confused reporter, or have there been any other rumors of AUO working on AMOLED TVs (possibly with Panasonic)?

Did Panasonic show any OLEDs at CES 2014? Were they curved? I know about the rumors of Samsung exploring printed OLED technology, but have there been any rumors of Panasonic and/or AUO looking into the same?


----------



## Desk.

fafrd said:


> Did Panasonic show any OLEDs at CES 2014? Were they curved? I know about the rumors of Samsung exploring printed OLED technology, but have there been any rumors of Panasonic and/or AUO looking into the same?


http://news.oled-display.net/panasonic-4k-55-inch-oleds-with-are-bendable-in-both-ways-ces-2014/

Desk


----------



## fafrd

Just found this from today: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...tvs-until-at-least-2016-lg-poised-to-cash-in/

Let's hope this proves to be accurate:

"LG has, of course, already launched HD OLED TVs this year, and in *the next few weeks will also be launching a range of 4K/UHD OLED TVs*. "

and that this does not:

"Whether LG can capitalise on its unexpectedly extended OLED exclusivity, of course, remains to be seen; for all OLED’s seductive performance charms it’s certainly possible that *when the dust settles on 2015 Samsung could end up looking like the clever one for having focussed its attentions on more affordable technologies*."


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> Just found this from today: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...tvs-until-at-least-2016-lg-poised-to-cash-in/
> 
> Let's hope this proves to be accurate:
> 
> "LG has, of course, already launched HD OLED TVs this year, and in *the next few weeks will also be launching a range of 4K/UHD OLED TVs*. "
> 
> and that this does not:
> 
> "Whether LG can capitalise on its unexpectedly extended OLED exclusivity, of course, remains to be seen; for all OLED’s seductive performance charms it’s certainly possible that *when the dust settles on 2015 Samsung could end up looking like the clever one for having focussed its attentions on more affordable technologies*."


One more quote from that Digital Trends article

''As the only manufacturer offering OLED TVs in any real quantity right now, perhaps LG knows something the rest of us don’t. Or perhaps Samsung’s Quantum Dots are a diversion tactic, or possibly a way to extend the life of the nearly ubiquitous LCD planel.''


----------



## irkuck

Sorry guys for being so down-to-the-earth but here is the question: How serious is burn-in in new OLED displays? 

On one hand there is very clear warning in LG OLED TV manual about prolonged use with static pictures or even movies with black bars. On the other hand, Samsung is selling OLED tablet, it is hard to imagine they would do it if burn-in is a problem.


----------



## mattg3

Well take this for what you will but I visited local Best buy and saw the 55 oled and on light background I saw 3 or so small boxes at bottom of screen which were image retention from the LG menu.Visited the store 7 days later and noticed the image of boxes still at bottom of screen on light backgrounds only.I realize the set is on over 12 hours per day but I was disappointed the boxes were still visible after one week.


----------



## greenland

Some owners have reported experiencing some Temporary Image Retention, which is not "Burn In", but they say that it went away fairly quickly and most of it happened during the first 50 or so hours of use, and then became less and less prevalent. So far it appears to be not something to be very concerned about. Once again. Stop confusing or conflating Temporary Image Retention with Burn In.


----------



## JWhip

I have seen permanent BI in London a couple of years ago now, from the menu boxes. If the menu is left on all day as it appears to be here and was the case at Harrods, BI will be the result. Leaving the menu on all day is really abusing the set.


----------



## irkuck

Thank you for your learned replies concerning burn-in. Now I tell you how this question came to me. My next desktop will have 4K monitor of sizable dimensions, 40" is potential target and this size LCD monitors are coming soon. I started fantasizing perhaps LG will be expanding its OLED lineup tremendously in the coming season both up and down in size and will also show a 40" 4K curved OLED TV. Now that could make ultimate computer monitor, if and only if burn-in is not a problem .


----------



## htwaits

irkuck said:


> Thank you for your learned replies concerning burn-in. Now I tell you how this question came to me. My next desktop will have 4K monitor of sizable dimensions, 40" is potential target and this size LCD monitors are coming soon. I started fantasizing perhaps LG will be expanding its OLED lineup tremendously in the coming season both up and down in size and will also show a 40" 4K curved OLED TV. Now that could make ultimate computer monitor, if and only if burn-in is not a problem .


Even if you use the right terminology, using any current OLED technology as a computer monitor will be a serious problem.


----------



## htwaits

greenland said:


> Some owners have reported experiencing some Temporary Image Retention, which is not "Burn In", but they say that it went away fairly quickly and most of it happened during the first 50 or so hours of use, and then became less and less prevalent. So far it appears to be not something to be very concerned about. Once again.* Stop confusing or conflating Temporary Image Retention with Burn In.*


I've never had much luck making the "burn in" -- "image retention" distinction. The supply of conflators is overwhelming. 

Statements like this one abound in the past, currently, and probably far into the future.

"Well my set definitely has burn in because the fixed image has faded but I can still see it's outline if the right color is on the screen."


----------



## Desk.

It's understood that image retention is not due to the OLED organic matter itself but instead due to voltage drift in the TV's circuitry which can result in a temporary 'staining' of the screen.

LG's initial OLED TVs appeared to have less effective algorithms to reset the voltage drift periodically, but these have apparently been refined in more recent batches and the 9300 model.

For more, read this...

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs/1401612/why-your-next-tv-should-be-oled



> To prevent the threshold voltage from deteriorating over time and causing an imbalance in luminance, LG has also developed special circuit algorithms to sense any potential changes in the threshold voltage of each pixel. This will adjust luminance levels on a real-time basis, helping the panel last longer and prevent staining.


Desk


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> Thank you for your learned replies concerning burn-in. Now I tell you how this question came to me. My next desktop will have 4K monitor of sizable dimensions, 40" is potential target and this size LCD monitors are coming soon. I started fantasizing perhaps LG will be expanding its OLED lineup tremendously in the coming season both up and down in size and will also show a 40" 4K curved OLED TV. Now that could make ultimate computer monitor, if and only if burn-in is not a problem .


I caved and ordered a Retina iMac. 5K > 4K


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> It isn't, as no one has any idea how to build/manufacture a display that would work that way.


It would work like OLED does.


*It is an oversimplified explanation intended to keep the discussion on the 6th grade level.*


Take three "white or UV" LEDs coat each of them with " RED, GREEN, BLUE dyes respectively (quantum dots)" and then "wire" each LED to a low-resistance gate-transistor for high energy efficiency (i.e LTPS or IGZO if you are a cheap-skate) and ,lo and behold, you have yourself an RGB quantum LED "display" which can render true backs among other things and it needs no light filters to operate.


I heard Samsung might be working on it now...


----------



## catonic

stas3098 said:


> *It is an oversimplified explanation intended to keep the discussion on the 6th grade level.*


Don't hold back now Stas.
Go for it!
Give us the full monty, in all it's glorious and gory detail.

Sub-atomic particles: 










Quantum mechanics:










M theory:










Entropy effects: 











We're up for it, I promise you. 
Especially if you include plenty of big ,colourful pictures.


----------



## rogo

stas3098 said:


> It would work like OLED does.
> 
> 
> *It is an oversimplified explanation intended to keep the discussion on the 6th grade level.*
> 
> 
> Take three "white or UV" LEDs coat each of them with " RED, GREEN, BLUE dyes respectively (quantum dots)" and then "wire" each LED to a low-resistance gate-transistor for high energy efficiency (i.e LTPS or IGZO if you are a cheap-skate) and ,lo and behold, you have yourself an RGB quantum LED "display" which can render true backs among other things and it needs no light filters to operate.
> 
> I heard Samsung might be working on it now...


Except, here is the thing....

If someone could build a panel full of inorganic (read: conventional) LEDs today, they would already have done so. They wouldn't need quantum dots. They could either make the semiconductor micro-LEDs in color the "old fashioned way" or they could use a color filter -- as LG does with the WRGB OLED display.

That display would do everything this hypothetical quantum-dot display does, with the exception of being quite as pure of color, quite as gamut rich.

_No one on earth has even publicly proposed such a display_.

The closest anyone has come was Sony's fantastical CLED display prototype, which relied on some kind of tiled design, the details of which they were sketchy on. Sony never got remotely close to a plausible means of manufacture.

It should be noted that some giant videowall type displays approximate this. And that "devil's in the details" issue isn't a trivial one. It's not exceptionally hard to build 6 million (or 24 million) somewhat large LEDs in a videowall. It's not easy, of course, they still need to be small.

But at the micro-level you need for a 4K display, you need those 8 million pixels and therefore 24 million LEDs at the micro level. And the reason why manufacturers are focused on OLED and not (I)LED is because, well, tiny OLED pixels are something that have been perfected. The tens of millions of Samsung products shipped each year with OLED displays should serve as proof of that statement.

Ask yourself when you've seen a display that used conventional LEDs as pixels.


----------



## catonic

rogo said:


> Except, here is the thing.......


Ahh, but Rogo, according to the latest and greatest theoretical physics, all these issues that you raise have been solved in at least one and probably more than one Universe amongst the Multiverse.










Now all we need is an intrepid leader who can take us to that (or those) Universes. 

I propose Stas3098, whose name even gives us confidence that he exists in multiple forms or dimensions, not to mention his scientifically erudite posts. 

PS. I'm not saying that I personally subscribe to such concepts as the Multiverse but who am I to quibble with so many of the leading Professors and physicists from the most prestigious Universities around the globe. 

Now I realize that someone with your background and experience is going to be concerned with the initial cost and likely ROI of such an expedition but think of the articles that you could write if we were successful.


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> Except, here is the thing....
> 
> If someone could build a panel full of inorganic (read: conventional) LEDs today, they would already have done so. They wouldn't need quantum dots. They could either make the semiconductor micro-LEDs in color the "old fashioned way" or they could use a color filter -- as LG does with the WRGB OLED display.
> 
> That display would do everything this hypothetical quantum-dot display does, with the exception of being quite as pure of color, quite as gamut rich.
> 
> _No one on earth has even publicly proposed such a display_.
> 
> The closest anyone has come was Sony's fantastical CLED display prototype, which relied on some kind of tiled design, the details of which they were sketchy on. Sony never got remotely close to a plausible means of manufacture.
> 
> It should be noted that some giant videowall type displays approximate this. And that "devil's in the details" issue isn't a trivial one. It's not exceptionally hard to build 6 million (or 24 million) somewhat large LEDs in a videowall. It's not easy, of course, they still need to be small.
> 
> But at the micro-level you need for a 4K display, you need those 8 million pixels and therefore 24 million LEDs at the micro level. And the reason why manufacturers are focused on OLED and not (I)LED is because, well, tiny OLED pixels are something that have been perfected. The tens of millions of Samsung products shipped each year with OLED displays should serve as proof of that statement.
> 
> Ask yourself when you've seen a display that used conventional LEDs as pixels.


_They have already ,publicly, made such a TV they called an OLED TV_


They took your average light emitting diode put some "organic" stuff right in the middle of it in between of N-material and P-material to "control" light frequency and called it OLED. 


People do not make Light Emitting Diode TVs because of very sophisticated patterning that is required to make such displays. In a nut shell, to display Blue a Diode requires one transistor and to display Red it requires the other transistor, and to display Green it requires another transistor ( I hope you are catching my drift) and i.e to make an RGB LED display it requires three different backplanes and as you would expect it proves to be mighty hardy to perfectly align two backplanes let alone three


Wouldn't it be cool ,though, if you could string the 24 million of the same (white) LEDs on one backplane and then "dye" them to make an RBG patterned display?


By the way, you can "dye" WOLED with "Quantum dots" instead of using light filters.


----------



## stas3098

catonic said:


> Ahh, but Rogo, according to the latest and greatest theoretical physics, all these issues that you raise have been solved in at least one and probably more than one Universe amongst the Multiverse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now all we need is an intrepid leader who can take us to that (or those) Universes.
> 
> I propose Stas3098, whose name even gives us confidence that he exists in multiple forms or dimensions, not to mention his scientifically erudite posts.
> 
> PS. I'm not saying that I personally subscribe to such concepts as the Multiverse but who am I to quibble with so many of the leading Professors and physicists from the most prestigious Universities around the globe.
> 
> Now I realize that someone with your background and experience is going to be concerned with the initial cost and likely ROI of such an expedition but think of the articles that you could write if we were successful.


I know of a place in Sothern California where we can get our hands on some peyote which we can use to find a parallel universe 

I think without pharmaceutical help we as species of sapiens of genus **** who are members of Hominidae family belonging to the order Primates of class Mammalia relating to the phylum Chordata under the kingdom of Animalia have better chances of cryogenically freezing ourselves in suspended animation and getting revived than locating a parallel universe.


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> I caved and ordered a Retina iMac. 5K > 4K


Now guess what, I have a 27"@2560x1440 monitor and I am absolutely not craving for quadrupling the number of pixels in it to the level of Retina 27"@5K, enough is enough .
But I noticed that 40" 4K monitor would have the same pixel density as my 27" (that follows from the 3:2 proportion between both their sizes and number of pixels) and such monitor would fill the visual field to the max. This would please me more than the smalish 5K. Obviously the Holy Grail would be 5K but only a stretched 21:9 and a curved one, with vertical resolution of at least 2160 lines and size of 40". That may become real sometime after the DP1.3 connection will appear.



htwaits said:


> Even if you use the right terminology, using any current OLED technology as a computer monitor will be a serious problem.


So now we back at Step 1 in biting this problem. Is there a real burn-in or only image retention in OLED?


----------



## Asmo42

htwaits said:


> Even if you use the right terminology, using any current OLED technology as a computer monitor will be a serious problem.


I asked a couple pages back why there wasn't much or any talk about OLED computer monitors, would you like to elaborate a little what makes the current technologies unsuitable? Burn-in issues? If that's the case why doesn't phones and tablets seem to have much issue with it?


----------



## catonic

stas3098 said:


> I know of a place in Southern California where we can get our hands on some peyote which we can use to find a parallel universe......


A very wise observation Stas, IMO.
However, this is the AVScience forum and according to most/many of the leading physicists of the day the concept of the Multiverse is supported by both the maths and at least some empirical evidence.
Hence are we not obliged to take it into consideration in a thread such as this?


----------



## stas3098

catonic said:


> A very wise observation Stas, IMO.
> However, this is the AVScience forum and according to most/many of the leading physicists of the day the concept of the Multiverse is supported by both the maths and at least some empirical evidence.
> Hence are we not obliged to take it into consideration in a thread such as this?


Lol,man.


And according to some/few _leading_ methheads of the day the concept of the Multiverse is supported by both the math and by the meth alike


But, all the whores'ing around ( or is it written horsing around I always forget) aside we *must *certainly look into the possibility of the Multiverse. 


I violently believe, and I underline, I violently believe that we should start looking into the possibility of the Multiverse by ,first, building Huge Hadron Collider under the code name "Huge Hard-on" that shalt be wound 60 times around thine earth to create a black hole big enough to suck in a human being in 7 days


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> _They have already ,publicly, made such a TV they called an OLED TV_
> 
> They took your average light emitting diode put some "organic" stuff right in the middle of it in between of N-material and P-material to "control" light frequency and called it OLED.



Actually, that's not what they did.

One of the biggest hurdles for me was to try to forget what I knew about LED physics (and diodes in general) when diving into the Kodak patents. AVS members xrox, ynotgoal, and slacker711 likely know the most about this at the lowest level...they were the ones who "set me straight" on all that many many pages ago in this thread.


----------



## stas3098

catonic said:


> A very wise observation Stas, IMO.
> However, this is the AVScience forum and according to most/many of the leading physicists of the day the concept of the Multiverse is supported by both the maths and at least some empirical evidence.
> Hence are we not obliged to take it into consideration in a thread such as this?


By the way,what I remember from reading about the Multiverse (bubble theory) is that Matthew Johnson is the leading authority in the field right now. He's testing/proving this theory.
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/people/Matthew-Johnson


----------



## mattg3

If the 65 4K oled comes out with DNR shut off for under 5 by January there is a God


----------



## 8mile13

greenland said:


> That is why faith based minds like to claim about Scientists. It is false. They deal in research and postulations subject to being changed when proven to be wrong.


Scientists are pushing research into certain directions, they often have hidden agendas, which is something you do not seem to get.

There is a lot going on in science we do not know about. This here will give you a idea http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off


----------



## barth2k

stas3098 said:


> Lol,man.
> 
> 
> 
> I violently believe, and I underline, I violently believe that we should start looking into the possibility of the Multiverse by ,first, building Huge Hadron Collider under the code name "Huge Hard-on" that shalt be wound 60 times around thine earth to create a black hole big enough to suck in a human being in 7 days


Rest assured entities in the otherverses are working on ways to get to us.

Mr. President, we must not allow a multiverse gap!!


----------



## barth2k

sterlingjewel said:


> It's also a logical and philosophical stretch to confidently claim random chaos + time = ordered design


It would be. But who exactly is claiming that? Besides Mr. Strawman.


----------



## sterlingjewel

No straws, just logical inferences.


----------



## sooke

Personally, I'm more interested in the *Under*verse.












On a 65" 4k OLED.


----------



## catonic

8mile13 said:


> Scientists are pushing research into certain directions, they often have hidden agendas, which is something you do not seem to get.
> 
> There is a lot going on in science we do not know about. This here will give you a idea http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off


Many thanks 8mile13, a fascinating article.


----------



## zoetmb

8mile13 said:


> There is no evidence, not even some. Shure, with some bending an twisting you can come up with some sort of evidence. They came up with that Multiverse concept so they could rule out a God, has very little to do with science.


What does the maker of microphones and phono cartridges have to do with it?


----------



## darinp2

catonic said:


> Many thanks 8mile13, a fascinating article.


I agree. Thanks 8mile13.

I listened to an audiobook from a library recently that had some of the same ideas and more. It is called, "Wrong: Why experts keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them." 

I listened to it partially because of the frustration I've had for a while with some of the misinformation in this industry about contrast ratio where I think much of it is like the, "Galileo refuted Aristotelian mechanics in an afternoon" where in the same room it is pretty easy to show some of the people considered experts in this industry that at least some of their assumptions simply are not true.

One nice thing about OLED IMO and the Dolby display capable of very high contrast ratios is that they make it pretty easy to show people that some of the positions many people in this industry have held over the last couple of decades about what people wouldn't be able to see were not true.

--Darin


----------



## htwaits

Asmo42 said:


> I asked a couple pages back why there wasn't much or any talk about OLED computer monitors, would you like to elaborate a little what makes the current technologies unsuitable? Burn-in issues? If that's the case why doesn't phones and tablets seem to have much issue with it?


First of all, as it was pointed out earlier, many people are not clear about the difference between burn in and image retention.

Image retention improves over time if the owner takes care of their set. In the past that's been true for plasma displays. 

There have been reports of both burn in and image retention with OLED technology. The display unit that first displayed at Harrods of London is one example that appeared to be burn in caused by gross miss use of the display. I first heard about it second hand from an engineer at Kateeva who was in London.

The problem with a computer monitor, unless you are running an OS set up to avoid fixed images showing up in the same location day after day, there will be constantly refreshed image retention which at some point might turn into the old IBM CRT "green meanie" monitors that clearly showed burn in even when they were off.

Personally, I wouldn't use any technology capable of image retention given the kind of thing I use a computer monitor for. The first OLED models that are free of any threat of image retention will be loudly advertised as such.


----------



## wco81

What exactly would an OLED gain your as a computer monitor?

Do you watch a lot of movies on your computer and care about blacks that much?


----------



## irkuck

wco81 said:


> What exactly would an OLED gain your as a computer monitor?
> Do you watch a lot of movies on your computer and care about blacks that much?


One can obviously live comfortably without an OLED on the desktop. OLED could add just a bit
to picture quality and there are visions of OLED as future display technology. But at this point there
is a question if OLED is any good as monitor or is burn-in real or it is just image retention?


----------



## markrubin

thread cleanup


----------



## stas3098

irkuck said:


> One can obviously live comfortably without an OLED on the desktop. OLED could add just a bit
> to picture quality and there are visions of OLED as future display technology. But at this point there
> is a question if OLED is any good as monitor or is burn-in real or it is just image retention?


10.5 OLED Tab S burns in. I had a word-processor open on it for about 10 to 12 hours on end at 250 nits and the status bar showed some image-retention (it went away in a couple of hours). I also had image retention from static logos from about 6 hours (while watching x-files). 


I am gonna get myself Sony's IPS-neo professional 4K LCD monitor for work and browsing when they roll them out and I am thinking about getting Sony's 30inch 4K OLED monitor solely for movies.


I do agree that OLED's fitness for monitors that are on for 8 hours a day is rather questionable


----------



## rogo

Am taking an indefinite break from a discussion where you can't call jibber jabber for what it is (while also acknowledging the high intellect of the jabberer).

Ciao.


----------



## catonic

rogo said:


> Am taking an indefinite break from a discussion where you can't call jibber jabber for what it is (while also acknowledging the high intellect of the jabberer).
> 
> Ciao.


AVS jibber jabber is definitely the very best!


----------



## irkuck

stas3098 said:


> 10.5 OLED Tab S burns in. I had a word-processor open on it for about 10 to 12 hours on end at 250 nits and the status bar showed some image-retention (it went away in a couple of hours). I also had image retention from static logos from about 6 hours (while watching x-files). I do agree that OLED's fitness for monitors that are on for 8 hours a day is rather questionable


Let's be clear with terminology: burn-in is_ permanent (or at least long-term effect), _image retention is not. What you say disqualifies OLED. But there is hope for some OLED light in the monitor tunnel: The question is if the LG technique for eliminating retention is really working or not???


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> Am taking an indefinite break from a discussion where you can't call jibber jabber for what it is (while also acknowledging the high intellect of the jabberer).
> 
> Ciao.


I liked your post not because you're taking a break but because I'm in agreement.


----------



## 8mile13

LG is preparing to start operations of its M2 line, which could produce up to 26.000 OLED panels per month when fully operational.

The M2 line is an 8th generation line, meaning it cuts 2,200x2,500m substrates into panels. The larger the glass substrate, the less waste material produced, meaning LG will cut costs in making panels. The M2 line will produce 55-, 65- and 77-inch panels.

At maximum output, the two lines will produce as many as four times more OLED panels per month than currently possible, though LG will likely moderate production speed to balance it out with demand. Higher output will dramatically reduce the costs of producing OLED panels.


----------



## Rich Peterson

LG says their not-yet-released bendable 77" OLED was a CES 2015 Innovations Award honoree in the Video Displays category. The details of the awards will be announced at CES in January.

http://www.lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/64772
http://photos.prnewswire.com/medias...ils.do&prnid=20141111%2f157997&action=details


----------



## irkuck

Rich Peterson said:


> LG says their not-yet-released bendable 77" OLED was a CES 2015 Innovations Award honoree in the Video Displays category. The details of the awards will be announced at CES in January.
> http://www.lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/64772


Heh, it even deserves Gimmick-Nobel prize: _LG’s 77-inch flexible 4K OLED TV allows viewers to adjust the degree of curvature depending on the size of the audience or type of content being viewed. This advanced 4K OLED TV automatically optimizes sound and picture quality to match the degree of curvature._(!)


----------



## stas3098

Not everything is _rosy_ in the OLED kingdom.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/10/samsung_slams_door_on_oled_tvs_goes_to_quantum_dot_next/


According to the abovementioned article and the rumors I have been propagating since the summer Samsung have almost officially admitted to ditching OLED for TVs for good. 


I don't know much about what is going on inside of LG, but my high-placed peeps at Samsung have been saying that OLED is nothing, but a pipe-dream (howbeit, I believe they meant that OLED was a pipe-dream *with their manufacturing tech *when they said things like this) and it will never supplant LCD in TVs since the spring...


I hope LG can prove them wrong and wipe their eye


----------



## catonic

The history of OLED has been 99% speculation, 1% fact and 0.1% production.


----------



## Grit

catonic said:


> The history of OLED has been 99% speculation, 1% fact and 0.1% production.


From the brief demo I saw, OLED obliterates current LCD technology. In my opinion, it probably always will. And for reference, I still like my Pioneer Kuro more than any LCD on the market. 

Unfortunately, most people don't care about quality. They want bigger/brighter/more eye catching. Reference/realistic colors aren't what the general public wants, and now what drives profitable sales. Everyone bowed out of plasma because it wasn't as profitable. No one ever said it didn't look better.

I've got my fingers crossed. Hopefully LG can be the next high quality display. If they can make it more affordable, so much the better.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Grit said:


> They want bigger/brighter/more eye catching. .


The good news is that OLED has that in spades, though currently it technically isn't quite as bright as LCD, but I imagine everything else makes up for it.


----------



## tgm1024

catonic said:


> The history of OLED has been 99% speculation, 1% fact and 0.1% production.


....and 100% bad math.


----------



## alfredlordbleep

*Quite the opposite of "elitist" wish-fulfillment*



> ...And LGD is committed to making the most of its lead. The company is making its OLED panels available to Chinese set-makers, so look for companies such as TCL and Hisense to lead the way with relatively low-cost OLED-TVs next year. – Ken Werner


http://www.display-central.com/subs...nel/lg-display-pushes-oled-tv-panels-forward/


----------



## irkuck

catonic said:


> The history of OLED has been 99% speculation, 1% fact and 0.1% production.





tgm1024 said:


> ....and 100% bad math.


Yeah, but the future of OLED starts only now when lines are finally stamping bambillions of panels at dizzying speed :kiss:.


----------



## catonic

tgm1024 said:


> ....and 100% bad math.


Mathematically speaking, the "additional" 0.1% has to be included due to the huge and on-going amount of vapourware that has occurred from the very earliest beginnings of OLED technology, and this thread is testament to that fact. 
Think of it as a quantum mechanical effect that is necessary to make the mathematical equations work and fully account for reality, which maintains the best traditions of science and AVS.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Kateeva announces a new ink-jet based OLED encapsulation system*

Source: http://www.oled-info.com/kateeva-an...ation-system-we-discuss-it-companys-president



> Kateeva unveiled a new mass production flexible OLED thin film encapsulation (TFE) system based on their ink-jet technology. The YIELDjet FLEX can enable cost-effective encapsulation deposition, and Kateeva says that the first mass-production system will ship to a customer in Asia later this month. This customer is probably Samsung Display (which recently invested in Kateeva), but this is not confirmed.


This article includes an interview with Dr. Conor Madigan, Kateeva's President and Co-founder. Here's one of the questions/answers:



> *Q: When do you see inkjet-printed displays or TVs on the market?*
> We believe the first mass-production lines could be installed in 2016, so 2017 is a real possibility.


----------



## slacker711

It is a google translation but this article makes it sound like M2 has begun operations.

https://translate.google.com/transl.../mtview.php?no=2014111913594217857&type=1&MLA


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> It is a google translation but this article makes it sound like M2 has begun operations.
> 
> https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ko&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.mt.co.kr%2Fmtview.php%3Fno%3D2014111913594217857%26type%3D1%26MLA


 

I can't make head or tail of the "google-translation" and I don't know Korean ( do you know Korean because if you do and you say that this article states that M2 has been put into commission I'll take your word for it) so 
let's hold our horses until we get a confirmation in English language.


----------



## slacker711

Its worth noting that the 55EC930V just saw a price drop from 2999 pounds to 1999 pounds in the UK. This is at major UK retailers and doesnt look like a one-off sale. 

The price drop coincides with the longest period of available stock at Amazon and the likely start up of the M2 fab. I think it is possible that whatever was slowing down the product ramp at LGD has been solved and that they will get back to the more aggressive pricing that looked likely over the summer.


----------



## JimP

That's $3,134 in U.S. dollars.


----------



## slacker711

JimP said:


> That's $3,134 in U.S. dollars.


That includes a 20% VAT and usually, US pricing is still cheaper even after you discount the VAT.

For example, the Samsung 55HU8550 sells for $1799 at Best Buy while the UK version is 1999 pounds. The Panasonic 58" 800/802 model is selling for 1999 pounds in the UK vs. $2000 at Best Buy. 

For some reason, LG's OLED pricing hasnt quite followed this pattern, but I would put the equivalent pricing below $2500 in the US.


----------



## sstephen

This is another article about Kateeva and flexible displays
I doubt this will have much impact on oled tv production in the next couple of years since flexibility doesn't seem to be the biggest obstacle to production or adoption, but it might make flexible displays for the consumer more of a reality in the, well, maybe not near future, but the not too distant future.


----------



## Yappadappadu

slacker711 said:


> Its worth noting that the 55EC930V just saw a price drop from 2999 pounds to 1999 pounds in the UK. *This is at major UK retailers and doesnt look like a one-off sale.*


As we now know, it actually *is* a special price until December 17th. After that it'll return to the old price, though of course who knows for how long. I doubt that it has anything to do with the new fab. Too early for that IMO.


----------



## slacker711

Yappadappadu said:


> As we now know, it actually *is* a special price until December 17th. After that it'll return to the old price, though of course who knows for how long. I doubt that it has anything to do with the new fab. Too early for that IMO.


It looks like they added the dates after I posted. It isnt the new fab that would be driving this but the fact that they finally have overcome whatever issue was causing such low supply of the 55EC9300. Best Buy has had consistent inventory since the end of August but this past week was the first time that Amazon has also had units through a whole week. I think that there is a direct relationship between the increased supply and the sale price in the UK.


----------



## Yappadappadu

If that's the case then it hasn't reached Germany yet. Amazon has been out of stock for more than a week now. Same for other big retailers. Price still pretty high.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> It looks like they added the dates after I posted. It isnt the new fab that would be driving this but the fact that they finally have overcome whatever issue was causing such low supply of the 55EC9300. Best Buy has had consistent inventory since the end of August but this past week was the first time that Amazon has also had units through a whole week. I think that there is a direct relationship between the increased supply and the sale price in the UK.


Is there a 2K OLED planned for 2015 I wonder? Or is everything 4K by marketing necessity?


----------



## 8mile13

Philips: OLED not good enough yet


----------



## greenland

Samsung-Backed Kateeva Heralds Curved & Flexible OLED TV

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/kateeva-curved-201411213954.htm

"Samsung could be on the verge of re-entering the OLED TV race following an announcement from startup Kateeva that it’s perfected a new process of making the displays. Kateeva says its method will allow for the production of flexible OLED displays that can conform to almost any size and shape, without sustaining any damage.........


----------



## JWhip

Just another reason to wait another year. Sounds very promising.


----------



## sterlingjewel

Another year = 2016? Life's too short when you can bask in video nirvana now (or in a few short months).


----------



## liltalkm

greenland said:


> Samsung-Backed Kateeva Heralds Curved & Flexible OLED TV
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/kateeva-curved-201411213954.htm
> 
> "Samsung could be on the verge of re-entering the OLED TV race following an announcement from startup Kateeva that it’s perfected a new process of making the displays. Kateeva says its method will allow for the production of flexible OLED displays that can conform to almost any size and shape, without sustaining any damage.........



That is great news, but how long until a prototype, I wonder.

Seems that this is still a couple of years away. I hope this works out for Samsung and that they dive deep into the tech.


----------



## ChaosCloud

With LG's OLED implementation, poor near-black uniformity is IMO the most significant flaw at the moment - is this a result of the vacuum evaporation process? Is it something that Kateeva's printing method will resolve?


----------



## coolscan

Not exactly news, but..................

*The New Advancement in Display technology: LG Display’s Plastic OLED*

*LG will roll out those foldable, bendable display devices by 2017*

LG road map............








...........seems like nothing new or interesting will happen with LG or Samsung before 2017.............

Samsung to launch flexible display, cut smartphone models in 2015


----------



## stas3098

I've just read a brief from Merck and Philips. It says that EMD (Merck paid about 8 billion dollars to get them and spent billions and billions of dollars in R&D with BAFS to get to this point) are finally ready to start production they are expected to supply Kateva, Philips, Sony, Novaled and a whole bunch of other Korean, Japanese and Chinese firms. 


The most interesting thing about the brief is about Philips. Philips are getting ready to start making OLED lighting that is just as good as the sun for farming. It is expected to revolutionize the farming industry by 2030 by making BCs (closed farms) better for glowing plants than open farms and that might even solve the problem of food supply. I have been a participant in building "closed" farms with LED for quite a while now and I believe that with OLED people won't need the sun to "survive" and OLED will supplant the sun for agriculture soon enough.


Toshiba ,among others, are to build new OLED farms in the not so distance future. 


http://www.science-health.com/farming-future-toshibas-clean-factory/


P.S I think Samsung are getting in' with Kateeva to make lighting rather than TVs. Although we might see them making TVs as well.


----------



## wco81

Hmm, that's going to make the material expensive for TVs if there is a lot of demand for lighting.


----------



## stas3098

wco81 said:


> Hmm, that's going to make the material expensive for TVs if there is a lot of demand for lighting.


 
Quite to the contrary. The plan is to make OLED dirt-cheap for High Spectrum LED cost an arm and a leg to make and this is why Merck skipped on "LED" and invested into OLED. Merck believe they can make OLED material really cheap and last really long. 


Merck have the biggest LCD material plant ever built (it supplies like 99 percent of all LCD production (they supply singles for LCD) and sell over 60 percent of LCD due to antitrust legislation) and the plant they have in mind for OLED will be at least thrice the size.


The best thing about Merck is that they see the bigger picture. Form the get-go they knew that OLED never was about TVs they knew that OLED was liable to change the world.


It might seem like science fiction, but Merck together with Norway are planning to develop techniques to grow plants and use Cyanobacteria (Cyanobacteria produce much of the oxygen that we breathe) to make for a limitless supply of oxygen and food on the future space ships, stations and space cities. 


http://www.thelocal.no/20141121/norway-to-grow-food-crops-in-space


P.S Merck is not directly involved with the project it's their daughter companies who are.


----------



## mr. wally

wco81 said:


> Hmm, that's going to make the material expensive for TVs if there is a lot of demand for lighting.



hmmm,

tough call

watch oled display or grow pot


----------



## JimP

wco81 said:


> Hmm, that's going to make the material expensive for TVs if there is a lot of demand for lighting.


I wouldn't loose any sleep yet.

Regardless how cheap they can make it, sunlight for farming is free. How do you beat free?


----------



## stas3098

JimP said:


> I wouldn't loose any sleep yet.
> 
> Regardless how cheap they can make it, sunlight for farming is free. How do you beat free?


The sun light and climate are fickle and unreliable ( draughts, insects, crop-failures due to bad weather and such are the price the sunlight comes at) . "Open" farms are soon gonna be just a vestige of the past. Plus they take up a lot of space. 


You can build multi-storied farms (and to get quick access to aquifers you can build these farms underground) which can grow "clean" plants throughout the year. And in the future you can even build "closed" fruit-bearing tree groves using OLEDs and use OLEDs to grow grass and fodder for the cattle. The only reason why "closed" farms haven't taken off yet is because LED has very low spectral properties (plants don't seem to like LED in fact they prefer CFL lighting to low spectral LED and they just love high spectral OLED) and it cannot substitute for sunlight and OLED can. OLED can cover 100 percent of the visible spectrum (in some arrangements) and then some more.


If you can make OLED cheap and energy efficient enough than "open" farms will die a quick death.


----------



## htwaits

Are we talking about space ship earth for the day when being outside is too hazardous? Maybe a time when all the topsoil has been moved under ground.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

It's called Elon Musk's greenhouse on Mars.


----------



## rogo

The problems with traditional farming revolve around water and phosphate use more than anything. Both of those are increasingly scarce. Modern aquaponic farming in highrises might -- as stas says -- save the world.

And with that, I guess my self-imposed hiatus from this thread is over.


----------



## stas3098

I don't know about y'all, but I firmly believe that OLED will lend itself to much more than just a perfect TV. OLED is destined for great things and as some wise men here have noticed it might just *save the world* one day...


----------



## catonic

rogo said:


> .......And with that, I guess my self-imposed hiatus from this thread is over.


Welcome back to the world of jibber jabber Rogo. 
We have missed you.


----------



## catonic

stas3098 said:


> The sun light and climate are fickle and unreliable ( draughts, insects, crop-failures due to bad weather and such are the price the sunlight comes at) . "Open" farms are soon gonna be just a vestige of the past. Plus they take up a lot of space.
> 
> 
> You can build multi-storied farms (and to get quick access to aquifers you can build these farms underground) which can grow "clean" plants throughout the year. And in the future you can even build "closed" fruit-bearing tree groves using OLEDs and use OLEDs to grow grass and fodder for the cattle. The only reason why "closed" farms haven't taken off yet is because LED has very low spectral properties (plants don't seem to like LED in fact they prefer CFL lighting to low spectral LED and they just love high spectral OLED) and it cannot substitute for sunlight and OLED can. OLED can cover 100 percent of the visible spectrum (in some arrangements) and then some more.
> 
> 
> If you can make OLED cheap and energy efficient enough than "open" farms will die a quick death.


And I thought I was pushing the limits by going on about the Multiverse and such stuff *but*....???....goodness me!!! 
OLED's replacing the Sun, as far as farming is concerned anyway!!!!
You sure you haven't been partaking of that peyote you talked about previously Stas. 

P.S. That's a thought. Does peyote thrive under OLED lighting Stas??


----------



## JimP

catonic said:


> Welcome back to the world of jibber jabber Rogo.
> We have missed you.


Was he gone? When did he leave?


----------



## stas3098

catonic said:


> And I thought I was pushing the limits by going on about the Multiverse and such stuff *but*....???....goodness me!!!
> OLED's replacing the Sun, as far as farming is concerned anyway!!!!
> You sure you haven't been partaking of that peyote you talked about previously Stas.
> 
> P.S. That's a thought. Does peyote thrive under OLED lighting Stas??


I'm dead serious about farms. It's a real deal. The company I work with has a 3 year backlog for building such farms around the globe (and Mid East in particular). It's a bit freaky I know.


Here's a glimpse of the not-so distance future (20 to 30 years) as far as farming concerned.


http://www.science-health.com/farming-future-toshibas-clean-factory/


----------



## fredfish

stas3098 said:


> ... The only reason why "closed" farms haven't taken off yet is because LED has very low spectral properties (plants don't seem to like LED in fact they prefer CFL lighting to low spectral LED and they just love high spectral OLED) and it cannot substitute for sunlight and OLED can...


Stas. What do you mean by low spectral properties. Are you talking about the narow spectrum that most LEDs put out?


----------



## VA_DaveB

stas3098 said:


> I'm dead serious about farms. It's a real deal. The company I work with has a 3 year backlog for building such farms around the globe (and Mid East in particular). It's a bit freaky I know.


The Mid East, in particular, has no need of artificial sunlight. What they need is water and soil. Can OLEDs now make water? I guess you can use the sunlight to power the OLEDs and then farm underground if you were to insist on doing that.


----------



## stas3098

fredfish said:


> Stas. What do you mean by low spectral properties. Are you talking about the narow spectrum that most LEDs put out?


Yes, the narrow spectrum most cheap LEDs sport is _scheiße _when it comes to growing stuff.


----------



## stas3098

VA_DaveB said:


> The Mid East, in particular, has no need of artificial sunlight. What they need is water and soil. Can OLEDs now make water? I guess you can use the sunlight to power the OLEDs and then farm underground if you were to insist on doing that.


Have you ever heard of aquifers? 


I guess you haven't for otherwise you wouldn't have been asking whether OLEDs could _now_ make water.


----------



## tgm1024

This thread is a hoot!


----------



## VA_DaveB

stas3098 said:


> Have you ever heard of aquifers?
> 
> 
> I guess you haven't for otherwise you wouldn't have been asking whether OLEDs could _now_ make water.


 Sure but if they're there for underground farming, they're also already there for above ground farming.


----------



## rightintel

tgm1024 said:


> This thread is a hoot!


You mean practically dead.


----------



## rogo

VA_DaveB said:


> The Mid East, in particular, has no need of artificial sunlight. What they need is water and soil. Can OLEDs now make water? I guess you can use the sunlight to power the OLEDs and then farm underground if you were to insist on doing that.


With hydropnics, you (a) don't need soil and (b) need a fraction the water of traditional farming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics


----------



## stas3098

VA_DaveB said:


> Sure but if they're there for underground farming, they're also already there for above ground farming.


 
"Sky-farms" are nothing new, in fact I have been hearing about such projects since early 2000s. Howbeit, the research I have seen so far states that these types of farms are very impractical i.e. expensive and underground farms appear somewhat more practical in the foreseeable future from engineering and economic viability standpoints, respectively.


http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/sky-farm-proposed-for-downtown-toronto.html


The main reason why the Mid East oil-rich countries want these farms built is because they have oodles of money to "burn". I mean if they can build a 1000m tall skyscraper that has little to none economic viability then why the hell can't they build closed farms?


----------



## slacker711

I assume most saw the 65" 4K review but I think it is worth posting here as well. 

http://televisions.reviewed.com/content/lg-65ec9700-4k-oled-tv-review

Two things stand out in a big picture way.

1) LG says that they are guaranteeing minimum degradation for 10 years. They did decrease the luminance from the 2013 models, but the "reference" white is still higher than the 55EC9300. I'm not sure what "reference" white is in this context since the review also gives a full screen white figure (only 50 cd/m2) and one for a small area of white (225 cd/m2).

2) This unit has substantially better uniformity than the 55EC9300. It might be an "engineering sample", but I would assume that the same description would apply to the 55" unit that was reviewed. If the uniformity holds up, it probably indicates some better manufacturing processes. Hopefully, that translates to increased yields as well.


Slacker


----------



## slacker711

I assume most saw the 65" 4K review but I think it is worth posting here as well. 

http://televisions.reviewed.com/content/lg-65ec9700-4k-oled-tv-review

Two things stand out in a big picture way.

1) LG says that they are guaranteeing minimum degradation for 10 years. They did decrease the luminance from the 2013 models, but the "reference" white is still higher than the 55EC9300. I'm not sure what "reference" white is in this context since the review also gives a full screen white figure (only 50 cd/m2) and one for a small area of white (225 cd/m2).

2) This unit has substantially better uniformity than the 55EC9300. It might be an engineering sample, but I would assume that the same description would apply to the 55" unit that was reviewed. If the uniformity holds up, it probably indicates some better manufacturing processes. Hopefully, that translates to increased yields as well.


----------



## wco81

Hmm, the 10 year guarantee is interesting but it's way too early for a 4K TV at any price above $5k.

Does this have HDMI 2.0? Is the color gamut settled or will this model not be fully capable of displaying 4K Blu Ray, which won't be finalized until next year?

It's good to hear that the scaler does well with Blu Rays but there would need to be several content questions settled:

1. It would have to do well displaying live sports. This would probably mean upscaling for awhile, perhaps forever.

2. Affordable 4K Blu Ray players and discs.

3. Affordable receivers with HDMI 2.0

4. AppleTV which supports 4K, so I can AirPlay my full-frame DSLR RAWs. Slide shows should look as good as they do on my MacBook Pro Retina from distance.


----------



## sterlingjewel

^How long would you be willing to wait for "affordable" 4K Blu-ray players and discs? I see little reason to wait for the 2015 models (in 2016 at this rate) in the vain hope that you'll have full compatibility to view a format that is in all likelihood to be DOA, if it arrives at all.


----------



## wco81

Well, maybe $300 players and $30 discs.

If there isn't 4K disc content, then what good are 4K TVs? You going to be satisfied with Netflix and Youtube for native 4K content?

If Hollywood plays games with releasing 4K content, then the format flounders, no matter how cheap 4K TVs (non OLED of course) have gotten.


----------



## sterlingjewel

They'll be as good as their upscalers and streaming will unfortunately have to suffice (digital downloads or media servers being the high-cost and high-quality option). Otherwise I don't care that it's a 4K TV (OLED at above 55" isn't offered in HD)...I mainly care about the OLED component. I hope I'm wrong about the forthcoming media, but it seems like the ship has sailed on new disc-based formats.


----------



## tgm1024

sterlingjewel said:


> They'll be as good as their upscalers and streaming will unfortunately have to suffice (digital downloads or media servers being the high-cost and high-quality option). Otherwise I don't care that it's a 4K TV (OLED at above 55" isn't offered in HD)...I mainly care about the OLED component. I hope I'm wrong about the forthcoming media, but it seems like the ship has sailed on new disc-based formats.



It's scares me, but the more I look into it, the more the dubious the fate of all hard media seems to be.


----------



## mo949

I'm digging the 'going out of business' prices


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Well then 4k adoption will just have to be driven by reasons _other_ than video content .


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> It's scares me, but the more I look into it, the more the dubious the fate of all hard media seems to be.


http://bgr.com/2014/01/08/digital-movie-sales-up-47-percent/


_“We’ve seen a fundamental shift in consumer behavior based on that early digital availability,” said Ron Sanders, home entertainment president at Warner Bros. With cheaper prices and faster availability, online sales and __streaming services__ are poised to eclipse the physical market altogether before long. A graph of the revenue trends follows below"_


They seem to think that digital sales is the futures for high quality content... and their definition of high quality seems to be 2gb per hour of fullHD video.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

And you guys seem to think that digital streaming can never match the quality of physical. You guys realize that many Blu-rays commonly have a bitrate around 40Mbps, which is actually feasable to stream on some non-Google Fiber internet connections? Now factor in ever-evolving codecs like h.265, VP9/10, Daala...


----------



## sterlingjewel

I'm not one of those "guys," but those connections are still the exception rather than the norm.  It also removes the value of ownership from the equation especially since there will be layers upon layers of DRM that the content owner can change or remove without notice.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

sterlingjewel said:


> I'm not one of those "guys," but those connections are still the exception rather than the norm.


And h.264 is an aging codec as well, though also a mature one. I wonder how many bits could be saved just by using a modern version of x264?



sterlingjewel said:


> It also removes the value of ownership from the equation especially since there will be layers upon layers of DRM that the content owner can change or remove without notice.


It's not like DRM-free downloads aren't possible. DRM is purely a political issue, not a technical one.


----------



## wco81

Not to mention bandwidth caps.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

wco81 said:


> Not to mention bandwidth caps.


Not a technical limitation, but an artificial one.


----------



## wco81

You *technically* can't find reasonable ISPs without bandwidth caps.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

wco81 said:


> You *technically* can't find reasonable ISPs without bandwidth caps.


...uhh, I know the entire world isn't the US, but outside of mobile, ISPs without bandwidth caps is the standard in the US.

Now such a position has constantly been put in jeoparty over the last few years, but so far they've always back off the idea after much outcry, especially as lack of ISP competition has been getting more and more attentions along with the likes of actual legit ISP competition (to quote Google, the idea of fiber isn't to beat the incumbent ISPs but to "totally embarrass" them.)

*DISCLAIMER:* I run a measly 3Mbps down DSL connection. However, it _is_ uncapped.


----------



## wco81

You think there will be more or fewer caps if streaming of 4K videos becomes common?

Comcast isn't going to mind that their networks are going to be stressed to stream content for which they don't get paid?

Who cares about the rest of the world, the US market has unique restrictions that other countries do not have and vice versa.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

wco81 said:


> You think there will be more or fewer caps if streaming of 4K videos becomes common?


You think there will be more caps with more ISP competition and ISP scrutiny occuring?



wco81 said:


> Comcast isn't going to mind that their networks are going to be stressed to stream content for which they don't get paid?


Oh they'll mind, but their victims customers will mind even more. Comcast already tried caps before, and last time I checked they're not still in place

If you do an internet search on the matter, 99% of the results are about Comcast considering such a thing, not them actually implementing it. However, if you look at the date of said articles, you'll notice that it's happened multiple times now, and yet here we are today without an official cap, and any "quiet" or "unofficial" caps just proves my point about ISP scrutiny.


*EDIT:* Ok, I'll admit that you're at least half right. Comcast does in fact have some official caps, but only in certain trial areas of the south with their Xfinity service. However, I also recall them having trialed data caps in New England a few years back, and that didn't last.


----------



## stas3098

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Not a technical limitation, but an artificial one.


Technically, they might have to change over to optical fiber cables from copper ones to *stream* Blu-ray-grade content and that change won't come cheap...


----------



## stas3098

NintendoManiac64 said:


> And h.264 is an aging codec as well, though also a mature one. I wonder how many bits could be saved just by using a modern version of x264?


 
I've heard of tales of guys encoding video with 14 bits via h.264 through some custom builds.


However, 12 bit is official max (meaning they decided not to bother with increasing bit depth beyond this point, but it doesn't mean you cannot raise max bit depth on your own)




http://www.design-reuse.com/articles/20776/h-264-high-profile-codec-video.html


By the way, h.265 currently only supports 10 bit depth and according to some due to its algorithm it is unlikely to go past 12 bit. So basically h.264 and h.265 are on the same level as far as bit depth concerned.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

You're mixing up bitrate and bitdepth...



stas3098 said:


> Technically, they might have to change over to optical fiber cables from copper ones to *stream* Blu-ray-grade content and that change won't come cheap...


Encode into h.265 or the like and that's 50% less bandwidth right there. 20Mbps is totally possible over non-fiber.


----------



## rogo

Comcast essentially suspended bandwidth caps 3 years ago in almost the entire country.

They keep hinting they may come back, but there isn't a lot of evidence they will be especially onerous.


----------



## JazzGuyy

Not true. I got a nasty call about 6 months ago from Comcast because I accidentally exceeded the cap level.


----------



## rogo

JazzGuyy said:


> Not true. I got a nasty call about 6 months ago from Comcast because I accidentally exceeded the cap level.


Actually, it is true, except I got the year wrong:



> "IMPORTANT UPDATE (May 17, 2012): Effective immediately, we've decided to change our Data Usage Plan and replace our 250 GB monthly data usage allowance with a more flexible one. Our goal is to provide options that benefit consumers while also ensuring that all of our customers enjoy the best possible Internet experience over our high-speed data service. To accomplish this, we are going to trial improved data usage management approaches that are in step with plans that other Internet service providers in the market are using and will provide our customers with more choice and flexibility than our current plan. More information can be found in the Q&A below."


That page was updated by Comcast on: September 22, 2014 at 7:37 PM

It is most certainly the policy of Comcast. 

If you had read my post, you'd have seen some very critical, carefully chosen language:

"Comcast essentially suspended bandwidth caps 3 years ago *in almost the entire country*"

This page shows you the critical exceptions to the list:

http://customer.comcast.com/help-an...-usage-what-are-the-different-plans-launching

Here's the policy for Tucson (and the greater Tucson area):



> In the Tucson, Arizona market, we announced in 2012 that the data amount included with Economy Plus through Performance XFINITY Internet tiers would increase from 250 GB to 300 GB. Those customers subscribed to the Blast! Internet tier, have received an increase in their data usage plan to 350 GB; Extreme 50 customers have received an increase to 450 GB; Extreme 105 customers have received an increase to 600 GB. As in our other trial market areas, we offer additional gigabytes in increments/blocks of 50 GB for $10.00 each in the event the customer exceeds their included data amount. This trial began on October 1, 2012.


Respect intended to everyone who disagrees, but the above policy is almost certainly going to be the way Comcast sells internet across the country. You know why? It's hugely fair. The percent of people who exceed the caps listed above is well under 1%. Those people have a mechanism to pay for more bandwidth. It's entirely unclear why you'd have gotten a nasty call; the policy is merely to bill you for overages at $10/50GB. (The median Comcast broadband customer uses 20-205GB of bandwidth per month.)

There is no market in the country where Comcast's policy is to suspend customers for exceeding the limits. Limits either are not currently enforced or allow for purchases of additional bandwidth. If you received a nasty call, that's pretty inexcusable customer service.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

rogo said:


> It's hugely fair.


I'm going to bow out of directly commenting any farther on the subject at hand, but I'd like to point out that I hope you know what you're doing because you just made a large amount of the internet your enemy.


----------



## sterlingjewel

This will make 4K streaming a nonstarter for many. I'd personally be sunk, as I used 600GB last month. Comcast, leading the way to an Internet dark age.


----------



## JazzGuyy

rogo said:


> Actually, it is true, except I got the year wrong:
> 
> 
> 
> That page was updated by Comcast on: September 22, 2014 at 7:37 PM
> 
> It is most certainly the policy of Comcast.
> 
> If you had read my post, you'd have seen some very critical, carefully chosen language:
> 
> "Comcast essentially suspended bandwidth caps 3 years ago *in almost the entire country*"
> 
> This page shows you the critical exceptions to the list:
> 
> http://customer.comcast.com/help-an...-usage-what-are-the-different-plans-launching
> 
> Here's the policy for Tucson (and the greater Tucson area):
> 
> 
> 
> Respect intended to everyone who disagrees, but the above policy is almost certainly going to be the way Comcast sells internet across the country. You know why? It's hugely fair. The percent of people who exceed the caps listed above is well under 1%. Those people have a mechanism to pay for more bandwidth. It's entirely unclear why you'd have gotten a nasty call; the policy is merely to bill you for overages at $10/50GB. (The median Comcast broadband customer uses 20-205GB of bandwidth per month.)
> 
> There is no market in the country where Comcast's policy is to suspend customers for exceeding the limits. Limits either are not currently enforced or allow for purchases of additional bandwidth. If you received a nasty call, that's pretty inexcusable customer service.


They will not suspend you but they will charge you a hefty fee for exceeding your limits. 


BTW, just so everyone will understand how I got the call from Comcast: I was upgrading from Windows 8 to 8.1 and there was a problem with the download only getting halfway completed and then would restart from the beginning. Since it was running in the background, I had no idea this was happening and it didn't take that long to exceed the limits. That's when I got the call. The problem was fixed and I have never had a recurrence. I don't come anywhere close to even reaching the limit but I am also not a big streamer.


----------



## kdog750

Cable companies are losing a lot of revenue from people canceling cable and just using streaming internet services. If they don't get their way with net neutrality, I suspect they will make up the lost revenue on the ISP side by drastically lowering those caps. Perhaps 50 gigs per month with maybe a $1 per 2 gigs overage charge. That would make up the money they lose on cable cancellations.


----------



## rogo

NintendoManiac64 said:


> I'm going to bow out of directly commenting any farther on the subject at hand, but I'd like to point out that I hope you know what you're doing because you just made a large amount of the internet your enemy.


I'm a capitalist. Forgive me!

When far in excess of 99% of people can live inside of a 250-600GB cap (depending on which plan they order), I don't see any problem at all charging the


----------



## wco81

In any event, and maybe this isn't the right thread, the prospects for 4K content doesn't seem too bright. ATSC 3.0 is being worked on but it sounds like that's mainly an opportunity for companies to get their patents in line and for some broadcasters to offer services to mobile devices, not so much high-end displays.

One of the reasons OLED is tied with 4K is that plasma couldn't move to 4K?


----------



## JazzGuyy

rogo said:


> I'm a capitalist. Forgive me!
> 
> When far in excess of 99% of people can live inside of a 250-600GB cap (depending on which plan they order), I don't see any problem at all charging the


----------



## tgm1024

JazzGuyy said:


> BTW, I think Comcast will be out of the cable TV business within the next decade and will be strictly a content provider (NBC, Universal, etc.) _[...]_


Comcast might well want to be another HBO/Netflix, etc., someday. There's proven money there so long as you can deliver proven quality, and a emotional handcuff too: folks "hooked" on the Comcast equivalent of the Sopranos or Homeland would be less likely to hop to Verizon.

But more to the 2nd point:



JazzGuyy said:


> and a bandwidth provider via their cables and fiber.


...To me it's a fair bet that "billing data only" is the destination business model for all current cable companies, while leaving how you use the data to you. There's been an awakening to the idea that TV _is_ data for decades (whether or not it seemed that way at first), and it might well be the only model that makes sense: sell bits _as _bits and not as some weird digital equivalent of the old analog TV era.


----------



## stas3098

NintendoManiac64 said:


> You're mixing up bitrate and bitdepth...
> 
> 
> Encode into h.265 or the like and that's 50% less bandwidth right there. 20Mbps is totally possible over non-fiber.


 
I don't understand a whole lot about bits and streaming, but this what I've been told over and over again in so many words ,of course:


Web is 2 to 4gb (4k) per hour and blu ray is 20gb. 20gb per hour for web (steaming) is ,currently, an impossibility. Forget it, man... 4k blu ray is thought to go up to 50gb per hour while using all the new compression technics...


----------



## stas3098

And by the way guys with 20gb per hour and the average cap of 400gb you will only get 20 hours of video per month per household...


----------



## wco81

Yeah it's 8 dual-layer Blu-Ray disks.

Who knows what the data requirements of 4k video are going to be. Even with efficient codecs, you're probably talking dozens of gigs per movie.


----------



## stas3098

wco81 said:


> Yeah it's 8 dual-layer Blu-Ray disks.
> 
> Who knows what the data requirements of 4k video are going to be. Even with efficient codecs, you're probably talking dozens of gigs per movie.


http://www.cnet.com/news/4k-blu-ray-discs-arriving-in-2015-to-fight-streaming-media/


The new 4K Blu-ray drive players will be able to extract data from discs at 82 megabits per second for 50GB discs, 108Mbps for 66GB discs, and 128Mbps for *100GB discs*. The technology quadruples the number of pixels from 1,920x1,080 pixels with today's HD to 3,820x2,160 pixels with UHD.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

stas3098 said:


> The new 4K Blu-ray drive players will be able to extract data from discs at *82 megabits* per second for 50GB discs, *108Mbps* for 66GB discs, and *128Mbps* for 100GB discs. The technology quadruples the number of pixels from 1,920x1,080 pixels with today's HD to 3,820x2,160 pixels with UHD.


The parts that I bolded are the important parts, not the amount that the discs can hold.


----------



## stas3098

NintendoManiac64 said:


> The parts that I bolded are the important parts, not the amount that the discs can hold.


I don't agree with this. The bit rate is not the best benchmark to judge the quality ( like YT 1080p videos have the 4mb bit rate and the 1.2gb per hour size and they look like sh!t to me). I'd say the size matters here most, I mean the more bits per hour there are the better quality is (for the same codec at least), it's just as simple as that. Or are you saying that Netflix is gonna up and start streaming movies with the average size of 100gb and about 50gb per hour some day soon?


----------



## stas3098

Paint me a pessimist, but I think that our only real chance to truly enjoy the full magnificence of OLED in full panoply is 4k Blu-ray.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

stas3098 said:


> I don't agree with this.


Uhhh.... you realize that bitrate is a direct indication of video size, right? Disc size however, is _not_ a direct indicator of video size but rather a direct indicator of how much content it can hold overall.

For example, a 10 second video with a bitrate of 8Mbps (1MB/s) will _always_ have a filesize of 10 MB before adding in audio.




stas3098 said:


> Paint me a pessimist, but I think that our only real chance to truly enjoy the full magnificence of OLED in full panoply is 4k Blu-ray.


You don't do photos and games much, do you?




stas3098 said:


> like YT 1080p videos have the 4mb bit rate and the 1.2gb per hour size and they look like sh!t to me


The encoding makes a big difference - YouTube's h.264 encodes are set for fast and therefore lower quality; it's their VP9/WebM encodes that are of considerably better quality (specifically the motion resolution), though they may still not be good enough for AVS standards.


----------



## timc1475

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Uhhh.... you realize that bitrate is a direct indication of video size, right? Disc size however, is _not_ a direct indicator of video size but rather a direct indicator of how much content it can hold overall.
> 
> For example, a 10 second video with a bitrate of 8Mbps (1MB/s) will _always_ have a filesize of 10 MB before adding in audio.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't do photos and games much, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> The encoding makes a big difference - their h.264 encodes are set for fast and lower quality; it's YouTube's VP9/WebM encodes that are of considerably better quality (specifically the motion resolution, though they may still not be good enough for AVS standards)


LOL I gotta chuckle Nintendo the way you intellectually spar on these forums is reminiscent like your in a video game with a flaming knowledge sword. You throw down girl!


----------



## stas3098

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Uhhh.... you realize that bitrate is a direct indication of video size, right? Disc size however, is _not_ a direct indicator of video size but rather a direct indicator of how much content it can hold overall.
> 
> For example, a 10 second video with a bitrate of 8Mbps (1MB/s) will _always_ have a filesize of 10 MB before adding in audio.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't do photos and games much, do you?


I know that, but you seem to have missed my point ( I was talking more about the bandwidth caps and by the by, I can see them coming in the foreseeable future). 
An hour of video on Blu-ray has ,usually, the size of 20GB which equates to the total of 55000kb per second. For 4k it's going to be doubled, at least. Basically, you will have to stream at (over) 100mb per second to match 4k Blu-ray and the best Netflix has to offer falls about 10 times short of that...


----------



## NintendoManiac64

stas3098 said:


> An hour of video on Blu-ray has usually size of 20GB which equates to the total of 55000kb per second.


You know that the Blu-ray specification states a 40Mbps bitrate, right?




stas3098 said:


> For 4k it's going to be doubled, at least. Basically, you will have to stream at (over) 100mb per second to match 4k Blu-ray and the best Netflix has to offer falls about 10 times short of that...


The only thing I stated that would be feasible with currently-available technology on anything other than Fiber connections was Blu-ray quality streaming using a better codec - I did not mention 4k Blu-ray (and if I did, it was either a mistake or a misinterpretation).





timc1475 said:


> LOL I gotta chuckle Nintendo the way you intellectually spar on these forums is reminiscent like your in a video game with a flaming knowledge sword. You throw down girl!


Psst, my avatar. Do a reverse Google image search.


----------



## rogo

JazzGuyy said:


> No. There was no threat to cut you off. In fact, I learned that they will give you up to three chances when you exceed the limit before charging you extra but the extra fee that I remember being quoted was $5.00 per GB but it is not unusual for Comcast people to be uninformed. But it was very clearly intended as a warning. I am not a low bandwidth user. I average about 150 GB per month of usage, unless you consider that low.


I don't understand why you are FUD-ing on this.

I linked Comcast's pages on how you are charged. It's $10 per 50 GB. That's the overage.

As for 150GB per month, no you are not a low-bandwidth user. You are a high-ish one. But clearly they detected your >250 or >300 (depending on tier) as out of bounds enough to help you catch the usage. This sounds like service, not a threat or warning. 


> There are ways (not necessarily at a low cost) to get unlimited bandwidth with Comcast but I am not interested in going that route.


No, you seem interested in spreading FUD where Comcast is clearly in rush to re-impose caps. Most of the country has been cap free for >2 years.


> BTW, I think Comcast will be out of the cable TV business within the next decade and will be strictly a content provider (NBC, Universal, etc.) and a bandwidth provider via their cables and fiber.


I don't see them rushing to give up a video business with such strong margins. But I certainly agree they could afford to if cord cutting/over the top ever becomes more than a fringe phenomenon.


----------



## stas3098

NintendoManiac64 said:


> You know that the Blu-ray specification states a 40Mbps bitrate, right?
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing I stated that would be feasible with currently-available technology on anything other than Fiber connections was Blu-ray quality streaming using a better codec - I did not mention 4k Blu-ray (and if I did, it was either a mistake or a misinterpretation).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Psst, my avatar. Do a reverse Google image search.*


Fate/stay night, huh...


----------



## JazzGuyy

rogo said:


> No, you seem interested in spreading FUD where Comcast is clearly in rush to re-impose caps. Most of the country has been cap free for >2 years.


I am not interested in arguing with you or spreading FUD. I simply reported what had happened to me and you seem to doubt it did. There may not be caps from Comcast everywhere or they may not be being enforced but there are clearly caps where I live and, while not resulting in cancellation of service, can still mean financial costs when they are exceeded and these costs may not be evident to the average Comcast customer. I have been a Comcast customer in various cities for over 30 years so I am familiar with working with them. I also know that many of their reps have little real knowledge of corporate policies and products beyond the scripts that they read from. BTW, the caps have gradually increased over the last few years from 250 to 300 and now 350 gig and I will give Comcast credit for that.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

stas3098 said:


> Fate/stay night, huh...


My comment was in response to the other guy. The character in my avatar is actually somewhat close to what he described.


----------



## rogo

JazzGuyy said:


> I am not interested in arguing with you or spreading FUD.


You may not be interesting in spreading FUD, but that's what you're doing.


> I simply reported what had happened to me and you seem to doubt it did.


No, I have full confidence you got called about overages. What I am trying to clarify is the specifics and because I can literally cite the policy, it would help if you'd come back with details consistent with that. Instead, you are coming up with vague memories wildly inconsistent with it. Those are FUD.


> There may not be caps from Comcast everywhere or they may not be being enforced but there are clearly caps where I live and, while not resulting in cancellation of service, can still mean financial costs when they are exceeded and these costs may not be evident to the average Comcast customer.


And there you go again. That's just more FUD.

The policy in Arizona is absolutely crystal clear. It's based on your plan and how much you go over. And you pay $10 per 50GB. And because the policy is "new-ish" -- 2 years or so -- they are actually proactively calling people who over and letting you know.

Their "bedside manner" might suck, but it's really hard to argue this is bad. The old method where they just dropped people who had overages twice? That was awful.


> I have been a Comcast customer in various cities for over 30 years so I am familiar with working with them. I also know that many of their reps have little real knowledge of corporate policies and products beyond the scripts that they read from. BTW, the caps have gradually increased over the last few years from 250 to 300 and now 350 gig and I will give Comcast credit for that.


Right. The caps are *huge*. Most people will never touch them. $10 gets you 50 freaking more gigabytes. Need more? But Extreme 105 with 600GB included!

Claims about $5 per GB are simply false. It was $1 per GB in selected regions and those trials are over. They existed only on "low use" plans that (a) didn't seem to be offered in Arizona (b) required extremely light users to opt in for a discount (c) are terrible and should not become part of the long-run offering for Comcast. They will cause headaches when someone gets a bill for $5000, which would happen. It was a terrible test, but was not even offered in Arizona.

And, again, it's all spelled out on Comcast's website.


----------



## JazzGuyy

rogo said:


> And there you go again. That's just more FUD.


I have no interest in cluttering up this thread further with this discussion since it off-topic. I will send you a PM, should you care to read it. Basically, it is about how one defines a cap, which is where we seem to disagree.


----------



## rogo

JazzGuyy said:


> I have no interest in cluttering up this thread further with this discussion since it off-topic. I will send you a PM, should you care to read it. Basically, it is about how one defines a cap, which is where we seem to disagree.


We don't disagree on that at all. I have responded to your PM (which I do almost all the time for PMs, incidentally.)


----------



## MikeBiker

A couple of weeks ago, I was able to drop Comcast and hook-up to a Gigabit fiber connection.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

sterlingjewel said:


> ^Which company? Google? CenturyStink?!


Thought this was the OLED TV technology thread. 

Another vote for the moderator wiping out all the off topic posts. If nothing is happening with OLED just say so and cut the discussion off.


----------



## sterlingjewel

The only thing worse than off-topic posts is armchair moderation, but I've deleted my OT contribution nonetheless based on your demands.


----------



## wco81

Because right now, you get an OLED and it's likely to be 4K and to get 4K content, you might be limited to streaming.

Then your Internet connection speeds and data caps come into play.


----------



## domm

sterlingjewel said:


> The only thing worse than off-topic posts is armchair moderation, but I've deleted my OT contribution nonetheless based on your demands.


In my opinion, you should have left the post right where it was for all to read & discuss. I to believe it is relevant to this 4K OLED thread.


----------



## sterlingjewel

Thanks, it was something I could easily research anyway.  Looks like Longmont, CO voted to deploy municipal fiber...nice perk for the 4K owners viewers in that area (with the side effect of tax increases to pay for it).


----------



## Postmoderndesign

sterlingjewel said:


> The only thing worse than off-topic posts is armchair moderation, but I've deleted my OT contribution nonetheless based on your demands.


Thanks

I get off topic sometimes too. I did not mean to be harsh

Actually, my very limited understanding if that so far manufacturing large OLED panels has not been commercially viable. Everyone but the Koreans, ie. LG and possibly Samsung has ceased development.

I checked out this thread to see if anyone knows what LG or Samsung is doing with development of OLED.

I have a 2008 Panasonic Plasma which I am still happy with, but it won't last forever.

I won't even start in on all the problems needed to be solved for 4K.


----------



## sterlingjewel

^Sorry about the white noise. Rest assured LG is where it's at right now, with an OLED roadmap to boot...they are the only ones in the game with the sole hope of making it commercially viable in the next 2 years. Samsung and others are at least 2 years away from incorporating printing tech to make OLEDs.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

sterlingjewel said:


> ^Sorry about the white noise. Rest assured LG is where it's at right now, with an OLED roadmap to boot...they are the only ones in the game with the sole hope of making it commercially viable in the next 2 years. Samsung and others are at least 2 years away from incorporating printing tech to make OLEDs.


Thanks, that is exactly the information I was looking for and you told me where to look to learn more. I am starting with lgoledlight.com


----------



## sterlingjewel

That's more for lighting but still important as to the overall development of the tech and how adoptable it is. Here's product info on all of the OLED TVs LG has launched so far: http://www.lg.com/us/oled-tvs (including a few models to come).


----------



## Postmoderndesign

sterlingjewel said:


> That's more for lighting but still important as to the overall development of the tech and how adoptable it is. Here's product info on all of the OLED TVs LG has launched so far: http://www.lg.com/us/oled-tvs (including a few models to come).


Thanks again...just what I was looking for.


----------



## irkuck

Postmoderndesign said:


> I checked out this thread to see if anyone knows what LG or Samsung is doing with development of OLED.





Postmoderndesign said:


> Thanks again...just what I was looking for.


Just wait three more weeks to the CES'15 to see the full lineup of OLED models _coming_ from the LG. According to some the breadth and width of this lineup will be breathtaking as LG just started huge OLED manufacturing plant.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

irkuck said:


> Just wait three more weeks to the CES'15 to see the full lineup of OLED models _coming_ from the LG. According to some the breadth and width of this lineup will be breathtaking as LG just started huge OLED manufacturing plant.


Should LG build their huge OLED production plant I would guess they have solved their low yield manufacturing problem and can bring remarkable quality 4K OLED to market at a competitive cost.

Now if I can only learn patience and to be less skeptical.

After all, the industry said they would be able to produce TVs that you can hang on a wall like a picture and will produce an amazing picture. It took ten years but they did it.


----------



## andy sullivan

Does LG use a specific panel type with OLED TV's? Like IPS and PVA panels now used with LED/LCD.


----------



## JimP

Postmoderndesign said:


> Should LG build their huge OLED production plant I would guess they have solved their low yield manufacturing problem and can bring remarkable quality 4K OLED to market at a competitive cost.


That's the direction this is suppose to be going but when the industry isn't particularly forthcoming, I'd rather take a wait and see perspective.


----------



## rogo

Postmoderndesign said:


> Should LG build their huge OLED production plant I would guess they have solved their low yield manufacturing problem and can bring remarkable quality 4K OLED to market at a competitive cost.


They've already built the M2 plant, but it's not exactly huge. It wouldn't supply even 1% of the world's TV demand. It's not fully ramped up yet (information indicates it just started production), but it will help close the cost gap. It has no real chance of eliminating it.



andy sullivan said:


> Does LG use a specific panel type with OLED TV's? Like IPS and PVA panels now used with LED/LCD.


OLED doesn't work like that, Andy. Maybe just a few quick works on LCD to help explain....

LCD is two major layers... .The TFT backplane, the LCD layer. The part that's IPS or VA is the LCD layer. It's also the part that goes away on OLED. (Notably, LG uses a color filter layer on both their OLEDs and LCD which is pretty similar on both... Most LCDs use very very similar color filter layers with the caveat that Sharp uses a 4th color -- yellow -- that no one else really uses.)

The backplane layer can be a-Si (amorphous silicon), LTPS (low temperature polysilicion, or oxide TFT (most commonly indium gallium zinc oxide, known as IGZO). LG uses IGZO backplanes on their OLEDs and will eventually use them on all their LCDs -- or some other oxide. The reason is that IGZO has better power characteristics than silicon-based backplanes and is ostensibly cheaper. But that cost edge comes with volumes... So LG wants to make tons of them. 

Now, as to the OLED layer, there are different types of OLED layers. There are the obvious distinctions of RGB vs. W-RGB. The RGB, direct emission model has no color filter and has distinctly colored sub pixels. The W-RGB model used by LG has four white sub pixels, three of which are color filtered to red, green and blue one of which is allowed to emit white without a filter.

The OLED layer itself can be "top emission" or "bottom emission", but it's important to mention that 100% of the future of OLED is top emission it seems so it's not very valuable to discuss this arcana right now.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> The OLED layer itself can be "top emission" or "bottom emission", but it's important to mention that 100% of the future of OLED is top emission it seems so it's not very valuable to discuss this arcana right now.


Funny you brought this up. Most of the diagrams that I've seen that came directly from the kodak patents and white papers on the layered design show the light emitting downward (though I have seen both). But as soon as a 3rd and 4th parties got a hold of that information, the diagrams seemed to have become 100% diagrammed as upward emitting.

Perhaps at least part of the confusion came around when the diagrams labeled a prominent "glass layer" on them, and people confused that with the facing glass of the display, when it was likely the substrate they were referring to. (?)


----------



## Postmoderndesign

rogo said:


> They've already built the M2 plant, but it's not exactly huge. It wouldn't supply even 1% of the world's TV demand. It's not fully ramped up yet (information indicates it just started production), but it will help close the cost gap. It has no real chance of eliminating it./QUOTE]
> 
> Useful information suggesting that 77 inch screens will not fall below $5,000 dollars for a few years. I realize any estimate of time and cost is pure conjecture but at least there is a commitment to continue development.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> Funny you brought this up. Most of the diagrams that I've seen that came directly from the kodak patents and white papers on the layered design show the light emitting downward (though I have seen both). But as soon as a 3rd and 4th parties got a hold of that information, the diagrams seemed to have become 100% diagrammed as upward emitting.
> 
> Perhaps at least part of the confusion came around when the diagrams labeled a prominent "glass layer" on them, and people confused that with the facing glass of the display, when it was likely the substrate they were referring to. (?)


I can't comment on what's shown on diagrams I'm not looking at.

I can comment a bit on the fact that early OLED designs were bottom emission mostly (entirely?). There's been a move away from that and toward top emission, which should allow for brighter (more power efficient displays). Sony, for example, made a point of trashing bottom emission back when it duped people (some people) it had an intention of making OLED displays when it showed off the 4K prototype.

LG has some recent-ish patent concerning top emission: 

http://www.4-traders.com/LG-DISPLAY...t-Emitting-Diode-Display-Device-Hav-18930895/

It seems like as the process tech is perfected, this becomes more realistic to do at scale, but that's speculation.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

rogo said:


> Sony, for example, made a point of trashing bottom emission back when it duped people (some people) it had an intention of making OLED displays when it showed off the 4K prototype.


Umm...

https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-oled/

I think you should correct your post to say "OLED TVs" rather than "OLED displays".

(I will note however that it kind of seems like the PVM models may have been discontinued, but those were always 2nd tier to the BVM models)


----------



## kucharsk

Postmoderndesign said:


> rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Useful information suggesting that 77 inch screens will not fall below $5,000 dollars for a few years. I realize any estimate of time and cost is pure conjecture but at least there is a commitment to continue development.
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest; I'd be surprised if *65*" OLEDs fell below $5000 anytime soon.
> 
> That's not derisive in any way as it took about six or seven years for 65" plasma to fall below $5000.
Click to expand...


----------



## rogo

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Umm...
> 
> https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-oled/
> 
> I think you should correct your post to say "OLED TVs" rather than "OLED displays".
> 
> (I will note however that it kind of seems like the PVM models may have been discontinued, but those were always 2nd tier to the BVM models)


I'm probably going to just put you on block from here. I really don't care for your nitpicking, semantic manner at all.

Everyone knew what I meant.

I'm also well familiar with Sony's astronomically priced, tiny volume broadcast OLED monitors. 

Samsung sells more TVs (that's TV, generally speaking, of all kinds... in case you were confused, which you weren't, but I wanted to leave you without any confusion) in one hour than Sony sells of those in a year. 

So, no, I'm not correcting a post that didn't confuse anyone. Including you.

Good day and live well.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

rogo said:


> Everyone knew what I meant.


I didn't, I legitamately thought you meant OLED technology as a whole since that would include the likes of the PlayStation Vita as well (which is relevant because Sony switched from OLED to LCD for the Vita revision).


----------



## rogo

NintendoManiac64 said:


> I didn't, I legitamately thought you meant OLED technology as a whole since that would include the likes of the PlayStation Vita as well (which is relevant because Sony switched from OLED to LCD for the Vita revision).


Fine, noted. My apologies then.

Sony didn't make those displays in the Vita either. It was a Samsung.

Sony's entire flat-panel display output since the start of the flat-panel era (that includes all plasmas and LCDs), including all its professional gear, whatever small-scale stuff it has done, etc. would still be less than a year of Samsung's output -- by a wide, wide margin.

They are a completely non-serious player in display. It's nearly pointless to discuss what they are "doing" because they aren't doing anything. And I have stated -- on record here several times -- I believe their full exit from TV selling is inevitable. That the division is about to turn a profit -- it's firm in more than a decade -- of


----------



## irkuck

kucharsk said:


> Postmoderndesign said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest; I'd be surprised if *65*" OLEDs fell below $5000 anytime soon.
> That's not derisive in any way as it took about six or seven years for 65" plasma to fall below $5000.
> 
> 
> 
> Mass manufacturing of big size OLEDs is only just starting, one should expect prices falling sooner than later. Primary objective of LG is to keep its new plant busy and that requires lowering prices steeply and quickly. One can not sell a lot of 65" 4K OLEDs for for the current list at $11 999.99, one can sell tons of of them for $4 999.99.
Click to expand...


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> Mass manufacturing of big size OLEDs is only just starting, one should expect prices falling sooner than later. Primary objective of LG is to keep its new plant busy and that requires lowering prices steeply and quickly. One can not sell a lot of 65" 4K OLEDs for for the current list at $11 999.99, one can sell tons of of them for $4 999.99.


Maybe half tons at that price?


----------



## Postmoderndesign

kucharsk said:


> Postmoderndesign said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest; I'd be surprised if *65*" OLEDs fell below $5000 anytime soon.
> 
> That's not derisive in any way as it took about six or seven years for 65" plasma to fall below $5000.
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your estimate of how long the wait will be for 77" OLED displays to fall below $5,000.
> 
> I did wait years for 58" plasma displays to fall below $3,000. A lot of bugs had been worked out by then and the technology had matured somewhat. And even this year the picture quality of broadcast TV has dramatically improved on my plasma. There are a lot of moving parts in picture quality.
> 
> As all of you know if you avoid being on the bleeding edge you can get cheaper and better electronics. However, if anyone has the money or needs the technology or values being ahead of their neighbors or simply finds the picture quality of OLED worth the cost then you will own an OLED display before I do.
> 
> However, the reality is that if one day my 58" Panasonic display fails then I will evaluate my options at that point. Or one day I may see an OLED TV in a store showing 4K broadcast, disc, or Netflix video I could actually get and decide I have to get it.
> 
> I hope to avoid the current LED technology that so far I do not like.
Click to expand...


----------



## greenland

Actually, it is my belief that LG will be forced to drop prices on OLED TV models much more rapidly that Plasma makers did in the past, because they will have to get fairly close to the prices of 4K LCD models, if they are to have any chance of selling enough units in the next three to five years to make it worthwhile continuing to manufacture them.


----------



## rogo

The plasma price curve very, very approximately was -30% per year for several years running in the essential part of the growth phase.

I'm going to argue -- much to the consternation of many people who don't really understand how business works -- that the sale of a few thousand OLED TVs at high prices didn't constitute meaningful data for LG and so we might want to view the $3500 price that exists today as the _start_ of any discussion about what will happen from here. Yes, I'm fully aware of the move from $12K or so down to that number. I'm also more aware than most of you that sales were so small as to be beneath measurement of global survey firms. (In other words, less than .01% market share.)

There is precedent for this logic. In the distant past, Sony sold a 70-inch LCD that was such low production it effectively did not exist as a product, yet you could order one. Similarly, other sort of one-off models/designs have been around but we don't describe them as "seeing their prices fall." 

LG undoubtedly did take the price from the intro level to the current $3500 (or whatever street is), but the number moved so quickly, it's just not interesting to view that as setting the curve. What's interesting is where the 55 inch is priced a year from now. Extrapolating off those data points starts to be telling.

The current street price of the putative 65-inch is not completely clear to me. But let's say it's $10K at big box, which seems correct. I don't believe that's a very real price either. I suspect sales will be beneath measurement as you can purchase very good 65-inch TVs for 1/2 or less that and the idea that there's a pent-up demand for premium TVs has been proved false time and again. Once LG makes a price move on that to get it going somewhere, I think we can use _that figure_ to start building a pricing curve.

A good way to understand this is to think about sales. When we say, "Sales doubled" that could be impressive or a meaningless boast. If it's impressive, it's because we started with a decent number and sold twice that. "LG sold 1 million OLEDs in 2016 and 2 million in 2017." That's impressive.

This, by contrast, is nothing short of idiotic:

http://www.oled-info.com/lg-sold-more-1000-oled-tvs-korea-october-sales-rise-20x-compared-last-year


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> I'm going to argue -- much to the consternation of many people who don't really understand how business works -- that the sale of a few thousand OLED TVs at high prices didn't constitute meaningful data for LG and so we might want to view the $3500 price that exists today as the _start_ of any discussion about what will happen from here. Yes, I'm fully aware of the move from $12K or so down to that number.


I argued for a very long time that pricing was irrelevant until the M2 fab started production.

I do agree that the 30% price reduction curve will eventually become dominant. The question is whether the $3500 price point for the 55" television is the real starting point. I would say that it is except for the fact that the same model is already selling for under $3000 across Europe (sometimes significantly below). 

I think that pricing units in the EU below the US might be nearly unique in consumer electronics (anybody have other examples?) so I tend to think that we will see similar pricing in the US in fairly short order. At that point, I think it will be much easier to make pricing projections going forward.


----------



## 8mile13

slacker711 said:


> I argued for a very long time that pricing was irrelevant until the M2 fab started production.
> 
> I do agree that the 30% price reduction curve will eventually become dominant. The question is whether the $3500 price point for the 55" television is the real starting point. I would say that it is except for the fact that the same model is already selling for under $3000 across Europe (sometimes significantly below).
> 
> I think that pricing units in the EU below the US might be nearly unique in consumer electronics (anybody have other examples?) so I tend to think that we will see similar pricing in the US in fairly short order. At that point, I think it will be much easier to make pricing projections going forward.


 In my country they do the ''LG returns 500 euro when you buy the TV thing''. Hard to believe that i can buy the 55EA9809 right now for €2,095,00 if i want to..
http://www.mediamarkt.nl/mcs/shop/lg-oled-tv.html


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> This, by contrast, is nothing short of idiotic:
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/lg-sold-more-1000-oled-tvs-korea-october-sales-rise-20x-compared-last-year


I clicked on that link. And then I instantly laughed out loud.

Edit: still chuckling


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> I argued for a very long time that pricing was irrelevant until the M2 fab started production.


Because you are not just one of the smart ones, but also thoughtful on these topics. That's why I read your posts even when I don't agree with your conclusions (and more closely when I do ).


> I do agree that the 30% price reduction curve will eventually become dominant. The question is whether the $3500 price point for the 55" television is the real starting point. I would say that it is except for the fact that the same model is already selling for under $3000 across Europe (sometimes significantly below).


Yeah, we have some fuzziness in the data... Perhaps it'll be clear by springtime. If not, it'll be clear enough as the price curve gets built over the next 2-5 years.


> I think that pricing units in the EU below the US might be nearly unique in consumer electronics (anybody have other examples?) so I tend to think that we will see similar pricing in the US in fairly short order. At that point, I think it will be much easier to make pricing projections going forward.


I'm unfamiliar with other times this is true. I'm also unclear what's causing it now. LG is probably more focused on Europe because the 55-as-flagship works there. It simply doesn't in the U.S -- especially not as a 1080p model.



8mile13 said:


> In my country they do the ''LG returns 500 euro when you buy the TV thing''. Hard to believe that i can buy the 55EA9809 right now for €2,095,00 if i want to..


Quite a deal. 



tgm1024 said:


> I clicked on that link. And then I instantly laughed out loud.
> 
> Edit: still chuckling


My Forbes traffic increased like 86,000% between two months at one point! No, really, it did! (Pay no attention to which months those are!)


----------



## irkuck

tgm1024 said:


> I clicked on that link. And then I instantly laughed out loud.
> Edit: still chuckling


The next part linked there says LG adjusted earlier predictions of 5 mln OLEDs sold in 2015 to a mere 800 000. 800 000 looks small compared to 5 mln but it is still a number signalling beginning of mass production and much lower prices. Make full reset guys, real start of OLED TVs is 2015.


----------



## pettern

wco81 said:


> In any event, and maybe this isn't the right thread, the prospects for 4K content doesn't seem too bright. ATSC 3.0 is being worked on but it sounds like that's mainly an opportunity for companies to get their patents in line and for some broadcasters to offer services to mobile devices, not so much high-end displays.
> 
> One of the reasons OLED is tied with 4K is that plasma couldn't move to 4K?


Technically, they could make a plasma panel in 4k but the power consumption would be way above the legal limit, and with more and more strict power consumption requirements it was a no-go and pretty much killed plasma as a technology in TVs.


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> The next part linked there says LG adjusted earlier predictions of 5 mln OLEDs sold in 2015 to a mere 800 000. 800 000 looks small compared to 5 mln but it is still a number signalling beginning of mass production and much lower prices. Make full reset guys, real start of OLED TVs is 2015.


I just couldn't get past the title (of the link Rogo posted.) "LG sold more than a 1,000 OLED TVs in Korea in October, sales rise 20X compared to last year." LOL. Sounds like something out of Johny Dangerously.


----------



## tgm1024

pettern said:


> Technically, they could make a plasma panel in 4k but the power consumption would be way above the legal limit, and with more and more strict power consumption requirements it was a no-go and pretty much killed plasma as a technology in TVs.


Oye, the "if only 4K didn't happen, plasma would be king" mantra.

It's simply not true. If 4K never ever happened, plasma would be dead as a doornail anyway. On their projection models, having 4K on the horizon merely changed the period to an exclamation point; the sentence was the same.


----------



## pettern

tgm1024 said:


> Oye, the "if only 4K didn't happen, plasma would be king" mantra.
> 
> It's simply not true. If 4K never ever happened, plasma would be dead as a doornail anyway. On their projection models, having 4K on the horizon merely changed the period to an exclamation point; the sentence was the same.


It's very much true, but it's obviously not the whole truth.


----------



## JazzGuyy

pettern said:


> Technically, they could make a plasma panel in 4k but the power consumption would be way above the legal limit, and with more and more strict power consumption requirements it was a no-go and pretty much killed plasma as a technology in TVs.


I thought part of the problem with making 4K plasmas was making the plasma "cells" small enough.


----------



## tgm1024

pettern said:


> It's very much true, but it's obviously not the whole truth.


It's not even a _*part *_of the truth. Sure, a plasma 4K couldn't realistically be created as a viable product line, (physics and mother nature were in the way), but that's not what killed plasma. If 4K never ever existed, 2K plasma sales would have been dropping like the rock they were *already* dropping like. Not always for good reasons, people were just not buying them in large enough numbers.


----------



## pettern

JazzGuyy said:


> I thought part of the problem with making 4K plasmas was making the plasma "cells" small enough.


There were already prototype 58" 4k plasmas shown, but the problem is the added power consumption. The EU regulations for TVs says "the on-mode power consumption of a television with visible screen area A expressed in dm2 shall not exceed 16 Watts + A * 3.4579 Watts/dm2". This means max 419 watts for a 65" TV, and eg. the Panasonic TX-P65VT65B 1080p plasma calibrated is using around 300W. 

"To maintain a similar level of brightness with tighter pixels with smaller plasma cells would increase the proportion of ionised atoms lost at the wall surfaces, hence reducing the luminous efficacy of the UV light exciting the phosphors, more voltage would be required to energise the gas mixture, leading to higher power consumption. " - http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-plasma-201311133417.htm

So not a chance to get 4k out of a plasma and keep below the EU regulated max power consumption.


----------



## pettern

tgm1024 said:


> It's not even a _*part *_of the truth. Sure, a plasma 4K couldn't realistically be created as a viable product line, (physics and mother nature were in the way), but that's not what killed plasma. If 4K never ever existed, 2K plasma sales would have been dropping like the rock they were *already* dropping like. Not always for good reasons, people were just not buying them in large enough numbers.


http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-plasma-201311133417.htm disgrees with you, it certainly killed the Panasonic plasma line. It all boiled down to power consumption.


----------



## tgm1024

pettern said:


> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-plasma-201311133417.htm disgrees with you, it certainly killed the Panasonic plasma line. It all boiled down to power consumption.


Yes, yes, we know all that, including what Panasonic themselves have said. Nevertheless, the sales curve cannot be argued with. It was dying off, (note the word _dying_, not "hurt", "less robust", "less than LCD", but dying) for much longer than 4K has been around.

As that article you posted said. it was the "final nail in the coffin". But make no mistake. That coffin was already fully made, and the hole was dug.

Here's one chart (chosen at random....they're easy to find by googling). Pay attention to the green _as a percentage of the whole. And as a percentage of LCD. _It's a completely non-sustainable technology even at 2K.








The idea that plasma would have been just fine had it not been for 4K is purely myopic videophile reasoning. It's. Just. Not. True.


----------



## 5150zx

Wow, the above chart is very telling. Didn't realize the Y/Y sales of flat screens has basically flatlined for a few years now. Frankly, I've never thought OLED would be viable under any circumstances, and that chart doesn't do anything to change my mind.  IF LG continues to produce OLED displays beyond 2015 or perhaps 2016, I'd be very surprised. Only one manufacturer (LG) simply cannot make and sell panels at a price that's competetive with their own, and other companies LCD/LED 1080p and 4K sets. Facts are facts, companies exist to make money, and if a product simply doesn't sell in enough numbers after a couple of years, that company will cease producing it. Which gets back to Rogo's prediction about Sony eventually ending it's TV production (which I agree with). Panasonic may likely beat Sony to the punch on that front!


----------



## NintendoManiac64

5150zx said:


> Frankly, I've never thought OLED would be viable under any circumstances, and that chart doesn't do anything to change my mind.  IF LG continues to produce OLED displays beyond 2015 or perhaps 2016, I'd be very surprised. Only one manufacturer (LG) simply cannot make and sell panels at a price that's competetive with their own, and other companies LCD/LED 1080p and 4K sets. Facts are facts, companies exist to make money, and if a product simply doesn't sell in enough numbers after a couple of years, that company will cease producing it.


TVs don't last forever and therefore people do still replace them over time. This means that any selling of TVs will possibly be at the expense of another brand, so having something that makes their products stand out would be in LG's best interest when you consider that LG isn't a market leader currently.

Also displays are used in things other than TVs - LG make a lot of monitor panels for example.


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> The next part linked there says LG adjusted earlier predictions of 5 mln OLEDs sold in 2015 to a mere 800 000. 800 000 looks small compared to 5 mln but it is still a number signalling beginning of mass production and much lower prices. Make full reset guys, real start of OLED TVs is 2015.


Yes, fair. Of course, 800K is a huge leap from 2014's total. It's not a done deal by any means.



pettern said:


> Technically, they could make a plasma panel in 4k but the power consumption would be way above the legal limit, and with more and more strict power consumption requirements it was a no-go and pretty much killed plasma as a technology in TVs.


You can't kill what's already dead. And in the U.S. -- far and away the main plasma market due to screen size -- there is no "legal limit", just a sticker. California imposes some legal requirements, but the largest sizes are mostly exempt.



tgm1024 said:


> I just couldn't get past the title (of the link Rogo posted.) "LG sold more than a 1,000 OLED TVs in Korea in October, sales rise 20X compared to last year." LOL. Sounds like something out of Johny Dangerously.


California rainfall is up 20X today compared to yesterday!



tgm1024 said:


> Oye, the "if only 4K didn't happen, plasma would be king" mantra.
> 
> It's simply not true. If 4K never ever happened, plasma would be dead as a doornail anyway. On their projection models, having 4K on the horizon merely changed the period to an exclamation point; the sentence was the same.


This is correct.



JazzGuyy said:


> I thought part of the problem with making 4K plasmas was making the plasma "cells" small enough.





tgm1024 said:


> It's not even a _*part *_of the truth. Sure, a plasma 4K couldn't realistically be created as a viable product line, (physics and mother nature were in the way), but that's not what killed plasma. If 4K never ever existed, 2K plasma sales would have been dropping like the rock they were *already* dropping like. Not always for good reasons, people were just not buying them in large enough numbers.





5150zx said:


> Wow, the above chart is very telling. Didn't realize the Y/Y sales of flat screens has basically flatlined for a few years now. Frankly, I've never thought OLED would be viable under any circumstances, and that chart doesn't do anything to change my mind.  IF LG continues to produce OLED displays beyond 2015 or perhaps 2016, I'd be very surprised. Only one manufacturer (LG) simply cannot make and sell panels at a price that's competetive with their own, and other companies LCD/LED 1080p and 4K sets. Facts are facts, companies exist to make money, and if a product simply doesn't sell in enough numbers after a couple of years, that company will cease producing it. Which gets back to Rogo's prediction about Sony eventually ending it's TV production (which I agree with). Panasonic may likely beat Sony to the punch on that front!


That chart, in fact, is actually optimistic about the TV market. DisplaySearch has sales up a bit over 1% this year so far after multiple years of decline. Total sales have not eclipsed 250 million. 

And, yes, I see Panasonic joining Sony in exiting the TV market. Neither can hope to make meaningful profit in a flat/declining business. And even if OLED catches on, all that does is create a high-value segment that neither participates in the value-creating portion of.



NintendoManiac64 said:


> TVs don't last forever and therefore people do still replace them over time. This means that any selling of TVs will possibly be at the expense of another brand, so having something that makes their products stand out would be in LG's best interest when you consider that LG isn't a market leader currently.
> 
> Also displays are used in things other than TVs - LG make a lot of monitor panels for example.


TV replacement cycles are returning to historical norms, which are somewhere around 8 years or so. And there are no growth catalysts for TV. In fact, it's worse: There are anti-catalysts. Second-room TVs are rapidly disappearing in favor of tablets. Emerging market and youth video viewing is rapidly moving to smartphones and tablets, period. Slower household creation in major developed economies: Europe, Japan, U.S. is leading to lower need for family-room TVs. 

It's essentially impossible to find good news about the TV business. 

And while there are certainly other uses for panels, it's not exactly easy to find good news for "monitor panels" either. Laptop cycles are also lengthening and laptop ASPs are plummeting. They also make a lousy home for OLEDs. Tablets have been remarkably slow to adopt OLEDs, even at mobile OLED king Samsung. Maybe that will change in the next 2-3 years, but still at Samsung, the vast majority of tablets are sold with LCDs. And outside of Samsung, essentially every tablet is sold with an LCD. That's true of every laptop, every monitor, etc.

The OLED revolution, at best, will be an evolution.


----------



## 5150zx

rogo said:


> It's essentially impossible to find good news about the TV business.


Yep.
I have DISH's lowest package, simply to watch college and pro football in HD. And, I pay attention to commercials and I have yet to see a TV manufacturer advertising their '4K Smart TV'(let alone LG ads promoting OLED)! I've watched a lot of college and pro games this fall, and I've yet to see an ad for a 4K panel. Not saying they don't exist, but pro football on Sundays would be a prime arena to showcase your wares, don't you think? But what DO you see advertised constantly? Smart phones/androids, tablets, etc.(and beer and cars!)  Non-stop. Which falls perfectly in line with the red line on that chart showing TV sales have basically flat-lined over the last couple of years.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> It's not even a _*part *_of the truth. Sure, a plasma 4K couldn't realistically be created as a viable product line, (physics and mother nature were in the way), but that's not what killed plasma. If 4K never ever existed, 2K plasma sales would have been dropping like the rock they were *already* dropping like. Not always for good reasons, people were just not buying them in large enough numbers.


There were no physics and mother nature in the way of 4K plasma TVs, continuously falling sales numbers and the emergence of OLED tech is what was in the way of 4K plasmas. 


And like I said before you should think (even though it might prove to be mighty hard to think of OLED in such terms) of OLED as evolution of plasma. The catalyst in Emissive Displays has evolved from noble gases (plasma) to carbon-based electroluminescent matter (OLED), from gaseous to solid form, and other than that the idea behind them both has not changed much i.e. *convert invisible light into visible* *light*. The means are what have changed not the underlying principle... In fact, OLED TVs produced today are *phosphor-based*.


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> There were no physics and mother nature in the way of 4K plasma TVs,


Well, to be clear, technically yes there was if plasma were otherwise a healthy industry. There's a fundamental cell size limit below which power consumption does not sensibly scale. Like many ideas in technology, it fits neatly in the category titled "you could do it, but you wouldn't want to". But yes, what killed off plasma was plasma, not the 4K.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Well, to be clear, technically yes *there was if plasma were otherwise a healthy industry*. There's a fundamental cell size limit below which power consumption does not sensibly scale. Like many ideas in technology, it fits neatly in the category titled "you could do it, but you wouldn't want to". But yes, what killed off plasma was plasma, not the 4K.


4K Plasma was a stillborn idea in a sense that the production of 4K plasma TVs would be as economical as muon catalyzed fusion, however and howbeit it wouldn't be as unreal as cold fusion were...


Also there were problems with sourcing parts for plasmas.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

tgm1024 said:


> There's a fundamental cell size limit below which power consumption does not sensibly scale.


In other words, the same reason Intel abandoned Netbust?


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> Yes, fair. Of course, 800K is a huge leap from 2014's total. It's not a done deal by any means. The OLED revolution, at best, will be an evolution.


Reset, please. OLED starts only in 2015, period. What was before was experimental preproduction. Now the deal is done, OLED will carve itself market share. Challenging LCD? Only if the technology of printing OLED displays like newsprint arrives. At least such technology is not a fantasy anymore and optimists say it may come even in 2015.


----------



## stas3098

irkuck said:


> Reset, please. OLED starts only in 2015, period. What was before was experimental preproduction. Now the deal is done, OLED will carve itself market share. Challenging LCD? Only if the technology of printing OLED displays like newsprint arrives. At least such technology is not a fantasy anymore and optimists say it may come even in 2015.


OLED (TV) may die in 2015, as well. By the looks of it OLED has gone through the terribly long and painful labor which came about on the heels of the _rather natural_ death of its Emissive Display counterpart Plasma and it is still in a very precarious and unstable state.


The most important vital sign that should be closely monitored right now is the price new M2 OLEDs "street" at. I reckon that if the street price doesn't hit reasonable levels by H2 2015 then OLED might follow suit of its predecessors (CRT, Plasma and other stillborn techs, barring LCD of course).


P.S 2015 will make OLED or break it. The coming year is the year when all in the TV industry might change...


----------



## irkuck

stas3098 said:


> OLED (TV) may die in 2015, as well. By the looks of it OLED has gone through the terribly long and painful labor which came about on the heels of the _rather natural_ death of its Emissive Display counterpart Plasma and it is still in a very precarious and unstable state. The most important vital sign that should be closely monitored right now is the price new M2 OLEDs "street" at. I reckon that if the street price doesn't hit reasonable levels by H2 2015 then OLED might follow suit of its predecessors (CRT, Plasma and other stillborn techs, barring LCD of course). P.S 2015 will make OLED or break it. The coming year is the year when all in the TV industry might change...


OLED dying in 2015 is unlikely just because LG has not built the new plant to close it immediately. Pricing is of course absolutely critical and LG will do whatever it takes to sell all production. They must be prepared for long march to recuperate investment (profitability of TV business is low so there is nothing to talk about) and get a lead in this technology before Samsung potentially comes back with printed OLEDs. 

Now the question is: What is the possible premium which OLED can carry over (high-end) LCD price? It is evident that if OLED and LCD prices would be equal people will select OLED. The game is how much can be added to the price for getting enough people buying the initial 800 000 sets? I am convinced LG is ready to set for such a price.


----------



## 8mile13

In this, two weeks old, article LG states that they have formed a new dedicated OLED division.

LG also state that *they* *are* *working* *hard* *to* *minimize* *burn*-*in* *effects*, *researchers* *were* *working* *to* *permanently* *solve* *the* *issue*. LG said that already commercialized products don't have the problem  What does that mean? Only new products have the burn-in problem? Or only non-commercial products have the burn-in problem? Or does it means that because they are afraid of burn-in related lawsuits they say that already commercialized products do not have the problem ? What are they trying to say?? Looks like they admit that their OLED TVs have burn-in issues from were i stand
http://www.cnet.com/news/lg-forms-new-dedicated-oled-division/


----------



## stas3098

irkuck said:


> OLED dying in 2015 is unlikely just because LG has not built the new plant to close it immediately. Pricing is of course absolutely critical and LG will do whatever it takes to sell all production. They must be prepared for long march to recuperate investment (profitability of TV business is low so there is nothing to talk about) and get a lead in this technology before Samsung potentially comes back with printed OLEDs.
> 
> Now the question is: What is the possible premium which OLED can carry over (high-end) LCD price? It is evident that if OLED and LCD prices would be equal people will select OLED. The game is how much can be added to the price for getting enough people buying the initial 800 000 sets? I am convinced LG is ready to set for such a price.


Of course ,they won't shut down the fab in 2015 the production might even "seep" into 2017, but the thing is that OLED must be cheaper than (high-end) LCD (or equal to mid-range LCDs in price) to start gaining meaningful grounds needed to "justify" the continuation of (mass)production (the business LG is in) and if the projections don't look too good then you can expect the discontinuation of (mass)production as it happened with Plasma, CRT, GE kitchen appliances division etc.... as it will happen with Sony and Panasonic as soon as their contracts with their suppliers are up. For the moment they are trapped in the TV business, but as soon as the decision on whether or not to renew the supply contrasts comes about I'm pretty sure there's no chance in hell those contracts will ever get renewed. LG is also right now trapped in the OLED business until H1 2017 the time their last OLED supply contract is up and as far as I know most of their contracts are up for review in 2016 meaning 2015 will ultimately define whether or not any of these contracts will be renewed.


Like I said before no nobody is going to be making OLEDs if the game doesn't appear to be worth the candle.


----------



## wco81

Read a blurb that LG will introduce a line of quantum dot TVs at CES.

So they're hedging their bets.


----------



## Ricoflashback

All good points. If OLED cannot bring its price down relative to an LCD/LED display - - it will truly be a "niche" market. That doesn't sound very sustainable to me. 

If I understand the Quantum Dot technology correctly, "the light emitting organic OLED molecules tend to degrade and are sensitive to humidity and oxidation. QD can support large, flexible displays but do not degrade."

QD/UHD/4K with OLED blacks and a 75" TV under $5K? We have a winner.....


----------



## sterlingjewel

Quantum Dot (film) in its current incarnation does nothing for contrast ratio and will not get you "OLED blacks." All it will do is expand the color gamut capabilities (real useful with no content!). LCD is an insidious beast, as OLED is giving us the improvements in areas of PQ that are the most striking.


----------



## Ricoflashback

sterlingjewel said:


> Quantum Dot (film) in its current incarnation does nothing for contrast ratio and will not get you "OLED blacks." All it will do is expand the color gamut capabilities (real useful with no content!). LCD is an insidious beast, as OLED is giving us the improvements in areas of PQ that are the most striking.


O.K - so no improvement with QD in blacks and no real improvement until UHD/4K content. 

If I can't afford an OLED TV in the size I want - 65" minimum, 75" preferred, what other alternatives do I have?


----------



## sterlingjewel

Save up and/or work on boosting that credit score.  The only LCD I can envision owning is a FALD with as many or more zones than a Sharp Elite (Vizio R...if it ever comes, or maybe something from Samsung in 2015?). Ancillary to that, waiting patiently might be a tact to follow as well. LG had the 65" streeting for $6250 before they encountered a manufacturing snag.


----------



## barth2k

Ricoflashback said:


> O.K - so no improvement with QD in blacks and no real improvement until UHD/4K content.
> 
> If I can't afford an OLED TV in the size I want - 65" minimum, 75" preferred, what other alternatives do I have?


1/ (Q)LED 2/ front projection 3/ wait


----------



## stas3098

Ricoflashback said:


> O.K - so no improvement with QD in blacks and no real improvement until UHD/4K content.
> 
> If I can't afford an OLED TV in the size I want - 65" minimum, 75" preferred, what other alternatives do I have?


Then you are screwed.


By 2017-18 if all goes according to plan we might see first photo-alignment LCDs coming out. Those will have a slight contrast bump maybe up to 6000 to 8000 and they are also supposed to have CRT/5K Retina iMac good viewing angles and other than that I can't see any improvements in LCDs coming in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Ricoflashback*  
_O.K - so no improvement with QD in blacks and no real improvement until UHD/4K content. 

If I can't afford an OLED TV in the size I want - 65" minimum, 75" preferred, what other alternatives do I have?_

Then you are screwed.

Whoa, Cowboy...I wanna party with you! I thought my girlfriend only said that...

I was really looking forward to Plasma blacks without the buzz, heat & IR heartburn. And I have a credit score of 794 (LOL) but I do not want to mortgage the farm, so to speak, to get the OLED set I want. I'll keep the money, retire to Cozumel and buy a 55" OLED & spend the rest of the time studying the ga-zillion type of Tequilas out there. 

I've been called a dreamer before. So here is my ideal setup - - 70" or 75" OLED for primary viewing and a 4K Projector for movies. I looked at my checking account and I'm gonna be a little light on making this happen. On the positive side, I do hold a Lotto ticket for this weekend.

Merry Xmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa & Happy New Year to everyone! (No, I am NOT running for public office.)


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> Reset, please. OLED starts only in 2015, period. What was before was experimental preproduction. Now the deal is done, OLED will carve itself market share. Challenging LCD? Only if the technology of printing OLED displays like newsprint arrives. At least such technology is not a fantasy anymore and optimists say it may come even in 2015.


Printable OLEDs may come in small quantities and small sizes in 2015. No one is going to even demonstrate a large-size printable OLED that is based on technology that will be usable for manufacturing.

The only printing tech close to mass production ready is from Kateeva of Silicon Valley. It is in the hands of one customer who is ostensibly gearing up to use it for flexible displays for some kind of mobile device.



irkuck said:


> OLED dying in 2015 is unlikely just because LG has not built the new plant to close it immediately. Pricing is of course absolutely critical and LG will do whatever it takes to sell all production. They must be prepared for long march to recuperate investment (profitability of TV business is low so there is nothing to talk about) and get a lead in this technology before Samsung potentially comes back with printed OLEDs.


Again, in TV the first pilot line for TV is no sooner than deep into 2016, quite possibly later. 


> Now the question is: What is the possible premium which OLED can carry over (high-end) LCD price? It is evident that if OLED and LCD prices would be equal people will select OLED. The game is how much can be added to the price for getting enough people buying the initial 800 000 sets? I am convinced LG is ready to set for such a price.


Quick math: The TV market is ~240M. Of that, the 55+ category is


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> This is a bleak assessment, but I agree with one part of it: To actually push volumes, the price needs to literally equal or eclipse the equivalent LCD it is trying to displace. Even "a little more" means relatively small share. Relatively small share means no long-term OLED business.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't. Look back at those numbers above. You probably need OLED TV at 10% of the overall TV market for it feel comfortable. That's 25 million, perhaps within 5-7 years. That feels like an ecosystem that's sustainable. Maybe 15 million will do it. 1-2 million will certainly not.


Bleak but not unreasonable for I am fairly sure LG will exercise caution on this one and they won't get into 5 year long contracts until they are sure OLED is a winner...


P.S Samsung's OLED supply contracts extend until H1 2018 and this means they are in it for a long haul and for LCD some of their contracts go as far as 2020.


----------



## ALMA

> Recently, there has been a rumor that the performance and quality of Quantum Dot (QD) display and OLED display are not that different. To prove it wrong, LG Display Newsroom has prepared an explanation to why OLED, the best of all display technology today, is superior to QD, which is based on LCD technology.





> For LCD TV, 70% of the production cost is from the materials. On the other hand, the cost for LCD, the cost goes down because it does not need backlight unit, color filter, polarized film, etc. This is a potential advantage in terms of cost. Right now, the market for OLED is relatively small and the demand is low, so the consumer price is relatively high. Thus, QD is more competitive than OLED in terms of price. However, the market size for OLED is increasing very rapidly, and as LG Display has started operating a new production line (E4 line) in Korea, the production cost is reduced and the price is expected to be stabilized. *Within one or two years, it is expected that the consumer price for OLED will be competitive.*


http://lgdnewsroom.com/products-solutions/tv/4728


----------



## stas3098

ALMA said:


> http://lgdnewsroom.com/products-solutions/tv/4728


From what I've heard QD can ,in theory, cover the whole visible spectrum.


Here's a good comprehensive *must-read* review of QD and by now it is pretty much clear that QD LCDs will have much wider color gamut and more accurate color reproduction than OLEDs also with the introduction of photo-alignment in LCD production (Apple's 5K monitor is the first commercial LCD to ever use photo-alignment) we'll finally have much better viewing angles and if you add a 10,000 zone FALD backlight in the mix we will have a winner on our hands and let us now take a moment here to cherish a faint hope that OLED might usher such an LCD into existence even if it doesn't make it big...


http://spie.org/x106493.xml


----------



## irkuck

stas3098 said:


> Of course ,they won't shut down the fab in 2015 the production might even "seep" into 2017, but the thing is that OLED must be cheaper than (high-end) LCD (or equal to mid-range LCDs in price) to start gaining meaningful grounds needed to "justify" the continuation of (mass)production (the business LG is in)


Eh, no, parity or undercutting LCD prices would be needed to grab significant part of the LCD market. For which there are not manufacturing capabilities even. Selling ~1 mln OLEDs is possible with reasonable overhead over LCD prices - to the small segment of consumers who care about black levels and brilliance of colors.



rogo said:


> Printable OLEDs may come in small quantities and small sizes in 2015. No one is going to even demonstrate a large-size printable OLED that is based on technology that will be usable for manufacturing. The only printing tech close to mass production ready is from Kateeva of Silicon Valley. It is in the hands of one customer who is ostensibly gearing up to use it for flexible displays for some kind of mobile device.Again, in TV the first pilot line for TV is no sooner than deep into 2016, quite possibly later.


As far as I remember pitches from Kateeva were about printing on huge rolls of plastic???



rogo said:


> This is a bleak assessment, but I agree with one part of it: To actually push volumes, the price needs to literally equal or eclipse the equivalent LCD it is trying to displace. Even "a little more" means relatively small share. Relatively small share means no long-term OLED business.
> It isn't. Look back at those numbers above. You probably need OLED TV at 10% of the overall TV market for it feel comfortable. That's 25 million, perhaps within 5-7 years. That feels like an ecosystem that's sustainable. Maybe 15 million will do it. 1-2 million will certainly not.


You guys are trying to run ahead of reality. Reality now is that LG has manufacturing power for ~1 mln OLEDs in 2015 so talking about grabbing comfortable market shares is premature. The talk can be only about the prices LG may be able to sell them, prices which will minimize their loss (or treat them as initial investment to kickstart the market). How much premium they can charge over the high-end LCDs? 10%, 25%.... 50% is the threshold of pain for selling 1 mln OLEDs?


----------



## stas3098

irkuck said:


> How much premium they can charge over the high-end LCDs? 10%, 25%.... 50% is the threshold of pain for selling 1 mln OLEDs?


Yes, it is the billion dollar question.


----------



## wco81

I wonder what the ASP of all TVs sold is, for the US, globally.

US would probably have higher than global ASPs, since more larger displays are sold here.

We're probably not talking about percent over the ASPs of LCDs, more like multiples of.


----------



## ALMA

> we'll finally have much better viewing angles and if you add a 10,000 zone


A much more complicated backlight system never made LCD cheaper. OLED is a much more simpler construction than every LC panel, so it's cheaper to produce with less raw materials and with LG we are talking about the biggest panel maker in the world ( the iMac-Display is an LG display). LG's goal is to transform their LCD manufacturing plants to OLED. QDot's not changing this, not as backlight option for LCD.



> However, OLED is a display technology that is most suitable for creating flexible, transparent, and roll-able future displays. OLED?s processing temperature is relatively low, so it is possible to use a plastic substrate instead of a glass one, which is good for creating a flexible display. Furthermore, since it does not need a backlight, compared to other displays, it is most optimized to create a transparent display.
> 
> In fact, OLED technology is the technology that is so much advanced that it should not be compared to an LCD based QD. Hence, even though LG already has the technology to create QD, it is focusing on developing OLED.


http://lgdnewsroom.com/products-solutions/tv/4728

Make this with your QDot-LCD, lol:

http://www.oled-info.com/royole-shows-001-mm-thick-flexible-amoled-prototype


----------



## stas3098

ALMA said:


> A much more complicated backlight system never made LCD cheaper. OLED is a much more simpler construction than every LC panel, so it's cheaper to produce with less raw materials and with LG we are talking about the biggest panel maker in the world ( the iMac-Display is an LG display). LG's goal is to transform their LCD manufacturing plants to OLED. QDot's not changing this, not as backlight option for LCD.
> 
> 
> 
> http://lgdnewsroom.com/products-solutions/tv/4728
> 
> Make this with your QDot-LCD, lol:
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/royole-shows-001-mm-thick-flexible-amoled-prototype


It was just one of those if-LCD-implemented-right-it-could-be-somethin' moments.


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> Eh, no, parity or undercutting LCD prices would be needed to grab significant part of the LCD market. For which there are not manufacturing capabilities even. Selling ~1 mln OLEDs is possible with reasonable overhead over LCD prices - to the small segment of consumers who care about black levels and brilliance of colors.


Yes. The keys here however are:

1) What's "reasonable"?

2) You can never sell 5 million at any premium. 

3) To sell 10 million anytime soon, you will need a price advantage.



> As far as I remember pitches from Kateeva were about printing on huge rolls of plastic???


You've been pitched by Kateeva? Cool!

And no. Kateeva's current big deal is thin-film encapsulation to enable flexible displays. But they are certainly not giving up on the TV market down the road.


> You guys are trying to run ahead of reality. Reality now is that LG has manufacturing power for ~1 mln OLEDs in 2015 so talking about grabbing comfortable market shares is premature.


Grabbing 1 million of what I've shown is a not-very-big segment isn't just free. And every dollar of premium shrinks the possible segment in which LG's OLED operates.


> The talk can be only about the prices LG may be able to sell them, prices which will minimize their loss (or treat them as initial investment to kickstart the market). How much premium they can charge over the high-end LCDs? 10%, 25%.... 50% is the threshold of pain for selling 1 mln OLEDs?


50% over what? 1080p OLEDs at 50% over reasonably good 4K LCDs? Sales = close to zero. 50% over 65-inch flagship TVs that run $4500? Sales = close to zero.

50% over 1080p LCDs that are $1500? Sure, I can see it.



ALMA said:


> OLED is a much more simpler construction than every LC panel, so it's cheaper to produce with less raw materials


This is a canard. It's one of those claims that sounds intuitively correct -- it has fewer parts and less materials, therefore it's cheaper to make -- that has no basis in reality. It will only ever be true if it's also true that OLED is being produced in quantities resembling LCD quantities. It's never true when the world demands 225 million LCD TVs and 275 million LCD computer screens but demands 2 million OLED TVs and 0 OLED computer screens. And, no, smartphones don't change this because, again, Samsung's manufacturing technique doesn't scale outside of mobile and isn't being used by LG or any contemplated TV marker.


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> Yes. The keys here however are:
> 1) What's "reasonable"?
> 2) You can never sell 5 million at any premium.
> 3) To sell 10 million anytime soon, you will need a price advantage.
> 
> 50% over what? 1080p OLEDs at 50% over reasonably good 4K LCDs? Sales = close to zero. 50% over 65-inch flagship TVs that run $4500? Sales = close to zero. 50% over 1080p LCDs that are $1500? Sure, I can see it.


I do not know what is reasonable overhead but I think with sales of 1 mln there is overhead possible. At this point the overhead has to be calculated over high-end LCD, as you indicate it might in the range of 10-25%. This is quite limited but reduces LG investment into sales.

I fully agree that for 5 mln sales price parity is needed and at 10 mln price advantage is a must. This however is a headache for LG when they are done with selling the first million. 



rogo said:


> You've been pitched by Kateeva? Cool! And no. Kateeva's current big deal is thin-film encapsulation to enable flexible displays. But they are certainly not giving up on the TV market down the road.


If there is no Samsung-Kateeva in 2015 then LG will establish itself as the OLED company. It will be even harder for competitors to get in.



rogo said:


> This is a canard. It's one of those claims that sounds intuitively correct -- it has fewer parts and less materials, therefore it's cheaper to make -- that has no basis in reality. It will only ever be true if it's also true that OLED is being produced in quantities resembling LCD quantities. It's never true when the world demands 225 million LCD TVs and 275 million LCD computer screens but demands 2 million OLED TVs and 0 OLED computer screens. And, no, smartphones don't change this because, again, Samsung's manufacturing technique doesn't scale outside of mobile and isn't being used by LG or any contemplated TV marker.


Claims that OLED is simpler since it has less parts is unreal. In fact LCD is hugely simpler due to the ingenious dividing between the light control and generation by backlight. One can say OLED is much more complicated but this becomes evident on atomic/molecular level


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Perhaps it is more complicated to design but simpler to manufacture?


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> I do not know what is reasonable overhead but I think with sales of 1 mln there is overhead possible. At this point the overhead has to be calculated over high-end LCD, as you indicate it might in the range of 10-25%. This is quite limited but reduces LG investment into sales.


Good point. It does cost much less to sell a small number than a huge number, irkuck.


> I fully agree that for 5 mln sales price parity is needed and at 10 mln price advantage is a must. This however is a headache for LG when they are done with selling the first million.


Absolutely agree there. One problem at a time.



> If there is no Samsung-Kateeva in 2015 then LG will establish itself as the OLED company. It will be even harder for competitors to get in.


TV-sized printables are not coming in 2015. Period. The 2016 timeframe is the earliest. Whether the Kateeva tech will allow leapfrogging what LG has achieved by then I don't know.



> Claims that OLED is simpler since it has less parts is unreal. In fact LCD is hugely simpler due to the ingenious dividing between the light control and generation by backlight. One can say OLED is much more complicated but this becomes evident on atomic/molecular level


Yeah, I've never understood this. There is almost no real-life correlation between number of parts and / or raw materials cost and finished-goods price. There is so much more that goes into cost than those two factors, which is why I've called the "OLED is cheaper, because..." claim a canard for some time. You posit it in a different matter that isn't so much about cost, but does show that simplicity isn't so simple.


----------



## wco81

Supposedly a good number of UHDs moved this holiday season but really need to wait at least until about a year from now, to get an idea of the 4K content situation -- 4K discs, ATSC 3.0, streaming, etc.

A lot of the enthusiasts who might pay a premium for 4K OLED are aware of this so LG might have some difficulty moving units during 2015.

Can they continue to develop and refine the manufacturing process during the next year without big sales?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Supposedly a good number of UHDs moved this holiday season but really need to wait at least until about a year from now, to get an idea of the 4K content situation -- 4K discs, ATSC 3.0, streaming, etc.
> 
> A lot of the enthusiasts who might pay a premium for 4K OLED are aware of this so LG might have some difficulty moving units during 2015.
> 
> Can they continue to develop and refine the manufacturing process during the next year without big sales?


the answer to your final question above would be no. LG has only installed capacity tor 8000 gen 8 sheets per month (out of a maximum M2 capacity of 26,000 sheets per month, but they will need to be selling through most of that 8000-sheet capacity to make any further progress on industrialization.

8000 gen-8 sheets per month amounts to 48,000 55" OLEDs or 24,000 65" OLEDS per month (or some combination of the two) assuming a perfect manufacturing yield. At stated manufacturing yields of 80%, the 8000-sheet per month capacity translates to a lower number of 38,400 55" or 19,200 65" OLEDs per month, but in any case, the phase 1 production capacity translates to a much higher production level than slag has had up to now (probably 10x or do), and LG will need to sell that number of TVs every month to have any hope of continued progress down the price curve.

This is the reason we will all know when M2 has truly kicked into production - OLED prices will take a dramatic and sudden drop.


----------



## shinksma

rogo said:


> The current street price of the putative 65-inch is not completely clear to me. But let's say it's $10K at big box, which seems correct. I don't believe that's a very real price either. I suspect sales will be beneath measurement as you can purchase very good 65-inch TVs for 1/2 or less that and the idea that there's a pent-up demand for premium TVs has been proved false time and again. Once LG makes a price move on that to get it going somewhere, I think we can use _that figure_ to start building a pricing curve.


I believe I represent both the lowest-common-denominator type of consumer and a sometimes-bleeding-edge-tech consumer. I bought into SACD/DVD-A in 1998-ish, HD DVD in 2006 (and BD in 2007), I bought one of the first consumer-priced 3D DLP projectors in 2010.

On the other hand, I just bought a 65" LED-LCD TV for the family room from a Black Friday sale for $650. I don't need great contrast and super-accurate colors for this TV. It is just a big TV to watch cable and the odd BD when we don't feel like firing up the Home Theater.

For me, OLED is going to have to be around the same price as a mid-tier-performing LCD to make it worth my while. It is just way too easy to spend a whole lot less for 90% performance. And I have to believe that I represent a higher-than-average tech-savviness compared to the average consumer.

Sure, some of my engineer/geek techie co-workers might pony up the extra dough for an OLED display, but most won't.

I think LG and any other players are going to plan to take a bath, bottom-line-wise, from OLED tech for the first few years, on the assumption/hope/prediction that eventually it will be no less costly to produce OLED than LED-LCD. OLED will be a loss-leader to draw consumer interest into the tech, and then two or three years from now will be when a sea-change in consumer purchases will cause OLED to flourish or to die off as "not worth the extra cost".



rogo said:


> A good way to understand this is to think about sales. When we say, "Sales doubled" that could be impressive or a meaningless boast. If it's impressive, it's because we started with a decent number and sold twice that. "LG sold 1 million OLEDs in 2016 and 2 million in 2017." That's impressive.
> 
> This, by contrast, is nothing short of idiotic:
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/lg-sold-more-1000-oled-tvs-korea-october-sales-rise-20x-compared-last-year


I once heard of a large tech/telecom company that would kill off profitable programs/products simply because they weren't growing at the desired rate - heck, they might have even flat-lined, and it didn't matter if they were pulling in 20% or higher margin. Thus, all that would be left would be money-losing products/programs, but they were all "growing" at double-digit or more rates, which was supposed to look good to Wall Street investors. 

As a result, I am very leery of any company that speaks of "growth" without discussion of margin/profit.


----------



## Rich Peterson

rogo said:


> TV-sized printables are not coming in 2015. Period. The 2016 timeframe is the earliest. Whether the Kateeva tech will allow leapfrogging what LG has achieved by then I don't know.


 Yeah, we are still a few years away according to this Nov 2014 interview with Dr. Conor Madigan, Kateeva's President and Co-founder:


> *Q: When do you see inkjet-printed displays or TVs on the market?*
> We believe the first mass-production lines could be installed in 2016, so 2017 is a real possibility.


----------



## ALMA

rogo said:


> Yeah, I've never understood this. There is almost no real-life correlation between number of parts and / or raw materials cost and finished-goods price. There is so much more that goes into cost than those two factors, which is why I've called the "OLED is cheaper, because..." claim a canard for some time. You posit it in a different matter that isn't so much about cost, but does show that simplicity isn't so simple.


Completely disagree as architect and ingenieur. Less parts means less raw materials and easier construction and cheaper manufacturing costs. You forget that LG home entertainment business makes a plus last quartal even included with all OLED R&D costs and lower demand. They have enough cash to work this out. 

LED is a spot light and LCD needs an backlight but mostly uniform. From point of view as a designer, a very difficult construction. Most costs for LCD are construction parts and this waste becomes expensive in long therm. Why the LCD industrie changed from CCFL to LED? It was cheaper, why Edge-LED and not FALD? It's cheaper. QDots adds more costs and it's only a marketing thing. The ordinary crowd doesn't care about picture quality.

The Kindle Fire HD display was more expensive than an AMOLED one. OLED is similiar to LCD because of the TFT backplane, but it doesn't need the backlight. OLED can be slimmer, efficient, bright enough for dailight use, transparent, flexible and LG's WOLED technology is fully compatible to all LG LCD fabs. Picture quality is a plus for marketing, but not the reason why OLED will succeed over LCD. OLED at the moment is only more expensive because of R&D costs and yes low production, but this will change if more will produced. 

OLED has never to compete with LCD. That's not a format war and not an consumer choice and it's not about picture quality or accuracy. It's the evolution of panel and lighting technologies. LG is the biggest LC panel maker and Merck one of the biggest supplier for LC, but also seeing OLED as game changer in display and lighting market.

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20141118000897

Of coures it needs time and problems still have to solved, but the industrie would be stupid to drop OLED. All knows OLED is the holy grail because of it's simple construction. The perfect solution for many problems for architectural, technical, lighting and product designs and has the potential to generate completely new markets, most people today can't imagine.


----------



## rogo

Rich Peterson said:


> Yeah, we are still a few years away according to this Nov 2014 interview with Dr. Conor Madigan, Kateeva's President and Co-founder:


Yep. Conor and I have met and spoken. Smart guy, by the way.



ALMA said:


> Completely disagree as architect and ingenieur. Less parts means less raw materials and easier construction and cheaper manufacturing costs. You forget that LG home entertainment business makes a plus last quartal even included with all OLED R&D costs and lower demand. They have enough cash to work this out.


First of all, it's not even true that fewer parts = less raw materials. It _can_ be true, but it isn't automatically true. 

Second of all, there is nearly no correlation between raw materials cost and manufacturing cost. Not none, of course, if something contains gold and platinum, that will feed back into the cost of the finished good. If something is made with low-grade aluminum, it won't. But consider that solar cells are made of sand. But sand has to be turned into crystalline silicon, either polysilicon or mono-crystalline. Same raw material, different intermediate material, different end cost.

And, more importantly, *hugely* different cost over time even though the raw material stayed the same and the manufacturing techniques stayed the same. The cost of the intermediate changed wildly as did the efficiency of manufacturing. Note how little raw material cost mattered for solar.


> LED is a spot light and LCD needs an backlight but mostly uniform. From point of view as a designer, a very difficult construction.


For a designer, maybe. For a manufacturer in a world that already has produced billions of LCDs, no. It's ridiculously easy to make (a) TFT backplanes (b) LC layers (c) the BLU (d) color filter layers. In other words, it's ridiculous easy to make every part of an LCD. And the part that's unique to LCD vs. OLED -- the LC layer -- is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far cheaper than an OLED layer. It's so much cheaper that buying a BLU and adding it, a totally trivial operation, means the cost edge for LCD remains dramatic over OLED. Not to mention LED costs continue to fall.


> Most costs for LCD are construction parts and this waste becomes expensive in long therm.


This is an unsupportable statement that contains no facts.


> Why the LCD industrie changed from CCFL to LED? It was cheaper, why Edge-LED and not FALD? It's cheaper. QDots adds more costs and it's only a marketing thing. The ordinary crowd doesn't care about picture quality.


It's true, LED is now cheaper than CCFL. And it's true that "QDots" add cost that few will care about. Of course, the lack of concern for picture quality is bad news for OLED isn't it?


> The Kindle Fire HD display was more expensive than an AMOLED one. OLED is similiar to LCD because of the TFT backplane, but it doesn't need the backlight. OLED can be slimmer, efficient, bright enough for dailight use, transparent, flexible and LG's WOLED technology is fully compatible to all LG LCD fabs.


It's "fully compatible" to all fabs once the backplane step is fully ripped out and replaced with an IGZO backplane process (some LG fabs have this, some don't) and "fully compatible once you remove the entire LC process and replace it with an OLED vapor depo process. 

I mean your claim is as true as "the NUMMI plant is 'fully compatible' with making Teslas". It is making Teslas, not Corollas. Of course, it's entirely been rebuilt inside.


> Picture quality is a plus for marketing, but not the reason why OLED will succeed over LCD. OLED at the moment is only more expensive because of R&D costs and yes low production, but this will change if more will produced.


OLED is more expensive on smartphones where the R&D is long part amortized and the production is plenty high. Your claim lacks evidence. And why would it get produced if it's more expensive and people who don't value picture quality aren't buying it?


> OLED has never to compete with LCD.


So long as it wants to lose, it most certainly never has to compete.


> That's not a format war and not an consumer choice and it's not about picture quality or accuracy. It's the evolution of panel and lighting technologies. LG is the biggest LC panel maker and Merck one of the biggest supplier for LC, but also seeing OLED as game changer in display and lighting market.


Consumers have voted for LED light bulbs and by the time OLED lighting is real, the next bulb replacement cycle will be mid-century. Good luck OLED lighting!


> Of coures it needs time and problems still have to solved, but the industrie would be stupid to drop OLED.


No one said they are dropping it, but it's also not apparently winning. At least no time soon.


> All knows OLED is the holy grail because of it's simple construction.


This is, again, a canard. "Simple construction" != a decade of failed efforts to manufacture at scale.


> The perfect solution for many problems for architectural, technical, lighting and product designs and has the potential to generate completely new markets, most people today can't imagine.


Yes, and OLED will do well in those. It's too bad none of them as are big as existing markets. And unless OLED is $2-3 per diagonal inch, many of them will be unaffordable even if technically feasible.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Yep. Conor and I have met and spoken. Smart guy, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, it's not even true that fewer parts = less raw materials. It _can_ be true, but it isn't automatically true.
> 
> Second of all, there is nearly no correlation between raw materials cost and manufacturing cost. Not none, of course, if something contains gold and platinum, that will feed back into the cost of the finished good. If something is made with low-grade aluminum, it won't. But consider that solar cells are made of sand. But sand has to be turned into crystalline silicon, either polysilicon or mono-crystalline. Same raw material, different intermediate material, different end cost.
> 
> And, more importantly, *hugely* different cost over time even though the raw material stayed the same and the manufacturing techniques stayed the same. The cost of the intermediate changed wildly as did the efficiency of manufacturing. Note how little raw material cost mattered for solar.
> 
> 
> For a designer, maybe. For a manufacturer in a world that already has produced billions of LCDs, no. It's ridiculously easy to make (a) TFT backplanes (b) LC layers (c) the BLU (d) color filter layers. In other words, it's ridiculous easy to make every part of an LCD. And the part that's unique to LCD vs. OLED -- the LC layer -- is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far cheaper than an OLED layer. It's so much cheaper that buying a BLU and adding it, a totally trivial operation, means the cost edge for LCD remains dramatic over OLED. Not to mention LED costs continue to fall.
> 
> 
> This is an unsupportable statement that contains no facts.
> 
> 
> It's true, LED is now cheaper than CCFL. And it's true that "QDots" add cost that few will care about. Of course, the lack of concern for picture quality is bad news for OLED isn't it?
> 
> 
> It's "fully compatible" to all fabs once the backplane step is fully ripped out and replaced with an IGZO backplane process (some LG fabs have this, some don't) and "fully compatible once you remove the entire LC process and replace it with an OLED vapor depo process.
> 
> I mean your claim is as true as "the NUMMI plant is 'fully compatible' with making Teslas". It is making Teslas, not Corollas. Of course, it's entirely been rebuilt inside.
> 
> 
> OLED is more expensive on smartphones where the R&D is long part amortized and the production is plenty high. Your claim lacks evidence. And why would it get produced if it's more expensive and people who don't value picture quality aren't buying it?
> 
> 
> So long as it wants to lose, it most certainly never has to compete.
> 
> 
> Consumers have voted for LED light bulbs and by the time OLED lighting is real, the next bulb replacement cycle will be mid-century. Good luck OLED lighting!
> 
> 
> No one said they are dropping it, but it's also not apparently winning. At least no time soon.
> 
> 
> This is, again, a canard. "Simple construction" != a decade of failed efforts to manufacture at scale.
> 
> 
> Yes, and OLED will do well in those. It's too bad none of them as are big as existing markets. And unless OLED is $2-3 per diagonal inch, many of them will be unaffordable even if technically feasible.


I really appreciate the time and attention you put into your thoughtful responses, Mark. To the point, accurate, and concise (as usual).

I'm far from giving up on OLED and even hope that my next TV is an OLED (after the P70 I purchased a month ago, which appears to be more than good enough to tide me over until OL ED TVs are more mature and cost-competitive , but the road ahead for LG appears tougher than it did this Spring and as you point out, survival of LGs initiative into 2017 looks to be far from certain.

In my view, if 2015 proves to be another year of modest incremental progress, the clock will be ticking quite a bit more loudly on LG WOLEDs future. If they continue ramping M2 to full 26,000 sheet capacity next year and get pricing down to the level that sustains sell-through of that volume before year-end, they are still more or less on track and have a chance to achieve sustainability (which means M3 and more manufacturing volume) before the end of 2016.

But if M2 is still only manufacturing 8000 sheets per month a year from now, it will time to start predicting game over for LG WOLED the way you once did once for plasma and are now doing for Japanese-branded TVs of any kind.

What price will it take to sell through ~20,000 65" OLED TVs by mid 2015? We can speculate all we want and many seem to have a deep emotional stake in the answer to that question, but we all know it's well below 50% of current pricing and probably closer to 25% than 50%.

I've been stunned to discover the quality of 70" FALD LED/LCD Vizio has succeeded to sell for $2000 and I'm pretty sure 2015 will be the year when high-quality QDF FALD LED/LCDs at 65" for under $2000 become widely available. Even at 65" WOLED for $5000, that market reality is coming to pose a significant headwind for LG to overcome next year.

I'm rooting for LG WOLED and the first to admit that the black levels and contrast I have seen on the 55EC9300 I have gazed at over a dozen times at best buy is noticeably superior to the P70 FALD LED/LCD I have in my living room now, but I am also a realist about the speed with which the TV world is evolving in terms of both price (lower) and performance (higher) and so I just hope LG is able to progress quickly enough in 2015 to meet this growing challenge...


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> Yep. Conor and I have met and spoken. Smart guy, by the way.
> 
> First of all, it's not even true that fewer parts = less raw materials. It _can_ be true, but it isn't automatically true.


The quotes about OLED's being cheaper to manufacture are worthless without the appropriate caveats. The part of the statement that is left out is that OLED's will be cheaper to manufacture when they have hit comparable yields to LCD's. I would add a further caveat that the LCD's need to be manufactured on the same substrate.

We can see this with smartphone panels. Samsung is claiming that they are "very close" to the moment when their smartphone OLED's will be cheaper to produce than LCD's. They dont say it, but I guarantee that this claim is limited to LTPS LCD's. This is on lower total volume than LTPS LCD's. 

I doubt that smartphone OLED's have yet matched LTPS LCD's yields, but the lower bill of materials compensates for that. LGD has a tougher route to price competitiveness. They have higher bill of material costs due to the IGZO substrate and the LCD filters. OTOH, they they should have an easier time increasing yields since WOLED's are simpler to manufacture. 

They are also only really going after the very high-end of the market right now. All of the picture quality improvements seen in high-end LCD televisions (FALD, quantum dots, non-TN displays) helps bring price competitiveness closer to reality.


----------



## sterlingjewel

doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> I've been stunned to discover the quality of 70" FALD LED/LCD Vizio has succeeded to sell for $2000


Looks like the reviewers were stunned too... but not in a good way. The reviews at cnet, hdguru, and others are horrible on these 4K Vizios. I'm surprised you ended up buying one after spending all this time in these OLED threads. 

I don't generally bother with LCD but looked at a Vizio when I was at BB over black friday. The processing artifacts with FALD enabled were way too distracting. You could see obvious gamma and color shifts. Would probably be impossible to calibrate this thing with FALD enabled and pointless with it off. Can't argue about the price though. $2K for a 70" will make 55" OLED at $3.5K a tough sell to the BB crowd.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> I really appreciate the time and attention you put into your thoughtful responses, Mark. To the point, accurate, and concise (as usual).
> 
> I'm far from giving up on OLED and even hope that my next TV is an OLED (after the P70 I purchased a month ago, which appears to be more than good enough to tide me over until OL ED TVs are more mature and cost-competitive , but the road ahead for LG appears tougher than it did this Spring and as you point out, survival of LGs initiative into 2017 looks to be far from certain.


I'm actually optimistic, despite the challenges ahead.


> But if M2 is still only manufacturing 8000 sheets per month a year from now, it will time to start predicting game over for LG WOLED the way you once did once for plasma and are now doing for Japanese-branded TVs of any kind.


So, yes, that would be bearish.


> What price will it take to sell through ~20,000 65" OLED TVs by mid 2015? We can speculate all we want and many seem to have a deep emotional stake in the answer to that question, but we all know it's well below 50% of current pricing and probably closer to 25% than 50%.


Sharp could not sell 50,000 of the Elite 70s at $6000+ a few years ago. Not close. I'm not sure what that says about the ability to sell 20,000 OLEDs at $5000 however. My sense is that's not a very interesting number of sales, though. I'm significantly more interested in what happens in the segments where OLED is in the universe of price competitive rather than the ones it isn't.



slacker711 said:


> The quotes about OLED's being cheaper to manufacture are worthless without the appropriate caveats
> The part of the statement that is left out is that OLED's will be cheaper to manufacture when they have hit comparable yields to LCD's. I would add a further caveat that the LCD's need to be manufactured on the same substrate.


Right, thanks. 


> We can see this with smartphone panels. Samsung is claiming that they are "very close" to the moment when their smartphone OLED's will be cheaper to produce than LCD's. They dont say it, but I guarantee that this claim is limited to LTPS LCD's. This is on lower total volume than LTPS LCD's.


So, yeah, "very close" after making well north of 100 million units. And not there. And only compared to LTPS, not close to a-Si. This just shows how far OLED TV is from competing with LCD TV. Years.


> I doubt that smartphone OLED's have yet matched LTPS LCD's yields, but the lower bill of materials compensates for that. LGD has a tougher route to price competitiveness. They have higher bill of material costs due to the IGZO substrate and the LCD filters. OTOH, they they should have an easier time increasing yields since WOLED's are simpler to manufacture.


So, again, the massive scale of Samsung's OLED display business for smartphones has allowed it to reach whatever scale economies exist. There is still some minor learning curve benefit which explains why they can move from "very close" to "better" perhaps in the near future. And then "better" will be in the percentage point range, perhaps slightly more. And this over LTPS, which will never be used in TV.

And while IGZO today is more expensive, the promise of oxide is that it will someday be _cheaper_ than not just LTPS, but even a-Si. Whether that ever comes to pass or not, I cannot say. But it's the promise. Now, of course, oxide can be brought to bear on any display, LCD, OLED, whatever. 

The point is: LG can get to a cost advantage. Someday. On much greater volumes. But the very chicken-and-egg problem we discussed in 2012 has not been scrambled. 


> They are also only really going after the very high-end of the market right now. All of the picture quality improvements seen in high-end LCD televisions (FALD, quantum dots, non-TN displays) helps bring price competitiveness closer to reality.


Unless you're Vizio.


----------



## HYMER DAXTER




----------



## Rich Peterson

sterlingjewel said:


> doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom


Yeah, I don't know why that happens so much in this forum. Sometimes I think people who recently bought something other than OLED are hoping for failure and looking for any reason that might happen to help justify their decision.

I went back and read posts about a year ago in this thread and doom and the gloom was kinda sad, really... Samsung had said they were stopping new OLEDs for a few years, it was becoming clear that Sony and Panasonic weren't going to be able to deliver printed OLEDs anytime soon, and as a result so so many in this forum declared OLED dead at that time.

Sure, it's taking longer than we had hoped but OLED TVs are in no way dead or even dying, they are barely starting their run. And I think the run is going to be big. Really big. But it will take some time.

Oh, pardon me while I go and enjoy the best TV picture I've ever seen on my LG OLED.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Sharp could not sell 50,000 of the Elite 70s at $6000+ a few years ago. Not close. I'm not sure what that says about the ability to sell 20,000 OLEDs at $5000 however. My sense is that's not a very interesting number of sales, though. I'm significantly more interested in what happens in the segments where OLED is in the universe of price competitive rather than the ones it isn't.


I typed too fast - that was supposed to say ~20,000 OLEDs PER MONTH. 8000 sheets a month translates to about 20,000 65" OLEDs per month, and if LG is not selling through at that level by June, it will be a bad sign.

Selling 20,000 65" OLEDs in 2015 is not going to move the needle for LG one bit. Selling over 20,000 per month throughout the second half of the year would justify the ramp to full capacity of 26,000 sheets/month by early 2016 (which is what's needed to stay on track).


----------



## rogo

Rich Peterson said:


> Yeah, I don't know why that happens so much in this forum. Sometimes I think people who recently bought something other than OLED are hoping for failure and looking for any reason that might happen to help justify their decision.


Sometimes I wonder what the purpose is writing sentences like the above. You know full well that doesn't in any way apply to me. And if you're uncertain about my financial wherewithal to buy an LG OLED, let's discuss that offline.


> I went back and read posts about a year ago in this thread and doom and the gloom was kinda sad, really... Samsung had said they were stopping new OLEDs for a few years, it was becoming clear that Sony and Panasonic weren't going to be able to deliver printed OLEDs anytime soon, and as a result so so many in this forum declared OLED dead at that time.


Thing is, that was accurate. How many OLED TVs did LG sell across the entire world between those posts a year ago and now? Virtually none. I'd call that "dead."


> Sure, it's taking longer than we had hoped but OLED TVs are in no way dead or even dying, they are barely starting their run. And I think the run is going to be big. Really big. But it will take some time.


This is what I'd call a "very optimistic" view. The "run" was supposed to start in 2012. Instead, it's now supposed to start in 2015. In the upcoming year, OLED is supposed to capture a whopping 0.3% of TV sales worldwide! 

When I suggested in 2012 that there was no way OLED would get to half of display sales (I included computers, but I apparently didn't need to) by 2020, I was met with derision. Yet it's now clear that OLED hasn't any chance of reaching half of TV sales by 2020. It's a mathematical impossibility.


> Oh, pardon me while I go and enjoy the best TV picture I've ever seen on my LG OLED.


I think this is the confusion point. No videophile alive disagrees that OLED can (does?) produce the best pictures out there. (The parenthetical concerns the skepticism of CR and others about some small issues.) But reality intrudes here....

1) It's not that much better a picture. I'm sorry but it isn't. If it were, things would be changing far more rapidly.
2) Quality alone doesn't win markets. And when the quality edge is small, it has an even tougher row to hoe. 
3) Manufacturing reality (see above) means that this "big future" is years away, even if somehow the world goes against years and years of precedent and demands video quality. In fact, I'm not sure when the world has demanded video quality since the ability to hold a picture without futzing with rabbit ears was eliminated.



fafrd said:


> I typed too fast - that was supposed to say ~20,000 OLEDs PER MONTH. 8000 sheets a month translates to about 20,000 65" OLEDs per month, and if LG is not selling through at that level by June, it will be a bad sign.


OK, well then ignore the above math, but I disagree with you. The current pricing isn't designed to sell anywhere near that many of the 65s. The focus is obviously on the 55s right now. We'll know when that changes.


> Selling 20,000 65" OLEDs in 2015 is not going to move the needle for LG one bit. Selling over 20,000 per month throughout the second half of the year would justify the ramp to full capacity of 26,000 sheets/month by early 2016 (which is what's needed to stay on track).


Yes, and once LG is ready, they'll telegraph that pretty clearly.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> So, yeah, "very close" after making well north of 100 million units. And not there. And only compared to LTPS, not close to a-Si. This just shows how far OLED TV is from competing with LCD TV. Years.
> 
> So, again, the massive scale of Samsung's OLED display business for smartphones has allowed it to reach whatever scale economies exist. There is still some minor learning curve benefit which explains why they can move from "very close" to "better" perhaps in the near future.


I think you are underplaying what Samsung is about to accomplish. They arent just hitting price competitiveness with high-end LTPS LCD's. They are claiming crossover for all LTPS LCD's. Chinese vendors have started choosing OLED's in a number of models. 

The equivalent for televisions will be when OLED's start taking over Wal-Mart. 

We are years away from that, but that has never been the question that I think most on this forum are asking about. The question is when OLED televisions can cross over the price point of high-end LCD televisions. The ones with all of the bells and whistles that make LCD's competitive on image quality but also triple the price. 

That looks a lot more doable considering what Samsung has accomplished in smartphones with unit volumes and screens areas that are dwarfed by their LCD competition.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> I think you are underplaying what Samsung is about to accomplish. They arent just hitting price competitiveness with high-end LTPS LCD's. They are claiming crossover for all LTPS LCD's. Chinese vendors have started choosing OLED's in a number of models.


Hmm, I don't think I'm underplaying it. The reality is that global cap ex is still focused on LTPS LCD and not OLED. When that changes, it changes. Until then, not so much. DisplaySearch doesn't seen smartphone displays being dominated by OLED this decade at all. Do you? And if so why given that they talk to everyone who makes displays and asks them "what will you be making in 1, 2, 5 years?" I mean obviously those forecasts are fraught, but without far more capacity, the world isn't changing so quickly.

And there is minimal interest globally in being sole supplied by Samsung.


> The equivalent for televisions will be when OLED's start taking over Wal-Mart.


The above notwithstanding, I very much look forward to this day.


> We are years away from that, but that has never been the question that I think most on this forum are asking about. The question is when OLED televisions can cross over the price point of high-end LCD televisions. The ones with all of the bells and whistles that make LCD's competitive on image quality but also triple the price.


The problem with this "price point" is that it doesn't exist. It's a band and it keeps moving lower and lower. The top edge of the band, where Sony charges $5000 for a 65-inch TV, almost no one cares about it. I'm not especially sure Sony really cares about it to be completely candid. There is no volume there -- for anyone -- and few buyers.

The part of that band that's intriguing right now is around $1500-3000 for 55-70" TVs. It's where the highest end 55-inch 1080p sets reside, where the 65-inch flagship plasmas used to sit, where the feature-packed 60 and 65-inch LCDs are, where the upgraded 70-inch LCDs are today. It's not where the fringe models are. But again, nearly no one buys those.


> That looks a lot more doable considering what Samsung has accomplished in smartphones with unit volumes and screens areas that are dwarfed by their LCD competition.


Again, that's a pretty fake comparison. Samsung has more than enough volume to be far, far down the learning curve. In fact, if you think of the learning curve as asymptotically approaching some limit (a good way to look at it as learning curves don't go down forever!), you understand that for every doubling you eventually set into the "flat part" of the curve where you no longer get the 30% reductions, you start getting less.

Samsung has made well north of 100 million OLED displays using FMM technology on their 4-something-G (maybe 5G? perhaps up to 6?) fabs. They're on the flat part of that curve. They don't need to make 3 billion to get every bit of cost reduction LCD has gotten anymore than LCD needs it.

You've all seen this in LCD to some extent. While it gets cheaper in some ways, the base prices at the bottom end don't fall anymore. Why? Because raw panel making doesn't really get cheaper anymore. 

What you see happening now is that larger sizes get cheaper (because the price premiums dwindle with yields), features get cheaper (because they too hit economies of scale and "age out" as premium add ons), and in a mature market the exciting stuff goes away. That's why you have a Vizio which just throws away margins and offers the same set of features as "higher-end" products for less money. 

The idea that going from 100MM to 3B radically changes costs just isn't true. Will it help OLED? Sure, to a point. But notably, what will help OLED more is switching backplane tech and ramping oxide backplanes. Of course, that will also make LCD cheaper. It's just that it will again serve to flatten the difference. 

Realistically, though, it's pretty likely Samsung is already yielding a ridiculous percentage on mobile-phone screens today. And because they are tiny, losing very little on the waste side. 

I'd love to see the actual BOM for these mobile-phone screens assuming a perfect yield, without any fuzzy math on amortization. I'm quite sure the differential between the two technologies is rather small.


----------



## janunio

"The question is when OLED televisions can cross over the price point of high-end LCD televisions."
It happened a month ago.
*Compare the price of Panasonic 65" AX900 and LG 65" OLED.*
Both UHD


----------



## fafrd

janunio said:


> "The question is when OLED televisions can cross over the price point of high-end LCD televisions."
> It happened a month ago.
> *Compare the price of Panasonic 65" AX900 and LG 65" OLED.*
> Both UHD


Note the plural.

That, and the need for comparison to products with a future. The Korean flagships define a more appropriate threshold.

I mean, if you want to play that game, didn't Bang & Olufsun (sp?) launch a jewel-encrusted 65" LED/LCD earlier this year?


----------



## rogo

janunio said:


> "The question is when OLED televisions can cross over the price point of high-end LCD televisions."
> It happened a month ago.
> *Compare the price of Panasonic 65" AX900 and LG 65" OLED.*
> Both UHD





fafrd said:


> Note the plural.
> 
> That, and the need for comparison to products with a future. The Korean flagships define a more appropriate threshold.
> 
> I mean, if you want to play that game, didn't Bang & Olufsun (sp?) launch a jewel-encrusted 65" LED/LCD earlier this year?


I still think it's noteworthy. 

How much is the Panasonic? 

Let's make sure we're comparing apples-to-apples here... MSRP to MSRP.

(Incidentally, whatever the Panasonic is, anywhere near the price of the LG is silly.)


----------



## sterlingjewel

Aye, Bang & Olufsen to Panasonic is definitely apples to oranges.


----------



## stas3098

Guys, OLED's intermediate material (which is singles Merck people are making) might be dirt cheap ,like 10 dollars per a 55" TV dirt cheap, ( that is, once you have amortized initial R&D costs) and you still can have quite a significant margin at this price point. This is a main reason why Merck got involved with OLED in the first place even though they are the largest LC material producer that has ever managed to grace the face of this increasingly-warming-up Baby Jesus's green earth on which over 99 percent of all lifeforms that have ever existed are now extinct and owing to human-specific ingenuity and resourcefulness soon it's going to be well over 99,9 percent what with the current extinction rate and stuff with its empyrean presence and this is why they shunned the living shyte out of the whole LED thingy that most leed of all the fens, glens and dens across all the meers jumped at. What I mean is back in 2005 they (Merck) had to make a choice between OLED and LED and they went with OLED, because they thought that in the long run OLED can be cheaper than LED.


----------



## stas3098

sterlingjewel said:


> doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom


 But what about *sloom* (the absence of development, akin to stagnation which came to pass during the Middle Ages) and *toom*(empty in bad ways as in "the shelves are toom!") , huh?


----------



## slacker711

http://english.etnews.com/20141224200004



> LG Electronics to release 77” ultra OLED TV early in the New Year, priced at around KRW 30 million
> Kim Joon-bae Dec 24, 2014
> 
> LG Electronics will release a 77” ultra OLED TV early in the New Year.
> 
> According to the industry on the 23rd, LGE will release an ultra OLED TV applied with a 77” 4K ultra high-definition (UHD) resolution OLED panel in January or February in the New Year. This is the company’s second UHD OLED TV model since a 65” model released in August. It is forecast that the price will be set around KRW 30 million. Originally, LGE had planned to release this product within the year. However, it postponed the date to the New Year because release at the yearend as a ‘2014 model’ may exert negative impacts on the sales in the New Year.
> 
> With this, LGE increased its OLED TV lineup to the 65” and 77” (UHD) models as well as a 55” (full HD or below). LGE also plans to release a 55” OLED TV in UHD resolution.
> 
> LGE’s entire OLED TV lineup will be exhibited at the ‘CES 2015,’ the world’s largest home appliances fair to be held in Las Vegas, U.S. early in the New Year. The company is also promoting to release a distribution model. LGE’s strategy is to reduce the price burden at the same time as widening the OLED TV choice for customers. For the distribution model, some functions will be excluded. However, LGE has set out a policy not to release any OLED TVs that are smaller than the current models.
> 
> “The size of TV display is continuously increasing. In addition, large screens are suitable for enjoying the OLED TV picture quality properly,” explained a LGE insider. Accordingly, it will be difficult to find OLED TVs smaller than 50” next year.
> 
> In line with the lineup expansion, LGE will start an aggressive OLED TV marketing next year. The company considers overseas media’s favorable comments about its OLED TVs as of late an opportunity factor. In particular, LGE will accelerate competition against quantum dot (QD) TVs to be released in a large number next year by putting on display the existing ‘UHD LED TV’ applied with a LCD panel together with a ‘QD UHD LED TV’ and the ultra OLED TV applied with an OLED panel side by side. This strategy is aimed at highlighting the superiority of OLED TV in terms of picture quality despite the relatively higher price.
> 
> According to a market surveyor Display Search, the QD TV forwarding volume next year will be 1.95 million and OLED TV forwarding volume will be approximately 1 million, which is around half that of QD TV. “OLED TV provides a far superior picture quality than LCD TV,” said the LGE insider. “We will publicize this point, and thus will lead the premium market.”


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> http://english.etnews.com/20141224200004


30,000,000 Won = $27,000. So the 77" OLEDs will really be flying of the shelves next year.

The CES display 'shoot out' against a QDF LED/LCD will be interesting but the reference to 'relatively higher price' is disenheartening.

Let the AV 2015 games begin


----------



## 8mile13

''Accordingly, it will be difficult to find OLED TVs smaller than 50'' next year.'' Are there 50'' OLEDs?


----------



## rogo

8mile: No, the 55 inch is the smallest even announced or demoed.

fafrd: Pretty clear they don't intend to sell the 77 next year (except in demo quantities). You can model your splits of 55/65 accordingly.

Generally, I'm unclear how they get to 1 million at premium pricing. I suppose it depends on the split between 55s and 65s but the fab capacity for large numbers of 65s is massively compromised.

I don't really see global demand for super premium 55s at anything remotely resembling 1 million units. It feels like you'd need to get $2500 in the U.S. to start moving any meaningful numbers not because there isn't product that's costlier, but because I doubt there is much of it selling. And while I agree "TV is getting bigger" it's misleading to look at that monolithically. 

In the U.S., 55s are not flagships. In Europe, they probably mostly are but the Eurozone economy is bad and the entire segment for super premium 55s is tiny. Consider that in 2015, across Europe, they'll be lucky to sell 2 million 55-inch TVs (that would be gigantic growth from 2012-3, see details here: http://www.topten.info/uploads/File/European_TV_market_2007–2013_July14.pdf)

If you sub-segment by price band, you'd correctly conclude that at most 10% of those are premium, let alone super premium. Therefore, the entire segment is 200K units -- at most -- and LG can't hope to obtain more than 1/3 of the sales there. 

[It's hard the wide-eyed optimistic should feel free to now somehow magically conjure up another 100K European sales and reach 200K. That won't happen; it can't really.]

With 200K sales in Europe as an absolute ceiling assuming no detectable price premium... Well, you can repeat the exercise in the U.S. and it gets you to a similar point. 

Better economic growth, better TV size mix, but 55s aren't flagships... Perhaps there's another 200K to be sold there? 300K using the same wide-eyed Euro optimism.

How one gets from 500K to 1M on Japan and China seems beyond implausible. 

I guess where I'm going is that I have no problem believing 1 million sales is possible, I just don't see how it's done with premium pricing. The segments in which LG is competing are just too small to justify those sales figures with even a 20-30% premium. I suspect they get more like 10% slivers of the segments with prices that high, and even that proves generous.

That would place European and U.S. sales at 100K combined with pricing in the $2500-3000 range. Maybe you get 200K across those regions. You don't get anywhere near 500K.

This seems like good news for buyers even if it isn't good news for LG.


----------



## andy sullivan

LG should go after the 65", 70", and 75/77" Market. Ignore any sizes below that. Concentrate 100% of their manufacturing and marketing to those three sizes. Let the world know that they are the king of that market. Dominate. $1800, $2300, $2800. No more LCD left in that size and price range.


----------



## Wizziwig

rogo said:


> That would place European and U.S. sales at 100K combined with pricing in the $2500-3000 range. Maybe you get 200K across those regions. You don't get anywhere near 500K.
> 
> This seems like good news for buyers even if it isn't good news for LG.


Considering that these were not flying off the shelves at closeout pricing of $2K (it took months to sell out a few hundred units), I doubt that even $2500 would make much of a dent in sales. As you say, there is no premium TV market to speak of for 55" 1080p sets in USA. I think if they price the 65" at $2500, they might have a shot against the LCD juggernaut. $10K is a joke. Even at $5K, it would just be another Sharp Elite type of sales volume and not sustainable.

If the 1 million sales target is accurate, I expect the price curve will follow the EA9800 all over again. Unless they can't actually produce any to sell.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Considering that these were not flying off the shelves at closeout pricing of $2K (it took months to sell out a few hundred units), I doubt that even $2500 would make much of a dent in sales. As you say, there is no premium TV market to speak of for 55" 1080p sets in USA. I think if they price the 65" at $2500, they might have a shot against the LCD juggernaut. $10K is a joke. Even at $5K, it would just be another Sharp Elite type of sales volume and not sustainable.
> 
> If the 1 million sales target is accurate, I expect the price curve will follow the EA9800 all over again. Unless they can't actually produce any to sell.


Agree with everything you have written.

On the other hand, probably worth pointing out that the '1 million sales target' came not from LG but from DisplayMate (and we all know how accurate their OLED TV forecasts have been in the past 

M2 is about to ramp to Phase I output of 8000 sheets/ month.

If we assume the 80% yield that LG has claimed, that translates to ~38,000 55" or ~19, 000 65" or some combination (ie: ~25,000 55" & ~6000 65" at 67%/33%).

So pretty safe to assume that M2 will soon be pumping out ~30,000 OLED TVs a month and the first thing we will learn is what pricing LG needs to offer on the 55EC9300 and 65EC9700 to drive sustainable demand at that level month-after-month.

My own prediction is that we will quickly see a return to the 'false-start' pricing of


----------



## Chrissy4605

This is all very interesting to me, but I don't see my Husband or I running out to purchase an OLED/UHD tv soon. We still use 60" and 55" rear projection TV's I think we will wait until the 110" UHD TV will be around at a price point of $3000-$5000. Two to Four years we can wait. As for UHD monitors I will have them some time around my birthday 10/02.XXXX for my computer as I am a professional photographer.

http://cayennephotos.com


----------



## fafrd

IHS has apparently estimated that 14,000 OLED TVs were sold in the US in 2014 (following an estimated 500 in 2013): http://www.computerworld.com/articl...to-sell-for-one-third-the-price-of-oleds.html


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> IHS has apparently estimated that 14,000 OLED TVs were sold in the US in 2014 (following an estimated 500 in 2013): http://www.computerworld.com/articl...to-sell-for-one-third-the-price-of-oleds.html


http://news.oled-display.net/lg-sold-1000-oled-tv-units-in-october-2014/
LG sold 1,000 OLEDs in oktober 2014 in South-Korea, so that would mean that in South-Korea a similar amount of OLEDs were sold as in the US.


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> IHS has apparently estimated that 14,000 OLED TVs were sold in the US in 2014 (following an estimated 500 in 2013): http://www.computerworld.com/articl...to-sell-for-one-third-the-price-of-oleds.html


The date on that article is September 3rd so it is really a prediction and not an estimate.

Who knows if they even made that number. We didnt see much supply outside of Best Buy until the end of November for the 55" unit and nothing on the 65" unit. OTOH, it is worth noting that the 55EC9300 has consistently had a better sales rank on Amazon than Samsung's flagship models (55 and 65" HU9000 models).


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> The date on that article is September 3rd so it is really a prediction and not an estimate.
> 
> Who knows if they even made that number. We didnt see much supply outside of Best Buy until the end of November for the 55" unit and nothing on the 65" unit. OTOH, it is worth noting that the 55EC9300 has consistently had a better sales rank on Amazon than Samsung's flagship models (55 and 65" HU9000 models).


Yeah, that forecast could have been made before the M2/65EC9700 delay materialized, so the 13,000 US OLED number could be inflated. But it's a number, it's a forecast, and it is very, very unlikely that the actual number of OLEDs sold in the US this year was any higher than this.

And the point is that once M2 is truly online to Phase I capacity of 8000 sheets per month, LG will be producing many more OLEDs in a single month than they sold in the US in all of 2014.

This will change things dramatically and we will know as soon as it has happened and the channels have been filled through price reductions (my prediction is March).


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> IHS has apparently estimated that 14,000 OLED TVs were sold in the US in 2014 (following an estimated 500 in 2013): http://www.computerworld.com/articl...to-sell-for-one-third-the-price-of-oleds.html


All the numbers in that article keep saying units "shipped". Are we to assume that's the same as units "sold" to customers?


----------



## rogo

Wizziwig said:


> All the numbers in that article keep saying units "shipped". Are we to assume that's the same as units "sold" to customers?


No. In fact when it says "shipped" you can be certain the number sold to customers is smaller.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Another Forbes OLED article (not by Rogo):

*LG 55EC9300 OLED TV Review: The Ultimate HD TV?*

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...30v-oled-tv-review-impressive-yes-perfect-no/



> Verdict
> I love many things about the 55EC9300. It delivers handsomely on OLED’s contrast and colour promise, these talents are tucked inside a gorgeously designed body, and it’s not as eye-wateringly expensive as I’d have expected, giving us (hopefully) an early indication of how aggressive LG might get with OLED pricing in 2015.
> 
> However, some elements of LG’s processing currently feel like they’re lagging behind the core quality of its OLED panels, and most strikingly of all I kept feeling throughout my tests of this HD TV that OLED screens benefit from 4K even more than LCD ones do.


----------



## rogo

Rich Peterson said:


> Another Forbes OLED article (not by Rogo):
> 
> *LG 55EC9300 OLED TV Review: The Ultimate HD TV?*


I think that guy does a solid job. 

Incidentally, his comments about 4K further my belief (based on spending not enough time with the sets but some as well as comments here) that the low fill factor is a real issue on the 1080p models currently available. It's exacerbated whenever the white pixel is used to the exclusion of others, but exists anytime it's _either_ on or off. 

There were years this was a major topic of discussion on the projector forums (back when the S in AVS meant quite a bit more than it does now). And given the vertical inter-pixel spacing, the reality is that the effective pixel fill on the 1080p sets is pretty awful.

I look very forward to some macro closeups of the 4K to see if anything has changed vertically. But I'm also interested to spend some time with it to see if merely increasing the pixel count has decreased the sense of emptiness. That's not the given that some here think it is (not seeing the pixel grid is not the same as having a high fill factor), but it'll be interesting to see what they've done the redesign the panels overall.

It's also noteworthy, I think, that LG is moving all of this to 4K. It was (as some of us said a while back) a mistake not to do this from the get go. And the arguments about scaling it up with all those changes look silly in retrospect. We sit at the end of 2014 and LG has not managed anywhere near 100K units worldwide in 2 years. They failed to scale anyway, arguably in part because the displays lacked 4K.

2015 should be exciting.


----------



## David Mathews

rogo said:


> Generally, I'm unclear how they get to 1 million at premium pricing. I suppose it depends on the split between 55s and 65s but the fab capacity for large numbers of 65s is massively compromised.



from the earlier article slacker711 posted, looks like LG wants to add a lower premium "distribution" model. Prob still not a million sales per previously mentioned math, but bodes hope of more reasonable price points. 


> The company is also promoting to release a distribution model. LGE’s strategy is to reduce the price burden at the same time as widening the OLED TV choice for customers. For the distribution model, some functions will be excluded.


----------



## fafrd

David Mathews said:


> from the earlier article looks like LG wants to add a lower premium "distribution" model. Prob still not a million sales per previously mentioned math, but bodes hope of more reasonable price points.


For 2016, possibly. For this year, unlikely to have any impact since any partner products launched will probably not hit the channels until very late in the year...


----------



## Orbitron

Duplicate deleted.


----------



## rogo

Apparently, even modern AMOLED screens don't last especially long


----------



## kucharsk

rogo said:


> Apparently, even modern AMOLED screens don't last especially long


The problem is there is no scientific methodology whatsoever in that article; the reviewer would have needed to have two phones with displays from the same manufacturer and the same batch (same sheet preferred) that measured *exactly* the same, then put one away unused for a year or two to show actual degradation.

Even displays from the same manufacturer vary from batch to batch and over time as production run "improvements" are made.


----------



## rogo

kucharsk said:


> The problem is there is no scientific methodology whatsoever in that article; the reviewer would have needed to have two phones with displays from the same manufacturer and the same batch (same sheet preferred) that measured *exactly* the same, then put one away unused for a year or two to show actual degradation.
> 
> Even displays from the same manufacturer vary from batch to batch and over time as production run "improvements" are made.


I don't see that as a problem at all. He's not quantifying the degradation. He's basically establishing it that it exists, in all likelihood. This conclusion has been reached by numerous other sources.


----------



## fafrd

*OLED and HDR?*

David Mathews posted the following links in a thread on LGs new WCG LED/LCDs, but I thought it raised some interesting questions about LGs current WOLED technology and the evolution towards HDR:http://www.digitalfernsehen.de/TP-Vision-exklusiv-Teil-2-LCD-soll-OLED-schlagen.121989.0.html

There is a CIE chart halfway down suggesting that the color gamut of current LG WOLED is only a bit bigger than Rec.709 (and certainly nowhere near the '+30%' LG is claiming for their QDF LED/LCDs or the '+25%' they are claiming for their WCG Phosphor-based LED/LCDs).

HDR will also require much higher peak brightness for highlights, with the Vizio R spec'ed for 800 Nits and rumors of other HDR-enabled TVs able to deliver peak white levels of 1000 Nits or more.

And now LG has just announced that their 2015 OLEDs will support HDR content coming from Netflix.

So my question is: is LGs current-generation of WOLED TVs positioned to deliver HDR at close to the levels of these high-brightness HDR-enabled QDF/LED/LCDs, or could HDR prove to be to LGs OLED in 2015 what 4K was to LGs 1080p OLEDs in 2014?

And the follow-on question is: is LGs WOLED capable of a significant increase in peak white levels over a small region for highlights, or are they facing a fundamental limitation on that respect?

Any comments on how close WOLED can come to QDF and Rec.2020 also appreciated.


----------



## Rich Peterson

fafrd said:


> *OLED and HDR?*
> 
> David Mathews posted the following links in a thread on LGs new WCG LED/LCDs, but I thought it raised some interesting questions about LGs current WOLED technology and the evolution towards HDR:http://www.digitalfernsehen.de/TP-Vision-exklusiv-Teil-2-LCD-soll-OLED-schlagen.121989.0.html


Are we supposed to be able to read that article you posted?


----------



## fafrd

Rich Peterson said:


> Are we supposed to be able to read that article you posted? What really was the point?


The CIE chart halfway down (it is in English).

The article supposedly summarizes Philip's views of the difficulties LG's current WOLED technology will have on supporting HDR but I have not translated it. If the CIE chart is accurate, it summarizes the potential gap WOLED faces against the new crop of QDF WCG LED/LCDs coming out this year.

Panasonic, for example, is claiming that their AX900 is '98% DCI P3' and LG is claiming '30%' or '25%' increase in color gamut with their QDF and phosphor WCG LED/LCDs (presumably versus a gamut close to Rec.709) and from that CIE chart, OLED is nowhere near those levels and just a bit bigger than Rec.709.

Just curious to understand from the experts here on the thread whether this OLED color gamut information appears to be correct and if so what it could mean for OLED in a future moving towards HDR.

And by the way, since my earlier post, both Panasonic and Sharp appear to have announced plans for LED/LCDs supporting HDR in 2015 ( as well as a 4K Bluray supporting HDR announced by Panasonic).


----------



## ALMA

HDR in foto- and videography is not! about the highest peak brightness, it´s about highest possible sensor contrast in one scene/picture and it´s most about post processing the scene for example by mixing it with different exposures to avoid losing details in over- or underexposing.

https://www.google.de/search?q=HDR+...rce=univ&ei=6saqVLrLCce9PYXZgJgH&ved=0CCAQsAQ

HDR like from Dolby and all implementation from the TV manufactures is pure marketing and brings without content nothing new to stuff like "auto contrast enhancer", dynamic iris in projectors or local dimming in LCD TVs. Higher peak brightness alone, transforms not a picture into HDR. The perfect display for HDR is a emissive display which can controll all pixels and for consumer TVs that´s now only possible with OLED and their infinite contrast ratio. Also Tim Alessi said at the conference that the new OLED-TVs are HDR compatible.


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> HDR in foto- and videography is not! about brightness, it´s about high contrast in one scene/picture and it´s most about post processing the pictures, so you can see it on all monitors, TVs or on printing.
> 
> https://www.google.de/search?q=HDR+...rce=univ&ei=6saqVLrLCce9PYXZgJgH&ved=0CCAQsAQ
> 
> HDR like from Dolby and all implementation from the TV manufactures is pure marketing and brings nothing new to stuff like "auto contrast enhancer", dynamic iris in projectors or local dimming in LCD TVs. Higher peak brightness alone, transforms not a picture into HDR. The perfect display for HDR is a emissive display which can controll all pixels and for consumer TVs that´s now only possible with OLED and their infinite contrast ratio. Also *Tim Alessi said at the conference that the new OLED-TVs are HDR compatible.*


Of course he said that - I'm hoping for a bit of critical analysis from the experts here on thread to understand if that statement is necessarily true or not.

Samsung's full 2015 attack against LG OLED is going to be about color gamut, peak brightness, and 'true' HDR - we might as well understand whether there is any substance to those attacks sooner rather than later...


----------



## Keenan

Rich Peterson said:


> Are we supposed to be able to read that article you posted?


If you have the Chrome browser just open in up in that and Google Translate will translate it for you, simple and easy, works great.


----------



## tgm1024

Keenan said:


> If you have the Chrome browser just open in up in that and Google Translate will translate it for you, simple and easy, works great.


For firefox, I strongly recommend the "S3.Google Translator" addon. PHENOMENAL.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/s3google-translator/?src=search


----------



## fafrd

Rich Peterson said:


> Netflix to support high frame rate video on OLED TVs
> 
> Source: http://www.geek.com/news/netflix-to-support-high-frame-rate-video-on-oled-tvs-1612797/


Sounds like someone at geek.com is confused. Aside from the nonsense regarding refresh rates of OLED versus LCD, I listened to the Netflix presentation at the LG conference this morning and they referenced support for 'HDR' and said nothing regarding 'HFR'.

Perhaps someone could use a Q-tip or two


----------



## kucharsk

Rich Peterson said:


> Netflix to support high frame rate video on OLED TVs
> 
> Source: http://www.geek.com/news/netflix-to-support-high-frame-rate-video-on-oled-tvs-1612797/


Unfortunately HFR makes movies look like the soap opera effec in the theater, so you can achieve the same look by enabling the processing features on your current panel.


----------



## kucharsk

rogo said:


> I don't see that as a problem at all. He's not quantifying the degradation. He's basically establishing it that it exists, in all likelihood. This conclusion has been reached by numerous other sources.


"In all likelihood."

If they're going with that headline, some actual science might be nice.

What he did is akin to giving all your friends a medication then trying to announce the results in a medical journal.

Going back to the subject of M2 and future pricing, I find it disturbing that so many people here feel there is no room for a premium performance, premium price display. Perhaps not from LG, but that attitude is akin to saying Ferrari and Porsche will never be priced the same as a Toyota Camry so their vehicles have no future.

OLED is substantially - night and day - better than LCD and is essentially the only TV choice for many videophiles now that plasma is dead.

Myself, I hate grey letterbox bars and halos on white objects so LCD would not be an acceptable TV display technology for me.


----------



## fafrd

kucharsk said:


> Unfortunately HFR makes movies look like the soap opera effec in the theatert, so you can achieve the same look by enabling the processing features on your current panel.


And there is that argument as well - pretty sure the guys at geek.com are confused.


----------



## kucharsk

Confirmation of the correct version of Netflix' announcement, from _The Hollywood Reporter_:



> On high dynamic range (effectively a wider range between the blackest blacks and whitest whites), Greg Peters of Netflix was on hand to promote this effort to offer “not just more pixels, but better pixels, and HDR is coming to Netflix and LG this year.” The companies didn’t elaborate on what HDR specification(s) it intends to support, but expect plenty of HDR talk during CES, particularly in the Hollywood community where interest is building. Dolby is bullish on its Dolby Vision HDR format and others, including Technicolor and Phillips are developing HDR systems. There’s also a standards effort underway at the International Telecommunication Union to add HDR to its Ultra HD specification.


CES: LG Unwraps 77-inch Curved 4K OLED TV, Commits to High Dynamic Range


----------



## Rich Peterson

fafrd said:


> Sounds like someone at geek.com is confused. Aside from the nonsense regarding refresh rates of OLED versus LCD, I listened to the Netflix presentation at the LG conference this morning and they referenced support for 'HDR' and said nothing regarding 'HFR'.
> 
> Perhaps someone could use a Q-tip or two


I removed my post above.


----------



## rogo

kucharsk said:


> "In all likelihood."
> 
> If they're going with that headline, some actual science might be nice.


It's anecdote, the singular of data.


> Going back to the subject of M2 and future pricing, I find it disturbing that so many people here feel there is no room for a premium performance, premium price display.


There isn't. We've been at this for 15 years. Every single attempt has failed miserably.


> Perhaps not from LG, but that attitude is akin to saying Ferrari and Porsche will never be priced the same as a Toyota Camry so their vehicles have no future.


It's not. Cars have been proved to have a premium segment. So have handbags. Displays have proved to have no such economically viable segment.


> OLED is substantially - night and day - better than LCD and is essentially the only TV choice for many videophiles now that plasma is dead.


It's not night and day. Not even close. I suggest you run some actual real-world tests to see how people who are not you see the world. Try asking people in Best Buy how they feel about the OLED. Their reactions are generally muted. Some see it as clearly better, most do not.

Then try having people look at a Galaxy Note 4 and iPhone 6 Plus. One has a better screen (on most objective metrics). Ask people if they clearly prefer one screen over the other. Again it's not night and day. 

OLED is "better", but it's simply not night and day better. If it were, it'd already be selling out everywhere because people would be going nuts for it. There were 55-inch LGs for $2000 at Microcenter last year and even then they didn't sell out quickly.


----------



## kucharsk

rogo said:


> It's not night and day. Not even close. I suggest you run some actual real-world tests to see how people who are not you see the world. Try asking people in Best Buy how they feel about the OLED. Their reactions are generally muted. Some see it as clearly better, most do not.
> 
> Then try having people look at a Galaxy Note 4 and iPhone 6 Plus. One has a better screen (on most objective metrics). Ask people if they clearly prefer one screen over the other. Again it's not night and day.
> 
> OLED is "better", but it's simply not night and day better. If it were, it'd already be selling out everywhere because people would be going nuts for it. There were 55-inch LGs for $2000 at Microcenter last year and even then they didn't sell out quickly.


I disagree; most everyone I've talked to clearly can see the difference between an OLED and the LCDs at Best Buy, it's the price level that keeps them from making the purchase.

There are other factors as well; I'd never purchase an Android phone, so it makes little difference to me which screen is better, and I suspect others have similar concerns.

I've tried to like LED/LCD before but just can't get over the poor black display in a dark environment and the haloing. Every time I've looked at sets before I return home to my ten year-old Panasonic plasma and am pleased by what I see, and short of a dalliance with a 65" Samsung plasma I'm debating whether to return, see OLED as the only viable technology that would provide me with what I consider to be baseline video performance rather than settling for something cruddy but cheap.

I fully realize I represent a minority, surprisingly enough even here on AVS, which is more videophile oriented than say the Amazon or Best Buy review pages.

If OLED fails I'll have to go back to hoping laser projection with zero fan noise somehow becomes a reality or that short-throw projection comes down in price.


----------



## rogo

I suspect you're surveying of random of shoppers is colored by your personal bias toward OLED. I find a meaningful number of shoppers who have no preference either way. I find few who have ever expressed even a small desire to "upgrade" to OLED, even when they see it as superior. 

OLED TVs are marginally better than LCD TVs. It's that simple. There is no differentiator that will ever cause people to demand them in large numbers until price parity is attained. Until then, it's a niche within a niche with a niche. It's not surprising that manufacturers are not rushing to join LG in this quixotic quest to replace a dominant technology that meets the needs of billions worldwide.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I suspect you're surveying of random of shoppers is colored by your personal bias toward OLED. I find a meaningful number of shoppers who have no preference either way. I find few who have ever expressed even a small desire to "upgrade" to OLED, even when they see it as superior.
> 
> OLED TVs are marginally better than LCD TVs. It's that simple. There is no differentiator that will ever cause people to demand them in large numbers until price parity is attained. Until then, it's a niche within a niche with a niche. It's not surprising that manufacturers are not rushing to join LG in this quixotic quest to replace a dominant technology that meets the needs of billions worldwide.


And then there is this (found by another member): http://www.cnet.com/products/philips-65pfl8900/

Do we think this technology is for real? Any opinions about it? Sounds to be another sort of enhanced FALD but at $3500 for 65", the price point is interesting...


----------



## rogo

I doubt it's real, and there is no Philips here in the U.S. anyway. 

Is there really an advantage to making full array backlighting more complex this way other than wider gamut?


----------



## wco81

Was more limited color gamut the problem with LCD?

How about motion resolution and contrast, black levels?

The HDR talk at CES is kind of interesting.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I doubt it's real, and there is no Philips here in the U.S. anyway.
> 
> Is there really an advantage to making full array backlighting more complex this way other than wider gamut?


Might depend on the details of what the 'lasers' do and if they are effectively able to deliver the local dimming performance of a large number of dimming zones (reduced halo/bloom) at lower cost.

But agree, it seems a bit too good to be true...


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Might depend on the details of what the 'lasers' do and if they are effectively ably to deliver the local dimming performance of a large number of dimming zones (reduced halo/bloom) at lower cost.


That TV is just weird.

But I don't see any potential advantage in that regard because it still purportedly has a full cyan backlight (to apparently make a dichromatic white with that red laser).


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> That TV is just weird.
> 
> But I don't see any potential advantage in that regard because it still purportedly has a full cyan backlight (to apparently make a dichromatic white with that red laser).


Thick-of-CES mysteries abound...


----------



## Wizziwig

rogo said:


> It's anecdote, the singular of data.
> 
> There isn't. We've been at this for 15 years. Every single attempt has failed miserably.
> 
> It's not. Cars have been proved to have a premium segment. So have handbags. Displays have proved to have no such economically viable segment.


I totally agree with you but I wonder what you make of Bang & Olufsen? I know they don't make their own panels but they've somehow been able to stay in business for many years catering to the extreme high end.

As for the Samsung OLED degradation article - considering how little usage a phone gets compared to a TV, I find that article very scary. I wonder if that contributed to Samsung pulling out of the OLED TV market. Their TVs had a similar larger blue sub-pixel but that didn't seem to help the phone in the article. Guess we'll know soon enough since we have a few Samsung OLED owners here. That yellowing should be very obvious if they have another display to compare with.


----------



## rogo

Wizziwig said:


> I totally agree with you but I wonder what you make of Bang & Olufsen? I know they don't make their own panels but they've somehow been able to stay in business for many years catering to the extreme high end.


They've done it selling audio. And, yes, not making panels.

(And the company is for sale. It's not especially successful, though it was more so when audio was a thing and beautiful audio components on display mattered to people.)



> As for the Samsung OLED degradation article - considering how little usage a phone gets compared to a TV, I find that article very scary. I wonder if that contributed to Samsung pulling out of the OLED TV market. Their TVs had a similar larger blue sub-pixel but that didn't seem to help the phone in the article. Guess we'll know soon enough since we have a few Samsung OLED owners here. That yellowing should be very obvious if they have another display to compare with.


I don't want to overhype the lifetime stuff, especially because the Samsung tech is sufficiently different from the LG tech that we ought not see the same phenomenon.

But it would be nice if LG had, in fact, kept a set running since mid-2012 and could report back on how great it looked after 2 1/2 years of non-stop use.


----------



## WilliamR

Forgive the stupid question, new to all this OLED talk. Do OLED suffer from the same static image/burn-in issue that Plasma users face? Or is it not possible on an OLED?


----------



## forlorn

It's certainly possible, but it takes more abuse than it would your average plasma to cause burn-in on these panels. There are examples of it occurring in the field (display models) but not a single owner has reported burn-in to my knowledge. The risk is, however, there since these have a shorter lifetime owing to that of the blue OLED material, which decays at a faster rate than red and green (as is being discussed above).


----------



## Jason626

forlorn said:


> It's certainly possible, but it takes more abuse than it would your average plasma to cause burn-in on these panels. There are examples of it occurring in the field (display models) but not a single owner has reported burn-in to my knowledge. The risk is, however, there since these have a shorter lifetime owing to that of the blue OLED material, which decays at a faster rate than red and green (as is being discussed above).


Keep in mind the blue is more of a Samsung issue. Lg uses all white with color filters over it.


----------



## forlorn

Right, but it still drags down accuracy with it (along with the lifetime of the others when they are called to compensate).


----------



## xrox

WilliamR said:


> Forgive the stupid question, new to all this OLED talk. Do OLED suffer from the same static image/burn-in issue that Plasma users face? Or is it not possible on an OLED?


It is absolutely possible. In fact it is inherent.

Plasma displays have at least three distinct mechanisms that caused retention of an image including wall charge imbalace, MgO sputtering, and phosphor aging.

Similarily, OLED displays have multiple mechanisms causing retention of an image including changes over time in charge mobility, injection, and EL luminence.

As I said in another thread, the degree at which a display is prone to burn-in is directly related to the lifetime number and how it was measured (Full pixel architecture,%APL, compensation...etc).

OLEDs 30,000 hours is relatively small compared to Plasmas 100,000+ hours so there may be a higher risk of burn in with OLEDs but we don't know if these numbers can be compared apples to apples.

Also, unlike Plasma, OLED technology is much more capable of compensating for pixel usage time. However, I'm not sure it has been implemented.


----------



## fafrd

The following article on Samsung's SUHD claims that their use of nano-crystals results in a 2.5x increase in efficiency and light output from the LED-based backlight: http://www.cnet.com/products/samsung-un65js8500/

I suppose it is tru that narrower focusing of light into distinct and separable R and G and B should result in less 'in-between' spectral frequencies being completely filtered out and wasted, but 250% increase in light output seems very high.

Do we believe there could be any truth to this claim? 

If true, it would mean that a backlight generating 400 cd/m2 with a conventional LCD could generate 1000 cd/m2 when paired with QDF - again, seems a bit too good to be true.


----------



## barth2k

Wizziwig said:


> As for the Samsung OLED degradation article - considering how little usage a phone gets compared to a TV, I find that article very scary. I wonder if that contributed to Samsung pulling out of the OLED TV market. Their TVs had a similar larger blue sub-pixel but that didn't seem to help the phone in the article. Guess we'll know soon enough since we have a few Samsung OLED owners here. That yellowing should be very obvious if they have another display to compare with.


I bought a Samsung OLED tablet and that got me slightly spooked. Loss of brightness is one thing, but the obvious color shift is the killer.

TV content is a lot more variable, but at the same time, people don't set their TV to time out after two minutes of non usage either.


----------



## kucharsk

But once again, that Samsung article is based on one reviewer's sample size of exactly one phone and is *completely* non-scientific.


----------



## barth2k

When people bring up burn in or other problems seen on store displays, the response is always "it isn't a normal use case." (I don't find that reassuring; aren't the store displays the canary in the coal mine?)

Okay, well here is one real world use case. It's not dispositive, but I think it points out something that needs to be investigated.


----------



## forlorn

Wake me when a bonafide OLED TV owner reports it.


----------



## rogo

forlorn said:


> It's certainly possible, but it takes more abuse than it would your average plasma to cause burn-in on these panels.


False.



forlorn said:


> Right, but it still drags down accuracy with it (along with the lifetime of the others when they are called to compensate).


No idea what that means.



xrox said:


> It is absolutely possible. In fact it is inherent.


True.


> As I said in another thread, the degree at which a display is prone to burn-in is directly related to the lifetime number and how it was measured (Full pixel architecture,%APL, compensation...etc).
> 
> OLEDs 30,000 hours is relatively small compared to Plasmas 100,000+ hours so there may be a higher risk of burn in with OLEDs but we don't know if these numbers can be compared apples to apples.


Correct, but it's certainly fair to say we'd currently expect OLED to be approximately as vulnerable as plasma, if not more so, based on those numbers. It was very, very difficult to create burn in on a modern plasma.


> Also, unlike Plasma, OLED technology is much more capable of compensating for pixel usage time. However, I'm not sure it has been implemented.


No evidence of that, because you'd think LG would say so if it were true.

Certainly, whatever is going on with the mobile Samsungs is not designed to give them longevity. And that makes sense because the devices themselves are disposable to a certain extent.


----------



## forlorn

Here comes an anecdote but...not false at all in my experience after 2200 hours of use on an EC559800 versus several plasma models. 12 hours of stationary graphics afforded by football can be washed away in a matter of 2 to 4 hours on the OLED. The plasma would require 24 hours or more to wrestle away same. The Panasonic threads are filled with such complaints about such ornery behavior. The OLED threads? Not so much. This comparison might not apply to the same degree with previous generations of Panasonic plasma or other brands, but it is applicable to my findings nonetheless.

I was also under the impression that you yourself were stating that the short lifespan of blue results in an overall shorter panel lifespan.


----------



## rogo

forlorn said:


> Here comes an anecdote but...not false at all in my experience after 2200 hours of use on an EC559800 versus several plasma models. 12 hours of stationary graphics afforded by football can be washed away in a matter of 2 to 4 hours on the OLED. The plasma would require 24 hours or more to wrestle away same. The Panasonic threads are filled with such complaints about such ornery behavior. The OLED threads? Not so much. This comparison might not apply to the same degree with previous generations of Panasonic plasma or other brands, but it is applicable to my findings nonetheless.


I can't retain an image on my 2012 Panasonic no matter what I do.

And temporary, reversible image retention is *still not burn in*. Never has been, never will be. Apples/bananas comparison.


> I was also under the impression that you yourself were stating that the short lifespan of blue results in an overall shorter panel lifespan.


It's the limiting factor, even in LG's designs.


----------



## forlorn

I'm aware of their better resilience. That didn't translate as well in 2013. Long-term IR is close enough to burn-in with regards to the irritation and frustration dept. for me to hardly find it worth making the discernment.


----------



## rogo

forlorn said:


> I'm aware of their better resilience. That didn't translate as well in 2013. Long-term IR is close enough to burn-in with regards to the irritation and frustration dept. for me to hardly find it worth making the discernment.


"Because I am annoyed by something, I will conflate it with some other thing. Facts be damned."

I will suggest the powers that be rename this place the Audio Video Conflate Whatever We Feel Like Forum. AVCWWFL Forum rolls off the tongue, doncha think?


----------



## kucharsk

Just to add a bit of sanity, an expected 30,000 hours to half brightness at eight hours per day calculates out to just over ten years of use.


----------



## forlorn

^I'm not insane, thanks.


rogo said:


> "Because I am annoyed by something, I will conflate it with some other thing. Facts be damned."
> 
> I will suggest the powers that be rename this place the Audio Video Conflate Whatever We Feel Like Forum. AVCWWFL Forum rolls off the tongue, doncha think?


You can make any suggestion you want. Tell me...how does running a set for 300 hours using erasure mechanisms to get to 90% removal (while simultaneously having to avoid the content that created it in the first place) or having color uniformity problems emanate from the display of something as seemingly benign as subtitles make for a less frustrating or anxiety-ridden experience than actual burn-in? They're both showstoppers especially for the OCD-afflicted. You were quite ready to use that phone anecdote to show how susceptible OLED can be to degradation, so turnabout is fair play. The LG OLEDs are more resilient to static imagery than Panasonic's 2013 Vieras based on personal experience and the owner experiences that have been chronicled here at the forum. This says nothing to the 2012 models or even the F8500 or the Pioneer Kuro, all of which are apparently less susceptible to static imagery, but I can say with 99% confidence that Panasonic was moving in the wrong direction, which is why my original statement you coined as "false" is far from it. 

Here's where I will relent: My use of "average" plasma was likely a poor choice since the 2013 Vieras do not necessarily represent the "average" plasma (since this only represents a single model year, from a single manufacturer).


----------



## tgm1024

^^^Not being a plasma guy, I can only say how the chatter "seems" to be (to me), and from what I can gather, the 2013 ZT/VT60's were more likely to show IR than any VT50 from 2012. Again, it's how it seems that the complaints went around here.

But either way, if that's truly the crap you had to put up with, then wow, that's a true pain in the @$$.

*EDIT*: WHOA! I made it to 1000 likes!!!!! Thanks guys!!!!


----------



## 8mile13

tgm1024 said:


> ^^^Not being a plasma guy, I can only say how the chatter "seems" to be (to me), and from what I can gather, the 2013 ZT/VT60's were more likely to show IR than any VT50 from 2012. Again, it's how it seems that the complaints went around here.
> 
> But either way, if that's truly the crap you had to put up with, then wow, that's a true pain in the @$$.
> 
> *EDIT*: WHOA! I made it to 1000 likes!!!!! Thanks guys!!!!


I will not let you enjoy that!!


----------



## tgm1024

^^^There. I gave you a "mercy like".


----------



## Orbitron

A Samsung rep at CES interviewed on Geek Beat live said believe it or not the curved display has less geometric distortion than a flat display - is this true?


----------



## forlorn

A Samsung rep said....that's all you need to know to raise a red flag.

Anyway, that *might* be true if you're sitting at the sweet spot, but it will almost certainly look more distorted than a flat screen from any other non-ideal seating position.


----------



## JWhip

Orbitron said:


> A Samsung rep at CES interviewed on Geek Beat live said believe it or not the curved display has less geometric distortion than a flat display - is this true?


Was his nose growing as he said that? Absolute BS.


----------



## Orbitron

JWhip said:


> Was his nose growing as he said that? Absolute BS.


Well, he did say believe it or not


----------



## JWhip

I'll go with NOT.


----------



## Orbitron

JWhip said:


> I'll go with NOT.


I 2nd the Motion , all those in favor, say aye.


----------



## rogo

forlorn said:


> You can make any suggestion you want. Tell me...how does running a set for 300 hours using erasure mechanisms to get to 90% removal (while simultaneously having to avoid the content that created it in the first place) or having color uniformity problems emanate from the display of something as seemingly benign as subtitles make for a less frustrating or anxiety-ridden experience than actual burn-in? They're both showstoppers especially for the OCD-afflicted.


I've never used an "erasure mechanism."


> You were quite ready to use that phone anecdote to show how susceptible OLED can be to degradation, so turnabout is fair play.


Yes, both are anecdotal, the singular of data. 


> The LG OLEDs are more resilient to static imagery than Panasonic's 2013 Vieras based on personal experience and the owner experiences that have been chronicled here at the forum.


Sorry, you have noting resembling a valid sample on which to base that claim. You have anecdotes from some Panasonic owners, but no sample size of people who didn' complain. You have so few LG owners, the sample size is meaningless.


> Here's where I will relent: My use of "average" plasma was likely a poor choice since the 2013 Vieras do not necessarily represent the "average" plasma (since this only represents a single model year, from a single manufacturer).


The "average" plasma can't be caused to suffer noticeable image retention with normal viewing and can't experience actual burn in. 

Can we say that of the average OLED? We actually have no idea. None.

What we know is that Samsung's mobile OLEDs are definitely susceptible to burn in and color shifting _under heavy usage, at least in some cases_.


----------



## forlorn

I am tired of going in circles, and I am certainly not interested in playing the pick-apart-the-post game. I also won't acknowledge for at least the third time that the 2012 models may very well be less susceptible to static imagery retention even though you feel you have to keep on reiterating it. I've viewed with more than a cursory glance the remarks concerning the same in the 2013 models, and it is notable. Sample size aside, I realize those who experience problems will typically be the loudest participants in forums like these. However, and I repeat, not a single OLED TV owner has reported an incident of burn-in, the worst reported cases being temporary IR (usually letterbox, sometimes static content).


----------



## rogo

So you won't go in circles, but you'll certainly seek the last word?

I'll give it you, except to say I don't believe you've proved a thing with a sample size of fewer than 10.


----------



## forlorn

I concede that point and that I had to rely upon extrapolation to reach my half-baked conclusion. You win.


----------



## Desk.

This report on a HDR prototype OLED from LG makes reference to the company using new materials in their sets...

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/lgs-oled-hdr-tv-shines-brighter/



> He said LGD had developed new materials for its WRGB OLED displays that allow higher efficiency, namely better light output from the same amount of power. The result is an increase in peak light output of highlights from about 500 nits (a measure of brightness) using the current technology to 800, an increase of 60 percent.


Desk


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Now the question is, would 800 nits be bright enough for black frame insertion for non-HDR content?


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Now the question is, would 800 nits be bright enough for black frame insertion for non-HDR content?


Even if you need 200 Nits of peak output for viewing in a bright room, 800 Nits would allow for 75% BFI.

Coupled with a 120 Hz refresh rate (through native content or frame interpolation from 60fps sources), this would give you a pixel persistence of 2.1ms, roughly equivalent to what you would get with a refresh rate of 480Hz.

And as long as you don't find the strobing at 60 Hz too objectionable, even 60 fps sources without frame interpolation could deliver persistence of 4.2ms (240 Hz). [though there really can't be any Soap Opera Effect on sources that are already 60fps Soap Operas .

And if you are watching fast-action-sports in a dark room and can live with only 100 Nits peak, 87.5% BFI would get you down to pixel persistence of a smidgen over 1ms (960Hz Effective Refresh Rate from 120fps sources of w/ frame interpolation).

800 Nits is a fantastic amount of brightness and equates to brighter than the brightest TV in the consumer market today.

Go LG


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> And as long as you don't find the strobing at 60 Hz too objectionable, even 60 fps sources without frame interpolation could deliver persistence of 4.2ms (240 Hz).


I forget where on the BlurBusters site I read it, but you could make the decay time of the strope last longer for lower refreshrates such as non-interpolated 60hz and lower.


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> I forget where on the BlurBusters site I read it, but you could make the decay time of the strope last longer for lower refreshrates such as non-interpolated 60hz and lower.


I think we're saying the same thing - 60fps without frame interpolation can use BFI to reduce pixel persistence to 25% (or even 12.5% if you only need 100 Nits peak white) as long as the frame strobing at 60Hz does not bother you.

The advantage of frame interpolation to 120 Fps is to strobe at a frequency that few generally object to (in addition to doubling light output for the same % of BFI).


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> I think we're saying the same thing - 60fps without frame interpolation can use BFI to reduce pixel persistence to 25% (or even 12.5% if you only need 100 Nits peak white) as long as the frame strobing at 60Hz does not bother you.
> 
> The advantage of frame interpolation to 120 Fps is to strobe at a frequency that few generally object to (in addition to doubling light output for the same % of BFI).


No, that is not what I am saying.

FYI, I am intimately familiar with BFI and flicker because my main PC monitor, the display I am using this very moment, is a Trinitron CRT.

What I'm trying to say is the decay from full-bright to black during the BFI transition could last for a longer period of time on lower refresh rates so as to make flickering not be noticable (or at least as noticable). I believe I read in the very same BlurBusters post/article/whatever that this is why CRT TVs were nowhere as flickery as CRT monitors @ 60hz.


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> No, that is not what I am saying.
> 
> FYI, I am intimately familiar with BFI and flicker because my main PC monitor, the display I am using this very moment, is a Trinitron CRT.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is the decay from full-bright to black during the BFI transition could last for a longer period of time on lower refresh rates so as to make flickering not be noticable (or at least as noticable). I believe I read in the very same BlurBusters post/article/whatever that this is why CRT TVs were nowhere as flickery as CRT monitors @ 60hz.


Well, not quite sure what you are saying but I'm not sure how relevant CRTs are to the motion blur challenges of OLED. Among other things, CRT TVs generally had interleaved frames at 60hz as well as peak brightness levels going far beyond what can be delivered by LED/LCD or OLED.

The example of pixel-persistence-based blur on LCDs is probably the more relevant reference point. If you could have the brightness to strobe pixels ON for only a millisecond or so the persistence-based blur would probably be close to CRT-like, but some apparently notice the strobing at 60Hz (and I believe that is why Blurbusters is promoting 120Hz).

What is the basis of your concern with OLED motion-blur, for gaming?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> I'm not sure how relevant CRTs are to the motion blur challenges of OLED


My point is that CRTs are inherently low-persistant displays which essentually have BFI "built-in" to their architecture, so I am intimately familiar with the relationship between flicker, refresh rates, and blur in a BFI-like environment - especially since I am a heavy user of SVP and 60fps content in general (I am not a movie buff at all as I grew up with cartoons, arcade-like console video games, and computers, so I couldn't care less about the 24fps "cinematic" look)



fafrd said:


> CRT TVs generally had interleaved frames at 60hz


But CRT PC monitors were also capable of progressive display because you can select interlaced resolutions separately from progressive ones and the resulting image is definitely different.



fafrd said:


> What is the basis of your concern with OLED motion-blur, for gaming?


Pretty much anything that's of fast motion or 60fps or greater frame rates, whether it's games, general PC use, HFR video or the like. One thing to mention is that you don't want to use frame-interpolation with games and/or PCs because that can cause a reduction of input lag.

Oh, and I am definitely a fan of arcade-style racing games (F-Zero GX, Rush 2049, Hydro Thunder, Excite Truch) and moderately a fan of real-life racing as well (Formula E has my current interest).

Basically, I don't want a noticable downgrade from what I've already been using my entire life (I'm 24) - heck my CRT TV (also a Trinitron) only died 18 months ago.


----------



## AV Hack

Orbitron said:


> I 2nd the Motion , all those in favor, say aye.


Aye


----------



## CatBus

Desk. said:


> This report on a HDR prototype OLED from LG makes reference to the company using new materials in their sets...
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/lgs-oled-hdr-tv-shines-brighter/
> 
> Desk


I apologize, but I have no frame of reference for how plausible this development is. Presumably they have a prototype, so it's achievable, but can this sort of thing be quickly incorporated into mass production or not? What would it do to production costs, etc? Any ideas?


I'm also interested entirely as it applies to the BFI angle, so I'm also wondering if there's any reason (technical, legal, whatever) why they _wouldn't_ have a BFI implementation once this brightness level was achieved.


----------



## sonny21

fafrd said:


> Even if you need 200 Nits of peak output for viewing in a bright room, 800 Nits would allow for 75% BFI.
> 
> Coupled with a 120 Hz refresh rate (through native content or frame interpolation from 60fps sources), this would give you a pixel persistence of 2.1ms, roughly equivalent to what you would get with a refresh rate of 480Hz.
> 
> And as long as you don't find the strobing at 60 Hz too objectionable, even 60 fps sources without frame interpolation could deliver persistence of 4.2ms (240 Hz). [though there really can't be any Soap Opera Effect on sources that are already 60fps Soap Operas .
> 
> And if you are watching fast-action-sports in a dark room and can live with only 100 Nits peak, 87.5% BFI would get you down to pixel persistence of a smidgen over 1ms (960Hz Effective Refresh Rate from 120fps sources of w/ frame interpolation).
> 
> 800 Nits is a fantastic amount of brightness and equates to brighter than the brightest TV in the consumer market today.
> 
> Go LG


Too bad LG won't implement BFI in any of their 2015 lineup


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> My point is that CRTs are inherently low-persistant displays which essentually have BFI "built-in" to their architecture, so I am intimately familiar with the relationship between flicker, refresh rates, and blur in a BFI-like environment - especially since I am a heavy user of SVP and 60fps content in general (I am not a movie buff at all as I grew up with cartoons, arcade-like console video games, and computers, so I couldn't care less about the 24fps "cinematic" look)
> 
> 
> But CRT PC monitors were also capable of progressive display because you can select interlaced resolutions separately from progressive ones and the resulting image is definitely different.
> 
> 
> Pretty much anything that's of fast motion or 60fps or greater frame rates, whether it's games, general PC use, HFR video or the like. One thing to mention is that you don't want to use frame-interpolation with games and/or PCs because that can cause a reduction of input lag.
> 
> Oh, and I am definitely a fan of arcade-style racing games (F-Zero GX, Rush 2049, Hydro Thunder, Excite Truch) and moderately a fan of real-life racing as well (Formula E has my current interest).
> 
> Basically, I don't want a noticable downgrade from what I've already been using my entire life (I'm 24) - heck my CRT TV (also a Trinitron) only died 18 months ago.


Gotcha (and I guess your handle should have been a clue).

If you have experience with progressive CRT, then you know far more about that technology than me.

For gaming, I agree, can't ask the TV to perform frame-interpolation - too slow.

There will eventually be 120 FPS game consoles (or even 90 FPS) which will allow you to use BFI with abandon and with no concerns regarding flicker.

In the meantime, your stuck with 60fps and should figure out whether you notice 60 FPS BFI flicker or not. If it doesn't bother you on an LED/LCD (running at 60 FPS refresh rate), then it shouldn't bother you on an OLED either (for if/when LG implements BFI).

If 60 FPS BFI flicker does bother you on an LED, you're probably SOL until 130fps or 90fps games come out and may need to stick to CRT until then (is anyone still manufacturing them?)


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> There will eventually be 120 FPS game consoles (or even 90 FPS) which will allow you to use BFI with abandon and with no concerns regarding flicker.
> 
> In the meantime, your stuck with 60fps and should figure out whether you notice 60 FPS BFI flicker or not. If it doesn't bother you on an LED/LCD (running at 60 FPS refresh rate), then it shouldn't bother you on an OLED either (for if/when LG implements BFI).


 I have no problem with 120hz LED backlight strobing (which my TV does), and in fact I commonly use 79hz for my desktop resolution on my PC, though I can still tell that it's not as non-flickery as something like 90hz on the very same CRT. However, once I go to around 72hz things defintely get somewhat noticably flickery on my CRT, and I have no experience with LED BFI @ 60hz.



In other news, I found the article! I'm definitely going to link and quote the heck out of this thing in the future. 



[URL]http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/creating-strobe-backlight/#variablerefresh[/URL] said:


> *Strobing will cause uncomfortable flicker at lower refresh rates.
> 
> * Mark Rejhon has invented a *solution*: Dynamic shaping of the strobe curve from PWM-free mode at low framerates, all the way to square-wave strobing at high framerates. The monitor backlight runs in *PWM-free mode during low refresh rates* (e.g. [email protected], [email protected]), and gradually become soft gaussian/sinewave undulations in backlight brightness (bright-dim-bright-dim) at [email protected], with the curves becoming sharper (fullbright-off-fullbright-off) as you head higher in framerates, towards [email protected] At the monitor’s maximum framerate, the strobing more resembles a square wave with large totally-black-gaps between strobes.


----------



## xrox

NintendoManiac64 said:


> In other news, I found the article! I'm definitely going to link and quote the heck out of this thing in the future.


Changing the shape of the strobe intensity isn't going to accomplish much. The benefit is coming from increasing the effective duty cycle. Anyways, this gradual strobe shape is inherent to PDP and still does not eliminate flicker. Even in PDP vs CRT the difference in flicker visibility is debatable.


----------



## Desk.

Kateeva now predicting OLED TVs costing 20% to 30% less than LCDs by 2017....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2015/01/13/oled-tvs-to-cost-20-30-less-than-lcds/

Hrmm..

Desk


----------



## 8mile13

Desk. said:


> Kateeva now predicting OLED TVs costing 20% to 30% less than LCDs by 2017....
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2015/01/13/oled-tvs-to-cost-20-30-less-than-lcds/
> 
> Hrmm..
> 
> Desk


No, that is not what has been said.
''At volume, OLED TVs made with panels produced with Kateeva's proccesses will cost 20% to 30% less to manufacture than LCd TVs'' ''Kateeva can't predict Retail prices, but *one* *can* *imagine* *these* *TVs* *being* *cost competitive*, particularly if a manufacturer is bent on market share.''


----------



## Desk.

8mile13 said:


> No, that is not what has been said.
> ''At volume, OLED TVs made with panels produced with Kateeva's proccesses will cost 20% to 30% less to manufacture than LCd TVs'' ''Kateeva can't predict Retail prices, but *one* *can* *imagine* *these* *TVs* *being* *cost competitive*, particularly if a manufacturer is bent on market share.''


To be honest, I haven't even had a chance to read through the article. I spotted it and had time to post a link, thinking it might be of interest to someone.

So, you know, whatever...

Desk


----------



## wco81

It's only Samsung which are going to be using Katteva's process?

So they badmouth OLED this year but next year or the year after they will be touting their OLEDs made with Kateeva?


----------



## andy sullivan

wco81 said:


> It's only Samsung which are going to be using Katteva's process?
> 
> So they badmouth OLED this year but next year or the year after they will be touting their OLEDs made with Kateeva?


You bet they will. As will anybody else that wants to be a major player.


----------



## wco81

From a WSJ story on QD and other TV sets:



> Samsung, the world’s largest television maker by shipments, introduced its first OLED television set with a curved screen in 2013 and said it would mass produce those sets that year. Yet at CES last week, the company repositioned itself as an advocate of quantum dot.
> 
> “We feel that we need a little more time for OLED to become mainstream,” said Kim Hyun-suk, the head of Samsung’s television business, in an interview. He said quantum dot could be better than OLED in terms of brightness, though he added that the South Korean technology company wouldn’t pull the plug on OLED television sets.





> At CES, Samsung showcased an array of quantum-dot television sets, but the sole OLED television at its booth was a 55-inch model on a wall, largely for the purpose of emphasizing the better color gamut of the company’s quantum-dot model.
> 
> Samsung says the new models will be mass-produced and available in the market this year.





> LG, the world’s second-largest television maker after Samsung by shipments, also showed a number of quantum-dot models, but played down the technology.
> 
> “It’s definitely an interim step,” said Scott Ahn, LG’s chief technology officer, in an interview. “When OLED prices come down, quantum dot won’t have a place to stand.”
> 
> LG, of South Korea, is currently the only manufacturer that sells OLED television sets globally. Sony Corp. was the first company to commercialize an 11-inch OLED set in 2007, but has struggled to produce large models efficiently. It unveiled a 56-inch prototype two years ago at CES, but the set didn’t reach the market.
> 
> “OLED is a great panel technology but it’s difficult to make an affordable TV for now,” said Philip Jones, a product-information manager for Sony. Even so, Mr. Jones said the technology has potential for improvement. Japan-based Sony currently uses an LCD technology similar to quantum dot for its television sets.



http://www.wsj.com/articles/tv-makers-set-a-new-strategy-1421175766


----------



## chexi1

I am beginning to really dislike Samsung. I have a really old Samsung cheap laser printer sitting in my attic somewhere and my only other Samsung product, a 50" LCD TV that will shortly be going to my mother's house, was just displaced with an LG 55EA800 OLED. I never had anything against Samsung, other than perhaps all the tech they copy and the broken frame interpolation on my LCD TV that they never really got right, but this bs they keep spinning has prompted me to impose a lifetime ban on Samsung in my household. There. It is done.


----------



## tgm1024

chexi1 said:


> I am beginning to really dislike Samsung. I have a really old Samsung cheap laser printer sitting in my attic somewhere and my only other Samsung product, a 50" LCD TV that will shortly be going to my mother's house, was just displaced with an LG 55EA800 OLED. I never had anything against Samsung, other than perhaps all the tech they copy and the broken frame interpolation on my LCD TV that they never really got right, but this bs they keep spinning has prompted me to impose a lifetime ban on Samsung in my household. There. It is done.


Well their Galaxy Note II that I own is spectacular at least. But their UN46C6300 in 2010 that I owned _briefly_ was _*horrendous*._


----------



## irkuck

8mile13 said:


> No, that is not what has been said.
> ''At volume, OLED TVs made with panels produced with Kateeva's proccesses will cost 20% to 30% less to manufacture than LCd TVs'' ''Kateeva can't predict Retail prices, but *one* *can* *imagine* *these* *TVs* *being* *cost competitive*, particularly if a manufacturer is bent on market share.''


Guys like Kateeva have to be buzzoptimistic and so they are. Since they predict their technology in products in 2017 their printed OLED sheets should be competitive with premium wallpaper .

What was more interesting in the article is this_: Back in 2008, most manufacturers estimated that OLED TVs might hit the mainstream by 2015. _ Fact is that LG fulfilled this estimation just on time.


----------



## rogo

I don't think mainstream means what you think it means.

But then I don't think you understand Kateeva's claims and how low on hype they are.


----------



## Desk.

South Korean government to encourage creation of $3.75 billion OLED assembly line....

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150118000259

No idea what kind of OLED assembly this is, though.

Desk


----------



## Rich Peterson

I'm not sure what thread to put this in.

BestBuy ran a commercial for the LG 9300 OLED TV today during the AFC football championship game in my area at least. I'm not sure if it went out nationwide.

The commercial ended with the BB guy saying "this TV is an absolute game-changer".

That's the first I've ever seen OLED TVs advertised. I noticed that about half the BestBuy stores in my area show some inventory, so it will be interesting to watch and see if they get sold.


----------



## dsinger

Rich Peterson said:


> I'm not sure what thread to put this in.
> 
> BestBuy ran a commercial for the LG 9300 OLED TV today during the AFC football championship game in my area at least. I'm not sure if it went out nationwide.
> 
> The commercial ended with the BB guy saying "this TV is an absolute game-changer".
> 
> That's the first I've ever seen OLED TVs advertised. I noticed that about half the BestBuy stores in my area show some inventory, so it will be interesting to watch and see if they get sold.


Sunday's BB newspaper insert for the Orlando, FL area had a promo for the 9300 at $2999. First ad that I have seen BB present for OLED.


----------



## mattg3

Same Best Buy insert in MA. stores this week.I saw same kind of ad when they first appeared in best Buy months ago.Now the big question is when are they going to stock and put the 65 4K OLED on display?


----------



## madtapper

Rich Peterson said:


> BestBuy ran a commercial for the LG 9300 OLED TV today during the AFC football championship game in my area at least. I'm not sure if it went out nationwide.


This commercial aired in NC too. I watched and cheered right up until the point where they mentioned the curved screen would ensure everyone could have the best seat in the house.


----------



## B 26354

madtapper said:


> This commercial aired in NC too. I watched and cheered right up until the point where they mentioned the curved screen would ensure everyone could have the best seat in the house.


*Thank you!* I had exactly the same reaction, when I saw the commercial here in California.

As a hopeful outsider to this discussion (I'm a high-end Samsung plasma owner, who hopes that by the time my plasma dies (20 years from now?), OLED will have evolved to the point that it's become a viable and affordable replacement.

What I don't understand, is what part of high-school Plane Geometry didn't get across to the curved-screen designers, when they failed to consider the amount of additional distortion that a curved screen would introduce to off-center viewers.

It's obvious that one person, sitting at the focal-point of the screen's curvature, will benefit from having the picture's distortion reduced to zero. But it's equally obvious that any shift to either side of that position is going to result in a *far* more distorted image than would be produced by a flat screen.

I find it impossible to imagine that a potential buyer, viewing one of these sets in-store, could somehow fail to notice this.


----------



## darinp2

B 26354 said:


> What I don't understand, is what part of high-school Plane Geometry didn't get across to the curved-screen designers, when they failed to consider the amount of additional distortion that a curved screen would introduce to off-center viewers.


Here is what one person with a PHD in physics wrote:

http://www.displaymate.com/LG_OLED_TV_ShootOut_1.htm


> The slight curvature reduces visual geometric distortion: When you watch a perfectly flat TV screen, the corners of the screen are further away than the center so they appear smaller. As a result, the eye doesn’t see the screen as a perfect rectangle – it actually sees dual elongated trapezoids, which is keystone geometric distortion. The slight curvature on the LG OLED TV reduces this subtle keystone geometric distortion by 50 percent at a typical 8 foot (2.4 meter) viewing distance.
> 
> The slight curvature improves viewing from the sides away from the central sweet spot: A second and more subtle point: people sitting off to the sides away from the central sweet spot actually get a somewhat better viewing experience than with a flat screen because the curved screen accommodates their viewing direction better by compensating for some of the uneven image foreshortening that is seen with a flat screen: the image on the side of the screen closest to you appears larger, and the image on the side of the screen furthest away appears smaller. The inward curvature of the screen compresses the foreshortening of the image on the near side that appears larger, and the curvature on the far side enlarges the distant part of image that appears smaller, which improves the overall screen image geometry that is seen away from the central sweet spot.


I've thought about writing to him as I don't get some of that. For one, since the screen isn't curved vertically, for a viewer on the right side the right edge of the screen is too close to them already with a flat screen and the curve brings it even closer, so seems like more distortion than for flat for the height of the image on the same side the viewer is sitting.


> It's obvious that one person, sitting at the focal-point of the screen's curvature, will benefit from having the picture's distortion reduced to zero.


It isn't obvious to me. Maybe you or someone else can explain it.

I assume you are talking about the geometric distortion.

If a person stands in the center of a soccer field and looks at one of the rectangular goals then the sides will be physically further away from them than the center. The human visual system takes this into account. If the sides are the same distance away and the same height as the center then the goal isn't a flat rectangle, it is curved.

It seems to me that the claim that the sides need to be brought closer because otherwise a rectangle doesn't look right is like claiming that if I look at a rectangular wall it won't look like a rectangle. Of course it isn't a rectangle on the back of my eye, but we learn over many years what a rectangle in real life is supposed to look like.

Is the claim that if somebody took a picture of a soccer goal from the middle of the field and displayed it on a flat panel that the geometry would look wrong compared to the geometry that would have been seen in real life?

Thanks,
Darin


----------



## Rich Peterson

^^^ Please don't turn this thread into a flat vs curved argument. That's happening in way too many threads already.


----------



## rogo

That really goes to the heart of the problem. We humans, flaws and all, somehow manage to see the world without much difficulty. I'm laying a new tiled floor upstairs and I can spot the misalignments in opposite corners just fine. And this is achievable from 15 feet away without the room being curved for me by LG. Go figure!

Unrelated: as for sitting on the sides being better with the curved sets, I find even LG's subtle curve beyond irritating from the side. You first see the edge of the TV, then you look into the "cylinder", then it wraps back to you. All the while, the first half of the image is drifting away from you in a way that feels anything but natural first because it's "falling" out of your field and then because it comes wrapping back on a curvature that has no specific meaning to you. It was set in a factory somewhere and it relates in no way to the content you're seeing, which varies from life size, to a fraction thereof, to many times the size of. 

We can debate this forever and it's clear that Samsung's effort is dramatically more offensive/irritating than what LG did. And we can agree to disagree that some people will enjoy sitting inside the cylinder as a more "immersive" viewing experience (I don't; I'm fine *you* do, whoever you may be). But claims that this somehow better mimics nature and that it somehow better provides an experience for people outside the cylinder are weird at best and fundamentally misleading at worst.

* Incidentally, there are many claims about the curve and reflections. They are largely irrelevant. It all depends on where your reflections come from. In my home curving the screen will _help_ it pick up reflections from my yard as it will point the edge toward a window that a flat TV cannot "see". In your home, a curved TV might well help avoid reflections. This could mean that a given person might choose a curved screen for their home and another might avoid one. But this doesn't speak to any specific benefit of the technology.

** As to why we are dredging up the curved argument again, you can lay the blame at the feet of LG, which chose to advertise this selling point in concert with Best Buy.


----------



## 8mile13

Curved is beneficial for one viewer, he needs to sit still in the sweet spot at a precise distance though..


----------



## tgm1024

8mile13 said:


> Curved is beneficial for one viewer, he needs to sit still in the sweet spot at a precise distance though..


Why is there a benefit for the one viewer?


----------



## 8mile13

tgm1024 said:


> Why is there a benefit for the one viewer?


The ''wrapped around image'' effect, the (TV) screen needs to be really big though. So a large screen is the fourth condition for a curved screen to be benefitial..

1) one viewer
2) sweet spot
3) precise distance 
4) large sized screen


----------



## Rich Peterson

There is now a thread set up specifically for the flat vs curved debate: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...ve-hate-could-care-less-about-curved-tvs.html


----------



## cdoublejj

I want to an AMOLED or SAMOLED assuming OLDE isn't the same exact thing. I like that each pixel IS it's own back light.


----------



## Stereodude

cdoublejj said:


> I want to an AMOLED or SAMOLED assuming OLDE isn't the same exact thing. I like that each pixel IS it's own back light.


Uh what?


----------



## cdoublejj

Stereodude said:


> Uh what?


With standard LCD (LED or CCFL) light is generated via a backlight, a light that shines THROUGH the screen, thusly illuminating the liquid crystal display.

With AMOLED/SAMOLED and CRT, there is no back light what so ever. light is generated on a per pixel basis. Each pixel generates it's own light and color. you need a red pixle, that pixles generates red color/light. need black? it generates black and lowers it's light out put level and or turns off completely.

Where as with LCD, if you need black it emits light but, tries to block it out. ultimately the light will bleed through causing it to turn more of grey color, not so much so with stuff like local dimming LED LCDs but, not as good as per pixle lighting like CRT SAMOLED/AMOLED.


----------



## Stereodude

I'm well aware of what an OLED is. Your post made no sense. OLED is OLED. No one is selling passive matrix full color OLED, so the AM (active matrix) is implied.


----------



## Jason626

cdoublejj said:


> With standard LCD (LED or CCFL) light is generated via a backlight, a light that shines THROUGH the screen, thusly illuminating the liquid crystal display.
> 
> With AMOLED/SAMOLED and CRT, there is no back light what so ever. light is generated on a per pixel basis. Each pixel generates it's own light and color. you need a red pixle, that pixles generates red color/light. need black? it generates black and lowers it's light out put level and or turns off completely.
> 
> Where as with LCD, if you need black it emits light but, tries to block it out. ultimately the light will bleed through causing it to turn more of grey color, not so much so with stuff like local dimming LED LCDs but, not as good as per pixle lighting like CRT SAMOLED/AMOLED.


Don't forget plasma displays. Their pixels emit its own light source as well.


----------



## cdoublejj

Stereodude said:


> I'm well aware of what an OLED is. Your post made no sense. OLED is OLED. No one is selling passive matrix full color OLED, so the AM (active matrix) is implied.


Part of my original statement was pertaining to my lack of knowledge pertaining to AMOLED vs SAMOLED vs OLDEM. Meaning, i'd like a SAMOLED TV assuming there isa reasonable wan't/ned/improvement over OLED, assuming they aren't the same thing. I am not good with words.




Jason626 said:


> Don't forget plasma displays. Their pixels emit its own light source as well.


This is NOT my understanding, my understanding is it's similar LCD but, uses different materials that do a better job of blocking the light from the back light. This may be wrong so i'm DEFINITELY open to education here.


----------



## JazzGuyy

Your understanding about plasma is incorrect. Plasma is (was) an emissive technology. All versions of OLED are also emissive.


----------



## tgm1024

cdoublejj said:


> This is NOT my understanding, my understanding is it's similar LCD but, uses different materials that do a better job of blocking the light from the back light. This may be wrong so i'm DEFINITELY open to education here.





JazzGuyy said:


> Your understanding about plasma is incorrect. Plasma is (was) an emissive technology. All versions of OLED are also emissive.


 @cdoublejj, Where did you get that understanding? There is no backlight in plasma. @JazzGuyy is correct.


----------



## cdoublejj

tgm1024 said:


> @cdoublejj, Where did you get that understanding? There is no backlight in plasma. @JazzGuyy is correct.


The Internet, http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7VOE/state-farm-the-internet-and-french-model


----------



## tgm1024

cdoublejj said:


> The Internet, http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7VOE/state-farm-the-internet-and-french-model


I remember that ad....loved it.


----------



## xrox

Not trying to confuse the issue here but OLED and LCD are similar in that they both use a TFT to control light output. PDP does not have any TFTs and relies on wall charge to control the on/off states. That is why I always found PDP such a fascinating tech. Quite the genius idea IMO.


----------



## tgm1024

xrox said:


> Not trying to confuse the issue here but OLED and LCD are similar in that they both use a TFT to control light output. PDP does not have any TFTs and relies on wall charge to control the on/off states. That is why I always found PDP such a fascinating tech. Quite the genius idea IMO.


Could you explain this a little more xrox? Plasma requires a careful PWM pulsing to work. This represents a violent and fast changing of states that can only be controlled by something resembling transistors (or some other electronic "circuit", digital or analog, both of which involve transistors.) A simple wall charge simply can't handle the careful waveforms that must be shaped.


----------



## xrox

tgm1024 said:


> Could you explain this a little more xrox? Plasma requires a careful PWM pulsing to work. This represents a violent and fast changing of states that can only be controlled by something resembling transistors (or some other electronic "circuit", digital or analog, both of which involve transistors.) A simple wall charge simply can't handle the careful waveforms that must be shaped.


It is complex but fascinating.

PDP cells have a combination of electrodes and dielectric material that enable control of on/off state by controlling wall charge above and below the discharge threshold.

Note: "on state" does not mean the pixel is emitting light. It means the pixel wall charge is at a level that enables it to be turned on during application of sustain voltage. 

So the entire array of pixels is addressed and set into either the on or off state. Then during the sustain a voltage is applied to all pixels at once and only the pixels in the on state will discharge producing a pulse of light. This process in repeated 8-10 times each frame (panasonic)

A basic example using voltage due to wall charge 

V1= off state (voltage of cell due to wall charge)
V2 = on state (voltage of cell due to wall charge)
VT = threshold (voltage of cell required to cause discharge and light emission)
Vs = applied sustain voltage to electrodes (voltage applied to all cells at once)

V1+Vs < VT pixel fails to emit light
V2+Vs > VT pixel emits light


----------



## Wizziwig

I wonder if anyone will ever release a PWM driven OLED TV.

The only displays I have ever owned or seen with visually acceptable uniformity have all been PWM driven (DLP projector, newer JVC LCOS projectors, and various plasmas). Everything else using an analog drive has always suffered from some non-uniformity (LCD, OLED, CRT, and older analog JVC/Sony LCOS projectors).

Is this because with PWM, the pixels only need to display 2 levels accurately (on and off)?

The inherent dither of PWM does suck but I've yet to notice it at typical viewing distances. Can't say the same for non-uniform colors which bug me all the time.


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> I wonder if anyone will ever release a PWM driven OLED TV.


I doubt it. In the case of plasma, PWM was a solution to getting around the fact that a plasma cannot excite at middle levels, despite the occasional mention of some weird attempts in that regard. I remember monochromatic plasma monitors in the late 70's......but plasma basically could not be a TV set without it.

OLED requires no such technology, so I would think that as the material itself gains brightness that it'll be easier and easier to pulse to gain motion handling. As far as color uniformity, I have no idea either way.


----------



## Desk.

Universal Display and LG Display announce entry into long-term OLED patent license and supplemental material purchase agreements...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102367546#.

Desk


----------



## tgm1024

Desk. said:


> Universal Display and LG Display announce entry into long-term OLED patent license and supplemental material purchase agreements...
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/102367546#.
> 
> Desk


Very quick catch Desk. 4 hours ago.

I wonder: will LGD require that UD not exceed certain technological abilities? (In order to remain the technology leader)?


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Very quick catch Desk. 4 hours ago.
> 
> I wonder: will LGD require that UD not exceed certain technological abilities? (In order to remain the technology leader)?


This agreement is for LG to license certain UD patents and technology and to purchase certain manufacturing materials from UD. It is not a cross-licensing agreement and UD has not licensed any LG patents or technology...


----------



## chexi1

Correct, Universal Display does not make any product (other than OLED input materials). The stock jump in UD just paid for my OLED tv and then some. Of course, UD is a long-term pay for me.


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> This agreement is for LG to license certain UD patents and technology and to purchase certain manufacturing materials from UD. It is not a cross-licensing agreement and UD has not licensed any LG patents or technology...


Gotcha.....thanks for the clarification.


----------



## iasm

I have a pioneer pdp6100 I bough for a fortune back in 2005 and its still going strong. I have been concerned about what I would buy if it went down. My question for you who have been following the oled, do you think the oled would be a comparable image to my plasma?
Thanks
Rod


----------



## iasm

I have a pioneer pdp6100 I bough for a fortune back in 2005 and its still going strong. I have been concerned about what I would buy if it went down. My question for you who have been following the oled, do you think the oled would be a comparable image to my plasma?
Thanks
Rod


----------



## Postmoderndesign

iasm said:


> I have a pioneer pdp6100 I bough for a fortune back in 2005 and its still going strong. I have been concerned about what I would buy if it went down. My question for you who have been following the oled, do you think the oled would be a comparable image to my plasma?
> Thanks
> Rod


Check back in 2017 and treat your plasma well. Otherwise you will need to assess what is available and what technologies are actually working.


----------



## andy sullivan

Postmoderndesign said:


> Check back in 2017 and treat your plasma well. Otherwise you will need to assess what is available and what technologies are actually working.


Check back in 2017? He's asking now and the answer is yes. Not the same but a reasonable comparison.


----------



## Rich Peterson

iasm said:


> I have a pioneer pdp6100 I bough for a fortune back in 2005 and its still going strong. I have been concerned about what I would buy if it went down. My question for you who have been following the oled, do you think the oled would be a comparable image to my plasma?
> Thanks
> Rod


Nearly all current owners of the LG OLEDs feel they have as good or better picture quality than the best Plasmas. So you should be fine by 2017.


----------



## jacko15

There's some serious commitment to OLED happening right now. This might interest some of you. It's about an agreement between LG and UDC. 

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...ws-universal-display-corporation-just-la.aspx


----------



## iasm

Thanks for the replys. I have allways liked to watch the plasmas and have three pioneers the oldest and my favorite is the 6100. I have a 4270 and a 5070. I guess im just used to the picture and the new sets I see at Costco do have punch .I will keep reading and hope my 6100 just keeps on going strong.


----------



## KidHorn

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/lg-plastic-based-oled-july,28470.html


LG is making unbreakable OLED displays. I assume it's primarily for portable devices, but given the choice, I would prefer my TV to be unbreakable.


----------



## wco81

Rich Peterson said:


> Nearly all current owners of the LG OLEDs feel they have as good or better picture quality than the best Plasmas. So you should be fine by 2017.


That seems to be a change in perception at AVS from a few years ago when the expectation was that OLED was going to be vastly superior to all existing displays including plasma.


----------



## Ken Ross

wco81 said:


> That seems to be a change in perception at AVS from a few years ago when the expectation was that OLED was going to be vastly superior to all existing displays including plasma.


So wait, Rich's opinion is now the prevailing opinion on AVS? He expressed his belief that doesn't necessarily reflect 'perception at AVS'. I would say that most owners seem to feel that PQ is already better than the best plasmas.

OLED is really just out of the box and it's already superior to any display before it (yes, plasmas included) in the most important PQ criteria, contrast ratio.

For a first go-around, that aint too bad my friend.


----------



## wco81

I've read similar sentiments in other posts. I'm not saying it's the consensus here necessarily.

Just surprised to hear a tamping down of expectations.


----------



## Rich Peterson

I was trying to help out the person asking the question and worded it that way to try to keep from starting a Plasma vs OLED religious war. In reality, my opinion is the OLED is superior to the best Plasmas. Hands down. I would even say vastly superior. And I own one.


----------



## 1959Dodge

*It's Not the Price*



kucharsk said:


> I disagree; most everyone I've talked to clearly can see the difference between an OLED and the LCDs at Best Buy, it's the price level that keeps them from making the purchase.
> 
> There are other factors as well; I'd never purchase an Android phone, so it makes little difference to me which screen is better, and I suspect others have similar concerns.
> 
> I've tried to like LED/LCD before but just can't get over the poor black display in a dark environment and the haloing. Every time I've looked at sets before I return home to my ten year-old Panasonic plasma and am pleased by what I see, and short of a dalliance with a 65" Samsung plasma I'm debating whether to return, see OLED as the only viable technology that would provide me with what I consider to be baseline video performance rather than settling for something cruddy but cheap.
> 
> I fully realize I represent a minority, surprisingly enough even here on AVS, which is more videophile oriented than say the Amazon or Best Buy review pages.
> 
> If OLED fails I'll have to go back to hoping laser projection with zero fan noise somehow becomes a reality or that short-throw projection comes down in price.


 I think what gets forgotten here, is the majority of us do NOT watch TV's in a dark room. Last summer we were at a friend's beach pad who had a Pioneer Plasma, as I recall. During the day, when the set was on it looked rather "mundane and muted" if fact a lot so! Then came night fall and the thing sprang to life. Most of you folks here probably have dark rooms and that's fine, but I don't want one, nor do I want a TV that is good, "only in the dark"
Reviews I've read says that the OLED's black levels are wipe out, even by
moderately lit rooms, and even on the very latest LG 2015 65" UHD OLED, one of the first things the reviewer mentioned was the "Dimming down of the screen, from the previous OLED models.
I would love to have an emission type diosplay, but until they can operate in the environment that I use them in, and I think , most TV viewers, OLED's will not become "Mainstream" or even close to it.
For me, it's not the money, its seeing a good picture in "My Environment", not the TV's


Gary


----------



## JimP

1959Dodge said:


> ...snip...
> Most of you folks here probably have dark rooms and that's fine, but I don't want one, nor do I want a TV that is good, "only in the dark"
> ....snip...
> 
> Gary


Gary....

A while back I ran a poll to see if people watched in total blackout or with some light on. The responders broke down about even. Half watch in the dark and the other half with some lights on.

Personally, I'm really enjoying my peak white at 60 ftl for my bright room that also performs well in a semi lit room at night. Some content is so dark that 60 ftl isn't too bright but others does call for lowering the cell light.


----------



## Tomcup

1959Dodge said:


> even on the very latest LG 2015 65" UHD OLED, one of the first things the reviewer mentioned was the dimming
> 
> Gary


There are no reviews for the 2015 4K OLEDs. Unless it was a pre-view review from a trade show. However, There are several reviews on the 2014 UHD OLED, that has only just become available in the last few months in very limited numbers due to manufacturing delays. If it was the 65EC9700 - that's the 2014 model. 

This years 4K OLED 55 and 65's come in EF (flat) or EG (curved) models. 

Just want people to have the right info.


----------



## 1959Dodge

*review*



Tomcup said:


> There are no reviews for the 2015 4K OLEDs. Unless it was a pre-view review from a trade show. However, There are several reviews on the 2014 UHD OLED, that has only just become available in the last few months in very limited numbers due to manufacturing delays. If it was the 65EC9700 - that's the 2014 model.
> 
> This years 4K OLED 55 and 65's come in EF (flat) or EG (curved) models.
> 
> Just want people to have the right info.



Yes it was a "prereview". As I recall, it was "supposedly" the 2015 model
(alto of course not released yet) and the "final 2015 product" could be somewhat different than the "Prereviewer" looked at, while at CES. 
The prereviewer did like the performance of the TV, and He particularly liked the "less brighter screen", (paraphrasing)~~~~~ just not my "cup of tea".


I will see if I can find the link to it.


Anyway, fortunately, I have plenty of time, to decide what to buy and really would like to buy an OLED, but I do not want to change my viewing habits (environment) to watch it.


I will just have to wait until "REAL reviews" are available for the 2015 models.


Gary


----------



## Rich Peterson

*DuPont's OLED unit Director of Operations David Flattery discusses printed OLEDs*

This is a very good interview with DuPont's OLED unit Director of Operations David Flattery about printed OLEDs: http://www.oled-info.com/dupont-updates-us-their-oled-advances-sees-printed-oled-tvs-soon

Here's a snippet:

*Q: Dave - thanks for this interview. We know that DuPont is focusing on soluble OLED materials and processes. When do you see the OLED display industry starting to adopt such materials?*

DuPont is focused on developing OLED materials for evaporation and soluble technologies, as well as working with our partners on our proprietary printing process.

Many in the industry believe that 2017 will be the year of mass production for printed OLED televisions, and while we cannot disclose the manufacturing plans for our partners, we have already seen one large manufacturer announce that they will pilot solution- processed OLED displays up to gen-8 in 2015.

DuPont is well prepared for when the market does scale-up. We have made an important investment at our Stine Haskell facility in Newark, Delaware, that will allow us to produce materials for OLED displays at a larger scale. We will be sharing more information about that soon.

*Q: What do you feel are the major challenges yet in places for soluble OLED production?*

Soluble OLED production is desirable because it generates less waste and allows for more precision. Historically the device performance achievable with solution processing lagged that of evaporation, and that had been a barrier for commercialization. But our most recent material performance data shows that with our latest generation materials and process steps, device performance comparable to evaporative processed displays can now be achieved. Now that this major barrier has been overcome, it clears the way for large manufacturers to make commitments and investments in mass production.


----------



## fafrd

Rich Peterson said:


> This is a very good interview with DuPont's OLED unit Director of Operations David Flattery about printed OLEDs: http://www.oled-info.com/dupont-updates-us-their-oled-advances-sees-printed-oled-tvs-soon
> 
> Here's a snippet:
> 
> *Q: Dave - thanks for this interview. We know that DuPont is focusing on soluble OLED materials and processes. When do you see the OLED display industry starting to adopt such materials?*
> 
> DuPont is focused on developing OLED materials for evaporation and soluble technologies, as well as working with our partners on our proprietary printing process.
> 
> Many in the industry believe that 2017 will be the year of mass production for printed OLED televisions, and while we cannot disclose the manufacturing plans for our partners, we have already seen one large manufacturer announce that they will pilot solution- processed OLED displays up to gen-8 in 2015.
> 
> DuPont is well prepared for when the market does scale-up. We have made an important investment at our Stine Haskell facility in Newark, Delaware, that will allow us to produce materials for OLED displays at a larger scale. We will be sharing more information about that soon.
> 
> *Q: What do you feel are the major challenges yet in places for soluble OLED production?*
> 
> Soluble OLED production is desirable because it generates less waste and allows for more precision. Historically the device performance achievable with solution processing lagged that of evaporation, and that had been a barrier for commercialization. But our most recent material performance data shows that with our latest generation materials and process steps, device performance comparable to evaporative processed displays can now be achieved. Now that this major barrier has been overcome, it clears the way for large manufacturers to make commitments and investments in mass production.


I'm very skeptical about statements regarding Gen8 pilot production of printed OLED panels in 2015, but if there is any truth to that or other aspects of this interview including performance parity with evaporation-based OLEDs, that could be a further explanation for why LG appears to possibly be hedging their bets beyond any production commitments beyond M2...


----------



## 1959Dodge

OK , I finally found the article I referenced, in my previous post.


I've been studying OLED even before it was released for sale, and read about everything published or posted about them, so in this case, I was wrong about the source of the article, and also it is a 2014 model, not a 2015. (too much reading, I guess)!


Here is the link to the article.


http://televisions.reviewed.com/content/lg-65ec9700-4k-oled-tv-review


Again, they seem to keep "emphasizing the need for a dark or "semi dark room".


Are all the OLED's in this forum in dark rooms, or can one watch it in a "normally lit room", IE daytime, but no windows shining directly on the TV?


If I were to put the TV in the "vivid mode" during the day, do you see any "repercussions" from doing that?


The other thing that concerns me is the freaking station logos that stay on all the time.


Thanks!


Gary


----------



## fullybob

^

You need a dark or semi-dark room to appreciate the black level and shadow detail.

I watch mine in both conditions.

In the daytime two windows let in diffused light. I would say my room is 'averagely bright'.

There's no need for vivid mode if you think you might need that for daylight. I run mine with the OLED light at around 50 (on a 0-100 scale) in the daytime and 35 at night. They aren't quite as bright as LCD but they aren't far off.

IR exists but its very temporary (touch wood! - I've got 354 hours on mine) and have had many long gaming sessions of 4-5hrs within the same game and have no permanent burn-in from on screen graphics or logos.


----------



## 1959Dodge

*Thanks for the reply!*



fullybob said:


> ^
> 
> You need a dark or semi-dark room to appreciate the black level and shadow detail.
> 
> I watch mine in both conditions.
> 
> In the daytime two windows let in diffused light. I would say my room is 'averagely bright'.
> 
> There's no need for vivid mode if you think you might need that for daylight. I run mine with the OLED light at around 50 (on a 0-100 scale) in the daytime and 35 at night. They aren't quite as bright as LCD but they aren't far off.
> 
> IR exists but its very temporary (touch wood! - I've got 354 hours on mine) and have had many long gaming sessions of 4-5hrs within the same game and have no permanent burn-in from on screen graphics or logos.


Thanks for the reply!


Gary


----------



## fullybob

^

Also to add on brightness there is a degree of ABL.

As in a full white screen won't display as bright as windowed white.

Find it less severe than previous plasmas but still noticeable compared to LCD/no ABL.


----------



## Tomcup

So I found something pretty interesting!

I found the user manual for the upcoming LG OLED 55EG9600 and 65EG9600 (curved 2015 models, both in the same manual). 
It was put up on LG's US website just a few days ago, the EF models are not listed. 
If you go here and scroll down you can download the pdf - 
http://www.lg.com/us/support-product/lg-55EG9600#

Key things of note in the manual, and the whole reason why I looked for it, are the HDMI inputs. Interestingly, they are all suggested to support 4k @ 60Hz at 4:4:4 chroma if you enable "deep color" for that input via the TV's OS. HDMI 2 supports ARC function. What is not shown is if HDCP 2.2 is supported on all inputs. Seeing as that the previous 2014 4K model supported HDCP 2.2 on one input and 4:4:4 color on another, it would seem odd to go backwards in a new generation and remove functionality. It suggests to contact customer service for the HDMI specifications of each input, saying to me that I would bet at least one supports HDCP 2.2. Maybe someone wants to call them and ask 

Here's a picture of the page regarding HDMI inputs. 








I don't know if that worked so just go here http://imgur.com/jLQRGNu


----------



## Yappadappadu

Thanks for the link to the manual.
Said pg. 22 of the manual also says the following: "HDMI specifications may be different for each input port, so make sure to check the device specifications before connecting."
Wouldn't surprise me if the author of the manual didn't know any better, so this part might change in later revisions.
Really hoping for at least one HDMI 2.0 port with HDCP 2.2 and full 18 Gbps. Maybe the 4th one that hasn't been mentioned?
Until now I assumed that the 4th would be downfiring. Anyone with a photo of the backside of one of the CES models to confirm if those had 3 or 4 HDMI ports?


----------



## Tomcup

^These models have been released in Korea and their spec pages on LG Korea list only 3 HDMI ports and it appears the MHL (mobile to HDMI) port has been nixed. But this manual has more info regarding chroma than the specs on the Korean LG site. The Korean site though does say it has a newer graphics card than the 2014 4K model - fingers crossed it's got what we want across the board. Maybe someone can do as the manual says and ask customer service. 

Link to the LG Korea site for ref: http://m.lge.co.kr/productDetail.laf?cate1=1005&cate2=1750&product_id=EPRD.286767


----------



## Yappadappadu

Yeah, as if they could answer that. 
I took a look at the manual for LG's 2015 LED TVs, see http://www.lg.com/us/support-product/lg-65UF9500#
Those will have 4 HDMI ports for sure, but no info regarding HDCP 2.2 either. Same chroma info.


----------



## rogo

I meant to address this earlier, but I am very inclined to agree: LG's ecosystem is -- because of patents -- an LG-only ecosystem. If the viability of "solution processing" or what normal people call printable or inkjet printable OLEDs becomes apparent in 2015 and 2016, LG would likely have a very difficult decision vis a vis switching over. It would sort of be insane not to assuming everyone else starts getting involved yet it would be starting at square zero with respect to yields and boosting them... An interesting conundrum for next year.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> I meant to address this earlier, but I am very inclined to agree: LG's ecosystem is -- because of patents -- an LG-only ecosystem. If the viability of "solution processing" or what normal people call printable or inkjet printable OLEDs becomes apparent in 2015 and 2016, LG would likely have a very difficult decision vis a vis switching over. It would sort of be insane not to assuming everyone else starts getting involved yet it would be starting at square zero with respect to yields and boosting them... An interesting conundrum for next year.


They would be starting over on the printing side of it but they will see the benefits of their yield improvement on the IGZO backplane. That isnt a small piece of the manufacturing puzzle for OLED's.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> They would be starting over on the printing side of it but they will see the benefits of their yield improvement on the IGZO backplane. That isnt a small piece of the manufacturing puzzle for OLED's.


Can you explain this? How would printing of the ILED layers have any impact on the IGZO backplane yields?

Seems to me that printable technology may prove more of a boon to RGB OLED, where it enables an otherwise dead-end approach based on masking, but once proven, it will benefit WOLED as well.

If LG can spray on solubale OLED layers (uniform in their case), it should also deliver lower cost and possibly also reduced defectively verses the OLED deposition technology they are using currently.

If RGB OLED ends up being a hands-down winner over WOLED (which is unlikely in my view), then the emergence of printable OLED technology may pose a threat to LG and they may have to consider 'switching' before it is too late.

But if printing OLED layers is less expensive, offers decreased defectively, and may even result in improved yields of the IGZO backplane (for reasons I have yet to understand), I don't see it as a threat to LG and believe they can take their time in adopting it -after it has been proven as reliable and effective by others and before they make further investment decisions in their next OLED TV panel factory - M4?

It would not surprise me in the least to know hat LG already has plans for a pilot line using printable OLED manufacturing to be up and running as soon as the equipment becomes widely available. If the technology delivers as promised, it will benefit manufacturing of OLED phone and plablet screens as much as it will benefit WOLED TVs.

Printable OLED is revolutionary for large-sized RGB OLED screens because there is no other practical way to manufacture them. For the OLED industry in general and the WOLED TV industry in particular, it is merely evolutionary.


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Can you explain this? How would printing of the ILED layers have any impact on the IGZO backplane yields?


I was trying to say that LGD has already worked through the problems of manufacturing IGZO backplanes (not that printing impacts these yields). If printing becomes viable in late 2016, then LGD will have spend about 3 years improving the manufacturing and the compensation circuits. 

This will be an advantage even if they move to printing with a RGB architecture. Their experience over these few years wont be wasted....though of course, their advantage in OLED's would be dramatically decreased.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> I was trying to say that LGD has already worked through the problems of manufacturing IGZO backplanes (not that printing impacts these yields). If printing becomes viable in late 2016, then LGD will have spend about 3 years improving the manufacturing and the compensation circuits.
> 
> This will be an advantage even if they move to printing with a RGB architecture. Their experience over these few years wont be wasted....though of course, their advantage in OLED's would be dramatically decreased.


Gotcha. So we are pretty aligned in our views.

I'm just not seeing LG only switching to printed because they decide they need to produce RGB but also see a scenario where they switch to printed to have lower cost production of WOLED in a first phase and only switch to RGB if it becomes clear that the market values that as a superior technology in a second phase.

I see it as being very, very unlikely that RGB OLED quickly and difintively displaces WOLED in the marketplace.

In my view, LGs challenges with near-dark greyscale uniformity, off-axis color uniformity and screen uniformity in general are a greater threat to WOLEDs future than the threat of RGB OLED.

Of course, if RGB OLED has fantastic near-black greyscale uniformity, fantastic off-axis color uniformity, and fantastic uniformity in general and LG is unable to be competetive with RGB OLED in those areas despite a move to printed WOLED, that would be a different matter entirely and LG will need to switch to RGB OLED before it is too late.

From the reports of the Samsung RGB OLED TV (which was made usig deposition/masking rather than printed), I've just not read anything to suggest that that scenario is likely...


----------



## Wizziwig

RGB OLEDs also have uniformity issues (especially near-dark) and viewing angles lower than plasma/crt. These are not problems unique to LG WOLED.

Personally, I think we'll be stuck with those issues for the life of this tech - same as LCD clouding. I base this on the limited progress I've seen on mobile and LG's various TV models.


----------



## stas3098

fafrd said:


> Can you explain this? How would printing of the ILED layers have any impact on the IGZO backplane yields?
> 
> 
> 
> But if printing OLED layers is less expensive, offers decreased defectively, and may even result in improved yields of the IGZO backplane *(for reasons I have yet to understand),* I don't see it as a threat to LG and believe they can take their time in adopting it -after it has been proven as reliable and effective by others and before they make further investment decisions in their next OLED TV panel factory - M4?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here's a quick overview for you: IGZO crystalline structure (which ,by the way, dictates such things as conductivity, resistance, heat output etc.) when exposed to high (evaporation-deposition tech) temperatures tends to get "المشوهة(out of the kilter, distorted)" leading to uniformity issues and the like... needless to say that printing doesn't involve high (evaporation-deposition tech) temperatures, and of course I shouldn't even have to mention to you guys the fact that the purity of printing-ready solutions can be much higher than that of conventional evaporation-deposition-ready solutions...
Click to expand...


----------



## fafrd

stas3098 said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain this? How would printing of the ILED layers have any impact on the IGZO backplane yields?
> 
> 
> 
> But if printing OLED layers is less expensive, offers decreased defectively, and may even result in improved yields of the IGZO backplane *(for reasons I have yet to understand),* I don't see it as a threat to LG and believe they can take their time in adopting it -after it has been proven as reliable and effective by others and before they make further investment decisions in their next OLED TV panel factory - M4?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here's a quick overview for you: IGZO crystalline structure (which ,by the way, dictates such things as conductivity, resistance, heat output etc.) when exposed to high (evaporation-deposition tech) temperatures tends to get "المشوهة(out of the kilter, distorted)" leading to uniformity issues and the like... needless to say that printing doesn't involve high (evaporation-deposition tech) temperatures, and of course I shouldn't even have to mention to you guys the fact that the purity of printing-ready solutions can be much higher than that of conventional evaporation-deposition-ready solutions...
> 
> 
> 
> That explanation was helpful, thanks.
> 
> And based on that perspective, there is pretty much no doubt that LG will be moving to low-temperature printed WOLED as soon as practical.
> 
> Moving the RGB OLED instead of WOLED is another matter, and I believe that LG will be much more conservative on if/when they make that move (and very possibly never).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## ChaosCloud

Tomcup said:


> So I found something pretty interesting!
> 
> I found the user manual for the upcoming LG OLED 55EG9600 and 65EG9600 (curved 2015 models, both in the same manual).
> It was put up on LG's US website just a few days ago, the EF models are not listed.
> If you go here and scroll down you can download the pdf -
> http://www.lg.com/us/support-product/lg-55EG9600#
> 
> Key things of note in the manual, and the whole reason why I looked for it, are the HDMI inputs. Interestingly, they are all suggested to support 4k @ 60Hz at 4:4:4 chroma if you enable "deep color" for that input via the TV's OS.


Thanks for posting that.

Question - If it supports 4:4:4 UHD @ 60Hz, is it likely to support 4:4:4 1920x1080 @ 120hz or better?

One of the things that I found disappointing with the 55EA9700 was that I could only get 60hz with PC. I mostly play older games and can get 120+ fps. With 120hz there would be half the motion blur.


----------



## Tomcup

ChaosCloud said:


> Thanks for posting that.
> 
> Question - If it supports 4:4:4 UHD @ 60Hz, is it likely to support 4:4:4 1920x1080 @ 120hz or better?
> 
> One of the things that I found disappointing with the 55EA9700 was that I could only get 60hz with PC. I mostly play older games and can get 120+ fps. With 120hz there would be half the motion blur.


I'm not sure about that, it makes sense bandwidth-wise to me (if your graphics card supports it) and as a gamer I can understand why you would want that. 
Relatedly though, I found some new info that the new OLED panels will be running at 100hz - not 60 or 120.
This is according to a new link I found regarding detailed panel specification and I posted it over on the prices revelead thread- http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...ng-new-lg-oleds-revealed-24.html#post31634169.


----------



## ChaosCloud

Tomcup said:


> I'm not sure about that, it makes sense bandwidth-wise to me (if your graphics card supports it) and as a gamer I can understand why you would want that.
> Relatedly though, I found some new info that the new OLED panels will be running at 100hz - not 60 or 120.
> This is according to a new link I found regarding detailed panel specification and I posted it over on the prices revelead thread- http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...ng-new-lg-oleds-revealed-24.html#post31634169.


Interesting. Thanks again for the info.

100Hz = 50Hz x 2
Europe PAL broadcast is 50Hz if I'm not mistaken? North American version should be 120 Hz? I am no expert on this topic, someone feel free to chime in.


----------



## Tomcup

ChaosCloud said:


> Interesting. Thanks again for the info.
> 
> 100Hz = 50Hz x 2
> Europe PAL broadcast is 50Hz if I'm not mistaken? North American version should be 120 Hz? I am no expert on this topic, someone feel free to chime in.



Yeah I was wondering the same thing while posting it. The specs are for the euro model so I was thinking the same thing. I dunno how their shiz works over there.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> They would be starting over on the printing side of it but they will see the benefits of their yield improvement on the IGZO backplane. That isnt a small piece of the manufacturing puzzle for OLED's.


100% agree here.



slacker711 said:


> I was trying to say that LGD has already worked through the problems of manufacturing IGZO backplanes (not that printing impacts these yields). If printing becomes viable in late 2016, then LGD will have spend about 3 years improving the manufacturing and the compensation circuits.
> 
> This will be an advantage even if they move to printing with a RGB architecture. Their experience over these few years wont be wasted....though of course, their advantage in OLED's would be dramatically decreased.


Right, it would be. But that's all the more reason to become the "OLED brand" as quickly and as deeply as possible.

And if LG keeps pushing IGZO expertise on large displays, they will have a strong lead there that no one seems to be closing the gap on especially quickly. The challenge is that the harder part of the equation -- the OLED deposition -- would completely become a commodity in a world where it's sold by "arms merchants" like Kateeva and potentially others. 

From a consumer perspective, it would be hard to be upset.


----------



## ronton3

*2015 4k OLED LG*

Forgive me for this but I am trying to make some decisions about replacing a Failing Sony KDSA3000, I tried a Visio 4k as a stop gap waiting for the new OLEDs but had to return it because of headaches. I want the 559500, but may have to go with a plasma for a while. I am wondering when the new LGs may be available. for pricing. I will read the thread later. Thanks ron


----------



## stas3098

By the way guys, did you know that backlighting constitutes only about 5% of the global lighting market. And according to the most forecasts its market share is only going to decrease over the next 5 years relative to the rest of the global lighting market. 


Well, what I am subtly getting at is that the OLED TV market as part of the global lighting market is nothing, but just a drop in the sea, once you put it in perspective, and I don't think it's going to ever account for more than 5% of the global lighting market, but of course for sure wit I not.


I ,personally, reckon that the introduction of OLED into the global lighting market and the subsequent adoption thereof will inevitably and most likely lead to the mass adoption of the tech in the TV sector, mostly due to the significantly lower costs of material and production equipment seeing how the production of OLED lighting-purposed devices and OLED-based TVs is rather similar...


----------



## slacker711

Cost of Quantum Dots...

http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2015/02/the-price-of-qd-material-is-falling-but-not-enough/



> As a result, QD components are the most expensive among those for LCD backlights. For example, the typical QD sheet for a 55” TV is over USD 100, which is higher than the typical price of normal 55” TV backlight units.


----------



## rogo

OLED is unlikely to make any sort of meaningful dent in the lighting market due to utterly non-standard fixture requirements and inadequate brightness for many uses.

It's likely to capture a small portion of the market but with LED likely to take 80% of lighting over the next decade or so and to have 5-20 year lifespan... Well, the market isn't especially large to begin with.


----------



## Desk.

LG Display to increase investment in OLED...

“LG Display will newly invest around 800 billion won ($729 million) in the E4 production lines for OLED panels in Paju,” Han Sang-beom, chief executive of LG Group’s display business unit, told reporters at a conference held by the Korean government.

“LG Display’s combined monthly production of OLED panels will reach 34,000 units this year,” he added.

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150211000842

Desk


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> OLED is unlikely to make any sort of meaningful dent in the lighting market due to utterly non-standard fixture requirements and inadequate brightness for many uses.
> 
> It's likely to capture a small portion of the market but with LED likely to take 80% of lighting over the next decade or so and to have 5-20 year lifespan... Well, the market isn't especially large to begin with.


 

Well, the annual revenue of the global lighting market (which happens to have high margins) is about 100-110 billion dollars a year and it is set to reach the 130 billion dollar mark by the end of this decade, and once you do the math you shall see that this market yields a 1.2 trillion dollar decadal revenue. It's not small at all, by all means. And in actuality, it is even bigger than the global TV market which has rather low margins in contrast to the global lighting market.



http://www.ledsmagazine.com/article...-strong-growth-for-led-lighting-magazine.html 


http://www.enlighten-initiative.org...tter3/GlobalLightingMarketReportReleased.aspx


Luminaries are available at this very moment that can sustain the brightness of 3000 candela per square meter for 30,000 hours or in quite another words that have the lifetime of 30,000 hours until 70% of the initial brightness. In fact, LG Chem is amongst the number of producers who ,at this very moment, make such proof-of-concept lighting-purposed devices.


http://www.lgoledlight.com/index.do


And if all goes to plan for the company whose name shall remain undisclosed then soon enough an OLED "light bulb" will cost you 5 to 10 times less than a comparable "LED light bulb" for the people at that unnamed company understand that "Price" is what makes stuff sell and that OLED is the end of the line for the global lighting market, because it is thought to be the cheapest tech to mass-produce...


----------



## wco81

What is the lifetime of an OLED lighting module?

An LED bulb costs about $10-15 bucks now and supposedly will last 20 years in the same old Edison socket which has been around over 100 years.


It'd be good environmentally to replace existing lighting fixtures with LEDs but is it good business if your customers don't have to replace your product for a couple of decades?


----------



## JimP

wco81 said:


> What is the lifetime of an OLED lighting module?
> 
> An LED bulb costs about $10-15 bucks now and supposedly will last 20 years in the same old Edison socket which has been around over 100 years.
> 
> 
> It'd be good environmentally to replace existing lighting fixtures with LEDs but is it good business if your customers don't have to replace your product for a couple of decades?


Depends on how much you can squeeze out of them at the front end.

Interesting thought is I could replace all my bulbs with LEDs and not have to replace any more bulbs for the rest of my life.


----------



## stas3098

wco81 said:


> What is the lifetime of an OLED lighting module?
> 
> An LED bulb costs about $10-15 bucks now and supposedly will last 20 years in the same old Edison socket which has been around over 100 years.
> 
> 
> It'd be good environmentally to replace existing lighting fixtures with LEDs but is it good business if your customers don't have to replace your product for a couple of decades?


Like I said before there's no real (physical) limit to the lifespan of OLED lighting modules. They can ,in theory, be made to last millions of hours. LG Chem ,for one, plans to release illuminants that last for over 70,000 hours at 3000 nits (to 70% of the initial brightness) in 2017.


As along as the global construction industry grows as a direct result of both improving economic conditions and the earth's growing population worldwide demand for luminaries shall remain steady no matter the lifecycle of said luminaries and there's going to be well over 8 billion people by 2025 (from 7 billion in 2010), plus there's really no saying how many people are going to populate the earth by the end of this century, however something tells me that it's going to be a hell of a lot more than just 10 billion... 


_A key finding of the report is that growth of the general lighting market is highly correlated with local construction investment, so it is no surprise to see that Asia, and China in particular will experience the most-rapid growth. Asia already accounts for around 35% of the general-lighting market, and this figure is set to rise to around 45% by 2020. Europe and North America will follow, with market shares of 25% and 20% respectively._


http://www.ledsmagazine.com/article...-strong-growth-for-led-lighting-magazine.html


----------



## fafrd

Desk. said:


> LG Display to increase investment in OLED...
> 
> “LG Display will newly invest around 800 billion won ($729 million) in the E4 production lines for OLED panels in Paju,” Han Sang-beom, chief executive of LG Group’s display business unit, told reporters at a conference held by the Korean government.
> 
> “LG Display’s combined monthly production of OLED panels will reach 34,000 units this year,” he added.
> 
> http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150211000842
> 
> Desk


This is just another rehash of the original M2 plan (now E4 , isn't it?

If the English writing of a Korean publication can be taken at face value, the statements you quoted can be taken to indicate that the decision has been made and M2/E4 will be fully ramped to 26,000 Gen8 sheets by year-end,

But I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that there remains another checkpoint or two to meet before investment decisions are finalized, probably in Q2 as the first M2/E4 capacity to 8000 Gen8 sheets per month is hitting the market in a sustainable manner.

You've got to walk before you run and at best, what LG has done up to know has to be charcterized as crawling...


----------



## fafrd

http://www.wsj.com/articles/samsung-electronics-unit-splurges-on-oled-displays-1423637234

Only for phones (no TVs), but still...


----------



## fafrd

Also just ran into this recent write-up on Kateeva: http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/mass-produced-inkjet-printed-oled-displays-0212


----------



## ALMA

> Interesting thought is I could replace all my bulbs with LEDs and not have to replace any more bulbs for the rest of my life.


Many cheap LED light bulbs or LED spots (warm white) last only 15000-25000 h and cheap LEDs with cheap electronics behind means less switching cycles (on/off) < 25000. For example in a family bathroom without a window you can easily reach the maximum way before the max lifetime of the diode. Also most failures of LEDs based on electronic defects.
And there is also a trend not only to replace one bulb in one lamp for one room, because of the more power efficiency of LED and the new possibilities (by the way with OLED-lighting the possibilities are much higher than LED ...) of more individual lighting solutions, you can make rooms not only much brighter than before, but also give them a more "intelligent lighting". But for this you need more lamps and with more lamps, the failure rate gets also higher.

So no, I don´t expect that the luminaire industrie became problems to sell new products. For todays generation the claims for individual lighting are much higher than generations years before and also growing with the new possibilities. So OLED lighting with even more various usages than LED http://www.linguee.de/englisch-deutsch/uebersetzung/various+usages.htmlhas a bright future.


----------



## slacker711

It is a translation so you can take it with all of the normal caveats, but it seems that Hi-Mart (Korean version of Best Buy) stated that OLED television sales took 11% of their 55" and larger sales in January. I am sure total units are still very small, but this is the first time I have read of any real share gains by OLED televisions.

http://www.segye.com/content/html/2015/02/11/20150211004238.html


----------



## Rich Peterson

^^^ If that's true that's quite impressive.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*QD sets to be major driving force in TV market till 2018, says IEK*

Source: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20150212PD209.html




> LCD TVs based on quantum dot (QD) technology, due to comparable color performance compared with OLED TVs but much lower production costs, are expected to be a major driving force of the TV market *until 2018 when OLED TVs are completely commercialized*, according to the Industrial Economics and Knowledge Center (IEK) under Taiwan's government-sponsored Industrial Technology Research Institute.
> 
> 
> For 55-inch units, Quantum Dot TVs are about 30-35% more expensive than non-QD units whereas OLED TVs are about five times the amount. *It will take Korea panel makers roughly three more years to decrease OLED material costs for TV panels in order for the technology to be affordable for mainstream markets*, said IEK.
> 
> 
> OLED TV pricing is expected to remain double that of Ultra HD LCD TVs through 2016, and the latter will remain more popular than the former in the high-end segment. Ultra HD TV shipments are expected to grow 120% on year in 2015, added Digitimes Research.


----------



## wco81

Digitimes Research? Isn't Digitimes just a newspaper, not a market researcher?


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

Be careful with all these articles about OLED investments, 11% market share inroads, and even taking over the market within a couple years!

Forum Cassandras' heads might explode. 

Or, rather, they will probably say that's what they've been saying all along.

OLED has a bright future, no matter what doom n' gloom people here preach.


----------



## fafrd

Rich Peterson said:


> Source: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20150212PD209.html


So first, since Taiwan has significant LCD production and exactly zero OLED production, this is exactly the future as they would like it to unfold.

Second, if it is true that Quantum Dots add 35% to the cost of an LED/LCD, you can see why Sony dropped them in favor of the improved phosphors and also why LG is 'triple-tracking' in 2015, with both QDF and improved -phosphor variants of WCG LED/LCDs in addition to WOLED.

And third, about the only thing I am reasonably certain of is that the forecast that 'OLED TV pricing is expected to remain double that of Ultra HD LCD TVs through 2016' is not going to materialize.

Either the price gap is going to drop far below that level before this year is out (or certainly in 2016), or LG will have thrown in the towel on WOLED TVs by then.


----------



## stas3098

QD has mostly just turned into a marketing hoax now that QD film manufacturers use magnesium(which is much lighter than cadmium and which happens to be the only plausible non-toxic substitute for cadmium) all instead of cadmium...


----------



## wco81

But QD TVs aren't on the market yet, are they? They were shown at CES but not yet at showrooms so the marketing hasn't begun?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> But QD TVs aren't on the market yet, are they? They were shown at CES but not yet at showrooms so the marketing hasn't begun?


The marketing of QD TVs has been in full swing since the announcement of 'ULED' TVs last fall...


----------



## stas3098

Samsung to Invest 3.6 Billion Dollars into OLED (printing?) over The Next 3 Years...


http://www.financialbuzz.com/samsung-invests-heavily-in-oled-production-line-technology-217785


----------



## zoro

Hell Samsung


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NintendoManiac64

zoro said:


> Hell Samsung
> 
> 
> Sent from my *iPhone* using Tapatalk


And this is why users should disable such automatic signatures...


----------



## rogo

stas3098 said:


> Samsung to Invest 3.6 Billion Dollars into OLED (printing?) over The Next 3 Years...
> 
> 
> http://www.financialbuzz.com/samsung-invests-heavily-in-oled-production-line-technology-217785


That's a mobile phone/tablet investment. Only. Entirely. Completely.

It has nothing to do with "printing". It's the same method of OLED mfg. they've been using since the beginning.


----------



## rogo

stas3098 said:


> Well, the annual revenue of the global lighting market (which happens to have high margins) is about 100-110 billion dollars a year and it is set to reach the 130 billion dollar mark by the end of this decade, and once you do the math you shall see that this market yields a 1.2 trillion dollar decadal revenue. It's not small at all, by all means. And in actuality, it is even bigger than the global TV market which has rather low margins in contrast to the global lighting market.


This is incredibly dumb math, which you'll see as you read on....


> And if all goes to plan for the company whose name shall remain undisclosed then soon enough an OLED "light bulb" will cost you 5 to 10 times less than a comparable "LED light bulb" for the people at that unnamed company understand that "Price" is what makes stuff sell and that OLED is the end of the line for the global lighting market, because it is thought to be the cheapest tech to mass-produce...


Again, this is hype, not reality. But let's say it comes to pass... First of all, it shrinks the value of the market by a factor of 5-10... (read on)



wco81 said:


> What is the lifetime of an OLED lighting module?
> 
> An LED bulb costs about $10-15 bucks now and supposedly will last 20 years in the same old Edison socket which has been around over 100 years.
> 
> It'd be good environmentally to replace existing lighting fixtures with LEDs but is it good business if your customers don't have to replace your product for a couple of decades?


So in business, LED bulbs won't last decades, but in homes they can quite easily. And that decimates the lighting market which is used to selling bulbs to homes every 1-2 years and to businesses every few months....



JimP said:


> Depends on how much you can squeeze out of them at the front end.
> 
> Interesting thought is I could replace all my bulbs with LEDs and not have to replace any more bulbs for the rest of my life.


Yep. And soon those basic Edison-socket bulbs will be $3-4 in LED. (read on)



stas3098 said:


> Like I said before there's no real (physical) limit to the lifespan of OLED lighting modules. They can ,in theory, be made to last millions of hours. LG Chem ,for one, plans to release illuminants that last for over 70,000 hours at 3000 nits (to 70% of the initial brightness) in 2017.


There is no business model to ever, every sell such a light. "It will last forever." How much are you selling that for? 2x everyone else's lamp? 4x? Remember, in a home an LED light will last 20 years or so. A home lasts 40-60 on average (of course, some last much longer, but really who is paying a huge premium over $3-4 LEDs or even $8-10 LED recessed lamps?)


> As along as the global construction industry grows as a direct result of both improving economic conditions and the earth's growing population worldwide demand for luminaries shall remain steady no matter the lifecycle of said luminaries and there's going to be well over 8 billion people by 2025 (from 7 billion in 2010), plus there's really no saying how many people are going to populate the earth by the end of this century, however something tells me that it's going to be a hell of a lot more than just 10 billion...


Good thing you don't do population projection for a living. Some forecasts have the earth cresting at 9 billion. Others have it growing past 15 billion. Regardless, none have it replacing its building stock just for the heck of it. 

And most of the world is lit with bulbs. Not "luminaires". Notice the use of that term. It's key because you can't currently fashion an OLED lamp that works in conventional fixtures. That's a problem. No one wants to buy weird lamps or be forced to design them in. It's why dumb old fluorescent tubes still sell... 

Of course, long-lasting light is an entirely new phenomenon. The idea that the lighting market isn't going to radically shrink no matter what technology wins if lamps last longer is absolutely ludicrous.

And in the next 10 years, most of the world's lighting will be replaced by LED, which will be long lasting and cheap and energy efficient. It will also attain huge economies of scale in that time. So why exactly is everyone ripping that out for entirely incompatible OLED?

The OLED lighting fantasy is weird. Currently OLED lighting is less efficient, more costly and entirely incompatible with the world's lighting infrastructure. Something that is efficient, cheap, improving annually on cost and brightness is going in everywhere and reducing the maintenance cost of lighting.

Most of the world considers this problem solved.

The people that don't? Putative OLED manufacturers.

They should put up -- with products 90% cheaper -- or shut up. Anything less and they have a 0% chance of having any impact at all.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> They should put up -- with products 90% cheaper -- or shut up. Anything less and they have a 0% chance of having any impact at all.


Yes, that is a prerequisite for OLED lighting to have a chance.

The reason that OLED lighting even has that chance is that much of the R&D needed for it to hit that kind of price reduction is already being done to bring down the cost of OLED displays. Increased material efficiency, printing, flexible backplanes, single layer encapsulation etc. They are all needed for displays and lighting.

An easy example is the R&D for the Kateeva YieldJET platform. OLED lighting alone couldnt have driven its development but now it will be fairly easy for Kateeva to adapt it for lighting.

Will printing alone be enough? I think that probably gets OLED lighting to the point where architectural lighting can become a market. There are places where OLED's flat lighting source makes more sense than the point lighting provided by an LED. They probably need roll to roll printing to be developed to get the price low enough for it to become viable as a fluorescent tube replacement. 

Nobody is replacing the sockets in their house for OLED lighting unless they are doing a major renovation and OLED lighting has already become mainstream in other places....and that is a very long way away (if ever).


----------



## wco81

I think point lighting works fine for architectural exteriors:

http://wallpoper.com/wallpaper/night-architecture-379942

They're especially not going to cover exterior walls of iconic buildings with OLED panels. Spot lighting provides a much smaller footprint for the fixtures while providing good area coverage.


----------



## slacker711

wco81 said:


> I think point lighting works fine for architectural exteriors:
> 
> http://wallpoper.com/wallpaper/night-architecture-379942
> 
> They're especially not going to cover exterior walls of iconic buildings with OLED panels. Spot lighting provides a much smaller footprint for the fixtures while providing good area coverage.


I might have used the wrong term since I wasnt thinking of exterior lighting but rather lighting where both form and function matter. A high-end store or restaurant, corporate headquarters, hotel lobbies, etc. There are places where the benefits of OLED lighting would be worthwhile even if the price doesnt match LED lighting.

Of course, they would still need to see drastic reductions from current pricing to even open up those markets in any substantial way.


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> This is incredibly dumb math, which you'll see as you read on....
> 
> 
> Again, this is hype, not reality. But let's say it comes to pass... First of all, it shrinks the value of the market by a factor of 5-10... (read on)
> 
> 
> 
> So in business, LED bulbs won't last decades, but in homes they can quite easily. And that decimates the lighting market which is used to selling bulbs to homes every 1-2 years and to businesses every few months....
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And soon those basic Edison-socket bulbs will be $3-4 in LED. (read on)
> 
> 
> 
> There is no business model to ever, every sell such a light. "It will last forever." How much are you selling that for? 2x everyone else's lamp? 4x? Remember, in a home an LED light will last 20 years or so. A home lasts 40-60 on average (of course, some last much longer, but really who is paying a huge premium over $3-4 LEDs or even $8-10 LED recessed lamps?)
> 
> 
> Good thing you don't do population projection for a living. Some forecasts have the earth cresting at 9 billion. Others have it growing past 15 billion. Regardless, none have it replacing its building stock just for the heck of it.
> 
> And most of the world is lit with bulbs. Not "luminaires". Notice the use of that term. It's key because you can't currently fashion an OLED lamp that works in conventional fixtures. That's a problem. No one wants to buy weird lamps or be forced to design them in. It's why dumb old fluorescent tubes still sell...
> 
> Of course, long-lasting light is an entirely new phenomenon. The idea that the lighting market isn't going to radically shrink no matter what technology wins if lamps last longer is absolutely ludicrous.
> 
> And in the next 10 years, most of the world's lighting will be replaced by LED, which will be long lasting and cheap and energy efficient. It will also attain huge economies of scale in that time. So why exactly is everyone ripping that out for entirely incompatible OLED?
> 
> The OLED lighting fantasy is weird. Currently OLED lighting is less efficient, more costly and entirely incompatible with the world's lighting infrastructure. Something that is efficient, cheap, improving annually on cost and brightness is going in everywhere and reducing the maintenance cost of lighting.
> 
> Most of the world considers this problem solved.
> 
> The people that don't? Putative OLED manufacturers.
> 
> They should put up -- with products 90% cheaper -- or shut up. Anything less and they have a 0% chance of having any impact at all.


Firstly, a luminary simply means a lighting-purposed device (any kind of artificial light that is designed to be used as a source of illumination). 


And secondly, there's no problem whatsoever to make an OLED light bulb (I have no idea why you would ever think that there would be some seeing how LED, OLED, fluorescents and even incandescents operate on the different incarnations of the same exact principle which is that the voltage induces the flow of electrons in a closed circuit by knocking electrons loose thusly creating "holes" which are then filled by "moving" electrons which have come full circle and those electrons, in turn, create new holes to be filled ergo creating an exclusive circle, but enough about that). If anything, any light bulb holder has two contacts, a positive one and a negative one, and this is exactly what is needed to make an OLED light-bulb work or any other commercial light-bulb we have ever made for that matter.


But, with the rest of your points I either more or less agree or can see no point in arguing about, however I want to point out that the thinking behind OLED is that if you can make an OLED light bulb that costs under 1 dollar (which is the ultimate goal from what I hear) and have a 100 to 200 percent mark-up to it it will be much more profitable than a 5 dollar LED light bulb with a 10 percent mark-up.


And also most profits in the lighting industry don't come from retail sales, but from high margin bulk sales to the construction, automotive, hospitality, retail etc., industries.


P.S. Industrial lighting usually has lifetimes of over 100,000 hours and it's usually residential lighting that has 20,000 to 30,000 hour lifetimes.


http://www.jakedyson.com/products/ariel-downlight/


----------



## tgm1024

^^^Once again, you're losing me. Incandescents work entirely on heat. As the filament heats up, it emits EMS, at targettable frequencies based upon material and heat from resisting specific loads.


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> The OLED lighting fantasy is weird. Currently OLED lighting is less efficient, more costly and entirely incompatible with the world's lighting infrastructure. Something that is efficient, cheap, improving annually on cost and brightness is going in everywhere and reducing the maintenance cost of lighting.
> 
> Most of the world considers this problem solved.
> 
> The people that don't? Putative OLED manufacturers.
> 
> They should put up -- with products 90% cheaper -- or shut up. Anything less and they have a 0% chance of having any impact at all.


OLED lighting efficiency is now basically the same as LED.
http://www.cnet.com/news/lg-chem-develops-super-efficient-oled-light-panels/

As you say, they are currently way more costly and incompatible with the world's, hmm... home light sockets.

So, OLED has a long way to go on cost but comparing gen 2 pilot line OLED prices to full blown LED production prices is no more valid than 3 years ago saying an OLED TV would be $50,000 built on a gen 4 pilot line compared to a $2,000 LED TV. The estimates are that OLED pricing would drop by 2/3 just by going to a gen 5 production system. There is still more room to go which is why no one has invested in such a plant yet but it's not like they still need to drop pricing by 90%. In the above link LG says they expect to drop pricing five fold. Just one more point is that OLED pricing per lumen can be slightly higher than LED because a significant portion of LED output is blocked by luminaires to diffuse the light.

It turns out automotive accounts for 20% of the world lighting market (see stas's link) and they place a very high premium on form factor. Auto manufacturers want to save space and weight and getting rid of the bulky frame around light bulbs (such as in the trunk around brake lghts) and replacing that with a thin sheet means they can make the car a bit smaller or provide more usable space while reducing the amount of metal in the car. And there's not really a standard light socket to be incompatible with. Look for BMW, Audi and Hyundai to start the trend.

Now I know you will say that's a niche market and you can't survive on that. Maybe, maybe not. Point is form factor is once again the thing that gets the investment going. OLED lighting won't be in the general light bulb business for a long time if ever but there are applications to drive investment to make it cost competitive.


----------



## sarahb75

*The Mystery of OLED TV Talk Mutating Into An OLED Light Bulb Discussion*

Realize that I may not be too bright, 

So maybe folks might shed some light,

On why,

Thread on OLED TV being right,

Morphed into one on making light,

Then, I may be at peace, tonight.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> ^^^Once again, you're losing me. Incandescents work entirely on heat. As the filament heats up, it emits EMS, at targettable frequencies based upon material and heat from resisting specific loads.


Yes, they do resist the flow of electrons running through the tungsten filament created by voltage (tungsten's electrons are way more energetic than copper's, because it takes much more voltaic energy to knock them loose) and if there's no flow of electrons (current) then there's no light it's just that simple and OLEDs need the flow of electrons to operate just as much as incandescents do, but of course the mechanics of light production are completely different for incandescents and OLEDs, howbeit it's a given that they will both need a positive and a negative terminal to function and any light-bulb receptacle I know of provides a positive and a negative terminal to enable the flow of electrons, doesn't it?


----------



## stas3098

sarahb75 said:


> Realize that I may not be too bright,
> 
> So maybe folks might shed some light,
> 
> On why,
> 
> Thread on OLED TV being right,
> 
> Morphed into one on making light,
> 
> Then, I may be at peace, tonight.


It all started with a comment that the lighting industry will enable OLED TVs when (or if) it will mass-adopt the OLED tech.


----------



## catonic

sarahb75 said:


> Realize that I may not be too bright,
> 
> So maybe folks might shed some light,
> 
> On why,
> 
> Thread on OLED TV being right,
> 
> Morphed into one on making light,
> 
> Then, I may be at peace, tonight.


Because this is AVS.


----------



## sarahb75

stas3098 said:


> It all started with a comment that the lighting industry will enable OLED TVs when (or if) it will mass-adopt the OLED tech.


Yes, OK. And please excuse the bad poetry, guys. Was just having a little fun on a very cold & snowy northeast Ohio evening.

That little ditty I wrote, just illustrates something I'm always telling my wife, namely, that most of the dumbest things that I do, seem to take place when I'm stone, cold, sober.

Anyway, stas3098, since learning on this thread that OLED lighting, at least at present, would not be compatible with standard electrical outlets, would the conventional wisdom be that OLED lighting won't have a significant effect on moderating OLED TV prices until a long time from now, if ever?


----------



## stas3098

sarahb75 said:


> Yes, OK. And please excuse the bad poetry, guys. Was just having a little fun on a very cold & snowy northeast Ohio evening.
> 
> That little ditty I wrote, just illustrates something I'm always telling my wife, namely, that most of the dumbest things that I do, seem to take place when I'm stone, cold, sober.
> 
> Anyway, stas3098, since learning on this thread that OLED lighting, at least at present, would not be compatible with standard electrical outlets, would the conventional wisdom be that OLED lighting won't have a significant effect on moderating OLED TV prices until a long time from now, if ever?


The conventional wisdom is wrong OLEDs can be made fully compatible with standard electrical outlets, but you won't see OLED in residential lighting until OLED production costs reduce significantly and for some time OLED will be restricted to the industrial lighting only (as in construction, automotive, hospitality, retail, office lighting etc.) where the most money is made.


Here's another tidbit on OLED lighting:

_But most exciting is the advances in efficiency. Just the other week, a startup called Pixelligent announced that adding nanoparticles into OLEDs makes it easier for them to pump out light—increasing brightness by 2 to 3 times for the same input power. That's staggering jump, and more, similar advances are set to come._

_Combine that with the work that Konica-Minolta and OLED Works are doing to make production of OLEDs cheaper—largely by abandoning the fine tolerances of current OLED production to make light panels more quickly and, hence, cheaply—and sheets of lighting could well brighten our future sooner than we may've thought._

_Indeed, this fall, Konica-Minolta is going to launch full-scale production of OLED lights on flexible plastic sheets, and looks set to churn out a million 15-centimeter-wide panels every month. Sure, they'll be expensive at first, but__ according to Technology Review__, Philips hopes to provide OLED lighting solutions for $600 by 2017. That could just be cheap enough to catch on._ 


http://gizmodo.com/oled-lighting-sheets-could-replace-bulbs-and-halve-your-1643745172


----------



## rogo

"And secondly, there's no problem whatsoever to make an OLED light bulb"

There is a problem with it, which is why you haven't seen one.

On a loosely related note, I really enjoy incidentally, reading smart takes here on AVS, like those above from Slacker and Ynotgoal.


----------



## jacko15

What amazes me more than anything is that we've been able to move beyond whale oil lamps, what with the different infrastructure that was required and all.


----------



## stas3098

Actually it is a printed LED light bulb.


----------



## stas3098

*The OLED Light Bulb Paradox*



rogo said:


> "And secondly, there's no problem whatsoever to make an OLED light bulb"
> 
> *There is a problem with it, which is why you haven't seen one.*
> 
> On a loosely related note, I really enjoy incidentally, reading smart takes here on AVS, like those above from Slacker and Ynotgoal.


And what that problem might be, I wonder? 


P.S. This is a purely rhetorical question because *there's no problem with it* at all and _I have not seen one yet because they haven't simply made one yet,_ and therein lies the notorious OLED light-bulb paradox...


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> Yes, they do resist the flow of electrons running through the tungsten filament created by voltage (tungsten's electrons are way more energetic than copper's, because it takes much more voltaic energy to knock them loose) and if there's no flow of electrons (current) then there's no light it's just that simple and OLEDs need the flow of electrons to operate just as much as incandescents do, but of course the mechanics of light production are completely different for incandescents and OLEDs, howbeit it's a given that they will both need a positive and a negative terminal to function and any light-bulb receptacle I know of provides a positive and a negative terminal to enable the flow of electrons, doesn't it?


Was there a sentence in that ^^^^ gobbledygook? Don't go throwing a flurry of words in hopes of staving off a discussion. Stas, while there are absolutely hole-charges in the flow of any current (at any voltage), it's not the electron-hole recombination that produces light with incandescents. It's the raw heating up of the filament. Things heated up (by any means) will often glow, and they glow at differing frequencies depending upon material and temperature.




rogo said:


> There is a problem with it, which is why you haven't seen one.





stas3098 said:


> And what that problem might be, I wonder?
> 
> 
> P.S. This is a purely rhetorical question because *there's no problem with it* at all and _I have not seen one yet because they haven't simply made one yet,_ and therein lies the notorious OLED light-bulb paradox...


I don't know where to begin on this one.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> On a loosely related note, I really enjoy incidentally, reading smart takes here on AVS, like those above from Slacker and Ynotgoal.


Slacker, Ynotgoal, and xrox, absolutely.


----------



## tgm1024

sarahb75 said:


> Realize that I may not be too bright,
> 
> So maybe folks might shed some light,
> 
> On why,
> 
> Thread on OLED TV being right,
> 
> Morphed into one on making light,
> 
> Then, I may be at peace, tonight.


You're right. Someday we might even morph this thing into a poetry thread or somesuch....


----------



## Ken Ross

stas3098 said:


> And what that problem might be, I wonder?
> 
> 
> *P.S. This is a purely rhetorical question because there's no problem with it at all and I have not seen one yet because they haven't simply made one yet, and therein lies the notorious OLED light-bulb paradox...*


They haven't made a time machine either, but I hear it's both theoretically possible and there's no problem with it.


----------



## Ken Ross

catonic said:


> Because this is AVS.


It's also why I tend not to visit this thread.


----------



## rogo

stas3098 said:


> And what that problem might be, I wonder?
> 
> 
> P.S. This is a purely rhetorical question because *there's no problem with it* at all and _I have not seen one yet because they haven't simply made one yet,_ and therein lies the notorious OLED light-bulb paradox...


Gee, I wonder. The world is replacing a billion light bulbs right now... Big opportunity _to sell light bulbs_. If making an OLED one was problem free, you'd think someone would, you know, make one. Maybe sell 100 million or so. Case closed.



tgm1024 said:


> Slacker, Ynotgoal, and xrox, absolutely.


Xrox, TGM, many others with regular smart takes too. I was specifically calling out those recent posts by Slacker and Ynot. Not to the exclusion of other smart takes, though perhaps to the exclusion of some not smart ones.


----------



## catonic

Ken Ross said:


> It's also why I tend not to visit this thread.


Very wise Ken, ....unless your looking for a bit of entertainment!


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> *Was there a sentence in that ^^^^ gobbledygook?*
> 
> 
> Don't go throwing a flurry of words in hopes of staving off a discussion. Stas, while there are absolutely hole-charges in the flow of any current (at any voltage), it's not the electron-hole recombination that produces light with incandescents. It's the raw heating up of the filament. Things heated up (by any means) will often glow, and they glow at differing frequencies depending upon material and temperature.


1. I don't even know any more


2. Not directly, but the electron-hole recombination produces heat (due to resistance) that heats up the filament.


And FYI I was not debating the fact that when things become calid enough they don't turn lambent, of course they do, though, in many cases they irradiate rather subfusc light or in other words things do glow when heated up


My main point was , in a nutshell, that the flow of current makes incandescents produce heat (infrared) which we perceive as light( some of that heat comes in the form of visible light) and that the flow of current (induced by voltage) makes OLEDs work as well( by inducing the flow of holes and electrons through the emitter (via some metal present in the emitter) where when the holes and electrons recombine they release photons of different (usually invisible) frequencies whose frequency then changed to the targeted frequencies by organic compounds present in the emitter).


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> Gee, I wonder. The world is replacing a billion light bulbs right now... Big opportunity _to sell light bulbs_. If making an OLED one was problem free, you'd think someone would, you know, make one. Maybe sell 100 million or so. Case closed.



...false dichotomy...


----------



## stas3098

I hope you understand that all the things in the world have the property of "lucency" when subjected to certain conditions and that there's only one way that said lucency can be induced, to wit, by the process of recombination of holes and electrons and the subsequent release of energy in the form of photons which (the subsequent release of energy),in turn, is caused by a catalytic disturbant event (in the case of OLED it is application of voltage) that thereupon leads to the creation of "holes" and thereafter to the flow of elections in absolute and complete accordance with the Law of Conservation of Energy which enjoys the role of governance over the transfer of energy which has theretofore happened in the same exact vein an uncountable number of times and to say otherwise is to totally misunderstand the basic workings of physics, but however things might be this is not a physics forum, wherefore I shall not proceed to expand on the "all objects have a property of lucency" dictum that was put forth quite sometime ago and which enjoys the privilege of pertaining to every single aspect and facet of our life...


Now I hope that you guys understand that all things emit light (though, not always visible that light might be) when subjected to certain conditions and that there's only one way that light can be emitted and that is by the recombination of holes and electrons.


----------



## Ken Ross

Is there a correlation between lucid and lucency?


----------



## stas3098

Ken Ross said:


> Is there a correlation between lucid and lucency?


 
Certainly, there is for they both originate from the Latin word for "light" (lux) thence "lucency" denotes "light", howbeit "lucidity" is usually taken to mean "perspicuity", "coherency" or "clearness (of mind)" and "lucid" ,in sooth, bespeaks "not of wode or temerarious mind (disposition)", "reasonable" or "bright". FYI also such words as _luxurious, luxuriant, luculent, luculence luxury, luminary, illumination, luminance, illuminant, lumen, luminesce, illuminate, pellucid, pellucidity, pellucidate, elucidate, luminous, luminousness etc.,_ come from the same Latin word for "light". 


P.S. Mind-bending stuff , I know


----------



## rogo

stas3098 said:


> ...false dichotomy...


You would seem to be the expert on false parallels without question. I would say you might want to stay away from commenting on whether the utter lack of a single production OLED light bulb somehow is evidence for your claim of the ease of producing one, however. It's like arguing that the fact we haven't detected a shred of alien life is certainly proof the universe is teeming with it because, well, it's likely it's out there!



stas3098 said:


> [SIZE=3
> Now I hope that you guys understand that all things emit light (though, not always visible that light might be) when subjected to certain conditions and that there's only one way that light can be emitted and that is by the recombination of holes and electrons.[/quote]
> 
> I hope you understand that the relevance of this to the price of tea in China is low and the relevance of the price of tea in China to the rest of this conversation is very nearly as high as the fact that the "only way light can be emitted is by the recombination of holes and electrons."


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> You would seem to be the expert on false parallels without question. I would say you might want to stay away from commenting on whether the utter lack of a single production OLED light bulb somehow is evidence for your claim of the ease of producing one, however. It's like arguing that the fact we haven't detected a shred of alien life is certainly proof the universe is teeming with it because, well, it's likely it's out there!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you understand that the relevance of this to the price of tea in China is low and the relevance of the price of tea in China to the rest of this conversation is very nearly as high as the fact that the "only way light can be emitted is by the recombination of holes and electrons."


 
For the record, I never said it was going to be easy to make an OLED light bulb compatible with an Edison socket, all I said was that it was possible to cobble an "OLED-based light bulb" together that would fit into a good old Edison socket(but what would the point of such a contrivance be, what with the current OLED production costs?), but then things somehow got away from me, spiraled out of control and degraded into this... 


And in reality the chances of an OLED light bulb coming into existence within this decade are rather slim...


And to be honest, the main reason why there's no OLED light bulb is purely economical. The viability of such a source of light is univocally non-existent, but the viability of an OLED luminaire (a complete lighting unit) is not so murky. 

P.S. My own medicine does taste somewhat like Chinese tea.


----------



## tgm1024

Ken Ross said:


> Is there a correlation between lucid and lucency?


Apparently not.


----------



## Stereodude

stas3098 said:


> And to be honest, the main reason why there's no OLED light bulb is purely economical. The viability of such a source of light is univocally non-existent, but the viability of an OLED luminaire (a complete lighting unit) is not so murky.


So you've been lying previously since you're only being honest now? 

Are there real working prototypes being shown somewhere, but nothing on the market? If not, I don't see how you can make the claim you're making. Lots of things that are technically feasible but not commercially viable are shown as prototypes or proofs of concept while the makers attempt to drum up interest and get them commercially viable. If there are no prototypes or proofs of concept the natural conclusion is quite a bit different than the one you're claiming.


----------



## rogo

stas3098 said:


> For the record, I never said it was going to be easy to make an OLED light bulb compatible with an Edison socket, all I said was that it was possible to cobble an "OLED-based light bulb" together that would fit into a good old Edison socket(but what would the point of such a contrivance be, what with the current OLED production costs?), but then things somehow got away from me, spiraled out of control and degraded into this...


In other words, what I said was actually true and you in fact agree. 

I shall continue reading your scientific approach to things now that I know you are not choosing to be obstinate just for the sake of it.


> And in reality the chances of an OLED light bulb coming into existence within this decade are rather slim...


And at an interesting price. The chances are zero.

We were in Ikea yesterday where they are hawking 40w-equivalent LED bulbs for $3.50. I suspect in a year 60w equivalents will be the same price.

That seems like the new normal and it's basically upon us.


----------



## stas3098

Here's an OLED light bulb prototype:


----------



## Weboh

On a different note, MEMS is now becoming backlit and has response much faster than LCD and OLED. But the prototypes, so far, are small. This pleases me much, since I am not totally impressed by LCD and OLED shutter-based technologies. I highly doubt that OLED is similar to Wildfire which also claims to be purely emissive.


----------



## chexi1

Stereodude said:


> So you've been lying previously since you're only being honest now?
> 
> Are there real working prototypes being shown somewhere, but nothing on the market? If not, I don't see how you can make the claim you're making. Lots of things that are technically feasible but not commercially viable are shown as prototypes or proofs of concept while the makers attempt to drum up interest and get them commercially viable. If there are no prototypes or proofs of concept the natural conclusion is quite a bit different than the one you're claiming.


There are prototype and even commercially available white OLED lights (not Edison socket bulbs) but lights. They are ridiculously expensive, but they exist.

The real market for OLED lighting is in accent lighting or on planes of glass or on curved surfaces with FOLED. As a shareholder of Universal Display, I wish that the world's replacement of incandescent lighting would have skipped LED and gone to OLED, but alas, that is not going to happen.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Weboh said:


> On a different not, MEMS is now becoming backlit and has response much faster than LCD and *OLED*.


Uhh, OLED has ridiculously fast response times...

Remember, response time does not equal refresh rate, input lag, nor low motion blur.


----------



## tgm1024

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Uhh, OLED has ridiculously fast response times...
> 
> Remember, response time does not equal refresh rate, input lag, nor low motion blur.


I'm fairly certain he knows this. And FWIW, MEMS cells can actually shutter in a 1/10th of a millisecond. And the jury is still out on the role GtG plays with motion blur.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

tgm1024 said:


> And FWIW, MEMS cells can actually shutter in a 1/10th of a millisecond


And OLED is stated to have a response time a of less 0.01 ms, aka 1/100th of a millisecond - and that's apparently a _conservative_ measurement.


----------



## stas3098

Stereodude said:


> So you've been lying previously since you're only being honest now?
> 
> Are there real working prototypes being shown somewhere, but nothing on the market? If not, I don't see how you can make the claim you're making. Lots of things that are technically feasible but not commercially viable are shown as prototypes or proofs of concept while the makers attempt to drum up interest and get them commercially viable. If there are no prototypes or proofs of concept the natural conclusion is quite a bit different than the one you're claiming.


There are prototypes out there (as I have shown), but whether or not there are prototypes has very little bearing on my original argument. My main point was that there were nothing out there precluding an OLED light bulb from springing to existence on the physics' side of the street


And on a loosely related note, my "swevens of the futurity" might not well be yours "swevens of the futurity" and sweb I might of the bright future for OLED lighting, but you might not, and it's okay and it's alright. There's nothing wrong with that. Everybody's entitled to their own opinion.


----------



## tgm1024

NintendoManiac64 said:


> And OLED is stated to have a response time a of less 0.01 ms, aka 1/100th of a millisecond - and that's apparently a _conservative_ measurement.


Where did you read that? LG has listed their tech at .1 ms, not 0.01. And where did you get that as a conservative measurement?

*EDIT*: I think I found where you likely got that measurement from. The wikipedia page. Sigh. Yet again this thing shows up. The problem with misinformationpedia is how the authors completely misinterpret what the originating statements are saying. The quote from oled-info was "1000 times faster than LCD". That doesn't put it at 1/100th of a millisecond without lab results, because LCD times vary tremendously from level to level (hence the absurdly differing values in the GtG charts for LCD).


----------



## wco81

From that link, it doesn't sound like MEMS is being envisioned for large displays any time soon.

They're targeting 7-inch tablets at a time when phablets are pushing them to extinction.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Where did you read that? LG has listed their tech at .1 ms, not 0.01. And where did you get that as a conservative measurement?


OLED has ,in theory, a near instantaneous response time... and ,in theory, the 0.01 ms estimate is very conservative in my opinion... but to know that you first have to understand the physics behind OLED. But however things might stand in the Theory Land, 0.1 ms is what the response time usually comes down to, in reality, for current OLEDs...


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> *EDIT*: I think I found where you likely got that measurement from. The wikipedia page. Sigh. Yet again this thing shows up. The problem with misinformationpedia is how the authors completely misinterpret what the originating statements are saying. The quote from oled-info was "1000 times faster than LCD". That doesn't put it at 1/100th of a millisecond without lab results, because LCD times vary tremendously from level to level (hence the absurdly differing values in the GtG charts for LCD).


 
Here's a whitepaper that put it at 0,01 ms and lower

http://www.journalofvision.org/content/14/9/2.full


----------



## NintendoManiac64

stas3098 said:


> Here's the lab results that put it at 0,01 ms and lower
> 
> http://www.journalofvision.org/content/14/9/2.full


Thank you! I knew it was somewhere but I didn't have time to find it.

Besides, even if OLED "only" has a 0.1ms response time, that's still on par with MEMS...


----------



## stas3098

Here's the response time quote from a Samsung patent:


*Furthermore, OLEDs have very small response times, 0.01 ms and less, compared with LCDs (about 2 ms)*



http://www.google.co.ug/patents/US20120146489


----------



## Weboh

NintendoManiac64 said:


> And OLED is stated to have a response time a of less 0.01 ms, aka 1/100th of a millisecond - and that's apparently a _conservative_ measurement.


It hasn't shown in real world tests of OLED.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Sony is still in the professional OLED Monitor market. They just announced a 4K model: http://www.tvnewscheck.com/playout/2015/02/sony-unveils-4k-oled-master-monitor/


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> Here's a whitepaper that put it at 0,01 ms and lower
> 
> http://www.journalofvision.org/content/14/9/2.full


Ok...I believe it. But it didn't "put it at" anything as a measurement. Their statement was this: "however, an OLED can theoretically have less than a 0.01-ms response time". Theory. Just more handed around information. It wasn't a measurement, _nor _a statement from the manufacturer. They also said: "There was no information on the response time for the CRT and OLED screens from the manufacturer."


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> Here's the response time quote from a Samsung patent:
> 
> 
> *Furthermore, OLEDs have very small response times, 0.01 ms and less, compared with LCDs (about 2 ms)*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.google.co.ug/patents/US20120146489


I'll not dig into that to verify, I'll take your word for it. But does anyone have a graph from actual measurements? It's not coming up on google image search.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Rich Peterson said:


> Sony is still in the professional OLED Monitor market. They just announced a 4K model: http://www.tvnewscheck.com/playout/2015/02/sony-unveils-4k-oled-master-monitor/


Here's the actual official press release:
http://blog.sony.com/press/sony-exp...first-oled-designed-for-pro-video-production/


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> I'll not dig into that to verify, I'll take your word for it. But does anyone have a graph from actual measurements? It's not coming up on google image search.


Actual measurements:


http://www.intechopen.com/books/org...g-diode-for-interactive-optical-communication


They claim to have achieved the 20Mhz (20 000 000 hz) "refresh rate "with OLED and they say the 160Mhz "refresh rate" is quite possible, as well... they also found the "response time" for one of their compounds to be a little bit bigger than 0,2 ns or 0,0000002 ms (and this is not the limit by any means).




The highest cutoff frequency of PL intensity can reach about 160 MHz using one substituted phenyl/vinyl compound, DSB, of which* the fluorescence lifetime was 0.2 ns.* 


P.S. Please note that I have taken the liberty of extrapolating "response times" and "refresh rates" for the TVs and that we are very unlikely to see such fast response times in our TVs any time soon (if ever)...


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> Actual measurements:
> 
> 
> http://www.intechopen.com/books/org...g-diode-for-interactive-optical-communication
> 
> 
> They claim to have achieved the 20Mhz (20 000 000 hz) "refresh rate "with OLED and they say the 160Mhz "refresh rate" is quite possible, as well... they also found the "response time" for one of their compounds to be a little bit bigger than 0,2 ns or 0,0000002 ms (and this is not the limit by any means).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The highest cutoff frequency of PL intensity can reach about 160 MHz using one substituted phenyl/vinyl compound, DSB, of which* the fluorescence lifetime was 0.2 ns.*
> 
> 
> P.S. Please note that I have taken the liberty of extrapolating "response times" and "refresh rates" for the TVs and that we are very unlikely to see such fast response times in our TVs any time soon (if ever)...


Having wasted time deciphering this document, none of it tells me what the response time of a full OLED pixel is in a TV application. These times include things like injection timing and further (as stated in section 4 of that paper) depend entirely upon the thickness of the OLED. Stas, this is for a *unique and dedicated setup *and we don't know how any of this relates to the thicknesses used in TVs. Even the drive voltages aren't going to be the same.


----------



## ynotgoal

ynotgoal said:


> The estimates are that OLED pricing would drop by 2/3 just by going to a gen 5 production system. There is still more room to go which is why no one has invested in such a plant yet but it's not like they still need to drop pricing by 90%. In the above link LG says they expect to drop pricing five fold.


I know this isn't for TV but since it's been discussed...

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/LG-Chem-to-make-OLED-panels-very-affordable

LG Chem to make OLED panels very affordable
KENTARO OGURA, Nikkei staff writer
SEOUL -- LG Chem will fire up a new production line for OLED lighting panels in 2017 that could trigger the widespread adoption of this cutting-edge technology. The company will be able to lower prices by some 90%, so that a 10-by-10cm panel could sell for around $5.

The South Korean chemical company is investing 200 billion won ($184 million) to install a fifth-generation production line that can fabricate the OLEDs on glass substrates measuring 125-by-110cm.

That is roughly eight times as large as the substrates that LG Chem now uses on its existing line for OLED panels. The company already has developed techniques to improve yields, and it aggressively uses materials manufactured in-house, so with these larger substrates it will be able to boost productivity and significantly lower its costs.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Having wasted time deciphering this document, none of it tells me what the response time of a full OLED pixel is in a TV application. These times include things like injection timing and further (as stated in section 4 of that paper) depend entirely upon the thickness of the OLED. Stas, this is for a *unique and dedicated setup *and we don't know how any of this relates to the thicknesses used in TVs. Even the drive voltages aren't going to be the same.


Well, I have a few good ideas on how it relates to TVs... 0,01ms and less. 


_The light emitting layer may have any thickness at which the light emitting layer is capable of emitting light under the influence of an electrical field, and will be different for different types of devices, where the minimum thickness in some smOLED devices is of the order of 10 nm, and the maximum in LEEC-devices in of the order of 500 nm._


http://www.google.com/patents/WO2006087658A1?cl=en 


But what I want you all to understand is that OLED ,in theory, can have instantaneous response times (not necessarily in TVs) , almost unlimited lifetimes, thickness of just a few atoms and unbelievable efficiency and it can cover the whole of the visible spectrum and that, from my vintage point, lends almost infinite possibilities of application to OLEDs, such as the possibility of being the really fast mode of transferring data, the possibility of an "eternal" lighting source that doesn't emit a whole lot of heat (the precursor for interstellar travel and space farming), the possibility of substituting the sun (for underground and high-rise farming and subsequently underground housing if global warming proves to be true (or a similarly devastating disaster strikes) and devastates the earth (which I very much doubt it will ever happen, but I am very glad that we already have a technology that can enable our survival on a massive scale in case of such disaster)), *but most importantly it can be made dirt-cheap *(with printing and in fact I never believed that vapor-deposition technics can ever be used to make commercial OLEDs and apparently I was wrong)meaning everybody on earth will get to share in on the benefits of OLEDs. And there are many other possibilities that OLEDs halsen.


But it's worth noting that all these possibilities might never realize, just like "the swevens of the futurity" that people in the beginning of the 20th century held had envisioned the world without "transmission wires" my swevens of the futurity might "never" realize as well...


----------



## NintendoManiac64

And now for your second regularly scheduled OLED lighting news article:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/tec...ry-switches-to-eye-saving-OLED--30254347.html


----------



## slacker711

Here is rogo's 90% price cut target for OLED lighting. Still two years away which means that there is R&D work still to be done but this is the kind of pricing that starts to open up the market.

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/LG-Chem-to-make-OLED-panels-very-affordable



> LG Chem to make OLED panels very affordable
> KENTARO OGURA, Nikkei staff writer
> SEOUL -- LG Chem will fire up a new production line for OLED lighting panels in 2017 that could trigger the widespread adoption of this cutting-edge technology. The company will be able to lower prices by some 90%, so that a 10-by-10cm panel could sell for around $5.
> 
> The South Korean chemical company is investing 200 billion won ($184 million) to install a fifth-generation production line that can fabricate the OLEDs on glass substrates measuring 125-by-110cm.


----------



## ChaosCloud

*well, at least it's flat...*





Note that this display is impulse driven.
more info here: http://www.planar.com/lp/transparent-oled/

edit: another video


----------



## irkuck

OLED mainstream will be Made by LG.


----------



## ynotgoal

The Reason WRGB OLED TV Can Only Succeed

It has already been 2 years since OLED TV entered the market. LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics opened the market together with the release of 55 inch FHD OLED TV, but currently the market is developing around LG Elec. and some Chinese set companies.

Samsung Elec.’s OLED TV is using RGB OLED structure similar to the OLED panel applied to Galaxy series, and LTPS TFT. On the other hand, LG Elec. is using WRGB OLED, developed by LG Display, and oxide TFT.

However, Samsung Elec. stopped OLED TV production in the second half of 2013, and began to express negative opinions regarding OLED TV industry since CES2014. They determined OLED TV to be underdeveloped and required approximately 3 more years of further work. Also, as 8 mask of LTPS TFT or oxide TFT was used to develop OLED panel for TV, and therefore higher cost compared to LCD, Samsung and many other display experts continued to view it negatively. Various media was filled with unfavorable articles particularly regarding whether LG Display alone could maintain the OLED panel industry which required massive amount of investment.

Despite this, WRGB OLED received legitimate recognition with the start of 2015. First, with the 3 stack tandem OLED structure and HDR technology, they were able to provide sharper picture quality than LCD with the peak intensity of up to 800 nit. Second, 8 mask oxide TFT production processes were reduced to 4 mask production and lowered investment cost, which led to a more reasonable panel price.

The halved number of masks in the TFT production signifies that the number of processes can be reduced and increase the yield rate. It also means the amount of large scale investment essential to the TFT production can be reduced by 50%.

The rival display of LCD mostly uses 4 mask process of a-Si TFT. If the existing Gen8 line, with capacity of 200K, is changed to LTPS TFT or 8 mask oxide TFT process, the capacity is reduced to approx.. 90K and increases the TFT production cost by more than 200%. However, in 4 mask production, the LCD line can be altered to TFT exclusive line for OLED without any loss of capacity; this would place the TFT production cost on the same level as LCD. Of course, as the existing line can be used without additional factory construction will reduce the investment cost even further.

Therefore, if OLED is developed using 4 mask oxide TFT technology, theoretically the production cost falls to the level of LCD panel production price excluding BLU. As the large area OLED panel market is in early stages, the OLED evaporator and encapsulation equipment price is still high, but the equipment price will fall rapidly within 2-3 years and the investment cost is also expected to be reduced.

The display market research organizations are estimating the large OLED panel price to be at least $3,000, but according to the 2015 Annual Report by UBI Research, the LG Display’s 55 inch FHD OLED panel price is only expected to be around $900, and a 55 inch UHD OLED panel is to be around $1,400. UBI Research analyses that there is some difference from the actual sales price as LG Display’s M2 line production and yield rates are low, but if the full capacity of 26K is reached and the yield rises to above 80%, the current supply price can easily be met. Particularly if the large scale mass production system is established with the addition of M3 and M4 lines, it is predicted that OLED panel price will be reduced so that there will only be 1.1 times difference compared to LCD panel.

There are many experts who mistakenly predict that large area OLED panel, which has higher price tag compared to the continued investment cost as it is still in early stages, will fall behind LCD’s cheaper price strategy. However, much like how TFT-LCD overwhelmed the Braun-tube market, OLED TV will also be a household item within a few years.

2015 Annual Report by UBI Research writes that in 2016 when M2 line will be operating normally, approx. 1.7 million units of UHD OLED panel production will be possible, and predicts the investment of M3 line in 2016, with the shipment of approx. 2.7 million units of OLED TV in the market in 2017. This is a much weaker figure compared to the almost 200 million units of LCD panel market for TV, but within the new UHD TV market with 55 inch or higher it is expected to hold a large market share.


----------



## slacker711

I havent been able to find an English source but there are multiple Korean newspapers reporting that Displaysearch estimates that total OLED sales were 77,000 in 2014 (42,400 in the 4th quarter). Western Europe makes up 30.7% of the total with Asia-Pacific at 18.4% and North America at 18%.

https://translate.google.com/transl...orp.com/view.php?ud=20150304000028&edit-text=


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> I havent been able to find an English source but there are multiple Korean newspapers reporting that Displaysearch estimates that total OLED sales were 77,000 in 2014 (42,400 in the 4th quarter). Western Europe makes up 30.7% of the total with Asia-Pacific at 18.4% and North America at 18%.
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...orp.com/view.php?ud=20150304000028&edit-text=


14,000 OLEDs sold in the US last year - I find that very hard to believe.

I'm pretty certain that the number of owners of any flavor of OLED TV that are members here on AVS Forum is well under 1000 (and probably closer to 100).

Perhaps there are 14,000 owners busy enjoying their OLEDs (and not wasting time online looking for help and advice), but I seriously doubt it.

Perhaps someone should ask Cleveland Plasma what he thinks of this US 2014 sales forecast.... His market share US OLED sales is certainly very dissapointing if this is true, since I believe his 2014 OLED sales figures would put him below the 1% level...


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> 14,000 OLEDs sold in the US last year - I find that very hard to believe.
> 
> I'm pretty certain that the number of owners of any flavor of OLED TV that are members here on AVS Forum is well under 1000 (and probably closer to 100).
> 
> Perhaps there are 14,000 owners busy enjoying their OLEDs (and not wasting time online looking for help and advice), but I seriously doubt it.
> 
> Perhaps someone should ask Cleveland Plasma what he thinks of this US 2014 sales forecast.... His market share US OLED sales is certainly very dissapointing if this is true, since I believe his 2014 OLED sales figures would put him below the 1% level...


I have no idea whether the DisplaySearch numbers are accurate. The overall ratios by region seems like they could be in the ballpark, but I cant extrapolate from AVS posters whether US sales were 5000, 15000, or 25000. That seems way too granular without some additional data.


----------



## fafrd

LG recent comments on HDR OLED:http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...-promises-hdr-4k-oled-tvs-by-third-quarter/2/


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> I have no idea whether the DisplaySearch numbers are accurate. The overall ratios by region seems like they could be in the ballpark, but I cant extrapolate from AVS posters whether US sales were 5000, 15000, or 25000. That seems way too granular without some additional data.


I'm with you on being pretty uncertain, but the 77K number feels entirely absurd to me.

It would represent a gigantic market share of TVs in the $3000+ ballpark and, well, the vast majority of those are 60, 65, 70, 75, 80... 

I am struggling to contemplate how to reconcile what I know to be true with a number that can't fit any reasonable construct of even the $2.5K+ market.


----------



## ALMA

Including Russia, Europe doubled the OLED sales to North America. I always told, there is a big market outside US and for Europe 55" is huge and traditionally Europe - especially Germany - has strong premium sales. Consumers in Europe traditionally don´t buy TVs in supermarkets like WalMart and they buy TVs as "luxery item" without kredit cards. Europe is also more brand loyal. Cheap chinese brands are exotics in the markets compared to the well known japanese and korean brands. Because of different cultures there also exist a deviant consumer behavior in each regions. You have to count that in, if you want to made right assumptions of worldwide sales.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> I'm with you on being pretty uncertain, but the 77K number feels entirely absurd to me.
> 
> It would represent a gigantic market share of TVs in the $3000+ ballpark and, well, the vast majority of those are 60, 65, 70, 75, 80...
> 
> I am struggling to contemplate how to reconcile what I know to be true with a number that can't fit any reasonable construct of even the $2.5K+ market.


The headline number would have been higher than a first cut WAG from me. Thinking about it though, the US number doesnt really seem out of line. I might have been at 10,000 but I doubt I would have been much below that mark. 

The issue is that the normal US share of the high-end market is more than double what DS is showing for OLED's. Is that realistic? As Alma notes, the 55" television makes up a much larger percentage of non-US high-end sales. The pricing was also far more competitive in Europe than it was in the US (not much idea about Asia).

The data point from Korea that I posted earlier indicated that the 55EC9300 had hit 11% of 55" and above sales for a single chain there. The DisplaySearch numbers seem to be in line with that kind of share outside of the US.

Basically thinking out loud here. When unit numbers are this low, it isnt hard to be significantly off in our guesses....and the same is probably true for DS.


----------



## Rudy1

*SAMSUNG NOT QUITTING OLED*

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/super-oled-201503064026.htm


----------



## Desk.

Rudy1 said:


> *SAMSUNG NOT QUITTING OLED*
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/super-oled-201503064026.htm


Yeah, I see you're using the same misleading headline they are.

It's one thing registering trademarks in a bid to cover your bases and prevent anyone else from making use of them, and it's quite another actually gearing up production on OLED TVs.

I wouldn't get excited, if I were you.

Desk


----------



## irkuck

LG hits out at OLED critics


----------



## Rich Peterson

^^^ What I liked about that article was this quote: "So with LG declaring at a product unveiling event in the UK this week that it’s now shifting most of its research and development to OLED from LCD,..."

I hadn't heard that LG was shifting its R&D mostly to OLED. I think that's great news.


----------



## tgm1024

Desk. said:


> Yeah, I see you're using the same misleading headline they are.
> 
> It's one thing registering trademarks in a bid to cover your bases and prevent anyone else from making use of them, and it's quite another actually gearing up production on OLED TVs.
> 
> I wouldn't get excited, if I were you.
> 
> Desk


I was disappointed by the lackluster "info" (


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> I was disappointed by the lackluster "info" (


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> Basically thinking out loud here. When unit numbers are this low, it isnt hard to be significantly off in our guesses....


Totally reasonable and I concur. It's much more relevant what occurs in 2015 than what happened last year anyway. While I still doubt last year was >50K, I'm far, far more interested in how this year develops and whether it winds up at 200K or 400K.... And what the plan is to get past 1M next year.


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> Totally reasonable and I concur. It's much more relevant what occurs in 2015 than what happened last year anyway. While I still doubt last year was >50K, I'm far, far more interested in how this year develops and whether it winds up at 200K or 400K.... And what the plan is to get past 1M next year.


This year plan is obvious: Sell all what can be produced at a balanced supply-demand price to jump start the market and build an exclusive high-end OLED segment in the mind of consumers. That is move LCD, however sophisticated, down the ladder - OLED must become a king.


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> This year plan is obvious: Sell all what can be produced at a balanced supply-demand price to jump start the market and build an exclusive high-end OLED segment in the mind of consumers. That is move LCD, however sophisticated, down the ladder - OLED must become a king.


I think that's a far harder marketing challenge than I suspect many others do.

It's not like LG is going to capture a majority of the top-end segment with its incredibly thin selection and high prices, unless you start making up new segments like "$8,000 65-inch TVs" which isn't one.

There is an Apple-like strategy to perhaps mimic and capture a majority of "premium TVs" but 2015 is certainly not the year to make it happen.

And I still don't actually think we're close to normal people walking into Best Buy and just agreeing the OLED is so clearly a superior choice to the best LCDs. That's going to require a serious marketing lift by LG to make happen.


----------



## sytech

rogo said:


> And I still don't actually think we're close to normal people walking into Best Buy and just agreeing the OLED is so clearly a superior choice to the best LCDs. That's going to require a serious marketing lift by LG to make happen.


It is so obvious the WHF™ (WCG/HDR/FALD) displays that are going to cut OLED off at the knees. Will OLED be tecnical superior. Yes. Will it matter once WHF displays reach their excpected 1/3 OLED price point? No. WOLED is never going to overcome the yield problems and remain niche until the printing OLED method makes it a mass consumer product. Just wait until the Chinese gut LG with $2000 65" WHF displays.


----------



## dsinger

^ Unfortunately, I think you have a good point. Also, setting up a good situation where the average buyer could clearly see an OLED advantage on the showroom floor will be difficult.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Gee, with the dramatic lowering in price of the OLED panels, maybe I could fold a "bendable" 75" OLED TV and fit it into my Toyota 4 Runner.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> And I still don't actually think we're close to normal people walking into Best Buy and just agreeing the OLED is so clearly a superior choice to the best LCDs. That's going to require a serious marketing lift by LG to make happen.


You're right: They're _no where _near that. Out of anthropological morbidity, I recently stood in my local best buy and watched people walk up to the 9300, look at it from the side, and walk onward.

Three reasons why, IMO, all repeated in various forms in this thread:
1. Price
2. Price
3. Directly related to 1 and 2: It really doesn't look all that different under the bright lights of the BB floor. I'm sorry to disappoint the OLED fans here, but it just doesn't. And I'm _really_ an OLED fan, but I have to say that looking at it and a midrange LCD nearby left me wondering why anyone who didn't understand the technology would shell out the money.

Does this mean that FALD & QD [eh] & that HDR [nonsense] is going to kill off OLED? No, because I strongly believe that LG views their entire relevance is eventually at stake here and will stay the route until the volume/pricing becomes more cooperative to them. But I do have to say that the more I dig into the chicken and egg problem, while I remain optimistic, it's incrementally less so.


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> And I'm _really_ an OLED fan, but I have to say that looking at it and a midrange LCD nearby left me wondering why anyone who didn't understand the technology would shell out the money.


I think the issue you are bringing up is one that OLED will face down the road. The customer that LG is attempting to grab right now is the one that walks past and ends up buying the 55JS9000 for $3500 or the 65JS9500 for $6000. The mid-tier LCD will never enter the discussion for most of these consumers. 

How does LGE convince those customers to buy an OLED instead? Price is still the biggest factor but these are customers who will have at least heard of OLED. LG needs to get their displays price competitive with the above models while also establishing OLED's as having the best picture quality in the industry. The show-room floor will matter, but consumers will see what they expect to see if the pictures are close...and these are customers that will have at least a passing knowledge of OLED's. 

and IMO, one big thing is to absolutely avoid any hint of issues surrounding burn-in or image retention. Thus far, I think LG has done well on this front, but it will be something to continue to watch as early adopters put more hours on their sets.


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> I think that's a far harder marketing challenge than I suspect many others do. It's not like LG is going to capture a majority of the top-end segment with its incredibly thin selection and high prices, unless you start making up new segments like "$8,000 65-inch TVs" which isn't one. There is an Apple-like strategy to perhaps mimic and capture a majority of "premium TVs" but 2015 is certainly not the year to make it happen. And I still don't actually think we're close to normal people walking into Best Buy and just agreeing the OLED is so clearly a superior choice to the best LCDs. That's going to require a serious marketing lift by LG to make happen.


This year LG has too limited manufacturing capabilities to think about capturing anything significant even if the price would be very competitive. Besides they still have work to do to impress in the consumer crowd minds that OLED is different and on top of the pyramid. You think that everybody knows what is OLED but in fact masses have no idea about it and if they hear they will think it is LED TV. Hence OLED must get the presence and will get it this year. Grabbing market segments is uphill battle for next years.


----------



## fafrd

dsinger said:


> ^ Unfortunately, I think you have a good point. Also, setting up a good situation where the average buyer could clearly see an OLED advantage on the showroom floor will be difficult.


Samsung is more effective at marketing and strategy than LG and they also unfortunately have a track record of 'success' in leading the industry with their marketing initiatives (for better or more often for worse).

Samsung took Vizio's 'little' 2014 announced HDR initiative with Dolby and has turned it into their 'BIG' 2015 HDR initiative, complete with 'SUHD' and the HDR Alliance and new HDR specs/requirements that neither Vizio's Reference TV nor LGs OLEDs can meet.

It was a masterful strategy to both fight off the threat of LG and OLED at the highest-end while also fighting off Vizio's attempt to move up the ranks and claw their way into the ranks of the high-end from the depths of mass-market mediocrity, all on one fell swoop.

Now we'll just need to wait to see how it all plays out.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

You know, one big reason that LCD succeeded against Plasma and CRT is that LCD was usable in many more form-factors, so the investment in the architecture didn't leave you with a narrow target market.

Now consider that OLED is usable in even _more_ form-factors than LCD.

Not only that, but consider that HDR (particularly on LCDs) by definition means extra brightness which also means higher power consumpiton - that is obviously something that is directly counter to the needs of portable and mobile devices.

I mean, the likes of even Apple, an early critic of OLED displays, is supposedly even using one (supplied by LG) in their Apple Watch.


----------



## wco81

And it still has poor battery life.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

wco81 said:


> And it still has poor battery life.


That's because its internal guts are more like a smartphone in the size and form-factor of a watch. I mean, the battery _is_ going to be in the hundreds of mAh rather than thousands (for reference the original Nintendo DS from 2004 had a "whopping" 850 mAh li-on battery).


----------



## ynotgoal

tgm1024 said:


> And I'm _really_ an OLED fan, but I have to say that looking at it and a midrange LCD nearby left me wondering why anyone who didn't understand the technology would shell out the money.


"We are in talks with companies from China, Japan and the United States to create an OLED Alliance," company CEO Han Sang-beom told reporters, Monday. 

"We have no problems achieving this year's sales target," he said.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2015/03/133_174866.html

"Supply will take several months to reach the demand requirements for this exceptional $9k 65" 4K OLED TV, which is likely larger than most folks would guess." -Robert Zohn


----------



## tgm1024

ynotgoal said:


> "We are in talks with companies from China, Japan and the United States to create an OLED Alliance," company CEO Han Sang-beom told reporters, Monday.
> 
> "We have no problems achieving this year's sales target," he said.
> 
> http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2015/03/133_174866.html
> 
> "Supply will take several months to reach the demand requirements for this exceptional $9k 65" 4K OLED TV, which is likely larger than most folks would guess." -Robert Zohn


I was talking about the 9300 (a $3000-$4000 TV at the time). But let's go with the much higher tier models: If the targets are extremely low, then that would set their notion of what "demand" is, so if their manufacturing was targeting that, of course it'd take several months to satisfy. That doesn't speak to the viability or saleability of the technology, it speaks to the small amount they can produce.

I doubt that the demand for $9K TVs is significantly larger than the sliver that most folks would guess it is. And if it is, then it'd only be comparing one small sliver to an even smaller sliver.


----------



## ynotgoal

tgm1024 said:


> I was talking about the 9300 (a $3000-$4000 TV at the time). But let's go with the much higher tier models: If the targets are extremely low, then that would set their notion of what "demand" is, so if their manufacturing was targeting that, of course it'd take several months to satisfy. That doesn't speak to the viability or saleability of the technology, it speaks to the small amount they can produce.
> 
> I doubt that the demand for $9K TVs is significantly larger than the sliver that most folks would guess it is. And if it is, then it'd only be comparing one small sliver to an even smaller sliver.


The 9300 can now be had for $2300. Prices on other sets will drop as well. If you all want to debate demand as if they won't go ahead. The Korea Times article shows LG Display's confidence in meeting their sales targets. Robert's quote was a separate discussion specifically on the 65" having more demand than most think.


----------



## tgm1024

ynotgoal said:


> The 9300 can now be had for $2300. Prices on other sets will drop as well. If you all want to debate demand as if they won't go ahead. The Korea Times article shows LG Display's confidence in meeting their sales targets. Robert's quote was a separate discussion specifically on the 65" having more demand than most think.


Of COURSE the prices do and will drop, that's not the point at all.

The point is that they haven't yet reached public awareness as any kind of superior display, and further, if they're on the floor of best buy even at $2000 for a 2K TV, they're not going to.

OLED stands a significant chance of one day being cheaper than LCD to make. Until then, they'll have to bring something that the general public finds tangible to the table if they ever want to sell to that general public. Currently, what would that be? Better blacks? Not significantly on the floor of Best Buy. Super thin profile, sure but not worth ~$2500 for 2K 55". Better viewing angles? Again, same "not worth the price" answer.

Don't develop the AVS _endlessly _myopic view that "better" is somehow universally weighted.


----------



## tgm1024

By the way, where did this importance on meeting "sales targets" come from (not just here, but in the press)?

Sales targets are set by the company. They're not lofty sales wish lists, they're just an artificial target that they can set to literally anything.

If I have a vastly inferior product and figure that at best I can sell 4 of them, and set that as a target, I'll have met that target if I sell 4 and dramatically surpassed that sales target if I sell 5. It doesn't speak to my sales ability, and certainly doesn't speak to the viability of the product.


----------



## ynotgoal

tgm1024 said:


> Of COURSE the prices do and will drop, that's not the point at all.
> ...
> Again, same "not worth the price" answer.


It sure sounds like price is exactly your point. I'll let it play it out rather than debate it here though.



tgm1024 said:


> By the way, where did this importance on meeting "sales targets" come from (not just here, but in the press)?
> 
> Sales targets are set by the company. They're not lofty sales wish lists, they're just an artificial target that they can set to literally anything.
> 
> If I have a vastly inferior product and figure that at best I can sell 4 of them, and set that as a target, I'll have met that target if I sell 4 and dramatically surpassed that sales target if I sell 5. It doesn't speak to my sales ability, and certainly doesn't speak to the viability of the product.


The sales goal is well known at 600,000 in 2015 and 1.5 million in 2016.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Quote - "Supply will take several months to reach the demand requirements for this exceptional $9k 65" 4K OLED TV, which is likely larger than most folks would guess." -Robert Zohn

Dear Robert Zohn,

A 65" 4K OLED TV is likely larger than most folks would guess? Do you mean "want?" 65" is the "sweet spot" these days. Many folks are looking for a larger OLED set. 

If you could make a cost effective 70" or 75" 4K OLED, I'd probably retire my projector. At that size and PQ - - it would be a serious consideration.

The market is for larger TV's - 65" or greater. Once you've had a nice, large screen - - it's very difficult going back or smaller.


----------



## Jason626

Ricoflashback said:


> Quote - "Supply will take several months to reach the demand requirements for this exceptional $9k 65" 4K OLED TV, which is likely larger than most folks would guess." -Robert Zohn
> 
> Dear Robert Zohn,
> 
> A 65" 4K OLED TV is likely larger than most folks would guess? Do you mean "want?" 65" is the "sweet spot" these days. Many folks are looking for a larger OLED set.
> 
> If you could make a cost effective 70" or 75" 4K OLED, I'd probably retire my projector. At that size and PQ - - it would be a serious consideration.
> 
> The market is for larger TV's - 65" or greater. Once you've had a nice, large screen - - it's very difficult going back or smaller.


If I had to guess, I bet Robert meant to use the word longer instead of larger. As in its taking longer for the 65" inch OLED TV supply o catch up with demand than we expected.


----------



## JWhip

I am not really sure what is meant by larger than most folks would guess. What folks? What guess? By whose standards? Doesn't really tell me much. Time will tell. I am very much willing to wait. Let's see what happens when the flat ones come out.


----------



## ynotgoal

Ricoflashback said:


> Quote - "Supply will take several months to reach the demand requirements for this exceptional $9k 65" 4K OLED TV, which is likely larger than most folks would guess." -Robert Zohn


He's saying demand for this TV is larger than most folks would expect.


----------



## jacko15

The facts:


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> "We are in talks with companies from China, Japan and the United States to create an OLED Alliance," company CEO Han Sang-beom told reporters, Monday.
> 
> "We have no problems achieving this year's sales target," he said.
> 
> http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2015/03/133_174866.html
> 
> "Supply will take several months to reach the demand requirements for this exceptional $9k 65" 4K OLED TV, which is likely larger than most folks would guess." -Robert Zohn


That article was dated March 9th and contained the following tidbit:

'*LGs OLED manufacturing line,* which was forced to slow down for maintenance by the government after one man died from nitrogen suffocation, *has been operating since last week.*

I think this explains the lack of supply - the impact of the nitrogen leak fiasco sounds like it was much more severe than suggested and LG has only now resumed OLED panel manufacturing.

'Several months' from start of OLED panel manufacturing to OLED TVs reaching the market (as Robert has stated) sounds about right.

Expect price drops to start materializing in late June...


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> It sure sounds like price is exactly your point. I'll let it play it out rather than debate it here though.
> 
> 
> 
> The sales goal is well known at *600,000 in 2015 *and 1.5 million in 2016.


Yeah, so there is about 0% chance that is going to materialize in 2015

Production of 6000 sheets per month starting in March translates into 36000 unyielded 55" OLED panels (or 18000 unyielded 65" OLED panels) per month. At stated yields of 80%, that means ~29,000 55" or ~15,000 65" OLED panels produced per month.

Even if we assume 55" only, LG cannot produce even 400,000 OLED panels this yearning the 10 months they have remaining (let alone 600,000).

Factoring in 25% of the panels being used for 65" OLEDs translates into just over 300,000 OLED panels produced in 2015.

Don't get me wrong, if LG can get 300,000 OLEDS produced and out the door this year, that would be a true achievement (and one that has no chance of being reached at current pricing levels)


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Yeah, so there is about 0% chance that is going to materialize in 2015
> 
> Production of 6000 sheets per month starting in March translates into 36000 unyielded 55" OLED panels (or 18000 unyielded 65" OLED panels) per month.



They have capacity for 14,000 Gen 8 substrates a month.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> They have capacity for 14,000 Gen 8 substrates a month.


That's what has been claimed at various points, but the fact that 'the line' has just started back into production recently raises questions as to whether the 8000 sheet pilot line (or rather 16,000 half-sheet pilot line) is truly available for volume OLED TV production.

I mean, that line, at that capacity, has been in the same production status for over a year now, and we know that LG has not produced anything close to 40,000 OLED TV panels in a single month ever (or even 30,000, or even 20,000...).

In addition, it is very likely that the M1 pilot line will continue to produce only 1080p OLEDs and all of the production of 4K OLED panels will be dedicated to M2.

Of course we don't know, this is all pure speculation, but at least one read on the situation that is consistent with the fact pattern and tidbits that have leaked out is that LG has 6000 sheets per month dedicated to 4K OLED TV production, that line has had delays and bumps on the path to production (including the gas leak) which have only recently been overcome, and so the capacity of 4K OLED TV production LG can count on for the rest of 2015 is limited to those 6000 panels a month.

Regardless of the underlying situation, we all know there is no way short of a string of miracles that LG is going to produce 600,000 OLED TV panels this year...


----------



## timc1475

fafrd said:


> Samsung is more effective at marketing and strategy than LG and they also unfortunately have a track record of 'success' in leading the industry with their marketing initiatives (for better or more often for worse).
> 
> Samsung took Vizio's 'little' 2014 announced HDR initiative with Dolby and has turned it into their 'BIG' 2015 HDR initiative, complete with 'SUHD' and the HDR Alliance and new HDR specs/requirements that neither Vizio's Reference TV nor LGs OLEDs can meet.
> 
> It was a masterful strategy to both fight off the threat of LG and OLED at the highest-end while also fighting off Vizio's attempt to move up the ranks and claw their way into the ranks of the high-end from the depths of mass-market mediocrity, all on one fell swoop.
> 
> Now we'll just need to wait to see how it all plays out.


I suspect these manufacturers plan these steps far in advance. They all do it to a degree, although Samsung has been surgically very proficient. They hinted at bringing 4k UHD OLED into the market late 2015 into 2016... time will tell. It would be great for the consumer. They play the game strategically like chess. Samsung is one of my top two picks for a replacement TV for 2015. Unfortunately AFAIK Sony's consumer TV segment is on a tight wire walk and if things don't change soon the name will IMO.

PS: I just turned your likes from 9 centuries 9 decades and 9 days into a millennium, your a great poster. BTW, I wonder if Vizio will come forth with some revenge & the "R Series" they promised us in 2014 when they do their annual product line releases soon.


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> That's what has been claimed at various points, but the fact that 'the line' has just started back into production recently raises questions as to whether the 8000 sheet pilot line (or rather 16,000 half-sheet pilot line) is truly available for volume OLED TV production.
> 
> I mean, that line, at that capacity, has been in the same production status for over a year now, and we know that LG has not produced anything close to 40,000 OLED TV panels in a single month ever (or even 30,000, or even 20,000...).
> 
> In addition, it is very likely that the M1 pilot line will continue to produce only 1080p OLEDs and all of the production of 4K OLED panels will be dedicated to M2.
> 
> Of course we don't know, this is all pure speculation, but at least one read on the situation that is consistent with the fact pattern and tidbits that have leaked out is that LG has 6000 sheets per month dedicated to 4K OLED TV production, that line has had delays and bumps on the path to production (including the gas leak) which have only recently been overcome, and so the capacity of 4K OLED TV production LG can count on for the rest of 2015 is limited to those 6000 panels a month.
> 
> Regardless of the underlying situation, we all know there is no way short of a string of miracles that LG is going to produce 600,000 OLED TV panels this year...


I would simply say that I tend to trust the fact that LGD wouldnt give out a physically impossible unit target during a quarterly conference call. They had zero reason to do so. The company is the one that has pushed OLED's into a high profile project. The Street and analysts have been far more focused on Apple than OLED televisions for the company. 

As for the rest, we have very little information on the status of the M1 fab. LGD's phosphorescent material requirements actually dropped during the 4th quarter. Was that because they had built up material inventory or because they upgraded their deposition equipment to a more efficient unit that could handle full Gen 8 substrates? I dont know, but the latter would match the information I had read over the summer.

LGD needs to drop pricing to have a chance to hit their unit targets. Absent that, they wont come close to the 600,000 number....but I doubt that physical capacity constraints are going to be the determining factor.


----------



## JimP

Sorry for my off topic question but isn't OLED ultimately suppose to be cheaper to manufacture than all the other techs? 

I doubt that the high end market is large enough to make money on OLED so there must be a plan to transition to the rest of the market to get their volume levels high enough to make money. The only way they could do that is if it cost less to manufacture once they get their processes worked out.


----------



## slacker711

JimP said:


> Sorry for my off topic question but isn't OLED ultimately suppose to be cheaper to manufacture than all the other techs?
> 
> I doubt that the high end market is large enough to make money on OLED so there must be a plan to transition to the rest of the market to get their volume levels high enough to make money. The only way they could do that is if it cost less to manufacture once they get their processes worked out.


Ultimately yes, but that is a complicated question. The LCD market isnt one big monolithic market. The high-end market now requires FALD with quantum dots and high brightness LED's for HDR. The cost structure of a 65JS9500 is very different than a 65" set from a Chinese manufacturer at Walmart.

LGD's chosen method isnt going to match those Walmart prices, but I do believe that it can come in below the current price structure of high-end LCD sets. They need to continue to increase yields, particularly on the backplane as that will determine the price gap between the 55EC9300 and the 55EG9600. 

To get to Walmart prices, they likely need to start printing the displays. That requires a breakthrough in manufacturing equipment. Lots of companies are claiming that it is coming soon but it is hard to judge until we see display vendors starting to order equipment.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Looking at the hands-on images of the Apple Watch on my good old Trinitron CRT, I must say that display of that screen sure looks like an OLED to me:
http://anandtech.com/show/9069/apple-watch-hands-on


----------



## slacker711

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Looking at the hands-on images of the Apple Watch on my good old Trinitron CRT, I must say that display of that screen sure looks like an OLED to me:
> http://anandtech.com/show/9069/apple-watch-hands-on


It is definitely a flexible OLED from LGD, though Apple hasnt yet said it.

There is a quote from a New Yorker piece on Jonathan Ive where he is talking about the fact that the Watch screen only lights up the pixels that are used and says that the fact that the entire LCD on the iPhone 6 lights up "feels very very old".

The question is if/when Apple will transition the iPhone to OLED's.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

slacker711 said:


> The question is if/when Apple will transition the iPhone to OLED's.


Well, it's also rumored that the Iphone 6s will use an OLED display.

If it's anything like Retina, from there they'll probably slowly move up the line to Ipad, MacBook, etc, and in the end will cause other manufacturers to adopt it as well, which could very well be the best thing that could happen to accelerate OLED adoption as a whole.


----------



## fafrd

timc1475 said:


> I suspect these manufacturers plan these steps far in advance. They all do it to a degree, although Samsung has been surgically very proficient. They hinted at bringing 4k UHD OLED into the market late 2015 into 2016... time will tell. It would be great for the consumer. They play the game strategically like chess. Samsung is one of my top two picks for a replacement TV for 2015. Unfortunately AFAIK Sony's consumer TV segment is on a tight wire walk and if things don't change soon the name will IMO.
> 
> PS: *I just turned your likes from 9 centuries 9 decades and 9 days into a millennium, your a great poster. BTW, *


There are those who consider me a Vizio shill or an LCD troll for my openness to evaluating technologies for myself as opposed to accepting any party lines, but feedback such yours makes my modest efforts to call things as I see them here on the Forum worthwhile 

And I'm not sure where to rank hitting 1000 'likes' here on AVS within the other successes I've achieved, but I will say that to the extent it is a milestone worth celebrating, I can't imagine having hit it in a better way than you post.



> I wonder if Vizio will come forth with some revenge & the "R Series" they promised us in 2014 when they do their annual product line releases soon.


Samsung has been masterful in the shadows throughout 2014 and it looks like they are poised to be masterful again in the limelight this year. But from what I have seen of Vizio's 2014 strategy and painful but successful execution as last year unfolded, I think it is far to early to count them out.

Their 2015 launch event is scheduled for next month and I suspect we will be hearing a great deal more about Vizio from that point forward.

Also, in fairness to Vizio, they revised their R-Series 'promise' at their P-Series launch event in October - Vizio's CTO clearly stated to The Verge that the company had decided to delay the launch of the R-Series into 2015 when the R-Series launch could be announced along with the availability of first HDR content: http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/24/6838489/how-vizio-p-series-999-4k-uhd-tv

Also, Vizio's strategy to hold back and allow Samsung to show their hand first is smart. The 65JS9500 is hitting the market now, the reviews are all incredibly positive yet the measured results are rather underwhelming (especially native contrast levels and resulting inter-scene black levels), and every passing week allows Vizio more time to understand and react to Samsung's masterful initiative to hijack the entire industry trend towards HDR as their own through their HDR Alliance (which includes pretty much every major TV manufacturer with the exclusion of Vizio).

So while I am under no illusions that Vizio is in the position of David to the Golliath that is Samsung, I believe that there are intelligent and effective brains involved with Vizio and that they might surprise us next month and as this year of HDR unfolds.

I have exactly the same David-versus-Golliath feeling regarding LG OLED, by the way, and am rooting for LG OLED to pull some rabbits out of a hat this year as much as I am for Vizio. But also, I have to say that based on the manner in which the 14 months since CES 2014 have unfolded, if you ask me to place a bet today on which of these two David's is most likely to survive the coming onsloaght from Samsung, I have far more confidence that Vizio will still be on their feet 12-18 months from now than I do that LG OLED will...

Among other things, while both Vizio and LG OLED announced ambitious plans in early 2014 and encountered difficulties and setbacks in actually executing those ambitions, I believe that Vizio has established a far more successful track record of reacting and adjusting to those setbacks, and then in effectively executing a successful recovery plan.


----------



## wco81

OLED will not necessarily be more energy efficient on the iPhone than the Apple Watch, since most pixels will have to be lit when displaying web pages or most apps.

A black watch face only needs a much smaller portion of the pixels activated.

If they do go OLED on iPhone, they will need a huge supply.


----------



## slacker711

wco81 said:


> OLED will not necessarily be more energy efficient on the iPhone than the Apple Watch, since most pixels will have to be lit when displaying web pages or most apps.
> 
> A black watch face only needs a much smaller portion of the pixels activated.
> 
> If they do go OLED on iPhone, they will need a huge supply.


The S6 looks to be more energy efficient than the iPhone 6 up to a 65% APL (average picture level). That doesnt quite cover web browsing but it does cover a large number of other use cases for a typical user. Most users would probably see an extended battery life right now with an OLED and I would expect that number to continue to move up.

For those interested in the current state of the art for mobile OLED's. Displaymate published a comprehensive review of the S6 screen.

http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_S6_ShootOut_1.htm

You are right about the supply issue though. Samsung is the only company that would have the ability to supply anywhere near that many screens. They are building quite a bit of Gen 6 capacity but I am not yet sure that the increase would be enough to cover Apple's needs for the iPhone 7. No chance for the iPhone 6S.

To relate this back to televisions, if Apple ever does make the switch, LCD's instantly become "old tech". I think it would have a significant impact in the way that general consumers look at the OLED vs. LCD debate.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> I would simply say that I tend to trust the fact that LGD wouldnt give out a physically impossible unit target during a quarterly conference call. They had zero reason to do so. The company is the one that has pushed OLED's into a high profile project. The Street and analysts have been far more focused on Apple than OLED televisions for the company.
> 
> As for the rest, we have very little information on the status of the M1 fab. LGD's phosphorescent material requirements actually dropped during the 4th quarter. Was that because they had built up material inventory or because they upgraded their deposition equipment to a more efficient unit that could handle full Gen 8 substrates? I dont know, but the latter would match the information I had read over the summer.
> 
> *LGD needs to drop pricing to have a chance to hit their unit targets. Absent that, they wont come close to the 600,000 number....but I doubt that physical capacity constraints are going to be the determining factor.*


You and I are are 110% aligned on your last paragraph.

On capacity, I can certainly understand the view that based on public statements regarding available capacity and intended manufacturing targets, LG _could_ have the capacity to manufacture 600,000 OLED TV panels in the remaining 10 months of this year.

I've just got the experience and judgement to believe that I know when the time has come to read the writing on the wall, and the most recent revelation that 'the line' has only resumed production last week coupled with the near-total lack of availability of 4K OLEDs up to now has my gut telling me it is time to make that call.

Expect a revised plan and targets to be announced at the April earnings call - LG will blame the unexpected gas-leak, and then will point to the recently-announced strategy to focus on the premium segment to issue a revised (and lower) 2015 production target.

There is already a quote from one high-level LG executive recasting the 2015 plan as '10 times the level of 2014'.

Whatever they produced and sold in 2014, 10X that level this year remains an ambitious target and LG deserves kudos if it is achieved before this year is out.

If LG announces in their 2015 Annual Earnings Announcement and/or call that they successfully manufactured or sold 600,000 OLED TV panels in 2015, I will obviously be prepared to eat crow and will never make bold statements here on the Forum regarding my experience, judgement, or gut again.

From right now where I'm sitting today (in California ), seems like a vanishingly small probability that will prove necessary, though...


----------



## NintendoManiac64

wco81 said:


> If they do go OLED on iPhone, they will need a huge supply.


Well for every TV-sized 4k OLED panel made you could make at least around 9 phone-sized OLED panels, and that's at _least_.


----------



## barth2k

timc1475 said:


> I suspect these manufacturers plan these steps far in advance. They all do it to a degree, although Samsung has been surgically very proficient. They hinted at bringing 4k UHD OLED into the market late 2015 into 2016... time will tell. It would be great for the consumer. They play the game strategically like chess. Samsung is one of my top two picks for a replacement TV for 2015.


Really? I thought Samsung is sitting out for at least another year, waiting on Kateeva.


----------



## mattg3

slacker711 said:


> It is definitely a flexible OLED from LGD, though Apple hasnt yet said it.
> 
> There is a quote from a New Yorker piece on Jonathan Ive where he is talking about the fact that the Watch screen only lights up the pixels that are used and says that the fact that the entire LCD on the iPhone 6 lights up "feels very very old".
> 
> The question is if/when Apple will transition the iPhone to OLED's.


And the big question is when will apple put out an Oled tv.


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> That article was dated March 9th and contained the following tidbit:
> 
> '*LGs OLED manufacturing line,* which was forced to slow down for maintenance by the government after one man died from nitrogen suffocation, *has been operating since last week.*
> 
> I think this explains the lack of supply - the impact of the nitrogen leak fiasco sounds like it was much more severe than suggested and LG has only now resumed OLED panel manufacturing.
> 
> 'Several months' from start of OLED panel manufacturing to OLED TVs reaching the market (as Robert has stated) sounds about right.
> 
> Expect price drops to start materializing in late June...





fafrd said:


> Yeah, so there is about 0% chance that is going to materialize in 2015
> 
> Production of 6000 sheets per month starting in March translates into 36000 unyielded 55" OLED panels (or 18000 unyielded 65" OLED panels) per month. ...


1. The line you quoted was from the reporter, not from LG. Then it was translated into English. The importance of that is that statement is factually wrong in that it claimed one death from the leak. Therefore, the the rest of the sentence is likely less reliable than the direct quote from LG on Jan 29 in their earnings call that "Actually related to that accident, the production staff [ph] was already relieved, and we will start our production actually today."

2. The M2 6k/month line was not affected by the shutdown. It started production runs in late January. As you noted, it takes a couple months to ship it and get it into retail so we're now seeing the first 55" 4k sets arriving at a number of retailers.

3. As noted elsewhere, the M1 line is 8k/month.




fafrd said:


> You and are are 110% aligned on your last paragraph. (from Slacker: LGD needs to drop pricing to have a chance to hit their unit targets.)


The price of the EC9300 is down over 35% from its introduction not that long ago, dropping over $100/week now so I guess by the end of the year it will be free, eh? Just seems obvious the price of electronics (especially new stuff) goes down.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> 1. The line you quoted was from the reporter, not from LG. Then it was translated into English. The importance of that is that statement is factually wrong in that it claimed one death from the leak. Therefore, the the rest of the sentence is likely less reliable than the direct quote from LG on Jan 29 in their earnings call that "Actually related to that accident, the production staff [ph] was already relieved, and we will start our production actually today."
> 
> 2. The M2 6k/month line was not affected by the shutdown. It started production runs in late January. As you noted, it takes a couple months to ship it and get it into retail so we're now seeing the first 55" 4k sets arriving at a number of retailers.
> 
> 3. As noted elsewhere, the M1 line is 8k/month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The price of the EC9300 is down over 35% from its introduction not that long ago, dropping over $100/week now so I guess by the end of the year it will be free, eh? Just seems obvious the price of electronics (especially new stuff) goes down.


You seem to have good sources of information and I value your inputs. If M2 has been running at 6000 panels since late January, we should know soon in the form of a major increase in available 4K OLED supply (as you have pointed out).

If the M1 line is producing 8000 sheets of 55EC9300 OLEDs per month, that production of close to 40,000 55EC9300s may be getting sold somewhere in the world, but sales here in the US are probably not even a fifth of that level. The more likely explanation is that the M1 pilot line is being used to manufacture a tiny fraction of that capacity for OLED TVs (if any at all).

I don't believe that the 55EC9300 will ever be free, but it is completely rational that once LG has a continuing supply of OLED TVs that outpaces demand at current prices, they will slowly and steadily reduce street pricing to stimulate increased demand and will continue doing so until demand is once again in balance with supply.

Even at MicroCenter 'mistake' / 'fire sale' pricing of $2000 for the 55EC9300, I don't believe LG will find demand for 10,000 55EC9300 here in this country...


----------



## zoro

Saw 65 incher today elite kuro finally met its match u have to see to believe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stas3098

barth2k said:


> Really? I thought Samsung is sitting out for at least another year, waiting on Kateeva.


Of course, they are not waiting on Kateeva. Kateeva's equipment is in "full battle-readiness" ,at the nonce, lying in sloomy wait for the reveille call. 


Perhaps, it would be much easier for you to understand why nobody out there is printing OLEDs if you were informed of the simple fact that the printing of OLEDs requires _polymers_ and not _single molecules_ (the stuff of all the current OLEDs are made of) and for the nonce nobody is _really_ able to mass-produce _those_...


----------



## slacker711

An unnamed source from LGE says that they have sold 50,000 OLED units thus far this year. They also say that they sold 10,000 units in China last year and the goal is 100,000 this year.

Yes, fafrd and rogo, this seems way too high to me as well, but I figure it is worth posting since it is the first time I have heard a number sourced to somebody from LGE or LGD.

http://www.edaily.co.kr/news/NewsRead.edy?newsid=01266086609302664&SCD=JC51&DCD=A00305



> There is a mad rush, but early sales in short of expectations. LG Electronics senior official "OLED TV sales to date is approximately 50,000," said "will increase gradually in the second half," he said. If such a trend during the first quarter as sales of OLED TV is estimated to be 70 000 and beyond.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> An unnamed source


Just love hearing from ^^^ him. I heard he's a great guy.




slacker711 said:


> from LGE says that they have sold 50,000 OLED units thus far this year. They also say that they sold 10,000 units in China last year and the goal is 100,000 this year.
> 
> Yes, fafrd and rogo, this seems way too high to me as well, but I figure it is worth posting since it is the first time I have heard a number sourced to somebody from LGE or LGD.
> 
> http://www.edaily.co.kr/news/NewsRead.edy?newsid=01266086609302664&SCD=JC51&DCD=A00305


These numbers are _way_ too high, but I suppose the only way we'll know for sure is by employing hindsight next year.


----------



## albsky

tgm1024 said:


> Just love hearing from ^^^ him. I heard he's a great guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These numbers are _way_ too high, but I suppose the only way we'll know for sure is by employing hindsight next year.


Being a sports fan, I often hear "Champions of the World" when referring to NBA or NFL.
But, "the world" is a different notion as far as selling OLED is concerned.
If you only think of their domestic market, it won't be so difficult to reach that figure.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> An unnamed source from LGE says that they have sold 50,000 OLED units thus far this year. They also say that they sold 10,000 units in China last year and the goal is 100,000 this year.
> 
> Yes, fafrd and rogo, this seems way too high to me as well, but I figure it is worth posting since it is the first time I have heard a number sourced to somebody from LGE or LGD.
> 
> http://www.edaily.co.kr/news/NewsRead.edy?newsid=01266086609302664&SCD=JC51&DCD=A00305


I really have no idea about China at all, so 10,000 OLED TVs in China in 2014 and 100,000 this year could be very credible and doable from my point of view.

The quote makes it sound like 'to date' meaning 50,000 OLEDs sold since launch in September 2013. That would mean 40,000 since launch outside of China which seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but if sales have been strong enough in Europe and Korea, it doesn't sound impossible.

The quote also implies sales of 70,000 OLEDs sold in Q1'15. There are still two weeks left in the quarter, so it is always possible that we will see a tsunami of OLEDs at bargain basement prices here in the US, but short of that I have difficulty seeing even 10,000 OLEDs sold in North America in Q1 (and an actual Q1 NA sales level that is probably closer to 1000 than 10,000), which would mean demand in the range of over 20,000 this quarter in China, Europe, and Korea.

Impossible? No. But you'd think there would be more signs to support this trend., particularly in Europe...

At any rate, what LQ announces in their Q2 earnings call in late April will be the only number with any real commitment behind it (information to shareholders), so we'll know soon enough.


----------



## 8mile13

''LG Electronics expects to sell 800,000 OLED TVs in 2015''
http://www.oled-info.com/lg-electro...nfo+(OLED-Info:+OLED+tech+news+and+resources)

''LG Electronics is internally set OLED TV sales target this year to 600,000 units''

''This year is expected to sell up to 100,000 units'' lol
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=29982582


----------



## rogo

I'm struggling to understand any scenario under which 70,000 TVs could be sold in Q1. I realize they technically have the capacity from the old line, but they essentially have had no production from the new one that will impact the current quarter. 

And I'm also struggling to understand how even 10,000 units could possibly be sold in N. America this quarter.

Those figures seem like nonsense.

I'll reserve judgment on 2015, but I actually think price remains the key determining factor. At the current pricing, 600K, 800K, whatever is simply unobtainable. Has anyone been paying attention to the world economy? Or for that matter the pathetic value of the Euro?


----------



## JimP

rogo

Those fake numbers are probably an attempt to keep investors from bailing from their stocks.

Would be a good time to short sell.


----------



## stas3098

I heard (a _Chinese_ rumor) that LGD is set to* 装船 *about some 600,000 units in 2015 (2015年将全球出货量目标60万台)... I am pretty much sure they have already shipped over 10,000 units of 2014 stock to China as of now... how much of those they have sold to date remains unknown.


P.S Most Chinese articles about OLED TVs I read talk about 装船 not 销量... interesting, no!?


----------



## wco81

Do they even have Blu Ray in China?

Didn't they go with their own format back in the day, with their own format?


----------



## rogo

It's pretty noteworthy that Ive backhanded insulted LCD by the way. That's after Cook made 3-4 notable public comments -- although not a single one anytime recently -- trashing OLED.

Apple isn't dumb. It knows the current Galaxy display is now better than any mobile LCD on the market. Not only are the execs perfectly capable of reading Dr. Soneira's reports, Apple has plenty of display experts on the payroll to do their own testing. 

What Apple doesn't have is any plan to use OLED until two things occur (1) second source capability exists (2) an iPhone redesign occurs. The Sept. 2015 iPhone will be the "tock" iPhone and will look nearly the same with small upgrades to internals -- as has happened with 4S, 5S and now 6S. When you build as many phones as Apple (a problem that's getting "worse" because sales are growing), you don't really have the ability to fully redesign everything every year and still meet demand globally. 

Then there is also the bugaboo of power. People prefer white backgrounds for interacting with their phones. Google has come to understand this by making many (most?) of the important screens light/white on Android L. Those are where OLED is still demonstrably worse than LCD on power. 

The flip side is that OLED is improving marginally there, allows for design choices LCD doesn't (see the Galaxy Edge, but think far behind that because it's not an important design I believe but rather a hint of what might be coming), and is likely to create an even larger technological gap over time.

I have wondered for several years now why Apple didn't spend $5-10 billion on R&D and CapEx to simply build itself a captive display maker. It could continue sourcing displays elsewhere as needed, but in the same way it controls the microprocessor/SoC of the iPhone and iPad, it would start with controlling the display of the iPhone. The difference there is that controlling the display would require controlling the fabrication but that's much smaller scale than trying to stay in the chip arms race, which is why it's plausible to do so. (Apple, incidentally, tried to get TSMC to basically build it a chip fab inside a TSMC fab but was turned down). 

The lack of owning OLED has not mattered to Apple so far because the best LCDs are really good and the iPhone display is only marginally worse than the Galaxy S, which is really the only competitive Android phone that matters to Apple. That said, Apple cannot say it has the best displays on mobile, which I noted more than a year ago.


----------



## wco81

I remember Displaymate in the last decade was talking about how OLED drew more power than LCD for "web applications" but that it would change in a few years. Sounds like it still hasn't.

I know younger generations do most of their video watching on phones or tablets. But the rest of us prefer to sit down in front of a big display and surround sound system configured for your sweet spot.

The only advantage for OLED in phones would be to permit thinner designs, since there's no need for backlights. Certainly Apple cares about that but yeah, supply chain is needed and it's not clear that better blacks and contrast ratio are selling points for phones as much as bigger screens and higher pixel densities.

They're making cameras better (which is another thing that people care more about than contrast ratio of displays) but really, people don't care if one display has better gamut.


----------



## tgm1024

wco81 said:


> I remember Displaymate in the last decade was talking about how OLED drew more power than LCD for "web applications" but that it would change in a few years. Sounds like it still hasn't.


Yes, but I question what that means in real world terms these days. I really don't think it matters any longer.

My now aging Galaxy Note 2 (monstrous 5.5" phablet OLED screen....monstrous for a phone at the time) uses light colored backgrounds almost exclusively, and I have no power problems. In fact, if anything, I've been surprised at how long it lasts, which has been better than all the other phones I've test driven to date (Droid 4 / Samsung mumblesomethingsomething / a few other replacement phones for when I wreck one by accidental dropping). I watch an episode of Star Trek TNG often at night with the kids with the thing with barely a power dent. The only thing that is a challenge for it is my kids' ability to do endless non-stop 3D gaming on it, and that's a challenge for any device. The GPU's are known for heating up and otherwise getting power hungry.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> What Apple doesn't have is any plan to use OLED until two things occur (1) second source capability exists (2) an iPhone redesign occurs. The Sept. 2015 iPhone will be the "tock" iPhone and will look nearly the same with small upgrades to internals -- as has happened with 4S, 5S and now 6S. When you build as many phones as Apple (a problem that's getting "worse" because sales are growing), you don't really have the ability to fully redesign everything every year and still meet demand globally.
> 
> Then there is also the bugaboo of power. People prefer white backgrounds for interacting with their phones. Google has come to understand this by making many (most?) of the important screens light/white on Android L. Those are where OLED is still demonstrably worse than LCD on power.


I have been shooting down the idea of Apple moving to OLED for years, but it is at least a possibility now.

1) LGD is a possible 2nd source. They are supposedly planning on building a Gen 6 fab with a capacity around 15,000 substrates a month. The lion's share of the Apple supply would come from Samsung's A3 fab. 

2) The power consumption of the OLED in the S6 is lower than the iPhone 6 up to APL levels of 65%. Wikipedia is around 83% so many webpages would actually be lower than that. I dont think it is unreasonable to think that even the average web browsing session would have a lower power consumption on OLED by next year. Any mixed content user (apps, video, web browsing) would likely already benefit from an OLED.

3) This is impossible for the iPhone 6S, but capacity could be in place for the iPhone 7 in the fall of 2016.

The pieces look like they are falling in place but it is all pretty tenuous rumors right now. Nothing from sources that have proven trustworthy on Apple in the past (WSJ, Ming-Chi Kuo).


----------



## wco81

OLED displays would cost more than LCD, for 4.7 inch and 5.5 inch displays?

So what is the incentive for Apple to switch? There may be a lot of younger users who watch a lot of videos, including longer videos like TVs and movies on their phones.

But most people still watch TV and movies on big screen TVs, one would think.

So outside of video, what advantages do OLED offer over LCDs on phones?


----------



## slacker711

wco81 said:


> OLED displays would cost more than LCD, for 4.7 inch and 5.5 inch displays?
> 
> So what is the incentive for Apple to switch? There may be a lot of younger users who watch a lot of videos, including longer videos like TVs and movies on their phones.
> 
> But most people still watch TV and movies on big screen TVs, one would think.
> 
> So outside of video, what advantages do OLED offer over LCDs on phones?


Cost would be comparable or perhaps cheaper. Samsung is claiming cost parity with LTPS LCD this year.

I think the advantages would be all of the general reasons people want the highest quality displays....better pictures/video/gaming and lower power consumption. The iPhone 6 has a great display so it isnt going to be revolutionary but Apple rarely gives up an edge when it comes to using high-quality components.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> I have been shooting down the idea of Apple moving to OLED for years, but it is at least a possibility now.
> 
> 1) LGD is a possible 2nd source. They are supposedly planning on building a Gen 6 fab with a capacity around 15,000 substrates a month. The lion's share of the Apple supply would come from Samsung's A3 fab.


Culture question. Certainly an oversimplification, but is there a visceral dislike of Samsung within Apple? I remember that there was some major shifting at one point to Sharp when relationships apparently went sour---is that at least _part_ why they've held off of Samsung's take on AMOLED to date? Or have I remembered this backwards?


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> Culture question. Certainly an oversimplification, but is there a visceral dislike of Samsung within Apple? I remember that there was some major shifting at one point to Sharp when relationships apparently went sour---is that at least _part_ why they've held off of Samsung's take on AMOLED to date? Or have I remembered this backwards?


No, you have it right. Apple pulled back from Samsung as a component supplier a few years ago due to the various issues surround patents/design of their Galaxy series.

The trials go on, but the two companies appear to have fixed their relationship. Apple is supposed to use Samsung as a foundry for their A9 chip this year. There was a report yesterday that they are moving to Samsung for their SSD supply in Macbooks and previous rumors that Apple was increasing their NAND flash supply from Samsung as well.

Samsung has emphasized their status as a component supplier much more over the last year and I dont think the relationship between the two companies will be a big barrier to the adoption of OLED's. The question is whether Apple wants to use OLED's and whether there can be enough capacity to supply the iPhone in place by the fall of 2016.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> No, you have it right. Apple pulled back from Samsung as a component supplier a few years ago due to the various issues surround patents/design of their Galaxy series.
> 
> The trials go on, but the two companies appear to have fixed their relationship. Apple is supposed to use Samsung as a foundry for their A9 chip this year. There was a report yesterday that they are moving to Samsung for their SSD supply in Macbooks and previous rumors that Apple was increasing their NAND flash supply from Samsung as well.
> 
> Samsung has emphasized their status as a component supplier much more over the last year and I dont think the relationship between the two companies will be a big barrier to the adoption of OLED's. The question is whether Apple wants to use OLED's and whether there can be enough capacity to supply the iPhone in place by the fall of 2016.


All good information, thanks.

Well one thing is clear; the watch weirdness _potentially _aside, Apple emotionally does not like being an "also did". Perhaps they're holding out for something monumentally distinct that isn't yet production viable.


----------



## Stereodude

tgm1024 said:


> Culture question. Certainly an oversimplification, but is there a visceral dislike of Samsung within Apple? I remember that there was some major shifting at one point to Sharp when relationships apparently went sour---is that at least _part_ why they've held off of Samsung's take on AMOLED to date? Or have I remembered this backwards?


Apple has a love hate relationship with Samsung. They love to hate them. They'll even sue them. Then they turn around and keeping using Samsung as a supplier. Samsung fabs the SoCs used in nearly all of their products and has for years. Only the A8X isn't fab'd by Samsung.


----------



## Tomcup

OLED alliance in the works: 
http://hometheaterreview.com/lg-trying-to-set-up-oled-alliance/


----------



## fafrd

Tomcup said:


> OLED alliance in the works:
> http://hometheaterreview.com/lg-trying-to-set-up-oled-alliance/


When there are commercial agreements (or an 'alliance') that have been executed, that will be news - being 'in the works' or 'trying' phase is not...


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> I have been shooting down the idea of Apple moving to OLED for years, but it is at least a possibility now.
> 
> 1) LGD is a possible 2nd source. They are supposedly planning on building a Gen 6 fab with a capacity around 15,000 substrates a month. The lion's share of the Apple supply would come from Samsung's A3 fab.
> 
> 2) The power consumption of the OLED in the S6 is lower than the iPhone 6 up to APL levels of 65%. Wikipedia is around 83% so many webpages would actually be lower than that. I dont think it is unreasonable to think that even the average web browsing session would have a lower power consumption on OLED by next year. Any mixed content user (apps, video, web browsing) would likely already benefit from an OLED.


I think this is directionally correct, but my suspicion is 2015 OLEDs (the ones that Apple would actually qualify for iPhone 7 in 2016) aren't going to have a power advantage. That said, the ones that would go into iPhone 7S might well have such an advantage. So we're looking at a scenario under which power maybe breaks even in 2016 and by 2017 is now working in OLED's favor.


> 3) This is impossible for the iPhone 6S, but capacity could be in place for the iPhone 7 in the fall of 2016.


Yes, and we're also at the point where Apple can to an extent "backup source" the whole thing depending on visibility into the future. In 2016, a ton of the product line will still be iPhone 6 and 6S, which will remain LCD-based. There might even be a substantial amount of iPhone-5 class stuff sold depending on whether Apple creates a $350-400 tier that it has offered briefly in India in the past. That means they won't be cutting off LCD suppliers and could -- if OLED supply proves unworkable -- backpedal 6-9 months out.

There also exists the possibility of starting with just OLED on the phablet but not the "regular" flagship iPhone.


> The pieces look like they are falling in place but it is all pretty tenuous rumors right now. Nothing from sources that have proven trustworthy on Apple in the past (WSJ, Ming-Chi Kuo).


WSJ, actually, has a somewhat abysmal track record. They did get the two screen sizes right after being wrong so many times that only selective memory could call their track record good. Ming-Chi Kuo is certainly strong (albeit imperfect). Interestingly, Digitimes -- whose record is abysmal -- mighlyt telegraph something here because one area they seem to have decent sources is display chatter.



slacker711 said:


> Cost would be comparable or perhaps cheaper. Samsung is claiming cost parity with LTPS LCD this year.


And one imagines Samsung moving marginally ahead as the decade closes, based on the assumption that OLED remains relatively immature and should have some room to roam. Plus, there is some backplane gain they might yet obtain.


> I think the advantages would be all of the general reasons people want the highest quality displays....better pictures/video/gaming and lower power consumption. The iPhone 6 has a great display so it isnt going to be revolutionary but Apple rarely gives up an edge when it comes to using high-quality components.


This is why I believe they've ended the rhetoric -- never mind the watch has a freaking OLED and bashing OLED becomes really silly in that context. They have to know the Galaxy S has a better display than their phone. They aren't dumb.



tgm1024 said:


> Culture question. Certainly an oversimplification, but is there a visceral dislike of Samsung within Apple? I remember that there was some major shifting at one point to Sharp when relationships apparently went sour---is that at least _part_ why they've held off of Samsung's take on AMOLED to date? Or have I remembered this backwards?


There is detente right now. Most lawsuits have gone away. One issue that could torpedo all this however is the Samsung S6. It's back to ripping off Apple's design in some pretty profound ways. Do they matter? I'd say no. The back looks different enough to be clearly Samsung and not Apple. The bottom, however? And to an extent the front of the non-Edge models... Apple's Samsung haters are surely livid. 

How about this for a theory: The worse the S6 sells, the more Apple is willing to buy from Samsung. The better the S6 sells but doesn't hurt Apple, merely other Android, the more Apple is willing to buy from Samsung -- but only to a point. If the S6 sells really well, hurts Apple, restores Samsung's profit luster... Apple doesn't buy 150 million OLEDs from Samsung.



slacker711 said:


> Samsung has emphasized their status as a component supplier much more over the last year and I dont think the relationship between the two companies will be a big barrier to the adoption of OLED's. The question is whether Apple wants to use OLED's and whether there can be enough capacity to supply the iPhone in place by the fall of 2016.


Really, by the spring of 2016. While iPhones don't get built until summer, the component deals are locked and loaded in the prior year. And if the display capacity isn't guaranteed to be online by spring, there can't be a deal.

This is how we can guarantee there is no OLED in the iPhone 6S, but consider one for the iPhone 7. It's already beyond too late for the 6S.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Stereodude said:


> Apple has a love hate relationship with Samsung. They love to hate them. They'll even sue them. Then they turn around and keeping using Samsung as a supplier.


There's a word for that in the otaku fanbase - "tsundere".


----------



## Matthias Hutter

NintendoManiac64 said:


> There's a word for that in the otaku fanbase - "tsundere".


----------



## Rudy1

*"LG SET TO LAUNCH AN HDR-CAPABLE OLED TV IN 2015"*

http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/lg-55ec930v-55ec9300-p21259/lg-set-launch-an-hdr-compatible-oled-television-2015-n40443.html


----------



## zoro

Wow another one 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slacker711

It looks like LG has begun a full fledged branding campaign for OLED's. I probably saw their commercial a half dozen times yesterday during the tournament.


----------



## barth2k

Rudy1 said:


> *"LG SET TO LAUNCH AN HDR-CAPABLE OLED TV IN 2015"*
> 
> http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-tel...r-compatible-oled-television-2015-n40443.html


I thought this year's OLED is already HDR capable. (Meaning the ones coming out now)


----------



## WillowGlenDave

*Display technology that cried wolf.*

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/19/breaking_fad_oled_tv/

Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere.

Notable parts include:

-M2 facility claims to produce 26,000 substrates per month?
-Pulling plug on LED LCD R&D next year.
-As of yet, LG doesn't have any HDR OLED solution, although it's certain to make a pronouncement of some sort at IFA.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

WillowGlenDave said:


> -As of yet, LG doesn't have any HDR OLED solution


This makes it sound like they don't have the ability to make an HDR OLED at all currently, which we know isn't true since they showed a prototype display at CES.


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> This makes it sound like they don't have the ability to make an HDR OLED at all currently, which we know isn't true since they showed a prototype display at CES.


Not 'match ready' was the comment from the article.

The statement regarding M2 is almost certainly a misunderstanding. Is should be at 26,000 substrates per month by the end of the year, but is almost certainly at only 6000 per month today.

If LG truly drops all R&D investments into LCD starting in 2016, that is a significant development and reason for a bit more optimism regarding the future of LGs WOLED initiative...


----------



## wco81

Even if they produce the HDR displays, would the content have to be filmed and mastered to display HDR?


----------



## KidHorn

I saw a LG OLED TV commercial yesterday during the mens basketball tournament. Good sign in that they likely wouldn't have aired it unless they had inventory in the pipeline.


----------



## tgm1024

NintendoManiac64 said:


> This makes it sound like they don't have the ability to make an HDR OLED at all currently, which we know isn't true since they showed a prototype display at CES.


There's always a difference between what you see at CES and reality.

Years ago Sony dazzled us all with a Crystal LED 55" (using LEDs and not OLEDs). It even got the CES equivalent of "best in show". There wasn't a chance they could produce it IRL....having it at CES doesn't mean that it's even _remotely _possible.

Dazzling demos are meant to be dazzling demos, and that's about it.


----------



## 5150zx

KidHorn said:


> I saw a LG OLED TV commercial yesterday during the mens basketball tournament. Good sign in that they likely wouldn't have aired it unless they had inventory in the pipeline.


Not necessarily true. Ad budgets are created months in advance. LG wants to get the 'buzz' out for OLED displays and there's no better place right now than the men's NCAA tourney. Basically, "Go see our OLED 9300 on the end cap at a Best Buy near you!" LG is also a corporate sponsor of the tourney, so, there's that. It's great to see the OLED ads, that's for sure. You have to let people know they exist before they buy them, right?


----------



## jaeelarr

Will they make a non-curved display at some point? REALLY dont like that style at all.


----------



## 5150zx

jaeelarr said:


> Will they make a non-curved display at some point? REALLY dont like that style at all.


Yes, they'll have a 65" flat, not sure on the 55" (I think a flat on that too). The 77" can be either curved or flat, you push a button on the remote.


----------



## zoro

5150zx said:


> Yes, they'll have a 65" flat, not sure on the 55" (I think a flat on that too). The 77" can be either curved or flat, you push a button on the remote.


77 is either curved or FLEX, no flat flat.
Curved 25K, FLEX 35K..:kiss:


----------



## tgm1024

zoro said:


> 77 is either curved or FLEX, no flat flat.
> Curved 25K, FLEX 35K..:kiss:


I believe that flex goes to flat flat, so once it does that, pull the "flex" button out of the remote with a pair of pliers.


----------



## zoro

tgm1024 said:


> I believe that flex goes to flat flat, so once it does that, pull the "flex" button out of the remote with a pair of pliers.



Yes lol but only what u desire is flat u should not have to pay for double gimmicks over FLAT. Let's see flat 77 cost 15k then curve $25k and FLEX FOR 35k


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slacker711

I said this a very long time ago...if Samsung thinks that OLED's are going to start taking significant share that they will switch to WRGB and let the IP chips fall where they may.

http://english.etnews.com/20150329200001



> Samsung Display Resumes Their ‘White OLED’ TV Investment
> Sung Hyeon-hee Mar 29, 2015


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> I said this a very long time ago...if Samsung thinks that OLED's are going to start taking significant share that they will switch to WRGB and let the IP chips fall where they may.
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/20150329200001


Interesting...


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> I said this a very long time ago...if Samsung thinks that OLED's are going to start taking significant share that they will switch to WRGB and let the IP chips fall where they may.
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/20150329200001


Yep.

And as I noted elsewhere, Samsung's earlier failure had nothing to do with backplane issues and _everything_ to do with inability to product TV-sized panels using SMS with any reasonable combination of yield and throughput.


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> Yep.
> 
> And as I noted elsewhere, Samsung's earlier failure had nothing to do with backplane issues and _everything_ to do with inability to product TV-sized panels using SMS with any reasonable combination of yield and throughput.


Samsung will use oxide backplane as well. This is also bad for Kateeva's RGB system.

"Samsung OLED panel display manufacturing technology for TV is only known to be determined at this time to adopt a similar structure to the first WRGB OLED LG Display TFT and encapsulation technology has not yet been made public. However, the TFT technology is also estimated that the oxide TFT is likely to be high. (See February 27 article OLEDNET) LTPS TFT is that the performance is similar because of their high investment cost is very low compared with oxide TFT feasibility."


----------



## darinp2

slacker711 said:


> http://english.etnews.com/20150329200001
> 
> Samsung Display Resumes Their ‘White OLED’ TV Investment
> Sung Hyeon-hee Mar 29, 2015


I wonder if this will have any effect on LG's investment in OLED. On the one hand this could mean more competition, but on the other hand, if Samsung gets back into television sized OLED it sure seems like that makes it easier for LG to justify the expense of staying in, and making long term commitments to OLED, both internally and to investors. Especially with Samsung taking the WRGB route.

Assuming the article is on target I think this makes it more likely that LG will be producing a significant number of OLED TVs 2-5 years from now.

--Darin


----------



## barth2k

Does this mean Kateeva is not working out?


----------



## fafrd

darinp2 said:


> I wonder if this will have any effect on LG's investment in OLED. On the one hand this could mean more competition, but on the other hand, if Samsung gets back into television sized OLED it sure seems like that makes it easier for LG to justify the expense of staying in, and making long term commitments to OLED, both internally and to investors. Especially with Samsung taking the WRGB route.
> 
> Assuming the article is on target I think this makes it more likely that LG will be producing a significant number of OLED TVs 2-5 years from now.
> 
> --Darin


I think this is right - if Samsung is truly investing in WRGB technology (and patents be d*mned , it becomes more difficult to see LG pulling the plug this year and not ramping M2 up to full capacity, even if the year does not unfold as planned.

Also, if Samsung is getting back into OLED, it is easier to imagine LG's 'OLED alliance' gaining some momentum.

Who knows how much longer they will remain in the game, but getting 1 or 2 Japanese brands to introduce OLED TVs based on LGs panels would be a big shot in the arm.

Samsung and Vizio are getting so competetive in the US market, a Samsung initiative back into OLED might even prompt Vizio to consider teaming up with LG... ('The enemy of my enemy' and all ).


----------



## Rich Peterson

slacker711 said:


> I said this a very long time ago...if Samsung thinks that OLED's are going to start taking significant share that they will switch to WRGB and let the IP chips fall where they may.
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/20150329200001



I'm reminded of comments made by LG's Ken Hong at IFA last summer. He said True RGB OLED TV cannot compete with WRGB and the white OLED patents LG bought from Kodak were the key to getting high enough manufacturing yields for success.


http://news.oled-display.net/lg-samsung-true-rgb-oled-can-not-compete-wrgb-tv/


----------



## Kaldaien

Rich Peterson said:


> I'm reminded of comments made by LG's Ken Hong at IFA last summer. He said True RGB OLED TV cannot compete with WRGB and the white OLED patents LG bought from Kodak were the key to getting high enough manufacturing yields for success.
> 
> 
> http://news.oled-display.net/lg-samsung-true-rgb-oled-can-not-compete-wrgb-tv/


That's true of both yield and efficiency. A straight up RGB OLED panel is very inefficient when displaying white, which is the primary color used on computer displays. WRGB is going to be key to expanding out of the TV / smartphone market. Instead of an OLED screen causing a laptop to use more energy in many use-cases than an LED backlit LCD, it would do the opposite and barring costs/reliability, would be the technology of choice.

It's also more practical to implement low-persistence scanning on a WRGB panel. You want pixels that get very bright if you're going to pulse them for a short period of time and then turn them off for the rest of a refresh cycle, but if to produce a white color you have to simultaneously light 3 separate colored sub-pixels that's never going to get particularly bright with any sort of ABL scheme working against you.


----------



## Wizziwig

Kaldaien said:


> That's true of both yield and efficiency. A straight up RGB OLED panel is very inefficient when displaying white, which is the primary color used on computer displays. WRGB is going to be key to expanding out of the TV / smartphone market. Instead of an OLED screen causing a laptop to use more energy in many use-cases than an LED backlit LCD, it would do the opposite and barring costs/reliability, would be the technology of choice.
> 
> It's also more practical to implement low-persistence scanning on a WRGB panel. You want pixels that get very bright if you're going to pulse them for a short period of time and then turn them off for the rest of a refresh cycle, but if to produce a white color you have to simultaneously light 3 separate colored sub-pixels that's never going to get particularly bright with any sort of ABL scheme working against you.


It may not be obvious, but WRGB is actually the less efficient tech. It is composed of all white sub-pixels that require filters to generate red, green, and blue. A lot of light output is lost in those filters. The single unfiltered white sub-pixels was only added to help compensate but it's not enough.

This is why the discontinued Samsung 55" RGB OLED was much brighter and offered a low-persistence mode with full motion resolution. I hope Samsung finds a way to make RGB work again.


----------



## Kaldaien

Wizziwig said:


> It may not be obvious, but WRGB is actually the less efficient tech. It is composed of all white sub-pixels that require filters to generate red, green, and blue. A lot of light output is lost in those filters. The single unfiltered white sub-pixels was only added to help compensate but it's not enough.
> 
> This is why the discontinued Samsung 55" RGB OLED was much brighter and offered a low-persistence mode with full motion resolution. I hope Samsung finds a way to make RGB work again.


Really? At fullscreen displaying a white image, I've measured power consumption of 180w on my 55EG9600. A solid red image draws the most power, at roughly 250w. The other two colors are slightly more efficient (< ~10w difference). But since most of the screen on a PC is typically white, that bodes very well for using WRGB pixels as a laptop display. It's usually the other way around, where white draws a crazy amount of power on OLED.


----------



## tgm1024

Kaldaien said:


> Really? At fullscreen displaying a white image, I've measured power consumption of 180w on my 55EG9600. A solid red image draws the most power, at roughly 250w. The other two colors are slightly more efficient (< ~10w difference). But since most of the screen on a PC is typically white, that bodes very well for using WRGB pixels as a laptop display. It's usually the other way around, where white draws a crazy amount of power on OLED.


I don't think you understand how LG OLED's are designed. And part of the problem stems from the industry which has conflated "WRGB" with this different design, instead of simply signifying an ordering of subs and the addition of white.

The LG OLED colors come from filtering a dichromatic white (or trichromatic white----jury's still out on this one----it depends upon which Kodak patent you read) formed from a stack of OLED materials underneath. For any one of the subs to be active requires that the entire stack be emitting that composite white and a filter remove all but the needed color. In the case of the white sub, it's unclear if there's no filter at all or a carefully tuned one.


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> The single unfiltered white sub-pixels was only added to help compensate but it's not enough.


Yeah, that's what we've been speculating for quite some time. I too believe that the reason to use white was entirely driven by the inherent losses involved in a filtered design. Filters exist solely to throw light (and effectively power) away.



Wizziwig said:


> This is why the discontinued Samsung 55" RGB OLED was much brighter and offered a low-persistence mode with full motion resolution. I hope Samsung finds a way to make RGB work again.


ABSOLUTELY. Besides, their approach to having ever enlarging subs (from red to green to blue) was absolutely the correct approach, and you don't lose the subpixel density you do when you move to 4 subs.


----------



## Kaldaien

tgm1024 said:


> I don't think you understand how LG OLED's are designed. And part of the problem stems from the industry which has conflated "WRGB" with this different design, instead of simply signifying an ordering of subs and the addition of white.
> 
> The LG OLED colors come from filtering a dichromatic white (or trichromatic white----jury's still out on this one----it depends upon which Kodak patent you read) formed from a stack of OLED materials underneath. For any one of the subs to be active requires that the entire stack be emitting that composite white and a filter remove all but the needed color. In the case of the white sub, it's unclear if there's no filter at all or a carefully tuned one.


No, I understand that there's a filter used for the non-white colors. However, energy efficiency when displaying pure white is phenomenal, which is what you do most of the time on a PC. It sort of turns everything on its head - Samsung has to illuminate the R, G and B sub-pixels in order to produce white.


----------



## tgm1024

Kaldaien said:


> No, I understand that there's a filter used for the non-white colors. However, energy efficiency when displaying pure white is phenomenal, which is what you do most of the time on a PC. It sort of turns everything on its head - Samsung has to illuminate the R, G and B sub-pixels in order to produce white.


Again, you're missing something. IF the subs themselves were spectral emitters (instead of filtering the broad white), then you'd have significant savings (such as if the samsung S9 were to have RGBW configurations). However, with LG OLED, even though they're saving with the white, it's coupled with a significant loss.

By the way, the savings of white isn't quite what most expect anyway, even with spectral emitters. There are two primary ways of producing white, trichromatically with 3 emitters or dichromatically with two emitters or a single blue emitter with a yellow phosphor. It's not as though there's a single OLED capable of blasting out white by itself. White doesn't have any one specific frequency to center on.


----------



## barth2k

Kaldaien said:


> Really? At fullscreen displaying a white image, I've measured power consumption of 180w on my 55EG9600. A solid red image draws the most power, at roughly 250w. The other two colors are slightly more efficient (< ~10w difference). But since most of the screen on a PC is typically white, that bodes very well for using WRGB pixels as a laptop display. It's usually the other way around, where white draws a crazy amount of power on OLED.


I think the ABL may complicate that calculation a bit. Possibly red draws the most power because it is least throttled?


----------



## tgm1024

barth2k said:


> I think the ABL may complicate that calculation a bit. Possibly red draws the most power because it is least throttled?


Absolutely, further the CMS will complicate that as well. Look carefully at the sub arrangements to make sure that white has only white showing, etc.

But I agree, the non-configurable ABL is right in the way of figuring out precisely what's going on. And of course, even though the panel itself is the largest draw, there are other factors that must be subtracted first before calculating out display usage as any kind of useful percentage. Depending upon where you're measuring, the AC->DC converter by itself will consume a lot. As will the other more ancillary electronics.


----------



## Kaldaien

barth2k said:


> I think the ABL may complicate that calculation a bit. Possibly red draws the most power because it is least throttled?


I fooled around with it a little more and the difference in power consumption on white shifts around as you play with color temperature. It swings as much between Cool and Warm2 as the difference between full red and blue, which makes sense in the end. If you're not asking the TV to display white that matches the W sub-pixel's natural white point, it's going to have to mix in some filtered color to do that.

What seems odd to me is that Warm2 is the most efficient for white, yet red is the least efficient color to display. I'd sort of intuitively expect a warmer color temperature to do really well with red?

Either way, I can definitely see why producing R, G and B by filtering W is not as practical as I thought. It's not nice and additive like RGB would be.


----------



## WillowGlenDave

Display Week 2015 is in San Jose from May 31st to June 5th for those that have the means and are interested. Interesting short courses on OLED and other display technologies.

Link to the Sunday short course on Fundamentals of OLED Displays.

http://displayweek.org/2015/Program...1&elqTrackId=9ebdd1365f6049df98a2eafbddfd3c47

Just tell the wife that you need to make a stop on your way to Yosemite


----------



## WillowGlenDave

Did not see this posted anywhere...sorry if it had been prior to this.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/super-oled-201503064026.htm


----------



## stas3098

The funny thing is though that I have always kind of assumed that with the stacked OLEDs (the kind I hear LGD uses), you'd only have to drive each element of the stack to one-third ,what with the light coming from the single "source" and hitting the same rod cells (and these little whit buggers don't see color, they see "brightness") and stuff, you know , (blue to 30W, red to 30W and green to 30W) to get "white" whereas in a standard RGB arrangement you'd have to drive every sub-pixel to the max to get "white" (90W for blue, 90W for red and 90W for green)... but what do I know, right...


----------



## Kaldaien

stas3098 said:


> The funny thing is though that I have always kind of assumed that with the stacked OLEDs (the kind I hear LGD uses), you'd only have to drive each element of the stack to one-third ,what with the light coming from the single "source" and hitting the same rod cells (and these little whit buggers don't see color, they see "brightness") and stuff, you know , (blue to 30W, red to 30W and green to 30W) to get "white" whereas in a standard RGB arrangement you'd have to drive every sub-pixel to the max to get "white" (90W for blue, 90W for red and 90W for green)... but what do I know, right...


That'd produce a very specific white, not necessarily the white the TV's calibrated to produce. After calibration, the TV has to mix in those things disproportionately so that a completely white pixel sits at the right white point. It should still be more efficient though, as the white sub-pixel will be very close relatively speaking and only require a little bit of correction.


----------



## stas3098

Kaldaien said:


> That'd produce a very specific white, not necessarily the white the TV's calibrated to produce. After calibration, the TV has to mix in those things disproportionately so that a completely white pixel sits at the right white point. It should still be more efficient though, as the white sub-pixel will be very close relatively speaking and only require a little bit of correction.


I was rumbling on not about the color (in this case pallor) of light, but about the intensity (brightness) of light as in: when a photon of a certain visible frequency hits a rod cell it initiates the process of transfer of energy (the more energetic a photon (in other words, the higher the frequency of a photon) is the more energy is collected by rod cells). This transfer of energy ,however, requires axon priming (sodium/potassium interchange polarization causing subsequent ionization of myelin sheath) to occur hence there's some delay during which the collection and conversion of energy transpires. Howbeit, no significant delays in parts of the brain responsible for visual processing is observed most likely due to the synaptic connections that were established and solidified during over 2 billion of years it took for a modern eye to form...


Wow, things ,apparently, have gotten away from me there for a sec... I'm just saying that from a biological/anatomical standpoint a stacked OLED appears to be more energy efficient when displaying "white".


----------



## slacker711

Nothing in English yet, but there are a number of articles in the Korean press that indicate that LGD stated at a Korean OLED conference that 1080p yields have hit 80 to 90% and that they expect 4K yields to hit 80% by the end of the year.


----------



## Kaldaien

stas3098 said:


> Wow, things ,apparently, have gotten away from me there for a sec... I'm just saying that from a biological/anatomical standpoint a stacked OLED appears to be more energy efficient when displaying "white".


Yes, that should absolutely be more efficient and very likely is, for white. The other colors don't benefit any from it when they're designed to block certain wavelengths of light (like an LCD) instead of emit it :-\


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> Nothing in English yet, but there are a number of articles in the Korean press that indicate that LGD stated at a Korean OLED conference that 1080p yields have hit 80 to 90% and that they expect 4K yields to hit 80% by the end of the year.


That's very exciting. I suspect they've completely mastered the backplane (high 90s success rate) and are having very high success on the older 1080p half sheets for the vapor depo. They expect that to happen on the full sheets over time, which is where you see the 4K/80% thing happening. I'm also sure the 4K backplanes have somewhat lower yield success, although not tremendously.


----------



## irkuck

LG: 1.5 mln units in 2016, Samsung still in the game with reinstated OLED division.


----------



## JimP

Do OLED displays use a pulse tech similar to plasma?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

JimP said:


> Do OLED displays use a pulse tech similar to plasma?


OLED _seems_ like it may be inherently sample-and-hold, but due to the extremely fast pixel response time and the fact that black is actually black, you can essentually make it be a PWM low-persistance display like CRT or plasma with simple black-frame insertion at a high refresh rate (90hz seems to be a popular sweet spot currently).


----------



## tgm1024

NintendoManiac64 said:


> OLED _seems_ like it may be inherently sample-and-hold, but due to the extremely fast pixel response time and the fact that black is actually black, you can essentually make it be a PWM low-persistance display like CRT or plasma with simple black-frame insertion at a high refresh rate (90hz seems to be a popular sweet spot currently).


Having a pulse mechanism or BFI doesn't turn the device into a PWM device. PWM requires that the brightness be a result of the length of time it's subpixel is on. The subfield drive of the plasma cells for example exploited this because a plasma cell can only excite at full blast (or in some experimental weird concoctions, 2 or 4 levels, though those never hit the market AFAIK). But OLED is still S&H. Just with a pulse added if you implement BFI, etc.


----------



## Kaldaien

JimP said:


> Do OLED displays use a pulse tech similar to plasma?


LG OLEDs are sample-and-hold based. But it's a rather silly way to approach the problem, since they can be turned on/off at 100 kHz.

Samsung and SONY (reference monitor) have both produced low persistence OLEDs, but they have some issues that some consumers might not like such as a dimmer picture or a visible rolling scan. OLED pixels respond so quickly that there should be room for lots of novel implementations in the future.


----------



## ChaosCloud

NintendoManiac64 said:


> OLED _seems_ like it may be inherently sample-and-hold, but due to the extremely fast pixel response time and the fact that black is actually black, you can essentually make it be a PWM low-persistance display like CRT or plasma with simple black-frame insertion at a high refresh rate (90hz seems to be a popular sweet spot currently).


LG's WRGB OLED seems to be sample and hold, but a substantial portion of other OLED devices are pulse driven. Sony's pro monitors were pulse driven, but people found the flicker fatiguing so it was changed in firmware.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTfvwOGu4EI
Planar's transparent OLED prototype seems to be pulse driven.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lT-YdomsIE


----------



## slacker711

irkuck said:


> LG: 1.5 mln units in 2016, Samsung still in the game with reinstated OLED division.


FWIW, that article has an English language confirmation of the yields that I posted earlier. If they have confidence in the 4K projection, we should start hearing rumors about M3 this summer.



> LG Display is planning to raise the yield of its ultra HD OLED panel production facilities to 80 percent within this year. The company is currently recording a yield of 80 to 90 percent in full HD OLED panel production.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

80% UHD OLED yield rates in 2015. Will the wonders never cease?! That's great. 

Final nail in the naysayer's coffin who said it couldn't be done. I love it when good news wins out over the doom n gloom.


----------



## fafrd

RLBURNSIDE said:


> 80% UHD OLED yield rates in 2015. Will the wonders never cease?! That's great.
> 
> Final nail in the naysayer's coffin who said it couldn't be done. I love it when good news wins out over the doom n gloom.


Take the yield targets with a grain of salt - this just posted on CNET: http://www.cnet.com/news/the-great-oled-revolution-has-arrived-at-a-price/


'But when will they get cheap enough to afford? Don't hold your breath.

"We're not going to sell a ton of OLED televisions in 2015," says David VanderWaal, LG's senior director of marketing. They're too expensive. And *LG doesn't expect its 65-incher to fall below $7,000 by the 2015 holidays *-- almost a year out. Same-size, high-end 4K LCDs cost a third as much.'

Something is not adding up...


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> Take the yield targets with a grain of salt - this just posted on CNET: http://www.cnet.com/news/the-great-oled-revolution-has-arrived-at-a-price/ 'But when will they get cheap enough to afford? Don't hold your breath.
> "We're not going to sell a ton of OLED televisions in 2015," says David VanderWaal, LG's senior director of marketing. They're too expensive. And *LG doesn't expect its 65-incher to fall below $7,000 by the 2015 holidays *-- almost a year out. Same-size, high-end 4K LCDs cost a third as much.'
> Something is not adding up...


Eh, you missed the most crictical part: "We're using OLED to gain brand perception," says VanderWaal. "So OLED equals LG equals great televisions. *There's enough demand right now that we can't build OLED TVs quickly enough*. *It's something that people are going to ask for, not something we have to push through the market*."

This means LG is selling at the right market price when one counts-in very limited manufacturing output, any lower prices and there would be shortages in supply.
Also, one can not expect prices falling down this year. One can only hope for prices falling down in 2016 when manufacturing capabilities will triple comparing to 2015. 

Thus, OLED prices are high not only due to the yield and costs but simply due to enough people willing to pay the price. Quite typical situation with hot premium products. Should the situation change and OLED sets would not be moving, LG surely would reduce prices since they are now in the brand building period, ready to subsidize sales.


----------



## dsinger

irkuck: Excellent insight. Thanks


----------



## darinp2

fafrd said:


> 'But when will they get cheap enough to afford? Don't hold your breath.
> 
> "We're not going to sell a ton of OLED televisions in 2015," says David VanderWaal, LG's senior director of marketing. They're too expensive. And *LG doesn't expect its 65-incher to fall below $7,000 by the 2015 holidays *-- almost a year out. Same-size, high-end 4K LCDs cost a third as much.'
> 
> Something is not adding up...


I don't know what prices will be at the end of the year, but I can imagine what would happen to any company representative who would say something like, "Just wait 8 months and you can get our product for 50% of what it will cost you today."

I wonder if there are any quotes out there from LG representatives about what street prices were likely to do for the 9800 less than a year from when it became available at one store for $2k. I doubt they were telling people that was likely to happen.

--Darin


----------



## barth2k

darinp2 said:


> I don't know what prices will be at the end of the year, but I can imagine what would happen to any company representative who would say something like, "Just wait 8 months and you can get our product for 50% of what it will cost you today."
> 
> I wonder if there are any quotes out there from LG representatives about what street prices were likely to do for the 9800 less than a year from when it became available at one store for $2k. I doubt they were telling people that was likely to happen.
> 
> --Darin


No but I don't remember them saying it will NOT hit $X either. So it seems as if they are signaling their intention to keep the prices high and/or they know they will still be supply constrained still.


----------



## fafrd

barth2k said:


> No but I don't remember them saying it will NOT hit $X either. So it seems as if they are signaling their intention to keep the prices high and/or they know they will still be supply constrained still.


Exactly.

While I certainly understand the argument that signaling lower prices in the future is suicidal to near-term demand, signaling high prices for as far out as the eye can see (and certainly through the Holidays) will drive all of the fence-sitters/dreamers right into the arms of Samsung.

Uncertainty was the best policy and advertising that OLEDs are a rich-videophile technology for the exclusive/luxury-minded and priced at 3 times the cost of high-end 4K LCDs is certain to drive down 2015 sales volume.

One perverse reading on this statement is that LG has actually doubled-down on their commitment to OLED and decided to give themselves another year.

Everything up to now has been focused on 2016 being the 'year of OLED' but if they maintain high prices through this year, that dog don't hunt. 

Focusing on 65" for the moment, and assuming 4K 65" yields are currently at 60-70%, the 6000-sheet monthly capacity at M2 translates into 7000-8000 65" OLEDs per month, or about 100,000 per year. A significant increase over 2014 OLED TV sales, but certainly a modest level in terms of the overall TV market that qualifies as 'not a ton'.

But no way they move from volumes below 10,000 a month in 2015 to volumes of over 100,000 a month in 2016 - that just ain't gonna happen. Ramp M2 to full capacity in 2016, introduce a new generation of HDR-capable OLEDs at CES 2016 (hopefully with LCD-like motion performance to boot ), and you could be in a good position to drive towards a successful 2017 as 'the year of OLED' though...


----------



## slacker711

I would just note that the comment on pricing isnt even a direct quote. 

There is a direct quote saying that they are selling everything they can make.

They both seem like marketing spin to me, but your mileage may vary.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> I would just note that the comment on pricing isnt even a direct quote.
> 
> There is a direct quote saying that they are selling everything they can make.
> 
> They both seem like marketing spin to me, but your mileage may vary.


'Not selling a ton in 2015' is a direct quote (which is at odds with the other recent quote restating the goal to manufacture 600,000 in 2015 - I'd say 600,000 cannot be construed as 'not a ton').

And after the direct quote, the paragraph goes on to state that '*LG  doesn't expect its 65-incher to fall below $7,000 by the 2015 holidays', so I don't think you can read that to be CNETs assumption and have to see LGs guidance in that statement.

It absolutely is 'marketing spin' and the question is why LG would be starting that spin now. Silence has been working fine up to now - what are they hoping to achieve*


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> 'Not selling a ton in 2015' is a direct quote (which is at odds with the other recent quote restating the goal to manufacture 600,000 in 2015 - I'd say 600,000 cannot be construed as 'not a ton').
> 
> And after the direct quote, the paragraph goes on to state that '*LG  doesn't expect its 65-incher to fall below $7,000 by the 2015 holidays', so I don't think you can read that to be CNETs assumption and have to see LGs guidance in that statement.
> 
> It absolutely is 'marketing spin' and the question is why LG would be starting that spin now. Silence has been working fine up to now - what are they hoping to achieve*


*

Yes, 600,000 is not a "ton". That is less than .3% of the market. The marketing director is trying to explain that OLED's wont be close to a mainstream technology this year and they arent supposed to be....and the 600,000 unit mark isnt even a LGE target anyway.

I absolutely believe that LG said something along the lines of the statement that CNET printed but without the direct quote, I have no idea whether it was said directly or implied. I take those two things very differently.

The list price on the 55EC9300 is still $3500 and that is the current price on Amazon right now...but you can get it for under $2000 right now. 

Hell, CP is already offering preorders on the 65EF9500 for $7000.*


----------



## stas3098

OLEDs are ,most certainly, not a rich-videophile technology for the exclusive/luxury-minded folk that is priced at 3 times the cost of high-end 4K LCDs. 


Even though, I hate being the captain obvious the wyrd seems to be forcing me to be 'im again and again. 


OLED R&D costs are too big (astronomical) for the whole niche market thing to work out. Either OLED happens large-scale or it doesn't happen at all.


One more thing, Samsung didn't spend billions of dollars on OLED R&D like LGD did. Samsung didn't lock itself into OLED supply agreements (with TVs). Samsung used and improved _existing_ production technics to manufacture OLEDs (shadow mask). 


To make myself perfectly clear, what I am trying to get across is that LG is going to have to raise the volumes up fast and bring the price down quickly (in this exact order) that is if they are to have a shot at success (they going to have to flood the market and hope that the street price settles down at an acceptable level).


----------



## rogo

If LG is "selling everything they can make" and "yielding 70-80%" then, um, throughput is infinitesimal?

Sounds like a bunch of nonsense. Period.

I find myself agreeing a lot with stas, which suggests that the universe is probably going to explode.

I find myself agreeing a lot with fafrd about 2017 being the earliest possible "Year of the OLED" at this point.

I find myself believing that LG still lacks a clear plan to get from here to 2017. There comes a moment where you need the following to all be true:

1) You have capacity to meaningfully grow sales -- Really meaningfully
2) You slash the heck out of the price to meaningfully grow demand
3) You satisfy the demand
4) You build new capacity to satisfy the demand you're going going to generate when you repeat this sequence

I find myself agreeing with slacker about M3, but there is no M3 with anything remotely resembling today's pricing. And honestly, there is nothing remotely resembling a 1.5M unit market at anything remotely resembling today's prices for the 55-inch sets.


----------



## irkuck

stas3098 said:


> OLED R&D costs are too big (astronomical) for the whole niche market thing to work out. Either OLED happens large-scale or it doesn't happen at all.
> .....
> To make myself perfectly clear, what I am trying to get across is that LG is going to have to raise the volumes up fast and bring the price down quickly (in this exact order) that is if they are to have a shot at success (they going to have to flood the market and hope that the street price settles down at an acceptable level).


This year is initial volume manufacturing and OLED brand-builiding year for the LG. Next year is tripling of manufacturing volumes which is quite good ramp up but selling it will require lowering prices. Assume that the plan after 2016 is another tripling of volume, reaching 5 mln OLED sets positioned at the high-end. That will mean OLED becoming serious market contender.


----------



## fafrd

Not really OLED Technology-related, per-se, but since the HDR initiative may have an impact on OLEDs success, I thought I would post it here:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article...mo-hdr-uhd-live-over-the-air-broadcast/275489

First OTA UHD/HDR Broadcast test here in the US today...


----------



## stas3098

Well, since we are in unrelated stuff land I thought I'd chime in with this piece about OLED lighting.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f035918a-cbb6-11e4-beca-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Wvu9YBZQ


It says there that LG chem expects the OLED lighting market to reach the 4.6 billion dollar value by 2020 (they are using the vapor-depo tech I assume) and then it goes on to add the following statement at the very end:


_“They are unlikely to become mainstream products until 2020 as more *technological development is needed* to drive the cost down.”_


which is in itself overly optimistic. 


I said it many times before and I am going to reiterate it again OLED will most likely never be able to move past 20 inches with vapor deposition no matter economies of scale...


----------



## slacker711

And right on schedule, we get some commentary on a possible M3 fab...and it is straight from LGD's CEO.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/lg-display-forges-ahead-on-oled-tv-technology-1428701581



> WSJ: What are the priorities now?
> 
> Mr. Han: We will be fully ramping-up our second OLED factory by the end of this year, and we’re considering a third potential plant. The second plant will be able to process up to 26,400 sheets of mother-glass a month (six 55-inch screens can be produced from each sheet), which will be in addition to the first plant, which has capacity of 8,000 sheets a month.
> 
> WSJ: What can you tell us about upcoming investment plants?
> 
> Mr. Han: We’re thinking about it but it all comes down to what our clients tell us and their needs. We do have to think about our “next steps” since the additional 26,000-sheet-per-month of capacity is still relatively small compared to what is typically considered for LCDs. For LCDs, a new investment round would normally mean something like an additional capacity of 60,000 to 90,000 sheets. Decisions would depend on market reception this year. We also have to think about whether the next investment would be about installing new capacity or switching existing LCD capacity to OLEDs. The former would be more costly while the latter would eat up our LCD output.


From my perspective, there was no reason for the CEO to mention the 60,000 to 90,000 sheet norm for LCD fabs unless that sort of size was under consideration for M3.


----------



## Kaldaien

stas3098 said:


> I said it many times before and I am going to reiterate it again OLED will most likely never be able to move past 20 inches with vapor deposition no matter economies of scale...


Well, 20 inch would be absolutely perfect to replace my SONY GDM-F500. LG should start making waves in the computer monitor field while they're at it. Attack the problem at both ends and give PC gamers some display technology that doesn't suck for a change


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> And right on schedule, we get some commentary on a possible M3 fab...and it is straight from LGD's CEO.
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/lg-display-forges-ahead-on-oled-tv-technology-1428701581
> 
> 
> 
> From my perspective, there was no reason for the CEO to mention the 60,000 to 90,000 sheet norm for LCD fabs unless that sort of size was under consideration for M3.


You're just an 'OLED-glass-half-full' kind of guy.

The statement about 'Decisions would depend on market reception this year' has me concerned...


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> You're just an 'OKED-glass-half-full' kind of guy.
> 
> The statement about 'Decisions would depend on market reception this year' has me concerned...


The way I evaluate this is what is the CEO of LG Display trying to communicate to his investors?

Companies rarely drop capex suprises onto their investors. You'll hear rumors about the building of a new fab from analysts or newspapers and then companies will start to talk about the possibility of a new fab on conference calls based on evaluating end demand. Within a year or so, they'll confirm capex plans and start building. This is fairly routine and you'll see it with both display and semi manufacturers.

The CEO is preparing his investors for higher capex in 2016. The comment about decisions depending on market reception is both standard boiler plate and always true. The key here is that the current situation and near-term roadmap is going well going enough that he feels the need to start laying the groundwork to his investors for the new fab.

Moreover, he felt the need to mention the size of current LCD fabs when talking about OLED's. Again, he is giving analysts/investors some heads up about the potential size of the fab and the two different approaches that are possible. Both will allow analysts to start putting out potential capex ranges for upcoming years.


----------



## dsinger

fafrd: Me too. If memory serves, seems they were saying they would make a decision on M3 this year which I took to mean, if approved, M3 on line by end of 2016. If decision is delayed until end of year or early 2016 then no M3 production until sometime in mid to late 2017. In other words a year's delay if things go well.


----------



## slacker711

dsinger said:


> fafrd: Me too. If memory serves, seems they were saying they would make a decision on M3 this year which I took to mean, if approved, M3 on line by end of 2016. If decision is delayed until end of year or early 2016 then no M3 production until sometime in mid to late 2017. In other words a year's delay if things go well.


My expectation has always been that they would make a decision on M3 by the end of this year. 

I am pretty sure I laid out a timeline for how I figured this would go. Rumors from analysts in the spring, comments from management begin on conference calls with increasing confidence as we move through the year and a final decision by the end of the year with a capex number given during their January 2016 conference call. The construction of the fab should take less time than the M2 fab as both substrate and vapor deposition technologies have continued to mature.

and that path is always going to depend on market reception whether it is stated explicitly or not.


----------



## slacker711

To take the opposite tack, what would the path towards a shut down of OLED production by the end of 2016 look like?

Again, this wouldnt happen overnight. LG Display would communicate issues to investors in various ways. First, there would already be some idea within LGD that they werent tracking towards the yield/price targets that would be needed for profitability. They would likely still communicate the same target dates for the ramp of the 2nd phase of M2 but you would start hearing from analysts about the possibility of a delay. 

Management would begin pulling back from talking about OLED's quite as much and their characterization of OLED's as the next generation display would change. No mention of M3 and they wouldnt have the CEO sit down with the WSJ for an interview centered around OLED's. Talk during conference calls would shift back to LCD's and we would start to hear rumors about a new LCD fab. Advertising and events would also shift their focus to LCD's.

Ultimately, the M2 expansion would get delayed and while their would be 2016 OLED models, the emphasis at CES 2016 would be on the HDR FALD quantum dot LCD's. Losses in the OLED division would continue and ultimately we would hear about a shuttering of OLED production sometime in the 2nd half of 2016.

We simply arent on that path right now. LG and LGD actually seem to be increasing their push towards OLED's both in actions and in rhetoric. Note that LG just cancelled their quantum dot LCD for 2015. That just isnt the action of a company that is getting more worried about their OLED production.


----------



## rogo

This back-and-forth discussion is interesting, but it doesn't seem to fall out very differently on a key thing: With no decision made on capacity expansion prior to approximately year end, there is no meaningful change in capacity prior to sometime around the end of 2016. I mean we can quibble about how quickly they can bring M3 online vs. M2 but believing that's happening in less than a year at any interesting monthly rate seems somewhat absurd, doesn't it? Even if absolutely everything went flawlessly on an M3 build / conversion, it won't be pushing out more than a few thousand substrates a month prior to holiday 2016. I'd call that a given.

What does that mean? Well, I'd argue it means that LG can obviously increase production and sales from this year to next because M2 has been so incredibly behind and therefore slow to ramp. We still have this 34.4K x 6 x 12 x 80% capacity when everything hits "full stride." That's 2 million if "all small" and likely north of 1 million with a mix of screen sizes. With 2015 shaping up at barely more than half that under LGD's clearly optimistic panel-only (i.e. not TV) forecasts, no one should really complain about something that allows for 100% growth.

However...

We've been down this discussion path before. The "learning curve" ultimately allows for a pretty well understood amount of cost reduction (n.b. cost != price so let's not go there and make ourselves look foolish). That's ~30% for each doubling of production, a figure that shrinks over time. It doesn't increase. 

There are also fairly finite rates of growth. Those rules are less hard and fast. Can you more than double production in year of a primary component (e.g. the OLED panel)? Yes. Can you grow production by 10x from an actual production quantity in one year? As a practical matter, no you cannot. Even the industry as a whole would struggle to achieve that kind of result if there was an ecosystem of manufacturing tools / devices to just buy. And there isn't.

What does this mean?

Let's be optimistic for a moment. LG likes where this is going and invests in M3 and targets 70K substrates a month for the facility (with expansion capacity to 90x). This would nearly triple production capacity (34K --> 105K). Virtually none of the capacity will exist next year, but it will come into being slowly over 2017. That was once our "year of the OLED". 

LG makes 500K OLEDs this year.
LG makes 1M OLEDs in 2016. M3 starts development.
With capacity for 2+ million, LG makes


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> The way I evaluate this is what is the CEO of LG Display trying to communicate to his investors?
> 
> Companies rarely drop capex suprises onto their investors. You'll hear rumors about the building of a new fab from analysts or newspapers and then companies will start to talk about the possibility of a new fab on conference calls based on evaluating end demand. Within a year or so, they'll confirm capex plans and start building. This is fairly routine and you'll see it with both display and semi manufacturers.
> 
> The CEO is preparing his investors for higher capex in 2016. The comment about decisions depending on market reception is both standard boiler plate and always true. The key here is that the current situation and near-term roadmap is going well going enough that he feels the need to start laying the groundwork to his investors for the new fab.
> 
> Moreover, he felt the need to mention the size of current LCD fabs when talking about OLED's. Again, he is giving analysts/investors some heads up about the potential size of the fab and the two different approaches that are possible. Both will allow analysts to start putting out potential capex ranges for upcoming years.


You raise a good point here. I still think LG is hedging, but preparing investors for what success looks like does fit this messaging.

My high-level read on the situation is that something happened late last summer that caused LG to slip the entire schedule by 1 year. Perhaps they were planning for a best-case ramp of M2 and then realized they were going have to adjust when it became clear that a more realistic ramp schedule was going to be needed.

Whatever, ever since the 'leaked' $6000 price for the 65EC9700 went away and tjevSeptember/October launch evaporated, they have been hunkered down and in a differed ent mode.

I expect a second round late this summer, and hopefully this time they actually pull it off.

This also fits the messaging: major increase in OLED volume by Q4 = commit to M3 (either new or conversion).


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> (In the meantime, I'm hoping my TV holds out at least 2 more years, but perhaps 3. Because I don't see consumer pricing getting interesting soon enough on sizes I'd be in the market for. Alas.)


^^^ A couple of 65" VT50's that have proven very resistant to IR/BI?

No way Jose would I get rid of those now.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> ^^^ A couple of 65" VT50's that have proven very resistant to IR/BI?
> 
> No way Jose would I get rid of those now.


Not to mention how much less time I have for TV these days.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> This back-and-forth discussion is interesting, but it doesn't seem to fall out very differently on a key thing: With no decision made on capacity expansion prior to approximately year end, there is no meaningful change in capacity prior to sometime around the end of 2016. I mean we can quibble about how quickly they can bring M3 online vs. M2 but believing that's happening in less than a year at any interesting monthly rate seems somewhat absurd, doesn't it? Even if absolutely everything went flawlessly on an M3 build / conversion, it won't be pushing out more than a few thousand substrates a month prior to holiday 2016. I'd call that a given.
> 
> What does that mean? Well, I'd argue it means that LG can obviously increase production and sales from this year to next because M2 has been so incredibly behind and therefore slow to ramp. We still have this 34.4K x 6 x 12 x 80% capacity when everything hits "full stride." That's 2 million if "all small" and likely north of 1 million with a mix of screen sizes. With 2015 shaping up at barely more than half that under LGD's clearly optimistic panel-only (i.e. not TV) forecasts, no one should really complain about something that allows for 100% growth.
> 
> However...
> 
> We've been down this discussion path before. The "learning curve" ultimately allows for a pretty well understood amount of cost reduction (n.b. cost != price so let's not go there and make ourselves look foolish). That's ~30% for each doubling of production, a figure that shrinks over time. It doesn't increase.
> 
> There are also fairly finite rates of growth. Those rules are less hard and fast. Can you more than double production in year of a primary component (e.g. the OLED panel)? Yes. Can you grow production by 10x from an actual production quantity in one year? As a practical matter, no you cannot. Even the industry as a whole would struggle to achieve that kind of result if there was an ecosystem of manufacturing tools / devices to just buy. And there isn't.
> 
> What does this mean?
> 
> Let's be optimistic for a moment. LG likes where this is going and invests in M3 and targets 70K substrates a month for the facility (with expansion capacity to 90x). This would nearly triple production capacity (34K --> 105K). Virtually none of the capacity will exist next year, but it will come into being slowly over 2017. That was once our "year of the OLED".
> 
> LG makes 500K OLEDs this year.
> LG makes 1M OLEDs in 2016. M3 starts development.
> With capacity for 2+ million, LG makes


----------



## stas3098

I don't really see how LGD can pull off a dramatic and unexpected price reduction. Period!


I can see how it can be done with a disruptive tech like printing, but not so much with a vapor-depo tech. 


The big question here is: where is the dramatic and unexpected price reduction going to come from? 


My guess is that it is going to come straight from LGD's pocket.


It's not like the components costs are going to start radically dropping (because most components like TFTs are similar with LCDs' and LCD's components prices are at the end of their rope as they are) nor material manufacturers, who got into the OLED material thing for high margins, are going to engage into margin-cutting.


On a M2 ramp-up note, I am pretty sure it will be full-blast on by the middle of the year with the noticeable price drop coming in the fall. Also, I am sure LGD is going to have to allow whatever price the street sets for their OLED TVs if they are serious about supplanting LCD. They are going to have to need a near 100 percent sell-through if they are to feel the need for expanding capacity.


----------



## darinp2

fafrd said:


> The statement about 'Decisions would depend on market reception this year' has me concerned...


I understand how reception from other manufacturers (like Panasonic) is important, but I guess I'm not feeling confident that supply will be high enough this year to really provide good information about how much they could sell OLED panels for if they make millions of them. There should be some correlation, but it seems to me that how manufacturing goes in the short term might tell LG more about how profitable OLED could be in a few years than how sales go during a period of low supply and high prices.

Put another way, should it matter more to LG what engineering and manufacturing are able to achieve for yields and costs this year and how that might affect those for an M3 plant, or whether the demand at say 100k units allows them to be sold to consumers at average prices of $6k or $8k for 65" TVs? I know it isn't completely either-or, and if they can't get hardly any premium at low volumes it wouldn't portend well at high volumes, but just something I'm thinking about.

Does whether a low volume can be sold for say $5k, $6k, or $8k in 2015 tell a company that much about how much they could sell millions of units for in 3 years?

--Darin


----------



## fafrd

stas3098 said:


> I don't really see how LGD can pull off a dramatic and unexpected price reduction. Period!
> 
> 
> I can see how it can be done with a disruptive tech like printing, but not so much with a vapor-depo tech.
> 
> 
> The big question here is: where is the dramatic and unexpected price reduction going to come from?
> 
> 
> My guess is that it is going to come straight from LGD's pocket.
> 
> 
> It's not like the components costs are going to start radically dropping (because most components like TFTs are similar with LCDs' and LCD's components prices are at the end of their rope as they are) nor material manufacturers, who got into the OLED material thing for high margins, are going to engage into margin-cutting.
> 
> 
> On a M2 ramp-up note, I am pretty sure it will be full-blast on by the middle of the year with the noticeable price drop coming in the fall. Also, I am sure LGD is going to have to allow whatever price the street sets for their OLED TVs if they are serious about supplanting LCD. They are going to have to need a near 100 percent sell-through if they are to feel the need for expanding capacity.


Your last paragraph makes clear that you do understand where the dramatic price drop will come from - volume.

As long as volume is limited, LG will continue to stifle demand by maintaining prohibitive pricing. As soon as M2 s pumping out 30,000 4K OLEDs per month, prices will quickly come down to the level needed to sustain that level of demand.

M2 is at 6000 sheets per month now (or is in it's way to getting there - that drives 30,000 55" OLEDs per month and there are no signs we are anywhere close to that yet). The facility can get up to 26,000 sheets per month, but that will not happen before the end of this year.


----------



## fafrd

darinp2 said:


> I understand how reception from other manufacturers (like Panasonic) is important, but I guess I'm not feeling confident that supply will be high enough this year to really provide good information about how much they could sell OLED panels for if they make millions of them. There should be some correlation, but it seems to me that how manufacturing goes in the short term might tell LG more about how profitable OLED could be in a few years than how sales go during a period of low supply and high prices.
> 
> Put another way, should it matter more to LG what engineering and manufacturing are able to achieve for yields and costs this year and how that might affect those for an M3 plant, or whether the demand at say 100k units allows them to be sold to consumers at average prices of $6k or $8k for 65" TVs? I know it isn't completely either-or, and if they can't get hardly any premium at low volumes it wouldn't portend well at high volumes, but just something I'm thinking about.
> 
> *Does whether a low volume can be sold for say $5k, $6k, or $8k in 2015 tell a company that much about how much they could sell millions of units for in 3 years?*
> 
> --Darin


No.


----------



## stas3098

fafrd said:


> Your last paragraph makes clear that you do understand where the dramatic price drop will come from - volume.
> 
> As long as volume is limited, LG will continue to stifle demand by maintaining prohibitive pricing. As soon as M2 s pumping out 30,000 4K OLEDs per month, prices will quickly come down to the level needed to sustain that level of demand.
> 
> M2 is at 6000 sheets per month now (or is in it's way to getting there - that drives 30,000 55" OLEDs per month and there are no signs we are anywhere close to that yet). The facility can get up to 26,000 sheets per month, but that will not happen before the end of this year.


Like I said_ they going to have to flood the market and hope that the street price settles down at an acceptable level (that is, at a level higher than the manufacturing cost)._

Of course, volume will bring about a price reduction (30-35 percent tops which might not be enough to sell through all that M2 puts out at max capacity and then they might have to start "discounting" to maintain a healthy sell-through), but the thing with the OLED volume price reduction here is that it is not going to be "compounded" like in good old LCD days (as in most components are not going to fall in price significantly, because they have no room to fall (at an M2 volume) due to their use in LCDs). 


However, they can save some real good money on Capex by converting LCD lines into OLED lines instead of building new fabs. Which I think could save a boatload of money and make OLED seem like the future of the TV industry, but I might very well be wrong on this one...


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> I get Slacker's point about caution, but if you want to replace the dominant technology in a 200+ million unit market, at some point you have to actually commit to a plan to do that.


A few points.

1) I dont think that OLED's can become the dominant display technology from a unit standpoint with vapour deposition. I think they are on course to become the dominant display technology for the high-end of the television market and for the vast majority of AVS readers. An M3 fab with 75,000 substrate capacity would nearly achieve that goal. The mid-tier of the market will open up as capacity is added and prices follow the cost curve.

2) My stance isnt conservative, it is reasonable. The idea that LGD should start fab construction of a 75,000 substrate fab before they have proven out 4K yields is a fantasy. That is also true for the idea that they would build a 300,000 substrate fab next year. That would involve a capex that is a multiple of LG Display's current expenditures. I have trouble thinking of established companies that have made those kinds of massive bets in a single year. LG Display is not run by Elon Musk or Steve Jobs.

3) The torrent of capacity that you are looking for will come if/when other vendors start adding OLED capacity. No single vendor would be taking a bet the company kind of risk but the combined addition would get to the kind of numbers that you are looking for.

4) The key indicator of LG Display's cost structure with mature yields is not current 4K pricing but the 55EC9300 which is selling for between $2000 and $3000. That represents the vast majority of their current sales and gives an idea as to the revenue per substrate that will give them an acceptable return. Of course, I am assuming that 4K yields eventually converge with 1080p yields but I dont think that is unreasonable considering the recent commentary on yields and the fact that 4K adds little in additional bill of materials.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> 4) The key indicator of LG Display's cost structure with mature yields is not current 4K pricing but the 55EC9300 which is selling for between $2000 and $3000. That represents the vast majority of their current sales and gives an idea as to the revenue per substrate that will give them an acceptable return. Of course, I am assuming that 4K yields eventually converge with 1080p yields but I dont think that is unreasonable considering the recent commentary on yields and the fact that 4K adds little in additional bill of materials.


Totally agree.

$2000 - $3000 is a realistic (and profitable) price for 55" OLEDs, so we are talking about $12,000 - $15,000 of gross (unyielded) income per sheet.

Yields on 1080p 55" are probably in the 80% - 90% range, which changes the income per sheet to between $9600 - $13,500. Let's say $10-13K to keep life simple.

So first, let's look at the impact of the current 'horrible' yields on 55" 4K OLEDs of 60-70%. Generating $10-13K of income at those yields translates into sales prices of between $2380 - $3750, so clearly LG's current pricing is driven by lack of supply and not poor yields.

Second, let's look at pricing for the 65" 4K OLEDs under the same yield assumptions - they should be under 2X or less than $4760 - $7500 (that last number being not too far from the current situation).

Third, 55" 4K prices will converge on the same $2000 - $3000 levels as 4K yields converge on current 55" 1080p yields.

And lastly, once 65" 4K yields reach the same level, the 65" 4K OLEDs will cost about double the 55", meaning $4000 - $6000.

Surprising that the price that was 'leaked' late last summer for the 65EC9700 was $6000. It is pretty certain LG already knows where pricing will go to as soon as they are ready to start running the 6000-sheet-per-month M2 Phase I capacity at full-bore...


----------



## wco81

fafrd said:


> Third, 55" 4K prices will converge on the same $2000 - $3000 levels as 4K yields converge on current 55" 1080p yields.
> 
> And lastly, once 65" 4K yields reach the same level, the 65" 4K OLEDs will cost about double the 55", meaning $4000 - $6000.
> .


Those prices won't drive volumes.

Maybe if the 4k 55-inchers are around $2k a year from now.


----------



## rogo

stas3098 said:


> The big question here is: where is the dramatic and unexpected price reduction going to come from?
> 
> My guess is that it is going to come straight from LGD's pocket.


This seems correct to me.


> It's not like the components costs are going to start radically dropping (because most components like TFTs are similar with LCDs' and LCD's components prices are at the end of their rope as they are) nor material manufacturers, who got into the OLED material thing for high margins, are going to engage into margin-cutting.


We'd been told for a long time oxide at volume was going to cheaper than a-Si at volume. Whether we're (a) supposed to believe that (b) whether that accounts for more than a few $ per display even if we do are different matters.


> On a M2 ramp-up note, I am pretty sure it will be full-blast on by the middle of the year with the noticeable price drop coming in the fall. Also, I am sure LGD is going to have to allow whatever price the street sets for their OLED TVs if they are serious about supplanting LCD. They are going to have to need a near 100 percent sell-through if they are to feel the need for expanding capacity.


That last sentence is again the chicken/egg thing. Without selling out, they can't even justify making more. Without pricing to sell out, they can't possibly sell out. 



darinp2 said:


> Does whether a low volume can be sold for say $5k, $6k, or $8k in 2015 tell a company that much about how much they could sell millions of units for in 3 years?


I doubt it matters much. I just don't think they sell more than tiny quantities at $8K. So they learn next to nothing about most of everything.



slacker711 said:


> A few points.
> 
> 1) I dont think that OLED's can become the dominant display technology from a unit standpoint with vapour deposition. I think they are on course to become the dominant display technology for the high-end of the television market and for the vast majority of AVS readers. An M3 fab with 75,000 substrate capacity would nearly achieve that goal. The mid-tier of the market will open up as capacity is added and prices follow the cost curve.


So you mean 50+% of this mythical high end. But let's be clear on something. With M2 + M3, that's still 100K substrates a month, 6M TVs a year. The distance between that demand and today's pricing is measured in astronomical units.


> 2) LG Display is not run by Elon Musk or Steve Jobs.


And that's partly why LCD will dominate the TV market well into the next decade. (n.b. Of course, so will gas-powered vehicles, but such is the peril of analogies.)


> 3) The torrent of capacity that you are looking for will come if/when other vendors start adding OLED capacity. No single vendor would be taking a bet the company kind of risk but the combined addition would get to the kind of numbers that you are looking for.


Waiting... waiting... Waiting on the world to change.


> 4) The key indicator of LG Display's cost structure with mature yields is not current 4K pricing but the 55EC9300 which is selling for between $2000 and $3000. That represents the vast majority of their current sales and gives an idea as to the revenue per substrate that will give them an acceptable return. Of course, I am assuming that 4K yields eventually converge with 1080p yields but I dont think that is unreasonable considering the recent commentary on yields and the fact that 4K adds little in additional bill of materials.


So $2000 is somewhere near where they need to be. I'm still very skeptical there's a worldwide market for 6M TVs where the 55-inch models are even $2000, unless you make share assumptions approaching 100% (illogical) and assume expansion of the high-dollar category (also illogical).


----------



## Desk.

According to the following report, LG are not selling enough of their OLED TVs to shift the current stock being generated, and this is before M3 is even set up.

I think we're going to have to see a drop in prices shortly, if LG hope to resolve this problem.

http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/47979/lg-worries-about-oled-tv-inventories

Desk


----------



## stas3098

Desk. said:


> According to the following report, LG are not selling enough of their OLED TVs to shift the current stock being generated, and this is before M3 is even set up.
> 
> I think we're going to have to see a drop in prices shortly, if LG hope to resolve this problem.
> 
> http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/47979/lg-worries-about-oled-tv-inventories
> 
> Desk


And to think that one already can get an OLED TV for under 2000 of greenbacks...


www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-55EA9800-Cinema-Curved/dp/B00E5U3YEK/ref=lp_6463520011_1_2?s=tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1429596456&sr=1-2


----------



## stas3098

I don't know if you heard it yet or not, but Apple officially contracted the following companies: JOLED (tablets), Samsung (phones/tablets) and LG(wearables/phones) to produce OLED displays for them. 2016 is the year when first OLED apple phones will be released. 


All the displays will be produced using the shadow-mask RGB LTPS (Universal display) technology. 


By 2020, it is thought that OLED will supplant LCD in phones and tablets.


http://www.eweek.com/mobile/samsung-creates-department-to-build-displays-for-apple.html


http://www.bidnessetc.com/40237-apple-inc-moves-to-oxide-tft-lcd-displays-for-129inch-ipad-pro/


----------



## rogo

stas3098 said:


> I don't know if you heard it yet or not, but Apple officially contracted the following companies: JOLED (tablets), Samsung (phones/tablets) and LG(wearables/phones) to produce OLED displays for them. 2016 is the year when first OLED apple phones will be released.


And this is false.


> http://www.eweek.com/mobile/samsung-creates-department-to-build-displays-for-apple.html


Notably this rumor contains no mentions of Samsung producing any kinds of OLEDs for Apple. 


> http://www.bidnessetc.com/40237-apple-inc-moves-to-oxide-tft-lcd-displays-for-129inch-ipad-pro/


Notably, this article is pure gibberish. It starts out talking about Oxide TFT LCD, magically equates that with OLED (not even close) and then goes totally off the rails.

Apple may be moving to OLED screens for the iPhone in 2016, but there is no evidence of this at this time. Nor is there any evidence that there is enough of a supply chain to make this possible. If it's happening, it's happening in a very quiet way. It might be limited to the phablet sizes only. It might be nothing but a rumor.

Apple will sell 200+ million iPhones next year. No one on earth has remotely close to the spare capacity needed to make that many OLED screens.


----------



## sippelmc

stas3098 said:


> And to think that one already can get an OLED TV for under 2000 of greenbacks...
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-55EA9800-Cinema-Curved/dp/B00E5U3YEK/ref=lp_6463520011_1_2?s=tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1429596456&sr=1-2


Hah, if you read the recent comments the EA is out of stock and the vendor is (secretly?) unloading 55EC9300's for 2k. Not bad.


----------



## fafrd

Desk. said:


> According to the following report, LG are not selling enough of their OLED TVs to shift the current stock being generated, and this is before M3 is even set up.
> 
> I think we're going to have to see a drop in prices shortly, if LG hope to resolve this problem.
> 
> http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/47979/lg-worries-about-oled-tv-inventories
> 
> Desk


Fry' had a special 1-day sale on the 55EC9300 for an unbeatably good price yesterday (check the OLED deals Forum for details - well under $2000). That was an offer I could not pass up, but by the time I got there, they had sold out (as had the Fry's inventory in the entire Bay Area). The manager told me they would not be carrying the 55EC9300 any more and wanted to flush remaining inventory in advance of the new 4K OLEDs.

I agree with you - I think we are going to see drops on the 55" and 65" 4K OLEDs shortly...


----------



## x3sphere

According to this report, LG has cut OLED production estimates to 500K for this year (down from 600K). They also mention 4K yields have fallen short of expectations.



> According to multiple industry officials on the 20th, LG Display has recently cut down productions for the OLED TV panel partially. (LGD had originally planned from last year to produce 742000 OLED TV panels this year, but this fell to 650000 and then to 500000 at the beginning of the year, which has recently fallen again to below 500000.)
> 
> There are two reasons why LG Display decided to make production adjustments. They are low market demand for the FHD OLED panel that had raised yields to a high level, and the increase in the charge of stock due to this. It has become especially hard for them to put up a differentiated value as they have lost in the price competition with the UHD LCD TV adopting the Quantum Dot(QD) film.
> 
> An official who is familiar with the inside affairs of LG Display said, “FHD OLED yields are as high as that of the LCD panel, but it is troubling how UHD OLED yields fall short of our expectations. The overall production plan has fallen as the production proportion of UHD OLED, which has a relatively low yield, was expanded. If LG Display secures the UHD OLED TV panel yield at a 70~80% rate this year, we are planning on increasing investment nearly double the amount of current output next year.”
> 
> LG Display has been building the 8th generation(2200×2500㎜) WRGB M2 line since 2012 in addition to the existing M1, for the expansion of the OLED business. The M2 line’s panel production goal is 26000 sheets per month, and started operating a 8000 sheet-scale portion in advance from last year.
> 
> LG Display had announced their plans to produce diverse large area UHD OLED panels including 55·65·77 inch-sized ones at the M2 line, but decided to concentrate on the 55 inch UHD OLED TV panel production because 65·77 inch-sized TVs are too expensive.
> 
> An industry official said, “If LG Display’s UHD OLED TV becomes firmly rooted in the market this year, other competing companies must also react to OLED TV or quickly start 8K UHD LCD panel production. We are at an important crossroads this year, where the mid-and-long-term winner will be determined.”


More details at the link: http://global.ofweek.com/news/LGD-adjusts-production-on-large-panels-28203


----------



## Desk.

LG cuts 2015 production goal to 500,000 due to low demand for 1080p OLED sets, and focuses efforts on increasing 4K OLED yields...

http://english.etnews.com/20150422200001

Interestingly, they quote some unnamed source as saying that 1080p OLED yields are now the same as LCD...



> An official who is familiar with the inside affairs of LG Display said, “FHD OLED yields are as high as that of the LCD panel, but it is troubling how UHD OLED yields fall short of our expectations. The overall production plan has fallen as the production proportion of UHD OLED, which has a relatively low yield, was expanded. If LG Display secures the UHD OLED TV panel yield at a 70~80% rate this year, we are planning on increasing investment nearly double the amount of current output next year.”


Desk


----------



## remush

If the yields are equivalent to lcd on the fhd set, is there a chance they will produce a budget, bare bones fhd oled that is 55 inches or smaller in the near future, I'd be happy with a 50 or a 47


----------



## slacker711

LG Display reiterated their outlook for a 600,000 unit target this year and 1.5 million next year. 

http://www.globalpost.com/article/6524260/2015/04/22/2nd-ld-lg-display-returns-profit-q1



> In its outlook for organic light-emitting diode (OLED) TV panels, LG Display said it expects to sell 600,000 units this year, with the figure to more than double to 1.5 million units in 2016.
> LG Display has pushed for production of the premium-line TV panels, but relatively high costs as opposed to a low yield have been a drag on mass production.
> Song Young-kwon, a LG Display executive, said at an IR session that the company hopes to bring good results this year with the OLEDs.
> "Last year was a year when we convinced ourselves with the OLED technology. This year will be the one when we can show our belief through better yields," he said.


----------



## fafrd

x3sphere said:


> According to this report, LG has cut OLED production estimates to 500K for this year (down from 600K). They also mention 4K yields have fallen short of expectations.
> 
> 
> 
> More details at the link: http://global.ofweek.com/news/LGD-adjusts-production-on-large-panels-28203


Production for 2015 has fallen to 'below 500,000.'

Yields on 55" FHD good but market demand is low.

Focusing on 55" UHD because 65" and 77" are 'too expensive'

Yields on 55" UHD below 70%.

_If_ they can get UHD yields above 70%, they will invest in additional capacity by the end of this year.

Suddenly the price increase and low availability of 65" OLEDs snaps into focus...

Oh, and the 'increase in the charge of stock' of 55" FHD OLEDs due to high yields and low market demand is going to translate into lower prices for the 55EC9300 soon...

It is very strange to see the same report make reference to the fact that the 55" FHD OLEDs have 'lost in the price competition with the UHD LCD TV adopting the Quantum Dot (QD) Film' and yet they are clinging to hope that the UHD OLEDs will become 'firmly rooted in the market this year' forcing competitors to 'quickly start 8K UHD LCD panel production.'

Hope springs eternal


----------



## barth2k

If yield for 55 HD is now on par with LCD, maybe LG should flood the market with lower priced 55 HD (well, flood-ish). Make it the new value best buy.

Don't sell the resolution, sell the picture. Sell the fact that it is OLED. Ask WWSJD. Well, Steve Jobs would sell the sh** out of it.

I get frustrated watching LG. Can't help feeling they are wasting their window of OLED exclusivity and display tech supremacy. Maybe they can't do something about the yield and production hiccups but they can do something on the pricing and marketing front.


----------



## fafrd

barth2k said:


> If yield for 55 HD is now on par with LCD, maybe LG should flood the market with lower priced 55 HD (well, flood-ish). Make it the new value best buy.
> 
> Don't sell the resolution, sell the picture. Sell the fact that it is OLED. Ask WWSJD. Well, Steve Jobs would sell the sh** out of it.
> 
> I get frustrated watching LG. Can't help feeling they are wasting their window of OLED exclusivity and display tech supremacy. Maybe they can't do something about the yield and production hiccups but they can do something on the pricing and marketing front.


I totally agree with you. While they are getting the UHD OLED yields up to an acceptable, LG could sell a boatload of 55" FHD OLED TVs.

Fry's proved on Monday that when the price of the 55EC9300 drops to $1500, demand skyrockets (and customers are literally lining up outside the door). If LG can truly approach price parity with high-end 55" 1080p LED/LCDs, LG should gain market share and mindshare by selling as many as they can as fast as they can...

Stopping production because customers would prefer to spend $3500 on a 65" UHD LED/LCD rather than a 55" FHD OLED makes no sense.


----------



## magillagorilla

fafrd said:


> I totally agree with you. While they are getting the UHD OLED yields up to an acceptable, LG could sell a boatload of 55" FHD OLED TVs.
> 
> Fry's proved on Monday that when the price of the 55EC9300 drops to $1500, demand skyrockets (and customers are literally lining up outside the door). If LG can truly approach price parity with high-end 55" 1080p LED/LCDs, LG should gain market share and mindshare by selling as many as they can as fast as they can...
> 
> Stopping production because customers would prefer to spend $3500 on a 65" UHD LED/LCD rather than a 55" FHD OLED makes no sense.



Beginning to sound like down the tubes we go. Wish I could say that I haven't seen similar spirals begin before. At least I'll be able to (hopefully) pick up a 77" on closeout like I did with my kuro and Sharp elite.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> I totally agree with you. While they are getting the UHD OLED yields up to an acceptable, LG could sell a boatload of 55" FHD OLED TVs.
> 
> Fry's proved on Monday that when the price of the 55EC9300 drops to $1500, demand skyrockets (and customers are literally lining up outside the door). If LG can truly approach price parity with high-end 55" 1080p LED/LCDs, LG should gain market share and mindshare by selling as many as they can as fast as they can...
> 
> Stopping production because customers would prefer to spend $3500 on a 65" UHD LED/LCD rather than a 55" FHD OLED makes no sense.


I wonder how sustainable that would be, though. Is it really profitable? Not likely. Is there a ton of demand at $1500 for a 1080p TV? Also probably not likely after satisfying the knowledgeable videophile sector.

Does this buy them solutions to any long-term problems? I don't really see it.


----------



## ChaosCloud

fafrd said:


> I totally agree with you. While they are getting the UHD OLED yields up to an acceptable, LG could sell a boatload of 55" FHD OLED TVs.
> 
> Fry's proved on Monday that when the price of the 55EC9300 drops to $1500, demand skyrockets (and customers are literally lining up outside the door). If LG can truly approach price parity with high-end 55" 1080p LED/LCDs, LG should gain market share and mindshare by selling as many as they can as fast as they can...
> 
> Stopping production because customers would prefer to spend $3500 on a 65" UHD LED/LCD rather than a 55" FHD OLED makes no sense.


There still has not been a competitively priced flat OLED. How many consumers are waiting for that? I suspect that there are more than LG thinks, and that demand for OLED can't really be gauged until such a display is released.


----------



## slacker711

I have no idea why an article using sources received more attention than the one with direct statements from LGD, but for the record, they reiterated their 600,000 unit target for this year and 1.5 million for next year. Their comment was that any reduction in that target will be because of mix shift rather than a shortfall in demand.

Take that for whatever it is worth, but LGD continues to push those numbers to their investors....though it will obviously take pricing reductions on the 4K units to reach anywhere near those kind of shipment numbers.


Slacker


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> I have no idea why an article using sources received more attention than the one with direct statements from LGD, but for the record, they reiterated their 600,000 unit target for this year and 1.5 million for next year. Their comment was that any reduction in that target will be because of mix shift rather than a shortfall in demand.
> 
> Take that for whatever it is worth, but LGD continues to push those numbers to their investors....though it will obviously take pricing reductions on the 4K units to reach anywhere near those kind of shipment numbers.
> 
> 
> Slacker


Has LGD already held their Q1 earnings call and was there any information provided on OLED (in Q&A or whatever)? There have been three quasi-independant sources reporting a build-up of 55" FHD (55EC9300) inventory. Maybe it's telephone and rumor resonance, but it seems to have been orchestrated to coincide with the 55EC9300 price drop to $2500..

The year is now 1/3rd gone. The only sign I have seen of increased demand was when Fry's put out the coupon for $1500 one-day-only-while-supplies-last discount on the 55EC9300. 

You think LG is anywhere close to selling 50,000 OLED TV's a month? (Which only gets them to 400,000 for the year if it just starts now ).


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I wonder how sustainable that would be, though. Is it really profitable? Not likely. Is there a ton of demand at $1500 for a 1080p TV? Also probably not likely after satisfying the knowledgeable videophile sector.
> 
> Does this buy them solutions to any long-term problems? I don't really see it.


Slacker is right - if this is all just FUD being spread by industry gossipers, not worth spending too much time on it.

But that being said, if LG truly has reached LCD-level yields on the 55EC9300, they should be able to sell at LCD prices amd not lose their shirt.

It's pretty hard to find a 55" 1080p LED/LCD TV for much over $1000 now so those are obviously being manufactured for less than that.

There are a few 56" 2160p TVs costing around $3000 but they are all pretty new and unclear how many of them are selling. I'd certainly want to spend $2500 on an 55EC9300 before I spent $3000 on a 55" 4K LED/LCD (but spending that much for a 55" TV of any kind just seems nuts ).

If it is true that LG has good enough yields to sell 55EC9300 at prices of $1500-2000 and not lose money, the problem it solves is twofold:

A/ Keeps the factory running so they don't' slip backwards - yields can drop quickly when you don't maintain continuous production

B/ signals momentum and progress - at the moment I have greater confidence that we are going to see the $4000 Vizio R65 this year than that we'll see an attractively-priced 65" flat LG OLED...


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Has LGD already held their Q1 earnings call and was there any information provided on OLED (in Q&A or whatever)? There have been three quasi-independant sources reporting a build-up of 55" FHD (55EC9300) inventory. Maybe it's telephone and rumor resonance, but it seems to have been orchestrated to coincide with the 55EC9300 price drop to $2500..


Yes, LGD reiterated their 600,000 unit target during both their Korean and English conference calls. They did say that any change in the unit target would happen because of a mix shift and not because of demand. 

The price drop on the 55EC9300 finally brought the prices at the major chains more in line with the independent retailers. It looks like combination of the price drop and advertising have pushed the range on the Amazon sales rankings from above 5000 to somewhere below 3000. They ultimately need to bring down pricing on the 4K units though. The UK sites have talked about the new 55" 4K model hitting similar price points (presumably pre price cut) as the EC9300. 

The yields on 1080p OLED's look very good but they are going to have to repeat the same process of increasing yields in 4K. That will be the determining factor on hitting the above targets and the timing of the decision on an M3 fab.


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> But that being said, if LG truly has reached LCD-level yields on the 55EC9300, they should be able to sell at LCD prices amd not lose their shirt.


I should also say I doubt that they have actually hit LCD yield levels. The number that they gave out at a conference at the beginning of April was 80 to 90% and I doubt it has risen to the mid-90's or above in three weeks.

The 55EC9300 debuted last fall with a sticker price of $3500 but was selling for $3000. If the set hits $2000 as the "Best Buy" price by this fall, that would be about the 30% YoY price cuts that Rogo consistently references.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Yes, LGD reiterated their 600,000 unit target during both their Korean and English conference calls. They did say that any change in the unit target would happen because of a mix shift and not because of demand.
> 
> The price drop on the 55EC9300 finally brought the prices at the major chains more in line with the independent retailers. It looks like combination of the price drop and advertising have pushed the range on the Amazon sales rankings from above 5000 to somewhere below 3000. They ultimately need to bring down pricing on the 4K units though. The UK sites have talked about the new 55" 4K model hitting similar price points (presumably pre price cut) as the EC9300.
> 
> The yields on 1080p OLED's look very good but they are going to have to repeat the same process of increasing yields in 4K. That will be the determining factor on hitting the above targets and the timing of the decision on an M3 fab.


Just read the transcript myself. You are correct - clear reaffirmation of the 600,000 2015 production target as well as clear statement that UHD OLED yields were 'in line with... (LGD) basic assumption... and track-record.'

Steady as she goes and everything on-track. Seems like a mystery to me but let's see how everything unfolds over the coming quarters.

What is the significance of 'below 5000' to 'below 3000' in terms of Amazon sales rankings?


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Just read the transcript myself. You are correct - clear reaffirmation of the 600,000 2015 production target as well as clear statement that UHD OLED yields were 'in line with... (LGD) basic assumption... and track-record.'
> 
> Steady as she goes and everything on-track. Seems like a mystery to me but let's see how everything unfolds over the coming quarters.
> 
> What is the significance of 'below 5000' to 'below 3000' in terms of Amazon sales rankings?


Something like 2000.


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Something like 2000.


I'be never used Amazon Sales Rankings and don't know how to check it nor what it means.

If it is a useful way to track LG OLED sales progress, I would like to learn but could use some pointers...


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> I'be never used Amazon Sales Rankings and don't know how to check it nor what it means.
> 
> If it is a useful way to track LG OLED sales progress, I would like to learn but could use some pointers...


I just checked the Amazon TV Top 100 sales rankings and the LG 55EC9300 is ranked 97. Of those priced above $1050, it is the 10th best selling TV on Amazon. 

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-...ectronics/172659/ref=zg_bs_nav_e_2_1266092011
The rankings are updated hourly so it will likely be different when checking again.


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> I'be never used Amazon Sales Rankings and don't know how to check it nor what it means.
> 
> If it is a useful way to track LG OLED sales progress, I would like to learn but could use some pointers...


The number is simply the ranking for the set within the Electronics category at Amazon. Just search for "Best Sellers Rank" on the page.

http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-55EC9300-55-Inch-1080p/dp/B00KZER5GS

It isnt going to tell me anything about the number of units moved but I find it an interesting way to track the relative popularity of the set over time. The rank was generally between five and ten thousand two months ago but decreased as some of the independent retailers lowered their prices. I also believe that the NCAA advertising had an impact as the rank generally improved since the middle of March.

If you actually click on the best selling rankings for televisions, the 55EC9300 is 97th on the list (vs. ~2800th in the general Electronics category).


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> I just checked the Amazon TV Top 100 sales rankings and the LG 55EC9300 is ranked 97. Of those priced above $1050, it is the 10th best selling TV on Amazon.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-...ectronics/172659/ref=zg_bs_nav_e_2_1266092011
> The rankings are updated hourly so it will likely be different when checking again.


Thanks for the explanation - it's not within the top 80-100 any more.

Aside from how often it is updated, it's important to know over what period it is measuring - daily (24 h), weekly, monthly?


----------



## tgm1024

CarlLee said:


> So as of today, 55EC9300 is the #1 Best Seller for OLED TVs on Amazon


Doesn't really say much though. The field for OLED TV models has only recently been significantly widening, and the 9300 so far has had the longest "real" run.


----------



## irkuck

If LG uses glass sheet size 2200x2500 mm in its M2 OLED plant what might be the biggest size two displays stamped on this glass? Half of the glass sheet is either 2200x1250 mm or 2500x1100 mm but which of these is possible? Both?? Do they stamp four 55 inchers on this sheet?


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> If LG uses glass sheet size 2200x2500 mm in its M2 OLED plant what might be the biggest size two displays stamped on this glass? Half of the glass sheet is either 2200x1250 mm or 2500x1100 mm but which of these is possible? Both?? Do they stamp four 55 inchers on this sheet?


The M2 fab is a classic 8G fab essentially.

It allows for 6-up production of 55-inch displays because it doesn't require cutting the sheets in half.

A 55-inch display is 1216mm wide, which fits into the width with enough space for edge handling and cutting.

It's 685 mm tall, which fits into a 3-tall format.

What it doesn't do is fit into a half sheet and allow you to make four displays. Period. You would never cut to the 1100 dimension, you'd only get two. Instead, you'd cut the other way and and you'd get three. This is presumably what they'd done with M1, cutting the sheets "early" and getting the same total output.

You can't magically get make displays off of half sheets, however. Basic math should make that clear.

It should similarly be clear that making 65s and 77s is much less efficient. Once you start cutting those sizes out, you get waste that can't be avoided.


----------



## irkuck

^Brilliant. My fault I have not expressed clearly what I had in mind. The question was about the biggest size of two displays which would fit onto the LG glass sheet. The size would be then limited by the cut in half, is this the reason why LG is making the 77"? 

Another efficient cut for maximizing single display size seems to possible since 6x55" is clearly being done. The cut would be at 2/3 of the height and thus there would be one 110" display and two 55". Glass would be utilized then as in the 6x55" but is such arrangement possible?


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> ^Brilliant. My fault I have not expressed clearly what I had in mind. The question was about the biggest size of two displays which would fit onto the LG glass sheet. The size would be then limited by the cut in half, is this the reason why LG is making the 77"?
> 
> Another efficient cut for maximizing single display size seems to possible since 6x55" is clearly being done. The cut would be at 2/3 of the height and thus there would be one 110" display and two 55". Glass would be utilized then as in the 6x55" but is such arrangement possible?


No way to mix panel sizes on the same sheet.

Both 3 65" and 2 77" utilize about 2/3 of the panel (meaning 1/3 is wasted).

The 77" 2-up is probably based on stacking 2 along the short 2200mm side of the sheet and if the can manufacture with two stacked along the long 2500mm side of the panel, they should at least be able to manufacture 88" TVs.

If there was no overhead (which there is), the long side of the screen would be the full 2200mm side of the sheet and the result would be a 99" TV.

The fact that Sharp is selling 90" LCD TVs is reason to have confidence that 90" OLEDs being manufactured in 2-up configuration will eventually be possible...


----------



## tgm1024

I have a Fabrication 401 question.

Are these glass substrates for rigid panels only?


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> ^Brilliant. My fault I have not expressed clearly what I had in mind. The question was about the biggest size of two displays which would fit onto the LG glass sheet. The size would be then limited by the cut in half, is this the reason why LG is making the 77"?
> 
> Another efficient cut for maximizing single display size seems to possible since 6x55" is clearly being done. The cut would be at 2/3 of the height and thus there would be one 110" display and two 55". Glass would be utilized then as in the 6x55" but is such arrangement possible?


I don't see why it isn't. They don't "pixel pattern" the OLED material so it seems like this could be done. Whether it's efficient/practical is another matter. But technologically, it should be achievable.



fafrd said:


> No way to mix panel sizes on the same sheet.


Well, that's not entirely true. 


> Both 3 65" and 2 77" utilize about 2/3 of the panel (meaning 1/3 is wasted).


That, however, is much more true.


> The 77" 2-up is probably based on stacking 2 along the short 2200mm side of the sheet and if the can manufacture with two stacked along the long 2500mm side of the panel, they should at least be able to manufacture 88" TVs.


The thing is, they can obviously make 110" inch TVs the way irkuck describes. They'd be wasting no more of the sheet than they waste today in the 65s and 77s. And arguably, because the cut actually makes sense, they'd be wasting zero of the sheet, while using the 1/3 they didn't use on a 110" for 2 55s. This sets a theoretical lower bound for the 110 at 4 x 55 plus a yield factor compensator plus a logistic factor compensator plus a "this is a small market" compensator. In short, I actually believe they could someday sell $20,000 110-inch TVs pretty easily if they decide people would buy them.



tgm1024 said:


> I have a Fabrication 401 question.
> 
> Are these glass substrates for rigid panels only?


Well, that's trickier to answer. LG has some fascinating "shenanigans" going on that allows them to already make the displays flexible. This involves what is very likely incredibly thin glass on the TVs as the substrate and not plastic, but it seems as though plastic is being used on the smart phones, perhaps a polyimide (which is the direction of the future) with thin-film encapsulation.

Irrespective of that, glass processing is being used by LG today which is then curving the vast majority of the TVs and is planning on launching a TV that will curve and uncurve repeatedly. So, no, glass substrates are not being used for rigid panels only. But LG has talked about how the glass eventually can "leave" the display even if it's used in the creation thereof and then a film-film encapsulation strategy can protect the OLED from air, etc. to preserve longevity.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Well, that's not entirely true.
> 
> The thing is, they can obviously make 110" inch TVs the way irkuck describes. They'd be wasting no more of the sheet than they waste today in the 65s and 77s. And arguably, because the cut actually makes sense, they'd be wasting zero of the sheet, while using the 1/3 they didn't use on a 110" for 2 55s. This sets a theoretical lower bound for the 110 at 4 x 55 plus a yield factor compensator plus a logistic factor compensator plus a "this is a small market" compensator. In short, I actually believe they could someday sell $20,000 110-inch TVs pretty easily if they decide people would buy them.


Yes, the max I commented on of 88-99" was for a 2-up configuration. The maximum size for a 1-up configuration is 110".

And while the theory of manufacturing 1110" and 2 55" OLED YV panels per sheet is enticing, I suspect it is a logistical nightmare. Among other things, LG would probably start by trying to salvage to 1/3 panel leftovers from manufacturing 3 65" or 2 77" OLEDs to start. For the number of 110" OLEDs they might ever produce, the payoff of solving the logistics issues to try to salvage the leftover panel space from manufacturing a single 110" OLED would be far less compelling than solving those issues to salvage the leftovers when manufacturing 3 65" OLEDs.

These exact same 'wasted sheet' issues exist when manufacturing LCDs - are you aware of any manufacturer like sharp that attempts to salvage the leftovers of their LCD sheets by mixing panels of differing sizes on a single sheet?

By the way, on the subject of LCD, I have another question for you - the largest 1-up size for a 2500mm X 2200mm sheet is just under 113" (assuming no overhead at all, which is not realistic).

So how is Vizio making a 120" LCD?


----------



## tgm1024

^^^ fix the quote. Who said what?


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> ^^^ fix the quote. Who said what?


Apologies - fixed...


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> Irrespective of that, glass processing is being used by LG today which is then curving the vast majority of the TVs and is planning on launching a TV that will curve and uncurve repeatedly. So, no, glass substrates are not being used for rigid panels only. But LG has talked about how the glass eventually can "leave" the display even if it's used in the creation thereof and then a film-film encapsulation strategy can protect the OLED from air, etc. to preserve longevity.


Have you any idea of how pigments are treated for production of paint or ink? 


And if not it's okay for it is not something that's highly publicized.


Because it is off-topic I am not going to go into gory detail about the aforementioned process. But basically, during the OLED manufacturing process some of the pigment containing oils will have evaporated before the rest of the material solidifies and it's all fine and in good order when you use natural pigments, but when you use pigments which constitute part of a small-molecule OLED which have very little nuturality about them... well, then the vapors coming out of those pigment oils are explosive and only one whiff of contaminated air is enough to poison a dozen of people that's why they can't have these vapors contaminating the air.


Encapsulation has little to do with longevity down the line, but it is very important that oils don't evaporate right after they are deposited.


P.S. These are just inferences based off my experience with the treatment of pigments for fluorescent and phosphorescent materials for LEDs and CCFLs. I am not personally familiar with how LGD does it, but this is what I'd have done in order to avoid explosions and air contamination and prevent pigment evaporation i.e, encapsulation and air-tight production rooms.


----------



## rogo

Fafrd, this isn't LCD. LCD is laid down as pixels on the substrate and to "mix sizes" would be more logistically challenging. 

Because the OLED vapor deposition step isn't pixel based, however, it's less of a logistical challenge to deposit the whole sheet, cut, and then make the rest of the magic happen separately. At least in theory.

Practice? I have no idea.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Fafrd, this isn't LCD. LCD is laid down as pixels on the substrate and to "mix sizes" would be more logistically challenging.
> 
> Because the OLED vapor deposition step isn't pixel based, however, it's less of a logistical challenge to deposit the whole sheet, cut, and then make the rest of the magic happen separately. At least in theory.
> 
> Practice? I have no idea.


Your saying the color filters are deposited following singulation?

Agree that would make size mixing more practical, but I assumed the entire stack was processed in sheet form and only singulated following completion of _all_ of the processing steps (including color filter).

P.s. Still curious how/where Vizio is manufacturing the 120" panel for the R120 - is there a Gen 9 LCD fab somewhere!??

P.p.s. Found this: http://www.displaysearchblog.com/20...en-10-joining-to-compete-with-samsung-and-lg/

Sounds like a Gen 10 fab must be getting used to manufacture that 120" panel for Vizio. Either Sharp or possibly Hon Hai if they are in production yet...

P.p.p.s Sounds like it must be Sharp Sakai - found this interesting DARPA presentation on Gen 10 manufacturing: http://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/1100 AM Peter Bocko presentation for micro-PV final.pdf


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Your saying the color filters are deposited following singulation?


I'm saying it's possible. It's also the case that given a 110" would have the same size pixels as a 1080p 55", well....


> Agree that would make size mixing more practical, but I assumed the entire stack was processed in sheet form and only singulated following completion of _all_ of the processing steps (including color filter).


So, anyway... I haven't seen the fab or how it does it's magic. But you could have multiple different color-filter layouts. One for all 55s, one for 65s, one for 77s, one for a 110 and 2 55s... I mean lots of things are possible.


> P.s. Still curious how/where Vizio is manufacturing the 120" panel for the R120 - is there a Gen 9 LCD fab somewhere!??[/quite]
> 
> AFAIK, no.
> 
> 
> 
> P.p.s. Found this: http://www.displaysearchblog.com/20...en-10-joining-to-compete-with-samsung-and-lg/
> 
> Sounds like a Gen 10 fab must be getting used to manufacture that 120" panel for Vizio. Either Sharp or possibly Hon Hai if they are in production yet...
> 
> 
> 
> All Hon Hai did was give Sharp some bailout money to help stave off bankruptcy. And Sharp is still bitter that Foxconn didn't agree to buy shares at some dumb price that they are unlikely to ever trade at again. Sharp still wants that price honored for any future investment even though it's like 2x current market. Non-starter much?
> 
> 
> 
> P.p.p.s Sounds like it must be Sharp Sakai - found this interesting DARPA presentation on Gen 10 manufacturing: http://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/1100 AM Peter Bocko presentation for micro-PV final.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure that's the only >8G fab running on earth still and perhaps forever using conventional techniques. If we're going to see bigger fabrication, it's likely going to come from some sort of roll-to-roll processing that allows for an 8G (or perhaps a bit more) width and an arbitrary length. If (when?) printable OLED ever becomes real, this becomes an exciting technique though it may prove very difficult to adapt roll-to-roll to Kateeva's nitrogen atmosphere. We'll see.
> 
> AVS Forumers continue to wildly overestimate the demand for giant displays. The fact that 8G fabs can easily be adapted to 110" screens means there's a path to larger screens than have ever been sold in any commercial volumes. While I continue to believe the ability to sell said screens for
Click to expand...


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, BOE recently received the go ahead for a Gen 10 LCD fab. I have no idea why they think that duplicating Sharp's venture will be a good idea but it is possible that their reasons arent economic in nature. It would seem far cheaper to me to just buy Sharp's capacity than build another fab.

Samsung was supposedly considering a Gen 10 LCD fab until they decided to renew their push back into OLED's. 

It seems to me that LG/Samsung have little choice but to push towards OLED's. If OLED's dont succeed, they are likely to get buried under a tsunami of Chinese LCD capacity in a few years.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> FWIW, BOE recently received the go ahead for a Gen 10 LCD fab. I have no idea why they think that duplicating Sharp's venture will be a good idea but it is possible that their reasons arent economic in nature. It would seem far cheaper to me to just buy Sharp's capacity than build another fab.
> 
> Samsung was supposedly considering a Gen 10 LCD fab until they decided to renew their push back into OLED's.
> 
> It seems to me that LG/Samsung have little choice but to push towards OLED's. If OLED's dont succeed, they are likely to get buried under a tsunami of Chinese LCD capacity in a few years.


When is that new BOE Gen 10 Fab expected to be up and running?

Sharp is probably supplying the vast majority of the worlds demand for 60" and 70" LCD panels right now, and even with at they are unable to make money and are probably underutilizing their fab. With a second Gen 10 fab coming online, there is going to be an absolute glut of 60" and 70" LCDs and this could amount to doom for Sharp.

Maybe it's time for Sharp and LG to start thinking about an alliance to convert Sakai to WOLED production...

LG would quickly round out their OLED product offering with sheet-efficient 60" and 70" OLEDs and Sharp may carve out a small piece of the future for themselves...


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> When is that new BOE Gen 10 Fab expected to be up and running?


On April 20, 2015, Chinese panel maker BOE officially announced its investment of CNY 40 billion in the world’s largest TFT LCD fab, a Gen 10.5 with glass substrates sized 3370 × 2940 mm. Mass production is scheduled for late 2017 or early 2018.

According to the announcement, BOE’s Gen 10.5 will mainly produce 60”+, ultra-high resolution, high-end smart TVs, and digital information displays with a design capacity of 90K glass substrates per month. We believe this Gen 10.5 will actually focus on both 43” and 65” products.
http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2015/04/product-plans-for-boesnew-gen-10-5-in-china/



slacker711 said:


> FWIW, BOE recently received the go ahead for a Gen 10 LCD fab. I have no idea why they think that duplicating Sharp's venture will be a good idea but it is possible that their reasons arent economic in nature. It would seem far cheaper to me to just buy Sharp's capacity than build another fab.
> 
> Samsung was supposedly considering a Gen 10 LCD fab until they decided to renew their push back into OLED's.
> 
> It seems to me that LG/Samsung have little choice but to push towards OLED's. If OLED's dont succeed, they are likely to get buried under a tsunami of Chinese LCD capacity in a few years.


LCD production requires significant labor (much more so than OLED) and wage rates are lower in China than in Japan. Here are some quotes from UBI Research...

any experts who know Korea’s display would recognize that Gen10 LCD line investment is not suitable for Korea. This is because even if Korea expands the market share by investing in Gen10 LCD line they will still be weak against Chinese display companies in price. 

An interesting point and perhaps why LG put a lot of focus on China for their initial OLED sets while they worked out production issues...

Korean display companies only sell high quality goods and 90~95% is the limit of yield rate. In comparison, in China the size of the population who can easily purchase expensive high quality TV and the consumers who demands lower priced goods are both huge; faulty display panels have a place in Chinese market. Chinese display companies can also sell lower quality panels through close relationship with lower price TV production companies with factories in China. Theoretically, this can lower the panel price as yield rate close to 100% can be achieved. Furthermore, support from Chinese government and cheap factory construction cost increases price competitiveness of Chinese display companies even more.

Why Samsung must choose OLED TV...

Samsung Elec.’s smart phone business department, IM, is recording twice the amount of revenue of VD business department that produces TV. Therefore that VD department’s marketing method of emphasizing OLED has worse definition than LCD is contradictory since IM department is marketing their product by valuing the superior picture quality of OLED over LCD. If QD-LCD is good then obviously the panel for Galaxy S series also has to be replaced to QD-LCD. Insisting that OLED has better picture quality in smart phone and LCD is superior in TV is mutually incompatible. This kind of dual behavior could result in Samsung Elec.’s rationales to be considered as ones by the boy who cried wolf. For the future expansion of Samsung Elec.’s smart phone market, VD department also has to produce OLED TV and establish the equation of ‘Samsung Elec. = OLED’ in order to complete the business strategy. This is the reason Samsung must undertake OLED TV.

LTPS vs oxide backplane...

Even in TFT production cost, Samsung Display is weaker in comparison to LG Display. LTPS-TFT process used by Samsung Display requires 8~9 mask processes but LG Display is using oxide TFT which needs 4~5. Therefore, it has an advantage of minimizing the investment cost when LCD line is transformed to OLED line. For Samsung Display to transform existing LCD line to OLED line, they have to add a huge amount of capital to the LTPS-TFT production. If they transform the existing 200K LCD factory to OLED line, the capa. also decreases to 90K, but LG Display can maintain the 200K volume without any loss. When OLED is produced transforming the existing LCD line, LG Display does not need additional factory construction but it is calculated that Samsung Display has to build another factory of equal size.

Conclusion...

In conclusion, for Samsung Display to re-enter OLED panel for TV industry, rather than using their existing technology of LTPS-TFT, RGB OLED, and damn & fill encapsulation, it is better to use the technology being used by LG Display such as oxide TFT structure, WRGB OLED structure and lamination method of encapsulation structure that uses adhesive film.

To challenge large area OLED panel industry again, Samsung Display placed the existing large area OLED team under research lab led by their top OLED expert SungChul Kim. Although there has been no official discussion regarding OLED panel production technology directional course, using the same technology as LG Display’s would be advisable in order to succeed.

In terms of resources, Samsung Display, with their many years of OLED panel mass production experience and several thousands of top quality OLED engineers, is superior compared to LG Display.

Only the patents and decision making processes are left.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> On April 20, 2015, Chinese panel maker BOE officially announced its investment of CNY 40 billion in the world’s largest TFT LCD fab, a Gen 10.5 with glass substrates sized 3370 × 2940 mm. Mass production is scheduled for late 2017 or early 2018.
> 
> According to the announcement, BOE’s Gen 10.5 will mainly produce 60”+, ultra-high resolution, high-end smart TVs, and digital information displays with a design capacity of 90K glass substrates per month. We believe this Gen 10.5 will actually focus on both 43” and 65” products.
> http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2015/04/product-plans-for-boesnew-gen-10-5-in-china/
> 
> 
> 
> LCD production requires significant labor (much more so than OLED) and wage rates are lower in China than in Japan. Here are some quotes from UBI Research...
> 
> any experts who know Korea’s display would recognize that Gen10 LCD line investment is not suitable for Korea. This is because even if Korea expands the market share by investing in Gen10 LCD line they will still be weak against Chinese display companies in price.
> 
> An interesting point and perhaps why LG put a lot of focus on China for their initial OLED sets while they worked out production issues...
> 
> Korean display companies only sell high quality goods and 90~95% is the limit of yield rate. In comparison, in China the size of the population who can easily purchase expensive high quality TV and the consumers who demands lower priced goods are both huge; faulty display panels have a place in Chinese market. Chinese display companies can also sell lower quality panels through close relationship with lower price TV production companies with factories in China. Theoretically, this can lower the panel price as yield rate close to 100% can be achieved. Furthermore, support from Chinese government and cheap factory construction cost increases price competitiveness of Chinese display companies even more.
> 
> Why Samsung must choose OLED TV...
> 
> Samsung Elec.’s smart phone business department, IM, is recording twice the amount of revenue of VD business department that produces TV. Therefore that VD department’s marketing method of emphasizing OLED has worse definition than LCD is contradictory since IM department is marketing their product by valuing the superior picture quality of OLED over LCD. If QD-LCD is good then obviously the panel for Galaxy S series also has to be replaced to QD-LCD. Insisting that OLED has better picture quality in smart phone and LCD is superior in TV is mutually incompatible. This kind of dual behavior could result in Samsung Elec.’s rationales to be considered as ones by the boy who cried wolf. For the future expansion of Samsung Elec.’s smart phone market, VD department also has to produce OLED TV and establish the equation of ‘Samsung Elec. = OLED’ in order to complete the business strategy. This is the reason Samsung must undertake OLED TV.
> 
> LTPS vs oxide backplane...
> 
> Even in TFT production cost, Samsung Display is weaker in comparison to LG Display. LTPS-TFT process used by Samsung Display requires 8~9 mask processes but LG Display is using oxide TFT which needs 4~5. Therefore, it has an advantage of minimizing the investment cost when LCD line is transformed to OLED line. For Samsung Display to transform existing LCD line to OLED line, they have to add a huge amount of capital to the LTPS-TFT production. If they transform the existing 200K LCD factory to OLED line, the capa. also decreases to 90K, but LG Display can maintain the 200K volume without any loss. When OLED is produced transforming the existing LCD line, LG Display does not need additional factory construction but it is calculated that Samsung Display has to build another factory of equal size.
> 
> Conclusion...
> 
> In conclusion, for Samsung Display to re-enter OLED panel for TV industry, rather than using their existing technology of LTPS-TFT, RGB OLED, and damn & fill encapsulation, it is better to use the technology being used by LG Display such as oxide TFT structure, WRGB OLED structure and lamination method of encapsulation structure that uses adhesive film.
> 
> To challenge large area OLED panel industry again, Samsung Display placed the existing large area OLED team under research lab led by their top OLED expert SungChul Kim. Although there has been no official discussion regarding OLED panel production technology directional course, using the same technology as LG Display’s would be advisable in order to succeed.
> 
> In terms of resources, Samsung Display, with their many years of OLED panel mass production experience and several thousands of top quality OLED engineers, is superior compared to LG Display.
> 
> Only the patents and decision making processes are left.


Interesting find - thanks.

It is clear that by 2017/2018, Sharp is going to be facing a major degree of hurt, especially since BOE is actually leapfrogging them to Gen 10.5.

Hopefully they are smart enough to figure out that a conversion of Sakia to WOLED production is about their only way out and they are already in discussions with both Korean companies to see who is going to make them a better offer.

It would be suicidal for LG to allow Samsung to team up with Sharp on WOLED, so hopefully they have the foresight to make Sharp an offer they can not refuse...


----------



## irkuck

The question if LG can produce 2x110" on the glass sheet they use for making 4x55" has direct impact on the perspectives of OLED. 55" OLEDs competing with 55" LCDs is questionable since this market segment has razor-sharp price and profits sensitivity, if there are profits at all there. Profits are in the big size segment and thus there is no other way than grabbing it, jumping over the LCD. 110" LCD were announced but at exorbitant prices and never made to the shops. A 110" 4K OLED would be PQ-wise extremely competitive in the high-end home theater projectors among others and obviously it would be a hot marketing item "OLED dwarfs LCD". The 110" does not have to carry ultrahigh price if made on the same line and the same pixel size as the 55".


----------



## ertoil

Motion resolution 300 line (4K panel)


----------



## darinp2

irkuck said:


> The question if LG can produce 2x110" on the glass sheet they use for making 4x55" has direct impact on the perspectives of OLED.


I'm guessing that should have been one 110" for four 55".

I'm not sure how much they could determine ahead of time about whether they would get a good 110" display, since one of the four 55" being bad would mean three good ones, but no good 110".

--Darin


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Interesting find - thanks.
> 
> It is clear that by 2017/2018, Sharp is going to be facing a major degree of hurt, especially since BOE is actually leapfrogging them to Gen 10.5.
> 
> Hopefully they are smart enough to figure out that a conversion of Sakia to WOLED production is about their only way out and they are already in discussions with both Korean companies to see who is going to make them a better offer.
> 
> It would be suicidal for LG to allow Samsung to team up with Sharp on WOLED, so hopefully they have the foresight to make Sharp an offer they can not refuse...


Slightly OT, but I just ran into this: http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2015/04/product-plans-for-boesnew-gen-10-5-in-china/

Seems the Gen 10.5 Fab by BOE is only going to be making IPS LCDs, so Sharp and Sakai have some breathing room and should continue to own/dominate the 60" and 70" VA panel market...

Expect a big price drop in 65" and 75" IPS LED LCD TVs before the end of the decade, however...


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Expect a big price drop in 65" and 75" IPS LED LCD TVs before the end of the decade, however...


You don't say. A big drop in price between now and sometime in the next 5 years.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> It seems to me that LG/Samsung have little choice but to push towards OLED's. If OLED's dont succeed, they are likely to get buried under a tsunami of Chinese LCD capacity in a few years.


Which is a problem given that there is no detectable growth in the TV market....



fafrd said:


> Sharp is probably supplying the vast majority of the worlds demand for 60" and 70" LCD panels right now, and even with at they are unable to make money and are probably underutilizing their fab.


1) Nearly all of the world's demand in those sizes, yes. Especially the 70s.

2) Not even close to capacity, no. Never have approached it at that fab. Never will.


> With a second Gen 10 fab coming online, there is going to be an absolute glut of 60" and 70" LCDs and this could amount to doom for Sharp.


Sharp is already dead man walking. In any country outside of Japan, they'd have gone bankrupt already. 


> Maybe it's time for Sharp and LG to start thinking about an alliance to convert Sakai to WOLED production...


Given that Sharp already knows IGZO, this isn't an awful idea. I'm pretty sure Sakai is multiple lines anyway given its size. You could start with one. Don't be on LG doing something like this, but it's certainly intriguing.



fafrd said:


> It is clear that by 2017/2018, Sharp is going to be facing a major degree of hurt, especially since BOE is actually leapfrogging them to Gen 10.5.


They've been in a bag of hurt for the past 4-5 years already.


> Hopefully they are smart enough to figure out that a conversion of Sakia to WOLED production is about their only way out and they are already in discussions with both Korean companies to see who is going to make them a better offer.
> 
> It would be suicidal for LG to allow Samsung to team up with Sharp on WOLED, so hopefully they have the foresight to make Sharp an offer they can not refuse...


If they do a deal with Samsung and infringe on LG's patents, that's very risky for Sharp actually.



irkuck said:


> The question if LG can produce 2x110" on the glass sheet they use for making 4x55" has direct impact on the perspectives of OLED. 55" OLEDs competing with 55" LCDs is questionable since this market segment has razor-sharp price and profits sensitivity, if there are profits at all there. Profits are in the big size segment and thus there is no other way than grabbing it, jumping over the LCD. 110" LCD were announced but at exorbitant prices and never made to the shops. A 110" 4K OLED would be PQ-wise extremely competitive in the high-end home theater projectors among others and obviously it would be a hot marketing item "OLED dwarfs LCD". The 110" does not have to carry ultrahigh price if made on the same line and the same pixel size as the 55".


As Darin notes below you, it's 1, not 2. And you have a yield issue. If you achieve 80% yields on your 55-inch, your yield on the 110 is 40%. So if you could sell your 55s for "1", your EV from the 55s is (4 * x) * 0.8 = 3.2x. Your price for the 110 needs to 0.4 * x * 8 just to match the result you got before. Assume that given the extra logistics and the much, much, much smaller market, the minimum that's interesting is 10 times. Understand from this math, how you wind up with initial pricing well above 20 times.



darinp2 said:


> I'm guessing that should have been one 110" for four 55".
> 
> I'm not sure how much they could determine ahead of time about whether they would get a good 110" display, since one of the four 55" being bad would mean three good ones, but no good 110".


Your aggregate yield is:

0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = .4096



fafrd said:


> Seems the Gen 10.5 Fab by BOE is only going to be making IPS LCDs, so Sharp and Sakai have some breathing room and should continue to own/dominate the 60" and 70" VA panel market...


Most Sharp panels are sold into TVs that are low priced. No one is going to care whether they are IPS, VA, whatever. That said, in the developed world, there isn't much elasticity of any import to be had. TV prices have mostly bottomed. There's very little erosion because there is still plenty of market for 40-inch TVs and therefore no purpose trying to sell 60-inch TVs for $399 nor can you sell 40-inch TVs profitably for $99. Nor do you need to when people will pay multiples of that.


> Expect a big price drop in 65" and 75" IPS LED LCD TVs before the end of the decade, however...


I don't see how or why this much matters, but it's the circle of life.

Is there any catalyst that can expand the TV market meaningfully when a decade of 7% growth in China hasn't done it? I'm going to guess no.

Even the people who get paid by TV mfrs. to tell TV mfrs. the TV market is going to be great in the years to come are telling them it's going to grow like 2-3% a year. And that feels like it could easily prove optimistic as it seems poised to shrink in Japan and Europe and at best tread water in the U.S.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Which is a problem given that there is no detectable growth in the TV market....
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Nearly all of the world's demand in those sizes, yes. Especially the 70s.
> 
> 2) Not even close to capacity, no. Never have approached it at that fab. Never will.
> 
> 
> Sharp is already dead man walking. In any country outside of Japan, they'd have gone bankrupt already.
> 
> 
> Given that Sharp already knows IGZO, *this isn't an awful idea. .I'm pretty sure Sakai is multiple lines anyway given its size. You could start with one. Don't be on LG doing something like this, but it's certainly intriguing.
> 
> *


*

Coming from you, I suppose I should give my self a little pat on the back .

It's a very sensible idea, but it would require both companies smelling the coffee (especially the Chinese kind) and neither LG nor Sharp give any indication that they are there yet. By the time they understand what a win/win this is (or maybe lose-less/lose-less ) it will probably be too late. Discussions would already need to be underway for this to have any impact (revised plan for M3).




They've been in a bag of hurt for the past 4-5 years already.

If they do a deal with Samsung and infringe on LG's patents, that's very risky for Sharp actually.

Click to expand...

That is a very good point - even if Samsung has the gall to ignore LG's WOLED IP and just deal with it in court, Sharp would be exposed and the legal costs could sink them (to say nothing about an eventual award of damages). So you are right - an LG/Sharp WOLED tie-up is the only one that makes any sense. Hopefully LG does not overplay their hand and Sharp doesn't take too much longer to come down off their high horse...





Sharp panels are sold into TVs that are low priced. No one is going to care whether they are IPS, VA, whatever. That said, in the developed world, there isn't much elasticity of any import to be had. TV prices have mostly bottomed. There's very little erosion because there is still plenty of market for 40-inch TVs and therefore no purpose trying to sell 60-inch TVs for $399 nor can you sell 40-inch TVs profitably for $99. Nor do you need to when people will pay multiples of that.


I don't see how or why this much matters, but it's the circle of life.

Is there any catalyst that can expand the TV market meaningfully when a decade of 7% growth in China hasn't done it? I'm going to guess no.

Even the people who get paid by TV mfrs. to tell TV mfrs. the TV market is going to be great in the years to come are telling them it's going to grow like 2-3% a year. And that feels like it could easily prove optimistic as it seems poised to shrink in Japan and Europe and at best tread water in the U.S.

Click to expand...

Boy, you are in a gloomy mood today, aren't you 

Can't argue with anything you are saying but hoping LG finds a way to establish a toe-hold with OLED...*


----------



## rogo

I'm still pretty pro on that toehold. Even a foothold.

I'm just unclear how they cross the chasm/valley of death on this. It requires a big, bold bet or a really long slog.

Moving incrementally isn't going to get them there quickly at all. You're looking at 5 years before things look a lot different.

The continued, profound irony that my 10-year-old predictions on timing of this look mostly right and my 3-year-old ones reflect being totally fooled is rarely lost on me. Perhaps it shouldn't be lost on other optimists, however. We simply don't have a path to large scale production even next year and not much of a path to it in 2017. That's the disappointing part of this, yet it was easy-ish to foresee a long while ago. 

Irony.


----------



## irkuck

darinp2 said:


> I'm guessing that should have been one 110" for four 55". I'm not sure how much they could determine ahead of time about whether they would get a good 110" display, since one of the four 55" being bad would mean three good ones, but no good 110".


Obviously the talk is about single 110" from the glass sheet and it is evident that yield on 110" is lower than on 55". This is why the price of 110" can not be close to 4x55". But on the other hand in the condition of high yields where many full sheets are good, the price does not have to be ionospheric.

The problem has bigger ramifications and it turns out I was prophetic in my teachings:



irkuck said:


> The question if LG can produce 110" on the glass sheet they use for making 4x55" has direct impact on the perspectives of OLED. 55" OLEDs competing with 55" LCDs is questionable since this market segment has razor-sharp price and profits sensitivity, if there are profits at all there. Profits are in the big size segment and thus there is no other way than grabbing it, jumping over the LCD. 110" LCD were announced but at exorbitant prices and never made to the shops. A 110" 4K OLED would be PQ-wise extremely competitive in the high-end home theater projectors among others and obviously it would be a hot marketing item "OLED dwarfs LCD". The 110" does not have to carry ultrahigh price if made on the same line and the same pixel size as the 55".



As you can read in another thread, Samsung in its quest to beat the LG without having competing OLED technology decided to go LCD big way.Building 10 generation LCD plant and concentrating on supersized panels aims to keep the most profitable and visible part of the market on the LCD size. Indeed, if this strategy would be successful then LG OLEDs would be relegated to a niche of relatively smaller high-end sets with huge pressure on prices and profitability. From the marketing point of view LCD would still be a king as size is the strongest segregating factor. To get on the winning size I proposed strategy for the LG: OLED has to grab the 100"+ segment and this is why ability for producing 110" panels on the line making 4x55" is so critical. I mean real volume production with realistic prices. This is my Commandment for LG: Drop those funny 55" OLEDs and try 110" instead .


----------



## stas3098

I had seen 32in' TVs sell for under 100 bucks at 全國電子 in February in 北京市. 


I am sure neither LG nor Samsung can't make 42 inch 100 dollar TVs, but Chinese very well might...


----------



## barth2k

irkuck said:


> Obviously the talk is about single 110" from the glass sheet and it is evident that yield on 110" is lower than on 55". This is why the price of 110" can not be close to 4x55". But on the other hand in the condition of high yields where many full sheets are good, the price does not have to be ionospheric.
> 
> The problem has bigger ramifications and it turns out I was prophetic in my teachings:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can read in another thread, Samsung in its quest to beat the LG without having competing OLED technology decided to go LCD big way.Building 10 generation LCD plant and concentrating on supersized panels aims to keep the most profitable and visible part of the market on the LCD size. Indeed, if this strategy would be successful then LG OLEDs would be relegated to a niche of relatively smaller high-end sets with huge pressure on prices and profitability. From the marketing point of view LCD would still be a king as size is the strongest segregating factor. To get on the winning size I proposed strategy for the LG: OLED has to grab the 100"+ segment and this is why ability for producing 110" panels on the line making 4x55" is so critical. I mean real volume production with realistic prices. This is my Commandment for LG: Drop those funny 55" OLEDs and try 110" instead .


I'm sure they can sell a thousand of those a year  That should keep OLED in business.


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> Obviously the talk is about single 110" from the glass sheet and it is evident that yield on 110" is lower than on 55". This is why the price of 110" can not be close to 4x55". But on the other hand in the condition of high yields where many full sheets are good, the price does not have to be ionospheric.
> 
> The problem has bigger ramifications and it turns out I was prophetic in my teachings:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can read in another thread, Samsung in its quest to beat the LG without having competing OLED technology decided to go LCD big way.Building 10 generation LCD plant and concentrating on supersized panels aims to keep the most profitable and visible part of the market on the LCD size. Indeed, if this strategy would be successful then LG OLEDs would be relegated to a niche of relatively smaller high-end sets with huge pressure on prices and profitability. From the marketing point of view LCD would still be a king as size is the strongest segregating factor. To get on the winning size I proposed strategy for the LG: OLED has to grab the 100"+ segment and this is why ability for producing 110" panels on the line making 4x55" is so critical. I mean real volume production with realistic prices. This is my Commandment for LG: Drop those funny 55" OLEDs and try 110" instead .


Your logic correct at the high-level but somewhat flawed on several important fronts.

First, the 1080p OLEDs are not manufactured on the full-sheet M2 line, but rather on the half-sheet M1 line, and this means LG cannot manufacture 110" OLEDs on the same line used to manufacture 55" 1080p OLEDs, but only 100" (or 98" or whatever...).

With that refinement (manufacturing on half-sheets in M1 rather than full sheets in M2), there is some logic to your suggestion.

In addition, LG has stated their yield on M1 manufacturing 55" 1080p OLEDs is better that 90% now, which changes the picture versus Rogo's simplistic yield model at 80% yield.

In the simplistic model Rogo used, and assuming 1 100" 2160p OLED covers same surface area as 3 55" 1080p OLEDs, yield on the 100" OLEDs would be about 90% x 90% x 90% = 73% and this would mean that to generate the same revenue per half-sheet as LG does by selling 3 raw 55" 1080p OLEDs for $2500 (meaning 2.7 yielded 55" 1080p OLEDs @ $2500 or $6750), they could sell a raw sheet of 100" OLED for anything north of $6750 and they would be coming out ahead. With Rogo's simplified model resulting in a 73% yield, this would translate into a yielded price of $9250 for a 100" 2160p OLED. Not bad.

Now if you actually match the pixel area of the large panel to the same pixel area as 3 55" panels, you end up with a panel size of 95" instead of 100" and pixels which are a bit smaller than the 55" 1080p pixels, so yields might be slightly degraded for that reason, but a 90% yield over 1/3 of that area actually equates to full-panel yields of 82% rather than the 73% predicted by Rogo's model (because there is some probability of 2 defects occasionally killing 2 55" panels on the same half-sheet which would only kill a single 95" panel rather than two), so 95" OLED yields closer to 80% than 70% seem very credible, meaning a yielded 95" OLED price of $7800 - downright interesting!

If the panel size is increased from matching large-2160p-panel pixel area to the pixel area of 3 1080p 55" panels to instead matching large-2160p-panel active pixel height to the active pixel width of a 55" 1080p panel, panel size increases to 98" (which probably fits), pixel size increases a bit closer to that of the 1080p pixels of the 55" panels, but since the active pixel area has now increased to 105% than of 3 55" 1080p panels, that might degrade yields slightly from the 82% level. But since the yield impacts of increasing pixel size and active area offset each other, a 98" yielded OLED selling for $7800 or more still seems very credible.

And lastly, if the entire half-panel height (the short side of 1250mm) can be devoted to large-OLED panel height (unrealistic because some of that height must be reserved for overhead), the resulting panel would have a diagonal of 100.38". So if overhead can be limited to 0.38" or less, a 2160p OLED of 100" on the half-sheet M1 line could be possible and same increased-pixel versus increased active area arguments would apply so that yields should realistically fall somewhere between 75-80%.

Whatever that practical largest-half-sheet OLED is, zi agree with you that a 95" or 98" or 100" 2160p OLED priced in the range of $8500-9000 would be a much more effective use of the M1 half-sheet manufacturing line than continuing to crank out 55" 1080p OLEDs at $2500 each.

Now there is also the issue of volume and demand at that size, but even if we assume LG is devoting 100% of the M1 half-sheet manufacturing capacity of 28000 half-sheets (14000 full-sheet-equivalents) per month and is achieving 80% yield, selling 20,000 95-100" 2160p OLEDs per month at a price under $10,000 seems infinitely more possible than selling 75,000 55" 1080p OLEDs a month at a price of $2500...

So I agree with you in general with the refinement that is the M1 half-sheet manufacturing of 55" 1080p OLEDs that LG should abandon (or at least share) in favor of introducing 2160p OLEDs of 95-100" manufactured on the same M1 half-sheet manufacturing line.

110" OLEDs from the M2 line make no sense whatsoever at this stage and LG should continue to ramp 55", 65", and 77" 2160p OLED yileds on M2 as they have been.

The last minor caveat is that while shipping and distribution of 90" flat-panel TVs in now fairly-well in place, logistics for panels larger than 100" certainly is not (and we'll what happens with the Vizio R120 later this year), so LG may be limited to panels of 90" until there are established logistics in place for panels of 95", 98", or 100"...

But in any case, using the half-sheet M1 line manufacturing line to manufacture the largest 2160p OLED that is practical makes much, much more sense than using it to crank out exclusively 55" 1080p OLEDs...


----------



## rogo

The fantasy that this is a huge market for 100" TVs if only they'd be priced "reasonably" is just that: A fantasy.

Barth put it well.

There is no business focusing on that niche without also satisfying a bunch of other niches.

So irkuck's "advice" to LG is weird at best.

And, really, everyone should want Samsung to make 100" TVs and sell them for 4 x the price of a 50" TV plus the appropriate markup to justify it (50%?!?). Because if Samsung does that in LCD, LG will have to eventually come close to that in OLED.

Today, it's hard for me to imagine why LG would sell such a TV for less than $30-40K. In the future, it's possible to imagine something around $10K. 

I believe -- correctly, despite what many of you might think -- that if 100" TVs were $10,000, they'd represent significantly less than 1% of the world TV market. I'd venture to guess the market size is far closer to 0.1% (200-250K units) than to 1% (2-2.5M units).


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> The fantasy that this is a huge market for 100" TVs if only they'd be priced "reasonably" is just that: A fantasy.
> 
> Barth put it well.
> 
> There is no business focusing on that niche without also satisfying a bunch of other niches.
> 
> So irkuck's "advice" to LG is weird at best.
> 
> And, really, everyone should want Samsung to make 100" TVs and sell them for 4 x the price of a 50" TV plus the appropriate markup to justify it (50%?!?). Because if Samsung does that in LCD, LG will have to eventually come close to that in OLED.
> 
> Today, it's hard for me to imagine why LG would sell such a TV for less than $30-40K. In the future, it's possible to imagine something around $10K.
> 
> I believe -- correctly, despite what many of you might think -- that if 100" TVs were $10,000, they'd represent significantly less than 1% of the world TV market. I'd venture to guess the market size is far closer to 0.1% (200-250K units) than to 1% (2-2.5M units).


Agree with everything you have written.

Just believe that in addition to the 55", 65"" and 77" 4K OLEDs produced on full-sheet M2, LG could introduce 90" and 100" 4K OLEDs from half-sheet M1 (or 88" and 99", or whatever) and offer these at a far more profitable price than selling 1080p TVs for $2500 (which will eventually need to be less to continue).

If LG can sell such sets for much more than $10,000, and even $30-40K, all the better (more profit to invest in OLED).

Of course if LG finds massive demand for 55" 4K OLEDs at a profitable price, they made need to bring up production of those on M1, but that would be non-sensical now (especially with the M2 expansion plan for late this year).

Using M1 to bring up large-screen 4K OLEDs of 90" and 100" is a much more sensible use of the half-sheet manufacturing line at this stage. And in terms of volume, even 0.1% of the market represents 200K units a year and M1 fully devoted to large-screen OLEDs has a maximum capacity of 168K raw or 125-135K yielded - sounds like a match made in heaven.

The fact that you can purchase a 90" Sharp LCD from Costco for $6300 is interesting - there must be some demand for screens that size (which LG could dominate) and 100" screens (which LG could pioneer at little incremental investment) could be the next mainstream 'massive-size' TV on the horizon...


----------



## slacker711

LG Display's 20F filing is out (equivalent to US 10K). All kinds of comments about OLED's being the future of the display industry. 

It looks like the E4 (M2) fab did start its ramp in December. No details on when it restarted after the nitrogen leak.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1290109/000119312515158760/d914919d20f.htm



> We began production of OLED panels for televisions on our E3 production lines in January 2013 and commenced mass production of OLED panels for smartphones on our E2 production lines and OLED panels for televisions on our E4 production lines in December 2013 and December 2014, respectively.


----------



## rogo

Is there a sense of what their smartphone capacity is? 

Also, do we know if anyone is using their smartphone panels in existing models and which models?


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Agree with everything you have written.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> The fact that you can purchase a 90" Sharp LCD from Costco for $6300 is interesting - there must be some demand for screens that size (which LG could dominate) and 100" screens (which LG could pioneer at little incremental investment) could be the next mainstream 'massive-size' TV on the horizon...


Listen, if LG wants to sell $6300 90" OLEDs, no one is going to object!

The market size at 90" is pretty small, however. At $30-40K, it's not even 1/10th as large.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> Is there a sense of what their smartphone capacity is?
> 
> Also, do we know if anyone is using their smartphone panels in existing models and which models?


Their E2 fab (flexible small display OLED) capacity is pretty small. It is a Gen 4.5 fab with capacity for 14k substrates a month. That is enough for niche handsets like the Flex plus Apple's Watch capacity but not much else. The rumor is that they will start construction on a Gen 6 facility with capacity for another 15k this summer, but management has yet to confirm that. 

A 15k Gen 6 fab could produce somewhere around 5 million 5" displays a month.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> A 15k Gen 6 fab could produce somewhere around 5 million 5" displays a month.


Interesting. That's still not enough to be even meaningful toward an iPhone (it wouldn't cover a launch quarter!). I guess this makes me less sanguine the 2016 iPhone will go OLED as Samsung would (a) need a lot more capacity than I suspect _it_ currently has and (b) would be close to a sole source. 

I would still like to see Apple just build its own display fab, even if it has someone else operate/construct/manage it. Basically, a display version of the deal it tried to obtain (but failed) with TSMC. The likeliest partner would be LG. The cost actually seems low.

I'd recommend doing this as a twin-line 8G and supporting LG's TV business, but memory tells me that 8G fabs aren't especially great for making smartphone displays (too much cutting).


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> Interesting. That's still not enough to be even meaningful toward an iPhone (it wouldn't cover a launch quarter!). I guess this makes me less sanguine the 2016 iPhone will go OLED as Samsung would (a) need a lot more capacity than I suspect _it_ currently has and (b) would be close to a sole source.


The interesting thing though is that if LG Display does build the Gen 6 fab, it is hard to see who would buy that kind of capacity besides Apple. The G4 is LG Electronic's flagship handset and if it sells 12 million units in the next year, it will be considered a big success for the company. Outside of Apple and Samsung, there just arent very many high-end units sold.

So either LG Display figures that all of the non-Samsung/Apple high-end vendors are going to start buying flexible OLED's from them or this fab would be used to supply Apple in some capacity.

Obviously, Apple would need quite a bit more capacity to actually change over the entire iPhone lineup in a single stroke. It is possible that Samsung could build a Gen 6 fab of sufficient size in the next 15 months, but they have yet to give details on the size of the fab that they have planned (just like LGD).


----------



## barth2k

When it was time to upgrade my iPad 3, Apple lost me to Samsung primarily due to lack of an OLED display. They really should fund/build their own fab because really what are they sitting on their cash reserve for.

Admittedly I am atypical. The iPad's display is great to most people. Samsung could be playing up their OLED advantage more, but their lineup is not all OLED either and there is the awkward fact that they have no OLED TV.


----------



## slacker711

barth2k said:


> When it was time to upgrade my iPad 3, Apple lost me to Samsung primarily due to lack of an OLED display.


Yep, while I think the OLED's on Samsung's smartphones look great, the display on the Galaxy Tab S gives me a serious case of tech envy. I am in too deep with Apple's ecosystem to switch, but an iPad with an OLED display would be an awesome upgrade. The stats say that people are watching quite a bit of video on tablets now and that would allow an OLED to shine from both a quality and power consumption standpoint. 

While I do believe that Apple will eventually start moving towards OLED, it is hard to say when and how they will do so. They are so big that you will need to see some huge fabs built to handle their demand.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> Yep, while I think the OLED's on Samsung's smartphones look great, the display on the Galaxy Tab S gives me a serious case of tech envy. I am in too deep with Apple's ecosystem to switch, but an iPad with an OLED display would be an awesome upgrade. The stats say that people are watching quite a bit of video on tablets now and that would allow an OLED to shine from both a quality and power consumption standpoint.
> 
> While I do believe that Apple will eventually start moving towards OLED, it is hard to say when and how they will do so. They are so big that you will need to see some huge fabs built to handle their demand.


Freakshow enormous. Freakshow _everything_ in fact.

Apple is such a difficult phenomenon to discuss. It's funny, because folks will have economic theories that in all truth are 100% correct......but they're forced to offer the caveat "er, this doesn't apply to Apple".

I have to say though, that my now aging (2+ years?) Note II OLED display *still* floors me when I watch a movie on it. _Still._ It's such a joy to watch. In fact it's *such* a nice phone, I'm afraid to upgrade to the 4.

I can't imagine how nice the Tab S must look.


----------



## rogo

I doubt anywhere near 2% of the world's tablets are being sold with OLEDs. Samsung has about 14% of the world's tablet sales and really there's no evidence even 1 in 10 of their sales are the OLED models. 

So that doesn't seem like a vulnerability for Apple at all, not a strong area of interest for now.

The phone, on the other hand, has to be something they're looking at. Every bit of thinness and -- with certain content types at least -- power consumption matters there. And the image quality gap is small but definitely real.

So while I'd like an iPad OLED, I don't see that as likely without an 8G OLED line from someone.

It will clearly take at least two 6G lines to support the iPhone OLED.

And not soon enough.


----------



## David_B

tgm1024 said:


> Freakshow enormous. Freakshow _everything_ in fact.
> 
> Apple is such a difficult phenomenon to discuss. It's funny, because folks will have economic theories that in all truth are 100% correct......but they're forced to offer the caveat "er, this doesn't apply to Apple".
> 
> I have to say though, that my now aging (2+ years?) Note II OLED display *still* floors me when I watch a movie on it. _Still._ It's such a joy to watch. In fact it's *such* a nice phone, I'm afraid to upgrade to the 4.
> 
> I can't imagine how nice the Tab S must look.


Tab s in the dark really close to your eyes = poor man's unaffordable oled tv.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

David_B said:


> Tab s in the dark really close to your eyes = poor man's unaffordable oled tv.


Also known as the Oculus Rift DK2.


----------



## barth2k

David_B said:


> Tab s in the dark really close to your eyes = poor man's unaffordable oled tv.


When I got a tab S watched several episodes of Netflix on it and marveled at the PQ. But that got old quickly. There's no substitute for size.


----------



## JimP

Does anyone have a spectral distribution chart for LG's OLED?


----------



## fafrd

Just ran in to this: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=176413

(More on LG's OLED Alliance and patent pooling)


----------



## JazzGuyy

I'm mostly just a lurker on this section but I can't help but marvel that OLED TV development seems to be so limited that a good deal of the discussion here turns to phone screens and light bulbs.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

JazzGuyy said:


> I'm mostly just a lurker on this section but I can't help but marvel that OLED TV development seems to be so limited that a good deal of the discussion here turns to phone screens and light bulbs.


This happens in many industries, quite a few in the tech sector itself. It's quite common for an incumbent to almost completely write-off any competing technology, even if the technology is in fact better and not pursuing said tech practically results in the company's death (kodak and blackberry are easy go-to examples).

I personally think that LG having a brand image that is commonly seen as not on level with the likes of Samsung partially has something to with it - to use a Formula 1 example, McLaren switched from Mercedes to Honda power units because they felt that it would not be possible to beat the Mercedes team at their own game (it is known however that a large part of LG's OLED investments is for differentiation against incoming Chinese-developed LCD panels).


One thing to point out however is that Japanese companies, when being an incumbant in an industry, are not particularly known for moving quickly to "meet the challenge" so to say - they will esentually follow the EA/Activision logic of product where they basically "milk" a product until it dries, except that it's less due to profit motive and more due reluctance and not wanting to "rock the boat" - an idea that is quite pervasive in Japan as a whole.


----------



## rogo

JazzGuyy said:


> I'm mostly just a lurker on this section but I can't help but marvel that OLED TV development seems to be so limited that a good deal of the discussion here turns to phone screens and light bulbs.


Truly, I think the light-bulb discussion is a massive diversion because I see such a minimal overlap. The reason why it's interesting to talk about smartphones -- somewhat at least -- is that there is some technology crossover potential. Samsung tried -- and failed -- scale up its smartphone tech to TVs. LG will possibly use it's TV tech to build smartphone displays, which could make it a bigger OLED producer, which ultimately benefits its TV aspirations.


----------



## Cooters

Greetings. Long time reader of the forums and long time shareholder in Universal Display. I am about ready to pull the trigger on an OLED TV and decided to join, get some guidance breaking it in, and provide a review. Our local Best Buy(outside St. Louis) just got the 4K 65" in, so I had my first comparison to the EC9300. It isn't a fair one since the 65" is in the dark Magnolia room and the 9300 is in the bright store, but I decided the 9300 is good enough for me(for now,lol). 


Glad to be here, Cooters


----------



## irkuck

UHD Blu Ray specs just finalized, gear+content coming still this year -> pressing need for 100"-class OLEDs.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Well great, they're going to fall into the same issue HD-DVD had - uninformed consumers trying to play Ultra HD Blu-rays in their normal Blu-ray player.


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> UHD Blu Ray specs just finalized, gear+content coming still this year -> pressing need for 100"-class OLEDs.


Market size for 100-inch TVs? Really freakin' small.

Market size for a 4K physical media format? Pretty darned small.

I suppose the former is smaller than the latter.

But I'm not honestly sure.

UHD BluRay is a niche format on its best day... or the next SACD....


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> Market size for 100-inch TVs? Really freakin' small. Market size for a 4K physical media format? Pretty darned small. I suppose the former is smaller than the latter. But I'm not honestly sure. UHD BluRay is a niche format on its best day... or the next SACD....


Hopefully you can reach the depth of my logic. I am not saying: you proudly owners of 40" 4K TVs you now get your well deserved UHD 4K BluRays. The UHDBR makes sense only for the viewing distance in the range of ~2PH which in the living room means 100"+ class display. The combination of 100"OLED+UHDBR will be indeed an exclusive niche product for massaging retina with 100 Mb/s of sweet 4K pixels. Crowds below the 100" may live happily with their 10Mb/s 4K netflixes. But the 100"/100 Mb/s category is for the audiovisual aristocracy.


----------



## Stereodude

rogo said:


> Market size for a 4K physical media format? Pretty darned small.


Is it any smaller than the market for 4K streaming? I think most people serious about 4K/UHD would rather have physical media.


----------



## fafrd

Stereodude said:


> Is it any smaller than the market for 4K streaming? I think most people serious about 4K/UHD would rather have physical media.


Actually, what I would like is the ability to stream 4K video into a 1080p OLED that downsamples the 2160p stream down to 1080p 4:4:4.

It pisses me off that my 55EC9300 can only stream the HD versions on Amazon and Netflix - the 4K versions were noticably superior ('Bluray quality').


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Actually, what I would like is the ability to stream 4K video into a 1080p OLED that downsamples the 2160p stream down to 1080p 4:4:4.


Absolutely! And (AYK) I've been saying this for years now.




fafrd said:


> It pisses me off that my 55EC9300 can only stream the HD versions on Amazon and Netflix - the 4K versions were noticably superior ('Bluray quality').


It would require an intermediary of some kind (probably an HTPC) that knows how to "pretend" to be connected to a 4K display, either simply in some kind of configuration or if absolutely necessary, some kind of slight of hand at the OS level. It's not clear to me that "smart BDP's" (even super sophisticated ones like the Oppo) would be able to get around this issue though due to licensing.

@#$%.

The other alternative would be a "fakeout box" (


----------



## rogo

Stereodude said:


> Is it any smaller than the market for 4K streaming? I think most people serious about 4K/UHD would rather have physical media.


The number of people who are interested but not especially serious will outstrip the number of people who are serious rather rapidly.

Plus, 4K aficionados today are entirely existing in a streaming/broadcast/self-created/hard drive market. They are living with 4K already and making do with what exists.

Sure, some will spend big for the slightly better universe to come. But that's almost definitionally a subset of the former group.


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Absolutely! And (AYK) I've been saying this for years now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would require an intermediary of some kind (probably an HTPC) that knows how to "pretend" to be connected to a 4K display, either simply in some kind of configuration or if absolutely necessary, some kind of slight of hand at the OS level. It's not clear to me that "smart BDP's" (even super sophisticated ones like the Oppo) would be able to get around this issue though due to licensing.
> 
> @#$%.
> 
> *The other alternative would be a "fakeout box" (*


----------



## jlanzy

rogo said:


> Market size for 100-inch TVs? Really freakin' small.
> 
> 
> 
> At the cost of a 100" OLED, I guess that market would be right up there alongside, owners of Leer jets and Lamborghini Veneno Roadsters.
> 
> 
> If the price would ever drop to Sam's Club prices then everyone will have one parked in their living room regardless of whether they can't tell the difference between 4K or standard def, but they'll be able to brag to their friends , hey I got a 100" 4K/UHD tv.


----------



## irkuck

jlanzy said:


> At the cost of a 100" OLED, I guess that market would be right up there alongside, owners of Leer jets and Lamborghini Veneno Roadsters. If the price would ever drop to Sam's Club prices then everyone will have one parked in their living room regardless of whether they can't tell the difference between 4K or standard def, but they'll be able to brag to their friends , hey I got a 100" 4K/UHD tv.


The cost of 100"+ OLEDs does not have to be mythical. Take 55" OLED, a 110" OLED is equivalent to 4x55" on a glass sheet. So the asymptotic limit price for the 110" is four times the 55". Then one has to add lower yield of the 110", plus more complicated assembly plus logistics. I see as the maximum price of 110"=8x55" and real price somewhere in between. This is within the limits of high-end enthusiasts especially if the price downtrend would follow the 55" price trend. 

Regarding the market size of 4K BluRay it will obviously be miniature comparing to the crowds sucking cheapy 4K from the Internet nipples. But it will definitely be popular among the segment of videophiles and movie enthusiasts caring about quality. Now we are coming to a curious combination: the segment buying 4K BluRays will know very well that 100"+ OLED is needed for optimal experience. Having genuine superb UHD content will create demand for such displays. In particular I see high-end projectors being eliminated from home theater installations if such displays arrive. BTW, even at the introduction the UHD Blu-Ray players will cost only 2-3x of HD players and content have the same price. One can thus expect the UHD players merging with the HD very quickly and there will be only UHD players after some time.


----------



## barth2k

fafrd said:


> Sounds like a candidate for a crowd-finding project - if you ever see or hear of anything to that effect, please let me know...


I think the problem is political, not technical. To stream Netflix, you need a licensing agreement with Netflix. If Netflix does not want you to send 4k stream to


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> The cost of 100"+ OLEDs does not have to be mythical. Take 55" OLED, a 110" OLED is equivalent to 4x55" on a glass sheet. So the asymptotic limit price for the 110" is four times the 55". Then one has to add lower yield of the 110", plus more complicated assembly plus logistics.


I've done this math here several times before, so I agree in principle. Whether we actually see this happen anytime soon (ever?) is another matter entirely. It presumes that demand for this size is "elastic within reasonable bounds". 

I believe manufacturers do not feel that it is. They are therefore not interested in trying to sell 1 110" TV in lieu of ~5 (6? 8?) 55" TVs because they don't see the market anywhere near that size. They'd rather sell the small handful to the portion of the market that requires size for a huge premium rather than determine what the market size even is at a market-clearing price.


> Regarding the market size of 4K BluRay it will obviously be miniature comparing to the crowds sucking cheapy 4K from the Internet nipples. But it will definitely be popular among the segment of videophiles and movie enthusiasts caring about quality. Now we are coming to a curious combination: the segment buying 4K BluRays will know very well that 100"+ OLED is needed for optimal experience.


So let's pretend the mfrs. create this market-clearing 110" TV. The market size for "all really good TVs" is ~2 million annually. It's not reasonable to argue even a small fraction of those people could accommodate a 110" TV. I think it might be fair to say the market size for 110" TVs -- that cost 8x what a good 55" TV costs -- is, therefore, not more than 5% of that. That creates a market of 100K units as _an upper bound_.

Now, those people are doubtless going to value a high-quality source format. But do they represent a market? I'm challenged to see how. If they each bought 10 pieces of media annually, they'd spend $30M annually -- globally -- on media. That's less than half the opening weekend box office in the U.S. for Pitch Perfect 2.


----------



## irkuck

There is also aspect of the pissing contest. This drives the 80- and 90-inchers LCDs. Small segment of the market but important for marketing promotion. OLED to be on top (and it must be to show it is on the winning side) must jump to the 100"+ category. Here UHD BluRay will give a boost for enthusiasts by solving the content problem. OLED offers PQ which matches the UHD BR PQ, and thus a small but exclusive and media-promoted market segment will be forged. If only LG would set the price right.


----------



## kucharsk

Well Panasonic, LG and Samsung have all created 100"+ display panels in the past for MSRPs of $70K+, so never underestimate the power of bragging rights.


----------



## rogo

kucharsk said:


> Well Panasonic, LG and Samsung have all created 100"+ display panels in the past for MSRPs of $70K+, so never underestimate the power of bragging rights.


The thing is they don't really sell any of them. Probably not 1000 sold by any of them to date.


----------



## barth2k

LCD is very mature and 100"+ LCD sets do not abound. I don't think OLED will change that, unless printable rollable OLED becomes reality. Sure everybody has a giant set to show off at the conventions; they even made a 120" plasma. But do they sell any. People whose pocket and house can accommodate a set that large probably have a dedicated media room, in which case a high end projector makes better sense.

I'll be happy if/when they can get 80" OLED below USD5000. Hopefully before I'm too blind and infirm


----------



## smoka

Let's get the 40-65" 4K OLEDs to be affordable first before talking about 100"+!

I was blown away by the LG EC9300 series until I saw the EG9600 4k OLED lineup. But $5500/$9000 for the 55"/65" is still way out of my reach, especially when I can pick up a high-end 65" Samsung 4k LED for 1/4 of the cost.

I'll let the early adopters and rich folks bring down the price


----------



## darinp2

barth2k said:


> ... they even made a 120" plasma. But do they sell any.


I recall one company telling me that sales tended to be to places like casinos. I got the impression that not many ended up in homes.

--Darin


----------



## slacker711

LG Display held a press conference in Korea showcasing OLED's as their next gen display technology.

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150519000867

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2015/05/133_179191.html

- They reiterated their sales goal of 600,000 units this year and 1.5 million units next year.

- They plan to expand production to 120,000 to 130,000 units in the third quarter.

- They plan to release a 99" OLED within the year.

- They showed off a 55" OLED that was .97mm thick and weighs 1.9kg. You can hang it on the wall using magnets.

- Talked about OLED's hitting an 80% yield. They have used that figure before but the question is whether they have hit that kind of number for 4K units.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Displaysearch estimates LG loses $582 on each OLED TV sold*

According to oledinfo.com, Displaysearch estimates that LG only shipped (sold to dealers) 53,000 OLED TVs in the first quarter and that they will be slow to gain market share over the coming years. They estimate OLED TVs will not become profitable for LG before 2019 and that they currently lose $582 on each TV sold with that number expected to drop to $160 per TV by 2019.

They mention falling prices of LCD TVs and Quantum Dot TVs as hurting sales.


----------



## Desk.

slacker711 said:


> LG Display held a press conference in Korea showcasing OLED's as their next gen display technology.
> 
> http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150519000867
> 
> https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2015/05/133_179191.html
> 
> - They reiterated their sales goal of 600,000 units this year and 1.5 million units next year.
> 
> - They plan to expand production to 120,000 to 130,000 units in the third quarter.
> 
> - They plan to release a 99" OLED within the year.
> 
> - They showed off a 55" OLED that was .97mm thick and weighs 1.9kg. You can hang it on the wall using magnets.
> 
> - Talked about OLED's hitting an 80% yield. They have used that figure before but the question is whether they have hit that kind of number for 4K units.


This is all good news, but the one thing we're all still waiting for is an announcement that LG Display *will* go ahead with the investment required to adapt a third production line for OLED manufacture.

I believe that announcement is likely to be made either at the end of this year or the beginning of 2016, but I'm not sure the press conference today offers a huge reassurance that this is more likely than not.

Desk


----------



## sytech

Rich Peterson said:


> According to oledinfo.com, Displaysearch estimates that LG only shipped (sold to dealers) 53,000 OLED TVs in the first quarter and that they will be slow to gain market share over the coming years. They estimate OLED TVs will not become profitable for LG before 2019 and that they currently lose $582 on each TV sold with that number expected to drop to $160 per TV by 2019.
> 
> They mention falling prices of LCD TVs and Quantum Dot TVs as hurting sales.


50K for the first quarter is better than I thought it would be. I was guessing 100-150K for the year. Still it puts them about 300,000 to 400,000 units short of their goal. There is also that magical 80% yield again. I don't see them getting much pass the current 70% using the existing WRGB method. Also, ouch on the $582 loss per unit. You have to have some kind of loss to create market share, but that is much higher than I would of though. So I am reading this right? If by some miracle, demand goes through the roof at the current retail prices and they hit the 600,000 units sold, they will realize a $350 million dollar loss on their OLED line for 2015? Should I short this stock?


----------



## wse

The 55-inch OLED TV panel is only 0.97 mm thick and sticks to the wall with magnets. LG Display also plans to introduce a 99-inch OLED panel later this year, according to Yonhap News.

*1mm OLED TV panel*

Earlier today, LG Display showcased the latest development in OLED technology. The highlight of the show was a 55-inch “wallpaper” OLED panel that is only 0.97 _millimeters_ thick. The existing OLED panel in LG’s 55-inch TV is 4.3 mm thick.

The OLED panel is so thin and so light (1.9 kilograms) that it can stick to the wall only by using a magnetic mat. LG did not comment on its plans for commercialization of the panel.








LG Display will ramp up production of OLED TV panels in the third quarter this year in an effort to supply other manufacturers with OLED TV panels, but refused to elaborate on which clients have shown interest. Rumors suggest that it is Panasonic and Sony.

- _"It has taken a year and half for us to raise the yield to this level (for OLEDs), while it'd taken nearly 10 years to achieve the yield for LCDs,"_ said Yeo Sang-deog, head of LG Display's OLED division to Yonhap News.

LG Display will continue to focus on large-size OLED TVs and plans to introduce a 99-inch OLED panel later this year, in addition to the existing 55, 65 and 77-inch panels. The company will also continue to invest in flexible and rollable OLED panels for small and mid-size devices.


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> Thanks for the explanation - it's not within the top 80-100 any more.
> 
> Aside from how often it is updated, it's important to know over what period it is measuring - daily (24 h), weekly, monthly?


There was a period of a couple weeks where the 55" OLED was being sold only through Amazon partners like Beach Camera rather than from Amazon itself. During this period its sales rank dropped quite a bit, obviously, but never seriously low. It took about a week or two once it was back in stock for it to regain its position in the top sellers rankings. So, I would guess the period it is measuring is on the order of 2-4 weeks.

Currently it is the #64 best seller in TVs. There are only 2 sets priced over $1400 with a better ranking - an 80" Sharp and a 75" Samsung - both in a similar price range. The 55" to 65" sets from Samsung that were in the top sellers rankings ahead of the LG OLED are no longer there. Of course Samsung's sales are divided up among numerous models and there is only the one OLED set in that range.


----------



## Rich Peterson

sytech said:


> 50K for the first quarter is better than I thought it would be. I was guessing 100-150K for the year. Still it puts them about 300,000 to 400,000 units short of their goal.


Remember, this 50K number is how many LG *shipped to dealers*. It is NOT how many actually sold through to customers.


----------



## rogo

I guess we should be delighted LG reiterated those .6M/1.5M goals in spite of no evidence whatsoever they're in position to achieve them. 

In other words, it's good they have confidence in things we cannot see (but perhaps they can).

That we are halfway through 2015 (very nearly) and there isn't a 2017 goal to put out there, however, gives one pause.

It feels like 2017 will be a stutter on the growth path as they wait until deep into 2016 to be assured this is all working. Only then will investment ramp up enough to allow a step-wise growth pattern to occur.

I don't like this even though slacker will argue, it's the only way to do it.

Now that we can apparently write off Apple, I don't see who would fund a fool's errand either. This is going to be a slow, long sled. 

Perhaps LG captures 1% of the TV market by 2017. Perhaps.

But 2% feels more out of reach for 2018. 

3% by 2020? That's around 7M.

That means they'd need to do >4x this putative 2016 result over the subsequent 4 years. It's not impossible at all, but it still feels like it requires pricing designed to capture nearly all the sales of high-end TVs. 

Can they go there? Will they?

This is still a great big experiment. It still feels like it's fragile and could fail.

I'm in for a 2017 model, fearful that it could be an orphan, but I'd rather have that than an LCD.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> That we are halfway through 2015 (very nearly) and there isn't a 2017 goal to put out there, however, gives one pause.
> 
> It feels like 2017 will be a stutter on the growth path as they wait until deep into 2016 to be assured this is all working. Only then will investment ramp up enough to allow a step-wise growth pattern to occur.
> 
> I don't like this even though slacker will argue, it's the only way to do it.


So my benchmark for the roadmap would be the beginning of construction of an E5 fab with a capacity of at least 75000 substrates a month by next spring. That fab would begin ramping shipments sometime in the 2nd half of 2017 and would bring total unyielded OLED capacity to 7.8 million 55" units a year.

Yes, that is as much as I think it is realistic to expect LGD to do. Further market share in that time period is going to have to come from Samsung. I doubt they do nothing as OLED's take over the vast majority of their high-end share.


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> Perhaps LG captures 1% of the TV market by 2017. Perhaps.
> 
> But 2% feels more out of reach for 2018.
> 
> 3% by 2020? That's around 7M.
> 
> That means they'd need to do >4x this putative 2016 result over the subsequent 4 years. It's not impossible at all, but it still feels like it requires pricing designed to capture nearly all the sales of high-end TVs.
> 
> Can they go there? Will they?
> 
> This is still a great big experiment. It still feels like it's fragile and could fail.


Since you are focused on market share here is one of LG's first statements on OLED outselling LCD so having 50% market share. 10 years.

LG Display said Tuesday it expects to sell 600,000 OLED TV panels this year and 1.5 million next year. The company also cited comments made at the press event by Ching W. Tang, a professor at the University of Rochester in New York and "the father of OLED." He said OLED displays will not become ubiquitous for another five to 10 years. At that point, Tang said, they could outpace LCDs in total shipments.

http://www.cnet.com/news/lg-displays-latest-oled-tv-sticks-to-the-wall-is-under-1mm-thick/

As for, will they do it... 

Yeo Sang-deog, the president of LG Display’s OLED division mentioned that OLED panel will become LG Display’s future cash cow and suggested that LG Display could be reorganized to focus on OLED business.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> So my benchmark for the roadmap would be the beginning of construction of an E5 fab with a capacity of at least 75000 substrates a month by next spring. That fab would begin ramping shipments sometime in the 2nd half of 2017 and would bring total unyielded OLED capacity to 7.8 million 55" units a year.
> 
> Yes, that is as much as I think it is realistic to expect LGD to do. Further market share in that time period is going to have to come from Samsung. I doubt they do nothing as OLED's take over the vast majority of their high-end share.


Also found this: http://www.oled-info.com/lgd-expect...ars-will-invest-more-oleds-if-they-see-demand

'[LGD Display's CFO] says that *if*they see more demand for OLED TVs, *then* they will invest more, and the next two and three years are crucial for the company to "gauge the profitability of its OLED business".

I take today' announcements as a decision to ramp M2 to the full 26,000 sheet capacity, which probably means they have overcome any doubts about raising 4K yields to close to 1080p yields to levels of 80% or more.

It sounds as though they are going to wait until they have confidence that they can sell those coming volumes at close to cost before committing to any next steps (E3). As Rogo says, this is going to be a long multi-year slog.

On the other hand, there are some bright spots:

-Sales volumes of the 55" 1080p OLEDs have picked up since the 30% price drop from $3500 to $2500 (and there will hopefully be a further price drop of $500 or more by fall).

-production volumes of 4K OLEDS on M2 will be increasing from 6000 sheets per month to 26,000 sheets per month, which should drive significant price refuctions.

-the introduction of the 99" 4K OLED is a good sign - 99" is the largest size that fits 2-up (so same raw number of 99" OLEDs per sheet as 77" OLEDs) and they would not be making that move if 55EC9300 yields were not close to the 90% range they have been stating. The introduction of that TV will position the 77" OLEDs for a price drop out of the stratosphere (probably in 2016).

If we consider the pattern established by the 55" 1080p OLEDs:
Late 2013 introduction
Late 2014 2nd-gen at high-end pricing ($3500)
Late 2015 2nd-gen achieving competetive pricing (


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> It sounds as though they are going to wait until they have confidence that they can sell those coming volumes at close to cost before committing to any next steps (E3). As Rogo says, this is going to be a long multi-year slog.


This shouldnt take multiple years. If they sell anywhere near 600,000 units this year, they'll have a good idea about their ability to increase demand as the price decreases. They also should have a decent idea on whether they can bring 4K yields up to their 1080p counterparts.

Those are the two major factors that will make the decision for the next fab. Prove those out and they can begin building next spring.


----------



## remush

ynotgoal said:


> LG Display said Tuesday it expects to sell 600,000 OLED TV panels this year and 1.5 million next year.
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/lg-displays-latest-oled-tv-sticks-to-the-wall-is-under-1mm-thick/
> 
> .



Im assuming this includes sales to other manufacturers??


----------



## wco81

It'd be preferable for Samsung to jump back in, so that competition drives down prices. They may also end up producing a better product.

So first month of Galaxy S6 sales were "over 10 million," which is about the same or slightly worse than the disappointing S5 sales.

Maybe this will nudge them back into OLED.


----------



## irkuck

You guys should note I was right with my prophecy that LG needs 100"+ class OLED as a statment of power. I am very happy that LG is in my line of thinking and the 99" OLED is announced which obviously is intended as preemptive strike in fight for the top. Well, I still think a genuine 100"+ would be even more impressive as a clear separation from the two digit sizes but the 99" can be accepted as a honorary member of the 100"+ class. LCD guys will be now scrambling to show their 100"+ LCDs but the 99" will be the year's headline anyway which means tons of free marketing for LG and OLED. What LG has to do in the next step is to set the price correctly to fullfill dreams of watching UHD BR on the 99" OLED not only by millionaires.


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> You guys should note I was right with my prophecy that LG needs 100"+ class OLED as a statment of power. I am very happy that LG is in my line of thinking and the 99" OLED is announced which obviously is intended as preemptive strike in fight for the top. Well, I still think a genuine 100"+ would be even more impressive as a clear separation from the two digit sizes but the 99" can be accepted as a honorary member of the 100"+ class. LCD guys will be now scrambling to show their 100"+ LCDs but the 99" will be the year's headline anyway which means tons of free marketing for LG and OLED. What LG has to do in the next step is to set the price correctly to fullfill dreams of watching UHD BR on the 99" OLED not only by millionaires.


I missed the memo. How is a 99"er going to help LGD gain market share again? Panasonic had an over 100" TV for years and it meant squat for marketing.


----------



## 8mile13

OLED association reported may 5th that according korean media OLED TV sales in Korea in 2015 are 3000 units per month. OLED associations guessing is approx.10,000 units per month globally which means that LG will sell approx. 120.000 OLED TVs in 2015..
http://www.oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=922


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> OLED association reported may 5th that according korean media OLED TV sales in Korea in 2015 are 3000 units per month. OLED associations guessing is approx.10,000 units per month globally which means that LG will sell approx. 120.000 OLED TVs in 2015..
> http://www.oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=922


This seems much more realistic, and is probably based mainly on the 55" 1080p OLEDs before the recent price drop.

Now the 55" 1080p OLEDs are 30% less expensive and the 65" 4K OLEDs have begin hitting the market, monthly demand should be increasing from that level - possibly 2X or so (~20,000 units/month).

And by September, there is likely going to be an additional capacity push married to a further price decrease that should increase sales further - let's wave our hands and say another factor of 2X to 40,000 units per month.

That would mean 40,000 units over the first 4 months of the year, 80,000 over the next 4 months, and 160,000 over the final 4 months, so 280,000 OLEDs total this year.

Close to 300,000 OLEDs in 2015 is probably a best-case, but only 120,000 is pretty certainly worse than worst-case.

Even at low yields of 70%, the current Phase-I 6000 substrate-per-month capacity of M2 is pumping out 25,200 55" 4K OLEDs per month, or 12,600 65" 4K OLEDs per month (or some combination of the two). At 80% yields, half the capacity devoted to 55" and half devoted to 65" equates to 14,400 55" and 7200 65" 4K OLEDs, and a 1/3-2/3 split translates to 9,600 of each (or close to 20,000 per month total).

The point is that the Phase-I production of M2 is already putting out close to 20,000 4K OLEDs per month on top of the M1 production of 55" 1080p OLEDs which has been used to satisfy the demand up to now.

We ought to see price drops on the 4K OLEDs by mid-summer...


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> This shouldnt take multiple years. If they sell anywhere near 600,000 units this year, they'll have a good idea about their ability to increase demand as the price decreases. They also should have a decent idea on whether they can bring 4K yields up to their 1080p counterparts.
> 
> Those are the two major factors that will make the decision for the next fab. Prove those out and they can begin building next spring.


There are not only two factors, there are three.

Prices need to drop to the levels that will drive demand for over 50,000 OLED TVs per month (as you say) and yileds of 4K OLEDs need to improve close to 1080p levels (as you also say), but the prices needed to drive demand need to be higher than the costs delivered by improved yields. The CFOs quote about 'gauging profitability of the OLED business' should not be taken lightly.

My read is that if they can not drive the output of M2 ramped to full 26,000 substrates per month capacity into the marketplace at positive gross margin, there may be no M3...

They can certainly find pricing that will drive demand for over 50,000 OLEDs per month, and they can certainly find pricing that drives positive gross margin, but can they find pricing that meets both of those diametrically opposed constraints?

Unfortunately, they won't know until M2 is fully-ramped and the products are flowing through, so that means unlikely to see any investment decisions being made before next spring.

So 2015 on M2 Phase I (6000 substrates per month)
2016 on M2 (26,000 substrates per month)
2017 on M3/Phase 1 (whatever that ends up meaning)
2018 on M3

looks about as fast as things can ramp. 2017 will be another ramp / transition year like 2015 and 2018 is realistically the first year that OLED production could reach the next level (meaning more than 2% of global TV production).

I think M3 investment decisions by next Spring is a best-case scenario and they could easily delay those decisions or the start of construction until deep into 2016 (which would push all of this back by a further 6-12 months).


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I guess we should be delighted LG reiterated those .6M/1.5M goals in spite of no evidence whatsoever they're in position to achieve them.
> 
> In other words, it's good they have confidence in things we cannot see (but perhaps they can).
> 
> That we are halfway through 2015 (very nearly) and there isn't a 2017 goal to put out there, however, gives one pause.
> 
> It feels like 2017 will be a stutter on the growth path as they wait until deep into 2016 to be assured this is all working. Only then will investment ramp up enough to allow a step-wise growth pattern to occur.
> 
> I don't like this even though slacker will argue, it's the only way to do it.
> 
> Now that we can apparently write off Apple, I don't see who would fund a fool's errand either. This is going to be a slow, long sled.
> 
> Perhaps LG captures 1% of the TV market by 2017. Perhaps.
> 
> But 2% feels more out of reach for 2018.
> 
> 3% by 2020? That's around 7M.
> 
> That means they'd need to do >4x this putative 2016 result over the subsequent 4 years. It's not impossible at all, but it still feels like it requires pricing designed to capture nearly all the sales of high-end TVs.
> 
> Can they go there? Will they?
> 
> This is still a great big experiment. It still feels like it's fragile and could fail.
> 
> I'm in for a 2017 model, fearful that it could be an orphan, but I'd rather have that than an LCD.


It seems that even LGD themselves agree with the position espoused by Rogo and myself: http://www.cnet.com/news/lg-display...-the-wall-is-under-1mm-thick/#ftag=YHF65cbda0

"LG Display said Tuesday it expects to sell 600,000 OLED TV panels this year and 1.5 million next year. The company also cited comments made at the press event by Ching W. Tang, a professor at the University of Rochester in New York and "the father of OLED." He said *OLED displays will not become ubiquitous for another five to 10 years. At that point, Tang said, they could outpace LCDs in total shipments.*"

If OLED approaches 1% of the TV market this year and doubles that penetration every year going forward, the next 6 years would look like this:

2015 1% 99% (1:99)
2016 2% 98% (1:49)
2017 4% 96% (1:24)
2018 8% 92% (2:23)
2019 16% 84% (4:21)
2020 32% 68% (8:17)
2021 64% 36% (16:9)

The growth from 32% to 64% in a single year is unrealistic, but this kind of exponential growth curve over the next few years probably represents the most optimistic realistic scenario LG could hope for...

So 4% of 200,000,000 or 8M OLED TVs in 2017 to make this happen - don't see any way that happens based on current commitments and 10 years to reach parity with LCD is probably the more realistic objective.


----------



## irkuck

tgm1024 said:


> I missed the memo. How is a 99"er going to help LGD gain market share again? Panasonic had an over 100" TV for years and it meant squat for marketing.


99 incher is: a) a statement: I, OLED, am the King - which brings tons of free media marketing, b) priced rightly it will grab ultra high-end market of home theater occupied now a.o. by projectors. This will be stimulated by the heavenly match of the 99"OLED&UHDBR. 

All this is part of brilliant strategy of LG to make inroads and confiscate market share from LCD, one has to start from the very top. Guys like Panasonic are zombies comparing to the LG. 

The only point which is not clear is why 99" and not 100"? I would think 100" is even more striking but maybe they did market research concluding that three-digit sizes are looking too big to people?


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> 99 incher is: a) a statement: I, OLED, am the King - which brings tons of free media marketing, b) priced rightly it will grab ultra high-end market of home theater occupied now a.o. by projectors. This will be stimulated by the heavenly match of the 99"OLED&UHDBR.
> 
> All this is part of brilliant strategy of LG to make inroads and confiscate market share from LCD, one has to start from the very top. Guys like Panasonic are zombies comparing to the LG.
> 
> *The only point which is not clear is why 99" and not 100"? I would think 100" is even more striking but maybe they did market research concluding that three-digit sizes are looking too big to people?*


As commented on in several earlier posts in this thread, 99" is the maximum size that lays up 2-per Gen 8.5 sheet (same as the lay up of the 77" OLEDs, which also lays up as 2 per sheet but wastes ~30% of the sheet real estate).

So LG can produce 2 99" OLEDs per full Gen-8.5 sheet but more importantly can produce a single 99" OLED per half-sheet as they manufacture on the M1 pilot line.

I expect the initial production line for these 99" OLEDs to be the M1 half-sheet pilot line. Evan at 90% yield, LG is generating less that $7000 of revenue per half-sheet at new pricing of $2500 for the 55EC9300.

Yields of a single 99" OLED per half sheet will not be 90%, but should be roughly 70%, meaning that LG could price the 99" OLED at $10,000 and would generate similar revenue per half-sheet to what they are generating by continuing to produce 55EC9300s on M1.

I think everyone would agree that LG could price their 99" OLED at twice that level and would establish amd utterly dominate the 100" TV market...

As an added bonus, yields producing 4K OLEDs are lagging those of 1080p OLEDs, likely due to the tighter pixel geometries, but the pixel size of a 99" OLED is close to the size of a 55" 1080p OLED (81% the size) and so should have significantly better yields per unit area than the 65" 4K OLEDs pixels which are less than half as big (35% the size of the 55EC9300 pixels).

It's a smart move (and one hat was predicted on this thread over a month ago ).

P.s. And just to be clear, on current manufacturing infrastructure, a 100" OLED would cost twice as much to produce as a 99" OLED - not much 'marketing research' needed to make that obvious decision .


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> 99 incher is: a) a statement: I, OLED, am the King - which brings tons of free media marketing,


I hear your words, read the entire post, but I believe this ^^^^ to be classic AVS myopia. I just cannot see how a 99 incher is going to bring any more free media than similar sizes have in the past for other technologies, nor can I see how the size of the display says anything about OLED being "the King".

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because your statements just seem like jump discontinuities to me.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> So my benchmark for the roadmap would be the beginning of construction of an E5 fab with a capacity of at least 75000 substrates a month by next spring. That fab would begin ramping shipments sometime in the 2nd half of 2017 and would bring total unyielded OLED capacity to 7.8 million 55" units a year.


So by this logic and given that "ramping" isn't completion of all those and that 65s and up take away from the total not to mention yield... Our timetables aren't very off. You could imagine in this universe something above 6 million 55s in 2018, I can see exceeding 7 million finished goods all sizes in 2020 without straining (see above). My number (not a forecast) appears overcautious, which is good.


> Yes, that is as much as I think it is realistic to expect LGD to do. Further market share in that time period is going to have to come from Samsung. I doubt they do nothing as OLED's take over the vast majority of their high-end share.


Right.



ynotgoal said:


> Since you are focused on market share here is one of LG's first statements on OLED outselling LCD so having 50% market share. 10 years.


My focus on it is solely because I believe it's needed for viability, not because I believe in it for the sake of market share. 


> LG Display said Tuesday it expects to sell 600,000 OLED TV panels this year and 1.5 million next year. The company also cited comments made at the press event by Ching W. Tang, a professor at the University of Rochester in New York and "the father of OLED." He said OLED displays will not become ubiquitous for another five to 10 years. At that point, Tang said, they could outpace LCDs in total shipments.


As fafrd notes, without 3rd party help, that's unrealistic at this point. [Laughs again at the mocking I took when I pointed out in 2012 OLED couldn't possibly take over from LCD by 2020.]


> As for, will they do it...
> 
> Yeo Sang-deog, the president of LG Display’s OLED division mentioned that OLED panel will become LG Display’s future cash cow and suggested that LG Display could be reorganized to focus on OLED business.


Let's hope, and not just for TV.



slacker711 said:


> This shouldnt take multiple years. If they sell anywhere near 600,000 units this year, they'll have a good idea about their ability to increase demand as the price decreases. They also should have a decent idea on whether they can bring 4K yields up to their 1080p counterparts.
> 
> Those are the two major factors that will make the decision for the next fab. Prove those out and they can begin building next spring.


I guess I need to see the pricing action that's selling all of this. At current prices, they can't sell anywhere near 600K TVs.


----------



## mo949

Power and its distribution for a ~100inch screen is likely another source of cost that may not be considered thoroughly when thinking about how to carve up panels for the varying sizes. IOW a 100 inch screen isn't just going to be double the cost of a 65 inch one and the associated R&D that will go into that size/product line may get spread out amonst fewer panels (depending on how they choose to treat their accounting/pricing of course).


----------



## fafrd

mo949 said:


> Power and its distribution for a ~100inch screen is likely another source of cost that may not be considered thoroughly when thinking about how to carve up panels for the varying sizes. *IOW a 100 inch screen isn't just going to be double the cost of a 55 inch one* and the associated R&D that will go into that size/product line may get spread out amonst fewer panels (depending on how they choose to treat their accounting/pricing of course).


Double, no. Roughly 3X, yes.


----------



## JimP

mo949 said:


> Power and its distribution for a ~100inch screen is likely another source of cost that may not be considered thoroughly when thinking about how to carve up panels for the varying sizes. IOW a 100 inch screen isn't just going to be double the cost of a 55 inch one and the associated R&D that will go into that size/product line may get spread out amonst fewer panels (depending on how they choose to treat their accounting/pricing of course).


Didn't Panasonic make a jumbo plasma once (100" or larger) but what they didn't count on was that it was too large to ship?


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> So by this logic and given that "ramping" isn't completion of all those and that 65s and up take away from the total not to mention yield... Our timetables aren't very off. You could imagine in this universe something above 6 million 55s in 2018, I can see exceeding 7 million finished goods all sizes in 2020 without straining (see above). My number (not a forecast) appears overcautious, which is good.


I think it will almost be binary in its outcome. If LGD does build the third fab with sufficient size to take over most of the high-end market, then I think you can count on more capacity coming on line by 2020 from Samsung and/or the Chinese. The WRGB patents are a barrier, but Samsung will either test the patents in court or get the Korean government to force LGD to license them. That's how you'll get the exponential growth in capacity. 

If LGD doesnt build a third fab, then I'd make sure to get the 2017 model.


----------



## mo949

JimP said:


> Didn't Panasonic make a jumbo plasma once (100" or larger) but what they didn't count on was that it was too large to ship?


Yes, they made a couple. The one I've gotten to view at a more affluent associates home was 103", but I'm pretty sure they had a few significantly larger than that....and then a jumbo one at a ballpark or something.


----------



## mo949

fafrd said:


> Double, no. Roughly 3X, yes.


I meant to say 65inch screen. I've edited it.


----------



## fafrd

mo949 said:


> I meant to say 65inch screen. I've edited it.


A 99" OLED will be a bit over 1.5X the cost of a 65" OLED...

But since LG will almost certainly be manufacturing this 99" OLED on the M1 pilot line where 65" OLEDs are not manufactured, it is a somewhat moot discussion (while the comparison to cost for a 55" 1080p OLED is not...).


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> I think it will almost be binary in its outcome.


Yes.


> If LGD does build the third fab with sufficient size to take over most of the high-end market, then I think you can count on more capacity coming on line by 2020 from Samsung and/or the Chinese.


Yes.


> The WRGB patents are a barrier, but Samsung will either test the patents in court or get the Korean government to force LGD to license them. That's how you'll get the exponential growth in capacity.


Yes.


> If LGD doesnt build a third fab, then I'd make sure to get the 2017 model.


I will get one anyway if the price is right on a 77". If there's no 3rd fab, I'll buy a 65" in 2017 and hope it lasts 5 years until, well, something better comes along.


----------



## Jason626

Would LGD accept payment from Samsung to have patent rights if the price was right? They could recoup a good chunk of change and use that to further invest in Oled. Would lg even consider such a proposal to avoid maybe the inevitable battle of lawsuits? Or does LGD want to remain sole source for oled panels and ramp up to be a supplier to manufactures?


----------



## fafrd

Jason626 said:


> Would LGD accept payment from Samsung to have patent rights if the price was right? They could recoup a good chunk of change and use that to further invest in Oled. Would lg even consider such a proposal to avoid maybe the inevitable battle of lawsuits? Or does LGD want to remain sole source for oled panels and ramp up to be a supplier to manufactures?


'If the price was right' depends on whose perspective is being used to make that determination.

For $1, I doubt LG would be interested to license their patent rights to Samsung. For a price of 50% or more of what LG paid Kodak for those patents (which was in the range of $350M or perhaps even $650M), I suspect they would at least be willing to consider it


----------



## irkuck

tgm1024 said:


> I hear your words, read the entire post, but I believe this ^^^^ to be classic AVS myopia. I just cannot see how a 99 incher is going to bring any more free media than similar sizes have in the past for other technologies, nor can I see how the size of the display says anything about OLED being "the King". Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because your statements just seem like jump discontinuities to me.


You simply don't see the depth of my preaching. Take example of current Samsung LCD top JS9500 series with the 88" flagship for over $20K . It packs a lot of goodies: FALD, QDF, HDR and has blessing reviews.
This 88" is Samsung strategic response to OLED but it is evident that the LG 99" OLED will put it in the backseat (and, yes, I got now the eureka moment why the 99" is just 99" - see the 88" ? ). OLED will be 
the King and Samsung will try to repair the damage by launching genuine 100"+ sets. 

What is working on the side of 99" OLED is the coming UHDBR, this will be ultimate experience whose only missing piece is the price. But it is not crazy to think the 99" OLED could match the price of the 88" LCD next year. 



rogo said:


> I will get one anyway if the price is right on a 77". If there's no 3rd fab, I'll buy a 65" in 2017 and hope it lasts 5 years until, well, something better comes along.


2017 will be the year of real 4K: Display size matched to the living room viewing distance for optimal transfer of the UHDBR pixels to the retina. Prepare for buying 99"+ O'LED then :kiss:.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> LG Display held a press conference in Korea showcasing OLED's as their next gen display technology.
> 
> http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150519000867
> 
> https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2015/05/133_179191.html
> 
> - They reiterated their sales goal of 600,000 units this year and 1.5 million units next year.
> 
> - They plan to expand production to 120,000 to 130,000 units in the third quarter.
> 
> *- They plan to release a 99" OLED within the year.*
> 
> - They showed off a 55" OLED that was .97mm thick and weighs 1.9kg. You can hang it on the wall using magnets.
> 
> - Talked about OLED's hitting an 80% yield. They have used that figure before but the question is whether they have hit that kind of number for 4K units.


I just read through both articles and found no reference to a 99" OLED - where did you see that?

Perhaps I just answered my own question: http://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-demonstrates-097-mm-thick-55-flat-oled-tv-panel

"Finally, LG revealed plans to release a large 99" TV within the year."


----------



## fafrd

LG investing some portion of $6.3B in the expansion of M2 to a full 26,000 substrates this month: http://www.oled-info.com/digitimes-samsung-and-lgs-2015-oled-capex-be-slightly-lower-2014

Also this, which I had not seen before: http://www.oled-info.com/displaysea...were-sold-2014-generating-280-million-revenue

According to DisplaySearch, actual OLED TV sales to dare are as follows:

FY 2013 4500 (mainly in Q4)
Q1 2014 4600
Q2 2014 13,500
Q3 2014 16,900
Q4 2014 42,400
Q1 2015 50,000

Whether this is accurate or not, LG needs another 2-2.5X increase in quarterly volume this quarter if they want ant hope of reaching their target of 600,000 OLED TVs this year (if they have only sold a total of 100,000 in 2015 by mid-year, the 600K target is pretty much out of reach for this year).


----------



## rogo

Let's just assume it's out of reach. 250K in Q2/Q3 seems impossible. 300K in Q4 seems impossible. It seems impossible.

But they will ramp. And with the expansion, capacity should be more than 350K per quarter in an all 55s world, right? So things are moving....


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Let's just assume it's out of reach. 250K in Q2/Q3 seems impossible. 300K in Q4 seems impossible. It seems impossible.
> 
> But they will ramp. And with the expansion, capacity should be more than 350K per quarter in an all 55s world, right? So things are moving....


Yes, with the commit to expand the current phase-I M2 capacity of 6000 sheets per month to the full 26,000 sheets per month by Q3 (which translates to the beginning of Q4 and hopefully ends up meaning by early 2016), things are definitely moving.

In an all 55" world, the increase in M2 capacity translates into an additional 85-95K 55" 4K OLEDs per month (depending on whether you want to use a yield of 70% or 80%) from the Phase-I level of 25-30K they have in place today.

At full 26,000 sheet-per-month capacity, M2 is able to put out 1.5M 55" 4K OLEDs in a year all by itself without accounting for any continuation of 55" 1080p OLEDs (or 99" 4K OLEDs ;-) coming off of M1.

So taking the DisplaySeatch estimate of 50K OLEDs sold in Q1 2015, LG should be Ina position to deliver a10X increase in volume in Q1 2016, which is about as aggressive of a capacity ramp as is reasonably for a new technology in an established market...


----------



## remush

wse said:


> The 55-inch OLED TV panel is only 0.97 mm thick and sticks to the wall with magnets. LG Display also plans to introduce a 99-inch OLED panel later this year, according to Yonhap News.
> 
> *1mm OLED TV panel*
> 
> Earlier today, LG Display showcased the latest development in OLED technology. The highlight of the show was a 55-inch “wallpaper” OLED panel that is only 0.97 _millimeters_ thick. The existing OLED panel in LG’s 55-inch TV is 4.3 mm thick.
> 
> The OLED panel is so thin and so light (1.9 kilograms) that it can stick to the wall only by using a magnetic mat. LG did not comment on its plans for commercialization of the panel.


Wish there was more info about this event, looks like a lot of interesting oled tech on display




























What is the edge slice, bezel-less set?


----------



## wse

fafrd said:


> A 99" OLED will be a bit over 1.5X the cost of a 65" OLED...


I wish they would manufacture a ((" OLED TV I would replace my projector 

Hopefully they will also include 










*The benefits of a Dolby Vision TV, at a glance*

April 14, 2015 Dolby Vision 
We’ve written a number of posts about the technology behind Dolby Vision™ and the imaging experts who are helping to create it. But when it comes time to buy a TV, what you really care about is what you’ll see on the screen and why we believe that image will be better than other TVs you could buy.
That’s why we’ve put together the infographic below. It shows at a glance the advantages Dolby Vision TVs will have over TVs that use conventional imaging technologies: vastly improved contrast, with much brighter highlights and profound darks that still show details, combined with a far wider color gamut than conventional TVs.
One other advantage: Only Dolby Vision televisions will be able to show Dolby Vision content in its full glory. As content creators start to produce their content in Dolby Vision, we’ll see movies and television shows that have a dynamic range and depth of detail and color that reflects what you see in real life. To see that content as the filmmaker intended, you’ll need a Dolby Vision enabled TV.
This week, VIZIO announced the VIZIO Reference Series 65-inch and 120-inch Ultra HD Full-Array LED Smart TVs, which feature Dolby Vision technology. In addition, VUDU, Walmart’s video-on-demand service, confirmed that it will distribute 4K, Ultra HD Dolby Vision titles from Warner Bros., including _Edge of Tomorrow, The Lego Movie _and _Into the Storm._
(Click on the infographic below to see it at full size. Depending on your browser, you may need to click twice.)


----------



## 8mile13

wse said:


> I wish they would manufacture a ((" OLED TV I would replace my projector
> 
> Hopefully they will also include
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The benefits of a Dolby Vision TV, at a glance*
> 
> April 14, 2015 Dolby Vision
> We’ve written a number of posts about the technology behind Dolby Vision™ and the imaging experts who are helping to create it. But when it comes time to buy a TV, what you really care about is what you’ll see on the screen and why we believe that image will be better than other TVs you could buy.
> That’s why we’ve put together the infographic below. It shows at a glance the advantages Dolby Vision TVs will have over TVs that use conventional imaging technologies: vastly improved contrast, with much brighter highlights and profound darks that still show details, combined with a far wider color gamut than conventional TVs.
> One other advantage: Only Dolby Vision televisions will be able to show Dolby Vision content in its full glory. As content creators start to produce their content in Dolby Vision, we’ll see movies and television shows that have a dynamic range and depth of detail and color that reflects what you see in real life. To see that content as the filmmaker intended, you’ll need a Dolby Vision enabled TV.
> This week, VIZIO announced the VIZIO Reference Series 65-inch and 120-inch Ultra HD Full-Array LED Smart TVs, which feature Dolby Vision technology. In addition, VUDU, Walmart’s video-on-demand service, confirmed that it will distribute 4K, Ultra HD Dolby Vision titles from Warner Bros., including _Edge of Tomorrow, The Lego Movie _and _Into the Storm._
> (Click on the infographic below to see it at full size. Depending on your browser, you may need to click twice.)


 That looks like a pro-Vizio site. Someone tries to make us believe that we are talking here about the Dolby Vizio Vision Dolby has its own Sharp FALD to demonstate Dolby Vision so why bring up the Vizio Reference Series?? btw The Vizio Reference Series was announced in januari 2014. Recently Vizio announced that it will be in the stores by october 2015, currently it is vaporware..


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> That looks like a pro-Vizio site. Someone tries to make us believe that we are talking here about the Dolby Vizio Vision Dolby has its own Sharp FALD to demonstate Dolby Vision so why bring up the Vizio Reference Series?? btw The Vizio Reference Series was announced in januari 2014. *Recently Vizio announced that it will be in the stores by october 2015*, currently it is vaporware..


Where did you see that announcement?


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> Where did you see that announcement?


C|NET ''Now the latest update from Vizio says the Reference series will arrive by the end of 2015. Pricing has not been announced.'' As i understand it the Reference Series will arrive in october, november/december...or never 
http://www.cnet.com/products/vizio-reference-series/


----------



## tgm1024

8mile13 said:


> C|NET ''Now the latest update from Vizio says the Reference series will arrive by the end of 2015. Pricing has not been announced.'' As i understand it the Reference Series will arrive in october, november/december...or never
> http://www.cnet.com/products/vizio-reference-series/


Let's say that in October they _finally_ manage to deliver a Viz-R. That's one year and 10 months after its initial announcement. At that point, would it be accurate to say they actually delivered a Vizio R, or that they just made some new TV? What I mean is that part of what made the R gather attention was that it was supposed to be around in 2014...that spec sheet in 2014 was attention grabbing. Every month that goes by makes it stand out just a little bit less. By the time they actually can produce the thing, will "reference" still be "reference"?


----------



## 8mile13

tgm1024 said:


> Let's say that in October they _finally_ manage to deliver a Viz-R. That's one year and 10 months after its initial announcement. At that point, would it be accurate to say they actually delivered a Vizio R, or that they just made some new TV? What I mean is that part of what made the R gather attention was that it was supposed to be around in 2014...that spec sheet in 2014 was attention grabbing. Every month that goes by makes it stand out just a little bit less. By the time they actually can produce the thing, will "reference" still be "reference"?


 I kind of stick with C|NET here ''The television in question is the Vizio Reference Series. That claim was first made at Vizio's CES 2014 showcase 15 months ago, _but_ _the_ _TV_ _never_ _shipped_.'' When there will be a actual TV at the end of the year it will no longer be the Original Reference Series. It will be a updated version of a product that never shipped..


----------



## sytech

tgm1024 said:


> Let's say that in October they _finally_ manage to deliver a Viz-R. That's one year and 10 months after its initial announcement. At that point, would it be accurate to say they actually delivered a Vizio R, or that they just made some new TV? What I mean is that part of what made the R gather attention was that it was supposed to be around in 2014...that spec sheet in 2014 was attention grabbing. Every month that goes by makes it stand out just a little bit less. By the time they actually can produce the thing, will "reference" still be "reference"?


I am starting a new rule. You have one year after announcing your product to bring it to market or it will be labeled vaporware. If you do release it after a year, it will be consider a whole new model.


----------



## fafrd

sytech said:


> I am starting a new rule. You have one year after announcing your product to bring it to market or it will be labeled vaporware. If you do release it after a year, it will be consider a whole new model.


You are making me lick my chops over that Vizio S Series 

P.s. And what happens if it does not get released until after 2 years? Vizio T-Series


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> You are making me lick my chops over that Vizio S Series
> 
> P.s. And what happens if it does not get released until after 2 years? Vizio T-Series


LOL. Could be.

I suppose it could be the "Vizio AEIOU and sometimes Y" series for all we care if it never ships.


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> LOL. Could be.
> 
> I suppose it could be the "Vizio AEIOU and sometimes Y" series for all we care if it never ships.


If the Vizio R is not available before you can purchase your first UHD Bluray content through Amazon, I will eat crow.

Until then, you just have to consider that when it comes to UHD Bluray / HDR, we are still in a wormhole (ie: time has no meaning ).


----------



## Desk.

Kateeva and DuPont announce partnership to optimise inkjet printing for mass production of OLED TVs...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dupont-displays-kateeva-collaborate-optimize-130815393.html

I don't think I'll be holding on for anything any time soon, however.

Certainly not in time for my requirements as in my next TV, which will be an OLED.

Desk


----------



## 1959Dodge

MIT Professor Vladimir Bulović co-founds QD Vision, Kateeva and Ubiquitous Energy.


Note, the same MIT Professor co-founded both Quantum dot company as well as the Kateeva printer (which supposedly) was going to be used to print "cheaper OLED TVs"


Myself, I think the kind of "ink" that will go in to the Kateeva will be "QD ink" and not "OLED Ink".


Of course , time will tell, but how long have we been hearing about OLED TV's via Kateeva?


I bet we see QD TV's via Kateeva well before we see Kateeva Oleds, particularly since the same individual cofounded both a Quantum Dot Company as well as the Kateeva.


Gary


----------



## 8mile13

1959Dodge said:


> MIT Professor Vladimir Bulović co-founds QD Vision, Kateeva and Ubiquitous Energy.
> 
> 
> Note, the same MIT Professor co-founded both Quantum dot company as well as the Kateeva printer (which supposedly) was going to be used to print "cheaper OLED TVs"
> 
> 
> Myself, I think the kind of "ink" that will go in to the Kateeva will be "QD ink" and not "OLED Ink".
> 
> 
> Of course , time will tell, but how long have we been hearing about OLED TV's via Kateeva?
> 
> 
> I bet we see QD TV's via Kateeva well before we see Kateeva Oleds, particularly since the same individual cofounded both a Quantum Dot Company as well as the Kateeva.
> 
> 
> Gary


Well. The guy is one of the founders. Currently he is a Kateeva advisor. Steven van Slyke, the co-inventor of OLED, on the other hand, is Chief Technology Officer of Kateeva..

Printed OLED is the focus of Kateeva. Show me a link which shows that Kateeva is also focussing on printed Quantum Dots.


----------



## 1959Dodge

8mile13 said:


> Well. The guy is one of the founders. Currently he is a Kateeva advisor. Steven van Slyke, the co-inventor of OLED, on the other hand, is Chief Technology Officer of Kateeva..
> 
> Printed OLED is the focus of Kateeva. Show me a link which shows that Kateeva is also focussing on printed Quantum Dots.



So far this is what I've found, but I can't fine the "whole Article" yet


"www.displayalliance.com/news/tag/avionic


1st

"May 3, 2015 - What the hell are quantum dots, and why do you want them in your next TV? ... It is the first product to emerge from Kateeva's YIELDjet platform, a breakthrough ..."


2nd


"The DuPont and Kateeva cooperation is non-exclusive and manufacturers will not be restricted in their choice of equipment or materials through this effort; it will only aim to increase viable, manufacturing-ready options. The companies expect to provide cross-referenced data for DuPont materials with Kateeva printing equipment."


Samsung bought a Kateeva, last year, (or so the rumours go), I can post links to that if you need it, but just google
Samsung kateeva.


Add to this The report that Samsung "may ditch" Oled in favor of QLED, and if I were a betting man, my bet would be on the QLED.


I suspects we will see a lot more in the next few days.


Gary


----------



## rogo

1959Dodge said:


> Myself, I think the kind of "ink" that will go in to the Kateeva will be "QD ink" and not "OLED Ink".


I don't.



1959Dodge said:


> Samsung bought a Kateeva, last year,


Invested in... yes. That's all, and it wasn't a rumor.



> Add to this The report that Samsung "may ditch" Oled in favor of QLED, and if I were a betting man, my bet would be on the QLED.


There has never been a demonstration of a workable quantum-dot emissive TV. Not sure how you've concluded a company pursuing OLEDs is suddenly switching to a technology that basically exists only in theory.


----------



## tgm1024

1959Dodge said:


> Myself, I think the kind of "ink" that will go in to the Kateeva will be "QD ink" and not "OLED Ink".


Not a chance. Where did you get this idea from?




rogo said:


> There has never been a demonstration of a workable quantum-dot emissive TV. Not sure how you've concluded a company pursuing OLEDs is suddenly switching to a technology that basically exists only in theory.


Yeah, at one point a few years ago I searched high and wide for even evidence of a _lab demo_ of non-light activated QD emission and never found one. The theory was that you could activate the things by electrons directly and have them excite.

I _*do *_understand the reasoning, and I believe it's hardly a crazy idea:

1. QD's absorb and retransmit light at varying frequencies
2. Light is part of the Electro-Magnetic spectrum
3. All things that are part of the EMS can interact directly with anything electro-magnetic in nature, including electrons.

Electrons themselves can also be represented with duality: a wave and a particle. So I'm not completely sure what the hold-up is on this, but it must be significant because there's nothing there.

I would love it if someone actually found a demo of such things, but be warned, googling for it is a nightmare because nearly every link will discuss photon activated QD.


----------



## stas3098

In OLEDs the gamma rays that get down-converted into visible light can never "escape" from the emitter (in fact OLEDs lose their brightness when they start to produce less gamma rays).

QDs as in TVs would use a lot of toxic material (not that OLEDs don't use toxic materials, but OLEDs are only moderately toxic when they burn due to "oils" (or in other words, solvents which are used to liquify OLED material (which comes in powder form) in order to vaporize it) that tends to become radioactive over time and emit gamma/X rays...


----------



## JimP

stas3098 said:


> In OLEDs the gamma rays that get down-converted into visible light can never "escape" from the emitter (in fact OLEDs lose their brightness when they start to produce less gamma rays).
> 
> QDs as in TVs would use a lot of toxic material (not that OLEDs don't use toxic materials, but OLEDs are only moderately toxic when they burn due to "oils" (or in other words, solvents which are used to liquify OLED material (which comes in power form) in order to vaporize it) that tend to become radioactive over time and emit gamma/X rays...


So instead of glowing black levels it'll be us that are glowing. That's a comforting thought. lol


----------



## irkuck

At last, not yet another boring TV but OLEDs for solving absolutely critical life needs .


----------



## Desk.

Could Fujifilm's photoresists approach open up the prospect of easier OLED TV production with higher pixel density...?

http://www.techradar.com/news/telev...d-breakthrough-we-ve-been-waiting-for-1296371

Desk


----------



## Jason626

Desk. said:


> Could Fujifilm's photoresists approach open up the prospect of easier OLED TV production with higher pixel density...?
> 
> http://www.techradar.com/news/telev...d-breakthrough-we-ve-been-waiting-for-1296371
> 
> Desk


That's interesting. Plus side is no filters for rbg.


----------



## rogo

Sounds intriguing, more likely applicable to small screens than big ones, and honestly likely 5 years from meaningfully impacting production if this is at lab stage.

It also sounds slow because photoresists take time to develop and then "wash away" the excess. But that's how backplanes are made so it wouldn't necessarily be much slower than that stage. I suspect it would be the "Herbie" however.


----------



## slacker711

Some LGD yield rumors....

http://english.etnews.com/20150611200002



> LG Display Increases UHD OLED Panel’s Yield Value Up To 65%...Its Ultimate Goal Is 85% By End Of 2015
> Jun 11, 2015
> 
> LG Display who was focused on targeting OLED TV market, raised UHD OLED panel’s yield value up to 65%. Its ultimate goal is 85%, and this will bring lot of momentum to expansion of OLED TV’s market share if LG Display ultimately reaches its goal.
> According to high-rank LG Display executive, 65-inch and 77-inch UHD OLED’s yield value recently surpassed 65%. FHD OLED panel was able to secure a stable yield value by surpassing 80%.
> FHD OLED TV was not able to receive any significant response from the markets because it was not able show any differentiated value like UHD LCD TV that chose quantum-dot (QD) film. OLED TV needs to surpass UHD if it wants to stay in the market, and this is why LG Display shifted its importance to production of UHD OLED panels starting this year. LG barely produces any FHD OLED panels.
> One executive from LG Display said that yield value of 65-inch and 77-inch UHD OLED panels surpassed 65% since last April and the yield value of 55-inch is greater than 65-inch and 77-inch products.
> 
> Goal of LG Display for this year is to increase 77-inch, 65-inch, and 55-inch UHD OLED panels’ yield values up to 87%, 85%, and 75% respectively. If they are able to succeed in reaching that goal, then it will invest in building expansions that are double of current output.
> If ink jet printing technique, which is currently being developed, gets successfully applied on mass-production line, LG is hoping that it can raise yield values and greatly lower production cost. Ink jet technique does not plate previous OLED luminous material that was in powder form, but it uses solution-form like material to put it on top of a board. LG Display will soon do a demonstration of operating ink jet pilot line at M2 line in Paju.
> To raise OLED TV’s total yield value, it needs to not only improve panels, but also modules’ yield values. Because modules’ yield values are not high, total UHD OLED TV’s production yield values are also low.
> A person in the business circle said that LG is currently having a difficult time because its modules’ yield values are low due to voltage problems. A person also said that LG’s goal is to improve module’s yield values up to more than 95% by end of the year.
> If LG Display were to secure stable UHD OLED panel’s yield value, it is projected that it will advance the timing of making the market more advanced. It is predicted that other competitors will also work to rush into the market.
> Market investigation company called HIS is predicting that shipping amount of UHD OLED TV will increase from 510,000 in 2015 to 1.29 million in 2006, and 5.07 million in 2018. It is also predicting that sales in 2020 will be 5.8 billion dollars, and percentage of OLED TV’s sales in all TV markets will increase to 9% in 2019.


----------



## barth2k

65%.. No wonder prices are still sky high


----------



## rupprider

Question that I have wondered for a long time: How/when in the production process of an oled panel is it determined that the panel is faulty? And what do they do with it? Can't just hit it with a brick can they? Seems to me that being able to reuse/recycle a reject panel would have a maybe large bearing on the overall cost of doing business?


----------



## Jason626

So the voltage problems are what lg is saying is the problem. Is this then a confirmation on what's causing the black border issues on near black content?


----------



## stas3098

Jason626 said:


> So the voltage problems are what lg is saying is the problem. Is this then a confirmation on what's causing the black border issues on near black content?


Yes, it is. Transistor drift of IGZO causes a lot of issues. I think they are eventually going to have to switch to some version of LTPS if they want 95 to 99% yield rates. 

In fact, I believe their IGZO is already very close to LTPS in that they try to make crystalline structure IGZO for the amorphous IGZO tends to drift like crazy. They might not call it LTPS, but in really modern IGZO and LTPS have virtually crystalline structure( for those of you who don't know it a crystalline structure allows for lower tolerances and what that means is that you may drive a crystalline structure transistor without a fear of drift and threshold shift at lower/higher voltages and what that in turn means is the finer voltage control necessary to drive an OLED panel).


----------



## Desk.

stas3098 said:


> Yes, it is. Transistor drift of IGZO causes a lot of issues. I think they are eventually going to have to switch to some version of LTPS if they want 95 to 99% yield rates.
> 
> In fact, I believe their IGZO is already very close to LTPS in that they try to make crystalline structure IGZO for the amorphous IGZO tends to drift like crazy. They might not call it LTPS, but in really modern IGZO and LTPS have virtually crystalline structure( for those of you who don't know it a crystalline structure allows for lower tolerances and what that means is that you may drive a crystalline structure transistor without a fear of drift and threshold shift at lower/higher voltages and what that in turn means is the finer voltage control necessary to drive an OLED panel).


That's very interesting to read.

Voltage problems seem to have been an the heart of quite a few issues with the OLED sets, from the 'staining' resulting from transistor threshold drift (which now appears largely resolved through compensation algorithms), to the remaining quirks around banding and vignetting.

So if this is the case, and if adopting an LTPS backplane would eliminate these remaining issues, giving much greater fine voltage control, delivering much higher yields, then why doesn't LG simply do just that?

Is it just down to cost, or is there some proprietary issue around LTPS?

Desk


----------



## ynotgoal

Desk. said:


> So if this is the case, and if adopting an LTPS backplane would eliminate these remaining issues, giving much greater fine voltage control, delivering much higher yields, then why doesn't LG simply do just that?
> 
> Is it just down to cost, or is there some proprietary issue around LTPS?
> 
> Desk


It's cost. The LTPS cost is one of the main reasons Samsung isn't investing in OLED TV production yet. LG's slow ramp in production was to due to getting the oxide TFT yields up to the required rates. Here's a discussion...

8 mask oxide TFT production processes were reduced to 4 mask production and lowered investment cost, which led to a more reasonable panel price. 

The halved number of masks in the TFT production signifies that the number of processes can be reduced and increase the yield rate. It also means the amount of large scale investment essential to the TFT production can be reduced by 50%.

The rival display of LCD mostly uses 4 mask process of a-Si TFT. If the existing Gen8 line, with capacity of 200K, is changed to LTPS TFT or 8 mask oxide TFT process, the capacity is reduced to approx.. 90K and increases the TFT production cost by more than 200%. However, in 4 mask production, the LCD line can be altered to TFT exclusive line for OLED without any loss of capacity; this would place the TFT production cost on the same level as LCD. Of course, as the existing line can be used without additional factory construction will reduce the investment cost even further.

Therefore, if OLED is developed using 4 mask oxide TFT technology, theoretically the production cost falls to the level of LCD panel production price excluding BLU. As the large area OLED panel market is in early stages, the OLED evaporator and encapsulation equipment price is still high, but the equipment price will fall rapidly within 2-3 years and the investment cost is also expected to be reduced.

The display market research organizations are estimating the large OLED panel price to be at least $3,000, but according to the 2015 Annual Report by UBI Research, the LG Display’s 55 inch FHD OLED panel price is only expected to be around $900, and a 55 inch UHD OLED panel is to be around $1,400. UBI Research analyses that there is some difference from the actual sales price as LG Display’s M2 line production and yield rates are low, but if the full capacity of 26K is reached and the yield rises to above 80%, the current supply price can easily be met. Particularly if the large scale mass production system is established with the addition of M3 and M4 lines, it is predicted that OLED panel price will be reduced so that there will only be 1.1 times difference compared to LCD panel.


----------



## stas3098

Desk. said:


> That's very interesting to read.
> 
> Voltage problems seem to have been an the heart of quite a few issues with the OLED sets, from the 'staining' resulting from transistor threshold drift (which now appears largely resolved through compensation algorithms), to the remaining quirks around banding and vignetting.
> 
> So if this is the case, and if adopting an LTPS backplane would eliminate these remaining issues, giving much greater fine voltage control, delivering much higher yields, then why doesn't LG simply do just that?
> 
> Is it just down to cost, or is there some proprietary issue around LTPS?
> 
> Desk


It's the cost (more energy and more time) and the fact that LTPS requires the high-end electronic grade silicon due to higher temperatures involved.

There's no proprietary obstacles at all. The Applied Materials makes LTPS materials right next to the IGZO and a-Si and any one with a wad of _cash_ can buy LTPS/IGZO/a-Si from them.


----------



## rogo

There is absolutely no way LG switches to LTPS and then scales that. In fact, there is pretty strong evidence that giant LTPS substrates aren't remotely viable from a manufacturing perspective at volume. 

IGZO is still pretty new -- the first commercial products hit just 3 years ago or so. It will get there in time or other oxides will.


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> There is absolutely no way LG switches to LTPS and then scales that. In fact, there is pretty strong evidence that giant LTPS substrates aren't remotely viable from a manufacturing perspective at volume.
> 
> IGZO is still pretty new -- the first commercial products hit just 3 years ago or so. It will get there in time or other oxides will.


There's no fixing problems with oxides, becasue oxides are just additives which are added to _crystallized_ a-Si to broaden the conductivity brackets thereof and a-Si's structure _shifts_ slightly due to the near-instant voltage/current swings. And even current LTPS structures shift due to the voltage/current swings (as in swings in voltage and current from 0,0001 nit brightness to 300 nit brightness). In LTPS the swings in conductivity are cushioned by the rigidity of structure (meaning they are a good fit for compensation circuitry), but in IGZO the conductivity shifts (caused by structural shifts), on the finest of scales, are mostly unchecked, but for the compensation circuitry in many cases. But, I don't know, maybe compensation circuitry will get there in time, because IGZO is the best it can be right now...


----------



## UltraBlack

barth2k said:


> 65%.. No wonder prices are still sky high


Actually it is not even close to 65%... All those panes with darkened sides are defective, but in LG's opinion - they are not faulty


----------



## sytech

UltraBlack said:


> Actually it is not even close to 65%... All those panes with darkened sides are defective, but in LG's opinion - they are not faulty


They are only able to sell 6 out of 10, so for right now it is 60%. And that doesn't mean those entire 60% were good. Many of those are repaired to make them sellable or shipped defective. I keep hoping for some good news on printing OLED method because even if they get to the 80% of HD OLED, it will still never be able to compete in the mass consumer market. LCD tech continues to improve with WCG/HDR/FALD and even a 25% OLED premium in price would be hard sell to Joe Consumer.


----------



## Jason626

sytech said:


> They are only able to sell 6 out of 10, so for right now it is 60%. And that doesn't mean those entire 60% were good. Many of those are repaired to make them sellable or shipped defective. I keep hoping for some good news on printing OLED method because even if they get to the 80% of HD OLED, it will still never be able to compete in the mass consumer market. LCD tech continues to improve with WCG/HDR/FALD and even a 25% OLED premium in price would be hard sell to Joe Consumer.


I think they key is hitting that magic yield number of >85%. That article from slackers post says once they can reach that high of yields lg will invest in doubling there current production. I take it as expanding to another fab. If lg can double then triple the amount of tvs at those high yields I bet we will see prices more acceptable. Let's hope.


----------



## stas3098

UltraBlack said:


> Actually it is not even close to 65%... All those panes with darkened sides are defective, but in LG's opinion - they are not faulty


They are not faulty it is just that IGZO structure varies from transistor to transistor a little. If you want 100% uniformity than the only option is LTPS ( which of course, in really is no option at all) at the moment.


----------



## JimP

stas3098 said:


> They are not faulty it is just that IGZO structure varies from transistor to transistor a little. If you want 100% uniformity than the only option is LTPS ( which of course, in really is no option at all) at the moment.


So what criteria do you use to say its faulty if you want to say that its not faulty when visible to users? 

Another thought is if its not visible early in a display's life, is it possible that it'll show up after a few hundred hours after most return windows have closed?


----------



## stas3098

JimP said:


> So what criteria do you use to say its faulty if you want to say that its not faulty when visible to users?
> 
> Another thought is if its not visible early in a display's life, is it possible that it'll show up after a few hundred hours after most return windows have closed?


It's just that some degree of variation in structure is inevitable during the process of production and deposition of IGZO at least with current production equipment/tech. 

No, it shouldn't get _much _worse over time (or at least noticeably worse, because voltages are too fine to be able to rock the IGZO's boat significantly) unless the back-plane is _faulty_, but it might just get worse enough to be able to get your proverbial goat...


----------



## aryaiee

hi
Can one Reliable source About sub pixel oled curved To me Introduce?


----------



## mushroomkid

stas3098 said:


> They are not faulty it is just that IGZO structure varies from transistor to transistor a little. If you want 100% uniformity than the only option is LTPS ( which of course, in really is no option at all) at the moment.





stas3098 said:


> It's just that some degree of variation in structure is inevitable during the process of production and deposition of IGZO at least with current production equipment/tech.
> 
> No, it shouldn't get _much _worse over time (or at least noticeably worse, because voltages are too fine to be able to rock the IGZO's boat significantly) unless the back-plane is _faulty_, but it might just get worse enough to be able to get your proverbial goat...


So what you're saying is, stay away from OLED unless it is LTPS? Unless you want darkened edges which are part and parcel of OLED which could theoretically worsen


----------



## stas3098

mushroomkid said:


> So what you're saying is, stay away from OLED unless it is LTPS? Unless you want darkened edges which are part and parcel of OLED which could theoretically worsen


The problem is that there's no LTPS OLED TVs out there and there might not be any for a long time. 

But for now there's going to be some OLEDs with darkened edges which shall come as part and parcel of them, but some lucky guys might win the OLED lottery and get one without such blemishes... in the TV world you never know until you open the box.


----------



## ChaosCloud

stas3098 said:


> They are not faulty it is just that IGZO structure varies from transistor to transistor a little. If you want 100% uniformity than the only option is LTPS ( which of course, in really is no option at all) at the moment.


Are you saying that it's the backplane which is responsible for LG OLED non-uniformity? I was under the impression that it was caused by the imperfect deposition of the actual OLED material. Why do IGZO LCDs not have these uniformity problems?


----------



## rogo

mushroomkid said:


> So what you're saying is, stay away from OLED unless it is LTPS?


Nonsense.



stas3098 said:


> The problem is that there's no LTPS OLED TVs out there and there might not be any for a long time.


Likely never, to be precise.


> But for now there's going to be some OLEDs with darkened edges which shall come as part and parcel of them, but some lucky guys might win the OLED lottery and get one without such blemishes... in the TV world you never know until you open the box.


Sadly, this has been true for years.



ChaosCloud said:


> Are you saying that it's the backplane which is responsible for LG OLED non-uniformity? I was under the impression that it was caused by the imperfect deposition of the actual OLED material. Why do IGZO LCDs not have these uniformity problems?


The LCD has its own set of uniformity problems, but one important point is that the transistor doesn't modulate light output in an LCD. It modulates the "light valve". The output of the light itself is a function of the LEDs, which are often uniformly illuminated (except on locally-dimmed sets, including faux edge-lit dimmed sets, where they are modulated) but are never directly modulated by the backplane in the same way OLED emissive pixels are.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Likely never, to be precise.
> 
> 
> Sadly, this has been true for years.
> 
> 
> 
> *The LCD has its own set of uniformity problems, but one important point is that the transistor doesn't modulate light output in an LCD. It modulates the "light valve". The output of the light itself is a function of the LEDs, which are often uniformly illuminated (except on locally-dimmed sets, including faux edge-lit dimmed sets, where they are modulated) but are never directly modulated by the backplane in the same way OLED emissive pixels are*.


More specifically, LCDs operate on the basis of voltage and the transistors involved act as voltage switches (which modulate the degree to which LCD lightvalves transmit or block light already generated by the LED backplane) and don't pass any significant current. The backplane transistors involved in OLED operate on the basis of current (which is required to generate emmissive light output) and in terms of the effect of threshold drift and transistor lifetime, that is a significant difference in operating conditions (current-mode generally being worse than voltage-mode).


----------



## ynotgoal

LG interview at CE Week discussing HDR and other brands adopting LG's OLED. On the curve: "the novelty has worn out. We are commited to the flat form factor."


----------



## tgm1024

ynotgoal said:


> LG interview at CE Week discussing HDR and other brands adopting LG's OLED. On the curve: "the novelty has worn out. We are commited to the flat form factor."
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhzmAH0BqM4


Not exactly what he said, though I was hoping it was.

"We are committed to the flat form factor *as well as curved* for those who prefer it." Almost exactly at 3 minutes in, though I can't make AVS behave with youtube marked position links, so you might have to FF directly to that point.

https://youtu.be/GhzmAH0BqM4?t=3m1s

He didn't squash the curve concept entirely.


----------



## Jason626

I think as long as lg makes both flat and curved tv of the same model as a choice for consumers we could all live with it. Samsung on the other hand has only made there best tv in curved form factor and I really hate that if you want their best you have to settle for the curve.


----------



## tgm1024

Jason626 said:


> I think as long as lg makes both flat and curved tv of the same model as a choice for consumers we could all live with it. Samsung on the other hand has only made there best tv in curved form factor and I really hate that if you want their best you have to settle for the curve.


Well if you're anti-curve (I am, though the scientist in me requires me to reconsider that position periodically) then Samsung is absolutely going to irk you the most. Their curve _*in comparison** to LG's*_ is extreme.


----------



## 8mile13

tgm1024 said:


> Not exactly what he said, though I was hoping it was.
> 
> "We are committed to the flat form factor *as well as curved* for those who prefer it." Almost exactly at 3 minutes in, though I can't make AVS behave with youtube marked position links, so you might have to FF directly to that point.
> 
> https://youtu.be/GhzmAH0BqM4?t=3m1s
> 
> He didn't squash the curve concept entirely.


''the curve form factor _was_ very popular in certain parts of the world'' ''the novelty has worn out'' Looks like the curve best days are over ..it was very popular..for two years...in certain parts of the world...


----------



## tgm1024

8mile13 said:


> ''the curve form factor _was_ very popular in certain parts of the world'' ''the novelty has worn out'' Looks like the curve best days are over ..it was very popular..for two years...in certain parts of the world...


I understand, but that's still not the rotting corpse I was hoping to find.


----------



## Orbitron

Yup, very popular when flat is not an option.


----------



## rogo

ynotgoal said:


> LG interview at CE Week discussing HDR and other brands adopting LG's OLED. On the curve: "the novelty has worn out. We are commited to the flat form factor."


The thing all us critics said was dumb and a gimmick is... dumb and a gimmick.

Maybe these companies need to crowdsource marketing to people who have a clue.


----------



## sytech

Orbitron said:


> Yup, very popular when flat is not an option.



I heard the most popular color for the 1914 Ford Model T was black.


----------



## stas3098

Orbitron said:


> Yup, very popular when flat is not an option.


Woe belimp the world where man should hook and look to curve a TV... a thing soothly unhuikable...

P.S Just a short FYI. "Hook" means to think (comes from Old English "hycgan"( if I am not mistaken and is cognate with the Scots word for "to think" huik (pronounced as "hook"). The phrase: "to hook and look (to)" means to first think of an idea (usually of some verily terrible idea) and then try to bring that idea to fruition... this phrase is still sometimes found in the northernmost thorps and wiks of England. The most famous incarnation of this set phrase is as follows: "I'm sorry, I neither hooked nor looked to hurt/insult(bore) you (with this tangent)".


----------



## irkuck

LG must see OLED able to beat the LCD in every segment


----------



## wco81

irkuck said:


> LG must see OLED able to beat the LCD in every segment


Um, that seems to suggest they're going to produce a lot of OLED for mobile devices. And speculates that since LG supplies Apple, one might conclude ...


----------



## rogo

Yep, wco, no implications for TV at all.

Too bad.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG plans to produce over 12 million UHD OLED TVs in 2020 - Researching Printing*

Source: oled-info.com


> TNews posted the following chart, showing what seems to be LG Display's own forecasts for UHD (4K) OLED TV production from 2014 to 2020. These are just 4K OLED TVs - LGD still produces Full-HD OLEDs as well (for example in 2015, LGD plans to produce 86,000 FHD TVs, bringing the total number of OLED TV produced to 600,000).
> 
> 
> According to the OLED Association LG indeed managed to increase production yields of 4K OLEDs. The company is now conducting extensive R&D in inkjet printing of OLEDs as this seems to be a promising route towards greater material efficiency and faster production


 








​


----------



## rogo

It's hard to glean much from the report, but let's try!

1) If those are supposed to be actual forecasts, someone appears to have just plugged numbers into Excel to get a nice smooth curve. That's not an especially serious forecast otherwise. e.g. I don't believe it includes fab dates, capacities, ramp up, etc.

2) If those are supposed to be actual forecasts, it could be quite a while before price parity with high-end LCD (n.b. not "flagship" LCD, those don't sell in anything resembling even the 2017 forecasts and for 2016, LG would like need >100% market share in the "flagship" category). Price declines are driven by volume. 2015 is more than half done and clearly LG has nowhere near 500,000 4K sets being produced this year. I don't really understand why anyone is buying the 1080p models, but I can't imagine they are driving much volume anyway.

3) If LG is researching printing as a serious thing, it has no actual plans to do the 2019/2020 production (or really the 2018) at this point. This doesn't mean they won't, it just means there isn't a real roadmap as I reference in (1). That would include dates for multiple fabs/production lines, cap ex forecasts, ramp up times, price reductions, etc. I'm not saying no one at LG has done this, just that no one at LG has committed to following through on it.

4) OLED is not only not through the Valley of Death, it's not clear it has even entered it yet. There will come a point -- and that point looks like 2017/8 on the forecast -- where LG has to push through two more "doublings" of production into a market that can only possibly bear it at a fraction of then current prices. 5 million TVs, for example, is on the order of 100% of today's $3000+ TV market. It could easily be >100%. 

By 2017, LG will be asking the market to absorb a lot of OLED TVs that it is effectively the only seller of. Everyone else will be fairly insistent that they offer no/minimal advantages. They will not be entirely wrong. There is no way for LG to clear the market without much, much lower pricing than they offer today.

5) If these forecasts are to met -- at all -- pricing action that has begun gets very serious in 2 years. At that point, OLED supporters better buy a lot of TVs. 2020 is depending on you. If the 2017 results disappoint, this whole thing may get stuck in the valley.


----------



## x3sphere

rogo said:


> *I don't really understand why anyone is buying the 1080p models, but I can't imagine they are driving much volume anyway.*
> .


You are probably right they aren't driving much volume, but I'd argue for someone who wants high end on a budget it's great that 1080P OLEDs are still being sold. At recent sale prices it's arguably the best deal out there if you want a quality TV, seeing as all the good Plasmas are no longer being sold and used prices shot up as well. The benefits of 4K are questionable at 55", and I say this as someone who has been quick to adopt 4K on the PC side. Close up for monitors 4K makes a lot of sense, but you really need a massive TV to truly take advantage of 4K. I wouldn't get anything less than a 75" for 4K, personally. Most people would be better off getting an 1080P OLED versus a 4K LCD if they sit 8-10ft away from a 55"

Marketing has led a lot of people (well, less informed buyers) to think buying anything less than a 4K set is pointless though, so I'd imagine LG may be struggling to move the EC9300 and that's why we've seen deep discounts on it.


----------



## rogo

Very good points x3sphere.


----------



## stas3098

Rich Peterson said:


> Source: oled-info.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


OLED-printing by 2020. Well, it looks less likely now than it did in 2014, and even more less likely than it did back in 2013... after almost a decade of failures with the inks most of the OLED printing proponents are getting seriously disheartened (but I don't think anybody is going to stop trying at this point in time though). There's simply no tech out there that could be used to mass produce OLED inks on a massive scale economically, though there are ,certainly, a few techs with such potential. 

I don't know if any of you guys still remember it, but one of my first comments here was about how LGD is only gonna be able to sell about a million of OLED TVs a year (if that many) with their current tech and how it is not really economical to do so (actually it's something I heard at Samsung along with the fact that they were going to drop OLED for TVs for an undetermined period of time back in 2014)


----------



## irkuck

irkuck said:


> LG must see OLED able to beat the LCD in every segment





wco81 said:


> Um, that seems to suggest they're going to produce a lot of OLED for mobile devices. And speculates that since LG supplies Apple, one might conclude ...





rogo said:


> Yep, wco, no implications for TV at all.Too bad.


First, LG is talking about small and medium-size displays. It depends on what is understood by 'medium' in this context. To me large starts at 55", medium is around 40" and below, small is below 12". If that is right interpretation LG aims to fill the gap in most voluminous segment of the TV globally. Second, expanding their manufacturing into the small/medium segment means they have full confidence in their OLED technology and implies they treat the large OLED TV segment as problem solved, established one.


----------



## irkuck

Q1 35200.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

Orbitron said:


> Yup, very popular when flat is not an option.


Curved makes sense for PC users who are sitting in the sweet spot, playing games. It gives a slightly better field of view for the same panel size, and more importantly, some people like it. I don't, but there are plenty of people on Hardforum who are buying the curved Samsung LCDs for gaming instead of the equivalent flat ones. 

So let's let people choose with their dollars. In any case, OLED hopefully will win. I wouldn't personally a curved one because I don't sit in the middle, in the focal point, playing games alone. I use my projector and play with friends on a 138 inch screen for about a tenth the price of a 55 inch 4K OLED TV (and 1/4 of the price of a new 1080p 55 inch OLED)  

I'm glad LG is waking up and giving people both options. The panels can be bent, post manufacturing, so I assume they can all share the same production lines as the flat OLEDs higher up the production pipeline. If there was no overlap, I would definitely say they should stick to flat only, as the default.


----------



## tgm1024

RLBURNSIDE said:


> Curved makes sense for PC users who are sitting in the sweet spot, playing games. It gives a slightly better field of view for the same panel size,


I used to think this, and I do understand the math they're employing, but I no longer believe it.....but for a counter-intuitive reason.

I looked at curved display after curved display *trying desperately* to figure out why on earth they seemed _*smaller*_ than their equivalently sized flat displays. After all, all the math shows that when you're between the focal point and the display, curving the edge toward you should increase your FOV.

HOWEVER, what I suddenly realized is that I (and apparently others who see the displays shrink) see the display from the front plane, not from the rear. In other words, here is how they claim you see, vs. how I and many others seem to see it (forgive me for the quality, I'm away from home and don't have my better graphics editors with me). And yes, I've exaggerated the curve for clarity:










What this means is that we're now again back to the "how far are you *really* from the screen" question. Now the first thought you might have (as was mine) is what about a screen that wraps 180° around you? In that case, the angular viewing extent *would* likely change because there's no longer an "in front of you" effect.


----------



## UltraBlack

tgm1024 said:


> I looked at curved display after curved display *trying desperately* to figure out why on earth they seemed _*smaller*_ than their equivalently sized flat displays.


They seem smaller because of the greater and more natural perception of depth.


----------



## tgm1024

UltraBlack said:


> They seem smaller because of the greater and more natural perception of depth.


That makes no sense. The two perceptions are disconnected. I'm talking about how far across a screen seems from left to right.


----------



## dsinger

tgm1024 said:


> That makes no sense. The two perceptions are disconnected. I'm talking about how far across a screen seems from left to right.


Your idea may help to explain what I experienced with a 78" Samsung HU9000. Replaced a 70" Sharp and I didn't go wow look how much bigger it is. Bigger yes but not Wow. After a month sent Samsung back due to faulty backlight. Put 70" Sharp back on stand as main viewing set and didn't go Wow look how much smaller it is. Took about a day to adjust to each. Current 75" Sony appears to fill about as much viewing angle as 78" Samsung. Viewing distance hasn't changed for any of the sets.


----------



## tgm1024

dsinger said:


> Your idea may help to explain what I experienced with a 78" Samsung HU9000. Replaced a 70" Sharp and I didn't go wow look how much bigger it is. Bigger yes but not Wow. After a month sent Samsung back due to faulty backlight. Put 70" Sharp back on stand as main viewing set and didn't go Wow look how much smaller it is. Took about a day to adjust to each. Current 75" Sony appears to fill about as much viewing angle as 78" Samsung. Viewing distance hasn't changed for any of the sets.


Yeah, makes sense to me.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> I used to think this, and I do understand the math they're employing, but I no longer believe it.....but for a counter-intuitive reason.
> 
> I looked at curved display after curved display *trying desperately* to figure out why on earth they seemed _*smaller*_ than their equivalently sized flat displays. After all, all the math shows that when you're between the focal point and the display, curving the edge toward you should increase your FOV.
> 
> HOWEVER, what I suddenly realized is that I (and apparently others who see the displays shrink) see the display from the front plane, not from the rear. In other words, here is how they claim you see, vs. how I and many others seem to see it (forgive me for the quality, I'm away from home and don't have my better graphics editors with me). And yes, I've exaggerated the curve for clarity:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this means is that we're now again back to the "how far are you *really* from the screen" question. Now the first thought you might have (as was mine) is what about a screen that wraps 180° around you? In that case, the angular viewing extent *would* likely change because there's no longer an "in front of you" effect.


Of course it seems smaller... it must look smaller to everyone without exception, because when your brain removes the "curve(as it always must)" it takes the measurements of the curved not "flattened" screen( as in 60in diagonally long "flattened" screen (that is if you took a curved screen and then somehow "flattened" it) appears to become a 52in diagonally long curved screen (when made plat(flattened) in your cerebrum) in your brain and your brain can't "uncurve" it). I also bet that watching curved TVs really taxes your brain.

P.S. but yes curved screens do seem to cover a greater percentage of your field of vision when you are smack-dab in the focal point, it's a sort of curved screen paradox, I trow...

By the way, I smake that I might have gone down the rabbit hole and that my explanation as a result of that may be cast over by a pall of befuddling fog thus making it impenetrable to no mind, but my own if that is the case I can simplify or expand on it if any of you might wish so.


----------



## barth2k

Well the curve screens look smaller to me, and the more curved (Samsung) the worse. I try to stick my head in the sweet spot and never seem to find it.

Curve sucks.


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> Of course it seems smaller... it must look smaller to everyone without exception, because when your brain removes the "curve(as it always must)" it takes the measurements of the curved not "flattened" screen( as in 60in diagonally long "flattened" screen (that is if you took a curved screen and then somehow "flattened" it) appears to become a 52in diagonally long curved screen (when made plat(flattened) in your cerebrum) in your brain and your brain can't "uncurve" it). I also bet that watching curved TVs really taxes your brain.


Stas, you seem to be in agreement with me, but as is so often the case I can't make heads or tails out of your logic progression nor of your run-on sentences. You start off with "your brain removes the curve", and then end with "and your brain can't uncurve it". Besides, you're grossly oversimplifying the opposing viewpoint.

But again, even though I can't figure out precisely what you're saying, it seems we agree, so I'll take it.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> But again, even though I can't figure out precisely what you're saying, it seems we agree, so I'll take it.


I smade that it might come across as draff. I was just trying to keep my comment as short as possible within the confines of one hyper-fused sentence... and it never works out well, but I just can't seem to be able to help myself

Small clarification: _your brain can't "uncurve" it in neither breadth nor width, but it seems to be able to "uncurve" it while maintaining the same measurements of size( or "dimensions" if you will) and as we all full well know when you curve a TV its diagonal "span" deceases ._


----------



## mattg3

I just want my brain to say thank you for waiting for a flat OLED.


----------



## slacker711

I cant find an English version of the article but it sounds like LGE has announced that they have hit 15,000 OLED sales in South Korea for the first half.


https://translate.google.com/transl...tp://www.etnews.com/20150719000022&edit-text=


This article gives some stats for Samsung. None of the numbers exactly match the >$2000 high-end market that I think is the target for LGE's OLED line, but the fact that they have matched 1st half SUHD sales in South Korea is a pretty big achievement. They will need to do this around the world to hit their shipment targets over the next 18 months.

The SUHD line was first on sale at the beginning of February in South Korea.


http://english.hankyung.com/news/apps/news.view?c1=03&nkey=201506171625131



> Samsung Electronics announced on June 17 that the cumulative sales of its SUHD TV passed the 10,000 mark in three months after being released in the domestic market, first in the world. This sales pace is about twice faster than that of the same-class model (9 series) that it released last year.
> 
> Samsung Electronics expects the sales of SUHD TVs to reach 15,000 units within the first half of this year. Despite a slack demand season and the decline in overall TV demand, the sales of premium TV lineups are performing well.
> 
> During the January-May period of this year, Samsung sold 52,000 curved TVs and 36,000 curved UHD TVs, each recording more than a five-fold jump from a year earlier. The share of more than 55-inch TVs in overall TV sales rose to 23 percent this year from 13 percent.


----------



## rogo

I'm fairly confident there are sufficiently unique attributes of being LG _in Korea_ that are going to be hard to replicate.

I'm more confident that the idea that LG is matching everyone else's worldwide sales of "SUHD" over any near-to-come time period is fantasy. Or perhaps you meant "Samsung only"? Even that seems implausible, to be honest.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> I'm fairly confident there are sufficiently unique attributes of being LG _in Korea_ that are going to be hard to replicate.
> 
> I'm more confident that the idea that LG is matching everyone else's worldwide sales of "SUHD" over any near-to-come time period is fantasy. Or perhaps you meant "Samsung only"? Even that seems implausible, to be honest.


SUHD is Samsung's brand name for their 4K QD televisions so I was only referencing their sales. I would really need to restrict it though to the high-end of their SUHD line...which is the 8500, 9000 and 9500 lines. Samsung recently released a lower end 7xxx SUHD line which really isnt going to be going head to head for sales with OLED's.

Korea is obviously a special market for LG but the same is true for Samsung. As an example, the gap between their market share in handsets is much larger in Korea than in the US. I dont know their respective television shares in Korea but I would wager quite a bit that Samsung dominates the market.

My guess is that the higher overall awareness of OLED's in general in South Korea has made a big difference.


----------



## slacker711

English version of the article with an additional datapoint.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2015/07/20/2015072001013.html



> LG Sees Huge Boost in Sales of Premium TVs
> LG Electronics sold over 15,000 OLED TVs in the first half of this year, more than a 10-fold increase from the same period last year, the company said on Sunday.
> 
> Boasting the clearest and sharpest images, a 55-inch OLED curved display TV sold for a whopping W15 million when it was first available in 2013, but now it is priced at less than W4 million.
> 
> *OLED TVs accounted for nearly 25 percent of LG's total sales in May and June, as more consumers opt for premium products.*


----------



## rogo

Helpful details, thanks.


----------



## greenland

slacker711 said:


> English version of the article with an additional datapoint.
> 
> http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2015/07/20/2015072001013.html


Isn't OLED LG's only premium HDTV, so it should not be a surprise that OLED is 25% of their high priced sales? They will have to sell a lot more of them than those numbers, if they wish to be a real competitor to Samsung and Sony.


----------



## barth2k

I think they consider their top end 4k LCD premium also.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

It's interesting that LG's 4K OLED costs about as much as the high end LCDs, which can now only compete on size.

As soon as OLED increases in size and decreases in price, LCD high end is going to die. And OLED high-end will begin eating up LCD mid-range sales too. 

Lots of people also don't want or need greater than 65 inches and some aren't even interested in greater than 55. What does that spell? Bad news for LCD.

On the other hand, LCD manufacturers can push out rec 2020, FALD, UHD HDR sets with comparatively easier time hitting higher nits.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Here's an interesting article written by Kateeva that describes some of the challenges of printed OLEDs and how Kateeva has addressed them. Kateeva has previously said they expect to sell equipment to cost-effectually print large-size OLED panels in 2016 with the first OLED TVs with printed panels expected to be available for purchase in 2017.



> With recent advancements in material quality and equipment technology, as described here, inkjet printing for RGB pixel patterning is now poised to follow the same path as TFE into OLED mass production to enable manufacturing of cost-effective large-size OLED displays. As our next step, we are scaling up and incorporating these technologies into our forthcoming G8 glass (i.e., glass plates large enough to process six 55" TV panels on one plate) RGB mass production systems for high-volume, low-cost manufacturing of large-size OLED displays.


http://spie.org/x114728.xml


----------



## Desk.

Here's an interesting article which confirms LG Display are still contemplating a third manufacturing line, but which indicates that M2 is still not in full production and will only reach that point 'by the end of 2015'...

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...gle-inc-is-helping-oled-tv-go-mainstream.aspx

Desk


----------



## greenland

barth2k said:


> I think they consider their top end 4k LCD premium also.


Reviewers don't. No LG LCD models get included in the annual Premium TV top rankings, and their Plasma models also were never even close to the competition.


----------



## EdwinB

greenland said:


> Reviewers don't. No LG LCD models get included in the annual Premium TV top rankings, and their Plasma models also were never even close to the competition.



Well, if LG counts their top level LCD's as premium TV's then they are included, no matter what reviewers or the public may think of the quality of these sets.


----------



## SolidSnake305

Interesting enough LG is making more a commitment to OLED



"More and more smartphones, TVs and wearables like Apple's Watch now use OLED displays, but only two companies mass produce them -- Samsung and LG. LG is trying to stay on top of demand by building a new 1.05 trillion won ($900 million) flexible OLED plant in Korea. Starting in 2017, the 6th-gen line will spit out four times as many screens as the current-gen plant thanks to a larger "substrate" sheet size. The plastic-based displays are aimed at smaller next-gen devices that can benefit from the bendability like automotive displays, cellphones and wearables.
-----------
Most of LG and Samsung's high-end smartphones and smartwatches already use OLED displays (P-OLED and AMOLED, respectively). Some -- like LG's G Flex 2 "banana" phone and the Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge -- specifically take advantage of the flexibility. But other company's products, like the Vivo X5, Oppo R7 and 2nd-gen Motorola Moto X all have OLED-based displays, creating extra demand for the tech. LG said it will eventually build another plant for larger, TV-sized displays that uses the same 6th-gen manufacturing system. Samsung also recently pledged $3.6 billion toward OLED production."


This is from Engadget I cannot post links yet sorry.


----------



## remush

SolidSnake305 said:


> Interesting enough LG is making more a commitment to OLED
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "More and more smartphones, TVs and wearables like Apple's Watch now use OLED displays, but only two companies mass produce them -- Samsung and LG. LG is trying to stay on top of demand by building a new 1.05 trillion won ($900 million) flexible OLED plant in Korea. Starting in 2017, the 6th-gen line will spit out four times as many screens as the current-gen plant thanks to a larger "substrate" sheet size. The plastic-based displays are aimed at smaller next-gen devices that can benefit from the bendability like automotive displays, cellphones and wearables.
> -----------
> Most of LG and Samsung's high-end smartphones and smartwatches already use OLED displays (P-OLED and AMOLED, respectively). Some -- like LG's G Flex 2 "banana" phone and the Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge -- specifically take advantage of the flexibility. But other company's products, like the Vivo X5, Oppo R7 and 2nd-gen Motorola Moto X all have OLED-based displays, creating extra demand for the tech. LG said it will eventually build another plant for larger, TV-sized displays that uses the same 6th-gen manufacturing system. Samsung also recently pledged $3.6 billion toward OLED production."
> 
> 
> This is from Engadget I cannot post links yet sorry.



I think that is a smartphone/tablet and auto display investment only, i read that Lg, at this point, are not expanding large display production as they feel there ouput will meet demand in the near future.


----------



## rogo

Correct. This has zero implications for TVs. Well, it has one: LG is investing nearly $1 billion in OLED displays for segments where it can sell OLED displays.

It is not making a similar commitment to TVs because currently it cannot sell OLED TVs in any interesting numbers.


----------



## slacker711

The transcript will probably be out tomorrow but LGD reiterated their 600,000 unit target for the year on their quarterly conference call. They expect 80% of their OLED units to be sold in the 2nd half so it sounds like the 1st half was around 120,000 units. They did add the caveat though that the mix of 65" and 77" units could impact the unit target.

They expect yields for 4K to hit 1080p levels by the end of the year. There were a variety of questions about future OLED television fab plans but they were deferred for the future. I dont expect an announcement on a fab expansion until early next year.

On a more general note, the Korean newspapers have had nearly daily stories about the threat of Chinese LCD vendors. The question on how to compete in the future is usually answered with OLED. LGD is suffering large losses with their OLED television expansion right now but I think that they see it as a necessity if they want to compete with Chinese display vendors.


----------



## stas3098

The more and the min of it is that Koreans are fele full ondful of Chinese vendors. They mote eek make thom OLED TVs in ande of Chinese, ye know just making min of it...


----------



## slacker711

LG Display transcript for those interested. 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/335...t-on-q1-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript


----------



## sytech

stas3098 said:


> The more and the min of it is that Koreans are fele full ondful of Chinese vendors. They mote eek make thom OLED TVs in ande of Chinese, ye know just making min of it...


WTF??

My avatar has never been more apropos.


----------



## tgm1024

sytech said:


> WTF??
> 
> My avatar has never been more apropos.


I was going to ask if it was Middle English or 18th century Scots, but decided against it. Your post of course paved the way for me...


----------



## Wizziwig

slacker711 said:


> The transcript will probably be out tomorrow but LGD reiterated their 600,000 unit target for the year on their quarterly conference call. They expect 80% of their OLED units to be sold in the 2nd half so it sounds like the 1st half was around 120,000 units. They did add the caveat though that the mix of 65" and 77" units could impact the unit target.


So we are to believe that they will sell 5x as many units in the next 6 months as they did in the first 6 months of the year? Is there an upcoming fire sale I'm not aware of?


----------



## sytech

Wizziwig said:


> So we are to believe that they will sell 5x as many units in the next 6 months as they did in the first 6 months of the year? Is there an upcoming fire sale I'm not aware of?


Only confirmed number is around 35,000 units for the first quarter of 2015. Even with a price cut they would be lucky to sell 200K units by the end of the year. And that is if they find some way of fixing the black edges and banding problems. Well below the projected sales goal of 600,000 units, which was already reduced for 800K earlier.


----------



## slacker711

Wizziwig said:


> So we are to believe that they will sell 5x as many units in the next 6 months as they did in the first 6 months of the year? Is there an upcoming fire sale I'm not aware of?


I expect LG to continue to be aggressive on pricing through the back half of the year. I assume that Panasonic will also launch units in the 4th quarter and that LG will continue to expand their distribution both within countries and into new countries.

As always, the key is yields. They are looking for 4K yields to hit 1080p levels by the end of the year and that will ultimately determine whether they have a chance of hitting the unit target.


----------



## slacker711

sytech said:


> Only confirmed number is around 35,000 units for the first quarter of 2015. Even with a price cut they would be lucky to sell 200K units by the end of the year. And that is if they find some way of fixing the black edges and banding problems. Well below the projected sales goal of 600,000 units, which was already reduced for 800K earlier.


The 35,000 unit number is from DisplaySearch and sounds like it could be in the ballpark but has never been confirmed.

The most direct number that we have received was from LGD in that call. By reiterating their 600,000 unit target and saying that they expect 80% of sales to be the 2nd half, they are implicitly saying that they sold 120,000 units in the first half.


----------



## Wizziwig

Maybe they are banking on the upcoming flat 4K panels having unprecedented sales compared to curved? I guess that's possible given that most videophiles are waiting for the flat ones. But is there really pent up demand for half a million units in 6 months?


----------



## slacker711

Wizziwig said:


> Maybe they are banking on the upcoming flat 4K panels having unprecedented sales compared to curved? I guess that's possible given that most videophiles are waiting for the flat ones. But is there really pent up demand for half a million units in 6 months?


We are mixing apples and oranges here but as an estimate, the DS numbers indicate that sales were up around 2.5x from Q1 to Q2. That was after a price cut from $3500 to $2500 on the 55" 1080p set and the introduction of the 4K models. The 1080p set is an exception as I think it is the only non-4K premium set left on the market. That had to be a major drag on sales.

LGD stated that the "major production" will shift to the 55" UHD set this year. I have stated before that I expect a 55" UHD set to be retailing at major retailers for sub $3500 by the end of the year (from $5000 for most of the 1st half). 

I dont know if that will be enough to hit the unit target but the major price reductions combined with the expanded distribution should be enough for a substantial increase of the Q2 sales rate. I'd probably bet on the under for the 600,000 unit target but if they hit something like 450,000 units while 4K yields get above 80%, that would qualify as a moderately successful year in my book. 

Ultimately, LGD has to bring 4K pricing down to 1080p levels to come anywhere close to their targets for 2016.


----------



## barth2k

Wizziwig said:


> Maybe they are banking on the upcoming flat 4K panels having unprecedented sales compared to curved? I guess that's possible given that most videophiles are waiting for the flat ones. But is there really pent up demand for half a million units in 6 months?


I think you are grossly overestimating the number of people being held back by the curve. The high price, competitiveness of larger sized FALD LCD, and uniformity problems are probably all larger factors currently working against OLED.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> The transcript will probably be out tomorrow but LGD reiterated their 600,000 unit target for the year on their quarterly conference call. They expect 80% of their OLED units to be sold in the 2nd half so it sounds like the 1st half was around 120,000 units. They did add the caveat though that the mix of 65" and 77" units could impact the unit target.


From the transcript:

"We anticipate 7-1/2K, yes. It is the first phase of our plastic OLED to support [inaudible] display. So if we are -- we will have foundry [ph] migration, we will consider another place, but it's not decided yet.

Rob Stone - Cowen & Co.
Okay. And then with respect to the capacity expansion that was planned for OLED TV this year, can you provide any update on how that's progressing from the 14,000 towards the 34,000 substrates?

Hee Yeon Kim - Head of IR Department
Yes. It is in line with our previous communication, another 20K will be added in second half. The production will be starting in the middle second half this year. Totally our OLED TV capacity 34K."

Translation: Q3 will be another quarter like Q2 as far as production output (meaning ~87.5K units) and then output in Q4 may increase to as much as 2.4 times that level (to ~212.5K

This would mean (assuming all 55"):
Q1 35K
Q2 87.5K
Q3 87.5K
Q4 212.5K
2015 422.5K (best case with no significant 65" or 77")



> *They expect yields for 4K to hit 1080p levels by the end of the year. * There were a variety of questions about future OLED television fab plans but they were deferred for the future. I dont expect an announcement on a fab expansion until early next year.


From the transcript:

"Andrew Abrams - SCMR
Got it. And is there any way you can discuss your yield? I realize that you're in the process of ramping up, which is going to affect yield no matter what the circumstances are. But is there some guidelines you can give on where you would be in terms of OLED 55-inch TVs on yield?

Hee Yeon Kim - Head of IR Department
In case of 55-inch full HD OLED last year, it was already hit over 80%. Now it is a bit higher than last year. And in case of ultra-high definition, we are on the progress to increase our yield ratio to the similar level of full HD. *So we believe ultra-high definition ratio should be similar at the end of this year with the full HD.*"

Translation:

55EC9300 FHD yields are now 'abit higher' than 'a bit over' 80% - so let's take a stab and say that they are near 85% today.

UHD yileds will not approach the 80% level before the end of 2015, meaning the earlier shipment forecast for Q4 is an absolute best case and is not likely to materialize (since it assumes FHD yield levels from the beginning of Q4).

In terms of worst-case, it seems as though LG should be able to ship at least 300,000 OLEDs in 2015, which would be an achievement in any case (10X year-on-year volume growth).

And if they get the yields on the UHD OLEDS and including the increased capacity up into the 80-85% range by the end of this year, the 1.5M production target for 2016 seems very doable.



> On a more general note, the Korean newspapers have had nearly daily stories about the threat of Chinese LCD vendors. The question on how to compete in the future is usually answered with OLED. LGD is suffering large losses with their OLED television expansion right now but I think that they see it as a necessity if they want to compete with Chinese display vendors.


There was a section near the end where LGD would not commit to ASPs being no more than double those of like-sized premium LCDs.

That (as well as the 'dark edge' quality issue) is a concern...


----------



## Orbitron

What's happening with the 77" bendable EG9600 that was shown at CES?


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Translation: Q3 will be another quarter like Q2 as far as production output (meaning ~87.5K units) and then output in Q4 may increase to as much as 2.4 times that level (to ~212.5K)


LGD isnt supply constrained. They are demand constrained so the price cuts we have seen and the increased distribution should increase Q3 sales over Q2. The price on the 55EC9300 fell from $3500 to $2500 on April 22nd and more recently fell to $2300. The 55EG9600 fell from $5000 to $4500 in the last few weeks and I expect we will see further price declines as we move through the quarter.

Combine that with at least some sales of the new flat models and I do expect some increase in Q3 sales over Q2.




> There was a section near the end where LGD would not commit to ASPs being no more than double those of like-sized premium LCDs.


I think it is impossible tell what LCD ASP they are referring to. If it is the premium segment then the question makes little sense as LGD is already less than twice the ASP of Samsung's offerings (and they dominate the high-end).

It could be the average 4K 55" LCD. That includes any number of sub-$1000 offerings so they are a long way from getting to 2x that ASP. 

Absent more clarity on the question, I dont worry much about the response.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> *LGD isnt supply constrained. They are demand constrained *so the price cuts we have seen and the increased distribution should increase Q3 sales over Q2. The price on the 55EC9300 fell from $3500 to $2500 on April 22nd and more recently fell to $2300. The 55EG9600 fell from $5000 to $4500 in the last few weeks and I expect we will see further price declines as we move through the quarter.


When you consider that 14K substrates per month X 6 55" OLEDs per substrate X 80% yield = 67K 55" OLEDS per month or 200K OLEDs per quarter, it sounds like you are right.

On the other hand, the transcript contained this tidbit:

"Unidentified Participant

Hello. Thanks for taking my question. I just wanted to check if your OLED television production goal is still *600,000 for this year and 1.5 million for next year*?

Hee Yeon Kim - Head of IR Department
*Yes, that's our target number.*

Unidentified Participant

Okay. Thank you very much.

Hee Yeon Kim - Head of IR Department
*However, if our customers' response for bigger screens such as 65 and 75, it is to be adjusted below. *But that's great impact for us.

Combine that with at least some sales of the new flat models and I do expect *some increase in Q3 sales over Q2.*"

Reduced output because of a shift in mix to larger screen sizes only makes sense if they are capacity constrained (and the reference to Q3 over Q2 makes it clear that his comment regarding reduced production numbers is in reference to 2015, not 2016.

Also, some increase in Q3 over Q2 does not sound anything like double (or even 150%).

The math on this equation has never added up...





> I think it is impossible tell what LCD ASP they are referring to. If it is the premium segment then the question makes little sense as LGD is already less than twice the ASP of Samsung's offerings (and they dominate the high-end).
> 
> It could be the average 4K 55" LCD. That includes any number of sub-$1000 offerings so they are a long way from getting to 2x that ASP.
> 
> Absent more clarity on the question, I dont worry much about the response.


I agree that the recent price moves on the 65" OLED are encouraging (but they are still going to have to go quite a bit lower to drive the kind of Q4 demand LG is hoping for). We're finally back to that magical $6000 price that LG leaked a year ago...

It will be very interesting to see where Panasonic's OLED ends up being priced


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Reduced output because of a shift in mix to larger screen sizes only makes sense if they are capacity constrained (and the reference to Q3 over Q2 makes it clear that his comment regarding reduced production numbers is in reference to 2015, not 2016.


Yes, you are right that only makes sense in a capacity constrained environment. There is simply no way that makes any sense when I look at the numbers so my assumption is that this is simply management's attempt to give themselves a little wiggle room on the unit shipment numbers.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Yes, you are right that only makes sense in a capacity constrained environment. There is simply no way that makes any sense when I look at the numbers so my assumption is that this is simply management's attempt to give themselves a little wiggle room on the unit shipment numbers.


M1 has always been the mysterious part of the equation to me.

M2 phase I is 6000 substrates per month, or 36,000 raw 55" 4K panels per month. At 80% yield (which they are still apparently below), that amounts to a little over 85K 55" 4K OLEDs per quarter (about the estimated total units shipped in Q2). M2 is only producing 4K OLED TVs (and is the only fab producing 4K OLED TVs), so the 'reduced production output for larger panel mix' carries a certain logic for M2. And since the 'size trade off' only applies to 4K OLEDs, it makes sense for M2 (assuming they get 4K OLED sales close to 85K/quarter).

The problem is that LG is not selling anywhere near that number of 4K OLEDs right now. The vast majority are stil the 1080p 55EC9300s.

Those are being produced on M1 and it's never been clear to me how much of M1s 14K sheets/month capacity is dedicated to OLED TVs. Obviously not all, or they would be way over supplied (as you noted) - about 67K per month or 200K per quarter.

And also never been clear to me whether the M1 capacity of 14K sheets per month is full sheets or half sheets. If it is only 14K half-sheets, that would mean 'only' 100K 55EC9300s per quarter - still quite a bit more than stated production shipments, but the gap is narrowing.

In any case, if the M2 expansion stays on schedule, one thing that is certain is that 4K OLEDs are going to become a great deal more affordable in Q4...


----------



## MikeBiker

I'm wondering if the Korean government will, somehow, subsidize the manufacturing of LG's OLED program. The Korean LCD sets will not be able to be price competitive with the Chinese manufacturers in the future, and OLED is the Korean hope for continued participation in TVs.


----------



## rogo

Wizziwig said:


> Maybe they are banking on the upcoming flat 4K panels having unprecedented sales compared to curved? I guess that's possible given that most videophiles are waiting for the flat ones. But is there really pent up demand for half a million units in 6 months?


I'd suspect that "unprecedented sales" is generated only by one thing: pricing action of a significant nature.



fafrd said:


> I agree that the recent price moves on the 65" OLED are encouraging (but they are still going to have to go quite a bit lower to drive the kind of Q4 demand LG is hoping for). We're finally back to that magical $6000 price that LG leaked a year ago...


It seems like magic only starts happening for the 65" at $4000 or so. Samsung seems to be offering $3500 and $4500 right now for "SUHD" 65" TVs. Compare them on Samsung's own web site and they are basically the same. Rather than educate me about why one is $1000 more than the other, I'll just tell you the cheaper one outsells the expensive one by 5:1 based on what I can see and what I know to be true about pricing.

The top end model probably sells very little overall, despite Samsung's marketing might. It's the narrow sliver atop the narrow sliver of the 65"+ market, which starts +/- $1000 these days. I'd guess it's a 50K annual seller. At the same price, LG could sell 50K of those -- maybe. The "better" qualities of the set still won't match Samsung's distribution and marketing. 

At $4000, it starts to matter much more. At $3500, it becomes a very interesting product at least against next year's target though we might then be looking at ~250K sales of it over a full year (and it could easily be fewer).


----------



## fafrd

Just found this: http://www.oled-info.com/lgd-plans-produce-over-12-million-uhd-oled-tvs-2020

3M OLED TVs in 2017 and 5M in 2018. Sounds ambitious but credible.

On the other hand, the forecast of a total of 86K 1080p OLEDs and more than 400K 4K OLEDs in 2015 does not...


----------



## slacker711

LG has announced their new flat models in South Korea. The pricing below doesnt sound great in dollars, but they represent significant pricing cuts from what I can find for the current curved 4K models. For example, the 55EG9600 is selling for 7.1 million Won at a large Korean e-tailer.

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150727001118



> In Korea, the company has started offering cash benefits for customers. With the benefits, a 65-inch flat Ultra OLED TV comes to 8.9 million won ($7,600), while both 55-inch flat and curved Ultra OLED TVs are priced at 5.4 million won.


----------



## slacker711

From a Korean newspaper.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

slacker711 said:


> LG has announced their new flat models in South Korea. The pricing below doesnt sound great in dollars, but they represent significant pricing cuts from what I can find for the current curved 4K models. For example, the 55EG9600 is selling for 7.1 million Won at a large Korean e-tailer.
> 
> http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150727001118


The best 65 inch tv ever made for $7600? Not too shabby. It's 2015, many people told us not to expect sub-10k 4K OLEDs before 2020, if then.

I guess we all know how that turned out. Predictions are like ____, everyone's got one.


----------



## irkuck

^Prices must become reasonable to achieve the manufacturing targets. Hopefully the 65" has no PQ issues of any kind.


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> ^Prices must become reasonable to achieve the manufacturing targets. Hopefully the 65" has no PQ issues of any kind.


I've had the 55EC9300 for a few months now. No 'dark edges' problem on that 1080p OLED and LG absolutely needs to clean that issue up on the 4K OLEDs over the next 1-2 months or it could spell death.

The most significant PQ issue on these OLEDs after that obvious defect is the near-black greyscale nonuniformity. It ends up looking like pretty bad and pretty noticable DSE, especially on image pans with dark content. The rest of the time, the image is fantastic, but if you ask me which I find more noticable/objectionable, the occasional halo/bloom on a good FALD LED/LCD of the occasional DSE/nonumiformity on near-black content with the OLED, the DSE jumps out as the more significant defect.

Hopefully LG will make improvements in this area with the new OLEDs they are releasing. If not, I may decide that my larger-screen TV is going to be a FALD LED/LCD rather than a 65" OLED.

This issue is now a bigger deal to me than the curve (which is really not that big of a deal at all once you get one of these TVs home).


----------



## NintendoManiac64

slacker711 said:


> LG has announced their new flat models in South Korea. The pricing below doesnt sound great in dollars, but they represent significant pricing cuts from what I can find for the current curved 4K models. For example, the 55EG9600 is selling for 7.1 million Won at a large Korean e-tailer.


It's usually more accurate to take into account the price _difference_ rather than the absolute price-point and then apply said difference to the local pricing in your country.


So following that logic, the 65EF9500 is 81.65% of the price of the current 65EG9600. That TV goes for $6999 USD currently, and 81.65% of that price point would be $5715 USD... so probably $5499 or $5999.

Following that same methodology, the 55EG9470 is 78.26% of the price of the 55EG9600; that TV goes for $4499 so 78.26% of that is $3521...so $3499 seems likely.


Of course, the 55EG9350 is the same price as the 55EC9300, so no math needs to be done to predict its price.


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> It's usually more accurate to take into account the price _difference_ rather than the absolute price-point and then apply said difference to the local pricing in your country.
> 
> 
> So following that logic, the 65EF9500 is 81.65% of the price of the current 65EG9600. That TV goes for $6999 USD currently, and 81.65% of that price point would be $5715 USD... so probably $5499 or $5999.
> 
> Following that same methodology, the 55EG9470 is 78.26% of the price of the 55EG9600; that TV goes for $4499 so 78.26% of that is $3521...so $3499 seems likely.
> 
> 
> Of course, the 55EG9350 is the same price as the 55EC9300, so no math needs to be done to predict its price.


Good logic and I agree.

Except unclear whether the 55EG9350 will make its way to the US and also unclear whether it will have any upgrades that make the 55EC9300 'old' (and hence lead to further discounting).

The 55EC9300 is currently available in the U.S. for an MSRP of $2300 (and pretty widely available at street prices below $2000), so if the flat 55EG9350 does make its way here, unclear whether it will have an MSRP of $2300 or $2500 (which would be $1000 below the expected MSRP of the 55" 4K model...).

By Black Friday, we will probably see a further 20% drop on all of these prices (if LG wants to have any hope of finding demand for their increased output starting in early Q4).


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> ^Prices must become reasonable to achieve the manufacturing targets. Hopefully the 65" has no PQ issues of any kind.


This is key. And these prices ain't them.



fafrd said:


> I've had the 55EC9300 for a few months now. No 'dark edges' problem on that 1080p OLED and LG absolutely needs to clean that issue up on the 4K OLEDs over the next 1-2 months or it could spell death.
> .


Don't tell anyone you own this, it will destroy your LCD street cred. 



NintendoManiac64 said:


> So following that logic, the 65EF9500 is 81.65% of the price of the current 65EG9600. That TV goes for $6999 USD currently, and 81.65% of that price point would be $5715 USD... so probably $5499 or $5999.
> 
> Following that same methodology, the 55EG9470 is 78.26% of the price of the 55EG9600; that TV goes for $4499 so 78.26% of that is $3521...so $3499 seems likely.


So this is interesting math to me. I kind of feel like the 55" needs to be below $2500 for there to be any chance at all of reaching the targets for 2016 (I've written off 2015. It's irrelevant and they are very unlikely to hit the 600K goal which now looks a lot like the equivalent of selling 1M+ TVs given how backloaded it has to be -- 5 months out of 12 for 80% or so). 

The Samsungs are $2000 and $2500 _today_ at 55" and both -- again -- are likely very low volume with the cheaper one outselling the expensive one on the order of 5:1. If LG is maintaining a delusion that they can similar volumes at higher prices than Samsung, it's just that -- a delusion. They can sell some volume at higher prices, but nothing resembling Samsung volumes. 

I've already discussed that there is essentially no volume to be had on the 65" at >$5000. The product gets intriguing from a sales perspective at $4000 -- where it splits the difference on the Samsungs.

It's interesting that the continued use of 8G fabrication makes 65" such a non-competitive size and that presents problems for LG. It doesn't appear the 65" reaches $4000 until the 55" is, in fact, $2000 or so. 

If we triangulate, there is no doubt in my mind that "today's" $3500 55" will be $1000 cheaper next year. It might reach $2000 if things are going well (or poorly).

The 65" will likely achieve $4999 next year, but could certainly get to $4499 and $3999. Only at the third of those prices can LG expect to sell ~200K units or more. The market dries up very rapidly above $4000. If LG could achieve $3000 pricing, they could likely sell 500K-1M units of the 65" alone. That would be what's necessary to sell 5M+ TVs. The earliest this can happen is 2017-18.

The year of OLED really feels like 2017, which is where it felt it was going to be in 2012 (if not earlier).

Let's hope we have product to enjoy then.


----------



## andy sullivan

No matter how fantastic the PQ is and no matter if the product is very price competitive you can't make money if nobody knows about your product. Magazine articles didn't help plasma even though the technology was touted in every review as the best. Winning shootouts won't help, ask Panasonic. Our praises here will go unnoticed among the masses. If they become marketable you better see commercials during college and professional football games, the World Series, March Madness, the Super Bowl, Etc etc. The men, yep, men. They watch that stuff and buy TV's and will believe what you tell them.


----------



## wco81

No TV maker has heavily marketed better contrast ratio in a TV ad.

It's going to come down to how it looks in the showroom compared to the competition.

Can it beat the torch mode of LCD?


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> By Black Friday, we will probably see a further 20% drop on all of these prices (if LG wants to have any hope of finding demand for their increased output starting in early Q4).


That is if there _is_ a "black friday" of any particular note other than in name. I'm not at all sure that there was one last year.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> So this is interesting math to me. I kind of feel like the 55" needs to be below $2500 for there to be any chance at all of reaching the targets for 2016 (I've written off 2015. It's irrelevant and they are very unlikely to hit the 600K goal which now looks a lot like the equivalent of selling 1M+ TVs given how backloaded it has to be -- 5 months out of 12 for 80% or so).
> 
> The Samsungs are $2000 and $2500 _today_ at 55" and both -- again -- are likely very low volume with the cheaper one outselling the expensive one on the order of 5:1. If LG is maintaining a delusion that they can similar volumes at higher prices than Samsung, it's just that -- a delusion. They can sell some volume at higher prices, but nothing resembling Samsung volumes.
> 
> I've already discussed that there is essentially no volume to be had on the 65" at >$5000. The product gets intriguing from a sales perspective at $4000 -- where it splits the difference on the Samsungs.
> 
> It's interesting that the continued use of 8G fabrication makes 65" such a non-competitive size and that presents problems for LG. It doesn't appear the 65" reaches $4000 until the 55" is, in fact, $2000 or so.
> 
> If we triangulate, there is no doubt in my mind that "today's" $3500 55" will be $1000 cheaper next year. It might reach $2000 if things are going well (or poorly).
> 
> The 65" will likely achieve $4999 next year, but could certainly get to $4499 and $3999. Only at the third of those prices can LG expect to sell ~200K units or more. The market dries up very rapidly above $4000. If LG could achieve $3000 pricing, they could likely sell 500K-1M units of the 65" alone. That would be what's necessary to sell 5M+ TVs. The earliest this can happen is 2017-18.
> 
> The year of OLED really feels like 2017, which is where it felt it was going to be in 2012 (if not earlier).
> 
> Let's hope we have product to enjoy then.


I'd forgotten that you are even more if a Debbie Downer (or a realist) on the prospects for LG OLED future than I am 

What's strange to me is LGs focus on 55" 4K. Samsing is not even offering a flagship at that size (only the step-down edge-lit JS9000, which I don't believe the 55" 4K OLEDs need to undercut to succeed). So could the 55" 4K OLEDs succeed at $3000 versus the 55" 4K OLEDs ELPD JS9000 at $2500? Perhaps, but any of those premium 4K TVs at 55" just seems like so much of a niche here in the US compared to 65" and above premium TVs (ROW probably different).

So I'm with you on 65" @ $4K being the more compelling premium segment for LG to focus on (at least here in the US) - now your competing against the 65JS9500 (at $4500 today), the Sony 65X950B still ostensibly at $6000 (or 75X940B at $8000), and the 'if-it-ever-materializes' Vizio R65 at a price which will now almost certainly be below $4000 (10% below the 65JS9500 today).

$5500-$6000 at introduction gets down to $4500-$5000 by Black Friday which puts them on track to hit $4000 - $4500 by next year.

In terms of 4K panel production, going from 6000 sheets per month to 26,000 is more than a quadrupling in output - those additional 4K panels are going to have to go somewhere or LG will be facing much more significant capital losses.

It's really a pity that LG was unable to get their act together on the 77" - those TVs at introductory prices of $8000 - $9000 at introduction dropping to $6500-$7500 by Black Friday would probably have mopped up most of the limited premium volume at that size (which as Ken has demonstrated, will probably be going to the Sony 75X940C instead ).


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> So this is interesting math to me. I kind of feel like the 55" needs to be below $2500 for there to be any chance at all of reaching the targets for 2016 (I've written off 2015. It's irrelevant and they are very unlikely to hit the 600K goal which now looks a lot like the equivalent of selling 1M+ TVs given how backloaded it has to be -- 5 months out of 12 for 80% or so).


Assuming that LGD is currently gross margin positive, and I believe that to be true, then $2500 or so is exactly where I expect the 55" 4K OLED to be priced next year. You should like that number, it follows your 30% rule almost to a T 



> The Samsungs are $2000 and $2500 _today_ at 55" and both -- again -- are likely very low volume with the cheaper one outselling the expensive one on the order of 5:1. If LG is maintaining a delusion that they can similar volumes at higher prices than Samsung, it's just that -- a delusion. They can sell some volume at higher prices, but nothing resembling Samsung volumes.


I dont consider the datapoint to be definitive, but the 55EC9300 (1080p OLED) is currently outselling the $2000 55JS8500 and $2500 55JS9000 on Amazon. Both of the latter sets are 4K with quantum dots but neither has a FALD backlight. 

If a 55" 4K OLED set hits $2500 next year, then the question is going to be what the hell does Samsung do to protect their high-end share.


----------



## Jason626

wco81 said:


> No TV maker has heavily marketed better contrast ratio in a TV ad.
> 
> It's going to come down to how it looks in the showroom compared to the competition.
> 
> Can it beat the torch mode of LCD?


I think oled can beat torch mode in a dark environment (like magnolia). Those lcds will bloom, bleed and cloud themselves.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Assuming that LGD is currently gross margin positive, and I believe that to be true, then $2500 or so is exactly where I expect the 55" 4K OLED to be priced next year. You should like that number, it follows your 30% rule almost to a T
> 
> 
> 
> I dont consider the datapoint to be definitive, but the 55EC9300 (1080p OLED) is currently outselling the $2000 55JS8500 and $2500 55JS9000 on Amazon. Both of the latter sets are 4K with quantum dots but neither has a FALD backlight.
> 
> *If a 55" 4K OLED set hits $2500 next year, then the question is going to be what the hell does Samsung do to protect their high-end share*.


Oh, that's an easy one - drop their prices...


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Oh, that's an easy one - drop their prices...


A couple of points.

1) The CE division within Samsung which covers their television sales isnt particularly profitable. When things are going well, it has margins in the low single digits. They lost money last quarter. The cost could be absorbed by the display manufacturing arm of Samsung but the LCD side isnt particularly profitable either.

2) They already have dropped prices and that is for sets with substantial added features/costs. The 55JS9000 retails for $2500 and that set is an upgraded version of last year's 55HU9000 with quantum dots and support for HDR. Usually, those kind of feature additions allow the vendor to at least keep prices static YoY. Not this year, the 55HU9000 was selling north of $3000 at this time last year and didnt hit $2500 until late in the year.

I believe that the SUHD line has sold well this year, but some of that is on the back of those price declines. Assuming that LG gets anywhere near their unit goals, CES 2016 is going to be very interesting. Will the high-end LCD vendors continue to add on features/costs to continue the picture quality fight or will they cut costs to compete on price?


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> A couple of points.
> 
> 1) The CE division within Samsung which covers their television sales isnt particularly profitable. When things are going well, it has margins in the low single digits. They lost money last quarter. The cost could be absorbed by the display manufacturing arm of Samsung but the LCD side isnt particularly profitable either.
> 
> 2) They already have dropped prices and that is for sets with substantial added features/costs. The 55JS9000 retails for $2500 and that set is an upgraded version of last year's 55HU9000 with quantum dots and support for HDR. Usually, those kind of feature additions allow the vendor to at least keep prices static YoY. Not this year, the 55HU9000 was selling north of $3000 at this time last year and didnt hit $2500 until late in the year.
> 
> I believe that the SUHD line has sold well this year, but some of that is on the back of those price declines. Assuming that LG gets anywhere near their unit goals, CES 2016 is going to be very interesting. Will the high-end LCD vendors continue to add on features/costs to continue the picture quality fight or will they cut costs to compete on price?



All good points, but the bottom line is that Samsung will do whatever they must to prevent LG getting a toehold with OLED.

And if you think prices are low now, just wait to see what happens when Vizio announces the 2015 P Series (and probably R Series as well )

LG (and also seems like Sony) from above, and Vizio from below - the squeeze is on (at least here in the US).

But Samsung's marketing muscle is nothing to be trifled with...


----------



## x3sphere

Some retailers are offering significant promotions on those SUHD sets too. Adorama has a promo going for a $400 rebate + S6 phone valued at around $600 on the 55JS9000. So technically, that set can be had for sub $2K if you sell the phone. They are an authorized dealer too. I am guessing once the S6 promo ends, we'll see some kind of further reduction in the base price.

So yeah, Samsung is getting very aggressive, probably a preemptive move against Vizio or further OLED price cuts. More likely Vizio for now.


----------



## slacker711

For those interested, Samsung Electronics reported their results last night. Page 3 has the breakdown of their revenues.

http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsams...se/downloads/2012/20150730_conference_eng.pdf

The VD segment is their television sales, where revenues were down 17% YoY. They said some of that was due to the World Cup bump last year. Profit margins were 1.8% in the entire CE segment and were down from over 5% last year.

The amazing part is that that these results are with the SUHD sets selling fairly well.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> I'd forgotten that you are even more if a Debbie Downer (or a realist) on the prospects for LG OLED future than I am


Rogo Realist is so much better than Debbie Downer!


> What's strange to me is LGs focus on 55" 4K. Samsing is not even offering a flagship at that size (only the step-down edge-lit JS9000, which I don't believe the 55" 4K OLEDs need to undercut to succeed). So could the 55" 4K OLEDs succeed at $3000 versus the 55" 4K OLEDs ELPD JS9000 at $2500? Perhaps, but any of those premium 4K TVs at 55" just seems like so much of a niche here in the US compared to 65" and above premium TVs (ROW probably different).


Yeah, I don't think ROW has this hidden premium 55" market that's just waiting for a product from LG to fill a niche than even Samsung -- with scores of TV models -- can't place a product in. This makes me decidedly less than sanguine about delivering 1+ million 55-inch 4K sets next year unless the pricing is pretty much "Wow!"



slacker711 said:


> Assuming that LGD is currently gross margin positive, and I believe that to be true, then $2500 or so is exactly where I expect the 55" 4K OLED to be priced next year. You should like that number, it follows your 30% rule almost to a T


I like when things play out as what I know tells me they would. So yeah, I do like that number. I wonder about how much volume they can squeeze out at it, as I say just above. That doesn't mean I don't believe the volume is substantial -- I'm sure it's quite substantial -- but if you think, "LG can sell 1 million TVs like that" I'm skeptical. That's 0.5% of all the TVs sold in the world. For one SKU* to do that (1) from LG (2) with what I suspect is fundamentally limited distribution based on price at $2500 (3) at the very, very top end of a category (4) in a size that's unlikely to attract top-end buyers in North America... It feels like a stretch. 

* Going flat and curved or offering multiple designs of the same basic TV doesn't change the fact it's inherently one SKU.


> If a 55" 4K OLED set hits $2500 next year, then the question is going to be what the hell does Samsung do to protect their high-end share.


Yeah, that's ugly. I'd bet though the top end 55s are already SKUs that sell on the order of 100K units. I'm not sure protecting share there matters so long as there is product. And I'm skeptical Samsung doesn't have a price umbrella they can sneak under to allow them to go to $2000. 

But this is a legitimate concern for them, I concur.


----------



## wco81

Galaxy S6 and Edge didn't sell as well as hoped.

5-6 inch OLED not selling as well as 4.7-5.5 inch IPS or whatever iPhone 6 is using.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Rogo Realist is so much better than Debbie Downer!


Well, Rogo the Realist it is then 



> Yeah, I don't think ROW has this hidden premium 55" market that's just waiting for a product from LG to fill a niche than even Samsung -- with scores of TV models -- can't place a product in. This makes me decidedly less than sanguine about delivering 1+ million 55-inch 4K sets next year unless the pricing is pretty much "Wow!"


Well, if there is not a significant market in the ROW for premium 55" TVs selling for $2500, I think LG is going to be in trouble next year.



> I like when things play out as what I know tells me they would. So yeah, I do like that number. I wonder about how much volume they can squeeze out at it, as I say just above. That doesn't mean I don't believe the volume is substantial -- I'm sure it's quite substantial -- but if you think, "LG can sell 1 million TVs like that" I'm skeptical. That's 0.5% of all the TVs sold in the world. For one SKU* to do that (1) from LG (2) with what I suspect is fundamentally limited distribution based on price at $2500 (3) at the very, very top end of a category (4) in a size that's unlikely to attract top-end buyers in North America... It feels like a stretch.
> 
> * Going flat and curved or offering multiple designs of the same basic TV doesn't change the fact it's inherently one SKU.


What is your view on the rumored sales volume of 80K OLED TVs sold by LG in Q2 of this year? That would have to be almost all 55" (mainly 1080p with perhaps a sliver of 4K) at prices of $2500 (and some dipping closer to $2000, at least here in the US).

On an annual basis, that would amount to over 300,000, which would still be just a fraction of the 1.5M LG says they are aiming at (and have the installed capacity for) in 2016.

If this is going to go anywhere, I think we are going to see prices in the $2500 for 55" and $4000 for 65" by this holiday season (which sets the stage for pricing approaching the $2000 level for 55" and $3000-3500 level for 65" in 2016). That kind of aggressive cost/volume curve, coupled with an actual 77" OLED at prices undercutting the Sony 75X940C would start to have the feel of an initiative that might actually start breaking out into (premium TV) mass-market levels...

Anything less than that feels like another year of cautiously testing the waters...



> Yeah, that's ugly. I'd bet though the top end 55s are already SKUs that sell on the order of 100K units. I'm not sure protecting share there matters so long as there is product. And I'm skeptical Samsung doesn't have a price umbrella they can sneak under to allow them to go to $2000.
> 
> But this is a legitimate concern for them, I concur.


Samsung's low TV profitability is a reflection of their significant marketing investments while needing to compete with the Vizio's of the world (at least here in the U.S., at least until Vizio's IPO ).

But Samsung knows how to use their muscle, and if either LGs OLED I itiative or Vizio/Dolby's Vision/HDR initiative shows any signs of gaining momentum, you can bet your booties on a strong response from Samsung (meaning lower pricing in an attempt to keep the OLED wind out of LG's sails and/or the HDR wind out of Vizio's sails (or maybe better, sales ).

P.s. Seems we have lost our 'wink' icon ???


----------



## rogo

wco81 said:


> Galaxy S6 and Edge didn't sell as well as hoped.
> 
> 5-6 inch OLED not selling as well as 4.7-5.5 inch IPS or whatever iPhone 6 is using.


Well, if iPhone had OLED screens, I doubt it would sell a different number of units. But yes, overall OLED smartphones are hardly taken over the world at this point. I think people fail to appreciate this even though we talked about it last year that no one in industry thoughts OLED smartphones would take over...



fafrd said:


> Well, if there is not a significant market in the ROW for premium 55" TVs selling for $2500, I think LG is going to be in trouble next year.


It will matter what "significant" looks like. I am just pretty skeptical they can sell 1M+ of those in a world with aggressive, better distributed competition for a size that will have almost no presence in North America.


> What is your view on the rumored sales volume of 80K OLED TVs sold by LG in Q2 of this year? That would have to be almost all 55" (mainly 1080p with perhaps a sliver of 4K) at prices of $2500 (and some dipping closer to $2000, at least here in the US).


There is doubtless some early adopter demand. That's helping move what they are moving. Also, the product has apparently "caught fire" in the home market of Korea. The question is can they, for example, 3x-4x sales in Korea next year at that size and similar pricing? I see no reason why they could.


> On an annual basis, that would amount to over 300,000, which would still be just a fraction of the 1.5M LG says they are aiming at (and have the installed capacity for) in 2016.


Right, so without another year of LCD price trimming and if we assume there is minimal early adopter bump, they could sell 300K 55" TVs with lower resolution (a feature that few buyers likely care about, but that becomes more important for marketing over time). So how does that get to 1M+ in the next year? At $2500 it can't.


> If this is going to go anywhere, I think we are going to see prices in the $2500 for 55" and $4000 for 65" by this holiday season (which sets the stage for pricing approaching the $2000 level for 55" and $3000-3500 level for 65" in 2016). That kind of aggressive cost/volume curve, coupled with an actual 77" OLED at prices undercutting the Sony 75X940C would start to have the feel of an initiative that might actually start breaking out into (premium TV) mass-market levels...
> 
> Anything less than that feels like another year of cautiously testing the waters...


So, it appears maybe there's a bit of a gap between your numbers and slacker's and I think it's important because for every $500, there are a lot more sales. But at the same time, I think LG calibrates after this holiday season. If they are seeing signs the $2500/$4000 demand keeps rising, they can ride out what they believe will be a 300K-unit Q4 (maybe more?) and approach their sales goals for 2016. Now, that ignores the huge seasonality in TV and so I remain that much more skeptical. 

But I think we can all agree that anything above these prices is basic microscopic sales volume. That sort of sets the pricing at not more than $2500/$4000 in the important part of 2016 and there exists a more than real possibility we are looking at $2000/$3500 -- at least for the time LG wants to start moving 1.5M+ annual volumes.

I'd also point out that whatever the forecast is for 2017, it absolutely requires the lower price band as an opening offer. LG is not inventing millions of units at new demand in price bands where _there essentially never has been that kind of demand_ and certainly there hasn't been any such volumes in the past decade. 

This still feels like a very slow roll to me. The lack of capacity beyond the 1.5M+ volume that could fill unfilled demand at ostensibly better prices won't even be addressed in a meaningful way until the next year (given the time to commit, build and then -- as we've seen with M2 -- ramp up the facility). This is a very big window for competitors to understand where LG is going. And I still see no reason to believe that OLED will take 80-90% market share in any segment it's competing in. That's true even if it is priced dollar for dollar the same.


----------



## barth2k

rogo said:


> Well, if iPhone had OLED screens, I doubt it would sell a different number of units. But yes, overall OLED smartphones are hardly taken over the world at this point. I think people fail to appreciate this even though we talked about it last year that no one in industry thoughts OLED smartphones would take over...
> .


There was huge pent up demand for a bigger iPhone; there is no huge pent up demand for an OLED iPhone. I don't think anybody can supply that much volume anyway.

I think where we may see OLED first is on the iPad, where the larger size allows better appreciation of the display. Volume is low enough to be possibly manageable, and Apple needs something to goose flagging sales.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> So, it appears maybe there's a bit of a gap between your numbers and slacker's and I think it's important because for every $500, there are a lot more sales. But at the same time, *I think LG calibrates after this holiday season. If they are seeing signs the $2500/$4000 demand keeps rising, they can ride out what they believe will be a 300K-unit Q4 (maybe more?) and approach their sales goals for 2016. *Now, that ignores the huge seasonality in TV and so I remain that much more skeptical.


I believe this is spot on. There have been several references to 'profitability' being the gating factor on new investments in capacity, and I think it all amounts to testing the ASP levels needed to drive the M2 capacity this holiday season and then assessing whether the potential cost reductions achievable through the next steps in volume increase can get them to a position close to breaking even.

This year, they are selling below cost, but next year, I don't believe there is going to be continued willingness to do so unless they have confidence that they see light at the end of the tunnel...

In fairness to LG, it would be idiotic for them to hit the gas while the kinks are still being worked out. It's unfortunate the 65EG9690 launch was marred by this dark-edges non-uniformity issue, but they'd be in a world of hurt if they were cranking out 26,000 sheets a month with those defects instead of just 6000.

In the end, it will have been a full year to get M2 phase 1 up and running smoothly. Hopefully the move from 1080p to 4K was a big part of the reason for that and the phase II/III ramp to 26,000 sheets is far more painless...

But yeah, this feels like a seedling that has as much chance of withering into a twig as it does of growing into a tree from where things stand today...


----------



## tgm1024

barth2k said:


> There was huge pent up demand for a bigger iPhone; there is no huge pent up demand for an OLED iPhone.


You're right: there really isn't. However, their Apple Watch being an AMOLED display was recently referred to as an "open secret".

Frankly, I can't believe the AW is selling for watches are such inherently fugly devices.....they should have been gone long ago. But I suppose I take that back. There are a few Apple fan-boys I know who would buy a vial of Ebola of if came with an Apple logo on it.


----------



## jjackkrash

tgm1024;36177722There are a few Apple fan-boys I know who would buy a vial of Ebola of if came with an Apple logo on it.[/QUOTE said:


> This product would corner the terrorist hipster market for sure.


----------



## slacker711

Samsung looking to develop an alternative to quantum dots because they are too expensive. They are going to attempt to create a dual premium strategy.

http://english.etnews.com/20150803200001



> “Color-corrected film that Samsung developed is a sheet that uses organic material. Although its functions are a lot lower than QD film, it can greatly reduce production cost. It seems that it will be first used on 55-inch TV panel.”


No surprise. It isnt easy to keep cutting prices...eventually you have to cut features as well.


----------



## rogo

So the "two tracks" are one with actual quantum-dot film and one with their own less-expensive alternative?

That's perhaps not bad business, but I wonder if the continued improvement of the somewhat less expensive lines isn't a sort of permanent acknowledgement that the high end of the market isn't a real thing volume-wise. They can't possibly fail to capture strong margins on $4500, 65-inch TVs. But they could realize that simply price reducing those $1000 won't yield the right combination of volume and margins to make it interesting. 

Notably, Samsung is not contemplating:

1) The fantastical quantum-dot panel, which likely will never exist but certainly isn't coming to market in the next decade.

2) OLED televisions


----------



## Orbitron

http://flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1438695839


Panasonic 65" OLED


----------



## sytech

Orbitron said:


> http://flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1438695839
> 
> 
> Panasonic 65" OLED


I love that is going to be HDR capable, hate that it still curved. I know, the curve is minor and eventually you don't notice, but your best selling feature should not be "hey it doesn't make it that much worse". These will probably still have the black edges and bands like the LG as it is an inherent design problem, but for the right price I would take a chance.


----------



## wco81

They couldn't sell plasmas but Panasonic thinks it's going to sell a curved set which will probably be priced for over $7k?


----------



## UltraBlack

sytech said:


> These will probably still have the black edges and bands like the LG as it is an inherent design problem, but for the right price I would take a chance.


Maybe the late arrival of Panasonic's OLED is due to their attempts to fight this problem and maybe they finally succeeded, while LG doesn't care and sell defective sets during all that time.


----------



## JimP

wco81 said:


> They couldn't sell plasmas but Panasonic thinks it's going to sell a curved set which will probably be priced for over $7k?


What'll be funny is if Panasonic brings out an OLED using LG panels that works better and cost less than LG's.


----------



## stas3098

fafrd said:


> In fairness to LG, it would be idiotic for them to hit the gas while the kinks are still being worked out. It's unfortunate the 65EG9690 launch was marred by this dark-edges non-uniformity issue, but they'd be in a world of hurt if they were cranking out 26,000 sheets a month with those defects instead of just 6000.
> 
> But yeah, this feels like a seedling that has as much chance of withering into a twig as it does of growing into a tree from where things stand today...


In all fairness, there's simply no simple cost-effective way to fix the highly unfortunate uniformity issues... and of course, the only _real_ cheap way to improve those is to use toxic oxides like those of Arsenic or Lead, but I seriously doubt that that will sit well with a modern green-orientated consumer (_ac hyt sceal me ne yrmþa ne manege__ ne bringan, þeah, swa ute 'yt beon_). Them's just the breaks, fellas.

I mean, really, does any of you here know of any other way that there is to fix up the uniformity issues quickly and economically? 

P.S. By the way, the bit in italics, added for no reason in particular, is in Old English which runs in relatively Modern English as follows: "but it wouldn't bother me at all,though, so let it be".


----------



## rogo

It's essentially impossible to sell products in the EU that use toxic compounds, so I don't suspect we'll be seeing lead or arsenic solutions, no.

That said, I wonder why you believe switching oxides fixes the uniformity problems. Or, really, what you believe those problems even are. 

Your comments imply you think it's the backplane and that something about IGZO just can't be made uniform.


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> It's essentially impossible to sell products in the EU that use toxic compounds, so I don't suspect we'll be seeing lead or arsenic solutions, no.
> 
> That said, I wonder why you believe switching oxides fixes the uniformity problems. Or, really, what you believe those problems even are.
> 
> Your comments imply you think it's the backplane and that something about IGZO just can't be made uniform.


1. In IGZO Indium is the "most" important part( 'cause it's transparent) and then Gallium and Zinc are added to it to improve the fine voltage control for it flounders at it. 

2. But you see Zinc is about 27% as conductive as Copper and Lead is only 7% as conductive as Copper and what all this, at the end of the day, means is that Lead is almost 4 times better at fine voltage control( although it is not as efficient as Zinc) and if it were to be used instead of Zinc (or with Zinc) in an OLED TV backplane it would automatically improve the back-plane related non-uniformity issues significantly and most importantly Lead wouldn't mess with the silicon structure as much as Zinc does, cause it's a bit easier to control the crystallinity of Lead (though some might disagree with that).

3. Gallium arsenide and Indium arsenide would also make slightly better semi-conductors. 

In sooth, the way IGZO works is as follows: Indium is a main component, but it is no kind of semi-conductor. And to compensate for that Zinc and Gallium are added to the mix mostly by virtue of their non-toxicity.

But of course, the main issue with IGZO is that it is deposited as a "uniform" amorphous phase(which is where most of the non-uniformity issues come from) unless high grade silicon is used. And in reality, the structure of every individual IGZO transistor always varies a bit and it is never completely crystalline and had the atomic structure of a transistor no bearing on its electrical proprieties then it would be A-okay, but it does have bearing on its electrical proprieties and thus it is not okay, it's actually pretty far from okay, and from this perspective there's no fixing IGZO on account of its inherent variability.


----------



## fafrd

stas3098 said:


> 1. *In IGZO Indium is the "most" important part( 'cause it's transparent)* and then Gallium and Zinc are added to it to improve the fine voltage control for it flounders at it.
> 
> 2. But you see Zinc is about 27% as conductive as Copper and Lead is only 7% as conductive as Copper and what all this, at the end of the day, means is that Lead is almost 4 times better at fine voltage control( although it is not as efficient as Zinc) and if it were to be used instead of Zinc (or with Zinc) in an OLED TV backplane it would automatically improve the back-plane related non-uniformity issues significantly and most importantly Lead wouldn't mess with the silicon structure as much as Zinc does, cause it's a bit easier to control the crystallinity of Lead (though some might disagree with that).
> 
> 3. Gallium arsenide and Indium arsenide would also make slightly better semi-conductors.
> 
> In sooth, the way IGZO works is as follows: Indium is a main component, but it is no kind of semi-conductor. And to compensate for that Zinc and Gallium are added to the mix mostly by virtue of their non-toxicity.
> 
> But of course, the main issue with IGZO is that it is deposited as a "uniform" amorphous phase(which is where most of the non-uniformity issues come from) unless high grade silicon is used. And in reality, the structure of every individual IGZO transistor always varies a bit and it is never completely crystalline and had the atomic structure of a transistor no bearing on its electrical proprieties then it would be A-okay, but it does have bearing on its electrical proprieties and thus it is not okay, it's actually pretty far from okay, and from this perspective there's no fixing IGZO on account of its inherent variability.


For LCDs, with a backlight, I understand why transparency is required, but I don't understand why transparency matters for OLED?


----------



## rogo

Indium isn't transparent anyway. Indium-tin oxide makes for essentially transparent electrodes. That's a very specific indium compound and the search for other transparent electrodes has been very challenging.

But indium is a metal. 

It looks like this:


----------



## barth2k

stas3098 said:


> I mean, really, does any of you here know of any other way that there is to fix up the uniformity issues quickly and economically?


Do we know what are causing the uniformity issues?


----------



## catonic

rogo said:


> Indium isn't transparent anyway. Indium-tin oxide makes for essentially transparent electrodes. That's a very specific indium compound and the search for other transparent electrodes has been very challenging.
> 
> But indium is a metal.
> 
> It looks like this:


Rogo the Realist strikes again.


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> Indium isn't transparent anyway. Indium-tin oxide makes for essentially transparent electrodes. That's a very specific indium compound and the search for other transparent electrodes has been very challenging.
> 
> But indium is a metal.
> 
> It looks like this:


They don't USE Indium the metal they use Indium the Oxide.

P.S. You are clearly not getting it, okay. I am going to make it short and sweet. Indium is transparent, but bad, bad semi-conductor. Tin is added to Indium to make it a better semi-conductor, but Indium Tin Oxide still does not a good OLED transistor make that's why you have IZGO. I mean, a kilo of Gallium alone is worth about 3,000 US dollars, so why would LGD use Gallium which costs a lot of dough if they could simply use Indium Tin Oxide,huh?

Plus by the looks of it, you seem to think that Indium Tin Oxide is transparent on its own out of Silica whereas it is only transparent as a phase( only oxide can be a phase if any of you didn't learn that in school), and as a matter of fact Tin got nothing to do with Indium's transparency. And also guess what, nobody on earth knows why Indium oxide has such a property! So if you want further answers to why some phases are similar to glass in structure then you will have to come up with the answers on your own, because I have no feckin' idea why... 

In powder form, indium tin oxide (ITO) is yellow-green in color, but it is transparent and colorless when deposited as a thin film at thicknesses of 1000-3000 angstroms. When deposited as a thin film on glass or clear plastic it functions as a transparent electrical conductor. 
Read more: http://www.indium.com/inorganic-compounds/indium-compounds/indium-tin-oxide/#ixzz3i882F4J9
​


----------



## stas3098

fafrd said:


> For LCDs, with a backlight, I understand why transparency is required, but I don't understand why transparency matters for OLED?


There is a cathode (transparent) and an anode(reflective) in every single OLED( though other arrangements are possible). If a cathode were not transparent then you can, hopefully, work out what would happen..


----------



## Jason626

Before we get too worked up with science here. Let's see if lg promise that new panels are without this blackened border defect. Few of the owners have been contacted by lg and their replacement panels are supposedly on the way. Then we will need new owners to buy the tv with current manufactures build dates to verify new production models are defect of blackened borders (atleast defect free to the point of accepting the product so it's no worse off than previous years models).


----------



## rogo

stas3098 said:


> They don't USE Indium the metal they use Indium the Oxide.


Indium tin oxide is a transparent (mostly) electrode. Indium oxide is not used for electrodes.


> P.S. You are clearly not getting it, okay. I am going to make it short and sweet. Indium is transparent, but bad, bad semi-conductor. Tin is added to Indium to make it a better semi-conductor, but Indium Tin Oxide still does not a good OLED transistor make that's why you have IZGO. I mean, a kilo of Gallium alone is worth about 3,000 US dollars, so why would LGD use Gallium which costs a lot of dough if they could simply use Indium Tin Oxide,huh?


I wonder if you're the one not getting it. Indium-tin oxide isn't new to displays at all. It's used in essentially 100% of flat panels ever sold because otherwise you have a very uninteresting display. 

IGZO is used solely in transistors, as a replacement for silicon-based transistors. It is a first-order conflation error to talk about ITO and IGZO in the same sentence here. IGZO is a relatively recent invention. It was first put into commercial use in 2012.


> Plus by the looks of it, you seem to think that Indium Tin Oxide is transparent on its own out of Silica whereas it is only transparent as a phase( only oxide can be a phase if any of you didn't learn that in school), and as a matter of fact Tin got nothing to do with Indium's transparency. And also guess what, nobody on earth knows why Indium oxide has such a property! So if you want further answers to why some phases are similar to glass in structure then you will have to come up with the answers on your own, because I have no feckin' idea why...


This is a bit of jibber jabber that I don't really understand the purpose of. ITO can be vapor deposited or etched and it results in a transparent electrode. It is not used as a transistor in any display nor, as far as I can tell, as a transistor material anywhere.

You began this with a false conflation that "indium matters in IGZO because it's transparent". But that's not true. Silicon isn't transparent and it was (actually is) the transistor material of choice. There is no need for IGZO transistors to be transparent. Period.

Let's not confuse electrodes and transistors as I know full well you know better. 

But you make a claim amidst all the irrelevant material that it's impossible to deposit uniform IGZO transistors. I still don't understand why that's true. We have seen indium used very successfully in ITO for years. Has that always been done without uniformity? Are we to always accept the worst? I mean, what is it about this:



> "And in reality, the structure of every individual IGZO transistor always varies a bit and it is never completely crystalline and had the atomic structure of a transistor no bearing on its electrical proprieties then it would be A-okay, but it does have bearing on its electrical proprieties and thus it is not okay, it's actually pretty far from okay, and from this perspective there's no fixing IGZO on account of its inherent variability."


... that makes it so. Are silicon transistors immune to this? Is the non-uniformity worse? Is it so bad we can't get tolerances within a range to allow for a uniform display? My IGZO iPad looks pretty good....


----------



## stas3098

rogo said:


> Indium tin oxide is a transparent (mostly) electrode. Indium oxide is not used for electrodes.
> 
> 
> I wonder if you're the one not getting it. Indium-tin oxide isn't new to displays at all. It's used in essentially 100% of flat panels ever sold because otherwise you have a very uninteresting display.
> 
> IGZO is used solely in transistors, as a replacement for silicon-based transistors. It is a first-order conflation error to talk about ITO and IGZO in the same sentence here. IGZO is a relatively recent invention. It was first put into commercial use in 2012.
> 
> 
> This is a bit of jibber jabber that I don't really understand the purpose of. ITO can be vapor deposited or etched and it results in a transparent electrode. It is not used as a transistor in any display nor, as far as I can tell, as a transistor material anywhere.
> 
> You began this with a false conflation that "indium matters in IGZO because it's transparent". But that's not true. Silicon isn't transparent and it was (actually is) the transistor material of choice. There is no need for IGZO transistors to be transparent. Period.
> 
> Let's not confuse electrodes and transistors as I know full well you know better.
> 
> But you make a claim amidst all the irrelevant material that it's impossible to deposit uniform IGZO transistors. I still don't understand why that's true. We have seen indium used very successfully in ITO for years. Has that always been done without uniformity? Are we to always accept the worst? I mean, what is it about this:
> 
> 
> 
> ... that makes it so. Are silicon transistors immune to this? Is the non-uniformity worse? Is it so bad we can't get tolerances within a range to allow for a uniform display? My IGZO iPad looks pretty good....


*The threshold voltage instabilities (i.e threshold voltage shift) in a-IGZO thin film transistors is reported.
*
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/93/9/10.1063/1.2977865

Well, Indium Tin Oxide is used in transistors, mainly in medical applications, though. But sure as all hell it can never be used for transistors in OLEDs. 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApPhL..86p2902M

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23561910

Secondly, IGZO is good as long as a silicon wafer it is deposited onto (into) is good. But silicon in wafers has to be almost 100 percent pure for IZGO to be "uniformly" deposited as a phase and that is a very unreasonable ask.

Thirdly, indium tin oxide sucks as a semiconductor (Si and InO just don't jibe), but yes it, decidedly, excels as a translucent electrode. Go figure it,huh. 

And maybe, just maybe there is not just the slimmest of chances that Indium was selected for its apparent transparency. 

_IGZO is used solely in transistors, as a replacement for silicon-based transistors.

_Well, that is quite a misnomer right there, most probably brought on by a mild case of misrepresentation and misinformation( things I'd know much about, or so it seems), and through no fault of yours, of course. 

IGZO transistors still contain silicon in them for if they didn't they wouldn't be _transistors_ (they'd be just no kind of a thing in particular in that case) . As a matter of fact, IGZO mixture, as a rule, is deposited (etched) into silicon (wafer)...


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> From the transcript:
> Rob Stone - Cowen & Co.
> Okay. And then with respect to the capacity expansion that was planned for OLED TV this year, can you provide any update on how that's progressing from the 14,000 towards the 34,000 substrates?
> 
> Hee Yeon Kim - Head of IR Department
> Yes. It is in line with our previous communication, another 20K will be added in second half. The production will be starting in the middle second half this year. Totally our OLED TV capacity 34K."
> 
> Translation: Q3 will be another quarter like Q2 as far as production output (meaning ~87.5K units) and then output in Q4 may increase to as much as 2.4 times that level (to ~212.5K
> 
> This would mean (assuming all 55"):
> Q1 35K
> Q2 87.5K
> Q3 87.5K
> Q4 212.5K
> 2015 422.5K (best case with no significant 65" or 77")


It's a gradual increase probably one line at a time and gradually increasing the production rate rather than being all of a sudden on Sept 30 they go from nothing to starting at full speed. The Korea Herald is reporting LG is at 26k sheet production now and still working on bringing up the last 8k. They also note increasing sales to Chinese set makers.

The Korean display-maker plans to increase its production of OLED panels at its production line in Paju, Gyeonggi Province, from the current 26,000 sheets per month to 34,000 sheets.
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150809000398


----------



## greenland

"Epson Inkjet Tech To Be Used For OLED"

http://hdguru.com/

"Commenting on plans to apply Epson’s inkjet technology for OLED panel production, Minoru Usui, Seiko Epson Corp. global president (pictured at left), told HD Guru that “we are not going to make OLED panels ourselves, but we will supply our technology to companies that do make them. We think we can make a big contribution to that industry. We can’t give any details yet, but we think there is going to be a whole new world of OLED that will be coming out quite soon.”


----------



## rogo

greenland said:


> "Epson Inkjet Tech To Be Used For OLED"
> 
> http://hdguru.com/
> 
> "Commenting on plans to apply Epson’s inkjet technology for OLED panel production, Minoru Usui, Seiko Epson Corp. global president (pictured at left), told HD Guru that “we are not going to make OLED panels ourselves, but we will supply our technology to companies that do make them. We think we can make a big contribution to that industry. We can’t give any details yet, but we think there is going to be a whole new world of OLED that will be coming out quite soon.”


This is great if true. Of course, he could've made the same quote essentially 10 years ago (not exaggerating here) and we all know how that worked out.

Perhaps this time it is different, thanks to LG's TV endeavors and Samsung's success in mobile.


----------



## remush

greenland said:


> "Epson Inkjet Tech To Be Used For OLED"
> 
> http://hdguru.com/
> 
> "Commenting on plans to apply Epson’s inkjet technology for OLED panel production, Minoru Usui, Seiko Epson Corp. global president (pictured at left), told HD Guru that “we are not going to make OLED panels ourselves, but we will supply our technology to companies that do make them. We think we can make a big contribution to that industry. We can’t give any details yet, but we think there is going to be a whole new world of OLED that will be coming out quite soon.”


Interesting, maybe we'll get an English source to clarify, but from this poorly translated article, it sounds like Samsung will be attempting to use the tech next year



> The Epson inkjet nozzles cased. Samsung Display has chosen what the US inkjet equipment manufacturers Kati with technical cooperation herd. Samsung Display has recently conducted a secondary investment equity investment, following last September Kati bar. Samsung Display has the solution lay emphasis on process technology already secured in order to ensure price competitiveness compared to LG Display to enter the large-size OLED panel production. OLED bag as Cartesian (encapsulation) applying the related technology to the process, and the production and research and development for application to large RGB OLED panel manufacturing. The company is planning a pilot line operation including early next year.


http://www.etnews.com/20150811000308


----------



## irkuck

This OLED content enlightens you and more


----------



## slacker711

LGD OLED "roadmap" announcement coming next week with possible investment plans included.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2015/08/133_184692.html


----------



## 8mile13

remush said:


> Interesting, maybe we'll get an English source to clarify, but from this poorly translated article, it sounds like Samsung will be attempting to use the tech next year
> 
> 
> _The Epson inkjet nozzles cased. Samsung Display has chosen what the US inkjet equipment manufacturers Kati with technical cooperation herd. Samsung Display has recently conducted a secondary investment equity investment, following last September Kati bar. Samsung Display has the solution lay emphasis on process technology already secured in order to ensure price competitiveness compared to LG Display to enter the large-size OLED panel production. OLED bag as Cartesian (encapsulation) applying the related technology to the process, and the production and research and development for application to large RGB OLED panel manufacturing. The company is planning a pilot line operation including early next year._
> 
> http://www.etnews.com/20150811000308


 
Yes. Weird. _following last september Kati bar _ must be samsung's chuck that they invested in Kateeva last september. Kati equals Kateeva 
http://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-...eo/samsung-bets-on-oled-printer-maker-kateeva


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> LGD OLED "roadmap" announcement coming next week with possible investment plans included.
> 
> https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2015/08/133_184692.html


Nothing too unexpected here... let us now just hope that their "roadmap" does not lead through the city of WindDown and have the town of Production-ShutDown as its final destination. Fingers crossed.

Although, on a second thought, I think I might be a bit overpessimistic here. I don't know I just have a bad feeling about this for some reason. I dunno maybe it's just nothing... it's like the feeling I had about ten years ago when people first started saying that printed OLEDs would be rolling out by like 2005-6


----------



## rogo

Well the feeling I had hearing that 10+ years ago was laughter.


----------



## dnoonie

slacker711 said:


> LGD OLED "roadmap" announcement coming next week with possible investment plans included.
> 
> https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2015/08/133_184692.html


""LCD was the mainstream in the industry two decades ago; however, we believe OLED will be the mainstream in the next two decades as the displays can be bent, curved and twisted according to applications," said one official."

Great! So I can get an OLED decal to paste to my 6 panel door to my HT and it'll conform to it's convoluted surface...Now what am i going to use for a TV? Okay maybe it's not that bad...

So rather than projecting on a convoluted surface and then mapping the surface so the projected image conforms to the surface I can just surround that surface with flexible OLED material. Sounds great as long as that surface isn't building sized. But still, what am I going to use for a TV? 

Hoping for the best...

Cheers,


----------



## fafrd

stas3098 said:


> There is a cathode (transparent) and an anode(reflective) in every single OLED( though other arrangements are possible). If a cathode were not transparent then you can, hopefully, work out what would happen..


Thanks for the response, but it does not address my question.

The cathode needs to be transparent, but it is merely a conductor and does not contain any active elements (transistors/switches).

The backplane is the anode and does contain active elements -the thin-film transistors that control the individual subpixels.

Again, in an LCD, there is light passing through the backplane and hence the need for transparent transistors (IGZO).

But in an OLED, there is no light passing through the backplane, so there is no requirement for transparent transistors.

Is IGZO for OLED backplanes used merely because it is the best mainstream LCD backplane technology


----------



## rogo

In an LCD, there is no need for transparent transistors. In fact, the vast majority of LCDs ever made use a-Si or LTPS TFT backplanes. Not sure how these have suddenly become transparent. The way LCDs work is that the transistor only takes up a small portion of the sub-pixel area and because the electrodes are transparent ITO and only a small bit of the sub-pixel is transistor, you get plenty of light.


----------



## stas3098

fafrd said:


> Thanks for the response, but it does not address my question.
> 
> The cathode needs to be transparent, but it is merely a conductor and does not contain any active elements (transistors/switches).
> 
> The backplane is the anode and does contain active elements -the thin-film transistors that control the individual subpixels.
> 
> Again, in an LCD, there is light passing through the backplane and hence the need for transparent transistors (IGZO).
> 
> But in an OLED, there is no light passing through the backplane, so there is no requirement for transparent transistors.
> 
> Is IGZO for OLED backplanes used merely because it is the best mainstream LCD backplane technology


The _transparence_ thing has little to do with OLEDs per se for it was a thing in itself before OLED became a thing of its own. But Indium was used, from the get-go, for its _transarence_, though.... Well, what I am trying to say here is that there might be some long and convoluted story behind it all.

But, yeah, as Rogo duly noted there is no real need for an OLED transistor to be transparent at this point in space and time.


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Again, in an LCD, there is light passing through the backplane and hence the need for transparent transistors (IGZO).


A couple people were noting that this isn't completely true, but I believe I know what you were saying: That if there were a use for transparent transistors, it'd be for LCD. I might have accidentally phrased it the same way.

And it's clear you know that with LCD they have the luxury of providing much higher levels of backlight to compensate for whatever gets covered up. {shrug}




fafrd said:


> But in an OLED, there is no light passing through the backplane, so there is no requirement for transparent transistors.


Yeah, I have no idea what the issue is here or how it got started. Light _starts_ above the substrate/backplane with OLED. The whole "transparent" issue isn't just 90% moot as it is with LCD, but 100% so, because with OLED the only thing absolutely needing to be in the way of light are conductors anyway.


----------



## Desk.

LG Display plans to put at least $8.47 billion primarily into OLED displays for large products such as TVs, and flexible screens for smartphones and wearables through 2018.....

http://www.iii.co.uk/news-opinion/reuters/news/261263

Desk


----------



## dsinger

^ Looks like a bet the company strategy. Hope they are successful. Be very interested if we can get get some details on how they plan to implement this e.g. other companies who have signed up to buy panels and sell OLED TVs.


----------



## slacker711

Desk. said:


> LG Display plans to put at least $8.47 billion primarily into OLED displays for large products such as TVs, and flexible screens for smartphones and wearables through 2018.....


So LGD is basically announcing that all capex going forward will be focused on OLED's (both large screen and flexible).

There were Korean articles a few days ago where "industry sources" stated that LGD would invest 2 trillion Won in their next gen large screen OLED fab and 10 trillion Won in OLED's through 2018. It looks like the latter is confirmed but LGD is saying that the size and amount of the next gen fab is still being evaluated. 

Samsung has a decision to make on whether they want to attempt to compete with the Chinese vendors in LCD's or move to large screen OLED's as well. The rumor has been floating around for about nine months that they will build a Gen 10.5 LCD fab but they have yet to confirm it.


----------



## rogo

dsinger said:


> ^ Looks like a bet the company strategy. Hope they are successful. Be very interested if we can get get some details on how they plan to implement this e.g. other companies who have signed up to buy panels and sell OLED TVs.


Most of this bet is still on mobile, not on TVs. And in mobile, there is a pretty well established market for OLED displays.

There are risks here... Premium Android as a thing is dying... Smartwatches may yet prove to be a niche... But the risk is lower here than in TV by quite a bit.



slacker711 said:


> So LGD is basically announcing that all capex going forward will be focused on OLED's (both large screen and flexible).
> 
> There were Korean articles a few days ago where "industry sources" stated that LGD would invest 2 trillion Won in their next gen large screen OLED fab and 10 trillion Won in OLED's through 2018. It looks like the latter is confirmed but LGD is saying that the size and amount of the next gen fab is still being evaluated.


I suppose what's intriguing here is that it kind of sets production through the decade. LGD has capabilities that are known that pretty much dictate maximum production through the end of next year (+/-). When they commit to the next build, it will (a) take time (b) likely not be finished until 2017/8 (c) likely require some "digestion period" (d) essentially therefore dictate how many TVs they can build through at least 2019 if not 2020.

Let us begin, again, discussing the prices needed to move that many TVs once we have some data. LG has thus far shown no pricing to move even the 1.5M volumes that current production allows. A bet on much more production would be a strong indication that will start changing.


> Samsung has a decision to make on whether they want to attempt to compete with the Chinese vendors in LCD's or move to large screen OLED's as well. The rumor has been floating around for about nine months that they will build a Gen 10.5 LCD fab but they have yet to confirm it.


I don't see how Samsung can bet on large screen OLEDs unless they know something more about the viability of mass-produced printable OLEDs or they plan on licensing LG's patents (or stealing the tech and going to court over it). It's hard to commit big amounts of won to something you don't even know you can do. 

For this reason, I'd be more inclined to bet on Samsung building a giant LCD fab and continuing to explore TV-sized OLED rather than committing to something they can't possibly know the reality of.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> Most of this bet is still on mobile, not on TVs. And in mobile, there is a pretty well established market for OLED displays.
> 
> There are risks here... Premium Android as a thing is dying... Smartwatches may yet prove to be a niche... But the risk is lower here than in TV by quite a bit.


I think the announcement clearly tells us that Apple will be moving to a flexible OLED by 2018. They account for at least a quarter of LGD's sales and there is no way they abandon LCD capex unless Apple is going to adopt an OLED for the iPhone.







> I suppose what's intriguing here is that it kind of sets production through the decade. LGD has capabilities that are known that pretty much dictate maximum production through the end of next year (+/-). When they commit to the next build, it will (a) take time (b) likely not be finished until 2017/8 (c) likely require some "digestion period" (d) essentially therefore dictate how many TVs they can build through at least 2019 if not 2020.


The M2 Gen 8 fab took about 20 months from the announcement to the start of the ramp. The question is when they make the announcement and how much time they can cut from that time table for their second commercial fab.



> LG has thus far shown no pricing to move even the 1.5M volumes that current production allows


. 

The current pricing at Cleveland Plasma is pretty incredible ($3500 for 55" and $4800 for 65") but the gap is huge with the established retailers. I assume that gap gets closed fairly soon, but the timing matters. FWIW, Chris has hinted at something big coming for the EG9600 line but it is hard to believe that pricing is going to go that much below his current offers.

The 55EG9200 is also intriguing. If the 55EG9600 hits $3500 at the big retailers then the 9200 could be close to $3000. That is the kind of pricing which would actually give them a shot at 600,000 units.



> I don't see how Samsung can bet on large screen OLEDs unless they know something more about the viability of mass-produced printable OLEDs or they plan on licensing LG's patents (or stealing the tech and going to court over it). It's hard to commit big amounts of won to something you don't even know you can do.


Samsung has made some big bets in the past on the "come". They were one of the few companies that continued to invest through the melt down in '08. They also basically ripped off the iPhone and basically invited Apple to sue them. My WAG is that if Samsung does adopt WOLED that they will get the Korean government involved to force a settlement. The Korean press is in a state of panic about the impact of the Chinese vendors on the LCD industry. That will matter there.

Who knows though? Perhaps Samsung will build the Gen 10.5 LCD fab. That seems like a terrible idea to me...building that much capacity in a saturated market against competitors that have cheaper cost structures seems pretty similar to what Sharp did a few years ago.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> I think the announcement clearly tells us that Apple will be moving to a flexible OLED by 2018. They account for at least a quarter of LGD's sales and there is no way they abandon LCD capex unless Apple is going to adopt an OLED for the iPhone.


This sounds right to me too. Apple could seemingly only switch to OLED in an "even year" because odd year iPhones don't have major tech changes, right? But even saying that when TouchID, Force Touch will have come in odd years sounds odd. 2018, of course, is logically the iPhone 8 (2015 = 6s, 2016 = 7, 2017 = 7s). It wouldn't be shocking that by 2018 Apple not only has support for OLED, but some kind of radical design that makes use of flexibility. 


> The M2 Gen 8 fab took about 20 months from the announcement to the start of the ramp. The question is when they make the announcement and how much time they can cut from that time table for their second commercial fab.


Here's my point on timing. They have all the capacity they need through _at least_ the end of next year because so far there is scant evidence they will hit this year's target (I'd argue it's already too late to achieve given the state of product already out and its pricing). Let's say they cut the time frame to 16 months from 20 and they announce this new build as soon as the end of the year. That means that by April of 2017, they can start producing off the new fab and by perhaps middle 2018 it's at full capacity (which would likely be a fast ramp given the track record to date and how much larger it would be). At that point, even if they announce new capacity in early 2017 -- which seems very, very unlikely -- it wouldn't exist until near the end of 2018 and wouldn't be meaningful until 2019. 

Sure, this isn't officially the end of the decade's production in the next fab... But it's actually close.


> .The current pricing at Cleveland Plasma is pretty incredible ($3500 for 55" and $4800 for 65") but the gap is huge with the established retailers. I assume that gap gets closed fairly soon, but the timing matters. FWIW, Chris has hinted at something big coming for the EG9600 line but it is hard to believe that pricing is going to go that much below his current offers.


My guess is guys like Chris account for single digit percentages of what LG sells. That's just the reality of how TVs are bought.


> The 55EG9200 is also intriguing. If the 55EG9600 hits $3500 at the big retailers then the 9200 could be close to $3000. That is the kind of pricing which would actually give them a shot at 600,000 units.


If it's out next month, maybe. The year, from a retail perspective, is coming to a close faster than many might realize. TV sales are mostly completed within the next 3 months and a week.


> Samsung has made some big bets in the past on the "come". They were one of the few companies that continued to invest through the melt down in '08. They also basically ripped off the iPhone and basically invited Apple to sue them. My WAG is that if Samsung does adopt WOLED that they will get the Korean government involved to force a settlement. The Korean press is in a state of panic about the impact of the Chinese vendors on the LCD industry. That will matter there.


Not hard to imagine that in Korea. Easier to imagine than them betting billions on printing tech that has shown no evidence of yet being ready for mass production. They would have to produce production volumes on a single product for a while before they could even contemplate that.


> Who knows though? Perhaps Samsung will build the Gen 10.5 LCD fab. That seems like a terrible idea to me...building that much capacity in a saturated market against competitors that have cheaper cost structures seems pretty similar to what Sharp did a few years ago.


It might be a terrible idea. But in retrospect, the Galaxy S5 and S6 weren't especially good idea. Samsung just came out with two nearly identical phones and is advertising them as "basically the same" like this is a good thing... The company is off the rails right now. I wouldn't assume good decision making.


----------



## stas3098

Yeah, that is some good news, I trow. 

Side-note, I have included a schematic of an IGZO transistor to bring some closure to the previous IGZO discussion. As you can see from the schematic the IGZO mixture is placed (more like encased, or etched) onto a (Silicon dioxide) wafer( and therein lies the problem). 

You also ask why transparence, all of a sudden. Well, it's actually a pretty big coinkidink, in a sense, that you need crystalline IGZO for OLEDs and anything that has crystalline structure is transparent _by kind_ (as Scotsmen of the 18th century would put it)... just think of those lead oxide crystal glasses your grandparents probably had.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> This sounds right to me too. Apple could seemingly only switch to OLED in an "even year" because odd year iPhones don't have major tech changes, right? But even saying that when TouchID, Force Touch will have come in odd years sounds odd.


That seems right though I wonder if Apple really would be constrained by their two year cycle if they do manage to solve the technical/capacity problems by 2017. I tend to think that the iPhone upgrade cycle is going to start getting longer unless we see something radical in terms of performance/design. The incremental upgrades to the processor/camera arent going to be enough so they are going to need something like a flexible display.

Other possibilities would be that they tier their lineup with an additional model or only initially use an OLED in the 6 Plus. Personally, I'm hoping for an OLED in an iPad. I watch much more video there than on my iPhone.



> Let's say they cut the time frame to 16 months from 20 and they announce this new build as soon as the end of the year. That means that by April of 2017, they can start producing off the new fab and by perhaps middle 2018 it's at full capacity (which would likely be a fast ramp given the track record to date and how much larger it would be). At that point, even if they announce new capacity in early 2017 -- which seems very, very unlikely -- it wouldn't exist until near the end of 2018 and wouldn't be meaningful until 2019.


I'm not sure how LGD will handle the inflection points of volume as they go lower in price. The ramp of a single new fab can handle the increased volumes as you go down in price from $5000 to $2500. The volume changes much more radically when you go from $1500 to $1000. 

You are going to need that 4th OLED fab when you start seeing prices close to $1000. So the timing will depend on when LGD sees that happening.

Overall though, they have been taking the real risks over the last three years. The capex numbers will get bigger going forward, but the risks of catastrophic failure are a lot lower. 



> My guess is guys like Chris account for single digit percentages of what LG sells.


In the past, his pricing has led Amazon/Best Buy. You could be fairly certain that a price cut was coming at those outlets when CP substantially reduced prices. I'm not sure if the gap was ever this large though....30% on each model right now.


----------



## stas3098

Also one more thing, does it any of this imply that going forward LGD is going to start converting their existing LCD capacity to churn out OLEDs? I mean, in that case the ramp could happen pretty fast.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> That seems right though I wonder if Apple really would be constrained by their two year cycle if they do manage to solve the technical/capacity problems by 2017. I tend to think that the iPhone upgrade cycle is going to start getting longer unless we see something radical in terms of performance/design. The incremental upgrades to the processor/camera arent going to be enough so they are going to need something like a flexible display.


I have no doubt we'll see something radical. And, yes, maybe you'll see, for example, an OLED display enter the lineup in 2017 then a radical new form factor in 2018. That said, Apple still has a lot of room to move down the pricing curve (even if only a bit) to expand volume that way and transition part of the business to recurring revenue. I'm honestly surprised they haven't been more aggressive about that revenue stream and building it. It would de-risk the business long term massively.


> Other possibilities would be that they tier their lineup with an additional model or only initially use an OLED in the 6 Plus. Personally, I'm hoping for an OLED in an iPad. I watch much more video there than on my iPhone.


So do I, but the iPhone (and other smartphones) are really hitting the smaller size tablets hard. Apple seems OK with this and most tablet video watchers are unlikely to pay premium prices for small tablets going forward... Of course, the big tablet represents an intriguing place to put an OLED screen as well. So we'll see. 


> I'm not sure how LGD will handle the inflection points of volume as they go lower in price. The ramp of a single new fab can handle the increased volumes as you go down in price from $5000 to $2500. The volume changes much more radically when you go from $1500 to $1000.


It's interesting to play this out, but I think they will have to wait to see what happens once they reach certain kinds of price parity. For example, let's say they can sell at precisely where Samsung's "mainstream flagship" TVs are at 55" and 65". What market share do they get? (Hint OLED fans, it's not only nowhere near 100%, it's likely not >50%). I mean things like the 8500 models here, incidentally. 

Once that's achieved, it becomes clearer to LG what the market really looks like for their products at a price point that actually exists. (We've seen pretty conclusively that there isn't a market at prices that don't exist with competing products. Or at least not one that's big enough to care about.)


> You are going to need that 4th OLED fab when you start seeing prices close to $1000. So the timing will depend on when LGD sees that happening.


Right, and this is intriguing as LG has apparently decided to let its LCD TV business essentially fade out but presumably wants a large share of the TV business going forward using OLED. If they could compete all the way down to $1000, my guess is that's not more than 30% of the TV business and that over time they could take significant share in that segment. But, of course, the world won't stand still around them to give it away. 


> Overall though, they have been taking the real risks over the last three years. The capex numbers will get bigger going forward, but the risks of catastrophic failure are a lot lower.


This is true. And they can modulate around what they attain in terms of actual share. The thing is, you'd really like to see the full picture of M2 before making too many projections about the success of fabs 3 and 4. Things get more fraught as you go forward. It's one thing for LG to snag a hunk of a very small super-premium market that they've already owned a hunk of. Competition need not overreact to that. If/when LG starts looking at 1/3 of "all TVs over $1000", however, that creates a game-changing mess for competitors.

Incidentally, I've no real sense of what # of TV panels annually is realistic for 4 fabs. Perhaps LG can push into the $1000+ category without causing too much pain for competitors. They would take relatively small share of, say, the super-premium 46" category in that scenario, more at 55", still more at 65". If the third fab pushed production to 4M annually and the fourth one gave them the ability to make 10M units, they'd need to take 1/4 share of the top 15% of the market to sell out. That certainly feels plausible. (240M total, top 15% = 36M, LG sells 25% of that = ~9M)


> In the past, his pricing has led Amazon/Best Buy. You could be fairly certain that a price cut was coming at those outlets when CP substantially reduced prices. I'm not sure if the gap was ever this large though....30% on each model right now.


Trusting your math/history here. Interesting to watch.


----------



## wco81

Ben with price parity lcd will probably outsell because of factors like burn in, brightness, etc.

Plasma was cheaper and superior but didn't sell.


----------



## wco81

Ben with price parity lcd will probably outsell because of factors like burn in, brightness, etc.

Plasma was cheaper and superior but didn't sell.


----------



## remush

rogo said:


> If it's out next month, maybe. The year, from a retail perspective, is coming to a close faster than many might realize. TV sales are mostly completed within the next 3 months and a week.



I'm more interested to see how the FHD 55eg9100 gets priced, since it looks like it will be the lowest cost model this year


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, this Korean article says that LGD is considering a Gen 10 OLED fab. 

http://www.ddaily.co.kr/news/article.html?no=133736

The big issue would be that this would mean that they need to build a brand new fab rather than converting existing LCD lines. That would require substantially more capex and leave LGD with a huge amount of capacity.


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> FWIW, this Korean article says that LGD is considering a Gen 10 OLED fab.
> 
> http://www.ddaily.co.kr/news/article.html?no=133736
> 
> The big issue would be that this would mean that they need to build a brand new fab rather than converting existing LCD lines. That would require substantially more capex and leave LGD with a huge amount of capacity.


Building a Gen 10 fab, actually, makes some kind of twisted sense here. I mean if they can get one over on Chinese in size and carve out a 70 inch plus segment in the market then they will be sort of exempt from competition with Chinese (for a while). In this case-scenario Chinese, basically, take almost all of the market from 55 inches down and Koreans rule the extra large portion of the market. It's a form of segmentation that lets both parties survive and thrive. At least that is the Chinese vendors' point of view. I hear that Chinese vendors don't really expect an all-out price war with Koreans, because it is damaging for both parties and they smake that this might be a mutually beneficial sort of solution for both.


----------



## slacker711

stas3098 said:


> Building a Gen 10 fab, actually, makes some kind of twisted sense here. I mean if they can get one over on Chinese in size and carve out a 70 inch plus segment in the market then they will be sort of exempt from competition with Chinese (for a while). In this case-scenario Chinese, basically, take almost all of the market from 55 inches down and Koreans rule the extra large portion of the market. It's a form of segmentation that lets both parties survive and thrive. At least that is the Chinese vendors' point of view. I hear that Chinese vendors don't really expect an all-out price war with Koreans, because it is damaging for both parties and they smake that this might be a mutually beneficial sort of solution for both.


BOE is building a Gen 10.5 LCD fab. 

There is going to be price competition between the Chinese and Korean LCD vendors at every size. The only conceivable way to hide from it is to bring down OLED pricing into the mainstream. The Chinese vendors are building OLED fabs as well but LGD has a multi year head start on ramping up yields.


----------



## stas3098

slacker711 said:


> BOE is building a Gen 10.5 LCD fab.
> 
> There is going to be price competition between the Chinese and Korean LCD vendors at every size. The only conceivable way to hide from it is to bring down OLED pricing into the mainstream. The Chinese vendors are building OLED fabs as well but LGD has a multi year head start on ramping up yields.


Then, honestly, I can't see how Korean vendors can compete with the state-subsidized Chinese vendors.

And also LG's prime mover advantage can be easily counter-balanced by Chinese state subsidies if Chinese decide to one-up LG in way of OLED.

I mean, what is a possible, conceivable way for Koreans to beat Chinese in a game that is "rigged" against them in the first place?


----------



## rogo

The problem with sticking with the 8G fabs is that they are awful for every size above 55". The advantage of a 10G fab is that it's good for 60" and 70". 

Is that worth spending on an entirely new fab? I don't know. Would it yield overcapacity? It seems inevitable. The global market for 60" and up is simply too small, especially if you can't compete below $1000.


----------



## Wizziwig

slacker711 said:


> In the past, his pricing has led Amazon/Best Buy. You could be fairly certain that a price cut was coming at those outlets when CP substantially reduced prices. I'm not sure if the gap was ever this large though....30% on each model right now.


I'm not sure if that's really an indication of future pricing trends or just temporary dumping of inventory on what's essentially a defective set. I guess we'll know if sets with better uniformity ever hit the streets and are priced higher.


----------



## stas3098

Wizziwig said:


> I'm not sure if that's really an indication of future pricing trends or just temporary dumping of inventory on what's essentially a defective set. I guess we'll know if sets with better uniformity ever hit the streets and are priced higher.


If that is true and LG is already discounting these sets then they must have a very low sell-through rate on those (a rate signifying how much of inventory can be sold (per unit time)). When STR is low then the only way to move stock is to discount it.

Sell-through rates are what usually determine margins, by the way. The higher the STR is the higher margins, as a rule, are. Discounting is what kills margins and bad margins betoken nothing good for OLEDs.


----------



## slacker711

stas3098 said:


> Then, honestly, I can't see how Korean vendors can compete with the state-subsidized Chinese vendors.
> 
> And also LG's prime mover advantage can be easily counter-balanced by Chinese state subsidies if Chinese decide to one-up LG in way of OLED.
> 
> I mean, what is a possible, conceivable way for Koreans to beat Chinese in a game that is "rigged" against them in the first place?


LCD manufacturing is a commodity business. Money can buy you capacity with competitive yields and that is precisely what is happening today. The Chinese government is throwing money at the industry so the rest of the vendors are essentially competing with an irrational actor. The normal game theory around building new capacity doesnt apply and the most likely result will be that everybody loses money for quite a while. 

While I wish OLED manufacturing was a commodity, it simply isnt true today or in the near future. How long has LGD been investing R&D into ramping yields for their IGZO backplanes? Money can shorten that timeframe but it doesnt eliminate the lead. Moreover, the WOLED patents will apply outside of China and I would imagine a license would be far more difficult to obtain for the Chinese vendors than for Samsung.

No technical lead lasts forever, but right now OLED's provide the best path going forward for the Korean display industry to remain profitable.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Update on progress of JOLED (Sony & Panasonic's OLED joint venture)*

This only involves medium-sized OLEDs destined for tablets and computer monitors, but here's an update on the progress of what's assumed to be OLEDs manufactured using printing technology Panasonic was working on.

*JOLED commits €147 million to smart OLED production line*: https://www.plusplasticelectronics....-commits-€147-million-to-smart-oled-productio


> Japanese manufacturers operating through the industry coalition JOLED have announced plans to create a mass production test line for OLED panels.
> 
> The new production facility will cost ¥20 billion (€147 million). It will be based in the Ishiwaka prefecture and begin pilot operation in spring 2016 according to a 4 August report from Nikkei – full production runs are slated to begin in 2018.
> 
> The initial focus will be to develop a cost-effective model for producing HD panels for screens in the 10-inch to 30-inch range for integration into tablets, other smart devices, and computer monitors.
> 
> JOLED pools the expertise of Sony, Panasonic and Japan Display (JDI). As reported on +Plastic Electronics it was created in August 2014 under the auspices of the public-private investment group the Innovation Network Corporation of Japan (INCJ).
> 
> JOLED’s goal is create a hub of expertise that will allow Japanese firms to catch up on the technology lead South Korea’s LG and Samsung have built up in commercial OLED fabrication.
> 
> JDI is believed to be the driving force behind the new Ishiwaka line, with conjecture from Digitimes naming it – alongside LG – as a future supplier of OLED panels for use in Apple smart devices.
> 
> By John Nelson


----------



## jogiba

> LG Display Co., a supplier to Apple Inc., plans to invest about 10 trillion won ($8.5 billion) over the next three years to develop next-generation screens to reverse slowing growth and gain an edge over competitors.
> 
> 
> LG Display will shift its investment focus to screens powered by tiny organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, the Seoul-based company said in an e-mailed statement Monday. The world’s largest maker of liquid crystal displays is betting on growth in demand for advanced displays, including foldable screens, for wearable devices, cars and televisions.
> 
> 
> The display maker has set its sights on new technology as competition from up-and-coming Chinese manufacturers intensifies and demand for consumer electronics slows. The leader in large OLEDs is trying to expand its footprint in smaller devices, as it grapples with tepid sales and declining prices for LCD screens in TVs and computers.
> “The investment aims to make LG Display grow as a sustainable company,” Chief Executive Officer Han Sang Beom said in the statement. LG Display’s priority is to “pioneer this untapped OLED market to sustain our leadership in the display industry and keep the competitors at bay.”
> 
> 
> The global OLED market is forecast to grow to $28.3 billion by 2022, from $8.7 billion last year, the company said in the statement, citing estimates by researcher DisplaySearch.
> 
> 
> Yet display earnings are at risk as Chinese newcomers try to catch up with the Koreans. Beijing-based BOE Technology Group Co. said in April it will spend 40 billion yuan ($6.3 billion) on an LCD factory that will produce displays for large TVs when it opens in 2018.
> 
> 
> LG Display last month posted a better-than-expected second-quarter operating profit of 488 billion won.
> 
> 
> However, sales growth slowed to 12 percent from the preceding period’s 26 percent pace. Chief Financial Officer Don Kim said at the time he expected panel prices to continue their downtrend in the third quarter.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...spend-8-5-billion-on-future-screen-technology


----------



## rogo

Rich Peterson said:


> This only involves medium-sized OLEDs destined for tablets and computer monitors, but here's an update on the progress of what's assumed to be OLEDs manufactured using printing technology Panasonic was working on.
> 
> *JOLED commits €147 million to smart OLED production line*: https://www.plusplasticelectronics....-commits-€147-million-to-smart-oled-productio


So this is actually very weird....

"We are building OLED displays -- tepidly -- for two categories that have thus far shown zero or near zero interest in OLED displays."

Look, this may work and perhaps someone will commit to OLED tablets based on this (Apple?)... I wonder how big (small) the entire 30" computer display market is these days. Bigger than, say, "all Microsoft Surface sales by volume" but still not very big.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Sony currently sells OLED broadcast monitors in that size range and has been for several years now:
http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/products/broadcast-products-professional-monitors-oled-monitors


----------



## wco81

Tablet market isn't looking like it was a couple of years ago.

Unless OLED is at price parity to IPS, why would anyone use them in tablets and give up margins.


----------



## rogo

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Sony currently sells OLED broadcast monitors in that size range and has been for several years now:
> http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/products/broadcast-products-professional-monitors-oled-monitors


They sell thousands of those per year. By "thousands" I don't mean "tens of thousands."



wco81 said:


> Tablet market isn't looking like it was a couple of years ago.
> 
> Unless OLED is at price parity to IPS, why would anyone use them in tablets and give up margins.


Right.


----------



## dnoonie

wco81 said:


> Tablet market isn't looking like it was a couple of years ago.
> 
> Unless OLED is at price parity to IPS, why would anyone use them in tablets and give up margins.


Readability in bright sunlight used to be a factor. OLED could go brighter. Is it still factor? Has LED/LCD closed that gap?

Cheers,


----------



## cdecker78

Let me know when I can get a 75" OLED flat screen at a reasonable price.2K or less. Come on Vizio lol


----------



## stas3098

dnoonie said:


> Readability in bright sunlight used to be a factor. OLED could go brighter. Is it still factor? Has LED/LCD closed that gap?
> 
> Cheers,


OLED is not really efficient... but yeah OLED is bright

_Has LED/LCD closed that gap? _

I don't think so.

Also as a side note, the Tab S2 8.0 has a _horrible_ display (very comparatively speaking) and the Tab S2 9.4 has one that's even worse when compared to that of the Tab S 10.5 so if you want to get a tablet with the best display then you'd better hurry up and get a Samsung Tab S 10.5.


----------



## barth2k

stas3098 said:


> OLED is not really efficient... but yeah OLED is bright
> 
> _Has LED/LCD closed that gap? _
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Also as a side note, Tab S2 8.0 has a _horrible_ display and 9.4 has one that's even worse when compared to that of the Tab S 10.5 so if you want to get a tablet with the best display then you'd better hurry up and get a Samsung Tab S 10.5.


That's disappointing. How did it get worse?


----------



## andy sullivan

cdecker78 said:


> Let me know when I can get a 75" OLED flat screen at a reasonable price.2K or less. Come on Vizio lol


Would you expect to get a Hyundai Elantra for the same price as a Corvette?


----------



## tgm1024

Wait a second. Something wooshed by me on the samsung page. Did we talk about this recently?

Apparently their OLED *page* is still alive and well. Why?

http://www.samsung.com/us/oled-tv/#home

The phrasing is as if the S9C (etc.) are still viable products. Is this just a leftover page with no connective link? Google landed right on it.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Wait a second. Something wooshed by me on the samsung page. Did we talk about this recently?
> 
> Apparently their OLED *page* is still alive and well. Why?
> 
> http://www.samsung.com/us/oled-tv/#home
> 
> The phrasing is as if the S9C (etc.) are still viable products. Is this just a leftover page with no connective link? Google landed right on it.


All I know is that they don't sell them, anymore.


----------



## stas3098

barth2k said:


> That's disappointing. How did it get worse?


In one word, Pentile. Plus poor viewing angles (relatively speaking) as well, about as good as those of the PS Vita, and the gamma tracking is really out of whack (mine doesn't track the 2.2 gamma ideally by all means), but other than that it's pretty good. Also _Reading Mode_ does not seem to make a heck of a difference when it comes to alleviating eye-strain from prolonged reading sessions... but it's really bright, though, or so it seems to the naked eye.

The Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5's display was not PenTile, it was full-on RGB.


----------



## cdecker78

andy sullivan said:


> Would you expect to get a Hyundai Elantra for the same price as a Corvette?


That was really a joke about Vizio creating cheap TVs, But yeah... Do you have a corvette for sale?


----------



## slacker711

I'm not sure if they are sales or permanent price cuts but there are finally some major price reductions at the big retailers (Best Buy/Amazon) on all of the models.

55EC9300 for $1999 (from $2500)
55EG9600 for $4000 (from $5000)
65EG9600 for $6000 (from $7000)


The 55EC9300 is probably getting phased out so I could imagine even lower close out pricing soon.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> I'm not sure if they are sales or permanent price cuts but there are finally some major price reductions at the big retailers (Best Buy/Amazon) on all of the models.
> 
> 55EC9300 for $1999 (from $2500)
> 55EG9600 for $4000 (from $5000)
> 65EG9600 for $6000 (from $7000)
> 
> 
> The 55EC9300 is probably getting phased out so I could imagine even lower close out pricing soon.


Your post got me looking around a little. Only because I found it interesting, here is the price history of those above models (from camelcamelcamel.com). Note: I'm choosing "all date ranges" to be shown, so the time scales won't match up:

*55EC9300*​ 








*55EG9600*









*65EG9600*


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> Your post got me looking around a little. Only because I found it interesting, here is the price history of those above models (from camelcamelcamel.com).


Thanks. I cant believe I never ran across that site before but it seems pretty useful.

The pricing gap between the majors and places like CP seems more reasonable now. IFA is next week and my WAG is that we'll get some pricing details about the new models then.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> Thanks. I cant believe I never ran across that site before but it seems pretty useful.


More than welcome. I've been trying to spread the word about ccc for a long time. Something to keep in mind though: There have been some cases where they just cannot get the information. In 2012-2013, LG's LM series was one of them. It happens.

Where these guys become priceless is when you want something like a CD/DVD/BD, but just don't want to pay much for it. You can then be notified the moment it descends below your asking price. Absurd sales happen all the time. You can search for used as well.

Also, he has different sites monitoring best buy, and others.




slacker711 said:


> The pricing gap between the majors and places like CP seems more reasonable now. IFA is next week and my WAG is that we'll get some pricing details about the new models then.


I had lost track of time apparently; good grief.


----------



## rogo

I am mildly encouraged that $6000 is just 2 more 30% price cuts from where the 65" needs to be to start moving reasonably substantial unit counts -- the kind LG will absolutely need 2 years from now to come anywhere close to its production target.

As many know, 30% annual price cuts are not exceptional in this kind of technology. Both LCD and plasma saw them for significant stretches.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> I am mildly encouraged that $6000 is just 2 more 30% price cuts from where the 65" needs to be to start moving reasonably substantial unit counts -- the kind LG will absolutely need 2 years from now to come anywhere close to its production target.
> 
> As many know, 30% annual price cuts are not exceptional in this kind of technology. Both LCD and plasma saw them for significant stretches.


I know you're speaking in aggregates, and not strictly list pricing, but what I find encouraging is that the _amazon_ price went from $9000 to $6000 in 5 months. 33% couldn't possibly be repeatable every 5 months of course, .....but it certainly gives me significant pause to wonder what it'd be like if it did.

price = list * (0.66 ^ (months / 5))​
....sort of gets my attention.


----------



## sytech

These prices are pretty much meaningless without knowing cost. LG could sell them for $1000 each if they wanted to take greater than the $500 per unit loss they are currently taking. All this is clearance pricing anyway. The real clues is in the pricing of the 4K 55EF9500 at $5K and 65EF9500 at $7K. Still about 3X higher than where they need to be. The one piece of good news is the 8.5 billion dollar investment in OLED that LG is making. Though it is hard to determine how much of that is for the large format market. OLED is going to remain niche much longer than expected as WHF LCD continues to drop to levels it can not match. Once the price the 4K 55" OLED is at $1500 and 65" at $2500, then we know they have cracked the yield problems and it finally has a chance at the mass consumer market.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> I know you're speaking in aggregates, and not strictly list pricing, but what I find encouraging is that the _amazon_ price went from $9000 to $6000 in 5 months. 33% couldn't possibly be repeatable every 5 months of course, .....but it certainly gives me significant pause to wonder what it'd be like if it did.
> 
> price = list * (0.66 ^ (months / 5))​
> ....sort of gets my attention.


I'm inclined to dismiss that kind of trend without seeing it repeatedly, including on newly announced models.



sytech said:


> These prices are pretty much meaningless without knowing cost. LG could sell them for $1000 each if they wanted to take greater than the $500 per unit loss they are currently taking. All this is clearance pricing anyway. The real clues is in the pricing of the 4K 55EF9500 at $5K and 65EF9500 at $7K. Still about 3X higher than where they need to be. The one piece of good news is the 8.5 billion dollar investment in OLED that LG is making. Though it is hard to determine how much of that is for the large format market. OLED is going to remain niche much longer than expected as WHF LCD continues to drop to levels it can not match. Once the price the 4K 55" OLED is at $1500 and 65" at $2500, then we know they have cracked the yield problems and it finally has a chance at the mass consumer market.


Right, those are very intriguing numbers Sytech: $1500/$2500. And those are 2017-18 at _the absolute soonest_, I think it's safe to assume. In fact, they would require the next-gen fab to be online because I think we can make a strong case that LG sells out of M1/M2 production at _somewhat_ higher prices (notably: cracking $3500 on the 65" moves it into interesting territory, $3000 into much more interesting territory. On the 55", a real 4K for $2500 is mildly intriguing, at $2000 it's more intriguing.)

The $1500/$2500 benchmarks start to allow LG to think about selling millions of OLED TVs. It's somewhat probable that $1000/$2000 starts them thinking about many millions... The challenge, of course, is that everyone else isn't going to just concede market share. And there are very legitimate questions as to OLED TV will ever reach the levels LCD is at today. You can buy a 60" for well under $1000 at retail. I doubt LG has a price target like $800/60" anywhere on the road map. I am skeptical they intend to deliver a 65" at $1500 in the foreseeable future either -- which would allow LG to at least be price competitive with retail 70" TVs. 

Most of the $8.5B is going to mobile. I think it's correct (per slacker) that LG and Apple already have a deal for an iPhone that is like 2017's model to use OLED. There exists some fairly small possibility that something happens there in 2016.

The TV stuff, even if we assume 125% growth off of next year's mythic 1.5M would be sub 8M units in 2018. At that point, growth will definitionally slow because building fab capacity becomes a constraint. LG seems incapable of selling even 10% of the world's TVs with OLED in 2020. But a much larger share of the 55" and up market is plausible and an even larger share of the premium market is plausible. 

From there, much will depend on whether OLED really does get cheaper to produce (please, everyone, spare me the "no backlight = cheaper" facile argument here) and how quickly others can produce them. LG has a huge lead, but the development of the ecosystem that will let them get past 10M annually will help all competitors. That's just the way things work. And if printing ever becomes viable, it's actually a chance for competitors to leapfrog the pioneer.


----------



## tgm1024

News releases from the Kateeva website:*

----- #1 -----
Kateeva consolidates global HQ and manufacturing operations in new larger Bay Area facility

*"The move boosts Kateeva’s operations as it shifts fast into volume production, said the company’s President and Co-founder Dr. Conor Madigan."

July 15, 2015
Company also adds two senior executives to operations team
* READ MORE*​*----- #2 -----
DuPont Displays and Kateeva Collaborate to Optimize Inkjet Printing for Mass Production of OLED TVs*
June 1, 2015
Companies to Combine Expertise in OLED Materials and Printing Equipment
*READ MORE*​


----------



## andy sullivan

All the talk here understandably revolves around production capabilities and profit margins. But what about the evolution of product quality? What PQ improvements can we expect over the next two model years?


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> Most of the $8.5B is going to mobile.





tgm1024 said:


> News releases from the Kateeva website


Would be curious how you know that most of it is going to mobile? Some things coming out of the IMID conference in Korea this past week..

"Out of $8.45 billion, it seems that most of investment will be used on establishing large-sized Gen 8 or higher OLED line."

I've heard $4.5 billion for large size. The initial talk was $2 billion for gen 8 fab beginning at the end of this year. So it would make sense to have that as the 2016 investment with another fab in late 2017/18. The economics of mobile and TV lines are very different. A $1 billion investment in a gen 6 mobile line gets you 7,500 sheets of capacity while a $1 billion investment in converting an existing LCD TV line to OLED gets you around 30,000 sheets. Something to consider when you wonder why Samsung failed to apply their mobile FMM RGB with LTPS technology to TV. So even if the $ are split evenly between mobile and TV it will result in far more area being for TV though perhaps not more units.

LG Display CEO on inkjet printing: "It's too early to talk about the timing of mass production of inkjet based OLED displays"


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> On the 55", a real 4K for $2500 is mildly intriguing, at $2000 it's more intriguing.)


FWIW, the pre-order pricing for the 55EG920V (4K OLED Curved) is $2550 in Finland after you subtract out the VAT. 

It seems too early to hit that kind of price though. My guess is that this TV is priced higher and the flat models are priced lower than the $7000 and $5000 we have seen on some sites.


----------



## wco81

Lets say OLED hits price parity or is even 20% below LED. There is not going to be a mass upgrade. People may certainly opt for OLED as they replace their TVs but other than video and techphiles, they won't move up their replacement schedule.

Maybe if 4K was a big hit, with all major sports being broadcast in 4K and HDR, there would be excitement for upgrading to something they considered a big enough leap in PQ. (And will OLED necessarily do better with sports than either LCD or plasma?). Or ATSC 3.0 is mandated and people have to migrate to receive TV broadcasts and cable and satellite all put out cheap 4K set tops.

Can a slow uptake be enough to sustain continued manufacture of OLED, never mind continued development and refinement?

For most people, the TVs they have now are probably "good enough" that they don't feel any urgency to spend thousands or even hundreds to replace their TVs.


Not a good conclusion for those of us who want to see advances in displays come to market. Unfortunately, there just aren't enough people willing to spend on the best or at least better TVs.


----------



## tgm1024

ynotgoal said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo*
> _Most of the $8.5B is going to mobile._
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*
> _News releases from the Kateeva website_
> 
> 
> Would be curious how you know that most of it is going to mobile? Some things coming out of the IMID conference in Korea this past week..


....you were directing this to rogo of course....


----------



## ALCOMData

tgm1024 said:


> Wait a second. Something wooshed by me on the samsung page. Did we talk about this recently?
> 
> Apparently their OLED *page* is still alive and well. Why?
> 
> http://www.samsung.com/us/oled-tv/#home
> 
> The phrasing is as if the S9C (etc.) are still viable products. Is this just a leftover page with no connective link? Google landed right on it.


> Apparently their OLED page is still alive and well. Why?

The copyright date on that page is 2013.


----------



## tgm1024

ALCOMData said:


> > Apparently their OLED page is still alive and well. Why?
> 
> The copyright date on that page is 2013.


I'm not saying that it's not an old page. I'm sure it was created when they had aspirations for the S9C, etc.

What I'm asking is why they're keeping it accessible when the phrasing is clearly making it sound like a real product.


----------



## ynotgoal

Samsung new transparent large OLED is targeting the retail industry allowing window-shopping, customers to get information about a product displayed on the other side of a transparent OLED “window”. Customers can also try on outfits through virtual reality, and see how they would look from all directions.

Samsung will reveal new products using smart signage that will realize futuristic smart shopping at the IFA 2015, in Berlin. A special space will be set up so that the visitors can experience smart shopping through smart signage solutions such as transparent OLED and smart LED signage.

Samsung’s transparent OLED will be revealed for the first time at the IFA. It has a transparency ratio of 45%, which is the highest in the world, and full HD resolution. Samsung display expects to increase transparency to over 50% in the near future.

Samsung has dedicated its 8.5 Gen pilot line to this application, so even though the panels are 55” in diagonal, they are built with LTPS and patterned RGB using FMM; and are bound to be expensive.

http://www.oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=1019


----------



## rogo

I'm going to guess $30,000.


----------



## tubby497

Panasonic TV chief: OLED televisions will be affordable in 2-3 years.

http://www.cnet.com/news/oled-will-be-affordable-in-2-3-years-says-panasonic-tv-chief/


----------



## fafrd

tubby497 said:


> Panasonic TV chief: OLED televisions will be affordable in 2-3 years.
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/oled-will-be-affordable-in-2-3-years-says-panasonic-tv-chief/


"*The TV boss expects that if panel suppliers can improve their yield ratios -- that is, the number of OLED panels produced that are fit to be put into TVs, rather than scrapped -- prices will drop dramatically. "Last year, the panel suppliers' yield was very, very low level" Shinada said. "But currently this ratio is now growing."*"

This is a very different story than we have been hearing from LG.

If the panel yield is already at 75%, the most than panel costs can be reduced through improved yield is 33% lower.

More realistically, if yields can only get to a max of 90% and not 100%, cost reduction potential through yield improvement will be no more than 17%.

Any I don't know what yield level Shinada considers 'very, very low', but there have not been any numbers/statements thrown out by the OLED panel manufacturers that jibes with that description since Samsung pulled out of the OLED TV game a year and a half ago .


----------



## MikeBiker

Panasonic has announced an OLED TV. It's more expensive than the LG.

http://www.cnet.com/products/panasonic-tx-65cz950/


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> If the panel yield is already at 75%, the most than panel costs can be reduced through improved yield is 33% lower.


There are really several aspects to "yield". If the yield is low then they won't be running the line of full utilization rates or even at full throughput rates as they will slow down and stop to try to resolve problems to increase yield. It's clear LG hasn't been running at full capacity with their initial line. This has a higher impact on OLED than it does for LCD because OLED has higher fixed costs (depreciation of equipment) and lower per unit labor and materials costs. The higher throughput, higher utilization means the depreciation is spread out over more units. In addition, of course, to the strict yield impact you cited.


----------



## rogo

Except that only a truly idiotic accountant would be taking the depreciation cost of a fab that is running at part utilization in an early year and attribute those costs to the COGS of a panel and then price it accordingly. So I'm sorry, but I don't buy that has anything _logical_ to do with current pricing.

It's much more logical to conclude that, in fact, the variable costs are accounting for current high pricing.

If depreciation was being built in this way, we'd see LCDs produced at fully depreciated fabs having prices lower than other LCDs. And we don't.


----------



## slacker711

With OLED's, material efficiency is a large portion of the bill of materials cost. Vapour deposition only results in a small portion of the material ending up on the display. A combination of increased yields and material efficiency will continue to drive down the cost of the panels.

If you want to see where 4K HDR OLED prices are headed, simply look at the pricing on the new 55" 1080p set. There are very few differences in the bill of material costs between the two. It is mostly a matter of yields and the margins that LGD/LGE is looking to generate between the various sets.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> "*The TV boss expects that if panel suppliers can improve their yield ratios -- that is, the number of OLED panels produced that are fit to be put into TVs, rather than scrapped -- prices will drop dramatically. "Last year, the panel suppliers' yield was very, very low level" Shinada said. "But currently this ratio is now growing."*"
> 
> This is a very different story than we have been hearing from LG.


Maybe that's because what Panasonic considers an acceptable panel is very different from what LG considers suitable for sale. I wonder how much of the high cost of the Panasonic model comes from using higher grade (better uniformity, less dead pixels, etc.) and thus lower yield panels. I guess we'll know when they go on sale if the average panny is any better than the average LG.


----------



## dsinger

^ Well said. I have the same thoughts.


----------



## slacker711

I place very little importance on the details of the quote from Panasonic. Who knows what he is referencing when it comes to "last year's yields"? Is it a 65" 4K set? Is it at the beginning of last year or the end? The projection that OLED's will match LCD in two to three years also doesnt mean much without a fixed point of reference. They will match LCD pricing on the high-end before that and are unlikely to match the low to medium tier by then.

The real message of the quote is the direction of Panasonic's own business. I think he is plainly indicating that the CZ950 will not be a one-off set and that they will offer multiple models across price tiers in the coming years. 

Of course, that assumes that Panasonic is still in the TV business.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> I place very little importance on the details of the quote from Panasonic. Who knows what he is referencing when it comes to "last year's yields"? Is it a 65" 4K set? Is it at the beginning of last year or the end? The projection that OLED's will match LCD in two to three years also doesnt mean much without a fixed point of reference. They will match LCD pricing on the high-end before that and are unlikely to match the low to medium tier by then.
> 
> The real message of the quote is the direction of Panasonic's own business. I think he is plainly indicating that the CZ950 will not be a one-off set and that they will offer multiple models across price tiers in the coming years.
> 
> Of course, that assumes that Panasonic is still in the TV business.


Slacker, to what degree is Panasonic using LG's manufacturing techniques? Are they licensing the end result, or licensing the _process_ by which they make the end result?


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> Except that only a truly idiotic accountant would be taking the depreciation cost of a fab that is running at part utilization in an early year and attribute those costs to the COGS of a panel and then price it accordingly. So I'm sorry, but I don't buy that has anything _logical_ to do with current pricing.
> 
> It's much more logical to conclude that, in fact, the variable costs are accounting for current high pricing.
> 
> If depreciation was being built in this way, we'd see LCDs produced at fully depreciated fabs having prices lower than other LCDs. And we don't.


This quickly gets away from anything to do with OLED Technology so I'll just make this one quick post. Sales price is set where it clears the market.. the price where consumers are willing to buy the number of units produced. Cost of production is not part of that function. There is no fixed profit margin in this business. If there is lower utilization, lower yields, etc then the number of units for sale is lower and thus the market clearing price is higher. As volume ramps up with more units to be sold the market clearing price is lower. In the long term, of course, a company won't produce a product it can't sell for a profit. Given that LG is investing large sums of money for more facilities it's clear they think they will be making a profit in the long term. I can guarantee you the variable cost of materials and labor for one given unit is far less than the current selling price. LG won't be making a profit though until they get utilization rates higher.


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> Slacker, to what degree is Panasonic using LG's manufacturing techniques? Are they licensing the end result, or licensing the _process_ by which they make the end result?


They are simply buying the OLED panels from LG Display. No different than their LCD business which buys panels from a variety of LCD panel vendors. Panasonic has no display fabs of their own.

This is an interesting chart that I ran across from DisplaySearch. It shows the suppliers of the 4K televisions for various brands in 2014.










The only question is whether the OLED panels are any different than what LGD is supplying to LGE. It is possible that LGD is binning the better panels and selling them at a premium to Panasonic or that Panasonic has come up with their own compensation circuit...or it could be a panel that is absolutely identical to what LGE is using.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> They are simply buying the OLED panels from LG Display. No different than their LCD business which buys panels from a variety of LCD panel vendors. Panasonic has no display fabs of their own.
> 
> This is an interesting chart that I ran across from DisplaySearch. It shows the suppliers of the 4K televisions for various brands in 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only question is whether the OLED panels are any different than what LGD is supplying to LGE. * It is possible that LGD is binning the better panels and selling them at a premium to Panasonic* or that Panasonic has come up with their own compensation circuit...or it could be a panel that is absolutely identical to what LGE is using.


binning is an interesting possibility. If panels with little/no near-black non-uniformity/streaking can be sorted out during testing and sold as 'prime' panels at a premium, this would explain a few things:

-how the CZ950 is able to deliver good near-black uniformity (they selected only panels meeting their more stringent criteria)

-the comment on very, very poor yield. While LG may be achieving yield rates of 80% for panels that they consider ship able, the yield levels for panels meeting Panasonics requirements are probably far, far lower.

-the comment about yields improving over the next two years - as LG improves upon their manufacturing process, the yield for 'prime' panels meeting Panasonic's requirements should improve and get closer to the yields of panels LG considers shipable.

I have to say, the idea that Panasonic is cherry-picking the best of the OLED panels LG is producing answers a lot of questions and just 'feels' right...


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> I have to say, the idea that Panasonic is cherry-picking the best of the OLED panels LG is producing answers a lot of questions and just 'feels' right...


I also feel that it's more plausible than the idea that Panasonic invested tons of R&D on some fancy new compensation scheme. Why do that for a model that will likely sell a few hundred or thousand units similar to the Samsung OLED TV. And why wouldn't LG themselves have come up with it after almost 3 years of selling panels with poor uniformity?

There is another wild idea that came to my mind. Panasonic has a lot of experience with PWM from their plasma days. Could they be driving the OLED using PWM and thus achieving plasma-like uniformity? If the panel only needs to display 2 light levels, then it seems logical that it would be easier to achieve good uniformity at just those 2 levels.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I also feel that it's more plausible than the idea that Panasonic invested tons of R&D on some fancy new compensation scheme. Why do that for a model that will likely sell a few hundred or thousand units similar to the Samsung OLED TV. And why wouldn't LG themselves have come up with it after almost 3 years of selling panels with poor uniformity?


completely agree. Panasonic is doing this to rests lush their brand as the delivering the best video quality in the world (and volumes don't matter for this first generation OLED). They had that reputation for plasma. They tried but stumbled to have that reputation with LED/LCD (though it appears they may be more successful in their second attempt . And with the CZ950, it appears they will cement their reputation for delivering the best OLED TVs.

Now we just need to wait another year or two for the manufacturing quality to come up to Panasonic's standards and for prices to come down out of the stratosphere...




> There is another wild idea that came to my mind. Panasonic has a lot of experience with PWM from their plasma days. Could they be driving the OLED using PWM and thus achieving plasma-like uniformity? If the panel only needs to display 2 light levels, then it seems logical that it would be easier to achieve good uniformity at just those 2 levels.


Going to PWM would be a major, major change, would involve massive R&D investments as well as changes to electronics, and would require more time than Panasonic has had.

Aside from cherry-picking uniform panels, the other realistic option is test, calibrate and compensate. LG is already doing something similar to characterize and compensate for image retention.

It is probably possible to characterize the near-black pixel response of each and every pixel (or possibly each and every column of pixels, since the near-black nonuniformity seems to be vertical streaks), to store that calibration data within the processing memory of the TV, and to use it as one element of the pixel-level computations including CMS & LUT that go into preparing a pixel for display.

This is very doable and the only real issue (in addition to having the wherewithal, memory, and processing power), is that this calibration function could only happen at the completed TV/Final test level and could not be performed at the panel level.

It's more involved than factory calibration of CMS, which has never been done, but for a budget of over $1000 per unit, it's very doable...


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Going to PWM would be a major, major change, would involve massive R&D investments as well as changes to electronics, and would require more time than Panasonic has had.


You're probably right but I for one would love to see a PWM OLED.

As far as LG is concerned, I think the only change they would need to make to their panel is to allow enough bandwidth to cycle the pixels fast enough (600Hz+). Everything else external to the panel would be up to Panasonic. Not sure how much of the plasma processing would be a drop-in replacement. On the upside, because each pixel has the exact same response time regardless of color, you would not have to suffer with the phosphor trails/lag of plasma. Performance could be similar to a 3-chip DLP but with infinite contrast.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd,

There are people who claim the uniformity improves on LG OLEDs over time. Of course, they never post any before/after proof. I have seen no evidence of this in my testing of store displays either. Have you seen any improvement of banding/dse with your EC9300? How many hours are on it?


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> fafrd,
> 
> There are people who claim the uniformity improves on LG OLEDs over time. Of course, they never post any before/after proof. I have seen no evidence of this in my testing of store displays either. Have you seen any improvement of banding/dse with your EC9300? How many hours are on it?


I've probably got a few hundred hours by now, but the streaks still become visible on the occasional near-black scene (especially if there is a pan).

Don't get me wrong, the 55EC9300 is a fantastic TV and I can completely understand the desire to believe the near-black non-uniformity corrects itself. But the issue should not be there to begin with - it's representative of a manufacturing limitation which should either be addressed within the manufacturing process itself or corrected through TV-specific panel near-black calibration if there is some reason this vertical near-black streaking is fundamentally endemic to LGs WOLED manufacturing process.

I don't believe the Samsung OLEDs suffered from any similar near-black non-uniformity, so I am pretty sure the source of the issue is not intrinsic to OLED in general. And IGZO backplanes for LCD (which are voltage-based and not current-based) don't exhibit anything similar. So my suspicion is that this near-black streaking is probably caused by LGs IGZO backplane being used in current mode and possibly tied to threshold offsets in the column-drive transistors (which is the most obvious explanation for the vertical streaks).

It seems like something that can be understood and corrected (given a product cycle or two) and if not, it should be possible to compensate for at the final-test level.

Using my TV while waiting for it to 'break-in' and get better has never made much sense to me. If that is truly a way to address the issue (which I doubt), then perhaps you have found another way Panasonic could be delivering improved uniformity on their OLEDs: running their OLED TVs for several hundred hours before shipping (a process generally tired 'burn-in' in the manufacturing world .


----------



## fafrd

Just found this: https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/per...lectronics-unveils-OLED-TV-expansion-strategy

"In a statement, Kwon said LG aimed to sell five times as many OLED TVs as it did in the first half of 2015.

That would roughly amount to about 300,000 units just within the second half of the year, based on a report from Business Korea, which cites data from DisplaySearch and LG’s quarterly earnings.

The research firm is forecasting the market for OLED TVs to hit 400,000 units in 2015 and will grow to 7 million units in 2019. "

300,000 in H2'15 being 6X H1'15 translates to about 60,000 units in H1'15


----------



## fafrd

And this: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=186285

Merck claims Samsung will be manufacturing OLED TVs by 2017...


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Just found this: https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/per...lectronics-unveils-OLED-TV-expansion-strategy
> 
> "In a statement, Kwon said LG aimed to sell five times as many OLED TVs as it did in the first half of 2015.
> 
> That would roughly amount to about 300,000 units just within the second half of the year, based on a report from Business Korea, which cites data from DisplaySearch and LG’s quarterly earnings.
> 
> The research firm is forecasting the market for OLED TVs to hit 400,000 units in 2015 and will grow to 7 million units in 2019. "
> 
> 300,000 in H2'15 being 6X H1'15 translates to about 60,000 units in H1'15


That article mixes apples and oranges between direct statements from LGD and estimates from DisplaySearch.

Of course, so does Kwon unless he meant to raise the unit target for 2015. LGD said at their quarterly call reiterated their 600,000 unit target and stated that they expect a 20/80 split between the first and second half. That would only be a 4x increase...the most likely explanation is that somebody misspoke. 

Either way, LGD doesnt seem to be backing down from their projection that OLED sales will increase by a very large margin in the 2nd half.


----------



## fafrd

I suppose a double-sided OLED TV is a technology advancement: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/47433/lg-shows-double-sided-111-inch-4k-oled-tv/index.html

And it is 111" to boot


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> That article mixes apples and oranges between direct statements from LGD and estimates from DisplaySearch.
> 
> Of course, so does Kwon unless he meant to raise the unit target for 2015. LGD said at their quarterly call reiterated their 600,000 unit target and stated that they expect a 20/80 split between the first and second half. That would only be a 4x increase...the most likely explanation is that somebody misspoke.
> 
> Either way, LGD doesnt seem to be backing down from their projection that *OLED sales will increase by a very large margin in the 2nd half.*


Yes, but we are already more that 1/3 of the way through the second half...

Since May, the price of the 55EG9300 has dropped from $2500 to $2000. No doubt that has driven some increase, but if LGE is serious about driving that kind of demand, I think we're likely to see prices approaching $1500 on th 55EG9100 by Thanksgiving


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Just found this: https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/per...lectronics-unveils-OLED-TV-expansion-strategy
> 
> "In a statement, Kwon said LG aimed to sell five times as many OLED TVs as it did in the first half of 2015.
> 
> That would roughly amount to about 300,000 units just within the second half of the year, based on a report from Business Korea, which cites data from DisplaySearch and LG’s quarterly earnings.
> 
> The research firm is forecasting the market for OLED TVs to hit 400,000 units in 2015 and will grow to 7 million units in 2019. "
> 
> 300,000 in H2'15 being 6X H1'15 translates to about 60,000 units in H1'15


There was also this interesting tidbit: 

'Referring to the difference between the prices of OLED and LCD TVs, he said, “We could reduce the price gap from the current 50 percent to 20 to 30 percent next year.”'

If we are at 150% (of whatever) today and going to 120% or 130% of that same whatever next year, that translates into a price reduction of 15-20% over the next year.

The 55EC9300 is currently at $2000 and that means we are headed to $1600-1700 for 55" 1080p OLED.

The 65EG9500 is expected to be around $5000 at launch, meaning it will be headed towards $4000-4250 for 65" 4K OLED.

It's progress.


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> There was also this interesting tidbit:
> 
> 'Referring to the difference between the prices of OLED and LCD TVs, he said, “We could reduce the price gap from the current 50 percent to 20 to 30 percent next year.”'
> 
> If we are at 150% (of whatever) today and going to 120% or 130% of that same whatever next year, that translates into a price reduction of 15-20% over the next year.
> 
> The 55EC9300 is currently at $2000 and that means we are headed to $1600-1700 for 55" 1080p OLED.
> 
> The 65EG9500 is expected to be around $5000 at launch, meaning it will be headed towards $4000-4250 for 65" 4K OLED.
> 
> It's progress.


I'll take the under on that 4K price.

I have said it before, but without a baseline these quotes are meaningless. When they say next year do they mean the beginning or the end? Exactly a calendar year? Who knows?

I expect the 65" 4K OLED to be available for $3500 next year.

It could be lower if they launch a low-end version like they seem to have done with the 55EG9200. If the prices correspond to those in Europe, that should launch for under $3500. I didnt expect that kind of pricing quite this soon.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> I'll take the under on that 4K price.
> 
> I have said it before, but without a baseline these quotes are meaningless. When they say next year do they mean the beginning or the end? Exactly a calendar year? Who knows?
> 
> I expect the 65" 4K OLED to be available for $3500 next year.
> 
> It could be lower *if they launch a low-end version like they seem to have done with the 55EG9200. *If the prices correspond to those in Europe, that should launch for under $3500. I didnt expect that kind of pricing quite this soon.


What did they dumb down on the 55EG9200 compared to the 55EG9600?

And I agree with you, I think statements like this are to communicate 'less-than-likely' price reductions so consumers buy sooner rather than later


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> What did they dumb down on the 55EG9200 compared to the 55EG9600?


The specs dont indicate any material negative changes but I have to assume that there is something that explains the price difference. The 55EG9209 is now selling for 3799 euros in Germany (w/20% VAT) vs. 4999 euros for the 55EG9609.

I dont see any signs of the 55EG9600 getting phased out so it seems that both models will be selling through the end of the year.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> What did they dumb down on the 55EG9200 compared to the 55EG9600?


There may not be any difference at all. Could just be a ploy to cut price on the 55EG9600 without actually doing so on existing 55EG9600 inventory sitting on store shelves. Introducing a "new" model number allows them to keep selling those older sets at a slight premium. We've seen this before with the EC9700 vs. EG9600. The later was superior in most regards, yet introduced at a lower price.


----------



## Wizziwig

Another reference to selling 5x as many sets in second half.

LG want to sell an OLED TV every minute


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Another reference to selling 5x as many sets in second half.
> 
> LG want to sell an OLED TV every minute


"one thing's for sure - increased sales means lower prices and that has to be good for everyone."

Not to belabor the point, but the second half is already underway.

No way current sales are at 5X the rate based on existing (modest) discounts.

If we assume that the discounts needed to drive this increased sales volume start in early October (shortly after the new modes are slated to launch), then 5X in the second half actually translates into 9X in the last quarter (per quarter). Even if we assume that the third quarter managed to drive sales at twice the rate of the second quarter (which I doubt), that would mean an 8X quarterly sales rate in the 4th quarter.

At any rate, it seems as though the OLED tsunami is finally coming


----------



## rogo

Wizziwig said:


> Maybe that's because what Panasonic considers an acceptable panel is very different from what LG considers suitable for sale. I wonder how much of the high cost of the Panasonic model comes from using higher grade (better uniformity, less dead pixels, etc.) and thus lower yield panels. I guess we'll know when they go on sale if the average panny is any better than the average LG.


Sorry, but I really doubt this.



slacker711 said:


> I place very little importance on the details of the quote from Panasonic. Who knows what he is referencing when it comes to "last year's yields"? Is it a 65" 4K set? Is it at the beginning of last year or the end? The projection that OLED's will match LCD in two to three years also doesnt mean much without a fixed point of reference. They will match LCD pricing on the high-end before that and are unlikely to match the low to medium tier by then.
> 
> The real message of the quote is the direction of Panasonic's own business. I think he is plainly indicating that the CZ950 will not be a one-off set and that they will offer multiple models across price tiers in the coming years.
> 
> Of course, that assumes that Panasonic is still in the TV business.


Yes, exciting to see Panasonic committed to OLED. Less exciting when you realize they could -- any day -- drop TV entirely.



ynotgoal said:


> This quickly gets away from anything to do with OLED Technology so I'll just make this one quick post. Sales price is set where it clears the market.. the price where consumers are willing to buy the number of units produced. Cost of production is not part of that function. There is no fixed profit margin in this business. If there is lower utilization, lower yields, etc then the number of units for sale is lower and thus the market clearing price is higher. As volume ramps up with more units to be sold the market clearing price is lower. In the long term, of course, a company won't produce a product it can't sell for a profit. Given that LG is investing large sums of money for more facilities it's clear they think they will be making a profit in the long term. I can guarantee you the variable cost of materials and labor for one given unit is far less than the current selling price. LG won't be making a profit though until they get utilization rates higher.


Saying sales price is set where it clears the market is circular reasoning. If they lowered the sales price, they'd increase utilization and clear the market at a lower price. I don't believe for a second that they are so inept at producing something they claim has achieved high-ish yield that they can't clear the market at a lower price. I do believe they are burning through an uncomfortable amount of cash on this "high-ish" yield -- i.e. the variable cost of a completed panel is actually quite high -- that they are content to sell relatively few of them.



fafrd said:


> binning is an interesting possibility. If panels with little/no near-black non-uniformity/streaking can be sorted out during testing and sold as 'prime' panels at a premium, this would explain a few things:


Evidence of binning would require there be evidence of a test procedure that could bin in real time and select panels while sending secondary panels to the "LG usage" bin. I strongly doubt there is automated testing that even does this given we've never see "highly uniform" LCD panels. And I'm 100% certain that humans cannot do it.


> I have to say, the idea that Panasonic is cherry-picking the best of the OLED panels LG is producing answers a lot of questions and just 'feels' right...


Feels dead wrong to me because it feels impossible. I can't imagine a way it could be achieved remotely economically using existing technology. Nor can I imagine any way LG agrees to do this short of charging a price higher than Panasonic is actually paying.



Wizziwig said:


> I also feel that it's more plausible than the idea that Panasonic invested tons of R&D on some fancy new compensation scheme. Why do that for a model that will likely sell a few hundred or thousand units similar to the Samsung OLED TV. And why wouldn't LG themselves have come up with it after almost 3 years of selling panels with poor uniformity?


Yes, I think we can rule out a "compensation scheme". Not at all clear how that would work. What is it compensating for? How does the display even know?


> There is another wild idea that came to my mind. Panasonic has a lot of experience with PWM from their plasma days. Could they be driving the OLED using PWM and thus achieving plasma-like uniformity? If the panel only needs to display 2 light levels, then it seems logical that it would be easier to achieve good uniformity at just those 2 levels.


This also feels pretty unlikely. It would likely require a different panel design to get the performance out of it while driving it completely differently than it was intended to be driven.



slacker711 said:


> I'll take the under on that 4K price.
> 
> I expect the 65" 4K OLED to be available for $3500 next year.


Seems necessary to come close to the sales goals for next year.

Of course, that's both next year's model and one that's much cheaper than today's. Raising, again, caveats about buying now.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Evidence of binning would require there be evidence of a test procedure that could bin in real time and select panels while sending secondary panels to the "LG usage" bin. I strongly doubt there is automated testing that even does this given *we've never seen "highly uniform" LCD panels. *And I'm 100% certain that humans cannot do it.


Here you go (and this is a 65EG9600): (thumbnail below)

Human test would be an option but is expensive, highly variable, a pain in the took us, and does not scale. But it is easy and it would work.

Automatic test would be much easier and just requires the OLED to be in a known reference position while it is driven and data is captured. It may take time, and it may be expensive (and it may only be possible at the finished product level for Panasonic's requirements), but for the premium Panasonic is charging and the low volume they are manufacturing, very doable.

LG is testing their panels somehow, including a test for bad pixels - adding a 'Vignetting' and 'near-black uniformity' test at that stage would be the most efficient.

And on the other hand, if repeated reports are to be believed, getting a uniform OLED panel may involve nothing more than powering it over an 8-100 hour period and then turning if off to 'rest' for 8 hours.

I'm skeptical, but even a burn-in (in the manufacturing sense, not the p,as a sense ) of this sort would allow Panasonic to deliver superior CZ950s for the premium they are charging.

It"s good news if Panasonic does in fact prove the ability to ship 'perfect' WOLEDS (however they did it). The bigger issue is that this all speaks to remaining issues LGD needs to iron out of the production process. Panasonic can afford to 'hand-massage' their low-volume, perfect $11,000 OLEDs if need be - LG with the 100s of thousands they expect to ship over the coming months and next year cannot - they need to figure out how to produce a much higher yield of uniform panels (if they have not already done so within their coming 'OLED tsunami' initiative ).

P.s. Here is the review where that screen shot was pulled: http://televisions.reviewed.com/content/lg-65eg9600-4k-oled-tv-review


----------



## rogo

Again, to do this testing, they have to test _every_ panel.

Even if your hypothetical automated test regime tests every panel, you've now slowed it down to test for something that you've presumably built a reference standard against that allows machine vision technology to decide it passes. Explain to me who has built this machine vision technology, how long it takes to run it on every panel, why LG is running it on every panel when Panasonic is buying fewer than 1 in 40 panels from them, etc. etc.

Also, find me the quote from Panasonic where they even imply something like this is going on.

Then I'll be more intrigued.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Again, to do this testing, they have to test _every_ panel.


Again, every panel is already being tested in some way (else, how is LG rejecting the defective oanels).



> Even if your hypothetical automated test regime tests every panel, you've now slowed it down to test for something that you've presumably built a reference standard against that allows machine vision technology to decide it passes. Explain to me who has built this machine vision technology, how long it takes to run it on every panel, why LG is running it on every panel when Panasonic is buying fewer than 1 in 40 panels from them, etc. etc.


On a relative scale, this is a relatively easy machine vision problem. One example would be to put the panel in a completely dark chamber and fire pixels one at a time (or more realistically one column at a time, since the FPN appears to be primarily between columns) and measure light output. Taken to the extreme, you could characterize an entire per-pixel or per-column gamma curve, though probably a single point or several like 5%, 10%, and 15% would suffice. Ideally, you'd like the capture device to track along with the column being addressed, but since the FPN is visible from the viewer's fixed position and off-angle performance is so good, that may not even be needed.

Don't get me wrong, this is going to add to production time, it is going to add cost, and it is not scalable much above the '1 panel in 40' level that Panasonic is producing today.

But is nothing particularly challanging about it from a machine vision and test perspective.



> Also, find me the quote from Panasonic where they even imply something like this is going on.
> 
> Then I'll be more intrigued.


If my speculation is correct, this is relatively mundane stuff. Both Panasonic and LG have a strong interest to jazz the story up and keep the boring details hidden.

Panasonic because they want to build up their reputation as having fantastic emmissive display know-how (as well as to justify their price premium).

LG because they want Panasonic to remain a niche videophile brand while they focus on bringing OLED to the Everyman.

Again, pure speculation on my part, but Panasonic's comments about 'very, very poor OLED yields' which will improve over the next '2-3 years' needs to be explained in the context of LG telling the world that yields are in the 70-80% range already...


----------



## greenland

Occam's Razor. The far more likely reason is that Panasonic has a better software team working on the OLED image processing, and are making better use of the OLED panels that LG provided to them.

The LG software team never produced a Plasma model that came even close to being able to compete with those produced by Panasonic, or even with Samsung. After all, LG did not even come up with the WRGB OLED design. They purchased the patent rights from the company that did.

LG has also sold millions of LCD panels to other companies, that used them to bring far superior models to market than LG ever has. The processing defects showing up in their OLED models to date, are in keeping with the lower standards that LG has adhered to for many years. They may be content to just sell lots of panels to other companies.


----------



## darinp2

rogo said:


> Even if your hypothetical automated test regime tests every panel, you've now slowed it down to test for something that you've presumably built a reference standard against that allows machine vision technology to decide it passes. Explain to me who has built this machine vision technology ...


I don't have answers to the rest, but here is a company with machine vision systems that can analyze artifacts on displays with their camera and provide feedback for adjusting an unacceptable display into an acceptable display (or just looking for bad apples):

http://www.radiantvisionsystems.com/

--Darin


----------



## jjackkrash

fafrd said:


> Again, every panel is already being tested in some way (else, how is LG rejecting the defective oanels).


This is the question I had. How does LG know which panels to throw away if they don't test or inspect them in some way.


----------



## Wizziwig

You guys make it sound like we need Skynet to classify panel uniformity.

All that is required is taking a single long exposure digital photo and measuring brightness variation across a few zones. This is done all the time on some of the better LCD monitor review sites. You come up with an average number and bin panels by that number. Not rocket science. Examples: rtings, anandtech, tomshardware, etc.

This does not mean I agree with fafrd, but lets not make it sound like it's impossible. Is it practical? If they already do some kind of panel inspection looking for bad pixels, etc. then why not. We've all heard that LG already does this for LCD panels sold to Apple similar to this story. Why is OLED any different? If anything, there is much less volume to inspect.


----------



## darinp2

Some people may find this about artifacts interesting:

http://www.radiantvisionsystems.com...nts/Learn.SpecSheet.RVS TrueMURA 20141219.pdf

My impression is that if these companies didn't have any ways to detect MURA and fix at least some of them OLED for TVs would have been abandoned.a while ago (and not with consideration to start again anytime soon).

As price per TV goes down there is less budget for analyzing and correcting, so hopefully artifacts get reduced in manufacturing before TVs ever make it to the point of being analyzed for visible artifacts.

--Darin


----------



## rogo

jjackkrash said:


> This is the question I had. How does LG know which panels to throw away if they don't test or inspect them in some way.


They obviously test them. But there's a big, big, big difference between "This display has a 40-pixel void and is garbage" and "this display has some sort of edge darkening that half of the guys on AVS Forum don't even see". The latter would never cause a panel to be rejected and is -- apparently -- not a test LG runs. So when are they running it -- exactly -- to decide which panels get sent to Panasonic? And why -- exactly -- are they selling their best panels to Panasonic in this hypothetical?



Wizziwig said:


> You guys make it sound like we need Skynet to classify panel uniformity.
> 
> All that is required is taking a single long exposure digital photo and measuring brightness variation across a few zones. This is done all the time on some of the better LCD monitor review sites. You come up with an average number and bin panels by that number. Not rocket science.


See, to me, this demonstrates a fundamental misapprehension of how displays are manufactured. You think some process is run where every single panel is measured for an extended period of time and then the "good ones" are sold to a third party? I don't believe this and I await evidence that it's happening at LG.


> This does not mean I agree with fafrd, but lets not make it sound like it's impossible. Is it practical? If they already do some kind of panel inspection looking for bad pixels, etc. then why not. We've all heard that LG already does this for LCD panels sold to Apple similar to this story. Why is OLED any different? If anything, there is much less volume to inspect.


I think, again, this likely represents a misapprehension. LG isn't likely inspecting every panel for Apple. Even with automated test tools, that would be an unrealistic process. It's far more likely they take samples from sheets and runs and use them to determine where "good batches" lie and then sending those to Apple.

If each iPhone screen was individually inspected, it would require running 24/7 and inspecting 300 screens per minute. How long do you imagine each screen is inspected to accurately measure things like uniformity? I'd say not less than 30 seconds to place them in the test rig, run the tests, process them, move the displays to an "accept/reject" queue and reset. Because demand is lumpy -- it's front loaded to the June-September period when much of the iPhone WIP inventory is created. So during that period, you'd have to inspect probably about 1000 screens per minute minimum. At 30 seconds each, you need 500 test rigs and each of those would then need to have "accept/reject" queues that fed into finished goods piles.

This setup would be impressive Rube Goldberg in design, if it could even possibly exist.


----------



## jjackkrash

rogo said:


> They obviously test them. But there's a big, big, big difference between "This display has a 40-pixel void and is garbage" and "this display has some sort of edge darkening that half of the guys on AVS Forum don't even see".


Ok, this made me laugh.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

A similar example to panel quality control would be the variability in the overclocking and undervolting in computer processors - some people (like myself) end up with CPUs that overclock very well; my Pentium G3258 is completely rock-solid stable at 4.6GHz with 1.288v while someone else I know of with the exact same motherboard and CPU is only stable at 4.2GHz with 1.325v.

For people not familiar with overclocking, you just need to know that more voltage allows higher clock speeds and that your overclock is limited by your CPU running too hot (it'll throttle itself), too much voltage (it'll damage the CPU and cause instability over time), or just plain instability (some CPUs aren't stable at certain clockrates no matter how much voltage you give them).


----------



## rogo

But that's the point. If we each buy the same model of CPU -- say one that caps at 3.5GHz with TurboBoost or whatever -- you might get 4GHz. I might get 3.8GHz. They aren't "binned" with that kind of precision.

When Intel wants to sell some processors at slightly higher speeds -- guaranteed -- than others in the same line, it of course engages in "binning." This is done through more extensive testing of the chips they want to sell at better speeds. Interestingly, it's likely they don't test 100% of chips to find out just how many are binnable at higher speeds, which explains partly why you get some good overclockables from lower-speed SKUs.

Let's say they are selling a chip with a nominal clock of 1.5GHz or 1.7GHz. They have orders for 15% of the chips at the faster speed. They can start testing chips at the faster speed and stop as soon as they hit the 15% threshold (assume all chips are tested lightly for functionality, but only chips slated for "possible binning" are tested more extensively.) Perhaps 50% of chips in the run are passing at the higher speed. Once they test 30% of the chips extensively, they now have 15% binned at the higher speed. Done.

There is clearly a lack of precision in Intel's binning methodology as evidenced by the luck element in just how overclockable a given instance of a given chip is. And that's fine, they don't need anything more precise nor is it worth spending money on.

Translate this over to LG and this hypothetical Panasonic demand for ~1-3% of the panels they will be making next year. If, indeed, the testing is cursory enough that they just want the "better panels" then sure, they should be able to test about 5% of the production run and give Panasonic only the half from that run that is workable (see Intel example above). If we are talking about "cherry picking" some best of the best panels, it still would require an amount of testing that it's implausible to believe is being done.


----------



## Vae Vanguard

*Samsung to produce OLED TVs in 2017*...https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2015/09/133_186285.html

Looks like 2017 will be the first year when UHD HDR OLED's become affordable to the masses...due to a competitive, high-volume market.


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> I do believe they are burning through an uncomfortable amount of cash on this "high-ish" yield -- i.e. the variable cost of a completed panel is actually quite high -- that they are content to sell relatively few of them.


From DisplaySearch over a year ago. Materials cost for OLED is probably 20% lower now. Adjust for yields and retail markup as you wish.

http://www.oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=853


----------



## rogo

Of course, yields are not 96% so the actual variable cost is much higher.


----------



## fafrd

Just ran into this: http://www.olednet.com/en/uhd-oled-tv-rapidly-catching-up-to-suhd-tv-price/

How they figure that $7000 is only 130% of $5000 is beyond me...


----------



## darinp2

fafrd said:


> Just ran into this: http://www.olednet.com/en/uhd-oled-tv-rapidly-catching-up-to-suhd-tv-price/
> 
> How they figure that $7000 is only 130% of $5000 is beyond me...


If you mean the part where they mention 30% difference, it depends on which you use as the reference.

5 is 30% less than 7 and 7 is 40% higher than 5.

--Darin


----------



## fafrd

darinp2 said:


> If you mean the part where they mention 30% difference, it depends on which you use as the reference.
> 
> 5 is 30% less than 7 and 7 is 40% higher than 5.
> 
> --Darin


Yeah, that must be it. $5000 is about 60% of $8000 and about 70% of $7000, so when they refer to the 'price difference' between OLED and SUHD, they must mean the 'discount of SUHD versus OLED' rather than the 'price premium of OLED versus SUHD'.

Pretty boneheaded.

The price premium was 60% in April and in July it dropped to 40%.


----------



## sytech

This could be the news we have been waiting for. Seems to suggest LG is finally going to try to make OLED viable through inkjet printing. Instead of current 60% yield methods. Claiming only 20% premium over LCD by 2016.


When asked about "one factor" for success in profitable large-sized OLEDs, the executive said; "The time is near as inkjet printing technology is reaching a level to address OLED's cost-competitiveness issues."

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2015/09/133_186180.html


----------



## fafrd

sytech said:


> This could be the news we have been waiting for. Seems to suggest LG is finally going to try to make OLED viable through inkjet printing. Instead of current 60% yield methods. Claiming only 20% premium over LCD by 2016.
> 
> 
> When asked about "one factor" for success in profitable large-sized OLEDs, the executive said; "The time is near as inkjet printing technology is reaching a level to address OLED's cost-competitiveness issues."
> 
> https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2015/09/133_186180.html


I'm not sure why you see this as significant. This is another OLED materials advertisement by Merck. Yes, the fact that Merck is investing more in OLED materials manufacturing is good. To think their statements regarding the timing of printed OLED TVs reaching the market is any more reliable that Kateeva's statements of the same strikes me as naive.

LG is going to get down to the 20-30% premium range without relying on new printed OLED technology.

Once you see a capital investment in a printed OLED manufacturing line announced in an earnings call by LG or Samsung, you can start to count on mainstream products hitting the market 12-18 months after that investment has been made (as we have just experienced with LG and M2 ).

Printed OLED at 120% of premium LCD pricing by 2016 = no way.


----------



## rogo

I'm confounded about this 2016 stuff. LG is 100% certainly not changing anything technologically between now and 2016.

I'm also confounded by 120% of "premium LCD pricing" as even being interesting. That will yield a bigger delta at retail (everything is marked up by percentages at every stage so if production is only 20% more expensive, that 20% if marked up at every stage of distribution).

LG has to be _below_ premium LCD so that it can (1) decimate competition in the top tier of premium LCD and (2) compete in the tier below -- the one you see at $500-1000 at retail.

Can inkjet help that? Maybe. But not till at minimum 2017, and likely later, since no existing production line is operating anywhere. And something that's been in developing for more than 15 years doesn't feel like it's suddenly going to experience discontinuous innovation.


----------



## darinp2

rogo said:


> I'm also confounded by 120% of "premium LCD pricing" as even being interesting. That will yield a bigger delta at retail (everything is marked up by percentages at every stage so if production is only 20% more expensive, that 20% if marked up at every stage of distribution).


I'm confused. By "bigger delta" do you mean bigger percentage or bigger absolute?

Seems to me that if you have 2 products that start at $1200 and $1000 for instance and go through all the same percentage markups along the way you still end up at 20% higher, like:

$1200 * 1.2 * 1.4 * 1.3 * 1.6
$1000 * 1.2 * 1.4 * 1.3 * 1.6

where whatever those last 4 numbers are the ratio of the whole thing is still 1.2x if the last 4 numbers are the same.

I may have missed the specifics of what you were referring to though, like somebody thinking the difference between OLED production and LCD production was 20% of LCD retail prices (not production) and so would mean 20% difference at retail.

--Darin


----------



## sytech

fafrd said:


> I'm not sure why you see this as significant. This is another OLED materials advertisement by Merck. Yes, the fact that Merck is investing more in OLED materials manufacturing is good. To think their statements regarding the timing of printed OLED TVs reaching the market is any more reliable that Kateeva's statements of the same strikes me as naive.
> 
> LG is going to get down to the 20-30% premium range without relying on new printed OLED technology.
> 
> Once you see a capital investment in a printed OLED manufacturing line announced in an earnings call by LG or Samsung, you can start to count on mainstream products hitting the market 12-18 months after that investment has been made (as we have just experienced with LG and M2 ).
> 
> Printed OLED at 120% of premium LCD pricing by 2016 = no way.


I took the quote as coming from LG and not a Merek rep.


----------



## fafrd

sytech said:


> I took the quote as coming from LG and not a Merek rep.


Well that explains it then - please excuse my reference to being naive.

I've been combing the web for any hard evidence from Samsung about an OLED TV revival initiative and have yet to see anything of substance.

Last week's IFA interview by an executive at Merck is getting a great deal of press, but really does not warrant all the hoopla.

Panasonic's coming into the OLED market is a good development, but I doubt it is going to have much impact on Samsung given the pricepoint.

My guess is that Samsung will be likely to move if either:

-another one or two brands such as Sony and/Vizio jump onto the OLED bandwagon

-LGs initiative to drive OLED sales up by 5-10X by late this year proves successful

I would be very surprised if there is not significant R&D in OLED TVs already underway in Samsung (including WOLED and printed OLED manufacturing), but commitment to capital investments for manufacturing of OLED TVs is the earliest concrete sign of anything actually reaching the marketplace, and those capital investments are significant enough that Samsung will need to announce them in their quarterly earnings announcements.

So I believe it is safe to assume that we are going to have at least a solid 12-18 month advance notice before any Samsung OLED TVs hit the marketplace .


----------



## wco81

They probably wouldn't broadcast their intent, since they want to sell current products.


----------



## JoeyBagadonuts

fafrd said:


> So I believe it is safe to assume that we are going to have at least a solid 12-18 month advance notice before any Samsung OLED TVs hit the marketplace .


I agree.... with one caveat. If 2016 proves to be successful in terms of OLED technology acceptance, then it's possible that Samsung could introduce sets in 2017 using LG panels... as a stop-gap until Samsung's own OLED panel production comes up to speed.


----------



## fafrd

JoeyBagadonuts said:


> I agree.... with one caveat. If 2016 proves to be successful in terms of OLED technology acceptance, then it's possible that Samsung could introduce sets in 2017 using LG panels... as a stop-gap until Samsung's own OLED panel production comes up to speed.


That would require a kiss-and-make-up session of Hurculean proportions (and probably requiring government intervention ).

Samsung knows exactly this market for OLED TVs is likely to develope (bracketed into 'expected' and 'fastest realistically possible'). They know there is absolutely no need to go rushing back in (despite the hopes and dreams of many here on the Forum ).

A flat Panasonic 65CZ950-class WOLED widely available for $3000 might be a threat to Samsung. Until the outlook for that on a 12-18 month horizon looks incredibly likely, I doubt that Samsung deviates from their current course and speed (meaning SUHD HDR and 'the curve' while dabbling in OLED TV R&D on the side ).


----------



## JoeyBagadonuts

fafrd said:


> That would require a kiss-and-make-up session of Hurculean proportions (and probably requiring government intervention ).


Human sacrifice...dogs and cats living together.... _mass hysteria_!


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> I'm also confounded by 120% of "premium LCD pricing" as even being interesting. That will yield a bigger delta at retail (everything is marked up by percentages at every stage so if production is only 20% more expensive, that 20% if marked up at every stage of distribution).


Is there a quote where they actually say within 120% of "premium LCD pricing"?

I think it is worth waiting a month or so before evaluating their prospects for 2016 but based on pricing of the new models in Germany, I am optimistic. They are within 20% of Samsung's models today based on the pricing there.

http://www.mediamarkt.de/webapp/wcs...&searchProfile=onlineshop&sourceRef=7fYL9W3hh

55EG9209 3799 Euros vs. 55JS9090 (edge lit) 3199 Euros

65EG9609 5999 Euros vs. 65JS9509 (FALD) 5799 Euros vs. 65JS9090 (edge lit) 4999 Euros 

We still need to see about pricing here in the US, but there seem to be hints of sub-$5000 pricing on the 65" flat unit fairly quickly.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Is there a quote where they actually say within 120% of "premium LCD pricing"?
> 
> I think it is worth waiting a month or so before evaluating their prospects for 2016 but based on pricing of the new models in Germany, I am optimistic. They are within 20% of Samsung's models today based on the pricing there.
> 
> http://www.mediamarkt.de/webapp/wcs...&searchProfile=onlineshop&sourceRef=7fYL9W3hh
> 
> 55EG9209 3799 Euros vs. 55JS9090 (edge lit) 3199 Euros
> 
> 65EG9609 5999 Euros vs. 65JS9509 (FALD) 5799 Euros vs. 65JS9090 (edge lit) 4999 Euros
> 
> We still need to see about pricing here in the US, but there seem to be hints of sub-$5000 pricing on the 65" flat unit fairly quickly.


By my math, those prices equate to premiums of 19% on the 55" and 16% on the 65"

Of course, based on some of the discounted prices on the JS9500 here in the U.S., there is a lot of room to take the gloves off and go significantly lower on the 65JS9500 (several folks claiming it can be found for $3000 ).


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Of course, based on some of the discounted prices on the JS9500 here in the U.S., there is a lot of room to take the gloves off and go significantly lower on the 65JS9500 (several folks claiming it can be found for $3000 ).


If my reading of these threads is correct, going lower wont be enough. After all, the JS9500 series is curved. They might have to pay people $3000 just to haul them away .

It will be interesting to see if Samsung offers a FALD set next year. I doubt that they planned for those kinds of prices on their flagship set just six months after it came out.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> If my reading of these threads is correct, going lower wont be enough. After all, the JS9500 series is curved. They might have to pay people $3000 just to haul them away .
> 
> It will be interesting to see if Samsung offers a FALD set next year. I doubt that they planned for those kinds of prices on their flagship set just six months after it came out.


We'll get the first-ever direct datapoint when LG offers the EG curved OLEDs and the EF flat OLEDs (hopefully at similar prices).

If the EF9500 vastly outsells the EG9600 in Q4 and early next year (at least here in the U.S.), what will be interesting is to see whether Samsung sticks to the curve for their highest-end flagship TVs or follows LGs lead and offers flat variants in 2016.

Samsung successfully killed the industry trend towards FALD backlights once several years ago. Between the emergence of HDR and the fact that virtually every TV maker is now offering FALD flagship TVs (excepting LG, who has WOLED/uber-FALD ), I'm going to be optimistic and hope that FALD at the high-end is now here to stay...


----------



## slacker711

An interesting quote from a display insider.....

http://www.displaydaily.com/display-daily/29902-panasonic-s-oled-tv-is-a-success-for-lg-display



> Samsung's plan to make TV OLEDs using polysilicon transistors (rather than the amorphous silicon used by LCDs or the oxides used by LG in its OLED) was to allow a more complex pixel structure using up to seven transistors. LG uses just a single transistor according to a paper presented at last year's SID, and so has to do a lot of processing work off the panel and feed the compensation that it needs to apply for manufacturing and lifetime issues back into the panel through the driving scheme. (We heard at IFA from several directions that Panasonic's knowledge of display driving has been very helpful to LG, although it has also had input from other sources as well).


----------



## Jason626

Samsung sticks with fald LCD until Samsung ship an oled on par with price of there fald or lg oled. I can't imagine a scenerio that Samsung wants two different techs to compete at high prices since selling top end tvs is already difficult enough. Oled will take over fald LCD then trickle down slowly as production of oled increases. Especially if rumorville is true for Samsung oled plans.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> An interesting quote from a display insider.....
> 
> http://www.displaydaily.com/display-daily/29902-panasonic-s-oled-tv-is-a-success-for-lg-display


Thanks.

Not to beat a dead horse, but "compensation that it (LG) needs to apply for manufacturing and lifetime issues back into the panel through the driving scheme" requires a feedback loop.

And since lifetime issues are specifically mentioned, the feedback loop must be entirely in-panel (no external sensor needed, at least to compensate for 'lifetime issues') .


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> Is there a quote where they actually say within 120% of "premium LCD pricing"?


I just took that from the post above mine. And since it allowed a segue into a discussion of where pricing needs to actually be.

I wasn't judging that as a strategy I actually believed was the plan anyway.


----------



## vassp

Oled will be always be priced above LCD as long as the two co exist. Even if the cost to produce was the same.


----------



## JoeyBagadonuts

vassp said:


> Oled will be always be priced above LCD as long as the two co exist. Even if the cost to produce was the same.


As long as the picture quality of OLED is accepted by the general public as superior to LCD, you are correct.


----------



## darinp2

I don't remember what page it was on, but I think it was in this thread that a while back we were talking about how much LG would really be able to judge demand for their product in the short run. My point then was that when your product is multiple times the price it would need to be to sell millions there is pretty limited information about how it will be accepted by the masses when you need to sell those millions.

However, with the latest pricing I've seen for some of these new LG units I think we are at a point where LG should start to get some much better data about whether committing investments for the future is worthwhile, at least on the demand side. And since these prices have hit just before the fourth quarter when a lot of TV purchases are made LG should have quite a bit of good information by the end of the year (and definitely by just after the Superbowl).

--Darin


----------



## vassp

LG like Samsung and the rest have fillers from the bottom end to top of their TV range. I'm not sure there is a big concern on how well their top tier TVs sell ATM. Its a small part of the market. It's more a tech and spec race, these oleds are gonna be halo products and occupy that space till they iron out the costs to produce in mass. Then the OLED battle will really begin.


----------



## rogo

darinp2 said:


> I don't remember what page it was on, but I think it was in this thread that a while back we were talking about how much LG would really be able to judge demand for their product in the short run. My point then was that when your product is multiple times the price it would need to be to sell millions there is pretty limited information about how it will be accepted by the masses when you need to sell those millions.
> 
> However, with the latest pricing I've seen for some of these new LG units I think we are at a point where LG should start to get some much better data about whether committing investments for the future is worthwhile, at least on the demand side. And since these prices have hit just before the fourth quarter when a lot of TV purchases are made LG should have quite a bit of good information by the end of the year (and definitely by just after the Superbowl).



Yes.

And they can't realistically bank on getting even 50% of any particular segment because, well, marketing, shelf space, spiffs, brand choice, et al. mean that not everyone will reflexively just buy the LG even if it hits price parity in a segment.

So they will need to probe in multiple price/size bands to figure out what it will take to, say, move 3 million units in 2017. If you think about the "top 5%" of the market including everything expensive in the 55, 65, 70+ bands, LG would need to sell 1 in 4 TVs in that band to reach such a number in 2017.

They will be non-competitive in many size-price segments even at that point. To achieve those numbers, they will have to be very competitive at some key points, especially when you consider just how few 65"+ TVs are even sold worldwide. 

LG will spend the next year tweaking, adjusting, gearing, etc. for that movement. And why? Because they will max out current production if they reach next year's sales target. Just how much future production to bring online will depend on how many LCDs can be met head on with pricing. There is virtually no reason to even build 3 million TVs to sell above LCD pricing. It would be next to impossible to sell that many.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Yes.
> 
> And they can't realistically bank on getting even 50% of any particular segment because, well, marketing, shelf space, spiffs, brand choice, et al. mean that not everyone will reflexively just buy the LG even if it hits price parity in a segment.
> 
> So they will need to probe in multiple price/size bands to figure out what it will take to, say, move 3 million units in 2017. *If you think about the "top 5%" of the market including everything expensive in the 55, 65, 70+ bands, LG would need to sell 1 in 4 TVs in that band to reach such a number in 2017.*


I believe that means you are estimating about 12 million TVs in that 'expensive 55"+ segment, is that right? Meaning about 5% of the overall TV market (as you already stated ). Do you have a source for that estimate or is that your own swag?



> They will be non-competitive in many size-price segments even at that point. To achieve those numbers, they will have to be very competitive at some key points, especially when you consider just *how few 65"+ TVs are even sold worldwide. *


Any estimate for that number (TVs 65" and above)?



> LG will spend the next year tweaking, adjusting, gearing, etc. for that movement. And why? Because they will max out current production if they reach next year's sales target. Just how much future production to bring online will depend on how many LCDs can be met head on with pricing. There is virtually no reason to even build 3 million TVs to sell above LCD pricing. It would be next to impossible to sell that many.


So if we go with your estimate of 12 million Premium TVs 55" and above, starting now, LG will be pumping out between 1.5-2M OLEDs (depending on whether you include M1 or not, as well of the mix of 65" versus 55") on an annual basis, equating to 12% - 15% of that Premium TV segment.

That's a step up of more than 10X versus the market share LG has had up to now (and the reason I've called it an 'OLED Tsunami' that is hitting the market soon ), and we should get a pretty good read on LGs progress by Q2 next year (which is, not coincidentally, when LG will probably be making decisions about any next investments in increased OLED TV capacity).

The introductory pricing on the new models is encouraging to me that LG is making the required progress. Near-$5K pricing on the 65" is everything I was hoping for a year ago (when, in retrospect, LG was not ready). I'm expecting sub-$5K pricing before the end of this year and that, coupled with the Vignetting/uniformity issues being resolved and the EF9500 being one of the most future-proof TVs on the market today, will hopefully drive the increase in sales volume that LG needs to achieve in order to keep investing in their WOLED initiative...


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> Yes.
> 
> And they can't realistically bank on getting even 50% of any particular segment because, well, marketing, shelf space, spiffs, brand choice, et al. mean that not everyone will reflexively just buy the LG even if it hits price parity in a segment.


It wont just be LG.

Right now, LGD is selling their OLED panels to Panasonic and a variety of Chinese vendors. As OLED's gain share in the high-end, there is little reason to believe that other television vendors wont follow suit. The only real exception is Samsung. 

I wouldnt be surprised to see a Sony OLED in 2016 and definitely in 2017.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> It wont just be LG.
> 
> Right now, LGD is selling their OLED panels to Panasonic and a variety of Chinese vendors. As OLED's gain share in the high-end, there is little reason to believe that other television vendors wont follow suit. The only real exception is Samsung.
> 
> *I wouldnt be surprised to see a Sony OLED in 2016 and definitely in 2017*.


Me neither, but if they follow Panasonic's lead, they won't have any meaningful impact on OLED's market share for several years...


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Me neither, but if they follow Panasonic's lead, they won't have any meaningful impact on OLED's market share for several years...


Panasonic is doing this for branding right now. I know that everybody here would love it if they offered the television for $6000 but it still wouldnt mean anything in terms of sales.

That will change in 2017. Most of the high-end LCD vendors will offer OLED's because they want to keep their high-end share intact.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> That will change in 2017. Most of the high-end LCD vendors will offer OLED's because they want to keep their high-end share intact.


I think this is correct. But without production well in excess of 2017 levels, there is still a pretty significant cap on the market presence of OLED.


----------



## greenland

LG to reveal rollable 55" OLED TV to CES 2016

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1442296649

"Imagine a TV that is paper-thin and so flexible that it can fit inside a tube for transportation. LG intends to showcase a prototype of such a TV this January at CES 2016, company officials said to Korea Times."


----------



## Rudy1

*"MORE OLED TVs IN THE PIPELINE":*

http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/more-oled-tvs-pipeline-n45297.html


----------



## rogo

greenland said:


> LG to reveal rollable 55" OLED TV to CES 2016
> 
> "Imagine a TV that is paper-thin and so flexible that it can fit inside a tube for transportation. LG intends to showcase a prototype of such a TV this January at CES 2016, company officials said to Korea Times."


Not a product and an entirely useless implementation as I'm sure many are now imagining, "How am I watching this thing and having it stand up normally?" But....

As an enabling technology, I find this very exciting. Whoever can mass produce a smartphone with a true foldable/extendable screen that goes from 5.5" --> 11" for example will usher in an amazing new era of portable devices that can do nearly everything.

That same logic applied to a laptop/big tablet-like form factor could allow for a 25" display at the desktop or as a dorm-room TV rapidly turning into something half as large for taking to class.

There are still massive industrial design issues not to mention the fact no one can mass produce screens like this, but it's pretty exciting to imagine what's coming next.

One thing that won't be coming: TVs that roll up. There is no use case for having to unfurl the TV just to watch it. There might be some tiny niche market where the aesthetic benefit of rolling the TV when not in use exists though the "canister" seems to destroy most of that. There are huge issues of reliable electrodes and connectors when a design like this is contemplated. And even though 10 people are likely to chime in with why this is great, likely none of you would pay a premium to solve a problem with "storing" your TV that you don't have.



Rudy1 said:


> *"MORE OLED TVs IN THE PIPELINE":*
> 
> http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/more-oled-tvs-pipeline-n45297.html


This also seems exciting, however:

"Analysts currently predict that OLED models account for around 1% of TV shipments in the global TV market. It looks like that figure could be set to rise considerably in 2016."

Analysts don't predict that. OLED models will account for


----------



## wco81

I don't think there's that much demand for portable devices that transform to devices with larger displays.

Unless they can be made with no change in price.

People are willing to watch longer videos like TV shows or movies on phones. If they wanted a bigger display, there are cheap tables or of course TVs.

And it would make more sense to AirPlay or have pico projectors on phones than to make a rollable screen, which could be more prone to damage.


----------



## slacker711

I am a bit skeptical of the date, but Samsung is clearly aiming to bring a foldable smartphone to market much faster than I would have thought possible two years ago. I doubt that this will be the completely flat folding device that we all imagine but it will be interesting to how much progress Samsung has made.

http://www.sammobile.com/2015/09/15...le-display-will-reportedly-launch-in-january/

FWIW, I agree on rollable TV's. I cringe every time LGD mentions it.


----------



## rogo

wco81 said:


> I don't think there's that much demand for portable devices that transform to devices with larger displays.
> 
> Unless they can be made with no change in price.


I imagine these will be top-end models like iPhone 6 Plus, Galaxy Note, etc. You'll pay a small premium for a "Transformers" screen.


> People are willing to watch longer videos like TV shows or movies on phones. If they wanted a bigger display, there are cheap tables or of course TVs.


Yes, but an agile display would be very compelling. I'm not going to carry two devices, but when I sit to watch video doubling the screen would be amazing. Charge me $100 for that, I'm in.


> And it would make more sense to AirPlay or have pico projectors on phones than to make a rollable screen, which could be more prone to damage.


Pico projectors need good display surfaces, AirPlay needs a receiving device and big screen. I want this for a meeting at Starbucks, watching a movie on a plane, playing a game with a friend, etc. And it should be easily damaged given the screen is inherently flexible. Likely the "extender" would be the part most prone to damage but things like the Surface kickstand make me optimistic well designed plastic parts can last as long as the device itself.


----------



## wco81

I imagine the transformer mechanism would be a second display that pops out of the phone and unfurls, not the primary display that expands. Not sure how you'd have a partially rolled up display that would still funtion.

Regardless, I imagine some kind of moving parts that extend to provide some kind of support for the display when it's unrolled, so the edges aren't flapping around.

The moving parts would be prone to damage or maybe the transforming mechanism just breaks over time.

And a larger display, even one that is rolled out, would consume more power so there's that.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> This also seems exciting, however:
> 
> "Analysts currently predict that OLED models account for around 1% of TV shipments in the global TV market. It looks like that figure could be set to rise considerably in 2016."
> 
> Analysts don't predict that. OLED models will account for


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> I am a bit skeptical of the date, but Samsung is clearly aiming to bring a foldable smartphone to market much faster than I would have thought possible two years ago. I doubt that this will be the completely flat folding device that we all imagine but it will be interesting to how much progress Samsung has made.
> [/url]
> 
> FWIW, I agree on rollable TV's. I cringe every time LGD mentions it.


My sources told me thin-film encapsulation and flexible displays should "tape out" this year, which indicates they have been mostly delayed. Samsung arriving next year is on track with what I've been hearing since 2014ish. One thing I would note is that Samsung is very likely going to roll out a small quantity of whatever they sell -- not unlike those pointless curved phones of a year ago or so -- and this isn't really the moment where the stuff hits mainstream either way.

But to make a lot, you have to make a few. If the "Galaxy Note Flex" or whatever is real, I'm excited to get my hands on one.



wco81 said:


> I imagine the transformer mechanism would be a second display that pops out of the phone and unfurls, not the primary display that expands. Not sure how you'd have a partially rolled up display that would still funtion.


You'd use some pixels and not others. I actually expect a clamshell design to ultimately win here, not some nonsensical unfurling -- even though we've seen that in many videos/mockups. If the screen of a Galaxy Edge continued onto the back of the phone and that piece was a hinged panel that could come out 180 degrees and then "snap" into a rigid plane with the front... You'd be there.


> The moving parts would be prone to damage or maybe the transforming mechanism just breaks over time.


Phones are designed to be replaced every 2 years. And many, many phones see screens or bezels break long before that. If I can come close to design my optimal mechanism in my head, someone with the appropriate design skills should achieve an excellent result.


> And a larger display, even one that is rolled out, would consume more power so there's that.


Sure, when you use the extra pixels. In a phablet-sized phone, though, I don't see this as a dealbreaker at all. Places like Starbucks have wireless charging built into tables. Other stuff like that is coming. 



fafrd said:


> I thought the same thing but you beat me to it


Something about great minds thinking alike! 


> Going flat-out including the 26K sheets per month of M2 and the 8K sheets per month of M1, only making 55" TVs (6 per sheet) and assuming a yield of 80%, LG will not quite be able to manufacture 2M OLED panels in 2016, meaning less than 1% of the TV market in 2016 in the best case (on more realistically 0.75% max if the 65" OLEDs are the least bit successful ).


Right, which any analyst of the display business should know. So anyone who says, "Already at 1%, expanding greatly next year" isn't an analyst of the display business.


> Any new capacity LG decides to invest in early next year won't come online until mid-2017 best-case, so I agree with you, getting to 1.25% (meaning 2.5M OLEDs) in 2017 would indicate good solid progress...


Yes, and if that comes to pass I'd be increasingly bullish for continued trends because the next year's growth (2018) would be somewhat baked in at that point.


> Measuring OLEDs share as a % of the overall TV market makes less sense in the early going than measuring it as a % of the premium large-screen TV market (55" and above).
> 
> I think you've been saying that segment is something like 10% of the overall TV market (so about 20M per year).


It's more like "all TVs 55" and up" is a 20M per year segment, premium or otherwise. 


> Measured to that standard, everything gets multiplied by 10X, meaning at 500,000 this year, OLED will be 2.5% of the premium-large-screen market; at 2M next year, OLED will be 10% of the premium-large-screen market in 2016; and they could be 12.5% of the premium-large-screen market by 2017.


Because a lot of those 55" and up TVs are not premium (and even if we expand the >=55" segment to 25M, which appears to be an exaggeration), let's say that premium is 2.5-5M. This is actually LG's challenge: 1.5M next year of a segment that might not even twice that in size? Not without (a) more OEMs (b) much lower pricing.


> More importantly, assuming any new capacity LG brings online in 2017 will at least double if not triple LGs OLED capability, they could be on-track to ship 4M-6M OLEDs in 2018, meaning 20-30% of the premium-large-screen TV market by 2018. If LG OLED achieved that, that is probably the point of no return .


Right, so that's the bull case. Get through the next valley of death and emerge with the ability to make 5M per year. Take 50% share of "premium", which covers maybe 1/2 your production. Take 10-15% of share of "non-premium", mostly from the high end.

If they do that -- which again entails much lower pricing -- I think the trend will continue. If they try and fail to get a huge chunk of premium next year -- bad product mix? bad pricing? -- then it gets much trickier to pull it back together.


----------



## barth2k

@rogo: there's an excellent use for a rollable display. How else will they ship my 132" printed OLED to me?


----------



## skoolpsyk

barth2k said:


> @rogo: there's an excellent use for a rollable display. How else will they ship my 132" printed OLED to me?


I for one would think a roll up screen would be awesome. 

Having it mechanized so that it rolls down like a projector screen would be perfect for my needs.


----------



## wco81

Or maybe the ability to roll it up would be the only way to make and deliver/ship 132-inch screens.


----------



## rogo

barth2k said:


> @rogo: there's an excellent use for a rollable display. How else will they ship my 132" printed OLED to me?


It certainly has utility in a world where 132" screens are common. Right now, that's a market that doesn't exist as even 100" screens are essentially non entities. 



skoolpsyk said:


> I for one would think a roll up screen would be awesome.
> 
> Having it mechanized so that it rolls down like a projector screen would be perfect for my needs.


Yeah, um, I assume you mean, "For some really large size". For a TV, this is non-feature. It would add mechanical complexity and a huge amount of time to the act of watching TV. Why are rational people buying this when they still need to mount the screen holder? Again, if you mean, "For a really large TV" I don't dispute the idea has merit.

It also has a lot of problems. You need electrodes to address the pixels and then you need to have that whole apparatus exit the screen. The idea of rolling and unrolling this an indefinite number of times with flexible, reliable electrodes and pixel encapsulation and an interface that would be exposed because your thin-edge screen is constantly coming off a "roll" is not something that is likely to be realistic for TV anytime soon (ever?). 

Part of the reason this can be envisioned for mobile devices is because it won't have to last especially long (and, again, I mean a "hinged" design, not a true rollable screen). Mobile devices have lives of a couple of years; TVs need to last 10 -- especially obscenely expensive ones. 

But, all that said, there is an application here and for projection-screen-like sizes and expensive screens that get relatively light use, perhaps this will someday become a real application.

For 55" TVs that can turn in 1-2 seconds today without expensive, risky operations and with aesthetics that are objectively better than a screen holder-type apparatus, this makes absolutely, positively no sense. Of course, that doesn't mean it will never materialize. After all, there are curved TVs!


----------



## dnoonie

Roll up OLED.

I'd like a roll up 19" touch screen OLED to go with my smart phone, and a smaller smart phone to upgrade too (smart phone have become quit large nearly to the point of impracticality, the smallest are still okay). I think it would be extremely practical and possibly available in the next couple years.

Cheers,


----------



## rogo

dnoonie said:


> Roll up OLED.
> 
> I'd like a roll up 19" touch screen OLED to go with my smart phone, and a smaller smart phone to upgrade too (smart phone have become quit large nearly to the point of impracticality, the smallest are still okay). I think it would be extremely practical and possibly available in the next couple years.


So you want a separate screen? Something you carry around in a 10-11" tube?

You want it to only lay flat? Or do you want some sort of "scissors" type assembly that allows it to stand up too?

What's powering it by the way? If the tube has a battery, it likely weighs several multiples of your smartphone.

I find this extremely impractical on many levels. It's like those portable printers of yore. Some people would likely embrace this with great enthusiasm. Most people would find the hassle far in excess of any value generated.

I don't see much market for a device like this and suspect the reliability would be very low.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> So you want a separate screen? Something you carry around in a 10-11" tube?
> 
> You want it to only lay flat? Or do you want some sort of "scissors" type assembly that allows it to stand up too?
> 
> What's powering it by the way? If the tube has a battery, it likely weighs several multiples of your smartphone.
> 
> I find this extremely impractical on many levels. It's like those portable printers of yore. Some people would likely embrace this with great enthusiasm. Most people would find the hassle far in excess of any value generated.
> 
> I don't see much market for a device like this and suspect the reliability would be very low.


I don't see these as stand-alone devices so much as perhaps replacement inserts.

Maybe.


----------



## dnoonie

rogo said:


> *1.* So you want a separate screen? Something you carry around in a 10-11" tube?
> 
> *2.* You want it to only lay flat? Or do you want some sort of "scissors" type assembly that allows it to stand up too?
> 
> *3.* What's powering it by the way? If the tube has a battery, it likely weighs several multiples of your smartphone.
> 
> *4.* I find this extremely impractical on many levels. It's like those portable printers of yore. Some people would likely embrace this with great enthusiasm. Most people would find the hassle far in excess of any value generated.
> 
> *5.* I don't see much market for a device like this and suspect the reliability would be very low.


Firstly this would be something that goes in my portable office bag not something I always carry around. I'm a short term contractor, one day min, up to about 2 weeks max for any one job. Longer jobs I need a portable office, I use my laptop now but something like the roll up screen could replace that at a fraction of the weight and size.

1. Yes, that's the idea

2. I've seen a built in "wire" that rolls then stay's flat when rolled out, maybe something like that to hold it flat.

3. I'm happy to plug in if I need the larger screen, or for an email that requires a longer response than I'd like to type on the smart phone KB it can power off the phone for a couple min.

4. More practical than some of these huge smart phones. I want my smart phone in my pocket not a bag. The roll up screen or laptop goes in the bag. Small printer: yes some work mates tried them, they were too fragile and slow, they went back to traveling the big ones. I do know some folks with car or truck offices that still use the small printers to print couple page invoices and estimates but they are too fragile for carrying in a bag with other gear.

5. I don't know, possibly so. If they don't travel well it's pointless, if they travel well then they'd be great. For a larger car or truck office a laptop is likely still the best choice.

I work out of a backpack or rolling pelican case, being able to leave the laptop at home unless I need to run software would be a bonus!

Cheers,


----------



## rogo

dnoonie said:


> Firstly this would be something that goes in my portable office bag not something I always carry around. I'm a short term contractor, one day min, up to about 2 weeks max for any one job. Longer jobs I need a portable office, I use my laptop now but something like the roll up screen could replace that at a fraction of the weight and size.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I work out of a backpack or rolling pelican case, being able to leave the laptop at home unless I need to run software would be a bonus!


So yeah, what you want is very niche-y. That doesn't make it bad, it makes it less likely to be an affordable, hit product.

I think it would be very much like the portable printers and probably work about as well. 

Honestly, if it sits flat on a table, I really don't get it. I do like the idea of "slap band" type functionality to get it to lay flat and roll up; I still believe it also needs an easel though so maybe that's not the right formula.

Anyway, I imagine this doesn't get built soon because full roll/unroll is very hard to pull off with reliability. I think a hinged screen that unfolds and is permanently connected has some amount of reasonability in terms of manufacturing, reliability and near-ish term cost.

But we'll see.


----------



## dnoonie

rogo said:


> ....
> I think a hinged screen that *unfolds* and is permanently connected has some amount of reasonability in terms of manufacturing, reliability and near-ish term cost.
> 
> But we'll see.


Fold out works for me too. Or even snap together. Put it away in a card deck sized case, take it out and unfold...that's nice too.

Cheers,


----------



## rogo

dnoonie said:


> Fold out works for me too. Or even snap together. Put it away in a card deck sized case, take it out and unfold...that's nice too.


I still dream of seamless, OLED tiles you can assemble. But for a different reason than what we've been talking about.

It's incidentally easier to do "rollable" than multi-axis folding. But single axis folding, because it's a finite problem, is very tractable.


----------



## ynotgoal

We thought it would take until 2017 until price parity with LCD TVs was reached but there have been recent statements by LG that parity could be achieved as early as 2016. We don’t believe the dates but LG continues to close the gap and when they achieve ~10% of the upper end TVs (55” and above) will sell out, to the detriment of LCDs and their ambitious plans for quantum dots.

One of the Merck execs recently went on record indicating that Samsung was definitely going to build OLED TVs. While Samsung has a large R&D effort for OLED TVs, OLEDs are no longer a religion at the Korean giant and the team has been give explicit directions that they must be able to demonstrate lower costs than LCD TVs before they get the go ahead from management. Samsung is the leading supplier of high end TVs and is very profitable in that segment. Merck expects their OLED light emitting material to soon cross the performance and lifetime threshold of the powder formulation but we have doubts as to how soon that will occur. Other Korea media reports have recently said Samsung has expressed that it has conservative outlooks for OLED TV panel technology due to high costs.

Now we have learned that Apple may be forming an informal alliance between Foxconn (of the Gen 6 AMOLED Fab), JOLED (of the Gen 6 fab for mid sized panels) and LG Display. It appears that they are working together in an attempt to speed up the availability of OLED panels for smartphones, tablets and perhaps notebooks.
http://www.oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=1025

[LG Display] decided to supply its foldable display products to a global business in the U.S. and started its preparation to produce them. Its first customer will be a global software (SW) business, and this business’s goal is to challenge Samsung Electronics’ and Apple’s strongholds in high-end Smartphone market with foldable Smartphones. LG Display decided to split the cost of investment, which costs hundreds of million dollars and will be used for facilities, in half with this company and is planning to produce this foldable display product at OLED factory in Gumi, Kyeongbuk.
http://english.etnews.com/20150918200002


----------



## rogo

So just to be clear, that whole post is pretty much a "rumors" post from an OLED promotional entity. Not saying it isn't directionally correct, but just so we understand the source.

Incidentally, I want to call out a couple of things in it I found especially questionable:

1) "to the detriment of LCDs and their ambitious plans for quantum dots"

I think this is a misapprehension of LCDs and quantum dots. The films/overlays are made by third parties. They are pricey. They are being used as a marketing tool and nothing more. There are no "ambitious plans". It's just a bunch of marketing. It's far less important than marketing 4K.

2) "Samsung is the leading supplier of high end TVs and is very profitable in that segment."

No, they aren't very profitable in that segment. That's actually a problem right now. Even the high end of TV isn't very profitable. Maybe these folks didn't read Samsung's financials?

3) "Now we have learned that Apple may be forming an informal alliance between Foxconn (of the Gen 6 AMOLED Fab), JOLED (of the Gen 6 fab for mid sized panels) and LG Display. It appears that they are working together in an attempt to speed up the availability of OLED panels for smartphones, tablets and perhaps notebooks."

That's not the way it's going to work. Not at all. Apple is going to need 200 million OLED screens/year to move the iPhone over. They will do it or not when there is production ready to make 200 million iPhone screens possible. They will do it when there are two ramped up suppliers they can count on. For these reasons, either they are buying most of the screens from Samsung and some from LG, or this isn't happening next year. The deal is already baked and has been for a long while; or it's not happening until 2017-18 (likely).

And if it's happening in one of those out year, the deal is actually already baked for that, too. It's not an "informal alliance" between some pikers who aren't producing OLEDs. It's a supply deal with people who have committed to building tens of millions of OLED panels for Apple. 

4) "Its first customer will be a global software (SW) business, and this business’s goal is to challenge Samsung Electronics’ and Apple’s strongholds in high-end Smartphone market with foldable Smartphones."

I'm sorry, what? No, seriously, what?

There's one "global software business" that makes smartphones that I'm aware of. It's called "Microsoft." It has well under 5% of the market, and shrinking. It's not "challenging" anyone, anywhere because it makes an OS no one wants. The bulk of Microsoft's customers are people who don't really want a smartphone buy get the Windows Phone because it's cheap and well built. The sliver of the Windows Phone business that goes to high-end customer is so small you need a microscope to see it.

Microsoft could release the world's most amazing smartphone next year, with a folding display, and the impact of Samsung and Apple would be very, very close to zero.

That same article, which I'd describe as much closer to fiction than news, ends with this gibberish.

"According to market investigative business called HIS, importance of foldable display will rapidly increase from 0% in this year to 24.4% in 2016 and take up about more than half of flexible display in 2020."

What? I'm not sure what importance measures, but foldable display will have 24.4% of nothing but the writer's imagination by next year. It might have half of something by 2020, but it's pretty unlikely that half will be half the smartphone market.


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> So just to be clear, that whole post is pretty much a "rumors" post from an OLED promotional entity. Not saying it isn't directionally correct, but just so we understand the source.


It's interesting that you quote the post without quoting it. Whatever. Not sure if you noticed but the "whole post" was from two very different sources. The second (the part labeled "fiction") is Korea's ETNews. I'm sure they will be excited to learn they are an OLED promotional entity rather than a news organization. The other, OLED-A, is run by Barry Young who was a Director at DisplaySearch for many years. One of the two of you has regular contact with industry sources particularly in Korea. That post, as is noted in the article title, is their comments on rumors in the industry based on their discussions with their industry contacts. 



rogo said:


> I think this is a misapprehension of LCDs and quantum dots. The films/overlays are made by third parties. They are pricey. They are being used as a marketing tool and nothing more. There are no "ambitious plans". It's just a bunch of marketing.


I agree with your characterization of quantum dots but Samsung and some other display companies are using that to fend off OLED in the high end market. I think that is ambitious though I understand if you don't.



rogo said:


> No, they aren't very profitable in that segment. That's actually a problem right now. Even the high end of TV isn't very profitable. Maybe these folks didn't read Samsung's financials?


The TV business is certainly less profitable than it once was but I suspect the profit margins are still pretty good in the high end. Do you have some stats to support your statement?



rogo said:


> For these reasons, either they are buying most of the screens from Samsung and some from LG, or this isn't happening next year. The deal is already baked and has been for a long while; or it's not happening until 2017-18 (likely).
> 
> And if it's happening in one of those out year, the deal is actually already baked for that, too. It's not an "informal alliance" between some pikers who aren't producing OLEDs. It's a supply deal with people who have committed to building tens of millions of OLED panels for Apple.


Nowhere in the post do they say the alliance is for an OLED iPhone in 2016. It is documented fact that Foxcon and LG are currently building gen 6 OLED fabs and JOLED is working on plans but not yet committed the money. It's entirely reasonable Apple is helping them form that multiple supplier base.



rogo said:


> There's one "global software business" that makes smartphones that I'm aware of. It's called "Microsoft." It has well under 5% of the market, and shrinking. It's not "challenging" anyone, anywhere because it makes an OS no one wants.


You may not have heard of this other global software company with a smartphone product line... Google. It could be Microsoft though. If they were already a leading smart phone company then they wouldn't have said they "want to challenge Samsung and Apple". From time to time, business do try to make a push into a new market. It wasn't long ago that Apple was trying to challenge Nokia and Blackberry.



rogo said:


> That same article, which I'd describe as much closer to fiction than news, ends with this gibberish.
> 
> "According to market investigative business called HIS, importance of foldable display will rapidly increase from 0% in this year to 24.4% in 2016 and take up about more than half of flexible display in 2020."
> 
> What? I'm not sure what importance measures, but foldable display will have 24.4% of nothing but the writer's imagination by next year. It might have half of something by 2020, but it's pretty unlikely that half will be half the smartphone market.


Ok, IHS is part of the OLED promotional conspiracy, too? What is fact is at the start of 2015 Samsung had about 120k gen 5.5 rigid OLED capacity compared to 8K gen 5.5 flexible OLED capacity. In early 2016 that will be something like 90k gen 5.5 rigid OLED compared to 40k gen 5.5 and 15k gen 6 flexible OLED. Now that is more like 50/50. How much of that flexible capacity supports foldable devices is yet to be seen but it is mostly built out this year so would have their latest technology.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> No, they aren't very profitable in that segment. That's actually a problem right now. Even the high end of TV isn't very profitable. Maybe these folks didn't read Samsung's financials?


I dont believe that Samsung has given out their margins on the television segment and certainly not only on the high-end. If they arent making good margins on $2000+ LCD's at their scale, then they are doomed as OLED's move down the cost curve.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> I dont believe that Samsung has given out their margins on the television segment and certainly not only on the high-end. If they arent making good margins on $2000+ LCD's at their scale, then they are doomed as OLED's move down the cost curve.


OK, what's weird about this is I'm pretty sure my belief they aren't making much money in TV is from you commenting on recent financials.

That said, in the most recent quarter, the CE division of Samsung posted a loss. (All other parts of Samsung are profitable; the non-TV portion of the CE division seems much less volatile than TV.)

The division made 10,257 billion korean won in revenue and sold 9.6 million TVs (as well as a bunch of other products). According to Samsung, TV was ~60% of that division 6,219 billion korean won. 

While this is short on details, it certainly implies strongly Samsung isn't making money selling TVs.


----------



## mreendoor

*Sharp Rise in Demand for AMOLED Smartphones Gives Another Chance to Samsung Display*

-
AMOLED screens for smartphones has continued to increase by a great deal, as shown by US$1.521 billion in the third quarter of last year, US$1.749 billion in Q4 2014, US$2.371 billion in Q1 of this year, and US$2.49 billion in Q2 2015. As a result, the proportion of AMOLED panels in the smartphone display market has grown from 22.8 percent in Q3 2014 to 34.6 percent in Q2 of this year. 


LCD displays for smartphones has plummeted, from US$6.462 billion in Q4 of last year to US$4.893 billion in Q1 2015, and to US$4.73 billion in Q2 of this year

Samsung Display, which represents 99 percent of the AMOLED panel market for smartphones

The price difference between AMOLED and LCD panels used in full HD mobile devices decreased from US$18 in Q2 of last year to US$8 in Q2 2015

In China alone, 15 kinds of smartphones with AMOLED panels have been released so far this year 


http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/arti...rtphones-gives-another-chance-samsung-display


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> OK, what's weird about this is I'm pretty sure my belief they aren't making much money in TV is from you commenting on recent financials.
> 
> That said, in the most recent quarter, the CE division of Samsung posted a loss. (All other parts of Samsung are profitable; the non-TV portion of the CE division seems much less volatile than TV.)
> 
> The division made 10,257 billion korean won in revenue and sold 9.6 million TVs (as well as a bunch of other products). According to Samsung, TV was ~60% of that division 6,219 billion korean won.
> 
> While this is short on details, it certainly implies strongly Samsung isn't making money selling TVs.


I definitely agree that Samsung isnt making much on televisions overall. 

However, if we are focusing on the high-end (as I was in that post), I have to believe that Samsung is making pretty good gross margins. I'm bearish on Samsung's ability to compete in high-end televisions in 2017 and beyond....but if they arent making very good margins on their SUHD sets, then they are screwed in 2016.

My assumption is that the low-end is operated at close to break even while the high-end margins pays for the advertising and R&D. Those margins as well as costs will start to get cut as Samsung has to drop prices to fight off the OLED volumes coming on-line.


----------



## rogo

mreendoor said:


> *Sharp Rise in Demand for AMOLED Smartphones Gives Another Chance to Samsung Display*
> 
> -[/COLOR]


I was unaware Samsung Display needed another chance. It's far and away the world's leading supplier of OLED mobile screens and is also the leader in TV panels (it seems). 

It's nice to see OLED market share creeping up in mobile, though I'm personal skeptical that 1 in 3 smartphones shipped globally has an OLED screen. (Who knows, maybe it does, but I don't really think it's accurate.)

Edit: Check that, it's not accurate. I hate this Asian --> English translation. The OLED share is in $ value, not unit share. We would never use the phrase "the proportion of AMOLED panels in the smartphone display market" to mean the dollar value share. 

Yet it's clear that's what they mean.

$2.49B OLED
$4.73B LCD
--------
$7.2 total

OLED value share = 34%

Given that OLED displays for "full HD" cost more by $8 each and a huge number of smartphones are made with less than "full HD" screens, OLED is likely nowhere near 1 in 4 at this point. It's probably appreciably below 1 in 5. That makes more sense.

n.b. If Apple shifted, it would add ~15% to OLED's share within 24 months. It's possible that by 2020 we'll see OLED with 1/2 the smartphone business.


----------



## fafrd

This just posted in the EC9500'Owner's thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...f9500-oled-owners-thread-28.html#post37440306



Blake2163 said:


> I know most on here are probably not military but the exchange has the 55 model listed with reg price of $2999 on sale for $2499 maybe this is a good indication of prices to come ?


If the 55EF9500 is already being promoted at discounted prices of $2500 through niche/speciality retailers, that's a strong indication that we will see discounted street pricing at that level by the Holidays.

Applying a similar $ discount or % discount to the recently-reduced $5000 price of the 65EF9500 means that discounted street pricing on the 65" OLED could be down to somewhere in the range of $3750-4500 by Black Friday.

4K OLED pricing of $2500 for 55" and $4000 for 65" by this Holiday Season would be a strong indicator that LG's mass-market push for share of the premium TV market is for real this time...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> This just posted in the EC9500'Owner's thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...f9500-oled-owners-thread-28.html#post37440306
> 
> 
> 
> If the 55EF9500 is already being promoted at discounted prices of $2500 through niche/speciality retailers, that's a strong indication that we will see discounted street pricing at that level by the Holidays.
> 
> Applying a similar $ discount or % discount to the recently-reduced $5000 price of the 65EF9500 means that discounted street pricing on the 65" OLED could be down to somewhere in the range of $3750-4500 by Black Friday.
> 
> 4K OLED pricing of $2500 for 55" and $4000 for 65" by this Holiday Season would be a strong indicator that LG's mass-market push for share of the premium TV market is for real this time...


Based on today's Amazon pricing:

65EG9600 $6000
65JS9500 $5000

The 'OLED premium' is now down to 20%

And based on today's East Coast TV pricing:

65EG9600 $3330
65JS9500 $3000

The 'OLED premium' is only 11% 

111% - 120% of Samsing's flagship FALD for an OLED - going to be an interesting few months...


----------



## Jason626

Those numbers are gonna make Panasonic oled hard to swallow. 2 lg oled for 1 panny oled.


----------



## x3sphere

fafrd said:


> Based on today's Amazon pricing:
> 
> 65EG9600 $6000
> 65JS9500 $5000
> 
> The 'OLED premium' is now down to 20%
> 
> And based on today's East Coast TV pricing:
> 
> 65EG9600 $3330
> 65JS9500 $3000
> 
> The 'OLED premium' is only 11%
> 
> 111% - 120% of Samsing's flagship FALD for an OLED - going to be an interesting few months...


Very interesting! I wonder what the margins are like on Samsung's high end sets - they're going to have to start cutting prices...


----------



## fafrd

x3sphere said:


> Very interesting! I wonder what the margins are like on Samsung's high end sets - they're going to have to start cutting prices...


Adorama just posted even lower pricing for the EF9500: http://www.adorama.com/lot65ef9500.html

65EF9500 @ $5000
55EF9500 @ $3000

And since Adorama also lists the 65JS9500 for $5000, there is currently no price premium at Adorama for the 65" OLED over the 65" Samsung flagship LED/LCD - price parity 

It's good to see signs that LG is being much more aggressive on pricing


----------



## fafrd

Another AVSer, zeromothra, sent me a link to this: https://www.avforums.com/news/lg-want-to-sell-an-oled-tv-every-minute.11890

"The Korean manufacturer plans to sell five times as many OLED TVs in then second half of the year as it did in the first, with the aim of making LG OLED TVs the new standard for 2015. Brian Kwon, Executive Vice President and CEO of LG's Home Entertainment Company, said that *the goal was to sell more than one LG OLED TV per a minute. To achieve this lofty ambition, LG have a four stage strategy that is designed to solidify their position in the home entertainment market."

'An OLED a minute' - it's a catchy (and ambitious ) goal.

And with the aggressive price moves of the past 24 hours, LG may just have a fighting chance.

The Adorama price of $5000 includes a 48" LED/LCD TV streeting for $800 and a Bluetooth speaker streeting for $150. Even if you sell those for half their value, when you consider that there is no tax and free shipping, that's getting the effective price darned close to what my out-of-pocket would be if I ordered from Amazon or Best Buy at a price of $4000...

Adorama also has aspecial on the 55EC9100 1080p OLED for $2000 with the same wireless speaker thrown in .

It's good to see LG finally being agressive after this long wait *


----------



## barth2k

Stuff is getting real. Go LG!


----------



## wco81

Are those Quantum Dot TVs that they touted at CES out now?


----------



## slacker711

65EG9600 vs. 65JS9500 shootout performed by Dr. Raymond Soneira. 

http://www.displaymate.com/TV_OLED_LCD_ShootOut_1.htm

He doesnt look at vignetting or uniformity but if you like numbers (brightness, screen reflectance etc) then this review has plenty of them.


----------



## Rich Peterson

slacker711 said:


> 65EG9600 vs. 65JS9500 shootout performed by Dr. Raymond Soneira.
> 
> http://www.displaymate.com/TV_OLED_LCD_ShootOut_1.htm
> 
> He doesnt look at vignetting or uniformity but if you like numbers (brightness, screen reflectance etc) then this review has plenty of them.


I liked this snippet of the review:

"The LG Flagship OLED TV performed extremely well throughout all of the lab tests and viewing tests. It is unquestionably the best performing TV that we have ever tested or watched… with absolutely stunning and beautiful picture quality across the board. In terms of picture quality the LG OLED TV is visually indistinguishable from perfect. Even in terms of the exacting and precise lab measurements it is close to ideal.

The LG OLED TV is far better than the best Plasma TVs in every display performance category, and even better than the $50,000 Sony Professional CRT Studio Monitors that up until recently were the golden standard for picture quality."


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> 65EG9600 vs. 65JS9500 shootout performed by Dr. Raymond Soneira.
> 
> http://www.displaymate.com/TV_OLED_LCD_ShootOut_1.htm
> 
> He doesnt look at vignetting or uniformity but if you like numbers (brightness, screen reflectance etc) then this review has plenty of them.


Good stuff by the pro. I don't agree with everything he says (ever), but his methodology and conclusions are clearly laid out and mostly are very objective.

In short, a videophile should choose the OLED if that's an option. It's clearly the superior display of these two.


----------



## darinp2

I wonder how many of the people who went for the top-of-the-line Pioneer plasmas will decide that this is a good time to jump.

--Darin


----------



## tgm1024

darinp2 said:


> I wonder how many of the people who went for the top-of-the-line Pioneer plasmas will decide that this is a good time to jump.


What model would that be?

I don't think anyone's ever mentioned it before around here...


----------



## wco81

Hmm, is Displaymate good on big screens?

I thought most of his fame was from doing shootouts of mobile devices, like iPhone vs. Galaxy, iPad vs. Nexus 7, etc.?


----------



## rogo

darinp2 said:


> I wonder how many of the people who went for the top-of-the-line Pioneer plasmas will decide that this is a good time to jump.


My guess, not many. 

But as the price comes down over the next year or two, it sure seems like the obvious choice -- unless you want something bigger than 65 inches.

That will likely be my conundrum on upgrading. The bigger sizes have a much bigger price curve to navigate...


----------



## Esox50

rogo said:


> My guess, not many.
> 
> But as the price comes down over the next year or two, it sure seems like the obvious choice -- unless you want something bigger than 65 inches.
> 
> That will likely be my conundrum on upgrading. The bigger sizes have a much bigger price curve to navigate...


You hit the nail on the head and is my exact situation too. I really wanted my next TV to be in the 75-80" range (current is 60"), but given i won't spend more than ~ 5K on a TV it seems like i may have to wait a few more years at least.

Sooooo, with the new 65EF95000 coming down in price so quickly (I'm thinking ~$4K within 45-60 days), do i just pick one of those up now (get 4K, OLED better picture, gain 5", and start on Ultra HD Blu-rays early next year)...while I wait for the bigger OLED screen sizes to come down in price. "Buy some time" so to speak. 

Now, what would make it interesting would be if someone said LG would have a ~75" OLED around $7K street by this time in 2016...then I might stretch my rule of never spending more than 5K on a TV and hold out for that. But I think that's a pipe dream.

Conundrum is right...


----------



## dnoonie

darinp2 said:


> I wonder how many of the people who went for the top-of-the-line Pioneer plasmas will decide that this is a good time to jump.
> 
> --Darin


As just one owner of a 60" Pio Kuro Elite I can only speak for myself but...

I'm very intrigued by the LG 65 offering if my Kuro should break. What am I waiting for? In no particular order...
*1.* A ~75" for $6000 or less, I want *a size upgrade* for a reasonable price.
*2a*. Content. I'll likely get an *OPPO BDP-115* at the same time 
*2b*. Content. I'll likely start collect *UHD BD*s as combo HD BDs when they start being offered.
*3.* My Pio still looks great, should there be some *image degradation* then...
*4. $ome money*. I already spent this years A/V budget on room upgrades. A wall, a door, some paint, and some diffusion replaced absorption. 
5. I would wait for *the Pany* if I could.

If my Kuro broke now I'd likely just not watch TV for a couple months since I have little time to watch (busy season) and prices are dropping so fast.

Cheers,


----------



## Rich Peterson

*OLED-Info interviews LG Display on the company's latest OLED development and long-ter*

Source: http://www.oled-info.com/talking-oleds-lg-displays-marketing-team

I thought there were not a lot of direct answers to the interviewer's question, but one quote that caught my eye:

*"We know that LGD is interested in inkjet printing. Do you see such deposition technologies being used for mass production in the near future?"*

We think a soluble technology is essential for OLED expansion, and we are studying different technologies including inkjet printing.


----------



## rogo

That is interesting, even though he does duck every important question.

I don't know why I believe this, but I believe that LG has concluded that the throughput and yield on vapor deposition are never going to be quite satisfactory enough to push beyond some barriers. And because that will eventually limit cost reductions, they know they eventually need a solution involving solubles 

When? That's a trickier question. Hopefully, they don't need it soon because on a mass production basis, it's hard to imagine anything will be ready before 2-3 years from now. And LG certainly has big growth plans between now and then.


----------



## Mad Norseman

dnoonie said:


> As just one owner of a 60" Pio Kuro Elite I can only speak for myself but...
> 
> I'm very intrigued by the LG 65 offering if my Kuro should break. What am I waiting for? In no particular order...
> *1.* A ~75" for $6000 or less, I want *a size upgrade* for a reasonable price.
> *2a*. Content. I'll likely get an *OPPO BDP-115* at the same time
> *2b*. Content. I'll likely start collect *UHD BD*s as combo HD BDs when they start being offered.
> *3.* My Pio still looks great, should there be some *image degradation* then...
> *4. $ome money*. I already spent this years A/V budget on room upgrades. A wall, a door, some paint, and some diffusion replaced absorption.
> 5. I would wait for *the Pany* if I could.
> 
> If my Kuro broke now I'd likely just not watch TV for a couple months since I have little time to watch (busy season) and prices are dropping so fast.
> 
> Cheers,


You've read my mind!
OLED is my next TV too, but right now I' still very happy with my 65" Panny.
I wholeheartedly agree with your No.1, but want a 75" for under $5,000.


----------



## barth2k

When/if inkjet printing becomes viable, will LG's experience with vapor depositing give them a leg up, or will they be back to square one, or even be held back? Will Samsung just leap over them?


----------



## Trackman

dnoonie said:


> As just one owner of a 60" Pio Kuro Elite I can only speak for myself but...
> 
> I'm very intrigued by the LG 65 offering if my Kuro should break. What am I waiting for? In no particular order...
> *1.* A ~75" for $6000 or less, I want *a size upgrade* for a reasonable price.
> *2a*. Content. I'll likely get an *OPPO BDP-115* at the same time
> *2b*. Content. I'll likely start collect *UHD BD*s as combo HD BDs when they start being offered.
> *3.* My Pio still looks great, should there be some *image degradation* then...
> *4. $ome money*. I already spent this years A/V budget on room upgrades. A wall, a door, some paint, and some diffusion replaced absorption.
> 5. I would wait for *the Pany* if I could.
> 
> If my Kuro broke now I'd likely just not watch TV for a couple months since I have little time to watch (busy season) and prices are dropping so fast.
> 
> Cheers,


I have a 151 and am looking at buying the EF in February, depending on price and progress with the various issues that plagued the EGs (at least until current builds). The advent of 4k blu-ray will be my main reason to change, along with the energy bill savings (a big plasma uses a ton of electricity!)


----------



## fafrd

Just ran into this: http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...gle-inc-is-helping-oled-tv-go-mainstream.aspx

'Enter Google
But 1.5 million is a drop in the bucket compared to LG Display's longer-term plans. Late last month, The Korea Times reported that affiliate LG Electronics (NASDAQOTH:LGEAF) "*aims at securing 100 million customers for the premium TVs, without giving a timetable for the target*."

To help it reach that lofty goal, LG has enlisted the help of none other than Google (NASDAQ:GOOG)(NASDAQ:GOOGL), with which it recently launched a joint marketing campaign centered around OLED TVs. The Korean Times says LG Electronics aims to use this partnership to "raise market awareness of the OLED products."'


----------



## rogo

It's a good thing they didn't give a timetable 

Assuming that the average TV lasts 5-7 years, I'd guess they can't reach 100 million OLED TV customers at OLED until 2023-4.

It feels like 30 million would be a BHAG for 2020, hard but doable.

From there, you can imagine a path to 100 million, but you have to figure that of the first 30 million, at least ~10 million will require replacement before 2024. That cuts the 2020 base to 20 million, effective. In the subsequent 3 years, 100 million would be plausible, but very challenging. In 4 years, it feels more comfortable.

It's good to see companies making 10-year forecasts; I'm not a fan of short-termism.

It would've been nice for them to just give 2025 as the timetable, though. They'd look great if they beat it by a year, have enough comfort to make it so long as they stick with OLED, and would be seen as having the vision to look into the future.

Instead, my first reaction was "Whatever" and I only looked deeper because, well, AVS.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> It's a good thing they didn't give a timetable
> 
> Assuming that the average TV lasts 5-7 years, I'd guess they can't reach 100 million OLED TV customers at OLED until 2023-4.
> 
> It feels like 30 million would be a BHAG for 2020, hard but doable.
> 
> From there, you can imagine a path to 100 million, but you have to figure that of the first 30 million, at least ~10 million will require replacement before 2024. That cuts the 2020 base to 20 million, effective. In the subsequent 3 years, 100 million would be plausible, but very challenging. In 4 years, it feels more comfortable.
> 
> It's good to see companies making 10-year forecasts; I'm not a fan of short-termism.
> 
> It would've been nice for them to just give 2025 as the timetable, though. They'd look great if they beat it by a year, have enough comfort to make it so long as they stick with OLED, and would be seen as having the vision to look into the future.
> 
> Instead, my first reaction was "Whatever" and I only looked deeper because, well, AVS.


Yeah, it's nice to have a long-term vision, but that article is already more than 2 months old.

With LG's OLED Tsunami finally upon us, probably more critical to see how the next 3-6 months go than getting too far ahead of themselves .


----------



## jjackkrash

fafrd said:


> Yeah, it's nice to have a long-term vision, but that article is already more than 2 months old.
> 
> With LG's OLED Tsunami finally upon us, probably more critical to see how the next 3-6 months go than getting too far ahead of themselves .


I can just smell the prices dropping. Seriously, LG has them priced right now where demand appears to exceed supply for the 65" flats and as supply catches up, my belief is another price drop is just around the corner. I suspect my upgrade itch will be irresistible before Christmas if prices are going where I think they are going.


----------



## fafrd

jjackkrash said:


> I can just smell the prices dropping. *Seriously, LG has them priced right now where demand appears to exceed supply for the 65" flats* and as supply catches up, my belief is another price drop is just around the corner. I suspect my upgrade itch will be irresistible before Christmas if prices are going where I think they are going.


Yeah, since the first 65EF9500s have just finally started leaking into the country over the past week, and the 'pre-release' discounts leaked out through several channels, having 'demand exceeding supply' is low hanging fruit right now .

Once the OLED Tsunami hits (October 7th and beyond), LG will be manufacturing somewhere between 125,000 55" or 60,000 65" OLEDS each and every month.

Let's take a swag and estimate the 4K capacity is split 50/50 (meaning 60,000 55" and 30,000 65" 4K OLED per month), and suppose that 1/3 of that 65" production needs to be sold in the US.

That would mean that, starting in a matter of weeks, LG will need to start selling 10,000 65" OLEDs per month here in the States - a volume that probably exceeds the total number of 65" OLEDs sold in the U.S. to date...

We're going to have a much better read on how LG's initiative is progressing a month from now (as well as very possibly even lower discounted pricing than the levels recently leaked ).


----------



## Esox50

fafrd said:


> We're going to have a much better read on how LG's initiative is progressing a month from now (as well as very possibly even lower discounted pricing than the levels recently leaked ).


I hate LG.  I've been "shopping" for the 65", but by the time it hits what i think makes it a good buy (to have for 2-3 years) I suspect it will be too close to CES. At that point, I'd rather wait for CES because there's nothing to lose...maybe new & better models next spring or make the call to get the 65EF9500 even cheaper in Jan.


----------



## fafrd

Esox50 said:


> I hate LG.  I've been "shopping" for the 65", but by the time it hits what i think makes it a good buy (to have for 2-3 years) I suspect it will be too close to CES. At that point, I'd rather wait for CES because there's nothing to lose...maybe new & better models next spring or make the call to get the 65EF9500 even cheaper in Jan.


Reasons to consider holding off for another year:

1/ Further increase in color gamut for HDR (LG claims 90% DCI-P3 today going to 100% DCI-P3 in a year).

2/ Possible further increase in brightness (for HDR and BFI)

3/ Possible addition of BFI / reduced persistence

4/ Possible addition of Dolby Vision 12-bit HDR

5/ Possible improvements in CMS (but don't count on it ).

6/ Possible improvements in near-black uniformity (and further reduction of any residual Vignetting).

For 1080p Blurays and 4K SDR,, the 65EF9500 is close to being as good as it is going to get. For that purpose, the last item is the most significant and as soon as I become convinced that the current crop of OLEDs has a reasonable chance of delivering acceptable shadow detail without DSE, I'll probably be pulling the trigger.

If you are buying a new TV for HDR capability, there might be good reasons to hold off for another year, but on the other hand, it may take 2-3years before the dust has truly settled on HDR...


----------



## Esox50

Yeah, the color and HDR on the 2016 models...and with LG seemingly ramping up, makes me wonder if these late 2015 models will be relatively short lived with, as "fafrd" noted in #6 , some of these issues fixed. Still if the 65" gets down to 3500 by year's end...it will be tough to hold off. Decisions, decisions.


----------



## fafrd

Esox50 said:


> Yeah, the color and HDR on the 2016 models...and with LG seemingly ramping up, makes me wonder if these late 2015 models will be relatively short lived with, as "fafrd" noted in #6 , some of these issues fixed. Still if the 65" gets down to 3500 by year's end...it will be tough to hold off. Decisions, decisions.


With the expected price drop in early October, LG is positioning the 65 EF9500 head-to-head with the Samsung 65JS9500 (0% price premium).

So the next step will be see how Samsung responds (and when).

The 'bait-and-switch' online retailers like ECTV usually give a pretty good idea of where discounted pricing is heading on a ~3-month horizon, and my quick check googling pricing for the 65JS9500 turned up 4 vendors selling it for $2700 (including ECTV) and 3 more listing it for $3500...

So it is likely that Samsung has significant headroom to be more agressive with pricing for the 65JS9500 and the question is how agressive they are going to be, how quickly, and how quickly and agressively LG is going to respond.

So while your target of $3500 for the 65EF9500 before year-end seems like a stretch, it is not totally outside of the realm of possibility...

Competition in action, folks .


----------



## mr. wally

And whatever happened to the 77" model to optimize benefits 
of 4k?

fald or bust?


----------



## Esox50

mr. wally said:


> And whatever happened to the 77" model to optimize benefits
> of 4k?
> 
> fald or bust?


I don't know know the economics like some of you guys do, but judging by history (with the largest size in most lines of TVs year-over-year), I'd bet LG will show a 77" at CES which will be between $12,500-15,000 USD MSRP in 2016.


----------



## ALCOMData

Esox50 said:


> I don't know know the economics like some of you guys do, but judging by history (with the largest size in most lines of TVs year-over-year), I'd bet LG will show a 77" at CES which will be between $12,500-15,000 USD MSRP in 2016.


Also judging by history, the 77" set will be announced at CES 2016, then it'll be listed as "coming soon" on all the usual sites, then one of the "get-it first" high end retailers will announce that it's scheduled to ship in September 2016, and then this time next year we'll all know it was vaporware all along.


----------



## mushroomkid

I've seen the rumour about price drops being imminent mentioned here on this forum. Are we getting price drops over on this side of the pond?


----------



## mreendoor

* DuPont opened a new scale-up soluble OLED material production facility*

Oct 01, 2015 DuPont announced the opening of a new state-of-the-art, scale-up manufacturing facility designed to deliver production scale quantities of advanced solution-based printed OLED materials. DuPont specifically says that these materials will target OLED TV applications.






The new OLED facility has large-scale formulation systems and can support simultaneous production of multiple product lines. DuPont invested over $20 million in this new facility, which was also funded by a grant from the state of Delaware back in 2012.







http://www.oled-info.com/dupont-opened-new-scale-soluble-oled-material-production-facility


----------



## ejvette

darinp2 said:


> I wonder how many of the people who went for the top-of-the-line Pioneer plasmas will decide that this is a good time to jump.
> 
> --Darin


 I'm one I've had the itch for the last year to upgrade from my 8 year old plasma ..... today I went to see this new LG and I haven't been that blown away by a TV since I bought my pioneer. As soon as the price hits the mid 4's I'm in that's about what I paid for my pioneer when it was first released. Of course I'm no where near the videophile most of you folks are.


----------



## Jason626

ejvette said:


> I'm one I've had the itch for the last year to upgrade from my 8 year old plasma ..... today I went to see this new LG and I haven't been that blown away by a TV since I bought my pioneer. As soon as the price hits the mid 4's I'm in that's about what I paid for my pioneer when it was first released. Of course I'm no where near the videophile most of you folks are.


Your so close! On lg website the 65" is on sale for $4999. Just abit more time and your in.


----------



## fafrd

Jason626 said:


> Your so close! On lg website the 65" is on sale for $4999. Just abit more time and your in.


Check with Forum Sponsors - already much closer than you think...


----------



## mreendoor

*iXsenic® - game-changing liquid semiconductor for the display industry*

*



*

*Our Benefits at a glance*













*High Performance*
Designed to drive high resolution LC and AMOLED displays of all sizes with high frame rates ​*Low Process Costs
Easy scale-up, high yield, low maintenance, low energy, no vacuum​*

*Step towards Printing
Solution-based processing leads to printing
​*

* Easy Integration
Easy to integrate in standard TFT production, compatible with all standard materials already used​*

* High Homogeneity
Constant layer thickness (“topographic homogeneity”) & 
constant chemical composition (“stoichiometric homogeneity”)
​*

*Low Process Temperature
Flexible displays already demonstrated​*

*Intellectual Property
Protected by more than 30 patent families covering material, formulation, process and application ​*

*Strong Partner
Evonik owns deep chemistry and coating know-how, reliable and financially strong company with global presence




http://www.ixsenic.com/product/semiconductor/en/technology/Pages/Benefits.aspx


http://en.ofweek.com/news/LCD-display-with-metal-oxide-semiconductor-35010
​*


----------



## irkuck

Down to the earth: _LG stating the company has been working on improving the lifespan of its OLED displays, which are estimated to last for 20 years if used eight hours a day. __Samsung will most liklely push its Wall Paper OLED display solutions_


----------



## JimP

irkuck said:


> Down to the earth: _LG stating the company has been working on improving the lifespan of its OLED displays, which are estimated to last for 20 years if used eight hours a day. ...snip..._


Which should have us asking how long does their current tech last?


----------



## Rex Steinkuller

Sorry, but I'm confused. I want the 65EF9500, but does it have the LG Direct-TV Ready capability? (Don't really want yellow bands)
or should I consider this Hisense 65 with ULED ? 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...d=1444844290&ref_=sr_1_1&s=electronics&sr=1-1
Hopefully I am allowed to ask this here.


----------



## fafrd

Rex Steinkuller said:


> Sorry, but I'm confused. I want the 65EF9500, but does it have the LG Direct-TV Ready capability? (Don't really want yellow bands)
> or should I consider this Hisense 65 with ULED ?
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...d=1444844290&ref_=sr_1_1&s=electronics&sr=1-1
> Hopefully I am allowed to ask this here.


Wrong place. Post in the EF9500 Owner's Thread, the Hisense thread in the LCD Forum, or start a new thread yourself (either in Flat Panels General or LCD Forum).

This thread is for OLED Technology Advancements (as the title says ).


----------



## NintendoManiac64

JimP said:


> Which should have us asking how long does their current tech last?


Uhhh, I interpret the statement as saying that the current OLEDs last 20 years when used 8 hours a day.


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Wrong place. Post in the EF9500 Owner's Thread, the Hisense thread in the LCD Forum, or start a new thread yourself (either in Flat Panels General or LCD Forum).
> 
> This thread is for OLED Technology Advancements (as the title says ).


Yeah, but with the frequent off ramps to light bulbs, cars, etc., etc., etc....


----------



## sooke

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Uhhh, I interpret the statement as saying that the current OLEDs last 20 years when used 8 hours a day.


Yeah, that's how I interpreted it as well. But then that is about 60,000 hours which is surprisingly long. And what is meant by "last"? Until half brightness? And what does the brightness/aging curve look like? Roughly linear? Steep decline and then leveling out (yikes)? Fairly steady then falls off a table?


----------



## tgm1024

sooke said:


> Yeah, that's how I interpreted it as well. But then that is about 60,000 hours which is surprisingly long. And what is meant by "last"? Until half brightness? And what does the brightness/aging curve look like? Roughly linear? Steep decline and then leveling out (yikes)? Fairly steady then falls off a table?


We'll know in 20 years.


----------



## darinp2

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Uhhh, I interpret the statement as saying that the current OLEDs last 20 years when used 8 hours a day.


In HDR mode too? I wonder what their use type balance is for that claim. For instance, "If the contrast is set lower than ...".

--Darin


----------



## 8mile13

I was under the impression that they would last four/five years.


----------



## Thebarnman

darinp2 said:


> I wonder how many of the people who went for the top-of-the-line Pioneer plasmas will decide that this is a good time to jump.--Darin


 
I'm one of them, but it would have to be a bigger screen (by a decent margin) than my current PRO-151FD (60") and I want it to be capable of 3D. 


Talking about 3D, I'm surprised the new Ultra HD Blu-ray does not support 3D at least for the Ultra HD part of it. Since 3D movies are still being mad and possibly in the future will be created in 4K , it seems like 3-D Ultra HD Blu-ray would have to be adopted later rather than sooner. At leat that's my thinking about it.


----------



## andy sullivan

Thebarnman said:


> I'm one of them, but it would have to be a bigger screen (by a decent margin) than my current PRO-151FD (60") and I want it to be capable of 3D.
> 
> 
> Talking about 3D, I'm surprised the new Ultra HD Blu-ray does not support 3D at least for the Ultra HD part of it. Since 3D movies are still being mad and possibly in the future will be created in 4K , it seems like 3-D Ultra HD Blu-ray would have to be adopted later rather than sooner. At leat that's my thinking about it.


Lack of 3-d is a major sticking point for me.


----------



## barth2k

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Uhhh, I interpret the statement as saying that the current OLEDs last 20 years when used 8 hours a day.


That's too long already. I need my TV to die sooner


----------



## mattg3

M 14 year old 433 CMX Pioneer plasma sits over my fireplace and I just cant kill it.Same amazing PQ as when i bought it but the damn thing is so old it doesnt even have a tuner or speakers.


----------



## swallan

our nec 50xr6a also comes with no tuner or speakers but that has always suited us fine,still as good as a picture from day 1.wish nec still made monitors.down the road will in all likely buy a oled.


----------



## Cooters

swallan said:


> our nec 50xr6a also comes with no tuner or speakers but that has always suited us fine,still as good as a picture from day 1.wish nec still made monitors.down the road will in all likely buy a oled.



I've had a Pioneer plasma since 2006, 60". My EC9300 has taken its place, and while the Pioneer has found a great use as the kids new gaming TV, the OLED is several orders of magnitude better. It is unbelievable.


----------



## greenland

Mirage Vision, a US-based outdoor television outfitters announced the world's first outdoor OLED TV, which is a weather-proof LG 65" 4K curved OLED TV

http://www.oled-info.com/mirage-vision-weather-proofs-lgs-65-4k-oled-tvs


Finally some good news for homeless videophiles with deep pockets, and also for thieves who do not like to have to break in to homes.


----------



## rvsixer

mattg3 said:


> ...it doesnt even have a tuner or speakers.


If only someone would make an OLED set like that. Leave out all the useless crap, plug in your AVR/UHD blu ray player/streaming box and off 'ya go.


----------



## irkuck

*It's PHOLED* *BLUE(S) *or N-heterocyclic carbene iridium-III complex 
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/...5My01NzJkLTRjOTgtYWQzOS0yZjBjNTk0YWY1YzUifQ==


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> *It's PHOLED* *BLUE(S) *or N-heterocyclic carbene iridium-III complex
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/...5My01NzJkLTRjOTgtYWQzOS0yZjBjNTk0YWY1YzUifQ==


"Unfortunately, *this new PHOLED has a brief operational lifetime, just like many other blue PHOLEDs,* Lee says. Future research will focus on stabilizing the molecule at the heart of this new PHOLED to create a longer-lasting version of the device."


----------



## gus738

rvsixer said:


> If only someone would make an OLED set like that. Leave out all the useless crap, plug in your AVR/UHD blu ray player/streaming box and off 'ya go.


I believe the first LG was only a display


----------



## rogo

Hard not to get excited about a new blue PHOLED that (a) has no lifetime (b) uses expensive iridium!

Oh, wait....


----------



## gus738

I have to reread the thread I'm curious what's the lifespan on current or future oled


----------



## 8mile13

gus738 said:


> I have to reread the thread I'm curious what's the lifespan on current or future oled


We started the year with 30.000 hours..
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...27786-has-lifetime-problem-been-resolved.html


----------



## tgm1024

gus738 said:


> I believe the first LG was only a display


Do you mean the first _widely released_ LG OLED? That was the 55EA9800, and it had speakers.




rogo said:


> Hard not to get excited about a new blue PHOLED that (a) has no lifetime (b) uses expensive iridium!


Besides, is power really all that _huge_ a deal any longer? Certainly not for OLED TVs unless they're the jumbotrons.

BTW, there were some rumblings here and there in this thread previously about iridium prices and that it might be running out (it's a non-renewable resource afterall). I'm really not sure, but perhaps part of this was fueled by the absurd price bump experienced a few years ago?

It's $520usd per troy ounce right now (22-Oct-2015), but look at 2011-2013







!


----------



## ynotgoal

LG Display adjusted their OLED TV expectations from mostly 55" TVs to now 40% of the sets will be 65" or 77" models. This makes sense given the higher demand for the 65" and it sounds like we will actually see 77" models at better pricing next year. Of course, it means a lower total volume of sets produced in order to keep the area the same... more than 1 million mixture of 55", 65" and 77" sets next year from 1.5 million 55" previously. They also said 55" yields are now at the same level as LCD and expect 65" and 77" to reach that level next year. Edit: LG Display also said they would be adding new customers next year. Sharp has been mentioned for the first time.



greenland said:


> Mirage Vision, a US-based outdoor television outfitters announced the world's first outdoor OLED TV, which is a weather-proof LG 65" 4K curved OLED TV
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/mirage-vision-weather-proofs-lgs-65-4k-oled-tvs
> 
> Finally some good news for homeless videophiles with deep pockets, and also for thieves who do not like to have to break in to homes.


While this is clearly a market niche if you've been to any restaurants or sports bars with outside seating there is a market.



rogo said:


> Hard not to get excited about a new blue PHOLED that (a) has no lifetime (b) uses expensive iridium!
> 
> Oh, wait....


a) That particular material has a short lifetime because it was run 10 times brighter than would be used in TVs. They have an architecture using this very efficient material in a wrgb layout which produces a total lifetime of 50,000 hours. It remains to be seen when it will be adopted for use in TVs.
b) All red and green materials today use iridium


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> Besides, is power really all that _huge_ a deal any longer? Certainly not for OLED TVs unless they're the jumbotrons.


Power does matter. 250 million TVs a year that are run for 2,000 hours on average that use 10 watts less apiece matters. But... only if the cost to get lower power is reasonable.


> BTW, there were some rumblings here and there in this thread previously about iridium prices and that it might be running out (it's a non-renewable resource afterall). I'm really not sure, but perhaps part of this was fueled by the absurd price bump experienced a few years ago?


All platinum group metals experience this periodically because all are rare and commodities swing wildly. I'm not saying we shouldn't use things like iridium, it's hard tho to get excited about things that require it. The whole move now in solar panels, for example, is to find even more cheap, common materials to replace the few pricey things still being used.



ynotgoal said:


> LG Display adjusted their OLED TV expectations from mostly 55" TVs to now 40% of the sets will be 65" or 77" models. This makes sense given the higher demand for the 65" and it sounds like we will actually see 77" models at better pricing next year. Of course, it means a lower total volume of sets produced in order to keep the area the same... more than 1 million mixture of 55", 65" and 77" sets next year from 1.5 million 55" previously. They also said 55" yields are now at the same level as LCD and expect 65" and 77" to reach that level next year. Edit: LG Display also said they would be adding new customers next year. Sharp has been mentioned for the first time.


That sounds like great news, tbh. I think the bet of "really expensive 55 inch" TVs was always far bigger than that segment is. In other words, they wanted to sell 100+% of the $1500 55-inch segment way too soon -- and can't yet sell a $1000 55-inch OLED. 

So, yes, I'd trade volume for a better size mix for sure. Incidentally, what's the source of all this? (I'm not doubting you at all, just curious.)


> a) That particular material has a short lifetime because it was run 10 times brighter than would be used in TVs. They have an architecture using this very efficient material in a wrgb layout which produces a total lifetime of 50,000 hours. It remains to be seen when it will be adopted for use in TVs.
> b) All red and green materials today use iridium


50,000 hours sounds good, especially if 30,000 hours (8 years at obscene usage) is only down to, say, 80% max brightness.

See my point above about iridium. For decades now, we've tried to reduce platinum use in catalytic converters. The race is always "less of rare, expensive stuff". The new Chevy Volt uses far less "rare earths" (which actually aren't rare like platinum at all, just not as common as iron, aluminum, tin, etc.) than the previous one for cost reasons. This isn't a bunch of "green nonsense" either. It's about making things more affordable and mass produceable. 

OLED material has a long way to go before it meets that standard.


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> All platinum group metals experience this periodically because all are rare and commodities swing wildly. I'm not saying we shouldn't use things like iridium, it's hard tho to get excited about things that require it.
> This isn't a bunch of "green nonsense" either. It's about making things more affordable and mass produceable.


I'm all for sustainability and it's true that iridium is one of the rarest metals on Earth. I'm not all that familiar with it but my understanding is the 2010-13 price rise had to do with its use in sapphire LED backlights. In an OLED, iridium is a very small percentage of the OLED material stack. I can't find the figures but the amount used is small especially compared to its use in other electronics. It is the most expensive part of the OLED though and an important point.



rogo said:


> Incidentally, what's the source of all this? (I'm not doubting you at all, just curious.)


You can find most of that in the LG Display 3rd quarter conference call.



rogo said:


> 50,000 hours sounds good, especially if 30,000 hours (8 years at obscene usage) is only down to, say, 80% max brightness.


I don't mean to oversell that. I think that 50,000 hours is to 50% brightness. And it requires some tweaks to the architecture. Just saying it's getting close to being commercially viable. Perhaps not yet today but soon.


----------



## slacker711

I'm not sure that the cost of iridium will be a significant issue since a single gram of the emitter materials can be used to cover something like 5000 smartphone displays.

FWIW though, there is some progress being made on developing a single layer emitter (broad spectrum distribution) for white using platinum. It is really meant for lighting but success would probably eventually translate to WOLED's as well. 

https://asunow.asu.edu/20151009-jian-li-organic-light-emitting-diodes

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/10/f18/emt52_li_042214.pdf


----------



## slacker711

Here is a transcript of the recent LG Display conference call.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/359...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

- They state that 55" OLED's have matched LCD's. They wouldnt give a cash cost comparison between the two technologies but indicated that they might next year when the fab is fully ramped.

- They havent finalized plans for their next gen fab yet but it sounds like that will happen by the next earnings call in January.

- They sold ~25% of their 400 to 500k target in the third quarter and expect somewhere around 50% in the 4th quarter.

More at the link.


----------



## Wizziwig

Factory tour and interview with LG:


http://www.tek.no/artikler/5-ting-som-blir-bedre-pa-neste-ars-oled-tv-er/193623


Key points:


1) Doubling of brightness for 2016 HDR.
2) 99% DCI/P3 Color Gamut for 2016.
3) Showing 4K prototype running at 120 fps. HDMI 2.0a can't do that. Displayport 1.3?
4) 1080p panels discontinued for 2016.
5) 3D support dropped for 2016.


----------



## slacker711

Wizziwig said:


> Factory tour and interview with LG:
> 
> 
> http://www.tek.no/artikler/5-ting-som-blir-bedre-pa-neste-ars-oled-tv-er/193623
> 
> Key points:
> 
> 1) Doubling of brightness for 2016 HDR.
> 2) 99% DCI/P3 Color Gamut for 2016.
> 3) Showing 4K prototype running at 120 fps. HDMI 2.0a can't do that. Displayport 1.3?
> 4) 1080p panels discontinued for 2016.
> 5) 3D support dropped for 2016.


It sounds to me like they will tier their OLED lineup by offering better performing HDR and an expanded color gamut on the high-end.


----------



## Magnesus

> 5) 3D support dropped for 2016.


No more passove 3d then? Active 3d should be excellent on OLED anyway (because of the fast response rate), so no big loss.


----------



## gus738

3d cannot be dropped it's the future I play Halo anniversary in 3d . BIG LET DOWN DEAL BREAKER. if this is so the future for oled then I'm out. pay attention Panasonic


----------



## PRO-630HD

3D is one of the areas on these sets where they shine. Very poor move IMO especially for the price.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Factory tour and interview with LG:
> 
> 
> http://www.tek.no/artikler/5-ting-som-blir-bedre-pa-neste-ars-oled-tv-er/193623
> 
> 
> Key points:
> 
> 
> 1) Doubling of brightness for 2016 HDR.
> 2) 99% DCI/P3 Color Gamut for 2016.
> 3) Showing 4K prototype running at 120 fps. HDMI 2.0a can't do that. Displayport 1.3?
> 4) 1080p panels discontinued for 2016.
> 5) 3D support dropped for 2016.


Well I think I know what my late 2017 TV is going to be: a 77" 2016 HDR OLED on closeout Hopefully in addition to higher frame rate, they will finally introduce BFI. And hopefully they will also have DV HDR by then (assuming DV wins).

It will make many shocked to hear me say it, but the one thing that gives me pause is dropping 3D. I've been one of the most vocal supporters of Vizio's decision and very unexcited by 3D after being an early adopter.

I've had my new 65EF9500 for less than 24 hours now, but we watched Star Trek into Darkness in 3D last night and it was an entirely different 3D experience. Like nothing I have ever seen either in a theater or on an LED/LCD 3D TV. My wife kept saying 'these characters are here in the room with us' (while our 3D LCD never elicited comments even close to that).

Between passive 3D on a 4K TV and the perfect blacks and inherent depth of OLED, LG has succeeded to take the 3D experience to an entirely new level.

If the entire industry is following Vizio's lead and abandoning 3D, it's a done deal and there would be no point for LG to continue supporting 3D on their OLED TVs (since there will never be any new 3D content).

But if there will be any new 3D content released, LG may be making a mistake in throwing away a valuable feature which has already been amortized and does not really cost anything to continue to support.

If 3D is dead, let it rest in peace, but from what I experienced last night, even if it is on life support, LG success with 4K OLED may offer the opportunity to revive the initiative and make it compelling.

What I saw last night was the 3D experience that had been promised 5 years ago and never quite lived up to billing and in my view, LG OLED should be a follower and not a leader in the demise of 3D...


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> It will make many shocked to hear me say it, but the one thing that gives me pause is dropping 3D. I've been one of the most vocal supporters of Vizio's decision and very unexcited by 3D after being an early adopter.
> 
> I've had my new 65EF9500 for less than 24 hours now, but we watched Star Trek into Darkness in 3D last night and it was an entirely different 3D experience. Like nothing I have ever seen either in a theater or on an LED/LCD 3D TV. My wife kept saying 'these characters are here in the room with us' (while our 3D LCD never elicited comments even close to that).
> 
> Between passive 3D on a 4K TV and the perfect blacks and inherent depth of OLED, LG has succeeded to take the 3D experience to an entirely new level.


Was this your first passive 3D TV?


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> 5) 3D support dropped for 2016.


Well then, I'm out of the running. I don't care how good the TV is, so long as there's a company left that offers 3D, then I'll buy it from them instead. Seems that so far my loudest F-You's go to Vizio and now LG.

This is really too bad. IME, the vast majority of 3D naysayers haven't a @#$%ing clue what good passive 3D can really be like.

We just saw Jurassic World in 3D at home last night, and while the script was at best a 6/10, the experience watching this with the kids was priceless.


----------



## gus738

tgm1024 said:


> Was this your first passive 3D TV?


what's passive 3d I thought there was just one type of 3d


----------



## tgm1024

gus738 said:


> what's passive 3d I thought there was just one type of 3d


Passive displays the L/R images on alternating scanlines (I believe it's L for even numbered and R or odd, but am not sure). The glasses use circularly polarized lenses. There is no flickering involved, and it's very easy on the eyes...often even for the folks that get instant headaches from active. Both the left and right eye images are on the screen at the same time. I've made quite a few converts in the last two years at my house.

Active 3D involves alternating frames: The left is drawn, then a blackout frame, then the right is drawn, then a blackout frame, (repeat). The glasses are electrical in nature and alternate blocking the opposing eye. The right eye is blocked out when the left image is drawn, etc. Many don't have a problem with this, but many others do.


----------



## gus738

tgm1024 said:


> Passive displays the L/R images on alternating scanlines (I believe it's L for even numbered and R or odd, but am not sure). The glasses use circularly polarized lenses. There is no flickering involved, and it's very easy on the eyes...often even for the folks that get instant headaches from active. Both the left and right eye images are on the screen at the same time. I've made quite a few converts in the last two years at my house.
> 
> Active 3D involves alternating frames: The left is drawn, then a blackout frame, then the right is drawn, then a blackout frame, (repeat). The glasses are electrical in nature and alternate blocking the opposing eye. The right eye is blocked out when the left image is drawn, etc. Many don't have a problem with this, but many others do.


thank you for explaining that I have the Panasonic with the glasses and I don't experience any problems


----------



## tgm1024

gus738 said:


> thank you for explaining that I have the Panasonic with the glasses and I don't experience any problems


Which? Panasonic offered both passive and active in the past.

Both active and passive require glasses. Though the passive glasses need no recharging, and are very inexpensive (yet another plus). I immediately bought 12 of them so that the neighborhood kids (my kids' friends) could pack my family room. It's a riot to see a ton of young kids all watching a movie; often with them reaching out in space to grab something in front of them. LOL.

I'd post a picture of them, but even if I got permission from their parents, posting others' kids on the internet is not a great idea.


----------



## gus738

yeah they required charging via USB and I don't know what model 
..do you have an xbox 360? Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary Edition is in 3d and it's phenomenal


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Was this your first passive 3D TV?


Yes, LG 55LW5600 (IPS).

The black levels were very mediocre and the sense of depth delivered was not even close. 2D on the Vizio P70 was far superior to 3D on the 55LW5600 - the 65EF9500 takes 3D to an entirely different level (actually 2levels beyond any other 3D I have ever seen - I was lucky enough to experience 3D on the Avegant Glyph a year ago which was a level beyond any 3D I had experienced at the time - 3D on the 65EF9300 was another level beyond the Glyph (1080p versus 720p).


----------



## darinp2

Wizziwig said:


> 4) 1080p panels discontinued for 2016.


I expect this to put some pricing pressure on their lowest 4K units as it makes it more difficult to separate the demand out and get high margin from those willing to pay higher prices while still getting something from people less willing to spend a lot.

It will be interesting to see how they differentiate models.


Wizziwig said:


> 5) 3D support dropped for 2016.


I wonder if some of the 3D market will move toward HDR. It seems like there is likely to be some difficulty in doing both well at the same time given that 3D reduces peak white levels and much of the point of HDR is increasing peak white levels for highlights.

--Darin


----------



## fafrd

darinp2 said:


> I expect this to put some pricing pressure on their lowest 4K units as it makes it more difficult to separate the demand out and get high margin from those willing to pay higher prices while still getting something from people less willing to spend a lot.
> 
> *It will be interesting to see how they differentiate models.
> I wonder if some of the 3D market will move toward HDR. It seems like there is likely to be some difficulty in doing both well at the same time given that 3D reduces peak white levels and much of the point of HDR is increasing peak white levels for highlights.*
> 
> --Darin


The 3D market may unfortunately be dead. If the studios stop releasing new 3D content and focus only on HDR going forward, it's R.I.P.

The fact that the UHD Bluray standard was released without 4K 3D but only 4K SDR and 4K HDR was the writing on the wall...

I believe the UHD Bluray standard does support 1080p 3D (and if not, the players should be compatible with 3D Blurays), but there will not be any way to combine 3D with HDR at least on this new UHD Bluray standard. And it is very doubtful that the studios are going to release both a 3D premium version and an HDR premium version of the same content.

3D had it's chance, it failed to catch fire, and now the studios attention is focused on HDR.

The only chance for 3D to find an afterlife may be tied to what happens around the release of Avatar II (which will be in 3D).

Rather than ditching 3D so reflexively, LG should think about hitching their OLED wagon to the Avatar II train - if 3D makes a comeback due to the vastly superior experience of 3D on OLED, it can only accelerate LG's OLED success (and the investment is honestly very, very modest at this stage...).


----------



## OmegaAudio

tgm1024 said:


> Well then, I'm out of the running. I don't care how good the TV is, so long as there's a company left that offers it, then I'll buy it from them. Seems that so far my loudest F-You's go to Vizio and now LG.
> 
> This is really too bad. IME, the vast majority of 3D naysayers haven't a @#$%ing clue what good passive 3D can really be like.
> 
> We just saw Jurassic World in 3D at home last night, and while the script was at best a 6/10, the experience watching this with the kids was priceless.


I'm in the same boat. 3D does matter and is a nice feature to have if you decide to use it.


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> Factory tour and interview with LG:
> 
> 
> http://www.tek.no/artikler/5-ting-som-blir-bedre-pa-neste-ars-oled-tv-er/193623


Is there an English version of LG's position on this? I don't fully trust either tek.no, nor the translation I'm seeing from my S3.Google addon. Here's how it translates:

"With him in the grave will full HD bring 3D, we believe LG. The Company believes proven that 3D is not a format that longer is viable, and that seeing the film with glasses no longer will interest people."

The "him" was 1080p. The "we believe LG" seems like a "we think". "The company believes proven" is a 3rd hand statement. If so, we've heard no end of "3D is dead" from others, so this may not be all that new.

I just want clarification is all. It wouldn't be the first time we've gone off half-cocked on a mistranslation.

Wouldn't even be the 10th time.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Wizziwig said:


> 3) Showing 4K prototype running at 120 fps. HDMI 2.0a can't do that. Displayport 1.3?


I certainly hope it's DisplayPort 1.3! However they could "cheat" and just do 4:2:0 8bit 120fps which can fit on both DisplayPort 1.*2* and HDMI 2.0.


----------



## rogo

darinp2 said:


> I expect this to put some pricing pressure on their lowest 4K units as it makes it more difficult to separate the demand out and get high margin from those willing to pay higher prices while still getting something from people less willing to spend a lot.


100% of LG OLEDs are in the "premium" category, even if/when they are stratified. That's true now and still true in 2016. It likely remains true in 2017, though it's possible the cheapest might fall into "near premium" (I'm not saying they will, I'm saying the first year it's even possible to get an OLED into that range is 2 years away).

By 2017, there will be zero premium LCDs that are 2K. By 2016, nothing in LG's OLED price tiers (LCD-wise) will be 2K already.

This wasn't a choice, it was a market necessity.


----------



## darinp2

rogo said:


> 100% of LG OLEDs are in the "premium" category, even if/when they are stratified.


I may not have been clear about "not willing to spend a lot". I meant in comparison. Even in a high end category there is a demand curve where differentiating products to try to maintain margins on high demand customers without losing all the lower demand customers (but still high demand compared to the rest of the population) can help returns. Once resolution is no longer a tool for separating OLED customers I expect that to put some pricing pressure on the lowest 4K model.

I agree that is is a necessity, just looking at how it is likely to affect things, even if a small amount. The competition is likely to be a bigger factor in how low they need to be for their "entry level" 4K offering.

--Darin


----------



## Wizziwig

darinp2 said:


> I wonder if some of the 3D market will move toward HDR. It seems like there is likely to be some difficulty in doing both well at the same time given that 3D reduces peak white levels and much of the point of HDR is increasing peak white levels for highlights.
> --Darin


 
I think therein lies the main reason for them dropping 3D. Their near term goal is to lower prices and increase brightness. Removing 3D can help with both of those goals. Removing the FPR filter will likely lower the complexity of manufacturing (maybe improve uniformity?) and less filters over a pixel typically results in some improved brightness. It's also been speculated that the FPR is responsible for at least some of the large inter-row spacing seen between rows of OLED pixels. Maybe this will allow them to pack the rows tighter and have less light lost in those huge black gaps. See the Q&A at the bottom of this review for a comparison of pixel fill ratio compared to LCD. It's even worse for some of the other WRGB colors they tested.
http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/ec9300?uxtv=0fbb



tgm1024 said:


> Is there an English version of LG's position on this? I don't fully trust either tek.no, nor the translation I'm seeing from my S3.Google addon. Here's how it translates:
> 
> "With him in the grave will full HD bring 3D, we believe LG. The Company believes proven that 3D is not a format that longer is viable, and that seeing the film with glasses no longer will interest people."
> 
> The "him" was 1080p. The "we believe LG" seems like a "we think". "The company believes proven" is a 3rd hand statement. If so, we've heard no end of "3D is dead" from others, so this may not be all that new.
> 
> I just want clarification is all. It wouldn't be the first time we've gone off half-cocked on a mistranslation.
> 
> Wouldn't even be the 10th time.


Translation is accurate. Was confirmed by Norway native vaktmestern here:
https://www.avforums.com/threads/lg-2016-oled-tvs-improvments.1988233/


Still a chance something was lost in translation when tek.no interviewed the Koreans at LG.


----------



## ChaosCloud

Wizziwig said:


> I think therein lies the main reason for them dropping 3D. Their near term goal is to lower prices and increase brightness. Removing 3D can help with both of those goals. Removing the FPR filter will likely lower the complexity of manufacturing (maybe improve uniformity?) and less filters over a pixel typically results in some improved brightness. It's also been speculated that the FPR is responsible for at least some of the large inter-row spacing seen between rows of OLED pixels. Maybe this will allow them to pack the rows tighter and have less light lost in those huge black gaps. See the Q&A at the bottom of this review for a comparison of pixel fill ratio compared to LCD. It's even worse for some of the other WRGB colors they tested.
> http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/ec9300?uxtv=0fbb


I'm also thinking there's a technical reason for dropping 3D. My guess is that interaction with the polarization layer is responsible for some of these tints, especially what was seen on the 55EC9300 - the magenta/green tints are characteristic of polarizing film.
We shall see if the 2016 models improve in this regard.


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> Translation is accurate. Was confirmed by Norway native vaktmestern here:
> https://www.avforums.com/threads/lg-2016-oled-tvs-improvments.1988233/
> 
> Still a chance something was lost in translation when tek.no interviewed the Koreans at LG.


I still find it suspicious that only tek.no has this information. If the Koreans said that 3D can only do 1080 (true because there is no 4K3D standard), and 1080 was phased out (also true), then it might have been tek.no jumping to the conclusion that this meant that 3D was phased out (unwarranted conclusion just given that information).

Likely wishful thinking on my part, sure, but I've seen a lot of similar logic failings in tech sites. Also, purportedly 3D is big in Asia, no?

If only passive had come first. And to end it all now _just_ when it seems that the technology has caught up to do it better than ever....frustrating.


----------



## Wizziwig

ChaosCloud said:


> I'm also thinking there's a technical reason for dropping 3D. My guess is that interaction with the polarization layer is responsible for some of these tints, especially what was seen on the 55EC9300 - the magenta/green tints are characteristic of polarizing film.
> We shall see if the 2016 models improve in this regard.



We've also seen multiple reports from owners and reviewers of crosstalk issues. In some of those cases the owner had the issue resolved via an exchange. Some reviewers also had it resolved on another LG or Panasonic model. Since all these panels are basically the same design, this seems to indicate LG is having difficulty consistently aligning the FPR filter on their 4K models.


I'm sure we will get confirmation one way or another at CES in a few months. Worse case scenario, the few 3D fans remaining can always pick up a 2015 model on closeout at the cost of giving up any future OLED improvements.


----------



## mo949

Looks like I won't be buying LG


----------



## greenland

"Solution Process Panel, Cheaper To Produce than LCD

2015년 October 22일/0 Comments/in Display, Key Focus on /by OLEDNET
According to 2015 Solution Process OLED Report, published by UBI Research on October 14, solution process technology could produce 55inch OLED panel at approximately 43% cheaper cost compared to WRGB method."

http://www.olednet.com/en/solution-process-panel-cheaper-to-produce-than-lcd/



"However, as solvent is used in order to turn the existing evaporation material into ink, its purity is decreased leading to lower emitting efficiency and therefore lower lifetime. Despite these factors, key panel companies’ enthusiasm for solution process technology is due to the high emitting material usage efficiency without using color filter, and simple structure compared to WRGB OLED panel which leads to production cost decrease."


----------



## tgm1024

ChaosCloud said:


> I'm also thinking there's a technical reason for dropping 3D. My guess is that interaction with the polarization layer is responsible for some of these tints, especially what was seen on the 55EC9300 - the magenta/green tints are characteristic of polarizing film.
> We shall see if the 2016 models improve in this regard.


If that were true, we'd be seeing this effect on LCDs, and I've checked out many of them and never have seen that happen. Also, calibrators don't seem to be screaming bloody murder about it either.

I remember some of that the tint thing that you're talking about "on polarizing films". _If_ you're talking about what I remember, it had to do with _linear_ polarization, not circular polarization as used by the FPR. Linear polarization has the adverse effect of acting like a diffraction grating, which can yield odd rainbow effects.


----------



## 8mile13

In august there was a C|NET article which states that 3D support is going downhill.
http://www.cnet.com/news/poll-is-3d-dead-do-you-care/


----------



## wco81

VR won't be any more popular than 3D.

If people didn't want to put on 3D glasses, they're not going to want to put on HMDs which cost hundreds and make them dizzy.


----------



## rogo

greenland said:


> "Solution Process Panel, Cheaper To Produce than LCD
> 
> 2015년 October 22일/0 Comments/in Display, Key Focus on /by OLEDNET
> According to 2015 Solution Process OLED Report, published by UBI Research on October 14, solution process technology could produce 55inch OLED panel at approximately 43% cheaper cost compared to WRGB method."
> 
> http://www.olednet.com/en/solution-process-panel-cheaper-to-produce-than-lcd/
> 
> "However, as solvent is used in order to turn the existing evaporation material into ink, its purity is decreased leading to lower emitting efficiency and therefore lower lifetime. Despite these factors, key panel companies’ enthusiasm for solution process technology is due to the high emitting material usage efficiency without using color filter, and simple structure compared to WRGB OLED panel which leads to production cost decrease."


Nothing screams accuracy like a chart with no axis labels.


----------



## greenland

rogo said:


> Nothing screams accuracy like a chart with no axis labels.


They just posted excerpts from the full report which has to be purchased. They most likely are prohibited from posting what ever charts that are the proprietary product of the research firm?

http://www.ubiresearch.com/solution_process/

If the following claim is accurate, then printed Oled panels may not be the great leap forward that they have been touted to be.

"as solvent is used in order to turn the existing evaporation material into ink, its purity is decreased leading to lower emitting efficiency and therefore lower lifetime"


----------



## rogo

greenland said:


> They just posted excerpts from the full report which has to be purchased. They most likely are prohibited from posting what ever charts that are the proprietary product of the research firm?
> 
> http://www.ubiresearch.com/solution_process/
> 
> If the following claim is accurate, then printed Oled panels may not be the great leap forward that they have been touted to be.
> 
> "as solvent is used in order to turn the existing evaporation material into ink, its purity is decreased leading to lower emitting efficiency and therefore lower lifetime"


"43% cheaper, but lasts half as long" 

I agree that wouldn't be useful. My belief on solution processing is that for TV the materials will have to improve a great deal to make it viable. 

For mobile, though, cheaper and "not especially long lasting" might not be a huge problem.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

While it seems that this was not developed with display technology in mind, one wonders if a similar idea couldn't also be used to make blacks on an OLED be _really_ black even in a bright environment.

Researchers create the blackests material ever made


----------



## rogo

NintendoManiac64 said:


> While it seems that this was not developed with display technology in mind, one wonders if a similar idea couldn't also be used to make blacks on an OLED be _really_ black even in a bright environment.
> 
> Researchers create the blackests material ever made


Seems like a fascinating idea. Certainly the use in solar collectors/panels, which will power an increasing portion of the world's energy needs as far as we can currently imagine, is a great application.

It's an intriguing idea for displays to an extent, though I wonder how significant. It would stop the light that hits the emission layer from reflecting, which is good, but you really ideally want to stop the light from getting to that layer in the first place. That's the function of the front glass/plastic with its coatings and -- in LCD -- secondarily but effectively the color filters and polarizers.

It would be fascinating if Corning or some polymer substrate maker could find a way to effectively block ambient from ever entering the display and/or reflective off it. Perhaps you could build a substrate with something *like* this technology dotting the outer layer but aligned such that it doesn't block the light from escaping the panel.


----------



## R Harkness

NintendoManiac64 said:


> While it seems that this was not developed with display technology in mind, one wonders if a similar idea couldn't also be used to make blacks on an OLED be _really_ black even in a bright environment.
> 
> Researchers create the blackests material ever made


It would be fascinating to see a sizable area of a room covered with that material. I suspect it might be disorientating, the visual equivalent of a sound proof room. 

I, and other projector owners, took an interest in light absorbing materials because I wanted my screen surrounded in pitch black, and nothing visible at all when a movie is playing anywhere near the screen.
That meant covering speakers as well. Many of us went through all sorts of materials. Black velvet was almost always the best, and one or two particular black velvets were just incredible at absorbing light.
They were so dark that they actually absorbed significantly more light (measurably) than black flocking material made specifically for lining telescopes!

(I use that black velvet in my theater, and no matter how bright a scene may be shining off my screen, everything covered in that velvet including speakers right under and beside the screen remains perfectly pitch black).

That's btw one reason a giant OLED screen intrigues me. It would be something to see a screen producing perfect black levels against a pitch black velvet background.


----------



## EdwinB

Wizziwig said:


> 5) 3D support dropped for 2016.


 
A good reason for me to not buy an OLED next year.

I am not a big 3D fanatic but I definitely enjoy a 3D movie once in a while and passive 3D on a 4K OLED seemed like the perfect marriage.

Guess I need to stick wiht my active 3D LED if LG decides to drop 3D from all their 2016 OLED models, really disappointing move by LG (if true).


----------



## R Harkness

Yet another bad sign for 3D. I'm a bit bummed to see 3D being given up on. I've been really enjoying it since I bought a good 3D capable projector.


----------



## tgm1024

Still waiting for a real statement from LG, hopefully from a website not requiring a Korean->Norwegian->English translation, or however that worked out.

I've seen far too many tech sites take a little bit of information and stretch it into nonsense. And so far all we have is that statement in Norwegian from tek.no?


----------



## EdwinB

tgm1024 said:


> I've seen far too many tech sites take a little bit of information and stretch it into nonsense. And so far all we have is that statement in Norwegian from tek.no?



Let's hope that this specific statement is nonsense and no more than an incorrect translation... 


Judging by the wave of responses on this news there are still a lot of people out there who enjoy 3D.


----------



## darinp2

EdwinB said:


> Let's hope that this specific statement is nonsense and no more than an incorrect translation...


We can always hold out hope that what they really meant is they will support 4D instead. 

--Darin


----------



## tgm1024

darinp2 said:


> We can always hold out hope that what they really meant is they will support 4D instead.


I wonder how many people will complain of headaches from traveling back in time...


----------



## rogo

I, for one, would be very excited about a TV that allows time travel, even if our current timeline is immutable and therefore you could only be a museum-goer to alt realities.


----------



## JoeyBagadonuts

tgm1024 said:


> I wonder how many people will complain of headaches from traveling back in time...


to further rogo's point...that all depends if we're talking about active vs. passive 4D. Active 4D can get pretty rough for extended periods....


----------



## catonic

It's easy to go back in time. Just watch a CRT playing a VHS tape.


----------



## ALMA

Samsung back in game in 2016 with their own top emission WOLED technology?



> Samsung display and the speed up the formation of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) for the TV market. Plans to basing OLED TV prototypes in the second half of next year went on mass production.





> Samsung Display has a top emission structure forth by LG Display and differentiation card while production has adopted a straightforward approach WOLED. A top emission system is emitting light of the organic layer onto the substrate without passing to the side bypassing the TFT substrate. Since this area is not obscured aperture ratio of the TFT increases export of light it can be realized in high resolution and high color reproduction close to natural colors. However, it should use a transparent electrode such as a high resistance problem until now has been used bottom emission structures. A rear light emitting OLED structures are covered in the TFT due to the passage of light directed to the TFT screen is small, but the uniformity is advantageous.


https://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=ko&tl=en&u=http://www.etnews.com/20151029000308


----------



## slacker711

ALMA said:


> Samsung back in game in 2016 with their own top emission WOLED technology?


I dont think that it is a coincidence that this rumor came out on the day that there was an industry/government meeting on how to boost the competitiveness of the display industry. There have been all kinds of articles over the last few months about the government trying to do everything it can to insure that the Korean vendors dont follow the road of the Japanese display vendors.

Getting LG to compromise with Samsung over WOLED would go a long way to achieving the government's goal.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> I dont think that it is a coincidence that this rumor came out on the day that there was an industry/government meeting on how to boost the competitiveness of the display industry. There have been all kinds of articles over the last few months about the government trying to do everything it can to insure that the Korean vendors dont follow the road of the Japanese display vendors.
> 
> Getting LG to compromise with Samsung over WOLED would go a long way to achieving the government's goal.


Agreed. And the ecosystem for building these would expand far more rapidly if two companies were involved.

That said, this is unfortunately an indication that inkjet/solution-processed OLEDs are not close. No way Samsung ramps this up if they were.

(Oh, and also, "I told you so" to everyone who believed the process used on Samsung's original OLED TV would ever work for mass production.*)



* No names in particular, I just like to have these validated predictions marked since there is still some meme I don't predict well, which rarely finds evidence of that, but claims it nonetheless.


----------



## JoeyBagadonuts

Can someone do a better job of translating the article (or just explaining it)? It's tough to make heads or tails from the google translation and other context from this thread. As best I can tell (but someone please correct me)

1) Samsung Display is going to start developing / producing WOLED panels. Mass production as soon as 2H 2016? 
2) Presumably they either made an agreement with LG (patent / licensing wise), or the gov't in effect "forced" such an agreement?
3) References to "top emission structure" apply to both LG's and (forthcoming) Samsung panels.
4) This is a differentiation compared with samsung's historical approach using "bottom emission structure". 

I don't know that "top" or "bottom" emission really means, but I gather that the method samsung uses in its phone displays (and short lived 2013 TV panel) used "bottom emission". I presume this is related to the back-plane technology used. (Is LTPS "bottom emission" whereas IGZO is "top emission?")


----------



## wco81

So are the OLEDs that Samsung sold that one year better than the LG OLEDs, except for how costly they were to make?

But one of the colors wasn't expected to last long, right?


----------



## JoeyBagadonuts

wco81 said:


> So are the OLEDs that Samsung sold that one year better than the LG OLEDs


Better in some areas, worse in others. In the 2014 Value Electronics shootout, the LG EC9300 came out the overall winner.


----------



## tgm1024

wco81 said:


> So are the OLEDs that Samsung sold that one year better than the LG OLEDs, except for how costly they were to make?
> 
> But one of the colors wasn't expected to last long, right?


Blue lasts the least, but from photos it suggests that the S9C at least (Samsung's original OLED) had the subs sized proportionately to their longevity. This (maybe?) allows them to wear-balance each sub better by driving the blue less hard, etc.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> (Oh, and also, "I told you so" to everyone who believed the process used on Samsung's original OLED TV would ever work for mass production.*)
> 
> * No names in particular, I just like to have these validated predictions marked since there is still some meme I don't predict well, which rarely finds evidence of that, but claims it nonetheless.


Yes, you were absolutely definitive and deserve the kudos for the prediction. I was unwilling to rule them out since Samsung has done quite a few things over the years that I thought were going to be difficult or nearly impossible...guess, Gen 8 RGB was a bridge too far.

We'll have to wait and see if we get any confirmations of this rumor, but plans by Samsung to do WOLED mean that they dont have a clue when printing will be feasible. Any date beyond two years basically means they have no idea.

There is now another Chinese display vendor (CSOT) talking about a Gen 11 fab. LCD's are going to be a bloodbath for all involved in a few years.


----------



## greenland

I am having a hard time believing that LG would have agreed to let Samsung infringe on the WOLED patent rights that LG now owns. There would be no upside to that for LG, and there would be a risk of a great downside, should consumers start to prefer the Samsung product over the LG one.


----------



## JoeyBagadonuts

greenland said:


> I am having a hard time believing that LG would have agreed to let Samsung infringe on the WOLED patent rights that LG now owns.


Seems to me one of three things happened:

1) Samsung Display and LG Display came to some mutually agreed upon licenesing agrement. (In which case LG believes they have an upside)
2) Samsung's WOLED is different enough to not infringe on LG (or at least Samsung believes it is different enough).
3) The local gov't is forcing some kind of agreement between the two "for the benefit of the display industry in korea" as a whole.


----------



## greenland

JoeyBagadonuts said:


> Seems to me one of three things happened:
> 
> 1) Samsung Display and LG Display came to some mutually agreed upon licenesing agrement. (In which case LG believes they have an upside)
> 2) Samsung's WOLED is different enough to not infringe on LG (or at least Samsung believes it is different enough).
> 3) The local gov't is forcing some kind of agreement between the two "for the benefit of the display industry in korea" as a whole.



I can't see the government being able to force LG to share it's proprietary technology with it's biggest competitor.

Perhaps they might have been able to broker a deal, in which Samsung purchases their panels from LG, like other companies are starting to do. That would actually be to LG's advantage, since they still would be in charge of all panel production.

We will have to wait and see if Samsung does demonstrate a unit at the upcoming CES.


----------



## wco81

Doesn't Samsung run S. Korea?

Does LG have the same kind of clout?


----------



## JoeyBagadonuts

greenland said:


> I can't see the government being able to force LG to share it's proprietary technology with it's biggest competitor.


Since when does government ever exercise self control when they think "its for the good of the country?". They do whatever they want unfortunately. (Not saying that is the case here...)

Gov't can force Microsoft to "unbundle" its browser from its OS.... surely they can "make" LG license technology to Samsung if they want to.


----------



## ynotgoal

JoeyBagadonuts said:


> Can someone do a better job of translating the article (or just explaining it)? It's tough to make heads or tails from the google translation and other context from this thread. As best I can tell (but someone please correct me)
> 
> 1) Samsung Display is going to start developing / producing WOLED panels. Mass production as soon as 2H 2016?
> 2) Presumably they either made an agreement with LG (patent / licensing wise), or the gov't in effect "forced" such an agreement?
> 3) References to "top emission structure" apply to both LG's and (forthcoming) Samsung panels.
> 4) This is a differentiation compared with samsung's historical approach using "bottom emission structure".
> 
> I don't know that "top" or "bottom" emission really means, but I gather that the method samsung uses in its phone displays (and short lived 2013 TV panel) used "bottom emission". I presume this is related to the back-plane technology used. (Is LTPS "bottom emission" whereas IGZO is "top emission?")


This link from Sony shows bottom emission on the left and top emission on the right. It just refers to which side of the light emitting area the light exits through. The key thing is whether the light passes back through the TFT circuits (bottom) which provides better uniformity but blocks some of the light or the top which provides better brightness and color. By the way, only about 20% of the light created in the OLED ever makes it out.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200409/04-048E/image/clie02-e.gif




rogo said:


> That said, this is unfortunately an indication that inkjet/solution-processed OLEDs are not close. No way Samsung ramps this up if they were.
> 
> (Oh, and also, "I told you so" to everyone who believed the process used on Samsung's original OLED TV would ever work for mass production.*)
> 
> * No names in particular, I just like to have these validated predictions marked since there is still some meme I don't predict well, which rarely finds evidence of that, but claims it nonetheless.


It seems to me if one is in the prediction game they should have some that didn't work out well. You know, since things change.



slacker711 said:


> I dont think that it is a coincidence that this rumor came out on the day that there was an industry/government meeting on how to boost the competitiveness of the display industry. There have been all kinds of articles over the last few months about the government trying to do everything it can to insure that the Korean vendors dont follow the road of the Japanese display vendors.
> 
> Getting LG to compromise with Samsung over WOLED would go a long way to achieving the government's goal.


Glad to see it noted as a rumor. There were rumors Samsung and LG agreed on WOLED patents for a few years now. This same story came out in March.
http://www.osadirect.com/news/artic...he-option-to-re-enter-oled-tv-display-market/

According to the news report Samsung Display is currently evaluating three investment options for their next OLED production:
Changing all the previous OLED panel production line (V1 line) to WRGB OLED
Total production in the new facility over at A3 line
Producing TFT backplanes in the Gen 8 LCD facility and metallizing at the A3 line

It may be they have taken another step here. It's doubtful they are using much of the gen 6 A3 line for TVs since it seems to be running at full capacity these days and there are more iPhone rumors following Apple's move to Samsung for the Watch display. The V1 line is the original TV pilot line where they are now talking about making the transparent/mirror displays for home appliances. It's possible they are converting that to WOLED and oxide. I'm sure they would love to have some OLED TVs in H2 2016 but not sure how realistic that is? More than the status of inkjet printing, to me it shows they are worried about being caught between LG's OLEDs and lower priced improving quality LCDs from China.


----------



## tgm1024

JoeyBagadonuts said:


> Since when does government ever exercise self control when they think "its for the good of the country?". They do whatever they want unfortunately. (Not saying that is the case here...)
> 
> Gov't can force Microsoft to "unbundle" its browser from its OS.... surely they can "make" LG license technology to Samsung if they want to.


You lost me on that one.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> We'll have to wait and see if we get any confirmations of this rumor, but plans by Samsung to do WOLED mean that they dont have a clue when printing will be feasible. Any date beyond two years basically means they have no idea.


Precisely. 

And incidentally, we should all want printing to be feasible. For all kinds of OLEDs. We just can't say when. Perhaps I need to visit Kateeva again.


> There is now another Chinese display vendor (CSOT) talking about a Gen 11 fab. LCD's are going to be a bloodbath for all involved in a few years.


That would be ugly. But it could allow for $900 70" LCDs 



ynotgoal said:


> It seems to me if one is in the prediction game they should have some that didn't work out well. You know, since things change.


Yes, and sometimes I am wrong. I like being called out on it too. What I don't like it being called out on it without any evidence I was wrong, which is a popular sport at AVS. (Again, not singling anyone out, esp. not you.)


> It may be they have taken another step here. It's doubtful they are using much of the gen 6 A3 line for TVs since it seems to be running at full capacity these days and there are more iPhone rumors following Apple's move to Samsung for the Watch display. The V1 line is the original TV pilot line where they are now talking about making the transparent/mirror displays for home appliances. It's possible they are converting that to WOLED and oxide. I'm sure they would love to have some OLED TVs in H2 2016 but not sure how realistic that is? More than the status of inkjet printing, to me it shows they are worried about being caught between LG's OLEDs and lower priced improving quality LCDs from China.


Also good analysis here. LG appears to be 12-24 months from really pressuring the high-end of LCD price-wise. And those volumes are small enough that LG _could_ supply most of the demand in that timeframe, which isn't an automatic win, but sure is a challenge to LCD there. 

The reason I highlighted inkjet is because (a) we're talking tech advancements here (b) there had been a sincere hope that it would be a game changer. But it looks more likely that instead of the game changing, it will simply increase its pace with WRGB in the short run. That's fine for now, but perhaps not sufficient ultimately. (For sure, I'd like to see printing come to smaller displays so we can have ample really cheap 5-12" displays that are great, flexible, encapsulate-able, etc.)

Also, as I don't own stock in either company, I have no concern if the market keeps collapsing, price-wise thanks to better goods from China. As a consumer, I say bring it on.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Yeah, but with the frequent off ramps to light bulbs, cars, etc., etc., etc....


Aey... but there mote no aught of wrong with a ferly by-way be. In truth and sooth, a ferly by-way is mickle good... sometimes.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Blue lasts the least, but from photos it suggests that the S9C at least (Samsung's original OLED) had the subs sized proportionately to their longevity. This (maybe?) allows them to wear-balance each sub better by *driving the blue less hard,* etc.


And how would that exactly work? Given that if you were to apply 0.1 amperes of electric current to a gram of blue OLED production-ready material it would yield 40 candelas per square meter and if you were to apply the same net amount of current as in the previous example to two grams of the same emissive material it would still yield about 40 candelas. You cannot just somehow transform 0.1 amperes into more than 40 candelas no matter the amount of material you have. 

It's just that it has more material to "burn" through...


----------



## slacker711

Amazon's sales rank certainly isnt definitive but here are some numbers giving a sales comparison between LG's 4K OLED's and Samsung's high-end sets. 

Sales Rank
65EF9500 4K OLED $5000 #5374 
65EG9600 4K OLED $5000 #14973 

65JS9500 SUHD $4500 #10536 
65JS9000 SUHD $3500 #8037 
65JS8500 SUHD $3000 #4090 


55EF9500 4K OLED $3000 #5331 
55EG9600 4K OLED $3000 #19419 

55JS9000 SUHD $2500 #10850 
55JS8500 SUHD $1800 #2774 

I'm not saying that Amazon is reflective of broader sales as there are all kinds of variables at play once somebody walks into a store (distribution, TV placement, sales incentives, brightness in a store, etc). However, I think it is impressive that the OLED's are significantly outselling the JS9000 series despite a 20% to 40% price premium. 

LG's 55" and 65" 4K OLED's should be down to $2000 and $3500 next fall. There just isnt much room for Samsung to price their high-end sets if they want to maintain even a semblance of their current high-end share.


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> How would that exactly work? Given that if you were to apply 0.1 amperes of electric current to a gram of blue OLED production-ready material it would yield 40 candelas per square meter and if you were to apply the same net amount of current as in the previous example to two grams of the same emissive material it would still yield about 40 candelas. You cannot just somehow transform 0.1 amperes into more than 40 candelas no matter the amount of material you have.


Going by that, since it is per square meter if you double the percent of the screen covered by blue (made the blue sub-pixel bigger) the total light reaching viewers doubles, so for the same blue light level to viewers you could reduce the current for blue. 

For example, let's say every red sub-pixel was changed to blue. The tv would of course no longer be able to do red, but for the same average cd/m2 for blue over the whole screen the individual blue sub-pixels wouldn't be as bright.

--Darin


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> Going by that, since it is per square meter if you double the percent of the screen covered by blue (made the blue sub-pixel bigger) the total light reaching viewers doubles, so for the same blue light level to viewers you could reduce the current for blue.
> 
> For example, let's say every red sub-pixel was changed to blue. The tv would of course no longer be able to do red, but for the same average cd/m2 for blue over the whole screen the individual blue sub-pixels wouldn't be as bright.
> 
> --Darin


_
the total light reaching viewers doubles_, *but the luminous intensity doesn't *and the radiant intensity per unit solid angle decreases, but at such small scales drops in the radiant intensity are imperceptible to the human eye...


----------



## Wizziwig

slacker711 said:


> However, I think it is impressive that the OLED's are significantly outselling the JS9000 series despite a 20% to 40% price premium.



We've got some members here going through multiple Amazon replacements. Hopefully they're not counting replacement sets shipped out as an additional sale. 


At least this shows most people shopping the premium segment prefer flat over curved. Shocker!


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> And how would that exactly work? Given that if you were to apply 0.1 amperes of electric current to a gram of blue OLED production-ready material it would yield 40 candelas per square meter and if you were to apply the same net amount of current as in the previous example to two grams of the same emissive material it would still yield about 40 candelas. You cannot just somehow transform 0.1 amperes into more than 40 candelas no matter the amount of material you have.
> 
> It's just that it has more material to "burn" through...


(?) The wear of any OLED depends upon how much you're driving it. If you were to produce a TV where the (say) red subpixel is 100th the size of the others, in order for it to compete you'd have to overdrive it considerably (using nominal math) 100x. This would burn that thing out in no time.


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> _
> the total light reaching viewers doubles_, *but the luminous intensity doesn't *


Per area, yes it does. Take a subpixel of a certain size. Now keep it at the same "luminos intensity" (to use your phrasing), but make it 1/4th the size. There is now effectively a dimmer sub, 1/4th of what it was.

While it's true that a very dim subpixel can't be made the size of a wall and convince you that any one area of it is "bright", within the dimensions of a single sub, if you use all of it for illumination it'll appear brighter than if you use only part of it for illumination.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Per area, yes it does. Take a subpixel of a certain size. Now keep it at the same "luminos intensity" (to use your phrasing), but make it 1/4th the size. There is now effectively a dimmer sub, 1/4th of what it was.
> 
> While it's true that a very dim subpixel can't be made the size of a wall and convince you that any one area of it is "bright", within the dimensions of a single sub,if you use all of it for illumination it'll appear brighter than if you use only part of it for illumination.


And what method are you using to calculate the luminous intensity?


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> And what method are you using to calculate the luminous intensity?


I would like to understand your position and an answer to this question might help:

If somebody put up a full 100% blue image with one of the 4K OLEDs, then put black paint over 90% of the area of each blue sub-pixel, how would that change the perception of blue to a viewer far enough away to not be able to make up any pixel structure?

You can ignore that painting over those would take a long time as it is s theoretical question.

--Darin


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> I would like to understand your position and an answer to this question might help:
> 
> If somebody put up a full 100% blue image with one of the 4K OLEDs, then put black paint over 90% of the area of each blue sub-pixel, how would that change the perception of blue to a viewer far enough away to not be able to make up any pixel structure?
> 
> You can ignore that painting over those would take a long time as it is s theoretical question.
> 
> --Darin


Are you talking here about photometry or radiometry? 'Cause it's hard to tell.

But, anyway if you are talking photometry, then the luminous flux will decrease by 90 percent...

My position on the luminous intensity is best described in the following article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_intensity


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> Are you talking here about photometry or radiometry? 'Cause it's hard to tell.
> 
> But, anyway if you are talking photometry, then the luminous flux will decrease by 90 percent...
> 
> My position on the luminous intensity is best described in the following article:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_intensity


Did you write that page? The entire first part of it (until the discussion of units) is completely unattributed.

And it doesn't matter anyway: you're getting lost in the terms. Take Darin's example of covering up all the subs to a large degree. _ What do you see?

_And if what you see is the effect of a dimmer sub, then having it UNcovered results in a brighter sub. And if so, then how come using a larger sub doesn't make it brighter than a smaller one?


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> Are you talking here about photometry or radiometry? 'Cause it's hard to tell.


The way I meant it is if you took a group of people off the street and showed them this (maybe with mechanical shutters to block parts of the pixels quickly) what would they tell you as far as how their perception changed? And to add another step, if you kept 90% of the pixel area blocked, is there anything you could do to get their perceptions of the images back to about where they were before as far as perception?

Might be easier to think of 2 displays side by side, both showing a blue screen, but with 1 having shutters that block 90% of each blue pixel.

--Darin


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> My position on the luminous intensity is best described in the following article:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_intensity


Okay, same question as before except now instead of people off the street use a light meter placed at a normal viewing distance from the screen and set it to read in cd/m2. How would the readings on the meter change as you opened and closed shutters that either let all of the light through for each pixel or less than all the light?

It seems like you are focusing on the cd/m2 at the very small level (even smaller than pixels) and ignoring how viewers and meters from a distance integrate those over more image area.

--Darin


----------



## stas3098

to


darinp2 said:


> Okay, same question as before except now instead of people off the street use a light meter placed at a normal viewing distance from the screen and set it to read in cd/m2. How would the readings on the meter change as you opened and closed shutters that either let all of the light through for each pixel or less than all the light?
> 
> It seems like you are focusing on the cd/m2 at the very small level (even smaller than pixels) and ignoring how viewers and meters from a distance integrate those over more image area.
> 
> --Darin


Swa Ic gesægde, seo gesene beorhtnis wolde bi 90% gewanian. Ac hit is cuþ feor and neor, þæt seo beorhtnis þone flewsan currentan electrican onhangaþ (Wie gesagt, die wahrnehmbare Helligkeit um 90 Prozent fallen würde. Aber es bekannt ist, dass die Helligkeit hängt von der elektrischen *Stromstärke* ab.). Swa gif ane pixel helende bi 90% is, þonne þara beorhtnisse his wanaþ swa sama met, ac gif man geiceaþ þone flewsan currentan electrican to him bi 90%, þonne hit biþ swa breorht swa to-fore,


Like I said, the perceivable brightness would decrease by 90 percent. But it is well known that the brightness is dependent upon the flow of electric current (in OLEDs). And so if 90 percent of a pixel were to be blocked out then the brightness of it would decrease by the same amount, but if you were to increase the flow of electric current to it by 90 percent then it would be as bright as before.


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> Like I said, the perceivable brightness would decrease by 90 percent. But it is well known that the brightness is dependent upon the flow of electric current (in OLEDs). And so if 90 percent of a pixel were to be blocked out then the brightness of it would decrease by the same amount, but if you were to increase the flow of electric current to it by 90 percent then it would be as bright as before.


It seems like you agree that giving more area to the blue sub-pixel allows it to be driven with less current for the same average cd/m2 off the screen from a normal viewing distance.

Do you still disagree with:


tgm1024 said:


> Blue lasts the least, but from photos it suggests that the S9C at least (Samsung's original OLED) had the subs sized proportionately to their longevity. This (maybe?) allows them to wear-balance each sub better by driving the blue less hard, etc.


BTW: If the light is proportional to the current then in my example the current would need to be raised 900% when 90% of the sub-pixel is blocked. Or raised 100% (doubled) if 50% of the sub-pixel was blocked.

--Darin


----------



## slacker711

Lots of interesting info about LGD's OLED plans.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.php?subaction=showfull&id=1446462482




> Exclusive: LG talks future of OLED & first details on 2016 OLED TVs


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> It seems like you agree that giving more area to the blue sub-pixel allows it to be driven with less current for the same average cd/m2 off the screen from a normal viewing distance.
> 
> Do you still disagree with:
> 
> 
> BTW: If the light is proportional to the current then in my example the current would need to be *raised 900% *when 90% of the sub-pixel is blocked. Or raised 100% (doubled) if 50% of the sub-pixel was blocked.
> 
> --Darin


Now tell me this, if you were to cover 90 percent of your monitor with a cloth cut out of a material that can block out 100 percent of light, the perceived brightness of the remaining 10 percent would stay the same, would it not? Yes, it would and the reason why lies in the following passsage:

Luminous intensity should not be confused with another photometric unit, luminous flux, which is the total perceived power emitted in all directions. Luminous intensity is the perceived power _per unit solid angle_. If a lamp has a 1 lumen bulb and the optics of the lamp are set up to focus the light evenly into a 1 steradian beam, then the beam would have a luminous intensity of 1 candela. If the optics were changed to concentrate the beam into 1/2 steradian then the source would have a luminous intensity of 2 candela. The resulting beam is narrower and brighter, though its luminous flux remains unchanged.

And tell me this, if you had a 1nm pixel that was driven at 0.1 microamperes and a 2nm pixel driven at the same amperage, which one do you think would appear brighter, the small one or the big one? The small one would appear twice as bright... and in order for the 2nm pixel to appear as bright it would have to be driven twice as hard.


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Blue lasts the least, but from photos it suggests that the S9C at least (Samsung's original OLED) had the subs sized proportionately to their longevity. This (maybe?) allows them to wear-balance each sub better by driving the blue less hard, etc.


Just for the record:

In a PenTile display, there are only two subpixels per pixel, with twice as many green pixels than red and blue ones (see the image above). This enables larger sub-pixels, and a higher aperture ratio (or fill factor - the ratio of active area to nonactive area). This reduces the current density required to achieve a given luminance - which improves lifetime.

http://www.oled-info.com/nouvoyance-explains-why-pentile-oleds-last-longer

And let's end this discussion at this very note.


----------



## tgm1024

Now I'm *really* confused. Are you agreeing now?

Also, while you didn't say this specifically, to be clear to others reading this: the S9C is not a Pentile display.


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> And tell me this, if you had a 1nm pixel that was driven at 0.1 microamperes and a 2nm pixel driven at the same amperage, which one do you think would appear brighter, the small one or the big one? The small one would appear twice as bright... and in order for the 2nm pixel to appear as bright it would have to be driven twice as hard.


You're still getting lost in this. Of course if you spread out the current draw over a larger emitter you'll get a dimmer output. The issue is what happens given the fixed area a subpixel has (along with the region between it and its neighbors).


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> Now tell me this, if you were to cover 90 percent of your monitor with a cloth cut out of a material that can block out 100 percent of light, the perceived brightness of the remaining 10 percent would stay the same, would it not? Yes ...


It would, but that is different than blocking 90% of each pixel and viewing from a distance, or you shouldn't have said that case makes the images look dimmer.


> And tell me this, if you had a 1nm pixel that was driven at 0.1 microamperes and a 2nm pixel driven at the same amperage, which one do you think would appear brighter, the small one or the big one? The small one would appear twice as bright... and in order for the 2nm pixel to appear as bright it would have to be driven twice as hard.


You lost me on that one. This wouldn't be a case where you have to double the voltage to maintain the same current and then have double the power and light output? Wouldn't the bigger pixel have twice the resistance and so twice the power for the same current from power equals current squared times the resistance?

What if we thought of it as two 1nm pixels each drawing 0.1 microampspheres? They could be in series with twice the voltage across them or in parallel with the same voltage.

I'm also unclear as to whether we disagree at this point. If I am just missing something I would prefer to find out what that is.

--Darin


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Now I'm *really* confused. Are you agreeing now?
> 
> Also, while you didn't say this specifically, to be clear to others reading this: the S9C is not a Pentile display.


I don't know, I am myself really confused... and it would appear as though ours is not to reason why.


----------



## stas3098

fo


darinp2 said:


> It would, but that is different than blocking 90% of each pixel and viewing from a distance, or you shouldn't have said that case makes the images look dimmer.You lost me on that one. This wouldn't be a case where you have to double the voltage to maintain the same current and then have double the power and light output? Wouldn't the bigger pixel have twice the resistance and so twice the power for the same current from power equals current squared times the resistance?
> 
> What if we thought of it as two 1nm pixels each drawing 0.1 microampspheres? They could be in series with twice the voltage across them or in parallel with the same voltage.
> 
> I'm also unclear as to whether we disagree at this point. If I am just missing something I would prefer to find out what that is.
> 
> --Darin


I don't know... okay.


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> I don't know, I am myself really confused... and it would appear as though ours is not to reason why.


I think part of the issue might be that we need to consider how the human visual system takes area into account. If you are at a normal viewing ratio and put up a one inch square piece of blue paper you can't make it seem twice as bright just by putting another one inch square next to it. The human visual system is sensing the amount of light per area.

However, if you put up an extremely small blue emitter so that we sense no area you can put an equal emitter right next to it and we will perceive the point source we see as brighter.

For example, consider 2 optical fibers right next to each other putting out blue at the same intensity each and viewing from a distance where a human couldn't tell that there were 2 light sources. Now blink one of them on and off. Would a human be able to tell that the 1 light it sees is getting brighter and dimmer? I would say that they would even if they couldn't tell you which of the 2 fibers was staying on.

The same kind of thing would work with lights on poles at a far enough distance that a human only perceived one light.

We can also consider what would happen to the peak blue cd/m2 for an OLED display if every sub-pixel got a blue filter instead of giving some of them green and red filters.

BTW: I view discussions like this where we don't start out agreeing, but stay civil, as a good part of AVS. Makes me think.

--Darin


----------



## stas3098

And just to try and clarify a tiny bit, say, you had a blue sub-pixel that was twice as large than the other two sub-pixels and in that case it would have to be driven at the approximately same current level as if it were a "normal" sized sub (say 0.15 amp) to render the color white... or in other words, it has to be driven _less hard_ in terms of current density, or twice as less hard to be exact, when it is used to "display" the pure white at 100 candelas in combination with two other subs (for if you were to drive it at, say, 0.2 amp the white would be heavily skewed towards the blue), but to display the pure blue at 100 candelas it has to be driven at 0.3 amp becasue it is twice as large, or yet in another words, the current density for the blue sub when it displays the pure blue at 100 candelas would have to roughly be equivalent to the current density for the red and green sub-pixels when they display the pure green and red, respectively, at 100 candelas ... this is what I was trying to get across.


----------



## darinp2

You lost me on that last one (I would have to look closer), but for clarity, are you talking about cd/m2 for just the pixel area or cd/m2 for a large screen area? In my example of blocking 90% of a pixels area the part still showing has the same cd/m2 as before, but for a larger screen area the cd/m2 went down.

I'm also not convinced about having to double the current for double the pixel size to have double the average light level over the whole screen. The voltage I agree, but I think the current would be the same for twice as bright per square foot of display area with the same total resolution, just like 2 sub-pixels in series. Not sure if this helps the discussion:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110505142553AANqlJ6

Also, pure blue at 100% video level for white shouldn't change whether the image is supposed to be blue or white. Either way the blue portion should be about 7 cd/m2 if white is 100 cd/m2 and using REC.709.

--Darin


----------



## JoeyBagadonuts

tgm1024 said:


> You lost me on that one.


My point was that if the gov't decides "it's for the best" for something to happen...nothing is there to stop them from making it happen. Who cares if it is "fair" to any particular company involved. (After all, companies, espcially large successful ones who are profitable are basically "evil", right?) 

If the gov't believes that it is "right" to force Microsoft to "decouple" internet explorer from its OS to make it "better for consumers" ...they will force MS to do it through fines, court orders to stop selling the product, etc.

If the gov't believes that it is "in the best interests for consumers", it will "force" some kind of agreement between LG Display and Samsung Display to share patents.

Again, I'm not saying this is the case here...just responding to an earlier poster who said he didn't see how the gov't could do something like that. They do it all the time.


----------



## tgm1024

darinp2 said:


> You lost me on that last one (I would have to look closer), but for clarity, are you talking about cd/m2 for just the pixel area or cd/m2 for a large screen area? In my example of blocking 90% of a pixels area the part still showing has the same cd/m2 as before, but for a larger screen area the cd/m2 went down.
> 
> I'm also not convinced about having to double the current for double the pixel size to have double the average light level over the whole screen. The voltage I agree, but I think the current would be the same for twice as bright per square foot of display area with the same total resolution, just like 2 sub-pixels in series. Not sure if this helps the discussion:


This was a topic of considerable disagreement a while ago. I wish he would chime in, because I'm going to butcher what he said, but @xrox pointed out that even though the electron-hole recombination is what produces the light (leading to the argument that it's essentially an amp machine), it's still voltage that drives the process. Took a few PMs with him for me to get this one right myself---I don't believe there's an easy series/parallel analogy for this one.


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> You lost me on that last one (I would have to look closer), but for clarity, are you talking about cd/m2 for just the pixel area or cd/m2 for a large screen area? In my example of blocking 90% of a pixels area the part still showing has the same cd/m2 as before, but for a larger screen area the cd/m2 went down.
> 
> I'm also not convinced about having to double the current for double the pixel size to have double the average light level over the whole screen. The voltage I agree, but I think the current would be the same for twice as bright per square foot of display area with the same total resolution, just like 2 sub-pixels in series. Not sure if this helps the discussion:
> 
> https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110505142553AANqlJ6
> 
> Also, pure blue at 100% video level for white shouldn't change whether the image is supposed to be blue or white. Either way the blue portion should be about 7 cd/m2 if white is 100 cd/m2 and using REC.709.
> 
> --Darin


I meant cd/m2 per pixel. 

OLEDs are current-driven, an increase in voltage is not going to make a whole lot of difference there. OLEDs are electroluminescent meaning that light is produced through the process of recombination of holes and electrons. OLED transistors, usually n-type, include a source and a drain (they don't really use any more the old school cathode and anode terminology). The source, as a rule, is a bottom electrode and the drain is the top one, but other arrangements are possible, and so each transistor has two electrodes which feed it electric current.

In the usual arrangement of an OLED device, the source induces the flow of holes and the drain of electrons under the action of electric current, i.e. the source electrode feeds the electric current to the hole transport layer and the drain feeds the electron transport layer, and when the holes and the electrons recombine in the emissive layer photons are released. In most cases, though, those photons are invisible at the moment of emission, but due to phosphorescence/florescence of the organic matter in the emitter the invisible light is converted into the visible light. 

Well, it's about the current in OLEDs. The higher the current the more holes and elections can recombine per unit time and the photons can be released, ergo the higher the current, the brighter the output (light).


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Lots of interesting info about LGD's OLED plans.
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.php?subaction=showfull&id=1446462482


Nothing really new.

The increased brightness and ~100% DCI-P3 gamut were already disclosed. It's a pity we are not seeing any leaks surrounding improved motion performance (BFI)...

The larger 99" size has also more or less been leaked, but I am more or less expecting for that to be a 'bragging rights' only demonstration at CES 2016 while LG focuses on actually productizing the 77" (meaning a simple, flat version with no bells and whistles and a back-down-to-earth price)...


----------



## jjackkrash

fafrd said:


> while LG focuses on actually productizing the 77" (meaning a simple, flat version with no bells and whistles and a back-down-to-earth price)...



Fingers crossed!


----------



## fafrd

jjackkrash said:


> Fingers crossed!


Well, I assume you saw that they are ditching 1080p next year, so they have got to do _something_ to enlarge the product line beyond a 55" and a 65" 4K OLED available in flat or curved configuration...

The 2080p M1 line may also be repurposed to manufacture the new-Flagship 99" .


----------



## jjackkrash

fafrd said:


> Well, I assume you saw that they are ditching 1080p next year, so they have got to do _something_ to enlarge the product line beyond a 55" and a 65" 4K OLED available in flat or curved configuration...
> 
> The 2080p M1 line may also be repurposed to manufacture the new-Flagship 99" .


I think I need a 77" at least to upgrade. I just don't think I can get rid of an awesome 65" plasma and not go bigger. I am starting to look at PJs as another option.


----------



## tgm1024

stas3098 said:


> I meant cd/m2 per pixel.


Please rephrase. There is no cd/m² *per pixel* metric that makes sense to me. A cd/m² is a _cendela_ _per square meter. _To make a per square meter per pixel unit doesn't make sense.



stas3098 said:


> OLEDs are current-driven, *(..........snipped.........)*


Hence the start of the original argument I recall between you two, (if I recall correctly). Everything you said is how we've always approached the operation of OLED because it seems the most sensible at first. Amps are a measurement of electrons per second, electron-hole-recombination creates the light, more amps yield more light, etc.

And at a certain level that's nominally correct.

But I completely revisited this with xrox recently by PM and it's still the case that the "switch" for effectively _starting_ that process is voltage based. I have a far better than average understanding of physics and electrical processes myself and it took a bit of time for me to get ahold of how that really works.

However, I can't speak for xrox: If he wants to chime in, I'll let him take control on this subtopic----I'm bowing out because I don't _yet_ have a good way of describing it that I am comfortable with. I do have to say though that as valid as xrox's point is, at first it's somewhat counter-intuitive. For me it still falls in that section of physics where you can say with complete honesty "well, you're mostly right because that is how it seems, but this is _really_ what's going on".


----------



## stas3098

tgm1024 said:


> Please rephrase. There is no cd/m² *per pixel* metric that makes sense to me. A cd/m² is a _cendela_ _per square meter. _To make a per square meter per pixel unit doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Hence the start of the original argument I recall between you two, (if I recall correctly). Everything you said is how we've always approached the operation of OLED because it seems the most sensible at first. Amps are a measurement of electrons per second, electron-hole-recombination creates the light, more amps yield more light, etc.
> 
> And at a certain level that's nominally correct.
> 
> But I completely revisited this with xrox recently by PM and it's still the case that the "switch" for effectively _starting_ that process is voltage based. I have a far better than average understanding of physics and electrical processes myself and it took a bit of time for me to get ahold of how that really works.
> 
> However, I can't speak for xrox: If he wants to chime in, I'll let him take control on this subtopic----I'm bowing out because I don't _yet_ have a good way of describing it that I am comfortable with. I do have to say though that as valid as xrox's point is, at first it's somewhat counter-intuitive. For me it still falls in that section of physics where you can say with complete honesty "well, you're mostly right because that is how it seems, but this is _really_ what's going on".


I meant luminance per pixel (luminance of a pixel). I used cd/m2 (luminance) there for convenience, I guess...

All I meant in that post is that if the green and the red sub-pixels in a pixel are turned off and don't emit any light at all then the blue sub-pixel effectively "turns" into a pixel (for all intents and purposes). This is the fact on which all of my previous posts were predicated. 

P.S. The way science seems to work: the deeper you go, the more complicated it gets.http://www.avsforum.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## darinp2

tgm1024 said:


> Please rephrase. There is no cd/m² *per pixel* metric that makes sense to me. A cd/m² is a _cendela_ _per square meter. _To make a per square meter per pixel unit doesn't make sense.


Looks like I didn't word the question he was responding to that well. I should have said sub-pixel for one.

The way I meant the question was whether he meant the cd/m2 only counting the area the blue sub-pixel used, or the whole pixel area including dark space. Put another way, in my example of shutters blocking 90% of each blue sub-pixel, if the blue sub-pixels themselves were putting out 70 cd/m2 and the fill ratio was 10% just considering blue then the screen would have 7 cd/m2 worth of blue. If 90% of the sub-pixel area was blocked and those sub-pixels were uniform then the leftover part of the blue sub-pixels would still be putting out 70 cd/m2, but the screen would have only 0.7 cd/m2 of blue because the effective fill ratio would now be 1%.

Does that make sense?

--Darin


----------



## tgm1024

darinp2 said:


> Looks like I didn't word the question he was responding to that well. I should have said sub-pixel for one.
> 
> The way I meant the question was whether he meant the cd/m2 only counting the area the blue sub-pixel used, or the whole pixel area including dark space. Put another way, in my example of shutters blocking 90% of each blue sub-pixel, if the blue sub-pixels themselves were putting out 70 cd/m2 and the fill ratio was 10% just considering blue then the screen would have 7 cd/m2 worth of blue. If 90% of the sub-pixel area was blocked and those sub-pixels were uniform then the leftover part of the blue sub-pixels would still be putting out 70 cd/m2, but the screen would have only 0.7 cd/m2 of blue because the effective fill ratio would now be 1%.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> --Darin


I suppose, but what matters is that he seems to be backing away from his original assertion, or at least holding up the "let me think for a second" flag, either of which are perfectly fine.


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> Looks like I didn't word the question he was responding to that well. I should have said sub-pixel for one.
> 
> The way I meant the question was whether he meant the cd/m2 only counting the area the blue sub-pixel used, or the whole pixel area including dark space. Put another way, in my example of shutters blocking 90% of each blue sub-pixel, if the blue sub-pixels themselves were putting out 70 cd/m2 and the fill ratio was 10% just considering blue then the screen would have 7 cd/m2 worth of blue. If 90% of the sub-pixel area was blocked and those sub-pixels were uniform then the leftover part of the blue sub-pixels would still be putting out 70 cd/m2, but the screen would have only 0.7 cd/m2 of blue because the effective fill ratio would now be 1%.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> --Darin


Yes, it makes sense. You got the idea behind it down. Now, all you have to do is learn the proper terminology. 

The blue subpixels' *luminous intensity* would be the same 70 candelas (even when 90% of their light output is blocked by shutters). Luminous intensity is proportional to current intensity, and thus If you were to decrease the current intensity/strength (i.e amperage) by 90 percent then the luminous intensity would, consequently, decrease by 90 percent. 

But, the blue subpixels' *luminance* (measured in candelas per square meter) would decrease by 90 percent when 90 percent of their area was blocked.

But, there are some caveats there which have to do with the human visual system, though... I'll try to shed some _light_ on that one a bit later.


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> But, the blue subpixels' *luminance* (measured in candelas per square meter) would decrease by 90 percent when 90 percent of their area was blocked.


Of the whole sub-pixel area. whole pixel area, or whole screen area I would agree. However, for just the part of a single sub-pixel that is still showing through the luminance wouldn't change though, would it? That is, if you could measure the light and area for something that small (maybe around one 10 billionths of a meter squared if the math in my head is right).

--Darin


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> The blue subpixels' *luminous intensity* would be the same 70 candelas (even when 90% of their light output is blocked by shutters).


Going back to this part, I don't believe that is correct unless you want to count the light being blocked by the shutters. As long as 1/10th of the pixel area left is sending the light over the same number of steridians as the unblocked sub pixel was the luminous intensity from each sub-pixel is now 1/10th of what it was, whether using candelas or lumens.

Imagine a projector with a small imaging chip and the zoom lens left in one position so the beam size and angle don't change. Now put the projector in a mode where all the pixels are white and another mode where 10% are white and 90% are black. Would you claim that the lumens or candelas of light from the projector are the same in both cases?

Another way to look at it is to go back to the 70 candelas and instead of putting a shutter over 90% of each sub-pixel put a lens that focuses that light toward a side wall. The lensed part of the sub-pixels would send out a certain number of candelas and the unlensed part would too. You wouldn't say that those would now add up to more than 70 candelas, would you? If not, then the unlensed part would have to send out less than 70 by definition if the lensed part sent out any.

Do you disagree that the luminous flux outside the shutters goes down by 90% if shutters cover 90% of the sub-pixel area, for that example from earlier?

How about if shutters went all the way to blocking 100%? Would that change the luminous intensity or luminous flux?

Thanks,
Darin


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> Going back to this part, I don't believe that is correct unless you want to count the light being blocked by the shutters. As long as 1/10th of the pixel area left is sending the light over the same number of steridians as the unblocked sub pixel was the luminous intensity from each sub-pixel is now 1/10th of what it was, whether using candelas or lumens.
> 
> Imagine a projector with a small imaging chip and the zoom lens left in one position so the beam size and angle don't change. Now put the projector in a mode where all the pixels are white and another mode where 10% are white and 90% are black. Would you claim that the lumens or candelas of light from the projector are the same in both cases?
> 
> Another way to look at it is to go back to the 70 candelas and instead of putting a shutter over 90% of each sub-pixel put a lens that focuses that light toward a side wall. The lensed part of the sub-pixels would send out a certain number of candelas and the unlensed part would too. You wouldn't say that those would now add up to more than 70 candelas, would you? If not, then the unlensed part would have to send out less than 70 by definition if the lensed part sent out any.
> 
> Do you disagree that the luminous flux outside the shutters goes down by 90% if shutters cover 90% of the sub-pixel area, for that example from earlier?
> 
> How about if shutters went all the way to blocking 100%? Would that change the luminous intensity or luminous flux?
> 
> Thanks,
> Darin


Let's start from scratch.

If you have one light emitting molecule and you apply 0.1 micro-amperes to it it is liable to produce, say, 1 billion photons per unit time.

And if you have two similar light emitting molecules and apply the same 0.1 micro-amperes to them, they are still liable to produce 1 billion photons per unit time, but now each light emitting molecule produces only half a billion photons. In this case, the luminous intensity of each molecule halved, but the net luminous power/flux of the two light emitting molecules ( i.e. the number of photons produced per unit time) stayed the same as in the first example.

And if you were to put ten similar light emitting molecules together and feed them an amperage of 1 micro-ampere (which would yield 10 billion photons per unit time in total) and then were to cover up nine of them, the uncovered light emitting molecule would produce 1 billion photons, and among the nine covered light emitting molecules each light emitting molecule would also produce 1 billion photons, because all ten light emitting molecules would have the same current density of 0.1 micro-amperes, but the total luminous power of the ten molecules would decrease by 90 percent (when nine of them are covered up).

Now let's get back to the projector example. If you were to cover 90 percent of the lens with a shutter then its luminous flux would decrease by 90 percent (or in other words, the amount of photons coming out the lens would fall by 90 percent if 90 percent of it was blocked), but the luminous intensity of the remaining 10 percent would stay the same. 

And if you were to cover 90 percent of each pixel of the projector then the luminance of the entire screen on which the projector was projecting light would decrease by 90 percent, however the remaining 10 percent of each pixel would still maintain the same luminous intensity as before (i.e. if the projector was OLED-based then each light emitting molecule would still produce the same amount of photons per unit time). 

I hope this makes things a bit clearer.


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> Do you disagree that the luminous flux outside the shutters goes down by 90% if shutters cover 90% of the sub-pixel area, for that example from earlier?
> 
> How about if shutters went all the way to blocking 100%? Would that change the luminous intensity or luminous flux?
> 
> Thanks,
> Darin


 _
Do you disagree that the luminous flux (the total amount of photons coming out of the subpixel) outside the shutters goes down by 90% if shutters cover 90% of the sub-pixel area, for that example from earlier?_


No, I do not disagree.

And if 100 percent of the subpixel's area was blocked then the luminous flux from that subpixel would be zero.


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> And if 100 percent of the subpixel's area was blocked then the luminous flux from that subpixel would be zero.


And so would the luminous intensity for that subpixel.

I can go back and address the projector stuff, but for the moment I'll concentrate on one thing.

It seems like you are assuming some uniformity is required for luminous intensity or are changing the area even though luminous intensity doesn't have area (it has angle). At this level the area the pixel takes up doesn't really matter, just the amount of light it puts out per steradian angle.

If we consider each subpixel in the shutter blocking 90% case as uniform with each 1/10th of the subpixel being something I'll call a block for now, each block has the same luminous flux and luminous intensity before the shutter is put in place. After the shutter is put in place 9 out of 10 have both of those dropped to effectively zero, while 1 of them stays the same for both. So, the average luminous intensity for the whole sub-pixel has changed even though the luminous flux and luminous intensity for one of the blocks hasn't.

If you look at the light for one steradian angle it has changed from one subpixel (10 blocks) between the shutters being open and closed.

To put it simply, when 90% of the subpixel area is blocked the perceived power per unit solid angle to viewer's goes down.

Do you disagree with that?

If we agree there then we can go back to your original position about how hard things are driven where I think I can see your point if we define how hard things are driven by the current. By the way you describe OLED I think a person could say that driving a very small subpixel at 1 amp is driving it harder than driving a larger subpixel at 1 amp, and therefore larger subpixels can be driven less hard for the same luminous flux and luminous intensity, but that is largely semantic.

Thanks,
Darin


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> And so would the luminous intensity for that subpixel.
> 
> I can go back and address the projector stuff, but for the moment I'll concentrate on one thing.
> 
> It seems like you are assuming some uniformity is required for luminous intensity or are changing the area even though luminous intensity doesn't have area (it has angle). At this level the area the pixel takes up doesn't really matter, just the amount of light it puts out per steradian angle.
> 
> If we consider each subpixel in the shutter blocking 90% case as uniform with each 1/10th of the subpixel being something I'll call a block for now, each block has the same luminous flux and luminous intensity before the shutter is put in place. After the shutter is put in place 9 out of 10 have both of those dropped to effectively zero, while 1 of them stays the same for both. So, the average luminous intensity for the whole sub-pixel has changed even though the luminous flux and luminous intensity for one of the blocks hasn't.
> 
> If you look at the light for one steradian angle it has changed from one subpixel (10 blocks) between the shutters being open and closed.
> 
> To put it simply, when 90% of the subpixel area is blocked the perceived power per unit solid angle to viewer's goes down.
> 
> Do you disagree with that?
> 
> If we agree there then we can go back to your original position about how hard things are driven where I think I can see your point if we define how hard things are driven by the current. By the way you describe OLED I think a person could say that driving a very small subpixel at 1 amp is driving it harder than driving a larger subpixel at 1 amp, and therefore larger subpixels can be driven less hard for the same luminous flux and luminous intensity, but that is largely semantic.
> 
> Thanks,
> Darin


No, I do not disagree with any of your points here. 

But with one correction, though:... and therefore larger subpixels can be driven less hard for the same luminous flux, but at a lower luminous intensity... 

Luminous intensity was designed this way (the way I described it), because it needs to be easily convertible from radiant intensity, but the difference between those two is mostly pragmatic. 

And by the way, the candela (or standard candle) is defined as the luminous intensity weighted with the response of the human eye emitted from 1/60 of 1cm2 projected area of an ideal blackbody radiator, in any direction, at a temperature of 2045 K.


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> But with one correction, though:... and therefore larger subpixels can be driven less hard for the same luminous flux, but at a lower luminous intensity...


What is the correction exactly? Is it the area thing? In this case I believe the subpixels are less than 1/60th of 1 cm2 in both cases.

It seems like you are claiming the watts go down, but the watts per steradian do not in the blocking example. Is that right? Are you claiming the radiant intensity for a whole subpixel stays the same in my example of blocking 90% of that subpixel?

Edit: I'm confused about whether you have changed your mind from earlier when you said the luminous intensity for a blue subpixel stays the same when 90% of it is blocked.

Thanks,
Darin


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> What is the correction exactly? Is it the area thing? In this case I believe the subpixels are less than 1/60th of 1 cm2 in both cases.
> 
> It seems like you are claiming the watts go down, but the watts per steradian do not in the blocking example. Is that right? Are you claiming the radiant intensity for a whole subpixel stays the same in my example of blocking 90% of that subpixel?
> 
> Edit: I'm confused about whether you have changed your mind from earlier when you said the luminous intensity for a blue subpixel stays the same when 90% of it is blocked.
> 
> Thanks,
> Darin


Luminous intensity and luminous flux can be equal at a molecule level, in a subpixel there will be millions of molecules and so the luminous power/flux from one molecule and millions of molecules in a subpixel would not match up. I hope you can see this...


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> What is the correction exactly? Is it the area thing? In this case I believe the subpixels are less than 1/60th of 1 cm2 in both cases.
> 
> It seems like you are claiming the watts go down, but the watts per steradian do not in the blocking example. Is that right? Are you claiming the radiant intensity for a whole subpixel stays the same in my example of blocking 90% of that subpixel?
> 
> Edit: I'm confused about whether you have changed your mind from earlier when you said the luminous intensity for a blue subpixel stays the same when 90% of it is blocked.
> 
> Thanks,
> Darin


If a molecule has a luminous intensity of 0,000001 cd then its luminous flux is 0,000001 lumens. But if there are a million molecules in a pixel and each of them has a luminous intensity of 0,000001 cd then the pixel's luminous flux is 1 lumen. 

I hope you can see now that you have to add up all the molecules in a pixel to get the luminous flux.


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> Edit: I'm confused about whether you have changed your mind from earlier when you said the luminous intensity for a blue subpixel stays the same when 90% of it is blocked.
> 
> Thanks,
> Darin


Let's say, that the blue sub-pixel in question had one million molecules with a luminous intensity of 0,000001 cd and thus it had a luminous flux of 1 lumen (i.e each molecule in the blue sub-pixel had a luminous flux of 0,000001 lumens but all of them combined together had a luminous flux of 1 lumen). 
What do you think would happen if you could remove 90 percent of the molecules from the blue subpixel if the act of the removal of those molecules did not result in a change in luminous intensity for the remaining 10 percent of the molecules. What would now the luminous flux from the blue sub-pixel be?


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> If a molecule has a luminous intensity of 0,000001 cd then its luminous flux is 0,000001 lumens. But if there are a million molecules in a pixel and each of them has a luminous intensity of 0,000001 cd then the pixel's luminous flux is 1 cd.


and the luminous intensity of the pixel is 1 cd. Do you disagree?

Do you disagree that the units of luminous intensity are watts per steradian? Can a candle have a luminous intensity? What would it be for no lens and a candle with luminous flux of 1 candela?


stas3098 said:


> I hope you can see now that you have to add up all the molecules in a pixel to get the luminous flux.


Same thing for getting the luminous intensity of the pixel.

--Darin


----------



## darinp2

You seem to be confused by the word "intensity" and are taking it as the concentration of light within the pixel. It is not. It is the concentration of light emitted by the pixel (away from the display). Otherwise it could not be easily measured.

If you think about how you would measure the luminous intensity for a pixel it might make more sense to you. If you still believe you need to know how many molecules are in a pixel in order to figure out the luminous intensity of the pixel please explain how you think luminous intensity is measured.

Here is what I consider a clue. Do you have to know how big the flame is on a burning candle to measure the luminous intensity of the light from the candle in a particular direction?

--Darin


----------



## darinp2

Stas,

It seems that your latest position contradicts a passage you agreed with earlier, where you quoted:

"Luminous intensity should not be confused with another photometric unit, luminous flux, which is the total perceived power emitted in all directions. Luminous intensity is the perceived power per unit solid angle. If a lamp has a 1 lumen bulb and the optics of the lamp are set up to focus the light evenly into a 1 steradian beam, then the beam would have a luminous intensity of 1 candela. If the optics were changed to concentrate the beam into 1/2 steradian then the source would have a luminous intensity of 2 candela. The resulting beam is narrower and brighter, though its luminous flux remains unchanged."

Notice how the number of molecules is not needed to determine the luminous intensity?

--Darin


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> Stas,
> 
> It seems that your latest position contradicts a passage you agreed with earlier, where you quoted:
> 
> "Luminous intensity should not be confused with another photometric unit, luminous flux, which is the total perceived power emitted in all directions. Luminous intensity is the perceived power per unit solid angle. If a lamp has a 1 lumen bulb and the optics of the lamp are set up to focus the light evenly into a 1 steradian beam, then the beam would have a luminous intensity of 1 candela. If the optics were changed to concentrate the beam into 1/2 steradian then the source would have a luminous intensity of 2 candela. The resulting beam is narrower and brighter, though its luminous flux remains unchanged."
> 
> Notice how the number of molecules is not needed to determine the luminous intensity?
> 
> --Darin


I don't know, I need to take some time to think things through,


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> I don't know, I need to take some time to think things through,


Okay. One more thing in case it helps. A candela is equal to the amount of energy from a fixed area of that black body you mentioned, but that doesn't mean that luminous intensity has an area component. The energy and luminous intensity for other things (like pixels) don't require the area. That 1cm2 was just for making a standard unit of energy for a known case. If you have the luminance you can solve for luminous intensity by multiplying by the area, but measuring luminous intensity doesn't require measuring luminance or area of the source.

If you know how much visible energy something like the sun emits per square acre for instance you can determine how much luminous intensity is emitted based on area, but then the luminous intensity scales with area just like luminous flux. For instance, 2 square acres of the sun's surface emits twice the luminous intensity of 1 square acre even though it is the same cd/m2 when measuring at the sun's surface. The 2 square acres of the sun's surface illuminates the earth's surface twice as much 1 square acre of the sun's surface does because it has twice the luminous intensity.

--Darin


----------



## Danny Dorresteijn

Hi everyone,

Well I still wait on new OLED TV's from Samsung. 
There must be an other reason why Samsung is that slow compared to LG. 

Samsung display is the biggest as you all know. 

2 weeks ago I was at a Samsung event. (I work for SamMobile) A Samsung employer told me that all OLED TV's from LG are having a oled screen burn-in issue. I was surprised and I do think he's wrong maybe he is more jealous, don't know .

One thing is sure: Samsung never talks in public about their new display technology. SUHD came as a surprise as well. 

I think that Samsung should announce their new OLED line-up at CES 2016.
There are a couple of marketing reasons.

*2016 *
European football cup 2016. 
Rio Olympics & Paralympics 2016. (Samsung is official partner) 
This could be a win-win situation...

If Samsung won't announce any new OLED TV at CES 2016, I as Samsung fan will switch to LG's amazing OLED TV. 

PS, sorry for my bad English.


----------



## xrox

The discussion about larger blue subpixels and perception is a really good study on photometry IMO. My good friend is a photometry/OLED professor and researcher and I will love to ask him this when I get a chance.

I’m not in his league but just some thoughts of mine below (IMO only).I think you guys shouldn’t be concerned with any metrics other than luminance(cd/m2). 



Human eye only sees luminance (think of it as a luminance meter) 
Luminance is independent of distance from the source or size of the source. 
Our eye response (pupil/exposure/adaptation) is to the average luminance in the visual field. 
Enlarging the blue pixel and reducing the current density will produce a lower luminance out of a larger area. However, the lifetime is increased. 
The average luminance in our visual field remains the same


----------



## rogo

Danny Dorresteijn said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Well I still wait on new OLED TV's from Samsung.
> There must be an other reason why Samsung is that slow compared to LG.


They have no means of manufacturing OLED TVs. That's why they are "slow". Company size could not be less relevant. GM is bigger than Cadbury, but don't buy a chocolate bar from GM.


> 2 weeks ago I was at a Samsung event. (I work for SamMobile) A Samsung employer told me that all OLED TV's from LG are having a oled screen burn-in issue. I was surprised and I do think he's wrong maybe he is more jealous, don't know .


Shocked, shocked to learn a low-level Samsung employee would lie about the competition.


> One thing is sure: Samsung never talks in public about their new display technology. SUHD came as a surprise as well.


SUHD is not technology, it's marketing. Companies don't pre-announce marketing. Samsung *regularly* demonstrates technology in the early development stage.


> I think that Samsung should announce their new OLED line-up at CES 2016.


If they have a licensing agreement with LG (unannounced but rumored to be in the works), they still could not produce OLED TVs in 2016 on their own unless they have secretly built a fab using technology they could not legally use until recently (or still can't legally use).


> If Samsung won't announce any new OLED TV at CES 2016, I as Samsung fan will switch to LG's amazing OLED TV.


Even if they do announce something, you should switch to LG. LG now has been making these since 2013 or so. They are advancing production, lowering costs, expanding SKUs. 


> PS, sorry for my bad English.


No need to apologize for not being a native English speaker  You're thoughts are totally easy to understand. I don't totally agree with them (as I outlined above), but they are well expressed.


----------



## stas3098

xrox said:


> The discussion about larger blue subpixels and perception is a really good study on photometry IMO. My good friend is a photometry/OLED professor and researcher and I will love to ask him this when I get a chance.
> 
> I’m not in his league but just some thoughts of mine below (IMO only).I think you guys shouldn’t be concerned with any metrics other than luminance(cd/m2).
> 
> 
> 
> Human eye only sees luminance (think of it as a luminance meter)
> Luminance is independent of distance from the source or size of the source.
> Our eye response (pupil/exposure/adaptation) is to the average luminance in the visual field.
> Enlarging the blue pixel and reducing the current density will produce a lower luminance out of a larger area. However, the lifetime is increased.
> The average luminance in our visual field remains the same


Perhaps, these questions are stupid and don't make much sense, but I still feel like I have to ask them:

But if the human eye is a luminance meter and reducing the current density (by enlarging the blue pixel) produces a lower luminance, then wouldn't it make the blue pixel appear dimmer to the human eye/luminance meter were it to be made larger and yet still fed the same amount of electric current?

Why would the average luminance in our visual field remain the same if the area the blue pixel now occupies had increased and its net luminance decreased?

P.S I see how the sun example might make sense and that I conflated the terminology there, a bit. But, I am still apprehensive of it. After much thought, I have now seen this entire thing in a whole new light, but it's still a wee bit unclear to me which side of this thing is up and which one is down and until I figure this one out I feel a tiny bit unconformable to proceed further with the discussion, but, at least, I feel like I am making some progress here.


----------



## darinp2

xrox said:


> I think you guys shouldn’t be concerned with any metrics other than luminance(cd/m2).


I think that is fair as long as we keep in mind that this averaging works for small angles. Put another way, if you are at a normal viewing ratio with a high resolution display then blocking 90% of each sub-pixel reduces the cd/m2 that the human eyes sees. Blocking 90% of the screen with a blanket is different since human vision then sees one part that didn't change and one part that did. Move hundreds of yards away so that the whole screen looks about the same size as a sub-pixel at normal viewing ratio and human vision will now see the 90% covered screen as dimmer than the uncovered screen, like a blinking light without discernable size.

Kind of like how covering one half of the moon would be different than covering half of a star.

--Darin


----------



## xrox

stas3098 said:


> But if the human eye is a luminance meter and reducing the current density (by enlarging the blue pixel) produces a lower luminance, then wouldn't it make the blue pixel appear dimmer to the human eye/luminance meter were it to be made larger and yet still fed the same amount of electric current?
> 
> Why would the average luminance in our visual field remain the same if the area the blue pixel now occupies had increased and its net luminance decreased?


The way I think of it is that the human eye has millions of detectors all fed by a single set of optics. 

The display can be thought of as a compilation of millions of point sources that we average into one large extended source. The abundance of black between pixels contribute to the average.

If we move close enough that the single blue subpixel is its own extended source than we would perceive the fluctuation in luminance. But as an array of point sources we average the luminance within the field.

Assuming the absence of glare, if the sun were to move further away at what point do we start to say it looks less bright? I think the threshold is when it changes from a perceivable extended source into a point source.


----------



## UltraBlack

darinp2 said:


> blocking 90% of each sub-pixel reduces the cd/m2 that the human eyes sees.


That's correct, but even if luminous flux is reduced by 90%, *luminous intensity doesn't change* (it depends only by the current, not by the emissive area)! That's where all the confusion comes from.


----------



## darinp2

UltraBlack said:


> That's correct, but even if luminous flux is reduced by 90%, *luminous intensity doesn't change* (it depends only by the current, not by the emissive area)! That's where all the confusion comes from.


Is it your position that a test pattern with a block of 10 blue pixels at 100% and everything else black will provide the same luminous intensity as a test pattern of 1 blue pixel at 100% and everything else as black?

Do you disagree that the units for luminous intensity are lumens per steradian angle?

If a shutter was put over 100% of a subpixel instead of 90%, what would happen to the luminous intensity of that subpixel with shutter?

--Darin


----------



## tgm1024

UltraBlack said:


> That's correct, but even if luminous flux is reduced by 90%, *luminous intensity doesn't change* (it depends only by the current, not by the emissive area)! That's where all the confusion comes from.


This is where all of us are talking past each other. The emissive area (including the area _around it_)absolutely has everything to do with how bright that subpixel appears. It's the net effect that matters, _for that area._


----------



## darinp2

It feels like one more person has gotten confused by the word intensity as if it is the intensity of the light within the pixel when we are talking about the photons that reach far from the pixel. 

Or maybe going by something that said if the current doesn't change with OLED then neither does the intensity. 

I purposely used a shutter in my example instead of something like making the subpixel smaller since I didn't want to change anything like resistance. With a shutter it shouldn't matter what the underlying technology is. A person shouldn't have to know whether it is OLED, LCD, or even a DLP chip, where the example could be what happens if 90% of each pixel was painted with perfect black paint.

I'm fine with being proven wrong if somebody can do it, but one thing that seems off to me is the argument that luminous flux goes down, but luminous intensity doesn't. The reason I find this strange is that luminous intensity is just the luminous flux for 1 steradian angle and if the angles of emission don't change those values move together.

With a point source emitting in all directions we have the following equation:

Luminous intensity = luminous flux / 4*pi

If the emitter is emitting uniformily in a half circle then we have the following equation:

Luminous intensity = luminous flux / 2*pi

So, if we haven't changed the angle the light is emitted, how can the luminous intensity stay constant while the luminous flux goes down?

--Darin


----------



## tgm1024

darinp2 said:


> It feels like one more person has gotten confused by the word intensity as if it is the intensity of the light within the pixel when we are talking about the photons that reach far from the pixel.


Sure, but I still contend that we're slipping away from the bottom line here. 



darinp2 said:


> Or maybe going by something that said if the current doesn't change with OLED then neither does the flux. I purposely used a shutter in my example instead of something like making the subpixel smaller since I didn't want to change anything like resistance. With a shutter it shouldn't matter what the underlying technology is. A person shouldn't have to know where it is OLED, LCD, or even a DLP chip, where the example could be what happens if 90% of each pixel was painted with perfect black paint.
> 
> I'm fine with being proven wrong if somebody can do it, but one thing that seems off the me is the argument that luminous flux goes down, but luminous intensity doesn't. The reason I find this strange is that luminous intensity is just the luminous flux for 1 steradian angle and if the angles of emission don't change those values move together.
> 
> With a point source emitting in all directions we have the following equation:
> 
> Luminous intensity = luminous flux / 4*pi
> 
> If the emitter is emitting uniformity in a half circle then we have the following equation:
> 
> Luminous intensity = luminous flux / 2*pi
> 
> So, if we haven't changed the angle the light is emitted, how can the luminous intensity stay constant while the luminous flux goes down?
> 
> --Darin


Hold on now. "Current" or "Current _Density_" ? Both have been used in this conversation so far.


----------



## UltraBlack

darinp2 said:


> Is it your position that a test pattern with a block of 10 blue pixels at 100% and everything else black will provide the same luminous intensity as a test pattern of 1 blue pixel at 100% and everything else as black?


Yes.



darinp2 said:


> Do you disagree that the units for luminous intensity are lumens per steradian angle?


No, I don't disagree.



darinp2 said:


> If a shutter was put over 100% of a subpixel instead of 90%, what would happen to the luminous intensity of that subpixel with shutter?


In that case you have no source of light, so you have zero luminous intensity and zero luminous flux. In order to have some luminous intensity, you need a source of light, no matter how big it is. The smaller the light emitting object is, the bigger the difference between its luminous intensity and luminous flux, because the flux is directly depending of the size of the emissive object.

And since the eye (brain perception) deals only with luminous flux, if the blue OLED subpixel of Samsung 55S9 is twice as big compared to red and green one, then it has to be driven with 2 times less current and it will have the same luminous flux, but will last longer.


----------



## xrox

UltraBlack said:


> And since the eye (brain perception) deals only with luminous flux, if the blue OLED subpixel of Samsung 55S9 is twice as big compared to red and green one, then it has to be driven with 2 times less current and it will have the same luminous flux, but will last longer.


The eye sees luminance. It is not concerned with luminous flux.

I think everyone here is not understanding the role the eye plays. I tried explaining it in my last post.

When the light source is an effective point source (which a pixel is) our eye will perceive intensity changes with area. If the source is extended (has a perceivable area) then we will see a constant luminance as area changes.

All the examples here must specify a point source vs an extended source.


----------



## darinp2

UltraBlack said:


> darinp2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you disagree that the units for luminous intensity are lumens per steradian angle?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't disagree.
Click to expand...

So, how did the lumens per steradian not go down when blocking 90% of the tiny subpixels that a human can't see any size for?


darinp2 said:


> And since the eye (brain perception) deals only with luminous flux,


Not sure where that can from. Take a candle and put it a ways away. Now focus the beam down to a small angle (like a flashlight). The luminous flux will stay the same (assuming 100% efficiency for the moment), while the luminous intensity for the direction it is pointed will go up. Is it your position that a human wouldn't see a difference because it was only luminous intensity that changed? If not, why would a human notice a difference with a flashlight pointed at them from a far distance between the flashlight focused as normal and taking the focusing lens off so the light source is in the open like a candle?

Maybe we are using different definitions of luminous intensity. Do you disagree with this definition from Wikipedia?

"In photometry, luminous intensity is a measure of the wavelength-weighted power emitted by a light source in a particular direction per unit solid angle, based on the luminosity function, a standardized model of the sensitivity of the human eye."

If it is easier we could consider radiant flux and radiant intensity since they have a similar relationship as luminous flux and luminous intensity, but don't require scaling for the eye's perception.

Here is Wikipedia's definition for radiant intensity.

"In radiometry, radiant intensity is the radiant flux emitted, reflected, transmitted or received, per unit solid angle"

Do you disagree that the radiant intensity goes down when shutters cut off 90% of each subpixel?

--Darin


----------



## darinp2

xrox said:


> All the examples here must specify a point source vs an extended source.


In most of my examples we know that the sources are extended (have size), but that we are viewing from distances where they are perceived as point sources. 

I know you know this, but they don't have to actually be point sources, they just have to be perceived that way. Like my moon and star example. We know the stars are physically bigger sources of light, but are perceived as point sources because of our distance from them.

Subpixels don't have to actually be point sources to be perceived that way. So, we can treat them as extended sources when discussing certain aspects (like blocking 90% of their area) and as point sources when discussing other aspects (like how a human from a distance perceives them).

--Darin


----------



## xrox

darinp2 said:


> Subpixels don't have to actually be point sources to be perceived that way. So, we can treat them as extended sources when discussing certain aspects (like blocking 90% of their area) and as point sources when discussing other aspects (like how a human from a distance perceives them).
> 
> --Darin


No you can't treat them as extended sources unless you are close enough that the subpixel area is resolvable to your eye. 

Extended source = If you block 90% of the area the luminance and intensity remain constant to the eye 

Point source = If you block 90% of the area the intensity drops 

When viewing the screen, the eye treats the screen as a non-uniform extended source wherein the luminance of all the point sources (subpixels and black space) are averaged.

So the perceived brightness of the display will not change with a bigger blue subpixel at lower current density.


----------



## darinp2

xrox said:


> Point source = If you block 90% of the area the intensity drops


A true point source doesn't have area, so you can't block 90% of the area. You have to get close enough so that the item can be treated as an extended source in order to block 90% of the area of it, then move back to where it is perceived as a point source even though it has area.

If you disagree, are the blue subpixels point sources if viewed from up close with a strong magnifying glass? If not, do they actually become point sources when viewed from a distance, or just perceptual point sources?

The engineers working on modifying subpixel sizes cannot view them only as point sources.

If your job was to block 90% of the area of a point source, how would you do that?

By your definitions, if I view a TV from 2 miles away while somebody else views it from 10' away. is the TV an extended source or a point source?


> So the perceived brightness will not change with a bigger blue subpixel.


Using the EF9500 as an example, if shutters were put in that could block 90% of the area of each blue subpixel, would the perceived brightness to a viewer at a normal viewing ratio change between having the shutters opened versus closed?

--Darin


----------



## darinp2

tgm1024 said:


> Hold on now. "Current" or "Current _Density_" ? Both have been used in this conversation so far.


I wasn't meaning it to be that specific. Just speculating on how somebody might have gotten to a conclusive that luminous intensity couldn't change just by blocking part of a light source even though the luminous flux changed. Using a shutter doesn't change current or current density in a subpixel, so neither matter for that example.

--Darin


----------



## stas3098

xrox said:


> No you can't treat them as extended sources unless you are close enough that the subpixel area is resolvable to your eye.
> 
> Extended source = If you block 90% of the area the luminance and intensity remain constant to the eye
> 
> Point source = If you block 90% of the area the intensity drops
> 
> When viewing the screen, the eye treats the screen as a non-uniform extended source wherein the luminance of all the point sources (subpixels and black space) are averaged.
> 
> So the perceived brightness will not change with a bigger blue subpixel.


The reason I asked those questions is that I can see pixels on my pentile OLED Tab S2 almost all of the time (that's it, I can see pixels on pure colors such as red, green and blue, can't see them on white, though) and if I move far enough away not to see them the perceived brightness appears to remain the same... whether I can see them or not does not seem to have any bearing on the perceived brightness of the display... I mean, remember all those people complaining that they could see pixels on pentile OLED displays and none of them, to the best of my knowledge, ever observed a decrease in brightness between when they could see the pixels and when they couldn't.... Just food for thought, you know...


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> The reason I asked those questions is that I can see pixels on my pentile OLED Tab S2 almost all of the time (that's it, I can see pixels on pure colors such as red, green and blue, can't see them on white, though) and if I move far away enough not to see them the perceived brightness appears to remain the same... whether I can see them or not does not seem to have any bearing on the perceived brightness of the display


Could you put up a single green or blue pixel on black, then block part of that pixel with something and see if your perception of how bright that pixel is from a distance where you can't see individual pixels changes between blocking part of the pixel and not? Then do the same from up close with a magnifying glass or strong reading glasses.

Thanks,
Darin


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> Could you put up a single green or blue pixel on black, then block part of that pixel with something and see if your perception of how bright that pixel is from a distance where you can't see individual pixels changes between blocking part of the pixel and not? Then do the same from up close with a magnifying glass or strong reading glasses.
> 
> Thanks,
> Darin


I do have neither a magnifying glass nor strong reading glasses on me right now, but from what I can see the farther away I get from the blue pixel (or a small collection of the blue pixels if I zoom in) the dimmer it gets. If I block a small collection of blue pixels, it (the small collection of blue pixels) does not appear dimmer unless I put some distance between me and it.

P.S. I would really appreciate it if some other people here could try and perform the same experiment (with their OLED devises) so that we could expand our database and see if others see the same things I see.

Just tried the same thing with the Samsung Tab S 10.5 with an RGB stripe OLED display. The results are as follows:

If I try and cover a portion of a blue pixel (or at least what I think the blue pixel is) it does not make it appear any dimmer unless I put some distance between me and it.

If I put up a small collection of blue pixels and cover some of it it (the small collection of blue pixels) does not appear dimmer unless I put some distance between me and it.

Also, if I move far enough away from the pixel it seems to disappear completely.


----------



## darinp2

stas3098 said:


> Also, if I move far enough away from the pixel seems to disappear completely.


It sounds like if you cover part of the pixel (or group of pixels) it disappears at a closer distance than if you don't cover part of it. Is that right?

I would say that is because the partially covered pixel appears dimmer when you are far enough away for it to be perceived as a point source.

You could also try changing the video level of the pixel. For instance, if you change it from 100% video level to say 50% video level without covering it in either case it should disappear closer to the screen in the 50% case for much the same reason that a partially covered pixel would.

Depending on gamma, going to 50% video level for a whole block of pixels should appear about as bright as if you blocked 80% of the pixels or just made it easier and illuminated only 1/5th as many pixels, as long as you are far enough away to perceive a single point source.

For example, you could compare a pattern with 10 blue pixels at 50% video level (~20% luminance) to 2 pixels illuminated at 100% video level, from a distance.

Or to keep the physical size about the same you could compare a block of say 100 pixels at 50% video level with the same size block at 100% video level, but with 80% of the pixels off and spaced somewhat randomly within the 10x10 area.

--Darin


----------



## darinp2

This is far from perfect, but here is an image that contains a block of video 235 blue, then a block of video 126 blue, then a block of video 235 blue with much of the area blocked.

People can zoom up and see what it looks like when your vision can see the area clearly, then zoom down and/or move away from the screen to see how bright each one looks as the blocks get closer to looking like point sources.

If anybody thinks the rightmost block doesn't have lower average luminous intensity and lower luminous intensity as the leftmost block when viewed from a distance where it is a perceptual point source or close to it we should talk about what the definition of luminous intensity is.

Hopefully this picture will also help to explain how if you block part of a subpixel you would have to make the leftover part of the subpixel brighter than that part was before in order for the whole subpixel to look as bright from a distance.

--Darin


----------



## xrox

darinp2 said:


> A true point source doesn't have area, so you can't block 90% of the area. You have to get close enough so that the item can be treated as an extended source in order to block 90% of the area of it, then move back to where it is perceived as a point source even though it has area.


A true point source does not exist. Like I said, at a certain distance or area, your eye begins to treat an extended source as a point source. Luminance becomes intensity as only one angle exists.



darinp2 said:


> If you disagree, are the blue subpixels point sources if viewed from up close with a strong magnifying glass? If not, do they actually become point sources when viewed from a distance, or just perceptual point sources?


If you can visually resolve the area, the source is observed as extended. In that case your eye can sense luminance which is independant of distance or area.



darinp2 said:


> By your definitions, if I view a TV from 2 miles away while somebody else views it from 10' away. is the TV an extended source or a point source?


2 miles away is a point source, 10' away is an array of point sources we average into an extended source. The perception of luminance is dependent on the uniformity of the source. This holds true with luminance meters or your eye. In a display the source is inherently not uniform due to the pixel pitch.



darinp2 said:


> Using the EF9500 as an example, if shutters were put in that could block 90% of the area of each blue subpixel, would the perceived brightness to a viewer at a normal viewing ratio change between having the shutters opened versus closed?


Absolutely. The average luminance of the array of point sources had dropped. So the extended source (average of the luminance of all point sources) luminance had dropped.

This is the crux of this discussion. The fixed area of the display is an array of point sources. Covering the individual pixels by 90% is not the same as covering the screen by 90%. The reason is point source vs extended source and how the eye will average luminance over an extended source.


----------



## xrox

stas3098 said:


> The reason I asked those questions is that I can see pixels on my pentile OLED Tab S2 almost all of the time (that's it, I can see pixels on pure colors such as red, green and blue, can't see them on white, though) and if I move far enough away not to see them the perceived brightness appears to remain the same... whether I can see them or not does not seem to have any bearing on the perceived brightness of the display... I mean, remember all those people complaining that they could see pixels on pentile OLED displays and none of them, to the best of my knowledge, ever observed a decrease in brightness between when they could see the pixels and when they couldn't.... Just food for thought, you know...


This is a great study as well. If you watch a single white pixel on a black screen and move further away the pixel will absolutely start to look dimmer (less bright) as it is acting like a point source (like stars moving further away). However, if the entire screen is white you won't observe any change in luminance (brightness).

Why? Because we perceive the entire screen as an extended source as our eyes average many multiple point sources that make it up. As we move backwards the distance from the screen and the area of the screen change proportionaly and we see no change in average luminance.


----------



## darinp2

xrox said:


> A true point source does not exist.


Yep. We can treat things as a point source, but we can't block 90% of the area while doing so. We have to get close enough to be able to adjust the area and at that point we are treating them as an extended source in order to be able to block the area.

You said I was wrong about:


darinp2 said:


> Subpixels don't have to actually be point sources to be perceived that way. So, we can treat them as extended sources when discussing certain aspects (like blocking 90% of their area) and as point sources when discussing other aspects (like how a human from a distance perceives them).


What is it you disagree with? If you still disagree, how would you block 90% of a point source without treating it as an extended source while determining the area to block?


> 2 miles away is a point source, 10' away is an array of point sources we average into an extended source.


Sounds like if I ask you whether a blue subpixel is an extended source or a point source you can't say since you don't have enough information. Maybe just a semantic thing where I would say in the real world the subpixel has area, but it cannot always be perceived. It is sometimes expedient to treat it as having area and sometimes not.


> Absolutely. The average luminance of the array of point sources had dropped. So the extended source (average of the luminance of all point sources) luminance had dropped.
> 
> This is the crux of this discussion. The fixed area of the display is an array of point sources. Covering the individual pixels by 90% is not the same as covering the screen by 90%. The reason is point source vs extended source and how the eye will average luminance over an extended source.


It seems like we basically agree other than maybe some semantics like I think it would be difficult for an engineering team to design televisions if they could only treat subpixels as point sources. Like a lot of things in science and engineering we can consider the same thing in different ways depending on the goal.

The fixed area of the display cannot be treated as just point sources by the person who is supposed to decide things based on area of the individual subpixels and pixel areas. For things where area is not needed they can treat them as point sources.

--Darin


----------



## xrox

darinp2 said:


> Yep. We can treat things as a point source, but we can't block 90% of the area while doing so. We have to get close enough to be able to adjust the area and at that point we are treating them as an extended source in order to be able to block the area.


Of course you can. Take an extended source, cover 90% of it up, then move far enough away until it is observed as a point source and see how it looks. I'm a little confused at this statement.



darinp2 said:


> You said I was wrong about:


I meant you can't treat a subpixel as an extended source unless you are so close to it to observe a resolvalbe area. 



darinp2 said:


> What is it you disagree with? If you still disagree, how would you block 90% of a point source without treating it as an extended source while determining the area to block?


Seems like semantics here. I was just saying you can't make conclusions about the extended area properties and the point source area properties in the same example as they are totally different. 



darinp2 said:


> Sounds like if I ask you whether a blue subpixel is an extended source or a point source you can't say since you don't have enough information.


It is simple. If I'm close enough to not see a change in average luminance, the subpixel is an extended source I can resolve. If I do see a drop in luminance the subpixel is a point source.


----------



## darinp2

xrox said:


> Of course you can. Take an extended source, cover 90% of it up, then move far enough away until it is observed as a point source and see how it looks. I'm a little confused at this statement.


I'm confused by your claim since you just did what I described and you said I was wrong about. You treated the same object as an extended source in order to block it and then as a point source after you moved back. Didn't I say we could view it as an extended source to block the area and then as a point source to consider how a human from a distance perceives it?

Seems like you agree with me that you can't really block 90% of the area while just considering it as a point source.


> I meant you can't treat a subpixel as an extended source unless you are so close to it to observe a resolvalbe area.


True, but you can be up close treating something as an extended source while you block some area of it while having an observer at a distance who views it as a point source. Like if you covered part of the light from a lighthouse while asking somebody on a distant ship what they perceive.


xrox said:


> Seems like semantics here. I was just saying you can't make conclusions about the extended area properties and the point source area properties in the same example as they are totally different.


Didn't you just do that above with treating the pixel as an extended source and then moving until it is perceived as a point source? Like I mentioned, it doesn't have to even be the same person. We can consider the properties of a single example when it is perceived as an extended source and when it is perceived as a point source. Could be 2 people at the same time. Of course the perceived properties are different, but we can consider both.


> It is simple. If I'm close enough to not see a change in average luminance, the subpixel is an extended source I can resolve. If I do see a drop in luminance as the subpixel is a point source.


And if 2 people each observe one of those at the same time it is both. Simple, right? 

--Darin


----------



## xrox

darinp2 said:


> I'm confused by your claim since you just did what I described and you said I was wrong about. You treated the same object as an extended source in order to block it and then as a point source after you moved back. Didn't I say we could view it as an extended source to block the area and then as a point source to consider how a human from a distance perceives it?


Just confusion. I read that you were making conclusions about the subpixel as an extended source and applying that towards what the average viewer sees.



darinp2 said:


> Seems like you agree with me that you can't really block 90% of the area while just considering it as a point source.


I don't agree. I think we tackle problems differently. I'm not working in considerations. In all examples I am working in perception. In other words what will the source look like up close or from a far.



darinp2 said:


> True, but you can be up close treating something as an extended source while you block some area of it while have an observer at a distance views it as a point source. Like if you covered part of the light from a lighthouse while asking somebody on a ship what they perceive.


This tells me we are on the same page. That makes sense. 





darinp2 said:


> And if 2 people each observe one of those at the same time it is both. Simple, right?


Not quite. It is interesting to me at what point the human eye (as an array of luminance sensors) resolves to one sensor unit. Maybe that is the threshold of a point source showing a change in perceived brightness.


----------



## tgm1024

xrox said:


> So the perceived brightness will not change with a bigger blue subpixel.


I'm not sure I understand why not. It will when you take into account the area around it. This is, after all, how half-tones work.

In a printing system (a subtractive process), each of the 3 colors (leave out black---it's an oddity) are _always_ the same ink and never change. Yet the size of the dot is what yields the perceived brightness for each of them. I have written this routine many times. It's no mere dithering.










Or more simply (pay attention to the left third of the image):


----------



## xrox

tgm1024 said:


> I'm not sure I understand why not. It will when you take into account the area around it. This is, after all, how half-tones work.


The statement was referring to the larger blue subpixel with lower current density (not the 90% example). Viewing up close the subpixel will look dimmer. From a far the display will not look any dimmer.

The 90% cover up example will be the exact opposite.

I can see why it was not clear. I'll edit that post.


----------



## tgm1024

xrox said:


> The statement was referring to the larger blue subpixel with lower current density (not the 90% example). Viewing up close the subpixel will look dimmer. From a far the display will not look any dimmer.
> 
> The 90% cover up example will be the exact opposite.
> 
> I can see why it was not clear. I'll edit that post.


Gotcha.


----------



## stas3098

darinp2 said:


> This is far from perfect, but here is an image that contains a block of video 235 blue, then a block of video 126 blue, then a block of video 235 blue with much of the area blocked.
> 
> People can zoom up and see what it looks like when your vision can see the area clearly, then zoom down and/or move away from the screen to see how bright each one looks as the blocks get closer to looking like point sources.
> 
> If anybody thinks the rightmost block doesn't have lower average luminous intensity and lower luminous intensity as the leftmost block when viewed from a distance where it is a perceptual point source or close to it we should talk about what the definition of luminous intensity is.
> 
> Hopefully this picture will also help to explain how if you block part of a subpixel you would have to make the leftover part of the subpixel brighter than that part was before in order for the whole subpixel to look as bright from a distance.
> 
> --Darin





> This is a great study as well. If you watch a single white pixel on a black screen and move further away the pixel will absolutely start to look dimmer (less bright) as it is acting like a point source (like stars moving further away). However, if the entire screen is white you won't observe any change in luminance (brightness).
> 
> Why? Because we perceive the entire screen as an extended source as our eyes average many multiple point sources that make it up. As we move backwards the distance from the screen and the area of the screen change proportionaly and we see no change in average luminance.


I have just finished conducting the block experiment. Here are the main observations (plus photos): 

1. The leftmost block of pixels, at all distances, appears brighter than the center and the rightmost blocks. At a considerable distance, the center and the rightmost blocks appear roughly the same, as far as the brightness is concerned.

2. The leftmost block disappears the last, whereas the center and the rightmost blocks seem to disappear at roughly the same distance. They also (the center and the rightmost blocks) seem to disappear at a lesser distance than the leftmost block.

3. If I get close enough to the screen so that my eyes can resolve the constituent "parts" of the rightmost block, those constituent "parts" appear brighter than the center block, but I would not say that they appear as bright as the leftmost block.

Well, that's about it.


----------



## darinp2

Thanks Stas. Here are a couple more versions where I made the blocks bigger, put the solid block with low video level on the right, and for one of them put no gap between the blocks.


If people who are interested open them in Microsoft Paint they can use the eyedropper and then "Edit colors" to verify how each part is encoded (or to change the encodings), and also zoom the images either way for inspection.


BTW: I don't know what percentage of the area of the center block this time is black and what percentage is blue. I was just winging it.


--Darin


----------



## darinp2

xrox said:


> It is interesting to me at what point the human eye (as an array of luminance sensors) resolves to one sensor unit. Maybe that is the threshold of a point source showing a change in perceived brightness.


From the example I just posted it seems like there is a gradual drop-off in the ability to perceive area change versus just a brightness change when part of the area of a light source is blocked. It makes sense to me that our ability to sense the area decreases as we get closer to viewing the object as a point source. 


--Darin


----------



## catonic

Given the well known issues LG's OLEDs have with shadow detail and vignetting etc at just above black level (eg. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...7-vignetting-test-lg-ef9500-eg9600-oleds.html) the following video is of interest. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/138-avs-forum-podcasts/1877441-joe-kane-ultra-hd.html

At the very end Joe Kane talks about OLED's and how 2.4 gamma levels are CRT based and not really suitable for OLED's and LCD's. He suggests we should change to a 1.0 gamma level.
This may help explain the issues that LG are having with their OLED sets at just above black level.


----------



## Rich Peterson

LG expected to finalize 8G OLED investment plans in November, says report

Source (Digitimes): http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20151104PD204.html



> Carmen Chen, Taipei; Alex Wolfgram, DIGITIMES [Wednesday 4 November 2015]
> 
> LG Display is expected to make a final decision by the end of November regarding how it will allocate a US$3.55 billion investment at its 8G OLED production facilities in Paju, South Korea, according to a report from Money Today.
> 
> The line is expected to cut 2,200 by 2,500 substrates and reach a monthly production capacity of 40,000 substrates, giving LG approximately 80,000 substrates in monthly capacity by 2018.
> 
> The report said LG will use the line to focus mainly on production of small- to medium-size flexible OLED displays in addition to large-size OLED TV panels, giving the company a more complete range of OLED solutions.
> 
> Meanwhile, other reports from Asia have stated LG is pushing up visits to China-based handset vendors such as Oppo and Vivo to discuss supplying increased amounts of AMOLED panels. The panel maker also expects a major increase in high-end smartphone demand through the end of 2015 and heading into 2016 in China in addition to increased global demand for OLED TVs from 2017 onwards.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG expected to finalize 8G OLED investment plans in November, says report*

Source (Digitimes): http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20151104PD204.html



> Carmen Chen, Taipei; Alex Wolfgram, DIGITIMES [Wednesday 4 November 2015]
> 
> LG Display is expected to make a final decision by the end of November regarding how it will allocate a US$3.55 billion investment at its 8G OLED production facilities in Paju, South Korea, according to a report from Money Today.
> 
> The line is expected to cut 2,200 by 2,500 substrates and reach a monthly production capacity of 40,000 substrates, giving LG approximately 80,000 substrates in monthly capacity by 2018.
> 
> The report said LG will use the line to focus mainly on production of small- to medium-size flexible OLED displays in addition to large-size OLED TV panels, giving the company a more complete range of OLED solutions.
> 
> Meanwhile, other reports from Asia have stated LG is pushing up visits to China-based handset vendors such as Oppo and Vivo to discuss supplying increased amounts of AMOLED panels. The panel maker also expects a major increase in high-end smartphone demand through the end of 2015 and heading into 2016 in China in addition to increased global demand for OLED TVs from 2017 onwards.


----------



## wco81

Maybe they should work on improving the quality of their panels first before expanding.


----------



## rogo

In typical Digitimes fashion, you have to sort of translate the English to English. But I read this to say, "Most of this new production is for mobile screen, with a few more TVs thrown in."

That makes sense given that they already have all the TV production they need to get them through next year, but less sense given that we are talking about just 80,000 substrates in 2018?

Eek, that's way too low. If 100% of that went to TV*, it would be ~5 million TVs a year. Way too low.

* And clearly that isn't the plan.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

rogo said:


> English to English


Shall we say, Engrish to English?


----------



## rogo

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Shall we say, Engrish to English?


We could, but I was trying to be a tad more polite


----------



## bossorange

*Oled tv and water dangerous*

Hi Guys,
I am thinking to buy LG EC9300.
Important question - how dangerous is water for the oled, is it a problem to wipe out the screen with wet cloth?
Thank you,


----------



## Postmoderndesign

bossorange said:


> Hi Guys,
> I am thinking to buy LG EC9300.
> Important question - how dangerous is water for the oled, is it a problem to wipe out the screen with wet cloth?
> Thank you,


There seems to be a lot of conflicting advice on the internet. What looked best to me was use three microfiber clothes. First dust the screen with one cloth. Then with a wrung out damp cloth, dampened with water or a specifically designed agent-you decide which is best-wipe the screen again. Then dry the screen with a third microfiber.

If you find better advice please post the information.


----------



## ALMA

Now they speculate about a 10G OLED plant by LG:



> BusinessKorea 19 Korean media reported, citing industry sources, LGD plans to build in Paju, South Korea, the 10th generation OLED panel production line "P10", it is expected to be 4-5 trillion won of funds (equivalent to 34.2-42.7 billion).


https://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moneydj.com%2FKMDJ%2FNews%2FNewsViewer.aspx%3Fa%3D70a5c3ea-b5d4-45e0-9fac-4dc05b4667a6&sandbox=1

Edit: It seems it´s more than only a rumour:



> According to industry sources on Nov. 18, LG Display will set up its 10th organic light-emitting diode (OLED) panel production line, P10, in Paju. The company will make the investment worth 4 trillion to 5 trillion won (US$3.42 billion to 4.27 billion).
> 
> Earlier, the company announced in July that it will invest more than 1 trillion won (US$853.97 million) in building a new plant in Gumi to produce the 6th-generation OLED substrate sheet of 1,500mm x 1,850mm. Therefore, the total investments for plants in Gumi and Paju will reach 5 trillion to 6 trillion won (US$4.27 billion to 5.12 billion) within this year. According to the plan announced by LG Display in Aug., the company will make an investment of 10 trillion won (US$8.54 billion) by 2018.


http://www.businessk...-new-oled-plant-paju


----------



## darinp2

ALMA said:


> Now they speculate about a 10G OLED plant by LG:
> 
> https://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moneydj.com%2FKMDJ%2FNews%2FNewsViewer.aspx%3Fa%3D70a5c3ea-b5d4-45e0-9fac-4dc05b4667a6&sandbox=1
> 
> Edit: It seems it´s more than only a rumour:
> 
> http://www.businessk...-new-oled-plant-paju


6 months ago I was under the impression that there was quite a bit of doubt about whether OLED for large screen TV was here to stay. Are we now over the hump where we can be sure it will be sticking around for quite a while?

--Darin


----------



## rogo

Alma, interesting. There is a lot of detail missing: Is it a "10G" substrate as we know it in the sense of Sharp's Sakai plant, the only operating 10G plant to date? Are they committed to making it OLED (there's conflicting language in the Business Korea story)? What's the nonsense about maybe making LCDs with LTPS or "oxide"? They are already making some IGZO LCDs and some LTPS I'm fairly sure. They can't both be doubling down on LCD and also going all in on OLED.

Darin, what has changed -- at least for the moment -- is LG has made plans/announcements to push forward. That's very bullish because of a sort of interesting cycle: They've already learned that there is _essentially no volume_ to be had by inventing a new super-premium tier of pricing. To reach even next year's goals of selling something like 1.5M TVs, they will have to compete with real, existing, LCDs you can buy. 

Once they do that, they will be poised to not only hit some sales goal for 2016, but also grow into 2017-18 and beyond. With new capacity then online and the need to sell even more TVs, they have to push into more tiers of LCD pricing.

So I'm bullish that if they go through will all their announced investments, we'll see a $3000 65-inch OLED and a $1500 55-inch OLED. Because without those, there is simply no way to hit the sales goals. And without hitting the sales goals, there is no way to fully build out the capacity justified by announced plans.

That they have OEMs interested and also have competition possibly thinking about emerging from Samsung and China is just more good news.


----------



## Whatstreet

darinp2 said:


> 6 months ago I was under the impression that there was quite a bit of doubt about whether OLED for large screen TV was here to stay. Are we now over the hump where we can be sure it will be sticking around for quite a while?
> 
> --Darin


In this case I am an arm chair quarterback. However, based on the amount of investment that has been taking place. I would say that they are seriously have a desire to over take the market.


----------



## Whatstreet

rogo said:


> So I'm bullish that if they go through will all their announced investments, we'll see a $3000 65-inch OLED and a $1500 55-inch OLED.



You have selected attractive price points. When do you think this might happen?


----------



## rogo

Whatstreet said:


> You have selected attractive price points. When do you think this might happen?


By 2017.

Today, we're at about $5000/$3000 for flat models (I'm discussing real prices, at major retailers like Amazon / Best Buy. While it's good to know about better deals, especially from reputable discounters like forum sponsor Cleveland Plasma, those are not reflective of the deals most people will ever obtain)

It's also worth noting that the 1080p 55-inch can be had for ~$1,800 pretty easily I believe, which would be tantalizing for someone who (a) didn't mind a curved screen (b) needed just a 55-inch display.

Anyway, historically, we've seen ~30% price drops on technology that sees rapidly falling prices. That doesn't tell us much about what happens in a given single year, however. So it doesn't for example inform us that next year's prices will be $3500/$2100. Nor that the year after's will be $2500/$1500.

That said, to get from $5000 to $3000 only requires 25% compounded declines over a couple of years. That feels pretty doable. (n.b. I'm quite confident LG will offer a 65" OLED for not only $2500, but even $2000 before the decade is over*. The vast majority of 60" TVs sold are now $1200 and less. For even 70", the vast majority of sales are _well below_ $2000. LG cannot hit its sales goals without 65" TVs that are $2000, if not cheaper.)

The significance of the $3000 price point is that -- for several years -- it represented the price at which a state of the art plasma could be found on sale. In short, it was sort of a high-water mark for volume TV selling and therefore a short-term maximum for LG to attract notice that it's 65-inch OLED is "something you can really buy." I think the $4000 TVs sell in far, far lower quantity than nearly anywhere hear believes. I don't actually believe they are mostly intended for sale, but rather to promote less expensive models.

Anyway, I digress... Two years seems very doable for that decline. One year _does not seem completely impossible_.

The 55-inch models are trickier. I don't believe -- for a number of technical reasons -- that the 4K models are inherently more expensive to make than the 1080p models by more than perhaps $20-50. And the only reason for the delta is that the semiconductors aren't in as high volume and the bill of materials is slightly higher overall. In the short term, yields are likely lower but that's not inherent. 

As we've already seen 55-inch models comfortably below $2000 at retail, I think the $3000 price of today's 4K model is somewhat artificially high. If we apply the 30% reduction twice, you'll see we still get there in 2 years ($2100, $1500)**. In the 55-inch category, I'm actually skeptical there is a market above $1500 today that has any real volume. There might be some small amount of volume at $2000, but I think it's quite a bit smaller than -- again -- most people at AVS believe.

LG is seeking volume increases that amount to more than doubling in 2016 and then something similar in 2017. You can't make people up their spending in TV so you'll have to meet them at prices they are willing to pay. 

I look forward to it.




* Assuming, of course, they keep making OLED TVs on the expected capital expansion trajectory.
** Yes, I can do math. Yes, I also round off for simplicity.


----------



## remush

I saw this article recently, claiming LG is about to cut the prices by almost half before christmas.

http://www.techeye.net/news/lg-to-slash-oled-prices-to-push-tech


----------



## Esox50

rogo said:


> LG is seeking volume increases that amount to more than doubling in 2016 and then something similar in 2017. You can't make people up their spending in TV so you'll have to meet them at prices they are willing to pay.


Perfectly stated. For me, it's also not a question of overall cost, but of value. And in terms of value...that thread on the flat 55" and 65" scares the heck out of me with all the problems. Why would I pay 5,000 and risk being unhappy. At 3,000...i'd be much more inclined to jump in and "hope for the best".

What's really got me intrigued is the new 2016 77" OLED won some sort of CES Innovations award (how they won for a show that hasn't occurred yet, I don't know, but I'll take it on faith). I would love to know 1.)how much that 77" is going to street for by mid-2016 and 2.)what its going to do to the price of the 65" (there always seems to be about a "roughly 2x" MSRP premium for the largest size in any range).

Anyway, 5,000 is about as high as I'll go on a TV. It would have to be something really special for my to go up to 6-8,000.


----------



## darinp2

remush said:


> I saw this article recently, claiming LG is about to cut the prices by almost half before christmas.
> 
> http://www.techeye.net/news/lg-to-slash-oled-prices-to-push-tech


Sounds to me like that means in half from where they were:


> LG Electronics is going to slash the price of OLED TVs almost in half before Christmas in a bid to make the TV technology mainstream.
> ...
> LG Electronics said production improvements allowed it to cut prices of six models in the world’s biggest TV market by as much as 45 percent from last month, without crimping margins. Two are now below $2,000, a fraction of the $14,999 of LG’s first OLED TV in 2013.


While it would be great to see I doubt what LG was saying is that this year they are going to cut another 50% off the 45% they already claim to have cut prices.

--Darin


----------



## jjackkrash

Esox50 said:


> ]
> What's really got me intrigued is the new 2016 77" OLED won some sort of CES Innovations award (how they won for a show that hasn't occurred yet, I don't know, but I'll take it on faith). I would love to know 1.)how much that 77" is going to street for by mid-2016 and 2.)what its going to do to the price of the 65" (there always seems to be about a "roughly 2x" MSRP premium for the largest size in any range).
> 
> Anyway, 5,000 is about as high as I'll go on a TV. It would have to be something really special for my to go up to 6-8,000.



I would love, love, love a 77" Oled, but it needs to be well south of $10k.


----------



## rogo

Esox50 said:


> What's really got me intrigued is the new 2016 77" OLED won some sort of CES Innovations award (how they won for a show that hasn't occurred yet, I don't know, but I'll take it on faith). I would love to know 1.)how much that 77" is going to street for by mid-2016 and 2.)what its going to do to the price of the 65" (there always seems to be about a "roughly 2x" MSRP premium for the largest size in any range).
> 
> Anyway, 5,000 is about as high as I'll go on a TV. It would have to be something really special for my to go up to 6-8,000.


I generally try to avoid too many of the: "This is what I'm concerned about personally" posts, but it's pretty well clear that the 77" (or thereabouts) is the one I personally want. The reason I didn't speculate on the price as much is that to date it's not actually a real product. Producing a few demo units for the rich and famous does not a "product" in the mass production sense make. I do believe it will eventually fall into line with the other models. Does that mean it will eventually be part of a lineup that is $1500/$2500/$3500? Perhaps. One that's $1500/$3000/$5000? More assuredly. 

But as for 2016/17, I'd place fewer bets on where the 77" falls. I don't have confidence it gets much below $10,000 next year, for example. I'd like to believe it gets to $5000 in 2017, but I'm nowhere near certain of that.



darinp2 said:


> Sounds to me like that means in half from where they were:
> While it would be great to see I doubt what LG was saying is that this year they are going to cut another 50% off the 45% they already claim to have cut prices.


Correct. We essentially see the prices that exist for the holiday season right now. Black Friday pricing is already widely available and the idea pricing will be below that is generally false.


----------



## jjackkrash

rogo said:


> But as for 2016/17, I'd place fewer bets on where the 77" falls. I don't have confidence it gets much below $10,000 next year, for example. I'd like to believe it gets to $5000 in 2017, but I'm nowhere near certain of that.



I have a real hard time with sets over $5-7k because any more than that and you can get a very, very nice projector coupled with a very nice screen the size of a wall. I understand its a different product, but $10k for a 77" TV is just too much to swallow.

But fingers crossed!


----------



## rogo

jjackkrash said:


> I have a real hard time with sets over $5-7k because any more than that and you can get a very, very nice projector coupled with a very nice screen the size of a wall. I understand its a different product, but $10k for a 77" TV is just too much to swallow.


Well, you aren't alone with that... and projectors are only a small part of the reason.

The market stratifies pretty quickly in TV. Of the ~250 million TVs sold, more than 225 million of them are sold below $1000. Of the remainder, the vast majority are then sold below $2000. And of _that remainder_, nearly everything left is sold below $3000.


----------



## Danny Dorresteijn

Hmm, this could be a hint from Samsung for CES 2016...

samsungtomorrow(com)/tv-%EA%B5%AC%EB%A7%A4-%EA%BF%80%ED%8C%81-%E2%91%A1%EC%96%B4%EB%96%A4-%EB%B0%A9%EC%8B%9D%EC%9D%98-tv%EA%B0%80-%EC%A2%8B%EC%9D%84%EA%B9%8C

WOLED...


----------



## Rich Peterson

^^^ I can't get the link to work so can't read the article, but I'm hoping Samsung doesn't move to WOLED with their future OLED TVs. I would prefer their future OLED sets use printing and I think that implies RGB.


----------



## wco81

What future OLED sets?

They're touting quantum dot aren't they?


----------



## tigertim

Danny Dorresteijn said:


> Hmm, this could be a hint from Samsung for CES 2016...
> 
> samsungtomorrow(com)/tv-%EA%B5%AC%EB%A7%A4-%EA%BF%80%ED%8C%81-%E2%91%A1%EC%96%B4%EB%96%A4-%EB%B0%A9%EC%8B%9D%EC%9D%98-tv%EA%B0%80-%EC%A2%8B%EC%9D%84%EA%B9%8C
> 
> WOLED...



can you relink please


----------



## slacker711

See if this works. It is a link to the Korean Samsung Tomorrow website. There is a picture showing how WOLED works, but I'm not sure if they are being complementary of the process or not. 

http://samsungtomorrow.com/tv-구매-꿀팁-②어떤-방식의-tv가-좋을까


----------



## NintendoManiac64

The old non-ASCII characters in the URL strikes again! 


The trick with URLs that have east-Asian characters (or other non-ASCII characters) is to copy only part of the URL, the easiest being everything but the http:// (you can still manually type in http:// afterwards if you really need it).

This then will give you the URL as it is displayed rather than the URL as the computer understands it.


The original URL was this:
samsungtomorrow.com/tv-구매-꿀팁-②어떤-방식의-tv가-좋을까
http://samsungtomorrow.com/tv-구매-꿀팁-②어떤-방식의-tv가-좋을까


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> See if this works. It is a link to the Korean Samsung Tomorrow website. There is a picture showing how WOLED works, but I'm not sure if they are being complementary of the process or not.


The Google Translate does not feel like a compliment.


----------



## tgm1024

NintendoManiac64 said:


> The old non-ASCII characters in the URL strikes again!
> 
> 
> The trick with URLs that have east-Asian characters (or other non-ASCII characters) is to copy only part of the URL, the easiest being everything but the http:// (you can still manually type in http:// afterwards if you really need it).
> 
> This then will give you the URL as it is displayed rather than the URL as the computer understands it.
> 
> 
> The original URL was this:
> samsungtomorrow.com/tv-구매-꿀팁-②어떤-방식의-tv가-좋을까


Well that ^^^^ particular link works for me, though I have to employ the S3.Google app instead of having the webpage itself handle the English. If I ask for English from the site itself, I land on the main page far away from the article.

The gobbledygook that I get from S3.Google seems to indicate that they're simply taking a pulse of what's going on, and they differentiate between OLED and WOLED.

Nothing in it sound as if they're particularly impressed with WOLED.


----------



## R Harkness

I finally saw the 4K version of the 55" LG OLED TV (at Best Buy...we tend to be a bit behind here in Canada).
It looked quite promising, though it would be so nice to see one that was not in crushed/over-sharpened settings mode.
Some day I have to see one of these in a room with no lights on.

On another note: Vizio has finally shown up in our Best Buys (told you we were behind..) So I finally got a peek at their "M" and "P" series. Since there are so many flat panels on display these days showing proprietary 4K footage, well, they showed the usual sharpness and vividness. But the thing I really came away with was: How BAD the hot-spotting was on those displays!
An image with a mostly white screen came up and the image was bright in the center, dimming to grayish from there. I thought at first this was simply in the image, but when I moved I noticed that bright spot shifted over to the same side I shifted towards - and I realised it was a hot-spot, not in the source. A bit more checking of this (that was the more expensive model, "P" I think), and other models left me quite disheartened that such uneven illumination was still the bane of LCDs.

I don't really buy flat panels anymore, but if I did I'd be very frustrated with the dominance of LCD. (I happen to be more sensitive to those artifacts than many people. I also don't like the fact I can still see the screen surface on LCD TVs, whereas the emissive pixels of plasma were blissfully direct and unsullied). 

Please save us OLED, you're our only hope...


----------



## Rich Peterson

wco81 said:


> What future OLED sets?
> 
> They're touting quantum dot aren't they?


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...-samsung-produce-oled-televisions-2017-a.html


----------



## alexanderg823

R Harkness said:


> I don't really buy flat panels anymore, but if I did I'd be very frustrated with the dominance of LCD. (I happen to be more sensitive to those artifacts than many people. I also don't like the fact I can still see the screen surface on LCD TVs, whereas the emissive pixels of plasma were blissfully direct and unsullied).
> 
> Please save us OLED, you're our only hope...


LCDs are absolutely garbage. I still believe they were never meant to be actual video displays - But just digital signs or billboards.


Plasma is way better than even OLED in my opinion. Sample and Hold kills it IMO. There's just something about the way Plasma looks that gives it a much more realistic image than LCD or even OLED.


----------



## dsinger

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even you.


----------



## alexanderg823

dsinger said:


> Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even you.


Entitlement is the worst thing to come out of the new generation. (maybe even worse than LCD's dominance)


People are "entitled" to believe the world is flat, or that it was created in 7 days. That does not mean it is valid, factual, or correct.


----------



## tgm1024

alexanderg823 said:


> Entitlement is the worst thing to come out of the new generation. (maybe even worse than LCD's dominance)
> 
> People are "entitled" to believe the world is flat, or that it was created in 7 days. That does not mean it is valid, factual, or correct.


(Huh???) ^^^LOL----This is among the most painfully contorted responses I've seen in a long time.


----------



## R Harkness

I certainly don't believe LCDs are garbage. I think many put out amazing images. I just happen to be sensitive to certain artifacts 
(screen surface, uneven illumination), so it's hard for an LCD to top my list in terms of priorities. Nonetheless, I stand amazed in front of many LCD images.


----------



## 9179mhb

alexanderg823 said:


> Plasma is way better than even OLED in my opinion. Sample and Hold kills it IMO. There's just something about the way Plasma looks that gives it a much more realistic image than LCD or even OLED.


I am interested to know how do owners of a 65EF9500 feel their display compares to a formally high-end Pioneer, Panasonic or Samsung PDP?

Is there any native UHD content available for your 4K OLEDs?

Is the whole UHD spec still a moving (evolving) standard?

Unfortunately for LG marketing high end displays (i.e. $5K+) is they are late to the HDTV party. Currently, I have (3) perfectly fine PDPs and the only way I'd spend that kind of money now for an OLED is if I had to replace one of my displays, a BIG and affordable size difference or true UHD content being rendered better than 1080p on a PDP.


----------



## alexanderg823

9179mhb said:


> I am interested to know how do owners of a 65EF9500 feel their display compares to a formally high-end Pioneer, Panasonic or Samsung PDP?
> 
> Is there any native UHD content available for your 4K OLEDs?
> 
> Is the whole UHD spec still a moving (evolving) standard?
> 
> Unfortunately for LG marketing high end displays (i.e. $5K+) is they are late to the HDTV party. Currently, I have (3) perfectly fine PDPs and the only way I'd spend that kind of money now for an OLED is if I had to replace one of my displays, a BIG and affordable size difference or true UHD content being rendered better than 1080p on a PDP.


I'm going to pick up a 65 ST50 plasma in the next few hours and have the two sitting side by side.


I can tell you though, OLED has always felt like just a really good LED - Plasma has always felt more along the lines of a super CRT.


----------



## tubby497

9179mhb said:


> I am interested to know how do owners of a 65EF9500 feel their display compares to a formally high-end Pioneer, Panasonic or Samsung PDP?
> 
> Is there any native UHD content available for your 4K OLEDs?
> 
> Is the whole UHD spec still a moving (evolving) standard?
> 
> Unfortunately for LG marketing high end displays (i.e. $5K+) is they are late to the HDTV party. Currently, I have (3) perfectly fine PDPs and the only way I'd spend that kind of money now for an OLED is if I had to replace one of my displays, a BIG and affordable size difference or true UHD content being rendered better than 1080p on a PDP.





alexanderg823 said:


> I'm going to pick up a 65 ST50 plasma in the next few hours and have the two sitting side by side.


http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/shootout-oled-201511134208.htm


----------



## slacker711

Lots of rumors about Apple moving to OLED over the years, but never from solid sources. The Nikkei is about as good as it gets outside of the WSJ. 

From a television perspective, the question is whether LGD gets some cash from Apple for this move. They will need it to simultaneously finance their television and flexible OLED fabs.

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Apple-to-adopt-OLED-display-for-iPhone-from-2018



> _Apple plans to introduce organic light-emitting diode displays for iPhones starting in 2018, sending suppliers racing to fine-tune the technology and invest in capacity expansion.
> 
> In light of the decision, South Korea's LG Display is already planning capacity upgrades. But securing enough panels for the more than 200 million phones Apples ships globally every year will likely prove difficult. The U.S. company is thus likely to opt for offering OLED iPhones alongside those using LCD screens._


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Considering they already uses an OLED panel in the Apple Watch, this is not really a surprise.


----------



## wco81

Maybe OLED power consumption for applications has now surpassed LCD?


----------



## rogo

I'd like to believe Nikkei, but this is more or less nonsense: "The U.S. company is thus likely to opt for offering OLED iPhones alongside those using LCD screens."

I mean, that's just not happening, except in the sense that Apple will continue to sell older models alongside the newer ones. But let's be clear, when the iPhone 8 ships with OLED in 2018, the iPhone 7 and 7S will represent a fraction of sales at that point. The vast majority of the ~200 million iPhones in question will use OLED.

Most of the reason it takes 2 years to make this deal happen is to ramp up the capacity ahead of time. Most of the reason the iPhone hasn't already been possible to use OLED is this lack of capacity of high-quality screens. 

There aren't going to be iPhone 8 models where some have OLED and some have LCD. Sorry Nikkei, that's just not how Apple rolls. No sir.


----------



## slacker711

wco81 said:


> Maybe OLED power consumption for applications has now surpassed LCD?


The latest tests from DisplayMate show that the S6 is more power efficient than the iPhone 6 up to a 65% white screen (Average Picture Level). They need to get to a 80% APL to be more power efficient for most of the OS as well as for most web browsing. 

Considering the overall trend the last few years, I think there is a very high probability that they will get there by 2018. That should allow for a noticeable increase in battery life for most users.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> I'd like to believe Nikkei, but this is more or less nonsense: "The U.S. company is thus likely to opt for offering OLED iPhones alongside those using LCD screens."
> 
> I mean, that's just not happening, except in the sense that Apple will continue to sell older models alongside the newer ones. But let's be clear, when the iPhone 8 ships with OLED in 2018, the iPhone 7 and 7S will represent a fraction of sales at that point. The vast majority of the ~200 million iPhones in question will use OLED.


They are only as good as their sources and you can imagine that the Japanese LCD suppliers want to paint this in the best possible light. They would probably emphasize the point that they are still going to be supplying some LCD components even in late 2018...even if it is only for a small fraction of iPhone's.

The LCD suppliers to Apple were all down hard in the Japanese stock market today. Once Apple switches there wont really be much of a high-end mobile LCD market left.


----------



## Esox50

rogo said:


> But as for 2016/17, I'd place fewer bets on where the 77" falls. I don't have confidence it gets much below $10,000 next year, for example. I'd like to believe it gets to $5000 in 2017, but I'm nowhere near certain of that.


That's kind of what I'm thinking too. I bet the 77" starts somewhere between $12-15K MSRP in 2016.

As we grow ever near to CES, what are the odds any other company will source LG panels in a 65" size and actually come to market near or slightly above the price of the LG 65". Supposedly "multiple" companies have agreements to source panels, and its all confidential right now. Someone should start a poll.  

Interesting times. I hate buying TVs during a "transition" period, but I got an itch.  I just have this gut feeling its going to be 3 years before we see decent trouble free 75-85" OLED < $10K. More inclined to get an "interim" 65" from someone like Sony, Samsung, or Panasonic.


----------



## 9179mhb

slacker711 said:


> The latest tests from DisplayMate show that the S6 is more power efficient than the iPhone 6 up to a 65% white screen (Average Picture Level).


Don't mean to high jack this thread, but should I upgrade my phone to an S6 edge + now or wait for the S7?


----------



## greenland

Breakthrough in OLED Lifetime

http://www.displaydaily.com/display-daily/33142-itri-reports-breakthrough-in-oled-lifetime

"Taiwan-based ITRI has reported the development of a new OLED device architecture that significantly increases the lifetime of RGB OLED displays. The new structure, called a Plasmon-Coupled Organic Light Emitting Diode (PCOLED), boosts the lifetime by 27 times, compared to the conventional blue fluorescent/red & green phosphorescent structure."


"The PCOLED replaces the blue fluorescent layer with a green phosphorescent layer with a new double metal structure. This configuration emits blue light, and since it is based on the green fluorescent material, the lifetime of the device is greatly increased."


----------



## slacker711

9179mhb said:


> Don't mean to high jack this thread, but should I upgrade my phone to an S6 edge + now or wait for the S7?


The S7 is expected to be announced at the end of February with immediate availabilty so that is about 3 months out. 

I think whether to upgrade now or not really ends up being an individual decision. The S7 is unlikely to be a dramatic change from the S6 so it depends on how much you value incremental upgrades to the camera, chipset, and display. You can probably get some pretty good deals on the S6 right now though so personally, I would probably either upgrade this weekend or wait.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> The latest tests from DisplayMate show that the S6 is more power efficient than the iPhone 6 up to a 65% white screen (Average Picture Level). They need to get to a 80% APL to be more power efficient for most of the OS as well as for most web browsing.
> 
> Considering the overall trend the last few years, I think there is a very high probability that they will get there by 2018. That should allow for a noticeable increase in battery life for most users.


I concur with this rough analysis. I also wonder if there isn't a possible Apple's move to white backgrounds in iOS 7 hasn't been altered at least a little by iOS 12 (the 2018 variant) which will have been 5 generations later. That could make OLED an even more battery efficient option that it will be intrinsically.



slacker711 said:


> They are only as good as their sources and you can imagine that the Japanese LCD suppliers want to paint this in the best possible light. They would probably emphasize the point that they are still going to be supplying some LCD components even in late 2018...even if it is only for a small fraction of iPhone's.
> 
> The LCD suppliers to Apple were all down hard in the Japanese stock market today. Once Apple switches there wont really be much of a high-end mobile LCD market left.


Really, there might not be any high-end mobile LCD market left at all. It seems Apple is slowly taking the high-end mobile market for itself... This point out the fraught projections of things like the IHS (I believe) forecast from a year or two ago that had LTPS winning in mobile out to 2020. That was so heavily based on Apple sticking with it....



Esox50 said:


> That's kind of what I'm thinking too. I bet the 77" starts somewhere between $12-15K MSRP in 2016.
> 
> As we grow ever near to CES, what are the odds any other company will source LG panels in a 65" size and actually come to market near or slightly above the price of the LG 65". Supposedly "multiple" companies have agreements to source panels, and its all confidential right now. Someone should start a poll.
> 
> Interesting times. I hate buying TVs during a "transition" period, but I got an itch.  I just have this gut feeling its going to be 3 years before we see decent trouble free 75-85" OLED < $10K. More inclined to get an "interim" 65" from someone like Sony, Samsung, or Panasonic.


It could be 3 years. It could be 2 though. It sure doesn't seem like 1. And, yes, I don't much care for transition-era buying either. I bought in the middle of the plasma era and then significantly before it's end knowing its end was coming.



9179mhb said:


> Don't mean to high jack this thread, but should I upgrade my phone to an S6 edge + now or wait for the S7?


So from everything I've seen, stay away from the Edge models to be honest. Little gain, but lots of irritation. I'm with Slacker on timing, though. It's really now or wait it out. The S7 may not revolutionize, but it sure improve on the few rough spots of the S6 and maybe the Edge models will get better.


----------



## ipac

Has this been posted? Looks like some new OLED models (2015-11-19) have been wifi certified:
https://www.wi-fi.org/product-finde...esc&categories=9&keywords=OLED&companies=1341

65G6Y
65G6T
65G6V
65G6P
65G6K
77G6Y
77G6T
77G6V
77G6P
77G6K

Strange names, placeholders? There are some new FullHD LCD in there as well. They are called LX and LW. EX and EW incoming?


----------



## darinp2

More big sets, which of course isn't a bad thing. On the other end, do people feel like we are quite a ways from seeing 50" sets? 

I'm not sure how things lay out per sheet if they want to do 50" sets, but feels to me like we are probably more than a year away from seeing these. I also wonder if the cost savings compared to a 55" set would be real small.

For a couple of places a 50" set would probably be a better fit for me than 55", which is why I ask.

--Darin


----------



## ALMA

P10 plant is officially announced. Production start in 1.H 2018:



> The KRW1.84 trillion investment covers the construction of the P10 building, the foundations for the clean rooms and infrastructure for water and power supplies and will begin this year. The total investment in the P10 plant is expected to reach more than KRW10 trillion, and with LG Display gradually expanding the scale of the production line based on customer demand and market conditions.
> 
> The completed plant will cover an area of 382m x 265m, which is equivalent in size to 14 football fields, and will be 100 meters high. Plans call mostly for the installation of large size OLED lines *that will be ninth generation or above along with flexible OLED lines at the new plant.* The first production line is scheduled to start mass production in the first half of 2018.
> 
> The company is expecting the lines will produce OLED in every product segment, including ultra large-size products as well as future products such as flexible and transparent displays. “LG Display’s investment in P10 Plant is a historical investment for the industry since it will not only help expand the OLED market but also accelerate the development of future display technologies,” said Dr. Sang Beom Han, CEO and President of LG Display. “With the active support of the Korean government, we believe the P10 plant will become the center of the global OLED industry.”


http://www.ledinside.com/news/2015/...roduction_with_multi_billion_plant_investment


----------



## 9179mhb

slacker711 said:


> The S7 is expected to be announced at the end of February with immediate availabilty so that is about 3 months out.
> 
> I think whether to upgrade now or not really ends up being an individual decision. The S7 is unlikely to be a dramatic change from the S6 so it depends on how much you value incremental upgrades to the camera, chipset, and display. You can probably get some pretty good deals on the S6 right now though so personally, I would probably either upgrade this weekend or wait.





rogo said:


> So from everything I've seen, stay away from the Edge models to be honest. Little gain, but lots of irritation. I'm with Slacker on timing, though. It's really now or wait it out. The S7 may not revolutionize, but it sure improve on the few rough spots of the S6 and maybe the Edge models will get better.


My understanding is the S7 may see a return of a replaceable battery and micro SD card. I currently have (2) S3's in good working order and month-to-month service w/Verizon. It appears Best Buy is running a good offer on cell phone upgrades w/Verizon and a two year contract so I'll check it out next week.

So no love for the S6 Edge + ?


----------



## ynotgoal

ALMA said:


> P10 plant is officially announced. Production start in 1.H 2018:
> 
> http://www.ledinside.com/news/2015/...roduction_with_multi_billion_plant_investment


There are also multiple reports that in addition to building out the new P10 facility for larger substrates which won't come online until 2018 they are also continuing to convert the remainder of the existing LCD TV line in the P8 (Slacker) building to OLED. If true that should mean something like mid 2017 startup. Followed by gen 9 or larger size in mid 2018.

http://english.etnews.com/20151127200001
LG Display is going to invest into Gen. 8 Paju M3 that produces OLED TV Panels, and size of investment is going to be between $348 million and $435 million (400 billion to 500 billion KRW). As the only business able to produce and sell OLED TVs, it is planning to expand supplies even more and it will be able expand output of OLED Panels, which 30,000 of them are produced per month, with this investment.
On the other hand, investment for M3 that was expected to happen early 2016 has been pushed forward. It seems that LG Display has decided on early investment since its target yield has reached certain level and it needs to speed up process of expanding large OLED TV markets.

http://www.streetinsider.com/Analys...in+Looks+Likely+for+2018+(OLED)/11109754.html
The next phase of OLED TV TFT capacity expansion (conversion from existing a-Si to oxide) should be decided sometime in Q1:16.



9179mhb said:


> So no love for the S6 Edge + ?


I'd stick with the regular S6 or Note if you prefer the larger screen. I have the S6 Edge. While it's a great display the curved edge doesn't yet serve any real purpose. Other than good experience for Samsung manufacturing with the flexible components that will be the basis of the coming foldable devices.


----------



## Whatstreet

*LG to build a new OLED plant for more than $8.71 billion*

Looks like another article regarding the investments discussed in recent posts.

"LG to build a new OLED plant for more than $8.71 billion

Now, LG is betting big on OLED: According to a Thursday report by Reuters, the company plans to invest more than 10 trillion won ($8.71 billion) to build an OLED plant in Paju, South Korea. 

The plant will be used to produce OLED panels of all types and sizes, including small, flexible ones for smartwatches and car displays, as well as large screens for TVs. 
According to Reuters, production is scheduled for the first half of 2018."

http://mashable.com/2015/11/27/lg-oled-plant/#eBh1Hd_YKmqt


----------



## rogo

darinp2 said:


> More big sets, which of course isn't a bad thing. On the other end, do people feel like we are quite a ways from seeing 50" sets?
> 
> I'm not sure how things lay out per sheet if they want to do 50" sets, but feels to me like we are probably more than a year away from seeing these. I also wonder if the cost savings compared to a 55" set would be real small.
> 
> For a couple of places a 50" set would probably be a better fit for me than 55", which is why I ask.


Right, so let's break this down. There *are* absolutely places where a 50 inch would fit better than a 55. Let's say that's true 10% of the time perhaps? Now here's a grim reality: For LG as things are currently constituted, the cost of producing a 50 inch would be very nearly exactly the same as making 55 inch sets. The yield would improve very marginally (less of the glass would be used, but nothing would happen to the pixel patterning itself). But you'd have to run a separate run of 50s so you'd have setup/knockdown time. You'd also be less good at making them because you'd make fewer of them.

Oh, and you'd be using exactly the same amount of total plant capacity so you'd probably not want to discount them _at all_. Why? Because substrates at the 8G fab are 2200 x 2500mm.

A 50 inch TV is 1107 x 622
A 55 inch TV is 1217 x 685

As you can quickly see, the latter fits pretty neatly into a 2 x 3 configuration (2 x 1217 fits into the long dimension allowing 3 x 685 in the short one)
Unfortunately, the former doesn't save quite material to fit a 4 x 2 configuration. It's *tantalizingly close*. 4 x 622 is very, very nearly doable. But that kind of tolerance doesn't really exist.

What _is possible_ is to build a 48-49 inch in a 4 x 2 configuration. It's challenging because you are changing orientation of the screen (3 on the short side in the 55s, 4 on the long side in the 48s). Now, you have 2 more screens to sell, which seems amazing.

I had _hoped_ we'd see this in 2016. I don't believe pricing is quite where it needs to be to pull this off, nor is volume. It feels necessary to do this to get volumes into the high single digits millions and certainly into the double-digit millions. There are not enough 55s sold at $1500+ to do it otherwise. But you'll need a $1000-1200 48-inch TV to expand the market and it might well be viable in 2017-18



ALMA said:


> P10 plant is officially announced. Production start in 1.H 2018:
> http://www.ledinside.com/news/2015/...roduction_with_multi_billion_plant_investment


I guess I'd argue this confirms the iPhone OLED rumor more than anything else.



Whatstreet said:


> Looks like another article regarding the investments discussed in recent posts.
> 
> The plant will be used to produce OLED panels of all types and sizes, including small, flexible ones for smartwatches and car displays, as well as large screens for TVs.
> According to Reuters, production is scheduled for the first half of 2018."


But it also leaves one wondering if the iPhone 8 can really be an "all OLED" product if this timetable is believable. Maybe LG starts building a backlog for Apple early on existing production lines and Samsung is the primary iPhone 8 supplier? Maybe this is why Ming-Chi Kuo is skeptical of the 2018 timetable?



ynotgoal said:


> There are also multiple reports that in addition to building out the new P10 facility for larger substrates which won't come online until 2018 they are also continuing to convert the remainder of the existing LCD TV line in the P8 (Slacker) building to OLED. If true that should mean something like mid 2017 startup. Followed by gen 9 or larger size in mid 2018.


Is any of that capacity maybe mobile/smartphone? I'm trying to understand the iPhone possibilities for a possible story.


> I'd stick with the regular S6 or Note if you prefer the larger screen. I have the S6 Edge. While it's a great display the curved edge doesn't yet serve any real purpose. Other than good experience for Samsung manufacturing with the flexible components that will be the basis of the coming foldable devices.


I agree the display is beautiful. I think it's not actually great, though. The "falling away" edge is more harm than help. The regular S6 and Note are so good to look at, I'd get one without hesitation if I wanted Android. I'd add that anecdotally, people have had more troubles with the S6 Edge than the S6. I'm not saying it's buggier, I'm saying anecdotally. I've heard little complaint about the regular S6.

I also agree that "practice" for future folding displays is very much part of the agenda here. If, as some wild speculation has started, Samsung is out of the smartphone market in 5 years, it will be the most fantastic arms merchant going.


----------



## Orbitron

A 50" OLED is a nice size for bedrooms - and we all have bedrooms - 100% market.


----------



## 48hd

9179mhb said:


> I am interested to know how do owners of a 65EF9500 feel their display compares to a formally high-end Pioneer, Panasonic or Samsung PDP?
> 
> Is there any native UHD content available for your 4K OLEDs?
> 
> Is the whole UHD spec still a moving (evolving) standard?
> 
> Unfortunately for LG marketing high end displays (i.e. $5K+) is they are late to the HDTV party. Currently, I have (3) perfectly fine PDPs and the only way I'd spend that kind of money now for an OLED is if I had to replace one of my displays, a BIG and affordable size difference or true UHD content being rendered better than 1080p on a PDP.


The UHD screen is just a bit better device for showing HD or SD image in both spatial and brightness (levels/tone) domains. It can better reconstruct spatial transitions of original analog (infinite spatial samples) image in compare with just 1:1 pixel discrete screen. And also for better brightness/tonal transitions it can make spatial dithering to show more intermediate tonal levels without using temporal dithering that can result in additional noise. For example 8bit drived UHD screen can show HD content with 10bit tonal reslution. Or 8bit UHD mpeg being upscaled from 10bit HD source at broadcaster side will be shown at 8bit consumer UHD screen close to 10bit HD.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> But it also leaves one wondering if the iPhone 8 can really be an "all OLED" product if this timetable is believable. Maybe LG starts building a backlog for Apple early on existing production lines and Samsung is the primary iPhone 8 supplier? Maybe this is why Ming-Chi Kuo is skeptical of the 2018 timetable?
> 
> Is any of that capacity maybe mobile/smartphone? I'm trying to understand the iPhone possibilities for a possible story.


The only concrete details we have are that the P10 fab will have a Gen 9 or higher line for televisions and flexible lines to support smartwatches and automotive displays. Ironically, they dont even mention smartphones in their press release.

http://www.lgdisplay.com/eng/prcenter/newsView

I have yet to even see speculation about the size of the flexible or television lines. I doubt though that LGD will be alone in supporting Apple. Samsung is very likely to ramp up their own capacity to support the iPhone. Apple will probably need about 60,000 Gen 6 substrates a month for the iPhone in the 2nd half of 2018. That is a big fab, but there is plenty of lead time to build that capacity.

Ynot posted the rumor about the additional investment in to a M3 fab with LGD possibly converting 30,000 substrates to OLED. The timing makes sense to me since it is hard to believe that LGD will wait until the middle of 2018 to bring new television capacity to market.


----------



## 9179mhb

Thanks for the replies. I'm out of town this week but will visit Best Buy next week to look at the phones I'm interested to see: S6, S6 Edge + and the Note 5.

I have two lines active on a month-to-month More Everything plan and if I upgrade both phones (line 2 definitely an S6 for the WAF) I believe I'll have to switch to the Verizon Plan. So not only will I need a reasonable price for the phones, but I won't pay a lot, if anything more, for a new two year plan.

Back to OLED, I am very interested in the 77" footprint. So how is the whole UHD spec. shaping up? If I did buy a UHD display I'd also have to replace my AVR.

Other than some eventual UHD BD content, what else will be available? Will Netflix be streaming UHD anytime soon and will Verizon FiOS support it?


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> The only concrete details we have are that the P10 fab will have a Gen 9 or higher line for televisions and flexible lines to support smartwatches and automotive displays. Ironically, they dont even mention smartphones in their press release.
> 
> http://www.lgdisplay.com/eng/prcenter/newsView
> 
> I have yet to even see speculation about the size of the flexible or television lines. I doubt though that LGD will be alone in supporting Apple. Samsung is very likely to ramp up their own capacity to support the iPhone. Apple will probably need about 60,000 Gen 6 substrates a month for the iPhone in the 2nd half of 2018. That is a big fab, but there is plenty of lead time to build that capacity.
> 
> Ynot posted the rumor about the additional investment in to a M3 fab with LGD possibly converting 30,000 substrates to OLED. The timing makes sense to me since it is hard to believe that LGD will wait until the middle of 2018 to bring new television capacity to market.


I'm confident that Samsung is the primary supplier for this hypothetical 2018 iPhone 8. There is no scenario under which LG's new-for-2018 capacity is the primary supply source for a 2018 iPhone. Apple ramps up production for September iPhones very early in summer (some parts likely late spring). 

Incidentally, I'd imagine Apple is fronting money to LG as soon as now for this. Not mentioning smartphones could well be a deal term.


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> I'd like to believe Nikkei, but this is more or less nonsense: "The U.S. company is thus likely to opt for offering OLED iPhones alongside those using LCD screens."





slacker711 said:


> The only concrete details we have are that the P10 fab will have a Gen 9 or higher line for televisions and flexible lines to support smartwatches and automotive displays. Ironically, they dont even mention smartphones in their press release.





rogo said:


> Is any of that capacity maybe mobile/smartphone? I'm trying to understand the iPhone possibilities for a possible story.


If you're asking if any of the gen 8 (WRGB, oxide, 80 ppi resolution) capacity is going to be used for an iPhone I would say that is highly unlikely. If you're asking more generally about Apple and OLED ... there are a lot of conflicting reports each with their own sort of credibility so I like to consider how the story came about and see if the conclusions make sense. 

First, is the iPhone going OLED all or nothing. I don't know but I'll make the case it may not. Apple has already had 3 versions of the iPhone, regular, plus version and the lower end "c" version. And there are actually a number of variances within the phones. It's not Steve Jobs like but with Tim Cook there's nothing preventing them from making more in the future. Reports are the new versions aren't selling as well in emerging markets due to lower priced competition and while a company may not go after a certain market to protect their brand image it's entirely different if they've already achieved a level of sales there and start to lose some of that market share. Finally, an Apple OLED will surely have a unique twist to it taking advantage of screen flexibility whether that is foldable or something else. Once you get to an 8-10" display that folds up it's something that could be marketed as a different category device rather than just a latest version of iPhone. So I could certainly see a low end LCD along with a premium flexible OLED device. To me, the argument that it has to be all is iOS would probably be redone with black backgrounds. That could run on an LCD but probably not as well.

So now we have the talk that this LG announcement is for the 2018 iPhone. I'll make the case it's not. First, there have been growing rumors that Apple is talking with both Samsung and LG to get an OLED iPhone. Korean press with actual sources inside the companies were reporting it to be for 2017 but when the LG announcement came out everyone assumed it meant a 2018 iPhone. If LG had a concrete agreement with Apple they would more likely have announced building out gen 6 lines in their half empty P9 building across the street rather than taking a year to build a gen 9 or bigger building before starting construction on the new lines. Going with the larger size building says LG is committed to large size OLED TVs as noted in their press release. Further LG probably doesn't have the resources on their own to fully finance multiple OLED TV lines and flexible gen 6 OLED lines (these are very expensive). So if they have a firm agreement with Apple in a big way there is probably going to be financial assistance with it and some sort of that will be put in an SEC filing which isn't in what they filed yesterday. Of course LG isn't going to advertise it's Apple but financial reporting requirements do exist. So I'm taking LG at their word that this is primarily a TV announcement with some smaller flexible OLEDs in the works.

It's a big if, but if that is true what about Apple and OLED. There is actually more OLED capacity available than people think. Slacker noted they need 60k gen 6 sheets for Apple assuming it's all iPhones plus Samsung still needs to support their own phones. Less if there's a low end LCD model. In early 2017 gen 6 OLED capacity will be
LG 7500
Samsung 54,000 (24k gen 6 equivalent of gen 5.5 capacity)
BOE 32,000
So, an equivalent of 90k gen 6 sheets are available by middle of 2017. Of course Apple isn't going to get displays from BOE but BOE may take away some of Samsung's China business giving Samsung capacity for Apple. We would still need to see more capacity announcements soon though as that might work for one phone release cycle but more capacity from more suppliers will be needed to support autos and other markets.

At any rate, I'd be cautious that the Apple OLED story is fully known and those who do know aren't saying. There's enough credible information including concern from the LCD suppliers that it seems likely Apple will adopt OLED but the timing and form is up for debate.


----------



## barth2k

Orbitron said:


> A 50" OLED is a nice size for bedrooms - and we all have bedrooms - 100% market.


Honestly I don't know what the difference between 55 and 50 is, unless you have a cubbyhole you need to stick it into, in which case get a bigger hole


----------



## Orbitron

Hopefully, LG will offer smaller sizes in the future. I'm sure many of us have an aging 32", would be nice to have an OLED in a 35" that would fit in the same space.


----------



## fafrd

ipac said:


> Has this been posted? Looks like some new OLED models (2015-11-19) have been wifi certified:
> https://www.wi-fi.org/product-finde...esc&categories=9&keywords=OLED&companies=1341
> 
> 65G6Y
> 65G6T
> 65G6V
> 65G6P
> 65G6K
> 77G6Y
> 77G6T
> 77G6V
> 77G6P
> 77G6K
> 
> Strange names, placeholders? There are some new FullHD LCD in there as well. They are called LX and LW. EX and EW incoming?


Seems to indicate that in 2016 the 77" OLEDs will be featured as prominently as the 65" (5 codes for each).

Who knows what YVTPK will end up meaning, but you should be able to get each of them in either 65" or 77".

Perhaps LG will ditch the ridiculous 'bendable' TV concept and we will see 2-3 flat and 2-3 curved offering at each size.

LGE has a history of making good, better, best sound variants the differentiating feature of their LCD product lines, so different quality of sound is one obvious option they may use to differentiate the various products (Harmon Kardon, etc...).

'Standard' SMTPE 10-bit HDR versus 'Premium' Dolby Vision 12-bit HDR is another option.

And since I've told by LG VIP that the rumored dropping of 3D on OLED in 2016 is false, I suppose the inclusion or absence of 3D capability could be another differentiating feature.

Hopefully at least the 'best' variant offers support for BFI in 2016...

By way of comparison, LG has been selling a total of 4 65" OLED models in 2015... (As well as a single pretty much nonexistent 77" model ).

P.S. Just checked the link and there is also a 47" model listed (47EA8800).


----------



## wco81

They need to work on getting the price down.

77-incher would seem to be going in the opposite direction.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> They need to work on getting the price down.
> 
> 77-incher would seem to be going in the opposite direction.


Intrinsic cost of the 77" OLED is less than 1.5X the cost of the 65" (all features other than screen size being equal).

I believe we will see 77" OLED pricing approach 1.5X the pricing of 65" OLEDs in 2016 (meaning under $8000 based on today's 65" OLED pricing...).

The 2015 77" OLED was never a real product (for the rich and famous only ).


----------



## greenland

fafrd said:


> P.S. Just checked the link and there is also a 47" model listed (47EA8800).


That was certified in early 2013.


"Last Certified Date: 2013-02-08"


----------



## fafrd

greenland said:


> That was certified in early 2013.
> 
> 
> "Last Certified Date: 2013-02-08"


Good point - I did not check the dates.


----------



## ipac

fafrd said:


> Seems to indicate that in 2016 the 77" OLEDs will be featured as prominently as the 65" (5 codes for each).
> 
> Who knows what YVTPK will end up meaning, but you should be able to get each of them in either 65" or 77".


Could be that "G6" is one(1) model and YVTPK is just different variants for different markets?

There is an 98UH9860 in there. That name makes sense (UHD LCD 2016 Flat). After F (and G) comes H (and I). Maybe we are looking at the 77EH950 here? 

Well, time (and CES) will tell...


edit: The 47EA8800 is actually a nice find. Could it be that LG once experienced with 47 inch OLEDs? Or maybe it is just a boring typo.


----------



## fafrd

ipac said:


> Could be that "G6" is one(1) model and YVTPK is just different variants for different markets?
> 
> There is an 98UH9860 in there. That name makes sense (UHD LCD 2016 Flat). After F (and G) comes H (and I). Maybe we are looking at the 77EH950 here?
> 
> Well, time (and CES) will tell...
> 
> 
> edit: The 47EA8800 is actually a nice find. Could it be that LG once experienced with 47 inch OLEDs? Or maybe it is just a boring typo.


As Greenland pointed out, both 47" models appear to be quite old (and hence defunct). That link is actually an interesting way to see the history of LGs OLED product plans going all the way back to 2012. 

In 2013' they were apparently planning a 75" OLED before settling on 77" in 2014. I doubt we will ever see 47" or 75" OLEDs based on any of these registered/certified codes...

I searched the list again and could find no reference to the 98UH9860 - can you post the link?

There were rumors that LG would be introducing a 98" OLED in 2016, but based on the list I reviewed, new 65" and 77" models look like all we will get next year (at least in the spring).

To throw another wrinkle into this discussion, if the announced 'Art Slim' OLEDs have the majority of the electronics including the Wifi in a seperate 'sound bar' (as some are speculating), it would mean that any new products based on that architecture would not show up on this Wifi registration list. The 'Soundbar' itself would need to be registered, but would not show up as a TV and would not need to have a product code linked to the screen size (especially if a single 'Soundbar' could support 65", 77", and possibly even 98" 'ArtSlim' OLEDs...


----------



## darinp2

fafrd said:


> In 2013' they were apparently planning a 75" OLED before settling on 77" in 2014. I doubt we will ever see 47" or 75" OLEDs based on any of these registered/certified codes...


Probably not, but from what Rogo posted about how many of each size can be cut from each sheet it sounds like around 48" might be the next reasonable step down from 55" as far as materials and manufacturing efficiency. Still guessing that getting something in that size range is out a little ways though.

--Darin


----------



## fafrd

darinp2 said:


> Probably not, but from what Rogo posted about how many of each size can be cut from each sheet it sounds like around 48" might be the next reasonable step down from 55" as far as materials and manufacturing efficiency. Still guessing that getting something in that size range is out a little ways though.
> 
> --Darin


The new plant, scheduled for 2018 production, changes everything, and I believe it is very likely that we will see an expansion to smaller OLED TV sizes by then.

For M2, I think all we are likely to see is 55", 65", and 77", at least until that new fab is up and running.

If the rumored 98" does in fact materialize, my guess it will be from M1 rather than M2 and will be used to compensate for the end of HD OLED production...


----------



## fafrd

If this article is to believed, there will be about 2.5M HDR-capable TVs sold in 2016.

Since HD OLEDs are being terminated by LG and all 4K OLEDs they ship will bevHDR capable, this 2.5M of HDR-capable is precisely the available market LG OLED is addressing.

The 26,000 substrates per month they will be manufacturing on M2 in 2016 is capable of producing:

1.5M 55" 4K OLEDs or
750K 65" OLEDs or
500K 77" OLEDs.

However you want to slice and dice the mix, it all translates into LG selling about half of the HDR TVs next year, which would be fantastic if it unfolds that way (but seems slightly ambitious).

20% - 60% of HDR TVs in 2016 would be a great result if LG can pull it off...


----------



## greenland

fafrd said:


> If this article is to believed, there will be about 2.5M HDR-capable TVs sold in 2016.
> 
> Since HD OLEDs are being terminated by LG and all 4K OLEDs they ship will bevHDR capable, this 2.5M of HDR-capable is precisely the available market LG OLED is addressing.
> 
> The 26,000 substrates per month they will be manufacturing on M2 in 2016 is capable of producing:
> 
> 1.5M 55" 4K OLEDs or
> 750K 65" OLEDs or
> 500K 77" OLEDs.
> 
> However you want to slice and dice the mix, it all translates into LG selling about half of the HDR TVs next year, which would be fantastic if it unfolds that way (but seems slightly ambitious).
> 
> 20% - 60% of HDR TVs in 2016 would be a great result if LG can pull it off...


The number of good panels(yield rate) and exchanges because of defects, will have to be factored in to the net number they will end up selling. Of course, if Panasonic and another brand or two purchase a number of those panels, for rebadging, that would greatly improve LG's chances of hitting those sales numbers next year.


----------



## fafrd

greenland said:


> The number of good panels(yield rate) and exchanges because of defects, will have to be factored in to the net number they will end up selling. Of course, if Panasonic and another brand or two purchase a number of those panels, for rebadging, that would greatly improve LG's chances of hitting those sales numbers next year.


The numbers I provided were post-yield (80%). M2 has sufficient capacity to produce 1.9M raw unyielded 55" OLEDs.

The return rate / defect rate needs to improve to the point of being inconsequential or LG OLED will be dead.

Panasonic OLED is not likely to be material next year (after attempting to sell 250 $10K 65" OLEDs this year. The one wildcard is China. If LG is dumping a significant % of their production off to Chinese partners for sales into China.

And in any case, none of this changes the big picture - if the forecast of 2.5M HDR TV sales in 2016 has any validity, OLED sales will need to take 20% - 60% of that premium-segment pie (whether under LGE's brand, Panasonic's brand, or a Chinese brand).

The premium HDR-TV segment is emerging at a good time for LG and would be a great first segment for OLED TV to dominate.


----------



## slacker711

A rumor that LGD is working on OLED monitors. It doesnt sound like a near-term event but they must be optimistic on lifetimes if they are devoting resources to their development.

http://english.etnews.com/20151204200003
_
“Although problem regarding burn in phenomena from OLED TVs has been brought up until now, we were able to strengthen our technical levels by accumulating technologies on large OLED TV.” said a person related to LG Display. “It seems like our confidence on technical levels on OLED Display centered on laboratories is even higher.”

Industries are seeing that OLED monitors will expand mostly for broadcasting and medical monitors for experts because it will be a high-added value product and will be more useful for experts rather than normal users since it displays more advantages on large screens. It seems that this will serve as an opportunity where OLED display will expand from TV and Smartphone markets towards monitor and laptop markets.
Schedule for mass production of OLED panels for monitors has not been decided yet. “We are currently supplying OLED mostly for TVs.” said LG Display. “Although we are planning to hold a closed booth at CES targeting our customers, we have not yet confirmed on detailed items that we are planning to display.”_


----------



## latreche34

I'm looking forward for that day where OLED will cheap enough to be made as a projection screen it will be hanged from the top and drops down just like a projection screen, except that it will be no projector necessary. Ooops.. that's too big of a dream, sorry.


----------



## rogo

latreche34 said:


> I'm looking forward for that day where OLED will cheap enough to be made as a projection screen it will be hanged from the top and drops down just like a projection screen, except that it will be no projector necessary. Ooops.. that's too big of a dream, sorry.


Eventually, the screens will be cheap enough. Whether it will make sense to have giant rollable screens with electronics in them is another matter entirely. It will certainly cost much more than fixed screens, certainly be a much smaller niche product with (therefore) a high price premium, and certainly have lower reliability.

There have been small prototype OLED rollable screens but I doubt those products are destined to be successful. The ergonomics are awful. Much more likely flexible, folding screens reach the market. If the screen you want does come, it's unlikely it will be more cost effective than a projector and screen. But the setup might well be cleaner.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Crazy idea: LG is waiting for DisplayPort 1.3 to become available before they have OLED monitors because OLED is easily capable of native 120Hz, so why even bother limiting the input refresh rate to 60Hz?

This would also be useful for professional video artists where both 24fps and 30fps content could be displayed without any judder (assuming the display is sample-and-hold like their OLED TVs).


----------



## JazzGuyy

rogo said:


> It will certainly cost much more than fixed screens, certainly be a much smaller niche product with (therefore) a high price premium, and certainly have lower reliability.


I would be very cautious predicting the availability and price of future products. Prices often end up much different than predicted. And look at all the people who said 50 years ago that the idea of computers at home made no sense, would be way to big and could never be affordable anyway. Technologies sometimes do strange things and people's desire for them can take strange turns.


----------



## fafrd

JazzGuyy said:


> I would be very cautious predicting the availability and price of future products. Prices often end up much different than predicted. And look at all the people who said 50 years ago that the idea of computers at home made no sense, would be way to big and could never be affordable anyway. Technologies sometimes do strange things and people's desire for them can take strange turns.


Yes, 50 years out, predictions are pretty much pointless speculation.

3 - 5 years out is another matter.

LG has reached the point that if they are able to produce OLED TVs at costs approaching FALD LED/LCDs, OLED will begin taking market share and is here to stay.

I believe this holiday season marks that turning point and that is exciting.

My local Best Buy tells me that the 65EF9500 has been selling very well and is holding its own against the Samsung 65JS9500.

That is fantastic news and congrats to LG (despite the fact that they still have some serious kinks to work out before they make videophiles like me truly happy).

And also congrats to LG for their agility in getting HDR capability into their OLED TVs in 2016. The entire HDR initiative is going to take another year (or possibly two) to unfold compared to what Samsung was hoping one year ago when they announced the UHD Alliance. Because of LGs agility and execution, HDR capability is no longer an Achilles Heel of OLED.

Only those that have an EF9500 at home and have watched the HDR version of Man in High Castle can appreciate the achievement I am describing.

I believe that 2015 was a very good year for LG OLED and sets the stage for consolidation and continued progress in 2016 and 2017 and true take-off in 2018.


----------



## ipac

fafrd said:


> As Greenland pointed out, both 47" models appear to be quite old (and hence defunct).


Even without the certification date it was obvious that it was an old model, E*A*=2013 model. 



> That link is actually an interesting way to see the history of LGs OLED product plans going all the way back to 2012.


Yepp. Thats what I meant.
There are lots of models in there that never showed up, including EG93xx and EG94xx.



> I searched the list again and could find no reference to the 98UH9860 - can you post the link?


Uncheck "OLED" keyword in the search options.



> There were rumors that LG would be introducing a 98" OLED in 2016,


Maybe, but just to be clear, 98UH is a LCD. 



> but based on the list I reviewed, new 65" and 77" models look like all we will get next year (at least in the spring).


Nah... New models get certified all the time. The list is in no way a complete coverage of what to expect next year.


----------



## rogo

JazzGuyy said:


> I would be very cautious predicting the availability and price of future products. Prices often end up much different than predicted. And look at all the people who said 50 years ago that the idea of computers at home made no sense, would be way to big and could never be affordable anyway. Technologies sometimes do strange things and people's desire for them can take strange turns.


Thanks for the warning. I base my predictions on an understanding of the underlying technologies. I know how long people have been pursuing rollable screens and why they will never be as cheap as fixed ones.



fafrd said:


> Yes, 50 years out, predictions are pretty much pointless speculation.
> 
> 3 - 5 years out is another matter.
> 
> LG has reached the point that if they are able to produce OLED TVs at costs approaching FALD LED/LCDs, OLED will begin taking market share and is here to stay.
> 
> I believe this holiday season marks that turning point and that is exciting.
> 
> My local Best Buy tells me that the 65EF9500 has been selling very well and is holding its own against the Samsung 65JS9500.


That's pretty cool. Amazing what "almost the same price" will do.


> I believe that 2015 was a very good year for LG OLED and sets the stage for consolidation and continued progress in 2016 and 2017 and true take-off in 2018.


I tend to agree. We're still in the Valley of Death, but it's possible to see the path back up from here. 

2016 --> Consolidate gains
2017 --> Begin real growth
2018 --> Expand into new segments of the price curve

That's the plan. Now for the execution.

(Oh, and that's not terrible far from predictions I made back in 2010 and earlier.)


----------



## Danny Dorresteijn

Samsung confirms new SUHD. No OLEDS...
_Smart View can also now be used on a wider range of Samsung’s Smart TVs, from the 2011 models up to the latest 2015 SUHD line up.* The full version will also support the new SUHD TVs of 2016. _
Source news.samsung(com)/global/new-samsung-smart-view-available-for-better-smart-tv-connectivity


----------



## Danny Dorresteijn

Samsung confirms new SUHD. No OLEDS...
_Smart View can also now be used on a wider range of Samsung’s Smart TVs, from the 2011 models up to the latest 2015 SUHD line up.* The full version will also support the new SUHD TVs of 2016. _
Source news.samsung(com)/global/new-samsung-smart-view-available-for-better-smart-tv-connectivity


----------



## slacker711

LG will have an OLED commercial during the Super Bowl. 

http://adage.com/article/special-re...uper-bowl-debut-director-ridley-scott/301840/


----------



## Weboh

I am really skeptical of the concept of huge OLED LCD screens, how LCD is beautiful in small sizes. I like the concept of a 24 inch widescreen OLED PC monitors: backed with hard plastic, but still safer for young children than plasma displays, and cathode ray tubes.


If I were LG, I wouldn't get worked about making large TVs with the technology. But I am skeptical of that possibility.


----------



## krapst78

ipac said:


> Yepp. Thats what I meant.
> There are lots of models in there that never showed up, including EG93xx and EG94xx.


The 55EG9350, 55EG9370, 55EG9450, and 55EG9470 are all currently on sale in Korea. The EG93xx series are the late 2015 refresh for the EC9300 and EC9310 with upgraded quadcore SOCs and native WebOS 2.0. The 55EG94xx is a refresh of the 55EG9600 with a slightly slimmer casing and out of the box HDR support.


----------



## fafrd

krapst78 said:


> The 55EG9350, 55EG9370, 55EG9450, and 55EG9470 are all currently on sale in Korea. The EG93xx series are the late 2015 refresh for the EC9300 and EC9310 with upgraded quadcore SOCs and native WebOS 2.0. The 55EG94xx is a refresh of the 55EG9600 with a slightly slimmer casing and out of the box HDR support.


LG has probably ceased production of all of those older models and is trying to flush inventory prior to the announcement at CES that they will only be manufacturing 4K WOLEDs going forward...


----------



## CINERAMAX

JazzGuyy said:


> I would be very cautious predicting the availability and price of future products. Prices often end up much different than predicted. And look at all the people who said 50 years ago that the idea of computers at home made no sense, would be way to big and could never be affordable anyway. Technologies sometimes do strange things and people's desire for them can take strange turns.



I could see a dolby atmos wall mounted short credenza where the 77, 82, 98 rolls up in front of your family portrait or picasso. all speakers hidden inside the credenza including the atmos top shooting bouncies.


----------



## JimP

CINERAMAX said:


> I could see a dolby atmos wall mounted short credenza where the 77, 82, 98 rolls up in front of your family portrait or picasso. all speakers hidden inside the credenza including the atmos top shooting bouncies.


Why stop there. How about a screen that's so thin and large that you can make it the same color as your wall is painted with a family portrait being displayed in the middle. Then when you want to use it for a movie, a much larger surface would be used.


----------



## CINERAMAX

JimP said:


> Why stop there. How about a screen that's so thin and large that you can make it the same color as your wall is painted with a family portrait being displayed in the middle. Then when you want to use it for a movie, a much larger surface would be used.


Good point but lets not forget the audio the ole is just 51% of the experience, although i am pretty sure that the OLED being so thin can pass low frquencies right through the screen up to the mid frequenciesd that leaves the other frquencies over 6khz.


----------



## joys_R_us

JimP said:


> Why stop there. How about a screen that's so thin and large that you can make it the same color as your wall is painted with a family portrait being displayed in the middle. Then when you want to use it for a movie, a much larger surface would be used.


Yes, this would be your contribution to global warming. Turn on all your appliances for 24 hours a day... Sorry but I keep wondering about the "thoughtfulness" of Americans in dealing with energy (SUVs, ice-cold-restaurants in summer etc.)


----------



## NintendoManiac64

joys_R_us said:


> I keep wondering about the "thoughtfulness" of_ Neo-Confederates _in dealing with energy


Fixed.


----------



## ipac

ipac said:


> Has this been posted? Looks like some new OLED models (2015-11-19) have been wifi certified:
> https://www.wi-fi.org/product-finde...esc&categories=9&keywords=OLED&companies=1341
> 
> 65G6Y
> 65G6T
> 65G6V
> 65G6P
> 65G6K
> 77G6Y
> 77G6T
> 77G6V
> 77G6P
> 77G6K
> 
> Strange names, placeholders?


Wow, G6 was indeed the real name. YTVPK just different markets, as speculated.

E6 not wifi certified yet.


----------



## David_B

JimP said:


> Why stop there. How about a screen that's so thin and large that you can make it the same color as your wall is painted with a family portrait being displayed in the middle. Then when you want to use it for a movie, a much larger surface would be used.


This effect is pretty cool if you have seen something like the video wall at Comcast in Philly.
Similar to what they do on those projected displays they do on the sides of buildings for an exhibition.


----------



## slacker711

Long interview, but an extensive talk about the positioning of OLED with somebody from LG UK.






One very big data point (1 min 40 mark), LG went from 4% of the >1500 pound market in the UK in 2013 to 8% last year to nearly 40% in November.

40%!

That is despite still selling for a substantial premium to Samsung's SUHD televisions.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Long interview, but an extensive talk about the positioning of OLED with somebody from LG UK.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY1U4HB2FQE
> 
> One very big data point (1 min 40 mark), LG went from 4% of the >1500 pound market in the UK in 2013 to 8% last year to nearly 40% in November.
> 
> 40%!
> 
> That is despite still selling for a substantial premium to Samsung's SUHD televisions.


"ABCD"

A = Angles
B = Blacks
C = Contrast
D = Design

Not bad. LG seems to be feeling their moxie and appears to finally have some effective marketing teed-up (all built upon the fact that they are executing well and firing on all cylinders technically ).


----------



## dnoonie

Is this the year I'll purchase an OLED TV?

I'm not sure. But the options are looking compelling and the prices will be within reach by fall and some reviews should be out by then as well.

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/lg-goes-around-house#pqBGc2T09OvUZf0E.97
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-65e6/

Cheers,


----------



## htwaits

I've been gone for quite a while. Is Image Retention much of a topic in OLED threads these days?


----------



## fafrd

htwaits said:


> I've been gone for quite a while. Is Image Retention much of a topic in OLED threads these days?


No.


----------



## htwaits

fafrd said:


> No.


Thanks.


----------



## gsilver

I'm really curious to see what the pricing on the 65" B model ends up being.

$3K will be an instant purchase, and $4k will be a likely one, assuming that the video quality matches up with the old EF9500 models.


----------



## rogo

gsilver said:


> I'm really curious to see what the pricing on the 65" B model ends up being.
> 
> $3K will be an instant purchase, and $4k will be a likely one, assuming that the video quality matches up with the old EF9500 models.


It's mildly interesting to me that you brought this up. I am in a weird position that while I very much wanted to wait until 2017-8 to buy, if there _were_ a 2016 OLED from OLED with a $3000 price, I could be enticed to buy it now and then wait until 2019-20 to get the bigger one. (I no longer believe the bigger one will be remotely affordable in 2017 and there is a real chance it will still be stupidly priced in 2018.)


----------



## wco81

gsilver said:


> I'm really curious to see what the pricing on the 65" B model ends up being.
> 
> $3K will be an instant purchase, and $4k will be a likely one, assuming that the video quality matches up with the old EF9500 models.


The 65 inch B model is the one that is available for $7k preorder? That's going to drop to $3000?


----------



## gsilver

wco81 said:


> The 65 inch B model is the one that is available for $7k preorder? That's going to drop to $3000?


No, the B series is the low-end one that they have yet to announce pricing for.

The $7k model was the high-end.


----------



## fafrd

gsilver said:


> No, the B series is the low-end one that they have yet to announce pricing for.
> 
> The $7k model was the high-end.


Just to be clear, the $7K pricing was for the mid-range model (which is the only model with an MSRP currently).

High-End: G6 (kitchen-sink including folding Soundbar and ultra-thin)
Mid-Range: E6 (same but conventional Soundbar -$7000 MSRP)
Curved-Base: C6 (not ultra-thin 1/10" thick but 1/4" thick, curved)
Base: B6 (1/4" thick, no 3D, as well as no Soundbar like C6)


----------



## wco81

Are the panels the same, with same brightness, same support for HDR but the differences are the sounders?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Are the panels the same, with same brightness, same support for HDR but the differences are the sounders?


The G6 and E6 are ultra-thin OLED-on-glass panels which are 1/10-inch thick, for whatever that is worth.

The C6 is the same 1/4-inch curved-panel design as the current EG9600 and ditto for the B6 and the flat EF9500.

All of the actual OLED panels are supposed to be identical, with new phosphors for 99% DCI-P3 and 540 cd/m2 brightness at D65.

All 2016 models are supposed to share all of the same OS and a Smart TV features including new WebOS 3.0, and Dolby Vision HDR (in addition to Open HDR already supported on 2015 EG9600 and EF9500.

The C6 shares all the remaining features of the EG9600 including 3D and sound.

The B6 shares all of the similar features of the EF9500 but has eliminated 3D (with no visible increase in brightness yet, so this is likely just a 'dumbing-down' of 3D capability already built in that LG elected to disable for marketing reasons, meaning to get customers wanting flat and 3D to pay up for the E6 ).

The E6 has 3D and has a removable Soundbar with connections and electronics built into the TV housing.

The G6 also has a Soundbar (premium Harmon Kardon variety ), but it is integrated within a One-Connext-Box-like companion accessory that houses all of the electronics and TV connections. It doubles as the stand in TV-stand mode but can fold back against the back of the for wall mounting. There is some nifty way the Soundbar is supposed to be front-firing in either configuration, but honestly, this is a solution looking for a problem to solve (especially at the expected price premium over the E6 ).

What folks on AVS care about should be identical a cross the full line-up, the exceptions being the curve of the C6 and the fact that LG elected to withhold (or disable ) 3D on the B6.

The 65B6 will almost certainly break below the $4000 barrier by next Holiday Season and there are hopes it may approach $3000 by the thick of Black Friday frenzy.

The 65E6 has an MSRP of $7000, which is a $1000 premium over the current MSRP of the 65EF9500, but since most 65EF9500s were purchased recently at promotional prices in the $4000-5000 range, the expectation is that street pricing for the 65E6 will be at least $1000 lower than this and probably at least $2000 lower by the a Holiday shopping season.


----------



## wco81

Thanks for the run down.


----------



## SiGGy

joys_R_us said:


> Yes, this would be your contribution to global warming. Turn on all your appliances for 24 hours a day... Sorry but I keep wondering about the "thoughtfulness" of Americans in dealing with energy (SUVs, ice-cold-restaurants in summer etc.)


Seeing as how 7 out of 10 in the US are overweight we need something to move us around and we need to stay cool somehow  We have a lot of extra insulation!

Back on topic...

I hope prices continue to drop. Going to be an interesting year with PC monitors coming out as well.


----------



## Liam Gray

I'm looking to upgrade my aging LG 720P 50" Plasma to a 65" tv. Viewing angle is an issue, so I am really hoping to go with OLED, but my budget tops out at an absolute max of around $3500. I just keep hoping that by some miracle the B series comes in that low. Beyond that I'm thinking about going the cheap route for now with a Vizio M series and just dealing with it for a few years until OLED comes down under $2k for a 65". I just hate taking a step backwards in terms of contrast and viewing angle. It seems like we are in a place of major transition technology wise. It's frustrating.


----------



## rogo

Liam Gray said:


> I'm looking to upgrade my aging LG 720P 50" Plasma to a 65" tv. Viewing angle is an issue, so I am really hoping to go with OLED, but my budget tops out at an absolute max of around $3500. I just keep hoping that by some miracle the B series comes in that low. Beyond that I'm thinking about going the cheap route for now with a Vizio M series and just dealing with it for a few years until OLED comes down under $2k for a 65". I just hate taking a step backwards in terms of contrast and viewing angle. It seems like we are in a place of major transition technology wise. It's frustrating.


It's been frustrating since the $3000 65-inch videophile-quality plasma left the market in 2014 or so. 

Good news for you is I don't see $3500 as a miracle. I see it as quite possible, at least in 2H2016.


----------



## fafrd

Liam Gray said:


> I'm looking to upgrade my aging LG 720P 50" Plasma to a 65" tv. Viewing angle is an issue, so I am really hoping to go with OLED, but my budget tops out at an absolute max of around $3500. I just keep hoping that by some miracle the B series comes in that low. Beyond that I'm thinking about going the cheap route for now with a Vizio M series and just dealing with it for a few years until OLED comes down under $2k for a 65". I just hate taking a step backwards in terms of contrast and viewing angle. It seems like we are in a place of major transition technology wise. It's frustrating.


If you can hang tight until November, I think the odds are better than not that you will be able to find the B6 within your budget. Keep close tabs on CP - he tends to have rock-bottom prices early on.

In case the B6 doesn't hit your pricepoint or OLED continues to suffer from bleeding-edge growing pains, camping out with an M60 for a year or so is a good backup plan - close to $900 in this month's Super Bowl specials and if the viewing angles and the occasional local-dimming artifact (halo/bloom) are something you can't live with, it will probably retain well over half it's value when OLED finally becomes attractive to you.

The Vizio FALD LED/LCD is going to offer effective contrast ratios that at least match and probably exceed what you are getting on your LG Plasma (once properly calibrated ).

Unless extreme off-angle viewing is a very important consideration for you, my guess it that between 50"->60", 720p->2160p, dumbTV->smartTV (i.e. Netflix/Amazon streaming), and the superior black bars and contrast ratio, after taking the plunge on an M60, you will probably feel you have gotten such an enormous upgrade that you will be good for many years (by which time OLED should be ready for the masses ).


----------



## jjackkrash

rogo said:


> . . . (I no longer believe the bigger one will be remotely affordable in 2017 and there is a real chance it will still be stupidly priced in 2018.)


This is so depressing.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

jjackkrash said:


> This is so depressing.


If it makes you feel any better, he _did_ use the word 'believe' - I mean, some people believe that the concept of climate change is a "liberal media conspiracy". 

My point is, don't let other people's beliefs get your own down when none of us really "know" anyway.


----------



## video_analysis

Except that anybody can look at fossil records and other historical climatological evidence and see that climate change is a real thing. Many have also tried to predict what's coming and have also failed, including when OLED TV would achieve mainstream status.


----------



## hotskins

fafrd you are a very smart tech guy. Can u read this article at sciencedaily
Do you think a technological breakthrough similar to this can bring plasma back
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160111135229.htm


----------



## tgm1024

NintendoManiac64 said:


> If it makes you feel any better, he _did_ use the word 'believe' - I mean, some people believe that the concept of climate change is a "liberal media conspiracy".
> 
> My point is, don't let other people's beliefs get your own down when none of us really "know" anyway.


I'm not sure what this means. All beliefs are created equal? For instance, you can't be dubious of (nor even contrast in the same sentence) a physicist's belief system regarding quark spin just because some folks have a belief system including Big Foot existence and Mikey dying of pop rocks.


----------



## fafrd

hotskins said:


> fafrd you are a very smart tech guy. Can u read this article at sciencedaily
> Do you think a technological breakthrough similar to this can bring plasma back
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160111135229.htm


Interesting - thanks.

It's basically kind of like 'quantum dots for heat' - may bring back incandescent light bulbs (and the warm light they deliver) but unlikely to have any application in flat-screen displays.

I know plasma TVs have a reputation for getting hot, but I don't think they get anywhere close to the 2700 degrees of the Tungsten filament in an incandescent bulb .


----------



## NintendoManiac64

tgm1024 said:


> I'm not sure what this means. All beliefs are created equal?


Perhaps I should have clarified that I was referring specifically to future predictions which is why I said nobody really "knows" 100%.

And I do realize that my previously-given example was not that great at conveying that idea. In my defense it was 4:30am.


----------



## rogo

I do a pretty good job of picking words to couch statement in what I know, what I'm confident is probable, what I think is a maybe, what I'm less certain about.

Certainly, my ability to predict things exceeds that of someone who either knows nothing about the space I'm predicting in or has a particular agenda and can't divine the situation as a result.

And certainly when I can't even hope to see the future well because there aren't enough "tea leaves" to read, I use words like "I believe" to let people here know this is not a strong confidence prediction.

As for when mainstream OLED acceptance would occur, well other than being briefly duped in 2012 by some demos at CES, I've been a pretty strong proponent of 2016-17 since, I dunno, before 2010? (There is some range around the dates, though nothing in the first half of the decade was ever deemed plausible.) 

There are enough posts in the archive to back that up I encourage people to go find them. As to how I could "predict" this, it wasn't luck or guesswork, it was an understanding of technology development curves. It seems to bother people I can do this in the way I guess it bothers people that someone they know speaks Korean and they don't understand that either.


----------



## hotskins

fafrd said:


> Interesting - thanks.
> 
> It's basically kind of like 'quantum dots for heat' - may bring back incandescent light bulbs (and the warm light they deliver) but unlikely to have any application in flat-screen displays.
> 
> I know plasma TVs have a reputation for getting hot, but I don't think they get anywhere close to the 2700 degrees of the Tungsten filament in an incandescent bulb .


I think im still sad over the plasma death. Atleast we have Panasonic helping with OLED tech now though. LG prob stole some ideas from Panasonic engineers LOL


----------



## fafrd

hotskins said:


> I think im still sad over the plasma death. Atleast we have Panasonic helping with OLED tech now though. *LG prob stole some ideas from Panasonic engineers LOL*


I wish. If that were true, perhaps my 65EF9500 would actually deliver a full 8+ bits of near-black greyscale resolution instead of only 7 bits.

LG's WOLED technology is fantastic and they have done an admirable job developing engineering solutions to compensate for limitations associated with near-black nonuniformity/streaking (which unfortunately expresses itself in the form of DSE during pans over dark scenes) and image-retention.

Their CMS is functional but clunky and buggy (as it has always been ). which is one area where Panasonic could certainly help upgrade their in-house capability (though the OLEDs are already so good on color accuracy out-of-the-box now, that this is a relatively minor issue).

The near-black greyscale impacting shadow detail is the most serious picture-quality deficiency of current-generation WOLEDs and the area where Panasonic's plasma experience with dithering might most significantly improve the state of what LG is delivering with WOLED today.

These WOLEDs are darned close to perfect as long as luminance is at least 5%, but especially in the range around 3%, the 65EF9500 can occasionally make you cringe (if you have any experience with a Reference a plasma TV or state-of-the-art VA FALD LED/LCD).

I'm certain near-black greyscale accuracy with emissive displays is a far greater challenge than it is with LCD-based displays, but Panasonic has been their before with their plasma TVs and LG would be wise to enter into a collaboration with Panasonic (or pick off a few star engineers ).


----------



## wco81

I'm thinking waiting at least another year is probably the best.

Don't feel a big want to upgrade from my Panny plasma to 4K and OLED since most of what I watch is still TV rather than movies.

Certainly still interested in UHD BD but would rather wait for at least the second generation of players and to see how the UHD BD library lines up in the first year.

But I'd have way more interest in upgrading if ATSC 3.0 got done and they started broadcasting in 4K HDR, especially sports. Or I should say, cable and satellite carries 4K channels from the major networks, broadcast and at least premiums like HBO and Showtime.


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> This goes back to something I've been explaining for a long while: There is no near-term-horizon solution for the "front cover" problem at all. In smartphones, flexible displays can still be interesting for certain kinds of yet-to-be-invented products like a possible, very clever hinged device. And, of course, they can enable some unique form factors and provide a modicum of resiliency if you consider that it's cheaper to replace front glass than a screen.


This appears to be Samsung's choice for a scratch resistant transparent flexible cover glass for their foldable phone expected with an initial limited release this fall.

http://en.kipost.net/product/New-Di...roject-Valley/337/?cate_no=1&display_group=11

Scheduling next year, Samsung Electronics will apply highly flexible cover in foldable smartphone (Project Valley) instead of Corning’s ‘Gorilla Glass’.

New material that forms the new cover glass will be strong to damage like tempered glass, have high light transmission, and have unchanging properties even when stressed with repeated folds and bends.

Company which is developed the new material and Samsung are working on how to apply the new material on display for Project Valley.

In December 1st, according to electric materials related businessman stated that Samsung Electronics developed new material ‘Hybrimer’ for project Valley with venture under KAIST called Solip Technology (representative Byeong-soo Bae)

Hybrimer is made by combining inorganic materials like glass and organic materials like plastic in proper ratio. It is transparent clear like glass and strong to break and scratches while is highly flexible like plastic film. Since it takes characteristics of both organic and inorganic, the word ‘hybrimer’ came from ‘hybrid’ and ‘polymer’.

Samsung Electronics is planning to coat hybrimer on foldable smartphone’s display with 50μm thickness. In results of their experiment, hybrimer’s transparency or harness didn’t decrease even after 100,000 folds and unfolds in 3r curvature. ‘3r’ curvature means bending the display around cylinder with radius of 3mm. 

Widely forecasted, Samsung Display will include hybrimer coating process while producing AM OLED (Active Matrix Organic Light Emitting Diode). Hybrimer will be nano-coated on the upper surface of PI (polyimide), which acts as substrate of flexible AM OLED.

Hybrimer not only shows outstanding performance in flexibility but also in hardness. Generally, the higher the value of pencil hardness, the stronger mineral is to scratches or damages. Common glass has ‘6H’ and widely used as smartphone unfold-able display, Corning’s ‘Gorilla Glass’ has 9H+ (Pencil hardness basis). Samsung Electronics and Solip Technology increased the hybrimer’s display hardness up to more than ‘9H+’. Thus, Hybrimer is not only flexible but also strong.

Project Valley coating material development was carried out by several companies including Japan’s Sumitomo and Gunje at the beginning, but Solip Technology’s hybrimer showed best performance whether in transparency and hardness.

Related businessman stated “Since 2014, Samsung Electronics progressed technology development to apply hybrimer in Project Valley” adding “Since hybrimer is one of core technologies to realize foldable smartphone, Samsung seem to review the method of carrying out equity investment in Solip Technology.”


----------



## fafrd

Just found this: http://www.oled-info.com/oled-says-...d-industry-gives-interesting-projections-2016

On LG: "the OLED association estimates the LG sold over 400,000 OLED TVs." and "the OLED-A sees LG as the only OLED TV maker, producing over 1 million TVs in 2016. Prices for 55" and 65" panels will become competitive with high end LCDs - with a 10% to 15% premium."

On Samsung: "Samsung will not announce an OLED TV but will continue to develop the technology - and will be ready to launch the first TV in 2017. Samsung's 2017 OLEDs will feature HDR and 8K resolution. Interestingly *the OLED-A sees Samsung adopting a transparent graphene electrode, a top-emission architecture, an RGBW pixel arrangement and an IGZO backplane. *Soluble OLEDs will not be adopted as the lifetime performance is still not good enough."


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Just found this: http://www.oled-info.com/oled-says-...d-industry-gives-interesting-projections-2016
> 
> On LG: "the OLED association estimates the LG sold over 400,000 OLED TVs." and "the OLED-A sees LG as the only OLED TV maker, producing over 1 million TVs in 2016. Prices for 55" and 65" panels will become competitive with high end LCDs - with a 10% to 15% premium."
> 
> On Samsung: "Samsung will not announce an OLED TV but will continue to develop the technology - and will be ready to launch the first TV in 2017. Samsung's 2017 OLEDs will feature HDR and 8K resolution. Interestingly *the OLED-A sees Samsung adopting a transparent graphene electrode, a top-emission architecture, an RGBW pixel arrangement and an IGZO backplane. *Soluble OLEDs will not be adopted as the lifetime performance is still not good enough."


_Graphene_? We're able to move that from EE theory to actually viable implementation now?

I better pay better attention to the news.


----------



## JimP

fafrd said:


> *...snip.... *Soluble OLEDs will not be adopted as the lifetime performance is still not good enough."


What is LG using or put another way...is LG using soluble OLEDs?


----------



## slacker711

JimP said:


> What is LG using or put another way...is LG using soluble OLEDs?


No. Soluble materials are for printable displays and there are a number of technical barriers before vendors start using that process.

LG and Samsung are using dry materials which are heated up and evaporated into a cloud before condensing on to the substrate.


----------



## Rich Peterson

I was counting on printed OLED TVs starting next year so the building evidence that longevity isn't yet solved is disappointing. I think OLEDs will continue to be a nitch until new manufacturing techniques such as printing are finally available.


----------



## slacker711

Rich Peterson said:


> I was counting on printed OLED TVs starting next year so the building evidence that longevity isn't yet solved is disappointing. I think OLEDs will continue to be a nitch until new manufacturing techniques such as printing are finally available.


Yes, it is likely that the current manufacturing method will keep OLED televisions as a niche technology. However, the entire high-end of the market is basically a niche and it looks like OLED's could eventually dominate that market. 

We dont know yet how much volume the new P10 fab will enable, but at a minimum, it would seem likely that LGD is targeting the >$1000 market. That doesnt get OLED's into Walmart but it means that most people on AVS will be looking at OLED's for their next TV.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> _Graphene_? We're able to move that from EE theory to actually viable implementation now?
> 
> I better pay better attention to the news.


Or stop paying attention to promotional "news" which tends to report nonsense. One of those.



Rich Peterson said:


> I was counting on printed OLED TVs starting next year so the building evidence that longevity isn't yet solved is disappointing. I think OLEDs will continue to be a nitch until new manufacturing techniques such as printing are finally available.





slacker711 said:


> Yes, it is likely that the current manufacturing method will keep OLED televisions as a niche technology. However, the entire high-end of the market is basically a niche and it looks like OLED's could eventually dominate that market.
> 
> We dont know yet how much volume the new P10 fab will enable, but at a minimum, it would seem likely that LGD is targeting the >$1000 market. That doesnt get OLED's into Walmart but it means that most people on AVS will be looking at OLED's for their next TV.


I think these ideas sum things up nicely. 

It's not so much whether printing/soluble OLED material becomes real that breaks through the "niche" status, but rather whether more manufacturers get on board and make OLED TVs. It's never been clear that printing magically makes the stuff cheaper. In fact, Kateeva hasn't even done more than say things like when you can print a TV-sized panel, it will be slightly more expensive than an LCD.

So, importantly, let's understand that there has long been a "lie" about OLED which I never bought into: It's cheaper to produce than LCD. If it were, you'd see much more aggressive moves across the board and you'd see OLED crossing into the sub $500 category before decade's end. 

You won't.

Instead, you'll see continued growth of LG's operation and very likely others joining the fray. If you think of the TV market as one where ~20-25 million TVs are sold at prices >$1000 (is that right? maybe....) it's not hard to imagine OLED taking 1/2 that market by 2020. It's even plausible for it to take more of it.

[Incidentally, in this example, I'm less concerned about the price cutoff -- though I know shoppers are only concerned about it -- than about arbitrarily carving out the top 10% of the TV market. That's why I picked 20-25 million. It likely corresponds somewhat nicely to the $1000+ band, but I don't have anywhere near the data to reliably claim the relationship is that neat.]


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Or stop paying attention to promotional "news" which tends to report nonsense. One of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think these ideas sum things up nicely.
> 
> It's not so much whether printing/soluble OLED material becomes real that breaks through the "niche" status, but rather whether more manufacturers get on board and make OLED TVs. It's never been clear that printing magically makes the stuff cheaper. In fact, Kateeva hasn't even done more than say things like when you can print a TV-sized panel, it will be slightly more expensive than an LCD.
> 
> So, importantly, let's understand that there has long been a "lie" about OLED which I never bought into: It's cheaper to produce than LCD. If it were, you'd see much more aggressive moves across the board and you'd see OLED crossing into the sub $500 category before decade's end.
> 
> You won't.
> 
> Instead, you'll see continued growth of LG's operation and very likely others joining the fray. If you think of the TV market as one where ~20-25 million TVs are sold at prices >$1000 (is that right? maybe....)* it's not hard to imagine OLED taking 1/2 that market by 2020. *It's even plausible for it to take more of it.
> 
> [Incidentally, in this example, I'm less concerned about the price cutoff -- though I know shoppers are only concerned about it -- than about arbitrarily carving out the top 10% of the TV market. That's why I picked 20-25 million. It likely corresponds somewhat nicely to the $1000+ band, but I don't have anywhere near the data to reliably claim the relationship is that neat.]


10 million OLED TVs by 2020 - seems like a realistic target and a clear milestone that OLED has 'made it' and is here to stay.

Would be interested in your thoughts as to what OLED TV panel market share is appropriate to target for LG on that timeframe.

My thoughts are that is certainly can't be 100% by 2020, but it's likely got to still be at least 50%. Maybe 75% or 7.5 million is a realistic target to think about.

That OLED info article I found claimed a revised LG target of 1M OLED TVs in 2016 by LG (driven by increased sales of 65" versus 55"). Using all of M2 to produce 65" OLEDs at 80% yield corresponds to 750,000 65" OLEDs, so a target of 1M for this year does not sound too far off the mark.

That same article (which claims 400K OLED TVs sold in 2015), 
stated: 

This article: http://www.oled-info.com/etnews-lgd-aims-ship-1-million-oled-tv-panels-2016-and-15-million-2017

Also repeats the 400K in 2015; 1M in 2016 forecast and also states that: "According to ETNews, LG Display's Vice-Chairman said that the company's goal is to ship 1 million OLED TV panels in 2016 and[/B] 1.5 million in 2017[/B]. In 2015, LGD shipped around 400,000 OLED panels."

So if these numbers are to be believed, LG is going to need P10 to ramp up in 2018 and to have capacity of ~6M OLED TV panels (of whatever size).

Just in terms of potential ramp, this is what it could look like:

2015: 0.4M
2016: 1.0M (150% growth)
2017: 1.5M (50% growth)
2018: 3.0M (100% growth due to P10 starting)
2019: 5.0M (67% growth)
2020: 7.5M (50% growth)

The Digitimes article I linked to earlier ended with this statement: "BOE will not be ready to produce OLED TVs in 2016, but it will deliver sample panels to TV makers in China - and will still consider whether to commit to a Gen-8.5 production fab."

So between Samsung and BOE, I think the other thing we are agreeing on is that by 2020, we will need to see at least 2-3 OLED TV panel manufacturers in the market to be certain OLED TV has passed the point of no return...


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Would be interested in your thoughts as to what OLED TV panel market share is appropriate to target for LG on that timeframe.
> 
> My thoughts are that is certainly can't be 100% by 2020, but it's likely got to still be at least 50%. Maybe 75% or 7.5 million is a realistic target to think about.


It seems like between those two figures is about right. In a way, it's better news for OLED if LG is below 50%. It means someone else has ramped up a bunch of capacity while (likely) LG has too, right? But given that it's 2016 and the only massive investment we're clear on is LG's, it feels unlikely someone else gets to the same level in the next 4 years. 


> That OLED info article I found claimed a revised LG target of 1M OLED TVs in 2016 by LG (driven by increased sales of 65" versus 55"). Using all of M2 to produce 65" OLEDs at 80% yield corresponds to 750,000 65" OLEDs, so a target of 1M for this year does not sound too far off the mark.


On the one hand, 1M is very disappointing right? I mean it's much lower for 2016 than was once on the table. On the other hand, slightly more than double is some kind of realistic maximum ramp up so I'd say it's a great goal. Round number, etc.


> Just in terms of potential ramp, this is what it could look like:
> 
> 2015: 0.4M
> 2016: 1.0M (150% growth)
> 2017: 1.5M (50% growth)
> 2018: 3.0M (100% growth due to P10 starting)
> 2019: 5.0M (67% growth)
> 2020: 7.5M (50% growth)


Certainly the least believable number there is the 2018 figure. Probably the 2019-20 figures are the most challenging ones after that. None of that means those figures are impossible just that they are going to be very challenging to meet. I would be curious to see LG's own internal projections on whatever it calls the "realistic" path, but it wouldn't shock me if it looked like this:

2016: 1.0M
2017: 1.5M
2018: 2.65M (+75%)
2019: 4.0M (+50%)
2020: 5.6M (+40%)

The further out these forecasts go, the less meaningful they are -- even internally. But LG has thus far failed to stay on track, whether that was due to the plant accident, the difficult working with IGZO, yields on the vapor deposition stage, et al. There is nothing wrong with your forecast, except that it seems awfully hard to meet. The company seems conservative enough that it could possibly _have_ your forecast but likely only as a "best case" scenario.


> So between Samsung and BOE, I think the other thing we are agreeing on is that by 2020, we will need to see at least 2-3 OLED TV panel manufacturers in the market to be certain OLED TV has passed the point of no return...


Yeah, this point can't be reiterated enough. An ecosystem of OLED equipment makers, OLED material makers, OLED TV manufacturers, OLED TV OEMs is what everyone should want to see. The market is only healthy if most of those exists. A single-company market is not healthy and could easily disappear due to the vicissitudes of business -- korean won gets expensive, LG suffers trouble somewhere else in its business, black swans like a North Korean conflict -- while a multi-vendor, multi-layered market has a lot of people with a stake in it. 

Right now, we are all relying on LG to drive this whole thing forward. They are doing a reasonably credible job. And by committing to the bigger fab come 2018 they are putting a stake in the ground telling competitors, "We're making high-end product and we're going to drive the price down enough to compete with your LCDs." That will ideally motivate BOE, Samsung and perhaps some as-yet-unidentified company to join the mix.


----------



## darinp2

rogo said:


> So, importantly, let's understand that there has long been a "lie" about OLED which I never bought into: It's cheaper to produce than LCD. If it were, you'd see much more aggressive moves across the board and you'd see OLED crossing into the sub $500 category before decade's end.
> 
> You won't.


I don't recall whether any of these kinds of claims have been clear about what they meant. Many times the devil is in the details. For instance, somebody could claim that OLED will be cheaper to make than LCD and mean cheaper to make than high zone FALD LCD, but leave that important detail out.

--Darin


----------



## JimP

darinp2 said:


> I don't recall whether any of these kinds of claims have been clear about what they meant. Many times the devil is in the details. For instance, somebody could claim that OLED will be cheaper to make than LCD and mean cheaper to make than high zone FALD LCD, but leave that important detail out.
> 
> --Darin


Considering their investment in OLED, aren't they going to have to sell to more than the premium customers?


----------



## slacker711

darinp2 said:


> I don't recall whether any of these kinds of claims have been clear about what they meant. Many times the devil is in the details. For instance, somebody could claim that OLED will be cheaper to make than LCD and mean cheaper to make than high zone FALD LCD, but leave that important detail out.
> 
> --Darin


Yep, there are all sorts of unspoken caveats to any projection like this. 

The complete statement would be something like this....OLED's can be cheaper to produce than LCD's when using the same size substrate, same backplane, at the same yields, and using a RGB architecture.

LGD's OLED televisions uses the same size substrate, but a different backplane (IGZO vs. a-si), with lower yields, and uses a WOLED architecture which adds in the cost of a color filter and thicker material layers.

Samsung's mobile OLED's have hit cost parity with LTPS LCD's precisely because they can satisfy most of the above statement that I made.


----------



## slacker711

Here is the missing piece of LG Display's production ramp. Considering the demand in Q4, it never made sense to me for them to wait for the P10 fab to start ramping in the middle of 2018. No word on the amount of capacity yet.

http://tech.firstpost.com/news-anal...on-in-large-oled-panel-production-296681.html



> South Korea’s LG Display Co Ltd said it will invest 460 billion won ($380 million) to boost production of large organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panels for televisions.
> 
> LG Display said in a regulatory filing that it will convert some of its existing liquid crystal display production equipment with the investment for new OLED production. *The investment will begin in the first quarter of 2016 and be completed by the second quarter of 2017.*


----------



## JimP

You guys ever wonder if those $5K OLEDs will be selling for $1,500 in a few years?


----------



## slacker711

JimP said:


> You guys ever wonder if those $5K OLEDs will be selling for $1,500 in a few years?


I would expect a low-end 65" set to be below $2k by the end of 2018. I would assume $1500 by sometime in 2019.


----------



## rogo

darinp2 said:


> I don't recall whether any of these kinds of claims have been clear about what they meant. Many times the devil is in the details. For instance, somebody could claim that OLED will be cheaper to make than LCD and mean cheaper to make than high zone FALD LCD, but leave that important detail out.





slacker711 said:


> Yep, there are all sorts of unspoken caveats to any projection like this.
> 
> The complete statement would be something like this....OLED's can be cheaper to produce than LCD's when using the same size substrate, same backplane, at the same yields, and using a RGB architecture.
> 
> LGD's OLED televisions uses the same size substrate, but a different backplane (IGZO vs. a-si), with lower yields, and uses a WOLED architecture which adds in the cost of a color filter and thicker material layers.
> 
> Samsung's mobile OLED's have hit cost parity with LTPS LCD's precisely because they can satisfy most of the above statement that I made.


Just to be clear, there have been *many* claims that "OLEDs have a lower bill of materials so they will necessarily be cheaper to make than LCDs once they achieve some sort of scale". It is those claims I consider to be nonsense, despite agreeing with Slacker that Samsung has achieved cost parity with a _narrow_ class of mobile LCDs.

By the way, part of the reason Korean analysts were so insistent OLEDs would be cheaper was that they would have IGZO backplanes, which -- they insisted -- were inherently cheaper at scale than a-Si backplanes. That ignored two things (1) that a-Si backplanes have now been made in the billions and are ridiculously cheap and (b) that LCDs can use the very same backplanes. 

When you compare an LG OLED TV to an LCD TV, it's worth understanding that the "front" and "back" of the stack are almost identical, with a TFT backplane and a color filter. The differences lie in between, where the LCD has a BLU (backlight unit) and some variant of light guides and films along with an LC layer. The OLED has, well, the OLED layer. The nonsensical argument advanced _for years_ is "because no BLU, OLED = cheaper" which ignores that, again, the LC layer has a "quantity billions" advantage on the OLED layer.

Someday, maybe, this changes and OLED does become cheaper. But "cheaper" actually means only one thing of import: That an OLED panel is cheaper to make than an LCD panel, not that some particular OLED panel is cheaper than some LCD panel. 



slacker711 said:


> I would expect a low-end 65" set to be below $2k by the end of 2018. I would assume $1500 by sometime in 2019.


I find this very believable too. And it dovetails nicely with what I was getting to above. You can already find a sub $1000 65-inch TV today. That's a profitable model sold by a number of manufacturers with a retail price of $900 or so in the U.S. (perhaps a bit less from someone, I didn't shop everything after I found a Vizio at that price). 

If OLED were inherently cheaper to produce, we could be talking about (a) when we'd see a $1000 65-inch OLED (b) when manufacturers would stop making more expensive, mostly inferior LCD TVs. And, really, we can speculate about those things. But we can't have any realistic conversation about them because no reasonable person believes that (a) or (b) is happening anytime soon. In fact, due to lead times for fabs (b) isn't even possible for something around a decade and it presumes evidence -- not in hand -- about this "inherently cheaper" business. You'll know that OLED is inherently cheaper when you hear that the Chinese have abandoned plans to build new LCD fabs and instead are only building OLED fabs. Or that Samsung, Sharp, Japan Display, AUO, Innolux are all converting existing LCD capacity to OLED. Or really both.


----------



## 8mile13

According Soneira OLEDs are considerably less complicated to manufacture and assemble (than LCd's and Plasma's).


----------



## rogo

8mile13 said:


> According Soneira OLEDs are considerably less complicated to manufacture and assemble (than LCd's and Plasma's).


Yeah, for all his smarts (a) he's not an expert on manufacturing anything and (b) that doesn't matter. In some universe that exists someday, it might, but not today.

Consider that Samsung is well past "scale" in mobile OLEDs, yet from a price perspective can only compete with _the most expensive_ mobile LCDs. And mobile LCDs have lousy "scale economics" vs. big ones since each tiny screen needs all the parts of a big one (BLU, BEFs, color filters, LC layer, TFT layer, et al.). 

I think people are easily susceptible to facile analysis like, "because fewer parts, easier to put together, cheaper" and "because fewer parts, cheaper" which aren't part of how the real world works. Teslas have a lot fewer parts than Mercedes sedans. They aren't _currently_ cheaper to produce.


----------



## Luke M

rogo said:


> I think people are easily susceptible to facile analysis like, "because fewer parts, easier to put together, cheaper" and "because fewer parts, cheaper" which aren't part of how the real world works. Teslas have a lot fewer parts than Mercedes sedans. They aren't _currently_ cheaper to produce.


"Number of parts" is meaningless, but mass does correlate well with cost.


----------



## rogo

Luke M said:


> "Number of parts" is meaningless, but mass does correlate well with cost.


No, it really does not.


----------



## tgm1024

Luke M said:


> "Number of parts" is meaningless, but mass does correlate well with cost.





rogo said:


> No, it really does not.


HAHA. I have to wonder about where these concepts come from. A nanomachine might well cost absurd amounts of money to create.

Titanium bicycles are similarly absurdly expensive compared to aluminum. And aluminum over steel, etc., etc., etc...

All with inverted mass to cost ratios.


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> So if these numbers are to be believed, LG is going to need P10 to ramp up in 2018 and to have capacity of ~6M OLED TV panels (of whatever size).
> 
> Just in terms of potential ramp, this is what it could look like:
> 
> 2015: 0.4M
> 2016: 1.0M (150% growth)
> 2017: 1.5M (50% growth)
> 2018: 3.0M (100% growth due to P10 starting)
> 2019: 5.0M (67% growth)
> 2020: 7.5M (50% growth)
> 
> The Digitimes article I linked to earlier ended with this statement: "BOE will not be ready to produce OLED TVs in 2016, but it will deliver sample panels to TV makers in China - and will still consider whether to commit to a Gen-8.5 production fab."


LG has announced an investment for adding 25k gen 8 OLED TV capacity in 2nd half 2017. They are converting 50k of LCD capacity to 25k OLED capacity. P10 probably won't be in production until late in 2018 (maybe q4?) and we don't know what that capacity or gen size will be.

The BOE comments are interesting. Here is a report of a Chinese producer gearing up for OLED TV production. As you say, it will take a while though.
http://www.oled-info.com/oled-maker-china-gearing-towards-oled-tv-production



rogo said:


> Just to be clear, there have been *many* claims that "OLEDs have a lower bill of materials so they will necessarily be cheaper to make than LCDs once they achieve some sort of scale". It is those claims I consider to be nonsense, despite agreeing with Slacker that Samsung has achieved cost parity with a _narrow_ class of mobile LCDs.
> 
> By the way, part of the reason Korean analysts were so insistent OLEDs would be cheaper was that they would have IGZO backplanes, which -- they insisted -- were inherently cheaper at scale than a-Si backplanes. That ignored two things (1) that a-Si backplanes have now been made in the billions and are ridiculously cheap and (b) that LCDs can use the very same backplanes.
> 
> When you compare an LG OLED TV to an LCD TV, it's worth understanding that the "front" and "back" of the stack are almost identical, with a TFT backplane and a color filter. The differences lie in between, where the LCD has a BLU (backlight unit) and some variant of light guides and films along with an LC layer. The OLED has, well, the OLED layer. The nonsensical argument advanced _for years_ is "because no BLU, OLED = cheaper" which ignores that, again, the LC layer has a "quantity billions" advantage on the OLED layer.
> 
> Someday, maybe, this changes and OLED does become cheaper. But "cheaper" actually means only one thing of import: That an OLED panel is cheaper to make than an LCD panel, not that some particular OLED panel is cheaper than some LCD panel.


Here is a breakdown of mobile 5" display cost comparison between OLED and LCD which is probably reasonably close to reality and somewhat reflective of the TV world. The module costs for OLED are considerably cheaper but that is still currently offset by higher depreciation cost. The economies of scale you so often refer to also applies to the production equipment. So far there are basically 3 OLED fabs and something like 120 LCD fabs. There is a long way to go on the economies of scale curve for OLED production equipment. LG reported that the 25k OLED TV fab they are building this year will cost 30% less than the M2 fab they built last year. If depreciation is 1/3 of the cost then the cost reductions coming to OLED are significant. It's not clear why the statement that OLED will be cheaper than LCD once they achieve scale (which they haven't done yet) is nonsense. It never meant they would be cheaper from day one. I would be curious to see references to IGZO being touted cheaper than aSi .. again particularly before they reach scale?


----------



## rogo

ynotgoal said:


> Here is a breakdown of mobile 5" display cost comparison between OLED and LCD which is probably reasonably close to reality and somewhat reflective of the TV world.


So, again, that's an LTPS LCD, the most expensive kind made. The OLED is more expensive -- as you note -- despite having reached scale = 100s of millions annually than the most expensive LCDs on the market. I don't know the comparison to an a-Si module of the same size, but I know it's cheaper. In short, OLED is still more expensive than the most expensive LCDs and much more expensive than the least expensive LCDs. If we wanted to extrapolate this to TV, we could say that OLED has no chance of displacing the vast majority of LCD TV production for _years_. Of course, we knew that.


> The module costs for OLED are considerably cheaper but that is still currently offset by higher depreciation cost. The economies of scale you so often refer to also applies to the production equipment.


I think I make this point somewhat regularly by discussing the need for a broader OLED ecosystem, with more suppliers of equipment to more manufacturers. In short, I'm not only aware of it, I agree it's absolutely essential.


> So far there are basically 3 OLED fabs and something like 120 LCD fabs. There is a long way to go on the economies of scale curve for OLED production equipment. LG reported that the 25k OLED TV fab they are building this year will cost 30% less than the M2 fab they built last year. If depreciation is 1/3 of the cost then the cost reductions coming to OLED are significant.


Yes, although despite the specifics being noteworthy, this observation isn't news per se. I mean we knew that costs would be driven down over time and this is consistent with that. That the 30% figure is being thrown about is, again, consistent with a lot that we know about typical cost reduction curves too (though in this case it applies to the build cost of the fab, not the total cost of the output.)


> It's not clear why the statement that OLED will be cheaper than LCD once they achieve scale (which they haven't done yet) is nonsense.


Because it assumes you can project 10 years into the future with accuracy, which you can't. Even your example above demonstrates the folly of the idea. Samsung has *scale* by any reasonable definition in mobile screens and can only almost match the most expensive LCD competition. Given that much of the world's smartphone production is based on $100 models, the idea that something as expensive as the most expensive screens assuredly wins is still not a given. Yes, I'm aware some cheap smartphones have OLEDs. But some cheap smartphones still use cheaper a-Si screens, too. And while your point about fab numbers is made, there is no reason to believe there will be 120 OLED fabs soon or really ever. 

Add in the fact that old LCD fabs eventually drive a depreciation component of cost to essentially zero, not to mention the decline of other component costs, and the biggest folly of _all these projections_ is the idea that you are getting cheaper but they aren't. I am well aware that LCD modules are not much cheaper than they were a few years ago, but the idea they will never get cheaper again? Well, what I see happening in TV prices year after year tells me _that isn't true_. 

The silliest part of the claim, however, is the idea that "because lower BOM, eventually lower product costs" is a given. That's not the way the world works. You've shown part of why (depreciation isn't always equal and may not ever be). It's also the case that some black swan may emerge that we can't yet project (some material for OLED may enter a short-supply stage and set back cost declines; some other display technology may be developed around 2020 that is somehow superior to OLED and convinces the manufacturer ecosystem to focus on developing that over the next half decade instead of completing the OLED transition, or whatever). The world is complicated and any argument that reduces it, "lower BOM, lower product costs" is facile. It's not as facile as "lower mass, lower product costs" but it's not as much better as some might think.

Incidentally, TV is a harder problem than mobile. The market is shrinking/flat (unlike mobile over the past 8 years) and isn't seeing increasing prices per device (unlike mobile in the smartphone era). The ability to push up pricing does not exist, the brand power of Apple and Samsung to charge large premiums _across large volumes_ does not exist either. Samsung (and Sony, et al.) are able to create a few premium tiers that comprise, 1%, 5%, 10% of the market (less important how you define these, more to get a sense of magnitude). LG can today sell into the 1% only. It is seeking to capture 40% of that 1%. Peanuts. Minimal scale as a result.

Even when it goes to the P10 fab -- which you suggest is now nearly 3 years out -- it will likely have capacity to sell only into the top 5%/10% of the market. That's a max of about 25 million units, where I'm assuming LG is targeting ~10 million. Still peanuts. And this creates a chicken-and-egg problem, right? For OLED to displace LCD, it needs to work at retail prices of $300, not just $3000. For that to happen, it needs there to be 20 fabs like the P10. For that to happen, manufacturers need to invest billions and then race to the bottom on pricing. 

People forget that LCD "happened" in TVs not because of smart investing, but rather because of ruinous -- yes ruinous -- fab overbuilding in the early part of the 2000s that led to so much capacity that prices were driven through the ground quickly. This was because everyone believed that since they were good at making small LCDs (for laptops) they'd be good at making big ones for TVs. Mostly, they were correct enough but mostly no one made much money doing this. In OLED, the TV-making doesn't even use the steps used in mobile screen making, which pretty much no one is good at anyway (save Samsung). The lessons of LCD make this unlikely to repeat.

I remind people I was mocked here where I said years ago that there was no way OLED would take 1/2 the display market by 2020 and yet here we sit in 2016 and we can now say with metaphysical certainty that even if OLED captures 80% of the smartphone market by 2020 (which I'd say is unlikely and a prediction being made by absolutely no one*), that bet is a win. 


> It never meant they would be cheaper from day one.


But that's just it, when does "inherently cheaper" become real? 10 million? 100 million? 1 billion? For mobile screens it looks like maybe 1 billion vs. LTPS. Maybe 5 billion vs. a-Si? 10? In TVs, 1 billion OLED TVs is seemingly _not happening before 2030_.


> I would be curious to see references to IGZO being touted cheaper than aSi .. again particularly before they reach scale?


There was a Korean analyst report (or Taiwanese? but I think Korean) linked out of here, maybe this very thread that touted the IGZO benefit several years ago. It was -- also -- nonsense. IGZO displays are clearly more expensive than a-Si displays and there is no reason to believe that will change.

* As of 2014, DisplaySearch believed OLED would obtain 30% market share of smartphones by 2020, with 51% LTPS and 18% a-Si.


----------



## slacker711

While I am usually willing to go back and forth to the end of days over an argument on the net, I think we are burying the lead here. LGD just commited to another 25,000 Gen 8 substrates by the 2nd half of 2017. This is before the P10 megafab that they plan on building.

Absent the Gen 8 conversion, I had been worried that pricing would stall before the P10 fab started its ramp. They will now have capacity north of 3 million units available in 2018.

It is also worth noting that LGE stated that OLED televisions made up around 10% of their television revenue in the 4th quarter. The units are tiny but OLED's are going to become their primary revenue driver in the medium term.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> While I am usually willing to go back and forth to the end of days over an argument on the net, I think we are burying the lead here. LGD just commited to another 25,000 Gen 8 substrates by the 2nd half of 2017. This is before the P10 megafab that they plan on building.


Sorry, yeah, that is exciting.


> Absent the Gen 8 conversion, I had been worried that pricing would stall before the P10 fab started its ramp. They will now have capacity north of 3 million units available in 2018.


Which is good, because otherwise the next few years would be dull. Now we can look forward to ~1M this year, ~2M next year, ~3M the year after. I'd actually posted on this several times in the past -- the idea that they would max out at


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> But two things happened along the way:
> 
> 1) They did decide to invest big, except that we've learned how hard it is to build big. So hard that it appears this P10 megafab really starts contributing come 2019.


It would have been faster and cheaper to continue converting Gen 8 capacity but they obviously see a large amount of value in getting a a Gen 9 or 10 fab. It makes sense to me considering the BOE Gen 10.5 fab that is getting built in China as well as Sharp's existing Gen 10 capacity. 



> Do we have a sense of how tiny, proportionally? It seems LG did ~250K OLED units in Q4. Perhaps it was even a bit higher.
> 
> LG seems to have ~14% market share but I can't seem to find a good Q4 number. Perhaps 60 million? Maybe that's a bit high as TV sales have fallen off a cliff again, still would put LG in the 7-9M category.
> 
> Crudely, then, it seems OLED has a 2-4% unit share but a 10% revenue share. This isn't really that exceptional given the ASP of OLEDs at this point. I'm perhaps a bit less excited than you are about this?


I think LGE shipments were very likely sub-200,000 units but your other numbers look like they are in the ballpark. I had never done the math to get an estimate on what percentage of revenue that OLED might be generating, so the 10% number came as a surprise. 

It is kind of funny but now that LGD's path is pretty much set, I am more interested to see what the hell the rest of the LCD vendors are going to do. AUO has pretty much ruled out spending the capex for OLED televisions or smartphones. I have no idea how they plan on surviving the onslaught of LCD capacity coming on line from China. 

OLED's on the high-end, China everywhere else and overall television unit sales dropping...not many places to hide if you are a LCD vendor.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> It would have been faster and cheaper to continue converting Gen 8 capacity but they obviously see a large amount of value in getting a a Gen 9 or 10 fab. It makes sense to me considering the BOE Gen 10.5 fab that is getting built in China as well as Sharp's existing Gen 10 capacity.


Yes, and long run that makes a ton of sense. In the U.S., especially, having 60-inch product is valuable and as I've shown in other posts 8G doesn't make good 65-inch product either (efficiency-wise, not quality-wise). Add in the fact that 8G is bad at making a smaller product as well, and you have a _lot_ of economic incentive to work with larger substrates. 


> I think LGE shipments were very likely sub-200,000 units but your other numbers look like they are in the ballpark. I had never done the math to get an estimate on what percentage of revenue that OLED might be generating, so the 10% number came as a surprise.


It could be 200K in Q4, I just saw figures like 400K thrown out for the year and I believe those were very heavily backloaded. But I won't quibble with details here. And, as I said, I'm less surprised by the 10% figure given the ASPs.


> It is kind of funny but now that LGD's path is pretty much set, I am more interested to see what the hell the rest of the LCD vendors are going to do. AUO has pretty much ruled out spending the capex for OLED televisions or smartphones. I have no idea how they plan on surviving the onslaught of LCD capacity coming on line from China.
> 
> OLED's on the high-end, China everywhere else and overall television unit sales dropping...not many places to hide if you are a LCD vendor.


AUO does seem screwed. But if Foxconn loses out on Sharp, maybe they buy AUO and play a capacity game of their own? I don't honestly know if that's a good strategy or not. I imagine in TV a lot depends on where the bottom is and whether there is growth. In PCs, it appears clear growth is not returning soon. Unlike Gartner/IDC, I believe the bottom is below


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> While I am usually willing to go back and forth to the end of days over an argument on the net, I think we are burying the lead here. *LGD just commited to another 25,000 Gen 8 substrates by the 2nd half of 2017. * This is before the P10 megafab that they plan on building.
> 
> Absent the Gen 8 conversion, I had been worried that pricing would stall before the P10 fab started its ramp. They will now have capacity north of 3 million units available in 2018.
> 
> It is also worth noting that LGE stated that OLED televisions made up around 10% of their television revenue in the 4th quarter. The units are tiny but OLED's are going to become their primary revenue driver in the medium term.


This is big news and a very encouraging sign of LGs growing confidence.

I think in Q4 LG was very happy with the OLED TV demand they generated from their 'sale', especially with the 65EF9500 here in the US as well as in Europe.

So my guess is they are confident they have a compelling offering for 60"+ WOLEDs, which unfortunately are a disasterous size on Gen 8 substrates (only 3 per substrate; ~70% substrate utilization).

Hence the decision to invest in the Gen ~10 P10 fab which will be close to 100% efficient when manufacturing 65" WOLEDs and will drop the 65" panel cost by more than a third.

But that is going to take time, may not be in volume production before 2019, and in the meantime, M2 going full steam at high yields is only able to crank out 70K 65" WOLEDs per month or ~0.8M 65" WOLEDs per year (and this is assuming 90% yield, above the currently assumed yields of ~80%).

So if LG did in fact sell anywhere north of 200,000 WOLEDs in Q4, that means they essentially maxed out their capacity on M2 (assuming all were 65" panels which they were not, and assuming that all were 4K panels, which they were not).

Don't get me wrong, between the sales of 55" 4K OLEDs (which effectively double M2's capacity) and sales of 1080p OLEDs using capacity from the other fab, LG was nowhere close to maxing out their production capacity in Q4, but the possibility of that capacity constraint was probably real enough that they realized they would be in a vulnerable position to capitalize on market demand and drive further market share gains if they had to wait for P10 to be up and running before they would have additional capacity for 65" OLEDs.

So the Gen 8 LCD fab conversion they have announced is great and essentially means they will be positioned for twice the 4K capacity they have currently 18 months from now.

The 55" panels confuse the analysis, as does the potential conversion of M1 to 4K (though it can't be used for 65" OLEDs as long as it remains a half-sheet production facility), but we can simplify by focusing just on max capacity of 65" OLED to understand a potential quarterly capacity roadmap:

Q4'15 26K/mo @ 80% = 185K 65" / Q (0.7M / year)

Q4'16 26K/mo @ 90% = 210K 65" / Q (0.8M / year)

Q4'17 26K/mo @ 90% + 25K/mo @ 70% = 365K / Q (1.4M / year)

Q4'18 51K/mo @ 90% = 410K / Q (1.6M / year)

Q4'19 with P10 capacity for 65" OLEDs can easily be double this level

And, of course, nothing precludes LG making another Gen8 LCD conversion decision a year from now (or whenever) if they feel the need for additional capacity by late 2018.

The only issue with Gen 8 fabs is that they are horribly inefficient for making OLEDs bigger than 55"...


----------



## rogo

I would be very surprised to see more Gen 8 conversion for these lack-of-efficiency reasons.

The one part of this I suppose we can consider discouraging is that with an understood cap on sales, LG won't have a ton of incentive to move pricing aggressively. It will be somewhat more likely to move cautiously in the entirety of 2016-18 because it already likely understands the path to sell out this year and won't meaningfully upgrade production for 18 months. 

I won't give up hope on $4000 for the B6 at 65 inches, given that LG is selling two 55-inch displays for that much money (albeit 1080p models). But the whole 3 vs. 6 problem on the substrates suggests that higher pricing would be realistic, even if not market expanding.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> AUO does seem screwed. But if Foxconn loses out on Sharp, maybe they buy AUO and play a capacity game of their own? I don't honestly know if that's a good strategy or not. I imagine in TV a lot depends on where the bottom is and whether there is growth. In PCs, it appears clear growth is not returning soon. Unlike Gartner/IDC, I believe the bottom is below


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> I would be very surprised to see more Gen 8 conversion for these lack-of-efficiency reasons.
> 
> The one part of this I suppose we can consider discouraging is that with an understood cap on sales, LG won't have a ton of incentive to move pricing aggressively. It will be somewhat more likely to move cautiously in the entirety of 2016-18 because it already likely understands the path to sell out this year and won't meaningfully upgrade production for 18 months.
> 
> I won't give up hope on $4000 for the B6 at 65 inches, given that LG is selling two 55-inch displays for that much money (albeit 1080p models). But the whole 3 vs. 6 problem on the substrates suggests that higher pricing would be realistic, even if not market expanding.


I think you'll get a $4000 price at Best Buy/Amazon this year but I have my doubts that they'll debut at that price. The fact that not even LG knows how much demand they might have been able to fill in Q4 with sufficient inventory makes me think that they'll be cautious on price reductions early in the year.

I will say that conversations about the 2016 high-end LCD's seems to have dried up on AVS. I just did a search and its been five days since the Samsung KS9500 has been mentioned over on the LCD forum. There probably was a thread with a thousand posts on the JS9500 at this time last year.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> I think there are going to be some unbelievable LCD deals coming this Christmas.


I will point out that only feeds my earlier narrative about how hard it is for OLED to ultimately compete across all price bands with LCD.



slacker711 said:


> I think you'll get a $4000 price at Best Buy/Amazon this year but I have my doubts that they'll debut at that price.


Yes, agreed. I had cautious optimism of a debut at that price given the late Q2 arrival and the need to push volume. But I'm now skeptical about over-pushing volume in 2016 only to have no more volume to push in 2017 (until later in the year). 


> The fact that not even LG knows how much demand they might have been able to fill in Q4 with sufficient inventory makes me think that they'll be cautious on price reductions early in the year.


This seems right.


> I will say that conversations about the 2016 high-end LCD's seems to have dried up on AVS. I just did a search and its been five days since the Samsung KS9500 has been mentioned over on the LCD forum. There probably was a thread with a thousand posts on the JS9500 at this time last year.


My sense is high-end LCD had 2 years to get itself back to $3000 for 65 inches -- where high-end plasma was for several years with still only a finite amount of demand -- and punted. Serves it right


----------



## jjackkrash

rogo said:


> My sense is high-end LCD had 2 years to get itself back to $3000 for 65 inches -- where high-end plasma was for several years with still only a finite amount of demand -- and punted. Serves it right


What's it going to take to get the 77" OLED price out of the stratosphere? If we have to wait for new facilities to come on line, are we looking at 2018?


----------



## rogo

jjackkrash said:


> What's it going to take to get the 77" OLED price out of the stratosphere? If we have to wait for new facilities to come on line, are we looking at 2018?


It seems that way. In fact, it might not be until the 2019 round of announcements. 

That said, there's a lot of room between $30,000 and what is plausible today (~$10,000-$12,000).


----------



## darinp2

fafrd said:


> The only issue with Gen 8 fabs is that they are horribly inefficient for making OLEDs bigger than 55"...


Does all this mean that the prices between 55" models and 65" models are likely to be relatively large until Gen 10 capacity kicks in?

If LG drops 1080p models I could see that putting some real price pressure on any entry level 55" 4K OLED, but doesn't seem like it would have that much effect on 65" pricing.

--Darin


----------



## rogo

darinp2 said:


> Does all this mean that the prices between 55" models and 65" models are likely to be relatively large until Gen 10 capacity kicks in?
> 
> If LG drops 1080p models I could see that putting some real price pressure on any entry level 55" 4K OLED, but doesn't seem like it would have that much effect on 65" pricing.


Essentially, it currently costs LG 2x as much to make a 65 inch as a 55 inch. That remains true for all 8G lines. Of course, it's also true of every 65-inch LCD on the market (all of which are made on 8G lines). What this should tell you is "cost" isn't always the same thing as _cost_. The fab can process X substrates. Each can make 6 of the 55-inch displays or 3 of the 65s. But that's not really telling us that the 55 is 1/2 the price, it's telling us that it has half the opportunity cost on a throughput basis.

So, yeah, the gap is going to be large. But given the much smaller opportunity to grow the premium 55-inch market and the likelihood they can convert the older line (which only makes 55s) from 1080p to 4K, admitting there's little point in continuing to make 1080p there, the gap should narrow somewhat over time.

And once the 55-inch 4k panels roll off the M1 line instead of M2 (at some uncertain future date), it frees up more substrates to be used "inefficiently" for 65s.


----------



## sapp

Hello. Time oled panel has changed or remained the same (30 000 hours)? We are talking about the models 2015-2016.


----------



## Esox50

rogo said:


> It seems that way. In fact, it might not be until the 2019 round of announcements.
> 
> That said, there's a lot of room between $30,000 and what is plausible today (~$10,000-$12,000).


...and that is hugely disappointing if thats the way it pans out.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I would be very surprised to see more Gen 8 conversion for these lack-of-efficiency reasons.
> 
> The one part of this I suppose we can consider discouraging is that with an understood cap on sales, LG won't have a ton of incentive to move pricing aggressively. It will be somewhat more likely to move cautiously in the entirety of 2016-18 because it already likely understands the path to sell out this year and won't meaningfully upgrade production for 18 months.
> 
> I won't give up hope on $4000 for the B6 at 65 inches, given that LG is selling two 55-inch displays for that much money (albeit 1080p models). But the whole 3 vs. 6 problem on the substrates suggests that higher pricing would be realistic, even if not market expanding.


While I agree with your overall analysis, I think there are other factors that will make Q4'16 different than Q4'15.

Q4'15, the 65EF9500 OLED at the 'sale' price of $5000 (which ended up translating to street pricing of $4500 or even lower) made it attractive compared to Flagship HDR LED/LCDs. The Samsung 65JS9500 was probably the closest direct competitor except it was curved and had inferior picture quality when viewed in a dark room, the Vizio R65 never materialized and was priced significantly higher, and the Sony 75X940C was probably the most competetive alternative for anyone with space for a larger screen and budget for the higher cost. So in short, $4000-5000 for the best 65" HDR TV was a compelling value proposition in Q4'15.

By Q4 of this year, I believe that equation will change due to the number of low-cost HDR QDOT FALD/LCDs reaching the market this year. Samsung looks like they are ceding good blacks to LG by retaining their focus on uber-bright (and curved ), but between the Chinese offerings from Hisense and TCL hitting the US market and whatever Vizio has up their sleeves with the 2016 P-Series, it's likely that you will be able to pick up a far better 65" TV for $3000 this Q4 than was possible last year.

So I'm pretty sure that the same pricepoint for 65" OLEDs in Q4'16 is not going to drive the same demand that it did in Q4 last year.

In addition, there is the 'pent-up videophile demand' issue: how many plasma owners were nursing their aging TVs along month by month awaiting the first acceptable 65" OLED (flat, among other things)? That videophile demand is one-time and unlikely to be recurring (at year on an annual basis).

LG has demonstrated a good track-record of modulating demand through relatively high MSRP with discounting/sales to increase demand as needed. The fact that, after the $5000 'sale' ended in late December, pricing has returned to that same level after only a month back at the higher MSRP of $6000 says it all - sales volume has dried up and needs to be sub $5000 to absorb ongoing production volumes.

Through their announced MSRP on the 65E6P, we already know that it will be priced at a $1000 premium to the 65EF9500/65EG9600 and we also now know that the Flagship 65G6P will be priced at an additional $1000 premium over that but will be discounted by at least $1250 at launch.

When the discounting gets too rediculous and continuous, LG occasionally reduces MSRP, so who can say whether we will see lower MSRPs with more modest discounts by Q4 or more significant discounts on already-announced MSRPs, but I am very confident in predicting that we will see 65B6P prices that are at least $500 lower than the 65EF9500 was in Q4'15 by Q4 of this year.

If I am correct, that means that there is at least one Forum Sponsor who will be offering the 65B6P for $3750 or less


----------



## sytech

fafrd said:


> If I am correct, that means that there is at least one Forum Sponsor who will be offering the 65E6P for $3750 or less


Oh, I am itching to take the over on that bet. What time frame are we talking? And this is straight sale price, no rebate or Apple pay gimmick, right?


----------



## fafrd

sytech said:


> Oh, I am itching to take the over on that bet. What time frame are we talking? And this is straight sale price, no rebate or Apple pay gimmick, right?


Straight-up discounted price (which may include a rebate from LG, but no Apple-Pay-like credit-card cash-back incentives).

Timeframe is anytime before the end of the year, including any after-launch promotions/sales or any Holiday Shopping Season promotion/sales.

As a reference, the best straight-street pricing available Q4 last year on the 65EF9500 was $4250, while $4500 was widely available and $5000 was the 'official' sale price...

So yes, pretty confident that we'll see 65B6P pricing that is at least 10% below all of those levels before this year is out...


----------



## sytech

fafrd said:


> Straight-up discounted price (which may include a rebate from LG, but no Apple-Pay-like credit-card cash-back incentives).
> 
> Timeframe is anytime before the end of the year, including any after-launch promotions/sales or any Holiday Shopping Season promotion/sales.
> 
> As a reference, the best straight-street pricing available Q4 last year on the 65EF9500 was $4250, while $4500 was widely available and $5000 was the 'official' sale price...
> 
> So yes, pretty confident that we'll see 65B6P pricing that is at least 10% below all of those levels before this year is out...


In your post you were talking about the 65E6

_"65E6P for $3750 or less"

_The 65B6 is another story. That may be possible, but if you want to stick to the 65E6, I'll give you until the end of the year for a forum sponsor to get the LG 65E6 to $3750 with only LG factory rebates. Say $10 Amazon dollars.


----------



## fafrd

sytech said:


> In your post you were talking about the 65E6
> 
> _"65E6P for $3750 or less"
> 
> _The 65B6 is another story. That may be possible, but if you want to stick to the 65E6, I'll give you until the end of the year for a forum sponsor to get the LG 65E6 to $3750 with only LG factory rebates. Say $10 Amazon dollars.


Sorry, typing too fast (since corrected) - I meant the base model (65B6P).

I don't believe is is too likely that the 65E6P is going to break under $4000 this year - just getting down to the pricepoint of the 65EF9500 from Q4 of last year would be pretty attractive (between the Dolby Vision, the wider color gamut, the increased brightness, the Soundbar and the 'super slim' on-glass design [for whatever that is worth ])

I picked up my 65EF9500 for $4500 last December and would be pretty content to pick up a 65E6P for that same price before the end of this year (assuming reviews live up to expectation ).


----------



## fafrd

Just found this: http://www.oled-info.com/adorama-offers-lgs-2015-fhd-55-eg9100-oled-tv-1399

$1400 for the 55EG9100 (55" 1080p) OLED.

Promising...


----------



## fafrd

Just found this: http://www.oled-info.com/adorama-offers-lgs-2015-fhd-55-eg9100-oled-tv-1399

$1400 for the 55EG9100 (55" 1080p) OLED.

Promising...


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> By Q4 of this year, I believe that equation will change due to the number of low-cost HDR QDOT FALD/LCDs reaching the market this year. Samsung looks like they are ceding good blacks to LG by retaining their focus on uber-bright (and curved ), but between the Chinese offerings from Hisense and TCL hitting the US market and whatever Vizio has up their sleeves with the 2016 P-Series, it's likely that you will be able to pick up a far better 65" TV for $3000 this Q4 than was possible last year.


If we are judging the market today, then this is unequivocally wrong. The one manufacturer in the high-end that matters more than everybody else put together is Samsung and they have yet to announce a FALD set in 2015. Samsung has had a near 50% share in this segment and they have an edge-lit lineup that will compete well everywhere except for the absolute high-end of the market...which is where LG's OLED still play.

TCL, Hisense, and Vizio are basically irrelevant here. If they release sets that are judged well be reviewers and owners, they might matter a few years down the line, but building a high-end brand takes time.

Samsung had a FALD set that they chose not to announce at CES. I dont know if this is because they are attempting something technically difficult and need more time or because the JS9500 didnt sell as well as expected and they are rethinking their strategy. If they announce a FALD set, that will change the competitive dynamic....but until then, the market is much more wide open than 2015.


----------



## CINERAMAX

anyone considering a samsung tv needs their heads examined, those were some bad looking images .

The only three things that were any good at the samsung booth was the led tiling 170 8k set, the atmos soundbar and a refrigerator with a touchscreen.

LG first and sony second, panasonic had a curved oled that is really hyped by Joel silver but being curved.....


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

fafrd said:


> Just found this: http://www.oled-info.com/oled-says-...d-industry-gives-interesting-projections-2016
> 
> On LG: "the OLED association estimates the LG sold over 400,000 OLED TVs." and "the OLED-A sees LG as the only OLED TV maker, producing over 1 million TVs in 2016. Prices for 55" and 65" panels will become competitive with high end LCDs - with a 10% to 15% premium."
> 
> On Samsung: "Samsung will not announce an OLED TV but will continue to develop the technology - and will be ready to launch the first TV in 2017. Samsung's 2017 OLEDs will feature HDR and 8K resolution. Interestingly *the OLED-A sees Samsung adopting a transparent graphene electrode, a top-emission architecture, an RGBW pixel arrangement and an IGZO backplane. *Soluble OLEDs will not be adopted as the lifetime performance is still not good enough."


wow...8k + hdr OLED in 2017.

Goes to show that 99% of market predictions here on AVS are completely worthless conjecture that reality roundly mocks at regular intervals. And thank goodness, because this is terrific news. 

8K being available at the high end will drastically reduce 4K prices. Competition, ain't it grand?


----------



## gadgtfreek

sytech said:


> In your post you were talking about the 65E6
> 
> _"65E6P for $3750 or less"
> 
> _The 65B6 is another story. That may be possible, but if you want to stick to the 65E6, I'll give you until the end of the year for a forum sponsor to get the LG 65E6 to $3750 with only LG factory rebates. Say $10 Amazon dollars.


Considering Cleveland Plasma has been selling the EF9500 for $4250 for awhile now, I think it's highly likely the B6 would be less than $4k.


----------



## barth2k

CINERAMAX said:


> The only three things that were any good at the samsung booth was the led tiling 170 8k set,...


That tiling display looks like a great idea. What's stopping it from being reality?

OLED yield on 77" is abysmal, but it appears pretty good for 55". Tile four of those and you get 110" @8k. Tile four 65" and you get 130". R I P front projection. 

The current panels are pretty much bevelless already right? I imagine they put the panels on solid metal backs that can be jointed together. The joint does not have to be seamless, just good enough to not be noticeable at 1.5× or so screen width. Of course they need to fix the vignetting and uniformity issues. The electronics required to drive multiple displays are well known. The pieces can be shipped separately and installed on site. Should cost less than the 77" right


----------



## video_analysis

gadgtfreek said:


> Considering Cleveland Plasma has been selling the EF9500 for $4250 for awhile now, I think it's highly likely the B6 would be less than $4k.


If they want to sell a million OLEDs this year, it's imperative it gets below $4k.


----------



## Cooters

video_analysis said:


> If they want to sell a million OLEDs this year, it's imperative it gets below $4k.



The market for high end and ultra high end technology does not always remain stagnant. Think the high end smartphone market in 2007 prior to the iPhone, versus today. I am certainly not predicting anything to that degree, but IMO the high end is expanding now, and will continue to. In other areas OLED is creating markets that did not even exist with LCD - VR, flexible displays, soon foldable displays. 


Everyone that sees my EC9300 notices it is different. As these TV's appear in public places and as more people have at least one experience in a home setting, the demand curve can shift.


Coot


----------



## sytech

gadgtfreek said:


> Considering Cleveland Plasma has been selling the EF9500 for $4250 for awhile now, I think it's highly likely the B6 would be less than $4k.


He didn't say 65B6, he said 65E6. The 65B6 should hit below $4K by the end of the year, the E6 with sound bar, probably not. I'll offer you the same deal, I'll take the over on $3750 65E6 by the the end of the year.


----------



## video_analysis

Cooters said:


> The market for high end and ultra high end technology does not always remain stagnant. Think the high end smartphone market in 2007 prior to the iPhone, versus today. I am certainly not predicting anything to that degree, but IMO the high end is expanding now, and will continue to. In other areas OLED is creating markets that did not even exist with LCD - VR, flexible displays, soon foldable displays.
> 
> 
> Everyone that sees my EC9300 notices it is different. As these TV's appear in public places and as more people have at least one experience in a home setting, the demand curve can shift.


Those other uses aside, the FABs being built (and recommissioned) for OLED are only intended for screen sizes of 55"+ from my understanding. OLED does compete relatively well in a showroom/retail environment in comparison to a plasma, but high-end FALD displays are also competitive there as well.


----------



## rogo

RLBURNSIDE said:


> wow...8k + hdr OLED in 2017.
> 
> Goes to show that 99% of market predictions here on AVS are completely worthless conjecture that reality roundly mocks at regular intervals. And thank goodness, because this is terrific news.


Let's just take this bet now. The 99% of predictions here on AVS (most of which, when made by smart folks, are pretty close), against the "not any chance in hell" belief of an organization formed to hype OLED that there'll be an 8K HDR OLED for sale from Samsung next year?

You go and save up your money but there won't be any such thing for sale in 2017. Feel free to make me eat crow on this in the unlikely event our universe is swapped with another portion of the The Matrix.



barth2k said:


> That tiling display looks like a great idea. What's stopping it from being reality?
> 
> OLED yield on 77" is abysmal, but it appears pretty good for 55". Tile four of those and you get 110" @8k. Tile four 65" and you get 130". R I P front projection.


The problem with the 77s isn't yield, it's panels per substrate. 

The problem with going to tiled 55s to fix this is there isn't a way to make a completely border-free tile using existing production technology.


> I imagine they put the panels on solid metal backs that can be jointed together. The joint does not have to be seamless, just good enough to not be noticeable at 1.5× or so screen width.


It would be visible at greater than that.


> Of course they need to fix the vignetting and uniformity issues. The electronics required to drive multiple displays are well known. The pieces can be shipped separately and installed on site. Should cost less than the 77" right


It would cost more and wouldn't be as uniform so, no. This isn't the fix. The fix is 2018-19 and the bigger fab. The long-term dream of tiles is attainable, but I believe it would use a smaller tile and a purpose-built production line to make it possible.



Cooters said:


> The market for high end and ultra high end technology does not always remain stagnant. Think the high end smartphone market in 2007 prior to the iPhone, versus today.


The difference is something called "jobs to be done." We hired phones in 2006 to make calls, maybe send texts (inconveniently) and rarely surf the web very (poorly). We hire the iPhone to surf the web like a computer, send tons of messages with a keyboard that's usable, and run millions of app that do everything. It's a globally connected supercomputer in your pocket.

The OLED TV does the same job as the $500 Walmart special. That's why it's not a game changer, nor is FALD, nor is any of this. And it's why there _will not be an expansion of the high end._ If anything, OLED will actually shrink the high end by bringing videophile picture quality down from the highest price bands, causing the next group of buyers to question paying the highest premiums.


> I am certainly not predicting anything to that degree, but IMO the high end is expanding now, and will continue to. In other areas OLED is creating markets that did not even exist with LCD - VR, flexible displays, soon foldable displays.


Yes, OLED technology is amazing. Very easy to get excited about its potential.


----------



## JimP

gadgtfreek said:


> Considering Cleveland Plasma has been selling the EF9500 for $4250 for awhile now, I think it's highly likely the B6 would be less than $4k.


We'd have a better idea of pricing if supply outpaced demand and it doesn't seem like its there yet.


----------



## gadgtfreek

sytech said:


> He didn't say 65B6, he said 65E6. The 65B6 should hit below $4K by the end of the year, the E6 with sound bar, probably not. I'll offer you the same deal, I'll take the over on $3750 65E6 by the the end of the year.


I know exactly what I said, and what he said. My comment was about B6 pricing, obviously...

Anyone that thinks the E6 will be less than $3750 may need help. That line of thinking doesn't make me or you a savant either.

Another safe bet would be that the Patriots will not win SB 50.


----------



## KOF

It's unfortunate LG is pretty much ceding 70 inches market to Samsung and Sony. Current 65 inches inefficiency will be solved with the P10, but not 77 inches. I wonder how big is the market for the 70 inches and over compared to 55~65 inches to have LG make such decision? Insignificant I bet, but still... 64/65 inches plasma owners will be the saddest people to find this out as they're more likely to increase size over what they have. (for example, ME!) I know, I know, plasma owners were the least significant bit to begin with.

The only configuration I can think of that can salvage substrate waste of the P10 9.7G is to go with 2.35:1 instead of 16:9 for the 77 inches and 98 inches which will make for 96 inches and 120~123 inches. LG could fund Panamorph to get them to put anamorphic encoding into Blurays. Since those fools at BDA decided to forgo anamorphic encoding into their base spec of the UHD BD, extra metadata would have to be relied upon, but if LG is serious with this as they were once serious with 3D, I think they can pull it off. Then they could advertise to the consumers, "Hey, look at this! No black bars!" I'd gladly pay the 77 inches price for the 2.35:1 96 inches. The 90 inches Sharp and the 85 inches Sony X850B were beginning to look fat on vertical sides. So, instead of wasting four 8G substrates on sub-120 inches LCD like Samsung, LG, and BOE did, single substrate could be used to produce two. The question is, do they want to? Do they want to invest in the ultra niche that Hollywood has passed over for the very same reason?


----------



## fafrd

JimP said:


> We'd have a better idea of pricing if supply outpaced demand and it doesn't seem like its there yet.


But we do.

We know that when the price of 65" OLEDs increases to $6000, supply outpaces demand, and we know that when the prices of 65" OLEDs decreases to $5000 (along with widely-available street discounting to $4500), demand apparently outstrips supply...

If the claim that LG sold 200,000 OLEDs in Q4'15 is to be believed, this represents roughly full Q4 4K production capacity of 65" 4K OLEDs, half the capacity of Q4 55" 4K OLEDs, and far less than half of the Q4 production capacity if the 55" 1080p OLEDs coming off of M1 are included in the mix...

LG has found the sweetspot on pricing of their 65" OLEDs for now, but as yields continue to improve and pent-up demand continues to be fulfilled, I believe we are going to see convergence to pricing for the 65EF9500/65EG9600 below $5000 as the norm...


----------



## JimP

fafrd said:


> But we do.
> 
> We know that when the price of 65" OLEDs increases to $6000, supply outpaces demand, and we know that when the prices of 65" OLEDs decreases to $5000 (along with widely-available street discounting to $4500), demand apparently outstrips supply...
> 
> ..


...is that backwards? Shouldn't prices drop when there is more supply than demand at a given price point?


----------



## fafrd

JimP said:


> ...is that backwards? Shouldn't prices drop when there is more supply than demand at a given price point?


I think you're reading backwards.

Just double-checked and I believe that is what I said .


----------



## rogo

KOF said:


> It's unfortunate LG is pretty much ceding 70 inches market to Samsung and Sony. Current 65 inches inefficiency will be solved with the P10, but not 77 inches. I wonder how big is the market for the 70 inches and over compared to 55~65 inches to have LG make such decision? Insignificant I bet, but still... 64/65 inches plasma owners will be the saddest people to find this out as they're more likely to increase size over what they have. (for example, ME!) I know, I know, plasma owners were the least significant bit to begin with.


So the 70+ market is probably currently only 2-5% of the 65-inch market alone. A bunch of that is price, though. If you compare it to the 55+65 market, it's certainly below 1%. 

If we were to look at the premium-only segment and just arbitrarily say, "It's 55 and up" then more of the market is 70 and up. How much of the premium tier? Maybe 10%? Those panels rarely sell outside of North America and truthfully most of the 70s are not truly premium models (especially if we are talking $2000+ at 70). In short, I doubt LG is ceding anything important today. But...


> snip on future stuff


So yeah, a lot of things are possible. A lot of them aren't especially optimal because you get things like a 110" cut from and 8G with 1/3 of the substrate wasted. You could get a decent cut of 2 x 85" from the 8G glass, which might ultimately prove to be a more interesting model than the 77, even though it _does_ limit the buyer pool. 

I don't know what they'll do to work into the 70s, but I suspect a better solution than what exists now is coming. It just may not come for 2-3 years. It has made me reconsider whether I want a 65 sooner rather than waiting on a 77 later.


----------



## Esox50

rogo said:


> I don't know what they'll do to work into the 70s, but I suspect a better solution than what exists now is coming. It just may not come for 2-3 years. It has made me reconsider whether I want a 65 sooner rather than waiting on a 77 later.


Spot on as usual. Would you consider "one last LCD" in the 75" size? Or is it OLED or bust at this point?


----------



## rogo

Esox50 said:


> Spot on as usual. Would you consider "one last LCD" in the 75" size? Or is it OLED or bust at this point?


For me, it's OLED or bust. But that's because (a) I don't consider the Sony's design very workable (b) I value viewing angles a good deal because I like being able to have everyone in the room enjoy the TV as much as everyone else (c) Sony's price is cray cray for me.

I can see the argument for the Sony, though, if someone has the funds and really doesn't care about limiting viewing to the sweet spot or mind the speakers. It's a great product (IMO) and at half the price would be pretty easy to consider for a 3-5 year TV.

Obviously, someone who needs size more would value this differently. And someone not especially concerned with PQ but really wanting size has lots and lots of options. I'm a VT50 owner who won't take a downgrade on any picture quality attributes I have. To me, therefore, only the absolute creme de la creme of LCDs represents an option.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> For me, it's OLED or bust. But that's because (a) I don't consider the Sony's design very workable (b) I value viewing angles a good deal because I like being able to have everyone in the room enjoy the TV as much as everyone else (c) Sony's price is cray cray for me.
> 
> I can see the argument for the Sony, though, if someone has the funds and really doesn't care about limiting viewing to the sweet spot or mind the speakers. It's a great product (IMO) and at half the price would be pretty easy to consider for a 3-5 year TV.


Except for active 3D.

BTW, didn't the 2016 940(D?) dump the speakers?

And yeah, the list prices as you pointed out are still clearly in the domain of yesteryear "Sony Thinking".

Oye.




> Obviously, someone who needs size more would value this differently. And someone not especially concerned with PQ but really wanting size has lots and lots of options. I'm a VT50 owner who won't take a downgrade on any picture quality attributes I have. To me, therefore, only the absolute creme de la creme of LCDs represents an option.


For most folks, I can't see a reason to move sideways from an undamaged VT50, unless 3D passive is critical for you (as it is for me), or 4K (HDR, and other flimsy standards) are similarly something you're no longer willing to do without.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> BTW, didn't the 2016 940(D?) dump the speakers?
> 
> And yeah, the list prices as you pointed out are still clearly in the domain of yesteryear "Sony Thinking".


Yeah, the speakers are gone. But the 2016 isn't for sale yet and, I imagine, will still be $6000.


> For most folks, I can't see a reason to move sideways from an undamaged VT50, unless 3D passive is critical for you (as it is for me), or 4K (HDR, and other flimsy standards) are similarly something you're no longer willing to do without.


I'm still kind of hoping to hold out until 2017-18. But what I'm thinking is that the "TV I want" is really going to be out in 2020, so maybe if the price is right on the B6, I might go sooner and then again later.


----------



## sytech

rogo said:


> I'm still kind of hoping to hold out until 2017-18. But what I'm thinking is that the "TV I want" is really going to be out in 2020, so maybe if the price is right on the B6, I might go sooner and then again later.


So you are waiting for a QD-LED also.


----------



## rogo

sytech said:


> So you are waiting for a QD-LED also.


Heh.

Humor aside, I think 2020 is an interesting inflection date to check in on something:

Has another technology emerged to take on OLED? 
Is LCD investment continuing in any segments?

By decade's end, we should have a very strong window into the next decade. It may be pre-ordained, or there may be signs of future chaos.


----------



## JimP

rogo said:


> Heh.
> 
> Humor aside, I think 2020 is an interesting inflection date to check in on something:
> 
> Has another technology emerged to take on OLED?
> Is LCD investment continuing in any segments?
> 
> By decade's end, we should have a very strong window into the next decade. It may be pre-ordained, or there may be signs of future chaos.


For those of us who are in our final 10 years(more or less), I sure wish this stuff would come around sooner than later.


----------



## 8mile13

sytech said:


> So you are waiting for a QD-LED also.


Actually Robert Heron stated at CES 2016 wrap up that he was told that they would come up with a prototype at years end | 41:50


----------



## ynotgoal

At a recent presentation LG Display CTO commented on changes made to OLED TVs. He made these points.
1. oxide TFT changed from etch stopper to coplanar method
2. went from internal to external compensation
3. new OLED device structure
4. improved high efficiency and high color gamut OLED materials
5. improvement in uniformity in gen 8 manufacturing equipment

I'll just comment on a couple of these. The oxide TFT changes make a pretty significant improvement in the cost of oxide TFT. While it is still more expensive than aSi it is getting closer both in terms of capital expense and process steps during manufacturing. The OLED device structure has been said to be a 3 stack structure which improves blue and thus overall performance.


----------



## joys_R_us

Would you please provide a link to the source ?


----------



## htwaits

JimP said:


> For those of us who are in our final 10 years(more or less), I sure wish this stuff would come around sooner than later.


I get a kick out of folks who can plan for toys on a decade basis.


----------



## rogo

8mile13 said:


> Actually Robert Heron stated at CES 2016 wrap up that he was told that they would come up with a prototype at years end | 41:50


Right, so if they achieve that, then sometime around 2020 we'll learn if it's possible to mass produce a display based on it. Nothing in display works fast. And there isn't a real chance that some end of 2016 prototype is going to lead to an affordable commercial display before decade's end.



ynotgoal said:


> At a recent presentation LG Display CTO commented on changes made to OLED TVs. He made these points.
> 1. oxide TFT changed from etch stopper to coplanar method
> 2. went from internal to external compensation
> 3. new OLED device structure
> 4. improved high efficiency and high color gamut OLED materials
> 5. improvement in uniformity in gen 8 manufacturing equipment
> 
> I'll just comment on a couple of these. The oxide TFT changes make a pretty significant improvement in the cost of oxide TFT. While it is still more expensive than aSi it is getting closer both in terms of capital expense and process steps during manufacturing. The OLED device structure has been said to be a 3 stack structure which improves blue and thus overall performance.


I'm very excited about the external compensation.  (I kid, I have no idea what that means.)

Everything that drives down cost, improves quality of finished products as well as production quality (e.g. uniformity) is clearly a good thing.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I'm very excited about the external compensation.  (I kid, I have no idea what that means.)
> 
> Everything that drives down cost, improves quality of finished products as well as production quality (e.g. uniformity) is clearly a good thing.


Here is a total guess at what 'external' versus 'interna'l compensation could mean:

We know that LG has a way to measure near-black offset/fixed-pattern-noise/nonuniformity.

My guess is that today they are using that information to make adjustments of the voltage levels being applied to the OLED cells, so it is completely distinct from CMS/pixel-level-processing. And this could be 'internal' because it is 100% internal to the panel and completely divorced from the desired pixel display target coming from CMS.

Using that nonuniformity data to take it into account within the pixel processing/CMS that converts incoming video levels to target stimulation would be much more effective (as well as complicated ) and would be within the pixel processing engine and hence 'external' to the panel.

There are only a very few video levels that cause issues near black and I have always thought that with a simple fixed-pattern-noise map near-black uniformity of these WOLEDs could be dramatically improved by addressing it at the input-end rather than the output end.

Think of it as a very, very, simple greyscale LUT applied to video levels 16,17,18, 19 and 20 on an individual pixel basis.

I'm very excited now about what improvements in near-black uniformity the G6P may have to offer (regardless of whether my whacky hypothesis proves to be realistic or not ) 

The poor near-black uniformity and gradation control is the greatest Achilles-heel of 2015-generation WOLEDs (assuming more significant defects such as Vignetting have been resolved ), so I am excited to see hints that LG has recognized the importance of improving in this area and will hopefully have some new technology to show us soon .


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, the first page of a SID paper from LG Display on external compensation circuit. It is supposed to reduce power consumption as well as improve grey scale. 

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002/j.2168-0159.2014.tb00191.x


----------



## rogo

Hmm, that paper suggests better aperture ratios, i.e. better fill factors.

That could mitigate one of the worst features of the early displays. I know people have been harping on this less claiming 4K is a solution (which I disagree with entirely). Anything that illuminates more of the display is a big win.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Hmm, that paper suggests better aperture ratios, i.e. better fill factors.
> 
> That could mitigate one of the worst features of the early displays. I know people have been harping on this less claiming 4K is a solution (which I disagree with entirely). Anything that illuminates more of the display is a big win.


And also probably provides increased brightness .


----------



## R Harkness

rogo said:


> For me, it's OLED or bust. But that's because (a) I don't consider the Sony's design very workable (b) I value viewing angles a good deal because I like being able to have everyone in the room enjoy the TV as much as everyone else (c) Sony's price is cray cray for me.
> 
> I can see the argument for the Sony, though, if someone has the funds and really doesn't care about limiting viewing to the sweet spot or mind the speakers. It's a great product (IMO) and at half the price would be pretty easy to consider for a 3-5 year TV.
> 
> Obviously, someone who needs size more would value this differently. And someone not especially concerned with PQ but really wanting size has lots and lots of options. I'm a VT50 owner who won't take a downgrade on any picture quality attributes I have. To me, therefore, only the absolute creme de la creme of LCDs represents an option.


I like how you think, Sir.


----------



## R Harkness

rogo said:


> Hmm, that paper suggests better aperture ratios, i.e. better fill factors.
> 
> That could mitigate one of the worst features of the early displays. I know people have been harping on this less claiming 4K is a solution (which I disagree with entirely). Anything that illuminates more of the display is a big win.


There seem to be few of us who find that to be the case. I am still struck by the not-quite-invisible fill factor on 4K flat panels, OLED included. Part of this is because I'm used to a pretty immersive viewing angle so I naturally stand in a position with that in mind. And of course, it's those closer viewing angles at which you start really appreciating the 4K detail. But it's also those viewing angles that for me start showing slight granularity where I pick up on the pixel structure.
(And it's funny how, when you've become used to higher resolution, how much easier it is to notice pixel structure on lower resolution models. After owning a display that is FAIAP perfectly smooth and grid-free, and doing much standing in front of all the 4K panels at the stores, 1080p displays these days are hard for me to take seriously as an immersive experience due to the obvious-to-my-eyes pixel structure).


----------



## rogo

Pixel structure and fill factor aren't precisely the same thing, though, Rich. Related, of course.

The first-gen 1080P LG OLEDs had awful fill factor. You could halve or quarter those pixels and they'd... _still have awful fill factor_.

The very thing you're doing by moving closer makes that still apparent.

I'll admit I just haven't spent enough time with even the existing LG 4K models to decide whether this is improved over the 1080P models. But I'm excited to know that it's possible the newest models will have a better aperture ratio and therefore a better fill factor. That will make the pixel structure less visible, to be sure, because fill will reduce the lines between pixels.

But I tend to see a lot of posts here where people just conclude "because 4K, lines between pixels so small that this stops mattering". And that's where I've parted ways with that kind of thinking.


----------



## joys_R_us

I wonder how the panel compensation is done (either internal or external) without having a measurement of the actual light level pixel by pixel. Do they really have in-built measurement circuits attached to each pixel ? Without this feedback they can't manage non-uniform areas and pixel degradation...


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> I wonder how the panel compensation is done (either internal or external) without having a measurement of the actual light level pixel by pixel. Do they really have in-built measurement circuits attached to each pixel ? Without this feedback they can't manage non-uniform areas and pixel degradation...


In general, Light Out = Current In, so it is possible to monitor the light out (current in) from within the panel.

I believe the non-uniformity issues WOLED suffer from a more directly related to mismatch and shift in threshold voltage rather that current (they are related, since threshold can be thought off as gating current).

It is possible to measure threshold voltage using very, very low currents (or modest currents for a very short pulse of time) which woukd mean that threshold mismatch/shift of individual pixels could be measured/estimated while the panel appears to be perfectly black.

I have always that this is what is going on while my WOLED is spending 5-10 minutes in it's silent and dark compensation cycle...


----------



## irkuck

Here is the huge market for big 100"+ flexible OLEDs :kiss:


----------



## rogo

Yes, because most trucking companies are totally interested in spending tens of thousands of dollars to keep other people on the road safe!


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Yes, because most trucking companies are totally interested in spending tens of thousands of dollars to keep other people on the road safe!


Not to mention the liability concerns - what happens when the TV goes on the blink and a passing vehicle has an accident as the result - talk about Black Crush


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

irkuck said:


> Here is the huge market for big 100"+ flexible OLEDs :kiss:


It's hilarious how dim even HDR TVs are compared to a bright, sunny day.


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> Here is the huge market for big 100"+ flexible OLEDs :kiss:


Holy crap, that thing might just disorient me enough to swerve off the road.

People tend to "zoom into" displays when they look at them. Oye.

Might as well show a roller coaster ride.


----------



## barth2k

tgm1024 said:


> Holy crap, that thing might just disorient me enough to swerve off the road.
> 
> People tend to "zoom into" displays when they look at them. Oye.
> 
> Might as well show a roller coaster ride.


I think the more economical and effective solution is to paint on the back of each truck a pictogram of a car attempting to pass a truck with the caption "go ahead, make my day."


----------



## irkuck

RLBURNSIDE said:


> It's hilarious how dim even HDR TVs are compared to a bright, sunny day.


The RearEndTV trucks are absolutely real and will hit the roads later this year. For FUD distributors and Naysayers there is this: *The IP56-certified signage are water- and dust-proof and were designed to maintain visual quality even under strong sunlight*. It just remains to be seen if on boring long stretches of narrow roads it will be possible to order hot movies from the truck driver via CB radio.


----------



## videobruce

How many here realize this thread is approaching 10 years old and we still don't have a product without substantial problems and at a reasonable cost? 

According to the 1st post (which was never updated) it's been 15 years since the 1st announcement of this tech.


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> Here is the huge market for big 100"+ flexible OLEDs :kiss:





tgm1024 said:


> Holy crap, that thing might just disorient me enough to swerve off the road.
> 
> People tend to "zoom into" displays when they look at them. Oye.
> 
> Might as well show a roller coaster ride.





barth2k said:


> I think the more economical and effective solution is to paint on the back of each truck a pictogram of a car attempting to pass a truck with the caption "go ahead, make my day."


Perhaps it might be hacked into and suddenly show a car going the wrong direction and swerving right into your lane at you head on. Aye yi yi.


----------



## ynotgoal

irkuck said:


> The RearEndTV trucks are absolutely real and will hit the roads later this year. For FUD distributors and Naysayers there is this: *The IP56-certified signage are water- and dust-proof and were designed to maintain visual quality even under strong sunlight*. It just remains to be seen if on boring long stretches of narrow roads it will be possible to order hot movies from the truck driver via CB radio.


Ok, but it is 4 46" LED outdoor digiital signage displays with 3,000 nits brightness (not an OLED). One of the displays by itself costs $6,000 (according to Google) so the system would probably be $25,000. I'd have to agree with Rogo that not many truckers are going to voluntarily spend that kind of money for it. Great idea though.
https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-presents-first-samsung-safety-truck-prototype


----------



## video_analysis

videobruce said:


> How many here realize this thread is approaching 10 years old and we still don't have a product without substantial problems and at a reasonable cost?


That's not a universal finding. Some folks are happy with current models, though the teething problems *are* being eradicated. The sole unit of Vizio's failure-to-launch flagship model (Reference) sold had significant banding itself, and how much does that cost? You've got to pay beacoup money for LCD (hello, 940c) if you want performance that compares to OLED.


> According to the 1st post (which was never updated) it's been 15 years since the 1st announcement of this tech.


LCD development began at least in the 70s so it's not unusual. Why ignore the progress? I can walk into Best Buy today and purchase one at just a little over $2k for a 55", which was nothing more than a dream 3 short years ago.


----------



## rogo

The fact that it's taken ~15 years is entirely the point.

It takes that long for _every_ flat panel technology that has made it to become commercially viable.

OLED has crossed that threshold. But plasma is an object lesson the entire era of commercialization can be shorter than the journey. Work to be done, excitement to be had.

And a 100% certainty that if tomorrow someone comes up with something better, cheaper, faster we won't be buying it this decade.

This is what we have.


----------



## fafrd

videobruce said:


> How many here realize this thread is approaching 10 years old and *we still don't have a product without substantial problems and at a reasonable cost?*
> 
> According to the 1st post (which was never updated) it's been 15 years since the 1st announcement of this tech.


Not that the war is won yet, but that's an overstatement. 

The 55EC9300 is a real product without 'substantial problems' and at $1400, cost is pretty reasonable (certainly compared to the Samsung 55F8500 which is the best relatively recent 55" 1080p plasma ).


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Consider that we had commercial LCD screens on hand-held devices in 1990, but LCD TVs weren't really a thing until around 10 years later...and they weren't exactly cheap.

So I wouldn't get paranoid about OLED not dropping in price quick enough until we've had handheld OLED displays for at least 10 years (we're around 7 years currently I believe?).


----------



## rogo

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Consider that we had commercial LCD screens on hand-held devices in 1990, but LCD TVs weren't really a thing until around 10 years later...and they weren't exactly cheap.
> 
> So I wouldn't get paranoid about OLED not dropping in price quick enough until we've had handheld OLED displays for at least 10 years (we're around 7 years currently I believe?).


I had an HTC Incredible around 2008. So 7 years sounds right.


----------



## videobruce

> The fact that it's taken ~15 years is entirely the point.


Didn't we get to the moon in 10?


----------



## tgm1024

videobruce said:


> Didn't we get to the moon in 10?



Actually, no  More like 150, but then we tend to forget that scientists "stand on the shoulders of giants..."


----------



## tgm1024

video_analysis said:


> LCD development began at least in the 70s so it's not unusual..


Yep. I remember in the 70's that my uncle was selling plasma displays. My university even had an ancient plasma terminal. All monochromatic green, and scarred up like crazy from years of burn-in. From there they added abilities.

That any particular technology takes 2X amount of years instead of X is a {shrug} moment in the making. It's not the bottom line for anything meaningful, and only sounds like it's somehow indicting, when it isn't.



rogo said:


> The fact that it's taken ~15 years is entirely the point.
> 
> It takes that long for _every_ flat panel technology that has made it to become commercially viable.


See, I'm not quite sure how your first sentence connects to the 2nd. Does it matter if something takes 30 years instead of 15, other than irritating all of us waiting? I don't see it. Were you saying the same thing?


----------



## rogo

Boy try to say something nice about the current state of OLED (all is well, we're exactly where we should be) and even that gets people riled.

And, yes, plasma took 30+ years before you could really buy a TV. Of course, while OLED research began arguably in the 1950s, with 1960 as sort of a turning point, the first OLED device generally dates back to 1987. That's 26 years from first device --> first commercial TV offering (let's just ignore the XEL-1 and the small LGs, neither of which came anywhere near close to 10,000 units).

For plasma, an arguably corresponding timeframe was 1964 --> 1995. 31 years.

LCD is trickier. We could sort of argue 1972 --> 1988. That would seem "short" at 16 years. But that would then concede 14-inch TVs are some sort of grail. It would not be until around 2003 that a 40-inch LCD was actually viable. Hmm, that's 31 years. _I don't really think that's a coincidence_.

So when someone starts talking about emissive quantum-dot displays, which unlike pretty much everything else (maybe MEMS-type shutter displays of various kind?!?) have at least been theorized and demoed in monochromatic at tiny sizes, I can speculate with the benefit of hindsight pretty well. We won't have emissive quantum-dot displays in the 2010s. We are very unlikely to have them in the 2020s even if -- like OLED -- they utilize significant parts of the LCD infrastructure. Sometime very late in the next decade or into the 2030s is plausible.

Do we need that technology? Only if it's discontinuously better or cheaper.* Because OLED (and LCD) are going to continuing improving and getting less expensive every year with volume.

* And even then, perhaps not. Futurists are now beginning to believe that AR technology (and to an extent VR) will begin to supplant displays as we currently know them. This won't happen immediately of course, but if we end up wearing our displays, we won't really need to carry them around or mount them on walls.


----------



## pmreedjr

JimP said:


> For those of us who are in our final 10 years(more or less), I sure wish this stuff would come around sooner than later.


I'm with you Jim; I recently puchased an LG 79UB9800 as an interim display hoping to see a reasonably priced OLED 85 incher in two or three years. I think it's just within the realm of possibility that could happen.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Boy try to say something nice about the current state of OLED (all is well, we're exactly where we should be) and even that gets people riled.
> 
> And, yes, plasma took 30+ years before you could really buy a TV. Of course, while OLED research began arguably in the 1950s, with 1960 as sort of a turning point, the first OLED device generally dates back to 1987. That's 26 years from first device --> first commercial TV offering (let's just ignore the XEL-1 and the small LGs, neither of which came anywhere near close to 10,000 units).
> 
> For plasma, an arguably corresponding timeframe was 1964 --> 1995. 31 years.
> 
> LCD is trickier. We could sort of argue 1972 --> 1988. That would seem "short" at 16 years. But that would then concede 14-inch TVs are some sort of grail. It would not be until around 2003 that a 40-inch LCD was actually viable. Hmm, that's 31 years. _I don't really think that's a coincidence_.
> 
> So when someone starts talking about emissive quantum-dot displays, which unlike pretty much everything else (maybe MEMS-type shutter displays of various kind?!?) have at least been theorized and demoed in monochromatic at tiny sizes, I can speculate with the benefit of hindsight pretty well. We won't have emissive quantum-dot displays in the 2010s. We are very unlikely to have them in the 2020s even if -- like OLED -- they utilize significant parts of the LCD infrastructure. Sometime very late in the next decade or into the 2030s is plausible.
> 
> Do we need that technology? Only if it's discontinuously better or cheaper.* Because OLED (and LCD) are going to continuing improving and getting less expensive every year with volume.
> 
> * And even then, perhaps not. Futurists are now beginning to believe that AR technology (and to an extent VR) will begin to supplant displays as we currently know them. This won't happen immediately of course, but if we end up wearing our displays, we won't really need to carry them around or mount them on walls.


Speaking as an owner of a current-generation WOLED TV, it seems to me this entire discussion about QD OLEDs is misplaced.

LG's progress on all of the scary concerns regarding OLED TVs has been pretty remarkable:
-lifetime appears to be acceptable
-image-retention / burn-in appears to be a non-issue

In terms of spec/capability, WOLED is well-positioned:
-brightness is far closer to LED/LCD than plasma
-color gamut is already 99% DCI-P3 (over 100% Rec.709)
-4K resolution is now the standard (impossible on plasma)

And all of this is in the context of actually delivering the truly 'perfect' blacks that plasma could only aspire to (and FALD LED/LCD can never reach) and at a price premium which has been steadily decreasing and will be less than 50% this year (only 17% premium if you want to use the $7000 65E6B OLED versus the $6000 R65 FALD LED/LCD as the benchmark).

So I don't understand all of this focus on QD OLED - there are only 2-3 areas where the current crop of WOLEDs are a step behind the best FALD LED/LCDs and these are more important areas for LG to deliver improvements:

*-Motion: *WOLED is still a step behind LED/LCD in terms of persistence-based motion blur and occasional stuttering which has never been well-explained. Especially with the increased peak brightness they are delivering, WOLED should be able to at least match LED/LCD through BFI/scanning and state-of-the-art processing (which it appears LG lacks) but this gets mentioned year after year without any signs of improvement.

*-Near-Black Uniformity and Greyscale Resolution: *this in my view is the greatest fundamental limitation of current-generation WOLED technology, and while LG appears to be making some small incremental steps in improving the way they manage this limitation, they will never be able to truly exploit the benefit of the perfect blacks WOLED can deliver without at least matching LCD in terms of near-black uniformity. I'm pretty confident that if even 10% of the engineering effort is put into compensating for these limitations though techniquess including temporal dithering, spatial dithering, compensation processing, etc... that has been put into plasma technology to address similar technical limitations, WOLED will be able to deliver the same jaw-dropping image quality with the lights off that it is able to deliver with some lights on, but that is not the case today.

*-Near-White Uniformity & Off-Axis Performance:* this is not an issue that I consider anywhere close to being as important as the other two, but for plasma purists, current-generation WOLED does not deliver the same near-white uniformity when viewed off-angle as does a reference plasma. Between the on-axis white uniformity (which has improved but is still not perfect currently) and the shifts in whitepoint when viewed off-axis, WOLED has a remaining area to deliver improvements (though since WOLED is already superior to FALD LED/LCD in terms of off-axis viewing performance, this is not a potential Achilles Heel ).

Rather than talking about wild-goose chases into the technical weeds of further improvements to a wide-color-gamut which already exceeds the requirements of available content, I'd like to see some speculation as to why LG is still so far behind in the emmissive-display processing department and when they are finally going to bring some good ex-plasma image quality engineers onto their team.

It's as though LG is using their LCD team to develop all of the picture quality processing of their WOLED TVs...


----------



## sytech

fafrd said:


> -4K resolution is now the standard (impossible on plasma)


Pretty sure not impossible on plasma. Just really expensive.

http://gizmodo.com/5442012/panasonics-152-inch-3d-plasma-the-biggest-tv-yet


----------



## fafrd

sytech said:


> Pretty sure not impossible on plasma. Just really expensive.
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5442012/panasonics-152-inch-3d-plasma-the-biggest-tv-yet


Didn't read the link, but I'm pretty sure it was 'impossible' when the European TV power consumption standards/limitations were taken into account .


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Speaking as an owner of a current-generation WOLED TV, it seems to me this entire discussion about QD OLEDs is misplaced.


I have no interest in them whatsoever. I'm just using them as an example of a possible "next."


> LG's progress on all of the scary concerns regarding OLED TVs has been pretty remarkable:
> -lifetime appears to be acceptable
> -image-retention / burn-in appears to be a non-issue


Honestly, these could be rendered "non issues" with more progress than we've seen so far. In-store demo models not having burn in of any kind, Samsung phones not exhibiting it.. I'm not sure we're there yet on taking these off the table.



> In terms of spec/capability, WOLED is well-positioned:
> -brightness is far closer to LED/LCD than plasma
> -color gamut is already 99% DCI-P3 (over 100% Rec.709)
> -4K resolution is now the standard (impossible on plasma)


Feels like none of these are advantages over high-end LCD. One is a clear disadvantage.


> And all of this is in the context of actually delivering the truly 'perfect' blacks that plasma could only aspire to (and FALD LED/LCD can never reach) and at a price premium which has been steadily decreasing and will be less than 50% this year (only 17% premium if you want to use the $7000 65E6B OLED versus the $6000 R65 FALD LED/LCD as the benchmark).


This is fair. I keep thinking we're going to wake up and see a $3000 65-inch FALD LCD with hundreds of zones. It keeps not happening.


> So I don't understand all of this focus on QD OLED - there are only 2-3 areas where the current crop of WOLEDs are a step behind the best FALD LED/LCDs and these are more important areas for LG to deliver improvements:


It's only a focus on the "next thing". And until OLED brightness takes another leap, there will be some sense it's inferior to some people and in showrooms. I think the showroom effect was more devastating to plasma than _everything else combined_. I would shop many stores for many hours and never hear a salesman talk about burn in but see "normals" look at one next to an LCD and think it was grey.


> *-Motion: *WOLED is still a step behind LED/LCD in terms of persistence-based motion blur and occasional stuttering which has never been well-explained. Especially with the increased peak brightness they are delivering, WOLED should be able to at least match LED/LCD through BFI/scanning and state-of-the-art processing (which it appears LG lacks) but this gets mentioned year after year without any signs of improvement.


Processing seems easily fixed. Whether black-frame insertion is doable is something I have no ability to comment on.


> *-Near-Black Uniformity and Greyscale Resolution: *this in my view is the greatest fundamental limitation of current-generation WOLED technology, and while LG appears to be making some small incremental steps in improving the way they manage this limitation, they will never be able to truly exploit the benefit of the perfect blacks WOLED can deliver without at least matching LCD in terms of near-black uniformity. I'm pretty confident that if even 10% of the engineering effort is put into compensating for these limitations though techniquess including temporal dithering, spatial dithering, compensation processing, etc... that has been put into plasma technology to address similar technical limitations, WOLED will be able to deliver the same jaw-dropping image quality with the lights off that it is able to deliver with some lights on, but that is not the case today.


This seems like a 1% problem. It ought to be fixed, I agree, but I don't think 99% of buyers even know there is some issue with dark rooms and shadow detail.


> *-Near-White Uniformity & Off-Axis Performance:* this is not an issue that I consider anywhere close to being as important as the other two, but for plasma purists, current-generation WOLED does not deliver the same near-white uniformity when viewed off-angle as does a reference plasma. Between the on-axis white uniformity (which has improved but is still not perfect currently) and the shifts in whitepoint when viewed off-axis, WOLED has a remaining area to deliver improvements (though since WOLED is already superior to FALD LED/LCD in terms of off-axis viewing performance, this is not a potential Achilles Heel ).


This is the top selling point of OLED, actually. It is so much better than LCD here it's not funny. "Native panel contrast" also matter and OLED wins there, but I think it matters less for normals than this.


> Rather than talking about wild-goose chases into the technical weeds of further improvements to a wide-color-gamut which already exceeds the requirements of available content, I'd like to see some speculation as to why LG is still so far behind in the emmissive-display processing department and when they are finally going to bring some good ex-plasma image quality engineers onto their team.


Soon only not yet.


----------



## MikeBiker

rogo said:


> ...
> 
> LCD is trickier. We could sort of argue 1972 --> 1988. That would seem "short" at 16 years. But that would then concede 14-inch TVs are some sort of grail. It would not be until around 2003 that a 40-inch LCD was actually viable. Hmm, that's 31 years. _I don't really think that's a coincidence_...


1970 seems to be a good starting date for LCD. http://www.heartlandscience.org/comm/lcd

As a side note, I worked on and off with John Janning for about 8 years at NCR Microelectronics. The man was one of the most intelligent persons I have ever known and a real nice person who could tell interesting stories about his life experiences.


----------



## rogo

MikeBiker said:


> 1970 seems to be a good starting date for LCD. http://www.heartlandscience.org/comm/lcd
> 
> As a side note, I worked on and off with John Janning for about 8 years at NCR Microelectronics. The man was one of the most intelligent persons I have ever known and a real nice person who could tell interesting stories about his life experiences.


I can accept there. LCD has a less clear milestone in my mind than some of the others, but the 1970-2 timeframe is right. The 1970 date would create an even bigger gap to the 40+ inch mark than the others. Notably, the bugaboo with LCD production was that when attempting to scale it to bigger sizes it was found that a single step in production could take _days per display_ until someone found a miraculous solution that cut that down to minutes and then seconds. 

We have no idea what will happen with quantum dot emissive displays if they are ever real. But we already know that it takes a while to "bake" the OLED material onto the substrates at LG and then step won't likely ever get faster. That's one of the reasons why there is so much interest in inkjet technology for OLEDs; it can be a much faster way to place the OLED material even though it will likely do it "pixel perfect" vs. sheet-wide as on the WOLED/WRGB method.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I can accept there. LCD has a less clear milestone in my mind than some of the others, but the 1970-2 timeframe is right. The 1970 date would create an even bigger gap to the 40+ inch mark than the others. Notably, the bugaboo with LCD production was that when attempting to scale it to bigger sizes it was found that a single step in production could take _days per display_ until someone found a miraculous solution that cut that down to minutes and then seconds.
> 
> We have no idea what will happen with quantum dot emissive displays if they are ever real. But we already know that it takes a while to "bake" the OLED material onto the substrates at LG and then step won't likely ever get faster. That's one of the reasons why there is so much interest in inkjet technology for OLEDs; it can be a much faster way to place the OLED material even though it will likely do it "pixel perfect" vs. sheet-wide as on the WOLED/WRGB method.


Not that it's directly related, but I just ran into this: http://www.oled-info.com/udcs-evaporable-emitters-still-outperform-best-soluble-materials

Not sure why Blue is not mentioned as well...


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Not that it's directly related, but I just ran into this: http://www.oled-info.com/udcs-evaporable-emitters-still-outperform-best-soluble-materials
> 
> Not sure why Blue is not mentioned as well...


Lemme give you a clue....

The red and green are now in a place where one can imagine building displays with them. Their lifetime is still way too short and the newer UDC materials are much better than those in the chart, but you can now imagine using soluble red and green.

Do you understand why blue isn't mentioned?


----------



## Zellio2009

rogo said:


> LCD is trickier. We could sort of argue 1972 --> 1988. That would seem "short" at 16 years. But that would then concede 14-inch TVs are some sort of grail. It would not be until around 2003 that a 40-inch LCD was actually viable. Hmm, that's 31 years. _I don't really think that's a coincidence_.


Where do you get 1988? This laptop (Considered the 'first') came out in 1983 (Well, widely available, apparantly it first came out in 1981):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epson_HX-20

Of course that has a tiny lcd, but they were in a lot of laptops, and started getting bigger and common around 1985.

The thing about lcds is that they had a clear advantage in power usage and weight so the companies put lots of money towards them. Plus, they are cheap as hell to make. Contrast that with the ultra slim margins of the crts and plasmas and it's easy to understand why lcds matured so quickly.


----------



## rogo

Zellio2009 said:


> Where do you get 1988? This laptop (Considered the 'first') came out in 1983 (Well, widely available, apparantly it first came out in 1981):
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epson_HX-20
> 
> Of course that has a tiny lcd, but they were in a lot of laptops, and started getting bigger and common around 1985.
> 
> The thing about lcds is that they had a clear advantage in power usage and weight so the companies put lots of money towards them. Plus, they are cheap as hell to make. Contrast that with the ultra slim margins of the crts and plasmas and it's easy to understand why lcds matured so quickly.


1988 was the first LCD TV, it was 14 inches. It was awful but it was a TV. Pretty sure the first active-matrix laptop was also 1988 with the Macintosh Portable, which didn't even have a backlight and was monochrome. None of the stuff that came before.

According to this, 1989 was the first year 10-inch TFT LCD monitors existed: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~mgu/LCD/index.htm

I feel pretty good about arguing 1988 was the first real year of commercialization of LCD as we understand it today. I'm also comfortable with using the 2002 date as the analogue to what we are talking about with PDP and OLED. Referring to passive matrix laptops or worse laptops with some cash-register sized LCD display as comparable confusing things. By that logic, there was a digital camera with an OLED in 2000. And a monochrome plasma in 1983 with a full-color monitor-sized one in 1992. 

If we're compared apples to apples, we should just ignore the 14-inch LCD TV milestone entirely and stick with 2002. The only reason I mentioned the 1988 TV was that it technically qualifies as "commercialization of a television." That's also analogous to the milestones I listed for PDP and OLED, even though it was a tiny LCD TV. The early laptop computers are not remotely similar in that regard.


----------



## Zellio2009

rogo said:


> 1988 was the first LCD TV, it was 14 inches. It was awful but it was a TV. Pretty sure the first active-matrix laptop was also 1988 with the Macintosh Portable, which didn't even have a backlight and was monochrome. None of the stuff that came before.
> 
> According to this, 1989 was the first year 10-inch TFT LCD monitors existed: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~mgu/LCD/index.htm
> 
> I feel pretty good about arguing 1988 was the first real year of commercialization of LCD as we understand it today. I'm also comfortable with using the 2002 date as the analogue to what we are talking about with PDP and OLED. Referring to passive matrix laptops or worse laptops with some cash-register sized LCD display as comparable confusing things. By that logic, there was a digital camera with an OLED in 2000. And a monochrome plasma in 1983 with a full-color monitor-sized one in 1992.
> 
> If we're compared apples to apples, we should just ignore the 14-inch LCD TV milestone entirely and stick with 2002. The only reason I mentioned the 1988 TV was that it technically qualifies as "commercialization of a television." That's also analogous to the milestones I listed for PDP and OLED, even though it was a tiny LCD TV. The early laptop computers are not remotely similar in that regard.


So tvs are the baseline for mature lcd production?

Alright, that lcd was tiny, but what about the 1984 data general one?






Large backlit lcd that also did cga, machine that was comparable to desktops at the time, AND the lcd still works today!

Can you say that this isn't mature enough for mass production?


----------



## tgm1024

Zellio2009 said:


> So tvs are the baseline for mature lcd production?
> 
> Alright, that lcd was tiny, but what about the 1984 data general one?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7vhrdYxTA
> 
> 
> 
> Large backlit lcd that also did cga, machine that was comparable to desktops at the time, AND the lcd still works today!
> 
> Can you say that this isn't mature enough for mass production?


AIUI, he was saying that we should set aside the passive matrix stuff because it's confusing. Like the display in that DG.


----------



## rogo

Zellio2009 said:


> So tvs are the baseline for mature lcd production?
> 
> Alright, that lcd was tiny, but what about the 1984 data general one?
> 
> Large backlit lcd that also did cga, machine that was comparable to desktops at the time, AND the lcd still works today!
> 
> Can you say that this isn't mature enough for mass production?





tgm1024 said:


> AIUI, he was saying that we should set aside the passive matrix stuff because it's confusing. Like the display in that DG.


Also, it was monochrome. 

I think the point should be clear: Nothing goes from "first device" to much of anything commercial is


----------



## lbjack

rogo said:


> Also, it was monochrome. .
> 
> Also, read this if you never have: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005HG4W9W/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1


2011...isn't that kind of, um, outdated? :wink:


----------



## rogo

lbjack said:


> 2011...isn't that kind of, um, outdated? :wink:


The book is from 30 years earlier.

#kidstoday


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> The Digitimes article I linked to earlier ended with this statement: "BOE will not be ready to produce OLED TVs in 2016, but it will deliver sample panels to TV makers in China - and will still consider whether to commit to a Gen-8.5 production fab."
> 
> So between Samsung and BOE, I think the other thing we are agreeing on is that by 2020, we will need to see at least 2-3 OLED TV panel manufacturers in the market to be certain OLED TV has passed the point of no return...


Another supplier is talking about orders from outside Korea for large size OLED. I would assume it is BOE. If they make orders in the next quarter or so they could be in the market in 2018.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/388...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Have you received orders or do you anticipate orders yet in the OLED market outside of Korea?

Yes, we did, mainly in the small-to-mid. But in 2016, we expect to see that also in the large displays.


----------



## mypretty1

Forgive the naivety of my question but a thought crossed my mind about LG's 55" screens. Are there 2 factories, one making screens for the EF9500 and another for the 2016 range? I am assuming the 2015 screens are being phased out so could the EF9500 TVs being assembled this year be using the 2016 screens?


----------



## rogo

mypretty1 said:


> Forgive the naivety of my question but a thought crossed my mind about LG's 55" screens. Are there 2 factories, one making screens for the EF9500 and another for the 2016 range? I am assuming the 2015 screens are being phased out so could the EF9500 TVs being assembled this year be using the 2016 screens?


Not right now from what we know. It seems that the older facility is still making the 1080p models and the newer facility is making everything 4K. That is likely going to change sometime in 2016 but no one has intel suggesting that has happened.

But remember that even within one facility it's possible to make multiple products. It's not like there is a single assembly line that performs every step for every TV.


----------



## mypretty1

rogo said:


> Not right now from what we know. It seems that the older facility is still making the 1080p models and the newer facility is making everything 4K. That is likely going to change sometime in 2016 but no one has intel suggesting that has happened.
> 
> But remember that even within one facility it's possible to make multiple products. It's not like there is a single assembly line that performs every step for every TV.


Thank you, rogo.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Not right now from what we know. It seems that the older facility is still making the 1080p models and the newer facility is making everything 4K. That is likely going to change sometime in 2016 but no one has intel suggesting that has happened.
> 
> But remember that even within one facility it's possible to make multiple products. It's not like there is a single assembly line that performs every step for every TV.


It is still unclear to me whether M1 has been converted to full-sheet manufacturing or remains a half-sheet manufacturing facility.

It does seem clear that M1 remains limited to 55" 1080p OLEDs while all 4K WOLED production is coming off of M2 currently.

So the most likely scenario is that once LG decides to cease 1080p WOLED production, M1 will be converted to manufacting of 4K WOLEDs, most likely 55" (and limited to 55" if it remains a half-sheet facility).

That means M1 will probably go down for a period of 3-4 months at some point this year while it is converted to 4K WOLED production, and this down-time is probably one of the factors contributing to LGs reduced 2016 production forecast (1M OLED panels in 2016, down from 1.5M that had been forecasted for 2016 last year).

My guess is that once the C6 and B6 are up and running at full volume later this year, we'll probably see the end of 1080p WOLEDs and some additional capacity for 55C6 and 55B6 soon after. When the dust has cleared, I expect all of M1 to be devoted to 55" WOLED panel production for 55C6 and 55C6, all 65" WOLED demand for 65C6, 65B6, 65E6 and 65G6 to be coming off of M2, with remaining M2 production capacity being used for additional 55" panels (55C6, 55B6). To the extent that there is any actual number of 77G6s sold this year beyond prototype levels, these will also come off of M2.

Early indications are that the 65G6 panel employs the same 'anti-vignetting' (lightened edges) engineering fix as has been seen in December and beyond 65EF9500s, and this suggest that there are not going to be any significant yield improvements before 2017 OLEDs hit production at the end of this year. How much of a yield hit has resulted from the tighter QC and testing criteria LG has been forced to adopt is anyone's guess, but it is almost certainly the biggest contributor to the reduced 2016 production target and 10-15% additional yield loss to levels of 65-70% until the causes of Vignetting have been further addressed at the root level seem like a reasonable guess.

LG has stated that market demand forcing a change in the mix to 40% 65" OLEDs is the reason for the reduced 2016 production forecast, so we have a 2016 production target of 40% of 1M or 400,000 65" WOLEDs (all from M2).

If we take worst-case assumptions for M1, meaning a full 4 months out of production and yields of only 65%, that still means the 9000 sheets-per-month of capacity it has will result in production of 35K OLEDs per month or about 280K 55" OLEDs this year (over 8 months accounting for down time). [compared to production of over 43K 1080p OLEDs per month at 80% yield, or more than 500,000 55" 1080p OLEDs this year if LG thought they had that level of demand for the 55EG9100). So as many as 220K out of the 'lost' 500K of 2016 production could be attributed to M1 conversion.]

400,000 65" OLEDs coming off of M2 will require 11,111 unyilelded sheets a month or 17,000 sheets a month assuming worst-case reduced yields of 65%.

M2 has a capacity of 26,000 sheets a month, so that leaves a remaining 9000 sheets a month that can produce an additional 35,000 55" OLEDs per month at reduced yields of 65%, or 420K this year.

This adds up to:
400,000 65" OLEDs off of M2
420,000 55" OLEDs off of M2
280,000 55" OLEDs off of M1
1.1M OLEDs in 2016.

If LG actually want to produce any meaningful quantity of 77G6s this year at all, that will of course cut into this number. At 50% yield (which is optimistic ), production of 10K 77" WOLEDs will consume a total of 10K sheets off of M2, reducing 2016 production to 1.07M total...

Overall, I take LGs reduced 2016 production forecast as a sign that they have learned the lesson about 'under-commit and over-deliver .


----------



## KLee

fafrd said:


> It is still unclear to me whether M1 has been converted to full-sheet manufacturing or remains a half-sheet manufacturing facility.
> 
> It does seem clear that M1 remains limited to 55" 1080p OLEDs while all 4K WOLED production is coming off of M2 currently.
> 
> So the most likely scenario is that once LG decides to cease 1080p WOLED production, M1 will be converted to manufacting of 4K WOLEDs, most likely 55" (and limited to 55" if it remains a half-sheet facility).
> 
> That means M1 will probably go down for a period of 3-4 months at some point this year while it is converted to 4K WOLED production, and this down-time is probably one of the factors contributing to LGs reduced 2016 production forecast (1M OLED panels in 2016, down from 1.5M that had been forecasted for 2016 last year).
> 
> My guess is that once the C6 and B6 are up and running at full volume later this year, we'll probably see the end of 1080p WOLEDs and some additional capacity for 55C6 and 55B6 soon after. When the dust has cleared, I expect all of M1 to be devoted to 55" WOLED panel production for 55C6 and 55C6, all 65" WOLED demand for 65C6, 65B6, 65E6 and 65G6 to be coming off of M2, with remaining M2 production capacity being used for additional 55" panels (55C6, 55B6). To the extent that there is any actual number of 77G6s sold this year beyond prototype levels, these will also come off of M2.
> 
> Early indications are that the 65G6 panel employs the same 'anti-vignetting' (lightened edges) engineering fix as has been seen in December and beyond 65EF9500s, and this suggest that there are not going to be any significant yield improvements before 2017 OLEDs hit production at the end of this year. How much of a yield hit has resulted from the tighter QC and testing criteria LG has been forced to adopt is anyone's guess, but it is almost certainly the biggest contributor to the reduced 2016 production target and 10-15% additional yield loss to levels of 65-70% until the causes of Vignetting have been further addressed at the root level seem like a reasonable guess.
> 
> LG has stated that market demand forcing a change in the mix to 40% 65" OLEDs is the reason for the reduced 2016 production forecast, so we have a 2016 production target of 40% of 1M or 400,000 65" WOLEDs (all from M2).
> 
> If we take worst-case assumptions for M1, meaning a full 4 months out of production and yields of only 65%, that still means the 9000 sheets-per-month of capacity it has will result in production of 35K OLEDs per month or about 280K 55" OLEDs this year (over 8 months accounting for down time). [compared to production of over 43K 1080p OLEDs per month at 80% yield, or more than 500,000 55" 1080p OLEDs this year if LG thought they had that level of demand for the 55EG9100). So as many as 220K out of the 'lost' 500K of 2016 production could be attributed to M1 conversion.]
> 
> 400,000 65" OLEDs coming off of M2 will require 11,111 unyilelded sheets a month or 17,000 sheets a month assuming worst-case reduced yields of 65%.
> 
> M2 has a capacity of 26,000 sheets a month, so that leaves a remaining 9000 sheets a month that can produce an additional 35,000 55" OLEDs per month at reduced yields of 65%, or 420K this year.
> 
> This adds up to:
> 400,000 65" OLEDs off of M2
> 420,000 55" OLEDs off of M2
> 280,000 55" OLEDs off of M1
> 1.1M OLEDs in 2016.
> 
> If LG actually want to produce any meaningful quantity of 77G6s this year at all, that will of course cut into this number. At 50% yield (which is optimistic ), production of 10K 77" WOLEDs will consume a total of 10K sheets off of M2, reducing 2016 production to 1.07M total...
> 
> Overall, I take LGs reduced 2016 production forecast as a sign that they have learned the lesson about 'under-commit and over-deliver .



That's all fine and dandy for LG products but what about their supply of WOLED panels to their partners like Skyworth and Panasonic? 

Will these guys be left out in the cold?


----------



## mypretty1

Thank you, fafrd. As I am someone with zero knowledge of the manufacturing processes, your reply was most interesting and clearly explained.


----------



## darinp2

fafrd said:


> LG has stated that market demand forcing a change in the mix to 40% 65" OLEDs is the reason for the reduced 2016 production forecast, so we have a 2016 production target of 40% of 1M or 400,000 65" WOLEDs (all from M2).


About how many of those would you expect in Q42016?

And how many 65" OLEDs do you think were produced in Q42015 for their 200k overall claim?

Thanks,
Darin


----------



## gadgtfreek

Ex plasma guy here who recently got all 65" 9500 and it's quite amazing. 

I was just curious if someone could briefly explain how the panel is made up since I am behind the curve. I understood what made up a plasma panel between the glass, phosphors and filter. The 9500 is amazing to me because it is so thin and rejects ambient light well. Just kinda curious of a brief tutorial of what makes up the "panel" and how it rejects light so well. I figured you guys would be up to speed on this.

Thanks.


----------



## gadgtfreek

Think I found some tech stuff, kinda what I thought maybe they were, at least the white oled LG's


----------



## fafrd

darinp2 said:


> About how many of those would you expect in Q42016?
> 
> And how many 65" OLEDs do you think were produced in Q42015 for their 200k overall claim?
> 
> Thanks,
> Darin


To be clear on your question, I believe you were asking about about how many of the 400,000 65" OLEDs LG has planned for 2016 will be produced in Q4'16, right?

This is complete speculation, but just to flesh-out the logic:

First, if LG is now running M2 at capacity (and at reduced yield due to the improved QC), 100,000 per quarter would be the default production rate.

Second, since the product mix can easily be shifted, the short answer is essentially however many LG wants.

In terms of your question about the 200,000 OLED TVs sold in Q4'15, I don't see any reason not to take LG's claims at face value (especially since they were communicated to the financial markets, so inaccurate claims could get them into trouble .

40% of 200,000 = 80,000, so that is at least a swag of what sold in Q4'15.

Q4'15 was the quarter where they had to make adjustments to QC after ramping to full-volume in Q3, so that is going to introduce transients, and there is a lag between production of OLED panels by LGD and production of OLED TVs by LGE, so that's another reason that Q4'15 does not necessarily represent steady-state.

But the most important point out of all of this is the fact that, except for possible down-time associated with conversion of M1 from 1080p to 4K, LG appears to now be running flat-out at a production rate of 250,000 OLEDs per quarter and there is no reason to expect that they are going to have a higher production rate than that until the new LCD->OLED conversion they have announced for mid-2017 is complete.

The only other possible rationale for increased production would be recovery of the lost yield caused by improved QC, but that is highly unlikely to be possible before the 2017 OLEDs are in production.

As a placeholder, once they get 4K OLED yields back to 80% (unlikely before 2017), and if we assume continue production of 40% 65" and 60% 55", they will be able to produce 48,000 65" OLEDs per month (using 20,000 sheets) and 72,000 55" OLEDs per month (using 15,000 sheets per month), for a total production rate of 130,000 OLEDs per month 1.5M per year (which is spot-on the original 2016 production target).

Between the new conversion coming online in 2017 and hoped-for yield improvements associated with the 2017 OLEDs, it is a certainty that OLED TV prices will be declining significantly in 2017. Until then, if LG is truly able to sell-through available production at current discounted pricing (~$4500 for 65"), it is difficult to see a reason to expect much decline from current OLED TV pricing levels (basic economics of supply and demand).


----------



## darinp2

fafrd said:


> [In terms of your question about the 200,000 OLED TVs sold in Q4'15, I don't see any reason not to take LG's claims at face value (especially since they were communicated to the financial markets, so inaccurate claims could get them into trouble
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 40% of 200,000 = 80,000, so that is at least a swag of what sold in Q4'15.


With the prices on the 1080p units and timing of releases I doubt that 40% of unit sales in Q4 are 65" 4K units. Maybe going forward, but I doubt it was that high unless LG said it was that high and not that they learned it should be that high. I don't recall exactly how they put it, especially how much room they left for reading between the lines.

It seems to me that you've made a certain amount of assumptions to get to the same after QC production rate in Q4 of 2016 for 4K units as 2015 and I think the odds of that are low. Do you believe there were no temporary slowdowns in Q1 for the extra QC issues that won't improve in 8 months or slowdowns in Q1 to switch production to 2016 models?

We clearly see some of the same data different ways because I highly doubt LG is selling 250k units in Q12016 or that their current plan is to sell the same number of 4K units of either size in Q4 of 2016 as Q4 of 2015.

Just because they said 1 million total doesn't mean it is even per quarter, especially when more slowdowns in production happen during some quarters than others. I don't consider assumptions that every quarter will have the same number of post QC units to be good assumptions with products at this kind of point in their production.

I can just imagine how well it would go if a manager in production told somebody at the top of the company that production after QC won't improve in the next 8 months. The odds that those are LG's current internal plans are close to zero IMO.

--Darin


----------



## rogo

I'd also add that it's very possible (probable?) that finished goods inventory was very unusually high headed into late 2015 as pricing was mostly ridiculous throughout the year and TV sales always go up -- a lot -- into Q4. So even if we assume sales were 200K, we're not learning a lot about production in Q4 of last year.


----------



## darinp2

rogo said:


> I'd also add that it's very possible (probable?) that finished goods inventory was very unusually high headed into late 2015 as pricing was mostly ridiculous throughout the year and TV sales always go up -- a lot -- into Q4. So even if we assume sales were 200K, we're not learning a lot about production in Q4 of last year.


Good point. I hadn't paid much attention to what the 200k represented, but you are right. It is even possible that production was only 150k in Q4, which would definitely mean production would rise for this year to hit 1 million.

I do think it is likely we will see stronger competition from LCD this year (like hopefully Vizio P-series) and so the same pricing as last year could be tough to hit the same volume.

I think the main issues might be higher production and the mix moving to a higher percentage of 4K units though.

--Darin


----------



## fafrd

darinp2 said:


> With the prices on the 1080p units and timing of releases I doubt that 40% of unit sales in Q4 are 65" 4K units. Maybe going forward, but I doubt it was that high unless LG said it was that high and not that they learned it should be that high. I don't recall exactly how they put it, especially how much room they left for reading between the lines.
> 
> *It seems to me that you've made a certain amount of assumptions to get to the same after QC production rate in Q4 of 2016 for 4K units as 2015 and I think the odds of that are low. Do you believe there were no temporary slowdowns in Q1 for the extra QC issues that won't improve in 8 months or slowdowns in Q1 to switch production to 2016 models?*
> 
> We clearly see some of the same data different ways because I highly doubt LG is selling 250k units in Q12016 or that their current plan is to sell the same number of 4K units of either size in Q4 of 2016 as Q4 of 2015.
> 
> Just because they said 1 million total doesn't mean it is even per quarter, especially when more slowdowns in production happen during some quarters than others. I don't consider assumptions that every quarter will have the same number of post QC units to be good assumptions with products at this kind of point in their production.
> 
> I can just imagine how well it would go if a manager in production told somebody at the top of the company that production after QC won't improve in the next 8 months. The odds that those are LG's current internal plans are close to zero IMO.
> 
> --Darin


Just in case it was not already posted, here is the link to the information we are discussing: http://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-sold-400000-oled-tv-panels-2015-half-q4

I stated in my earlier post where I was entering into the domain of pure speculation, so hopefully that was clear. In terms of your questions in bold, let's focus on the facts (assuming LGD is being truthful ):

-LG sold 200,000 OLED panels in Q4'15. While these panels certainly _could_ have been stashed into inventory at the parts or finished goods level, as suggested by Rogo, the fact that LGE had a discounted 'sale' that ended at year-end and resulted in an increase in prices back to MSRP levels suggests that they were not.

-LG has reduced the 2016 OLED panel sales target from 1.5M to 1.0M with a mix of 40% 65" panels (400,000).

-LG has an installed capacity of 35,000 Gen8 sheets per month and this will not increase until Q2'17 when an additional 25,000 Gen8 sheets per month is scheduled to come online due to the new conversion.

-if we assume the full 35,000 sheet production capacity being used for production of 400,000 65" and 600,000 55" OLEDs, the resulting yield is 56% (raw unyielded production is 720,000 65" and 1.08M 55" OLEDs)

-LG has stated that they are only going to be producing 4K OLEDs once the 55EG9100 has reached end of life, which suggests that M1 will be converted from production of 1080p OLEDs to 4K OLEDs and any downtime associated with such conversion would reduce total raw unyielded production output and increase effective yields required to achieve stated production targets of 1M OLEDs in 2016.

-Aside from better quality-control/final test criteria used to screen out defective product, the only changes that have been made appear to be the brightened edges or 'anti-vignette' which is almost certainly a change at the drive electronics and/or algorithmic level which would not impact OLED panel production.

-Early indications from the first 2016 65G6 tested is that it appears to have the same 'anti-vignette' edge-brightening, so this is a strong indication that all aspects of yield/production rate for 2016 OLEDs will be similar to recent-builds of EF9500 OLEDs. The 2016 OLED panels appear to use improved phosphors for wider color gamut and increased brightness, but it is unlikely that there have been any additional changes made that will result in increased yields (while maintaining the same QC).

-LG has reduced the 2016 production target from 1.5M to 1M and is suggesting that increased demand for 65" OLEDs is the cause, but this does not add up. If the 35,000 substrates were used to produce a mix of 20%/80% 65"/55" at stated yield levels of 80%, the resulting total production would be 336,000 65" and 1.344M 55" for a total of 1.68M OLEDs. Keeping yields constant at 80% and doubling the mix of 65" to 40%/60% results in 576,000 65" and 864,000 55" for a total 1.44M OLEDs (ergo, yields are either significantly worse than 80% or there is significant down-time for conversion or a combination of the two, as I have speculated).

So first, it seems exceedingly likely that LG is now running steady-state and that there are not going to be any further changes (other than temporary down-time for conversions) that would be rewsons to expect increased production output before Q2'17 (when 2017 OLEDs should be in production and the additional capacity from the conversion should be online).

And second, as we see continued evidence of LG occasionally running discounted 'sales' followed by a return to full MSRP pricing, that is strong evidence of them finding and following the pricing needed to maintain market balance.

So back to speculation, I will repeat my contention that if we do see reduced pricing over the course of 2016 for the EF9500 volume-runners (and eventually 65B6 volume runners), it will be because LG has satisfied pent-up premium TV demand from plasma owners and needs to offer lower prices to continue to find the demand for their current production level.

This is a strategy that LG has already demonstrated a proven capability for. I purchased 4 55EC9300s last year, all through Costco (and all returned due to the dimpling defect). I paid $2300 for the first one, $2100 for the second one about 3 months later, $1900 for the third one after another 3 months, and $1700 for the last one (and you can now find the 55EG9100 being on-and-off available for $1400 through Adorama: http://www.oled-info.com/adorama-offers-lgs-2015-fhd-55-eg9100-oled-tv-1399).

So LG knows how to match demand to supply, supply is now going to be relatively steady-state for 1-year+ (in my view ), and we will see as this year unfolds whether demand is maintained at current discounted pricing levels or if LG is going to need to go lower to maintain appetite.

And the other certainty is that by mid 2017, prices will certainly be significantly lower than they are today (at the basic entry-level / volume runner level for OLED). As we progress through this year, it is likely we will see limited initiatives by LG to probe the pricing levels they will need to offer to drive that higher level of sales (anyone remember the MicroCenter 'mistake' on the 9800 or the Fry's 'close out sale' ).

But there will not be another driver for sustained lower pricing like we had with M2 coming fully online in late Q3'15 until mid 2017...


----------



## darinp2

fafrd said:


> -LG has stated that they are only going to be producing 4K OLEDs once the 55EG9100 has reached end of life


I think your own story supports that a lot of the 200k units sold in Q415 were 1080p units which had lower prices than 4k units.

How do you propose that LG sell significantly more 4k units in Q416 with the same or higher prices than 4k units of the same size in Q415?

Do any of these not match your current positions about LG's history and plans:

- LG sold 200k units in Q415 and a significant portion were 1080p units.
- LG plans to sell 250k units total in Q416 with the vast majority being 4k units.
- Street prices for the lowest level 55" 4k unit from LG will be at least as high in Q416 as Q415?
- LG plans to sell significantly more 55" 4k units in Q416 than 55" 4k units in Q415.
- Street prices for the lowest level 55" 4k unit from LG will be at least as high in Q416 as Q415?
- LG plans to sell significantly more 65" 4k units in Q416 than 65" 4k units in Q415.

--Darin


----------



## slacker711

Some thoughts on capacity.

1) There is no reason to think that switching M1 from 1080p to 4K is going to result in months of downtime. The only real change is increasing the density of transistors in the backplane. If that change involved months of downtime, mobile fabs would never run anywhere near capacity as they must supply a mix of resolutions. 

2) OTOH, any fab must have some amount of downtime and this likely is one factor in why our theoretical capacity calculations never match reality. LGD must also still be running R&D runs occasionally on some of this capacity which would also impact total output.

3) While LGD may be testing and correcting for vignetting, this is unlikely to dramatically impact throughput. The limiting factor in a display fab is the number of substrates. Testing adds costs and a particularly cumbersome test would require more test equipment/personnel but that is a cheaper solution than utilizing a fab at less than its full capacity. 

4) The more I read, the more I think that the biggest factor is that we think of bringing a new line or fab on line as flipping a switch on capacity. I believe we are underestimating the time it takes to bring a new fab up to full capacity and mature yields. Here is an excerpt of some commentary from a display analyst (Andy Abrahms) on the theoretical ramp of a flexible OLED fab to support Apple.



> Thus far, our scenario time line is 12-18 months for basic construction, 2 -3 months for equipment delivery and tune-up, and a minimum of 6-9 months to bring yields up to ~75%+. This puts us between 20 months and 30 months to actual commercial level mass production. Making the assumption that a full 19,000 sheet Gen 5.5 line was installed, we can now assume that the fab, after 20 months, can produce the full 19,000 sheets (100% factory efficiency) and 75% product yield,


5) LGE's sales to end customers are likely to be far more lumpy than LGD's OLED output. The television market is seasonal and the fact that inventories and distribution still need to be filled means that the a significant amount of production early in the year will be used to fill out LGE's sales channels. There is very little chance that LGE is selling 200,000 units this quarter.

6) It will be far easier for LGE to maintain pricing on their OLED's if Samsung never ships a FALD set this year. If I was looking for a set this year I would be hoping that Samsung ships the KS9800 for a reasonable price.

FWIW, I saw the G6 today. It was a brightly lit environment but damn did some of the scenes look beautiful. While I was there, I was surprised by the fact that more people stopped to look at the 65" OLED than the ~120" Samsung that was nearby.


----------



## rogo

I don't disagree with your analysis, but you make a _lot_ of assumption. They each contain an error margin and therefore it's pretty easy to conclude something very different... even if that conclusion doesn't fundamentally alter the total production numbers for the year. I'm going to highlight just a few:



fafrd said:


> J
> -LG sold 200,000 OLED panels in Q4'15. While these panels certainly _could_ have been stashed into inventory at the parts or finished goods level, as suggested by Rogo, the fact that LGE had a discounted 'sale' that ended at year-end and resulted in an increase in prices back to MSRP levels suggests that they were not.


First, I'm not saying anywhere near 200K of the 200K were finished goods. But your conclusion that "because sale" none were is a huge assumption that I suspect is in error. Your belief that "because sale started and ended, supply and demand balanced" is also mostly belief. Sales often coincide with year-end targets to hit a certain volume, often end soon after, often prove nothing about supply (or really even demand given seasonality).


> -if we assume the full 35,000 sheet production capacity being used for production of 400,000 65" and 600,000 55" OLEDs, the resulting yield is 56% (raw unyielded production is 720,000 65" and 1.08M 55" OLEDs)


You've now set a baseline based on the sales goal that you're going to use for a lot of important math: That yields are the same/similar between M1 and M2, that the 1M is really the goal and that production is going to magically meet the goal (I believe production will need to wildly overproduce the goal because I believe the chain from factory --> store --> sale is far longer than I think you do). 


> -Aside from better quality-control/final test criteria used to screen out defective product, the only changes that have been made appear to be the brightened edges or 'anti-vignette' which is almost certainly a change at the drive electronics and/or algorithmic level which would not impact OLED panel production.
> 
> -Early indications from the first 2016 65G6 tested is that it appears to have the same 'anti-vignette' edge-brightening, so this is a strong indication that all aspects of yield/production rate for 2016 OLEDs will be similar to recent-builds of EF9500 OLEDs. The 2016 OLED panels appear to use improved phosphors for wider color gamut and increased brightness, but it is unlikely that there have been any additional changes made that will result in increased yields (while maintaining the same QC).
> 
> -LG has reduced the 2016 production target from 1.5M to 1M and is suggesting that increased demand for 65" OLEDs is the cause, but this does not add up. If the 35,000 substrates were used to produce a mix of 20%/80% 65"/55" at stated yield levels of 80%, the resulting total production would be 336,000 65" and 1.344M 55" for a total of 1.68M OLEDs. Keeping yields constant at 80% and doubling the mix of 65" to 40%/60% results in 576,000 65" and 864,000 55" for a total 1.44M OLEDs (ergo, yields are either significantly worse than 80% or there is significant down-time for conversion or a combination of the two, as I have speculated).


Wait, fafrd, what? They changed the fundamental nature of the panels! They are much brighter somehow, maybe better OLED deposition, maybe new transistors, maybe a bunch of other stuff. This wasn't a small change to fix vignetting, it sounds like they changed almost everything. 

I would suggest that a great deal of the reduced target is down time and that by year end yields will, in fact, be every bit as high. What you seem to be interpreting as lower yield across the board, I strongly suspect is much lower yield at first with wholesale changes followed by a return to the same yields as before.


> So first, it seems exceedingly likely that LG is now running steady-state and that there are not going to be any further changes (other than temporary down-time for conversions) that would be rewsons to expect increased production output before Q2'17 (when 2017 OLEDs should be in production and the additional capacity from the conversion should be online).


And therefore I very much doubt LG is running anywhere near steady state. The dribbling into the market of only the expensive models, the summer (delayed from original announcement) arrival of the cheaper ones, the possibility Europe doesn't get the new models till fall, the imminent conversion of M1... I see all of this as almost entirely different than you: Much lower production at first from M2, tons of finished goods still sloshing around, M1 1080p panels pushing any volumes at all in 1H2016 (especially in Europe), and a sincere hope by LG that steady state is achieved as soon as possible. This will allow them to have confidence in the 2017 conversions to very, very similar product to the 2016 stuff (marginal changes only, no more mucking with backplane, etc.). I imagine the output curve looks a lot more like an "S" than a line right now.


> And second, as we see continued evidence of LG occasionally running discounted 'sales' followed by a return to full MSRP pricing, that is strong evidence of them finding and following the pricing needed to maintain market balance.


Sure, this is possible. But it could easily be incorrect. It could easily be true that LG is testing, gathering data, delivering results within -20% of some spreadsheet and absolutely not worried about "market balance" except to ensure FGI doesn't explode on them. But for example, I'm sure they know well how many 55-inch 1080p sets sell by now. As that market is shrinking, they'll have to erode prices, but not to balance magically some set of Econ 101 supply and demand curves. Once the FGI is sold to retailers, it mostly stops being LG's problem. They just have to offer stuff at wholesale at attractive prices: That's changing less than what you see at retail.


> So back to speculation, I will repeat my contention that if we do see reduced pricing over the course of 2016 for the EF9500 volume-runners (and eventually 65B6 volume runners), it will be because LG has satisfied pent-up premium TV demand from plasma owners and needs to offer lower prices to continue to find the demand for their current production level.


See, this is true and again, to me, not. They aren't looking to satisfy demand for a production level, they're looking to sell more than 1M OLED TVs. When you see prices going up and down, I doubt you're seeing LG's hand at work. When you see prices going only down -- and by lots -- you're almost certainly seeing only LG's hand at work.


> This is a strategy that LG has already demonstrated a proven capability for. I purchased 4 55EC9300s last year, all through Costco (and all returned due to the dimpling defect). I paid $2300 for the first one, $2100 for the second one about 3 months later, $1900 for the third one after another 3 months, and $1700 for the last one (and you can now find the 55EG9100 being on-and-off available for $1400 through Adorama: http://www.oled-info.com/adorama-offers-lgs-2015-fhd-55-eg9100-oled-tv-1399).


Exactly, that's LG. It wants to sell more of those every month and yet faces more and more competition. Prices have to fall and volumes need to rise. Production needs to be constantly rising against the falling prices unless demand for that product is disappearing (likely along with the whole category).


> So LG knows how to match demand to supply, supply is now going to be relatively steady-state for 1-year+ (in my view ), and we will see as this year unfolds whether demand is maintained at current discounted pricing levels or if LG is going to need to go lower to maintain appetite.


So your possibly 100% correct and yet, again, I suspect supply is a very, very lumpy "S" curve. I don't think it even remotely resembles what you think it does.


> And the other certainty is that by mid 2017, prices will certainly be significantly lower than they are today (at the basic entry-level / volume runner level for OLED).
> 
> But there will not be another driver for sustained lower pricing like we had with M2 coming fully online in late Q3'15 until mid 2017...


If we're banking on the 2017 conversions for better pricing, I suspect it'll be a similar time frame that additional supply could allow for more aggressive pricing to capture more share. I suspect it could also be 2018. But if we're seeing supply mostly increasing for the next 4 quarters (more likely I think) and then increasing again starting in Q2/Q3 2017, I think the pricing will decline somewhat more steadily. That said, in-year pricing action tends to be small on real products. That LG didn't do anything (apparently) to lower the base pricing suggests very high pricing vs. my expectations in 2016. And it suggests, therefore, minimal production and minimal share taking. This further leads me to believe that supply will increase throughout the year. If it were already high, prices would already be lower.


----------



## fafrd

darinp2 said:


> I think your own story supports that a lot of the 200k units sold in Q415 were 1080p units which had lower prices than 4k units.
> 
> How do you propose that LG sell significantly more 4k units in Q416 with the same or higher prices than 4k units of the same size in Q415?
> 
> Do any of these not match your current positions about LG's history and plans:
> 
> - LG sold 200k units in Q415 and a significant portion were 1080p units.
> - LG plans to sell 250k units total in Q416 with the vast majority being 4k units.
> - Street prices for the lowest level 55" 4k unit from LG will be at least as high in Q416 as Q415?
> - LG plans to sell significantly more 55" 4k units in Q416 than 55" 4k units in Q415.
> - Street prices for the lowest level 55" 4k unit from LG will be at least as high in Q416 as Q415?
> - LG plans to sell significantly more 65" 4k units in Q416 than 65" 4k units in Q415.
> 
> --Darin


You raise a good point - if the EG9100 ceases production before the end of this year (which is an unknown - we'll know when it dissapears ), then conversion of M1 will result in increased 55" 4K OLED production which may drive lower pricing for those models.

And it is also true that we do not know what % of the 65" OLEDs sold in Q4 were 65" - the safe bet would be at least 40-50% of the 4K sales.

The one counter argument is that we do not have any idea what level of sales the 55" 1080p OLEDs had in Q4. At least in my local Best Buy, all of their sales were of 4K OLEDs. And the fact that the prices on 55" 1080p OLEDs have dropped by 50% over the past 12 months does not suggest stable demand or market balance.

So we'll just need to sit tight and see. The one indisputable fact, however, is that LG's reduction in 2016 production target from 1.5M to 1M is not good news for continued price decreases - whatever ends up happening this year as far as pricing, it will be less aggressive than it would have been had LG had an additional 0.5M / 50% of annual production to sell...


----------



## rogo

"So we'll just need to sit tight and see. The one indisputable fact, however, is that LG's reduction in 2016 production target from 1.5M to 1M is not good news for continued price decreases - whatever ends up happening this year as far as pricing, it will be less aggressive than it would have been had LG had an additional 0.5M / 50% of annual production to sell..."

I think that's the most important point. But looking at the number as monolithic still points out the challenge of guessing, say, whether the 65-inch ends the year at $5000, $4500, or $4000. 

I imagine LG has to (a) sell close to 400K units in Q4 this year, not 200K, to get anywhere near 1M units and (b) will be able to sell very few 55-inch 1080p units even in Europe, where I suspect many of them sold last year though more of them likely sold in the U.S. than you and I would spitball a guess at. 

I also imagine you'll tell me how this is not realistic based on production capabilities. I'll not only respectfully disagree but point out that it would be twice as many as they sold last year with a much greater mix of 4K than last year. Can we still bet on the $4000 65-inch B6?


----------



## darinp2

rogo said:


> Can we still bet on the $4000 65-inch B6?


My position seems pretty simple. If we don't see that for street and/or a $2500 street for a 4k 55-inch B6 before the end of the year then they won't sell 1 million total units in 2016. And even at those exact street prices if those are only rare sales then they aren't hitting 1 million this year either. IMO of course.

So, I think that if they hit their current production targets street prices at those levels are lower will be necessary to keep inventory from stacking up. Unless they divert units to other manufacturers, those units take the lower end, and that is how they get to 1 million.

--Darin


----------



## rogo

darinp2 said:


> My position seems pretty simple. If we don't see that for street and/or a $2500 street for a 4k 55-inch B6 before the end of the year then they won't sell 1 million total units in 2016. And even at those exact street prices if those are only rare sales then they aren't hitting 1 million this year either. IMO of course.


I completely share this belief.


> So, I think that if they hit their current production targets street prices at those levels are lower will be necessary to keep inventory from stacking up. Unless they divert units to other manufacturers, those units take the lower end, and that is how they get to 1 million.


Possibly, but I doubt those other OEMs can be counted on for anywhere near 100K this year.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I don't disagree with your analysis, but you make a _lot_ of assumption. They each contain an error margin and therefore it's pretty easy to conclude something very different... even if that conclusion doesn't fundamentally alter the total production numbers for the year. I'm going to highlight just a few:


Can't argue with that statement. I'd summarize the analysis I have laid out as the 'best case' as far as the level of maturity of OLED. If LG is still suffering from growing pains in M2, my entire analysis will be incorrect as a result. Having 'lived through' both the launch of the 55EC9300 and more recently the launch of the 65EF9500, and having some background in volume manufacturing of consumer products, my gut tells me LG is now in a more stable situation than you are suggesting (also supported by the announced investments both in P10 and the nearer-term 2017 conversion).



> First, I'm not saying anywhere near 200K of the 200K were finished goods. But your conclusion that "because sale" none were is a huge assumption that I suspect is in error. Your belief that "because sale started and ended, supply and demand balanced" is also mostly belief. Sales often coincide with year-end targets to hit a certain volume, often end soon after, often prove nothing about supply (or really even demand given seasonality).


It is correct that the 200K was panels sold and do says nothing about TVs sold. Sales could have been higher due to inventory build-up earlier in the year, but since M2 had just come up to full production and the EF9500 had just launched both in Q3, I think the more reasonable read would be that 200,000 is probably an upper-limit on Q4'15 sales.



> You've now set a baseline based on the sales goal that you're going to use for a lot of important math: That yields are the same/similar between M1 and M2, that the 1M is really the goal and that production is going to magically meet the goal (I believe production will need to wildly overproduce the goal because I believe the chain from factory --> store --> sale is far longer than I think you do).


Yes, my analysis is a best-case for LG's level of maturity - if 2016 production does not meet the goal of 1M OLEDs shipped, that would be very bad news for LGs position and the outlook for OLED. My analysis assumes that LG is now 'over the hump' and in the process of consolidation / expansion (again, supported by P10 and the 2017 conversion). If I am wrong on this and LG has not recently achieved steady-state in M2, all bets are off (along with my analysis ).



> Wait, fafrd, what? They changed the fundamental nature of the panels! They are much brighter somehow, maybe better OLED deposition, maybe new transistors, maybe a bunch of other stuff. This wasn't a small change to fix vignetting, it sounds like they changed almost everything.


There are new phosphors being used that have been credited with both increased color gamut and increased brightness (as well as increased lifetime) but no indication whatsoever of any other changes. The fact that the G6 is literally launching on the heels of the EF9500 is all but proof that little else has changed in the OLED panel manufacturing process itself. With a relatively simple change to phosphor formula, LG can be reasonably confident of a relatively smooth launch of the 2017 models (for once ) - more significant changes will likely result in a similar bungled launch such as we have seen with virtually every WOLED launch to date. Again, my analysis is the optimistic case for maturity / stability.

As far as Vignetting, there has been no engineering fix at the OLED panel level. Excessive vignette appears to impact roughly 50% of panels and LG (E or D, can't tell which) appears to have made an engineering change to either drive electronics and/or algorithm to enhance the brightness of the last 4-6" of either end of the screen.

This change unfortunately screws up the uniformity of 'perfect' panels (because they now have visibly lightened edges - anti-vignette) but no doubt results in a higher % of panels exhibiting mild vignette to be shippable. You can see some screen shots where the screen is suddenly brighter farthest from the edge and then gets darker close to the edge as the underlying vignette kicks in. This was not a fix, it was a hack.

And the most dissapointing thing is that the one informed review/feedback we have seen regarding the 65G6P indicates that it has this same hack.

So first, I don't think the engineering changes to address Vignetting are anywhere close to being as significant as you are hoping. And second, I have a strong suspicion that when it comes to underlying OLED panel technology, I believe the 2017 panels will prove to be far more similar to the 2016 panels than you are assuming (change in phosphors only is the most likely assumption).



> I would suggest that a great deal of the reduced target is down time and that by year end yields will, in fact, be every bit as high. What you seem to be interpreting as lower yield across the board, I strongly suspect is much lower yield at first with wholesale changes followed by a return to the same yields as before.


This is a perfect statement to bring the difference in our assumptions into focus: you are assuming that LG remains in an engineering / problem-solving mode for another year, while I am assuming that with the salvaged launch of the EF9500, they are now in consolidation/ramp-up/incremental-improvement mode.

If you are right and Ibam wrong then LG is highly unlikely to sell even 1M OLED panels in2017...



> And therefore I very much doubt LG is running anywhere near steady state. The dribbling into the market of only the expensive models, the summer (delayed from original announcement) arrival of the cheaper ones, the possibility Europe doesn't get the new models till fall, the imminent conversion of M1... I see all of this as almost entirely different than you: Much lower production at first from M2, tons of finished goods still sloshing around, M1 1080p panels pushing any volumes at all in 1H2016 (especially in Europe), and a sincere hope by LG that steady state is achieved as soon as possible. This will allow them to have confidence in the 2017 conversions to very, very similar product to the 2016 stuff (marginal changes only, no more mucking with backplane, etc.). I imagine the output curve looks a lot more like an "S" than a line right now.


Again, a helpful paragraph to focus on the difference in our views - I am assuming that the maturity of LG's OLED initiative is essentially one year ahead of what you have stated above. I think they achieved maturity/stability with 1080p OLEDs in M1 at the beginning of 2015 and they achieved maturity/stability with 4K OLEDs at the beginning of this year (subject to unfortunate yield loss due to tightened QC).

I see the launch of the Flagship G6 and Premium E6 that LG has developed through much of last year as a reflection of that maturity and believe they will use the launch of those low-volume enthusiast products to get the kinks out of their new WOLED panel production before converting over the volume-runners (EG9600, EF9500) to their next-generation replacements (C6, B6).

I am expecting to see much, much more successful launches of the C6 and B6 later this year than any OLED launch we have seen before.

And in the meantime, I am expecting to see LG continue to drive demand for the current 4K volume runners through discounted pricing as they did in Q4 and throughout last year with the 1080p models.

Again, if you are right and I am wrong, it is going to be another very painful year for LG OLED (though I agree even lower pricing may result).



> Sure, this is possible. But it could easily be incorrect. It could easily be true that LG is testing, gathering data, delivering results within -20% of some spreadsheet and absolutely not worried about "market balance" except to ensure FGI doesn't explode on them. But for example, I'm sure they know well how many 55-inch 1080p sets sell by now. As that market is shrinking, they'll have to erode prices, but not to balance magically some set of Econ 101 supply and demand curves. Once the FGI is sold to retailers, it mostly stops being LG's problem. They just have to offer stuff at wholesale at attractive prices: That's changing less than what you see at retail.


It is true that my assumptions are overly simplistic and are not going to apply to the monthly and seasonal variations. That being said, I believe they are correct on an annual basis and probably hold more true throughout the year than you are assuming. Depreciation is not seasonal and production lines are most efficient in steady-state.



> See, this is true and again, to me, not. They aren't looking to satisfy demand for a production level, they're looking to sell more than 1M OLED TVs. When you see prices going up and down, I doubt you're seeing LG's hand at work. When you see prices going only down -- and by lots -- you're almost certainly seeing only LG's hand at work.


I believe LG's hand is much more directly involved in virtually all OLED TV pricing than you are suggesting. Know that to be a fact with both Costco and Best Buy and am even suspicious that LG had a hand in the pricing 'mistake' by MicroCenter on the 9800 and Fry's 'unbelievable' closeput sale of the 9800 later in the year.

This is straying from the realm of fact into the realm of speculation, but I know what I witnessed with 55EC9300 pricing last year and I believe we both agree that LG has a keen awareness of the challenge they are facing as far as achieving pricing levels that will guarantee WOLEDs continued existence and expansion...



> Exactly, that's LG. It wants to sell more of those every month and yet faces more and more competition. Prices have to fall and volumes need to rise. Production needs to be constantly rising against the falling prices unless demand for that product is disappearing (likely along with the whole category).


Of course, LG will need to respond to overall market pricing trends along with everyone else. My analysis is assuming a stable overall market pricing environment and if that assumption is incorrect and TV prices decline significantly over the course of the year, LG will need to reduce OLED pricing accordingly. It's all relative (as LG acknowledges whenever they reference the 'premium' for OLED over LED/LCD pricing).




> So your possibly 100% correct and yet, again, I suspect supply is a very, very lumpy "S" curve. I don't think it even remotely resembles what you think it does.


We're both reading the tea leaves in our own way - a year from now there should be enough evidence to look back and see who's read was closer .



> If we're banking on the 2017 conversions for better pricing, I suspect it'll be a similar time frame that additional supply could allow for more aggressive pricing to capture more share. I suspect it could also be 2018. But if we're seeing supply mostly increasing for the next 4 quarters (more likely I think) and then increasing again starting in Q2/Q3 2017, I think the pricing will decline somewhat more steadily. That said, in-year pricing action tends to be small on real products. That LG didn't do anything (apparently) to lower the base pricing suggests very high pricing vs. my expectations in 2016. And it suggests, therefore, minimal production and minimal share taking. This further leads me to believe that supply will increase throughout the year. If it were already high, prices would already be lower.


Pretty much agree with everything you have stated here. My entire analysis is predicated on the underlying assumption that LG actually sold close to 200,000 OLED TVs in Q4'15. If they only sold a small fraction of that volume, significanly lower prices as the year unfolds is a certainty. I would say that the pricing that has been released for the G6 and E6 as well as the leaked pricing for the B6 and C6 s some evidence supporting my assumption .

But we'll see - if prices come down a great deal by Holiday Shopping Season 2016, your read was right. If they don't, mine probably was.

I was once an advocate for believing that we might see 65" OLED pricing approaching $3000 by late this year, but I no longer believe that is likely because I don't believe LG has sufficient production capacity to meet demand at that pricing level.

Time will tell .


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Some thoughts on capacity.
> 
> 1) There is no reason to think that switching M1 from 1080p to 4K is going to result in months of downtime. The only real change is increasing the density of transistors in the backplane. If that change involved months of downtime, mobile fabs would never run anywhere near capacity as they must supply a mix of resolutions.


I agree that 3-4 months to getting yields for finer-geometry transistors in a backplane seems conservative - coukd be faster but is certainly not going to be up and running at good yields overnight...



> 2) OTOH, any fab must have some amount of downtime and this likely is one factor in why our theoretical capacity calculations never match reality. LGD must also still be running R&D runs occasionally on some of this capacity which would also impact total output.


Individual lines may have occasional downtime for maintainance but this is unlikely to be significant and certainly does not involve the entire production facility (unless there is a problem such as the gas leak we saw earlier).

Development/R&D runs are also likely to have a minor impact in a facility with a capacity of 26,000 panels per month (almost 1000 per day)...



> *3) While LGD may be testing and correcting for vignetting, this is unlikely to dramatically impact throughput. * The limiting factor in a display fab is the number of substrates. Testing adds costs and a particularly cumbersome test would require more test equipment/personnel but that is a cheaper solution than utilizing a fab at less than its full capacity.


Highly unlikely that there is any 'testing and correcting for vignetting' going on at the OLED panel manufacturing level. These are now running products and after the 'anti-vignetting' fix/hack (which I suspect is at the drive electronics and/or algorithmic level rather than anything to do with panel manufacturing) it is highly unlikely LG is going to be making any further changes to improve yield as they focus all of those efforts on next-generation 2017 designs...



> 4) The more I read, the more I think that the biggest factor is that we think of bringing a new line or fab on line as flipping a switch on capacity. I believe we are underestimating the time it takes to bring a new fab up to full capacity and mature yields. Here is an excerpt of some commentary from a display analyst (Andy Abrahms) on the theoretical ramp of a flexible OLED fab to support Apple.


Great excerpt - would be great to see how it aligns to the ramp schedule of M2. If memory serves, M2 was originally to come online in Q3'14 and ultimately reached full production about a year later (based on my assessment) - I suspect that agrees pretty closely with your example. This could be a major factor impacting increased capacity in 2017 - if Q2'17 is first production, achieving actual 25,000 sheet volume may lag by 6-12 months...



> 5) LGE's sales to end customers are likely to be far more lumpy than LGD's OLED output. The television market is seasonal and the fact that inventories and distribution still need to be filled means that the a significant amount of production early in the year will be used to fill out LGE's sales channels. There is very little chance that LGE is selling 200,000 units this quarter.


Fully agree, though I don't think those seasonal effects impact the big picture. Also, the decrease back to discounted pricing after spending January back at MSRP levels is evidence LGE wanted to stimulate additional demand...



> 6) It will be far easier for LGE to maintain pricing on their OLED's if Samsung never ships a FALD set this year. If I was looking for a set this year I would be hoping that Samsung ships the KS9800 for a reasonable price.


Agree, more impressive HDR FALD LED/LCD offerings at more aggressive prices will force LGE's hand to drive lower pricing more quickly. It is all relative. As long as the most appropriate HDR FALD LED/LCD reference point is the Vizio R65 priced at $6000, the 65EF9500 at discounted pricing of $4500 seems relatively sustainable .



> FWIW, I saw the G6 today. It was a brightly lit environment but damn did some of the scenes look beautiful. While I was there, I was surprised by the fact that more people stopped to look at the 65" OLED than the ~120" Samsung that was nearby.


believe me, LG has a winner (including the EF9500) for viewing in all but the darkest of environments (which is why I believe they are going to be far more conservative with further engineering changes going forward).

Vignetting so visible that it was evident on the showroom floor was a showstopper and LG has succeeded to overcome the bleeding. Visible yellow banding evident on content was a quality problem that resulted in a large number of returns and could have damaged LG OLEDs reputation right out of the gate, which they have also addressed.

Yield has taken a hit which LG will eventually need to recover from, but with the EF9500 (and soon the G6/E6/C6/B6), LG finally has a mass-market product line for the premium/videophile 55" & 65" segment.

Only shadow detail fanatics like me who watch with the lights off are going to notice the remaining imitations surrounding near-black nonuniformity/streaking/DSE.

These LG WOLEDs are finally ready for prime-time


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> "So we'll just need to sit tight and see. The one indisputable fact, however, is that LG's reduction in 2016 production target from 1.5M to 1M is not good news for continued price decreases - whatever ends up happening this year as far as pricing, it will be less aggressive than it would have been had LG had an additional 0.5M / 50% of annual production to sell..."
> 
> I think that's the most important point. But looking at the number as monolithic still points out the challenge of guessing, say, whether the 65-inch ends the year at $5000, $4500, or $4000.
> 
> I imagine LG has to (a) sell close to 400K units in Q4 this year, not 200K, to get anywhere near 1M units and (b) will be able to sell very few 55-inch 1080p units even in Europe, where I suspect many of them sold last year though more of them likely sold in the U.S. than you and I would spitball a guess at.
> 
> I also imagine you'll tell me how this is not realistic based on production capabilities. I'll not only respectfully disagree but point out that it would be twice as many as they sold last year with a much greater mix of 4K than last year. Can we still bet on the $4000 65-inch B6?


We're pretty closely aligned with everything you have written here.

400K in Q4 means at least 200K in each of the other three quarters before then, so it doesn't really change the big picture that much.

This would mean pricing is likely to remain close to current levels through Q3, with which I agree.

And in Q4, for LG to determine what pricing level allows them to double sales volume over Q4 2015 makes infinite sense, even if they don't have the production capacity to meet that level of demand in Q1'17.

So I agree that it is very likely that we will see more aggressive pricing in Q4'16 and as for the side bet as to whether we break below $4000 for the B65 or not, that is a near-certainty but not really all that significant. You can already purchase a 65EF9500 for only $250 above that level today (and $500 more widely).

At one point I believe we were agreeing that teaching $3000, not $4000, was the price that LG would need to achieve to really show they are serious about gaining share.

At a production target of 1.5M in 2016, I believed approaching $3000 late this seemed possible. With the reduced production target to 1M, that seems put f reach (this year).


----------



## fafrd

darinp2 said:


> My position seems pretty simple. *If we don't see that for street and/or a $2500 street for a 4k 55-inch B6 before the end of the year then they won't sell 1 million total units in 2016. *And even at those exact street prices if those are only rare sales then they aren't hitting 1 million this year either. IMO of course.
> 
> So, I think that if they hit their current production targets street prices at those levels are lower will be necessary to keep inventory from stacking up. Unless they divert units to other manufacturers, those units take the lower end, and that is how they get to 1 million.
> 
> --Darin


I have not been following the 55" 4K market as closely as I have the 65", but I believe that is basically a done-deal.

What was the Q4'15 discounted pricing on the 55EF9500?

The 1080p 55EG9100 is widely available for under $2000 currently and is occassionally dipping down to $1400 through Adorama: http://www.oled-info.com/adorama-offers-lgs-2015-fhd-55-eg9100-oled-tv-1399

Production costs between 1080p and 4K are not all that different (once yields are equivalent), so we already know LG can profitably sell 55" OLEDs at prices below $2000 once yields are at target levels...


----------



## darinp2

fafrd said:


> As far as Vignetting, there has been no engineering fix at the OLED panel level. Excessive vignette appears to impact roughly 50% of panels and LG (E or D, can't tell which) appears to have made an engineering change to either drive electronics and/or algorithm to enhance the brightness of the last 4-6" of either end of the screen.
> 
> This change unfortunately screws up the uniformity of 'perfect' panels (because they now have visibly lightened edges - anti-vignette) but no doubt results in a higher % of panels exhibiting mild vignette to be shippable. You can see some screen shots where the screen is suddenly brighter farthest from the edge and then gets darker close to the edge as the underlying vignette kicks in. This was not a fix, it was a hack.


I wonder if it would help if they would allow people to take a picture of their screen and feed that back into the projector so that the uniformity could be adjusted based on what the screen is actually putting out for light. I know this would be pretty advanced and is unlikely to happen, but I can dream. Alternatively, let us adjust some things to help the display figure out how to get things uniform and put it in a service menu. Some Sony projectors have had that.

--Darin


----------



## darinp2

fafrd said:


> What was the Q4'15 discounted pricing on the 55EF9500?


Soon after it came out (or right away) the Navy Exchange had it for $2500, but that was just for military people. Around November I could have gotten it for around $2300 or $2400 at a local video store, but would have had to wait maybe 3 weeks according to the salesperson. Then they seemed to go up later, but I wasn't following it closely after I decided to get the 9100 for $1400 as a holdover and wait for a 2016 4k model.

I think one of the biggest things affecting the 55B6 this year could be what Vizio does in this space. I know there is the quality argument, but a good P-Series 2 years after the last one could make it tougher for LG to sell lots of 55B6 units at higher prices IMO.

--Darin


----------



## fafrd

darinp2 said:


> Soon after it came out (or right away) the Navy Exchange had it for $2500, but that was just for military people. Around November I could have gotten it for around $2300 or $2400 at a local video store, but would have had to wait maybe 3 weeks according to the salesperson. Then they seemed to go up later, but I wasn't following it closely after I decided to get the 9100 for $1400 as a holdover and wait for a 2016 4k model.


Yeah, that's about what I thought. Guaranteed that we'll see 2016 Holiday Season pricing for the 55B6 at least as low as the 2015 Holiday Season pricing we saw for the 55EF9500 (and probably lower).



> I think one of the biggest things affecting the 55B6 this year could be what Vizio does in this space. I know there is the quality argument, but a good P-Series 2 years after the last one could make it tougher for LG to sell lots of 55B6 units at higher prices IMO.
> 
> --Darin


Totally different markets/volumes.

At 65", the Vizio R65 is a reasonable proxy for comparison.

But at 55", even a new 2016 P55 supporting HDR is going to be in an entirely different (higher-volume / lower pricing) segment.

The 2014 Vizio P55 is $950 and if there is a 2016 P55 released, it is unlikely to cost much more than that, even with HDR.

It's difficult to find any high-quality FALD LED/LCDs supporting HDR at 55", so direct comparison is tough, though there are several premium edge-lit set costing $1500, so the 55B6 getting down under $2000 once LG gets serious about selling 100s of thousands of them in a single quarter seems realistic...


----------



## darinp2

fafrd said:


> Totally different markets/volumes.
> 
> At 65", the Vizio R65 is a reasonable proxy for comparison.
> 
> But at 55", even a new 2016 P55 supporting HDR is going to be in an entirely different (higher-volume / lower pricing) segment.
> 
> The 2014 Vizio P55 is $950 and if there is a 2016 P55 released, it is unlikely to cost much more than that, even with HDR.


Could be, but I also think that if they put enough of the technology from the R-Series in a P-Series it could limit the number of 55B6 units LG can sell at specific price points, especially if a P-Series could go a lot brighter for HDR.

I think it would have been easy to say that Vizio wouldn't come out with a $6k 65" TV because they hadn't done it before, but they did. By the same token Vizio could aim a little higher than that last P-Series with performance closer to the R-Series. I'm guessing they were planning on amortizing that technology over a lot of units by including much of it below the R-Series.

--Darin


----------



## ynotgoal

There are number of reports out of Korea that Samsung is preparing a significant gen 8 OLED TV production investment. The reports suggest up to 4 trillion won with a goal of entering the OLED TV market possibly as soon as late 2017 (though timing could change) and growing in 2018. The technology mentioned is white OLED with an LTPO (phosphorus oxide) backplane. We should know in the next several weeks if this becomes official.


----------



## video_analysis

Interesting, I wonder if LTPO compares favorably to LTPS in the realm of near-black uniformity.. LG ought to have their remaining IGZO issues worked out by then either way.


----------



## W4RLORD

Apple need to adopt OLED in their phones already. If the iPhone 7 had an OLED display it would be the full package and the perfect smartphone imo.


----------



## video_analysis

I like the Galaxy 6 pretty well...I just hate the lack of battery and SD slot. Haven't heard definitively if that's being rectified in the Galaxy 7.


----------



## dnoonie

I just did a search on OLED at http://www.digitimes.com/index.asp.

Here's some interesting headlines, sorry, I'm not a "member" there:
3 Feb 2016:
Digitimes Research: Konica Minolta showcases flexible OLED lighting panels at Lighting Japan 2016[Members only]
21 Jan 2016:
Samsung to provide OLED monitor panels to Dell, say reports[Members only]
14 Jan 2016:LG to reach 90% utilization for 4K OLED TV panels[Members only]
Samsung to invest US$7.4 billion in OLED displays for iPhone, says paper[Members only]
7 Jan 2016:
Samsung to finalize new investment plans for OLED TV panels[Members only]
31 Dec 2015:Korea makers prepping US$12.8 billion in OLED equipment investments for Apple, says report[Members only]
Skyworth aims to sell 200,000 OLED TVs in 2016[Members only]

If someone here is a member over at Digtimes maybe some more details can be found. The headlines are somewhat meaningful though.

Cheers,


----------



## video_analysis

90% yields for UHD WOLED in that one headline but no timeline/frame. Someone has surely seen the article in full to give us moar.


----------



## dnoonie

video_analysis said:


> 90% yields for UHD WOLED in that one headline but no timeline/frame. Someone has surely seen the article in full to give us moar.


In a re-post/summary of the article at http://www.osadirect.com/news/artic...o-reach-90-utilisation-for-4k-oled-tv-panels/, it just says sometime in 2016 and that deliveries should reach 18-20 million and that a lot of panels will go to China and Japan.

Cheers,


----------



## rogo

18-20 million TVs by 2020? They have capacity for


----------



## W4RLORD

Use oled.info for knowledge, it's a much better source than most websites regarding OLED imo.


----------



## sooke

video_analysis said:


> 90% yields for UHD WOLED in that one headline but no timeline/frame. Someone has surely seen the article in full to give us moar.


Just to clarify: The headline says 90% utilization, not yield.


----------



## SiGGy

video_analysis said:


> I like the Galaxy 6 pretty well...I just hate the lack of battery and SD slot. Haven't heard definitively if that's being rectified in the Galaxy 7.


AFAIK -> S7

sd slot; yes
battery; no
water resistant; yes


----------



## video_analysis

Getting there. I suppose making the battery user replaceable adds to the bulk and retracts from the slim, streamlined design they achieved with the G6. I'd also like a better sound-dampening mic. It clips quite a bit in comparison to, say, a Motorola Moto X that I owned previously.

Ah, thanks @sooke. Utilization is definitely important. 90% would imply they expect to sell through everything they make at high capacity this year (I guess the target is Q3/Q4 when the B6/C6 are en masse).


----------



## tgm1024

video_analysis said:


> I like the Galaxy 6 pretty well...I just hate the lack of battery and SD slot. Haven't heard definitively if that's being rectified in the Galaxy 7.


As a software engineer highly appreciative of the removable SD card, after a _ton_ of research I've finally relented and realized that a permanently affixed "SD" is not only preferable, but safer. Not going to extend the reasoning behind this here though, because it's truly a degree in software engineering worth of explanation.

Trust me, I did not go willingly into the night on this one. I was dragged kicking and screaming into this realization.

The battery thing however is still unforgivable IMO.


----------



## video_analysis

That's interesting. However, if the storage was sufficiently large enough (which the higher spec'd phones usually are), I would probably never give it a second thought (and actually don't on my G6). It's unfortunate they are still dead set on creating $1000 glass-lined silicone paperweights by not allowing battery access...I get the feeling it's almost solely for aesthetics. and the conspiracist in me says it's planned obsolescence.


----------



## tgm1024

video_analysis said:


> That's interesting. However, if the storage was sufficiently large enough (which the higher spec'd phones usually are), I would probably never give it a second thought (and actually don't on my G6). It's unfortunate they are still dead set on creating $1000 glass-lined silicone paperweights by not allowing battery access...I get the feeling it's almost solely for aesthetics. and the conspiracist in me says it's planned obsolescence.


You can still have the battery replaced, just you have to pay someone to do it.


----------



## video_analysis

It's not something I've had to do before...it will be interesting to see to what extent they scalp for the service.


----------



## tgm1024

video_analysis said:


> It's not something I've had to do before...it will be interesting to see to what extent they scalp for the service.


Or you could always be a nut job like me and try to "wing it" yourself. But view it as a fun project and not a way of saving money.

You must be very mentally prepared for a complete meltdown disaster.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> As a software engineer highly appreciative of the removable SD card, after a _ton_ of research I've finally relented and realized that a permanently affixed "SD" is not only preferable, but safer. Not going to extend the reasoning behind this here though, because it's truly a degree in software engineering worth of explanation.
> 
> Trust me, I did not go willingly into the night on this one. I was dragged kicking and screaming into this realization.
> 
> The battery thing however is still unforgivable IMO.





video_analysis said:


> That's interesting. However, if the storage was sufficiently large enough (which the higher spec'd phones usually are), I would probably never give it a second thought (and actually don't on my G6). It's unfortunate they are still dead set on creating $1000 glass-lined silicone paperweights by not allowing battery access...I get the feeling it's almost solely for aesthetics. and the conspiracist in me says it's planned obsolescence.


It's interesting how people feel about this kind of stuff.

The people that value it highly value it so highly that they think it's flat out outrageous you can't (1) add memory (2) swap batteries. But Samsung has data on how many (few) people actually do this. And when they remove those features it's not done lightly. I don't think obsolescence is an important planning factor. Batteries typically last as long as people want to keep their phones and are certainly replaceable by many shops (there's a whole cottage industry that does this, along with screen repair). 

I get why people want both of those, but also that the reliability of the device goes down a lot with more orifices. And if the SD card is buried inside the battery area (as is often) then you end up dismantling the phone to swap the card or the battery. And those insides are also less protected. And, no, it's not free to add another layer of protection inside after you spend some of your "thickness budget" on an external removable cover.

Anyway, a lot of this is about engineering thin, reliable, elegant device and honestly *not* pissing off too many people when those features go away. I realize that's totally cold comfort to the Galaxy Note owner who relies on 3 batteries and 2 SD cards to make the device just like they need it to be.


----------



## barth2k

video_analysis said:


> It's not something I've had to do before...it will be interesting to see to what extent they scalp for the service.


For iPhone, the shop near me charges $30-$50 (part and labor). Apple will do it for $80-$100. They actually just give you a different phone (refurb). 

The craze for thinness is rather idiotic because the first thing everybody does when they get their beautiful piece of glass and aluminum out of the box is to slap a thick plastic shell on it. This is for the most part Apple's fault. They could improve battery life but instead have chosen to keep the same 8-10 hour target and chip away at thickness.

It looks good in the ads, though.

Incidentally, I had a Samsung tablet with a broken USB port. My brother tried to replace it (part cost: $8), but inadvertently ripped off the connection to the main board. Cost to repair THAT: $125, because soldering. D'oh! Fortunately amex extended warranty covered it. Yay amex.


----------



## tgm1024

A simple dollar and usage analysis for their decision only went so far with me, because as you surmised, emotionally, I was _always_ willing to pay more for these features.

So until I understood the software reasons for this I was more than a little miffed.

Feeling Michael Corleone "dragged back in", I'll issue the following TL;DR part. And then call it quits on this.



Spoiler



I got the following by reading through the Android release notes, the developer APIs, the complaints, the developer responses to the complaints, etc., etc., mostly centering around what's happened in later versions of Android.

The simple matter of the equation is that with the advent of 4.4 (KitKat), 2ndary storage became tricky----there was no longer access allowed to the external card _outside of the established folder for the app._ This caused untold disasters for those that attempted the pre-kitkat upgrade to kitkat because some apps just didn't grok this concept. Further, the built-in kitkat "move to sdcard" could no longer save the day because of how the app was attempting to use the old _completely unsupported API's._ Now they fixed some of this in Lollipop, but for many people using many common apps, they encountered a ton of trouble. I was one of them, hence my journey into discovering just wtf happened.

Starting off life as a unix engineer (which linux basically is, despite how linux mooks love to state otherwise), the fact that linux is the underpinning to the Android OS helped me understand a little of what most of the developers were saying about the matter.

Linux, and all unixes for that matter, have trouble with FAT variants, and even with NTFS as the underlying filesystem because they require ownership & rwxrwxrwx access bits that are simply not present. Engineers who have struggled with cygwin on windows are very familiar with this weirdness at work. On android, this means that a lot of stuff ends up being emulated because folks were sticking FAT32 and similar preformatted cards directly into the phone. Android kept that filesystem so that folks could remove it and stick it in their PC slot.

Fast forwarding to KitKat, now KitKat has distinct problem. How to deal with the apps prior to kitkat that 1. Didn't grock the new ownership and access bits required by kitkat to maintain folder protections, and 2. How to move these apps over to the SD protected folders when they never cared about it in the first place. Lots of data went >poof


----------



## joys_R_us

Guys, this is an OLED TV thread.

Please stop this OT phone discussion...


----------



## ALMA

Breakthrough for OLED inkjet printing by Samsung?



> Samsung Display is going to decide on mass-production technology for OLED panels for TVs in May. It is important to decide on a technology that can produce OLED TV panels with higher level of technology at a lower cost.
> According to display industry on the 22nd, Samsung Display is currently testing a technology that combines CVD (Chemical Vapor Deposition) and inkjet printing device. It is going to decide on an exact technology by May after getting results from its tests.
> *Samsung Display is currently developing a technology that can mass-produce large OLED panels by using a method that uses organic CVD and inkjet printing method alternatively*.





> *Because organic material is weak against heat, its performance can be lowered or its substance can be deformed while deposition and etching processes are repeated during patterning process. Due to this reason, Samsung Display is currently examining a method that forms patterns by spraying organic material with inkjet printing method after CVD process. Because material and organic material do not tough each other during etching process, problems such as deformation of quality and others do not occur and patterns can be formed in detail.*
> While Samsung Display had used 5 layers by repeating CVD and inkjet printing process earlier on, it reduced layer of organic material patterning to 3 layers of CVD, inkjet, and CVD. *Samsung Display is currently testing this technology by using CVD device from Applied Materials and inkjet printing device from Kateeva.*
> A reason why Samsung Display is mixing inkjet method with deposition process is because it wants to reduce production cost while increasing performance. *Samsung Display is currently preparing for mass-production of large OLED panels by using WOLED (White OLED) method.* It believes that by using WOLED method, it can greatly reduce production cost compared to LG Display, which is currently mass-producing OLED panels for TVs, and secure competitive edge in markets.


http://english.etnews.com/20160223200003


----------



## videobruce

> Please stop this OT phone discussion...


 Maybe they should 'text' one another? 
(Probably why those toy phones should be called *'I*diot'Phones)


----------



## videobruce

> Because organic material is weak against heat, its performance can be lowered or its substance can be deformed while deposition and etching processes are repeated during patterning process.


Which is why this 'tech' has a limited overall light output (the same problem has, but for a different reason which effectually limits this supposed HDR advantage?? If you get what I mean.


----------



## video_analysis

Texting is a drag (which I prefer to avoid) and no need to be technophobic...

The HDR advantage for OLED will always be in the low end of the brightness spectrum (and the ability to not cause blown out highlights in the form of blooming on the high end).


----------



## rogo

Alma, I don't see how requiring two processes instead of one constitutes a breakthrough. It sounds (1) even slower because now you have two low-throughput processes instead of one (2) devoid of any clear performance advantages.

I presume they have concluded there is some reason this is better. Yield? End display performance?

Whatever it is, this appears to be only marginally beneficial. Not clear to me what you gain by combining WOLED with patterned inkjet printing unless your plan is to pattern red and green and then use white for blue (and white again perhaps). Honestly, it seems wasteful on the materials side.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Alma, I don't see how requiring two processes instead of one constitutes a breakthrough. It sounds (1) even slower because now you have two low-throughput processes instead of one (2) devoid of any clear performance advantages.
> 
> I presume they have concluded there is some reason this is better. Yield? End display performance?
> 
> Whatever it is, this appears to be only marginally beneficial. Not clear to me what you gain by combining WOLED with patterned inkjet printing unless your plan is to pattern red and green and then use white for blue (and white again perhaps). Honestly, it seems wasteful on the materials side.


And also seems like an ongoing science experiment - no way in h*ll that there are TVs on the market based on this technology by 2017, no matter what Samsung has to say in May...

I suppose that at least one explanation for these manufacturing contortions is that Samsung believes they have found a way around some of LG's stronger WOLED patent claims and is hoping to avoid paying any royalties or a potential patent infringement lawsuit .


----------



## slacker711

It certainly doesnt sound like patents will get in the way of Samsung creating a WOLED TV.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2016/03/133_199991.html



> LG asks Samsung to join 'OLED race'
> 
> 음성듣기
> By Kim Yoo-chul
> 
> 
> Han Sang-beom
> LG Display CEO
> 
> Park Dong-geun
> Samsung Display CEO
> 
> LG Display, the world's top display panel maker, has officially asked long-time rival Samsung Display to join the race for large-sized organic light-emitting diode (OLED) panels to beat Chinese companies in the sector, widely considered the next-generation display market.
> *
> "Samsung Display will join with LG," LG Display CEO and Vice Chairman Han Sang-beom said on the sidelines of a meeting between CEOs from big companies and the trade ministry in downtown Seoul, Wednesday. "I believe this issue is a matter of timing."
> 
> Han declined to specify. But he said LG Display plans to invest up to 4 trillion won focusing on larger OLED panels for televisions.*
> 
> "LG's plan to increase investment in our two key Korean plants _ one in Paju and the other one is Gumi _ won't change," Han said. The LG Group's display affiliate invested 3 trillion won in 2015, it said.
> 
> The company executive said the groundwork at its latest P10-dubbed OLED plant in Paju, the city near the inter-Korean border, has begun. "We are in the process of doing some land works," Han said.
> 
> The plant, which will be the largest OLED plant in the world, will be operational from June 2018 and supply small and large OLED panels to top clients including Apple.
> 
> "We thanked the trade ministry for its sincere support to address electricity and water supply issues," he said.
> 
> However, Han expects the global display industry to suffer from the weak panel prices and a continued oversupply this year. "We hope the market will see some turnaround sometime in the latter half of this year," he said.
> 
> LG Display reported 28.28 trillion won in sales last year and a 1.62 trillion won operating profit, up 7 percent and 20 percent, respectively, year-on-year.
> 
> 
> Samsung's OLED join?
> 
> At LG Display's request, Samsung Display said the Samsung Group's display affiliate "is trying hard to fine-tune OLED technologies."
> *
> "Samsung Display is trying its best to develop OLED technologies," CEO Park Dong-geun said. "We are reviewing the marketability of the OLED TV market. However, no decisions have been made so far," Park said, adding the timing to start mass-production of OLED TV panels is yet to be finalized.
> *
> *Samsung has already asked its top-tier local suppliers to develop needed equipment at Samsung's display plants in Korea when Samsung Electronics' top management makes a final decision on mass-production of larger OLEDs.*
> 
> Unlike traditional LCDs, OLEDs are brighter and more energy efficient because the panels do not use bulky backlight, allowing set-makers to produce stylish products with a thinner surface.
> 
> But because of technological barriers, Samsung still has questions about the marketability of larger OLEDs; therefore, Samsung has been focusing on smaller OLEDs to be used in the Galaxy device lineup, while LG has shifted its focus to OLED TVs.
> 
> "This is why Samsung is pushing hard for quantum.dot TV, which is a variant of LCD, with some enhancements in picture quality," said an official wishing to remain anonymous. "However, Samsung will join the OLED TV market very soon, which is good for Korea to create a new ecosystem in the next-generation display market."


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> "So we'll just need to sit tight and see. The one indisputable fact, however, is that LG's reduction in 2016 production target from 1.5M to 1M is not good news for continued price decreases - whatever ends up happening this year as far as pricing, it will be less aggressive than it would have been had LG had an additional 0.5M / 50% of annual production to sell..."
> 
> I think that's the most important point. But looking at the number as monolithic still points out the challenge of guessing, say, whether the 65-inch ends the year at $5000, $4500, or $4000.
> 
> I imagine LG has to (a) sell close to 400K units in Q4 this year, not 200K, to get anywhere near 1M units and (b) will be able to sell very few 55-inch 1080p units even in Europe, where I suspect many of them sold last year though more of them likely sold in the U.S. than you and I would spitball a guess at.
> 
> I also imagine you'll tell me how this is not realistic based on production capabilities. I'll not only respectfully disagree but point out that it would be twice as many as they sold last year with a much greater mix of 4K than last year. Can we still bet on the $4000 65-inch B6?


In terms of our earlier exchange/speculation as to whether OLED TV demand balanced supply at 'sale' pricing of $5000 (for the 65EF9500), here is the first concrete evidence that that is not the case and LG needs to drop the price of the 65EF9500 below $5000 in order to grow demand to more closely match supply: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/322-o...8-oled-great-found-deals-43.html#post42384657

If we are seeing 'exceptional' sales down to prices of $3500 this early in the year, that's a strong signal that entry-level 65" OLEDs will be widely-available at discounted prices reaching that level by the Holiday shopping season...


----------



## sytech

Supposedly Hisense showed off a Flat transparent and mirrored OLED at AWE2016 last week. Does LG make the transparent and mirror ones? I though only Samsung made those kind. Definitely just vaporware at this point, but it may signal a Hisense/Samsung hookup for those hybrid printed OLEDs in 2018.


----------



## redmeister

fafrd said:


> In terms of our earlier exchange/speculation as to whether OLED TV demand balanced supply at 'sale' pricing of $5000 (for the 65EF9500), here is the first concrete evidence that that is not the case and LG needs to drop the price of the 65EF9500 below $5000 in order to grow demand to more closely match supply:
> 
> If we are seeing 'exceptional' sales down to prices of $3500 this early in the year, that's a strong signal that entry-level 65" OLEDs will be widely-available at discounted prices reaching that level by the Holiday shopping season...


Have enjoyed the discussion between fafrd and rogo and find myself agreeing with different aspects of your lines of thinking.

I don't think sales this early in the year are necessarily going to signal pricing for Black Friday. I think the sales now would be more about getting rid of EF inventory before the B6's release, no?

I think part of the demand for EF's at the recent sale price of $3500 is mainly due to price anchoring. People who have been shopping or on the sidelines are used to seeing the $5k anchor price (and of course LG's higher "MSRP" price) and so it seems like a really big discount and they have to buy now before this 'deal' goes away. Plus, this is basically the lowest price it's been offered at (to my knowledge) which in itself brings out potential buyers. It's basically just continuing the natural progression of TV model life prices sloping downwards.

One thing to think about is that the EF could effectively serve as LG's 'budget/mass' TV as they transition to the B6. Think of it like Apple's historical iPhone strategy where they bring out a new phone that sells at a high price and then the previous model year dips in price to cater to a different market. I'm assuming though that LG will phase out EF production entirely in favor of the '16 models?

It's also an interesting dynamic that the EF has 3D, while the B6 does not. So to get 3D on a non-curved screen in the '16 models, you have to upgrade to the pricier models. While 3D is seemingly on the way out, there are undoubtedly some buyers still interested in a flat 3D screen.

I think there are many people who were waiting for the B6 that are now weighing whether to buy the 65EF at $3500 given the uncertainty of future B6 pricing and the perceived value of what you get in the EF, given that the B6 seems just to be incrementally better with picture quality and addition of DolbyVision support, but also the loss of 3D. 

Has anyone compared the price roadmap of the EF's release versus the B6's? I could have sworn I saw that the 65B6 price was going to start just north of $5k? The real tell will be what pricing is right at release of course and then to compare that to what the EF originally released at.


----------



## darinp2

fafrd said:


> In terms of our earlier exchange/speculation as to whether OLED TV demand balanced supply at 'sale' pricing of $5000 (for the 65EF9500), here is the first concrete evidence that that is not the case and LG needs to drop the price of the 65EF9500 below $5000 in order to grow demand to more closely match supply: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/322-o...8-oled-great-found-deals-43.html#post42384657
> 
> If we are seeing 'exceptional' sales down to prices of $3500 this early in the year, that's a strong signal that entry-level 65" OLEDs will be widely-available at discounted prices reaching that level by the Holiday shopping season...


For another reason LG will probably not be able to maintain their street prices for the lowest priced 4k 55" and 65" OLEDs in November of 2016 compared to November of 2015 just take a look at the Vizio announcement of the P-series. The competition isn't standing still.

--Darin


----------



## video_analysis

The Vizio P is the midrange offering from Vizio. R is the more suitable comparison, and that is DOA.


----------



## darinp2

video_analysis said:


> The Vizio P is the midrange offering from Vizio. R is the more suitable comparison, and that is DOA.


And despite the price differences the performance might not be all that different from the R to the P. The R has 3x the zones and something like 800 nits vs 600 nits, but with technology trickling down sometimes a much cheaper more mass market can retain much of the performance of an initial specialty release. The price difference doesn't really tell us how far the P will be from the R in performance.

The Sony Qualia projector at $30k was the first in a line of products that had the VW100 at I believe $10k, with better performance than the Qualia for some setups.

Also, I think anybody who thinks a Vizio $2k 65" product with 128 zones is taking zero sales away from LG OLEDs later this year isn't viewing the market all that accurately. No matter what we end up thinking about which is better I expect this one to put price pressure on LG that the R-series doesn't. So, the R-series might be more relevant for comparing for best image quality , but the P-series more relevant to how much LG can sell their lowest priced $4k 65" OLEDs at and still get the volumes they need. Even if a competing product only took away 10% of your sales volume at a particular price it would be relevant.

--Darin


----------



## rogo

darinp2 said:


> Also, I think anybody who thinks a Vizio $2k 65" product with 128 zones is taking zero sales away from LG OLEDs later this year isn't viewing the market all that accurately.


My argument since 2012.



> No matter what we end up thinking about which is better I expect this one to put price pressure on LG that the R-series doesn't. So, the R-series might be more relevant for comparing for best image quality , but the P-series more relevant to how much LG can sell their lowest priced $4k 65" OLEDs at and still get the volumes they need. Even if a competing product only took away 10% of your sales volume at a particular price it would be relevant.


Yep, especially because LG is desperately trying to push the experience curve to drive down costs. And any volume it loses hurts that/slows progress.


----------



## slacker711

darinp2 said:


> Also, I think anybody who thinks a Vizio $2k 65" product with 128 zones is taking zero sales away from LG OLEDs later this year isn't viewing the market all that accurately. No matter what we end up thinking about which is better I expect this one to put price pressure on LG that the R-series doesn't. So, the R-series might be more relevant for comparing for best image quality , but the P-series more relevant to how much LG can sell their lowest priced $4k 65" OLEDs at and still get the volumes they need. Even if a competing product only took away 10% of your sales volume at a particular price it would be relevant.


Vizio is a US only issue. If they are grabbing 10% of LG's potential customers that probably equates to 3% of their total sales.

It will have some impact, but far less than Samsung's pricing decisions around their KS9xxx series.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> Vizio is a US only issue. If they are grabbing 10% of LG's potential customers that probably equates to 3% of their total sales.
> 
> It will have some impact, but far less than Samsung's pricing decisions around their KS9xxx series.


I wasn't aware of this. Vizio has that limited a presence overseas?


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> I wasn't aware of this. Vizio has that limited a presence overseas?


As far as I know, they are only available in North America. Nothing in Europe or Asia.

Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see the performance of these sets. Why didnt Samsung spread FALD through more of their lineup if Vizio can sell a $2000 FALD 65" set?


----------



## video_analysis

Maybe curved and FALD go together as well as oil and water for some unknown technical reason? 

Wikipedia claims they sold some units at Costco in Japan at one point...but that should be taken with a grain of salt without a bonafide reference.


----------



## rogo

Yes, Vizio is almost exclusively North America.

Samsung and FALD seem to have barely been friends ever since whatever patent suit they dealt with several years back. Did they agree to some odd royalty? Were they production limited? Is it foolish pride? I don't really know.


----------



## htwaits

rogo said:


> My argument since 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, especially because LG is desperately trying to push the experience curve to drive down costs. And any volume it loses hurts that/slows progress.


I may be an example customer among those who have at least some idea about what's going on with display technology for movies and high end source material. 

I picked the 60" non Elite Kuro 8G over the Elite because it was a lot cheaper purchased on the Internet (almost $4K). I've had the set calibrated three times. When the 9G sets came out, and later when the Samsung and Panasonic sets competed with the Elite 9G I wasn't tempted to upgrade.

Now, if our Kuro dies, I would probably look at the Visio "P" 65" rather than go to the bleeding edge with the B6. The money Vs. discernible performance is important to a lot of people who do know about a large number of the relevant variables relating to picture quality available in good source material given 12' and a maximum screen size of 65".

If the B6 was chump change, I would probably get one for the fun of it, but that's not the case right now.


----------



## rogo

Honestly, I'm feeling as you are. 

I keep wanting to buy a very satisfying OLED TV that will be compromise free and last for years. It also shouldn't cost more than the $3K max I've spent on each of my last 3 flat panels. 

I have tended to believe that LG can't really start even denting the market until it can get there at 65 inches. And honestly, I think what Vizio has just announced is devastating (at least in North America) to nearly everyone competing on the high end. 

It's also easy for gadget hounds with reasonable incomes (like myself) to justify a TV priced like the P Series with the expectation it would perform admirably for a window of time. I may have a move coming up, too, which makes me wonder if I shouldn't sell off my TVs and start fresh with the Vizio.

Yesterday, I had no ability to think like that.


----------



## video_analysis

I'm just a lone voice in the HT wilderness, but I value my viewing angle freedom too much to give a midrange LCD another thought (386 zones, though, certainly gives me warm and fuzzy feelings along with $3800 for a 75"). Plus, in the name of consumer choice, even if it doesn't mean getting the optimal cost vs. performance ratio, I would rather support the fledgling competition in order to help promote an LCD alternative. Oh, I also like the niche that is 3D since I've delved into it with OLED, so I won't give that up yet if I don't have to.


----------



## darinp2

video_analysis said:


> Plus, in the name of consumer choice, even if it doesn't mean getting the optimal cost vs. performance ratio, I would rather support the fledgling competition in order to help promote an LCD alternative.


I would too. At least for my parent's house though I am somewhat torn since there are things like really not having to worry about my dad burning the set in, even if the newer OLEDs are better. With LCD I can keep the TV bright without worrying about that. I also wonder whether the Vizio is as reflective as the OLEDs.

Another thing about price is just the stress factor. Paying a lower price means there is less downside risk. Even if the TV completely breaks out of warranty I am out less (and I consider extended warranties bad math in general). Also, with a TV like the P series Vizio I feel like I could probably sell the thing on Craiglist without losing my shirt pretty easily since there are more buyers at lower prices.

That said, for my dark environment I'm definitely leaning toward the B6, so may end up with one of each between my house and my parent's house.

--Darin


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> But that's just it, when does "inherently cheaper" become real? 10 million? 100 million? 1 billion? For mobile screens it looks like maybe 1 billion vs. LTPS. Maybe 5 billion vs. a-Si? 10? In TVs, 1 billion OLED TVs is seemingly _not happening before 2030_.
> 
> * As of 2014, DisplaySearch believed OLED would obtain 30% market share of smartphones by 2020, with 51% LTPS and 18% a-Si.


For mobile screens it turns out it is now. 5 years from the start of real production mobile OLED displays are cheaper than LCD. And OLED is expected to continue to drop relative to LCD.
http://english.etnews.com/20160324200001

Yes, it's LTPS LCD but a) in the mobile world aSi is a different product category as it isn't capable of the resolution or many other features required for displays today and b) this is shown by the declining market share of aSi LCD in mobile. I'm guessing DisplaySearch wasn't counting on Apple switching to OLED before 2020. I would think LTPS LCD is going to have a tough time in a market where OLED is better and cheaper.
http://press.trendforce.com/press/20160105-2253.html

"Possible reasons why production cost of AMOLED has become similar to production cost of LTPS LCD are high rate of operation, wider range of customers, and end of depreciation of production lines."

The end of depreciation doesn't really start until later this year so there are more OLED cost reductions coming. Applying that to TV. 
1. LG should have higher operating rates for TV line than Samsung did for mobile since they are selling to other companies rather than using it as a competitive advantage to promote their smartphone lineup (and be tied to the success of a single phone).
2. Depreciation is still 5 years (which is why 5 years rather than number of units makes a lot of sense).
3. TV market is also segmented so OLED will hit cost parity with high end TV sooner, of course. However, aSi is a viable technology for TV and oxide is more complex than aSi so that is a difference between mobile and TV. New backplane technologies and better equipment will shrink the cost gap over time here too.

So it seems like 5 years is a reasonable time to start thinking about cost parity with mainstream (perhaps not yet low end) LCD TV. OLED doesn't need to beat out the $299 WalMart TV and have 100% market share soon to be the major TV technology. With volume production really starting in 2015, then 5 years for competitive mainstream TV pricing may be 2020 or so.


----------



## rogo

ynotgoal said:


> For mobile screens it turns out it is now. 5 years from the start of real production mobile OLED displays are cheaper than LCD. And OLED is expected to continue to drop relative to LCD.
> http://english.etnews.com/20160324200001


Very cool news. I want to point out that in the post you quoted I wrote: "For mobile screens it looks like maybe 1 billion vs. LTPS." Order of magnitude, these numbers are correct. LTPS has certainly exceeded 1 billion smartphone displays (probably quite easily by now) and OLED is somewhere in that universe thought perhaps not quite there yet. 


> Yes, it's LTPS LCD but a) in the mobile world aSi is a different product category as it isn't capable of the resolution or many other features required for displays today and b) this is shown by the declining market share of aSi LCD in mobile. I'm guessing DisplaySearch wasn't counting on Apple switching to OLED before 2020. I would think LTPS LCD is going to have a tough time in a market where OLED is better and cheaper.
> http://press.trendforce.com/press/20160105-2253.html


I agree, DisplaySearch believed Apple was committed through end of decade, which is why they believed LTPS would exceed OLED through then. That's clearly not going to happen. Incidentally, I also speculated OLED might be cheaper than a-Si in mobile around 5 billion screens. That also doesn't seem very wrong, though we're comparing apples to pears up to a point -- as you noted.


> "Possible reasons why production cost of AMOLED has become similar to production cost of LTPS LCD are high rate of operation, wider range of customers, and end of depreciation of production lines."
> 
> The end of depreciation doesn't really start until later this year so there are more OLED cost reductions coming. Applying that to TV.
> 1. LG should have higher operating rates for TV line than Samsung did for mobile since they are selling to other companies rather than using it as a competitive advantage to promote their smartphone lineup (and be tied to the success of a single phone).
> 2. Depreciation is still 5 years (which is why 5 years rather than number of units makes a lot of sense).
> 3. TV market is also segmented so OLED will hit cost parity with high end TV sooner, of course. However, aSi is a viable technology for TV and oxide is more complex than aSi so that is a difference between mobile and TV. New backplane technologies and better equipment will shrink the cost gap over time here too.
> 
> So it seems like 5 years is a reasonable time to start thinking about cost parity with mainstream (perhaps not yet low end) LCD TV. OLED doesn't need to beat out the $299 WalMart TV and have 100% market share soon to be the major TV technology. With volume production really starting in 2015, then 5 years for competitive mainstream TV pricing may be 2020 or so.


This sounds right to me. Again, the quoted post is looking at competing price-wise with the $299 Walmart TV, not some "mainstream" we haven't really defined.

But I think I've been pretty bullish on where OLED pricing could go in the near term in several prior posts. Without digging them out, let's just agree that once the 55/65 hits $1500/$3000, that's the high end of the TV market. We're clearly not there, but there should be little doubt that such milestones are in sight -- especially considering the 2K 55s have gotten there.

Now, when we talk "mainstream" we're much lower than those figures, but let's say that LG needs to get to ~ 1/2 of them to achieve some sort of mainstream-ness. That's $800 or so for a 55-inch TV and $1500 or so for a 65-inch. I don't think that captures a very large market share, but it captures a pretty substantial chunk. Again, there's an important proviso that we're talking about only a fraction of the market at those screen sizes. It's approaching 1/2 in the U.S., but won't likely quite get there. It's perhaps 1/3 in Europe and Japan. 

Still, if the first bar is $1500/$3000 and we can agree that 2017 is achievable for reaching that, it would leave 3 years for halving again both of those numbers. That's only a 20% reduction compounded in 2018-20. Given how *few* TVs LG is making this year and the very high likelihood of new entrants to push the ecosystem development, this also seems rather doable.

And I think it's reasonable to argue that's "mainstream" and that LG / other OLED can "win" those segments in significant part by decade's end. But keep in mind we're defining pieces of pieces there. We are taking all smaller sizes out and we are taking all cheaper product out. So we're still talking a finite slice of the ~250M unit TV market.

This is, therefore, relatively smaller than what seems to be happening in smartphones. And part of that is Samsung bet harder and longer on making mobile OLED happen. Yet it still took >5 years to get here. LG still is treating this as a relatively small thing, at least until they invest in the "P10" fab and make the kind of push Panasonic made with their giant plasma fab. Let's hope the end result is very different.


----------



## greenland

Researchers at Kyushu University claims to have greatly increased the device lifetime of OLEDs. Using the OLED structure in the schematic below, researchers were able to delay the degradation in brightness of an OLED with the TADF emitter 4CzIPN by eight to sixteen times.

http://oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=1262


Until recently, the light-emitting molecules were either fluorescent materials, which can be low cost but can only use about 25% of electrical charges, or phosphorescent materials, which can harvest 100% of charges but include an expensive metal such as platinum or iridium. Researchers at Kyushu University’s Center for Organic Photonic and Electronics Research (OPERA) changed this in 2012 with the demonstration of emitters based thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF).

Through molecular design, these TADF materials can convert nearly all of the electrical charges to light without the heavy metal used in phosphorescent materials, making both high efficiency and low cost possible. However, OLEDs under constant operation degrade and become dimmer over time regardless of the emitting material. Devices that degrade slowly are key for practical applications, and concerns remained that the lifetime of early TADF devices was still on the short side.

But with the leap in lifetime reported in a paper published online March 1, 2016, in Scientific Reports; many of those concerns can now be put to rest.

......................................................................

LG Display invested US$ 2.8 M in Kyulux, a spinout from Kyushu University that conducts organic material R&D in Japan. Kyulux announced that the company was able to raise USD 13.2 M from QB Capital, Sumitomo Capital, Euglena Investment, DBJ Capital, and Japan Venture Capital. Kyulux added that the company and Kyushu University agreed on transferring 50 patents to Kyulux for an undisclosed amount. The company hopes to take the first step into commercializing TADF material and marketing its intellectual property. 

http://oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=1298


----------



## rogo

Good news, cheap-ish material. Nothing rare in it.

Bad news, no sign of a blue variant. So right now it's an idea, like soluble OLED material, that is promising (albeit in a different way) but not useful.


----------



## Tobbeo

http://www.olednet.com/en/cynora-focuses-blue-tadf-materials/ 
Cynora focusing on blue at least ... 4x
"blue emitter systems. TADF-based emitters offer up to four times better efficiency"


----------



## JimP

rogo said:


> Good news, cheap-ish material. Nothing rare in it.
> 
> Bad news, no sign of a blue variant. So right now it's an idea, like soluble OLED material, that is promising (albeit in a different way) but not useful.


Seems to me that there wouldn't be any point in doing research to extend the life of OLED in the current sets unless there was a problem with it to start with. What aren't the telling us?

Hope it doesn't turn out like Sony's experience with SXRDs.


----------



## videobruce

> What aren't the telling us?


That's what corporations do; basically deny everything!


----------



## slacker711

JimP said:


> Seems to me that there wouldn't be any point in doing research to extend the life of OLED in the current sets unless there was a problem with it to start with. What aren't the telling us?
> 
> Hope it doesn't turn out like Sony's experience with SXRDs.


I am sure that LG does want a longer lifetime for their sets. Beyond that though, a more efficient blue with a long lifetime will allow them higher peak luminances and a cost savings as they can eliminate a layer of blue material. 2016 sets are supposed to be blue-yellow-blue material stacks.


----------



## joys_R_us

slacker711 said:


> I am sure that LG does want a longer lifetime for their sets. Beyond that though, a more efficient blue with a long lifetime will allow them higher peak luminances and a cost savings as they can eliminate a layer of blue material. 2016 sets are supposed to be blue-yellow-blue material stacks.


This is not correct. The stacks consist of RGB layers


----------



## slacker711

joys_R_us said:


> This is not correct. The stacks consist of RGB layers


No, the material stack that LGD has been using in their first few generations of OLED's consists of a blue emitter layer and a separate yellow layer. The yellow layer is predominantly green with a bit of red mixed in. The supplier of the yellow emitter material confirms this and it has been discussed endlessly over the years.

The change that has been reported for this year is that LGD has added a second blue layer. That is presumably to allow for a higher luminance/lifetime.


----------



## wco81

What does LG's pricing of 2016 OLED TVs indicate about where they are with production and yields?

The expected prices of the B6 models are as high as the EF models from last year.

No cost savings since last year and no better yields?


----------



## slacker711

wco81 said:


> What does LG's pricing of 2016 OLED TVs indicate about where they are with production and yields?
> 
> The expected prices of the B6 models are as high as the EF models from last year.
> 
> No cost savings since last year and no better yields?


Here are the prices for the EF9500 from six months ago. The B and C series will certainly be lower priced at their debut, and I would expect price cuts as the early adopter tax goes away. 

http://www.cnet.com/uk/products/lg-65ef9500/



> LG has officially announced the price and availability of its flat OLED TVs with 4K resolution. The 65-inch 65EF9500 costs $6,999 US, while the 55-inch 55EF9600 goes for $5,499. They're due to hit US shelves in mid-September. The TV made its first appearance at CES 2015 last January, and we just had our second chance to see it at IFA 2015 in Berlin.


----------



## dbcooper.nz

From DigiTimes:



> *Samsung Display actively developing AMOLEDs, says executive*
> 
> 
> Rebecca Kuo, Tokyo; Adam Hwang, DIGITIMES [Friday 8 April 2016]
> 
> 
> Samsung Display has been making efforts to develop AMOLED panels for various application, including cooperation with strategic partners to develop upstream materials and manufacturing equipment, in a bid to enlarge its lead in AMOLED technology, according to company executive vice president Kim Sung-chul at his keynote speech at the Finetech Japan 2016 taking place in Tokyo during April 6-8.
> 
> 
> Samsung Display started R&D of AMOLED technology in 2000, initially offered 2.4-inch AMOLED panels for use in handsets in 2007 and began to expand production of AMOLED panels in 2011, Kim said.
> 
> 
> *In order to extend application of AMOLED panels, Samsung Display will develop flexible models for use in mobile devices, notebooks, monitors and TVs*, enhance resolution of panels for use in VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality) devices, develop panels of different shapes based on reliable materials for use in automotive displays, develop panels with enough reflectivity and transparency for use in PIDs (public information displays) and architecture, Kim indicated.


Hopefully that means they're committing to OLED TV production.


----------



## irkuck

Time for TADF Kyulux LG Samsung OLED coctail.


----------



## slacker711

Samsung 2016 SUHD lineup with prices. The 65" FALD is listed at $4500.

http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-2016-suhd-tv-pricing-and-lineup/

Last year, their 65" FALD debuted with a MSRP of $6500.


----------



## 8mile13

slacker711 said:


> Samsung 2016 SUHD lineup with prices. The 65" FALD is listed at $4500.
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-2016-suhd-tv-pricing-and-lineup/
> 
> Last year, their 65" FALD debuted with a MSRP of $6500.


The good news ''there are fewer curved Samsung TVs than last year''


----------



## video_analysis

lol, they can keep it.


----------



## tgm1024

video_analysis said:


> lol, they can keep it.


Absolutely. Atrociously deep curve on their stuff. At least the initial nonsense. Oye.


----------



## greenland

slacker711 said:


> Samsung 2016 SUHD lineup with prices. The 65" FALD is listed at $4500.
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-2016-suhd-tv-pricing-and-lineup/
> 
> Last year, their 65" FALD debuted with a MSRP of $6500.


Why are you posting that information on the OLED Advancements thread?


----------



## video_analysis

A reading between the lines to imply there could be a more expensive OLED option waiting?


----------



## slacker711

greenland said:


> Why are you posting that information on the OLED Advancements thread?


We have debated how big a premium that OLED's would be able to command vs. high-end LCD's for a very long time and this is another data point in that debate. Samsung has a ~50% share of the high-end LCD market and it was an open question whether they were going to ship a FALD set this year and what kind of pricing it would have. They are LG's primary competition in hitting their goal of 1 million OLED sales this year.


----------



## irkuck

Now is a turn for FOLED = *Firefly* OLED


----------



## aduljr

irkuck said:


> Now is a turn for FOLED = *Firefly* OLED


this!

Inspired by these features, the researchers replicated the patterns to create a bioinspired organic light-emitting diode (OLED), resulting in a 60% increase in the light extraction efficiency and 15% wider angle of illumination.

Hopefully LG is looking at this. Just maybe we will see an OLED with 1000 nits of brightness.


----------



## slacker711

Data points from LG Display's earnings call.

- Slightly under 200,000 unit shipments in Q1. 65" units made up more than 30% of shipments. They reiterated their 1 million unit goal for 2016.

- They didnt answer a direct question on 4K yields. However, they did say that shipments would ramp as yields increased through the year. They seem to be implying that that they are essentially gated on capacity. 

- They expect to go from 34,000 substrates a month to 60,000 in Q2 of 2017.


----------



## wco81

Well sales are the best in the first and last quarters.

They're going to have to do something (i.e. price cuts) to juice up sales in the middle quarters.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Since Slacker was quoting stats from LG Display, I'm assuming the numbers he posted are OLED panel shipments to TV manufacturers, not OLED TV shipments to consumers. Yes TV sales are the best in the first and last quarters, but I would expect OLED panel shipments to preceed OLED TV sales by several weeks meaning summer would be peak sales.


----------



## Rudy1

*"NO SAMSUNG OLED TVs IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE"*

https://www.avforums.com/news/no-samsung-oled-tvs-in-the-foreseeable-future.12594


----------



## wco81

Even if they were going to come out with one in a few months, they'd be denying it because they probably have a large inventory of LCDs, including high-priced ones, to sell.

They'd probably show at CES or some other big show when they're ready to go, along with trimming down their LCD line.


----------



## 8mile13

Sharp/Foxconn 
Digitimes claims Sharp/Foxconn will begin shipping OLED panels for TVs in the 2021.
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1459748511

JOLED
breakthrough in the development of 12.2″ & 19.3″ OLED prototypes using printing technology. 
http://ww3.oled-display.net/joled-s...ED-Display-News+(OLED-Tv+AMOLED+Display+NEWS)


----------



## video_analysis

2021, lol.


----------



## 8mile13

video_analysis said:


> 2021, lol.


Being a OLED cynic is not the way to go right now with the samsung OLED news fresh in our heads...We will get there eventhough it will be rather later than sooner


----------



## rogo

8mile13 said:


> JOLED
> breakthrough in the development of 12.2″ & 19.3″ OLED prototypes using printing technology.
> http://ww3.oled-display.net/joled-s...ED-Display-News+(OLED-Tv+AMOLED+Display+NEWS)


I see nothing there to indicate any breakthrough in lifetime for soluble blue OLED material. Without that, it's kind of irrelevant that they can print the displays.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> I see nothing there to indicate any breakthrough in lifetime for soluble blue OLED material. Without that, it's kind of irrelevant that they can print the displays.


I'm not really sure. Regarding this I'm not armed with particularly cogent arguments, but merely a couple thoughts.

1. If the soluble-blue is still crummy in 2018, perhaps the exact same technique will still work perfectly with each incrementally improved blue. So starting the learning curve on the creation of a TV with printed display using a blue of any longevity is important.

2. If the printing process can produce a panel cheap enough (as in really _really_ cheap), then quickly dying panels might not be so horrible.

PS. Fix your sig yourself yourself.  Lyricsfreak.com is wrong.


----------



## greenland

About a year ago, Samsung had invested funds to keep Kateeva's OLED Printing R&D efforts alive.

Samsung's recent statement, of they having no plans to produce OLED TVs in the foreseeable future, could be a strong indication that Kateeva has not been able to make the breakthrough that Samsung was counting on.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> I'm not really sure. Regarding this I'm not armed with particularly cogent arguments, but merely a couple thoughts.
> 
> 1. If the soluble-blue is still crummy in 2018, perhaps the exact same technique will still work perfectly with each incrementally improved blue. So starting the learning curve on the creation of a TV with printed display using a blue of any longevity is important.
> 
> 2. If the printing process can produce a panel cheap enough (as in really _really_ cheap), then quickly dying panels might not be so horrible.
> .


Soluble blue lifespan was (is?) in the weeks/months. That's usable for no applications, even if the panels are essentially free.


----------



## 8mile13

Francis Ford Coppola was not being paid to say this


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> Soluble blue lifespan was (is?) in the weeks/months. That's usable for no applications, even if the panels are essentially free.


Yep, but I suppose I'm saying that this is a materials issue. It's perfecting the technique itself that I'm glad they're knee deep in right now. The learning curves for the two are of course linked (materials & process----the former changes the latter and the converse), but it's a curve best to be in as early as possible.


----------



## greenland

UDC Works on Hybrid OLED Approach


http://www.displaydaily.com/display-daily/38120-udc-works-on-hybrid-oled-approach


A lot of details at the link,so you know what to do.


----------



## Rudy1

Well if OLED eventually turns out to not be worth further investment, I'm sure the TV manufacturers will come up with something else...they always do.


----------



## j.p.s

greenland said:


> UDC Works on Hybrid OLED Approach
> 
> 
> www displaydaily com/display-daily/38120-udc-works-on-hybrid-oled-approach
> 
> 
> A lot of details at the link,so you know what to do.


I don't see anything in the article that gives even a clue how the brightnesses of the red and the green sub-sub-pixels are individually controlled or how to keep yellow dim if red or green is bright.


----------



## ynotgoal

There have been reports earlier that Samsung is considering skipping OLED and developing QLED TV. An actual quantum dot TV rather than the QD film LED sets they have now. There is another report out today although they say they are just hoping it will be ready in a few years.
http://english.etnews.com/20160524200003

The Korean version of the article seems to talk a bit more about it being seen as a marketing advantage and even says at the end that an advantage is they can be made on an OLED production line (even though the problem with OLED is Samsung can't make them price competitive). Samsung's TV division seems like they are in not in a good spot and don't really know what to do about it. Or maybe they really think they can sell their quantum dot LED TVs for a few years and then come up with a QLED TV. Here's the Korean link.
http://www.etnews.com/20160520000467


----------



## 8mile13

It is kind of weird samsung having _no_ OLED TV product, being a loser next to LG, turning that into something like ''we are skipping OLED''. Aside from that sony has a CLEDIS product, samsung has _nothing_...not even demonstrated a QLED prototype. One wonders were the mighty LCd manufacturer is heading


----------



## video_analysis

Hopefully, blowing all their load on marketing and approaching bankruptcy for trying to force the curve abomination on the impressionistic masses.


----------



## tgm1024

video_analysis said:


> Hopefully, blowing all their load on marketing and approaching bankruptcy for trying to force the curve abomination on the impressionistic masses.


It's too bad that they were held back by the physics that @rogo explained, because the OLED they use in their mobile devices is *really* outstanding IMO.

However, with the disclosure that I hate the curve anyway, the Samsung curve really does seem atrocious to me. I sit and watch part of a movie in BB/Mag and I simply cannot see anything but a bowtie.


----------



## Carter D

Some Samsung news.

http://english.etnews.com/201605242...0f95d365608482ab69d0bf01a45b91dff&ctp=article

Carter


----------



## video_analysis

tgm1024 said:


> It's too bad that they were held back by the physics that @*rogo* explained, because the OLED they use in their mobile devices is *really* outstanding IMO.
> 
> However, with the disclosure that I hate the curve anyway, the Samsung curve really does seem atrocious to me. I sit and watch part of a movie in BB/Mag and I simply cannot see anything but a bowtie.


As a Galaxy 6 Edge owner, I agree, but LG 2016 is damn close, especially when accounting for a screen that is 13 times bigger.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Technically LG started the curve via their OLED displays, but as one said, LG's curve is much less aggressive and is actually useful for close-up use (like how several PC gamers are using the C6 model as a monitor).


----------



## video_analysis

To my surprise, it's actually about as clear as mud who started it: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/who-really-built-the-worlds-first-curved-oled-tv/

Glad it's reaching its end nonetheless.


----------



## Stereodude

Both LG and Samsung are pushing OLED heavily at Display Week. Samsung is only showing off smaller sizes though. LG has large OLEDs on display. They have a very curved, nearly 180 degree concave curve, 65" OLED on display, but most are flat. Nearly all the display manufacturers are showing off OLEDs and flexible OLEDs, again only smaller size.


----------



## Spruce Goose

This thread is 10 years old today. According to some of the predictions on the first page, the blue lifetime issues were on the verge of being solved in 2006. Some other predictions, particularly Rogo's, were much more realistic. But now we're finally seeing the hopes and hype of 2006 becoming reality.


----------



## wuther

I dont think waiting 4 years for QLED to come to the market (and then wait for the kinks to be worked out) is worth it: 

http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-reportedly-aims-commercialize-qled-tvs-2020


----------



## video_analysis

Of course it isn't. Life is short.


----------



## 8mile13

...when samsung succeeds with QLED within four years they earned the right to call LG OLEDs OLD TVs


----------



## wuther

8mile13 said:


> ...when samsung succeeds with QLED within four years they earned the right to call LG OLEDs OLD TVs


In this industry 4 years ago is almost ancient history....


----------



## 8mile13

wuther said:


> In this industry 4 years ago is almost ancient history....


We see what happened with the 2012 sony prototype. It took them four years to come up with a product and it is not a TV. Samsung does not even has a prototype at this point...


----------



## greenland

This thread is supposed to be about OLED TV technology advancements. Not about Samsung's non OLED technology advancements.

This just in: Generalisimo Franco and Samsung OLED TV are still dead.


----------



## irkuck

Samsung OLED is resurrected and you won't escape from it


----------



## Wizziwig

OLED (and LCD) disassembled:


----------



## smkuhn

*Burn-in/Image Retention on 2016 OLED Televisions?*

Guys, forgive me for asking a question, as I am sure it has been addressed before. 

I have been waiting for my local BB to get an 65' E6. Friday I dropped by to take a look. Have to say the 4K sample stuff looks incredible! But was surprised when the salesperson tried to steer me away from the OLEDS. He took me over to an LG OLED from last year to show that infamous burin-in. I could see everything in that picture such as wording, various lines, and logos. Plus the color in the middle of the screen appeared to have yellowing. 

He told me he would stay away from the OLED technology due to the burn-in and image retention issues. He went on further to say that they only sell 1 or 2 OLEDs a quarter, and that most of them come back. He then pointed me to Sony's flagship LED the 65X930D, which had very impressive picture quality. He was quick to point out the NIT levels between the LED vs OLED technologies, gives the the LED superior brightness and contrast. His words not mine. 

My question: is anyone having these issues on their 2016 models? I told the guy I am certain LG has made tremendous strides in the technology over the past year, and I would have to consult this forum before I went any further.

Sorry to be so long with this post, but buying an OLED is a major purchase. In my experience individuals on the site have a wealth of experience and information on these subjects, and I wanted to get your take on this. Thank you!

Steve


----------



## Jason626

smkuhn said:


> Guys, forgive me for asking a question, as I am sure it has been addressed before.
> 
> I have been waiting for my local BB to get an 65' E6. Friday I dropped by to take a look. Have to say the 4K sample stuff looks incredible! But was surprised when the salesperson tried to steer me away from the OLEDS. He took me over to an LG OLED from last year to show that infamous burin-in. I could see everything in that picture such as wording, various lines, and logos. Plus the color in the middle of the screen appeared to have yellowing.
> 
> He told me he would stay away from the OLED technology due to the burn-in and image retention issues. He went on further to say that they only sell 1 or 2 OLEDs a quarter, and that most of them come back. He then pointed me to Sony's flagship LED the 65X930D, which had very impressive picture quality. He was quick to point out the NIT levels between the LED vs OLED technologies, gives the the LED superior brightness and contrast. His words not mine.
> 
> My question: is anyone having these issues on their 2016 models? I told the guy I am certain LG has made tremendous strides in the technology over the past year, and I would have to consult this forum before I went any further.
> 
> Sorry to be so long with this post, but buying an OLED is a major purchase. In my experience individuals on the site have a wealth of experience and information on these subjects, and I wanted to get your take on this. Thank you!
> 
> Steve


HI Steve,
It is in the realm of possibilities that oled can get burn in. The problem lies when stores have an oled as a demo and they run all day 7 days a week the same video loop. LG has a compensation cycle built in oled tv's that correct image retention. That compensation cycle only runs when the TV is correctly power of by remote control or the power button. Sometimes stores will flip a switch and shutdown displays all at the same time. That would never let LG'S oled run a compensation cycle. 

Led tv's do currently have greater light out put and get brighter than current oled tv's. But suffer from worse black levels. Lcd led tv's still have poor viewing angles that colors wash out and turn grayish. I would consider Sony 940d there flagship as it is true fald back lit display. The 930d is edge lit I believe. 

I do believe the 2016 OLEDs are better than there predecessors. Little to no yellowing, no vignetting black edges and better screen uniformity. I haven't read of users who are having burn in difficulty on any alarming rate scale. It's safe to say that if you use it for tv and movies it's a safe bet you'll never have to worry about it.


----------



## video_analysis

The 930 is an edgelit panel with a laughably inferior contrast to OLED. The numbskull doesn't know what he's talking about. I implore you to find one owner complaint about burn-in; heck, you can conduct a subforum search for the same topic. Again, these panels are subjected to abuse in retail environments especially when they are not allowed to shut down properly (and instead shut off at the mains) and engage their automated compensation cycles. This is beginning to sound like plasma FUD, but I have to admit LG needs to provide some retailer education since I have also seen this in-store personally on several occasions. Get one home and use it like a typical consumer (shutting it down via remote every 4 hours or so, or even at the end of the day), and there are ZERO problems. Football season last year resulted in no ill long-term effects on the EF9500, and I would regularly have it on for the entirety of game day (Sunday).


----------



## 8mile13

Aside from ''compensation cycle'' the LG OLED also dims the picture after 105 sec of static image to further minimize risk of image rendition and screenburn. So it should be not much of a problem. What i want to know is what happens when there are _no_ compensation cycles (not turn off TV) and _no_ dimming (can be disabled)?


----------



## smkuhn

*Thanks!*

I knew you guys who currently have OLEDs would know. I have been doing research on this site, and have not seen a post about the issues this guy was talking about. I am kind of curious why the BB employee would try to steer me away from the LG vs the Sony. Just have to wonder how much some of these guys know about what they are selling. The guy told me the flagship for Sony is the 930D, but now I know that it is the 940. 

I am leaning toward the E6, but am a little anxious of current issues I have been reading about. One post I thought was interesting was the poll done concerning the # of owners that have experienced the intermittent white flashes on the 2016s. The last time I looked there were more than twice as many owners who had experienced that issue than not. Now, if you buy the television from a BB (or some other brick and mortar store) returning it is not a problem however, due to price, taxes etc., I would buy from an on-line retailer, and it would be much harder to address any issues at that point. 

I bought my current 50" Pioneer PDP-520HD plasma set 5 years ago after doing much research on this very site, and have never regretted it. I bought it on-line from Invision Technologies and have never regretted it. In fact it still has 6 months left of the CPS extended warranty. It's an absolutely beautiful set, but my old eyes are just getting to tired, and so I have decided to move on up to a 65" display.

Just want to say the knowledge base on AVS is second to none. You all do a great job getting information out there, and holding the hands of those of us who are not well versed in the tech. I really appreciate that...

Thanks again guys for your feedback! I am going to wait a month or so and see what the pricing does.

Steve


----------



## video_analysis

Waiting might also have the secondary benefit of seeing if LG can get to the bottom of the white flash phenomenon. It occurs very infrequently as is.


----------



## MikeBiker

smkuhn said:


> Guys, forgive me for asking a question, as I am sure it has been addressed before.
> 
> I have been waiting for my local BB to get an 65' E6. Friday I dropped by to take a look. Have to say the 4K sample stuff looks incredible! But was surprised when the salesperson tried to steer me away from the OLEDS. He took me over to an LG OLED from last year to show that infamous burin-in. I could see everything in that picture such as wording, various lines, and logos. Plus the color in the middle of the screen appeared to have yellowing.
> 
> He told me he would stay away from the OLED technology due to the burn-in and image retention issues. He went on further to say that they only sell 1 or 2 OLEDs a quarter, and that most of them come back. He then pointed me to Sony's flagship LED the 65X930D, which had very impressive picture quality. He was quick to point out the NIT levels between the LED vs OLED technologies, gives the the LED superior brightness and contrast. His words not mine.
> 
> My question: is anyone having these issues on their 2016 models? I told the guy I am certain LG has made tremendous strides in the technology over the past year, and I would have to consult this forum before I went any further.
> 
> Sorry to be so long with this post, but buying an OLED is a major purchase. In my experience individuals on the site have a wealth of experience and information on these subjects, and I wanted to get your take on this. Thank you!
> 
> Steve


I have a feeling that the salesperson gets a larger commission for selling a Samsung than an LG.


----------



## video_analysis

Except it was Sony to which he steered him and not Samsung. Sony doesn't have the deep advertising pockets that the latter does.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

I stopped in at BB recently and much to my surprise the salesperson steered me away from OLED saying they were getting a lot of returns. BB displays OLED with content that emphasizes blacks and display LED with content that emphasizes colors. The sales person told me of OLED issues but not LED issues like motion and off center viewing. My impression is that their salespeople have an agenda to push certain products.


----------



## bobdevellis

I wonder if the OLEDs that BB has in stock in any numbers are the 2015 models. Those did have some problems that prompted a fair number of returns. So, saying OLEDs often get returned may be reasonably accurate for the 2015 models. As for the 2016s, I doubt that they have as many of those available to sell as they do Sonys. So it may be a matter of pushing what's readily available in stock rather than models (i.e., OLEDs) that are fewer on the ground and may well be out of stock or not yet available. Just speculation, of course, but it seems plausible to me.


----------



## smkuhn

bobdevellis said:


> I wonder if the OLEDs that BB has in stock in any numbers are the 2015 models. Those did have some problems that prompted a fair number of returns. So, saying OLEDs often get returned may be reasonably accurate for the 2015 models. As for the 2016s, I doubt that they have as many of those available to sell as they do Sonys. So it may be a matter of pushing what's readily available in stock rather than models (i.e., OLEDs) that are fewer on the ground and may well be out of stock or not yet available. Just speculation, of course, but it seems plausible to me.


Great insight, and very possible! Due to cost I will probably buy from and on-line retailer, and in fact have talked to Chris at CP. Haven't talked about return policy though. The nice thing about a BB purchase is they are local, and you can send one back literally no questions asked. Not sure how the on-line retailers work that...

Steve


----------



## video_analysis

With CP you only have 24 hours to return if there is shipping damage. Otherwise you have to deal with LG. That's one way he achieves rock bottom prices.


----------



## PrimeTime

Some of this is old news, but some might find the suppliers' perspectives interesting.


----------



## ynotgoal

Drinking the QD “Kool-Aid”

It is noteworthy that Samsung recently opted out of OLED TV production until the cost reaches near LCD levels (don’t believe the garbage about QLEDs in 2019.)
Kateeva is actually working with Samsung Display to test IJP w/soluble material.
displaydaily.com


Kateeva to Produce Flexible OLEDs with Inkjet Printing Equipment

Kateeva, which is an inkjet printing equipment manufacturer, made an announcement on the 31st that it will be commercializing RGB (Red Green Blue) inkjet equipment within this year. This is the first time when inkjet printing equipment is used for actual mass-production of flexible OLEDs.
“We are going to supply our RGB inkjet printing equipment shortly to businesses that are planning to mass-produce large flexible OLEDs.” said Chairman Alain Harrus of Kateeva at an exclusive interview with Electronic Times.
english.etnews.com


----------



## tgm1024

And once again I have to wonder aloud: Are we going to get to the point where we buy a TV frame, and every few years have shipped to us a new $50 "panel" all rolled up that we slip into a slot to replace the old one.....


----------



## mattg3

tgm1024 said:


> And once again I have to wonder aloud: Are we going to get to the point where we buy a TV frame, and every few years have shipped to us a new $50 "panel" all rolled up that we slip into a slot to replace the old one.....


50!!-more like 5000


----------



## barth2k

mattg3 said:


> 50!!-more like 5000


and they'll find a way to make you pay for a new frame each upgrade


----------



## tgm1024

mattg3 said:


> 50!!-more like 5000


Heh. Well to be clear, I was pondering whether or not we would "get to the point".

Don't oversimplify this.

A TV frame _potentially_ has staying value on its own that need not be commoditized further than simply replacing the OLED array that has worn past its ability to be effectively calibrated back into usability.

The TV frame potentially has these issues:

It supplies power
Speakers
It's a "look" you've already agreed upon
It's _already set up._


----------



## Trojanlaw

I own a 65E6 and a 55EF9500 without any issues. I stopped by Best Buy just to see if they had the B6 in yet. They had an E6 on display and I asked two different Magnolia folks what they thought of it. The first said "The new model is a cheaper version of the 2015 and does not look as good". The second said "The Sony 930d has a much better picture with far better color than the E6". Knowing both of these statements to be completely false I thanked them and walked away. No one should rely on them as an information source. The Sony is a great set but does not come close to the depth of the E6. Plus I have seen them side by side the E6 colors are just as vibrant when set correctly. There is clearly something going on with Sony and BB.


----------



## mattg3

Tell them you are on the forum and if you find a salesman who knows what that is the Sony stuff not come up.Spent 45 minutes a few weeks ago with Best Buy salesman and all we did was watch and praise the G and E Oleds


----------



## video_analysis

Can you rephrase that first sentence? My translator failed.


----------



## htwaits

tgm1024 said:


> Heh. Well to be clear, I was pondering whether or not we would "get to the point".
> 
> Don't oversimplify this.
> 
> A TV frame _potentially_ has staying value on its own that need not be commoditized further than simply replacing the OLED array that has worn past its ability to be effectively calibrated back into usability.
> 
> The TV frame potentially has these issues:
> 
> It supplies power
> Speakers
> It's a "look" you've already agreed upon
> It's _already set up._


----------



## slacker711

LG Electronics held a press event at their OLED television assembly factory in South Korea this weekend. Some details on the Q&A process as well as this comment about lifetimes.


http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2016/06/133_206377.html



> The LG Electronics executive dispelled concerns over the lifespan of the OLED TVs.
> 
> "When we first started manufacturing OLED TVs in 2013, their lifespan was some 36,000 hours," Lee said.
> 
> "Technological development has extended it to 100,000 hours now. This is equal to 30 years, if a user watches our OLED TV for 10 hours a day."



A while back I noted that the LGD had adopted a blue-yellow-blue OLED stack and I assume that we are seeing the impact on lifetimes.


----------



## video_analysis

Wow, i was operating under the assumption that the 30k hour figure hadn't changed (I think this was quoted by LG back in 2011). We can finally put the lifetime "concerns" to rest. This puts it on par with plasma. I construe this as yet another setback for printing and RGB.


----------



## JimP

video_analysis said:


> Wow, i was operating under the assumption that the 30k hour figure hadn't changed (I think this was quoted by LG back in 2011). We can finally put the lifetime "concerns" to rest. This puts it on par with plasma. I construe this as yet another setback for printing and RGB.


You know the problem with this is there is no way of actually knowing without running a display for 100,000 hours. 

Besides, don't you think they'd say anything to sell OLEDs?


----------



## video_analysis

Yea, and can you show me someone who's run a plasma for 100k hours to verify those claims? I really don't get this double standard.


----------



## JimP

video_analysis said:


> Yea, and can you show me someone who's run a plasma for 100k hours to verify those claims? I really don't get this double standard.


Just saying that there is no way to know until things go bad. By the time you find out, its too late.

Last night my wife asked me how often do people on AVS buy new displays and how long do they last. 

I was very tempted to tell her that they only last a couple of years but I didn't think she'd buy off on that.


----------



## video_analysis

There is a bit of faith involved to be sure. The best we can do for now is to look how well the 2013 models are maintaining. I've got one at nearly 5000 hours that shows no obvious signs of degradation. It's a few years old, so just about time to retire.  Seriously, I might sell it, but if not I'll continue to use it and monitor its brightness and color presentation.


----------



## slacker711

JimP said:


> You know the problem with this is there is no way of actually knowing without running a display for 100,000 hours.
> 
> Besides, don't you think they'd say anything to sell OLEDs?


I'd be more skeptical of the number if there wasnt a rational explanation for the jump. The blue-yellow-blue stack is supposed to increase the lifetime and efficiency of the display.

Also, if LGE was going to lie, they should have started in 2013.


----------



## video_analysis

I would wager this announcement deserves its own thread. Takes the wind right out of Samsung's hollow QLED announcements.


----------



## slacker711

Makes sense, I doubt that many potential owners are reading this thread and this is good news for those worried about how long their OLED TV will last.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> LG Electronics held a press event at their OLED television assembly factory in South Korea this weekend. Some details on the Q&A process as well as this comment about lifetimes.
> 
> http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2016/06/133_206377.html
> 
> A while back I noted that the LGD had adopted a blue-yellow-blue OLED stack and I assume that we are seeing the impact on lifetimes.


 @*slacker711* , do you have the link to the white-paper for that new blue-yellow-blue stack design?

I'd *LOVE* to see it!


----------



## magillagorilla

Curious about best guesses as to when the 77" will become reasonably affordable (read under $10k). Per Rogo's prior comments, I can understand why LG is not incentivized to make it so in the short term.


----------



## video_analysis

^^This is like a game of blind darts: 2019

I hope not but given the snail's pace, I wouldn't be surprised. 

You have to hope the facility set to come online in 2017 can accelerate that a bit.


----------



## magillagorilla

video_analysis said:


> ^^This is like a game of blind darts: 2019
> 
> I hope not but given the snail's pace, I wouldn't be surprised.
> 
> You have to hope the facility set to come online in 2017 can accelerate that a bit.


Probably right. My guess is that it drops to the high teens street price at some point this year, low teens the following, and then a $9k asking in 2019.


----------



## Wizziwig

Wouldn't a blue-yellow-blue stack design have a detrimental effect on viewing angle?


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> Wouldn't a blue-yellow-blue stack design have a detrimental effect on viewing angle?


Good question, but I'm guessing it'd be no more so than any other layering.

However, I suspect that the layers are much thinner than the subpixel is wide, and I'm also not entirely sure that the layers are vertically rectilinear. The top layer might be larger.

That's another @xrox set of questions, including yours.


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> @*slacker711* , do you have the link to the white-paper for that new blue-yellow-blue stack design?
> 
> I'd *LOVE* to see it!


I had only seen references to it from analysts but enough that I trusted the sources. It turns out though that LGD had a SID presentation on their 3 stack WOLED architecture (Blue Yellow Blue).

$6 to have access for 48 hours.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdtp.10756/abstract

The highlights from my perspective.

- Power efficiency for white goes up by 8%. 85.0cd/A vs. 78.6 cd/A for the 2 stack. 

- Color shift by angle goes down. Δ(u'v') of .011 for 3 stack vs. .02 for 2 stack. I dont know the angle that this is measured at. A brief read indicates that a measurement of .004 is unnoticeable. 

- Estimated power consumption decrease of 20%. This is obviously content dependent.

- Unfortunately no numbers with respect to lifetime except to say that the "lifetime of the blue subpixel can be extended considerably". They obviously decided against announcing that at SID.

Doubling the amount of blue emitter material per set likely isnt cheap, but the benefits seem pretty broad and are likely enabling both a longer lifetime and the higher peak brightness that we are seeing with the 2016 sets.


----------



## TheronB

ynotgoal said:


> Drinking the QD “Kool-Aid”
> 
> It is noteworthy that Samsung recently opted out of OLED TV production until the cost reaches near LCD levels (don’t believe the garbage about QLEDs in 2019.)
> Kateeva is actually working with Samsung Display to test IJP w/soluble material.
> displaydaily.com
> 
> 
> Kateeva to Produce Flexible OLEDs with Inkjet Printing Equipment
> 
> Kateeva, which is an inkjet printing equipment manufacturer, made an announcement on the 31st that it will be commercializing RGB (Red Green Blue) inkjet equipment within this year. This is the first time when inkjet printing equipment is used for actual mass-production of flexible OLEDs.
> “We are going to supply our RGB inkjet printing equipment shortly to businesses that are planning to mass-produce large flexible OLEDs.” said Chairman Alain Harrus of Kateeva at an exclusive interview with Electronic Times.
> english.etnews.com


Filterless RGB OLED with BFI would be great as well if emmissive QLED isn't coming so fast. Both are better than LG's WOLED.


----------



## tgm1024

TheronB said:


> Filterless RGB OLED with BFI would be great as well if emmissive QLED isn't coming so fast.


Don't hold your breath for variable emission QD. You're right to be skeptical: Way too much smoke there.

As Samsung learned with their OLED implementation: Getting it to work in the lab is one thing. Getting it so that the yields are low enough that you can produce a TV in production numbers is quite another.




TheronB said:


> Both are better than LG's WOLED.


Regarding OLED options: At 2K, this is a bigger deal because using 3 subs (instead of 4) allows a better pixel fill. Basically, you have the option for less gap between pixels that are trying to display full saturation (no white). You also can also employ subpixel rendering.

At 4K though? Not really quite as much an issue.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> I had only seen references to it from analysts but enough that I trusted the sources. It turns out though that LGD had a SID presentation on their 3 stack WOLED architecture (Blue Yellow Blue).
> 
> $6 to have access for 48 hours.
> 
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdtp.10756/abstract


Thanks for your highlights.

In the older Kodak white papers, I remember seeing diagrams that referred to the Y simultaneously as the "RG" layer. But here in the abstract:


_This paper will explain recent progress of WOLED for OLED TV which has been made by introducing an additional blue unit to conventional 2- stack tandem WOLED consisting of blue and *yellow green (YG) devices.* The addition of the blue unit not only boosts blue subpixel efficiency, but also makes the correlated color temperature of WOLED increase, resulting in more energy-efficient OLED TV. How the detailed architecture in the 3-stack WOLED is determined will be described, in consideration of color shift dependent on a viewing angle._
​they make mention of comparing to a 2-stack blue-"YG" layer. Does this mean that for that (older) layer they were effectively using a yellow that pushes more toward green (say 575nm or so)?


----------



## Wizziwig

In case you missed it, if you click on pdf preview, you can see the first page of the paper for free.


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> [/INDENT][/INDENT]they make mention of comparing to a 2-stack blue-"YG" layer. Does this mean that for that (older) layer they were effectively using a yellow that pushes more toward green (say 575nm or so)?


The paper says the peaks for the triple stack are at 455nm and 560nm. The 560nm looks like it corresponds to the boundary between green and yellow.

Along those lines it sounds like they were aiming for a higher CCT and ended up with 8500K vs. 6300K for the previous 2 stack solution. According to the paper, the TV market wants a 9300K to 10,000K CCT. Is this because pure whites arent the norm? or does it have to do with the theory that higher CCT's appear brighter?


----------



## Stereodude

Japan uses a different white point, I think 9300K. Not sure about Korea.


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> The paper says the peaks for the triple stack are at 455nm and 560nm. The 560nm looks like it corresponds to the boundary between green and yellow.
> 
> Along those lines it sounds like they were aiming for a higher CCT and ended up with 8500K vs. 6300K for the previous 2 stack solution. According to the paper, the TV market wants a 9300K to 10,000K CCT. Is this because pure whites arent the norm? or does it have to do with the theory that higher CCT's appear brighter?


The latter would be my guess. Perhaps the curve of energy-to-color-temp ends up more efficient at the higher range: That is, maybe (counter intuitively) _their_ blue has a natural emission frequency that's higher that suits the particular OLED chemical makeup they're using and increases the longevity as a result? They can theoretically drive it less hard; perhaps they could reach the HDR promised land without tanking the blue too soon.

What's weird is that then I would have expected them to choose a redder yellow with a higher blue, not a greener one.

I can't get the freebee page to come up on firefox.


----------



## Wizziwig

tgm1024 said:


> I can't get the freebee page to come up on firefox.


Try this.


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> Try this.


Perfect. Thanks.


----------



## styx rogan

The 77G6 is finally listed on Amazon for 27,300 dollars... Whata steal!


----------



## Joce

styx rogan said:


> The 77G6 is finally listed on Amazon for 27,300 dollars... Whata steal!


----------



## video_analysis

Only 3rd parties carry it for now, and they've already dropped the price to under $25k.


----------



## Wizziwig

If the 77" is out, then why is Value Electronics using the 65" G6P in next week's shootout? Would make more sense to compare the flagship 77" against Sony's 75". I've never seen any reviews (owner or pro) of any 77" OLED so this would seem like the perfect opportunity. At that price, it would have to be near flawless.


----------



## Jason626

65" should be sufficient. Almost no one is going to buy the 77". It's barely a real product at this point.


----------



## Vader1

If I had that much money to waste I wouldn't even buy that. More than 3 times the cost of the perfectly good 65 inch G6 which I would gladly get if I could.


----------



## PRO-630HD

http://www.whathifi.com/news/lg-to-double-oled-tv-and-flexible-oled-production

This should drive OLED prices down.


----------



## JimP

PRO-630HD said:


> http://www.whathifi.com/news/lg-to-double-oled-tv-and-flexible-oled-production
> 
> This should drive OLED prices down.


What I didn't see was a time frame. Have you seen anything that would indicate when the additional production would be online?


----------



## slacker711

LGD will go from 34,000 Gen 8 substrates a month today to 60,000 in the first half of 2017. Each substrate can be used to create either 6 55" or 3 65" panels.

There will be a fab with bigger substrates coming on line in 2018. They have yet to announce the size or the capacity.


----------



## video_analysis

2018 then would presumably be the first year there is downward price trending on the 77" model.


----------



## slacker711

video_analysis said:


> 2018 then would presumably be the first year there is downward price trending on the 77" model.


Yes, I assume that a ~77" cut will go from 2 to 3 panels per substrates with the new fab. The 65" cut will see an even bigger efficiency increase, going from 3 panels to 6 panels per substrate.

Add in the yield improvements and it should be possible to manufacture a ~77" panel that isnt insanely priced in late 2018.


----------



## Stereodude

Or they could be making a lot of OLED displays for Apple.


----------



## slacker711

Stereodude said:


> Or they could be making a lot of OLED displays for Apple.


Samsung and LGD are both building Gen 6 capacity for Apple's mobile products. The Gen 8 and larger capacity is for televisions so unless you think that Apple is going to release a television in two years, this is going to be for LGE and the rest of LG Display's customers.


----------



## TheronB

There won't be WOLED on mobile devices, but they will perhaps be making flexible RGB OLED for mobile devices. Sharp/Hon Hai will be supplying Apple with OLED displays by 2019/20 as well, with TVs coming a great our two later.


----------



## tgm1024

TheronB said:


> There won't be WOLED on mobile devices.


Why? You mean with the current gen fabs, or ever? Density issues?


----------



## Wizziwig

WOLED doesn't make sense when battery efficiency is your primary concern. Too much light loss from the filters. The poor fill-factor doesn't help either in the resolution wars. LG has already released mobile OLED for their Flex line of phones. They were horrible displays compared to Samsung and did not use WOLED.

LG will be supplying mobile OLEDs to Huawei and Xiaomi as reported here.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

So you guys are telling me that the LG OLED panel used in the original Apple Watch were _not_ in fact WOLED?


----------



## slacker711

NintendoManiac64 said:


> So you guys are telling me that the LG OLED panel used in the original Apple Watch were _not_ in fact WOLED?


Nope. It is a RGB display from LG Display.


----------



## slacker711

This has probably been true for a little while but OLED's have hit a pretty significant milestone. The lowest priced 65" OLED (B6) is now the same price as Samsung flagship 65" FALD (65KS9800).

$4500

65KS9800 Sales rank #46872 

https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN65...=UTF8&qid=1467290020&sr=1-1&keywords=65ks9800

65B6P Sales rank #16179 

https://www.amazon.com/LG-Electroni...&ie=UTF8&qid=1467290142&sr=1-1&keywords=65b6p

I would love to know market share for high-end TV's in the US during Q2.


----------



## videobruce

video_analysis said:


> 2018 then would presumably be the first year there is downward price trending on the 77" model.


There will probably be another technology out by then.


----------



## DrBoogie

videobruce said:


> There will probably be another technology out by then.


Other technologies will be closing gap with OLED in terms of PQ and will be half the price, so 77 inch OLED may never become more then a boutique product


----------



## wco81

DrBoogie said:


> Other technologies will be closing gap with OLED in terms of PQ and will be half the price, so 77 inch OLED may never become more then a boutique product


What other technologies?

What time frame?


----------



## video_analysis

Sorry, the only one that has a chance is QLED, and that's because it's emissive like OLED. There *might* be one on the market by 2019. Might want to see if a prototype can even be delivered by CES 2017 before popping the champagne.

If anything, OLED just showed how wide the gap still is in 2016 (see the shootout results).


----------



## greenland

‘Samsung seeks to take on LG in larger OLED’

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20160706000854

"The display-making unit of Samsung Electronics, however, is said to be speeding up preparations to jump into the sector in earnest, testing a series of technologies to improve production capability.


“Kateeva will supply the prototypes of its inkjet printers to its global customers in Korea, China and Japan this year, and Samsung Display will be the one that receives the largest volume,” said Bae Kyung-min, vice president of Kateeva Korea, at the OLED Frontier Forum, an industry conference held in Seoul on July 5.


The vice president forecast that its inkjet printers can be deployed at the OLED production lines of global display makers, including Samsung Display, in two years.

Some market experts expected Samsung Display to throw its hat in the large-size OLED display market as early as early 2017.

“The printing system will improve production efficiency by two times compared to the current OLED panel production technology,” the Kateeva executive said.


----------



## ynotgoal

video_analysis said:


> Sorry, the only one that has a chance is QLED, and that's because it's emissive like OLED. There *might* be one on the market by 2019. Might want to see if a prototype can even be delivered by CES 2017 before popping the champagne.


Samsung research presented on QLED technology a couple weeks ago (video courtesy of Slacker). If you listen all the way to the Q&A he says the best blue QLED materials are 2% efficient and 20% is required. When asked when it could be ready for commercialization he says "I don't know". So good luck with that QLED TV anytime soon.

http://event.onoffjoin.com/sec/20160620/vod_sec.php?ss=2


----------



## wco81

Wasn't Kateeva two years away several years ago?

This thread is over 10 years old -- first post is May 2006.


----------



## 8mile13

I believe it was 2017 they said.


----------



## video_analysis

greenland said:


> The vice president forecast that its inkjet printers can be deployed at the OLED production lines of global display makers, including Samsung Display, in two years.
> 
> Some market experts expected Samsung Display to throw its hat in the large-size OLED display market as early as early 2017.


So I guess they're running about a year behind schedule, though the date forecast seems a bit incongruous (if the printers won't be deployed for another 2 years, how can Samsung deliver a panel in 2017?).


----------



## DrBoogie

wco81 said:


> What other technologies?


I had some LG OLEDs before and now a proud owner of 65 inch E6. While OLED PQ will be unbeatable for at least several years, all I am saying is that mass market can't bear 25k TV. Even 10K TV is too expensive for most enthusiasts. Average Joe will go for 75 inch LED Vizio/Samsung/Sony for 3-5K and call it almost as good using then current marketing pitch about FALD, quantum dots, etc.


----------



## slacker711

DrBoogie said:


> I had some LG OLEDs before and now a proud owner of 65 inch E6. While OLED PQ will be unbeatable for at least several years, all I am saying is that mass market can't bear 25k TV. Even 10K TV is too expensive for most enthusiasts. Average Joe will go for 75 inch LED Vizio/Samsung/Sony for 3-5K and call it almost as good using then current marketing pitch about FALD, quantum dots, etc.


From a unit standpoint, the 77" market is irrelevant. The size of the OLED television market will be determined by LGD's ability to bring down prices on the 55" and 65" panels. There just arent that many people buying 75"+ screens and that is regardless of price.


----------



## Rich Peterson

video_analysis said:


> So I guess they're running about a year behind schedule, though the date forecast seems a bit incongruous (if the printers won't be deployed for another 2 years, how can Samsung deliver a panel in 2017?).


Yes, that's my question also. The report seems to be inconsistent. The printers go in in 2018 but Samsung has OLED TVs available in 2017?


----------



## rogo

I love Kateeva (great people, great tech) but unless someone solved lifespan on soluble blue OLED -- and I've not seen any product announcement indicating this -- there is no mass produced OLED TV using inkjet printing. 

And if it's a "franken-hybrid" that's partly printed and partly vapor deposited (yes, people have discussed this), there is scant evidence it will be meaningfully more efficient or cheaper than what LG can already do. Never mind what LG can do in 2018.

So really, it's hard to get excited about this kind of news unless it includes, "And Universal Display/insert real company has announced that their new soluble blue OLED material has a lifespan >10x any previous soluble blue."


----------



## wco81

Is Kateeva a startup?

Maybe their days are numbered unless their process can produce cheap OLED TVs fairly soon. Seems like they've been around long enough for an IPO, if they had revenues.

Or is someone using their printing process to produce OLEDs for mobile devices yet?


----------



## dnoonie

wco81 said:


> Is Kateeva a startup?


Founded in 2008, http://kateeva.com/company/overview/.

Other info,
http://www.oled-info.com/tags/kateeva
http://www.printedelectronicsworld....in-series-e-financing-for-oled-leader-kateeva
older info
http://news.mit.edu/2015/mass-produced-inkjet-printed-oled-displays-0212
http://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-...eo/samsung-bets-on-oled-printer-maker-kateeva

Cheers,


----------



## Larry Hutchinson

http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i28/rise-OLED-displays.html

a few quotes:


> When it comes to blue, says a spokesperson for the Japanese OLED materials supplier Idemitsu, display manufacturers can only convert about 40% of the electricity used into visible color. For red and green, the efficiency is already at 100%, she adds.


Really? I might believe internal quantum efficiency but that quote seems to imply wall-plug efficiency.



> The cost of making OLED displays is another issue. The core compounds at the heart of OLED displays are often made with expensive substances such as iridium, a rare metal that sells for nearly $19 per gram.


then later:


> The high cost of display materials and the waste that occurs during mask cleaning will not hamper the growth of the OLED display market, DuFour adds. “One gram of an expensive metal may be used to make 3,000 displays,” she says. Meanwhile, PPG, Universal Display’s manufacturing partner, is developing techniques to reduce the materials loss, she says.


Not sure what size display they are talking about. Phone or TV?


----------



## Matthias Hutter

Larry Hutchinson said:


> http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i28/rise-OLED-displays.html
> Really? I might believe internal quantum efficiency but that quote seems to imply wall-plug efficiency.?


Yeah it's about internal quantum efficiency. The reason is that they are no market ready blue PHOLED _yet_.


----------



## slacker711

A bit OT.

An in-depth comparison between a ThinkPad X1 Yoga with an IPS LCD display and an OLED.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Display-Comparison-OLED-vs-IPS-on-Notebooks.168753.0.html

The difference in picture quality between the current generation of LCD's in high-end laptops and OLED's seems much larger than in the smartphone and television markets. The question will be how quickly the OLED's can improve their power consumption when displaying white and whether they will be resistant to burn-in.


----------



## Wizziwig

I played around with the Alienware version last month at E3. I could not detect any ABL effect at all. Even moving a full screen white window on and off the screen, it appeared to stay at constant brightness. Much better than the OLED TVs I've tested. But the numbers in that review suggest brightness should have dropped by 30%. The display I saw was rather dim though - maybe ABL doesn't kick in at low max brightness settings? Had similar motion blur to the LCD version next to it due to typical sample-and-hold refresh. Black crush was very noticeable compared to the LCD but maybe that can be calibrated out. I took some pics of viewing angles - I'll see if I can post those later. My main concern was outdoor usage but that review suggests it's not a problem. I saw no evidence of IR or BI.

Edit: Attached a couple pics. You can see that the gray sky turns a little green at extreme angles similar to the LG OLED. I also forgot to mention that I did open mspaint full-screen and filled the canvas with various shades of gray (5% and up). I did not notice any banding or vignetting but the environment was poor for critical viewing.


----------



## Wizziwig

Updated post above with some pics and additional comments.


----------



## slacker711

Some shipment numbers for the 65" and 75" markets. Both are growing fast, but the 65" market is 10x the size of the 75" market.


http://blog.ihs.com/60-inch+-tv-panels-expected-to-exceed-5-in-2017



> In 2016, LCD TV display panel makers are aggressively supplying 60-inch and larger LCD TV panels to fill capacity of the less profitable 55-inch and below panels. Panel makers shipped 5.2 million 65-inch panels in 2015, a significant increase of 44% year-over-year. With a stable supply from six panel makers, shipments of 65-inch panels are estimated to reach a historic high of 6.58 million this year—an increase of 30% year-over-year. Another potentially successful LCD TV size could be 75 inches, and there are three suppliers that produce panels of this size. Panel makers shipped 490,000 75-inch panels in 2015, for a sharp increase of 90% year-over-year. And 75-inch panel shipments are expected to grow around 20% year-over-year each year through 2020. Sixty-five-inch and seventy-five-inch panels will play an increasingly important role in the LCD TV segment.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*LG Display doubles 65-inch OLED panel production in Q2*

Source: Korea Herald

LG Display, the display-making unit of LG Group, has almost doubled production of its 65-inch organic light-emitting diode panels in the second quarter as more TV manufacturers are adopting the larger OLED display. 

According to UBI Research, a local research firm specialized in OLED, the company shipped about 140,000 65-inch OLED panels in the March-June period, compared to some 28,000 units shipped in the first quarter. 

The increased shipments of LG, the No. 1 player in the larger OLED market, indicates that the OLED TV market has started gaining momentum in sales and TV firms are also increasingly adopting larger panels. 

More recently, German TV makers, including Loewe and Metz, have joined to adopt OLED displays. LG Display is also expected to supply 30,000 panels to China’s Skyworth this year. 

“Consumers have been reluctant to purchase smaller OLED TVs due to the huge price gap with their LCD alternatives,” said UBI. 

“But the price gap is reduced when it comes to larger premium models. That’s why LG Display is focusing resources into 60-inch plus panels.”

By Lee Ji-yoon ([email protected])


----------



## rogo

MikeBiker said:


> I have a feeling that the salesperson gets a larger commission for selling a Samsung than an LG.





slacker711 said:


> Some shipment numbers for the 65" and 75" markets. Both are growing fast, but the 65" market is 10x the size of the 75" market.
> 
> 
> http://blog.ihs.com/60-inch+-tv-panels-expected-to-exceed-5-in-2017


Not at all shocking. It was more than 20x just a couple of years ago (although 70-inch should not be ignored).

That the big sizes continue to grow is sort of one of those interesting/good signs. The 65-inch market is likely strengthening at the expense of the 60-inch market. The 75-inch market at the expense of the 65s, ironically enough. 

With TV sales flat, this indicates a continued (albeit slow) shift to larger sizes. Still, we're a long ways away from even 1% of TVs being 75 inches. 

65 and up, however is now >3% of the market.


----------



## TheKnobber

Egg, meet Chicken.

Saying this is regardless of price is an assumption, not a fact. If the 77" was $3000 my assumption would be that they would sell a lot more than they do now. Sure not everyone has space for a 77", but usually if you can fit a 65, the 77" isn't that far off.



slacker711 said:


> From a unit standpoint, the 77" market is irrelevant. The size of the OLED television market will be determined by LGD's ability to bring down prices on the 55" and 65" panels. There just arent that many people buying 75"+ screens and that is regardless of price.


----------



## irkuck

Sony BMD FALD LED |Z9D LCD is beating OLED


----------



## Mike Willard

irkuck said:


> Sony BMD FALD LED |Z9D LCD is beating OLED


Backlight master drive seems like the real deal. I suspect my next TV after the OLED will be one of these TVs once the prices come down. This line came as a shock to me...

"They all support HDR10 but not Dolby Vision."


----------



## video_analysis

Beware press releases and manufacturer demos...

As for the lack of DV, Sony doesn't want Dolby mucking up their secret sauce X1 video processor.


----------



## tgm1024

video_analysis said:


> Beware press releases and manufacturer demos...
> 
> As for the lack of DV, Sony doesn't want Dolby mucking up their secret sauce X1 video processor.


This is worrying me about a potential blu-ray vs. HD DVD war that left a lot of people with useless machines. Or beta vs. vhs, that kind of thing.


----------



## wco81

tgm1024 said:


> This is worrying me about a potential blu-ray vs. HD DVD war that left a lot of people with useless machines. Or beta vs. vhs, that kind of thing.


Are there any indications that HDR content will be encoded with HDR10 or Dolby Vision but not both?


----------



## video_analysis

Yes, since there's still no UHD Blu-ray player available that has DV support, nor do I know if one is coming.


----------



## slacker711

An interesting development, IHS says that the yielded cost of a 7" IGZO LCD is now below that of a 7" a-si LCD. I know Rogo has mentioned IGZO being theoretically cheaper than a-si and it looks like it is happening in LCD's.

http://blog.ihs.com/oxide-is-the-most-cost-effective-tft-lcd-display-technology-for-tablet-pcs

LGD is using IGZO backplanes for their televisions and eventually matching the cost of a-si LCD backplanes would be a huge milestone.


----------



## video_analysis

Great. Cheaper to produce is better for all of us. Those backplanes are looking better every year.


----------



## irkuck

Judging from the ZD9 pic we are entering the era of boosted-reality, cranked-up-reality, make-up-reality, beautified-reality, plastic-surgery-reality, Trump-reality, tv-reality-better-than-reality - depending on the settings and manufacturer


----------



## JimP

irkuck said:


> Judging from the ZD9 pic we are entering the era of boosted-reality, cranked-up-reality, make-up-reality, beautified-reality, plastic-surgery-reality, Trump-reality, tv-reality-better-than-reality -  depending on the settings and manufacturer


You mean like store demos? lol

Glad these forums exist to gleam some decent information about what a display can and can't do.


----------



## slacker711

It will be interesting to see how a set that is more expensive than an OLED sells (Z9D). The 65KS9800 is the same price as the B6 and according to the Amazon sales rank, sales are terrible. Will Samsung even offer a FALD set next year?


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judging from the ZD9 pic we are entering the era of boosted-reality, cranked-up-reality, make-up-reality, beautified-reality, plastic-surgery-reality, Trump-reality, tv-reality-better-than-reality - depending on the settings and manufacturer


I was right with you until the political flame-bait. Oye. Juggling lit matches in a room knee deep in gasoline?

BTW, I have to wonder: How many non-technical folks actually buy TVs based on their photoshopped crazy uber saturated Amazon photo?


----------



## Stereodude

slacker711 said:


> An interesting development, IHS says that the yielded cost of a 7" IGZO LCD is now below that of a 7" a-si LCD. I know Rogo has mentioned IGZO being theoretically cheaper than a-si and it looks like it is happening in LCD's.


I'd like to see their assumptions. IGZO / Oxide TFT is a more expensive process than a-Si, but cheaper than LTPS. AFAIK, Sharp is the only LCD company that has brought IGZO/Oxide TFT to mass production in high volumes. So, what exactly are they saying? Sharp's IGZO TFTs are cheaper than their a-Si in a given size? Are they including the backlight to arrive at a module cost, or glass with IC + FPC + polarizers?


----------



## Stereodude

tgm1024 said:


> BTW, I have to wonder: How many non-technical folks actually buy TVs based on their photoshopped crazy uber saturated Amazon photo?


 The photo can only be as saturated as the monitor you're viewing it on.


----------



## slacker711

Stereodude said:


> I'd like to see their assumptions. IGZO / Oxide TFT is a more expensive process than a-Si, but cheaper than LTPS. AFAIK, Sharp is the only LCD company that has brought IGZO/Oxide TFT to mass production in high volumes. So, what exactly are they saying? Sharp's IGZO TFTs are cheaper than their a-Si in a given size? Are they including the backlight to arrive at a module cost, or glass with IC + FPC + polarizers?


Here is another link from IHS.

https://technology.ihs.com/581925/o...t-lcd-substrate-option-for-tablet-pc-displays



> The performance benefits of oxide substrate LCD over a-Si LCD displays is well known, especially in the areas of brightness and power consumption; but this is the first time that its cost benefit has been shown to match its performance. *The primacy of the oxide substrate can be primarily attributed to the minimized number of masks required in the manufacturing process and an increase in eighth-generation (Gen-8) fabrication plant (fab) availability.*


I think that Samsung and LG Display were preparing to supply IGZO displays to Apple but I dont know the status of their ramp.


----------



## tgm1024

Stereodude said:


> The photo can only be as saturated as the monitor you're viewing it on.


LOL, no. While I know what you mean by that, your statement is misplaced. Any picture can have its saturation boosted past sensibility. Certainly you've seen it before. Here's a pretty good example. I don't care what monitor you're looking at it on, so long as it's working, this photo isn't going to appear right:


----------



## slacker711

There isnt yet an English language article, but the Korean press has a couple of articles saying that LGD has raised their target for OLED unit shipments in 2017 from 1.5 million to 1.7 million.


----------



## wxman

tgm1024 said:


> LOL, no. While I know what you mean by that, your statement is misplaced. Any picture can have its saturation boosted past sensibility. Certainly you've seen it before. Here's a pretty good example. I don't care what monitor you're looking at it on, so long as it's working, this photo isn't going to appear right:


But it looks so pretty, so "Vivid" mode.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> There isnt yet an English language article, but the Korean press has a couple of articles saying that LGD has raised their target for OLED unit shipments in 2017 from 1.5 million to 1.7 million.


Hooray for yield?

Still feels like everything is about 2018-19 though. New fab, much more volume potential, a chance to push into somewhat lower price bands.

What's the 2016 shipment number going to be?


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> Hooray for yield?
> 
> Still feels like everything is about 2018-19 though. New fab, much more volume potential, a chance to push into somewhat lower price bands.
> 
> What's the 2016 shipment number going to be?


LGD didnt give any shipment or yield numbers during their Q2 call simply saying that yields, productivity (throughput?), and shipments were up. The 2016 target is still a million units as far as I know but they didnt explictly state it during the call.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/399...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

One interesting comment was that 65" share was up 10% QoQ. 

The increase in the 2017 target is probably some combination of increased yields plus a faster ramp of the new capacity coming online with possibly some negative impact from an increase in 65" shipments. They are going to need the new fab to really push up the efficiency of manufacturing 65" units. Still no word though on the substrate size or capacity of the new fab.


----------



## joys_R_us

They must still have big yield problems if the numbers here are true:

http://m.pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?sc=30800021&year=2016&no=562058

34,000 sheets per month
Lets say 20,000 for 55 inch and 14,000 for 65ers.

This gives a capacity of approx. 160,000 (55/65 mix) tv panels per month. So they should be able to produce those 1.7 million p.a. already now. But last quarter (!) they just managed to produce about 210,000 (?) OLED TV panels... According to this source they only sold 144,000 panels in second quarter !??:

http://www.osadirect.com/news/artic...nt-of-large-area-oled-panels-to-140000-units/


The numbers just do not fit...


----------



## joys_R_us

*LG maybe to change to RGB structure in white OLED*

"Reports from China suggest that LG Display is considering changing the basic structure of its white OLED panels (WOLED) used in LGD's OLED TVs. LGD is currently using yellow and blue OLED materials to create a white OLED, but now LGD may switch to an RGB based mix.

It's not clear from the Chinese reports (which are unverified yet, of course) - but it's likely that LGD will not switch to a direct-emission RGB structure, but rather use the RGB materials to create a white OLED and remain with a color-filter based design. Switching from Y/W to R/G/B may enable LGD to achieve higher color purity - and so a larger color gamut, and may also be more efficient."

Source: www.oled-info.com


----------



## rogo

Not surprising. All the original designs were based on this principle.


----------



## joys_R_us

But I am still wondering. They had good reasons to switch to blue-yellow-blue and now they steer back !?? Are they compromising longevity for a better color gamut ?


----------



## JimP

joys_R_us said:


> But I am still wondering. They had good reasons to switch to blue-yellow-blue and now they steer back !?? Are they compromising longevity for a better color gamut ?


Seems that a while back there was some news about improvements in blue. It may be that they can improve efficiency by not doubling up with blue since its no longer needed.


----------



## irkuck

Anybody dare to speculate when 100"+ OLEDs may appear?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

irkuck said:


> Anybody dare to speculate when 100"+ OLEDs may appear?


Or how about the opposite direction - anybody dare to speculate when 20-30" OLEDs may appear?

And that 120Hz Dell OLED monitor doesn't count as 1. it's still not available and 2. it's the same MSRP as the 65" E6 and 3. it uses a Samsung panel; I'm only interested in LG


----------



## irkuck

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Or how about the opposite direction - anybody dare to speculate when 20-30" OLEDs may appear?
> And that 120Hz Dell OLED monitor doesn't count as 1. it's still not available and 2. it's the same MSRP as the 65" E6 and 3. it uses a Samsung panel; I'm only interested in LG


I would not count on 20-30" OLEDs, there is too much competition in this segment and not so much need for OLED. Same in small displays for mobiles, OLED is there but in a niche and it does not look it will be spreading. 

The 100"+ segment is rather empty and OLED could grab it.


----------



## Stereodude

NintendoManiac64 said:


> 3. it uses a Samsung panel; I'm only interested in LG


That would be a selling point, not a complaint IMO.


----------



## slacker711

irkuck said:


> I would not count on 20-30" OLEDs, there is too much competition in this segment and not so much need for OLED. Same in small displays for mobiles, OLED is there but in a niche and it does not look it will be spreading.
> 
> The 100"+ segment is rather empty and OLED could grab it.


OLED growth in mobiles has increased dramatically over the last year or so. It is becoming the dominant display for mid and high-end smartphones, particularly among Chinese brands. Once Apple starts using OLED's in 2017, high-end smartphones with LCD's will be a niche market.


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> The 100"+ segment is rather empty and OLED could grab it.


If there were such a segment. There isn't.

The only way this changes if if/when someone comes out with a $10,000, 100-inch display. 

Again, for the uninitiated, it's easy to imagine a 100-inch display costing no more than 4, 50-inch displays. That would keep the price below $3000. So when you say, "$10,000 is impossible" please remember this. 

It's not, even accounting for yield and logistics issues, $5,000 is very, very doable. $10,000 is a layup.

By not even attempting to produce such a product (even a $40,000 version), manufacturers are saying, "We don't believe anyone will buy this no matter what it costs." That the entire market for 80+ inch displays is, annually, below 0.1% of panel/TV sales may have something to do with this.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

irkuck said:


> I would not count on 20-30" OLEDs, there is too much competition in this segment and not so much need for OLED.


Maybe if you're looking at the budget TV market, but I was really referring to the higher-end monitor market which could totally use some improvement in static visual quality (we've already got 144Hz, but they're still largely TN!).



Stereodude said:


> That would be a selling point, not a complaint IMO.


Again, I'm referring to monitors and not TVs, so I _definitely_ want the tech that's more resistant to burn-in (which in this case would be LG's WOLED).

Besides, LG's WOLED is clearly less expensive as evidenced by Dell's crazy-expensive OLED monitor which is also very important to me - if I wanted a PC monitor that cost as much as a top-of-the-line TV then I would already own said TV (which I do not).


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> If there were such a segment. There isn't.
> 
> The only way this changes if if/when someone comes out with a $10,000, 100-inch display.
> 
> Again, for the uninitiated, it's easy to imagine a 100-inch display costing no more than 4, 50-inch displays. That would keep the price below $3000. So when you say, "$10,000 is impossible" please remember this.
> 
> It's not, even accounting for yield and logistics issues, $5,000 is very, very doable. $10,000 is a layup.
> 
> By not even attempting to produce such a product (even a $40,000 version), manufacturers are saying, "We don't believe anyone will buy this no matter what it costs." That the entire market for 80+ inch displays is, annually, below 0.1% of panel/TV sales may have something to do with this.


A 100 inch display? The first thing that pops into my mind is "What a pain in the ass that would be."

Perhaps that will change soon, but it's still in the unwieldy/ugly/gauche category for me.


----------



## thebishman

tgm1024 said:


> A 100 inch display? The first thing that pops into my mind is "What a pain in the ass that would be."
> 
> Perhaps that will change soon, but it's still in the unwieldy/ugly/gauche category for me.


I would love, and could easily use a 100" OLED display. Just need it to be priced at 10K or thereabouts.

Would no doubt seriously hurt projector sales.

Bish


----------



## irkuck

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Maybe if you're looking at the budget TV market, but I was really referring to the higher-end monitor market which could totally use some improvement in static visual quality (we've already got 144Hz, but they're still largely TN!). Again, I'm referring to monitors and not TVs, so I _definitely_ want the tech that's more resistant to burn-in (which in this case would be LG's WOLED).
> Besides, LG's WOLED is clearly less expensive as evidenced by Dell's crazy-expensive OLED monitor which is also very important to me - if I wanted a PC monitor that cost as much as a top-of-the-line TV then I would already own said TV (which I do not).


I also had monitors in mind. What you would like belongs to a very small niche and that means high costs. Beyond this niche, OLED can not compete with LCD since nobody gives a damn about the 'some improvement in visual quality'



tgm1024 said:


> A 100 inch display? The first thing that pops into my mind is "What a pain in the ass that would be."
> Perhaps that will change soon, but it's still in the unwieldy/ugly/gauche category for me.


What is the biggest size your butthole currently welcomes with pleasure?:laugh:


----------



## NintendoManiac64

irkuck said:


> I also had monitors in mind. What you would like belongs to a very small niche and that means high costs. Beyond this niche, OLED can not compete with LCD since nobody gives a damn about the 'some improvement in visual quality'


If gamers and professional graphic artists combined are considered a "very small niche", then I don't want to know what you consider the greater-than-$2000 TV market to be.

And that's without factoring people that simply appreciate a bump in visual quality (read: the people that buy IPS because "it's supposedly better").


----------



## Wizziwig

tgm1024 said:


> A 100 inch display? The first thing that pops into my mind is "What a pain in the ass that would be."
> 
> Perhaps that will change soon, but it's still in the unwieldy/ugly/gauche category for me.


Nothing wrong with 100"+ sizes. I guess you've never owned a projector? 100" is considered a "small" screen in those circles. These would go in dedicated HT rooms, not the living room.

If someone offered a 100-120" OLED at reasonable price, they would probably destroy the high-end ($20K+) front projector market with the exception of really huge setups. Granted FP HT market is tiny compared to TVs but at least the majority of that market does want these large screens.


----------



## rogo

NintendoManiac64 said:


> If gamers and professional graphic artists combined are considered a "very small niche", then I don't want to know what you consider the greater-than-$2000 TV market to be.


Without data, I'd actually guess the gamers/graphic artists market is very similar in size to the $2000 TV market. My brain first said, "The TV one is bigger" so that's probably true, but it's not dramatically true.

What kind of monitor expense would you think these folks would pay for a fantastic "small screen" OLED?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

rogo said:


> What kind of monitor expense would you think these folks would pay for a fantastic "small screen" OLED?


$500-$1000 without a doubt, maybe even $1500 which puts you within range of LG's OLED TVs.

Obviously the less expensive the better though.


----------



## slacker711

irkuck said:


> I also had monitors in mind. What you would like belongs to a very small niche and that means high costs. Beyond this niche, OLED can not compete with LCD since nobody gives a damn about the 'some improvement in visual quality'


Everybody wants better screen quality (accurate is another story). The question is how much they will pay. The premiums for a better display are much smaller in smartphones and laptops than in televisions. That is partially due to yields at smaller sizes but mostly because the panel makes up a smaller part of the overall price. 

Consumers have shown a willingness to pay a small premium for high quality displays even on sub-$200 smartphones. That is why you are seeing mass adoption of OLED's by Chinese vendors. The only issue is that Samsung doesnt have enough capacity to supply all of the current demand. There will be very few LCD's in >$300 handsets in a few years. 

I think the same scenario will be true for laptops. The current $200 premium works on the $1500 models on which OLED's are offered but the premium will have to come down when attempting to sell into the sub-$1000 and ultimately the sub-$500 markets. No reason that cant happen considering Samsung has been offering 10" tablets with OLED's for a reasonable price for a few years.


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> Nothing wrong with 100"+ sizes. I guess you've never owned a projector? 100" is considered a "small" screen in those circles. These would go in dedicated HT rooms, not the living room.


A projector is small. A non-permanent screen usually is too once rolled up. A 100" TV is a freaking moose of electronics.

The vast majority of folks don't have dedicated HT rooms.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> Without data, I'd actually guess the gamers/graphic artists market is very similar in size to the $2000 TV market. My brain first said, "The TV one is bigger" so that's probably true, but it's not dramatically true.
> 
> What kind of monitor expense would you think these folks would pay for a fantastic "small screen" OLED?


For displays, gamers and graphic artists have dramatically different requirements though. They both like big and high res, but a gamer's number one issue is motion. His second and third concerns are then motion and motion, respectively.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

tgm1024 said:


> For displays, gamers and graphic artists have dramatically different requirements though. They both like big and high res, but a gamer's number one issue is motion. His second and third concerns are then motion and motion, respectively.


But the thing is any half-decent OLED monitor would theoretically be more than adaquate at _both_ of these things because OLED tech itself is inherently good at things things. In other words, it may very well take more work to make an OLED display that is good at only one of these things rather than both.

To clarify, it must be noted that "good motion" in the realm of PC means "high refresh rates and fast pixel response time with minimal blur" which differs from TVs where "good motion" means "high motion resolution with low-framerate content without making it look like a soap opera nor a juddery mess".


----------



## tgm1024

NintendoManiac64 said:


> But the thing is any half-decent OLED monitor would theoretically be more than adaquate at _both_ of these things because OLED tech itself is inherently good at things things. In other words, it may very well take more work to make an OLED display that is good at only one of these things rather than both.
> 
> To clarify, it must be noted that "good motion" in the realm of PC means "high refresh rates and fast pixel response time with minimal blur" which differs from TVs where "good motion" means "high motion resolution with low-framerate content without making it look like a soap opera nor a juddery mess".


Good motion in _both_ realms means low persistence. The pixel response is _part_ of that equation, but the bottom line is to minimize 1. The discomfort the eye feels from step-hold-step-hold-step-hold motion (which is accomplished by lowering persistence), and 2. The smear against the retina during eye tracking.

You gain a less jumpy more accurate travel with higher refresh rates, and yes, inherently along with higher refresh rates comes lower persistence, but the eye strain/discomfort/motion-blur/whatever-term has persistence as the bottom line.


----------



## irkuck

slacker711 said:


> Everybody wants better screen quality (accurate is another story). The question is how much they will pay. The premiums for a better display are much smaller in smartphones and laptops than in televisions. That is partially due to yields at smaller sizes but mostly because the panel makes up a smaller part of the overall price. Consumers have shown a willingness to pay a small premium for high quality displays even on sub-$200 smartphones. That is why you are seeing mass adoption of OLED's by Chinese vendors. The only issue is that Samsung doesnt have enough capacity to supply all of the current demand. There will be very few LCD's in >$300 handsets in a few years.
> I think the same scenario will be true for laptops. The current $200 premium works on the $1500 models on which OLED's are offered but the premium will have to come down when attempting to sell into the sub-$1000 and ultimately the sub-$500 markets. No reason that cant happen considering Samsung has been offering 10" tablets with OLED's for a reasonable price for a few years.


I agree, people are willing to pay small premium. The problem is OLED is not at the point of small premium, maybe it will reach there but with LCD prices always adjusting down it won't be easy. Chinese vendors are expanding the use of OLEDs but this is under their price logic in which they somehow manage to reduce the cost to unbelievable levels.


----------



## Stereodude

NintendoManiac64 said:


> And that's without factoring people that simply appreciate a bump in visual quality (read: the people that buy IPS because "it's supposedly better").


Well, as a general computer monitor IPS is better than TN or VA panels. If someone made VA computer monitors using all the same tech that's used in the very best VA TV panels that might not be the case, but they don't.

An OLED computer monitor seems like an interesting prospect, but I wonder about the true practicality of it outside of a few specialized applications.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

tgm1024 said:


> Good motion in _both_ realms means low persistence. The pixel response is _part_ of that equation, but the bottom line is to minimize 1. The discomfort the eye feels from step-hold-step-hold-step-hold motion (which is accomplished by lowering persistence), and 2. The smear against the retina during eye tracking.
> 
> You gain a less jumpy more accurate travel with higher refresh rates, and yes, inherently along with higher refresh rates comes lower persistence, but the eye strain/discomfort/motion-blur/whatever-term has persistence as the bottom line.


Well because we're talking about monitors, the absolute peak brightness would be nowhere near as important as would be on TVs, and this peak brightness is literally the only issue OLED has with any sort of black-frame insertion since pixel response is already best-in-class.




Stereodude said:


> An OLED computer monitor seems like an interesting prospect, but I wonder about the true practicality of it outside of a few specialized applications.


You make it sound like there are things that make LCD generally better for PC monitors, which I don't understand. Could you elaborate?


----------



## Stereodude

NintendoManiac64 said:


> You make it sound like there are things that make LCD generally better for PC monitors, which I don't understand. Could you elaborate?


With few exceptions the 1000:1 contrast ratio of a typical IPS type computer LCD monitor is sufficient. Things like e-mail, playing games, browsing the web, etc. Most people aren't computing in the dark. There's quite a bit of ambient light. So the really high contrast difference is not really apparent. Second, OLEDs do burn in. Differential aging is real. There are a lot of very static UI elements on the typical computer monitor.

So maybe in some photo editing, or video editing use cases an OLED monitor would have good tangible benefits, but in most computer use an OLED monitor offers no tangible benefit, but will cost more, and require more careful use. Hence my comment.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Stereodude said:


> With few exceptions the 1000:1 contrast ratio of a typical IPS type computer LCD monitor is sufficient. Things like e-mail, *playing games*, browsing the web, etc.


Uhh, games are one of the things that take _best_ advantage of high static contrast ratios, especially since games allow the player to move the camera into locations dark enough that no movie director would ever dare try to film them (easy example is an unlit cave in Minecraft, or arguably Nether fortresses even when lit up).

Not only that, but surely anyone buying a 144Hz monitor would be all over OLED's crazy-fast pixel response time, especially if it also had black-frame insertion.

Also more and more nowadays "browsing the web" involves photos and videos which also take good advantage of high static contrast.



Stereodude said:


> There's quite a bit of ambient light.


In my experience most people don't put computer monitors directly near a bright ambient light source for the exact same reason they don't for TVs - reflections. And since using a PC involves a lot of reading, minimizing reflections is even more critical.

Besides, even a home environment with lights on is _still_ darker than both a store environment and natural daylight.

Lastly, considering the abundance of largely white windows and webpages that you're viewing only a couple feet from your eyes, your typical monitor has brightness at levels that are more like _half_ of what you see used for TVs. In other words, torch mode doesn't really hold any appeal to even the average Joe when it's akin to staring at a large white light in close proximity.




Stereodude said:


> OLEDs do burn in.


At least on LG's WOLED, burn-in isn't really any more of an issue than it was on later generation post-y2k CRTs (reference: I still use them). Here's an example of a 20-hour burn-in torture test on the 9100 which several generations old now (especially since it used the same panel as the 9300):
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...2341817-reviewed-com-s-oled-burn-article.html



Stereodude said:


> Differential aging is real.


Not an issue on WOLED - it's one of the main reason LG is even using it.


----------



## Stereodude

I don't agree with you, but either way I won't be holding my breath for OLED computer monitors, WOLED or not.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Stereodude said:


> I don't agree with you, but either way I won't be holding my breath for OLED computer monitors, WOLED or not.


Well we'll be seeing OLED regardless since it'll be needed for HDR-capable displays since local-dimming led backlights is impractical (see: literally no local-dimming display exists in monitors, laptops, tablets, nor smartphones; also the fact that AMD used OLED to demonstrate HDR from their GPUs).

Besides, OLED-equipped laptops already exist (though they use Samsung OLED displays) and, as mentioned, Dell has already shown off a crazy-expensive OLED monitor (again, using a Samsung panel).

To me there's no debate on whether or not OLED will come to PCs, I just wanted to know when an LG WOLED would. Seeing how they're demonstrating native 120fps on a future UHDTV, it's not that out of the question that they would make a high-end monitor...


----------



## Wizziwig

You have to realize that most computer monitors are sold for work/office/industrial use - not gaming or watching movies. With any sort of typical office lighting (the kind needed so people don't trip over each other and sue), there is virtually zero advantage to an OLED monitor. No matter the display technology, you're lucky to squeeze out even 200:1 contrast out of the display. Response time also doesn't matter for most office application. Most office tasks require displaying documents with large areas of white/bright colors. LCD is more power efficient for that kind of usage and thus cheaper to run.

The point is that OLED for gamers sitting in the dark is a niche market in the world of computer monitors. That niche is too small for an OLED panel manufacturer to bother with. The office market is large enough but they can't offer any clear advantages and would need to compete with cheap $100 23" IPS monitors.

Without raw panels available, the monitor guys who target gamers (Asus, Viewsonic, etc.) can't build the monitor you're looking for. The Dell OLED will likely never ship, like most vaporware shown at trade shows. In any case, it was a display for vertical markets where cost is not a factor, similar to the Sony broadcast OLEDs.

If tablet OLED displays keep getting bigger, maybe someday those will be large enough to build cheap computer monitors out of. Currently they seem to be stuck


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Wizziwig said:


> The point is that OLED for gamers sitting in the dark is a niche market in the world of computer monitors. That niche is too small for an OLED panel manufacturer to bother with. The office market is large enough but they can't offer any clear advantages and would need to compete with cheap $100 23" IPS monitors.


And I cannot help but feel that you greatly underestimate the higher-end market of PC gaming - I mean, those 144Hz monitors and $400+ consumer GPUs (read: not Quadro/Tesla or FirePro/RadeonPro) aren't selling themselves you know.

Just an FYI, you probably don't want to be saying such things on certain parts of the internet for the safety of your well being - /r/Hardware and /r/PcMasterRace particularly come to mind as well as dedicated forums like Overclockers.co.uk and Overclock.net.


And again, don't forget about digital artists or other media content creators - not all of them can spend several thousands of dollars on a Sony PVM OLED pro monitor. Then there's HDR which is pretty much impossible on currently-available monitors anyway, and there's no way HDR will stay limited to TVs when not only the majority of content creation happens on PCs but DiplayPort 1.4 and both Geforce 1000 and Radeon 400 GPUs include support for HDR metadata.


----------



## Wizziwig

NintendoManiac64 said:


> And I cannot help but feel that you greatly underestimate the higher-end market of PC gaming - I mean, those 144Hz monitors and $400+ consumer GPUs (read: not Quadro/Tesla or FirePro/RadeonPro) aren't selling themselves you know.


I'm not arguing against the size of the PC gamer market - I actually program video games for a living on both PC and consoles.

What I'm saying is that not enough of this market would buy a theoretical expensive OLED monitor to make panel manufacturing worthwhile. Especially given the cheap prices of LCD alternatives. Those 144Hz monitors you mention are based on the regular office style panels with some custom electronics to drive them at higher rates. No large panel manufacturer is making raw panels (as opposed to monitors) just for gamers. It's no different than what's happening with VR at the moment. Those guys are recycling phone OLED displays with some modifications. Nobody is making VR specific panels.

GPU market has no relevance. Nvidia does not have their own fab and rents manufacturing capacity from others serving larger markets. LG and Samsung are not going to rent their OLED panel plants so someone can build a gamer specific monitor using their fab. Both will have a hard enough time meeting demand for the mobile devices.

As I mentioned there is some slow OLED growth happening from the tablet/laptop side which might eventually reach sizes suitable for monitors. Once those raw panels are made for larger markets, someone may use them to build gamer monitors.

Don't get me wrong, I would probably buy an OLED monitor too. Until that day, you'll need to make due with 55" OLED TVs.

Incidentally, I know you said you prefer WOLED over Samsung's RGB solution. WOLED is much worse for displaying small text because of the poor fill factor and sub-pixel design. It's a common complaint among those using LG OLEDs as non-gaming computer monitors.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Wizziwig said:


> Those 144Hz monitors you mention are based on the regular office style panels with some custom electronics to drive them at higher rates. No large panel manufacturer is making raw panels (as opposed to monitors) just for gamers. It's no different than what's happening with VR at the moment. Those guys are recycling phone OLED displays with some modifications. Nobody is making VR specific panels.


My idea was actually to do something similar; that's why I keep mentioning professional artists and other content creators - these are people that _will_ pay extra for great image quality, especially if you factor in HDR.

The difference though is that, because OLED is already inherently good at color and pixel-response, even a low-binned panel could very well make a great gaming display and still be better than any LCD or CRT monitor in existence.





Wizziwig said:


> Incidentally, I know you said you prefer WOLED over Samsung's RGB solution. WOLED is much worse for displaying small text because of the poor fill factor and sub-pixel design. It's a common complaint among those using LG OLEDs as non-gaming computer monitors.


Wouldn't this be largely solved if LG simply alined the white subpixel horizontally above/below the red/green/blue subpixels? Ideally you could even sp ilthe white subpixel into 3 parts to correspond with each red/green/blue subpixel (though that would probably be more expensive to implement).

Example that I just rigged up in MS Paint:


----------



## dnoonie

Anyone know any more details...."LG’s flagship 77-inch OLED was unveiled for delivery next month (October)." $20,000MSRP.

Read more at http://www.soundandvision.com/content/lg’s-new-77”-flagship-oled-impresses#2AzggxIivdOhyhXU.99

Cheers,


----------



## tgm1024

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Well because we're talking about monitors, the absolute peak brightness would be nowhere near as important as would be on TVs, and this peak brightness is literally the only issue OLED has with any sort of black-frame insertion since pixel response is already best-in-class.


I wasn't talking about peak brightness at all, I was addressing the issue of motion. And does there exist any pulse style motion option (BFI is a misused term) for the OLEDs yet? Not that I can see. It's still sample-and-hold with persistence still being the limiting factor, not response (GtG). Did I miss a tech paper someplace?

_However_, if what you're doing is tying together peak brightness _with_ pulse style motion enhancement (lightboost-ish, Sony's motion flow impulse, etc.) then I totally agree because any pulse mechanism dramatically lowers light output.

Second "however":

1. I'm betting OLED will soon solve all of these problems.
2. I agree with those that the bottom line is what people perceive: And if they're perceiving wonderful motion, then that's that.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

tgm1024 said:


> And does there exist any pulse style motion option (BFI is a misused term) for the OLEDs yet? Not that I can see. It's still sample-and-hold with persistence still being the limiting factor, not response (GtG). Did I miss a tech paper someplace?


Yes, you did miss it. Now LG hasn't done it on their WOLED architecture, but it's been done on Samsung's RGB OLED in at least three cases now:

1. Samsung's only OLED TV
2. Oculus Rift
3. HTC Vive


----------



## nathanddrews

I love everything about this thread. 

Is Panasonic reusing LG panels for their new line of OLED TVs?

Has LG announced or shown anything about their 2017 lineup yet?


----------



## slacker711

nathanddrews said:


> I love everything about this thread.
> 
> Is Panasonic reusing LG panels for their new line of OLED TVs?
> 
> Has LG announced or shown anything about their 2017 lineup yet?


All of the OLED TV's on the market are using LG Display's panels.

LG hasnt said anything definitive about 2017 but they have hinted that they will be going with a new OLED stack that uses red, green, and blue layers to make white light rather than yellow/blue.


----------



## nathanddrews

slacker711 said:


> All of the OLED TV's on the market are using LG Display's panels.


I figured as much. Hopefully Panasonic will be more aggressive than LG about refresh rates, sample/hold timings, etc. I'd like to see SoC improvements to reduce input lag and make these displays more viable for uses beyond just video content.



slacker711 said:


> LG hasnt said anything definitive about 2017 but they have hinted that they will be going with a new OLED stack that uses red, green, and blue layers to make white light rather than yellow/blue.


Very interesting, I hope that approach pans out.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

nathanddrews said:


> Hopefully Panasonic will be more aggressive than LG about refresh rates


Actually LG looks to be getting on top of that as well:
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1473185035


----------



## nathanddrews

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Actually LG looks to be getting on top of that as well:
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1473185035


Great, thanks! I missed that even though I was trying to read all the IFA news.



> In the photos, you can see that the *input signal* is 2560x1440 at 100fps with 20Mb/s bitrate. LG demonstrated several resolutions up to 4K at 100fps with 25 Mb/s bitrate.


I think the article is incorrect. 20Mb/s indicates a video stream (probably off a thumb drive), not technically an input signal from a PC like we would think of, which would be several Gb/s. I'd love to see 4K120 and 1080p240 as possible native input resolutions... but I don't think HDMI 2.0 is up to the task. Unless LG is planning to offer DP1.4 input, I don't think we'll see a change in actual input. They could at least copy Sony and offer 4K60 and 1080p120 input as that would be a great improvement. I want to believe, but I've got to see proof before LG gets more of my money.


----------



## DarylR42

Stereodude said:


> Second, OLEDs do burn in. Differential aging is real. There are a lot of very static UI elements on the typical computer monitor.



I use a 2016 LG OLED as my computer monitor and I can assure you that burn-in isn't something I notice often. Sometimes I have to step out of the house and I stop at the door, turn around, look at the PC running on the OLED, and think, "should I turn it off?" And then I think, "whatever", and I leave the house. Any burn-in is like an allergy, it comes, the TV sneezes it out, and we move on together.

Also, I didn't read back through this thread, but I'm sure you have seen this:

https://pcmonitors.info/dell/dell-up3017q-4k-uhd-oled-monitor/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stereodude

slacker711 said:


> LG hasnt said anything definitive about 2017 but they have hinted that they will be going with a new OLED stack that uses red, green, and blue layers to make white light rather than yellow/blue.


That seems unlikely. That would make their OLEDs much more susceptible to burn in as each color will age differently due to the different chemical mix in each color. Their current system lets all the colors age uniformly (assuming they are all used equivalently). They might do that for OLED for portable devices where power matters more, but I don't see it likely for large TV size panels.


----------



## slacker711

Stereodude said:


> That seems unlikely. That would make their OLEDs much more susceptible to burn in as each color will age differently due to the different chemical mix in each color. Their current system lets all the colors age uniformly (assuming they are all used equivalently). They might do that for OLED for portable devices where power matters more, but I don't see it likely for large TV size panels.


It would still be a vertical stack like the current yellow/blue stack so differential aging within a pixel shouldnt be much of a concern.


----------



## Stereodude

slacker711 said:


> It would still be a vertical stack like the current yellow/blue stack so differential aging within a pixel shouldnt be much of a concern.


Uh... It would not be a stack. They wouldn't need the color filter because the OLEDs would not all be white.


----------



## slacker711

This is a simplified version of what LGD is doing right now.










This is what I think LGD may do next year. 










The OLED stack still produces white light which is then run through a color filter to produce red, green, and blue components. My assumption is that this provides a wider color gamut and that is driving the decision.


----------



## Wizziwig

Would a deeper stack have an adverse effect on viewing angles? They already have a pretty significant color shift towards blue/green as you move off axis.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

nathanddrews said:


> I'd love to see 4K120 and 1080p240 as possible native input resolutions... but I don't think HDMI 2.0 is up to the task


1080p240 uses the same bandwidth as 2160p60.

4:2:0 chroma takes half the bandwidth, so since HDMI 2.0 can do 2160p60 4:4:4 then it can definitely do 2160p120 4:2:0.

The bigger issue is that this is at 8bit and not 10bit which you'd need for HDR. However, theoretically HDMI 2.0 can do 2160p50 4:4:4 at 10bit and therefore could possibly also do 2160p100 4:2:0 at 10bit (if someone has a modern HDMI 2.0 GPU and a 4k 10bit TV, they could try testing this by making a custom resolution of 3840x2160 50Hz 4:4:4 10bit).


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> Would a deeper stack have an adverse effect on viewing angles? They already have a pretty significant color shift towards blue/green as you move off axis.


I would like to know too.

I tried to figure this out a couple (few?) years ago in the middle of the "is it dichromatic or trichromatic white" arguments. Unless @slacker711 and @xrox are armed with data, AFAICT there isn't enough information to figure out what possible theoretical off-angle hooey can go on even with the current design (other than simply walking up to one and moving around).

1. We didn't know if a taller stack has thinner layers.
2. We didn't know what many of the other dimensions are.
3. We didn't know what light might escape from one layer at an angle through the OLED material layer below it (closer to the facing plane). This depends on transient voltages present among other things, and someone who knows please chime in.


----------



## Wizziwig

That diagram also doesn't include the actual color filter sitting some distance above the stack. The whole thing looks like there's got to be some degree of parallax which would affect the path taken by emitted light from the bottom layers. Agreed that without scale and units, it's difficult to judge.


----------



## Vader1

Stereodude said:


> Uh... It would not be a stack. They wouldn't need the color filter because the OLEDs would not all be white.


yes it would be a stack... nobody is talking about RGB OLED. The idea is vertically stacked RGB OLED material that emits white light (WOLED) that shines through a color filter just like now. The idea isn't exactly new and I believe was invented by Kodac just like the Yellow and Blue WOLED's. It's all part of the patents LG bought from Kodac. In fact until recently I thought LG was using stacked RGB WOLED's that were color filtered. This technique improves brightness and would also give a much better color gamut, and the current sets are already quite good at that


----------



## NintendoManiac64

It would seem that the OLED panel on the X1 Yoga is actually using a non-standard sub-pixel arrangement:
https://www.reddit.com/r/thinkpad/comments/54112x/x1_yoga_oled_subpixel_array/ 

Therefore one of the supposed benefits of Samsung RGB OLED over LG's WOLED is not actually true.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

In more PC-related OLED news...



[URL]http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/english/news/industry/15768-against-samsung-qled-tv-lg-electronics-unveil-quantum-dot-tvs-next-year[/URL] said:


> For the utilization of OLED in the medical care sector, Kwon said, “The monitor division at LG Electronics is planning to start expanding the medical monitor business, including ultra high definition medical monitors, from the end of this year."


They're obviously starting at the high-end with those medical monitors, but that still confirms the manufacturing of medium-sized UHD panels which would be necessary for professional and eventually consumer monitors.

That combined with their demonstration of HFR tells me that an LG-made 120Hz UHD OLED monitor is all but confirmed to exist at some point in the future.


----------



## Wizziwig

Sorry to always rain on your parade but...

Those medical monitors are priced in the same range as Sony's broadcast OLED monitors or even higher. They also sell in similar tiny numbers. Are you expecting Sony to also sell OLED consumer monitors soon? You need panels targeted at large volume markets before you see prices trickle down to consumer level.

HFR has nothing to do with computer monitors. They are testing HFR for IPTV streaming of sporting events. All current OLEDs already run at 120Hz but you can't feed that via HDMI due to bandwidth limitations. Doubtful LG will ever add Displayport. HFR is basically a streaming-only format for the foreseeable future.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Wizziwig said:


> Sorry to always rain on your parade but...
> 
> Those medical monitors are priced in the same range as Sony's broadcast OLED monitors or even higher. They also sell in similar tiny numbers. Are you expecting Sony to also sell OLED consumer monitors *soon*? You need panels targeted at large volume markets before you see prices trickle down to consumer level.


Where did I use the word "soon"? 

Besides, not only did I mention professional monitors which Sony does sell along-side their broadcast monitors but I even specifically used the word "eventually" with regards to consumer-level monitors. 

It's also worth mentioning that, unlike Sony, LG Display one of if not the largest manufacturer of consumer laptop & monitor-sized LCD panels. Considering that Samsung is starting to expand up-market from phones & tablets to laptops & monitors with their own OLED panels, it would be of no surprise if LG started expanding down-market with OLED to try to prevent Samsung from encroaching on their market share of laptop & monitor-sized panels. 



Wizziwig said:


> HFR has nothing to do with computer monitors. They are testing HFR for IPTV streaming of sporting events.


 ...which would still require 120Hz broadcast and/or professional monitors for, you know, _monitoring_.


Wizziwig said:


> All current OLEDs already run at 120Hz but you can't feed that via HDMI due to bandwidth limitations.


 HDMI 2.0 has the bandwidth to do UHD 120Hz 8bit at 4:2:0 and theoretically UHD 100Hz 10bit at 4:2:0. Last time I checked practically all digital video used 4:2:0 chroma subsampling.


Wizziwig said:


> Doubtful LG will ever add Displayport. HFR is basically a streaming-only format for the foreseeable future.


Again, broadcast and professional monitors; 4:4:4 chroma is quite important in the PC space.


----------



## irkuck

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Where did I use the word "soon"?
> 
> Besides, not only did I mention professional monitors which Sony does sell along-side their broadcast monitors but I even specifically used the word "eventually" with regards to consumer-level monitors.
> 
> It's also worth mentioning that, unlike Sony, LG Display one of if not the largest manufacturer of consumer laptop & monitor-sized LCD panels. Considering that Samsung is starting to expand up-market from phones & tablets to laptops & monitors with their own OLED panels, it would be of no surprise if LG started expanding down-market with OLED to try to prevent Samsung from encroaching on their market share of laptop & monitor-sized panels.
> 
> ...which would still require 120Hz broadcast and/or professional monitors for, you know, _monitoring_. HDMI 2.0 has the bandwidth to do UHD 120Hz 8bit at 4:2:0 and theoretically UHD 100Hz 10bit at 4:2:0. Last time I checked practically all digital video used 4:2:0 chroma subsampling.
> 
> Again, broadcast and professional monitors; 4:4:4 chroma is quite important in the PC space.


The case of OLED monitors for general public is weak. For professional apps there is a niche.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

irkuck said:


> The case of OLED monitors for general public is weak.


By that logic... "The case of OLED laptops for general public is weak." 

Yet they exist.


----------



## ChaosCloud

*Impulse drive or PWM in new OLEDs?*

I noticed in this video of the Panasonic prototype, starting about 1:20, there appears to be PWM/pulse drive artifacts captured.




Could future OLEDs be pulse driven? Or maybe just using PWM for dimming.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

ChaosCloud said:


> Or maybe just using PWM for dimming.


This is likely the case as even many standard LED-backlit LCD displays (such as those in laptops) are actually PWM but certainly not for backlight-strobing as evidenced by their sample-and-hold blur. 

Besides, if it was PWM at a level necessary for black-frame insertion, the flickering would be _much_ more noticeable in the video.


----------



## irkuck

NintendoManiac64 said:


> It's also worth mentioning that, unlike Sony, LG Display one of if not the largest manufacturer of consumer laptop & monitor-sized LCD panels. Considering that Samsung is starting to expand up-market from phones & tablets to laptops & monitors with their own OLED panels, it would be of no surprise if LG started expanding down-market with OLED to try to prevent Samsung from encroaching on their market share of laptop & monitor-sized panels.


This is unlikely. LG is focusing on TV and has enough problems carving out market share for OLED there to think about small displays and competing with Samsung. For Samsung it is exactly opposite. 



NintendoManiac64 said:


> By that logic... "The case of OLED laptops for general public is weak."
> Yet they exist.


They exist more as a curiosity and one can not see them moving into the mainstream. There is no compelling visual advantage for OLED in laptop.


----------



## ChaosCloud

NintendoManiac64 said:


> This is likely the case as even many standard LED-backlit LCD displays (such as those in laptops) are actually PWM but certainly not for backlight-strobing as evidenced by their sample-and-hold blur.
> 
> Besides, if it was PWM at a level necessary for black-frame insertion, the flickering would be _much_ more noticeable in the video.


Yeah, that's probably the case. I'm not a big fan of PWM dimming since it increases eyestrain for me.


----------



## slacker711

irkuck said:


> They exist more as a curiosity and one can not see them moving into the mainstream. There is no compelling visual advantage for OLED in laptop.


The reviews beg to differ.

My guess is that once Apple changes over to an OLED enabled iPhone in 2017 that LCD's will begin to be seen as an "old' technology....sort of like resolution instantly became more important when the iPhone 4 was launched.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

irkuck said:


> There is no compelling visual advantage for OLED in laptop.


Could you please elaborate what you mean by "compelling" with regards to visual advantages?


----------



## tgm1024

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Could you please elaborate what you mean by "compelling" with regards to visual advantages?


I'd like to know too, because I find the OLED in my Samsung phone to be a compelling visual increment over the other phones I've seen. Can't imagine that a laptop wouldn't be more important for visual impact.


----------



## irkuck

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Could you please elaborate what you mean by "compelling" with regards to visual advantages?


Start with blacks and think about usage scenarios of laptops. The OLED black advantage over LCD is simply not visible unless laptops are used in dark spaces which is by far marginal.


----------



## wco81

Yeah how much full-screen video is being consumed on laptops?

I'm not talking about Youtube stuff but full-length movies?

Then again, apparently people are watching a lot of videos on iPads.

Battery life may be worse if you're using the laptop most of the time for desktop or "web" applications, meaning most of the screen is lit most of the time.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

irkuck said:


> The OLED black advantage over LCD is simply not visible unless laptops are used in dark spaces which is by far marginal.


Then why is Lenovo selling a laptop with an optional OLED display _right now_?

Are you aware that, not only to laptops rarely use VA panels like TVs, but they also lack local-dimming? A contrast ratio of only 1000:1 is quite common: 


[URL=http://www.anandtech.com/show/10697/the-lenovo-thinkpad-x1-yoga-review/5]The Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga Review: OLED and LCD Tested - page 5[/URL] said:


>


For reference here's the maximum brightness of those same LCD displays: 


[URL=http://www.anandtech.com/show/10697/the-lenovo-thinkpad-x1-yoga-review/5]The Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga Review: OLED and LCD Tested - page 5[/URL] said:


>


----------



## Wizziwig

That  Anandtech review also confirms the usual Samsung mobile OLED problems with colored black/white ghosting. Just like their phone displays used in VR. Hardly something gamers would be lusting over on a larger monitor. It almost reminds me of LCD response-time overdrive errors. Also shows the same wacky gamma response that one of the owners here was complaining about - leading to incorrect steps between colors and increase in posterization. Doing a 1D grayscale calibration via the video card LUT is not going to cure this either. It will produce nice charts but in the real-world, you will have some clipped colors and banding due to the limited precision of the LUTs and 8-bit displays. Too bad Samsung exited the laptop market. They probably could have done a better job since their tablets and phones have good factory calibration.

It's also interesting about all the IR/BI preventive measures they've included. I wonder why they don't do that with phones given many people complain about BI of the status bars.

I'm still skeptical of the whole iPhone OLED rumors. Why bother when your LCD has results this good:

The iPhone 7 matches or breaks new Smartphone display performance records for:
• The Highest Absolute Color Accuracy for any display (1.1 JNCD) – Visually Indistinguishable from Perfect
• The Highest Absolute Luminance Accuracy for any display (±2%) – Visually Indistinguishable from Perfect
• Very Accurate Image Contrast and Intensity Scale (with Gamma 2.21) – Visually Indistinguishable from Perfect
• The Highest Peak Brightness Smartphone for any Average Picture Level APL (602 to 705 nits)
• The Highest (True) Contrast Ratio for any IPS LCD display (1,762) – Higher Dynamic Contrast Ratios are phony
• The Lowest Screen Reflectance for any Smartphone display (4.4 percent)
• The Highest Contrast Rating in High Ambient Light for a Smartphone for any APL (137 to 160)
• The Smallest Color variation with Viewing Angle (2.1 JNCD or less)

Source.


----------



## slacker711

Here is what Ive said about the OLED in the Apple Watch.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/shape-things-come



> The Apple Watch is designed to remain dark until a wearer raises his or her arm. In the prototypes worn around the Cupertino campus at the end of last year, this feature was still glitchy. For Marc Newson, it took three attempts—an escalation of acting styles, from naturalism to melodrama—before his screen came to life. Under normal circumstances, the screen will then show one of nine watch faces, each customizable. One will show the time alongside a brightly lit flower, butterfly, or jellyfish; these will be in motion, against a black background. This imagery had dominated the launch, and Ive now explained his enthusiasm for it. *He picked up his iPhone 6 and pressed the home button. “The whole of the display comes on,” he said. “That, to me, feels very, very old.”* (The iPhone 6 reached stores two weeks later.) He went on to explain that an Apple Watch uses a new display technology whose blacks are blacker than those in an iPhone’s L.E.D. display. This makes it easier to mask the point where, beneath a glass surface, a display ends and its frame begins. An Apple Watch jellyfish swims in deep space, and becomes, Ive said, as much an attribute of the watch as an image. On a current iPhone screen, a jellyfish would be pinned against dark gray, and framed in black, and, Ive said, have “much less magic.”


JMO, but this kind of statement isnt made by accident by an Apple exec. Once he said this, I thought it was just a matter of time until they switched the iPhone to an OLED. 

You can see the evidence all over their display supply chain. Samsung is going to double their OLED capacity over the course of about 18 months. Apple's LCD suppliers (Sharp, Japan Display, and LGD) are all scrambling to build out their OLED capacity. 

Apple has been hiring OLED engineers and scientists for the last few years and it will be interesting to see what kind of performance they can extract from their OLED iPhone.


----------



## irkuck

wco81 said:


> Yeah how much full-screen video is being consumed on laptops? I'm not talking about Youtube stuff but full-length movies? Then again, apparently people are watching a lot of videos on iPads. Battery life may be worse if you're using the laptop most of the time for desktop or "web" applications, meaning most of the screen is lit most of the time.


Is not only that people are not watching full length movies on laptops: they are not using laptops in the dark which means OLED superior blacks would go unnoticed.



NintendoManiac64 said:


> Then why is Lenovo selling a laptop with an optional OLED display _right now_? Are you aware that, not only to laptops rarely use VA panels like TVs, but they also lack local-dimming?


It is not only Lenovo but also Dell and HP are selling OLED laptops. This does not prove OLED has any bigger future in laptops, for ths it would have to match the LCD price which is next to impossible. OLED laptops are sold as prestige items for executive types. 

What decides about the need for technology is usage scenario. OLEDs make compelling case for TVs. For laptops you rightly notice there is note even an effor to bring local dimming to LCD, it is not necessary given the usage scenario.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

irkuck said:


> For laptops you rightly notice there is note even an effor to bring local dimming to LCD, it is not necessary given the usage scenario.


It has nothing to do with the usage scenario and everything to do with technological reasons. Surely you've noticed that there's no local dimming LCD screen in phones and tablets either, right? And tablets in particular are extremely content-consumption focused.


----------



## slacker711

irkuck said:


> Is not only that people are not watching full length movies on laptops: they are not using laptops in the dark which means OLED superior blacks would go unnoticed.


The success of OLED's in mobile must really confuse you.


----------



## rogo

Slacker, of course we agree the iPhone is going OLED. And that at least starts next year (I'll admit the conflicting rumors in supply chain make me wonder whether all new models will be OLED in 2017 or whether it will be 2018 before that's true.)

That said, it's no small achievement for Apple to keep wringing out more and more performance from LCD. The iPhone 7 screen is really quite excellent, even compared to the iPhone 6s. 

I'm not sure I'd prefer it to the Galaxy S7 screen (likely not, haven't spent enough time with the Samsung to say for certain), but it does bode well that Apple clearly is a difference maker on display quality. 

Now, onto the other topic running around here, I'm quite sure there will be more OLED laptops. What I'm less sure about is how important this is. PC sales continue to crater. They are 20% off their peak with no sign of an uptick -- even IDC has stopped pretending growth is returning anytime soon.

I've been spending some time noodling on this lately and think that the future of PC sales is actually dimmer than almost any forecaster. For what it's worth IDC sees notebooks as essentially flat through decade's end, with ~150 million sold per year.

That's not nothing, of course, and represents an increasingly large slice of the increasingly smaller PC market. Some portion of that market is still premium, and will likely pay for OLED -- whether for performance, specs, quality, whatnot. But a business like notebooks starts looking increasingly like a cash cow-style business for manufacturers, who likely will devote fewer and fewer R&D resources to a customer base that is mostly (entirely?) buying for replacement. 

To the extent that OLED begins to make inroads in laptops, I expect that unlike smartphones the portion will still be fairly insignificant at decade's end. Whether that's 10-20%, 2-5%, or 25-30% I'm less sure. Probably toward the lower end however.

I also tend to think that _many_ consumers are on their last-ever laptop. Their kids don't generally use/need them (please don't tell me about how you bought your kid a laptop unless you explain how much sooner the kid demanded a smartphone). It's increasingly hard to find use cases for "normals" that require laptops (again, please don't tell me about your Photoshop/coding news). The only reason laptops sell at all is because laptops have sold for so long; its not that their "jobs to be done" haven't already been mostly subsumed by other devices. This generally doesn't yield significant category innovation, though it sometimes does yield "over-engineering" as the last sets of customers are enticed to "buy the best".

That might be the main reason to be bullish on OLED laptops: There will be a few more HP Envy/Spectres and Macbook Pros before this all goes away.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> Slacker, of course we agree the iPhone is going OLED. And that at least starts next year (I'll admit the conflicting rumors in supply chain make me wonder whether all new models will be OLED in 2017 or whether it will be 2018 before that's true.)


My guess is that Apple has been developing both LCD and OLED versions of both sizes and that is throwing off the supply chain rumors. The ability of Samsung to ramp up their new OLED capacity quickly will determine which course they follow. Right now, I think the likeliest scenario is that the Plus gets an OLED next year but there is still a possibility they make a complete move to OLED if Samsung moves quickly enough. I would be surprised if they launch two LCD models and an extra OLED model next fall.



> That said, it's no small achievement for Apple to keep wringing out more and more performance from LCD. The iPhone 7 screen is really quite excellent, even compared to the iPhone 6s.


The same is true for the Z9D. LCD's continue to push the envelope in terms of performance but it comes with quite a penalty in terms of cost. 

Once Apple moves to OLED's, there really wont be much left in terms of LTPS LCD R&D. We are long way from that though in televisions. Samsung's decision to pursue quantum dots is going to slow the progress of OLED's. 



> I also tend to think that _many_ consumers are on their last-ever laptop. Their kids don't generally use/need them (please don't tell me about how you bought your kid a laptop unless you explain how much sooner the kid demanded a smartphone). It's increasingly hard to find use cases for "normals" that require laptops (again, please don't tell me about your Photoshop/coding news). The only reason laptops sell at all is because laptops have sold for so long; its not that their "jobs to be done" haven't already been mostly subsumed by other devices. This generally doesn't yield significant category innovation, though it sometimes does yield "over-engineering" as the last sets of customers are enticed to "buy the best".


How are you defining laptops? 

If it is Windows 10/Mac OS machines only, then I agree. OTOH, from a display market perspective, tablets with keyboards and chromebooks are going to still going to require quite a bit of surface area (though at lower ASP's). I assume you arent projecting a future where kids are writing their papers on smartphones.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Wizziwig said:


> That  Anandtech review also confirms the usual Samsung mobile OLED problems with colored black/white ghosting. Just like their phone displays used in VR. Hardly something gamers would be lusting over on a larger monitor.


Yet another reason why I want LG to get WOLED into smaller sized displays. I mean, we don't see anything at all like this on their OLED TVs.


----------



## irkuck

NintendoManiac64 said:


> It has nothing to do with the usage scenario and everything to do with technological reasons. Surely you've noticed that there's no local dimming LCD screen in phones and tablets either, right? And tablets in particular are extremely content-consumption focused.


Sure there are technological reasons. But first of all there is no real need.



slacker711 said:


> The success of OLED's in mobile must really confuse you.


It is a very limited success taking into consideration how much effort and money Samsung is pushing into mobile OLED. That said, it is obvious if OLED would be matching the price of the LCD across the range its success is guaranteed. 



rogo said:


> Slacker, of course we agree the iPhone is going OLED. And that at least starts next year (I'll admit the conflicting rumors in supply chain make me wonder whether all new models will be OLED in 2017 or whether it will be 2018 before that's true.) That said, it's no small achievement for Apple to keep wringing out more and more performance from LCD. The iPhone 7 screen is really quite excellent, even compared to the iPhone 6s.


Which makes the case of switching to OLED less important on the priority list for the iPhone 8. That will happen only if the OLED price is just little higher than the high-end LCD. I don't know it that may happen next year. OLED has found its clear niches on the extreme ends: ultrasmall displays for wearables and high-end TVs.


----------



## ynotgoal

According to NPD, a global market research company, for 65 inch TVs above $3,000, OLED TVs now have almost a 50% market share, and for 55 inch TVs above $2,000, OLED TVs now have more than a 60% market share.

It is unquestionably the Best Performing TV that we have ever tested or watched… In terms of picture quality the LG OLED TV is Visually Indistinguishable from Perfect. Even in terms of the exacting and precise Lab Measurements it is close to ideal, and it breaks many TV Display Performance Records.

http://www.displaymate.com/OLED_TV2016_ShootOut_1.htm

This was before LG's price cuts this week.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> My guess is that Apple has been developing both LCD and OLED versions of both sizes and that is throwing off the supply chain rumors. The ability of Samsung to ramp up their new OLED capacity quickly will determine which course they follow. Right now, I think the likeliest scenario is that the Plus gets an OLED next year but there is still a possibility they make a complete move to OLED if Samsung moves quickly enough. I would be surprised if they launch two LCD models and an extra OLED model next fall.


I tend to think this is right, too. They also seem to have Sharp/JDI/LG all trying to get capacity ramped up for OLED, but none of that seems real for 2017.


> The same is true for the Z9D. LCD's continue to push the envelope in terms of performance but it comes with quite a penalty in terms of cost.


For Sony's TV, yes, For Apple's LCDs? I doubt it.


> Once Apple moves to OLED's, there really wont be much left in terms of LTPS LCD R&D. We are long way from that though in televisions. Samsung's decision to pursue quantum dots is going to slow the progress of OLED's.


Yep, likely giving the Chinese time to catch up and remove Samsung from the TV market down the road, the way Samsung pushed most others out.


> How are you defining laptops?
> 
> If it is Windows 10/Mac OS machines only, then I agree. OTOH, from a display market perspective, tablets with keyboards and chromebooks are going to still going to require quite a bit of surface area (though at lower ASP's). I assume you arent projecting a future where kids are writing their papers on smartphones.


So yes, I meant Win 10/MacOS on "laptops". I agree the other stuff isn't going away, but I think people continue to overstate the importance of Chromebooks. As of last year, they'd made it a "breathtaking" 3% of laptop sales. There is scant evidence they are crossing over into any new niches. They are nearly all cheap machines. No OLED volume exists there anytime soon, if ever.

Higher-end tablets (Samsung, Apple) will certainly see OLED and certainly can justify the higher BOM (n.b. I know Samsung already sells OLED tablets). This will, ironically, lead to the "laptop replacement" technology being almost entirely OLED while the laptop itself withers away having barely transitioned.

I see this as an OLED opportunity as tablets using nearly 4x the glass of smartphones. I don't see gamers being excited about it, however.



irkuck said:


> S
> Which makes the case of switching to OLED less important on the priority list for the iPhone 8. That will happen only if the OLED price is just little higher than the high-end LCD. I don't know it that may happen next year. OLED has found its clear niches on the extreme ends: ultrasmall displays for wearables and high-end TVs.


I suspect Apple will end up paying less per screen for OLED than it pays for its current LCDs. There are better scale economies to be had and OLED keeps moving down the learning curve.



ynotgoal said:


> According to NPD, a global market research company, for 65 inch TVs above $3,000, OLED TVs now have almost a 50% market share, and for 55 inch TVs above $2,000, OLED TVs now have more than a 60% market share.


I wonder if this isn't incredibly damning for just how small those markets are -- a drum I've beaten here for years.

If LG has about half the markets for $2000+ TVs (and really that's a fair result from those numbers) with just 1 million units this year (will it be that many?). That means the entire high end TV market is still below 1% of all TV sales. For all the success LG has achieved thus far, that's a teardrop in the Pacific. It certainly appears the the 55-inch model needs to get to $1000 for LG to achieve its volume goals for the 2018 10G fab and that the 65 needs to get to $2000. 

Even at those numbers, you are still looking at LCD with 85% of the market (or more). 


> It is unquestionably the Best Performing TV that we have ever tested or watched… In terms of picture quality the LG OLED TV is Visually Indistinguishable from Perfect. Even in terms of the exacting and precise Lab Measurements it is close to ideal, and it breaks many TV Display Performance Records.
> 
> http://www.displaymate.com/OLED_TV2016_ShootOut_1.htm
> 
> This was before LG's price cuts this week.


And that's the silver living. For years, we accepted that a high-end 65-inch was $3000 and up. You could get a decent one for $1000 less from Panasonic or Samsung at times.

Looking ahead, a high-end 65-inch will be $2000 or less. It will be better than the $3000 set was from 2010-2014. In every way, I'd argue (yes, you motion-handling nitpickers would disagree perhaps). 

Anyone want to bet on when the 65-inch OLED is $1000? Likely before 2025.


----------



## Vader1

irkuck said:


> Start with blacks and think about usage scenarios of laptops. The OLED black advantage over LCD is simply not visible unless laptops are used in dark spaces which is by far marginal.


Since when is black the only advantage for OLED? I think OLED's unprecedented pixel response would be very important and useful for many applications. Pixel response is the reason you almost never have VA panels in a laptops. Also OLED's viewing angle is even better than IPS and that's useful. I doubt advantages stop there


----------



## wco81

Wide viewing angles in a laptop would not be an asset.

In fact, in some instances, it might be a liability.


----------



## Vader1

wco81 said:


> Wide viewing angles in a laptop would not be an asset.
> 
> In fact, in some instances, it might be a liability.


...how?


----------



## wco81

You're on a flight working and you have sensitive or proprietary info. on screen.

Better viewing angles might not be something you want in that case.

In fact there are films you can put on laptop screens now to make it more difficult to see the contents of the screens unless you're looking at it from dead center.


----------



## irkuck

ynotgoal said:


> According to NPD, a global market research company, for 65 inch TVs above $3,000, OLED TVs now have almost a 50% market share, and for 55 inch TVs above $2,000, OLED TVs now have more than a 60% market share. It is unquestionably the Best Performing TV that we have ever tested or watched… In terms of picture quality the LG OLED TV is Visually Indistinguishable from Perfect. Even in terms of the exacting and precise Lab Measurements it is close to ideal, and it breaks many TV Display Performance Records.
> http://www.displaymate.com/OLED_TV2016_ShootOut_1.htm
> This was before LG's price cuts this week.


Indeed, OLED has found its niche at the high-end. Remember though that big display and TV markets are spiralling down in developed countries, the only question is this in the end a death spiral or will it bottom out at some low level.



rogo said:


> I suspect Apple will end up paying less per screen for OLED than it pays for its current LCDs. There are better scale economies to be had and OLED keeps moving down the learning curve.


Paying less obviously would turn the scale towards OLED. But LCD has proven times and again to be extremely hard to undercut. And those incremental improvements in LCD PQ make OLED less attractive. Anyway, I think Apple has much more important problems: iPhone is slowly but surely being marginalized.




rogo said:


> I wonder if this isn't incredibly damning for just how small those markets are -- a drum I've beaten here for years.
> If LG has about half the markets for $2000+ TVs (and really that's a fair result from those numbers) with just 1 million units this year (will it be that many?). That means the entire high end TV market is still below 1% of all TV sales. For all the success LG has achieved thus far, that's a teardrop in the Pacific. It certainly appears the the 55-inch model needs to get to $1000 for LG to achieve its volume goals for the 2018 10G fab and that the 65 needs to get to $2000.
> Even at those numbers, you are still looking at LCD with 85% of the market (or more). And that's the silver living. For years, we accepted that a high-end 65-inch was $3000 and up. You could get a decent one for $1000 less from Panasonic or Samsung at times.
> Looking ahead, a high-end 65-inch will be $2000 or less. It will be better than the $3000 set was from 2010-2014. In every way, I'd argue (yes, you motion-handling nitpickers would disagree perhaps). Anyone want to bet on when the 65-inch OLED is $1000? Likely before 2025.


Thank you injecting a dose of realism in this discussion. Regarding your predictions: How big will be the market for 65"+ displays in 2025? Or even better: Will there be any 65"+ displays on the market in 2025?:laugh:



Vader1 said:


> Since when is black the only advantage for OLED? I think OLED's unprecedented pixel response would be very important and useful for many applications. Pixel response is the reason you almost never have VA panels in a laptops. Also OLED's viewing angle is even better than IPS and that's useful. I doubt advantages stop there


How important is pixel response in laptops? By the way, pixel response in OLED is largely unrealized yet since the driving circuits use sample and hold which results in not so impressive motion rendering.



wco81 said:


> You're on a flight working and you have sensitive or proprietary info. on screen. Better viewing angles might not be something you want in that case. In fact there are films you can put on laptop screens now to make it more difficult to see the contents of the screens unless you're looking at it from dead center.


Exactly. But the guys here are infatuated with tech and do not realize that for people usage scenarios are more important. One can now see there is even a case for some OLED displays having _viewing angle limiter _as a selling point_ . _


----------



## slacker711

wco81 said:


> You're on a flight working and you have sensitive or proprietary info. on screen.
> 
> Better viewing angles might not be something you want in that case.


LCD's terrible viewing angles doesnt mean that the picture disappears. It just looks terrible.

So unless the info you are trying to hide is the color of a new product, you had better keep the proprietary information off of your LCD and your OLED laptop on an airplane.


----------



## slacker711

Yep, usage scenarios where you can tell the difference between an OLED and an LCD are impossible to find. 

Nobody uses their laptop/tablet in a dimly lit area.










or outside.










or shows something to somebody at an angle.










or brightly lit areas.










and obviously black levels are exactly the same unless you are in a completely blacked out room.











There are plenty of areas where OLED's need to improve but the idea that there is no visual difference except in complete darkness is absurd.


----------



## Vader1

wco81 said:


> You're on a flight working and you have sensitive or proprietary info. on screen.
> 
> Better viewing angles might not be something you want in that case.
> 
> In fact there are films you can put on laptop screens now to make it more difficult to see the contents of the screens unless you're looking at it from dead center.


I don't think bad viewing angles effect text very much. Sensitive info can be on tablet too and that hasn't stopped OLED from growing in tablets. Something is going to replace LCD one day, and most likely it will either be OLED or QLED


----------



## irkuck

slacker711 said:


> Yep, usage scenarios where you can tell the difference between an OLED and an LCD are impossible to find.
> 
> Nobody uses their laptop/tablet in a dimly lit area.
> 
> or outside.
> 
> or shows something to somebody at an angle.
> 
> or brightly lit areas.
> 
> and obviously black levels are exactly the same unless you are in a completely blacked out room.
> 
> There are plenty of areas where OLED's need to improve but the idea that there is no visual difference except in complete darkness is absurd.


You are so well entrenched in the demagogy territory so let's rephrase differently: under price parity OLED would be preferable to LCD in laptops. Advantages of OLED in laptops are not worth the current high premium.


----------



## slacker711

irkuck said:


> You are so well entrenched in the demagogy territory so let's rephrase differently: under price parity OLED would be preferable to LCD in laptops. Advantages of OLED in laptops are not worth the current high premium.


That's not rephrasing. That is making a completely different statement.

I assume you dont actually believe statements like the following.



> they are not using laptops in the dark which means OLED superior blacks would go unnoticed.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

rogo said:


> I don't see gamers being excited about it





irkuck said:


> But the guys here are infatuated with tech


You guys _do_ realize that there's quite an audience overlap between gamers and tech enthusiasts, right?


----------



## JimP

Vader1 said:


> ...how?


Privacy. If you're in a public place, you might not want those around you reading the screen.


----------



## Vader1

JimP said:


> Privacy. If you're in a public place, you might not want those around you reading the screen.


Bad viewing angles don't make text less readable. This is a bad argument and it's not going to have any effect on if OLED or QLED take over LCD in the future


----------



## wco81

I wouldn't mind OLED laptops and tablets as long as they're the same prices and they don't reduce battery life because of "web applications" where most of the pixels are lit most of the time.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

wco81 said:


> and they don't reduce battery life because of "web applications" where most of the pixels are lit most of the time.


Outside of some major efficiency improvements, that may very well require WOLED.


----------



## slacker711

wco81 said:


> I wouldn't mind OLED laptops and tablets as long as they're the same prices and they don't reduce battery life because of "web applications" where most of the pixels are lit most of the time.


Yep. Samsung has concentrated on reducing costs over the last two years and hasnt improved the power consumption of their OLED screen since the S6. Displaymate has said that the S6/7 have lower power consumption up to a 65% APL. That needs to get up to about 80% or so to allow better power consumption with most websites.


----------



## wco81

I remember reading Displaymate almost ten years ago when they were talking about how around 2011 or 2012, OLED screens should catch up to LCD screens for power consumption on web apps.


----------



## slacker711

wco81 said:


> I remember reading Displaymate almost ten years ago when they were talking about how around 2011 or 2012, OLED screens should catch up to LCD screens for power consumption on web apps.


One absolute truism I have found over the last decade is that everything takes longer than expected with displays. Ten years ago, they expected that they would have discovered a phosphorescent blue material material with a long lifetime by now. The search for that goes on.

I think Apple could hit the mark even without a phosphorescent blue but we have about a year to wait. Samsung is also supposed to use an OLED with new materials for the S8 this spring. Once smartphones hit the milestone, laptops will follow.


----------



## Vader1

slacker711 said:


> One absolute truism I have found over the last decade is that everything takes longer than expected with displays


Yup... which is exactly why the people saying QLED is gonna be here in by 2019/ 2020 are fooling themselves


----------



## slacker711

Vader1 said:


> Yup... which is exactly why the people saying QLED is gonna be here in by 2019/ 2020 are fooling themselves


If they had QLED materials with commercial specs today, they would still need to figure out a viable printing technique. They could then sell some units off of a R&D fab to try and increase yields to an acceptable level. It then takes 18 months (minimum) to build a commercial fab with any reasonable amount of capacity.

I have no idea why anybody should be optimistic about QLED's happening anytime soon.


----------



## Vader1

Apparently just because Samsung and Nanosys said so. People didn't learn from SED/ FED I guess, or even OLED which even though it finally came it was delayed a million times. Nothing in displays ever makes it's first proposed release date. NOTHING. QLED isn't going to be an exception to that. 

It's 2016, the only QLED prototype was in 2010 and it was not even 5 inches (lol) and it had no blue pixels. They still haven't quite fixed the issues with Blue QD's either, nobodies currently using them in QD LCD's. This technology is not gonna be here in 2019 or 2020. Maybe we will finally see another prototype by then, but with the only QLED in existence having been only 4 inches it seems like we have a LONG way to go. That's infant stage really


----------



## video_analysis

You Debbie Downers. Paging @*sytech* who is going to sick the lot of ya!  That dude has put some serious faith in the glorified PR campaign of Samsung and a couple of published patents. OLED death watch T-minus 4 months!


----------



## rogo

Vader1 said:


> Yup... which is exactly why the people saying QLED is gonna be here in by 2019/ 2020 are fooling themselves


Some of us have been telling you all that for quite a while -- here.



slacker711 said:


> Yep. Samsung has concentrated on reducing costs over the last two years and hasnt improved the power consumption of their OLED screen since the S6. Displaymate has said that the S6/7 have lower power consumption up to a 65% APL. That needs to get up to about 80% or so to allow better power consumption with most websites.


Even parity would be a good step. 



NintendoManiac64 said:


> You guys _do_ realize that there's quite an audience overlap between gamers and tech enthusiasts, right?


You do realize that you weirdly conflated two people's independent statements to make a point that is entirely orthogonal to mine. Unless you wish to tell me you think gamers would be excited about casual gaming on OLED tablets.



irkuck said:


> Indeed, OLED has found its niche at the high-end. Remember though that big display and TV markets are spiralling down in developed countries, the only question is this in the end a death spiral or will it bottom out at some low level.
> 
> ....
> 
> Thank you injecting a dose of realism in this discussion. Regarding your predictions: How big will be the market for 65"+ displays in 2025? Or even better: Will there be any 65"+ displays on the market in 2025?:laugh:


I imagine some. I imagine that people thinking there's going to be a global renaissance in TV buying are going to be bitterly disappointed.


----------



## video_analysis

The gloating is unbecoming.


----------



## rogo

video_analysis said:


> The gloating is unbecoming.


I literally meant "some of us". Not just one person.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

rogo said:


> Unless you wish to tell me you think gamers would be excited about casual gaming on OLED tablets.


Is that what you meant when you said "gamers"? If so, then I find your use of the term strange because people that primarily play games on iOS/Android and people that consider themselves to be a "gamer" are two audiences that rarely overlap.

In other words, people that primarily play iOS/Android games usually don't want to be associated with the "gamer crowd" while that very "gamer crowd" usually doesn't want to be associated with iOS/Android games.



Heck, my username may be "NintendoManiac64", but I consider myself to primarily be a computer geek rather than a gamer, and my avatar reflects that (it's a character sprite from a PC visual novel - VNs are so borderline with regards to whether they're games or not that arguments occur over the matter).


----------



## Vader1

rogo said:


> Some of us have been telling you all that for quite a while -- here.


Whats the earliest you think we will see QLED? Just curious


----------



## irkuck

NintendoManiac64 said:


> You guys _do_ realize that there's quite an audience overlap between gamers and tech enthusiasts, right?


We realize that but this audience is small and in general fixated on gaming performance with no big complaints on displays. Current offerings of OLED laptops are for the prestige segment, gamers are not the target.

Note also that LCD tech has proven itself to be extremely upgradable. For laptops and mobiles it still uses very simple backlight which can easily be upgraded to e.g. quantum dots. 

Once again, OLED will start displacing LCD when it achieves price parity. That will be hard since LCD is a downward moving target for the price.


----------



## slacker711

irkuck said:


> Once again, OLED will start displacing LCD when it achieves price parity. That will be hard since LCD is a downward moving target for the price.


The trend of replacing LCD's happens long long before price parity.

Samsung's FALD sales are essentially dead because they are at price parity with LG's B and C series. The Z9D looks like a great set but it needs its price by about a third to matter much at all in terms of sales. 

An $800 laptop probably has a display that costs somewhere around $40. An OLED that doubles that cost would still allow a final price that would move a significant number of units compared to the $800 model. Of course, none of this matters today because there isnt anywhere near enough capacity to support a large number of laptop units. That wont happen until late 2018 or more likely 2019.


----------



## rogo

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Is that what you meant when you said "gamers"? If so, then I find your use of the term strange because people that primarily play games on iOS/Android and people that consider themselves to be a "gamer" are two audiences that rarely overlap.


This is getting silly. "Gamer" is generally used to refer to the subset of folks who really enjoy playing on their PCs or consoles. It's never -- in my experience -- used to describe people who love Candy Crush. Because the gamer universe essentially never games on PCs/tablets, they can't possibly be excited by those devices going OLED. That's all I said, all I meant, and -- in my mind (though errantly) -- was completely clear.

The gamer crowd needs OLED TVs and (to a lesser numerical extent) OLED monitors/laptop displays for them to get excited about OLED as something they want to spend on. That the Samsung Galaxy S7 has a great OLED screen is irrelevant.


> Heck, my username may be "NintendoManiac64", but I consider myself to primarily be a computer geek rather than a gamer, and my avatar reflects that (it's a character sprite from a PC visual novel - VNs are so borderline with regards to whether they're games or not that arguments occur over the matter).


I know gamers that have very straight-laced day jobs. You don't have to be primarily one thing or another. But I'll say I don't really know people who have a graphics card they installed who aren't gamers. I don't know people who has a PS4 or Xbox One (that they use) who aren't gamers. That doesn't mean gaming defines them; it means they are gamers. Gaming -- like most hobbies -- is a perfectly fine pastime that I would not judge nor insult even though it isn't my current pastime. 

By all means gamers, enjoy gaming. I hope the industry makes you the displays you want for your preferred hardware. I don't see much of that happening soon, but I think it will happen.



Vader1 said:


> Whats the earliest you think we will see QLED? Just curious


2025 or so. Even that would be a speed record for commercialization of a new display technology.

(I suspect the real answer is never.)



slacker711 said:


> The trend of replacing LCD's happens long long before price parity.
> 
> Samsung's FALD sales are essentially dead because they are at price parity with LG's B and C series. The Z9D looks like a great set but it needs its price by about a third to matter much at all in terms of sales.
> 
> An $800 laptop probably has a display that costs somewhere around $40. An OLED that doubles that cost would still allow a final price that would move a significant number of units compared to the $800 model. Of course, none of this matters today because there isnt anywhere near enough capacity to support a large number of laptop units. That wont happen until late 2018 or more likely 2019.


I think your first comment is correct: OLED is already replacing high-end LCD without truly achieving price parity. That Sony continues to price like its 1999 is why Sony's TV business has made a profit roughly 2% of the time this millennium.

The OLED laptop would be $1000 or so in your example if the LCD model was $800. That would sell some, but we should be clear that it wouldn't sell many. By the logic of "could there be more OLED laptops sooner", I'd say sure. If some models offered some OLEDs for some price premiums, the industry would need no more than 2-3 million laptops worth of OLED displays. Maybe that still waits till 2018 (likely, I suppose) but it's a very small fraction of total OLED output by 2019. For OLED to supply 10-30 million laptops (10-30% depending on market size of laptops come 2020) depends really on how strong tablet sales going forward. The tablets will get OLED first because they have the best OEMs (Samsung, Apple, Microsoft) where "best" = willing to pay the most. I doubt Lenovo sees having widespread OLED as a competitive advantage -- even though there is OLED in the Yoga -- to the point of essentially bidding on millions of displays in a constrained world. 

Overall, Lenovo sells around 50 million total computers, including their desktops. It's actually super weird that the config of the Yoga X1 with OLED is the second from the bottom (out of 4). High end display not for sale in high-end machine???! Is that because of battery life?


----------



## Wizziwig

Am I the only one concerned about burn-in on AMOLED phones? Every time I go to a store that sells them and play around with them, I see obvious signs of burnt-in status bars, keyboards, and navigation buttons. Sure, phone store displays are on many more hours but a simple google search shows you that even regular folks are suffering with burn-in issues after a few months of ownership. Heavy users or people who use their phone for GPS are even worse off. So with LCD displays getting as good as what Apple is offering, why go through that crap for a contrast advantage that's hardly ever noticeable in typical phone use cases? Do people simply upgrade their phones so quickly that they don't care if their old screens degrade? Or maybe most people just don't care because those burnt-in images are there all the time so you can't see them unless you change to another full-screen image.

Maybe Samsung needs to look into performing whatever voodoo LG is doing during their wear compensation cycles when you power down the phone. At least they have put physical navigation buttons on most of their devices but the status bar, app-icons, and keyboard still stay onscreen much of the time.

It just seems premature to me to talk about using them in laptops or computer monitors until this problem is addressed.


----------



## video_analysis

My 1-1/2-year-old Galaxy 6 shows no signs of burn-in. Maybe that's because I have it set to a pretty short timeout?


----------



## slacker711

Wizziwig said:


> Am I the only one concerned about burn-in on AMOLED phones? Every time I go to a store that sells them and play around with them, I see obvious signs of burnt-in status bars, keyboards, and navigation buttons. Sure, phone displays are on many more hours but a simple google search shows you that even regular folks are suffering with burn-in issues after a few months of ownership. Heavy users or people who use their phone for GPS are even worse off.


Yes, I would be concerned if I was buying a laptop. I would want to hear back from some early adopters before I jumped in. Usage is much different than for smartphones. 

With respect to smartphones, I have yet to notice it on the various friends and family units that I have used. I also note that there are several hundred million Galaxy smartphones in use right now and loyalty rates are very high. It doesnt seem to be a particular problem for the vast majority of the public.

I know that it does happen on smartphones. I just wonder if the complaints on line are similar to what we see here on AVS. I would never buy a TV if I used the forums here as my only guide....well maybe the Kuro


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Wizziwig said:


> Am I the only one concerned about burn-in on AMOLED phones?


You are not. 

It's just that Samsung's RGB OLED and LG's WOLED seem to have quite different characteristics, including (but not limited to) pixel response and susceptibility to burn-in. Since AVS is very much TV-focused when it comes to display tech and LG's WOLED is by _far_ the dominant OLED architecture in TVs, you're not going to see much discussion about Samsung's RGB OLED architecture with regards to _anything_, not just burn-in. 

In other words, Samsung's RGB OLED and LG's WOLED are not as similar as one would think at first glance.


----------



## Wizziwig

I was asking the question mostly for personal reasons. I've been avoiding them in the past due to fear of burn-in but it's becoming harder and harder to find a high-end Android phone without AMOLED. I have no experience with these phones so can only go by what I see in the stores and random google searches. So either all those people reporting burn-in after a few months have defective screens or they're doing something unusual. I guess most people don't go looking for burn-in either by displaying solid colored screens. I'm still surprised that there are no real preventive measures on the phones. No pixel orbiters, static element fading, etc. You could easily put 2-3 hours on your phone each day just running Waze for navigation. There are tons of static elements on these type of apps and the screen stays on the entire time.


----------



## rogo

video_analysis said:


> My 1-1/2-year-old Galaxy 6 shows no signs of burn-in. Maybe that's because I have it set to a pretty short timeout?





slacker711 said:


> Yes, I would be concerned if I was buying a laptop. I would want to hear back from some early adopters before I jumped in. Usage is much different than for smartphones.
> 
> With respect to smartphones, I have yet to notice it on the various friends and family units that I have used. I also note that there are several hundred million Galaxy smartphones in use right now and loyalty rates are very high. It doesnt seem to be a particular problem for the vast majority of the public.


Smartphone screens are for for minutes at a time, nearly never hours. TVs/laptops are on regularly for hours at a time. They are so different I would not be encouraged by what I see on smartphones with respect to laptops and TVs.

That said, I'm not sure there's a burn-in problem on LG's TVs. At least not a substantial one.


----------



## video_analysis

Only abuse at storefronts results in injurious retention (burn-in) on LG WOLEDs. I have used some GPS navigation (Google Maps mainly) on my phone for many minutes at a time over a few occasions (perhaps even up to an hour) during the course of ownership. Loading up a grayscale image a few moments ago, I didn't see any traces of icon retention. I should probably run the full gamut of colors and check again. These phones generate fearsome heat and battery depletion, so I have set the timeout to 10 seconds. In spite of those drawbacks, it's the only kind of smartphone I care to have (though I would like one with better sound recording for live events, something the HTCs have been renowned for). Next to an LG G3 (as an example, which is a great phone in its own right), the display "pops" for lack of a better word thanks to that emissive display.


----------



## irkuck

slacker711 said:


> The trend of replacing LCD's happens long long before price parity.
> 
> Samsung's FALD sales are essentially dead because they are at price parity with LG's B and C series. The Z9D looks like a great set but it needs its price by about a third to matter much at all in terms of sales.
> 
> An $800 laptop probably has a display that costs somewhere around $40. An OLED that doubles that cost would still allow a final price that would move a significant number of units compared to the $800 model. Of course, none of this matters today because there isnt anywhere near enough capacity to support a large number of laptop units. That wont happen until late 2018 or more likely 2019.


I meant laptop, mobile displays. In high-end TVs OLED surely will replace LCD without price parity, provided the premium is not too high. This obviously id due to the PQ features which are important for TV usage scenario viewing: perfect blacks, wide viewing angles, perfect colors. In laptops, mobiles these features are not critical. As noticed here, wide viewing angles can even be considered detrimental. Same with perfect blacks. Thus, OLED in laptops, mobiles has to move to price parity since it has no clear benefits justifying premium


----------



## Vader1

LG's WOLED's seem pretty nearly immune to burn in at this point. They certainly weren't at the beginning but even then WOLED has never had the epidemic level of burn in that was the main problem with Plasma for a while. I think if it wasn't for those early Plasma's nobody would even think about burn in. Early Plasma's susceptibility to burn in (it was a real epidemic you could say) has left a scare on all Emissive techs but I really doubt we will ever see another Emissive display that has that big of a problem with it again. A lot of the BI issue with Plasma just had to do with how much heat they produce and how hot the Phosphors got.

Samsungs RGB phones seem a little worse for burn in than LG's tech but I don't have enough experience with them and almost all of what Ive seen is in BB


----------



## tgm1024

ynotgoal said:


> According to NPD, a global market research company, for 65 inch TVs above $3,000, OLED TVs now have almost a 50% market share, and for 55 inch TVs above $2,000, OLED TVs now have more than a 60% market share.


I'm having trouble parsing through this. "Number of X size above Y dollars"? At first glance (to me), they seem like self-leveling metrics.

65" TVs above $3000.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> I'm having trouble parsing through this. "Number of X size above Y dollars"? At first glance (to me), they seem like self-leveling metrics.
> 
> 65" TVs above $3000.


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> They are explicitly telling you very little.
> 
> It's safe to conclude -- as you did -- that 55-inch TVs over $2000 barely exist in the market. You can almost math out how rare they are. LG won't sell 1M TVs this year; the total market will be 230-250M.
> 
> It's also correct that even 65-inch TVs over $3000 are rare.
> 
> Here's another meaningless statement from June: "Growth in OLED TV sales helped LG snare 45% of the market by value for high-end TVs priced at $2,500 and up, including LCD models, a 12-point jump from the fourth quarter of 2015.
> 
> That said, you can almost math this out. Take the LG number as 1M. Write some equations:
> 
> Call 65" LG --> Big
> Call 55" LG --> Small
> Call All $3000+ 65s --> LargeExpensive
> Call All $2000+ 55s --> Small Expensive
> 
> Big + Small = 1,000,000
> Big * 2 = LargeExpensive
> .6(SmallExpensive) = Small
> 
> We have 4 variables and only 3 equations so we can't fully solve this. But of course we can reasonably understand that Big and Small each approximate 500K. Based on our assumption about how small the 55-inch market is, we might reasonably start to wonder if somehow LG is making more 65s than 55s. That seems unlikely to me, so I'd guess 600K = small, 400K = big.
> 
> LargeExpensive would therefore be 800K.
> SmallExpensive would therefore be 1M.
> 
> YMMV.


^BTW, what is the dynamics of this Big+Small market over the years and what are the forecasts?


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> They are explicitly telling you very little.
> 
> It's safe to conclude -- as you did -- that 55-inch TVs over $2000 barely exist in the market. You can almost math out how rare they are. LG won't sell 1M TVs this year; the total market will be 230-250M.
> 
> It's also correct that even 65-inch TVs over $3000 are rare.
> 
> Here's another meaningless statement from June: "Growth in OLED TV sales helped LG snare 45% of the market by value for high-end TVs priced at $2,500 and up, including LCD models, a 12-point jump from the fourth quarter of 2015.
> 
> That said, you can almost math this out. Take the LG number as 1M. Write some equations:


_[...rest snipped and understood, thank you...]_I like the analysis you did, however I think the "almost" of "almost math this out" is stretched a bit too far for my liking. I too was trying to tease out high and low watermarks for these two simultaneous [non]equations and in my case I failed. However your assessment is likely as close to _something_ as we could possibly get. That press release (or whatever it was) IMO is a very manipulative joke.




irkuck said:


> ^BTW, what is the dynamics of this Big+Small market over the years and what are the forecasts?


Given that the Big+Small market is latched directly to the arbitrary price they decided to set, I'm guessing that your question is equally unanswerable. There is nothing in their statements that is anything but misdirection IMO.


----------



## RichB

rogo said:


> That said, you can almost math this out. Take the LG number as 1M. Write some equations:
> 
> Call 65" LG --> Big
> Call 55" LG --> Small
> Call All $3000+ 65s --> LargeExpensive
> Call All $2000+ 55s --> Small Expensive
> 
> Big + Small = 1,000,000
> Big * 2 = LargeExpensive
> .6(SmallExpensive) = Small
> 
> We have 4 variables and only 3 equations so we can't fully solve this. But of course we can reasonably understand that Big and Small each approximate 500K. Based on our assumption about how small the 55-inch market is, we might reasonably start to wonder if somehow LG is making more 65s than 55s. That seems unlikely to me, so I'd guess 600K = small, 400K = big.
> 
> LargeExpensive would therefore be 800K.
> SmallExpensive would therefore be 1M.
> 
> YMMV.




At one point, 65 inch was considered "too large",
Within a price-range, are consumers selecting the largest display for the money?


- Rich


----------



## rogo

RichB said:


> At one point, 65 inch was considered "too large",
> Within a price-range, are consumers selecting the largest display for the money?


Evidence is that some are, some aren't. The ready availability of really big TVs at very similar prices to merely big TVs suggests that the move toward bigger sizes has an asymptotic rolloff.


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> Evidence is that some are, some aren't. The ready availability of really big TVs at very similar prices to merely big TVs suggests that the move toward bigger sizes has an asymptotic rolloff.


Indeed, the 80"+ TVs are behemoths which are forcing to think hard about the space to install them. But manufacturers are pushing in this territory
and prices are going down so there is some demand in this segment. From the OLED point of view it has to figure prominently in this range as the best and biggest. Not to forget that when approaching the three-digit size there is a large part of the projector market for the OLED conquista.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> Evidence is that some are, some aren't. The ready availability of really big TVs at very similar prices to merely big TVs suggests that the move toward bigger sizes has an asymptotic rolloff.


Hah! I haven't seen that term (asymptotic rolloff) used outside of signal processing before. Good use.

But past a certain point, that asymptote transfers to a hard limit. Doors and houses. Barring roll-up screens, I think I calculated that a door at best can fit a 171" display tipped diagonally. And of course, there's the wife-acceptance-factor.

The read I simply can't put my finger on is what is conceptually "too big" in America today. It wasn't too recently that I thought a 60" TV in my family room would be completely absurd. Now it's _almost_ not enough. 15 years ago, I had visitors from Norway chuckle at the 32" TV I had (it was ridiculously big in their opinion).


----------



## irkuck

tgm1024 said:


> Hah! I haven't seen that term (asymptotic rolloff) used outside of signal processing before. Good use.
> But past a certain point, that asymptote transfers to a hard limit. Doors and houses. Barring roll-up screens, I think I calculated that a door at best can fit a 171" display tipped diagonally. And of course, there's the wife-acceptance-factor.


If you have in mind living room viewing scenario there is another important limitation. Ideally position of the eyes should be above the horizontal center line of the display and the distance from the display 2-3PH for the UHD. With the 170" display the eyes would be too low when sitting on the couch. 170" would be OK for the home theater with the raised floor. 



tgm1024 said:


> The read I simply can't put my finger on is what is conceptually "too big" in America today. It wasn't too recently that I thought a 60" TV in my family room would be completely absurd. Now it's _almost_ not enough. 15 years ago, I had visitors from Norway chuckle at the 32" TV I had (it was ridiculously big in their opinion).


Obviously the notion of big is changing. As far as I remember 15 ys ago 27" TV was big and 32" huge. Nowadays my 65" in no way feels big. This is due to the size adaptation effect. As an example, I am typing this on my 32" 4K monitor which once felt colossal but now it looks normal. The monitor is positioned in such a way that it touches the desktop and at the viewing distance of 1 PH I still have eyes above the middle horizontal line. But this is about the maximum size in which eyes are above the middle line, any bigger monitor which I could have would be wider, not higher, e.g. 21:9 with 2160 pixels vertically.


----------



## joys_R_us

irkuck said:


> If you have in mind living room viewing scenario there is another important limitation. Ideally position of the eyes should be above the horizontal center line of the display and the distance from the display 2-3PH for the UHD.


Unless you have varifocal glasses, where the optimal far sight is on the upper edge of the glasses. Then you need your tv positioned significantly higher. I know it is a problem of older people but hey who else can afford these nice big OLEDs ?


----------



## mondo3

Not quite a fair comparison between today and yesterdays tech in the sense that until flat screens came out, a 32" CRT or a 50" DLP projection TV were massively deep (and thus were pretty obtrusive). Today's tech is more or less just a few inches thick, so a 60" TV now won't be much different in thickness from a 100" TV; the eye sore factor has been removed to a large extent. The projection TV's also had that cheap plastic looking screen which isn't nearly as slick as today's pitch black glass look.


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> The OLED laptop would be $1000 or so in your example if the LCD model was $800. That would sell some, but we should be clear that it wouldn't sell many. By the logic of "could there be more OLED laptops sooner", I'd say sure. If some models offered some OLEDs for some price premiums, the industry would need no more than 2-3 million laptops worth of OLED displays. Maybe that still waits till 2018 (likely, I suppose) but it's a very small fraction of total OLED output by 2019.


Samsung - Galaxy TabPro S 2-in-1 12" OLED Touch-Screen Laptop - 256GB - Gold
$999
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung...een-laptop-256gb-gold/5507808.p?skuId=5507808


----------



## irkuck

joys_R_us said:


> Unless you have varifocal glasses, where the optimal far sight is on the upper edge of the glasses. Then you need your tv positioned significantly higher. I know it is a problem of older people but hey who else can afford these nice big OLEDs ?


Head up is not good from the ergonomic point of view. This issue becomes important as really big TVs become affordable even for not-so-old people (note HiSense 86 incher with the $6K preintroduction suggested price (meaning it will be below $5K sometime in 2017)). If LG won't introduce an OLED in the 100" range rather soon (CES), the OLED image will suffer from the '_best PQ but lagging in size_' syndrom. OLED must secure sovereign rule as the _best and biggest_.


----------



## rogo

ynotgoal said:


> Samsung - Galaxy TabPro S 2-in-1 12" OLED Touch-Screen Laptop - 256GB - Gold
> $999
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung...een-laptop-256gb-gold/5507808.p?skuId=5507808


Like I said, $1000 

But seriously, that's an interesting machine. Not one that will set the world on fire, but an interesting machine.

I presume it's still core m3 and therefore slow. But I can't find evidence of which chip it uses.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

rogo said:


> Like I said, $1000
> 
> But seriously, that's an interesting machine. Not one that will set the world on fire, but an interesting machine.
> 
> I presume it's still core m3 and therefore slow. But I can't find evidence of which chip it uses.


Full specs can be found here: 
http://news.samsung.com/us/2016/10/14/samsung-introduces-galaxy-tabpro-s-gold-edition/


----------



## Kyle2016

What is the average lifespan of the 2016 LG OLED tvs?


----------



## video_analysis

Average? Who knows...a theoretical 100k hours until brightness half-life is reached if the LG exec is to be believed. Another component is likely to fail much sooner.


----------



## irkuck

LG is supplying OLED displays for smartphones and the displays are even curved which is directly challenging Samsung (though res is HD not QHD). Production cost of these OLED displays is six times of LCD .


----------



## slacker711

LG Display to Carry Out Pilot Production for Inkjet Printing OLEDs in First Half of 2017

http://english.etnews.com/20161026200001


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> LG Display to Carry Out Pilot Production for Inkjet Printing OLEDs in First Half of 2017
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/20161026200001


Still waiting for evidence there's a solution-processed blue OLED material that lasts more than a few thousand hours.


----------



## tgm1024

Kyle2016 said:


> What is the average lifespan of the 2016 LG OLED tvs?


Roughly ||



video_analysis said:


> Average? Who knows...a theoretical 100k hours until brightness half-life is reached if the LG exec is to be believed. Another component is likely to fail much sooner.


I hope so. But at the risk of once again being accused of somehow being some kind of LCD fanboy, I think there is a _way_ too much faith being placed in LG specs and guesses. And yes, they _are_ guesses because every new tech added to the thing (and its cross-tech interactions, like "does HDR maybe make uniformity worse over time?") is a long-term unknown.



slacker711 said:


> LG Display to Carry Out Pilot Production for Inkjet Printing OLEDs in First Half of 2017
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/20161026200001


I see stuff like this and get my hopes up. Only to have them dashed by Rogo in 5....4....3....2....



rogo said:


> Still waiting for evidence there's a solution-processed blue OLED material that lasts more than a few thousand hours.


>Splat


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> Still waiting for evidence there's a solution-processed blue OLED material that lasts more than a few thousand hours.


Me too.

There has been a ton of research and patent activity around blue lately showing substantial progress but no announcements. 

I wonder whether inkjet printing would make it easier to implement some of the clunkier solutions. A gradient that layers the blue from low to high doping concentrations would be much more time consuming with vapor deposition. Also creating a tandem stack that extends lifetime is cheaper when you have substantially higher material efficiency. 

The wait for blue goes on.


----------



## skoolpsyk

rogo making me blue


----------



## 8mile13

There is a juli article which states that Kateeva will supply OLED TV deposition system _prototypes_ later this year to customers in Korea, China and Japan. Looks to me like checking out these prototypes and see if they can be of any use in the near future is all that these customers will do.
http://www.oled-info.com/kateevas-korea-vp-sdc-start-printing-oled-tvs-2018


btw in the article Kateeva states that Samsung wil use these printers for OLED mass production two years from now. According the other article LG will start printer mass production in 2019. I find all of this hard to believe..


----------



## rogo

8mile13 said:


> There is a juli article which states that Kateeva will supply OLED TV deposition system _prototypes_ later this year to customers in Korea, China and Japan. Looks to me like checking out these prototypes and see if they can be of any use in the near future is all that these customers will do.
> http://www.oled-info.com/kateevas-korea-vp-sdc-start-printing-oled-tvs-2018
> 
> 
> btw in the article Kateeva states that Samsung wil use these printers for OLED mass production two years from now. According the other article LG will start printer mass production in 2019. I find all of this hard to believe..


You should find it hard to believe. It's, incidentally, perfect possible to test all this with existing soluble blue OLED materials. What you can't do is mass produce anything with them given that darned blue problem -- and this isn't a small problem, the progress in the past decade is close to invisible.

I suggest anyone interested in inkjet printed OLEDs set up a Google news alert for "blue OLED solution" "blue OLED soluble" and "blue OLED inkjet". You'll get a few garbage hits, but if you get the one real one, "UDC/Merck/XYZ announced commercial availability of a soluble blue OLED emitter with 10,000 hour lifetime" you'll know what's possible.

Until then, Kateeva is basically selling machines that can't be used for any commercial purpose.

BTW, tgm, what you propose may not be out of the question but it feels unlikely. Seems like a lot of waste, for one. But also it's a solution (no pun intended) in search of a problem. The world doesn't need inkjet OLEDs. It has OLEDs made easily with super-high-tech silkscreening that can be scaled up to all portable display sizes. It has a clunky but workable method for TVs that has already yielded big ones for less money that expensive full array LCDs. We're good.

Now, do we want more OLED competition brought on by inkjets? Sure it would be nice. I still think folding screens would be nice to allow my smartphone to expand to tablet-sized. But I don't need either; and neither does anyone else.


----------



## wco81

Seems like they're always a couple of years away from printing OLEDs.


----------



## irkuck

wco81 said:


> Seems like they're always a couple of years away from printing OLEDs.


Recall this statement by skipping 'always' to avoid being cited for epic wrong forecast . Information about LG IJOLED pilot production line in H1 2017 means the technology is ready and on track for mass manufacturing ramp-up in 2018-19. LG would not leak such information if they are not confident and their fantastic performance on scaling up OLED production to 100 000 panels per month and 80% yield adds credibility.


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> Recall this statement by skipping 'always' to avoid being cited for epic wrong forecast . Information about LG IJOLED pilot production line in H1 2017 means the technology is ready and on track for mass manufacturing ramp-up in 2018-19.


Nonsense. Find evidence the blue material exists.



> LG would not leak such information if they are not confident and their fantastic performance on scaling up OLED production to 100 000 panels per month and 80% yield adds credibility.


Um, ok.


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> Nonsense. Find evidence the blue material exists.


How about the blue in the current LG OLEDs :laugh:?


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> How about the blue in the current LG OLEDs :laugh:?


We're talking about _soluble _blue, no?


----------



## irkuck

tgm1024 said:


> We're talking about _soluble _blue, no?


What I am implying is the LG could manage to find an innovative solution involving some kind of 'indirect' blue. Similar story was with the current OLED. Samsung was maniacally pursuing the most obvious, natural and simple RGB colors which in the end proved to be nonviable while LG took an innovative indirect WOLED approach and here we are today. Now, purists will tell a pure RGB would be better and that is true but in the end something which is real is better than a pipedream .


----------



## JimP

irkuck said:


> What I am implying is the LG could manage to find an innovative solution involving some kind of 'indirect' blue. Similar story was with the current OLED. Samsung was maniacally pursuing the most obvious, natural and simple RGB colors which in the end proved to be nonviable while LG took an innovative indirect WOLED approach and here we are today. Now, purists will tell a pure RGB would be better and that is true but in the end something which is real is better than a pipedream .


Speculating what LG might do is just that....speculation.

Mind as well be speculating about mice on Mars.


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> What I am implying is the LG could manage to find an innovative solution involving some kind of 'indirect' blue. Similar story was with the current OLED. Samsung was maniacally pursuing the most obvious, natural and simple RGB colors which in the end proved to be nonviable while LG took an innovative indirect WOLED approach and here we are today. Now, purists will tell a pure RGB would be better and that is true but in the end something which is real is better than a pipedream .


That seems to me to be an odd implication to make: "An invention was made before, why not again?" (??) In any case, LG didn't invent the stack approach, Kodak did. Unless you mean that Kateeva's innovative approach might include buying the appropriate patent that they can't seem to find yet.


----------



## irkuck

JimP said:


> Speculating what LG might do is just that....speculation. Mind as well be speculating about mice on Mars.


This speculation is based on the fact LG is starting pilot production lines of IJOLED in H1'17. Some question this is possible as liquid blue OLED dye is not available. Now LG would not be starting pilot production not having blue color for display. Logic then tells they should have intelligent solution for blue and the speculation looks quite plausible.


----------



## rogo

To be clear, even if someone wanted to build WOLEDs with ink-jet printing, they need a soluble blue.


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> To be clear, even if someone wanted to build WOLEDs with ink-jet printing, they need a soluble blue.


There is no point in making an ink jet printed WOLED. The sole purpose of ink jet printing is to pattern the separate red, gren and blue subpixels.



ynotgoal said:


> Samsung - Galaxy TabPro S 2-in-1 12" OLED Touch-Screen Laptop - 256GB - Gold
> $999
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung...een-laptop-256gb-gold/5507808.p?skuId=5507808





rogo said:


> Like I said, $1000
> 
> But seriously, that's an interesting machine. Not one that will set the world on fire, but an interesting machine.


Price already down to $899 at Best Buy.




irkuck said:


> Information about LG IJOLED pilot production line in H1 2017 means the technology is ready and on track for mass manufacturing ramp-up in 2018-19. LG would not leak such information if they are not confident and their fantastic performance on scaling up OLED production to 100 000 panels per month and 80% yield adds credibility.


Kind of like Samsung was confident in building their OLED TV pilot line in 2012?


----------



## rogo

ynotgoal said:


> There is no point in making an ink jet printed WOLED. The sole purpose of ink jet printing is to pattern the separate red, gren and blue subpixels.


Actually, that's not the purpose at all. The purpose is to lower materials cost and increase yields.

But we do agree completely this wouldn't be used for WOLED. I was just pointing out there is no OLED variant that can be inkjet printed since 100% of them need soluble blue which does not exist in any commercial version.


> Kind of like Samsung was confident in building their OLED TV pilot line in 2012?


Exactly. Never trust a liar.

Incidentally, anyone who believes there a stealth breakthrough to solve the blue problem might want to read this:

http://www.ipnomics.net/?p=16189

Note that it's (a) very recent and (b) a public statement about the state of blue OLED (which still has no phosphorescent product let alone a soluble one). 



> "He also showed his confidence in OLED blue phosphor materials, as well as materials for printed OLED which remains hardly commercialized around the world due to a high technology barrier.
> 
> “Currently, manufactures are facing many challenges in OLED like material, process and production and among these, manufacturing a blue phosphor material is a big challenge. But we will be able to unveil a product to ensure the longer life cycle of OLED panels within two to three years,” he stressed.


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> Actually, that's not the purpose at all. The purpose is to lower materials cost and increase yields.
> 
> But we do agree completely this wouldn't be used for WOLED. I was just pointing out there is no OLED variant that can be inkjet printed since 100% of them need soluble blue which does not exist in any commercial version.


Yes, the much discussed materials cost savings of inkjet printing. Every article says its so. It makes sense .. so much expensive materials wasted on the shadow mask. Its just that on current displays, the total cost of the materials (not royalties based on display price) they are talking about inkjet printing is about 2% of the cost of production. So saving 50% on those materials saves about 1% of the display cost. Ok. It has to be among the most overhyped cost savings in displays. It's fair to say inkjet printing yields could be greater than the really low RGB shadow mask yields at gen 8 and larger sizes. I'm not convinced why patterning with inkjet printing will have better yields than painting the whole substrate for WOLED though.

But I meant the functional purpose of inkjet printing is to deposit a patterned subpixel and the purpose of WOLED is to not require patterned subpixels. So why inkjet print WOLED.

As you say, though, it doesn't matter until there's a soluble blue material. There may be someday just not today.

Irkuck makes an interesting point about why they made it public. Lots of work happens that isn't made public. One possible reason is to signal to Chinese panel makers thinking about investing in 10.5 gen LCD lines that they may face competition from 10 gen OLED lines.


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> Incidentally, anyone who believes there a stealth breakthrough to solve the blue problem might want to read this:
> http://www.ipnomics.net/?p=16189
> Note that it's (a) very recent and (b) a public statement about the state of blue OLED (which still has no phosphorescent product let alone a soluble one).


If somebody missed how the story about IJOLED entered this thread, it is from the same outlet which rogo is citing:
http://www.ipnomics.net/?p=16358
and goes like this:

_LG Display is going to carry out pilot production for inkjet printing OLEDs sometime during first half of 2017. Although it will take another one to two years from pilot production to actual mass-production, it is meaningful in that *LG Display has actually in a stage of development after finishing up with R&D*._

The blue text clearly implies the blue problem is solved and it is rather unlikely this publication would get it out of the blue (pun intended.


----------



## rogo

ynotgoal said:


> Yes, the much discussed materials cost savings of inkjet printing. Every article says its so. It makes sense .. so much expensive materials wasted on the shadow mask. Its just that on current displays, the total cost of the materials (not royalties based on display price) they are talking about inkjet printing is about 2% of the cost of production. So saving 50% on those materials saves about 1% of the display cost. Ok. It has to be among the most overhyped cost savings in displays. It's fair to say inkjet printing yields could be greater than the really low RGB shadow mask yields at gen 8 and larger sizes. I'm not convinced why patterning with inkjet printing will have better yields than painting the whole substrate for WOLED though.


I want to again be clear, we generally agree on this. The cost savings are minimal (no matter what Merck says) and the yield advantage is hypothetical only (no matter what anyone says).


> But I meant the functional purpose of inkjet printing is to deposit a patterned subpixel and the purpose of WOLED is to not require patterned subpixels. So why inkjet print WOLED.


Again, we are in perfect agreement. I mentioned it only so no one would ask without it already being answered. Not everyone understands how the tech all works.


> As you say, though, it doesn't matter until there's a soluble blue material. There may be someday just not today.


Correct. 


> Irkuck makes an interesting point about why they made it public. Lots of work happens that isn't made public. One possible reason is to signal to Chinese panel makers thinking about investing in 10.5 gen LCD lines that they may face competition from 10 gen OLED lines.


It's possible that's the case, though a coming 10G fab is hardly news. The 2018 fab is ~10G, whatever method it uses (which every intelligent person should bet is almost identical to the existing vapor-deposited WOLED).

I have no idea why they made it public, but LG doesn't seem to be a primary materials researcher and none of those that are has even suggested there is a soluble blue. The one thing we've heard in the past is the idea of a franken-hybrid using vapor deposited blue and then inkjet printed red and green. I could envision ways in which this is possible, but as I'm not a display-fab engineer I can only guess they might work. I also doubt they are economical, but who knows.



irkuck said:


> If somebody missed how the story about IJOLED entered this thread, it is from the same outlet which rogo is citing:
> http://www.ipnomics.net/?p=16358
> and goes like this:
> 
> _LG Display is going to carry out pilot production for inkjet printing OLEDs sometime during first half of 2017. Although it will take another one to two years from pilot production to actual mass-production, it is meaningful in that *LG Display has actually in a stage of development after finishing up with R&D*._
> 
> The blue text clearly implies the blue problem is solved and it is rather unlikely this publication would get it out of the blue (pun intended.


You can keep believing this. I don't really care one way or the other. I'm just pointed out a soluble blue OLED with lifespan in the 1000s of hours (let alone the 10,000s) would be news. It would be a big deal for a Merck. Or a UDC. Or DuPont. Or CDT. No one even seems to have a recent paper, let alone a product.

Maybe LG itself has cooked something up in its lab and feels like it can mass produce that in 2-3 years. Their own failure to deliver on deadlines should make people skeptical of a claim like that, should they actually make a claim like that.


----------



## irkuck

Should one expect visible PQ improvements in the 2017 OLEDs comparing to this year sets or it is rather stagnation to be seen?


----------



## slacker711

irkuck said:


> Should one expect visible PQ improvements in the 2017 OLEDs comparing to this year sets or it is rather stagnation to be seen?


OLED has improved every year and I doubt next year will be any different. I would expect better handling of near-black and higher brightness in next year's models at a minimum.


----------



## tigertim

slacker711 said:


> OLED has improved every year and I doubt next year will be any different. I would expect better handling of near-black and higher brightness in next year's models at a minimum.


agree and probably another of the Hdr variants like HLG....the HFR..frame rate thing that as being talked about may or may not be added...no one knows on that yet.


----------



## JimP

irkuck said:


> Should one expect visible PQ improvements in the 2017 OLEDs comparing to this year sets or it is rather stagnation to be seen?


You would expect with there still being issues, that they'll be improving or eliminating them.

The fact is, we don't really know.


----------



## andy sullivan

JimP said:


> You would expect with there still being issues, that they'll be improving or eliminating them.
> 
> The fact is, we don't really know.


Of course we really don't know. Wondering what will come is the fun part


----------



## mattg3

Yes great fun but only if you have not already invested in this years OLED


----------



## Megalith

Does anyone have any idea what LG's plans are for future 1080p panels? There are so many 4K models that I can't help but think 1080p displays are being phased out.


----------



## RichB

Megalith said:


> Does anyone have any idea what LG's plans are for future 1080p panels? There are so many 4K models that I can't help but think 1080p displays are being phased out.




There is no turning back from 4K on the high-end.


- Rich


----------



## j.p.s

RichB said:


> There is no turning back from 4K on the high-end.


Top DVDs played on an OPPO 93 and displayed on an EC9300 at 4 feet look as good or better than average Blu-rays. Average DVDs are quite watchable with no distracting artifacts.

There are many films I haven't seen yet that are not on Blu-ray. How do DVDs look at 5 feet on a 65" 4K OLED?

I don't expect SD TV to be watchable under these conditions, but it's too soon to declare DVD totally obsolete.


----------



## RichB

j.p.s said:


> Top DVDs played on an OPPO 93 and displayed on an EC9300 at 4 feet look as good or better than average Blu-rays. Average DVDs are quite watchable with no distracting artifacts.
> 
> There are many films I haven't seen yet that are not on Blu-ray. How do DVDs look at 5 feet on a 65" 4K OLED?
> 
> I don't expect SD TV to be watchable under these conditions, but it's too soon to declare DVD totally obsolete.



DVD's and BD's are not obsolete but in the TV market, OLED and LED/LCD 4K TV's represent the high-end of the market.
Even in mid-priced TV's are 4K. 

Plasma TV's demise was hastened by 4K, where they could not compete.

LG used to make 1080P OLEDs and now only 4K. 

- Rich


----------



## Vader1

Megalith said:


> Does anyone have any idea what LG's plans are for future 1080p panels? There are so many 4K models that I can't help but think 1080p displays are being phased out.


They are being phased out. LG already announced a year ago no more 1080p OLED's.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> OLED has improved every year and I doubt next year will be any different. I would expect better handling of near-black and higher brightness in next year's models at a minimum.


And LG will probably also fill the gap with Vizio as far as supporting Atmos-over-ARC.

After a 9-month hiatus from the Forum, I'm trying to catch up in terms of developments and anticipated developments that might impact a decision of pulling the trigger on a B6/C6 now versus holding off for the 2017 OLEDs to be released.

Progress on pricing has obviously been dramatic (65" OLED for $3000 everywhere, getting into the low $2000s online), but have their been any other developments in OLED-world over the past 9-months that I should be aware of before finalizing a decision?


----------



## Chris Kane

fafrd said:


> After a 9-month hiatus from the Forum, I'm trying to catch up in terms of developments and anticipated developments that might impact a decision of pulling the trigger on a B6/C6 now versus holding off for the 2017 OLEDs to be released...
> 
> ...have their been any other developments in OLED-world over the past 9-months that I should be aware of before finalizing a decision?


While I've been back for several months deciding on a new pre/pro I'm not as up to speed on flat panels. I first narrowed my attention on the value proposition (Vizio P65) and then the P75 came down in price at Costco and I thought that might be the way to go but then it struck me that the price point I was considering was now in the OLED category and I'm wondering the same thing.

ck


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> And LG will probably also fill the gap with Vizio as far as supporting Atmos-over-ARC.
> 
> After a 9-month hiatus from the Forum, I'm trying to catch up in terms of developments and anticipated developments that might impact a decision of pulling the trigger on a B6/C6 now versus holding off for the 2017 OLEDs to be released.
> 
> Progress on pricing has obviously been dramatic (65" OLED for $3000 everywhere, getting into the low $2000s online), but have their been any other developments in OLED-world over the past 9-months that I should be aware of before finalizing a decision?


We really dont have any concrete details on the 2017 models. There was an article over the summer talking about LGD shifting from a blue/yellow/blue stack to a RGB stack (still WOLED), but we dont know the potential impact on performance.

Personally, my WAG is that we will see a 1000+ nit panel with better near black performance and a wider color gamut (though still well short of Rec2020). I am skeptical that we will see the various motion related improvements that I have see referenced on various threads. Brightness and lifetime will be LGD's primary focus for improvement.

Waiting another year will always get you some improvements and a cheaper price but like Rogo, I would now recommend the OLED's to my friends and family....even those that arent AV geeks.


----------



## irkuck

There is now obviously a transition period. To see the coming Trump Cards wait till the beginning of January for the inauguration of the... CES :kiss:.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> We really dont have any concrete details on the 2017 models. There was an article over the summer talking about LGD shifting from a blue/yellow/blue stack to a RGB stack (still WOLED), but we dont know the potential impact on performance.
> 
> Personally, my WAG is that we will see a 1000+ nit panel with better near black performance and a wider color gamut (though still well short of Rec2020). I am skeptical that we will see the various motion related improvements that I have see referenced on various threads. Brightness and lifetime will be LGD's primary focus for improvement.
> 
> Waiting another year will always get you some improvements and a cheaper price but like Rogo, I would now recommend the OLED's to my friends and family....even those that arent AV geeks.


Thanks - kinda confirms what I had been suspecting from a quick perusal of the threads (incremental improvements).

Slightly wider gamut and/or even more brightness would not be sufficient reason for me to hold off further (especially given recent price drops), but panel lottery issues associated with near-black and near-white nonuniformity might be.

A year ago the panel lottery associated with 65" OLEDs was pretty bad and heading into spring, appeared to be improving. Are Vignetting any yellow-streaking issues associated with the 2016 OLEDs now pretty much resolved with the 2017 models, or is the panel lottery still a big issue?


----------



## wco81

Isn't there some relatively major revision to hdmi due?

Also I though the color space roadmap had annual improvements planned?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> I'm trying to catch up in terms of developments and anticipated developments that might impact a decision of pulling the trigger on a B6/C6 now versus holding off for the 2017 OLEDs to be released.?


It's not like the B6/C6 won't still be available even after CES, I mean the EG9600 is still available today even though that model is like 18 months old.

Unless you're impatient, I would still wait for CES - you'll get to know what improvements the 2017 models have while being able to take advantage of ever-reducing price points on the B6/C6 (especially since they'll basically be last-gen products at that point).



wco81 said:


> Isn't there some relatively major revision to hdmi due?


I believe the only things on the table for HDMI is dynamic metadata for HDR and _maybe_ variable refresh rates (which the AV industry seems apathetic about).


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> It's not like the B6/C6 won't still be available even after CES, I mean the EG9600 is still available today even though that model is like 18 months old.
> 
> Unless you're impatient, I would still wait for CES - you'll get to know what improvements the 2017 models have while being able to take advantage of ever-reducing price points on the B6/C6 (especially since they'll basically be last-gen products at that point).


Appreciate the advice, but starting Monday I won't have a TV. And it looks like the Holiday Season discounts on the B/C6 mean that I'll be able to purchase 2 65" OLEDs this season for what one cost me a year ago, so I'm doubtful that there are further significant savings to be had (and don't need further savings in any case).

There are pretty much no upcoming features on the 2017 models that I see leading to buyer's remorse. No Atmos out is annoying but it looks like the Chromecast Ultra may offer a $70 workaround and even if not, DV streaming into an AVR is a problem that is going to be solved eventually.

HFR and reduced persistence are the greatest technical improvements I see on the horizon, but it doesn't look like those are slated for 2017 and honestly, I can't even remember the last time motion performance on my 65EF9500 jumped out at me as unnacceptable/distracting.

Just the fact that I'll be able to add Dolby Vision capability and increased brightness into an OLED costing half the price is a pinch-me kind of holiday present...

For perspective, I'll be getting a 65" DV-enabled 4K WCG OLED for about the same price I paid for my first 55" 1080p edge-lit LED/LCD (LG 55LW5600).

Pinch me again.

P.S. And though I've been absent from the Forum for much of this year, the progress LG has made in pricing over the past 12 months is remarkable and obviously a very bullish sign for OLEDs future.

If I'd stated back in Match that LG would be selling a 65" DV-enabled 4K WCG OLED for about the same price that Vizio would be selling a 75" DV-enabled 4K WCG FALD LED/LCD (as I suspect I might have ;-), I would have been laughed off of the thread (as I suspect I was).

Have lost track of where Damsing has gone over my absence, but in terms of LG OLED going home-to-to against Vizio, 10" against the superior blacks of OLED seems about right...


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> HFR and reduced persistence are the greatest technical improvements I see on the horizon, but it doesn't look like those are slated for 2017


Just for clarification, is it accurate to say that you see LG's demonstration of native 100/120fps support as just that - a technical demonstration and that it will not in fact be present on their 2017 models?


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Just for clarification, is it accurate to say that you see LG's demonstration of native 100/120fps support as just that - a technical demonstration and that it will not in fact be present on their 2017 models?


The few references I've seen to HFR in the LG threads all seem to suggest it won't be coming in 2017 - do you have other information?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> The few references I've seen to HFR in the LG threads all seem to suggest it won't be coming in 2017 - do you have other information?


The only information I have is of the actual HFR demonstration, which is 2 months old at this point.

For reference here's the link:
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1473185035


----------



## beedy

NintendoManiac64 said:


> It's not like the B6/C6 won't still be available even after CES,


Yep, remember it's initially just a limited pilot run for inkjet. If successful, production will start to ramp up the following year.


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> The only information I have is of the actual HFR demonstration, which is 2 months old at this point.
> 
> For reference here's the link:
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1473185035


Interesting, thanks.

I think this sentence says it all: "This is what LG is demonstrating at IFA 2016 in Berlin. We spoke to LG about it before IFA started and a spokesperson told us that *LG is using specialized OLED panels that can best be described as prototypes.*

Just look at the sequence of other technologies that LG OLED has demonstrated and then rolled out (such as HDMI2.0a) and I believe it's safe to say that this capability is coming, but not in 2017.

But it's very promisingly that LG has finally recognizedthe speed of OLED pixels as an advantage that will be better exploited through HFR (and BFI) and so I believe it's now safe to say it's a question of when rather than if...


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> I believe it's safe to say that this capability is coming, but not in 2017.


We'll just have to disagree then, because I firmly believe it is _not_ safe to say that.

One key point about HDR and HDMI 2.0a is that you can run a prototype at any sort of brightness without much worry about the long-term lifetime of the panels.

By comparison, native 100/120fps support is simply tied to the SOC's capabilities as the panels themselves have already ran at 120Hz via interpolation. The thing about SOCs though is that, unless you're actually designing the chips yourself*, then the SOC hardware will already "just work" meaning you're purely limited by the software which is something can be rolled out after-the-fact (see: LG's HDR firmware updates on 2015 TVs).


*even if LG _is_ designing their own SOCs, then they're very likely to borrow pre-existing designs from their mobile platforms as the hardware will have already been "battle-tested" in much more constrained situations (heat and power consumption is much less of an issue in a TV than in a mobile device).


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> We'll just have to disagree then, because I firmly believe it is _not_ safe to say that.
> 
> One key point about HDR and HDMI 2.0a is that you can run a prototype at any sort of brightness without much worry about the long-term lifetime of the panels.
> 
> By comparison, native 100/120fps support is simply tied to the SOC's capabilities as the panels themselves have already ran at 120Hz via interpolation. The thing about SOCs though is that, unless you're actually designing the chips yourself*, then the SOC hardware will already "just work" meaning you're purely limited by the software which is something can be rolled out after-the-fact (see: LG's HDR firmware updates on 2015 TVs).
> 
> 
> *even if LG _is_ designing their own SOCs, then they're very likely to borrow pre-existing designs from their mobile platforms as the hardware will have already been "battle-tested" in much more constrained situations (heat and power consumption is much less of an issue in a TV than in a mobile device).


We'll just have to agree to disagree for now (and revisit after CES). You're worried about an SOC, I am not (low risk).

I'm worried about the OLED panel and all of the other associated peripheral drive electronics needed to drive everything at twice the speed. 

There is no rocket-science needed there either, but the downside risk of a snafu far outweighs the upside benefit of delivering HFR so I believe LG will play it very safe and await certainty that the HFR technology is ready for prime time before launching it compared to what they did with HDR/WCG/HDMI2.0a in order to not be 'left behind.'

Time will tell who's forecast was correct, but the bottom line is that I'm not prepared to hold off on jumping on a 65C6P now in the hopes that LG has launched HFR (and BFI) a few months from now...


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> I'm worried about the OLED panel and all of the other associated peripheral drive electronics needed to drive everything at twice the speed.


But the panel is already operating at 120Hz via interpolation. And if you're concerned about the electronics sustaining at higher bandwidth rates, consider that 4k 60Hz 8bit 4:4:4 already uses the exact same amount of bandwidth as 4k 120Hz 8bit 4:2:0.



fafrd said:


> and BFI


I don't see LG even considering to implement BFI until they can get brightness to considerably higher levels (especially when you factor in HDR, unless they're willing to make it that you can't activate BFI during HDR).


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> But the panel is already operating at 120Hz via interpolation. And if you're concerned about the electronics sustaining at higher bandwidth rates, consider that 4k 60Hz 8bit 4:4:4 already uses the exact same amount of bandwidth as 4k 120Hz 8bit 4:2:0.


I agree, if the B/C/E/G panels are already delivering 120 FPS using frame interpolation, there is very little risk at the panel level of having the capability to support 130FPS HFR and it just boils down to HDMI bandwidth and content.




> I don't see LG even considering to implement BFI until they can get brightness to considerably higher levels (especially when you factor in HDR, unless they're willing to make it that you can't activate BFI during HDR).


I know HFR will be great all on its own for gaming, but that's not a high priority for me and my only interest in HFR would be for the possibility (finally) of BFI (and eventually HFR content).

It may only be possible when viewing in the dark and only in SDR (not HDR), but even if the BFI is handled at the player level, it should finally be possible for OLED persistence-based motion blur to at least catch up to what LEd/LCDs are easily able to deliver (even if limited to dark room viewing of SDR content until peak brightness output increases further).

I wouldn't hold off for a year because of this hoped-for HFR capability. Atmos-over-ARC/DD+ is probably a higher prioity to me (and I'm not waiting for that either ;-).


----------



## NintendoManiac64

I think you forget a [/quote] in that quote box there.


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> I think you forget a


 in that quote box there.[/QUOTE]

Thanks - fixed. I was using BOLD instead of QUOTE...


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> it just boils down to HDMI bandwidth


Which is already not an issue unless you _really_ want to do 3840x2160 10bit 120Hz (which is not possible on HDMI 2.0), but it _should_ be possible to do 3840x2160 10bit 100Hz 4:2:0 since 3840x2160 10bit 50Hz 4:4:4 should also be possible with HDMI 2.0.


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Which is already not an issue unless you _really_ want to do 3840x2160 10bit 120Hz (which is not possible on HDMI 2.0), but it _should_ be possible to do 3840x2160 10bit 100Hz 4:2:0 since 3840x2160 10bit 50Hz 4:4:4 should also be possible with HDMI 2.0.


From the Chromecast Ultra Owner's Thread:

"According to Google, the Chromecast only supports Dolby Vision if the TV accepts [email protected] 10 bit input, not [email protected] So you'd have to take that up with Google and/or LG...".

Do the 2016 (B/C/E/G) OLEDs support [email protected] 10-bit or not? (I assume 4:2:2 since we are talking about DV Streams)

If not, is this a feature you are thinking the 2017 OLEDs may support?

This industry is so good at forced obsolescence...


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> Do the 2016 (B/C/E/G) OLEDs support [email protected] 10-bit or not?


Yes they do.

There was a forum post a couple months back where a PC user was trying to get that with 4:4:4 chroma and couldn't figure out why 4:2:0 worked just fine yet 4:4:4 wasn't working even though 4:4:4 worked at 8bit. Needless to say, we had to explain that HDMI 2.0 simply doesn't have the bandwidth to do it.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> There are pretty much no upcoming features on the 2017 models that I see leading to buyer's remorse.


I'll be sure to remind you of this statement in January. 

Since there is no solid info on definite 2017 improvements we can only go with things that LG has demonstrated on various trade show prototypes. They showed a ~800 nit prototype a few months before we eventually saw that number measured on some 2016 models. If they follow that same pattern, the 2017 OLEDs should hit 1000 nits since they showed prototypes this year that could do it. Don't dismiss the importance of brightness. It is crucial for properly reproducing HDR and may also lead to reduced ABL in non-HDR content. They also showed prototypes with increased frame rate so I suspect we'll see that as well in 2017 models - most likely 120Hz for content and 240Hz with interpolation.

Since you're shopping for a 65", I would also be very concerned about the common vignetting issues at this size (see this post for an indicator of your chances in scoring a vignette free panel). Maybe LG will actually fix this in 2017 instead of trying to hide it by artificially brightening the sides?


----------



## tgm1024

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Which is already not an issue unless you _really_ want to do 3840x2160 10bit 120Hz (which is not possible on HDMI 2.0), but it _should_ be possible to do 3840x2160 10bit 100Hz 4:2:0 since 3840x2160 10bit 50Hz 4:4:4 should also be possible with HDMI 2.0.


I need a clarification here, because I've honestly read two distinct answers to this.

When something encoded with H.265/H.264 is watched on a TV via 4:4:4 (by PC or otherwise), the encoding is H.265/H.264, but is it _possible to send_ H.265/H.264 over HDMI? In other words, does the TV have any ability at all to decode H.26x?

The reason I ask is because we often get in the habit of using "4:4:4" as a synonym of "fully uncompressed", and the calculation gets difficult if there is still a compression used that simply isn't chroma-subsampling.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

tgm1024 said:


> is it _possible to send_ H.265/H.264 over HDMI?


No.

One key point is that HDMI is electrically compatible with DVI but DVI pre-dates those video formats by quite a few years.

Now you could probably do this with DisplayPort as it is a packet-based standard (which is why it works over USB 3.1 and also supports "visually lossless" stream compression), but the AV/broadcast industry shot down making HDMI 2.0 packet-based when it was being drafted up.


----------



## tgm1024

NintendoManiac64 said:


> No.
> 
> One key point is that HDMI is electrically compatible with DVI but DVI pre-dates those video formats by quite a few years.
> 
> Now you could probably do this with DisplayPort as it is a packet-based standard (which is why it works over USB 3.1 and also supports "visually lossless" stream compression), but the AV/broadcast industry shot down making HDMI 2.0 packet-based when it was being drafted up.


Ok. To the side though, I'm not sure what "packet-based" has to do with compression. You could send a compression or non-compression data stream over anything, even something as archaic as RS-232C. Did you mean because DP is effectively a network paradigm allowing for generalized data communication?

The more and more I dive into DP, the more I like it.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

tgm1024 said:


> Did you mean because DP is effectively a network paradigm allowing for generalized data communication?


I _think_ this is the case, but don't quote me on it.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I'll be sure to remind you of this statement in January.
> 
> Since there is no solid info on definite 2017 improvements we can only go with things that LG has demonstrated on various trade show prototypes. They showed a ~800 nit prototype a few months before we eventually saw that number measured on some 2016 models. If they follow that same pattern, the 2017 OLEDs should hit 1000 nits since they showed prototypes this year that could do it. Don't dismiss the importance of brightness. It is crucial for properly reproducing HDR and may also lead to reduced ABL in non-HDR content. They also showed prototypes with increased frame rate so I suspect we'll see that as well in 2017 models - most likely 120Hz for content and 240Hz with interpolation.
> 
> Since you're shopping for a 65", I would also be very concerned about the common vignetting issues at this size (see this post for an indicator of your chances in scoring a vignette free panel). Maybe LG will actually fix this in 2017 instead of trying to hide it by artificially brightening the sides?


Placed my order with Cleveland Plasma today - very confident I won't regret it (especially for what I paid ;-).

I watch mainly in the dark, including HDR and the EF9500 is plenty bright for me, so 1000 Nits would not be reason to hold off. Never, ever notice ABL when watching actual content in dark-room viewing conditions on the EF9500.

Increase from 120fps to 240fps holds a bit of interest, but only if introduced with support for BFI (which is apparently unlikely) and more importantly, an overall initiative on LGs part to at least catch up to the motion performance of leading LED/LCDs (which looks like it will take more time, since LG has never given motion performance a high priority).

I've gone through 4 55EC9300s and 3 65EF9500s over the past 2years, so I am probably one of the most familiar members on the forum when it comes to Vignetting and near-black & near-white uniformity issues with LGs OLEDs in general. I have worked enough with LG and LGs technicians in my home that I have no concerns about LGs recognizing and addressing Vignetting and other uniformity defects should I be unfortunate enough to be impacted by them (yet again). LGs customer support is truly top-notch and second to none, in my experience.

The biggest feature I'm missing is Atmos/DD+ over ARC (such as the Vizio P delivers), but the Chromecast Ultra appears to have closed that gap and anyway, there is scant little DV+Atmos content to exploit that capability now and on the horizon.

I paid less than half the price for a 65C6P than I paid one year ago for the 65EF9500 - even if I end up with buyer's remorse, the hit I will take in selling the 65C6P will be far more modest than I would have faced in having to sell the 65EF9500.

And before the whole board jumps on my case about what an idiot I am for choosing a curved screen instead of flat, as I said, we had 4 curved 55EC9300s over close to a year in our home followed by 3 flat EF9500s over a similar period.

The curve is so unnoticeable that I really didn't care either way and decided to let the family decide. My wife had no preference either, but both kids bemoaned the loss of 3D, so that drove the decision for us. We really only use 3D 2-3 times a year, but when we do, it is usually a special movie night with many guests over and LGs 3D delivers a greater WOW factor than HDR+5.1 or upscaled Bluray+Atmos (such as Gravity) alone.

Will let everyone know what I think about the delta LG has delivered between the 65EF9500 and the 65C6P once I have the new TV up and running...


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> I paid less than half the price for a 65C6P than I paid one year ago for the 65EF9500 - even if I end up with buyer's remorse, the hit I will take in selling the 65C6P will be far more modest than I would have faced in having to sell the 65EF9500.
> 
> And before the whole board jumps on my case about what an idiot I am for choosing a curved screen instead of flat, as I said, we had 4 curved 55EC9300s over close to a year in our home followed by 3 flat EF9500s over a similar period.
> 
> The curve is so unnoticeable that I really didn't care either way and decided to let the family decide. My wife had no preference either, but both kids bemoaned the loss of 3D, so that drove the decision for us. We really only use 3D 2-3 times a year, but when we do, it is usually a special movie night with many guests over and LGs 3D delivers a greater WOW factor than HDR+5.1 or upscaled Bluray+Atmos (such as Gravity) alone.
> 
> Will let everyone know what I think about the delta LG has delivered between the 65EF9500 and the 65C6P once I have the new TV up and running...


Good luck. Hope you get a good one.

I know you've been absent from the boards so maybe you didn't know that LG really cracked down on exchanges for near-black issues. Too many EF9500 owners abused their warranty in order to get free swaps for 2016 models. They may not be as lenient as you've experienced in the past.

Regarding curved, I would never pick that model for a family situation. Everyone who's not sitting in the center will have some pretty bad distortion. Even in the sweet spot you can see pretty bad bowing of any straight horizontal lines like letterbox bars. It's a no-go for most of us. The public at large seems to agree and it will really hurt your resale value. Just look at these recent sales figures from the Adorama clearance sale a few weeks ago:

B6P ($1500): 244 units
E6P($1800): 149 units
C6P($1500): 86 units

Only 18% chose the C6 despite it being $300 cheaper than the E6 (which sold out so actual numbers would have been even higher) and offering 3D. I'm actually disappointed to hear that LG has decided to continue with the curve into 2017 because it likely means they'll do another dumb marketing decision like put 3D only on the bent model.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Good luck. Hope you get a good one.
> 
> I know you've been absent from the boards so maybe you didn't know that *LG really cracked down on exchanges for near-black issues.* Too many EF9500 owners abused their warranty in order to get free swaps for 2016 models. They may not be as lenient as you've experienced in the past.


Thanks for the heads-up. Not sure whether the cracking down is for people just sending in photos and complaining or demonstrating to an LG technician. Since the technicians only come during the day, I had to go to the trouble to completely blacken a room and move the TV into it. In my experience, if you show an LG technician evidence of the problem on several examples of actual content that they are unable to fix, they take care of you. My latest return was actually due to the yellow-streak - pretty much no Vignetting at all 



> Regarding curved, I would never pick that model for a family situation. Everyone who's not sitting in the center will have some pretty bad distortion. Even in the sweet spot you can see pretty bad bowing of any straight horizontal lines like letterbox bars. It's a no-go for most of us.


Understand (and have historically been one of the most outspoken critics of the entire curved TV trend on the Forum). Bottom line, most videophiles who can get through a month with a 65C6P in heir homes will largely lose their ability to even notice. In our experience, the pretty-much-unnoticeable detraction of the curve was outweighed by the next-to-useless feature of 3D. If LG had offered 3D on the B, I would have gone flat. And if they had not offered 3D on the C, I would have gone flat (and would certainly never have paid the premium of the E for 3D). But their bone-headed product marketing g decided that they should use their 3D as a feature to promote their curved TVs and so they forced my hand...



> The public at large seems to agree and it will really hurt your resale value. Just look at these recent sales figures from the Adorama clearance sale a few weeks ago:
> 
> B6P ($1500): 244 units
> E6P($1800): 149 units
> C6P($1500): 86 units
> 
> Only 18% chose the C6 despite it being $300 cheaper than the E6 (which sold out so actual numbers would have been even higher) and offering 3D. I'm actually disappointed to hear that LG has decided to continue with the curve into 2017 because it likely means they'll do another dumb marketing decision like put 3D only on the bent model.


Interesting data. And reason to suspect that if I do end up deciding to sell my C6 for whatever reason, I may take a bigger hit than I had hoped. But first, I believe there is a good chance I will be happy with this TV for many years to come, and second, if it ends up being defective, I should be able to see what 2017 will bring before deciding to exchange it for a B6, or a C6, or a B7 or a C7, and third, if it is not defective and 2017 brings features I absolutely, positively have to have, since I got it for under $2500 all-in, any resale loss shouldn't be too dramatic (and way less than it would have been on the 65EF9500).


----------



## NintendoManiac64

It's worth mentioning that the C6 is the go-to OLED TV for gaming and PC users, especially since the curve is sometimes even preferred for such situations.


----------



## tgm1024

NintendoManiac64 said:


> It's worth mentioning that the C6 is the go-to OLED TV for gaming and PC users, especially since the curve is sometimes even preferred for such situations.


I've heard that bounced around as a concept before, but when I look on the gaming forums from time to time I just don't see it playing out in real life.

Makes perfect sense to me though.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

tgm1024 said:


> when I look on the gaming forums from time to time I just don't see it playing out in real life.


This makes sense because, even if all of the C6 buyers were gamers, that is still a very tiny fraction of the gaming population.


----------



## fafrd

*Black Friday Special*

http://www.oled-info.com/lgs-2016-oled-tvs-prices-slashed-black-friday

Looks like LG is really getting serious about moving more volume for Black Friday (additional 0.07% off )

On a more serious note, any sense whether this is for real or yet another episode of Groundhog Day: http://www.oled-info.com/digitimes-research-samsung-will-begin-qled-tv-production-2019

Oh, wait, I thought it said OLED but now see from the link it says QLED. QLED if far better than OLED as far as spreading FUD (and confused eyeballs ;-) 

Seems as though 2017 is pretty much going to be a double-down year (repeat of 2016 with a bit more intensity all around).


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> It's worth mentioning that the C6 is the go-to OLED TV for gaming and PC users, especially since the curve is sometimes even preferred for such situations.


Just ran into this: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1478257494

"Lastly, HDTVTest highlights that LG B6 uses a chipset from Realtek (RTD2999) while the other 2016 OLED TVs use LG’s in-house chipset (LG1312). That may explain why the B6 has higher input lag than the rest of the line-up."

So looks as though the lack of 3D on the B6 was due to the use of the Realtek (non-LG) chipset.

The fact that the C really is a budget E without a speakerbar but with a slight curve instead of picture on glass makes me happy I went that route - the B6 sounds like it is a bit of an orphan... (And the runt of the litter as far as gaming ).


----------



## videobruce

Why are they bothering with a curved version anymore? I figured that 'fad/marketing ploy' was past.


----------



## tgm1024

videobruce said:


> Why are they bothering with a curved version anymore? I figured that 'fad/marketing ploy' was past.


I think because they have a vested interest in pissing off people who want 3D. You want 3D at a not-stupid price? Gotta get a dumbass curve. UGH, what a PITA this model business turned out to be. I hope the B7 has 3D, but {sigh}, I'm betting not.

They make the best 3D presentation at home possible, something so good that it not only sways the 3D "meh" crowd, but converts a significant number of the 3D "ugh" crowd, and then take it out of the bottom offering.


----------



## j.p.s

videobruce said:


> Why are they bothering with a curved version anymore? I figured that 'fad/marketing ploy' was past.


The C is almost 20% lighter than the B. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I do know from over 14 months watching the EC9300 that the curve does not bother me.

I am also a convert from the 3D ugh! to 3D wow! camp, so if I were buying today, I would get the C instead of the B with no regret.


----------



## videobruce

From what I read, the 'C' doesn't have the glass, correct?


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> http://www.oled-info.com/lgs-2016-oled-tvs-prices-slashed-black-friday
> 
> Looks like LG is really getting serious about moving more volume for Black Friday (additional 0.07% off )
> 
> On a more serious note, any sense whether this is for real or yet another episode of Groundhog Day: http://www.oled-info.com/digitimes-research-samsung-will-begin-qled-tv-production-2019
> 
> Oh, wait, I thought it said OLED but now see from the link it says QLED. QLED if far better than OLED as far as spreading FUD (and confused eyeballs ;-)
> 
> Seems as though 2017 is pretty much going to be a double-down year (repeat of 2016 with a bit more intensity all around).


Interesting: http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-set-acquire-quantum-dots-developer-qdvision

Not strictly speaking OLED news, but with the rebranding of various favors of quantum dot LED technologies as ULED and now QLED, perhaps the title of the thread needs to be generalized to '*xLED TVs Technology Advancements Thread*'

In any case, it seems that Samsung is tripling down on quantum-dot-enhanced-LED TVs and now wants to corner the best technology for themselves.

By purchasing QDVision, Samsung is going all-in on Quantum-Dots. As a captive technology, their costs will probably go down, especially since I seriously doubt they will continue to sell to the rest of the market.

But this is a significant enough investment that I seriously doubt we will see any revival of OLED TVs from Samsung until it's clear that OLED has won...

Will be interesting to see how Vizio responds - probably continue with WCG phosphors?

My prediction is that the market is going to fracture into three camps, with LG offering WOLED panels, Samsung offering Quantum-Dot-Enhanced-LED panels, and Taiwan/China Inc. (including Sharp for as long as they can hold on) offering the remaining scraps including WCG phosphors and any viable quantum dot variants to QDVision.

Could be worse.


----------



## fafrd

videobruce said:


> From what I read, the 'C' doesn't have the glass, correct?


C and B are identical thin bezel design, the only difference being that the C has a slightly curved screen and the B is using a slightly less expensive third-party chipset that does not support 3D and has higher input lag.

I checked out the picture-on-glass design of the E and the G and was not impressed. Not only did I think it did not look as good, it looked slightly dangerous. Not quite as dangerous as a new sheet of glass waiting to be installed in a window, but a step in that direction. 

Mounted on a wall, this would be a non-issue, but in any place where a human could unexpectedly fall against the edge of the TV with force, it would cause me concern.

I just suffered a serious injury cutting my hand on glass, so I'm probably excessively sensitive on the subject...


----------



## video_analysis

fafrd said:


> Thanks for the heads-up. Not sure whether the cracking down is for people just sending in photos and complaining or demonstrating to an LG technician. Since the technicians only come during the day, I had to go to the trouble to completely blacken a room and move the TV into it. In my experience, if you show an LG technician evidence of the problem on several examples of actual content that they are unable to fix, they take care of you. My latest return was actually due to the yellow-streak - pretty much no Vignetting at all


So, I was able to demonstrate a vertical banding issue (at 5-10% IRE) to a local 3rd party tech and even sent to the support team photos of content and full motion video where it appeared. I can't be 100% sure how the tech articulated it (he took no photos himself due to the difficulty of being able to reproduce the anomaly during the day) to LG, but they shortly thereafter deemed it within specifications, and this relates to the G6. If the same happens to you, at least the sting ($$) won't be as intense. For exposition, I went through one EF9500 (didn't dare to engage the lottery on that model for obvious reasons, so I held onto it until the 2016 models appeared), one E6 (should have settled with it in spite of 3 dead subpixels and a very faint pair of symmetrical low IRE bands) and three G6s (all suffering uniformity and pixel failures). I don't believe LG is putting the kind of effort one would expect in the Signature series, and I pin most of the blame on the Mexican assembly plant. They are the last stand before product hits market as it were.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> So, I was able to demonstrate a vertical banding issue (at 5-10% IRE) to a local 3rd party tech and even sent to the support team photos of content and full motion video where it appeared. I can't be 100% sure how the tech articulated it (he took no photos himself due to the difficulty of being able to reproduce the anomaly during the day) to LG, but they shortly thereafter deemed it within specifications, and this relates to the G6. If the same happens to you, at least the sting ($$) won't be as intense. For exposition, I went through one EF9500 (didn't dare to engage the lottery on that model for obvious reasons, so I held onto it until the 2016 models appeared), one E6 (should have settled with it in spite of 3 dead subpixels and a very faint pair of symmetrical low IRE bands) and three G6s (all suffering uniformity and pixel failures). I don't believe LG is putting the kind of effort one would expect in the Signature series, and I pin most of the blame on the Mexican assembly plant. They are the last stand before product hits market as it were.


Wow, your almost as much of a fanatic as me ;-).

If what you are saying is visible banding/streaking in the 5-10% IRE range is not a defect recognized by LG, that is my experience as well.

For near-black nonumiformity, including banding, I have only successfully gotten LG to recognize the issue if it is clearly visible on several examples of actual content.

This is pretty much impossible with streaking/banding (so I have not even tried) but pretty easy with excessive vignette.

Finding a scene where vignette is visible and switching between 16:9 and 4:3 is the easiest way to allow them to see the impact the vignette is having on the image. Here is an example (this is the widescreen version of the image impacted by vignette along the right edge):


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Wow, your almost as much of a fanatic as me ;-).
> 
> If what you are saying is visible banding/streaking in the 5-10% IRE range is not a defect recognized by LG, that is my experience as well.
> 
> For near-black nonumiformity, including banding, I have only successfully gotten LG to recognize the issue if it is clearly visible on several examples of actual content.
> 
> This is pretty much impossible with streaking/banding (so I have not even tried) but pretty easy with excessive vignette.
> 
> Finding a scene where vignette is visible and switching between 16:9 and 4:3 is the easiest way to allow them to see the impact the vignette is having on the image. Here is an example:


Here's the 4:3 version of the same scene. Look along the right edge.

Don't know why I'm only able to attach a single image per post and it comes out sideways - apologies.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> So, I was able to demonstrate a vertical banding issue (at 5-10% IRE) to a local 3rd party tech and even sent to the support team photos of content and full motion video where it appeared. I can't be 100% sure how the tech articulated it (he took no photos himself due to the difficulty of being able to reproduce the anomaly during the day) to LG, but they shortly thereafter deemed it within specifications, and this relates to the G6. If the same happens to you, at least the sting ($$) won't be as intense. For exposition, I went through one EF9500 (didn't dare to engage the lottery on that model for obvious reasons, so I held onto it until the 2016 models appeared), one E6 (should have settled with it in spite of 3 dead subpixels and a very faint pair of symmetrical low IRE bands) and three G6s (all suffering uniformity and pixel failures). I don't believe LG is putting the kind of effort one would expect in the Signature series, and I pin most of the blame on the Mexican assembly plant. They are the last stand before product hits market as it were.


One more comment on your experience - I went through 4 55EC9300s (3 of which suffered from dimpling and 1 from vignette) and 3 65EF9500s (2 of which suffered from excessive vignette and all of which suffered from the yellow streak / near-white nonuniformity) but have not had a single bad pixel over 7 OLEDs and 2 years.

Your experience with bad pixels is alarming, especially on the G6 flagship.

I'm going to hope that it is something related to the 'picture-on-glass' technology and that my 65C6 is as perfect as my 65EF9500s in that department.

If not, I'm going to be very unhappy I returned my 65EF9500 and it's going to be a very bad sign as to steps back in LGs production quality as they have continued to ramp up volume and ramp down price...


----------



## video_analysis

fafrd said:


> Here's the 4:3 version of the same scene. Look along the right edge.
> 
> Don't know why I'm only able to attach a single image per post and it comes out sideways - apologies.


Yea, I remember that test...very useful. My current set has a minuscule right-handed vignette that I can't really raise any complaints about. The last G6 had some inverse vignetting where the left side was brighter, accentuated by a darker patch to its right, and the set also came out of black horrendously unevenly. I think it's still a WIP for them to consistently churn out sets that minimize both the banding and the vignette. My EF9500 had it all (jailbars and vignette), which is probably why they agreed to the exchange.



fafrd said:


> One more comment on your experience - I went through 4 55EC9300s (3 of which suffered from dimpling and 1 from vignette) and 3 65EF9500s (2 of which suffered from excessive vignette and all of which suffered from the yellow streak / near-white nonuniformity) but have not had a single bad pixel over 7 OLEDs and 2 years.
> 
> Your experience with bad pixels is alarming, especially on the G6 flagship.
> 
> I'm going to hope that it is something related to the 'picture-on-glass' technology and that my 65C6 is as perfect as my 65EF9500s in that department.
> 
> If not, I'm going to be very unhappy I returned my 65EF9500 and it's going to be a very bad sign as to steps back in LGs production quality as they have continued to ramp up volume and ramp down price...


I also had an EA9800 that had its screen replaced due to 10+ dead subpixels, so they're still moving in the right direction compared to the debuting of the tech. I'm impressed at your record of pixel perfection. In the manual for most of these sets, I have noted a warning about a "Dot Defect" effect being within specs. Like you, my EF9500 was pixel perfect, but they seem to have taken one step back this year on that front. My first G6 might have been a keeper had it not developed a stuck cluster of pixels (stuck-on red) upon entering the service menu. That was just a freak occurrence and bad luck on my part, I think. Never had a similar problem when entering a service menu otherwise.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Yea, I remember that test...very useful. My current set has a minuscule right-handed vignette that I can't really raise any complaints about. The last G6 had some inverse vignetting where the left side was brighter, accentuated by a darker patch to its left, and the set also came out of black horrendously unevenly. I think it's still a WIP for them to consistently churn out sets that minimize both the banding and the vignette. My EF9500 had it all (jailbars and vignette), which is probably why they agreed to the exchange.
> 
> 
> I also had an EA9800 that had its screen replaced due to 10+ dead subpixels, so they're still moving in the right direction compared to the debuting of the tech. I'm impressed at your record of pixel perfection. In the manual for most of these sets, I have noted a warning about a "Dot Defect" effect being within specs. Like you, my EF9500 was pixel perfect, but they seem to have taken one step back this year on that front. My first G6 might have been a keeper had it not developed a stuck cluster of pixels (stuck-on red) upon entering the service menu. That was just a freak occurrence and bad luck on my part, I think. Never had a similar problem when entering a service menu otherwise.


Sounds like we have been very much in the same boat, except that I have not experienced bad pixels as you have. I decided to stick with OLED partially from my assessment that the technology is reliable and mature except for continued progress to be made in near-black and near-white uniformity as well as my experience and belief that LG understands the importance of delivering defect-free OLED TVs to the early adopters with the experience to discern these remaining flaws.

If I'd experienced as many problems with bad pixels as you have, I probably would have made the decision to camp out with a Vizio P65 while LG OLED continues to get its act together.

As it is, I'm hopeful my 'lucky streak' in the bad pixel department continues, that I get a 65C6B that at least matches the quality of my recently-departed 65EF9500, with the benefits of Dolby Vision, increased brightness, wider color gamut, and whatever benefits the more sophisticated compensation process delivers, and in any case, taking a risk on a 65" OLED for $2500 feels a great deal more comfortable than taking that risk for $5000.

If I get lucky again, I'll be very happy (at least for a few years ;-) and if I don't, hopefully LG VIP's excellent track-record of customer service will continue. If not, I'll be done with OLED until it clearly and completely gets its act together.

Those inky blacks are pretty addictive, though, aren't they (especially on letterbox bars). I was very impressed with my P70 which delivered darker letterbox bars than my ZT60 plasma, but 'too dark to notice unless you are looking for it' and 'invisible' are two different things, aren't they ;-).


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Yea, I remember that test...very useful. My current set has a minuscule right-handed vignette that I can't really raise any complaints about. The last G6 had some inverse vignetting where the left side was brighter, accentuated by a darker patch to its left, and the set also came out of black horrendously unevenly. I think it's still a WIP for them to consistently churn out sets that minimize both the banding and the vignette. My EF9500 had it all (jailbars and vignette), which is probably why they agreed to the exchange.
> 
> 
> I also had an EA9800 that had its screen replaced due to 10+ dead subpixels, so they're still moving in the right direction compared to the debuting of the tech. I'm impressed at your record of pixel perfection. In the manual for most of these sets, I have noted a warning about a "Dot Defect" effect being within specs. *Like you, my EF9500 was pixel perfect, but they seem to have taken one step back this year on that front.* My first G6 might have been a keeper had it not developed a stuck cluster of pixels (stuck-on red) upon entering the service menu. That was just a freak occurrence and bad luck on my part, I think. Never had a similar problem when entering a service menu otherwise.


P.s. One thing to point out regarding your comment about 'one step back this year' is that you decided to switch to the new picture-on-glass technology. I'm sticking to the B/C6P because they are based on the identical backplane technology used on the 55EC9300 and 65EF9500. Introduction of any new technology entails risk and it is very possible that the 'step backward' you experienced with your E and Gs is associated with new manufacturing issues involved in mounting OLED panels on thin glass sheets without additional backing.

I checked out the E and the G but did not find the feature compelling partly because of that perceived risk but especially because of the increased price...

Now, if my new 65C6P has a bunch of dead pixels, that's a whole different ball of wax, so I'll report back once I've fired it up ;-)


----------



## video_analysis

Yes, inky blacks are infectious. I had long since dreamed about them, and the ZT60 that I also previously owned just wasn't cutting the mustard.

What kind of distance do you typically sit from the screen? These subpixel failures will be invisible outside of 6 feet (and very difficult to spot at that distance).


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Yes, inky blacks are infectious. I had long since dreamed about them, and the ZT60 that I also previously owned just wasn't cutting the mustard.
> 
> What kind of distance do you typically sit from the screen? These subpixel failures will be invisible outside of 6 feet (and very difficult to spot at that distance).


For general viewing, we're usually at about 10 feet, but we generally sit closer when occasionally watching 3D and when gaming we are closer than 6'.

When I calibrate, I'm sitting about 1-2' from the screen, so I'd spot any dead subpixels if there were any ;-).

I was pretty happy with the 55EC9300 except that the screen was too small and once sitting close enough to feel the right size, the screen door became distracting...

The real showstopper for me with the ZT60 was bright-room viewing (unwatchable). While the OLEDs are not completely as capable as the Vizio P-Series LED/LCDs in that department, there a far site closer than the ZT60 was.

We rarely watch during the day, but having friends and family members say 'what's wrong with the TV' when we did was embarassing. When viewing the EF9500 even with bright sunlight streaming into the room, as long as I put it on my bright-room setting, no one has ever said a thing...

Fantastic at night and watchable during the day was all we needed and the LG OLEDs have delivered (so far ;-).


----------



## video_analysis

She was a dim one, but I overlooked that deficiency and didn't put much weight on daytime viewing. I miss the better uniformity (but not the IR retention wrecking said uniformity).


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> I also had an EA9800 that had its screen replaced due to 10+ dead subpixels, so they're still moving in the right direction compared to the debuting of the tech. I'm impressed at your record of pixel perfection. In the manual for most of these sets, I have noted a warning about a "Dot Defect" effect being within specs. Like you, my EF9500 was pixel perfect, but they seem to have taken one step back this year on that front. My first G6 might have been a keeper had it not developed a *stuck cluster of pixels (stuck-on red)* upon entering the service menu. That was just a freak occurrence and bad luck on my part, I think. Never had a similar problem when entering a service menu otherwise.


Just to clarify my comments regarding my track-record of pixel perfection, I was specifically referring to noticable stuck-on pixels.

I have never bothered to inspect closely for stuck-off pixels (like the cluster you had on your first G6).

When referring to 'dead' subpixels, we should probably be more precise: stuck-on and stuck-off.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> She was a dim one, but I overlooked that deficiency and didn't put much weight on daytime viewing. I miss the better uniformity (but not the IR retention wrecking said uniformity).


I didn't have mine long enough to ever experience IR, but the look of incredulity I got from my entire family when I warned my kids to never, ever walk away from the TV while in the middle of playing video games without first turning the TV off of they would ruin our fancy new $5000 plasma was one of the factors that contributed to its return to BB (and that look will forever be etched on my brain - one of those rare moments where I realized my passion for the best video possible had gone a bit too far ;-).


----------



## video_analysis

Well, dead to me denotes completely shut off. A stuck pixel on the other hand is one that shines. That's how I've defined it in my mind anyway. 

You should be fine....have only seen 2 reports of stuck (on) pixels regarding 2016 models including my issue.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Well, dead to me denotes completely shut off. A stuck pixel on the other hand is one that shines. That's how I've defined it in my mind anyway.
> 
> You should be fine....have only seen 2 reports of stuck (on) pixels regarding 2016 models including my issue.


Gotcha - that makes sense.

So from 6' viewing distance, you are able to notice individual dead (stuck off) subpixels? Is that on content or only some sort of uniform field? Individual/isolated or clusters?

I generally scan my 5% grey from pretty close-up when first inspecting a new TV and have never noticed any 'dead' subpixels based on that test. Following that initial inspection, I have never reinspected after use.

It's a pity we did not have this interchange a few days ago - I could have done a 'pre-departure' inspection of my 1-year-old 65EF9500 before shipping it back to LG.

If I ever have another OLED TV being returned, I'll make a point of re-inspecting the 5% field for dead subpixels...

Do you know what LG's defect/warranty policy is regarding stuck and dead subpixels?

Were the dead subpixels you encountered dead out-of-the-box or did they develop over time?


----------



## video_analysis

It takes a uniform field that brings it into visibility, and knowing where it is can draw my eyes towards it, which is one reason why it's wise to not go looking if you can help it. Of course if you're calibrating, that's going to be hard to avoid. If I really want to do a thorough pixel peeping, however, I use Evangelo color slides (found through your favorite search engine).

As for when they developed, some were dead out of the box. A subsequent compensation cycle might have killed another few. The G6 I have now is still at 100% at over 1500 hours (when I last checked anyhow).


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> Interesting: http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-set-acquire-quantum-dots-developer-qdvision
> Not strictly speaking OLED news, but with the rebranding of various favors of quantum dot LED technologies as ULED and now QLED, perhaps the title of the thread needs to be generalized to '*xLED TVs Technology Advancements Thread*'


No, absolutely not. QLED is at this time a pure vaporware and it as equally likely to think anything real will come out of it as it is that it is a PR ploy by Samsung to prevent LG prospects getting too bright. 

Another aspect is legendary intertia and conservatism of the AVS forum management. There is still no separate thread 'OLED Flat Panels' while OLED is obviously a well established, commercial, and best display technology. At the same time threads for ancient technologies like CRT, CRT projectors, rear projection and plasma figure prominently :laugh:.


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> No, absolutely not. QLED is at this time a pure vaporware and it as equally likely to think anything real will come out of it as it is that it is a PR ploy by Samsung to prevent LG prospects getting too bright.


Yeah, no way. Besides, I have a _really_ hard time accepting some of the crap names that are coming out of {cough, mostly Samsung} some companies. "LED" by itself is a *ongoing* train wreck of a term. "QLED"? Oye.


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> No, absolutely not. QLED is at this time a pure vaporware and it as equally likely to think anything real will come out of it as it is that it is a PR ploy by Samsung to prevent LG prospects getting too bright.
> 
> Another aspect is legendary intertia and conservatism of the AVS forum management. There is still no separate thread 'OLED Flat Panels' while OLED is obviously a well established, commercial, and best display technology. At the same time threads for ancient technologies like CRT, CRT projectors, rear projection and plasma figure prominently :laugh:.


Trust my humor was appreciated ;-) 

Your post is spot-on.


----------



## Vader1

irkuck said:


> No, absolutely not. QLED is at this time a pure vaporware and it as equally likely to think anything real will come out of it as it is that it is a PR ploy by Samsung to prevent LG prospects getting too bright.
> 
> Another aspect is legendary intertia and conservatism of the AVS forum management. There is still no separate thread 'OLED Flat Panels' while OLED is obviously a well established, commercial, and best display technology. At the same time threads for ancient technologies like CRT, CRT projectors, rear projection and plasma figure prominently :laugh:.


Yeah it's pretty ridiculous how at this point there still isn't any real OLED section

... and yet according to some people the mods are totally pro OLED and anti everything else. Lol.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> Don't know why I'm only able to attach a single image per post *and it comes out sideways* - apologies.


The image data itself may have been written in that orientation but with metadata that specified to rotate the image 90 degrees; when you uploaded it to AVS that metadata was probably stripped out.


----------------------------------------------------------------




irkuck said:


> There is still no separate thread 'OLED Flat Panels' while OLED is obviously a well established, commercial, and best display technology. At the same time threads for ancient technologies like CRT, CRT projectors, rear projection and plasma figure prominently :laugh:.


I believe you mean "sub-forum" rather than 'thread'; a thread is the thing you're in right now that contains posts on a specific subject.

The sub-forum here is OLED Technology and Flat Panels General.

The thread here is OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread.


----------



## Vader1

What will it take to get a section exclusively for OLED? We've had OLED TV's now about 4 years (plus before 2013 those small monitors from Sony and LG) and like 7-8 different brands have released at least 1 OLED... seems pretty established to me


----------



## fafrd

Vader1 said:


> What will it take to get a section exclusively for OLED? We've had OLED TV's now about 4 years (plus before 2013 those small monitors from Sony and LG) and like 7-8 different brands have released at least 1 OLED... seems pretty established to me


On the other hand, to be fair, this Forum as is recieves nowhere near the volume and traffic of the LCD forum...


----------



## Vader1

fafrd said:


> On the other hand, to be fair, this Forum as is recieves nowhere near the volume and traffic of the LCD forum...


It receives more than the CRT or even Plasma sub forums do these days though. I think it's active enough


----------



## fafrd

Vader1 said:


> It receives more than the CRT or even Plasma sub forums do these days though. I think it's active enough


Fair enough, though on the other hand, those are both legacy threads that were once very active in their heyday, and it's easier to leave them as is than it is to combine them or move them somewhere else.

The effort needed to split something off and establish a new forum is understandably easiest to accept once the future growth of that topic/domain is assured...

And said another way, if we pulled all of the OLED-related posts out of this Forum, what would be left?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> if we pulled all of the OLED-related posts out of this Forum, what would be left?


Maybe the kinds of things that was on here before one could buy OLED TVs?


----------



## Vader1

I'm just generally asking what will it take to get the mods to do make an official OLED Sub Forum? Or is it just kind of laziness, like is it difficult or time consuming for the mods to do it? Really just wondering what it is...


----------



## rogo

Please stop crapping on this thread for what amounts to an irrelevant discussion of whether or not the 3 non-OLED threads in this forum are somehow getting in the way of all the OLED threads. They aren't, but this thread crapping has nothing to do with Technology Advancements in OLED.


----------



## rogo

Vader1 said:


> What will it take to get a section exclusively for OLED? We've had OLED TV's now about 4 years (plus before 2013 those small monitors from Sony and LG) and like 7-8 different brands have released at least 1 OLED... seems pretty established to me


As far as I can tell, one company sells consumer OLEDs. Certainly, there's only one panel supplier. Unequivocally, OLEDs represent


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> On the other hand, to be fair, this Forum as is recieves nowhere near the volume and traffic of the LCD forum...


Sure, as the LCD is 99% of the market. But OLED is in shops, it is the best display tech, its sales are fast growing and thus deserves its forum. Rational arguments are not relevant however for people who are oriented towards the past, acting like vintage collectors. For those who are rational it is evident that there should be a forum "Historical Display Technologies" and there there should be threads for the CRT, plasma, and so on. But inertia and conservatism are such deep characterological features they are impossible to change.


----------



## tgm1024

Vader1 said:


> Yeah it's pretty ridiculous how at this point there still isn't any real OLED section
> 
> ... and yet according to some people the mods are totally pro OLED and anti everything else. Lol.


Sorry, but being "Pro OLED" or "Anti OLED" (whatever those terms mean) doesn't equate in any way to being for or against a dedicated OLED section. It's not connected either way.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> Please stop crapping on this thread for what amounts to an irrelevant discussion of whether or not the 3 non-OLED threads in this forum are somehow getting in the way of all the OLED threads. They aren't, but this thread crapping has nothing to do with Technology Advancements in OLED.


Bingo. What we have here are ever more easily diagnosable cases of AVS Myopia Disorder.


----------



## Vader1

rogo said:


> As far as I can tell, one company sells consumer OLEDs. Certainly, there's only one panel supplier. Unequivocally, OLEDs represent


----------



## tgm1024

Vader1 said:


> I just want to know at want point do they think OLED deserves a Sub Forum and also does this have anything to do with it or is it just laziness? Or perhaps a mix of both


I'm not strongly against it per se, but I'm still missing how it matters. OLED is still a new tech in terms of semi-affordable (TV market) displays. Is this subforum somehow polluted by endless threads of SED, FED, Quantum, or whatever, that I'm not seeing?

I'm also not sure how you're perceiving what the term "deserves" means in terms of a technology. It's almost seems to me as if you're viewing this as a body of people who are being emotionally slighted by not having their own tightly partitioned club or something.

It's a technology and nothing more glamorous than that.


----------



## Vader1

tgm1024 said:


> I'm not strongly against it per se, but I'm still missing how it matters. OLED is still a new tech in terms of semi-affordable (TV market) displays. Is this subforum somehow polluted by endless threads of SED, FED, Quantum, or whatever, that I'm not seeing?
> 
> I'm also not sure how you're perceiving what the term "deserves" means in terms of a technology. It's almost seems to me as if you're viewing this as a body of people who are being emotionally slighted by not having their own tightly partitioned club or something.
> 
> It's a technology and nothing more glamorous than that.


I get your points and what your saying is reasonable and fair enough. I don't think it's really important, not enough to keep going on about. I just think sometime in the near future the mods really need to make a separate OLED Subforum like most of the other established displays have. I think it probably should have been done by now, but I'm not outraged it hasn't been done


----------



## video_analysis

^^It's just logical, though the AVS categorization has become huge and unruly. I can just imagine some legacy fans being upset if to mediate that, as suggested by irkuck, they lumped all of the defunct TV techs into one subforum.


----------



## tgm1024

video_analysis said:


> ^^It's just logical, though the AVS categorization has become huge and unruly. I can just imagine some legacy fans being upset if to mediate that, as suggested by irkuck, they lumped all of the defunct TV techs into one subforum.


Frankly, this is precisely the reason for a tag based system, and why I'm seeing tag systems show up more and more.

If we want to, the tags could be the existing forum names themselves at first. This would allow us to check off which subforums (each their own tag) relates to a particular thread. (no more than 2 perhaps). And still allow people to find _only _OLED stuff, etc., and use the forum as they always have if it made them feel more comfortable.

Meanwhile, back on Earth.....


----------



## rogo

Vader1 said:


> Technically 6 companies (as far as I know) have released at least 1 OLED TV (Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Loewe, Philips, Skyworth).


Sincere questions: What do you think the total, global sales of all 5 of those others were? (I think


----------



## Vader1

rogo said:


> Sincere questions: What do you think the total, global sales of all 5 of those others were? (I think


----------



## 8mile13

There basically is only one OLED manufacturer the others are more a less a joke. It is like ''look we have a OLED TV to'' and it is not much more than that. We needs at least three competitive OLED brands for a OLED only forum.


----------



## Vader1

8mile13 said:


> There basically is only one OLED manufacturer the others are more a less a joke. It is like ''look we have a OLED TV to'' and it is not much more than that. We needs at least three competitive OLED brands for a OLED only forum.


Assuming I just accept this because I really don't care as much as people seem to think I do... does anybody really know if this is the mods reason for not making an OLED Sub section or are we just guessing?


----------



## 8mile13

Vader1 said:


> Assuming I just accept this because I really don't care as much as people seem to think I do... does anybody really know if this is the mods reason for not making an OLED Sub section or are we just guessing?


We do not know. But we do know that we have a OLED/Flatpanel General Forum for a while now which suggests that OLED must do much better than it does now to get its own forum.


----------



## rogo

Vader1 said:


> I honestly wouldn't know where to begin trying to make a real numerical estimate on the sales of those other 5 OLED's. I'm sure the 5 of them together are a very very small percentage of global TV sales. 1% or less.


Sorry, I just need to clarify things so people understand them.

OLEDs altogether are *nowhere near 1% of TV sales*. If LG hits 1 million this year (someone can correct his figure), that's under 0.5% of TV sales -- which are >200 million globally. The _other 5_ are maybe 1/20th of LG sales. That's generously 0.01% of TV sales.


> You've been here since 1999 and you're one of the oldest members here. AVS Forum itself isn't much older than you've been here. How did it work back then in the early Flatpanel era? How long did it take for LCD to get it's own subforum, or has it just always had one? LCD TV sales back in 1999 were pretty small and few companies had even entered into LCD at that time.


I argued strongly against splitting plasma and LCD. The religious warriors eventually won a split by behaving like children and turning every single thread in a war. I think that did a huge disservice at the time because people were choosing between the two displays. And it became impossible to have any intelligent discussions that helped people make a purchase choice.

The nice thing about _this forum_ here is that you can actually start a thread called "HDR benefits of LCD and OLED" and no one can claim it's off topic. Do that in the LCD area and expect to have your head bitten off.


----------



## Vader1

rogo said:


> Sorry, I just need to clarify things so people understand them.
> 
> OLEDs altogether are *nowhere near 1% of TV sales*. If LG hits 1 million this year (someone can correct his figure), that's under 0.5% of TV sales -- which are >200 million globally. The _other 5_ are maybe 1/20th of LG sales. That's generously 0.01% of TV sales.
> 
> 
> I argued strongly against splitting plasma and LCD. The religious warriors eventually won a split by behaving like children and turning every single thread in a war. I think that did a huge disservice at the time because people were choosing between the two displays. And it became impossible to have any intelligent discussions that helped people make a purchase choice.
> 
> The nice thing about _this forum_ here is that you can actually start a thread called "HDR benefits of LCD and OLED" and no one can claim it's off topic. Do that in the LCD area and expect to have your head bitten off.


I thought I read LG's OLED's had captured about 2% of the global TV market. I guess I must be misremembering what I read or I just misread. Anyways I'm clear on that now.

I'm gonna just drop it at this point, I don't think it's really important (I didn't actually bring it up either) and it's true there is very little Non-OLED talk in this forum. I imagine the mods will do it one day. Yeah I bet those early Flatpanel days were rough. I wasn't old enough to really experience the old Plasma vs. LCD wars but I bet they were a lot more intense than OLED vs. LCD is. True about the LCD section... especially any Sony threads over there.


----------



## fafrd

Got my new 65C6P last night and just thought I would past a quick preliminary report that I am very impressed with the progress LG has made over the past year.

Near-black uniformity is close to perfect and by far the best on the 8 OLEDs I have had in my home over the past 20 months (no vignetting or anti-Vignetting).

Near-black performance and calibration controls appear to be improved as well (have not dived back in to calibration yet - that will take some time).

Dolby Vision is stunning. I'm rewatching Matco Polo from the beginning since it feels like an entirely different cut due to the HDRDV - everything I had hoped for as far as image quality.

After an epic saga that started with the purchase of one of the last 65ZT60s available close to three years ago, this 65C6P looks like a keeper ;-).

Very happy and hoping this means LG OLED will be here to stay...


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Dolby Vision is stunning. I'm rewatching Matco Polo from the beginning since it feels like an entirely different cut due to the HDRDV - everything I had hoped for as far as image quality.



DV vs. non-HDR is one thing. How does DV compare to HDR10 in your opinion?


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> DV vs. non-HDR is one thing. How does DV compare to HDR10 in your opinion?


Sorry for not being clear.

Watched Marco Polo in HDR on my 65EF9500.

Watching it on the 65C6P was like an entirely new master - much better.

In general, Netflix delivers the stream in whatever the 'best' quality possible to the TV, so I have no easy way to view Matco Polo in SDR but I'm pretty sure either HDR steam would be clearly superior.

I picked up a Chromecast Ultra to try to stream HDR with Atmos and using that, when I stream Matco Polo through my AVR, it arrives I to the 65C6P as HDR10.

Watching the same scenes back-to-back was a no contest - the HDRDV looked much better out of the box.

I'm told that through calibration of HDR20 on the 2016 OLEDs, HDR10 can be improved and can come closer to the quality of HDRDV on an OLED.

But first, make no mistake that Dolby Vision HDR represents the new gold standard / video reference, and second, for the masses who don't want to screw around with calibration, the hands-off' approach LG has taken in offering HDRDV in their OLEDs means that many/most professional comparisons are going to give a significant not to HDRDV.

Video Luddites are having their jaws dropped by my 65C6P when watching Marco Polo in HDRDV. They (and me) have never seen such high-quality and life-like video before.

Don't want to watch anything I care about in a theater because the experience at home is now so much superior...


----------



## wco81

Why did you get the C6 instead of the B6?

Because of or in spite of the curve?


----------



## Jason626

Usually for 3d and or lower gaming lag for same price.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Why did you get the C6 instead of the B6?
> 
> Because of or in spite of the curve?


LGs 3D is incredible, even if it only ends up getting used a few times a year.

The curve is not a showstopper - it's very mild and pretty much unnoticeable when viewing in the dark.

I let the kids decide and they wanted 3D, so LG's bone-headed product strategy forced my hand...

The fact that the C6P shares the same custom LG processor as the E6 and G6 rather than the after-market processor used in the B6 was icing on the cake.


----------



## slacker711

Skyworth intends to build an OLED set based on a BOE panel next year. It is intended for sale in Europe and China.

http://english.etnews.com/20161121200002

This must be built off a pilot line so volumes and yields will be tiny. Still, it is the first step towards getting a 2nd OLED manufacturer in the market. I'll be curious to see whether it is WOLED or RGB (or something else?).


----------



## slacker711

BOE is using WOLED on a pilot line. Various speculation about increased Gen 8.5 capacity but they have yet to start investment. 

https://translate.google.com/transl...tp://www.etnews.com/20161118000318&edit-text=


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> LGs 3D is incredible,


{chucklechucklechuckle...} (


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> {chucklechucklechuckle...} (


----------



## Skunkbeard

First Chinese-made OLED TV panel used in new Skyworth TVs

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1480485630


----------



## fafrd

Skunkbeard said:


> First Chinese-made OLED TV panel used in new Skyworth TVs
> 
> http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1480485630


*"China’s TCL is also planning to set up a display plant capable of producing OLED panels starting from 2019."*

If true, that would be a significant development and the first objective indication that OLED TV is here to stay...


----------



## Vader1

I can't say I've been very happy or excited about the idea of Chinese Electronics playing a bigger, perhaps even dominant role in the future. I'm sure many of you have heard my reasons and concerns about that before. Now that said... if China is really the only way OLED TV's have a future beyond LG then I guess I have hope for the best and give China credit


----------



## rogo

So BOE mass production at the earliest in 2018.

TCL at the earliest in 2020.

But still, I'd say these are generally bullish moves.


----------



## slacker711

China is pouring tens of billions into OLED capacity. You are going to see massive overcapacity in LTPS OLED's sometime in 2019 or 2020. The smartphone market wont be able to absorb it all and we are likely going to see some really cheap OLED enabled laptops/tablets.

Televisions are farther out but it looks like China plans on following the same path. They will spend large amounts on capex well before they have the technical expertise to justify the expense. That should nicely solve the chicken or egg scenario and will end up benefitting consumers but I'm not sure how the rest of the industry is going to survive (ex LG who should have a substantial technical lead).


----------



## Vader1

So since LG pretty much owns WOLED, does that mean this Chinese OLED panel is RGB?


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> Televisions are farther out but it looks like China plans on following the same path. They will spend large amounts on capex well before they have the technical expertise to justify the expense. That should nicely solve the chicken or egg scenario and will end up benefitting consumers but I'm not sure how the rest of the industry is going to survive (ex LG who should have a substantial technical lead).


I presume you similarly like Samsung in mobile for the same reasons you like LG in TV -- substantial technical lead.


----------



## irkuck

Despite the OLED fanfares don't bury the LCD yet. I told you it is an extremely adaptable technology and it shows once again.


----------



## Vader1

That Panasonic tech isn't coming to consumers


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> I presume you similarly like Samsung in mobile for the same reasons you like LG in TV -- substantial technical lead.


Yes. They will have to move fast though because the mobile OLED capacity is coming on earlier and there is more of it. 

This graph is from the OLED Association and is strictly LTPS OLED capacity (mobile). 










The Korean press is already talking about how Samsung and LGD are organizing themselves to withdraw from LCD production. That wont happen overnight but that seems to be the path they are on. I have no idea what the Japanese and Taiwanese suppliers do unless they get some sort of R&D miracle (microLED/printing OLED's/QLED).


----------



## slacker711

irkuck said:


> Despite the OLED fanfares don't bury the LCD yet. I told you it is an extremely adaptable technology and it shows once again.


It isnt that LCD's arent adaptable. The question is the cost. The fact that they dont even mention televisions tells you everything you need to know. 

http://news.panasonic.com/global/press/data/2016/11/en161128-4/en161128-4.html

_Suitable applications:

High-end monitors for broadcasting, video production, medical, automotive, and other fields_

PR departments arent in the habit of hiding breakthroughs for their biggest potential market.


----------



## Vader1

Not to mention Panasonic is barely hanging on in consumer TV's.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*What I find intriguing about this is that BOE is one of the investors in Kateeva*

Could it be they are planning on using printing technology for the panel production? As Rogo has pointed out many times, we still don't have adequate lifetimes for soluble OLED materials so printing technology hasn't yet arrived. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised if they are planning to use Kateeva's printing technology.


----------



## irkuck

slacker711 said:


> It isnt that LCD's arent adaptable. The question is the cost. The fact that they dont even mention televisions tells you everything you need to know.
> http://news.panasonic.com/global/press/data/2016/11/en161128-4/en161128-4.html
> _Suitable applications: High-end monitors for broadcasting, video production, medical, automotive, and other fields_
> PR departments arent in the habit of hiding breakthroughs for their biggest potential market.


It is most likely the cost is not a barrier here. Panasonic does not have resources and capabilities to start full scale manufacturing of TV LCD panels competing with Chinese and Koreans. They are thus trying to carve a niche in special applications which they can fill without being endangered by the giants. The only way of getting into TV panel manufacturing would be through licensing agreements. That may happen but depends on huge number of factors. For example the giants are not interested since they prefer own developments like OLED or QLED. It would be amazing if the technology Panasonic developed is inherently very expensive in mass production.


----------



## slacker711

> It is most likely the cost is not a barrier here.


I have always found that what companies dont say tells you at least as much as what they do say. You can never trust everything in a PR, but when they leave something out there is a very good reason. 

In this case, I have no idea what Panasonic's "light modulating cells" entails. What does this do to yields? Can you manufacture this on a-si backplanes or do you need LTPS? 



irkuck said:


> That may happen but depends on huge number of factors. For example the giants are not interested since they prefer own developments like OLED or QLED. It would be amazing if the technology Panasonic developed is inherently very expensive in mass production.


I think you are misunderstanding the dynamics of the current display industry. Sharp, Innolux, and AUO have no current roadmap for success. They dont have the cash or the expertise for OLED's and they arent leading on the QLED front either. 

They would kill for a technology that allows them to continue to be competitive while using their existing LCD facilities. Panasonic wouldnt have a moment's issue finding LCD capacity to bring this to the consumer market....if that was actually their plan.


----------



## rogo

I'm intrigued by a couple of things here:

1) That LG's mobile OLED capacity appears poised to approach Samsung's (maybe not match but close).

2) That the chart above holds out little hope for Japan Display and Sharp/Innolux as important mobile-OLED players. Apple can help both if they have a business elsewhere; it can't realistically support even one unless there is also a move to iPad OLEDs soon. 

3) I'm still waiting on any evidence printing is possible. And by possible I mean not that Kateeva can demonstrate it (they can) but that someone can produce a commercially viable display on a printed line with a soluble blue. There is still no press release from anyone. Nor any roadmap.

4) The MicroLED stuff is intriguing for really small displays right now but not much more. Could that change over the next 5 years? Yes, though again I'd watch Apple. They're clearly intrigued about the tech for both performance reasons (1) and not-Samsung reasons (2). If they should any commitment to advancing it, that's a good sign. If they don't, I doubt it goes anywhere.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> It isnt that LCD's arent adaptable. The question is the cost. The fact that they dont even mention televisions tells you everything you need to know.
> 
> http://news.panasonic.com/global/press/data/2016/11/en161128-4/en161128-4.html
> 
> _Suitable applications:
> 
> High-end monitors for broadcasting, video production, medical, automotive, and other fields_
> 
> PR departments arent in the habit of hiding breakthroughs for their biggest potential market.


This sounds a whole lot like the 'dual-LCD' approach that has been demonstrated by someone in the past.

Take an IPS LCD technology with contrast ratio of 1000:1 and one switching cell per colored subpixel.

Now create a second plane from the same technology with only one larger switching call per pixel.

Voila - a stack of these two 1000:1 planes creates a macro-plane with 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio.

I mean, they practically say as much:

*"Panasonic's new high-contrast IPS panel uses newly developed light-modulating cells, which operate based on the operating principle of liquid crystals, and these cells are integrated into the display cells. As a result, it is capable of controlling the amount of backlight entering the display cells pixel by pixel, thus achieving a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1."*

I'm sure it will deliver the performance promised but suspect it is not going to be cost-competetive...


----------



## rogo

Sounds right to me too. Had this been advanced 5-7 years ago, it could well have been cost competitive. It would have had time to get mass produced and the increment to your typical $700 55-inch LCD might not be very much at 10MM scale. Alas, it's 2016 and that ship has sailed.


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> This sounds a whole lot like the 'dual-LCD' approach that has been demonstrated by someone in the past.
> 
> Take an IPS LCD technology with contrast ratio of 1000:1 and one switching cell per colored subpixel.
> 
> Now create a second plane from the same technology with only one larger switching call per pixel.
> 
> Voila - a stack of these two 1000:1 planes creates a macro-plane with 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio.


Any idea about the loss in luminance when going through the liquid crystal layer? Doubling that may be part of the issue. With HDR, I doubt you can drive the LED's much harder so you would need to increase the number of LED's. That would hit both power consumption and cost.

FALD alone might have an issue competing with OLED's based on cost. As you layer on new costs to try and improve the performance you end up with an even less competitive solution. The Z9D looks like a great TV, but Sony will have to cut the price of the 65" model almost in half next year to make it anything but a niche TV.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> I'm intrigued by a couple of things here:
> 
> 1) That LG's mobile OLED capacity appears poised to approach Samsung's (maybe not match but close).


There has to be some guess work in that estimate since LGD has yet to officially announce the capacity of their P10 fab that is for both flexible OLED's and TV's. $9 billion should buy you quite a bit of capacity though. They recently said that they expect half of their revenue to come from OLED's in 2020.



> 2) That the chart above holds out little hope for Japan Display and Sharp/Innolux as important mobile-OLED players. Apple can help both if they have a business elsewhere; it can't realistically support even one unless there is also a move to iPad OLEDs soon.


That's my thought as well. If they go ahead and build OLED capacity, it will come on-line right when China is ramping up. Taiwan/Japanese suppliers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. 

Their only realistic options are guarantees from Apple, but that wont save everybody.



> 3) I'm still waiting on any evidence printing is possible. And by possible I mean not that Kateeva can demonstrate it (they can) but that someone can produce a commercially viable display on a printed line with a soluble blue. There is still no press release from anyone. Nor any roadmap.


The only optimistic indication is the LGD pilot line but there isnt a hint about who might be supplying a soluble blue. They've barely figured out the vapour deposition blue so I'm skeptical that a soluble blue is close to reality. Maybe it is the hybrid display with some layers being printed and blue using vapor deposition. If so, I doubt that such a clunky solution will ever see the light of day.



> 4) The MicroLED stuff is intriguing for really small displays right now but not much more. Could that change over the next 5 years? Yes, though again I'd watch Apple. They're clearly intrigued about the tech for both performance reasons (1) and not-Samsung reasons (2). If they should any commitment to advancing it, that's a good sign. If they don't, I doubt it goes anywhere.


It is hard to know what to make of microLED. There are hints and rumors coming out of Taiwan making it sound like it could be commercial in the next few years. I would disregard that completely except for the fact that Apple is the one pushing it. They dont publish anything so maybe they have made some progress? Who knows?


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> This sounds a whole lot like the 'dual-LCD' approach that has been demonstrated by someone in the past.
> 
> Take an IPS LCD technology with contrast ratio of 1000:1 and one switching cell per colored subpixel.
> 
> Now create a second plane from the same technology with only one larger switching call per pixel.
> 
> Voila - a stack of these two 1000:1 planes creates a macro-plane with 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio,


Is that correct though?

The black does get blacker, but so does the white; a liquid crystal diode never lets _everything_ though. That would keep the ratio of lowest:highest the same, no?

Also: This wouldn't this taller structure also halve the viewing angle?


----------



## tgm1024

slacker711 said:


> It is hard to know what to make of microLED. There are hints and rumors coming out of Taiwan making it sound like it could be commercial in the next few years. I would disregard that completely except for the fact that Apple is the one pushing it. They dont publish anything so maybe they have made some progress? Who knows?


Well, as one of the mini-legion of folks that have kept a candela (sic) burning for anything of the form "Crystal LED", I have to say that I'm overjoyed at the potential. Do you suppose that 4K was what kept it from showing up on the radar sooner?


----------



## slacker711

Presumably this is directly from IHS. If correct, this data would square the circle for me. Anecdotal evidence from AVS and sales rank data from Amazon indicates that LG is destroying Sony and Samsung's flagship models in sales...and yet LGD isnt raising their guidance and Samsung SUHD sales seem to be going well. I had thought that the explanation might be that high-end market was even smaller than we have speculated.

This makes more sense, though I dont have the explanation for why OLED's are doing so much better in the US. Perhaps LG's brand is stronger here? Distribution is weaker elsewhere (or matters more)?


----------



## vkamicht

tgm1024 said:


> Is that correct though?
> 
> The black does get blacker, but so does the white; a liquid crystal diode never lets _everything_ though. That would keep the ratio of lowest:highest the same, no?


No, because a black LCD pixel doesn't let through the same amount of light as a white LCD pixel, or else everything would look horrible, right? So let's say, crude example with made up numbers, a 0% (black) pixel passes through 1% of the light, but a 100% (white) pixel passes through 95% of the light. Single panel, 0.95 : 0.01 ratio = 95. Stacked, this would be 0.9025: 0.0001 ratio, or 9,025. (0.95 * 0.95, 0.01 * 0.01) So the contrast ratio still increases quite a bit.


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Is that correct though?
> 
> The black does get blacker, but so does the white; a liquid crystal diode never lets _everything_ though. That would keep the ratio of lowest:highest the same, no?
> 
> Also: This wouldn't this taller structure also halve the viewing angle?


The two contrast Ratios Multiply, regardless of what level of light gets blocked.

Take an extreme case of 1000:1 CR letting at most 50% of the light through. So if the backlight is 2000 cd/m2 raw, white is 1000 cd/m2 peak and black is 1 cd/m2.

Add a second layer with the same raw backlights and now peak white drops to only 500 cd/m2 (your point and your concern) but black drops to 0.0005 cd/m2 (1,000,000:1 contrast ratio)

Double the raw lumen output of the backlight to 4000 cd/m2, and now you get peak white back to 1000 cd/m2 with black increasing to 0.001 cd/m2.

For a more real-world case where peak LCD transluninance is 90% or 95% or 98% or whatever it is in reality, the modest amount of increased raw lumen output needed to compensate for the light lost/blocked by the second LCD lightvalve C layer even when fully open is inconsequential...


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Presumably this is directly from IHS. If correct, this data would square the circle for me. Anecdotal evidence from AVS and sales rank data from Amazon indicates that LG is destroying Sony and Samsung's flagship models in sales...and yet LGD isnt raising their guidance and Samsung SUHD sales seem to be going well. I had thought that the explanation might be that high-end market was even smaller than we have speculated.
> 
> This makes more sense, though I dont have the explanation for why OLED's are doing so much better in the US. Perhaps LG's brand is stronger here? Distribution is weaker elsewhere (or matters more)?


If LG OLED has captured 2/3 of the US market for 65" TVs $3000 and above, and 3/4 of the US market for 55" TVs $2000 and above, this is huge and hopefully a solid indication that LGs OLED TV technology has finally 'rounded the corner' and is here to stay.

Between additional tarrifs, VAT, etc... the data for the rest of the world is much less important and unclear.

But if the US data is truly representative, this is huge.

And the agressiveness LG has shown on pricing this holiday season backs it up. Pricing of OLED TVs is about half of what it was a year ago and has become very competetive. The very fact that the premium for a 65" OLED over Vizio's P65 is now in the 20-30% range instead of 200-300% range speaks volumes.

I'd always expected this kind of agressive price reduction from LG if OLED was going to make it and was dissapointed that did not materialize a year ago.

Having slugged through a total of 4 defective 65EF9500s and now after only a few weeks with my new 65C6P (costing half as much ), it is clear to me that LG was not ready a year ago - the OLED technology was not yet ready for prime-time and LG knew it.

The 65C6P is a near-perfect TV. Near black uniformity is greatly improved and many bugs/nonlinearities impacting near-black performance have been fixed (the most egregious being excessive Vignetting which appears now to be largely resolved / greatly reduced).

If LG had hit the gas a year ago, they would have had a tsunami of unhappy customers and ended up with egg all over their face (and a likely commercial failure).

Between getting their ducks in a row addressing quality and performance issues, leap-frogging Vizio to an even more significant alliance with Dolby, and having the manufacturing capacity lined up to deliver increased volumes, it was masterful of LG to hold off until this season to make their passing move (in the premium 65"/$3000 & 55"/$2000 lanes).

Hopefully the coming years will allow us to observe whether the vaunted and yet theoretical cost advantages of OLED over LCD prove to be for real and are sustainable...


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> Presumably this is directly from IHS. If correct, this data would square the circle for me. Anecdotal evidence from AVS and sales rank data from Amazon indicates that LG is destroying Sony and Samsung's flagship models in sales...and yet LGD isnt raising their guidance and Samsung SUHD sales seem to be going well. I had thought that the explanation might be that high-end market was even smaller than we have speculated.
> 
> This makes more sense, though I dont have the explanation for why OLED's are doing so much better in the US. Perhaps LG's brand is stronger here? Distribution is weaker elsewhere (or matters more)?


So, I wonder if the explanation isn't the Occam's Razor one here:

Is it possible that in Europe the ASPs of the LGs are relatively higher? In other words, the chart draws a bright line at X but LG sells at say 1.1x in the US and 1.5x in Europe. It's proportional share in Europe will be lower. 

It does point out that (1) statistics are an amazing way to tell almost any story you want "In Europe, LG has captured 75% of the market for 65-inch displays over 3647 euro!" (2) that given a budget B, and a size S, once you can find an OLED inside that budget in the size you want, all other TVs are pretty much considered BS.


----------



## tgm1024

vkamicht said:


> No, because a black LCD pixel doesn't let through the same amount of light as a white LCD pixel, or else everything would look horrible, right? So let's say, crude example with made up numbers, a 0% (black) pixel passes through 1% of the light, but a 100% (white) pixel passes through 95% of the light. Single panel, 0.95 : 0.01 ratio = 95. Stacked, this would be 0.9025: 0.0001 ratio, or 9,025. (0.95 * 0.95, 0.01 * 0.01) So the contrast ratio still increases quite a bit.


Ah, right, thanks. Don't mind me. Momentary synaptic short.

zzzzzzzzttzzzzzzzzztt..........


----------



## slacker711

Vader1 said:


> So since LG pretty much owns WOLED, does that mean this Chinese OLED panel is RGB?


The BOE set is WOLED. I dont know how they will end up handling the IP issues, but I have long believed that LGD would have made a deal with Samsung if there was interest. They want OLED's to be the next-gen TV technology for the industry.


----------



## slacker711

tgm1024 said:


> Well, as one of the mini-legion of folks that have kept a candela (sic) burning for anything of the form "Crystal LED", I have to say that I'm overjoyed at the potential. Do you suppose that 4K was what kept it from showing up on the radar sooner?


The higher resolution does make it harder, but there are other issues where size impacts yields. The rumors expect the Apple Watch to be first and even assuming success there, I would expect it will be a while before TV's are feasible.

Here is a decent article covering some of the issues.

http://www.asahi-optics.com/news/36.html

Eye opening quote.



> “Micro-LEDs require a high yield rate of more than 99.9999%, close to 100% in fact,” said PlayNitride CEO Charles Li.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> The higher resolution does make it harder, but there are other issues where size impacts yields. The rumors expect the Apple Watch to be first and even assuming success there, I would expect it will be a while before TV's are feasible.
> 
> Here is a decent article covering some of the issues.
> 
> http://www.asahi-optics.com/news/36.html
> 
> Eye opening quote.


They are talking primarily about assembly-related yield onto the backplane where each failure will result in a dead pixel;

*"Micro-LEDs require a high yield rate of more than 99.9999%, close to 100% in fact,” said PlayNitride CEO Charles Li.
The reason behind this especially high demand is the issue of dead-pixels."*

By way of reference, LGs WOLED spec is apparently somewhere between 5 and 10 dead pixels. A 4K display contains ~8M pixels, so an assembly yield of 99.9999% corresponds 0.00001% or about 8 bad pixels .


----------



## Vader1

The concept of True LED displays has been around for a long time but they've mostly been used strictly as very large billboards and theme park displays. Perhaps with a few advancments we'll see a few new proprietary LED based displays for niche things in the future, but I think it's got practically no chance of ever turning into a mainstream display technology for TV's, PC's, or mobile devices. For those devices I don't think we'll see anything besides LCD and OLED in the next 5 years. After that point if anything will come after them it's probably going to be QLED, unless somebody has some secret display tech cooking in a lab some where waiting ot be announced...


----------



## tgm1024

I also look forward to the longevity and uniformity measurements.

Longevity in particular is going to be interesting. I remember as a kid asking about a red LED I saw: "What happens if that 'everything's ok' light on that ancient circuit board burns out." I was told: "That thing has been shining bright for 18 years. Don't ask me why, but these things don't burn out."

No clue if this relates to now.


----------



## NewYorkRanger

Anyone in Canada get the HDR Game Mode firmware update yet?? Been checking a couple times a day in the update menu, nothing coming up.


----------



## Rudy1

*SONY OLED AT CES 2017?*

http://4k.com/news/rumors-spread-of-sony-oled-4k-tvs-for-ces-2017-in-january-17815/


----------



## slimoli

Rudy1 said:


> *SONY OLED AT CES 2017?*
> 
> http://4k.com/news/rumors-spread-of-sony-oled-4k-tvs-for-ces-2017-in-january-17815/


Bad news to me. I am expecting a Sony 85" similar to the 75XZ9d to be announced but if Sony goes OLED , my hopes are gone. Chances are they will promote the OLED as the new flagship and never release anything high-end larger than 77". If they do, price will be crazy. LeEco 85" is cheap,FALD but....no Sony.


----------



## video_analysis

Putting LCD out to pasture in the high end would be good news. That horse has been beat long enough.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Putting LCD out to pasture in the high end would be good news. That horse has been beat long enough.


I doubt LCD will be put out to pasture in the high end anytime soon. There are always going to be customers attracted to very bright TVs (especially those who watch with bright lights on).

But there is a new panel in town, and just for OLED to capture 51% market share at the high-end would be a pretty remarkable achievement...


----------



## video_analysis

There will always be someone who wants it brighter...and I'm sure if a marketer said we've managed to match the output of the sun, some lemmings would jump at the prospect. That's fine. Let them overcomplicate LCD (with costly FALD implementations) to the point that they can no longer compete on price and form factor. As a former plasma fan, I will consider it comeuppance upon those who have mercilessly exploited a similar competitive manufacturing advantage over the past decade.


----------



## Vader1

Customers are generally attracted to brighter TV's but I've long suspected only to a point. We're in an era now were pretty much any TV can do 500 nits peak brightness at least. Once you get to that level things like showroom viewing and daytime viewing in living rooms aren't an issue for people anymore, and I think that's when most people stop caring about how much brighter the TV is and only a small percentage of videophiles want some 2000 nit display. You got people in the LCD forum complaining that TV's aren't 4000 nits yet... I can't help but laugh when I read that. My guess is most people don't want a 2000+ nit display in their living room, I really feel like a lot of people would call it over the top and/ or say it hurts their eyes. It will make them uncomfortable. This is one of the reasons I think HDR wont ever be as successful as some people on this site think it will be. 4-5K nits is just insane and the average persons TV will never be that bright. Most normal people want brightness for daytime viewing, not HDR, and if it's good enough to see clearly in the day then they will be very happy.


----------



## JimP

I think what we're forgetting is that the big number nits that's being discussed only applies to specular highlights using HDR.

That's not how we currently measure standard dynamic range displays. 

I prefer a bright picture but even today's LEDs are have to be turned down to get a good picture.

One thing I'd want to take a look at is how OLED displays may or may not distort color at different APL levels. Kind of a big deal when the only way to have linear color tracking is when using an APL level that's darker than what you normally watch.


----------



## tgm1024

From the general public's point of view, I truly doubt there's that huge a difference between LCD and OLED. The numbers are awfully close, and while I know that we folks here at AVS somehow think differently, I also think we folks at AVS have succumb to myopic reasoning many times before.

The TV market is driven by ever lower prices. And it will be a _long_ time for OLED to catch up to the volume/learning-curve headstart of LCD. Videophiles aren't interested in lower end TVs. But videophiles simply don't drive the TV market.


----------



## slimoli

My point has nothing to do with brightness. I just want a large screen TV, over 80", with very good picture (FALD is OK) that I can afford. An Oled 85" would cost a fortune, that's why I mentioned Sony's decision not being good to me. Almost certainly Sony will show 65" or smaller with OLED tech.


----------



## tgm1024

slimoli said:


> My point has nothing to do with brightness. I just want a large screen TV, over 80", with very good picture (FALD is OK) that I can afford. An Oled 85" would cost a fortune, that's why I mentioned Sony's decision not being good to me. Almost certainly Sony will show 65" or smaller with OLED tech.


Brightness allows for a shortened Sample-and-Hold frame length which decreases motion discomfort. Congruent to that, it also makes it ever more likely that HDR (which requires brightness) can work with a shortened frame length.


----------



## irkuck

Does anybody can confirm 100% if Sony 4K 55" OLED professional grading monitor is using Sony own OLED panel? They call panel type as Sony Trimaster EL OLED which suggests it is their own panel and Sony makes OLED panels of smaller size. If so it means Sony has an consumer size OLED panel. But Sony will be entering consumer OLED market with LG panels. If they do have their own 55" OLED panel it means their mastering of OLED technology is on the level of LG but their process may have too low yields and/or they do not have resources for building huge plants and competing with the LG.


----------



## slacker711

irkuck said:


> Does anybody can confirm 100% if Sony 4K 55" OLED professional grading monitor is using Sony own OLED panel? They call panel type as Sony Trimaster EL OLED which suggests it is their own panel and Sony makes OLED panels of smaller size. If so it means Sony has an consumer size OLED panel. But Sony will be entering consumer OLED market with LG panels. If they do have their own 55" OLED panel it means their mastering of OLED technology is on the level of LG but their process may have too low yields and/or they do not have resources for building huge plants and competing with the LG.


Sony was producing their previous Trimaster OLED's on a pilot fab. I thought it was a Gen 2 fab but cant find confirmation of that. That wouldnt be large enough to build a 55" panel so they either upgraded the pilot fab or are getting panels from LG/Samsung. 

My guess is an upgrade of the pilot fab. The insane premiums on these sets makes the low volume manufacturing possible.


----------



## Vader1

Id love it if Sony turned their professional RGB OLED line into something for consumers, but I don't see any realistic way it's going to happen.


----------



## rogo

Vader1 said:


> Id love it if Sony turned their professional RGB OLED line into something for consumers, but I don't see any realistic way it's going to happen.


Given that in the _entire_ flat panel era, Sony has never built a fab to build consumer TVs, I think you are correct. There is no realistic way it will happen, nor likely any unrealistic way.


----------



## wco81

I remember hearing that some Japanese people were outraged when Sony partnered with Samsung for some LCD panels, because of the history between those countries.

How will they react to Sony buying OLED panels from LG?

Anyways, I don't know if the Sony TVs made from Samsung panels were better, vaguely recall Sony touting using better fluorescent backlights.


----------



## Vader1

I think LG is less hated in Japan than Samsung. Probably because Samsung is the number one of South Korea and represents that country more than LG. Either way it's all talk, Sony has partnered with and bought from both companies numerous times.


----------



## KOF

Vader1 said:


> Customers are generally attracted to brighter TV's but I've long suspected only to a point. We're in an era now were pretty much any TV can do 500 nits peak brightness at least. Once you get to that level things like showroom viewing and daytime viewing in living rooms aren't an issue for people anymore, and I think that's when most people stop caring about how much brighter the TV is and only a small percentage of videophiles want some 2000 nit display. You got people in the LCD forum complaining that TV's aren't 4000 nits yet... I can't help but laugh when I read that. My guess is most people don't want a 2000+ nit display in their living room, I really feel like a lot of people would call it over the top and/ or say it hurts their eyes. It will make them uncomfortable. This is one of the reasons I think HDR wont ever be as successful as some people on this site think it will be. 4-5K nits is just insane and the average persons TV will never be that bright. Most normal people want brightness for daytime viewing, not HDR, and if it's good enough to see clearly in the day then they will be very happy.


Dolby made PQ, we play by their rules.

Because of its fixed luminance nature, if OLEDs do not get brighter, they will not only lose out on greyscale points, (hint: we can only attain maximum amount of greyscale points when we reach 10000 nits) but also on color volume as Mark Henninger has put. Since no tone mapping can make up for lost color voume, OLEDs will have much more difficult time accessing DCI-P3 gamut fully. It's ridiculous as I would have been very happy with concentrating on 1000 nits for movies.


----------



## slacker711

KOF said:


> Dolby made PQ, we play by their rules.
> 
> Because of its fixed luminance nature, if OLEDs do not get brighter, they will not only lose out on greyscale points, (hint: we can only attain maximum amount of greyscale points when we reach 10000 nits) but also on color volume as Mark Henninger has put. Since no tone mapping can make up for lost color voume, OLEDs will have much more difficult time accessing DCI-P3 gamut fully. It's ridiculous as I would have been very happy with concentrating on 1000 nits for movies.


How bright are the displays when they are measuring color volume?

You can create a situation where you have a fully saturated blue color at 2000 nits but we are really hitting the edge case of the edge case. 

FWIW, Samsung trademarks for HDR 1500 and HDR 2000 showed up a few days so that is probably a pretty good guide for their target luminances in 2017. They trademarked HDR 1000 last year.


----------



## [email protected]

Does anyone know 
1.Can a wireless speaker be connected to the LG OLED audio system?
2.If it can , is it connected via the optical connection?
3. Alternately can you only connect via AV amp?


----------



## KOF

slacker711 said:


> How bright are the displays when they are measuring color volume?
> 
> You can create a situation where you have a fully saturated blue color at 2000 nits but we are really hitting the edge case of the edge case.
> 
> FWIW, Samsung trademarks for HDR 1500 and HDR 2000 showed up a few days so that is probably a pretty good guide for their target luminances in 2017. They trademarked HDR 1000 last year.


It's just that I'm worried that Sony's X550 OLED PVM, despite using LG panel with Y/B stack, only has 400 nits, citing reason such as "any more and white starts to wash out RGB's color gamut". Of course, as a BVM owner myself, I know expected standards for consumer products and professional products are completely different, but still...


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> How bright are the displays when they are measuring color volume?
> 
> You can create a situation where you have a fully saturated blue color at 2000 nits but we are really hitting the edge case of the edge case.
> 
> *FWIW, Samsung trademarks for HDR 1500 and HDR 2000 showed up a few days so that is probably a pretty good guide for their target luminances in 2017. They trademarked HDR 1000 last year.*


Great, brightness is the new curve 

Gotta love Samsung marketing.

Someone's got to make an ANSII contrast pattern for fully saturated blue on a black background (or perhaps a blue star field ) so we can drive some sense back into this new arms race. 50 cd/m2 of deepest blue on perfect black (0.0005 cd/m2) is worth way more than 100 cd/m2 of deepest blue on dark grey (0.01 cd/m2)...


----------



## fafrd

KOF said:


> Dolby made PQ, we play by their rules.
> 
> Because of its fixed luminance nature, if OLEDs do not get brighter, they will not only lose out on greyscale points, (hint: we can only attain maximum amount of greyscale points when we reach 10000 nits) but also on color volume as Mark Henninger has put. Since no tone mapping can make up for lost color voume, *OLEDs will have much more difficult time accessing DCI-P3 gamut fully. *It's ridiculous as I would have been very happy with concentrating on 1000 nits for movies.


Is that because there is a minimum brightness that must be achieved over the entire gamut? It can't be that the entire gamut needs to be at 1000 nits (or whatever), but is there a fixed minimum number of lumens that must be delivered to get credit?


----------



## fafrd

KOF said:


> It's just that I'm worried that Sony's X550 OLED PVM, despite using LG panel with Y/B stack, only has 400 nits, citing reason such as *"any more and white starts to wash out RGB's color gamut"*. Of course, as a BVM owner myself, I know expected standards for consumer products and professional products are completely different, but still...


If LG OLEDs were limited to only RGB subpixels, peak output would drop but the entire color gamut would be covered at that same peak output. 400 nits would be pretty good. At least for dark-room viewing, you could have a fantastic deepest-blue star field on darkest-black space.

If the requirement for HDR certification is you must be able to deliver a deepest-blue sun (or highlight) at 1000 nits (or whatever) or your disqualified, that's rediculous...

Requiring a minimum level of nits across the entire gamut makes sense, but not the same level of nits being used for highlights.

I think I read somewhere that the average lumens output for an HDR image was 100 Nits. So using that, or twice that, or possibly even 4-times that average output level would be a much more sensible 'minimum output requirement' than using the peak output requirement used for bright highlights...


----------



## Luke M

tgm1024 said:


> Brightness allows for a shortened Sample-and-Hold frame length which decreases motion discomfort. Congruent to that, it also makes it ever more likely that HDR (which requires brightness) can work with a shortened frame length.


Probably a better way to go is to push the interpolated frame rate to 240fps or higher. You have to interpolate anyway, because 60Hz flicker isn't really acceptable.


----------



## KOF

fafrd said:


> Is that because there is a minimum brightness that must be achieved over the entire gamut? It can't be that the entire gamut needs to be at 1000 nits (or whatever), but is there a fixed minimum number of lumens that must be delivered to get credit?


I did not mean for each and every colors to be at the maximum peak luminance, rather combined colors.

https://www.dolby.com/in/en/technologies/dolby-vision/color-volume-limitations-with-HLG.pdf

Dolby states 262.7 cd/m2 for red, 678 cd/m2 for green, 59.3 cd/m2 for blue for first 1,000 nits.

http://www.dvinfo.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/TR14IMG_7731.jpg

That 59.3 cd/m2 blue figure increases to 289 nits for 4000 nits contents. Rather worrying thing is that color gamut is constant, so if a DCI-P3 movie graded at 10,000 nits appear, that would require OLED to capture 722 nits blue just to resolve the same P3 gamut. Of course, 10,000 nits movie graded at P3 won't come out ever, so this is just a conjecture, but it still shows a need for luminance increase even when color gamut stays constant.


----------



## millerwill

Any idea of when/if we will see 'super size' OLED (or LCD/LED) tv's--i.e., ~ 140-150" diag--at a 'reasonable' price (e.g.,


----------



## video_analysis

Doubt it...the demand isn't there.


----------



## Vader1

KOF said:


> Dolby made PQ, we play by their rules.
> 
> Because of its fixed luminance nature, if OLEDs do not get brighter, they will not only lose out on greyscale points, (hint: we can only attain maximum amount of greyscale points when we reach 10000 nits) but also on color volume as Mark Henninger has put. Since no tone mapping can make up for lost color voume, OLEDs will have much more difficult time accessing DCI-P3 gamut fully. It's ridiculous as I would have been very happy with concentrating on 1000 nits for movies.


Well LG's already demoed a 1400 nit OLED. Next year we're surely going to have at least a couple 1000 nit OLED's.


----------



## rogo

I requested moderation on this, but got nowhere, so I'll ask my fellow forum-ers:

Can we keep this thread to discussions about technology advancements, theoretical and -- especially -- real about OLED?

There is plenty of room to speculate on products, discuss relative merits vs. LCD, etc. in other threads in this forum.


----------



## millerwill

video_analysis said:


> Doubt it...the demand isn't there.


Really? I would think there would be, but what do I know!

So where do you think they will max out; 85"?


----------



## fafrd

KOF said:


> I did not mean for each and every colors to be at the maximum peak luminance, rather combined colors.
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/in/en/technologies/dolby-vision/color-volume-limitations-with-HLG.pdf
> 
> Dolby states 262.7 cd/m2 for red, 678 cd/m2 for green, 59.3 cd/m2 for blue for first 1,000 nits.
> 
> http://www.dvinfo.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/TR14IMG_7731.jpg
> 
> That 59.3 cd/m2 blue figure increases to 289 nits for 4000 nits contents. Rather worrying thing is that color gamut is constant, so if a DCI-P3 movie graded at 10,000 nits appear, that would require OLED to capture 722 nits blue just to resolve the same P3 gamut. Of course, 10,000 nits movie graded at P3 won't come out ever, so this is just a conjecture, but it still shows a need for luminance increase even when color gamut stays constant.


So that is what is bone-headed in the spec. Since the whole point of HDR is being able to deliver brighter highlights without increasing overall average brightest, the 59.3 cd/m2 blue figure is what matters and as long as your display can deliver that, it should qualify.

Just because you have a display that can deliver even brighter white and other bright-colored highlights of up to 4000 Nits for HDR, why must it also be able to deliver brighter levels of 289 Nits of pure blue? It makes no sense and would only be useful for bright highlights of pure blue (the 'blue sun' I referred to earlier), which are completely irrelevant.

LG (and the rest of the content industry) should fight this - it is idiotic (and Dolby should know better).


----------



## irkuck

millerwill said:


> Any idea of when/if we will see 'super size' OLED (or LCD/LED) tv's--i.e., ~ 140-150" diag--at a 'reasonable' price (e.g.,


----------



## irkuck

Vader1 said:


> Well LG's already demoed a 1400 nit OLED. Next year we're surely going to have at least a couple 1000 nit OLED's.


That brings about question about what is the reason for limitation OLED nits. First answer is that it is due to the potential for burn-out or burning OLED subpixels. This is true if one thinks how big might be the light output from single (sub)pixels. But the issue is more about nits produced by larger areas or the whole display, In this case the limitation is due to the power supply and heat dissipation which seem to be the main reason for ABL in LG OLED. This is supported by the fact that ABL can be switched off in the LG TV service menu with no apparent issues. 

It thus seems that OLED nits can be ncreased quite easily by improving heat dissipation from the panel areas and enlarging the power supply. Making a sophisticated cooling backplane with fins and heatpipes could in principle eliminate any practical limitations on OLED nits.


----------



## Vader1

irkuck said:


> That brings about question about what is the reason for limitation OLED nits. First answer is that it is due to the potential for burn-out or burning OLED subpixels. This is true if one thinks how big might be the light output from single (sub)pixels. But the issue is more about nits produced by larger areas or the whole display, In this case the limitation is due to the power supply and heat dissipation which seem to be the main reason for ABL in LG OLED. *This is supported by the fact that ABL can be switched off in the LG TV service menu with no apparent issues. *


I've never heard this before... is it really true? If so that's pretty awesome


----------



## catonic

irkuck said:


> .......optimists like me point to rumors that printing is essentially ready and may be demoed even next year.


This thread existed for 8 years based solely on rumours.
Rumours are good, keep them coming.


----------



## irkuck

Vader1 said:


> I've never heard this before... is it really true? If so that's pretty awesome


Too narrow focus and you miss blinding OLED :laugh:


----------



## 8mile13

irkuck said:


> That brings about question about what is the reason for limitation OLED nits. First answer is that it is due to the potential for burn-out or burning OLED subpixels. This is true if one thinks how big might be the light output from single (sub)pixels. But the issue is more about nits produced by larger areas or the whole display, In this case the limitation is due to the power supply and heat dissipation which seem to be the main reason for ABL in LG OLED. *This* *is* *supported* *by* *the* *fact* *that* *ABL* *can* *be* *switched* *off* *in* *the* *LG* *TV* *service* *menu* with no apparent issues.
> 
> It thus seems that OLED nits can be ncreased quite easily by improving heat dissipation from the panel areas and enlarging the power supply. Making a sophisticated cooling backplane with fins and heatpipes could in principle eliminate any practical limitations on OLED nits.





irkuck said:


> Too narrow focus and you miss blinding OLED :laugh:


The link is mainly ASBL related (thread: *How to: Turn off ABSL on LG OLED TV)* . Folks in that link keep saying that ABL cannot be turned off..


----------



## irkuck

8mile13 said:


> The link is mainly ASBL related (thread: *How to: Turn off ABSL on LG OLED TV)* . Folks in that link keep saying that ABL cannot be turned off..


ASBL: dim when the average picture is similar after 60s.

ABL: dim when more than 60% of the picture is bright.

ASBL has clearly intention of preventing IR but people say there is not a problem in normal use and any IR from abnormal(=static picture for very long time) use can be cleared . ABL seems then more concerned with heat dissipation and power supply, after proper treatment of both it can be non-issue. Designing panel for the worst case of full screen blindingly bright picture kept long time would be an overkill but I see light in the tunnel made by 1000-2000 nits OLEDs :laugh:


----------



## 8mile13

irkuck said:


> ASBL: dim when the average picture is similar after 60s.
> 
> ABL: dim when more than 60% of the picture is bright.
> 
> ASBL has clearly intention of preventing IR but people say there is not a problem in normal use and any IR from abnormal(=static picture for very long time) use can be cleared . ABL seems then more concerned with heat dissipation and power supply, after proper treatment of both it can be non-issue. Designing panel for the worst case of full screen blindingly bright picture kept long time would be an overkill but I see light in the tunnel made by 1000-2000 nits OLEDs :laugh:


That ASBL seems to suck big time and got me wondering the moment i read about it a while back, and people are complaining about it, though hdtvtest stated that ''the auto-dimming happens so slowly, and gradual, that most viewers probably won't notice it until they need to perform user menu action''. They also state that disabling ASBL is not recommended.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> That ASBL seems to suck big time and got me wondering the moment i read about it a while back, and people are complaining about it, though hdtvtest stated that ''the auto-dimming happens so slowly, and gradual, that most viewers probably won't notice it until they need to perform user menu action''. They also state that disabling ASBL is not recommended.


For the uninformed DIY calibrator, it makes calibrating a pain. There you are cycling back and forth between readpoints, and suddenly one small setting change results in a larger-than-expected change in reading. Undo the change to read again and the reading does not return to its prior value. After a feeling like you are sliding down a slippery slope and have no idea what the heck is going on, reboot everything and start from scratch. By about the third time this happens, ask questions on AVS and get wise to the ASBL problem with static calibration patterns on LG OLEDs .


----------



## tgm1024

We're steering a little off course here. I've certainly been an OT offender in the past, but we're now off the road and in the weeds. I'm bored to tears with all the LG model-year specific stuff that's already polluted every thread it even tangentially touches. "Turning off ASBL"? Ugh, elsewhere please.


----------



## millerwill

irkuck said:


> Such cinema/HT-size active screens depend on one word becoming flesh: Printing. If OLED printing is mastered size stops being a rigid factor, screens can be printed on elastic substrates, manufacturing does not require multibillion investment and one can imagine active screens of size made to order - all at prices within reason.
> 
> The question is thus when printing may come. Doubters like rogo say printing is a pipe dream as nobody printed any OLED yet, optimists like me point to rumors that printing is essentially ready and may be demoed even next year.


Thanks for the info/insight. I'll keep posted.


----------



## rogo

irkuck said:


> The question is thus when printing may come. Doubters like rogo say printing is a pipe dream as nobody printed any OLED yet, optimists like me point to rumors that printing is essentially ready and may be demoed even next year.


You can demo printing a year ago, 2 years ago even.

What you can't do is sell such a display with blue OLED material that lasts more than a few 100 hours.

This isn't about optimism or pessimism. It's about facts. 

When someone demonstrates a long-lasting soluble blue OLED material, we can have an intelligent conversation about printing OLED TVs.

Until then, every time you talk about it being demoed without mentioning the fact no one has even implied at SID or elsewhere that this OLED material exists, you sound as ridiculous as the OLED-info people or whatever nonsensical Korean publication that uncritically repeats a rumor that "OLED printing is coming" without mentioning the enabling technology doesn't exist.

The reason this matters is that if I kept repeating that Tesla was going to make an electric car with a 1000-mile range next year, everyone would be correct to say, "You can't do that, the batteries for it don't exist yet."

And this is the same thing.

The burden would be on Tesla.

Or Samsung.

To demonstrate something that proves the enabling technology is more than theoretical.

Until then, you're not being optimistic. You're talking about wishing something theoretical comes into existing.

Personally, I'm rooting for the hyperloop and autonomous personal aircraft. By all means, you can root for soluble blue OLED.


----------



## irkuck

8mile13 said:


> They also state that disabling ASBL is not recommended.


Sure, disabling ASBL is not within recommended behaviors and LG is using it to protect against potential cases of utmost irresponsible behaviors of some consumers leaving the sets with static picture on for very long times. But as people in the other thread say, in any normal use there was no problem observed with ASBL off. To check the extremes, suicidal experimenters leaving their sets with static picture for weeks and months with ASBL off at a time are welcomed . 



rogo said:


> You can demo printing a year ago, 2 years ago even. What you can't do is sell such a display with blue OLED material that lasts more than a few 100 hours.
> This isn't about optimism or pessimism. It's about facts.


I do not consider this as a demo of real printed OLED and so for me there was no demo yet. The litmus test of the rumors will be 2017 since if the rumors are true a printed OLED will be demoed, display lasting XX-thousands of hours.


----------



## fafrd

I just found this: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1477658447

Old news from when I was not paying attention, but my read is that LG will seriously explore whether printed OLED is viable next year but is very unlikely to introduce any mainstream product (meaning 55/65B/C/E/G7P) based on printed technology in 2017.

Perhaps a 77" model possibly including the new Wallpaper model .

My view is LG wants to determine whether printed OLED technology is viable before finalizing equipment purchases for 9.7G equipment in P10.

It's already been reported that a first Gen 8 phase in P10 is being accelerated while a next phase with Gen 9.7 sheets is being delayed.

Anyone else see it differently?

Things are just going too well for LG OLED now for me to see them taking any technology risk without being very certain it is ready for prime time.

If they've got to take risk with some customers to get field experience with printed OLEDs, those shelling $15,000+ for wallpaper-mounted 77" OLEDs sound like the perfect Guinea Pigs .


----------



## slacker711

Japan Display is projecting that they will have mass production printable OLED's in 2019. They have a Gen 4.5 pilot line up and running. As always, I tend to be skeptical of any estimate beyond two years.

http://www.oled-info.com/files/jdi-joled-business-plan-december-2016.pdf

JDI has raised $700 million from the Japanese government so at least they'll have some cash to throw at the OLED R&D that is necessary to have any chance of surviving.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Japan Display is projecting that they will have mass production printable OLED's in 2019. They have a Gen 4.5 pilot line up and running. As always, I tend to be skeptical of any estimate beyond two years.
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/files/jdi-joled-business-plan-december-2016.pdf
> 
> JDI has raised $700 million from the Japanese government so at least they'll have some cash to throw at the OLED R&D that is necessary to have any chance of surviving.


2019 sounds a hell of a lot more credible than 2017.

I believe that you are agreeing with me that the chance of any printed production of mainstream OLED TVs in 2017 is vanishingly close to 0% .


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> 2019 sounds a hell of a lot more credible than 2017.
> 
> I believe that you are agreeing with me that the chance of any printed production of mainstream OLED TVs in 2017 is vanishingly close to 0% .


The LGD inkjet line was described as a "pilot" line. I know some jumped to conclusions, but I didnt interpret that as having any chance of becoming commercial production in 2017. Both the JDI and LGD lines are necessary but not sufficient steps to getting a commercial printable display. I assume that they think that there is some chance that they will get a soluble blue with a good lifetime in the next few years and in the meantime the pilot line allows them to work on the various manufacturing issues.

A soluble blue OLED is probably closer than a blue QLED, but whether it actually happens...I doubt anybody knows that either.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> The LGD inkjet line was described as a "pilot" line. I know some jumped to conclusions, but I didnt interpret that as having any chance of becoming commercial production in 2017. Both the JDI and LGD lines are necessary but not sufficient steps to getting a commercial printable display. I assume that they think that there is some chance that they will get a soluble blue with a good lifetime in the next few years and in the meantime the pilot line allows them to work on the various manufacturing issues.
> 
> A soluble blue OLED is probably closer than a blue QLED, but whether it actually happens...I doubt anybody knows that either.


Exactly what I had understood - thanks for the confirmation.

The number of members talking about printed 77" OLEDs next year is unbelievable. I guess everyone needs a dream, right .


----------



## Dick Emery

OLED's still have a way to go.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/oled-challenges-201612214392.htm


----------



## videobruce

The peak brightness is the deal killer AFAIC. Plasma had the same problem, similar to CRT's. I'm not sure why it is a problem other than heat concerns. 
Might as well forget watching hockey or Winter sports (not that do either, but the problem is still there).

Another broken technology.


----------



## video_analysis

Only if you get your knickers in a twist about HDR, which is still not fully fleshed out yet in terms of content and the software/hardware to run it. It is hard for me to care less as a result in 2016 and 2017.


----------



## video_analysis

videobruce said:


> The peak brightness is the deal killer AFAIC. Plasma had the same problem, similar to CRT's. I'm not sure why it is a problem other than heat concerns.
> Might as well forget watching hockey or Winter sports (not that do either, but the problem is still there).
> 
> Another broken technology.


Shirley, you must be joking. Are you complaining from experience with the sets or just what somebody said on the interwebs?


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Exactly what I had understood - thanks for the confirmation.
> 
> The number of members talking about printed 77" OLEDs next year is unbelievable. I guess everyone needs a dream, right .


You really wouldnt want to own the first printable OLED built off a pilot line. The 2013 55" OLED was barely acceptable and it was the first of its kind and priced astronomically high with only crazy early adopters buying them. The expectations were very different with no other OLED's on the market.

A Korean research outfit called UBI expects that the inkjet production will be aimed at the mid-tier of the market. It makes sense to me. They are likely to have lower brightness and shorter lifetimes than the WOLED's produced at the same time.


----------



## videobruce

Experience with the oldest three and that article (among others) for the last. And yes, all of those technologies are a joke in one form or another.
And don't call me Shirley.


----------



## video_analysis

It's a wonder you ever bought one of these newfangled, compromised video displays in the past. If that's your only focus, there will never be a TV manufactured (since these devices aren't designed and built by God himself) that meets your satisfaction.

If limited brightness posed any serious concerns for your average sports viewer, there would be a large volume of complaints from owners. There just isn't.


----------



## Vader1

videobruce said:


> Another broken technology.


 Hyperbolic nonsense.


----------



## fafrd

videobruce said:


> The peak brightness is the deal killer AFAIC. Plasma had the same problem, similar to CRT's. I'm not sure why it is a problem other than heat concerns.
> *Might as well forget watching hockey or Winter sports* (not that do either, but the problem is still there).
> 
> Another broken technology.


From an uninformed statement like that, you expose yourself as someone who has never actually had an OLED in his home.

My 2016 OLED has a higher peak brightness than my 2014 Vizio P70 and both get far, far brighter than my 65ZT60 plasma before that.

In normal viewing conditions, I could not watch hockey or winter sports on my OLED much above half brightness - it would be blinding. In the middle of the day, with sunlight streaming into the room, I might go to full brightness and even wish for more, but those are not the viewing conditions I care about...


----------



## fafrd

Dick Emery said:


> OLED's still have a way to go.
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/oled-challenges-201612214392.htm


I generally hold HDTVTEST in high regard, but reading this article, the only thought that came to mind was that Samsung must have finally succeeded in buying them off...

It's good to know that Dolby Vision masters are made on 4000 Nit monitors, but it's also important to know the level of ambient lighting when those masters are made.

If the ambient lighting in your viewing environment is 10% of the ambient lighting when those masters were created on 4000 Nit monitors, you can perfectly recreate 'directors intent' with a 400 Nit display as long as it delivers corresponding near-black performance.

It's all relative to your eyeball's sensitivity, which is set by the display when it is the brightest thing in the room, and by the ambient lighting when it is high enough to dominate the display.

Even if the rushed initial offerings of HDR force us to watch the same image in bright rooms and dark rooms, there will eventually be enhancements that allow the user to adjust to a comfortable peak luminance level relative to the ambient brightness/darkness of the viewing environment.

Dolby Vision on my 65C6P is already too bright for my dark-room viewing environment. I'd like to turn it down a bit if I could.

And as HDTVTEST should know, the entire concept of 'color volume' needs to be scaled/quantized by your eyeballs minimum sensitivity to light (generally determined by ambient lighting).

So as long as LG continues to fight for full credit of the perfect blacks they are able to deliver (as they did partially in successfully advocating for a seperate Premium HDR standard for OLED and other 'perfect black' displays), they should be fine.

When viewed in a dark room and properly adjusted for those viewing conditions, I fully suspect that the yellow/orange highlight on the right of the image will come out as vividly on an OLED as it does on an LED/LCD.

LGs OLEDs have a Premium HDR spec of


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> I generally hold HDTVTEST in high regard, but reading this article, the only thought that came to mind was that Samsung must have finally succeeded in buying them off...


While anything is possible, it doesnt need to be anywhere near that blatant. It can be as simple as a Samsung promotional push which includes access to televisions for reviews and engineers/marketers that can push a particular technical angle. You will really need to know your stuff to push back against the disinformation.

Mark Henniger wrote an article today talking about quantum dot LCD's being a better gaming solutions than OLED's. Some of the points were debateable, but it amazed me to see a reference to burn-in being a significant risk. That is not a real world risk and it simply isnt arguable. To his credit, he took it out after I pointed that out to him. However, he had a 65KS9800 which he reviewed extensively in the fall. It wouldnt surprise me at all to discover that Samsung had been pushing many of the points that he made in his article and that he simply didnt do the necessary research to push back. 

I think Vincent at HDTVtest knows his stuff, but color volume is new and until reviewers explore the differences and LG (and hopefully Sony) gives their side of the story, we wont really know how much it impacts picture quality.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> While anything is possible, it doesnt need to be anywhere near that blatant. It can be as simple as a Samsung promotional push which includes access to televisions for reviews and engineers/marketers that can push a particular technical angle. You will really need to know your stuff to push back against the disinformation.
> 
> Mark Henniger wrote an article today talking about quantum dot LCD's being a better gaming solutions than OLED's. Some of the points were debateable, but it amazed me to see a reference to burn-in being a significant risk. That is not a real world risk and it simply isnt arguable. To his credit, he took it out after I pointed that out to him. However, he had a 65KS9800 which he reviewed extensively in the fall. It wouldnt surprise me at all to discover that Samsung had been pushing many of the points that he made in his article and that he simply didnt do the necessary research to push back.
> 
> I think Vincent at HDTVtest knows his stuff, but color volume is new and until reviewers explore the differences and LG (and hopefully Sony) gives their side of the story, we wont really know how much it impacts picture quality.


Totally agree with all you have written - no one plays that game better than Samsung.

On the other hand, seeing how the landscape has settled, I'm feeling good about the Dolby-LG alliance. Not only is Dolby in the perfect position to assure that Dolby Vision-encoded content will look as good as possible on LG OLEDs, but they have the marketing muscle to push back if Samsung gets carried away...


----------



## fafrd

Many on the Forum also seem to be confident that Samsung and LG will be releasing products with QDCF next year, but I am skeptical.

Found this (dated June 10th, 2016): https://hdguru.com/nanosys-sheds-light-on-next-gen-quantum-dot-displays/

'Nanosys is also working on a new quantum dot film technology due next year called Hyperion, which will enable LED TVs to reach 90 percent of the very wide color gamut Rec. 2020 standard.'

So my guess is that this is what Samsung will be releasing in 2017: improved QDF-based LED/LCDs based on Hyperion or its equivalent that achieve 90% Rec.2020...

Does anyone believe TVs based on Quantum Dot Colir Filters (meaning patterned quantum dots) will be in production next year?

There is also a great deal in that piece about the 'real' QLED .


----------



## video_analysis

Samsung makes me sicker by the minute.


----------



## Vader1

fafrd said:


> Many on the Forum also seem to be confident that Samsung and LG will be releasing products with QDCF next year, but I am skeptical.
> 
> Found this (dated June 10th, 2016): https://hdguru.com/nanosys-sheds-light-on-next-gen-quantum-dot-displays/
> 
> 'Nanosys is also working on a new quantum dot film technology due next year called Hyperion, which will enable LED TVs to reach 90 percent of the very wide color gamut Rec. 2020 standard.'
> 
> So my guess is that this is what Samsung will be releasing in 2017: improved QDF-based LED/LCDs based on Hyperion or its equivalent that achieve 90% Rec.2020...


There were articles a few months ago (I wanna say late summer/ early fall) that announced Samsung was planning to release QDCF with new Hyperion QD's in 2017. Not long after that LG announced they would be doing the same thing with their high end LCD's next year, but they would position it right below their OLED line. 

Reading what you posted it is possible Samsung and LG's 2017 generation QD LCD's will just be QDEF like this year, but also with these new improved Hyperion QD's. Maybe also finally use of Blue QD's in the QD layer. Reading up on the Hyperion QD's they should finally allow for efficient light activated Blue QD's in addition to improved Green and Red QD's and this could be the plan for 2017. This would probably require a UV Backlight. On top of this I think it's possible Samsung could release a single Flagship later in the year that introduces real QDCF with Hyperion QD's. It would be very expensive, but it would be their top model for the year and it should compete strongly with OLED PQ wise (particularly if it's real FALD). Price would be crazy.

We will find out very soon. I feel like all the different backlighting schemes and different way to implement QD's in LCD's is all getting very confusing...


----------



## fafrd

Vader1 said:


> There were articles a few months ago (I wanna say late summer/ early fall) that announced Samsung was planning to release QDCF with new Hyperion QD's in 2017. Not long after that LG announced they would be doing the same thing with their high end LCD's next year, but they would position it right below their OLED line.
> 
> Reading what you posted it is possible Samsung and LG's 2017 generation QD LCD's will just be QDEF like this year, but also with these new improved Hyperion QD's. Maybe also finally use of Blue QD's in the QD layer. Reading up on the Hyperion QD's they should finally allow for efficient light activated Blue QD's in addition to improved Green and Red QD's and this could be the plan for 2017. This would probably require a UV Backlight. On top of this I think it's possible Samsung could release a single Flagship later in the year that introduces real QDCF with Hyperion QD's. It would be very expensive, but it would be their top model for the year and it should compete strongly with OLED PQ wise (particularly if it's real FALD). Price would be crazy.
> 
> We will find out very soon. I feel like all the different backlighting schemes and different way to implement QD's in LCD's is all getting very confusing...


Hyperion itself seems to be just a mix of cadmium-free red and cadmium-based green QDs, so if/when nanosys develops some RGB QD product, it's probably going to have a different name than Hyperion.

And none of this really belongs on the OLED technology thread except for the link between QDCFs and OLED printing technology, and the Samsung marketing FUD regarding OLEDs.

By H2, more incremental improvements may be possible, but by Spring 2017 it seems to me that


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> In normal viewing conditions, I could not watch hockey or winter sports on my OLED much above half brightness - it would be blinding. In the middle of the day, with sunlight streaming into the room, I might go to full brightness and even wish for more, but those are not the viewing conditions I care about...


It seems there is misunderstanding between the average brightness and peak reproducible brightness, especially HDR/DV. Hockey does not need higher brightness as it is now but scene of Supernova explosion on the starry sky will be closer to reality when blindingly bright for a moment. 

Regarding the OLED peak brightness limitation I understand that at least large part of the limit is due to the heat dissipation from OLED pixels and power supply. From the extremely thin form of OLED panels one can easily guess there is really no any special cooling and the power supply is kept to minimum. But at the cost of making the sets bit thicker these can be significantly improved by standard cooling techniques like fins of heat-pipes and providing bigger power supply. I do not thus see a huge problem in increasing OLED brightness to reasonable HDR levels.


----------



## fafrd

Vader1 said:


> There were articles a few months ago (I wanna say late summer/ early fall) that announced Samsung was planning to release QDCF with new Hyperion QD's in 2017. Not long after that LG announced they would be doing the same thing with their high end LCD's next year, but they would position it right below their OLED line.
> 
> Reading what you posted it is possible Samsung and LG's 2017 generation QD LCD's will just be QDEF like this year, but also with these new improved Hyperion QD's. Maybe also finally use of Blue QD's in the QD layer. Reading up on the Hyperion QD's they should finally allow for efficient light activated Blue QD's in addition to improved Green and Red QD's and this could be the plan for 2017. This would probably require a UV Backlight. On top of this I think it's possible Samsung could release a single Flagship later in the year that introduces real QDCF with Hyperion QD's. It would be very expensive, but it would be their top model for the year and it should compete strongly with OLED PQ wise (particularly if it's real FALD). Price would be crazy.
> 
> We will find out very soon. I feel like all the different backlighting schemes and different way to implement QD's in LCD's is all getting very confusing...


On the one hand, I feel bad co-opting the OLED Technology Thread with all of this discussion regarding QLED. On the other hand, it strikes me that OLED is now 'over the hump' and is here to stay, this thread has been dead for the past few months, and we need something to talk about.

So here goes.

I believe Samsung has just revealed their 10-year plan. They are going to skip OLED and work on leap-frogging it with QLED (the real kind, also possibly thought of as 'ILED' since they are now actively promoting the advantages of 'inorganic' materials over 'organic' materials - meaning long lifetime and no burn-in or image retention).

So 10 years from now, Samsung hopes to be dominating the market with a 90%+ Rec.2020 2000-4000 cd/m2 self-emissive display based on patterned Quantum-Dot-based electroluminescent R G B light emitting materials.

Sounds fantastic. And speculative. And will probably take at least a decade to industrialize. But it's a vision (and not a bad one at that .

So back to the present and how they are going to get there from where they are today in the face of high-end competition from OLED and low-end competition from Chinese LED/LCD.

They are going to need to master patterning of QD materials to succeed with ILED (I'm using this to distinguish from Samsung's co-opting of QLED, which they will use as an umbrella for all of these phases) .

If they are able to successfully pattern QD materials they should be able to pattern Quantum Dot Cokor Filters, so RG QDCF-based LED/LCD (FALD if needed) is a sensible stepping stone on the way to their ultimate target. This QDCF stepping stone offers several intriguing advantages over today's OLEDs:

-no peak luminance limitation (1500, 2000, even more cd/m2 peak)
-OLED-like viewing angles fro red and green (and blue hard to see)
-blue-only black level, so appearance of improved blacks
-90% Rec.2020 immediately, leading the way to full Rec.2020

It's a pretty attractive display, a significantly better LCD, but it faces a couple challanges:
-it requires patterning if QD materials which as far as I know is not industrialized yet (so yields may be as poor as RGB OLED)
-it will be expensive (at least the FALD variety)

But it's a natural stepping-stone, and it will materialize once Samsung has mastered patterning of QD materials, and from all indications, Samsung is already signal,I got to the market to bank on the fact that they have QDCF technology in the bag.

My belief until someone corrects me with evidence is that they are working on QDCF but do not already have it in the bag. Perhaps they have enough progress to be confident QDCF products will be materializing by 2018 or 2019.

So what to do for next year? Start generating buzz. Start getting the entire market excited about QLED. Start leaking to the market to suggest you 'only' have QDCF in 2017 as a first step towards QLED. This is exactly what we've been witnessing over the past few weeks and many on the Forum seem convinced that Samsung has QDCF.

But CES is coming up and 2017 products need to be announced and ultimately delivered, so what to do?

Take SUHD QDEF-based LED/LCDs, replace the 98% DCI-P3 QDEF with the new 'almost cadmium-free' RG 90% Rec.2020 QDEF, make some modest bump in backlight brightness, and confuse the market by calling this the first generation of QLED.

So here is the three+-phase roadmap I believe Samsung has laid out:

QLED1.0 (2017-2018): 90% Rec.2020 RB QDEF LED/LCD

QLED2.0 (2019-2022): 90%+ Rec.2020 RB QDCF LED/LCD
QLED2.1 (2022-2025): 90%+++ Rec.2020 RGB QDCF LED or UV/LCD

QDEF3.0 (2026?): 90%+++ Rec.2020 RGB ILED

In terms of long-term positioning of ILED versus OLED, OLED needs to close the gap on color gamut before Rec.2020 Madtering becomes commonplace and needs to close the gap on brightness before HDR mastering fully exploiting Dolby's 4000 cd/m2 Madtering standard becomes commonplace.

This will take at least 5 years (and probably 10), but these are exactly the weaknesses Samsung is using today to attack OLED with their HDR, SUHD, and now their new QLED initiatives...


----------



## NintendoManiac64

irkuck said:


> I understand that at least large part of the limit is due to the heat dissipation from OLED pixels and power supply. From the extremely thin form of OLED panels one can easily guess there is really no any special cooling and the power supply is kept to minimum. But at the cost of making the sets bit thicker these can be significantly improved by standard cooling techniques like fins of heat-pipes and providing bigger power supply.


As someone with a background in computer electronics rather than home theater, the obvious solution to me would be to use an external power supply much like PC monitors and laptops use.

However, it's my impression that many home theater enthusiast _hate_ external power supplies...which seems strange to me since the PSU is a common component to fail in TVs, so an external one would make PSU replacement much easier.


----------



## RichB

NintendoManiac64 said:


> As someone with a background in computer electronics rather than home theater, the obvious solution to me would be to use an external power supply much like PC monitors and laptops use.
> 
> However, it's my impression that many home theater enthusiast _hate_ external power supplies...which seems strange to me since the PSU is a common component to fail in TVs, so an external one would make PSU replacement much easier.




That makes sense when power requirements change but I like one-piece components. That said, detachable sound-bars would be nice.


- Rich


----------



## fafrd

RichB said:


> That makes sense when power requirements change but I like one-piece components. That said, detachable sound-bars would be nice.
> 
> 
> - Rich


If LG OLED could truly deliver much higher peak brightness with an external power supply, they should seriously consider going that way (at least for the high-end G Series).

Samsung is going to be pushing very hard on peak brightness.

My suspicion is that it is quite a bit more complex than that (and possibly limited by drive transistors within the OLED panel ).


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> If LG OLED could truly deliver much higher peak brightness with an external power supply, they should seriously consider going that way (at least for the high-end G Series).


In the era of very thin displays it would make much sense to move to a separate box not only power supply but the whole processing electronics making effectively the display a HDMI monitor, BUT...



RichB said:


> That makes sense when power requirements change but I like one-piece components. That said, detachable sound-bars would be nice.


... here is he voice of general public: people don't want TVs made of multiple pieces.


----------



## artur9

irkuck said:


> In the era of very thin displays it would make much sense to move to a separate box not only power supply but the whole processing electronics making effectively the display a HDMI monitor,


Didn't Panasonic's super high end OLED have a separate box like that?


----------



## Stereodude

NintendoManiac64 said:


> As someone with a background in computer electronics rather than home theater, the obvious solution to me would be to use an external power supply much like PC monitors and laptops use.


ROFL... Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

Thanks for the laughs!


----------



## ChaosCloud

NintendoManiac64 said:


> As someone with a background in computer electronics rather than home theater, the obvious solution to me would be to use an external power supply much like PC monitors and laptops use.
> 
> However, it's my impression that many home theater enthusiast _hate_ external power supplies...which seems strange to me since the PSU is a common component to fail in TVs, so an external one would make PSU replacement much easier.


I think the best compromise would be the power supply, electronics, and connectors all in one box which can be optionally bolted to the back of the TV if desired. This would allow for flush wall mounting or a conventional TV setup - up to user preference.


----------



## videobruce

> If limited brightness posed any serious concerns for your average sports viewer, there would be a large volume of complaints from owners. There just isn't.


Which doesn't surprise me given those users. 



> From an uninformed statement like that, you expose yourself as someone who has never actually had an OLED in his home.


Apparently you and the poster above yours never read that article from that link that was posted. *Don't tell me that I'm "uninformed"!* There are other articles that basically state the same thing.
But, one thing you are correct, I don't have a OLED in my house.

.


----------



## RichB

irkuck said:


> In the era of very thin displays it would make much sense to move to a separate box not only power supply but the whole processing electronics making effectively the display a HDMI monitor, BUT...
> 
> 
> 
> ... here is he voice of general public: people don't want TVs made of multiple pieces.


My B6 came with multiple pieces. Most notably, the base and TV. One piece is on the wall, the other is in the box 

- Rich


----------



## Stereodude

Exactly where did you guys get this silly notion that the lack of brightness is cause by the inability to fit a large enough power supply in the TV?


----------



## tgm1024

Stereodude said:


> Exactly where did you guys get this silly notion that the lack of brightness is cause by the inability to fit a large enough power supply in the TV?


HAHAHAHAHA. Is _that_ what those guys were up to? Oh now that _is_ funny.


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> On the one hand, I feel bad co-opting the OLED Technology Thread with all of this discussion regarding QLED. On the other hand, it strikes me that OLED is now 'over the hump' and is here to stay, this thread has been dead for the past few months, and we need something to talk about.
> 
> So here goes.
> 
> I believe Samsung has just revealed their 10-year plan. They are going to skip OLED and work on leap-frogging it with QLED (the real kind, also possibly thought of as 'ILED' since they are now actively promoting the advantages of 'inorganic' materials over 'organic' materials - meaning long lifetime and no burn-in or image retention).
> 
> So 10 years from now, Samsung hopes to be dominating the market with a 90%+ Rec.2020 2000-4000 cd/m2 self-emissive display based on patterned Quantum-Dot-based electroluminescent R G B light emitting materials.
> 
> Sounds fantastic. And speculative. And will probably take at least a decade to industrialize. But it's a vision (and not a bad one at that .
> 
> So back to the present and how they are going to get there from where they are today in the face of high-end competition from OLED and low-end competition from Chinese LED/LCD.
> 
> They are going to need to master patterning of QD materials to succeed with ILED (I'm using this to distinguish from Samsung's co-opting of QLED, which they will use as an umbrella for all of these phases) .
> 
> If they are able to successfully pattern QD materials they should be able to pattern Quantum Dot Cokor Filters, so RG QDCF-based LED/LCD (FALD if needed) is a sensible stepping stone on the way to their ultimate target. This QDCF stepping stone offers several intriguing advantages over today's OLEDs:
> 
> -no peak luminance limitation (1500, 2000, even more cd/m2 peak)
> -OLED-like viewing angles fro red and green (and blue hard to see)
> -blue-only black level, so appearance of improved blacks
> -90% Rec.2020 immediately, leading the way to full Rec.2020
> 
> It's a pretty attractive display, a significantly better LCD, but it faces a couple challanges:
> -it requires patterning if QD materials which as far as I know is not industrialized yet (so yields may be as poor as RGB OLED)
> -it will be expensive (at least the FALD variety)
> 
> But it's a natural stepping-stone, and it will materialize once Samsung has mastered patterning of QD materials, and from all indications, Samsung is already signal,I got to the market to bank on the fact that they have QDCF technology in the bag.
> 
> My belief until someone corrects me with evidence is that they are working on QDCF but do not already have it in the bag. Perhaps they have enough progress to be confident QDCF products will be materializing by 2018 or 2019.
> 
> So what to do for next year? Start generating buzz. Start getting the entire market excited about QLED. Start leaking to the market to suggest you 'only' have QDCF in 2017 as a first step towards QLED. This is exactly what we've been witnessing over the past few weeks and many on the Forum seem convinced that Samsung has QDCF.
> 
> But CES is coming up and 2017 products need to be announced and ultimately delivered, so what to do?
> 
> Take SUHD QDEF-based LED/LCDs, replace the 98% DCI-P3 QDEF with the new 'almost cadmium-free' RG 90% Rec.2020 QDEF, make some modest bump in backlight brightness, and confuse the market by calling this the first generation of QLED.
> 
> So here is the three+-phase roadmap I believe Samsung has laid out:
> 
> QLED1.0 (2017-2018): 90% Rec.2020 RB QDEF LED/LCD
> 
> QLED2.0 (2019-2022): 90%+ Rec.2020 RB QDCF LED/LCD
> QLED2.1 (2022-2025): 90%+++ Rec.2020 RGB QDCF LED or UV/LCD
> 
> QDEF3.0 (2026?): 90%+++ Rec.2020 RGB ILED
> 
> In terms of long-term positioning of ILED versus OLED, OLED needs to close the gap on color gamut before Rec.2020 Madtering becomes commonplace and needs to close the gap on brightness before HDR mastering fully exploiting Dolby's 4000 cd/m2 Madtering standard becomes commonplace.
> 
> This will take at least 5 years (and probably 10), but these are exactly the weaknesses Samsung is using today to attack OLED with their HDR, SUHD, and now their new QLED initiatives...


Co-opting the thread again 

While I am disturbed by Samsung's co-opting of the term 'QLED', the fudgification they are encouraging over what it means, and the disingenios campaign of attacks against OLED, if I distance myself from that distaste, there is actually a great deal I find attractive in the quantum-dot-based inorganic-LED (ILED) roadmap it seems Samsing is pursuing.

The fist phase is pretty meaningless but does take a big step towards Rec.2020 color gamut and makes it clear that Samsung wants to lead the charge in getting to 100% Rec.2020 first (over the next 5-10 years . Also, between the increased number of LEDs needed to increase brightness being divided up into a larger number of dimming zones and/or adding additional low-light dimming levels, it seems that Samsung has decided to take the local-dimming bull by the horns and drive FALD to the next level. Off-angle viewing performance will remain unchanged from where is is today on the SUHD TVs, but in all other important areas, Samsung seems to be making progress.

If/when they can deliver QDCF, it's actually a pretty attractive variant of LCD-based display technology. They will probably only have red and green quantum dots on the outside of the LCD to start, but this will largely address the limited viewing-angle issue and may further increase black levels.

Getting green and red light emitting from the outermost-layer of the display will actually give QDCF a small leg up on OLED, which has to pass emitted light through a outer-most passive color filter...

i'm curious whether anyone thinks large-screen patterning of inorganic QD-based ink will prove to be an easier challange than the large-screen patterning of organic RGB materials that Samsung never succeeded to master.

On that topic, I just found this from 2 years ago: http://www.nanosysinc.com/what-we-do/display-backlighting/qdef/

These QDCF displays will not be cheap, but they will achieve close-to-Rec.2020 color gamut, can achieve essentially any peak brightness (subject to cost), will have OLED-like viewing angles, and can deliver black levels rivaling and even surpassing those of the best FALD LED/LCDs to date.

Once the RG QD patterning challange has been met, there is still the need to solve the blue QD problem, but if RGB photo-luminescent QDs can successfully be patterned on large screens, patterning of RGB electro-luminescent QDs should not be far behind.

For those who pine for Samsung's RGB OLED TVs and regret it's demise, this seems to be a carefully thought-out, decade-long second coming that hopefully will culminate in an RGB ILED rather than an RGB OLED.

Aside from the misinformation and the expected price, what's not to like?


----------



## video_analysis

videobruce said:


> Which doesn't surprise me given those users.


What are you implying with this snippiness? That they're (we're) in denial?



> Apparently you and the poster above yours never read that article from that link that was posted. Don't tell me that I'm "uninformed"! There are other articles that basically state the same thing.
> But, one thing you are correct, *I don't have a OLED in my house.*


Case closed. The article is FUD and another attempt to inflate a dying technology. Also, it shares no lamentations about OLED being too dim for sports. It's solely about its HDR capability but conveniently overlooks the moving target that represents as every year, TVs become brighter no matter the tech.

PS. OLED TVs today are brighter than most (all?) LCD TVs from merely 2 years ago.


----------



## Stereodude

fafrd said:


> Aside from the misinformation and the expected price, what's not to like?


The fact virtually no one has any idea what they're talking about and just post in a self agrandizing circle jerk of group think based on hopes and dreams as if they have some valuable insight to add.

I see a huge amount of wild guessing posted as fact as if the poster worked for the respective company and was an actual insider with legitimate insight when they just read a few translated articles.


----------



## irkuck

Stereodude said:


> Exactly where did you guys get this silly notion that the lack of brightness is cause by the inability to fit a large enough power supply in the TV?


Maximum power consumption of 65" LG OLEDs is specsed at 320W. Increasing the brightness for top HDR may call for a power supply close to a kilowatt range. Now, a power supply with any wattage can be made, but high wattage power supply of thin and small size fitting into a very tight enclosure is not trivial. So it seems power supply is one limiting factor in the HDR OLED TV design, it is solvable at a price and not getting above the pixel heat dissipation but still. Now tell us what is silly in this reasoning .


----------



## Stereodude

irkuck said:


> Maximum power consumption of 65" LG OLEDs is specsed at 320W. Increasing the brightness for top HDR may call for a power supply close to a kilowatt range. Now, a power supply with any wattage can be made, but high wattage power supply of thin and small size fitting into a very tight enclosure is not trivial. So it seems power supply is one limiting factor in the HDR OLED TV design, it is solvable at a price and not getting above the pixel heat dissipation but still. Now tell us what is silly in this reasoning .


It's entirely based on unfounded speculation. Like where'd you get the 1kW number from? Further, how do you know a 1kW power supply wouldn't fit in an OLED without making it appreciably larger? Did an inside at LG give you this information?

PS: The peak brightness limitation is driven by the materials and lifetime, not by a quest for low power consumption. Aside from Sony's OLED mastering monitor, no one is making an OLED that hits 1000nits. Even in small sizes that wouldn't need a "1000W" supply.


----------



## slacker711

Stereodude said:


> PS: The peak brightness limitation is driven by the materials and lifetime, not by a quest for low power consumption. Aside from Sony's OLED mastering monitor,* no one is making an OLED that hits 1000nits*. Even in small sizes that wouldn't need a "1000W" supply.


This is completely false. 

These numbers are from 2012 and they measure material lifetimes at 1000 cd/m2, which is 1000 nits.

http://www.oled.com/default.asp?contentID=604

You can drive any set of OLED materials to 1000 nits with the limiting factors being the power needed, the heat generated, and the impact on lifetimes. Samsung's RGB OLED Note 7 hit 1048 nits in automatic brightness mode (and that didnt have anything to do with the fires). OLED lighting will hit much brighter numbers and they use a stacked white OLED because of its efficiency. 

I noted on another thread that LGD's OLED "sustained" brightness with a 10% window is actually higher than Samsung's or Sony's LCD's this year. It will be interesting to see if LGD plays the brightness game and lowers the sustained brightness to allow a larger increase in peak brightness. 

http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/picture-quality/peak-brightness


----------



## irkuck

Stereodude said:


> It's entirely based on unfounded speculation. Like where'd you get the 1kW number from? Further, how do you know a 1kW power supply wouldn't fit in an OLED without making it appreciably larger? Did an inside at LG give you this information?


You see, I know a thing or two about electronics and you apparentely not.



Stereodude said:


> PS: *The peak brightness limitation is driven by the materials and lifetime*, not by a quest for low power consumption. Aside from Sony's OLED mastering monitor, no one is making an OLED that hits 1000nits. Even in small sizes that wouldn't need a "1000W" supply.


As above plus: Do you know exactly what the fat sentence means?


----------



## video_analysis

slacker711 said:


> This is completely false.
> 
> These numbers are from 2012 and they measure material lifetimes at 1000 cd/m2, which is 1000 nits.
> 
> http://www.oled.com/default.asp?contentID=604
> 
> You can drive any set of OLED materials to 1000 nits with the limiting factors being the power needed, the heat generated, and the impact on lifetimes. Samsung's RGB OLED Note 7 hit 1048 nits in automatic brightness mode (and that didnt have anything to do with the fires). OLED lighting will hit much brighter numbers and they use a stacked white OLED because of its efficiency.
> 
> I noted on another thread that LGD's OLED "sustained" brightness with a 10% window is actually higher than Samsung's or Sony's LCD's this year. It will be interesting to see if LGD plays the brightness game and lowers the sustained brightness to allow a larger increase in peak brightness.
> 
> http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/picture-quality/peak-brightness


Love it! It's like a balancing act to either maintain peak brightness versus allowing for heat dissipation and lifetime stability. LGD's already winning the 10% window sustained brightness war in 2016, and what I'm told by the LCD and HDR enthusiasts is that this is what's most important for specular highlights and the most impactful aspect of HDR presentations. Again, I am reminded that the current lackluster performance by OLED is not affected by its brightness limitations as much as it is the implementation of HDR10 without dynamic metadata (leading to clipping and blown out highlights).


----------



## irkuck

slacker711 said:


> I noted on another thread that LGD's OLED "sustained" brightness with a 10% window is actually higher than Samsung's or Sony's LCD's this year. It will be interesting to see if LGD plays the brightness game and lowers the sustained brightness to allow a larger increase in peak brightness.


Indeed the data show this strikingly, e.g. 10% window LG B6 *787* cd/m2, Samsung KS9000 *523* cd/m2. At 25% window the numbers are comparable: LG B6 *504 *cd/m2, Samsung KS9000 *565* cd/m2. Only at full sustained display the difference is knocking out OLED: LG B6 *151* cd/m2, Samsung KS9000 *536* cd/m2 .

What this proves is that regarding brightness there is no inherent problem with OLED pixels light output. The problem lies in heat dissipation and power supply. Improvement of heat dissipation from the panel is doable but costly due to large area to be covered. Basic step in this direction would be attaching the display to a coper substrate with fins. Ultimate solution would be by adding heatpipes. Then the question remains if passive cooling is sufficient or fans have to be installed too. All this would result in a panel no so thin as the current ones - unless a sophisticated thin radiator could be made.


----------



## hi-fi andy

LG to introduce 3-stack structure for its 2017 OLED lighting and TV panels

http://www.oled-info.com/lg-introduce-3-stack-structure-its-2017-oled-lighting-and-tv-panels

"The new stack structure enabled LG to increase its color gamut from 114% sRGB to 129% sRGB (or from 90% DCI to 99% DCI). The power consumption was improved by 20% and LG will be able to ship OLED TVs that feature 1,000 nits of brightness in 2017."


----------



## fafrd

hi-fi andy said:


> LG to introduce 3-stack structure for its 2017 OLED lighting and TV panels
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/lg-introduce-3-stack-structure-its-2017-oled-lighting-and-tv-panels
> 
> "The new stack structure enabled LG to increase its color gamut from 114% sRGB to 129% sRGB (or from 90% DCI to 99% DCI). The power consumption was improved by 20% and LG will be able to ship OLED TVs that feature 1,000 nits of brightness in 2017."


Interesting.

Seems to me that the gamut is only going to improve if the upper yellow R+G layer is composed differently than the lower yellow R+G stack.

So R+g and r+G or something to provide narrower Red and Greed spectra than they are getting from the 2016 yellow composition...

But a pretty big step for LG to successfully transition from 2-layer stack to 3-layer stack. Hope we actually see it delivered on the 2017 OLEDs...


----------



## wco81

What happened to reducing costs over the years and with greater scale?

This is the 3rd year or generation of LG OLED and it sounds like they're going to a more expensive design. Sounds like a good improvement on paper but if it's higher cost, then at least you would expect the new TVs using these new panels would debut at the same list price?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> What happened to reducing costs over the years and with greater scale?
> 
> This is the 3rd year or generation of LG OLED and it sounds like they're going to a more expensive design. Sounds like a good improvement on paper but if it's higher cost, then at least you would expect the new TVs using these new panels would debut at the same list price?


What makes you think this will result in higher cost? If it reduces yield, it will, but if they can maintain and hopefully continue to improve their yields again next year, that savings will dwarf and minor additional material cost associated with more OLED materials...


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Seems to me that the gamut is only going to improve if the upper yellow R+G layer is composed differently than the lower yellow R+G stack.
> 
> So R+g and r+G or something to provide narrower Red and Greed spectra than they are getting from the 2016 yellow composition...
> 
> But a pretty big step for LG to successfully transition from 2-layer stack to 3-layer stack. Hope we actually see it delivered on the 2017 OLEDs...


I dont interpret the original article the same way as Oled-info. LGD moved to a 3 layer stack in their 2016 OLED's but it is a blue/yellow/blue stack. They are planning on using yellow/blue/yellow for OLED lighting in 2017. I dont think that the article supports the idea that they are going to switch televisions to that stack as well.

http://www.olednet.com/en/lg-display-woled-idw-2016/


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> I dont interpret the original article the same way as Oled-info. LGD moved to a 3 layer stack in their 2016 OLED's but it is a blue/yellow/blue stack. They are planning on using yellow/blue/yellow for OLED lighting in 2017. I dont think that the article supports the idea that they are going to switch televisions to that stack as well.
> 
> http://www.olednet.com/en/lg-display-woled-idw-2016/


Interesting, thanks.

I'm not sure I interpret this article as suggesting production of 2016 OLED TVs was already three-stack - seems to imply they 'showed' the three stack structure in 2016. And the increase from 90% to 98/99% DCI-P3 in 2017 seems confirmed (however it was achieved), as well as the hope that they deliver 1000 cd/m2 OLED TVs next year...

We'll know soon


----------



## video_analysis

More confirmation as to the 1000-nit achievement for the consumer models next year, which shouldn't come as too much of a surprise since they were demonstrating a 1400-nit prototype earlier this year.


----------



## Stereodude

irkuck said:


> You see, I know a thing or two about electronics and you apparentely not.


Thank you for proving my point. This thread is rife with misinformation posted by a bunch of internet educated "know-it-all" keyboard jockeys echo'ing whatever they read from some articles like they're subject matter experts.



> As above plus: Do you know exactly what the fat sentence means?


Nope, why don't you and the choir tell me?


----------



## video_analysis

Merry Christmas to you, too. That's the second time you've cast a wet blanket on seemingly everyone posting here. It will suck if the mods have to intervene with a reminder on Christmas Day about avoiding personal slights against other members.


----------



## Vader1

Stereodude said:


> Aside from Sony's OLED mastering monitor, no one is making an OLED that hits 1000nits. Even in small sizes that wouldn't need a "1000W" supply.


Funny... LG just confirmed today that 2017 OLED's will hit 1000 nits, as many of us speculated.


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Interesting, thanks.
> 
> I'm not sure I interpret this article as suggesting production of 2016 OLED TVs was already three-stack - seems to imply they 'showed' the three stack structure in 2016. And the increase from 90% to 98/99% DCI-P3 in 2017 seems confirmed (however it was achieved), as well as the hope that they deliver 1000 cd/m2 OLED TVs next year...
> 
> We'll know soon


The 2016 LG OLED TV's are definitely three stack WOLED's with a blue/yellow/blue architecture. It was confirmed at SID in May.


----------



## irkuck

Stereodude said:


> Thank you for proving my point. This thread is rife with misinformation posted by a bunch of internet educated "know-it-all" keyboard jockeys echo'ing whatever they read from some articles like they're subject matter experts.
> Nope, why don't you and the choir tell me?


To learn about this you may wish to read my post a couple of floors up . The problem with OLED brightness limitation is thermal, brightness can be increased with better cooling and power supply.


----------



## Stereodude

video_analysis said:


> That's the second time you've cast a wet blanket on seemingly everyone posting here.


If the shoe fits... Which of you works at a display company working on OLEDs? How about for a company making OLED related materials? What about for a company or university doing OLED material research? Anyone can parrot highly speculative and very often erroneous translated Korean "articles". Oh wait, I read it on the internet so it has to be true.



Vader1 said:


> Funny... LG just confirmed today that 2017 OLED's will hit 1000 nits, as many of us speculated.


Funny... I thought it was unnecessary since the 2016 OLEDs were brighter than the LCDs. Why are they doing it if it's unnecessary? BTW, can you provide a link to the LG press release or LG web page showing the specs for the 2017 models with a brightness of 1000 nits? OLED displays are still being held back by the materials. There's no disputing that reality.


----------



## Vader1

Stereodude said:


> Funny... I thought it was unnecessary since the 2016 OLEDs were brighter than the LCDs. Why are they doing it if it's unnecessary?


What are you even talking about here? Who said that? So you're gonna resort to putting words in my mouth you and I both know I never said... the refuge of the desperate.



Stereodude said:


> BTW, can you provide a link to the LG press release or LG web page showing the specs for the 2017 models with a brightness of 1000 nits?


This article was posted on OLED.net yesterday, the information is from LG at the recent IDW show in Japan.
http://www.olednet.com/en/lg-display-woled-idw-2016/?ckattempt=3

They demoed an 800 nit OLED there. It's expected they will deliver 1,000 nit OLED's in 2017. Just about guaranteed to see one at CES (just 10 Days)

Should be noted LG already demoed this *1,400 Nit* OLED a few months ago... 
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=02nvFKecQ_Y



Stereodude said:


> OLED displays are still being held back by the materials. There's no disputing that reality.


Time will tell if there's any truth to this or not. If there is truth to it, why has OLED been the only one of the many next generation display tech concepts we've heard about over the past 15-20 years to make it past prototype stage? We've been promised various MEMS type displays, SED/ FED (the biggest Vaporware of all), and OLED. Only OLED got anywhere near where it is now and it shows no signs of going away. Apple and Sony are both now gave in too after a few years of bad mouthing the technology.


----------



## video_analysis

Stereodude said:


> If the shoe fits... Which of you works at a display company working on OLEDs? How about for a company making OLED related materials? What about for a company or university doing OLED material research? Anyone can parrot highly speculative and very often erroneous translated Korean "articles". Oh wait, I read it on the internet so it has to be true.


Leave me out of your tiresome blanketing tirade. I am not making any speculations as to what is limiting light output nor am I pontificating about technological roadmaps for either Korean entity. The lack of qualifications you mention shouldn't preclude participation in this thread. Concerning said pontification, you really shouldn't take it so personally (and lump the rest of us as signing on to that speculation). It's one person's educated guesswork, and I would hope participants here can understand that it is merely speculative and not emanating from any official source. Good grief.

Oh, and OLEDs only need brighter light output to keep abreast with the LCD competition. The brightness race is not stopping.


----------



## tgm1024

irkuck said:


> To learn about this you may wish to read my post a couple of floors up . The problem with OLED brightness limitation is thermal, brightness can be increased with better cooling and power supply.


You said this:

Irkuck: "What this proves is that regarding brightness there is no inherent problem with OLED pixels light output. The problem lies in heat dissipation and power supply. Improvement of heat dissipation from the panel is doable but costly due to large area to be covered."

Perhaps, but that_ *does mean that there is an "inherent" brightness limitation on OLEDs *_and that statement should be free to stand all by itself. The fact that it's thermal in nature is the same thing has saying there is a brightness limitation all by itself. Of course it's the case that you can over-drive an OLED to quick extinction and get all the brightness you want; so what? That "brightness" is too high and the limit is lower than that.


----------



## fafrd

Gotta love Samsung: http://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?sc=30800021&year=2016&no=891803

"OLED TV makers led by its Korean rival LG Electronics Inc. point to main downsides of quantum dot TVs - limited contrast ratio and poor off-angle viewing. Samsung Electronics, however, said it completely combated them in the new product it will showcase at CES 2017. *The company expects the future TV market would be divided into quantum-dot TVs and others.* "

Lumping OLED TVs in with all those other junky non-QD LED/LCD TVs out of China .

"Samsung Elec to form *quantum dot TV alliance* to pit against OLED front"

Gonna' be harder for LG OLED to sneak into this one .

Seems as though the gloves are off and engagement has started...


----------



## Vader1

Good luck to them... Quantum Dot LCD Hybrids are gonna have a hard time keeping up with the ever decreasing price of OLED TV's. Samsung apparently also doesn't realize China is also looking deep into OLED (in addition to Quantum Dots) and likely to be a big player in it in a few years.


----------



## fafrd

Vader1 said:


> Good luck to them... Quantum Dot LCD Hybrids are gonna have a hard time keeping up with the ever decreasing price of OLED TV's. *Samsung apparently also doesn't realize China is also looking deep into OLED (in addition to Quantum Dots) and likely to be a big player in it in a few years.*


I suspect they realize it exceedingly well, which is why they are driving this new 'alliance' in an attempt to get the Chinese and Japenese vendors to choose sides.

I believe LG has formed an OLED Alliance, right? So the big question will be, are either of these Alliances, through carrots or sticks, going to try to force vendors to be exclusively in one and not the other?

If LG can lead their own OLED alliance, while also being a member of Samsung's new a Quantum Dot Alliance, this initiative won't amount to much.

But if Samsung can force Sony to bow out of the OLED Alliance in order to become a card-carrying member if the Quantum Dot Alluance, the gloves really are off.

Who knows, the most-likely bedfellow to join Samsung in this new Alliance (at least on an exclusive basis) would appear to be Vizio, who just last year was left out of the UHD Alliance


----------



## Vader1

fafrd said:


> I suspect they realize it exceedingly well, which is why they are driving this new 'alliance' in an attempt to get the Chinese and Japenese vendors to choose sides.


Yeah they probably do, I just seldom here it brought up or mentioned.


----------



## fafrd

Vader1 said:


> Yeah they probably do, I just seldom here it brought up or mentioned.


QDEF is a far easier and more quicker technology to master than QDCF (which has not yet been industrialized, as far as we know) 

QDCF is a more advanced technology akin to mastering large-screen RGB OLED TVs (a battle Samsung ended up giving up on ).

It will be easy for Chinese TV makers to copycat QDEF (which is why there are already several that are doing so).

It will be far harder for them to copycat QDCF (after it is proven that it exists on an industrialized scale ) - possibly as hard or even harder than copycatting WOLED...

And this is completely aside from the issue of IP/ patents (where I believe WOLED may have far stronger protection than QDEF and possibly also QDCF).


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Gotta love Samsung: http://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?sc=30800021&year=2016&no=891803
> 
> "OLED TV makers led by its Korean rival LG Electronics Inc. point to main downsides of quantum dot TVs - limited contrast ratio and poor off-angle viewing. Samsung Electronics, however, said it completely combated them in the new product it will showcase at CES 2017. *The company expects the future TV market would be divided into quantum-dot TVs and others.* "
> 
> Lumping OLED TVs in with all those other junky non-QD LED/LCD TVs out of China .
> 
> "Samsung Elec to form *quantum dot TV alliance* to pit against OLED front"
> 
> Gonna' be harder for LG OLED to sneak into this one .
> 
> Seems as though the gloves are off and engagement has started...


LOL! That whole thing is hilarious!!!!!

"quantum dot TV alliance". Seriously, I thought you had made that up at first.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

irkuck said:


> Indeed the data show this strikingly, e.g. 10% window LG B6 *787* cd/m2, Samsung KS9000 *523* cd/m2. At 25% window the numbers are comparable: LG B6 *504 *cd/m2, Samsung KS9000 *565* cd/m2. Only at full sustained display the difference is knocking out OLED: LG B6 *151* cd/m2, Samsung KS9000 *536* cd/m2 .
> 
> What this proves is that regarding brightness there is no inherent problem with OLED pixels light output. The problem lies in heat dissipation and power supply. Improvement of heat dissipation from the panel is doable but costly due to large area to be covered. Basic step in this direction would be attaching the display to a coper substrate with fins. Ultimate solution would be by adding heatpipes. Then the question remains if passive cooling is sufficient or fans have to be installed too. All this would result in a panel no so thin as the current ones - unless a sophisticated thin radiator could be made.


Sooo, about my previously-mentioned external power supply idea...


----------



## irkuck

tgm1024 said:


> You said this:
> Irkuck: "What this proves is that regarding brightness there is no inherent problem with OLED pixels light output. The problem lies in heat dissipation and power supply. Improvement of heat dissipation from the panel is doable but costly due to large area to be covered."
> Perhaps, but that_ *does mean that there is an "inherent" brightness limitation on OLEDs *_and that statement should be free to stand all by itself. The fact that it's thermal in nature is the same thing has saying there is a brightness limitation all by itself. Of course it's the case that you can over-drive an OLED to quick extinction and get all the brightness you want; so what? That "brightness" is too high and the limit is lower than that.


What this all means is that there is no brightness limitation for all practical purposes. Note that at 10% window the current OLED is well above one the brightest LCD and that is without any cooling system.. With proper consideration given to heat dissipation there should be no problem with getting e.g. 1500 nits.



NintendoManiac64 said:


> Sooo, about my previously-mentioned external power supply idea...


Even more elegant would be an external box with power supply and all processing electronics. But still there would remain more serious issue with cooling the display.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgol posted this from today: http://www.displaydaily.com/article...nanosys-to-show-color-volume-demo-at-ces-2017

"Putting the quantum dots in the color filter also requires them to be in a microns-thin layer. That is not much volume for the blue-light-to-green or red conversion, so the density of the quantum dots needs to be increased significantly without inducing quenching (too much emission reduces efficiency and light output). Developing this high density packing in inks and photoresist is the crux of the efforts that Nanosys is working on."

Assuming that the effort to deliver QDCF is successful (and for all three primaries including blue, wouldn't this potentially be beneficial for WOLED as well? It would seem that RGB QDCF could offer an alternative path towards Rec.2020 for WOLED.

Alternatively, if blue QDCF proves to be as challanging as many are suggesting, but red and green QDCF are relatively feasible, would a Blue-only OLED (BOLED ) with red and green QDCF be an option worth considering, or would short lifetime be a showstopper?

Among other things, QDCF offers a 2-3X increase in light output: 

"If the quantum dots are embedded at the sub-pixel level in the color filters, then LCD-modulated blue light can now pass thru the clear blue sub-pixel while converting to red or green light in those sub-pixels. This might reduce the energy use of the LCD by 50% to 66%. Such saving might be used for lower power consumption or to boost light out."


----------



## fafrd

The RGB color filters used in LCD manufacturing are very straightforward to pattern because they are photoresistive: https://www.toppan.co.jp/english/products_service/pdf/CF.pdf

I suspect that the OLED materials must not be photoresistive since if they were, Samsung would have been able to successfully pattern RGB OLED TV panels without having to rely on shadow masks.

In terms of these Quantum Dot inks for QDCF being worked on by Nanosys, if these QD inks will be photo-resistive, this is a significant advantage over OLED materials and the move to QDCF-based LED/LCDs could be far, far easier than the move to patterning of OLED materials.

Also, in terms of QDCF being used with WOLED, it's not clear how the manufacturing would work. For LCDs, the dual-sheet structure solves the alignment problem and so passive color filters can be patterned on the outer sheet completely independantly from the inner active sheet.

If WOLED uses this same LCD passive outer sheet architecture, any advances in QDCF LED/LCD could benefit them, but if color filters are patterned directly on the OLED substrate, use of QDCF might not be as straightforward...


----------



## steakhouse_

slacker711 said:


> The 2016 LG OLED TV's are definitely three stack WOLED's with a blue/yellow/blue architecture. It was confirmed at SID in May.


We also achieve that kind of DCI coverage with 2016 models. Seems that they are confusing specs or that they are just speculating around numbers they do not have a clue of.


----------



## fafrd

I found this on LGs current WOLED manufacturing: http://www.lg.com/global/business/download/resources/id/OLED.pdf

LED/LCD requires an inner and an outer polarizing layer to make the LCD lightvalves function properly, and so from that point of view, passive 3D capability comes 'for free' (no additional manufacturing cost).

This presentation indicates that LG OLED also uses an outermost polarizing filter but I don't believe it is required for the technology to function (as it is in the case of LCD).

Is a polarizing filter effectively required to reduce reflections/glare?

Is it only being used so that LG can offer 3D?

I'm getting curious about this because I'm trying to understand whether LG WOLED can make use of the QDCF technology being developed for LED/LCD TVs.

For LED/LCDs, the outermost polarizing filter is going to need to move from the outermost surface of the glass to under (meaning on top of) the QDCF.

If polarizes are required for OLED for some reason I cannot fathom, they may face the same issue. But if not, or if only to reduce glare/reflections, it would seem that WOLED could leave the polarizer where it is, meaning replacing standard color filters with QDCF could be easier for WOLED than for LED/LCD.

The LED/LCD-based use of QDCF will use blue LEDs in the backlight, so that Red and Green QDCF are all that is needed to produce a color display.

For WOLED, it seems as though there would be three options:

1/ mix Red and Green QDCF with standard blue color filter and leave the OLED stack as is (idea originated by video_analysis)

2/ switch OLED layer to Blue-only (BOLED ) and shadow the R+G QDCF approach being introduced by Samsung and Nanosys.

3/ wait for a viable blue QDCF ink.

If the BOLED+R&G QDCF approach is as feasible as it looks (assuming piggy-backing on industrialization.for LED/LCD), it seems as though it would offer a 'free' 25-50% boost in lumens output while at the same time delivering a purer R, G, B output akin to what the now-dead Samsung OLED TVs were delivering.

Am I missing something here? Would a blue-only OLED have much shorter lifetime than LGs current WOLED Blue+Yellow stack?

Nanosys is making it sound as though they have photoresistive red and greed QD-based color filter inks in the bag: http://www.displaydaily.com/article...nanosys-to-show-color-volume-demo-at-ces-2017

If so, it seems as though this could offer a significant benefit to LGs single-sheet OLED approach.

Am I wrong to be getting excited about this?


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by *tgm1024*
> 
> No, I could be wrong, but I don't believe that's what sony is saying. There is an efficiency issue by discarding waves that subtract other ones. I'll have to ask my color scientist friend about this---he's on the bleeding edge of this degree of optics.
> 
> From the quote below, it looks like (I am guessing, mind you) Sony is trying to effectively "tune" the anode/cathode distances so that the only light that really wants to escape are the waves that peak at the same time. Basically the ones that are not only the same precise frequency, but also likely the ones in phase. I believe the reason for this might be because when you have subtle out of phase (and varying wavelength) added together, you end up with them subtracting each other.
> 
> It sort of reminds me of tuned exhaust on a car. Trying to line it up with the pulse precisely.
> 
> There's an entire field related to electrical resonance that I don't fully understand......it's part of how transmitters work.
> 
> 
> TGM, I'm going to just accept that everything you wrote is mostly true as pertains to what I'm writing next:
> 
> It still doesn't prove Samsung is doing bottom emission and I don't believe they are. And Sony is claiming bottom emission = bad like "everyone else" is doing it when it seems like that idea has already been discredited.
> 
> Now it's possible that some of Sony's voodoo is why they don't need a polarizer and it's possible that Samsung still needs one. *Other than ambient rejection, however, I can't see why that would be true. You don't need to polarize the light coming out;* the only reason LCDs do that at all is because LC material can't block non-polarized light.


Found this old post of Rogo's from 2014.

Is the only reason LG WOLED uses a polarizer for ambient rejection? (As well as 'free' passive 3D )?

If LG were to adopt motheye, could they skip the polarizer (at the cost of losing 3D)?

I'm a pretty big fan of LG's passive 3D on OLED now but I would probably give it up in exchange for.25-30% increase in brightness coupled with a purer RGB color gamut exceeding 90% Rec.2020...


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> I found this on LGs current WOLED manufacturing: http://www.lg.com/global/business/download/resources/id/OLED.pdf
> 
> LED/LCD requires an inner and an outer polarizing layer to make the LCD lightvalves function properly, and so from that point of view, passive 3D capability comes 'for free' (no additional manufacturing cost).
> 
> This presentation indicates that LG OLED also uses an outermost polarizing filter but I don't believe it is required for the technology to function (as it is in the case of LCD).
> 
> Is a polarizing filter effectively required to reduce reflections/glare?
> 
> Is it only being used so that LG can offer 3D?


The polarizing film on OLED is only to reduce reflections, not for 3D or any other reasons. The reason this is currently required is OLEDs are "bottom emission" where the light is emitted through the bottom and there is a reflective film to redirect the light back out through the display. See link.
https://technology.ihs.com/509943/w...izer-technology-trend-of-amoled-use-polarizer
There are reports that LG is switching to "top emission" which means no reflective film and no need for a polarizer. It would, as you suggest, increase brightness as well. We'll have to see if that is done in this years model.



fafrd said:


> The LED/LCD-based use of QDCF will use blue LEDs in the backlight, so that Red and Green QDCF are all that is needed to produce a color display.
> 
> For WOLED, it seems as though there would be three options:
> 
> 1/ mix Red and Green QDCF with standard blue color filter and leave the OLED stack as is (idea originated by video_analysis)
> 
> 2/ switch OLED layer to Blue-only (BOLED ) and shadow the R+G QDCF approach being introduced by Samsung and Nanosys.
> 
> 3/ wait for a viable blue QDCF ink.
> 
> If the BOLED+R&G QDCF approach is as feasible as it looks (assuming piggy-backing on industrialization.for LED/LCD), it seems as though it would offer a 'free' 25-50% boost in lumens output while at the same time delivering a purer R, G, B output akin to what the now-dead Samsung OLED TVs were delivering.
> 
> Am I missing something here? Would a blue-only OLED have much shorter lifetime than LGs current WOLED Blue+Yellow stack?
> 
> Nanosys is making it sound as though they have photoresistive red and greed QD-based color filter inks in the bag: http://www.displaydaily.com/article...nanosys-to-show-color-volume-demo-at-ces-2017
> 
> If so, it seems as though this could offer a significant benefit to LGs single-sheet OLED approach.
> 
> Am I wrong to be getting excited about this?


For your 3 cases.
1. Red/Green QDCF applied to current OLED
I suppose this is possible though I'm not sure it's necessary and have no idea if LG is looking at it. The polarizer issue wouldn't be a factor here. I'm not sure it's accurate to say red and green QDCF are "in the bag" just yet. Maybe soon but not this year whereas OLED materials (particularly red and probably green) are becoming available now that support Rec 2020 on their own. There is really not much difference in blue between the various color spaces including DCI and Rec 2020.
2. Using a blue only OLED layer 
This would be using the least efficient and shortest lifetime material. This isn't practical unless there's a really long life phosphorescent blue material which doesn't yet exist. Yes, the current blue fluorescent OLED material on it's own would have a shorter lifetime than LG's current WRGB blue+yellow stack.
3. Wait for a viable blue QDCF
The wait for a viable blue QDCF is probably a longer wait than for a viable blue phosphorescent OLED.


----------



## tgm1024

ynotgoal said:


> The polarizing film on OLED is only to reduce reflections, not for 3D or any other reasons. The reason this is currently required is OLEDs are "bottom emission" where the light is emitted through the bottom and there is a reflective film to redirect the light back out through the display. See link.
> https://technology.ihs.com/509943/w...izer-technology-trend-of-amoled-use-polarizer
> There are reports that LG is switching to "top emission" which means no reflective film and no need for a polarizer. It would, as you suggest, increase brightness as well. We'll have to see if that is done in this years model.



Thank you for that fascinating link. I'm confused though.

According to the use of circular polarization:








Does this:
1. Complicate the use of or placement of the FPR? (Does the reflection polarizer need to match the every-other scanline of the FPR so that they don't accidentally get cancelled out?)
2. Can this be accomplished entirely by a redesigned FPR managing dual duty of everything you mentioned _plus_ 3D every-other circular polarization?


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> The polarizing film on OLED is only to reduce reflections, not for 3D or any other reasons. The reason this is currently required is OLEDs are "bottom emission" where the light is emitted through the bottom and there is a reflective film to redirect the light back out through the display. See link.
> https://technology.ihs.com/509943/w...izer-technology-trend-of-amoled-use-polarizer
> There are reports that LG is switching to "top emission" which means no reflective film and no need for a polarizer. It would, as you suggest, increase brightness as well. We'll have to see if that is done in this years model.


Very helpful post - thanks.

So a polarizer is needed with OLED to reduce reflections of incoming unwanted light - clear. I suspect the polarizer LG is using may also be allowing them to deliver passive 3D 'for free' but it really doesn't matter whether this is supported by a single polarizer or an additional polarizer. The key point for this discussion is that WOLED does require a polarizer but it can be located on the outermost surface even in the case of QDCF (versus LED/LCD QDCF where it must be moved to the interior of the QDCF).



> For your 3 cases.
> 1. Red/Green QDCF applied to current OLED
> I suppose this is possible though I'm not sure it's necessary and have no idea if LG is looking at it. The polarizer issue wouldn't be a factor here. I'm not sure it's accurate to say red and green QDCF are "in the bag" just yet.


The LED/LCD fanboys are certainly considering it is 'in the bag' but even if it takes another 2-3 years to industrialize, the point is LG WOLED can make use of the same technology relatively easily and so this is not much of a medium-term threat...



> Maybe soon but not this year whereas OLED materials (particularly red and probably green) are becoming available now that support Rec 2020 on their own. There is really not much difference in blue between the various color spaces including DCI and Rec 2020.


If the new OLED materials support the same narrow spectra R, G, and B that can be supported by blue LEDs with Red & Green QDs, this would obviously be preferable to adopting new technologies and materials.

But the current yellow used in the 2 or 3 layer stack does not deliver narrow-spectrum red and blue, correct?

So if LG wants to approach R&G QD+Blue LED-like RGB spectra, they will need to change to a narrow-spectra R+G+B stack, correct?



> 2. Using a blue only OLED layer
> This would be using the least efficient and shortest lifetime material. This isn't practical unless there's a really long life phosphorescent blue material which doesn't yet exist. Yes, the current blue fluorescent OLED material on it's own would have a shorter lifetime than LG's current WRGB blue+yellow stack.


OK, so a BOLED would offer too short of a lifetime to be worthwhile and this means LG's unpatterned architecture will continue to waste ~2/3s of the light produced in the red, green and blue sub pixels (even after yellow is replaced with narrow-spectra red+green).



> 3. Wait for a viable blue QDCF
> The wait for a viable blue QDCF is probably a longer wait than for a viable blue phosphorescent OLED.


Got it, thanks. And so that is the reason 'true' QLED is far off in the future.

And to recap your overall view of where we are today and where we are likely to be tomorrow, a narrow-spectra R+G+B OLED stack is likely to materialize as quickly or more quickly than a R+B QDCF w/ Blue LED LCD (and way before there is any chance of a true QLED TV being industrialized), right?

Thanks again for taking the time to explain .


----------



## RoadLizard

fafrd said:


> Found this old post of Rogo's from 2014.
> 
> Is the only reason LG WOLED uses a polarizer for ambient rejection? (As well as 'free' passive 3D )?
> 
> If LG were to adopt motheye, could they skip the polarizer (at the cost of losing 3D)?
> 
> *I'm a pretty big fan of LG's passive 3D on OLED now but I would probably give it up in exchange for.25-30% increase in brightness coupled with a purer RGB color gamut exceeding 90% Rec.2020...*


Hmmm. Tough call there. I didnt think Id enjoy the 3D as much as I have but its so damned good on this set that its hard to think about giving it up. Id rather keep the 3D since I feel the PQ is extremely good as is. Sure, extra brightness for certain use cases would also be great but Id hate to lose 3D!


----------



## fafrd

In case these hasn't been posted on the thread yet: http://www.oled-info.com/cynora’s-tadf-emitters-ready-industrial-test-within-one-year

And: http://www.oled-info.com/cynora-latest-tadf-blue-emitters-feature-higher-efficiency-and-lifetime

"*CYNORA’s TADF emitters ready for industrial test within one year*

In 2016, TADF (Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence) emitters have received much attention in the OLED industry as the most promising method to improve OLED displays."

"*Cynora latest TADF blue emitters feature higher efficiency and lifetime*

Germany-based blue-TADF OLED emitter developer Cynora announced that it developed a new blue-emitting material that combines high efficiency with long lifetime. Cynora's new material offers an external quantum efficiency (EQE) of 14% and a lifetime of 420 hours (LT80, at 500 cd/m2).

In May 2016 Cynora announced two blue emitter systems - with one featuring a high efficiency and the other a long lifetime. This time Cynora managed to create a single system with both efficiency and lifetime. The company says that they are optimistic that they will reach a commercial TADF blue emitter by the end of 2017."


----------



## j.p.s

fafrd said:


> "*CYNORA’s TADF emitters ready for industrial test within one year*
> 
> In 2016, TADF (Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence) emitters have received much attention in the OLED industry as the most promising method to improve OLED displays."
> 
> "*Cynora latest TADF blue emitters feature higher efficiency and lifetime*
> 
> Germany-based blue-TADF OLED emitter developer Cynora announced that it developed a new blue-emitting material that combines high efficiency with long lifetime. Cynora's new material offers an external quantum efficiency (EQE) of 14% and a lifetime of 420 hours (LT80, at 500 cd/m2).
> 
> In May 2016 Cynora announced two blue emitter systems - with one featuring a high efficiency and the other a long lifetime. This time Cynora managed to create a single system with both efficiency and lifetime. The company says that they are optimistic that they will reach a commercial TADF blue emitter by the end of 2017."


420 hours is less than a year of viewing for most TV purchasers, I think.

Also, what would be the expected elapsed time between "start of industrial testing" and on the shelf at Best Buy?


----------



## fafrd

j.p.s said:


> 420 hours is less than a year of viewing for most TV purchasers, I think.


I think that's correct, but apparently that result represented an increase of more than 5000x over a 12- month span: http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...nounces-Significant-Progress-Highly-Efficient

*"the company is using sky blue material to improve the device lifetime. A significant increase in the lifetime to more than 400 h (LT50, 500 cd/m2) has recently been achieved from a level of a few minutes in last October."*

420 hours / 5 minutes = 5040...




> Also, what would be the expected elapsed time between "start of industrial testing" and on the shelf at Best Buy?


Others on the thread can comment with more authority, but my guess would be 2-3 years...


----------



## fafrd

Ratings.com is taking an note resting and appropriate approach to characterizing peak brightness: http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/picture-quality/peak-brightness

Their measurements show that the B6 is capable of 745 cd/m2 on a 2% window.

Since HDR content is apparently being mastered to an APL of 80 or 120 cd/m2, it would seem as though power-supply-related concerns are misplaced. Even with the most extreme HDR highlights imaginable, power consumption should be easily manageable (and existing ABL protection should suffice if not ).

So this raises the question of what maximum peak light output is possible from a single/few WOLED subpixels before eccessive image retention, burn-in, or other forms of irreparable damage become a concern.

2% is actually a very large window and not necessarily appropriate for small bright highlights. 2% corresponds to an area of over 30"-squared on a 65" screen, and highlights down to 1"-squared are probably going to be more frequent (less than 0.05%).

So would anyone have a guess as to the maximum output LG WOLED could generate over an 0.05% / 1"-squared area before causing pixel damage?


----------



## JazzGuyy

But what happens when there are multiple very bright specular highlights on the screen?


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> For your 3 cases.
> 1. Red/Green QDCF applied to current OLED
> I suppose this is possible though I'm not sure it's necessary and have no idea if LG is looking at it. The polarizer issue wouldn't be a factor here. I'm not sure it's accurate to say red and green QDCF are "in the bag" just yet. Maybe soon but not this year whereas OLED *materials (particularly red and probably green) are becoming available now that support Rec 2020 on their own. * There is really not much difference in blue between the various color spaces including DCI and Rec 2020.


I just ran into this: https://www.osapublishing.org/jdt/abstract.cfm?uri=jdt-12-6-526

"Abstract
*Quantum dot (QD) nanocrystals dispersed in photoresist (PR) film was developed and applied to white organic light-emitting diode (OLED) to improve optical power of red color through down-converting of blue and green light. *To integrate to white OLED display panel, the QD dispersed photoresist film was prepared in a thickness of 2 $\mu{m}$ with high concentration of QDs up to 30 wt%. QDs were dispersed successfully in PR with a matching of nonpolar characteristic for the ligands of QDs and PR as well as a careful mixing process of PR and QD dispersed solutions. We also realized the patterning of QD dispersed PR film with a stripe pattern of 60-$\mu{m}$ width without a residual layer. The experimental measurement after passing through a 30 wt% QD dispersed PR film and *a red color filter in white OLED shows the enhancement of 40.2% in the optical power of red color compared to that from a conventional white OLED without QD dispersed PR film*

The article is dated 2016 and the authors are Korean, so there is a good chance that LG sponsored this research and/or is involved in it.

A photo-resist-based QD red color filter means deposition/patterning of this color filter would probably be a cookie-cutter replacement for current conventional photoresist-based red color filter.

While your earlier comment makes clear that OLED-material-based approaches are also in development that can also deliver increased color gamut approaching Rec.2020, I think that is overlooking the other attractive benefit of QDCF for WOLED: increased efficiency.

As this article points out, red output can be increased to 140% by using red QDCF. Ignoring green for the moment, this means overall WRGB light output increase ~107%. For example, the red subpixels could be reduced by 29% and the white subpixels could be increased by 29% to increase peak white output by ~10%.

Not earth-shattering, but relatively 'free' (change of materials only, compatible with current manufacturing flow).

140% increased red efficiency falls far short of the 100-200% increase in efficiency being touted by QDCF proponents. If red and green photoresist-based QDCF delivering 200% efficiency increase were on existence (meaning 3X the output), this would mean that red and green subpixels would essentially match unfiltered white subpixel output and overall light output would increase to ~167%.

Red and blue subpixel area could be cut in half, blue and white subpixels could both be increased to 150%, and peak white output would increase to 150% of current output.

Any OLED-material-based approach to increased color gamut that does not involve patterning of those OLED materials is going to continue to waste ~2/3 of the light generated in the colored subpixels.

Heck, with 3X red and green photoresist-based QDCF, red and blue subpixels could be reduced by 1/3, blue subpixels could be doubled, and with the white subpixel reduced by a third as well, and light output would increase by 1/3 while delivering more saturated colors at higher intensities.

Sacrifice the remaining white subpixels entirely giving 3/5ths to blue and 2/15ths each to red and green and you would have a true unpatterned RGB WOLED with more than 125% of current output (red=300%x12/15; green=300%x12/15; blue=100%x36/15; white=0)

And if/when blue QDCF emerges (or a long-lifetime Blue-only BOLED), that would represent a further output efficiency increase to 200% of current levels...

Not necessarily 'in the bag', but if Samsung succeeds to push forward with QDCF for LED/LCD-based displays, I believe this will offer a meaning improvement for unpatterned WOLEDs as well .


----------



## fafrd

Probably old news from when I was on hiatus, but just ran into these:

http://www.displaydaily.com/display-daily/33142-itri-reports-breakthrough-in-oled-lifetime

http://www.oled-info.com/new-startups-commercialize-kyushus-tadf-emitters

Between TADF/Kyulux and PCOLED is seems as though we're likely to see significant progress on blue OLED lifetime before the end of the decade...


----------



## fafrd

http://www.oled-info.com/dscc-sees-rapid-growth-oled-capacity-and-shipments-2016-2012

"OLED TV production capacity is also expected to rise quickly - at a 52% CAGR (similar to the total OLED capacity growth), and *by 2021 production capacity will be enough for 8.4 million 55" panels.* Korea-based producers will have market share of 63% in 2021, down from 92% in 2016. The market share of Chinese-based vendors will reach 32% in 2012."

63% of 8.4M equals 5.3M, so that is the production capacity DSCC is forecasting for LG by 2012.

5.3M 55" WOLEDs per year equates to 73.6K unyielded Gen-8 substrates per month or about 90K Gen-8 sheets per month accounting fr yield in the low 80%s...

How does 90K Gen-8 sheets per month line up with the OLED capacity plans LG has already announced?

On another note, this forecast would mean OLED taking over 4% of the overall TV market by 2021 (from the 'somewhere-under-1%' share OLED has today ).


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> How does 90K Gen-8 sheets per mon...go away as LGD continues their capacity ramp.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> From a capacity standpoint, there should be significantly more capacity by 2021. *LGD will have 60,000 Gen 8 substrates a month by the end of the first half of 2017 * and that is before their P10 fab comes on-line in 2018.


Is that including the first Gen-8 phase of P10 or not? I've lost track of all of the OLED panel fabs in production and announced - would you mind listing them with sheet capacity?



> Also, BOE has a pilot Gen 8 fab and I would be surprised if they dont end up building a fab for mass production by 2021.


That DSCC forcast I linked to was forecasting 27% or 2.3M 55" OLEDs coming from China by 2021, so no doubt a production plant at BOE and possibly others as well was part of their assumption...



> Of course, we have never squared the production numbers with the capacity numbers. I hope/assume the disconnect will go away as LGD continues their capacity ramp.


Yeah, between ramp yields and announcing maximum capacity in a new facility but then ramping it a line or two at a time, it's purposefully difficult to get the numbers to square...

All indications are that LG shipped over 1M OLED panels in 2016, though, which is a significant milestone .


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Is that including the first Gen-8 phase of P10 or not? I've lost track of all of the OLED panel fabs in production and announced - would you mind listing them with sheet capacity?



M1 (E3) Pilot Gen 8 fab 8,000 panels
M2 (E4) Gen 8 26,000 panels

P9 Gen 8 26,000 panels ramping in the 1st half of next year.

P10 Gen ~10 ramping in 2018. I dont believe that there are any official announcements of the capacity. 



> All indications are that LG shipped over 1M OLED panels in 2016, though, which is a significant milestone .


I dont think that they were on track to hit that target but Q4 sales look like they were great. It will be interesting to hear what LGD has to say during their Q4 call.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> M1 (E3) Pilot Gen 8 fab 8,000 panels
> M2 (E4) Gen 8 26,000 panels
> 
> P9 Gen 8 26,000 panels ramping in the 1st half of next year.
> 
> P10 Gen ~10 ramping in 2018. I dont believe that there are any official announcements of the capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think that they were on track to hit that target but Q4 sales look like they were great. It will be interesting to hear what LGD has to say during their Q4 call.


Thanks. This article claims a total of 60,000 sheets/month by mid-2017 (agreeing with your numbers precisely ) with P10 coming online in 2018: http://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2016&no=562058

If all of this is correct, 90,000 sheets in production by 2021 seems conservative...


----------



## joys_R_us

fafrd said:


> 140% increased red efficiency falls far short of the 100-200% increase in efficiency being touted by QDCF proponents. If red and green photoresist-based QDCF delivering 200% efficiency increase were on existence (meaning 3X the output), this would mean that red and green subpixels would essentially match unfiltered white subpixel output and overall light output would increase to ~167%.
> .


Thx a lot for the information ! I think that the 3x efficiency is not valid for qdcf but for the direct filterless technology so that the loss of 2/3 of light in the filter can be avoided, hence the 3x gain...


----------



## fafrd

This is from August, but I couldn't find any earlier posts about it: http://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?sc=30800018&year=2016&no=562058

"*LG Display to produce 1.7 million OLED TV panels in 2017*
2016.08.07 15:38:04 | 2016.08.07 15:45:15

South Korea’s LG Display Co. said Friday that it aims to turn out 1.7 million organic light-emitting diode (OLED) TV panels next year. 

This is a 200,000 increase from its previous goal of 1.5 million OLED panels early this year. 

Currently, LG Display has two production lines at P8 and P9 plants in Paju, Gyeonggi Province with a *combined monthly production capacity of 34,000 8th generation (2,200 mm×2,500mm) OLED TV panels. *Each 8th generation panel can be cut into six 55-inch OLED TV panels or three sheets of 65-inch TV panels.

The company plans to *bump up the monthly output capacity to 60,000 sheets from the first half next year*, by adding new production line E4-2 that can produce 26,000 sheets every month at P9 plant. 

A company official said that *the new facility addition would pick up its annual production volume to reach around 1.7 million OLED TV panels*, adding that this is the reason why it upped its production target. 

The Korean display maker’s P10 plant that will start running in 2018 would include OLED panel production line. Although it didn’t specify exact use of the plant, the industry observers expect that the P10 plant will produce small and mid-sized OLED panels and large-sized OLED panels for TVs."

So let's see if these numbers add up:

Let's assume 80% yield and 50% 65" and 50% 55" output (do 1/3 of the sheets for 55" production and 2/3 of the sheets for 65" production).

34,000 sheets per month equates to 54,400 55" and 54,400 65" OLED panels per month based on these assumptions, or 1.3M OLED panels annually.

The additional 26,000 sheets per month will deliver a further 41.6K 55" and 41.6K 65" per month once fully running at 80% yield, or 83K per month total, so LG can hit their target of 1.7M OLEDs in 2017 if the the new production from P9 is up and running at target yield by August...

Seems pretty consistent and doable (and represents a doubling of annual production over 2016 levels).

And it's also likely to result in a further significant lowering of OLED TV prices late this year .


----------



## Rich Peterson

*Let's not confuse the number of OLED panels sold with the number of OLED TVs sold*

The number of OLED panels sold by LG Display is quite a bit different than the number of OLED TVs sold through to customers by LG. That's in part because LG makes panels for several other TV manufacturers around the world. But more importantly, there is a several month time-lag from the time a panel is sold by LG display until it is built into a set and that set finds its way to a retailer and then gets sold through to a customer. So the increase in panel production today won't be seen as an increase in the number of OLED sets sold to customers until several months from now.

So if LG display does indeed produce and sell 1.7 million OLED panels in 2017, LG will be selling far less than that number of OLED TVs in 2017.


----------



## rogo

Last two posts very good. I see no reason why there can't be another reduction of 20-30% in pricing this year. Look at the future trajectory by the way:

2017, 1H: Everything doable by end of 2016 now full bore
2017, 2H: New marginal capacity, ramping
2018, 1H: Everything doable by end of 2017 now full bore
2018, 2H: New marginal capacity from P10 (!), ramping slow
2019: P10 ramping throughout year
2020: P10 fully ramped

There is no period where pricing reductions need to stop and no period where the new capacity coming online can _possibly sell_ without decreases in pricing. This is true because:

(1) LG cannot reasonably achieve 100% market share in any segment where competition exists 
(2) LG is already dominating segments OLED exists in whereby we define segments very arbitrarily as $2500+ 65-inch TVs

So to sell more, you need lower pricing.

This again likely looks like:

65-inch
2017: $2500 (or lower)
2018: $2000 ("")
2019: $1600
2020: $1250
2021:


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Last two posts very good. I see no reason why there can't be another reduction of 20-30% in pricing this year. Look at the future trajectory by the way:
> 
> 2017, 1H: Everything doable by end of 2016 now full bore
> 2017, 2H: New marginal capacity, ramping
> 2018, 1H: Everything doable by end of 2017 now full bore
> 2018, 2H: New marginal capacity from P10 (!), ramping slow
> 2019: P10 ramping throughout year
> *2020: P10 fully ramped*
> 
> There is no period where pricing reductions need to stop and no period where the new capacity coming online can _possibly sell_ without decreases in pricing. This is true because:
> 
> (1) LG cannot reasonably achieve 100% market share in any segment where competition exists
> (2) LG is already dominating segments OLED exists in whereby we define segments very arbitrarily as $2500+ 65-inch TVs
> 
> So to sell more, you need lower pricing.
> 
> This again likely looks like:
> 
> 65-inch
> 2017: $2500 (or lower)
> 2018: $2000 ("")
> 2019: $1600
> *2020: $1250
> 2021: *


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> This again likely looks like:
> 
> 65-inch
> 2017: $2500 (or lower)
> 2018: $2000 ("")
> 2019: $1600
> 2020: $1250
> 2021:


----------



## Esox50

rogo said:


> Last two posts very good. I see no reason why there can't be another reduction of 20-30% in pricing this year. Look at the future trajectory by the way:
> 
> 2017, 1H: Everything doable by end of 2016 now full bore
> 2017, 2H: New marginal capacity, ramping
> 2018, 1H: Everything doable by end of 2017 now full bore
> 2018, 2H: New marginal capacity from P10 (!), ramping slow
> 2019: P10 ramping throughout year
> 2020: P10 fully ramped


Since the article a few posts up says industry observers expect P10 to be used for larger panels, it would seem the 2019 product year might be the one where we see the 77" come out of the stratosphere in terms of price?

I'm so impressed with my 65" OLED that the only thing that would make me trade up right now is size (in OLED). It's amazing. I still can't believe I have an LG TV in my house, never thought the day would come. But they have hit a home run IMHO. Now...just need bigger.

P10 have any implications for possible sizes? 77 is a "weird" number. I'd just assume they go to 80". That would be PERFECT.


----------



## slacker711

The one glitch in the price projections is that LGD appears to be undecided on whether to build Gen 8 or Gen 10 substrates in their P10 fab. Recent Korean articles indicate that they are balancing the lower cost per unit for a Gen 10 fab versus the upfront risks and costs. 

I am not sure how this is still being decided at this late date. They indicate that they are still on track but if Gen 10 substrates are going to need substantial revisions to the equipment, then how would they start ramping a Gen 10 P10 in 2018?


----------



## Larry Hutchinson

Here is an article that may be of interest:

OLEDs Step In Where Design Matters
https://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=61287&PID=5&VID=135&IID=917


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> The one glitch in the price projections is that LGD appears to be undecided on whether to build Gen 8 or Gen 10 substrates in their P10 fab. Recent Korean articles indicate that they are balancing the lower cost per unit for a Gen 10 fab versus the upfront risks and costs.
> 
> I am not sure how this is still being decided at this late date. They indicate that they are still on track but if Gen 10 substrates are going to need substantial revisions to the equipment, then how would they start ramping a Gen 10 P10 in 2018?


This is weird. That said, it has pretty minimal implications for the projections on the smaller sizes coming down in price. Why? Capacity will still need to be sold and it won't be sold at existing prices -- period.

If they don't increase substrate sizes, they are caught in a weird place where panel economics don't work especially well for both smaller and larger sizes. This might seem confounding because LCD has found a way "around" this despite being almost exclusively produced on 8G fabs. But the magic there isn't magic at all, it's overcapacity combined with lots of already depreciated equipment / fabs. LG won't have that working for them.

There's a reason Sharp built Sakai at 10G. But it's worth noting that trying to sell the world 70-inch LCDs basically ended their TV division. I don't understand how LG can be deciding anything at this late date, but I can understand their fear at picking wrong.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> This is weird. That said, it has pretty minimal implications for the projections on the smaller sizes coming down in price. Why? Capacity will still need to be sold and it won't be sold at existing prices -- period.
> 
> If they don't increase substrate sizes, they are caught in a weird place where panel economics don't work especially well for both smaller and larger sizes. This might seem confounding because LCD has found a way "around" this despite being almost exclusively produced on 8G fabs. But the magic there isn't magic at all, it's overcapacity combined with lots of already depreciated equipment / fabs. LG won't have that working for them.
> 
> There's a reason Sharp built Sakai at 10G. But it's worth noting that trying to sell the world 70-inch LCDs basically ended their TV division. I don't understand how LG can be deciding anything at this late date, but I can understand their fear at picking wrong.


My suspicion is that the emergence of printed WOLED manufacturing may be playing into the decision-making.

I believe I read rumors somewhere that they will be beginning with an 8G pilot line in P10, delaying the 10G phase to decide on equipment selection (which may mean deciding between deposition or printing if it as matured enough by then).

This doesn't change the big picture - just how much of a drop in 65" OLED pricing we see once P10 is in 10G production...

Also, the world certainly seems for more ready for 65" Flatscreen TVs than it did at the time Sharp built Sakai...


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> This is weird. That said, it has pretty minimal implications for the projections on the smaller sizes coming down in price. Why? Capacity will still need to be sold and it won't be sold at existing prices -- period.
> 
> If they don't increase substrate sizes, they are caught in a weird place where panel economics don't work especially well for both smaller and larger sizes. This might seem confounding because LCD has found a way "around" this despite being almost exclusively produced on 8G fabs. But the magic there isn't magic at all, it's overcapacity combined with lots of already depreciated equipment / fabs. LG won't have that working for them.
> 
> There's a reason Sharp built Sakai at 10G. But it's worth noting that trying to sell the world 70-inch LCDs basically ended their TV division. I don't understand how LG can be deciding anything at this late date, but I can understand their fear at picking wrong.


Worst case, it seems that that they will go with Gen 8 substrates with a Gen 10 line in P10 down the line. There are risks that way as well though as the 3 Gen 10/11 Chinese LCD fabs start coming on-line and LCD's go from the current supply constraint to a glut. 

Speaking of which, I am amazed that Foxconn/Sharp is now planning on building an $8.8 billion Gen 10.5 LCD fab in China. They are going to need 70" to 80" LCD's to become much more popular over the next few years.


----------



## wco81

$8.8 billion for a new LCD fab?

Why is it so expensive at this point? And is there enough money to be made in TVs to throw that much money into it?


----------



## slacker711

wco81 said:


> $8.8 billion for a new LCD fab?
> 
> Why is it so expensive at this point? And is there enough money to be made in TVs to throw that much money into it?


Rogo knows more about the fab costs than I do but I'll just say that substrate sizes are insane. A single substrate is nearly 100 square feet in size (~11ft x ~9ft). The equipment to create and move 90,000 of those substrates a month doesnt come cheap. The display capital equipment makers are having a field day with the Chinese LCD and Korean OLED orders.

Television unit sales arent particularly good right now but screen sizes are getting bigger. I guess if you extrapolate that out and add in the fact that LCD conversions to OLED reduce total capacity, then maybe you can make a business case? The Chinese build-outs make some sense since they are getting their capex costs subsidized by the government and they have non-economic goals (employment) but I doubt Sharp/Foxconn will see anywhere near the subsidies of their Chinese counterparts.


----------



## wco81

But nobody outside of the US get such big screens.

Average size of 40 inch in the US is greater than every other country by a lot.

Remember back in the day when the largest screen size were those 25-inch (4:3) in those giant wood consoles?


----------



## ALMA

> LG Display has decided to double the output of large OLED panels and is going to focus on securing new customers by continuously increasing production of small flexible OLED panels for Smartphones.
> *“Output of OLED TV panels in 2017 will be 1.8 million which is twice as much as last year (900,000) and output of OLED TV panels in 2018 will be 2.8 million.”* said CEO (Vice-Chairman) Han Sang-beom at a press conference that was held at a convention center in Las Vegas where CES 2017 is being held. *“Our goal is to double this year’s sales from OLED TV panels from last year.”
> Currently LG Display is able to produce 34,000 8th generation OLED panels per month and is planning to increase this value to 60,000 per month sometime during this year due to increase in number of customers.* LG Display has been increasing number of its customers from LG Electronics in 2013, Skyworth, KONKA, and Changhong from China in 2014, Panasonic from Japan in 2015, and Phillips, GRUNDIG, Loewe, Metz, and VESEL from Europe in 2016 and is going to start supplying OLED TV panels to SONY in this year. * “We have huge expectations in increase in sales by having SONY, which has huge influence on TV markets, as our customer.”
> *





> LG Display is also going to decide on actual purpose for P10 plant that is being constructed in Paju. *If LG Display decides to produce 8th generation panels at this plant, competitive edge in production cost will be lower than 10th generation panel when it produces large products with size of 60 inches or higher. If it decides to produce 10th generation panels, it needs to develop all new production equipment.* In this case, amount of investments and risks will both increase. Vice-Chairman Han added by saying that* LG Display will decide on small details by end of June.*





> “Because QLED TV is not a luminescent element but is a TV that has Quantum-Dot sheet added to LCD backlight, it cannot be comparable to OLED TV.” said Vice-Chairman Han regarding ‘QLED TV’ that was introduced by Samsung Electronics this year. “It is a naming that increases confusion amongst consumers since Chinese industries have put out similar technologies such as ULED and GLED.”


http://english.etnews.com/20170106200002


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> http://english.etnews.com/20170106200002


LG will decide on some small details by end June .

But it looks like it was 900,000 OLEDs in 2016, which is not bad:

2016/2015 = 300%

2017/2016 = 200% (based on this forecast )

2018/2017 = 156%

Exponential growth


----------



## rogo

One thing to note is that part of LG's sales growth right now is predicated on distribution as opposed to pricing. If you look up a few posts at my pricing curve, it was cautious up front on how much reduction we'd see this year in part because of this.

When Sony sells OLED, it's good for OLED and helps validate it as premium. But it has slightly less retail price effects when Sony sells an incremental 100K OLEDs vs. LG selling an incremental 100K OLEDs. Why? Because Sony can cannibalize Sony first at higher pricing. And Samsung. Et al. For LG to sell the incremental 100K it has to mostly find a lower price band because distribution and retail reality places some limits on how many $3000 TVs LG can sell (not a hard limit, but a constraint).

Anyway, this isn't a huge factor, but it matters.

A huge factor is going to be that substrate-size decision. If LG goes with 8G substrates, it will absolutely be able to drive volume up faster but with multiple "costs"

1) Lower total OLED volume by 2020-22
2) Much lower capacity for sizes above 65 inches (and really even 65 inches)
3) Much less ability to push out a smaller than 55 inch model

The risk here is that if they go big, they have to 

1) Build a brand new line and risk delays and cost overruns -- even failure
2) Sell more really big TVs which the market might not demand
3) Lose momentum

It might make the most sense to go with 8G substrates now and plan on a 10G line for 2020-1. Emphasis on _might_.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> One thing to note is that part of LG's sales growth right now is predicated on distribution as opposed to pricing. If you look up a few posts at my pricing curve, it was cautious up front on how much reduction we'd see this year in part because of this.
> 
> When Sony sells OLED, it's good for OLED and helps validate it as premium. But it has slightly less retail price effects when Sony sells an incremental 100K OLEDs vs. LG selling an incremental 100K OLEDs. Why? Because Sony can cannibalize Sony first at higher pricing. And Samsung. Et al. For LG to sell the incremental 100K it has to mostly find a lower price band because distribution and retail reality places some limits on how many $3000 TVs LG can sell (not a hard limit, but a constraint).
> 
> Anyway, this isn't a huge factor, but it matters.
> 
> A huge factor is going to be that substrate-size decision. If LG goes with 8G substrates, it will absolutely be able to drive volume up faster but with multiple "costs"
> 
> 1) Lower total OLED volume by 2020-22
> 2) Much lower capacity for sizes above 65 inches (and really even 65 inches)
> 3) Much less ability to push out a smaller than 55 inch model
> 
> The risk here is that if they go big, they have to
> 
> 1) Build a brand new line and risk delays and cost overruns -- even failure
> 2) Sell more really big TVs which the market might not demand
> 3) Lose momentum
> 
> It might make the most sense to go with 8G substrates now and plan on a 10G line for 2020-1. Emphasis on _might_.


If the market demand is for 65", they pretty much need to go 10G sooner. 65" panel cost is almost half at 10G versus 8G (6-up versus 3-up).

If the demand is for 55", less need for 10G (8-up versus 6-up, only a 25% savings).

But your right - the risk needs to be factored into the equation...


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> If the market demand is for 65", they pretty much need to go 10G sooner. 65" panel cost is almost half at 10G versus 8G (6-up versus 3-up).


It's not precisely accurate in that the substrates are more expensive to begin with. It is, however, true they can make 65s _or_ 70s on a 10G substrate at 6-up.


> If the demand is for 55", less need for 10G (8-up versus 6-up, only a 25% savings).


Again, not precisely, but yes a smaller gain.


> But your right - the risk needs to be factored into the equation...


It's almost certainly worth it to build 10G, but it sounds like the supply of OLED machinery that works with it may be non-existent. Perhaps the appropriate vapor depo machinery? Perhaps producing IGZO backplanes at that size? Both? They may not have the color-filter infrastructure, though that's certainly obtanium.


----------



## irkuck

Sharp guys, but have they really mastered advanced OLED technology for mass production


----------



## ALMA

rogo said:


> It's almost certainly worth it to build 10G, but it sounds like the supply of OLED machinery that works with it may be non-existent. Perhaps the appropriate vapor depo machinery? Perhaps producing IGZO backplanes at that size? Both? They may not have the color-filter infrastructure, though that's certainly obtanium.


Motherglass size is huge. There is a problem with infrastructure. They have only to build a new fab only for the motherglass production.


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> Motherglass size is huge. There is a problem with infrastructure. They have only to build a new fab only for the motherglass production.


How does Sakai get their mother glass?

Who is LG's mother glass supplier and are there any advanced indicators of when plans for 10G mother glass production are underway?

What is the lead time to establish 10G mother glass production for P10?


----------



## slacker711

Only marginally relevant, but the Japanese press is reporting that Toshiba is going to launch OLED TV's in the Japanese market in March....supplied by LGD.


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> But the current yellow used in the 2 or 3 layer stack does not deliver narrow-spectrum red and blue, correct?
> 
> So if LG wants to approach R&G QD+Blue LED-like RGB spectra, they will need to change to a narrow-spectra R+G+B stack, correct?


Certainly improved materials will be used over time which will improve color space. Here is a report that LG is planning on using improved color filters to improve color comparable to quantum dot films but without using the films. It is expected to be used in 2018 models for both LCD and OLED. 
http://www.etnews.com/20170111000283




fafrd said:


> In case these hasn't been posted on the thread yet: http://www.oled-info.com/cynora’s-tadf-emitters-ready-industrial-test-within-one-year
> 
> And: http://www.oled-info.com/cynora-latest-tadf-blue-emitters-feature-higher-efficiency-and-lifetime
> 
> "*CYNORA’s TADF emitters ready for industrial test within one year*


The Cynora story on oled-info was a paid promotional article.




fafrd said:


> My suspicion is that the emergence of printed WOLED manufacturing may be playing into the decision-making.
> 
> I believe I read rumors somewhere that they will be beginning with an 8G pilot line in P10, delaying the 10G phase to decide on equipment selection (which may mean deciding between deposition or printing if it as matured enough by then.


I think this is correct. LG has said they would prefer printing for gen 10 but printing isn't yet ready.


----------



## boe

rogo said:


> Sell more really big TVs which the market might not demand


I can't speak for everyone but all of my friends, family and clients already have a 65" TV and all are anxious to upgrade but for them SIZE is just as important as PQ in the upgrade. We're all pretty much putting off our next purchase for a Z10 (if they make one with a LOT more zones) or a much more affordable 77" OLED. It isn't that there weren't nice things at CES this year but none of us are going to bite on what was shown this year. It may not happen but if we see 77" OLEDs for under $10K in 2018 I think they'll sell a good amount.


I see talk about 8 fabrication meaning it might mean lower prices on the larger sets. I don't know squat about 8 vs. 10 fabrication - is the quality of the OLED the same?


----------



## fafrd

boe said:


> I can't speak for everyone but all of my friends, family and clients already have a 65" TV and all are anxious to upgrade but for them SIZE is just as PQ in the upgrade. We're all pretty much putting off our next purchase for a Z10 (if they make one with a LOT more zones) or a much more affordable 77" OLED. It isn't that there weren't nice things at CES this year but none of us are going to bite on what was shown this year. It may not happen but if we see 77" OLEDs for under $10K in 2018 I think they'll sell a good amount.
> 
> 
> I see talk about 8 fabrication meaning it might mean lower prices on the larger sets. *I don't know squat about 8 vs. 10 fabrication - is the quality of the OLED the same?[/B*


*

The underlying quality of the OLED panel's should be identical.

Only 2 77" OLED panels can be manufactured on each Gen8 substrate while 3 77" OLED panels can be manufactured on each Gen10 manufacturing substrate.

This should reduce manufacturing cost of the 77" OLED panel by ~33% (with a lot of hand-waving ,

For 65" OLED panels, Gen10 allows 6 to be produced versus Gen8 with only 3, so the cost-reduction impact will be greater (~50%).

It's unlikely 55" OLEDs will be manufactured in P10, but if so, layup goes from 6-up to 8-up, so about a 25% cost impact.*


----------



## sytech

fafrd said:


> LG will decide on some small details by end June .
> 
> But it looks like it was 900,000 OLEDs in 2016, which is not bad:
> 
> 2016/2015 = 300%
> 
> 2017/2016 = 200% (based on this forecast )
> 
> 2018/2017 = 156%
> 
> Exponential growth


So wait. I get my butt chewed out from Vader and Video Anylais for posting that LG only sold 800,000 OLED units last year and now when I am pretty much more or less proven correct, not one apology. Not cool man, not cool.


----------



## boe

sytech said:


> So wait. I get my butt chewed out from Vader and Video Anylais for posting that LG only sold 800,000 OLED units last year and now when I am pretty much more or less proven correct, not one apology. Not cool man, not cool.


I'm curious about the numbers. Do they represent 55" and larger or are they smaller ones as well?


----------



## sytech

boe said:


> I'm curious about the numbers. Do they represent 55" and larger or are they smaller ones as well?


Yes, 55" and larger. Samsung sells 100 million or more per year of the small format phone sizes. LG sells a lot also.


----------



## boe

Thanks. I wonder if they talked about any new fabrication/printing tech at CES that might make more affordable larger screens possible any time soon. 

From what everyone says here it has to do with yields of good 77" that make the prices so high. I wonder what happens to the bad 77" oled screens - if they can salvage them for smaller screens or they just get recycled.


----------



## video_analysis

100,000 under based on a preholiday_ forecast _does not warrant an apology, no, even if it is a tempest in a teacup. One has to wonder why you continue to gin up the hype machine for Samsung. It's almost as if you have a financial interest in this QD tech.


----------



## 8mile13

sytech said:


> So wait. I get my butt chewed out from Vader and Video Anylais for posting that LG only sold 800,000 OLED units last year and now when I am pretty much more or less proven correct, not one apology. Not cool man, not cool.


800,000/900,000 nobody has exact figures.


----------



## sytech

8mile13 said:


> 800,000/900,000 nobody has exact figures.


True. There is also shipped versus sold. They could have shipped 900,000 units with 100,000 still being in inventory and transit.


----------



## irkuck

boe said:


> Thanks. I wonder if they talked about any new fabrication/printing tech at CES that might make more affordable larger screens possible any time soon.


There were no reports on printing which means if does not exist this year.



boe said:


> From what everyone says here it has to do with yields of good 77" that make the prices so high. I wonder what happens to the bad 77" oled screens - if they can salvage them for smaller screens or they just get recycled.


That exorbitant price is the result of low yields is highly doubtful, there is no reason for hugely dramatic fall when going from 65" to 77". High price of 77" is primarily due to limited manufacturing capabilities in terms of sheet sizes, plant lines and throughput. Bad OLED screens can not be recycled to smaller ones - there are 4K pixels in every size, the pixel size is different.


----------



## ynotgoal

LG Display interview at CES.

They develop panels on a two year basis. 2017 is still 2nd generation. 2018 will be 3rd generation panel. 

2nd gen improvements for 2017.
Increased color to 98% DCI by adding red layer.
Improved black gradation.
Display speed faster. 
25% increase in peak brightness for HDR. Achieved by improving the aperture ratio with new design.

Expects to improve further for 3rd generation in 2018.

Production 900K in 2016, 1.7 million in 2017, 2.5 million in 2018. Currently at greater than 100,000 per month.
4K yield greater than 85% from less than 45% two years ago.
Sales during Christmas holiday season were very good with low return rates.

Asked if 98" 8K before Tokyo Olympics in 2020? Answer yes for 8K, did not comment on 98" size.

They will choose either printing or vapor deposition for investment. Vapor deposition seems likely.


http://www.stereosound.co.jp/review/article/2017/01/08/52789.html


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> LG Display interview at CES.
> 
> They develop panels on a two year basis. 2017 is still 2nd generation. 2018 will be 3rd generation panel.
> 
> 2nd gen improvements for 2017.
> Increased color to 98% DCI by adding red layer.
> *Improved black gradation.*
> Display speed faster.
> 25% increase in peak brightness for HDR. Achieved by improving the aperture ratio with new design.


That's the first thing I've heard that might make me want a 2017. We'll need to wait to see what 'improved black gradation' means, but these OLEDs have had limited gradations coming out of black...



> Expects to improve further for 3rd generation in 2018.
> 
> Production 900K in 2016, 1.7 million in 2017, 2.5 million in 2018. Currently at greater than 100,000 per month.
> 4K yield greater than 85% from less than 45% two years ago.
> Sales during Christmas holiday season were very good with low return rates.
> 
> Asked if 98" 8K before Tokyo Olympics in 2020? Answer yes for 8K, did not comment on 98" size.
> 
> *They will choose either printing or vapor deposition for investment. Vapor deposition seems likely.*
> 
> 
> http://www.stereosound.co.jp/review/article/2017/01/08/52789.html


Was that the 'investment' related to Gen10 in P10? As far as timing, I had read somewhere that Gen10 investment decisions would be made in June of this year - any detail on schedule?


----------



## Vader1

sytech said:


> So wait. I get my butt chewed out from Vader and Video Anylais for posting that LG only sold 800,000 OLED units last year and now when I am pretty much more or less proven correct, not one apology. Not cool man, not cool.


I don't recall ever chewing you out for that...


----------



## slacker711

ynotgoal said:


> Production 900K in 2016, 1.7 million in 2017, 2.5 million in 2018. Currently at greater than 100,000 per month.
> 4K yield greater than 85% from less than 45% two years ago.
> Sales during Christmas holiday season were very good with low return rates.


Output math.

So if output is split 50/50 between 55" and 65" displays and both panels had an 85% yield (likely too optimistic)....

34,000 substrates x 6 panels x 1/3 of production x .85 = 57,742 55" panels a month

34000 substrates x 3 panels x 2/3 of production x .85 = 57,742 65" panels a month

Lower the yield on the 65" a bit and you get a reasonable split between the two panel sizes and LGD is basically maxing out capacity right now.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Output math.
> 
> So if output is split 50/50 between 55" and 65" displays and both panels had an 85% yield (likely too optimistic)....
> 
> 34,000 substrates x 6 panels x 1/3 of production x .85 = 57,742 55" panels a month
> 
> 34000 substrates x 3 panels x 2/3 of production x .85 = 57,742 65" panels a month
> 
> Lower the yield on the 65" a bit and you get a reasonable split between the two panel sizes and LGD is basically maxing out capacity right now.


The math is correct but I believe LG has indicated that 65" volume now exceeds 55" (or at least it should soon).

With 3/4 of sheets used for 65" production, your same math translates to 65K 65" OLED panels per month and 43K 55" OLED panels per months (so 108K total)

So I agree, yields probably are above 80%, run rate probably is close to 34,000 sheers-per-month, and they are probably maxed out on capacity tight now...

Good problem to have  (at least for a while)


----------



## video_analysis

What is LCD yield rate? 90%? OLED is not far behind either way, so sytech has again been caught making a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> What is LCD yield rate? 90%? OLED is not far behind either way, so sytech has again been caught making a mountain out of a molehill.


Yes, sytech seems to gleefully repeat any suggestion that the take-off of OLED is a false-start, but the fact that OLED took the lion's share of the premium 65" and 55" premium segment in North America this last holiday season is huge and a pretty clear indication that the OLED train is leaving the station...

The number of 77" TVs sold each year is inconsequential - LG has far more to gain strategically by continuing to drive down further into the 55" and 65" premium/close-to-premium market.

When it comes to 77" OLED pricing, yield has absolutely nothing yo do with it...


----------



## boe

Just curious - I thought I read that the new plant they are building for 2018 will dwarf their current plant but the total number of units is only expected to double next year? I could be mistaken so I'm asking.


----------



## fafrd

boe said:


> Just curious - I thought I read that the new plant they are building for 2018 will dwarf their current plant but the total number of units is only expected to double next year? I could be mistaken so I'm asking.


There is a new Gen8 plant ramping this year that will almost double capacity, but the P10 plant coming online in 2018 is a Gen10 plant that will represent a significant further increase beyond that (especially for 65" OLEDs).


----------



## joys_R_us

Welcome to 2017. "next year" for new line (Gen. 8 E4-2) is this year, Q2...and new plant P10 next year. Probably at the end of next year as they are still thinking about the details and haven't ordered the machinery yet.


----------



## rogo

When irkuck is making sense... 

I agree with Joys. I don't see how P10 can do much (anything?) before year end at this point. But the trajectory LG mentioned in the interview seems believable with existing expansion.

It's noteworthy that LG seems to say, "Hey, we do things in generations." There's a potential "tick-tock" a la old Intel here. Last year was a tick, this one a tock. So next year is more of a big step. There's never a bad year to buy in this logic. But if you are on the fence, maybe wait one more time. My "once every 6 years" is looking good for next year, but...

Like boe and friends, bigger would be nice. Of course, we ought to eventually know if bigger gets much cheaper (10G) or somewhat cheaper (8G). I'm less inclined to pay a huge premium for big on principle and also because eventually it will get much cheaper. So if that's coming in 2019, well interesting. If not, maybe for myself (and many others) buying one more 65 and holding out a few years for a 77 -- or even much larger -- around 2022 isn't an awful plan. That will be on the _next_ fab and another couple of generations of improvement down the line.

I'd also bet, contra sytech, that by then OLED has around 80% of the premium TV market.


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> *Welcome to 2017. *"next year" for new line (Gen. 8 E4-2) is this year, Q2...and new plant P10 next year. Probably at the end of next year as they are still thinking about the details and haven't ordered the machinery yet.


Good catch - thanks  (and fixed).

Sounds as though they are giving themselves until mid-year to commit P10 equipment orders but starting to send signals that they cannot delay further awaiting printing technology and so it's looking likely that P10 will be starting with deposition.

The big question mark is whether they will start P10 as Gen8 deposition (which might allow them the option to add printed Gen10 down the road) or try to go straight to Gen10 glass with deposition.

Between new Gen10 glass and new Gen10 equipment, it sounds as thought there is much greater timing and expense uncertainty going that route (but that's what it mean to be on the bleeding-edge ).


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> When irkuck is making sense...
> 
> I agree with Joys. I don't see how P10 can do much (anything?) before year end at this point. But the trajectory LG mentioned in the interview seems believable with existing expansion.
> 
> It's noteworthy that LG seems to say, "Hey, we do things in generations." There's a potential "tick-tock" a la old Intel here. Last year was a tick, this one a tock. *So next year is more of a big step. *There's never a bad year to buy in this logic. But if you are on the fence, maybe wait one more time. My "once every 6 years" is looking good for next year, but...
> 
> Like boe and friends, bigger would be nice. Of course, we ought to eventually know if bigger gets much cheaper (10G) or somewhat cheaper (8G). I'm less inclined to pay a huge premium for big on principle and also because eventually it will get much cheaper. So if that's coming in 2019, well interesting. If not, maybe for myself (and many others) buying one more 65 and holding out a few years for a 77 -- or even much larger -- around 2022 isn't an awful plan. That will be on the _next_ fab and another couple of generations of improvement down the line.
> 
> I'd also bet, contra sytech, that by then OLED has around 80% of the premium TV market.


I think that's right - 2017 was a 'consolidation' year with relatively modest incremental improvements. If you don't care about 3D, a 2017 OLED is probably the better choice. If you do, or already have a 2016, a C6P or E6P looks like the better choice.

The claimed near-black gamma improvements in 2017 sound interesting but we've heard that before and will need to see what it translates to (and also, it's pretty much just a hassle-factor in getting settings right).

The claim that they 'added red' to the OLED stack is interesting (and runs counter to all the stories about 'double-blue' stack) but delivers only modest increase to already-good color gamut.

The change to ABL (none below 150 cd/m2) is probably the most significant change but it appears to mainly benefit computer users and gamers.

Looking to 2018/2019 there are a few more significant improvements I hope will materialize:

QDCF - this will give WOLED both ~90% Rec.2020 color gamut and increased brightness (or alternative OLED-only solutions to deliver similar improvements).

BFI - if LG does not do something to deliver at-least LCD-class motion performance on their OLEDs, one of their customers (i.e.: Sony) will.

HDR - the landscape will hopefully have settled-down over the next 1-2 years and while LG has been the leader in offering the widest HDR-format compatibility, the risk of not being HDR-future-proof (especially for broadcast) with a later-generation OLED should be much lower than it is today.

And of course, near-black uniformity seems to improve with each year that goes by, so by 2018/2019, I hope vignette is nothing but a pleasant/frustrating memory .


----------



## Vader1

rogo said:


> I'd also bet, contra sytech, that by then OLED has around 80% of the premium TV market.


Haven't you heard? 55 and 65 inch QLED's are gonna be available to the consumer at competitive pricing in 2020. QLED is going to jump from a 4 inch demo all the way to large TV sizes available to the consumer in just a few years, without any steps in between... OLED will go down in flames. We're doomed.


----------



## video_analysis

fafrd said:


> And of course, near-black uniformity seems to improve with each year that goes by, so by 2018/2019, I hope vignette is nothing but a pleasant/frustrating memory .


And vertical streaks.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> And vertical streaks.


 Don't know about you, but I have far less issues with vertical streaks / Near-black DSE on my 65C6P than I had on my 65EF9500s (all 4 of 'em ). I don't think DSE during a pan of a near-black scene has pulled me out of content yet.

To be fair, neither has 'black flames' / vignette, so I got pretty lucky on both scores with my 65C6P. I'd consider the issue of both vignette and near-black streaks 'solved' if not fr reading about enough members who are running into unnacceptable levels with their 2016 OLEDs...

My screen is not perfect, as you can see from the attached 3% field, but I never notice any of these remaining near-black imperfections on actual content...


----------



## video_analysis

Yea, you got a peach. I can't say the same, though mine is close (it galls my balls that this G6 looks worse than your "economy" model). The EF9500 had jailbars whereas this one has mainly one sometimes bothersome column that appears in certain panned content on dim, solid backgrounds. My Galaxy 6 is adding artifacts in the low lighting, but the darker column left of center is what bothers me.


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> When irkuck is making sense...
> I agree with Joys. I don't see how P10 can do much (anything?) before year end at this point. But the trajectory LG mentioned in the interview seems believable with existing expansion. It's noteworthy that LG seems to say, "Hey, we do things in generations." There's a potential "tick-tock" a la old Intel here. Last year was a tick, this one a tock. So next year is more of a big step. There's never a bad year to buy in this logic. But if you are on the fence, maybe wait one more time. My "once every 6 years" is looking good for next year, but...
> Like boe and friends, bigger would be nice. Of course, we ought to eventually know if bigger gets much cheaper (10G) or somewhat cheaper (8G). I'm less inclined to pay a huge premium for big on principle and also because eventually it will get much cheaper. So if that's coming in 2019, well interesting. If not, maybe for myself (and many others) buying one more 65 and holding out a few years for a 77 -- or even much larger -- around 2022 isn't an awful plan. That will be on the _next_ fab and another couple of generations of improvement down the line. I'd also bet, contra sytech, that by then OLED has around 80% of the premium TV market.


In heyday times after launching OLED LG was telling they want to produce 88 and 99 inchers which looked like the monster lineup plan including the smallish 77". 88" would be a blockbuster but a 99" could be considered your last TV ever - realisticallly if one is not dreaming about fantasies like HoloTV. I would say these 88" and 99" TVs may come next year with exorbitant price and then one would have to wait to see the prices going down. 



Vader1 said:


> Haven't you heard? 55 and 65 inch QLED's are gonna be available to the consumer at competitive pricing in 2020. QLED is going to jump from a 4 inch demo all the way to large TV sizes available to the consumer in just a few years, without any steps in between... OLED will go down in flames. We're doomed.


QLED is a story in the making with no happy end yet, read elswhere in the forum about the SGS artefact.



fafrd said:


> Good catch - thanks  (and fixed).
> Sounds as though they are giving themselves until mid-year to commit P10 equipment orders but starting to send signals that they cannot delay further awaiting printing technology and so it's looking likely that P10 will be starting with deposition.
> The big question mark is whether they will start P10 as Gen8 deposition (which might allow them the option to add printed Gen10 down the road) or try to go straight to Gen10 glass with deposition.
> Between new Gen10 glass and new Gen10 equipment, it sounds as thought there is much greater timing and expense uncertainty going that route (but that's what it mean to be on the bleeding-edge ).


You guys are shuffling billions of $ and plant generations like the big display market would be booming. Unfortunately it is not so and as the millenial generation will be taking command we may see big drops in this market. What LGD is doing is rebalancing from LCD to OLED while trying not go under. Which is extremely difficult since they can not stop LCD and in fact have to improve it all the time (LG QLED = nano) while shifting the balance. Their plan looks good but in terms of numbers of panels made it is a small piece.


----------



## filmoreXXX

Ah the days when we could come onto this thread to read about the latest OLED technological breakthroughs ...


----------



## ynotgoal

joys_R_us said:


> Welcome to 2017. "next year" for new line (Gen. 8 E4-2) is this year, Q2...and new plant P10 next year. Probably at the end of next year as they are still thinking about the details and haven't ordered the machinery yet.


Yes, P10 is scheduled for the end of 2018. Realistically, early 2019 for volume production. However, there is another OLED conversion scheduled for 2018. They will decide in February on conversion of the next 26,000 sheets of gen 8 production in P9. This will increase production from 60,000 sheets in 2017 to 86,000 in 2018. It seems the schedule is to approve it at the February board meeting and production can start in q2 the following year. Then P10 follows that.

http://www.kinews.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=102680


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> Indeed the data show this strikingly, e.g. 10% window LG B6 *787* cd/m2, Samsung KS9000 *523* cd/m2. At 25% window the numbers are comparable: LG B6 *504 *cd/m2, Samsung KS9000 *565* cd/m2. Only at full sustained display the difference is knocking out OLED: LG B6 *151* cd/m2, Samsung KS9000 *536* cd/m2 .
> 
> What this proves is that regarding brightness there is no inherent problem with OLED pixels light output. The problem lies in heat dissipation and power supply. Improvement of heat dissipation from the panel is doable but costly due to large area to be covered. Basic step in this direction would be attaching the display to a coper substrate with fins. Ultimate solution would be by adding heatpipes. Then the question remains if passive cooling is sufficient or fans have to be installed too. All this would result in a panel no so thin as the current ones - unless a sophisticated thin radiator could be made.


Some interesting tidbits on the factors limiting OLED brightness from this recent article in flatpanelshd: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1484640539


"APL
As you may know, each pixel in an OLED is self-emissive, meaning that *the panel can illuminate just 1 pixel to 1000 nits brightness* while all other pixels – even the ones next to the 1000 nits pixel – can show true black. This is also sometimes referred to as pixel-level control. However, if you want all 8 million pixels on the TV to reproduce white (100% APL – full-screen white), peak brightness drops due to several factors. There are limitations in the *power supply* and the *TCON (Timing controller)* as well as limitations to *electron mobility in the current TFT (thin-film transistor) material* that all add up. This applies to all self-emissive displays, including plasma and upcoming microLED and QD LED displays. *Companies are constantly working on more efficient driver circuits and you may already know what IGZO TFT is *(it is not a LCD panel type as some seem to believe), so think of this as a development line that will benefit current as well as future display technologies.'

'Yeah yeah, so what does that have to do with LG’s 2017 OLEDs? Neil Robinson, Director, Technology Partnerships at LG Electronics, told us that *in 2017 LG has managed to improve peak brightness to 1000 nits by designing a more efficient TCON (Timing controller) component as well as by optimizing the OLED panel itself.*

So:

*power supply* (which should be easily solved, especially if average brightness remains relatively constant)

*TCON/Timing Controller* - improved for 2017 and without knowing which areas of 'efficiency' were improved (timing? drive electronics?), seems like another area where limitations are not fundamental in any way and further improvements can be delivered as needed...

*Electron-mobility in current TFT material* - now this sounds like we're getting closer to the more fundamental limitations on OLED pixel brightness, especially because of the reference to 'electron mobility' (as well as IGZO).

If the current backplane being used by LG is capable of supporting 1000 cd/m2 peak pixel output, is anyone aware of changes on the horizon that would allow current densities to double?

This picture from that same article is interesting in showing how the 2017s improved both in peak brightness and ABL characteristic. Looks like you can now get as high as 230 cd/m2 peak for SDR without having to worry about ABL below 87% APL (compared to the 'no ABL to 100% APL for SDR calibration up to 150 cd/m2 peak for SDR that LG is touting ).


----------



## tgm1024

What's the point in skewing the Y axis to the right like that?


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> What's the point in skewing the Y axis to the right like that?


Not understanding?

Assume you are referring to the graph - do you mean why 'flatten' the ABL curve versus how it was in 2016


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Not understanding?
> 
> Assume you are referring to the graph - do you mean why 'flatten' the ABL curve versus how it was in 2016


No, the "y" (quotes intentional) axis is drawn skewed to the right. Why?

In other words, how is it not any different than this (yes, I understand that the nits are cut off. I'm just making a point about the skewing of axes.)


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> No, the "y" (quotes intentional) axis is drawn skewed to the right. Why?
> 
> In other words, how is it not any different than this (yes, I understand that the nits are cut off. I'm just making a point about the skewing of axes.)


Got it now - I had not even noticed.

Just went back to check the source article from which I copied that graph and confirmed that it is identical (skewed ).


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> There are limitations in the power supply


Surely there's been no discussion in this thread about the idea of an external power supply, that'd be crazy talk!


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Sooooo remember my comments about the idea of an external power supply?


Yes, but I seriously doubt that is anything like a fundamental limitation - whatever is going on in the backplane and 'electron mobility' sounds like a far more fundamental limit (or significantly greater engineering challange ).


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Blast! I've been seen and quoted before I made my edit!


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Blast! I've been seen and quoted before I made my edit!


Don't you hate that .


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> Yes, but I seriously doubt that is anything like a fundamental limitation - whatever is going on in the backplane and 'electron mobility' sounds like a far more fundamental limit (or significantly greater engineering challange ).


True fundamental limit would be in the OLED material light output itself but this is not the case here. It is said the a single pixel can output 1000 nits but 1. this is number for small picture area, 2. there is no cooling of the panel, 3. antiglare filter takes a lot of light. Limitation on the power supply can be solved easily for TVs which have separate electronics box, hopefully this design will proliferate in the future. Altogether, pumping out OLED light output to the levels of blinding HDR is very realistic target.

That said, there is a question how the 2017 OLEDs compare to the 2016 models in real life, will the differences be visible or it is just a PR pitch about the improvements?


----------



## raif71

Vader1 said:


> Haven't you heard? 55 and 65 inch QLED's are gonna be available to the consumer at competitive pricing in 2020. QLED is going to jump from a 4 inch demo all the way to large TV sizes available to the consumer in just a few years, without any steps in between... OLED will go down in flames. We're doomed.


I find your lack of faith disturbing


----------



## joys_R_us

Many technologies used by LG to compensate their OLED panels for uneven lighting burn-in and aging and also the increase of nits is based on the cooperation with this Canadian company:

http://www.ignisinnovation.com/maxlife/

Look at their different "technologies". Quite interesting and giving details of the image compensation tech...


----------



## ALMA

fafrd said:


> This picture from that same article is interesting in showing how the 2017s improved both in peak brightness and ABL characteristic. Looks like you can now get as high as 230 cd/m2 peak for SDR without having to worry about ABL below 87% APL (compared to the 'no ABL to 100% APL for SDR calibration up to 150 cd/m2 peak for SDR that LG is touting ).


More than that. At 87% APL the 2017 OLEDs are as bright than the 2016 OLEDs at 50% APL (220-260nits). That means up to 40% more screen brightness for SDR. That´s the real deal in brightness advantages from the 2017 OLEDs to the 2016 OLEDs and not peak brightness in HDR. I hope the review sites like rtings.com, CNET or HDTVtest will measure not only screen brightness at 50% and 100% APL, but also at 70%, 80% and 90% and compare it to 2016 to prove this. 100% APL has not really a relevance for films or daily TV shows (letterbox bars and even snow scenes in fullscreen mode are not 100% white).


----------



## j.p.s

tgm1024 said:


> What's the point in skewing the Y axis to the right like that?


Imagined appearance improvement by someone with no regard for actually displaying information.


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> Many technologies used by LG to compensate their OLED panels for uneven lighting burn-in and aging and also the increase of nits is based on the cooperation with this Canadian company:
> 
> http://www.ignisinnovation.com/maxlife/
> 
> Look at their different "technologies". Quite interesting and giving details of the image compensation tech...


Looks like LG licensed their technology last summer: http://www.ignisinnovation.com/pres...g-a-patent-license-agreement-with-lg-display/

Description of the tech from the primary link:

"Process Diagnostics

Max | Life not only compensates for non-uniformity and aging, but the detailed data it produces can also be used to replace optical inspection, and for detailed process diagnostics.

Scans all TFTs and OLEDs in 60-120 seconds to detects all pixel and line defects.
Can be used before assembly (with shorting bar) and after assembly (using source drivers).
Detailed data detects the cause behind bright/dark spots. It can identify a short/open OLED, or a short/open TFT.
12-bit uniformity data can be used for process diagnostics and statistical process control.
This detailed data can be used to improve the yield of the process."

Unclear whether that gave them the time to get the technology integrated into the 2017 OLEDs, but it should certainly be included in the 2018s...


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> More than that. At 87% APL the 2017 OLEDs are as bright than the 2016 OLEDs at 50% APL (*220-260nits*). That means up to *40% more screen brightness for SDR*. That´s the real deal in brightness advantages from the 2017 OLEDs to the 2016 OLEDs and not peak brightness in HDR. I hope the review sites like rtings.com, CNET or HDTVtest will measure not only screen brightness at 50% and 100% APL, but also at 70%, 80% and 90% and compare it to 2016 to prove this. 100% APL has not really a relevance for films or daily TV shows (letterbox bars and even snow scenes in fullscreen mode are not 100% white).


Yes, they relaxed the slope of APL beyond 25%. And using the very crude '19-dashes = 300 cd/m2' scale, the 7 ticks from 130cd/m2 to 87% would come to 240 cd/m2 .

And if 87% is the APL threshold you are concerned with, that equates to 85% increase in brightness to 87% APL.

At 50% APL, Brightness increases from 240 cd/m2 to ~320 cd/m2, a 33% brightness increase.

But looking at this graph, the bottom line seems to be that the underlying OLED panel technology has really not changed very much. 

The HDR limit of 10% APL was relaxed to 3% and the 'steepness' of SDR APL once it kicks in at 25% was relaxed to increase brightness from 25-87% APL, but in the HDR range from 10-25% APL the curve is identical, suggesting no underlying changes to the panel itself.

Perhaps this is the 'tock' that LG and others are referring to and 2018 will bring a more significant 'tick' .


----------



## irkuck

ALMA said:


> More than that. At 87% APL the 2017 OLEDs are as bright than the 2016 OLEDs at 50% APL (220-260nits). That means up to 40% more screen brightness for SDR. That´s the real deal in brightness advantages from the 2017 OLEDs to the 2016 OLEDs and not peak brightness in HDR. I hope the review sites like rtings.com, CNET or HDTVtest will measure not only screen brightness at 50% and 100% APL, but also at 70%, 80% and 90% and compare it to 2016 to prove this. 100% APL has not really a relevance for films or daily TV shows (letterbox bars and even snow scenes in fullscreen mode are not 100% white).


What is the impact of the elimination of passive 3D on brightness?


----------



## andy sullivan

fafrd said:


> I think that's right - 2017 was a 'consolidation' year with relatively modest incremental improvements. If you don't care about 3D, a 2017 OLED is probably the better choice. If you do, or already have a 2016, a C6P or E6P looks like the better choice.
> 
> The claimed near-black gamma improvements in 2017 sound interesting but we've heard that before and will need to see what it translates to (and also, it's pretty much just a hassle-factor in getting settings right).
> 
> The claim that they 'added red' to the OLED stack is interesting (and runs counter to all the stories about 'double-blue' stack) but delivers only modest increase to already-good color gamut.
> 
> The change to ABL (none below 150 cd/m2) is probably the most significant change but it appears to mainly benefit computer users and
> Looking to 2018/2019 there are a few more significant improvements I hope will materialize:
> 
> QDCF - this will give WOLED both ~90% Rec.2020 color gamut and increased brightness (or alternative OLED-only solutions to deliver similar improvements).
> 
> BFI - if LG does not do something to deliver at-least LCD-class motion performance on their OLEDs, one of their customers (i.e.: Sony) will.
> 
> HDR - the landscape will hopefully have settled-down over the next 1-2 years and while LG has been the leader in offering the widest HDR-format compatibility, the risk of not being HDR-future-proof (especially for broadcast) with a later-generation OLED should be much lower than it is today.
> 
> And of course, near-black uniformity seems to improve with each year that goes by, so by 2018/2019, I hope vignette is nothing but a pleasant/frustrating memory .


Perhaps you could take a moment to explain "vignetti". What causes it, how to recognize it, and how best to minimize it's effects


----------



## fafrd

andy sullivan said:


> Perhaps you could take a moment to explain "vignetti". What causes it, how to recognize it, and how best to minimize it's effects


Probably not appropriate for this thread, but here's a place to start: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...7-vignetting-test-lg-ef9500-eg9600-oleds.html


----------



## fafrd

Sharp trying to get into OLEDs?

http://www.oled-info.com/reports-japan-state-sharp-aims-build-865-million-oled-fab-china-2019

"According to a report from Japan's Nikkei Asian Review, Sharp will build an OLED production line at Foxconn's factory in Zhengzhou (northern China). The investment in this new fab will total around 100 billion yen (about $865 million) and production will begin in 2019. Sharp is specifically aiming to supply screens for Apple's future iPhones.

October 2016 Sharp announced that it will invest $570 million to build OLED pilot lines in Osaka and in the Mie Prefecture. The pilot lines will begin OLED production in the summer of 2018. It was later reported that Sharp is considering to establish those lines in China instead - so it may be that this new Zhengzhou fab is actually the one reported in October.

Sharp's Korean competitors, LGD and SDC are not too worried, it seems - as they estimate that *Sharp will not be able to compete with their OLED panels by at least 2020*."


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> Certainly improved materials will be used over time which will improve color space. Here is a report that *LG is planning on using improved color filters to improve color comparable to quantum dot films but without using the films. It is expected to be used in 2018 models for both LCD and OLED. *
> http://www.etnews.com/20170111000283


Thanks for this link, but my Korean is not too good. If there are any important tidbits that anyone can translate, that would be great, but otherwise I'll just go with your recap.

Are the 'improved color filters comparable to quantum dots but without using the films' patterned quantum dots for color filters (QDCF), perchance? Are they some technology that 'transforms' light spectra versus just blocking it like conventional color filters?

Getting to wider color gamut through one means or another seems like a done deal, either through improved OLED materials or improved color filters, but I suspect LG is going to have to do something about the poor efficiency of their WOLED architecture sooner rather than later.

If Nanosys and rumors are to be believed, we will see LED/LCDs with R+G QDCF & Blue backlight by next year. This will deliver a ~3X improvement in brightness (both peak and sustained/full screen) at relatively modest cost, which will bring LED/LCD brightness up over Dolby's HDR mastering target of 4000 cd/m2.

Now we can argue about how critical the HDR-brightness arm's race is and how successful HDR will prove to be, but there are other benefits increased efficiency / peak brightness will bring to OLED:

-lower power consumption (with all else being equal).

-total elimination of ABL for any normal viewing.

-the excess brightness to finally introduce persistence-based motion blur improvements (BFI/scanning display).

-better head-to-head showing against bright LED/LCDs on the showroom floor where Samsung will be touting the benefits of increased brightness, color-space, and HDR.

So I see it as pretty much inevitable that LG will need to introduce light-transforming color filters based on QDDF or something equivalent by 2019 (assuming Samsung successfully launches QDCF-based QLED/ELCDs next year as expected).

Blue QDCF remains an issue and WOLED is already at a disadvantage versus LED/LCD, which can rely on a blue-LED backlight to gain a full 3X in efficiency.

With existing WOLED, the best LG can do is use standard Blue Color Filter combined with R+G QDCF to gain 1.5X in efficiency/output (Red and Greed shrink to 0.5 size X 3X efficiency while Blue and White grow to 1.5X size X 1X efficiency).

Again, assuming R+G has been fully industrialized and proven by Samsung at least a year earlier, I see it as inevitable that LG will introduce OLED w/ R+G QDCF which will get them to peak brightness of 1500 cd/m2 for the HDR/color-space wars and will allow them to deliver ABL-free SDR for any peak brightness calibration below 225 cd/m2...

If/when Blue QDCF gets industrialized (or a long-lifetime BOLED becomes viable) there is a further efficiency / brightness gain of +33% to be had (to peak brightness of 2000 cd/m2) to bring OLED up to parity with LED/LCD as far as light efficiency, but there is no rush for that and no reason to take any risk...

Another side-benefit of QDCF on OLED is that the cost difference can finally be used by LG to put some meat on their product line-up/strategy: low-end base B/C models have to QDCF while E/GW models deliver improved picture quality at a price premium...

Anyone else have an opinion as to the time after the introduction of mass-market QDCF LED/LCD TVs before we see the technology introduced on OLEDs?


----------



## move4ward

The improved color filters may be the inclusion of the Nano Cell technology shown at CES for the LCD.


----------



## fafrd

move4ward said:


> The improved color filters may be the inclusion of the Nano Cell technology shown at CES for the LCD.


The way that 'nano cell technology' was explained to me by the LG rep at CES, it does not transform light but merely 'sharpens' the edge of the band pass filter (color filters on each subpixel). He stated that it was a sheet composed of uniform nano particles located on the outside of the color filters.

I'm not convinced he knew what he was talking about, so we'll just need to wait until these 'nano cell' TVs are available in the wild...


----------



## joys_R_us

The nano tech LG is talking about merely blocks light spectrum outside of the preferred rgb colours. So in fact it should be lowering efficiency to sharpen and increase the colour gamut.

The qdcf have still difficulties blocking other colours; i.e. the green filter not only converts blue light into green but it also lets a bit of the blue pass through. Finding the right density of qdots and probably at the same time helping up with some dye in the filter to improve the selectivness is an art which has still to be mastered by Samsung.


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> The nano tech LG is talking about merely blocks light spectrum outside of the preferred rgb colours. So in fact it should be lowering efficiency to sharpen and increase the colour gamut.
> 
> *The qdcf have still difficulties blocking other colors* i.e. the green filter not only converts blue light into green but it also lets a bit of the blue pass through. Finding the right density of qdots and probably at the same time helping up with some dye in the filter to improve the selectivness is an art which has still to be mastered by Samsung.


yeah, with QDEF, the idea is to let a certain % of blue light through while converting a certain % to Red and to Green.

With QDCF, 100% of the incoming blue light needs to be converted to Red or seperately to Green. If any Blue light still gets through the Red or Green Quantim Dot Colir Filters, it will reduce color gamut versus what they are achieving with today's film...

I suppose QDCF could be complimented with an additional layer of conventional color filter - more complicated but at least light leakage only translates to some lost efficiency and not loss of color gamut.


----------



## joys_R_us

I would rule out an additional layer as it would be too expensive and probably would also kill the viewing angle. It is easier to enhance the cf with some conventional dye.


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> I would rule out an additional layer as it would be too expensive and probably would also kill the viewing angle. It is easier to enhance the cf with some conventional dye.


LCD viewing angles are poor primarily because of the LCD lightvalve 'tunnels'.

With QDCF, the light is essentially emitted 'at the surface' and I doubt that addition of conventional color filters on top of QDCF would significantly degrade viewing angle (and certainly no worse than WOLED is today ).

Cost is a concern, but so is efficiency - if quantum dots are mixed within the conventional color filter material itself, it will reduce manufacturing cost (1 layer to pattern instead of two) but at the cost of siome of the incoming light being blocked by the conventional color filter rather than being converted to the target wavelength...

This same issue will exist for QLED/ELCD (QDCF/LCD), so I would not be surprised to see LG let Samsung take point on working through these technical and manufacturing issues and draft behind them by a year or so...


----------



## fafrd

Found this from last June: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7336476/

"Enhancement of Optical Efficiency in White OLED Display Using the Patterned Photoresist Film Dispersed With Quantum Dot Nanocrystals

Abstract:
Quantum dot (QD) nanocrystals dispersed in photoresist (PR) film was developed and applied to white organic light-emitting diode (OLED) to improve optical power of red color through down-converting of blue and green light. To integrate to white OLED display panel, the QD dispersed photoresist film was prepared in a thickness of 2 μm with high concentration of QDs up to 30 wt%. QDs were dispersed successfully in PR with a matching of nonpolar characteristic for the ligands of QDs and PR as well as a careful mixing process of PR and QD dispersed solutions. We also realized the patterning of QD dispersed PR film with a stripe pattern of 60- μm width without a residual layer. The experimental measurement after passing through *a 30 wt% QD dispersed PR film and a red color filter in white OLED shows the enhancement of 40.2% in the optical power of red color compared to that from a conventional white OLED without QD dispersed PR film.*"


----------



## slacker711

> Enhancement of Optical Efficiency in White OLED Display Using the Patterned Photoresist Film Dispersed With Quantum Dot Nanocrystals


FWIW, the first page of the paper you posted.

https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/institu...cy-in-white-oled-display-using-the-fwn0HP4tnI


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> FWIW, the first page of the paper you posted.
> 
> https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/institu...cy-in-white-oled-display-using-the-fwn0HP4tnI


Thanks.

First page is nice, remainder of pepper would be nicer .

The first page of the paper makes reference to a 'florescent blue and a phosphorescent red/green two-stacked tandem structure' achieving a current efficiency of 61.3 cd/A.

Does anyone have any idea what cd/A is achieved by current LG panels?


----------



## joys_R_us

CFO of LG Display today:

"Panel shipments in the first quarter of 2017 are expected to decrease by a mid-single digit percentage due to some production line conversions from LCD to OLED and * capacity reduction from allocating some lines for new product R&D activities *. "

I think the R&D activies occupying production line capacity could be the oled print trials...

By the way, they also reported a record profit in the fourth quarter. Which is a good thing. They have room for price cuts and the means for further investing in oled without going broke...


----------



## rogo

joys_R_us said:


> I think the R&D activies occupying production line capacity could be the oled print trials...


I'll simply ask again: Is there evidence there is a soluble blue OLED that has more than de minimis lifetime?


----------



## joys_R_us

rogo said:


> I'll simply ask again: Is there evidence there is a soluble blue OLED that has more than de minimis lifetime?


The evidence for me is that LGD announced a while ago (also to my surprise) that they would set up a pilot line to develop printed oleds. I too have my doubts but...


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> LCD viewing angles are poor primarily because of the LCD lightvalve 'tunnels'.
> 
> With QDCF, the light is essentially emitted 'at the surface' and I doubt that addition of conventional color filters on top of QDCF would significantly degrade viewing angle (and certainly no worse than WOLED is today ).


....surface emission by itself is not a guarantee that it's dispersal is a uniform spray outward. Something like that might well be directional in nature. A conventional LED flashlight for instance is usually implemented as an SMD (surface mounted diode) that is by itself incredibly directional requiring lensing to spread.


----------



## sytech

rogo said:


> I'll simply ask again: Is there evidence there is a soluble blue OLED that has more than de minimis lifetime?


Yes.

http://www.oled-info.com/joled-details-their-printing-process-and-materials


----------



## rogo

sytech said:


> Yes.
> 
> http://www.oled-info.com/joled-details-their-printing-process-and-materials


Sorry but a plan to do something 2 years from now could just as easily mean, "if someone invents a usable material as none currently exists."

I'm still waiting for any manufacturer on earth to announce the _material fact for its investors_ that it has a blue soluble OLED with multi-thousand-hour lifetime.

Heck, I'd be open to a SID presentation on said material.


----------



## sytech

rogo said:


> Sorry but a plan to do something 2 years from now could just as easily mean, "if someone invents a usable material as none currently exists."
> 
> I'm still waiting for any manufacturer on earth to announce the _material fact for its investors_ that it has a blue soluble OLED with multi-thousand-hour lifetime.
> 
> Heck, I'd be open to a SID presentation on said material.


Info from last year. Improvements have been made.


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> CFO of LG Display today:
> 
> "Panel shipments in the first quarter of 2017 are expected to decrease by a mid-single digit percentage due to some production line conversions from LCD to OLED and * capacity reduction from allocating some lines for new product R&D activities *. "
> 
> I think the R&D activies occupying production line capacity could be the oled print trials...
> 
> By the way, they also reported a record profit in the fourth quarter. Which is a good thing. They have room for price cuts and the means for further investing in oled without going broke...


More tidbits from the Q&A section of the earnings call:

Yields seem to be 'above 80%':

"Don Kim

I am the CFO; let me respond to that question. In the second half of 2017, there will be around 60,000 60K capacity will be secured. So that will be about two fold on an year-over-year basis increase leading to the volume of about 1.5 million to 1.8 million units.

Moving onto your question about the yield. If you look out for the large sized OLED TVs we are well on track according to our internal plans. *In all the models, we have already achieved the more than 80%, we have achieved the 80% which is the so called golden yield percentage.* If you look at the LCD business it took us 10 years to reach the golden yield level at 80% before OLED in light of the fact that we were able to achieve the golden level in two years it is quite meaningful."


And LG is claiming they captured a full *80%* of the North American Premium:

"Stephen Ko

I’m from Head of TV Marketing. My name is Stephen Ko. On top of what our CFO has said let me just elaborate one more thing. The market that we are targeting with OLED is not the LCD market. We are targeting our OLED against the high-end premium segment.

For example *in the North American market, the 65 inch which is about $3000 in price, the so-called ultra high-end segment in the fourth quarter our OLED had accounted for more than 80%*, so in the premium market we have a significant wielding in terms of market share."

30% 65" & 77" in 2016 increasing to 40% thus year:

"Don Kim

I’m the CFO. When you are converting LCD capacity to OLED basically 41K LCD is going to be converted to 26K OLED. So basically that is the ratio when you think about LCD capacity conversion into OLED capacity.

Responding to your second question, the OLED sizes, the panel sizes that you’ve asked on the new capacity they comprise of 55 inch, 65 and 77. Just to give you some more color, in terms of the sizes above 65 inch *for 2016 it was 30%. So that includes 65 and 77. For 2017 we expect that ratio to be 40%.*"


----------



## rogo

Sytech, that's progress, but not _remotely production ready._

The luminous efficiency is still a small fraction of the red, never mind the green.

The lifetime is simply not in the universe of a consumer television.

Again, maybe this changes, but there is no promise that the materials improve magically year over year. Especially given that virtually zero progress was made between 2002-12. 

Whose material was that?


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> More tidbits from the Q&A section of the earnings call:
> 
> Yields seem to be 'above 80%':


When in the history of manufacturing anything did a 20% yield failure become such a wonderful number? 1 out of every 5 attempts tanking outright? I don't ever recall that number being touted so much. Are they trying to establish credibility out of thin air?


----------



## sytech

> . Just to give you some more color, in terms of the sizes above 65 inch *for 2016 it was 30%. So that includes 65 and 77. For 2017 we expect that ratio to be 40%.*"


Only 30% for 65" (lets face it the 77" is under 1000 units worldwide), no wonder LGD had problems supplying Skyworth with panels.


----------



## Rich Peterson

rogo said:


> Sorry but a plan to do something 2 years from now could just as easily mean, "if someone invents a usable material as none currently exists."
> 
> I'm still waiting for any manufacturer on earth to announce the _material fact for its investors_ that it has a blue soluble OLED with multi-thousand-hour lifetime.
> 
> Heck, I'd be open to a SID presentation on said material.


I totally agree there hasn't been any public disclosure that the material longevity issue has been solved, but there's lot of anecdotal evidence that progress is being made. Here's an article from about 18 months ago where Dupont said they are scaling up a manufacturing facility for inks for large-screen OLEDs. Would they do that if they didn't think they had improved enough or were going to?

http://www.printedelectronicsworld....als-scale-up-facility-for-next-generation-tvs


----------



## richlife

tgm1024 said:


> When in the history of manufacturing anything did a 20% yield failure become such a wonderful number? 1 out of every 5 attempts tanking outright? I don't ever recall that number being touted so much. Are they trying to establish credibility out of thin air?


Almost 40 years ago when "technology" was bleeding edge in totally different arenas, just over 80% was a good yield for high density memory (high density for that time). I participated in some of the "activities" that resulted in much improved yield beyond that point. Those activities had more to do with testing techniques than manufacturing processes. So 80%+ yield (or less than 20% failure) is indeed a good thing for a manufacturing process still in its infancy. 

I don't think we'll see a lot of those "test tweaks" as a solution -- the manufacturing processes have yet to mature to the level that "bonus" results are being chased.


----------



## tgm1024

richlife said:


> Almost 40 years ago when "technology" was bleeding edge in totally different arenas, just over 80% was a good yield for high density memory (high density for that time). I participated in some of the "activities" that resulted in much improved yield beyond that point. Those activities had more to do with testing techniques than manufacturing processes. So 80%+ yield (or less than 20% failure) is indeed a good thing for a manufacturing process still in its infancy.
> 
> I don't think we'll see a lot of those "test tweaks" as a solution -- the manufacturing processes have yet to mature to the level that "bonus" results are being chased.


Fair enough. Though I don't think that ~4 years of production level OLED is "infancy", plus that (the memory) is a component-level product where the display is almost the entire TV, but I understand where you're coming from. I'm thinking back to the crazy cost of 4K and 16K upgrades (think 8 bit land) and if that's because of yields.....


----------



## rogo

Rich Peterson said:


> I totally agree there hasn't been any public disclosure that the material longevity issue has been solved, but there's lot of anecdotal evidence that progress is being made. Here's an article from about 18 months ago where Dupont said they are scaling up a manufacturing facility for inks for large-screen OLEDs. Would they do that if they didn't think they had improved enough or were going to?


Well, 18 months ago there was absolutely nothing that existed. So yeah, I'd say they'd claim it, especially when some mfrs. were talking about Franken-displays using vapor-deposited blue + printed red/green.

And while I agree with you it's likely there is some non-public progress, I don't agree that a development 15 years in the making has reached the "solved" state quietly without a public product. That defies credulity.



tgm1024 said:


> Fair enough. Though I don't think that ~4 years of production level OLED is "infancy", plus that (the memory) is a component-level product where the display is almost the entire TV, but I understand where you're coming from. I'm thinking back to the crazy cost of 4K and 16K upgrades (think 8 bit land) and if that's because of yields.....


I love how LG just redefined OLED to being 2 years old to make some bogus point about speed. And also redefined 80% TV yield as winning on their "cheaper than LCD" OLED technology which causes them -- by their own proclamation -- to throw away 40% of capacity per line. I mean, _who do they think they are fooling_? LCD, incidentally, likely has a yield in the 98% range.


----------



## video_analysis

Oh, that was an unanswered question I had incidentally asked prior about LCD's yield achievement. Above 80% (I'll be generous with 81%) still leaves further leaps to come if OLED wants to hit price parity. 4 years = OLED in toddler stage?  I don't hold much scorn against them for using the 2-year metric since they've barely had that much experience mass producing UHD OLED panels (and the first ones were stinkers, let me tell you).


----------



## 8mile13

Kind of suspect.. In a october 2015 article it is stated that yield is 65%, so yield improved 15% in one year. Is that even possible?
http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/engl...lg-display-gets-yield-rate-65-uhd-oled-panels


----------



## sytech

8mile13 said:


> Kind of suspect.. In a october 2015 article it is stated that yield is 65%, so yield improved 15% in one year. Is that even possible?
> http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/engl...lg-display-gets-yield-rate-65-uhd-oled-panels


Don't know if they still do it or how, but I remember reading on the 1080p line they were able to "repair" defective panels that had only minor faults. So maybe 65% perfect panel with 15% "repair" rate?


----------



## rogo

sytech said:


> Don't know if they still do it or how, but I remember reading on the 1080p line they were able to "repair" defective panels that had only minor faults. So maybe 65% perfect panel with 15% "repair" rate?


Probably depends on the nature of defects. Many things would seem pretty impossible to repair, others might be realistic.


----------



## Rich Peterson

sytech said:


> Don't know if they still do it or how, but I remember reading on the 1080p line they were able to "repair" defective panels that had only minor faults. So maybe 65% perfect panel with 15% "repair" rate?


Yes, I remember reading that too. Wish I could find the article. It's really fuzzy, but what I think I remember was they had patented some technique to make bad pixels somehow come alive thereby repairing what would have been a discarded panel.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I love how LG just redefined OLED to being 2 years old to make some bogus point about speed.


Well, to be fair, they only really got serious about trying to ramp into volume 2 years ago with the EF9600. They milestones that have been thrown out there: 45% yield when they started, to 65% yield in 2015, to 80%+ yields now, all seem credible and representative of steady and substantive progress for a new technology going through the industrialization phase. So I wouldn't throw out the word 'bogus' and my assessment would be that they are on track with a very reasonable industrialization plan...



> And also redefined 80% TV yield as winning on their "cheaper than LCD" OLED technology which causes them -- by their own proclamation -- *to throw away 40% of capacity per line*. I mean, _who do they think they are fooling_?


I'm not understanding the reference to 40% - I would have thought the waste associated with 80%+ yields would be 20%-.

And as far as 80% being the 'golden threshold', I also see that as pretty credible. After 3-4 years, if they were unable to get yields up to 80%, it might be time to throw in the towel (as Samsung did). Once solidly above 80%, it's pretty clear that steady incremental improvements will get you to 90% and beyond.

Furthermore, the fact that LG is able to sell OLED panels for a profit at 80% yield is just further evidence of further cost reductions of 20-24% on the horizon of the next few years...



> LCD, incidentally, likely has a yield in the 98% range.


I would have thought that the primary source of yield loss in LCD would be on the backplane, and I would not be surprised to learn that the bacplane is also the primary source of yield loss with LG's WOLED.

If that is correct, and there is not any fundamental reason LG cannot achieve the same backplane yield as LCD, it should just be a matter of time till they get much closer.

LG has three ways to continue to significantly reduce cost over the coming years:

-continue to improve base yields from ~80% towards ~98%

-moving to Gen9 P10 will allow 65" panel costs to reduce by at least 30%

-if/when printed OLED technology is a reality, it will offer additional cost savings to OLED manufacturing that are unavailable to LCD.

When I add all of that up, I'm more convinced than ever that we will be seeing 65" OLED TV at costs of $1000 by 2022...


----------



## boe

fafrd said:


> Thanks for this link, but my Korean is not too good.


 You should get a better one; mine is great!


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> -if/when printed OLED technology is a reality, it will offer additional cost savings to OLED manufacturing that are unavailable to LCD.


I'm beginning to wonder what the marginal savings are there. No one is realistically talking about roll-to-roll even with printing (or at least that chorus has gone so _sotto voce_ it's become inaudible) meaning you're still talking sheet processing. While vapor deposition "wastes" material and WOLED certainly isn't a great use of material, the scale economics of the non-soluble stuff is currently light years ahead of the soluble OLED materials -- never mind the still non-existent blue w/high lifetime.

Given that you also have to encapsulate the printed OLEDs, which is a different step then how they are made today, I'm just wondering "aloud" here how much cheaper an immature printed OLED is vs. a 2019, P10-fab made LG OLED. It seems like just the segments that are replaced (and remember the backplanes are the same) might be no cheaper at all initially. Maybe they get 10-20% cheaper in time. Maybe 30%? That just feels like (a) a pretty high bar (b) something fairly far distant.

I'm not, in short, betting printed is important to the price declines anytime soon.


----------



## Rich Peterson

sytech said:


> Don't know if they still do it or how, but I remember reading on the 1080p line they were able to "repair" defective panels that had only minor faults.


Here's a little bit of info confirming that: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/lg-discovers-laser-treatment-to-fix-dead-oled-pixels.html


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I'm beginning to wonder what the marginal savings are there. No one is realistically talking about roll-to-roll even with printing (or at least that chorus has gone so _sotto voce_ it's become inaudible) meaning you're still talking sheet processing. While vapor deposition "wastes" material and WOLED certainly isn't a great use of material, the scale economics of the non-soluble stuff is currently light years ahead of the soluble OLED materials -- *never mind the still non-existent blue w/high lifetime.*


If beyond the challanges associated with printing, soluble blue is an additional barrier to be overcome, I'd guess that is a bridge too far. 



> Given that you also have to encapsulate the printed OLEDs, which is a different step then how they are made today, I'm just wondering "aloud" here how much cheaper an immature printed OLED is vs. a 2019, P10-fab made LG OLED. It seems like just the segments that are replaced (and remember the backplanes are the same) might be no cheaper at all initially. Maybe they get 10-20% cheaper in time. Maybe 30%? That just feels like (a) a pretty high bar (b) something fairly far distant.


Kateeva makes a big deal about the cost savings associated with processing in nitrogen (pressurized to ambient) versus deposition in a vacuum. If that 's a significant enough factor to justify the entire initiative, I don't know why LG would take any risk.

There's already significant risk associated with going Gen9, so adding printing to the mix only makes sense if it is really low hanging fruit or the additional savings are significant...



> I'm not, in short, betting printed is important to the price declines anytime soon.


Certainly not for price declines 'anytime soon' since yield improvement is a hand regardless and it seems as though the risk associated with Gen 9 may be lower than with printing. And in any case, the risk associated with Gen 9 is relatively known - the industry has done this many times before (with LCD, but the challanges and risks should be very similar as far as new equipment, supply of larger glass substrates, etc...) so LG should have a pretty good sense of what they are biting off as far as risk-reward.

Unless the cost-savings payoff is significantly greater than you believe, I find it hard to imagine LG taking a far greater leap into the unknown of printed OLED (and consider any issues associated with stable, long-lifetime soluble blue essentially a single-elimination item).

Manufacturing with vaccume deposition as they are now on larger substrates can not impact OLED lifetime, but all of these issues need to be retested/requalified with a significant process change like printing instead of vacume deposition.

So whatever additional cost savings may be had through printing, you've convinced me they are likely to follow the lower-hanging fruit of Gen 9 fabrication.

'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' and LG has demonstrated pretty convincingly over the past 12 months that it ain't broke (and also has a pretty credible and appealing 5-year manufacturing roadmap underway...).

Of course, if they are truly testing a soluble blue printed solution this spring, preliminary lifetime/reliability comes out positive, and there is significant savings to be had by avoiding the need to manufacture in vacume, that could al add up to justifying a different decision come June (though all they have talked about publicly is Gen 9 versus Gen 8).

P.S. In case it hasn't been posted here yet, here is the Forbes article on Kateeva and OLED from early 2015 I was referring to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...vs-to-cost-20-30-less-than-lcds/#9271d3d1c9b6


----------



## fafrd

Field-sequential LCD could another way Samsung extends the life of LCD: (especially for 8K and beyond): http://www.osa.org/en-us/about_osa/...liquid_crystal_could_triple_sharpness_of_tod/


----------



## Vader1

I wonder what ever happened to Blue Phase LCD. Seemed like a pretty promising technology for LCD, and Samsung was very interested in that a few years and showed off some stuff. Then they just never spoke of it again, and I haven't heard anything from any other sources either. Doesn't seem like it's ever coming.


----------



## fafrd

Vader1 said:


> *I wonder what ever happened to Blue Phase LCD*. Seemed like a pretty promising technology for LCD, and Samsung was very interested in that a few years and showed off some stuff. Then they just never spoke of it again, and I haven't heard anything from any other sources either. Doesn't seem like it's ever coming.


I guess you didn't bother to read the article - that's exactly what it is about: 

"*Blue-phase liquid crystal* can be switched, or controlled, about 10 times faster than the nematic type. This sub-millisecond response time allows each LED color (red, green and blue) to be sent through the liquid crystal at different times and eliminates the need for color filters. The LED colors are switched so quickly that our eyes can integrate red, green and blue to form white."


----------



## Vader1

fafrd said:


> I guess you didn't bother to read the article - that's exactly what it is about:
> 
> "*Blue-phase liquid crystal* can be switched, or controlled, about 10 times faster than the nematic type. This sub-millisecond response time allows each LED color (red, green and blue) to be sent through the liquid crystal at different times and eliminates the need for color filters. The LED colors are switched so quickly that our eyes can integrate red, green and blue to form white."


Yes, actually I did click on the link and read but not very thoroughly. I guess I just didn't catch that


----------



## greenland

Why is this OLED Developments thread being hijacked with talk about Samsung LCD R&D?


----------



## fafrd

greenland said:


> Why is this OLED Developments thread being hijacked with talk about Samsung LCD R&D?


Technical developments improving the competetive positioning of LED/LCD technology versus OLED and extending it's lifetime will have a direct impact on OLED TVs future and long-term viability.

But if others on this recently-dormant thread share your view that any information regarding non-OLED TV is inappropriate, I'll be happy to oblige...

'Hijacking' was the least of my intentions .


----------



## greenland

fafrd said:


> Technical developments improving the competetive positioning of LED/LCD technology versus OLED and extending it's lifetime will have a direct impact on OLED TVs future and long-term viability.
> 
> But if others on this recently-dormant thread share your view that any information regarding non-OLED TV is inappropriate, I'll be happy to oblige...
> 
> 'Hijacking' was the least of my intentions .


It is not about taking polls about if threads should be taken off topic or not. It is about not having to wade through a lot of LCD talk just to find out what if any new OLED developments are happening. LCD has more that enough coverage elsewhere in an entire forum of it's own.


----------



## Vader1

If you wanna talk about OLED then just go ahead and talk about OLED... nobody is stopping you from doing so


----------



## fafrd

greenland said:


> *It is not about taking polls *about if threads should be taken off topic or not. It is about not having to wade through a lot of LCD talk just to find out what if any new OLED developments are happening. LCD has more that enough coverage elsewhere in an entire forum of it's own.


Taking polls, no, but there are enough AVS 'elders' who have been active on this thread since it's inception and whose opinion as to AVS protocol I will respect, who can speak up if they are as tweaked as you seem to be about having to 'wade through' occasional non-OLED-TV-related posts...

My own view is that information providing any insight into the growth and survival of David (OLED), including what Goliath (LCD) may be plotting, is of interest and relevance to this thread.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> Field-sequential LCD could another way Samsung extends the life of LCD: (especially for 8K and beyond): http://www.osa.org/en-us/about_osa/...liquid_crystal_could_triple_sharpness_of_tod/





> This is especially attractive for virtual reality headsets


LCD is a non-started for any sort of VR headset - they need the lowest latency and pixel response possible, otherwise vomiting is very likely to occur (this is partially why all currently-available VR headsets use OLED displays with black-frame insertion).


----------



## Mr. Hookup

*OLED vs. Samsung SUHD*

IMHO, SUHD, does not compare to OLED.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Technical developments improving the competetive positioning of LED/LCD technology versus OLED and extending it's lifetime will have a direct impact on OLED TVs future and long-term viability.
> 
> But if others on this recently-dormant thread share your view that any information regarding non-OLED TV is inappropriate, I'll be happy to oblige...
> 
> 'Hijacking' was the least of my intentions .


I really don't want the OLED Technology Advancements thread to be about

1) LCD
2) People chiming on their personal opinions about what technology is good without adding something significant


----------



## sytech

rogo said:


> I really don't want the OLED Technology Advancements thread to be about
> 
> 1) LCD
> 2) People chiming on their personal opinions about what technology is good without adding something significant


Maybe the mods can start a LCD Technology Advancement Thread since this Flat Panel technology part has been taken over by OLED. Or how about a real dedicated OLED section and return this one to future advancement and speculation of display technology. Then have to be ready to consolidate some older sections like CRT and rear projection and section that get little use by now.


----------



## 8mile13

sytech said:


> Maybe the mods can start a LCD Technology Advancement Thread since this Flat Panel technology part has been taken over by OLED. Or how about a real dedicated OLED section and return this one to future advancement and speculation of display technology. Then have to be ready to consolidate some older sections like CRT and rear projection and section that get little use by now.


A LCd technology advancement thread sticky in this Forum is a interesting idea. Why not..


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I really don't want the OLED Technology Advancements thread to be about
> 
> 1) LCD
> 2) People chiming on their personal opinions about what technology is good without adding something significant


That's exactly the type of historical viewpoint I was seeking - works for me .

A sticky thread on LCD Technology to complement this sticky thread on OLED advancements is a good idea - there is nothing similar in the LCD Forum and this seems to be the place the flat panel technology geeks hang out.

To the extent that there are going to be developments on QDLED over the next 5-7 years, are those appropriate for discussion here on the OLED Technology Thread, in a new dedicated LCD Technology Advancements Thread, or do we need a third category for QDLED Technology?

Perhaps a single new sticky thread for Flat Panels General Technology Advancements would make more sense (and be in-line with this Forum's subject).


----------



## greenland

Philips 901F OLED TV with Ambilight review: A cracking 4K OLED debut

http://www.pocket-lint.com/review/1...ith-ambilight-review-a-cracking-4k-oled-debut


Toshiba jumps on the OLED TV bandwagon(But only in Japan) But still adds to the supply demand for LG OLED panels.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1485954664


----------



## R Harkness

greenland said:


> Philips 901F OLED TV with Ambilight review: A cracking 4K OLED debut
> 
> http://www.pocket-lint.com/review/1...ith-ambilight-review-a-cracking-4k-oled-debut


I find the idea of an OLED TV that comes with bias lighting somewhat ironic - here we finally have a display that produces wide contrast with true black levels - in other words, no bias light required to help perceived black levels.
But Philips still has to throw it in. (I know Philips doesn't use it's ambilight just as bias lighting, and IMO it's one of the sillier TV gimmicks - at it's best, useless on an OLED, at it's worst, distracting).


----------



## slacker711

The etnews is reporing that industry sources are saying that LGD will go with Gen 10 substrates for the P10 fab.

http://english.etnews.com/20170207200001


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> The etnews is reporing that industry sources are saying that LGD will go with Gen 10 substrates for the P10 fab.
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/20170207200001


Interesting. This implies that the decision was never deposition-versus-printing, but Start-with-G10LCD-then-convert-to-OLED versus go straight to Gen10 OLED.

The yield quote also implies that yields for 65" OLEDs is still below 80%:

"From fourth quarter of last year, LG Display achieved golden yields from *55-inch full HD panels and UHD panels*. Golden yield usually indicates a yield of more than 80%. "

There have been a few different substrate sizes thrown around, as well as Gen 9.5 versus Gen 10.

If I understand correctly, Gen 10 is considered anything over 3000mm.

Sakai is Gen 10 and I believe uses substrates of 2850mm X 3050mm

BOE is Gen 10.5 with substrates of 2940mm X 3370mm: https://www.corning.com/worldwide/e...in-lcd-glass-substrate-facility-in-hefei.html

Do we have any information on the substrate size LG is planning to use n P10? I thought the Gen 9.5 substrates being talked about earlier were about 2600mm X 2950mm.

Does this reference to Gen 10 suggest that LG may have decided to go with similar-sized substrates to those used by Sakai?


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Interesting. This implies that the decision was never deposition-versus-printing, but Start-with-G10LCD-then-convert-to-OLED versus go straight to Gen10 OLED.


Some of us never believed it was about that


----------



## joys_R_us

G10 was never planned to become a printing fab. All discussion was about glass sizes afaik.

The talk about printing was related to converting an lcd line to printing as an r&d / pilot line...

And yes, dear rogo, we know that there is no proof of existence of printable blue oleds with the necessary longevity there yet.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Some of us never believed it was about that


I got it - you're slowly baking the 'blue' chemical skepticism into this brain of mine - not yet quite as reflexively skeptical as you are .

What is your view on this whole substrate size question?

Do you make anything of this reference to 'Gen 10' where most past references referred to 'Gen 9.5'?

Do you think the larger substrates being contemplated by LG are the 2600mm X 2950mm substrates we have discussed in the past, or could they be deciding to go with something larger?

Contracting for equipment (as it appears they may be doing) and with Corning are the two points that they get locked-in...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> I got it - you're slowly baking the 'blue' chemical skepticism into this brain of mine - not yet quite as reflexively skeptical as you are .
> 
> What is your view on this whole substrate size question?
> 
> Do you make anything of this reference to 'Gen 10' where most past references referred to 'Gen 9.5'?
> 
> Do you think the larger substrates being contemplated by LG are the 2600mm X 2950mm substrates we have discussed in the past, or could they be deciding to go with something larger?
> 
> Contracting for equipment (as it appears they may be doing) and with Corning are the two points that they get locked-in...


I found this from a little over a year ago: http://www.oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=1117

It makes reference to P10 being 'Gen 9+' and substrates of 2500mm X 2950mm, as well as initial capacity of 12,000 substrates/month and a next step of 24,000 substrates/month.

Still unclear to me whether yesterday's news that LG has decided to go with Gen 10 substrates represents a change from this initial 'Gen 9+' 2500x2950 substrate size or not...


----------



## boe

fafrd said:


> Still unclear to me whether yesterday's news that LG has decided to go with Gen 10 substrates represents a change from this initial 'Gen 9+' 2500x2950 substrate size or not...



Do you have a link to the article? I'm concerned as I really wanted to get a 77" Sony OLED next year and the way I interpreted the initial discussion was if they went with a Gen 8 it would mean lower costs on larger sizes and a Gen 10 meant there was a risk on larger sizes unless they improved the process. Last I read, LG hadn't definitely decided on either yet.


----------



## fafrd

boe said:


> Do you have a link to the article? I'm concerned as I really wanted to get a 77" Sony OLED next year and the way I interpreted the initial discussion was if they went with a Gen 8 it would mean lower costs on larger sizes and a Gen 10 meant there was a risk on larger sizes unless they improved the process. Last I read, LG hadn't definitely decided on either yet.


It was posted a few posts back: http://english.etnews.com/20170207200001

P10 is going to have absolutely no impact on what Sony is selling next year.

If all goes smoothly, we may see first meaningful contribution to OLED panel availability and production capacity in 2019.

P10 will have a much more significant impact on 65" OLED panel production costs than it will on 77". LG has just announced that they have achieved 55" OLED yields of over 80%. Continued progress on yield improvement will have more impact on manufacturing costs of 77" OLED panels than P10 will - it is unlikely we'll see meaningful decreases in the pricing of 77" OLED pricing before LG has achieved yields in excess of 90% on 55" OLED panels...


----------



## boe

fafrd said:


> It was posted a few posts back: http://english.etnews.com/20170207200001
> 
> P10 is going to have absolutely no impact on what Sony is selling next year.
> 
> If all goes smoothly, we may see first meaningful contribution to OLED panel availability and production capacity in 2019.
> 
> P10 will have a much more significant impact on 65" OLED panel production costs than it will on 77". LG has just announced that they have achieved 55" OLED yields of over 80%. Continued progress on yield improvement will have more impact on manufacturing costs of 77" OLED panels than P10 will - it is unlikely we'll see meaningful decreases in the pricing of 77" OLED pricing before LG has achieved yields in excess of 90% on 55" OLED panels...




Thanks from the end of the article, I took it to read they were asking for Gen 10 pricing and scenarios but still hadn't fully committed.


----------



## fafrd

boe said:


> Thanks from the end of the article, I took it to read they were asking for Gen 10 pricing and scenarios but still hadn't fully committed.


Depends whether you take this statement at face value:

"According to industries on the 6th, LG Display has decided to establish its P10 production lines, which are being built in Paju, as production lines for 10th generation OLEDs. "


----------



## rogo

joys_R_us said:


> G10 was never planned to become a printing fab. All discussion was about glass sizes afaik.
> 
> The talk about printing was related to converting an lcd line to printing as an r&d / pilot line...
> 
> And yes, dear rogo, we know that there is no proof of existence of printable blue oleds with the necessary longevity there yet.


Sorry, but the reason for the "I told you so" on this is because some people seem to think there's no difference between uninformed speculation and informed speculation. And I personally like to draw the distinction. Especially because from time to time I will say, "in this case, I really don't know, but if I had to guess". Other times, I kind of know...



fafrd said:


> I got it - you're slowly baking the 'blue' chemical skepticism into this brain of mine - not yet quite as reflexively skeptical as you are .
> 
> What is your view on this whole substrate size question?
> 
> Do you make anything of this reference to 'Gen 10' where most past references referred to 'Gen 9.5'?
> 
> Do you think the larger substrates being contemplated by LG are the 2600mm X 2950mm substrates we have discussed in the past, or could they be deciding to go with something larger?
> 
> Contracting for equipment (as it appears they may be doing) and with Corning are the two points that they get locked-in...





fafrd said:


> I found this from a little over a year ago: http://www.oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=1117
> 
> It makes reference to P10 being 'Gen 9+' and substrates of 2500mm X 2950mm, as well as initial capacity of 12,000 substrates/month and a next step of 24,000 substrates/month.
> 
> Still unclear to me whether yesterday's news that LG has decided to go with Gen 10 substrates represents a change from this initial 'Gen 9+' 2500x2950 substrate size or not...


So yeah, I _don't_ know here. The article implies a "true" 10G. So maybe the thinking advanced from a year ago to allow for a 6-up 70-inch configuration to eventually be doable -- something that requires an actual 10G, not a 9.5G. Of course, it also would mean that 65s and 70s have essentially the same cost structure over time (from the P10 fab), which presents a different set of questions. 

All else being equal, I'd suspect the goal was a true 10G substrate and that's where this is headed. But that's guessing.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> So yeah, I _don't_ know here. The article implies a "true" 10G. So maybe the thinking advanced from a year ago to allow for a 6-up 70-inch configuration to eventually be doable -- something that requires an actual 10G, not a 9.5G. *Of course, it also would mean that 65s and 70s have essentially the same cost structure over time (from the P10 fab), which presents a different set of questions. *
> 
> All else being equal, I'd suspect the goal was a true 10G substrate and that's where this is headed. But that's guessing.


Guess we'll just need to wait and see...

The Gen 9.5 substrates that had been planned would have been close to optimal for 65" and would have been modestly better for 77".

Going to Gen 10 will be great for 70" and 60" but is going to represent less of a improvement for 65", so if LG goes that way, the only rationale I can conceive is that they see more benefit to rounding out the OLED product lineup with 60" and 70" than to consolidating cost leadership at 65".

By my simple math, a Gen 9.5 substrate would result in at least a 30% cost reduction for 65" panels, while a Gen 10 substrate would reduce that cost benefit for 65" panels to only 20% while opening the door to introducing cost-effective 60" and 70" panels...

Oh, and another benefit of Gen 10 substrates would be very cost-effective 42" panels (18-per-substrate) and 47" panels (15-per-substrate) .

55" and 77" come out close to a wash on Gen 10 substrates, so those probably use all Gen 8.5 capacity before moving to P10.

Perhaps with new customers like Sony and Philips coming online, there is pressure to round out the OLED panel size lineup.


----------



## rogo

I'm inclined to like the diversity of sizes offered by 10G more, with the older capacity being dedicated to existing sizes and costs driven down mostly by yield. They could -- over time -- move 65s to the new line as needed. But it might not be needed for a while.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I'm inclined to like the diversity of sizes offered by 10G more, with the older capacity being dedicated to existing sizes and costs driven down mostly by yield. They could -- over time -- move 65s to the new line as needed. But it might not be needed for a while.


Is there any possibility that there is equipment cost savings to be had by following in Sharp/Sakai's 10G footsteps instead of being the pioneer at 9.5G?

While Sharp failed because there was never enough 60" and 70" demand to absorb their 10G capacity, part of the reason for that failure was that when they tried to use the excess capacity to sell smaller panel sizes, they ran into a bloodbath of competition in the LCD ecosystem and couldn't make any profit.

For LG, large-panel OLED remains a precious commodity and will likely continue to be so for some time (5-10 years), so their ability to serve the 60" and 70" OLED demand that is there while being able to deliver smaller sizes if that is what the market prefers should be far better than Sharp's ever was...


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I'm inclined to like the diversity of sizes offered by 10G more, with the older capacity being dedicated to existing sizes and costs driven down mostly by yield. They could -- over time -- move 65s to the new line as needed. But it might not be needed for a while.


I found this data from IHS that pretty much confirms your informed guess about ~25% of the TV market being 'large-screen' (50" and above).

This data says 23% last year and a forecast of 26% this year.

Interestingly, 40"-49" is just over half of the market, and that is a market LG is not positioned to serve efficiently with their current Gen 8.5 OLED manufacturing.

Gen10 in P10 would position LG to offer a couple very efficient sizes in the 40"-49" range (especially 42" and 47"), so it's possible that increased 'diversity' overall including the possibility to move into the 40-49" segment of the market in the future is behind the consideration of going to ten 10 rather than gen 9.5.

The big loser in this change would be 77", since those would actually become more expensive to manufacture on a Gen 10 line (3-per-substrate instead of 2-per-substrate, but those substrates cost ~60% more).

The flip side of that, though, is that 70" OLEDs would become almost half the cost on Gen 10 versus Gen 8.5. A 70" OLED on Gen 10 would cost about 57% of what it would cost on Gen 9.5...

And 60" OLEDs should cost only about 20% more than current 55" OLEDs .


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Is there any possibility that there is equipment cost savings to be had by following in Sharp/Sakai's 10G footsteps instead of being the pioneer at 9.5G?


Sure, some of the equipment / ecosystem is the same or really similar. The glass sheet handlers, perhaps some litho stuff. Is it a ton of savings? No, but we could be talking millions.


> While Sharp failed because there was never enough 60" and 70" demand to absorb their 10G capacity, part of the reason for that failure was that when they tried to use the excess capacity to sell smaller panel sizes, they ran into a bloodbath of competition in the LCD ecosystem and couldn't make any profit.


They were basically trying to depreciate billions across a plan running at capacity for hundreds of millions worth of investment. Ugly.


> For LG, large-panel OLED remains a precious commodity and will likely continue to be so for some time (5-10 years), so their ability to serve the 60" and 70" OLED demand that is there while being able to deliver smaller sizes if that is what the market prefers should be far better than Sharp's ever was...


Yes, and the market for bigger screens is obviously larger than it was 4-5 years ago, as you note below.



fafrd said:


> I found this data from IHS that pretty much confirms your informed guess about ~25% of the TV market being 'large-screen' (50" and above).
> 
> This data says 23% last year and a forecast of 26% this year.


There are no accidents. 


> Interestingly, 40"-49" is just over half of the market, and that is a market LG is not positioned to serve efficiently with their current Gen 8.5 OLED manufacturing.
> 
> Gen10 in P10 would position LG to offer a couple very efficient sizes in the 40"-49" range (especially 42" and 47"), so it's possible that increased 'diversity' overall including the possibility to move into the 40-49" segment of the market in the future is behind the consideration of going to ten 10 rather than gen 9.5.


As we discussed above. I'm sure this matters more than a little.


> The big loser in this change would be 77", since those would actually become more expensive to manufacture on a Gen 10 line (3-per-substrate instead of 2-per-substrate, but those substrates cost ~60% more).


I'd question whether cost is a function of substrate size as you posit. Is it related? Sure. But I'm not sure it's a function of area so precisely. Glass might be. OLED material might be. But cycle times, et al. wouldn't seem to have as harsh a scaling function -- especially once yields and capacity are up.


> The flip side of that, though, is that 70" OLEDs would become almost half the cost on Gen 10 versus Gen 8.5. A 70" OLED on Gen 10 would cost about 57% of what it would cost on Gen 9.5...


Right, so 70 becomes a big winner almost immediately. Perhaps some other jumbo size gets made on the older lines in small quantities as their yields approach 90-95%.


> And 60% OLEDs should cost only about 20% more than current 55" OLEDs .


Those curves in the chart are interesting. Note that 40-49 is basically not losing share. What's happening (and of course this is misleading, the whole size curve is shifting slowly to the right in almost a wave motion) is that the sub 40s are all becoming 50s or larger. Again, that's misleading and it's going to approach an asymptote sometime in the next 10 years, but it's fascinating, right? It means that if you're LG you want to be able to produce in the mid 40s through ~70 to sell out your new fancy production. And everything else is noise because the segments are either tiny and not really getting bigger (that's the 80+ segment) or shrinking and low dollar value (the below 40 market).

You don't really need the lowest of the 40s since those will start to become less important around the end of the decade but I suspect this is where the asymptote begin to form. The ~40-42-inch set not only won't die off, it will likely have some premium-ish models for quite a while. Those might be $500-700 and LG could be well into that price band for that size around 2022, assuming all stays on plan and the "P11" fab gets commissioned around when you might expect.

What could very realistically happen if someone else doesn't build an OLED fab soon is that LG could become something of an "Apple" in the TV market, skimming off nearly all the profit with a relatively small market share. It wouldn't shock to see OLED sales of 25 million in the next decade on TV sales of 225 million capturing more than half of industry profits. Something may give, including a more severe decline in TV sales, but one thing that won't happen is meaningful profits from selling from LCDs.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Sure, some of the equipment / ecosystem is the same or really similar. The glass sheet handlers, perhaps some litho stuff. Is it a ton of savings? No, but we could be talking millions.
> 
> 
> They were basically trying to depreciate billions across a plan running at capacity for hundreds of millions worth of investment. Ugly.
> 
> 
> Yes, and the market for bigger screens is obviously larger than it was 4-5 years ago, as you note below.
> 
> 
> 
> There are no accidents.
> 
> 
> As we discussed above. I'm sure this matters more than a little.
> 
> 
> I'd question whether cost is a function of substrate size as you posit. Is it related? Sure. But I'm not sure it's a function of area so precisely. Glass might be. OLED material might be. But cycle times, et al. wouldn't seem to have as harsh a scaling function -- especially once yields and capacity are up.
> 
> 
> Right, so 70 becomes a big winner almost immediately. Perhaps some other jumbo size gets made on the older lines in small quantities as their yields approach 90-95%.
> 
> 
> Those curves in the chart are interesting. Note that 40-49 is basically not losing share. What's happening (and of course this is misleading, the whole size curve is shifting slowly to the right in almost a wave motion) is that the sub 40s are all becoming 50s or larger. Again, that's misleading and it's going to approach an asymptote sometime in the next 10 years, but it's fascinating, right? It means that if you're LG you want to be able to produce in the mid 40s through ~70 to sell out your new fancy production. And everything else is noise because the segments are either tiny and not really getting bigger (that's the 80+ segment) or shrinking and low dollar value (the below 40 market).
> 
> You don't really need the lowest of the 40s since those will start to become less important around the end of the decade but I suspect this is where the asymptote begin to form. The ~40-42-inch set not only won't die off, it will likely have some premium-ish models for quite a while. Those might be $500-700 and LG could be well into that price band for that size around 2022, assuming all stays on plan and the "P11" fab gets commissioned around when you might expect.
> 
> What could very realistically happen if someone else doesn't build an OLED fab soon is that LG could become something of an "Apple" in the TV market, skimming off nearly all the profit with a relatively small market share. *It wouldn't shock to see OLED sales of 25 million in the next decade on TV sales of 225 million capturing more than half of industry profits.[/B Something may give, including a more severe decline in TV sales, but one thing that won't happen is meaningful profits from selling from LCDs.*


*

You and I see it the same way. And the other nuance to point out is that LG has a practically unlimited supply of Gen 8.5-and-below LCD lines to convert to OLED as the need rises. So to the extent that P10 is their first true investment in the longer-term future, Gen 10 seems to be a more future-proof investment than Gen 9.5 (more diversity/optionality), especially if they can follow in Sharp/Sakai's footsteps and take less risk/equipment-cost.

You are probably right that cost does not scale directly with substrate size, but that simple rule-of-thumb probably provides a reasonable worst-case boundry for purposes of analysis/speculation in the absence of better information.

So using that simple-minded metric, a 42" OLED panel manufactured on a Gen10 line should cost about half of what a 55" OLED costs on the current Gen 8.5 lines (or about a quarter of what a 65" OLED panel costs on that same Gen8.5 line).

Now, there's more that goes into the cost of a TV than just the OLED panel, and those additional cost are closer to fixed and don't scale with screen size, but still, the OLED panel itself dominates cost.

By the time 65" OLEDs are available for $1000 (I be,I've you and I have been saying probably 2020-2021), I suspect that 42" OLEDs will be available for less than $500.

65" for $1000
55" for $700-800
47" for $500-600
42" for $350-450

doesn't seem unrealistic at all (assuming P10 goes Gen10).

And of course, this is for entry-level, gain-market-share pricing - if you are correct that LG succeeds to 'pull an Apple' in the TV space, they will be able to sell their available/limited capacity at higher prices than this and generate more profit .*


----------



## NintendoManiac64

42" OLED displays would be particularly well-suited for the high-end monitor market since $500 is practically the baseline for monitors in that market segment.

I mean, 42" TVs and a $500+ price-tag isn't exactly common anymore...


----------



## R Harkness

While I enjoy perusing the flat panels in stores, and I read this thread sometimes, I admit my eyes glaze over on the manufacturing/technical exchanges.

So for the lazy among us:
*
How is OLED doing at this point?*

It's future seemed dubious at one point, as I remember. Now what do we have? A niche? A niche that has legs and should be around for quite a while?
Or an actual threat to some of the LCD market share, insofar as OLED could become a fairly popular alternative to LCD among the masses?


----------



## ynotgoal

BOE is investing in a gen 8 printed OLED R&D line using Kateeva printing equipment. The five year research project has a goal of "30-inch or larger size, 4K (3840 × 2160) resolution, 250cd / m2 brightness and 10,000 hours life". Even if they hit those specs in 5 years that is well short of current TV requirements.

http://www.etnews.com/20170209004980
(Article is in Korean but you can use Google's translate feature to get the idea.)


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> BOE is investing in a gen 8 printed OLED R&D line using Kateeva printing equipment. The five year research project has a goal of "30-inch or larger size, 4K (3840 × 2160) resolution, 250cd / m2 brightness and 10,000 hours life". *Even if they hit those specs in 5 years that is well short of current TV requirements.*
> 
> http://www.etnews.com/20170209004980
> (Article is in Korean but you can use Google's translate feature to get the idea.)


Well short of which current TV requirements, brightness? Lifetime? 10,000 hours is less than 3-years at 8-hours/day, but if it is cheap enough, I wonder if the market will care...

Will this be an RGB OLED (not WOLED)?

Between LG getting Gen10 WOLED manufacturing ramped, BOE seeing whether printed OLED is ready for prime-time, and Samsung trying to accelerate a quantum-dot-based emissive OLED alternative, 2020/2021 is getting teed up to be an interesting period in display technology...


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> Well short of which current TV requirements, brightness? Lifetime? 10,000 hours is less than 3-years at 8-hours/day, but if it is cheap enough, I wonder if the market will care...
> 
> Will this be an RGB OLED (not WOLED)?


Yes, short of TV requirements in both brightness and lifetime. It's hard to predict prices more than 5 years out for something that is still in R&D but they will most probably not be that much cheaper.

Yes, pretty much by definition printing is RGB (not WOLED).


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> Yes, short of TV requirements in both brightness and lifetime. It's hard to predict prices more than 5 years out for something that is still in R&D but *they will most probably not be that much cheaper.*
> 
> Yes, pretty much by definition printing is RGB (not WOLED).


If printing ends up not being much cheaper than deposition, seems like a fool's errand...

As far as predicting pricing more than 5 years out, LCD has pretty much leveled-out and OLED should eventually be able to drive pricing to lower levels, so while it's unlikely OLED gets there within the next 5 years, current low-end LCD pricing can probably be viewed as a ceiling on OLED pricing once the production ramp reaches sufficient volume and maturity...

I don't know whether the attached 2013/2014 data from NPD should be taken seriously or not, but it indicates that 55" LCD modules level out at around $300 in cost...

And if there is any reality to the NPD's yielded 2014 OLED module cost forecast of ~$1500 in 2014, hard to not believe that that number has been cut to close to a third of that level by now with LG's repeated claims of achieving EBITDA profitability.

In terms of a response to the question asked by R Harkness about how OLED is doing at this point, my view is that 2016 was the year WOLED TV 'crossed the chasm' and is not here to stay. The fact that LG succeeded to triple production volumes while halving pricing and dominated the premium 55" and 65" TV market in the US indicates the most painful part of the industrialization phase is behind them and OLED TV's future is now a question of execution and prudent planning rather than feasibility and price/performance.

The fact that they have moved from first customers like Skyworth to premium brands like Sony and Philips is further confirmation the LG WOLED is now 'over the hump'... .


----------



## artur9

fafrd said:


> In terms of a response to the question asked by R Harkness about how OLED is doing at this point, my view is that 2016 was the year WOLED TV 'crossed the chasm' and is not here to stay.


Unfortunate typo.

Is the $300 the cost of a 55" panel so the price above that is pure profit to the seller?


----------



## fafrd

artur9 said:


> Unfortunate typo.
> 
> Is the $300 the cost of a 55" panel so the price above that is pure profit to the seller?


No, that is just the LCD module (LCD lightvalves with color filter and polarizes + LED backlight). In the case of OLED, there is no backlight, so it is a one-piece module (and that is why OLEDs will eventually be less expensive that LED/LCD once the OLED industry has scaled up closer to where the LCD industry is today ).

From the LED/LCD or OLED module, you then need to build the TV (controller, drive electronics, housing, ports, etc...) and then from there, the 'seller' needs to leave margin for the channel...


----------



## rogo

I think we can once and for all rule dispense with the notion that printed OLEDs are coming soon. Really. Like the next time someone suggests it, everyone should just say, "No, you're wrong."

BOE is perhaps the closest non-LG OLED TV manufacturer to mass production and here they are investing in a test facility that is *five years* from having a printed OLED. There are numerous issues with getting there, I'm sure but you can clearly see the biggest: *There is no commercially usable soluble blue OLED*.

Anyway, I want to be clear that this is a very welcome development even though I am inclined to believe that there will be no pricing advantage. LG will have achieved so much cost reduction via learning-curve effects by 2021 that printing will need at least five _more_ years to get caught up. That's assuming that some inherent bonus exists to overcome the other scale efficiencies. yield efficiencies, et al. than LG and WOLED will already have.

So with respect to Rich's question above: OLED is a niche today. It's not going to reach 1% of the TV market this year. Assuming LG follows through on their plans (very likely), it seems a given it will reach 5% of the TV market within just a few years. It will -- at that point -- have the lion's share of the premium TV market and will almost certainly have attracted followers who use the same production processes. While it seems unlikely OLED will represent much more than even 25% of the market by unit sales middle of next decade, it's very likely to have essentially all of the high-value market (>$1000.) Eventually, the scale and production economics of OLED should lead to it consuming even the middle and low price bands, but the full transition could take 15 years.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I think we can once and for all rule dispense with the notion that printed OLEDs are coming soon. Really. Like the next time someone suggests it, everyone should just say, "No, you're wrong."
> 
> BOE is perhaps the closest non-LG OLED TV manufacturer to mass production and here they are investing in a test facility that is *five years* from having a printed OLED. There are numerous issues with getting there, I'm sure but you can clearly see the biggest: *There is no commercially usable soluble blue OLED*.
> 
> Anyway, I want to be clear that this is a very welcome development even though I am inclined to believe that there will be no pricing advantage. LG will have achieved so much cost reduction via learning-curve effects by 2021 that printing will need at least five _more_ years to get caught up. That's assuming that some inherent bonus exists to overcome the other scale efficiencies. yield efficiencies, et al. than LG and WOLED will already have.
> 
> So with respect to Rich's question above: OLED is a niche today. It's not going to reach 1% of the TV market this year. Assuming LG follows through on their plans (very likely), it seems a given it will reach 5% of the TV market within just a few years. It will -- at that point -- have the lion's share of the premium TV market and will almost certainly have attracted followers who use the same production processes. While it seems unlikely OLED will represent much more than even 25% of the market by unit sales middle of next decade, it's very likely to have essentially all of the high-value market (>$1000.) Eventually, the scale and production economics of OLED should lead to it consuming even the middle and low price bands, *but the full transition could take 15 years*.


Well stated.

And for perspective, here is how it looks over a decade-long timeline when one display technology displaces another:

Also of note is the fact that plasma never really captured more than 10% of the TV market at its peak of about 20M units.

So if Rogo's right that OLED has a good chance to capture 25% (meaning 50-60Mu) of the TV market by 2025, it will boldly have gone where no emissive flat-panel display technology has gone before . [and also that in 2025, OLED could be about where LCD was in 2006]

LGE has 'attracted followers' to develop and market OLED TVs based on WOLED panels manufactured by LGD (especially this year, with Sony and Philips). The true 'point of no return' on TV technology displacement will be when LGD 'attracts followers' to invest in WOLED TV-panel production lines. And this will also provide an acceleration on market share gains of WOLED since LG will no longer be solely responsible for making the enormous capital investments needed to supply ever-increasing production volumes to this voracious market.


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> I found this from a little over a year ago: http://www.oled-a.org/news_details.cfm?ID=1117
> 
> It makes reference to P10 being 'Gen 9+' and substrates of 2500mm X 2950mm, as well as initial capacity of 12,000 substrates/month and a next step of 24,000 substrates/month.
> 
> Still unclear to me whether yesterday's news that LG has decided to go with Gen 10 substrates represents a change from this initial 'Gen 9+' 2500x2950 substrate size or not...


I've been looking at this a little bit more and have come to the conclusion that when LG first decided to introduce 77" OLEDs, they must have been planning to use these '9G+' substrates of 2500x2950mm in their eventual new P10 line.

77" is a very strange size, but it turns out that 3 77" screens in a stack has exactly the same height as the horizontal dimension of two 65" screens side-by-side (both are 2878mm without accounting for gaps/dead-space between panels).

That cannot be coincidence and means LG must have originally been planning for a P10 substrate size similar to the 2500x2950 substrates suggested by that article.

Those substrates would have been about 34% longer than the current 8.5G substrates being used and would be identical in the other dimension (2500mm).

They would be close to optimal for 2x6 layup of 65" OLEDs, and would also support 1x3 layup of 77" OLEDs and another close-to-optimal 2x4 layup of 55" OLEDs.

A straight-up 10G substrate of 2850x3050mm or even Sharp/Sakai's 10G substrate size of 2880x3130mm would be great for new panel sizes like 60" and 70", but would be less beneficial for 65" panels and useless for 77" panels (same 1x3 layup of 77" on substrates costing ~70% more than the current 8.5G substrates supporting 1x2 layup, negating any savings).

The fact that the current 8.5G production and the new 9.5G production that had been planned for P10 are both close to optimal at 55" is somewhat of a 'waste' and must be behind LG's initiative to consider alternative substrate sizes.

One interesting alternative that may be under consideration is to optimize P10 for 65" and 70+" rather than 65" and 55".

A substrate of 3240x2880mm would be optimal for 2x4 layup of 65" panels and would drive their manufacturing cost down by over 35%.

That panel size would also support optimal layout of 2x3 73" OLEDs whose production cost would be about 56% of the cost of 77" panels on current 8.5G substrates.

New panel sizes in the 40-49" range would be economical on any of these 9.5-10.5G substrates, but it would not make sense to manufacture either 55" or 77" panels on these larger 3240x2880mm substrates.

55" panels only lay up at 2x4, meaning 8 instead of 6 55" panels on substrates costing 70% more (fail).

And 77" panels still only lay up at 1x3, meaning 3 instead of 2 77" panels on substrates costing 70% more (another fail).

So assuming whatever larger substrat size LG is considering for P10 will be much better for 65" and offer no real benefit for 77", the question for the thread is: which is a better move for them, to pick a substrate size that allows them to economically introduce a new 'intermediate' size like 60", or to introduce a new most-economical larger size like 73" and relegate cost reductions of the current 77" size to yield improvement on current 8.5G substrates only?

One major advantage LG has over Sharp/Sakai and BOE is that, since they are the first-mover, there are no established standards they need to comply with and the early-phase of the OLED panel market will adapt to whatever panel sizes they offer.

Personally, assuming the level of risk and investment is similar, I think investing towards an economical 72" or 73" OLED is a more sensible/future-proof investment than investing towards an economical 60" OLED.

And whether LG decides on substrates for 2x3 or 2x4 layup of 65" OLEDs for P10,it appears that once that new fab is successfully ramped, they will be very well-positioned to consolidate their cost-leadership at that important screen-size of the overall TV market...


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I think we can once and for all rule dispense with the notion that printed OLEDs are coming soon. Really. Like the next time someone suggests it, everyone should just say, "No, you're wrong."
> 
> BOE is perhaps the closest non-LG OLED TV manufacturer to mass production and here they are investing in a test facility that is *five years* from having a printed OLED. There are numerous issues with getting there, I'm sure but you can clearly see the biggest: *There is no commercially usable soluble blue OLED*.
> 
> Anyway, I want to be clear that this is a very welcome development even though I am inclined to believe that there will be no pricing advantage. LG will have achieved so much cost reduction via learning-curve effects by 2021 that printing will need at least five _more_ years to get caught up. That's assuming that some inherent bonus exists to overcome the other scale efficiencies. yield efficiencies, et al. than LG and WOLED will already have.


Some data from IHS supporting the view that there won't be any printing of production OLEDs through 2018: http://www.oled-info.com/ihs-sees-oled-production-equipment-market-reaching-95-billion-2017


----------



## fafrd

Spoiler






fafrd said:


> I've been looking at this a little bit more and have come to the conclusion that when LG first decided to introduce 77" OLEDs, they must have been planning to use these '9G+' substrates of 2500x2950mm in their eventual new P10 line.
> 
> 77" is a very strange size, but it turns out that 3 77" screens in a stack has exactly the same height as the horizontal dimension of two 65" screens side-by-side (both are 2878mm without accounting for gaps/dead-space between panels).
> 
> That cannot be coincidence and means LG must have originally been planning for a P10 substrate size similar to the 2500x2950 substrates suggested by that article.
> 
> Those substrates would have been about 34% longer than the current 8.5G substrates being used and would be identical in the other dimension (2500mm).
> 
> They would be close to optimal for 2x6 layup of 65" OLEDs, and would also support 1x3 layup of 77" OLEDs and another close-to-optimal 2x4 layup of 55" OLEDs.
> 
> A straight-up 10G substrate of 2850x3050mm or even Sharp/Sakai's 10G substrate size of 2880x3130mm would be great for new panel sizes like 60" and 70", but would be less beneficial for 65" panels and useless for 77" panels (same 1x3 layup of 77" on substrates costing ~70% more than the current 8.5G substrates supporting 1x2 layup, negating any savings).
> 
> The fact that the current 8.5G production and the new 9.5G production that had been planned for P10 are both close to optimal at 55" is somewhat of a 'waste' and must be behind LG's initiative to consider alternative substrate sizes.
> 
> One interesting alternative that may be under consideration is to optimize P10 for 65" and 70+" rather than 65" and 55".
> 
> A substrate of 3240x2880mm would be optimal for 2x4 layup of 65" panels and would drive their manufacturing cost down by over 35%.
> 
> That panel size would also support optimal layout of 2x3 73" OLEDs whose production cost would be about 56% of the cost of 77" panels on current 8.5G substrates.
> 
> New panel sizes in the 40-49" range would be economical on any of these 9.5-10.5G substrates, but it would not make sense to manufacture either 55" or 77" panels on these larger 3240x2880mm substrates.
> 
> 55" panels only lay up at 2x4, meaning 8 instead of 6 55" panels on substrates costing 70% more (fail).
> 
> And 77" panels still only lay up at 1x3, meaning 3 instead of 2 77" panels on substrates costing 70% more (another fail).
> 
> So assuming whatever larger substrat size LG is considering for P10 will be much better for 65" and offer no real benefit for 77", the question for the thread is: which is a better move for them, to pick a substrate size that allows them to economically introduce a new 'intermediate' size like 60", or to introduce a new most-economical larger size like 73" and relegate cost reductions of the current 77" size to yield improvement on current 8.5G substrates only?
> 
> One major advantage LG has over Sharp/Sakai and BOE is that, since they are the first-mover, there are no established standards they need to comply with and the early-phase of the OLED panel market will adapt to whatever panel sizes they offer.
> 
> Personally, assuming the level of risk and investment is similar, I think investing towards an economical 72" or 73" OLED is a more sensible/future-proof investment than investing towards an economical 60" OLED.
> 
> And whether LG decides on substrates for 2x3 or 2x4 layup of 65" OLEDs for P10,it appears that once that new fab is successfully ramped, they will be very well-positioned to consolidate their cost-leadership at that important screen-size of the overall TV market...






Oh, and for those of you wondering, a substrate size of 3240x2880mm would support 1x3 layup of panels up to 87". So an 87" OLED would cost about 15% more than the 77" panels are currently costing on 8.5G substrates...


----------



## Ftoast

Spoiler






fafrd said:


> p.s. I wanted to put my long earlier post into a Spoiler but could not find how to do it. What is the [] code for a spoiler and/or which button along the top creates a spoiler ]





The button is an uppercase "S" inside a box on the far right side next to a little speaker icon.
The bracket code is spoiler and /spoiler (inside brackets, obviously).


----------



## fafrd

Spoiler






Ftoast said:


> The button is an uppercase "S" inside a box on the far right side next to a little speaker icon.
> The bracket code is spoiler and /spoiler (inside brackets, obviously).






Thanks


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> I got it - you're slowly baking the 'blue' chemical skepticism into this brain of mine - not yet quite as reflexively skeptical as you are .
> 
> What is your view on this whole substrate size question?
> 
> Do you make anything of this reference to 'Gen 10' where most past references referred to 'Gen 9.5'?
> 
> Do you think the larger substrates being contemplated by LG are the 2600mm X 2950mm substrates we have discussed in the past, or could they be deciding to go with something larger?
> 
> *Contracting* for equipment (as it appears they may be doing) and *with Corning* are the two points that they get locked-in...


I have just assumed that LG contracts with Corning for their substrate glass manufacturing, but after finding this I realize just how wrong that assumption was: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=55514

"LG plans to invest around 8 trillion won (about $6.9 billion) through 2018 in its Paju complex, which is providing the manufacturing engine for affiliates LG Display, *LG Chem* and LG Innotek.

LG Display, the world's second-largest flat-panel maker, is using its Paju factories to produce LCD panels for televisions, mobile phones and other devices.

*LG Chem, the country's biggest chemical company, is the leading maker of LCD glass substrates*, while LG Innotek is using its Paju lines to produce light-emitting diode (LED) chips and modules."

"*LG Chem will* spend 3 trillion won to construct seven more LCD glass production lines, looking to *raise its total capacity in glass processing to over 5 million square meters by 2018.*"

"LG Display has been gaining on first-place Samsung in LCD panels in recent years, while *LG Chem is competing with Samsung Corning Precision in the LCD glass segment.*"

So LG Chem competes with Corning and can develope whatever size substrates LG wants in complete stealth.

And this means that the only early indicator of what size substrates LGD decides on for P10 will be the equipment suppliers (which are the discussions that started earlier this month and were reported on, which is the only reason this subject of P10 substrate size has emerged as a topic for discussion on this thread ).


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Well stated.
> 
> And for perspective, here is how it looks over a decade-long timeline when one display technology displaces another:
> 
> Also of note is the fact that plasma never really captured more than 10% of the TV market at its peak of about 20M units.
> 
> So if Rogo's right that OLED has a good chance to capture 25% (meaning 50-60Mu) of the TV market by 2025, it will boldly have gone where no emissive flat-panel display technology has gone before . [and also that in 2025, OLED could be about where LCD was in 2006]
> 
> LGE has 'attracted followers' to develop and market OLED TVs based on WOLED panels manufactured by LGD (especially this year, with Sony and Philips). The true 'point of no return' on TV technology displacement will be when LGD 'attracts followers' to invest in WOLED TV-panel production lines. And this will also provide an acceleration on market share gains of WOLED since LG will no longer be solely responsible for making the enormous capital investments needed to supply ever-increasing production volumes to this voracious market.


Couple of notes:

1) Your analysis of sizes in the other post was really outstanding. I'd pick a few nits, for example, Sharp more or less invented the practical 70-inch display. They could set standards. And the 8-up 60-inch was seen as an amazing competitive weapon in the development of the fab. 

2) It's not clear to me (but I'm sure it's clear to LG) whether they need to offer 55/60/65/70 to hit all their sales goals over the next 5 years. They clear _do not_ over the next 2 years, but things will get more complex after that because with bigger volume goals -- while still being able to only play in expensive price bands -- come bigger problems. I should clarify that "70" in this case could be replaced by 72 just fine, those are interchangeable sizes at retail even though a few percent of sales would be lost to cabinet sizes where the larger one wouldn't fit. Anyway, I'd lay a relatively decent wager we'll see a 60 in the mix.

3) There is still no meaningful market at 75+. LG can pick whatever size (or two) it wants there. It will sell a few. They are well served by optimizing for cost but it still seems like a few years before they even bother to try to compete on price.

4) If you look at the graph, you'll see LCD fully displacing CRT (and most of plasma) in a decade. Now you may be asking, *Why can't OLED replace LCD that fast*? The answer is simple and complex

* When flat panels were ascendant, they were super compelling vs. box TVs. There was going to be a one-time, replace everything cycle. You'll note the TV market actually grew during that cycle. It happened to coincide with the HD cycle which also fueled the one-time, replace everything cycle. You couldn't deliver a *big* HD picture on CRT because you couldn't make a big CRT.

* When LCD became viable (thanks to the magic LC sputtering innovation), everyone decided to invest nearly simultaneously. That led to three separate and critical phenomena:

i) There was overcapacity almost overnight that persisted for years to come.

ii) There was an amazing push to drive learning curve effects and scale economics.

iii) There was a huge market for suppliers to make LCD-making equipment which drove down the prices of said equipment and drove innovation there.

* This is not being repeated in OLED. There is only one primary manufacturer at this time. It is moving slowly. No longer glacially, but slowly. 

* The 25% number was less a prediction than sort of a guesstimate at what might be possible 8 years from now. Consider that it's fully 3 years before there ie even _one_ plant to complement LG's existing production capacity. And the existing capacity is


----------



## Mr. Hookup

Frankly, i DISAGREE WITH MUCH OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID HERE IN REGARD TO OLED TV. I don't honestly care about OLED for Cell phones & gaming screens. I also don't care about OLED's up to 40" displays. I'm looking at OLED for 60" & GREATER. the ADVANTAGES OF OLED OVER LCD/ LED Tv's is HUGE. Infinite Contrast Ratio. Deep dark siky Black levels. The widest viewing angle out there. Period. No crutches needed like Edge lighting/ Backlighting nonsense. The nature of OLED means each & every pixel is individually lit anywhere from 0 to 100. 
The pricing on LCD/ LED TV's has dropped and will continue to drop in the face of OLED. Here is what is holding OLED back: 1. Prices are considerably higher. 2. It is emminent that very soon, other manufacturer's such as Panasonic is coming out with full size flatscreens. Also, about 5 other manufacturer's such as TCL, Hisense are very close. Remember, the TV names have changed dramatically in the last few years. No more Pioneer, Mitsubishi, Sanyo, Hitachi, Sharp, etc. As they enter the market place, LCD's/ LED's will continue to plummet.
In terms of Samsung, IMHO, is stubbornly holding onto their SUHD sets. I believe is a mistake. It just doesn't hold a candle to OLED, yet their prices are high. I, in general do not like the direction that Sony goes in. When JVC came out with their LCOS/ DILA Projectors, it was a game changer. However, Sony, who poses to be the first company to lead in technology. Later on, Sony released "SXRD". their version of LCOS. Their's had to be called something else, but not LCOS or DILA; however that is what it was. Sony has not jumped into OLED TV's ( in terms of large screens). If you want an inexpensive TV, stick with LCD/ LED. On the other hand, if you want the best, go for OLED.


----------



## GregLee

Mr. Hookup said:


> The pricing on LCD/ LED TV's has dropped and will continue to drop in the face of OLED.
> 
> In terms of Samsung, IMHO, is stubbornly holding onto their SUHD sets. I believe is a mistake. It just doesn't hold a candle to OLED, yet their prices are high.


LED prices keep plummeting higher.


----------



## Mr. Hookup

GregLee said:


> LED prices keep plummeting higher.


Greg: I can't speak for TV prices in Hawaii, but where I live, prices on LCD/ LED are much lower priced then OLED. Right now, around here, LG is the only manufacturer of large OLEDs right now.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Couple of notes:
> 
> 1) Your analysis of sizes in the other post was really outstanding. I'd pick a few nits, for example, Sharp more or less invented the practical 70-inch display. They could set standards. And the 8-up 60-inch was seen as an amazing competitive weapon in the development of the fab.
> 
> 2) It's not clear to me (but I'm sure it's clear to LG) whether they need to offer 55/60/65/70 to hit all their sales goals over the next 5 years. They clear _do not_ over the next 2 years, but things will get more complex after that because with bigger volume goals -- while still being able to only play in expensive price bands -- come bigger problems. I should clarify that "70" in this case could be replaced by 72 just fine, those are interchangeable sizes at retail even though a few percent of sales would be lost to cabinet sizes where the larger one wouldn't fit. Anyway, I'd lay a relatively decent wager we'll see a 60 in the mix.


It's possible LG picks an identical substrate use to Sharp/Sakai that optimizes 60" and 70" and modest expense to 65", but I doubt it.

More likely to be me that they choose one of the substrate sizes that maximizes the efficiency at 65", since that seems to be the emerging next 'sweet-size' in the market (55" being the first).

A substrate for 6-up 65" would be roughly equivalent to the current 8.5G substrates at 55" and 77", so doesn't buy LG much in the way of diversity. The super-efficient 18-up display such a substrate could support is 37" - pretty small and seemingly pretty distant from today's OLED market.

The larger substrate designed for 8-up 65" I already mentioned would also be optimally efficient for 73" as well as 18-up is 43".

So LG would get 49", 55"' and 77" off of their existing 8.5G lines and they would get 43", 65", and 73" off of their new 10G line.

60" could be produced - they just woukdn't be any less expensive to manufacture than 65"... (meaning 128% the cost of a 55" panel).

And by the way, in terms of cabinet sizes, since most 70" LCDs had large bezels surrounding the screen and OLEDs have next to none, a 72" or 73" OLED probably fits most 70" cabinets...



> 3) There is still no meaningful market at 75+. LG can pick whatever size (or two) it wants there. It will sell a few. They are well served by optimizing for cost but it still seems like a few years before they even bother to try to compete on price.


Agreed. It's a showpiece / bragging-rights size but will not be a priority before yields approach LCD levels or LG begins facing an overcapacity problem (which doesn't look like a potential problem for about as long out as we can see from today ) 



> 4) If you look at the graph, you'll see LCD fully displacing CRT (and most of plasma) in a decade. Now you may be asking, *Why can't OLED replace LCD that fast*? The answer is simple and complex
> 
> * When flat panels were ascendant, they were super compelling vs. box TVs. There was going to be a one-time, replace everything cycle. You'll note the TV market actually grew during that cycle. It happened to coincide with the HD cycle which also fueled the one-time, replace everything cycle. You couldn't deliver a *big* HD picture on CRT because you couldn't make a big CRT.
> 
> * When LCD became viable (thanks to the magic LC sputtering innovation), everyone decided to invest nearly simultaneously. That led to three separate and critical phenomena:
> 
> i) There was overcapacity almost overnight that persisted for years to come.
> 
> ii) There was an amazing push to drive learning curve effects and scale economics.
> 
> iii) There was a huge market for suppliers to make LCD-making equipment which drove down the prices of said equipment and drove innovation there.
> 
> * This is not being repeated in OLED. There is only one primary manufacturer at this time. It is moving slowly. No longer glacially, but slowly.
> 
> * The 25% number was less a prediction than sort of a guesstimate at what might be possible 8 years from now. Consider that it's fully 3 years before there ie even _one_ plant to complement LG's existing production capacity. And the existing capacity is


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> i) There was overcapacity almost overnight that persisted for years to come.


There is a decent chance that we will get that in mobile OLED's where the Chinese are throwing money at the sector in the hope of catching Samsung. Combine that with Apple likely 2nd sourcing their requirements to non-Chinese vendors and you have the recipe for massive oversupply. The hope would be that the technical skills that the Chinese learn in mobile will allow them to jump start their television efforts. The backplanes are different but deposition is actually easier for televisions.

The problem is that this takes time. Samsung is still the single company that could dramatically increase OLED capacity in the near-term but they are stuck in their QLED wilderness. I doubt that they are going to change to OLED's on a dime though maybe their high-end sales in 2017 will be disastrous enough to give them some 2nd thoughts on their current path. Regardless of image quality, the initial prices for QLED's are going to make them a nearly impossible sell. They really need LCD panel prices to fall substantially, but I am not sure that happens in 2017.

LG Display will continue ramping their own capacity but it is hard to see substantial capacity from a 2nd source before 2020.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> There is a decent chance that we will get that in mobile OLED's where the Chinese are throwing money at the sector in the hope of catching Samsung. Combine that with Apple likely 2nd sourcing their requirements to non-Chinese vendors and you have the recipe for massive oversupply. The hope would be that the technical skills that the Chinese learn in mobile will allow them to jump start their television efforts. The backplanes are different but deposition is actually easier for televisions.
> 
> The problem is that this takes time. Samsung is still the single company that could dramatically increase OLED capacity in the near-term but they are stuck in their QLED wilderness. I doubt that they are going to change to OLED's on a dime though maybe their high-end sales in 2017 will be disastrous enough to give them some 2nd thoughts on their current path. Regardless of image quality, the initial prices for QLED's are going to make them a nearly impossible sell. They really need LCD panel prices to fall substantially, but I am not sure that happens in 2017.


Seems as though Samsung remains committed to RGB emissive technologies, so to me, it's less about Samsung being lost in the QLED wilderness than it is about them being lost in the patterned emitters' wilderness. The manufacturing differences between WOLED and RGB OLED are more significant than the differences between RGB OLED and RGB QD-LED.

Samsung's entire 'QLED' initiative seems to be a bet that patterning of emitters, either in the form of photoresist + photolithography, or in the form of printing, will industrialize quickly enough to offer a competetive alternative to WOLED before LG's technology has established dominance in large-screen displays.

And interestingly, one of the chief benefits of patterned QD-LED over WOLED would be higher brightess and greater 'color-volume,' so there is a rational strategy behind Samsung's marketing campaign to establish a value proposition for those characteristics now in advance of having true emissive technology to deliver...



> LG Display will continue ramping their own capacity but it is hard to see substantial capacity from a 2nd source before 2020.


LG's announced plans including 10G P10 probably give them the capacity to get close to 10M WOLED panels annually by 2020 (and more if they decide to get into the 40-49" market ).

The lead-time for conversion of an 8G LCD line to WOLED seems to be about 18 months, so if any partners get announced this year, it's still possible for a second source to get established before 2020, but that partnership agreement would need to come together in 2017.

A second source starting from a cold start and without support/licensing of WOLED from LG seems like a far riskier/more-uncertain development, but I'm not aware of the patent expiration and how realistic of an option that might be.

In terms of partners LG would be comfortable licensing to, Sharp seemed like an interesting possibility, but the involvement of Foxconn makes that seem less likely now.

Regionally, LG could license into Japan, Taiwan, or China and with Sony, Panasonic, and now Toshiba all entering the OLED TV market, a viable Japan option appears to be the most attractive option if there is one...

But to the extent Sony could have influence in what steps might be next, it's likely they are going to want to see how 2017 plays out before making any commitments.

This is my long-winded way of saying that I think you're right, hard to see substantial WOLED capacity from a second source before 2020 .


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> It's possible LG picks an identical substrate use to Sharp/Sakai that optimizes 60" and 70" and modest expense to 65", but I doubt it.
> 
> More likely to be me that they choose one of the substrate sizes that maximizes the efficiency at 65", since that seems to be the emerging next 'sweet-size' in the market (55" being the first)....
> 
> The larger substrate designed for 8-up 65" I already mentioned would also be optimally efficient for 73" as well as 18-up is 43".
> 
> So LG would get 49", 55"' and 77" off of their existing 8.5G lines and they would get 43", 65", and 73" off of their new 10G line.....
> And by the way, in terms of cabinet sizes, since most 70" LCDs had large bezels surrounding the screen and OLEDs have next to none, a 72" or 73" OLED probably fits most 70" cabinets...


43/49/55/65/72 isn't a bad lineup. It's not a great one because of that 10-inch gap in the middle though. They might be able to make it work by essentially going bezel-less on those 65s and 72s. I should be clear I don't think your theory is wrong, but I do think it's going to be challenging to have that nice clean set of 6-inch gaps and basically not have a 60/61-inch display in there. 

Also, I think there is no magic at 77. I wouldn't be surprised to see it replaced even though it's neatly 6 inches above the 72. I expect 80. I've wonder honestly if the size wasn't partly picked because of rigidity issues with the physical backplanes. The flexi-back models suggest that's not a limiting factor anymore


> Agree with everything you gave stated here. The only nuance to add is that, the flip side to LG facing a huge capacity of cost-competetive and fully-depreciated LCD manufacturing capacity is that that same capacity offers the possibility of acceleration (both in terms of time and magnitude) if/when conversions of that existing LCD capacity begin to happen...


Right, but those aren't easy and are currently limited to LG.



slacker711 said:


> There is a decent chance that we will get that in mobile OLED's where the Chinese are throwing money at the sector in the hope of catching Samsung. Combine that with Apple likely 2nd sourcing their requirements to non-Chinese vendors and you have the recipe for massive oversupply. The hope would be that the technical skills that the Chinese learn in mobile will allow them to jump start their television efforts. The backplanes are different but deposition is actually easier for televisions.


Yes, I've wondered about this too. 


> The problem is that this takes time. Samsung is still the single company that could dramatically increase OLED capacity in the near-term but they are stuck in their QLED wilderness. I doubt that they are going to change to OLED's on a dime though maybe their high-end sales in 2017 will be disastrous enough to give them some 2nd thoughts on their current path. Regardless of image quality, the initial prices for QLED's are going to make them a nearly impossible sell. They really need LCD panel prices to fall substantially, but I am not sure that happens in 2017.


I'm fairly sure it doesn't happen in 2017. But it does seem like 2018 could be carnage for the waning hopes of selling $3000+ LCDs. Maybe things move then?


> LG Display will continue ramping their own capacity but it is hard to see substantial capacity from a 2nd source before 2020.





fafrd said:


> Regionally, LG could license into Japan, Taiwan, or China and with Sony, Panasonic, and now Toshiba all entering the OLED TV market, a viable Japan option appears to be the most attractive option if there is one...
> 
> But to the extent Sony could have influence in what steps might be next, it's likely they are going to want to see how 2017 plays out before making any commitments.
> 
> This is my long-winded way of saying that I think you're right, hard to see substantial WOLED capacity from a second source before 2020 .


Sony has never manufactured a flat panel for consumers. It won't be them. But at some point LG will want a licensee more than a lead. Maybe that point is when it's going to get a volume Chinese knock off that it will have to fight in a patent suit anyway?


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> 43/49/55/65/72 isn't a bad lineup. It's not a great one because of that 10-inch gap in the middle though. They might be able to make it work by essentially going bezel-less on those 65s and 72s. I should be clear I don't think your theory is wrong, but I do think it's going to be challenging to have that nice clean set of 6-inch gaps and basically not have a 60/61-inch display in there.


I'm not sure which Gen LCD fabs are best for putting out 60" LCD panels (other than Sakai ), but perhaps LG can convert one of those .

LG does offer IPS TVs in 60": http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-60UF7700-4k-uhd-led-tv, so either they manufacture those on Gen 8.5 substrates or some older generation. If 60" proves important for the development of the OLED TV market, I'm sure LG knows how to manage it - cost will probably just be less optimized than it is for the other sizes.

Planning a new fab to optimize 60" and 70" just seems like the wrong move given where the market is and where it seems to be going. Checking Amazon or Best Buy, there are way more (3-4 times) 65" TVs than 60" TVs. So a 6-up or 8-up substrate for 65" just seems like it will position LG to drive forward the advantage they have established for themselves at that critical size in the premium / large-screen TV market.

6-up at 65 is also very efficient at 55" (8-up), but so what - the existing 8.5G lines are already optimized for 55", so that overlap buy them almost nothing (a bit of manufacturing flexibility).

Looking 7-10 years out, an optimized 70"+ panel just seems like a wiser investment for the future. And the fact that that investment also provides an optimally-efficient 43" panel is just icing on the cake.



> Also, I think there is no magic at 77. I wouldn't be surprised to see it replaced even though it's neatly 6 inches above the 72. I expect 80. *I've wonder honestly if the size wasn't partly picked because of rigidity issues with the physical backplanes. *The flexi-back models suggest that's not a limiting factor anymore


If you do the math on a 6-up 65" substrate, once you discover that the largest size for 3-up layout is exactly 77", you understand what drove LG to choose that size. It cannot be a coincidence...

Between abandoning 77" in favor of 80" or keeping 77" as is and introducing 85" beyond it, I doubt we see any decisions made before P10 is up and running...

And as I said in my earlier post, the 8-up 65" substrate can fit 3-up all the way to 87"... (more icing on the cake).




> I'm fairly sure it doesn't happen in 2017. But it does seem like 2018 could be carnage for the waning hopes of selling $3000+ LCDs. Maybe things move then?


The LCD market had an easy way to differentiate picture quality to justify price gaps that OLED doesn't share. There are so many 'tricks' used to improve LCD, almost all involving incremental cost, that a good, better, best picture quality lineup was justified.

With OLED, raw picture quality is driven by the panel. Premium brands like Panasonic can differentiate with capability such as 3D-LUT and Sony can differentiate with better processing for OTA and cable compressed sources, but the fundamentals of picture-quality are far more 'locked-in' at the panel level than they are in LED/LCD.

So even if there are higher-priced OLED TVs with better CMS, better processing, and better sound (the LG product lineup strategy), the entry-level OLEDs will create much more of a price ceiling than entry-level LED/LCDs ever could.

I'm pretty confident LG's entry-level OLEDs will be available at close to half of introductory MSRP again this November as they were last year, which will mean a 65C7P should be widely available at prices approaching $2000 before the end of the year.

It's really hard to see how that doesn't pull the wool out from under the $3000+ 65" LCD TV market.

70" and above will remain a strong market for LED/LCD at least until 2019 when P10 should be up and running, but 65" TVs costing north of $3000 will probably be a luxury item for the deep-pocketed by next year (meaning volumes will be much lower).

Who knows where Samsung is headed and how long they are going to stay their QLED course. They'll still sell a huge number of 65" LED/LCD TVs this year, just not their flagships costing $3000+ for 65". Whatever 65" model sells for $1500 or less, like the 65KS8000 last year, should enjoy a high volume of sales, but it's hard to see the QLED/LCD 65" Flagships selling at a premium to LG's entry-level 65C7P OLED (just as the 65KS9800 greatly undersold the 65B/C6P last year ).

Perhaps 2017 amounts to an investment in marketing with hopes of payoff in 2018 with some real technology (QDCF/E-LCD), but that seems technologically optimistic and once P10 starts to ramp, it feels like Samsung's window starts closing...




> Sony has never manufactured a flat panel for consumers. It won't be them. But at some point LG will want a licensee more than a lead. Maybe that point is when it's going to get a volume Chinese knock off that it will have to fight in a patent suit anyway?


Yeah, Sony as part of a syndicate, perhaps, but never alone. Sharp would have been the most natural choice for Japan but they are now Chinese-owned.

Panasonic once produced flat panels, but conversion of old plasma lines to WOLED seems like a non-starter.

Japan Display has some manufacturing but it seems to be pretty niche/fringe rather than consumer, and anyway, they already have their own OLED technology.

If there are not any attractive/sensible licensing partners left in Japan, the next obvious choice would probably be Taiwan where perhaps the looming bloodbath gets a big panel supplier like AUO motivated...

It's a near-certainty that someone will eventually license from LG - it just seems unlikely before P10 has successfully come online and another few years of success are under WOLED TV's belt .


----------



## fafrd

Just ran into this from last June: http://www.displaysupplychain.com/b...ft-lcd-fabs-taiwan-tft-lcd-suppliers-upgraded

A lot of detail about Samsung's LCD capacity and plans as well as Panasonic. Short version is that Samsung is in the process of selling off all LCD TC manufacturing plants (meaning equipment) save one, which has 'only' 400K 8.5G sheet capacity.

Panasonic also has an 8.5G LCD fab that they are mothballing down to 10K sheet/month capacity.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> Also, I think there is no magic at 77. I wouldn't be surprised to see it replaced even though it's neatly 6 inches above the 72. I expect 80. I've wonder honestly if the size wasn't partly picked because of rigidity issues with the physical backplanes. The flexi-back models suggest that's not a limiting factor anymore


Rogo, does the ability to _cut_ a 77" substrate translate directly to a 77" substrate that can be turned into a 77" display? Or do they need to cut, say 79".

IOW, is it possible that there needs to be a margin for a machine to "hold", or otherwise allow the vapor-dep to remain perfectly level? I'm [sort of] wondering if deposits that do a "full bleed" to the edge produce edge effects.


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Rogo, does the ability to _cut_ a 77" substrate translate directly to a 77" substrate that can be turned into a 77" display? Or do they need to cut, say 79".
> 
> IOW, is it possible that there needs to be a margin for a machine to "hold", or otherwise allow the vapor-dep to remain perfectly level? I'm [sort of] wondering if deposits that do a "full bleed" to the edge produce edge effects.


There is almost certainly some inter panel gap, but it is probably pretty small. There is also likely some modest edge keep-out.

The current 8.5G substrates have a 'long' dimension of 2500mm and two 55" panels laid-up side-by-side take up 2436mm with no gap.

My 65C6P has about 1/4" or 6mm between the outermost pixels and the end of the cover glass/coating, but it is impossible for me to say whether the underlying OLED panel continues to that extent or not.

Adding 6mm surrounding each 55" OLED would take the above side-by-side dimension up to 2460mm, 98% of the substrate dimension...

It is unlikely that the OLED panel's are 'trimmed' in a second step after being cut from each other, if that was your question. It is almost certainly a 'single' cut operation where an 8.5G substrate is cut 3 times to free 6 55" panels, though it is possible there is an additional 4 trimming cuts applied to the outermost edges first.


----------



## Wizziwig

Apple And Samsung Sign A Deal Worth $4.3B For 160 Million OLED Panels.


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> There is almost certainly some inter panel gap, but it is probably pretty small. There is also likely some modest edge keep-out.
> 
> The current 8.5G substrates have a 'long' dimension of 2500mm and two 55" panels laid-up side-by-side take up 2436mm with no gap.
> 
> My 65C6P has about 1/4" or 6mm between the outermost pixels and the end of the cover glass/coating, but it is impossible for me to say whether the underlying OLED panel continues to that extent or not.
> 
> Adding 6mm surrounding each 55" OLED would take the above side-by-side dimension up to 2460mm, 98% of the substrate dimension...
> 
> It is unlikely that the OLED panel's are 'trimmed' in a second step after being cut from each other, if that was your question. It is almost certainly a 'single' cut operation where an 8.5G substrate is cut 3 times to free 6 55" panels, though it is possible there is an additional 4 trimming cuts applied to the outermost edges first.


Sort of. My question had to do with Rogo's suggestion that there might not be anything magical about the choice of 77".

The problem was: I don't know what 77" diagonal translates to in terms of the required initial cut. Is it 79", etc., etc. (IOW, is the 79" the magical number). That changes the "I can get this, that, and the other sizes cut from a 10G" formula a bit.

However, you're right in that if there _were _a secondary trimming, then it makes me wonder if there were a considerable amount of throw-away.


----------



## tgm1024

Wizziwig said:


> Apple And Samsung Sign A Deal Worth $4.3B For 160 Million OLED Panels.


Wow, great find. Guess they patched things up for Valentine's day.

Can't go wrong with Samsung phone OLED's. Been a fan of mine for quite some time now.


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Sort of. My question had to do with Rogo's suggestion that there might not be anything magical about the choice of 77".


I think Rogo was suspecting some upper limit associated with mechanical support of the panel, not anything related to manufacturing.

77" is a very strange size because those 8.5G substrates can only hold 2-up of any panel larger than 65" all the way up to 98" maximum.

But 2 65" OLEDs side-by-side have a width of 2878mm and a stack of three 77" OLEDs are 2877mm, and that cannot be coincidence.

If LG was planning for a P10 fab with 9.5G substrates holding 3x2 65" OLEDs, the maximum panel size that would fit 3-up is exactly 77". That has got to be the reason they chose that strange size.

And the result will be that, it they decide to go with a larger 10G substrate holding 4x2 65" panels, while they would still fit 3 77" panels, that's no longer an especially efficient size. 73" panels would fit 6-to-a-substrate, so would cost half as much as 77" panels. And the largest panel that fits 3-to-a-substrate is 87", so 77" or 87" would have equivalent panel cost.

Finally, since these 10G substrates would cost ~170% of the current 8.5G substrates to manufacture, 3 77" OLEDs on a 10G substrate would actually cost ~13% more than 2 77" OLEDs on the current 8.5G substrate.

So while there was something a bit 'magical' about LG's initia choice of 77" (the largest panel they could manufacture 3-up on the originally-planned 9.5G substrate), that magic gets lost in the shuffle if they elect to go for a 10G substrate...



> The problem was: I don't know what 77" diagonal translates to in terms of the required initial cut. Is it 79", etc., etc. (IOW, is the 79" the magical number). That changes the "I can get this, that, and the other sizes cut from a 10G" formula a bit.


If you are asking about required inter-panel spacing or edge-spacing, I don't know them either and all of my calculations are based on 0mm spacing but then rounded up. If there is dead-space required, am almost certain that is is closer to 1/4" than 1", both because we know the dimensions of the 8.5G substrates and the 3x2 layout of 55" and 3x1 layout of 65" OLED panels that it holds, as well as inspecting the small gap between edge of glass and first pixels on my 65C6P (~1/4").



> However, you're right in that if there _were _a secondary trimming, then it makes me wonder if there were a considerable amount of throw-away.


The 8.5G substrates are 2200x2500mm.

Each 55" panel is 1218 x 685mm, so 2-across x 3 high requires 2436 x 2055mm. That translates to 91% efficiency.

Assume a surround of 6mm on all sides plus an additional 6mm for the substrate edge and efficiency increases to 95% (2473x2103mm).

For the optimal sizes (55" and 49" on 8.5G), the waste is very small.

The efficiency of manufacturing 3 65" or 2 77" panels on 8.5G substrates is far worse - about 67% 

My gut feeling is that 55" and 65" are sizes LG is committed to, while 77" was a speculative size determined by a manufacturing roadmap that may be changing (and I suspect this is probably one of the reasons LG has left 77" pricing as high as it is).


----------



## fafrd

Found this from a few weeks ago: http://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/105g-fab-capacityramp-limited-by-nikons-lens-capacity

Another source talking about LG/Paju/P10 being 10.5G...

Also indicates 30K substrate/month OLED capacity out of 90K substrate/month total capacity.

Attached is the table of 10.5G/11G Fabs under construction.

The 4 LCD fabs have a combined max capacity in excess of 500K 10.5G panels per month, each of which can generate 6 75", 8 65", or 18 43" panels.

There is a bloodbath coming in 2020 and 65" TVs are going to get much less expensive. 75" is the new 55"...

Nikon's ability to deliver 10.5G lithography equipment to all of these projects will apparently be a bottleneck on how quickly they can all come on-line. BOE and TCL have placed POs, the others including LG not yet. LG has made statements about finalizing decision on P10 this June, and placement of appropriate POs is likely to follow soon after that.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> I think Rogo was suspecting some upper limit associated with mechanical support of the panel, not anything related to manufacturing.
> 
> 77" is a very strange size because those 8.5G substrates can only hold 2-up of any panel larger than 65" all the way up to 98" maximum.


Yes, that 77 had no particular reason to exist given 98 was as efficient but that 77 might have been a good, practical choice given LG likely had issues (initially) building rigid enough, super thin TVs. 


> But 2 65" OLEDs side-by-side have a width of 2878mm and a stack of three 77" OLEDs are 2877mm, and that cannot be coincidence.
> 
> If LG was planning for a P10 fab with 9.5G substrates holding 3x2 65" OLEDs, the maximum panel size that would fit 3-up is exactly 77". That has got to be the reason they chose that strange size.


I buy this to a point. They could always have changed the size at P10. 


> So while there was something a bit 'magical' about LG's initia choice of 77" (the largest panel they could manufacture 3-up on the originally-planned 9.5G substrate), that magic gets lost in the shuffle if they elect to go for a 10G substrate...


And given 10G always had to be a maybe....


> If you are asking about required inter-panel spacing or edge-spacing, I don't know them either and all of my calculations are based on 0mm spacing but then rounded up. If there is dead-space required, am almost certain that is is closer to 1/4" than 1", both because we know the dimensions of the 8.5G substrates and the 3x2 layout of 55" and 3x1 layout of 65" OLED panels that it holds, as well as inspecting the small gap between edge of glass and first pixels on my 64C6P (~1/4").
> 
> However, you're right in that if there _were _a secondary trimming, then it makes me wonder if there were a considerable amount of throw-away.


You need very little between panels. And you cut once, not twice.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Yes, that 77 had no particular reason to exist given 98 was as efficient but that 77 might have been a good, practical choice given LG likely had issues (initially) building rigid enough, super thin TVs.
> 
> 
> I buy this to a point. They could always have changed the size at P10.
> 
> 
> And given 10G always had to be a maybe....
> 
> 
> You need very little between panels. And you cut once, not twice.


In addition to the article I posted earlier, I found this referring to the 4 10.5G or 11G LCD fabs being constructed in China: http://www.odmlcd.com/Hot News/138.htm

What's confusing is that I have seen identical substrate size referred to as both 10.5G and 11G in the article:

"China-based BOE Technology is constructing a *10.5G TFT-LCD factory* with monthly production capacity of 120,000 *2,940mm by 3,370mm glass substrates* that will start production in the first half of 2018, the sources said."

"China Star Optoelectronics Technology will soon start construction of an *11G TFT-LCD factory* with monthly production capacity of 60,000 *2,940mm by 3,370mm glass substrates* in the first phase and of 140,000 substrates eventually, and plans to kick off production in the first half of 2019."

so my first question is whether anyone understands the difference between 10.5G and 11G - are they different substrate sizes or not?

And my second question is whether, if the 4 China LCD fabs are all converging on the same size 2940mm X 3370mm substrates, would that lead LG to adopt a similar substrate size if it decides to go 10G in P10?

It seems as though there is 10.5G equipment in the pipeline (Nikon, etc...) and that the display/equipment industry is converging on that as the next 'standard' substrate/equipment standard following 8.5G...

If all that 10.5G equipment can handle smaller size substrates down to 9.5G or whatever, LG would be free to choose a smaller sheet size, but if not, that's an awful lot of custom one-off equipment to manage.

And if they pay for all that 10.5G equipment but only use it with smaller-size 95G substrates, that will mean higher amortization costs per panel (and slightly lower production costs).

These larger 105G substrates the 4 LCD factories are using are 180% the size of the current 8.5G substrates and will just barely miss holding 6 77" OLEDs.

But they will hold 6 76" OLEDs (assuming very little between panels) and those 76" OLED panels would cost less that 60% of the cost of the current 2-up 8.5G 77" panels...

And savings on the 65" OLEDs would be less than 70% of the current 3-up 8.5G cost.

If the entire future of the LCD industry is moving toward these 10.5G Substrates, it's hard for me to see how LG would want to be the odd man out.


----------



## rogo

I'm sure the 10.5G vs. 11G thing is just terminology. A distinction without a difference.

If lots of adoption is occurring around a particular substrate size, it would of course behoove LG to follow suit. And there is no harm in shifting to 76 inches from 77 if that's the inexpensive size. I mean this should be obvious stuff, but I'm sort of nodding that, "Yes, yes, you want to cut all your cost intelligently and when you're investing billions in a multi-year deal, you want to get this right."

It will cost LG nothing commercially to shift those 77s down to 76 or even 75.

Being great at 65 is obviously valuable.

All of this sounds logically.

If they move away from what's logical and _don't_ get the best cost structure some other way, they will regret it.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I'm sure the 10.5G vs. 11G thing is just terminology. A distinction without a difference.
> 
> If lots of adoption is occurring around a particular substrate size, it would of course behoove LG to follow suit. And there is no harm in shifting to 76 inches from 77 if that's the inexpensive size. I mean this should be obvious stuff, but I'm sort of nodding that, "Yes, yes, you want to cut all your cost intelligently and when you're investing billions in a multi-year deal, you want to get this right."
> 
> It will cost LG nothing commercially to shift those 77s down to 76 or even 75.
> 
> Being great at 65 is obviously valuable.
> 
> All of this sounds logically.
> 
> If they move away from what's logical and _don't_ get the best cost structure some other way, they will regret it.


Happy to confirm there is nothing I am missing in all this  (especially that there is not some subtle difference between 10.5G and 11G - it's all about substrate size).

If the LCD industry is converging on 3370mm X 2940mm as the next-gen substrate size, the plus is it will reduce risk and cost for LG to follow that trend, and the minus is that they may need to 'get in line' and could be facing schedule delays due to bottlenecks in 10.5G equipment production...

Also, the fact that it appears that pretty much the entire LCD industry is entering thus upgrade cycle for new 10.5G fabs means that the drawback OLED TV has in terms of increased amortization should be effectively neutralized.

At 55" (and eventually 49"), LG's investments in OLED capacity lag the LCD industry and so they have a handicap in terms of amortization.

But at 65" and 75-76" OLED should be roughly at parity and it comes down to material costs (economies of scale) and yield. Those 10.5G fabs are also going to be very efficient at 43" panels as well, when the time comes, but that will probably not be the first priority, at least for LG OLED...

The stakes also go up significantly for Samsung's gambit on true electro-emissive QLEDs - LG managed to enter the OLED TV market successfully partly because they were able to convert existing 8.5G fabs which were the most advanced mainstream generation.

By 2020, Samsung will have difficulty following the same strategy. If they convert an 8.5G LCD fab, they can be semi-competetive at 55", but they are going to be horribly uncompetitive at 65" and above.

And investing in a new 10.5G fab (or converting a new 10.5G LCD fab) before succeeding to prove market acceptance and getting through the early-phase growing pains seems imprudent.

It's gonna be an interesting next 5 years...


----------



## boe

Does the 8G or 10G fabrication impact whether the screen will be 10bit or 12 bit? Sorry if this is an extremely dumb question but I'd like to know. I heard Dolby Vision is better on a 12 bit screen so I'm curious as to when I'll be able to get a 12bit screen.


----------



## fafrd

boe said:


> [B{Does the 8G or 10G fabrication impact whether the screen will be 10bit or 12 bit? [/B] Sorry if this is an extremely dumb question but I'd like to know.


No.



> I heard Dolby Vision is better on a 12 bit screen so I'm curious as to when I'll be able to get a 12bit screen.


Dolby Vision delivers HDR video in 12-bit resolution, compared to HDR10 which delivers HDR in 10-bit video (hence the name ).

There is so much processing performed between video input and panel display that there is really no need for a true 12-bit panel to render 12-bit video optimally. Banding is the chief concern when panel bit-depth is insufficient and true 10-bit panels will generally not exhibit any banding.

Many 10-bit panels are actually 8 'true' bits with 2 additional bits delivered through FRC (Frame-rare-control, meaning temporal dithering).

As far as OLEDs go (since this is the OLED Thread ), current-generation OLEDs do not even deliver a full 8-bits near-black, let alone 10 bits.

Hopefully this is an area LG makes progress on with their next-generation 2018 panel, but in the meantime, my advice to you is '10-bits in the hand is worth 12-bits in the bush'


----------



## boe

fafrd said:


> No.
> 
> 
> Hopefully this is an area LG makes progress on with their next-generation 2018 panel, but in the meantime, my advice to you is '10-bits in the hand is worth 12-bits in the bush'



Thanks for all the info. I still have much too learn. I currently have a nice 4K TV but I really want something bigger. So I can pretend to be patient as the price goes down and the tech gets better. I don't think I could make it much more than 2 years but I can do 1 more year. I'd love an 85" OLED but I can live with 77" if the prices drop enough in the next 2 years.


----------



## slacker711

This is going to be an important dynamic going forward. I doubt that Samsung Electronics was expecting to price their QLED displays quite as high as they did. Do they proceed with their 7-2 shutdown or wait until LCD panel prices come down?

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20170217VL200.html






> OLED smartphones and the TV pricing connection
> 
> Michael McManus, DIGITIMES, Taipei [Friday 17 February 2017]
> One side effect of the expected craze for AMOLED panels in high-end smartphones this year is that LCD TV prices may not drop as quickly as they have in the past.
> 
> A key recent trend in the global display market has been Samsung Display's decision to transform a significant portion of its L7-1 LCD production line into an AMOLED panel line for producing smartphone panels. This led to tight supply of TV panels in the second half of 2016, which was compounded by Foxconn's decision to not have Sharp provide TV panels to Samsung.
> 
> *According to data from Digitimes Research, the average selling price of 42-inch TV panels increased 54% in the second half of 2016. Digitimes Research believes pricing will continue to rise slightly in the first quarter of 2017 before starting to slowly drop in the second half of the year.
> *
> However, Digitimes Research noted that consumers should not worry about the average TV price rising dramatically. TV vendors are unwilling to increase the price of electronics products since consumers tend not to be receptive, Digitimes Research pointed out. Instead TV vendors are looking to focus on higher margin products, such as larger sized TVs or 3D TVs with their panels. One symptom of the more expensive panels though, is that pricing of those products will not drop as quickly as they have in the past.
> 
> According to data from the Digitimes Research LCD panel tracker, annual global LCD TV panel shipments dropped in 2016, falling from 268 million to 261 million.
> 
> However, TV panel pricing is expected to start falling again in 2018 as more capacity from China-based makers starts ramping up and the industry moves into oversupply.


----------



## Mr. Hookup

boe said:


> Thanks for all the info. I still have much too learn. I currently have a nice 4K TV but I really want something bigger. So I can pretend to be patient as the price goes down and the tech gets better. I don't think I could make it much more than 2 years but I can do 1 more year. I'd love an 85" OLED but I can live with 77" if the prices drop enough in the next 2 years.


W

Why not a great Video Projector (upwards of 100" and up)?


----------



## boe

Mr. Hookup said:


> W
> 
> Why not a great Video Projector (upwards of 100" and up)?



I live in a relatively small apartment.


----------



## video_analysis

And yet you want a screen larger than 80"! That is just bizarre to me. Imagine if you had to move [hope you're not on the second (or higher) floor].


----------



## irkuck

LG was promising 99" OLED two years ago, together with the magnetic wallpaper one. The magnetic wallpaper materialized this year, so the next year must be the 99" year :grin:.


----------



## boe

video_analysis said:


> And yet you want a screen larger than 80"! That is just bizarre to me. Imagine if you had to move [hope you're not on the second (or higher) floor].



I had a Mits 65" CRT RPTV - that was tough to get up the 4 flights of stairs but I did it with the help of my friends. Getting rid of it was far easier. An 80" or 85" OLED TV would be a joy to move in comparison.


----------



## video_analysis

You'd think that, but the thinness wreaks havoc on your nerves, giving the impression it could shatter at any moment! Of course, transporting it within its shipping container would mitigate that fear.


----------



## video_analysis

boe said:


> I had a Mits 65" CRT RPTV - that was tough to get up the 4 flights of stairs but I did it with the help of my friends. Getting rid of it was far easier. An 80" or 85" OLED TV would be a joy to move in comparison.


I'm almost afraid to ask, but curiosity is killing me. Given your "small" apartment, what kind of seating distance are you anticipating from your hypothetical 85" screen? I can suddenly see why you harp on motion fairly frequently, though if you have to move your neck to keep up with the action on-screen, that might make such motion concerns moot.


----------



## boe

12'


----------



## video_analysis

That should be reasonable for 4K, but it doesn't sound like your apt. is too space-constrained if you can maintain that kind of distance (I guess that's from one perpendicular wall to the other). I anticipate about 10 feet from 77". I've noticed that letterbox content looks tiny from that distance on a 65"!


----------



## irkuck

OLED printing birth forthcoming


----------



## rogo

Or, Kateeva is continuing to make money selling encapsulation technology and still has no real idea when a workable blue soluble OLED is going to be available.

One of those two.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> Or, Kateeva is continuing to make money selling encapsulation technology and still has no real idea when a workable blue soluble OLED is going to be available.
> 
> One of those two.


How would that work though?

If they're selling even small parts their technology, aren't they losing the only thing that differentiates them? Usually when I've seen technology sold off, it's centric to a patent or unpatented intellectual property and is a one-time deal. If they license it, then the buyers would be presumably buying something they themselves can't monetize without a real blue.


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> How would that work though?
> 
> If they're selling even small parts their technology, aren't they losing the only thing that differentiates them? Usually when I've seen technology sold off, it's centric to a patent or unpatented intellectual property and is a one-time deal. If they license it, then the buyers would be presumably buying something they themselves can't monetize without a real blue.


They sell encapsulation technology (via their machines) today. That doesn't mean they are printing OLEDs. 

It's my understanding, they are conducting business to sell mfrs. thin-film encapsulation technology for some time. See http://kateeva.com/press-full/katee...d-in-oled-thin-film-encapsulation-tfe-market/ for evidence.

Again, this doesn't mean anyone is printing OLEDs.


----------



## Vader1

Feels like we've been hearing about printing OLED forever... it will be a glorious day when/ if it finally has a breakthrough


----------



## philochs1

rogo said:


> Or, Kateeva is continuing to make money selling encapsulation technology and still has no real idea when a workable blue soluble OLED is going to be available.
> 
> One of those two.


We can make estimations. CYNORA just recently updated, on their Blue TADF emitter technology. 

"During the 2017 OLED Korea Conference,(Mar 8th-9th) Andreas Haldi of CYNORA presented the research result and future development direction with the topic on blue TADF emitters: material in high demand.

Andreas Haldi said that he did an in-depth analysis on the spectrum characteristic development of deep-blue TADF emitter classification and the interaction between host and guest. He revealed that the 1000nits of the deep-blue TADF emitter improved and lifetime rose to 1000 hours from 300 hours. He added that in order to resolve the emitter lifetime problem, CYNORA has begun a joint development with 'a panel company' (LGD maybe?). The aim is mass producing a *deep-blue TADF emitter for mobile and TV by (Q4) 2017.*

Andreas Haldi revealed that using the improved deep-blue TADF emitter, the production unit price and power consumption decreases and at the same time. They also make it possible to produce an improved OLED display resolution (8K) which can be used in large vacuum evaporation processing lines of main panel production companies."

Cynora is also working on the soluble Blue TADF emitter designed to work in 3D inkjet OLED printers,. After the vacuum evaporation emitters have finished development they'll focus R&D of soluble TADF emitters next. Green and Red of course are ready. Expect soluble R,G,B TADF emitters by 2018-2020. Of course there are not yet any solid announced plans for any OLED panel fabs to switch from vacuum evaporation to OLED printing. 

JOLED is releasing the first printed OLED panels, they can print their own (non-TADF) soluble R,G,B emitters, but they are only producing tablet, laptop, and medical monitor panels, consumer products in 2019.


----------



## fafrd

philochs1 said:


> We can make estimations. CYNORA just recently updated, on their Blue TADF emitter technology.
> 
> "During the 2017 OLED Korea Conference,(Mar 8th-9th) Andreas Haldi of CYNORA presented the research result and future development direction with the topic on blue TADF emitters: material in high demand.
> 
> Andreas Haldi said that he did an in-depth analysis on the spectrum characteristic development of deep-blue TADF emitter classification and the interaction between host and guest. He revealed that the 1000nits of the deep-blue TADF emitter improved and lifetime rose to 1000 hours from 300 hours. He added that in order to resolve the emitter lifetime problem, *CYNORA has begun a joint development with 'a panel company' (LGD maybe?)*. The aim is mass producing a deep-blue TADF emitter for mobile and TV by (Q4) 2017.
> 
> Andreas Haldi revealed that using the improved deep-blue TADF emitter, the production unit price and power consumption decreases and at the same time. They also make it possible to produce an improved OLED display resolution (8K) which can be used in large vacuum evaporation processing lines of main panel production companies."
> 
> Cynora is also working on the soluble Blue TADF emitter designed to work in 3D inkjet OLED printers,. After the vacuum evaporation emitters have finished development they'll focus R&D of soluble TADF emitters next. Green and Red of course are ready. Expect soluble R,G,B TADF emitters by 2018-2020. Of course there are not yet any solid announced plans for any OLED panel fabs to switch from vacuum evaporation to OLED printing.
> 
> JOLED is releasing the first printed OLED panels, they can print their own (non-TADF) soluble R,G,B emitters, but they are only producing tablet, laptop, and medical monitor panels, consumer products in 2019.


Would these Cynora Blue TADF emitter materials be compatible with LGD's YB or YBY WOLED stack? If they cannot be used in a WOLED stack and only for pure Blue OLED subpixels, unlikely to be LG...


----------



## philochs1

fafrd said:


> Would these Cynora Blue TADF emitter materials be compatible with LGD's YB or YBY WOLED stack? If they cannot be used in a WOLED stack and only for pure Blue OLED subpixels, unlikely to be LG...


 Oh, they can definitely be used in a Y,B,Y stack, I know that for a fact. Besides Cynora, there is 'Kyulux' who is also working on Blue TADF emitters, but they'll be first to commercialize yellow and green TADF emitters, while Cynora will commercialize Blue TADF emitters first. (Cynora is only concentrating their efforts on Blue TADF, till it's commercialized for both vacuum evaporation and soluble inkjet).

But on top of that, the rumor is that LGD plans to ditch Y,B,Y arranged emitters soon and upgrade to R,G,B arranged. Not for a true 'RGB OLED' at first, but the word on the street is that they'll be switching to a R,G,B combo to make each white OLED pixel, and they'll still be using color filters for the RGB sub-pixels at this stage. (Of course R,G,B combo can produce white, just as Y,B,Y can, but with superior results)... 

"Reports from China suggest that LG Display is considering changing the basic structure of its white OLED panels (WOLED) used in LGD's OLED TVs. LGD is currently using yellow and blue OLED materials to create a white OLED, but now LGD may switch to an RGB based mix. Likely, LGD will not switch to a direct-emission R,G,B structure, but rather use the R,G,B materials to create a white OLED, and remain with a color-filter based design. Switching from Y/W to R/G/B will enable LGD to achieve higher color purity - and so a larger color gamut, and should also be more efficient.

LGD's WRGB architecture - which creates 4 sub pixels using color filters (red, green, blue and non-filtered) to create a colored image from a single white OLED pixel - is less efficient and less color-pure compared to a real RGB sub-pixel architecture, but WOLED displays are much easier to produce as there's less need for subpixel patterning."

http://www.oled-info.com/reports-say-lgd-aims-change-its-woled-tv-structure-yb-rgb

Companies have managed also, to create TADF OLED emitter that can switch from red, to yellow or orange. Having a true RGB OLED, no color filters, yet having a Red sub-pixel that can switch to yellow or orange without color mixing. I can't wait for a true R,G,B emitting TADF oled but in the meantime, I'm glad LG is changing pixel structure technology to R,G,B. one step at a time.


----------



## fafrd

philochs1 said:


> Oh, they can definitely be used in a Y,B,Y stack, I know that for a fact. Besides Cynora, there is 'Kyulux' who is also working on Blue TADF emitters, but they'll be first to commercialize yellow and green TADF emitters, while Cynora will commercialize Blue TADF emitters first. (Cynora is only concentrating their efforts on Blue TADF, till it's commercialized for both vacuum evaporation and soluble inkjet).
> 
> But on top of that, the rumor is that LGD plans to ditch Y,B,Y arranged emitters soon and upgrade to R,G,B arranged. Not for a true 'RGB OLED' at first, but the word on the street is that they'll be switching to a R,G,B combo to make each white OLED pixel, and they'll still be using color filters for the RGB sub-pixels at this stage. (Of course R,G,B combo can produce white, just as Y,B,Y can, but with superior results)...
> 
> "*Reports from China suggest that LG Display is considering changing the basic structure of its white OLED panels (WOLED) used in LGD's OLED TVs. LGD is currently using yellow and blue OLED materials to create a white OLED, but now LGD may switch to an RGB based mix. *Likely, LGD will not switch to a direct-emission R,G,B structure, but rather use the R,G,B materials to create a white OLED, and remain with a color-filter based design. Switching from Y/W to R/G/B will enable LGD to achieve higher color purity - and so a larger color gamut, *and should also be more efficient."*


That's report is more than 6-months old, and who knows if there is any truth to it.

Seperating yellow into narrower red and green primaries will certainly help improve color gamut, but difficult to see how it's going to result in significantly improved efficiency - certainly nowhere near as much as thevswitch to QDCF filters could offer.



> LGD's WRGB architecture - which creates 4 sub pixels using color filters (red, green, blue and non-filtered) to create a colored image from a single white OLED pixel - is less efficient and less color-pure compared to a real RGB sub-pixel architecture, but WOLED displays are much easier to produce as there's less need for subpixel patterning."


This is in comparison to patterned RGB OLED, which has no color filters and the associated loss of efficiency their use entails.



> http://www.oled-info.com/reports-say-lgd-aims-change-its-woled-tv-structure-yb-rgb
> 
> Companies have managed also, to create TADF OLED emitter that can switch from red, to yellow or orange. Having a true RGB OLED, no color filters, yet having a Red sub-pixel that can switch to yellow or orange without color mixing. I can't wait for a true R,G,B emitting TADF oled but in the meantime, I'm glad LG is changing pixel structure technology to R,G,B. one step at a time.


Whatever 'tick' technology LG is going to introduce on their OLED panels next year, they already have it. After the bloody yield/vignetting/near-white-nonuniformity mountain LGD has climbed over the past 3 years, I expect LG to hunker down, be exceedingly conservative with changes to the underlying WOLED technology, and to assure that any changes they do introduce are well vetted and fully-ready for prime-time.

If the earlier article you referenced is accurate and Cynora hopes to have this new deep-blue TADF ready for mass-production by Q4 of tjis year, I can see LG characterizing its performance, lifetime, and reliability over the course of next year and positioning themselves for introduction of product by 2019 (except that 2019 is another 'tock' year . But unless they areready deep into that process on fully-industrialized materials today, I will be shocked to see LG take the gamble of counting on something so new and unproven for their 2018 peoduct generation.

Don't get me wrong, I expect LG will be introducing a new panel next year, I just don't believe it going to involve any technologies that are not yet fully qualified and undergoing characterization and test right now.

So either Cynora is sandbagging (unlikely) or we're probably not going to see LGD adopt their (or someone else's) new deep-blue TADF emitters before the subsequent 'tick' cycle in 2020...


----------



## slacker711

I think Cynora has a ways to go before commercialization. A CIE y coordinate of .2 is not going to get you the deep blue necessary to hit 99% DCI-P3 coverage. That is the minimum bar for color gamut going forward. 

http://www.olednet.com/en/cynora-research-development-goal/



> CYNORA is doing a joint development with a panel company and plans to reach a minimum of 0.2 for CIEy, above 15% for EQE(1000nits), more than 100h for LT97(700nits) by 2017, which is the aim for mass producing a mobile and TV deep-blue TADF emitter.


----------



## philochs1

fafrd said:


> That's report is more than 6-months old, and who knows if there is any truth to it.
> 
> Separating yellow into narrower red and green primaries will certainly help improve color gamut, but difficult to see how it's going to result in significantly improved efficiency - certainly nowhere near as much as they switch to QDCF filters could offer.
> 
> LGD's WRGB architecture - which creates 4 sub pixels using color filters (red, green, blue and non-filtered) to create a colored image from a single white OLED pixel - is less efficient and less color-pure compared to a real RGB sub-pixel architecture, but WOLED displays are much easier to produce as there's less need for subpixel patterning."
> 
> This is in comparison to patterned RGB OLED, which has no color filters and the associated loss of efficiency their use entails.
> 
> Whatever 'tick' technology LG is going to introduce on their OLED panels next year, they already have it. After the bloody yield/vignetting/near-white-nonuniformity mountain LGD has climbed over the past 3 years, I expect LG to hunker down, be exceedingly conservative with changes to the underlying WOLED technology, and to assure that any changes they do introduce are well vetted and fully-ready for prime-time.
> 
> If the earlier article you referenced is accurate and Cynora hopes to have this new deep-blue TADF ready for mass-production by Q4 of this year, I can see LG characterizing its performance, lifetime, and reliability over the course of next year and positioning themselves for introduction of product by 2019 (except that 2019 is another 'tock' year . But unless they are ready deep into that process on fully-industrialized materials today, I will be shocked to see LG take the gamble of counting on something so new and unproven for their 2018 product generation.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I expect LG will be introducing a new panel next year, I just don't believe it going to involve any technologies that are not yet fully qualified and undergoing characterization and test right now.
> 
> So either Cynora is sandbagging (unlikely) or we're probably not going to see LGD adopt their (or someone else's) new deep-blue TADF emitters before the subsequent 'tick' cycle in 2020...



Dude, no one said they were switching to TADF emitters next year, just switching to RGB array (to make white) from YBY array (To make white). Same type of conventional phosphorescent OLED emitters in 2018, but in 2019 LGD will likely be switching from phosphorescent to TADF. Once the emitters are ready to be commercialized, they'll be much cheaper, and also higher quality. 

I know what RGB OLED is, I included that paragraph from the article simply because it was providing helpful general informational, someone may not have known. 

Next year is a "tick" year, so it makes sense that they are in fact changing the array to RGB (to make white), as described earlier. To clarify, whether or not LG switches up OLED emitter materials (from phosphorescent to TADF) has nothing at all to do with Tick/Tock generations of panels. They are better working emitters for cheaper, they do not effect the process of panel making, it's just updating a 'drop-in' part during the manufacturing process. Once there are enough mass produced TADF emitters that they can include them, they will have no reason to include more expensive worse functioning emitters. Current emitters use precious metal, adding cost. TADF emitters are completely organic. Samsung is also working on Blue TADF OLED emitters by the way. It's just a matter of commercializing each necessary R,G,B color TADF emitter, than mass production will begin, then the big brands will hog all they can get. Apple iphones/Samsung Galaxies, and LG OLEDs are going to need a lot of TADF emitters. I've been following this stuff for a while, TADF is right on track for 2019 inclusion in products. 2020 should bring 8K OLED, maybe even real 12-bit panels thanks to TADF emitters.


----------



## philochs1

slacker711 said:


> I think Cynora has a ways to go before commercialization. A CIE y coordinate of .2 is not going to get you the deep blue necessary to hit 99% DCI-P3 coverage. That is the minimum bar for color gamut going forward.
> 
> http://www.olednet.com/en/cynora-research-development-goal/


They are right on track for Q4 2017 commercialization and mass production. That's been the case for a while now, and nothing has changed. The literately just gave an update last week recapped their recent progress, and restated that they are still on track for mass production of their blue-emitter later this year. They know where they are now, and they already know how long it will take to get the product to where it needs to be. If they were not on schedule to mass produce this year, they wouldn't have just restated that they still are. TADF emitter technology was invented in 2011 by the way, Cynora isn't going to lie to their investors, as I mentioned earlier, they're most likely already working with LGD to develop these babies.


----------



## fafrd

philochs1 said:


> Dude, no one said they were switching to TADF emitters next year, just switching to RGB array (to make white) from YBY array (To make white). Same type of conventional phosphorescent OLED emitters in 2018, but in 2019 LGD will likely be switching from phosphorescent to TADF. Once the emitters are ready to be commercialized, they'll be much cheaper, and also higher quality.
> 
> I know what RGB OLED is, I included that paragraph from the article simply because it was providing helpful general informational, someone may not have known.
> 
> Next year is a "tick" year, so it makes sense that they are in fact changing the array to RGB (to make white), as described earlier.


With that clarification, pretty much in agreement with all you have written above...



> To clarify, whether or not LG switches up OLED emitter materials (from phosphorescent to TADF) has nothing at all to do with Tick/Tock generations of panels. They are better working emitters for cheaper, *they do not effect the process of panel making, it's just updating a 'drop-in' part during the manufacturing process*. Once there are enough mass produced TADF emitters that they can include them, they will have no reason to include more expensive worse functioning emitters. Current emitters use precious metal, adding cost. TADF emitters are completely organic. Samsung is also working on Blue TADF OLED emitters by the way. It's just a matter of commercializing each necessary R,G,B color TADF emitter, than mass production will begin, then the big brands will hog all they can get. Apple iphones/Samsung Galaxies, and LG OLEDs are going to need a lot of TADF emitters. I've been following this stuff for a while, TADF is right on track for 2019 inclusion in products. 2020 should bring 8K OLED, maybe even real 12-bit panels thanks to TADF emitters.


But I have an issue with what you have written here, especially the part in bold. LGD is unlikely to make any changes to the OLED panel manufacturing process in 'tock' years (assuming they stick to that development/industrialization strategy).

Especially when it comes to something as complex and sensitive as large-screen OLED panel manufacturing, it is highly inlikely that there is any change as simple as a 'drop-in'. Any change to the underlying OLED manufacturing process that can impact lifetime or reliability is likely to undergo close to a year's worth of qualification testing before it is released to manufacturing.

Now if LG has been testing a phosphorescent R,G,B OLED stack that delivers wider color gamut (without refucing lifetime) since last August, that's an OLED stack change that could be sensible for next year...


----------



## philochs1

fafrd said:


> With that clarification, pretty much in agreement with all you have written above...
> 
> 
> 
> But I have an issue with what you have written here, especially the part in bold. LGD is unlikely to make any changes to the OLED panel manufacturing process in 'tock' years (assuming they stick to that development/industrialization strategy).
> 
> Especially when it comes to something as complex and sensitive as large-screen OLED panel manufacturing, it is highly inlikely that there is any change as simple as a 'drop-in'. Any change to the underlying OLED manufacturing process that can impact lifetime or reliability is likely to undergo close to a year's worth of qualification testing before it is released to manufacturing.
> 
> Now if LG has been testing a phosphorescent R,G,B OLED stack that delivers wider color gamut (without refucing lifetime) since last August, that's an OLED stack change that could be sensible for next year...


If you read all the literature, TADF emitters are designed to simply replace older style emitters. They are meant to be as simple as 'replace', and 'drop-in". TADF vs Phosphorescent does not at all change the process of the vacuum evaporation method, nor will it change the process of 3d inkjet printing. You're changing out a replacement part that is a successor to the older antiquated part, not changing the substrate generation or something. If they are finished in 2017 as they are scheduled to be, I've already included a 'buffer year' to allow LGD to experiment with the TADF emitters, mostly to allow for mass production so there are enough for the OLED panels. It's why they're going to be added in 2019 instead of next year. If you want to remain skeptical, it's no skin off my back. I'm just updating the thread with up to date and accurate information.


----------



## slacker711

philochs1 said:


> They are right on track for Q4 2017 commercialization and mass production. That's been the case for a while now, and nothing has changed. The literately just gave an update last week recapped their recent progress, and restated that they are still on track for mass production of their blue-emitter later this year. They know where they are now, and they already know how long it will take to get the product to where it needs to be. If they were not on schedule to mass produce this year, they wouldn't have just restated that they still are. TADF emitter technology was invented in 2011 by the way, Cynora isn't going to lie to their investors, as I mentioned earlier, they're most likely already working with LGD to develop these babies.


Cynora is a startup so I pretty much expect them to exaggerate their progress. It is the nature of the beast for companies that need funding. 

Take a look at the specs that were from their update last week. They are aiming for a CIE y coordinate below .2. They probably need something close to .1. The lifetime is T97 of 100 hours at 700 nits probably equates to a T50 of 2000 hours at 700 nits. That is probably an order of magnitude below what they need for commercialization. 

It will be very big news if/when they have the necessary lifetime, CIE coordinates, and efficiency for commercialization. There will be press releases, publications in technical journals, interviews, and mainstream press covering that kind of breakthrough.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> *Cynora is a startup so I pretty much expect them to exaggerate their progress. It is the nature of the beast for companies that need funding. *
> 
> Take a look at the specs that were from their update last week. They are aiming for a CIE y coordinate below .2. They probably need something close to .1. The lifetime is T97 of 100 hours at 700 nits probably equates to a T50 of 2000 hours at 700 nits. That is probably an order of magnitude below what they need for commercialization.
> 
> It will be very big news if/when they have the necessary lifetime, CIE coordinates, and efficiency for commercialization. There will be press releases, publications in technical journals, interviews, and mainstream press covering that kind of breakthrough.


Thanks for typing what I was thinking.

If this stuff makes it into WOLED panels by 2020, that will be a fantastic achievement...


----------



## fafrd

philochs1 said:


> If you read all the literature, TADF emitters are designed to simply replace older style emitters. They are meant to be as simple as 'replace', and 'drop-in". *TADF vs Phosphorescent does not at all change the process of the vacuum evaporation method, nor will it change the process of 3d inkjet printing.* You're changing out a replacement part that is a successor to the older antiquated part, not changing the substrate generation or something. If they are finished in 2017 as they are scheduled to be, I've already included a 'buffer year' to allow LGD to experiment with the TADF emitters, mostly to allow for mass production so there are enough for the OLED panels. It's why they're going to be added in 2019 instead of next year. If you want to remain skeptical, it's no skin off my back. I'm just updating the thread with up to date and accurate information.


I was not referring to process changes, I was referring to material changes. At this stage (and after all this progress), anything that may impact lifetime, reliability, or quality will be approached very cautiously. Do you have any experience in manufacturing?


----------



## xrox

rogo said:


> Or, Kateeva is continuing to make money selling encapsulation technology and still has no real idea when a workable blue soluble OLED is going to be available.
> 
> One of those two.


Rogo,

I've been away for a long time but I have a quick question that you might be able to answer for me. In the Kateeva TFE system what print heads are used? Is it an array of in-house made heads or are they sourced from Fujifilm or other companies. In the patents they use the same DIMATIX with a SX3 head that we use to research materials but I'm interested in what is used in the YieldJet product itself?

Cheers


----------



## philochs1

slacker711 said:


> Cynora is a startup so I pretty much expect them to exaggerate their progress. It is the nature of the beast for companies that need funding.
> 
> Take a look at the specs that were from their update last week. They are aiming for a CIE y coordinate below .2. They probably need something close to .1. The lifetime is T97 of 100 hours at 700 nits probably equates to a T50 of 2000 hours at 700 nits. That is probably an order of magnitude below what they need for commercialization.
> 
> It will be very big news if/when they have the necessary lifetime, CIE coordinates, and efficiency for commercialization. There will be press releases, publications in technical journals, interviews, and mainstream press covering that kind of breakthrough.



Is Samsung a startup though? They're doing R&D and making recent breakthroughs of blue TADF emitters too. Sure, Cynora may be a start-up, but they're also set to become a major player in the forthcoming TADF OLED industry. I'm not gonna harshly judge them, I'm not overly skeptical of the OLED emitter start-ups. It's because I think there is genuine merit to what they are doing, and I am thankful for their work. Samsung, LG and others must think so too, they've all invested millions in these TADF start-up companies. It might not mean much to people now, but it will actually be a finished product soon. I'm a skeptic, but I still now that TADF emitters are the direction the OLD industry is quickly headed. I've written Cynora on the "contact us" tab and asked them for some clarifications. If they write me back with anything noteworthy, I'll update again. 

My current personal plan now is to buy an entry level 2018 LG OLED model, a 65-inch. Then in 2020 I plan to buy some kind of 8K tv if it's feasible, hopefully a Sony OLED with TADF emitters and a 12-bit panel, but I'll wait and see what else comes up. I'll wait on the shoot-outs 4000+ nit Sony FALD LCDs vs. 1000+ nit TADF emitter based OLED tv. I'm already gonna have an HDMI 2.1 capable 4K OLED, then that can keep me happy till 8K comes, I'm not THAT picky.


----------



## joys_R_us

There is no urgent need to replace the "old tech" emitter materials because they contain precious metals etc. The cost of OLED material is minor in comparison to the production cost of the whole panel (including depreciation etc.).

BTW I do not believe this tick tock story about new product cycles of LG. It was a made-up press story to "explain" why LG had no real new panels in 2017. They will introduce new technology in their panels whenever they are ready and well tested...


----------



## joys_R_us

And pleeeease stop this nonsense about 8K. Nobody needs 8K panels ! Unless you sit five feet from a 100" panel.


----------



## JimP

rogo said:


> Or, Kateeva is continuing to make money selling encapsulation technology and still has no real idea when a workable blue soluble OLED is going to be available.
> 
> One of those two.


I see your point. A shell game on the part of Kateeva?

What else could the encapsulation tech be used for?


----------



## slacker711

philochs1 said:


> Is Samsung a startup though? They're doing R&D and making recent breakthroughs of blue TADF emitters too. Sure, Cynora may be a start-up, but they're also set to become a major player in the forthcoming TADF OLED industry. I'm not gonna harshly judge them, I'm not overly skeptical of the OLED emitter start-ups. It's because I think there is genuine merit to what they are doing, and I am thankful for their work. Samsung, LG and others must think so too, they've all invested millions in these TADF start-up companies. It might not mean much to people now, but it will actually be a finished product soon. I'm a skeptic, but I still now that TADF emitters are the direction the OLD industry is quickly headed. I've written Cynora on the "contact us" tab and asked them for some clarifications. If they write me back with anything noteworthy, I'll update again.
> 
> My current personal plan now is to buy an entry level 2018 LG OLED model, a 65-inch. Then in 2020 I plan to buy some kind of 8K tv if it's feasible, hopefully a Sony OLED with TADF emitters and a 12-bit panel, but I'll wait and see what else comes up. I'll wait on the shoot-outs 4000+ nit Sony FALD LCDs vs. 1000+ nit TADF emitter based OLED tv. I'm already gonna have an HDMI 2.1 capable 4K OLED, then that can keep me happy till 8K comes, I'm not THAT picky.


Samsung isnt the one saying that they will have commercial TADF materials by the end of the year. My skepticism of claims by startups is simply much higher due to their need for investment. 

Moreover, Cynora has given us the specs they are aiming for, and they simply arent good enough for commercial applications. That is particularly true for televisions where a blue with a long life is more important than one that is more power efficient. I would expect a blue TADF emitter to show up in mobile before TV's.


----------



## philochs1

joys_R_us said:


> There is no urgent need to replace the "old tech" emitter materials because they contain precious metals etc. The cost of OLED material is minor in comparison to the production cost of the whole panel (including depreciation etc.).


Actually, there is an urgency, as the entire OLED industry is going to greatly benefit from the switch to TADF. The cost savings are going to be substantial, at the same time the emitters are much higher quality. If you can't even concede that, well, no matter, as you are simply making up emotionally biased, ultra-opinionated responses and presenting them as facts anyway. I'm going to share a little information from the EPSRC...

'Current phosphorescent emitters use iridium and other metal complex phosphors. The rarity of these metals, and their associated cost, adds expensive to the bottom line price of OLED panel production. TADF emitters offer a solution to manufacturers as they are based on small molecule organic compounds, cheap and abundant materials. The inexpensive starting materials and relatively low-cost synthesis coupled with comparable optoelectronic properties to the expensive metal complexes makes the next-generation of emitters very promising.' 

You don't have to take our word for it, maybe you want to ague that the earth could be flat. Opinions are fine, but if they go up against known facts and are presented as something more than just a misguided opinion, that quickly starts to get annoying. 



> And pleeeease stop this nonsense about 8K. Nobody needs 8K panels! Unless you sit five feet from a 100" panel.


More uptight opinions, I bet you said the same exact thing about 4K, then eventually changed your mind. 2020 Is the year of 8K tvs whether you appreciate it or not. With all your negativity, still you cannot stop the progression of technological advances. Sorry, life goes on without you. With any luck, my 8K tv will be an 88-inch or 98-inch OLED, or maybe a successor to Sony's Z9D. I tend to sit closer than average, and I'm not just going to be watching content on my 8K tv, I'll be editing high-res photos and videos as well. If you can't wrap your head around why 8K will be a benefit, no need to be so snappy towards those who can. 

I wonder, what 8K content have you personally witnessed yourself to determine that it's unnecessary for content viewing? Kaleem Aftab was able to checkout NHK's 8K demo,"the Chorus" which was billed as “an experimental 8K drama – a play of many characters situated in a sectioned apartment block that makes the most of ultra-high definition by showing all the rooms at once.”

"A three-story section of the apartment block was rebuilt, so that three rooms on each floor were left exposed for the camera to peer into. A staircase snaked in between the apartment doors, with each apartment inhabited by different fictional residents. The back of the sound stage was open, so through the windows one could see the outside world, especially the trees, behind the building. What was immediately striking was that the image was so crisp that it was possible to distinguish the leaves on the trees in the background. Rather than making the image seem flat, the clarity gave the picture a depth hitherto unseen. The colors were also magnificent. The whites and blacks were stunning."


----------



## slacker711

philochs1 said:


> Actually, there is an urgency, as the entire OLED industry is going to greatly benefit from the switch to TADF. The cost savings are going to be substantial, at the same time the emitters are much higher quality. If you can't even concede that, well, no matter, as you are simply making up emotionally biased, ultra-opinionated responses and presenting them as facts anyway. I'm going to share a little information from the EPSRC...
> 
> 'Current phosphorescent emitters use iridium and other metal complex phosphors. The rarity of these metals, and their associated cost, adds expensive to the bottom line price of OLED panel production. TADF emitters offer a solution to manufacturers as they are based on small molecule organic compounds, cheap and abundant materials. The inexpensive starting materials and relatively low-cost synthesis coupled with comparable optoelectronic properties to the expensive metal complexes makes the next-generation of emitters very promising.'
> 
> You don't have to take our word for it, maybe you want to ague that the earth could be flat. Opinions are fine, but if they go up against known facts and are presented as something more than just a misguided opinion, that quickly starts to get annoying.


I'm a big fan of numbers so let's put these savings into context.

The entire OLED panel market will likely be in the low-$20 billions in 2017. Let's say $22 billion or so. 

The total iridium (phosphorescent) emitter market which are the red/green/yellow emitter market will be about $160 million. I think the blue emitter market, which is not iridium based, might add another $100 million to the total. There might a be a bit of error in the blue estimate but I think it is reasonably close.

Emitter material revenues make up a little over 1% of the total OLED market revenues. It will obviously be higher if you look at the percentage of the bill of materials, but it is still in the very low single digit percentage of the total cost of OLED panels. If TADF materials can match the performance of current emitters, then the cost savings will allow them to take share but the cost savings arent particularly significant. Cynora's numbers indicate that the blue TADF materials still arent close to hitting the threshold of matching current emitter performance.


----------



## philochs1

slacker711 said:


> I'm a big fan of numbers so let's put these savings into context.
> 
> The entire OLED panel market will likely be in the low-$20 billions in 2017. Let's say $22 billion or so.
> 
> The total iridium (phosphorescent) emitter market which are the red/green/yellow emitter market will be about $160 million. I think the blue emitter market, which is not iridium based, might add another $100 million to the total. There might a be a bit of error in the blue estimate but I think it is reasonably close.
> 
> Emitter material revenues make up a little over 1% of the total OLED market revenues. It will obviously be higher if you look at the percentage of the bill of materials, but it is still in the very low single digit percentage of the total cost of OLED panels. If TADF materials can match the performance of current emitters, then the cost savings will allow them to take share but the cost savings arent particularly significant. Cynora's numbers indicate that the blue TADF materials still arent close to hitting the threshold of matching current emitter performance.


Where are you getting your stats from? Please cite all of your sources, as you've cited none. Thanks. Bottom line savings are still savings they will inevitably capitalize on, even if it did only take the cost down 'low single-digit'%, which I'll believe when you show your ironclad proof. Even if you had the proof, shaving off the total cost of panel production even 3-5% is nothing to balk at. That's a huge savings, so why chime in and pretend like it's something they could just as easily ignore? Boy, I'm glad you're not my accountant.

What Cynora's current number's indicate do not matter, except that they are improved over their last numbers. All that matters is the finished commercialized product. None of you can predict better than Cynora when it will be ready, or exactly how much better than phosphorescent emitters they will be. 

Some of you don't even seem to have a genuine interest in OLED Technology advancements, people antagonistically bashing 8K OLED and OLED TADF emitters and all. So it leaves me to wonder why you're all ganging up and clogging the thread. Start a thread specifically for people who don't care about any OLED technology advancements, or who are dubious of all of them. Then you guys can have a like-minded thread all your own. I'm dubious too, of many of the claims and assumptions you guys are making without even citing any concrete proof...



Spoiler


----------



## slacker711

philochs1 said:


> Where are you getting your stats from? Please cite all of your sources, as you've cited none. Thanks. Bottom line savings are still savings they will inevitably capitalize on, even if it did only take the cost down 'low single-digit'%, which I'll believe when you show your ironclad proof. Even if you had the proof, shaving off the total cost of panel production even 3-5% is nothing to balk at. That's a huge savings, so why chime in and pretend like it's something they could just as easily ignore? Boy, I'm glad you're not my accountant.


My post to you was a polite way of saying put up or shut up, not that you have deserved any politeness considering your behavior on this thread. Take a look at the age of this thread and its posting history and maybe you could sit back and learn something.

The savings arent 3-5%. The total cost of emtter materials as a percent of the bill of materials is probably around 2%. Do you think Cynora is going to give their materials away for free? The savings arent enough going to be enough for vendors to use materials with inferior performance. The emitters drive the overall performance of OLED panels so this is not the best place for cost savings.



> What Cynora's current number's indicate do not matter, except that they are improved over their last numbers. All that matters is the finished commercialized product. None of you can predict better than Cynora when it will be ready, or exactly how much better than phosphorescent emitters they will be.


LOL!

I am not even sure what to say to that. I guess their numbers dont matter to you since you have shown no comprehension of the metrics that matter for OLED's. Burying your head in the sand is no way to go through life. Like I said, read up a little and maybe you'll start to understand why Cynora's numbers are so terrible.

I could post any number of links to support my numbers, as I have done any number of times on this thread to those who have asked. However, those are people who I thought were worth having a conversation with. 

PS. When you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging.


----------



## philochs1

slacker711 said:


> The savings arent 3-5%. The total cost of emtter materials as a percent of the bill of materials is *probably* around 2%. .


All that long-winded blathering on, several paragraphs, yet the only thing I found pertinent was that you're now saying you have proof for what you're claiming, but that you just don't feel like citing it due to a personal vendetta you now have against me. Yet, at the same time you say "probably" around 2%. Dude, it sure sounds like you're just pulling that number out of your pigu. You must be a slacker, you're too lazy to even use spellcheck, let alone cite some imaginary sources. There are no sources to cite for many of your claims, simply because they are your personal opinionated guesses, not anything conclusive. If I have an opinion, I try to avoid acting authoritative about it. No need to try to confuse people with what is your opinion, and what is based on actual fact. You seem to happily blur the lines without giving it a second's thought. 

If you got that 2% amount correct, which you've now admitted is nothing but your random guess, who is going to say, "It's only 2% savings, let's not take advantage of it!"? Again, to the many of you that apparently balk at that kind of savings on cost per panel, glad you're not doing my taxes. Everybody, please save me from any further inane responses, directed at me. I'm done here, at least until there's something else genuinely interesting to talk about. I've heard what you've had to say already. 

"I am just disagreeing with you! In America, we have the freedom of speech, the right to disagree!" - Bill Foster aka 'D-Fens' 



Spoiler


----------



## slacker711

philochs1 said:


> All that long-winded blathering on, several paragraphs, yet the only thing I found pertinent was that you're now saying you have proof for what you're claiming, but that you just don't feel like citing it due to a personal vendetta you now have against me. Yet, at the same time you say "probably" around 2%. Dude, it sure sounds like you're just pulling that number out of your pigu. You must be a slacker, you're too lazy to even use spellcheck, let alone cite some imaginary sources. There are no sources to cite for many of your claims, simply because they are opinionated, not conclusive. If I have an opinion, I try to avoid acting authoritative about it. No need to try to confuse people with what is your opinion, and what is based on actual fact. You seem to happily blur the lines without giving it a second's thought.
> 
> If you got that 2% amount correct, which you've now admitted is nothing but your random guess, who is going to say, "It's only 2% savings, let's not take advantage of it!"? Again, to the many of you that apparently balk at that kind of savings on cost per panel, glad you're not doing my taxes. Everybody, please save me from any further inane responses, directed at me. I'm done here, at least until there's something else genuinely interesting to talk about. I've heard what you've had to say already.
> 
> "I am just disagreeing with you! In America, we have the freedom of speech, the right to disagree!" - Bill Foster aka 'D-Fens'
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


I invest in tech for a living and have made displays part of my speciality so knowing those numbers is what I do.

How about you?


----------



## slacker711

For everybody else who is actually interested in a discussion of the progress of TADF materials, Cynora and Kyulux will be presenting at SID in May. Cynora's synopsis doesnt give away anything interesting but here is Kyulux's summary. The coordinates and efficiency are good so the question is where they are on lifetime.

https://www.sheridanprinting.com/pcm/sid/sessionlist.cfm



> 45.1 - Invited Paper: Advanced Molecular Design for Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence (TADF) Emitters (9:00-9:20)
> Lin-Song Cui, Yan Geng, Jong Uk Kim, Hajime Nakanotani, Chihaya Adachi
> Center for Organic Photonics and Electronics Research (OPERA) Fukuoka Japan
> 
> Hiroko Nomura
> Kyulux Inc. Fukuoka Japan
> 
> 
> A new family of deep-blue TADF emitters based on donor-acceptor architecture has been developed. The electronic interaction between donor and acceptor plays the key role in TADF mechanism. Deep-blue OLEDs fabricated with these TADF emitters achieved high external quantum efficiencies over 19.2% with CIE coordinates of (0.148, 0.098).


----------



## slacker711

LG Display has a number of presentations. Here are just two of interest.

https://www.sheridanprinting.com/pcm/sid/sessionlist.cfm



> 3.1 - Invited Paper: 3-Stack 3-Color White OLEDs for 4K Premium OLED TV (11:10-11:30)
> Chang-Wook Han, Mi-Young Han, Seung-Ryong Jung, Jung-Soo Park, Young-Kwan Jung, Jae-Man Lee, Hong-Seok Choi, Gwi-Jeong Cho, Dong-Hyuk Kim, Moon-Ki Yee, Hong-Gyu Kim, Hyun-Chul Choi, Chang-Ho Oh, In-Byeong Kang
> LG Display Co., Ltd. Paiu South Korea
> 
> 
> An improved 3-stack white OLED (WOLED) structure consisting of layers emitting red and yellow-green phosphorescence from the second stacked layer will be reported. The WOLED demonstrates a high current efficiency of 83 cd/A and a color coordinate of (0.297, 0.317). A 65-in. 4K premium OLED TV demonstrated 800 nits of peak luminance and 99% color gamut in the DCI color space.





> 71.2 - New Technology for improving the Blackness of OLED TVs (9:20-9:40)
> Hyun-Jong Noh, Chi-Myung Ahn, Taw-Woon Ko, Chung-Sun Lim, Sang-Ho Choi, Young-Hoon Shin, Jin-Mog Kim, Myung-Chul Jun, Chang-Ho Oh, In-Byeong Kang
> LG Display Co., Ltd. Paju South Korea
> 
> 
> OLEDs have an excellent ambient contrast ratio because OLED displays containing a circular polarizer can effectively reduce the reflectance caused by external light. However, for better blackness, it is necessary to improve the reflectance and reflection colors. The blackness of OLED TVs has been improved by applying a new material


----------



## joys_R_us

Have you ever read the number LGD is going to invest in the P10 fab alone ? We are talking about billions. And then try to divide the yearly depreciation by the number of panels coming out of this fab. Then you realize that the emitter material cost in OLED panels is near to irrelevant. Of course Cynora will argue differently. If they were on the way to success they would argue with the quality and longevity of their materials but not cost savings. Thats b.s.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> For everybody else who is actually interested in a discussion of the progress of TADF materials, Cynora and Kyulux will be presenting at SID in May. Cynora's synopsis doesnt give away anything interesting but here is Kyulux's summary. The coordinates and efficiency are good so the question is where they are on lifetime.
> 
> https://www.sheridanprinting.com/pcm/sid/sessionlist.cfm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 45.1 - Invited Paper: Advanced Molecular Design for Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence (TADF) Emitters (9:00-9:20)
> Lin-Song Cui, Yan Geng, Jong Uk Kim, Hajime Nakanotani, Chihaya Adachi
> Center for Organic Photonics and Electronics Research (OPERA) Fukuoka Japan
> 
> Hiroko Nomura
> Kyulux Inc. Fukuoka Japan
> 
> 
> A new family of deep-blue TADF emitters based on donor-acceptor architecture has been developed. The electronic interaction between donor and acceptor plays the key role in TADF mechanism. Deep-blue OLEDs fabricated with *these TADF emitters achieved high external quantum efficiencies over 19.2% with CIE coordinates of (0.148, 0.098).*
Click to expand...

Thanks for the constructive and informative post.

For those of us with less domain expertise, could you translate what these efficiency results could mean?

Am I correct that 19.2% is about double the efficiency of the blue emitter LG is currently using?

And am I right that the practical impact of this improved efficiency is that it could result in increased brightness?


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Thanks for the constructive and informative post.
> 
> For those of us with less domain expertise, could you translate what these efficiency results could mean?
> 
> Am I correct that 19.2% is about double the efficiency of the blue emitter LG is currently using?
> 
> And am I right that the practical impact of this improved efficiency is that it could result in increased brightness?


Yes, that is about double the efficiency of the fluorescent blue emitters from Idemitsu. 

We dont know the limiting factor in OLED television brightness. If heat is a factor, then increased efficiency would help. If it is lifetime, then a 20,000 hour TADF emitter wont bring any change vs. a 20,000 hour flourescent emitter. 

I have been skeptical of heat as the explanation. Would LGD be driving thinness this hard if it was limiting their brightness? Also, how much heat would be generated by momentary highlights at 1000+ nits? Another possible explanation is something to do with the backplane but I dont know much about the limits for the IGZO substrates.

One thing I am confident in though, LGD wont replace their current materials until they can guarantee a similar lifetime and color gamut to current specs. Neither the increased brightness or reduced power consumption would be worth a hit to lifetime. The mobile market is different though. Power consumption and color gamut are probably more important than lifetime for at least some handset vendors. If TADF materials can get close to the current blue lifetime, they could see some adoption in that market. A T97 of 100 hours at 700 nits doesnt hit that mark though.


----------



## video_analysis

I've seen at least one report of excessive heat emanating from the W7 in an early impression, so I wouldn't be surprised if better efficiency is something LGD is actively seeking.


----------



## slacker711

video_analysis said:


> I've seen at least one report of excessive heat emanating from the W7 in an early impression, so I wouldn't be surprised if better efficiency is something LGD is actively seeking.


The John Archer report is why I included it as a possibility. However, this is the first report that I can remember noting heat coming from an OLED. I'll admit though I didnt follow the 2016 owners threads as closely as I did the 2015 models. Does anybody remember similar reports from owners? Or have you seen it yourself?

If heat is the real issue, it would seem that slightly thicker models would help disperse the heat and allow for higher brightness. Instead LG, and every other OLED vendor, is going with paper thin designs. Are they all choosing form over function?


----------



## video_analysis

slacker711 said:


> The John Archer report is why I included it as a possibility. However, this is the first report that I can remember noting heat coming from an OLED. I'll admit though I didnt follow the 2016 owners threads as closely as I did the 2015 models. Does anybody remember similar reports from owners? Or have you seen it yourself?
> 
> If heat is the real issue, it would seem that slightly thicker models would help disperse the heat and allow for higher brightness. Instead LG, and every other OLED vendor, is going with paper thin designs. Are they all choosing form over function?


Maybe. Can't say that I have noticed such in 2016, but then again I haven't really checked the screen temp when it's firing on all cylinders with HDR content (of which there is a paucity as you are well aware). I'll have to investigate on the next viewing of such.


----------



## rogo

"They know where they are now, and they already know how long it will take to get the product to where it needs to be. "

Literally no company can predict this kind of thing. Let alone a startup.

-----

Unrelated to above post:

With respect to Kateeva, I don't think they are playing a shell game at all. I also am not sure which print heads they are using. 

I believe, however, they currently have a business. People are conflating that existing business with the printing of OLEDs. That's a logical fallacy. 

I will seek to learn more about their current state of affairs. In the meantime, I urge everyone interested to read their website. It explains a lot.


----------



## sytech

rogo said:


> "They know where they are now, and they already know how long it will take to get the product to where it needs to be. "
> 
> Literally no company can predict this kind of thing. Let alone a startup.
> 
> -----
> 
> Unrelated to above post:
> 
> With respect to Kateeva, I don't think they are playing a shell game at all. I also am not sure which print heads they are using.
> 
> I believe, however, they currently have a business. People are conflating that existing business with the printing of OLEDs. That's a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will seek to learn more about their current state of affairs. In the meantime, I urge everyone interested to read their website. It explains a lot.


I remember someone was using Seiko Epson OLED print heads, but I can't remember if it was Kateeva or JDI.


----------



## xrox

rogo said:


> I also am not sure which print heads they are using.
> 
> I believe, however, they currently have a business. People are conflating that existing business with the printing of OLEDs. That's a logical fallacy.





sytech said:


> I remember someone was using Seiko Epson OLED print heads, but I can't remember if it was Kateeva or JDI.


Thanks. I'm only interested in TFE from Kateeva. They have patents using the Fujifilm industrial SAMBA printhead in arrays but also several patents covering custom built printheads. Not sure what is in the finished yieldjet system. I just needed it for a presentation. I'll probably be visiting them later this year.


----------



## rogo

Note again, per xrox's post, the distinction between TFE and printing OLEDs.

Read this post from Kateeva: http://kateeva.com/press-full/katee...d-in-oled-thin-film-encapsulation-tfe-market/

Read this as well to understand what Kateeva is selling, i.e. *not OLED printers*. http://www.printedelectronicsworld.com/articles/10715/kateeva-expands-silicon-valley-headquarters


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Note again, per xrox's post, the distinction between TFE and printing OLEDs.
> 
> Read this post from Kateeva: http://kateeva.com/press-full/katee...d-in-oled-thin-film-encapsulation-tfe-market/
> 
> Read this as well to understand what Kateeva is selling, i.e. *not OLED printers*. http://www.printedelectronicsworld.com/articles/10715/kateeva-expands-silicon-valley-headquarters


Thay are almost as slippery with their use of 'YIELDjet' as Samsung is with their use of 'QLED' as an umbrella:

"Kateeva moved to its current location in early 2015 to facilitate production ramp-up of its * YIELDjet™ inkjet printing manufacturing equipment for the global flat panel display industry. * Since then, headcount has nearly tripled to 330 people, and *orders for YIELDjet systems have soared.* "

"Kateeva's first product, the* YIELDjet FLEX system, enabled a rapid transition from glass encapsulation to Thin Film Encapsulation (TFE) in new OLED production lines."

So the YIELDjet FLEX system has pretty much nothing to do with 'inkjet printing manufacturing equipment' and yet it is a member of the 'YIELDjet' family of systems which is defined as 'inkjet printing manufacturing equipment for the global flat panel display industry.'

Nice.*


----------



## xrox

fafrd said:


> So the YIELDjet FLEX system has pretty much nothing to do with 'inkjet printing manufacturing equipment' and yet it is a member of the 'YIELDjet' family of systems which is defined as 'inkjet printing manufacturing equipment for the global flat panel display industry.'
> 
> Nice.


Why is it not inkjet manufacturing equipment? It also looks like Kateeva is using proprietary inks for TFE.


----------



## fafrd

xrox said:


> Why is it not inkjet manufacturing equipment? It also looks like Kateeva is using proprietary inks for TFE.


I was probably looser with my language than I should have been. Including the word 'patterned' would have been more precise: 

'So the YIELDjet FLEX system has pretty much nothing to do with 'inkjet (patterned) printing manufacturing equipment' and yet it is a member of the 'YIELDjet' family of systems which is defined as 'inkjet (patterned) printing manufacturing equipment for the global flat panel display industry.'

The true promise of inkjet 'printing' tecnology for the flat panel idustry is predicated on the concept of being able to *pattern* the ink being 'jetted'. Without patterning, calling spray-painting a uniform layer onto a surface 'printing' is a stretch.

And Kateeva is riding that stretch for all it is worth...


----------



## xrox

fafrd said:


> The true promise of inkjet 'printing' tecnology for the flat panel idustry is predicated on the concept of being able to *pattern* the ink being 'jetted'. Without patterning, calling spray-painting a uniform layer onto a surface 'printing' is a stretch.
> 
> And Kateeva is riding that stretch for all it is worth...


Ahh, I see now. I do agree for the most part. Some would argue that having controlled edge coating without a mask is printing despite the size. Just large geometric shapes on the motherglass. Just like a halftone squares on a paper. Also, the individual drop waveform control and combinations are pretty cool IMO.


----------



## rogo

I'd agree it's printing. 

I would just reiterate it isn't OLED printing.

It's TFE printing.


----------



## irkuck

Sammy emergency spending of $9 bln on OLED manuf expansion. 

That level of spending in 2017 is huge but easily explained by the rumored order from Apple as sole provider of OLED iPhone displays. Neverthelss a conspiracy theory question may be asked: Have LG and Samsung agreed they are focusing on different segments of OLED market? LG is not trespassing on the mobile displays while Samsung keeps away from TV displays?


----------



## slacker711

irkuck said:


> Sammy emergency spending of $9 bln on OLED manuf expansion.
> 
> That level of spending in 2017 is huge but easily explained by the rumored order from Apple as sole provider of OLED iPhone displays. Neverthelss a conspiracy theory question may be asked: Have LG and Samsung agreed they are focusing on different segments of OLED market? LG is not trespassing on the mobile displays while Samsung keeps away from TV displays?


LGD is spending billions to try and ramp their mobile OLED capacity. They want to be the 2nd supplier for Apple's OLED's in 2018. It likely isnt easy for them to balance their capital needs between their TV and mobile efforts.

FWIW, one possibility for LGD that I read was that they could go with a Gen 10.5 OLED fab but cut the panels in half before deposition. This would obviously limit their production of large screen OLED's but would allow efficiency for 65" cuts. Samsung does something similar with their Gen 5.5 and Gen 6 mobile fabs.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> LGD is spending billions to try and ramp their mobile OLED capacity. They want to be the 2nd supplier for Apple's OLED's in 2018. It likely isnt easy for them to balance their capital needs between their TV and mobile efforts.
> 
> FWIW, one possibility for LGD that I read was that they could go with a *Gen 10.5 OLED fab but cut the panels in half before deposition. * This would obviously limit their production of large screen OLED's but would allow efficiency for 65" cuts. Samsung does something similar with their Gen 5.5 and Gen 6 mobile fabs.


Assuming a Gen 10.5 panel means 8 65" or 6 75", a half-panel would be close to maximally efficient for both of those sizes (and much more efficient that what they are using now).

The 77" will need to remain on the current Gen 8.5 lines (if they even decide to stick with that size).


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Assuming a Gen 10.5 panel means 8 65" or 6 75", a half-panel would be close to maximally efficient for both of those sizes (and much more efficient that what they are using now).
> 
> The 77" will need to remain on the current Gen 8.5 lines (if they even decide to stick with that size).


Feels likely that if a 75 comes out of P10, then the 77 goes away. And by then, perhaps the current lines start making a low-volume 85 (or whatever size they pick).


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Feels likely that if a 75 comes out of P10, then the 77 goes away. And by then, perhaps the current lines start making a low-volume 85 (or whatever size they pick).


Agreed - P10 dedicated to 65" and 75" (and possibly also 43) and the legacy Gen-8.5 capacity dedicated to 55" and anything new above 75" such as 85" or 88" (and possibly also 49").

It's too expensive to make 77" on line optimized for 65".


----------



## Rudy1

irkuck said:


> Sammy emergency spending of $9 bln on OLED manuf expansion.
> 
> That level of spending in 2017 is huge but easily explained by the rumored order from Apple as sole provider of OLED iPhone displays. Neverthelss a conspiracy theory question may be asked: Have LG and Samsung agreed they are focusing on different segments of OLED market? LG is not trespassing on the mobile displays while Samsung keeps away from TV displays?


*Samsung OLED screens for Apple*

_*"Wednesday April 5, 2017 3:49 am PDT by Tim Hardwick - MacRumors
*_
_Apple could delay its rumored high-end iPhone with a 5.8-inch edge-to-edge OLED display until October or even November, according to a new report out on Wednesday. 

In recent years, Apple has released its iPhone updates in September, but according to Chinese-language Economic Daily News (EDN), suppliers are encountering "technical issues" in the production of the upcoming "iPhone 8" because of differences in the display lamination process and challenges involved in integrating the 3D sensing front camera system. _

_The report tallies with a rumor that circulated last month suggesting the iPhone 8 may go on sale later than usual, due to the switch to an OLED display and the new technology needed. In such a scenario, the launch of an iPhone 7s and 7s Plus would go ahead in September as scheduled, with the higher-end iPhone 8 coming later in the year. 

Such a staggered release would be highly untypical of Apple, and it's hard to imagine the company holding a September launch event for "S" cycle iPhones with no mention of the highly rumored OLED device. However, it is possible the higher-end phone could be revealed at the same time but launched in limited quantities or at a later date. Barclays analysts recently claimed that Apple will launch its "10th anniversary iPhone" in the usual September timeframe, albeit in short supply until a full stock arrives in the fourth quarter. 

*Earlier this week it was reported that Apple has placed an order for 70 million OLED panels from Samsung, anticipating high demand. Samsung is preparing to be able to produce up to 95 million panels in 2017, said the sources.* 

Market watchers are said to be analyzing the pull-in of orders for passive components from the iPhone's supply chain to see whether production of the new iPhone devices is on track, according to EDN. Apart from the edge-to-edge OLED display, the "iPhone 8" is expected to include wireless charging, no physical Home button, and perhaps 3D facial recognition and/or iris scanning. In addition, rumors suggest that Touch ID could be embedded in or under a True Tone display. "_


----------



## slacker711

> LG Display, more than 50% of its sales in 2020 will be OLED
> 
> April 6, 2017/ 0 comments / categories : market , focus on / Posted by OLEDNET
> 
> *"LGE's OLED sales accounted for 10% of total sales in 2016, but in 2020, OLED sales accounted for 50% of total sales," said Kang In-jin, CTO, LG Display's keynote session at Finetech Japan 2017, % Of the total. "
> *
> 
> LG Display accounts for most of large-area OLED sales in OLED sales. OLED TVs using LG Display's large-area OLED are occupying the leading position in the premium TV market, with OLED TVs occupying nearly 80% in 65-inch and above $ 3,000 and nearly 100% in 55 and more than $ 2,000.
> 
> 
> Kang Jeon-mo said, "Although it took 10 years for LCD to achieve a yield of more than 80%, large-area OLED achieved 80% yield in two years, and price decline is much faster than LCD. In addition, we are trying to create a high value-added premium market such as wall paper and crystal sound OLED, rollable, transparent, and signage. In addition, OLED for mobile devices has been equipped with a flexible design, and market demand has increased significantly, and LG Display is actively developing and investing. "Based on this, LG Display's OLED sales in 2020 will account for 50% % Of the total.
> 
> 
> LG Display is investing in the Gen8 large area OLED mass production line and the Gen6 plastic OLED mass production line to meet the growing demand for large area OLED and plastic OLED (flexible OLED). *Regarding future mass production capacity, Kang Ji-mo said, "In 2020, LG Display's OLED production line capacity will be 6 times big-area OLED and 14 times plastic OLED compared to 2016."*
> 
> 
> LG Display's future OLED strategy is to develop large-area OLEDs with a surface area of ​​more than 77 inches and 8K, and to develop high value-added applications. OLEDs for mobile devices use UHD resolution, improved power consumption and flexibility One design differentiation is the key. We will also lead the next generation display market by differentiating from LCD by improving OLED performance and investment efficiency based on flexible ".
> Through the Finetech Japan 2017 keynote, LG Display once again emphasized that OLED is the key to lead the display market in the future. Based on its large-area OLED technology, LG Display will continue to lead the display market by expanding to OLED for mobile devices. .


http://www.olednet.com/lg-display-2020년-매출의-50-이상은-oled/


----------



## slacker711

> Regarding future mass production capacity, Kang Ji-mo said, "In 2020, LG Display's OLED production line capacity will be 6 times big-area OLED and 14 times plastic OLED compared to 2016



2016 Capacity
34,000 Gen 8.5 substrates
14,000 Gen 4.5 substrates.

2020 Projected Capacity
204,000 Gen 8.5 equivalents.
224,000 Gen 4.5 equivalents.

LGD will have 60,000 Gen 8.5 substrates a month at the end of this year and are supposed to convert another 26,000 substrates of capacity in 2018. That means that the P10 fab or more conversions will add another 118,000 Gen 8.5 equivalents in 2018/19/20. TV capacity would be about 14.7 million 55" units a year in 2020. 

A single Gen 6 substrate is 4.13x as large as a Gen 4.5 substrate so mobile capacity would be the equivalent of ~54,000 Gen 6 sheets. That is actually a bit less than I might have guessed. 

Last but not least, analyts are expecting LGD to have $27.5 billion in revenue in 2018. So maybe that goes to $30 billion in 2020? That would mean $15 billion in OLED revenue in 2020.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> 2016 Capacity
> 34,000 Gen 8.5 substrates
> 14,000 Gen 4.5 substrates.
> 
> 2020 Projected Capacity
> 204,000 Gen 8.5 equivalents.
> 224,000 Gen 4.5 equivalents.
> 
> LGD will have 60,000 Gen 8.5 substrates a month at the end of this year and are supposed to convert another 26,000 substrates of capacity in 2018. That means that *the P10 fab or more conversions will add another 118,000 Gen 8.5 equivalents in 2018/19/20. *TV capacity would be about 14.7 million 55" units a year in 2020.
> 
> A single Gen 6 substrate is 4.13x as large as a Gen 4.5 substrate so mobile capacity would be the equivalent of ~54,000 Gen 6 sheets. That is actually a bit less than I might have guessed.
> 
> Last but not least, analyts are expecting LGD to have $27.5 billion in revenue in 2018. So maybe that goes to $30 billion in 2020? That would mean $15 billion in OLED revenue in 2020.


6x capacity growth over a 4-year period seems very achievable. 50% year-on-year growth would get to 7.6x growth over that same period and we know that LGDs capacity growth this year will far exceed 50%.

While we don't yet have certainty on the substrate size in P10, if it turns out to be 10.5G-class capable of 8-up layout of 65" panels, that would translate to about 1.7x the size of the curremt 8.5G substrates and would mean that your 118,000 additional 8.5G equivalent substrates would translate into less than 70,000 10.5G substrates from P10.

That seems like a large number of substrates from that one new facility, but on the other hand, the P10 facility is enormously large, so not out of the question.

Betwen lost volume associated with larger screens and potential increased volume associated with eventually introducing smaller screens, it's pretty much impossible to have any accurate estimation of how this increased panel capacity will translate to market share, but just taking 6x the 0.9M OLED TVs LG shipped in 2016 as a reference, this would translate to 5.4M OLED TVs by 2020 or solidly more than 2% of the total TV market...

Seems like a very realistic, well-thought-out, and conservative plan.


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> While we don't yet have certainty on the substrate size in P10, if it turns out to be 10.5G-class capable of 8-up layout of 65" panels, that would translate to about 1.7x the size of the curremt 8.5G substrates and would mean that your 118,000 additional 8.5G equivalent substrates would translate into less than 70,000 10.5G substrates from P10.


LG has placed orders for 30K gen 10.5 evaporators from Nikon so I think that part is confirmed. This is key since Nikon has a monopoly on these and are now sold out through 2018. This is said to be the first half of 60K capacity. The first 30K equipment is to be in place late 2018 with full production in early/mid 2019. So Black Friday 2019 if you want a really cheap 65" set. The second 30K is presumably to take place the following year.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> LG has placed orders for 30K gen 10.5 evaporators from Nikon so I think that part is confirmed. This is key since Nikon has a monopoly on these and are now sold out through 2018. This is said to be the first half of 60K capacity. The first 30K equipment is to be in place late 2018 with full production in early/mid 2019. So Black Friday 2019 if you want a really cheap 65" set. The second 30K is presumably to take place the following year.


That's the first confirmation I've seen of a decision by LG to go 10.5G in P10.

And the numbers all line up pretty nicely. Building upon what Slacker711 has already indicated:

2016 34,000 8.5G
2017 60,000 8.5G
2018 86,000 8.5G
2019 86,000 8.5G + 30,000 10.5G = ~140,000 8.5G equivalent
2020 86,000 8.5G + 60,000 10.5G = ~194,000 8.5G equivalent

This would put LG's 2020 capacity at 5.7 times 2016 capacity, close enough for jazz to justify the statement that 2020 will be '6 times 2016'...

In terms of growth rate, here's the trend:

2016: 1.0x 2016
2017: 1.765 2016; 76.5% year-on-year growth
2018: 2.53 2016; 43.3% year-on-year growth
2019: 4.13 2016; 62.8% year-on-year growth
2020: 5.71 2016; 38.6% year-on-year growth

When you factor in the fact that yields are likely to be depressed through the first year of operation of P10, the spike in growth rate in 2019 is actually likely to be smoothed out...

LG's WOLED train has left the station and is now lumbering down the track


----------



## philochs1

AMD's 'Freesync 2' is likely going to be added into certain flagship tv models in 2018. Based on the fact that AMD started working with tv manufacturers since last year to get them to add FreeSync technology, or at least AMD hinted at as much, combined with the fact that Xbox Project Scorpio is announced now as utilizing HDMI 2.1 and Game Mode VRR via AMD FreeSync 2. It will push the adoption of FreeSync 2.0, and as it is open source hardware technology that can successfully pair with HDMI 2.1 technology for gaming, LG along with others will inevitably support it. I would be surprised if 2018 LG OLED models did not have AMD FreeSync 2. LG is cutting edge. Some lesser model tvs could feature just basic "FreeSync", the original is not at all as good though.


----------



## FalconRGB

slacker711 said:


> LGD is spending billions to try and ramp their mobile OLED capacity. They want to be the 2nd supplier for Apple's OLED's in 2018. It likely isnt easy for them to balance their capital needs between their TV and mobile efforts.
> 
> FWIW, one possibility for LGD that I read was that they could go with a Gen 10.5 OLED fab but cut the panels in half before deposition. This would obviously limit their production of large screen OLED's but would allow efficiency for 65" cuts. Samsung does something similar with their Gen 5.5 and Gen 6 mobile fabs.


LG also has their eyes on other upcoming mobile devices.


----------



## greenland

Merck - printed red, green and blue OLED efficiencies are now comparable to vapor-processed ones

https://www.oled-info.com/merck-pri...ncies-are-now-comparable-vapor-processed-ones

"Merck is going to discuss its latest soluble OLED material performance at SID DisplayWeek 2017 next month. Merck will detail the printed device efficiencies, voltages, and colors.

According to Merck, the efficiencies of its soluble OLED emitters are now comparable to state-of-the-art vapor-processed devices. Merck will also suggest a move from an evaporated blue common layer device architecture to a printed blue."

.......................................

Only time will tell if their claims are real or just vapor!


----------



## rogo

Lifetime is actually far more important than efficiency. You can somewhat game efficiency shortfalls with larger area. But if you haven't got lifetime in the same ballpark, it doesn't matter.


----------



## slacker711

LG Display reported their earnings and stated that they had seen better than expected reception to their new OLED TV's. They expect sales of 300,000 units each in Q1 and Q2 and 500,000 each in Q3 and Q4. The E4 expansion (additional 26,000 Gen 8 substrates) will be completed in Q2. 

https://seekingalpha.com/article/40...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

It sounds like profitibility in OLED's was better than expected and there is at least the possibility of upside to current capacity plans though that depends on customer demand.


----------



## darinp

slacker711 said:


> They expect sales of 300,000 units each in Q1 and Q2 and 500,000 each in Q3 and Q4.


Thanks. This may be somewhere in the thread, but do we have approximate numbers for Q3 and Q4 of 2016? A large jump in volume year over year should mean lower prices, not even counting lowering prices due to what the competition does.

--Darin


----------



## rogo

There is no chance in upside to consumer demand at anything resembling current prices, that's for sure. The holiday quarter is far and away the most important of the year. Last year, you could buy an OLED TV for about 30% less than you can now, when sales are slower.

I'm shocked they surprised to the upside at all, except maybe people are willing to overpay now more than LG thought for the newfangled stuff.


----------



## slacker711

darinp said:


> Thanks. This may be somewhere in the thread, but do we have approximate numbers for Q3 and Q4 of 2016? A large jump in volume year over year should mean lower prices, not even counting lowering prices due to what the competition does.
> 
> --Darin


I dont think they gave out quarterly units but I think the year was more back-end loaded. I wouldnt be surprised if they shipped 400,000 panels in Q4.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> There is no chance in upside to consumer demand at anything resembling current prices, that's for sure. The holiday quarter is far and away the most important of the year. Last year, you could buy an OLED TV for about 30% less than you can now, when sales are slower.
> 
> I'm shocked they surprised to the upside at all, except maybe people are willing to overpay now more than LG thought for the newfangled stuff.


No arguments from me about pricing and despite what they said about the reception to the 2017 units, the vast majority of end market sales had to be for the 2016 models in Q1. Maybe they are getting good feedback/demand from their non-LG customers? 

They kept mentioning upside and I wonder if the fab expansion ramps smoothly if we could see lower prices and more units by Q4.

At this point, I think the market would reward them if they increased capex and ramped OLED capacity faster.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> No arguments from me about pricing and despite what they said about the reception to the 2017 units, the vast majority of end market sales had to be for the 2016 models in Q1. Maybe they are getting good feedback/demand from their non-LG customers?


Right, I agree there were good sales of 2016 models in Q1.

I also tend to think that, yes, OEM is working well. Especially with LG pricing so high, leaving OEMs in position to make big margins even on small sales. Sony, for one, is obsessed with selling these sub 100K-unit models year after year that have high prices. Must remind them of the good old days of audio or something.


> They kept mentioning upside and I wonder if the fab expansion ramps smoothly if we could see lower prices and more units by Q4.


One can hope. As a consumer, I feel like this is the lost year.


> At this point, I think the market would reward them if they increased capex and ramped OLED capacity faster.


Yes, because it would be a stronger indication that OLED is the future in TV. Right now, with Samsung arguing otherwise, it's still not full apparent to Mr. Market.


----------



## paranoyd androyd

Have to keep in mind that IHS's last sales forecast (late 2016) was reduced by 32% to prior forecast.

2017 - 1.4M
2018 - 2.4M
2019 - 4M
2020 - 5.8M

Q2 actuals are going to be important, a bit too much spitballing thus far.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Remember when I said that a 42" OLED monitor seems much more likely than a 42" OLED TV since monitors of that size are in the higher-end market segment and therefore almost always have considerably higher price tags than TVs of similar size?

Well, consider that LG is launching a new 42.5" IPS 3840x2160 60Hz monitor with a pre-order price-tag of $700 (it has freesync too).

Of course it's not OLED, but the point is that it's pretty much exactly the kind of product I theorized a few weeks back. Therefore, once LG's new OLED plant is up and running and it's actually economically feasible to make 42" OLED panels, I think the chances for a 42" OLED monitor is now even better.


----------



## j.p.s

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Well, consider that LG is launching a new 42.5" IPS 3840x2160 60Hz monitor with a pre-order price-tag of $700 (it has freesync too).
> 
> Of course it's not OLED, but the point is that it's pretty much exactly the kind of product I theorized a few weeks back. Therefore, once LG's new OLED plant is up and running and it's actually economically feasible to make 42" OLED panels, I think the chances for a 42" OLED monitor is now even better.


2017 Q2 launch and it's Displayport 1.2 and 8 bit
.
If LG does release a 42" OLED monitor, I hope they do more than essentially a panel swap.


----------



## irkuck

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Remember when I said that a 42" OLED monitor seems much more likely than a 42" OLED TV since monitors of that size are in the higher-end market segment and therefore almost always have considerably higher price tags than TVs of similar size? Well, consider that LG is launching a new 42.5" IPS 3840x2160 60Hz monitor with a pre-order price-tag of $700 (it has freesync too). Of course it's not OLED, but the point is that it's pretty much exactly the kind of product I theorized a few weeks back. Therefore, once LG's new OLED plant is up and running and it's actually economically feasible to make 42" OLED panels, I think the chances for a 42" OLED monitor is now even better.


This is not theorizing, it is pipe dreaming. OLED monitor would not make sense for the LG. First issue would be the price, you mention $700 for the new IPS, how much the OLED would have to be for people buying, would it offer any noticeable benefits (remember monitors are used in center view and IPS is very good in the center)? Besides, LG has too limited manuf capabilities to introduce yet another size and they are focused strictly on TV market having enough issues there. Their strategy is simple: cranking up volumes of current TV line and selling them all to eventually establish OLED as an exclusive choice for high-end (meaning anybody with some knowledge and appreciation of PQ would buy OLED even if the price is bit higher). Expansion of LG OLED palette may happen in 2018 but in the direction of sizes bigger than the current 77-inch, sticking to the goal of eliminating LCD from the high-end.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

irkuck said:


> This is not theorizing, it is pipe dreaming.


The entire reason I even made my post was because there were people hypothesizing a few pages back about LG's being able to make 42" OLED panels at their new OLED plant, at which point I mentioned that 42" monitors typically go for considerably higher prices (easily two to three times) than 42" TVs, so therefore it seems much more likely that LG would try to sell a 42" OLED monitor than a 42" OLED TV.

That's all - nothing more, nothing less.




irkuck said:


> OLED monitor would not make sense for the LG.


I'm pretty sure that around a year ago over quite a few pages in this very thread, you, me, and some other people _completely_ beat to death the subject of whether OLED makes sense in monitors, laptops, etc, or not.

Therefore, it seems redundant to re-debate that very subject yet again.


----------



## irkuck

NintendoManiac64 said:


> The entire reason I even made my post was because there were people hypothesizing a few pages back about LG's being able to make 42" OLED panels at their new OLED plant, at which point I mentioned that 42" monitors typically go for considerably higher prices (easily two to three times) than 42" TVs, so therefore it seems much more likely that LG would try to sell a 42" OLED monitor than a 42" OLED TV.


Equally well one could speculate LG will be gluing their 42" OELD panels to the doors of their new line of 4K fridges. Logic tells however LG won't make any 42" OLED panels. To survive and succeed with its OLED LG must keep iron focus on high-end TV segment to establish OLED as the only reasonable choice for those concerned about PQ. This is very tricky game of expanding manufacturing, lowering the prices while not going into the red due to intense pressure from the LCD. Note for example vicious strategy of product naming by the competitor QLED. This is deliberateely done for blurring the lines and making OLED almost undistinguishable in the eyes of consumers.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

greenland said:


> Very few people are going to purchase expensive small TV sets. They are either going to purchase cheap LCD ones, because that is all they can afford, or rely on their phones and tablets instead, and those with deep pockets want to purchase large TV sets, not small ones.


And this is why I mentioned the monitor market, where $700 for a higher-end 42" display is actually very normal and $1000+ is common for any sort of _really_ high-end monitor.


You only need to look at the people that are buying Dell's 30" OLED monitor at $3500, and not only is it only 60Hz but it lacks HDR and doesn't even have a square pixel grid - three thing that aren't an issue for LG.


----------



## Wizziwig

I'm not entirely sure who the target market is for that Dell OLED. Color accuracy is crap and most of the people who bought them on other forums have already returned them. Instead of delaying it for a year, they probably should have just canceled production. I wonder if they are just clearing inventory at this point. Something released today at this price point needed to have HDR, 120Hz inputs, and reference-grade color for photo/video editing.


----------



## irkuck

NintendoManiac64 said:


> And this is why I mentioned the monitor market, where $700 for a higher-end 42" display is actually very normal and $1000+ is common for any sort of _really_ high-end monitor. You only need to look at the people that are buying Dell's 30" OLED monitor at $3500, and not only is it only 60Hz but it lacks HDR and doesn't even have a square pixel grid - three thing that aren't an issue for LG.


There are Sony 30" OLED monitors selling for 20G or something and people buying them but it means nothing from the point of LG strategy. Their focues is high-end TV market and they are balancing on line to expand their position there not diving into reds. Going into niches like 42" monitors would be crazy.




greenland said:


> Very few people are going to purchase expensive small TV sets. They are either going to purchase cheap LCD ones, because that is all they can afford, or rely on their phones and tablets instead, and those with deep pockets want to purchase large TV sets, not small ones.


And those among them which are aware about PQ will buy OLEDs. LG is trying hard to make OLED the only reasonable choice for them but LCD is not at a totally lost position yet due to the HDR. The current situation is 'if you prefer watching full glory of supernova explosions in sunny daylight buy pumped up LCD, if you prefer watching black hole in darkness buy OLED'.



Wizziwig said:


> I'm not entirely sure who the target market is more that Dell OLED. Color accuracy is crap and most of the people who bought them on other forums have already returned them. Instead of delaying it for a year, they probably should have just canceled production. I wonder if they are just clearing inventory at this point. Something released today at this price point needed to have HDR, 120Hz inputs, and reference-grade color for photo/video editing.


This means Samsung OLED tech is not ready for bigger size panels.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

irkuck said:


> [LG's] focus is high-end TV market and they are balancing on line to expand their position there not diving into reds. Going into niches like 42" monitors would be crazy.


Maybe, maybe not. It honestly doesn't matter since it's kind of irrelevant to my entire point:

_*If*_ for whatever reason, LG were to decide to make medium-sized OLED panels, then they'd be much better off using such panels in monitors than TVs due to much higher profit margins.

That is all. It may seem like a really obvious statement to someone like myself (and maybe to you as well?), but as someone that is a computer geek first and a home theater enthusiast second, I find that many AVSers seem to live in a bit of an "home theater bubble" and aren't all that aware of things like display markets outside of the traditional home theater industry.


----------



## irkuck

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Maybe, maybe not. It honestly doesn't matter since it's kind of irrelevant to my entire point:
> _*If*_ for whatever reason, LG were to decide to make medium-sized OLED panels, then they'd be much better off using such panels in monitors than TVs due to much higher profit margins. That is all. It may seem like a really obvious statement to someone like myself (and maybe to you as well?), but as someone that is a computer geek first and a home theater enthusiast second, I find that many AVSers seem to live in a bit of an "home theater bubble" and aren't all that aware of things like display markets outside of the traditional home theater industry.


You seem to be fixated on OLED in monitors. OLED offers little in monitors, its excellent viewing angle is of no signifance in the monitor viewing scenario and black level too since rarely monitors are used in darkness. You probably have in mind gaming applications played on big monitors (42 inch). In this case one can ask why not got full size and buy readily available 55 inch OLED TV? For applications which are strictly monitor usage 42 inch is too big from ergonomic reasons. I am using 32 inch 4K monitor lowered to the desk level. In this position I have comfortable head position looking bit down which is best to avoid neck pains. 42 incher is too big for such a comfort. 

Adding to the above, OLED offers something in monitors but in ultra high-end applications of making professional photography and video. For movie productions, ultimate display PQ is needed and this is why Sony sells in this segment 20G OLED monitors.


----------



## sshamim

Anyone knows if any manufacturer is going to release 50" or smaller OLEDs any time soon?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

irkuck said:


> You seem to be fixated on OLED in monitors.


I'm fixated on OLED in monitors simply because 55" is too large for my PC setup - I would have to put it on the other side of the room otherwise, at which point I'd have to use 200% DPI scaling which starts to defeat the purpose of 4k.

My use-case is mixed - photos, video, gaming, and even some digital arts; I'm also a massive night-owl so I prefer using light-colored text on black backgrounds (a habit I developed with CRTs), and that just doesn't work well on LCDs.

One thing I love though is native 100Hz and 120Hz input, and there's no way I can sacrifice those (I'm also one of those heretics that like framerate interpolation).



There's clearly a market for a high-end medium-sized consumer OLED monitor considering existence of the following forum thread with over 500 posts in the last month alone:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1627849/oled-4k-30-60-hz-dell-up3017q


----------



## irkuck

NintendoManiac64 said:


> There's clearly a market for a high-end medium-sized consumer OLED monitor considering existence of the following forum thread with over 500 posts in the last month alone: http://www.overclock.net/t/1627849/oled-4k-30-60-hz-dell-up3017q


Ah, those ultrahardcore graphics people are the market? This is too shallow niche to make monitors in volumes, or, in fact Dell was also be thinking of addressing them with the 3 grands 30" OLED and you would not like to pay 5 grands for the 42" OLED, right? The market for OLED monitors would exist if one could produce for the price close to high-end LCD. This is impossible since there are no manufacturing capabilities and if one builds them the product cost can not be close to the LCD due to the investment outlay. This is very nasty chickenandegg type of problem. One should admire mastery of LG of pushing into the big size high-end TV sets by dynamically building up manufacturing and reducing prices. On this road, LG can not allow to loose its focus. 



sshamim said:


> Anyone knows if any manufacturer is going to release 50" or smaller OLEDs any time soon?


They won't be coming since there is no way to make any money in this segment. The only reasonable markets for OLEDs are phones and big size TVs. Manufacturers see much more promise in automotive displays than in mid size OLEDs.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

irkuck said:


> Ah, those ultrahardcore graphics people are the market? This is too shallow niche to make monitors in volumes, or, in fact Dell was also be thinking of addressing them with the 3 grands 30" OLED and you would not like to pay 5 grands for the 42" OLED, right? The market for OLED monitors would exist if one could produce for the price close to high-end LCD. This is impossible since there are no manufacturing capabilities and if one builds them the product cost can not be close to the LCD due to the investment outlay.


Few things here.

1. If LG can sell a 55" OLED TV for $1500, and we know that larger size = higher cost (see: 55" vs 65" vs 77" OLED), then there's no reason that a 42" OLED display couldn't cost around $1000

2. It's already been stated several pages back that, with LG's upcoming OLED plant, should be completely feasible to manufacture 42" panels

3. The $1000 market for 42" monitors is obviously way bigger than the $1000 market for 42" TVs.

4. A 42" OLED monitor with 4k, HDR, and 120Hz (three things LG's TVs already do) at a $1000 price-point would be able to hit multiple market segments and not just a single niche - the high-end gamer, the videophile, and the photo/video professional with a reasonable budget. And monitors of course can double as a tunerless "dumb" TVs - LG just has to throw in a basic remote as well.


----------



## paranoyd androyd

Biggest untapped market is 12"-17" panels for tablets and notebooks/convertibles.

The few devices in that range that currently offer an OLED panel option are typically only ~$200 more than the standard LCD option.

Unfortunately, it's probably going to take Apple to adopt OLED across their iPad and macbook lines for OLED to really take off in this segment. They eventually will of course, but how long is the question. A few PC models have been nobly trying to lead the way with OLED, but they simply don't have the marketing outreach of an Apple or Samsung.


----------



## irkuck

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Few things here.
> 
> 1. If LG can sell a 55" OLED TV for $1500, and we know that larger size = higher cost (see: 55" vs 65" vs 77" OLED), then there's no reason that a 42" OLED display couldn't cost around $1000
> 2. It's already been stated several pages back that, with LG's upcoming OLED plant, should be completely feasible to manufacture 42" panels
> 3. The $1000 market for 42" monitors is obviously way bigger than the $1000 market for 42" TVs.
> 4. A 42" OLED monitor with 4k, HDR, and 120Hz (three things LG's TVs already do) at a $1000 price-point would be able to hit multiple market segments and not just a single niche - the high-end gamer, the videophile, and the photo/video professional with a reasonable budget. And monitors of course can double as a tunerless "dumb" TVs - LG just has to throw in a basic remote as well.


Continuing your line of thought one could say LG should be able shjoot from the hip and extinguish LCD from the monitor market and then open serial fire killing the LCD completely. 42" monitors are overall a niche since they do not fit well to the desktop standard scenario. Sure, there are some for which it would be good but then their requirements are go up like you mention plus calibration. OLED has still some issues with critical aspects of PQ. 



paranoyd androyd said:


> Biggest untapped market is 12"-17" panels for tablets and notebooks/convertibles.
> The few devices in that range that currently offer an OLED panel option are typically only ~$200 more than the standard LCD option.
> Unfortunately, it's probably going to take Apple to adopt OLED across their iPad and macbook lines for OLED to really take off in this segment. They eventually will of course, but how long is the question. A few PC models have been nobly trying to lead the way with OLED, but they simply don't have the marketing outreach of an Apple or Samsung.


Samsung is pushing their small OLEDs for years, technology is ready but the barrier is the price several times higher than LCD. Apple adopting it will only mean OLED is making inroads into high-end but one should not forget Apple is marginal in the overall market. Expanding OLED down the cost ladder will require major decrease in prices. Tablets and notebooks are even much tougher from this point of view. 
Note the news OLED manufacturers see automotive as most promising and that is due to panel flexibility and robustness.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

paranoyd androyd said:


> Biggest untapped market is 12"-17" panels for tablets and notebooks/convertibles.


This is doublely true when one considers that WOLED may in fact have less power consumption displaying white than Samsung's RGB OLED, and PC applications and web sites have a _ton_ of white (which is RGB OLED's worst-case scenario power-wise).


Consider that WOLED is made of a yellow and blue, two elements, which together make white (presumably the white subpixel is unfiltered).

RGB OLED is made of red, green, and blue elements, one per subpixel. White however would require all three elements, and last I checked, 3 > 2.


Now of course displaying something like pure red, pure green, or pure blue on RGB OLED would use less power than WOLED, but those colors are far less common than white. Similarly, the worst-case scenario colors for WOLED (yellow, cyan, or magenta) are also much less common, so they should have much less of an effect on power than white on RGB OLED would.


----------



## paranoyd androyd

irkuck said:


> Samsung is pushing their small OLEDs for years, technology is ready but the barrier is the price several times higher than LCD. Apple adopting it will only mean OLED is making inroads into high-end but one should not forget Apple is marginal in the overall market. Expanding OLED down the cost ladder will require major decrease in prices. Tablets and notebooks are even much tougher from this point of view. Note the news OLED manufacturers see automotive as most promising and that is due to panel flexibility and robustness.


It's not several times higher at this size range. You can upgrade to an OLED panel on various 12"-14" devices right now for a mere ~$200 extra. That's nothing. And as for Apple's adoption and what that would mean for the high-end, aren't we only primarily concerned about the high-end here anyway? While I'm not an Apple consumer, my point is that they could at least serve as a 'good soldier' towards quicker adoption for OLED as a whole. There's always going to be demand for high-end notebooks/convertibles and many such consumers are/would be excited to benefit from an OLED option. Overall, in the short to medium term, OLED enthusiasts shouldn't really be concerned about when OLED will reach the level of the 'disposable' notebook.

As for Samsung, yes, they've used OLED off and on in their tablets dating back to 2011, and currently offer the 12" OLED Samsung Galaxy Book to try and compete with the MS Surface Book. However, they've never offered an OLED option on any of their own previously branded notebooks. Whereas, Samsung Display has/does supply OLED panels to other PC OEMs like Lenovo and HP.



NintendoManiac64 said:


> This is doublely true when one considers that WOLED may in fact have less power consumption displaying white than Samsung's RGB OLED, and PC applications and web sites have a _ton_ of white (which is RGB OLED's worst-case scenario power-wise).
> 
> Consider that WOLED is made of a yellow and blue, two elements, which together make white (presumably the white subpixel is unfiltered).
> 
> RGB OLED is made of red, green, and blue elements, one per subpixel. White however would require all three elements, and last I checked, 3 > 2.
> 
> Now of course displaying something like pure red, pure green, or pure blue on RGB OLED would use less power than WOLED, but those colors are far less common than white. Similarly, the worst-case scenario colors for WOLED (yellow, cyan, or magenta) are also much less common, so they should have much less of an effect on power than white on RGB OLED would.


Yes, excellent points about WOLED for the entire 5"-17" range, as Samsung's RGB OLEDs in this segment have had their fair share of QC issues.

LG Display will apparently be the back-up supplier for Apple's upcoming 5.1/5.2" OLED iPhone. And according to the latest that I've read, LG Display has a good chance of being the main supplier for Google's upcoming Pixel 2 line. So there's already competition in the 5"-17" range for phone, phablet, tablet, notebooks/convertible. (And the Japanese and Chinese will also soon be manufacturing small OLED panels as well (and most likely for TV too).


----------



## irkuck

paranoyd androyd said:


> It's not several times higher at this size range. You can upgrade to an OLED panel on various 12"-14" devices right now for a mere ~$200 extra. That's nothing.


I had in mind smartphone displays when telling the OLED cost is several times higher. Saying that 200 bucks extra is nothing you are far away from the reality of producing stuff. This is huge cost when manufacturers are fighting for every buck or even cents in their component costs. It mean OLED can be used only in very high end devices and it is there one can see them. another issue is the benefit
OLED brings in those 12-14 inch devices, or rather lack of them, while some issues are reported.



paranoyd androyd said:


> And as for Apple's adoption and what that would mean for the high-end, aren't we only primarily concerned about the high-end here anyway? While I'm not an Apple consumer, my point is that they could at least serve as a 'good soldier' towards quicker adoption for OLED as a whole. There's always going to be demand for high-end notebooks/convertibles and many such consumers are/would be excited to benefit from an OLED option. Overall, in the short to medium term, OLED enthusiasts shouldn't really be concerned about when OLED will reach the level of the 'disposable' notebook. As for Samsung, yes, they've used OLED off and on in their tablets dating back to 2011, and currently offer the 12" OLED Samsung Galaxy Book to try and compete with the MS Surface Book. However, they've never offered an OLED option on any of their own previously branded notebooks. Whereas, Samsung Display has/does supply OLED panels to other PC OEMs like Lenovo and HP.


High-end means small market niche while the discussion is concerned with expansion of OLED reach. Such expansion requires signifcatn lowering of the OLED prices close to the LCD level. Apple adopting OLED is mere expansion in the high-end area which is obviously good but not meaning general expansion of OLED. It most likely signifies progress that Apple OLED is refined so much that it is absolutely prefect display without any issues whatsoever and shocking PQ. That is excellent but the road to get prices close to the LCD level is not getting shorter by this.


----------



## paranoyd androyd

irkuck said:


> I had in mind smartphone displays when telling the OLED cost is several times higher. Saying that 200 bucks extra is nothing you are far away from the reality of producing stuff. This is huge cost when manufacturers are fighting for every buck or even cents in their component costs. It mean OLED can be used only in very high end devices and it is there one can see them. another issue is the benefit OLED brings in those 12-14 inch devices, or rather lack of them, while some issues are reported.


The additional $200 example is for consumers in the 12"-14" device range, not smartphones, so I think you misunderstood. But if you want to stick to a discussion about smartphone OLED vs. 12-17" OLED devices, that's ok too. However, questioning the "benefit" of OLED at 12"-17" vs. smartphone size doesn't make any sense, since the benefits and enjoyment of OLED will always be greater at larger sizes. So, from that perspective, OLED in smartphones really serves the least beneficial purpose for viewing.



irkuck said:


> High-end means small market niche while the discussion is concerned with expansion of OLED reach. Such expansion requires signifcatn lowering of the OLED prices close to the LCD level. Apple adopting OLED is mere expansion in the high-end area which is obviously good but not meaning general expansion of OLED. It most likely signifies progress that Apple OLED is refined so much that it is absolutely prefect display without any issues whatsoever and shocking PQ. That is excellent but the road to get prices close to the LCD level is not getting shorter by this.


I'm quite familiar with the discussion, thanks. It's just hard to understand why you continue telling everyone that there's essentially no "benefit" or demand for OLED between smartphone and TV sizes, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. If you honestly think that LCD is going to continue occupying the enormous space between 6" and 55" panel sizes, you're sorely mistaken. Everything trickles down, including BOM costs and consumer prices, so it is most critical that OLED first makes an impact at the high-end level for the greater purpose of OLED adoption on the whole. Not too sure how anyone can disagree with that.


----------



## JimP

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Few things here.
> 
> 1. If LG can sell a 55" OLED TV for $1500, and we know that larger size = higher cost (see: 55" vs 65" vs 77" OLED), then there's no reason that a 42" OLED display couldn't cost around $1000


As a retired accountant, you've got me curious about this.

Do you have a breakdown of fixed versus variable cost for a 55" OLED display? 

I've wondered for a while how much direct materials go into these displays as a part of total cost. Got to recover that plant and R&D cost not to speak of ongoing overhead cost.


----------



## irkuck

paranoyd androyd said:


> The additional $200 example is for consumers in the 12"-14" device range, not smartphones, so I think you misunderstood. But if you want to stick to a discussion about smartphone OLED vs. 12-17" OLED devices, that's ok too. However, questioning the "benefit" of OLED at 12"-17" vs. smartphone size doesn't make any sense, since the benefits and enjoyment of OLED will always be greater at larger sizes. So, from that perspective, OLED in smartphones really serves the least beneficial purpose for viewing.


What I am saying is that benefits of OLED in both smartphone and portable devices category is limited. In smartphones it might be greater due to its thinness in situation where every micron counts. Still, the Apple OLED might be next generation with flooring PQ showing benefit over LCD. There is some similarity with market position of OLED in TV and smartphones: both are focused now on grabbing high-end. It would be a huge success for OLED if LCD is virtually extinguished from this segment. Getting Apple on board will be collosal step forward as it may initiate runaway from LCD in the premium smartphone products. In the TV area LG has to get manufacturing capacities ready before trying the same. 



paranoyd androyd said:


> I'm quite familiar with the discussion, thanks. It's just hard to understand why you continue telling everyone that there's essentially no "benefit" or demand for OLED between smartphone and TV sizes, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. If you honestly think that LCD is going to continue occupying the enormous space between 6" and 55" panel sizes, you're sorely mistaken. Everything trickles down, including BOM costs and consumer prices, so it is most critical that OLED first makes an impact at the high-end level for the greater purpose of OLED adoption on the whole. Not too sure how anyone can disagree with that.


What I am saying is that OLED can make inroads into the in-between space if and when its price will be competitive with LCD. This is extremely difficult to achieve since LCD prices are target moving down south when competitor is coming from the north, with time and they can get much lower than today.


----------



## rogo

JimP said:


> As a retired accountant, you've got me curious about this.
> 
> Do you have a breakdown of fixed versus variable cost for a 55" OLED display?
> 
> I've wondered for a while how much direct materials go into these displays as a part of total cost. Got to recover that plant and R&D cost not to speak of ongoing overhead cost.


I'm not doing this math now, but a couple of things worth noting (for someone, or me, to do it later):

1) Fixed cost should be easily calculated with a small-ish error margin. The fab has a somewhat understood cost, capacity, and (very likely) a 5-year depreciation curve. It won't cease functioning then, but it's likely it's over 5 years that depreciation expense still exists. Multiply capacity x 60 x number of displays per substrate, divide that into the cost of the fab and you have "fixed costs per display" more or less. (you have to account for yield too, so maybe take 85% of the total over the fab's lifetime?)

2) Variable cost includes labor, materials, energy (and of course transport, margin, etc. upstream). There's a number of really expensive materials in these screens and yet not a lot of any of them. Someone may have some data handy on how much OLED material costs per display. As for the rest (the ITO, the backplane TFT, the color filters LG uses, etc. these are mostly the same as for LCD). Mathable to an extent, with the acknowledgement that at some point the total of all the steps should be slightly better than LCD because it's a slightly simplified process.


----------



## videobruce

NintendoManiac64 said:


> 4. A 42" OLED monitor with 4k, HDR, and 120Hz (three things LG's TVs already do) at a $1000 price-point would be able to hit multiple market segments and not just a single niche - the high-end gamer, the videophile, and the photo/video professional with a reasonable budget. And monitors of course can double as a tunerless "dumb" TVs - LG just has to throw in a basic remote as well.


Since the main difference between a "TV" and a "monitor" is the tuner (for the most part), from a manufacturing standpoint it's weighing the advantages of slightly less cost of omitting the tuner vs the versatility of having one even if the set won't be connected to an antenna.
*The two key players there are the videophile, and the photo/video professional!* where there has always been a shortage of above quality monitors without going into the broadcast level.

Then there is this upcoming huge unwanted and unneeded *planned obsolesce* of ATSC 1 in the very near future which obsoletes all existing tuners and *especially DVR's*.


----------



## Luke M

irkuck said:


> Samsung is pushing their small OLEDs for years, technology is ready but the barrier is the price several times higher than LCD. Apple adopting it will only mean OLED is making inroads into high-end but one should not forget Apple is marginal in the overall market. Expanding OLED down the cost ladder will require major decrease in prices. Tablets and notebooks are even much tougher from this point of view.
> Note the news OLED manufacturers see automotive as most promising and that is due to panel flexibility and robustness.


Small OLEDs have been close to price parity with LCDs for a while now. This doesn't mean that the industry can switch to OLEDs overnight, though (if they tried the price difference would increase).


----------



## irkuck

Luke M said:


> Small OLEDs have been close to price parity with LCDs for a while now. This doesn't mean that the industry can switch to OLEDs overnight, though (if they tried the price difference would increase).


What is the source of your information about 'close to price parity'? I cited reliable source some time age that smartphone OLED panels cost several time of LCD.

For the OLED monitors fanboys, there is one more information about the extreme potential of the LCD tech: a monitor with CR of 1 000 000:1, capable of outblasting 1 000 nits, and cummin soon. For the time being the new LCD technology is directed for high-end professional apps and probably carries long price sticker but who knows if it won't come down.


----------



## Wizziwig

^^^ that sort of extreme contrast LCD would also still have the usual LCD resistance to burn-in. Something that is very important for monitor use - especially work environments putting in 8-hour days on the panel. That's why I'm very skeptical OLED will ever get a foothold in the monitor market.

I think that high contrast LCD uses some kind of dual layered LCD panel where each pixel is modulated by two separate LCD panels. Kind of makes sense if you look at the numbers. A typical IPS panel can achieve 1000:1 so stacking them on top of each other would get you to 1,00,000:1. Main problem is you need to put out a massive amount of light to get enough light past all those layers. This may never scale to TV sizes because of power concerns.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Wizziwig said:


> Main problem is you need to put out a massive amount of light to get enough light past all those layers..


Don't forget that your cost will likely be doubled since it's now two panels rather than one - that could very well put it in the same price-bracket as WOLED.


----------



## Luke M

irkuck said:


> What is the source of your information about 'close to price parity'? I cited reliable source some time age that smartphone OLED panels cost several time of LCD.


The news articles on the subject all seem to be sourced to IHS, but IHS's stuff is behind a paywall, so...I'll retract the statement. I don't know.


----------



## irkuck

Wizziwig said:


> ^^^ that sort of extreme contrast LCD would also still have the usual LCD resistance to burn-in. Something that is very important for monitor use - especially work environments putting in 8-hour days on the panel. That's why I'm very skeptical OLED will ever get a foothold in the monitor market.


Burn-in is nowadays considered as no issue in OLED. OLED can get a foothold everywhere it its price will get comparable to LCD.



Wizziwig said:


> I think that high contrast LCD uses some kind of dual layered LCD panel where each pixel is modulated by two separate LCD panels. Kind of makes sense if you look at the numbers. A typical IPS panel can achieve 1000:1 so stacking them on top of each other would get you to 1,00,000:1. Main problem is you need to put out a massive amount of light to get enough light past all those layers. This may never scale to TV sizes because of power concerns.


It is not that simple. LCD works by manipulating polarization of light. Panasonic calls the seconde layer 'light modulator', it apparently controls light intensity without impacting polarisation. That could be seen by analogy with dimming LEDs which is polarisation neutral, in this case the light modulator is dimming.


----------



## Wizziwig

In light of this burn-in thread, I'm not so sure that OLED is ready for computer monitor applications where you would be required to display static images like the task-bar or tool bars of productivity apps for hours on end every day.

Then there is the whole ABL issue which will pop up more frequently due to large white backgrounds being the norm in computer use.

Overall, I agree pricing is the main problem. Monitor LCD is now a cheap commodity where various monitor vendors just slap custom processing and/or packaging around dirt cheap panels.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Wizziwig said:


> In light of this burn-in thread


You will notice that the burn-in seems to not be simply due to static elements like one would expect (such as how it worked on CRT and plasma), but rather seems to be related to bright vivid colors such as florescent yellow.

As is mentioned in that thread, there are several people using their OLED TV as a PC monitor and yet have never had such burn-in, again pointing to the idea that static imagery alone isn't an issue.


----------



## Wizziwig

We don't know what the issue is. You also have users with burn-in of simple white text such as the CNN logo. Just having an OLED hooked up to a computer for occasional monitor usage is not the same as using one exclusively as a full-time work display that gets zero mixed TV usage.


----------



## irkuck

irkuck said:


> Extreme potential of the LCD tech: a monitor with CR of 1 000 000:1, capable of outblasting 1 000 nits, and cummin soon. For the time being the new LCD technology is directed for high-end professional apps and probably carries long price sticker but who knows if it won't come down.


In a couple of months we will actually see how the new LCD technology is performing. However the monitors will be made by Eizo which is focused on high-end and would not use the technology if it is not excellent. Deadly challenger for OLED might be in the cards, looking into the original press release is quite revealing and here are some citations:

The coming Eizo monitor is called ColorEdge PROMINENCE. *The name “PROMINENCE” refers to the phenomenon known as a solar prominence – a flame-like eruption which extends from the Sun’s surface. This image of the bright sun shining against the deep black of space lends to the monitor’s ability to accurately display both bright and dark content. 

**Here follow the OLED and traditional LCD killing shots* :devil:**:
_This professional color grading monitor is *the first to overcome the severe drawbacks of other HDR technologies* that are available in the market today – *ABL and local dimming*. ABL (Auto Brightness Limiter) is equipped in other HDR OLED monitors and limits the monitor’s ability to display lighter scenes with tones over a specific range in order to prolong the device’s lifetime. This causes those light areas to appear dimmer and the color duller as a result. Local dimming uses an area control backlight system which adjusts the brightness in sections of the screen depending on the content displayed. However, when an object on the screen falls outside of the area of the backlight that is adjusted, a “halo” effect appears, making it impossible to achieve full color accuracy in smaller details. ColorEdge PROMINENCE CG3145 achieves a true HDR visual experience without ABL or the “halo” effect to ensure users always see accurate colors and brightness in every pixel.
_
That would look like OLED and LCD getting their EOL proscribed, with only if by the name of inventor Panasonic. Old Japanese companies are not exactly known of recently to be able to push their inventions into voluminous products. Remind Sharp's IGZO and Sony's OLED to gage that Panasonic may be following the same track: occupy small specialized niche and be happy. So as for now, do not salivate for the prospect of seeing blinding Prominence in shops.

Anyway, here 



.


----------



## Wizziwig

I know this is a prototype but check out the thickness of this LCD. 

Will be surprised if this isn't using active cooling (maybe even water cooling) to achieve those sustained HDR brightness numbers. Even the Dell OLED monitor with a fraction of this brightness is using active fan cooling.

I wonder if we're someday going to return to the CRT level of display thickness in order to achieve the 10,000 nit displays that are the goal for HDR.


----------



## Creator44

Somebody here told me that OLED dims really fast with usage. In 1 year he saw his Galaxy phone go from white to dim yellow and he said he saw it happen to LG OLED and Samsung AMOLED too.

Is it really going to dim that fast? I mean it surely will dim with time like Plasma, but surely it will take longer? Doesn't LG rate their OLED for a rather long period of time from what I read somewhere?

I wonder if Best Buy covers this too?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Wizziwig said:


> I know this is a prototype but check out the thickness of this LCD. .


Yeah...a big reason I want OLED in the PC space is for _laptops_, especially since VA panels are much more rare in that market - they're all pretty much TN or IPS, so your black levels are never all that great!

Yes I know, OLED laptops already exist so why don't I get one of them? Because I actually had two requirements for a laptop - one is OLED, and the other is Raven Ridge (which won't be available until later this year).

I also prefer LG WOLED to Samsung's RGB OLED (especially considering the former's square pixel grid), but it's not the end of the world since DPI scaling would likely be necessary anyway.


----------



## JimP

Creator44 said:


> Somebody here told me that OLED dims really fast with usage. In 1 year he saw his Galaxy phone go from white to dim yellow and he said he saw it happen to LG OLED and Samsung AMOLED too.
> 
> Is it really going to dim that fast? I mean it surely will dim with time like Plasma, but surely it will take longer? Doesn't LG rate their OLED for a rather long period of time from what I read somewhere?
> 
> I wonder if Best Buy covers this too?


The underlying question should be which generation OLED?

When the 2016s came out, an LG engineer stated that they had changed how they did blue so it wouldn't strain it as in earlier generations. That's kind of the drawback to knowing what will happen. If you buy the current model, it may be 3 or 4 years before you know anything. ....and I don't really expect engineers speaking at conventions to tell the whole story. It may have been an improvement but then what should we expect in terms of brightness and color balance?


----------



## video_analysis

Over 5k hours on a 55EA9800 (2013/14 model), and the colors are not horridly off (based on eyeballing it) in comparison to when I first obtained it nor is the brightness particularly diminished.

Creator, it's important to remember who spouted that futuristic uncertainty because while there may be an ounce of truth to it, the purveyor of that information might have been spouting it to spread his/her own agenda.


----------



## Creator44

JimP said:


> The underlying question should be which generation OLED?
> 
> When the 2016s came out, an LG engineer stated that they had changed how they did blue so it wouldn't strain it as in earlier generations. That's kind of the drawback to knowing what will happen. If you buy the current model, it may be 3 or 4 years before you know anything. ....and I don't really expect engineers speaking at conventions to tell the whole story. It may have been an improvement but then what should we expect in terms of brightness and color balance?


Yeah I thought as much. This tech mostly has new owners.



video_analysis said:


> Over 5k hours on a 55EA9800 (2013/14 model), and the colors are not horridly off (based on eyeballing it) in comparison to when I first obtained it nor is the brightness particularly diminished.
> 
> Creator, it's important to remember who spouted that futuristic uncertainty because while there may be an ounce of truth to it, the purveyor of that information might have been spouting it to spread his/her own agenda.


Fuzalert from the LCD thread said it. He said he was thinking about the A1E but then didn't want to invest that much in a TV that will be dimmer and less crisp in 1 year.

I didn't want to say it because it's then easy to say "He's an LCD guy so he will bash on OLED". You gotta keep an open mind and there is logic in what he says.

I guess it depends on how long you keep your displays. I tend to keep them for 5-7 years but not sure I will on my next TV because the 4K and HDR stuff is changing often.


----------



## Wizziwig

The main question I have is whether they will dim gradually like older emissive displays (which had no active compensation) or fall off a cliff once the compensation cycles run out of range. The Kodak patents claim their is a limit to how much compensations can boost the signal to equalize brightness loss over life but they don't say exact number of hours. Imagine you could be running along fine for X hours and then suddenly start a death spiral where it either fades quickly or starts to become an IR/BI magnet. Still too early to tell exactly what path to final death these displays will follow. I'm not sure we'll ever know since the panel could fail catastrophically from other causes (PSU failure, dead pixels, etc.) long before brightness becomes an issue or become obsolete and get replaced. Last I checked, there were a couple other original EA9800 owners like VA without any issues at ~5000 hours and I have not seen reports of premature dimming (unless you count the Burn-in thread).


----------



## Kamus

Wizziwig said:


> ^^^ that sort of extreme contrast LCD would also still have the usual LCD resistance to burn-in. Something that is very important for monitor use - especially work environments putting in 8-hour days on the panel. That's why I'm very skeptical OLED will ever get a foothold in the monitor market.


It would also have the incredibly ****ty response time all LCD panels have always had.
As a gamer, I would risk burn in any day over the mediocre response time LCD panels have. Mind you, i have a really good LCD for gaming (Dell 27" g-sync monitor), but it's still trash compared to OLED in that regard.

That said, 240hz monitors are coming out, so settling for 120hz just doesn't seem right for OLED. This may not sound like a big deal (and it shouldn't be for a lot of people) But if you're into FPS games, especially fast paced ones like Overwatch, 240hz makes a world of difference (yes, you can still see the obvious benefit of higher FPS/Hz)

So, even with contrast ratio, LCD still sucks compared to OLED for smooth motion.


----------



## mnc

What big changes are coming to OLED next year?


----------



## joys_R_us

mnc said:


> What big changes are coming to OLED next year?


It will be a PHENOMENAL tv, the best ever made. A GREAT achievement for this GREATEST audience in this world.......


----------



## mnc

I know your joking but I was being serious.
D-nice hinted at big changes for next year, just wondering if there was any info yet.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

mnc said:


> I know your joking but I was being serious.
> D-nice hinted at big changes for next year, just wondering if there was any info yet.


Next years leap forward will be an iteration which combines a Back to the Future time transporter and a Star Trek teleportation machine.

Unfortunately, some of the original test audience has been lost in the future and past and some have not been reassembled as what we would consider a human being.

Needless to say there are some minor kinks that need to be worked out but the lawyers are working on an iron clad waiver of injury or loss of life claims.


----------



## mattg3

MNC is serious and Im sure a lot of us want to know,especially when D-Nice speaks.


----------



## wco81

Isn't there some hope that LG will increase the brightness by a lot to be more competitive with the LED TVs touting 1000 nits?


----------



## astateofmind

Hmmm, this thread makes me wanna return my freshly bought C6 and wait 1-2 more years ...


----------



## Kamus

joys_R_us said:


> It will be a PHENOMENAL tv, the best ever made. A GREAT achievement for this GREATEST audience in this world.......


are you high?

Anyway, next year the biggest feature I'm looking for is HFR at 4k and VRR.

120hz seems like it's set in stone. But I would love 240hz, which is not going to happen.


----------



## joys_R_us

Kamus said:


> are you high?


Whenever I watch the news I wish I were high !

Coming back to the topic, I am quite sure that LGD will introduce a new panel/pixel architecture with other oled stacks (probably rgb) and reversed tft connections and bigger pixel area. Maybe even quantum dots in the filters; all resulting in higher brightness and better colour gamut...

If it will result in better panels from the start on remaines to be seen as LGD is not only trying to improve the panel quality but also to decrease the costs. So that people waiting for next years oleds may be burned (at least at the beginning until early problems with the new panels get solved).


----------



## dvrw3

mnc said:


> I know your joking but I was being serious.
> D-nice hinted at big changes for next year, just wondering if there was any info yet.


Aside HFR and HDMI 2.1, from what I read it looks like LG will reshape the pixel structure. Until now all their panels are optimized for passive 3D with the FPR polarizer that requires large vertical spacing between the pixels to maintain the 3D effect. This result in smaller pixels area = lower brightness. 

3D passive FPR panel









In the images below you can see in practice what I said. The OLED LG has large spaces between pixels, while Samsung OLED , which also had 3D but was active and non-passive FPR, the pixel area is much larger.

LG OLED 65W7V 









Samsung OLED TV









If so, I expect a great improvement in brightness that will result in a more correct HDR presentation in the higher spectrum of the brightness, perhaps finally LG implement the BFI (they have not yet put it because of the great drop in brightness, that's what I read ) that should improve motion resolution. Let's hope it's true.


----------



## joys_R_us

*LG Display to Produce LCD Panels at 10.5G Plant*

LG Display decided to produce LCD panels in its 10.5G plant (P10) which it is now building in Paju in the northwest of Gyeonggi Province for completion by the latter half of next year. The P10 will launch LCD panel mass-production from late 2018. 

LG Display originally reviewed the idea of producing OLED panels there but changed its mind towards LCD panel production based on judgment that the size of the OLED TV market would not expand as fast as expected before. 

http://english.hankyung.com/it/2017/05/22/1658571/lg-display-to-produce-lcd-panels-at-105g-plant

Seemingly the margins in the LCD market are higher and safer. But it reminds me of the saying: "Don't beat a dead horse"...

Very shortsided decision.

EDIT:

"It is likely (and even hinted by LG before) that the P10 will produce both LCDs and OLEDs, and not just LCDs as this new report suggests."

https://www.oled-info.com/report-ko...oduce-lcds-and-not-oleds-its-upcoming-p10-fab


----------



## mnc

As someone who keeps their purchases for a long time, I wonder if I'd be better off waiting until next year to buy an OLED?
I know you can make that argument for every product every year but I really wonder if next years will be substantially better?


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> *LG Display to Produce LCD Panels at 10.5G Plant*
> 
> LG Display decided to produce LCD panels in its 10.5G plant (P10) which it is now building in Paju in the northwest of Gyeonggi Province for completion by the latter half of next year. The P10 will launch LCD panel mass-production from late 2018.
> 
> LG Display originally reviewed the idea of producing OLED panels there but changed its mind towards LCD panel production based on *judgment that the size of the OLED TV market would not expand as fast as expected before. *
> 
> http://english.hankyung.com/it/2017/05/22/1658571/lg-display-to-produce-lcd-panels-at-105g-plant
> 
> Seemingly the margins in the LCD market are higher and safer. But it reminds me of the saying: "Don't beat a dead horse"...
> 
> Very shortsided decision.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> "It is likely (and even hinted by LG before) that the P10 will produce both LCDs and OLEDs, and not just LCDs as this new report suggests."
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/report-ko...oduce-lcds-and-not-oleds-its-upcoming-p10-fab


Very dissapointing (and an indication that OLED TV pricing is going to drop more slowly than many are hoping).

On the other hand, the uncertainty about P10 substrate size is gone - Looks as LG is going to be following in BOE's footsteps (75" & 65"):

"Sources close to the situation said on May 21, "LG Display selected 75-inch LCD TV panels as initial products for the soon-to-be-established plant. To secure the supply of glass substrates needed for the production of 10.5G LCD panels, LG Display recently started negotiations with related companies such as NEG and PEG."


----------



## BlueChris

mnc said:


> As someone who keeps their purchases for a long time, I wonder if I'd be better off waiting until next year to buy an OLED?
> I know you can make that argument for every product every year but I really wonder if next years will be substantially better?


You know I'm in the same situation as you but i say this and i must decide soon. 
If i want 3d the time is passing and soon enouph there will be no more e6 lg in the market but if i decide that i don't want 3d then for sure i can wait next year because maybe we will see hdmi 2.1.

Thats my dilemma.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Very dissapointing (and an indication that OLED TV pricing is going to drop more slowly than many are hoping).


100% certain.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

BlueChris said:


> You know I'm in the same situation as you but i say this and i must decide soon.
> If i want 3d the time is passing and soon enouph there will be no more e6 lg in the market but if i decide that i don't want 3d then for sure i can wait next year because maybe we will see hdmi 2.1.
> 
> Thats my dilemma.


I will not take HDMI 2.1 as a reality until 48 gbps cables exist and are certified by a reliable tester. I think the cables are a technological hurdle which may require a new port configuration and a fiber optical solution.

So, I would not wait for HDMI 2.1 but other may want features that do not require 48 gbps and of course everyone is free to spend his or her money and predict the future.


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, there were dualing rumors from Korea about what LGD was going to do with their P10 fab. 

http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/engl...play-make-p10-plant-paju-oled-production-base



> A senior official from a LG Group affiliate said on May 22, “The P10 Plant in Paju is set to focus on OLED production, and we are now in the final talks over the exact percentage of OLED production. However, LG Display can decide on whether it will stick to the initial plan or an alternative plan, which produces some LCD products first and then moves to OLEDs, considering the market situations in the second half of the year as the company has the technical ability to produce OLEDs at the LCD production facilities.” *In this regard, LG Display presented its clear vision through its company intranet that it will introduce the production lines of both mobile POLEDs and large OLEDs in the P10 factory in Paju. *The company has decided to make its bid by targeting the OLED market, instead of the LCD which is becoming the red ocean industry.


LGD has been saying that they will make the decision by June so we should know fairly soon. It would be hard to square their rhetoric around OLED's with building a Gen 10 LCD fab but who knows?


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> FWIW, there were dualing rumors from Korea about what LGD was going to do with their P10 fab.
> 
> http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/engl...play-make-p10-plant-paju-oled-production-base
> 
> 
> 
> *LGD has been saying that they will make the decision by June so we should know fairly soon. It would be hard to square their rhetoric around OLED's with building a Gen 10 LCD fab but who knows?*


The substrate-handling equiptment seems to be some of the longest leadtime pieces of equipment and it seems as though devisions on substrate size have been finalized (6-up 75" / 8-up 65", matching BOE).

As far as LCD versus OLED, do we understand what piece of equipment is LCD-specific and is likely to be a similar bottleneck / long leadtime item? That woukd seem to be the first solid indication of how much of P10's 10.5G capacity is being dedicated to LCD...


----------



## Wizziwig

Apple will reportedly begin trial production of microLED this year

Maybe an OLED competitor in a few years?


----------



## rogo

Wizziwig said:


> Apple will reportedly begin trial production of microLED this year
> 
> Maybe an OLED competitor in a few years?


For small sizes, perhaps. Whether it can scale to 5 inches well remains uncertain. Whether it ever gets above 10-13 is that much less so.


----------



## Cooters

*Universal Display at Cowen re PHOLED blue*

UDC at Cowen - 6/1/2017

Rob Stone from Cowen with Steve this time, it is normally Sid. Steve did a fantastic job. It was the best history and overview I've ever heard. Forty minutes total, well worth it for anyone interested!

- They are seeing a large increase in the demand for different materials with different specs. They are even seeing regional preferences in specs.

- Their definition of Development vs. Commercial materials in their earnings reports is purely on the UDC side, they consider them all commercial materials from the customer's perspective. Development is when they haven't made enough of the material yet to meet certain internal requirements(ex quantity qualified) .

- He indicated all license agreements that move from development to commercial have an upfront license fee and ongoing royalties.

- They are increasingly feeling better about blue. They have a growing IP portfolio and team working on it, which is now over 50 people. Fuji patents had some blue IP, and of course BASF. They are developing a number of different color points. Some of their improvements are incremental, some are breakthrough. Their customers are ready for blue. They are seeing a lot of customer pull for a PHOLED blue. They will likely sell blue host with their blue emitter when it first comes into production, just like with green. Later in the Q&A Steve expanded. The first blue will not be the ultimate blue, it will continually improve. "*Once* we get blue in, there will be a 20-30% energy improvement. It will depend on *which* blue"

- small tidbit on FMM/shadow masks, said they are extremely thin and that is why they bow as the substrate sizes grow.

- OVJP. Still uses dry materials but they stay where they are supposed to. They think this is a good product for large area panels. Still a few years away but all fundamental issues have been resolved. Lifetime is the only issue, color point and efficiency are solved. They believe the lifetime issue may be the cleanliness of the development systems, which are notoriously not as clean. They are hoping for a partner that makes equipment to take this on(vs. the panel makers).

- His view on their patent position, post early 2020's, is bullish bordering on cocky. He pretty much thinks licensing continues unabated.

- TADF. Science experiment, long way off.

- Revenues will grow faster than expenses, operating margins are going up. They plan to use their cash to increase dividends and fund acquisitions.

Cooters


----------



## videobruce

Is this a "technology" thread or a stock market thread??


----------



## Cooters

videobruce said:


> Is this a "technology" thread or a stock market thread??


kinda figured there would be a childish reply.


----------



## videobruce

Nothing "childish" about it other than what you just posted.


----------



## mnc

If next years panels have significant increase in nits, should practically eliminate the high end 55" & 65" led competition!


----------



## ataneruo

mnc said:


> If next years panels have significant increase in nits, should practically eliminate the high end 55" & 65" led competition!




You are forgetting price difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JimP

mnc said:


> As someone who keeps their purchases for a long time, I wonder if I'd be better off waiting until next year to buy an OLED?
> I know you can make that argument for every product every year but I really wonder if next years will be substantially better?





BlueChris said:


> You know I'm in the same situation as you but i say this and i must decide soon.
> If i want 3d the time is passing and soon enouph there will be no more e6 lg in the market but if i decide that i don't want 3d then for sure i can wait next year because maybe we will see hdmi 2.1.
> 
> Thats my dilemma.


Has there been any discussion about how long the studios will continue making 3d movies if there aren't new TVs that can display them?


----------



## Postmoderndesign

JimP said:


> Has there been any discussion about how long the studios will continue making 3d movies if there aren't new TVs that can display them?


Guardians of the Galaxy 2 is being released with a 3D version for theaters. This should be a good test case for a 3D disc release. However, it would be reasonable to assume there will be few 3D movies going forward and on the other hand no studio has announced the intention to not release 3D movies.

I do not think there is decisive answer.


----------



## bjaurelio

mnc said:


> If next years panels have significant increase in nits, should practically eliminate the high end 55" & 65" led competition!



As someone else mentioned, there's the price factor. Samsungs will likely continue to be overpriced as part of their marketing. Both LCD abd OLED had small improvements in 2017 with larger improvements expected in 2018 (QDCF for LCD). For comparably priced TVs, OLED will remain the best option. 

With value leading upper mid range TVs such as the Vizio and now TCL P series that offers near top level LCD performance on a budget, it makes all premium TVs a tough sell for some people. When a good 65" LCD is less than the cheapest 55" OLED, it makes it hard to justify paying more for a smaller TV. If the 65" OLED is in your budget, it's certainly going to be the best TV next year.


----------



## Dave-T

I am waiting for the best tech that comes available that will enable me to have a 88" 8k tv with with HDMI 2.1 or higher. I currently have a 65" LG OLED E6 and a pioneer Elite Pro 110FD. I am in no rush to buy something because my 110FD which is my bedroom tv is running with no issues. I figure I will put the 65" OLED in the bedroom and put whatever the next screen is in the living room. I thought about a projector but when i got my OLED calibrated I asked ChadB and he told me you need absolute dark for a projector. I can get my living room dark because I have darkening blinds but not dark enough apparently. I want my next tv to be at least 88" dark blacks and brightness in excess of 1000nit, i am sure we have some time for those types of specs but I can currently wait.


----------



## mnc

Next year may bring brighter/better OLED but I'm sure we won't see affordable 77" models.


----------



## [email protected]

I believe I'm in the same boat as several of you here. Being a member of this Forum means you care and are educated about the technology which puts us in a bad spot in a way. I'm in a pinch because I just moved my viewing area back to about 12' and I have a 50" Plasma. Wife says I have to wait for Holiday season.. Problem is, about a month after 2017 holiday season we will be hearing about the new 2018 TV's. Will next years quantum dots equal OLED at a lower cost, longer life and no risk of screen burn? Can I keep the money in my pocket for the 2018's and live with 50" at 12'? I can already get a larger set for less if I go the Quantum dot route, but the reviews are not great on the picture. Am I right? Are we all asking these kinds of questions.


----------



## BlueChris

[email protected] said:


> I believe I'm in the same boat as several of you here. Being a member of this Forum means you care and are educated about the technology which puts us in a bad spot in a way. I'm in a pinch because I just moved my viewing area back to about 12' and I have a 50" Plasma. Wife says I have to wait for Holiday season.. Problem is, about a month after 2017 holiday season we will be hearing about the new 2018 TV's. Will next years quantum dots equal OLED at a lower cost, longer life and no risk of screen burn? Can I keep the money in my pocket for the 2018's and live with 50" at 12'? I can already get a larger set for less if I go the Quantum dot route, but the reviews are not great on the picture. Am I right? Are we all asking these kinds of questions.


If i was you i would had wait and is exactly what i do for myself atm also grab a chair to go to 8 feet or less and problem solved for now.


----------



## nodixe

[email protected] said:


> I believe I'm in the same boat as several of you here. Being a member of this Forum means you care and are educated about the technology which puts us in a bad spot in a way. I'm in a pinch because I just moved my viewing area back to about 12' and I have a 50" Plasma. Wife says I have to wait for Holiday season.. Problem is, about a month after 2017 holiday season we will be hearing about the new 2018 TV's. Will next years quantum dots equal OLED at a lower cost, longer life and no risk of screen burn? Can I keep the money in my pocket for the 2018's and live with 50" at 12'? I can already get a larger set for less if I go the Quantum dot route, but the reviews are not great on the picture. Am I right? Are we all asking these kinds of questions.


I am going to speculate and say that quantum dot wont equal oled till emissuve QD is released, whenever that may be. 2018 seems like the best time to jump in with hdmi 2.1 and oled pixels with larger area which will produce more light (current models require vertical space between pixels for passive 3d).

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## irkuck

mnc said:


> Next year may bring brighter/better OLED but I'm sure we won't see affordable 77" models.


I don't see rationale for your 'suredness'. In fact, with the capacity coming online, LG should be able to stamp 77" OLEDs in quantity and thus reducing the price. Moreover, if LG wants to keep with its strategy of OLED=High-End it must a) increase the brightness for HDR to neutralize the LCD advantage in this area, b) introduce full palette of big size sets: 77", 88", 99". Of those big sets, the 77" will be in the 'affordable' category competing with the 75" LCDs. The 88" and 99" would be the eqiuvalent of the current 77" - existing, but easily affordable only for trumps of this world.


----------



## mnc

irkuck said:


> I don't see rationale for your 'suredness'. In fact, with the capacity coming online, LG should be able to stamp 77" OLEDs in quantity and thus reducing the price. Moreover, if LG wants to keep with its strategy of OLED=High-End it must a) increase the brightness for HDR to neutralize the LCD advantage in this area, b) introduce full palette of big size sets: 77", 88", 99". Of those big sets, the 77" will be in the 'affordable' category competing with the 75" LCDs. The 88" and 99" would be the eqiuvalent of the current 77" - existing, but easily affordable only for trumps of this world.


I would like nothing better than a brighter 77" OLED for $6000 next year! I just don't think it will happen for several years.


----------



## irkuck

mnc said:


> I would like nothing better than a brighter 77" OLED for $6000 next year! I just don't think it will happen for several years.


Affordability of 77" starts @ $7777 .


----------



## RichB

irkuck said:


> Affordability of 77" starts @ $7777 .



< $100 per inch is the metric for me.


- Rich


----------



## Creator44

Wizziwig said:


> Apple will reportedly begin trial production of microLED this year
> 
> Maybe an OLED competitor in a few years?


It is clear to me that microLED/CLEDIS and real QLED (which is also micro led I think) is the future. No burn-in, probably brighter, probably no ABL. I'm no expert but the LED are pretty sturdy and inorganic. We will need to see if the MICRO led are as robust.

I really hope they do it. Finally an emissive without IR or burn-in and possibly better durability would be ideal. Don't know how uniformity would be on these panels though.

Makes you wonder if they will release it if it's too good because humans can be stupid like that to make profit. Can't imagine most people buying 1 tv for 30-40 years. They'll have to come up with better PQ to sell more tvs but the resolution is already reaching it's limit of what we can see.


----------



## rogo

"It is clear to me that microLED/CLEDIS and real QLED (which is also micro led I think) is the future. "

Because none of them are real yet, they are certainly not the present.

"No burn-in, probably brighter, probably no ABL"

They are all subject to uneven wear (the correct name for "burn in").

Probably brighter? Eh. Well the future is brighter, whether or not these technologies are part of it.

Probably no ABL? This thing that isn't real might or might not be subject to ABL.

"I'm no expert but the LED are pretty sturdy and inorganic."

Well, I certainly agree with part of that.

"Finally an emissive without IR or burn-in and possibly better durability would be ideal."

It would be. Get something with a multi 100K-hour lifespan and a very shallow brightness decline curve. Bingo.

"Don't know how uniformity would be on these panels though."

Nor does anyone really.

"Makes you wonder if they will release it if it's too good because humans can be stupid like that to make profit."

They sell products that are really good and last long. They charge for them accordingly.

"Can't imagine most people buying 1 tv for 30-40 years. "

I can't imagine most people will buy a TV in 30-40 years. Entire generations are growing up watching video on small, portable screens.


----------



## Wizziwig

rogo said:


> I can't imagine most people will buy a TV in 30-40 years. Entire generations are growing up watching video on small, portable screens.


And yet Nielsen Finds:

OVER 92% OF ALL ADULT VIEWING IN THE U.S. IS DONE ON THE TV SCREEN.


----------



## 8mile13

According this 2015 report 87% of consumers use second screen device while watching TV. 
http://www.adweek.com/lostremote/ac...-second-screen-device-while-watching-tv/51698

Another 2015 report.. More than three-quarters (88 percent) of millennials* engage in second screen behaviors when watching video content. While television remains the most-preferred device for viewing most video content, screens on other devices (computers, tablets and smartphones) are preferred collectively for watching streamed content (57 percent, 13 points higher than televisions). For most types of video content, millennials are more likely to watch from non-traditional devices (42 percent) compared to adults 35 and older (22 percent). 
http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...-Screen-Three-quarters-Screens-Watching-Video

*born between 1980-2000


----------



## j.p.s

Creator44 said:


> It is clear to me that microLED/CLEDIS and real QLED (which is also micro led I think) is the future. No burn-in, probably brighter, probably no ABL. I'm no expert but the LED are pretty sturdy and inorganic. We will need to see if the MICRO led are as robust.
> 
> I really hope they do it. Finally an emissive without IR or burn-in and possibly better durability would be ideal. Don't know how uniformity would be on these panels though.


All LEDs dim with use. Micro LEDs may dim much more slowly than OLEDs, but they will dim. Maybe it will be so slow that uneven wear will take years to show up with "normal" content, but letterbox, menus, tickers, and banners will still make wear compensation necessary.

If some director decides that 10 seconds of 4000 nit full screen is required, ABL will certainly kick in. That is possibly in kilowatt territory.


----------



## irkuck

Wizziwig said:


> Apple will reportedly begin trial production of microLED this year
> Maybe an OLED competitor in a few years?





rogo said:


> For small sizes, perhaps. Whether it can scale to 5 inches well remains uncertain. Whether it ever gets above 10-13 is that much less so.


One can be sure Apple is eyeing watches, activity trackers and similar devices with microdisplays where there is a need to watch in full sunlight. Extrapolating microleds from this to bigger sizes is pure fantasy now. Equally well one could start talking about microLASER displays, imagine microlaser beams piercing the eyes :wink:.


----------



## Dunebuster

mnc said:


> As someone who keeps their purchases for a long time, I wonder if I'd be better off waiting until next year to buy an OLED?
> I know you can make that argument for every product every year but I really wonder if next years will be substantially better?


I bought a 70" LG last summer with intent to hold it until OLED's at that size or larger hits or goes below ~$2000, and the sooner the better. I think the pent up demand for large screen OLEDs will be enormous with a new fab as they ramp up to sweet spot volumes.


----------



## philochs1

You guys see this article, which states LG is starting test production with RGB printed OLED now, for mass production in 2019? Meanwhile, JOLED recently released their first medical monitors, with promises of larger screen consumer monitors. 2019 is going to be a wild year for OLED, 2018 models are just a stop-gap. I think WOLED is on it's last legs. 

http://www.avmagazine.it/news/televisori/lg-oled-inkjet-sperimentali-nel-2017_11655.html

BOE is also getting into the OLED panel biz. They're testing 55-inch inkjet OLED panels. Good times.


----------



## Rich Peterson

^^^ Note that article is over 7 months old.


----------



## Rich Peterson

*JOLED Ships Samples of Printed 4k OLED Panel*

Source: http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/atclen/news_en/15mk/060201373/

JOLED Inc announced that it has developed a printed 4k OLED panel and started to ship samples in April 2017. 

JOLED is a company established by integrating the OLED research and development functions of Sony Corp and Panasonic Corp. This time, the company started to ship samples of a 21.6-inch 4k (3,840 x 2,160 pixels) OLED panel. It plans to develop products using the panel, starting from a medical monitor. 

At an exhibition that JOLED had May 17, 2017, JOLED CEO Nobuhiro Higashiiriki said that the printed OLED business had been going as planned. 

JOLED was established in January 2015. In an interview with Nikkei Electronics in February 2015, Higashiiriki said, "Our goal is to become able to mass-produce the panel by the end of fiscal 2016 (March 2017). The coming two years are crucial." 

This time, commenting on the start of the sample shipment, he said, "We have achieved the verification of the commercialization of printed OLED panels two years after the establishment of the company. It is almost on schedule. We will enter an action phase aimed at a full-fledged business." 

JOLED's OLED panels are characterized by the employment of "RGB Printing Method," which uses three types of OLED materials (red, green and blue materials) for printing. Unlike a vapor deposition method, which is currently the mainstream, the RGB Printing Method does not require a high-resolution mask for applying different materials and makes it easy to deal with large-size panels. 

Also, compared with a method that combines white OLEDs and color filters, which are used for OLED TVs, the new method realizes a lower power consumption because it does not use color filters, according to JOLED. 

The challenge of printed OLED displays lies in service life and reliability. At the exhibition, *Higashiiriki started a speed by saying, "I expect you to ask questions concerning service life." He announced that the samples are delivered to Sony and said, "The quality of the sample is high enough (to be delivered to a company like Sony). We have achieved that."*


----------



## philochs1

Rich Peterson said:


> ^^^ Note that article is over 7 months old.



I know, but somehow I had missed that previously, and I don't think it was mentioned here before.


----------



## philochs1

Rich Peterson said:


> JOLED Inc announced that it has developed a printed 4k OLED panel and started to ship samples in April 2017.


Yeah, and what's also cool is I found an article that mentioned they were interested in making gaming monitors. If they can get the brightness up to 850nits peak, that could work phenomenally as a FreeSync 2 or G-Sync HDR monitor. 

Anyway, I also somehow missed the news that not only is BOE Technology building an OLED factory, but China Star Optoelectronics Technology/TCL are too. CSOT/TCL beginning OLED panel mass production OLED tvs in Q2 2019. 2019 is going to be the year when printed OLED is just unleashed upon the world, and it's going to be worth skipping 2018 models for. I'm guessing TADF emitters could be the OLED upgrade in 2020, and maybe the first 8K OLED tvs by 2021, a year after LCD 8K tvs launch. A bit of speculation, but the 8K LCD thing isn't, the factory is being built, the 8K lcds are 100% coming in 2020. I don't think 8K OLED is coming by then. 

The coolest news I've read lately, besides 2019 OLED stuff, is the fact that nanoco and kyulux have joined forces on R&D and are working to co-develop TADF OLED emitters that are infused with heavy metal free nano quantum dots. Hybrid OLED-QLED display technology. Imagine sales reps explaining that to customers if these tvs see the light of day. Rep: "There's QLED and OLED, and then there's the hybrid one that combines both technologies" lol, that won't confuse the seniors and tech newbies  ... 

http://www.nanocotechnologies.com/media/press-releases/nanoco-and-kyulux-inc-sign-agreement-develop-next-generation-displays


----------



## slacker711

LGD may employ multi-modal glass to increase the output from the Gen 8 fabs. This would be a major boost to the economics of 65" screens though those hoping for cheap 70"+ screens would still need to wait for the Gen 10.5 fab.

https://translate.google.com/transl...06/13/2017061302089.html?main_hot1&edit-text=


----------



## ALMA

Very interesting:



> In the global premium TV market, Sony, which was the so-called "over-the-wall" for the Korean TV industry such as Samsung and LG, has been struggling to enter the LCD era and LED era.
> 
> In fact, according to global market researcher IHS, one of the criteria to be classified as premium TV in the TV market of more than $ 1,500, Sony maintained its market share to 13.6% in the first quarter of 2015 and 16.6% in the fourth quarter.
> 
> In addition, in 2016, the company kept the second half of the 10% range, including 18.3% in the second quarter and 19.9% ​​in the third quarter, following 17.5% in the first quarter.
> 
> On the other hand, LG Electronics' share of LG Electronics grew by 43.8% in the third quarter from 17.6% in the first quarter and 16.6% in the second quarter, from 13.9% in the first quarter of 2015.
> 
> During this period, Samsung has risen from 46.2% in the first quarter of 2015 to 55.0% in the second quarter. It has been adjusted to 44.6% in the third quarter and 42.6% in the fourth quarter. In 2016, it reached 39.5% in the first quarter and 39.3% In the third quarter, it rose to 48.2% for a while, but dropped to 20.2% in the fourth quarter.
> 
> However, in the first quarter of 2017, Sony's market share surpassed LG with 35.8%, up 39.0%.
> 
> Instead, Samsung's share fell to 13.2%.
> 
> *This trend is similar to the high-end TV market of more than $ 2,500, so Sony's share of the market, which was 14.3% in 2015, jumped to 24.6% in 2015 and soared to 34.4% in the first quarter of this year.
> 
> LG, which grew from 21.3% in FY15 to 40.8% in FY16, maintained its top spot with a 40.8% market share in the first quarter.
> 
> Instead, Samsung Electronics fell from 54.7% in '15 to 23.4% in '16 and 11.1% in the first quarter.*


https://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=ko&tl=en&u=http://www.nocutnews.co.kr/news/4799379


----------



## joys_R_us

Wow !

Revenge of the creative marketive bluffs like LED and QLED !


----------



## BlueChris

joys_R_us said:


> Wow !
> 
> Revenge of the creative marketive bluffs like LED and QLED !


Don't forget the curve bluff


----------



## irkuck

Forget microLED, QLED & O' LED, genuine *FULLED* is here and it is a beast


----------



## philochs1

irkuck said:


> Forget microLED, QLED & OLED, genuine *FULLED* is here and it is a beast


The last few posts have nothing to do with OLED technology. Find the proper threads for your posts, guys. OLED technology is heading towards the use of true RGB TADF emitter displays, even TADF emitters which use Nano Quantum Dots are being developed. OLED is already brighter than 800nits peak brightness, TADF emitters will hit 1000nits alone, with added QD nano technology it could be 1500nits or more, no one knows. MicroLED technology is what would be conceivably found inside a tv in eight to ten years, but where will OLED and QLED technology be then? 1000nit microLED doesn't cut it, as much HDR content is mastered at 4000nits. Most people can't have a 'tv' that's 20' wide and 12' tall in their living rooms. Your post makes no sense. Even if you could by a 'tv' like this for half a million dollars, you could get a 6000 lumen (= to 1000 nit) 4K projector that does HDR10 and goes up to 300-inch screen, and that would only cost you 60,000, 70,000 with a $10,000 projector screen. On a projector like that, you have lens memory, and you can also add an anamorphic lens. Buying a large tv with a 21:9 ration makes no sense at all, as it can't even display cinemascope films without any black bars.


----------



## JustaPlacebo

The VG258QE is a washed out, dirty screen effect, abomination compared to a higher quality cinephile display. I've had one for years alongside HQ IPS's and OLEDs. Motion resolution and input response are great though.


----------



## joys_R_us

LGD going to full OLED in P10 factory:

http://businesskorea.co.kr/english/...ay-foster-p10-plant-paju-oled-production-base

And yes there is no money to be made with LCDs in future...


----------



## ataneruo

joys_R_us said:


> LGD going to full OLED in P10 factory:
> 
> 
> 
> http://businesskorea.co.kr/english/...ay-foster-p10-plant-paju-oled-production-base
> 
> 
> 
> And yes there is no money to be made with LCDs in future...




What is 8.5 gen OLED vs. 10 gen OLED? (The reference is at the end of the article.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## irkuck

First big step towards invisible OLEDs :wink:


----------



## joys_R_us

ataneruo said:


> What is 8.5 gen OLED vs. 10 gen OLED? (The reference is at the end of the article.)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The numbers refer to the sizes of glass panels used. The producers of the equipment needed cannot deliver new big machinery early enough so that LGD has to go with the current equipment models so that they can step up the production faster. It has a further advantage in using tried and tested procedures which is a big plus in the difficult OLED production.


----------



## Davyhulme

joys_R_us said:


> The numbers refer to the sizes of glass panels used. The producers of the equipment needed cannot deliver new big machinery early enough so that LGD has to go with the current equipment models so that they can step up the production faster. It has a further advantage in using tried and tested procedures which is a big plus in the difficult OLED production.


Apologies if I'm being pedantic, but for the benefit of the questioner, it specifically refers to the size of the glass substrate the panels are cut from. E.g. innolux.com/Pages/EN/Technology/Panel_Size_Evolution_EN.html

Substrate size affects the wastage and yield of good panels. There is a lot of waste for 77" panels currently therefore the yield is low and the prices are disproportionately high.

Another good explanation... blog.ihs.com/lg-display-weighs-options


----------



## Dunebuster

Davyhulme said:


> Apologies if I'm being pedantic, but for the benefit of the questioner, it specifically refers to the size of the glass substrate the panels are cut from. E.g. innolux.com/Pages/EN/Technology/Panel_Size_Evolution_EN.html
> 
> Substrate size affects the wastage and yield of good panels. There is a lot of waste for 77" panels currently therefore the yield is low and the prices are disproportionately high.
> 
> Another good explanation... blog.ihs.com/lg-display-weighs-options


Love that article the dropped hint saying Apple was looking at OLED for iPADS. Great way to rejuvenate iPad sales..


----------



## Wizziwig

Report: Sharp To Start OLED TV Panel Production In Japan


----------



## slacker711

Wizziwig said:


> Report: Sharp To Start OLED TV Panel Production In Japan


I wouldnt trust any timeline associated with Sharp selling OLED TV's, but the capex that has been quoted ($516 million) indicates that they are planning to build a fab with capacity for commercial production. They announced this at their annual shareholders meeting so that increases the odds of it actually occurring. My belief in their prospects will go up though if/when they announce the size and number of substrates of the fab.

One thing is for sure though, the OLED TV market really needs a second source.


----------



## fafrd

ataneruo said:


> What is 8.5 gen OLED vs. 10 gen OLED? (The reference is at the end of the article.)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


8.5 is what LG uses today:

6 55"
3 65"
2 77"

10.5 is leading-edge size P10 has been designed to support (eventually)

6 75"
8 65"


This means prices for 65" and especially 77" are not going to be declining as quickly as many had hoped...


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> LGD going to full OLED in P10 factory:
> 
> http://businesskorea.co.kr/english/...ay-foster-p10-plant-paju-oled-production-base
> 
> And yes there is no money to be made with LCDs in future...


I think I read this as a decision to replace the large-screen LCD capacity that started being talked about in P10 3 months ago with small and medium size OLED screen capacity.

Seems to give LG more flexibility on when the 10.5G OLED production starts since 8.5G is a safe bet schedule-wise at this stage.

So using P10 for 8.5G TV and mid-to-small screen OLED first instead of investing anything further in LCD production seems like a modest-size positive.

The OLED canp withing LG would appear to have won an important debate with the LCD camp as far as the future direction of the company... (though still subject to shareholder approval ).


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> LGD going to full OLED in P10 factory:
> 
> http://businesskorea.co.kr/english/...ay-foster-p10-plant-paju-oled-production-base
> 
> And yes there is no money to be made with LCDs in future...


Seems yesterday's announcement really wasn't much of a surprise. LG pretty clearly signaled that intention a month ago (with more detail): http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/engl...play-make-p10-plant-paju-oled-production-base


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> 8.5 is what LG uses today:
> 
> 6 55"
> 3 65"
> 2 77"
> 
> 10.5 is leading-edge size P10 has been designed to support (eventually)
> 
> 6 75"
> 8 65"
> 
> This means prices for 65" and especially 77" are not going to be declining as quickly as many had hoped...


If adopted, multi-modal glass would help 65" prices substantially. A hypothetical substrate with 100% yields now gives you 6 55" panels. If the ASP of each panel was $1000, the substrate yields $6000. The current alternative is to price 3 65" panels at $2000. 

Multi-modal glass would allow you to collect $1000 for the 2 55" cuts and then $1333 for the 3 65" panels and still get $6000 per substrate. That is a huge price reduction for the 65" panel.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> If adopted, multi-modal glass would help 65" prices substantially. A hypothetical substrate with 100% yields now gives you 6 55" panels. If the ASP of each panel was $1000, the substrate yields $6000. The current alternative is to price 3 65" panels at $2000.
> 
> Multi-modal glass would allow you to collect $1000 for the 2 55" cuts and then $1333 for the 3 65" panels and still get $6000 per substrate. That is a huge price reduction for the 65" panel.


True - Multi-model 8.5G will provide much of the cost-down benefits of 10.5G to 65" panels because waste will be cut close to zero.

Do we know whether LG is planning to introduce Multi-modal technology only in the new 8.5G line(s) being established in P10 or also in the existing 8.5G OLED lines?

In any case, based on the inclusion of multi-model technology, I need to revise my earlier statement - it is only the price/cost of 75"/77" OLEDs that will suffer as a result of the decision to start with (multi-model) 8.5G.

OLEDs larger than 65" may remain a 'lifestyles of the rich and famous' product into the next decade...

But cost reductions of 25-30% on 65" OLEDs (panels only - probably half if that or less at the finished-product-level) could be on the horizon .


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Do we know whether LG is planning to introduce Multi-modal technology only in the new 8.5G line(s) being established in P10 or also in the existing 8.5G OLED lines?


The adoption of multi-modal glass is still a rumor and I havent seen it often enough to say that it will happen with any certainty. I believe that LGD has used it in some of their LCD fabs. There must be some drawback though, presumably with throughput, since they have yet to adopt it in OLED's. 

It does make a lot of sense for the P10 fab. LGD can safely ignore the 70"+ market but they are going to need to bring down 65" costs if they want to continue to ramp up their share of the high-end market.


----------



## slacker711

I havent followed pricing as closely as previous years but it looks like street pricing on the 65" has hit the $2500-$2800 range. It doesnt seem like the 55" model has seen similar drops.

If the pricing gap drops dramatically at Best Buy, I would take that as evidence that multi-modal glass has been adopted.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> The adoption of multi-modal glass is still a rumor and I havent seen it often enough to say that it will happen with any certainty. I believe that LGD has used it in some of their LCD fabs. *There must be some drawback though, presumably with throughput,* since they have yet to adopt it in OLED's.
> 
> It does make a lot of sense for the P10 fab. LGD can safely ignore the 70"+ market but they are going to need to bring down 65" costs if they want to continue to ramp up their share of the high-end market.


For sure - it adds complexity and cost (which will end up somewhat muting the theoretical cost benefits).

Standard 'cutting' line slices a single substrate into some number of identical-sized panels (so handling is as east-peazy as possible)

Multi-modal either requires handling 2 differing substrate sizes out of a single cutting line of setting up a 2-stage cutting line where a first stage superates the master substrate into 2 sub-substrates, one with the 2 55" panels and the other with the 3 65" panels and then each of those sub-substrates goes on for conventional slicing in seperate dedicated slicing lines.

Multi-model requires additional capital investment and/or reduced throughput no matter which way you 'slice' it .


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> True - Multi-model 8.5G will provide much of the cost-down benefits of 10.5G to 65" panels because waste will be cut close to zero.
> OLEDs larger than 65" may remain a 'lifestyles of the rich and famous' product into the next decade... But cost reductions of 25-30% on 65" OLEDs (panels only - probably half if that or less at the finished-product-level) could be on the horizon .





slacker711 said:


> It does make a lot of sense for the P10 fab. LGD can safely ignore the 70"+ market but they are going to need to bring down 65" costs if they want to continue to ramp up their share of the high-end market.


Ignoring larger than 65" will be risky for the LGD. It will allow LCD providers to encircle OLED into a niche by pushing 65"+ LCD HDR panels at very competitive prices and potentially suffocate OLED, note that HDR PQ impact is perceived by consumers as more significant than black-hole black levels and 4K resolution. The only way for LGD is relentless conquista of high-end which means getting full range of panel sizes and improving on HDR. Fortunately, LGD has plans for 10G.


----------



## slacker711

irkuck said:


> Ignoring larger than 65" will be risky for the LGD. It will allow LCD providers to encircle OLED into a niche by pushing 65"+ LCD HDR panels at very competitive prices and potentially suffocate OLED, note that HDR PQ impact is perceived by consumers as more significant than black-hole black levels and 4K resolution. The only way for LGD is relentless conquista of high-end which means getting full range of panel sizes and improving on HDR. Fortunately, LGD has plans for 10G.


The market for 60 to 70" screens is 10x the market for 70"+ screens. They are a tiny niche and it will take years at the current growth rate for the market to matter much at all. LGD still needs an enormous amount of capacity simply to address the $1000+ 55" and 65" markets. 

There are probably some branding reasons why having a 70" plus screen at a reasonable price is important but it is far more important for LGD to have economic 65" panels than 70" plus panels.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> The market for 60 to 70" screens is 10x the market for 70"+ screens. They are a tiny niche and it will take years at the current growth rate for the market to matter much at all. LGD still needs an enormous amount of capacity simply to address the $1000+ 55" and 65" markets.
> 
> There are probably some branding reasons why having a 70" plus screen at a reasonable price is important but it is far more important for LGD to have economic 65" panels than 70" plus panels.


While I am in complete agreement with you that 65" is a far, far more important market for OLED TVs future than 70"+ at this juncture, it's also true that if LG does in face adopt multi-model 8.5G, that coukd offer some benefit to 77" OLED panel sizes as well (about half the benefit).

Using your earlier example of 6 55" panels netting $1000 each for a $6000/substrate revenue target, 2 55" panels cut out of a substrate will lower the cost of the remaining substrate by $2000 or 1/3, so the 3 65" panels cut out if the remainder cost 33% less (whatever their yield).

Likewise, a single 55" panel can be cut out of a substrate holding two 77" panels, meaning that each of those 77" panels should cost 1/6th less (whatever their yield).

First, it is very possibly not worth the effort to use multi-modal cutting to salvage just a single different-sized panel from a substrate, and second, whatever the added cost of a multi modal cut is will 'cut into' this savings (), but just to point out that if multi-modal cut technology is deployed, there could theoretically becsome benefit to 77" panel costs also.

Of course, the real bear in the china shop is yield. If yields are as good as LG has claimed, then the cost of a 77" panel should be a bit over 150% of the cost of a 65" panel (and certainly less than 2x).

So either there is a true yield issue on 77" panels to justify their ~10x cost premium or LG knows this is a niche bragging-rights-only market at this stage and is milking that market for every $$$ that they can... (possibly to subsidize lower pricing on the much more strategic and important 65" market ).

65" OLED panels should cost a bit more than double the cost of 55" panels and from market pricing, it's very concievable that they do.

77" OLED panels should cost well less than double the cost of 65" panels and from market pricing, it seems they are being priced waaaaaaay beyond that level.

It is entirely possible that the only true 'profit' LG is generating is on the niche sales of 77" OLED panels (55" and 65" both being priced at close to break-even levels to gain market share and drive increased volumes).

55" and 65" panels are the 'Toyotas' of the OLED TV world, while 77" panels are the 'Lexus' of that world .


----------



## video_analysis

Sorry to have to do this but in light of the above-mentioned metaphor, if I may....

If the below is Lexus, I'm afraid to see what a Toyota looks like.  This seems to closely match the uniformity of at least 2 other 77-inchers posted here, so LG may very well be hitting a yield rate using sets with the below uniformity criteria, but the price is far too high for what you're getting.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Sorry to have to do this but in light of the above-mentioned metaphor, if I may....
> 
> If the below is Lexus, I'm afraid to see what a Toyota looks like.  This seems to closely match the uniformity of at least 2 other 77-inchers posted here, so LG may very well be hitting a yield rate using sets with the below uniformity criteria, but the price is far too high for what you're getting.


I'm not going to argue whether that is acceptable or not, given the price you 77" OLED owners are paying, but that is no worse than the near-black greyscale uniformity of my 65C6P and I doubt it's very visible on content.

The Toyota/Lexus analogy was referring to screen size only.


----------



## video_analysis

Sadly, quite visible on Michael Mann's Heat in several low APL scenes. It's a best effort scenario at this point in time.


----------



## irkuck

slacker711 said:


> The market for 60 to 70" screens is 10x the market for 70"+ screens. They are a tiny niche and it will take years at the current growth rate for the market to matter much at all. LGD still needs an enormous amount of capacity simply to address the $1000+ 55" and 65" markets. There are probably some branding reasons why having a 70" plus screen at a reasonable price is important but it is far more important for LGD to have economic 65" panels than 70" plus panels.


Not having full lineup above 65" is going to be a _huge_ branding problem for OLED. It will signal OLED remaining niche technology with no chance of conquering high-end segment completely. Obviously OLED has no chance in the mass market below 55", it thus has to go above 65" to have full segment somewhere. In a dynamic scenario OLED is on the drive to extinguish LCD above 65", that will establish its presence as an ultimate high-end. In a passive scenario, OLED remains in the niche of 55" and 65", being undercut in parallel from the top by LCD HDR. The fact that the market above 65" is small should be seen as a benefit helping OLED to breakthrough there. In any case, OLED HDR has to improve rather quickly, otherwise it will be labelled as technology for black-level worshippers.


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> Not having full lineup above 65" is going to be a _huge_ branding problem for OLED. It will signal OLED remaining niche technology with no chance of conquering high-end segment completely.


Yeah, but no. OLED already has a 'full lineup' - it's just pricey above 65". No branding problem with that - lifestyles if the rich and famous and all...



> *Obviously OLED has no chance in the mass market below 55"*, it thus has to go above 65" to have full segment somewhere.


No idea what a 'full segment' is, but LG is already dominating the premium 65" (>$3000) and 55" (>$2000) segments, and that is exactly where they want to be right now, given their still highly-constrained capacity.

As already stated in numerous posts, current 8.5G substrates can produce 8-up 49" panels, so I would not be the least bit surprised to see LG introduce 49" OLEDs before putting any concerted effort into increasing sales volumes of 77" OLEDs. And once the 10.5G substrates are in production, they can produce 16-up 43" OLEDs...

If LG has 'no chance' of dominating premium markets below 55", they never should have launched their WOLED initiative.

OLEDs future progress is in smaller screen sizes, not larger...



> In a dynamic scenario OLED is on the drive to extinguish LCD above 65", that will establish its presence as an ultimate high-end. In a passive scenario, OLED remains in the niche of 55" and 65", being undercut in parallel from the top by LCD HDR. The fact that the market above 65" is small should be seen as a benefit helping OLED to breakthrough there. In any case, OLED HDR has to improve rather quickly, otherwise it will be labelled as technology for black-level worshippers.


OLED will never be in a position to 'extinguish' LCD in any segment, at least during our lifetimes. Too much fully-depreciated LCD manufacturing capacity out there - LCD will continue to dominate the low-end for as far out as the eye can see.

The important question is how much volume of premium 65" LCDs will sell for over $3000 once 65" OLEDs are widely available for under $2000 (possibly by late 2018, almost certainly by a year later).

As long as OLED manufacturing capacity is limited to single digit %s of the total TV market, OLED will continue to be a 'niche' no matter what price points or features it offers.

And as long as LG continues to double OLED TV manufacturing capacity year-over-year and sells through that exponentially-growing volume, they are doing exactly what they need to do to expand their 'niche'

I'm looking forward to seeing what the IHS data looks like from this year - if it's a continuation of what we saw in 2016, we're approaching the point of no return:


----------



## mnc

My question is, should I get a c7 or wait for next years? I'm wondering if next year will be significantly better? I'm happy with my vt50 but I'm also anxious to get an OLED! I can't decide


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> Yeah, but no. OLED already has a 'full lineup' - it's just pricey above 65". No branding problem with that - lifestyles if the rich and famous and all...
> No idea what a 'full segment' is, but LG is already dominating the premium 65" (>$3000) and 55" (>$2000) segments, and that is exactly where they want to be right now, given their still highly-constrained capacity. As already stated in numerous posts, current 8.5G substrates can produce 8-up 49" panels, so I would not be the least bit surprised to see LG introduce 49" OLEDs before putting any concerted effort into increasing sales volumes of 77" OLEDs. And once the 10.5G substrates are in production, they can produce 16-up 43" OLEDs... If LG has 'no chance' of dominating premium markets below 55", they never should have launched their WOLED initiative. OLEDs future progress is in smaller screen sizes, not larger...


Premium markets below 55"??? First of all, there is no buck to be made in the markets below 55". Second, consumers in these markets don't really give a damn about PQ, it's good enough for them already, OLED would not be appreciated there and thus it is not needed. Of course this is under assumption OLED would be trying to make premium over LCD, if it would cost the same people could buy it due to its thinness but then there would be no buck to made on it.

OLED future is indeed in smaller displays but in portable devices, provided the prices will be close to the LCD.




fafrd said:


> OLED will never be in a position to 'extinguish' LCD in any segment, at least during our lifetimes. Too much fully-depreciated LCD manufacturing capacity out there - LCD will continue to dominate the low-end for as far out as the eye can see.The important question is how much volume of premium 65" LCDs will sell for over $3000 once 65" OLEDs are widely available for under $2000 (possibly by late 2018, almost certainly by a year later). As long as OLED manufacturing capacity is limited to single digit %s of the total TV market, OLED will continue to be a 'niche' no matter what price points or features it offers. And as long as LG continues to double OLED TV manufacturing capacity year-over-year and sells through that exponentially-growing volume, they are doing exactly what they need to do to expand their 'niche'.


And thus OLED could in principle make for itself one exclusive niche: above 65". This is small segment but prestigious one addressing those who appreciate PQ and are ready to pay a premium. OLED uniquely occupying the niche above 65" would gain colossal marketing gain: everybody would know this is the high-end. No such gain would be made by OLED moving below 55".


----------



## video_analysis

mnc said:


> My question is, should I get a c7 or wait for next years? I'm wondering if next year will be significantly better? I'm happy with my vt50 but I'm also anxious to get an OLED! I can't decide


Hold out for 2018 if you have really become accustomed to mature plasma level uniformity. No guarantees, but the biggest breakthroughs in OLED tech improvements have come every few years (last huge leap was 2016).


----------



## mnc

It's so hard to wait though! I think I'm going to buy around Black Friday and if I don't like what I see, I'll return it and wait for next years.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Hold out for 2018 if you have really become accustomed to mature plasma level uniformity. No guarantees, but the biggest breakthroughs in OLED tech improvements have come every few years (last huge leap was 2016).


I agree. 2017 was a consolidation year and 2018 is likely to bring further improvements in near-black uniformity, reduced ABL, peak brightness, and cost/price (and possibly also motion ).

If you are happy with your VT50 and can hold off another 12-18 months to access 4K, UHD, HDR, higher brightness (than your VT50), and more perfect pitch-black blacks, your patience is likely to be rewarded...


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> *Premium markets below 55"??? First of all, there is no buck to be made in the markets below 55". * Second, consumers in these markets don't really give a damn about PQ, it's good enough for them already, OLED would not be appreciated there and thus it is not needed. Of course this is under assumption OLED would be trying to make premium over LCD, if it would cost the same people could buy it due to its thinness but then there would be no buck to made on it.
> 
> OLED future is indeed in smaller displays but in portable devices, provided the prices will be close to the LCD.


Methinks you have a very U.S.-centric view of the TV world...




> *And thus OLED could in principle make for itself one exclusive niche: above 65". [/]This is small segment but prestigious one addressing those who appreciate PQ and are ready to pay a premium. OLED uniquely occupying the niche above 65" would gain colossal marketing gain: everybody would know this is the high-end. No such gain would be made by OLED moving below 55".*


*

The value to OLED to having exclusivity in a low-volume niche market is exactly zero. Far more valuable to dominatee the top-tier segment of all TV sizes that sell any meaningful volume...

Think Apple in the mobile market - they don't have 'exclusivity' anywhere and yet manage to generate more profit selling their premium phones than all of their competitors combined...*


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Mid-june official 'dip' / sale on 65C7P to $3500 versus mid-june official 'dip' / sale on 65C6P to $4000 (so 12.5% less).
> 
> So it appears we are headed towards a 2017 price pattern that is 10-15% below 2016 levels.
> 
> The 'peak of the trough' official price on the 65C6P was $2800 for a week or two in November 2016 and we'll probably see official prices of $2500 or less around that same time this year...


I brought this over from the pricing thread because I wasnt sure that a capacity discussion belonged over there.

Two points.

1) I think you are underestimating the current price decline from last year. The dip on the price of the 65B6P to $4000 last year looked like it lasted about two days. The price of the 65B6P mostly fluctuated between $5000 and $4500 in most of June and July last year. The pricing this year looks like it is at least 25% below last year. It still doesnt match the overall price declines of 2016 though.

2) As far as I can tell, LGD is capacity constrained. There isnt any reason for them to reduce prices as long as that is true. However, unlike last year, LGD is adding capacity this year. If they have a smooth volume ramp of the new line, I would expect pricing to come down more aggressively as they need to reduce prices to absorb the 26,000 new substrates.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> I brought this over from the pricing thread because I wasnt sure that a capacity discussion belonged over there.
> 
> Two points.
> 
> 1) I think you are underestimating the current price decline from last year. The dip on the price of the 65B6P to $4000 last year looked like it lasted about two days. The price of the 65B6P mostly fluctuated between $5000 and $4500 in most of June and July last year. The pricing this year looks like it is at least 25% below last year. It still doesnt match the overall price declines of 2016 though.


Launch MSRP was certainly less than 25% below 2016 models. By the end of July, 65C6P was solidly available for $4000: https://camelcamelcamel.com/LG-Electronics-OLED65C6P-Curved-65-Inch/product/B01CDDU0Q0

Let's see if we are solidly down to $3000 for the 65C7P by the end of this month...



> 2) As far as I can tell, LGD is capacity constrained. There isnt any reason for them to reduce prices as long as that is true. However, unlike last year, LGD is adding capacity this year. If they have a smooth volume ramp of the new line, I would expect pricing to come down more aggressively as they need to reduce prices to absorb the 26,000 new substrates.


I believe LG did have additional capacity kick in late last year, which fueled the dramatic price declines we saw approaching the holidays. They have generally been pretty good about anticipating new capacity coming online and driving pricing down in advance of having that higher throughput to sell.

The same may happen again this year, but at the moment it appears they will be coasting compared to the agressive moves to gain market share last year.

A 25% drop would bring lowest official 65" OLED pricing down to $2100 - I'm pretty confident we'll break below $2500, but not feeling optimistic about getting down to $2100 or below this year. Samsung made it far to easy for LG to coast with less agressive pricing this year due to the absurdly high pricing they established on their 'QLED' TVs...

Remember how LG came out with MSRP pricing that was ~10% higher than the MSRPs they had already 'leaked' this spring? (and after Samsung had announced the QLED MSRPs ).


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> Methinks you have a very U.S.-centric view of the TV world...


Methinks you have lmited knowledge of market positioning and branding. Directing OLED towards small TV sizes is a road to nowhere as there is no appreciation of high-end PQ there and no profits to be made, that is universal. OLED could move into the small TV if it could undercut LCD on prices but that is not happening in foreseeable future.



fafrd said:


> Methinks you have a very U.S.-centric view of the TV world...


The value to OLED to having exclusivity in a low-volume niche market is exactly zero. Far more valuable to dominatee the top-tier segment of all TV sizes that sell any meaningful volume...[/QUOTE]

Ha, one has to start from something in the domination game and the low volume big size niche is best for it due to better margins and limited manufacturing volumes LG has.



fafrd said:


> Think Apple in the mobile market - they don't have 'exclusivity' anywhere and yet manage to generate more profit selling their premium phones than all of their competitors combined...


Eh, my above remark about positioning and branding is on the spot. Apple is commanding complete ecosystem with tight control over it, there is a battle just between two ecosystems in this case. Apple is thus as much exclusive as one can imagine which is absolutely totally uncomparable to TV market which just sells hardware. Apple's hardware is of course very good but the main value is in the ecosystem.


----------



## Snafu68

stupid question about pixel size, do 55 and 77 inch tv's have same amount of pixels or do pixel size vary/tv size ?


----------



## j.p.s

Snafu68 said:


> stupid question about pixel size, do 55 and 77 inch tv's have same amount of pixels or do pixel size vary/tv size ?


The number of pixels is the same. The 77 inch TV has larger pixels.


----------



## Rudy1

*FROM HDGURU.COM --- QLED VS. OLED RACE IS ON FOR MARKET DOMINANCE*

"While LCD manufacturers are racing to 10.5G plants, optimized for 65- and 75-inch screens, OLED manufacturers are struggling with their 10.5G technology decisions due to both front plane equipment and material technology issues. A decision has not been made by LG on which OLED deposition technology approach to follow."

https://hdguru.com/qled-conference-qled-vs-oled-race-is-on-for-market-dominance/#more-20880


----------



## fafrd

Rudy1 said:


> *FROM HDGURU.COM --- QLED VS. OLED RACE IS ON FOR MARKET DOMINANCE*
> 
> "While LCD manufacturers are racing to 10.5G plants, optimized for 65- and 75-inch screens, OLED manufacturers are struggling with their 10.5G technology decisions due to both front plane equipment and material technology issues. A decision has not been made by LG on which OLED deposition technology approach to follow."
> 
> https://hdguru.com/qled-conference-qled-vs-oled-race-is-on-for-market-dominance/#more-20880


What an utterly worthless puff-piece. I suppose Samsung feels the need for paid cheerleaders...

This one tidbit was especially amusing (from the last graph):

"If technical issues are overcome and costs are similar to conventional CFs, can grow to 100% of LCD TV shipments."


----------



## ALMA

Blue TADF in upcoming OLED-TVs by LG next year?




> LG Display introduces Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence (TADF) material through the system to improve the performance of large organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs).
> 
> *As soon as possible, it will be applied to products to be introduced next year. It can improve the efficiency such as power consumption and lifetime while increasing the performance of white OLED (WOLED). It is expected that utilization will be further diversified as it can be used in the inkjet (solubile process) method in the medium to long term.
> *
> 
> *According to the industry, LG Display will replace blue (blue) material used in WOLED with TADF made by Soriah (Cynora). "It is necessary to introduce TADF in order to increase OLED efficiency," a LG Display official said. "We plan to expand WOLED not only into large-format but also small- and medium-sized products."
> 
> (...) LG Display has almost completed research and development (R & D) on top emission rather than bottom emission for ultra-high definition (UHD) resolution and transparent flexibility. *In order to realize high resolution in OLED panels, it is difficult to obtain an aperture ratio (ratio of the area where the actual light can be emitted). OLEDs using self-luminous elements are relatively easy to secure the aperture ratio compared to LCDs, but there is a difficulty in shortening the device life when the current is increased to compensate for brightness.




http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=31171602


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> Blue TADF in upcoming OLED-TVs by LG next year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=31171602


LG's slow and steady Science versus Samsung's FUD and cheerleading - the contrast is striking.

With the R&D 'almost complete' it is difficult to see how LG could be introducing TADF-based WOLED TVs in 2018, but on the other hand, 2018 is supposed to be a 'tick' year...

Whenever this generation does hit the shelves, the change appears great enough that it will probably drive my next TV purchase (the following 'tock' year, after all of the kinks have been worked out .

p.s. upon more careful reading, it is only when discussing 'top-emission' that LG makes reference to R&D being 'almost complete.'

So if adoption of TADF for bottom-emission WOLED is a distinct initiative from going to top-emission, it could realistically be emerging in 2018. We'll know for certain by CEDIA in a few months...


----------



## irkuck

Currently the price of a 5.5" HD AMOLED display ($12.1) is cheaper than an equivalent LTPS LCD ($12.2)

OLED replacing LCD in small displays is not sci-fi anymore...


----------



## joys_R_us

The TADF developer Cynora aims to be ready at year end. Within the tv development cycle of the TV producers the 2018 models cannot include tadf. Unless they bring out the 2018 models in late summer next year.

And as fafrd pointed out I wouldnt buy the new technology immediately. Going for a B7 in November. They are good enough ...


----------



## mnc

joys_R_us said:


> The TADF developer Cynora aims to be ready at year end. Within the tv development cycle of the TV producers the 2018 models cannot include tadf. Unless they bring out the 2018 models in late summer next year.
> 
> And as fafrd pointed out I wouldnt buy the new technology immediately. Going for a B7 in November. They are good enough ...


Exactly my thoughts. I plan on getting a 65c7 between September and November.


----------



## ALMA

TADF will be ready for 2018 panels or not coming until 2020 ( confirmed tick-tock model by LG). TADF is a massive upgrade to current panel generation.

In 2020 LGD seems to change from 77" to 75" panels:



> According to the display industry on July 6, LG Display decided to produce rollable OLEDs for 55-inch and 75-inch TVs on a full scale beginning in 2020. The panel will be produced at Paju P10, an OLED- specialized production base being expanded with an investment of 10 trillion won.


http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/engl...y-mass-produce-rollable-55-75-inch-oleds-2020


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> TADF will be ready for 2018 panels or not coming until 2020 ( confirmed tick-tock model by LG). TADF is a massive upgrade to current panel generation.
> 
> In 2020 LGD seems to change from 77" to 75" panels:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/engl...y-mass-produce-rollable-55-75-inch-oleds-2020


The 10.5G panel size being referenced will manufacture 4x2 65" panels or 3x2 75" panels.

It is very innefficient for 77" panels, so that OLED size is likely to go the way of the dinosaur once 10.5G substrates start flowing.

Unclear whether 'rollable' has any link to 'printed' manufacturing, but it seems increasingly clear that the first generation production from P10 is likely to be an 8.5G extension of what LG is manufacturing today (possibly to include TADF if that technology has been industrialized over the past year and will truly be ready for prime-time by year's-end) while the 10.5G production slated for 2020 will be ultra-thin, flexible, and possibly printed.

The long and short of all of this is that LG is being conservative about of adoption of new technologies, which is good for reduced risk but means we should not expect any dramatic cost reductions of WOLED or expansion into new screen sizes before the end of this decade...


----------



## joys_R_us

Please stop quoting this tick-tock cycle as a given for the future. It was an anology used to Intel product cycles and in fact just an excuse for not bringing real panel improvements (except in electronics) in 2017 models. When they will introduce new tech will be dependent on the availability of certain technologies and not on a pr saga like tick-tock...


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> Please stop quoting this tick-tock cycle as a given for the future. It was an anology used to Intel product cycles and in fact just an excuse for not bringing real panel improvements (except in electronics) in 2017 models. When they will introduce new tech will be dependent on the availability of certain technologies and not on a pr saga like tick-tock...


'Tick-tock' was Rogo's term for a 2-year development cycle (borrowed from Intel). If you are objecting to that specific term and prefer '2-year development cycle' I can probably be talked into dropping Intel's nomenclature.

But the two-year development cycle for significant changes to OLED panel architectute/materials was stated by LG themselves, not Rogo, or me, or anyone else: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...ogy-advancements-thread-455.html#post49848881

Now I'll admit that I'm taking ynotgoal's translation at face value, but assuming LG themselves have stated that major developments in WOLED panel technology will take two years to mature makes that cycle far more than a 'pr saga' or an 'excuse'...

Whether this 2-year cycle will continue to be a 'given for the future' depends on so many variables that no one (including LG) can know, but it is certainly a reasonable basis from where things stand today from which to set expectations .


----------



## joys_R_us

My post was not addressed at you. I didn't say you or Rogo invented the tick-tock terminology. In the contrary I said it was "borrowed" by LG (trying to explain the meager panel achievements in 2017).

And even LG did not say they will be working along this tick-tock cycle in the near term. So we should stop assuming that if a technology can't be applied in 2018 we will have to wait until 2020. No. New technology (TADF, printing, topline tft etc.) will be introduced when it is ready. Tick-tock is a saga. It might be sensible to have a slower cycle in oled panel development but the markets are moving fast and there is no patience within and outside of LGD.

Thats all what I wanted to express. Two years tick-tock is MEANINGLESS.


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> The 10.5G panel size being referenced will manufacture 4x2 65" panels or 3x2 75" panels.
> It is very innefficient for 77" panels, so that OLED size is likely to go the way of the dinosaur once 10.5G substrates start flowing.


Is there any good arrangement to produce 80"+, 90"+ and 100"+ class panels efficiently in 10.5G sheets? Rollable panels means scenario with projector-like screens becomes natural with big sizes preferred.


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> Is there any good arrangement to produce 80"+, 90"+ and 100"+ class panels efficiently in 10.5G sheets? Rollable panels means scenario with projector-like screens becomes natural with big sizes preferred.


The current 8.5G panels are very efficient at manufacturing 55" (3x2) and 49" (4x2).

LG is not making 49" OLEDs (currently), but 2x2 49" panels equals a single 98" panel, hence the possibility on current 8.5G substrates to manufacture 2x1 panels of any size from 77" to 98" (innefficient at 77", efficient at 98").

The 3x1 manufacturing of 65" is as innefficient as the 2x1 manufacturing of 77" panels (uses about 2/3 of the substrate). 55"x2x16/9/3=65"

When we look at 10.5G substrates, '75" is the new 55"', meaning they will be able to manufacture 3x2 75" panels and 4x2 65" panels.

That means 2x1 manufacturing of sizes up to 130" 

And looking at 3x1 manufacturing, the new 65"-class panel (in terms of substrate efficiency) would be: 75"x2x16/9/3=88" 

So yes, 75" OLEDs will come out of the stratosphere and become mainstream with 10.5G manufacturing and 88" OLEDs very likely will become the new OLED size for the modestly rich and famous.

Now if you want to talk about the rediculously rich and famous, current 8.5G substrates can already manufacture a single 110" OLED screen (2x2 55" panels) and a 10.5G substrate can manufacture a single 150" OLED screen  (2x2 75" panels).

Just as an aside for those that might not have a sense of scale - I used to project onto a full-sheet-of-plywood-sized screen which was 8' wide and 3.8' tall and which represented a 98" screen... (so 88" is getting up there ).


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> The current 8.5G panels are very efficient at manufacturing 55" (3x2) and 49" (4x2).
> 
> LG is not making 49" OLEDs (currently), but 2x2 49" panels equals a single 98" panel, hence the possibility on current 8.5G substrates to manufacture 2x1 panels of any size from 77" to 98" (innefficient at 77", efficient at 98").
> The 3x1 manufacturing of 65" is as innefficient as the 2x1 manufacturing of 77" panels (uses about 2/3 of the substrate). 55"x2x16/9/3=65"
> When we look at 10.5G substrates, '75" is the new 55"', meaning they will be able to manufacture 3x2 75" panels and 4x2 65" panels.
> That means 2x1 manufacturing of sizes up to 130"
> And looking at 3x1 manufacturing, the new 65"-class panel (in terms of substrate efficiency) would be: 75"x2x16/9/3=88"
> So yes, 75" OLEDs will come out of the stratosphere and become mainstream with 10.5G manufacturing and 88" OLEDs very likely will become the new OLED size for the modestly rich and famous.
> Now if you want to talk about the rediculously rich and famous, current 8.5G substrates can already manufacture a single 110" OLED screen (2x2 55" panels) and a 10.5G substrate can manufacture a single 150" OLED screen  (2x2 75" panels).
> Just as an aside for those that might not have a sense of scale - I used to project onto a full-sheet-of-plywood-sized screen which was 8' wide and 3.8' tall and which represented a 98" screen... (so 88" is getting up there ).


At least, for the110", 130", 150"rollable panels there is ready market segment to grab: killing projectors. If the panels would be rolling from the printing presses could be affordable not only by the rich&famous


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> At least, for the110", 130", 150"rollable panels there is ready market segment to grab: killing projectors. If the panels would be rolling from the printing presses could be affordable not only by the rich&famous


I wouldn't be holding my breath - perhaps you missed this tidbit from the OLED Info article: https://www.oled-info.com/lgd-aims-produce-rollable-oled-tvs-2020

"Following LGD's recent demonstration of a 77" flexible and transparent OLED display, *the company has now decided* (according to Business Korea, anyway) *to start producing rollable large-area (55 to 75 inch) OLED TVs in 2020*.

LGD 18'' rollable OLED prototype (CES 2016)

LGD will produce these rollable TVs in its upcoming P10 OLED fab in Paju. The P10 is LGD's most ambitious OLED fab - with a price tag of over $8 billion, it is expected to commence production in 2018, although it will take some time before mass production begins. The P10 will exclusively be used to produce OLEDs - both OLED TV panels (9-Gen or 10-Gen substrates, it seems LG did not decide yet) and small/medium flexible OLEDs.

*Business Korea estimates that a rollable 55" OLED panel will carry a price tag of 30 million Won - which is about $26,000*. It's not clear what kind of value a rollable TV panel will bring to consumers - but LGD may have some application ideas. When the company unveiled its 77" 4K transparent and flexible prototype, it showed two possible applications - a smart desk and a commercial retail setup."

$26,000 for a 55" rollable OLED in 2020 - something to look forward to, no ?

The 2020 start date is likey realistic, but hopefully Business Korea's 'estimate' is off by at lesst an order of magnitude..


----------



## kensingtonwick

I hope they improve their motion handling. I'm a plasma guy and when I went to the B6 it was terrible so I took it back. Let's hope motion handling and brightness improve in the next few years. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## irkuck

Future is not necessarily only Organic or Liquid and scaling bottom up


----------



## fafrd

This was posted by popyang45 in a new thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...894641-lg-launches-a7-oled-hd-resolution.html

but I thought it deserved exposure here as well: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1499845847

I just made the comment in that other thread that while the first several generations of 55" FHD OLEDs were motivated by lack of confidence that LG could manufacture any larger or higher resolution WOLEDs ('it was the most advanced TV they had confidence they could manufacture at acceptable yield'), this new A7 55" FHD OLED seems to be motivated by the desire to establish a diversified market suitable for sustaining a dedicated manufacturing infrastructure over the long haul.

It will be much safer / more profitable for LG to blow-off excess inventory build-up by deeply discounting low-end FHD models compared to the yo-yo pricing pattern they offer on entry-level 55" and 65" models today.

If sub-$1000 sales of this 55" A7 are successful, the next signpost of this strategy I'm expecting to see is introduction of a 49" FHD model (2018 or 2019).

And then by the time the 10.5G substrates are in production in P10 (2020 or 2021), we can probably expect to see 43" FHD OLEDs introduced .


----------



## fafrd

A sobering assessment from those holding out hope for printed OLED (and QLED) being just around the corner: https://www.oled-info.com/ihs-amoled-fmm-market-will-reach-12-billion-sales-2021

"It seems that IHS do not see other OLED production technologies such as ink-jet printing or OVJP replace current evaporation based processes, at least until 2022..."


----------



## Stereodude

fafrd said:


> "It seems that IHS do not see other OLED production technologies such as ink-jet printing or OVJP replace current evaporation based processes, at least until 2022..."


Or ever...


----------



## fafrd

In case this didn't get posted from last month: https://seekingalpha.com/news/32734...re currently selling-through at that level...


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> Sony ... and Panasonic ... follow with estimated shipments of 300K and 200K, respectively. The companies get the OLED TV panels from LG Display.


Interesting numbers since we'd previously heard Sony might be limited to 100K. And is this the first time we have info on how many panels Panasonic has access to?


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> A sobering assessment from those holding out hope for printed OLED (and QLED) being just around the corner: https://www.oled-info.com/ihs-amoled-fmm-market-will-reach-12-billion-sales-2021
> 
> "It seems that IHS do not see other OLED production technologies such as ink-jet printing or OVJP replace current evaporation based processes, at least until 2022..."


Another interesting tidbit I missed the first time I skimmed the article:

"By 2023, the OLED TV market will exceed 10 million units."

With sales of 2M OLED TVs being forecasted for this year, 10M by 2023 would correspond to a compound annual growth rate of just over 30% for the next 6 years... (in otherwords, fairly reasonable for a growth-stage market).


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> Interesting numbers since we'd previously heard Sony might be limited to 100K. And is this the first time we have info on how many panels Panasonic has access to?


Never been clear how solid that 100K number was nor what it was intended to represent - Sony's minimum purchase commitment to LGD or LGD's mimimum allocation commitment to Sony (or both ).

If LGD successfully sells 25% of their 2017 panel production through these top-tier Japanese OEMs in their first year of sales, that's a promisig sign...

And for Sony, if they truly sell 300,000 OLEDs for an average selling price of over $3333, that represents a new $billion+ product line


----------



## joys_R_us

fafrd said:


> And for Sony, if they truly sell 300,000 OLEDs for an average selling price of over $3333, that represents a new $billion+ product line


The margins at retail level are quite high (>30 % ?) so that for Sony it still won't be a billion dollar business yet...But it is a nice start and increases their visibility in the market which might also help the rest of their portfolio.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> A sobering assessment from those holding out hope for printed OLED (and QLED) being just around the corner: https://www.oled-info.com/ihs-amoled-fmm-market-will-reach-12-billion-sales-2021
> 
> "It seems that IHS do not see other OLED production technologies such as ink-jet printing or OVJP replace current evaporation based processes, at least until 2022..."


I hate being right when it's about something negative.

Of course, I do appreciate that something I've been saying for years gets further vindication / credence from other pros.


----------



## Rich Peterson

Last September this Bloomberg article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-01/your-next-tv-might-roll-out-of-a-printer said Kateeva was expecting to start producing their OLED printing equipment in "late 2018 or early 2019". The article also does mention that IHS is more skeptical.


----------



## joys_R_us

Printing is not equal printing. The question is what part of the panel they want to print ?


----------



## JimP

joys_R_us said:


> Printing is not equal printing. The question is what part of the panel they want to print ?


Interesting....please elaborate for us geeky peeps.


----------



## joys_R_us

The problem to be solved is printing the OLED substances to avoid the fine metal mask and also the color filters (if a printable blue oled were there). Kateeva helps printing the tft circuits but there is no evidence for printing the oleds.

And please allocate your humor towards your great wife.


----------



## joys_R_us

No jump in technology to be expected in 2018 panels from TADFs:

"Cynora is looking at 2019 as the real milestone for production, with the expectation that if they have a product available in December 2017, both panel makers and then device makers will require at least 6 months to optimize their products to use TADF."

Source: http://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/cynora-hits-new-milestone-on-tadf-blue-for-oled

I told this before that it is unreasonable to expect tadf panels in 2018. So if LGD does not switch to top-emission panels there is not much room for improvement next year. My best bet would be the integration of quantum dots to improve the color gamut and efficiency but LGD never talked about qdots...?


----------



## wco81

What about higher output to enhance HDR output?


----------



## joys_R_us

How ?


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> No jump in technology to be expected in 2018 panels from TADFs:
> 
> "Cynora is looking at 2019 as the real milestone for production, with the expectation that if they have a product available in December 2017, both panel makers and then device makers will require at least 6 months to optimize their products to use TADF."
> 
> Source: http://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/cynora-hits-new-milestone-on-tadf-blue-for-oled
> 
> I told this before that it is unreasonable to expect tadf panels in 2018. So if LGD does not switch to top-emission panels there is not much room for improvement next year. My best bet would be the integration of quantum dots to improve the color gamut and efficiency but LGD never talked about qdots...?


I re-read the article that had been posted earlier and I think you are correct: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=31171602

"LG Display introduces Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence (TADF) material through the system to improve the performance of large organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs).

As soon as possible, it will be applied to *products to be introduced next year*. It can improve the efficiency such as power consumption and lifetime while increasing the performance of white OLED (WOLED). It is expected that utilization will be further diversified as it can be used in the inkjet (solubile process) method in the medium to long term."

'Introduced' could mean demonstrated and announced at CEDIA in September 2018, so reaching the shelves in products in 2019...

"*LG Display has almost completed research and development (R & D) on top emission rather than bottom emission for ultra-high definition (UHD) resolution* and transparent flexibility. In order to realize high resolution in OLED panels, it is difficult to obtain an aperture ratio (ratio of the area where the actual light can be emitted). OLEDs using self-luminous elements are relatively easy to secure the aperture ratio compared to LCDs, but there is a difficulty in shortening the device life when the current is increased to compensate for brightness."

So perhaps we'll see an announcemennt of a top-emission WOLED at CEDIA in two months.

Does anyone understand what the move to top-emmission could mean in terms of improved panel specs and/or what risks may be associated with such a change?


----------



## ynotgoal

joys_R_us said:


> No jump in technology to be expected in 2018 panels from TADFs:
> 
> "Cynora is looking at 2019 as the real milestone for production, with the expectation that if they have a product available in December 2017, both panel makers and then device makers will require at least 6 months to optimize their products to use TADF."
> 
> Source: http://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/cynora-hits-new-milestone-on-tadf-blue-for-oled
> 
> I told this before that it is unreasonable to expect tadf panels in 2018. So if LGD does not switch to top-emission panels there is not much room for improvement next year. My best bet would be the integration of quantum dots to improve the color gamut and efficiency but LGD never talked about qdots...?


Thanks for posting the link. The specs for Cynora's blue TADF have a long way to go to meet the color and lifetime requirements for a commercial display so for now any talk of inclusion in a commercial TV is just speculation by a company looking to raise funds and make an IPO. Universal Display had phosphorescent OLEDs with these specs 3 years ago and Kyulux has TADF emitters with as good or better specs.

Regarding top emission, LG ordered pilot equipment for a test for the P10 facility. They are supposed to be able to make a decision on whether they can use top emission for P10 by the end of the year. So the first possibility of that being applied to a commercial LG TV is end of 2019, probably for a 2020 model.

Top emission would be a big deal. It would probably mean twice the amount of light output per input voltage which allows for several possibilities. In the article they talk about extending the life of the materials likely by reducing the voltage and thus lower power consumption. That approach might make it possible for a phosphorescent or a better TADF blue than is available now. Or they could just make the displays brighter. Top emission is also likely required for 8K resolution. So if the top emission pilot test works the 2020 models will be a really significant upgrade. There will be upgrades for 2018 but I have no idea what they will be.

Remember to use google translate...
http://www.kinews.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=109092


----------



## wco81

Damn so if you want much better than 2017 LGs, you have to wait 2-3 years?


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> Thanks for posting the link. The specs for Cynora's blue TADF have a long way to go to meet the color and lifetime requirements for a commercial display so for now any talk of inclusion in a commercial TV is just speculation by a company looking to raise funds and make an IPO. Universal Display had phosphorescent OLEDs with these specs 3 years ago and Kyulux has TADF emitters with as good or better specs.
> 
> Regarding top emission, LG ordered pilot equipment for a test for the P10 facility. They are supposed to be able to make a decision on whether they can use top emission for P10 by the end of the year. So the first possibility of that being applied to a commercial LG TV is end of 2019, probably for a 2020 model.
> 
> *Top emission would be a big deal. It would probably mean twice the amount of light output per input voltage which allows for several possibilities. * In the article they talk about extending the life of the materials likely by reducing the voltage and thus lower power consumption. That approach might make it possible for a phosphorescent or a better TADF blue than is available now. Or they could just make the displays brighter. Top emission is also likely required for 8K resolution. So if the top emission pilot test works the 2020 models will be a really significant upgrade. There will be upgrades for 2018 but I have no idea what they will be.
> 
> Remember to use google translate...
> http://www.kinews.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=109092


Among them possibly a return of 3D (if it survives that long, I know, a loooong shot ).

In any case, it seems as though top-emission is LGs ace-in-the-hole for the brightness wars with Samsung QLED...

For 2018, there were some rumored composition changes for wider color gamut and/or increased brightness - we'll see if any of that materializes in a few months, but it is starting to look like LG is going to be pretty conservative, riding the 8.5G manufacturing processes they have established, until 10.5G in P10 is ready for production in a few years...

Far a 65" display at least, I would give up 8K for 4K supporting 3D in a heartbeat .


----------



## wco81

Is 3D even part of the UHD Blu Ray spec?

I thought it was dropped?


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> Thanks for posting the link. The specs for Cynora's blue TADF have a long way to go to meet the color and lifetime requirements for a commercial display so for now any talk of inclusion in a commercial TV is just speculation by a company looking to raise funds and make an IPO. Universal Display had phosphorescent OLEDs with these specs 3 years ago and Kyulux has TADF emitters with as good or better specs.
> 
> Regarding top emission, LG ordered pilot equipment for a test for the P10 facility. They are supposed to be able to make a decision on whether they can use top emission for P10 by the end of the year. So the first possibility of that being applied to a commercial LG TV is end of 2019, probably for a 2020 model.
> 
> Top emission would be a big deal. It would probably mean twice the amount of light output per input voltage which allows for several possibilities. In the article they talk about extending the life of the materials likely by reducing the voltage and thus lower power consumption. That approach might make it possible for a phosphorescent or a better TADF blue than is available now. Or they could just make the displays brighter. Top emission is also likely required for 8K resolution. So if the top emission pilot test works the 2020 models will be a really significant upgrade. There will be upgrades for 2018 but I have no idea what they will be.
> 
> Remember to use google translate...
> http://www.kinews.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=109092


Finally managed to get Google translate working - you're right, they seem to be primarily concerned that the bottom-emitting technology of today will be incapable of delivering 8K tomorrow (2019) so they want to bring up top-emittibg technology by then.

And it sounds as though they intend to use through-OLED vias to get there (meaty conductors on TFT layer punching through WOLED layer electrically to energize pooly-conducting (thin) cathode conductor on glass.

I love how the article uses images of RGB OLED even though LG is based on WOLED...

Sounds as though we're in line for small incremental improvements until 2020...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Among them possibly a return of 3D (if it survives that long, I know, a loooong shot ).
> 
> In any case, it seems as though top-emission is LGs ace-in-the-hole for the brightness wars with Samsung QLED...
> 
> For 2018, there were some rumored composition changes for wider color gamut and/or increased brightness - we'll see if any of that materializes in a few months, but it is starting to look like LG is going to be pretty conservative, riding the 8.5G manufacturing processes they have established, until 10.5G in P10 is ready for production in a few years...
> 
> Far a 65" display at least, I would give up 8K for 4K supporting 3D in a heartbeat .


Just found this thread from Silicon Investor (appears you were a contributor ) suggesting that top emmission may be incompatible with 3D polorizers: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=30524539


----------



## rogo

3D is not coming back.

No UHD content is being produced in 3D for consumers.

As for LG and OLED, I've long been skeptical of blue breakthroughs for the reasons ynotgoal outlined. We will know when it changes because someone will announce a set of performance characteristics that are inline with TV lifespans: tens of thousands of hours.

The top-emission stuff is fascinating because it's been clearly a roadmap issue for sometime. The putative Sony/Panasonic pseudo-joint venture was definitely headed that way. It is a huge deal and would be great to see by 2019. It will be seen by 2021-22 with some sort of certainty.

LG seems to have no intent at all to move away from WOLED. Clearly P10 is going to represent a half-decade or more investment in "making more OLEDs the way we do now". While things like bottom emission vs. top are radical changes, they are less radical than "we're going to stop vapor depositing the OLED material in a stack and instead start patterning it all". 

I admit I have no real take on 8K except the belief that someday we will buy 8K. It seems unlikely to be anytime soon. It seems unlikely to offer anything discernible. 

I'm much more interested in LG getting better at fill factor vs. today's abysmal pixel-to-panel ratio. Do we see top emission as part of that?


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> top emmission may be incompatible with 3D polorizers


A polarizer probably wouldn't be needed with top emission. As others have said 3D is not coming back.



rogo said:


> I'm much more interested in LG getting better at fill factor vs. today's abysmal pixel-to-panel ratio. Do we see top emission as part of that?


Yes, definitely.


----------



## Sammael

Does anyone have any idea if LG will make a RADICAL decision to release a 43" oled tv in 2018? They would not need to use any untested technology, just go smaller.

Retail costs for a 55" 4k oled is around 2k, 2.5k for the 2017 versions. So would it be such a stretch to see a 43" 4k oled tv released next year for around 1000 dollars?

Too low?


I keep asking because I have graduated from the small monitor club, and basically use a 43" sony 4k tv to tide me over while I am waiting for oled to get cheaper and smaller. At 43 inches, not ONLY will an lg oled be able to better break into the small tv console gaming market for less cost sensitive families and their spoiled brat kids.. the near HOLY GRAIL of computer monitors will finally be upon us.


4k @ 43" is similar ppi to a 1440p 27" monitor, it's a GREAT size for having more screen real estate, more immersive gaming, full vision video like youtube for desktop distance viewing... it is literally the perfect size, but so far, lg is not even thinking about this size and market.

At a thousand dollars, lg would OWN the high end monitor market for everyone that did not want to go that large. And if they added the following enhancements...

-sub 20ms input lag for gaming
-hdmi 2.1 / displayport 1.4x (whatever this next version is going to be called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Next_version that increases bandwidth to match thunderbolt 3 - that will probably give enough headroom for 120Hz with HDR)
-120Hz variable refresh display to enhance desktop and console gaming (next xbox)


I was in best buy today, and walked past the oleds and stopped... the display is so beautiful, and that beauty is being completely denied for pc gaming unless someone strapped a too large 55" display to a tower, and even then, we would be nice to have higher refresh rates and variable refresh rates and connectors that had enough bandwidth to drive that with no problems and lower input lag... and we can have all that !!!!!! We can if only LG would THINK about trying to cater to that BLACK HOLE in the market. I just spent 700 dollars on this sony tv last year, and would HAPPILY spend another thousand next year if LG let me. Will they let me? And if not, when?

Does anyone know anyone from lg? Seriously, can someone talk to them and ask them, BEG them, PLEAD with them to look at this segment?


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> Thanks for posting the link. The specs for Cynora's blue TADF have a long way to go to meet the color and lifetime requirements for a commercial display so for now any talk of inclusion in a commercial TV is just speculation by a company looking to raise funds and make an IPO. Universal Display had phosphorescent OLEDs with these specs 3 years ago and Kyulux has TADF emitters with as good or better specs.
> 
> Regarding top emission, LG ordered pilot equipment for a test for the P10 facility. They are supposed to be able to make a decision on whether they can use top emission for P10 by the end of the year. So the first possibility of that being applied to a commercial LG TV is end of 2019, probably for a 2020 model.
> 
> Top emission would be a big deal. It would probably mean twice the amount of light output per input voltage which allows for several possibilities. In the article they talk about extending the life of the materials likely by reducing the voltage and thus lower power consumption. That approach might make it possible for a phosphorescent or a better TADF blue than is available now. Or they could just make the displays brighter. Top emission is also likely required for 8K resolution. So if the top emission pilot test works the 2020 models will be a really significant upgrade. There will be upgrades for 2018 but I have no idea what they will be.
> 
> Remember to use google translate...
> http://www.kinews.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=109092


Thinking over this some more, it's a pretty major change to the manufacturing process to achieve top-emission and it's going to require punching-through the WOLED layer (which is not required with bottom-emission).

Do we have any idea how LG is planning to get a conducting layer through the WOLED layers? Can the WOLED layers be easily etched?

Up to now, one of the big advantages LG's WOLED architecture has had for large-screen format has been the avoidance of any patterning of the OLED layers. Even though patterning for a conducting layer through a WOLED layer should be easier than patterning of OLED layers themselves (ie: for RGB OLED), it's still a big change in process.

An further insight as to how LG plans to approach this and what risks may be involved would be interesting...


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> A polarizer probably wouldn't be needed with top emission. As others have said 3D is not coming back.


Was a pllarizer required for bottom-emission?

At any rate, while I accept that 3D will never be coming back in the way it was originally envisioned, as long as new 3D Blurays are being issued it is premature to call the format dead...



> Yes, definitely.


On fill-factor, I'm not sure I understand.

I believe what Rogo is most unhappy with is the large inter-subpixel gaps in current WOLED technology, and I believe these are primarily driven by the need to prevent subpixel light bleed.

Going from bottom to top emission may reduce the amound of light dispersion somewhat and so may allow for sone reduction of those inter-subpixel gaps, but I believe gaps of some size will still be needed.

To be honest, while I also objected to the noticable inter-pixel gaps on the 1080p WOLEDs (EC9300), since the move to 4K resolution, they are a non-issue to me (invisible, at least on a 65" screen).

If I understand correctly, the primary benefit to top-emission is transmittance through a thin transparant cathode later rather than transmittance through a multi-later transpaent-as-possible TFT layer. The % of light that makes it through the thin transparent cathode layer should be greater than the % that makes it through the multi-layer TFT layer (so either brightness is increased or power consumption can be decreased).

There may also be some improvement to the minor remaining off-axis color-shift of WOLED.


----------



## claudio53

Sammael said:


> Does anyone have any idea if LG will make a RADICAL decision to release a 43" oled tv in 2018? They would not need to use any untested technology, just go smaller.
> 
> Retail costs for a 55" 4k oled is around 2k, 2.5k for the 2017 versions. So would it be such a stretch to see a 43" 4k oled tv released next year for around 1000 dollars?
> 
> Too low?......
> 
> .......
> 
> Maybe this is EXTREME! Like I wrote in a previous post it would be enough to have on market a 49-50" OLED which is as big as old 43" plasma! I think lots of plasma enthusiasts would be more than happy to make the switch! :wink:


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> At any rate, while I accept that 3D will never be coming back in the way it was originally envisioned, as long as new 3D Blurays are being issued it is premature to call the format dead...


Accept that everything is being "product-ized" around 4K. 3D BluRay is not 4K. 

Accept also that even BluRay player penetration is falling at this point through "decommissioning" of BluRay players with no replacements. 



> To be honest, while I also objected to the noticable inter-pixel gaps on the 1080p WOLEDs (EC9300), since the move to 4K resolution, they are a non-issue to me (invisible, at least on a 65" screen).
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> If I understand correctly, the primary benefit to top-emission is transmittance through a thin transparant cathode later rather than transmittance through a multi-later transpaent-as-possible TFT layer. The % of light that makes it through the thin transparent cathode layer should be greater than the % that makes it through the multi-layer TFT layer (so either brightness is increased or power consumption can be decreased).
> 
> There may also be some improvement to the minor remaining off-axis color-shift of WOLED.


The whole problem with the low fill factor isn't the visible grid (I'm not of those people, seeing a grid no human has the visual perception to perceive). The whole problem is everywhere there isn't pixel, there's no light. The OLED would be much brighter, and with higher dynamic range, if you could emit over a greater portion of the surface. No, power isn't free (though close enough here) and no this isn't an order of magnitude difference, but the more area we're looking at that "lights up" the better.

And so yes, if top emission delivers on the promise of higher brightness or lower power consumption _and_ could offer us smaller interpixel spacing which could allow more brightness or lower power consumption -- we have multiple vectors to either improve lifetime (drive things less hard) or improve light output.

That's why it's important and interesting to discuss these things somewhat in tandem. (Again, I asked a question about fill factor as I'm not an expert in whether top emission allows it to be improved... just noting we are all heading in the same direction about improvements.)

PS -- While I believe that top emission is a big deal generally, too, I wouldn't urge anyone to wait for an innovation that may/may not come with the 2020 models. That's so far away, could easily be delayed or scrapped, etc. etc. Would you wait till 2022 for an innovation? Not likely. Of course, if you have a great TV right now that might serve you till 2022 and keep you happy, fine, you can muse about when in the future to make a change.


----------



## ALMA

> In addition to the earning results, LGD detailed its investment path for OLEDs, as was decided in a recent board meeting. *First of all, LGD decided to build a 10.5-Gen (2940x3370 mm) OLED line in its upcoming P10 fab in Paju. *LGD will make an up-front investment of KRW2.8 trillion ($2.5 billion USD). The whole fab will require more investments but LGD says it is taking a prudent approach - it will only begin mass production of OLED TVs after stabilizing the technology for these extra large size substrates.





> In addition to these investments, *LGD decided to establish a 8.5-Gen (2200x2500) OLED line in Guangzhou, China, to make OLED TV panels. This fab will be a joint-venture with a local company (that LGD did not disclose) and LGD will hold a 70% share.* The total cost for this fab will be KRW2.6 trillion ($2.3 billion USD). LGD wants to be closer to the Chinese market, which is the largest TV market in the world - and this is the first time a Korean company plans to produce OLEDs outside of Korea.


https://www.oled-info.com/lgd-annou...nd-6-gen-lines-paju-and-85-gen-line-guangzhou


----------



## wco81

What happened to 9.5-gen?


----------



## irkuck

As noted by expert site, the 10.5-Gen line will make possíble significant expansion of OLED into the 80"-100" display segment and even beyond.
How long the process from the investment decision to mass manufacturing takes?


----------



## slacker711

Some points of interest from LG Display earnings. Some of the following is from various articles in Korean. 

https://seekingalpha.com/article/40...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

- LGD is going to add 60k of Gen 8.5 OLED capacity in China. This capacity will come on-line in the first half of 2019.

- They had 34k of Gen 8.5 capacity at the beginning of this year and are adding another 26k right now. There is no additional capacity coming on-line in 2018. If demand comes in ahead of supply they will consider using multi-modal glass (cut 3 65" and 2" 55" substrates from one sheet).

- They are going to be careful to prove out their Gen 10.5 P10 fab ahead of OLED mass production. It sounds like they will work on backplane uniformity and yields beginning in 2019 before beginning OLED mass production in 2020. They will prove out the production using LCD's. However, they were adamant that this was simply to prove out production and that any sales will simply be opportunistic. The first phase of Gen 10.5 fab is 30k substrates. 

- They expect 10% of their revenue to be OLED in 2017 shifting to 40% in 2020.

- Total OLED TV volume is expected to be 2.5 million in 2018 and over 6 million in 2020.

FWIW, between mobile OLED and OLED TV's, they are increasing their capex pace by about 2/3's. They said they might need debt to finance the various projects. This is the simple issue with LGD being the only OLED TV supplier. They simply arent big enough to fund a continuous doubling of capacity each year.


----------



## rogo

Seems probable they can raise $1-4B just from Apple (debt, equity, whatever). That would be dedicated to mobile sizes in theory, but it's like the old guns and butter argument: it's money they won't need from elsewhere.

It's really noteworthy how much the TV forecasts have slowed, basically the timetables have shifted out and to the right by what now amounts to 5+ years since the original "launch" but is still 2-3 years since the more general promise of continuation with OLED TVs / expansion / etc.

Consider that 6 million TVs (with LG as the sole supplier more or less) means that $2000 even on those putative 6M sold.

To wrap up this summary, OLED has mostly come less far than nearly every optimistic projection made about it. It has also come much farther than it would have without the strong investments by Samsung (mobile) and LG (TV). 

[Personal note: I'm gonna own the OLED iPhone. I have an Android phone with an OLED I use as an "iPod Touch" and owned an old early OLED HTC phone so it won't be my first OLED phone, but I'm excited. I'm also going to continue with buying new TVs every 6 years in 2018 and get a paper-thin LG to mount on my new wall at my new place. It will replace my 2012 plasma, which replaced my 2006 plasma, which replaced my 2000 LCD.]


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Some points of interest from LG Display earnings. Some of the following is from various articles in Korean.
> 
> https://seekingalpha.com/article/40...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
> 
> - LGD is going to add 60k of Gen 8.5 OLED capacity in China. This capacity will come on-line in the first half of 2019.
> 
> - They had 34k of Gen 8.5 capacity at the beginning of this year and are adding another 26k right now. There is no additional capacity coming on-line in 2018. *If demand comes in ahead of supply they will consider using multi-modal glass (cut 3 65" and 2" 55" substrates from one sheet).*
> 
> - They are going to be careful to prove out their Gen 10.5 P10 fab ahead of OLED mass production. It sounds like they will work on backplane uniformity and yields beginning in 2019 before beginning OLED mass production in 2020. They will prove out the production using LCD's. However, they were adamant that this was simply to prove out production and that any sales will simply be opportunistic. The first phase of Gen 10.5 fab is 30k substrates.
> 
> - They expect 10% of their revenue to be OLED in 2017 shifting to 40% in 2020.
> 
> - Total OLED TV volume is expected to be 2.5 million in 2018 and over 6 million in 2020.
> 
> FWIW, between mobile OLED and OLED TV's, they are increasing their capex pace by about 2/3's. They said they might need debt to finance the various projects. This is the simple issue with LGD being the only OLED TV supplier. They simply arent big enough to fund a continuous doubling of capacity each year.


If we assume equal volumes of 55" and 65" panels produced, 60K sheets per month equates to 96K of each panel size (assuming 80% yield). With MMG, they can increase that to 123K of each panel size, so a 28% increase.

And 2018 looks like a ~2.3M year without MMG Technology and as much as a ~2.6Mu year if they get it into production by mid-year.

I also found these two tidbits interesting:

"So from now on to about 15 to 18 months going forward, we will be placing equipment orders and setting up the equipment. After which, for around 6 to 12 months, we will need time for testing."

Meaning 21-30 months before we see any OLED TV production out of P10 (meaning May 2019 - February 2020).

And: "As you know, as we operated 8.5 generation OLED, we had to go through significant amount of trial and errors. There were a lot of challenges, including issues relating to oxide uniformity and also stabilizing the deposition process for OLED. So there were many issues that we had to deal with and which we overcame. Thanks to which, we were able to attain a stable mass production. And as you would recall, at the very onset for 8.5 generation, we began with a half-cut glass. But after going through 3 years of different trial and errors, we were able to increase and enhance even the mass production yield for the mother glass. And also, on top of that, *in terms of the oxide uniformity issue for 8.5 gen, we had to haggle with this issue for around 4 to 5 years. *So if you compare this to 10.5 generation, the mother glass size is actually 2x bigger. Hence, it truly requires an extensive experience in order to bring about a stable mass production for this generation of product. So what we are saying is that we are being very preemptive and making such advanced preparations for a successful mass production of 10.5G in the future."

Trying to learn from their experience to cut the period of 'haggling' down to 2-3 years from 4-5 years sounds like a prudent plan .


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Seems probable they can raise $1-4B just from Apple (debt, equity, whatever). That would be dedicated to mobile sizes in theory, but it's like the old guns and butter argument: it's money they won't need from elsewhere.
> 
> It's really noteworthy how much the TV forecasts have slowed, basically the timetables have shifted out and to the right by what now amounts to 5+ years since the original "launch" but is still 2-3 years since the more general promise of continuation with OLED TVs / expansion / etc.
> 
> Consider that 6 million TVs (with LG as the sole supplier more or less) means that $2000 even on those putative 6M sold.


Right, so let's take that 5% / 10-15M $1500+ segment as the market WOLED TV should focus on until it needs further segments for growth. Adding up existing 60,000 sheet capacity, new 60,000 sheet China capacity, and initial 30,000 2Xsubstrate/month capacity from P10, LG will still only be selling about half of this total segement by 2021/2022 (~7.5Mu).

My point is that just with 55" and 65" (and eventually 75") WOLED TVs, LG has enough to keep themselves busy (and profitable) on the premium segment for quite a while.

The first signal that they are starting to think about breaking out into the broader market will be the introduction of smaller screen sizes.

4x2 production of 49" screens is very efficient on 8.5G but the pixels would be smaller than anything LG has produced in WOLED, so the 55" FHD WOLED LG just introduced may be a first gentle probe to understand whether there is demand for FHD at smaller screen sizes. (But on the other hand, pixel size for a 98" 8K WOLED is identical those of a 4K 38" WOLED ).




> To wrap up this summary, OLED has mostly come less far than nearly every optimistic projection made about it. It has also come much farther than it would have without the strong investments by Samsung (mobile) and LG (TV).


I got involved late in the game, so I've probably missed many of those early forecasts. Obviously a WOLED TV market supported by only a single manufacturer is going to grow less quickly than one supported by two, so forecasts from the Samsung & LG OLED TV ERA were overly optimistic the moment Samsung pulled out.

LG has a prudent production plan that increases capacity by 1/3 to 1/2 per year for the next 4-5 years and they will be in a much stronger posituon once that plan has been executed.

And I'm holding out hope that LG decides to master the switch to top-emission before P10 is in production (partly because I don't think I can wait until 2021 to buy my next WOLED TV ).


----------



## fafrd

https://www.oled-info.com/dscc-oled-revenues-reach-21-billion-2017-will-rise-46-billion-2021

"OLED TV shipments will reach 6.5 million in 2021 (rising at a CAGR of 49% from 2016 to 2021)."

Pretty mch in line with LG's current prodction plans (which can lead one to ask, which came first, the chicken or the egg? ).


----------



## video_analysis

Sounds like 2020 would be a good year for current owners to consider buying again (not me, I will probably be buried with this 3D-capable 77").


----------



## wco81

What happened to all the Chinese manufacturers jumping in?


----------



## fafrd

In the 'two-steps-forward/one-step-back' department, the reports of burn-in on WOLED are starting to raise concern.

The poll I started indicates that about 10% of WOLED owners are developing burn-in: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/2901825-woled-burn-poll.html

A new member just posted about his parents developing burn-in with use that sounds pretty average/typical for non-videophiles: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...-oled-screen-burn-photos-21.html#post54537676

We only have a total of 8 WOLEDs with burn-in reported so far, so this should not be blown out of proportion, but it's looking increasingly likely that current-generation WOLED technology may not be suited for continuous watching of TV channels with constant logos/banners present (at least if they are yellow, orange, or red) and possibly also heavy gaming with constant HUDs (at least in yellow, orange, or red).

For any videophile willing to put up with the care-and-feeding requirements of plasma (and even for anyone primarily watching high-quality streaming and Bluray content), this is a non-issue, but for average consumers who want to watch as much as they want of whatever they want, without a care in the world, it's looking increasingly likely that LG still has some progress to make (possibly tied to their development of top-emission ).


----------



## wco81

Yeah but people are suppose to upgrade every couple of years, so no biggie.


----------



## video_analysis

On the 65" G6 (and the EF9500) before it, football games were watched quite extensively (i.e. all day) during said football season(s). Fortunately, as I recall, the color scheme for the static graphics wasn't any hue of red. That coupled with the commercial breaks may have saved me from any trouble, if there is an inherent flaw across all 2016 models. I don't intend to test those waters given what I paid.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Yeah but people are suppose to upgrade every couple of years, so no biggie.


'You get one chance to make a first impression' and given the history plasma had in this department, if LG WOLEDs truly show signs of burn-in from non-abusive use, Samsung is going to ride that Achilles-heel for all it is worth...

Vignette was a very visible issue that impacted picture quality but who's 'fix' was readily apparent to consumers so LG recovered nicely once they introduced improved panels.

If WOLED develops a reputation of suffering from burn-in like plasma, that would be a much more serious weakness to recover from and even after LG has introduced changes to address the problem, the market could take years to recover (possibly even never).


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> On the 65" G6 (and the EF9500) before it, football games were watched quite extensively (i.e. all day) during said football season(s). Fortunately, as I recall, the color scheme for the static graphics wasn't any hue of red. That coupled with the commercial breaks may have saved me from any trouble, if there is an inherent flaw across all 2016 models. I don't intend to test those waters given what I paid.


I'm not seeing anything either, and my kids game for hours on end day-after-day, especially during the summer.

The reports that are most consistent (and concerning) involve repeated watching of the same TV channel day-after-day (2-4 hours per day 7 days a week). The post I linked to a few posts back mentioned that his parents viewing habits even caused IR on a Vizio LED/LCD, so this is really long-term repeated viewing of the same channels with yellow/orange/red static components (logos, banners). Even ''all-dy' throughout football season' is far less hours per month/year (and also probably less static).

But the fact that 8 WOLEDs owned by AVSers (or their parents ) have signs of burn-in out of 72 total (so far) shoud be of concern to any WOLED-TV fan...


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> In the 'two-steps-forward/one-step-back' department, the reports of burn-in on WOLED are starting to raise concern.


Assuming burn-in is a real phenomenon, it would be interesting to know if burn-in was less likely after some break-in period.


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> Assuming burn-in is a real phenomenon, it would be interesting to know if burn-in was less likely after some break-in period.


The thread I linked to above is dedicated to tha subject, so I suggest we take more detailed discussion to that thread and stop polluting the OLED Technology thread...

Current view is that break-in does not make much difference but OLED Light might. Another Survey here on AVS indicated that all but one case of burn-in occurred on WOLED with OLED Light set at 80 or higher while no WOLEDs with brightness set 60 or lower suffered burn-in. (The two WOLEDs with OLED Light at 70 went 50/50).

This latest report was with OLED Light at 60, so that is the first report that even with OLED Light that low, burn-in is possible given enough repeated viewing.

It seems to be a very long-term effect only caused by constant viewing of the same static image components over many months, and at least one possible theory is that the 'pixel-refresh' technology runs out of headroom once threshold shift it too extreme...

As a point of reference, 2-hours per day 7-days a week amounts to over 60 hours per month or 720 hours per year of the same static image components.

Today's WOLED technology may just not be well-suited to those who watch the same TV or cable channels day-in, day-out... (which infortunately, is a larger number of people than you might think, even if such viewers represent the '1%' among AVSers ).


----------



## irkuck

All this sounds LCD agony in high-end segment will start in 2020. Interesting question now is if iLED will show up and take some bites of OLED until this time.


----------



## psuKinger

irkuck said:


> As noted by expert site, the 10.5-Gen line will make possíble significant expansion of OLED into the 80"-100" display segment and even beyond.
> How long the process from the investment decision to mass manufacturing takes?




Yes yes yes.

Now please sell me one of these "large" sets WITHOUT a soundbar or "paper on wall" display, etc etc etc. Just a "generic" 85 inch, big, beautiful, bold, "B-series" set, with the option for a sturdy, simple stand... I'll supply my own audio equipment, thank you very much.

This is what I want, and I'm ready for the "future" to be "now".......


----------



## nodixe

Supposedly since lg is dropping passive 3d the pixel structure can be redesigned. Passive 3d requires vertical space betwern pixels to reduce cross talk(?) but also reduced the brightness. This redesign is supposed to be released in 2018.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## mnc

nodixe said:


> Supposedly since lg is dropping passive 3d the pixel structure can be redesigned. Passive 3d requires vertical space betwern pixels to reduce cross talk(?) but also reduced the brightness. This redesign is supposed to be released in 2018.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


I'm anxiously waiting for details on 2018 models for this reason. Hopefully they will hit 1000 nits on 10% windows and 250 nits full screen!


----------



## fafrd

Do any of the OLED gurus on the board understand what the impact of agong OLED layers will be in a WOLED stacked architecture (especially blue)?

Time-to-half-brightness of Blue is supposed to be ~30,000 hours.

So after 30,000 hours use of a specific subpixel on a WOLED, does that mean light output will remain similar to what it is on a new subpixel but composition of white light output of the aged subpixel will have shifted away from blue and more strongly towards red/green (yellow)?

Or will total light output of an aged subpixel decrease in addition to a shift in whitepoint towards yellow?

On a more detailed level, as blue OLED materials age, does their effective 'resistnce' remain constant and it is just the light ouput efficiency generated by a similar current that decreases or does the effective 'resistance' of the blue material increase so that current level for a given voltage decrease (or voltage level required for a desired current increases) and is does efficiency of blue light generated from that reduced current level the same or does efficiency decrease in addition?

We're starting to get first user reports of WOLED TVs exceeding 2500 hours and approaching 5000 hours and I'm trying to understand what the expected impact of aging OLED layers should do to light output as use starts getting into the range of blue half-life specifications...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Do any of the OLED gurus on the board understand what the impact of agong OLED layers will be in a WOLED stacked architecture (especially blue)?
> 
> Time-to-half-brightness of Blue is supposed to be ~30,000 hours.
> 
> So after 30,000 hours use of a specific subpixel on a WOLED, does that mean light output will remain similar to what it is on a new subpixel but composition of white light output of the aged subpixel will have shifted away from blue and more strongly towards red/green (yellow)?
> 
> Or will total light output of an aged subpixel decrease in addition to a shift in whitepoint towards yellow?
> 
> On a more detailed level, as blue OLED materials age, does their effective 'resistnce' remain constant and it is just the light ouput efficiency generated by a similar current that decreases or does the effective 'resistance' of the blue material increase so that current level for a given voltage decrease (or voltage level required for a desired current increases) and is does efficiency of blue light generated from that reduced current level the same or does efficiency decrease in addition?
> 
> We're starting to get first user reports of WOLED TVs exceeding 2500 hours and approaching 5000 hours and I'm trying to understand what the expected impact of aging OLED layers should do to light output as use starts getting into the range of blue half-life specifications...


Found this from a couple months ago: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=31129109&showwhorecd=1

So looks as though slacker and ynotgoal are our two most seasoned OLED experts and the questions I posted above are directed toeards them (unless their is anyone else on the board with a similar level of expertice).

And this information from silicon advisor raises another few questions:

1/ Are we expecting any changes to the WOLED stack for 2018? (I suppose we might learn something at CEDIA in another month+).

2/ Do we know whether LG made any changes to the WOLED stack between 2016 and 2017 generations?

3/ Are the 2017 WOLEDs the new 3-layer stack or the older 2-layer stack?


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Do any of the OLED gurus on the board understand what the impact of agong OLED layers will be in a WOLED stacked architecture (especially blue)?
> 
> Time-to-half-brightness of Blue is supposed to be ~30,000 hours.
> 
> So after 30,000 hours use of a specific subpixel on a WOLED, does that mean light output will remain similar to what it is on a new subpixel but composition of white light output of the aged subpixel will have shifted away from blue and more strongly towards red/green (yellow)?
> 
> Or will total light output of an aged subpixel decrease in addition to a shift in whitepoint towards yellow?
> 
> On a more detailed level, as blue OLED materials age, does their effective 'resistnce' remain constant and it is just the light ouput efficiency generated by a similar current that decreases or does the effective 'resistance' of the blue material increase so that current level for a given voltage decrease (or voltage level required for a desired current increases) and is does efficiency of blue light generated from that reduced current level the same or does efficiency decrease in addition?
> 
> We're starting to get first user reports of WOLED TVs exceeding 2500 hours and approaching 5000 hours and I'm trying to understand what the expected impact of aging OLED layers should do to light output as use starts getting into the range of blue half-life specifications...



Found the attached graph.

It indicated that for 30,000 hour half-life (brown 20 mA/cm^2 curve), light output is reduced by ~10% after ~1000 hours).

And I've seen some reports that LG is claiming a 100,000 hour lifetime for their WOLED TVs (purple 10 mA/cm^2 curve) which would indicate that light output is reduced by about 5% after 1000 hours...).

The Wiki page on OLEDs indicates that the aging process involves loss of light generation efficiency only, so as an OLED ages through use, light output decreases while current/resistance remains roughly constant.

We've got several users who watch what many would consider to be excessive display of a TV/cable channel or two with static logo components reporting that they are experiencing signs of burn-in after ~500 hours of display of those static logos (25% - 40% of their viewing).

Those subpixels, especially for yellow/orange/red logos are getting 500 hours of repeated saturated use while surrounding subpixels are getting used as little as 1/16th that level (1 of 4 random colors at random intensity level).

These aging curves are convincing me that if you have a cluster of subpixels experiencing 500-1000 hours of high-saturation use while the overal panel subpixels of the same color are experiencing only 30-65 equivalent hours of use, that difference is likely to show up as subpixels whose light output is darker by ~5-10%...

Could this be behind the several reports of burn in by heavy TV/cable single-channel users we are seeing?


----------



## fafrd

https://www.oled-info.com/cynora-edges-closer-460nm-deep-blue-emitter

"In May 2017 Cynora announced a new blue TADF emitters that achieves a 15% EQE at 1000 nits with an emission peak of 470 nm and a LT97 of > 90 hours (at 700 nits) on a device level. Cynora has stated several times that it aims to commercialize its first highly efficient blue TADF emitter by the end of this year.

According to Cynora, the performance requested from customers is an EQE (at 1000) of over 15%, a lifetime (LT97 at 700 nits) of over 100 hours and a wavelength of 460 nm (color purity FWHM 60 nm)."

According to this, they need to improve from LT97 >90h to >100h and from emission peak of 470 nm to 460 nm, which they believe they will achieve by year-end.

Do we believe it (both that these specs are what needs to be achieved for blue TADF to be adopted and that Cynora will get there by year-end)?


----------



## Rich Peterson

^^^Readers may remember this article from a few weeks ago:  LG aims to adopt a blue TADF emitter in its 2018 OLED TV stack


----------



## fafrd

Rich Peterson said:


> ^^^Readers may remember this article from a few weeks ago:  LG aims to adopt a blue TADF emitter in its 2018 OLED TV stack


Nothing but the title makes any mention of 2018.

From the Cynora article, while LG may start working on TADF in 2018, the techology won't appear in products begore 2019 (at the earliest): 

"Cynora does update now that it is *targeting 2019 for actual production of AMOLED displays with its TADF emitter.* Mass production of Cynora's blue TADF emitter will be ready in Q1 2018, but panels makers usually take about a year to bring a panel to the market. Cynora is partnering with global chemical makers and has yet to select a company to do its production when its materials are ready."


----------



## austinsj

rogo said:


> It's really noteworthy how much the TV forecasts have slowed, basically the timetables have shifted out and to the right by what now amounts to 5+ years since the original "launch" but is still 2-3 years since the more general promise of continuation with OLED TVs / expansion / etc.
> 
> Consider that 6 million TVs (with LG as the sole supplier more or less) means that


----------



## Cooters

Posting full notes, they feel PHOLED blue is getting close and printing is not


UDC Q2 2017 CC notes - 8/3/17
- Blowout quarter and guidance raised. Revenue to $102.5M , OpInc $60.5M, Net income $47.2M or .99/sh. Guidance raised to $285M-$300M for the year. Non-Samsung royalties up to $8.7M
- Had some very positive comments on blue progress in the prepared remarks. Later in Q&A said their confidence in blue continues to grow and they are getting close to commercial specs.
- Commercial materials $30.9M. Dev materials $15.9M
- Gave total material sales by color vs. commercial only in prior q's, and gave updated numbers for comparison.
Green - $32.1M in Q217 VS $33.3m in Q117 and $15.3M in Q216
Red - $13.7M in Q217 vs. $12.8M in Q117 and $6.7M in Q216
- GM's 79% for Q2 vs 75% in Q216. Still expect full year GM's 70-75%
- OPEX to grow 10-15% YoY
- Tax rate 23% in Q2, expect 25% for 2017 and 20% for 2018 and beyond.
- $380M in cash at EOQ, looking for opportunities to use their increasing free cash flow.
- Expect pricing discounts to begin kicking in on the newer materials in Q3.
- China predominantly BOE.
- Did sell some developmental host, but have not won any customer deals and don't expect to in the foreseeable future.
- PPG expansion will be completed in Q3.
- Still do not expect printing of materials in the foreseeable future, including P10.
- Expect red volumes to grow in H217 v. H117 but it will be offset by volume pricing discounts.
- Ordering consistency and predictability - Called it "somewhat consistent", but still see differences Quarter to Quarter and Month to Month. Their ability to predict is getting better. The biggest variable to guidance remains when new capacity comes online.
- They are focusing on signing Samsung's extension in 2017 and not on a temporary or interim agreement.
Cooters
Quite a few congratulations and "Nice quarter"


----------



## nodixe

fafrd said:


> Found the attached graph.
> 
> It indicated that for 30,000 hour half-life (brown 20 mA/cm^2 curve), light output is reduced by ~10% after ~1000 hours).
> 
> And I've seen some reports that LG is claiming a 100,000 hour lifetime for their WOLED TVs (purple 10 mA/cm^2 curve) which would indicate that light output is reduced by about 5% after 1000 hours...).
> 
> The Wiki page on OLEDs indicates that the aging process involves loss of light generation efficiency only, so as an OLED ages through use, light output decreases while current/resistance remains roughly constant.
> 
> We've got several users who watch what many would consider to be excessive display of a TV/cable channel or two with static logo components reporting that they are experiencing signs of burn-in after ~500 hours of display of those static logos (25% - 40% of their viewing).
> 
> Those subpixels, especially for yellow/orange/red logos are getting 500 hours of repeated saturated use while surrounding subpixels are getting used as little as 1/16th that level (1 of 4 random colors at random intensity level).
> 
> These aging curves are convincing me that if you have a cluster of subpixels experiencing 500-1000 hours of high-saturation use while the overal panel subpixels of the same color are experiencing only 30-65 equivalent hours of use, that difference is likely to show up as subpixels whose light output is darker by ~5-10%...
> 
> Could this be behind the several reports of burn in by heavy TV/cable single-channel users we are seeing?


Yes. I was looking for the original article that talked about this and the compensation cycle that mitigates this (but it can only compensate a lil at a time to control aging). Also I read that the woled's used blue oled with a yellow phosphor(?)filter(?) to make white but I'm not sure....

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

nodixe said:


> Yes. I was looking for the original article that talked about this and the compensation cycle that mitigates this (but it can only compensate a lil at a time to control aging). Also I read that the woled's used blue oled with a yellow phosphor(?)filter(?) to make white but I'm not sure....
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


As far as I understand, the compensation cycles are something completely different.

Threshhold shift can occur through use but the TV is able to sense threshold shift and con conpensate for it internally. So the result of threshold shift is a kibd of image retention that can be mitigated through a compensation cycle ('panel clean').

The permanent burn-in several members have reported appears to be related to aging of the OLED subpixel material through use - if use is not random and even, a portion of the screen displaying a bright static yellow/orange/red logo for a large % of the time will age faster than the other subpixels displaying random content.

This nonuniform aging cannot be detected by the TV and cannot be compensated for automatically (the only mitigation may be aging the other subpixels a similar amount through continued dispay of specific aging test patterns)...

White OLEDs (WOLEDs) use a blue layer and a yellow (which is red+green) layer to generate white light. The original composition was 2-layer but LG may now be using a 3-layer BYB composition...


----------



## fafrd

Sharp supposedly dipping their toe into OLED TV panel production: http://4k.com/news/sharp-to-possibly-compete-with-lg-on-oled-4k-tv-panels-20728/


----------



## Rudy1

*APPLE FILES PATENT FOR OLED/QD HYBRID*

https://hdguru.com/apple-files-patent-for-hybrid-oled-qd-display-technology/#more-20961


----------



## Keithian

Rudy1 said:


> *APPLE FILES PATENT FOR OLED/QD HYBRID*
> 
> https://hdguru.com/apple-files-patent-for-hybrid-oled-qd-display-technology/#more-20961


If we think the current OLEDs at 77" prices are high, wait until Apple releases it's version. Be prepared to live in your car to afford it..but you can still have the TV outside in front of your car. It will be like drive in movies of the past.


----------



## RichB

Keithian said:


> If we think the current OLEDs at 77" prices are high, wait until Apple releases it's version. Be prepared to live in your car to afford it..but you can still have the TV outside in front of your car. It will be like drive in movies of the past.




It wont have any adjustments because Apple knows best 


- Rich


----------



## wco81

They'd only be interested in using it for iPhones, their cash-cow.

Maybe they will use those displays in some iPad Pros.

Otherwise, it doesn't relate to TVs, which are not high margin enough for Apple to bother with.


----------



## rogo

High-end TVs have Apple-like margins.

They don't, however, have Apple-like volumes. Not even Apple Watch-like volumes.


----------



## fafrd

There were some earlier posts to the effect that LG never said anything about a 'tick-tock' WOLED penel development cycle and we here on AVS just made it up.

Just ran into this so thought I would share: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1482983106

"Update 10.01.2017: LG.Display actually switched to a 3 stack structure in 2016, which was the *"tick "*- 2017 is the *"tock" year *where further improvements will be introduced, according to LG at CES 2017)."


----------



## fafrd

This paper on top emission WOLED by LG was found by AVSer Morille Tremblay: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...on_OLED_TV/links/57d9604808ae601b39b1534d.pdf

It's from SID 2016 but not quite clear to me if it is simulation only or they actually built a top-emission WOLED panel.

There is also no mention of voltage drop in the thin trasmarent top-electrode layer and I thought some earlier posts indicated that that was the remaining problem to be solved before top-emission could be introduced...

But if nothing else, this paper confirms that LG has been working on top-emission WOLED since at least 2015...

Also contains about the clearest explanation for the reasons bottom-emitting WOLED suffers from off-axis color shift .


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Also contains about the clearest explanation for the reasons bottom-emitting WOLED suffers from off-axis color shift .


I have yet to see any OLED (TV or mobile) that doesn't suffer from easily visible color shift off axis. Even the Samsung 55" OLED had it. They all turn pink or green. Don't see any of that shift on my old CRT or Plasma.


----------



## joys_R_us

fafrd said:


> There were some earlier posts to the effect that LG never said anything about a 'tick-tock' WOLED penel development cycle and we here on AVS just made it up.
> 
> Just ran into this so thought I would share: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1482983106
> 
> "Update 10.01.2017: LG.Display actually switched to a 3 stack structure in 2016, which was the *"tick "*- 2017 is the *"tock" year *where further improvements will be introduced, according to LG at CES 2017)."


No, again, no.


I didn't say it did not come from LG. I said it is just marketing talk as an excuse to explain the little quality/feature improvements of 2017 panels vs. 2016 panels.

Time will tell but I am sure that the various technical battlefields in OLED development cannot be planned to a cycle order or can be held up until the next "tick".


----------



## fafrd

I've been fortunate to be able to read the contents of this paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdtp.11555/abstract

It explains that LG made a major change in WOLED architecture in 2016 in order to achieve UHD Premium OLED Certification.

The 2015 WOLED was a 3Stack 2Color (3S2C) of B-YG-B.

The new 3Stack 3Color (3S3C) they introduced in 2016 was B-YG-R+B.

The conclusion states that they addeed a Phosphorescent Red EML layer to enhance Red subpixel efficiency and color gamut of OLED TVs.

The fact that the ~10-15% reports we are seeing of burn-in on 2016 WOLED TVs from 20%+ CNN or MSNBC viewing with OLED Light >50 are all occuring on red subpixels may be no coincidence...


----------



## wco81

Does their warranty cover burn-in?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Does their warranty cover burn-in?


LGs warranty apparently does not cover burn-in and if you check out the Burn-in with Photos thread you will see that 10-15 members have had their warranty claims turned down by LG (so far - appears to be evolving situation in some cases).


----------



## video_analysis

Beginning to smell like a case that is ripe for lawyers and litigation.


----------



## Wizziwig

Another reason we see burn in on red fields is that the native color temperature of the WOLED is very high (~8000K+). This is evident from the papers linked by fafrd. In order to bring it down to the industry standard 6500K, the red sub-pixels need to active/driven more than the blue or green subpixels when displaying the most common white static picture elements. If you then combine that with red static elements, the total usage of the red sub-pixels is much higher than the other colors. I guess if you really want to prolong WOLED lifetime, watch everything using cooler color temperatures.


----------



## locomo

Keithian said:


> If we think the current OLEDs at 77" prices are high, wait until Apple releases it's version. Be prepared to live in your car to afford it..but you can still have the TV outside in front of your car. It will be like drive in movies of the past.


Yes, but it won't be an Apple car.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> LGs warranty apparently does not cover burn-in


Well what about premature uneven aging? Does LG's warranty cover that at all?


----------



## jbrady3324

Does Sony cover burn-in?


----------



## video_analysis

No way. The warnings in the Sony manual are so extensive that they make you think twice before even powering it on. 

And differential aging results from the same mechanism that causes burn-in. I don't see LG laying out the red carpet and making exceptions for it.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> No way. The warnings in the Sony manual are so extensive that they make you think twice before even powering it on.
> 
> And *differential aging results from the same mechanism that causes burn-in. * I don't see LG laying out the red carpet and making exceptions for it.


I agree - if the burned-in/differentially-aged image on a colored field is recognizable as coming from content/games (ie: CNN logo, MSNBC peacock feather(s), Zelda hearts), LG seems to be taking the position that it came from (mis)-use of the TV and is unlikely to recognize it as covered under their warranty.

Truly random differential aging might have a chance of being recognized as a screen uniformity defect, but there are no reported cases of such a thing...


----------



## kensingtonwick

fafrd said:


> I agree - if the burned-in/differentially-aged image on a colored field is recognizable as coming from content/games (ie: CNN logo, MSNBC peacock feather(s), Zelda hearts), LG seems to be taking the position that it came from (mis)-use of the TV and is unlikely to recognize it as covered under their warranty.
> 
> 
> 
> Truly random differential aging might have a chance of being recognized as a screen uniformity defect, but there are no reported cases of such a thing...




All I know is that I feel sorry for people who are oblivious to burn in that watch news and leave the tv on for hours at a time. Who would have ever thought that watching CNN for 5 hours a day/5 days a week (as an example) would be deemed "mis-use" lol. I wonder how many uninformed plasma owners ruined there tv's over the years and how many people now are ruining their Oleds? One the same token you'd think television stations would be knowledgeable about these issues (because they are in the business of broadcast television) and that over the past 15 years we'd see a switch to more transparent static images (although some have switched there still are quite a few solid coloured static image logos). I really got tired of using "zoom mode" and exercising the pixels on my plasma with full screen motion content. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RichB

kensingtonwick said:


> All I know is that I feel sorry for people who are oblivious to burn in that watch news and leave the tv on for hours at a time. Who would have ever thought that watching CNN for 5 hours a day/5 days a week (as an example) would be deemed "mis-use" lol. I wonder how many uninformed plasma owners ruined there tv's over the years and how many people now are ruining their Oleds? One the same token you'd think television stations would be knowledgeable about these issues (because they are in the business of broadcast television) and that over the past 15 years we'd see a switch to more transparent static images (although some have switched there still are quite a few solid coloured static image logos). I really got tired of using "zoom mode" and exercising the pixels on my plasma with full screen motion content.


I have long been using a Lumagen processor to toggle on a mask to cover news station banners with a gray bar on Plasma and now on OLED.
I have preordered a HDFury Vertex which will include this feature.

Image attached.

- Rich


----------



## Wizziwig

^^^
Does a constant color static bar like that really work? I would be afraid of getting some kind of clear line of demarcation along that border as the pixels above would still be getting different wear pattern.


----------



## 8mile13

Wizziwig said:


> ^^^
> Does a constant color static bar like that really work? I would be afraid of getting some kind of clear line of demarcation along that border as the pixels above would still be getting different wear pattern.


On my plasma the outer lines of movie black bars are darkest when screen is completely dark..some sort of burn in that will not go away. This will not be visible on a OLED because of the superior blacks but it will be there after lots of black bar content i guess. There rarely is grey full screen stuff so it is not relevant but i would bet that there will be a thin line of dark gray after some time, visible when using grey gradations paterns. IR and burn in susceptible TV tech is a *****..


----------



## Wizziwig

I guess I just don't understand how a static giant gray rectangle is any better than a gray or white logo in the corner as far as ability to burn-in. Based on that logic, are we to assume that a smaller gray rectangle covering just the corner logo would also somehow save you from burn-in? Wouldn't the burn-in just be shaped like a rectangle instead of station logo?

I'm asking because I also own a Lumagen but never thought of using this feature to prevent BI on my plasma. I just zoom out the static elements and live with losing some picture content.


----------



## kensingtonwick

RichB said:


> I have long been using a Lumagen processor to toggle on a mask to cover news station banners with a gray bar on Plasma and now on OLED.
> I have preordered a HDFury Vertex which will include this feature.
> 
> Image attached.
> 
> - Rich




I didn't know that even existed lol. Pretty cool. A few months ago I was watching discovery on my 50vt25 and noticed (after over 9800 hours of use) that I was getting retention on the discovery logo. Very surprising after having so much use out of it and the fact that I only watched the show with that static image for 2 or 3 hours! Anyways...I reduced a Microsoft notepad to the size of the logo and covered it so I could watch the show without doing further damage lmao. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RichB

Wizziwig said:


> ^^^
> Does a constant color static bar like that really work? I would be afraid of getting some kind of clear line of demarcation along that border as the pixels above would still be getting different wear pattern.


Yes, I use a relatively low gray level. 25% I think, but you can vary the mask.
I have owned plasma's since 2000 and never had burn-in or image retention.

- Rich


----------



## RichB

Wizziwig said:


> I guess I just don't understand how a static giant gray rectangle is any better than a gray or white logo in the corner as far as ability to burn-in. Based on that logic, are we to assume that a smaller gray rectangle covering just the corner logo would also somehow save you from burn-in? Wouldn't the burn-in just be shaped like a rectangle instead of station logo?
> 
> I'm asking because I also own a Lumagen but never thought of using this feature to prevent BI on my plasma. I just zoom out the static elements and live with losing some picture content.


It is even with lower intensity. There is no long a 100% white logo and constant banner.


I've been doing this for over a decade. It works with no ill effects.


- Rich


----------



## Wizziwig

Thanks for sharing your plasma experience Rich. I will have to experiment with this feature on my F8500 plasma. When it was < 1000 hours it was very resistant to IR but once it got into the 2000 hour range, it really became a stubborn IR magnet. Watching 1 hour of static logo would require running the scrolling white bar utility for another hour to remove it. Very annoying and a waste of electricity so I decided to just apply a slight zoom and pan to hide the offending logos.

What's even more aggravating is that some stations now plaster large white logos in 2 or 3 screen corners. It's become ridiculous. Looks like that HDFury device might be able to apply a custom mask to cover up just specific small areas of the screen instead of entire side(s) like the Lumagen.

Static logos should be transparent and/or match the average brightness of the content being watched, just as commercials are required to match the audio level of the show being watched (per FCC rules).


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Thanks for sharing your plasma experience Rich. I will have to experiment with this feature on my F8500 plasma. When it was < 1000 hours it was very resistant to IR but once it got into the 2000 hour range, it really became a stubborn IR magnet. Watching 1 hour of static logo would require running the scrolling white bar utility for another hour to remove it. Very annoying and a waste of electricity so I decided to just apply a slight zoom and pan to hide the offending logos.
> 
> What's even more aggravating is that some stations now plaster large white logos in 2 or 3 screen corners. It's become ridiculous. Looks like that HDFury device might be able to apply a custom mask to cover up just specific small areas of the screen instead of entire side(s) like the Lumagen.
> 
> *Static logos should *be transparent and/or *match the average brightness of the content being watched*, just as commercials are required to match the audio level of the show being watched (per FCC rules).


With LGs white subpixel, artially transparent logos woukd help a great deal, 'matching average brightness' not so much.

Burn-in is being caused by having all of the liminance from a fully-saturated logo coming through only one of the colored subpixels (ie: red of the CNN logo).

Whether all of that non-random liminance is being driven at average luminance levels, twice average, or even 4-times average, differential-aging-based burn-in will result after enough cumulative hours.

I'm not sure what the HDFury is capable of, but having the ability to dim static content down to a fraction of input luminance would be the best way to avoid ligo-based burn-in.

If I was the sort to watch CNN for 3-4 hours a day, I'd set it to go all the way down to 0% after 15 minutes (ie: black CNN logo)...


----------



## Wizziwig

HDFury definitely can't apply any localized dimming automatically. They basically re-purposed their OSD info overlay to allow the user to substitute their own image instead. I guess in theory, you could make a mask that exactly overlaps the red 'CNN' letter pixels and covers them with black 'CNN' letter pixels but then what happens when you change channels? You would get black 'CNN' logo on all channels. It's doubtful their processor has enough horsepower or frame buffer memory to automatically detect static pixels. Someone should suggest it to them for a future product.


----------



## joys_R_us

I thought the LG OLEDs do have such a static pixel detection and would cloud them in...?


----------



## 8mile13

*http://televisions.reviewed.com/fea...creen-burn-in-problems-causes-image-retention*


----------



## fafrd

https://www.oled-info.com/wisechip-explains-development-effort-behind-its-hf-tadf-pmoled

This presentation on Hyper-Florescent TADF by Wisechip (from Kyulux) is primarily about active matrix OLED, but does anyone understand whether HF-TADF may be beneficial to LG's active matrix WOLED as well?


----------



## RobertR1

Anyone know if 2017 OLED's will be updated to support Enhanced ARC?


----------



## fafrd

https://www.oled-info.com/sony-asks...l-supply-following-high-demand-sonys-oled-tvs

Good news for OLED: 

"Sony will receive a total of 300,000 OLED TV panels from LGD in 2017, and it aims to order more than 600,000 panels per year starting in 2019 (once LGD can increase its OLED TV capacity). The Korean report suggested that Sony may assist LGD with an investment to secure the capacity.

The report estimates that Sony received 100,000 OLED Panels from LG in the first half of 2017, and it is currently ordering 100,000 panels per quarter. The extra panels for Sony starting in 2019 will come from LGD's upcoming Guangzhou factory directly which will ship the panels directly to Sony's Shanghai TV factory. The new Guangzhou fab was only announced in July 2017 and it seems a bit optimistic that it could start mass producing panels as early as in 2019."


----------



## video_analysis

Cool, 3 times the originally reported contract. I wonder how many Panasonic is receiving.


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> https://www.oled-info.com/sony-asks...l-supply-following-high-demand-sonys-oled-tvs
> 
> Good news for OLED:
> 
> "Sony will receive a total of 300,000 OLED TV panels from LGD in 2017, and it aims to order more than 600,000 panels per year starting in 2019 (once LGD can increase its OLED TV capacity). The Korean report suggested that Sony may assist LGD with an investment to secure the capacity.
> 
> The report estimates that Sony received 100,000 OLED Panels from LG in the first half of 2017, and it is currently ordering 100,000 panels per quarter. The extra panels for Sony starting in 2019 will come from LGD's upcoming Guangzhou factory directly which will ship the panels directly to Sony's Shanghai TV factory. The new Guangzhou fab was only announced in July 2017 and it seems a bit optimistic that it could start mass producing panels as early as in 2019."


https://www.oled-info.com/ubi-sees-...-shipments-q2-2017-fast-growth-oled-tv-panels

"TV panel shipments grew 165% (in Q2) to reach 370,000 units.

OLED TV panel shipments increased 21.2% from Q1 2017, and UBI expects this market to continue growing gradually throughout 2017."

So 305K in Q1'17 and 370 in Q2'17 (and forecasted to be between 370K and 400K per quarter in H2'17). So combining these reports, Sony used ~15% of LG's WOLED panel capacity in H1'17 and will increase to consuming in excess of 25% in H2'17.

Fantastic, if true...

And then there is this: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20170829PD204.html

"*LGD currently has a production capacity of 30,000 OLED substrates a month*, including 8,000 units from its E3 fab and 26,000 units each from its E4-1 and E4-2 fabs. Meanwhile, the Guangzhou 8.5g fab has a capacity of 60,000 substrates."

If we assume 50% of output is 55" and 50% of output is 65" and assume identical yields, that would mean 10K substrates/month for 55" (60Ku/month 55" panels unyielded) and 20K substrates/month for 65" (60Ku/month 65" panels unyielded) or 120Ku unyielded panels/month, meaning 360Ku/quarter.

Yields are not surpassing 100%, so it means 55" OLED panel production must be outpacing 65" OLED panel production.

15,000 substrates/month of each translates to 90Ku/55" and 45Ku/65" per month unyielded, or 135Ku unyielded total, meaning 405Ku/quarter unyielded.

Taking the Q1 Q2 production numbers, Q1 yield would be 305/405 = 75.3% and Q2 yield would be 370/405 = 91.4%.

Unlikely that yields were that low in Q1 nor that they improved that much in Q2, so the more likely explanation is that production mix has been shifting towards 55" as the year unfolds...

If we assume a yield of 85% through both Q1 and Q2, the 65" and 55" substrate mix by quarter looks as follows:

Q1: 20.1K 65" and 9.9K 55" substrates = 305K panels produced
Q2: 11.8K 65" and 18.3K 55" substrates = 370K panels produced

Of course yields for 55" and 65" are not the same and Q2 yield was probably higher than Q1 yield, but the point is that the only way these numbers make sense is if a ~50%/50% production mix in Q1 (65"/55" panel output) has skewed closer to 33%/67% in Q2.

If this trend keeps up, we may see 65" OLED pricing start to firm up heading into the holidays...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> https://www.oled-info.com/ubi-sees-...-shipments-q2-2017-fast-growth-oled-tv-panels
> 
> "TV panel shipments grew 165% (in Q2) to reach 370,000 units.
> 
> OLED TV panel shipments increased 21.2% from Q1 2017, and UBI expects this market to continue growing gradually throughout 2017."
> 
> So 305K in Q1'17 and 370 in Q2'17 (and forecasted to be between 370K and 400K per quarter in H2'17). So combining these reports, Sony used ~15% of LG's WOLED panel capacity in H1'17 and will increase to consuming in excess of 25% in H2'17.
> 
> Fantastic, if true...
> 
> And then there is this: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20170829PD204.html
> 
> "*LGD currently has a production capacity of 30,000 OLED substrates a month*, including 8,000 units from its E3 fab and 26,000 units each from its E4-1 and E4-2 fabs. Meanwhile, the Guangzhou 8.5g fab has a capacity of 60,000 substrates."
> 
> If we assume 50% of output is 55" and 50% of output is 65" and assume identical yields, that would mean 10K substrates/month for 55" (60Ku/month 55" panels unyielded) and 20K substrates/month for 65" (60Ku/month 65" panels unyielded) or 120Ku unyielded panels/month, meaning 360Ku/quarter.
> 
> Yields are not surpassing 100%, so it means 55" OLED panel production must be outpacing 65" OLED panel production.
> 
> 15,000 substrates/month of each translates to 90Ku/55" and 45Ku/65" per month unyielded, or 135Ku unyielded total, meaning 405Ku/quarter unyielded.
> 
> Taking the Q1 Q2 production numbers, Q1 yield would be 305/405 = 75.3% and Q2 yield would be 370/405 = 91.4%.
> 
> Unlikely that yields were that low in Q1 nor that they improved that much in Q2, so the more likely explanation is that production mix has been shifting towards 55" as the year unfolds...
> 
> If we assume a yield of 85% through both Q1 and Q2, the 65" and 55" substrate mix by quarter looks as follows:
> 
> Q1: 20.1K 65" and 9.9K 55" substrates = 305K panels produced
> Q2: 11.8K 65" and 18.3K 55" substrates = 370K panels produced
> 
> Of course yields for 55" and 65" are not the same and Q2 yield was probably higher than Q1 yield, but the point is that the only way these numbers make sense is if a ~50%/50% production mix in Q1 (65"/55" panel output) has skewed closer to 33%/67% in Q2.
> 
> If this trend keeps up, we may see 65" OLED pricing start to firm up heading into the holidays...


I was kind of confused by the mismatch between these two statements from the above article:

"*LGD currently has a production capacity of 30,000 OLED substrates a month*"

and then: "*including 8,000 units from its E3 fab and 26,000 units each from its E4-1 and E4-2 fabs.* (which totals to 60,000 substrates/month, nit 30,000.


Just found this:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=31208584

"Thanks to the ongoing capacity ramps, LG Display's 8.5G OLED lines will have a production capacity of 60,000 substrates a month *by the end of 2017*, Digitimes Research indicated. The company's monthly capacity of 8.5G lines will be increased by another 60,000 substrates in 2019 when the Guangzhou plant kicks off official operations."

So it seems LG has an running capacity of 30,000 or 34,000 Gen 8..5 substrates per month currently and will have an additional capacity of 26,000 substrates for a total of 60,000 substrates per month, by yearend.

Depending on the tineframe in H2'17 when that additional capacity becomes available, everything I wrote surrounding a change in the mix towards 55" is likely completely wrong...


----------



## joys_R_us

I think LGD already reported that the formerly announced capacity increase in second Q 2017 was being achieved in July/August so that we are already at 60.000 sheets/month already more or less. This would also explain the higher numbers for Sony and fast falling prices for OLED TVs at least here in Europe...

They will sell 1.5 million tv units in 2017 and probably 2.2 million in 2018.


----------



## wco81

What do you mean 65 inch OLED TV prices will firm up going into the holidays, stop dropping or even go up?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> What do you mean 65 inch OLED TV prices will firm up going into the holidays, stop dropping or even go up?


Forget it - my statement was completely wrong if LG has already brought an additional 26,000 sheets a month online.

If forecasts that a total of 675Ku shipped in H1 are correct based on capacity of 34,000 sheets a month and LG is now in the process of bringing an additional capacity of 26,000 online to a total of 60,000 sheets per month and plans to produce 825Ku in H2 (1.5M total for 2017), prices are only going down (and the market has probably not been shifting towards more 55" as I had supposed).


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> I think LGD already reported that the formerly announced capacity increase in second Q 2017 was being achieved in July/August so that we are already at 60.000 sheets/month already more or less. This would also explain the higher numbers for Sony and fast falling prices for OLED TVs at least here in Europe...
> 
> They will sell 1.5 million tv units in 2017 and probably 2.2 million in 2018.


If 675K in H1 represents stable output fro 34,000 substrate/month capacity, that translates to 2.4Mu in 2018 based on stable capacity of 60,000 substrates/month throughout the year.

If that 60,000 substrates/month is being used to produce equal quantities of 55" and 65" panels, that translates to 2.88M raw (unyielded) output or 83.3% yield for 2.4Mu.

So at only 2.2 Mu in 2018, looks like LG is expecting the market to continue trending towards 65" next year (and maybe we'll even see some meaningful movement on 77" WOLED prices ).


----------



## video_analysis

Street price of 77" is already $12k innit? I'd say the meaningful movement has already begun.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Street price of 77" is already $12k innit? I'd say the meaningful movement has already begun.


Meaningful will be when 77" WOLED breaks under 2 times 65" WOLED prices.

Vizio P65 is at $1550 while P75 is $3000.

When LG introduces the 77C8P for 2X the pricing of the 65C7P (65C7P is currently $3000), we'll know that thy are serious about starting to sell 77" OLEDs.

My suspicion is that we'll see a 75C8P or 75C9P before we see a lower-end 77" WOLED...


----------



## mikezilla2

isnt LGs default screen saver/ standby mode sufficient enough to avoid most burn in ?


----------



## rogo

mikezilla2 said:


> isnt LGs default screen saver/ standby mode sufficient enough to avoid most burn in ?


The problem is static images -- or partial images -- of high intensity, displayed for long periods. Thing red channel logos/bugs, intense crawls, et al.

No screen saver can protect against that. A sophisticated algorithm could conceivably dampen such things and significantly reduce the risk associated with them, but there is no evidence one is present on LG's OLED TVs.


----------



## RichB

rogo said:


> The problem is static images -- or partial images -- of high intensity, displayed for long periods. Thing red channel logos/bugs, intense crawls, et al.
> 
> No screen saver can protect against that. A sophisticated algorithm could conceivably dampen such things and significantly reduce the risk associated with them, but there is no evidence one is present on LG's OLED TVs.



I have used Lumagen video processors for years to mask news station logos and tickers with a solid gray bar. I have never had any burn-in.
The soon to be released HDFury Vertex will also include a masking option.


- Rich


----------



## NintendoManiac64

mikezilla2 said:


> isnt LGs default screen saver/ standby mode sufficient enough to avoid most burn in ?


That's only for traditional "static image" burn-in like you'd get on CRT displays, not the "uneven aging" type that has at times been referred to as "burn out" in the smartphone world.


----------



## rogo

RichB said:


> I have used Lumagen video processors for years to mask news station logos and tickers with a solid gray bar. I have never had any burn-in.
> The soon to be released HDFury Vertex will also include a masking option.


This solution is certainly likely to be very, very effective.

It's also unreasonable for most people.

LG could build that in, I'm sure, though what I proposed was a more sophisticated .... "If these elements are static and bright/saturated/intense, then auto dial them back.."

User would be unlikely to know/care much and TV would be much better protected.


----------



## RichB

rogo said:


> This solution is certainly likely to be very, very effective.
> 
> It's also unreasonable for most people.
> 
> LG could build that in, I'm sure, though what I proposed was a more sophisticated .... "If these elements are static and bright/saturated/intense, then auto dial them back.."
> 
> User would be unlikely to know/care much and TV would be much better protected.


Tickters and spinning logos require a full mask. Admittedly, this is a geeky solution, in my case I have a button to toggle on and off the mask.
Only news stations have been a problem.

- Rich


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> This solution is certainly likely to be very, very effective.
> 
> It's also unreasonable for most people.
> 
> LG could build that in, I'm sure, though what I proposed was a more sophisticated .... "If these elements are static and bright/saturated/intense, then auto dial them back.."
> 
> User would be unlikely to know/care much and TV would be much better protected.


Turns out that the LG WOLEDs already have static logo/element dimming - it's just set so low that it is pretty much unnoticable (and pretty much inneffective as a result ).

I didn't think I had the feature on my 65C6P, but after seeing a video another member posted so I knew what to look for, I confirmed that static logos are dimmed a bit after about a minute (you can see them jump back to original brightness for 2 seconds by touching the volume button).

So LG already has the technology to identify bright static elements and they just need to be much more agressive about how it is used.

Perhaps three modes: 

Protect my TV from static logos (default)

Leave my static logos alone and burn-in be d*mned!

Grey out static logos (possibly after a time theshold like 15-minutes, possibly under user-control)

In response to Samsung's new burn-in warranty, LG is going to need to find a way to prevent differential-aging-related burn in no matter what that means for static element display and allow user control to bypass that protection at the cost of voiding the burn-in warranty.


----------



## fafrd

RichB said:


> Tickters and spinning logos *require* a full mask. Admittedly, this is a geeky solution, in my case I have a button to toggle on and off the mask.
> Only news stations have been a problem.
> 
> - Rich


For sure, dynamic-static content is trickier, but 'require' is a strong word. All that's needed is to correlate display over some appropriate time like 15-minutes and 'tone-down' (grey-out) those display elements (dynamic or not) that match the correlation and so are not random.


----------



## RichB

fafrd said:


> For sure, dynamic-static content is trickier, but 'require' is a strong word. All that's needed is to correlate display over some appropriate time like 15-minutes and 'tone-down' (grey-out) those display elements (dynamic or not) that match the correlation and so are not random.



To clarify, a gray mask is needed to avoid burn-in/out from news stations where the logos change and tickers are almost always present.
Other techniques could work, including translucence but tickers or banners of a solid color can also be problematic.


I did not use a for the office 600M and it is badly burned in/out.


- Rich


----------



## fafrd

RichB said:


> To clarify, a gray mask is needed to avoid burn-in/out from news stations where the logos change and tickers are almost always present.
> Other techniques could work, including translucence but tickers or banners of a solid color can also be problematic.
> 
> 
> I did not use a for the office 600M and it is badly burned in/out.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Correlation means things can 'change' and still trigger dimming/masking.

If you were to run a correlation algorithm on 5 or 15 mintes of your ticker/banner, it woukd very quickly become clear that that section of the image is non-random and in need of maskibg/dimming. 

When dispjay switches to an add, it would immediately that this is something 'different' that shoukd be displayed without dimming/masking.

When the ad is over and dispkay returns to your ticker/banner, it would be apparent from the first frame that correlation with the dimmed/masked pattern is high and dimming/masking needs to again be imposed.

The more random a pixels display pattern, the more it can be left alone.

The more non-random a pixels dispkay pattern is, correlated with similar non-random patterns from neighboring pixels, the more the overweighted components (colors) of that pixel (and the display element of which it is a part) need to be dimmed/masked.


----------



## RichB

fafrd said:


> Correlation means things can 'change' and still trigger dimming/masking.
> 
> If you were to run a correlation algorithm on 5 or 15 mintes of your ticker/banner, it woukd very quickly become clear that that section of the image is non-random and in need of maskibg/dimming.
> 
> When dispjay switches to an add, it would immediately that this is something 'different' that shoukd be displayed without dimming/masking.
> 
> When the ad is over and dispkay returns to your ticker/banner, it would be apparent from the first frame that correlation with the dimmed/masked pattern is high and dimming/masking needs to again be imposed.
> 
> The more random a pixels display pattern, the more it can be left alone.
> 
> The more non-random a pixels dispkay pattern is, correlated with similar non-random patterns from neighboring pixels, the more the overweighted components (colors) of that pixel (and the display element of which it is a part) need to be dimmed/masked.


That may well work but good luck seeing that implemented by companies that implement a 6 pixel shift to reduce burn-in.
On the other hand, the Lumagen and upcoming HDFury Vertex can be used by those looking for prevention.

- Rich


----------



## fafrd

RichB said:


> That may well work but good luck seeing that implemented by companies that implement a 6 pixel shift to reduce burn-in.
> On the other hand, *the Lumagen and upcoming HDFury Vertex can be used by those looking for prevention.*
> 
> - Rich


Don't get me wrong, I think what the Vertex is offering is fantastic (and smart).

And I agree that the 'pixel shift' idea is basically worthless.

Just pointing out that LG has already implemented correlation-based static logo/element identification and dimming, which means they have the basic elements in place to do much better job than they have so far.

The Vertex is not going to allow LG to offer a warranty against burn-in, and I think it is inevitable that they are going to have to do so (and only question is whether by 2018 or not until 2019).

For consumers who love OLED enough to purchase without warranty against burn-in (including those willing go pay something like Vertex for prevention), LG is all set.

That is just a small sliver of the market, however, and means WOLED will never achieve its dream of becoming a mass-market technology...

Uniformity, especially near-black, is a very tough technical challange that LG will need to keep working on as far out as the eye can see.

Samsung's Brightness Wars were a serios threat but LG has answered with their 2017 HDR ABL limits and will continue to do so through introduction of top-emission.

Now Samsung has thrown down the glove on Burn-in Warranty and LG will need to answer. The good news is that preventing burn-in is technically a far easier problem to solve than improving near-black uniformity... (in addition to the fact that LG has already developed and deployed some of the most important building-blocks ).


----------



## Wizziwig

In case anyone missed it, I guess this shows us how much room for advancement is still left in consumer OLED. Never thought I would see Vincent have an orgasm over a display. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...iful-picture-quality-s-oled-but-not-lg-s.html


----------



## no1special

fafrd said:


> Don't get me wrong, I think what the Vertex is offering is fantastic (and smart).
> 
> And I agree that the 'pixel shift' idea is basically worthless.
> 
> Just pointing out that LG has already implemented correlation-based static logo/element identification and dimming, which means they have the basic elements in place to do much better job than they have so far.
> 
> The Vertex is not going to allow LG to offer a warranty against burn-in, and I think it is inevitable that they are going to have to do so (and only question is whether by 2018 or not until 2019).
> 
> For *consumers who love OLED enough to purchase without warranty against burn-in* (including those willing go pay something like Vertex for prevention), LG is all set.
> 
> *That is just a small sliver of the market*, however, and means WOLED will never achieve its dream of becoming a mass-market technology...
> 
> Uniformity, especially near-black, is a very tough technical challange that LG will need to keep working on as far out as the eye can see.
> 
> Samsung's Brightness Wars were a serios threat but LG has answered with their 2017 HDR ABL limits and will continue to do so through introduction of top-emission.
> 
> Now Samsung has thrown down the glove on Burn-in Warranty and LG will need to answer. The good news is that preventing burn-in is technically a far easier problem to solve than improving near-black uniformity... (in addition to the fact that LG has already developed and deployed some of the most important building-blocks ).


I'm not so sure. I think the majority of OLEDs being purchased now are by average consumers that are either not aware of the burn in risk or are still being misled by LG marketing that it won't be a problem. It'll mostly depend on how widespread this problem really is and if pro reviewers start mentioning it as a realistic con in their reviews and not recommending them for certain high risk groups like heavy news watchers.


----------



## no1special

Wizziwig said:


> In case anyone missed it, I guess this shows us how much room for advancement is still left in consumer OLED. Never thought I would see Vincent have an orgasm over a display.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...iful-picture-quality-s-oled-but-not-lg-s.html


What I would like to see is advancements in HDR to better reveal shadow detail with clean, noise-free near blacks. The DV HDR I've seen on Netflix so far has been somewhat disappointing on the B6. Sure, at first, it looks great, but it seems the focus is in bright highlights. Dark scenes don't look much better than SDR. I'm not sure if this is the fault of the TV or the program material or the cameras used or something else. What I'd like to see is a natural, realistic HDR image, much like the best digital cameras can do with digital photography. A good HDR photo appears balanced and natural with tons of detail in both dark and bright areas. So far, the HDR videos I've seen look like they're trying to impress you with brights and highlights, but dark areas and scenes look underwhelming. I know the LG OLEDs so far have not been the best with near black detail and noise. So is it the TV's fault or some other reason that HDR doesn't look jaw-dropping but natural and realistic?


----------



## Wizziwig

As Vincent explained, consumer OLED have trouble with tracking gamma and color saturation near black. That contributes to some of the detail and noise/artifacting issues you've noted. Even this Sony monitor can't quite reproduce all white highlights so there's clearly room for brightness improvement even on this expensive model. Brightest consumer OLED so far is the Samsung Note 8 at 1200 nits. Netflix just added HDR support to their mobile app so you can compare when the phone is released. I would not expect miracles from bit-starved streaming services on any display.


----------



## bargugl

fafrd said:


> Just pointing out that LG has already implemented correlation-based static logo/element identification and dimming, which means they have the basic elements in place to do much better job than they have so far.


Since they have this ability already implemented, wouldn't it be possible to simply update the software to ramp up the level of dimming and then push out to existing sets via firmware update? If so, perhaps its just a matter of consumer push to make this happen.


----------



## fafrd

bargugl said:


> Since they have this ability already implemented, wouldn't it be possible to simply update the software to ramp up the level of dimming and then push out to existing sets via firmware update? If so, perhaps its just a matter of consumer push to make this happen.


You would think so...

It's probably a bit trickier, however - current dimming levels are truly unnoticable unless you are looking for them.

If LG issues a release thst simply cranks up the dimming % to the point that it is safe but very noticable, they may face angry customers no longer getting the image they are expecting.

So any increased dimming probably needs to be under user control in some way, which may take it beyond the level of a simpe FW update...

I don't see any way LG is going to be able to avoid warranteeing against burn in by next year or 2019 at the latest. Samsung has thrown down the guantlet and set the new warranty standard. LG will need to follow suit or Samsung will exploit that weakness mercilessly.

So to my mind, LG is going to need to do whatever it takes to sell WOLEDs profitably that match or come close to Samsung's warranty terms, no matter what impact it has on displayed logos.

'Samsung QLED TVs are better at displaying CNN and MSNBC logos and banners than LG OLED TVs' is a far weaker marketing campaign than 'we guarantee our QLED TVs against burn-in; LG OLED does not'.

Since truly doing whatever is needed to protect WOLED from burn-in (over whatever period) will likely cause visible distortion of the source image, it is probably going to have to be a feature that the user can override (but only after acknowledging that by doing so, they understand that they are risking burn-in and voiding their warranty against it).

At this stage, it is still too early to tell how serious/urgent of an issue this will end up being. But Samsung is clearly positioning to make this the centerpiece of their 2018 marketing campaign against LG WOLED and my gut tells me that when the rtings.com burn-in test results get published as we approach the Holiday Shopping Season, it could get very ugly for LG...


----------



## Jason626

So is Samsung going to push this fabulous no burn in warranty to be on there galaxy smartphones with there oled screen? I would be shocked if they did.

Sounds like right now it's Samsung's only note to sing with there tv division falling behind on picture quality this year.

Companies never offer burn in warranty on items that can risk actually getting burn in. Since there would be a possibility owners creating burn in order to get a new tv. At least without a pricey type of bestbuy warranty.

It's a big yawn to here a sales pitch of we will warranty burn in on a LCD tv. Big deal samsung.


----------



## fafrd

Jason626 said:


> So is Samsung going to push this fabulous no burn in warranty to be on there galaxy smartphones with there oled screen? I would be shocked if they did.
> 
> Sounds like right now it's Samsung's only note to sing with there tv division falling behind on picture quality this year.
> 
> Companies never offer burn in warranty on items that can risk actually getting burn in. Since there would be a possibility owners creating burn in order to get a new tv. At least without a pricey type of bestbuy warranty.
> 
> It's a big yawn to here a sales pitch of we will warranty burn in on a LCD tv. Big deal samsung.



http://www.techradar.com/news/telev...t-is-samsung-s-new-warranty-all-about-1325990

"Samsung has announced that it will be offering a 10-year screen 'burn' warranty for its Quantum Dot TVs.

The announcement means that should your panel suffer from burn-in or image retention, even if it's nine years and 364 days old, then Samsung will repair it."

It's not a big yawn, it's a big deal - if LG does not follow suit soon, Samsung will draw the entire 'peace of mind crowd' away ftom WOLED.

Just picture a typical salesperson at Best Buy giving the pitch on 'color volume' compared to giving the pitch on '10-years bersus 0 years warranty against burn-in.'

This is a more significant threat to WOLEDs future than the 'Brightness Wars' of the past 2 years have been.

I don't see any scenario where LG does not respond in kind and the only question is do they have a year or two to develop better burn-in protection solutions to minimize the potential liability of the burn-in warranty they will almost certainly end up offering as well.

Could they get away with '5 years versus 10'? Possibly. But 1-year or even 2-years is probably not going to cut it...


----------



## rogo

It's going to depend on how much $$$ Samsung spends on this incredibly bogus warranty of theirs.

Don't get me wrong, this is brilliant marketing. It's just sleazy and revolting. 

"Our new fabric is completely immune to nitrogen!"

"This 100% sugar treat is fat free!"

LCD burn in hasn't ever happened except in (a) the very very early days (b) with a handful of defective designs.

Why are they warranty-ing against it now?

Because LG is flat ... out ... killing them at the high end.

And within 24 months, LG will own 2/3 to 3/4 of the high end unless there is FUD created around OLED.

Enter Samsung and there "warranty".

Now, none of that changes the fact LG has to improve the OLED's resilience against burn in. I actually wonder if:

a) They are using the most state of the art OLED material in terms of lifespan?
b) They are driving what they have too hard as part of the brightness wars (which are stupid and have been for some time)?
c) They have done quite enough in software to mitigate the stupidest kinds of burn in like tickers, logos, static elements in games, et al.?

That Samsung is now in _my head_ about this and making me contemplate an LCD shows you how effective this stuff is.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> It's going to depend on how much $$$ Samsung spends on this incredibly bogus warranty of theirs.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, this is brilliant marketing. It's just sleazy and revolting.
> 
> "Our new fabric is completely immune to nitrogen!"
> 
> "This 100% sugar treat is fat free!"
> 
> LCD burn in hasn't ever happened except in (a) the very very early days (b) with a handful of defective designs.
> 
> Why are they warranty-ing against it now?
> 
> Because LG is flat ... out ... killing them at the high end.
> 
> And within 24 months, LG will own 2/3 to 3/4 of the high end unless there is FUD created around OLED.
> 
> Enter Samsung and there "warranty".
> 
> Now, none of that changes the fact LG has to improve the OLED's resilience against burn in. I actually wonder if:
> 
> a) They are using the most state of the art OLED material in terms of ?
> b) They are driving what they have too hard as part of the brightness wars (which are stupid and have been for some time)?
> c) Have they done quite enough in software to mitigate the stupidest kinds of burn-in like tickers, static logos, static elements in games, et al.?
> 
> 
> *That Samsung is now in my head about this and making me contemplate an LCD shows you how effective this stuff is.*


That's they key point - it's simple, effective, and has roots in reality (a true weakness on WOLED's part).

In answer to your questions:



> a) They are using the most state of the art OLED material in terms of ?


I suspect so, though moving to more efficient emitters like TADF will help, as will moving to top-emission (both for when they are ready).



> b) They are driving what they have too hard as part of the brightness wars (which are stupid and have been for some time)?


ABL helps extend overall lifetime of a WOLED but does not help with reducing burn-in. That depends only on the peak brightness supported by a small window (meaning the maximum current density LG allows in SDR through OLED Light 100). LG has actually slightly reduced the peak SDR luminance to 430 cd/m2 in 2017 from the 2016 peak of 450 cs/m2. But higher peak brightness only accelerates the process. There are reports of WOLEDs calibrated to ~150 cdm2 peak developing burn-in after ~1000 cumumative hours of MSNBC...



> c) Have they done quite enough in software to mitigate the stupidest kinds of burn-in like tickers, static logos, static elements in games, et al.?


Apparently not. 

The 3 static display cases you mention plus a newly-reported case of watching Netflix with yellow subtitles and OLED Light at 100 constitute the sum-total of AVS-reported cases of burn-in.

As posted earlier, current WOLEDs do appear to have basic static logo identification integrated, but the logo dimming it causes is too minor to be effective. And no evidence of detecting more general non-random content such as banners, rotating logos, subtitles, etc...

Checking the patent record, there are a number of sophisticated ideas which have been proposed to compensate for differential aging.

Taken to the extreme, if the entire display history of each and every subpixel is known (recorded), the modeling of aging behavior is good enough and consistent enough to guarantee uniform output through compensation via input voltage (at least until input voltage maxes out)..

That's an awful lot of memory and an awful lot of processing, but some streamed-down embodiment of that concept will probably be needed for LG to prevail in the Burn-In Warranty Wars ,

Note that that same approach could have been used with Plasma, but cost-effective processing power and memory are available today that were not a viable option when plasma TVs were architected...


----------



## Jason626

fafrd said:


> http://www.techradar.com/news/telev...t-is-samsung-s-new-warranty-all-about-1325990
> 
> "Samsung has announced that it will be offering a 10-year screen 'burn' warranty for its Quantum Dot TVs.
> 
> The announcement means that should your panel suffer from burn-in or image retention, even if it's nine years and 364 days old, then Samsung will repair it."
> 
> It's not a big yawn, it's a big deal - if LG does not follow suit soon, Samsung will draw the entire 'peace of mind crowd' away ftom WOLED.
> 
> Just picture a typical salesperson at Best Buy giving the pitch on 'color volume' compared to giving the pitch on '10-years bersus 0 years warranty against burn-in.'
> 
> This is a more significant threat to WOLEDs future than the 'Brightness Wars' of the past 2 years have been.
> 
> I don't see any scenario where LG does not respond in kind and the only question is do they have a year or two to develop better burn-in protection solutions to minimize the potential liability of the burn-in warranty they will almost certainly end up offering as well.
> 
> Could they get away with '5 years versus 10'? Possibly. But 1-year or even 2-years is probably not going to cut it...


So I guess if smartphones that use LCD screens should offer a no burn in warranty, samsung should go and do the same for their oled phones too? That would be comparable to what Samsung is trying to do to oled tvs. How do you think samsung would respond to that to a no burn in warranty on phones? So I find it unreasonable that you think that Samsung can offer a burn in warranty on lcd tvs and will not offer burn in warranty on thier oled phones. 

It is a big yawn for to me that a tv manufacturer is offing a burn 
In warranty on and lcd tv product. It is nearly unheard of these days that LCD has an issue with burn in for home use. 
They are offering a warranty with no real risk of it happening. It's like offering flood insurance on a house with no basement in the middle of a desert.  no real risk. Or tornado insurance for people of California (since you live there and can relate to more of the earth quake threat).

No other tv manufacturer cares do they? How about sony,vizio, or Panasonic etc. Or another manufacturer buying LG oled for their tv lines. It's a big joke to offer burn in warranty on LCD tv's. They did it for marketing purposes. Samsung did it to give LG the middle finger because they are losing high end tv market and as oled prices fall and capacity increases oled will trickle down to steadily chip away at LCD tv sales.

I understand your concern with woled burn in and it can/is a real concern on LG oleds. I see all the threads about it on avs.


----------



## Jason626

Last quick thought on LG oled burn in woes.

Scenario 1,
LG doesn't offer warranty for burn in and people stop buying oled tvs.oled tv fails.

2 LG includes burn in protections in their warranty. Warranty replacements cause lg to abandon oled tv's due to panel replacement costs. 

Both scenarios are not about whether a warranty offered can keep oled from failing. The real problem to address is how to mitigate burn in.


----------



## no1special

Jason626 said:


> So is Samsung going to push this fabulous no burn in warranty to be on there galaxy smartphones with there oled screen? I would be shocked if they did.
> 
> Sounds like right now it's Samsung's only note to sing with there tv division falling behind on picture quality this year.
> 
> Companies never offer burn in warranty on items that can risk actually getting burn in. *Since there would be a possibility owners creating burn in order to get a new tv.* At least without a pricey type of bestbuy warranty.
> 
> It's a big yawn to here a sales pitch of we will warranty burn in on a LCD tv. Big deal samsung.


Very few people are going to go out of their way to intentionally burn in their TV. There's not much benefit to it. They wouldn't get a new TV, they'd get a replacement panel and could be limited to only 1 replacement per unit per customer. Any costs of panel replacements will be passed on to all consumers, meaning OLEDs will cost a bit more per unit.



Jason626 said:


> Last quick thought on LG oled burn in woes.
> 
> Scenario 1,
> LG doesn't offer warranty for burn in and people stop buying oled tvs.oled tv fails.
> 
> 2 LG includes burn in protections in their warranty. Warranty replacements cause lg to abandon oled tv's due to panel replacement costs.
> 
> Both scenarios are not about whether a warranty offered can keep oled from failing. *The real problem to address is how to mitigate burn in*.


This is what LG needs to focus on.


----------



## Jason626

no1special said:


> Very few people are going to go out of their way to intentionally burn in their TV. There's not much benefit to it. They wouldn't get a new TV, they'd get a replacement panel and could be limited to only 1 replacement per unit per customer. Any costs of panel replacements will be passed on to all consumers, meaning OLEDs will cost a bit more per unit.


See, that's the problem,there isn't a way to know the difference between normal wear burn in and intentional burn in. They can't afford to send techs out for every burn in call and have the tech sit running comp cycles for hours to determine if its burn in or temporary image retention. Which is why no company in LGs position with oled will offer a warranty for it. They know it could be abused.
Samsung offered it because there's almost no chance of it happening on qled tvs.


----------



## no1special

Jason626 said:


> See, that's the problem,there isn't a way to know the difference between normal wear burn in and intentional burn in. They can't afford to send techs out for every burn in call and have the tech sit running comp cycles for hours to determine if its burn in or temporary image retention. Which is why no company in LGs position with oled will offer a warranty for it. They know it could be abused.
> Samsung offered it because there's almost no chance of it happening on qled tvs.


They don't need to send a tech to run comp cycles. That can and should be suggested by level one tech support by phone, email, or chat to the customer who can run it themselves.

Why should the majority of BI victims that get it from normal use suffer because a small minority will commit fraud? They shouldn't. It's not the customer's fault their TV burns in with normal use. It's not the customer's fault LG doesn't put in tracking into their software to determine abuse vs normal use.

That's like saying auto manufacturers should reject all warranty claims for blown engines because it's possible that some owners will abuse their cars and blow their engines.

The burden of proof needs to lie with the manufacturer to prove that the customer abused their product before denying a warranty claim. If that can't be done, then the manufacturer should pay for the claims and pass the costs on to all of their customers.


----------



## RichB

Emmisive displays that wear can always wear unevenly. Unless micro-leds wear evenly (that won't be the case if they use phospor), the problem will continue to exist at some level.

There was technology demonstrated that could record the wear of each sub-pixel and apply offsets to brighten thesub- pixel to keep the brightness consistent.
I think that is the best hope for campating the burn-in. Eventually, that compensation will be innefective or the overall panel will be dimmined. If that is years, it could be a good method to aleviate the sympton. Stitistical sampling could be applied to lower the compuatational impact.

- Rich


----------



## rogo

There is one solution to emissive technology and uneven wear: It's having a long enough lifespan and low-enough rolloff that people can't reasonably notice.

If you have 100K hour materials and the first 20K hours is ~10% rolloff, the uneven wear will be undetectable.

Consider the 6 hour/day TV, running north of 2000 hours/year. That's pretty realistic in the US, albeit high for many of us here.

Over 5-7 years, you'd only get into the 10K-15K hour range. You'd be using 1/2 to 2/3 of that 10%. Few humans could ever notice and "burn in" in this scenario and even crude instruments wouldn't detect it (high precision ones could, of course).

OLED is nowhere near that kind of lifespan/rolloff. 

I should point out that the aggregate lifespan isn't truly critical here. If the rolloff were subtle over 20K hours and plummeted over the next 10K hours, you'd have a TV that for most of us would be great for 7-10 years. Again, there is clear evidence LG can't do this with current OLED technology. 

If they could, there would simply be no chance of discernible burn in during the first 1000-2000 hours. I don't know what the instrumented readings are on these logos, but it should be clear that the only reason you see "burn in" at all is that pixel A, adjacent to pixel B, is differently bright when being fed the same information. That's "wear and tear". And while compensation can be mixed in, the idea of avoiding it in the first place (smart algorithms) seems a much, much more valuable bridge to better OLED materials.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> There is one solution to emissive technology and uneven wear: It's having a long enough lifespan and low-enough rolloff that people can't reasonably notice.
> 
> *If you have 100K hour materials and the first 20K hours is ~10% rolloff, the uneven wear will be undetectable.*
> 
> Consider the 6 hour/day TV, running north of 2000 hours/year. That's pretty realistic in the US, albeit high for many of us here.
> 
> Over 5-7 years, you'd only get into the 10K-15K hour range. You'd be using 1/2 to 2/3 of that 10%. Few humans could ever notice and "burn in" in this scenario and even crude instruments wouldn't detect it (high precision ones could, of course).
> 
> OLED is nowhere near that kind of lifespan/rolloff.
> 
> I should point out that the aggregate lifespan isn't truly critical here. If the rolloff were subtle over 20K hours and plummeted over the next 10K hours, you'd have a TV that for most of us would be great for 7-10 years. Again, there is clear evidence LG can't do this with current OLED technology.
> 
> If they could, there would simply be no chance of discernible burn in during the first 1000-2000 hours. I don't know what the instrumented readings are on these logos, but it should be clear that the only reason you see "burn in" at all is that pixel A, adjacent to pixel B, is differently bright when being fed the same information. That's "wear and tear". And while compensation can be mixed in, the idea of avoiding it in the first place (smart algorithms) seems a much, much more valuable bridge to better OLED materials.


The point is that using 'lifetime' to half-brightness' is the wrong measure for a display that cannot compensate for differential aging.

The attached data indicates than LGs WOLEDs are probably operating on the 10mA/cm^2 curve (purple) which is 100,000 hours to half-life and probably corresponds to 130cd/m2. If all the pixels are aging equally, this is fine, but if only some subpixels are aging on this purple curve and other subpixels are aging at 1/10th - 1/20th that rate because they are displaying random content, the lifetime-to-90% is a more meaningful measure to when differential aging will become evident. At 130cd/m2, that time is under 2000 hours.

We have one user report of burn-in from MSNBC with OLED Light set under 40 (~130-150 cd/m2) - it took 1000 hours of cumulative logo display.

Crank OLED Light up to the default value of 80, and now you are operating somewhere between the brown 20mA/cm^2 and yellow 40mA/cm^2 curves, where time-to-90% brightness is reduced to ~200-800 hours. We've got multiple consistent reports of burn-in from CNN/MSNBC logos with OLED Light at 80 - they generally took ~300 hours.

In my view, improving WOLED aging rate (especially through top-emission and possibly also QDCF), better-protecting against differential-aging though more agresssive static element dimming (specialized ABL), and subpixel-level compensation through crude recording of display history of each subpixel, modeling of subpixel-level aging, and subpixel-level compensation are all compelementary and necessary approaches to preventing differential aging from stunting WOLEDs future...


----------



## fafrd

RichB said:


> Emmisive displays that wear can always wear unevenly. Unless micro-leds wear evenly (that won't be the case if they use phospor), the problem will continue to exist at some level.
> 
> There was technology demonstrated that could record the wear of each sub-pixel and apply offsets to brighten thesub- pixel to keep the brightness consistent.
> *I think that is the best hope for compensating the burn-in. *Eventually, that compensation will be innefective or the overall panel will be dimmined. If that is years, it could be a good method to aleviate the sympton. Stitistical sampling could be applied to lower the compuatational impact.
> 
> - Rich



I agree. Hopefully LG has already been working on this. It's not rocket-science, just a question of memory and processing power (and LG already has 50% in place from how they compensate for threshold-shift).

Improvements to aging rate are also important (top-emission, QDCF), but more involved in terms of impact on manufacturing and difficult to predict timing-wise.

More agressive specialized ABL is also not rocket science but will impact the user-experience and could damage the appearance of WOLED in the marketplace if dimming is too-agressive and frequently makes the display 'look wrong' (my own view is that it will need to be inder user control, possibly at the cost of voiding a warranty against burn-in).

Give me a fast enough processor and a large enough memory, and subpixel-level compensation for differential aging is a very solvable problem on a very predictable timeline which improves the user experience. Again, hopefully LG has already been working on this since surviving the Brightness Wars .


----------



## rogo

I shared this with fafrd in a PM, but will add it to the discussion:

I personally cannot see how one buys one of these right now. Too much risk associated with premature unhappiness. I tend to buy once every 6 years, but even at 2x that frequency, it sounds like I could experience what others are. 

Eagerly awaiting what LG has on tap for 2018.


----------



## joys_R_us

For plasma owners who need a new tv now (like me) there is just no alternative to oleds. And as the prices came down quite a lot I am going to buy one in November.

Fed up of waiting and already 62 of age...life is too short for doubts re. a tv. 

It is just a tv ! Relax and enjoy. And if too much in doubt lower the oled light and avoid programs with nasty logos.


----------



## wco81

I guess there will never be a perfect TV.

But there's not a lot of 4K HDR content around other than streaming.


----------



## dnoonie

I'm holding out as long as I can to purchase an OLED.

What am I waiting for?


70+ inch at a reasonable cost
HDR10+ support (is HDMI 2.1 needed for this?)
My Kuro still looks pretty good but is getting more grey, I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble to try the black reset procedure.
Some cash.
I don't watch content that would produce burn in.

One way to look at it is cost per year of service. My 60 Kuro has cost me about $670/year so far. At that price a 65 OLED would need to last 4 3/4 years and it probably would. The problem I see is that I'd want to get a larger screen and there would likely be substantial improvements in color and brightness in 2 years. So I'll continue to hold out, although low model close out pricing might temp me. At around $2000 that would be pretty good. I'm not sure if anyone would give me anything for my Kuro but that might be a factor too.

Cheers,


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> For plasma owners who need a new tv now (like me) there is just no alternative to oleds. And as the prices came down quite a lot I am going to buy one in November.
> 
> Fed up of waiting and already 62 of age...life is too short for doubts re. a tv.
> 
> It is just a tv ! Relax and enjoy. And if too much in doubt lower the oled light and avoid programs with nasty logos.


I said this in a PM to rogo but will repeat it here.

While I'm not a big believer in extended warrantys in general, the Geek Squad warranty covering burn-in is something to strongly consider for someone contemplating picking up an OLED this year.

As I've already stated, I believe it is inevitable that LG will offer a warranty against burn-in matching or at least half-matching Samsung's, but that may not happen before 2019 (possibly 2018).

Until then, a Geek Squad warranty offers great peace-of-mind while the true vulnerability of WOLED to differential-aging-based-burn-in is getting sussed out...

p.s. on te 3D-chess game being played between Samsung and LG, it'll be interesting to see whether Samsung maintains their 10-year warranty against burn-in if/when they release EL-QLED TVs (and possibly also OL-QLED (QDCF) TVs).

Of course, they have no choice but to use this tactic to try to disrupt/slow-down WOLEDs progress right now - WOLED will completely dominate the entire Premium TV segment 5 years ftom now when Samsung may be in a positon to launch EL-QLED TVs if they don't find a wrench to throw into the gears...

Strategically, between indistrializing EL-QLED TV and implementing improved technologies to better compensate for differential aging, I think LG has better odds of being where they need to be in 5 years. So tactically, it becomes a game of Samsung trying to slow them down in whatever way possible one year at a time so EL-QLED has a chance to launch on a more level playing field.

It's actually a great time to be a videophile - the next few years are going to drive innovation of display technology at speeds we have never seen before.


----------



## dnoonie

fafrd said:


> I said this in a PM to rogo but will repeat it here.
> 
> It's actually a great time to be a videophile - the next few years are going to drive innovation of display technology at speeds we have never seen before.


You said it! This is particularly true/satisfying after about ~7 years of stagnation in video display technology, the last few years have been exciting and it looks like the best is yet to come.

Cheers,


----------



## blackjackmark

rogo said:


> I shared this with fafrd in a PM, but will add it to the discussion:
> 
> I personally cannot see how one buys one of these right now. Too much risk associated with premature unhappiness. I tend to buy once every 6 years, but even at 2x that frequency, it sounds like I could experience what others are.
> 
> Eagerly awaiting what LG has on tap for 2018.


Thankfully for me I don't fall into that mindset. I took the plunge in July and got a 65C7P but had much trepidation due to this thread (well at the time this thread didn't exist, it was all in the owners thread). 

I am extremely happy with my set. Is it perfect? Nope, but I know LCDs aren't either, and I'll take the imperfections of OLED over the imperfections of LCD every day!


----------



## nodixe

blackjackmark said:


> Thankfully for me I don't fall into that mindset. I took the plunge in July and got a 65C7P but had much trepidation due to this thread (well at the time this thread didn't exist, it was all in the owners thread).
> 
> I am extremely happy with my set. Is it perfect? Nope, but I know LCDs aren't either, and I'll take the imperfections of OLED over the imperfections of LCD every day!


This x 1000. I'm so glad I didn't let the "fear" hold me back from owning the best pq I have ever seen. I can see its not for everyone just yet and maybe never for some, but I'm a pq fanboy and there is no other choice but oled!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> I agree. Hopefully LG has already been working on this. It's not rocket-science, just a question of memory and processing power (and LG already has 50% in place from how they compensate for threshold-shift).
> 
> Give me a fast enough processor and a large enough memory, and subpixel-level compensation for differential aging is a very solvable problem on a very predictable timeline which improves the user experience. Again, hopefully LG has already been working on this since surviving the Brightness Wars .


It's not as simple as you suggest and the pros/cons of each wear compensation approach are discussed in one of the LG patent applications. They also list why they went with the current state-less solution. Unfortunately, I don't have the link handy (I think I posted it somewhere in the burn-in pictures thread) but from memory, some issues with tracking per-pixel usage are:

1) The history can be lost due to component failure. It would also tie the history to the panel so you couldn't store it on the motherboard.
2) The wear is not 100% predicable. Depends on hours, content, and material efficiency of each specific pixel. We already know the pixels don't all respond the same to equal input or your wouldn't see all the existing uniformity problems. If you guess wrong and over-compensate, you're actually causing what appears like reverse-burn-in where there was no problem in reality.

Covering up or preventing the problem is not the answer. Increasing true lifespan and decay curve is the only real long-term solution. It worked for CRT and mostly worked for plasma (barring a few specific models that were IR/BI magnets).


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> It's not as simple as you suggest and the pros/cons of each wear compensation approach are discussed in one of the LG patent applications. They also list why they went with the current state-less solution. Unfortunately, I don't have the link handy (I think I posted it somewhere in the burn-in pictures thread) but from memory, some issues with tracking per-pixel usage are:
> 
> 1) The history can be lost due to component failure. It would also tie the history to the panel so you couldn't store it on the motherboard.
> 2) The wear is not 100% predicable. Depends on hours, content, and material efficiency of each specific pixel. We already know the pixels don't all respond the same to equal input or your wouldn't see all the existing uniformity problems. If you guess wrong and over-compensate, you're actually causing what appears like reverse-burn-in where there was no problem in reality.
> 
> Covering up or preventing the problem is not the answer. Increasing true lifespan and decay curve is the only real long-term solution. It worked for CRT and mostly worked for plasma (barring a few specific models that were IR/BI magnets).


You raise good points and another important variable impacting aging rate is temperature, but in my view they are going to have to deploy something next year or by 2019 unless they have a massive new-panel-rabbit in their hat.

Since estimated-aging-based-compensation is an overlay, one option could be to put it under user control. If it reduces apparent burn-in, you use it, if it doesn't (or you don't have any burn-in), you don't, if reduces visible burn-in up to a certain point/%, you dial it into there and leave it at that.

LG is going to have to do something to answer the threat of Samsung's 10-year burn-in warranty, and I doubt the market is going to give them until 2020 for that answer.

Per-subpixel tracking (approximated), modeling of aging and compensation overlay under user control will no doubt be far from perfect, but it can't be worse than what heavy CNN/MSNBC watchers are left with right now...


----------



## Wizziwig

This might be the patent I was thinking of. It's actually from Kodak but likely owned by LG now.

They discuss several approaches utilizing usage 'memory' in the 'BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION' section.

"This technique requires the measurement and accumulation of drive current applied to each pixel, requiring a stored memory that must be continuously updated as the display is used, requiring complex and extensive circuitry."

"This design requires the use of a calculation unit responsive to each signal sent to each pixel to record usage, greatly increasing the complexity of the circuit design."

Guess I forgot to add this to my original list above:

3) Cost.


----------



## no1special

I saw someone mention in one of these threads the ability to use a very sensitive, specialized "camera" for lack of a better term, to take a photo of a burned in OLED screen, and that would provide the measurements needed that could be used to create and apply a specific compensation program that would in effect clear up the burn in.

Is this something LG could do, maybe as a warranty covered free fix for anyone that experiences burn in? Probably a lot cheaper than panel replacements.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> This might be the patent I was thinking of. It's actually from Kodak but likely owned by LG now.
> 
> They discuss several approaches utilizing usage 'memory' in the 'BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION' section.
> 
> "This technique requires the measurement and accumulation of drive current applied to each pixel, requiring a stored memory that must be continuously updated as the display is used, requiring complex and extensive circuitry."
> 
> "This design requires the use of a calculation unit responsive to each signal sent to each pixel to record usage, greatly increasing the complexity of the circuit design."
> 
> *Guess I forgot to add this to my original list above:
> 
> 3) Cost.*


As I've already stated in one post or another, in the plasma-era, this would certainly have been a consideration, but here in the thick of the smartphone era, when both processing power and memory are essentially free, implementation complexity and cost of this approach (or at least some subsampled approximation of it) is a non-issue...


----------



## fafrd

no1special said:


> I saw someone mention in one of these threads the ability to use a very sensitive, specialized "camera" for lack of a better term, to take a photo of a burned in OLED screen, and that would provide the measurements needed that could be used to create and apply a specific compensation program that would in effect clear up the burn in.
> 
> Is this something LG could do, maybe as a warranty covered free fix for anyone that experiences burn in? Probably a lot cheaper than panel replacements.


Talk about 'calibration' .

If WOLED ends up getting relegated to a videophile-only niche, this might technically be an option, but it would mean LG's bet on WOLED as a mass-market technology has failed, it would require adding some controls and engineering cost I doubt they'd have the stomach for, and service and support would be a total nightmare.


----------



## RichB

fafrd said:


> Talk about 'calibration' .
> 
> If WOLED ends up getting relegated to a videophile-only niche, this might technically be an option, but it would mean LG's bet on WOLED as a mass-market technology has failed, it would require adding some controls and engineering cost I doubt they'd have the stomach for, and service and support would be a total nightmare.




I doubt that LG OLEDs are more susceptible to burn-in than Plasma, just to put it in perspective.


- Rich


----------



## RichB

Wizziwig said:


> It's not as simple as you suggest and the pros/cons of each wear compensation approach are discussed in one of the LG patent applications. They also list why they went with the current state-less solution. Unfortunately, I don't have the link handy (I think I posted it somewhere in the burn-in pictures thread) but from memory, some issues with tracking per-pixel usage are:
> 
> 1) The history can be lost due to component failure. It would also tie the history to the panel so you couldn't store it on the motherboard.
> It would need to be stored in non-volatile storage. Panel replacement is rare and there can be a procedure to clear the memory in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> Wizziwig said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) The wear is not 100% predicable. Depends on hours, content, and material efficiency of each specific pixel. We already know the pixels don't all respond the same to equal input or your wouldn't see all the existing uniformity problems. If you guess wrong and over-compensate, you're actually causing what appears like reverse-burn-in where there was no problem in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Shipment is a baseline. The panels are already resistant so a statistical sample of persistent display of tickers can be accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Wizziwig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Covering up or preventing the problem is not the answer. Increasing true lifespan and decay curve is the only real long-term solution. It worked for CRT and mostly worked for plasma (barring a few specific models that were IR/BI magnets).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely, but CRT's gave us "screen savers"
> 
> - Rich
Click to expand...


----------



## fafrd

RichB said:


> I doubt that LG OLEDs are more susceptible to burn-in than Plasma, just to put it in perspective.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Totally agree. If OLED is calibrated down to 130cd/m2, which is about the maximum plasma could deliver (expect, perhaps, for the Samsung F8500), it takes 1000 hours of cumulative qualifying static logo display to see evidence if burn-in.

Plasma could never get anywhere close to the 450 cd/m2 peak output levels that is allowing some users to develop burn in after only 200-300 hours with OLED Light cranket up to 80 or 100.

So yes, WOLED is much less susceptible to burn-in in than plasma in an apples-to-apples comparison, though LG has made buen-in more possible by engaging in the brightness wars and allowing owners to put their WOLEDs in torch-mode.

My point was that solutions that would not have been practical/possible when plasma was state-of-the-art should now be relatively straightforward in the era of low-cost GHz processors and GB flash drives...


----------



## Wizziwig

RichB said:


> Absolutely, but CRT's gave us "screen savers"
> 
> - Rich


I and my coworkers used CRTs exclusively for work during the early 2000's and never used screen savers. They would have been ineffective when you're spending 8+ hours per day coding or doing photoshop (except maybe lunch breaks). Never seen a single example of burn-in, even on samples that were in the field for years. There was plenty of static on-screen elements such as the Windows XP task bar and various buttons and borders of each specific app. That sort of abuse would destroy an OLED (and most likely a plasma) in a matter of months. I suspect their true lifespans must have been an order of magnitude or higher better than current OLED. I did see CRT burn-in when I was still in school on old monochrome CRT terminals. 

Incidentally, I also still have a Sony 34" CRT HDTV. It never gets any use these days but before plasma replaced it, it regularly displayed static content for hours on end, including news stations with tickers. Again, no sign of burn-in.

If OLEDs ever reach the same brightness decay curve as a final generation CRT, we can easily consider burn-in as a solved problem.

Now it's true that CRT's never reached the kind of brightness levels that current LCD and OLEDs can pump out. So maybe it's not a fair fight. But that's the world we live in and you can't prevent consumers from using whatever brightness range is offered by the display. If LG knows they can't safely provide this level of brightness, they should not ship TV's that allow it.


----------



## nodixe

In all honesty I dont see it as a huge engineering hurdle to overcome. I really think that their existing logo local dimming can be reworked to "aggressively" dim the static pixels (and maybe inverse the color). That should be good enough to mitigate zelda and the fake news networks which caused the majority of burn in cases reported on this forum....

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## satboy

nodixe said:


> In all honesty I dont see it as a huge engineering hurdle to overcome. I really think that their existing logo local dimming can be reworked to "aggressively" dim the static pixels (and maybe inverse the color). That should be good enough to mitigate zelda and the fake news networks which caused the majority of burn in cases reported on this forum....
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


Amen!

There is not much to engineer here, it's a rare occurrence and having been an owner since 2015 with 2 OLED's on hand I have yet to have any issues in this regard.

It's rare period and you really have to have something static for days not hours. All settings to the extreme brightness etc.


----------



## fafrd

satboy said:


> Amen!
> 
> There is not much to engineer here, it's a rare occurrence and having been an owner since 2015 with 2 OLED's on hand I have yet to have any issues in this regard.
> 
> It's rare period and you really have to have something static for days not hours. All settings to the extreme brightness etc.


With OLED Light cranked up to 80+, it seems to typically take ~300 hours of cumulative qualifying static element display do develope differential-aging-based burn-in, so days is correct (even over a week), but that is days of *cumulative* display (not uninterrupted consecutive display).

On the ther hand, it is not correct that you need to have 'all settings to extreme brightness' - even with OLED Light set below 40 (130-150cd/m2 peak), qualifying static element display can cause burn once cumulative display times exceed ~1000 hours, so weeks, not days .

In terms of 'qualifying staic elements', these are bright fully-saturated yellow/orange/red or green static display elements, and at this point, there are four classes that have been reported:

-CNN or MSNBC logos (most common cause)
-some game HUDs (red Zelda Hearts is one reported example)
-yellow subtitles (one report)
-yellow progress bar from media player (one report)

The burn-in test being run by Rtings.com is going to shed some light on this subject over the coming weeks.

Burn-in is a rare occurance for those who don't have qualifying viewing habits, but is appears that heavy CNN or MSNBC watchers are not going to be happy with the current generation of WOLED.

LG needs to up their game in this department or Samsung and their marketing prowess could mop the floor with them...


----------



## fafrd

nodixe said:


> In all honesty I dont see it as a huge engineering hurdle to overcome. I really think that their existing logo local dimming can be reworked to "aggressively" dim the static pixels (and maybe inverse the color). That should be good enough to mitigate zelda and the fake news networks which caused the majority of burn in cases reported on this forum....
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


Totally agree. I believe it's primarily an issue of urgency and priority - hopefully LG is waking up to the fact that the situation is becoming urgent, making it a high priority, and will have improvements to roll out in 2018...


----------



## Ricoflashback

I think it's safe to say that both OLED and LCD technology has advanced so far past the source content we get (cable/satellite/fake 4K/HDR) that you never really see the capability of your TV. 

Outside of some native 4K/HDR full processing clips on YouTube and an occasional 4K/HDR Bluray disc that knocks your socks off, you're always dealing with inferior source content and relying on the processing capability of your TV to make the most of a bad situation. 

You couldn't make this statement back when SD converted to HD. Everybody jumped on board, quickly, and soon SD was a thing of the past. Not so with today's technology. No matter the exponential advances of TV's that can handle 4K & HDR, HDR 10+, Dolby Vision - - we're stuck in a time warp until the content can catch up. Care to guess on how long it will take to have a full 4K/HDR signal from broadcast TV or cable/satellite? Are we really 3 to 5 years out? 

And I'm not talking about Comcast providing a 4K/HDR STB that can stream Netflix. Example - Sports: I'm talking about 4K/HDR from the field to your TV in all it's glory. What's the over/under, years wise, on that? (And I'm talking about the majority - 90% of your content in 4K/HDR)


----------



## darinp

Sorry if this has already been covered, but when do you guys expect to see OLED TVs from LG in sizes around say 100", then around 120"?

I see this article:

http://4k.com/news/lg-wants-to-make-oled-display-in-4k-tvs-and-other-devices-huge-heres-how-20622/

talks about LG setting themselves up to make much larger OLEDs, but I didn't see a timeframe or sizes.

Thanks,
Darin


----------



## rogo

darinp said:


> Sorry if this has already been covered, but when do you guys expect to see OLED TVs from LG in sizes around say 100", then around 120"?
> 
> I see this article:
> 
> http://4k.com/news/lg-wants-to-make-oled-display-in-4k-tvs-and-other-devices-huge-heres-how-20622/
> 
> talks about LG setting themselves up to make much larger OLEDs, but I didn't see a timeframe or sizes.


Answer: Yes, but not for quite some time. The new fab needs to be constructed (mostly next year), ramped (mostly 2019), etc.

Giant TVs seem like an inevitable offering, but 2020-21 seems like the timeframe.


----------



## irkuck

wco81 said:


> I guess there will never be a perfect TV.


Your guess sounds depressive but OLED is not end-of-the-world tech :kiss:. Promise for prefection is now by iLED (Inorganic LED) a.k.a discrete led. Like the Radiance LED from Digital Projection or Cinema Screen by Samsung. These are now for big commercial displays but if the discrete led pixel pitch is scaled down, a consumer-size display can is created with very robust light output and color reprodu tion. The current pitch of the smallest Radiance is 1.5 mm with 1.2 mm coming. For consumer size that would need to be still scaled to 0.5-0.6 mm for displays in the 100"+ range which looks doable.


----------



## wco81

I think the people who've held off on OLED have done so for lack of content as much as not enough refinement in current products.

If there were regular UHD HDR broadcasts, many more would have jumped in by now.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

I'm holding off because there's no way I'm going to spend so much on a TV only to have variable refresh rate and 4k 120Hz input get added a year or two later.

And for reference, my HTPC will need a complete revamp for 4k anyway as it's actually an Elitebook 8440p (with discrete Nvidia graphics that murdered any semblance of battery life) with the screen removed and 120mm + 140mm desktop PC case fans in place of the integrated keyboard (the integrated fan was whiny and eventually stopped working anyway), and said laptop only had a DisplayPort 1.1 output.

Besides, Ryzen APUs aren't even out yet, and that was my minimum requirement for the aforementioned revamped HTPC.


----------



## gorman42

NintendoManiac64 said:


> And for reference, my HTPC will need a complete revamp for 4k anyway as it's actually an Elitebook 8440p (with discrete Nvidia graphics that murdered any semblance of battery life) with the screen removed and 120mm + 140mm desktop PC case fans in place of the integrated keyboard (the integrated fan was whiny and eventually stopped working anyway), and said laptop only had a DisplayPort 1.1 output.


A picture, please! 
Even by PM


----------



## no1special

NintendoManiac64 said:


> I'm holding off because there's no way I'm going to spend so much on a TV only to have variable refresh rate and 4k 120Hz input get added a year or two later.
> 
> And for reference, my HTPC will need a complete revamp for 4k anyway as it's actually an Elitebook 8440p (with discrete Nvidia graphics that murdered any semblance of battery life) with the screen removed and 120mm + 140mm desktop PC case fans in place of the integrated keyboard (the integrated fan was whiny and eventually stopped working anyway), and said laptop only had a DisplayPort 1.1 output.
> 
> Besides, Ryzen APUs aren't even out yet, and that was my minimum requirement for the aforementioned revamped HTPC.


Can you please explain what you mean by a TV with variable refresh rates?


----------



## joys_R_us

The graphics card delivers less frames per second with difficult content and more fps with easier content so that you have always the maximum number of frames possible...


----------



## nodixe

no1special said:


> Can you please explain what you mean by a TV with variable refresh rates?


On monitors it keeps the screen synced with gpu output. It is going to be included in the hdmi 2.1 spec for tv's.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## no1special

nodixe said:


> On monitors it keeps the screen synced with gpu output. It is going to be included in the hdmi 2.1 spec for tv's.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


Some in the 2016 LG OLED motion settings thread said that the TV already does this.

Just to be clear, by syncing the refresh rate, we mean that if the TV is receiving a 24 Hz signal, it will set the TV's refresh rate to 24 Hz.


----------



## nodixe

no1special said:


> Some in the 2016 LG OLED motion settings thread said that the TV already does this.
> 
> Just to be clear, by syncing the refresh rate, we mean that if the TV is receiving a 24 Hz signal, it will set the TV's refresh rate to 24 Hz.


I mean whatever the gpu puts out or if it fluctuates due to stress/heat. I think it is intended for people who are maxing out their fps (past 60 but short of 120) and this syncs the monitor and gpu ie: your setup hits 85 fps but dips here and there to 80 fps. In theory it should work to sync all the way down to 24p (24 fps?).....

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## NintendoManiac64

The key is that variable refresh rates are just that - _variable_. If your GPU outputs at 85fps one second and then drop to 54fps the next, then a VRR display will simply refresh at 85Hz for the first second and then automatically switch on the fly to 54Hz for the next second.

Even if one does not go any gaming, it can still be useful as a way for guaranteed support of less standardized frame rates. A good example is that the traditional PAL refresh rates (25Hz and 50Hz) have hit-and-miss support in places like North America, and you commonly have to make a custom resolution to access the likes of 25Hz and 50Hz. But a custom resolution still may not work to provide PAL refresh rates, particularly if it's a North American-only brand like Vizio.



gorman42 said:


> A picture, please!
> Even by PM


First image is what you see normally; second image is with the TV moved out of the way. You can't tell, but both fans were actually moving when the photos were taken as the computer was on. I could do a better job with cable management, but the cables are normally out of view as seen in the first image.

The USB cable in the front connects to an out-of-sight hub that includes the wireless mouse & keyboard, power for the fans (5v), and a wifi adapter. The white plug on the left is the DisplayPort to HDMI adapter. The purple cable on the left and in the back is the HDMI cable that is plugged into the DisplayPort adapter. The yellow/red/black cable on the left is a splitter for the fans so that I could power them from a single port. The black cable in the very bottom left is just a micro USB to full-size USB cable for anyone that wants to connect their phone, and the silver/grey device also in the very bottom left is just a card reader. The red cable in the very back is the HDMI cable from my receiver. The thin grey cable on the right is for a Wii sensor bar. The silver/grey metal-looking thing in the top right is part of a rail that the entire wooden platform is on so that it can easily be pulled out and/or angled to one side.


----------



## gorman42

NintendoManiac64 said:


> First image is what you see normally; second image is with the TV moved out of the way. You can't tell, but both fans were actually moving when the photos were taken as the computer was on. I could do a better job with cable management, but the cables are normally out of view as seen in the first image.


Thanks for this. Hats off for DIY approach. I like it. I don't think I could live with exposed fans. I think I'd at least mount a grill over them. Have you thought about that? Sorry for the offtopic.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

gorman42 said:


> Hats off for DIY approach. I like it.


This sort of DIY-ing is par for the course for me and computer electronics - you end up learning these kinds of things when you're a total computer geek but you don't have the luxury to spend money (financials aren't issue anymore, but this DIYed HTPC was put together before then).



gorman42 said:


> I don't think I could live with exposed fans. I think I'd at least mount a grill over them. Have you thought about that?


Never thought about it because, as you might be able to tell in the first image, the top of the fans are hidden behind/below the bottom of the TV itself, and there's no reason to pull the computer out as the only things you ever really need access to (the power button and front USB parts) are readily accessible anyway. To clarify, the second image is with the TV swiveled nearly 90 degrees (which is an unwatchable angle due to cabinet side-"wall" seen on the left in the second photo) - the computer has not actually moved (as it's sort of wedged in, moving the computer is actually considerably more difficult than simply swiveling the TV out of the way).


----------



## fafrd

This could be a fly in LG's WOLED expansion plans: https://www.oled-info.com/south-korean-government-may-block-lgs-85-gen-oled-tv-line-guangzhou


----------



## slacker711

Two articles about the competition between OLED and QLED.

Samsung and Sharp are going to push adoption of 8K because QLED's have been unable to compete with OLED's at similar price points.

https://displaydaily.com/article/152-display-daily/54968-8k-is-closer-than-you-think



> QLED Sales Suffering
> However, Samsung had a bad Q2 with its QLED LCD TVs - sales were said to be significantly down between Q1 of this year and Q2, while OLED sales were up. The word on the street from those tracking the market in detail is that at the same price points, Samsung's arguments over colour volume and brightness are just not persuading buyers to buy from them. It's the fantastic black level and contrast of OLED that is winning the sales.



and Samsung is going to introduce a 49" and 55" Q6 in the fourth quarter because they need to cut prices to compete with the 55" OLED's.

http://english.etnews.com/20170922200002


----------



## R Harkness

slacker711 said:


> Two articles about the competition between OLED and QLED.
> 
> Samsung and Sharp are going to push adoption of 8K because QLED's have been unable to compete with OLED's at similar price points.
> 
> https://displaydaily.com/article/152-display-daily/54968-8k-is-closer-than-you-think
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Samsung is going to introduce a 49" and 55" Q6 in the fourth quarter because they need to cut prices to compete with the 55" OLED's.
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/20170922200002


I don't own an OLED, but I stop in to this forum every once in a while...

It looks like OLED did it, huh? Became mainstream enough to be here to stay. Nice!


----------



## rogo

R Harkness said:


> I don't own an OLED, but I stop in to this forum every once in a while...
> 
> It looks like OLED did it, huh? Became mainstream enough to be here to stay. Nice!


Yes, it has done it. Now comes the Valley of Death. Fortunately, that Valley is shallow-ish for LG.

Unfortunately, Samsung is going to spend many millions marketing against burn in.

We will see how LG responds.


----------



## jmpage2

Without reviewing this enormous thread, is there any news/rumors in the pipeline for mass market OLED larger than 65" for 2018? I'm looking for excuses to upgrade a perfectly good 65VT30 to something that has at least as good of a picture and does 4K and one of the only arguments my wife will buy is if we can get an even larger screen without having to sell a kidney to do it.


----------



## dnoonie

jmpage2 said:


> Without reviewing this enormous thread, is there any news/rumors in the pipeline for mass market OLED larger than 65" for 2018? I'm looking for excuses to upgrade a perfectly good 65VT30 to something that has at least as good of a picture and does 4K and one of the only arguments my wife will buy is if we can get an even larger screen without having to sell a kidney to do it.


70 something inch OLED at a reasonable price?
2018 highly unlikely
2019 unlikely
2020 likely
2021 more likely

So really 3-4 more years. By then there will be lots of UHD material available, HDR10+ will be out and the kinks worked out, HDMI 2.1 will have been out for awhile, the HDMI handshake issues folks are having now will likely be less annoying, OPPO may have introduced their 2nd gen UHD BD player...all in all if you want a more seamless upgrade 2020 will be a better time frame.

On the flip side. There is a lot of great UHD BD material now and prices have already dropped, if you can find a deal on an OLED (


----------



## video_analysis

Is HDR10+ getting some major headwinds of support? Unless you're contemplating a TV from Samsung (who doesn't manufacture OLEDs), I don't see the value in targeting it.


----------



## jmpage2

dnoonie said:


> 70 something inch OLED at a reasonable price?
> 2018 highly unlikely
> 2019 unlikely
> 2020 likely
> 2021 more likely
> 
> So really 3-4 more years. By then there will be lots of UHD material available, HDR10+ will be out and the kinks worked out, HDMI 2.1 will have been out for awhile, the HDMI handshake issues folks are having now will likely be less annoying, OPPO may have introduced their 2nd gen UHD BD player...all in all if you want a more seamless upgrade 2020 will be a better time frame.
> 
> On the flip side. There is a lot of great UHD BD material now and prices have already dropped, if you can find a deal on an OLED (


----------



## satboy

LG 2017, 2018 WebOS Smart TVs To Add Xfinity Cable App

https://hdguru.com/lg-2017-2018-webos-smart-tvs-to-add-xfinity-cable-app/

Looks like LG is making content provider deals...


----------



## madtapper

Competition for LG? 

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/10/04/business/04reuters-japan-display-oled.html


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/03/japan-display-shares-soar-on-report-it-will-mass-produce-oled-panels.html


----------



## wco81

madtapper said:


> Competition for LG?
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/10/04/business/04reuters-japan-display-oled.html
> 
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/03/japan-display-shares-soar-on-report-it-will-mass-produce-oled-panels.html


Well it's likely they're talking about small OLEDs, for mobile phones, not big screen TVs.

Though they've approached Sony and Canon about using them.


----------



## rogo

The article makes clear that someone could license the method for TV-sized displays.

It also makes not at all clear what the breakthrough was / is.

Have they solved the "soluble blue lifetime" issue? If not, this is as irrelevant as the fact that Kateeva's machines can almost certainly print OLED TVs by now, there is just no way to make an OLED TV with appropriate lifetime requirements.

Color me skeptical this is relevant to the concerns of AVSers. It's again worth remembering that blue OLED is hard in evaporative processes (those used by LG's TV, Samsung's mobile displays, etc.) and so far not remotely possible with acceptable lifetimes in printing.

IF THAT CHANGES, it's an important development.


----------



## Wizziwig

MSRP of the 77" OLED77G7P has dropped below $10K for the first time ever. That sounds like a significant advancement. Hopefully it sets a precedent for all future 77+" OLED pricing.


----------



## videobruce

Almost makes it affordable for Joe Sixpack. 

Let me know when this ABL problem is solved, it's surely the deal breaker AFAIC.  Far ahead of image retention and color fade over time. 
Of course, lets not forget price thou compared to the 1st three, it's almost not a huge issue, at least with the 55".


----------



## video_analysis

Where (content-wise) do you see the ABL to the extent that it's so bothersome? Is this something appearing in showrooms that you frequent?


----------



## rogo

Wizziwig said:


> MSRP of the 77" OLED77G7P has dropped below $10K for the first time ever. That sounds like a significant advancement. Hopefully it sets a precedent for all future 77+" OLED pricing.


I would agree this is quite significant. The question is: Why now? 

As for future pricing, one would hope there wouldn't be "spring back". Yet one expects there will be spring back anyway


----------



## AnalogHD

videobruce said:


> Let me know when this ABL problem is solved, it's surely the deal breaker AFAIC.  Far ahead of image retention and color fade over time.


On my C7, I've managed to see ABL active on a Samsung demo reel, but not in real content. I was worried it would show up in games when glancing at the sky, but in practice it doesn't kick in unless you _stare_ at the sun, not merely glance. At least not at Light=75, which is as high as I can tolerate it (vision-wise, not even for longevity reasons) for all but the darkest content. 

This might be different in a brightly lit room of course, where you set Light=100, but I'd be more worried about burning in the set with such usage than about ABL.


----------



## dnoonie

Wizziwig said:


> MSRP of the 77" OLED77G7P has dropped below $10K for the first time ever. That sounds like a significant advancement. Hopefully it sets a precedent for all future 77+" OLED pricing.


2 more inches for $2000 more than a 75" Sony Z9D! That's a pretty compelling comparison/competition. If discounters can = Z9D pricing, wow! It's still too expensive for my wallet right now but if I had a year like the year I bought my 60" kuro, oh yeah! 

But yes, how is this happening and why? The Magnolia sales person showing me the 77 for $10,000 said it was to clear the channels for the next model, I'm sure that was what he was told to say and it could very well be true but I don't discount further reasons for the price drop. Possibly a market test at a lower price point?

Cheers,


----------



## blackjackmark

Wizziwig said:


> MSRP of the 77" OLED77G7P has dropped below $10K for the first time ever. That sounds like a significant advancement. Hopefully it sets a precedent for all future 77+" OLED pricing.


Are you talking street price? MSRP is still $14,999 on lg.com


----------



## Wizziwig

I see $9999.99 here. "Promotion" is all marketing BS to entice buyers into thinking they're getting some limited time deal. Once pricing hits a certain point, it basically stays there and effectively becomes the new MSRP. Everyone including Amazon, BB, etc. is now selling it at that same price. Street pricing from a place like Cleveland Plasma is even lower. If it weren't for the lingering quality control issues about uniformity, I would probably jump in. It's also too close to 2018 CES to bite without knowing exactly what LG has cooking for next year.


----------



## boe

If I can get a Sony 77" for $10K or less next year with the next model I'm all in! I just hope they ditch the dunsel stand/speaker and put all the electronics in a box that is easy to put in an HT cabinet with a LONG detachable cable I can run through a wall.


----------



## no1special

boe said:


> If I can get a Sony 77" for $10K or less next year with the next model I'm all in! I just hope they ditch the dunsel stand/speaker and put all the electronics in a box that is easy to put in an HT cabinet with a LONG detachable cable I can run through a wall.


Yeah, LG and other TV mfrs, should do what Samsung's been doing for a while now - separate screen and separate box, connected with a single cable.


----------



## mtbdudex

Side bar: It’s kinda neat a 11 year old thread has so much discussion and details. It’s a history lesson for OLED.
Fwiw-I’ve got a LG 2016 B6 55”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rogo

Highlights from the 2007 portion of this thread:



hoodlum said:


> These small size OLED TVs will be very expensive. 40"+ competitive OLED TVs are still 5-10 years away.


Spot. On.



rogo said:


> "i'm pro oled and new technology, but am i the only one who thinks that 30" in 2-3 years time is not really something to brag about?"
> 
> Well, no, I mean it's profoundly irrelevant from a home-theater perspective to introduce a 30-inch set in 2009 or 2010. It's going to be pricey and LCDs will presumably be awfully good and $500 or so by then at 30 inches.
> 
> On the other hand, there won't be 50 and 60-inch and larger OLEDs until someone starts commercially mass producing smaller ones. So in that sense, it's very exciting news >>when


----------



## joys_R_us

Nice recap, rogo !

One thing though, afaik LG uses large screen size masks for the oled deposition...?


----------



## rogo

joys_R_us said:


> Nice recap, rogo !
> 
> One thing though, afaik LG uses large screen size masks for the oled deposition...?


No they deposit the OLED as an un-patterned layout. It's all stacked, one layer atop the other.

The pixels are made solely via the transistors on the backplane and the way the color filters are cut.

This was a nod to the impossibility of large masks using any known materials.


----------



## austinsj

With Samsung's market share in the premium segment rapidly deteriorating, is it possible they'll adopt OLED sometime soon? If not, why not? Does LG own all the viable tech for manufacturing OLED TVs? Is licensing impossible? 

Seems crazy to just sit by and lose the most profitable segment if it's at all possible to turn it around. I know they're betting on microLED but that seems implausible for a TV in, say, 2 or 3 years. In the meantime, other TV makers will adopt OLED panels and Samsung could fall further behind.

Really confused about their thinking here.


----------



## 8mile13

austinsj said:


> With Samsung's market share in the premium segment rapidly deteriorating, is it possible they'll adopt OLED sometime soon? If not, why not? Does LG own all the viable tech for manufacturing OLED TVs? Is licensing impossible?
> 
> Seems crazy to just sit by and lose the most profitable segment if it's at all possible to turn it around. I know they're betting on microLED but that seems implausible for a TV in, say, 2 or 3 years. In the meantime, other TV makers will adopt OLED panels and Samsung could fall further behind.
> 
> Really confused about their thinking here.


There was this news that the Samsung CEO resigned and that there might be a fresh start with new perspective...so wait and see what happens. Current direction is all about sticking with Edge Lit LCd no matters what. 


> In a statement, the man known as “Mr Chip” said the time had come to “start new with new spirit and young leadership”.
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ck-resignation-as-profits-surge-idUSKBN1CI03P


----------



## rogo

It's pretty clear that LG has some amount of IP preventing another company (especially one in Korea) from easily duplicating what they've done legally.

It's also pretty clear that Samsung understands it won't catch LG with a me-too technology given LG's (1) formidable lead (2) progress towards completing enough fab capacity toward essentially having majority share of the high end.

This leaves Samsung with a couple of choices:

1) Make LCD better.
2) Make OLEDs using a new, much cheaper, technique such that it can launch them at prices comparable to LG and then lower prices _more quickly_ than LG will.
3) Make another technology work, e.g. emissive quantum dots. 

None of these are good choices. No amount of magic hand waving makes them good choices. Ergo, Samsung has a dilemma.


----------



## greenland

rogo said:


> It's pretty clear that LG has some amount of IP preventing another company (especially one in Korea) from easily duplicating what they've done legally.
> 
> It's also pretty clear that Samsung understands it won't catch LG with a me-too technology given LG's (1) formidable lead (2) progress towards completing enough fab capacity toward essentially having majority share of the high end.
> 
> This leaves Samsung with a couple of choices:
> 
> 1) Make LCD better.
> 2) Make OLEDs using a new, much cheaper, technique such that it can launch them at prices comparable to LG and then lower prices _more quickly_ than LG will.
> 3) Make another technology work, e.g. emissive quantum dots.
> 
> None of these are good choices. No amount of magic hand waving makes them good choices. Ergo, Samsung has a dilemma.



Or 4) Do like other brands are doing. Have LG supply OLED panels.


----------



## JazzGuyy

greenland said:


> Or 4) Do like other brands are doing. Have LG supply OLED panels.


Except that there is a deep-seated and intense rivalry and animosity between Samsung and LG.


----------



## greenland

JazzGuyy said:


> Except that there is a deep-seated and intense rivalry and animosity between Samsung and LG.


Nonsense. Business is business.

"LG Display Co. has scored a deal to supply television displays to rival Samsung Electronics Co. from as soon as this year, people with direct knowledge of the matter said."

"LG Display, a major supplier of panels to Apple Inc., will replace a venture between Sharp Corp. and Foxconn Technology Group as a supplier to the world’s biggest TV maker, said the people, who asked not to be identified because details of their agreement haven’t been released. LG Display and Samsung reiterated comments from earlier this month that they are in talks on LCD supply without elaborating."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...h-lcd-panel-supply-pact-with-samsung-iy9uaj80


----------



## 8mile13

greenland said:


> Nonsense. Business is business.
> 
> "LG Display Co. has scored a deal to supply television displays to rival Samsung Electronics Co. from as soon as this year, people with direct knowledge of the matter said."
> 
> "LG Display, a major supplier of panels to Apple Inc., will replace a venture between Sharp Corp. and Foxconn Technology Group as a supplier to the world’s biggest TV maker, said the people, who asked not to be identified because details of their agreement haven’t been released. LG Display and Samsung reiterated comments from earlier this month that they are in talks on LCD supply without elaborating."
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...h-lcd-panel-supply-pact-with-samsung-iy9uaj80


The LCd and the OLED situation is different. OLED is a new TV technology and there is only one OLED panel supplier..LG. Plus Samsung came up with their own OLED TV but that didn't work out well. Samsung did not do the obvious which is set their pride aside and start buying OLED panels from LG..they are not ready to do that yet..must be very humiliating...


----------



## video_analysis

I think it's absolutely hilarious watching that haughty juggernaut squirming as it bleeds red.


----------



## steakhouse_

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/16/16457544/lg-v30-review-design

Theverge is tearing the OLED display of the new V30 apart. Uniformity problems. Seems like LG has to climb up the learning curve much further. One can clearly see that samsung still has more experience since they are producing OLED for much longer. A shame that they did not opt to license the kodac patents to produce WOLED.


----------



## greenland

8mile13 said:


> The LCd and the OLED situation is different. OLED is a new TV technology and there is only one OLED panel supplier..LG. Plus Samsung came up with their own OLED TV but that didn't work out well. Samsung did not do the obvious which is set their pride aside and start buying OLED panels from LG..they are not ready to do that yet..must be very humiliating...


Samsung does not have an OLED TV panel of their own to market now. LG is already supplying them with LCD panels. LG is also supplying other brand names, Sony Panasonic etc, with OLED TV Panels. I don't know why you feel that Samsung can't obtain them the same way. You have said nothing that makes the case for why they can't.


----------



## video_analysis

LG isn't providing them LCDs for their flagship models, however, so it's not a question of can they but rather will they accept such an agreement? The Korean Chaebols tend to be prideful entities and the one that runs Samsung would have to save face after downplaying OLED TVs for 5 years.


----------



## 8mile13

greenland said:


> Samsung does not have an OLED TV panel of their own to market now. LG is already supplying them with LCD panels. LG is also supplying other brand names, Sony Panasonic etc, with OLED TV Panels. I don't know why you feel that Samsung can't obtain them the same way. You have said nothing that makes the case for why they can't.


I did not say that they can't. I said that the obvious thing to do after the Samsung OLED TV adventure, *2013* KN55S9C, was to buy LG OLED panels instead..maybe even start launching some limited scale models with those panels. They had over three years to do that..has not happened....instead they have been focussing on the LCd QD thing all this time. They are currently unwilling to use OLED TV tech which is not theirs, korean rival LG being the owner of the OLED TV tech that does work certainly complicates things.


----------



## Wizziwig

steakhouse_ said:


> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/16/16457544/lg-v30-review-design
> 
> Theverge is tearing the OLED display of the new V30 apart. Uniformity problems. Seems like LG has to climb up the learning curve much further. One can clearly see that samsung still has more experience since they are producing OLED for much longer. A shame that they did not opt to license the kodac patents to produce WOLED.


For a minute I thought I was reading a review of LG's OLED TVs. Same old problems. 

"Areas of the same color on the V30 appear blotchy: when I open up a Google Keep note, I don’t get a flat white canvas as I should, but instead I see streaks of gray, looking as if there’s an inconsistent backlight. This being an OLED display, there’s no backlight to speak of, so it’s just poor brightness uniformity across those light-emitting diodes. The same unhappy effect is even more pronounced with darker grays and colors like navy blue, and it’s amplified by the V30’s apparent inability to render color gradations smoothly. Gradients appear grainy and I see unpleasant color banding, exactly the same issues that Ars Technica encountered with a preproduction V30 device last month."

Google is probably going to have a disaster on their hands in a few days because they went with LG to supply panels for their Pixel2 phones as well.


----------



## austinsj

Aren't mobile OLED displays and TV OLED displays built on different technologies? If not, I don't see why Samsung can't scale up in size.


----------



## joys_R_us

Apart from the pride issue, Samsung cannot get enough oled panels from LG as the capacity is constrained, especially now with Sony, Philips, Panasonic also selling oleds..

There is also another issue: You cant fight oled tvs while offering them yourself...

I guess Samsung was hoping for much faster progress with QD and have no quick alternatives at hand now...

Will be interesting to watch. Maybe they deliver a surprise at CES. They must be quite desperate.


----------



## ALMA

8K-OLED-TV and 80" OLED in 2019 and it seems Samsung using the test from Rtings.com to blame OLED for image retention...



> Lee emphasized the proliferation of OLED camps, saying, *"By region, Europe is up by 38%, North America and Japan by 29%, and China by 10%.* . Especially, China plans to increase the OLED experience center to seven regions including Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shaheen, Nanjing, Qingdao and Shenyang in the world's largest TV market.
> 
> "We can clearly see the difference in image quality between OLED and LCD TV," he said. *"The company plans to launch 80-inch and 8K OLED TVs in 2019 following 55, 65 and 77-inch UHD (ultra high definition)* LG Display plans to release a small (P) (plastic) -old OLED product that will achieve 1.0R (radius of curvature radius of 1mm radius) coming in 2019.
> 
> *The proportion of OLED sales at LG Display is projected to increase from 5% in 2016 to 50% in 2021,* driven by the growth of OLED camps.


https://translate.google.de/transla...ntents.html?article_no=2017101902100632038001


----------



## rogo

austinsj said:


> Aren't mobile OLED displays and TV OLED displays built on different technologies? If not, I don't see why Samsung can't scale up in size.


There are some fundamental differences, yes.

Samsung can't scale up in size because its technology doesn't scale up in size.

LG's technology is quite good for making larger screens. For mobile, LG builds them the same way Samsung does, the difference being Samsung has much more experience there.

That's why 100% of iPhone OLEDs will come from Samsung in iPhone X. And why LG's flagship phone falls short (unfortunately).

This has little to do with TV, however.


----------



## Rudy1

video_analysis said:


> I think it's absolutely hilarious watching that haughty juggernaut squirming as it bleeds red.


Apparently, they aren't hemorrhaging as much overall as might be expected:

_"The top-ranked television brand in the period continued to be Samsung with 553,735 units sold over the five weeks, according to NPD data shared with us. Vizio ranked third with 406,885 units sold and LG was fourth with 289,034 units sold to consumers. Element, another brand like TCL that is sold heavily through discount chains, ranked fifth. This summer, Element began selling smart TVs with Amazon’s Fire TV platform built-in through such major retail accounts as Amazon, which is now going toe-to-toe with Roku in the integrated smart TV OS space."_

https://hdguru.com/tcl-reaches-no-2-ranked-u-s-tv-brand-in-september/


----------



## video_analysis

Yes, it pays to have a marketing presence in stores. The only Best Buy in a 2-hour radius affords them the most demo space. It's the high-end where they have ceded significant marketshare. They are more interested in flinging mud than making a better TV.


----------



## rogo

Rudy1 said:


> Apparently, they aren't hemorrhaging as much overall as might be expected:
> 
> _"The top-ranked television brand in the period continued to be Samsung with 553,735 units sold over the five weeks, according to NPD data shared with us. Vizio ranked third with 406,885 units sold and LG was fourth with 289,034 units sold to consumers. Element, another brand like TCL that is sold heavily through discount chains, ranked fifth. This summer, Element began selling smart TVs with Amazon’s Fire TV platform built-in through such major retail accounts as Amazon, which is now going toe-to-toe with Roku in the integrated smart TV OS space."_
> 
> https://hdguru.com/tcl-reaches-no-2-ranked-u-s-tv-brand-in-september/


This tells you nothing about the high end, where Samsung is most assuredly hemorrhaging market share.


----------



## Number_6

Not really sure if this issue goes here or in an LG-specific thread, but in online reviews, I've noticed that LG's OLED models (at least as shown in RTINGs web reviews) tend to have a color or tint shift issue when viewed at an angle. Brightness and contrast remain virtually "perfect", but the color shift can be noticeable even at 20-25 degrees (in RTING's test videos). Is this as noticeable in-person, as it is from the videos of the viewing angle tests? My living room is laid out in a way that I really want a display that can cover a 25-30 degree viewing angle, with no noticeable dropoff in picture quality. I currently have an old plasma, which still works well for this purpose, but is too small by today's standards.


----------



## no1special

Number_6 said:


> Not really sure if this issue goes here or in an LG-specific thread, but in online reviews, I've noticed that LG's OLED models (at least as shown in RTINGs web reviews) tend to have a color or tint shift issue when viewed at an angle. Brightness and contrast remain virtually "perfect", but the color shift can be noticeable even at 20-25 degrees (in RTING's test videos). Is this as noticeable in-person, as it is from the videos of the viewing angle tests? My living room is laid out in a way that I really want a display that can cover a 25-30 degree viewing angle, with no noticeable dropoff in picture quality. I currently have an old plasma, which still works well for this purpose, but is too small by today's standards.


I can tell you from experience that there is in fact a slight color shift to green on our B6 when viewed off center. How noticeable it is will vary from person to person. IMO, it's not that bad, and I think many average folks would not even notice it, unless and until someone pointed it out. If you're very picky, it may bother you. As far as the angle and viewing distance go, you'll need to do some math. Sorry I can't help in this regard - been too long.


----------



## gorman42

Number_6 said:


> Not really sure if this issue goes here or in an LG-specific thread, but in online reviews, I've noticed that LG's OLED models (at least as shown in RTINGs web reviews) tend to have a color or tint shift issue when viewed at an angle. Brightness and contrast remain virtually "perfect", but the color shift can be noticeable even at 20-25 degrees (in RTING's test videos). Is this as noticeable in-person, as it is from the videos of the viewing angle tests? My living room is laid out in a way that I really want a display that can cover a 25-30 degree viewing angle, with no noticeable dropoff in picture quality. I currently have an old plasma, which still works well for this purpose, but is too small by today's standards.


Unfortunately, I don't think you have much choice. Check LEDs values on RTING's reviews and see that OLED is the best choice currently available, as far as I can see, if viewing angles matter to you.
Their current best LED TV is Sony X930E, which scores an abysmal 4.9 for Viewing angle: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/sony/x930e#comparison_728
Compare this to LG E7, which scores 8.1: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/e7-oled#comparison_728

I understand what you mean with your question: I still use a Kuro 9G 60" and I wonder why, after so many years, I can't go out and buy a TV that is clearly better for ALL picture quality parameters. Alas, sooner or later I'll need to accept that I'll need to make do with OLED being clearly better in many parameters but not all (personally the one I care most, where OLED unfortunately suffers, is motion reproduction).


----------



## Wizziwig

gorman42 said:


> I understand what you mean with your question: I still use a Kuro 9G 60" and I wonder why, after so many years, *I can't go out and buy a TV that is clearly better for ALL picture quality parameters*.


I've wondered the same thing even longer... since my ancient Sony WEGA CRT from 2004, I'm still waiting for anyone to release a display with equivalent motion resolution. At least with OLED, we finally got back to black levels I could have enjoyed for decades on a decent CRT. For some bizarre reason, displays don't follow the constant advancement curve we get in most other technology like computers, smartphones, etc.. We take strange detours, often regressing on already solved problems, and generally moving sideways or backwards instead of always improving on all performance parameters of previous generations. It's really frustrating that each new display tech just brings a new set of compromises.


----------



## Wizziwig

As I predicted a few posts back, Pixel 2 XL (using LG OLED panels) is now showing the same LG issues we've come to know from their OLED TVs:

Two-week-old Pixel 2 XL displays are already showing burn-in

Guess Apple was wise to avoid this garbage and left their competitors with no other option after buying up most of Samsung's remaining capacity.


----------



## aaz

Wizziwig said:


> As I predicted a few posts, Pixel 2 XL (using LG OLED panels) is now showing the same LG issues we've come to know from their OLED TVs:
> 
> Two-week-old Pixel 2 XL displays are already showing burn-in
> 
> Guess Apple was wise to avoid this garbage and left their competitors with no other option after buying up most of Samsung's remaining capacity.


Unless you can show that Pixel is using WOLED tech from LG, and not AMOLED which I believe is the case then you know nothing Jon Snow. It's a completely different technology when burn-in is the concern.


----------



## Wizziwig

My point was that LG is delivering terrible mobile OLED solutions (not just burn-in, see the other quality issues). We can see this clearly because there is actually competition on mobile OLEDs that we can compare with. If there was similar competition for TV OLED panels, we would likely see the same thing, with LG demoted to second-tier status. They are lucky to have a OLED monopoly in the TV market.


----------



## aaz

Wizziwig said:


> My point was that LG is delivering terrible mobile OLED solutions (not just burn-in, see the other quality issues). We can see this clearly because there is actually competition on mobile OLEDs that we can compare with. If there was similar competition for TV OLED panels, we would likely see the same thing, with LG demoted to second-tier status. They are lucky to have a OLED monopoly in the TV market.


Yes, terrible display panels, and yet paradoxically the best available by far. It's unlikely we'll see real competition until printed OLED becomes available in 2020 or so, but please don't go buying that when it first comes out - problems will be far greater than even what you see now. Keep in mind the current WOLED tech has been in development for a long time since Kodak developed it, and then did nothing with it until they went out of business. I marvel at the thought that LG was able to take it and actually scale it up and make it reliable enough to actually make a product. That is not easy. Don't kid yourself if you think what everyone else comes up with will be better.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Wizziwig said:


> follow the constant advancement curve we get in most other technology like computers, smartphones, etc..


Wanna bet?


2010 - flagship smartphones with and without built-in keyboards, user-removable batteries, screen sizes anywhere from 3" to 5"

2017 - flagship smartphones without any hardware keyboard, no user-removable batteries, screen sizes at 5" _minimum_


2010 - laptops with detachable batteries, upgradable CPUs, replacable RAM and hard drives, cooling fans with actual intake vents, can run any OS you like

2017 - laptops without user-removable batteries, soldered CPUs, soldered RAM, sometimes even soldered SSD, cooling fans with no intake vents, hardware-based video DRM (_and I don't mean HDCP either_), can only run the OS its supplied with


At least the actual low-level components are still seeing improvements (hello Ryzen!), so any DIY stuff like building your own PC hasn't really seen any downgrades (except for motherboard VRM heatsinks - many are overly showy with minimal functionality).

And Linux has never been more beginner-friendly. Thanks to the abundance of things being online-based and needing to be accessible from many platforms rather than just one, Linux is actually an extremely valid option for the majority of home users (unless you absolutely *need* to play the latest AAA PC games).


----------



## video_analysis

Yikes, my last laptop purchase was in 2010. I'm sad to hear the accountants have taken over.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Oh I forget to mention - RAM prices have gone up by an absolutely stupid amount in the last 18 months (scroll down and look at the "Price History" chart).

Heck, even SSDs with their historically ever-cheapening flash memory have gone up a bit in price over the same period (again, scroll down and look at the "Price History" chart).

...not surprisingly, with memory manufacturers increased demand from mobile and servers yet having taken no action to actually increase overall supply, people are becoming suspicious of price-fixing as such a thing already occurred in the past with computer memory.


----------



## ALMA

@*Wizziwig* 

LG has quality issues with their backplane technology or TFT manufacturing process. The proof is, that even their IPS LCDs have image retention. The emitter material is driven by the TFT backplane and showing every fault in the backplane and the TFT voltage compensation software. OLED is 100-1000 times more accurate than LCD with an backlight system and slowly pixel response time. Near black, vignetting, banding, image retention etc. - It´s all about the IGZO backplane. Samsung using different backplane technology (LTPS). IGZO is high responsive (great for higher resolution) but also very sensitive to voltage differences. LG´s biggest issue with their WOLED manufacturing process was and is IGZO, but it´s also their key of success.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...-oled-screen-burn-photos-47.html#post54966782
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...-oled-screen-burn-photos-46.html#post54961270

LG has a collabortion with IGNIS to avoid such issues:

http://www.ignisinnovation.com/maxlife/
http://www.ignisinnovation.com/true-view-display/

It´s not easy to make an OLED TV, so please stop this nonsense about second-tier status. Where is the Samsung OLED or real QLED-TV (has the same TFT issues like OLED and no blue QDot can reach the lifetime of an blue OLED emitter material) and which TVs winning the shootouts?


----------



## no1special

ALMA said:


> @*Wizziwig*
> 
> LG has quality issues with their backplane technology or TFT manufacturing process. The proof is, that even their IPS LCDs have image retention. The emitter material is driven by the TFT backplane and showing every fault in the backplane and the TFT voltage compensation software. OLED is 100-1000 times more accurate than LCD with an backlight system and slowly pixel response time. Near black, vignetting, banding, image retention etc. - It´s all about the IGZO backplane. Samsung using different backplane technology (LTPS). IGZO is high responsive (great for higher resolution) but also very sensitive to voltage differences. LG´s biggest issue with their WOLED manufacturing process was and is IGZO, but it´s also their key of success.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...-oled-screen-burn-photos-47.html#post54966782
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...-oled-screen-burn-photos-46.html#post54961270
> 
> LG has a collabortion with IGNIS to avoid such issues:
> 
> http://www.ignisinnovation.com/maxlife/
> http://www.ignisinnovation.com/true-view-display/
> 
> It´s not easy to make an OLED TV, so please stop this nonsense about second-tier status. Where is the Samsung OLED or real QLED-TV (has the same TFT issues like OLED and no blue QDot can reach the lifetime of an blue OLED emitter material) and which TVs winning the shootouts?


What evidence exists that the TFT backplane issues are responsible for the burn-in that lasts several months, that I and others have seen on their TVs? I don't see anything that you've linked in that post, or your others posts, that makes the connection between these TFT-backplane issues and burn-in. I can accept short term image retention and uniformity issues, possibly. The burn-in we're experiencing gets slowly progressively worse over time, and when the offending content is stopped, and only random content is displayed in its place, the screen appears to even out a bit making the burn-in less noticeable. We're talking in terms of months here. That to me, sounds like differential aging of pixels (or emitters).

Regarding your post in the other thread, that red has the highest longevity (3-4 times blue), keep in mind that longevity and efficiency are not the same thing. Red may have 3-4 times more longevity as blue, but red may require 5x, as an example, current in order to produce the same light output as blue. So while the red material may inherently last longer given the same current as blue, it may output a lot less light than blue at that same current, thereby requiring more current to output the same light level as blue. Again, longevity vs efficiency.


----------



## Rudy1

aaz said:


> Unless you can show that Pixel is using WOLED tech from LG, and not AMOLED which I believe is the case then you know nothing Jon Snow. It's a completely different technology when burn-in is the concern.


*PIXEL 2 XL P-OLED SCREEN BURN-IN ISSUE REPORTED*

http://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/pixel-2-xl-p-oled-screen-burn-in-issue-reported-google-launches-investigation-1765788


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> This leaves Samsung with a couple of choices:
> 
> 1) Make LCD better.
> 2) Make OLEDs using a new, much cheaper, technique such that it can launch them at prices comparable to LG and then lower prices _more quickly_ than LG will.
> 3) Make another technology work, e.g. emissive quantum dots.
> 
> None of these are good choices. No amount of magic hand waving makes them good choices. Ergo, Samsung has a dilemma.





greenland said:


> Or 4) Do like other brands are doing. Have LG supply OLED panels.


Or 5) Develop iLED - inorganic LED tech based on discrete LED modules. This just requires scaling down cinema size solution which Samsung already productivized.


----------



## gorman42

ALMA said:


> LG has a collabortion with IGNIS to avoid such issues:
> 
> http://www.ignisinnovation.com/maxlife/
> http://www.ignisinnovation.com/true-view-display/


I see no mention of LG here, and both pages titles are "AMOLED" qualified, which leaves out LG by default, I guess.
Any source for this collaboration LG/Ignis?

Edit:
There's this: http://www.ignisinnovation.com/pres...g-a-patent-license-agreement-with-lg-display/

Considering the date of the agreement I wonder whether 2017 panels include their technology (for TVs I mean).


----------



## ALMA

> Regarding your post in the other thread, that red has the highest longevity (3-4 times blue), keep in mind that longevity and efficiency are not the same thing. Red may have 3-4 times more longevity as blue, but red may require 5x, as an example, current in order to produce the same light output as blue.


Blue has the lowest longevity because of lowest efficiency. That´s the reason why blue light is so hard to make, also it was for LED and of course also for QDots. In nature, a blue fire is hotter than a red fire. But the colors in WOLED are made by color filters. The emitters are stacked (in 2016 B-Y-B and in 2017 R-Y-B) and generating white light.
You have to understand that a small logo every day as long term template generating also a temperature/voltage template on the backplane and the backplane can also age non-uniformly. The voltage treshold for OLED is much more sensitive to this than LCD. Also a faulty TFT compensation resulting in such effects. 2000h with 20h/day viewing with only 1! small compensation after 20h is not the same than 2000h with 4-8h/day viewing with one small compensation after 4-8h. Issues with the TFT compensation software is an unknown factor in this test.


----------



## joys_R_us

I am not sure that the 2017 panels have a R-Y-B stucture. When you look at the power consumption charts you see that the panels suck in extremely high current at saturated red and yellow pictures. Combined with the charts showing very little red light in the spectrum of white oleds I come to the conclusion that the current panels have to push to the limits to get enough red light out through the red filter.

I am not sure about this but just combining what I read in the last 18 months or so...


----------



## no1special

ALMA said:


> Blue has the lowest longevity because of lowest efficiency. That´s the reason why blue light is so hard to make, also it was for LED and of course also for QDots. In nature, a blue fire is hotter than a red fire. But the colors in WOLED are made by color filters. The emitters are stacked (in 2016 B-Y-B and in 2017 R-Y-B) and generating white light.
> You have to understand that a small logo every day as long term template generating also a temperature/voltage template on the backplane and the backplane can also age non-uniformly. The voltage treshold for OLED is much more sensitive to this than LCD. Also a faulty TFT compensation resulting in such effects. 2000h with 20h/day viewing with only 1! small compensation after 20h is not the same than 2000h with 4-8h/day viewing with one small compensation after 4-8h. Issues with the TFT compensation software is an unknown factor in this test.


I can't make any claims about existing emitter materials' longevity or efficiency. All I'm saying is that higher efficiency does not necessarily mean longer longevity. Likewise, lower efficiency does not necessarily mean shorter longevity. You can have a material with higher efficiency than another type of material, but the more efficient one may still have shorter longevity. It all depends on the characteristics and inherent traits of the material.

I'm not going to claim I know the *root *cause of the burn-in (not IR) I've experienced, as have others. For now, until we have additional data, I'm pretty confident that the BI I've seen is due to differential aging of pixels/emitter materials. I hope it is due to defective parts and/or software. That would mean LG owes some customers some free repairs under warranty. It's irresponsible of LG to claim that burn-in is not covered because it's due to user usage that they can't control or verify.

Finally, our set was turned off every day after about 9-10 hours of use (not abnormal for a lot of households in USA). "Small" comp cycles did not prevent the burn-in from occurring. Rtings is using the TV for 20 hours a day. I see no difference between the results of my burn-in and rtings results. You say that a small comp cycle after 4-8 hours/day has a different impact than a small comp cycle after 20 hours/day, but you don't explain how it's different.

You are introducing speculation and skepticism, which is fine, but you are not backing it up with any actual data to support it.

Can you explain why you think these LG OLED BI cases are NOT due to differential aging of pixels?


----------



## joys_R_us

Quotes from the quarterly analyst reporting of LGD:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/41...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single


"Responding to your second question on OLED TV size mix, if you look at panel sizes of 55-inch, it account for 65%. And for 65 inches and above, the size mix share is 35%."

"In terms of the large-size OLED TV panel capacity in 2017, we’re expected to sell around 1.7 million this year in terms of capacity. And we see by next year in terms of the volume, we’re looking at about 2.5 million to 2.8 million."

"So moving on to my question, when you look at the OLED TV recently, we saw some article coverage on the *burning* effect that people have witnessed on your OLED TVs. We’d like to understand what your view is with respect to this issue? 

To answer your first question, I think in the market, there has been some intentional creation of noise regarding this issue. But we believe what’s most important is the decision and the judgment of our customers.

Our performance would arise out of the positions and decisions of the customers. And we at our company are exerting our utmost endeavors to satisfy what the customers want. At OLED panel, basically, adopt a totally different platform compared to existing LCDs. We have high confidence in our OLED platform and we are once again exerting our best of the efforts."

BLA BLA BLA....


"So as we communicated in previous months, we are in the process of really preparing for the technology, as well as the process technologies to be fully equipped to be able to produce the 10G OLEDs. And also in terms of verifying the technologies, the oxide-based backplane technology compared to amorphous silicon technology is much more advantageous in terms of the driving speed. So we believe that we really want to be able to verify this technology for the 8K and be able to adopt this technology.

So let me sum that up by saying that in preparing for 10G OLED TV, one of the essential technologies are currently being verified, which is the oxide technology. Our plan is that we want to actually adopt the oxide technology, because the speed at which the plane – the speed at which the panel is going to be driven is going to be much faster compared to LCD 8K, and it’s a more advanced technology."

"


----------



## no1special

So LG didn't really answer the question about the "burning effect" except to suggest there is some "intentional noise" being made about it? Sorry, didn't read the link.


----------



## joys_R_us

Exactly...


----------



## rogo

Correct, they gave an answer that is partially true and woefully inadequate.

Samsung is marketing against them, in a way that arguably skirts ethical limits.

But there is a problem, however severe, that they appear unwilling to talk about at this time.


----------



## no1special

rogo said:


> Correct, they gave an answer that is partially true and woefully inadequate.
> 
> Samsung is marketing against them, in a way that arguably skirts ethical limits.
> 
> But there is a problem, however severe, that they appear unwilling to talk about at this time.


Sorry if I missed it, but what is Samsung doing in their marketing that is ethically questionable? I've not been following it. The only thing I've seen is public announcements about their 10 year burn-in warranty. I've not seen a single commercial mentioning burn-in though. Pretty lame marketing campaign on Samsung's part if I'm not even seeing any commercials about it.


----------



## joys_R_us

DSCC: LGD will start mass producing top-emission OLED TV panels in 2019

https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, some comments from LG Electronics about OLED sales. 

OLED's helped drive margins in the TV segment to 10%. 

http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2017/10/26/0200000000AKR20171026157400003.HTML

_LG Electronics focuses on OLED TV as a good reputation. OLED TV sales accounted for 10% of sales last year, but this year it is expected to increase to 15%.


The proportion of OLED TV sales to domestic sales is already 30%.


We sold 310,000 OLED TVs in 2015 and 670,000 OLED TVs last year, but this year, we sold the same quantity as last year's sales until the third quarter.


The expansion of the OLED market is largely due to the steady downward revision of the prices of these products. In 2013, 55-inch OLED TVs cost about 15 million won, five times as much as LCD TVs of the same size. However, this year it has dropped to 1.3 times._


----------



## 8mile13

no1special said:


> Sorry if I missed it, but what is Samsung doing in their marketing that is ethically questionable? I've not been following it. The only thing I've seen is public announcements about their 10 year burn-in warranty. I've not seen a single commercial mentioning burn-in though. Pretty lame marketing campaign on Samsung's part if I'm not even seeing any commercials about it.


This is a Samsung TV YouTube channel clip..it is prettymuch a commercial..


----------



## no1special

Interesting clip. I hope people are smart enough to realize that this was produced by Samsung and look to other independent sources for their information. Also, this shows image retention, which the OLEDs can compensate for. The bigger issue LG OLED seems to have is with burn-in. I've not seen any easy fix for it, other than either replacing the panel or waiting for months or possibly years for the effect to wear off, not knowing it it'll ever completely clear.


----------



## rogo

joys_R_us said:


> DSCC: LGD will start mass producing top-emission OLED TV panels in 2019
> 
> https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction


Sounds like "not a reason to wait" even though this is important.

Bold prediction: The "once every 6 years Rogo TV purchase" will continue in 2018. But then be accelerated to 2021!


----------



## Sven Veader

2019 i am in


----------



## slacker711

LG Display shipped 200,000 OLED TV panels in September vs. around 100,000 last September.

http://www.theinvestor.co.kr/view.php?ud=20171031000356


----------



## ALMA

No QDCF LCDs in 2018, OLED is more popular in high-end market than QLED and in 2020 there will be including LCD 4-5x 10.5G or larger production facilities with China on top:

https://translate.google.de/transla...http://laoyaoba.com/ss6/html/02/n-653502.html



> According to Qiu Yubin introduction, the current planning of the 10.5 production line is very much, 2018 Q1, Hefei Jingdong will be out of China's first 10.5 production lines, which is the world's first 10.5 production lines, so much attention. Then, in 2019, the domestic Huaxing and South Korea's LG will start the first 10.5-generation production line; In addition, Hon Hai and Sharp's production line in Guangzhou will also enter 10.5 in 2019.
> 
> At the same time, BOE November in Wuhan announced the second 10.5 production line of the soil, is expected to join the ranks of the market by 2020. In other words, by 2020, BOE's at least two 10.5-generation lines, and the world at least 4-5 10.5 production lines.





> In the regional panel production capacity accounted for, Qiu Yubin said that in 2017, the largest proportion of production capacity is South Korea, the second is Taiwan, the third is mainland China. *It is expected that by 2018, the Chinese mainland manufacturers will 32.5% of the city accounted for the world's second largest production capacity of the panel area. In addition, with the BOE, Huaxing 10.5 generation line out, is expected to 2019, China will be 37.4% share of the global large size panel won the championship.*


http://laoyaoba.com/ss6/attachments/2017/10/3653656_2017103117114747Zk7.jpg

more about OLED:



> *At present in high-end television, OLED is more popular than quantum dots*
> 
> In 2017, OLED TV shipments of 1.5 million units, next year in the LGD continued expansion under the premise of shipping point of view 2.4 million units, the penetration rate is expected to exceed 1% for the first time. However, the quantum point of the TV shipments may only 125-130 million units, in other words, in the high-end television competition, the quantum dot compared to the OLED defeated.





> Quantum point leader is Samsung, *but Samsung 2017 in the second half of the strategy has a very big change, Samsung gave up the so-called high-end but no amount of products*, but the focus of the shipment into the middle but the amount of products. *Therefore, Samsung's resources in the quantum point decreased, naturally reducing the entire quantum dots, including domestic TCL, Hisense in the quantum point of concern.*






> QD quantum dot material with the current LCD screen on the combination of color film to help reduce the cost of the entire quantum dots, the fastest 2018 The second half of the year will be heavy volume in the panel, *and then the production of products may need to wait until the second half of 2019.*


QDCF at the earliest in 2019/2020 (it seems they need ink-jet printing for patterning), real QLED in 2022...

http://laoyaoba.com/ss6/attachments/2017/10/3653656_201710311711476Tjz8.jpg


----------



## slacker711

IHS projections for 55" OLED costs. 

Google Translation

http://biz.chosun.com/site/data/htm...744.html#csidx8fb330dffe0d64988e12ce2fa5bbbed












> IHS Markets "OLED TV production costs LCD TVs and gap ... OLED diffusion speeds up"
> Is a reporter
> 
> Article100 japyeong ( 0 )	Big small
> Enter: 2017.11.02 13:52 | Correction: 2017.11.02 13:54 OLED TVs and liquid crystal display (LCD) TV panels are expected to grow at a faster pace than the OLED TV market.
> 
> Market researcher IHS Markets said on November 2 that the manufacturing cost gap between OLED panels and LCD panels will decline sharply, leading to an increase in market share of OLED TVs.
> 
> 55-inch UHD OLED TV panel production cost table / IHS market offer
> ? 55-inch UHD OLED TV panel production cost table / IHS market offer
> *The total manufacturing cost of 55-inch OLED UHD (Ultra-High Definition) TV panels was $ 582 in the second quarter. This is a 55% drop from the first quarter of 2015 when OLED TV panels were introduced to the market. IHS Markets expects OLED TV panel manufacturing costs to go down to $ 242 (about $ 270) by the first quarter of 2021. *
> 
> Manufacturing costs for 55-inch OLED UHD TV panels have dropped to 2.5 times that of LCD TV panels of the same specifications. In the first quarter of 2015, it reached 4.3 times. If the OLED panel yield increases to a level similar to that of LCD panels, the difference in total manufacturing cost is expected to decrease from 2.5x to 1.8x.
> 
> The production cost difference between OLED panel and LCD panel is not only the raw material of panel, but also factors such as production yield, operation rate, depreciation cost for facility investment, and substrate size.
> 
> "The narrower cost gap between dominant technologies and new technologies has expanded new technologies," said Jimmy Kim, senior researcher at IHS Market Display Materials Division. "As the manufacturing cost gap between OLED and LCD panels narrows, It will also help expand market share. "
> 
> 
> *"Once the depreciation of OLED equipment has been completed, OLED panel manufacturing costs can be reduced by 31%.*"


----------



## slacker711

Found an english version of the above information. 

https://www.displaydaily.com/press-...n-catch-up-to-lcd-tv-panels-ihs-markit-says-2


----------



## rogo

@ALMA, As always, think that is postulated for 5 years in the future could easily be 10 years in the future. Or could happen never. What won't happen? It arrives sooner than planned. 
@slacker, I want to point out a couple of things:

1) It appears that despite many claims over the past decade and a half, OLED will not be cheaper than LCD -- at least not by any meaningful amount. 

2) Why does this matter? Because the amount of "fully depreciated 8G" LCD capability is unlikely to meaningfully reduce over the next 5 years. Only folks like LG who are repurposing said facilities in part will be losing much. 

3) That screen sizes stopped expanding -- as many of us here explained would happen -- means the war for size matters less and there are no new scale economies to be had. Yes, there will be 10.5G LCD plants and OLED too, no the average living room set is never going to be 70 inches. This makes those 8G fabs viable for years to come.

4) LG has already won the high end. It's all over but the counting. Samsung has no means of competing. Because the OLED-LCD cost gap is shrinking, LG is poised to win an ever increasing share of the high-end TV market. Once they can push more panels to OEMs, that victory will approach completeness.

5) Even if some magical quantum-dot emissive TV ships in 2022, it now has an even more impossible dilemma than LG did in 2014. The ability for LG to price obscenely high, sell a tiny number of units, etc. was so mitigated that it needed to get to the "magic $3000" for 65 inch sets by 2016. It did. Congrats to LG.

Unfortunately for Samsung, LG will be erasing all those price points from existence on the way down. By 2021, the 55-inch OLED will start at below $1,000. It will be better than today's OLED on every picture quality dimension. It will border on "perfect". 

Samsung will then, what, introduce a new TV at $3,000 that is better how? Bright enough to permanently blind small children and pets? More contrast than staring into the sun and then a black hole? There is no dimension to compete with "better" in 2022. You will have to introduce at essentially price parity. Not to mention with 8K resolution. And 100K hour guaranteed lifespan!

I don't see any realistic scenario for Samsung to come to market with such a product. 

I see many scenarios in which LG sells the TVs for the panels for fully 2/3 of the top 15% of TVs in terms of price.


----------



## video_analysis

That's good news...I just hope the backplane refinement continues because the consistency is still not there.


----------



## Wizziwig

rogo said:


> By 2021, the 55-inch OLED will start at below $1,000. It will be better than today's OLED on every picture quality dimension. It will border on "perfect".


"perfect" from LG!? Good luck with that. If their uniformity is as craptastic (or worse) in 2021 as it is today, I don't see why someone else can't compete for the high-end. It's also unlikely that LG is going to achieve the theoretical maximum 10,000 nits that is required for proper reproduction of HDR content by that date. I have no idea if anyone else can either - but if they can get significantly closer, it's something they can market against OLED. I suggest you check out a side-by-side demo of HDR content on something like a Sony ZD9 (~1900 nits peak) vs. an LG OLED in a lit room if you think HDR brightness doesn't matter. Then there are other areas like motion resolution, viewing angles, color volume, gradation, burn-in resistance, etc. where there is plenty of room for improvement. LG OLED has only reached "perfection" in a single area - "black reproduction" so I don't see why you think nobody else can do better when marketing a competing product to the high-end videophile market. I agree the date for any competing product to appear are way off in the future.

Is high-end domination even enough for a display technology to survive? It didn't seem to work for Pioneer or Panasonic.


----------



## 8mile13

..check out the PS3 revisions were the price drops go hand in hand with use of cheaper materials.


----------



## rogo

Wizziwig said:


> "perfect" from LG!? Good luck with that. If their uniformity is as craptastic (or worse) in 2021 as it is today, I don't see why someone else can't compete for the high-end.


First of all, this is a mostly fake AVS concern. 99% of people don't even see this "terrible" uniformity.

Second of all, by 2021, they'll have been at this for years. It should be dialed in.



> It's also unlikely that LG is going to achieve the theoretical maximum 10,000 nits that is required for proper reproduction of HDR content by that date. I have no idea if anyone else can either - but if they can get significantly closer, it's something they can market against OLED. I suggest you check out a side-by-side demo of HDR content on something like a Sony ZD9 (~1900 nits peak) vs. an LG OLED in a lit room if you think HDR brightness doesn't matter.


I suggest this actually doesn't matter already. And by 2021, whatever OLED brightness is available will be searing retinas just fine.



> Then there are other areas like motion resolution, viewing angles, color volume, gradation, burn-in resistance, etc. where there is plenty of room for improvement. LG OLED has only reached "perfection" in a single area - "black reproduction" so I don't see why you think nobody else can do better when marketing a competing product to the high-end videophile market. I agree the date for any competing product to appear are way off in the future.


It's *contrast*, not black reproduction where OLED is near perfection. Yes, they go hand in hand but OLED has a brightness plasma never could reach and a darkness nothing could. Color is getting closer and I have little doubt color-filter refinement along with OLED material refinement will push that over the top.

Viewing angles are already so far ahead of LCD, this is a pointless issue to argue. Burn-in resistance will be a generation or two (or 5 or 10) ahead of whatever magical quantum-dot TV ships, if any ever does.

Motion resolution needs some love, but it still needs that on LCD too. I'm more than optimistic that four more years of refinement will get us there.

We're talking a sub-$1000 2021 OLED that outperforms every single TV ever created until now on most dimensions, obliterates them on some, trails behind perhaps slightly on a couple. 


> Is high-end domination even enough for a display technology to survive? It didn't seem to work for Pioneer or Panasonic.


We're not talking plasma volumes, though. We're talking >20 million sold in a ~200 million TV market where all those 20 million are concentrated in owning something like 2/3 of all sales over $900. I suspect LG will have a TV-market profit share of far in excess of the market share weighting. It will also be well on its way to completing the fab _after_ the 2018-20 P10 fab. 

LG will own the important parts of the TV market the way Apple owns the important parts of the smartphone market. This doesn't stop people from enjoying Samsung Galaxy phones, but it factually gives Apple 2/3 or more of the profits from all smartphones despite 1/7 or so of the volume.


----------



## aaz

Do we really need a display to outshine the sun for it to be visible in daylight? http://www.winmate.com.tw/Sunlight_Readable.htm 
Do people really not recognize that this is just marketing at this point? More than 1000 NIT displays is not something regular people are anticipating and waiting for... only those that like to show how much bigger theirs is than everyone else's.


----------



## video_analysis

^We caught a live one doing same yesterday in the LG 2018 thread.


----------



## Wizziwig

You guys keep missing the point of increased brightness. As do most other people it seems. It has nothing to do with blinding anyone. Average picture brightness will not change at all on a 10,000 nit HDR display compared to an SDR display today. The brightness headroom is needed for accurate reproduction of specular highlights and other isolated bright objects.

I hope Rogo is right regarding his predictions of LG's 2021 models. I have much less confidence in their engineering ability based on what they've done in the past - not just with OLED but also Plasma and LCD. Their mobile efforts are also depressing. We shall see what they come up with for CES in January.


----------



## video_analysis

I get it. Remember? I own a TV that already has blinding highlights. Would smaller points of specular highlights not be bothersome in a blackout environment? Maybe. I'll take my 3D 100 times over that race to the sun.


----------



## aaz

Wizziwig said:


> You guys keep missing the point of increased brightness. As do most other people it seems. It has nothing to do with blinding anyone. Average picture brightness will not change at all on a 10,000 nit HDR display compared to an SDR display today. The brightness headroom is needed for accurate reproduction of specular highlights and other isolated bright objects....


I don't think anyone is missing the point - just two different points being discussed. My point is that 10,000 nit displays are like 1200 hp cars, sure there is a market, but it's not something that defines the industry and most people just couldn't give a crap. 

Would I like a little more oomph from the OLED, sure! Do I think it's worth waiting for this little bit extra before committing to it, hell no! 

If nothing changes in the next three years other than price coming down you will still see OLED wildly successful beyond your strangest nightmare. I'm even thinking of picking up one for the bedroom, and while I live comfortably not many would describe me as rich.


----------



## joys_R_us

You can‘t differentiate very bright specular highlights in a dark film. And you won’t see dark details for some time (10-20 seconds ?) after that. The human eye is just not capable of this. It only works in a bright film with specular highlights.

How often is there a scene in a film requiring this ?


----------



## ataneruo

You are all missing the point. The reason OLED brightness has to increase across the board is so that we can have black frame insertion at high frame rates so that we can have much better motion clarity (approaching plasma) without perceptible dimming! 

Also, yes, specular highlights would be a very nice bonus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wizziwig

Sony and Panasonic already do BFI with existing brightness limitations and it doesn't do much to improve motion resolution because of the limited refresh rate of these OLEDs. Best they can do is cut image persistence in half and that is still awful compared to a decades old CRT or even plasma. LG clearly thinks motion is "good enough" because they've made zero changes in this regard since original 2013 model. Sony and Panasonic clearly understand the problem but are stuck with the 120Hz panels LG gives them. We would need something like 1000Hz panels (or equivalent scanning refresh) in order to take advantage of any potential brightness improvements for impulse driving of these panels.


----------



## ataneruo

Wizziwig said:


> Sony and Panasonic already do BFI with existing brightness limitations and it doesn't do much to improve motion resolution because of the limited refresh rate of these OLEDs. Best they can do is cut image persistence in half and that is still awful compared to a decades old CRT or even plasma. LG clearly thinks motion is "good enough" because they've made zero changes in this regard since original 2013 model. Sony and Panasonic clearly understand the problem but are stuck with the 120Hz panels LG gives them. We would need something like 1000Hz panels (or equivalent scanning refresh) in order to take advantage of any potential brightness improvements for impulse driving of these panels.




My impression was that 120 Hz was adequate to combat judder from a frame rate perspective due to adequate 3:2 pull down, but that from a motion perspective due to sample-and-hold OLED screen tech, judder is more apparent than with other tech like plasma. BFI serves to alleviate this, but has two current issues: it causes overall dimming since the average screen brightness decreases, and due to 120 Hz screens it must be applied at 60 Hz, causing some viewers to detect flicker. Therefore, I believed that in order to get OLED to a minimum acceptable motion status compared to other panel tech, 240 Hz must be adopted so that BFI can be run at 120 Hz to remove flicker, and brightness must be increased to compensate. Rates of 1200 Hz would be ideal because then plasma Hz can be approached with BFI active (600 Hz), but I’m not expecting that. I’m disheartened to hear that LG isn’t moving forward with increased refresh rates however.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aaz

I'll give you that higher light output would benefit two things greatly. BFI and 3D. Both of those I believe will make a comeback when the tech is there. Though what we have now is certainly better than much of what happened before in terms of overall PQ. Sure the Plasma was a little bit smoother than even the A1E (I am very sensitive to motion on TV) but the overall PQ is so much better that I am now willing to overlook that and it really is not that big of a deal as I've seen on other displays.

As for 3D it seems that any glasses required just makes it not very enticing for the majority of viewers, so I am convinced that Virtual Reality will have a much bigger takeoff than passive 3D on TV did, especially with consoles that are VR ready like the XBox one X. Which is why I am going for XBox one X now. 

In either case - I don't see either of these factors being a driving force for OLED display tech in the next couple of years until they have exhausted other things like larger and more flexible displays becoming available, and then 8K may happen before 3D and motion get their day.


----------



## rogo

3D is not making a comeback. 

Any chance it had is rendered moot by the very VR you're excited about.


----------



## JazzGuyy

And VR headsets are less uncomfortable and awkward than 3D glasses?


----------



## aaz

JazzGuyy said:


> And VR headsets are less uncomfortable and awkward than 3D glasses?


They are currently - give it 2 years. I do find that glasses prevent a casual watching of anything when I was hoping that it would be more natural since I already wear glasses, but nope. It became especially difficult to get into a 3D program with children around.
If I need to suit up to do something then I may as well suit up for a intense VR game where hopefully others can also participate.


----------



## video_analysis

I felt that way about the active glasses I had with a plasma contributing to the fact that I only used them a few times. With passive, the glasses rarely bother me since they are featherweight.


----------



## rogo

VR is much less comfortable than 3D glasses. It's also about 10x more immersive than any 3D Hollywood production I've ever seen, most of which use lots of gimmickry and offer minimal true 3D.

And VR allows for non-linear content in a much more interesting way, of course.

The reality is that VR will -- like 3D -- be a niche product, but it's one where another decade of Moore's Law and we can imagine having our own poor man's Holodeck. That's ridiculously compelling.

A Pixar movie in 3D is not ridiculously more compelling than the 2D equivalent. Sorry, it just isn't.

I don't wish to relitigate the abject failure of home 3D, point out that attach rates in theatrical releases where consumers have choice to reject 3D remain low and falling, or any of this. And I'll note that AR is going to be 10x or more bigger than VR.

But VR is going to get better and it's going to be pretty compelling for certain types of content. And I expect we'll see it grow in the home to a level that 3DTV viewing never did, even though I doubt VR will ever be as popular in homes as, say, game consoles.


----------



## video_analysis

Sidebar: Many Pixar 3D renders were not as compelling as native 3D content (or some of the better theatrical conversions).


----------



## fafrd

IHS claiming 55" WOLEd panels cost 2.5x the cost of 55" LCD panels in Q2 of this year: https://www.oled-info.com/ihs-price-gap-lcd-oled-depreciation-2017-yield

The claim is that the gap in 'material costs makes up 1.7x of that gap and the other 0.8x is a combination of depreciatuon costs and poorer yields.

Their data indicates a drop in this gap of 17% over 6 months, from 3x in Q4'16 to 2.5x in Q2'17. If that trend has continued n the second half of 2017 (as is likely), that should mean 55" WOLED panel cost is down to less than 2.1x lowest-end 55" LED/LCD panel cost today and and under 1.5x a year from now.

Vizio's E55 is a pretty good proxy fir the entry-level 55" 4K LED/LCD market and it can be had for $530 today, while the M55 steps up to $700 and the top-of-the-line P55 is $1000.

There is alot more to TV cost than panel cost, including the remainder of the BOM, assembly, packing & shipping, marketing, etc..., pretty much all of which is common/identical between WOLED and LED/LCD, but ignoring that for the moment and taking Vizio's E55 as a proxy for IHS's 55" LCD panel data, the E55 is $530 while LG's 55B7A is $1750 at Costco today, so 3.3x, while the gap to Vizio's mid-level M55 is 2.5x and to the prosumer-level P55 the gap drops to 1.75x.

The point of IHS's data is that 55" LED/LCD prices have pretty much leveled-out and will not be declining much going forward, while 55" WOLED prices will continue to decline by ~30-35% every year for the next several years, so by this time in 2019, LG's entry-level 55" WOLED will likely be priced at parity with Vizio's 2019 P55.

Because 55" panel manufacturing is pretty much optimized on 8.5G substrates (6-up), the number of fully-depreciated 8.5G LCD manufacturing plants make 55" the toughest panel size for LG to gain continued market share. The new 10.5G manufacturing lines are all going to be far more efficient at manufacturing 65" panels (6-up) than fully-depreciated 8.5G lines (3-up), so the depreciation 'gap' WOLED faces at 55" will disappear by ~2020 when all of these new 10.5G LCD plants and LGs new P10 10.5G WOLED plant will all be in production.

So as Rogo has already observed, LG is poised to dominate the premium TV market for the next decade. 50% of the top 10% of the TV market amounts to 5%, which is no small measure of overall market share on it's own, but much more significant when viewed as a % of overall profit in the TV market, since profit is highly concentrated in the premium segment.

The only potential pothole I see possibly tripping-up LG's path to home-plate is differential-aging-related burn-in. If limited to a small % of extreme users it'll be a non-issue, but if a majority of LG's 2018 WOLED-TV customers have developed objectionable burn-in on their WOLED TVs by 2020, and LG has not found a technical solution and made their customer base whole before then, that could still cause the WOLED TV market to go the way of the plasma-TV market before it.

But other than that, the resuts over the last year appear to have only reinforced the dominant position LG has gained against Samsung and the rest of the premium LCD TV market in 2016... (and Samsung's 2017 QLED 'threat' appears to have been nothing more than alot of hot air).


----------



## rogo

Yep, this is a mostly inarguable analysis.

It's important to remember that for plasma fear of burn-in was perhaps an even more difficult marketing challenge than the actual burn-in itself. LG would be foolish not to learn the lessons of this history. Whether there are sufficient technical fixes to make it a non-issue, I'm not sure I can say. 

That said, I'll be skeptical. For years I argued against the notion the "white stack" would solve any of the burn-in problems on its own. Clearly, it has not done so because it doesn't address the issue that differentially activated sub pixels have different wear characteristics. It will be interesting to learn how much of what's happening here is backplane related vs. material aging -- as has been speculated in this thread.

Lost in a lot of this discussion is that LG became the first company to bet on large IGZO/oxide backplanes when companies like Sharp failed to deliver on what seemed like a head start. Oxide hasn't been the cost panacea that was promised nor has it outperformed across the board as was promised. 

It's also still in its infancy relative to LCD itself, and both a-Si and LTPS. 

But then, so is WOLED. We're arguably in the 3rd real year of manufacture at this point and volumes remain infinitesimal compared to, say, Samsung's mobile division. The uniformity challenges are also, of course, far greater both in the backplane and in the OLED layer.

As fafrd discusses, the manufacturing edge for 55-inch panels comes in part from those fully depreciated fabs -- that makes them cheap on the income statement, but also means they are mature in processes and outcomes.

It's worth noting that in 65s, Vizio runs $849/$999/$1549 Those prices are in the following ratios to the 55s: 1.57x/1.42x/1.55x.

Compare that to LG OLED where it's 1.62x on the B7A (65 vs 55), 1.55x on the C7, 1.33x on the E7.

In Vizio's case there seems to be a more fixed increase of around 1/2. In LG's case it's anchored around 1/2 but we can see that the more price/"features" are added the smaller the bump to go up in size too in relative terms.

Anyway, what this means for future pricing is that as LG gets down around Vizio pricing, it's likely also going to have Vizio-like tiering. LG doesn't even pretend to differentiate on video quality -- thank heaven! -- and if you imagine a Vizio-like lineup come 2021 in 65s, it's not hard to see something like $899, $1299, $1699 at 65 inches. Even if we see $999, $1499, $1999 I think people would be hard pressed to argue that "saving" to buy an LCD would make a ton of sense.

You'd be able to outdo the $1500 Vizio with the entry LG, which puts pressure on the middle Vizio too (note, I'm assuming Vizio will find a way to trim prices fractionally between now and then but not much given the fab constraints and even with new 10.5G LCD fabs, there will be those pesky depreciation costs -- just ask Sharp how pesky, it buried the company!).

LG's $1499 mid-tier model would crush Vizio's top-end offering and LG would _also have_ that high-end model which might cost them perhaps $100-200 more than the low-end one -- think sound, thinness -- and yet retail for $1,000 more... perhaps $400 more in incremental margin when sold through channels. Even if that's low volume, like 10% of mix, that's free money with which to continue to invest in the next fab, whose main purpose might actually be to sell OLED panels to Vizio! (And perhaps Sony, BOE, TCL, Hisense, et al.)

There is, of course, that burn-in roadblock. And it's the size of a boulder. But if it's obliterated, sidestepped, or even shrunk to the manageable size of an annoying shoe pebble, LG will dominate expensive TVs and -- to a significant extent -- larger TVs. And it should take enough of the profit out of the market that other OEMs have to contemplate an exit from TV entirely.


----------



## ynotgoal

rogo said:


> That said, I'll be skeptical. For years I argued against the notion the "white stack" would solve any of the burn-in problems on its own. Clearly, it has not done so because it doesn't address the issue that differentially activated sub pixels have different wear characteristics. It will be interesting to learn how much of what's happening here is backplane related vs. material aging -- as has been speculated in this thread.
> 
> Lost in a lot of this discussion is that LG became the first company to bet on large IGZO/oxide backplanes when companies like Sharp failed to deliver on what seemed like a head start. Oxide hasn't been the cost panacea that was promised nor has it outperformed across the board as was promised.
> 
> It's also still in its infancy relative to LCD itself, and both a-Si and LTPS.
> 
> But then, so is WOLED. We're arguably in the 3rd real year of manufacture at this point and volumes remain infinitesimal compared to, say, Samsung's mobile division. The uniformity challenges are also, of course, far greater both in the backplane and in the OLED layer.


An interview with LG from a New York roadshow event. It seems that there are still backplane issues with residual charge in the circuits. They don't recommend it yet for use with static images. 

As you note, LG's initial OLED line has been running for 3 years. It will be interesting to see what happens to pricing after the 5 year depreciation period since this is a much larger cost for OLED than it is for LCD.

https://www.displaydaily.com/article/display-daily/lg-shows-off-its-commercial-displays-and-systems

Smith commented that burn-in is only one of the two major sources of OLED image sticking. Another is residual charge in pixel switching circuits. LG deals with both, he said. In general, OLED performance has improved significantly over the last 2 years, Smith said, including greater accuracy of the transfer function. OLED lifetime is 30,000 hours, compared with 50,000 for LCD, Smith added, and there is no problem with lifetime in either TV or dynamic-signage applications.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> An interview with LG from a New York roadshow event. It seems that there are still backplane issues with residual charge in the circuits. They don't recommend it yet for use with static images.
> 
> As you note, LG's initial OLED line has been running for 3 years. It will be interesting to see what happens to pricing after the 5 year depreciation period since this is a much larger cost for OLED than it is for LCD.
> 
> https://www.displaydaily.com/article/display-daily/lg-shows-off-its-commercial-displays-and-systems
> 
> Smith commented that burn-in is only one of the two major sources of OLED image sticking. Another is residual charge in pixel switching circuits. LG deals with both, he said. In general, OLED performance has improved significantly over the last 2 years, Smith said, including greater accuracy of the transfer function. OLED lifetime is 30,000 hours, compared with 50,000 for LCD, Smith added, and there is no problem with lifetime in either TV or dynamic-signage applications.


Backplane issues related to 'residual charge in pixel switching circuits' can be sensed electrically and compensated for internally. There may be some limit beyond which these electronic compensation techniques become saturated, and I suspect this may be the reason LG limits their commercial warranty to 18/7 rather than 24/7. I believe it is accurate to say that LG 'deals with' the challanges their WOLEDs have with threshold shift (residual charge in puxel switching circuits). This is a 'major source of OLED image sticking' which has largel been addressed by LGs current generation of WOLED TV offerings.

Differential-aging-related image retention is 'the other' 'source of OLED image sticking' but because it cannot be sensed internally, it is an entirely different technical challange and to imply that LG is 'dealing with' burn-in as they are with threshold-shift borders on dishonesty.

LG 'deals with' burn-in by offering pixel-shift and static-element dimming technologies, both of which may help to reduce the intensity/magnitude/rapidity of burn-in, but neither of which compensates for it in any way (compared to threshold-shift, which is compensated for).

If 'dynamic signage' means no static display elements, then Smith's claim of 30,000 hour lifetime is probably accurate. But to imply that LG is 'dealing with' differential-aging-related permanent burn-in as effectively as they 'deal with' threshold-shift-related temporary image retention is downright Samsungesque...


----------



## video_analysis

So what metric did the CFO use when he mentioned the 100k hour half-life several years ago or was he lying through his teeth? The 30k hour lifetime is what the very first model (55EA9800) was presumed to actually have. I guess all these stack variations and other corrections for premature aging aren't really that effective after all. I'm almost at 3k hours on my G6 77", which would mean 10% of its effective lifetime is spent, and this only took 8 months (part of it was me hoping the near black uniformity problems would self-repair as they did on the 65" I also own, but that sadly wasn't the case).


----------



## joys_R_us

@fafrd

Maybe they 

shift to better OLED materials or 

increase the thickness of the stack to improve the lifespan ?

Just thinking loudly...


----------



## bombyx

fafrd said:


> Differential-aging-related image retention is 'the other' 'source of OLED image sticking' *but because it cannot be sensed internally ...*


Are you sure about that? 
Here is a quote from an old thesis (page 72 , section 3.3.1 ) : 


> As mentioned in Section 2.3.2, when a constant current is applied to an OLED, its voltage increases as the luminance of the OLED decreases. As a result the shift in the OLED voltage can be used as feedback of the degradation in luminance.


 It's here :
https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/2999/thesis_new.pdf


----------



## ALMA

> Differential-aging-related image retention is 'the other' 'source of OLED image sticking' *but because it cannot be sensed internally*, it is an entirely different technical challange and to imply that LG is 'dealing with' burn-in as they are with threshold-shift borders on dishonesty.


That´s wrong.



> A *pixel circuit* that allows* the OLEDs* and TFTs to be measured.
> A *measurement circuit* built into the source driver that measures the TFTs *and OLEDs*.
> A *controller* that stores the measurement data for every TFT and OLED in a lookup table (in DRAM, backed up using FLASH). The controller then uses that data to boost the video data going to aged or non-uniform pixels.


http://www.ignisinnovation.com/maxlife/

LG´s main issue in the test from rtings.com is this and not aging of emitter material:



> A *backplane* layer made of TFT (thin-film transistor) circuits that provide current to the OLEDs, thereby controlling their brightness.
> *Some backplanes age non-uniformly and some are not uniform when they’re made. Either way the result is the same – the TFT circuits provide different current to the OLEDs, causing visual artifacts like image burn-in, spots, lines, and cloudy areas.*


http://www.ignisinnovation.com/intelligentpixel/

Partnership with LGD:

http://www.ignisinnovation.com/pres...g-a-patent-license-agreement-with-lg-display/

https://www.investinontario.com/spo...novation-inc-announces-partnership-lg-display


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> That´s wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ignisinnovation.com/maxlife/
> 
> LG´s main issue in the test from rtings.com is this and not aging of emitter material:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ignisinnovation.com/intelligentpixel/
> 
> Partnership with LGD:
> 
> http://www.ignisinnovation.com/pres...g-a-patent-license-agreement-with-lg-display/
> 
> https://www.investinontario.com/spo...novation-inc-announces-partnership-lg-display


All of the references you've cited pertain to backplane-related (TFT) issues. No one is disputing that LG's WOLED face several backplane-related issues, including treshold-shift, all of which can likely be sensed electrically and at least partially compensated for through adjustment of input signals.

And I don't want to speculate how much of what we are seeing at the rtings.com is caused by backplane-related issues versus differential-aging-related issues - the appearance of both families of issues appears identical in terms of 'image-sticking' non-uniformity (burn-in/image-retention).

To state that differential aging of WOLED layers can be sensed electronically is flat-out wrong. The data below indicates a loss of electro-optical efficiency over time/use. A loss of electro-optical efficiency means fewer photons out for the same electrical current in. That means that you can have two side-by-side pixels through which you are passing identical current (which you can measure electrically) which are putting out different luminance levels (which you cannot measure whithout an external photometer).

The only way to 'know' which pixels have further-reduced electro-optical efficiency versus their peers that do not (differential aging) is to track cumulative use and model aging on a subpixel-by-subpixel basis. There are several patents out there on exactly that approach, but it appears unlikely that LG is doing that on today's WOLEDs.

I don't have knowledge or any interest in debating whether the primary cause of the 'burn-in' many users have been reporting (and rtings.com may be confirming) is primarily caused by backplane-related issues or differential-aging of WOLED layers, but what I will say is that I'm pretty confident that:

1/ calibration for peak output levels of 120-130 cd/m2 corresponds to roughly 5cd/m2 of current through LG's 2017 WOLEDs (there is an article LG put out on their new WOLED stack that pretty much confirms this).

2/ the relationship between current density and light output is linear, meaning calibration for peak output levels of ~500 cd/m2 corresponds to ~4x the current density (or about 20cd/m2 based on statement 1).

3/ if you consider one pixel being on the light blue 5 cd/m2 curve for 1000 hours and another pixel being on the brown 20 cd/m2 curve for 1000 hours, the attached data makes it qute clear that the second 20 cd/m2 pixel will be putting out no more than 95% of the number of photons on the first 5cd/m2 pixel.

And again, that difference in output level cannot be measured electronically/internally - the current through those two pixels can be identical but the only way to sense the difference in electro-optical efficiency / light output is with your eyes (unfortunately) or using an external light meter.


----------



## no1special

I'm sure you all have heard by now of the burn-in problems with the Google Pixel 2 XL that uses an LG POLED display with a plastic substrate. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...gating-reports-of-pixel-2-xl-display-burn-in/

My question is, do the LG OLED TV displays use a glass or plastic substrate? I'm assuming glass, but can anyone confirm?


----------



## aaz

no1special said:


> My question is, do the LG OLED TV displays use a glass or plastic substrate? I'm assuming glass, but can anyone confirm?


I would assume plastic for all since the W7 is as flexible as it is.


----------



## joys_R_us

Thin glass is very flexible


----------



## nodixe

fafrd said:


> All of the references you've cited pertain to backplane-related (TFT) issues. No one is disputing that LG's WOLED face several backplane-related issues, including treshold-shift, all of which can likely be sensed electrically and at least partially compensated for through adjustment of input signals.
> 
> And I don't want to speculate how much of what we are seeing at the rtings.com is caused by backplane-related issues versus differential-aging-related issues - the appearance of both families of issues appears identical in terms of 'image-sticking' non-uniformity (burn-in/image-retention).
> 
> To state that differential aging of WOLED layers can be sensed electronically is flat-out wrong. The data below indicates a loss of electro-optical efficiency over time/use. A loss of electro-optical efficiency means fewer photons out for the same electrical current in. That means that you can have two side-by-side pixels through which you are passing identical current (which you can measure electrically) which are putting out different luminance levels (which you cannot measure whithout an external photometer).
> 
> The only way to 'know' which pixels have further-reduced electro-optical efficiency versus their peers that do not (differential aging) is to track cumulative use and model aging on a subpixel-by-subpixel basis. There are several patents out there on exactly that approach, but it appears unlikely that LG is doing that on today's WOLEDs.
> 
> I don't have knowledge or any interest in debating whether the primary cause of the 'burn-in' many users have been reporting (and rtings.com may be confirming) is primarily caused by backplane-related issues or differential-aging of WOLED layers, but what I will say is that I'm pretty confident that:
> 
> 1/ calibration for peak output levels of 120-130 cd/m2 corresponds to roughly 5cd/m2 of current through LG's 2017 WOLEDs (there is an article LG put out on their new WOLED stack that pretty much confirms this).
> 
> 2/ the relationship between current density and light output is linear, meaning calibration for peak output levels of ~500 cd/m2 corresponds to ~4x the current density (or about 20cd/m2 based on statement 1).
> 
> 3/ if you consider one pixel being on the light blue 5 cd/m2 curve for 1000 hours and another pixel being on the brown 20 cd/m2 curve for 1000 hours, the attached data makes it qute clear that the second 20 cd/m2 pixel will be putting out no more than 95% of the number of photons on the first 5cd/m2 pixel.
> 
> And again, that difference in output level cannot be measured electronically/internally - the current through those two pixels can be identical but the only way to sense the difference in electro-optical efficiency / light output is with your eyes (unfortunately) or using an external light meter.


Ok so this helped explain some things but now I have few more questions. Using full field WRGBCYM patterns and a monitor at the elictrical outlet, it was shown that yellow draws the most power, followed by red. Is it possible for the tv to identify the pixels using a lot of current? Also why exactly would one color require a significant amount of more power than the others in a color filter/oled stack combo? If the oled stack lost brightness wouldn't that be across all colors in the filter? Would the significant increase of power also significantly increase heat output enough to affect the filter? What's the mechanism that advances the aging?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

nodixe said:


> Ok so this helped explain some things but now I have few more questions. Using full field WRGBCYM patterns and a monitor at the elictrical outlet, it was shown that yellow draws the most power, followed by red. *Is it possible for the tv to identify the pixels using a lot of current? *


The TV 'knows' how much current each and every subpixel is being driven with at every moment in time. By recording that information (which would require an enormous amount of memory), the TV may be capable of estimating usage-related aging at the individual subpixel level, and thereby compensating for differential aging. There are patents on this concept, but I don't believe LG has utilized that technology in their WOLED TVs (at least not yet).



> *Also why exactly would one color require a significant amount of more power than the others in a color filter/oled stack combo? *


The answer is complex and depends on both the transfer efficiency of the color filters involved as well as the target lumens needed to meet Rec.709 (or Rec.2020) specifications. Since I believe the yellow power was higher than either the green-alone power or the red-alone power, it must be that to meet Rec.709 specifications, more yellow lumens are needed at a specific target output level than either red or green alone.



> *If the oled stack lost brightness wouldn't that be across all colors in the filter?*


It is unlikely that the color filters themselves are changing in any way. The more likely explanation is that when the WOLED stack over a particular subixel is driven, such as the red and green subpixels needed to create yellow, the WOLED stack over those more heavily-used subpixels lose electro-optical efficiency (meaning fewer white lumens out for the same drive current in).

The entitre WOLED stack underlying specific individual subpixels loses efficiency through much higher cumulative levels of use from non-random bright fully-saturated yellow/orange/red static content (differential aging - more heavily used subpixels lose electro-optical efficiency more quickly than their surrounding brethren or the same color that were less heavily driven with random content over the same cumulative period).



> Would the significant increase of power also significantly increase heat output enough to affect the filter?


* 

Again, unlikely the color filters are involved. Whether local heat generation underlies / exacerbates the loss of electr-optical efficiency of WOLED material stack or not is eyond my limited understanding. As the curves I posted a few posts back show, WOLED aging is current-dependant. Higher levels of current = faster loss of electro-optical efficiency...




What's the mechanism that advances the aging?

Click to expand...

Perhaps someone with deeper technical knowledge of WOLEDs can jump in. From my limited engineer's understanding and a few articles I have read, I believe that OLEDs (including WOLEDs) contain recombination sites where holes combine with electrons to generate photons. Those sites slowly degrade and get 'used up' through repeated use. There are many, many, electron-hole recombination sites, so the process in terms of overall loss of electro-optical efficiency of any individual subpixel is smooth and relatively slow...*


----------



## joys_R_us

The OLED white stack has too little red spectrum and the subpixels under the red filter have to be driven hard to produce enough red...


----------



## bombyx

joys_R_us said:


> The OLED white stack has too little red spectrum and the subpixels under the red filter have to be driven hard to produce enough red...


Not to mention that the red and green subpixels are only half the size of the white and blue subpixels . They have to be driven harder to obtain the required luminosity .


From here :
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/lg-65e7v-p37967/test.html


----------



## fafrd

joys_R_us said:


> The OLED white stack has too little red spectrum and the subpixels under the red filter have to be driven hard to produce enough red...


This explains why red power consumption is higher than green power consumption, but not why yellow power consumption is higher than red power consumption.

More importantly, this spectrograph makes clear why red is more prone to dofferential-aging-based burn-in than green or blue - the red filters are less effcient so the WOLED layers underlying the red subpixel needs to be driven harder.


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> Not to mention that the red and green subpixels are only half the size of the white and blue subpixels . They have to be driven harder to obtain the required luminosity .
> 
> 
> From here :
> https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/lg-65e7v-p37967/test.html


Yes, since WOLED aging depends on current-density (mA/cm^2), larger subpixels need to be driven less hard and will age more slowly.

The white subpixel will age the most slowly since it is 'double-szed' and has the most efficient filter (none, meaning 100%).

The blue subpixel will age the next most slowly since it is also 'double-sized' and has a color filter at least as efficient as the other color primaries. The story is a bit more complicated because the blue layers within the WOLED stack will age more quickly than the other colors, meaning the whitpoint will shift with use resulting in less blue over time.

The green subpixel will age faster because it is only 'single-sized' (meaning doubple the current density for the same white light output) though it's color filter is pretty efficient.

And the red subpixel will age the fastest because it is also 'single-sized' like green but the red color filter is less efficient than the green color filter, meaning the WOLED layers underlying a red subpixel will need to be driven harder than the WOLED layers underlying a green subpixel to generate the same light output.

When I see the pictures from these last two posts, I realize it's pretty obvious that red (and along with it yellow, which is red+green) is the subpixel color most prone to aging. Smallest subpixel + least efficient color filter = highest level of current (and with it, most rapid aging of white WOLED stack under red subpixels).


----------



## no1special

Could the substrate material (glass vs. plastic) have an effect on propensity for burn-in?


----------



## nodixe

fafrd said:


> The TV 'knows' how much current each and every subpixel is being driven with at every moment in time. By recording that information (which would require an enormous amount of memory), the TV may be capable of estimating usage-related aging at the individual subpixel level, and thereby compensating for differential aging. There are patents on this concept, but I don't believe LG has utilized that technology in their WOLED TVs (at least not yet).
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is complex and depends on both the transfer efficiency of the color filters involved as well as the target lumens needed to meet Rec.709 (or Rec.2020) specifications. Since I believe the yellow power was higher than either the green-alone power or the red-alone power, it must be that to meet Rec.709 specifications, more yellow lumens are needed at a specific target output level than either red or green alone.
> 
> 
> 
> It is unlikely that the color filters themselves are changing in any way. The more likely explanation is that when the WOLED stack over a particular subixel is driven, such as the red and green subpixels needed to create yellow, the WOLED stack over those more heavily-used subpixels lose electro-optical efficiency (meaning fewer white lumens out for the same drive current in).
> 
> The entitre WOLED stack underlying specific individual subpixels loses efficiency through much higher cumulative levels of use from non-random bright fully-saturated yellow/orange/red static content (differential aging - more heavily used subpixels lose electro-optical efficiency more quickly than their surrounding brethren or the same color that were less heavily driven with random content over the same cumulative period).
> 
> 
> 
> Again, unlikely the color filters are involved. Whether local heat generation underlies / exacerbates the loss of electr-optical efficiency of WOLED material stack or not is eyond my limited understanding. As the curves I posted a few posts back show, WOLED aging is current-dependant. Higher levels of current = faster loss of electro-optical efficiency...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps someone with deeper technical knowledge of WOLEDs can jump in. From my limited engineer's understanding and a few articles I have read, I believe that OLEDs (including WOLEDs) contain recombination sites where holes combine with electrons to generate photons. Those sites slowly degrade and get 'used up' through repeated use. There are many, many, electron-hole recombination sites, so the process in terms of overall loss of electro-optical efficiency of any individual subpixel is smooth and relatively slow...


Thank you for the reply. This and the ones below explain a lot. I was thinking more like a protect mode that could be turned on in settings that identified static high current pixels and dimned them (although the idea about storing them to be used in compensation for the aging is cool). Also it looks like lg has been playing with subpixel size and oled stack to get more even aging (along with controlled micro auto-comp cycles) which will be difficult to predict with all the factors at play. On a side note, below, in the picture of the subpixels, it shows spacing betwern the.vertical rows of subpixels. According to LG, this spacing was required for 3d to work properly and is supposed to be removed so each subpixel will have double(?) the surface area. Would this equate to more brightness? Wont the subpixels be kinda tall? Or would it require a redesign of the layout? I read this earlier this year so maybe see it in 2018.....idk?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

no1special said:


> Could the substrate material (glass vs. plastic) have an effect on propensity for burn-in?


Highly unlikely.


----------



## fafrd

nodixe said:


> Thank you for the reply. This and the ones below explain a lot. I was thinking more like a protect mode that could be turned on in settings that identified static high current pixels and dimned them (although the idea about storing them to be used in compensation for the aging is cool). Also it looks like lg has been playing with subpixel size and oled stack to get more even aging (along with controlled micro auto-comp cycles) which will be difficult to predict with all the factors at play. On a side note, below, in the picture of the subpixels, it shows spacing betwern the.vertical rows of subpixels. *According to LG, this spacing was required for 3d to work properly and is supposed to be removed so each subpixel will have double(?) the surface area. *Would this equate to more brightness? Wont the subpixels be kinda tall? Or would it require a redesign of the layout? I read this earlier this year so maybe see it in 2018.....idk?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


Polorizing filter needed for passive 3D has presumably been removed, and this shpukd result in some increase in brightness (for the same current density).

Unlikely that inter-row blanking (black spacing) has been reduced significantly from removal of 3D, but if so, that shoukd further reduce current density for the same lumens of output...


----------



## joys_R_us

I guess that the spacing between subpixels is also needed for the circuitry...


----------



## bombyx

> Price competition intensifies in the premium TV market- OLED TV price close to premium LCD TV


http://www.olednet.com/en/price-com...tv-market-oled-tv-price-close-premium-lcd-tv/


----------



## NintendoManiac64

bombyx said:


> http://www.olednet.com/en/price-com...tv-market-oled-tv-price-close-premium-lcd-tv/


Shoot, and they're not even using the B7 which is already in the $1500 range for 55".


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Shoot, and they're not even using the B7 which is already in the $1500 range for 55".


"As a result, the average price of 55 inch models of those three manufacturers dropped by 54.8% from March to October; especially Samsung Elec.’s *QN55Q7F* showed the highest drop from $ 2,798 in March to *$ 1,598 in October.* The 65 inch model showed a similar phenomenon. 65 inch dropped 60.0% on average from March to October while Samsung Elec.’s *QN65Q7F* showing the most dramatic decline from $ 3,998 in March to *$ 2,498 in October.*



Notably the price difference between [/b]55 inch LG OLED TV [/b]and Samsung SUHD TV, both of which were released in 2016, was about $ 1,000 as of Dec 2016, and for 65 inch models, 1,500$ while those released 2017 showed a *significantly narrowed price difference as of October 2017-55 inch 200$, 65 inch 300$.*"

Yes, if they had compared Samsung's based model Q7F against LG's base model WOLED, the B7A (as they should have), the price difference has narrowed to $0 at 55" ($1600 versus $1600) and $100 at 65" ($2500 versus $2600).


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> Yes, if they had compared Samsung's based model Q7F against LG's base model WOLED, the B7A (as they should have), the price difference has narrowed to $0 at 55"


And at some brick-and-mortar stores like Microcenter, the price difference is _negative_ $100 (that is, the OLED is cheaper).


----------



## fafrd

Interesting material presented by LG at '2017 Europe OLED Day' in Munich last month: http://www.cnetfrance.fr/news/lg-di...crans-oled-8k-arriveront-en-2019-39859182.htm




The first full paragraph starts:
"*La 8K arrive en 2019, les écrans enroulables en 2020*
On apprend ainsi que les premiers écrans Oled affichant une définition 8K et dotés d’une diagonale de plus de 80 pouces arriveront en 2019."

which tranlates as:

"* 8K arrives in 2019' rollable screens in 2020*
We also learn that the first OLED screens displaying a definition of 8K and gifted with a diagonal of more than 80 inches will arrive on 2019." (underline added).

The attached photo of a presentation slide also shows a 2019 8K screen with a size of '8X':

My guess is that we'll be seeing a consumer OLED of something in the 85-88" range by 2019.

Among other things, 55" 4K is the smallest WOLED pixel size LG has manufactured to date and an 88" 8K pixel represents an 20% linear shrink in both vertical and horizontal dimensions (8K 88" pixel is 64% the size of 4K 55" pixel).

An 80" 8K pixel would be only 53% the size of a 4K 55" pixel (27% linear shrink in both vertical and horizontal dimensions).


----------



## NintendoManiac64

An 80" 8k pixel would be the same size as a 40" 4k pixel, and it was previously suggested in this very thread that LG in the future could have the manufacturing capability to make panels in the 40" range.


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> An 80" 8k pixel would be the same size as a 40" 4k pixel, and it was previously suggested in this very thread that LG in the future could have the manufacturing capability to make panels in the 40" range.


40" range as in 49" and eventually 43" (P10).

The current-generation of 8.5G fabs can efficiently manufacture 49" panels in an 8-up 4x2 layout - anything smaller than that is equally expensive until you get into the 30s.

The 10.5G P10 fab will be capable of 18-up manufacturing of 43" panels in a 6x3 layout.

Also, while smaller WOLED panel sizes are inevitable, no one has said those smaller TV panels would be 4K - they are likely to be 1080p...

If LG is successful at introducing an 8K 86" WOLED, that would be the same pixel size as they would need for a 4K 43" TV. A 4K 49" TV would have a larger pixel than an 8K 89" TV, so with this recent product announcement, it is more likely that any 49" WOLED eventually introduced will be 4K.

But 43" let alone 40", almost certain to be 1080p...


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> Also, while smaller WOLED panel sizes are inevitable, no one has said those smaller TV panels would be 4K - they are likely to be 1080p...
> 
> But 43" let alone 40", almost certain to be 1080p...


Unless it's a broadcast/professional monitor, then 4k would be expected at that size.

Besides, the margins in the high-end ~40" monitor market is _way_ higher than the margins in the ~40" TV market. I mean, it's enough that Sony has been able to consistently sell OLED broadcast and professional monitors for over 5 years now even though they only started selling their first 20+" OLED TV this year (and the panel was made by LG no less).


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Unless it's a broadcast/professional monitor, then 4k would be expected at that size.
> 
> Besides, the margins in the high-end ~40" monitor market is _way_ higher than the margins in the ~40" TV market. I mean, it's enough that Sony has been able to consistently sell OLED broadcast and professional monitors for over 5 years now even though they only started selling their first 20+" OLED TV this year (and the panel was made by LG no less).


LG is looking for volume. I highly doubt they have the slightest interest in the broadcast/professional monitor market.

And as fir the high-end computer monitor market, two words: burn-in.

LG needs to sell close to 2 million WOLED TVs next year - how many professional broadcast monitors would you guestimate Sony sold this year?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> two words: burn-in.


You've said it yourself that the issue is uneven-aging "burn in", not static-elements "burn in" - it's the latter that's an issue for PCs while the former is no worse on PCs than TVs (especially when you consider that monitors are typically ran at considerably lower brightness levels and the connected PC is set to automatically turn off the display after a period of inactivity; that's without even factoring in the letterboxing that TVs commonly have to deal with).

The existence of uneven-aging "burn in" hasn't stopped companies like Lenovo from making OLED-based laptops; sure they use Samsung OLED panels, but we all know they're just as susceptible to uneven-aging "burn in".


----------



## ynotgoal

ynotgoal said:


> As you note, LG's initial OLED line has been running for 3 years. It will be interesting to see what happens to pricing after the 5 year depreciation period since this is a much larger cost for OLED than it is for LCD.


I think they are referring below just to the pilot facility starting in 2012 so fully depreciated volumes would be low but they are talking about a lower priced OLED....

LG Display's depreciation on its OLED line for TVs, which began operation in 2012, is ending this year. If the depreciation expense, which accounts for 30% of the cost of OLED TV production disappears, OLED TVs will be able to strike prices in the mid- to low-end markets. LG Display, which entered the OLED TV market for the first time in history, is expected to benefit from the preemption next year.




fafrd said:


> The current-generation of 8.5G fabs can efficiently manufacture 49" panels in an 8-up 4x2 layout - anything smaller than that is equally expensive until you get into the 30s.


In order to more effectively use their 8G lines to compete with China's coming 10.5G lines, they are planning on introducing MMG technology so they can use a single sheet to more efficiently produce two sizes such as 2 75" and 2 49" from one sheet. It sounds like 65" and 75" will be more mainstream model sizes starting next year with the introduction of 49". I've not heard any talk of a 32" OLED though. Also, to note the article doesn't specifically call out LG upgrading the OLED line for MMG but LG did say they were doing so on their most recent conference call.

http://www.etnews.com/20171115000333 
If 55 inches and 65 inches were dominated by the TV market this year, 65 inches and 75 inches are expected to be popular next year. 
...

MMG can increase the chamfering rate, but the yield is reduced in the process of rearranging the panel. The time it takes for the final product to come out also increases, and the monthly production volume decreases. 

In the industry, the yield is expected to decrease by 5 ~ 6% when MMG is applied. Depending on MMG technology, process stability, and experience, yields may drop by more than 10% and up to 20%. 

In the case of LG Display, MMG was introduced first in the world. It is considered to have stable MMG technology and experience. 

With MMG, you can make two 65-inch and six 32-inch or two 75-inch and two 49-inch mother glass in an eighth generation mother glass.


----------



## rogo

"You've said it yourself that the issue is uneven-aging "burn in", not static-elements "burn in" "

Sorry, but these are identical.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> "You've said it yourself that the issue is uneven-aging "burn in", not static-elements "burn in" "
> 
> Sorry, but these are identical.


You beat me to the punch .


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> In order to more effectively use their 8G lines to compete with China's coming 10.5G lines, they are planning on introducing MMG technology so they can use a single sheet to more efficiently produce two sizes such as *2 75" and 2 49" from one sheet*. It sounds like 65" and 75" will be more mainstream model sizes starting next year with the introduction of 49". I've not heard any talk of a 32" OLED though. Also, to note the article doesn't specifically call out LG upgrading the OLED line for MMG but LG did say they were doing so on their most recent conference call.
> 
> http://www.etnews.com/20171115000333
> If 55 inches and 65 inches were dominated by the TV market this year, 65 inches and 75 inches are expected to be popular next year.
> ...
> 
> MMG can increase the chamfering rate, but the yield is reduced in the process of rearranging the panel. The time it takes for the final product to come out also increases, and the monthly production volume decreases.
> 
> In the industry, *the yield is expected to decrease by 5 ~ 6% when MMG is applied. Depending on MMG technology, process stability, and experience, yields may drop by more than 10% and up to 20%. *
> 
> In the case of LG Display, MMG was introduced first in the world. It is considered to have stable MMG technology and experience.
> 
> With MMG, you can make two 65-inch and six 32-inch or two 75-inch and two 49-inch mother glass in an eighth generation mother glass.


Thanks for the link. Here's the link to the english version: http://english.etnews.com/20171116200002

The article sems to be primarily about LCD and doesn't specifically mention OLED anywhere, though the overall strategy of using MMG with current 8.5G lines to better compete with the coming tsunami of 10.5G production is very sensible.

The devil is always in the details of yield impact, however.

Since we know LG will be replacing 77" OLED with 75" OLED by ~2020, it would not surprise me at all to see them introduce a 75" panel by 2019 or even next year.

With MMG, they could also introduce a 49" product which can also be manufactured 8-up on an 8.5G substrate.

So they could hold off on putting WOLED MMG into production until it is at least break-even.

If the yield impact of MMG on 75" is 20%, about 1 additional 75" WOLED panel goes on the junk pile for every 4 that are successfully produced, but that same production will result in 4-5 49" WOLED panels as well.

In today's market, trading 1 75" panel for 4 or even 5 49" panels would be a losing proposition, especially given the additional complexity and increased cycle time. The same 8.5G substrate can produce either 2 75" WOLEDs or 8 49" WOLEDs, so simpler (and already-established) manufacturing can deliver more or less the equivalent cost to MMG with a worst-case 20% yield impact.

Now, if the yield impact of MMG is only 5%, then only 1 additional 75" panel is scrapped for every 19 that are successfully produced, and that same production will result in 19-20 49" WOLED panels. In this case, an additional 5% of 8.5G panels used to produce 75" and 49" WOLEDs would result in an additional 95-100% of 49" panels compared to only an additional 38-40% 49" panels if those additional substrates were used to produce only 49" WOLEDs in an 8-up layout. So the cost of the 49" panels would be less than half using MMG versus dedicated-sheet.

Since LG can efficiently produce 49" WOLEDs on dedicated-sheet 8.5G manufacturing, and since the first use of MMG for WOLED is almost certain to involve 75" and 49" panels, I believe LG's introduction of a 49" WOLED panel will be the first indicator that they are getting serious about introducing MMG into their 8.5G WOLED production (though they will probably only start using it for actual production once yield impact gets under ~10%).


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Thanks for the link. Here's the link to the english version: http://english.etnews.com/20171116200002
> 
> The article sems to be primarily about LCD and doesn't specifically mention OLED anywhere, though the overall strategy of using MMG with current 8.5G lines to better compete with the coming tsunami of 10.5G production is very sensible.
> 
> The devil is always in the details of yield impact, however.
> 
> Since we know LG will be replacing 77" OLED with 75" OLED by ~2020, it would not surprise me at all to see them introduce a 75" panel by 2019 or even next year.
> 
> With MMG, they could also introduce a 49" product which can also be manufactured 8-up on an 8.5G substrate.
> 
> So they could hold off on putting WOLED MMG into production until it is at least break-even.
> 
> If the yield impact of MMG on 75" is 20%, about 1 additional 75" WOLED panel goes on the junk pile for every 4 that are successfully produced, but that same production will result in 4-5 49" WOLED panels as well.
> 
> In today's market, trading 1 75" panel for 4 or even 5 49" panels would be a losing proposition, especially given the additional complexity and increased cycle time. The same 8.5G substrate can produce either 2 75" WOLEDs or 8 49" WOLEDs, so simpler (and already-established) manufacturing can deliver more or less the equivalent cost to MMG with a worst-case 20% yield impact.
> 
> Now, if the yield impact of MMG is only 5%, then only 1 additional 75" panel is scrapped for every 19 that are successfully produced, and that same production will result in 19-20 49" WOLED panels. In this case, an additional 5% of 8.5G panels used to produce 75" and 49" WOLEDs would result in an additional 95-100% of 49" panels compared to only an additional 38-40% 49" panels if those additional substrates were used to produce only 49" WOLEDs in an 8-up layout. So the cost of the 49" panels would be less than half using MMG versus dedicated-sheet.
> 
> Since LG can efficiently produce 49" WOLEDs on dedicated-sheet 8.5G manufacturing, and since the first use of MMG for WOLED is almost certain to involve 75" and 49" panels, I believe LG's introduction of a 49" WOLED panel will be the first indicator that they are getting serious about introducing MMG into their 8.5G WOLED production (though they will probably only start using it for actual production once yield impact gets under ~10%).


p.s. Since we now know that LG is planning to introduce an 8K WOLED in 2019 with a panel size of '8X"' (meaning somewhere between 80" to 89") and since the pixel size for an 89" 8K panel is smaller than the pixel size for a 49" 4K panel, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that if LG does announce a 49" WOLED panel in 2019, it will be 4K .


----------



## nodixe

fafrd said:


> Polorizing filter needed for passive 3D has presumably been removed, and this shpukd result in some increase in brightness (for the same current density).
> 
> Unlikely that inter-row blanking (black spacing) has been reduced significantly from removal of 3D, but if so, that shoukd further reduce current density for the same lumens of output...


They specifically said the subpixels will have a larger surface area because the spacing between vertical rows was only necessary for 3d and that this will result in an increase in brightness. I'm not sure if they were reffering to a filter or not? Seems more like a 3d mask than a 3d filter.....

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

nodixe said:


> *They specifically said the subpixels will have a larger surface area because the spacing between vertical rows was only necessary for 3d and that this will result in an increase in brightness. *I'm not sure if they were reffering to a filter or not? Seems more like a 3d mask than a 3d filter.....
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


If that were so, shouldn't it be apparent on the 2017 WOLEDs (none of which support 3D)?

Has anyone compared 2017 to 2016 (C or E or G) WOLEDs to see whether pixel layout has changed in any way?


----------



## nodixe

fafrd said:


> If that were so, shouldn't it be apparent on the 2017 WOLEDs (none of which support 3D)?
> 
> Has anyone compared 2017 to 2016 (C or E or G) WOLEDs to see whether pixel layout has changed in any way?


I only read this in march/april so I dont know.....I been looking for the article but I cant find it. Its been awhile and I could be mistaken but that is how I understood it.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## NintendoManiac64

rogo said:


> Sorry, but these are identical.





fafrd said:


> You beat me to the punch .


Display the same static image on a plasma TV for 24 hours straight for only a single day and you will get burn in. Do this on a WOLED TV and you will not (though if you don't properly turn off the WOLED TV and continue this for a couple more days, then it likely _will_ turn into burn in).

Display the same static image on a WOLED TV for 3 hours every single day for two years and you will get burn in. Do this on a plasma TV and you will not.


How can these be the same when the former describes image retention that has gotten so bad than it cannot be completely undone while the latter describes wearing out certain pixels faster than other pixels?


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Display the same static image on a plasma TV for 24 hours straight for only a single day and you will get burn in. Do this on a WOLED TV and you will not (though if you don't properly turn off the WOLED TV and continue this for a couple more days, then it likely _will_ turn into burn in).
> 
> Display the same static image on a WOLED TV for 3 hours every single day for two years and you will get burn in. Do this on a plasma TV and you will not.
> 
> 
> How can these be the same when the former describes image retention that has gotten so bad than it cannot be completely undone while the latter describes wearing out certain pixels faster than other pixels?


The fact that the display characteristics resulting in permanent burn-in on WOLED may be different than they were on plasma does not change the fact that burn-in is burn-in (and permanent is permanent).

Contiguous versus non-contiguous does not appear to play any role in the development of burn-in on WOLED. The fact that plasma may have been more susceptible to permanent burn-in from contiguos display of non-random display elements (possibly due to heat) does not change that.

Cumulative display of non-random (static) elements leads to uneven aging on WOLED which will eventually become apparent as permanent burn-in. I don't know how to say it any more plainly.

Display of non-random (static) elements (possibly contiguous, and possibly also heat-related) can also result in temporary image retention on WOLED which can largely be compensated away.

WOLED clearly has two independant mechanisms whereby non-random image display can impact fixed image artifacts, one permanent (differential-aging-related burn-in) and one temporary (threshold-shift-related image retention). To the viewer, the effect of these two mechanisms appears identical (fixed image artifacts).

There is no prmanent burn-in on WOLED caused by contiguous non-random image display - it is caused by cumulative non-random image display (contiguous or noncontiguous).

How/why non-random contiguous display caused burn-in on plasma is irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> How/why non-random contiguous display caused burn-in on plasma is irrelevant to the discussion.


The discussion was brought up because you said burn-in would be a show-stopper for OLED monitors, and I was using plasma TVs as a stand-in for CRT monitors as they both are susceptible to burn-in via the same way* and I figured that AVSers would be more familiar with the intricacies of plasma TVs than CRT monitors.


*though later-gen CRTs seem more robust than plasma ever was


----------



## dkfan9

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Unless it's a broadcast/professional monitor, then 4k would be expected at that size.
> 
> Besides, the margins in the high-end ~40" monitor market is _way_ higher than the margins in the ~40" TV market. I mean, it's enough that Sony has been able to consistently sell OLED broadcast and professional monitors for over 5 years now even though they only started selling their first 20+" OLED TV this year (and the panel was made by LG no less).


Unless LG can improve near black uniformity, I don't see them competing in that market.


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> Yes, since WOLED aging depends on current-density (mA/cm^2), larger subpixels need to be driven less hard and will age more slowly.
> 
> The white subpixel will age the most slowly since it is 'double-szed' and has the most efficient filter (none, meaning 100%).
> 
> The blue subpixel will age the next most slowly since it is also 'double-sized' and has a color filter at least as efficient as the other color primaries. The story is a bit more complicated because the blue layers within the WOLED stack will age more quickly than the other colors, meaning the whitpoint will shift with use resulting in less blue over time.
> 
> The green subpixel will age faster because it is only 'single-sized' (meaning doubple the current density for the same white light output) though it's color filter is pretty efficient.
> 
> And the red subpixel will age the fastest because it is also 'single-sized' like green but the red color filter is less efficient than the green color filter, meaning the WOLED layers underlying a red subpixel will need to be driven harder than the WOLED layers underlying a green subpixel to generate the same light output.
> 
> When I see the pictures from these last two posts, I realize it's pretty obvious that red (and along with it yellow, which is red+green) is the subpixel color most prone to aging. Smallest subpixel + least efficient color filter = highest level of current (and with it, most rapid aging of white WOLED stack under red subpixels).


Your post makes a lot of sense. I was able to find one reviews who retested an OLED TV after 5k hours of use, and the results in white balance are not what you predicted. I don't know what the subpixel structure of that TV is.

http://hdtelevizija.com/en/2017/09/...-after-5000-hours-of-use-still-great-picture/


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> If that were so, shouldn't it be apparent on the 2017 WOLEDs (none of which support 3D)?
> 
> Has anyone compared 2017 to 2016 (C or E or G) WOLEDs to see whether pixel layout has changed in any way?


FYI, LG used the exact same panel for 2017 as they used for 2016. No difference in pixel structure or spectrum. They did remove FPR and change the AR filter. Whatever benefits the removal of 3D can bring to the table, will have to wait for a new panel design. And some of the large inter-row spacing absolutely had to do with supporting high quality passive 3D. When passive 3D was first introduced on LCD's it wasn't even offered at 55" 4K sizes because they had difficulty reducing inter-row crosstalk/ghosting because of the smaller row gaps at those sizes. Larger row gaps also help with the limited vertical viewing angles of passive 3D.


----------



## no1special

Wizziwig said:


> FYI, LG used the exact same panel for 2017 as they used for 2016. No difference in pixel structure or spectrum. They did remove FPR and change the AR filter. Whatever benefits the removal of 3D can bring to the table, will have to wait for a new panel design. And some of the large inter-row spacing absolutely had to do with supporting high quality passive 3D. When passive 3D was first introduced on LCD's it wasn't even offered at 55" 4K sizes because they had difficulty reducing inter-row crosstalk/ghosting because of the smaller row gaps at those sizes. Larger row gaps also help with the limited vertical viewing angles of passive 3D.


Same panels in 2017 LG OLEDs as in the 2016 models? Are we sure? Same backplane? Same emitter materials? Same color filters and layout? No improvements made? Not setting you up, just honestly curious if they really are the same exact panels.


----------



## Wizziwig

^
"Although the 2016 and 2017 LG OLED TVs use the same underlying panel (verified by identical subpixel structure and spectral peaks), the South Korean TV maker has modified its ABL (Automatic Brightness Limiter) algorithm to be significantly less aggressive, so the 2017 OLEDs are able to output more light at higher APL (Average Picture Level)." - Hdtvtest.


----------



## Jmelick07

Are there rumors of smaller OLED sizes for next year? In my current setup 55" is going to seem really large for the room and ideally I'm looking for a smaller OLED at some point.


----------



## dkfan9

bombyx said:


> Not to mention that the red and green subpixels are only half the size of the white and blue subpixels . They have to be driven harder to obtain the required luminosity .
> 
> 
> From here :
> https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/lg-65e7v-p37967/test.html


This seems like as good a reason as any for the higher rate of BI on blue and green, and at the same time, why we didn't see many BI reports on the EF/EG generation (all the color subpixels were the same size, most likely meaning the red and green subpixels were physically larger on these models than on B6/B7 etc models)


----------



## nodixe

dkfan9 said:


> This seems like as good a reason as any for the higher rate of BI on blue and green, and at the same time, why we didn't see many BI reports on the EF/EG generation (all the color subpixels were the same size, most likely meaning the red and green subpixels were physically larger on these models than on B6/B7 etc models)


I think they made the blue subpixel double size so it would have 2x brightness at same current. It looks like a subpixel redesign is in need.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## dkfan9

nodixe said:


> I think they made the blue subpixel double size so it would have 2x brightness at same current. It looks like a subpixel redesign is in need.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


I think that makes sense. Possibly related to the higher brightness push in the search for HDR. 

Does anyone know if the total pixel size is the same with the 2016/17 models as it was on the previous model years?


----------



## nodixe

dkfan9 said:


> I think that makes sense. Possibly related to the higher brightness push in the search for HDR.
> 
> Does anyone know if the total pixel size is the same with the 2016/17 models as it was on the previous model years?


I believe it was exactly the same as they had same spectral peaks. Fafrd had a theory that it might have something to do with rec709 yellow target being taxing on the subpixels and that's why no bi reports for hdr. But I cant see one yellow being less demanding than another.....idk.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## ALMA

More CSO and Wallpaper OLED TVs and first consumer rollable OLED TV at CES 2018?



> According to the industry on February 23, *LG Display will unveil its Rolleble OLED Display for 55 and 65-inch OLED TVs at the International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas next January.*
> Rollable OLED prototypes were also unveiled at CES in 2014 and last year. *However, it is the first CES next year that this panel will be released for finished TVs.*





> Rollable OLED is a product that can be used to roll the display in one word. It is an advanced form of existing flexible OLED.
> This panel is made of a flexible plastic substrate instead of a rigid glass substrate, and can be used by the user when needed.
> 
> If the product is fully commercialized, the industry expects competition in the new direction will come in the TV market where image quality competition reaches its limit.





> LG Display's next-generation display, 'Crystal Sound OLED (CSO)' and 'Wallpaper (W) OLED' were also released through CES last year.
> (...)
> *Wallpaper OLED* was selected as "Display of the Year" in Los Angeles in May this year.
> 
> The 65-inch model, which is a large product, is thin enough not to exceed 1 millimeter (mm) in thickness. Though produced as a finished product, it is only 3.5mm thick and weighs 7.4 kilograms (kg). It can be put in close contact with the wall like a picture frame, which enhances the feeling of immersion when watching TV.
> 
> *LG Display expects these products to account for 30% of total OLED shipments next year.* At present, customer response is very positive.
> 
> 
> According to the industry, the company's OLED panel shipments are expected to be between 250 million and 2.8 million next year. * The expected shipments of wallpapers and CSOs are close to 800,000 units*.


https://translate.google.com/transl...p?article_id=20171123174401&lo=zm2&edit-text=


----------



## wco81

Rollable is a gimmick.

So some people will have installs with motorized rollers to retract and roll out screens? Big whoop.

What do they mean "image quality competition reaches its limit?"

Is LG complacent about OLED already having the best IQ it's going to have? If that's their attitude, I hope other companies eat their lunch.


----------



## videobruce

It no more a "gimmick" than;

calling LCD sets "LED" just because of the backlight,
using a completely different term "4k" instead of the more factual '2160p' that follows convention (480, 720, 1080) when it come to resolution,
curved screen TV's..

All marketing ploys to sell something with the typical consumer suckered in.


----------



## Jason626

Isn't it kinda funny how they made a picture frame tv when the last few years have been frame thinness wars, infinity edge displays etc.


----------



## dave1812dave

wco81 said:


> Rollable is a gimmick.
> 
> So some people will have installs with motorized rollers to retract and roll out screens? Big whoop.
> 
> What do they mean "image quality competition reaches its limit?"
> 
> Is LG complacent about OLED already having the best IQ it's going to have? If that's their attitude, I hope other companies eat their lunch.



Gimmick??? I beg to vociferously differ! Imagine for a moment, you live in a high rise. Say, oh, the 25th floor. Say your apartment is large enough to adequately do justice to an 88" display...Say also, that you don't like projection TV all that much, you want to leave the lights on, or not close the drapes. Let's say you prefer the gorgeous display that OLED is famous for...Imagine, if you will, an EASILY TRANSPORTABLE 77", 88" display that is both compact enough to wend it's way around tight corners, fit into an elevator with ease, AND, isn't back breaking heavy. I give you...The roll up display!

Don't think of it as rolling up like a slide projector screen, but a screen that rolls up for easy transport and setup. Now THAT is something I could go for. How about the rest of you?


----------



## dnoonie

dave1812dave said:


> Gimmick??? I beg to vociferously differ! Imagine for a moment, you live in a high rise. Say, oh, the 25th floor. Say your apartment is large enough to adequately do justice to an 88" display...Say also, that you don't like projection TV all that much, you want to leave the lights on, or not close the drapes. Let's say you prefer the gorgeous display that OLED is famous for...Imagine, if you will, an EASILY TRANSPORTABLE 77", 88" display that is both compact enough to wend it's way around tight corners, fit into an elevator with ease, AND, isn't back breaking heavy. I give you...The roll up display!
> 
> Don't think of it as rolling up like a slide projector screen, but a screen that rolls up for easy transport and setup. Now THAT is something I could go for. How about the rest of you?


Although I wouldn't want rollable OLED for myself right now nor would I want to live in a city condo I can see the advantage to a rollable OLED screen in one of those expensive but cramped city condo's. Think about it, you have a "bedroom" with a hid away bed so the space turns into a dining room or whatever, a kitchen and a living space. That living space might do triple duty so a disappearing screen might be just the thing. On the other hand why not just get a wallpaper screen? Size, portability, I don't know but I live in a house and a lot of folks live in small apartments and condos (they've got money to pay 4x or 8x what my house payment is!) so a rollable OLED screen might be just he thing for them. I can't see how retractable would be an advantage but something that would roll up and store in a closet or store room could fit a niche. Now that I've discussed this with myself *I think the advantage is portability.
*
Cheers,


----------



## wco81

People who live in a small apt. Or condos are not the market for these very large displays, rollable or not.

They're not watching a lot of content which goes with real big displays. People want big screens for immersion and the other part of that are multichannel surround sound systems. People are not putting in extensive sound systems in high-rise apts. in great numbers.

That's if they're watching a lot of TV at all. Many of them live in those small, in-city apts. because they want to be close to restaurants and bars or work.

I'm sure they will demo very expensive custom installations where the display is hidden in the ceiling or the floor and with a push of a button, it unrolls, making people ooh and ahh.

Style over substance.


----------



## dave1812dave

wco81 said:


> People who live in a small apt. Or condos are not the market for these very large displays, rollable or not.
> 
> They're not watching a lot of content which goes with real big displays. People want big screens for immersion and the other part of that are multichannel surround sound systems. People are not putting in extensive sound systems in high-rise apts. in great numbers.
> 
> That's if they're watching a lot of TV at all. Many of them live in those small, in-city apts. because they want to be close to restaurants and bars or work.
> 
> I'm sure they will demo very expensive custom installations where the display is hidden in the ceiling or the floor and with a push of a button, it unrolls, making people ooh and ahh.
> 
> Style over substance.


I live in a single story detached home. Having recently wrestled a 65" from Costco, unpacked it, AND, the most difficult part, set it on top of a custom built stand (built by me, to the exact size/shape as the B series stand) by myself with the help of my smallish wife, was no mean feat. We had to go from picking up the unit that was first placed on the floor in front of the TV stand, to hoisting it far above the practical height that my wife could manage, to dealing with the "don't touch the screen", to the unbalanced weight distribution issues, to place exactly the TV/with stand PRECISELY on top of the custom-built stand (riser) in order for the TV to be at the correct height for our needs (thanks to the TV stand being too low by about 7-9 inches). I didn't want to place the TV on the wall, as that has a lot of drawbacks, not trivially, the fact that doing so would reduce the apparent size of the TV, compared to sitting on the TV stand which situates the screen about 3' from the wall. Bad enough that even with a TV on the TV stand, distance from my eyes to the TV is 12'. Not really "immersive" by any imagination. Turn that 12' into 15' and you can see my issue with distance. Even a 77" (which I'll never be able to afford) would lose it's impact if I hung it on the wall.

So, yeah, I'd like to see something easier to set up. I'm wondering out loud if a rollable screen would need to be wall mounted only or if it would include hardware to keep it flat, when attached to a stand, for table-top mounting.


----------



## wco81

dave1812dave said:


> I live in a single story detached home. Having recently wrestled a 65" from Costco, unpacked it, AND, the most difficult part, set it on top of a custom built stand (built by me, to the exact size/shape as the B series stand) by myself with the help of my smallish wife, was no mean feat. We had to go from picking up the unit that was first placed on the floor in front of the TV stand, to hoisting it far above the practical height that my wife could manage, to dealing with the "don't touch the screen", to the unbalanced weight distribution issues, to place exactly the TV/with stand PRECISELY on top of the custom-built stand (riser) in order for the TV to be at the correct height for our needs (thanks to the TV stand being too low by about 7-9 inches). I didn't want to place the TV on the wall, as that has a lot of drawbacks, not trivially, the fact that doing so would reduce the apparent size of the TV, compared to sitting on the TV stand which situates the screen about 3' from the wall. Bad enough that even with a TV on the TV stand, distance from my eyes to the TV is 12'. Not really "immersive" by any imagination. Turn that 12' into 15' and you can see my issue with distance. Even a 77" (which I'll never be able to afford) would lose it's impact if I hung it on the wall.
> 
> So, yeah, I'd like to see something easier to set up. I'm wondering out loud if a rollable screen would need to be wall mounted only or if it would include hardware to keep it flat, when attached to a stand, for table-top mounting.


Well if rollable screens make it easier to install, regardless of the size of the home, that could potentially open up the market.

However, let's be realistic here. If you think 77-inch displays are unaffordable now, don't you think rollable displays, at least for the first couple of years, will carry a premium above the high price premiums OLED TVs, especially at release, carry?

How much more would you have to pay for a 65-inch rollable display vs. a standard 65-inch premium TV?

LG seems to be interested in exacting higher margins or price premium because of form factor, not because of substantial improvements in the display technology.

You would expect that a rollable, flexible display would have to be kept taut, so that in the unrolled state, it's as flat as regular displays? I would think the mechanism to do that wouldn't be cheap, on top of the higher cost of the flexible screen material itself.


----------



## aaz

wco81 said:


> However, let's be realistic here. If you think 77-inch displays are unaffordable now, don't you think rollable displays, at least for the first couple of years, will carry a premium ...
> 
> I would think the mechanism to do that wouldn't be cheap, on top of the higher cost of the flexible screen material itself.


Every technology has started very expensive and then over a number of years it became less so. Do you remember what Plasma's cost when they first came out? I remember oohing and aahing a $60,000 40 inch "flat screen" plasma, and then about 6 years later I had one hanging on my wall. A few years later I had a 65" plasma. I wouldn't fault LG here for trying to give people what they want, and yes, I do want an 85" rollable display. Let's just see it play out.

Regarding the option to mount it on a stand, that can be an option, but it's just that. You don't have to buy it.


----------



## dave1812dave

wco81 said:


> Well if rollable screens make it easier to install, regardless of the size of the home, that could potentially open up the market.
> 
> However, let's be realistic here. If you think 77-inch displays are unaffordable now, don't you think rollable displays, at least for the first couple of years, will carry a premium above the high price premiums OLED TVs, especially at release, carry?
> 
> How much more would you have to pay for a 65-inch rollable display vs. a standard 65-inch premium TV?
> 
> LG seems to be interested in exacting higher margins or price premium because of form factor, not because of substantial improvements in the display technology.
> 
> You would expect that a rollable, flexible display would have to be kept taut, so that in the unrolled state, it's as flat as regular displays? I would think the mechanism to do that wouldn't be cheap, on top of the higher cost of the flexible screen material itself.


Yes, I expect early rollups to be very expensive, but they just might drop down to be affordable once they become ubiquitous. One can hope, can't they?


----------



## dnoonie

wco81 said:


> Well if rollable screens make it easier to install, regardless of the size of the home, that could potentially open up the market.


Yes, not just small upstairs spaces would benefit. A standard layout for a lot of the the big homes I've been in puts the living room and family room on ground level...

But the bonus room goes upstairs over the garage, rollable would make installation easier, on the other hand folks with that kind of money might have the install done for them, but then again I have friends in big homes that would still consider the cost and convenience benefits of self install of a rollable screen and I know some folks living in large homes like these that are geeky enough they'd want to do the install themselves.

Cheers,


----------



## ALMA

> How much more would you have to pay for a 65-inch rollable display vs. a standard 65-inch premium TV?


It´s the other way, rollable will be the standard. Every currently sold OLED-TV is a wallpaper. There is manufacturing wise no difference between W7 or B7. Same panel, same backplane technology, same WOLED and TFT manufacturing method. Putting electronics and connections outside the panel resulting automatically in a wallpaper design. It´s not harder to made, than an conventional TV design. In Germany we got the 65W7 for 2999-3999€. Cheaper than G7 or E7. So the price difference is not really a question of manufacturing costs. Currently you only pay more for style, not that it´s more expensive to produce. I guess it will be cheaper than a TV with extra big cabinet and housing around the panel. It will be the same with rollable OLEDs. If the flexible manufacturing process on a plastic plate is widely adopted, all OLEDs could be rollable if they wanted a rollable design.

The OLED module is a finished display. That´s also the reason why for Sony, Panasonic, Philips, Loewe etc. it´s so easy to adopted OLED technology in their TV portfolio. They only have to put their own electronics on this module. A little bit cosmetic or not (look a the same Wallpaper concept of different manufacturs at the IFA 2017). That´s it. Much easier than a FALD-LCD with a separate panel and an backlight, which both quality wise can differs in many ways.


----------



## ALMA

News from Kateeva:

https://globenewswire.com/news-rele...uct-Family-for-OLED-RGB-Pixel-Deposition.html


----------



## JasonHa

ALMA said:


> News from Kateeva:
> 
> https://globenewswire.com/news-rele...uct-Family-for-OLED-RGB-Pixel-Deposition.html


Another announcement about the physical inkjet process but nothing whatsoever about the main problem with soluble blue OLED materials.


----------



## rogo

Yeah, I don't see why this changes the game. 

If a soluble blue with viable lifespan emerges, Kateeva seems poised to build the best machines to "print" it.

But there is scant evidence a breakthrough is coming in that realm.


----------



## Jascias

Artwood said:


> 03-04-2007, 02:46 PM So how many years will it be before we have 65-inch OLED?


Lol, well about 10 years, for 65 OLED that are affordable since your post.


----------



## robert9674

JasonHa said:


> Another announcement about the physical inkjet process but nothing whatsoever about the main problem with soluble blue OLED materials.


Actually Soluble blue Oled issue are on the cusp of being resolved. However this process will be a godsend in about a year..watch and see


----------



## video_analysis

Been on said cusp for years, though.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Yeah, I don't see why this changes the game.
> 
> If a soluble blue with viable lifespan emerges, Kateeva seems poised to build the best machines to "print" it.
> 
> *But there is scant evidence a breakthrough is coming in that realm.*


Yes, while back in the real world:

It's worth noting that Fry's was selling the entry-level 65B7A for $1800 in the heat of Black Friday week, while a year ago, the 65B/C6P breifly dipped down to $2800 (from a launch MSRP of $5000). The 65B7A had a mid-year launch MSRP of $3300, compated to the early year launch of the then-entry-level 65B/C7P of $4000 (20% year-on-year drop).

Seems to me as though LG has been pretty much on track with pricing and I'm forecasting a repeat next year:

2018 early-year entry-level 65" WOLED launch MSRP of ~$3200, settling into widely-available pricing of $1800 by Q4'18 with a limited Black Friday 2018 dip down to $1500...

Can't wait to hear what IHS will have to tell us about 55" and 65" Premium TV share once the dust has cleared on Q4...


----------



## no1special

fafrd said:


> Yes, while back in the real world:
> 
> It's worth noting that Fry's was selling the entry-level 65B7A for $1800 in the heat of Black Friday week, while a year ago, the 65B/C6P breifly dipped down to $2800 (from a launch MSRP of $5000). The 65B7A had a mid-year launch MSRP of $3300, compated to the early year launch of the then-entry-level 65B/C7P of $4000 (20% year-on-year drop).
> 
> Seems to me as though LG has been pretty much on track with pricing and I'm forecasting a repeat next year:
> 
> 2018 early-year entry-level 65" WOLED launch MSRP of ~$3200, settling into widely-available pricing of $1800 by Q4'18 with a limited Black Friday 2018 dip down to $1500...
> 
> Can't wait to hear what IHS will have to tell us about 55" and 65" Premium TV share once the dust has cleared on Q4...


I wonder how much the noise about BI with normal use over the last 6 or so months has been a factor in the recent price drops.


----------



## rogo

no1special said:


> I wonder how much the noise about BI with normal use over the last 6 or so months has been a factor in the recent price drops.


Zero. it's entirely learning curve / scale economies effects.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> It's worth noting that Fry's was selling the entry-level 65B7A for $1800 in the heat of Black Friday week, while a year ago, the 65B/C6P breifly dipped down to $2800 (from a launch MSRP of $5000). The 65B7A had a mid-year launch MSRP of $3300, compated to the early year launch of the then-entry-level 65B/C7P of $4000 (20% year-on-year drop).
> 
> Seems to me as though LG has been pretty much on track with pricing and I'm forecasting a repeat next year:
> 
> 2018 early-year entry-level 65" WOLED launch MSRP of ~$3200, settling into widely-available pricing of $1800 by Q4'18 with a limited Black Friday 2018 dip down to $1500...
> 
> Can't wait to hear what IHS will have to tell us about 55" and 65" Premium TV share once the dust has cleared on Q4...


It does seem like a 20% effect is in place, which is less than the "traditional" 30%, but then again this is (1) a sole-source product and (2) already competitively priced given the upper bound on LG's volume.

I would note that at $3200, LG would have pricing competitive to the "golden era" of 2010-14 roughly where a top-end 65-inch TV was available for around that pricing.

Plasma died too early, and OLED came too late to keep that golden era from lasting. But LG's commitment to OLED and the technology's fundamental cost advantages over plasma (due in no small part to using a ton of LCD production technologies like color filters) have put us on the bring of a new, "platinum era" of pricing even below those early decade levels.

This is a "technology advancement" of the highest order and is therefore especially worthy of this thread.

What OLED now needs, aside from LG's new 10.5G fab to be fully operational (2020?!?) is competition. If LG does launch near $3,200 and does end up at $1,800 we'll have another year of absurdly indefensible pricing. No real good is priced this way: Buy early, you're an idiot. Buy late, or else sit and wait -- for the next set of price drops.

LG gets away with this in part because it's something of an enthusiast product, in part because this pricing is really stupid but not entirely stupid in CE circles (though in absolute dollars, these are extremely stupid price changes that are not brought on by some need to clear the last 2% of inventory before a model change... like the stuff you get with A/V receivers sometimes).

I don't see any evidence there is competition coming this decade that matters. Certainly, whatever is happening at BOE is (a) focused on mobile (b) not ready to ramp up to interesting TV-sized OLED numbers until at least 2020. Not much evidence others aren't doing the same thing. The smartphone industry needs another billion screens worth of annual OLED capability. That's a $100+ billion prize. The next 50 million TVs have an ASP below $1,000, so you can see how the math works here Never mind that it's harder to make TVs, there are patent issues, etc. 

So in the real world, we all want there to be a breakthrough in printed OLEDs that allows a Japan Display or Foxconn/Hon Hai to buy some Kateeva machines and some soluble OLED materials and start cranking out beautiful new screens. But for now that's a dream.

In the meantime, the bar gets higher for any entrant: If LG continues to deliver _just on this 20%_ curve, it's heading for:

2019:


----------



## dave1812dave

rogo said:


> So maybe we should all root for that Micro LED to be real. It might be needed to keep the TV world competitive.


Samsung tried fooling us with QLED. Remember their lies about how the viewing angle for the Q9F series was so much better than previous series? Big, fat LIE. And there are other issues with QLED, not least which is no FALD. Very expensive sets with EDGE lighting! In 2017, no less. I expect more marketing geniuses to obfuscate the real downsides to Micro LED, just like they have with other so-called advances in display tech. I'll believe it when I see it for myself. Right now, I like most of what I get from OLED. (Just wish my 65" didn't have to go back because of pee stain and magenta cast to a white screen. However, my 55" OLED doesn't have either problem)

I'm convinced the path forward is self-emissive displays such as OLED, and potentially, Micro LED, but I need more convincing. My eyes are what does the final convincing.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> It does seem like a 20% effect is in place, which is less than the "traditional" 30%, but then again this is (1) a sole-source product and (2) already competitively priced given the upper bound on LG's volume.
> 
> I would note that at $3200, LG would have pricing competitive to the "golden era" of 2010-14 roughly where a top-end 65-inch TV was available for around that pricing.
> 
> Plasma died too early, and OLED came too late to keep that golden era from lasting. But LG's commitment to OLED and the technology's fundamental cost advantages over plasma (due in no small part to using a ton of LCD production technologies like color filters) have put us on the bring of a new, "platinum era" of pricing even below those early decade levels.
> 
> This is a "technology advancement" of the highest order and is therefore especially worthy of this thread.
> 
> What OLED now needs, aside from LG's new 10.5G fab to be fully operational (2020?!?) is competition. If LG does launch near $3,200 and does end up at $1,800 we'll have another year of absurdly indefensible pricing. No real good is priced this way: Buy early, you're an idiot. Buy late, or else sit and wait -- for the next set of price drops.
> 
> LG gets away with this in part because it's something of an enthusiast product, in part because this pricing is really stupid but not entirely stupid in CE circles (though in absolute dollars, these are extremely stupid price changes that are not brought on by some need to clear the last 2% of inventory before a model change... like the stuff you get with A/V receivers sometimes).
> 
> I don't see any evidence there is competition coming this decade that matters. Certainly, whatever is happening at BOE is (a) focused on mobile (b) not ready to ramp up to interesting TV-sized OLED numbers until at least 2020. Not much evidence others aren't doing the same thing. The smartphone industry needs another billion screens worth of annual OLED capability. That's a $100+ billion prize. The next 50 million TVs have an ASP below $1,000, so you can see how the math works here Never mind that it's harder to make TVs, there are patent issues, etc.
> 
> So in the real world, we all want there to be a breakthrough in printed OLEDs that allows a Japan Display or Foxconn/Hon Hai to buy some Kateeva machines and some soluble OLED materials and start cranking out beautiful new screens. But for now that's a dream.
> 
> In the meantime, the bar gets higher for any entrant: If LG continues to deliver _just on this 20%_ curve, it's heading for:
> 
> 2019:


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Good post, and pretty much spot-on.


Thanks!


> One difference to point out between the 2010-2014 plasma-based 'Golden Era' and the new WOLED Golden Era LG has put us on the cusp of today is:
> 
> 4K versus 1080p
> 100% peak levels 2-4x higher than what plasma could deliver (brushing burn-in concerns under the carpet)
> HDR


Yeah, of course today's TV is much better. And my 2012 plasma blew away my 2006 plasma. I'm not sure the improvement curve changed that much but I'm also not complaining about how good today's TVs are.


> I picked up a 65ZT60 'Golden Era' plasma just before Panasonic shiut down production. My 65C6P cost me less and is a superior TV in terns of it's basic dark-room SDR viewing capability and a vastly superior TV in terms of its bright-room and HDR viewing capability.


I look forward to this kind of stuff next year.


> At 55", 65", and soon also with 75", LG is poised to be the dominant supplier to the premium TV market for however long the 4K/HDR era lasts.


My guess is this is the end of TV as a thing that improves discernibly (see below).


> At 4K 65" for $1000 and 75" for $1500, emergence of a new entrant to knock WOLED off the top of the hill seems increasingly unlikely. As you point out, the investments needed to have a go at overcoming the barriers to entry are just too high.


And this is a double whammy, right? A fab is still going to cost billions, but the TVs will see for hundreds not thousands. I think it's less likely than ever there will be a "post OLED" technology. It's possible that both Apple and Samsung pursuing the same tech will change that equation because they sell a lot of stuff with displays in them. And that's about the only way it happens. Noteworthy that it still isn't likely.


> Aligning some new technology offering to an industry-wide adoption of new standards / capability seems the most likely strategy to successfully displace LGD from their perch. 8K and/or 3D 2.0 (glasses-free) are two possibilities on the horizon that come to mind (unlikely as the need for either seems at the moment).


I don't see how 8K or a 3D tech gives a catalyst to a new display tech, though. LCD and OLED should dominate anything that relies on a screen-on-wall universe.


> From black and whte, to color CRT, to plasma and LCD flat-panel Rec.709 SDR 1080p, to WOLED and FALD LED/LCD Rec.2020 HDR 2160p, display technology has gone through several major evolutionary steps to bring what a display can deliver to our eyeballs closer and closer to what they see in reality.
> 
> Over the decades-long timescale it takes such technology evolutions to develop, our eyes are not evolving, so it's worth questioning whether the remaining 'gap' between state-of-the-art display based on these latest standards and what our eyes can appreciate is still big enough to offer any new entrant the opportunity to take the hill.


This is key. Despite the stuff you read here about motion, LCD won the last era with horrid motion handling. That fairly well demonstrates people don't even see that. In the meantime, LCD improved motion anyway, OLED will too. Color, resolution, contrast are all essentially solved problems. No new technology is going to magically solve mura problems or yield problems in its initial run. So it will need 5 years to solve those while OLED (and LCD) get better at everything else. What is the market entry point? 

It has to be price or quality or both. Realistically, the bar for quality of any new entrant is "at least as good as OLED is come 2020". And the price bar is scary low.

How you hurdle the Empire State Building while limboing under a bamboo held up by two praying mantises is not at all clear to me.


> Holgraphic glasses-free 3D transaparent quasi-infinite-resolution displays will eventually make current WOLED technology look like the skeleton keys of that future era, but probably not in our lifetimes (or our grandchildren's).


I suspect Magic Leap will mostly fail, but I also suspect the idea of beaming an incredibly photo real 3D image into your eyes is coming. And probably within a decade or less. It's possible we'll want some collective screen version of that, but we may well not get one. We are all staring into our smartphones already. The goggles of the future may actually seem less socially confining than today's phones.


> Whether through an alliance or expiration of the core patents, I think we'll see another WOLED panel manufacturer emerge after LG proves it can deliver affordable 80"+ 8K WOLEDs on M2 whenever in the early 2020s - my guess would be a second WOLED TV panel supplier established by 2025...


Maybe, but that seems really late. In the LCD boom of the early 2000s, everyone simultaneously (more or less) announced plans to overbuild fabs. It led to amazing things for consumers and it basically bankrupted the display industry except where industrial policy reigns -- in those places small profits were obtained. mostly by vertical players.

By 2025, LG might have something like 150% of the TV industry's profits and something approaching 25% of all TVs sales. It's also possible TV sales will be well under 200 million annually by then. I think TV replacement cycles are likely to push past a decade again very soon (they used to be very long, then came HD, then came crappy flat panels, they much better ones... again, that era is over).

LG seems poised to be the Apple of the late TV era: coming from "nowhere" to suck all the air out of the room. But unlike Apple with iPhone, LG doesn't even have to supply ever more TVs. It probably needs 2 fabs (the one that's coming next year-ish plus one more) to basically make all the money from selling TVs. Then watch as the declining market gives them more and more share. HP and Dell and Lenovo do this in PCs. They just knock everyone else out and don't really have to grow much beyond that as the industry shrinks.

TV sales may decline more slowly than PC sales, but if you look at the underlying trends, it might be the reverse. PC decline is happening even though corporate work flows still run through PCs (mostly for legacy reasons, in a decade this will mostly be false... in two decades, there will be few (no?) PCs in most corporations). TV decline is happening -- and yes, it's happening as sales peaked at 250+ million and are running well off that for the past 3 years despite the economic recovery -- because people watch video elsewhere. And the day is still just 24 hours.


----------



## boe

wco81 said:


> People who live in a small apt. Or condos are not the market for these very large displays, rollable or not.
> 
> They're not watching a lot of content which goes with real big displays. People want big screens for immersion and the other part of that are multichannel surround sound systems. People are not putting in extensive sound systems in high-rise apts. in great numbers.
> 
> That's if they're watching a lot of TV at all. Many of them live in those small, in-city apts. because they want to be close to restaurants and bars or work.
> 
> I'm sure they will demo very expensive custom installations where the display is hidden in the ceiling or the floor and with a push of a button, it unrolls, making people ooh and ahh.
> 
> Style over substance.


 

I don't know where you live but I know a LOT of people with nice surround sound systems and nice big TVs - many of which are looking forward to moving to bigger TVs and surprise, surprise - they live in condos or apartments. Maybe that's because I live in a big city. And the population in a big city is many times that of a rural area where some apartment renters don't go for expensive HT systems. Reality over projection.


----------



## rogo

Surround sound systems have a penetration in the very, very low single digits. Remove Bose and other HTiB systems from the equation and the total number is unlikely much above 1% of households.

It's similarly true that 75+ inch TVs are unlikely to reach beyond 2-3% of U.S. homes well, ever.

I do agree that technology can somewhat catalyze the change. A truly affordable, truly rollable screen would marginally expand the market for giant TVs, perhaps adding another pecent or two to their penetration.

But if you look at modern construction, it's actually *less* conducive to really big TVs than before, not more. There is almost never a wall that can accommodate a massive TV and also faces a spot where you can place a couch at a reasonable distance.

What we here like is not mainstream, is not becoming mainstream, and will have an effect on product decisions only for the niche markets in which most of us play.


----------



## dave1812dave

rogo said:


> Surround sound systems have a penetration in the very, very low single digits. Remove Bose and other HTiB systems from the equation and the total number is unlikely much above 1% of households.
> 
> It's similarly true that 75+ inch TVs are unlikely to reach beyond 2-3% of U.S. homes well, ever.
> 
> I do agree that technology can somewhat catalyze the change. A truly affordable, truly rollable screen would marginally expand the market for giant TVs, perhaps adding another pecent or two to their penetration.
> 
> But if you look at modern construction, it's actually *less* conducive to really big TVs than before, not more. There is almost never a wall that can accommodate a massive TV and also faces a spot where you can place a couch at a reasonable distance.
> 
> What we here like is not mainstream, is not becoming mainstream, and will have an effect on product decisions only for the niche markets in which most of us play.


Never say never. Years ago, who would have said we'd all be debating the various merits of 55/65" TV's that are now mainstream? I see no reason to not expect another round of size increase to occur at some point in the not very far future. And if they perfect rollable, affordable huge screens, so that transporting them from store to one's home, then we may see the 100+" TV not be a rarity. It's all about the technology, manufacturing prowess, economies of scale, and what enough consumers want, that will drive the next wave of TV form factor. Consumers eschewed 3D and curved screens (personally I thought mfgrs were CRAZY to foist curved screens onto us, from my first view of the expensive LG OLED 55" curved). Consumers have shown that what holds them back from ever-increasing screen sizes is cost, difficulty in bringing the larger ones home and setting them up. I don't think too many people would opt for a 65" if a 77 or 88 had a small and affordable price premium over their smaller brethern. As it stands now, you have to be pretty well healed to get the better quality 88's. Of course, Vizio makes large, affordable flat screens, but purists and knowledgeable buyers probably aren't going to be throwing their money at Vizio.


----------



## aaz

rogo said:


> Surround sound systems have a penetration in the very, very low single digits. Remove Bose and other HTiB systems from the equation and the total number is unlikely much above 1% of households.
> 
> It's similarly true that 75+ inch TVs are unlikely to reach beyond 2-3% of U.S. homes well, ever.
> 
> I do agree that technology can somewhat catalyze the change. A truly affordable, truly rollable screen would marginally expand the market for giant TVs, perhaps adding another pecent or two to their penetration.
> 
> But if you look at modern construction, it's actually *less* conducive to really big TVs than before, not more. There is almost never a wall that can accommodate a massive TV and also faces a spot where you can place a couch at a reasonable distance.
> 
> What we here like is not mainstream, is not becoming mainstream, and will have an effect on product decisions only for the niche markets in which most of us play.


This is the same argument I could have used for 55+" sets I could have used a few years back. Most of my built in nooks in our 20 year old house are designed for TV's less than 50 inches. It wasn't a problem before I could afford a large tv, but not so much now. I've found less than optimal workarounds for wall-space and next time I move or build you can bet I am looking for a place for that 85" screen.


----------



## RichB

rogo said:


> Surround sound systems have a penetration in the very, very low single digits. Remove Bose and other HTiB systems from the equation and the total number is unlikely much above 1% of households.
> 
> It's similarly true that 75+ inch TVs are unlikely to reach beyond 2-3% of U.S. homes well, ever.
> 
> I do agree that technology can somewhat catalyze the change. A truly affordable, truly rollable screen would marginally expand the market for giant TVs, perhaps adding another pecent or two to their penetration.
> 
> But if you look at modern construction, it's actually *less* conducive to really big TVs than before, not more. There is almost never a wall that can accommodate a massive TV and also faces a spot where you can place a couch at a reasonable distance.
> 
> What we here like is not mainstream, is not becoming mainstream, and will have an effect on product decisions only for the niche markets in which most of us play.


 
There was a Window on the wall where my TV need to be so I had it moved to another wall 

If I were building, I would plan for the TV and leave room for expansion.
I do agree with the others, folks can become accustom to larger screens and if you have a 65" TV on a wall now, I suspect a 75 fits there as well.

The TV weight problem has been largely solved with the exception for the lightening of the wallet. 

- Rich


----------



## dave1812dave

RichB said:


> There was a Window on the wall where my TV need to be so I had it moved to another wall
> 
> If I were building, I would plan for the TV and leave room for expansion.
> I do agree with the others, folks can become accustom to larger screens and if you have a 65" TV on a wall now, I suspect a 75 fits there as well.
> 
> The TV weight problem has been largely solved with the exception for the lightening of the wallet.
> 
> - Rich


I'd prefer to have at least an 88" but all I can afford are the 65"s. Currently I have a 61", so going to 65" isn't noticeable (I had an LG 65 for one day. too much pee staining and magenta whites)


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Surround sound systems have a penetration in the very, very low single digits. Remove Bose and other HTiB systems from the equation and the total number is unlikely much above 1% of households.
> 
> *It's similarly true that 75+ inch TVs are unlikely to reach beyond 2-3% of U.S. homes well, ever*.
> 
> I do agree that technology can somewhat catalyze the change. A truly affordable, truly rollable screen would marginally expand the market for giant TVs, perhaps adding another pecent or two to their penetration.
> 
> But if you look at modern construction, it's actually *less* conducive to really big TVs than before, not more. There is almost never a wall that can accommodate a massive TV and also faces a spot where you can place a couch at a reasonable distance.
> 
> What we here like is not mainstream, is not becoming mainstream, and will have an effect on product decisions only for the niche markets in which most of us play.


In the DVD/480p era, even 50" screens seemed excessive.

With the industry's move to Bluray, digital broadcast and HD, first 50" screens became common with 720p and then with the emergence of 1080p, even screens as large as 65" did not seem excessive for those who could afford them.

We're now on the midst of the industry's initiative toward HDR/2160p which is being accelerated by the prevalance of streaming. You have not yet partaken (next year, right ), so you are in a limited position to comment from personal experience on the status of this iniiative.

I've been watching 4K for over 2 years and HDR for the past year, and while I am not comfortable declaring this initiative a success at his early stage, I am comfortable stating it will be vastly more successful than the 3D initiative ever was.

More and more of the content we stream through Amazon and Netflix is delivered in 4K/HDR without even asking for it, and streaming of the new 4K/HDR standards looks better than streaming of HD (no doubt largely due to the codes and compresion levels used).

In the 4K/HDR era, 55" screens are mainstream, 65" screens are common, and 75" screens don't seem excessive for the few that can afford them.

The point I am trying to make is that if the move to 4K/HDR is successful, 75" screens are likely to be more common than you believe. And beyond that, if the next step to 8K that the industry is planning for actually progresses as successfully as the 4K/HDR initiative appears to have so far, 75" screens willl very possibly grow from their current niche status to 'the new 65".

It's telling that LGs first 80-89" screen will be 8K - watching 8K on a 55" or 65" 8K screen will look identical to watching on a 4K 65" screen unless your nose is practically touching the screen and manufacturing 8K panels with the larger pixels for an 80-89" screen will be far easier than trying to manufacture an 8K 65" screen (happy coincidence, huh ).

The whole 8K initiative may end up being a big flop (as could te 4K initiative as well, I suppose), and 4K and 'up to 65"' may be 'the end of TV' as you have stated, but I believe it is far too early to have much confidence in that assessment...


----------



## ALMA

> Nanosys and DIC today announced a breakthrough in inkjet-printed Quantum Dot color conversion devices for LCD and emissive displays, paving the way to the $12.6 billion anticipated market for low cost, ultra-thin and flexible displays.1 Inkjet printing of Quantum Dot color conversion layers has the potential to dramatically improve the incumbent LCD technology, as well as accelerate the development of emerging emissive display technologies such as microLEDs. Microscope image of ink jet printed red and green Cadmium-free Quantum Dot color conversion layer. Printed Quantum Dots can improve LCD efficiency by as much as 300% and could solve key manufacturing challenges for next generation microLED displays. This device will be demonstrated by Nanosys and DIC Global at the IDW Conference in Sendai, Japan. Pixel size shown here is equivalent to that of a 50” UltraHD TV. Blue pixels are clear, passing blue light through from the display's…
> 
> The benefits of Quantum Dot color conversion layers include a power efficiency or brightness improvement of as much as 300%, perfect 180 degree viewing angles and lifelike color accuracy with much wider color gamut.


http://dailytelescope.com/pr/printe...tra-thin-and-flexible-displays-possible/24520

Seems like only a concept demonstration, so the same like the many inkjet printed OLED prototypes before and still no finished consumer display with QDCF in 2018?

http://www.avsforum.com/nanosys-dic-announce-inkjet-printed-quantum-dot-process/


----------



## austinsj

I think rogo might have a point. I was just looking at the latest ofcam data from the UK, and TV set usage has been declining sharply among young people in the last few years. 

Check out this chart: https://ibb.co/gdzhCw


If the numbers continue to head in this direction, we could end up seeing the same thing we saw happen to landline phones (and is currently happening with cable) where when folks start moving out of their parents home they might not bother purchasing a tv for their dorm or apartment. It just won’t cross their mind as a thing to do. 

If this happens and TVs increasingly become more of a niche thing for enthusiasts, you might start seeing prices start to climb. It’s not entirely impossible that LG will be the last winner in the industry. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what the TV market looks like in 10 years.


----------



## ALMA

JOLED began commercial shipments of an inkjet printed 21,6" 4K OLED panel:



> In June 2017 JOLED announced that it started to sample 21.6" 4K OLED panels, with plans to initiate low volume production at its 4.5-Gen pilot inkjet production line. JOLED announced today that it has began commercial shipments of these panels. We do not know JOLED's first customer but it is likely to be Sony.
> 
> JOLED says that it has now achieved the necessary product quality and production yields. The product was already selected for use in medical monitors (again, we believe this is Sony, who we know received JOLED's first samples and already has its own 25" OLED medical monitor that uses Sony's own OLEDs). JOLED also aims to ship these panes to other OLED monitors applications.
> 
> JOLED's first OLED panels are 21.6" in size and feature a resolution of 3840x2160 (4K, 204 PPI). The brightness is 350 cd/m2. The whole panel is only 1.3 mm thick and weighs just 500 grams.


https://www.oled-info.com/joled-starts-commercial-shipments-its-printed-216-4k-oled-monitor-panels

https://www.j-oled.com/news-eng/2017-1205/


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> http://dailytelescope.com/pr/printe...tra-thin-and-flexible-displays-possible/24520
> 
> *Seems like only a concept demonstration, so *the same like the many inkjet printed OLED prototypes before and *still no finished consumer display with QDCF in 2018?*
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/nanosys-dic-announce-inkjet-printed-quantum-dot-process/


I'd say that's a near-certainty at this point...

But even if printed QDCF doesn't make it into affordable consumer products until 2019 or even 2020, it still offers the capability to stem the pace of LED/LCDs decline and even possibly claw back some share increase of the premium segment.


----------



## wco81

Read somewhere thT if NAFTA is aboilished or renegotiated, tv prices could go up since a lot,of them are ass mbled in Mexico.


----------



## dave1812dave

wco81 said:


> Read somewhere thT if NAFTA is aboilished or renegotiated, tv prices could go up since a lot,of them are ass mbled in Mexico.


We NEED to bring manufacturing BACK to the US! Imagine how much more vibrant OUR economy would be if we could bring back millions more jobs from off-shore. I'm disgusted with companies such as Apple setting up operations in Ireland to avoid US taxes. the tax codes need fixing to alleviate this corporate behavior. If we made more things here, our trade imbalances could be reduced. there are so many upsides to corporate taxes being reduced, and regulations relaxed, it should have been a no-brainer decades ago.

If your next TV was made in the US, your point about tariffs would be moot.


----------



## aaz

dave1812dave said:


> We NEED to bring manufacturing BACK to the US! Imagine how much more vibrant OUR economy would be if we could bring back millions more jobs from off-shore. I'm disgusted with companies such as Apple setting up operations in Ireland to avoid US taxes. the tax codes need fixing to alleviate this corporate behavior. If we made more things here, our trade imbalances could be reduced. there are so many upsides to corporate taxes being reduced, and regulations relaxed, it should have been a no-brainer decades ago.
> 
> If your next TV was made in the US, your point about tariffs would be moot.


A bit off topic, but if people are used in the assembly process then your prices will still go up for the product. But it's highly unlikely that big companies are going to bring back assembly jobs into the US. What is more likely to happen is that they will bring back the manufacturing, but not the jobs that go with it. They will build robotic factories in the US where no people will be employed. The shareholders and owners will enjoy an immense profit share while the economy lasts, but don't expect the economy to last long with no people being employed in these new factories. This is not just a US problem, it's happening throughout the world. 
Don't count on robot repairs to employ any significant population, besides how many factory workers can be retrained into technicians, and even if all of them can you will only need less than .1% of them to carry out the repairs while traveling from factory to factory


----------



## Houe

dave1812dave said:


> We NEED to bring manufacturing BACK to the US! Imagine how much more vibrant OUR economy would be if we could bring back millions more jobs from off-shore. I'm disgusted with companies such as Apple setting up operations in Ireland to avoid US taxes. the tax codes need fixing to alleviate this corporate behavior. If we made more things here, our trade imbalances could be reduced. there are so many upsides to corporate taxes being reduced, and regulations relaxed, it should have been a no-brainer decades ago.
> 
> If your next TV was made in the US, your point about tariffs would be moot.


Foxconn is building a very large plant in Wisconsin specifically for building displays - investing 10 billion in the plant. I've heard Sharp 8k displays will be built there among other displays.


----------



## dave1812dave

aaz said:


> A bit off topic, but if people are used in the assembly process then your prices will still go up for the product. But it's highly unlikely that big companies are going to bring back assembly jobs into the US. What is more likely to happen is that they will bring back the manufacturing, but not the jobs that go with it. They will build robotic factories in the US where no people will be employed. The shareholders and owners will enjoy an immense profit share while the economy lasts, but don't expect the economy to last long with no people being employed in these new factories. This is not just a US problem, it's happening throughout the world.
> Don't count on robot repairs to employ any significant population, besides how many factory workers can be retrained into technicians, and even if all of them can you will only need less than .1% of them to carry out the repairs while traveling from factory to factory



I knew someone was going to mention robots, which is why I didn't already include that in my post.  Prognosticators have been telling us for some time that robots are going to put millions of people out of work. I remember when I was told in the 1950's that we would have moving sidewalks and flying cars. I don't ever assume something is going to come to pass. If robots produce much of what factory workers are now producing, I suspect that some other types of jobs will come into existences. It's been that way since the dawn of mankind. But having production overseas GUARANTEES that US jobs are being handed over to other nationals. that's just nuts, IMO.


----------



## aaz

dave1812dave said:


> I knew someone was going to mention robots, which is why I didn't already include that in my post.  Prognosticators have been telling us for some time that robots are going to put millions of people out of work. I remember when I was told in the 1950's that we would have moving sidewalks and flying cars. I don't ever assume something is going to come to pass. If robots produce much of what factory workers are now producing, I suspect that some other types of jobs will come into existences. It's been that way since the dawn of mankind. But having production overseas GUARANTEES that US jobs are being handed over to other nationals. that's just nuts, IMO.


The capability was not there until very recently, but now you'll have self driving cars - goodbye truckers, goodbye taxi drivers, need for most people to even own a car becomes unnecessary when you can easily order one up to meet you anywhere at any time and no parking fees. Robots are capable of much more than they used to be.
Also consider http://fortune.com/2016/12/31/foxconn-iphone-automation-goal/ 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/12/31/if-foxconns-chinese-factories-are-now-automating-then-those-apple-jobs-are-never-coming-back/#593519e136d9
Yes, that 10 billion US factory - probably runs on a skeleton crew - unless you consider perimeter security guard jobs to be good factory worker jobs.


----------



## wco81

TVs haven't been made in the US for like 40 years now.

They wouldn't be so cheap if they were made in the US.

The US CE companies had their lunch eaten first by the Japanese, then the Koreans and eventually the Chinese.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Regarding the fact that TV use is dwindling, I personally see the TV turning more into a large general-purpose monitor, including for devices that have their own screen, and in fact you can already see this occuring with things like ChromeCast and the Nintendo Switch.

If anything, this could result in TVs doubling-down on something that mobile devices simply cannot do - provide a large screen. Consider the fact that modern TVs now have input lag and "game mode" latencies comparable to actual PC monitors (in the 10ms to 20ms range) and that Vizio TVs no longer even includes an OTA tuner as well as LG's investment towards 80+" rollable displays shows that at least some TV manufacturers are already heading down the "large monitor" path.


----------



## wco81

Younger millennials supposedly are content to watch Youtube and social media videos on phones. Even full-length movies too.

If the content they consume tend to be shorter, then bigger screens are doomed.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

wco81 said:


> Younger millennials supposedly are content to watch Youtube and social media videos on phones. Even full-length movies too.
> 
> If the content they consume tend to be shorter, then bigger screens are doomed.


As a millennial myself that commonly watches videos on my 12" or 15" (depends on the PC) computer screen rather than my family's 39" TV, even I still prefer to use for that 39" display for certain things.

But you must remember, a monitor is not exclusively a device for video in the way that a TV traditionally was.

My point was that the TV's only defining feature will _be_ the large display, so lovers of large-size displays should not fret. This could be compared to desktop PCs vs laptops and now laptops vs tablets/smartphones - the average Joe did not value the functionality that a desktop or laptop PC could provide over a tablet or smartphone, so that part of the market has of course been drying up. But the enthusiast user that _did_ value that functionality that couldn't be provided by a tablet/smartphone is still very much being served, and in fact is arguably being _better_ served today than they were in the past (see: the crazy amount of PC components launched in 2017 with RGB lighting - those certainly aren't being marketed towards the average Joe!)

I know that the audience of AVS skews older, but I still can't help but feel like many on here tend to have a bit of a "sky is falling" reaction in a way that was similar to the fear mongering that used to go around saying how the tablet was the "end of the PC" - I mean, AVRs still exist even though that market is _way_ more niche than the large-display market.

And even if it _is_ the end of the large-size display, one can still re-create the large-size 3D-capable TV with the likes of a VR headset or smartphone+lenses (e.g. Google Cardboard). Considering how quite a few AVSers absolutely adored 3D on OLED TVs that required 3D glasses, I do not think the likes of VR heatsets or lighter-weight equivalents (again, like Google Cardboard) would be blasphemous replacements in a hypothetical future where large-size displays don't exist.


----------



## rogo

I'm in no way suggesting TVs are going to become unavailable. But they are going to become more and more niche over time.

People watch more video than ever, and less TV in every demo below 50+... In the "Gen Z" slice, TV viewing is cratering. 

And, no, AVS fans, there will not be a mainstream move to 75 inches. There isn't a mainstream move to 65 inches, though it's certainly more common than ever. 70 inch has been available for years now, and it's still infinitesimal in terms of share.

Walls are not big. Walls are not getting bigger. In the U.S., something like 1/3 of people like in MDUs and virtually none of those will ever see a TV bigger than 65 (not zero... so stop telling me about your millionaire friend in his giant loft... I get it).

While houses are still obese in America, it's amazing how much I've seen new construction in recent years with no place for a TV of *any* size, let alone 75/85.

I want to remind people that I like giant displays as much as they do. I'm just realistic that they are going to be rare. There is nothing stopping 55-inch TVs from being cut as 110s and sold at 5x-10x the price. (Yes, there is the issue that they will only fit through the door of some McMansions). They could easily be sub $10K and the addressable market would be something in the millions. No one has bothered making such a thing because they know how few they'd sell. Anyone here order that Vizio 120? Was it even real?

Given how few 75s sell at all, I think it's probable that 10 years from now more will be sold than in 2017. I also think it's probable that TV sales will never exceed 200 million again by then. People craving immersive entertainment should have much better VR options by 2027. A generation will have grown up having never really watched TV in the conventional sense.


----------



## ALMA

ETnews article in English is online:



> LG Electronics is going to focus on developing its OLED TVs. *It is going to introduce a product that has upgraded sound by using CSO (Crystal Sound OLED) panel at CES 2018.* Earlier this year, Sony introduced a product that uses CSO panel. However it is expected that LG Electronics’ OLED TV will be an upgraded version than the ones introduced by Sony.* It is heard that LG Electronics’ new OLED TV is applied with new technologies such as an ability to detect where viewers are located and sending sound towards corresponding direction.*


First OLED-TV´s in 2018 smaller than 55" or only first UHD wallpaper TV in 55"?



> LG Electronics is going to expand lineup of its OLED TVs. It is heard that LG Electronics is going to make wallpaper TV, which is only 4mm in thickness, even thinner _*and create a lineup made up of small OLED TVs*_. LG Electronics is also putting their focus on its major business such as OLED TV business.


No rollable TV for consumer in 2018:



> LG Electronics is planning to introduce rollable TV. It is heard that this TV can be rolled like a roll of paper. It is not too far away that people will have TVs like a beam projector screen at their houses.
> *Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics are planning to minimize how much they introduce their strategic products to outside world since their strategic products that were introduced at previous CES were exposed to their competitors and led to some of their competitors producing imitations. Because next-generation products such as micro LED and rollable display are not going to be commercialized right away, there is a high chance that they will limit on how much of their products is introduced.*


http://english.etnews.com/20171206200002


----------



## ALMA

Wallpaper LCD TVs with Glas Light Guide Plate to compete with OLED design:



> According to industries on the 6th, LG Display recently started mass-producing new LCD TV panels that use glass light guide plate instead of plastic light guide plate. Samsung Display developed a new quantum dot (QD) panel that coats QD material on top of glass light guide plate and is looking to secure customers.
> Unlike OLED that does not need separate light source, LCD requires light source and many other parts which makes thickness of LCD TV thicker than that of OLED TV. LG Electronics’ wallpaper OLED TV, which is based on a concept of TV that is thin like a wallpaper, has thickness of only 4mm. However thickness of normal LCD TV is between 10mm and 15mm.
> If glass light guide plate is used for a LCD TV panel, its thickness can be drastically reduced. This helps LCD to catch up on strengths of OLED in premium markets where thinness and lightness need to be considered along with ultra-high quality and super-sized screen.


http://english.etnews.com/20171107200001


----------



## Houe

aaz said:


> The capability was not there until very recently, but now you'll have self driving cars - goodbye truckers, goodbye taxi drivers, need for most people to even own a car becomes unnecessary when you can easily order one up to meet you anywhere at any time and no parking fees. Robots are capable of much more than they used to be.
> 
> Yes, that 10 billion US factory - probably runs on a skeleton crew - unless you consider perimeter security guard jobs to be good factory worker jobs.


I live in Wisconsin and hear about the foxconn plant from time to time. It was big news when the deal was announced. From what I understand the plant could eventually employ 30k people but would start somewhat below that.

BTW, I would have added a link, but I am new so do not have ability to post links. I can't even quote your link! lol.


----------



## elgreco1

ataneruo said:


> You are all missing the point. The reason OLED brightness has to increase across the board is so that we can have black frame insertion at high frame rates so that we can have much better motion clarity (approaching plasma) without perceptible dimming!
> 
> Also, yes, specular highlights would be a very nice bonus.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Wizziwig said:


> Sony and Panasonic already do BFI with existing brightness limitations and it doesn't do much to improve motion resolution because of the limited refresh rate of these OLEDs. Best they can do is cut image persistence in half and that is still awful compared to a decades old CRT or even plasma. LG clearly thinks motion is "good enough" because they've made zero changes in this regard since original 2013 model. Sony and Panasonic clearly understand the problem but are stuck with the 120Hz panels LG gives them. We would need something like 1000Hz panels (or equivalent scanning refresh) in order to take advantage of any potential brightness improvements for impulse driving of these panels.





ataneruo said:


> My impression was that 120 Hz was adequate to combat judder from a frame rate perspective due to adequate 3:2 pull down, but that from a motion perspective due to sample-and-hold OLED screen tech, judder is more apparent than with other tech like plasma. BFI serves to alleviate this, but has two current issues: it causes overall dimming since the average screen brightness decreases, and due to 120 Hz screens it must be applied at 60 Hz, causing some viewers to detect flicker. Therefore, I believed that in order to get OLED to a minimum acceptable motion status compared to other panel tech, 240 Hz must be adopted so that BFI can be run at 120 Hz to remove flicker, and brightness must be increased to compensate. Rates of 1200 Hz would be ideal because then plasma Hz can be approached with BFI active (600 Hz), but I’m not expecting that. I’m disheartened to hear that LG isn’t moving forward with increased refresh rates however.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


We need 10x the current brightness levels to achieve CRT like motion. If LG can step up the game, maybe we can finally have OLED impuls based screens. Where every frame is only 1-2ms impuls. You will have 0 motion blur, because of 1ms response time and 1ms impuls per frame. 

The problem is when you want to achieve same brightness with such a short impuls you need to have 10x brighter image in that short time to have it as bright as a the current sample and hold displays.

The only problem with impuls based screens is if the refreshrate is to low it will flicker. That's why BFI on 24hz is terrible. 

I think OLED will never get close CRT like motion and perhaps the next emmisive technology can bring this kind of brightness to create impuls based screens.


----------



## dave1812dave

elgreco1 said:


> We need 10x the current brightness levels to achieve CRT like motion. If LG can step up the game, maybe we can finally have OLED impuls based screens. Where every frame is only 1-2ms impuls. You will have 0 motion blur, because of 1ms response time and 1ms impuls per frame.
> 
> The problem is when you want to achieve same brightness with such a short impuls you need to have 10x brighter image in that short time to have it as bright as a the current sample and hold displays.
> 
> The only problem with impuls based screens is if the refreshrate is to low it will flicker. That's why BFI on 24hz is terrible.
> 
> I think OLED will never get close CRT like motion and perhaps the next emmisive technology can bring this kind of brightness to create impuls based screens.


impuls? wassat?


----------



## dkfan9

So I no longer own a CRT, and when I did I certainly wasn't up on frame rates and motion clarity and all that. But I do know I'm not bothered by 24fps motion at the movie theater, at least I've never picked up on it. What makes 24fps with BFI worse than projectors or CRT?


----------



## aaz

Houe said:


> I live in Wisconsin and hear about the foxconn plant from time to time. It was big news when the deal was announced. From what I understand the plant could eventually employ 30k people but would start somewhat below that.
> 
> BTW, I would have added a link, but I am new so do not have ability to post links. I can't even quote your link! lol.


The way I understood that 30,000 estimate is that involves everything from building the plant to serving it's needs via the city. These are by no means full time permanent plant jobs. Look at it this way, if Chinese workers are too expensive to employ and are being replaced by robots already, what would make you think that anything different can happen in the US? Nope, put a fork in it, Those jobs are done!


----------



## slacker711

LGD says they have hit 90% yields. 

https://translate.google.com/transl...r/newsRead.php?year=2017&no=825836&edit-text=



> This is because LG Electronics has achieved more than 90% of its 'dream yield' in the production of large-sized organic light emitting diode (OLED) TV panels. Shin CPO said, "We have been able to overcome many crises with our partners in the spirit of unity and cooperation."
> 
> LG Display has achieved average production yields of more than 90% in large OLED TVs such as 55.66 inches earlier this year with partner companies. After producing OLED TV panels for the first time in the world in 2013, LG Display achieved a golden yield of over 80% in all OLED models last year. After one year, it has exceeded the dream goal.


----------



## video_analysis

I suspect that was achieved only by being more lax about vertical banding.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> LGD says they have hit 90% yields.
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...r/newsRead.php?year=2017&no=825836&edit-text=


When they achieve this on P10, I wouldn't want to be in the >$1,000 LCD TV business. (That includes LG.)


----------



## MikeBiker

rogo said:


> When they achieve this on P10, I wouldn't want to be in the >$1,000 LCD TV business. (That includes LG.)


Samsung will still have their huge marketing team pushing QLED and confusing customers.


----------



## fafrd

MikeBiker said:


> Samsung will still have their huge marketing team pushing QLED and confusing customers.


But not very successfully.

Let's see hat IHS has to tell us about Q4 premium TV market share mid-Q1'18...

I'm expecting a continuation of the trend we saw established a year ago:


----------



## hailhailhailandkill

I love the OLED picture but I don't like how they respond to burn in issues by basically saying that there aren't any. I am interested to see what the next wave of models bring to address this. I also want to see what happens with how the screens handle motion.


----------



## aaz

hailhailhailandkill said:


> I love the OLED picture but I don't like how they respond to burn in issues by basically saying that there aren't any. I am interested to see what the next wave of models bring to address this. I also want to see what happens with how the screens handle motion.


Clearly companies don't put pixel orbiters and screensavers on a TV that cannot have any burn in, equally clearly, I believe what they have said is that these sets are pretty resistant to burn in. Can you show any evidence that anyone from LG or Sony has said that there isn't any burn-in?

I've abused my two plasma's for years with no permanent damage, and similarly at the time there were reports left and right about all the burn in people were experiencing. Not me. I am sure some were, just like some are with OLED's. I'd rather have the best picture that I can right now for my purposes than be constantly accepting second best. If it lasts as long as the Plasma's did (one 6 years - one 14) I'll be ecstatic, if the OLED lasts 5 years before the picture noticeably degrades I'll be satisfied. If it doesn't last that long, I will admit that I will be a bit disappointed, but it won't change my life, and I am sure much will be learned by then.

I do think this issue on OLED's has been far overblown and is getting as annoying as it was with plasmas.

There are cases where I would recommend people go with a LCD for their use, or a projector. I do feel comfortable enough to say that most people will not experience any BI issue with their OLED based on average viewing habits. Even people with extreme habits can likely avoid BI as long as they have some knowledge, just like in the old plasma days. It's not that difficult.


----------



## hailhailhailandkill

aaz said:


> Clearly companies don't put pixel orbiters and screensavers on a TV that cannot have any burn in, equally clearly, I believe what they have said is that these sets are pretty resistant to burn in. Can you show any evidence that anyone from LG or Sony has said that there isn't any burn-in?
> 
> I've abused my two plasma's for years with no permanent damage, and similarly at the time there were reports left and right about all the burn in people were experiencing. Not me. I am sure some were, just like some are with OLED's. I'd rather have the best picture that I can right now for my purposes than be constantly accepting second best. If it lasts as long as the Plasma's did (one 6 years - one 14) I'll be ecstatic, if the OLED lasts 5 years before the picture noticeably degrades I'll be satisfied. If it doesn't last that long, I will admit that I will be a bit disappointed, but it won't change my life, and I am sure much will be learned by then.
> 
> I do think this issue on OLED's has been far overblown and is getting as annoying as it was with plasmas.
> 
> There are cases where I would recommend people go with a LCD for their use, or a projector. I do feel comfortable enough to say that most people will not experience any BI issue with their OLED based on average viewing habits. Even people with extreme habits can likely avoid BI as long as they have some knowledge, just like in the old plasma days. It's not that difficult.


the way I use my TV I would definitely get burn in and I did with my Panasonic plasma I know when I went to LG website they do say something about it but it is basically a statement implying it isn't an issue.

I have also gotten burn in with my Android phone with an OLED screen but it took awhile.

I play a bunch of video games and use my TV as a PC monitor. Maybe I am too worried about it but I don't think I am. 

This is what LG says on their website "OLED Image Retention or Burn-In: Burn-in and image retention are possible on virtually any display. However, with an LG OLED TV, any risk of burn-in or image retention have been addressed through the use of technology that not only helps protect against damage to the screen, but features self-healing properties so that any short-term image retention that may occur is quickly rectified"

So they do say they have tech built in that addresses it that is good. I just want to wait and see what the next generation brings or if it is just a limitation of the tech. The picture right now is unbelievable I just don't want to ruin it with my taskbar or a HUD from some videogame sitting on the screen.


----------



## ALMA

According to digitimes and etnews LGD will shift their focus from 55" and 65" in 2017 to 65" and 77" OLED panels in 2018. In November the production ratio was 50% for 65" panels.



> *LG Display is expected to shift the focus of its OLED TV panel production to 65- and 77-inch models in 2018 compared to the previous focus of 55- and 65-inch models, according to a Korea-based etnews report.*
> 
> In the third quarter of 2017, production of 55-inch OLED TV panels accounted for 65% of LG Display's total OLED TV panels, while the ratio of 65-inch models and above reached 35%. *However, the company ramped up the ratio of 65-inch and other large-size OLED TV panels to over 50% in November, surpassing those for 55-inch models.*
> 
> *LG Display has also been ramping up the production of 77-inch OLED TV panels from its 8G (E3) fab.
> *
> LG Display's adjustment of its production lines is to cope with increasing competition in the large-size panel segment, coming mainly from Samsung Electronics and China-based panel makers, said the report.


https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20171220PD208.html


----------



## rogo

Seems to suggest that premium TVs sell better with more size to go with them. Not exactly shocking, right?

I do wonder if also this is an acknowledgement that ASPs for 55s would have to fall _a lot_ to continue taking share, while that's less true at the higher prices of 65s. 

Now, with that said, obviously you use more glass for 65s, so nothing comes for free. 

What's definitely _not happening_ as Digitimes wrongly speculates, is LG ramping up capacity of bigger TVs to compete with Samsung and Chinese companies. That literally makes no sense, but as such it's very good speculation for Digitimes, which often makes no sense.


----------



## fafrd

Seems LG finally got the green light to proceed with their Chinese 8.5G WOLED panel production joint venture: https://www.oled-info.com/korea-approves-lgds-plan-build-oled-tv-fab-china


----------



## dnoonie

fafrd said:


> Seems LG finally got the green light to proceed with their Chinese 8.5G WOLED panel production joint venture: https://www.oled-info.com/korea-approves-lgds-plan-build-oled-tv-fab-china


Well...that's good for China. I'd guess that means there's a bigger market there than there is in the USA? Or will some of those panels find there way to other parts of the planet?

I do like the concessions that were made to secure the deal, the Chinese propensity to reverse engineer tech is a dilution of creativity, demeaning to their engineering community, and reduces true/innovative competition. If people worked as hard at creating things as they did at taking things we'd have a lot better products in the market and a more inspired workforce.

Cheers,


----------



## Franco D'Amore

dnoonie said:


> Well...that's good for China. I'd guess that means there's a bigger market there than there is in the USA? Or will some of those panels find there way to other parts of the planet?
> 
> I do like the concessions that were made to secure the deal, the Chinese propensity to reverse engineer tech is a dilution of creativity, demeaning to their engineering community, and reduces true/innovative competition. If people worked as hard at creating things as they did at taking things we'd have a lot better products in the market and a more inspired workforce.
> 
> Cheers,


I dont mean to be rude, but the ignorant ramble of yours was said about the Japanese's in the 60s, and the Koreans in the 90's. Countries dont jump from agrarian economies to full-blown innovate, high tech economies just like that.


----------



## ALMA

First 88" 8K OLED at CES 2018:

https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/01/lg-shows-off-the-worlds-first-88-inch-8k-oled-display/


----------



## video_analysis

Let's see it run those vertical banding stress tests in low light...otherwise I don't care. Caveat: I'm aware this one-off demo was most likely handpicked with no expense spared in terms of achieving perfection.


----------



## hgabel

*Ignorance, Rudeness, Stealing*



Franco D'Amore said:


> I dont mean to be rude, but the ignorant ramble of yours was said about the Japanese's in the 60s, and the Koreans in the 90's. Countries dont jump from agrarian economies to full-blown innovate, high tech economies just like that.


Franco it is always rude to refer to anyones opinion as ignorant. In fact, it is ignorant. 

However your assessment of China as an agrarian economy is not relevant or correct in 2018. China's policy of turning a blind eye, and in the case of government owned companies actively supporting, stealing of intellectual property has created a climate of distrust and outright distain for the concepts of ownership. 

In fact looking at 60s Japan, 90s Korea, and 00 China, we see a decent into increasingly blatant "borrowing". It appears that the definition of ownership is changing and that may be a good discussion. 

Hg


----------



## Wizziwig

Older article that I don't remember being linked here.

Breakthrough OLED Technology for Displays Announced by Solar-Tectic LLC

Main points of interest for me were:

"Electron mobility in textured, aligned thin silicon films would be higher than in IGZO (indium gallium zinc oxide) which is another contender to replace LTPS, and *uniformity in the LT1CS technology would also be better*."

"Currently IGZO performance is lower than LTPS with regard to both electron mobility and uniformity"

LG uses IGZO and Samsung uses LTPS backplanes in current products.


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> First 88" 8K OLED at CES 2018:
> 
> https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/01/lg-shows-off-the-worlds-first-88-inch-8k-oled-display/


88" seems like a strange size given the shift to 65" and 75" coming with M2.

Then I realized that the largest screen size that can be layed-out 3-up on a 10.5G substrate is 88"...

2 88" screens can be produced on a 10.5G substrate.

3 88" screens can be produced on a 10.5G substrate.


----------



## ALMA

And surprise, surprise, the height of 88" is exactly the lenght of 49,5"...


----------



## Houe

At this point 8k is only a curiosity. By the time 8k becomes mainstream there might be other technology that's needed to make the display appealing. For example: the initial 4k TVs did not have HDR/HDMI2.0 and are not very appealing now. Same will happen to 8k. You will need something else along with the 8k by then. You can't future proof yourself by buying an early production 8k display.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> 88" seems like a strange size given the shift to 65" and 75" coming with M2.
> 
> Then I realized that the largest screen size that can be layed-out 3-up on a 10.5G substrate is 88"...
> 
> 2 88" screens can be produced on a 10.5G substrate.
> 
> 3 88" screens can be produced on a 10.5G substrate.





ALMA said:


> And surprise, surprise, the height of 88" is exactly the lenght of 49,5"...


Yeah, not a weird size at all really. It looks like LG is at least contemplating a future where they can attack sizes in the 70s, 80s, 90s/100s, and even larger.

The market for projectors is pretty small in those sizes, but it's not non-existent at all. And -- as we've discussed elsewhere -- they don't need to charge gigantic premiums per square inch for these to want to make them more than making smaller displays. But perhaps more notably, every one of these more or less gets sold into a "prestige" location (e.g. board rooms, home theaters of the well off, universities, etc.) and becomes a living billboard for LG.

There is some significant strategic advantage to LG in being the purveyor of the big-screen future. This is unlikely to be lost on the company.


----------



## fafrd

Looks like the rumors about LG getting serious about moving more 77" WOLED volume in 2018 are proving true: http://www.avsforum.com/lg-oled-tvs-ces-2018/

"The B8 sports LG’s Blade Slim form factor and will be available in 55″ and 65″ screen sizes, while *the C8 uses the same design in 55″, 65″, and—new for 2018—77″ sizes[*. The E8 continues LG’s Picture-on-Glass design in 55″ and 65″ sizes, while the W8 retains the Picture-on-Wall form factor of last year’s W7 in 65″ and 77″ sizes."

At 65", LG's OLED65C7P is currently priced below Samsung's QN65Q8C and the QN75Q8C is currently priced at $4800: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/search...n Size~75" or More&sp=-currentprice skuidsaas

The chances of a 77" WOLED being widely-available at discounted pricing approaching $5000 by Black Friday Season 2018 just went up dramatically...


----------



## babator

You noticed the news report that JOLED will supply Asus with printed 21.6" OLED panels from a pilot line, the Asus monitor to be available spring 2018? This looked like a pretty interesting development to me.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20180105PR200.html

https://www.oled-info.com/digitimes-...w-oled-monitor


----------



## fafrd

babator said:


> You noticed the news report that JOLED will supply Asus with printed 21.6" OLED panels from a pilot line, the Asus monitor to be available spring 2018? This looked like a pretty interesting development to me.
> 
> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20180105PR200.html
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/digitimes-joled-supplies-216-4k-oleds-used-asus-its-new-oled-monitor


If true, it's pretty much proof that the printed manufacturing process has improved to the point of being able to produce something functional in some kind of repeatable process than is more than a one-off.

Next set of questions then become:

- with what lifetime (especially printed Blue)?

- at what cost? 

if more than one-in-two printed OLEDs go in the dustbin, it will be a challenge getting funding to scale up to larger sizes and higher volumes...

But certainly a noteworthy milestone, thanks.


----------



## rogo

I almost wonder if this is a "deposit blue, print red and green" design. It seems improbable a computer-monitor worthy blue exists that can get solution processed.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I almost wonder if this is a "deposit blue, print red and green" design. It seems improbable a computer-monitor worthy blue exists that can get solution processed.


If true, that would mean promised breakthroughs on low cost will not be achieved, correct?


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> If true, that would mean promised breakthroughs on low cost will not be achieved, correct?


A lot of cost advantage is lost if the substrate needs to go through both kinds of processes. But how much? IDK, no one has ever done this.

Consider that LG now has to process each substrate 3x through vapor deposition. That has to be very slow. 

With a hybrid display (assuming lots of things can be hand waved away), you'd only need one vapor step and one "printing" step as both colors could ostensibly be laid down at once. Heck if you could print yellow, you could do a single-color print, right? (I don't believe that's realistic, just noting)

Now, I'd add this monitor doesn't look cheap either way. But given the last we heard about soluble blue was still in the 100s of hours, how could a monitor be using soluble blue? Does JOLED have exclusive access to an unannounced breakthrough? Again IDK.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> A lot of cost advantage is lost if the substrate needs to go through both kinds of processes. But how much? IDK, no one has ever done this.
> 
> Consider that LG now has to process each substrate 3x through vapor deposition. That has to be very slow.
> 
> With a hybrid display (assuming lots of things can be hand waved away), you'd only need one vapor step and one "printing" step as both colors could ostensibly be laid down at once. Heck if you could print yellow, you could do a single-color print, right? (I don't believe that's realistic, just noting)
> 
> Now, I'd add this monitor doesn't look cheap either way. But given the last we heard about soluble blue was still in the 100s of hours, how could a monitor be using soluble blue? Does JOLED have exclusive access to an unannounced breakthrough? Again IDK.


Sounds kind of rube-goldberg.

LG's process 3 vapor deposition steps on the same piece of equipment.

This hybrid JOLED process woukd require the blue oled vapor deposition on one piece of equipment, then shifting to another piece of equipment for printing of red and green.

Plus, if the blue is being patterned using masking techniques similar to how Samsung did it, they're likely to face the same challanges scaling up to larger sizes - 21.6" is less than a quarter of the area of a 55" screen...

p.s. and unless this monitor is WOLED with color filters like LG, being able to print yellow wouldn't help .


----------



## Jason626

Is it possible to print red, green then some other color combo and use a filter for blue?


----------



## fafrd

Oled TV shipments more than doubled over the past year while LCD shipments declined a bit: https://www.oled-info.com/ihs-oled-tv-shipments-grew-130-november-2016-november-2017

"According to IHS, global OLED TV shipments grew 130% from November 2016 to November 2017 to reach a new monthly record of 270,000 units."

"IHS estimates that in 2017 over 1.4 million OLED TVs were shipped."

"The growth of 65" OLED TVs (157% year-over-yera) is greater than the growth of 55" OLEDs (123%)."

"The overall LCD TV shipments actually declined 1.6% in the same period to 24.4 million units, as Black Friday demand in the US in 2017 was lower than in 2016,"

In November, 270,000 OLED TVs shipped versus 24.4M LCD TVs shipped means OLED had 1.1% share .


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Sounds kind of rube-goldberg.
> 
> LG's process 3 vapor deposition steps on the same piece of equipment.
> 
> This hybrid JOLED process woukd require the blue oled vapor deposition on one piece of equipment, then shifting to another piece of equipment for printing of red and green.
> 
> Plus, if the blue is being patterned using masking techniques similar to how Samsung did it, they're likely to face the same challanges scaling up to larger sizes - 21.6" is less than a quarter of the area of a 55" screen...
> 
> p.s. and unless this monitor is WOLED with color filters like LG, being able to print yellow wouldn't help .


Yes, the point about yellow was pointless.

It is Rube Goldberg. It's also been proposed more than once by people who actually work in the industry -- unlike me.

That said, the mask you'd need to do 21.6-inch monitors is less than half the mask size Samsung was working with on the 55s (although again I don't know what was deployed on Samsung's production) and would require zero scanning to make monitors. It'd be a single mask. 

And let's pretend for a moment they will mask deposit blue and then print the other two to "prove" printing sort of works. That would help raise all this money to do a true RGB within a few years where they can continue to hope someone makes a printable/soluble blue that would last for 5-10 years in a commercial display. Such a material still might be possible, even though in 17 years or so we've yet to see much evidence of progress towards one.



Jason626 said:


> Is it possible to print red, green then some other color combo and use a filter for blue?


No. You could do a lot of weird things, including trying to vapor deposit a whole sheet of blue (the way LG does) and then trying to print something over 2/3 of it that would allow you to lay down the red and green on top of it. Some kind of "resist" layer that your printer could handle. It's still super convoluted and really everyone should be trying to perfect what LG has done (think much smaller electrode traces, more clever filter designs, etc.) rather than work an angle that so far lacks evidence of being viable.

But again, what do I know? Perhaps someone secretly does have this next generation material and *isn't* a material supplier, who would presumably be shouting it from the rooftops as it would be worth billions.


----------



## ynotgoal

Some info on JOLED's printing. They are using ink jet printing previously developed by Panasonic. Panasonic showed a 55" prototype at CES a few years ago. They currently use a slow, low volume gen 4.5 pilot facility so the volume has to be very low and the price expensive. And much of that volume is reportedly going to Sony for a black & white medical monitor. They look to be raising $900 million to create a bigger facility for 2019. Although it should be noted $900 million isn't much in terms of display facilities so real volume production is going to be a long way off. They ink jet print all three red, green, blue colors in an RGB format using polymer OLEDs from Sumitomo Chemical. Sumitomo's performance charts indicate a blue lifetime of 750 hours to 95% brightness and possibly 10k hours to 50% brightness. These are improvements in their blue but it should also be noted that these are likely lab results and the ink jet printing process has typically degraded lab performance results. Idemitsu produces the fluorescent blue used by the rest of the industry. Their website states 11,000 to 50% brightness but this is very outdated and they have shown improved performance in recent years. I think it's well over 20,000 hours currently but can't quickly find the link to show it. Sumitomo's red lifetime is about 1/4 of the VTE materials. Still, if ASUS actually produces this monitor from JOLED that would be a significant event.

http://www.oled-a.org/joled-ships-p...significant-development-december-11-2017.html
https://www.sumitomo-chem.co.jp/printedelectronics/en/application/displays.html
https://www.oled-info.com/udcs-evaporable-emitters-still-outperform-best-soluble-materials


----------



## ALMA

65" rollable OLED prototype:

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1515293396


----------



## BlueChris

ALMA said:


> 65" rollable OLED prototype:
> 
> https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1515293396


How bad this will be as matter picture quality? We have big problems atm with the backplane on Normal oleds (at least this is my understanding as matter banding etc) so this has nothing behind the screen, it will be better quality wise? I hold my horses on this.


----------



## JasonHa

BlueChris said:


> How bad this will be as matter picture quality? We have big problems atm with the backplane on Normal oleds (at least this is my understanding as matter banding etc) so this has nothing behind the screen, it will be better quality wise? I hold my horses on this.


IMHO, the value in the future will be allowing people to bring much larger screens into their homes, not in constantly rolling and unrolling the TV.


----------



## video_analysis

I don't think Chris is disputing that (or even making that insinuation about constantly manipulating the screen). However, the ramifications he highlighted are a real concern given how bad the backplanes can already look with fixed positioning.


----------



## dkfan9

Maybe we can kink out the band's like massaging an LCD


----------



## rogo

ynotgoal said:


> Some info on JOLED's printing. They are using ink jet printing previously developed by Panasonic. Panasonic showed a 55" prototype at CES a few years ago. They currently use a slow, low volume gen 4.5 pilot facility so the volume has to be very low and the price expensive. And much of that volume is reportedly going to Sony for a black & white medical monitor. They look to be raising $900 million to create a bigger facility for 2019. Although it should be noted $900 million isn't much in terms of display facilities so real volume production is going to be a long way off. They ink jet print all three red, green, blue colors in an RGB format using polymer OLEDs from Sumitomo Chemical. Sumitomo's performance charts indicate a blue lifetime of 750 hours to 95% brightness and possibly 10k hours to 50% brightness. These are improvements in their blue but it should also be noted that these are likely lab results and the ink jet printing process has typically degraded lab performance results. Idemitsu produces the fluorescent blue used by the rest of the industry. Their website states 11,000 to 50% brightness but this is very outdated and they have shown improved performance in recent years. I think it's well over 20,000 hours currently but can't quickly find the link to show it. Sumitomo's red lifetime is about 1/4 of the VTE materials. Still, if ASUS actually produces this monitor from JOLED that would be a significant event.
> 
> http://www.oled-a.org/joled-ships-p...significant-development-december-11-2017.html
> https://www.sumitomo-chem.co.jp/printedelectronics/en/application/displays.html
> https://www.oled-info.com/udcs-evaporable-emitters-still-outperform-best-soluble-materials


Ynot, thank you for this excellent summary. 

These data points are very valuable and explain why *you can't make a TV with printable OLED* at this time. The material lifetimes are simply inadequate.

It's in theory possible that someone would make a TV with "just" 20,000 hours to half brightness. I wouldn't make such a TV because it would be noticeably less good in its first 5 years in too many homes. But it's also noteworthy: *No manufacturer has proposed such a TV either*.

While I agree a monitor from Asus would be significant, it doesn't point to any particular path to commercialization of either volume PC screens or TVs. And it's probably worth mentioning, the limitation isn't production equipment. I'm fairly confident Kateeva's machines could be making TVs if there were materials to make them with. Maybe that's overly optimistic, but they've had several years now since the date they were seemingly quite confident it could be done. And I doubt they are the only equipment maker to have gotten that far.

Given the concerns over LG's displays with respect to lifespan/burn-in, materials that don't last as long as what LG already has access to are worrisome. Feels like printable OLED TVs are still about 5 years away -- as they have been for the past 15 years.


----------



## Wizziwig

^ How do we know what LG's true lifetimes really are on their WOLED TVs? Especially when driven at higher light levels. Maybe they're not much better than 20,000 hours. Won't know for sure until some owner reaches that many hours.

There are already $60K laser/phosphor projectors currently being sold with 20K hours to half-brightness. Hasn't stopped Sony, Epson, or JVC from selling them to consumers.


----------



## ALMA

*r*OLED Video:


----------



## dnoonie

ALMA said:


> *r*OLED Video:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-gyRiZacp0&feature=youtu.be


Interesting, I did notice some slight waviness to the screen as it went up at :26-:29 but not too bad considering a bit of a worst case and I'm sure it will get better.

Yes I agree that this would mostly help with getting larger screens into homes, not for mine in it's present form but after a remodel or a relocation... I'm 10+years with my present display and will likely wait till 2019-2020 to upgrade.

Cheers,


----------



## GekkoSoze

ALMA said:


> *r*OLED Video:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-gyRiZacp0&feature=youtu.be


The white box at the bottom is hideous that completely negates the benefits of the rollable OLED being able to change aspect ratio.


----------



## slacker711

LGD says they will be able to deal with burn-in through software.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/lg-display-oled-to-account-for-40-percent-of-revenue-by-2020/



> He also rejected concerns of burn-ins raised by rival Samsung.
> 
> "Burn-in occurs both in OLED and LCD. It something that we can overcome through algorithms and software," he said.


----------



## JasonHa

GekkoSoze said:


> The white box at the bottom is hideous that completely negates the benefits of the rollable OLED being able to change aspect ratio.


It's just a demo from LGD, not a product.


----------



## GekkoSoze

JasonHa said:


> It's just a demo from LGD, not a product.


Still you'll need something to roll the screen down to and for connectivity. So the rollable OLED will never be a "floating" screen on the wall. What's the point then?


----------



## Nugget

GekkoSoze said:


> Still you'll need something to roll the screen down to and for connectivity. So the rollable OLED will never be a "floating" screen on the wall. What's the point then?



For any scenario where the display isn’t wall mounted? I don’t know, what exactly is your complaint? It’s a demo, and it showcases the panel rollability. I wouldn’t try to read anything more into it.


----------



## Jason626

The rollable displays box could be hidden in a ceiling so the tv comes down. Or million dollar RVs could have clean look and hidden away tv's to save space where large tv's would never have worked. Niche i know.


----------



## video_analysis

slacker711 said:


> LGD says they will be able to deal with burn-in through software.
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/lg-display-oled-to-account-for-40-percent-of-revenue-by-2020/


By deferring to LCD (as if the BI issues are anywhere near the same level of severity), I have little faith in that response.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> LGD says they will be able to deal with burn-in through software.
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/lg-display-oled-to-account-for-40-percent-of-revenue-by-2020/


That is true (and has already been discussed last year on this thread).

The point is that he said 'will be able to' implying that they have not done anything additional to address burn-in concerns on the just-announced 2018s.

Increased processing power (as well as memory) will be required, so the optimist would see the hardware upgrades launching this year as a promising first step and the double optimist might hope for some new burn-in healing (hiding) software to be released in an update before the year new year is finished.

It's a pity he was not asked when they would be releasing their burn-in-mitigating software and also a pity he was not asked if he is aware of Rtings.com burn-in testing that has exposed 2017 WOLEDs as being far more susceptible to burn-in than LED/LCD...


----------



## patrck744

slacker711 said:


> LGD says they will be able to deal with burn-in through software.
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/lg-display-oled-to-account-for-40-percent-of-revenue-by-2020/


I'll believe it once a 2018 Burn-in thread has no complaints


----------



## fafrd

GekkoSoze said:


> The white box at the bottom is hideous that completely negates the benefits of the rollable OLED being able to change aspect ratio.


If you saw at the one video that looked 'under the hood' by removing the box, the rigid backing being used will require a large roll that is going to need to be hidden somewhere.

In the longer-term, you'll becable to purchase a TV stand with the entire roll assemble hidden in the center. In the shorter-term, replace that unsightly white box with a 'double-top-with-a-slot' for whatever TV-stand you favor and it'll look far more appealing.

Those hoping for wall-mounting will face a greater challange 'hiding the roll' unless they want to go into the ceiling or into a thick mantle over the fireplace...

An unsightly box and variable aspect ratio are not exactly related, so I'm nt sure what you are trying to say - if your meaning is the negatives of the first outweigh the benefits of the second, fine. But if you mean the box somehow prevents the rollable WOLED from delivering variable aspect ratios that have been promised, you'll need to explain.


----------



## ericlhyman

slacker711 said:


> LGD says they will be able to deal with burn-in through software.
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/lg-display-oled-to-account-for-40-percent-of-revenue-by-2020/


Unclear whether LG is saying they will provide the software fix this year and whether it will apply to previous as well as new models.


----------



## scarabaeus

Even in the animal kingdom, high contrast through deep blacks rules:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02088-w

The surface structure discussed in the article could help OLEDs with daytime viewing conditions.


----------



## ALMA

The new 2018 panels are different to last year! So yes, there is a new pixel structure.

https://translate.google.de/transla...ed-2018-embarquent-nouvelle-dalle-n70191.html


----------



## rogo

ALMA said:


> The new 2018 panels are different to last year! So yes, there is a new pixel structure.
> 
> https://translate.google.de/transla...ed-2018-embarquent-nouvelle-dalle-n70191.html


It looks like maybe the fill factor will be slightly better. Maybe.


----------



## ALMA

Red is much bigger than last year and yes, the fill factor seems also to be improved.

And we have now BFI (Motion Pro) in LG new OLED TVs:


----------



## bombyx

I replicate my post from the other thread :
Here is a direct comparison of the pixels size : (2017 vs 2018 at approximately the same scale ):


(Some calculation : 
Area increase for Green : + 25% , 
Red : + 60% , 
Blue : something like +10% ,
White : +17% )


----------



## JasonHa

Is there any chance red is larger to help with burn in, which might be due to differential response from red over time?


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> The new 2018 panels are different to last year! So yes, there is a new pixel structure.
> 
> https://translate.google.de/transla...ed-2018-embarquent-nouvelle-dalle-n70191.html


They increased the size of the red subpixel - this should provide at least a 50% increase in the 'time-to-visible-burn-in' from bright yellow/orange/red static elements like CNN Logo.

Here's the new 2018 panel - red is close to the size of blue/white and much larger than green:


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> They increased the size of the red subpixel - this should provide at least a 50% increase in the 'time-to-visible-burn-in' from bright yellow/orange/red static elements like CNN Logo.
> 
> Here's the new 2018 panel - red is close to the size of blue/white and much larger than green:


And here's the 2017 structure - red is much smaller than blue or white and about the same size as green:


----------



## hailhailhailandkill

ericlhyman said:


> Unclear whether LG is saying they will provide the software fix this year and whether it will apply to previous as well as new models.


if you read what they say on their website about the OLED they are selling right now they say it already isn't a problem so I think it is just their boilerplate response. At best it indicates they are still working on ideas for it.


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> I replicate my post from the other thread :
> Here is a direct comparison of the pixels size : (2017 vs 2018 at approximately the same scale ):
> 
> 
> (Some calculation :
> Area increase for Green : + 25% ,
> Red : + 60% ,
> Blue : something like +10% ,
> White : +17% )


Great post. For equal luminance output, those increased areas should translate directly into increased 'time-to-visible-burn-in' and red in particular should take 160% of the time displaying bright static content to develop visible burn-in.

At OLED Light levels of 35-40, red develops burn-in after ~1000 hours on 2016 WOLEDs and that should now increase to ~1600 hours on 2018 WOLEDs.

At OLED Light levels of 80+, red develops burn-in after ~300-400 hours and that should now increase to ~500-600 hours.

LG could have used this increased fill factor to incresse peak brightness by 10-17% but I suspect they elected to make better results on burn-in tests a higher priority.

They pushed things a little bit too far in 2017 to fend off Samsung's attack in the 'Brightness Wars' and opened up vulnerability on the burn-in front.

I suspect that this year they have made the devision to hold the line on peak brightness and pour the benefit of all improvemebts into doing a better job resisting differential-aging-related burn-in.


----------



## gmarceau

Waiting for someone to actually list some real improvements for 2018. Looking like it's not much, but at least we know they didn't just re-issue 2017 panels.


----------



## patrck744

@fafrd do you happen to have the 2015 and 2016 pixel pics? I'm curious as to how much they are being improved every cycle.


----------



## aaz

Wondering does anyone know if LG has made this change in 2017 panels already or is this what was also done for the 2018 panels? https://www.oled-info.com/reports-say-lgd-aims-change-its-woled-tv-structure-yb-rgb
If you read that it seems to indicate that they don't need to increase the size of the red pixel to have made a material change in 2017 OLED panels that would be more resistent to burn in since red is a direct component and you would not need to run the Y-B as hot for the white pixels to filter out for on screen red.

then there is this https://www.oled-info.com/lg-introduce-3-stack-structure-its-2017-oled-lighting-and-tv-panels


----------



## fafrd

patrck744 said:


> @fafrd do you happen to have the 2015 and 2016 pixel pics? I'm curious as to how much they are being improved every cycle.


I don't have them but I found this on HDTVTEST: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/oled55e6-201604274285.htm

This is for the 55E6P but the other 2016s shoukd be similar.

Red looks to be ~2/3 the width of white or blue (which look pretty similar).

Compared to 2017 where red seems to be closer to 1/2 the width of white.

And in the new 2018 pc, red seems to be close the the width of white (at least 4/5 or so).

The 2017s may actually be worse for differential-aging-related burn-in of red than the 2017s (but the 2018 should be superior to both).


----------



## fafrd

aaz said:


> Wondering does anyone know if LG has made this change in 2017 panels already or is this what was also done for the 2018 panels? https://www.oled-info.com/reports-say-lgd-aims-change-its-woled-tv-structure-yb-rgb
> If you read that it seems to indicate that they don't need to increase the size of the red pixel to have made a material change in 2017 OLED panels that would be more resistent to burn in since red is a direct component and you would not need to run the Y-B as hot for the white pixels to filter out for on screen red.
> 
> then there is this https://www.oled-info.com/lg-introduce-3-stack-structure-its-2017-oled-lighting-and-tv-panels


There were conflicting reports as to whether LG introduced a red layer into the stack for 2017 or just a second ylellow or blue layer. Whatever changes were made to stack composition, they may have resulted in increased red efficiency which may be what motivated LG to reduce the relativecdize of the red subpixel in 2017.

Now that red has been exposed as the subpixel color most prone to differential-agibg-based burn-in due to static logos of CNN and MSNBC as well as bright yellow HUDS of some games, it appears that LG has understood that thecred subpixel is at least as vulnerable as the blue subpixel (which is rarely used in static elements).

A change such as we have seen for 2018 would be consistent with designing red and green to be equally robust from / susceptible to differential-aging-related burn-in (green is the most efficient subpixel so it needs to be driven less hard than red in terms of mA/cm^2 for a desired output level).


----------



## aaz

fafrd said:


> ...
> The 2017s may actually be worse for differential-aging-related burn-in of red than the 2017s (but the 2018 should be superior to both).


If the previous quote I posted above is a change they made for 2017 over 2016 then they could have indeed increased the performance of red subpixels without increasing the size. We'll have to wait and see but I think the increase in size is related to increasing brightness.


----------



## fafrd

aaz said:


> If the previous quote I posted above is a change they made for 2017 over 2016 then they could have indeed increased the performance of red subpixels without increasing the size. We'll have to wait and see but I think the increase in size is related to increasing brightness.


Yes, I don't think we know yet whether 2017 WOLEDs are more susceptible, less susceptible, or equally susceptible to differential-aging-related burn-in than 2016 WOLEDs. We'll need to wait until ~Jume and/or Rtings.com new test results to know.

LG has already stated that there is no increase in brightness for 2018, though reports suggest that 2018 WOLEDs will be able to deliver the full rated 900 Nits in D65 and not just on vivid.

So this change could also have been motivated by designing the panel to be closer to a native D65 so 'full-on' vivid output and calibrated max D65 output are closer to each other.

But no matter what, this change to red subpixel size is welcome news to anyone concerned about differential-aging-related burn-in...


----------



## rogo

gmarceau said:


> Waiting for someone to actually list some real improvements for 2018. Looking like it's not much, but at least we know they didn't just re-issue 2017 panels.


Yeah, it's an entirely new panel with an entirely new processor.

No improvements AT ALL!


----------



## gmarceau

rogo said:


> Yeah, it's an entirely new panel with an entirely new processor.
> 
> No improvements AT ALL!


Ok, ok, it's new and maybe improved, but will it matter... Looking forward to a D-Nice review.


----------



## wco81

Yeah seems like incremental improvements, with no word on whether they've addressed the reliability and consistency issues people have complained about.

Plus not too future proof without HDMI 2.1 either. Yeah I know it was finalized only at the end of November but it would make more sense to ship these products in the fall, which is when most TVs are bought anyways, and then get HDMI 2.1 in there.

Otherwise, it may make more sense to buy 2017 models and plan to upgrade again years later.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Yeah seems like incremental improvements, with no word on whether they've addressed the reliability and consistency issues people have complained about.
> 
> Plus not too future proof without HDMI 2.1 either. Yeah I know it was finalized only at the end of November but it would make more sense to ship these products in the fall, which is when most TVs are bought anyways, and then get HDMI 2.1 in there.
> 
> Otherwise, it may make more sense to buy 2017 models and plan to upgrade again years later.


A faster processor supporting another flavor of HDR is nice, as is improved motion with suport for BFI, but the enlarged red subpixel is huge, in my view. We'll probably see that the new panel can deliver increased peak brightness, but it is almost certainly going to deliver ~40% slower aging of red (1/160%) and improved immunity to differential-aging-related burn in.

Of course, in my (9 WOLED) experience, near-black uniformity trumps all of these improvements and I would not give up my prerty-good-uniformity 65C6P for a less-uniform 65C8P even to gain these incremental improvements.

So we'll have to see what early owners and reviewers say, but if LG has succeeded to reverse the step backwards in near-black uniformity that they unfortunately took in 2017 and succeeds to get back to at least where they were in the near-black uniformity department in 2016, I say that 2018 was a 'knock it out of the park' kind of year for LG...


----------



## rogo

gmarceau said:


> Ok, ok, it's new and maybe improved, but will it matter... Looking forward to a D-Nice review.





wco81 said:


> Yeah seems like incremental improvements, with no word on whether they've addressed the reliability and consistency issues people have complained about.
> 
> Plus not too future proof without HDMI 2.1 either. Yeah I know it was finalized only at the end of November but it would make more sense to ship these products in the fall, which is when most TVs are bought anyways, and then get HDMI 2.1 in there.
> 
> Otherwise, it may make more sense to buy 2017 models and plan to upgrade again years later.


Literally every year is incremental improvements. Even what I'd call "step-wise" improvements are (1) rarely revolutionary (2) occur very infrequently.

It's pointless to try to project if/when you'll get a "step" because that's typically just about 2 years worth of progress.

I remember the original Kuro demos from CES where *everyone* in the room understood "once this is a product, that's going to be quite something". This was also always going to be true of the very first OLEDs.

Otherwise, I'd argue the leaps have been in small quanta while none of them have been quite quantum. 

But by all means, define it however you want.

That said, the new LG has a brand new panel and a brain new processing engine. I suspect that'll be true again in 2020. But whenever it's true, it'll be another nice gain or whatever is out. It doesn't obsolete a thing and most humans will be hard pressed to see the differences.

Many here complain about LG's issues with motion (should be improved), some honestly pretty bogus concerns about brightness with some more substantive concerns about ABL (likely improved), and also about vertical band issues (who knows? but the fact that the fab is mature, the backplane making is mature, et al. suggests this could _also_ be better).

But cue the whining!


----------



## wco81

No whining, just that the timing isn't the best to buy these models since we're on the cusp of a major revision to HDMI which will affect not only displays but receivers, set top boxes, disc players, game consoles, etc.

And there just isn't enough compelling content to justify buying now unless you watch a lot of Netflix or Amazon.

2018 would have been more interesting if they're broadcasting at least some of the Winter Olympics in 4K and HDR. Same with the World Cup.

Same with the Super Bowl for that matter. They used 4K cameras last year, but there's no way to deliver those broadcasts, unless NBC/Comcast set up streaming just for the event.

If they announced NFL and NBA 4k broadcasts starting in the fall, it would be very hard to resist. But without more content, waiting until 2019, at least for HDMI, sounds viable. I don't want to upgrade my receiver twice. Expense isn't even the biggest issue here. I'd spend $400-600 for the AVR. But to get rid of it, I got to find a buyer or try to get it recycled and these things are not tiny. I recently went through some hassle trying to arrange a pick up time for an old 42-inch LCD with a green recycling service out of Oakland which only picks up in the South Bay once or twice a month, versus taking to some commercial recycler whom I would have had to pay to drop off the thing with them.


----------



## ALMA

Back to panel variations:

I compared other macro shots on "lesnumeriques.com" and there were also panel differences between 2016 and 2017. But there is more. In 2016, the LG G6 (tested in May 2016) and Loewe bild7 got the 2017 panel! Before getting the norm in 2017, the 2017 panel was in 2016 an optimized panel for the more exclusive Signature line and high end Loewe OLED. Some 2017 sets from other manufactures also had only the 2016 panel, like the more entry level sets from Philips and Loewe bild5.

It seems LGD has a production line with different panel specifications for low and high end tier.

Sorry it´s German, but you can use Google translation:
http://www.hifi-forum.de/index.php?action=browseT&forum_id=312&thread=61&postID=95#95


----------



## dkfan9

Or at least "had". No signs of distinction in 17s between high and low end. But knowing the different lines they have for different markets that might need longevity (such as Sony and FSI pro monitors and whoever is buying convex and concave screens), and seeing the A7 model in Europe last year using the 2015 panel (which is possibly also sold to other longer term customers), it makes sense they produce different panels concurrently.


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> Back to panel variations:
> 
> I compared other macro shots on "lesnumeriques.com" and there were also panel differences between 2016 and 2017. But there is more. In 2016, the LG G6 (tested in May 2016) and Loewe bild7 got the 2017 panel! Before getting the norm in 2017, the 2017 panel was in 2016 an optimized panel for the more exclusive Signature line and high end Loewe OLED. Some 2017 sets from other manufactures also had only the 2016 panel, like the more entry level sets from Philips and Loewe bild5.
> 
> It seems LGD has a production line with different panel specifications for low and high end tier.
> 
> Sorry it´s German, but you can use Google translation:
> http://www.hifi-forum.de/index.php?action=browseT&forum_id=312&thread=61&postID=95#95


Rtings.com generally shows a picture-zoom of subpixel design, but someonecshoukd tell them to up their game - their images are too fuzzy to see the level of detail in these recently-posted images and if LG is truly starting to design different panels for different TV tiers, it seems like an important aspect to check/confirm...

In terms of the increased subpixel sizes that have been discovered on the 2018 panel, these changes should be a win/win/win across the board:

SDR ABL should increase by 10% or more across the board (unless LG decides to reserve some of this increase to improve aging/burn-in).

Below 25% ABL should increase from 430 Nits to 470-500 Nits.

The entire curve should move up by 10-20% and at 87%, for example, ABL should increase from ~150 Nits to 165-180 Nits.

At 100%, ABL should be able to increase from 130 Nits to 145-160 Nits.

HDR ABL should also increase as well, though probably just meanng that close to 900 Nits can be delivered at D65 rather than only on vivid.

Aside from balancing red subpixel aging closer to green (and possibly both red and green cliser to blue), the modified design also hopefully tines native panel output closer to D65 so that all subpixels age more equally when delivering brightest (D65) white and 'Vivid' puts out a more usable native peak white...


----------



## nodixe

fafrd said:


> Rtings.com generally shows a picture-zoom of subpixel design, but someonecshoukd tell them to up their game - their images are too fuzzy to see the level of detail in these recently-posted images and if LG is truly starting to design different panels for different TV tiers, it seems like an important aspect to check/confirm...
> 
> In terms of the increased subpixel sizes that have been discovered on the 2018 panel, these changes should be a win/win/win across the board:
> 
> SDR ABL should increase by 10% or more across the board (unless LG decides to reserve some of this increase to improve aging/burn-in).
> 
> Below 25% ABL should increase from 430 Nits to 470-500 Nits.
> 
> The entire curve should move up by 10-20% and at 87%, for example, ABL should increase from ~150 Nits to 165-180 Nits.
> 
> At 100%, ABL should be able to increase from 130 Nits to 145-160 Nits.
> 
> HDR ABL should also increase as well, though probably just meanng that close to 900 Nits can be delivered at D65 rather than only on vivid.
> 
> Aside from balancing red subpixel aging closer to green (and possibly both red and green cliser to blue), the modified design also hopefully tines native panel output closer to D65 so that all subpixels age more equally when delivering brightest (D65) white and 'Vivid' puts out a more usable native peak white...


This. I been saying for awhile now that I read an article where LG said that they had to sacrifice panel brightness to implement passive 3d. To reduce crosstalk (I think) pass3d required a large vertical space between pixels rows and since pasdive 3d is no longer a feature they could increase the surface area of the subpixels. The implication was that it would equal a brighter panel at same power. They made it sound like the subpixels were already this size but were artificially covered (or restricted) and it was just a simple matter of uncovering them. I read it in early 2017 sometime but cant find it now.....

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## mr. wally

Couple of things here

New owner of 65a1e and very pleased. No banding or tinting visible on content, zero
QC, breakin and calibration very well executed at VE. Well worth the investment

Quite honestly, after spending hours comparing comparing Sony on cinema home vs E7 with technicolor setting side by side, the Sony was patently the superior display. The 

motion processing wasn't even close, and as a sports junkie that was case closed.
Not sure how all the "experts" rated the E7 best of 2017 when the Sony clearly delivered superior processing.
Only rationale I can deduce was the Sonys lack of DV gave the edge by default.


Others may disagree with my personal assessment, but when watching 4K HDR blu Rays on the Oppo 203, this is as close to videophile perfection I've had the pleasure to enjoy. And I've always bought only the best HD displays since 2004 from the superb (but inherently flawed) SXRDs, to a couple of Kuro elites, and now this Oled.

I think the 2018 LGs with new processing chips and BFI, should be able to match the '17 Sonys. 

I read with great interest that LG has now changed the size of the red sub-pixel. As someone who watches a couple hours of CNN and MSNBC each evening to catch up on the daily foibles of our esteemed chief executive, I worry greatly about how much and how rapidly I am deteriorating my display. I do use the channel guide every 10-15 minutes to move around where the red logos appear on the screen, but from what we know about the lifespan of the red sub-pixel on the '17 panels, what would you conjecture is the useable lifespan of my display?

I would hope for at least 5 years, since by then 2.1 should be well established and by then my preferred screen size of 77" or larger display sizes shouldn't run too much more than the quite reasonable Black Friday sales price I spent on the Sony

Do I need to foresake my evening news viewing habits to preserve my display, or are the '17 panels robust enough to safely give me years of service?


----------



## video_analysis

Forsake them? Perhaps (for the sake of your OLED if nothing else), and diversify (to include some that at least pretend not to wear their bias like a badge of honor). And maybe the LG isn't as bad as you imagined (or you compared a preponderance of 1080i and under/bit-starved streaming to reach your conclusion). It won at the VE shootout, and those weren't all experts but enthusiasts, too. The differences at 1080p and up are rather minuscule short of motion settings (likely similar if BFI is disabled on the Sony). That said, I bought my 77" G6 from VE, but he convinced me to have it drop-shipped from a few states over instead of shipping it cross-country twice so that I could take advantage of the break-in/calibration service (that's only as good as the availability of product allows). I regret that today (though I question how much it would have helped given how few were available, apparently, at the time), as LG/D didn't make any effort to screen for banding even on the $20k behemoth. That was in March of last year, and I was told it would be the last one (even though I'm sure it was still listed on sale at the site at least into midsummer). Whenever I buy again, it will be back to Best Buy if they're still around and hopefully off their blacklist for returns (on which I probably earned a spot in 2016 after multiple returns).

I saw your posts in the A1E thread about seeing no banding, but I still wonder how many of the real-world show sequences you've checked to definitively make the claim on the first post (forget the slides): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...uniformity-discussion-banding-vignetting.html

I actually tend to believe you because I have a 65" G6 (3D backup because it's that good) that looks revelatory in comparison to the jailbar nightmare that is the larger size.


----------



## jrref

We have discussed this banding issue many times over the years but now that it's almost the end of the model year and with the number of sets I've seen i can say with good confidence that there are bad sets with banding on both the A1 and the LGs as you mentioned. Every set has some sort of banding but most of it on most sets is not noticeable when viewing content to most of the population. On every OLED, if you look hard enough, you will see some sort of banding and or tinting, it's just a characteristic of OLED right now. I can also say, from my experience that for some reason, banding is more pronounced on the lower end LGs (B7, C7) vs the more expensive LGs (E7, G7 W7) and the A1Es. I have no idea why. I suspect the panels are graded. This doesn't mean you can't get a perfect B7 or a bad G7 or A1E this is just an observation after looking at a lot of sets. The one thing you can be certain is that the W7 is like a hand made set. I guess because they make so few. They all looked great to me and the calibration OTB was very good.

I've seen near perfect panels from both manufacturers and some that needed to be sent back regardless of the model.


----------



## video_analysis

The 2016 models should have been hand-built, too, when they were SRP'd at $20k surely, yet you can see just how bad the below is (highly visible in content when the luminance and background are correct; i.e. all over the first episode of the Amazon prime Electric Dream series). I don't think LG will be very interested in my pleas at this point as they have become numb to the complaints. Damn them for getting me hooked on 3D with their stellar delivery.


----------



## ataneruo

ALMA said:


> Red is much bigger than last year and yes, the fill factor seems also to be improved.
> 
> And we have now BFI (Motion Pro) in LG new OLED TVs:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naf1nlD93vw




Super excited about BFI! Sample and hold is a huge limitation of an otherwise great screen technology and I shake my head all the time at my C7P with an otherwise great picture, but terrible motion artifacts. And I don’t care what people say about the latest updates making it “better”, it is still quite visible.


----------



## stl8k

*OLED Inkjet Printing Market Overview*

FYI. https://www.oled-info.com/oled-ink-jet-printing-market-situation-early-2018


----------



## fafrd

Just found this on a forecast for 75" panel growth: https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/is-another-gen-7-tft-lcd-fab-closure-imminent-in-korea.html

Just under 1.5M 75" TVs forcasted to sell in 2018 (up from actual sales of about 750,000 in 2016).

LG used their existing 34,000 8.5G substrates to sell 1.4M WOLEDs in 2017 and increased that 8.5G capacity to 60,000 substrates late last year: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/engl...isplay’s-factory-guangzhou-supply-oled-panels

LGs overall share of the $1000-and-over TV market increased to close to 7% last year (1.4M / 10% of 200M) and should surpass 10% this year.

If LG wants 10% of the 75" TV market, they will need to sell 150,000 77" WOLEDs, probably close to 10x what they sold in 2017.

90% yield for 55" WOLEDs equates to about 80% yield for 77" WOLEDs, and at that yield, production of 150,000 77" WOLEDs will consume about 100,000 8.5G substrates (about 1/3rd of the additional 26,000/month capacity LG recently bought online).

At current entry-level pricing, LG generates $8640 per 8.5G sheet selling 55" WOLEDs (at 90% yield) and $6450 per 8.5G sheet selling 65" WOLEDs (at 86% yield).

A 90% yield at 55" is equivalent to an 86% yield at 65" is equivalent to an 80% yield at 77", and at an 80% yield, LG is generating $16000 per 8.5G sheet selling 'entry-level' 77G7P WOLEDs for $10000.

Nice margin but very low volume of sales.

Drop prices on the new 2018 entry-level 77C8P to $5000 and LG will still be generating $8000 per 8.5G sheet selling 77" WOLEDs, much more margin than they are currently generating on sales of 65" WOLEDs.

While sales of 55" and 65" WOLEDs are likely to grow by over 50% this year, sales of 77" WOLEDs are likely to grow by close to 900% (and by November, discounted 'dip' prices are almost certainly going to drop much more dramatically on entry-level 77" WOLEDs than on either 55" or 65" entry-level WOLEDs as a result ).


----------



## rogo

@fafrd, math is a powerful arguing tool.

Of course, it isn't determinative. They could be planning on lowering other prices more to sell out capacity that way. I doubt it, but it's not entirely without possibility given how much share they are still able to seek and the impending new fab, which will give them much more capacity. You still want to be able to roll out price declines in a neat fashion, so there are waystations along the way to full 10.5G fab production.

But I find your numbers compelling and tend to agree they are approaching inevitable.

Bad news for everyone else selling 75-inch TVs.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> @fafrd, math is a powerful arguing tool.
> 
> Of course, it isn't determinative. They could be planning on lowering other prices more to sell out capacity that way. I doubt it, but it's not entirely without possibility given how much share they are still able to seek and the impending new fab, which will give them much more capacity. You still want to be able to roll out price declines in a neat fashion, so there are waystations along the way to full 10.5G fab production.
> 
> But I find your numbers compelling and tend to agree they are approaching inevitable.
> 
> Bad news for everyone else selling 75-inch TVs.


It's the forecast on 75" TV sales that caught my attention. If you believe 1.5M 75" TVs will sell this year (compared to a sixth of that when they first launched the 77EC9800 4 years ago: http://www.hdtv-news.com/lg/oled-2014/ then it seems inevitable that LG needs to match sub-flagship 75" TV pricing from Samsung and Sony sooner rather than later and start selling more WOLEDs of that size.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

ataneruo said:


> Super excited about BFI! Sample and hold is a huge limitation of an otherwise great screen technology and I shake my head all the time at my C7P with an otherwise great picture, but terrible motion artifacts. And I don’t care what people say about the latest updates making it “better”, it is still quite visible.


It's going to take a while, but:

*Blurless sample-and-hold* (coming year 2025) will be even superior to both BFI and current sample-and-hold.

I have personally witnessed blurless sample-and-hold in the laboratory:

*Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays*

The only way to get blurless sample-and-hold is fill all BFI blackness with ultra-short full persistence frames with no black periods in between. 1ms persistence without BFI requires true 1000fps at 1000Hz sample-and-hiold. In the laboratory, I have already witnessed CRT motion clarity with sample-and-hold! It takes insane *true* refresh rates to achieve, though. 

But after 8K went retina, refresh rates still have plenty left in the diminishing-returns curve, going well past 1000Hz before the end of diminishing-points-of-return curve. 



I was also the world's first person to test a true-480Hz display (not fake 480Hz). Being the founder of Blur Busters as well as TestUFO Motion Tests. Also coauthor (with NIST.gov, NOKIA, Keltek) of a peer reviewed conference paper on display testing techniques. 

True genuine 1000Hz won't be available in a TV this decade (geuine 1000 individual frames per second playing realtime at a true genuine 1000Hz), but should arrive to mainstream displays by end of 2020s or during the 2030s. Beginning with gaming monitors by around 2025 based on what I've seen and tested myself. 

There is genuine benefit to going to true 1000Hz (and beyond). Scientists now agree with this. Display mnufacturers, NVIDIA scientists, VR scientists, I cite a few in the article link above.

Blurless sample-and-hold is closest to real life. Real life does not strobe. Real life has no frame rate. Real life is not delivered in static frames. And real life has no motion blur. The only way to pass the Morarity / Holodeck Turing Test is analog motion (infinite frame rates at infinite refresh rates) but quadruple-digit refresh rates comes very close to a framerateless display.

That said, good OLED BFI is something I truly look forward to. 

I love BFI but it is only an interim band-aid before true CRT-quality *blurless sample-and-hold* in about a decade from now.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> It's the forecast on 75" TV sales that caught my attention. If you believe 1.5M 75" TVs will sell this year (compared to a sixth of that when they first launched the 77EC9800 4 years ago: http://www.hdtv-news.com/lg/oled-2014/ then it seems inevitable that LG needs to match sub-flagship 75" TV pricing from Samsung and Sony sooner rather than later and start selling more WOLEDs of that size.


I'm not sure I believe that old forecast nor am I fully convinced about the current-year numbers. 

I wonder what IHS thinks is true *right now* for 2018.


----------



## dkfan9

Mark Rejhon said:


> It's going to take a while, but:
> 
> *Blurless sample-and-hold* (coming year 2025) will be even superior to both BFI and current sample-and-hold.
> 
> I have personally witnessed blurless sample-and-hold in the laboratory:
> 
> *Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays*
> 
> The only way to get blurless sample-and-hold is fill all BFI blackness with ultra-short full persistence frames with no black periods in between. 1ms persistence without BFI requires true 1000fps at 1000Hz sample-and-hiold. In the laboratory, I have already witnessed CRT motion clarity with sample-and-hold! It takes insane *true* refresh rates to achieve, though.
> 
> [/snip]


Does this really help 24fps material? Are you expecting a huge improvement in interpolation to accompany this? Not only artifact free, but SOE free.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

dkfan9 said:


> Does this really help 24fps material? Are you expecting a huge improvement in interpolation to accompany this? Not only artifact free, but SOE free.


There are two answers to this question depending on what you are looking for.

*Answer "A"*
*If you're trying to reproduce the original 35mm projector look, you definitely need a form of BFI*
Old film projectors blacked out (using a spinning shutter) to allow the filmreel to move to the next frame. Also, to reduce flicker, 24fps film was doublestrobed, to produce 48Hz flicker which is less objectionable than 18Hz or 24Hz flicker (of 1910s and 1920s film fame -- they were called "flicks" because they flicked so much. However, the strobed look of old film, ultimately, is an artificial look that is ultimately preferred by people who grew up with 35mm film. Frame rates (the science of using static images to represent moving images) were an invention by humankind, since the days of zoetropes in the 19th century. Flipbooking has its very nice film-purist feel, but will never pass the Holodeck Turing Test (trick you that a display is real life).

*Answer "B"*
*If you're trying to make video look like real life as much as possible, blurless sample-and-hold (true 1000Hz) is superior to BFI*
Great for sports and smooth blurfree video stuff. CRT without flicker. BFI-look without BFI. Strobeless ULMB. Strobeless LightBoost. Impulseless plasma. Analog-motion framerateless display that has no refresh rate. 100% PWM free with no motion blur. For that ultra-high Hz, you need good artificial-intelligence interpolators to remove a lot of SOE artifacts. But movements will always look supersmooth. Like real life, not traditional 35mm film. It doesn't look the same as film played in movie theaters. But this is the ideal mode whenever you want something to look like looking out of a window, or for a screen that is Holodeck-quality. 

*About the interpolation question for blur-free sample-and-hold*
Yes, improved interpolation will be needed unless you use a 1000fps realtime camera (not 1000fps slo-mo) for 1000Hz displays. I do not really expect 1000fps (realtime, not slomo) broadcast standards for at least two human generations, but display-side 1000Hz is in the lab now and probably commercialized 2020s or 2030s. 

_That said, it possible there are "spinoff video modes" combining the two_
That said, the bonus of 1000fps/1000Hz sample-and-hold is you could develop custom BFI algorithms and even simulate phosphor fade of a CRT, or other preferred artifacts (e.g. plasma mechanics). Meaning, allowing an OLED to emulate the feel of a CRT, or the feel of plasma, or the feel of 35mm double-strobe. 1ms refresh-cycle granularity can simulate a 150-degree, 180-degree, 270-degree spinning shutter simply by adjusting BFI ratios (number of black frames to number of visible frames), and if you wanted a fade effect, you can dim successive refresh cycles to fade-out frames to soften the BFI strobing transitions (turning squarewave luminance BFI strobing into sinewave luminance BFI strobing, making flicker less harsh to eyes) to emulate phosphor fade effects much more accurately. The overkill Hz technology can be used for phosphor effects emulation, if one so wished. Simply put, these are modes of operations that could theoretically be enabled in an onscreen menu (like enabling/disabling an interpolation mode)


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> There are two answers to this question depending on what you are looking for.
> 
> *Answer "A"*
> *If you're trying to reproduce the original 35mm projector look, you definitely need a form of BFI*
> Old film projectors blacked out (using a spinning shutter) to allow the filmreel to move to the next frame. Also, to reduce flicker, 24fps film was doublestrobed, to produce 48Hz flicker which is less objectionable than 18Hz or 24Hz flicker (of 1910s and 1920s film fame -- they were called "flicks" because they flicked so much. However, the strobed look of old film, ultimately, is an artificial look that is ultimately preferred by people who grew up with 35mm film. Frame rates (the science of using static images to represent moving images) were an invention by humankind, since the days of zoetropes in the 19th century. Flipbooking has its very nice film-purist feel, but will never pass the Holodeck Turing Test (trick you that a display is real life).
> 
> *Answer "B"*
> *If you're trying to make video look like real life as much as possible, blurless sample-and-hold (true 1000Hz) is superior to BFI*
> Great for sports and smooth blurfree video stuff. CRT without flicker. BFI-look without BFI. Strobeless ULMB. Strobeless LightBoost. Impulseless plasma. Analog-motion framerateless display that has no refresh rate. 100% PWM free with no motion blur. For that ultra-high Hz, you need good artificial-intelligence interpolators to remove a lot of SOE artifacts. But movements will always look supersmooth. Like real life, not traditional 35mm film. It doesn't look the same as film played in movie theaters. But this is the ideal mode whenever you want something to look like looking out of a window, or for a screen that is Holodeck-quality.
> 
> *About the interpolation question for blur-free sample-and-hold*
> Yes, improved interpolation will be needed unless you use a 1000fps realtime camera (not 1000fps slo-mo) for 1000Hz displays. I do not really expect 1000fps (realtime, not slomo) broadcast standards for at least two human generations, but display-side 1000Hz is in the lab now and probably commercialized 2020s or 2030s.
> 
> _That said, it possible there are "spinoff video modes" combining the two_
> That said, the bonus of 1000fps/1000Hz sample-and-hold is you could develop custom BFI algorithms and even simulate phosphor fade of a CRT, or other preferred artifacts (e.g. plasma mechanics). Meaning, allowing an OLED to emulate the feel of a CRT, or the feel of plasma, or the feel of 35mm double-strobe. 1ms refresh-cycle granularity can simulate a 150-degree, 180-degree, 270-degree spinning shutter simply by adjusting BFI ratios (number of black frames to number of visible frames), and if you wanted a fade effect, you can dim successive refresh cycles to fade-out frames to soften the BFI strobing transitions (turning squarewave luminance BFI strobing into sinewave luminance BFI strobing, making flicker less harsh to eyes) to emulate phosphor fade effects much more accurately. The overkill Hz technology can be used for phosphor effects emulation, if one so wished. Simply put, these are modes of operations that could theoretically be enabled in an onscreen menu (like enabling/disabling an interpolation mode)


Mark, do you have a sense what level of refresh-rate+interpolation (if needed) is required to get past thex'Soap Opera Effect'?

What do you bekieve is the effective framerate needed for the soap Opera Effect to fade and the 'Reality Effect' start to kick in?


----------



## Mark Rejhon

fafrd said:


> Mark, do you have a sense what level of refresh-rate+interpolation (if needed) is required to get past thex'Soap Opera Effect'?
> 
> What do you bekieve is the effective framerate needed for the soap Opera Effect to fade and the 'Reality Effect' start to kick in?


I make a distinction between *SOE* versus *SOE artifacts*. Two different subjects.

SOE = the super smooth motion.
SOE artifacts = flaws/fakeness in the super smooth motion.

Many confuse the two. I don't mind SOE for sports, but I hate SOE artifacts (e.g. edge distortions). Proper, good, modern, powerful interpolation can solve a lot of SOE artifacts. Also, not everyone can tell apart SOE and SOE artifacts. For example, SOE combined with motion blur (since cameras has motion blur) can look rather fake, instead of real life. But on the other hand, that's not SOE's fault, but the camera's fault.

Motion blur can be artistically nice sometimes -- but if you're trying to pass a Holodeck Turing Test (reality test), you don't want additional motion blur forced upon your eyes above-and-beyond natural human vision. So to make things real looking, the camera shutter should be 1/1000sec or shorter for video (any frame rate) delivered to an interpolator designed for a [email protected] display.

The world's best interpolators, run on an ultra-high-Hz display, using fast-shutter video material (sun-lit sports) on a display with ultra-good BFI (1ms persistence), actually already leaps over the fakeness "uncanny valley". Unfortunately most cameras are set to a much slower shutter so they are never given a chance to shine on ultra-low-persistence interpolation. So you're interpolating already pre-blurred video, which only amplifies the fakeness. 

1/60sec shutter motion blur at 240fps? Yuck, fake-SOE-o-mania. 
1/1000sec shutter motion blur at 120fps 1ms strobed (85% dark ratio)? Yum!

Now if only we had a 4K or 8K 120Hz 1ms persistence display, playing 120fps HFR video (1/1000sec shutter), that'd approach CRT clarity. Camera shutter should be same or less than the display persistence, for the reality feel during blur-free operation.

[email protected] would be even better, but 1ms persistence 120Hz BFI would be good enough with current state of technology (as long as used with an ultra-good 120fps interpolator and 1/1000sec shutter video material to avoid the fakeness feel).


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> I make a distinction between *SOE* versus *SOE artifacts*. Two different subjects.
> 
> SOE = the super smooth motion.
> SOE artifacts = flaws/fakeness in the super smooth motion.
> 
> Too many people conflate the two. I don't mind SOE for sports, but I hate SOE artifacts (e.g. edge distortions). Proper, good, modern, powerful interpolation can solve a lot of SOE artifacts. Also, not everyone can tell apart SOE and SOE artifacts. For example, SOE combined with motion blur (since cameras has motion blur) can look rather fake, instead of real life. But on the other hand, that's not SOE's fault, but the camera's fault.
> 
> Motion blur can be artistically nice sometimes -- but if you're trying to pass a Holodeck Turing Test (reality test), you don't want additional motion blur forced upon your eyes above-and-beyond natural human vision. So to make things real looking, the camera shutter should be 1/1000sec or shorter for video (any frame rate) delivered to an interpolator designed for a [email protected] display.


Thanks for response but I'm not asking about interpolation artifacts, I'm talking about 60fps OTA Soap Operas and what causes the 'Soap Opera' characteristics such that when 24fps is interpolated to 60fps 2:3 or 120fps 5:5 many viewers see it as looking like a 'Soap Opera' rather than more like reality.

So let's assume that 30fps with persistance doesn't look 'real' and is percieved as something call Soap Opera Effect. My question is then at what frequency that effect begins to fade.

If 1000fps looks like a holodeck (reality) and 30fps with persistance looks like a Soap Opera, what framerate is the minimum needed for that 'Soap Ooera-like' perception to begin to fade? 240fps, 480fps?

(again, not talking about interpoation artifacts, which are another ball of wax...).


----------



## Mark Rejhon

fafrd said:


> Thanks for response but I'm not asking about interpolation artifacts, I'm talking about 60fps OTA Soap Operas and what causes the 'Soap Opera' characteristics such that when 24fps is interpolated to 60fps 2:3 or 120fps 5:5 many viewers see it as looking like a 'Soap Opera' rather than more like reality.


This question is not easy to answer because:

(A) Different people perceive SOE differently. 

_The SOE fakeness feel is often a subjective factor. Some are measurable (e.g. photographable artifacts), and some are human-perception related, and varies by human. Perfect SOE (artifact-free) and HFR can look indistinguishable but both can simultaneously be hated as in "True HFR video looks like SOE to me" statements._

(B) SOE fakeness look is frequently affected by camera shutter speed. 

_Slow camera shutters will never look identical to reality unless you find a way to deblur the camera blurring._

(C) Too many variables, such as resolution demanding lower persistence.

_For example, higher resolution demands lower persistence to avoid fakeness. Closer viewing distances also demands lower persistence, since motionspeeds are physically faster and motion blur is more noticeable. This is because of bigger sharpness difference between static images versus moving images. The sharper, the more sensitive it is to motion blur at the same angular physical motion speed (more dpi = more angular resolution = more pixels of motion blurring = bigger clarity difference between static and moving images). The approximate vanishing point of diminishing returns is roughly ~10,000Hz for 180-degree retina VR displays explained at www.blurbusters.com/1000hz-journey ... This is the "Vicious Cycle" effect of higher resolutions demanding lower persistence. Reality doesn't suddenly motion-blur (above human vision limitations) when things start moving. Most display engineers don't even understand this "Vicious Cycle" effect._

(D) Improved HFR clarity can reveal movie-set imperfections better.

_This contributes to the SOE fakeness feel for some feel._


----------



## Mark Rejhon

More about the "Vicious Cycle" effect of higher resolutions demanding lower persistence (either by higher Hz or via larger-blackness-ratio BFI):

A good example of display motion blur is *TestUFO Panning Map Test* at 3000 pixels per second, the street name labels are only fully readable on a display with ~0.5ms persistence. If you have a NVIDIA G-SYNC gaming display with ULMB, turn that strobe backlight mode on. Then adjust "ULMB Pulse Width" in the onscreen menus. ULMB PW 100% is about 1.5ms, ULMB PW 50% is less than 1ms, and ULMB PW 25% is roughly 0.5ms. 

3000 pixels/sec at 60Hz sample-n-hold = 50 pixels of display motion blurring
3000 pixels/sec at 120Hz sample-n-hold = 25 pixels of display motion blurring
3000 pixels/sec at 2ms MPRT persistence = 6 pixels of display motion blurring
3000 pixels/sec at 1ms MPRT persistence = 3 pixels of display motion blurring
3000 pixels/sec at 0.5ms MPRT persistence = 1.5 pixels of display motion blurring

I can read the street name labels on a G-SYNC monitor with ULMB enabled, with Pulse Width set to 50%, which results in MPRT measurements of less than 1.0ms. It's amazing how unreadable the Google Map is at 1ms persistence, which shows the value of going beyond 1000Hz or sub-1.0ms persistence BFI in the longer term. This is not important for 1080p, but becomes more necessary at 8K... And even moreso for virtual reality (where head turning = VR screen panning)

All of these mechanics is much more difficult to explain to a spouse or newbie the difference between "stutter" and "judder" terminology. But everybody likes the motion tests that I've invented, such as *TestUFO Eye Tracking* as well as *TestUFO Persistence Of Vision* which demonstrates optical illusions from display motion blur.

Now, computer graphics are a different ballgame than video. Video has camera motion blur, which is above-and-beyond display motion blur. Which severely limits how realistic video interpolation looks unless you use fast-shutter video.


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> This question is not easy to answer because:
> 
> (A) Different people perceive SOE differently.
> 
> _The SOE fakeness feel is often a subjective factor. Some are measurable (e.g. photographable artifacts), and some are human-perception related, and varies by human. Perfect SOE (artifact-free) and HFR can look indistinguishable but both can simultaneously be hated or loved by the same person._
> 
> (B) SOE fakeness look is frequently affected by camera shutter speed.
> 
> _Slow camera shutters will never look identical to reality unless you find a way to deblur the camera blurring._
> 
> (C) Too many variables, such as resolution demanding lower persistence.
> 
> _For example, higher resolution demands lower persistence to avoid fakeness. Closer viewing distances also demands lower persistence, since motionspeeds are physically faster and motion blur is more noticeable. This is because of bigger sharpness difference between static images versus moving images. The sharper, the more sensitive it is to motion blur at the same angular physical motion speed (more dpi = more angular resolution = more pixels of motion blurring = bigger clarity difference between static and moving images). The approximate vanishing point of diminishing returns is roughly ~10,000Hz for 180-degree retina VR displays explained at www.blurbusters.com/1000hz-journey ... This is the "Vicious Cycle" effect of higher resolutions demanding lower persistence. Reality doesn't suddenly motion-blur (above human vision limitations) when things start moving. Most display engineers don't even understand this "Vicious Cycle" effect._


Thanks for the further response, but I suggest we move further posting to your 1000fps thread to avoid hijacking this OLED Technology thread (especially since the subject is not limited to OLEDs).

As far as OLEDs, my takeaway from this exchange is that LG would deliver greater improvements to SDR motion performance if they used the 'extra' brightness for HDR to maximize panel instantaneous lumens output and reach target luminance levels by decreasing persistance (as opposed to leaving lumens output at calibrated levels and reducing below that level by inserting black frames).


----------



## Mark Rejhon

fafrd said:


> As far as OLEDs, my takeaway from this exchange is that LG would deliver greater improvements to SDR motion performance if they used the 'extra' brightness for HDR to maximize panel instantaneous lumens output and reach target luminance levels by decreasing persistance (as opposed to leaving lumens output at calibrated levels and reducing below that level by inserting black frames).


Yes, nitroom can be used to lower persistence of SDR material. Halving persistence via BFI, halves nits. 

You can also keep some HDR too. If you have overkill nits (e.g. 10,000 nits) you still have 1,000 nits at 90% persistence reduction. That's still usable for Dolby Vision HDR while also having low persistence.

Also -- you can use localized persistence on the same frame. High persistence for bright colors, and low persistence for dim colors. This can produce a compromise keeping low-persistence for the majority of the colors except for the brightest colors. (This would not be too dissimilar to old medium-persistence CRT -- brighter colors often ghosted more). This does require pixels that can turn off independently of other pixels, and is extremely tricky without a multipass scan algorithm.


----------



## tigertim

Is Top Emission guaranteed for the 2019 Oleds and what does it bring to the table ?


----------



## rogo

tigertim said:


> Is Top Emission guaranteed for the 2019 Oleds and what does it bring to the table ?


No, but it's almost certain for 2019 or 2020.

It will bring more efficiency in light output. That will almost certainly be used to increase peak brightness though in so doing, it might also extend longevity / increase burn-in resistance.

Because of a new emitter design, it may also allow for a better fill factor. The 2018 panel appears better than the 2017 in that regard, but there is still a lot of work to be done.


----------



## videobruce

By the time that happens, another 'new & improved' tech will be out, or some way of 'coning' the public into thinking so. 

IOW's another Sans*it "LED TV" scam.


----------



## GroupDenmark

mr. wally said:


> Couple of things here
> 
> New owner of 65a1e and very pleased. No banding or tinting visible on content, zero
> QC, breakin and calibration very well executed at VE. Well worth the investment
> 
> Quite honestly, after spending hours comparing comparing Sony on cinema home vs E7 with technicolor setting side by side, the Sony was patently the superior display. The
> 
> motion processing wasn't even close, and as a sports junkie that was case closed.
> _Not sure how all the "experts" rated the E7 best of 2017 when the Sony clearly delivered superior _processing.
> Only rationale I can deduce was the Sonys lack of DV gave the edge by default.
> 
> 
> Others may disagree with my personal assessment, but when watching 4K HDR blu Rays on the Oppo 203, this is as close to videophile perfection I've had the pleasure to enjoy. And I've always bought only the best HD displays since 2004 from the superb (but inherently flawed) SXRDs, to a couple of Kuro elites, and now this Oled.
> 
> _I think the 2018 LGs with new processing chips and BFI, should be able to match the '17 Sonys._
> 
> I read with great interest that LG has now changed the size of the red sub-pixel. As someone who watches a couple hours of CNN and MSNBC each evening to catch up on the daily foibles of our esteemed chief executive, I worry greatly about how much and how rapidly I am deteriorating my display. I do use the channel guide every 10-15 minutes to move around where the red logos appear on the screen, but from what we know about the lifespan of the red sub-pixel on the '17 panels, what would you conjecture is the useable lifespan of my display?


 It doesnt matter if all the "experts" ranks LG 2017 or E7 above your A1, if your happy with your A1 then who cares. 
Personally I would also rank the LG 2017 lineup above A1, ewen thow I feel A1 is one of most good looking TVs in the market if you have the enviroment for it, but Im not fund of that angle-tilt and a wallmounting option there is lacking in all aspect and not least an brightness there is less, and closer to 130 nits of full white before ABL is humping it down, while LG 2017 are reaching 140 / 150nits and the brightness is quite vital on OLED and not have the ABL dimmer comming in way too aggresive like we saw on 2016 lineup and afterall A1 is comming closer to that 2016'level of brightness..
examples with rtings-measument, the A1 and in comparence with budget OLEDS like B7/C7P.. the A1 performs 282cd/m2 peak SDR brightness while B7/C7 comes in at 384cd/m2 (thats quite a difference and LGs performs +36% higher peak SDR brightness, thats a lot)
ON HDR and measured peak brightness the A1 delivers 600cd/m2 while B7/C7 comes in at 718cd/m2. (thats quite a con, you shouldnt neglect and likely also the reason why your socalled many experts ranks LG higher for 2017.


but mostly Im really not fund of Android OS with a SOC there almost seems like a joke in this priceclass.
and same System on chip (SOC) like an old 2015/2016 60hz model like Sony XD7005.. with mediatek MT5891 1100mhz suited with lacking T860dualcore GPU 700mhz fitted with slow 2GB DDR3.. that is a SOC there could be quite an bottleneck in an open source Andriod TV OS .. 
it's a +/- 30.000 score'SOC in Antutut benchmark to put it into context and when it comes to "lacking resurces" in Android that can really fast be an huge annoyance imo...here i prefer WebOS... ewen my 39USD Xiaomi Mibox from early 2016 scores higher then the SOCs in A1 - ewen thow the both have A53 quadcore-architekture, but they are clocked almost half the speed at 11000mhz in MT5891 (chip) compare to 2000mhz in the cheap Mibox..sure these SOCs are package solution for Android Tvs, but still is the lowest shelf SOCs, that they place in extreme highend-priced items and makes many apps there needs some resurces' close to useless.

And offfcourse BFI is a welcome feature, if it works good, but the examples on the 2017 OLEDS was not convicing in my view and hopefully wil be better in 2018.
Sure' in regards to the lesser materiel with slow fps BFI can make a difference, but on higher fps-materiel the judder and motionissues mostly dissapear on most modern OLEDs so the concept of BFI, tjahh.
and BFI also tends to tumbles the brightness quite a bit and can give annoyance like headache for the people who are prone to that, like we also have seen with pwm with to low hz.


----------



## video_analysis

^You're gonna' anger the Sony bods with that twaddle.


----------



## jrref

^^^
I agree the mediate chip could be better but he's doesn't really know what he's talking about on the peak brightness, etc, so just disregard. Everyone thinks they are an expert lol


----------



## GroupDenmark

jrref said:


> ^^^
> I agree the mediate chip could be better but he's doesn't really know what he's talking about on the peak brightness, etc, so just disregard. Everyone thinks they are an expert lol


As stated be happy about your A1, but just to clearify since you clearly havent notice that it was simpy pasted values from rtings.

that budget models like B7&V7 performing +36% higher peak 383cd/m2 on SDR in regards to A1 (282cd/m2) is to be taken into notice and A1 are around 2016 values-
here you can see the measured values. (but sf you still got perhas butthurt' hence your A1 you can write rtings, and that they dont know how to measure or what-ewer and you still knows best-. 
below peak brightness for B6 and C7B7P&V and A1.


----------



## GroupDenmark

jrref said:


> I agree the mediate chip could be better but he's doesn't really know what he's talking about on the peak brightness, etc, so just disregard. Everyone thinks they are an expert lol


As stated jrref' be happy about your A1 and dont worry about these values, but just to clearify since you clearly havent notice that it was mainly pasted values from rtings.

those 2017 budget models like C7/B7 V/P performing +36% higher SDR peak (383cd/m2) in regards to A1 (282cd/m2) this is a lot and after all something to be taken into notice and A1 are around 2016 values on that regard, whenm it comes to SDR & HDR scenepeak-
Here you can see the measured values. (but if you still got some butthurt' hence your A1 and sadly are being pushed out of some make-believe-enviroment, - you can write rtings, and tell them that they dont know how to measure or what-ewer and you know better-. 
below peak brightness for B6 and C7B7P&V and A1.

C7B7 p&v









A1









B6


----------



## jrref

^^^
I understand these are all published measurements on pre-released or first run sets for the model year that you are basing your statements but I've actually measured enough sets over the years and have the data to back up my findings to say with certainty that these published measurements are a guideline not 100% representative of what you see on production sets.

At the end of the day, although there are brightness differences between the LG and Sony, the differences were panel to panel on both sets and in my opinion, were not dramatic enough to the casual observer to make this a deal breaker.

I did find that the higher end LGs such as the E,G and W typically had higher peak luminance readings than the B and C and overall the Sonys were slightly lower. So for example, The Sony's varied with a HDR 10% window anywhere from 625 to around 680 nits while the LGs varied anywhere from 650 to 730 nits. And i did measure some Sony's a little higher and did measure some LG B's and C's in the 700 nit range but overall this is what i found and i profiled every panel, which does make a difference when you measure peak luminance. I also have the values for SDR but the relationship is the same.

I hope this puts things in perspective.

Edit: One thing i forgot to mention. I'm not saying that Rtings, is incorrect or wasn't measuring the sets correctly. What we don't know is if the sets that they got for evaluation were "cherry picked" by the manufacturers. My point is regardless, their results are a good guideline and is very reputable information but what you see in the field with production sets may not be necessarily be 100% representative of what they measured and i'm sure other pro's will agree that experience with the sets gives you the ability to really see how they perform. You also need to consider firmware changes made during the model year that also sometimes has an effect on how the set performs.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

jrref said:


> Edit: One thing i forgot to mention. I'm not saying that Rtings, is incorrect or wasn't measuring the sets correctly. What we don't know is if the sets that they got for evaluation were "cherry picked" by the manufacturers.


RTings policy is buys their TVs without the manufacturers knowing. This avoids manufacturer cherry-picking.

FYI -- RTings uses the BlurBusters-invented motion blur photography tests, Blur Busters credit:







GroupDenmark said:


> And offfcourse BFI is a welcome feature, if it works good, but the examples on the 2017 OLEDS was not convicing in my view and hopefully wil be better in 2018.
> Sure' in regards to the lesser materiel with slow fps BFI can make a difference, but on higher fps-materiel the judder and motionissues mostly dissapear on most modern OLEDs so the concept of BFI, tjahh.


I think it will be another two years before 1ms BFI arrives. We need ~1ms MPRT persistence to easily beat plasma motion resolution.

BFI arrival is good. 
But BFI *ratio* is very important. 
50% BFI ratio (50% visible, 50% black) *only halves* motion blur!
For 120Hz, doing 1ms BFI cuts nits down to 1/8 (since 1/120sec equals 8.3ms, and 1ms is approximately 1/8th of that.)

Basically, a 120Hz refresh cycle is 1ms bright and 7.3ms black. Basically a ~12% flash duty cycle to achieve 1ms MPRT plasma-beating persistence. That will require ~1000 nits to get acceptable ~120 nit SDR low-persistence. And ~8000 nits to get acceptable 1000 nit HDR Dolby Vision low-persistence BFI.

So it will be critical to have top-emission OLED to achieve the necessary nitroom to survive an 8x cut for successful plasma-beating BFI persistence. Basically, about 1/8th the motion blur of full 120Hz sample-and-hold. Or about 1/16 - 1/17th motion blur of 60Hz sample-and-hold (1/60sec is 16.7ms. Versus the 1ms sweet spot needed).

There are many CRTs that manage 0.1ms MPRT. Even 1ms MPRT is difficult!










(Approximate "easy formula" method of matching the persistence of a CRT phosphor fade cycle roughly with a digital strobe pulse -- whether LCD strobed/scanned backlight or OLED strobed pixel or rolling scan window)

The brightest plasma subfield flashed at >1000nit, and a typical CRT electron beam dot peaked at >10,000nit. It'll be easier to beat plasma motion resolution first, though. Most pixels are unable to flash as brightly as an electron beam dot, which makes it extremely challenging to have CRT-matching low-persistence (e.g. 99% BFI ratios, such as 1% fully bright to 99% black). 

However, 1ms is an easier mountain to climb for OLEDs.

I expect this to happen within ~2 to 3 years with the extra brightness of top-emission OLEDs.



GroupDenmark said:


> and BFI also tends to tumbles the brightness quite a bit and can give annoyance like headache for the people who are prone to that, like we also have seen with pwm with to low hz.


Human eye response to PWM varies a lot depending on how they get their eye pain from. For many people, single-pulse-per-refresh PWM hurts the eyes less than multi-pulsed-per-refresh PWM, due to uncomfortable-looking PWM artifacts. There are people who prefer 60Hz CRT monitor over 360Hz PWM LED backlights. These same people are often not bothered by good BFI or backlight strobing, despite being bothered by unsynchronized PWM. Chronoptimist posted a great image which I've *modified for my article*.










Not just strobing, but also PWM. Whether CRT flickers or PWM backlights. Or blur reduction. Equally applies to [email protected] flicker (double image), [email protected] flicker (double image), [email protected] PWM (sextuple image), etc. For some people, the multi-image artifacts sometimes sears the eye pain more than the PWM itself. Not everybody. Everybody is different.

In the default (120Hz flicker at 60Hz, double-strobe) mode, the Dell U3017Q OLED computer monitor had a double-image motion artifact. You had to go down to single-strobe 60Hz (very flickery) to get only a single image. 

You really do want blur-reduction PWM to be 120Hz instead of 60Hz, for the more comfortable 120Hz-CRT-like experience, rather than the eye-pain 60Hz CRT (blown up to 75" wallmount) experience. 

So, 120Hz BFI 1ms it is for future OLED motion-resolution nirvana....

Blur-reduction PWM is the lesser evil (strains eye less) if your eyes are more bothered/pained by the *ugly motion artifacts* of unsynchronized PWM than the PWM itself. Additionally, we have anecdotes of a number of people who can't stand LCDs (pain from motion blur) and need a CRT/plasma/etc. And vice-versa (people who cannot tolerate flicker of any kind). Yet others, many don't mind 1-pulse-per-frame PWM (framerate = refreshrate). Sensitivity all varies from person to person...

Personally, I do get sore eyes from 360Hz PWM after a long gaming session, but not from 120Hz LightBoost/ULMB gaming-monitor strobe backlights for eliminating display motion blur (one-pulse-per-refresh PWM, with framerate = refreshrate matching). So the anecdotes certainly have truth to them.

The bonus thing is that this is an adjustable setting: You can turn ON/OFF BFI. Choose your lesser-of-evil for your eyes


----------



## Rudy1

*COMING SOON TO A WALMART NEAR YOU:*

http://4k.com/news/hisense-is-launching-its-own-oled-4k-hdr-tv-for-2018-23175/


----------



## JasonHa

Rudy1 said:


> *COMING SOON TO A WALMART NEAR YOU:*
> 
> http://4k.com/news/hisense-is-launching-its-own-oled-4k-hdr-tv-for-2018-23175/


The article says:



> so far as we know, it will be Hisense’s own OLED development, not a display that’s been licensed from LG’s factories and customized to fit with Hisense 4K TV hardware & software.


That can't be right.


----------



## rogo

I'm 95+% confident it's an LG panel.


----------



## video_analysis

And LG is in the process of establishing a Chinese factory if they haven't already.


----------



## Rudy1

rogo said:


> I'm 95+% confident it's an LG panel.


https://www.channelnews.com.au/exclusive-hisense-oled-tvs-overpriced-claim-retailers/


----------



## Jason626

Article confirms Rogo. LG made panels.


----------



## jrref

Mark Rejhon said:


> RTings policy is buys their TVs without the manufacturers knowing. This avoids manufacturer cherry-picking.
> 
> FYI -- RTings uses the BlurBusters-invented motion blur photography tests, Blur Busters credit:
> credited YouTube
> 
> 
> I think it will be another two years before 1ms BFI arrives. We need ~1ms MPRT persistence to easily beat plasma motion resolution.
> 
> BFI arrival is good.
> But BFI *ratio* is very important.
> 50% BFI ratio (50% visible, 50% black) *only halves* motion blur!
> For 120Hz, doing 1ms BFI cuts nits down to 1/8 (since 1/120sec equals 8.3ms, and 1ms is approximately 1/8th of that.)
> 
> Basically, a 120Hz refresh cycle is 1ms bright and 7.3ms black. Basically a ~12% flash duty cycle to achieve 1ms MPRT plasma-beating persistence. That will require ~1000 nits to get acceptable ~120 nit SDR low-persistence. And ~8000 nits to get acceptable 1000 nit HDR Dolby Vision low-persistence BFI.
> 
> So it will be critical to have top-emission OLED to achieve the necessary nitroom to survive an 8x cut for successful plasma-beating BFI persistence. Basically, about 1/8th the motion blur of full 120Hz sample-and-hold. Or about 1/16 - 1/17th motion blur of 60Hz sample-and-hold (1/60sec is 16.7ms. Versus the 1ms sweet spot needed).
> 
> There are many CRTs that manage 0.1ms MPRT. Even 1ms MPRT is difficult!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Approximate "easy formula" method of matching the persistence of a CRT phosphor fade cycle roughly with a digital strobe pulse -- whether LCD strobed/scanned backlight or OLED strobed pixel or rolling scan window)
> 
> The brightest plasma subfield flashed at >1000nit, and a typical CRT electron beam dot peaked at >10,000nit. It'll be easier to beat plasma motion resolution first, though. Most pixels are unable to flash as brightly as an electron beam dot, which makes it extremely challenging to have CRT-matching low-persistence (e.g. 99% BFI ratios, such as 1% fully bright to 99% black).
> 
> However, 1ms is an easier mountain to climb for OLEDs.
> 
> I expect this to happen within ~2 to 3 years with the extra brightness of top-emission OLEDs.
> 
> 
> Human eye response to PWM varies a lot depending on how they get their eye pain from. For many people, single-pulse-per-refresh PWM hurts the eyes less than multi-pulsed-per-refresh PWM, due to uncomfortable-looking PWM artifacts. There are people who prefer 60Hz CRT monitor over 360Hz PWM LED backlights. These same people are often not bothered by good BFI or backlight strobing, despite being bothered by unsynchronized PWM. Chronoptimist posted a great image which I've *modified for my article*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just strobing, but also PWM. Whether CRT flickers or PWM backlights. Or blur reduction. Equally applies to [email protected] flicker (double image), [email protected] flicker (double image), [email protected] PWM (sextuple image), etc. For some people, the multi-image artifacts sometimes sears the eye pain more than the PWM itself. Not everybody. Everybody is different.
> 
> In the default (120Hz flicker at 60Hz, double-strobe) mode, the Dell U3017Q OLED computer monitor had a double-image motion artifact. You had to go down to single-strobe 60Hz (very flickery) to get only a single image.
> 
> You really do want blur-reduction PWM to be 120Hz instead of 60Hz, for the more comfortable 120Hz-CRT-like experience, rather than the eye-pain 60Hz CRT (blown up to 75" wallmount) experience.
> 
> So, 120Hz BFI 1ms it is for future OLED motion-resolution nirvana....
> 
> Blur-reduction PWM is the lesser evil (strains eye less) if your eyes are more bothered/pained by the *ugly motion artifacts* of unsynchronized PWM than the PWM itself. Additionally, we have anecdotes of a number of people who can't stand LCDs (pain from motion blur) and need a CRT/plasma/etc. And vice-versa (people who cannot tolerate flicker of any kind). Yet others, many don't mind 1-pulse-per-frame PWM (framerate = refreshrate). Sensitivity all varies from person to person...
> 
> Personally, I do get sore eyes from 360Hz PWM after a long gaming session, but not from 120Hz LightBoost/ULMB gaming-monitor strobe backlights for eliminating display motion blur (one-pulse-per-refresh PWM, with framerate = refreshrate matching). So the anecdotes certainly have truth to them.
> 
> The bonus thing is that this is an adjustable setting: You can turn ON/OFF BFI. Choose your lesser-of-evil for your eyes


I'm not trying to argue with you. My point is that you are basing your assumptions and trying to make everyone believe its "hard fact" based on "one" or a few data points such as rtings vs what pro calibrators see on many sets over the model year. I can tell you that i re-calibrated my A1E yesterday and got well over 300 nits in Cinema Pro and i didn't have the brightness set to max. With the latest firmware, the two sets are not that much different except, for now, Sony has the picture processing edge. The 2018 LG's may change that.


----------



## jrref

I calibrated a LGG7 today and here is what i measured:

SDR- Technicolor, OLED-80, Contrast-85, all defaults = 273.48 nits (Very Bright!)
HDR - Cinema, OLED-100, Contrast-100, all defaults = 689.79 nits (Max brightness in this PM)
DV - Cinema, OLED-100, Contrast-50, all default = 712 nits (Calibrated)

All pretty typical.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

jrref -- I think you may have misunderstood something I said: The purpose of big nits is only about maintaining brightness during *black frame insertion (BFI)*.

Black frame insertion dims the picture. You already know that, don't you?  To halve motion blur via *black frame insertion* (50%:50%) you need double nits to maintain same average number of nits. It's simple mathematics fact. It's longtime fact -- old science and physics -- long called the *Talbot-Plateau law* (P.S. That's how PWM dimming mathematics works!).

Example to maintain *same* original average picture brightness:
For 60 Hertz black frame insertion (500nit full persistence):

1/120sec persistence: Half persistence requires 1000nit flash for one-half of 1/60sec = needed for one-half motion blur of normal 60Hz
1/240sec persistence: Quarter persistence requires 2000nit flash for one-quarter of 1/60sec = needed for one-quarter motion blur of normal 60Hz
1/480sec persistence: Eighth persistence requires 4000nit flash for one-eighth of 1/60sec = needed for one-eighth motion blur of normal 60Hz

The problem is, whatever "X nits" your display, your display often becomes "X divided by 2" nits when doing a 50%:50% ratio black frame insertion for halving display motion blur. And if you want to reduce display motion blur by 90% via black frame insertion technique, then your "350 nit" OLED becomes just a "35 nit" OLED -- a 90% loss of brightness caused by a 90%:10% OFF:ON black frame insertion ratio. Ouchie, ouchie. Now you understand better? 

Sometimes techniques are done by manufacturers, such as boosting the flashes (of BFI/strobing) to compensate, since the black frame periods gives "resting time" between the boosted flashes. Some strobe backlights work this way, to compensate for the loss of brightness, but often you can only compensate to a certain extent, e.g. 2x to 3x brighter. But if you're reducing motion blur by 90% (which is 90% dimmer if done by BFI technique alone without interpolation), even a 2x to 3x boost-flash doesn't make up for all of that light loss.

The challenge is *bright picture with zero motion blur* that successfully passes the TestUFO Panning Map Readability Test.



jrref said:


> I'm not trying to argue with you. My point is that you are basing your assumptions and trying to make everyone believe its "hard fact" based on "one" or a few data points such as rtings


What assumptions? I was talking about *black frame insertion*.

If you saw an assumption in my earlier post, can you quote the specific sentence that has the assumption? My apologies.

Most of my post is unrelated to RTings. I only simply added a small note about RTings policy, I don't work for them -- they just use one of the tests that I invented. The thing, is sets vary from unit to unit, factory run to run -- early runs, newer models, etc. You can reread my post that I wasn't making RTings the "hard fact" for all display, I was simply stating their purchase policy, then talking about other non-RTings-related topics (e.g. generic BFI science). 

Many years ago, I used to calibrate CRT projectors (the whole kit, astig, bow, pincushion, zone convergence, colorimeter, etc) and DILA projectors, so bear with me, calibrator to calibrator; OLEDs are great but not at motion resolution. Compared to CRT, they are much worse at motion blur. Because they don't have enough brightness for *large-ratio black frame insertion*. It's law of physics. 

I was trying to explain general science of persistence (completely unrelated to the first two sentence of the post that mentioned RTings). Since it's already written in many scientific papers. I even quoted several scientists in many of my articles. 

It's simply simple mathematics: 300 nits for 2 millisecond is the same number of photons as 600 nits for 1 millisecond: Double brightness for half flash length, just to maintain the same average brightness. It's simple fact and law of physics -- as the founder of Blur Busters and the author of a peer reviewed display test (along with NIST.gov, NOKIA and Keltek) -- it is all generic mathematics. Laboratory tests have already proven that in xenon strobe flashes: A 1/1000sec flash versus a 1/2000sec flash twice as bright. They look equally instant and equally bright to the human eye; no difference. It's the same amount of light hitting the retinas. But the half-length flash needed to be twice as bright to maintain the same perceived brightness. 



    

I invented a method that allows a sub-$100 homebrew setup to match the performance of a $30,000 laboratory rig. It has recently democratized the ability of bloggers/reviewers to successfully accurately photograph display motion blur. This display motion-blur measuring invention (now free for anyone to use) is now confirmed by multiple researchers, including NIST.gov, NOKIA, Keltek.

The Blur Busters research is of good repute, with many citations and research, as I am an inventor of display tests used by multiple websites, and also am the creator of TestUFO (including the clever optical illusions here)

I also actually help display manufacturers -- most particularly, the development of motion blur reduction strobe backlights in certain computer gaming monitors. I have had paid contracts with a few monitor manufacturers.

I am the world's first website to test a true-480Hz display, which is published here.









(Verified by high speed camera)

My post is simply generic math of persistence only, and nothing to do with average brightness nor color quality. If you do not understand, please read this easy Cole Notes article: Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey to Future 1000 Hz Displays. It even includes animations to help educate you on the scientific principles of display motion blur. I strongly suggest that you do read this article.

For example, the ability to read the street name labels in a TestUFO Panning Map Test *has not yet succeeded on a large-format OLED* at speeds of 960pps or 1440pps, unlike on a CRT tube monitor, or a NVIDIA ULMB strobe backlight. That's the current problem with even the world's best OLED: Achieving plasma-matching motion blur. Try it now -- on your OLED. TestUFO Panning Map Test. Can you read the street name labels at motionspeeds of 960pps or 1440pps on your OLED? 

For an OLED capable of 500nits full-frame persistence (1/60sec = 16.7ms)
Halving motion blur via black frame insertion (BFI) without dimming the picture, requires double nits to compensate for the black period.
It's simple mathematics. It is simple science fact.

For 60 Hertz black frame insertion (500nit full persistence):

1/120sec persistence: Half persistence requires 1000nit flash for 1/120sec (8.33ms) via 1:1 BFI ratio to maintain 500nit average
1/240sec persistence: Quarter persistence requires 2000nit flash for 1/240sec (4.17ms) via 3:1 BFI ratio to maintain 500nit average
1/480sec persistence: Eighth persistence requires 4000nit flash for 1/480sec (2.08ms) via 7:1 BFI ratio to maintain 500nit average
1/1000sec persistence: 1 Millisecond persistence requires 8333nit flash for 1/1000sec (1ms) via (1000/60 - 1):1 BFI ratio to maintain 500nit average
1/10,000sec persistence: 0.1 Millisecond persistence requires 83,333nit flash for 1/10000sec (0.1ms) via (10000/60 - 1):1 BFI ratio to maintain 500nit average

For 120 Hertz black frame insertion (500nit full persistence):

1/240sec persistence: Half persistence requires 1000nit flash for 1/240sec (4.17ms) via 1:1 BFI ratio to maintain 500nit average
1/480sec persistence: Quarter persistence requires 2000nit flash for 1/480sec (2.08ms) via 3:1 BFI ratio to maintain 500nit average
1/1000sec persistence: 1 Millisecond persistence requires 4166nit flash for 1/1000sec (1ms) via (1000/120 - 1):1 BFI ratio to maintain 500nit average
1/10,000sec persistence: 0.1 Millisecond persistence requires 41,666nit flash for 1/10000sec (0.1ms) via (10000/60 - 1):1 BFI ratio to maintain 500nit average

_Note: 3:1 BFI ratio means black frame for 75% of the time, followed by visible frame 25% of time. The BFI ratio has a big effect on resulting display motion blur. Also, notice the math above: If you're adding BFI to a higher source refresh rate, it's easier to keep brightness higher and flicker is reduced. BFI on 120Hz HFR (or 120Hz interpolated) is much brighter and more flicker-free than BFI on 60Hz. Also "500 nit" is only an example; the math is the same. Pick any number. Double brightness for half motion blur via BFI. Quadruple brightness for quarter motion blur via BFI._

I have even created educational web-based animations too:

TestUFO Optical Illusion Generated By Display Motion Blur
TestUFO Persistence Of Vision
TestUFO Black Frame Insertion Demo
These help you understand better about what scientifically causes display motion blur.

So you can now understand the diagram better:










The electron gun beam dot of CRT can reach well north of 10,000 nits for practically microseconds, for well less than one-hundredth persistence (For short-persistence CRTs). Now try matching that zero-motion-blur ability of a CRT, but with an OLED using a black frame insertion technique. Ouch. Mathematically, that is equivalent >99%:1% ratio OFF:ON black frame insertion (more than 99 black frames to 1 illuminated frame). To do that requires an insanely bright frame to compensate for a large-ratio dark period. So one understands better, the tall order any digital display has in order to fully compensate for the dimming of BFI. To have a bright picture that also has zero blur. That successfully perfectly match CRT clarity. But we don't necessarily need that much -- we can settle for 1ms instead of 0.1ms, for example. 

By virtue of the electron beam and short-persistence phosphor, CRTs are already automatically doing the mathematical equivalent of >99:1 black frame insertion, since the pixel is fully bright only less than 1% of the time. That's why CRTs had such incredibly low motion blur in their day.

One note; the other way of decreasing motion blur is adding extra frames instead of black frames. Such as HFR or interpolation. Preserving OLED nits is much easier with interpolation. So keeping interpolation makes it easier to reduce motion blur on OLED without losing brightness. But not everyone likes interpolation. So, pros and cons. Readers may notice I often advocate ultra-high refresh rates in BlurBusters writings, as it's the only way to reduce motion blur without using black frame insertion (or other impulsing method like CRT, plasma, or strobe backlight). BFI is great, it just requires quite a lot of nits of headroom for good blur-reduction ratios.

Also, can you do me a favour and load TestUFO Panning Map Test on your OLED and see if you can read the street name labels? 

_This motion-resolution clarity test is successful at 960pps only on a very few HDTVs (in strobe mode), on CRT displays, on certain Panasonic plasmas (e.g. Kuro), and on strobe-backlight gaming monitors. I've never seen a full-sized OLED television successfully pass this motion resolution test yet. It requires 2ms persistence to successfully pass the 960pps panning-map test, and it requires 1ms persistence to successfully pass the 1920pps test. It is important to us people who are used to CRTs and ultra-low-motion-blur displays (such as NVIDIA ULMB) and want to play fast-panning-motion video games (e.g. fast scrollers) on an OLED with the same clarity of a CRT, etc._

I hope I have added adequately educational content to a Technology Advancements Thread?


----------



## rogo

This is the OLED Technology Advancements Thread.

Even though I expect to sanctioned for arm-chair moderation, can we please stop thread-crapping this thread with a discussion of blur reduction?

Please.


----------



## videobruce

You didn't have to use the quote function to post that *especially* considering that post is HUGE and was already duplicated more than once. 

No wonder Rogo stepped in.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

rogo said:


> This is the OLED Technology Advancements Thread.


And I'm ontopic. 

With generally well-liked posts -- almost all Likes over 10 days in this thread (before your post) were on my posts including 5 Likes on my 1-17-2018 post. 

Technology advancements of OLED includes blur reduction, and the longtime OLED's journey in overcoming brightness, hampers its ability to do blur reduction modes via BFI techniques.

People who do not understand this, can sometimes hamper OLED technology advancement. It is productive to correct them. Oftentimes, I have stories of manufacturers who have employees who don't even understand, where a homebrew strobe backlight outperformed LG's first attempt (24GM77 gaming monitor), as one of the many examples. It was even an easily fixed limitation! Sometimes there needs more manufacturer-level education to make sure the people working on the displays, have a baseline understanding of the science behind persistence. Many of these star engineers, excellent and wizards at what they do, but sometimes, don't always understand one specific piece of the jigsaw puzzle: The persistence science/math. Over the years, I have had paid contracts with a few game monitor manufacturers relating to low-persistence modes of their displays.

Many of us would love a well-calibrated OLED that can also maintain HDR and full brightness, while simultaneously being low persistence too. Having cake and eating it too. Getting the motion resolution resembling a CRT, or at least even as zero-blur as an Oculus Rift OLED or HTC Vive VR OLED. Some of us users also play video games on large-format OLED displays, which are more motion-blur-sensitive than movie material. Certainly, low-motion-blur is not important to everyone, given the comfortable camera blur built into movies and other material. But zero-blur should be made available as an optional option in OLEDs to have extremely good motion resolution like a CRT, which is certainly a respectable goal in addition to people's existing wants in an OLED.

Nonteheless, I get it: 
I'll adjust the sizes and temper my postrate of course -- take things in moderation. 
To be fair to everyone, since it looks like I'm hogging this thread obviously -- despite being ontopic -- and allow people to respond and diversify the discussion in this thread. 
So the underlying spirit of your sentiment is noted, and I'll pace myself accordingly, size-wise and reply-rate.



videobruce said:


> You didn't have to use the quote function to post that *especially* considering that post is HUGE and was already duplicated more than once.


Agreed!!!


----------



## gorman42

I'm sorry... motion performance of OLEDs is one of the main weaknesses they display. How could it be offtopic to discuss what's needed to have advancements in that regard?

For instance, I'm not so concerned with getting plasma-like motion performance with sports and other 60fps (or higher) content, but it's vital to me to understand if and when plasma-like motion performance will/could be reached with 24fps content, which constitutes the grand majority of what I consider critical viewing (not saying I don't care about sports, saying that when I watch a match I'm too emotionally involved in other stuff to really care about fidelity).


----------



## ataneruo

gorman42 said:


> I'm sorry... motion performance of OLEDs is one of the main weaknesses they display. How could it be offtopic to discuss what's needed to have advancements in that regard?
> 
> For instance, I'm not so concerned with getting plasma-like motion performance with sports and other 60fps (or higher) content, but it's vital to me to understand if and when plasma-like motion performance will/could be reached with 24fps content, which constitutes the grand majority of what I consider critical viewing (not saying I don't care about sports, saying that when I watch a match I'm too emotionally involved in other stuff to really care about fidelity).




Agreed. My C7 is virtually the perfect TV...except for poor motion handling.


----------



## Wizziwig

Mark Rejhon makes some good points and I've argued the same on numerous occasions. We seem obsessed with static resolution race - 1080p, 4K, 8K, will little regard to the fact that all this extra resolution is lost immediately as soon as anything on the screen starts moving. Objectively, we're not even getting the resolution of a 720p TV and crappy VHS VCR when things are in motion. I guess most people don't realize exactly what they are missing since few still own CRTs. I've got 2 x 22" CRT computer monitors in the closet and 1 x 34" Sony CRT HDTV in a spare bedroom. I rarely use them these days but occasionally turn them on to be reminded of what motion resolution was like before the flat panel era. When I brought one of the monitors in to work to show coworkers how the games we're developing should look in motion, people were shocked at how poor current displays really are. That panning map test is a good illustration - I can read that text no problem on my CRTs regardless of how fast it's panning. I'm doubtful we'll return to that level of motion performance in my lifetime unless MicroLED manages to pull of a miracle.

OLED is a dead-end due to the issues Mark outlined. It's probably also a dead-end for ever reaching full HDR reference-level performance for similar reasons. I'll be happy to be proven wrong when someone shows a 10,000 nit OLED prototype at CES. OLED has been stuck at ~700 nits for several years now (at very small screen area due to aggressive ABL) while the LCD HDR crowd keeps moving ahead and wisely utilizing their brightness advantage to also improve motion resolution.

I guess after 5 years of 300 line motion resolution stagnation, LG has at least acknowledged the problem in 2018 by offering some form of BFI. If it's like the Sony implementation, it will not be very effective since it only doubles the resolution to ~600 lines on the industry standard tests. Hopefully LG doesn't block it in game-mode where it would be most useful.


----------



## rogo

Yes, OLED is a dead end. 

It's a dead end that has come to dominate the high-end TV market in 10% of the total market (by unit share) in


----------



## Wizziwig

Read my post again. Dead-end regarding the topics I discussed: motion and HDR. Both somewhat related since they both require brightness that looks out of reach for OLED.

I don't share your optimism regarding some magical future advancement that will solve these problems. You're expecting some miracle despite the fact that WOLED brightness has largely stayed flat since inception. All they have done so far is manipulate their limited ABL wroking envelope each year to squeeze out some meager highlights. Do you know of some upcoming breakthrough in OLED materials that will results in 10x improvement in brightness? Have you seen HDR on a multi-thousand nit display? I have and the difference is not subtle at all and makes the OLEDs look downright defective when seen side-by-side. Experts like Vincent from hdtvtest agree after comparing the same HDR displays. This argument is like those from people in the front-projector forums where people think they are watching HDR on their


----------



## aaz

Wizziwig said:


> ... motion and HDR. Both somewhat related since they both require brightness that looks out of reach for OLED.
> ...


I don't believe this is accurate regarding motion. Sure for HDR you need more brightness to replicate daylight. 
Motion would only require a higher refresh rate, even of store and display. By having let's say 600 hz refresh, you don't need to lower your brightness by half to insert a black frame, you only need to lower it a 10th - which can easily be gained by driving the display 10% harder.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Wizziwig said:


> OLED is a dead-end due to the issues Mark outlined.


I disagree that OLED is a dead end. 

Impulsing (BFI, etc) is only one of the two main general categories of reducing display motion blur. The other general category of blur reduction (extra frames) has no light-loss disadvantage.

This is because impulsing techniques (e.g. BFI) is a bandaid in this century's technological humankind progress because real life does not strobe. 
Intrisinically, over longterm humankind progress, it is best to reduce motion blur via non-flicker means (aka low persistence sample-and-hold requiring high true-Hz).

Why use picture-darkening impulsing anymore then, when eventually strobe-free low-persistence becomes cheap someday?
The point of my earlier post is simply, BFI is an eventual humankind dead end. Not OLED.



rogo said:


> We don't "need" 1000 Hz any more than we "need" cars that go 200 MPH.


True today, but:
We don't "need" fuel injection (instead of a carburetor) but it became cheap.
We don't "need" 1080p but it became cheap.
We don't "need" 4K but it became cheap.

Tomorrow, true-480Hz and true-1000Hz, in two decades, will be cheap. 
The resolution race has almost ended, but the Hz race is beginning to flare up in the laboratory. 
Why refuse the feature if it's cheap and accurate? (And honest full-efficiency Hz, not fake Hz, at it!)



aaz said:


> I don't believe this is accurate regarding motion. Sure for HDR you need more brightness to replicate daylight.
> Motion would only require a higher refresh rate, even of store and display. By having let's say 600 hz refresh, you don't need to lower your brightness by half to insert a black frame, you only need to lower it a 10th - which can easily be gained by driving the display 10% harder.


Exactly. Higher Hz reduces the need for BFI. 

You can also balance interpolation and BFI. One can interpolate to 240Hz (~4ms persistence) then use 50%:50% BFI to further reduce that to 2ms persistence *without losing more than half of light output*. 

This is similar to the best low-blur OLEDs on market (VR OLEDs -- Oculus Rift and HTC Vive). Oculus (OLED-based VR headset) also has an interpolation feature too (called "Asynchronous Spacewarp") to convert 45fps to 90fps -- 22ms converted to 11ms persistence. Then does the rest of the way via BFI using a 11:2 ratio OFF:ON duty cycle in its rolling scan, in order to convert 11ms persistence to 2ms persistence. Persistence is simply frame visibility time (per pixel). Shortening frame visibility time is done via either interpolation or BFI or a combo of both (to reduce lumen loss). The great thing is that we're going to gain even brighter OLEDs, and we should eventually be able to easily beat plasma motion resolution, while being much brighter than plasmas.

OLED has an unusually high-blur-reducing efficiency behavior (with properly-pure BFI or interpolation). This is unlike history where strobing and BFI was extremely poor efficiency (only slight blur reductions) especially on older LCDs. However, on OLEDs, 50%:50% ratio BFI successfully reliably halves motion blur for full framerate=refreshrate material (for material with no camera blur). It's not not like the fake "XXXX Hz" algorithms or "600 Hz" algorithms of ten years ago, that barely reduced blur. Those were more deceptive (like scanning-backlight-next-segment frequency, dithered subfield pulses of the same refresh, rather than a truly per-pixel unique refresh cycles). Those are historically not representative of the persistence mathematics that OLED blur reduction that is so efficient, that it beautifully nearly exactly matches the persistence math. OLED BFI blur reduction very pure and efficient, albiet light-reducing & extremely flickery at 60Hz. Unless done beautifully at 120Hz+ frequency to reduce flicker (on either true-HFR or on interpolated video).

Ultra high-refresh-rates can eventually be cheap via techniques like concurrent scanouts (e.g. true-960Hz via a 120Hz-scanout-velocity OLED). The display motherboard's TCON, and the video (HFR or interpolation), will have to be much higher bandwidth, but the panel could be mostly unmodified except for engineering extra edge conductors (ribbons, conductors on glass, etc) to better partition the screen for multiple concurrent scanout channels (8 channels instead of the typical 1 or 2). Big challenge, but it would not even be an Apollo Mission at all to add 1000Hz without much BOM increase on the cost of an OLED HDTV, at least on a 10-year or 20-year timescale -- as an incremental bonus BFI-free blur-reducing feature. Zero light loss for blur reduction!

We're different nuts and bolts in the display improvement chain. Metaphorically, the people who make rocket nozzles and fuel piping don't necessarily understand the ARM assembly language that goes into a rocket-engine control unit. Similarly, I have educated a few display engineers on low-persistence and the art of reducing display motion blur, even though I don't know a thing about operating the panel fab machines themselves or designing chip ICs. I still remember witnessing the days when broadcasting 1080i digitally for the first-ever time required a big truck, lots of electricity, and big rackmount equipment. Containing equipment that had six separate 480p-strength MPEG2 encoders, multiplexed to achieve a 19Mbps ATSC 1080i stream for a live HD broadcast in the late 90s (8K was a distant dream then). Now today, iPhones can do 4K H.265 realtime in pocket size. Technological progress.

That said, if the future panel has the necessary raw Hertzroom (e.g. 1000Hz capability) for cheap or free....
....so just stop bothering to do it partway (interpolate partway and BFI the rest of the way).
....and simply just interpolate all the way instead for the same target persistence number. 

More efficient, no flicker, and if you're interpolating anyway, interpolate all the way, not partway. Otherwise, one use already-efficient (but potentially still dark) OLED BFI if you prefer to avoid interpolation. Both modes can exist concurrently in the same OLED. Or better yet, true HFR material and/or videogames that don't require interpolation.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Read my post again. Dead-end regarding the topics I discussed: motion and HDR. Both somewhat related since they both require brightness that looks out of reach for OLED.
> 
> I don't share your optimism regarding some magical future advancement that will solve these problems. You're expecting some miracle despite the fact that WOLED brightness has largely stayed flat since inception. All they have done so far is manipulate their limited ABL wroking envelope each year to squeeze out some meager highlights. *Do you know of some upcoming breakthrough in OLED materials that will results in 10x improvement in brightness? *Have you seen HDR on a multi-thousand nit display? I have and the difference is not subtle at all and makes the OLEDs look downright defective when seen side-by-side. Experts like Vincent from hdtvtest agree after comparing the same HDR displays. This argument is like those from people in the front-projector forums where people think they are watching HDR on their


----------



## Wizziwig

Panel-level improvements were a no-show at this year's CES. None of the supposed improvements Rogo outlined materialized into even a closed-door prototype, much less a real product. The 8K OLED prototype was still bottom-emission with the exact same luminance specifications as current models.

The dream of high motion resolution without some form of low-persistence strobing (thus requiring high brightness) is going to remain a dream. Outside of high-end PC's there is no practical way to generate such content. If we're lucky we might see some limited 120Hz streaming next year. Far cry from the 1000+Hz we would need to approach CRT quality. Hollywood is still stuck at 24Hz and broadcast and consoles gaming at 60Hz. So I suppose you guys are talking about frame interpolation? No thanks, I'll pass (as will most videophiles). Not to mention interpolation is worthless for gaming due to the lag.

Since nothing new was shown by which we can guess future progress, I can only extrapolate based on LG's past history in this area. Attached is the data from rtings.com reviews dating back to 2014 (ec9300 was a 2014 model in USA and performed about the same as the 2013 EA9800). This sort of progress doesn't inspire much confidence or show a clear path towards 10,000 nit HDR. We've had 4000 nit non-consumer LCD for a few years now with 2000-3000 nit consumer HDR from Sony in 2017. With Samsung getting back into FALD LCD this year, I'd be surprised if someone doesn't hit 4000 nits which is enough to show current HDR movies without tone-mapping (games already go all the way up to 10,000 nits).


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Wizziwig said:


> Panel-level improvements were a no-show at this year's CES.


I actually saw some new stuff for Virtual Reality OLEDs when I was at CES 2018. There was some major progress of improvements in this area. There is much, much more pressure in this league, and I anticipate this pressure (over 5 years) eventually will horizontally-filter to full-size OLED panels in a few years. Also, in subsequent email contacts, I have found a 1280x720 OLED microdisplay capable of true-120Hz combined with 90%:10% rolling-scan BFI (adjustable window size) to result in a persistence as low as ~0.83ms!! Not very brightly, nor high resolution enough for VR, but if one wanted ultra-low persistence full-color OLED for CRT-quality TV-watching glasses -- there you go. I am, for one, hopeful over the longer-term.



Wizziwig said:


> Not to mention interpolation is worthless for gaming due to the lag.


This is true for codec-unaware techniques like "Sony MotionFlow" and such. 
But once it's done in a full-source-awareness manner, interpolation/lag problems disappear (e.g. H.264 compression itself uses motion-vector interpolation mathematics in I-Frames, P-Frames, and B-Frames, etc). We don't consider H.264 or H.EVC the science of "interpolation", but it is heavily interpolation-mathematics based. Yes, Netflix too. Yes, your 4K Blu-Ray disc too.

There is now intensive research in geometry-aware 3D methods of lagless interpolation-like behaviour (instead of re-rendering the whole scene from scratch in a new frame). This can increase frame rates virtually laglessly for gaming. I currently nickname these "Frame Rate Amplification Technologies" (FRAT). It is an emerging trend I'm watching. Oculus' Asynchronous Spacewarp / Reprojection on their OLED VR headsets, is one of these early wright-brothers versions of this already on the market. 

In virtual reality, low framerates creates major headaches and nausea, so a "lagless interpolation" is the the lesser evil in latency-critical framerate-critical virtual reality. During moments where framerates fails to keep up, the framerate on the world's most pleasant VR headsets (e.g. Oculus Rift OLED), struggling framerate are realtime reprojected to 90fps from >45fps, without the lag disadvantage of traditional interpolation technology. And this is already on Best Buy shelves. 

Research is currently being done to reduce the artifacts of these (e.g. advanced multi-layered Z-buffers) to fix parallax and background errors, etc. And higher frame rates (yes, 1000fps someday too). Computer mice and headtrackers already do 1000Hz today in current retail products. It's the GPU's turn now. Combine this with GPU already knowing what graphics are behind graphics, and the computer already can know positional state at a high temporal resolution. (This avoids the 'guessing' and 'lag' needed in standalone interpolators like MotionFlow or ClearMotion etc). There is plenty of progress to be had here to reduce the workload of GPUs of achieving ultra-high framerates. Future versions of these kinds of things will reduce the transistor count of ultra-high-framerate. Other solutions such as realtime beamtracing may be used instead, with realtime denoising, like that of proposed by NVIDIA scientist Morgan McGuire. There are now multiple concurrent paths to reducing framerate granularity (without artifacts or lag) without a fully proportional increase in transistor count and/or processing power. For me, seeing all of this happen, this turned a "Not in my lifetime" into a "Wow, it is really happening in a generation". Yes, I drank the koolaid as a now-believer based on what I've now seen. It may take a decade-plus, but VR has put this pressure in hyper overdrive, especially on OLED microdisplays.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> *Panel-level improvements were a no-show at this year's CES.* None of the supposed improvements Rogo outlined materialized into even a closed-door prototype, much less a real product. The 8K OLED prototype was still bottom-emission with the exact same luminance specifications as current models.
> 
> The dream of high motion resolution without some form of low-persistence strobing (thus requiring high brightness) is going to remain a dream. Outside of high-end PC's there is no practical way to generate such content. If we're lucky we might see some limited 120Hz streaming next year. Far cry from the 1000+Hz we would need to approach CRT quality. Hollywood is still stuck at 24Hz and broadcast and consoles gaming at 60Hz. So I suppose you guys are talking about frame interpolation? No thanks, I'll pass (as will most videophiles). Not to mention interpolation is worthless for gaming due to the lag.
> 
> Since nothing new was shown by which we can guess future progress, I can only extrapolate based on LG's past history in this area. Attached is the data from rtings.com reviews dating back to 2014 (ec9300 was a 2014 model in USA and performed about the same as the 2013 EA9800). This sort of progress doesn't inspire much confidence or show a clear path towards 10,000 nit HDR. We've had 4000 nit non-consumer LCD for a few years now with 2000-3000 nit consumer HDR from Sony in 2017. With Samsung getting back into FALD LCD this year, I'd be surprised if someone doesn't hit 4000 nits which is enough to show current HDR movies without tone-mapping (games already go all the way up to 10,000 nits).


Perhaps you didn't hear about the all-new subpixels/panel design for 2018 (attached).

At face value, it will increase overall brightness by 10-20%, and will probably move native VIVID panel whitepoint closer to D65. Red, in particular, will either be ~60% brighter for the same aging rate or will age ~38% slower for the same luminance output.

As I said earlier, LG will probably use some or all of these 2018 subpixel/panel gains to reduce aging/burn-in rather than deploy them all blindly into round II of the Brightness Wars...

A 10,000 Nit WOLED in the next decade seems to be a fairly low-likelihood event. You (and Mark ) are just placing much more import on it's significance than most of us are...

The data you attached supports a ~2X increase of the measurements that are most relevant over a 3-4 year timeframe. I think it's pretty likely that that trend will continue for the next 3-5 years.

So when WOLED is delivering ~2000 cd/m2 highlights against LED/LCD's QLED's 4000 cd/m2 highlights in ~2022 will the WOLED look like a loser display in comparison and will that definitely turn the tide back in LCDs favor? You seem to be about the only one on this thread who thinks so...


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Perhaps you didn't hear about the all-new subpixels/panel design for 2018 (attached).
> 
> At face value, it will increase overall brightness by 10-20%, and will probably move native VIVID panel whitepoint closer to D65. Red, in particular, will either be ~60% brighter for the same aging rate or will age ~38% slower for the same luminance output.
> 
> As I said earlier, LG will probably use some or all of these 2018 subpixel/panel gains to reduce aging/burn-in rather than deploy them all blindly into round II of the Brightness Wars...
> 
> A 10,000 Nit WOLED in the next decade seems to be a fairly low-likelihood event. You (and Mark ) are just placing much more import on it's significance than most of us are...
> 
> The data you attached supports a ~2X increase of the measurements that are most relevant over a 3-4 year timeframe. I think it's pretty likely that that trend will continue for the next 3-5 years.
> 
> So when WOLED is delivering ~2000 cd/m2 highlights against LED/LCD's QLED's 4000 cd/m2 highlights in ~2022 will the WOLED look like a loser display in comparison and will that definitely turn the tide back in LCDs favor? You seem to be about the only one on this thread who thinks so...


Why wait for 2022 when I could have purchased a 2000 nit HDR Z9D last year? By 2022, it would not surprise me if we have much more efficient photo-emissive LCDs capable of the full 10,000 nits. I will agree that this brightness advantage for HDR has not yielded better sales because it also comes with a much higher price. I'm not sure if the Chinese can solve the pricing issue.

Hate to break it to you but every single OLED TV vendor at CES (including LG Display themselves) were claiming the 2018 panels have the exact same performance specifications as the 2017 counterparts. All claimed improvements come from video processing. Sony didn't even bother to update their flagship OLED for 2018 because there was no reason to. Wouldn't LG want to advertise any actual improvements if there were any to be had? They certainly weren't shy to promote the red gamut increase from the emitter changes in the 2016-2017 panels.

We don't know why they changed the filter geometry on the new panels. The filter also looks different today on the 55" vs. 65" vs. 77" OLEDs - yet they perform pretty much the same. Could just be some cost-saving measure or something that improves production efficiency. The panel under the filters could be exactly the same as the panel they sold for the last two years. Maybe you're right and the changes had something to do with improvements in areas they do not want to discuss because it would be admitting to defects in their current lineup (burn-in, uniformity, etc.). We will know in a couple months.

Incidentally, I'm no fan of LCD. Don't own one and don't plan to buy one. But I'm willing to give them credit in areas where they beat other display technologies. For the type of content I work on, they produce much more convincing HDR for the vast majority of scenes. OLED still wins in very dark HDR scenes because the ABL doesn't mute the entire image and the pixel-level control offers better contrast. Some LCDs also offer vastly superior motion resolution which is easily noticeable in gaming because there is no inherent blurring from camera exposure or compression.


----------



## Rudy1

*FROM AVFORUMS: IS OLED STILL THE FUTURE OF TELEVISION?*


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Why wait for 2022 when I could have purchased a 2000 nit HDR Z9D last year? By 2022, it would not surprise me if we have much more efficient photo-emissive LCDs capable of the full 10,000 nits. I will agree that this brightness advantage for HDR has not yielded better sales because it also comes with a much higher price. I'm not sure if the Chinese can solve the pricing issue.
> 
> Hate to break it to you but every single OLED TV vendor at CES (including LG Display themselves) were claiming the 2018 panels have the exact same performance specifications as the 2017 counterparts. All claimed improvements come from video processing. Sony didn't even bother to update their flagship OLED for 2018 because there was no reason to. Wouldn't LG want to advertise any actual improvements if there were any to be had? They certainly weren't shy to promote the red gamut increase from the emitter changes in the 2016-2017 panels.
> 
> We don't know why they changed the filter geometry on the new panels. The filter also looks different today on the 55" vs. 65" vs. 77" OLEDs - yet they perform pretty much the same. Could just be some cost-saving measure or something that improves production efficiency. The panel under the filters could be exactly the same as the panel they sold for the last two years. *Maybe you're right and the changes had something to do with improvements in areas they do not want to discuss because it would be admitting to defects in their current lineup (burn-in, uniformity, etc.). We will know in a couple months.*


I suspect this is correct and you're right, we'll know in a few months...



> Incidentally, I'm no fan of LCD. Don't own one and don't plan to buy one. But I'm willing to give them credit in areas where they beat other display technologies. For the type of content I work on, they produce much more convincing HDR for the vast majority of scenes. OLED still wins in very dark HDR scenes because the ABL doesn't mute the entire image and the pixel-level control offers better contrast. Some LCDs also offer vastly superior motion resolution which is easily noticeable in gaming because there is no inherent blurring from camera exposure or compression.


I owned a Vizio P70 for several months before switching to OLED, so I'm all for FALD LED/LCD if it can deliver the goods (at a competetive price). The Vizio had very good blacks - better than my Panasonic 65ZT60. Blooming was also not much of a problem but local dimming artifacts were. When an LED/LCD can deliver close-to-OLED in-scene blacks, perfectly darkened black bars (which is where the Vizio beat the Panasonic) and no distracting local dimming artifacts (noticable backlight brightness changes), I'll be all for it.

To be fair, I've never viewed HDR on an LED/LCD. My 65C6P is already so bright playing HDR in a dark room, I frankly can't imagine an even brighter image seeming 'better' just because peak highlights are brighter.

The side-by-side comparisons of OLED versus QLED in a dark room are misleadibg since your eyes will adjust to accomodate the brightest object they are exposed to. So it's no surprise the WOLED appears 'dim' in those face-offs.

A sequential test following your eyes ability to adjust or blocking some luminance from the brighter display so that the two TVs have effectively matched APLs is a more sensible way to compare two displays delivering different peak brightness levels.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Wizziwig said:


> Some LCDs also offer vastly superior motion resolution which is easily noticeable in gaming


This is very true now, thanks to ULMB (a superior sequel to LightBoost). I was the one who convinced NVIDIA to add the "ULMB Pulse Width" menu option to their onscreen displays found on G-SYNC monitors with the Ultra Low Motion Blur strobe mode, turning them into adjustable-persistence displays.

However, at least in the 2ms timescales, OLED already currently has lurking highly-efficient motion-blur-reducing behaviour except for nits. Though that can be worked around via using extra-frames-based motion-blur-reduction instead of (or in addition to) BFI-based motion-blur-reduction, e.g. 120Hz+BFI to avoid eyesearing 60Hz flicker. Many manufacturers avoid 60Hz BFI for this reason. Once 120Hz+BFI is successful, esp with front-emission, more manufacturers will enable this since OLED BFI is relatively pleasant at 120Hz and the problems can be overcome at the 1-to-2ms persistence timescales.


----------



## ataneruo

Mark Rejhon said:


> This is very true now, thanks to ULMB (a superior sequel to LightBoost). I was the one who convinced NVIDIA to add the "ULMB Pulse Width" menu option to their onscreen displays found on G-SYNC monitors with the Ultra Low Motion Blur strobe mode, turning them into adjustable-persistence displays.
> 
> 
> 
> However, at least in the 2ms timescales, OLED already currently has lurking highly-efficient motion-blur-reducing behaviour except for nits. Though that can be worked around via using extra-frames-based motion-blur-reduction instead of (or in addition to) BFI-based motion-blur-reduction, e.g. 120Hz+BFI to avoid eyesearing 60Hz flicker. Many manufacturers avoid 60Hz BFI for this reason. Once 120Hz+BFI is successful, esp with front-emission, more manufacturers will enable this since OLED BFI is relatively pleasant at 120Hz and the problems can be overcome at the 1-to-2ms persistence timescales.




Can you put a timetable on 120Hz BFI? Could we see it in OLEDs in 2020?


----------



## gmarceau

Is anything even mastered at 10,000 nits at this point? I thought that DV was at 4,000 nits. 

Fafrd and rogo bring up good points with QDCF and improvements in blue materials, eliminating a need for these filters altogether and helping bring brightness up substantially, but how much does it even matter at this point? LCDs that are 2 maybe even 3 times as bright aren't beating emissive displays in shootouts. 

These Jason Hartlove interviews make the tech sound really appealing, but isn't that expected...QD emissive displays could be DOA in 5 years. Although that was predicted on this thread for OLED a few years ago, but didn't quite materialize.


----------



## fafrd

ataneruo said:


> Can you put a timetable on 120Hz BFI? Could we see it in OLEDs in 2020?


We'll know a lot more when the 2018 WOLEDs launch in several months.

In the meantime, LG already has interpolation to 120Hz and with the 'AI' capability of their new processor, the quality of that 120Hz interpolatiion should only improve. 

To get to simple 240Hz (4ms) interpolation they woukd need either a native 240Hz refresh rate on the panel or the addition of a strobe / duty-cycle control (which appears to be relatively straightforward on WOLED).

If the 2018 WOLEDs support anything more than a vanilla 50% [email protected] mode (meaning operating the panel at an effective refresh rate beyond 120fps and delivering persistance of less than 8ms), then that should mean they already have developed the needed strobe control (unless the 2018 WOLED panels already support refresh at 240Hz internally).

All of this to say that the 2018 WOLEDs may already effectively support 120 Hz BFI even if they have no mechanism to feed 120fps content other than interpolation (as is the case today).

If LG's 2018 WOLEDs support interpolation to 120Hz with 50% BFI, that already reduces persistance to 4ms.

If the 2018 WOLEDs support interpolation to 120Hz with 25%, 50%, or 75% BFI (under user control), that means they already have strobe/duty cycle control and can reduce persistance to 6ms, 4ms, or as little as 2ms.

If unfortunately LGs 2018 BFI supports either interpolation to 120fps or only simply 50% BFI at a maximum of 60fps, what they have delivered in 2018 is very basic (essentially a copy of what Sony introduced last year) and 120Hz BFI will need to wait for 2019 or 2020 (assuming LG is motivated to deliver it).

The technological capability to deliver 120fps BFI should be straightforward on WOLED - it is more a question of LGs motivation and the peak brightness of the display.

@120 fps, peak brightness for delivering SDR at 4ms persistance is reduced by 50% (to ~200cd/m2 based on 2017 WOLED panel specifications).

Delivering that same SDR at 2ms persistance refuces that peak brightness by 75% (to ~100cd/m2 using 2017 panel specs).

Even if the panel supported 87.5% BFI to reduce persistance to 1ms, SDR brightness would be reduced to only 50cd/m2 (unwatchable).

To get to 1ms or even 2ms persistance, WOLED needs to be able to deliver higher peak brightness for a short amount of time (as Mark has been explaining ).

So the better question is when will WOLED support short-duration output of ~1000 cd/m2 in SDR?

The panel is already capable of supporting brightness peaks close to that level in HDR, so the capability of the WOLED pixels themselves is not the issue.

ABL already protects the panel from excessive power consumption, so the best explanation for why SDR ABL is limited to lower peak brightness than HDR is that ABL-artifacts (dimming) would make watching average SDR unwatchable without limiting maximum brightness to a lower level (due to dimming/flashing).

If the impact on the panel for strobing WOLED pixels at double-max-brightness for half-duration is the same as strobing at single-max-brightness for full-duration, then 2018 WOLED panels may already be able to support HDR-level peak brighness when operating at 120Hz BFI levels of 50% or more.

If not, LG will need to implement scanning refresh (so only a section of the screen is outputting lumens at any instant in time) or we'll need to wait for top emission and other incremental improvements that deliver increased native peak brightness.

My question for the WOLED gurus on the board is: what is the peak brightness a single WOLED subpixel can deliver for 1-2ms of time? (single pixel so that damage to the overall panel is not a concern and only damage to the single activated pixel)

And my question for Mark (and others) is this: if small-format RGB OLED displays for VR are starting to deliver short bursts of output at the levels needed to support 1ms persistance, is there any fundamental reason that that capability should not eventually scale to large-format WOLED displays?

Of course, effective brightness levels of 50-100cd/m2 in a head-mounted (dark) display environment may be much more watchable to dark-adapted eyes than that same brighness level in a room where some ambiant light (including reflected light) is unavoidable.

But if tiny RGB OLEDs can flash at 1000 cd/m2 for 1ms, is there any reason large-format WOLED should not be able to as well (even wih QDCF if needed to close he efficiency gap versus RGB-OLED)?


----------



## ataneruo

Thanks fafrd, that’s exactly the response I was looking for!


----------



## Mark Rejhon

fafrd said:


> And my question for Mark (and others) is this: if small-format RGB OLED displays for VR are starting to deliver short bursts of output at the levels needed to support 1ms persistance, is there any fundamental reason that that capability should not eventually scale to large-format WOLED displays?


The panels manage to do it today but the feature is disabled on most OLEDs. The problem is eyesearing flicker + reduced nits + no HDR.
I'll respond with a story. 

Witness the Dell UP3017Q OLED computer monitor, the most beautiful 4K OLED my eyes has ever feasted upon. Stunning. If you disabled its "reduced flicker" mode, it went into a 60Hz CRT like large-black-duty cycle mode! It even had less motion blur than any 2017 or 2018 OLED HDTV, or any of the new OLED HDTVs that I saw at CES. The motion clarity was plasmalike!! It used really large BFI ratios!! There was one huge flaw, however. Imagine staring 2 feet away from a 30" CRT that is now your desktop monitor. *Eye searing 60 Hz flicker*. Dell discontinued the monitor. 

The eyesearing problem disappear with 120Hz. The waiting game? Top-emission and true-120Hz BFI. That achievement should finally unlock usable OLED BFI with lumens kept bright enough to beat plasma (in less blur & higher brightness). Timeline? Two or three years is my bet.

OLED do have nits and accuracy problems during BFI, but 2ms is no problem, and probably 1ms is doable with a milked version of the same panel.


----------



## Herve

Some observation/questions. 

I think the image quality of OLED is fantastic, but I don't want to risk burn in. I felt the same way about CRT computer mornitors, but in those days there was no choice of displays, so I took measures to reduce the progress of burn in. Then along came so-called "flat panel" displays and, although CRT may still be king in certain ways, we see what has happened to CRT computer monitors.

I think I'm not alone thinking this way about OLED. I don't want to go back to thinking about, and taking measures to prevent, burn-in. I don't know how CRT computer monitors would have fared in the Rtings test, but I have a sneaking suspicion that OLED is even more sensitive to stationary objects than CRT. 

In short, IMO a lot more OLEDs would be sold if they had the same likelihood of burn in as LED LCD displays. For example, I would already have bought one etc. 

Is there any serious effort underway by OLED manufacturers to eliminate burn in and, if so, do you think it will be successful?

This is the age of the computer and fantastic video processors incorporated into tvs. Rather than focus on eliminating something that may be inherently impossible to eliminate, couldn't automatic, at least somewhat unobtrusive, "video-insertion measures" be taken by the display to, first, "notice" that there is some stationary object in the image and either give a warning that such an object is causing burn in or, second, take automatic action to prevent burn in by "inserting" a non-stationary image/object to "fill" that object or, alternatively "blank out" the stationary object by turning off or dramatically-reducing the brightness of the individual pixels that make up that stationary object? 

Alternatively, even our ten-year-old JVC RS1 projector as the ability to "mask" certain areas of the image. Would it be advantageous, burn-in wise, to be able to select certain areas of the screen to be temporarily masked until the user chooses to un-mask them? I'm thinking masking with either "nothing" or black might be good, but maybe I'm wrong on that. 

Thanks.


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> The panels manage to do it today but the feature is disabled on most OLEDs. The problem is eyesearing flicker + reduced nits + no HDR.
> I'll respond with a story.
> 
> Witness the Dell UP3017Q OLED computer monitor, the most beautiful 4K OLED my eyes has ever feasted upon. Stunning. *If you disabled its "reduced flicker" mode, it went into a 60Hz CRT like large-black-duty cycle mode! [/]It even had less motion blur than any 2017 or 2018 OLED HDTV, or any of the new OLED HDTVs that I saw at CES. The motion clarity was plasmalike!! It used really large BFI ratios!! There was one huge flaw, however. Imagine staring 2 feet away from a 30" CRT that is now your desktop monitor. Eye searing 60 Hz flicker. Dell discontinued the monitor.
> *


*
Did this monitor have a native refresh rate of 60Hz or 120Hz?




The eyesearing problem disappear with 120Hz. The waiting game? Top-emission and true-120Hz BFI. That achievement should finally unlock usable OLED BFI with lumens kept bright enough to beat plasma (in less blur & higher brightness). Timeline? Two or three years is my bet.

Click to expand...

Top-emission will improve brightness but is not a requirement for 120Hz-BFI (at least for plasma-like brightness levels of ~120cd/m2).

True 120Hz-BFI requires either a 240Hz native refresh rate or strobe/duty-cycle control. Are you already seeing either of both of those technologies in RGB-OLED VR displays? 

Do you know if either LG already has eithor of those capabilities or will be adding either of them soon?

Do you know of any reason scaling WOLED panels to a native refresh rate of 240Hz or adding strobe/duty-cycle control is more problematic on WOLED TV-sized displays compared to VR-sized RGB-OLED display?




OLED do have nits and accuracy problems during BFI, but 2ms is no problem, and probably 1ms is doable with a milked version of the same panel.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## RichB

^ It seems like 24P film looks without judder is acheived by emulating film black strips and then taking almost instantanous phospors and prividing persistance emulation.


The C7 does produce artifacts with DeJudder at 2 but I almost never see it in content. 
When engaged, film titles and pans are smoother and show more detail than can be perceived in the cinema.
24P pans in the cinema don't appear to jump but they are a complete blur.


It's great to have options to make customers happy, but these features are not core to the sucess of OLEDs, that seems evident.


- Rich


----------



## ataneruo

RichB said:


> ^ It seems like 24P film looks without judder is acheived by emulating film black strips and then taking almost instantanous phospors and prividing persistance emulation.
> 
> 
> The C7 does produce artifacts with DeJudder at 2 but I almost never see it in content.
> When engaged, film titles and pans are smoother and show more detail than can be perceived in the cinema.
> 24P pans in the cinema don't appear to jump but they are a complete blur.
> 
> 
> It's great to have options to make customers happy, but these features are not core to the sucess of OLEDs, that seems evident.
> 
> 
> - Rich




I see motion artifacts constantly with dejudder at 1 or above. I’ve tested extensively with Planet Earth 2, Dunkirk, Star Wars, anything with small objects moving quickly against a static background - generally birds and aircraft, which flicker or blackout during fast motion. It is so obvious I can’t believe everyone doesn’t talk about it. 

Setting dejudder to 0 removes all trace of object-based artifact, but of course then persistence frame judder becomes obvious. 

It’s a big deal. I’ve never seen the slightest trace of BI, or even IR, despite 6 hour gaming sessions with static HUDs or my wife leaving the TV on overnight. 

The only thing that keeps the LG C7 from being effectively perfect is motion artifact. And I see it all the time, although usually I can tolerate it since there is no equivalent alternative at the moment. 

I also would like higher brightness (particularly for its motion benefits) but this is not really an issue in current daily use. Play Dragon Ball Fighter Z on this TV and...wow.


----------



## RichB

ataneruo said:


> The only thing that keeps the LG C7 from being effectively perfect is motion artifact. And I see it all the time, although usually I can tolerate it since there is no equivalent alternative at the moment.



Sensitivity varies but following the forums dark screen uniformity is at the top of the list.


- Rich


----------



## ataneruo

RichB said:


> Sensitivity varies but following the forums dark screen uniformity is at the top of the list.
> 
> 
> - Rich




I appreciate that, but I have never seen vertical banding in actual content, and it is minimal in near black static content. I do not run slides, so for me it is a non-issue.


----------



## video_analysis

Consider yourself lucky. In my experience, it can be a huge issue. I could see it in the form of jailbar DSE all through many of the solid backgrounds on the Amazon Prime Philip K. Dick episode of "Impossible Planet." Meanwhile, on Hansel and Gretel 3D it was barely visible at all (and this show also exhibited raised blacks).


----------



## Mark Rejhon

fafrd said:


> Did this monitor have a native refresh rate of 60Hz or 120Hz?


Input only 60Hz. I'm not sure about the scanout velocity (top-to-bottom 1/60 or 1/120) -- For OLED sometimes scanout velocity is unrelated to refresh rate (See examples: plasma, DLP, etc). Anecdotally (unverified), it had a 1/120 sec scanout velocity but was only used for double-pulsing 60Hz in the flicker-reducing mode. And sometimes scanout velocity is unrelated to persistence due to rolling scan window size! Bottom line, scan velocity is often decoupled from refresh rate (signal-level scanout) on many digital displays. Not all OLEDs do 1:1 synchronous panel scanout to signal scanout. Easiest identification is via high speed camera.



fafrd said:


> Top-emission will improve brightness but is not a requirement for 120Hz-BFI (at least for plasma-like brightness levels of ~120cd/m2).


True. But some manufacturers disable BFI (or pulsing of any kind) because of very bad light output as the additional reason beyond 60Hz. This is a non-issue for VR, but awful for big screens. That's why top-emission is recommended since sometimes no BFI is preferable to bad BFI (dim BFI, or 60Hz flicker) even if it has excellent persistence, so sometimes a feature doesn't exist at all even though it could in theory easily do it (at ~2ms)



fafrd said:


> True 120Hz-BFI requires either a 240Hz native refresh rate of strobe/duty-cycle control. Are you already seeing either of both of those technologies in RGB-OLED VR displays?


Just to be clear, _terminologically and persistence-wise_, I sometimes interchange BFI and rolling-scan but they both have the same end-result display clarity on OLEDs. 

There are more than one method of black periods on different type of OLED panels.
If you have only one scanout channel, you're limited to refresh-cycle-granularity BFI. 
If you have at least two cincurrent scanout channels, BFI has no refresh-cycle-granularity restriction.
If you have PWM control independent of OLED pixel memory, BFI has no refresh-cycle-granularity restriction.

All produce true persistence reductions (identical motion blur reduction), except rolling scan flickers slightly less (more constant number of photons hitting eyeballs, since *some* pixels are almost always illuminated, for a rolling scan) and changes to the scan skew effect.

The per-pixel persistence and blur is identical for a given pixel pulsewidth per refresh. The temporally synchronous versus offset pulsing results in exactly the same motion blur. There might be scanout skew differences (e.g. TestUFO Scan Skew Demo - view from about 5 screenwidths away - even shows up on an iPad in one of the screen rotations) but BFI and rolling-scan, for a per-pixel pulsewidth, produces the same display motion blur. (For every 1ms contiguous visibility time for a pixel, add 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec motion)

_Note: Source persistence (camera shutter) and destination persistence (display) is additive. So 1/120sec shutter + 1/60sec per-pixel display persistence = totall 3/120sec = 1/40sec motion blur. Doesn't matter if display or shutter or both is rolling-scan or global; that simply affects skew._

To prevent further terminological confusion, when I mentioned BFI earlier in this thread, my mention of the term, specifically, is catchall for either traditional BFI or rolling-scan-based BFI. Certain engineers kept repeatedly using BFI, even for non-granular-refresh-cycle BFI (rolling scans can be any window size that is a decimal fraction of a refresh cycle length), so it's somewhat ingrained into me. I do sincerely apologize. Some people mention BFI for refresh-granular persistence increments, but with two concurrent scanout channels in a refresh cycle (one being OFF pass), refresh-granularity is not necessary.



fafrd said:


> 2017s 120-Hz native panel with strobe control for 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% persistance could already achieve 2ms BFI (at 25%).


Numbers look about right. Don't think you need that granularity; if it is rolling scan, you could simply map Brightness to pulsewidth (basically single-strobe-per-refresh-cycle is your display persistence adjustment control). Though scan window size may affect color quality due to nonsymmetric GtG on all possible pixel color pairs. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, the GtG-to-persistence ratio tightening creates artifacts. But artifacts from tight-rolling-scan-windows on OLED still look less bothersome than strobed LCD until you get to the 1ms or


----------



## Wizziwig

^ I took some similar 1000 fps videos a few months back of the Sony A1E and LG B7P. You can see that they scan out at 120Hz. It is 99% certain the 2018 LG models will do the exact same thing as there are no controls for duty cycle in the menus - just simple BFI on/off switch under custom TrueMotion settings. Since TM was disabled in game mode on older models, it's not even certain that BFI will be offered in low-lag modes.

When you guys are discussing WOLED brightness vs. other mobile/VR OLEDs or LCDs, you need to keep something in mind. The peak Nits ratings you see at rtings.com or elsewhere are not apples-to-apples equivalent due to differences in ABL behavior and the fact that the WOLED can only achieve those peak nits values with pure white. This is why I stated earlier that WOLEDs do not produce the best HDR experience in many non-dark scenes. You either get visible dimming from the ABL (for a simple example, try watching the white letters in the main menu of Batman v Superman UHD HDR disc) or visible de-saturation of most non-white bright colors as LG pushes too much of the white sub-pixel to maintain brightness (you can also see this in BvS during the many red/orange explosions or glowing orange electricity effects on Doomsday). BvS is a 4000 Nit title that it letter-boxed which reduces ABL effect since 25% of screen is black. These issues are even more obvious in games which are full-screen and utilize the entire 10,000 nit HDR range - see here for example. LG needs to ditch the filters and white sub-pixel ASAP.


----------



## Wizziwig

Since we were discussing the OLEDs used in VR applications and their improved motion resolution, I did some searching to determine their brightness levels. According to this Note 8 review, the Samsung OLED used in that phone can get up to 423 nits displaying full screen white and 728 peak nits when displaying 1% screen area. The actual panel limits appear even higher since it does 560 (full-screen) and 1240 peak when used outdoors in auto-mode. The full screen readings are 3-4 times brighter than any of the WOLEDs. Peak readings are ~2x better at best in auto-mode or about equal in regular mode. These are all white pattern readings - no doubt it does even better on other colors due to lack of white sub-pixel. Not being bound to thermals and battery constraints of mobile applications might also help in other applications.


----------



## Luke M

Mark Rejhon said:


> Witness the Dell UP3017Q OLED computer monitor, the most beautiful 4K OLED my eyes has ever feasted upon. Stunning. If you disabled its "reduced flicker" mode, it went into a 60Hz CRT like large-black-duty cycle mode! It even had less motion blur than any 2017 or 2018 OLED HDTV, or any of the new OLED HDTVs that I saw at CES. The motion clarity was plasmalike!! It used really large BFI ratios!! There was one huge flaw, however. Imagine staring 2 feet away from a 30" CRT that is now your desktop monitor. *Eye searing 60 Hz flicker*. Dell discontinued the monitor.


My suspicion is that Dell just re-purposed a panel intended for professional TV monitoring.


----------



## Luke M

gmarceau said:


> Is anything even mastered at 10,000 nits at this point? I thought that DV was at 4,000 nits.


"Mastered at" is ambiguous. Is it the peak of the content or the spec of the mastering monitor?

4K bluray content peaks are all over the place, from 9000.


----------



## gmarceau

Luke M said:


> "Mastered at" is ambiguous. Is it the peak of the content or the spec of the mastering monitor?
> 
> 4K bluray content peaks are all over the place, from 9000.


Really, Luke? How about HDR 'up to' 10,000 nits? Does that demystify this for you? I'm talking about the highest level nits that can be captured per the various HDR standards.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Luke M said:


> My suspicion is that Dell just re-purposed a panel intended for professional TV monitoring.


Possible, but could have been just fine if it *had* a 120Hz professional mode. The panel had 120Hz double-flash mode for 60Hz, but no native 120Hz external signal support. I've repeatedly seen two out of three in the "engineering-easiest" OLED motion-resolution magic recipe (A) 120Hz + (B) BFI + (C) sub-refresh-length persistence. But not all 3 not simultaneously combined yet.


----------



## fafrd

seems as though LG is feeling their oats (best OLED ad I've seen from them): https://www.oled-info.com/check-out-lgds-beautiful-new-oled-tv-video-ad


----------



## fafrd

Looks like Electro-luminescent quantum-dot emissive displays may be emerging, but this initiative by Merck is probably an accurate guage of current status: https://www.oled-info.com/merck-leads-new-consortium-develop-quantum-materials-light-emission

"Exploration of quantum materials – New paths to realizing innovative optoelectronic components" (ELQ-LED) and it is supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and led by Merck with an aim to conduct *basic research on quantum materials as light emitting sources. ELQ-LED is a three-year project that will end on the summer of 2020.*

2-1/2 years of basic research sounds about right, and we finally have a semi-official name/ *ELQ-LED*.

Is it finally time to start a stickly ELQ-LED Technology Advancements Thread?


----------



## rogo

So it's *possible* than within 2 1/2 years, Merck will have a material that could maybe be used in a quantum-dot emitter / pixel.

And it's possible that might be mass produceable sometime later.

And it's possible that the rest of the production chain might also be ready at some date in the future.

Sounds like "waiting for OLED" circa 2003.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> So it's *possible* than within 2 1/2 years, Merck will have a material that could maybe be used in a quantum-dot emitter / pixel.
> 
> And it's possible that might be mass produceable sometime later.
> 
> And it's possible that the rest of the production chain might also be ready at some date in the future.
> 
> *Sounds like "waiting for OLED" circa 2003.*


Yes. And so since this sticky OLED thread wasn't started until 2006, I guess we should wait until this (or other) research bears industrializable fruit before starting a new thread .


----------



## rogo

I'm not arguing against the new thread. Not even a little.

I'm going to note that in 2006, when the OLED threat was started, it would be 7+ years before a commercial OLED TV was sold (and God, anyone about to talk about the zero volumes of the Sony or the 15-inch LG... spare us!). 

And when this thread was started, OLED was real, a somewhat mature "technology" that had been used in real things.

ELQ-LED (let's try harder by the way!) is nowhere near as far along as OLED was in 2006. 

That doesn't argue against the starting of a thread, it argues against optimism that we're seeing TVs anytime soon.

But I'll note that technology curves don't *all* precisely follow one another. It could be possible that the time frame for emissive QD will be less than the multi-decade arc it could OLED to go from "first real demonstrated display" to "a TV we can buy at a pretty realistic price". 

So maybe we'll see a good QD display demo in 2018-19 and maybe sometime before mid 2020s we'll see a TV.

Maybe.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I'm not arguing against the new thread. Not even a little.
> 
> I'm going to note that in 2006, when the OLED threat was started, it would be 7+ years before a commercial OLED TV was sold (and God, anyone about to talk about the zero volumes of the Sony or the 15-inch LG... spare us!).
> 
> And when this thread was started, OLED was real, a somewhat mature "technology" that had been used in real things.
> 
> ELQ-LED (let's try harder by the way!) is nowhere near as far along as OLED was in 2006.
> 
> That doesn't argue against the starting of a thread, it argues against optimism that we're seeing TVs anytime soon.
> 
> But I'll note that technology curves don't *all* precisely follow one another. It could be possible that the time frame for emissive QD will be less than the multi-decade arc it could OLED to go from "first real demonstrated display" to "a TV we can buy at a pretty realistic price".
> 
> So *maybe we'll see a good QD display demo in 2018-19 *and maybe sometime before mid 2020s we'll see a TV.
> 
> Maybe.


Maybe, but probably not from Merck.

ELQ-LED seems to be significantly more similar manufacturing-wise to OLED than OLED was to LED/LCD (mainly backplane), so that may provide some acceleration.

On the other hand, sounds as though ELQ-LED is going to be RGB rather than white, so the entire large-screen printing/patterning nut still has to be cracked...

My guess is that LG's 10.5G plant is solidly in production before a true consumer ELQ-LED TV hits the shelves.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> My guess is that LG's 10.5G plant is solidly in production before a true consumer ELQ-LED TV hits the shelves.


I'm quite certain of that.


----------



## dubvdingo

When will a 75" OLED be available for less than $4-5k? In the next 3 years?


----------



## fafrd

dubvdingo said:


> When will a 75" OLED be available for less than $4-5k? In the next 3 years?


I believe the 77C8P will dip under $5K this November.

Beyond that, we shoukd see the first 75" WOLEDs off of the new 105G plant in ~2021 +/- 6 months.

Once the 10.5G plant is in full-blown production, LG will be able to produce 6 75" WOLEDs for roughly the cost of 8 65" WOLEDs. So by then, 75" WOLED TVs could cost as little as 1-1/3rd the cost of 65" WOLEDs.

65" WOLEDs dipped to $2300 last November, should dip below $2000 this November, and should be below $1500 by 2021, so do the math...

$2000 75" WOLEDs are on the horizon, but it may take a decade to get there.

$4000-$5000 75" WOLEDs, on the other hand, are practically around the corner...


----------



## Herve

fafrd said:


> seems as though LG is feeling their oats (best OLED ad I've seen from them): https://www.oled-info.com/check-out-lgds-beautiful-new-oled-tv-video-ad


Even though that link is pretty light on details, anybody want to venture a guess as to whether or not this technology will be as vulnerable to burn-in as present-day OLED?


----------



## Jason626

fafrd said:


> seems as though LG is feeling their oats (best OLED ad I've seen from them): https://www.oled-info.com/check-out-lgds-beautiful-new-oled-tv-video-ad


I did laugh a little when I saw less eye fatigue part. LCD 1000 nit verses oled 540 nit chart.


----------



## JasonHa

Jason626 said:


> I did laugh a little when I saw less eye fatigue part. LCD 1000 nit verses oled 540 nit chart.


Actual quote: "Open your eyes to better eye health with OLED". Hilarious.


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> Actual quote: "Open your eyes to better eye health with OLED". Hilarious.


Yes. Pretty soon the 'AI' they have added will monitor your stress/excitement levels and switch channels when you've had enough.

Seriously though, highlighting the increased eyestrain associated with 'sunlight n your living room' may be an effective way to establish some upper limits in the Brightness Wars...


----------



## Wizziwig

Enery Star Ratings for 65" 2017 C7 and 2018 C8. Need wattage numbers for yellow slides as that is the most ABL/power-crippled color every year.


----------



## MikeBiker

Those power numbers are within TV to TV variation. Firmware changes can increase the power that much.


----------



## joys_R_us

I guess that the new processors eat more energy...


----------



## Wizziwig

Here's the 2015 and 2016 years. 2016 was the last year that LG confirmed releasing a new panel and we saw a large increase in power consumption (along with first owner reports of burn-in). 

The power consumed by the weak ARM SoC are negligible compared to audio/video. It's not looking like 2018 will bring any significant panel changes - maybe slight additional relaxation of ABL as they did in 2016->2017.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Here's the 2015 and 2016 years. 2016 was the last year that LG confirmed releasing a new panel and we saw a large increase in power consumption (along with first owner reports of burn-in).
> 
> The power consumed by the weak ARM SoC are negligible compared to audio/video. It's not looking like 2018 will bring any significant panel changes - [b-2maybe slight additional relaxation of ABL as they did in 2016->2017.[/b]


I suspect the opposite (a slight tightening of ABL due to the more efficient subpixel design (maintain brightness while reducing the risk of burn-in).


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> I suspect the opposite (a slight tightening of ABL due to the more efficient subpixel design (maintain brightness while reducing the risk of burn-in).


So you're saying there will be more aggressive dimming than previous years? I'm expecting less (as they have done every year) which is why I said "relaxation" of ABL.

I'm still not buying the supposed efficiency improvement of this new pixel design. The 2018 Energy Star ratings don't back it up. As you can see from the rtings data posted earlier, they've made almost zero efficiency improvement on the most power-hungry test pattern since the inception of WOLED in 2013. Been stuck at the same full-screen 130-150 nits since then.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> So you're saying there will be more aggressive dimming than previous years? I'm expecting less (as they have done every year) which is why I said "relaxation" of ABL.


Yes, that's what I'm saying. If LG has any additional efficiency/luminance to offer in 2018, I won't be surprised to see most or all of it directed to reducing the risk of burn-in rather than further relaxing of ABL (which would further increase the risk of burn-in).



> I'm still not buying the supposed efficiency improvement of this new pixel design. The 2018 Energy Star ratings don't back it up. As you can see from the rtings data posted earlier, they've made almost zero efficiency improvement on the most power-hungry test pattern since the inception of WOLED in 2013. Been stuck at the same full-screen 130-150 nits since then.


It is trus that Energy Star ratings have not really changed, which supports the view that overall luminance out of the TV has not changed.

On the other hand, that supports the view that ABL has not been relaxed at all from an end-user perspective - 2017 and 2018 WOLEDs should deliver about the same lumens to the eyeballs.

And when you see the larger subpixel designs used in the 2018 panels (2018 red is ~160% the size of 2017 red; 2018 blue is ~110% the size of 2017 blue; etc...) those larger subpixels should have delivered more lumens and should have consumed more power - unless throttled back by *increased[/u] ABL (to maintain power consumption and lumens at 2017 levels).

We should know soon.*


----------



## sooke

Hhmm... Since the pixels are larger in 2018, that means they can be driven less hard for the same number of lumens compared to 2017 pixels, right? And if that is so, does that mean the difference in how hard pixels are driven for a 5% APL screen compared to a 6% APL screen will be a bigger difference with 2017 pixels than with 2018 pixels (assuming both sets calibrated to the same 100% brightness)? So... does that mean we could see more uniformity issues at near black in 2018?


----------



## fafrd

https://www.oled-info.com/cynora-pr...er-aims-meet-lgds-and-sdcs-specification-soon

"the company presented its latest blue TADF material that features a CIEy of 0.18, EQE of 21% and *a lifetime of 10 hours* LT97 at 700 nits. "

This has got to be a typo, right?

Perhaps not: "The company's *full focus is now on the lifetime of its materials* as it aims to meet its customers specifications in the coming months.'...


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> https://www.oled-info.com/cynora-pr...er-aims-meet-lgds-and-sdcs-specification-soon
> 
> "the company presented its latest blue TADF material that features a CIEy of 0.18, EQE of 21% and *a lifetime of 10 hours* LT97 at 700 nits. "
> 
> This has got to be a typo, right?
> 
> Perhaps not: "The company's *full focus is now on the lifetime of its materials* as it aims to meet its customers specifications in the coming months.'...


This seems like a non-product from an increasingly irrelevant player in OLED.

They are orders of magnitude from having a product.


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> https://www.oled-info.com/cynora-pr...er-aims-meet-lgds-and-sdcs-specification-soon
> 
> "the company presented its latest blue TADF material that features a CIEy of 0.18, EQE of 21% and *a lifetime of 10 hours* LT97 at 700 nits. "
> 
> This has got to be a typo, right?
> 
> Perhaps not: "The company's *full focus is now on the lifetime of its materials* as it aims to meet its customers specifications in the coming months.'...


They were claiming that 100 hours for LT97 was good enough for commercial production and they missed that by an order of magnitude. They also didnt hit their color target of a CIEy of .1.


----------



## RichB

fafrd said:


> https://www.oled-info.com/cynora-pr...er-aims-meet-lgds-and-sdcs-specification-soon
> 
> "the company presented its latest blue TADF material that features a CIEy of 0.18, EQE of 21% and *a lifetime of 10 hours* LT97 at 700 nits. "
> 
> This has got to be a typo, right?
> 
> Perhaps not: "The company's *full focus is now on the lifetime of its materials* as it aims to meet its customers specifications in the coming months.'...



Maybe it's replicable like an ink jet printer, Just add more blue every night. 


- Rich


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> This seems like a non-product from an increasingly irrelevant player in OLED.
> 
> They are *orders of magnitude* from having a product.


Perhaps only a single order of magnitude, but still.

They are claiming that 100 hours to 97% brightness is equivalent to 10,000 hours (or whatever) to half-brightness (50%).

Not going to comment on whether that extrapolation is accurate or not, but it is interesting to note that if current WOLED TVs only have 100 hours to 97% brightness, this would jibe pretty closeley of growing consensus that burn-in becomes visible on a red field after as little as 200-300 hours of cumulative (qualifying) static logo display...


----------



## rogo

Sure, maybe 1 order. Though I remain skeptical this is a reasonable design goal for any number of reasons.

That said, I remain more skeptical that missing by even 1 order of magnitude is something you just fix in a few months, having worked on this stuff for years.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Sure, maybe 1 order. Though I remain skeptical this is a reasonable design goal for any number of reasons.
> 
> That said, *I remain more skeptical that missing by even 1 order of magnitude is something you just fix in a few months,* having worked on this stuff for years.


Yeah, seems as though they are stick in optimization hell.

Here is what they claimed last May: https://www.oled-info.com/cynora-announces-its-latest-blue-tadf-oled-emitter-performance

15% EQE
emission peak 90 hours

The recently published results are:

21% EQE (50% improvement)
CiEy 0.18 (far short of their target of 0.10, but possibly some improvment from '


----------



## aaz

fafrd said:


> They are claiming that 100 hours to 97% brightness is equivalent to 10,000 hours (or whatever) to half-brightness (50%).
> 
> Not going to comment on whether that extrapolation is accurate or not, but it is interesting to note that if current WOLED TVs only have 100 hours to 97% brightness, this would jibe pretty closeley of growing consensus that burn-in becomes visible on a red field after as little as 200-300 hours of cumulative (qualifying) static logo display...


Not only does it mean that you can notice BI after just 100 hours, but if the reduction to 10,000 hours is accurate then that also means that WOLED follows a similar curve to plasma, and that the first hours of BI are worse than later. So that would indicate that if you watch CNN before you have several hundred hours on your OLED that it's pretty much screwed. 

I don't have time to go into calculations, but it looks like the initial BI rate is 10* worse when the TV is new versus when it's several thousand hours old. It makes sense to me that this deterioration is on a curve rather than flat, and that the curve is fast at the beginning and slow after some time.

I had previously extrapolated that from Sony marketing blurbs during interviews that the set has a reasonable lifetime of 10000 hours per WOLED subpixel (depending on how dim you can stand at the end) Since not every color is displayed all the time and if it's reasonably random, that would be about a 30,000 hour lifetime when playing reasonably randomized video content. 

Yes, plasma days all over again, which actually is very good for me because i never had BI on my 2 plasma sets that I had owned.


----------



## video_analysis

A 30k hour lifetime makes the LG CEO/CFO (I forget which) claim of 100k hours 3 years ago outright scandalous (30k hours was a common estimation of the very first models). I'll be close to 4k in just 1 year on this G6, which would make it unwatchable before 8 full years of use (and since captions are always used, who knows what year those will start showing negative residual effects).


----------



## aaz

video_analysis said:


> .. I'll be close to 4k in just 1 year on this G6, which would make it unwatchable before 8 full years of use (and since captions are always used, who knows what year those will start showing negative residual effects).


You watch 11 hours a day? I think the average is more like 6-8 hours - which should translate to between 10-13 years, but you are right - I would probably find it unwatchable after only 6 years - which should cover the majority of its brightest years.


----------



## no1special

aaz said:


> Not only does it mean that you can notice BI after just 100 hours, but if the reduction to 10,000 hours is accurate then that also means that WOLED follows a similar curve to plasma, and that the first hours of BI are worse than later. So that would indicate that if you watch CNN before you have several hundred hours on your OLED that it's pretty much screwed.
> 
> I don't have time to go into calculations, but it looks like the initial BI rate is 10* worse when the TV is new versus when it's several thousand hours old. It makes sense to me that this deterioration is on a curve rather than flat, and that the curve is fast at the beginning and slow after some time.
> 
> I had previously extrapolated that from Sony marketing blurbs during interviews that the set has a reasonable lifetime of 10000 hours per WOLED subpixel (depending on how dim you can stand at the end) Since not every color is displayed all the time and if it's reasonably random, that would be about a 30,000 hour lifetime when playing reasonably randomized video content.
> 
> Yes, plasma days all over again, which actually is very good for me because i never had BI on my 2 plasma sets that I had owned.


Interesting theory. It's also possible that BI is less likely to become visible later in the TV's life due to the ratio of for example, CNN to random content displayed. 500 hours of CNN over the first 1000 hours of TV use is a 50% ratio, thus making the differences in wear more apparent than 500 hours of CNN over 5000 hours of TV use. This would also explain why the BI appears to "fade" gradually over time once the offending content is no longer displayed and only random content is displayed in its place. The difference in wear between the static elements and the rest of the screen gradually even out over time. The BI on our B6 is noticeably less visible about 10 months after I identified it and stopped displaying the offending channel, but I doubt it'll ever clear up completely.


----------



## Wizziwig

aaz said:


> Not only does it mean that you can notice BI after just 100 hours, but if the reduction to 10,000 hours is accurate then that also means that WOLED follows a similar curve to plasma, and that the first hours of BI are worse than later. So that would indicate that if you watch CNN before you have several hundred hours on your OLED that it's pretty much screwed.


Sounds great except there are multiple people in the burn-in threads that didn't see first signs of burn-in until thousands of hours on their set. It doesn't just happen in the first few hundred hours. The B6 set that rtings used in their first burn-in study was also already broken-in and several months old before they began the study. Sound more like urban legend that break-in does any good at preventing burn-in. It was never proven to help on plasma either. Break-in may have been useful at accelerating the waiting time before plasma calibration was recommended - but even in that case I don't recall any real evidence showing a specific waiting time was required.


----------



## video_analysis

aaz said:


> You watch 11 hours a day? I think the average is more like 6-8 hours - which should translate to between 10-13 years, but you are right - I would probably find it unwatchable after only 6 years - which should cover the majority of its brightest years.


Not me, but I'm not alone in the house.


----------



## jrref

Wizziwig said:


> Sounds great except there are multiple people in the burn-in threads that didn't see first signs of burn-in until thousands of hours on their set. It doesn't just happen in the first few hundred hours. The B6 set that rtings used in their first burn-in study was also already broken-in and several months old before they began the study. Sound more like urban legend that break-in does any good at preventing burn-in. It was never proven to help on plasma either. Break-in may have been useful at accelerating the waiting time before plasma calibration was recommended - but even in that case I don't recall any real evidence showing a specific waiting time was required.


I agree, break-in patterns don't make a bit of difference for OLEDs. The only possible benefit is to make sure you are using the WRGB pixels evenly during whatever break-in time you decide to use. After that, all the pixels will be used randomly for the rest of the set's life. I have 2 OLEDs with a couple of thousand hours and no burn in. I think it's more of an issue if you use the TV as a computer monitor or for a lot of gaming. And yes I watch a lot of CNN. No banner burn-in.


----------



## aaz

Wizziwig said:


> Sounds great except there are multiple people in the burn-in threads that didn't see first signs of burn-in until thousands of hours on their set. It doesn't just happen in the first few hundred hours. The B6 set that rtings used in their first burn-in study was also already broken-in and several months old before they began the study. Sound more like urban legend that break-in does any good at preventing burn-in. It was never proven to help on plasma either. Break-in may have been useful at accelerating the waiting time before plasma calibration was recommended - but even in that case I don't recall any real evidence showing a specific waiting time was required.


Just because you see it one day does not mean that the damage was caused on that day. It's not contradictory to say that the major damage was done while the set was still in infancy (0-500 hours) and then continued contributing until they noticed it 500 hours later. So what you say is not a contradiction to the aging cycle as postulated. 
I am not pushing for break-in with slides, I never broke my plasma's in that way - but I was careful to always watch full screen non-static content for the first few hundred hours with nothing set very bright, and I never had any issues with BI more than retention for a couple of weeks after a particularly nasty video game that we played for 4-8 hours a day for a few weeks. So none of what you say is contradictory, you don't have to wait for break in for calibration either, it's just that it makes sense if the tv wears on a curve with the highest ware in the first part of its life.


----------



## kensingtonwick

video_analysis said:


> A 30k hour lifetime makes the LG CEO/CFO (I forget which) claim of 100k hours 3 years ago outright scandalous (30k hours was a common estimation of the very first models). I'll be close to 4k in just 1 year on this G6, which would make it unwatchable before 8 full years of use (and since captions are always used, who knows what year those will start showing negative residual effects).




Do you run your Oled light at 100?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kensingtonwick

no1special said:


> Interesting theory. It's also possible that BI is less likely to become visible later in the TV's life due to the ratio of for example, CNN to random content displayed. 500 hours of CNN over the first 1000 hours of TV use is a 50% ratio, thus making the differences in wear more apparent than 500 hours of CNN over 5000 hours of TV use. This would also explain why the BI appears to "fade" gradually over time once the offending content is no longer displayed and only random content is displayed in its place. The difference in wear between the static elements and the rest of the screen gradually even out over time. The BI on our B6 is noticeably less visible about 10 months after I identified it and stopped displaying the offending channel, but I doubt it'll ever clear up completely.




What I don't understand is why these broadcasting stations won't make their logos opaque?? You think they'd have some knowledge of tv technology if they're in the business of broadcast lol. It just doesn't make any sense!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## video_analysis

^Hubris.

And nope, typically an OLED light setting of 35.


----------



## magillagorilla

Anyone know of a source for LG's Oled panel sales by year?

TIA


----------



## fafrd

https://www.oled-info.com/lgd-orders-deposition-equipment-its-gen-105-line-paju-p10

"According to a new report from Korea, LGD has ordered its first batch of deposition equipment for the P10 line, which will be Gen-10.5 (2940 x 3370 mm). The first line will have a production capacity of *30,000 substrates per month*, which will greatly increase LGD's total OLED TV production capacity. LGD finished the construction of the building and *the fab is expected to be complete in the first half of 2018.*"

2020 is shaping up to be an exciting year for flat-panel TVs!

30,000 10.5G substrates / month translates to over 200,000 additional 65" WOLED panels per month or 150,000 additional 75" WOLED TVs per month once LG get's yields within 90% of where they are today on their 8.5G lines...


----------



## wco81

If they finish the fab in the first half of 2018, what happens in 2019?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> If they finish the fab in the first half of 2018, what happens in 2019?


Just going by how long the ramp took for the first 8.5G WOLED Fab, I think it's very likely that even if the fab is able to start running first pilot production by the end of this year, most/all of 2019 will be needed to ramp it up and get yields close to any sort of levels where they'd even consider starting production runs.

The announcement of the first 75" product will be telling - I doubt it gets announces at CES 2019 but if everything is on track, I wouldn't be surprised to see it announced at CES 2020...


----------



## RobertR1

With the current OLED tech that LG uses, is there an upper limit to brightness that's limited by the tech?


----------



## fafrd

RobertR1 said:


> With the current OLED tech that LG uses, is there an upper limit to brightness that's limited by the tech?


With or without a lifetime specification?

Increased brightness (mA/cm^2) increases acing rate (which also impacts rate of differential-aging-induced burn-in when bright fully-saturated color logos are displayed for 100s of cumulative hours).

There is probably some other upper brightness/current limit where the screen can develope heat-induced physical damage (true burn-in ), but that is likely higher than the ABL limits LG imposes today (which are likely driven by lifetime expectations).

Various developments in the pipeline, including top-emission in 2019-2020 and possibly QDCF beyond that offer the promise of increased electro-optical efficiency (meaning more Nits out for the same level of mA/cm^2 in), so WOLED likely has a near-certain path beyond 1000 Nit peak levels.

But achieving 10,000 Nit or even 4000 Nit peak levels out of a WOLED apprars to be out of reach based on what we know today...


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> There is a comment suggesting that blue TADF is needed for top-emission - is that the case or are there alternative materials that can be used to achieve top-emission?


No, that statement is false. I don't see the statement now but as I recall they were trying to make an argument that only their blue TADF material would meet certain specs supportive of top emission but that is clearly false.




magillagorilla said:


> Anyone know of a source for LG's Oled panel sales by year?
> 
> TIA


I don't have a link where this is tracked and updated but approximately....
2018 2.5-2.8 million
2017 1.7 milion
2016 900,000
2015 400,000




wco81 said:


> If they finish the fab in the first half of 2018, what happens in 2019?


In this case, by "fab" they mean the building and clean rooms will be complete in the first half of 2018. Equipment will be installed in late 2018 and early 2019. With this being the first gen 10.5 OLED facility it will probably take until 2nd half 2020 to reach sufficient yield.


----------



## wco81

So if not ramped up until more than 2 years from now, the products which benefit from this new fab will be introduced at 2021 CES.

And those products will ship months after that intro so over 3 years away.


----------



## rogo

ynotgoal said:


> low
> In this case, by "fab" they mean the building and clean rooms will be complete in the first half of 2018. Equipment will be installed in late 2018 and early 2019. With this being the first gen 10.5 OLED facility it will probably take until 2nd half 2020 to reach sufficient yield.





wco81 said:


> So if not ramped up until more than 2 years from now, the products which benefit from this new fab will be introduced at 2021 CES.
> 
> And those products will ship months after that intro so over 3 years away.


ynot (and fafrd) certainly have the timeline more or less correct. All this stuff requires patience.

And for what it's worth it certainly would make sense wco, for there to be substantial changes rolled out by then.

Whether they are "top emission" or QDCF (quantum dot color filters) or both or something else remains to be seen. But it's certainly likely that the panels rolling off the new fab lines will be a generation -- or even two -- ahead of what we see now.

The most important thing the new fab will do, however, is massively increase quantities LG can produce. And that will yield much, much lower prices because there is no way to sell said quantities at anything near today's prices.

It's very likely that any performance improvements will be fairly mild compared to the production improvements of the new fab. But for the AVS crowd, even those mild improvements may well yield much (justifiable) excitement over the coming years.

For me, personally, buying in 2018 is more than logical. I'm looking forward to a rollable 75-inch down the line as my next next.


----------



## ynotgoal

wco81 said:


> So if not ramped up until more than 2 years from now, the products which benefit from this new fab will be introduced at 2021 CES.
> 
> And those products will ship months after that intro so over 3 years away.


They will sell TVs made from the fab whenever they get high enough yields. Whether that lines up with CES is not likely to be their top concern. The stated expectation is that it will be late 2020 but it could of course change.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> They will sell TVs made from the fab whenever they get high enough yields. Whether that lines up with CES is not likely to be their top concern. The stated expectation is that it will be late 2020 but it could of course change.


I agree. The announcement of a 75" product will be a key indicator. It"s unlikely LG will introduce a new product class without some warning at CES, so CES 2020 will be an important indicator as to how well they are progressibg towards 10.5G ramp-up...


----------



## Fahrenheit85

Hoping the LG plant stuff is a sign of >65 inch OLEDs becoming more affordable. Just waiting on a 75inch OLED thats 5k or less and i'm upgrading


----------



## videobruce

I'd settle for fixing the ABL & burning issues far more than price. What good is a lower price with outstanding, major issues.


----------



## video_analysis

May not be fixable to your level of satisfaction on emissive organic display tech. For others, the current level of problems they represent may be more than worth it for $5k (and, in fewer cases, like myself, much more).


----------



## Fahrenheit85

video_analysis said:


> May not be fixable to your level of satisfaction on emissive organic display tech. For others, the current level of problems they represent may be more than worth it for $5k (and, in fewer cases, like myself, much more).


100% on point, I have a Vizio P65-C1 for my house and the in laws got a 65 inch LG OLED hanging in their living room. Every time I see it i'm blown away by the picture quality. Even sat down and played a little Playstation on it with my brother in law and I really don't notice the common OLED issues.


----------



## fafrd

Originally posted by KOF in a new thread he started entitled 'Samsung to come back to OLED TV?:



KOF said:


> Holy Molly! It's all over the Korean press now. Apparently, Samsung heir Lee Jae-yong, soon after his release from prison for his bribery charges, throw a fit at Samsung Display for poorly performing, market-wise, QLED TVs and wants OLED TV production to resume.
> 
> As for how they are going to do that since they still don't have any way to pattern OLED TV nor any progress on IGZO equivalent backplane, I'm not sure but one way they are going at is by utilizing QDCF.
> 
> http://www.etnews.com/20180220000344?SNS=00001
> 
> 
> 
> "Samsung is said to be developing a new type of TV called QD-OLED that emits light instead of relying on backlight. It's a combination of Quantum Dot and OLED.
> 
> While their previous QD TVs have used LCDs with LED backlights, QD-OLED will use OLED as a backlight.
> 
> Samsung's QD-OLED uses blue OLED as a backlight. To make colors for Red and Green subpixels, Blue OLED subpixel will be left alone while QD color filters will be put on top of Red and Green subpixels. This way, they can manufacture a self-emissive OLED that also has improved color space.
> 
> QD-OLED will allow for not only forgoing LCDs for thickness/weight improvement, it will also allow for not needing a QDEF, further reducing need for components. It will also allow for better viewing angle and response time.
> 
> Right now, the biggest challenge is controlling light contamination from blue OLED when placing Red/Green QDCF on top. Many experts believe this is Samsung's way of coming back to OLED TV market.
> 
> "So far Samsung has scoffed their competition's OLED TV efforts as not a true OLED TV as it uses color filters and white pixels. So, their final goal was in creating EL-QLED, but difficulties with production must have changed their mind."


This is actually a very attractive idea and BOLED+RG-QDCF has several advantages over WOLED (or even WOLED+RGB-QDCF):

-No blue QDCF avoids the problem currently limiting 'true' RGB QDCF (no long-lifetime blue QDCF yet).

-Conversion of Blue OLED light into red and green through QDCF likely means that all colors will have more similar efficiency and hence more similar aging rates than is the case for WOLED.

-BOLED+RG-QDCF can deliver higher brightness than WOLED while remaining a true RGB display (no white subpixel) so color volume should noticably be higher.

-BOLED, like WOLED, avoids the problem of patterning OLED materials and likely has fewer OLED layers/processibg steps than WOLED, so manufacturing costs and yields should actially be incrementally better than WOLED (though the QDCF color filters will cost more than the conventional color filters used by WOLED).

This is a smart move by Samsung - it leverages the work they have pioneered on QDCF to pivot to a WOLED-like BOLED architecture that will eventually leapfrog what LG has succeeded to do with WOLED (once they solve the issues of blue light contamination and get manufacturing ramped-up to LG WOLED-like levels ).


----------



## Wizziwig

So last year it was EL-QLED hype. This year Micro-LED "The Wall" hype. Now we're supposed to believe BOLED is the future? Come one Samsung, make up your mind! Every time they get stuck, they just dream up some new vaporware. What's next? Announce Plasma is making a comeback? I've given up on believing anything coming out of Samsung's PR machine.


----------



## rogo

Wizziwig said:


> So last year it was EL-QLED hype. This year Micro-LED "The Wall" hype. Now we're supposed to believe BOLED is the future? Come one Samsung, make up your mind! Every time they get stuck, they just dream up some new vaporware. What's next? Announce Plasma is making a comeback? I've given up on believing anything coming out of Samsung's PR machine.


So there's no doubt emissive QD is vaporware.

There's no doubt microLED as a consumer product is vaporware.

But a QDCF using just red and green dots and a blue "passthrough"? That's actually quite plausible. Don't trust Samsung, but listen to Nanosys. They appear close on a true QDCF product. Samsung would need a great deal of time -- as fafrd notes, that's measure in _years_ not months -- to ramp up an OLED using unpatterned blue and a QDCF with red and green dots to emit the other two primaries. But this would avoid the massive expense of "micro" dimming and also allow them to fast follow LG on a production process that's quite similar. There are still massive backplane issues for Samsung, which has no real experience in oxide but will need it to make OLEDs.

But Samsung willed OLED to the market in the first place (not the TVs, the small displays). They tried to will the TVs using a technology that literally most of you could understand would never scale if I showed you a demo of how it would work. 

This is their first clever / realistic idea to answer LG. To be clear, I'd love a micro-dimmed LED-LCD with a QDCF in concept, but the price? Unlikely to compete with _today's_ OLED TVs, let alone those in 2020-21. Samsung knows this too. So they need a solution, and this is the first idea that smacks of believable. None of the ideas around "printed" RGB have seemed believable because there is no soluble blue emitter.

This seems believable. 

It will also take time. And a giant commitment. They do this with a toe only and they will find the water is filled with LG-branded sharks in 2020 and they have no way to reclaim lost ground in high-end TV. They do it by jumping in the deep end and by 2021-22 we might really be arguing which is better. And it might be Samsung.


----------



## slacker711

The major issue I see with Samsung's approach is the lack of a blue with sufficient lifetime and power efficiency to be the primary emitter. The current blue used by LGD is a fluorescent blue that probably has a current efficiency below 10 cd/a. That compares to the following I found from a LGD paper in 2017.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdtp.11555/abstract



> We report an improved 3-stacked white organic light emitting diode (WOLED) structure comprised of layers emitting red and yellow-green phosphorescence in the 2nd stacked device. We focused on developing the WOLED devices to realize 4K premium OLED TV displaying very high brightness and excellent color characteristics, with the optimized color layer. *The WOLED has a high current efficiency of 83 cd/A*, and cool white color whose color coordinate is (0.297, 0.317). 65-inch 4K premium OLED TV employing the new WOLED shows 800 nit of peak brightness, and 99 percent color gamut in DCI color space.



The lack of color filters will help the overall efficiency of the panel but it wont make up for that gap. A QD-OLED based on a fluorescent blue would use a tremendous amount of energy and create quite a bit of heat.

So Samsung needs either a phosphorescent or TADF blue with a long lifetime. There has been progress but neither has yet been invented. FWIW, Cynora has now promised that their TADF blue will be in commercial displays in 2019. That is despite the fact that they have yet to their targeted commercial specs in a lab...and I think their targets are low.

This story is getting reported all over the Korean press so it seems likely to have some kernel of truth or we will quickly have a denial from Samsung. I'm just not sure if QD-OLED is a feasible path unless we get a breakthrough on blue in the next 12 months or so.


----------



## Rudy1

*SAMSUNG'S MARRIAGE OF QD AND OLED TECH*

https://ce-pro.eu/news/home-cinema/samsung-planning-oled-tvs-quantum-dot-technology/


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> So there's no doubt emissive QD is vaporware.
> 
> There's no doubt microLED as a consumer product is vaporware.
> 
> But a QDCF using just red and green dots and a blue "passthrough"? That's actually quite plausible. Don't trust Samsung, but listen to Nanosys. They appear close on a true QDCF product. Samsung would need a great deal of time -- as fafrd notes, that's measure in _years_ not months -- to ramp up an OLED using unpatterned blue and a QDCF with red and green dots to emit the other two primaries. But this would avoid the massive expense of "micro" dimming and also allow them to fast follow LG on a production process that's quite similar. *There are still massive backplane issues for Samsung, which has no real experience in oxide but will need it to make OLEDs.*
> 
> But Samsung willed OLED to the market in the first place (not the TVs, the small displays). They tried to will the TVs using a technology that literally most of you could understand would never scale if I showed you a demo of how it would work.
> 
> This is their first clever / realistic idea to answer LG. To be clear, I'd love a micro-dimmed LED-LCD with a QDCF in concept, but the price? Unlikely to compete with _today's_ OLED TVs, let alone those in 2020-21. Samsung knows this too. So they need a solution, and this is the first idea that smacks of believable. None of the ideas around "printed" RGB have seemed believable because there is no soluble blue emitter.
> 
> This seems believable.
> 
> It will also take time. And a giant commitment. They do this with a toe only and they will find the water is filled with LG-branded sharks in 2020 and they have no way to reclaim lost ground in high-end TV. They do it by jumping in the deep end and by 2021-22 we might really be arguing which is better. And it might be Samsung.


What type of backplane technology did Samsung use for their RGB-OLED TVs?

I thought what killed those TVs was patterning-related low yields, nothing to do with backplane.

Does Samsubg really need oxide or is the backplane technology they have already used (LTPS?) effective but just more expensive than oxide?


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> The major issue I see with Samsung's approach is the lack of a blue with sufficient lifetime and power efficiency to be the primary emitter. The current blue used by LGD is a fluorescent blue that probably has a current efficiency below 10 cd/a. That compares to the following I found from a LGD paper in 2017.
> 
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdtp.11555/abstract
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of color filters will help the overall efficiency of the panel but it wont make up for that gap. A QD-OLED based on a fluorescent blue would use a tremendous amount of energy and create quite a bit of heat.
> 
> So Samsung needs either a phosphorescent or TADF blue with a long lifetime. There has been progress but neither has yet been invented. FWIW, Cynora has now promised that their TADF blue will be in commercial displays in 2019. That is despite the fact that they have yet to their targeted commercial specs in a lab...and I think their targets are low.
> 
> This story is getting reported all over the Korean press so it seems likely to have some kernel of truth or we will quickly have a denial from Samsung. I'm just not sure if QD-OLED is a feasible path unless we get a breakthrough on blue in the next 12 months or so.


This is a very good point - if a BOLED has far lower base efficiency than WOLED, it will not be competitive as far as brightness (at least at acceptable lifetime).

Wouldn't it be ironic if what limits Samsung's success with BOLED is it's poor performance in the Brightness Wars that Samsung has devoted so much energy to starting over the past 2 years .

It's possible that they are banking this initiative on the emergence of breakthrough in phosphorescent or TADF blue over the next 12-24 months. Honestly, an efficient BOLED + RG-QDCF looks to be a higher probability bet than either micro-dimming+QDCF or micro-led from where things stand.

Samsung also has a growing problem with underutilized OLED fab capacity and BOLED-TV offers a long-term solution to that problem (as well as as shortened runway to production): https://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-lookiing-for-buyers-for-its-OLED-panels_id102569


----------



## JasonHa

Regarding "BOLED", what would be the primary method used to block out unwanted blue light? Very tightly packed quantum dots?


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> Regarding "BOLED", what would be the primary method used to block out unwanted blue light? Very tightly packed quantum dots?


If the Red and Green QDCF filters themselves do not convert 100% of the incoming blue light, they will never succeed, so I suspect it is blue light bleeding past the edges of the patterned QDCF filters that is causing the problem...

Whatever the issue, this 'blue light bleed' problem probably exists equally on blue LED/LCD backlight as it does on BOLED.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> What type of backplane technology did Samsung use for their RGB-OLED TVs?
> 
> I thought what killed those TVs was patterning-related low yields, nothing to do with backplane.
> 
> Does Samsubg really need oxide or is the backplane technology they have already used (LTPS?) effective but just more expensive than oxide?


I think Samsung used LTPS, which yes is cost ineffective -- especially at large sizes.

They need an oxide tech or something "next gen" to make a truly viable OLED. It's not especially clear they've done a ton of work there (to me) based on how little they need to for mobile.

I'd be very surprised if giant LTPS backplanes are viable and cost effective.


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> The major issue I see with Samsung's approach is the lack of a blue with sufficient lifetime and power efficiency to be the primary emitter. The current blue used by LGD is a fluorescent blue that probably has a current efficiency below 10 cd/a. That compares to the following I found from a LGD paper in 2017.
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
> This story is getting reported all over the Korean press so it seems likely to have some kernel of truth or we will quickly have a denial from Samsung. I'm just not sure if QD-OLED is a feasible path unless we get a breakthrough on blue in the next 12 months or so.


Yes this is the sober reality. Even a 4-5 year timeframe for a competitive BOLED/QDCF product is predicated on:

1) Pretty affordable QDCF product at scale quantities
2) Samsung having a viable backplane at nearly perfect yield
3) A blue that doesn't really exist yet... albeit one that may be more easy to find than a soluble blue


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Yes this is the sober reality. Even a 4-5 year timeframe for a competitive BOLED/QDCF product is predicated on:
> 
> 1) Pretty affordable QDCF product at scale quantities
> 2) Samsung having a viable backplane at nearly perfect yield
> 3) A blue that doesn't really exist yet... albeit one that may be more easy to find than a soluble blue


It won't be overnight, that's for sure.

Which brings up some interesting scenarios as farxas roadmap.

All investments in QDCF for blue LED/LCD backlights will likely benefit / accelerate BOLED + QDCF.

All investments in EL-QLED will pretty much be wasted (other than developments in better backplanes ).

All investments in micro-dimming (and advanced FALD backlights in general) wil pretty much be wasted.

Al investments in Micro-LED will utterly be wasted (once BOLED+QDCF emerges).

So all of this may just amount to Samsung ditching long-term investments towards consumer EL-QLED, consumer micro-LED and consumer micro-dimming/micro-FALD in favor of developing a consumer BOLED backlight.

Whatever Samsung ends up launching as far as QDEF/LED/LCD this year may end up being as good as 'QLED' ever gets...

Though I suppose that if Samsung does not end up launching QDCF w/ conventional blue LED/LCD this year, that would be a worthwhile step to achieve and would likely get introduced as a penultimate QLED product once ready (2019?).


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> Whatever the issue, this 'blue light bleed' problem probably exists equally on blue LED/LCD backlight as it does on BOLED.


Perhaps I misunderstand, but in QLED the blue light washes over the QDs to create white light whereas BOLED wouldn't do that. The unwanted blue light has to be blocked somehow.


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> Perhaps I misunderstand, but in QLED the blue light washes over the QDs to create white light whereas BOLED wouldn't do that. The unwanted blue light has to be blocked somehow.


Today's 'QLEDs' use a blue backlight converted to RGB through QDEF (film) which is then filtered through standard color filters. Intetesting to note that QDEF converts a percentage of blue light to red and a percentage of nlue light to red but lets a percentage of blue light pass through without conversion.

The conventional color filters used with current-generation QLEDs block all unwanted light (blue and red ftom green subpixels, blue and green from red subpixels, and red and green from blue subpixels).

With QDCF, there are no conventional color filters to block light, so using only red quantum dots in red subpixels means there cannot be any green light generated, using green quantum dots in green subpixels means there cannot be any red light generated, and using no quantm dots in blue subpixels means there cannot be any red or green light generatedvany only blue light emits.

But if the red and green do not convert 100% of incoming blue light to the proper color, there are no conventional color filters to block blue light from red and green subpixels...


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Al investments in Micro-LED will utterly be wasted (once BOLED+QDCF emerges).


This is true insofar as what Samsung demoed can never be scaled down to TV sizes and the marginal improvements they could make trying are irrelevant.

But I very much believe all display makers are looking at microLED fabrication techniques so they can mass produce microLED displays at a number of sizes, up to whatever TVs end up topping out at.

Today microLED is two "technologies" which involve a wafer-fab-able concept that would lend itself to -- at most -- smartphone-sized screens. And on the other end, a ridiculous, hand-built, tiled technology akin to what Samsung showed.

But the idea of fabbing at substrate scale cannot be dismissed in R&D labs as it could theoretically result in a brighter, longer lasting display than OLED. And everyone would surely want such a thing.

Whether Samsung has anything close to a breakthrough there is another question of course.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> This is true insofar as what Samsung demoed can never be scaled down to TV sizes and the marginal improvements they could make trying are irrelevant.
> 
> But I very much believe all display makers are looking at microLED fabrication techniques so they can mass produce microLED displays at a number of sizes, up to whatever TVs end up topping out at.
> 
> *Today microLED is two "technologies" which involve a wafer-fab-able concept that would lend itself to -- at most -- smartphone-sized screens. And on the other end, a ridiculous, hand-built, tiled technology akin to what Samsung showed.*
> 
> But the idea of fabbing at substrate scale cannot be dismissed in R&D labs as it could theoretically result in a brighter, longer lasting display than OLED. And everyone would surely want such a thing.
> 
> Whether Samsung has anything close to a breakthrough there is another question of course.


Totally agree.

The largest silicon wafers get up to 12" and manufacturing a 4K LED array on one would mean each subpixel would have a dimension of about 23 microns x 69 microns. This is true Micro-LED but it will never scale up to television-size panels.

Samsung's 'Wall' TV is 146", meaning each 4K subpixel is about 280 microns x 840 microns (0.28 millimeters x 0.84 millimeters) This is 'micro LED' in marketing-speak only (the same way LED/LCD+QDEF is 'QLED' ) but I guess Samsung didn't think that 'Milli LED' wasn't sexy enough.

Making theater-sized uper-expensive jumbotron-on-steroids displays for bragging rights and niche markets is all well and good, but will never be a consumer technology without a significant paradigm shift.

'Wall'-class tiling could, however, be used to make a super high-density LED backlight which is what I guess I assumed was the idea behind Samsung's 'Micro-FALD' concept (and what I meant would be 'totally wasted' if Samsung develops BOLED).

Of couse, fabbing LEDs on a different substrate than silicon such as glass or plastic at TV-sized scale would be fantastic (the holy grail) and would bridge these two classes of 'Micro-LED', but I don't believe Samsung (or anyone) has anything remotely close to being ready for launch in the ~5-year timeframe we are discussing...

We really have no idea what Samsung had in mind when promoting 'The Wall'-class micro-LED as a consumer-class technology. It was probably nothing more than marketing-speak (in which case it will end up being totally wasted). My personal suspicion is that 'Mico-FALD' and 'Micro-LED' scaled down to consumer displays were one and the same (Mico-LED-class backlights for QDEF/QDCF LED/LCD) but we'll probably never know.


----------



## Rudy1

*SAMSUNG DENIES ENTRY INTO OLED MARKET & THE WALL GOES ON SALE IN AUGUST:*

http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en.jsp?cid=AEN20180222011300320&site=0200000000


----------



## fafrd

Rudy1 said:


> *SAMSUNG DENIES ENTRY INTO OLED MARKET & THE WALL GOES ON SALE IN AUGUST:*
> 
> http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en.jsp?cid=AEN20180222011300320&site=0200000000


I'm not the least bit surprised.

When the market believes you're going to be coming out with some fantastic new technology that will take at least 5 years to develop, it takes the wind of of the sales of the exciting new products you have all teed up for this year...

I especially loved this bit:

"The Wall, unveiled during the CES, is the world's first *consumer* modular MicroLED 146-inch TV.

It all really comes down to what the word 'consumer' means, doesn't it?

If 'consumer' means an individual that is not an entity such as a business will be able to purchase 'The Wall', then that's one thing.

But if 'consumer' means the wall will be available through mainstream retail channels like Best Buy or Amazon, I don't think so...

Oh, and then there's the fact that Samsung admitting they are developing OLED TV would pull the rug out from under their 'OLED TV is no good' campaign...


----------



## Rudy1

*LG TO INTRODUCE THEIR OWN VERSION OF MICRO-LED? THE PLOT THICKENS:*

https://hdguru.com/reports-samsung-to-introduce-the-wall-4k-microled-tv-in-august/


----------



## fafrd

Rudy1 said:


> *LG TO INTRODUCE THEIR OWN VERSION OF MICRO-LED? THE PLOT THICKENS:*
> 
> https://hdguru.com/reports-samsung-to-introduce-the-wall-4k-microled-tv-in-august/


Unable to access - can you cut and paste (quote) the most relevant parts?


----------



## MikeBiker

fafrd said:


> Unable to access - can you cut and paste (quote) the most relevant parts?


"...LG Electronics Vice Chairman Cho Seong-jin was reported by the Business Korea publication Thursday as ordering his company to introduce in September a home-theater-focused MicroLED television, using LG’s technology. The LG MicroLED will reportedly be even larger than Samsung’s 146-inch model that appeared at CES 2018..."


----------



## fafrd

MikeBiker said:


> "...LG Electronics Vice Chairman Cho Seong-jin was reported by the Business Korea publication Thursday as ordering his company to introduce in September a *home-theater-focused* MicroLED television, using LG’s technology. *The LG MicroLED will reportedly be even larger than Samsung’s 146-inch model that appeared at CES 2018...*"


Sounds more like mansion-theater-focused than home-theater-focused.

This Micro-LED arms race is so rediculous - it's all a marketing investment into the perception of technology leadership.

Have a look at this: https://www.microled-info.com/sony-demonstrate-two-crystal-led-displays-ise-2018

"According to Sony employees at the booth, the large CLEDIS took around 50 hours to build, and the cost of such a display is around $1.8 million. The smaller CLEDIS at around 120" will cost bout $500,000."

And after having a look at this video, you'll understand why: https://www.microled-info.com/kaist...l-micro-leds-using-acf-based-transfer-process

Don't get me wrong, these Micro-LED arrays are going to unlock fantastic applications (how about the last application shown in that video ), they are just not going to be anywhere near cost-competetive for large-screen (meaning 40" to 100") TVs...

Glass is orders of magnitude cheaper than silicon and thin-film processing is far less costly than any manufacturing process based on assembly operations.


----------



## rogo

Yes, the misapprehension of what costs what in the media is confounding and bizarre.

I suggest they visit a Walmart sometime and look at the price of TVs and monitors. 

A really huge LCD can be had for a pittance. Because making really big screens is really easy and cheap.



* Note that when the screens are big but not cheap is because of expensive add ons like quantum dot films and multi-LED addressable backlights.
** Or immature processes like making OLED TVs, but the trajectory there should make everyone here smile.


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> Don't get me wrong, these Micro-LED arrays are going to unlock fantastic applications (how about the last application shown in that video ), they are just not going to be anywhere near cost-competetive for large-screen (meaning 40" to 100") TVs...
> Glass is orders of magnitude cheaper than silicon and thin-film processing is far less costly than any manufacturing process based on assembly operations.


Not so fast. Thin-film processing requires billions of investments for mass production. Mass manufacturing based on (automated) assembly does not, no? That said, the current Micro-Led problem is visibility of tiles. don't know if this can be completely eliminated.


----------



## Rudy1

*SAMSUNG EVENT DATE CONFIRMED:*


----------



## ALMA

New TADF WOLED design with 3600cd/m² brightness:



> Thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) emitters can harvest singlet and triplet excitons for light emission to afford highly efficient organic light-emitting diode (OLED) devices, especially for all-TADF white OLEDs (WOLEDs). However, the majority of TADF emitters suffer from concentration quenching effects and require complicated doping techniques for device fabrication. Herein, *we demonstrate a yellow TADF emitter that enables non-doping OLED systems, which is beneficial for the simplification of the OLED device structure and fabrication. The non-doped yellow OLED achieves a maximum external quantum efficiency (EQE) of 16.7% at a high luminance of 3600 cd m–2, in which such high magnitude is rarely reported.* *More significantly, by the combination of the yellow TADF emitter with a blue TADF emitter, a fully non-doped emissive layer (EML) strategy has been demonstrated for the fabrication of an all-TADF WOLED, in which the non-doped yellow and blue TADF emissive layers are closely stacked together without any interlayers.* The fully non-doped WOLEDs show maximum EQE of up to 19.8%, along with high quality white-light emission. This is the first report regarding fully non-doped all-TADF WOLEDs, and the presented design strategy provides a universal route towards the fabrication of simple and efficient WOLEDs.


http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/tc/c8tc00639c#!divAbstract


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> New TADF WOLED design with 3600cd/m² brightness:
> 
> 
> 
> http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/tc/c8tc00639c#!divAbstract


Interesting. Any indication as to whether any of the authors are associated with LG Display?

Leftime will be the big question, but if WOLED can achieve 3600cd/m2 peak (which will degrade by ~50% by the time conventional color filters are applied), this should more than double current WOLED peak brightness levels.

Any possibility these new materials can be fully-industrialized in time to be the first-generation off of the 10.5G fab (meaning 2020-2021)?


----------



## Wizziwig

Meanwhile in the real world, LG is shipping 3rd year in a row with the same ~700 nits peak brightness. What works well in the lab or demo one-offs does't often translate into actual products that can be produced at reasonable price and meet strict power, heat, and lifetime requirements. Remember that supposed 1400 nit LG WOLED that made the rounds in 2016? Whatever happened to that?


----------



## Wizziwig

Is TCL in China gearing up to manufacture their own WOLED panels? Their 55" $600 FALD DolbyVision HDR LCD seems to have gotten some good reviews. Would be great to see similar competition on the WOLED side.

Source:



> P.168 - Top Emission WOLED for High Resolution OLED TV
> Yang Liu, Yuan-Chun Wu, Shibo Jiao, Wei Tan, Jinchuan Li, ChunHsiung Fang, Po-Yen Lu
> Shenzhen China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen China
> 
> In this article, two top emission WOLED (TE-WOLED) devices with different transparent cathode was developed and evaluated. The two devices show different performances due to their different cathode. The improved cathode can largely reduce the IR-drop and was successfully applied in 31-inch UHD display panel.
> 
> P.169 - A 31-inch. 4K2K Top-Emission OLED Display Using Good Uniformity and Long-Term Reliability Top-Gate Self-Aligned IGZO TFTs
> Fang Mei Liu, Yuan Chun Wu, Yuan Jun Hsu, Ming Jiue Yu, Jang Soon Im, Po Yen Lu
> Shenzhen China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd shenzhen China
> 
> In this paper, the transistors with excellent Vth uniformity could be fabricated by tuning oxygen content inside device. The Vth deviation of TFTs in panel is only 0.57V. Moreover, the devices we characterized show high reliability under long-term stress. Finally, we demonstrated the 31-inch 4K2K OLED employing the a-IGZO TFTs.


----------



## bigbadred00

Wizziwig said:


> Is TCL in China gearing up to manufacture their own WOLED panels? Their 55" $600 FALD DolbyVision HDR LCD seems to have gotten some good reviews. Would be great to see similar competition on the WOLED side.
> 
> Source:


I can't see how competition can hurt the OLED ecosystem. Also seems like addition sizes can help the penetration of OLED tech into mainstream which will lead to improved quality, huge increases in sales quantity and lower prices.


----------



## wco81

Doesn't LG own a lot of the patents for WOLED manufacturing?

Is that why Samsung hasn't tried to restart with OLED?


----------



## fafrd

31" 4K inkjet-printed OLEDs by 2019? https://www.oled-info.com/johua-printing-developed-ink-jet-printed-31-4k-oled-panel


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> 31" 4K


At least the size would make sense for an introductory product since that's the perfect size for the high-margin low-volume broadcast monitor market (see: Sony OLEDs).


----------



## fafrd

Another advance that coujd possibly further help with LG's problem with differential aging of red: https://www.oled-info.com/sel-devel...bles-red-phosphorescent-emitters-54x-lifetime


----------



## 5x10

Wizziwig said:


> Meanwhile in the real world, LG is shipping 3rd year in a row with the same ~700 nits peak brightness. What works well in the lab or demo one-offs does't often translate into actual products that can be produced at reasonable price and meet strict power, heat, and lifetime requirements. Remember that supposed 1400 nit LG WOLED that made the rounds in 2016? Whatever happened to that?


Looks like another year of top tv, real world


----------



## jk246

wco81 said:


> Doesn't LG own a lot of the patents for WOLED manufacturing?
> 
> Is that why Samsung hasn't tried to restart with OLED?


LG bought the rights to the white OLED from Kodak for $100 million in 2009, giving them a huge lead over their potential competitors. The white OLED allowed LG to get yields of 80% plus and cut the cost of their panels an estimated 50%. Competitors in contrast are getting yields described as 'pitiful'.

jk


----------



## fafrd

Cool concept but I doubt audiophiles will consider that it makes a 'better' speaker: https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-crystal-sound-turns-flexible-oled-lighting-panels-speakers


----------



## dkfan9

fafrd said:


> Cool concept but I doubt audiophiles will consider that it makes a 'better' speaker: https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-crystal-sound-turns-flexible-oled-lighting-panels-speakers


Very cool. I could see sone uses for this in my life. Nothing I could justify spending money on now, but in the future, maybe, depending on price and sound quality.


----------



## irkuck

Writing is on the wa...tch for OLED?


----------



## RichB

irkuck said:


> Writing is on the wa...tch for OLED?


All technology will be replaced eventually. I'd love a MicroLED wall... so I am off to buy a lottery ticket.

-Rich


----------



## video_analysis

...since when does Apple engage in commodity pricing? That's the kind of scaling required to derail OLED.


----------



## bigbadred00

jk246 said:


> LG bought the rights to the white OLED from Kodak for $100 million in 2009, giving them a huge lead over their potential competitors. The white OLED allowed LG to get yields of 80% plus and cut the cost of their panels an estimated 50%. Competitors in contrast are getting yields described as 'pitiful'.
> 
> jk


That's interesting. When I was in college, an alum from Kodak presented about OLED tech to us in 2004. I was impressed at the time with the presentation and more impressed now that I have my own OLED TV.


----------



## MikeBiker

bigbadred00 said:


> That's interesting. When I was in college, an alum from Kodak presented about OLED tech to us in 2004. I was impressed at the time with the presentation and more impressed now that I have my own OLED TV.


OK, now you're making me feel old. 2004 was after I retired.


----------



## irkuck

RichB said:


> All technology will be replaced eventually. I'd love a MicroLED wall... so I am off to buy a lottery ticket.
> -Rich


Paraphrasing: all technology becomes commodity eventually, so just wait.


video_analysis said:


> ...since when does Apple engage in commodity pricing? That's the kind of scaling required to derail OLED.


Starting making commodity products right of the bat is next to impossible. But if Apple brings MicroLED watch and Samsung brings MicroLED home wall for sale it will mean the market is created and remains only to volumize it.

BTW, another first: MicroLED cinema shows up in 3D.


----------



## ALMA

> * Samsung Display is likely to roll out large-size OLED panels for TVs at a production line where it had initially planned to produce displays for Apple’s iPhone X, a local analyst forecast on March 22. *
> 
> “Instead of installing flexible OLED facilities for iPhone X at the A5 plant in Asan, South Chungcheong Province, the display maker will likely set up a line for large-size OLED panels (for TVs) there,” Jeong Seok-won, an analyst from HI Investment & Securities, told The Investor.





> A 300-member OLED TV team was formed to conduct R&D projects from this month, signaling that Samsung may reenter the OLED TV segment, having first launched OLED TVs in 2012 and then gradually exited.
> 
> Samsung has long denied that it is developing OLED TVs, saying it is focusing on the TV business utilizing QLED and LED displays.Market analysts forecast the electronics giant has no choice but to launch a new type of OLED TV in order to catch up crosstown rival LG Electronics, which has long taken the lead in the segment. Samsung Display is expected to work in tandem.
> 
> “After rolling out QLED panels utilizing a glass light guide plate later this year,* Samsung Display is considering an OLED TV panel fitted with a quantum dot color filter as the next step,”* said Alex Kang, a principal analyst from IHS Markit, at a display conference held in Seoul on March 21.
> 
> Glass LGP is a crucial part of the backlight unit and allows TVs to be slimmer than a plastic LGP.




http://m.theinvestor.co.kr/view.php?ud=20180322000774


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> http://m.theinvestor.co.kr/view.php?ud=20180322000774


I saw that and thought about posting it on the thread, but decided not to when it became clear is nothing more than yet another analyst claiming what Samsung has already flatly denied: https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-denies-it-developing-qd-oled-tvs-will-focus-micro-leds-and-qleds

Of course, in this era of 'fake news', Samsung's denial may be the greatest affirmation we could hope for, but still, this piece repeating what yet another analyst has concluded is about as meaningless as the first one last month...


----------



## fafrd

Rtings.com burn-in testing of 6 2017 WOLEDs has been running for 8 weeks now and is showing some surprising results: https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/real-life-oled-burn-in-test

First and foremost, after 1120 cumultive hours playing CNN at OLED Light 100, the CNN Max WOLED is not dispkaying much in the way of any burn-in or field nonuniformity. This same test run on a 2016 WOLED would almost certainly have demonstrated noticable burn-in by now (look at Rtings.com first burn-in test of 2016 TVs) so this is a pretty clear indication that LG changed something in the 2017 WOLEDs.

Secondly, the similar CNN test at OLED Light 60 shows noticably more nonuniformity that CNN @ OLED Light 100, but that non-uniformity, particularly noticable in magenta, is in the form of lighter image areas rather than the darker image areas characteristic of burn-in. This almost certainly meams that compendation is involved and that the [email protected] Light is being overcompensated (while the [email protected] Light 100 is being close to perfectly compensated.

On the subject of compensation causing image areas to appear brigher, there is another very puzzling test result indicating that peak brightness of 2017 WOLEDs increases with use.

I can't think of any fundsmental explanation for WOLEDs increasing brightness with use other than headroom that was reserved (ie: by ABL) being 'released' by some aging-compensation algorithm over time/use but thought I woukd ask if there is anyone on the board that has another explanation.

It's been an ongoing mystery to me why the 900 Nit peak brightness LG touted on late 2016 never showed up in 2017 WOLED product testing (where typical levels remaind closer to the 650-720Nit levels seen in 2016 WOLEDs).

One explanation is that LG caught wind of the potential problems asssociated with differential-agibg-induced burn-in their brighnrss increases for the Brightness Wars with Samsung had caused and they quietly reserved te benefits of those efficiency increases (or whatevr) to be used for a new class of aging-compensation algorithms they quietly deployed in 2017.

Anyone else have a better explanation for this strange brightness increase (anti-aging) data from Rtngs?


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> I saw that and thought about posting it on the thread, but decided not to when it became clear is nothing more than yet another analyst claiming what Samsung has already flatly denied: https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-denies-it-developing-qd-oled-tvs-will-focus-micro-leds-and-qleds
> 
> Of course, in this era of 'fake news', Samsung's denial may be the greatest affirmation we could hope for, but still, this piece repeating what yet another analyst has concluded is about as meaningless as the first one last month...



That same OLEDinfo wrote a article about that analyst claims today.
''According to a new report from Korea, SDC may be aiming to start constructing an A5 line - but use it to produce large-area OLED TV panels. According to a financial analyst, Samsung recently assembled a new OLED TV team with 300 R&D employees.''
https://www.oled-info.com/will-samsung-construct-oled-tv-fab-its-a5-production-site


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Rtings.com burn-in testing of 6 2017 WOLEDs has been running for 8 weeks now and is showing some surprising results: https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/real-life-oled-burn-in-test
> 
> First and foremost, after 1120 cumultive hours playing CNN at OLED Light 100, the CNN Max WOLED is not dispkaying much in the way of any burn-in or field nonuniformity. This same test run on a 2016 WOLED would almost certainly have demonstrated noticable burn-in by now (look at Rtings.com first burn-in test of 2016 TVs) so this is a pretty clear indication that LG changed something in the 2017 WOLEDs.
> 
> Secondly, the similar CNN test at OLED Light 60 shows noticably more nonuniformity that CNN @ OLED Light 100, but that non-uniformity, particularly noticable in magenta, is in the form of lighter image areas rather than the darker image areas characteristic of burn-in. This almost certainly meams that compendation is involved and that the [email protected] Light is being overcompensated (while the [email protected] Light 100 is being close to perfectly compensated.
> 
> On the subject of compensation causing image areas to appear brigher, there is another very puzzling test result indicating that peak brightness of 2017 WOLEDs increases with use.
> 
> I can't think of any fundsmental explanation for WOLEDs increasing brightness with use other than headroom that was reserved (ie: by ABL) being 'released' by some aging-compensation algorithm over time/use but thought I woukd ask if there is anyone on the board that has another explanation.
> 
> It's been an ongoing mystery to me why the 900 Nit peak brightness LG touted on late 2016 never showed up in 2017 WOLED product testing (where typical levels remaind closer to the 650-720Nit levels seen in 2016 WOLEDs).
> 
> One explanation is that LG caught wind of the potential problems asssociated with differential-agibg-induced burn-in their brighnrss increases for the Brightness Wars with Samsung had caused and they quietly reserved te benefits of those efficiency increases (or whatevr) to be used for a new class of aging-compensation algorithms they quietly deployed in 2017.
> 
> Anyone else have a better explanation for this strange brightness increase (anti-aging) data from Rtngs?


For reference, here's what LG presented in late 2016 regarding improved ABL and HDR brightness increases for 2017 WOLEDs (ftom 720 to 900 Nits):

The Rtings data makes it pretty clear that ABL is no longer a static function but 'evolves' with use/age (possibly to compensate for global or locally-modelled aging of WOLED subpixel efficiency)


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> That same OLEDinfo wrote a article about that analyst claims today.
> ''According to a new report from Korea, SDC may be aiming to start constructing an A5 line - but use it to produce large-area OLED TV panels. According to a financial analyst, Samsung recently assembled a new OLED TV team with 300 R&D employees.''
> https://www.oled-info.com/will-samsung-construct-oled-tv-fab-its-a5-production-site


The 'new report from Korea' was the article ftom 'The Investor' that ALMA referenced.

We've articles referencing analysts and analysts referencing articles.

And all in the context of a denial one month ago directly by Samsung (after the first article referencing what had been stated by an analyst.

If you read the article published by 'The Investor' , it references 'Jeong Seok-won, an analyst from HI Investment & Securities' as the source of information regarding A5 likely being used for OLED TV.

It then states as fact without reference that:

"Samsung Display has recently been throwing more weight behind its OLED TV panel business amid slowing LCD sales. 

*A 300-member OLED TV team was formed to conduct R&D projects from this month*, signaling that Samsung may reenter the OLED TV segment, having first launched OLED TVs in 2012 and then gradually exited. 

Samsung has long denied that it is developing OLED TVs, saying it is focusing on the TV business utilizing QLED and LED displays."

So this claim of a new 300-member OLED team is not being represented by The Investor as 'according to a financial analyst' as is being represented by OLED Info (whose source is this article by The Investor) but is being represented as something they know for a fact (without saying how).

If there is a 300-member team working on OLED TV within Samsung, that is a significant debelopment which would mean that all of these analysts were correct and Samsung's denial last month was a Red Herring.

If even the existance if this 300-member team is a (false) figment of some analysts imagination, Samsung's denial could have substance.

If in this new world of Fake News in which we live, if you have any crystal ball to decipher which of these two alternate realities is factual, I'm all ears...


----------



## fafrd

Samung's denial that rhey are working on BOLED is starting to look a bit shakey: https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-r...materials-offers-new-design-strategics-longer


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Samung's denial that rhey are working on BOLED is starting to look a bit shakey: https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-r...materials-offers-new-design-strategics-longer


The denial came from a VP of Samsung's television business at a launch event for QLED's. It never meant anything.

I dont believe that there has been a denial from Samsung Displays who would be doing the R&D and eventually make the decision on whether to build a fab.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> The denial came from a VP of Samsung's television business at a launch event for QLED's. It never meant anything.
> 
> I dont believe that there has been a denial from Samsung Displays who would be doing the R&D and eventually make the decision on whether to build a fab.


Good point.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Rtings.com burn-in testing of 6 2017 WOLEDs has been running for 8 weeks now and is showing some surprising results: https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/real-life-oled-burn-in-test
> 
> First and foremost, after 1120 cumultive hours playing CNN at OLED Light 100, the CNN Max WOLED is not dispkaying much in the way of any burn-in or field nonuniformity. This same test run on a 2016 WOLED would almost certainly have demonstrated noticable burn-in by now (look at Rtings.com first burn-in test of 2016 TVs) so this is a pretty clear indication that LG changed something in the 2017 WOLEDs.
> 
> Secondly, the similar CNN test at OLED Light 60 shows noticably more nonuniformity that CNN @ OLED Light 100, but that non-uniformity, particularly noticable in magenta, is in the form of lighter image areas rather than the darker image areas characteristic of burn-in. This almost certainly meams that compendation is involved and that the [email protected] Light is being overcompensated (while the [email protected] Light 100 is being close to perfectly compensated.
> 
> On the subject of compensation causing image areas to appear brigher, there is another very puzzling test result indicating that peak brightness of 2017 WOLEDs increases with use.
> 
> I can't think of any fundsmental explanation for WOLEDs increasing brightness with use other than headroom that was reserved (ie: by ABL) being 'released' by some aging-compensation algorithm over time/use but thought I woukd ask if there is anyone on the board that has another explanation.
> 
> It's been an ongoing mystery to me why the 900 Nit peak brightness LG touted on late 2016 never showed up in 2017 WOLED product testing (where typical levels remaind closer to the 650-720Nit levels seen in 2016 WOLEDs).
> 
> One explanation is that LG caught wind of the potential problems asssociated with differential-agibg-induced burn-in their brighnrss increases for the Brightness Wars with Samsung had caused and they quietly reserved te benefits of those efficiency increases (or whatevr) to be used for a new class of aging-compensation algorithms they quietly deployed in 2017.
> 
> Anyone else have a better explanation for this strange brightness increase (anti-aging) data from Rtngs?


You make it sound like there some new discovery here. You're basically just rehashing what I've been telling you since last year:



Wizziwig said:


> We know they claimed these panels had a peak of 1000 nits (in CES interviews and articles like this one). Nobody has ever been able to measure anything close to 1000 nits from any OLED to date. They usually max out at 600-700 nits. Maybe LG Electronics (not LG Display who released the 1000 nit spec) leaves some untapped brightness in reserve so they can slowly apply it as the set ages. Since LG is not talking, I asked in the rtings thread for more data to be collected which would allow us to better estimate what's going on. If they measure no brightness loss at all over a long period of time, and then all of a sudden see brightness loss begin, it would confirm my theory.





Wizziwig said:


> Getting back to the topic at-hand, I found this link from 2016 that somewhat covers one method of wear compensation on OLED. Sounds like LG might be licensing this tech already. Look at pages 12, 23, and 24.
> 
> "A timing controller stores the measurement data for every TFT and OLED in a lookup table (in DRAM, backed up using a FLASH memory). The controller then uses that data to boost the video data going to aged or nonuniform pixels"
> 
> You can see that without compensation, the OLED brightness deteriorates fairly quickly and burn-in is accelerated. With compensation, you get a flat-line in OLED brightness (just as seen in the rtings graphs I linked above). The graphs in this paper end at 2000 hours so it's unclear how long such compensation can be effective before hitting maximum range of the "boost". They also don't say at what peak brightness the pixels are being driven which will also play a role in overall lifetime before compensation starts to fail.
> 
> The unfortunate side of these kinds of compensation schemes is that you will have no warning of gradual burn-in while the compensation is still working correctly. Since LG does not warranty against burn-in, the least they could do is report somewhere in the UI via pop-up warnings when any of your pixels are reaching maximum boost and are at the end of their compensation range.


The change in overall brightness reminds me of what some Plasma sets used to do. At some pre-determined number of hours, they would boost brightness automatically. There was a lot of outrage when this was discovered because it also had the undesired effect of boosting black levels. It was a dumb algorithm based solely on a timer, not actual usage/wear of the panel. Hopefully the tech LG licensed from Ignis is smarter than that.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> You make it sound like there some new discovery here. You're basically just rehashing what I've been telling you since last year:
> 
> The change in overall brightness reminds me of what some Plasma sets used to do. At some pre-determined number of hours, they would boost brightness automatically. There was a lot of outrage when this was discovered because it also had the undesired effect of boosting black levels. It was a dumb algorithm based solely on a timer, not actual usage/wear of the panel. Hopefully the tech LG licensed from Ignis is smarter than that.


I either missed those posts or did not take the time to properly digest them - sorry.

You're correct that you picked up on this first and I apologize for 're-discovering' it. I knew these concepts were being thrown around when ideas to compensate burn-in were being thrown around but did not realize we had actual measurements proving LG started launching this class of technology in 2017.

And you're right - the timeframe the brighness headroom can last before brightness degredation becomes apparent is the big question.

Assuming the lifetime clains of 100,000 hours have any grain of truth to them: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?id=1465304750&subaction=showfull (meaning 100,000 hours to half-brightness), there shouldn't be too much concern, at least on the face of it.

But even if LG is reserving an entire 50% of true peak brightness to compensate for differential aging that would otherwise be visible in SDR, that masked/compensated burn-in should become visible with an HDR 10% field covering the burned-in area...

Now I understand what you mean when you refer to 'death-spiral' .


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> You make it sound like there some new discovery here. You're basically just rehashing what I've been telling you since last year:
> 
> The change in overall brightness reminds me of what some Plasma sets used to do. At some pre-determined number of hours, they would boost brightness automatically. There was a lot of outrage when this was discovered because it also had the undesired effect of boosting black levels. It was a dumb algorithm based solely on a timer, not actual usage/wear of the panel. Hopefully the tech LG licensed from Ignis is smarter than that.


I looked all of the IGNIS materials over more carefully and while it is clear that they measure and comoensate in the way LG has been compensating for threshold shift, they claim to be able to measure OLED burn-in electrically in a way that is very different than I was thinking.

If the result of WOLED subpixel aging is efficiency degredation, that will mean a lower level of light output for the same current input. If this reduced efficiency also expresses itself in the form of increased electrcal resistance, that can be measured internally, but if not, there is no way to measure it without an optical measurement.

I don't see anything in the IGNIS about storing cumulative usage/aging data at the subpixel level, which is the approach I thought LG might be using (with an aging model).

Whatever technology LG is using, they appear to have started reserving headroom in 2017 which is getting over-released in some way based on usage resulting in increasing brightness and also which appears to be measuring and/or modelling aging more accurately at max OLED Light levels than level 60.

In 2015 LG went from having a problem with vignetting to having a problem with anti-vignetting and now it looks like LG has gone from a problem with burn-in on 2016 WOLEDs to a problem with anti-burn-in (overcompensation for measured/estimated burn-in) in 2017.

Who knows whether any improvements were made in 2018 (other than improved static logo dimming) but in any case, it is doubtful they could have correctedthevanti-burn-in problem of 2017 since first evidence of it on 2017 WOLEDs has only surfaced over the past month...

They don't call it the bleeding-edge for nothing (the size of the wounds is getting smaller and smaller ).


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Assuming the lifetime clains of 100,000 hours have any grain of truth to them: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?id=1465304750&subaction=showfull (meaning 100,000 hours to half-brightness), there shouldn't be too much concern, at least on the face of it.


The most recent lifetime claims I've seen in writing from anyone actually employed by LG has been this preview of their 2018 SID presentation:

"The authors present a novel large-sized OLED display panel with high-reliability integrated gate driver circuit using indium-gallium-zinc-oxide (IGZO) thin-film transistors (TFTs) for driving pixels as well as sensing TFT characteristics for external compensation. The longer-than-60,000-hours lifetime was achieved in a reliability test for 55-in./65-in. UHD and 55-inch FHD OLED displays."

In one of their other presentations from last year, they also claimed a 60% lifetime improvement from adding top-emission. No idea if that improvement is already included in the 60,000 quoted above. If so, that would put the older bottom-emission panels at 60,000 / 1.6 = 37500 hours. Hard to tell with certainty which panel generation they are talking about since they even mention FHD panels which I assume are long discontinued?


----------



## dkfan9

They sell an a7 1080p unit in Europe and I would guess still employ those units in some non consumer line as well.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> The most recent lifetime claims I've seen in writing from anyone actually employed by LG has been this preview of their 2018 SID presentation:
> 
> "The authors present a novel large-sized OLED display panel with high-reliability integrated gate driver circuit using indium-gallium-zinc-oxide (IGZO) thin-film transistors (TFTs) for driving pixels as well as sensing TFT characteristics for external compensation. The longer-than-60,000-hours lifetime was achieved in a reliability test for 55-in./65-in. UHD and 55-inch FHD OLED displays."
> 
> In one of their other presentations from last year, they also claimed a 60% lifetime improvement from adding top-emission. No idea if that improvement is already included in the 60,000 quoted above. If so, that would put the older bottom-emission panels at 60,000 / 1.6 = 37500 hours. Hard to tell with certainty which panel generation they are talking about since they even mention FHD panels which I assume are long discontinued?


There are so many variables, chief among them being the current/average usage level being used to determine this 'lifetime'

If they are using a calibration setting of 120 cd/m2 peak and then actual random content or some model of random content translating to a luminance level that is a fraction of 120 cd/m2, that will result in greatly inflated lifetime claims.

Top-emission only extends lifetime by increasing efficiency and lowering average current levels during that lifetime.

In terms of fundamental material degredation, I've not seen anything new to suggest that these WOLED materials can only deliver 100,000 years of lifetime (to half-brightness) if average current density remains below 7mA/cm^2.

If we take 7mA/cm^2 to correspond to random SDR content calibrated for 120 cd/m2 peak, that lifetime would be cut to 30,000 hours at peak brighness calibration of 360cd/m2 peak corresponding to ~20mA/cm^2 average current density.

The first rtings.com burn-in test at 175 cd/m2 peak is only up to 4000 cumulative hours, but the peak HDR luminance measurement has shown a first possible dip since 3000 hours: https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/permanent-image-retention-burn-in-lcd-oled

That test is running 600 hours per month so should reach 7000 hours by the end of August and 10,000 hours by next January and true user-level lifetime as opposed to marketibg claims should be more clear soon...


----------



## leedom

Hhmmm, will this effort to compensate for efficiency decreases over time improve or erode the advantages of calibration?

Casey


----------



## fafrd

leedom said:


> Hhmmm, will this effort to compensate for efficiency decreases over time improve or erode the advantages of calibration?
> 
> Casey


If the models are accurate, compensation should not impact calibration...


----------



## dreal_sow

Hello I'm just saying hi to post links.


----------



## slacker711

LGD aiming for 10m units in 2021.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/LG-Display-to-raise-OLED-TV-panel-output-sixfold-to-10m-by-2021


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> LGD aiming for 10m units in 2021.
> 
> https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/LG-Display-to-raise-OLED-TV-panel-output-sixfold-to-10m-by-2021


'"Japan is a key axis of OLED TV infrastructure as it produces facilities and materials for OLED panels. Japanese makers and consumers have expressed the hottest reactions, with *sales of OLED TVs accounting for 92% in the premium market.*"'

Impressive (if true).

Also, this tidbit would seem to be the most significant development:

*'We [are betting] all on OLED while minimizing our operational investments in LCD,*" said Lee, referring to the liquid crystal display panels that currently dominate the TV market.'


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> *'We [are betting] all on OLED while minimizing our operational investments in LCD,*" said Lee, referring to the liquid crystal display panels that currently dominate the TV market.'


That is definitely true for LGD and probably true for Samsung (they give less details about capex plans). The Chinese are the only ones spending any real money on LCD fabs anymore.


----------



## rogo

Does anyone still publish data on total TV sales?

I struggle to find easily accessible stuff.


----------



## video_analysis

The beginning phaseout of LCD, praise the heavens.


----------



## slacker711

rogo said:


> Does anyone still publish data on total TV sales?
> 
> I struggle to find easily accessible stuff.


I havent seen anything for 2017. 

FWIW, here are some presentations from last year with some numbers. 

https://www.hbbtv.org/wp-content/up...n-Sets-Evolution-Power-Shifts-and-Outlook.pdf

https://www.corning.com/media/worldwide/global/documents/Zhang_SID_Presentation.pdf


----------



## rogo

Thanks @slacker711 Notice that IHS assiduously avoids telling people how many TVs are shipped annually. That's their new normal.


----------



## slacker711

I havent seen any press releases on total TV unit sales like IHS normally does but I did find this. 

My quick addition shows 221.5m in 2016 vs. 217.2m in 2017. Of course, this doesnt include OLED's. 

https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/direct-led-backlight-technology-reigns-supreme.html


----------



## rogo

slacker711 said:


> I havent seen any press releases on total TV unit sales like IHS normally does but I did find this.
> 
> My quick addition shows 221.5m in 2016 vs. 217.2m in 2017. Of course, this doesnt include OLED's.
> 
> https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/direct-led-backlight-technology-reigns-supreme.html


Yes, that's helpful stuff. It seems that the TV market is at a point where it has reached a semi-permanent plateau around these volumes. Corning seems to suggest that growth back to 250M is possible/probable in 2021 or so but I cannot figure out why. 

Some might ask why this matters, and the answer goes to the way markets shift once they have permanently exited the growth phase. There is a misconception that this leads to lack of innovation, ever more commodity pricing, limited ability to expand high-end sales.

But it's often quite different. A "dying" technology gets "perfected" often at the end and its proponents can be convinced to spend more, rather than less.

This is -- to an extent -- good news for OLED. Today, 50 inches. Within 5 years, that will be 30% or something between 75-80M units approximately.

Look toward LG selling 10M units, where >90% will be >50 inches (I'll assume they do in fact introduce a 49-inch model or thereabouts, but I doubt very much as a premium model it's going to sell exceptionally well.) That ~9 million is not even 15% of the large-screen TV market. Think Apple's Macintosh line or really even iPhone here (which globally is right around there).

LG also suggested it could double that figure. I suspect that was a longer-term belief. Even getting to 10M by 2021 will be a herculean lift. That's 6x what they produced in 2017 and and to understand the growth rate implied, that's >50% growth _each year_ of 2018, 19, 20, and 21. I don't doubt they can do this, but I would dismiss anyone who claims it will be easy.

Still, if LG does begin to deliver on the promise of "OLED is actually less expensive to make than LCD" it's going to be interested what that 10M out of 80M out of 240M looks like profit-wise. I suspect that with


----------



## stl8k

*Next*

I came across a couple of display systems research projects that I thought folks here would find interesting:

1. It might sound implausible, but the company has already developed the underlying technology that will make these scenarios possible. It’s a new type of display, enabled by a “multi-view” pixel. Unlike traditional pixels, each of which emit one color of light in all directions, Misapplied Sciences says its pixel can send different colors of light in tens of thousands or even millions of directions.

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/break...y-promises-personalize-world-without-goggles/

2. The Autonomous Pixel Displays Research project presents a new screen architecture that removes the fragile grid topology and flat rectangular shape of contemporary digital displays. Instead, every pixel has its own sensing and signal processing capabilities built in, and acts independently of its neighbour.

https://hxd.research.microsoft.com/work/autonomous-pixels.php

Looks like there's a research trend towards displays with per-pixel sensing and signal processing.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Yes, that's helpful stuff. It seems that the TV market is at a point where it has reached a semi-permanent plateau around these volumes. Corning seems to suggest that growth back to 250M is possible/probable in 2021 or so but I cannot figure out why.
> 
> Some might ask why this matters, and the answer goes to the way markets shift once they have permanently exited the growth phase. There is a misconception that this leads to lack of innovation, ever more commodity pricing, limited ability to expand high-end sales.
> 
> But it's often quite different. A "dying" technology gets "perfected" often at the end and its proponents can be convinced to spend more, rather than less.
> 
> This is -- to an extent -- good news for OLED. Today, 50 inches. Within 5 years, that will be 30% or something between 75-80M units approximately.
> 
> Look toward LG selling 10M units, where >90% will be >50 inches (I'll assume they do in fact introduce a 49-inch model or thereabouts, but I doubt very much as a premium model it's going to sell exceptionally well.) That ~9 million is not even 15% of the large-screen TV market. Think Apple's Macintosh line or really even iPhone here (which globally is right around there).
> 
> LG also suggested it could double that figure. I suspect that was a longer-term belief. Even getting to 10M by 2021 will be a herculean lift. That's 6x what they produced in 2017 and and to understand the growth rate implied, that's >50% growth _each year_ of 2018, 19, 20, and 21. I don't doubt they can do this, but I would dismiss anyone who claims it will be easy.
> 
> Still, if LG does begin to deliver on the promise of "OLED is actually less expensive to make than LCD" it's going to be interested what that 10M out of 80M out of 240M looks like profit-wise. I suspect that with


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Samsung announcing a 10.5G BOLED fab would qualify, but even an announcement-only is unlikely to be possible before introduction of first 8.5G BOLED+QDCF products (meaning not before 2021).
> 
> Sharp/Foxconn could announce conversion of 10G Sakai to WOLED, which would give them the entire 60" and 70" WOLED panel market.
> 
> But aside from those two, who could it be? One of the Chinese 10.5G fabs converting to WOLED?
> 
> Did LG ever license IPS technology to any production partners?


We've heard a lot about BOE at times messing with OLED production. Methodology and manufacturability are unknown to me.

It is correct to say that *no company on earth* can add meaningful capacity to OLED TV manufacturing before 2020-21 -- except LG, of course, because they _are already building it_.

But by 2025, one would very much hope there are 2-3 other OLED TV makers. Or that LG is a benevolent monarch in the display world.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> We've heard a lot about BOE at times messing with OLED production. Methodology and manufacturability are unknown to me.
> 
> It is correct to say that *no company on earth* can add meaningful capacity to OLED TV manufacturing before 2020-21 -- except LG, of course, because they _are already building it_.
> 
> But *by 2025*, one would very much hope there are 2-3 other OLED TV makers. Or that LG is a benevolent monarch in the display world.


LG really started investing in their 10.5G fab last year, though they started work on the building/facility ~18 months earlier. Assuming they get actual production started in 2020, that will mean ~3 years to first production out from first significant OLED-specific investments in.

My sense is that the timeframe required for conversion of an existing facility is faster than that, seems like by a year or so.

That would mean that even to be in production by early 2025, a new facility would need to be announced by 2020 while conversion of an existing 10.5G LCD fab could probably be announced as late as early 2022.

Conversion of (10G) Sakai to OLED would actually be a mess since they'd have to pioneer new 10G OLED equipment or convert the entire facility to 10.5G...

And lastly, if there are going to be 2 other OLED TV panel manufacturers by 2025, it's likely the first of those get started a year or so before the second, meaning we may see announcement of a new 10.5G facility as early as next year...

The real question is whether, with LG far along the path to 10.5G manufacturing of WOLED, and pretty much all other new LCD fabs being 10.5G, is there any viable way for a new player to enter the market without 10.5G manufacturing? Seems difficult/impossible and conversion of an 8.5G fab to OLED TV would basically going to limit them to 55" and 49" panels, where margins will be most limited.

LG is building themselves a 3-year lock on the premium TV market and I think we can count on their continued 'benevolance' since Samsung and the Chinese (including Foxconn/Sharp) will continue to offer lower-cost inferior LCD alternatives until they have literally fallen off of the cliff...

10M units by 2021 will only be ~5% of the overall TV market, so not exactly earth-shattering. On the other hand, those 10M units would constitute ~50% of the premium TV market, which is where all the profits are (as you've pointed out).

And then there is that statement in the Nikkei Business article posted earlier that WOLED had 92% market share of the Premium TV segment in Japan last year. That's probably 92% of only 55", 65", and 75-80" premium TVs, but still. If that statement is true and virtually no one with money to spend on a premium TV in Japan is spending it on LCD, the train has left the station...


----------



## rogo

I'm not worried about LG. They have to price down to the market to even get to that 5%. And they will have to down-price more to get to 10%. It's just a lot healthier TV ecosystem is there is another -- or two others. 

Incidentally, I think the new high-end Samsungs will recapture some share of the premium market.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I'm not worried about LG. They have to price down to the market to even get to that 5%. And they will have to down-price more to get to 10%. It's just a lot healthier TV ecosystem is there is another -- or two others.
> 
> Incidentally, *I think the new high-end Samsungs will recapture some share of the premium market*.


Haven't seen one yet, but it sounds as though they have brought a much more competetive offering to market this year (compared to last year where they underpermed by a wide margin and were overpriced).


----------



## Wizziwig

People also seem to like the Sony X900F FALD LCD. Much fewer dimming zones than the Samsung but you can't argue with the pricing. 85" model at only ~$5K MSRP and even less on the street. Even some OLED owners/calibrators prefer them overall compared to LG OLEDs.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> People also seem to like the Sony X900F FALD LCD. Much fewer dimming zones than the Samsung but you can't argue with the pricing. 85" model at only ~$5K MSRP and even less on the street. Even some OLED owners/calibrators prefer them overall compared to LG OLEDs.


Yeah, the 85-88" markt is an entirely different ball of wax (at least for th next 2-3 years).

Back in the 55", 65", 75-77" premium TV market, it looks like Samsung will be pushing the 'OLED TVs burn-in' angle much more agressively this year (now that they apparently have a competetive QLED/LCD offering): http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/engl...ctronics-collision-course-over-tv-screen-burn


----------



## video_analysis

Over in the Q9 owner thread, cracks are already beginning to appear (zonal lighting anomalies) after the onslaught of all the typical Samsung hype with a new model year. I do have to honestly ask myself if it's any worse than seeing vertical columns and streaking, however.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Over in the Q9 owner thread, cracks are already beginning to appear (*zonal lighting anomalies*) after the onslaught of all the typical Samsung hype with a new model year. I do have to honestly ask myself if it's any worse than seeing vertical columns and streaking, however.


Well, back in the era when I owned a P70 Vizio FALD, I don't beieve 'zonal lighting anomolies' were a thing yet, but if they are at all related to the distracting changes in dimming level of backlight zones, those were a far more objectional PQ defect than the occasional DSE that my 65C6P exhibits on rare pans over uniform near-dark scenes...


----------



## ALMA

Article from last month, but very interesting with surprising statements by the chief engineer of TCL. TCL developing solution process technology for their upcomming G11 factory, which was originally planned for large size LC panels. 

http://www.asianmetal.com/news/data... G11 to achieve mass production in early 2019

But with this statement, it seems LCD is not anymore a long term solution for TCL in the premium TV market?



> James Lee, deputy chief engineer of TCL commented that the next-generation premium TVs are to implement 70-inch or larger screen, full black representation, high-definition at 8K resolution, and design differentiation such as slim & flexible. He said “solution process technology enables large RGB OLED implementation, which can improve image quality and reduce cost by using less material. TCL is currently developing solution process technology, which might be expected to be applied to its planned Gen 11 factory. ”
> He commented *“OLED TV prices are now approaching the price of LCD TVs based on 65-inch standards. In 2021, OLED TVs and LCD TVs will not differ in price, and OLED TVs will become the mainstream of the premium TV market. ”*


http://www.olednet.com/en/inkjet-mi...-gen11-super-large-oled-mass-production-line/

This statement by a large sized LCD panel maker is really surprising. So no QD-LCD or microLED LCD glorification by TCL? Their real focus is solution processed OLED to compete with LGD.


----------



## Johnson93

Much needed beauty in town!!


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> Article from last month, but very interesting with surprising statements by the chief engineer of TCL. TCL developing solution process technology for their upcomming G11 factory, which was originally planned for large size LC panels.
> 
> http://www.asianmetal.com/news/data... G11 to achieve mass production in early 2019
> 
> But with this statement, it seems LCD is not anymore a long term solution for TCL in the premium TV market?
> 
> http://www.olednet.com/en/inkjet-mi...-gen11-super-large-oled-mass-production-line/
> 
> This statement by a large sized LCD panel maker is really surprising. So no QD-LCD or microLED LCD glorification by TCL? Their real focus is solution processed OLED to compete with LGD.


A rare bit of honesty (and dose of reality).

Neither QD-LED/LCD nor microLED can fundamentally beat WOLED on cost (for similar performance), so for large-screen TVs requiring new manufacturing plants (meaning 60" and above), we're witnessing inversion and WOLED is in the process of becoming the low-cost leader.

That means that the only way to take market share from WOLED going forward will be to introduce even less expensive technology like printed OLED (solution).

At 55" and 65", WOLEDs have already become the 'mainstream of the premium TV market', so I believe what the TCL deputy chief engineer (and many in the TV industry) is talking about and focused on is the emerging 8K TV market, which may start to dominate the Premium TV segment by 2021.

With TCL throwing in the towel on new investment in LCD capacity, it will be interesting to see what the other Chinese manufacturers do. BOE in particular will be one to watch - they are also investing in a 10.5G manufacturing line stated to be for LCD, but if TCL was able to retarget RGB OLED mid-stride, BOE may be able to do so as well.

Seems as though Samsung is just being left in the 10.5G/11G dust...


----------



## W4RLORD

rogo said:


> Yes, that's helpful stuff. It seems that the TV market is at a point where it has reached a semi-permanent plateau around these volumes. Corning seems to suggest that growth back to 250M is possible/probable in 2021 or so but I cannot figure out why.
> 
> Some might ask why this matters, and the answer goes to the way markets shift once they have permanently exited the growth phase. There is a misconception that this leads to lack of innovation, ever more commodity pricing, limited ability to expand high-end sales.
> 
> But it's often quite different. A "dying" technology gets "perfected" often at the end and its proponents can be convinced to spend more, rather than less.
> 
> This is -- to an extent -- good news for OLED. Today, 50 inches. Within 5 years, that will be 30% or something between 75-80M units approximately.
> 
> Look toward LG selling 10M units, where >90% will be >50 inches (I'll assume they do in fact introduce a 49-inch model or thereabouts, but I doubt very much as a premium model it's going to sell exceptionally well.) That ~9 million is not even 15% of the large-screen TV market. Think Apple's Macintosh line or really even iPhone here (which globally is right around there).
> 
> LG also suggested it could double that figure. I suspect that was a longer-term belief. Even getting to 10M by 2021 will be a herculean lift. That's 6x what they produced in 2017 and and to understand the growth rate implied, that's >50% growth _each year_ of 2018, 19, 20, and 21. I don't doubt they can do this, but I would dismiss anyone who claims it will be easy.
> 
> Still, if LG does begin to deliver on the promise of "OLED is actually less expensive to make than LCD" it's going to be interested what that 10M out of 80M out of 240M looks like profit-wise. I suspect that with


----------



## video_analysis

TCL disagrees.


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> Article from last month, but very interesting with surprising statements by the chief engineer of TCL. TCL developing solution process technology for their upcomming G11 factory, which was originally planned for large size LC panels.
> 
> http://www.asianmetal.com/news/data... G11 to achieve mass production in early 2019
> 
> But with this statement, it seems LCD is not anymore a long term solution for TCL in the premium TV market?
> 
> http://www.olednet.com/en/inkjet-mi...-gen11-super-large-oled-mass-production-line/
> 
> This statement by a large sized LCD panel maker is really surprising. So no QD-LCD or microLED LCD glorification by TCL? Their real focus is solution processed OLED to compete with LGD.


Seems there was less news with this recent announcement than I had thought: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1473173497

This article from 6 September 2016, when TCL announced their new 11G fab, made their ambitions for printed OLED TVs very clear:

'TCL says that “the G11 Project will use oxide semiconductor, Cu process, POA, Super GOA technology, and *OLED Printing technology to produce 43", 65", 70" (21:9), 75" *LCD displays, ultra-large public displays as well as *OLED displays*”.'

All they've done recently is dropped the pretense of investing in any 11G LCD capacity, but the fact that this 11G (10.5G) manufacturing facility would be used to produce printed OLED TVs has been in the works for at least 18 months now...


----------



## MikeBiker

Printable OLED is still waiting for a suitable blue ink to happen.


----------



## fafrd

MikeBiker said:


> Printable OLED is still waiting for a suitable blue ink to happen.


I know that and you know that, but apparently TCL is confident enough that printable blue is on it's way to halt all 11G/10.5G investments in LCD production in favor of printable RGB OLED...


----------



## bombyx

Now that some new tests have been posted (rting and "les numériques") , there is more accurate data about the evolution of the OLED subpixel structure . 
The first pictures from january were in fact fuzzy and my numbers were wrong (sorry) . 

One interesting metric is the subpixel area/pixel area ratio because it does not depend on the size of the panel (55' or 65') . For a LCD panel, this ratio is the same for R,V and B and exceed 30% .In the case of OLED , the fill factor is still low . Maybe there is room for improvement .











Here are the two charts :


----------



## wco81

Saw that rtings.com gave the C8 the highest rating but rated it a 1 for burn-in.


----------



## Wizziwig

bombyx said:


> Now that some new tests have been posted (rting and "les numériques") , there is more accurate data about the evolution of the OLED subpixel structure .
> The first pictures from january were in fact fuzzy and my numbers were wrong (sorry) .


Thanks for posting the updated data. Now if we had wattage measurements of the panels when driving a single sub-pixel, we could get a rough idea of watts per active area for each color and compare those to older sub-pixel designs.


----------



## rogo

bombyx said:


> One interesting metric is the subpixel area/pixel area ratio because it does not depend on the size of the panel (55' or 65') . For a LCD panel, this ratio is the same for R,V and B and exceed 30% .In the case of OLED , the fill factor is still low . Maybe there is room for improvement .


Your excellent work is appreciated.

That said, I'd like to take partial issue with one thing: The fill factor is *abominable*. One would hope it could be improved _at least_ 2x over time.


----------



## Wizziwig

^ I'm still hopeful that some of this is a remnant of their passive 3D heritage, where large inter-row gaps were necessary to increase vertical viewing angle before seeing crosstalk.

Hopefully it can be addressed once they release a completely new panel design. This 2018 update is just a slight revision to the 2016 models.


----------



## Wizziwig

Some interesting findings in this French review.

"The shape of the Sony Bravia AF8 sub pixels is very new, but the operation remains the same: each pixel is composed of four sub-pixels (one green, one red, one blue and one white). The white and blue sub-pixels are larger to improve the maximum brightness of the slab. As we will see, this new structure does not improve the light peak nor the color rendering. *According to LG Display , this modification reduces the size of the electronic circuit (invisible in photo) below the sub-pixels, probably to increase the resolution required for the production of an 8K slab*"

"On our test pattern with a white calibrated to 150 cd / m², the Sony KD-65AF8 TV consumes 107 W, a relative consumption of 92 W / m². This is slightly less than that of the Bravia A1 which consumed 113 W, 97 W / m², but still more than the most economical LCD TVs like the Sony KD-65XE8505 which goes down to 56 W / m²."


----------



## slacker711

A Samsung Visual Displays exec (TV side of the business) confirms the QD-OLED research. 

https://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-researching-quantum-dot-on-microled-tvs/



> Han denied rumors that Samsung is planning to launch a OLED TV, but said there was a research project within the company that is attempting to combine QLED and OLED technology.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> A Samsung Visual Displays exec (TV side of the business) confirms the QD-OLED research.
> 
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-researching-quantum-dot-on-microled-tvs/


Another report with a tiny bit more information: https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-no-plans-release-oled-tv-soon-we-are-researching-hybrid-qd-oleds

"Samsung's main R&D initiative use blue OLED emitters and blue light to white light conversion using quantum-dots, combined with color filters (QDCFs) to add red and green colors."


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> "Samsung's main R&D initiative use blue OLED emitters and blue light to white light conversion using quantum-dots, combined with color filters (QDCFs) to add red and green colors."


This means the pixel structure still comes from an LCD layer?


----------



## FriscoDTM

JasonHa said:


> This means the pixel structure still comes from an LCD layer?



To me it sounds like they try to use the blue OLED material to generate the light, patterned so that it either emits directly or acts as an optical pump source for the QD films that in turn convert the photons to red or green. I think it’s a good approach that leverages some of their existing core capabilities, especially if they have a high brightness blue OLED material in R&D. It seems like a much more manufacturable approach for TVs than micro LED. But they presumably need to engineer the QD layers so they absorb all of the blue light in the film or reflect it back from the surface with an optical coating, which sounds like it could be tricky.


----------



## fafrd

FriscoDTM said:


> To me it sounds like they try to use the blue OLED material to generate the light, patterned so that it either emits directly or acts as an optical pump source for the QD films that in turn convert the photons to red or green. I think it’s a good approach that leverages some of their existing core capabilities, especially if they have a high brightness blue OLED material in R&D. It seems like a much more manufacturable approach for TVs than micro LED. But they presumably need to engineer the QD layers so they absorb all of the blue light in the film or reflect it back from the surface with an optical coating, which sounds like it could be tricky.


About right, but there is no 'film': BOLED is a non-patterned layer/sheet of blue OLED over subpixel electrodes, similar to LGs white WOLED.

Like LG, BOLED will use color filters to only emit the properly-colored lights from each subpixel.

In the case of white light (WOLED), conventional bandpass color filters can be used, since white light contains red, green, and blue light (so filtering is merely a matter of passing the desired color and blocking the other two primary colors).

Conventional bandpass color filters will not work for BOLED, since blue light does not contain red or green light. Henve the need for quantum dots and QDCF (quantum dot color filters). The green sibpixels will have green QDCF quantum dots patterned/printed on top of them so that the incoming blue light excites quantum dots that convert the blue optical energy to green (so green light is emitted and incoming blue light is converted into oblivion). And the same thing for red subpixels using red quantum dots. The blue subpixels need no conversion or quantum dots so there will be no QDCF patterned/printed on blue subpixels.

One feature purists will like about BOLED is that it must be based only on RGB subpixels since there is no practical way to create white light ffrom blue light (well there is, but it won't be any more efficient than just making larger RGB subpixels, so there'd be no point).

But you're right about the challange of blocking/converting the blue light from the red and greed subpixels - QDCF can certainly generate red and green light from blue light, but if 100% of the incoming blue light is not converted away by the quantom dots, any blue light leaking through the red and green subpixels is going to result in a loss of saturration (and a nightmare for calibrators).

If long-lifetime high efficiency blue OLED materials and printing of red and green quantum dots is at hand, BOLED+QDCF should be cost competetive with LG's WOLED and could be a superior display (RGB instead of RGBW).

Seems like the smartest thing Samsung has done in TVs in a loooong time - some actual research instead of purely making investments in marketing...


----------



## RichB

fafrd said:


> Seems like the smartest thing Samsung has done in TVs in a loooong time - some actual research instead of purely making investments in marketing...


Much better than trying to capitalize on OLED brandling with the look alike name QLED.


- Rich


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> ...The green sibpixels will have green QDCF quantum dots patterned/printed on top of them so that the incoming blue light excites quantum dots that convert the blue optical energy to green (so green light is emitted and incoming blue light is converted into oblivion). And the same thing for red subpixels using red quantum dots. The blue subpixels need no conversion or quantum dots so there will be no QDCF patterned/printed on blue subpixels.
> 
> One feature purists will like about BOLED is that it must be based only on RGB subpixels since there is no practical way to create white light ffrom blue light...


That description makes sense, but the Samsung quote explicitly says white light will be produced:

_"Samsung's main R&D initiative use blue OLED emitters and blue light to white light conversion using quantum-dots..."_

What kind of system are they describing? It sounds like the blue light washes over unpatterned green and red quantum dots to produce white light. Then some other layer, perhaps an LCD layer, produces the pixels.


----------



## slacker711

JasonHa said:


> That description makes sense, but the Samsung quote explicitly says white light will be produced:
> 
> _"Samsung's main R&D initiative use blue OLED emitters and blue light to white light conversion using quantum-dots..."_
> 
> What kind of system are they describing? It sounds like the blue light washes over unpatterned green and red quantum dots to produce white light. Then some other layer, perhaps an LCD layer, produces the pixels.



I think that is from OLED-info. It is a good site but I dont think you can consider it a real source for this kind of information.

From the Korean press, I have read both of a "BOLED" solution as well as the possibility of ink jet printing red and green QLED's along side an OLED blue. Either way, you are going to need a much better blue than what we have today.


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> That description makes sense, but the Samsung quote explicitly says white light will be produced:
> 
> _"Samsung's main R&D initiative use blue OLED emitters and blue light to white light conversion using quantum-dots..."_
> 
> What kind of system are they describing? It sounds like the blue light washes over unpatterned green and red quantum dots to produce white light. Then some other layer, perhaps an LCD layer, produces the pixels.


Putting BOLED through QDEF to generate quantum-dot white light (red + green + blue) would not require QDCF, as suggested by the same article. It would also be very expensive, since you'd have the BOLED layer, QD film layer, and still need conventional color filters.

It would, however, avoid the 'blue light leakage' problem so as a backup resrarch project, who can say? Though it's really difficult to fathom why that architecture would be better built with BOLED rather than WOLED (other than getting around LGs WOLED patents ).

So who knows? We'll need to wait for the first demo/announcement from this 'research project'...


----------



## Rudy1

*THIS COULD GET UGLY:*

NAD ADVISES LG TO MODIFY CLAIMS MADE IN OLED, SUPER UHD TV ADVERTISING...
by Greg Tarr/HDGuru.com

_"Long-time rivals Samsung and LG Electronics are once again engaged in a dispute involving the Council of Better Business Bureaus’ National Advertising Division (NAD) concerning recent allegedly false and/or misleading advertising claims made by LG in support of its Super UHD and 4K OLED TVs.

According to a statement issued by the NAD Thursday, the division “has recommended that LG Electronics USA, Inc. modify or discontinue certain claims made in website, print and point-of-purchase advertising for LG’s Super UHD and OLED television, including claims that competitor Samsung Electronics America, Inc., created the product name `Samsung QLED’ to `confuse consumers.’ ”

The NAD said LG has indicated it plans to appeal the adverse findings to the National Advertising Review Board (NARB).

The NAD is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation, and is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus."_


https://hdguru.com/nad-advises-lg-to-modify-claims-made-in-oled-super-uhd-tv-advertising/


----------



## fafrd

Rudy1 said:


> *THIS COULD GET UGLY:*
> 
> NAD ADVISES LG TO MODIFY CLAIMS MADE IN OLED, SUPER UHD TV ADVERTISING...
> by Greg Tarr/HDGuru.com
> 
> _"Long-time rivals Samsung and LG Electronics are once again engaged in a dispute involving the Council of Better Business Bureaus’ National Advertising Division (NAD) concerning recent allegedly false and/or misleading advertising claims made by LG in support of its Super UHD and 4K OLED TVs.
> 
> According to a statement issued by the NAD Thursday, the division “has recommended that LG Electronics USA, Inc. modify or discontinue certain claims made in website, print and point-of-purchase advertising for LG’s Super UHD and OLED television, including claims that competitor *Samsung Electronics America, Inc., created the product name `Samsung QLED’ to `confuse consumers.’* ”
> 
> The NAD said LG has indicated it plans to appeal the adverse findings to the National Advertising Review Board (NARB).
> 
> The NAD is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation, and is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus."_
> 
> 
> https://hdguru.com/nad-advises-lg-to-modify-claims-made-in-oled-super-uhd-tv-advertising/


The truth hurts, doesn't it .


----------



## Keenan

fafrd said:


> The truth hurts, doesn't it .


That action by Samsung pretty much says it right there, they know their product is inferior, and it hurts.


----------



## fafrd

An even clearer explanation: http://mengnews.joins.com/view.aspx?aid=3047071

"*We will maintain a two-track strategy with QLED TVs and [forthcoming] MicroLED TVs,” said Han Jong-hee, head of Samsung Electronics’ visual display business *at a launch event for the company’s upgraded QLED televisions held on Tuesday in Seoul. “There have been media reports saying *we started research to combine organic LED technology with our QLED, but it is only one of our display affiliate’s research areas and there is no confirmed plan to commercialize it.*"

These tidbits were also interesting:

"According to market tracker IHS Markit earlier this year, Japan’s *Sony and *Samsung’s local rival *LG Electronics each have more than 30 percent of the global market for TVs valued over $2,500 with their OLED TV lineups. *Samsung trailed in third place with an *18.5 percent share for its QLED TVs.*"

So combining Sony and LG, WOLED holds 60% of the premium TV segment, more than 3x the share of QLED/LCD. The remaining 22% is a combination of other WOLED (Panasonic), variants of QD-enhanced LED/LCD, and possibly some remaining phosphor-only LED/LCDs.

And finally: 

"According to the Korean TV maker, the market for TVs with a screen 75 inches or larger has grown at an average of 30 to 40 percent yearly, and this year about 1.8 million large-screen TVs are expected to be sold globally. *Samsung hopes the competition is defined by size rather than a direct comparison between OLED and QLED*."

So after the Brightness Wars, we may now be entering the era of the Size Wars.

LG introduced an affordable 77" WOLED just in time (77C8P) and it seems that Samsung is going to try to stave off the lost market share to WOLED at 75" that they have already suffered at 55" and 65".

But if Samsung's estimate is correct, TVs 75" and larger will constitute 1.8M or ~0.9% of the overall TV market - I know we've speculated and sought sources for these numbers in the past so thought I would point these out.


----------



## RichB

fafrd said:


> LG introduced an affordable 77" WOLED just in time (77C8P) and it seems that Samsung is going to try to stave off the lost market share to WOLED at 75" that they have already suffered at 55" and 65".


LG 77" affordability is a work in progress 


- Rich


----------



## Wizziwig

^ The 2017 77" model can now be had for < $7K on the street so prices are definitely falling. Same time next year, the 2018 model should definitely be < $6K or maybe even < $5K. For comparison, you can get a 85" Sony FALD LCD for < $5K today. Not sure if LCD can continue to get cheaper than this.


----------



## gadgtfreek

Everyone knew what Samsung was doing when they announced "Q"LED...


----------



## Wizziwig

No different than when Samsung launched the whole "LED TV" campaign many years ago. Trying to convince consumers it was some new technology instead of same old LCD. To their credit, it worked perfectly. Most layman I talk to still think LED is not the same as LCD.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> But if Samsung's estimate is correct, TVs 75" and larger will constitute 1.8M or ~0.9% of the overall TV market - I know we've speculated and sought sources for these numbers in the past so thought I would point these out.


I am modestly skeptical of that total, but believe it's within range. I don't precisely recall when Sharp first released their real, consumer 70 (not the nonsense low volume stuff or the Sony $20K gibberish that sold


----------



## fafrd

Some new numbers frim IHS: https://www.oled-info.com/ihs-amoled-area-shipments-reach-224-million-sqm-2024

"Growth in 2017 was driven by a doubling of AMOLED TV panel area shipments (from 800,000 sqm in 2016 to 1.6 million in 2017). *By 2024, IHS expects OLED TV shipments to reach 12.5 million units.*"

So IHS expects OLED TVs to represent ~6.25% of the overall TV market 6 years from now...

And when we consider that pretty much every OLED TV is coming out of the Premium TV Segment which we've been estimating to be ~10% / 20Mu, IHS's numbers would translate to OLED dominating the Premium TV Segrment in 2024 with ~62.5% market share (which WOLED has alteady achieved in the two 55" and 65" Premium niches where WOLED currently competes).


----------



## rogo

That seems like a crappy forecast and appears to believe the only fab coming online between now and then is LG's new one plus perhaps a bit of retrofitting elsewhere?


----------



## slacker711

LGD reported earnings last night. 

Long story short, LCD's are an utter disaster due to China and OLED's remain in shortage.

The most interesting comment from the call was that they are considering another LCD to OLED TV conversion. This is in addition to the Guangzhou Gen 8.5 fab that is supposed to ramp in the 2nd half of 2019 and the Gen 10.5 fab that will ramp in 2020. They are still making the decision and it will depend on end demand and customer forecasts.

Basically though, the underlying trend is that LGD is trying to move out of the LCD business as quickly as they can. There is no profit available with OLED's taking the high-end and China ramping their Gen 10.5 LCD fabs.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> That seems like a crappy forecast and appears to believe the only fab coming online between now and then is LG's new one plus perhaps a bit of retrofitting elsewhere?


Yeah, I doubt they are forecasting any new manufacturers yet - perhaps when Samsung's BOLED+QDCF technology moves out of the research lab into development phase .

Their 2024 Forecast means fabs that were fully ramped-up before the end of 2023 which means investment decisions starting this year for new fabs or as late as 2020 or even 2021 for 8.5G conversions.

Without a licensing deal or a manufacturer prepared to invest significant capital in an initiative leading them into an IP war with LG, it's hard to see any new manufacturers jumping into OLED TV panel production based on what is known today.

So we're left with LG including the two existing 8.5G lines, the new chinese 10.5G line, the 8.5G line, and the possible conversion of their remaining 8.5G LCD capacity (including the first of those additional conversions teased in today's earnings call).

BOLED+QDCF really does seem to be the most viable alternative for OLED TV to WOLED and it seems to early/risky to forecast it will be in production by 2024.

I have no idea of what LG's remaining 8.5G LCD capacity is, but conversion of all but one or two of those LCD fabs to WOLED on top of what is already in production or in the pipeline seems like as realistic of a forecast for ~5 years out as I can think of from where things stand today...


----------



## slacker711

Potential LCD capacity for conversion wont be a problem. They have hundreds of thousands of substrates worth of Gen 8.5 LCD capacity.

EDIT. Pic wouldnt upload. 

Data is under "Manufacturing Productivity and Costs"

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1290109/000119312517145079/d346565d20f.htm


----------



## Wizziwig

There's no way all the Chinese manufacturers are just going to watch while LG takes all their profits. Whether licensed or not, I suspect some kind of OLED TV panels will get released there eventually. Maybe after LG opens their Chinese panel factory and they can "borrow" some of the tech.


----------



## slacker711

Wizziwig said:


> There's no way all the Chinese manufacturers are just going to watch while LG takes all their profits. Whether licensed or not, I suspect some kind of OLED TV panels will get released there eventually. Maybe after LG opens their Chinese panel factory and they can "borrow" some of the tech.


There is probably a three year gap between a Chinese display vendor deciding to start production and having any possible impact in the market. At least 12 to 15 months for the conversion (and that is aggressive) and another 18 to 24 months before they could ramp yields.

BOE is the primary possibilty and they have yet to make the move. They are still figuring out how to manufacutre RGB mobile OLED's.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Potential LCD capacity for conversion wont be a problem. *They have hundreds of thousands of substrates worth of Gen 8.5 LCD capacity.*
> 
> EDIT. Pic wouldnt upload.
> 
> Data is under "Manufacturing Productivity and Costs"
> 
> https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1290109/000119312517145079/d346565d20f.htm


Thanks for the link, but I'm not seeing 'hundreds of thousands' of 8.5G capacity: 

P8 had 362,000 substrate/month capacity at the end of 2016, but since it's listed with both 2200mm x 2500mm 8.5G substrates as well as 730mm x 920mm which are much smaller (


----------



## gorman42

Rudy1 said:


> NAD ADVISES LG TO MODIFY CLAIMS MADE IN OLED, SUPER UHD TV ADVERTISING...
> by Greg Tarr/HDGuru.com
> 
> _"Long-time rivals Samsung and LG Electronics are once again engaged in a dispute involving the Council of Better Business Bureaus’ National Advertising Division (NAD) concerning recent allegedly false and/or misleading advertising claims made by LG in support of its Super UHD and 4K OLED TVs.
> 
> [CUT]
> _https://hdguru.com/nad-advises-lg-to-modify-claims-made-in-oled-super-uhd-tv-advertising/


I'm not familiar with US regulations but I have to say that reading this NAD entity advised LG to stop claiming infinite contrast and perfect blacks makes me wonder if they did *any* research before coming to a decision.


----------



## Wizziwig

slacker711 said:


> There is probably a three year gap between a Chinese display vendor deciding to start production and having any possible impact in the market. At least 12 to 15 months for the conversion (and that is aggressive) and another 18 to 24 months before they could ramp yields.
> 
> BOE is the primary possibilty and they have yet to make the move. They are still figuring out how to manufacutre RGB mobile OLED's.


I don't follow the business world. Are the Chinese companies required to advertise their plans years in advance to their competitors? How do we know they haven't already made these decisions months or years ago and just not made it public.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> There is probably a three year gap between a Chinese display vendor deciding to start production and having any possible impact in the market. At least 12 to 15 months for the conversion (and that is aggressive) and another 18 to 24 months before they could ramp yields.
> 
> BOE is the primary possibilty and they have yet to make the move. They are still figuring out how to manufacutre RGB mobile OLED's.


I believe this timing is correct and worsened by the transition to 105G. With the market moving towards ever-larger screens and both WOLED and LCD ramping up 1.5G production starting in 2020/2021, anyone trying to jimp into OLED TV by converting an 8.5G fab will be chasing the tail of the tiger.

Launching a new 10.5G OLED TV fab is an investment that probably has a much better future, but the time to market from when those investments are starting is daunting.

There was a window on the cusp of the transition from 8.5G to 10.5G and LG jumped through it. It's going to be tough for anyone to easily follow them.

Those with 10.5G capacity to convert to OLED (like BOE) are in a much better position because they would merely be facing a fab conversion versus converting yet-another older 8.5G fab with a limited future or building an expensive new 10.5G fab for their first forray into OLED TV.

And even for someone like BOE, ~3 years from initial investment decisions to first shipents in volume sounds about right. So LGD's got a lock on the OLED TV panel market at least into 2022 and if that monopoly position is hoing to change by 2023 (most likely BOE or Sharp/Foxconn), we should get an early indicator within the next 12 months...


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I don't follow the business world. Are the Chinese companies required to advertise their plans years in advance to their competitors? How do we know they haven't already made these decisions months or years ago and just not made it public.


Companies that are public are required to disclose manor investment decisions approved by their board of directors in their financial reports (at least in the western world).

I can't speak go the rules and regulations regarding major Chinese companies specifically, but doubt they can launch investment plans totalling billions of dollars and keep those plans under wraps for any significant period of time...

And just what do you think OLED Info is for, anyway .


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Companies that are public are required to disclose manor investment decisions approved by their board of directors in their financial reports (at least in the western world).
> 
> I can't speak go the rules and regulations regarding major Chinese companies specifically, but doubt they can launch investment plans totalling billions of dollars and keep those plans under wraps for any significant period of time...
> 
> And just what do you think OLED Info is for, anyway .


Almost on cue: https://www.oled-info.com/lgd-start-ordering-equipment-its-guangzhou-oled-tv-fab-next-month

"The new fab in Guangzhou will have a capacity of 60,000 8.5-Gen substrates each month, although at the first phase (scheduled for the second half of 2019) it will operate at half the final capacity."


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> Thanks for the link, but I'm not seeing 'hundreds of thousands' of 8.5G capacity:
> 
> P8 had 362,000 substrate/month capacity at the end of 2016, but since it's listed with both 2200mm x 2500mm 8.5G substrates as well as 730mm x 920mm which are much smaller (


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Companies that are public are required to disclose manor investment decisions approved by their board of directors in their financial reports (at least in the western world).
> 
> I can't speak go the rules and regulations regarding major Chinese companies specifically, but doubt they can launch investment plans totalling billions of dollars and keep those plans under wraps for any significant period of time...
> 
> And just what do you think OLED Info is for, anyway .


Thanks. I see. That makes more sense.

The products I typically work on take years of R&D and there is zero public knowledge of these projects until they are close to release or one of our suppliers/partners leaks something. If we had to notify our competitors of every project in development it would destroy our business. But we don't own or build any giant factories specifically for any of these products so disclosure may not be required in this case.

Man, that's a real bummer knowing we're stuck with whatever LG produces for so many years into the future. I wonder if it will stay like this forever and OLED TV will remain there exclusive domain - kind of like DLP for TI.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Thanks. I see. That makes more sense.
> 
> The products I typically work on take years of R&D and there is zero public knowledge of these projects until they are close to release or one of our suppliers/partners leaks something. If we had to notify our competitors of every project in development it would destroy our business. But we don't own or build any giant factories specifically for any of these products so disclosure may not be required in this case.
> 
> Man, that's a real bummer knowing we're stuck with whatever LG produces for so many years into the future. I wonder if it will stay like this forever and OLED TV will remain there exclusive domain - *kind of like DLP for TI.*


I think that's a good analogy.

But TI was pushed to improve DLP both because of LCD projectors as well as more innovative projector technology like DILA.

In LG WOLED's case, you've got Samsung first and foremost (which is probably still going to be #1 in 2024) as well as the Chinese at the low-end, so I'm not overly worried about LG sitting on their heels and letting their technology go stale / remain as it is...

And yeah, no need to disclose reasearch or 'what you are working on' (those tidbits are usually leaked, intentionally or not). It's when you want to make any significant capital investments that will need to be depreciated that disclosure is usually required (generally needed as soon as you get beyond the feasibility/concept stage into the pilot-line / prototype stage).


----------



## Wizziwig

^^^ If the DLP analogy holds true, that's probably more bad news than good news. DLP has stagnated for years while other technologies like LCD and LCOS have passed it by in terms of contrast and overall image quality. The only area where DLP still wins is cost and light output due to their ability to operate with a single panel and sequential color (via alternating RGB filter or LED ilght source) vs. the 3 panels required with LCD/LCOS. Competition from alternatives hasn't done squat to push TI to innovate at all. This is the fate I fear with WOLED if nobody but LG ever enters that space. Sticking with the projector market analogy, if we look at LCOS instead of DLP, the competition there has been great. Both JVC and Sony make their own flavors of the tech (DiLA vs SXRD), each with their own unique advantages (contrast, response times, resolution, cost, etc). LCD projection is closer to DLP again - essentially only Epson makes LCD projectors and they have stagnated in terms of performance/cost for years.

I don't see the LCD camp as offering anything that LG really needs to compete with since they can't offer comparable picture quality at similar cost - especially in the long run as WOLED prices continue to drop. Same thing in projectors - DLP/LCD is not competing with LCOS because their performance is in a different league so they target completely different markets - premium vs. budget/business use.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> ^^^ If the DLP analogy holds true, that's probably more bad news than good news. DLP has stagnated for years while other technologies like LCD and LCOS have passed it by in terms of contrast and overall image quality. The only area where DLP still wins is cost and light output due to their ability to operate with a single panel and sequential color (via alternating RGB filter or LED ilght source) vs. the 3 panels required with LCD/LCOS. Competition from alternatives hasn't done squat to push TI to innovate at all. This is the fate I fear with WOLED if nobody but LG ever enters that space. Sticking with the projector market analogy, if we look at LCOS instead of DLP, the competition there has been great. Both JVC and Sony make their own flavors of the tech (DiLA vs SXRD), each with their own unique advantages (contrast, response times, resolution, cost, etc). LCD projection is closer to DLP again - essentially only Epson makes LCD projectors and they have stagnated in terms of performance/cost for years.
> 
> I don't see the LCD camp as offering anything that LG really needs to compete with since they can't offer comparable picture quality at similar cost - especially in the long run as WOLED prices continue to drop. Same thing in projectors - DLP/LCD is not competing with LCOS because their performance is in a different league so they target completely different markets - premium vs. budget/business use.


I was talking about the era when TI DLP were powering the majority of rear-projection TVs. Back then, LCD rear-projection was the inferior lower-cost leader and DILA was the threatening disruptor. TI evolved DLP significantly in that era - higher resolution, increased fill-factor, increased contrast, improved color-wheel schemes, etc...

Since rear-projection TVs have gone the way of the Dodo bird, I can easily believe TI has scaled back their R&D investments in further improvements - the DLP business has to be a small fraction of what it was back in the rear-projection TV days with no more large consumer markets in their future. TI is a semiconductor manufacturer, after all...

LG is not a semiconductor manufacturere and the market for WOLED TVs have years of growth in front of it. I don't think you need to worry about LG sitting on their heels and going into low-R&D 'milking' mode...


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> The P8 fab had capacity for 321,000 Gen 8.5 LCD substrates at the end of 2013.
> 
> https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1290109/000119312514168917/d714079d20f.htm
> 
> Some of that was converted to the 34,000 OLED substrates of capacity by the end of 2016. I dont remember the exact ratio of LCD to OLED conversion but it is less than 2 to 1.
> 
> LGD certainly still has north of 200,000 substrates of Gen 8.5 capacity at P8 and another 211,000 at P9+G4. They have plenty of capacity to convert over the next few years though capex might be a limitation until the P10 fab gets up and running.


Well yeah, if P8 has ~300,000 8.5G substrate/month capacity, even if all of LG's current 8.5G WOLED capacity is coming out of that, they will be able to manufacture as many 55", 49", and 88" WOLED panels as the world can consume for at least the next decade...

The 8.5G fabs should put LG in a dominant position at the low-end and ultra high-end (88", 98") while the new 10.5G fab should put them in a dominant position at the high-end (65", 75").

Pretty substantive barriers-to-entry...


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> LG is not a semiconductor manufacturere and the market for WOLED TVs have years of growth in front of it. I don't think you need to worry about LG sitting on their heels and going into low-R&D 'milking' mode...


Speaking of semiconductors, look at Intel's past few years. Prior to AMD offering a viable competitor with the Zen architecture we had the same stagnation and milking of same old designs with new names for years. As soon as competition appeared, they started offering cheaper consumer 4, 6, and soon 8 core options. The future you guys are painting for the premium TV market is looking really unhealthy to me.

If you look at the past 3 years of WOLED, what big panel-level changes do you see? All the innovation seems to be coming from the guys competing at assembling TVs (Sony, LG Electronics, Panasonic, etc.) as they struggle to come up with meaningful features to differentiate their new models each year. I bet if you took at 2016 panel and attached it to a 2018 video processor and software, you would have a hard time seeing or measuring any difference. I'm glad the whole rtings burn-in investigation at least forced their hand into devoting some panel R&D into finding ways of mitigating the issue.


----------



## gorman42

Wizziwig said:


> The future you guys are painting for the premium TV market is looking really unhealthy to me.


Yes, I have to say that I unfortunately agree. If I think back at the plasma era, there was picture improvement in every generation, with panels being significantly upgraded every year. :-/


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Speaking of semiconductors, look at Intel's past few years. Prior to AMD offering a viable competitor with the Zen architecture we had the same stagnation and milking of same old designs with new names for years. As soon as competition appeared, they started offering cheaper consumer 4, 6, and soon 8 core options. The future you guys are painting for the premium TV market is looking really unhealthy to me.


By 2024, if LG achieves Intel-like domination of the entire TV flat-panel market, perhaps your analogy and concerns might be justified, they they are the wrong analogy for the current situation and out over the next few years.

LG WOLED is the up-and-coming disruptor - they are David to LED/LCDs Goliath. Up until the last year or so, even WOLEDs survival and whether the technology would 'make it' into a sustainable position were in question (and some could argue that that is still the case today, should LG fail to contain concerns regarding burn-in).

Heck, even LG internally has been betting on a 'dual-track' WOLED + IPS-LCD strategy out of fear WOLED may not 'make it' - only this month have they finally decided to commit their future display business to the future of WOLED by cutting off any additional investments into LCD.

So again, the Intel analogy is just not appropriate for WOLEDs current situation and status.



> *If you look at the past 3 years of WOLED, what big panel-level changes do you see? * All the innovation seems to be coming from the guys competing at assembling TVs (Sony, LG Electronics, Panasonic, etc.) as they struggle to come up with meaningful features to differentiate their new models each year. I bet if you took at 2016 panel and attached it to a 2018 video processor and software, you would have a hard time seeing or measuring any difference. I'm glad the whole rtings burn-in investigation at least forced their hand into devoting some panel R&D into finding ways of mitigating the issue.


Well let's see:

2014: scrambling to not lose out because of the market shift to 4K (as plasma did), LG successfully moves from 1080p to 4K WOLED panels

2015: after a disasterous rollout of 4K WOLEDs with excessive vignetting, LG successfully makes a 'running change' to mitigate vignette with anti-vignette (and also reduces the yellow-piss-stain defect).

2016: LG manages to avoid being left behind the HDR train (and losing the Brightness Wars), introducing WOLEDs with increased peak brightness, wider color gamut, and supporting the new HDR standards.

2017: LG introduces relaxed ABL so that WOLEDs can deliver SDR at brighness levels far-exceeding what the brightest plasmas were able to put out. Oh, and it seems as though some changes were introduced to compensate for burn-in.

2018: panel changes resulting in some increased brightness, but more importantly, increased efficiency of Red subpixels, which will reduce the aging-rate of what has been the color most susceptible to differential-aging-related burn-in.

2019: top-emission? (increased brightness); 240Hz effective refresh rates? 88" 8K WOLED panels?

If you look at that list, every panel change LG has made over the past 5-years has been motivated by survival (which hopefully now has been achieved). If LG is finally able to devote panel R&D resources not to putting out the latest fire / tacking to stay close to Samsung's latest initiative to lead the market in a direction WOLED can't follow, that would be a welcome transition and you may finally start to see some results of the blue-sky type R&D you are hoping for.

The emergence of WOLEDs with top-emission will be a first such non-crises improvement. WOLED will survive at the brightness levels they are delivering today, so LG did not 'have to' move to top-emission to survive. R&D into top-emission has been going on for over 18 months already, so this has been a long-term investment on LGD's part to expand the capability of the technology.

They introduced 120Hz panel refresh in advance of HDMI2.1 (along with their first BFI), so it appears they want to be on the cutting-edge of HDMI2.1 capability and not a generation behind. Hopefully with their attention finally focused on frame rate amd motion persistance, they will make the change to catch up to LED/LCD in the area of effective frame-rate and introduce line/segment blanking contrils for 240Hz effective refresh rates. Blanking controls coupled with emission-neutral BFI would also allow WOLED to catch up to and even surpass LED/LCD in the motion persistance department. Hopefully they will also up their backplane/TCON game and catch up to Samsung with 144Hz native refresh rate panels.

88" 8K WOLED panels have already been shown by LG as being on their product roadmap for 2020 - will we see a first product prototype in 2019? An 88" 4K product introduced next year? Who knows, but it's more evidence of the fact that after surviving the debacles of 2015 and 2016, LG has started feeling their oats and wants to lead the market transition to 8K and even larger Premium-TV screen sizes rather than playing catch-up and me-too.

Oh, and as far as rtings.com, I agree it is great that rtings.com has started testing for burn-in and is giving an independant assessment of WOLEDs vulnerability to that issue. Too bad they didn't do the same during the plasma era - the technology may have been more successful if an independant assessment was available rather than fear-mongering and hearsay.

But I think that you are wrong to believe that rtings.com's testing has 'forced LG's hand' into anything. By the time the first 2016 burn-in test results were available, LG had already introduced the 2017 WOLEDs, and the first 10 weeks of testing have already demonstated definitively that the 2017 WOLEDs have introduced impressive new burn-in compensation technology.

It's possibe that the 2016 rtings burn-in test results as well as Forum chatter and Samsung's burn-in marketing attacks have forced/motivated LG to work on and introduce additional features/technology to mitigate concerns of burn-in so that they new 'responses' to give the market as Samsung and disgruntled owners continue to fan the flames of concern regarding WOLED burn-in, but LG began working on the burn-in compensation technology introduced in the 2017 WOLEDs long before rtings,com even began their first burn-in test in late 2016...


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> Yes, I have to say that I unfortunately agree. If I think back at the plasma era, there was picture improvement in every generation, with panels being significantly upgraded every year. :-/


I suspect you and Wizziwig did not live through the early days of plasma quite as up-close-and-personal as you are tracking the year-to-year progress with the first WOLED TVs.

What TV did rach of you own in 1997? What year did each of you purchase your first plasma? How much time did you spend on AVS in the 1997-2003 timeframe teacking plasma's early days as a disruptive up-and-coming display technology?

I, for one, didn't become as engaged with the evolution of the display market as I have been since the pending demise of plasma in 2012, long afrer plasma had established itself as a mature technology...

(and I only joined AVS in 2002, 5 years after plasma TVs launch as a consumer product ).


----------



## gorman42

I got my first plasma in 2005. Kuro followed in 2009. In 2005 a 50" costed more than what a 65" OLED costs today. I may be wrong in judging a product in this sector by his price on the market. But from 2005 to 2009 every year brought new panels. I don't know, I might be skewed by my perspective on the whole thing. You could be right, @fafrd.


----------



## sooke

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but...

In a nutshell, what benefits will top emission bring to televisions? From diagrams I found googling, it looks like it will improve fill ratio because the light doesn't pass through the thin film transistor aperture like bottom emission (the fill ratio on 2018 WOLEDs still looks pretty bad based on the pixel structure images posted here). Better power efficiency according to what I googled. So maybe the ABL kicks in less? Seems like it should also improve peak brightness? Longevity? How about viewing angle? Anything else?

What are the downsides? Cost?

Why didn't LGD use top emission to start with? Was there some manufacturability problems to work out? What were they? Did they have to compromise something else to get top emission to work?

Thanks.


----------



## video_analysis

I believe it was related to the complication of the 3D filter.


----------



## rogo

Top emission wasn't invented first. 

That has a lot to do with it.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Well let's see:
> 
> 2014: scrambling to not lose out because of the market shift to 4K (as plasma did), LG successfully moves from 1080p to 4K WOLED panels
> 
> 2015: after a disasterous rollout of 4K WOLEDs with excessive vignetting, LG successfully makes a 'running change' to mitigate vignette with anti-vignette (and also reduces the yellow-piss-stain defect).
> 
> 2016: LG manages to avoid being left behind the HDR train (and losing the Brightness Wars), introducing WOLEDs with increased peak brightness, wider color gamut, and supporting the new HDR standards.
> 
> 2017: LG introduces relaxed ABL so that WOLEDs can deliver SDR at brighness levels far-exceeding what the brightest plasmas were able to put out. Oh, and it seems as though some changes were introduced to compensate for burn-in.
> 
> 2018: panel changes resulting in some increased brightness, but more importantly, increased efficiency of Red subpixels, which will reduce the aging-rate of what has been the color most susceptible to differential-aging-related burn-in.
> 
> 2019: top-emission? (increased brightness); 240Hz effective refresh rates? 88" 8K WOLED panels?


If you look at my original post, I was specifically referring to the past 3 years - 2016,2017,and 2018 model years.

If we remove video processing and software changes from the equation, there is no objective performance difference between those 3 model years at the panel level. Same gamut, same peak brightness, same issues with near black uniformity and color gradation.

All the improvements you're talking about could have been applied to the 2016 panel and offered the same results. ABL is a software function and you could finagle the 2016 models into producing similar results if you abused the contrast/WB/oled-light controls. It's entirely controlled by the guys assembling the TV's which is why you see very different ABL behavior between Sony and LG when using the same panels. It's not a panel-level improvement. If you compare the Sony 2017 and 2018 models, you will see that given the same software and hardware processing, there is no measurable difference in the 2017 and 2018 panels. The jury is out on any benefits of the sub-pixel change. Only source I've found and listed in this thread stated it was done as an evolutionary step towards offering 8K on this same panel design next year. Until rtings does a 2018 burn-in test or someone confirms lower power consumption, the rest is just speculation.



sooke said:


> Sorry if this has already been discussed, but...
> 
> In a nutshell, what benefits will top emission bring to televisions? From diagrams I found googling, it looks like it will improve fill ratio because the light doesn't pass through the thin film transistor aperture like bottom emission (the fill ratio on 2018 WOLEDs still looks pretty bad based on the pixel structure images posted here). Better power efficiency according to what I googled. So maybe the ABL kicks in less? Seems like it should also improve peak brightness? Longevity? How about viewing angle? Anything else?
> 
> What are the downsides? Cost?
> 
> Why didn't LGD use top emission to start with? Was there some manufacturability problems to work out? What were they? Did they have to compromise something else to get top emission to work?
> 
> Thanks.


The only thing LG themselves have listed as coming from top-emission is 60% improved lifetimes. If they chose to forego some of the 60% lifetime improvement, they could drive the panels brighter instead. They also showed it had no significant effect on viewing angles and the color shift we see on current models.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> If you look at my original post, I was specifically referring to the past 3 years - 2016,2017,and 2018 model years.
> 
> If we remove video processing and software changes from the equation, there is no objective performance difference between those 3 model years at the panel level. Same gamut, same peak brightness, same issues with near black uniformity and color gradation.
> 
> All the improvements you're talking about could have been applied to the 2016 panel and offered the same results. ABL is a software function and you could finagle the 2016 models into producing similar results if you abused the contrast/WB/oled-light controls. It's entirely controlled by the guys assembling the TV's which is why you see very different ABL behavior between Sony and LG when using the same panels. It's not a panel-level improvement. If you compare the Sony 2017 and 2018 models, you will see that given the same software and hardware processing, there is no measurable difference in the 2017 and 2018 panels. The jury is out on any benefits of the sub-pixel change. Only source I've found and listed in this thread stated it was done as an evolutionary step towards offering 8K on this same panel design next year. Until rtings does a 2018 burn-in test or someone confirms lower power consumption, the rest is just speculation.


Fair enough. It's true that after surviving the near-death experiences of 2014 - 2016, LG has focused more attention on squeezing a bit better performance out of their WOLED panels through 'software' such as ABL, HDR compatibility, improved CMS/calibration, etc... rather than wholesale changes in the underlying WOLED structure itself.

On the other hand, to be fair to LG, WOLED has had picture quality in spades since inception, so if there is an issue that could stop WOLEDs progress in its tracks, it certainly isn't picture quality (including gamut, peak brightness, near-black uniformity, or color gradation).

In addition, with a major change in WOLED panel architecture coming (ie: top emission), all of those areas are certain to be changing soon and any engineering investments LG makes to incrementally improve any of those areas through underlying WOLED panel design will be very short-lived.

The interplay between peak brightness and lifetime/burn-in is also a delicate issue. Can't kill you now but could kill you tomorrow. If LG has done nothing more over the past three years than assure that their HDR-capable WOLEDs are able to continue to deliver their best-in-class performance while quietly addressing and mitigating any increased propensity for burn-in and decreased lifetime that may have resulted from their hurried 2015 effort to 'catch-up' with Samsung's HDR initiative to assure that they were not left behind by the Brightness Wars, I'd consider that exactly the correct prioritization.

In short, I give LG credit for having the foresight and confidence to not blindly follow Samsung over the cliff that had been laid-out for them.




> The only thing LG themselves have listed as coming from top-emission is 60% improved lifetimes. If they chose to forego some of the 60% lifetime improvement, they could drive the panels brighter instead. They also showed it had no significant effect on viewing angles and the color shift we see on current models.


As I said, the interplay between peak brightness and lifetime/burn-in on WOLED is delicate. How much of the ~60% increased electro-optical efficiency LG decides to use for increased peak brightness and how much they decide to reserve to deliver the same peak brightness at lower mA/cm^2 for increased lifetime, decreased risk of burn-in and more 'headroom' for aging compensation is a devision that needs to be made carefully.

LG could use the increased 60% efficiency of top-emission to deliver ~1500 cd/m2 with identical lifetime and risk of burn-in to what they deliver on their 2018 WOLEDs (which have not really been assessed for brun-in resistance yet).

Alternatively, they could maintain peak-brightness levels of ~1000 cd/m2 and increase lifetime to 160% of what they deliver today (including static logo viewing hours required to develop any visible signs of burn-in).

I don't blame LG in the least for tamping down expectations for increased peak brightness associated with top-emission. This keeps their options open and allows them to make late decisions on which is more important, increased peak brightness of better burn-in resistance.

Between the attention rtings.com's burn-in testing has brought to the issue and Samsung's ever-louder marketing campaign to undermine WOLED as being 'prone' to burn-in, I believe we are still in the phase where WOLEDs future depends much more critically on making burn-in concerns 'go away' than it does on delivering incementally higher peak brightness (or incrementally wider color gamut/volume or incemenetally improved near-black uniformity).


----------



## Wizziwig

Top emission was also supposed to provide an easier transition to the smaller pixels required for 8K. The fact they are launching 8K on the tweaked 2018 bottom-emission design (based on CES 8K demo) tells me that mass producing TE is much harder than they predicted. Hopefully we'll see it in 2020. Until then, they will probably be stuck with very large 88"+ panel sizes for all their 8K models compared to something like the 70" LCD Sharp recently launched. In the end, it probably only matters for marketing spec wars since any small panels would not show the benefits of 8K anyway (assuming you can even find any material to watch).


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Top emission was also supposed to provide an easier transition to the smaller pixels required for 8K. The fact they are launching 8K on the tweaked 2018 bottom-emission design (based on CES 8K demo) tells me that mass producing TE is much harder than they predicted. Hopefully we'll see it in 2020. Until then, they will probably be stuck with very large 88"+ panel sizes for all their 8K models compared to something like the 70" LCD Sharp recently launched. In the end, it probably only matters for marketing spec wars since any small panels would not show the benefits of 8K anyway (assuming you can even find any material to watch).


Yeah, we'll see. I won't be the least bit surprised to see LG introduce an 88" 4K TV in 2019 to be followed by an 8K 88" TV to be introduced in 2020. The 85"+ 8K TV market is likely to remain a 'bragging-rights-only' market at least until 2020 anyway...

When it comes to 8K, 88" appears to be the new 55" and this is exactly the approach LG took for introduction of their first 4K WOLED panel (1080p first, then 4K second)


----------



## bombyx

New graphs : SDR and HDR peak brightness (from Rtings.com) .


----------



## gadgtfreek

Looks like it could pop real well with specular highlights, especially in dark scenes.


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> New graphs : SDR and HDR peak brightness (from Rtings.com) .


It's interesting to me that after backing off SDR


----------



## rogo

I wonder how discernible the SDR ABL will even be at this point.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I wonder how discernible the SDR ABL will even be at this point.


Yes.

Once you are able to deliver SDR at 250 cd/m2 all the way up to 90% full-screen, it seems as though the only viewers likely to even notice ABL ccasionally kicking-in on SDR anymore are those watching in a sunlit room or on the showroom floor .


----------



## Wizziwig

You're forgetting that rtings.com only tests ABL using white test patterns - the most efficient color on WOLED. The ABL is much more aggressive once you engage the other sub-pixels. Yellow for example dims extremely quickly to the point where it's almost impossible to fully disable ABL no matter where you set OLED light. At least that was my experience flipping through color slides on the C7. Forgot to try it when I was testing the C8. How that translates to typical content I can't say. Maybe large fires and explosions would also trigger it?

They definitely improved ABL for SDR. Or maybe just fixed a long-standing bug where all OLEDs prior to the 2017 models had broken ABL design based on input signal level instead of actual light output or power consumption. The C6 dimmed just as quickly starting at 25% sized windows no matter if you configured SDR peak brightness (OLED Light) to 400 or 100 nits. The SDR dimming as a percentage of peak was worse than my F8500 plasma. No idea why it took them 4+ years to fix it.


----------



## jk82

Wizziwig said:


> The C6 dimmed just as quickly starting at 25% sized windows no matter if you configured SDR peak brightness (OLED Light) to 400 or 100 nits.


On 2016 Oleds it was actually the contrast setting and not oled-light that influenced how quickly ABL would engage, which imho was a really stupid design decision.

On my C6 lowering contrast to ~48 would make ABL not have any effect on a 100% sized white window anymore. Oled-light had zero effect on ABL.


----------



## Wizziwig

jk82 said:


> On 2016 Oleds it was actually the contrast setting and not oled-light that influenced how quickly ABL would engage, which imho was a really stupid design decision.
> 
> On my C6 lowering contrast to ~48 would make ABL not have any effect on a 100% sized white window anymore. Oled-light had zero effect on ABL.


I know. That's why I said it was based on input signal instead of actual light output or power consumption as it should be. By lowering contrast or WB gains, you were basically digitally compressing the input signal dynamic range to make it appear to the TV as if you're feeding it a darker gray level instead of 100% white. Working around ABL with this trick increased artifacts because you no longer had full gradation capability (which was already poor) from the TV and was eventually discouraged by calibrators like Chad B. Lowering light output via OLED light was essentially an analog control without limited digital precision so didn't introduce quantization errors like messing around with digital controls. You can see this by pausing a dark image and playing with contrast or WB gains.

In 2017 they actually implemented ABL the way it worked on plasma - bound to actual power consumption of the panel, not calibration settings or APL of image coming into the TV.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> *You're forgetting that rtings.com only tests ABL using white test patterns* - the most efficient color on WOLED. The ABL is much more aggressive once you engage the other sub-pixels. Yellow for example dims extremely quickly to the point where it's almost impossible to fully disable ABL no matter where you set OLED light. At least that was my experience flipping through color slides on the C7. Forgot to try it when I was testing the C8. How that translates to typical content I can't say. Maybe large fires and explosions would also trigger it?
> 
> They definitely improved ABL for SDR. Or maybe just fixed a long-standing bug where all OLEDs prior to the 2017 models had broken ABL design based on input signal level instead of actual light output or power consumption. The C6 dimmed just as quickly starting at 25% sized windows no matter if you configured SDR peak brightness (OLED Light) to 400 or 100 nits. The SDR dimming as a percentage of peak was worse than my F8500 plasma. No idea why it took them 4+ years to fix it.


This is a very good point that I had not focused on before.

Someone should suggest to rtings.com that they characterize peak brightness as a function of window size for R,G,B,Y,M,C and W since the 'color volume' of a 1% or 10% window is far more meaningful/important that the full-field color volume...


----------



## jk82

Wizziwig said:


> By lowering contrast or WB gains, you were basically digitally compressing the input signal dynamic range to make it appear to the TV as if you're feeding it a darker gray level instead of 100% white.


Yeah makes sense. I actually never thought of it that way when I still had my C6.


----------



## fafrd

WOLEDs with 3000-5000 cd/m2 peak output could be on the horizon: https://www.oled-info.com/researche...rray-can-increase-light-output-oleds-factor-3

(got to 5000 by taking today's 1000 cd/m2 peak from WOLED, factoring in a 60% bump from top-emission, and multiplyng that by 3x from these sub-electrode micro-lens arrays..,)

Heck, before we know it, LG may be able to ditch their white subpixel and deliver RGB-subpixel-only WOLEDs delivering over 2000 cd/m2 of peak brightness .


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> WOLEDs with 3000-5000 cd/m2 peak output could be on the horizon: https://www.oled-info.com/researche...rray-can-increase-light-output-oleds-factor-3
> 
> (got to 5000 by taking today's 1000 cd/m2 peak from WOLED, factoring in a 60% bump from top-emission, and multiplyng that by 3x from these sub-electrode micro-lens arrays..,)
> 
> Heck, before we know it, LG may be able to ditch their white subpixel and deliver RGB-subpixel-only WOLEDs delivering over 2000 cd/m2 of peak brightness .


More details in case anyone is interested: http://www.eenewseurope.com/news/cheap-and-wavelength-independent-oled-light-extraction


----------



## sooke

The article says "fabricated using conventional photolithography". So... can that be done on large screens, or just on small screens?


----------



## rogo

sooke said:


> The article says "fabricated using conventional photolithography". So... can that be done on large screens, or just on small screens?


The large screens are made using "conventional photolithography"


----------



## artur9

With that, does OLED win the brightness wars?


----------



## fafrd

artur9 said:


> With that, does OLED win the brightness wars?


Win, probably not, but go head-to-head, perhaps.

The Brightness Wars were a serious potential threat in 2015 but LG answered and it seems as though Samsung has understood that the Brightness Arrow alone is not going to lead them to victory.

Fear-mongering about OLED burn-in is the more effective Strategy of the Day in 2018 but LG already answered with some new burn-in compensation technology in 2017 and all of these electro-optical efficiency improvements can be used to further improve lifetime & burn-in-immunity if they are not 'used' for increased peak brightness.

In the Brightness Wars, CNET (David Katzmaier) just released their review of the C8P: https://www.cnet.com/products/lg-oled65c8pua/review/

The section on 4K and HDR Video near the end made an interesesting comparison of WOLED versus LCD:

"*The OLEDs consistently looked better than the LCDs*, on the strength of their perfect black levels and overall contrast. Yes, *the LCDs can technically get brighter.* In episode 6 a blast of flashlight in the lower-right measured 355 nits on the C8 compared to 515 on the Samsung Q8. *The OLED's bright areas still looked more impactful, however, because they were juxtaposed next to darker blacks.*"


----------



## video_analysis

Dave just reiterated what we emissive zealots already knew.


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> More details in case anyone is interested: http://www.eenewseurope.com/news/cheap-and-wavelength-independent-oled-light-extraction


I suggest to LG the marketing term "Quantum Lens". QL OLED TVs.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> \
> 
> Fear-mongering about OLED burn-in is the more effective Strategy of the Day in 2018 but LG already answered with some new burn-in compensation technology in 2017 and all of these electro-optical efficiency improvements can be used to further improve lifetime & burn-in-immunity if they are not 'used' for increased peak brightness.



See my newly created thread...

The future is LG's?


----------



## stl8k

*OLED Out-coupling*



fafrd said:


> More details in case anyone is interested: http://www.eenewseurope.com/news/cheap-and-wavelength-independent-oled-light-extraction


Here are a couple links for those who want to geek out on OLED Out-coupling:

Presentation by UMich Prof behind the research:

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/02/f34/forrest_oled-outcoupling_longbeach2017.pdf

US Patents by LG Display:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20180122874.pdf (Ostensibly published in US today!)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20170125489.pdf (Interestingly, one of the inventors here JeaHo Park does Nanobiotechnology research at Johns Hopkins)


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Here are a couple links for those who want to geek out on OLED Out-coupling:
> 
> Presentation by UMich Prof behind the research:
> 
> https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/02/f34/forrest_oled-outcoupling_longbeach2017.pdf
> 
> US Patents by LG Display:
> 
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20180122874.pdf (Ostensibly published in US today!)
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20170125489.pdf (Interestingly, one of the inventors here JeaHo Park does Nanobiotechnology research at Johns Hopkins)


Interesting, thanks.

Going frim 20% efficiency to 80% efficiency represents a 4X inprovement, but this is inclusive of top-emission.

Also, where we've thrown around the number that top-emission will increase electro-optical efficiency and peak brightness of WOLED by ~60% (to 160% of today's levels, meaning 1.6x), this material suggests that top-emission improves electro-optical efficiency to 60% (from today's level of 20%, meaning a 3x improvement).

So it appears there is a good chance that LG's move to top-emission in 2019 or 2020 may increase peak brightness levels to as much as ~3000 cd/m2 (3x what they are today) and these sub-anode grids of mirrors or microlenses offer the promise of a further increase for top-emission WOLEDs to 80% efficiency or 4x today's levels (meaning up to 4000cd/m2).

Looks as though the Brightness Wars may prove to have been nothing more than a few years of Brightness Skirmishes .


----------



## austinsj

Out of curiosity, do we know the brightness LCD is set to achieve in the next few years? I'm interested in comparing LCD's roadmap to OLED's.

I know Sony showed that 10,000 nit prototype display at CES which, although it was well received, no one was able to look behind it suggesting, perhaps, an elaborate cooling mechanism not suitable for the home.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Interesting, thanks.
> 
> Going frim 20% efficiency to 80% efficiency represents a 4X inprovement, but this is inclusive of top-emission.
> 
> Also, where we've thrown around the number that top-emission will increase electro-optical efficiency and peak brightness of WOLED by ~60% (to 160% of today's levels, meaning 1.6x), this material suggests that top-emission improves electro-optical efficiency to 60% (from today's level of 20%, meaning a 3x improvement).
> 
> So it appears there is a good chance that LG's move to top-emission in 2019 or 2020 may increase peak brightness levels to as much as ~3000 cd/m2 (3x what they are today) and these sub-anode grids of mirrors or microlenses offer the promise of a further increase for top-emission WOLEDs to 80% efficiency or 4x today's levels (meaning up to 4000cd/m2).
> 
> Looks as though the Brightness Wars may prove to have been nothing more than a few years of Brightness Skirmishes .


It would be more useful to actually then drive the OLED at perhaps 1/3 of maximum to increase lifespan and improve resistance to burn in.


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> Fear-mongering about OLED burn-in is the more effective Strategy of the Day in 2018 but LG already answered with some new burn-in compensation technology in 2017


Am I the only one that was irked at RTings.com decision to score C8 at 1.0 for Permanent Burn-in Risk?

Either you decide to give a binary score (yes/no) or the evaluation should have been more nuanced. It's not as if LG did nothing in the past few years to tackle the problem, as far as we know (demonstrated by this year's logo function). I understand that that score reflects the chance that you ruin your screen forever but still... it seemed a little bit extreme to me.

It risks penalizing OLED too much, from what we know about the risk, and simply fueling the "Strategy of the Day" fafrd refers to (whose effects I've seen on plasma tech, ten years ago...).


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> Heck, before we know it, LG may be able to ditch their white subpixel and deliver RGB-subpixel-only WOLEDs delivering over 2000 cd/m2 of peak brightness .


Before reading I was hopeful but this is just a research paper... it would be, I don't know, minimum three years before LG could do something with it. Am I wrong?


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> Before reading I was hopeful but this is just a research paper... it would be, I don't know, minimum three years before LG could do something with it. Am I wrong?


In general, no (you're not wrong).

On the other hand, going from 20% to 60% (3X improvement) is based on top-emission, which we know LG has been working on for over a year now and is supposed to emerge in 2019: https://www.oled-info.com/dscc-lgd-will-start-mass-producing-top-emission-oled-tv-panels-2019

The incremental jump from 60% to 80% requires these sub-anode grids of mirrors or microlenses and is unlikely to launch next year but it might mature quickly enough to be part off the first WOLED panels rolling off of the new 10.5G fab in ~2021...


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> It would be more useful to actually then drive the OLED at perhaps 1/3 of maximum to increase lifespan and improve resistance to burn in.


The only evidence we have of burn-in is associated with bright, fully-saturated, static content, primarily SDR. So if LG leaves ABL for SDR where it is today (about 250 cd/m2 full-field peak), they will quadruple lifetime and quadruple the time needed for burn-in to develope from qualifying (or disqualifyibg ) content.

HDR is another animal and there is no evidence of burn-in or increased aging from display of small specular highlights at peak levels. Since the idea of HDR is to maintain APL at modest levels and only increase the peak brightness of small areas of the screen (and typically for smal periods of time), there is not much advantage to limiting the brightness of those specular highlights to 1/3 of what they otherwise could be.

The world of HDR is still evolving and it is likely there will be some user controls to adjust highlight levels to the level they find comfortable (rather that blindly putting out 4000 Nit highlights because 'that's what the director intended'), and ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised to see users toning down peak highlight levels in their own homes. But LG can afford to let this be user-determined - the peak highlights of HDR are not what is causing burn-in.

The other think LG can do with 4x peak brightness is make dramatic improvements on BFI, achieving persistance-based blur levels surpassing Plasma levels (and approaching CRT levels). They need to also make backplane modifications to allow line-based or segment-based blanking, but with that, they will be able to support a refresh rate of 120Hz with a blanking interval of 7/8ths, meaning up to 4000 cd/m2 being put out for 1ms followed by 7.3ms of black. This would delivers an effective brightness level of 500 cd/m2 (better than plasma) with persistance of 1ms (better than plasma).

And finally, another thing LG could do with 4000 cd/m2 peak levels is ditch their white subpixel. Peak brightness will drop to 'only' 2000 cd/m2 but it will allow LG to provide 'full' color volume at that brightness and is certain to make certain purists happy (high-end videophiles and reference monitor products only).

Increased WOLED efficiency is a win-win-win and offers a roadmap for improvement in many areas...


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> Am I the only one that was irked at RTings.com decision to score C8 at 1.0 for Permanent Burn-in Risk?
> 
> Either you decide to give a binary score (yes/no) or the evaluation should have been more nuanced. It's not as if LG did nothing in the past few years to tackle the problem, as far as we know (demonstrated by this year's logo function). I understand that that score reflects the chance that you ruin your screen forever but still... it seemed a little bit extreme to me.
> 
> It risks penalizing OLED too much, from what we know about the risk, and simply fueling the "Strategy of the Day" fafrd refers to (whose effects I've seen on plasma tech, ten years ago...).


Yes, it is rediculous, but I'm not sure it matters much. A binary 'risk of burn-in from static content' YES/NO assessment woukd have been more useful, but the bottom line is that anyone concerned about burn-in is probably better-off sticking to LCD for another generation or two...


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> Yes, it is rediculous, but I'm not sure it matters much. A binary 'risk of burn-in from static content' YES/NO assessment woukd have been more useful, but the bottom line is that anyone concerned about burn-in is probably better-off sticking to LCD for another generation or two...


I have mentioned a binary system because for the current situation to get 1.0 it suggests that's what they'll be using.

But I think it's a serious disservice to their readers. Since, with time, I don't think it's far fetched to imagine that panels will become more resistant/more effective ways will be found to counter the problem. So it would be useful to have a "real" score there.

On the other hand, a score of 1.0 out of 10 suggests that you are pretty much certain to get burn in. Which is what I strongly disagree with, considering all the reports to the contrary (that don't negate the risk, that's not what I'm saying).


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> I have mentioned a binary system because for the current situation to get 1.0 it suggests that's what they'll be using.
> 
> But I think it's a serious disservice to their readers. Since, with time, I don't think it's far fetched to imagine that panels will become more resistant/more effective ways will be found to counter the problem. So it would be useful to have a "real" score there.
> 
> On the other hand, a score of 1.0 out of 10 suggests that you are pretty much certain to get burn in. Which is what I strongly disagree with, considering all the reports to the contrary (that don't negate the risk, that's not what I'm saying).


They are pretty responsive to suggestions, do you may want to send them your feedback there (on their site, in the test).

They are quantitative enough that if they wanted to characterize propensity for burn-in right, they would set a threshold (+/- 5%?) and then measure the time to develope non-uniformity exceeding that threshold (from CNN logo areas, for example).

They are trying to run their test for 1 year or 7,300 cumulative hours.

So if no visible burn-in and no measurements of burn-in exceeding ~1% after 7000 hours is a '10' perhaps measurable-but-non-visible burn-in after 7000 hours is a '9', measurable-and-visible-on-fields-but-not-content is an '8', and hitting the 5% threshold only after 7000 hours is a '7'. Then 6000 hours is a '6' etc with over 5% nonuniformity after only 1000 hours being a '1'

But again, I'm not sure how much this matters. Any videophiles who want the best PQ and don't want a Premium TV to watch cable news will not be spooked by this (ex-pkasma owners, as an example) and those who avoided plasma in favor of LCD due to burn-in concerns are probably best off sticking to LCD for another year or two while the dust settles on this.

Rtings.com just posted their week 14 update (~2000 hours)

I suspect that nonuniformity you see is well below any sensible non-uniformity threshold, is unlikely to be visible on average content, but is visible on fields, so if it were to remain at that level for another 5000 hours, I'd give it a '9' but as it is, it's at least a '3' (earliest it will hit a 5% threshold is after another 1000 hours).

The other interesting thing to note is that since the lightened non-uniformity represents overcompensation for presumed burn-in, when the algorithm eventually runs out of headroom, additional burn-in which cannot be compensated wil actially improve uniformity for a time until it starts to create visibly darkened areas...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> They are pretty responsive to suggestions, do you may want to send them your feedback there (on their site, in the test).
> 
> They are quantitative enough that if they wanted to characterize propensity for burn-in right, they would set a threshold (+/- 5%?) and then measure the time to develope non-uniformity exceeding that threshold (from CNN logo areas, for example).
> 
> They are trying to run their test for 1 year or 7,300 cumulative hours.
> 
> So if no visible burn-in and no measurements of burn-in exceeding ~1% after 7000 hours is a '10' perhaps measurable-but-non-visible burn-in after 7000 hours is a '9', measurable-and-visible-on-fields-but-not-content is an '8', and hitting the 5% threshold only after 7000 hours is a '7'. Then 6000 hours is a '6' etc with over 5% nonuniformity after only 1000 hours being a '1'
> 
> But again, I'm not sure how much this matters. Any videophiles who want the best PQ and don't want a Premium TV to watch cable news will not be spooked by this (ex-pkasma owners, as an example) and those who avoided plasma in favor of LCD due to burn-in concerns are probably best off sticking to LCD for another year or two while the dust settles on this.
> 
> Rtings.com just posted their week 14 update (~2000 hours)
> 
> I suspect that nonuniformity you see is well below any sensible non-uniformity threshold, is unlikely to be visible on average content, but is visible on fields, so if it were to remain at that level for another 5000 hours, I'd give it a '9' but as it is, it's at least a '3' (earliest it will hit a 5% threshold is after another 1000 hours).
> 
> The other interesting thing to note is that since the lightened non-uniformity represents overcompensation for presumed burn-in, when the algorithm eventually runs out of headroom, additional burn-in which cannot be compensated wil actially improve uniformity for a time until it starts to create visibly darkened areas...


And for reference, here's week 14 from the 2016 test. I know, I know, it's not exactly the same test pattern (live CNN versus RTINGS static logo) but it's still an astonishing improvement.

Between the progress made in 2017, the 2018 improvements including improved logo dimming, lower SDR ABL, and increased subpixel size, and the 3x eficiency increase expected next year with top-emission, I believe concerns with burn-in on WOLED are on their way to becoming a distant memory...

By the way, I circled back and looked at the 2016 test. The week 14 results will clearly be visible content and should be above whatever non-uniformity threshold is used, so at best it deserves a '2' based on my above proposal. But looking back, even week 7 after only 1000 hours may be noticable on content, so rating this 2016 WOLED a '1' (less than 2000 hours before noticable burn-in on content) would probably be more correct.

Comparing lightened nonumiformity to darkened non-uniformity is tough, but if I had to guess I say the 2016 image representing non-uniformity closest to the level of the week 14 2017 burn-in test on CNN would be definitely by week 5 (700 hours) or possibly by week 4 (560 hours). So at least so far, LGs 2017 burn-in compensation technology appears to have extended the timeframes needed for offending static content to cause equivalent levels of nonuniformity by a factor of ~3...


----------



## dnoonie

0 - produces burn in under any circumstance
1 - produces burn in under most circumstance
2 - producers burn in under many circumstance depending on content
3- producers burn in under 
4
5 burn in can be stimulated with specific content under some common usage scenereos, (this is how I'd rate current OLED TVs)
6

I did't fill in them all, sorry I'm pressed for time.

Cheers,


----------



## Wizziwig

gorman42 said:


> I have mentioned a binary system because for the current situation to get 1.0 it suggests that's what they'll be using.
> 
> But I think it's a serious disservice to their readers. Since, with time, I don't think it's far fetched to imagine that panels will become more resistant/more effective ways will be found to counter the problem. So it would be useful to have a "real" score there.
> 
> On the other hand, a score of 1.0 out of 10 suggests that you are pretty much certain to get burn in. Which is what I strongly disagree with, considering all the reports to the contrary (that don't negate the risk, that's not what I'm saying).


I see nothing wrong there.

You can think of that score as a placeholder score until their next burn-in experiment evaluates the 2018 models. At that time, they can update the score based on actual measurements instead of speculation. A binary score would be useless for comparing any progress from year to year.

Maybe one way to arrive at a 0-10 weighted score would be to take the time until visible burn-in (or inverse burn-in) and divide it by the average time a person keeps a TV. Thus if it lasts the full lifecycle of a typical TV, it would get a 100% rating or 10.0.


----------



## gorman42

Wizziwig said:


> I see nothing wrong there.
> 
> You can think of that score as a placeholder score until their next burn-in experiment evaluates the 2018 models. At that time, they can update the score based on actual measurements instead of speculation. A binary score would be useless for comparing any progress from year to year.
> 
> Maybe one way to arrive at a 0-10 weighted score would be to take the time until visible burn-in (or inverse burn-in) and divide it by the average time a person keeps a TV. Thus if it lasts the full lifecycle of a typical TV, it would get a 100% rating or 10.0.


Although this appears offtopic here, I reply because I think it actually has to do with tech advancements in OLED and how media chooses to report on it.

I am NOT in favour of a binary system, exactly because of the reason you state. What I disagree with is the decision to start scoring this year's OLEDs with a 1.0 in that subcategory. An uneducated reader will see that as a *huge* risk of permanent BI. You have 1.0 for OLED and 10.0 for LCD. That is a binary system and one I don't appreciate/get, considering that this year LG has implemented the logo dimming feature specifically to counter the main risks. If you need a placeholder you use some other way, you don't score 1.0. 1.0 is a score, not a placeholder.


----------



## 8mile13

gorman42 said:


> I have mentioned a binary system because for the current situation to get 1.0 it suggests that's what they'll be using.
> 
> But I think it's a serious disservice to their readers. Since, with time, I don't think it's far fetched to imagine that panels will become more resistant/more effective ways will be found to counter the problem. So it would be useful to have a "real" score there.
> 
> On the other hand, a score of 1.0 out of 10 suggests that you are pretty much certain to get burn in. Which is what I strongly disagree with, considering all the reports to the contrary (that don't negate the risk, that's not what I'm saying).


It is clearly stated by Rtings in addition to the *1.0* *Permanent* *Burn*-*in* *Risk* score


Rtings said:


> *What is it:*
> The risk of developing a persistent image rendition, also known as burn-in, after being exposed to a static image for a prolonged time.
> *When* *it* *matters*:
> When watching TV shows, playing video games or when using your TV as a PC monitor where static content is present.
> *Score* *components*:
> *100%* permanent burn-in risk.


So according Rtings, when your OLED TV is being exposed to a static image for a prolonged time the risk of permanent burn-in is 100%.


----------



## gorman42

I'll reply once more and then I'll leave it at that. I know what you are saying @8mile13, my opinion is that, if this is the case, OLEDs will score 1.0 for their life.

Unless that score keeps in mind measures put in place to diminish the risk. Which apparently this year's LG OLEDs have. Otherwise, being emissive, with degrading components over time, that score will always stay at 1.0. Which, in my opinion, is not too informative if you are trying to buy a new TV. I know OLEDs have that risk. I'm more interested in knowing if any given model does something significant to mitigate it.


----------



## boe

Hello,


I've read a number of posts from people who know TONS more about oled then I do -e.g. when new plants are going into production, what size they'll produce etc. I realize nothing is 100% certain but thought you might have some info that might help me. 


1. What are the chances we'll see a different OLED screen e.g. brighter, 85" or 88" size, different bit, different manufacturing technique etc. next year?


2. Are there any new factories online next year that might help with the pricing of the larger sizes - over 65"?


----------



## rogo

boe said:


> Hello,
> 
> 
> I've read a number of posts from people who know TONS more about oled then I do -e.g. when new plants are going into production, what size they'll produce etc. I realize nothing is 100% certain but thought you might have some info that might help me.
> 
> 
> 1. What are the chances we'll see a different OLED screen e.g. brighter, 85" or 88" size, different bit, different manufacturing technique etc. next year?
> 
> 
> 2. Are there any new factories online next year that might help with the pricing of the larger sizes - over 65"?


A different size? 2019 or 2020. Using different tech (e.g. "top emission") is probably a similar timeframe.

Prices for 77s will very likely dip below $5000 this year. Is that enough for you to care? I don't know. But it seems very likely.


----------



## boe

Thanks - any price drop in the 77" is good as I really want that size or bigger. I saw they had an 88" 8K for demo at CES. I'd definitely want HDMI 2.1 if they do 8K next year (although I fear the price). Anything to improve the brightness and reduce burn in would also be great. Not much else I care about although any improvement is good. I'm really looking forward to that new Sony ultimate processor.


----------



## stl8k

*Recent Academic Research (High Nerd Level)*

The Root Causes of the Limited Electroluminescence Stability of Organic Light-emitting Devices Made by Solution-coating
YJ Cho, H Aziz - ACS applied materials & interfaces, 2018
Although organic electroluminescent materials have long promised the prospect of 
making Organic Light Emitting Devices (OLEDs) via low-cost solution-coating 
techniques, the electroluminescence stability of devices made by such techniques …

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_u...YVkMet9-4AaDL-ou7sj51Q&nossl=1&oi=scholaralrt

Optical analysis of power distribution in top-emitting organic light emitting diodes integrated with nano-lens array using finite difference time domain
KH Han, YS Park, DH Cho, Y Han, J Lee, BG Yu… - ACS Applied Materials & …, 2018
Recently, we have addressed that a formation mechanism of a nano-lens array 
(NLA) fabricated by using a maskless vacuum deposition is explained as the 
increase in surface tension of organic molecules induced by their crystallization …

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_u...zwAqVBy6sonEvPH2ROAeZw&nossl=1&oi=scholaralrt

Molecular Engineering of Phenylbenzimidazole-Based Orange Ir (III) Phosphors toward High-Performance White OLEDs
LL Wen, CX Zang, Y Gao, GG Shan, HZ Sun, T Wang… - Inorganic chemistry, 2018
To develop BO complementary-color white organic light-emitting diodes (WOLEDs) 
exhibiting high efficiency and low roll-off as well as color stability simultaneously, we 
have designed two orange iridium (III) complexes by simply controlling the position of …

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_u...B-dVajJ2JVyIjRIlYWfASg&nossl=1&oi=scholaralrt

Dual Emission Through Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence and Room-Temperature Phosphorescence, and Their Thermal Enhancement via Solid-State …
I Bhattacharjee, N Acharya, H Bhatia, D Ray - The journal of physical chemistry letters, 2018
The emergence of single-component organic dual light emitters holds great promise 
for white light-emitting diodes (WLEDs) and biological detection due to the 
involvement of broad emission covering visible spectrum. Here we show …

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_u...uFd992VCo9pPtX5JZ7Ym3Q&nossl=1&oi=scholaralrt


----------



## stl8k

*SID Display Week '18*

Should be some news that comes out of this week.

I'll be interested in hearing about...

"DSCC will be presenting updated OLED shipment, OLED revenue, smartphone penetration, Capex, equipment spending and supply/demand forecasts at the Display Week Business Conference on Monday May 21st."

What about you?


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> Should be some news that comes out of this week.
> 
> I'll be interested in hearing about...
> 
> "DSCC will be presenting updated OLED shipment, OLED revenue, smartphone penetration, Capex, equipment spending and supply/demand forecasts at the Display Week Business Conference on Monday May 21st."
> 
> What about you?


Also,

Session 5: Next-Generation Magic: The final session will explore how immersive experiences will be presented. Entertainment companies such as IMAX and Disney already have existing programs to reach the public through new types of theatres and new types of content. A number of start-ups are trying to bring new experiences to the general public and to use the technology to change the way we educate people.

Speakers include:

Featured Speaker: Andrew Cochrane, VR/AR/Interactive Content Creator, Freelance Creator
Futurism Entertainment: Demian Lichtenstien, Founder and CEO
Christie 360 Experiential Studios: Denys Lavigne, Vice President
Misapplied Sciences: Paul Dietz, CTO & Chairman of the Board
IBM: Michael Ludden, Director of Product - IBM Watson Developer Labs & AR/VR Labs​​


----------



## lbjack

austinsj said:


> Out of curiosity, do we know the brightness LCD is set to achieve in the next few years? I'm interested in comparing LCD's roadmap to OLED's.
> 
> I know Sony showed that 10,000 nit prototype display at CES which, although it was well received, no one was able to look behind it suggesting, perhaps, an elaborate cooling mechanism not suitable for the home.


DV uses a 4000 nit monitor "to make color and brightness decisions," and VESA has an high-end standard of 1000 nits. Philips has a 43" monitor with a 1000 nit spec but with 8-bit color depth plus 2-bit dithering for a "synthetic" 10-bit HDR spec. I think Sony's 10,000-nit is saying, "Over time we'll be working towards this in a consumer TV." 2000 nits @ non-dithered 10-bits would be a nice upgrade point. Of course 12-bits would be even better, but you know how they like to play out the improvements, so you'll never get the last TV you'll ever want to own.


----------



## 8mile13

Sony IR day 2018 -- *PDF*


> - Introduction of OLED TVs secured our brand position in the premium segment of the market.
> - Profitability improved due to high value-added product strategy focused on OLED, 4K and large-sized TVs.


----------



## Franco D'Amore

Tcl is entering the OLED tv market.

oled-info.com/tclcsot-plans-build-11-gen-lcdoled-tv-fab-shenzhen-2021


----------



## fafrd

Franco D'Amore said:


> Tcl is entering the OLED tv market.
> 
> oled-info.com/tclcsot-plans-build-11-gen-lcdoled-tv-fab-shenzhen-2021


More details: https://www.oled-info.com/tclcsot-plans-build-11-gen-lcdoled-tv-fab-shenzhen-2021

"TCL/CSoT has been planning to start OLED TV production for a long time. Towards the end of 2013 it was reported that TCL and CSOT will invest 24.4 billion yuan (just over $4 billion) to build a new 8.5-Gen LCD+OLED TV fab in Shenzhen. In 2016 TCL revised this plan - which said the line will use 11-Gen substrates and will be built by 2019. *It's great to see TCL still committed to OLED TV production, but time will tell whether this time it will actually go ahead with its plans.*


----------



## Wizziwig

If TCL follows through, I wonder what manufacturing method they will go with. As reported earlier, they did develop a TE WOLED prototype but I'm not sure what LG would have to say about that unless they reach some kind of licensing deal.


----------



## rogo

So maybe in 2020 TCL will start making waves in the market. But I agree with @Wizziwig, the devil is in the details.


----------



## slacker711

TCL has been working on inkjet printed OLED displays.










My understanding from TCL's Chinese press release is that this will be a Gen 11 LCD fab with a portion dedicated to an OLED R&D line. Assuming that TCL follows through, it is an important milestone and spending money on capex shows that they must be making some progress. An absolute best case scenario might even have small volumes of commercial displays coming off the line in 2020. However, I wouldnt bet on that quite yet. TCL hasnt said how much money they are devoting to the OLED R&D line and we have yet to hear any specs around possible lifetimes.


----------



## rogo

Hmm, OK, well we know commercial printed OLEDs are still currently nothing but an intriguing R&D project. White OLED, I presume, will soon be less patent encumbered as the original patents are aging.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> TCL has been working on inkjet printed OLED displays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding from TCL's Chinese press release is that this will be a Gen 11 LCD fab with a portion dedicated to an OLED R&D line. Assuming that TCL follows through, it is an important milestone and spending money on capex shows that they must be making some progress. An absolute best case scenario might even have small volumes of commercial displays coming off the line in 2020. However, I wouldnt bet on that quite yet. TCL hasnt said how much money they are devoting to the OLED R&D line and we have yet to hear any specs around possible lifetimes.


Sounds like a plan to leapfrog LG on cost if/when they figure out how. Best-case, they come out with lower-cost OLED panels around the time the technology is starting to expand into more mainstream markets, and LG lags in converting to printed technology to catch up. Worst-case, they are stuck making LCDs on a 10.5G line and competing against the likes of BOE and others for the lion's share of that verry long LCD tail.

Expected case: once 10.5/11G is up and running and LG is looking for 'what's next' to expand WOLED's contunued expansion into the broader TV market following the successful ramp of M2, LG enters into a license deal with TCL (or BOE, LG will be in the cat-seat)...


----------



## fafrd

LG at DisplayWeek: 




-Bendable semi-transparent (40%) WOLED
-Crystal Sound WOLED
-Dashboard Concept WOLED
-High-Density (1443ppi) VR WOLED


----------



## fafrd

Rtings.com just posted their week 18 2017 burn-in test update and the first emergence of darkened areas on the CNN Max (380 cd/m2) test confirms that the 2017 WOLEDs reserved headroom for burn-in compensation which masks underlying burn-in or overcompensates for underlying burn-in resulting in lightened areas which is eventually exhausted, exposing the darkened areas from the underlying burn-in: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...-oled-burn-tests-updated-23.html#post56271916

https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/real-life-oled-burn-in-test

Note that with the >60% improvement we are expecting on the 2018 WOLEDs resulting from the increased red subpixel size and the improved static logo dimming feature, an owner may be able to watch 2 hours of CNN @ 200 cd/m2 each and every day for close to 10 years before they would develop this level of (relatively minor) burn-in on a 2018 WOLED.

I say 'Bravo LG' .


----------



## Patrik Westberg

"*IGNIS developed a new driver chip to enhance OLED compensation process using individual pixel sensing*

IGNIS Innovation announced that in collaboration with its partners, the company developed a driver chip that incorporates the ability to sense individual pixels on the panel. This new ability integrates into IGNIS' overall external compensation process and can improve the perofrmance and lifetime of AMOLED displays.

IGNIS says that this new IC is already being used on medium sized panels designed for IT and automobile applications.

Ignis' MaxLife external compensation technology continuously measures every pixel in the display and compensates for even the smallest shift in performance (due to burn-in or bad manufacturing issues), making it completely uniform and completely stable. MaxLife can work with a-Si, LTPS and metal-oxide backplanes, and supports both TV-sized displays and small/medium sized panels. In 2016 LG Display licensed IGNIS' technology for its OLED TVs."

Source: oled-info.com


----------



## fafrd

Patrik Westberg said:


> "*IGNIS developed a new driver chip to enhance OLED compensation process using individual pixel sensing*
> 
> IGNIS Innovation announced that in collaboration with its partners, the company developed a driver chip that incorporates the ability to sense individual pixels on the panel. This new ability integrates into IGNIS' overall external compensation process and can improve the perofrmance and lifetime of AMOLED displays.
> 
> *IGNIS says that this new IC is already being used on medium sized panels designed for IT and automobile applications.*
> 
> Ignis' MaxLife external compensation technology continuously measures every pixel in the display and compensates for even the smallest shift in performance (due to burn-in or bad manufacturing issues), making it completely uniform and completely stable. MaxLife can work with a-Si, LTPS and metal-oxide backplanes, and supports both TV-sized displays and small/medium sized panels. In 2016 LG Display licensed IGNIS' technology for its OLED TVs."
> 
> Source: oled-info.com


The fact that they only mentioned IT and automotive displays and not TVs, suggests that this IC was not used in the 2017 WOLEDs and may not be used in the 2018 WOLEDs either...

But the IGNIS technology is no-doubt what LG deployed on 2017 WOLEDs to achieve such an impressive improvement in burn-in compensation/performance and if the new IC is only to provide subpixel-level sensing technology for monitors and automotive displays that lack a powerful internal controller, it may offer nothing better for WOLED TVs to what LG has already deployed...

[EDIT: I've added the week 18 red field from the rtings.com 2017 burn-in test]


----------



## rogo

I'm fascinated they have algorithms that let them sense the state of the optical layer based on whatever current/voltage data is coming from the electrical layer.

I'm also somewhat skeptical about this, but I'd love to learn more.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I'm fascinated they have algorithms that let them sense the state of the optical layer based on whatever current/voltage data is coming from the electrical layer.
> 
> I'm also somewhat skeptical about this, but I'd love to learn more.


I believe the proof is in the pudding.

I've edited my prior post (2 pists back) to attach the week 2016 18 rtings.com burn-in test.

Attached to this post is the week 18 red field from the 2017 rtings,com CNN Max burn-in test.

I understand that 20-hours of red rtngs.com logo background is more severe than 20 hours of CNN (with advertisements), but given the higher luminance (380 cd/m2 on 2017 CNN Max versus 175 cd/m2 on the 2016 rtings.com logo test), I think these results already prove that what LG has launched in 2017 represents a huge improvement.

As another datapoint, this time last year, the first repirts of burn-in from 2016 WOLED owners had appeared and were on thr midst of becoming a tsunami.

This year, there are two interesting things to note:

-we don't appear to be in the midst of a repeat with 2017 WOLED owners - the number of reported cases of burn-in of 2017 WOLEDs here on AVS is a small fraction of what it was a year ago on 2016 WOLEDs. 

-there has also been a significant drop-off in the number of 2016 WOLED owners reporting burn-in. This would tend to indicate that the small number of WOLED owners watching enough cable to cause visible burn-in within a year (meaning over 1.5 hours of cable news per day on average) dominates the 'WOLED-owning-heavy-cable-news-watching population.

I believe LG has successfully contained this OLED-TV-threatening issue.... (not to imply that further improvements are not needed or welcome ).


----------



## Rich Peterson

*BOE demonstrates small Kateeva-based printed OLEDs at SID 2018*

https://www.oled-info.com/boe-demonstrates-its-first-inkjet-printed-oled-prototype-sid-2018


China's largest display maker BOE Display has an active OLED ink-jet printing project, and according to reports the company is establishing an R&D production line (in Hefei) that uses Kateeva's inkjet deposition equipment.

At SID 2018, BOE demonstrated a printed OLED panel for the first time. Surprisingly this is a small mobile OLED display - a 5.5" FHD (400 PPI) flexible AMOLED. It is usually assumed that inkjet printing is limited to around 200 PPI, and so only useful to large area panels (such as TVs or monitors). JOLED's 21.6" 4K printed OLEDs have a PPI of 204, for example. In 2017 Korea-based Unijet's president said that Inkjet printing could reach up to 550 PPI in 2020 by using next-generation laser-droplet technologies.


----------



## fafrd

https://www.oled-info.com/researche...eds-over-15-using-ultra-stable-film-formation

Between top-emission (coming soon) and additional advances in materials and processes, it seems as though WOLED has a credible roadmap for at least a 2-3x increase in brightness over the next ~5 years...


----------



## zetruz

fafrd said:


> https://www.oled-info.com/researche...eds-over-15-using-ultra-stable-film-formation
> 
> Between top-emission (coming soon) and additional advances in materials and processes, it seems as though WOLED has a credible roadmap for at least a 2-3x increase in brightness over the next ~5 years...


Where do you get an "at least 2-3x increase"? I thought top emission would give only a ~10% increase? Combined with a ~15% increase from this, we get a less-than-30% increase in brightness. Where's the rest coming from? Is top emission a much bigger deal than that source says?


----------



## fafrd

zetruz said:


> Where do you get an "at least 2-3x increase"? I thought top emission would give only a ~10% increase? Combined with a ~15% increase from this, we get a less-than-30% increase in brightness. Where's the rest coming from? Is top emission a much bigger deal than that source says?


I'm not sure how long you have been tracking the thread, but if you go back ~3 months you will see discussion about this: https://www.oled-info.com/researche...rray-can-increase-light-output-oleds-factor-3

"Testing on green and white PHOLEDs, the researchers say the SEMLA *enhanced light output by a factor of 2.8 (green) and 3.1 (white) *compared to a similar device without the lens array."

So we've got top-emission, micro-lens arrays, and now these ultra-stable films.

The overall message is that the future evolution for increasing WOLEDs efficiency and peak output levels is looking very bright (far more of a roadmap and headroom to improve than LED backlights...).

We're probabably talking decades or at least half-decades rather than years, but these efficiencybimprovements all look far more certain from where things stand today than the arrival of electro-emissive QLED.


----------



## dnoonie

I ran across this...i'm not sure if it's a repeat or not.

Raising the temperature at which OLEDs are made can significantly improve their performance
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/optoelectronics/the-heat-is-on-for-better-oleds

Cheers,


----------



## rikkyjames

Nanosys Quantum Dots for LCD, OLED and MicroLED:


----------



## fafrd

rikkyjames said:


> Nanosys Quantum Dots for LCD, OLED and MicroLED:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiuv8im3Ubk&t=1319s


He mentioned 'Blue OLED' at least 3 times...


----------



## ALMA

... and also no QDCF for 2018 LCD TVs. The upcomming 8K Samsung is only Quantum Dot on glass for thinness and cost reductions and not for better QD performance.


----------



## rogo

Are we shocked about no QDCF? No one announced it to date and the year is half over.


----------



## fafrd

https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20180613PD202.html

"*LGD starts shipping OLED TV panels to Hisense
*Chen Po-chen, Taipei; Steve Shen, DIGITIMES Wednesday 13 June 2018 0 Toggle Dropdown
LG Display (LGD) has started shipping OLED TV panels to Hisense, which will roll out OLED TVs in the third quarter of 2018 at the earliest, according to a Korea-based Yonhap News Agency report.

The China vendor's entry into the OLED TV market will help trigger demand for LGD's OLED TV panels, and boost OLED panel prices, said the report.

Hisense is currently the largest TV vendor in China and also holds a 15% share of the over US$2,000-segment of the global TV market.

LGD's clients for OLED panels include LG Electronics, Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, Philips, Loewe, Skyworth, Changhong and Sharp.

*Global shipments of OLED TVs totaled 602,000 units in the first quarter of 2018, compared to 287,000 units shipped a year earlier, *according to IHS Markit.

Global OLED TV shipments are expected to climb to 673,000 units and 743,000 units, respectively, in the second and third quarters before reaching a peak of 804,000 units in the fourth quarter, IHS has estimated."

0.6M + 0.67M + 0.74M + 0.8M = ~2.8M WOLEDs in 2018...


----------



## video_analysis

I didn't know Sharp was rebadging, though I guess that's just a Chinese venture now. I was also unaware of Toshiba doing same. Only LG and Sony end up on domestic shores. I wonder if Hisense will be competitor #3 .


----------



## Picasso Moon

fafrd said:


> *Global shipments of OLED TVs totaled 602,000 units in the first quarter of 2018, compared to 287,000 units shipped a year earlier, *according to IHS Markit.
> 
> Global OLED TV shipments are expected to climb to 673,000 units and 743,000 units, respectively, in the second and third quarters before reaching a peak of 804,000 units in the fourth quarter, IHS has estimated."
> 
> 0.6M + 0.67M + 0.74M + 0.8M = ~2.8M WOLEDs in 2018...



Does anybody know the estimated total shipments for all display technologies for home TV's (OLED + LCD)? Curious what percentage of the total pie OLED has climbed to.


----------



## fafrd

Picasso Moon said:


> Does anybody know the estimated total shipments for all display technologies for home TV's (OLED + LCD)? Curious what percentage of the total pie OLED has climbed to.


Pretty sure that there are ~200M +/- TVs sold per year, so 2M WOLED TVs per year is an importsnt milestone because it represents 1% of the total TV market.

More relevant to WOLED, the Premium TV segment (meaning >$1000 for 55"; >$2000 for 65", not sure for other sizes) represents ~10% of the overall TV market, or 20M Oemium TVs / year total.

All WOLEDs sell into the Premium TV market, so >2M represents >10%.

When you descend into the 55" and 65" Premiun TV markets, WOLEDs share is much higher (> 50% - see atrached)

This is the reason LG introduced the more-affordable 77C8 this year - they are reaching the saturation point at 55" and 65" and need to expand their addressable market by gaining similar share if the 75-79" Premium TV market...


----------



## j.p.s

rogo said:


> Are we shocked about no QDCF? No one announced it to date and the year is half over.


Sure, in the Claude Rains sense.


----------



## Picasso Moon

fafrd said:


> Pretty sure that there are ~200M +/- TVs sold per year,



Thanks!


----------



## ALMA

> *According to the IHS Markit on June 17, the global OLED TV sales in the first quarter totaled 470,000 units. During the same period, QLED TVs sold 366,000 units. *In the first quarter of last year, QLED TVs sold 679,000 units, outclassing OLED TVs (218,000 units) a great deal. The results have been reversed in one year.
> OLED TV sales exceeded QLED TV sales beginning in the first quarter of last year. In the third quarter of last year, OLED TVs and QLED TVs sold 347,000 units, 390,000 units, respectively so QLED TVs outnumbered OLED TVs by about 40,000 units in sales. In the fourth quarter, however, OLED TVs (744,000 units) widened its gap with QLED TVs (444,000 units). OLED TVs performed better than QLED TVs in marketing during the high season at the end of last year.
> LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics, which represent each group, showed similar sales results. *In the 4th quarter of last year, LG OLED TVs sold 520,000 units, surpassing sales of Samsung QLED TV (415,000 units) for the first time. LG OLED TVs (344,000 units) and Samsung QLED TVs (336,000 units) continued to lead the market in the first quarter. Compared the first quarters of last year and this year, LG OLED TV sales increased 84% and Samsung QLED TV sales dropped 45%.*



http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=23076


----------



## video_analysis

As it should be. Pardon my amateur antics but, "Suck it, Samdung!" My Best Buy got out ahead of these figures product placement-wise by pushing Samsung TVs off to the side, with LG and Sony given the best visibility upon walk-in.


----------



## move4ward

Samsung execs must be pissed to see sales drop from 600k+ units to 300k+ units in a year. The execs keep their bonuses, but they chew out all their subordinates.


----------



## wco81

But there are still a lot of people paying OLED prices for these QLEDs?

Oy vey!


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=23076


Note that this is all 'QLED' TVs, including the entry-level ELPD Q6FN currently selling for $1800 for 65" and $1250 for 55" (and so not considered 'Premium TVs' by IHS's definition)...

Even the ELPD Q7FN is priced well below LG's entry-level B8 WOLED ($2500 versus $3300 @ 65").

lWhen we get to an apples-to-apples comparison of quasi-equivalent performance, the WOLEDs are less expensive than their corresponding QLED counterparts (and WOLEDs market share is even greater than the ~50%+ indicated here)...


----------



## wco81

I realize Samsung is a bigger brand than LG but it shows people buy TVs without doing a little research.

I guess they all look good in the showroom running those demos.


----------



## RichB

wco81 said:


> I realize Samsung is a bigger brand than LG but it shows people buy TVs without doing a little research.
> 
> I guess they all look good in the showroom running those demos.


Samsung has very good product placement in my local Best Buy's.
2 out of 3 of the nearby stores do not have the 77" on display.


- Rich


----------



## MikeBiker

I was in Sam's Club this morning with a couple of ladies. As we were heading toward the checkout, one of them stopped and remarked "Look at that TV. The colors are amazing!. It was an LG OLED.


----------



## rikkyjames

fafrd said:


> https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20180613PD202.html
> 
> "*LGD starts shipping OLED TV panels to Hisense
> *Chen Po-chen, Taipei; Steve Shen, DIGITIMES Wednesday 13 June 2018 0 Toggle Dropdown
> LG Display (LGD) has started shipping OLED TV panels to Hisense, which will roll out OLED TVs in the third quarter of 2018 at the earliest, according to a Korea-based Yonhap News Agency report.
> 
> The China vendor's entry into the OLED TV market will help trigger demand for LGD's OLED TV panels, and boost OLED panel prices, said the report.
> 
> Hisense is currently the largest TV vendor in China and also holds a 15% share of the over US$2,000-segment of the global TV market.
> 
> LGD's clients for OLED panels include LG Electronics, Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, Philips, Loewe, Skyworth, Changhong and Sharp.
> 
> *Global shipments of OLED TVs totaled 602,000 units in the first quarter of 2018, compared to 287,000 units shipped a year earlier, *according to IHS Markit.
> 
> Global OLED TV shipments are expected to climb to 673,000 units and 743,000 units, respectively, in the second and third quarters before reaching a peak of 804,000 units in the fourth quarter, IHS has estimated."
> 
> 0.6M + 0.67M + 0.74M + 0.8M = ~2.8M WOLEDs in 2018...


It seems that LG Display are playing it quite cute when it comes to panel availability - they will give the premium brands like Sony, Panasonic and Loewe access to the most up to date panels at the same time as LG themselves but the others don't seem to be able to get models in showrooms until September and by that time their "cheap TV launch" has less of an impact as LG have already dropped their price to similar levels.

Well that seems to be the way of it in Europe at least ...


----------



## shark91962

I have to agree with fafrd in that a direct comparison was difficult for the 2017 models. PQ wise, any OLED bested the edge-lit Q9F, and Samsung deservedly lost market share for selling an inferior product. 2018 sales results should be a better indicator of the top-tier market, as Samsung's FALD Q8FN and Q9FN are true competitors to LG's C8 and E8, respectively. IMO, an informed buyer would probably allow room environment to play a major factor in their buying decision, as prices are now comparable. That said, the E8 is at the top of my list for now, mostly because my viewing space is light controlled.


----------



## fafrd

shark91962 said:


> I have to agree with fafrd in that a direct comparison was difficult for the 2017 models. PQ wise, any OLED bested the edge-lit Q9F, and Samsung deservedly lost market share for selling an inferior product. 2018 sales results should be a better indicator of the top-tier market, as Samsung's FALD Q8FN and Q9FN are true competitors to LG's C8 and E8, respectively. IMO, an informed buyer would probably allow room environment to play a major factor in their buying decision, as prices are now comparable. That said, the E8 is at the top of my list for now, mostly because my viewing space is light controlled.


Yeah, it will be interesting to watch.

Right now, the 65Q8 is $2800, versus the 65C8P at $3500 and the 65Q9 at $3700

Rtings rates the C8 as slightly superior to the Q8 (8.8 versus 8.4), with the biggest ding against the Q8 being poorer off-angle-viewing and the biggest ding against the C8 being risk of burn-in (even though they have not tested any 2018 WOLEDs for burn-in yet): https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/samsung-q8fn-vs-lg-c8/598/600

The key point is that that 25% price hap between the 65Q8 and the 65C8P is likely to close to close to zero by November (for reference, I purchased my 65C6P for under $2500 from a reputed dealer in November 2016 and the 65C7P 'dipped' under $3300 in Best Buy last November.

The Q9 fares slightly better against the C8 (8.5 versus 8.8): https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/samsung-q9fn-vs-lg-c8/599/600 but not enough to justify the higher cost (at least for those that don't view in a bright room).

If buyers are choosing between the Q8 and the C8P this November, Samsung may gain back a bit of market-share within the Premium TV Segment. If buyers are choosing between the Q8 and the B8A/P or the Q9 and the C8P, it could continue to be very ugly for Samsung in the Premium Segment...


----------



## shark91962

^^^All of your points are valid, and LG seems to be a lot more aggressive in their pricing. The "street price" for all models is already substantially discounted. Over the phone quotes from a well known, authorized dealer, all 65"models: C8 $2500, E8 $2900!, Q9FN $3200 with more savings to come on the 4th of July. A $1,999 65" C8 is almost a certainty for Black Friday. However, with several new Gen 11 fabrication plants going online this year, the 2019 fully HDMI 2.1 compliant 65" C9 may start out under 3k and drop like a stone.


----------



## shark91962

I suppose the tie in to this thread would be something we all know: there's always some new, more advanced tech next year and it's always cheaper. If you can wait ;-)


----------



## fafrd

shark91962 said:


> ^^^All of your points are valid, and LG seems to be a lot more aggressive in their pricing. The "street price" for all models is already substantially discounted. Over the phone quotes from a well known, authorized dealer, all 65"models: C8 $2500, E8 $2900!, Q9FN $3200 with more savings to come on the 4th of July. A $1,999 65" C8 is almost a certainty for Black Friday. However, with several new Gen 11 fabrication plants going online this year, the 2019 fully HDMI 2.1 compliant 65" C9 may start out under 3k and drop like a stone.


Didn't realize the street prices from "a well-known authorized dealer" were already that low. More or less a certainty that discount pricing in mainstream channels will dip to below level by November.

Just for apples-to-apples comparisons, did you get similar pricing fir the 64Q8FN?

The C8 for over 20% less than the Q9FN is pretty much of a no-brainer.

The only thing I don't agree within your post is the forecast for LG's 10.5G fab - we're unlikely to see any production from that fab in 2019 and will be lucky to see any meaningful production in 2020...

Once the new fab is up and running, you can expect to see 65" WOLED prices that are a mere 40% higher than 55" WOLED prices (meaning below $1500 and approaching $1000!).

At 75", the impact will be even more dramatic, as the 10.5G fab will support 75" WOLED pricing under $2000 (by ~2021).

If LG is already offering street pricing at the levels you've indicated, they are in the driver's seat...


----------



## wco81

Samsung depending on people not to know better to charge those prices.


----------



## video_analysis

fafrd said:


> The Q9 fares slightly better against the C8 (8.5 versus 8.8): https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/samsung-q9fn-vs-lg-c8/599/600 but not enough to justify the higher cost (at least for those that don't view in a bright room).


If not for that premature BI knock, the scoring wouldn't have been nearly as close.


----------



## shark91962

I didn't realize the next gen fab plants were that far off from production. Good to know. Samsung and Sony's pricing models seem more dependent on brand loyalty. LG doesn't seem to mind a price war, which they appear to be winning. I was also surprised that "street prices" had fallen so fast, especially a $3,995 list E8 for $2,900. The vendor also has a generous 45-day return policy. I almost bought it on the spot, but I'm determined to wait for Black Friday.


----------



## ALMA

Samsung Display launches QD-OLED TV panel test production line:




> Samsung Display will establish a pilot line for pilot production of 8th generation QD-OLED (QD-OLED). In order to secure the next generation of large-scale display technology, it is necessary to deviate from the large-sized panel business limited to the liquid crystal display (LCD). QD-OLED equipment and materials, and plans to use the pilot line until the second half of next year.
> 
> Samsung Display recently signed a confidentiality agreement (NDA) with Japan's Canon Dockyard to develop QD-OLED test production equipment. Canon Docky has exclusively supplied 6G OLED deposition equipment for mass production to Samsung Display, and it will develop an 8th generation deposition equipment with this contract.



http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=31671409




> It is said that it plans to invest the pilot equipment in the second half of this year and to operate the pilot line by the end of next year, and to decide the investment based on the result. If the plan goes smoothly, the mass production line will be in operation in 2020, and it is expected to be launched in 2021.





> QD-OLED technology is similar to the WOLED method currently adopted by LG Display, but it is different. Unlike WOLED, which uses white OLED as a light emitting source, QD-OLED, a technology of Samsung Display, is used as a light emitting source. In addition, QD (Quantum Dot) is used for color filter (CF), which is used to realize color, and it will increase color reproducibility.
> 
> In order for Samsung Display to succeed in entering the OLED TV market, some of the QD-OLED technologies such as material lifetime, oxide TFT backplane technology, and ink jet printing process technology have yet to be verified. So it may take some time until mass production.
> 
> Samsung Electronics' premium TV strategy is expected to be 'two-track' for QD-OLED and micro LED.
> 
> Kim Ji-san, a researcher at Kiwi Securities, said, "Samsung Electronics' premium TV strategy is to evolve from Quantum-dot (QD) -based LCD TVs to QD-OLED TVs and micro LED TVs in the future. I think it is facing the present downturn because of a strategic mistake that has not happened. "



https://translate.google.com/transl...com/article/22744692?cloc=rss|news|total_list


----------



## fafrd

"In order for Samsung Display to succeed in entering the OLED TV market, some of the QD-OLED technologies such as material lifetime, oxide TFT backplane technology, and ink jet printing process technology have yet to be verified. *So it may take some time until mass production. *"

"An industry representative said, "Samsung Display relies on LCDs because there is no sharp next-generation technology in the large-size panel business." *"If the QD-OLED is not successful in the inside, the future of the TV panel business is likely to disappear."*

The next few years will be interesting...


----------



## video_analysis

EOL for LCD, woot.


----------



## wco81

Sounds like at the earliest, they'd produce in volume in 2021

And no guarantee that their product will be better than LG OLED now or then.

If they do bet on QD-OLED, it would also suggest micro LED or anything else that might compete with WOLED is even a more distant dream.


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> "In order for Samsung Display to succeed in entering the OLED TV market, some of the QD-OLED technologies such as material lifetime, oxide TFT backplane technology, and ink jet printing process technology have yet to be verified. *So it may take some time until mass production. *"
> 
> "An industry representative said, "Samsung Display relies on LCDs because there is no sharp next-generation technology in the large-size panel business." *"If the QD-OLED is not successful in the inside, the future of the TV panel business is likely to disappear."*
> 
> The next few years will be interesting...


 *''So it may take some time forever until mass production.''*

*"If **the QD-OLED is not successful in the inside, the future of the ->Samsung*


----------



## Rudy1

fafrd said:


> "In order for Samsung Display to succeed in entering the OLED TV market, some of the QD-OLED technologies such as material lifetime, oxide TFT backplane technology, and ink jet printing process technology have yet to be verified. *So it may take some time until mass production. *"
> 
> "An industry representative said, "Samsung Display relies on LCDs because there is no sharp next-generation technology in the large-size panel business." *"If the QD-OLED is not successful in the inside, the future of the TV panel business is likely to disappear."*
> 
> The next few years will be interesting...


For phones, even:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/08/03/apple-exploring-combination-of-quantum-dot-and-oled-technologies-for-future-iphone-displays


----------



## JasonHa

Am I understanding this correctly in that the backlight is blue OLED, with inkjet printed (red and green?) quantum dots to generate the pixel structure?

https://www.oled-info.com/etnews-sdc-building-qd-oled-tv-pilot-production-line


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> Am I understanding this correctly in that the backlight is blue OLED, with inkjet printed (red and green?) quantum dots to generate the pixel structure?
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/etnews-sdc-building-qd-oled-tv-pilot-production-line


Basically, yes - BOLED + printed RG QDCF.

It's not a bad idea and between the 'pure' RGB subpixel structure (no white subpixel, which should deliver wider color gamut and better color volume) and the added efficiency of the QDCF (which should deliver twice the electro-optical efficiency of WOLED), there are a couple of important ways Samsung's QDCF-BOLED coukd outperform LG's WOLED.

But it going to take far longer than some are hoping (the biggest bugaboo being blue OLED Lifetime followed by industrialization challanges of printed QDCF)...

There is great risk, but I can't say that I see any better options for Samsung (other than licensing WOLED from LG, which looks like it isn't in the cards).

And if Samsung does manage to pull this off, it's going to be good for all of us videophiles


----------



## fafrd

Rudy1 said:


> For phones, even:
> 
> http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/08/03/apple-exploring-combination-of-quantum-dot-and-oled-technologies-for-future-iphone-displays


"The application isn't clear about actual usage of the displays produced, but does briefly touch on the fact that *the combined fabrication is complex, and not entirely worked out yet.*"


----------



## rogo

It's very clear that no one is even suggesting microLED for actual TV-sized panels has any known manufacturing method.

This leaves Samsung in a box. There is no such thing as true emissive quantum dot technology to manufacture at TV sizes.

There is no long enough lifetime soluble blue to print RGB OLED in TV sizes with acceptable lifetime.

There is a real path to QD color filters. And a _plausible_ path to a BOLED panel that's even simpler to make than LG's WOLED.

Right now, that path is plausible. Given? No, the amount of lifespan and light output required from the blue "backplane" does not exist. If you could do this with ROLED or GOLED life would be much easier, you'd call up Universal Display and get to work.

I would very much like to see Samsung figure this out.


----------



## mreendoor

I would very much like to see lg and Samsung figure this out.


China’s BOE has initiated a price war in the global LCD market


http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=23279


----------



## dfa973

mreendoor said:


> China’s BOE has initiated a price war in the global LCD market


LCD is now a legacy technology, so the path is known, all the big boys will exit and leave the LCD market to smaller players. Big boys will focus on OLED, QDLED or microLED. The rest is history (see plasma...).


----------



## slacker711

It isnt for TV's, but JOLED is aiming for mass production of mid-sized printed OLED displays in 2020. They are using OLED materials from Sumitomo but I'm not sure who is supplying their equipment (maybe Tokyo Electron?).

https://www.j-oled.com/news-eng/2018-6-26e/



> JOLED Inc. (headquartered in Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo; Representative Director and President: Tadashi Ishibashi), which develops, manufactures, and sells organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays, will be establishing JOLED Nomi Site in Nomi City, Ishikawa Prefecture on July 1, 2018 for the mass production of printed OLED displays. It will be the world’s first mass production plant for printed OLED, and JOLED aims to commence production in 2020.
> 
> JOLED Nomi Site, with a monthly production capability of approximately 20,000 glass substrates of size G5.5 (1300×1500mm), is planned to become JOLED’s main production site. It will be producing mid-size (10- to 32-inch) printed OLED displays for use in areas such as automotive displays and high-end monitors.


----------



## move4ward

LG's new P10 FAB production delayed from 3Q 2018 to 2Q 2019. Ongoing discussions to move from evaporation to new ink process is the delay. 

I was really hoping they got the new fab up this. The extra supply would push prices down in 2019.

http://www.theinvestor.co.kr/view.php?ud=20180618000522

ET News June 18th


ET News said:


> “We had been ordered to supply manufacturing facilities in the third quarter this year, but LGD recently postponed the schedule to around the second quarter next year,” an official from firm’s contract partner said.
> 
> The inkjet printing process is also cost efficient and Samsung Display, the largest mobile OLED maker, as well as Chinese firms, including BOE and China Star are competitively conducting development projects to deploy the technology.
> 
> Despite efficiency and high yield, the inkjet printing technology is still considered immature


----------



## fafrd

move4ward said:


> LG's new P10 FAB production delayed from 3Q 2018 to 2Q 2019. Ongoing discussions to move from evaporation to new ink process is the delay.
> 
> I was really hoping they got the new fab up this. The extra supply would push prices down in 2019.
> 
> http://www.theinvestor.co.kr/view.php?ud=20180618000522
> 
> ET News June 18th


The article starts with this:

"LG Display has decided to roll out OLED displays at its new manufacturing factory, called P10, in Paju, *ditching its original plan to produce large-sized LCDs*, according to sources on June 18."

So P10 was never intended to roll-out WOLED production by 2019. It's always been 2021 (or 2020 in the best-case).

First, the focus is now 100% on 10.5G WOLED production (which is a positive).

Second, it sounds as though LGD is evaluating the maturity of printed WOLED capability and will be deciding within the next 3-6 months whether they want to start P10 with printed WOLED from the outset or start with their tried-and-true evaporation process.


----------



## fafrd

dfa973 said:


> LCD is now a legacy technology, so the path is known, all the big boys will exit and leave the LCD market to smaller players. Big boys will focus on OLED, QDLED or microLED. The rest is history (see plasma...).


Except that, no. If anything, LCD will eventually go the wayof CRT, not plasma (which never escaped the 'niche' category).

LCD (including QLED/LCD) will continue to dominate the fla-panel display industry for the next decade and beyond...

The only 'big boy' that may exit the LCD panel business is Samsung (as well as LG, who is already mothballing any new LCD investment and will continue to manage a tail business of supplying IPS panels while converting those fabs one at a time to WOLED production).

After Korea, Inc., the only other 'Big Boys' are China, Inc, which will be engaged in a ruthless race to the bottom and will only 'exit' the large-panel LCD business if they collapse.

It'll be interesting - you have LG as the lone WOLED supplier against a Chinese-LCD-dominated world. Samsung will spend a year or two making a go at QDCF+BOLED and if they pull it off, we'll have 2 Korean-based suplliers holding up the premium-end of the TV market, but if they don't, they'll either fold up shop and focus on small-panel RGB OLED production or perhaps they'll begrudgingly approach LG about an alliance.

Eventualy, LG eill announce a licensing partner. Will that be 5 years from now or not until later? Too early to say. Will that be a Chinese partner or a Taiwanese partner? Also too early to say.

My guess would be a Taiwanese partner is more likely if they last that long, though the Foxconn/Sharp 10G factory in Sakai is an intriguing not-quite-Chinese option to consider.

Converting Sakai to WOLED would be much faster than building a new 10 or 10.5G fab and P10 + Sakai would mean WOLED would be able to offer 60" and 70" panels in addition to 65" and 75" (as well as 55" and 88" ).


----------



## fafrd

mreendoor said:


> I would very much like to see lg and Samsung figure this out.
> 
> 
> China’s BOE has initiated a price war in the global LCD market
> 
> 
> http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=23279


"China’s BOE has initiated a price war in the global LCD market. The world's largest LCD maker said it would sell 65-inch LCD TV panels nearly at cost. Analysts say that BOE has set off an LCD chicken game in 10 years *to take the premium market away from Korean companies*."

There are two problems with this analysis.

The first is that $200 65" LCD panels are not going be used to produce any 'premium TVs' (which are defined to cost >$3000 and will soon be defined to cost >$2000).

If the article had stated 'to take the large-screen market away from Korean companies' it would have made more sense (Samsung's 65" and larger VA-LCD business and LG's 65" and larger IPS-LCD business, both of which will be shrinking and eventually folding over the course of the next 5-10 years).

So while LGs large-panel supply business is under pressure and will eventually collapse, their premium TV panel supply business is very safe for the next decade and beyond.

Today, LGD dominates the 55" and 65" Premium TV segment with over 67% market share. They are poised to expand that success into 75-77" and 88" sizes.

LG supplies ~1% of the overall TV market today and only ~10% of the Premium TV display panel market, so they have plenty of room to grow before they need to expand beyond the Premium segment and the speed of their market dominance of this segment is linited only by their ability to scale up production.

So while the dominance of 'Korea Inc.' in the large-panel supply business is going to dissapear over the coming 5-10 years, the dominance of 'Korea Inc.' (at least the LGD-half of Korea Inc. ) in the Premium-panel supply business will continue unchallanged for at least the next 5-years and probably 10.


----------



## dfa973

fafrd said:


> Except that, no. If anything, LCD will eventually go the wayof CRT, not plasma (which never escaped the 'niche' category).


Which is the same thing, niche or not. LCD panels regardless of the type of backlight will become so cheap that only the smaller players will produce and assemble them into TV's...


----------



## BlueChris

dfa973 said:


> Which is the same thing, niche or not. LCD panels regardless of the type of backlight will become so cheap that only the smaller players will produce and assemble them into TV's...


Never underestimate the power of samsung marketing, if they don't pull through something good we will get for the next year's incredible blinding LCD's with naming now qled zled or bobsled.


----------



## video_analysis

LG needs to engage in some corporate espionage on Samsung's marketing division, lol.


----------



## jrref

^^^
Interesting.

From my perspective, when customer's come into the store, their eye is always drawn to the OLEDS even though the Q9 is right next to them.

Some customer's come in and are wow'd by the Q9's brightness then after they get over that they then see the superior blacks on the OLED.

I even saw a customer come in and look at the Q9 and wanted to know why the skin tones and other colors didn't look right lol

So i guess it all depends on what "kind" of picture you like and how "educated" you are when it comes to PQ. 

Samsung has a really interesting marketing division for sure!


----------



## fafrd

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...and-lg-in-the-premium-tv-market-idUSKBN1I24K2

'Samsung Electronics’ decision to base its TV business on LCD technology was made after it took the advice of Samsung Group’s now-defunct *Corporate Strategy Office*, a source with knowledge of the matter said.

“The office made a suggestion that it would be more profitable to focus on LCDs than switching to less-proven OLED,” said the source, who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter.'

'It is not the first time decisions involving Samsung’s *Corporate Strategy Office* have been questioned. The office was closed after it faced criticism during the political scandal that led to the arrest of the group’s heir Jay Y. Lee last year on charges of bribery and embezzlement. Lee, who denies any wrongdoing, walked out a free man in February after an appeals court suspended his sentence.'

'The outlook for Samsung in premium TVs could worsen as 71 percent of sales this year are expected to be OLED TVs, up from 51 percent last year, according to IHS.'


----------



## video_analysis

It couldn't happen to a nicer company. Of course, all of them have cutthroat tendencies, but there's a special place in hell for this one in particular. :devil:


----------



## fafrd

https://www.oled-a.org/qleds-trending-downward-oleds-up_062518.html

"IHS Markit and DSCC are in a competitive battle to be the #1 display research entity. So it comes as no surprise that IHS would point out that my son, Ross Young and founder of DSCC last year predicted that quantum dot-equipped LCD TVs (“QLED”) would race past OLED TVs, when they released their most recent report on QLED and OLED TV shipments. IHS reports that sales of “QLED” LCD TVs are on a downward trend, whereas sales of OLED TVs are trending up. For the past two consecutive quarters, sales of OLED TVs surpassed those of “QLED”. The trend is a result of strong showings by OLED vs. QLEDs in head to head matchups and the adoption of OLED by ~15 brands around the world as reported here last week. "


----------



## fafrd

The top of page 9 of this report: http://file.mk.co.kr/imss/write/20180706141723__00.pdf indicates that:

-LG currently has 30K + 10K 8..5G sheets per month in production in Paju.

-The new 8.5G plant in Guangzhou will begin ramp-up to 30K sheets/month in H2'19 and will begin ramp-up of an additional 30K sheets/month in H1'20

-The new 10.5G plant in Paju will begin ramp-up of a 5K sheets/month pilot line in late 2019

-The full 10.5G line will place equipment orders in early Q2'19 and will begin equipment install in early Q3'20

If it's a 9-10 month delay from equiment install to start of ramp-up (as is the case for all other examples), that would translate to first volume off of the 10.5G line in mid-2020...

If this schedule is accurate, we probably won't see the first 75" WOLEDs announced until CES 2020...


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> The top of page 9 of this report: http://file.mk.co.kr/imss/write/20180706141723__00.pdf indicates that:
> 
> -LG currently has 30K + 10K 8..5G sheets per month in production in Paju.
> 
> -The new 8.5G plant in Guangzhou will begin ramp-up to 30K sheets/month in H2'19 and will begin ramp-up of an additional 30K sheets/month in H1'20
> 
> -The new 10.5G plant in Paju will begin ramp-up of a 5K sheets/month pilot line in late 2019
> 
> -The full 10.5G line will place equipment orders in early Q2'19 and will begin equipment install in early Q3'20
> 
> If it's a 9-10 month delay from equiment install to start of ramp-up (as is the case for all other examples), that would translate to first volume off of the 10.5G line in mid-2020...
> 
> If this schedule is accurate, we probably won't see the first 75" WOLEDs announced until CES 2020...



Remember all the people suggesting to wait for the new plant?

And then remember those of us who explained why you shouldn't wait?


----------



## fafrd

Page 28 of this report shows Samsung's BOLED+QDCF stack: http://file.mk.co.kr/imss/write/20180705133639__00.pdf


----------



## dfa973

fafrd said:


> Page 28 of this report shows Samsung's BOLED+QDCF stack


attached


----------



## fafrd

dfa973 said:


> attached


Thanks. If you can also cut and paste the production capacity table on page 10 of this report, you will be my hero: http://file.mk.co.kr/imss/write/20180705133639__00.pdf

If LG succeeds to deliver the increased capacity on that plan, it means they will saturate the Premium TV market in 2019 and will either need to expand by moving down-market (much lower prices, possibly 49" screens) or by dominating expansion of the premium TV market up-market (88" screens, 8K) by 2020.

LG forecasted 2018 production of 2.5M WOLED panels in 2018 in March: https://advanced-television.com/2018/03/06/lg-forecast-strong-oled-prospects/

"LG’s comments came as the company unveiled its 2018 line-up of OLED and unveiled 10 new OLED models, and a forecast that *sales of OLEDs this year will top 2.5 million units* (1.6m last year) and up to 77” in size."

This article from May forecasts WOLED having a 71% share of the Premium TV market (defined as 55" or larger TVs costing $2500 or more): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...and-lg-in-the-premium-tv-market-idUSKBN1I24K2

"It appears to have been a costly misstep. OLED TVs have become a dominant technology in the *premium market* – that is for *a TV of at least 55 inches in size costing more than $2,500* - as the cost of producing them has dropped dramatically."

"The outlook for Samsung in premium TVs could worsen as *71 percent of sales this year are expected to be OLED TVs*, up from 51 percent last year, according to IHS."

If we take WOLEDs 2018 volume of 2.5M as 71% of IHS's 2018 Premium TV Market, that translates to a total of 3.5M Premium TVs is 2018.

The Korean MK report shows 2018 Capacity of '60+10' and there are rumors that LG has found throughput improvements to squeeze an additional 17% throughput fro their existing 8.5G lines (P8-E3 and P9-M4) and will be manufacturing a total of 3.1M WOLED panels in 2018 (we should know soon, at the next earnings call). If true, that would allow WOLED to capture as much as 89% of the 2018 Premium TV market!

More importantly, here is how the MK report forecasts capacity and what that capacity could translate to in terms of the 8.5G capacity being used to produce equal volumes of 55" and 65" WOLEDS (1/3 sheets for 55", 2/3 sheets for 65") and all of the 10.5G pilot capacity being used to produce 75" WOLEDs at 50% yield:

2019 8.5G 10.5G 55" 65" 75"
Q1 70k/m 0k/m 126k/m 126k/m 0k/m
Q2 70k/m 0k/m 126k/m 126k/m 0k/m
Q3 85k/m 0k/m 153k/m 153k/m 0k/m
Q4 100k/m 2k/m 180k/m 189k/m 6k/m
2019FY 975k/Y 4k/Y 1.76M/Y 1.76M/Y 18k/Y Total: 3.54M/Y (101%)

2020 8.5G 10.5G 55" 65" 75"
Q1 115k/m 5k/m 207k/m 207k/m 15k/m
Q2 130k/m 5k/m 234k/m 234k/m 15k/m
Q3 130k/m 5k/m 234k/m 234k/m 15k/m
Q4 130k/m 5k/m 234k/m 234k/m 15k/m
2020FY 1.52M/Y 180k/Y 2.73M/Y 2.73M/Y 180k/Y Total: 5.64Mu/Y (161%)

The timing of the additional 25k 10.5G sheet/m ramp-up in 2021 is impossible to forecast this far out, but once up an running, it could bring 75" WOLED production up to 162k/m or 1.9M/Y for a total of over 7.36 million WOLEDs per year... (which is still less than 4% of the overall TV market but is over 200% of today's Premium TV market according to IHS ).


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Remember all the people suggesting to wait for the new plant?
> 
> And then remember those of us who explained why you shouldn't wait?


Yeah, as Ivdigest LGD's position and planning, I'm getting more and more impressed with what they have teed up.

If IHS's forecast of WOLED capturing 71% of the TV market is to be believed, LGD has truly achieved product-market fit this year: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...and-lg-in-the-premium-tv-market-idUSKBN1I24K2

This important because it means they now have a solid financial base from which to pivot:

-they can keep increasing 55" and 65"WOLED production at these prices for as far as the market has appetite to absorb them (focus on just doing more of what they have been doing with higher volumes, higher yields, and greater efficiency).

-if Samsung tries to 'stem the WOLED tide' with lower QLED pricing, LGD and LGE are no-doubt positioned to respond with lower WOLED pricing, so a price war is unlikely to be successfuk (which is probably why Samsung's efforts in that direction have been muted thus far).

-if/when LGD saturates the market for 55" and 65" premium TVs at prices which are profitable, they can expand upmarket by dropping 77C8P prices to gain share of the 75-80" Premium TV market (and they can do this on a dime, having already introduced the 'down-market' 77C8P).

-LG will be able to lay the groundwork for a further upmarket expansion by introducing the 8K 88G9P next year. They may also introduce a 4K 88C9P, if not in 2019 then in 2020. These new classes of premium TVs will begn to take up 8.5G production capacity as 77" and then 65" production moves to the new 105G line.

-if market appetite for 88" screens lags what LG needs to absorb spare 8.5G capacity as 65" production shifts to 10.5G, the further move down-market by introducing a budget 49" WOLED is an ace up their sleeve that they can play anytime. If you take todays 55". If you take the lowest official 'dip' pricing to $1400 offered for the 55B7A as the lower profitable price for a 55" WOLED and translate that to 49", the result is just over $1000. More likely, the entry-level 55" WOLED is on it's way under $1000 all on it's own, meaning a 49" will be able to be profitably sold for under $750 by 2019-2020.. 

-lurking behind all of this is the massive cost-down coming at 65" - LG can sell 65" WOLEDs at a profit for as little as $2200 today but once production for 65" panels moves from 8.5G manufacturing to 10.5G manufacturing, those same 65" WOLEDs can profitably be sold for under $1500.

I remember your earlier concerns regarding the economies of scale LCD has over WOLED, but the fact that LGD's WOLEDs are achieving success just as a next-generation 10.G manufacturing wave is hitting changes the equation:

LGD is on their way towards achieving 4-5% of the global TV market by 2020/2021 with WOLED.

10.5G manufacturing will drive a wave of lower-priced 65" and 75" LED/LCD TVs over the coming years as well, but LGD commands ~25% of 10.5G flat-panel manufacturing in the pipeline.

While I'm no longer as optimistic as I once was about the prospects for $5000 77" WOLEDs this November (a casuality of LGs success at 55" and 65"), my overall feeling that LG WOLED is 'over the hump' and on it's way towards continued domination of flat-panel TV profits for the next 5-10 years is stronger than is has ever been...


----------



## RichB

fafrd said:


> While I'm no longer as optimistic as I once was about the prospects for $5000 77" WOLEDs this November (a casuality of LGs success at 55" and 65")...


What! You promised 


- Rich


----------



## fafrd

RichB said:


> What! You promised
> 
> 
> - Rich


Yeah, I know, I know...

Back 'then' I never imagined the LG WOLED coud have trounced Samsung's QLED as utterly and completely as it appears to have done!

71% of the Premium TV market in 2018 - c'mon, if anyone had forecasted that 12 or even 6 months ago, they woukd have been laughed right off of the Forum.

LG's need to increase 77" market share (and the lower pricing that would mandate) was always predicated on sales at 55" and 65" being insufficient to absorb available capacity.

7-9 out of every 10 expensive 'Premium' TVs being sold this year going to WOLED exceeds anyone's wildest expectations and changes that equation...


----------



## slacker711

LGD said today that the Guangzho fab has been given approval by the Chinese government. They confirmed that they have managed to increase current Gen 8 capacity from 60k to 70k and that they expect a further 60k of capacity from their new Chinese fab by the end of 2019. 

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2018/07/10/0200000000AEN20180710010751320.html



> The company said the Guangzhou production line will focus on large-sized OLED products for TVs. It will begin with a monthly production capacity of 60,000 sheets per month, which will be gradually increased to 90,000 units.
> 
> Combined with the current monthly production capacity of 70,000 sheets at the lines located in Paju, north of Seoul, LG Display said its combined production will reach 130,000 sheets in the second half of 2019.


----------



## dfa973

fafrd said:


> Thanks. If you can also cut and paste the production capacity table on page 10 of this report, you will be my hero: http://file.mk.co.kr/imss/write/20180705133639__00.pdf


Hero level achieved... 

Attached, table and charts.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> LGD said today that the Guangzho fab has been given approval by the Chinese government. They confirmed that they have managed to increase current Gen 8 capacity from 60k to 70k and that they expect a further 60k of capacity from their new Chinese fab by the end of 2019.
> 
> http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2018/07/10/0200000000AEN20180710010751320.html


130K/month capacity by end 2019 (including 70k/month capacity today) seems confirmed, but I believe the reference to initial Guangzho capacity of 60,000 per month and further increase to 90,000 per month is a typo: 

"The company said the Guangzhou production line will focus on large-sized OLED products for TVs. It will begin with a monthly production *capacity of 60,000 sheets per month, which will be gradually increased to 90,000 units.*"

Several sources including the MK report have stated that the 8.5G WOLED plant at Guangzho has a maximimum capacity of 60,000 sheets/month and will start with an initial capacity of half of that level: https://www.oled-info.com/korea-time-china-expected-approve-lgs-guangzhou-oled-tv-fab-plans

"The new fab in Guangzhou will have a capacity of 60,000 8.5-Gen substrates each month, although at the first phase (scheduled for the second half of 2019) it will operate at half the final capacity."

The Yonhap News article also contained another typo in referring to LG's new 10.5G WOLED line in Paju:

"LG is currently building an *8.5-generation* OLED production line, which is set to start operations in the second half of 2019."


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> 130K/month capacity by end 2019 (including 70k/month capacity today) seems confirmed, but I believe the reference to initial Guangzho capacity of 60,000 per month and further increase to 90,000 per month is a typo:
> 
> "The company said the Guangzhou production line will focus on large-sized OLED products for TVs. It will begin with a monthly production *capacity of 60,000 sheets per month, which will be gradually increased to 90,000 units.*"



There are a number of sources including Reuters using the same numbers. I have yet to find a press release or SEC filing from LGD so it isnt definitive but I tend to believe the numbers. Two weeks from LGD's earnings call so it wont be long until we hear directly from the company.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> There are a number of sources including Reuters using the same numbers. I have yet to find a press release or SEC filing from LGD so it isnt definitive but I tend to believe the numbers. Two weeks from LGD's earnings call so it wont be long until we hear directly from the company.


Agree all will be clear after LGD's earnings in 2 weeks, but in the meantime, it's not clear to me which 'numbers' you believe.

Reuters makes reference to 60,000 (130,000 including existing capacity) from the new plant in Guangzou, but makes no reference to 90,000: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ters/technologyNews+(Reuters+Technology+News)

"The output of the large-scale OLED plates will more than double to 130,000 from 60,000 plates currently, once its new Guangzhou facility starts to mass produce in the second half of next year, LG Display said in a statement."


----------



## fafrd

I just saw a rumor posted by our old pal ynotgoal that LGD is considering converting so,e additional 8G and 7G LCD fabs to WOLED: https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=31694315

"In order to increase OLED TV panel production, LG Display is also considering a plan to convert some domestic 7th and 8th generation LCD fabs into large OLEDs in addition to the construction of a Chinese factory."

I also found this 2006 announcement about LGD's 7G fab in Paju: https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1158446

"MANHASSET, N.Y. — South Korea-based liquid crystal display (LCD) supplier LG.Philips LCD has begun mass producing thin-film-transistor (TFT) LCD panels at its P7 7th generation plant in Paju, Korea.

LG.Philips LCD is now producing 42-inch panels from *1950 x 2250-mm glass substrates at P7*, which started pilot production the end of November. The plant is expected to help the company meet increasing demand for LCD TVs."

If you take a 1950x2250mm substrate and figure out the largest panels that can be manufactured on it 2-up, you come up with:

wait for it, wait for it: 1950x1097mm = *88"* 

We'll know for sure in two weeks, but indications are we may have found LG's first 8K production fab (which would probably mean no serious 88" product launch before 2020).

(which could also produce ultra-cheap 44" WOLEDs 8-up in case LG ever needs to go further down-market than 49"...)


----------



## j.p.s

fafrd said:


> If you can also cut and paste the production capacity table on page 10 of this report, you will be my hero: http://file.mk.co.kr/imss/write/20180705133639__00.pdf


Attached.


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> I believe the reference to initial Guangzho capacity of 60,000 per month and further increase to 90,000 per month is a typo





slacker711 said:


> There are a number of sources including Reuters using the same numbers. I have yet to find a press release or SEC filing from LGD so it isnt definitive but I tend to believe the numbers. Two weeks from LGD's earnings call so it wont be long until we hear directly from the company.


It's common for companies to state "capacity" when they mean "maximum capacity once it's fully built out" but it gets interpreted to mean "initial capacity". However, in this case, there is an English press release form LGD itself. Seems pretty clear.
http://www.lgdisplay.com/eng/prcenter/newsView?articleMgtNo=5141

The Guangzhou OLED plant will mainly produce large-size OLED panels for TVs. LG Display will start producing 60,000 input sheets per month and will gradually ramp up to a maximum of 90,000 sheets per month.

Adding that to the production capacity of 70,000 input sheets per month from the company’s plants in Paju, LG Display’s total production capacity of large-size OLED panels will reach 130,000 sheets per month by the second half of 2019. This capacity will enable the company to ship up to 10 million 55-inch OLED TV panels on a yearly basis.




fafrd said:


> I just saw a rumor posted by our old pal ynotgoal that LGD is considering converting so,e additional 8G and 7G LCD fabs to WOLED: https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=31694315
> 
> "In order to increase OLED TV panel production, LG Display is also considering a plan to convert some domestic 7th and 8th generation LCD fabs into large OLEDs in addition to the construction of a Chinese factory."
> 
> ...
> If you take a 1950x2250mm substrate and figure out the largest panels that can be manufactured on it 2-up, you come up with:
> 
> wait for it, wait for it: 1950x1097mm = *88"*
> 
> We'll know for sure in two weeks, but indications are we may have found LG's first 8K production fab (which would probably mean no serious 88" product launch before 2020).
> 
> (which could also produce ultra-cheap 44" WOLEDs 8-up in case LG ever needs to go further down-market than 49"...)


It's more likely that LG would be converting gen 7 LCD into gen 8 OLED than to gen 7 OLED. I guess it's possible but hasn't been what companies are doing as gen 7 fabs are probably not going to be cost effective against gen 10.5 fabs. They are more likely to get 88" models by using MMG technology. It's being reported that one line at Guangzhou will use MMG which will increase production. My reading of this report says a line that would produce 270,000 65" sets will be able to also make an extra 170,000 55" sets but I'll let you do the math on how many 65/55, 77/55 or 88/55 combinations can be done on a gen 8.5 substrate.
https://www.kipost.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=display_news&wr_id=802


----------



## fafrd

j.p.s said:


> Attached.


Thanks, but this is the one I was referring to:

(already posted by my 'hero' dfa973 )


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> It's common for companies to state "capacity" when they mean "maximum capacity once it's fully built out" but it gets interpreted to mean "initial capacity". However, in this case, there is an English press release form LGD itself. Seems pretty clear.
> http://www.lgdisplay.com/eng/prcenter/newsView?articleMgtNo=5141
> 
> The Guangzhou OLED plant will mainly produce large-size OLED panels for TVs. LG Display will start producing 60,000 input sheets per month and will gradually ramp up to a maximum of 90,000 sheets per month.
> 
> Adding that to the production capacity of 70,000 input sheets per month from the company’s plants in Paju, LG Display’s total production capacity of large-size OLED panels will reach 130,000 sheets per month by the second half of 2019. This capacity will enable the company to ship up to 10 million 55-inch OLED TV panels on a yearly basis.


Well that's pretty difinitive, thanks.




> It's more likely that LG would be converting gen 7 LCD into gen 8 OLED than to gen 7 OLED. I guess it's possible but hasn't been what companies are doing as gen 7 fabs are probably not going to be cost effective against gen 10.5 fabs. They are more likely to get 88" models by using MMG technology. It's being reported that one line at Guangzhou will use MMG which will increase production. My reading of this report says a line that would produce 270,000 65" sets will be able to also make an extra 170,000 55" sets but I'll let you do the math on how many 65/55, 77/55 or 88/55 combinations can be done on a gen 8.5 substrate.
> https://www.kipost.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=display_news&wr_id=802


Of course, if a 7G LCD line can easily be converted to another 8.5G WOLED line, that's another option that could make more sense. But the fact that LG's 7G substrates are perfectly utilized by two 88" WOLEDs and 88" is the next WOLED size LG has announced seems like a more than a coincidence....

MMG clearly allows for greater substrate utilization at almost any size, but it adds cost an complexity and as they say 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'

I'll believe in MMG WOLED once it is confirmed to be in production by LG. Until then, expecting the 10.5 G fab to be deficated to 65" and 75" WOLEDs and 8.5G fabs to be dedicated to 55", 65" and 88" (as well as possibly eventually 49") seems more certain.

I have not been able to find any english-language articles about LG considering additional 8.5G and 7G LCD fab conversions in Paju, have you?


----------



## move4ward

ynotgoal said:


> Adding that to the production capacity of 70,000 input sheets per month from the company’s plants in Paju, LG Display’s total production capacity of large-size OLED panels will reach 130,000 sheets per month by the second half of 2019. This capacity will enable the company to ship up to 10 million 55-inch OLED TV panels on a yearly basis.


You have done quite a bit more research than I have. I hope I understand this statement correctly. The Paju Fab will be up and running for 2H2019. 

Are we talking Gen 10.5 production with 75" OLED panels? We might see 75" OLED in time for the IFA 2019 show. It seems that other reports indicate the Gen 10.5 would not have OLED equipment installed until 3rd quarter 2020 for 4Q 2020-2021 production.


----------



## fafrd

move4ward said:


> You have done quite a bit more research than I have. I hope I understand this statement correctly. *The Paju Fab will be up and running for 2H2019. *
> 
> Are we talking Gen 10.5 production with 75" OLED panels? We might see 75" OLED in time for the IFA 2019 show. It seems that other reports indicate the Gen 10.5 would not have OLED equipment installed until 3rd quarter 2020 for 4Q 2020-2021 production.


Perhaps you did not understand the meaning of this chart (below, from the MK report referenced earlier).

It indicates that equipment PO for 10.5K WOLED pilot line of 5K sheets/month in Paju has already been placed, installation of equipment on the pilot line will begin in ~early February 2019, and ramp-up of the pilot line will begin in ~early December 2019 (which should mean 5k sheets/month out before the end of Q1 '20).

All discussion / reference to '2nd half 2019' by yhnotgoal, myself, and slacker was referring to the new 8.5G line in Guangzho, not the 10.5K line in Paju. So while the first 5K pilot line on the 10.5G line in Paju will hopefully have started 'ramping-up' before the end if the 2nd-half 2019, there is no scenario where the 10.5K line in Paju is fully 'up and running for 2H2019.'

If everything goes according to schedule, equipment POs for the full 25k 10.5G sheets/month line at Paju could be placed by ~early May 2019 and that equipment could begin installation in ~early August 2020 with ramp-up starting ~10 months later in ~early June 2021 and should be in full production in the 2nd half 2021.

But to maintain perspective (and as I've already stated in an earlier post), 'just' the first 5k 10.5G pilot line in Paju will have capacity to produce over 25k/month 75" WOLEDs at target yields and over 15k/month 75" WOLEDs even at initial ramp up yields of as low as 50%. This production level corresponds to 180-300k 75" WOLEDs/year, vastly outpacing today's annual production levels of 77" WOLEDs (which is probably in the low 10s of thousands per year).

So in short, there will only be 75" WOLEDs to show at IFA 2019 if they were produced on an 8.5G WOLED line and the H2'21 schedule indicated in your 'other reports' is accurate as far as being fully ramped-up to 30k sheets/month 10.5G production levels. (But on the other hand, we are very likely to see 75" WOLEDs announced by CES 2020 and there is a good chance we will see 75" WOLEDs on the shelves by spring 2020 .


----------



## move4ward

fafrd said:


> Perhaps you did not understand the meaning of this chart (below, from the MK report referenced earlier).
> 
> It indicates that equipment PO for 10.5K WOLED pilot line of 5K sheets/month in Paju has already been placed, installation of equipment on the pilot line will begin in ~early February 2019, and ramp-up of the pilot line will begin in ~early December 2019 (which should mean 5k sheets/month out before the end of Q1 '20).
> 
> All discussion / reference to '2nd half 2019' by yhnotgoal, myself, and slacker was referring to the new 8.5G line in Guangzho, not the 10.5K line in Paju. So while the first 5K pilot line on the 10.5G line in Paju will hopefully have started 'ramping-up' before the end if the 2nd-half 2019, there is no scenario where the 10.5K line in Paju is fully 'up and running for 2H2019.'
> 
> If everything goes according to schedule, equipment POs for the full 25k 10.5G sheets/month line at Paju could be placed by ~early May 2019 and that equipment could begin installation in ~early August 2020 with ramp-up starting ~10 months later in ~early June 2021 and should be in full production in the 2nd half 2021.
> 
> But to maintain perspective (and as I've already stated in an earlier post), 'just' the first 5k 10.5G pilot line in Paju will have capacity to produce over 25k/month 75" WOLEDs at target yields and over 15k/month 75" WOLEDs even at initial ramp up yields of as low as 50%. This production level corresponds to 180-300k 75" WOLEDs/year, vastly outpacing today's annual production levels of 77" WOLEDs (which is probably in the low 10s of thousands per year).
> 
> So in short, there will only be 75" WOLEDs to show at IFA 2019 if they were produced on an 8.5G WOLED line and the H2'21 schedule indicated in your 'other reports' is accurate as far as being fully ramped-up to 30k sheets/month 10.5G production levels. (But on the other hand, we are very likely to see 75" WOLEDs announced by CES 2020 and there is a good chance we will see 75" WOLEDs on the shelves by spring 2020 .


So the 65"/75" panels from the 10.5 Pilot. Is it just for testing purpose until they 2020 Phase 1 line goes into full ramp up? Will those units be available for retail sale in 2020?


----------



## fafrd

move4ward said:


> So the 65"/75" panels from the 10.5 Pilot. Is it just for testing purpose until they 2020 Phase 1 line goes into full ramp up? Will those units be available for retail sale in 2020?


That's what I've been trying to explain - even though it is only a 'pilot' line, once the process has stabilized to the point that repeatable, usable panels are being produced (even if yieds are far below target), that 'pilot' line will have suffucient capacity to satisfy more than 5 times current demand for 77" WOLEDs (even at abysmal starting yields of 50%).

Unless LG is caught by a very nasty surprise, those 75" WOLEDs off of the 10.5G pilot line will absolutely be available for retail sale in 2020.

And they will absolutely be announced by CES 2020 in January 2020.

The only question for me is whether LG will decide to 'seed the market' by producing their first 75" WOLEDs on the curent 8.5G manufacturing lines and anniuncing the first 75" products at CES 2019 in 6 months.

The best thing for LG would be to allow 77" WOLEDs to phase out on 8.5G manufacturing lines without ever needing to go to the expense and distraction of developing and supporting a new class of panel whose lifetime on 8.5G manufactiring will be very short-lived.

They could continue to offer expensive 77" WOLEDs manufactured on the 8.5G lines to those customers that want them while introducing 75" WOLEDs with an attractive cost-down roadmap for those customers that want to hitch their caboose to that cost-refuction train sooer rather than later.

Because LG is doing so well with 55" and 65" WOLED sales this year, my gut tells me they are not desperate to drive increased volumes at 77" and eventually 75" and so we are unlikely to see the first 75" products introduced before CES 2020. 2019 is likely to be the last year of 77"-only, followed by 2020 as a transition year where both 77" and 75" WOLEDs may be available and then discontinuatin of 77" WOLEDs by 2021 (by which time they should hopefully be replaced by 88" WOLEDs ).


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> It's common for companies to state "capacity" when they mean "maximum capacity once it's fully built out" but it gets interpreted to mean "initial capacity". However, in this case, there is an English press release form LGD itself. Seems pretty clear.
> http://www.lgdisplay.com/eng/prcenter/newsView?articleMgtNo=5141
> 
> The Guangzhou OLED plant will mainly produce large-size OLED panels for TVs. LG Display will start producing 60,000 input sheets per month and will gradually ramp up to a maximum of 90,000 sheets per month.
> 
> Adding that to the production capacity of 70,000 input sheets per month from the company’s plants in Paju, LG Display’s total production capacity of large-size OLED panels will reach 130,000 sheets per month by the second half of 2019. *This capacity will enable the company to ship up to 10 million 55-inch OLED TV panels on a yearly basis.*


If this interesting statement is referring to the capacity of 130,000 sheets per month, there is probably some creative 'rounding up' involved:

130,000 8.5G sheets/month X 6 55" WOLEDs / 8.5G sheet X 12 months = 9.4M 55" WOLEDs/year (at 100% yield).

If 'this capacity' is referring to the 'full' expanded Guangzho capacity of 90,000 sheets per month corresponding to a total 8.5 capacity of 130,000 + 30,000 = 160,000 8.5G sheets/months, the math is mote realistic:

160,000 8.5G sheets / month X 6 55" WOLEDs / 8.5G sheet X 12 months = 11.5M 55" WOLEDs at 100% yield or 10M 55" WOLEDs at 87% yield.

At any rate, it is interesting that LGD is throwing out the capability of being in a pisition to manufacture 10M 55" WOLEDs based on existing 8.5G capcity plans.

Couple that with the 10.5G plants ability to manufacture ~1.7M 65" WOLEDs per year based on announced plans for 30,000 sheets/month (2.16M/year unyielded, 1.74M @ 80% yield) and it seems like LGD will be poised to manufacture 11.7M WOLED panels by 2021 (and more if they convert additional 8.5G or 7G LCD cpacity or decide to introduce 49" WOLEDs.

I just found this chart forecasting 1/3 of the TV market being for screen sizes greater than 49" by 2019, which would correspond to ~73M units.

No doubt the >49" market will be higher than that by 2021, but still, this translates to LGD having capacity plans to supply over 15% of the large-screen TV market by 2022...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> If this interesting statement is referring to the capacity of 130,000 sheets per month, there is probably some creative 'rounding up' involved:
> 
> 130,000 8.5G sheets/month X 6 55" WOLEDs / 8.5G sheet X 12 months = 9.4M 55" WOLEDs/year (at 100% yield).
> 
> If 'this capacity' is referring to the 'full' expanded Guangzho capacity of 90,000 sheets per month corresponding to a total 8.5 capacity of 130,000 + 30,000 = 160,000 8.5G sheets/months, the math is mote realistic:
> 
> 160,000 8.5G sheets / month X 6 55" WOLEDs / 8.5G sheet X 12 months = 11.5M 55" WOLEDs at 100% yield or 10M 55" WOLEDs at 87% yield.
> 
> At any rate, it is interesting that LGD is throwing out the capability of being in a pisition to manufacture 10M 55" WOLEDs based on existing 8.5G capcity plans.
> 
> Couple that with the 10.5G plants ability to manufacture ~1.7M 65" WOLEDs per year based on announced plans for 30,000 sheets/month (2.16M/year unyielded, 1.74M @ 80% yield) and it seems like LGD will be poised to manufacture 11.7M WOLED panels by 2021 (and more if they convert additional 8.5G or 7G LCD cpacity or decide to introduce 49" WOLEDs.
> 
> I just found this chart forecasting 1/3 of the TV market being for screen sizes greater than 49" by 2019, which would correspond to ~73M units.
> 
> No doubt the >49" market will be higher than that by 2021, but still, this translates to LGD having capacity plans to supply over 15% of the large-screen TV market by 2022...


Another way of looking at LGDs adressable TAM with WOLED:

~82M HDR-capabe TVs by 2020 (IHS forecast)


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Another way of looking at LGDs adressable TAM with WOLED:
> 
> ~82M HDR-capabe TVs by 2020 (IHS forecast)


And yet another Forecast to view LGD WOLEDs available market:

55" and above TVs estimated to be 25.6% of total TVs in 2018 (meaning ~56M units).

4K TVs estimated to be 42.8% of total TVs in 2018 (meaning ~94.2M units).

Whether we are talking about an adressabe market of 

56M units of TVs 55" or greater by 2018 or
73M unitsof TVs greater than 49" by 2019 or
82M HDR-capable TVs by 2020 or
94.2M 4K TVs by 2018

the point is that any of these TAMs are more meaningful to measure LGD's total market share rather than the overall TV market of ~220M unuts, and the fact that LG has plans underway and is now making reference to manufacturing 10M 55" WOLEDs by 2020 (or close to 12M units by 2021) indicates that now that LG has utterly doninated the Premium TV market subsegment in which they have been focused up to now (and which they will fully saturate before the end of 2020), they are setting their sights on taking 10-20% of the much more significant HDR-capable large-screen TV market...


----------



## video_analysis

fafrd said:


> They could continue to offer expensive 77" WOLEDs manufactured on the 8.5G lines to those customers that want them while introducing 75" WOLEDs with an attractive cost-down roadmap f*or those customers that want to hitch their caboose to that cost-refuction train sooer* *rather than later*.


Surely, that's the vast majority of owners...


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Surely, that's the vast majority of owners...


Owners, certainly, but some manufacturers are more conservative than others.

Conservative brands like Sony may elect to stay with the 'tried and true' 77" panels for another year until the 75" panels have proven themselves in the marketplace (despite the higher cost).


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> And yet another Forecast to view LGD WOLEDs available market:
> 
> 55" and above TVs estimated to be 25.6% of total TVs in 2018 (meaning ~56M units).
> 
> 4K TVs estimated to be 42.8% of total TVs in 2018 (meaning ~94.2M units).
> 
> Whether we are talking about an adressabe market of
> 
> 56M units of TVs 55" or greater by 2018 or
> 73M unitsof TVs greater than 49" by 2019 or
> 82M HDR-capable TVs by 2020 or
> 94.2M 4K TVs by 2018
> 
> the point is that any of these TAMs are more meaningful to measure LGD's total market share rather than the overall TV market of ~220M unuts, and the fact that LG has plans underway and is now making reference to manufacturing 10M 55" WOLEDs by 2020 (or close to 12M units by 2021) indicates that now that LG has utterly doninated the Premium TV market subsegment in which they have been focused up to now (and which they will fully saturate before the end of 2020), they are setting their sights on taking 10-20% of the much more significant HDR-capable large-screen TV market...


And very little can stop them, short of _force majeure_ event, global economic collapse, etc.

Things that will not stop them? "QLED", emissive quantum dots, other display tech not yet out of labs.


----------



## 8mile13

I just checked out TV manufacturers that sell OLED TVs...must be at least 19 right now. Missing in this list are manufacturers like Samsung which is researching a way to combine QDs with OLEDs, TCL that plans to build OLED TV fab itself and Vizio who does not seem to have any OLED plans at all...

LG
Panasonic
Sony
Loewe
Philips 
Grundig 
Metz 
Toshiba 
Arçelik 
Vestel 
Bang & Olufsen 
ElectriQ 
Sharp
JVC
Changhong
Haier
Hisense
Skyworth
Konka


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> And very little can stop them, short of _force majeure_ event, global economic collapse, etc.
> 
> Things that will not stop them? "QLED", emissive quantum dots, other display tech not yet out of labs.


LG is now clearly setting their sites on supplying 10M WOLED panels by 2020 and no doubt will be aiming to double that by 2022-23 largely based on the new 10.5G fab.

If they continue to find demand at 55", 65", 75/77", and 88", this would position them to supply over 35% of the 55"-and-over market within 5 years without even needing to introduce 49" WOLEDs.

There is going to be an absolute bloodbath of 10.5G LED/LCD capacity coming online over the next 1-2 years, and that means that 65" and 75" LED/LCD TVs are about to get much cheaper than we ever imagined they could be.

So how will availability of a $1000 75" LED/LCD change demand for LG's 75" WOLED TVs which will probably cost 3-times that much by then? And same question for $1000 65" WOLED TVs once $500 65" LED/LCDs are commonplace.

I think the fact that WOLED has already won the war at 55" speaks volumes. All of the 10.5G volume in the world is not going to lower the cost of 55" lcd panels...

And if ultra-cheap 65" and 75" LED/LCDs do succeed to choke-off LGs WOLED demand at those sizes, they can always introduce 49" WOLED panels to increase their total adressable market by another ~50% in another subsegment where 10.5G manufacturing offers no real advantage.

I believe we've witnessed lift-off.

LG Display is on their way to suppying over a third of the world's large-size flat panel TVs with their WOLED technology within the next 5 years.


----------



## rikkyjames

So where does 8K fit into LG's plans - can 8.5G and 10.5G plants easily produce these panels if they so choose??

You just know that LG are going to announce 8K OLED's in the coming months and they will be able to charge a high premium over what we have right now - obviously 8K is going to be pretty niche in the 1st few years but if they introduce it, won't they be hurting their existing 4K business as folks will simply sit on the fence for a while longer ... of course the same goes for 8K LCD as well.

To me it seems to be something before it's time and not something that the general public are dying to get their hands on ... as usual the powers that be are just going to ignore that fact though but in the short term it may do them more damage than good.


----------



## fafrd

rikkyjames said:


> So where does 8K fit into LG's plans - can 8.5G and 10.5G plants easily produce these panels if they so choose??
> 
> You just know that LG are going to announce 8K OLED's in the coming months and they will be able to charge a high premium over what we have right now - obviously 8K is going to be pretty niche in the 1st few years but if they introduce it, won't they be hurting their existing 4K business as folks will simply sit on the fence for a while longer ... of course the same goes for 8K LCD as well.
> 
> To me it seems to be something before it's time and not something that the general public are dying to get their hands on ... as usual the powers that be are just going to ignore that fact though but in the short term it may do them more damage than good.


Attached is LGD's roadmap - depending on how you want to interpret the meaning of the rectangle, it either means first samples available right about now or first samples in early 2019.

These are panels, so TVs in the channels will lag by 6-9 months.

So in the best case, there will be 8K 88" products announced at CES 2019 and 8K 88" products available for purchsee in 2019.

In the worst case, there may be a 1-year slip on that (so first 8K products announced at CES 2020 and available 2 years from now).

The 88" panels will be produced on the existing 8.5K manufacturibg lines, and so have nothing to do with 10.5G manufacturing.

The 8K panels will need top-emission, and LG has been working on that since last year.

If there is a market trend towards 8K or 85-90" screens, LG is not going to miss it, but it seems unlikely that sales of 85-90" 8K screens are going to explode next year. Once the 10.5G fab is up and running at full steam in 2021 and all 65" and 77/75" WOLED production has moved off of the 8.5G lines, 88" TVs are there to take up the 8.5G slack, so LG will want a market for 88" WOLED established by 2021 (meaning 88" products will for sure be introduced by 2020, with or without 8k).

My personal view is that we are likely to see an 8K 88" WOLED TV announced by LFGE at CES'19 but it will be priced for the bragging-rights-only niche and very few will be sold the first year.


----------



## austinsj

It strikes me that ultra-cheap large-size LCD TVs is much more of a threat to Samsung than LG. 

Samsung really needs to figure something out.


----------



## fafrd

austinsj said:


> It strikes me that ultra-cheap large-size LCD TVs is much more of a threat to Samsung than LG.
> 
> Samsung really needs to figure something out.


Yes, maybe you missed this from earlier: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=23279


----------



## rikkyjames

fafrd said:


> Attached is LGD's roadmap - depending on how you want to interpret the meaning of the rectangle, it either means first samples available right about now or first samples in early 2019.
> 
> These are panels, so TVs in the channels will lag by 6-9 months.
> 
> So in the best case, there will be 8K 88" products announced at CES 2019 and 8K 88" products available for purchsee in 2019.
> 
> In the worst case, there may be a 1-year slip on that (so first 8K products announced at CES 2020 and available 2 years from now).
> 
> The 88" panels will be produced on the existing 8.5K manufacturibg lines, and so have nothing to do with 10.5G manufacturing.
> 
> The 8K panels will need top-emission, and LG has been working on that since last year.
> 
> If there is a market trend towards 8K or 85-90" screens, LG is not going to miss it, but it seems unlikely that sales of 85-90" 8K screens are going to explode next year. Once the 10.5G fab is up and running at full steam in 2021 and all 65" and 77/75" WOLED production has moved off of the 8.5G lines, 88" TVs are there to take up the 8.5G slack, so LG will want a market for 88" WOLED established by 2021 (meaning 88" products will for sure be introduced by 2020, with or without 8k).
> 
> My personal view is that we are likely to see an 8K 88" WOLED TV announced by LFGE at CES'19 but it will be priced for the bragging-rights-only niche and very few will be sold the first year.


So the LCD makers might have at least a 2 year window to bang out some 65" 8K panels. Gonna be an interesting time because normally picture resolution wins over picture quality and it might bring LCD back into the game in the premium section - even if only for the short term.


----------



## fafrd

rikkyjames said:


> So the LCD makers might have at least a 2 year window to bang out some 65" 8K panels. Gonna be an interesting time because normally picture resolution wins over picture quality and it might bring LCD back into the game in the premium section - even if only for the short term.


Go read the 8K thread: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/2944364-8k-now.html

65" 8K TVs make about as much sense as 32" 4K TVs (which means about none at all).

88" 8K TVs make more sense and LG showed a roadmap last year where they will have one in 2019 (and they demonstrated an 8K 88" WOLED at CES this January).

50/50 chance LG announces an 8K 88" WOLED product at CES 2019 and gets it released before the year is up (and near certainty they release one in 2020 if next year does not pan out.

For the same price, would you rather have a 65" 8K LED/LCD or a 65" 4K WOLED? And how close do you sit to your TV?


----------



## rikkyjames

fafrd said:


> Go read the 8K thread: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/2944364-8k-now.html
> 
> 65" 8K TVs make about as much sense as 32" 4K TVs (which means about none at all).
> 
> 88" 8K TVs make more sense and LG showed a roadmap last year where they will have one in 2019 (and they demonstrated an 8K 88" WOLED at CES this January).
> 
> 50/50 chance LG announces an 8K 88" WOLED product at CES 2019 and gets it released before the year is up (and near certainty they release one in 2020 if next year does not pan out.
> 
> *For the same price, would you rather have a 65" 8K LED/LCD or a 65" 4K WOLED? And how close do you sit to your TV?*


I am quite happy with my LG E7 so talking generally. As you know the manufacturers aren't interested in what the supposed customer wants or needs - technically they will push on regardless.

Samsung will have 8K TV's on display next month at IFA 2018 - they will start at 65" and ready for immediate launch. They are (ultimately) looking towards 12 bit colour, HFR, BT.2020 and 4,000 Nits so they are still driving technology onwards and LG will need to respond at some stage - leaving the LCD manufacturers (at least) a 2 year window could see OLED uptake stall in the premium market imho.

Of course the interesting question is going to be the cost of 8K LCD in that window ...


----------



## fafrd

rikkyjames said:


> I am quite happy with my LG E7 so talking generally. As you know the manufacturers aren't interested in what the supposed customer wants or needs - technically they will push on regardless.
> 
> Samsung will have 8K TV's on display next month at IFA 2018 - they will start at 65" and ready for immediate launch.


Again, if Samsung 'beats LG to the punch' with 65" 8K TVs, I don't think it'll amount to a hill of beans (bragging rights).

88" 8K TVs will be somewhat more important but that market will take some time to develop.



> They are (ultimately) looking towards 12 bit colour, HFR, BT.2020


All three of which will benefit 4K and HDR as well.



> and 4,000 Nits


A 4K TV will achieve 4000 nits before an 8K TV will. Samsung's ongoing brightness wars will keep pushing LG to increase broghtness of WOLED, but that has nothing to do with screen resolution.



> so they are still driving technology onwards and LG will need to respond at some stage


In the broad area of TV technology, I believe LG has been responding and intends to continue to do so. Rach generation of WOLED is brighter, supports a wider color gamut, recently supports higher frame rates (2018) and LGD showed an 88" 8K panel on their roadmap last year for 2019 introduction...



> - leaving the LCD manufacturers (at least) a 2 year window could see OLED uptake stall in the premium market imho.


If you are talking about the overall technology areas you have listed, I'm not seeing this '2-year window' you arec talking about.

If you are talking specifically about 65" 8K screens, I hope LGD gives Samsung an infinite 'window', since I don't believe that product will ever make sense.

Talking about WOLEDs uptake 'stalling' in the Premium Market, I assume you are aware of the dominance WOLED has established over the oast 12 months (attached)...



> Of course the interesting question is going to be the cost of 8K LCD in that window ...


If Samsung does come out with a 65" 8K TV as you suspect, I'm going to guess it will be priced higher than LGs 77C8P. And tyat may be the appropriate way to frame the question:

"For equal price would you prefer to have a small lcd screen with 8K resolution or a larger WOLED screen with 'only' 4K resolution?

LG plans to start offering 8K products at thevsensible size of 88". If samsung believes they will win back 65" premium market share by offering a 65" TV with 8K resolution priced higher than LGs 77" 4k WOLED (and priced much higher than LG's 65" 4K WOLED), good luck to them.

While they are at it, perhaps they should also introduce a 32" 4K TV - it's about as sensible...


----------



## KOF

https://mobile.twitter.com/TEQHNIKACROSS/status/1018696218749239296/photo/1

Has Samsung gone mad? Holding a contest among employees for finding the worst burn in case in competition's OLED TV. Winner will be awarded in a gift card worth one million KRW and every participants will be awarded Starbucks gift cards lol


----------



## alexanderg823

fafrd said:


> Again, if Samsung 'beats LG to the punch' with 65" 8K TVs, I don't think it'll amount to a hill of beans (bragging rights).
> 
> 88" 8K TVs will be somewhat more important but that market will take some time to develop.
> 
> 
> All three of which will benefit 4K and HDR as well.
> 
> 
> 
> A 4K TV will achieve 4000 nits before an 8K TV will. Samsung's ongoing brightness wars will keep pushing LG to increase broghtness of WOLED, but that has nothing to do with screen resolution.


Funny you mention all that.

HDR benefits 1080p, 720p and even 480p as well, however, there are no HD or SD units that support it.

I'm not sure why you think it's so shocking that manufacturers would hold back enhanced brightness and color gamut exclusively for 8K TVs. In fact to suggest otherwise is pretty ridiculous and obtuse since we've already seen them do just that with 4K, and since we know that the 8K resolution itself has even further diminished returns over 4K, it would actually only MAKE SENSE that some of these enhanced features that aren't intrinsically linked to 8K be attached at the hip solely for marketing purposes.


----------



## fafrd

KOF said:


> https://mobile.twitter.com/TEQHNIKACROSS/status/1018696218749239296/photo/1
> 
> Has Samsung gone mad? Holding a contest among employees for finding the worst burn in case in competition's OLED TV. Winner will be awarded in a gift card worth one million KRW and every participants will be awarded Starbucks gift cards lol


Desperate times call for desperate measures...

Could we see a world-wide rollout of an add campaign where 'real people' tell the story of their dissapointment with OLED-TV because of burn-in?


----------



## gorman42

KOF said:


> https://mobile.twitter.com/TEQHNIKACROSS/status/1018696218749239296/photo/1
> 
> Has Samsung gone mad? Holding a contest among employees for finding the worst burn in case in competition's OLED TV. Winner will be awarded in a gift card worth one million KRW and every participants will be awarded Starbucks gift cards lol


Jeeeez... talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.


----------



## irkuck

*The killer is coming...
*


----------



## lsorensen

So something that is both cheaper and better in every way is coming and will actually be available to buy in the next year and not some imaginary time in the next decade?


----------



## video_analysis

That's just irkuck's clickbaity style. Each time he does it, it becomes less effective.


----------



## lsorensen

Oh was that a link? I didn't even notice. I thought it was just a dumb comment. Samsung certainly has nothing remotely competitive coming anytime soon.


----------



## irkuck

lsorensen said:


> Oh was that a link? I didn't even notice. I thought it was just a dumb comment. Samsung certainly has nothing remotely competitive coming anytime soon.



OK, the launch of consumer microLED is only next year which for some might not be soon. At least take notice that microLED designation as OLED killer is not dumb if you read what is behind this link: Samsung-LG TV Competition Expected to Shift from QLED vs. OLED to Micro-LE, in particular: _LG Electronics is planning to unveil its first micro-LED TV in September this year_.


----------



## Jason626

Old news from February.....................
Another giant modular wall idea.
Put it in micro led thread.


----------



## lsorensen

Certainly Samsung has not shown anything that would have a seamless screen useful for a home television. As a video wall at a commercial display you can tolerate such issues, but not for a television.



So as of now, nothing relevant as far as televisions are concerned.


Maybe their miniled based LCD will be an improvement. We will have to see when it comes out.


----------



## irkuck

Jason626 said:


> Old news from February.....................
> Another giant modular wall idea. Put it in micro led thread.



This shows LG is taking microLED very seriously, as potential deadly threat to OLED. Starting with the wall since this is upside-down technology, the bigger the easier to make. But it would be silly to think LG aims only for the walls. 



lsorensen said:


> Certainly Samsung has not shown anything that would have a seamless screen useful for a home television. As a video wall at a commercial display you can tolerate such issues, but not for a television. So as of now, nothing relevant as far as televisions are concerned.
> Maybe their miniled based LCD will be an improvement. We will have to see when it comes out.


According to the report they have shown 73 inch prototype but not allowed inspection of it. The 73 incher is extremely small for this technology, and products will be released next year. If that is not relevant for television for you than I do not what is? In any case, it means mass manufacturing of microLED is solved. The only unclear issue for now is how they dealt with the mosaicing effect, is this a nonissue anymore or does it remain as a minor irk?


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> This shows LG is taking microLED very seriously, *as potential deadly threat to OLED*. Starting with the wall since this is upside-down technology, the bigger the easier to make. But it would be silly to think LG aims only for the walls.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the report they have shown 73 inch prototype *but not allowed inspection of it.* The 73 incher is extremely small for this technology, and products will be released next year. If that is not relevant for television for you than I do not what is?


Almost certainly because it was 1080p and not 4K.



> In any case, *it means mass manufacturing of microLED is solved.* The only unclear issue for now is how they dealt with the mosaicing effect, is this a nonissue anymore or does it remain as a minor irk?


If mass manufacturing of an OLED-TV-killer is 'solved', please explain to me why Samsung would be unvesting R&D and capital/manufacturing $$$s into a soon-to-be-dead BOLED+QDCF initiative 

https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-no-plans-release-oled-tv-soon-we-are-researching-hybrid-qd-

"Today Samsung's Han Jong-hee again says that Samsung has no plans to produce an OLED TV any time soon - but he does confirm that the company is researching a way to combine QDs with OLEDs."


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> Almost certainly because it was 1080p and not 4K.


Sounds unlikely to me, nobody would dare to assemble even one 1080p set. In fact there is an issue they must be banging how to will deal with the 8K. 




fafrd said:


> If mass manufacturing of an OLED-TV-killer is 'solved', please explain to me why Samsung would be unvesting R&D and capital/manufacturing $$$s into a soon-to-be-dead BOLED+QDCF initiative
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-no-plans-release-oled-tv-soon-we-are-researching-hybrid-qd-
> 
> "Today Samsung's Han Jong-hee again says that Samsung has no plans to produce an OLED TV any time soon - but he does confirm that the company is researching a way to combine QDs with OLEDs."



This is easy: microLED is announced as a product ready for mass production next year. It means R&D cycle is finished for this case and only productivization remains. 

Tons of other things are being researched still which means it is totally unclear yet if they ever make into products. What they know for sure there will be no pure OLED.

Logical guess is that Samsung found OLED not prospective for HDR, is still looking if combination with QD can deal with this, while positioning microLED as HDR competitor to LG OLED.


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> Sounds unlikely to me, nobody would dare to assemble even one 1080p set. In fact there is an issue they must be banging how to will deal with the 8K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is easy: microLED is announced as a product ready for mass production next year. It means R&D cycle is finished for this case and only productivization remains.
> 
> Tons of other things are being researched still which means it is totally unclear yet if they ever make into products. What they know for sure there will be no pure OLED.
> 
> *Logical guess is that Samsung found OLED not prospective for HDR, is still looking if combination with QD can deal with this, while positioning microLED as HDR competitor to LG OLED.*


I'm sorry, but this makes no sense.

If consumer MicroLED was the ready-for-mass-production-WOLED-killer that you claim it is, investing any $$$s at all reasearching exotic OLED+QDCF technology would be an utter waste of money, pure and simple.

A far more 'logical' explanation is that Samsung knows that MicroLED will never be able to compete against WOLED on price, at least not at any screen sizes the market is likely to care about in any significant volumes.

Vizio has just set the new threshold for 65" Premium TVs at $2000: https://www.cnet.com/news/vizio-p-series-quantum-aims-high-costs-2100-for-65-inches/

WOLED will get there by November 2019 (if not this November).

65" 4K MicroLED for $2000 by November 2019? Dream on.

I remain highly skeptical Samsung will even release a true 4K 65" MicroLED TV this year. if they do, it's almost certain to cost over $20,000. $20K qualifies as 'very affordable' if you are comparing it to a $140,000 140" MicroLED Big Brother, but I doubt we have even a single AVSer owning one of these 65" 4K MicroLED TVs by this time next year...

Smoke, mirrors, and FUD - it's Samsung's schtick .


----------



## 8mile13

irkuck said:


> This shows LG is taking microLED very seriously, as potential deadly threat to OLED. Starting with the wall since this is upside-down technology, the bigger the easier to make.


Actually Apple is working on micro LED watches so it is not upside-down technology. From what i understand microLEDs vary from 1-micron to 100-micron. I am not shure which sizes are used but a watch obviously will be made with smaller sizes microLEDs.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> Actually Apple is working on micro LED watches so it is not upside-down technology. From what i understand microLEDs vary from 1-micron to 100-micron. I am not shure which sizes are used but a watch obviously will be made with smaller sizes microLEDs.


What is rediculous is that they are using 'MicroLED' as a catch-all for both 'on-silicon' LED displays (ie: watches) where the entire display can be manufactured on one die, as well as picked-and-placed LEDs or tiles of LEDs (ie: TV walls).

The one technology has pretty much nothing to do with the other as far as manufacturing challanges and cost.

Watch-sized MicroLED displays are real and are coming.

Wall-sized picked-and-placed super-expensive jumbo-tron-on-steroids MicroLED displays are real and are coming.

65-75" 4K consumer MicroLED displays also requiring pick-and-place but costing less than WOLED (or even twice the cost of WOLED) are a pipe-dream and nothing more...


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> I'm sorry, but this makes no sense.
> If consumer MicroLED was the ready-for-mass-production-WOLED-killer that you claim it is, investing any $$$s at all reasearching exotic OLED+QDCF technology would be an utter waste of money, pure and simple.


First, not am I just claiming but Samsung has announced microLED consumer products for next year and even said their thickness will be 30 mm. You seem not understanding what is research - it is exploring unknowns with very high risk of no profit from this. Samsung spends billions each year on research, example of risk is their own RGB OLED program which cost billions with no product. The same is with OLED/QD, maybe something will come out maybe not. 



fafrd said:


> A far more 'logical' explanation is that Samsung knows that MicroLED will never be able to compete against WOLED on price, at least not at any screen sizes the market is likely to care about in any significant volumes.


The magic acronym on which microLED will compete with WOLED is HDR.



fafrd said:


> Vizio has just set the new threshold for 65" Premium TVs at $2000: https://www.cnet.com/news/vizio-p-series-quantum-aims-high-costs-2100-for-65-inches/
> WOLED will get there by November 2019 (if not this November). 65" 4K MicroLED for $2000 by November 2019? Dream on.


Obviously Samsung will position microLED in the beginning at a very high-end advertising its supernova brightness and black hole blacks plus no burn-in. Remember what was the cost of LG 77" OLED at first? Sammy is already telling consumers will be nicely surprised by the initial microLED prices. Most likely they will try to create affordable 100" high-end segment promoting it as a true HDR cinema for home and replacing projectors. Remember that for microLED bigger size is easier and cheaper to make. 



fafrd said:


> I remain highly skeptical Samsung will even release a true 4K 65" MicroLED TV this year. if they do, it's almost certain to cost over $20,000. $20K qualifies as 'very affordable' if you are comparing it to a $140,000 140" MicroLED Big Brother, but I doubt we have even a single AVSer owning one of these 65" 4K MicroLED TVs by this time next year... Smoke, mirrors, and FUD - it's Samsung's schtick .


No, they said products are coming *next year*. First product may cost over 10 grands but what if its size will be closer to 100"? 



8mile13 said:


> Actually Apple is working on micro LED watches so it is not upside-down technology. From what i understand microLEDs vary from 1-micron to 100-micron. I am not shure which sizes are used but a watch obviously will be made with smaller sizes microLEDs.


microLED is an upside-down tech since bigger is easier. Sure, very small may also be possible but it is much harder to do and this is why Apple has no product on the horizon. 



fafrd said:


> What is rediculous is that they are using 'MicroLED' as a catch-all for both 'on-silicon' LED displays (ie: watches) where the entire display can be manufactured on one die, as well as picked-and-placed LEDs or tiles of LEDs (ie: TV walls).The one technology has pretty much nothing to do with the other as far as manufacturing challanges and cost. Watch-sized MicroLED displays are real and are coming.


Not so fast, reason why Apple has nothing yet is due to how to assemble discrete RGB diodes, when their size is bigger this can be done using inserting machines, with very small size some other method is needed. Classically it is impossible to make RGB diodes on-silicon using microelectronic deposition because there are different materials and processes for each color. Hopefully Apple will solve this, but there are no indications about products (though I would love to be wrong and Apple announcing tomorrow the product is ready).



fafrd said:


> Wall-sized picked-and-placed super-expensive jumbo-tron-on-steroids MicroLED displays are real and are coming. 65-75" 4K consumer MicroLED displays also requiring pick-and-place but costing less than WOLED (or even twice the cost of WOLED) are a pipe-dream and nothing more...


MicroLED should rather be seen as an enabler of -/+100" HDR home cinema including replacement of projectors, I would say 75" rather a minimum. Note that microLED should have much lower capital investment cost than OLED and it can offer unparallel PQ since each diode can be preselected before assembly. The only issue is mosaicing but probably it is solved.


----------



## JasonHa

irkuck said:


> ... Samsung has announced microLED consumer products for next year...


They haven't "announced" anything. It is PR so far. An announcement would include basic details like the resolution of the screen.


----------



## slacker711

FWIW, some data from the LGD earnings call. The call cut out a for a minute twice so I might have missed some things.

- Targeting 4m OLED TV's in 2019, 7m in 2020 (up from 6 or 6.5m previously) and 10m in 2021. I didn't hear a 2018 target. I think they said that OLED's made up "upper 10 percent" of revenues in Q2. 

- The Chinese Gen 8.5 fab will start in the 2nd half of 2019. I didn't hear a target date for the P10 fab but it will start with OLED's.

- They are considering additional LCD Gen 8.5 fab conversions to OLED. They expect the capex cost will be less than 1 trillion Won which will provide capacity up to 35,000 substrates. The conversion will take less than a year and the decision will be made in the 2nd half of this year.


LGD expects to be profitable in OLED's for the first time in Q3. 

As for the LCD industry, it is a complete disaster and will be in oversupply for years.


----------



## irkuck

JasonHa said:


> They haven't "announced" anything. It is PR so far. An announcement would include basic details like the resolution of the screen.



It is entirely new line of product announcement coming from the top level:


_Samsung Electronics will launch a luxury version of its MicroLED TV next year, its TV boss has said. President Han Jong-hee, head of Samsung's Visual Display business, told reporters that new version is aimed at the home and will have a thickness of 30 millimeters._

It is obviously not a lineup or model announcement, CES will be a good place for this with HDR PR. Ideally there would be three models in the lineup 80, 100, 120 inch.


----------



## 8mile13

irkuck said:


> It is entirely new line of product announcement coming from the top level:
> 
> 
> _Samsung Electronics will launch a luxury version of its MicroLED TV next year, its TV boss has said. President Han Jong-hee, head of Samsung's Visual Display business, told reporters that new version is aimed at the home and will have a thickness of 30 millimeters._
> 
> It is obviously not a lineup or model announcement, CES will be a good place for this with HDR PR. Ideally there would be three models in the lineup 80, 100, 120 inch.


Just look at products sony announced this year. A 120 inch Cledis microled goes for $500,000 Whatever microled stuff samsung is going to offer here it will not be anywere near consumer friendly prices.


----------



## gorman42

I'm sorry but... is it too much to ask for this thread to remain on topic, that is on "OLED tech advancements"? MicroLED is an interesting subject, quite probably worth it of its own discussion.


----------



## fafrd

In your own way, I think you may be agreeing with me:



irkuck said:


> First, not am I just claiming but Samsung has announced microLED consumer products for next year and even said their thickness will be 30 mm. *You seem not understanding what is research* - it is exploring unknowns with very high risk of no profit from this. Samsung spends billions each year on research, example of risk is their own RGB OLED program which cost billions with no product. The same is with OLED/QD, maybe something will come out maybe not.


Being a researcher by trade, believe me, I understand what reseasrch is. The point is that research is motivated by discovering something 'better'. Reasearch whose best-case result is something worthless (not better in any way than what is already available) is a waste of money.

If MicroLED is the low-risk WOLED-killer that you (and others) are claiming, investing to explore BOLED+QDCF is a waste 
of resources:

-BOLED+QDCF will not be cheaper than WOLED (and hence won't be cheaper than MicrLED).

-BOLED+QDCF may outperform WOLED but will not outperform MicroLED

The only motivation for Damsung's investment in researching BOLED+QDCF is as a fall-back in case MicroLED peoves more difficult/impossible to scale down to consumer screen sizes and/or MicroLED proves to be much more expensive that WOLED.

My suspicion is that both of the above will proves to be true.

You seem to place great stock in Samsung's announcement - there is a graveyard of announcements in the A/V industry that have never panned out so I'll believe it when I see it.



> The magic acronym on which microLED will compete with WOLED is HDR.


OK, so by this I interpret your statement to mean that because MicroLED will outperfom WOLED for HDR, it can command some premium in the marketplace and does not also need to match WOLED on price.

I can agree with that view but that clearly means that MicroLED will not be a WOLED-killer.

WOLED may eventually prove to be an LED/LCD killer if it proves to be capable of delivering lower manufacturing costs but up to now it has only proven to be a Premium-LCD-killer.

If MicroLED can not match WOLED on panel cost at 65" and 55", it will never be a "WOLED-killer."




> Obviously Samsung will position microLED in the beginning at a very high-end advertising its supernova brightness and black hole blacks plus no burn-in. *Remember what was the cost of LG 77" OLED at first?* Sammy is already telling consumers will be nicely surprised by the initial microLED prices. Most likely they will try to create affordable 100" high-end segment promoting it as a true HDR cinema for home and replacing projectors. *Remember that for microLED bigger size is easier and cheaper to make. *


I absolutely do remembrr that, which is exactly my point - large-screen (100"+) MicroLEDs are a reality and will be wonderful for those that can afford them.

The plan you have outlined is completely sensible, it just does not represent the slightest threat to WOLED.

If Samsung's first true 'consumer' MicroLED (meaning screen size of 75" or 65") is priced amywhere close to LGs first 77" or 65" WOLEDs, I'll admit that you were right and I was wrong.

I predict either no product released at 75" or below, or any such product being only 1080p and not 4K, or any 75" or under 4K MicroLED released in 2019 being priced far above the price of LGs first WOLED offerings at similar sizes.




> No, they said products are coming *next year*. First product may cost over 10 grands but what if its size will be closer to 100"?


If size is closer to 100", price will be closer to $100,000 than $10,000 .

My prediction is that any MicrLED released in 2019 and priced at ~$10,000 will be 1080p and not 4K...



> MicroLED should rather be seen as an enabler of -/+100" HDR home cinema including replacement of projectors, I would say 75" rather a minimum. Note that microLED should have much lower capital investment cost than OLED and it can offer unparallel PQ since each diode can be preselected before assembly. The only issue is mosaicing but probably it is solved.


You are preaching to the choir here (and agreeing with me).

MicroLED for 100" HDR home cinema is low-risk will be fantastic (but will not be a WOLED-killer).

MicroLED for 75" HDR home cinema is high-risk at 4K (low-risk at 1080p) and will also not be a WOLED-killer.

To 'kill' WOLED, MicroLED will need to match it on price at 65" and 55", which is not going to happen (at least in our lifetimes).

The most likely evolution connecting all of these dots is that Samsung releases a 70" 1080p MicroLED display which is capable of taking 4K native input and displaying it as 4:4:4 1080p. Knowing Samsung, it will be marketed as a 4K display (perhaps 'QHD' .

It'll be priced well over 2x the price of LG's 75/77C9P.

A few adventurous souls will might buy it, but the future of WOLED will be safe...


----------



## irkuck

8mile13 said:


> Just look at products sony announced this year. A 120 inch Cledis microled goes for $500,000 Whatever microled stuff samsung is going to offer here it will not be anywere near consumer friendly prices.


To this one can only recall Samsung said consumers will be nicely surprised by prices. Plus that the sets will be produced in a TV factory in Vietnam which suggests mass productions and not special unit order assembly.



fafrd said:


> In your own way, I think you may be agreeing with me:
> Being a researcher by trade, believe me, I understand what reseasrch is. The point is that research is motivated by discovering something 'better'. Reasearch whose best-case result is something worthless (not better in any way than what is already available) is a waste of money.


Sure but research by definition has unknown result. Thus OLED-QD is researched by Samsung but it is completely unclear it something "better" comes out of this. They would tell OLED-QD is in development if prospects for products would be clear.



fafrd said:


> If MicroLED is the low-risk WOLED-killer that you (and others) are claiming, investing to explore BOLED+QDCF is a waste
> of resources:
> -BOLED+QDCF will not be cheaper than WOLED (and hence won't be cheaper than MicrLED).
> -BOLED+QDCF may outperform WOLED but will not outperform MicroLED
> The only motivation for Damsung's investment in researching BOLED+QDCF is as a fall-back in case MicroLED peoves more difficult/impossible to scale down to consumer screen sizes and/or MicroLED proves to be much more expensive that WOLED.
> My suspicion is that both of the above will proves to be true.
> You seem to place great stock in Samsung's announcement - there is a graveyard of announcements in the A/V industry that have never panned out so I'll believe it when I see it.


We have announcement about real products coming to the market and suggestion about mass production. What more should be announced to convince you this is not a PR trick?
Besides, one should take Samsung seriously as they got burned by OLED and lost leadership to LG - this will be their offensive to regain some glory. There is every reason to believe they have high drive to achieve this.

OLED-QD is a valid research topic since it looks as a very interesting combination but results are highly unpredictable at this point. Again, you seem to think that unpredictable research is waste of money. In any case, knowing how painstaking is OLED research, OLED-QD is 5 ys away while microLED is coming soon. 



8mile13 said:


> OK, so by this I interpret your statement to mean that because MicroLED will outperfom WOLED for HDR, it can command some premium in the marketplace and does not also need to match WOLED on price.I can agree with that view but that clearly means that MicroLED will not be a WOLED-killer.
> WOLED may eventually prove to be an LED/LCD killer if it proves to be capable of delivering lower manufacturing costs but up to now it has only proven to be a Premium-LCD-killer.
> If MicroLED can not match WOLED on panel cost at 65" and 55", it will never be a "WOLED-killer."


You have radical interpretation of 'killer'. The talk is rather about high-end killer. Killing OLED at a very high-end, meaning 75" and above + blasting HDR. At this point 55" microLED is out of question and besides it makes little sense, even 65" is questionable. But taking into account that bigger microLED is easier, we can see a new class starting from 75" and ending at 120".




fafrd said:


> I absolutely do remembrr that, which is exactly my point - large-screen (100"+) MicroLEDs are a reality and will be wonderful for those that can afford them.
> The plan you have outlined is completely sensible, it just does not represent the slightest threat to WOLED.
> If Samsung's first true 'consumer' MicroLED (meaning screen size of 75" or 65") is priced amywhere close to LGs first 77" or 65" WOLEDs, I'll admit that you were right and I was wrong.
> I predict either no product released at 75" or below, or any such product being only 1080p and not 4K, or any 75" or under 4K MicroLED released in 2019 being priced far above the price of LGs first WOLED offerings at similar sizes. If size is closer to 100", price will be closer to $100,000 than $10,000 .
> My prediction is that any MicrLED released in 2019 and priced at ~$10,000 will be 1080p and not 4K...
> You are preaching to the choir here (and agreeing with me).
> MicroLED for 100" HDR home cinema is low-risk will be fantastic (but will not be a WOLED-killer).
> MicroLED for 75" HDR home cinema is high-risk at 4K (low-risk at 1080p) and will also not be a WOLED-killer.
> To 'kill' WOLED, MicroLED will need to match it on price at 65" and 55", which is not going to happen (at least in our lifetimes).
> The most likely evolution connecting all of these dots is that Samsung releases a 70" 1080p MicroLED display which is capable of taking 4K native input and displaying it as 4:4:4 1080p. Knowing Samsung, it will be marketed as a 4K display (perhaps 'QHD' .
> It'll be priced well over 2x the price of LG's 75/77C9P.
> A few adventurous souls will might buy it, but the future of WOLED will be safe...



We got into this killer misunderstanding. microLED will not kill WOLED globally in similar way as WOLED will not kill LCD. MicroLED will be serious predator in the 75"+ segment, it may kill WOLED there based on its ultimate HDR performance and screen uniformity. Regarding prices, I remember 77" WOLED was about $40K I see microLED much lower since it does not require huge capital outlays and yields should be almost perfect.


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> To this one can only recall Samsung said consumers will be nicely surprised by prices. Plus that the sets will be produced in a TV factory in Vietnam which suggests mass productions and not special unit order assembly.


Yes, it will be a 1080p psuedo-4K ('QHD' ).




> Sure but research by definition has unknown result. Thus OLED-QD is researched by Samsung but it is completely unclear it something "better" comes out of this. They would tell OLED-QD is in development if prospects for products would be clear.


My point had nothibng to do with certainty versus uncertainty (research versus development). My point had everything to do with wasted effort if there was already a near-certain WOLED-killer in hand.

Now that you've clarified that MicroLED is not an OLED-killer, seems we are in agreement as far as the value of researching BOLED+QDCF...



> We have announcement about real products coming to the market and suggestion about mass production. What more should be announced to convince you this is not a PR trick?
> Besides, one should take Samsung seriously as they got burned by OLED and lost leadership to LG - this will be their offensive to regain some glory. There is every reason to believe they have high drive to achieve this.


It's not a PR trick, it will be marketing slight of hand. There will be no true consumer (65-75") 4K MicroLED released next year, but what Samsung does release will be marketed like 'just as good' as true 4K. Just wait and watch...



> OLED-QD is a valid research topic since it looks as a very interesting combination but results are highly unpredictable at this point. Again, you seem to think that unpredictable research is waste of money. In any case, knowing how painstaking is OLED research, OLED-QD is 5 ys away while microLED is coming soon.


Unpredictable is not a waste of money. Unpredictable when the best-case outcome is worse thsn what you already have is a waste of money.

Now that you've clarified Samsung MicroLED cannot compete with WOLED under 70" (where all of the volume is), we are in agreement (researching 'unpredicable' BOLED+QDCF is a wise investment).



> You have radical interpretation of 'killer'. The talk is rather about high-end killer. Killing OLED at a very high-end, meaning 75" and above + blasting HDR. At this point *55" microLED is out of question* and besides it makes little sense, *even 65" is questionable*. But taking into account that bigger microLED is easier, we can see a new class *starting from 75" and ending at 120".*


We are in agreement - MicroLED for large-screen makes total sense - for cnsumer-sized it does not.




We got into this killer misunderstanding. microLED will not kill WOLED globally in similar way as WOLED will not kill LCD. MicroLED will be serious predator in the 75"+ segment, it may kill WOLED there based on its ultimate HDR performance and screen uniformity. Regarding prices, I remember 77" WOLED was about $40K I see microLED much lower since it does not require huge capital outlays and yields should be almost perfect.[/QUOTE]


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> Yes, it will be a 1080p psuedo-4K ('QHD' ).
> Now that you've clarified that MicroLED is not an OLED-killer, seems we are in agreement as far as the value of researching BOLED+QDCF...



MicroLED is potential OLED-killer at big size HDR high-end, that should be obvious from the technology point of view, no small microLED is envisaged now. OLED too has its niche in the segment 55"-77" and it is not likely it will expand beyond it and it will not replace LCD. But microLED may kill anything else in the exclusive 75"+ segment as in principle it is cheap with outstanding PQ.


----------



## rogo

gorman42 said:


> I'm sorry but... is it too much to ask for this thread to remain on topic, that is on "OLED tech advancements"? MicroLED is an interesting subject, quite probably worth it of its own discussion.


There is a technology advancements thread for MicroLED. I created it a couple of months ago and it should easily be searched and added to.



irkuck said:


> MicroLED is potential OLED-killer at big size HDR high-end, that should be obvious from the technology point of view, no small microLED is envisaged now. OLED too has its niche in the segment 55"-77" and it is not likely it will expand beyond it and it will not replace LCD. But microLED may kill anything else in the exclusive 75"+ segment as in principle it is cheap with outstanding PQ.



This is almost certainly wrong. Affordable 80-something and 90-something inch OLEDs are coming and will be consumer priced within just a couple of years. Affordable microLEDs in that price range seem decidedly unlikely in that timeframe.


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> MicroLED is potential OLED-killer at big size HDR high-end, that should be obvious from the technology point of view, no small microLED is envisaged now. *OLED too has its niche in the segment 55"-77"* and it is not likely it will expand beyond it and it will not replace LCD. But microLED may kill anything else in the exclusive 75"+ segment as in principle it is cheap with outstanding PQ.


So first, the 55" - 77" Premium TV segment is a far, far larger 'niche' than the Premium TV niche a 80" and above.

And secondly, as Rogo has already clarified, cost-effective 88" WOLEDs are already on the way for 2019/2020 and 98" WOLEDs will be on their way soon after (the maximum panel size 2-up on 8.5G manufacturing).

To put this into context, if LG is able to sell 55" WOLED panels at a price that is profitable and results in $1000 end-user pricing for a 55" WOLED TV, they will be able to sell a 98" WOLED panel at a price that is profitable and results in prices of as little as $3350 per 98" WOLED TV!

If I take your above statement and replace '75"+' with '100"+' then I can't find anything more to disagree with.

But if you think a 75" true-4K MicroLED will be cheaper than a 75" 4K WOLED by 2022, you're still living in an alternate reality to the one I expect will unfold...

Samsung's first 75" MicroLED will not be true-4K and will be priced well above LGs true-4K 77C9P and once you see that, hopefully you will realize how seriously your idea of 'cheap' needs a major revision .


----------



## austinsj

Worth pointing out that, even though there are different manufacturing technologies involved, OLED is not restricted to any 55”-77” “niche”. It won’t be long until all phones are OLED, for example.

By 2030, we could be looking at a world where microLED dominates watch sized screens on watches and maybe other wearables (perhaps even making in-roads into phone size displays), OLED dominates everything from phone sizes up to 100” TVs, and microLED dominates 100”+ displays. LCD, like CRT before it, will be increasingly relegated to really cheap small TVs (and cheap phones) as its long decline continues.

The market for the large microLED displays will mostly be commercial. The consumer market will be, like, 12 people.


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> There is a technology advancements thread for MicroLED. I created it a couple of months ago and it should easily be searched and added to.


Here we are not discussing microLED per se but prospects OLED vs. microLED, it is legitimate topic for this thread in my view.



rogo said:


> This is almost certainly wrong. Affordable 80-something and 90-something inch OLEDs are coming and will be consumer priced within just a couple of years. Affordable microLEDs in that price range seem decidedly unlikely in that timeframe.


They are already said to be coming for several years and still nothing. BUT if they are coming, microLED will be their formidable competitor with HDR to its strength while giving up on thickness. 





fafrd said:


> So first, the 55" - 77" Premium TV segment is a far, far larger 'niche' than the Premium TV niche a 80" and above.
> And secondly, as Rogo has already clarified, cost-effective 88" WOLEDs are already on the way for 2019/2020 and 98" WOLEDs will be on their way soon after (the maximum panel size 2-up on 8.5G manufacturing).
> To put this into context, if LG is able to sell 55" WOLED panels at a price that is profitable and results in $1000 end-user pricing for a 55" WOLED TV, they will be able to sell a 98" WOLED panel at a price that is profitable and results in prices of as little as $3350 per 98" WOLED TV!
> If I take your above statement and replace '75"+' with '100"+' then I can't find anything more to disagree with.
> But if you think a 75" true-4K MicroLED will be cheaper than a 75" 4K WOLED by 2022, you're still living in an alternate reality to the one I expect will unfold...
> Samsung's first 75" MicroLED will not be true-4K and will be priced well above LGs true-4K 77C9P and once you see that, hopefully you will realize how seriously your idea of 'cheap' needs a major revision .



55-77 inch segment is huge but it is hopelessly commoditized with no prospects for good margins. OLED has its niche there but bleak prospects of carving out more from LCD. For sizes beyond 80 inch microLED has big chance of giving OLED run for its money. Note that microLED has low capital outlays due to the relative simplicity of the technology. This is why Samsung is telling about nice surprise to be seen in price stickers.




austinsj said:


> Worth pointing out that, even though there are different manufacturing technologies involved, OLED is not restricted to any 55”-77” “niche”. It won’t be long until all phones are OLED, for example. By 2030, we could be looking at a world where microLED dominates watch sized screens on watches and maybe other wearables (perhaps even making in-roads into phone size displays), OLED dominates everything from phone sizes up to 100” TVs, and microLED dominates 100”+ displays. LCD, like CRT before it, will be increasingly relegated to really cheap small TVs (and cheap phones) as its long decline continues. The market for the large microLED displays will mostly be commercial. The consumer market will be, like, 12 people.



OLED is unlikely to get below 55 inch not due to manufacturing but due to the competition from LCD. Note that people buying smaller than 55 inch care primarily about low, low price and PQ of LCD is already surpassing their expectations. Your predictions are rather unrealistic, LCD will not be relegated any time soon and OLED will be a niche due to prices. Even in mobile and portable, OLED is not predicted to replace LCD due to the prices and small PQ differential. It turns out that LCD is a moving target regarding prices going downwards when needed. Not even talking about 
prospects of OLED in laptops and tablets.

MicroLED will grab imagination of those looking for big size and outstanding quality with emphasis on HDR, supernova blasts of light and black hole blacks.


----------



## austinsj

I think OLED may well replace LCD even on small TVs one day. It won’t happen overnight which is why I compared LCD to CRT. I remember seeing small CRT TVs (with VHS players built in, if I recall correctly) in stores well in to the 2000s. At that point CRT television technology was something like 60+ years old.

We’ll see, I guess.


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> Here we are not discussing microLED per se but prospects OLED vs. microLED, it is legitimate topic for this thread in my view.


Anything impacting OLED TVs continued success and/or specifications OLED must achieve for success in the marketplace belongs in this thread, so I'm with you.



> They are already said to be coming for several years and still nothing.
> I would love a reference if you have any (which I doubt you do).


For clarity, speculation by thise of us here on AVS (or other enthusiast Forums) does not count as anything LG has 'said'.

What LGD has said (and presented) last year on the subject of larger-sized WOLEDs is attached - they are already working on 88" WOLED screens and plan to have them released from manufacturing in 2019 (unclear what lag will be involved to first end-user products, but by 2020 at the latest).

Beyind the 88" WOLED which is niw clearly on the roadmap, LG cpukd manufacture WOLEDs up to 98" on their 8.5G manufacturing lines. 98" is the maximum size that can be manufactured 2-up on an 8.5G substrate (like 77" WOLEDs are currently being manufatured).

This is technically posdible but not something LG has said anything about (to my knowledge).

Just for sh*ts and giggles, if LG is able to manufacture 55" WOLEDs in 8.5G substrates at 99% yield, that woukd translate to a yield of ~70% at 98" and 98" panels costing ~7.7x the cost of 55" panels.

That may sound like alot, but according to DSC, 55" WOLED panels manufactured on 8.5G substrates will cost ~$600 by 2020: http://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction, so that translates to 98" WOLED panels costing under $5000...



> BUT if they are coming, microLED will be their formidable competitor with HDR to its strength while giving up on thickness.


We are in agreement that MicroLED should be attractive for the ultra-large-screen segment of the market (projector replacement).

Where we diverge is how competetive you believe MicroLED can be at the sizes it overlaps with WOLED.

Let's even grant you that MicroLED outperforms WOLED on HDR and that, for the same price, MicroLED is better performance/price value.

WOLEDs recent progress against QLED has proven that the HDR performance of WOLED is 'good enough' and so 'better' HDR performance will only gain market share if it is available for little/no premium.

Said another way, MicroLED will only take market share from WOLED at sizes where they compete if it is abailable at price-parity (or close to it).

What we know today is that Samsung is releasing a 146" MicroLED 'Wall' for an as-yet-unnanounced price which is almost certainly well over $100,000 (and probably over twice that).

You seem to believe Samsung has sime 'magic dust' up their sleeve to translate that technology down to quarter-size (73") while maintaining 4K resolution. I'm almost certain that shrinkageis based on maintaining subpixel pitch and dropping resolution from 2160p to 1080p (though Samsung will no doubt market it as virtual-4K, possibly with fudgification of the 'virtual' part ).

No need to argue about it now - when specs are finally released, one of us will be right and one of us will be wrong.

If I prove to be right and you come to understand that 65-88" MicroLED TVs will only be 1080p for the foreeseeable future, hopefully you will agree that WOLEDs 'niche' from 55" to 88" is very secure and the niche were MicroLED may find success is limited to projector-screen sizes of >100".

'Better' HDR will be great, but not at the expense of dropping back to 1080p resolution...



> 55-77 inch segment is huge but it is hopelessly commoditized with no prospects for good margins.


In general, you are correct, though the Premium Segment for 55-77" TVs is sizeable enough to dominate the overall margin $$$s of the TV industry and WOLED is capturing the lion's share of those margin $$$s today.

There are far fewer margin $$$s in the 88" segment combined than there are in the 49-88" Premium segment today. WOLED and LGD are very-well positioned to dominate the margin $$$s of the TV industry and the emergence of MicroLED is not going to change that (at least for the next 5+ years).



> OLED has its niche there but bleak prospects of carving out more from LCD. For sizes beyond 80 inch microLED has big chance of giving OLED run for its money. Note that microLED has low capital outlays due to the relative simplicity of the technology. This is why Samsung is telling about nice surprise to be seen in price stickers.


Putting the words 'bleak prospects' and OLED (WOLED) in the same sentence is a true head-scratcher 

Yes, MicroLED does not require expensive fabs with enormous capital outlays and so that is an advantage (liw start-up costs). At the early stages of WOLED, the availability of MicroLED might have slowed or even cut-off WOLEDs progress (though I doubt it - MicroLEDscost still would have been prohibitive).

But now that WOLED has made those capital investments and is 'over the hump', the issue is immaterial. An enormous barrier-to-entry that might normally be there (and might normalky cause manufacturers to pause before jumping in) is not there, so it's relatively easy to get involvedv in MicroLED and thus Samsung is doung so. So what? It does not change the fundamental cost-of-goods where MicroLED cannot compete against WOLED or LCD at small (


----------



## rogo

The market above 88 inches is so vanishingly small there are essentially no meaningful margin $ to talk about. While it's true that an _affordable_ microLED would expand that market, it would expand it *so much less* than people here believe I'm not sure why we would take it seriously as a market force. Short-throw projectors have not expanded the market for projectors. "Daytime use" screens have not expanded the market for projectors. And those two are marginally more expensive version of proven technology, i.e. projectors that run just fine in the dark. 

Giant wall-size TVs that run five figures and up are important if we're talking Sim2-esque projectors. They are not important when talking flat panels. They can't even be important at $10,000 and -- within a few years -- will need to be around $5,000 to compete with Costco/Bestbuy giant-sized OLEDs.

P.S. -- To mass produce at all, these need to be made on substrates using a thin-film-type process that, well, is going to look a lot like LCD or OLED processing. There is no way any volume product is being built LiteBrite style. I wonder if people have any idea what the throughput is of a fab that does 30,000 _substrates_ a month. That's 1,000 per day and I doubt many of those plants run anywhere near 24/7. Each substrate typically makes 6-8 TVs worth of panels. You are talking hundreds per hour.

Even if the Rube Goldberg methodology is used robotically (and I suspect to make this technology not completely DOA it will have to get there soon), you cannot possibly imagine economical throughput. But you will be spend tens or hundreds of millions on what amounts to robots. Nothing is free.


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> BUT if they are coming, microLED will be their formidable competitor with HDR to its strength while giving up on thickness.
> 
> For sizes beyond 80 inch microLED has big chance of giving OLED run for its money. Note that microLED has low capital outlays due to the relative simplicity of the technology. This is why Samsung is telling about nice surprise to be seen in price stickers.
> 
> MicroLED will grab imagination of those looking for big size and outstanding quality with emphasis on HDR, supernova blasts of light and black hole blacks.


The most credible post I have seen on this subject was just posted in the MicroLED Thread: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ology-advancements-thread-2.html#post56549036



HoustonHoyaFan said:


> The Wall Professional which has been available for pre-order since June and shipping in September is a UHD 146" diagonal 16x9 Class A product (4 x 4 modules so 16 total) which is currently marketed to commercial customers for $350K ($20K per module). That product is 80mm thick.
> 
> The Wall for consumers is supposed to be available Q4/early 2019. It is the same 146" UHD product with a Class B rating and will be 30mm thick. Price was not announced.
> 
> The Wall is modular so *the 73" unit is likely a 2 x 2 module HD (1080p) unit.*


----------



## austinsj

I wonder why Samsung is even bothering. I mean, who is in the market for 70”+ 1080p TV?


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> The market above 88 inches is so vanishingly small there are essentially no meaningful margin $ to talk about. While it's true that an _affordable_ microLED would expand that market, it would expand it *so much less* than people here believe I'm not sure why we would take it seriously as a market force. Short-throw projectors have not expanded the market for projectors. "Daytime use" screens have not expanded the market for projectors. And those two are marginally more expensive version of proven technology, i.e. projectors that run just fine in the dark. Giant wall-size TVs that run five figures and up are important if we're talking Sim2-esque projectors. They are not important when talking flat panels. They can't even be important at $10,000 and -- within a few years -- will need to be around $5,000 to compete with Costco/Bestbuy giant-sized OLEDs.


Some confusion in this discussion resulted from the mistaken notion microLED will be a killer of all other display technologies. This is not though in the same way as OLED is not killing LCD. MicroLED has chance to become killer at the high end which is really synonymous with XXL size. It is true that market for XXL is not big in volume but it has profits and is last to commoditize. This is why LG is chasing it with OLED, keeping announcing sizes bigger than the 77 inch. In addition, microLED is a serious contender for replacing projectors. 

Regarding prices, distilling what Samsung unveiled in the press release is very encouraging: they talk about "nice surprise for consumers", " production in TV factory in Vietnam". Indicates that they really push to shave any fat from the cost



rogo said:


> P.S. -- To mass produce at all, these need to be made on substrates using a thin-film-type process that, well, is going to look a lot like LCD or OLED processing. There is no way any volume product is being built LiteBrite style. I wonder if people have any idea what the throughput is of a fab that does 30,000 _substrates_ a month. That's 1,000 per day and I doubt many of those plants run anywhere near 24/7. Each substrate typically makes 6-8 TVs worth of panels. You are talking hundreds per hour. Even if the Rube Goldberg methodology is used robotically (and I suspect to make this technology not completely DOA it will have to get there soon), you cannot possibly imagine economical throughput. But you will be spend tens or hundreds of millions on what amounts to robots. Nothing is free.


Referring to the manufacturing similarity with LCD or OLED is over the top I think. The process requires individual mechanical assembly of each diode into modules in some way using insertion machines. If you say one needs equipment worth tens or hundred of millions to do this on industrial scale it is an absolute win for this technology since it means the capital outlay is ten times lower than for a LCD or OLED. The problem with LCD or OLED plants is that one has to go huge to be economical which than may lead to overcapacity/underutilization. MicroLED should be much closer to flexible and on-demand manufacturing at relatively low cost. Reminds me the concept of OLED printing in which panels would be printed in cheap printers. By analogy, microLED could then be thought to made like garment in knitting machines .


----------



## irkuck

austinsj said:


> I think OLED may well replace LCD even on small TVs one day. It won’t happen overnight which is why I compared LCD to CRT. I remember seeing small CRT TVs (with VHS players built in, if I recall correctly) in stores well in to the 2000s. At that point CRT television technology was something like 60+ years old.
> We’ll see, I guess.


Based on where we are today there is no OLED replacing LCD on the horizon. Comparison with CRT (and plasma) is really not applicable since LCD offered blockbuster advantages. OLED advantage over LCD is small, practically irrelevant for mass consumers. Thus LCD will continue for the foreseeable future, long term one may think about breakthroughs favoring some kind of nextgen OLED but this is speculation.



austinsj said:


> I wonder why Samsung is even bothering. I mean, who is in the market for 70”+ 1080p TV?


From marketing point of view this would be impossible to advertise to consumers, if true this could be commercial display. MicroLED will have issue facing 8K which will be aggressively promoted by LCD and later with OLED even it the sense of it is limited.


----------



## gorman42

austinsj said:


> I wonder why Samsung is even bothering. I mean, who is in the market for 70”+ 1080p TV?


If it was priced competitively and offered flawless HDR performance with perfect blacks, while incorporating a quality downscaling solution (much easier than upscaling), I would be very much interested.


Imagine it had zero burn-in risks and brightness in excess of anything else on the market. If you paired that with flawless motion (not a given for sure) and great color accuracy... I would not hesitate. From my 10' seating view I would need a 77" screen to fully appreciate the detail offered at 1080p, according to all charts I've consulted.

It would probably be a better solution for most OTA and low quality content too, I would guess. To clarify: I would want it to be a perfect TV, losing out only on resolution. If that was doable, why not? I'm not so keen on the whole 4K bandwagon (HDR is a different matter, so far the two have been linked but again, the above solution would be technically doable, wouldn't it?).


----------



## bjaurelio

gorman42 said:


> If it was priced competetively and offered flawless HDR performance with perfect blacks, while incorporating a quality downscaling solution (much easier than upscaling), I would be very much interested.
> 
> 
> Imagine it had zero burn-in risks and brightness in excess of anything else on the market. If you paired that with flawless motion (not a given for sure) and great color accuracy... I would not hesitate. From my 10' seating view I would need a 77" screen to fully appreciate the detail offered at 1080p, according to all charts I've consulted.
> 
> It would probably be a better solution for most OTA and low quality content too, I would guess. To clarify: I would want it to be a perfect TV, losing out only on resolution. If that was doable, why not? I'm not so keen on the whole 4K bandwagon (HDR is a different matter, so far the two have been linked but again, the above solution would be technically doable, wouldn't it?).



This 100%. I know upgrading to a 4k TV won't make any difference at my seating position. I very much want a new TV for HDR. I've been tempted a couple times to upgrade, but my 2011 Plasma has better picture quality than the 4K TV my brother-in-law purchased just last year. If it's 1080p with perfect blacks, color, and brightness it has a lot going for it. The biggest problem will be the price, since I expect it to be upper 5 figures to low 6 figures.


----------



## boe

rogo said:


> The market above 88 inches is so vanishingly small there are essentially no meaningful margin $ to talk about. While it's true that an _affordable_ microLED would expand that market, it would expand it *so much less* than people here believe I'm not sure why we would take it seriously as a market force. Short-throw projectors have not expanded the market for projectors. "Daytime use" screens have not expanded the market for projectors. And those two are marginally more expensive version of proven technology, i.e. projectors that run just fine in the dark.
> 
> Giant wall-size TVs that run five figures and up are important if we're talking Sim2-esque projectors. They are not important when talking flat panels. They can't even be important at $10,000 and -- within a few years -- will need to be around $5,000 to compete with Costco/Bestbuy giant-sized OLEDs.
> 
> P.S. -- To mass produce at all, these need to be made on substrates using a thin-film-type process that, well, is going to look a lot like LCD or OLED processing. There is no way any volume product is being built LiteBrite style. I wonder if people have any idea what the throughput is of a fab that does 30,000 _substrates_ a month. That's 1,000 per day and I doubt many of those plants run anywhere near 24/7. Each substrate typically makes 6-8 TVs worth of panels. You are talking hundreds per hour.
> 
> Even if the Rube Goldberg methodology is used robotically (and I suspect to make this technology not completely DOA it will have to get there soon), you cannot possibly imagine economical throughput. But you will be spend tens or hundreds of millions on what amounts to robots. Nothing is free.


 
I'm sure 40 years ago someone was making a similar argument that TUBE TVs beyond 25" couldn't be made cost effectively that there would be any market or profit. Or for that matter 25 years ago for a 55" plasma TV. I predict that some screen tech - OLED, micro led, quantum dot (not "qled") will be available in 85" 8K, HFR below $10,000 provided that the government doesn't devalue money as much in the near future. I'd expect a 100" 8k model to be available at about $15,000 and I'm sure there will be plenty of men who will want them as marriage rates go down and we'll have less homes where they'll be forced to put them above the fireplace (that never gets used). As marriage rates go down, men will have more money for bigger TVs as they won't care about buying a house with wood floors only to immediately cover them with the most expensive carpets possible  . Of course all of this is pure conjecture.


----------



## irkuck

irkuck said:


> Referring to the manufacturing similarity with LCD or OLED is over the top I think. The process requires individual mechanical assembly of each diode into modules in some way using insertion machines. If you say one needs equipment worth tens or hundred of millions to do this on industrial scale it is an absolute win for this technology since it means the capital outlay is ten times lower than for a LCD or OLED. The problem with LCD or OLED plants is that one has to go huge to be economical which than may lead to overcapacity/underutilization. MicroLED should be much closer to flexible and on-demand manufacturing at relatively low cost. Reminds me the concept of OLED printing in which panels would be printed in cheap printers. By analogy, microLED could then be thought to made like garment in knitting machines .



After rethinking I am backpedaling from the statement above. I believe now that the trick Samsung uses for economical manufacturing is in using *MicroWiLED*, acronym for microWhiteLED. That would be similar to WOLED, just replacing by _inorganic _white LEDs and color filters. Advantage of this is that blocks of LEDs can be made in a single process of microelectronic deposition like in standard integrated circuits. Theoretically, size of the white LED blocks would be limited by the deposition chambers which are typically 8-10 inch but in practice they would be much smaller due to yield issues. After making the blocks they would have to be assembled into panels and integrated with the layer of color filters in the same way as in WOLED or LCD. The main issue would be then how the blocks of MicroWiLED are seamlessly assembled into the overall panel substrate with power and signalling lines.


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> After rethinking I am backpedaling from the statement above. I believe now that the trick Samsung uses for economical manufacturing is in using *MicroWiLED*, acronym for microWhiteLED. That would be similar to WOLED, just replacing by _inorganic _white LEDs and color filters. Advantage of this is that blocks of LEDs can be made in a single process of microelectronic deposition like in standard integrated circuits. Theoretically, size of the white LED blocks would be limited by the deposition chambers which are typically 8-10 inch but in practice they would be much smaller due to yield issues. After making the blocks they would have to be assembled into panels and integrated with the layer of color filters in the same way as in WOLED or LCD. The main issue would be then how the blocks of MicroWiLED are seamlessly assembled into the overall panel substrate with power and signalling lines.


Do you have a source for this revised manufacturing 'trick' or is this speculation?

For perspective, I believe you are suggesting a wadter-scale while LED array on the order of 8"x8" or 10"x10", correct?

This would certainly make watch-screen-sized and wall-screen-sized MicroLED displays based on similar manufactiring (arrays of LED manufactured on silicon wafers), it would address any concerns of how high-resolution MicroLED TVs can be manufactured (8K, 16K, 32K, almost no limit), and it would explain how all of the 'complicated / expensive' stuff is done in advanced silicon fabs in Korea and only low-tech alignment of LED blocks is performed in Vietnam.

So there is alot that is sensible of ths revised approach you are proposing.

The one big gotcha is cost - if these MicroLED TVs are based on LED tiles manufactured on silicon wafers, the cost of a panel can never be less that the raw cost of the number of silicon wafers needed to manufacture it.

Look up the raw cost of unprocessed silicon wafers and multiply by the number of tiles needed to assemble your favorite screen size - you'll see that it's a daunting number and a number unlikely to threaten WOLED at virtually any screen size WOLED can produce panels at acceptable yield...


----------



## irkuck

fafrd said:


> Do you have a source for this revised manufacturing 'trick' or is this speculation?


This is my speculation trying to devise solution how microLED could be made cheaply. One needs to assemble gigantic number of RGB diodes, one RGB combo taking an area 1x1mm or less. Small size makes mechanical assembly difficult. RGB diodes can not be made by standard microelectronic deposition technology since there are different processes involved. But white LEDs can be made.



fafrd said:


> For perspective, I believe you are suggesting a wadter-scale while LED array on the order of 8"x8" or 10"x10", correct?


No, there are two factors at play: one would like to have a single white LED array made as big as possible and full wafer would be maximum what is possible which means anywhere from 2 to 12" or so using equipment for producing integrated circuits (in fact wafers are circular). On the other hand, it is not realistic to expect 100% yield and thus producing a number of smaller blocks on a single wafer and selecting those which have no faulty diodes. That could maybe mean blocks of a couple of inches size. Also a limit on heat dissipation may be at play. 



fafrd said:


> This would certainly make watch-screen-sized and wall-screen-sized MicroLED displays based on similar manufactiring (arrays of LED manufactured on silicon wafers), it would address any concerns of how high-resolution MicroLED TVs can be manufactured (8K, 16K, 32K, almost no limit), and it would explain how all of the 'complicated / expensive' stuff is done in advanced silicon fabs in Korea and only low-tech alignment of LED blocks is performed in Vietnam.


Making blocks of white LEDs using microelectronic fabrication would be very convenient for Samsung which is one of the biggest producers in the world and especially in things like memories (highly regular arrays of identical elements). Making blocks of LEDs would be a piece of cake since sizes of the order of 0.1-0.3mm are huge comparing to single tens of nm in current chips.



fafrd said:


> So there is alot that is sensible of ths revised approach you are proposing.
> The one big gotcha is cost - if these MicroLED TVs are based on LED tiles manufactured on silicon wafers, the cost of a panel can never be less that the raw cost of the number of silicon wafers needed to manufacture it.Look up the raw cost of unprocessed silicon wafers and multiply by the number of tiles needed to assemble your favorite screen size - you'll see that it's a daunting number and a number unlikely to threaten WOLED at virtually any screen size WOLED can produce panels at acceptable yield...


The question of economy is a very interesting one. Wafers with LEDs could be produced using amortized equipment for old chips and chip production scale is massive meaning production costs of single LED blocks could be low. The price comparison between WOLED and microWiLED would be mainly due to the cost of producing and assembly of LEDs. In WOLED this is done by panel size deposition, in microWiLED it would deposition of blocks first and assembling blocks in the panels next.


----------



## FriscoDTM

White LEDs are GaN based blue LEDs pumping a phosphor (YAG for example). That works for a lightbulb where you want a broad spectrum, but the conversion process is not very efficient and you probably would not get very good color gamut compared to other methods. It would probably waste too much light to be practical. Discreet RGB LEDs based on GaN and GaAs should have the best efficiency, followed by GaN for blue pumping some III/V material or QD layer.


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> This is my speculation trying to devise solution how microLED could be made cheaply. One needs to assemble gigantic number of RGB diodes, one RGB combo taking an area 1x1mm or less. Small size makes mechanical assembly difficult. RGB diodes can not be made by standard microelectronic deposition technology since there are different processes involved. But white LEDs can be made.
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are two factors at play: one would like to have a single white LED array made as big as possible and full wafer would be maximum what is possible which means anywhere from 2 to 12" or so using equipment for producing integrated circuits (in fact wafers are circular). On the other hand, it is not realistic to expect 100% yield and thus producing a number of smaller blocks on a single wafer and selecting those which have no faulty diodes. That could maybe mean blocks of a couple of inches size. Also a limit on heat dissipation may be at play.
> 
> 
> 
> Making blocks of white LEDs using microelectronic fabrication would be very convenient for Samsung which is one of the biggest producers in the world and especially in things like memories (highly regular arrays of identical elements). Making blocks of LEDs would be a piece of cake since sizes of the order of 0.1-0.3mm are huge comparing to single tens of nm in current chips.
> 
> 
> 
> The question of economy is a very interesting one. *Wafers with LEDs could be produced using amortized equipment for old chips and chip production scale is massive meaning production costs of single LED blocks could be low. *The price comparison between WOLED and microWiLED would be mainly due to the cost of producing and assembly of LEDs. In WOLED this is done by panel size deposition, in microWiLED it would deposition of blocks first and assembling blocks in the panels next.


As far as equipment / amortization cost, I agree, but the 'gotcha' is in the material cost of the silicon wafers themselves. Do the math as to how many wafers would be needed for a 65" or 75" display and then do some research on the cost of raw silicon wafers. This works for watches, but not consumer TVs...


----------



## irkuck

FriscoDTM said:


> White LEDs are GaN based blue LEDs pumping a phosphor (YAG for example). That works for a lightbulb where you want a broad spectrum, but the conversion process is not very efficient and you probably would not get very good color gamut compared to other methods. It would probably waste too much light to be practical. Discreet RGB LEDs based on GaN and GaAs should have the best efficiency, followed by GaN for blue pumping some III/V material or QD layer.



If RGB diodes are used there is a problem of depositing them on a common substrate. Samsung somehow had to to solve this problem. One has to be aware that the LEDs to be used are truly micro. What this means can be seen from power calculation. Assume the total power consumption by full panel is limited to 500W (kilowatt consumer TVs are not realistic). The total number of RGB diodes for 4K is 24 millions. Each diode can then draw 20 microwatts of power which is microscopic. How to put them on a common substrate? 




fafrd said:


> As far as equipment / amortization cost, I agree, but the 'gotcha' is in the material cost of the silicon wafers themselves. Do the math as to how many wafers would be needed for a 65" or 75" display and then do some research on the cost of raw silicon wafers. This works for watches, but not consumer TVs...



True, this is serious issue. The only way to solve this is by economy of scale, like making chips.


----------



## FriscoDTM

This seems way OT fo an OLED thread and should be moved to the LED thread. To assemble die onto a different substrate you would typically use wafer bonding (anodic or fusion), soldering using ultrasonic or heat to a ball grid array or evaporated solder pad, or some similar process. I assume they so far use either wafer bonding or conventional single die pick and place tools to transfer from the wafer onto the tile, and that’s partly why the cost is so high. 

Silicon fabs typically run 200mm, 300mm, or 450mm wafers, whereas most optoelectronics manufacturing is done on 76mm, 100mm and 150mm wafers. Some blue LED manufacturing is still being done on 50mm wafers even, and 200mm is not so common. Blue LEDs are typically made using sapphire, SiC, and ‘GaN templates’. I don’t think many people use Si wafers directly because of the strain mismatch, because the wafer cost is lower but the wafers potato chip, crack, and are loaded with defects. Maybe that has started to change though?

There’s an over capacity of epi reactors in China left over from their state subsidies that were in effect 10 years ago, when China was effectively buying equipment (a lot of Veeco reactors) and facilities for companies. Presumably every one that has a facility like this tries to get into display, but even if you zero out depreciation cost there’s still a large operating cost for chemicals and maintenance, plus all the assembly, test and repair cost. I don’t think Samsung is going to be able to take a struggling DRAM fab and start processing GaN in it, or that they would be able to (or want to) repurpose 20+year old 6” silicon fab tools to process GaN for displays as a way to cut cost.

If you guys think silicon wafer prices are bad, go look into the cost of epi grade SiC or GaN template wafers.


----------



## fafrd

FriscoDTM said:


> *This seems way OT fo an OLED thread and should be moved to the LED thread. *To assemble die onto a different substrate you would typically use wafer bonding (anodic or fusion), soldering using ultrasonic or heat to a ball grid array or evaporated solder pad, or some similar process. I assume they so far use either wafer bonding or conventional single die pick and place tools to transfer from the wafer onto the tile, and that’s partly why the cost is so high.
> 
> Silicon fabs typically run 200mm, 300mm, or 450mm wafers, whereas most optoelectronics manufacturing is done on 76mm, 100mm and 150mm wafers. Some blue LED manufacturing is still being done on 50mm wafers even, and 200mm is not so common. Blue LEDs are typically made using sapphire, SiC, and ‘GaN templates’. I don’t think many people use Si wafers directly because of the strain mismatch, because the wafer cost is lower but the wafers potato chip, crack, and are loaded with defects. Maybe that has started to change though?
> 
> There’s an over capacity of epi reactors in China left over from their state subsidies that were in effect 10 years ago, when China was effectively buying equipment (a lot of Veeco reactors) and facilities for companies. Presumably every one that has a facility like this tries to get into display, but even if you zero out depreciation cost there’s still a large operating cost for chemicals and maintenance, plus all the assembly, test and repair cost. I don’t think Samsung is going to be able to take a struggling DRAM fab and start processing GaN in it, or that they would be able to (or want to) repurpose 20+year old 6” silicon fab tools to process GaN for displays as a way to cut cost.
> 
> If you guys think silicon wafer prices are bad, go look into the cost of epi grade SiC or GaN template wafers.


At this point, I have to agree with you.

When we were discussing whether MicroLED could prove to be an OLED-TV killer or not, there was some link to the subject of the thread.

Now that we are in the weeds about what manufacturing LG may be using for MicroLED, let's move any continuation of the discussion to the MicroLED thread...

But I stand by my position that WOLED is safe as the low-cost-leader and value-leader for every Premium TV size it chooses to offer through the most of the next decade...


----------



## garbage98

Is there a reason why LG is the only company offering the 77 inch panel in a product? Sony had offered the A1 in 77 inch but neither the A8 nor the their new flagship A9 is available in 77 inch. The same with Panasonic this year, new models were introduced this spring but only in 55 inch and 65 inch. Last year's 77 inch model is discontinued and no successor is in sight... Other brands like Phillips don't even brother with an 77 inch model at all.

All I read here is that LG has increased the manufacturing of the 77 inch panel this year and indeed the street prices of the 77C8 are constantly decreasing. I would assume that with the falling prices the sales would grow significantly. But why are the other companies are leaving the growing 77 inch market but stay to fight in the much more competitive market of the smaller display sizes?


----------



## fafrd

garbage98 said:


> Is there a reason why LG is the only company offering the 77 inch panel in a product? Sony had offered the A1 in 77 inch but neither the A8 nor the their new flagship A9 is available in 77 inch. The same with Panasonic this year, new models were introduced this spring but only in 55 inch and 65 inch. Last year's 77 inch model is discontinued and no successor is in sight... Other brands like Phillips don't even brother with an 77 inch model at all.
> 
> All I read here is that LG has increased the manufacturing of the 77 inch panel this year and indeed the street prices of the 77C8 are constantly decreasing. I would assume that with the falling prices the sales would grow significantly. But why are the other companies are leaving the growing 77 inch market but stay to fight in the much more competitive market of the smaller display sizes?


I suspect that everyone is selling every 55" and 65" TV they can produce. Since supply remains limited, there is really not much incentive to complicate life by supporting an additiinal product line when you don't have to.

Only LG has the incentive to seed the market for the larger TV sizes they know will eventualky be needed.

Supply will eventualky catch-up with demand, and when that happens, 75/77" WOLEDs are the escape hatch.

LG introduced the 77C8P this year to be in a positiin to activate that escape hatch as addituonsl capacity came online, but it's now looking like WOKED is continuing to gain enough 55" and 65" market share that they may not need to (this year).

The recend 11% drop in 77C8P MSRP from $9900 to $8000 does not signal that LG is positioning to dip 77C8P pricing under $5000 in mainstream channels by November, so sales volumes of 77" WOLEDs will probably continue to be small (because WOLED is doing so well at 55" and 65").

Hopefully LG stays on track to introduce an 88" WOLED in 2019. When that happens, it will be a natural evolution for the 75/77"-class WOLEDs to move down-market with more mainstream pricing (77" is the new 65" ).

But yeah, I think WOLEDs success within the 65" and 55" Premium segments has caught everyone by surprise (including LG), so what appeared to be a near-certainty when the 77C8P was introduced in January is now looking far less likely in late 2018 and more likely to occur in late 2019...


----------



## dnoonie

Although it looks like the LGD earnings call has come and gone I've not been able to find any news on LCD fab conversion to WOLED. Has anyone else been able to find any news in that regard?


Cheers


----------



## fafrd

dnoonie said:


> Although it looks like the LGD earnings call has come and gone I've not been able to find any news on LCD fab conversion to WOLED. Has anyone else been able to find any news in that regard?
> 
> 
> Cheers


You'll have to translate: http://m.mk.co.kr/stock/newsview.mk?sCode=21&t_uid=20&c_uid=1619311

But this apparently closes with the statement: '*In the second half of this year, we will decide whether to switch OLED lines for 8G LCD production lines.*'


----------



## boe

fafrd said:


> You'll have to translate: http://m.mk.co.kr/stock/newsview.mk?sCode=21&t_uid=20&c_uid=1619311
> 
> But this apparently closes with the statement: '*In the second half of this year, we will decide whether to switch OLED lines for 8G LCD production lines.*'


I'm not sure what that means but I'm hoping it means a larger supply of 77 and 88" screens.


----------



## ez1dog

boe said:


> I'm sure 40 years ago someone was making a similar argument that TUBE TVs beyond 25" couldn't be made cost effectively that there would be any market or profit. Or for that matter 25 years ago for a 55" plasma TV. I predict that some screen tech - OLED, micro led, quantum dot (not "qled") will be available in 85" 8K, HFR below $10,000 provided that the government doesn't devalue money as much in the near future. I'd expect a 100" 8k model to be available at about $15,000 and I'm sure there will be plenty of men who will want them as marriage rates go down and we'll have less homes where they'll be forced to put them above the fireplace (that never gets used). As marriage rates go down, men will have more money for bigger TVs as they won't care about buying a house with wood floors only to immediately cover them with the most expensive carpets possible  . Of course all of this is pure conjecture.


What's with the marriage thing? Two home incomes would make these more affordable. IMO.


----------



## fafrd

boe said:


> I'm not sure what that means but I'm hoping it means a larger supply of 77 and 88" screens.


Any new 8.5G libes LG converts to WOLED won't impact suppky before 2020, by which time 77" panel production on 8.5G lines shoukd have phased out in favor of 75" WOLED production on the new 10.5G line.

By 2020, all 75" WOLED production and the the lion's share of 65" WOLED production will have moved to the 10.5G line while 55", 88", and possibly 49" will be manufactured on the multiple 8.5G lines.

So for the eventual widespread availability of 88" WOLEDs by 2020, additional 8.5G conversions is a positive, but it's not going to have aby impact on availability of 75/77" WOLED in the near-term or longer-term...

In the shorter term, the only way to see larger supply of 77" WOLEDs would be to get the world to slow down consumption of LGDs 55" and 65" WOLED panels - as it is, LGD WOLED has become the dominant panel supplier to the premium TV segment and can't produce enough 55" and 65" panels to keep up with growing demand:


----------



## fafrd

Just found this 2017 IHS market share forecast for the $1000+ TV market (which looks to be about 10 million units this year, based on about 3M WOLED TVs forecasted to ship in 2018).

The forecast of 1.9-1.5% (100,000-150,000) 8K LCD TVs shipping this year looks unlikely, as does the forecast fir ~12% / 1.2M 8K LCD TVs in 2019, but the OLED TV growth approaching 60% of the $1000-and-over TV market seems realistic and means LGD will ship every WOLED panel they can produce in 2019 within a $1000+ TV.

The decline in $1000+ market share in 2020 IHS is forecasting for WOLED TV seems unlikely, especially since LGD will almost certainly have their own 8K WOLED panels on offer by then. I also have doubts that over 22% (>2.2M) of those spending at least $1000 on a TV in 2020 will be buying an 8K panel...


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> But yeah, I think WOLEDs success within the 65" and 55" Premium segments has caught everyone by surprise (including LG), so what appeared to be a near-certainty when the 77C8P was introduced in January is now looking far less likely in late 2018 and more likely to occur in late 2019...


And this is where fafrd breaks my 77" inclined little heart. On the other hand, seeing Sony "calibrating" for better uniformity put a metaphorical wrench in my plans. If that can be done, I surely would prefer to wait for that to become widespread before maxing out on screen size (for my living room capabilities, that is). I long for those easier times of "buy a Kuro and be done with it".


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> And this is where fafrd breaks my 77" inclined little heart. On the other hand, seeing Sony "calibrating" for better uniformity put a metaphorical wrench in my plans. If that can be done, I surely would prefer to wait for that to become widespread before maxing out on screen size (for my living room capabilities, that is). I long for those easier times of "buy a Kuro and be done with it".


I'm 100% with you - this development alone is enough to convince me to forego a 77C8P even if prices do dip under $5000 this November (which I now doubt).

In-factory mura-compensation on a TV-by-TV basis is absolutely possible - it is just an issue of cost. Once Sony has demonstrated the improvements possible (and at an added cost that doesn't break the bank), the other brands including LGE will need to follow suit (2019).

Mura compensation is already done at the panel level by LGD (where it is less costly) but they are either not doing it well-enough or there is enough that changes after the panel has shipped and assembled into a TV that it becomes less effective.

Between improved near-black uniformity (better blacks) and the improved efficiency/lifetime of top-emission (better brights), 2019 should be an interesting year...


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> I'm 100% with you - this development alone is enough to convince me to forego a 77C8P even if prices do dip under $5000 this November (which I now doubt).


Yup, I'm back from reading the uniformity threads and I have zero desire to play that lottery, to be honest.


> Between improved near-black uniformity (better blacks) and the improved efficiency/lifetime of top-emission (better brights), 2019 should be an interesting year...


One can hope that LG will take the example provided by Sony and follow the same approach. Also, is top-emission a given for 2019 or is it still speculation?


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> Yup, I'm back from reading the uniformity threads and I have zero desire to play that lottery, to be honest.


I hear ya - been there, done that (9 WOLEDs in 20 months ) - never need to go through that misery again (and worth many $$$s to me to be able to avoid).



> One can hope that LG will take the example provided by Sony and follow the same approach. Also, is top-emission a given for 2019 or is it still speculation?


Well, if LGE decides to keep selling WOLEDs with poorer near-black uniformity after Sony has proven it's possible to deliver visible improvements, my next WOLED will be a Sony rather than an LG (and sounds like yours to ).

WOLES TV has done wonders to move LGE up the ranks in the TV market and I doubt they're going to want to piss all of that progress away by leaving a glaring deficiency versus Sony WOLEDs...

As far as top-emission, there has been no news that I've seen since late last year: https://www.oled-info.com/dscc-lgd-will-start-mass-producing-top-emission-oled-tv-panels-2019

LG has a pilot line of 3000 substrates/month planned for this year, so perhaps they'll demonstrate something at IFA or CEDIA.

Top emission is required for 8K WOLEDs (at least smaller screens) and helps with increased lifetime (and reduced burn-in) as well as increased peak brightness (the Brightness Wars) so there is no question that LG is motivated to roll-out the technology as soon as it is manufacturable at acceptable yields...


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> I'm 100% with you - this development alone is enough to convince me to forego a 77C8P even if prices do dip under $5000 this November (which I now doubt).
> 
> In-factory mura-compensation on a TV-by-TV basis is absolutely possible - it is just an issue of cost. Once Sony has demonstrated the improvements possible (and at an added cost that doesn't break the bank), the other brands including LGE will need to follow suit (2019).
> 
> Mura compensation is already done at the panel level by LGD (where it is less costly) but they are either not doing it well-enough or there is enough that changes after the panel has shipped and assembled into a TV that it becomes less effective.


No equipment exists to perform this type of compensation at TV sizes with enough precision (especially at the noisy near black) to fully correct this. This is why LG's own attempts are so poor. Sony is a leader in imaging sensors but I doubt even they can pull this off at reasonable cost. We shall see but nobody at the press event was talking about OLED vertical banding at all. They were talking about color calibration uniformity. This is a much simpler thing to offer and has been available on pro-grade LCD monitors for years. All they do is move the calibration sensor to several sample points (maybe a dozen max in a grid) and measure the dE at each point. You then get a guarantee that none of those points were above some threshold - typically dE 3.0. What happens at non measured parts of the panel is still up in the air. Real world results have been mixed with various side-effects. If they do this, maybe it will at least help with the color tinting that plagues many of these TVs.

Example of what it takes to measure OLED phones and tablets (which still ship with uniformity problems from all manufacturers - even Apple):








fafrd said:


> Well, if LGE decides to keep selling WOLEDs with poorer near-black uniformity after Sony has proven it's possible to deliver visible improvements, my next WOLED will be a Sony rather than an LG (and sounds like yours to ).
> 
> WOLES TV has done wonders to move LGE up the ranks in the TV market and I doubt they're going to want to piss all of that progress away by leaving a glaring deficiency versus Sony WOLEDs...


Most consumers only care about price. Most reviewers don't even mention the uniformity woes so it's a non-factor that will be difficult to charge a premium for except for a few people here at AVS.



> As far as top-emission, there has been no news that I've seen since late last year: https://www.oled-info.com/dscc-lgd-will-start-mass-producing-top-emission-oled-tv-panels-2019


Last public showing of top-emission was this 77" prototype with a column of defective pixels. Looks like there's more work to be done if they couldn't find a single fully working example for the show. Hopefully the non flexible or transparent versions are doing better.

https://youtu.be/gL5qt8i3b40?t=155


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> Top emission is required for 8K WOLEDs (at least smaller screens) and helps with increased lifetime (and reduced burn-in) as well as increased peak brightness (the Brightness Wars) so there is no question that LG is motivated to roll-out the technology as soon as it is manufacturable at acceptable yields...


Do you think they'll confine this advancement to 8K panels or will we see it on 4K displays as well? Given the TV size I'm interested in, 8K really has zero appeal for me (actually, considering the upscaling requirements I currently see it as a negative point).


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> Do you think they'll confine this advancement to 8K panels or will we see it on 4K displays as well? Given the TV size I'm interested in, 8K really has zero appeal for me (actually, considering the upscaling requirements I currently see it as a negative point).


Assuming yields approach equivalent levels, it's a near-certainty that 4K panels will move to top-emission as well (possibly from the get-go on 10 5G production:

- it decreases power consumption
- it increases peak brightness
- it increases lifetime
- it reduces the risk of burn in (more cumulative hours of static content to develop burn-in)

When is another question - probably introduced on new stuff first (8K WOLEDs, perhaps 10.5G WOLEDs) and they won't circle-back to upgrade 55" 4K panels manufactured on 8.5G lines before it becomes necessary (market demands greater brigtness and/or further immunity ftom burn-in).


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> No equipment exists to perform this type of compensation at TV sizes with enough precision (especially at the noisy near black) to fully correct this. This is why LG's own attempts are so poor. Sony is a leader in imaging sensors but I doubt even they can pull this off at reasonable cost.


We'll have to agree to disagree. This is a relatively straightforward issue to solve once the compensation controls and compensation map have been integrated into the panel. What it will cost in terms of test/compensation time and reduced throughput is another question, but we'll know soon enough from what Sony delivers and at what cost what practical improvement is possible...



> We shall see but nobody at the press event was talking about OLED vertical banding at all. They were talking about color calibration uniformity. This is a much simpler thing to offer and has been available on pro-grade LCD monitors for years. All they do is move the calibration sensor to several sample points (maybe a dozen max in a grid) and measure the dE at each point. You then get a guarantee that none of those points were above some threshold - typically dE 3.0. What happens at non measured parts of the panel is still up in the air. Real world results have been mixed with various side-effects. If they do this, maybe it will at least help with the color tinting that plagues many of these TVs.


What was 'talked about' at the Sony press event is less important than what reviewers write about, and enough of them have dinged WOLED for occasional 'graniness' and 'streaking' during largely uniform just-above-black scenes that if Sony delivers an improvement noticed by reviewers, it will be mentioned and likely cause LGE to follow suit...



> Example of what it takes to measure OLED phones and tablets (which still ship with uniformity problems from all manufacturers - even Apple):
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMkViM7a-LQ


The margins on phone screens is so much less that TV screens, the volumes are enormously higher, and critical viewing of content in a dark room is not ever a priority. I don't think anything can be read ito wjat is posdible in terms of compensating/improving WOLED TV near-black uniformity by what is typical on OLED screens for phones and tablets...



> Most consumers only care about price. Most reviewers don't even mention the uniformity woes so it's a non-factor that will be difficult to charge a premium for except for a few people here at AVS.


 Agree that for any visible increased premium, it'll go nowhere. Sony WOLED TVs already sell at a preium over LGD's WOLED TVs, and if that premium starts to include noticably-improved near-black uniformity, reviewers will notice and LGD will either follow-suit or lose momentum in their quest for recognition as a premium brand. All of the higher-end W, G, E for sure, probably also C, maybe not B...



> Last public showing of top-emission was this 77" prototype with a column of defective pixels. Looks like there's more work to be done if they couldn't find a single fully working example for the show. Hopefully the non flexible or transparent versions are doing better.
> 
> https://youtu.be/gL5qt8i3b40?t=155


Thanks for the link - that appears to be from last month, so a promising glimpse as to the maturity of the technology.

Hopefully they show a top-emission (non-flexible) 8K panel at IFA or CEDIA.

2019 will be an interesting year as far as product introduction:

-Will an 88" 8K WOLED be launched?

-Will an 88" 4K WOLED be launched?

-Will LG stick with 77" or introduce a 75C9P (manufactured on 8.5G lines for now)?

-Will any of the above new panel be based on top-emission?


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> No equipment exists to perform this type of compensation at TV sizes with enough precision (especially at the noisy near black) to fully correct this. This is why LG's own attempts are so poor. Sony is a leader in imaging sensors but I doubt even they can pull this off at reasonable cost. We shall see but *nobody at the press event was talking about OLED vertical banding at all. *They were talking about color calibration uniformity. This is a much simpler thing to offer and has been available on pro-grade LCD monitors for years. All they do is move the calibration sensor to several sample points (maybe a dozen max in a grid) and measure the dE at each point. You then get a guarantee that none of those points were above some threshold - typically dE 3.0. What happens at non measured parts of the panel is still up in the air. Real world results have been mixed with various side-effects. If they do this, maybe it will at least help with the color tinting that plagues many of these TVs.


Snce you brought it up, at least one reviewer at Sony's press event is talking about near-black non-uniformity ('banding'): https://www.soundandvision.com/content/sony-new-york

"One glaring difference with the LG OLED was banding in a scene from The Revenant. At about 2 minutes into the film, the sky in the upper left corner showed *obvious banding on the LGE8* as the scene faded to black. But *there was no banding visible on the Sony. *Interestingly, however, I later tried this same scene at home on last year’s LGE7. The latter also showed no banding on this scene, but an LGC8 did (though, oddly, it wasn’t nearly as obvious as on the LGE8 in the Sony demo)."


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Snce you brought it up, at least one reviewer at Sony's press event is talking about near-black non-uniformity ('banding'): https://www.soundandvision.com/content/sony-new-york
> 
> "One glaring difference with the LG OLED was banding in a scene from The Revenant. At about 2 minutes into the film, the sky in the upper left corner showed *obvious banding on the LGE8* as the scene faded to black. But *there was no banding visible on the Sony. *Interestingly, however, I later tried this same scene at home on last year’s LGE7. The latter also showed no banding on this scene, but an LGC8 did (though, oddly, it wasn’t nearly as obvious as on the LGE8 in the Sony demo)."


He's talking about color banding (aka posterization). The same as was demonstrated in HDTVTest's C8 vs AF8 review using the exact same movie scene. On the C8, there are huge out-of-box differences between how different samples handle near-black. Some crush it to oblivion while others show more shadow detail at the cost of posterization. Usual panel lottery at play. Even more variables if any of them were calibrated.

Look, if Sony had some magical method to fix vertical banding, they would have applied it to their 30" $30K OLED monitor which also has vertical banding, among other typical OLED issues.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> He's talking about color banding (aka posterization). The same as was demonstrated in HDTVTest's C8 vs AF8 review using the exact same movie scene. On the C8, there are huge out-of-box differences between how different samples handle near-black. Some crush it to oblivion while others show more shadow detail at the cost of posterization. Usual panel lottery at play. Even more variables if any of them were calibrated.
> 
> Look, if Sony had some magical method to fix vertical banding, they would have applied it to their 30" $30K OLED monitor which also has vertical banding, among other typical OLED issues.


We'll just need to wait to see what they end up delivering.

I went back and reviewed the slide they presented and while it does say:

"*Factory Calibration

For panel level accuracy

Native uniformity performance of the display panel
is a fundamental condition for accuracy. Sony performs
factory calibration because it can't be done after-market.*"

But then the image shows a near-white field rather than a near-black field...


----------



## dnoonie

fafrd said:


> Hopefully they show a top-emission (non-flexible) 8K panel at IFA or CEDIA.
> 
> 2019 will be an interesting year as far as product introduction:
> 
> -Will an 88" 8K WOLED be launched?
> 
> -Will an 88" 4K WOLED be launched?
> 
> -Will LG stick with 77" or introduce a 75C9P (manufactured on 8.5G lines for now)?
> 
> -Will any of the above new panel be based on top-emission?



I didn't find any new news in the above regard but did find:
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-oleds-brighter-durable.html
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/5/eaar8332


Cheers,


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> But then the image shows a near-white field rather than a near-black field...


You weren't the only one. Apparently many folks around have don't deal with displays offering factory uniformity calibration and don't know what it means. Look up any number of high-end NEC, Eizo, etc. monitors that come with this feature. Just like these Sony's they are advertising *color-accuracy uniformity*. It's to fix the kind of issues seen in this LG B7 OLED calibration result. Wish more reviewers would test more than a single small spot in the center of the screen and declare a display "reference quality".


----------



## zetruz

Not sure where to post this, but quantum dot colour filters could be applied to WOLEDs, no? Why are there no such models on the market? Or are there, and I'm just ignorant?


----------



## sooke

fafrd said:


> Assuming yields approach equivalent levels, it's a near-certainty that 4K panels will move to top-emission as well (possibly from the get-go on 10 5G production:
> 
> - it decreases power consumption
> - it increases peak brightness
> - it increases lifetime
> - it reduces the risk of burn in (more cumulative hours of static content to develop burn-in)
> 
> When is another question - probably introduced on new stuff first (8K WOLEDs, perhaps 10.5G WOLEDs) and they won't circle-back to upgrade 55" 4K panels manufactured on 8.5G lines before it becomes necessary (market demands greater brigtness and/or further immunity ftom burn-in).



I'm wondering if there could be other advantages of top emission in terms of the drive circuits. Since the light doesn't have to pass between the TFT devices, maybe there is more area for the drive circuits leading to better precision. Could this help with near-black uniformity? Hoping...


For reference, I was looking at the top-emission cross-section on this page: https://pro.sony/ue_US/technology/oled/technology-hdr-seeing-believing


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> You weren't the only one. Apparently many folks around have don't deal with displays offering factory uniformity calibration and don't know what it means. Look up any number of high-end NEC, Eizo, etc. monitors that come with this feature. Just like these Sony's they are advertising *color-accuracy uniformity*. It's to fix the kind of issues seen in this LG B7 OLED calibration result. Wish more reviewers would test more than a single small spot in the center of the screen and declare a display "reference quality".


Got it - thanks.


----------



## VidPro

Wizziwig said:


> Wish more reviewers would test more than a single small spot in the center of the screen and declare a display "reference quality".


This is why I will not have my A1E calibrated...well because of banding too. While it would look awesome (D-Nice calibrated my 500M) what's the point of calibrating my A1E when a quarter of the screen has yellow tint and a touch of magenta tint on the right hand side?


----------



## no1special

I'm sure this has been asked somewhere on AVS, but kind of hard to find. Sorry if I'm posting in the wrong place. Does anyone know if we'll start to see OLEDs in smaller than 55" sizes any time soon? I'd love to get a 42-43" OLED for the bedroom. What's keeping the smaller sized OLEDs from hitting the market?


----------



## fafrd

no1special said:


> I'm sure this has been asked somewhere on AVS, but kind of hard to find. Sorry if I'm posting in the wrong place. Does anyone know if we'll start to see OLEDs in smaller than 55" sizes any time soon? I'd love to get a 42-43" OLED for the bedroom. *What's keeping the smaller sized OLEDs from hitting the market?*


The short answer is: insatiable demand for 55" and 65" WOLEDs.

Gen 8.5 substrates are very efficient at producing 49" WOLEDs (8 per substrate) but LG has found so much demand for 55" and 65" WOLED panels that they are having trouble keeping up.

If/when supply of 55" and 65" WOLED panels comes into balance with demand, the first signs of that will be lower 77" WOLED pricing (a development LG has paved the way for by introducing an "entry-level" 77" WOLED model for the first time this year - 77C8P).

MSRP on the 77C8P just dropped from $9000 to $8000, not exactly signalling that LG wants to drive serious market share gains at 75/77" yet...

Once LG's new 10.5G fab is up and running in 2022, all 65" and 75" (75" is the new 77" ) WOLED production will move to 10.5G sheets as soon as possible, freeing up 50-67% of 8.5G sheet capacity. That sudden 2-3x increase in 55" WOLED sheet capacity may motivate introduction of 49" WOLED panels, on the other hand, 88" WOLEDs should be introduced next year and wil be produced 2-up on 8.5G sheets...

10.5G sheets are exceedingly efficient at producing 43" WOLEDs (18 per 10.5G sheet ) but even if LG ever does decide that there is margin to be made by moving further down-market and introducing 43" WOLED panels, that's highly unlikely to result in 43" WOLED TVs for sale before 2023 or 2024...

JOLED has recently disclosed plans to invest in a 5.5G RGB-OLED manufacturing line which will be producing 32" panels by 2020, so that may be your better bet to see a 42-43" OLED TV available within the next 5 years: https://www.oled-info.com/joled-aims-produce-tv-and-signage-oled-displays-future


----------



## no1special

fafrd said:


> The short answer is: insatiable demand for 55" and 65" WOLEDs.
> 
> Gen 8.5 substrates are very efficient at producing 49" WOLEDs (8 per substrate) but LG has found so much demand for 55" and 65" WOLED panels that they are having trouble keeping up.
> 
> If/when supply of 55" and 65" WOLED panels comes into balance with demand, the first signs of that will be lower 77" WOLED pricing (a development LG has paved the way for by introducing an "entry-level" 77" WOLED model for the first time this year - 77C8P).
> 
> MSRP on the 77C8P just dropped from $9000 to $8000, not exactly signalling that LG wants to drive serious market share gains at 75/77" yet...
> 
> Once LG's new 10.5G fab is up and running in 2022, all 65" and 75" (75" is the new 77" ) WOLED production will move to 10.5G sheets as soon as possible, freeing up 50-67% of 8.5G sheet capacity. That sudden 2-3x increase in 55" WOLED sheet capacity may motivate introduction of 49" WOLED panels, on the other hand, 88" WOLEDs should be introduced next year and wil be produced 2-up on 8.5G sheets...
> 
> 10.5G sheets are exceedingly efficient at producing 43" WOLEDs (18 per 10.5G sheet ) but even if LG ever does decide that there is margin to be made by moving further down-market and introducing 43" WOLED panels, that's highly unlikely to result in 43" WOLED TVs for sale before 2023 or 2024...
> 
> JOLED has recently disclosed plans to invest in a 5.5G RGB-OLED manufacturing line which will be producing 32" panels by 2020, so that may be your better bet to see a 42-43" OLED TV available within the next 5 years: https://www.oled-info.com/joled-aims-produce-tv-and-signage-oled-displays-future



In other words, it's not the high demand for 55" and 65" WOLEDs that's preventing LG from making smaller size WOLEDs, but the lack of LG to be able to meet that demand at this time and still have the resources to produce presumably less profitable smaller screens, at the same time.


High demand is never a "problem."  The problem is not having the resources or ability to keep up with the high demand.

I was also thinking that maybe LG doesn't feel it can compete in terms of significant enough sales numbers in the smaller size segments where LED LCDs dominate with "good enough for most" PQ and significantly lower price.


It's a real shame, though. I'd gladly pay $1k for a 43" OLED, and I'm sure many others would as well.


----------



## fafrd

no1special said:


> In other words, it's not the high demand for 55" and 65" WOLEDs that's preventing LG from making smaller size WOLEDs, but the lack of LG to be able to meet that demand at this time and still have the resources to produce presumably less profitable smaller screens, at the same time.
> 
> 
> High demand is never a "problem."  The problem is not having the resources or ability to keep up with the high demand.


The real problem is taking on too much at once and having everything get all screwed up.

LG will have tripled priduction in 2018 over 2017 and is teed-up to double again in 2019 and more than double afain in 2020. The longer they can ramp production volumes sticking largely 2 panel sizes, the better. I believe they will probably need to increase sales volumes of 75/77" next year, but if they can introduce 88" WOLEDs without needing to get side-tracked also introducing 49" panels, it's better and safer.



> I was also thinking that maybe LG doesn't feel it can compete in terms of significant enough sales numbers in the smaller size segments where LED LCDs dominate with "good enough for most" PQ and significantly lower price.
> 
> 
> It's a real shame, though. I'd gladly pay $1k for a 43" OLED, and I'm sure many others would as well.


When LG does introduce 43" WOLEDs, they will be priced at way under $1000.

The 55C8P is priced at $2000 today and will probably dip below last November's $1500 price for the 55B7A come the Holidays.

By 2023, an entry-level 55" WOLED is likely to be available for under $1000 over the Holiday shopping season.

An 8.5G sheet manufacturers 6 raw 55" panels or 5.1 55" panels at stated yields of 85%. 5.1 55" panels drive $10,200 based on today's MSRP of $2000.

A 10.5 sheet is estimated to cost ~50% more to manufacture than an 8.5G sheet, meaning the equivalent adjusted revenue target for a 10.5G sheet should be at least ~$15,300.

A 10.5G sheet will manufacture 18 raw 43" WOLED panels or 15.3 panels at 85% yield, so even at today's MSRP of $2000 for 55" WOLEDs, 43" WOLEDs could be priced at $1000 to reach the same adjusted revenue-per-sheet target.

In general, 43" WOLED should support pricing at 50% of 55" WOLED pricing to generate equivalent adjusted per-sheet margins.

So you are still not going to be able to get a 43" WOLED before 2023-2024, but once you can, you'll probably be able to purchase at least two with your $1000 budget .


----------



## no1special

fafrd said:


> The real problem is taking on too much at once and having everything get all screwed up.
> 
> LG will have tripled priduction in 2018 over 2017 and is teed-up to double again in 2019 and more than double afain in 2020. The longer they can ramp production volumes sticking largely 2 panel sizes, the better. I believe they will probably need to increase sales volumes of 75/77" next year, but if they can introduce 88" WOLEDs without needing to get side-tracked also introducing 49" panels, it's better and safer.
> 
> 
> 
> When LG does introduce 43" WOLEDs, they will be priced at way under $1000.
> 
> The 55C8P is priced at $2000 today and will probably dip below last November's $1500 price for the 55B7A come the Holidays.
> 
> By 2023, an entry-level 55" WOLED is likely to be available for under $1000 over the Holiday shopping season.
> 
> An 8.5G sheet manufacturers 6 raw 55" panels or 5.1 55" panels at stated yields of 85%. 5.1 55" panels drive $10,200 based on today's MSRP of $2000.
> 
> A 10.5 sheet is estimated to cost ~50% more to manufacture than an 8.5G sheet, meaning the equivalent adjusted revenue target for a 10.5G sheet should be at least ~$15,300.
> 
> A 10.5G sheet will manufacture 18 raw 43" WOLED panels or 15.3 panels at 85% yield, so even at today's MSRP of $2000 for 55" WOLEDs, 43" WOLEDs could be priced at $1000 to reach the same adjusted revenue-per-sheet target.
> 
> In general, 43" WOLED should support pricing at 50% of 55" WOLED pricing to generate equivalent adjusted per-sheet margins.
> 
> So you are still not going to be able to get a 43" WOLED before 2023-2024, but once you can, you'll probably be able to purchase at least two with your $1000 budget .


Thanks for all the info. Hopefully, you are correct. Actually, I hope you're wrong in one sense - that 43" OLEDs will be available much sooner, but I doubt it. But like you said, by the time they are available, they should cost much less than my budget today, so that's something to look forward to. Also, hopefully by 2023-24, all OLEDs will be virtually immune to burn-in for 99.9% of use cases, and have other improvements, such as peak brightness, uniformity, and panel life, that OLED finally puts the nail in the coffin for LCD screens - of all sizes. LCDs just have some inherent flaws that will probably never be overcome. I'm sure 5-6 years from now, I'll be wanting that roll-up OLED screen in a 100+ inch size, with all the electronics in a separate, upgradeable box.


----------



## gorman42

Wizziwig said:


> No equipment exists to perform this type of compensation at TV sizes with enough precision (especially at the noisy near black) to fully correct this. This is why LG's own attempts are so poor. Sony is a leader in imaging sensors but I doubt even they can pull this off at reasonable cost. We shall see but nobody at the press event was talking about OLED vertical banding at all. They were talking about color calibration uniformity. This is a much simpler thing to offer and has been available on pro-grade LCD monitors for years. All they do is move the calibration sensor to several sample points (maybe a dozen max in a grid) and measure the dE at each point. You then get a guarantee that none of those points were above some threshold - typically dE 3.0. What happens at non measured parts of the panel is still up in the air. Real world results have been mixed with various side-effects. If they do this, maybe it will at least help with the color tinting that plagues many of these TVs.


If it's not mura they're correcting when talking about panel uniformity, then the price they're rumoured to be asking for the new OLED is even more out of this world, IMHO.


----------



## alexanderg823

gorman42 said:


> If it's not mura they're correcting when talking about panel uniformity, then the price they're rumoured to be asking for the new OLED is even more out of this world, IMHO.


Well here's their illustration of what they intend to be accomplishing - take from that what you will.

Certainly seems to be more than a simple "color uniformity" correction to me.


----------



## 8mile13

alexanderg823 said:


> Well here's their illustration of what they intend to be accomplishing - take from that what you will.
> 
> Certainly seems to be more than a simple "color uniformity" correction to me.


That looks like full screen white to me. According Mark Henninger, who was there, it is a full screen grey field.


----------



## Wizziwig

That's also an image of an LCD, not OLED. Causes and solutions to LCD and OLED uniformity problems are not the same and it's unclear what claims they are making specifically to OLED. As I've already pointed out, these sort of presentations also often use artist depictions and drawings done in photoshop. They may not be photos of actual displays. Need I remind anyone of the backlight drawings done for the ZD9 launch which made some people around here conclude it must have 1000's of dimming zones?

My ZF9 LCD expectations are based on what's been delivered on computer monitors making similar claims (improved color accuracy uniformity and less "apparent" backlight bleed at cost of native contrast) but let's see what Sony actually delivers, especially for the OLED model.


----------



## slacker711

IHS estimate. 



> Unit shipments of 55-inch and larger TV panels, including LCD and organic light-emitting diode (OLED), increased by 20% y/y in the first half of 2018. Unit shipments of AMOLED TV panels reached 1.4 million in the first half of 2018, up 104% y/y.


https://technology.ihs.com/605432/s...rger-tv-panel-shipments-in-first-half-of-2018


----------



## alexanderg823

Wizziwig said:


> That's also an image of an LCD, not OLED. Causes and solutions to LCD and OLED uniformity problems are not the same and it's unclear what claims they are making specifically to OLED. As I've already pointed out, these sort of presentations also often use artist depictions and drawings done in photoshop. They may not be photos of actual displays. Need I remind anyone of the backlight drawings done for the ZD9 launch which made some people around here conclude it must have 1000's of dimming zones?
> 
> My ZF9 LCD expectations are based on what's been delivered on computer monitors making similar claims (improved color accuracy uniformity and less "apparent" backlight bleed at cost of native contrast) but let's see what Sony actually delivers, especially for the OLED model.


I'm sorry but how would you know that it's an image of an LCD and not OLED? It's just two rectangular images, one that looks awful and one that looks clean. I don't see how one would even begin to say it's one way or another.

No one is saying that the end result is going to look exactly like that image where it goes from **** to shine, but it clearly demonstrates that they're going for a panel uniformity calibration results that are quite different from the color uniformity (although they are doing that too) you initially believed.


----------



## 8mile13

''The A9F OLED and Z9F FALD-LCD are equipped with panels that have been pre-calibrated at the factory for uniformity.''
Mark Henninger at presentation.


----------



## vkamicht

alexanderg823 said:


> I'm sorry but how would you know that it's an image of an LCD and not OLED? It's just two rectangular images, one that looks awful and one that looks clean. I don't see how one would even begin to say it's one way or another.


I don't know for sure, but the top image just looks more like a dirty LCD panel, the rounded spots with fairly even distance between them indicating FALD backlighting that isn't quite uniform, for example. It probably is a mock-up/artist rendition to make it look worse than it really is, but I've never seen an OLED with a problem like that before.


----------



## Wizziwig

^^^ Exactly. You also have to look at this slide in context. It came from the middle of the ZF9 presentation. I think they are probably referring to calibrating the brightness of the individual zone LEDs to even out the overall panel brightness and color accuracy. This can only be done at the factory.


----------



## BlueChris

Why you guys try to find the elephant in the room? Sony said its uniformity calibration exactly as the guy above explains. 
Its crystal clear, with mura or any kind of correction they make all the backlight led's all over the tv to have the same output and for color they do the same with the lcd in front. 
When the 1st set comes to a knowledge person we will be sure if what Sony says is true or not.


----------



## stl8k

*Color in advanced displays: HDR, OLED, AR & VR*

Presentation tomorrow at SIGGRAPH '18...

https://s2018.siggraph.org/presentation/?id=gensub_266&sess=sess250
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3214840 (PDF of Presentation)


----------



## Spruce Goose

Off topic: This is post # 15000.

Feeble attempt at topicality: I've had my LG 65" C7 for over a year, and I'm still lovin' it.


----------



## slacker711

Numbers straight from LGD. They are selling pretty much everything they can make right now.

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2018/08/15/0200000000AEN20180815001600320.html



> The display maker said it sold 1.3 million units of large-sized OLED panels in the January-June period, jumping from 600,000 units posted a year earlier. LG said the sales rose among different sizes, from 55-inch to 77-inch panels.


----------



## fafrd

slacker711 said:


> Numbers straight from LGD. They are selling pretty much everything they can make right now.
> 
> http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2018/08/15/0200000000AEN20180815001600320.html


"LG Display said the completion of its new production line in China, which is scheduled for the second half of 2019, is expected to improve the company's monthly production capacity to 130,000 sheets from the current 70,000 sheets. A sheet is capable of producing six units of 55-inch panels."

70,000 sheets/month translates to 119,000 55" and 119,000 65" WOLEDs per month assuming 85% yield and 1/3 of the sheets for 55" and 2/3 of the sheets for 65".

119,000 x 2 x 6 months = 1.43M panels, meaning that 1.3M 55" and 65" WOLEDs could be produced using only 64,000 sheets per month.

Those 6000 'free' sheets per month could be used to produce 10K 77" WOLEDs per month (assuming the same 85% yield - 77" is probably a bit lower).

All of this to show that if all of the numbers are accurate, LG can't have produced nore than 50,000-100,000 WOLEDs in H1, meaning ~5% 77" WOLED production.

It's no wonder 77C8P prices have remained stubbornly high - LG prefers to go after additional market share gains with 55" and 65" WOLEDs where each sheet wins more converts to WOLED..


----------



## slacker711

fafrd said:


> 119,000 x 2 x 6 months = 1.43M panels, meaning that 1.3M 55" and 65" WOLEDs could be produced using only 64,000 sheets per month.
> 
> Those 6000 'free' sheets per month could be used to produce 10K 77" WOLEDs per month (assuming the same 85% yield - 77" is probably a bit lower).
> 
> All of this to show that if all of the numbers are accurate, LG can't have produced nore than 50,000-100,000 WOLEDs in H1, meaning ~5% 77" WOLED production.



It is even worse than that since they started the year with 60,000 substrates of capacity and only ramped to 70,000 sometime during the 1st half. I also think that we tend to ignore possible downtime when we make these calculations. I dont know what that time might be but I doubt that a fab operates at peak capacity each and every month during the course of a year. There just isnt much excess capacity for 77" production right now. 

I thought we might need to see more price drops to sell this number of units but it seems that the additional vendors are absorbing the capacity and OLED is taking share. FWIW, Digitimes says that LGD actually raised 55" panel prices in May.

https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20180810PD208.html



> Meanwhile, prospects for the large-size OLED TV panels are improving after the company raised its quotes for 55-inch OLED UD panels by 5% to a range of US$590-600 per unit in May. I


----------



## babator

slacker711 said:


> It is even worse than that since they started the year with 60,000 substrates of capacity and only ramped to 70,000 sometime during the 1st half. I also think that we tend to ignore possible downtime when we make these calculations. I dont know what that time might be but I doubt that a fab operates at peak capacity each and every month during the course of a year. There just isnt much excess capacity for 77" production right now.
> 
> I thought we might need to see more price drops to sell this number of units but it seems that the additional vendors are absorbing the capacity and OLED is taking share. FWIW, Digitimes says that LGD actually raised 55" panel prices in May.
> 
> https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20180810PD208.html


 1.3 million panels times $600 per 55" panel. I don't know what the mix is between 55" and 65" panels, but that's almost certainly more than a billion dollars of revenue from just the OLED TV panels in the January-June period. Seems like some kind of a milestone.



Profits are another thing, but pretty soon you are starting to talk about real money...


----------



## fafrd

babator said:


> 1.3 million panels times $600 per 55" panel. I don't know what the mix is between 55" and 65" panels, but that's almost certainly more than a billion dollars of revenue from just the OLED TV panels in the January-June period. Seems like some kind of a milestone.
> 
> 
> 
> Profits are another thing, but pretty soon you are starting to talk about real money...


There are 6 raw 55" panels per 8.5G sheet and 5.1 55" panels per 8.5G sheet @ stated 85% yields.

5.1 55" panels x $590-600/panel = $3009 - $3060 in income per 8.5G sheet.

60,000 8.5G sheets per minth x $3000 income per 8.5G sheet = $180M per month.

And $180M per month x 6 months = $1.08B, so LGD earned over $1B in H1'18 regardless of timing from 60,000 to 70,000 sheet capacity and regardless of 55"/65" mix.

And once the new 8.5G fab has ramped up in china, LGD will be generating over $1B in income from WOLED panels per quarter, so yeah, I think it's safe to say they are well on their way to serious money from this little initiative...


----------



## thebabyparrot

With all this new stuff happening - I wonder if we'll ever see 2000 nit OLED's and 65 inch prices that are close to what LED/LCD's are today.


----------



## fafrd

thebabyparrot said:


> With all this new stuff happening - I wonder if we'll ever see 2000 nit OLED's and 65 inch prices that are close to what LED/LCD's are today.


I believe the brightness wars have moved from being classified as an 'all-hands-on-deck emergency' to being a subject of continuous improvement.

So you will eventually get your 2000 nit WOLED TV, bt LGD is not hoing to perform unnatural acts of desperation (and take any significant risk) to get there. Top-emission will be the next development to improve efficiency and peak brightness, and all of the technologies LGD needs to develope to keep up in the 8K Resolution Arms Race are going to result in 4K WOLEDs with higher peak brightness.

On 65" WOLEDs close to 65" LED/LCD prices, perhaps you missed the meno, but ae're already there.

Best Buy is currently selling the 65Q9FN for $3500 while they are selling the 65C8P for $3000.

You have to move down to the Samsung Q8 to get under that price (65Q8FN for $2800) but then you find the 65B6P for that same price.

Now the edge-lit 65Q7FN is 10% lower at $2500, but the bottom lline is that LGs WOLED TVs already match Samsung's premium FALD QD-LED/LCD prices today.

Now Vizio has just launched their Q-Series (P-Series Quantum) which is a FALD QD-LED/LCD for $2100 today, so the least-expensive 65" WOLED still has a 33% premium versus that lower-tier offering.

Vizio's prices are static throughout the year, while LG and Samsung play the 'charge a premium early and dip in November' pricing game, so I predict we'll see 65B8P pricing dipping to within 10% of Vizio's 65" Q-Series in November...

The onslaught of 10.5G LCD fabs is going to result in lower and lower LCD prices going forward and LG will be keeping up with market prices as closely as they need to to maintain WOLED market share.

At both 65" 4K and 8K resolutions, LGD will be mainaining a pricing premium no higher than he market will ear and the attached bone-headed market forecast from IHS is almost certainly not going to materialize.

LGD WOLED will be capacity-constrained for the next ~5 years and that translates to offering whatever pricing it takes to keep market demand at equilibrium with production capacity (which apparently just translated into 5% higher panel pricing for 55" WOLEDs ).

Another take on LGD's victory with WOLED from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...anel-shipments-double-in-a-year/#271e0d241ce4

"the size of the OLED year on year advance really is striking and appears to show that consumers are increasingly willing to pay more for premium TV technology. Plus, of course, the more LG can leverage its growing production capacity to gradually reduce OLED prices, the bigger that pool of aspirational OLED buyers will continue to get,"


----------



## fafrd

I can't find KG's source announcement, but this report by OLED Info contains another interestibg tidbit: https://www.oled-info.com/lgd-oled-tv-shipments-more-doubles-first-half-2018

"LG Display says it aims to improve it production efficiency and sell more 1.6 million OLED TV panels in the second half of 2018."

70,000 8.5G substrates per month used 33% to produce 55" panels, 66% to produce 65" panels, and 1% to produce 77" panels translates to 118K 55", 118K 65", and 1.3K 77" WOLED panels at stated yields of 85%.

And that translates to 237.3 WOLED panels per month or 1.424M over 6 months.

Conclusion: either LG is producing more 55" panels than 65" panels (at 50% panels for 55" and 50% of panels for 65", the same exercise translates to H2'18 production of 1.767M panels) or their yields are betrer than stated yields of 85% (at 96% yield, the same 33%/33%/1% split translates to H2'18 production of 1.6M).

But either way you slice it, H2 poduction of 1.6M WOLED panels on 70,000 8.5G sheet capacity per month translates to less than 10,000 77" WOLED panels produced in H2'18...


----------



## fafrd

Some interesting measurements in the rtings.com burn-in thread: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...-oled-burn-tests-updated-27.html#post56661318

Average subpixel current density of WOLED when viewing random SDR contend appears to be:


----------



## mreendoor

Spring is to Come for LG Display


LG Display said it would increase its production of large OLED panels to 10 million by 2021 



LG Display plans to raise the proportion of OLED sales, which is currently about 10%, to 40% by 2020.


http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=24189


----------



## rogo

There's a possibility that LG will be selling 4-5% of TV panels at that time and making >40-50% of all TV profits. Amazing to see a bet like this rewarded.


----------



## JasonHa

Do LG's patents run out at some point in the next few years so that competitors can directly copy their WOLED display technology?


----------



## BreakPoint

JasonHa said:


> Do LG's patents run out at some point in the next few years so that competitors can directly copy their WOLED display technology?


That is a good question that I have wondered about myself. After some research I came up with the following. In 2009 LG bought Kodaks OLED IP including over 2200 OLED patents. How many of these are needed for WOLED is not info available to the public. However it appears the main WOLED patent was 2004. Patents in the US, filed after 1995, expire after 20 years (before 1995 they expire in 17 years). So the main WOLED patent will expire in 2024. Here is an excerpt from a 2016 article on Ars Technica. 

“...Eastman Kodak continued developing its OLED portfolio with an important upgrade: white-emitting OLED architecture (WOLED). This innovation, which Kodak patented in 2004, addressed a major issue with blue subpixels in OLED panels degrading at a faster rate than red or green ones. Kodak built these newer panels so that every red, blue, and green subpixel worked in tandem with a white subpixel, one in which the natural degradation didn’t include changes to color or brightness information. Kodak advertised this innovation as a way to make screens last longer and to make panel production cheaper and more efficient.

Yet with this technology in its hands, Kodak rested on its screen-manufacturing laurels, leaving its OLED R&D portfolio mostly untapped in the consumer space (with the exception of digital camera screens and overpriced digital photo frames). By the end of the 2000s, the company found itself struggling with the market’s transition to digital photography. That’s a much longer story than I have time to unfurl here, but it’s generally agreed that Kodak was scrambling to stay afloat.

One way it did so was by selling its lucrative OLED IP portfolio to LG in 2009. At the time, the $100 million deal went uncontested by LG’s rivals. There was no bidding war, likely because other companies didn’t see return on that kind of investment, but the move quickly made LG the major player in OLED TV screens....”


----------



## artur9

That's interesting. To me it implies that we'd get purer (more saturated?) colors if the white pixel were not there.

But lifespan is a good thing to have, too.


----------



## bjaurelio

artur9 said:


> That's interesting. To me it implies that we'd get purer (more saturated?) colors if the white pixel were not there.
> 
> But lifespan is a good thing to have, too.



Color volume would be better without the white, but lifespan would be the same as your phone screen - about 2 years.


----------



## Rudy1

_*JOLED GETS CAPITAL TO BEGIN INKJET-PRINTED OLED PRODUCTION
*_
https://hdguru.com/joled-gets-capital-to-begin-inkjet-printed-oled-display-production/


----------



## stl8k

Good recent series of academic papers on "Recent advances in materials for organic light emitting diodes", especially the paper on blue emitters.

https://www.beilstein-journals.org/bjoc/series/78


----------



## Rudy1

_*"LG DISPLAY REPORTS Q2 LOSS DESPITE ACCELERATING OLED SALES"

---from HDGURU.com
*_
_"LG’s flat-panel display manufacturing unit LG Display Co Ltd might have big plans for expanding its OLED panel production capabilities in coming months, but it continues to lose money on its on-going operations.

South Korean-based LG Display last week reported its second-consecutive quarterly loss as revenue tumbled due to falling panel prices and weaker demand from LCD television and mobile device makers.

LG Display, which is a leading display panel resource for Apple, reported an operating loss of 228 billion won ($202.1 million) in the quarter as revenue fell 15% to 5.6 trillion won, from the same period in 2017."_

https://hdguru.com/lg-display-reports-q2-loss-despite-reports-of-accelerating-oled-tv-sales/


----------



## fafrd

Rudy1 said:


> _*"LG DISPLAY REPORTS Q2 LOSS DESPITE ACCELERATING OLED SALES"
> 
> ---from HDGURU.com
> *_
> _"LG’s flat-panel display manufacturing unit LG Display Co Ltd might have big plans for expanding its OLED panel production capabilities in coming months, but it continues to lose money on its on-going operations.
> 
> South Korean-based LG Display last week reported its second-consecutive quarterly loss as revenue tumbled due to falling panel prices and weaker demand from LCD television and mobile device makers.
> 
> LG Display, which is a leading display panel resource for Apple, reported an operating loss of 228 billion won ($202.1 million) in the quarter as revenue fell 15% to 5.6 trillion won, from the same period in 2017."_
> 
> https://hdguru.com/lg-display-reports-q2-loss-despite-reports-of-accelerating-oled-tv-sales/


Pretty sure that's old news. LGD's business is still dominated by LCD panels. The LCD panel bursibess is entering a last-man-standing pricewar driven by new Chinese fabs, and si LGD is losing money on their legacy LCD budiness - so what?

Here's how Steve Abramson, the CEO of UDC, summarized the key take-aways fom LGDs earnings call: https://seekingalpha.com/article/41...abramson-q2-2018-results-earnings-call?page=1

"During LG Display's earnings conference call, the company reaffirmed its commitment to OLEDs, reiterating its OLED TV and mobile capacity plans, including its Gen 8.5 OLED TV plant in Guangzhou, China, its Gen 6 Mobile OLED Live and Gen 10.5 OLED TV facility in Paju, Korea. And the company shared that it's reviewing additional OLED TV capacity players, including *the option of converting some LCD TV capacity to OLED*, driving these additional OLED TV players' demand. *LG Display is targeting approximately 2.8 million OLED TV shipments this year, 4 million units in 2019, 7 million in 2020, and 10 million in 2021.* An interesting size fact, while *10 million units is less than 5% of the total TV market of approximately 250 million units, *those 10 million OLED TVs in square meters is equivalent to over 60% of the total smartphone market of approximately 1.6 billion units. That is a lot of glass to cope with our materials."

So while LG may be steuggling go unplug themselves from their money-losing legacy LCD panel business, they have decided to cease any further R&D or capital investments into LCD technology while accelerating their investmemts in WOLED to deliver a CAGR of over 50% for the next 3 years...

And while this forecast of 10 million WOLEDs in 2021 would bring LG to only 4% of the overall TV market by 2021, those 10 million units amount to 40% of the Premium TV segment where the lion's share of profits in the TV business lie...


----------



## bjaurelio

With IFA happening this week, are we expecting to find out whether the 2019 OLEDs will use top emission? The last news I can find was from October 2017. Every other mention of LG OLED panels with top emission refers back to this. https://www.oled-info.com/dscc-lgd-will-start-mass-producing-top-emission-oled-tv-panels-2019


----------



## Vinterbird

What is the future of OLED? 

Is top-emission the "next big thing" that will be meaningful groundbreaking changes to how OLED is percieved? Or will everything be incremental updates going forward, and there won't be a massive change in the technology at this point? 

Or will 8K force LGD to push forward more aggressively?


----------



## ALMA

I told you so... LG *Electronics* will announce the 8K OLED at IFA 2018:




> LG said while the size of the 8K TV market for this year is estimated at only 60,000 units, the segment is anticipated to expand to 5.3 million in 2022.
> 
> The company added that the size of the market for OLED TVs, estimated at 2.5 million units this year, will jump to 9.35 million units in 2022.


http://www.theinvestor.co.kr/view.php?ud=20180829000212




> LG Electronics said on Aug. 29 it will unveil its 88-inch 8K OLED TV at the upcoming tech exhibition in Germany, claiming the product will help the company expand its presence in the global premium TV market.
> 
> The company said it will introduce the new TV at the Internationale Funkausstellung Berlin which kicks off on Aug. 31.





> “LG’s first 8K OLED TV is the pinnacle of technological achievement and the next evolutionary step in display technology” said Brian Kwon, president of LG’s home entertainment business. “4K OLED played a major role in reshaping the TV industry, and LG is confident that 8K OLED will do the same.



http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180829000267


Pictures:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lge/albums/72157694904736790/with/42525939150/


----------



## 8mile13

There was a 88'' LG OLED at CES in januari.


> LG did say we might see one in the next two years.


https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnites...id-security-problems-is-just-getting-started/


----------



## ALMA

Yes, but only on the LG *Display* booth behind cloosed doors...



The 8K OLED TV is now a public presentation for all show attendees from LG *Electronics*:


https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/lg-88-inch-8k-oled-tv-introduced-ifa2018/


It seems they will counter-attack Samsung´s 8K QLED offerings very soon.


----------



## stl8k

FYI. 88" 8K shown privately at CES was bottom emission per Vincent (1m8s)...

https://youtu.be/3KT1o3NkBBs?t=1m8s


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> FYI. 88" 8K shown privately at CES was bottom emission per Vincent (1m8s)...
> 
> https://youtu.be/3KT1o3NkBBs?t=1m8s


I believe that's right.

The key thing to watch is whether this new 8K WOLED 'Product' being announced by LGE is top-emission (meanibg it has competetive peak brightness levels) or not...

But the fact it is being shown by LGE (and not LGD) is pretty much proof that LGD has an 88" 8K WOLED panel to ship in 2019...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> I believe that's right.
> 
> The key thing to watch is whether this new 8K WOLED 'Product' being announced by LGE is top-emission (meanibg it has competetive peak brightness levels) or not...
> 
> But the fact it is being shown by LGE (and not LGD) is pretty much proof that LGD has an 88" 8K WOLED panel to ship in 2019...


Speaking of top-emission, this article was submitted in September 2017, meaning the work was completed over a year ago: https://www.osapublishing.org/Direc...-24-29906.pdf?da=1&id=376952&seq=0&mobile=yes

I would not be surprised to learn that this work forms the basis of the top-emission technology LGD plans to start producing late this year and while I'm not enough of an OLED Guru to translate these numbers into increased effuciency and peak brightness levels versus today's bottom-emission WOLEDs, my suspicion is that they may translate into much more than the +10% level suggested by DisplaySuppkyChain (https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction "Because Bottom Emission loses the light output blocked by the sub-pixel circuit, the shift to top emission allows for a *10% improvement in aperture ration (and therefore light output, *all else being equal)."

"Abstract: Micro-cavity top-emitting organic light emitting diodes (TEOLEDs) are now receiving prominence as a technology for the active matrix display applications. The semi- transparent metal cathode plays the crucial role in realizing TEOLEDs structure. Here, we report the optimization results on Mg:Ag ratio as the semitransparent cathode deposited by vacuum thermal evaporation. The optimized Mg:Ag cathode with 1:10 ratio (wt %) shows a sheet resistance value as low as 5.2 Ω/ , an average transmittance of 49.7%, reflectance of 41.4%, and absorbance of 8.9% over the visible spectral region (400~700 nm). The fabricated red TEOLEDs device implemented using LiF (1nm)/Mg:Ag (1:10) cathode shows the voltage value of 4.17 V at a current density of 10.00 mA/cm2, and *current efficiencies variation from 55.3 to 50.1 cd/A over the brightness range 2,000 – 12,000 cd/m2. *The electroluminescence (EL) spectrum displays the light emission at 608 nm wavelength with a half width of 29.5 nm. The narrow half-width of red light emission is attributed to the micro-cavity effects due to the semitransparent cathode."


----------



## wco81

LG is going to have to improve the brightness output when Vizio can sell a well reviewed set that outputs 4K nits.

ThEy can’t completely dismiss the brightness deficit.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> LG is going to have to improve the brightness output when Vizio can sell a well reviewed set that outputs 4K nits.
> 
> ThEy can’t completely dismiss the brightness deficit.


Who said they are ignoring it?

If I've understood the implications of that paper correctly, WOLED has a roadmap for brightness taking them about as far as they want to go.

50 cd/A translates equates to 0.5cd/10mA and at a current density of 10mA/cm^2, that translates to 0.5cd/cm^2.

0.5cd/cm^2 equals 5000cd/m^2, so these top-emission WOLEDs could exceed 4000cd/m2 while delivering a lifetime-to-75%-brightness (LT75) of over 10,000 hours.

Our estimates of existing WOLED current density is more in the range of 5mA/cm^2, but even that would translate to peak brightness levels of over 2000 cd/m2 while delivering lifeime-to-95%-brightness (LT95) of 10,000 hours.

The 2017 WOLEDs showed differential-aging-related burn-in of ~5% after 18 weeks of displayng CNN 20/7 @ 380cd/m2. Even displaying a bright red fully-saturated at that brightness level for that full raw time of 2500 hours (adds reduce the actual CNN logo display time to ~50-60% or that total), this top-emission OLED is unlikely to demonstrate any signs of burn-in at all.

Top-emission is likely to result in a relaxation of the current 150cd/m2 ABL limit to 250-300cd/m2 as well as an increase in peak brightness levels of small specular highlights for HDR to over 2000cd/m2.

Will the first-generation fully deliver on these new specs or will LGD take a more cautious approach? Who's to say?

But these research results and just the fact that they mention testing at brightness levels of 12,000 cd/m2 should comfort you that LGD WOLED is not 'ignoring' WOLED's brightness deficit and that they likely have a roadmap to turn that deficit into a surplus over the coming decade...


----------



## ALMA

The 8K prototype from the CES had the same specs than the 4K OLED TVs. I don´t expect top emission in the consumer version. It seems LGE want to release the 88" this year.


https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Co...ld-s-first-8K-television-with-an-OLED-display


----------



## slacker711

I dont have access to the underlying report but this IHS synopsis implies that top emission will come with the Gen 10.5 fab...which would probably be late 2020. 



> [Display Dynamics] Improving OLED TV panel production
> Jerry Kang | August 17, 2018
> 
> LG Display is trying to increase OLED capacity with Gen 8.5 multi-model glass and Gen 10 top emission technology.


----------



## stl8k

*1K Nits Peak Brightness Confirmed*

1K Nits Peak Brightness Confirmed by Phillips Here...






Wonder how they achieved it? They refer to it as +10% improvement.


----------



## bjaurelio

stl8k said:


> 1K Nits Peak Brightness Confirmed by Phillips Here...
> 
> https://youtu.be/06vsx8RqCrY
> 
> Wonder how they achieved it? They refer to it as +10% improvement.


He mentioned a change in the pixel structure. Wouldn't the pixel structure change in the panel have to come from LG? From what I remember, the 16-18 LG OLED TVs have the same base panel.


----------



## stl8k

8K *Q*LED from Samsung intro (in 4K)


----------



## Wizziwig

Anyone know if Sony is using the recently discussed printing method to manufacture the OLEDs for the just announced XZ3 phone?

"The new XZ3 is an iterative design over the XZ2, however it brings an extremely important industry development by virtue of being the first smartphone sporting a new Sony OLED display.

To date Samsung and LG were the only manufacturers able to manufacture and produce OLED displays in any meaningful quantities and quality- with Samsung being the undisputed market leader in the area."

Source.

"And the results are deeply impressive. Pin-sharp, rich and vibrant – well, of course. But with almost no off-axis colour degradation, something many OLED screens suffer from, and outstanding, faithful video playback, the Sony screen really stands out."

Source.


----------



## boe

I'm curious (not trying to be a wise guy) if they improve the brightness if that means more susceptibility to burn-in.


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> Anyone know if Sony is using the recently discussed printing method to manufacture the OLEDs for the just announced XZ3 phone?
> 
> "The new XZ3 is an iterative design over the XZ2, however it brings an extremely important industry development by virtue of being the first smartphone sporting a new Sony OLED display.
> 
> To date Samsung and LG were the only manufacturers able to manufacture and produce OLED displays in any meaningful quantities and quality- with Samsung being the undisputed market leader in the area."
> 
> Source.
> 
> "And the results are deeply impressive. Pin-sharp, rich and vibrant – well, of course. But with almost no off-axis colour degradation, something many OLED screens suffer from, and outstanding, faithful video playback, the Sony screen really stands out."
> 
> Source.


Japan Display is apparently the OLED supplier for Sony's new smartphone

Source: https://www.frandroid.com/marques/s...-officialise-ses-caracteristiques-et-son-prix


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> 1K Nits Peak Brightness Confirmed by Phillips Here...
> 
> https://youtu.be/06vsx8RqCrY
> 
> Wonder how they achieved it? They refer to it as +10% improvement.


Looks like the 2018 panel to me (which was 'new' with respect to the 2017 panel ).

All they had to do to rach 1000 Nits with a 2018 panel was not reserve any headroom for burn-in compensation, as LGE did with their 2018 WOLEDs.

We know sonething about LGE's susceptibility to burn-in (starting with 2016 generation) and something about the imorovements they have made in 2017.

We do not know if that headroom-reservation and burn-on compensation in being delivered by LGD with each and every WOLED panel or if each brand/manufacturer has the option to adopt it and/or customize it.

To my knowledge, we know next to nothing about burn-in performance of other WOLED brands including Philips and Sony...


----------



## fafrd

https://www.oled-info.com/kyulux-si...ve-commercial-ready-tadfhf-emitters-ready-mid

"Kyulux announced that it has signed *joint-development agreements (JDAs) *with both LG Display and Samsung Display. *The LGD agreement was signed in January 2018 *while the SDC one was recently signed. Both agreements focus on deep blue Hyperfluoresence / TADF emitters.

Kyulux hopes that by collaborating with the two leading OLED producers, it will be able to accelerate its material development - and it *aims to have commercial red, green and blue HF/TADF emitters ready by mid 2019.*"


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> https://www.oled-info.com/kyulux-si...ve-commercial-ready-tadfhf-emitters-ready-mid
> 
> "Kyulux announced that it has signed *joint-development agreements (JDAs) *with both LG Display and Samsung Display. *The LGD agreement was signed in January 2018 *while the SDC one was recently signed. Both agreements focus on deep blue Hyperfluoresence / TADF emitters.
> 
> Kyulux hopes that by collaborating with the two leading OLED producers, it will be able to accelerate its material development - and it *aims to have commercial red, green and blue HF/TADF emitters ready by mid 2019.*"


Nice find fafrd. That's right around the corner!

More background, including some nice visual comparisons, in this presentation...

https://www.oled-a.org/uploads/9/6/8/6/96867108/20171009_osm_kyulux.pdf


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Nice find fafrd. That's right around the corner!
> 
> More background, including some nice visual comparisons, in this presentation...
> 
> https://www.oled-a.org/uploads/9/6/8/6/96867108/20171009_osm_kyulux.pdf


Interesting, thanks.

There were two tidbits I found interesting: 

-page 31 references 85.5 cd/A or 146% the efficiency of phosphorescent emitters.

-pages 29, 30 and 33 all make reference to Top Emission

This makes me wonder whether LGD is planning of moving to HyperFlorescence as part of their Top Emission initiative...

The September 2017 article by LGD I found on Top Emission and linked to a few posts back made reference to current efficiencies of 55.3 to 50.1 cd/A, which seems like it could get WOLED to 2000 cd/m2 peak at ~5mA/cm^2 current densities.

If these results by Kyulux are for real, 85.5 cd/A would easiy get WOLED past 3000 cd/m2 at similar current densities.

Seems as though WOLED (and OLED in general) is very early in it's development / evolution roadmap and should have the headroom to keep up with Samsung and LED/LCD in the Brightness Wars (even as we are entering Round II, with Samsung just announcing that their 8K 85" QLED/LCD can hit 4000 cd/m2 peak...).

Exciting times .


----------



## fafrd

http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=24742

'The ASP of large-sized OLED panels reached US$812.54 in the first quarter of last year but dropped to US$600, and recovered to the US$700 level in the second quarter of this year after a long time. IHS Markit forecast that the ASP would rise to US$731.9 in the third quarter. The recovery was led by *55-inch panels which account for about 70% of the market.* The ASP of 55-inch OLED panels sank to US$527.6 in the first quarter of this year, then moved up to US$535 in the second quarter and is expected to remain at this level until the end of the year.'

'"Technological advancement cut down on production cost, ultimately leading to a cut in panel prices," an LG Display official said. "An increase in demand has driven up panel prices lately."'


----------



## video_analysis

An increase in demand in spite of the obnoxious LCD squealers here (much to their chagrin), which is a good problem to have!


----------



## fafrd

Not sure whether it qualifies as an advancement or not, but since there has been speculation on the subject of smaller WOLED offerings, figured I'd share.

Found this French CNET rcap of last summers LG OLED Day: https://www.cnetfrance.fr/news/lg-d...crans-oled-8k-arriveront-en-2019-39859182.htm

CNET France was in attendance and their recap includes this tidbit:

"Sang-Deog Yeo, président d’LG Display, a par ailleurs révélé que de plus petites dalles Oled d’une quarantaine de pouces étaient en chemin, sans donner de précisions sur leur date de sortie."

Translated, it says that Sang-Deog Yeo, president if LGD revealed that smaller OLEDs in the 40-49" range were in the roadmap, without giving details on the launch date.

HDTVTEST also showed the specifications for the recently introduced 88" 8K WOLED and it is apparently 800cd/m2 peak and based on existing bottom-emission technology.

So if LG can make an 88" 8K panel on their 8.5G manufacturing substrate (2 per substrate, actually ), it means they have the pixel capability to manufacture 44" 4K panels based on the same pixel.

They can manufacture 8 44" 4K WOLEDs per panel but thatis wasteful - the same panel is optimized to produce 8 panelss up to 49" in diagonal.

Either way, my guess is that on the heels of launching their 88" 8K WOLED, LG is likely to be launching 44" or 49" WOLEDs as well (likely timed somewhat before 10.5G manufacturing ramps up, since the 10.5G fab will suck all 65" and 77/75" WOLED production from the 8.5G lines...


----------



## stl8k

Absolute latest from Kyulux on its dark blue work...

https://translate.google.com/transl...com/en/imid-2018-blue-tadf-hyperfluorescence/


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> Not sure whether it qualifies as an advancement or not, but since there has been speculation on the subject of smaller WOLED offerings, figured I'd share.


 Here is a translation of the Numeriques article (which link is in the C|NETfrance article)
http://www.mybiodybalance.com/new-lg-display-80-inch-8k-and-40-inches-oled-tv-ultra-hd-in-2019/



> LG Display prepares many Oled screens with a diagonal of 40 to 49 inches for the European market.
> However, production of these screens is not expected until 2019. We can, therefore, expect to see commercialization by the end of 2019, or even early 2020. As far as fares are concerned, these tiles will not necessarily be cheap, and Oled 40 to 49-inch televisions should be sold at the same prices as 55-inch models, which offer economies of scale.





> Finally, we asked LG Display President Sang-Deog Yeoux if Oled’s mid-sized screens for laptops and PC monitors would be developed. He simply told us that nothing was planned for the time being.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> Here is a translation of the Numeriques article (which link is in the C|NETfrance article)
> http://www.mybiodybalance.com/new-lg-display-80-inch-8k-and-40-inches-oled-tv-ultra-hd-in-2019/


"As far as fares are concerned, these tiles will not necessarily be cheap, and Oled 40 to 49-inch televisions should be sold *at the same prices as 55-inch models,* which offer economies of scale."

Didn't see anything about that in the original French report and suspect the author is confused,

LGD woukd love is if they could sell a 40-49" WOLED panel for the same price as a 55" panel - one 8.5G sheet produces 6 55" WOLEDs or 8 49" WOLEDs, so that woukd represent a 33% jump in per-sheet income at the drop of a hat.

What is true (and what may have been lost in translation and caused the confusion) is that there are no savings in 8.5G WOLED panel production costs once dropping to 49" (8-up) until getting all the way down to 43" (9-up).

So a 44" WOLED will costs as much as a 49" WOLED (but each will be priced ~33% below the peice if a 55" WOLED).

The interesting variable in this discussion is the price of 77" WOLEDs. 77" panels should cost ~3x the price of 55" panels on 8.5G manufacturing and we know that prices remain stubbornly higher than that.

The 55C8 is currently $2200 at Best Buy while the 77C8P just dropped $1000 to $7000, so on a crude revenue-per-sheet model, 3 77C8s generate 106% the revenue of 6 55C8s and it is difficult to see why LG would want to prioritize a new lower-margin ~49" product class when they can more easily drive additional 77" panel sales by droppig prices further.

Of course, there is more to TV cost than just the cost of the panel, and so we can consider the more likely scenario that the 65C8 priced at $3000 and the 55B8 priced at $2200 represents margin-equality. Non-panel (size-independent) WOLED TV costs would need to be $1400 for per-sheet rmargin of [email protected]$2200 to match per-sheet margin of [email protected]$3000.

The we apply that estimate of $1400 in fixed size-independant costs to the 77C8, that would mean the excess profit of 77C8P would increases for 6% to 133% (meaning 233% the level of income per sheet instead of 106%, which I suspect is closer to the reality).

The B-Series uses an inferior (less expensive) processor and if we reprat the same exercise with the [email protected]$2000 and the [email protected]$2800, we come out with fixed (size-independant) costs of $1200 to achieve margin parity for the B-Series, and this also means that smaller entry-level WOLEDs are going to be pretty expensive,

With that assumption, panel and size related costs are only 40% of a WOLED TVs cost and the 33% savings of 49" panel would translate to a 49B8P that would cost only 10% less than the 55B8P...

So just to repeat my original point, I think we are likely to see much lower 77" WOLED pricing before we see smaller panel sizes introduced...


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> "As far as fares are concerned, these tiles will not necessarily be cheap, and Oled 40 to 49-inch televisions should be sold *at the same prices as 55-inch models,* which offer economies of scale."
> 
> Didn't see anything about that in the original French report and suspect the author is confused,


Like i said the link is in the C|NET article you posted ''nos collègues des -> Numériques


----------



## Rudy1

*MEANWHILE, ON THE "OTHER SIDE OF THE TRACKS"...*

_"Samsung Electronics will significantly accelerate its next-generation TV launch schedule. Next year, we will showcase a super-large 8K lineup of 100-inch or larger, *and release self-luminous QLED in 2020"*._

http://www.etnews.com/20180903000337?mc=em_003_00001


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> Like i said the link is in the C|NET article you posted ''nos collègues des -> Numériques


----------



## fafrd

Rudy1 said:


> *MEANWHILE, ON THE "OTHER SIDE OF THE TRACKS"...*
> 
> _"Samsung Electronics will significantly accelerate its next-generation TV launch schedule. Next year, we will showcase a super-large 8K lineup of 100-inch or larger, *and release self-luminous QLED in 2020"*._
> 
> http://www.etnews.com/20180903000337?mc=em_003_00001


The first part I believe. Samsung will push 8K as hard and as fast as they can, going both as low as possible (all the way down to 65", possibly even down to 55") and going as high as possible (already at 85" and can easily believe they will launch a 100"+ 8K TV next year).

On 8.5G manufacturing, the largest panel that can be manufactured 2-up is 98", but with all of these 10.5G LCD lines coming online in China, the rules are changing. 10.5G manufacturing can manufacture 105" panels 3-up and 2-up manufacturing can produce panels over 130".

So yeah, a 100-105" 8K QLED looks very doable and Samsung is desperate to do anything to demonstrate capability WOLED can't match...

Interestingly, if LGD wanted just to match the bragging-rights game, their 8.5G manufactirihg lines can easily manage 98" 8K WOLEDs (2-up) and can manfacture 8KbWOLEDs as large as 110" if they are willing to go 1-up (2x2 tile of 55" 4K panels).

So it's not entirely out of the question that you see Samsung announce a 105" 8K TV and LG one-ups them with a 110" 8K WOLED product announcement.

I mean, in the era of MixroLED and TV Walls, these are all 'small' modestly-priced screen sizes, right .


The second part is the usual Samdung bullsh*t - I will gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today...

WOLED is going to keep gaining market share in the Premium Segment and even if they are successful in steering the Premium market to 8K faster than makes sense, LG should be in a position to respond quickly enough to avoid the loss of market share IHS has forecasted (especially sonce LGE has now announced an 8K 88" WOLED product).

All the talk about MicroLED and now 'self-luminous QLED' is nothing more than the usual Samdung smoke and mirrors to try to derail or slow down the WOLED locomotive that has already left the station...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> The first part I believe. Samsung will push 8K as hard and as fast as they can, going both as low as possible (all the way down to 65", possibly even down to 55") and going as high as possible (already at 85" and can easily believe they will launch a 100"+ 8K TV next year).
> 
> On 8.5G manufacturing, the largest panel that can be manufactured 2-up is 98", but with all of these 10.5G LCD lines coming online in China, the rules are changing. 10.5G manufacturing can manufacture 105" panels 3-up and 2-up manufacturing can produce panels over 130".
> 
> So yeah, a 100-105" 8K QLED looks very doable and Samsung is desperate to do anything to demonstrate capability WOLED can't match...
> 
> Interestingly, if LGD wanted just to match the bragging-rights game, their 8.5G manufactirihg lines can easily manage 98" 8K WOLEDs (2-up) and can manfacture 8KbWOLEDs as large as 110" if they are willing to go 1-up (2x2 tile of 55" 4K panels).
> 
> So it's not entirely out of the question that you see Samsung announce a 105" 8K TV and LG one-ups them with a 110" 8K WOLED product announcement.
> 
> I mean, in the era of MixroLED and TV Walls, these are all 'small' modestly-priced screen sizes, right .
> 
> 
> The second part is the usual Samdung bullsh*t - I will gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today...
> 
> WOLED is going to keep gaining market share in the Premium Segment and even if they are successful in steering the Premium market to 8K faster than makes sense, LG should be in a position to respond quickly enough to avoid the loss of market share IHS has forecasted (especially sonce LGE has now announced an 8K 88" WOLED product).
> 
> All the talk about MicroLED and now 'self-luminous QLED' is nothing more than the usual Samdung smoke and mirrors to try to derail or slow down the WOLED locomotive that has already left the station...


p.s. whatever happened to the QLED Alliance


----------



## wco81

Going large is fine but they will not have much volume at those larger sizes and higher prices.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Going large is fine but they will not have much volume at those larger sizes and higher prices.


Exactly.

They are squeezed at the high end becuase their is no volume market for ultra-large TVs and they are squeezed at the low end because 8K resolution on a 65" TV just makes the TV more expensive (and slower ) without adding any real benefit.

The sweetspot of next year's Premium TV Market Share Battle will be at 65" and by 2020, possibly also starting to include 75" (and hence all of the 10.5G manufacturing comng online) and at those sizes, Samsung's announcement of 4000 cd/m2 peak brightness is probably more significant than their announcement of 8K (though the Brightness Wars strategy has already been tried twice and failed, so we'll see in 2019 whether the third time is the charm)...

But the marketing effort put behind marketing 8K by Samsung in 2019 will be breathtaking (beyond what we saw with curved TVs), mark my words...

Who knows how LG responds, but if their response to Samsung's MicroLED Wall is any indication, they may just continue to shadow Samsung at the high-end:

-Samsung announces an 85" 8K QLED product; LG announces an 88" 8K WOLED product.

-Samsung announces a 95" 8K QLED product; LG announces a 98" 8K WOLED product.

-Samsung announces a 105" 8K QLED prodct; LG announced a 110" 8K WOLED product.

Samsung could also announce a 120"-130" 8K product, at which point they'd win the one-upsmanship, but by then, who cares? (and LG always has their 173" MicroLED ).


----------



## fafrd

Rudy1 said:


> *MEANWHILE, ON THE "OTHER SIDE OF THE TRACKS"...*
> 
> _"Samsung Electronics will significantly accelerate its next-generation TV launch schedule. Next year, we will showcase a super-large 8K lineup of 100-inch or larger, *and release self-luminous QLED in 2020"*._
> 
> http://www.etnews.com/20180903000337?mc=em_003_00001


More detail on what Samsung actually said refarding self-emissive QLEDs (the usual Samdung fudgification): https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/news/236e13e

Han said "TCL plans to release self-luminous QLED after 2020, but Samsung Electronics is one step ahead of QLED technology."

The authors (unclear whether ETNews or Display Specifications) go on to state that: 'This can be interpreted as Samsung Electronics can launch self-emitting QLED before TCL.' (I have no reason to doubt that is true ).

The lead sentence then expands upon this 'interpretation' to state that 'Samsung's schedule includes an announcement... ...of the release of self-luminous QLED TVs in 2020.'

Samsung announced no such thing. Thy announced that they are a step ahead of TCL. Then when this statement is fudgified into misinformation by the pess, Samsung stay silent and makes no attempt to correct/clarify.

Classic Samsung.

There will be no self-emissive QLED TVs released by Samsung in 2020 and I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is in case anyone in interested in a wager...


----------



## Rudy1

Of course, all of the announcements from the manufacturers are nothing but vaporware until actual owners start complaining on the AVSF that HDR in Game Mode appears too dark.


----------



## fafrd

Rudy1 said:


> Of course, all of the announcements from the manufacturers are nothing but vaporware until actual owners start complaining on the AVSF that HDR in Game Mode appears too dark.


Yes, but as I just posted in the other thread, if Samsubg had made an announcement of plans to launch a product, that carries some liability (they are a public company).

If you parse what Samsubg's Hee actually said, it amount to:

1/TCL has plans to launch a self-emissive QLED product after 2020 (which amounts to TCL knowing they can't be reedy for a 2020 launch, but does not even imply they believe they could ne ready for a 2021 launch...).

2/ Samsung is a 'step-ahead' of TCL in the development of self-emissive QLEDs (which amounts to both companies having R&D efforts ongoing, and Samsung having reached some milestone ahead of TCL).

I have no reason to believe either of those statements are false or even exaggerated. They just don't come anywhere close to the headlines provided by the press.

It's classic Samsung communication/marketng strategy:

1/ say something regarding some new technology

2/ allow the press to completely misinterpret/exaggerate the meaning of your statement(s)

3/ stay mum and let the technlogy rags echo the misinformation from one corner of the globe to the other


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Yes, but as I just posted in the other thread, if Samsubg had made an announcement of plans to launch a product, that carries some liability (they are a public company).
> 
> If you parse what Samsubg's Hee actually said, it amount to:
> 
> 1/TCL has plans to launch a self-emissive QLED product after 2020 (which amounts to TCL knowing they can't be reedy for a 2020 launch, but does not even imply they believe they could ne ready for a 2021 launch...).
> 
> 2/ Samsung is a 'step-ahead' of TCL in the development of self-emissive QLEDs (which amounts to both companies having R&D efforts ongoing, and Samsung having reached some milestone ahead of TCL).
> 
> I have no reason to believe either of those statements are false or even exaggerated. They just don't come anywhere close to the headlines provided by the press.
> 
> It's classic Samsung communication/marketng strategy:
> 
> 1/ say something regarding some new technology
> 
> 2/ allow the press to completely misinterpret/exaggerate the meaning of your statement(s)
> 
> 3/ stay mum and let the technlogy rags echo the misinformation from one corner of the globe to the other


p.s. The more substantive part of Samsung/Hee's announcement, everything to do with the Tsunami of 8K products we can expect from Samsung in 2019, is completely accurate (and very likely) in my view.

"We believe that a drastic change is necessary to lead the premium market" a Samsung Official said.

"The time to commetcialize the 8K TV was next year, but one president was willing to commercialize it in the second half of this year," (either 'a Samsung Official or 'another Company official at IFA' said)

Another Company official said at IFA "Our aim is to significantly speed up the roadmap rather than originally planned."

Those statement are all almost certainly completely true.

On both 8K and MicroLED, Samsng is speeding up their roadmap and getting everything they have in the development pipeline out to the market over the next 12 months.

If they don't find something the market wants enough to slow down LG WOLEDs market gains in the Premium TV market by this time next year, the window will basically be closing on them (at least in the Premium TV Segment).

By 2020, LG should be positioned to largely close the brightness gap with top-emission, their 10.5G production line will be on the cusp of cranking out 65" and 75" WOLED at far lower cost, and some of the super-cool and differentiated capability WOLED offers such as rollable TVs should start reaching the market.

Desperate times call for desperate measures...


----------



## ALMA

TCL build a new production line for LCD and OLED. Nothing about QLED TVs...




> The new production line, to be built in southern China’s Shenzhen city, where the company is also listed on the local stock exchange, will have the capacity to manufacture 90,000 screens of the latest generation ultra high definition variety each month. It will produce and sell 65-inch, 70-inch and 75-inch 8K resolution screens, *as well as 65-inch and 75-inch OLED television screens, the company said in a Chinese-language announcement filed to the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. The company plans to achieve mass production in March 2021.*


https://www.scmp.com/business/compa...-largest-television-maker-build-us671-billion


I guess the self-emmisive QLED TV is the QD OLED hybrid. A blue OLED in 2 years is more likely than a printed blue QLED.


----------



## boe

wco81 said:


> Going large is fine but they will not have much volume at those larger sizes and higher prices.


I consult for a lot of rich people all wanting to buy big TVs - they don't want projectors. They want OLED at 88" or bigger but don't want to ever worry about burn in. They aren't worried about the price but they don't like ever replacing things so they'll want to keep them for years even though they seem to have a new car every time I pull into the driveway. While they may not represent the average buyer you could say the same thing about high end Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, Bentley, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Fisk, teslas, etc. While I may not have money for high end cars there is a market. In other words what the average person has money for doesn't decide if there is a market for something.

That being said, if I could get a 1000plus nit oled with hdmi 2.1 without burn in risk at 85" or above - yeah I'd probably blow a wad of cash and it would be far the most expensive thing I own other than my car.


----------



## artur9

IIRC, accountants will tell you to replace your car if it's too old because, even on finance, it's a sellable asset. I don't think accountants have such a high regard for TVs and stereo equipment. We should change their minds.

I can't imagine what kind of space one must have that can hold an 88" TV. I can't even fit a 65" in the spaces I have available to me.


----------



## wco81

Why would the rich care about having to replace the TV every year?

They can just hire someone to bring in the new and take out the old.

Are the rich big TV watchers? They have other toys than to sit and watch TV?

Anyways, they could sell thousands of these 88 inch TVs and the volume of 65-inch TVs will probably be an order of magnitude or two greater.


----------



## video_analysis

artur9 said:


> I can't imagine what kind of space one must have that can hold an 88" TV. I can't even fit a 65" in the spaces I have available to me.


If you've got a wall, you've got the space. Ranch type floor plans of even modestly sized 3-bedroom homes can accommodate (I've already got a 77" in such, and from 11 feet out, it's already shrunk considerably, especially with letterbox content).


----------



## artur9

video_analysis said:


> If you've got a wall, you've got the space. Ranch type floor plans of even modestly sized 3-bedroom homes can accommodate (I've already got a 77" in such, and from 11 feet out, it's already shrunk considerably, especially with letterbox content).


Well, you got to have a wall you you can sit perpendicular to with the TV in there. None of the walls I have qualify. Windows, doors, chimneys all get in the way.

Unless I were willing to look at the TV sideways, like my wife will look at me when I bring such a behemoth home


----------



## boe

wco81 said:


> Why would the rich care about having to replace the TV every year?
> 
> They can just hire someone to bring in the new and take out the old.
> 
> Are the rich big TV watchers? They have other toys than to sit and watch TV?
> 
> Anyways, they could sell thousands of these 88 inch TVs and the volume of 65-inch TVs will probably be an order of magnitude or two greater.


1 - Rich people are surprisingly(to people who aren't rich) tight with their money. They assume every laptop, TV, server etc that is now 5 plus years old - is something they "just bought". They don't seem to care about phones as they can't be seen having an "old" phone. They'll own twenty $25,000 watches they'll almost never wear. Likewise with their cars - a big part of it is appearance. They only time they want a new laptop is if they were in a meeting with someone and they are mocked about their laptop not being new. They are the ones who constantly want work for free because they know their business is worth a good deal to people who aren't rich.

2. Rich people watch an insane amount of TV - government and financial 24x7 so they can plan trades, investments etc. This might surprise some but people on skid row aren't the ones buying Kaleidescape for as much as $100k or 40" plasmas at 20K when they were first released.

3. I can't speak to the statistics of which will sell more ratio wise but I do expect little 65" ones will sell in far greater numbers than 85" ones. I bet the mark up is significantly more for a bigger HQ TV though. I can however tell you there will always be someone saying there is no market for a $x priced TV, video card or $x bottle of wine or $x priced car and yet they exist and sell in huge numbers. Sure the honda civic probably outsells the BMW 7 series in numbers but it doesn't mean the market doesn't exist. If someone says it is a small market - try to find a city in CA that doesn't have its own BMW dealership within 15 miles. Try to find a liquor store that doesn't have a $200 bottle of wine (no I'm not talking about bob's gas and sip). For some reason on every forum there are people who don't have as much money as rich people either saying there is no market for mansions, $250K cars etc. or those people should just buy a $40,000 car and give the money to ... Always someone saying no one would buy a $100,000 electric car. Just because I can't justify an expense doesn't mean I'm ethnocentric enough to believe the market doesn't exist. I might as well say no one will watch a movie about bridesmaid dresses as I'd rather put a bullet in my head and yet my taste in movies obviously doesn't cover everyone else.


----------



## fafrd

boe said:


> 1 - Rich people are surprisingly(to people who aren't rich) tight with their money. They assume every laptop, TV, server etc that is now 5 plus years old - is something they "just bought". They don't seem to care about phones as they can't be seen having an "old" phone. They'll own twenty $25,000 watches they'll almost never wear. Likewise with their cars - a big part of it is appearance. They only time they want a new laptop is if they were in a meeting with someone and they are mocked about their laptop not being new. They are the ones who constantly want work for free because they know their business is worth a good deal to people who aren't rich.
> 
> 2. Rich people watch an insane amount of TV - government and financial 24x7 so they can plan trades, investments etc. This might surprise some but people on skid row aren't the ones buying Kaleidescape for as much as $100k or 40" plasmas at 20K when they were first released.
> 
> 3. I can't speak to the statistics of which will sell more ratio wise but I do expect little 65" ones will sell in far greater numbers than 85" ones. I bet the mark up is significantly more for a bigger HQ TV though. I can however tell you there will always be someone saying there is no market for a $x priced TV, video card or $x bottle of wine or $x priced car and yet they exist and sell in huge numbers. Sure the honda civic probably outsells the BMW 7 series in numbers but it doesn't mean the market doesn't exist. If someone says it is a small market - try to find a city in CA that doesn't have its own BMW dealership within 15 miles. Try to find a liquor store that doesn't have a $200 bottle of wine (no I'm not talking about bob's gas and sip). For some reason on every forum there are people who don't have as much money as rich people either saying there is no market for mansions, $250K cars etc. or those people should just buy a $40,000 car and give the money to ... Always someone saying no one would buy a $100,000 electric car. Just because I can't justify an expense doesn't mean I'm ethnocentric enough to believe the market doesn't exist. I might as well say no one will watch a movie about bridesmaid dresses as I'd rather put a bullet in my head and yet my taste in movies obviously doesn't cover everyone else.


When we here are the Forum throw out the term 'no market' that is code for no meaningful market (in volumes).

There are ~200M+ TVs sold every year. Any caregory of TV that sells under the 0.01% level (meaning fewer than 20,000 units per year) is not a 'market' we generally want to waste our time talking about in this Forum - that's what the High-end-gear-$20,000-and-over Forum is for .


----------



## ALMA

> How to maintain high power efficiency (PE) and color stability under operating brightness is critical for the white organic light-emitting diodes (WOLEDs). To this end, two novel spiro-type materials STPy3 and STPy4 were designed. These materials could act as a single host and achieve a remarkable external quantum efficiency of 27.5% at 1000 cd m–2; to further optimize the PEs of OLEDs, STPy3/4 and PO-T2T were used as co-host-induced exciplexes, which enhanced the PE of green OLED to over 148.0 lm W–1. *Unfortunately, the lower triplet energy level of exciplexes than blue emitters implied it is commonly unsuitable to fabricate WOLEDs. Herein, a new allocation of gradient exciplex (AGE) strategy was developed in which the formed excitons could be rationally allocated in a consequently doped nonuniform profile.* The AGE incorporated the advantages of the exciplex with an ultralow turn-on voltage of 2.3 V and efficiency stability of spiro materials.* The PE at 1000 cd m–2 was enhanced to 72.7 lm W–1, representing the first exciplex WOLED with the performance exceeding that of conventional fluorescent tubes.*



https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsami.8b09418?journalCode=aamick


----------



## Dave-T

video_analysis said:


> If you've got a wall, you've got the space. Ranch type floor plans of even modestly sized 3-bedroom homes can accommodate (I've already got a 77" in such, and from 11 feet out, it's already shrunk considerably, especially with letterbox content).


I found this chart online for 16:9 format tv widths. a 90" tv is 78.4" wide. I live in a 1300 square foot condo with three bedrooms and I could easily fit a 88" OLED. In the pic below between speaker to speaker I have 90 inches.


https://www.inchcalculator.com/169-tv-dimensions/


----------



## BlueChris

Dave-T said:


> I found this chart online for 16:9 format tv widths. a 90" tv is 78.4" wide. I live in a 1300 square foot condo with three bedrooms and I could easily fit a 88" OLED. In the pic below between speaker to speaker I have 90 inches.
> 
> 
> https://www.inchcalculator.com/169-tv-dimensions/


 Do hear voices in the night? They are from your wall yelling and crying lol
"I want a projector, buy me a projector, sniff sniff"


----------



## Dave-T

BlueChris said:


> Do hear voices in the night? They are from your wall yelling and crying lol
> "I want a projector, buy me a projector, sniff sniff"


I seriously considered the Sony Short Throw. If I did get s projector I think it would have to be right over my kitchen table. the kitchen table is 21' from the tv, my couch is 9'3" from the tv.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> When we here are the Forum throw out the term 'no market' that is code for no meaningful market (in volumes).
> 
> There are ~200M+ TVs sold every year. Any caregory of TV that sells under the 0.01% level (meaning fewer than 20,000 units per year) is not a 'market' we generally want to waste our time talking about in this Forum - that's what the High-end-gear-$20,000-and-over Forum is for .


I think it's really hard to appreciate here at AVS how few

1) TVs of 85 inches and above sell in the entire world, including projectors, not including projectors, etc.

2) There was a 90-inch Sharp a few years ago and an 80, both affordable. They sold in super tiny, and almost as tiny numbers.

While it's true the average TV size keeps rising, it's not true that the "really big" end of the curve is getting especially large, nor do trends show it becoming large. There will be a market for whatever OLED LG sells over 75 inches. It will be appreciably larger if that 88-to-90-inch model is ultimately under $5,000 as opposed to merely under $10,000. But even if the price dropped to $3,000, the market would never get especially large. (In fact, elastically of demand for such a product is far smaller than most here would believe.)

Manufacturers routinely announced 100+ inch "bespoke" models in the early 2000s to this cohort of "incredibly rich" people many of you seem to believe just buy whatever they want so they can watch CNBC on the big screen and plan their investments or enjoy their Kaleidascape (sells so few it's hard to imagine). 

But in reality, lots of rich people don't want walls subsumed by big screens, don't have walls as large as you think they do, don't care about video as much as we do. 

Incidentally, when the flat panel era began, there was a _market_ for $10,000+ TVs. It wasn't massive, but it existed: People wanted flat panels, they cost more than $10,000.

Now, you can't sell much of anything up there. It's a sub 0.01% slice of the market for sure. LG is democratizing picture quality -- as much as the OLED haters think there is something wrong with the technology that makes it less than videophile quality imaging -- to the point where the competition is learning the $5,000 market is shrinking rapidly. Do I know precisely how big it is? No, but I'd guess the entirety of $5,000+ TVs is comfortably below the 0.1% level of the market.

This is common in technology. PCs used to be $5,000+ ($20,000 or more in today's dollars) for common models. Now they are in the triple digits and a slice of the market (20%? 30%) is above $1,000, a narrow slice above $2,000, a vanishingly small slice above $5,000 -- think gaming rigs, workstations, a few theoretical Mac configurations with giant SSDs. If you introduced a $20,000 PC today, you would sell none. It almost doesn't matter what it does, and presumably one could build such a "piece of kit" with dual, top-end graphics cards, a suite of Intel CPUs, 256GB of top-end RAM, 8TB of SSD in an array, or whatever. 

There is no return for the $10,000 TV, which, incidentally, will offer no features anywhere near comparable to what the PC could offer (for the few who would use such a PC). Once the $5,000 TV is fully obliterated, it's not coming back either.

I have often explained here than a 100-inch LCD (or 110-inch) is a trivial product that could easily be sold for well under $5,000. No one has built this not because they are not smart enough to employ the grade-school math I am capable of. No one has done this because there is nowhere near enough people to sell it to. So they don't bother and instead sell a few to those who are "insanely rich" and own Kaleidascapes.


----------



## K Sec

stl8k said:


> Japan Display is apparently the OLED supplier for Sony's new smartphone
> 
> Source:


Japan Display ( and Sharp ) has been working on printable OLED for years. Long before even Samsung and LG had their first OLED Smartphone out. So the screen quality being as good as its rivals is a good sign.

But why so little news about it? Printable OLED were suppose to bring OLED cost close to or below LCD level. 

Sharp Display ( Now owned by Foxconn ) is also lacking news as well. Compared to other panel maker, TCL, BOE, LG, Samsung are all very aggressive.


----------



## fafrd

K Sec said:


> Japan Display ( and Sharp ) has been working on printable OLED for years. Long before even Samsung and LG had their first OLED Smartphone out. So the screen quality being as good as its rivals is a good sign.
> 
> But why so little news about it? Printable OLED were suppose to bring OLED cost close to or below LCD level.
> 
> Sharp Display ( Now owned by Foxconn ) is also lacking news as well. Compared to other panel maker, TCL, BOE, LG, Samsung are all very aggressive.


They just released a 21.6" OLED monitor produced at very low volumes with 4.5G printed OLED: https://www.oled-info.com/joled-starts-commercial-shipments-its-printed-216-4k-oled-monitor-panels

And now they have finally raised enough capital to begin investibg in a new 20,000 5.5G sheet/month printed OLED facility that is expected to begin producing 32" OLED panels in 2020: https://www.oled-info.com/joled-announce-official-plans-55-gen-printed-oled-fab-ishikawa-japan

At this rate, how long will it be before we are likely to see printed 75" OLEDs hit the market? Kind of hard to see that this is anything to get terribly excited about...

In case you hadn't heard, WOLED is already lower-cost that QD-enhanced high-zonecount FALD LED/LCDs, so LG WOLED has the Premium TV Market pretty much wrapoed-up and is barely keeping up with demand and ramping-up capacity at a rate that will give them 50% share of the Premium TV market by 2022.

As WOLED approaches saturation of the Premium TV market and needs to look at taking share from the lower-end edge-lit LED/LCD market to continue to grow, the cost-reductions offered by printed OLED technology are attractive, but this is really a problem for the next decade.

10.5G WOLED manufacturing, the move to top-emission, and possibly QDCF are much nearer-term developments to get excited about.

With 10.5G manufacturing and top-emission, a 4000 cd/m2 peak 240Hz 75" WOLED TV costing under $2500 within the next 5 years looks like a very real possibility... (without needing printed technology).


----------



## ynotgoal

Wizziwig said:


> Anyone know if Sony is using the recently discussed printing method to manufacture the OLEDs for the just announced XZ3 phone?


The display in the Sony XZ3 is most likely from LG. It is definitely not a printed display from Japan Display.
https://www.oled-info.com/sony-xperia-xz3




fafrd said:


> And now they have finally raised enough capital to begin investibg in a new 20,000 5.5G sheet/month printed OLED facility that is expected to begin producing 32" OLED panels in 2020: https://www.oled-info.com/joled-announce-official-plans-55-gen-printed-oled-fab-ishikawa-japan


Japan Display has raised half of the required capital for this facility. Enough to start construction but long after they hoped to complete financing still not enough to get into production. Should be telling that they can't get the rest of the financing.


----------



## fafrd

Stacked RGB OLED design: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-27976-z

The entire surface area of each pixel can put out any color in the CIE colorspace (no subpixels). And no patterning needed (like WOLED).

More: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379677997039660

Apparently these are called *SOLED*s (*S*tackable *O*rganic *L*ight *E*mitting *D*iodes).


----------



## rogo

SOLED tech isn't new, it's just never been made viable before. 

It would be exciting for fill factor and brightness, that's certain.


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> SOLED tech isn't new, it's just never been made viable before.
> It would be exciting for fill factor and brightness, that's certain.


Especially when looked under the microscope. Nowadays side-by-side sub-pixel density can be so high that stacking sub-pixels is just for publishing in eggheads curiosity journals.


----------



## stl8k

Interesting article on production QA of displays:

https://globalledoled.com/articles_...lay-production-testing-efficiency-and-yields/

App idea: A TV app that pulls up the factory QA report (w/ vendor participation) for your panel with easy posting to AVS Forum. Decidedly better than the cell phone photo route we use today.


----------



## Dunebuster

rogo said:


> I think it's really hard to appreciate here at AVS how few
> 
> 1) TVs of 85 inches and above sell in the entire world, including projectors, not including projectors, etc.
> 
> 2) There was a 90-inch Sharp a few years ago and an 80, both affordable. They sold in super tiny, and almost as tiny numbers.
> 
> While it's true the average TV size keeps rising, it's not true that the "really big" end of the curve is getting especially large, nor do trends show it becoming large. There will be a market for whatever OLED LG sells over 75 inches. It will be appreciably larger if that 88-to-90-inch model is ultimately under $5,000 as opposed to merely under $10,000. But even if the price dropped to $3,000, the market would never get especially large. (In fact, elastically of demand for such a product is far smaller than most here would believe.)
> 
> Manufacturers routinely announced 100+ inch "bespoke" models in the early 2000s to this cohort of "incredibly rich" people many of you seem to believe just buy whatever they want so they can watch CNBC on the big screen and plan their investments or enjoy their Kaleidascape (sells so few it's hard to imagine).
> 
> But in reality, lots of rich people don't want walls subsumed by big screens, don't have walls as large as you think they do, don't care about video as much as we do.
> 
> Incidentally, when the flat panel era began, there was a _market_ for $10,000+ TVs. It wasn't massive, but it existed: People wanted flat panels, they cost more than $10,000.
> 
> Now, you can't sell much of anything up there. It's a sub 0.01% slice of the market for sure. LG is democratizing picture quality -- as much as the OLED haters think there is something wrong with the technology that makes it less than videophile quality imaging -- to the point where the competition is learning the $5,000 market is shrinking rapidly. Do I know precisely how big it is? No, but I'd guess the entirety of $5,000+ TVs is comfortably below the 0.1% level of the market.
> 
> This is common in technology. PCs used to be $5,000+ ($20,000 or more in today's dollars) for common models. Now they are in the triple digits and a slice of the market (20%? 30%) is above $1,000, a narrow slice above $2,000, a vanishingly small slice above $5,000 -- think gaming rigs, workstations, a few theoretical Mac configurations with giant SSDs. If you introduced a $20,000 PC today, you would sell none. It almost doesn't matter what it does, and presumably one could build such a "piece of kit" with dual, top-end graphics cards, a suite of Intel CPUs, 256GB of top-end RAM, 8TB of SSD in an array, or whatever.
> 
> There is no return for the $10,000 TV, which, incidentally, will offer no features anywhere near comparable to what the PC could offer (for the few who would use such a PC). Once the $5,000 TV is fully obliterated, it's not coming back either.
> 
> I have often explained here than a 100-inch LCD (or 110-inch) is a trivial product that could easily be sold for well under $5,000. No one has built this not because they are not smart enough to employ the grade-school math I am capable of. No one has done this because there is nowhere near enough people to sell it to. So they don't bother and instead sell a few to those who are "insanely rich" and own Kaleidascapes.


I have a 70" LG LED, (Im)patiently waiting for an 85" OLED

Remember in "Back to the Future II" when Michael J fox comes home and voice orders 5-6 channels to fill his whole wall screen.

The market is there, its the 'price window' that makes markets seem to be too small.


----------



## JLaud25

*When do you expect to see major leap in oled tech?*

Oleds since 2016 have seen just incremental improvements, when could we see a major technological leap in the tech that leads to better IQ/motion/uniformity? Some people say that top emission is the next step forward , but we haven't heard from lg themselves in over a year when top emission is coming (not the speculation articles). So what year are you hoping for a major tech leap in oled at the earliest?


----------



## Kenbar

8K...late 2019.


----------



## circumstances

JLaud25 said:


> Oleds since 2016 have seen just incremental improvements, when could we see a major technological leap in the tech that leads to better IQ/motion/uniformity? Some people say that top emission is the next step forward , but we haven't heard from lg themselves in over a year when top emission is coming (not the speculation articles). So what year are you hoping for a major tech leap in oled at the earliest?


I hope it's fairly soon. I want to buy, but I'm concerned with the current tech and I want 77" or larger (ideally larger).


----------



## Postmoderndesign

circumstances said:


> I hope it's fairly soon. I want to buy, but I'm concerned with the current tech and I want 77" or larger (ideally larger).


The incremental improvement in 2017 was LG killed 3D. They wanted more nits for HDR and removed the polarization filter. But I would call that a trade off and not an improvement. Most changes since then have been adjustments IMHO.


----------



## irkuck

rogo said:


> I have often explained here than a 100-inch LCD (or 110-inch) is a trivial product that could easily be sold for well under $5,000. No one has built this not because they are not smart enough to employ the grade-school math I am capable of. No one has done this because there is nowhere near enough people to sell it to. So they don't bother and instead sell a few to those who are "insanely rich" and own Kaleidascapes.



But there is something like market maturing for embrace new class of products and that seems to be with the display size. 65" is only now a new normal moved up from 55", 70-80+" high-end. It will make one more iteration of this development to establish 100" as the new high-end. Before, when the king was 42", a 100" was perceived as too big.


----------



## circumstances

Postmoderndesign said:


> The incremental improvement in 2017 was LG killed 3D. They wanted more nits for HDR and removed the polarization filter. But I would call that a trade off and not an improvement. Most changes since then have been adjustments IMHO.


Good to know.

I'll wait until CES and then decide what to do.

an 85 inch OLED with Sony processing, no dimming issues, no panel lottery, and reduced risk of burn in would be nice


----------



## rogo

1) Every year is going to be incremental. In an occasional year, you will see a bigger increment. Expecting a revolution is going to yield disappoint.

2) 100 inches is never becoming normal. TV sales flatlined years ago. These screens don't matter to an entire generation of people under 30 (yes, exceptions abound... always). Rooms are not getting discernibly bigger. If anything, the macro trend is going to be micro housing. Screen sizes will continue to creep up. Many homes will _never_ have a 65 inch screen or anything close. People -- normals -- still see the 65 in my living room and think it's gigantic. Is there a market for 1 million screens of >80 inches per year? Maybe, though I doubt very soon.


----------



## RichB

rogo said:


> 1) Every year is going to be incremental. In an occasional year, you will see a bigger increment. Expecting a revolution is going to yield disappoint.
> 
> 2) 100 inches is never becoming normal. TV sales flatlined years ago. These screens don't matter to an entire generation of people under 30 (yes, exceptions abound... always). Rooms are not getting discernibly bigger. If anything, the macro trend is going to be micro housing. Screen sizes will continue to creep up. Many homes will _never_ have a 65 inch screen or anything close. People -- normals -- still see the 65 in my living room and think it's gigantic. Is there a market for 1 million screens of >80 inches per year? Maybe, though I doubt very soon.


I'd settle for an 85 

We have come along way from the 85" Panasonic TH-85VX200W that weighed in at 257 lbs and consumed 1200 watts.
The LG 77C8 weighs in at 66 lbs and much more power efficient.

- Rich


----------



## NintendoManiac64

JLaud25 said:


> when could we see a major technological leap in the tech that leads to better IQ/*motion*/uniformity?


I thought motion processing improvements was one of if not _the_ biggest changes that came with the 2018 OLEDs?


----------



## bombyx

*Reports from Korea say that LGD increased its 2018 OLED TV production forecast by 25% * :

https://www.oled-info.com/reports-korea-say-lgd-increased-its-2018-oled-tv-production-forecast-25


New forecast : 3.8 million OLED TV panels in 2018 .


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> *Reports from Korea say that LGD increased its 2018 OLED TV production forecast by 25% * :
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/reports-korea-say-lgd-increased-its-2018-oled-tv-production-forecast-25
> 
> 
> New forecast : 3.8 million OLED TV panels in 2018 .


Obvious confusion / mistranslation. 

At most, LG may have announce additional plans for 8.5G LCD fab conversions that may add to 2019 WOLED capacity... After LGs 3rd quarter earnings announcement a month from now, we should get clarity (significant capital investments must be announced to investors, so the longest of a 'stealth-mode' LGD has as far as WOLED capacity planning is 3 months ).

In their second quarter earnings call, LGD mentioned they were 'considering' additional 8.5G LCD conversions to WOLED, so I wouldn't be surprised if the next morning they 'approved' at least one 8.5G conversion and issued POs to transition from the 'consideration' phase to the 'planning/executing' phase...


----------



## JLaud25

NintendoManiac64 said:


> I thought motion processing improvements was one of if not _the_ biggest changes that came with the 2018 OLEDs?


Where? and what 2018 oleds would that be? the 2018 lg oled with their alpha 9 processor i demoed just looked a little better on motion than c7, toned down soe (but soe is still there). a 2018 sony a8f vs sony A1 (A1e) was almost indisguishable with motion, the A9F with the newer sony processor seems a little more refined with motion but not a lot. same with panasonic (ez to fz models). oleds process 60hz content well, 23.976 is oled's achilles heel, and for someone accustomed to the motion of a plasma or a nice dlp projector, the imperfections are more evident. And bfi modes on oleds suck. The first step if there has to be a significant improvement in motion is improve the panel refresh rate. Forget motion interpolation. better motion interpolation on existing 120hz oleds can only do so much to motion. Having higher refresh rate oleds 240hz/480hz would be the first step towards a drastic improvement in motion, when and if that happens. i say when and if because i dont know if lg display is looking in that direction, they have already been baited by samsung towards the more pixels 8k war.


----------



## wco81

JLaud25 said:


> Where? and what 2018 oleds would that be? the 2018 lg oled with their alpha 9 processor i demoed just looked a little better on motion than c7, toned down soe (but soe is still there). a 2018 sony a8f vs sony A1 (A1e) was almost indisguishable with motion, the A9F with the newer sony processor seems a little more refined with motion but not a lot. same with panasonic (ez to fz models). oleds process 60hz content well, 23.976 is oled's achilles heel, and for someone accustomed to the motion of a plasma or a nice dlp projector, the imperfections are more evident. And bfi modes on oleds suck. The first step if there has to be a significant improvement in motion is improve the panel refresh rate. Forget motion interpolation. better motion interpolation on existing 120hz oleds can only do so much to motion. Having higher refresh rate oleds 240hz/480hz would be the first step towards a drastic improvement in motion, when and if that happens. i say when and if because i dont know if lg display is looking in that direction, they have already been baited by samsung towards the more pixels 8k war.


If processing power is an issue, maybe the TV manufacturers would be better served by buying processors from other companies rather than rolling their own.

WAsn't the Oppo UHD Blu Ray players using some Mediatek SOC, which is kind of a mid level or lower cost SOC for mobile devices?

Sony wasn't able to support Dolby Vision in the 900E series but they could on more expensive models or this year, the 900F series could support DV because the processor was faster. Also the 900E had complaints about sluggish UI.


Now they're loading streaming apps. on TVs so these processors are running motion processing as well as running apps?

I'm sure it comes down to cost though. These manufacturers don't want to pay Qualcomm for the fastest SOCs since there are smaller margins on TVs. So most of the cost goes to the display as one might expect but it sounds like the silicon has a big impact on the user experience.


----------



## moigpsrocks

What is the best price I can get on an OLED77C8PUA 77-inch OLED? What type of prices are you getting them for or seeing deals for? 

Thanks


----------



## circumstances

moigpsrocks said:


> What is the best price I can get on an OLED77C8PUA 77-inch OLED? What type of prices are you getting them for or seeing deals for?
> 
> Thanks


Check out the OLED great found deals section for that kind of information.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/322-oled-technology-great-found-deals/


----------



## fafrd

It's still a longshot, but at least this plan has a slim chance of success based on (potentially) real breakthrough technology (compared to the consumer MicroLED fudgification and QLED incrementalism).

https://www.oled-info.com/dscc-samsung-begin-pilot-qd-oled-production-2019

"DSCC estimates that Samsung will begin pilot production of QD-OLEDs in 2019, with a capacity of 5,000 monthly 8.5-Gen substrates."

"The two main challenges for QD-OLEDs, according to DSCC, are efficient blue OLED emitters and a good quantom-dot color converter (QDCC). Light management in this architecture is also a serious challenge. Samsung will eventually want a phosphorescent blue or a TADF blue material - but according to DSCC at the beginning Samsung will use a fluorescent blue emitter with two emitting layers."

"Samsung will be able to use three sub pixels and only two emitting layers (LGD uses four), and so its stack will include 13 layers compared to 22 layers in LGD's TVs - which means fewer deposition stages, improved yields and lower material costs."

"DSCC estimates that a square meter of QD-OLED production will require materials that cost around $26 - compared to almost $95 in a meter of WOLED production."


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> It's still a longshot, but at least this plan has a slim chance of success based on (potentially) real breakthrough technology (compared to the consumer MicroLED fudgification and QLED incrementalism).
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/dscc-samsung-begin-pilot-qd-oled-production-2019
> 
> "DSCC estimates that Samsung will begin pilot production of QD-OLEDs in 2019, with a capacity of 5,000 monthly 8.5-Gen substrates."
> 
> "The two main challenges for QD-OLEDs, according to DSCC, are efficient blue OLED emitters and a good quantom-dot color converter (QDCC). Light management in this architecture is also a serious challenge. Samsung will eventually want a phosphorescent blue or a TADF blue material - but according to DSCC at the beginning Samsung will use a fluorescent blue emitter with two emitting layers."
> 
> "Samsung will be able to use three sub pixels and only two emitting layers (LGD uses four), and so its stack will include 13 layers compared to 22 layers in LGD's TVs - which means fewer deposition stages, improved yields and lower material costs."
> 
> "DSCC estimates that a square meter of QD-OLED production will require materials that cost around $26 - compared to almost $95 in a meter of WOLED production."


More details from the underlying DSCC article: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-materials-report-brings-new-insight-on-qd-oleds

"because the current quantum dots from Nanosys cannot absorb all the blue light, Samsung will use a color filter in front of the red and green sub-pixels to filter out the remaining blue light."

"The advantages of the QD OLED in the deposition process might be more than overwhelmed by the challenge of making the QDCC. This graphic from Samsung, built for the LCD counterpart to QD OLED, demonstrates the light management issues that need to be addressed."


----------



## rogo

So given that blue is already insufficient from an output standpoint, this is pretty much at least a detour, if not a long-term roadblock.

They can -- and should -- keep working on this. But how they get to a bright enough display anytime soon is very much unclear.


----------



## Patrik Westberg

"LG Electronics Selects Synopsys HDMI 2.1 IP with HDCP 2.3 Content Protection to Deliver Immersive Viewing Experiences
Silicon-Proven DesignWare IP Enables Ultra-High-Definition 8K Video and High-Fidelity Audio in Multimedia SoCs"


----------



## bombyx

According to "les numériques", the new philips 55 OLED 803 has got a new sub pixels structure. 



The link is here :


https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-te...ed-sur-televiseur-philips-oled803-n78959.html



Here are the numbers I got from the pictures :


----------



## gorman42

bombyx said:


> According to "les numériques", the new philips 55 OLED 803 has got a new sub pixels structure.
> 
> 
> 
> The link is here :
> 
> 
> https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-te...ed-sur-televiseur-philips-oled803-n78959.html
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the numbers I got from the pictures :


Review is out: https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/philips-55oled803-p42945/test.html


Apparently the new pixel structure allows for higher light output while staying close to reference color temperature (D65).
As I doubt LG Display would produce a new pixel structure just for Philips, I wonder if this is what the 9 Series (C9, etc.) from LG has in store for us in 2019. CES will tell, I guess.


----------



## bombyx

gorman42 said:


> Review is out: https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/philips-55oled803-p42945/test.html
> 
> 
> Apparently* the new pixel structure allows for higher light output* while staying close to reference color temperature (D65).
> As I doubt LG Display would produce a new pixel structure just for Philips, I wonder if this is what the 9 Series (C9, etc.) from LG has in store for us in 2019. CES will tell, I guess.



Well, with a fill in ratio reduced to 28% instead of 34% for the C8/A8 , I don't think so .




I've included 2017 and 2016 data :


----------



## gorman42

bombyx said:


> Well, with a fill in ratio reduced to 28% instead of 34% for the C8/A8 , I don't think so.


Yeah, I did notice that in the previous post. Maybe LGD production lines are flexible enough to accomodate different pixel structures for different clients?


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> Yeah, I did notice that in the previous post. Maybe LGD production lines are flexible enough to accomodate different pixel structures for different clients?


Would be a significant step-up in maturity, if so.

But the reason I am doubtful is that each change in subpixel size requires a complete re-do of firmware, CMS, burn-in-compensation, etc... and I just can't see LGD making that investment for each customer that wants something a bit different.

Perhaps with a $10M+ non-cancellable order...

The more likely explanation would be LGD offering two or more flavors of standard WOLED panels for customers to choose from...


----------



## bjaurelio

bombyx said:


> Well, with a fill in ratio reduced to 28% instead of 34% for the C8/A8 , I don't think so .


Any explanation for how the smaller fill ratio results in increased brightness with the new pixel structure?


----------



## fafrd

At small screen sizes, it seems that the JOLED printed OLED technology is gaining some traction (AUO): https://www.oled-info.com/auo-estab...ce-oleds-monitors-and-automotive-applications


----------



## bombyx

bjaurelio said:


> Any explanation for how the smaller fill ratio results in increased brightness with the new pixel structure?


No explanation, the circuit simply drives the sub pixels harder . BTW, the new A9 from the RTINGS review has got the C8/A8 panel and not this new one , so may be it is Philips only?




fafrd said:


> At small screen sizes, it seems that the JOLED printed OLED technology is gaining some traction (AUO): https://www.oled-info.com/auo-estab...ce-oleds-monitors-and-automotive-applications


 Small size, low volume, so nothing really exciting ...


----------



## Wizziwig

Too bad rtings has no way to test this new Philips panel. 2018 panels used on the C8, A8F, and A9F were a huge step backwards in terms of near-black brightness stability and response time. The attached images only represent the 0 -> 20% gray transition which already sucks at 8+ ms compared to the


----------



## gorman42

Wizziwig said:


> Too bad rtings has no way to test this new Philips panel. 2018 panels used on the C8, A8F, and A9F were a huge step backwards in terms of near-black brightness stability and response time. The attached images only represent the 0 -> 20% gray transition which already sucks at 8+ ms compared to the


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> "DSCC estimates that Samsung will begin pilot production of QD-OLEDs in 2019, with a capacity of 5,000 monthly 8.5-Gen substrates."


There is a lot more talk about this happening. Samsung is reportedly planning a $9 billion investment over the next couple years. With the caveat that there is still some technical work to do as noted in fafrd's post. 

http://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2018/10/12/2018101202152.html

Essentially, they are talking about a pilot line in 2019 and then to start converting the L8-1 LCD line to QD OLED as well as using space in the new A5 fab for additional capacity possibly at up to gen 11 size. Initially converting 60K / month somewhere around 2020 and eventually converting the entire 195K according to Korea Investment & Securities analysts. The analysts also expect BOE and maybe CSOT to enter large OLED production in the early 2020s with BOE possibly sampling some from their pilot line in 2020. All potential at this point but in the planning stage.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> There is a lot more talk about this happening. Samsung is reportedly planning a $9 billion investment over the next couple years. With the caveat that there is still some technical work to do as noted in fafrd's post.
> 
> http://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2018/10/12/2018101202152.html
> 
> Essentially, they are talking about a pilot line in 2019 and then to start converting the L8-1 LCD line to QD OLED as well as using space in the new A5 fab for additional capacity possibly at up to gen 11 size. Initially converting 60K / month somewhere around 2020 and eventually converting the entire 195K according to Korea Investment & Securities analysts.


Yeah, it seems as though Samsung is gearing up for a 'let's catch up to LG before their 10.5G WOLED fab is fully-ramped and put's the lead LG and WOLED have out of reach.'

The two big unknowns are:

-What performance will these QDCC-BOLEDs deliver (especially on the area of lifetime/burn-in as well as light-leakage/color-gamut)?

-How competetive can they be against WOLED in terms of cost/price?

If products from the pilot line actually reach the market next year, we may have preliminary answers to both of these questions a year from now.

But my gut tells me there's better than 50/50 odds first products don't really hit the market until 2020...

In any case, whenever the first QDCC-BOLED products do hit the market, is a sure bet we're going to see much more comperetive WOLED TV pricing that year...



> The analysts also expect BOE and maybe CSOT to enter large OLED production in the early 2020s with BOE possibly sampling some from their pilot line in 2020. All potential at this point but in the planning stage.


Did the article give any indication of which large-panel OLED technology might be used by CSOT or BOE? WOLED? QDCC-BOLED? JOLED printed RGB-OLED?

The fact that Samsung wants to plan to catch up to LGD/WOLED and the fact that CSOT and BOE want to get in on the OLED TV panel bandwagon is not surprising at all - the real question is what technology they plan to use, meaning what technical risks they plan to undertake, what licensing agreements that plan to acquire, or what IP they plan to ignore...


----------



## gorman42

QOLED, you read it here first.


----------



## ynotgoal

LG discussed their OLED TV plans for the next few years. In 2020, 8K and an increase in brightness from 150 to 200 nits. By 2022, they plan to double both brightness and lifetime and increase to BT.2020 color gamut. Click the link for images.

[ICEL 2018] What are the future challenges for LG Display to improve OLED TV performance?	
October 17, 2018/ Category: Focus on / Posted by olednet
http://olednet.com/1234/

At ICEL 2018, held at Jeju International Convention Center from Oct. 15, LG Display's Yoo Soo-young Director presented the challenges for OLED TV performance improvement and price drop.

"In 2018, the future prospects of OLED TVs have changed more positively compared to 2016 OLED TV future prospects," said Yoon. "In 2013, OLED TV set makers, which were the only company in 2013, The number of TV set makers has been steadily increasing to 15 in the year. "

The success of the OLED TV has been improved, but it has to be further developed. The challenge is to improve the brightness and color reproduction rate, to develop 8K resolution, to improve the lifetime, and to lower the price.

Yoon explains that to develop 8K OLED TV, development of components such as driver IC and controller is an important task. In order to improve the brightness, color reproducibility, and lifespan, TADF and phosphorescent blue were considered to be good alternatives for improving the RGB emission material.

In addition, it refers to solution process OLED as a technology to cope with LCD TV price, and it is necessary to develop inkjet equipment, process, and soluble material. For this, it is necessary to develop the ink jet equipment and shorten the process time for mass production, but the performance and reliability of the soluble materials will be the most important. 

Finally, we will focus on 8K OLED TV and rollab`le OLED TV with the improvement of brightness until 2020. After 2022, we will have a brightness of 300 nits or more, a color gamut that satisfies BT.2020, and a lifespan of more than 30,000 hours. The company said.





fafrd said:


> Did the article give any indication of which large-panel OLED technology might be used by CSOT or BOE? WOLED? QDCC-BOLED? JOLED printed RGB-OLED?
> 
> The fact that Samsung wants to plan to catch up to LGD/WOLED and the fact that CSOT and BOE want to get in on the OLED TV panel bandwagon is not surprising at all - the real question is what technology they plan to use, meaning what technical risks they plan to undertake, what licensing agreements that plan to acquire, or what IP they plan to ignore...


They didn't talk about that. BOE has had a WOLED pilot line for a while. If they're going to sample anything in the near future it will be with that. They also research inkjet but that still has a long way to go.


----------



## sooke

ynotgoal said:


> ...
> Finally, we will focus on 8K OLED TV and rollab`le OLED TV with the improvement of brightness until 2020. After 2022, we will have a brightness of 300 nits or more, a color gamut that satisfies BT.2020, and a lifespan of more than *30,000* hours. The company said.
> ...



What is the lifespan at now? I assume lifespan means time to half brightness. Also, is lifespan measured (or estimated) without compensation? Or does the lifespan take into account the BI compensation techniques?


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> LG discussed their OLED TV plans for the next few years. In 2020, 8K and an *increase in brightness from 150 to 200 nits. *By 2022, they plan to double both brightness and lifetime and increase to BT.2020 color gamut. Click the link for images.
> 
> [ICEL 2018] What are the future challenges for LG Display to improve OLED TV performance?
> October 17, 2018/ Category: Focus on / Posted by olednet
> http://olednet.com/1234/
> 
> At ICEL 2018, held at Jeju International Convention Center from Oct. 15, LG Display's Yoo Soo-young Director presented the challenges for OLED TV performance improvement and price drop.
> 
> "In 2018, the future prospects of OLED TVs have changed more positively compared to 2016 OLED TV future prospects," said Yoon. "In 2013, OLED TV set makers, which were the only company in 2013, The number of TV set makers has been steadily increasing to 15 in the year. "
> 
> The success of the OLED TV has been improved, but it has to be further developed. The challenge is to improve the brightness and color reproduction rate, to develop 8K resolution, to improve the lifetime, and to lower the price.
> 
> Yoon explains that to develop 8K OLED TV, development of components such as driver IC and controller is an important task. In order to improve the brightness, color reproducibility, and lifespan, TADF and phosphorescent blue were considered to be good alternatives for improving the RGB emission material.
> 
> In addition, it refers to solution process OLED as a technology to cope with LCD TV price, and it is necessary to develop inkjet equipment, process, and soluble material. For this, it is necessary to develop the ink jet equipment and shorten the process time for mass production, but the performance and reliability of the soluble materials will be the most important.
> 
> Finally, we will focus on 8K OLED TV and rollab`le OLED TV with the improvement of brightness until 2020. After 2022, we will have a *brightness of 300 nits or more*, a color gamut that satisfies BT.2020, and a lifespan of more than 30,000 hours. The company said.


Interesting, thanks.

The brightness being talked about is the ABL limit. 150cd/m2 full field before ABL kicks in today, increasing to 200 cd/m2 full field by 2020 and 300 cd/m2 full-field by 2022.

And an increase from 15,000 hours to half-brightness at the 150cd/m2 ABL limit of today to 30,000 hours at either that same 150cd/m2 limit or possibly at the increased 300 cd/m2 limit.

Both of these improvements must be driven by the move to top-emission. The fact that they said nothing sbout 2019 suggests to me that we may not end up seeing top-emission panels hit retailers before 2020...

Here is a pictire I lifted from the article showing the roadmap for full-field peak brightness, color gamut, and lifetime:


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Interesting, thanks.
> 
> The brightness being talked about is the ABL limit. 150cd/m2 full field before ABL kicks in today, increasing to 200 cd/m2 full field by 2020 and 300 cd/m2 full-field by 2022.
> 
> And an increase from 15,000 hours to half-brightness at the 150cd/m2 ABL limit of today to 30,000 hours at either that same 150cd/m2 limit or possibly at the increased 300 cd/m2 limit.
> 
> Both of these improvements must be driven by the move to top-emission. The fact that they said nothing sbout 2019 suggests to me that we may not end up seeing top-emission panels hit retailers before 2020...
> 
> Here is a pictire I lifted from the article showing the roadmap for full-field peak brightness, color gamut, and lifetime:


I also found this picture interesting. I believe it shows the evoution of the WOLED stack. Starting woth 2-layer (blur, yelllow), switching a year or two ago to three-layer (blue-yellow-blue), and next it appears they will be going to a 4-layer stack. Unclear whether that 4th red-colored layer is referring to red OLED or a new material such as TADF, but on any case, that new 4-layer stack appears to be the secret to achieving Rec.2020 color gamut...


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> I also found this picture interesting. I believe it shows the evoution of the WOLED stack. Starting woth 2-layer (blur, yelllow), switching a year or two ago to three-layer (blue-yellow-blue), and next it appears they will be going to a 4-layer stack. Unclear whether that 4th red-colored layer is referring to red OLED or a new material such as TADF, but on any case, that new 4-layer stack appears to be the secret to achieving Rec.2020 color gamut...


Since we're talking about *advanced* display tech, I thought it would be appropriate to have more pixels


----------



## stl8k

3 Color 3 Stack covered in this scientific paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ck-3_Color_White_OLEDs_for_4K_Premium_OLED_TV


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Since we're talking about *advanced* display tech, I thought it would be appropriate to have more pixels


You need to teach me that trick - how did you copy the images from the article at higher resolution?

At any rate, thanks to your efforts, LGDs WOLED roadmap is now alot more clear:

8K by 2020 (nothing mentioned for 2019)

rollable TVs by 2020

Same 99% DCI-P3 color gamut until they replace the yellow/green layer with a red and a green layer in 2022 to get to 90% Rec.2020

They are moving to either TADF blue or PHOLED blue by 2022.

They are also hoping to move to soluble / printing by 2022.

Chances are that the increase in full-field brighness limit to 200 cd/m2 coming in 2020 is due to top-emission and the further increase to 300 cd/m2 in 2022 is coming from the more efficient blue (as well as the lifetime increase to 30,000 hours).

It'll be interesting to see how many of the 2020 improvements materialize in 2019...


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> You need to teach me that trick - how did you copy the images from the article at higher resolution?
> 
> At any rate, thanks to your efforts, LGDs WOLED roadmap is now alot more clear:
> 
> 8K by 2020 (nothing mentioned for 2019)
> 
> rollable TVs by 2020
> 
> Same 99% DCI-P3 color gamut until they replace the yellow/green layer with a red and a green layer in 2022 to get to 90% Rec.2020
> 
> They are moving to either TADF blue or PHOLED blue by 2022.
> 
> They are also hoping to move to soluble / printing by 2022.
> 
> Chances are that the increase in full-field brighness limit to 200 cd/m2 coming in 2020 is due to top-emission and the further increase to 300 cd/m2 in 2022 is coming from the more efficient blue (as well as the lifetime increase to 30,000 hours).
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how many of the 2020 improvements materialize in 2019...


Yeah, lots of clarity and that roadmap is coming from a scientist with this background:

Education
1989 : B.S., Physics, Hanyang University
1999 : Ph.D., Physics, Hanyang University

Experience
2000-2006 : Research Engineer, Philips Research Center
2002-2008 : Research Engineer, LG Philips LCD
2012.05-2015.11 : Head of OLED Research Division, LG Display
2015.12~Present : Head of LGD Laboratory, LG Display

For the images, I noticed that one of the images in the post had a high resolution version. Substituted bb and cc in the URL and found the other 2 high res. Saved and dragged into the forum posting UI.


----------



## fafrd

An interestng update on WOLED cost from DSCC: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/...-lgd-turning-the-corner-on-oled-profitability

The key takeaway is that due to a combination of improved yields and increased prices, LGD WOLED panel business swung to profitability in Q3'18, a year earlier than DSCC had been forecasting 6 nonths ago...


----------



## stl8k

Nice backgrounder on emitters and the latest progress.

https://www.oled-a.org/oleds-world-summit-2018-blue-emitter_101518.html


----------



## gorman42

stl8k said:


> Nice backgrounder on emitters and the latest progress.
> 
> https://www.oled-a.org/oleds-world-summit-2018-blue-emitter_101518.html


Hmmm... not very good news, nor reasons to be optimistic for the next couple of years at least. Am I wrong in reading it this way?


----------



## ynotgoal

LG to release 88" 8K OLED next June.
http://news.mt.co.kr/mtview.php?no=2018102413445391931&type=1

LG's China OLED fab will use MMG technology. Should reduce the price of 65" models (at least for China) by allowing both 65" and 55" sets to be made on the same sheet.
https://www.displaydaily.com/articl...-to-look-at-profit-in-the-oled-panel-business


----------



## circumstances

88" OLED sounds just about perfect for my room.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> LG to release 88" 8K OLED next June.
> http://news.mt.co.kr/mtview.php?no=2018102413445391931&type=1


When you say 'LG', is that LG Display (release of an 88" 8K WOLED panel) or LG Electronics (release of an 88" 8K WOLED TV product)?


----------



## leedom

Here's the Google Translate link for the LG Announcement:


https://translate.google.com/transl....php?no=2018102413445391931&type=1&edit-text=


Casey


----------



## fafrd

leedom said:


> Here's the Google Translate link for the LG Announcement:
> 
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl....php?no=2018102413445391931&type=1&edit-text=
> 
> 
> Casey


Link did not work (at least on my iPad) - can you cut and paste?


----------



## leedom

Huh, weird, it worked for me. In any case, you can just go to translate.google.com and then paste the original URL for the Korean article in and it'll render its best effort at an English translation. It actually does pretty well ...


Casey


----------



## gorman42

It says an actual product should come out in June, if I understand correctly.


----------



## ALMA

> *"We are developing technology to prepare large quantum dot organic light emitting diodes (QD-OLEDs)."*
> 
> *Lee Dong-hoon, CEO of Samsung Display*, emphasized that the technology development for the mass production of large QD-OLED display panels is proceeding smoothly. Lee, who participated in International Information Display Exhibition (IMID) 2018 held in COEX, Seoul on July 24, said in a reporter's question about QD-OLED TV.





> An industry observer said, "Samsung Display has been profitable in the first half of the year due to its dominance in the OLED market for mobile devices. However, the LCD division is suffering from deteriorating earnings." OLEDs account for less than 1% of the total TV market. *"We are not going to jump in, but we will be focusing on securing technology enough to take the lead in entering the market as a latecomer."*



https://translate.google.com/transl.../ArticleView.asp?key=201810240100037510002296


----------



## stl8k

Another take on the state of emissive materials here...

Emissive Materials Generate Excitement at the Show
http://informationdisplay.org/Portals/InformationDisplay/IssuePDF/05_2018.pdf


----------



## fafrd

Success still a long way from being guaranteed, but at least Samsung is trying something truly innovatove (for the first time in a looong time, when it comes to TVs).

Have to admit I'm excited about Samsung Display for the first time in, well, ever .


----------



## irkuck

stl8k said:


> Another take on the state of emissive materials here...
> Emissive Materials Generate Excitement at the Show
> http://informationdisplay.org/Portals/InformationDisplay/IssuePDF/05_2018.pdf


 ...and μLED stealing the show. *Note μLED China Summit on Nov. 12 in Shenzhen
*
It looks μLED is at its sunrise and OLED is in its late afternoon.


----------



## artur9

I was disappointed in the motion handling of the OLED in CostCo. It was probably a B8 but I forgot to check.

Anything new in the motion handling for OLED that's likely anytime soon?


----------



## circumstances

artur9 said:


> I was disappointed in the motion handling of the OLED in CostCo. It was probably a B8 but I forgot to check.
> 
> Anything new in the motion handling for OLED that's likely anytime soon?


Have you seen any of the Sonys with the X1 Ultimate processor?


----------



## StayingSalty

https://hdtvtest.co.uk/n/Samsung-Potentially-Working-on-Quantum-Dot-OLED-TV-But-Faces-Challenges


Samsung Potentially Working on Quantum Dot OLED TV, But Faces Challenges



> DSCC cites sources as saying that Samsung is likely to begin production of its first QD OLED displays as early as next year. The company plans to start with 5,000 units per month to begin with, before ramping up production to 30,000 units a month by 2021 if it can make things work.





> The only problem is it’s still quite a big “if” as Samsung faces a number of challenges in order to successfully manufacture QD OLED at scale. According to DSCC’s report the two main challenges involve creating a “good blue OLED” and making the Quantum Dot Colour Converter which is used to manage the light emitted.


----------



## ALMA

That´s an old article from DSCC...


Here is a newer one about the current situation:




> *According to the industry on the 28th, Samsung Display will start bringing in pilot line equipment for pilot production of QD-OLED starting in December.
> *
> The location is the 8th generation Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) line 'L8' located in Tangjeong, Asan City, Chungnam Province. L8 is divided into L8-1 and L8-2. The QD-OLED pilot line is packaged using part of L8-1. L8-1 is mainly producing 48 · 55 inch amorphous silicon (a-Si) LCD. The production capacity is 150,000 pieces per month.
> 
> 
> *Samsung Display will use a portion of the L8-1 to create a 25,000-27,000-unit QD-OLED pilot line per month.* Since it is not a formal production line, it makes full use of the existing LCD plant facilities and introduces only some core pre-processing equipment. Currently, it is reported that they are installing gas devices for new line composition.



[quote*]Samsung Display plans to test-manufacture QD-OLED by the middle of next year after completing equipment installation and installation until early next year.* Blue OLED material lifetime, and reliability of the first attempted inkjet printing technology. However, it was reported that the development result was better than the industry expectation. 

An industry representative said,* "The QD-OLED intermediate research results are so good that Samsung Display's confidence in the commercialization is greater than ever."*[/quote]




> Another official said, "The pilot line is the 8th generation standard, but we can not rule out adopting 10.5 generations for full-scale mass production to cope with the future market." Samsung oxide (oxide) TFT technology can be the key. "



https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.etnews.com/20181026000247


----------



## helvetica bold

Does anyone expect significant changes or any to LGs OLED panels for 2019? I have my eye on Sony’s A9F but since we’re so close to CES I’m thinking I should wait and see what 2019 will bring. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pjs06c

helvetica bold said:


> Does anyone expect significant changes or any to LGs OLED panels for 2019? I have my eye on Sony’s A9F but since we’re so close to CES I’m thinking I should wait and see what 2019 will bring.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'd wait since we're so close. HDMI 2.1 is rumored for 2019, so eARC would be a huge gain for all the audio issues people are having lately.


----------



## helvetica bold

Pjs06c said:


> I'd wait since we're so close. HDMI 2.1 is rumored for 2019, so eARC would be a huge gain for all the audio issues people are having lately.




Sony’s new Masters Series are the first TVs to support eARC.  

Regarding HDMI 2.1, Vincent Teoh made a video saying chances are slim we see 2.1 at CES. Late 2019 or 2020 is likely. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

helvetica bold said:


> Sony’s new Masters Series are the first TVs to support eARC.
> 
> Regarding HDMI 2.1, Vincent Teoh made a video saying chances are slim we see 2.1 at CES. Late 2019 or 2020 is likely.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


All, this discussion woukd be more appropriate in a dedicated thread - the OLED TVs Technology Advancements thread is intended to more foward-looking (and core OLED-Technology focused) than asking advice on buying this years model versus next or which new features may or may not get announced at next year's CES...


----------



## JasonHa

*LG is bringing a rollable OLED TV to CES 2019*

_Engadget has seen internal documents highlighting intended topics for the presentation, and it appears that the prototypes we've seen in past years from LG Display are ready to take center stage, perhaps with an eye for launching it next year as a real product._

https://www.engadget.com/2018/11/01/rollable-oled-tv-lg-ces/


----------



## ALMA

Printed 55" OLED TV by JOLED:



> Japan-based printed OLED developer JOLED announced that it will demonstrate a 55" 4K printed OLED TV at Finetech Japan 2018 (December 5-7 2018). JOLED will also introduce its proprietary printed OLED manufacturing technology that it is developing together with Panasonic and Screen Finetech.


https://www.oled-info.com/joled-demonstrate-55-ink-jet-printed-oled-tv-next-month


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> Printed 55" OLED TV by JOLED:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/joled-demonstrate-55-ink-jet-printed-oled-tv-next-month


"JOLED tells us that it has no plans to produce large size OLEDs at this stage - and this TV is on display just to demonstrate JOLED's printing technology."


----------



## ALMA

https://twitter.com/jeffyurek/status/1059852707022856192?s=19


https://twitter.com/NanosysInc/status/1059870208465100800

There was a 18" prototype at CES 2018. It seems under NDA, till know... Also Nanosys confirmed Samsung´s 8.5G QDOLED pilot line in 2019.


----------



## stl8k

*UDC at BOE's Conference*

Transcript of UDC's Presentation at BOE's Conference in Beijing
http://industry.people.com.cn/BIG5/n1/2018/1107/c413883-30387709.html


----------



## ALMA

More details about the Samsung QDOLED investment:




> We have reported previously that Samsung Display is building a pilot production facility for QD OLED, with capacity of 5K per month of Gen 8.5, which will start production in 2019. We understand that major expansion of capacity beyond the pilot will be decided in Q2 2019 if the pilot is successful, but recently we have learned that provisional plans for the capacity expansion have been made, in anticipation of a successful pilot.
> The QD OLED production will be made on Samsung’s 8-1 and 8-2 lines in Tangjeong, which currently have a capacity of 170,000 and 190,000 Gen 8.5 TFT substrates per month making LCD. Portions of these lines,8-1-1 and 8-2-1, will be converted to QD OLED in 2019 – 2020, and in all cases the overall area capacity of the lines will be substantially reduced. For 8-1-1, 80k of LCD capacity will be converted to 25k of QD OLED capacity at a cost of $1.6 billion, and for 8-2-1, 50k of LCD capacity will be converted to 10k of QD OLED capacity at a cost of $0.6 billion. Together, a total of 130k of LCD capacity will be converted to 35k of QD OLED capacity for an investment of $2.2 billion.


https://www.displaydaily.com/articl...isplay-accelerating-plans-to-shift-to-qd-oled


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> More details about the Samsung QDOLED investment:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.displaydaily.com/articl...isplay-accelerating-plans-to-shift-to-qd-oled


It's an interesting and credible fast-follower catch-up strategy, but it's going to be very expensive (sacrificing 3.7 LCD panels for every equivalent-sized QDBOLED panel produced.

Also, if the opinion of the author that Samsung will primarily be manufacturing QDBOLED panels sized 60" and above, that is going to be very innefficient on 8.5G panels (3 panels oer substrate up to 65", 2 panels above that):



> if the average size of Samsung’s QD OLED is bigger than 60” (*likely, in my opinion*) then this capacity will make less than three million panels


Overall, the fact that Samsung already had a working QDBOLED prototype a year ago and that their LCD-to-QDBOLED conversion plans are as fully-baked as we are now learning is a testament to successful stealth-mode development and exciting.

The 2019 'pilot' may be nothing more than a ruse and Samsung may already have the results to know they have a winner on their hands.

Blue lifetime is the biggest question mark (along with what level of brightness they can deliver) but the fact that they are starting with top-emission and sparing no expense to use existing LCD manufacturing to leap into a meaningful production posotion by 2020 (using photolithograohy for patterning QDCF) is encouraging and suggests they ate serious abput catching ip to WOLED before LG 10.5G fab kicks into high-gear.

My gut tells me that with all of this successful stealth development and liklihood that with printed QDCF (and printed OLED layers) ready for prime-time by the time they have their own 10.5G factory to bring online, Samsung has high confidence their QDBOLED beats WOLED on both cost and performance and they will do whatever it takes to match WOLED on price with their 2020 8.5G production (even iif that means they are taking a bath with each early panel sale).

I'll be very interested to see what specs Samsung announces for their 2019 QDBOLEDs at CES in two months - the only stumbling block I can see in this brilliant strategy working out for them is if the first-generation QDBOLED TVs vastly underperform WOLED on peak brightness (which would be very ironic given the Brightness Wars driven by Samsung over the past few years ).


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Transcript of UDC's Presentation at BOE's Conference in Beijing
> http://industry.people.com.cn/BIG5/n1/2018/1107/c413883-30387709.html


More: https://www.oled-info.com/boe-demonstrates-its-first-ink-jet-printed-oled-tv-prototype


----------



## wco81

fafrd said:


> It's an interesting and credible fast-follower catch-up strategy, but it's going to be very expensive (sacrificing 3.7 LCD panels for every equivalent-sized QDBOLED panel produced.
> 
> Also, if the opinion of the author that Samsung will primarily be manufacturing QDBOLED panels sized 60" and above, that is going to be very innefficient on 8.5G panels (3 panels oer substrate up to 65", 2 panels above that):
> 
> 
> 
> Overall, the fact that Samsung already had a working QDBOLED prototype a year ago and that their LCD-to-QDBOLED conversion plans are as fully-baked as we are now learning is a testament to successful stealth-mode development and exciting.
> 
> The 2019 'pilot' may be nothing more than a ruse and Samsung may already have the results to know they have a winner on their hands.
> 
> Blue lifetime is the biggest question mark (along with what level of brightness they can deliver) but the fact that they are starting with top-emission and sparing no expense to use existing LCD manufacturing to leap into a meaningful production posotion by 2020 (using photolithograohy for patterning QDCF) is encouraging and suggests they ate serious abput catching ip to WOLED before LG 10.5G fab kicks into high-gear.
> 
> My gut tells me that with all of this successful stealth development and liklihood that with printed QDCF (and printed OLED layers) ready for prime-time by the time they have their own 10.5G factory to bring online, Samsung has high confidence their QDBOLED beats WOLED on both cost and performance and they will do whatever it takes to match WOLED on price with their 2020 8.5G production (even iif that means they are taking a bath with each early panel sale).
> 
> I'll be very interested to see what specs Samsung announces for their 2019 QDBOLEDs at CES in two months - the only stumbling block I can see in this brilliant strategy working out for them is if the first-generation QDBOLED TVs vastly underperform WOLED on peak brightness (which would be very ironic given the Brightness Wars driven by Samsung over the past few years ).



I'm all for competition in this space but Samsung's pricing policy for their LEDs makes you wonder if they're going to bring price competition vs. LG OLED, particularly in their first 1-2 years of production.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> I'm all for competition in this space but Samsung's pricing policy for their LEDs makes you wonder if they're going to bring price competition vs. LG OLED, particularly in their first 1-2 years of production.


All signs are that Samsung understands they are late to the game and that the OLED-TV train is leaving the station. The fact that that their 2020 8.5G conversion 'production plan' involves sacrificing 3.7 lcd panels for each and every QDOLED panel produced means they are serious about catching up to WOLED and making money is a secondary consideration at this stage. Samsung will price at whatever level needed to sell through this early production.

If these QDBOLEDs are noticably better than LGs WOLEDs in some way, Samsung may be able to command a modest premium for them. If the differences are noise level, probably not much...


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> https://twitter.com/jeffyurek/status/1059852707022856192?s=19
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/NanosysInc/status/1059870208465100800
> 
> There was a 18" prototype at CES 2018. It seems under NDA, till know... Also Nanosys confirmed Samsung´s 8.5G QDOLED pilot line in 2019.


I've seen a few references to this slide online referring to the fourth 'advantage' meaning burn-in is less of a concern on QDBOLED than WOLED, and I don't believe this is correct.

The slide says: "All colors age at same rate, less concern with differential aging, white point shift, and burn-in."

It is true that the native 'blue point' of any specific BOLED sub pixel will not shift with age, while the native white point of a WOLED subpixel will, but differential aging, burn-in, and even calibrated whitepoint depend on subpixel stimulus pattern, not native color point shift.

If you watch thousands of hours of CNN on a QDBOLED, the blue oled layer(s) of the red subpixels within the CNN logo will age faster than their non-CNN-logo red subpixel brethren, and so a darkened CNN shadow will eventually be burned into the red field, just as it does with WOLED.

It  is true that an R,G, B subpixel arrangement based on QDBOLED should be more immune to color shift than WOLED, especially W,R,G,B WOLED. If subpixels are sized so calibrated white involves stimulating R and G and B subpixels roughly equally, then all three colors of subpixels will age equally when stimulated with a white field and white point will not shift.

Even if WOLED is designed so that W and R and G and B-colored subpixels are stimulated equally by a white field, the blue OLED layers within the OLED stack will age at a different rate than the yellow layer (or red and green layers) and so white point will shift without proper sub-pixel-level compensation.

So QDBOLED does have some small advantage in the area of color sjift, but not in regards to burn-in. In fact, since propensity to burn-in and differential aging depend on the rate of OLED layer aging (when stimulated), if Samsung's blue oled layer(s) age more rapidly than LG blue+yellow OLED layers (when both are stimulated for equivalent luminance output), the QDBOLED would be more prone to burn-in than the WOLED.

QDBOLED will apparently be top-emission ftom the get-go, so that may represent a significant though short-lived efficiency advantage (we don't yet know whether LG will have top-emission in 2019, though they are almost certain to by 2020).

The use of QDCC represents a +200% efficiency advantage (which LG reduces to only a +100% efficiency advantage through use of their white sub-pixel).

Samsung's blue OLED layers are likely to have significantly less efficiency than LG's blue+yellow oled stack (at least when normalized for equivalent lifetime)

Until we see the announced specs and some lifetime testing, it's impossible to know how much of an Ace Up Their Sleaves or Achilles Heel Samsung may have in the area of lifetime (or peak brightness - the one can be traded off against the other).

I'm greatly looking forward to the rtings.com 2019 burn-in test (especially CNN Max) - it should be one for the ages...


----------



## ALMA

fafrd said:


> "JOLED tells us that it has no plans to produce large size OLEDs at this stage - and this TV is on display just to demonstrate JOLED's printing technology."



My understanding is that JOLED only wants to sell and license their technology for inkjet printed OLED TVs to other companies, not produce the TVs itself.


----------



## ALMA

fafrd said:


> I'll be very interested to see what specs Samsung announces for their 2019 QDBOLEDs at CES in two months - the only stumbling block I can see in this brilliant strategy working out for them is if the first-generation QDBOLED TVs vastly underperform WOLED on peak brightness (which would be very ironic given the Brightness Wars driven by Samsung over the past few years ).



I doubt we will see QDBOLED at CES 2019. It´s all about 8K QLED LCD. For Samsung Electronics it´s still R&D by Samsung Display. QDBOLED is a thing for 2020. But the denial strategy by Samsung Electronics was stronger in the last years than today. I think they don´t want to admit that they working still on OLED after their Burn-In campaign against LG, also Samsung Electronics is not the panel manufacture, that´s Samsung Display. I guess they never will call their QDBOLED TVs as OLED TVs. For them a QDBOLED TV will still be called as QLED TV.



Samsung Electronics denials QDBOLED production:



> Samsung Electronics said it is not true about industry speculation that it will mass-produce quantum dot organic light emitting diode (QD-OLED) panels.


but...



> While research and development (R & D) is being carried out at the technology level, the investment strategy is centered on the existing quantum dot light emitting diode (QLED) and micro LED.
> 
> *Samsung Electronics said in a conference call after the announcement of 3Q04 earnings on 31st, "We are currently conducting R & D on QD-OLED as a technology dimension."*


https://translate.google.com/transl...s_view.asp?artice_id=20181031114041&sandbox=1


----------



## wco81

They can't acknowledge that they're working on a different type of display than their current product line.

It would decimate sales and cause the cash flow to evaporate.


----------



## AnalogHD

ALMA said:


> I think they don´t want to admit that they working still on OLED after their Burn-In campaign against LG, also Samsung Electronics is not the panel manufacture, that´s Samsung Display. I guess they never will call their QDBOLED TVs as OLED TVs. For them a QDBOLED TV will still be called as QLED TV.


 The very reason they sell "QLED TV" is that, from a long distance, or with degraded vision, or with limited attention, it looks like "OLED". I meet people every day who think Samsung makes OLED, or that QLED is a kind of OLED, or that the two techs are in some way connected. 

This is their mainstream marketing campaign and of course they'll change the Q to an "O" when they can. They might call it "AMOLED" or "Super OLED", or even work in a "Q+OLED", but the magic word will be there.

Samsung's IR/BI FUD campaign is not even aimed at actual customers. It's meant to spurt more videos by impressionable fanboys, to counter the strong momentum LG's OLED are gaining in the press and word-of-mouth. It's still a long way from making people avoid OLED, just introducing some doubt in the end customer's mind, making them remember they "heard bad things about OLED".

It's not like Samsung is above sending two opposite messages depending on what suits them at the time. No different from Intel trashing AMD's Epyc for "unreliable performance from glued-together dies", then, the moment they glue two dies together themselves, quietly forgetting the above and acting like they invented the idea.


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> I doubt we will see QDBOLED at CES 2019. It´s all about 8K QLED LCD. For Samsung Electronics it´s still R&D by Samsung Display. QDBOLED is a thing for 2020. But the denial strategy by Samsung Electronics was stronger in the last years than today. I think they don´t want to admit that they working still on OLED after their Burn-In campaign against LG, also Samsung Electronics is not the panel manufacture, that´s Samsung Display. I guess they never will call their QDBOLED TVs as OLED TVs. For them a QDBOLED TV will still be called as QLED TV.
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics denials QDBOLED production:
> 
> but...
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...s_view.asp?artice_id=20181031114041&sandbox=1



It's not going to make much of a 'pilot' if Samsung doesn't sell some of their 2019 QDBOLED production to end-consumers, and if they are going to try to sell any next year, the QD-BOLED demo will be moved from the private suite to the showroom floor.

But you raise a good point, Samsung Display is the primary driver behind QD-BOLED, while Samsung Electronics is more interested in 8K QLED/LCD and MicroLED (which they can produce without involving Samsung Display).

So like there was with LGE and LG Display (at least until recently), their is probably reluctance by Samsung TV division to embrace or promote QDBOLED in the way Samsung Display would like.

But billions of $$$s of investment have been planned and Samsung as a Group is prepared to sacrifice significant amounts of LCD production capacity in order to quickly ramp-up QDBOLED production by 2020, so they are either going to use 2019 to begin preparing the market for QDBOLED or they are going to throw all the 2019 pilot production into the wastebasket and expect the market to absorb the 3M QDBOLED TVs they produce in 2020 from a cold start.

It'll be interesting to see, but my guess is that QDBOLED will make an apprarance on the Samsung CES '19 showroom floor...


----------



## rogo

Every "it solves burn in" claim has been based on trying to obfuscate over the fact it doesn't solve burn in.

This QD-OLED claim is the same.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Every "it solves burn in" claim has been based on trying to obfuscate over the fact it doesn't solve burn in.
> 
> This QD-OLED claim is the same.


To be fair to Samsung (hard, I know ), they did not use the word 'solve', they said 'less of a concern'.

The greatly increased electro-optical efficiency of top-emission will make burn-in less of a concern (for both WOLED and QDBOLED).

What we don't know yet is whether QDBOLED is intrinsically more susceptible to burn-in than WOLED (at equivalent lumens of output) because of it's reliance on only very innefficient blue OLED material...


----------



## helvetica bold

If one would venture a guess, what advancements can we expect from LG 2019 OLED vs 2018 panels? 10%–25% increase in brightness seem possible?


----------



## RichB

helvetica bold said:


> If one would venture a guess, what advancements can we expect from LG 2019 OLED vs 2018 panels? 10%–25% increase in brightness seem possible?



My guess is that if efficiency is increased, it may be used for burn-in resistance.


- Rich


----------



## fafrd

RichB said:


> My guess is that if efficiency is increased, it may be used for burn-in resistance.
> 
> - Rich


If they get top-emission launched in 2019, there should be enough of an efficiency increase to achieve both (in reased brightness and additional headroom for burn-in compensation).


----------



## maxsteel85

fafrd said:


> If they get top-emission launched in 2019, there should be enough of an efficiency increase to achieve both (in reased brightness and additional headroom for burn-in compensation).


I hope so


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> If they get top-emission launched in 2019, there should be enough of an efficiency increase to achieve both (in reased brightness and additional headroom for burn-in compensation).


How likely is this to happen (top emission launch in 2019), in your opinion?


----------



## helvetica bold

I really want the new Sony A9F. Since we’re so close to CES I’m thinking I’ll just wait to see what OLED panel improvements are made. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> How likely is this to happen (top emission launch in 2019), in your opinion?


Here is the DSCC repoirt from a year ago statibg that LGD would launch top-emission in 2018: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction



> "DSCC estimates that LGD has a pilot capacity of 3k / month of top emission capacity as of today, with plans to increase that to more than 10k / month, and *mass production on E4-2 starting in 2019. *"


Since that report we've heard nothing, so who's to know? In general I'd think that means we won't see tiop-emission next year, especially since 'starting in 2019' could mean the end of 2019 (as well as the fact that there is at least a ~6 month lag between LGD producing panels and LGE introducing TVs).

On the other hand, Samsung seems to have done a remarkable job developing QDBOLED in stealth month for over the past 12+ months, so perhaps springing new developmemts on the market after they are fully-baked rather than early and frequent updates on all the great new stuff being worked on.

Samsung apparently has top emission fot QDBOLED in 2019, so that's another reason for hope...


----------



## helvetica bold

The article states top emission is for 65” 8K OLED screens with a 10% increase in aperture.

What’s a 10% aperture increase equeal in peak brightness? 

Curious if any advancements will trickle down to 4K panels. I have no interest in a 65” 8K at the moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

helvetica bold said:


> The article states top emission is for 65” 8K OLED screens with a 10% increase in aperture.
> 
> What’s a 10% aperture increase equeal in peak brightness?
> 
> Curious if any advancements will trickle down to 4K panels. I have no interest in a 65” 8K at the moment.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Pretty certain that 10% figure is way off. Top-emission promises to increase aperature ratio from under 30% to close to 80%. That 2-3x increase in aperatute ratio will not translate directly to a 2-3x increase in peak brightness levels (due to power consumption considerations), but it does translate directly to a 2-3x reduction in current density for the same output levels (meaning decreased aging, greater immumibty to burn-in, and longer lifetime).

And as far as advances like top-emission trickling down to 4K panels, I started an entire thread on exactly that subject: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...l/3000116-what-emergence-8k-means-4k-tvs.html


----------



## stl8k

Very recent published research on a single-stack cool WOLED with blue-yellow-blue structure utilizing blue TADF (DPEPO) and yellow phosphorescent emitters.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34593-3

This is from the same group at Kyung Hee University that LG Display collaborated with on top emission.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Very recent published research on a single-stack cool WOLED with blue-yellow-blue structure utilizing blue TADF (DPEPO) and yellow phosphorescent emitters.
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34593-3
> 
> This is from the same group at Kyung Hee University that LG Display collaborated with on top emission.


It'll be very interesting to see if LGD brings this in to productiin for 2019.

For those who don't want to wade through the full article, here's the punchline (comparing today's 3-stack WOLED structure to the single-stack CWOLED): 



> "such a complicate structure not only increases manufacturing cost and driving voltage but also degrades viewing angle characteristics. On the other hand, single-stack hybrid WOLED has more simple structure compared to that of tandem structure. Hence, the *device manufacturing cost can be reduced and it also provides much better viewing angle characteristics. *"


This will erase any cost-advantage Samsung has with BOLED and will also result in lower prices for CWOLED TV panels.

It is a near-certainty that LG is teeing up both CWOLED and top-emission for 10.5G manufacturing.

What's unknown is whether they will start inteoducing either of these improvements in their 8.5G manufacturing...

The 8K 88" TV LGE plans to launch in June '19 will be manufactured on 8.5G and is claimed to be bottom-emission, which will mean a ~36% reduction in peak brightness unless LGD is introducing something new (which could be CWOLED).

Should be an interesting CES in 2 months .

(The attached image [figure 3] shows the fundamental concept: today's multi-stack structure (a) includes a charge generation layer; traditional single-stack structure eliminates the CGI but results in significantly less yellow intensity than blue intensity (and hence rhe wrong whitepoint); CWOLED (c) tunes the thickness of the ITO layer to increase yellow intensity until it matches blue for the correct whitepoint (with the elimnation of CGI and the lower-cost simple structure).


----------



## ALMA

CSoT (TCL) joins the 11G race for 2020/2021 and building a new production plant including OLED panels for TVs:




> China-based display maker CSoT held a ceremony yesterday as it started construction on its upcoming T7 large-area display production fab. The T7 fab, which has a total cost of around 42.7 billion Yuan ($6.15 billion USD), will produce both LCD and OLED display.





> Total capacity in the T7 line will be 105,000 monthly substrates (according to our information, the OLED capacity will be 20,000 monthly substartes). The T7 OLED line will use IGZO backplanes and inkjet printing deposition. CSoT's plan is to start production by the end of 2020 - with real mass production starting in 2021.
> 
> 
> CSoT is collaborating in its ink-jet printing project with Kateeva, Sumitomo Chemical, Merck, Dupont and Tianma - in addition to University research groups in China.



https://www.oled-info.com/csot-breaks-ground-its-upcoming-t7-fab-which-includes-printed-oled-tv-line


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Should be an interesting CES in 2 months .


Indeed, fafrd!


----------



## helvetica bold

Im really considering purchasing the 65" Sony A9F but Im going to wait until after CES. This is a smart move correct, at least wait to see what improvements LG brings to their panels?? It feels like Ive been waiting forever to upgrade.


----------



## circumstances

helvetica bold said:


> Im really considering purchasing the 65" Sony A9F but Im going to wait until after CES. This is a smart move correct, at least wait to see what improvements LG brings to their panels?? It feels like Ive been waiting forever to upgrade.


I'm waiting for CES as well, but I have to admit, if the A9F was available in a 77" I probably would have bought it already.


----------



## ALMA

> According to the industry on April 25, the vice chairman visited Samsung Display last month and reported that he received in-depth reports from executives such as CEO Lee Dong-hoon on the subject of "next-generation product development and investment strategy." On this day, the conference was a large organic light emitting diode (OLED) panel for TV. This project is led by Han Kap Su and Vice President Lee Jong Hyeok. This visit is characterized by 'interim check'. The vice chairman said that he would "set the direction for investment in April 1, next year."





> Samsung Display plans to test development, mass production, and investment direction until next April. Currently, the company has ordered some of its core production equipment for pilot line operation in L8-1, the LCD production line of Tangjeong 8th generation in Asan City, Chungnam Province. The key is to be able to operate extra large lines over 10 generations. In order to secure cost competitiveness in the premium TV market of more than 65 inches, the 8th generation is not enough. Lee Jae-Yong's task is to see whether it is possible to go straight to the '10 generation line 'until April next year. If it is difficult, the whole L8 line can be converted into 8th generation QD OLED.
> 
> An industry official said, "In recent years, the vice chairman has rarely visited the workplace, but this year he has come twice to do his homework," he said. "For the time being, Samsung's backside ecosystem is likely to have a busy day." . "Samsung Display is in a hurry after the vice chairman Lee Jae-yong's visit," said an official from Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., who is dealing with Samsung Display. "We received notification from Samsung Display, .



https://translate.google.com/transl...kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=247&edit-text=


----------



## wco81

Is April Fools Day a thing in Korea?


----------



## dfa973

Samsung is getting pretty desperate to go beyond LCD... If they price their future OLED's as they do their current LCD QLED's they do not have any chance... LG & Chinese OLED manufacturers will eat them alive...


----------



## fafrd

dfa973 said:


> Samsung is getting pretty desperate to go beyond LCD... If they price their future OLED's as they do their current LCD QLED's they do not have any chance... LG & Chinese OLED manufacturers will eat them alive...


This has nothing to do with pricing at this stage and has everything to do with:

1/ technical feasibility - does Samsung have a QDBOLED solution that will deliver the peak brightness and lifetime that the market has come to expect (meaning within a stone's throw of where WOLED is)?

2/ long-term cost-competetiveness in general and specifically ability to jump straight to 10.5G (and skip straight from 8.5G feasibility/pilot straight to 10.5G mass-production on the heels of LGs 10.5G WOLED fab ramp-up)?

My read is that Samsung's Chairman is getting prepared to make an all-in bet to catch up to LG WOLED by 2021 when LG's 10.5G WOLED production launches but he wants to be certain that R&D is complete and they have a competetive technology solution first...

If Samsung Display needs another 4-5 years to solve technical problems and/or iron-out cost-reduction technologies like 10.5G printed OLED, the Chairman seems to have awareness that the 10.5G train will have left the station and they may never recover the massive investments being requested...

My read on this information the Chairman isn't drinking the coolaid after first Sasumg Display's first OLED TV fiasco and now their QLED/LCD TV fiasco and so he's told Samsung Display they have until April 2019 to convincingly resolve all outstanding issues associated with printed QD-BOLED before he will give them the go-ahead for manufacturing investment.

The entire MicroLED TV initiative is being driven by Samsung Electronics directly (without involving Samsung Display) which has also been burned by Samsung Display twice now, so it's likely that they are another voice into the Chairman's ear advising him to be cautios about investing massive sums in QD-BOLED production until it is a sure thing and redirecting a small fraction of the required manufacturing investments into ramp-up of MicroLED instead (at least until WD-BOLED is a sure thing).

Damsung will sell at whatever price required to gain back market share once they have a certain winner on their hand, but they want confidence in the pot of gold at the end of that rainbow before committng the massive production investments required...

I see this as essentially confirmation that they do not yet have the high-effuciency / long-lifetime Blue OLED material they need to deliver a competitive TV product (and so now Samsung Display and their Blue OLED partners have until April 2019 to put up or shut up ).


----------



## boe

circumstances said:


> I'm waiting for CES as well, but I have to admit, if the A9F was available in a 77" I probably would have bought it already.


I'm going crazy waiting for CES - in a good way I suppose. I keep coming here hoping for some morsel of what we'll see for production stuff - not prototypes that may or may not come to production. There is a lot of good material in this thread but man I can barely wait for the goodies to be revealed at CES in 2019. Hopefully it will be a bit more dramatic of an improvement than last year e.g. an 8k WITH a brighter screen would be something but an 8k at the same brightness or less wouldn't really be much of a step forward IMHO.


----------



## bjaurelio

boe said:


> I'm going crazy waiting for CES - in a good way I suppose. I keep coming here hoping for some morsel of what we'll see for production stuff - not prototypes that may or may not come to production. There is a lot of good material in this thread but man I can barely wait for the goodies to be revealed at CES in 2019. Hopefully it will be a bit more dramatic of an improvement than last year e.g. an 8k WITH a brighter screen would be something but an 8k at the same brightness or less wouldn't really be much of a step forward IMHO.



I am doing largely the same. Mainly, I want to know if LG will have top emission on 2019 TVs. Old information says they should have started production this year. Some information says it won't happen for another year or two when the 10.5G factory comes up. If the 8K OLED they plan to sell is truly bottom emission as rumored, they sure aren't going to have top emission for the 4K OLEDs. If this new single stack materializes, it could result in similar efficiency gains and manufacturing cost reductions that we won't miss the lack of top emission for another year or two.


----------



## boe

bjaurelio said:


> I am doing largely the same. Mainly, I want to know if LG will have top emission on 2019 TVs. Old information says they should have started production this year. Some information says it won't happen for another year or two when the 10.5G factory comes up. If the 8K OLED they plan to sell is truly bottom emission as rumored, they sure aren't going to have top emission for the 4K OLEDs. If this new single stack materializes, it could result in similar efficiency gains and manufacturing cost reductions that we won't miss the lack of top emission for another year or two.


I get exactly what you mean. I'm hoping - hoping oh so very much that I don't wait another year to buy a TV. I tend to buy things long term and I skipped last year as the upgrades were so minor. I'm really looking forward to putting something larger than 65" in my living room. I suppose I'd be willing to be an early adopter even though that means paying too much - IF I can get the tech I really want.


----------



## bjaurelio

Same here. I've had my 50" Pannasonic plasma for 7 years now. I've been wanting to upgrade for a couple years. After negotiating it into our financial plan with my wife and completing a couple needed house upgrades (new windows and replacing tile countertops that were getting moldy underneath by the sink) I'll be getting a 2019 65" OLED so long as it supports eARC and VRR. I really want to see some big PQ improvements for 2019 like 2016 offered since the last two years have been very incremental.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

bjaurelio said:


> 2019 65" OLED so long as it supports eARC and VRR


This has basically been my plan for several years now, though possibly with the 55" version instead.

My biggest concern however is that the panel _needs_ to be 4k since native 4k 120Hz input with 4:4:4 chroma is a very key point for me since I want to use that resolution/refresh rate combined with VRR in a sort of "jack of all trades" manner (though without the "master of none" that normally accompanies the concept) without the need to actually change resolution or refresh rate for an HTPC ideal experience.

And technically 8k 120Hz 4:4:4 would also be acceptable, but that would likely require waiting a few more years, especially in terms of PC GPUs (I don't need 8k for 3D games, but having your desktop's 2D GUI not match the display's native resolution is a big no-no).


----------



## boe

NintendoManiac64 said:


> And technically 8k 120Hz 4:4:4 would also be acceptable, but that would likely require waiting a few more years, especially in terms of PC GPUs (I don't need 8k for 3D games, but having your desktop's 2D GUI not match the display's native resolution is a big no-no).


I'm thinking (and hoping) if they release a good 8K TV that it will have HDMI 2.1. A lot of people say here there is no way we'll see HDMI 2.1 in 2019 but I'm hoping that we get a pleasant surprise.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

boe said:


> I'm thinking (and hoping) if they release a good 8K TV that it will have HDMI 2.1.


And that's the thing, the IMO premature push for 8k has me somewhat paranoid about whether there will actually be a native 55"-65" 4k OLED with HDMI 2.1 capable of 120Hz 4k 4:4:4 VRR.

I will _not_ be happy if that 120Hz 4k 4:4:4 VRR is only available on native 8k OLEDs.


----------



## hiperco

OMG why is everyone interested in 8K? Totally worthless upgrade. Give me a $3k 80" OLED please


----------



## fafrd

Speculation about CES 2019 (and the features all of you are hoping for) really belongs in a dedicated thread rather than polluting this 'OLED technology advancements' sticky thread...


----------



## stl8k

*Innovations in Motion/HFR*

I'm following the academic and industrial research on emitter and related innovations well, but would appreciate any links to research on innovations in motion/hfr. The only resources I'm currently tracking are the public stuff from NHK on Super Hi-Vision and the Blur Busters forums.

TIA.


----------



## stl8k

*8K at 120Hz*

In advance of NHKs full-time 8K satellite transmission on Dec 1, Sharp is shipping:

http://www.sharp.co.jp/aquos/products/8tc70ax1_spec.html

The 120Hz motion is achieved by:

(Note 7) Technique for improving movie repeatability by interlocking flashing of LED backlight with 120 frames per second interpolated with double speed technology.

Would love to see even high-res still captures of a broadcast here. Any posters here in Japan?


----------



## stl8k

*Trends in Research and Development of OLED (NHK)*

Current thoughts of the NHK STRL on where OLED is going:

https://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/bt/bt74/pdf/feature0074-1.pdf

These guys have a nice vantage point because of their access to lots of forward-looking content—all of the 8K-120Hz video they've captured around the world.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Current thoughts of the NHK STRL on where OLED is going:
> 
> https://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/bt/bt74/pdf/feature0074-1.pdf
> 
> These guys have a nice vantage point because of their access to lots of forward-looking content—all of the 8K-120Hz video they've captured around the world.


Thanks - good read.

There was alot of giid stuff in there, but this is the nugget that really jumped iout at me:

"While the LCD response is sufficient for Hi-Vision and other video where the frame rate is 60 Hz and the frame interval is 16.6 ms, the frame rate will be increased 120 Hz or higher and the frame interval reduced by half to 8.3 ms or less to improve the video quality in the full specifcation Super Hi-Vision system. The operation of *LCD TVs will be unstable under these conditions*, but stable operation under the next-generation specifcations and improved image quality can be expected from OLED displays because the response of OLEDs is at least three orders of magnitude faster than that of LCDs."

In a future of 120fps video (Super Hi-Vision), LCD will be unable to keep up...

I wonder if is coincidence that just two days ago LG issued a teaser focusing on 120fps capability for their Alpha 9 Gen 2 processor and 2019 WOLED TVs: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1543397159

"With the impressive new image processor onboard, 2019 LG OLED TVs will deliver a truly unparalleled viewing experience,” the company said. [/b]“The α9 Gen 2 is ready to support next-generation High Frame Rate (HFR) content mastered at an astonishing 120 frames per second (fps).[/b] A higher fps means better rendering of fast-paced action with noticeably smoother motion and better image clarity – perfect for watching sports or the latest action blockbusters.”

Having weathered Samsung's 'Brightness War' over the past 2 years, it appears that 2019 may be the year LG throws down the gauntlet on the Framerate Wars .


----------



## stl8k

*Display Hardware at NHK's 8K Event*

Re: the displays mentioned here, do I have this right?

https://pid.nhk.or.jp/event/PPG0326382/index.html

*440 inch micro LED screen 8 K*
Sony's prototype from NAB earlier this year

*8K organic EL display*
LG prototype using the new chip FAFRD mentioned in the previous post

*13.3 inch 8K organic EL*
Sharp?


----------



## wco81

fafrd said:


> Thanks - good read.
> 
> There was alot of giid stuff in there, but this is the nugget that really jumped iout at me:
> 
> "While the LCD response is sufficient for Hi-Vision and other video where the frame rate is 60 Hz and the frame interval is 16.6 ms, the frame rate will be increased 120 Hz or higher and the frame interval reduced by half to 8.3 ms or less to improve the video quality in the full specifcation Super Hi-Vision system. The operation of *LCD TVs will be unstable under these conditions*, but stable operation under the next-generation specifcations and improved image quality can be expected from OLED displays because the response of OLEDs is at least three orders of magnitude faster than that of LCDs."
> 
> In a future of 120fps video (Super Hi-Vision), LCD will be unable to keep up...
> 
> I wonder if is coincidence that just two days ago LG issued a teaser focusing on 120fps capability for their Alpha 9 Gen 2 processor and 2019 WOLED TVs: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1543397159
> 
> "With the impressive new image processor onboard, 2019 LG OLED TVs will deliver a truly unparalleled viewing experience,” the company said. [/b]“The α9 Gen 2 is ready to support next-generation High Frame Rate (HFR) content mastered at an astonishing 120 frames per second (fps).[/b] A higher fps means better rendering of fast-paced action with noticeably smoother motion and better image clarity – perfect for watching sports or the latest action blockbusters.”
> 
> Having weathered Samsung's 'Brightness War' over the past 2 years, it appears that 2019 may be the year LG throws down the gauntlet on the Framerate Wars .


Hmm, does HFR imply HDMI 2.1?

Some kind of external tuner box feeding HFR signals?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Hmm, does HFR imply HDMI 2.1?
> 
> Some kind of external tuner box feeding HFR signals?


It all comes down to what the meaning of 'support' means, doesn't it.

But HDMI 2.0a will not fully support 120 fps 4K content, and 'next-generation High Framerate (HFR) content mastered at an astonishing 120 frames per second (fps)' certanly suggest [email protected] (as well as HDR).

LG already supported HFR content through streaming apps on their 2018 WOLEDs, so this early teaser on the Alpha 9 Gen 2 supporting 120Hz 'next generation' HFR content certainly suggests that LG is going to have something new to spring on us in 2019...

The other facts we know today are that:

1/ LG will be launching an 8K WOLED in 2019 (which will be a far more credible product if i incorporates HDMI 2.1).

2/ Synopsis announced availability of their full-tested and certified HDMI 2.1 IP precisely one year ago today: https://news.synopsys.com/2017-11-3...-IP-Solution-with-HDCP-2-2-Content-Protection

3/ LG committed something Snopsis HDMI 2.1 IP in September: https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/prnewswire/press_releases/California/2018/09/18/SF10248 which could have been the 'start of design' but equally likely could have been the 'commitment to manufacturing' of a design KG had been working on and validating since early this year.

I have rthe feekling that it's going to be an interesting CES...


----------



## 8mile13

Let that sink in for a moment...In a future of 120fps video (Super Hi-Vision), LCD will be unable to keep up...


----------



## cathodeRay

hiperco said:


> OMG why is everyone interested in 8K? Totally worthless upgrade. Give me a $3k 80" OLED please


How about 110"? This is about double the length and width of a 4k 55", thus, 8k would yield the same PPI/resolution. People will want wall sized displays. Plus, even on a 65" to 80" panel, they'll find a way to use the 'extra' pixels to enhance 3D, brightness, motion, etc..


----------



## helvetica bold

It seems LG is playing catch up with Sony x1 ultimate with its 2nd gen A9. This is telling...

“The rumor mill has been fairly quiet this autumn and it is still unclear if LG.Display – LG’s display production arm – will move to top-emission OLED panels this year. We suspect not as that the company has full focus on ramping up production.”

If I don’t see any significant OLED panel improvements I’ll by the A9F the week after CES. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mark Rejhon

fafrd said:


> It all comes down to what the meaning of 'support' means, doesn't it.
> 
> But HDMI 2.0a will not fully support 120 fps 4K content, and 'next-generation High Framerate (HFR) content mastered at an astonishing 120 frames per second (fps)' certanly suggest [email protected] (as well as HDR).


There is a lot of undocumented 120fps support in HDTVs today, and has been the case since 2013. Usually it's the resolution below, e.g. 120Hz 720p on 1080p HDTVs, or doing 120Hz 1080p on 4K HDTVs. It's often not reported in the EDID or DisplayID signalling, and sometimes a slight deviation from HDMI spec (not bandwidth-wise though) -- so you have to "force" the mode blindly from the video source (e.g. a computer running a custom resolution mode). Incidentially, all 2017 and 2018 LG 4K OLEDs I've tried, reports an EDID available of 1080p 120Hz -- and it works -- no forcing a custom resolution needed.



8mile13 said:


> Let that sink in for a moment...In a future of 120fps video (Super Hi-Vision), LCD will be unable to keep up...


Chief Blur Buster here, there's a surprising twist. 120Hz makes it easier for LCDs than 60Hz because of a situation. I'll explain why:

I work with monitor manufacturers (I'm on contracts with mainstream gaming monitor makers). Including advanced overdrive-tuning lookup tables. While I am rooting for OLED, LCD is currently ahead of OLED in motion blur at the 120 Hertz leagues.

As founder of Blur Busters, I have several CRT-motion clarity impulse-driven gaming LCDs on my desktop already. (Here's a fuller listing: 120Hz+ gaming monitors with motion blur reduction backlights).

Several of them even have nearly nonexistent strobe crosstalk (*NO* ghost double-images) too! Some implementations are crap, but I have seen hundreds of panels, and I can assure you some LCD gaming monitors now exceed CRT clarity of a good Nokia 445pro CRT or Sony FW900 CRT, when running in 120Hz strobed mode at framerate=refreshrate (120fps at 120Hz). Yes, yes, colors and blacks are crap. But zero sharpness differential between static images and moving images, even for images moving faster than screenwidth per second! Motion clarity is no contest: the best gaming LCDs now finally wins over the best desktop CRTs now, if we're talking about the clearest LCD gaming monitor of my batch sitting here.









Actual WYSIWYG sideways-moving-camera long-exposure LCD photographs at 960 pixels/sec using my peer-reviewed pursuit camera invention (co-authoered with NIST.gov, NOKIA, Keltek)









Early strobed LCDs only could achieve leftmost. Most strobed gaming LCDs do the middle. But now, today... yes, some of my strobed LCDs sitting here achieve the rightmost image WYSIWYG during fast pan -- virtually completely-eliminated ghost duplicate afterimages. Goodbye strobe crosstalk! (Though obviously with color quality compromises, albiet rapidly improving).

I can even read the street name labels of TestUFO Panning Street Map Test at 3000 pixels/second when using NVIDIA® ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur) which is found on many eSports desktop gaming monitors, better than I can read them on a Sony GDM-W900 or Sony FW-900 CRT tube! When "ULMB Pulse Width" setting in the OSD (available on all TN-based NVIDIA GSYNC monitors with the ULMB feature) is et to 50% -- measured persistence falls to 0.5ms -- the MPRTs fall to roughly 0.5 milliseconds. The picture is dark (on most except for voltage-boosted LED flashing -- ULMB is much brighter on the newer 240Hz monitors, 300nits at 1ms MPRT flashes -- and about 150nits at 0.5ms MPRT flashes -- now reasonably adequate for dark rooms, and getting better as LEDs getting brighter). Although colors are worse than OLED, the motion clarity is simply stunning, far better than the world's best OLED (currently). Unfortunately, such good motion clarity is only available at roughly 100-120Hz refresh rates, and only on desktop monitors -- rather than large-sized TVs.

The advantage of 120Hz standardization is that you no longer need to interpolate before you strobe.

Today, you can eliminate LCD limitations via a good motion blur reduction backlight. The problem is signal standards used to be 60 Hertz, which necessitated interpolating (uggggg for me, at least) to 120Hz before you could strobe to avoid flicker. Everybody hates 60Hz flicker, so that's why.

With signals becoming native 120Hz, you can simply do an ultra clean backlight strobing, while successfully cramming LCD GtG in the VBI. (pixel transitions fast enough to complete between refresh cycles, so the whole GtG cycle is practically finished before you flash the backlight on a fully-refreshed LCD panel).

We currently have a new 0.5ms (GtG90% measurement metric) gaming LCD arriving already from AUO Optronics -- fast enough for upcoming 480Hz LCDs (~2020s), and for those who haven't read about ultra-Hz refresh rate, it's a way to eliminate motion blur without impulse-driving (no flicker) -- achieve blurless sample-and-hold (see my true 480Hz tests and my 1000Hz Journey Article).

That said, OLEDs are superior in pixel transition behaviour, so we simply need an OLED that can pulse at 120Hz (Basically the combo of 120Hz + BFI). So OLEDs in theory can be superior for the 120Hz refresh rate, but don't count out LCDs; especially fast-pixel-response panels driven by quantum-dot backlights; especially since pixel response is already starting to be 90-99% hidden in total darkness in the blanking interval nowadays (the best gaming LCD sitting on my desk manages to hide ~99.9% of GtG for screen center in the dark cycle between visible flashes of the refresh cycle).

Most HDTVs are VA panels which are extremely slow pixel response in dark greys. However, on my very desktop, is sitting a TN LCD that manages roughly 1ms GtG for every single 256x256 = all 8-bit color combinations (for GtG 90% curve completion metric; the GtG100% takes longer). It doesn't matter if your GtG100% is 3ms or 4ms if you can hide all of that in total darkness, you can have MPRT less than GtG. I've got another monitor sitting on my desk that has 4ms GtG but 1ms MPRT, because the GtG occurs in the dark phase and the MPRT occurs in the bright phase, of the flashing phase of the blur-reducing strobe backlight. The science of blur reduction simply requires that the speed of ALL color combinations of pixel transitions is manged to be able to be hidden in the dark phase of a strobe backlight. So you can have MPRT shattering the GtG barrier, because GtG in the dark phase, and MPRT in the bright phase -- as seen in the high speed video of the world's first massmarket near-completely-GtG-bypassing strobe backlight (LightBoost) -- for a long time, was only found in a 24" desktop monitor, alas! So it's not too much of a stretch to keep engineering LCD until all of its pixel transition color combinations gets managed to squeeze into the blanking interval (at least ~99%) -- it's not a large leap anymore, from what I hear about upcoming future 1ms IPS panels and better-than-VA panels -- so ultraclean 120Hz becomes easy with those kinds of panels -- the motion clarity floor is bottomless when GtG is hidden. Also, internal scan conversion often occurs to enlarge VBIs to give more time to hide GtG-in-VBI (e.g. 4ms fast panel scanout + 4ms VSYNC) -- so instead of 0.5ms VBI you have a 4ms VBI internally thanks to the display's internal scan conversion that enhances motion clarity. Global-strobe backlights are currently superior to scanning backlights because you don't have light diffusion bleeding between the dark/bright areas (can amplify strobe crosstalk, with trailing sharp-ghost images) but have the disadvantage of being uncomfortable flicker at 60 Hertz, which is not a problem for most at 120 Hertz. And now video standards are hitting 120fps HFR (convenient, eh!) *You can have 0.1ms MPRT with a 4ms GtG LCD, if your 8ms refresh cycle can completely hide 4ms GtG in the dark moments of a strobe backlight cycle, and an ultra-ultra-bright LED backlight flashes brightly like 0.1ms CRT phosphor on the fully-refreshed LCD panel. There's no floor, the motion clarity limit is completely limitless on LCD once GtG crosses that magic barrier of "hide-GtG-in-VBI" for all pixel color transition combinations.* (which is already now being achieved with some of the panels now sitting here). The leap isn't very far today, even GtG99%-metric milliseconds are very close to achievable enlarged-VBI sizes achieved today.

Now, we have to live with impulsing for now. This is because we cannot easily do ultra high refresh rates, and standards are (probably) decades away from standardizing retina refresh rates (And instead focussing on retina resolutions & retina dynamic range).
So we are hereby stuck with impulsing as a method of eliminating motion blur (1ms of MPRT persistence = 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec, and on sample-hold displays, MPRT can never be less than refresh cycle duration. Thus, we're /forced/ to flicker, if we want MPRT numbers smaller than a refresh cycle).

The great news is 120Hz makes blur-reduction on LCDs much simpler than at 60Hz, because you don't have to deal with eye-searing flicker (Especially since 60Hz squarewave strobed-LCD flicker is much harsher than 60Hz sawtooth-wave phosphor fade flicker). Flicker at 120Hz instead and most people are O.K. with enabling this optional blur-reduction mode (it's easily an ON/OFF setting, to go flickerfree _or_ blurfree -- without needing to use interpolation to avoid flicker).

_Related topic, regardless of OLED and LCD -- We definitely need improved motion clarity more badly for 4K and 8K. It's a vicious cycle -- more clarity during static images means more likely a bigger difference between static images and moving images. So motion blur looks worse for the same MPRT. 1ms MPRT was fine in NTSC era and well beyond diminishing returns. But I can tell apart 0.25ms and 0.5ms MPRT on a strobed 8K display, if I am looking closely at test patterns. Higher resolutions push the diminishing-returns noisefloor way downwards, making HFR more essential, but even sample-and-hold HFR still has way too much motion blur. So we need to impulse-drive to achieve sub-refresh-cycle MPRTs, since refresh cycle durations is the motion blur limiting factor._

*Summary*
- Most manufacturers avoid strobing at 60Hz due to flicker; even when GtGs are fast enough, so LCD (especially TV sized panels) gets a bad rep in motion clarity.
- 120Hz means you can avoid interpolation as a workaround to fix flicker (e.g. interpolate 60Hz->120Hz then strobe 120Hz)
- LCD GtGs are now getting fast enough nowadays to be hidden in the blanking interval between refresh cycles. This allows the GtG to be completely hidden in the dark period between strobe backlight flashes. This progress will continue.
- OLEDs are preferred but LCDs are perfectly capable of 120Hz tack-sharp CRT clarity already, today. While now widespread in $500 TN desktop gaming monitors, this is not widespread in TVs yet due to good old fashioned "60Hz legacy" and slightly slower pixel response in TVs than gaming monitors, which most manufacturers don't strobe without pre-interpolation, because of eye-searing 60Hz flicker.
- Future TV-sized LCD panels will manage to hide GtG99% in the dark cycle of a strobe backlight (hide GtG-in-VBI engineering), the magic ingredient necessary for bottomless MPRTs (limitless motion clarity, only limited by LED pulse brightness).

Even when TVs support strobing it's often compromised by (A) forced pre-interpolation to 120Hz to avoid 60Hz strobe flicker (B) slower VA panels that are really slow at GtG in dark colors. So all the flicker modes of LCD TVs are often crappy. But (A) completely disappears with eventual widespread 120fps HFR standardization, and (B) completely disappears with a few milliseconds more improvement to cross the magic barrier of all GtGs hidden in VBI. Already achieved (at GtG99% metric) on some desktop TN panels, but will eventually arrive to 1ms IPS and other fast panels that can also be engineered TV-sized. As (A) and (B) are solved, motion clarity becomes limitless, LCDs will be a CRT-clarity juggernaut option too. Too many LCD factories, and too many low lying apples to fix (A) and (B) by next decade, so LCD is still a very shoo-in option if 120fps HFR gets fully standard.

Conclusion: I root for OLED, but... 120fps HFR standardization make it much easier to achieve human-comfortable high-quality impulse blur reduction modes on LCDs, so both LCDs and OLEDs will co-exist for a very long time.


----------



## subtec

Mark Rejhon said:


> Chief Blur Buster here, I work with monitor manufacturers (I'm on contracts with mainstream gaming monitor makers).


Man, if you have any sway with manufacturers at all, what I really want is a monitor that can do real blacks with high contrast. Not just 3000:1 VA panel blacks, but really deep, near-OLED blacks, and without giving up color accuracy, viewing angles, or suffering from glow. This most likely means IPS + Mini LED FALD with 10k+ zones, which I know is coming (eventually), but, by god, *bring back A-TW polarizers*! The only thing that ruins dark scenes in games/movies more than raised blacks is IPS glow, and it's insane to me that the industry has all but abandoned A-TW polarizers.

Ideally, Panasonic's Light Modulating Cell Layer tech (as used in the Flanders Scientific XM311K and Eizo CG3145) would make into consumer-level displays, but that may be too much of a pipe dream.

Either way, couple a high quality, high contrast panel with high-hertz strobing and VRR, and you'd have the ultimate gaming/media display.


----------



## RichB

^ 
I am primarily focused on 24Hz film motion. In the Cinema, I perceive the motion as smooth but blurred. with little or no perceived jumping.
Plasmas are better than OLEDs but the still has increased jumping.

I think you outlined another approach to improving film motion in the past. 
Are there others ways to improve film motion other than interpolation and BFI, specifically something that provides a "cinematic look"?

- Rich


----------



## Mark Rejhon

subtec said:


> Man, if you have any sway with manufacturers at all, what I really want is a monitor that can do real blacks with high contrast. Not just 3000:1 VA panel blacks, but really deep, near-OLED blacks, and without giving up color accuracy, viewing angles, or suffering from glow. This most likely means IPS + Mini LED FALD with 10k+ zones, which I know is coming (eventually), but, by god, *bring back A-TW polarizers*! The only thing that ruins dark scenes in games/movies more than raised blacks is IPS glow, and it's insane to me that the industry has all but abandoned A-TW polarizers.
> 
> Ideally, Panasonic's Light Modulating Cell Layer tech (as used in the Flanders Scientific XM311K and Eizo CG3145) would make into consumer-level displays, but that may be too much of a pipe dream.
> 
> Either way, couple a high quality, high contrast panel with high-hertz strobing and VRR, and you'd have the ultimate gaming/media display.


Oh yes! Blur Busters has some moderate sway in gaming monitor territory -- to a point. Blur Busters is the one who successfully popularized blur reduction on LCDs for gaming monitors. The boom of blur reduction brands (BenQ DyAc, ASUS ELMB, Acer RTC, NVIDIA ULMB, etc -- full listing of blur reduction brands) are all direct results of BlurBusters advocacy on LightBoost, the world's first massmarket CRT-clarity blur reduction on LCDs. Originally designed for improving 3D glasses use, it had a more popular side effect: 2D blur reduction (at least for 120 frame-per-second capable games). Back in 2014, LightBoost monitor sales boomed by several orders of magnitude thanks to Blur Busters writing lots about a more popular purpose of LightBoost (Than 3D glasses), and caused all the spinoff blur reduction modes. Although I did not work with NVIDIA directly, things like "ULMB Pulse Width" menu would not have existed without Blur Busters -- they added that menu option because of my recommendation. (Benefits are mainly visible with ultrasmooth scrolling)

That said... About your ask. Ditto. Traditionally I haven't often worked on black levels as I work on the manufacturers that have to put shoe-shine-polish on off-the-shelf LCDs, sometimes chinese-manufactured stuff. We gotta work with the panels we're given. In fact, the 480Hz monitor is using an off-the-shelf 4K 1ms 60Hz LCD -- available for $80 off sites like Alibaba/Aliexpress -- with its original TCON ripped out, discarded and then hacked with a custom-made FPGA-driven TCON, as a one-man engineering outfit called Zisworks (whom I helped with the strobe science for its blur reduction mode). Anyway, lots of people try to do miracles with little. It's very hard work because of the longtime race-to-bottom and the separation of panel manufacturers away from monitor manufacturers (ASUS and BenQ does not make their own panels). 

Panel making and monitor making is very decoupled now compared to 20 years ago. Sometimes monitor manufacturers have to *polish turds* (off the shelf panels that often have no Hertz rating) with custom timing controllers, custom backlight drivers, custom overdrive, etc. That can get expensive. I help find quick shortcuts to doing "good enough" blur reduction. 1ms TN panels have huge hertz headroom even when the panel is sold with a. It takes a lot of work to do good job, doing miracles with lethargic VA pixels in pre-existing panels, cleverly overdriving them just the right amount to be correct color during the strobe flash. It's hard whac-a-mole on 65536 (minus 256 no-change transitions) making sure all 256x256 GtGs behave without interfering with other GtG color combos (like traditional ****ty formulaic-based "Overdrive Gain" adjustments). The 3D bargraph of GtG is amazingly bumpy for the from-to colors. Dark VA colors are sometimes unfixable pixel transitions and gotta wait years till the monitor manufacturers are given better panels -- far easier on TN. Panel pixel response curves can be molded like playdoh by changing the TCON, things like overvoltaging the pixel row/columns slightly (more power to pixels for the briefer refreshes), to things like redoing all the overdrive (e.g. "OD LUTs" instead of "OD Gain") but there's certainly limits how pliable the pixels are, and you start hitting brick walls, like LVDS ribbon bandwidths, row-column crosstalking, streaky effects from voltage leakage between rows, and whatnots. Sure, the GtG brick wall to bottomless motion clarity was shattered for TN panels (especially with OD LUTs replacing OD Gain adjustments, though ultralarge Vertical Totals can make strobing "good enough" with simple "OD Gain" adjustable panels) -- but no TV manufacturer dares to use TN panels for picture-quality-conscious televisions, but that doesn't mean 1ms IPS ain't coming (it is!) and many other exciting LCD developments coming that more successfully shove all the GtG combos into the VBI for the necessary bottomless-floor MPRTs. So I'm not responsible for designing a TCON, but I can be responsible for designing, say, a strobing workflow specification that successfully works (custom OD tuning + custom strobe tuning) that makes it usable. There are even some manufacturers that just flash a backlight without synchronizing the GtG's (no strobe phase optimization, no strobe-optimized overdrive tuning, etc) -- it's frankly shocking how inexperienced many monitor manufacturers are with milking the maximum motion clarity out of an LCD panel. Heck, One-man-team Zisworks milked 480Hz out of a 60Hz panel. So I help monitor manufactures pick those low lying apples that are cheaply picked. Sometimes that cheap $100 monitor and the expensive $500 monitor are using the same panel -- chief difference is the extra engineering polishing the panel (custom TCONs, custom motherboards, custom backlight controllers, etc) It's not particularly difficult to get 90% as good as ULMB without touching any patents for example. There's a lot of apples on the ground, even -- already fallen from the tree. Hell, even low-wage engineers who aren't familiar with GtG versus MPRT and are simply asked to make a chinese panel "work". It's frankly surprising and widespread. Many experts but many are leaving the apples on the ground. Sometimes panels are so good colors/resolution wise and works great out of the box, and don't want to bother even spending a mere week or two of a North Amercan engineer's time to fix the blur reduction (sometimes that's all it takes). Including many TVs I've seen, too. Though I mainly work with monitor manufacturers. 

(Oh and for other readers: Are you a manufacturer that needs help polishing an off-the-shelf panel? OD tuning, strobe tuning, GtG bargraphing, photodiode oscilloscoping, etc. Contact me.)



RichB said:


> ^
> I am primarily focused on 24Hz film motion. In the Cinema, I perceive the motion as smooth but blurred. with little or no perceived jumping.
> Plasmas are better than OLEDs but the still has increased jumping.
> 
> I think you outlined another approach to improving film motion in the past.
> Are there others ways to improve film motion other than interpolation and BFI, specifically something that provides a "cinematic look"?
> 
> - Rich


Yes, BFI ratios need to be adjustable. 

Film projectors do BFI via a 180-degree shutter. That's been the way it has been for decades, even when you visit movie theaters in the 1950s. They HAVE to black out to hide the movement of the film reel. *Film projectors always has done the equivalent of a BFI since the 19th century, it's a mandatory component of a film projector. So you unavoidably need at least a special kind BFI to exactly duplicate a film projector -- there's no way to avoid BFI when you're copying a film projector that has a spinning/slotted shutter. OLEDs can be strobed rolling-scan, which can mimic the rolling-shutter motion, so that you've got a rolling window duplicated. Now, to duplicate a 180-degree shutter double-strobe film projector for 24fps, you either technology:

(1) 96Hz blackened-refresh-cycles: 24 frames per second of (1/96sec frame, 1/96sec black frame insert, 1/96sec repeat same frame, 1/96sec black)
-or-
(1) 48Hz backlight-strobed: 24 frames per second of (flash frame for 1/96sec, wait 1/96sec of dark, repeat flash frame for 1/96sec, wait 1/96sec of dark)

Theoretically, both of the above can produce the same result. However, to do that on LCD, means you've got to have ultralarge blanking intervals and and an ultralong backlight flash (most strobe backlights flash briefer than half a refresh cycle). Long backlight flashes makes it harder to hide LCD GtG in the dark phase of backlight-based BFI techniques (Remember, "BFI" terminology isn't necessarily always black-colored refresh cycles. RTINGS uses "BFI" terminology to describe strobe backlights, as does some of us -- and thusly, "BFI" terminology is applicable to all rolling shutters). So the former (1) is actually easier than (2), because you only need to worry about full-refresh-cycle granularities when we're dealing with a simple 180-degree shutter, you just need 4 refresh cycles per frame to do the double-strobe via refresh cycle granularity.

That's per pixel. Whether it's global flash or rolling scan flash, the pixel math is the same -- light sensor at a exact point taped to a cinema screen, shows 1/96sec illumination, 1/96sec dark, 1/96sec illumination, 1/96sec dark -- for one film frame. Repeat the cycle 24 times a second. So you've got 4 phases (ON-OFF-ON-OFF) times 24 equals 96. Even if top edge is flashed at a different time than the bottom edge, thanks to the spinning shutter creating a "rolling scan" effect. Some newer film projectors avoid the rolling scan and flash more globally, but it varies from film projector to projector. However, the industry standard was a 180-degree (semicircle disc) spinning behind the projector lens, blocking the light 48 times a second. Again, I did mention this.... You need 48 frame visibilities and 48 black frames. Now, add together 48 + 48 = 96. That's why you want 96Hz to do 48Hz+BFI in order to do an exact carbon copy of the industry-standard 180-degree spinning semicircle shutter that spins at 48Hz (two halves of disc = 2 phases, times motor 48 RPS = 96 phases per second). So again, the math is elementary and simple. 96 Hertz (cycles per second) to carbon-copy the two phases of a 48Hz film projector rolling shutter onto your television.

For OLED, that means a 96Hz OLED. A 120Hz OLED can't do it unless it's a FreeSync OLED (then you simply "VRR" your way down to 96Hz, since with FreeSync, refresh cycle durations are software-controlled / source-controlled -- easy to do with a high-precision timer). One could theoretically work around it by waiting for refresh rates to jump 60Hz->120Hz->240Hz->480Hz -- and since 480Hz is divisible by 96Hz, you can simply use 5 refresh cycle repetitions. But that's overkill when all one needs to do is to add FreeSync to an OLED, and make sure 96Hz is within the FreeSync range -- then voila, you've got your necessary film-projector-duplicating mode.

Alternative option: VRR displays to add flexibility for non-granular refresh cycles for non-180-degree shutter: VRR displays such as -- FreeSync/HDMI VRR/GSYNC/VESA AdaptiveSync -- can easily accomodate this. A 240Hz-capable VRR display is able to mimic a 48RPS 270-degree shutter and 48RPS 90-degree shutter theoretically simply by alternately varying the refresh cycle durations for the visible-vs-black frames. 0.75/48sec bright + 0.25/48sec dark, this cycle repeating 48 times a second for a total of 96 phases per second rendered onto 96 variable-length refresh cycles per second) and 96Hz 90-degree shutter (0.25/48sec bright + 0.75/48sec dark phases, this cycle repeating 48 times a second for a total of 96 phases per second rendered onto 96 variable-length refresh cycles per second). Most 240Hz VRR displays support 48-240Hz range, which represents refresh durations of 1/240sec(4.16ms) through 1/48sec(20.8ms). 0.75/48 is 15ms and 0.25/96sec is 5.2ms -- that's within the "4.16ms to 20.8ms refresh durations" VRR range of a "48Hz-240Hz range" variable refresh FreeSync monitor, it'd take a specially-written software player to properly simulate the refresh cycle durations [I actually have done some preliminary work on this already, and it works albiet with crappy color quality of TN -- contact me if interested in my custom software-BFI work for video playback].

Anybody can say BFI is bad: A person turns on simple 60Hz BFI or 120Hz BFI, it looked crappy and flickery -- with film having wrong stutteriness -- and thought BFI wasn't proper for film projectors. Sure, sure. But the devil is in the deets. (And I must remind, including very subtle deets including rolling-scan BFI versus global-BFI -- and complications such as asymmetric BFI ratios -- to exactly carbon-copy a spinning-disc rolling shutter). I know eeeee-exactly what is required to carboncopy a 180-degree film projector to a screen from a BFI-perspective. (I'm temporarily ignoring the colors/blacks/etc aspect -- and fully focussing on film-motion look, including perfect exact reproduction of all film motion blurs -- if faithful exact reproduction of cinematic motion blurs & doublestrobe effect -- is exactly what you want). And yes, I even am familiar with how LCD polarity inversion algorithms and LCD FRC temporal-dithering algorithms can sometimes interfere with software-based BFI -- I've developed successful workarounds for that at least during uncommercialized experimentation (inquire within) -- that also prevents LCD burn-in during software BFI caused by nasty interaction between software-BFI and the LCD positive/negative voltage inversion algorithm.

Either way, we need either a 96Hz OLED, or a variable-refresh-capable OLED (where 96Hz or 192Hz is within the VRR range -- to provide options capable of carbon-copying an industry standard film projector).*


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of undocumented 120fps support in HDTVs today, and has been the case since 2013. Usually it's the resolution below, e.g. 120Hz 720p on 1080p HDTVs, or doing 120Hz 1080p on 4K HDTVs. It's often not reported in the EDID or DisplayID signalling, and sometimes a slight deviation from HDMI spec (not bandwidth-wise though) -- so you have to "force" the mode blindly from the video source (e.g. a computer running a custom resolution mode). Incidentially, all 2017 and 2018 LG 4K OLEDs I've tried, reports an EDID available of 1080p 120Hz -- and it works -- no forcing a custom resolution needed.
> 
> 
> Chief Blur Buster here, there's a surprising twist. 120Hz makes it easier for LCDs than 60Hz because of a situation. I'll explain why:
> 
> I work with monitor manufacturers (I'm on contracts with mainstream gaming monitor makers). Including advanced overdrive-tuning lookup tables. While I am rooting for OLED, LCD is currently ahead of OLED in motion blur at the 120 Hertz leagues.
> 
> As founder of Blur Busters, I have several CRT-motion clarity impulse-driven gaming LCDs on my desktop already. (Here's a fuller listing: 120Hz+ gaming monitors with motion blur reduction backlights).
> 
> Several of them even have nearly nonexistent strobe crosstalk (*NO* ghost double-images) too! Some implementations are crap, but I have seen hundreds of panels, and I can assure you some LCD gaming monitors now exceed CRT clarity of a good Nokia 445pro CRT or Sony FW900 CRT, when running in 120Hz strobed mode at framerate=refreshrate (120fps at 120Hz). Yes, yes, colors and blacks are crap. But zero sharpness differential between static images and moving images, even for images moving faster than screenwidth per second! Motion clarity is no contest: the best gaming LCDs now finally wins over the best desktop CRTs now, if we're talking about the clearest LCD gaming monitor of my batch sitting here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actual WYSIWYG sideways-moving-camera long-exposure LCD photographs at 960 pixels/sec using my peer-reviewed pursuit camera invention (co-authoered with NIST.gov, NOKIA, Keltek)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early strobed LCDs only could achieve leftmost. Most strobed gaming LCDs do the middle. But now, today... yes, some of my strobed LCDs sitting here achieve the rightmost image WYSIWYG during fast pan -- virtually completely-eliminated ghost duplicate afterimages. Goodbye strobe crosstalk! (Though obviously with color quality compromises, albiet rapidly improving).
> 
> I can even read the street name labels of TestUFO Panning Street Map Test at 3000 pixels/second when using NVIDIA® ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur) which is found on many eSports desktop gaming monitors, better than I can read them on a Sony GDM-W900 or Sony FW-900 CRT tube! When "ULMB Pulse Width" setting in the OSD (available on all TN-based NVIDIA GSYNC monitors with the ULMB feature) is et to 50% -- measured persistence falls to 0.5ms -- the MPRTs fall to roughly 0.5 milliseconds. The picture is dark (on most except for voltage-boosted LED flashing -- ULMB is much brighter on the newer 240Hz monitors, 300nits at 1ms MPRT flashes -- and about 150nits at 0.5ms MPRT flashes -- now reasonably adequate for dark rooms, and getting better as LEDs getting brighter). Although colors are worse than OLED, the motion clarity is simply stunning, far better than the world's best OLED (currently). Unfortunately, such good motion clarity is only available at roughly 100-120Hz refresh rates, and only on desktop monitors -- rather than large-sized TVs.
> 
> The advantage of 120Hz standardization is that you no longer need to interpolate before you strobe.
> 
> Today, you can eliminate LCD limitations via a good motion blur reduction backlight. The problem is signal standards used to be 60 Hertz, which necessitated interpolating (uggggg for me, at least) to 120Hz before you could strobe to avoid flicker. Everybody hates 60Hz flicker, so that's why.
> 
> With signals becoming native 120Hz, you can simply do an ultra clean backlight strobing, while successfully cramming LCD GtG in the VBI. (pixel transitions fast enough to complete between refresh cycles, so the whole GtG cycle is practically finished before you flash the backlight on a fully-refreshed LCD panel).
> 
> We currently have a new 0.5ms (GtG90% measurement metric) gaming LCD arriving already from AUO Optronics -- fast enough for upcoming 480Hz LCDs (~2020s), and for those who haven't read about ultra-Hz refresh rate, it's a way to eliminate motion blur without impulse-driving (no flicker) -- achieve blurless sample-and-hold (see my true 480Hz tests and my 1000Hz Journey Article).
> 
> That said, OLEDs are superior in pixel transition behaviour, so we simply need an OLED that can pulse at 120Hz (Basically the combo of 120Hz + BFI). So OLEDs in theory can be superior for the 120Hz refresh rate, but don't count out LCDs; especially fast-pixel-response panels driven by quantum-dot backlights; especially since pixel response is already starting to be 90-99% hidden in total darkness in the blanking interval nowadays (the best gaming LCD sitting on my desk manages to hide ~99.9% of GtG for screen center in the dark cycle between visible flashes of the refresh cycle).
> 
> Most HDTVs are VA panels which are extremely slow pixel response in dark greys. However, on my very desktop, is sitting a TN LCD that manages roughly 1ms GtG for every single 256x256 = all 8-bit color combinations (for GtG 90% curve completion metric; the GtG100% takes longer). It doesn't matter if your GtG100% is 3ms or 4ms if you can hide all of that in total darkness, you can have MPRT less than GtG. I've got another monitor sitting on my desk that has 4ms GtG but 1ms MPRT, because the GtG occurs in the dark phase and the MPRT occurs in the bright phase, of the flashing phase of the blur-reducing strobe backlight. The science of blur reduction simply requires that the speed of ALL color combinations of pixel transitions is manged to be able to be hidden in the dark phase of a strobe backlight. So you can have MPRT shattering the GtG barrier, because GtG in the dark phase, and MPRT in the bright phase -- as seen in the high speed video of the world's first massmarket near-completely-GtG-bypassing strobe backlight (LightBoost) -- for a long time, was only found in a 24" desktop monitor, alas! So it's not too much of a stretch to keep engineering LCD until all of its pixel transition color combinations gets managed to squeeze into the blanking interval (at least ~99%) -- it's not a large leap anymore, from what I hear about upcoming future 1ms IPS panels and better-than-VA panels -- so ultraclean 120Hz becomes easy with those kinds of panels -- the motion clarity floor is bottomless when GtG is hidden. Also, internal scan conversion often occurs to enlarge VBIs to give more time to hide GtG-in-VBI (e.g. 4ms fast panel scanout + 4ms VSYNC) -- so instead of 0.5ms VBI you have a 4ms VBI internally thanks to the display's internal scan conversion that enhances motion clarity. Global-strobe backlights are currently superior to scanning backlights because you don't have light diffusion bleeding between the dark/bright areas (can amplify strobe crosstalk, with trailing sharp-ghost images) but have the disadvantage of being uncomfortable flicker at 60 Hertz, which is not a problem for most at 120 Hertz. And now video standards are hitting 120fps HFR (convenient, eh!) *You can have 0.1ms MPRT with a 4ms GtG LCD, if your 8ms refresh cycle can completely hide 4ms GtG in the dark moments of a strobe backlight cycle, and an ultra-ultra-bright LED backlight flashes brightly like 0.1ms CRT phosphor on the fully-refreshed LCD panel. There's no floor, the motion clarity limit is completely limitless on LCD once GtG crosses that magic barrier of "hide-GtG-in-VBI" for all pixel color transition combinations.* (which is already now being achieved with some of the panels now sitting here). The leap isn't very far today, even GtG99%-metric milliseconds are very close to achievable enlarged-VBI sizes achieved today.
> 
> Now, we have to live with impulsing for now. This is because we cannot easily do ultra high refresh rates, and standards are (probably) decades away from standardizing retina refresh rates (And instead focussing on retina resolutions & retina dynamic range).
> So we are hereby stuck with impulsing as a method of eliminating motion blur (1ms of MPRT persistence = 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec, and on sample-hold displays, MPRT can never be less than refresh cycle duration. Thus, we're /forced/ to flicker, if we want MPRT numbers smaller than a refresh cycle).
> 
> The great news is 120Hz makes blur-reduction on LCDs much simpler than at 60Hz, because you don't have to deal with eye-searing flicker (Especially since 60Hz squarewave strobed-LCD flicker is much harsher than 60Hz sawtooth-wave phosphor fade flicker). Flicker at 120Hz instead and most people are O.K. with enabling this optional blur-reduction mode (it's easily an ON/OFF setting, to go flickerfree _or_ blurfree -- without needing to use interpolation to avoid flicker).
> 
> _Related topic, regardless of OLED and LCD -- We definitely need improved motion clarity more badly for 4K and 8K. It's a vicious cycle -- more clarity during static images means more likely a bigger difference between static images and moving images. So motion blur looks worse for the same MPRT. 1ms MPRT was fine in NTSC era and well beyond diminishing returns. But I can tell apart 0.25ms and 0.5ms MPRT on a strobed 8K display, if I am looking closely at test patterns. Higher resolutions push the diminishing-returns noisefloor way downwards, making HFR more essential, but even sample-and-hold HFR still has way too much motion blur. So we need to impulse-drive to achieve sub-refresh-cycle MPRTs, since refresh cycle durations is the motion blur limiting factor._
> 
> *Summary*
> - Most manufacturers avoid strobing at 60Hz due to flicker; even when GtGs are fast enough, so LCD (especially TV sized panels) gets a bad rep in motion clarity.
> - 120Hz means you can avoid interpolation as a workaround to fix flicker (e.g. interpolate 60Hz->120Hz then strobe 120Hz)
> - LCD GtGs are now getting fast enough nowadays to be hidden in the blanking interval between refresh cycles. This allows the GtG to be completely hidden in the dark period between strobe backlight flashes. This progress will continue.
> - OLEDs are preferred but LCDs are perfectly capable of 120Hz tack-sharp CRT clarity already, today. While now widespread in $500 TN desktop gaming monitors, this is not widespread in TVs yet due to good old fashioned "60Hz legacy" and slightly slower pixel response in TVs than gaming monitors, which most manufacturers don't strobe without pre-interpolation, because of eye-searing 60Hz flicker.
> - Future TV-sized LCD panels will manage to hide GtG99% in the dark cycle of a strobe backlight (hide GtG-in-VBI engineering), the magic ingredient necessary for bottomless MPRTs (limitless motion clarity, only limited by LED pulse brightness).
> 
> Even when TVs support strobing it's often compromised by (A) forced pre-interpolation to 120Hz to avoid 60Hz strobe flicker (B) slower VA panels that are really slow at GtG in dark colors. So all the flicker modes of LCD TVs are often crappy. But (A) completely disappears with eventual widespread 120fps HFR standardization, and (B) completely disappears with a few milliseconds more improvement to cross the magic barrier of all GtGs hidden in VBI. Already achieved (at GtG99% metric) on some desktop TN panels, but will eventually arrive to 1ms IPS and other fast panels that can also be engineered TV-sized. As (A) and (B) are solved, motion clarity becomes limitless, LCDs will be a CRT-clarity juggernaut option too. Too many LCD factories, and too many low lying apples to fix (A) and (B) by next decade, so LCD is still a very shoo-in option if 120fps HFR gets fully standard.
> 
> Conclusion: I root for OLED, but... 120fps HFR standardization make it much easier to achieve human-comfortable high-quality impulse blur reduction modes on LCDs, so both LCDs and OLEDs will co-exist for a very long time.


The key statement in the original NHK article was this: 

"The response (the time required for a change in luminance) of an OLED is no more than a few microseconds, whereas the response of a liquid crystal device is determined by the movement speed of liquid crystal molecules and ranges from *several milliseconds to several tens of milliseconds.* "

I think we can all agree that an LCD requiring several tens of milliseconds to change luminance is going to do a poor job delivering 120fps content.

If the transition time is only 'several milliseconds' then as you point out, there is plenty of time to hide the transition in a blanking interval within the overall 8.3ms frame transition time (as long as the backlight strobe is bright enough to compensate).

You've mentioned IPS with fast transition several times in your post but any videophile who waches in the dark is likely to reject IPS LCD due to the poor contrast ratio and poor blacks.

If we take a high-end VA TV in 2018 (Samsung Q9, Sony Z9D, what are the transition times that are typical today?

Overall, I agree with you that NHK is being overly pessimistic about LCDs ability to keep up with 120fps content, but the margins for VA LCD @ 120fps are getting pretty slim and if there is ever any evolution to even faster framerates, LCD is going to run out of steam where OLED still has headroom to burn...

As you and I have discussed before, the key 'gap' for OLED to close is a seperate blanking control so that OLED can deliver the same effective 240Hz refresh rate (with BFI) that high-end LCD offers today...


----------



## Mark Rejhon

fafrd said:


> "The response (the time required for a change in luminance) of an OLED is no more than a few microseconds, whereas the response of a liquid crystal device is determined by the movement speed of liquid crystal molecules and ranges from *several milliseconds to several tens of milliseconds.* "


Both NHK and myself is correct.

That's GtG100%. But the GtG99% metric is much better, especially with a few thousand dollars worth of overdrive lookup table tuning. It's not that particularly difficult, when it comes to TN panels, combined with a small amount of dynamic range reduction (to allow coronaless overdrive overshoot room below black and above white). 

Remember, *GtG90% is not the same as GtG99% is not the same as GtG100%*

1ms GtG90% for a black pixel going to white is like reaching RGB(230,230,230) in 1ms.
1ms GtG99% for a black pixel going to white is like reaching RGB(253,253,253) in 1ms.
1ms GtG99.9% for a black pixel going to white is like reaching RGB(254.75, 254.75, 254.75) in 1ms
etc.

Now, look at the graphs, sometimes 
- GtG90% appears at 0.5ms
- GtG99% appears at 2ms
- GtG100% appears at 20ms. 
The GtG curve is really, really, really hockeystick on some panels. And the curve shape is VERY different for different pixel color combos, and sometimes the curves is steppered (humpy bumps) at refresh intervals; it often takes more than one refresh cycle pass to clean up the remaining GtG. *Even the iPhone X (original) has slow OLED "GtG100%" pixel response that takes more than 16ms to GtG100%* - pick up your iPhone X original just look at the faint ghost squares chasing after the black squares that shows up at www.testufo.com/eyetracking -- it appears to be reaching roughly GtG98% after the first refresh pass. This is invisible in games and all other iPhone use. However, it becomes human visible as a faint ghost in a specially-constructed test pattern like the one I created. Then GtG100% after the second refresh pass. 0.001ms GtG98% versus 16ms GtG100%. Wow. Holy refresh-cycle GtG stepper effect. But who cares if it's only visible in a test pattern!? Sure, GtG98% may occur in a microsecond (first pixel refresh pass), but it takes one more refresh cycle to hit that GtG100% (next pixel refresh pass). So.... see where I am getting at?

Also, OLEDs don't even hit full GtG100% in a microsecond -- the microsecond is for GtG90% which is an *industry standard (ISO)* for milliseconds-GtG photodiode oscilloscope graph measurements, the time period from the GtG10% thru the GtG90% point. OLEDs take much longer than a millisecond from GtG0% thru GtG100%.

Right now, TV panels nor 8K panels are currently unable to do what I describe, however, fundamentally, *both NHK and I are right* -- we're focussed on different metrics, and I'm focussed on "getting good enough by human vision standards, who cares about the remaining GtG1%" realistic and pragmatic work that I do. I try to go better than the exaggerated measurements that industry standard GtG90% uses, and worry more about GtG99%, but I don't have to worry about GtG100%. It's like trying to hit the speed of light (I agree with NHK on that), but you can achieve bottomless MPRT motion clarity floor with just GtG99%. At some point, GtG99.9% means 1/1000th shade (less than two color pairs of 8-bit RGB), impossible to tell apart for most people for most color combos -- so who cares about fully hitting speed of light (hitting GtG100%). Just get close, that's it. That's all. Surely NHK's smartest engineers (not just their marketing people) can relate. 

Once NHK engineers starts testing 8K "reliably


----------



## wco81

NHK May offer 120 FPS and 8k content but are they big enough to drive global TV specs?


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> Both NHK and myself is correct.
> 
> That's GtG100%. But the GtG99% metric is much better, especially with a few thousand dollars worth of overdrive lookup table tuning. It's not that particularly difficult, when it comes to TN panels, combined with a small amount of dynamic range reduction (to allow coronaless overdrive overshoot room below black and above white).
> 
> Remember, *GtG90% is not the same as GtG99% is not the same as GtG100%*
> 
> 1ms GtG90% for a black pixel going to white is like reaching RGB(230,230,230) in 1ms.
> 1ms GtG99% for a black pixel going to white is like reaching RGB(253,253,253) in 1ms.
> 1ms GtG99.9% for a black pixel going to white is like reaching RGB(254.75, 254.75, 254.75) in 1ms
> etc.
> 
> Now, look at the graphs, sometimes
> - GtG90% appears at 0.5ms
> - GtG99% appears at 2ms
> - GtG100% appears at 20ms.
> The GtG curve is really, really, really hockeystick on some panels. And the curve shape is VERY different for different pixel color combos, and sometimes the curves is steppered (humpy bumps) at refresh intervals; it often takes more than one refresh cycle pass to clean up the remaining GtG. Even the iPhone X (original) has slow OLED pixel response that takes more than 16ms to GtG100% -- just look at the ghost squares that shows up at www.testufo.com/eyetracking -- it is reaching roughly GtG98% after the first refresh pass, then GtG100% after the second refresh pass. Sure, GtG98% may occur in a microsecond, but it takes one more refresh cycle to hit that GtG100%. So.... see where I am getting at?
> 
> Also, OLEDs don't even hit full GtG100% in a microsecond -- the microsecond is for GtG90% which is an *industry standard (ISO)* for milliseconds-GtG photodiode oscilloscope graph measurements, the time period from the GtG10% thru the GtG90% point. OLEDs take much longer than a millisecond from GtG0% thru GtG100%.
> 
> Right now, TV panels nor 8K panels are currently unable to do what I describe, however, fundamentally, *both NHK and I are right* -- we're focussed on different metrics, and I'm focussed on "getting good enough by human vision standards, who cares about the remaining GtG1%" realistic and pragmatic work that I do.
> 
> (Once NHK starts testing 8K "reliably


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Exactly, that's my point.

Sure, we may prefer a good OLED. 

I'm just saying... Don't count out LCD's ability to achieve bottomless MPRTs (limitless motion clarity). If at all, it helps reduce prices gradually when both OLED and LCD compete with each other too.

GtG98% for all transition combos hidden into VBI is often "good enough" according to my research. All one needs to do is approximately-glassfloor the 3D bargraph (millisecond bar heights for all 256 "from color" to 256 "to color" heights) to sufficient GtG98%-GtG99% and one successfully unlocks bottomless MPRTs for all practical intents and purposes. There's some ultrafaint ghosts but they're only visible in test patterns. Of most users, who cares? If video material and movie material looks perfect CRT clarity then happy happy joy joy. Especially if colors & contrast are spetacular. Imagine combining fine-granularity locally dimmed QLED with a future 1ms GtG IPS panel, and one can't deny the future possibilities of bottomless MPRTs with 120fps HFR material. 

Doing 1ms GtG 98% is hard but it's helluvaheckuva lotta easier than GtG100% which is even impossible for many OLEDs too. Depending on how the panel is made, OLED transitions are permanently visible, while LCD transitions can be increasingly hidden in the dark phase of a strobe backlight. Since the backlight controls the MPRT, while OLED pixels have to directly control the MPRT. So engineering have different bar heights are different for achieving limitless MPRTs on either panel tech.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Having weathered Samsung's 'Brightness War' over the past 2 years, it appears that 2019 may be the year LG throws down the gauntlet on the Framerate Wars .


I would rather see them throw down the gauntlet on uniformity and dark color gradation. The Z9F LCD obliterates every WOLED released so far in both areas. I suggest you check one out when you get the chance.



Mark Rejhon said:


> Film projectors do BFI via a 180-degree shutter. That's been the way it has been for decades, even when you visit movie theaters in the 1950s. They HAVE to black out to hide the movement of the film reel. *Film projectors always has done the equivalent of a BFI since the 19th century, it's a mandatory component of a film projector. So you unavoidably need at least a special kind BFI to exactly duplicate a film projector -- there's no way to avoid BFI when you're copying a film projector that has a spinning/slotted shutter. OLEDs can be strobed rolling-scan, which can mimic the rolling-shutter motion, so that you've got a rolling window duplicated. Now, to duplicate a 180-degree shutter double-strobe film projector for 24fps, you either technology:
> 
> (1) 96Hz blackened-refresh-cycles: 24 frames per second of (1/96sec frame, 1/96sec black frame insert, 1/96sec repeat same frame, 1/96sec black)
> -or-
> (1) 48Hz backlight-strobed: 24 frames per second of (flash frame for 1/96sec, wait 1/96sec of dark, repeat flash frame for 1/96sec, wait 1/96sec of dark)
> 
> Theoretically, both of the above can produce the same result. However, to do that on LCD, means you've got to have ultralarge blanking intervals and and an ultralong backlight flash (most strobe backlights flash briefer than half a refresh cycle). Long backlight flashes makes it harder to hide LCD GtG in the dark phase of backlight-based BFI techniques (Remember, "BFI" terminology isn't necessarily always black-colored refresh cycles. RTINGS uses "BFI" terminology to describe strobe backlights, as does some of us -- and thusly, "BFI" terminology is applicable to all rolling shutters). So the former (1) is actually easier than (2), because you only need to worry about full-refresh-cycle granularities when we're dealing with a simple 180-degree shutter, you just need 4 refresh cycles per frame to do the double-strobe via refresh cycle granularity.
> 
> That's per pixel. Whether it's global flash or rolling scan flash, the pixel math is the same -- light sensor at a exact point taped to a cinema screen, shows 1/96sec illumination, 1/96sec dark, 1/96sec illumination, 1/96sec dark -- for one film frame. Repeat the cycle 24 times a second. So you've got 4 phases (ON-OFF-ON-OFF) times 24 equals 96. Even if top edge is flashed at a different time than the bottom edge, thanks to the spinning shutter creating a "rolling scan" effect. Some newer film projectors avoid the rolling scan and flash more globally, but it varies from film projector to projector. However, the industry standard was a 180-degree (semicircle disc) spinning behind the projector lens, blocking the light 48 times a second. Again, I did mention this.... You need 48 frame visibilities and 48 black frames. Now, add together 48 + 48 = 96. That's why you want 96Hz to do 48Hz+BFI in order to do an exact carbon copy of the industry-standard 180-degree spinning semicircle shutter that spins at 48Hz (two halves of disc = 2 phases, times motor 48 RPS = 96 phases per second). So again, the math is elementary and simple. 96 Hertz (cycles per second) to carbon-copy the two phases of a 48Hz film projector rolling shutter onto your television.
> 
> For OLED, that means a 96Hz OLED. A 120Hz OLED can't do it unless it's a FreeSync OLED (then you simply "VRR" your way down to 96Hz, since with FreeSync, refresh cycle durations are software-controlled / source-controlled -- easy to do with a high-precision timer). One could theoretically work around it by waiting for refresh rates to jump 60Hz->120Hz->240Hz->480Hz -- and since 480Hz is divisible by 96Hz, you can simply use 5 refresh cycle repetitions. But that's overkill when all one needs to do is to add FreeSync to an OLED, and make sure 96Hz is within the FreeSync range -- then voila, you've got your necessary film-projector-duplicating mode.
> *


*

So the Sony A1E OLED (probably also A8F and A9F) did this for their 24Hz BFI mode. The 48Hz flicker was totally unusable and nobody in their right mind could tolerate the amount of flicker. Yet people don't go running out of movie theaters for some reason.



fafrd said:



"The response (the time required for a change in luminance) of an OLED is no more than a few microseconds, whereas the response of a liquid crystal device is determined by the movement speed of liquid crystal molecules and ranges from several milliseconds to several tens of milliseconds. "

Click to expand...

Complete bull**** as Mark pointed out below. OLEDs have good response times for certain color transitions. Near black, they are worse than many LCDs. Look at the graphs I linked earlier in this thread. If you own an OLED phone, go to a dark room and reduce the brightness of the screen as far as you can. Then go to this page and try panning the screen around. Observe the massive smearing of all the near-black gray tiles. The guys using OLEDs for VR headsets were forced to raise black levels to mitigate this smearing effect but at the cost of eliminating the infinite contrast of OLED. An alternative would be to employ LCD-style overdrive but that causes distracting overshoot errors and artifacts on dark moving content as see in the 2018 OLED lineup. Unlike LCD, you can't hide the artifacts while the pixels settle behind a turned off backlight.




Also, OLEDs don't even hit full GtG100% in a microsecond -- the microsecond is for GtG90% which is an industry standard (ISO) for milliseconds-GtG photodiode oscilloscope graph measurements, the time period from the GtG10% thru the GtG90% point. OLEDs take much longer than a millisecond from GtG0% thru GtG100%.

Click to expand...

You guys should look at FLCD (Ferroelectric Liquid Crystal Display). It's probably where LCD is headed in the future. Microsecond pixel response times, no more need for color filters, and 3x higher brightness from same backlights. The improved brightness and response times will be perfect for fast strobing.*


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Wizziwig said:


> Complete bull**** as Mark pointed out below.


Very good.

But let's be nice to manufacturers. With the way some panel manufacturing is decoupled from display manufacturing for many manufacturers -- they're doing the best they can with the panel they're given sometimes and it sometimes means the difference between a $500 display, $1000 display and a $2000 display. Defining what's bullbleep or not is pretty bullbleep itself in a very meta way. I *really* have to compliment some manufacturers who are really doing miracles with LCD. If I were Queen, I'd knight Zisworks for his single-handed achievement of 480Hz jammed into a off-the-shelf 60Hz TN LCD panel -- with successful 2ms MPRT Blur-Edge measurements WITHOUT strobing for a large number (if not all) GtG color combinations, WITHOUT BFI -- and WITHOUT overdrive -- simply by putting a massive overkill of an FPGA in place of a TCON, and doing some VLIW wizardry accompanied by motherboard genius work. I never thought LCD could pull that off strobeless 2ms MPRT BET measurements, but it happened, right in front of my face. Such LCD tech catchup probably won't hit large-sized TV panels for at least a decade, but it's clearly within the venn diagram of the law of physics or it wasn't happening in front of my face.

The industry standard of GtG90% doesn't reveal the dark secret of OLED pixel response, though it can be extremely much more squarewave ("Z" wave) than a siney-curvey thingy like this:









Figure: The "10%-to-90%" band, which can apply both to GtG and to MPRT (BET).
(From a random Google Scholar paper, it's pretty bog standard under many different terminologies)

Bullbleep can be a double edged sword. 1ms GtG is also bullbleep because we users, reviewers, and home theater testers want 1ms GtG100% when manufacturers are only advertising the standard 1ms GtG90%. However, the engineer's truth of necessity is simply to optimize for great strobed motion clarity is really somewhere in between -- closer to the GtG100% end but not needing reaching it fully. (In fact, this also applies to strobed OLED, not just strobed LCD too!) **bows out of marketing bullbleep**

Oh, and sometimes, light amounts of overdrive is even added to OLED to do some minor improvements to them for low-persistence operation, since pulsed OLEDs can get more nonuniform pixel response than sample-and-hold OLEDs, because pixel response imperfections get much more visible in strobed operation -- that was a problem that bedeviled early VR-optimized OLED screens. (BTW, the Oculus Kickstarter were early beta testers of TestUFO six months before TestUFO launched -- long before they talked to John Carmack/Michael Abrash and long before they were bought out by Facebook -- it convinced them they needed to go down the low-persistence path). Depending on the curve shape, the human eye sees the 1% imperfections that occurs outside the very clean 1 microsecond 99% GtG -- exactly what you're seeing on the iPhone X Original in the TestUFO Eye Tracking test pattern I invented; that human-visible OLED-speed imperfection is in the curve region outside the GtG90% band.

For bottomless MPRT, we need better than GtG90% but we definitely don't need GtG100%. Garbage and waste of engineering money. For my strobetune work, the sweet spot is completion to an error margin of 1 to 3 color shades (e.g. RGB252 versus RGB255), which translates very closely to approximately GtG98% ish. Certainly it's still a headdesk banger nightmare to get a glassfloor 3D bargraph GtG measurements of all 256x256 transition combos from a VA panel, but it's no longer massive engineering anymore to do that on a TN panel. We just need today-TN-speeds in tomorrow's IPS or VA panels, and if we do, we successfully cross the rubicon of bottomless MPRTs. If you wanted to be picky, error margin of 1 shade RGB is roughly akin to GtG99.7% accuracy. GtG99.7% is over 100x easier than GtG100%. Now once we can do that with large-sized VA or IPS panels, high-color-quality panels, and we'll be able to get pretty good blur reduction with 120Hz HFR albiet at reduced HDR range (I love the usefully 10,000nit backlights, that allows 90% blur reduction -- one tenth MPRT -- at 1,000 nits with zero backlight voltage-boosting above steady state backlight voltage). With TN technology, it can be 100x cheaper to go "good enough" sometimes. You know? Move the mileposts to "good enough for human vision" and GtGwork gets vastly easier, especially with 1ms TN and 0.5ms TN panels. (Though more than 50% of manufacturers don't fully optimize the pixel transitions properly. Panel are often tuned less than 50% to their factory law-of-physics capabilities, especially as evidenced by the 480Hz-milked-out-of-60Hz achievements -- sometimes the electronics attached to the panel is hugely the limiting factor. The panel is cheaper but is harder to tune, so you have to spend more money tuning them. I try to cut tuning time & costs on the tuning side of things.). 

*TL;DR: Moral of the story: OLED usually has better-looking curves by a wide margin, but Three Things: (a) not universally, as the world's best LCD curves can superior (on average) over the world's worst OLED curves, and this remains true as both tech simultaneously improve, and (b) advertised GtG numbers (which are GtG 90%) don't tell the story of the "curve", (c) Majority of a "complete enough" LCD curve (like an OD LUT-driven TN LCD panel) is now completely hideable in the dark phase of a strobe backlight.*

_EDIT TO ADD:_
As I sprayed a lot of terminology in my posts, that some readers may be unfamiliar with, I'll add a glossary to help users:
*FPGA* = A very fast chip, field programmable gate array. Used for high performance specialized processing. Found in bleeding-edge displays, e.g. the world's first GSYNC display (NVIDIA) and the world's first 480Hz LCD (Zisworks), both used Xilinx FPGAs because no off-the-shelf parts existed to achieve certain tech yet
*VLIW* = a programming language often used by FPGAs. Very advanced and very hard to learn, usually harder than plain old assembly language
*MPRT* = Moving Picture Response Time (also known as display persistence) -- the thickness of display motion blur
*BEW* = Blur Edge Width. (MPRT is based on this) -- the thickness of display motion blur
*BET* = Blur Edge Time. (BEW and BET are close cousins of each other) -- the time for the thickness of a blurred edge to pass a single point on a display
*GtG* = Grey to Grey (also known as pixel response time)
*RGB* = Red/Green/Blue, can be viewed like three separate monochrome channels from a data perspective
*255* = The maximum numeric value of 8-bit greyscale (or per RGB color channel). 2 raised to the power of 8-bits equals 256, so you've essentially got a "color-by-numbers" values of 0 through 255 for each color channel (red, green blue). 
*TCON* = Timing Controller, the panel-driving electronics that is attached to a panel (both OLED and LCD), often attached or embedded near the edge of the panel.
*LVDS* = Low Voltage Differential Signalling, often used as a ribbon connection between a monitor motherboard/TCON and the LCD panel (varies)
*TN* = A very fast LCD panel technology that is mass market on gaming monitors, that is capable of ultraclean motion blur reduction usually an order of magnitude superior to current televisions (despite having much worse colors)
*VA* = A much slower LCD panel technology that is mass market on large HDTV and other monitors, often with much better color quality, but with very inconsistent pixel response (often 10x slower for dark colors than bright colors)
*IPS* = A slower LCD panel technology that is mass market on large HDTVs and other monitors, often with much better color quality.
*OD* = overdrive
*OD Gain* = a single adjustment setting that is usually user-inaccessible overdrive fine tuning adjustment mainly found in firmware, which adjusts an overdrive math formula. Used to pre-tune overdrive to "good enough" quality for non-strobed operation.
*LUT* = lookup table, translating a number to a different number. Often used for things like gamma correction, picture adjustments, and color correction, it's also used for custom tuned overdrive (superior to OD Gain)


----------



## Wizziwig

RichB said:


> ^
> I am primarily focused on 24Hz film motion. In the Cinema, I perceive the motion as smooth but blurred. with little or no perceived jumping.
> Plasmas are better than OLEDs but the still has increased jumping.
> 
> I think you outlined another approach to improving film motion in the past.
> Are there others ways to improve film motion other than interpolation and BFI, specifically something that provides a "cinematic look"?
> 
> - Rich


Pretty clear explanation of how projection works and what would be required by a flatpanel to reproduce it. I believe the Sony A1E BFI failed because it strobed at 48Hz instead of the 72Hz illustrated below. The 2018 LG BFI failed because it strobes at 60Hz and added 3:2 judder. Current OLED panels are too slow for proper (what you see in cinemas) 24p motion display. By comparison, something like the Sony LCDs, strobe each movie frame 4 times at 96hz rate.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Yes, the triple-strobe technique, which can be better than double-strobe. Many preferred double-strobe, but others may prefer triple-strobe.

Incidentially, a 144Hz monitor can easily do triple-strobe software-BFI. Basically 72Hz+BFI. One caveat is that most 144Hz monitors are TN panels which aren't really good for movies, and are only available in desktop monitor sizes. And also, one has include an anti-burn-in algorithm to software-based black frame insertion, to get around burn-in caused by BFI interacting with LCD inversion algorithms.

Here's a TestUFO animation of 30Hz BFI at 60Hz. The refresh rate may need to be doubled if you're using the BFI-by-black-refresh-cycle technique instead of the BFI-by-OLED-rolling-scan technique, but those are just implementation details to help you control the duration of frame visibility and control the duration of black frames, the refresh rate -- the delivery of refresh cycles -- are just a vehicle depending on whether you're inserting BFI into sample-and-hold refreshing stream, or whether you're controlling BFI via backlight or via rolling-window-scanned OLEDs, the important thing is the pixel cycling matches what was shown on the cinema projector surface, photodiode oscilloscope graph-for-graph. If impulsing via other means than the display stream (e.g. backlight or OLED Pulsing) then you're already doing 2 phases per refresh cycle. But if you're sample-holding, you can only do 1 phase per refresh cycle and thus need double Hz to reproduce the intended effects.

The amazing potential of a VRR capable (FreeSync) OLED is the high-color-quality recreation of multiple different custom rolling shutter (1-flicker, 2-flicker, 3-flicker) at varying number of degrees and/or spinning wheel speeds (e.g. 180 degree shutter spinning at 3X speed produces the same triple-strobe flicker frequency as a 3-segment 60-degree shutter, except skew artifacts may now have a different tilt). So in theory, a wide-range VRR OLED could theoretically reproduce nearly all the different segmented rolling shutters found in legacy film projectors over the past 100 years -- as a software configuration setting. With a custom software player, one can do wide-range VRR monitor such as a 48Hz-240Hz VRR display. You'd tune until you reproduced the look of the film projector you preferred. 

Now about faithfully reproducing rolling-shutter skew (if you wanted to get THAT faithful) of some very old projectors, I even have a solution to that...

If you look at TestUFO demo of Scan Skew with a 60Hz LCD in landscape mode (even certain OLED HDTVs too -- try this TestUFO on your OLED too!), you'll see a surprising amount of scanout skewing! That's cuz it takes a finite amount of time for a panel to refresh from one edge to the other edge -- the bottom edge of the panel is refreshed about 1/60sec after the top edge. So you can even duplicate rolling-shutter skewing simply by piggybacking on natural panel scanout direction. The older 60Hz iPads in one screen rotation show twice as much skewing as the new 120Hz iPads. (Rotate the iPad until you see the worst skewing; now you've discovered the screen scan direction of your iPad!). Skewing doesn't show up on fast-velocity scan displays such as DLP and plasma (approx 1/600sec scan velocities or less). Since 60Hz LCDs scan top-to-bottom at the same velocity as a 60Hz CRT (except in a sample-hold way, no decay), you get a surprising amount of skew during ultra-fast horizontal panning on many 60Hz displays -- if you pay attention closely. This happens to film projectors with a spinning shutter too. Now -- depending on the size of the light stream and the aperture -- one may need to fix this frame skewing in a film projector by deciding between a 180-degree shutter running at 2X speed (double strobe) or 3X (triple strobe) versus a many-segmented wheel spinning much slower. If the aperture is tiny, the scan sweep is fast, but if the aperture is big, there's a noticeably slow rolling-scan sweep; which can then be fixed by a faster-spinning fewer-segmented wheel. It varies from film projector to film projector how they do a rolling shutter. One can kinda control the scan velocity of some (not all) LCDs simply by adjusting the max-Hz of the FreeSync range. Many 144Hz LCDs are horizontal-scanrate multisync, which means the panel's TCON synchronizes to the horizontal scanrate output by the GPU. While others only refresh at their max-Hz scan velocity and need the VBI-enlargement trick to achieve lower refresh rates (i.e. internal scanrate conversion in the LCD). An LCD will often scan at the scan velocity of the max-Hz of the FreeSync range, even for shorter refresh cycles (simply by continually varying the size of blanking intervals on a per-refresh cycle) to permit the asynchronous nature of refresh cycles on VRR displays. The higher the max-Hz (e.g. 96 "Hz" on a 240Hz G-SYNC/FreeSync), the less frame-skewing effect occurs for a low frame rate. Also, if you see some of these tests with a newer 240Hz eSports LCD, bear in mind some of them internally scanconverts to 240Hz so you don't see 60Hz scan skewing when displaying 60Hz on a 24" 240Hz eSports LCD display; they're not designed for 1:1 scan velocity sync between cable scanout to panel scanout at refresh rates lower than max Hz. Either way, lots of interesting nuances and considerations there in reproducing the geometry of motion, motion-skew, motion-duplicates & motion-blur of an original film projector.


----------



## subtec

Mark Rejhon said:


> [...]
> It's very hard work because of the longtime race-to-bottom and the separation of panel manufacturers away from monitor manufacturers (ASUS and BenQ does not make their own panels).
> 
> Panel making and monitor making is very decoupled now compared to 20 years ago. Sometimes monitor manufacturers have to *polish turds* (off the shelf panels that often have no Hertz rating) with custom timing controllers, custom backlight drivers, custom overdrive, etc.
> [...]


Isn't BenQ closely affiliated with AUO though? And LG and Samsung manufacture their own panels for their monitors as well.

Either way, one would think if a company like ASUS requested a panel with xyz specs, they're a big enough customer that they could get it.


----------



## subtec

Another thought: I wonder what could be done with the existing 31.1" LMCL panel? And whether the cost could be brought down with a higher volume product sans the pro features of the Eizo/FSI displays?


----------



## RichB

Mark Rejhon said:


> *Anybody can say BFI is bad: A person turns on simple 60Hz BFI or 120Hz BFI, it looked crappy and flickery -- with film having wrong stutteriness -- and thought BFI wasn't proper for film projectors. Sure, sure. But the devil is in the deets. (And I must remind, including very subtle deets including rolling-scan BFI versus global-BFI -- and complications such as asymmetric BFI ratios -- to exactly carbon-copy a spinning-disc rolling shutter). I know eeeee-exactly what is required to carboncopy a 180-degree film projector to a screen from a BFI-perspective. (I'm temporarily ignoring the colors/blacks/etc aspect -- and fully focussing on film-motion look, including perfect exact reproduction of all film motion blurs -- if faithful exact reproduction of cinematic motion blurs & doublestrobe effect -- is exactly what you want). And yes, I even am familiar with how LCD polarity inversion algorithms and LCD FRC temporal-dithering algorithms can sometimes interfere with software-based BFI -- I've developed successful workarounds for that at least during uncommercialized experimentation (inquire within) -- that also prevents LCD burn-in during software BFI caused by nasty interaction between software-BFI and the LCD positive/negative voltage inversion algorithm.
> 
> Either way, we need either a 96Hz OLED, or a variable-refresh-capable OLED (where 96Hz or 192Hz is within the VRR range -- to provide options capable of carbon-copying an industry standard film projector).*


*


Thanks for this. It is really interesting.
My local cinema uses Sony 4K Projectors (at least they say so before the movie starts). I assume this is digital, so are they currently simulating the behavior of film-based projectors?


It there any indication that the industry, specifically LG or Sony, is interested in duplicating the film-motion look? 
From what I have seen, they seem to add rudimentary BFI to check off the box. The BFI added is particularly unusable for 24Hz material which seems to be where it really needed.


- Rich*


----------



## Mark Rejhon

subtec said:


> Isn't BenQ closely affiliated with AUO though? And LG and Samsung manufacture their own panels for their monitors as well.
> 
> Either way, one would think if a company like ASUS requested a panel with xyz specs, they're a big enough customer that they could get it.


Generally, yes. But two things
1 -- However, such panels are not exclusive. AUO sells to many manufacturers.
2 -- Strength of relationship between panel manufacturer and monitor manufacturer -- varies from manufacturer to manufacturer

The same 24" AUO 240Hz panel is used in multiple competitors. 

So monitor manufacturers keep a limit on sharing intellectual property between them. So the panel comes with say, lowest-common-denominator capabilities that monitor manufacturer requests, and the monitor manufactureres finish tuning their specific features. Like adding crosshairs, low-blue-light, custom blur reduction modes, improved overdrive settings that the competitor does not have, etc. It's not like monitor manufacturers always spills the beans on 100% of everything 100% to the panel manufacturers for non-exclusive panels. The panel manufacturers does many thing, but definitely not 100% of everything. There are over 100 separate items of headroom in a panel that can be tweaked -- whether it be enabling overclocked refresh rate, or implementing a better pixel-voltage-polarity inversion algorithm, or reoptimizing a variable refresh rate range, or re-tuning the overdrivej, just to name only a very scant few. Sometimes panel makers are asked to do much of this work, but it isn't necessarily every single lineitem in the bullet list... and extent / responsibility splits -- varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

RichB said:


> It there any indication that the industry, specifically LG or Sony, is interested in duplicating the film-motion look?


Not currently; the future is when televisions have enough hertz (e.g. 240Hz), the responsibility of precision BFI algorithms can be doffed to the source instead instead of the display (e.g. a home theater device that generates the BFI patterns) -- I already have experimental software that does this (inquire within) via precision manipulation of variable refresh cycles and other tricks. I might be able to begin selling it if there's enough demand, once displays have a refresh rate range that's compatible with reproducing the original rolling shutter.

Also, BFI to DLP can be very iffy. It can reduce bit depth, because colors are temporally generated, and BFI at 50% halves the number of bits per refresh cycle, so you can get more banding/artifacts during BFI on a DLP. To compensate, one needs to run the pixels at twice the Hz, or use two DLP chips per color channel (6 DLP chips instead of 3) to get the same color quality and brightness as non-BFI operation.


----------



## gmarceau

Blurbusters!!!!


----------



## RichB

Mark Rejhon said:


> Not currently; the future is when televisions have enough hertz (e.g. 240Hz), the responsibility of precision BFI algorithms can be doffed to the source instead instead of the display (e.g. a home theater device that generates the BFI patterns) -- I already have experimental software that does this (inquire within) via precision manipulation of variable refresh cycles and other tricks. I might be able to begin selling it if there's enough demand, once displays have a refresh rate range that's compatible with reproducing the original rolling shutter.



I guess I remain confused because if Sony's and other digital projectors achieve a smooth blurred motion displaying 24Hz source at 48Hz, why can't a OLED run at a multiple, say 96Hz, and replicate the functionality. 240Hz (a 10 multiple) should not be necessary. Is it the 120Hz (a 5 multiple) that is causing issues?


- Rich


----------



## lsorensen

RichB said:


> I guess I remain confused because if Sony's and other digital projectors achieve a smooth blurred motion displaying 24Hz source at 48Hz, why can't a OLED run at a multiple, say 96Hz, and replicate the functionality. 240Hz (a 10 multiple) should not be necessary. Is it the 120Hz (a 5 multiple) that is causing issues?
> 
> - Rich



Well movie projectors as far as I have understood it tend to run 24 frames per second, with a shutter at 48 openings per second (so block 1/4 frame time while advancing the film, then show 1/4 frame time, block 1/4 time then show 1/4 time and repeat). If you had 96Hz, it seems that alternating black frames with the image should give the same effect. Since the screen runs 120Hz, it doesn't work out the same. Not sure why it doesn't quite give the same result. Too bright perhaps? Movie projectors are way less bright after all than an OLED TV tends to be.


----------



## RichB

lsorensen said:


> Well movie projectors as far as I have understood it tend to run 24 frames per second, with a shutter at 48 openings per second (so block 1/4 frame time while advancing the film, then show 1/4 frame time, block 1/4 time then show 1/4 time and repeat). If you had 96Hz, it seems that alternating black frames with the image should give the same effect. Since the screen runs 120Hz, it doesn't work out the same. Not sure why it doesn't quite give the same result. Too bright perhaps? Movie projectors are way less bright after all than an OLED TV tends to be.



Too bright is a good theory, so maybe dim frame insertion would be better?


- Rich


----------



## stl8k

Apropos of the discussion of motion is this reviewers mention of motion issues with the 8K LCD's settings at NHK's 8K event in Tokyo...

"Also, the TV inexplicably had motion smoothing turned on, which I am truly glad Kubrick was never around to witness."

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/12/3/18123433/2001-a-space-odyssey-8k-tv-nhk-japan


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> Re: the displays mentioned here, do I have this right?
> 
> https://pid.nhk.or.jp/event/PPG0326382/index.html
> 
> *440 inch micro LED screen 8 K*
> Sony's prototype from NAB earlier this year
> 
> *8K organic EL display*
> LG prototype using the new chip FAFRD mentioned in the previous post
> 
> *13.3 inch 8K organic EL*
> Sharp?


The 13.3" OLED is from Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd., Kanagawa, Japan

https://www.sel.co.jp/en/technology/oled.html

I followed posts about NHK's 4K-8K event this weekend, but didn't see anything about an 8K OLED. Perhaps someone with native language skills would have better luck. It could simply be the Toshiba 8K LCD and not an OLED.


----------



## stl8k

Mark Rejhon said:


> SNIP


Great to have your insight here, Mark!

Did you by chance see this from NHK's labs?

Adaptive Temporal Aperture Control for Improving Motion Image Quality of OLED Display
http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/bt/bt74/pdf/feature0074-2.pdf


----------



## Mark Rejhon

RichB said:


> 240Hz (a 10 multiple) should not be necessary. Is it the 120Hz (a 5 multiple) that is causing issues?


Short answer: Yes!
Long answer: Upon request. 

(NOTE:240Hz isn't essential, but *240Hz+VRR* would give you the flexibility of multiple configurable custom strobes, so that you can carbon-copy multiple different film projector looks as multiple configurable cinematic settings, instead of carbon-copying only one film projector look. Remember, some film projectors double-strobe and other film projectors triple-strobe, and yet other projectors have different ratios between the ON wheel segment versus OFF wheel segment. Asymmetric ratios will require a wide-range variable refresh display to accomodate all such flexibilities. Not all film projectors use equal-parts ON/OFF, some film projectors used smaller OFF sections to improve light output, at a slight expense of slightly more motion blur. Now 240Hz VRR has a venn diagram big enough to be a catchall for maybe three dozen different configurable film projectors.)



stl8k said:


> Great to have your insight here, Mark!
> 
> Did you by chance see this from NHK's labs?
> 
> Adaptive Temporal Aperture Control for Improving Motion Image Quality of OLED Display
> http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/bt/bt74/pdf/feature0074-2.pdf


This research is fantastic stuff. I have done some minor hobbyist research on trying to blend steady state to impulsing, and back, through the strobed variable refresh rate approach (some napkin diagrams I wrote in 2013). That's not easy stuff, to blend between impulsing and sample-hold -- and even harder if combining that with variable refresh rate (to prevent flicker at lower Hz of VRR range, during strobed VRR approaches). This is more indie experimentation work, rather than formal peer reviewed work though. But there are ways to blend from impulse-driven operation to sample-and-hold operation.

Nontheless, this is just interim stuff for displays that cannot achieve necessary performance for blurless sample-hold. Getting low-persistence via ultrashort full-frame-visibility times by making refresh cycle durations and MPRT durations equal, e.g. 2ms achieved via 500fps at 500Hz. Real life does not flicker, real life doe not strobe, and eliminating motion blur on sample-hold without the use of impulsing technique, is still inherently the superior "eye-natural" way, since real life is analog motion (has no framerate, but can be mathematically treated as infinite framerate for all practical intents).

NHK clearly understands this, too. NHK, says for sample-and-hold motion blur, "_From the results of subjective tests on motion blur, Kurita et al. concluded that a high frame rate of *360 Hz* is required to obtain an image quality that is *acceptable* to viewers_". 360Hz? And only acceptable? Clearly, NHK agrees with Blur Busters here on this topic. 

And I must point out, it's only to *acceptable* levels, e.g. 1/360sec motion blur still generates roughly 3 pixels of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec -- rendering TestUFO Panning Map Test unreadable. But it's still "acceptable" for most viewing purposes -- by just merely saying "acceptable", it's a clear nod that NHK agrees 360Hz sample-hold) is definitely not yet close to the vanishing point location of the refresh rate necessary to eliminate motion blur (while staying sample-and-hold). Thanks to my true-480Hz tests, I agree, NHK!

(Note: This latter part is for non-cinematic stuff)


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Apropos of the discussion of motion is this reviewers mention of motion issues with the 8K LCD's settings at NHK's 8K event in Tokyo...
> 
> "Also, the TV inexplicably had motion smoothing turned on, which I am truly glad Kubrick was never around to witness."
> 
> https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/12/3/18123433/2001-a-space-odyssey-8k-tv-nhk-japan


Interesting observation:

"Around the corner from the Sharp 8K LED set was a smaller 4K Sony OLED TV hooked up to an 8K receiver that was also showing 2001. And you know what? I thought it looked way better than the 8K Sharp, as well as being a far more practical and “affordable” solution for almost everyone’s living rooms."


----------



## austinsj

Is the TCON unit that enables an 8K 60Hz display the same that enables a 4K 120Hz or can we expect 4K 240Hz displays when 8K 60Hz come to market? 

If the former, I hope we don’t have to wait long for 8K 120Hz / 4K 240Hz panels from LG.


----------



## fafrd

austinsj said:


> Is the TCON unit that enables an 8K 60Hz display the same that enables a 4K 120Hz or can we expect 4K 240Hz displays when 8K 60Hz come to market?
> 
> If the former, I hope we don’t have to wait long for 8K 120Hz / 4K 240Hz panels from LG.


I started a thread earlier this year on precisely that subject: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...l/3000116-what-emergence-8k-means-4k-tvs.html

Cliff notes version is that there is great pessimism that the industry will make any further investments in improving 4K TVs once the market has shifted its attention to 8K...


----------



## gorman42

Mark Rejhon said:


> Either way, we need either a 96Hz OLED, or a variable-refresh-capable OLED (where 96Hz or 192Hz is within the VRR range -- to provide options capable of carbon-copying an industry standard film projector).


In my ignorance I assume that manufacturers have problems reaching higher refresh rates on their panels. So 60Hz is easier than 120Hz, 120Hz is easier than 240Hz an so on and so forth.
Are you saying that we could have "proper" movie motion with a 96Hz refresh rate and the correct algorithms to process 24fps material? To my uninformed brain this suggests that this improvement could be right around the corner (slower refresh rate than what's currently achieved on all OLED panels), if only there was the will to do it. Am I correct?


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> In my ignorance I assume that manufacturers have problems reaching higher refresh rates on their panels. So 60Hz is easier than 120Hz, 120Hz is easier than 240Hz an so on and so forth.
> Are you saying that we could have "proper" movie motion with a 96Hz refresh rate and the correct algorithms to process 24fps material? To my uninformed brain this suggests that this improvement could be right around the corner (slower refresh rate than what's currently achieved on all OLED panels), if only there was the will to do it. Am I correct?


You need BFI, so a vanilla refresh rate of 192Hz would be needed to deliver 50% [email protected]

Or, if WOLEDs add a sevond blanking control (akin to the backlight strobe on a FALD LED/LCD), then a native refresh rate of 96Hz woukd suffice (since the blanking control doubles the effective refresh rate).

LG supported 120Hz in 2018, and LG supported BFI in 2018, but not together (50% BFI only at 60Hz).

Now tuat they are startibg to make noise about 'fully' supporting 120Hz refresh rates in 2019, I'll be interested to see whether that translates to support for 50% [email protected] (meaning an effective refresh rate of 240Hz)...


----------



## fafrd

Just noticed this: https://www.oled-info.com/researchers-develop-100-iqe-radical-based-oled-emission

QD-ROLED, anyone?

It's a question of when, not if, OLED TV achieves efficiency of close to 100%, and when that day comes, it means the ~1000cd/m2 peak luminance levels of today wil translate to 3000-4000 cd/m2 (at equivalent power consumption).


----------



## bjaurelio

fafrd said:


> Just noticed this: https://www.oled-info.com/researchers-develop-100-iqe-radical-based-oled-emission
> 
> QD-ROLED, anyone?
> 
> It's a question of when, not if, OLED TV achieves efficiency of close to 100%, and when that day comes, it means the ~1000cd/m2 peak luminance levels of today wil translate to 3000-4000 cd/m2 (at equivalent power consumption).



I thought the reason for using blue emitters for a QD-OLED hybrid display was limitations in blue quantum dots. If that's not the case, then this could be a very interesting possibility. I expect this will lead to the development of high efficiency green and blue emitters following a similar structure with stabilized radicals.


----------



## artur9

fafrd said:


> Just noticed this: https://www.oled-info.com/researchers-develop-100-iqe-radical-based-oled-emission
> 
> QD-ROLED, anyone?
> 
> It's a question of when, not if, OLED TV achieves efficiency of close to 100%, and when that day comes, it means the ~1000cd/m2 peak luminance levels of today wil translate to 3000-4000 cd/m2 (at equivalent power consumption).


Wow! Of course there's never 100% efficiency for anything but I'd love a display with 1000cd/m2 luminance at a 1/4 the power.

Or, come to think of it, 1/2 the power and 50% BFI. Or something?


----------



## Mark Rejhon

gorman42 said:


> In my ignorance I assume that manufacturers have problems reaching higher refresh rates on their panels. So 60Hz is easier than 120Hz, 120Hz is easier than 240Hz an so on and so forth.
> Are you saying that we could have "proper" movie motion with a 96Hz refresh rate and the correct algorithms to process 24fps material? To my uninformed brain this suggests that this improvement could be right around the corner (slower refresh rate than what's currently achieved on all OLED panels), if only there was the will to do it. Am I correct?


Check my last several posts in this thread, to understand why the 96 number was used for a video-source-only based implementation of double-strobe (actual black frames in the source signal, either automatically inserted by the display, or via an intermediary device)

For example -- it would be quite simple to do with all these 2017 and 2018 LG OLED that already supports 120Hz, if it only simply supported a 96Hz refresh rate -- the fact that displays only do 60Hz or 120Hz and no hertz in between, limits the ability to successfully carbon-copy the light modulation pattern of an older 35mm double-strobed film projector (24fps at 48Hz flicker) or triple-strobe (24fps at 72Hz flicker). 



fafrd said:


> You need BFI, so a vanilla refresh rate of 192Hz would be needed to deliver 50% [email protected]


Fundamentally, sample-and-hold displays are pretty simple (OLED, LCD). They just continuously display a refresh cycle until the refresh cycle is overwritten by a new refresh cycle. There's no blackness between refresh cycles. So you insert intentionally black frames into the video signal, if the display is not doing it for you. So that's why much higher Hz if you do video-source-based black frame insertion. Only 96Hz is needed for double-strobe 24fps. 

_NOTE: 192Hz for 24fps film for me is simply a technical bonus for improved software BFI. I simply mention 192Hz in the context of 24fps because it has advantages (better temporal dithering for LCD FRC, better interactions with LCD inversion electronics to prevent LCD burn-in) so you can do two refresh cycles per phase, for two ON's, two OFFs, two ONs, two OFFs, covering both voltage polarities of the LCD inversion, e.g. 8 refresh cycles per 24fps film frame, to have a pair of refresh cycles for each of the four phases of a single film frame (to cover both positive/negative voltages of the LCD inversion) and to also maximize color depth in any LCD temporal dithering algorithms, to compensate for the loss of color depth caused by BFI eating into temporal dithering time -- when it comes to LCD technology, the extra refresh cycles can add back color depth that is lost by BFI if you're using temporally-dithered LCDs such as 6-bit FRC TN LCDs). However, this does not apply to OLED or 8/10bit LCDs as they tend to be full color depth per refresh cycle, so only a 96Hz is needed._
_NOTE2: If the display has hardware-based 50%;50% BFI, then you only need half the Hz at the source (aka 48Hz for double strobe, 72Hz for triple strobe). The extra Hz at the source is only if you're needing the source to do BFI -- external BFI, software BFI -- similiar to www.testufo.com/blackframes animation_


----------



## Mark Rejhon

lsorensen said:


> Since the screen runs 120Hz, it doesn't work out the same. Not sure why it doesn't quite give the same result. Too bright perhaps? Movie projectors are way less bright after all than an OLED TV tends to be.


No. It's math, not brightness.

*Double-strobe 101*

On a double-strobe film projector, during a single 1/24sec moment, this is what happens:

Action 1 - FILM FRAME IS SHOWN
Action 2 - BLACKOUT
Action 3 - FILM FRAME IS SHOWN AGAIN (repeated)
Action 4 - BLACKOUT (this moment is when film reel moves to next frame)

That's 4 actions per film frame.
Film is 24 frames per second.
4 times 24 frames per second is 96.
So to reproduce each action as an individual refresh cycle on sample-hold displays, requires 96 Hertz.

Historically, why double strobe? 
That was a trick invented by film projector makers to make them flicker less.
Each film frame is flashed twice.
That flickers at 48 hertz, which is less flickerly than 24 hertz 
That's why double strobe was invented, to improve eye comfort (compared to nasty flickery projectors from 1920s)

Some projectors triple strobe. 
So that's six actions per film frame.
For source-based triple strobe, you need 144Hz.

It's mathematically impossible to map this on a display that can only do 120Hz. 
Yes, while you could theoretically do this "odd sequence" at 120Hz:

Refresh Cycle 1 - FILM FRAME 
Refresh Cycle 2 - BLACK FRAME
Refresh Cycle 3 - REPEAT FILM FRAME
Refresh Cycle 4 - BLACK FRAME
Refresh Cycle 5 - BLACK FRAME

(5 actions times 24 equals 120Hz).

But this creates nasty flickering as a harmonic frequency of a 24Hz flicker and 48Hz flicker overlapped with each other, when you have erratic-length black frames like that. I have already tried that, and it's very eye-searing. Even watching CRT 48Hz is a more comfortable flicker. Steady flicker is always better than erratic flicker.

You need all black frames to be exactly the same time-duration each. At fixed-refresh 120Hz, you can see consitent-time black frames is mathematically impossible. You can use different ratios like 75%:25% Frame:Black, but you can't have the ratio varying like it would end up for 120Hz.

*TL;DR: To have consistent black frames, you need an even number when you divide refresh rate by film frame rate. That's not possible with the number 120.*


----------



## gorman42

Ok, soooo... brightness considerations aside, I was correct in my understanding. Driving the panel at 96Hz should not be problematic, considering they're already managing to drive it at 120Hz (and at 100Hz, I guess, for PAL material).


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> Ok, soooo... brightness considerations aside, I was correct in my understanding. Driving the panel at 96Hz should not be problematic, considering they're already managing to drive it at 120Hz (and at 100Hz, I guess, for PAL material).


The panel is fast enough, btu there would probably be a major redesign needed to handle 30fps.

With 120Hz native refresh rate, 24fps and 30fps can easily be handled as different multiples of the native refresh rate (5 repeats and 4 repeats).

A panels designed for 96Hz would not be able to handle 30fps content easily...


----------



## lsorensen

Mark Rejhon said:


> No. It's math, not brightness.
> Some projectors triple strobe.
> So that's six actions per film frame.
> For source-based triple strobe, you need 144Hz.
> 
> It's mathematically impossible to map this on a display that can only do 120Hz.
> Yes, while you could theoretically do this "odd sequence" at 120Hz:
> 
> Refresh Cycle 1 - FILM FRAME
> Refresh Cycle 2 - BLACK FRAME
> Refresh Cycle 3 - REPEAT FILM FRAME
> Refresh Cycle 4 - BLACK FRAME
> Refresh Cycle 5 - BLACK FRAME
> 
> (5 actions times 24 equals 120Hz).
> 
> But this creates nasty flickering as a harmonic frequency of a 24Hz flicker and 48Hz flicker overlapped with each other, when you have erratic-length black frames like that. I have already tried that, and it's very eye-searing. Even watching CRT 48Hz is a more comfortable flicker. Steady flicker is always better than erratic flicker.
> 
> You need all black frames to be exactly the same time-duration each. At fixed-refresh 120Hz, you can see consitent-time black frames is mathematically impossible. You can use different ratios like 75%:25% Frame:Black, but you can't have the ratio varying like it would end up for 120Hz.
> 
> *TL;DR: To have consistent black frames, you need an even number when you divide refresh rate by film frame rate. That's not possible with the number 120.*



Hmm, so 24fps at 96Hz is the same time duration as 25fps at 100Hz... So what if you switched to the 100Hz mode that PAL supposedly uses (I hope so at least) and did alternating black and frame, and every 24th frame you repeated an extra time. Would that slight shift in the frame times be noticeable? Would the repeated frame be noticeable as a slight stutter?


Or maybe we just have to use the euro trick of speeding up movies to 25fps on playback and save a few minutes of run time too. 


240Hz panels really seem like they would be useful.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

lsorensen said:


> Hmm, so 24fps at 96Hz is the same time duration as 25fps at 100Hz... So what if you switched to the 100Hz mode that PAL supposedly uses (I hope so at least) and did alternating black and frame, and every 24th frame you repeated an extra time. Would that slight shift in the frame times be noticeable? Would the repeated frame be noticeable as a slight stutter?


100Hz is much easier, since you can do PAL filmrate double-strobe already with that. But projection is still often 24fps at the movie theaters in Europe so it's still not 100% faithful.

Now... Trying to solve 24fps at 100Hz with those occasional repeat-frames noticeble as a very noticeable occasional flicker because the ON:OFF ratio changed momentary because of an extra repeat-frame. 

It's amazing how sensitive we are to erratic flicker. During pulse-width-modulation research even a 10 microsecond momentary change can be human noticeable -- this is because during 1ms flickering (1000us flashing in PWM), a 10us difference is a 1% difference in luminance (equivalent to 2-3 shades in the 8-bit RGB spectrum) -- (1000us / 10us) = sudden 1% difference in number of photons = sudden 1% average brightness difference. Your situation would represent much closer to a 10-20% momentary difference in luminance.

There's a solution. One workaround is to do a gamma-corrected alpha-blend the black frame and the visible frame -- in order to maintain average trailing luminance over the last few frames (visible frames & black frames averaged) to make the flicker much harder to see. However, a slight stuttering might still be visible in consistent pan tests. I can notice a 1 frame insertion/removal at [email protected] during pan tests, so I wouldn't be surprised if a stutter was still visible.


----------



## lsorensen

Mark Rejhon said:


> 100Hz is much easier, since you can do PAL filmrate double-strobe already with that. But projection is still often 24fps at the movie theaters in Europe so it's still not 100% faithful.
> 
> Now... It's noticeble as a very noticeable occasional flicker because the ON:OFF ratio changed momentary because of an extra repeat-frame.
> 
> It's amazing how sensitive we are to erratic flicker. During pulse-width-modulation researchm even a 10 microsecond momentary change can be human noticeable -- this is because during 1ms flickering (1000us flashing in PWM), a 10us difference is a 1% difference in luminance (equivalent to 2-3 shades in the 8-bit RGB spectrum) -- (1000us / 10us) = sudden 1% difference in number of photons = sudden 1% average brightness difference. Your situation would represent much closer to a 10-20% momentary difference in luminance.
> 
> There's a solution. One workaround is to do a gamma-corrected alpha-blend the black frame and the visible frame -- in order to maintain average trailing luminance over the last few frames (visible frames & black frames averaged) to make the flicker much harder to see. However, a slight stuttering might still be visible in consistent pan tests. I can notice a 1 frame insertion/removal at [email protected] during pan tests, so I wouldn't be surprised if a stutter was still visible.



Oh yeah panning would still be a problem. If you notice 1 frame at 239fps, inserting a frame at [email protected] would certainly be seen.


So really what we need is VRR (gamers want that anyhow) and hence the ability to run the panel at 96Hz.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

More back on topic, OLED also have a very squarewave pulse cycle, while some rolling shutters will often fade a frame in/out -- because of the fuzzy (blurry unfocussed) edge of the shutter. It varies on where the rolling shutter is in the light chain whether the shutter is sharp or fuzzy, but it's another potential component of reproducing the film double-strobe look.

A higher-Hz display (e.g. 240Hz display for 24fps film) provides opportunitiers for 10 refresh cycles per film frame. 480Hz would provide 20 action opportunities per film frame by an intermediary processing device. With so many refresh cycles per film frame, one could progressively fade a frame in-and-out instead, i.e. using high Hz to compensate for the squarewave nature of the refresh-cycle transitions, in attempting to also reproduce a softer flicker. Not sure how critical this is to reproducing the film look, but low-Hz OLED (or strobed LCD) flicker can be relatively harsh, so the extra Hz can help provide flicker-softening opportunities.


----------



## helvetica bold

In a recent article on Forbes by John Archer about OLED burn in LG responded "Also recent improvements in the aperture ratio have enabled OLED TVs to increase the brightness without increasing the current passing through the light sources (so again with no compromise in panel life span).”
Ive read rumors about increased aperture ratio in 2019 panels but I wonder if this response is in regards to the 2018 OLED panels? Part of me feels LG will just update the A9 (already confirmed) and wait for panel revisions when the new plant opens in 2020.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...icking-time-bomb-inside-your-tv/#d7721b9363d7


----------



## fafrd

helvetica bold said:


> In a recent article on Forbes by John Archer about OLED burn in LG responded "Also recent improvements in the aperture ratio have enabled OLED TVs to increase the brightness without increasing the current passing through the light sources (so again with no compromise in panel life span).”
> Ive read rumors about increased aperture ratio in 2019 panels but I wonder if this response is in regards to the 2018 OLED panels? Part of me feels LG will just update the A9 (already confirmed) and wait for panel revisions when the new plant opens in 2020.
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...icking-time-bomb-inside-your-tv/#d7721b9363d7


LG will need top-emission to manufacture smaller-sized 8K TVs (even though they are starting with bottom-emission).

88" TVs are most economically manufactured on the existing 8.5G lines (2-up).

It is a near-certainty that LG will introduce top-emission before the new 10.5G line is up and running: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction

The move from bottom-emission to top-emission will represent a significant increase in 'aperature ratio.'

Will we see top-emission in 2019 as forecasted by DSCC or not until 2020? We'll have to wait a month to find out.

But 2019 could bring a few nice surprises from LG...


----------



## ALMA

> Samsung Display reportedly plans to convert one of its 8.5G LCD fabs, the L8-1, into a production base for the development of QD-OLED (quantum dot-OLED) panels with the transition process likely to begin in the middle of 2019, according to industry sources.
> The L8-1 fab is built in two phases with a total capacity of 200,000 substrates a month, and the transition will enable Samsung to roll out 160,000-180,000 substrates for QD-OLED panels, with the dismissed LCD panel capacity equivalent to closure of a 8.5G LCD fab, said the sources.





> Following the conversion, Samsung will set up a trial production line for QD-OLED panels in 2019 with plans to begin ramping up the output of such panels in 2020, noted the sources, adding that the Korea-based flat panel maker is likely to invest over KRW10 trillion (US$8.95 billion) for the development and production of QD-OLED panels from 2019-2021.



https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20181206PD205.html




> According to related industries, Samsung Display has invested in a QD OLED pilot. Specific equipment orders are scheduled for February next year, and equipment imports are scheduled for October next year. Pilot mass production is expected to commence in July 2020. Full-fledged investment has been announced since 2021 to 10 generations of A5 production facilities.



https://translate.google.com/transl...,15700149,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237


----------



## helvetica bold

fafrd said:


> LG will need top-emission to manufacture smaller-sized 8K TVs (even though they are starting with bottom-emission).
> 
> 
> 
> 88" TVs are most economically manufactured on the existing 8.5G lines (2-up).
> 
> 
> 
> It is a near-certainty that LG will introduce top-emission before the new 10.5G line is up and running: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction
> 
> 
> 
> The move from bottom-emission to top-emission will represent a significant increase in 'aperature ratio.'
> 
> 
> 
> Will we see top-emission in 2019 as forecasted by DSCC or not until 2020? We'll have to wait a month to find out.
> 
> 
> 
> But 2019 could bring a few nice surprises from LG...




Do you think top emission would only be applied to 8K panels? Do you expect the same for 4K?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

helvetica bold said:


> Do you think top emission would only be applied to 8K panels? Do you expect the same for 4K?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There are those who believe that once 8K panels are introduced, additional investments in 4K panel improvements will quickly taper to a drip.

My own personal view is that the benefits of too-emission to increased WOLED lifetime and decreased risk of burn-in are too great for LG to hold them back from ongoing 4K panel production.

So I see greater risk that LG replaces 4K panel production with 8K panel production (as they replaced 1080p WOLED panel production with 4K panel production a few years ago) than that they continue 4K panel production with bottom-emission once top-emission is ready for prime-time...


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20181206PD205.html
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...,15700149,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237


"Samsung Display reportedly plans to convert one of its 8.5G LCD fabs, the L8-1, into a production base for the development of QD-OLED (quantum dot-OLED) panels with the *transition process likely to begin in the middle of 2019*, according to industry sources."

"Following the conversion, Samsung will set up a trial production line for QD-OLED panels in 2019 with *plans to begin ramping up the output of such panels in 2020*, noted the sources, "

Doesn't sound like we're going to see anything but demos in 2019...


----------



## stl8k

*Content's Increasing Role in Driving Innovation in TVs*

There have been a series of events/announcements over the past few weeks, mostly in Asia, that seem like leading indicators of an important trend. That trend is Content's Increasing Role in Driving Innovation in TV and displays.

The latest is a formal announcement by LG Display that it's working with NHK on optimizing its OLED TV panels for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics

LG Display partners with NHK for 8K broadcasting of 2020 Tokyo Olympics
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20181207000442

This tight coordination between content creators and display manufacturers is going to increase the speed with which display innovations come to market. Additionally, this is going to make it easier for the display marketers as there's more efficiency in messaging like "The best TV for experiencing the pageantry and sport of the Olympics" than having to come up with a bunch of contrived examples of why more pixels, more colors, or higher framerates is relevant to consumers.

If you see additional indicators of this trend in the future, I'd love to hear about them here.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> There have been a series of events/announcements over the past few weeks, mostly in Asia, that seem like leading indicators of an important trend. That trend is Content's Increasing Role in Driving Innovation in TV and displays.
> 
> The latest is a formal announcement by LG Display that it's working with NHK on optimizing its OLED TV panels for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics
> 
> LG Display partners with NHK for 8K broadcasting of 2020 Tokyo Olympics
> http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20181207000442
> 
> This tight coordination between content creators and display manufacturers is going to increase the speed with which display innovations come to market. Additionally, this is going to make it easier for the display marketers as there's more efficiency in messaging like "The best TV for experiencing the pageantry and sport of the Olympics" than having to come up with a bunch of contrived examples of why more pixels, more colors, or higher framerates is relevant to consumers.
> 
> If you see additional indicators of this trend in the future, I'd love to hear about them here.


Given NHKs focus on motion performance, this is a very intrigueing partnership...


----------



## circumstances

Top emission. HDMI 2.1. Over 75 inches. This year please (2019).


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> Top emission. HDMI 2.1. Over 75 inches. This year please (2019).


Top emission in 2019 is a true unknown. A little more than a year ago, DSCC is preficting that LGD will be manufacturing WOLED panels with top-emission 'in 2019': https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction

"DSCC estimates that LGD has a pilot capacity of 3k / month of top emission capacity as of today, with plans to increase that to more than 10k / month, and *mass production on E4-2 starting in 2019.*"

Even if this estimate proves to be accurate, production 'in 2019' could mean production of top-emission panels in late 2019 for integration in TV consumer products that will be launched in 2020...

So when it comes to top-emission, we just don't know.

On HDMI 2.1, I've just started a thread to go on record with my prediction snd the my reasoning that LG's recently-leaked Alpha 9 Gen 2 processor integrates HDMI2 2.1 and LG will launch HDMI 2.1 across their Premium WOLED TV lineup in 2019: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...announce-hdmi2-1-2019-oled-tv-lineup-ces.html

And as far as 'over 75 inches', that is a certainty since LG has already announced their intention to launch an 88" 8K WOLED next year...

So you are certain to get at least one of your 3 wishes, I'm predicting you'll het two of your 3 wishes, and there is a greater-than-zero chance you'll get all three (but not in 88", that's already been confirmed to be a bottom-emission panel, so at best, we might see a 77" WOLED with top-emission in 2019 ).


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> circumstances said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top emission. HDMI 2.1. Over 75 inches. This year please (2019).
> 
> 
> 
> Top emission in 2019 is a true unknown. A little more than a year ago, DSCC is preficting that LGD will be manufacturing WOLED panels with top-emission 'in 2019': https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction
> 
> "DSCC estimates that LGD has a pilot capacity of 3k / month of top emission capacity as of today, with plans to increase that to more than 10k / month, and *mass production on E4-2 starting in 2019.*"
> 
> Even if this estimate proves to be accurate, production 'in 2019' could mean production of top-emission panels in late 2019 for integration in TV consumer products that will be launched in 2020...
> 
> So when it comes to top-emission, we just don't know.
> 
> On HDMI 2.1, I've just started a thread to go on record with my prediction snd the my reasoning that LG's recently-leaked Alpha 9 Gen 2 processor integrates HDMI2 2.1 and LG will launch HDMI 2.1 across their Premium WOLED TV lineup in 2019: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...announce-hdmi2-1-2019-oled-tv-lineup-ces.html
> 
> And as far as 'over 75 inches', that is a certainty since LG has already announced their intention to launch an 88" 8K WOLED next year...
> 
> So you are certain to get at least one of your 3 wishes, I'm predicting you'll het two of your 3 wishes, and there is a greater-than-zero chance you'll get all three (but not in 88", that's already been confirmed to be a bottom-emission panel, so at best, we might see a 77" WOLED with top-emission in 2019 /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif).
Click to expand...

I'm patient. I'll wait until the bugs are out. I'll wait for adequate (for me) motion. I'll wait for it to accept native 8K at all the necessary frame rates (if it's an 8K set), etc.


----------



## fafrd

Spoiler






Mark Rejhon said:


> There is a lot of undocumented 120fps support in HDTVs today, and has been the case since 2013. Usually it's the resolution below, e.g. 120Hz 720p on 1080p HDTVs, or doing 120Hz 1080p on 4K HDTVs. It's often not reported in the EDID or DisplayID signalling, and sometimes a slight deviation from HDMI spec (not bandwidth-wise though) -- so you have to "force" the mode blindly from the video source (e.g. a computer running a custom resolution mode). Incidentially, all 2017 and 2018 LG 4K OLEDs I've tried, reports an EDID available of 1080p 120Hz -- and it works -- no forcing a custom resolution needed.
> 
> 
> Chief Blur Buster here, there's a surprising twist. 120Hz makes it easier for LCDs than 60Hz because of a situation. I'll explain why:
> 
> I work with monitor manufacturers (I'm on contracts with mainstream gaming monitor makers). Including advanced overdrive-tuning lookup tables. While I am rooting for OLED, LCD is currently ahead of OLED in motion blur at the 120 Hertz leagues.
> 
> As founder of Blur Busters, I have several CRT-motion clarity impulse-driven gaming LCDs on my desktop already. (Here's a fuller listing: 120Hz+ gaming monitors with motion blur reduction backlights).
> 
> Several of them even have nearly nonexistent strobe crosstalk (*NO* ghost double-images) too! Some implementations are crap, but I have seen hundreds of panels, and I can assure you some LCD gaming monitors now exceed CRT clarity of a good Nokia 445pro CRT or Sony FW900 CRT, when running in 120Hz strobed mode at framerate=refreshrate (120fps at 120Hz). Yes, yes, colors and blacks are crap. But zero sharpness differential between static images and moving images, even for images moving faster than screenwidth per second! Motion clarity is no contest: the best gaming LCDs now finally wins over the best desktop CRTs now, if we're talking about the clearest LCD gaming monitor of my batch sitting here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actual WYSIWYG sideways-moving-camera long-exposure LCD photographs at 960 pixels/sec using my peer-reviewed pursuit camera invention (co-authoered with NIST.gov, NOKIA, Keltek)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early strobed LCDs only could achieve leftmost. Most strobed gaming LCDs do the middle. But now, today... yes, some of my strobed LCDs sitting here achieve the rightmost image WYSIWYG during fast pan -- virtually completely-eliminated ghost duplicate afterimages. Goodbye strobe crosstalk! (Though obviously with color quality compromises, albiet rapidly improving).
> 
> I can even read the street name labels of TestUFO Panning Street Map Test at 3000 pixels/second when using NVIDIA® ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur) which is found on many eSports desktop gaming monitors, better than I can read them on a Sony GDM-W900 or Sony FW-900 CRT tube! When "ULMB Pulse Width" setting in the OSD (available on all TN-based NVIDIA GSYNC monitors with the ULMB feature) is et to 50% -- measured persistence falls to 0.5ms -- the MPRTs fall to roughly 0.5 milliseconds. The picture is dark (on most except for voltage-boosted LED flashing -- ULMB is much brighter on the newer 240Hz monitors, 300nits at 1ms MPRT flashes -- and about 150nits at 0.5ms MPRT flashes -- now reasonably adequate for dark rooms, and getting better as LEDs getting brighter). Although colors are worse than OLED, the motion clarity is simply stunning, far better than the world's best OLED (currently). Unfortunately, such good motion clarity is only available at roughly 100-120Hz refresh rates, and only on desktop monitors -- rather than large-sized TVs.
> 
> The advantage of 120Hz standardization is that you no longer need to interpolate before you strobe.
> 
> Today, you can eliminate LCD limitations via a good motion blur reduction backlight. The problem is signal standards used to be 60 Hertz, which necessitated interpolating (uggggg for me, at least) to 120Hz before you could strobe to avoid flicker. Everybody hates 60Hz flicker, so that's why.
> 
> With signals becoming native 120Hz, you can simply do an ultra clean backlight strobing, while successfully cramming LCD GtG in the VBI. (pixel transitions fast enough to complete between refresh cycles, so the whole GtG cycle is practically finished before you flash the backlight on a fully-refreshed LCD panel).
> 
> We currently have a new 0.5ms (GtG90% measurement metric) gaming LCD arriving already from AUO Optronics -- fast enough for upcoming 480Hz LCDs (~2020s), and for those who haven't read about ultra-Hz refresh rate, it's a way to eliminate motion blur without impulse-driving (no flicker) -- achieve blurless sample-and-hold (see my true 480Hz tests and my 1000Hz Journey Article).
> 
> That said, OLEDs are superior in pixel transition behaviour, so we simply need an OLED that can pulse at 120Hz (Basically the combo of 120Hz + BFI). So OLEDs in theory can be superior for the 120Hz refresh rate, but don't count out LCDs; especially fast-pixel-response panels driven by quantum-dot backlights; especially since pixel response is already starting to be 90-99% hidden in total darkness in the blanking interval nowadays (the best gaming LCD sitting on my desk manages to hide ~99.9% of GtG for screen center in the dark cycle between visible flashes of the refresh cycle).
> 
> Most HDTVs are VA panels which are extremely slow pixel response in dark greys. However, on my very desktop, is sitting a TN LCD that manages roughly 1ms GtG for every single 256x256 = all 8-bit color combinations (for GtG 90% curve completion metric; the GtG100% takes longer). It doesn't matter if your GtG100% is 3ms or 4ms if you can hide all of that in total darkness, you can have MPRT less than GtG. I've got another monitor sitting on my desk that has 4ms GtG but 1ms MPRT, because the GtG occurs in the dark phase and the MPRT occurs in the bright phase, of the flashing phase of the blur-reducing strobe backlight. The science of blur reduction simply requires that the speed of ALL color combinations of pixel transitions is manged to be able to be hidden in the dark phase of a strobe backlight. So you can have MPRT shattering the GtG barrier, because GtG in the dark phase, and MPRT in the bright phase -- as seen in the high speed video of the world's first massmarket near-completely-GtG-bypassing strobe backlight (LightBoost) -- for a long time, was only found in a 24" desktop monitor, alas! So it's not too much of a stretch to keep engineering LCD until all of its pixel transition color combinations gets managed to squeeze into the blanking interval (at least ~99%) -- it's not a large leap anymore, from what I hear about upcoming future 1ms IPS panels and better-than-VA panels -- so ultraclean 120Hz becomes easy with those kinds of panels -- the motion clarity floor is bottomless when GtG is hidden. Also, internal scan conversion often occurs to enlarge VBIs to give more time to hide GtG-in-VBI (e.g. 4ms fast panel scanout + 4ms VSYNC) -- so instead of 0.5ms VBI you have a 4ms VBI internally thanks to the display's internal scan conversion that enhances motion clarity. Global-strobe backlights are currently superior to scanning backlights because you don't have light diffusion bleeding between the dark/bright areas (can amplify strobe crosstalk, with trailing sharp-ghost images) but have the disadvantage of being uncomfortable flicker at 60 Hertz, which is not a problem for most at 120 Hertz. And now video standards are hitting 120fps HFR (convenient, eh!) *You can have 0.1ms MPRT with a 4ms GtG LCD, if your 8ms refresh cycle can completely hide 4ms GtG in the dark moments of a strobe backlight cycle, and an ultra-ultra-bright LED backlight flashes brightly like 0.1ms CRT phosphor on the fully-refreshed LCD panel. There's no floor, the motion clarity limit is completely limitless on LCD once GtG crosses that magic barrier of "hide-GtG-in-VBI" for all pixel color transition combinations.* (which is already now being achieved with some of the panels now sitting here). The leap isn't very far today, even GtG99%-metric milliseconds are very close to achievable enlarged-VBI sizes achieved today.
> 
> Now, we have to live with impulsing for now. This is because we cannot easily do ultra high refresh rates, and standards are (probably) decades away from standardizing retina refresh rates (And instead focussing on retina resolutions & retina dynamic range).
> So we are hereby stuck with impulsing as a method of eliminating motion blur (1ms of MPRT persistence = 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec, and on sample-hold displays, MPRT can never be less than refresh cycle duration. Thus, we're /forced/ to flicker, if we want MPRT numbers smaller than a refresh cycle).
> 
> The great news is 120Hz makes blur-reduction on LCDs much simpler than at 60Hz, because you don't have to deal with eye-searing flicker (Especially since 60Hz squarewave strobed-LCD flicker is much harsher than 60Hz sawtooth-wave phosphor fade flicker). Flicker at 120Hz instead and most people are O.K. with enabling this optional blur-reduction mode (it's easily an ON/OFF setting, to go flickerfree _or_ blurfree -- without needing to use interpolation to avoid flicker).
> 
> _Related topic, regardless of OLED and LCD -- We definitely need improved motion clarity more badly for 4K and 8K. It's a vicious cycle -- more clarity during static images means more likely a bigger difference between static images and moving images. So motion blur looks worse for the same MPRT. 1ms MPRT was fine in NTSC era and well beyond diminishing returns. But I can tell apart 0.25ms and 0.5ms MPRT on a strobed 8K display, if I am looking closely at test patterns. Higher resolutions push the diminishing-returns noisefloor way downwards, making HFR more essential, but even sample-and-hold HFR still has way too much motion blur. So we need to impulse-drive to achieve sub-refresh-cycle MPRTs, since refresh cycle durations is the motion blur limiting factor._
> 
> *Summary*
> - Most manufacturers avoid strobing at 60Hz due to flicker; even when GtGs are fast enough, so LCD (especially TV sized panels) gets a bad rep in motion clarity.
> - 120Hz means you can avoid interpolation as a workaround to fix flicker (e.g. interpolate 60Hz->120Hz then strobe 120Hz)
> - LCD GtGs are now getting fast enough nowadays to be hidden in the blanking interval between refresh cycles. This allows the GtG to be completely hidden in the dark period between strobe backlight flashes. This progress will continue.
> - OLEDs are preferred but LCDs are perfectly capable of 120Hz tack-sharp CRT clarity already, today. While now widespread in $500 TN desktop gaming monitors, this is not widespread in TVs yet due to good old fashioned "60Hz legacy" and slightly slower pixel response in TVs than gaming monitors, which most manufacturers don't strobe without pre-interpolation, because of eye-searing 60Hz flicker.
> - Future TV-sized LCD panels will manage to hide GtG99% in the dark cycle of a strobe backlight (hide GtG-in-VBI engineering), the magic ingredient necessary for bottomless MPRTs (limitless motion clarity, only limited by LED pulse brightness).
> 
> Even when TVs support strobing it's often compromised by (A) forced pre-interpolation to 120Hz to avoid 60Hz strobe flicker (B) slower VA panels that are really slow at GtG in dark colors. So all the flicker modes of LCD TVs are often crappy. But (A) completely disappears with eventual widespread 120fps HFR standardization, and (B) completely disappears with a few milliseconds more improvement to cross the magic barrier of all GtGs hidden in VBI. Already achieved (at GtG99% metric) on some desktop TN panels, but will eventually arrive to 1ms IPS and other fast panels that can also be engineered TV-sized. As (A) and (B) are solved, motion clarity becomes limitless, LCDs will be a CRT-clarity juggernaut option too. Too many LCD factories, and too many low lying apples to fix (A) and (B) by next decade, so LCD is still a very shoo-in option if 120fps HFR gets fully standard.
> 
> Conclusion: I root for OLED, but... 120fps HFR standardization make it much easier to achieve human-comfortable high-quality impulse blur reduction modes on LCDs, so both LCDs and OLEDs will co-exist for a very long time.






Mark,

it's taken me a long time to digest your above detailed post, but I think I understand now: by making use of the blanking interval to 'operate in the shadows', LCDs can compensate for slow response times of the liquid crystals by overdriving to a higher or lower drive value than target and then adjusting to actual target after most of the transient is (more quickly) passed. It's a smart idea but I believe it means that refresh rates needs to be at least double (to write overdrive values to all pixels and then target values to all pixels, all 'in the shadows' during the blanking interval).

LCDs are already having difficulty keeping up with framerates in the 8K era and overdrive is only going to make it worse, so between the added control/computation cost involved and the need to have an 8K backplane that refreshes at 240Hz (to deliver 8K @ 120fps), I'm not sure this elegant approach is going to allow LCD to keep up with OLED (at least on a cost-competetive basis).

Once OLED moves to top-emission, the entire pixel area can effectively be used for drive electronics/transistors so OLEDs will easily be able to deliver 240Hz or even 480Hz refresh rates.

LCDs lose aperature ratio when they increase the size of pixel drive electronics, so 8K panels at 240Hz may be out of reach (or at least more expensive).

The recent announcements by NHK and LG regarding 120fps Hgh Framerate 8K (Super High Vision) TV send clear signs of their belief the TV industry is moving to 120fps (as well as their intention to help nudge it in that direction).

Over the coming 5-years, OLED TV has a low-risk (and low-cost) path to delivering 4000 cd/m2 peak brightness levels and 240Hz (or even 480Hz) refresh rates, while LCD, if it is able to keep up, is exceedingly unlikely to be able to do so easily (and almost certainly not cost-competitively).

If 8K @ 120Hz framerate becomes the new norm for Premium TVs, I believe OLED-TVs nascent dominance will be locked-in and LCD will be relegated to the large tail market of cheap underperforming TVs for as long as it can be milked.

In fact, I believe that the coming FrameRate Wars may prove to mark the beginning of the end of the Era of LCD dominance of the TV market and started a thread to that effect: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...-wars-beginning-end-lcd-era.html#post57249432


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> Mark,
> 
> it's taken me a long time to digest your above detailed post, but I think I understand now: by making use of the blanking interval to 'operate in the shadows', LCDs can compensate for slow response times of the liquid crystals by overdriving to a higher or lower drive value than target and then adjusting to actual target after most of the transient is (more quickly) passed. It's a smart idea but I believe it means that refresh rates needs to be at least double (to write overdrive values to all pixels and then target values to all pixels, all 'in the shadows' during the blanking interval).
> 
> LCDs are already having difficulty keeping up with framerates in the 8K era and overdrive is only going to make it worse, so between the added control/computation cost involved and the need to have an 8K backplane that refreshes at 240Hz (to deliver 8K @ 120fps), I'm not sure this elegant approach is going to allow LCD to keep up with OLED (at least on a cost-competetive basis).
> 
> Once OLED moves to top-emission, the entire pixel area can effectively be used for drive electronics/transistors so OLEDs will easily be able to deliver 240Hz or even 480Hz refresh rates.
> 
> LCDs lose aperature ratio when they increase the size of pixel drive electronics, so 8K panels at 240Hz may be out of reach (or at least more expensive).
> 
> The recent announcements by NHK and LG regarding 120fps Hgh Framerate 8K (Super High Vision) TV send clear signs of their belief the TV industry is moving to 120fps (as well as their intention to help nudge it in that direction).
> 
> Over the coming 5-years, OLED TV has a low-risk (and low-cost) path to delivering 4000 cd/m2 peak brightness levels and 240Hz (or even 480Hz) refresh rates, while LCD, if it is able to keep up, is exceedingly unlikely to be able to do so easily (and almost certainly not cost-competitively).
> 
> If 8K @ 120Hz framerate becomes the new norm for Premium TVs, I believe OLED-TVs nascent dominance will be locked-in and LCD will be relegated to the large tail market of cheap underperforming TVs for as long as it can be milked.
> 
> In fact, I believe that the coming FrameRate Wars may prove to mark the beginning of the end of the Era of LCD dominance of the TV market and started a thread to that effect: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...-wars-beginning-end-lcd-era.html#post57249432



Why would LCD need 240Hz to do 120fps? As long as it has backlight control to do any frame pulsing, I don't see why the LCD itself needs more than 120Hz.


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> Why would LCD need 240Hz to do 120fps? As long as it has backlight control to do any frame pulsing, I don't see why the LCD itself needs more than 120Hz.


That was the key point pf Mark's post.

LCD is slow, but that slowness can be overcome by overdriving the LCD pixels.

Drive the LCD pixel to a higher (or lower) value than you want it at and you can get it close much faster. Once close, rep,ace the 'overdrive' target with the actual 'display' (desired) target and you can have apan LCD pixel delivering the correct tran ittance much faster than it wou,d have if you had just loaded the display target from the beginning.

All of this overdrive, etc. is done during the blanking interval (the time that the backlight behind this specific pixel is turned off) so that whe the backlight is turned on, the pixel transition was invisible and is appears perfect.

It's a nifty idea that allows LCD to effectively completely mask the effects of its relatively slow transition times, but it requires writing twice to each pixel for each frame (once for the overdrive target and a second time for the display target) rather than just once.

So if you want to use overdrive to deliver 8K @ 120fps you need an LCD backplane that supports a 240Hz refresh-rate/write speed.

A 120Hz LCD backplane coupled with a scanning backlight can mask much of the pixel transition during the blanking interval but can not speed up that transition through the use of overdrive (as Mark suggested).

And then there is also the issue of backlight brightness.

Let's say you have a 6ms transition time that you want to mak. 120fps gives you an 8ms frame time, so if you want to mask with a 6ms blanking interval, you'll need 75%BFI (25% on-tme).

If you want 4000 cd/m2 of peak brightness but are only delivering lumens 25% of the time, your backlight needs to have enough LEDs to put out an instantaneous brightness of 16,000 cd/m2 (within each zone).

It's all doable. It just ain't easy and it jst ain't cheap. 

When it comes to further increases in resolution and refresh rate, OLED has a far more promising roadmap in front of it than LED/LCD...


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> That was the key point pf Mark's post.
> 
> LCD is slow, but that slowness can be overcome by overdriving the LCD pixels.
> 
> Drive the LCD pixel to a higher (or lower) value than you want it at and you can get it close much faster. Once close, rep,ace the 'overdrive' target with the actual 'display' (desired) target and you can have apan LCD pixel delivering the correct tran ittance much faster than it wou,d have if you had just loaded the display target from the beginning.
> 
> All of this overdrive, etc. is done during the blanking interval (the time that the backlight behind this specific pixel is turned off) so that whe the backlight is turned on, the pixel transition was invisible and is appears perfect.
> 
> It's a nifty idea that allows LCD to effectively completely mask the effects of its relatively slow transition times, but it requires writing twice to each pixel for each frame (once for the overdrive target and a second time for the display target) rather than just once.
> 
> So if you want to use overdrive to deliver 8K @ 120fps you need an LCD backplane that supports a 240Hz refresh-rate/write speed.
> 
> A 120Hz LCD backplane coupled with a scanning backlight can mask much of the pixel transition during the blanking interval but can not speed up that transition through the use of overdrive (as Mark suggested).
> 
> And then there is also the issue of backlight brightness.
> 
> Let's say you have a 6ms transition time that you want to mak. 120fps gives you an 8ms frame time, so if you want to mask with a 6ms blanking interval, you'll need 75%BFI (25% on-tme).
> 
> If you want 4000 cd/m2 of peak brightness but are only delivering lumens 25% of the time, your backlight needs to have enough LEDs to put out an instantaneous brightness of 16,000 cd/m2 (within each zone).
> 
> It's all doable. It just ain't easy and it jst ain't cheap.
> 
> When it comes to further increases in resolution and refresh rate, OLED has a far more promising roadmap in front of it than LED/LCD...



Hmm, that was not how I thought (or expected) the overdrive to be done. OK, in that case I can see why it would need double the refresh rate. I thought the overdrive was done as part of the pixel update during a single write (somehow).


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> Hmm, that was not how I thought (or expected) the overdrive to be done. OK, in that case I can see why it would need double the refresh rate. I thought the overdrive was done as part of the pixel update during a single write (somehow).


We'll have to see what Mark says. But when he mentioned use of FPGA that suggests to me that each pixel (subpixel) is getting it's own specific overdrive wpvalue based on where it is and where it needs to go (rather than a generic 'overdrive to a common starting point' aporoach).

Magical things can be made to happen to slow liquid crystals during the blanking interval if they are done on a pixel-by-pixel basis. I can't see how a global overdrive concept could achieve the same speedup (nor understand why that would not already be comminplace with LCD panels if it were possible ).

Hopefully Mark has not already decided to abandon us for (another) year and will chime-in soon...


----------



## fafrd

There have been a couple interesting datapoints/milestones on WOLED aging that have recently emerged on the Forum which I thought it might be helpful to summarize here.

We have recently heard from a first AVSer who has close to 11,000 hours at OLED Light 100 on his 4-year old 55EC9300 and he believes the image still looks as good and as bright as when it was new: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ve-10-000-hours-your-oled-2.html#post57250932

From this post: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...00-hours-oled-light-100-a-6.html#post57250866 you can also see analysis performed on the 2016 rtings.com burn-in test results which indicate essentially no discernable aging (brightness degredation) after 8000 hours of random SDR content displayed at 170cd/m2 peak

Finally, the 2016 rtings.com burn-in test is now up to 64 weeks (9000 hours) and shows that the WOLED peak brightness is holding steady after than amount of time displaying random SDR at 170 cd/m2 peak while the IPS LED/LCD has degraded by about 50% (attached)

The long and short of all of this is that I believe we've reached the point where WOLEDs ability to deliver over 10,000 hours of lifetime without noticable degradation/aging when watching random content at typical peak brightness levels is more or less assured.

Non-random content, especially static logos, remains a concern but LG has already demonstrated their attention on that issue and their ability to deliver improvements through succeedingly better mitigation/compensation technologies (so it appears to be less fundamental of a concern than the underlying aging-rate / lifetime is).


----------



## rikkyjames

Japan OLED shows off printed OLED TV & monitor panels:

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1544530038


----------



## wco81

rikkyjames said:


> Japan OLED shows off printed OLED TV & monitor panels:
> 
> https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1544530038


IF they made some kind of breakthrough on costs by printing, they'd be committing to production now.

Instead, they have these demos, which for all we know cost $50k to make that 55-inch OLED TV.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> IF they made some kind of breakthrough on costs by printing, they'd be committing to production now.
> 
> Instead, they have these demos, which for all we know cost $50k to make that 55-inch OLED TV.


It is certain that JOLED is not [/uwgoing into production with these 55" printed OLED panels, but is seeking a partner/customer to buy equipment from them (along with a manufactiring license).

I'd be alot more concerned about lifetime than cost - since it was printed, the manufacturing cost is pretty certain to be be lower than LGs vacuum-deposition-based WOLED, but how well do those prnted OLED pixels withstand the test of time?

It's still very early days...


----------



## wco81

Oh they're not interested in manufacturing panels themselves, just selling the manufacturing equipment?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Oh they're not interested in manufacturing panels themselves, just selling the manufacturing equipment?


JOLED currently manufactures and sells 21.6" printed OLED panels for medical monitors: https://www.oled-info.com/joled-starts-commercial-shipments-its-printed-216-4k-oled-monitor-panels

They have announced plans to invest in a 5.5G plant to manufacture 10 to 32" printed OLEDs: https://www.oled-info.com/joled-rai...h-its-first-printed-oled-mass-production-line

But the 55" is just for demonstration purposes and they have no plans to manufacture it (while they do have plans to sell equipment): https://www.oled-info.com/joled-demonstrate-55-ink-jet-printed-oled-tv-next-month

"This is the first time JOLED will show a 55" OLED prototype (in July 2018 the company did include TVs in its future roadmap). *JOLED tells us that it has no plans to produce large size OLEDs at this stage* - and this TV is on display just to demonstrate JOLED's printing technology."

"JOLED will also introduce its proprietary printed OLED manufacturing technology. *A few weeks ago JOLED announced that it has signed an agreement to develop, manufacture, and sell printing equipment together with Panasonic and Screen Finetech*."


----------



## bjaurelio

fafrd said:


> "JOLED will also introduce its proprietary printed OLED manufacturing technology. *A few weeks ago JOLED announced that it has signed an agreement to develop, manufacture, and sell printing equipment together with Panasonic and Screen Finetech*."


I can only assume this means Panasonic will be using printed OLED panels instead of LG's in a few years. There's no mention of a timeframe, but I assume based on lead time to manufacture equipment and build a production facility to use the equipment means 2021-2022 before we see these used in TVs. Is that correct?


----------



## helvetica bold

Im surprised we haven't heard any leaks regarding what's new with LG 2019 OLED panels. Perhaps CES will bring a surprise or two?


----------



## dfa973

helvetica bold said:


> Im surprised we haven't heard any leaks regarding what's new with LG 2019 OLED panels. Perhaps CES will bring a surprise or two?


There is a great chance that at CES 2019 LG to bring 8K OLED panels and NOT improved 4K OLED panels.


----------



## helvetica bold

dfa973 said:


> There is a great chance that at CES 2019 LG to bring 8K OLED panels and NOT improved 4K OLED panels.




What makes you say that regarding 4K panels? Do you know something we don’t?  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dfa973

helvetica bold said:


> What makes you say that regarding 4K panels? Do you know something we don’t?


No, but if you read this thread you can see that LG wants to play the 8K OLED game along Samsung and Sharp, and that leaves the 4K panels with little to no improvements. We can only hope that what 8K brings to the table (technology wise) will trickle to the 4K panels also..., but I will not hold by breath...


----------



## ALMA

> *LG confirms that its 2019 line-up of OLED and flagship LCD TVs* – *a total of 9 new TV ranges – will be ‘WiSA Ready’*. What this means is that the user can buy an optional WiSA USB transmitter and connect it to the TV. This will enable the TV to “deliver unprecedented wireless sound” to WiSA-compatible speakers from the likes of Bang & Olufsen, Harman Kardon, and Klipsch. All WiSA certified products work together.



https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1544606711


https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...Announces-Global-Collaboration-LG-Electronics


----------



## fafrd

dfa973 said:


> No, but if you read this thread you can see that LG wants to play the 8K OLED game along Samsung and Sharp, and that leaves the 4K panels with little to no improvements. We can only hope that what 8K brings to the table (technology wise) will trickle to the 4K panels also..., but I will not hold by breath...


LG is probably only introducing a single 88" WOLED in 2019 (the 88") so 2020 looks more likely as the real 'year of 8K' meaning a full lineup of 8K offerings including 75/77" and possibly also 65".

On the 4K panels, I'm not sure what 'improvements' you're thinking LGD will hold back (other than increased resolution).

Te new Alpha-9 Gen-2 Processor is likely to be used across the lineup (at least above the entry-level B-Series), so if the 88" 8K TV launches with HDMI 2.1 (as I suspect), we'll becseeibg HDMI 2.1 on the 4K models as well.

It remains to be seem whether LG's 8K TV will support 120Hz refresh, but the 4K panels already do and KG has already 'leaked' additional support for 120Hz in 2019.

We still have no idea if LGD is introducing any improved WOLED panel technology in 2019, but between top-emission, changes to WOLED stack to either improve peak brightness or efficiency or lifetime or reduce cost, or even further improvements to their burn-in compensation/mitigation technology, it's hard to fathom why LG would not deploy that across the 4K panel lineup as well - I mean, it's not like they have brightness or lifetime to spare niw, is it? .

If LG does introduce their 8K panel with 120Hz refresh, that means they ought to have the technology to support 240Hz refresh at 4K (or at least 50% BFI @ 120Hz) and I can see tat potential 'improvement' being something they hold back on.

Among other things, that would be a specification where the 4K panels surpass the flagship 8K panel, and they might not want their flagship offering to appear deficient in any way compared to their pedrstrian ol' 4K WOLEDs .

Whether the 2019 8K panel introduces any improvements over the 2018 4K panels (other than increased resolution) is a big question mark, but I'm pretty confident we can expect to see any 8K panel impovements on the 2019 4K panes as well...


----------



## dabrit

So forgive my ignorance on this matter but I am wondering what it will take to start producing the first bandless OLED TV's? Because between it and potential burn in they are the only two factors really against OLED technology. I gotta be honest banding is a pretty serious defect for TVs of this price range to have and once you notice it you always notice it. 

So what is it exactly that is causing the banding to occur? How could it be remedied?


----------



## gorman42

dabrit said:


> So what is it exactly that is causing the banding to occur? How could it be remedied?


Really interesting question. I know what causes banding but I've not see much in the way of what could be done to avoid it.


----------



## dfa973

fafrd said:


> Te new Alpha-9 Gen-2 Processor is likely to be used across the lineup (at least above the entry-level B-Series), so if the 88" 8K TV launches with HDMI 2.1 (as I suspect), we'll becseeibg HDMI 2.1 on the 4K models as well.


If HDMI 2.1 may be on the 8K OLED's in 2019, the 4K's are more likely to get only some features from the 2.1, such as: eARC, ALLM, VRR, but full support for HDMI 2.1 is not necessary for a 4K TV.


----------



## Nils Appelbaum

gorman42 said:


> Really interesting question. I know what causes banding but I've not see much in the way of what could be done to avoid it.



If you don't mind me asking, What exactly causes it?


----------



## helvetica bold

dfa973 said:


> If HDMI 2.1 may be on the 8K OLED's in 2019, the 4K's are more likely to get only some features from the 2.1, such as: eARC, ALLM, VRR, but full support for HDMI 2.1 is not necessary for a 4K TV.


Thats what i expect, HDMI 2.0b in the Xbox One X and new Sony Master series support some HDMI 2.1 features. Im keeping my expectations in check for CES. I expect to order a Sony A9F the week after CES but we shall see.


----------



## zetruz

dfa973 said:


> If HDMI 2.1 may be on the 8K OLED's in 2019, the 4K's are more likely to get only some features from the 2.1, such as: eARC, ALLM, VRR, but full support for HDMI 2.1 is not necessary for a 4K TV.


It is for 4K 120fps, which they've already marketed the CPU as being capable of processing.


----------



## gorman42

Nils Appelbaum said:


> If you don't mind me asking, What exactly causes it?


If I have understood things correctly it has to do with the technique used to deposit the organic layer on the substrate. Apparently it happens "in stripes" and it's tough to have them completely identical one with the other. This is most likely an oversimplification, wait for people more knowledgeable than me for details.


But the interesting question is if there's anything on the roadmap to fix this.


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> If I have understood things correctly it has to do with the technique used to deposit the organic layer on the substrate. Apparently it happens "in stripes" and it's tough to have them completely identical one with the other. This is most likely an oversimplification, wait for people more knowledgeable than me for details.
> 
> 
> But the interesting question is if there's anything on the roadmap to fix this.


That's the first I've heard of that theory? Do you have a source?

My understanding is that the WOLED layers are deposited by chemical deposition over the entire surface and I've never considered that tye issues surrounding near-black streaking/uniformity have anything to do with the WOLED layers themselves, but rather the backplane.

When a WOLED pixel is just barely 'ON' (putting out tye lowest amount of photons possible), the output level is incredibly sensitive to the transistor threshold driving that specific subpixel.

Threshold-voltage mismatches can cause all sorts of nonuniformity and LGD has built-in self-compensating drive circuitry to reduce the visible impact of drive transistor threshold mismatches, but those techniques will be least effective when the drive transistor is weakly-driven (as opposed to being driven more strongly to put out more light).

So I've always assumed that the near-black nonuniformity is primarily caused by drive transistor mismatches, possibly coupled with some mismatches in vertical drive signals such as data lines or mismatches in the drive transistors for vertical drive signals such as data lines that cannot be effectively compensated for at low drive levels (drive signals associated with video levels below 24).

I could be completely wrong about all of this (which is why I am interested if you have a source for this WOLED 'strip-deposition' explanation ).


----------



## fafrd

Now Samsung starting to print OLED is a much more sugnificant development than JOLED pronting 21" OLED panels for medica monitors: https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-p...apply-it-next-generation-monitors-and-laptops

Of especially interesting mote:

"According to earlier reports, Samsung is using Kateeva's printers, and emissive materials supplied by DuPont and is aiming to use a 8.5-Gen production process. *SDC's original plan was to produce large-area (55" and higher) panels using this process, but now it seems it is aiming to produce medium-sized panels.* It could be that Samsung will settle for a smaller glass size for this process."


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> .
> I could be completely wrong about all of this (which is why I am interested if you have a source for this WOLED 'strip-deposition' explanation /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif).


I am convinced I read this somewhere but I can't remember where. I'd consider it strange for me to have made this up (not what you are saying, this is just me doubting myself) but I might definitely be wrong.
Actually, considering the depth of your knowledge on the subject, I invite everyone to stick with your explanation and forget mine. 🙂

Any roadmap to make things better in the process you describe?


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> I am convinced I read this somewhere but I can't remember where. I'd consider it strange for me to have made this up (not what you are saying, this is just me doubting myself) but I might definitely be wrong.
> Actually, considering the depth of your knowledge on the subject, I invite everyone to stick with your explanation and forget mine. 🙂
> 
> Any roadmap to make things better in the process you describe?


Well, it's interesting - if the cause is as I suspect, engaging BFI shoukd actually help to improve near-black uniformity (if you are willing to sacrifice some peak brightness).

OLED Light 50 w/o BFI ought to roughly equivalent to OLED Light with 50% BFI, but if you consider viewing a 5% field at 50% BFI, it's actually going to be perfect black half the time and a 10% field at OLED Light 100 half the time.

Perfect black (screen off) is obviously perfect uniformity and from what I have experienced, nonunifornity on a 10% field is less than nonuniformity on a 5% field (especially with OLED Light cranked up to 100).

So net-net, the uniformity of a 5% field displayed with 50% BFI @ OLED Light 100 should look at least twice as good (half as non-uniform) as a 5% field dispkayed withot OLED Light @ OLED Light 50.

I don't have BFI on my C6 but would loce it if someone with an x7 or x8 OLED coukd give this experiment a try and let us know what they see.

At 60Hz, the strobe effect of BFI is apparently annoying enough that many/most owners probably won't consider this 'solution' for improved near-black uniformity, but as LG moves to fully support 120Hz and hopefully eventually supports 50% BFI @ 120Hz, this could be an easy way to improve uniformity by at least a factor of 2 (at least on darker content that does not need the full max output for bright highlights).


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Well, it's interesting - if the cause is as I suspect, engaging BFI shoukd actually help to improve near-black uniformity (if you are willing to sacrifice some peak brightness).
> 
> OLED Light 50 w/o BFI ought to roughly equivalent to OLED Light with 50% BFI, but if you consider viewing a 5% field at 50% BFI, it's actually going to be perfect black half the time and a 10% field at OLED Light 100 half the time.
> 
> Perfect black (screen off) is obviously perfect uniformity and from what I have experienced, nonunifornity on a 10% field is less than nonuniformity on a 5% field (especially with OLED Light cranked up to 100).
> 
> So net-net, the uniformity of a 5% field displayed with 50% BFI @ OLED Light 100 should look at least twice as good (half as non-uniform) as a 5% field dispkayed withot OLED Light @ OLED Light 50.
> 
> I don't have BFI on my C6 but would loce it if someone with an x7 or x8 OLED coukd give this experiment a try and let us know what they see.
> 
> At 60Hz, the strobe effect of BFI is apparently annoying enough that many/most owners probably won't consider this 'solution' for improved near-black uniformity, but as LG moves to fully support 120Hz and hopefully eventually supports 50% BFI @ 120Hz, this could be an easy way to improve uniformity by at least a factor of 2 (at least on darker content that does not need the full max output for bright highlights).


PS - this technique will work for any base OLED Light setting of 50 or less: just compare your base settng to what you get with 50% BFI activated and OLED Light doubled.

We know the strobeing may be bothersome, but the question is whether the near-black uniformity appears to be improved.

This can be tested with 3%, 4% or 5% fields but it can also be tested with any movie scene where the near-black uniformity jumps out at you (including on pause' as well as re-rnning a clip with a pan overa dark scene where DSE becomes apparent).

Would love it if either an LG x7 or x8 or even a Sony OLED owner could give this experiment a try sometime...


----------



## bjaurelio

We know that by 2020 we will see big changes from LG WOLED with top emission and the color stack for significantly improved efficiency and brightness. These are tied to the 10.5Gen plant still being built. There's been a fair amount of speculation on if any of those changes will be seen in 2019. 


With LG investing in equipment for a new 8.5Gen facility in China coming online in 2019, hopefully we will see at least one of those changes this year. I doubt they'll want to invest in equipment that would have to be replaced that quickly.


https://www.oled-info.com/lgd-starts-installing-equipment-its-guangzhou-oled-tv-fab


----------



## fafrd

bjaurelio said:


> We know that by 2020 we will see big changes from LG WOLED with top emission and the color stack for significantly improved efficiency and brightness. *These are tied to the 10.5Gen plant still being built. *There's been a fair amount of speculation on if any of those changes will be seen in 2019.
> 
> 
> With LG investing in equipment for a new 8.5Gen facility in China coming online in 2019, hopefully we will see at least one of those changes this year. I doubt they'll want to invest in equipment that would have to be replaced that quickly.
> 
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/lgd-starts-installing-equipment-its-guangzhou-oled-tv-fab


Some WOLED production advancements, such as the use of Multi-Modal-Glass (MMG) increase output / reduce cost, are associated with specific pieces of equipment, but most are not.

Top-emission does not require specific different piecs of equipment, just a modified design / manufacturing process using the same production line. In fact, according to DSCC, LGD already has pilot production of 3K/month top-emission on the existing 8.5G line established over a year ago: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction

"DSCC estimates that LGD has a pilot capacity of 3k / month of top emission capacity as of today, with plans to increase that to more than 10k / month, and mass production on E4-2 starting in 2019."

None of these advances are 'tied' to the new 10.5G fab, other than the fact that LGD would probably prefer to have major WOLED process improvements such as the move to top-emission and and improvements in OLED stack composition stabilized before rampong the new 10.5G line rather than having to face those changes in the midst of that complicated ramp.

And as far as the WOLED panels coming off of the new 8.5G plant in Guangzhou, they are almost certain to be identical to the WOLED panels coming off of the existing 8.5G lines in Korea. At most, LGD may decide to let the new Chinese 8.5G fab take the lead in adopting MMG and prove that new technology in one 8.5G plant before adopting it elsewhere.

Top-emission WOLEDs, hopefully with a modified stack, are likely to be produced on the 8.5G lines next year. What we don't know is whether those top-emission panels are already in production in time for 2019 consumer products (less likely) or they will be in production late in 2019 in time for 2020 consumer products (more likely).

LGD has already stated that the 88" 8K WOLED will release mid next-year will be based on bottom emission, so this strongly suggest top-emission is not ready for production today.

If LG only announces one 8K WOLED for 2019 (88"), top emission is almost-certainly a 2020 production technology. If they also announce a 65" 8K WOLED for 2019 (possibly later in the year), that will confirm that top-emission is ready for 2019 production. And if they do not announce a 65" 8K WOLED for 2019 but do announce a 75/77" 8K WOLED for 2019, maturity of top-emission will remain murky (since they just _might_ be able to manufacture a 75/77" 8K panel with bottom-emission...).

Whichever 8.5G plant LG elects to deploys MMG will likely become the preferred plant for 65" and 75/77" WOLED production, since 65" or 75/77" WOLED production wastes 1/3 of the 8.5G substrate without MMG and can produce 2 55" WOLED from that excess 8.5G substrate with MMG.


----------



## helvetica bold

So the odds of LG releasing a top emission 4K OLED is slim, correct? I feel like I’m waiting for nothing including HDMI 2.1. 
I’m considering buying the new Sony A9F or buy the C8 while it’s on sale. Hang on to the C8 until 2020 and then go for the full monty upgrade. At least I can enjoy the C8 without a large investment and then go flagship in 2020.
Also new game consoles are expected to arrive in 2020 so it a perfect time for a new TV.


----------



## fafrd

helvetica bold said:


> *So the odds of LG releasing a top emission 4K OLED is slim, correct? *I feel like I’m waiting for nothing including HDMI 2.1.
> I’m considering buying the new Sony A9F or buy the C8 while it’s on sale. Hang on to the C8 until 2020 and then go for the full monty upgrade. At least I can enjoy the C8 without a large investment and then go flagship in 2020.
> Also new game consoles are expected to arrive in 2020 so it a prefect time for a new TV.


'Slim' is hard to quantify, but at this point I have to agree that the odds of Consumer Products with top-emission WOLED panels reaching the channels by mid-2019 look to be less than 50/50.

But with CES a mere 3 weeks away, I don't see the point of reaching a conclusion on 2019 today (unless you are contemplating a fantastic get-it-while-it-lasts deal on a C8 ).


----------



## helvetica bold

fafrd said:


> 'Slim' is hard to quantify, but at this point I have to agree that the odds of Consumer Products with top-emission WOLED panels reaching the channels by mid-2019 look to be less than 50/50.
> 
> 
> 
> But with CES a mere 3 weeks away, I don't see the point of reaching a conclusion on 2019 today (unless you are contemplating a fantastic get-it-while-it-lasts deal on a C8 ).




Sound advice! I’ll wait until CES to make a final decision. Besides if I decide to get a 2018 model the best time is around Super Bowl, sales galore! 
My prediction, LG will play catch-up, A9 gen 2, and match Sony’s X1 Ultimate chip performance with an increase in color volume etc. That will be their significant upgrade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

https://www.oled-info.com/bloomberg-lg-plans-start-offering-rollable-tvs-2019

and https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-aims-sell-over-1-million-oled-tv-panels-japanese-tv-makers-2019

"According to its plans, LG Display aims to ship around 2.9 million OLED TV panels in 2018, and the Korean panel maker expects that its production capacity expansion will allow it to ship around* 4 million panels in 2019*."

"LGD's largest customer is LG Electronics, but the company is also enjoying strong sales to Japanese TV makers. The Nikkei Asian Review says that in 2018 the company will ship 500,000 panels to Sony and 200,000 to Panasonic, and [/b]next year it expects to increase its shipments to Sony to 850,000 units and to Panasonic to 300,000 units. [/b]LG Electronics OLED TV market share will be around 50-60% in 2019."

50% would mean 850,000 or 21% of WOLED panels going to other customers including Philips while 60% would mean only 450,000 or 11% going to non-Sony-or-Panasonic-or-LGE customers...

And 38% year-on-year volume growth means we can probably expect to see a nic continuation of the year-over-year price drops in MSRP and discounted November pricing that we have come to expect .


----------



## FriscoDTM

fafrd said:


> That's the first I've heard of that theory? Do you have a source?
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that the WOLED layers are deposited by chemical deposition over the entire surface and I've never considered that tye issues surrounding near-black streaking/uniformity have anything to do with the WOLED layers themselves, but rather the backplane.
> 
> 
> 
> When a WOLED pixel is just barely 'ON' (putting out tye lowest amount of photons possible), the output level is incredibly sensitive to the transistor threshold driving that specific subpixel.
> 
> 
> 
> Threshold-voltage mismatches can cause all sorts of nonuniformity and LGD has built-in self-compensating drive circuitry to reduce the visible impact of drive transistor threshold mismatches, but those techniques will be least effective when the drive transistor is weakly-driven (as opposed to being driven more strongly to put out more light).
> 
> 
> 
> So I've always assumed that the near-black nonuniformity is primarily caused by drive transistor mismatches, possibly coupled with some mismatches in vertical drive signals such as data lines or mismatches in the drive transistors for vertical drive signals such as data lines that cannot be effectively compensated for at low drive levels (drive signals associated with video levels below 24).
> 
> 
> 
> I could be completely wrong about all of this (which is why I am interested if you have a source for this WOLED 'strip-deposition' explanation ).




This is a bit of a guess but my understanding has been that they use AgMg for many cathode contacts, using thermal evaporation or effusion cells, and that step is done using an array of sources in the process chamber. Both methods involve a flux of material from a crucible, and the resulting plume has a concentration profile that peaks along the centerline of the opening and drops radially. It is challenging to get good uniformity


----------



## -Axle-

Not sure if already posted, but just in case

FYI for those who care, I had originally missed this article.

_“Rob Tobias, president/CEO of the HDMI Licensing Administrator (HDMI LA), sketched out the timetable for Sound & Vision following a New York City event organized by the group to update the press on the progress of HDMI 2.1

...

only a “small number” of TVs supporting HDMI 2.1 video bandwidths will be available in 2019, according to Tobias.

...

gaming-related features “will be adopted more quickly” than other HDMI 2.1 features, Tobias said. Starting at January’s CES, he said, products will be announced with HDMI 2.1-certified gaming-related features such as variable refresh rate (VRR), quick frame transport (QFT), and auto low latency mode (ALLM) to reduce or eliminate lag time and otherwise enhance game play on TVs.

Microsoft has already downloaded firmware upgrades to add VRR and ALLM to the Xbox One, as has Samsung to some of its TVs, but the features haven’t yet been officially certified as HDMI 2.1-compliant.”_

This is amazing news and should be reliable since it’s coming straight from someone involved in the licensing.

While full-fledged hdmi 2.1 may not appear outside of some 8K prototype or 75”+ set, I really hope the gaming features like VRR are incorporated into the OLEDs and not just Samsung TVs.


----------



## helvetica bold

-Axle- said:


> Not sure if already posted, but just in case
> 
> FYI for those who care, I had originally missed this article.
> 
> _“Rob Tobias, president/CEO of the HDMI Licensing Administrator (HDMI LA), sketched out the timetable for Sound & Vision following a New York City event organized by the group to update the press on the progress of HDMI 2.1
> 
> ...
> 
> only a “small number” of TVs supporting HDMI 2.1 video bandwidths will be available in 2019, according to Tobias.
> 
> ...
> 
> gaming-related features “will be adopted more quickly” than other HDMI 2.1 features, Tobias said. Starting at January’s CES, he said, products will be announced with HDMI 2.1-certified gaming-related features such as variable refresh rate (VRR), quick frame transport (QFT), and auto low latency mode (ALLM) to reduce or eliminate lag time and otherwise enhance game play on TVs.
> 
> Microsoft has already downloaded firmware upgrades to add VRR and ALLM to the Xbox One, as has Samsung to some of its TVs, but the features haven’t yet been officially certified as HDMI 2.1-compliant.”_
> 
> This is amazing news and should be reliable since it’s coming straight from someone involved in the licensing.
> 
> While full-fledged hdmi 2.1 may not appear outside of some 8K prototype or 75”+ set, I really hope the gaming features like VRR are incorporated into the OLEDs and not just Samsung TVs.


Not surprising. I wonder what manufacture will scored true HDMI 2.1 hardware. My best guess is LG 8K OLED or Samsung. Nice to hear about more game features added. I hope Sony adds VRR but since the PS4 doesn't support it the chances are slim. I can see 2019 LG OLED add VRR even if they still have HDMI 2.0b.

CNET has their predictions up today for CES. Nothing we haven't really heard of. Im thinking LG will carry over their 2018 OLED panels for 2019 will little to no improvements except maybe for 8K. Its all about 8K, new processing and HDMI 2.1 features for 2019 IMHO.
https://www.cnet.com/news/ces-2019-tvs-preview-get-ready-for-8k-ai-rollable-oled-with-alexa/


----------



## stl8k

*LG Display Will Be Promoting Transparency in 2019*

Expect a big push by LG Display around consumer transparency in 2019.






Typical cadences would suggest consumer products in 2020.

And, for a sense of how much exposure LGD is getting, the video above has 1M views in its first day. Going out on a limb that that dwarfs the readership of posts in this thread 

Any informed guess on what tech is shrouded in red at the beginning of the video?


----------



## zetruz

stl8k said:


> Expect a big push by LG Display around consumer transparency in 2019.
> 
> https://youtu.be/_yxs4IS9HXU
> 
> Typical cadences would suggest consumer products in 2020.
> 
> And, for a sense of how much exposure LGD is getting, the video above has 1M views in its first day. Going out on a limb that that dwarfs the readership of posts in this thread
> 
> Any informed guess on what tech is shrouded in red at the beginning of the video?


Couldn't you put that in front of a normal OLED TV, showing the same picture, to increase brightness?


----------



## rikkyjames

fafrd said:


> https://www.oled-info.com/bloomberg-lg-plans-start-offering-rollable-tvs-2019
> 
> and https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-aims-sell-over-1-million-oled-tv-panels-japanese-tv-makers-2019
> 
> "According to its plans, LG Display aims to ship around 2.9 million OLED TV panels in 2018, and the Korean panel maker expects that its production capacity expansion will allow it to ship around* 4 million panels in 2019*."
> 
> "LGD's largest customer is LG Electronics, but the company is also enjoying strong sales to Japanese TV makers. The Nikkei Asian Review says that in 2018 the company will ship 500,000 panels to Sony and 200,000 to Panasonic, and [/b]next year it expects to increase its shipments to Sony to 850,000 units and to Panasonic to 300,000 units. [/b]LG Electronics OLED TV market share will be around 50-60% in 2019."
> 
> 50% would mean 850,000 or 21% of WOLED panels going to other customers including Philips while 60% would mean only 450,000 or 11% going to non-Sony-or-Panasonic-or-LGE customers...
> 
> And 38% year-on-year volume growth means we can probably expect to see a nic continuation of the year-over-year price drops in MSRP and discounted November pricing that we have come to expect .


You mention price drops but as far as I can see (in the UK at least) the prices are actually higher this year compared to last and have been for quite some time. Also LG seemed to carry over the 2017 models well into 2018. That might have had something to do with the world cup taking place and them wanting to keep shifting inventory or they had a load of stock they were struggling to shift.

Certainly haven't seen the wholesale price drops of previous years in the UK with regards to LG themselves ...


----------



## ALMA

rikkyjames said:


> You mention price drops but as far as I can see (in the UK at least) the prices are actually higher this year compared to last and have been for quite some time. Also LG seemed to carry over the 2017 models well into 2018. That might have had something to do with the world cup taking place and them wanting to keep shifting inventory or they had a load of stock they were struggling to shift.
> 
> Certainly haven't seen the wholesale price drops of previous years in the UK with regards to LG themselves ...



Brexit? In Germany the OLED prices are lower than ever. 77C8 for 3999€, at BF sales 55B87 reaches in some regions 999€, the 65B87 1499€! 55" OLEDs for 1199-1499€ are normal prices here and 65" around 1799-2499€ from all big manufactures (LG, Sony, Panasonic, Philips).


----------



## dfa973

-Axle- said:


> only a “small number” of TVs supporting HDMI 2.1 video bandwidths will be available in 2019, according to Tobias.
> 
> .......products will be announced with HDMI 2.1-certified gaming-related features such as variable refresh rate (VRR), quick frame transport (QFT), and auto low latency mode (ALLM) to reduce or eliminate lag time and otherwise enhance game play on TVs.


This was expected and also predicted. The path to full HDMI 2.1 will be gradual and more importantly, used for products that actualy *need* the full HDMI 2.1 implementation.



-Axle- said:


> While full-fledged hdmi 2.1 may not appear outside of some 8K prototype or 75”+ set, I really hope the gaming features like VRR are incorporated into the OLEDs and not just Samsung TVs.


VRR for OLED's will come for sure.


----------



## tigertim

ALMA said:


> Brexit? In Germany the OLED prices are lower than ever. 77C8 for 3999€, at BF sales 55B87 reaches in some regions 999€, the 65B87 1499€! 55" OLEDs for 1199-1499€ are normal prices here and 65" around 1799-2499€ from all big manufactures (LG, Sony, Panasonic, Philips).


No was happening way before that....some mainland countries like Germany have always had much lower Oled tv prices than the Uk. Would love for the 77"C8 to be £4,000 in the Uk but alas as only bottomed out at £6,000 i think ?


----------



## helvetica bold

Most likely HDMI 2.1 features but HDMI 2.0b hardware (eARC, VRR) for 4K displays and actual HDMI 2.1 hardware for 8K displays, thoughts? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gorman42

ALMA said:


> Brexit? In Germany the OLED prices are lower than ever. 77C8 for 3999€, at BF sales


WHAT!?! 
In Italy it's never been below €5,500.


----------



## bjaurelio

In terms of the transparent display, how does the required pixel structure for that relate to top emission? Wouldn't top emission with the electronics behind the pixel be required for a transparent display? I'll admit to being ignorant on the subject, but that's the only thing I could think about when watching the video.


----------



## JPbuckwalter

fafrd said:


> Would love it if either an LG x7 or x8 or even a Sony OLED owner could give this experiment a try sometime...



BFI is the primary reason I purchased an 8 series OLED back in June rather than going with a previous model. With 50% BFI, I assumed that the intensity of uniformity deficiencies might be halved in comparison to a non-BFI image when set to the same light output level. In practice, this has indeed been my perception, and luckily the flickering has not bothered me at all. It's worked out well. I'd also like to add that contrary to the opinions of others that I've read, motion is absolutely clearer during even 24 fps material when BFI is engaged. I believe this leads to a 3:2 "cadence", but the blur reduction and uniformity benefits are well worth it for my tastes. I wouldn't buy a new TV without it.


----------



## video_analysis

That makes me hopeful for the future if uniformity improvements have reached their zenith. BFI at 240 hz should further improve those uniformity perceptions, which are hopefully more than just placebo.


----------



## wco81

helvetica bold said:


> Most likely HDMI 2.1 features but HDMI 2.0b hardware (eARC, VRR) for 4K displays and actual HDMI 2.1 hardware for 8K displays, thoughts?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sounds like HDMI.org is behind the schedule it published last year for certifying, testing, etc.

It's too bad CE didn't dumb HDMI for DP.


----------



## ALMA

Samsung´s rOLED TV:


https://nl.letsgodigital.org/uploads/2018/12/samsung-tv.pdf



https://nl.letsgodigital.org/televisies-tvs/samsung-oprolbare-tv/


----------



## videobruce

Oh boy, another new technology. I wonder whats going to be wrong with this one? Gotta love the 13 page "Cross reference" at the end of that .pdf.


----------



## BlueChris

I sense that some Korean company are desperate to find something to overthrown LG.


----------



## stl8k

Here's what looks like the Korean equivalent to Linus Sebastian at the same LG Display showroom Linus posted from a week or so ago:






My eyes don't detect any major differences in PQ between the 8K display shown here and what was shown at CES 2018. Anyone with more critical eyes able to spot differences?


----------



## dkfan9

stl8k said:


> Here's what looks like the Korean equivalent to Linus Sebastian at the same LG Display showroom Linus posted from a week or so ago:
> 
> https://youtu.be/BuT-5J3B5dI
> 
> My eyes don't detect any major differences in PQ between the 8K display shown here and what was shown at CES 2018. Anyone with more critical eyes able to spot differences?


Looking for PQ differences in a video like this vs some other video from last year will be pure guessing. I wouldn't even say it rises to the level of speculation.


----------



## stl8k

dkfan9 said:


> Looking for PQ differences in a video like this vs some other video from last year will be pure guessing. I wouldn't even say it rises to the level of speculation.


Same content was being shown. Videos are high res. Thought a sophisticated person might for example be able to spot say a +10% brightness diff.


----------



## videobruce

BlueChris said:


> I sense that some Korean company are desperate to find something to overthrown LG.


Samsh*t is the one that needs to be overthrown!  
Then they can take their "LED" TV fraudulent marketing lie with them!


----------



## dkfan9

stl8k said:


> Same content was being shown. Videos are high res. Thought a sophisticated person might for example be able to spot say a +10% brightness diff.


Different cameras alone would make it too potentially different to trust. Then add in different post software, different settings at any point in the chain, etc, and youre more likely to see those differences than small differences in the TVs.


----------



## stl8k

Nice 2019 prognostication by fafrd in this and other threads...

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1546474535

We should see other LG Display OLED licensees announcing similar products over the next few days.


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> You need BFI, so a vanilla refresh rate of 192Hz would be needed to deliver 50% [email protected]
> 
> Or, if WOLEDs add a sevond blanking control (akin to the backlight strobe on a FALD LED/LCD), then a native refresh rate of 96Hz woukd suffice (since the blanking control doubles the effective refresh rate).
> 
> LG supported 120Hz in 2018, and LG supported BFI in 2018, but not together (50% BFI only at 60Hz).
> 
> Now tuat they are startibg to make noise about 'fully' supporting 120Hz refresh rates in 2019, I'll be interested to see whether that translates to support for 50% [email protected] (meaning an effective refresh rate of 240Hz)...


Ok, so now LG has announced they'll be doing "an upgraded black frame insertion system called ’OLED Motion Pro’ that now operates at 100/120Hz (compared to 50/60Hz last year) and with shorter black frame cycle (25% vs. 50% last year)." (source), what does this mean for 24fps material? No more 3:2 forced cadence I hope and... more brightness and better motion? More brightness and worse motion?
Thanks in advance.


Also paging @*Mark Rejhon* that here and in previous posts mentioned that with VRR it would be possible to get great 24fps motion reproduction on current OLEDs. Now VRR will be present in 2019 models, with the above mentioned BFI functionality. Does this change anything? Say on an HTPC with an AMD GPU (VRR compatible), for instance.


----------



## Wizziwig

Sounds like another idiotic move from the TV industry (Sony did the same thing on their top LCDs in 2018). 120Hz BFI is worthless. It actually adds blur instead of removing it when all your sources are 60Hz or less. You just get image duplication/ghosting. I guess it will never sink in that flicker is not something that needs "fixing". The image is supposed to flicker if it's going to offer any improved motion resolution without resorting to interpolation artifacts. 

What they really needed to offer is a mode where flicker stays at 60Hz but the duty cycle (and persistence) of the visible image is reduced from 8ms to 4ms compared to the 2018 models. That would have required a corresponding increase in brightness but you're not going to get that from the same old 2018 panel.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

TBH, I think the main issue is that the current implementation of BFI on 2018 OLEDs results in even 120Hz video signals essentially being truncated to 60fps.


----------



## Wizziwig

What 120Hz video signals? 99.9% of people are watching sources at 60Hz or less. I just want to see CRT-level motion resolution on a TV again in my lifetime.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Sounds like another idiotic move from the TV industry (Sony did the same thing on their top LCDs in 2018). 120Hz BFI is worthless. It actually adds blur instead of removing it when all your sources are 60Hz or less. You just get image duplication/ghosting. I guess it will never sink in that flicker is not something that needs "fixing". The image is supposed to flicker if it's going to offer any improved motion resolution without resorting to interpolation artifacts.
> 
> What they really needed to offer is a mode where flicker stays at 60Hz but the duty cycle (and persistence) of the visible image is reduced from 8ms to 4ms compared to the 2018 models. That would have required a corresponding increase in brightness but you're not going to get that from the same old 2018 panel.


I think you've got it wrong but we'll need to wait to see what the actual specs and performance measures are.

To me, it seems as though LGs partnership with NHK is paying real dividends in terms of a renewed focus on motion performance. Here is a repeat of a post I just added to the LG HDMI 2.1 prediction thread:

The wording is vague enough that we're going to need to wait for first owners to report on what actual options are supported to have any real insight into how the 'OLED Motion Pro' has been implemented, but it almost-certainly represents a significant upgrade to the backpkane.

I can concieve of three obvious options:

1/ Double native backplane refresh speed from 120Hz to 240Hz. A backplane that is fast-enough to refresh [email protected] will also be able to refresh [email protected], so if the 8K WOLED supports 120Hz refresh, this might be the 'easiest' option.

A backplane with 240Hz native refresh rate would support 50% BFI @ 120Hz and would also support 25% BFI @ 60Hz, but cannot support 25% BFI @ 120Hz, so we'll need to wait to see what LG's reference to BFI at '120Hz and with shorter black frame cycle (25% vs. 50% of last year)' translates to to understand whether this 'simple' solution could be involved or not.

2/ Addition of a seperate 'blanking' control to the backplane (as Mark Rejhorn and I have discussed several times over the past 2 years). This involves the addition of another transistor within each subpixel, so it is a more significant (and more expensive, in terms of additional yield loss) solution, but this option would support 25% BFI @ 120Hz and does not require 'speeding up' the backplane to a native refresh rate of 240Hz, so if 25% BFI @ 120Hz is supprted but the 8K WOLED only supports 60fps (and not a full [email protected] refresh), this may be how it's been done.

3/ A backplane that supports [email protected] native refresh rate is capable of writing one row of pixels every 1/259,200th of a second (259.1kHz row write speed), and if the backplane has been modified to support row-write speeds that are twice as fast (518.4kHz), this write speed would be needed to support [email protected] refresh but can also be used to support 25% BFI @ 120Hz with 4K content if it is designed to support a refresh architecture more sophisticated than the simple 'full-frame-refresh described in option 1.

By alternating between the write of one line of the new frame and writing to black (blanking) another line of the old frame, 120Hz BFI of 25%, 50%, 75%, or theoretically almost any % could be supported.

This would also be the easiest way to support VRR, since a framerate of any integer divisor of 518.4kHz could be supported.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this is what LG has implemented: increase line write speed to 518.4KHz and use it in a way that is not possible for scanning-backlight LED/LCD (line-granurality blanking rather than backlight segment-granularity blanking).

In terms of the earlier posts on 25% BFI, it is correct that 25% BFI is less effective than 50% BFI (50% more persistance and persistance-based motion blur) but the hope and expectation is that any BFI solution supporting 25% BFI also supports 75% BFI, and 75% BFI has half the perisitance of 50% BFI.

The light loss associated with 75% BFI will be twice that of 50% BFI (so 1/4 brighess instead of 1/2 brightness) but I'm also hoping that LG will eventually figure out that BFI means they can use the full HDR peak brightness levels for SDR content without any impact on aging/lifetime.

1ms @ 600 cd/m2 ages (and generates heat) exactly the same as 4ms @ 150cd/m2, so there is absolutely no reason for engagement of BFI when viewing SDR content to result in and noticable decrease in brightness.

If LG has implemented 'OLED Motion Pro' in a manner that supports 75% BFI without sacrificing brighness, the result will be a decrease in persistance from 8.3ms to 2.1ms at brightness levels of at least 150cd/m2 peak and possibly as high as 250cd/m2 peak (1/4 of 1000cd/m2). 2.1ms is getting close to plasma-like persistance levels of 1.7ms...

We'll need to wait for all the specs to be fully announced and tested, but it's looking to me as though 2019 may prove to be the year LG finally had the confidence to step to the front and start leading the industry...


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> Ok, so now LG has announced they'll be doing "an upgraded black frame insertion system called ’OLED Motion Pro’ that now operates at 100/120Hz (compared to 50/60Hz last year) and with shorter black frame cycle (25% vs. 50% last year)." (source), what does this mean for 24fps material? *No more 3:2 forced cadence *I hope and... more brightness and better motion? More brightness and worse motion?
> Thanks in advance.


I don't have a 2018 WOLED, but if I understand correctly, your reference to 3:2 forced cadence implies 24fps content was translated to 3:[email protected] and then 50% BFI was applied to that.

As a minimum, I think we can be sure from what LG has released yesterday that the 2018 WOLEDs will support 50% BFI @ 120Hz, meaning 24fps content can be displayed with 50% BFI without involving 3:2. Of course, without engaging motion interpolation, 24fps @ 120Hz w/ 50% BFI only reduces persistance by 10% (from 41.7ms to 37.5ms) so it's not going to deliver much in the way of any noticable improvement...



> Also paging @*Mark Rejhon* that here and in previous posts mentioned that with VRR it would be possible to get great 24fps motion reproduction on current OLEDs. Now VRR will be present in 2019 models, with the above mentioned BFI functionality. Does this change anything? Say on an HTPC with an AMD GPU (VRR compatible), for instance.


Mark is far more of an expert than me on the od film projectors, but if I remember correctly, he stated that projectors either had 2 shutters or 3, translating the native refresh rates 48Hz or 72Hz, which means effective native refresh rates of 96 or 144Hz when the blanking interval is taken into consideration.

If the blanking intervals and frame flash intervals are of equal duration, this should mean that the 2018 WOLEDs could at least support 24fps thranslated to 96Hz dual-shutter mode. If the blanking intervals are shorter than the frame flash intervals, that is not going to be supported through HDMI and would need support through the native panel control (as I just touched on in my earlier post - the panel have been changed in a way tat supports any BFI% at any feamerate...).


----------



## Wizziwig

That's a lot of "ifs". Based on how poorly the TV industry has handled motion resolution on their TVs (actually regressing in many cases), I'm not holding my breath. Especially when it comes to LG who doesn't have the best track record of caring about the issue - it took 5 years for them to even add basic BFI (only after Panasonic and Sony beat them to it).

I do agree that it sounds like they upgraded their TCON to handle higher panel refresh rates. But they could also have just divided the panel into multiple TCONs as many of the LCDs do. If they're willing to demonstrate "Motion Pro" feature at CES, I will try to record some 1000 fps video to see what's actually going on.


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> TBH, I think the main issue is that the current implementation of BFI on 2018 OLEDs results in even 120Hz video signals essentially being truncated to 60fps.


No, the main deficit of LGs 2018 BFI was that it only functioned at 60Hz, meaning unbearable flicker for many and persistance of 8.3ms in the best case.

We'll need to wait to see the actial specs on the 2019 WOLEDs, but as a minimum, they shoukd support BFI @ 120Hz, meaning less noticable flicker for those sensitive to it.

The reference to 'black frame cycle of 25% compared to 50% of last year' is odd, but hopefully translates to support of at least 50% BFI @ 120Hz (meaning persistance of 4.2ms) and possibly support for 75% BFI @ 120Hz (meaning persistance of 2.1ms).

Icing on the cake will be if LG maintains brightness when BFI is engaged - there is absolutely no reason to lose brightness when engaging BFI on SDR content with a WOLED...


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> That's a lot of "ifs". Based on how poorly the TV industry has handled motion resolution on their TVs (actually regressing in many cases), I'm not holding my breath. Especially when it comes to LG who doesn't have the best track record of caring about the issue - it took 5 years for them to even add basic BFI (only after Panasonic and Sony beat them to it).
> 
> I do agree that it sounds like they upgraded their TCON to handle higher panel refresh rates. But they could also have just divided the panel into multiple TCONs as many of the LCDs do. *If they're willing to demonstrate "Motion Pro" feature at CES, I will try to record some 1000 fps video to see what's actually going on.*


That would be fantastic.

And when it comes to LG's track record on motion, I'm in total agreement but am hoping that the partnership they have announced with NHK represents a catalyst for a different direction.

NHK has a clear focus on motion performance and a keen understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of both OLED and LCD...


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> I think you've got it wrong but we'll need to wait to see what the actual specs and performance measures are.
> 
> To me, it seems as though LGs partnership with NHK is paying real dividends in terms of a renewed focus on motion performance. Here is a repeat of a post I just added to the LG HDMI 2.1 prediction thread:
> 
> The wording is vague enough that we're going to need to wait for first owners to report on what actual options are supported to have any real insight into how the 'OLED Motion Pro' has been implemented, but it almost-certainly represents a significant upgrade to the backpkane.
> 
> I can concieve of three obvious options:
> 
> 1/ Double native backplane refresh speed from 120Hz to 240Hz. A backplane that is fast-enough to refresh [email protected] will also be able to refresh [email protected], so if the 8K WOLED supports 120Hz refresh, this might be the 'easiest' option.
> 
> A backplane with 240Hz native refresh rate would support 50% BFI @ 120Hz and would also support 25% BFI @ 60Hz, but cannot support 25% BFI @ 120Hz, so we'll need to wait to see what LG's reference to BFI at '120Hz and with shorter black frame cycle (25% vs. 50% of last year)' translates to to understand whether this 'simple' solution could be involved or not.
> 
> 2/ Addition of a seperate 'blanking' control to the backplane (as Mark Rejhorn and I have discussed several times over the past 2 years). This involves the addition of another transistor within each subpixel, so it is a more significant (and more expensive, in terms of additional yield loss) solution, but this option would support 25% BFI @ 120Hz and does not require 'speeding up' the backplane to a native refresh rate of 240Hz, so if 25% BFI @ 120Hz is supprted but the 8K WOLED only supports 60fps (and not a full [email protected] refresh), this may be how it's been done.
> 
> 3/ A backplane that supports [email protected] native refresh rate is capable of writing one row of pixels every 1/259,200th of a second (259.1kHz row write speed), and if the backplane has been modified to support row-write speeds that are twice as fast (518.4kHz), this write speed would be needed to support [email protected] refresh but can also be used to support 25% BFI @ 120Hz with 4K content if it is designed to support a refresh architecture more sophisticated than the simple 'full-frame-refresh described in option 1.
> 
> By alternating between the write of one line of the new frame and writing to black (blanking) another line of the old frame, 120Hz BFI of 25%, 50%, 75%, or theoretically almost any % could be supported.
> 
> This would also be the easiest way to support VRR, since a framerate of any integer divisor of 518.4kHz could be supported.
> 
> I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this is what LG has implemented: increase line write speed to 518.4KHz and use it in a way that is not possible for scanning-backlight LED/LCD (line-granurality blanking rather than backlight segment-granularity blanking).
> 
> In terms of the earlier posts on 25% BFI, it is correct that 25% BFI is less effective than 50% BFI (50% more persistance and persistance-based motion blur) but the hope and expectation is that any BFI solution supporting 25% BFI also supports 75% BFI, and 75% BFI has half the perisitance of 50% BFI.
> 
> The light loss associated with 75% BFI will be twice that of 50% BFI (so 1/4 brighess instead of 1/2 brightness) but I'm also hoping that LG will eventually figure out that BFI means they can use the full HDR peak brightness levels for SDR content without any impact on aging/lifetime.
> 
> 1ms @ 600 cd/m2 ages (and generates heat) exactly the same as 4ms @ 150cd/m2, so there is absolutely no reason for engagement of BFI when viewing SDR content to result in and noticable decrease in brightness.
> 
> If LG has implemented 'OLED Motion Pro' in a manner that supports 75% BFI without sacrificing brighness, the result will be a decrease in persistance from 8.3ms to 2.1ms at brightness levels of at least 150cd/m2 peak and possibly as high as 250cd/m2 peak (1/4 of 1000cd/m2). 2.1ms is getting close to plasma-like persistance levels of 1.7ms...
> 
> We'll need to wait for all the specs to be fully announced and tested, but it's looking to me as though 2019 may prove to be the year LG finally had the confidence to step to the front and start leading the industry...


Great analysis, fafrd. Much appreciated.


----------



## circumstances

Any official Sony announcements regarding their 2019 OLED offerings?


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> Not currently; the future is when televisions have enough hertz (e.g. 240Hz), the responsibility of precision BFI algorithms can be doffed to the source instead instead of the display (e.g. a home theater device that generates the BFI patterns) -- *I already have experimental software that does this (inquire within) via precision manipulation of variable refresh cycles and other tricks. I might be able to begin selling it if there's enough demand, once displays have a refresh rate range that's compatible with reproducing the original rolling shutter.*
> 
> Also, BFI to DLP can be very iffy. It can reduce bit depth, because colors are temporally generated, and BFI at 50% halves the number of bits per refresh cycle, so you can get more banding/artifacts during BFI on a DLP. To compensate, one needs to run the pixels at twice the Hz, or use two DLP chips per color channel (6 DLP chips instead of 3) to get the same color quality and brightness as non-BFI operation.


Well Mark, with LG's recently-announced 2019 WOLEDs supporting 120Hz HDMI w/ VRR and BFI (probably 50%) on top of that (meaning a 240Hz effective refresh rate), it might soon be time to understand what your 'experimental software' can do and whether you're looking for beta testers .

If I understand correctly, software can transform a 24fps source into a 96fps double-shutter stream to be fed through HDMI 2.1 with support for VRR - will your experimental software do this conversion?

Still an unknown whether LG's VRR solution means it will display a 96fps stream at a native 96Hz rate, but if so, that should deliver a 'cinema quality' double-shutter presentation similar to what projectors of old presented, no (at 50% blanking interval)?

And no idea whether LGs 2019 WOLEDs will support BFI on top of VRR, but if so, that would allow persistance to be reduced from 31.25ms (accounting for the frame repeat) to 26.0ms with a 75% blanking interval (probably at the expense of reduced light output and possibly also increased flicker). No idea whether this might 'better' or not.

Would be interested in your thoughts as to what your homemade software could do with LGs 2019 WOLEDs...


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> Well Mark, with LG's recently-announced 2019 WOLEDs supporting 120Hz HDMI w/ VRR and BFI (probably 50%) on top of that (meaning a 240Hz effective refresh rate), it might soon be time to understand what your 'experimental software' can do and whether you're looking for beta testers
> [cut]
> 
> Would be interested in your thoughts as to what your homemade software could do with LGs 2019 WOLEDs...


Yup! This might be the time to share some details on what's on your mind, Mark.


----------



## stl8k

Could someone with Korean language skills explain what this person is referring to when comparing Phillips and LG OLED?

https://twitter.com/isotoxin390/status/1080729499795423232

------------
KJ
‏
iSotoxin390
Jan 3

일단 내가 이해하고 있는 2019년형

1. 패널 구조는 필립스 방식을 채용 (작년 엘지 제품들은 63% 레드가 커졌고 필립스는 100% 더 커졌고 캘리 기준 880 cd/m2)

2. 인풋래그는 1080/4k 모두 13ms (VRR로 추가 개선 가능성 존재)

3. 트루 HDMI 2.1 (4k 120hz)

4. 120hz 입력 BFI (240hz TCON?)

Translated from Korean by Microsoft
Once I understand the 2019 type 1. The panel structure was adopted by Philips (last year's Elg products were 63% red, Philips was 100% bigger, and the Calley standard 880 CD/m2)


----------



## bombyx

stl8k said:


> Once I understand the 2019 type 1. The panel structure was adopted by Philips (last year's Elg products were 63% red, Philips was 100% bigger, and the Calley standard 880 CD/m2)


So , all the 2019 OLED will have the same panel as the 55OLED803 from Philips ? 




The 63% and 100% numbers make sense : ( it's 65% and 103% in my chart )


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> So , all the 2019 OLED will have the same panel as the 55OLED803 from Philips ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 63% and 100% numbers make sense : ( it's 65% and 103% in my chart )


If Philips was a later 2018 launch, this makes alot of sense.

This is good news. It translates to 103% slower aging of red compared to the 2016/17 WOLEDs and 24% slower aging of red compared to the 2018 WOLEDs (which makes sense because red proved to be the most vulnerable color to burn-in, in both 2016 and 2017).

Green was the second-most vulnerable color to burn-in in 2016 and 2017 and this 2019 subpixel layout corresponds to 25% slower aging of green compared to 2016 (and 34% faster aging of green compared to 2018 WOLEDs).

And Blue and White, which have been the colors least susceptible to burn-in, will age 12% and 13% faster than they did in 2016/17 (respectively).

Perhaps we can call this further reinforcement of red the 'CNN effect' .


----------



## ALMA

LG Display showing 65" 8K OLED at CES. First prototype with top emission?


https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-unveil-new-transparent-automotive-and-cso-oleds-ces-2019



Also very interesting:




> *LG Display will also showcase its new 65-inch UHD crystal motion OLED, which achieves the fastest response speed of 3.5m / s among existing TV *panels at this year's exhibition. It is an explanation that sports and action cinema realize real feeling image without attraction.



https://translate.google.com/transl...ttp://www.zdnet.co.kr/view/?no=20190106091903


----------



## mreendoor

*INT Tech unveils its ultra-high density OLED display technology*

Taiwan-based INT Tech unveiled its proprietary glass-based high pixel density OLED technology, that enables the production of over 2,200 PPI displays on glass


This technology can compete with OLED microdisplays (Silicon based) for high-end VR solutions for 2 merits: they can be larger than silicon-based OLED microdisplays to achieve higher FOV, and they are at a much lower cost.


We now have 161 patent applications and 50-some have already been granted


INT’s UHPD platform is a proprietary glass-based RGB AMOLED display that delivers a leap forward in pixel density (> 2200 PPI) — and achieves 4K resolution.


Compared to silicon-based sensors, glass- or flexible substrate-based sensors can be developed in flat-panel fabs and manufactured at much lower cost, according to INT


Chu Our head count is 46 people,” Chu says. “I used to lead companies with tens of thousands of employees. I lost interest in scale. I like to think these 46 people can deliver the results of hundreds of people


https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1334142


----------



## stl8k

*LG Display R&D Highlights*

It's always interesting to see what LG Display feels like are its most important R&D projects. I've excerpted from their latest 6-K (link below) for 2017 and 2018.

I'd be interested to hear analysis of this from 2017:

"(10) Developed the world’s first 65-inch UHD OLED television product utilizing GIP
• Strengthened product competitiveness through application of the world’s first oxide based UHD GIP technology"

https://fintel.io/doc/sec/1290109/000119312518326063/d601780d6k.htm

-----------

Achievements in 2017



(1)	
Developed 5.7-inch QHD+ full vision display (LG Electronics)



• 
Developed a full vision display smartphone product (G6) through strategic collaboration with other LG Group companies



• 
Applied first 18:9 screen aspect ratio with 4-corner round display



(2)	
Developed mobile LTPS 30Hz product (SH 5.1-inch FHD)



• 
Secured 30Hz low-frequency drive technology based on LTPS TFT-LCD



• 
Reduced logic power consumption through 30Hz low-frequency drive (reduced from 96mW to 69mW on 5.1-inch FHD)



(3)	
Developed and released the world’s first Crystal Sound OLED, or CSO, television product



• 
Released product with a new platform concept through development of OLED panel product with integrated speakers



• 
Delivered OLED television product that achieves differentiated value not only in picture quality and design, but also sound quality



(4)	
Developed notebook oxide product (13.9-inch, Ultra HD)



• 
Achieved high definition/narrow bezel product through application of oxide BCE GIP technology



• 
Delivered low power consumption product through application of low refresh rate, or LRR, technology



(5)	
Developed medical monitor product for surgical endoscope (27.0-inch, Ultra HD)



• 
Newly entered the medical devices market through development and production of medical monitor product for surgical endoscope



17

Table of Contents
• 
Achieved high definition (3,840 x 2,160), high luminance (800 nit) and high contrast ratio (1,300:1)



• 
Implemented coverglass direct bonding applying our own manufacturing processes (M6 line)



(6)	
Developed the world’s first four-side borderless monitor with a resolution of 8K4K (31.5-inch 8K4K oxide)



• 
Pioneered Ultra HD Premium MNT market through development of the world’s first four-side borderless monitor with a resolution of 8K4K



• 
Delivered Ultra HD based on oxide GIP (280 PPI with a resolution of 7680x4320)



• 
Delivered wide color gamut (Adobe RGB 100%/DCI 98%), four-side borderless



(7)	
Developed the world’s largest automotive Center Information Display (“CID”) product (15.4-inch Widescreen Ultra Extended Graphics Array (“WUXGA”))



• 
Developed the world’s largest auto component display in the automotive industry



• 
Guaranteed the first 1000hr reliability in the automotive industry



(8)	
Developed the world’s first 88-inch Ultra Stretch display product



• 
Strengthened competitiveness through application of smart (digital) stepper



(9)	
Developed products utilizing U-IPS (75-inch/65-inch/55-inch/49-inch, Ultra HD)



• 
Utilized U-IPS technology to strengthen product competitiveness by improving panel transmittance rate and reflectivity



(10)	
Developed the world’s first 65-inch UHD OLED television product utilizing GIP



• 
Strengthened product competitiveness through application of the world’s first oxide based UHD GIP technology

Achievements in 2018



(1)	
Developed the world’s first glass-integrated LCD television product (Art Glass Series)



• 
Achieved LCD modular appearance and simplicity in design by using glass material throughout product (including the panel, light guide plate and back cover)



• 
Strengthened competitiveness of frameless design by decreasing bezel size from 7.8mm to 5.9mm



(2)	
Developed our first 5.8-inch Ultra HD Mobile 4K product



• 
Developed our first Ultra HD mobile product



• 
Achieved high luminance, low power consumption and HD resolution by applying Ultra HD RGBW (M+) pixel structure



(3)	
Developed the world’s first 5.8-inch mobile FHD product applying M+



• 
Our first product applying camera notch concept technology



(4)	
Developed the world’s first four-side borderless curved monitor with 1900R curvature radius



• 
Our first product applying glass 0.25T (etching) bezel printing/reverse bonding process technology



• 
Strengthened product competitiveness with our first shared design applying three-side/four-side borderless TFT Mask



• 
Achieved high-speed driving at 144Hz, high color recall (DCI 98%) and HDR (peak luminance 550nit)



(5)	
Developed the world’s first 34-inch large-screen monitor/high-resolution four-sided borderless HDR



• 
Pioneered HD Premium 21:9 monitor market through development of the world’s first WUHD(5K2K), four-side borderless monitor



• 
Delivered Ultra HD (DCI 98Z%, sRGB 135%) by applying Adv. KSF LED PKG technology



• 
Achieved high luminance (HDR 600); typ. 450 nit, maximum 600nit



(6)	
Developed LGD 6.01QHD+M+ Full Screen Display (LG Electronics)



• 
Developed a full screen display concept smartphone product (G7) through strategic collaboration with other LG Group companies



• 
Implemented a full screen display product concept through achievement of our first 19.5:9 screen aspect ratio and lower bezel of 2.7mm



(7)	
Developed the world’s narrowest bezel videowall product (0.44mm bezel, 55-inch FHD)



18

Table of Contents
• 
Achieved product competitiveness by developing the world’s narrowest bezel (originally 0.9mm g 0.44mm, Even Bezel)



(8)	
Developed the world’s first automotive glassless 3D cluster product



• 
Developed FHD glassless barrier type 3D model (12.3 inches, 167 ppi level)



• 
Achieved customers’ eye-tracking movement by applying a top moving barrier panel at the top of the panel



• 
Improved adhesion accuracy of image panel and barrier panel by using OCA bonding technology



• 
Improved barrier contrast ratio by applying a copper-based metal barrier panel


----------



## stl8k

ALMA said:


> LG Display showing 65" 8K OLED at CES. First prototype with top emission?
> 
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-unveil-new-transparent-automotive-and-cso-oleds-ces-2019
> 
> 
> 
> Also very interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...ttp://www.zdnet.co.kr/view/?no=20190106091903


Will be a really fun CES!

Would think a macro shot of the pixels would be definitive of TEOLED or other major change in the emission architecture.

The only reference I see (via Google Search) from LGD about a 3.5ms OLED response time is from way back in 2009 talking about R&D work that resulted in 3.5ms GTG.


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> LG Display showing 65" 8K OLED at CES. *First prototype with top emission?*
> 
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-unveil-new-transparent-automotive-and-cso-oleds-ces-2019


Almost certainly.



> Also very interesting:
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...ttp://www.zdnet.co.kr/view/?no=20190106091903


Need to undestand mre about this - the fact that LGD is touting speed bodes well for release of IGZO backplanes supporting 120Hz Native 8K Refresh as part if the top-emission release in 2020...

Remains to be seen what top-emission and faster backplanes will mean for 4K panels, but I am hope ful we'll see 4K WOLEDs with both in 2020 for 2 reasons:

-Top-emission will result in 200-300% slower aging and LG is still fighting the burn-in wars. They woulf be crazy not to deploy that slower-aging technology on their 4K WOLEDs in 2020 (not to mention the possibility of increased HDR peak brightness) 

-The split-column 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate LG has launched in 2019 is a significant step forward (catching up with the motiin performance of scanning-backlight-based LED/LCD) but comes at a price: doyble the number of TCON controllers they needed with single-column refresh. Split-column refresh of 8K @ 120Hz (240Hz Effective Refresh Rate) means any quadrant representing a 4K screen is refreshing at a 240Hz Native Refresh Rate and by using that same architecture for 2020 4K WOLEDs, LG will be able to support all of the new features introduced in 2019 (VRR, 120Hz BFI) with only half the TCON controllers needed in 2019.

So whether it's called 'Tick' or it's called 'Tock', 2020 is looking to be a very big year for advances n WOLED TV (4K @ 240Hz Native Refresh with greatly extended lifetime / immunity from burn-in and very likely a sizeable increase in HDR peak brightness levels to boot!).


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> Ok, so now LG has announced they'll be doing "an upgraded black frame insertion system called ’OLED Motion Pro’ that now operates at 100/120Hz (compared to 50/60Hz last year) and with shorter black frame cycle (25% vs. 50% last year)." (source), what does this mean for 24fps material? No more 3:2 forced cadence I hope and... more brightness and better motion? More brightness and worse motion?
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> 
> Also paging @*Mark Rejhon* that here and in previous posts mentioned that with VRR it would be possible to get great 24fps motion reproduction on current OLEDs. *Now VRR will be present in 2019 models, with the above mentioned BFI functionality. Does this change anything? Say on an HTPC with an AMD GPU (VRR compatible), for instance.*


I've tried to alert Mark to the calls for participation in this thread, but he has chosen to post in the HDMI2.1 Prediction thread I started: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...1-2019-oled-tv-lineup-ces-5.html#post57379398

He has confirmed that he will be beta-testing a software package that will allow an HTPC with 48Gbps HDMI2.1 (Ultra) to deliver 24fps material as a double-shutter 50% BFI VRR stream at 96Hz on 2019 LG WOLEDs...


----------



## 8mile13

btw looks like this year OLED laptops will popup. I know there are a few 13'' ones right now but not much beyond that. Articles popup stating that Samsung will demo 13,3'', 14'' and 15,6'' laptop panels at CES, is in negotiation with HP, Dell and Lenovo..The newest HP Spectre 15'' convertible will have a OLED panel.


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> I've tried to alert Mark to the calls for participation in this thread, but he has chosen to post in the HDMI2.1 Prediction thread I started: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...1-2019-oled-tv-lineup-ces-5.html#post57379398
> 
> He has confirmed that he will be beta-testing a software package that will allow an HTPC with 48Gbps HDMI2.1 (Ultra) to deliver 24fps material as a double-shutter 50% BFI VRR stream at 96Hz on 2019 LG WOLEDs...


I wrote to him. Thanks a lot for the heads up.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Will be a really fun CES!
> 
> Would think a macro shot of the pixels would be definitive of TEOLED or other major change in the emission architecture.
> 
> The only reference I see (via Google Search) from LGD about a 3.5ms OLED response time is from way back in 2009 talking about R&D work that resulted in 3.5ms GTG.


As we speculated (perhaps on another thread), the 3.5ms is a reference to MPRT (persistance): https://www.tomsguide.com/us/lg-display-88-inch-8k-tv-speaker,news-28977.html

"The company will also be showing an OLED (CMO) display with the world’s fastest *Motion Picture Response Time of 3.5ms*, which will be optimized for sports and action movies."

I have absolutely no idea what 'CMO' is a reference to.

And an MPRT of 3.5ms is very odd on an OLED panel with 120Hz Native Refresh Rate and 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate. Hopefully Mark from Blurbusters can help us understand what is going on.. 

But in any case, LG beating their chest about how low their MPRT is is great news .


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> As we speculated (perhaps on another thread), the 3.5ms is a reference to MPRT (persistance): https://www.tomsguide.com/us/lg-display-88-inch-8k-tv-speaker,news-28977.html
> 
> "The company will also be showing an OLED (CMO) display with the world’s fastest *Motion Picture Response Time of 3.5ms*, which will be optimized for sports and action movies."
> 
> I have absolutely no idea what 'CMO' is a reference to.
> 
> And an MPRT of 3.5ms is very odd on an OLED panel with 120Hz Native Refresh Rate and 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate. Hopefully Mark from Blurbusters can help us understand what is going on..
> 
> But in any case, LG beating their chest about how low their MPRT is is great news .


Curious: Is there a theoretical "hard" upper limit to how fast it can get? (Is there a lower limit to the OLED GtG in seconds that physics gets in the way of surpassing?) Many materials have a semi-fixed excitation curve that can be compressed, but only to a certain extent.


----------



## dkfan9

fafrd said:


> As we speculated (perhaps on another thread), the 3.5ms is a reference to MPRT (persistance): https://www.tomsguide.com/us/lg-display-88-inch-8k-tv-speaker,news-28977.html
> 
> "The company will also be showing an OLED (CMO) display with the world’s fastest *Motion Picture Response Time of 3.5ms*, which will be optimized for sports and action movies."
> 
> I have absolutely no idea what 'CMO' is a reference to.
> 
> And an MPRT of 3.5ms is very odd on an OLED panel with 120Hz Native Refresh Rate and 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate. Hopefully Mark from Blurbusters can help us understand what is going on..
> 
> But in any case, LG beating their chest about how low their MPRT is is great news .


I saw in one of the other articles, Crystal Motion OLED


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Curious: Is there a theoretical "hard" upper limit to how fast it can get? (Is there a lower limit to the OLED GtG in seconds that physics gets in the way of surpassing?) Many materials have a semi-fixed excitation curve that can be compressed, but only to a certain extent.


Who knows exactly how they are defining MPRT, but I thought of at least one semi-sensible explanation for the 3.5ms figure: 

We know that LGs 2019 backplane supports a 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate (120Hz refresh with 50% BFI).

This means turning on a row of pixels at time 0 and then turning off (blanking) that same row of pixels 4.17ms later.

Rtings.com has measured various GtG transition times for LGs 2018 WOLEDs, from 0.2-1.7ms for the C8 to 0.2-1.0ms for the E8, to 0.3-1.1ms for the B8 (all timings for 80% and 100% Response Time).

So if we assume that the MPRT (persistance) of 3.5ms is the total pixel ON time of 4.17ms minus the GtG lag of ~0.67ms while the OLED pixel is not yet emitting, the total masured MPRT from LGs 2019 50% BFI @ 120Hz could very well be ~3.5ms...

As far as your question about the WOLED physics, I don't know. But I do know that the signal transition times (Data columns and Row Select) as well as subpixel (capacitor) charging times probably dominate...


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Who knows exactly how they are defining MPRT, but I thought of at least one semi-sensible explanation for the 3.5ms figure:
> 
> We know that LGs 2019 backplane supports a 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate (120Hz refresh with 50% BFI).
> 
> This means turning on a row of pixels at time 0 and then turning off (blanking) that same row of pixels 4.17ms later.
> 
> Rtings.com has measured various GtG transition times for LGs 2018 WOLEDs, from 0.2-1.7ms for the C8 to 0.2-1.0ms for the E8, to 0.3-1.1ms for the B8 (all timings for 80% and 100% Response Time).
> 
> So if we assume that the MPRT (persistance) of 3.5ms is the total pixel ON time of 4.17ms minus the GtG lag of ~0.67ms while the OLED pixel is not yet emitting, the total masured MPRT from LGs 2019 50% BFI @ 120Hz could very well be ~3.5ms...
> 
> As far as your question about the WOLED physics, I don't know. But I do know that the signal transition times (Data columns and Row Select) as well as subpixel (capacitor) charging times probably dominate...


 @fafrd

I think I have this...

When LG and LGD communicate MPRT (via public marketing not scientific journals), it's an average MPRT (across all GTGs) as seen in this PDF:

https://www.lg.com/global/business/download/resources/id/OLED.pdf

So, assuming that the current 65" UHD consumer OLEDs have MPRT(Avg) = 6. They'll be showing a panel with 42% improvement in that motion metric.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

stl8k said:


> I think I have this...
> 
> When LG and LGD communicate MPRT (via public marketing not scientific journals), it's an average MPRT (across all GTGs) as seen in this PDF:
> 
> https://www.lg.com/global/business/download/resources/id/OLED.pdf
> 
> So, assuming that the current 65" UHD consumer OLEDs have MPRT(Avg) = 6. They'll be showing a panel with 42% improvement in that motion metric.


That's not the only factor, it think it is also MPRT(10%->90%) which sometimes results in MPRT values less than a refresh cycles, out-of-sync with what is human perceived. 

MPRT (10%->90%) diverges up to 20% away from human perceived motion blur once GtG reaches closer to 0. MPRT(10%->90%) only measures the middle 80% of motion blur, from the 10% point thru 90% point. I quote below some more information about why the legacy (10%->90%) has long been done, for measurement cutoffs, but it becomes problematic as GtG approaches 0.

This is why Blur Busters does a different, simpler approach.



fafrd said:


> As we speculated (perhaps on another thread), the 3.5ms is a reference to MPRT (persistance): https://www.tomsguide.com/us/lg-display-88-inch-8k-tv-speaker,news-28977.html


I think it's MPRT(90%) of 3.5 and MPRT(100%) of 1/240.
Relevant scientific paper of MPRT formula: 
http://lcd.creol.ucf.edu/Publications/2017/JAP 121-023108.pdf

Muddying this is it's MPRT(10%->90%) which I don't use at Blur busters. I prefer MPRT(100%), because:



Mark Rejhon said:


> *Scientific Paper Note: Blur Busters Simplification of MPRT*
> 
> 1ms persistence (MPRT100%) = 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec
> 
> This is the Blur Busters simplification of the same MPRT formula found in that mentioned scientific paper, and much easier to calculate off http://www.testufo.com motion tests which standardize at a motionspeed of 960 pixels/sec (very close to 1000 pixels/sec but divisible by common refresh rates as 60Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz).
> 
> We use MPRT(100%) instead of MPRT 10%->90% (in the scientific paper) because the entire MPRT motion blur is getting close to fully equal, so it becomes unnecessary (and more complicated) to exclude the first 10% and last 90% of the MPRT curve. This is an old carryover from GtG benchmarking where GtG is often the GtG90% metric.
> 
> Unlike for GtG, the full 100% of MPRT has actually become increasingly important on the increasingly faster displays (90% decision is an old (and often complicating) carryover from GtG 10%->90%. It's fine for scientific papers, but for end user display benchmarking and marketing to users, I prefer persistence (MPRT100%) because of how GtG's are hitting nearly 0ms, and how the entire MPRT curve (0%-100%) is much more fully important benchmark unlike for GtG curve, because of the camera-shutter equivalence I explained above.
> 
> MPRT 10%->90% sometimes simplifies measurement cutoffs because GtG can coast for a long time (e.g. GtG100% can take several refresh cycles to occur), and getting to MPRT100% requires GtG100%. MPRT was invented in the days of slow pixel response. But now GtG is hitting nearly 0ms -- basically 1ms TN eSports LCDs and 0.1ms OLEDs. And now of a sudden, we're capable of getting MPRT(10%->90%) numbers less than a sample-hold refresh cycle. But that's non-sequitur to me for easier comparisions with an equivalent motion blurs. Like a camera photograph of equivalent shutter length, e.g. a 40" enlargement photo on wall next to a 40" HDTV -- the 1/120sec shutter versus the [email protected] refresh cycle -- the motion blur trail length is exactly the same when GtG=0. Otherwise we'd be seeing 20% less motion blur (e.g. 8 inch blur trail instead of 10 inch blur trail). That's not the case, and thusly, MPRT numbers less than a refresh cycle for sample-hold is now 'deceptive' to me because there's actually a full 20% real-world human-see blur missing -- it's that big amount of missing blur omitted now.
> 
> I understand why MPRT 10%->90% was chosen to make cutoffs easier in the days of ultra-slow GtG, and it made a lot of sense back then to use MPRT 10%->90%. It actually nearly matched perceived motion blur. LCDs were really slow back in the day when MPRT formula was originally invented. You needed to cut off the measurements somehow. So 10%->90% made sense then.
> 
> But as GtG approaches 0, MPRT diverges quite noticeably to my human eyes. There's actually 25% more fully human-perceived motion blur (The missing 20% from 80%) than the number suggests from MPRT(10%->90%) -- *perceived display motion blur cannot be less than a refresh cycle on a perfect 0ms GtG sample-and-hold display, full stop, that breaks laws of physics.* So, that is why MPRT(10%->90%) to me, is now an increasingly legacy flawed metric, and I stick to MPRT(100%) because of that.
> 
> Because Blur Busters is a fan of near-zero GtG displays (TN LCDs, 0.5ms GtG LCDs, 0.1ms OLEDs, DLPs, etc) and that 100% of the MPRT becomes amplified (because it's closer to a PhotoShop linear motion blur all the way from 0% thru 100%) and I actually see 25% more motion blur with my human eyes than the MPRT numbers suggest, on these modern "approaching-zero" GtG displays. (25% is because adding 20% points on top of 80% is adding 25% more motion blur (100%/80% = 1.25)). For me, I find MPRT(10%-90%) a very serious omission that complicates comparision of motion blur, including comparision of motion blur to equivalent camera photographs.
> 
> _(Aside... Maybe I could collaborate on a another peer reviewed piece about this -- I'm open to co-authoring with researchers. It would help standardize motion blur measurements as I'm working on improved benchmarking of motion blur that's simpler, easier, and matches real-world results. I did that peer-review process for my pursuit camera invention (which actually has now become rather easy with an iPhone too, and multiple gaming monitor testers now use my invention). Or maybe I should pay for another SID.org membership and collaborate that way. Open to collaboration with other researchers, feel free to contact me)._
> 
> For more reading about why I like to simplify motion blur mathematics, see Blur Busters Law And The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays. I recently added a paragraph that I use MPRT(100%) instead of MPRT(10%->90%) to reduce confusion about the MPRT formula in use.


----------



## stl8k

Mark Rejhon said:


> That's not the only factor, it think it is also MPRT(10%->90%) which sometimes results in MPRT values less than a refresh cycles, out-of-sync with what is human perceived.
> 
> MPRT (10%->90%) diverges up to 20% away from human perceived motion blur once GtG reaches closer to 0. MPRT(10%->90%) only measures the middle 80% of motion blur, from the 10% point thru 90% point. I quote below some more information about why the legacy (10%->90%) has long been done, for measurement cutoffs, but it becomes problematic as GtG approaches 0.
> 
> This is why Blur Busters does a different, simpler approach.
> 
> 
> I think it's MPRT(90%) of 3.5 and MPRT(100%) of 1/240.
> Relevant scientific paper of MPRT formula:
> http://lcd.creol.ucf.edu/Publications/2017/JAP 121-023108.pdf
> 
> Muddying this is it's MPRT(10%->90%) which I don't use at Blur busters. I prefer MPRT(100%), because:
> 
> 
> 
> Quoted from Future TestUFO Motion Resolution Test (MPRT) - FPD Test Pattern Blu-Ray which I am going to launch for 2019 as an easy visual MPRT test that will give you an estimated MPRT number (MPRT90% = classic sci-paper MPRT and MPRT100% = persistence = same as camera shutter blur of equivalent camera shutter)
> 
> Personally, my preference is to quote persistence as the same number of milliseconds as the equivalent camera shutter.
> 
> In other words a perfect 0ms GtG sample-and-hold 120Hz display has exactly 1/120sec of display motion blur, exactly same amount of motion blur as a camera shutter of 1/120sec for the equivalent physical motion panning speed = equivalence. This is how Blur Busters prefer to benchmark motion blur.
> 
> By doing that, the formula becomes much, much simpler. I conveniently nickname it the "Blur Busters Law".
> 
> *1ms persistence (MPRT100%)
> =
> 1 pixel motion blur per 1000 pixels/second motion*
> 
> Which also translates to physical steps too:
> 
> *1/1000sec persistence or camera shutter
> =
> a blurring of 1/1000th sec worth of motion movement, whether it be thickness of blur in resulting photograph or thickness of blur on screen motion*
> 
> Which is the exact same motion blur for a resulting photograph (perfect 1/120sec shutter) or a display (perfect 1/120 sec 0ms GtG sample-and-hold).
> 
> I prefer to equalize display blur milliseconds to real-world results.
> A perfect 120Hz sample-hold display at 120fps can never have less motion blur than a 1/120sec-shutter camera photograph.
> A perfect 240Hz sample-hold display at 240fps can never have less motion blur than a 1/240sec-shutter camera photograph.
> That's why I don't use traditional MPRT(10%->90%) because it's like calling a 1/240sec shutter a 3.5ms shutter. The entire blur is important and human-seen (it's a linear blurring), the first 10% and last 90% is fully human-visible MPRT when GtG hits 0. So it's now a false claim of less blur than camera shutter.
> 
> The MPRT 10%->90% decision is an old (and often complicating) carryover from GtG 10%->90%. It's fine for scientific papers, but for end user display benchmarking and marketing to users, I prefer persistence (MPRT100%) because of how GtG's are hitting nearly 0ms, and how the entire MPRT curve (0%-100%) is much more fully important benchmark unlike for GtG curve, because of the camera-shutter equivalence I explained above.
> 
> MPRT 10%->90% sometimes simplifies measurement cutoffs because GtG can coast for a long time (e.g. GtG100% can take several refresh cycles to occur), and getting to MPRT100% requires GtG100%. MPRT was invented in the days of slow pixel response. But now GtG is hitting nearly 0ms -- basically 1ms TN eSports LCDs and 0.1ms OLEDs. And now of a sudden, we're capable of getting MPRT(10%->90%) numbers less than a sample-hold refresh cycle. But that's non-sequitur to me for easier comparisions with an equivalent motion blurs. Like a camera photograph of equivalent shutter length, e.g. a 40" enlargement photo on wall next to a 40" HDTV -- the 1/120sec shutter versus the [email protected] refresh cycle -- the motion blur trail length is exactly the same when GtG=0. Otherwise we'd be seeing 20% less motion blur (e.g. 8 inch blur trail instead of 10 inch blur trail). That's not the case, and thusly, MPRT numbers less than a refresh cycle for sample-hold is now 'deceptive' to me because there's actually a full 20% real-world human-see blur missing -- it's that big amount of missing blur omitted now.
> 
> I understand why MPRT 10%->90% was chosen to make cutoffs easier in the days of ultra-slow GtG, and it made a lot of sense back then to use MPRT 10%->90%. It actually nearly matched perceived motion blur. LCDs were really slow back in the day when MPRT formula was originally invented. You needed to cut off the measurements somehow. So 10%->90% made sense then.
> 
> But as GtG approaches 0, MPRT diverges quite noticeably to my human eyes. There's actually 25% more fully human-perceived motion blur (The missing 20% from 80%) than the number suggests from MPRT(10%->90%) -- *perceived display motion blur cannot be less than a refresh cycle on a perfect 0ms GtG sample-and-hold display, full stop, that breaks laws of physics.* So, that is why MPRT(10%->90%) to me, is now an increasingly legacy flawed metric, and I stick to MPRT(100%) because of that.
> 
> Because Blur Busters is a fan of near-zero GtG displays (TN LCDs, 0.5ms GtG LCDs, 0.1ms OLEDs, DLPs, etc) and that 100% of the MPRT becomes amplified (because it's closer to a PhotoShop linear motion blur all the way from 0% thru 100%) and I actually see 25% more motion blur with my human eyes than the MPRT numbers suggest, on these modern "approaching-zero" GtG displays. (25% is because adding 20% points on top of 80% is adding 25% more motion blur (100%/80% = 1.25)). For me, I find MPRT(10%-90%) a very serious omission that complicates comparision of motion blur, including comparision of motion blur to equivalent camera photographs.
> 
> _(Aside... Maybe I could collaborate on a another peer reviewed piece about this -- I'm open to co-authoring with researchers. It would help standardize motion blur measurements as I'm working on improved benchmarking of motion blur that's simpler, easier, and matches real-world results. I did that peer-review process for my pursuit camera invention (which actually has now become rather easy with an iPhone too, and multiple gaming monitor testers now use my invention). Or maybe I should pay for another SID.org membership and collaborate that way. Open to collaboration with other researchers, feel free to contact me)._
> 
> For more reading about why I like to simplify motion blur mathematics, see Blur Busters Law And The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays. I recently added a paragraph that I use MPRT(100%) instead of MPRT(10%->90%) to reduce confusion about the MPRT formula in use.


That depth and background is really helpful, Mark! The motion community really needs to get its performance-related metrics/language straight. I'm an enthusiast and engineer and between a) Rtings emphasis on GTG and calling it "Response Time" and talking about it at 80% and 100% and b) the various flavors of MPRT with its percentage-based context, it took me quite a bit of effort to make sure I understood things.

You clearly need an MPRT100% t-shirt to support your evangelism efforts!

More seriously have you considered:


Doing a dedicated explorable explanation of display motion? (https://explorabl.es/) Alternatively, distill.pub would be an obvious choice for publishing as they're open to expanding their scope beyond Machine Learning.
Getting some capital to grow a business that is a graniteriverlabs.com-alike.


----------



## stl8k

circumstances said:


> Any official Sony announcements regarding their 2019 OLED offerings?


The Sony rumor mill has been awfully quiet. Could be they have something big and are doing a great job keeping it under wraps. Or, they simply aren't going to be emphasizing new OLED TV stuff at CES.

Hard to imagine that Sony's roadmap won't be heavily influenced by Japan-NHK's 8K/4K content efforts, especially the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics.

If I were Sony, I wouldn't be talking TV specs at CES, but rather talking about a vision for "The best TVs for experiencing the pageantry and sport of the upcoming Olympics".

I elaborated on the increasing importance of content in the TV market in this post: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-509.html#post57237658


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> That's not the only factor, it think it is also MPRT(10%->90%) which sometimes results in MPRT values less than a refresh cycles, out-of-sync with what is human perceived.
> 
> MPRT (10%->90%) diverges up to 20% away from human perceived motion blur once GtG reaches closer to 0. MPRT(10%->90%) only measures the middle 80% of motion blur, from the 10% point thru 90% point. I quote below some more information about why the legacy (10%->90%) has long been done, for measurement cutoffs, but it becomes problematic as GtG approaches 0.
> 
> This is why Blur Busters does a different, simpler approach.
> 
> 
> I think it's MPRT(90%) of 3.5 and MPRT(100%) of 1/240.
> Relevant scientific paper of MPRT formula:
> http://lcd.creol.ucf.edu/Publications/2017/JAP 121-023108.pdf
> 
> Muddying this is it's MPRT(10%->90%) which I don't use at Blur busters. I prefer MPRT(100%), because:
> 
> 
> 
> Quoted from Future TestUFO Motion Resolution Test (MPRT) - FPD Test Pattern Blu-Ray which I am going to launch for 2019 as an easy visual MPRT test that will give you an estimated MPRT number (MPRT90% = classic sci-paper MPRT and MPRT100% = persistence = same as camera shutter blur of equivalent camera shutter)
> 
> Personally, my preference is to quote persistence as the same number of milliseconds as the equivalent camera shutter.
> 
> In other words a perfect 0ms GtG sample-and-hold 120Hz display has exactly 1/120sec of display motion blur, exactly same amount of motion blur as a camera shutter of 1/120sec for the equivalent physical motion panning speed = equivalence. This is how Blur Busters prefer to benchmark motion blur.
> 
> By doing that, the formula becomes much, much simpler. I conveniently nickname it the "Blur Busters Law".
> 
> *1ms persistence (MPRT100%)
> =
> 1 pixel motion blur per 1000 pixels/second motion*
> 
> Which also translates to physical steps too:
> 
> *1/1000sec persistence or camera shutter
> =
> a blurring of 1/1000th sec worth of motion movement, whether it be thickness of blur in resulting photograph or thickness of blur on screen motion*
> 
> Which is the exact same motion blur for a resulting photograph (perfect 1/120sec shutter) or a display (perfect 1/120 sec 0ms GtG sample-and-hold).
> 
> I prefer to equalize display blur milliseconds to real-world results.
> A perfect 120Hz sample-hold display at 120fps can never have less motion blur than a 1/120sec-shutter camera photograph.
> A perfect 240Hz sample-hold display at 240fps can never have less motion blur than a 1/240sec-shutter camera photograph.
> That's why I don't use traditional MPRT(10%->90%) because it's like calling a 1/240sec shutter a 3.5ms shutter. The entire blur is important and human-seen (it's a linear blurring), the first 10% and last 90% is fully human-visible MPRT when GtG hits 0. So it's now a false claim of less blur than camera shutter.
> 
> The MPRT 10%->90% decision is an old (and often complicating) carryover from GtG 10%->90%. It's fine for scientific papers, but for end user display benchmarking and marketing to users, I prefer persistence (MPRT100%) because of how GtG's are hitting nearly 0ms, and how the entire MPRT curve (0%-100%) is much more fully important benchmark unlike for GtG curve, because of the camera-shutter equivalence I explained above.
> 
> MPRT 10%->90% sometimes simplifies measurement cutoffs because GtG can coast for a long time (e.g. GtG100% can take several refresh cycles to occur), and getting to MPRT100% requires GtG100%. MPRT was invented in the days of slow pixel response. But now GtG is hitting nearly 0ms -- basically 1ms TN eSports LCDs and 0.1ms OLEDs. And now of a sudden, we're capable of getting MPRT(10%->90%) numbers less than a sample-hold refresh cycle. But that's non-sequitur to me for easier comparisions with an equivalent motion blurs. Like a camera photograph of equivalent shutter length, e.g. a 40" enlargement photo on wall next to a 40" HDTV -- the 1/120sec shutter versus the [email protected] refresh cycle -- the motion blur trail length is exactly the same when GtG=0. Otherwise we'd be seeing 20% less motion blur (e.g. 8 inch blur trail instead of 10 inch blur trail). That's not the case, and thusly, MPRT numbers less than a refresh cycle for sample-hold is now 'deceptive' to me because there's actually a full 20% real-world human-see blur missing -- it's that big amount of missing blur omitted now.
> 
> I understand why MPRT 10%->90% was chosen to make cutoffs easier in the days of ultra-slow GtG, and it made a lot of sense back then to use MPRT 10%->90%. It actually nearly matched perceived motion blur. LCDs were really slow back in the day when MPRT formula was originally invented. You needed to cut off the measurements somehow. So 10%->90% made sense then.
> 
> But as GtG approaches 0, MPRT diverges quite noticeably to my human eyes. There's actually 25% more fully human-perceived motion blur (The missing 20% from 80%) than the number suggests from MPRT(10%->90%) -- *perceived display motion blur cannot be less than a refresh cycle on a perfect 0ms GtG sample-and-hold display, full stop, that breaks laws of physics.* So, that is why MPRT(10%->90%) to me, is now an increasingly legacy flawed metric, and I stick to MPRT(100%) because of that.
> 
> Because Blur Busters is a fan of near-zero GtG displays (TN LCDs, 0.5ms GtG LCDs, 0.1ms OLEDs, DLPs, etc) and that 100% of the MPRT becomes amplified (because it's closer to a PhotoShop linear motion blur all the way from 0% thru 100%) and I actually see 25% more motion blur with my human eyes than the MPRT numbers suggest, on these modern "approaching-zero" GtG displays. (25% is because adding 20% points on top of 80% is adding 25% more motion blur (100%/80% = 1.25)). For me, I find MPRT(10%-90%) a very serious omission that complicates comparision of motion blur, including comparision of motion blur to equivalent camera photographs.
> 
> _(Aside... Maybe I could collaborate on a another peer reviewed piece about this -- I'm open to co-authoring with researchers. It would help standardize motion blur measurements as I'm working on improved benchmarking of motion blur that's simpler, easier, and matches real-world results. I did that peer-review process for my pursuit camera invention (which actually has now become rather easy with an iPhone too, and multiple gaming monitor testers now use my invention). Or maybe I should pay for another SID.org membership and collaborate that way. Open to collaboration with other researchers, feel free to contact me)._
> 
> For more reading about why I like to simplify motion blur mathematics, see Blur Busters Law And The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays. I recently added a paragraph that I use MPRT(100%) instead of MPRT(10%->90%) to reduce confusion about the MPRT formula in use.


Fantastic analysis, Mark (and I am pretty sure you are correct on the meaning of LG's 3.5ms MPRT ).

It would be great if an outfit like Rtimgs.com could start characterizing MPRT (and hipefully in the 'right' way, with your guidance). Do you see any chance of that happening anytime soon?


----------



## stl8k

*LGD Crystal Motion Display*

The MPRT(90%) = 3.5ms display makes an appearance in this CES video:

https://youtu.be/uYFS-oW5HRM?t=93

Of course this was shot/uploaded at low framerate!


----------



## dkfan9

stl8k said:


> The MPRT(90%) = 3.5ms display makes an appearance in this CES video:
> 
> https://youtu.be/uYFS-oW5HRM?t=93
> 
> Of course this was shot/uploaded at low framerate!


So... whatever algorithm reduces MPRT is backwards compatible? In that case it seems to be something different than the BFI being talked about here.

Also i still do not understand why they don't put Crystal Sound tech in the W series...


----------



## stl8k

*Early CES 2019 OLED TV Coverage*

The early press, which skews consumer, is really bad! It's no wonder then why there's so little innovation or bad innovation (most of the 3D stuff that died on the vine) in TV land.

Here's hoping that the later coverage will skew towards more depth and cover things like motion innovation.

Protip: AVForums is posting in 60p on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/user/AVForumsTV/videos


----------



## slacker711

Per a Korean newspaper, Samsung is showing a 65" QD-OLED prototype in private at CES.


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> So... whatever algorithm reduces MPRT is backwards compatible? In that case it seems to be something different than the BFI being talked about here.
> 
> Also i still do not understand why they don't put Crystal Sound tech in the W series...


I'm pretty sure this can be chaulked up to a Korean English translation hiccup.

No way the 3.5ms BFI makes it to ALL previous OLED generations as a SW/FW update.

At most, it might be possible on the 2018 WOLEDs if they already had the split-column refresh architecture.

But aside from the fact that LG is done with upgrades on the 2016 WOLEDs, they don't have the backplane speed/architecture to support BFI...


----------



## dkfan9

fafrd said:


> I'm pretty sure this can be chaulked up to a Korean English translation hiccup.
> 
> No way the 3.5ms BFI makes it to ALL previous OLED generations as a SW/FW update.
> 
> At most, it might be possible on the 2018 WOLEDs if they already had the split-column refresh architecture.
> 
> But aside from the fact that LG is done with upgrades on the 2016 WOLEDs, they don't have the backplane speed/architecture to support BFI...


Well, the Digital Trends video calls it an algorithmic change, rather than a hardware change. In that case we may not be talking about BFI at all. And then there's this from John Archer's first look: 

"And although I’d need to test the TVs with a wider variety of content than was available to me at my preview, LG appears from what I could see so far to have improved its motion processing with 24p content. Certainly the picture looked less juddery without looking processed or unnaturally fluid."

Now, who knows what that really means, what trumotion/motion pro was engaged during his viewing, etc. And you may be right that it's a mistranslation or a slightly misleading statement that Digital Trends received. But it is an interesting prospect. I too doubt they would put the time in to make firmware updates for old models even if they could, but it's an interesting possibility nonetheless.


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> Well, the *Digital Trends video calls it an algorithmic change, rather than a hardware change. *


That is exactly the translation glitch (or obfuscation) I was refering to. Of course it's an algorithm change. The 'algorithm' you need to implement BFI on a simple 120Hz Native Refresh Panel is different than the 'algorithm' needed to deliver a 50% rolling scan on a spkit-column refresh panel supporting 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate. The new 'algorithm' required new 'hardware', but that small detail was apparently lost in translation (or held back).




> In that case we may not be talking about BFI at all.


Well sure, the 2018 WOLEDs truly inserted (full) black frames. BFI without any ands, ifs, or buts.

While the 2019 WOLEDs refresh with a 50% rolling scan at 120Hz, so true 'Black Frames' are never truly inserted.

And at 120Hz, the distinction is even more confusing - a 50% rolling scan is inserted every other frame (with the 60Hz frames each being repeated twice) to deliver 25% Effective BFI (do differentiate the the 2019 BFI 'algorithm' from the plain ol' vanilla BFI of 2018 ).



> And then there's this from John Archer's first look:
> 
> "And although I’d need to test the TVs with a wider variety of content than was available to me at my preview, LG appears from what I could see so far to have improved its motion processing with 24p content. *Certainly the picture looked less juddery without looking processed or unnaturally fluid*."
> 
> Now, who knows what that really means, what trumotion/motion pro was engaged during his viewing, etc. And you may be right that it's a mistranslation or a slightly misleading statement that Digital Trends received. But it is an interesting prospect. I too doubt they would put the time in to make firmware updates for old models even if they could, but it's an interesting possibility nonetheless.


Of course cinema looks less juddery - a 2018 WOLED engaged (true) BFI on 24Hz content by introducing 3:2 pulldown to blank every other frame.

Judder gets introduced.

Brightness gets halved.

Noticable flicker is introduced at 60Hz.

All for a measly reduction in 24Hz persistance from 41.7ms to 37.5ms (10% reduction).

The 2019 WOLEDs will use the new IGZO backplane supporting 240Hz Effective Refresh to:

Deliver 24Hz content as a judder-free 120Hz stream.

Unknown for sure, but it sounds as though LG has finally figured out that there is no reason to sacrifice brightness from BFI on WOLED (so brightness will be internally compensated using a new 'algorithm' ).

Reduce flicker to imperceptible levels (for most) by blinking at 120Hz instead of 60Hz.

All for the same rather measly 10% reduction in persistance, but at least now it comes for 'free' in terms of other picture quality attributes such as judder.

For cinemaphiles, the more exciting possibility for refuced persistance is to deliver 24Hz content as a double-shutter 96Hz VRR stream over HDMI2.1. This will deliver a true 'Black Frame Insertion' from outside the TV that will reduce brightness by 50% (and so OLED Light will need to be increased to compensate) but will deliver a full 25% refuction in persistance (to 31.25ms) with a strobing characteristic closely matching that delivered by film projectors.

(For those interested, contact Mark Rejhorn, he is seeking beta testers for his HTPC software package delivering this capability...).


----------



## tgm1024

dkfan9 said:


> Well, the Digital Trends video calls it an algorithmic change, rather than a hardware change. In that case we may not be talking about BFI at all. And then there's this from John Archer's first look:
> 
> "And although I’d need to test the TVs with a wider variety of content than was available to me at my preview, LG appears from what I could see so far to have improved its motion processing with 24p content. Certainly the picture looked less juddery without looking processed or unnaturally fluid."
> 
> Now, who knows what that really means, what trumotion/motion pro was engaged during his viewing, etc. And you may be right that it's a mistranslation or a slightly misleading statement that Digital Trends received. But it is an interesting prospect. I too doubt they would put the time in to make firmware updates for old models even if they could, but it's an interesting possibility nonetheless.


Some years ago, someone posted an algorithm that showed dramatically better luck with temporal interpolation. The calculated tweens were astonishingly good. Perhaps that's what's being bantered about. {shrug}.

I'm always leery of the disconnect between engineering and whoever modifies what they say into something to tell the public. Anyone remember LG telling the public that they could watch 3D lying down?


----------



## lsorensen

dkfan9 said:


> So... whatever algorithm reduces MPRT is backwards compatible? In that case it seems to be something different than the BFI being talked about here.
> 
> Also i still do not understand why they don't put Crystal Sound tech in the W series...


Because adding that would probably result in it being 1" thick rather than 1/8" thick. Just look at the back of the Sony's and see how thick the transducers are. Those electromagnets to vibrate the screen take some space.


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> That is exactly the translation glitch (or obfuscation) I was refering to. Of course it's an algorithm change. The 'algorithm' you need to implement BFI on a simple 120Hz Native Refresh Panel is different than the 'algorithm' needed to deliver a 50% rolling scan on a spkit-column refresh panel supporting 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate. The new 'algorithm' required new 'hardware', but that small detail was apparently lost in translation (or held back).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well sure, the 2018 WOLEDs truly inserted (full) black frames. BFI without any ands, ifs, or buts.
> 
> While the 2019 WOLEDs refresh with a 50% rolling scan at 120Hz, so true 'Black Frames' are never truly inserted.
> 
> And at 120Hz, the distinction is even more confusing - a 50% rolling scan is inserted every other frame (with the 60Hz frames each being repeated twice) to deliver 25% Effective BFI (do differentiate the the 2019 BFI 'algorithm' from the plain ol' vanilla BFI of 2018 ).
> 
> 
> 
> Of course cinema looks less juddery - a 2018 WOLED engaged (true) BFI on 24Hz content by introducing 3:2 pulldown to blank every other frame.
> 
> Judder gets introduced.
> 
> Brightness gets halved.
> 
> Noticable flicker is introduced at 60Hz.
> 
> All for a measly reduction in 24Hz persistance from 41.7ms to 37.5ms (10% reduction).
> 
> The 2019 WOLEDs will use the new IGZO backplane supporting 240Hz Effective Refresh to:
> 
> Deliver 24Hz content as a judder-free 120Hz stream.
> 
> Unknown for sure, but it sounds as though LG has finally figured out that there is no reason to sacrifice brightness from BFI on WOLED (so brightness will be internally compensated using a new 'algorithm' ).
> 
> Reduce flicker to imperceptible levels (for most) by blinking at 120Hz instead of 60Hz.
> 
> All for the same rather measly 10% reduction in persistance, but at least now it comes for 'free' in terms of other picture quality attributes such as judder.
> 
> For cinemaphiles, the more exciting possibility for refuced persistance is to deliver 24Hz content as a double-shutter 96Hz VRR stream over HDMI2.1. This will deliver a true 'Black Frame Insertion' from outside the TV that will reduce brightness by 50% (and so OLED Light will need to be increased to compensate) but will deliver a full 25% refuction in persistance (to 31.25ms) with a strobing characteristic closely matching that delivered by film projectors.
> 
> (For those interested, contact Mark Rejhorn, he is seeking beta testers for his HTPC software package delivering this capability...).


Fafrd,

Will Sony be using the new IGZO backplane as well?

And if so, will it be in any of their 2019 OLEDs?


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> Fafrd,
> 
> Will Sony be using the new IGZO backplane as well?
> 
> And if so, will it be in any of their 2019 OLEDs?


The IGZO backplane is part of the WOLED panel, so all customers using the new 2019 panels will be getting it. It's even possible/likely that Philip's late-introduction 2018 WOLED is already making use of these '2019' panels.

So all customers getting LG's 2019 panels almost certainly have the split-column 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate IGZO capability, but they need to implement a specific architecture in terms of TCONs and control algorithms to deliver a 120Hz 50% rolling scan as LG has done...


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> The IGZO backplane is part of the WOLED panel, so all customers using the new 2019 panels will be getting it. It's even possible/likely that Philip's late-introduction 2018 WOLED is already making use of these '2019' panels.
> 
> So all customers getting LG's 2019 panels almost certainly have the split-column 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate IGZO capability, but they need to implement a specific architecture in terms of TCONs and control algorithms to deliver a 120Hz 50% rolling scan as LG has done...


Thanks!


----------



## stl8k

Who's going to be the first to post (or link to) a macro shot of the 65" 8K in LGD's CES booth to confirm whether or not it's top emission?

I know we'll get details from someone here who is attending (like Mark ;-), but I found it interesting that for the MPRT(90%) = 3.5 display in the booth, the LGD employee is describing the panel as 120Hz.

https://www.facebook.com/SaveMeSteve/videos/359650731501299/


----------



## stl8k

*LGD Rolling Forward*



> “The screen can roll in and out more than 100,000 times. Although we can’t mention specifically the materials that have been used, it is totally different from normal OLED panels,” he said, adding that the firm is in talks with some of its 15 OLED customers other than LG Electronics.


Get used to the rollable form factor!



> Han noted that there could be demand for the rollable display in the automotive industry. For example, the company is developing a panel that can be rolled up like a poster and can be hung on the ceiling of a vehicle, so that it can be rolled out when needed for passengers in the backseat.


This would need to be executed very well. Think transparent OLED replacing traditional glass passenger back side windows is more likely for vehicle back seats.

http://www.theinvestor.co.kr/view.php?ud=20190108000431


----------



## tgm1024

stl8k said:


> This would need to be executed very well. Think transparent OLED replacing traditional glass passenger back side windows is more likely for vehicle back seats.
> 
> http://www.theinvestor.co.kr/view.php?ud=20190108000431


Did you post the right link? I didn't see any reference to cars in that article.

And I'm not sure how this applies to your car concept, but keep in mind that transparent OLEDs can't do black without an LCD array involved.


----------



## stl8k

tgm1024 said:


> Did you post the right link? I didn't see any reference to cars in that article.
> 
> And I'm not sure how this applies to your car concept, but keep in mind that transparent OLEDs can't do black without an LCD array involved.


Did you not see "hung on the ceiling of a vehicle" in the quoted?

The idea for transparent back-side window displays is from first user experience principles. I hadn't seen it as a concept from LG Display. I'm assuming it's on the same practicality level as a rollable that hangs from a car ceiling.


----------



## ALMA

Completely new panel structure for 2019 with much better fill rate:












https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lesnumeriques.com%2Ftv-televiseur%2Fces-2019-encore-nouvelle-dalle-pour-televiseurs-oled-n82391.html&sandbox=1


Also different to the Philips panel.


----------



## bombyx

ALMA said:


> Completely new panel structure for 2019 with much better fill rate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700241,15700248
> 
> 
> Also different to the Philips panel.



Beware , "Les numeriques" merged two pictures to make this one, they always do that .They take one with the RWB sub pixels and another one with GR . It's obvious if you look at the right part of the photo . I'll try to obtain some valid data from this . 

(BTW , the Philips 803 was a 55'' , this one is a 65'' (Panasonic) , you can't compare because each size has its own sub pixels pattern .)


----------



## bjaurelio

ALMA said:


> Completely new panel structure for 2019 with much better fill rate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700241,15700248
> 
> 
> Also different to the Philips panel.


Great find. This does mean Philips had a custom panel rather than an early 2019 panel. The article mentioned all OLEDs at CES having this new panel, which would mean Panasonic's is not custom as the rep claimed in an interview I posted in another thread.


----------



## tgm1024

stl8k said:


> Did you not see "hung on the ceiling of a vehicle" in the quoted?
> 
> The idea for transparent back-side window displays is from first user experience principles. I hadn't seen it as a concept from LG Display. I'm assuming it's on the same practicality level as a rollable that hangs from a car ceiling.


I did see the "hung on the ceiling" reference. What I meant was reference to transparent OLEDs (like you said), as applicable to car _windows_, of which there is no mention.

What I'm pointing out is that transparent displays are completely different conceptually. In the case of the ceiling, it's not transparent---the black is from the lack of light. In the case of a window, the light shines through it, resulting in no black whatsoever without a blocking array of some kind, presumably LCD. It's a different technology than the ceiling comment they made in that article, and if fully transparent, it would have limited usage. Certainly no movie, TV, or similar. Perhaps a book, or some other semi-images that warn of close object on that side?


----------



## ALMA

> BTW , the Philips 803 was a 55'' , this one is a 65'' (Panasonic) , you can't compare because each size has its own sub pixels pattern



55" and 65" were always identical in pixel structure. The 77C8 even has the same sub pixel pattern of the smaller 2017 sets. They only differ in sizes and not in their shape. This here has clearly a different shape to the sub pixel pattern from the Philips OLED.


----------



## tgm1024

bombyx said:


> Beware , "Les numeriques" merged two pictures to make this one, they always do that .They take one with the RWB sub pixels and another one with GR . It's obvious if you look at the right part of the photo . I'll try to obtain some valid data from this.


What part of the image led you to believe this? The small brighter line on the far right?


----------



## stl8k

tgm1024 said:


> I did see the "hung on the ceiling" reference. What I meant was reference to transparent OLEDs (like you said), as applicable to car _windows_, of which there is no mention.
> 
> What I'm pointing out is that transparent displays are completely different conceptually. In the case of the ceiling, it's not transparent---the black is from the lack of light. In the case of a window, the light shines through it, resulting in no black whatsoever without a blocking array of some kind, presumably LCD. It's a different technology than the ceiling comment they made in that article, and if fully transparent, it would have limited usage. Certainly no movie, TV, or similar. Perhaps a book, or some other semi-images that warn of close object on that side?


Respectfully, how big is the conceptual leap from the concepts that LGD is showing for home windows (below) to car windows? Certainly some safety and power considerations, but not much of a leap at all here.

http://blog.lgdisplay.com/2018/11/특허킹으로-소문난-lg디스플레이의-투명-디스플레이/


----------



## bombyx

ALMA said:


> 55" and 65" were always identical in pixel structure. The 77C8 even has the same sub pixel pattern of the smaller 2017 sets. They only differ in sizes and not in their shape. This here has clearly a different shape to the sub pixel pattern from the Philips OLED.


Well, more similar than identical . But I agree this new panel is different, the numbers show this . (I'll post my new numbers soon .) 







tgm1024 said:


> What part of the image led you to believe this? The small brighter line on the far right?



The blue sub pixels are misaligned with the white ones and cover the green ones . See here :


----------



## bombyx

Here are the new data : the picture from 'les numériques' is not very good, so the numbers will be updated when better pictures are available .


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> Here are the new data : the picture from 'les numériques' is not very good, so the numbers will be updated when better pictures are available .


Wow, if these estimates are valudates, it translates to a ~33% increase in aperature ratio.

At a minimum, that should mean a 33% slower aging rate (and 133% time to burn-in of 2018 WOLEDs).

It may also result in increased peak brightness levels (at least at D65) or at least relaxed ABL...


----------



## ALMA

According to a german youtube video, the new LG generation allows the user to adjust the brightness level of the white subpixel (off, low, middle, high) in HDR and SDR content. So you can also reach over 700nits in SDR mode or purer colors in HDR mode.


But he also make wrong statements about the panel ("same panel like last year and no differences in panel control - only A9 gen 2 etc..."), which we all know is nonsense (better BFI mode, new subpixel pattern). So I don´t know how reliable his information is.


----------



## bombyx

ALMA said:


> *But he also make wrong statements about the panel ("same panel like last year*" and no differences in panel control - only A9 gen 2 etc..."), which we all know is nonsense (better BFI mode, new subpixel pattern). So I don´t know how reliable his information is.


LG did the same thing . It seems that LG refuses to communicate on panel iteration .


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> LG did the same thing . It seems that LG refuses to communicate on panel iteration .


I believe part of the confusion may stem from the fact that LGD co siders the WOLED Stack itself the most critical aspect to 'change'.

Different 'designs' on the same IGZO and WOLED stack manufacturing flow may not register with LG as a 'panel change'.

This is a fantastic paper for anyone that want to understand what goes onto changing the WOLED stack as well as all the details you ever want to understand about the causs of temporary IR and permament burn-in on WOLED and the compensation technologies LG has developed to combat them: https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/60365.pdf


----------



## fafrd

ALMA just posted this in the Top Emission thread: https://www.oled-a.org/lg-to-use-mmg-to-expand-output-of-gen-85-fab8203_121018.html

LG introducing MMG (which will bring 8.5G manufacturing of 65" and 75/77" WOLED panels down to 10.5G-esque levels).

LG will introduce 48" WOLED panels (3 out of the extra space), finally bringing WOLED further down-market.

MMG will reduce 8.5G 65" and 75/77" WOLED panel costs by ~33%.

LG will be converting another LCD line to 8.5G WOLED production.

Seperately, it appears that ramp-up of the 10.5G line may be delayed to Q2 2021: http://www.zdnet.co.kr/view/?no=20190109140127

'Kwon said, "Although there will be a difference in viewpoints, we are planning to expand rollable products targeting a few companies." "Whether rollable TVs can be priced at a level that consumers can easily accommodate is an initial proliferation "We will secure technological mass production and speed up our cost competitiveness so that we will be able to record the same sales volume as LG Signature," he said. 

Accordingly, we are preparing for the OLED panel supply issue ahead of time. Kwon said, "The OLED production volume will increase significantly in the second half of the year, and *if LG Display starts 10.5G in the second quarter of 2021*, the production will increase rapidly for the second consecutive year. "We are going to increase the weight of 8K to 88 inches, and we are considering a large rollerblad as an alternative," he said.'

Between the additional 8.5G LCD conversionss and MMG, this may be a more prudent pathway to increasing production volumes and lowering costs, especially if WOLED printing at 10.5G scale is still under development.

We should learn a great deal more at LGDs earnings call in 1+ month...


----------



## tgm1024

stl8k said:


> Respectfully, how big is the conceptual leap from the concepts that LGD is showing for home windows (below) to car windows? Certainly some safety and power considerations, but not much of a leap at all here.
> 
> http://blog.lgdisplay.com/2018/11/특허킹으로-소문난-lg디스플레이의-투명-디스플레이/


Black _cannot_ be done on a transparent OLED without an additional LCD layer (or some other blocking tech), and that's not amenable to being rolled out like mentioned in the article. If you display black, it's see-through. I don't even think I've seen a roll-out LCD array in any form actually, but in any case in the case of car windows, *if* you wish the transparency to be there, then you'll be viewing different content than you might on a roof. (Such as in that link you showed).

Could you put one there? Sure, I suppose. Would it show what a non-transparent OLED can? Nope. Would such a thing on the windshield be incredibly useful? Sure!

There _has_ been some research on whether or not a see-through transparency can be "interpreted" by the human brain as black (some kind of "transparency effect"), but it's still no where near the same as what you'd have on a roof.

It's just different, is all I'm saying.


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Wow, if these estimates are valudates, it translates to a ~33% increase in aperature ratio.
> 
> At a minimum, that should mean a 33% slower aging rate (and 133% time to burn-in of 2018 WOLEDs).
> 
> It may also result in increased peak brightness levels (at least at D65) or at least relaxed ABL...


I'm still confused by it: Red incremented, Green (Verde) flat lined, but the red was doubled in 2 years. Perhaps that's a response to the CNN effect?


----------



## bombyx

A quick comparison :












(photos from "les numériques" (Oled) and RTINGS (plasma and Q6)


----------



## rogo

It's pretty funny to me that people still claim all over AVS, other enthusiast sites, and the regular media that OLED technology has flatlined.

We're getting:

1) Improved fill factor, and that trend is far from over because...
2) Top emission, with higher peak brightness, better lifespan, and... more fill factor!
3) Faster refresh and better motion handling

On a display that already has:

1) Really good color reproduction
2) World-class contrast ratios, including inky, Hawking-like blacks

Oh, and several more years of cost reductions appear to be baked in thanks to:

1) Multi-mode glass (cutting different sizes from one substrate)
2) Bigger and more fabs

And maybe (though I really doubt it) printing is coming. if it does, we will see

1) Even better fill factors
2) Even better color reproduction
3) Possibly better life (if a magic blue comes to fruition, which is why I doubt we're going to see printing at all)

It seems 2019 is a big improvement with 2020-21 likely to improve strongly again.

There may be nothing left to complain about by 2022-23.

But I'm sure some will find a way.


----------



## stl8k

rogo said:


> It's pretty funny to me that people still claim all over AVS, other enthusiast sites, and the regular media that OLED technology has flatlined.
> 
> We're getting:
> 
> 1) Improved fill factor, and that trend is far from over because...
> 2) Top emission, with higher peak brightness, better lifespan, and... more fill factor!
> 3) Faster refresh and better motion handling
> 
> On a display that already has:
> 
> 1) Really good color reproduction
> 2) World-class contrast ratios, including inky, Hawking-like blacks
> 
> Oh, and several more years of cost reductions appear to be baked in thanks to:
> 
> 1) Multi-mode glass (cutting different sizes from one substrate)
> 2) Bigger and more fabs
> 
> And maybe (though I really doubt it) printing is coming. if it does, we will see
> 
> 1) Even better fill factors
> 2) Even better color reproduction
> 3) Possibly better life (if a magic blue comes to fruition, which is why I doubt we're going to see printing at all)
> 
> It seems 2019 is a big improvement with 2020-21 likely to improve strongly again.
> 
> There may be nothing left to complain about by 2022-23.
> 
> But I'm sure some will find a way.


Nice summary!

What's the relation between a magical blue emitter and printing?

Complaint will be "There's no content!".


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> ALMA just posted this in the Top Emission thread: https://www.oled-a.org/lg-to-use-mmg-to-expand-output-of-gen-85-fab8203_121018.html
> 
> LG introducing MMG (which will bring 8.5G manufacturing of 65" and 75/77" WOLED panels down to 10.5G-esque levels).
> 
> LG will introduce 48" WOLED panels (3 out of the extra space), finally bringing WOLED further down-market.
> 
> MMG will reduce 8.5G 65" and 75/77" WOLED panel costs by ~33%.
> 
> LG will be converting another LCD line to 8.5G WOLED production.
> 
> Seperately, it appears that ramp-up of the 10.5G line may be delayed to Q2 2021: http://www.zdnet.co.kr/view/?no=20190109140127
> 
> 'Kwon said, "Although there will be a difference in viewpoints, we are planning to expand rollable products targeting a few companies." "Whether rollable TVs can be priced at a level that consumers can easily accommodate is an initial proliferation "We will secure technological mass production and speed up our cost competitiveness so that we will be able to record the same sales volume as LG Signature," he said.
> 
> Accordingly, we are preparing for the OLED panel supply issue ahead of time. Kwon said, "The OLED production volume will increase significantly in the second half of the year, and *if LG Display starts 10.5G in the second quarter of 2021*, the production will increase rapidly for the second consecutive year. "We are going to increase the weight of 8K to 88 inches, and we are considering a large rollerblad as an alternative," he said.'
> 
> Between the additional 8.5G LCD conversionss and MMG, this may be a more prudent pathway to increasing production volumes and lowering costs, especially if WOLED printing at 10.5G scale is still under development.
> 
> We should learn a great deal more at LGDs earnings call in 1+ month...


From the reporting of that same press conference: "We are setting a formal direction to expand 77-inch sales this year."

So, 2019 is going to be the year of the 77".


----------



## wco81

Hdmi 2.1 is a good reason for me to jump in but there likely won’t be a full 2.1 ecosystem — AVRs and UHD source devices (UHD Blu Ray, new streaming boxes with 2.1, consoles).

So I may or may not do it. Live sports in UHD HDR would be a big draw for me, regular NBA and NFL games.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> From the reporting of that same press conference: "*We are setting a formal direction to expand 77-inch sales this year.*"
> 
> So, 2019 is going to be the year of the 77".


Sounds like sub-$5000 77C9 is a near-certainty .

I've been saying for several years now that LG has been holding back 77" WOLED sales because of relatively high pricing.

Fundamentally, a 77" WOLED panel costs 150% the cost of a 65" WOLED panel. When you factor in that the other 20-50% of WOLED TV cost is size-independant, no way a 77" WOLED TV costs even 150% the cost of a 65" WOLED TV.

Last year's 65C9P Launch MSRP was $3500, while the 77C9P Launch MSRP was $9000 (257% the Launch MSRP of the 65C8P) - that's called holding-back sales volumes. In November, the 65C8P dipped under $2000 while the 77C8P dipped under $5000(at online retailers, if you knew where to look). That's still 250% (and still holding back sales).

Some are speculating that the 65C9P will launch with an MSRP of $3000 - who knows, but it's unlikely to be higher than the $3500 launch MSRP of the 65C8P last year.

So whether we end up looking at a 65C9P Launch MSRP of $3000 or $3500, a 'formal direction to expand 77-inch (WOLED) sales this year' should translate to a Launch MSRP for the 77C9P of between $4500-$5500 (boy, wouldn't a Launch MSRP of $4999 be nice ).

And assuming we see the 65C9P dip under $2000 again this November (which is exceedingly likely), seeing the 77C9P dip under $3000 this November is not out of the question


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Hdmi 2.1 is a good reason for me to jump in but there likely won’t be a full 2.1 ecosystem — AVRs and UHD source devices (UHD Blu Ray, new streaming boxes with 2.1, consoles).
> 
> So I may or may not do it. *Live sports in UHD HDR would be a big draw for me, regular NBA and NFL games.*


That's probably going to take another few years.

Broadcasters are unlikely going to be motivated to make the required investments until the installed base of TVs that will benefit is relatively large...


----------



## wco81

fafrd said:


> That's probably going to take another few years.
> 
> Broadcasters are unlikely going to be motivated to make the required investments until the installed base of TVs that will benefit is relatively large...


I'm not sure it's the broadcasters. I think the leagues are wary. They know sports sold a lot of HDTVs 15-20 years ago.

So they probably want something extra for those rights.

Because what's happening is attendance is declining, as people are fed up with high ticket prices, high parking fees and concessions prices.

People can have better food and watch games on the big screen. Sports teams are trying to compete with that by putting in enterprise-level Wifi and mobile towers at stadiums as well as big TVs for replays overhead.

A lot of team owners don't want to see people have more reason to watch games at home.


----------



## rogo

stl8k said:


> Nice summary!
> 
> What's the relation between a magical blue emitter and printing?


There is no soluble blue OLED material on earth at this time with a lifespan acceptable for a consumer display. For printable OLEDs, you need a soluble OLED material. The search is approaching 20 years and the progress has been minimal. That isn't to say it's impossible, just that it's been a hard nut to crack.



fafrd said:


> Sounds like sub-$5000 77C9 is a near-certainty .
> 
> I've been saying for several years now that LG has been holding back 77" WOLED sales because of relatively high pricing.


This has always been true in display. The ratio of costrice has been oddly off forever. Maybe that gap begins to narrow sharply this year for OLED though.


> Some are speculating that the 65C9P will launch with an MSRP of $3000 - who knows, but it's unlikely to be higher than the $3500 launch MSRP of the 65C8P last year.


If they don't start lowering the launch prices every year, they can never hit the volume targets. I'm a broken record on this, but the more they sell the less they are going to get away with the "chump pricing strategy" of suckering people in at prices 30-40% higher than others pay just a few months later. And they will be forgoing so many sales during that period -- simply due to downward sloping demand curves -- they will never catch up on the back end.

Intro pricing for 65-inch models needs to fall by about $500 per year. Mid-year price cuts will ultimately be an irrelevant part of the strategy.


> And assuming we see the 65C9P dip under $2000 again this November (which is exceedingly likely), seeing the 77C9P dip under $3000 this November is not out of the question


I'm looking for $1699-ish Black Friday pricing, maybe $1599. Not "looking" as in I personally care, but rather as in.... Are they seriously building out all this capacity in 2020-21-22? Because if they are, the 65s need to march down to


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> So whether we end up looking at a 65C9P Launch MSRP of $3000 or $3500, a 'formal direction to expand 77-inch (WOLED) sales this year' should translate to a Launch MSRP for the 77C9P of between $4500-$5500 (boy, wouldn't a Launch MSRP of $4999 be nice ).
> 
> And assuming we see the 65C9P dip under $2000 again this November (which is exceedingly likely), seeing the 77C9P dip under $3000 this November is not out of the question


 indeed. With them being the only ones with HDMI 2.1 on board they could be wiping the floor with everthing else on the market, I guess.
But it sounds too good to be true, so it won't happen.


----------



## stl8k

rogo said:


> There is no soluble blue OLED material on earth at this time with a lifespan acceptable for a consumer display. For printable OLEDs, you need a soluble OLED material. The search is approaching 20 years and the progress has been minimal. That isn't to say it's impossible, just that it's been a hard nut to crack.
> 
> 
> 
> This has always been true in display. The ratio of costrice has been oddly off forever. Maybe that gap begins to narrow sharply this year for OLED though.
> 
> 
> If they don't start lowering the launch prices every year, they can never hit the volume targets. I'm a broken record on this, but the more they sell the less they are going to get away with the "chump pricing strategy" of suckering people in at prices 30-40% higher than others pay just a few months later. And they will be forgoing so many sales during that period -- simply due to downward sloping demand curves -- they will never catch up on the back end.
> 
> Intro pricing for 65-inch models needs to fall by about $500 per year. Mid-year price cuts will ultimately be an irrelevant part of the strategy.
> 
> 
> I'm looking for $1699-ish Black Friday pricing, maybe $1599. Not "looking" as in I personally care, but rather as in.... Are they seriously building out all this capacity in 2020-21-22? Because if they are, the 65s need to march down to


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> 1) OLED is *fundamentally cheaper* to build than LCD. We've been told this since 2000 or so. It's yet to come true even at volumes approaching 1 _billion_ in mobile screens.


The bulk of phone OLED's (the one on my Note 2 is over 6 years old) were using Samsung's individual subpixel technique, no? Wouldn't that make it even more expensive than the LGD phone "panels"?


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> This has always been true in display. The ratio of costrice has been oddly off forever. Maybe that gap begins to narrow sharply this year for OLED though.


Something that is odd forever is no longer odd; its the rule. What's the rule that we're missing I wonder? I've said this for a very long time: I absolutely love the technology, always have, but this is a phenomenally stupid industry. To quote myself: "I'd rather sell urinal pucks".




rogo said:


> If they don't start lowering the launch prices every year, they can never hit the volume targets. I'm a broken record on this, but the more they sell the less they are going to get away with the "chump pricing strategy" of suckering people in at prices 30-40% higher than others pay just a few months later. And they will be forgoing so many sales during that period -- simply due to downward sloping demand curves -- they will never catch up on the back end.


Curious, in your opinion does this make Samsung more worried or less? To me, it really seems as if they've been in distraction damage control for a while now (curve, meaningless QD).


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> LG will introduce 48" WOLED panels (3 out of the extra space), finally bringing WOLED further down-market.


 
So it looks like we are now at Samsung's Galaxy Book 12" OLED tablet, 13,3'', 14'', 15,6'' OLED laptops and 48'', 55', '65'', 77'' OLED TVs.


----------



## bjaurelio

tgm1024 said:


> Something that is odd forever is no longer odd; its the rule. What's the rule that we're missing I wonder? I've said this for a very long time: I absolutely love the technology, always have, but this is a phenomenally stupid industry. To quote myself: "I'd rather sell urinal pucks".


It's simply supply and demand. They are only able to produce a certain number of 77" panels while also maintaining 55" and 65" output. If there are enough people competing for those few panels, the price will remain high.

Regarding the earlier analysis about needing lower launch prices, I don't see this ending. Both Samsung and Sony do this for their premium TVs, and we see this pricing strategy for all kinds of retail goods to start high above expected price and gradually reduce to make people feel like they are getting a good deal at the "discounted" price. With this strategy last year, we actually saw an early fall increase in cost for 55" panels because production couldn't meet demand. OLED is well known as superior to LCD and desired. All LG has to do is price according to what people are willing to pay to sell enough to match production volumes.


----------



## wco81

Supposedly Samsung has been show8ng their QD OLED prototype off the show floor.

I thought they’ve yet to decide whether to go into production, haven’t determined if they have a process which could scale.


----------



## stl8k

Some proper nerdery coming out of CES:


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Some proper nerdery coming out of CES:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN9TbJ3z_dQ


It's actually very cool to see LG taking the lead in both calibration (3D-LUT, Autocal, internal patterns) and motion performance...


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> It's actually very cool to see LG taking the lead in both calibration (3D-LUT, Autocal, internal patterns) and motion performance...


The LG motion system is user configurable for 2019:

https://youtu.be/1aDPNyhPAao?t=180


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> The motion is user configurable:
> 
> https://youtu.be/1aDPNyhPAao?t=180


25%, 50%, and 75% BFI @ 60Hz.

With Sooth Motion enganged to interpolate to 120Hz, only 50% BFI is supported (I suspect).

Also interesting that below 300cd/m2, they operate in RGB mode and do not make use of the white subpixel...


----------



## wco81

fafrd said:


> 25%, 50%, and 75% BFI @ 60Hz.
> 
> With Sooth Motion enganged to interpolate to 120Hz, only 50% BFI is supported (I suspect).
> 
> Also interesting that below 300cd/m2, they operate in RGB mode and do not make use of the white subpixel...


Is this a new thing over previous models, the ability to dial in the level of BFI?


----------



## AmishAnarchist

rogo said:


> It's pretty funny to me that people still claim all over AVS, other enthusiast sites, and the regular media that OLED technology has flatlined.
> 
> We're getting:
> 
> 1) Improved fill factor, and that trend is far from over because...
> 2) Top emission, with higher peak brightness, better lifespan, and... more fill factor!
> 3) Faster refresh and better motion handling
> 
> On a display that already has:
> 
> 1) Really good color reproduction
> 2) World-class contrast ratios, including inky, Hawking-like blacks
> 
> Oh, and several more years of cost reductions appear to be baked in thanks to:
> 
> 1) Multi-mode glass (cutting different sizes from one substrate)
> 2) Bigger and more fabs
> 
> And maybe (though I really doubt it) printing is coming. if it does, we will see
> 
> 1) Even better fill factors
> 2) Even better color reproduction
> 3) Possibly better life (if a magic blue comes to fruition, which is why I doubt we're going to see printing at all)
> 
> It seems 2019 is a big improvement with 2020-21 likely to improve strongly again.
> 
> There may be nothing left to complain about by 2022-23.
> 
> But I'm sure some will find a way.


Nothing? How bout the fact we still have to worry about burn-in in the 21st century? I game all day every day. I can't see buying a screen I need to be concerned about ruining through regular use.


----------



## KOF

fafrd said:


> 25%, 50%, and 75% BFI @ 60Hz.
> 
> With Sooth Motion enganged to interpolate to 120Hz, only 50% BFI is supported (I suspect).
> 
> Also interesting that below 300cd/m2, they operate in RGB mode and do not make use of the white subpixel...


So how will these three BFI settings be presented in the effective 240Hz domain?


----------



## fafrd

KOF said:


> So how will these three BFI settings be presented in the effective 240Hz domain?


At 60Hz, there will be a single frame-repeat and the half-screen rolling-scan will be used as follows to achieve the various BFI percentages:

*25%: *4ms of rolling scan in to top half (to write in new frame data) while bottom half with old date has a rolling blank done in parallel (so 50% luminance during this phase); followed by 4ms of rolling scan into the lower half while the upper half holds (so 75% luminance during this phase); followed by 4ms of full frame hold (so 100% lunimance during this phase); followed by a final of 4ms of rolling balnk into the top half while the bottom half holds (so 75% luminance during this phase and we are back to where we started). 

Total average display luminance over the full 16ms period = (50% + 75% + 100% + 75%) / 4 = 75%.

*50%: *could be plain 'ol black full-frame insertion like in 2018 but could also be a double-frame repeat with a 50% rolling-scan (240Hz flicker would be less noticable but effective persistance will only be reduced to 12.5ms rather than 8.3ms...).

With 120Hz content (or after using 'Smooth Motion' to interpolate 60Hz content up to 120Hz), only 50% BFI will be available, which will merely be a 50% rolling-scan...

*75%: * 4ms of rolling scan into the top half (25%); followed by 4ms of rolling scan into the bottom half while the top half has a rolling blank (50%); followed by 4ms of rolling blank into the bottom half (25%); followed by 4ms of black frame hold (0%). Total dispkay luminance = (25% + 50% + 25% + 0%) / 4 = 25%.

From the video I saw, it does not appear that LG is implementing auto-compensation for reduced brightness when engaging BFI, so that will need to be done manually by increasing OLED Light. [On the other hand, they may be compensating for 25% [email protected] and it is only going to 50% or 75% that results in image darkening.]

BFI implemented with a 50% rolling scan is something LED/LCD cannot do. With LED/LCD, the best they can do is refresh one half screen while the 50% backlight segment is off (and the other 50% backlight segment is on), the turn on the off segment while turning off the on segment to begin refreshing that half of the screen.

With a 4-segment scanning backlight, they can present a pseudo-rolling-scan of 1/4 screen height at a time (and an effective refresh rate of as much as 75% BFI @ 120Hz), but no easy way for LED/LCD to get anywhere close to a true rolling-scan with single-line precision (because each row of LEDs in the backlight controls illumination for many rows of pixels...).

With additional peak brightness to use and a faster IGZO backplane, LG has truly opened up a new era in flat-panel motion performance (with the promise to eventually meet and possibly even surpass CRT motion performance )!


----------



## rogo

tgm1024 said:


> Curious, in your opinion does this make Samsung more worried or less? To me, it really seems as if they've been in distraction damage control for a while now (curve, meaningless QD).


I think Samsung is very, very worried. That's why they're hedging on every alternative.



bjaurelio said:


> It's simply supply and demand. They are only able to produce a certain number of 77" panels while also maintaining 55" and 65" output. If there are enough people competing for those few panels, the price will remain high.


That's true


> Regarding the earlier analysis about needing lower launch prices, I don't see this ending. Both Samsung and Sony do this for their premium TVs, and we see this pricing strategy for all kinds of retail goods to start high above expected price and gradually reduce to make people feel like they are getting a good deal at the "discounted" price. With this strategy last year, we actually saw an early fall increase in cost for 55" panels because production couldn't meet demand. OLED is well known as superior to LCD and desired. All LG has to do is price according to what people are willing to pay to sell enough to match production volumes.


Not so simple. Samsung and Sony aren't selling 40% more premium TVs every year. LG needs to, for another half decade. The pricing has to _crater_ from here. Maximum realistic pricing for the "C" type models is $1000/$1500/$3000 for the 55/65/75 a few years out. Lower is likelier. You can't keep entry pricing at $3500 and go down to $2000 one year, $1500 the next year, etc. etc. etc. 

You have to start entering the year with something resembling the "non chump" price.



AmishAnarchist said:


> Nothing? How bout the fact we still have to worry about burn-in in the 21st century? I game all day every day. I can't see buying a screen I need to be concerned about ruining through regular use.


It's likely lifespan will be approaching 10x what we have seen.

If you're still going to worry, just buy an LCD.


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> At 60Hz, there will be a single frame-repeat and the half-screen rolling-scan will be used as follows to achieve the various BFI percentages:
> 
> *25%: *4ms of rolling scan out (to write in new frame data) followed by 8ms of frame hold followed by 4ms of rolling frame out (to result in a blanked screen ready for the next frame). Total display period = 12.5ms / 16.7ms = 75%.
> 
> *50%: *could be plain 'ol black full-frame insertion like in 2018 but could also be a double-frame repeat with a 50% rolling-scan (240Hz flicker would be less noticable but effective persistance will only be reduced to 12.5ms rather than 8.3ms...).
> 
> With 120Hz content (or after using 'Smooth Motion' to interpolate 60Hz content up to 120Hz), only 50% BFI will be available, which will merely be a 50% rolling-scan...
> 
> *75%: * 4ms of rolling scan in followed by 4ms of rolling scan out followed by 8ms of black frame. Total dispkay period = 4.2ms/16.7ms = 25%.
> 
> From the video I saw, it does not appear that LG is implementing auto-compensation for reduced brightness when engaging BFI, so that will need to be done manually by increasibg OLED Light...
> 
> BFI implemented with a 50% rolling scan is something LED/LCD cannot do. With LED/LCD, the best they can do is refresh one half screen while the 50% backlight segment is off (and the other 50% backlight segment is on), the turn on the off segment while turning off the on segment to begin refreshing that half of the screen.
> 
> With a 4-segment scanning backlight, they can present a pseudo-rolling-scan of 1/4 screen height at a time (and an effective refresh rate of as much as 75% @ 120Hz), but no eay LED/LCD can get anywhere vlose to a trie rolling-scan with single-line precision (bevause each row of LEDs in the backlight controls illumination for many rows of pixels...).
> 
> With additional peak brightness to use and a faster IGZO backplane, LG has truly opened up a new era in flat-panel motion performance (with the promise to eventually meet and possibly even surpass CRT motion performance )!


Hi fafrd, understanding that this does little for 24fps material (and we're interested in Blurbusters custom software 96Hz solution), I wonder how all this will apply for 25/50fps material, which is dominant in the European broadcast arena. Any clue?


----------



## stl8k

*Vincent Teoh at LGD Booth*

Watching this, especially around 65" 8K and Motion, is there more roadmap clarity or less?


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Watching this, especially around 65" 8K and Motion, is there more roadmap clarity or less?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRFfxJOBubk


It seems as though LG has elected to 'stand pat' at their current position inthe Brightness Wars. This means keeping their official specs at:

Full Field Peak Brightness of 150cd/m2
25% Field Peak Brightness of 500cd/m2
10% Field Peak Brightness of 800cd/m2

and to 'pocket' any additional increases in efficiency or aperature ratio to further reduce aging and provide a larger buffer for conpensation of differential aging (burn-in).

The 65" 8K is almost certainly a Top-Emission panel and I'm dissapointed that Vincent did not as about it.

Sounds as though late-launching customers like Philips and possibly Sony may introduce 65" 8K WOLEDs based on this panel before year-end and we don't know whether LG forces them to follow similar guidelines in terms of peak brightness levels or allows them to exceed these...

All of the above brightness levels are at D65 (which is good) and it is unclear to me wether rtings.com measurements are calibrated to D65 or in Vivid, but here are their measurements ftom the 65C8P:

Full field sustained HDR peak brightness: 151cd/m2 (versis 150cd/m2 @ D65 for the 8K WOLEDs)
50% field sustained HDR peak brightness: 303cd/m2
25% field sustained HDR peak brightness: 492cd/m2 (versus 500cd/m2 @ D65 for the 8K WOLEDs)
10% field sustained HDR peak brightness: 876cd/m2 (versus 800cd/m2 @ D65 for the 8K WOLEDs)
2% field sustained HDR peak brightness: 915cd/m2

So 2020 may not bring increased peak brightness, even with Top Emission (just greatly extended lifetime and much greater immunity to burn-in).

Can't say I blame LG - from where things stand today, risk of burn-in seems to be a greater obstacle to WOLEDs extended penetration down-market than not being 'bright' enough...

On motion, Vincent's video confirms the split-column refresh architecture I had speculated LGD used. He makes a statement about 'luminance boosting' which would be great and is certainly possible, but I saw other videos from CES where that boosting was not apparent (the image darkened by engaging BFI). Perhaps the automatic boosting is only for [email protected]%, so of you increase to 50% or 75%@60Hz you get increasing loss of luminance. And hopefully the boosting is also in effect for 50 @120Hz (the only BFI% supported at 120Hz).

If the 2019s can support HDR Gaming @120Hz with 50% BFI and no loss of HDR peak brightness levels, that will mean LG has finally understood that BFI does not need to come at the expense of brightness levels on WOLED (as it must on LED/LCD)...

But yeah, for those of us holding out hope that Top Emission results in increased WOLED peak brightness levels, that may take longer than another year. Top Emission will deliver greatly increased immunity to burn in for the heavy CNN watchers among us but the only thing the rest of us may get in 2020 is a 240Hz Native 4K refresh rate, support for VRR up to 240Hz (at least 144Hz), and possibly further improvements in BFI supporting 75% BFI @120Hz (and maybe even more than 75%).


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> Hi fafrd, understanding that this does little for 24fps material (and we're interested in Blurbusters custom software 96Hz solution), I wonder how all this will apply for 25/50fps material, which is dominant in the European broadcast arena. Any clue?


You'll need to check with Mark, but my general understanding is that managing 24Hz material on 25/50Hz displays is actually easier than it is on 60/120Hz displays (possibly because they just accept the 4% speedup of running 24fps @ 25fps...).


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> It seems as though LG has elected to 'stand pat' at their current position inthe Brightness Wars. This means keeping their official specs at:
> 
> Full Field Peak Brightness of 150cd/m2
> 25% Field Peak Brightness of 500cd/m2
> 10% Field Peak Brightness of 800cd/m2
> 
> and to 'pocket' any additional increases in efficiency or aperature ratio to further reduce aging and provide a larger buffer for conpensation of differential aging (burn-in).
> 
> The 65" 8K is almost certainly a Top-Emission panel and I'm dissapointed that Vincent did not as about it.
> 
> Sounds as though late-launching customers like Philips and possibly Sony may introduce 65" 8K WOLEDs based on this panel before year-end and we don't know whether LG forces them to follow similar guidelines in terms of peak brightness levels or allows them to exceed these...
> 
> All of the above brightness levels are at D65 (which is good) and it is unclear to me wether rtings.com measurements are calibrated to D65 or in Vivid, but here are their measurements ftom the 65C8P:
> 
> Full field sustained HDR peak brightness: 151cd/m2 (versis 150cd/m2 @ D65 for the 8K WOLEDs)
> 50% field sustained HDR peak brightness: 303cd/m2
> 25% field sustained HDR peak brightness: 492cd/m2 (versus 500cd/m2 @ D65 for the 8K WOLEDs)
> 10% field sustained HDR peak brightness: 876cd/m2 (versus 800cd/m2 @ D65 for the 8K WOLEDs)
> 2% field sustained HDR peak brightness: 915cd/m2
> 
> So 2020 may not bring increased peak brightness, even with Top Emission (just greatly extended lifetime and much greater immunity to burn-in).
> 
> Can't say I blame LG - from where things stand today, risk of burn-in seems to be a greater obstacle to WOLEDs extended penetration down-market than not being 'bright' enough...
> 
> On motion, Vincent's video confirms the split-column refresh architecture I had speculated LGD used. He makes a statement about 'luminance boosting' which would be great and is certainly possible, but I saw other videos from CES where that boosting was not apparent (the image darkened by engaging BFI). Perhaps the automatic boosting is only for [email protected]%, so of you increase to 50% or 75%@60Hz you get increasing loss of luminance. And hopefully the boosting is also in effect for 50 @120Hz (the only BFI% supported at 120Hz).
> 
> If the 2019s can support HDR Gaming @120Hz with 50% BFI and no loss of HDR peak brightness levels, that will mean LG has finally understood that BFI does not need to come at the expense of brightness levels on WOLED (as it must on LED/LCD)...
> 
> But yeah, for those of us holding out hope that Top Emission results in increased WOLED peak brightness levels, that may take longer than another year. Top Emission will deliver greatly increased immunity to burn in for the heavy CNN watchers among us but the only thing the rest of us may get in 2020 is a 240Hz Native 4K refresh rate, support for VRR up to 240Hz (at least 144Hz), and possibly further improvements in BFI supporting 75% BFI @120Hz (and maybe even more than 75%).


I'm glad you posted, fafrd.

I'm increasingly becoming a TEOLED being commercialized by LGD skeptic for these reasons:

1. Nobody is talking about it publicly. Since the late 2017 through mid-2018 peak, there's been precious little public press about TEOLED commercialization.

2. There are no strong tells from LGD's CES presence.

3. Lots of the public information/predictions by the display/biz press has turned out to be low quality. As one example, in very early 2018, we had the (Business Korea) prediction that the rollable prototype shown at CES 2018 would be produced at the P10 OLED fab in Paju in 2020. That turns out to have been a pretty bad prediction. And, we had the early 2018 (etnews) info of equipment being ordered for P10.

I love a great prediction and loved your HDMI 2.1 prediction *months* before CES this year on the main boards, but thinking your TEOLED 2020 prediction a year in advance may be a disservice to the folks *on the main board * just trying to time their purchase.

Perhaps a better approach for main board posting is to a) speculate on quantifiable display characteristic improvements irrespective of the tech innovations that will deliver those improvements and b) set a really high bar for the info that is backing up the prediction.

In this part of the forum though I'd set a much lower bar and we'll call bull**** on anything that seems out of bounds


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I'm glad you posted, fafrd.
> 
> *I'm increasingly becoming a TEOLED being commercialized by LGD skeptic *for these reasons:
> 
> 1. Nobody is talking about it publicly. Since the late 2017 through mid-2018 peak, there's been precious little public press about TEOLED commercialization.
> 
> 2. There are no strong tells from LGD's CES presence.
> 
> 3. Lots of the public information/predictions by the press has turned out to be low quality. As one example, in very early 2018, we had the (Business Korea) prediction that the rollable prototype shown at CES 2018 would be produced at the P10 OLED fab in Paju in 2020. That turns out to have been a pretty bad prediction. And, we had the early 2018 (etnews) info of equipment being ordered for P10.


I'm pretty confident your skepticism is not warranted because LGD already has top-emission in production (and there's a decent chance other OEMs such as Philips will launch 65" 8K products using TEWOLED before year-end.

LGD is not making much noise about Top Emission because they will not be using it to improve specs Consumers care about (like peak brightness). Instead, LGD wil be quietly using Top Emission to sweep concerns about burn-in on WOLED far into the rearview mirror.

Burn-in could have killed WOLED in its infancy and LGD essentially threadedthe needle in terms of having a barely-acceptable response ready just as the vulnerability as discovered by the market. Imagine how the future could have looked if the 2017 WOLEDs buned in every bit as easily as the 2016s...

So I don't blame LG a bit for being ultra-conservative making brightness increases and pocketing all gains for further burn-in compensation and lifetime extension (at least for now). If I was an executive at LG Display's WOLED division, I imagine I'd have had a great number of sleepless noghts over the past 2-3 years...

Also, on the various predictions you've mentioned, you overlooked DSCC. In additon to Top Emission which they predicted would be in production this year (meaning consumer products by 2020), they predicted MMG which appears increasingly-likely to be born out as they forecasted: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction



> I love a great prediction and loved your HDMI 2.1 prediction *months* before CES this year on the main boards, but thinking your TEOLED 2020 prediction a year in advance may be a disservice to the folks *on the main board * just trying to time their purchase.


I think knowing more is better as a general rule always. I've already posted an update to that TEOLED thread informing everyone that increased brightness looks unlikely to be one of the improvements coming in 2020 (while a 240Hz native backplane for 4K WOLEDs still might be).



> Perhaps a better approach for main board posting is to a) speculate on quantifiable display characteristic improvements irrespective of the tech innovations that will deliver those improvements and b) set a really high bar for the info that is backing up the prediction.
> 
> In this part of the forum though I'd set a much lower bar and we'll call bull**** on anything that seems out of bounds


Hey, look, if my posting of anything either here or on the main board causes any members distress and it would be better to do things differently, I'm all ears. But my general rule of thumb has been to post here when I am happy letting things slip silently into the ether and posting a new thread on the main board when I'm interested enough in a subject to want to track it and keep the thread updated as long as it is relevant.


----------



## sooke

fafrd said:


> LGD is not making much noise about Top Emission because they will not be using it to improve specs Consumers care about (like peak brightness). Instead, LGD wil be quietly using Top Emission to sweep concerns about burn-in on WOLED far into the rearview mirror.



Top Emission could also reduce or eliminate ABL, correct? (Since ABL is there for power reduction, not BI reduction. If TE is more efficient seems logical LG could take advantage and reduce the brightness limiter kicking in.


----------



## fafrd

sooke said:


> Top Emission could also reduce or eliminate ABL, correct? (Since ABL is there for power reduction, not BI reduction. If TE is more efficient seems logical LG could take advantage and reduce the brightness limiter kicking in.


ABL is quite complicated. It is used to:

-control peak aging rate
-control total power consumption
-control peak local power consumption (local heat generation, which can cause damage if left unchecked)

Top-emission allows the same current/light output to age the OLED material less severely (because the same photons are being spread out over a larger area), but increasing light output means inceasing power consumption.

Improvement to EqE (electro-quantum-efficiency) allow more light putput for the same power consumption, so advances in EqE should allow ABL to be relaxed, bur top-emission alone only allows and secrions ofnthe ABL curve associated primarily with aging rate to be relaxed...


----------



## RichB

Along with motion/BFI, there are the static tone-curve adjustments. They still use different curves but appear to track PQ EOTG much better. I am not a fan of the static tone-mapping in the 7 series which can be arbitrary since MaxCLL is not be a good indicator of the content brightness. The defaults look much better and the option is there to use Calman to set your own preferences.

Also, some of the top-emission brightness increase seems to have been spent on increasing the color volume in all modes with an additional mode that reduces overall brightness but provides maximum color accuracy. Maybe we will see some pretty cubes in the future 

The willingness to forgo maximum brightness for accuracy and longevity is impressive. 
I also love the C series with minimum bezel and no visible logo. I can't think of another company that would do that.

- Rich


----------



## wco81

Couldn't they just flip over a current display to get top-emission?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

gorman42 said:


> Hi fafrd, understanding that this does little for 24fps material (and we're interested in Blurbusters custom software 96Hz solution), I wonder how all this will apply for 25/50fps material, which is dominant in the European broadcast arena. Any clue?


Typically TV panels essentially have two modes - a 100Hz mode and a 120Hz mode

(in the past, on TVs that don't support judder-free 24Hz input, this would have been a 50Hz and 60Hz mode; additionally some US-only models like some older Vizio TVs only operate in a 60Hz or 120Hz mode with no support at all for refresh rates that are a multiple of 25Hz)


If the input signal is 24Hz, 30Hz, 60Hz, or 120Hz, the TV will operate in 120Hz mode.

If the input signal is 25Hz, 50Hz, or 100Hz, the TV will operate in 100Hz mode.


This is most noticable on TVs that have some form of either black frame insertion or backlight strobing (such as my older Toshiba 39L1350U) - sometimes at lower backlight levels you can actually see the flicker when the TV is operating in 100Hz mode but not in 120Hz mode regardless of how bright the backlight is set.


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Hey, look, if my posting of anything either here or on the main board causes any members distress and it would be better to do things differently, I'm all ears. But my general rule of thumb has been to post here when I am happy letting things slip silently into the ether and posting a new thread on the main board when I'm interested enough in a subject to want to track it and keep the thread updated as long as it is relevant.


There's Asian press from Summer 2018 that was casting doubt on 65"/75" 8K Top Emission (non-flexible, non-transparent) for 2019, suggesting bottom emission instead. I can't assess the quality of that press/info for you, but it exists and can be found via search with very moderate effort.


----------



## stl8k

*There's No 8K Content...*

Except for one of the most-watched sporting events in the world, the Super Bowl.

"For the first time ever on any network in the United States, CBS will use multiple 8K cameras with a unique, highly-constructed engineering solution to provide viewers with even more dramatic close-up views of the action from the endzone including possible game changing plays along the goal lines and end lines."

https://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-sports/releases/view?id=51745


----------



## tgm1024

stl8k said:


> Except for one of the most-watched sporting events in the world, the Super Bowl.
> 
> "For the first time ever on any network in the United States, CBS will use multiple 8K cameras with a unique, highly-constructed engineering solution to provide viewers with even more dramatic close-up views of the action from the endzone including possible game changing plays along the goal lines and end lines."
> 
> https://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-sports/releases/view?id=51745


The cameras? That's not "content" IMO. Content is what lands on my 8K screen, or even just what they send out as full-frames, not what they shoot with for zoom-ins, and the like.


----------



## gorman42

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Typically TV panels essentially have two modes - a 100Hz mode and a 120Hz mode
> 
> (in the past, on TVs that don't support judder-free 24Hz input, this would have been a 50Hz and 60Hz mode; additionally some US-only models like some older Vizio TVs only operate in a 60Hz or 120Hz mode with no support at all for refresh rates that are a multiple of 25Hz)
> 
> 
> If the input signal is 24Hz, 30Hz, 60Hz, or 120Hz, the TV will operate in 120Hz mode.
> 
> If the input signal is 25Hz, 50Hz, or 100Hz, the TV will operate in 100Hz mode.


Sure. I should have been clearer. I wonder what happens with BFI with 25/50fps content. From what I read, it was terrible on 2018 models.


----------



## JPbuckwalter

gorman42 said:


> Sure. I should have been clearer. I wonder what happens with BFI with 25/50fps content. From what I read, it was terrible on 2018 models.



I can confirm this. 24/30/60hz BFI is fine on the 2018 models. 25/50hz BFI displays a pretty astounding amount of flicker. Like, a truly massive difference between the two.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

gorman42 said:


> Sure. I should have been clearer. I wonder what happens with BFI with 25/50fps content. From what I read, it was terrible on 2018 models.


Well as I just stated, you'd typically get 50 or 100 black frames per second, and obviously that's going to be more noticeable than 60 or 120 black frames per second (though of course it will additionally depend on how sensitive you are to flicker).




JPbuckwalter said:


> I can confirm this. 24/30/60hz BFI is fine on the 2018 models. 25/50hz BFI displays a pretty astounding amount of flicker. Like, a truly massive difference between the two.


Since BFI operated at 60 black frames per second on the 2018 models, it's likely that it was only operating at a mere 50 black frames per second when being fed a 50Hz video signal.


Anybody should be able to test this stuff out yourself by simply connecting a PC and changing your output refresh rate from 60Hz to 50Hz (this is of course assuming that your GPU in question exposes 50Hz refresh rates by default - I know AMD GPUs do, but Nvidia and Intel sometimes don't; if they're not listed, then you'd have to make a custom resolution with a 50Hz refresh rate).


----------



## tgm1024

Hmmm.....Almost sounds like there's frame dropping going on. This usually only happens when you're feeding enough FPS to a TV that it can't keep up with it's own pipeline, but consider:

If the American release TVs have ASIC's dedicated to an expected 24/30/60/120, then the TV would have to default back to CPU driven computation without ASIC assist for the oddball framerates. They'd have to punt some. {shrug}


----------



## NintendoManiac64

*tl;dr* BFI operates at a multiple of the TVs refresh rate, and contrary to popular belief, most TVs actually have two refresh rates that they can operate at rather than just one - one that's a multiple of 25, one that's a multiple of 30, and the TV automatically chooses the one that's a multiple of the source video. Because BFI flicker is more noticeable at lower rates, and 50 and 100 is lower than 60 and 120 respectively, you're simply going to have worse flicker with the former than the latter.




tgm1024 said:


> Hmmm.....Almost sounds like there's frame dropping going on. This usually only happens when you're feeding enough FPS to a TV that it can't keep up with it's own pipeline, but consider:
> 
> If the American release TVs have ASIC's dedicated to an expected 24/30/60/120, then the TV would have to default back to CPU driven computation without ASIC assist for the oddball framerates. They'd have to punt some. {shrug}


That's...not quite how it works.


It might easier to understand that, in computer displays (_especially_ CRTs), you can basically feed it any refresh rate between whatever the panel's minimum and a maximum is and it'll run at that given refresh rate without issue - remember, PCs generate a video signal on-the-fly for their GUI and stuff so the PC itself doesn't have a native framerate like recorded video does.

In this sense, most PC displays don't actually have a native refresh rate.

So if you your PC display is set to 50Hz and you play a 25fps video, it will repeat each frame twice. If your PC display is set to 75Hz (very common on CRT monitors) and play a 25fps video, it will repeat each frame three times. If you set your PC display to 120Hz (most CRT monitors could do this at least at 640x480) and play a 25fps video, you get a case where some frames are repeated 4 times while others are repeated 5 times.

In other words, when you play a video on a PC, it will automatically telecine/repeat frames as necessary in order for the video to match your display refresh rate.

Now obviously that last example of 25fps video on an 120Hz display is not optimal and will cause judder (similar to 24fps on 60Hz), so some software like MPC-HC and madVR have the ability to automatically change the refresh rate to something else for a given video frame rate. So if your monitor maxes out at 120Hz and you play a 25fps video, you could set it to automatically change to 100Hz so that you have judder-free playback, but the maximum of 120Hz would work fine for 24fps and 30fps content.


TVs pretty much follow the same idea, and that includes the ability to automatically change their refresh rate based on the video frame rate. However, TVs have one major difference - instead of having a minimum and maximum refresh rate and are able to run at anything in-between, TVs only have a couple specific refresh rates they can run at - typically 50Hz and 60Hz, or 100Hz and 120Hz.

So much like the example of MPC-HC and madVR automatically switching refresh rate based on the video content's frame rate, TVs will automatically change their refresh rate between 50Hz/100Hz and 60Hz/120Hz based on the source video. Most people in North America do not realize this however as basically no device available in North America (outside of PCs) can output a 50Hz video signal, so 99.99% of the time their TV just sticks to a refresh rate of 60Hz or 120Hz.

(keep in mind that the TV's OSD typically only shows the input video signal and not the actual refresh rate that the display is operating at - just because a TV will accept a 75Hz video signal doesn't mean that it's actually running at that; oddly enough my on Toshiba 39L1350U lists 75Hz @ 1024x768 as a selectable mode, but the panel actually runs at 60Hz for this resulting in dropped frames)


So now that you (hopefully) understand refresh rates, the key point about backlight strobing and black frame insertion is that, assuming it wasn't very poorly implemented, it will always operate at a multiple of the refresh rate (typically double or equal to). So if a display is running at at 50Hz, then your BFI will also operate at either 50Hz or 100Hz. If the display is running at 60Hz, then your BFI will run at either 60Hz or 120Hz.

Thing is, the lower the rate of BFI is, the more noticable the flicker will be. This is particularly apparent on CRT monitors (which essentially natively do black frame insertion due to their PWM nature) where 60Hz or even something like 50Hz can be a flicker fest while even 75Hz can be a massive improvement, let alone anything higher. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that a display running at 50Hz with BFI is going to have more noticeable flicker than the very same display running at 60Hz with BFI (same goes for 100Hz + BFI vs 120Hz + BFI)


----------



## tgm1024

NintendoManiac64 said:


> *tl;dr* BFI operates at a multiple of the TVs refresh rate, and contrary to popular belief, most TVs actually have two refresh rates that they can operate at rather than just one - one that's a multiple of 25, one that's a multiple of 30, and the TV automatically chooses the one that's a multiple of the source video. Because BFI flicker is more noticeable at lower rates, and 50 and 100 is lower than 60 and 120 respectively, you're simply going to have worse flicker with the former than the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's...not quite how it works.
> 
> 
> It might easier to understand that, in computer displays (_especially_ CRTs), you can basically feed it any refresh rate between whatever the panel's minimum and a maximum is and it'll run at that given refresh rate without issue - remember, PCs generate a video signal on-the-fly for their GUI and stuff so the PC itself doesn't have a native framerate like recorded video does.
> 
> In this sense, most PC displays don't actually have a native refresh rate.
> 
> So if you your PC display is set to 50Hz and you play a 25fps video, it will repeat each frame twice. If your PC display is set to 75Hz (very common on CRT monitors) and play a 25fps video, it will repeat each frame three times. If you set your PC display to 120Hz (most CRT monitors could do this at least at 640x480) and play a 25fps video, you get a case where some frames are repeated 4 times while others are repeated 5 times.
> 
> In other words, when you play a video on a PC, it will automatically telecine/repeat frames as necessary in order for the video to match your display refresh rate.


Of course, and that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was just pondering something out loud about an odd reason for such behavior.



NintendoManiac64 said:


> Now obviously that last example of 25fps video on an 120Hz display is not optimal and will cause judder (similar to 24fps on 60Hz), so some software like MPC-HC and madVR have the ability to automatically change the refresh rate to something else for a given video frame rate. So if your monitor maxes out at 120Hz and you play a 25fps video, you could set it to automatically change to 100Hz so that you have judder-free playback, but the maximum of 120Hz would work fine for 24fps and 30fps content.
> 
> 
> TVs pretty much follow the same idea, and that includes the ability to automatically change their refresh rate based on the video frame rate. However, TVs have one major difference - instead of having a minimum and maximum refresh rate and are able to run at anything in-between, TVs only have a couple specific refresh rates they can run at - typically 50Hz and 60Hz, or 100Hz and 120Hz.
> 
> So much like the example of MPC-HC and madVR automatically switching refresh rate based on the video content's frame rate, TVs will automatically change their refresh rate between 50Hz/100Hz and 60Hz/120Hz based on the source video. Most people in North America do not realize this however as basically no device available in North America (outside of PCs) can output a 50Hz video signal, so 99.99% of the time their TV just sticks to a refresh rate of 60Hz or 120Hz.
> 
> (keep in mind that the TV's OSD typically only shows the input video signal and not the actual refresh rate that the display is operating at - just because a TV will accept a 75Hz video signal doesn't mean that it's actually running at that; oddly enough my on Toshiba 39L1350U lists 75Hz @ 1024x768 as a selectable mode, but the panel actually runs at 60Hz for this resulting in dropped frames)
> 
> 
> So now that you (hopefully) understand refresh rates, the key point about backlight strobing and black frame insertion is that, assuming it wasn't very poorly implemented, it will always operate at a multiple of the refresh rate (typically double or equal to). So if a display is running at at 50Hz, then your BFI will also operate at either 50Hz or 100Hz. If the display is running at 60Hz, then your BFI will run at either 60Hz or 120Hz.
> 
> Thing is, the lower the rate of BFI is, the more noticable the flicker will be. This is particularly apparent on CRT monitors (which essentially natively do black frame insertion due to their PWM nature) where 60Hz or even something like 50Hz can be a flicker fest while even 75Hz can be a massive improvement, let alone anything higher. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that a display running at 50Hz with BFI is going to have more noticeable flicker than the very same display running at 60Hz with BFI (same goes for 100Hz + BFI vs 120Hz + BFI)


Please don't talk down to me. I well understand what a refresh rate is. Jesus, I have to be so careful in every single sentence around here or else run the risk of some guy like this ^^^^ assuming that I haven't been in this industry since the early 80's and saying crap like "So now that you (hopefully) understand refresh rates."

What I was talking about was beyond all of that. In _other situations, _frame discarding (frame dropping) is real in the case of pushing a refresh rate too fast for the TV to *process*----it's able to receive them, but punt on render---Mark Rejhon built a wonderful tester for this. You have to use a camera for it; the EDID back backchanneled isn't enough. There is no "oddly enough", it's an understood phenomenon.

We saw this routinely with TVs that everyone thought could take (say) 4:4:4/120Hz. >poof< the occasional frame was lost. Why? There's a pipeline within the TV ------ HD Tvs simply do not "chase the beam" the way that CRTs do. The TV needs to process them in order and can (and do) decide to drop them when they can't render them computationally.

_All I was saying was that if the TV didn't have the ASIC assist (for the foreign environment), then it would run directly into a computational problem, similar to dropping._


----------



## Jin-X

@fafrd It would really suck if LG just basically ate huge jumps in HDR peak luminance to try and kill all burn in talk, as that seems like a futile exercise. No matter how difficult they make burn in a possibility, the FUD will continue. Just look at how hard it was for RTings to get burn in from gaming, that should pretty much kill any concern from real word use for video games, and I believe they did on a 6 series if I'm not mistaken. And we already know that is something that has been made increasingly better each year since that model, with the 9 taking another jump in that regard. About the only thing left is CNN, and if one is watching that much CNN, why in the world are you spending so much money on a premium set? Be it OLED, QLED or a Sony LCD. If they go that route it should at least be a user selectable feature, they can hide it away and put a warning about it if they want to, but don't let FUD and slander hinder PQ.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

stl8k said:


> You clearly need an MPRT100% t-shirt to support your evangelism efforts!


I call the easy MPRT100% formula the "Blur Busters Law", the type of display motion blur formula simplification inspired by Albert Einstein formula simplification of "E=mc²". 

*1ms of display persistence (MPRT100%) = 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec of display motion*

Although many knew the formula as a generic formula and displays seemed to be behaving that way -- it was not easy to theoretically test for until GtG of sample-hold display approached darn near 0ms GtG. Now, the Blur Busters Law formula is confirmed becoming more and more exact as GtG approaches closer and closer to 0ms. The formula is the same for camera photographs. 

Blur Busters Law is indeed a more accurate AND simpler formula than the MPRT90% formula for fast-GtG displays.



stl8k said:


> More seriously have you considered:
> 
> 
> Doing a dedicated explorable explanation of display motion? (https://explorabl.es/) Alternatively, distill.pub would be an obvious choice for publishing as they're open to expanding their scope beyond Machine Learning.
> Getting some capital to grow a business that is a graniteriverlabs.com-alike.


I'm always looking for new ways to communicate & demonstrate. My TestUFO animations have become famous, such as the TestUFO Black Frames test, TestUFO Persistence Optical Illusion test, and the TestUFO Simulated Variable Refresh Rate Animation (via interpolation) that I invented. 

More than 50% of modern display engineers did not initially know the stuff I taught them, having been trained on more abstract display engineering concepts. At CES 2019, several manufacturers told me they now use these tests to train their newbie engineers now -- nobody educates in an easy/fun way that Blur Busters does. Display engineers are generally taught in an abstract way at universities, never having watched "see-for-yourself" TestUFO style motion tests that demonstrates "aha, Eureka!" understandings of display behaviours.

*However, I could still improve further with better/easier videos and animations* -- to explain to bigger audiences of mainstream users, and I'd love to publish more scientific papers above-and-beyond what I already have in my ResearchGate. 

While I work with engineers, I'm not a display engineer directly, nor I am mainstream, but straddle in the unusual "in-between" -- covering topics not normally covered by mainstream (yet easier and more "Popular Science" than scientific journals, though I co-author in peer-reviewed papers too). That's what makes Blur Busters so unique!


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> I call the easy MPRT100% formula the "Blur Busters Law", the type of display motion blur formula simplification inspired by Albert Einstein formula simplification of "E=mc²".
> 
> 1ms of display persistence (MPRT100%) = 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec of display motion
> 
> Although many knew the formula, it was not easy to theoretically test for until GtG approaches 0. The formula is confirmed becoming more and more exact as GtG approaches closer and closer to 0ms. The formula is the same for camera photographs.
> 
> 
> I'm always looking for new ways to communicate & demonstrate. My TestUFO animations have become famous, such as the TestUFO Black Frames test, TestUFO Persistence Optical Illusion test, and the TestUFO Simulated Variable Refresh Rate Animation (via interpolation) that I invented.
> 
> More than 50% of modern display engineers did not initially know the stuff I taught them, having been trained on more abstract display engineering concepts. *At CES 2019, several manufacturers told me *they now use these tests to train their newbie engineers now -- nobody educates in an easy/fun way that Blur Busters does.
> 
> However, I could improve further with better/easier videos and animations -- to explain to bigger audiences of mainstream users, and I'd love to publish more scientific papers above-and-beyond what I already have in my ResearchGate. I'm not a display engineer directly, nor I am mainstream, but straddle in the unusual "in-between" -- covering topics not normally covered by mainstream (yet easier and more "Popular Science" than scientific journals). That's what makes Blur Busters so unique!


Hope you discussions at CES were productive. Did you by any chance get any insights as to whether we'll be seeing 120Hz 8K panels? By next yeat? And what about the chances that that double-speed backplane technology filters down to 4K panels with 240Hz Native Refresh Rates?


----------



## Mark Rejhon

-- They were certainly productive. I think 8K 120Hz prototype panels are already here, since I saw one. Though unsure about retail as 8K 120Hz sources don't exist in the consumer space (yet).
-- Oh, and I also met Vincent Teoh at CES 2019.
-- For the LG, I found out that there may actually be 25%,50%,75% BFI ratios available (indirectly) for the LG 4Ks, via the 3-step Intensity adjustment.



As for 4K 240Hz, I think that's at least a year away for OLED -- that is going to require some mondoo bandwidth, though 8K 60Hz is the same bandwidth as 4K 240Hz. So 4K 240Hz is not difficult for HDMI 2.1 to pull off, the bandwidth is available today!

*Microsoft Windows cannot do 8K 120Hz*
_(EDIT 2019-01-13, received messages: Yes, it can in the latest now....but there is still a dotclock limitation & a refresh rate limitation)_

Unfortunately, Microsoft Windows has an annoying arbitrarily-hardcoded dotclock limitation (even when you use two HDMI 2.1 cables) that prevents 4K 480Hz and 8K 120Hz from being possible under Windows. By using multiple cables and other techniques, you can still uncap the limits of HDMI 2.1, and do things like 8K 120Hz, but Microsoft doesn't even *let* you do 8K 120Hz even via HDMI 2.1. Urgh, silly Microsoft, getting in the way of NHK 8K 120Hz experiments.

Even at lower resolutions, there is also an annoying 512Hz limitation in Microsoft Windows that prevents me from testing prototype/research 1000Hz+ displays so I have to switch to Linux for that. 

Alas, I believe Microsoft copy-pasted the HDMI 2.1 spec numbers -- when some prototype research displays can do 1000Hz+ at lower bitdepths or via multiple cables... *If anyone knows how to reach a Microsoft engineer in the display/graphics department, please let me know* to potentially un-cap these arbitrary Hertz equivalents of "640K ought to be enough for anyone" hair pullers at Blur Busters. 

There are two different hardcoded numbers in Microsoft Windows

* A dotclock limitation 
* A refresh rate limitation of no more than 512 Hertz

I really need to *shatter the silly Windows 512Hz barrier* that Microsoft has arbitrarily hard-coded into Windows 10, that also prevents Windows from doing 8K 120Hz.


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> -- They were certainly productive. *I think 8K 120Hz prototype panels are already here, since I saw one.*


Can you say which vendor?



> *Though unsure about retail as 8K 120Hz sources don't exist in the consumer space (yet).*


120Hz content may never materialize, but since HDMI2.1 supports [email protected], 8K TVs capable of that refresh rate should materialize. That will unlock the same 25%, 50%, 75% BFI options the 2019 4K WOLEDs support (as well as VRR up to 120Hz)...



> -- Oh, and I also met Vincent Teoh at CES 2019.
> -- For the LG, I found out that there may actually be 25%,50%,75% BFI ratios available (indirectly) for the LG 4Ks, via the 3-step Intensity adjustment.


Yes, the 2019s support 25% [email protected] with full Brightness Compensation, 50% with 25% Brightness loss, and 75% with 50% Brightness Loss. Not perfect, but a solid step in the right direction. At 120Hz there is only 50% BFI, hopefully with at least half-compensation for underlying brightness loss...



> As for 4K 240Hz, I think that's at least a year away for OLED -- that is going to require some mondoo bandwidth, though 8K 60Hz is the same bandwidth as 4K 240Hz. So 4K 240Hz is not difficult for HDMI 2.1 to pull off, the bandwidth is available today!


I'm thinking the earliest we see [email protected] will be a year from now (but I'm interested in any insight you might have if you believe it may be earlier or later. Sinnce getting to [email protected] means doubling the backplane speed, I'm hoping 240Hz 4K materializes at the same time (but we'll see).



> *Microsoft Windows cannot do 8K 120Hz*
> 
> Unfortunately, Microsoft Windows has an annoying arbitrarily-hardcoded dotclock limitation (even when you use two HDMI 2.1 cables) that prevents 4K 480Hz and 8K 120Hz from being possible under Windows. By using multiple cables and other techniques, you can still uncap the limits of HDMI 2.1, and do things like 8K 120Hz, but Microsoft doesn't even *let* you do 8K 120Hz even via HDMI 2.1. Urgh, silly Microsoft, getting in the way of NHK 8K 120Hz experiments.
> 
> Even at lower resolutions, there is also an annoying 512Hz limitation in Microsoft Windows that prevents me from testing prototype/research 1000Hz+ displays so I have to switch to Linux for that.
> 
> Alas, Microsoft copy-pasted the HDMI 2.1 spec numbers -- when some prototype research displays can do 1000Hz+ at lower bitdepths or via multiple cables... *If anyone knows how to reach a Microsoft engineer in the display/graphics department, please let me know* to potentially un-cap these arbitrary Hertz equivalents of "640K ought to be enough for anyone" hair pullers at Blur Busters.
> 
> There are two different hardcoded numbers in Microsoft Windows
> 
> * A dotclock limitation matching 8K 60Hz
> * A refresh rate limitation of no more than 512 Hertz
> 
> I really need to *shatter the silly Windows 512Hz barrier* that Microsoft has arbitrarily hard-coded into Windows 10, that also prevents Windows from doing 8K 120Hz.


Can't help you with any of this but wish you the best of luck on your quest


----------



## Mark Rejhon

It was the AUO 85 inch panel doing 8K 120Hz.

I've decided to post publicly. In lieu of specific connections, sometimes advocacy works. Many engineers will forward this to Microsoft over the coming weeks (If you're an a manufacturer/engineer reading this, as many lurk Blur Busters already -- please do me a favour and forward this too). 



By advocacy, I've definitely changed the display industry a millimeter at a time, in some arenas such as gaming monitors. Some features you see in gaming monitors on the shelf are a direct result of Blur Busters advocacy.

I met with NVIDIA at CES 2019, and I'll forward them to my NVIDIA contacts.

*EDIT: (that was fast, received multiple messages by email/messenger/etc) -- Since this article was published, a source has reported that they were able to get 8K 120Hz functioning through various engineering hacks, as long as they were using the latest version of Windows 10. Three sources, have however confirmed the 512 Hz limit is being enforced by Microsoft Windows.*


----------



## stl8k

Mark Rejhon said:


> I call the easy MPRT100% formula the "Blur Busters Law", the type of display motion blur formula simplification inspired by Albert Einstein formula simplification of "E=mc²".
> 
> 1ms of display persistence (MPRT100%) = 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec of display motion
> 
> Although many knew the formula as a generic formula and displays seemed to be behaving that way -- it was not easy to theoretically test for until GtG of sample-hold display approached darn near 0ms GtG. Now, the Blur Busters Law formula is confirmed becoming more and more exact as GtG approaches closer and closer to 0ms. The formula is the same for camera photographs.
> 
> Blur Busters Law is indeed a more accurate AND simpler formula than the MPRT90% formula for fast-GtG displays.
> 
> 
> I'm always looking for new ways to communicate & demonstrate. My TestUFO animations have become famous, such as the TestUFO Black Frames test, TestUFO Persistence Optical Illusion test, and the TestUFO Simulated Variable Refresh Rate Animation (via interpolation) that I invented.
> 
> More than 50% of modern display engineers did not initially know the stuff I taught them, having been trained on more abstract display engineering concepts. At CES 2019, several manufacturers told me they now use these tests to train their newbie engineers now -- nobody educates in an easy/fun way that Blur Busters does. Display engineers are generally taught in an abstract way at universities, never having watched "see-for-yourself" TestUFO style motion tests that demonstrates "aha, Eureka!" understandings of display behaviours.
> 
> *However, I could still improve further with better/easier videos and animations* -- to explain to bigger audiences of mainstream users, and I'd love to publish more scientific papers above-and-beyond what I already have in my ResearchGate.
> 
> While I work with engineers, I'm not a display engineer directly, nor I am mainstream, but straddle in the unusual "in-between" -- covering topics not normally covered by mainstream (yet easier and more "Popular Science" than scientific journals, though I co-author in peer-reviewed papers too). That's what makes Blur Busters so unique!


I'll DM you with a proposal for an explorable explanation.


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> I think Samsung is very, very worried. That's why they're hedging on every alternative.


Yeah, well this dates back to Q2, (can't find anything more recent that's clear) and certainly seems like a fairly unrelenting decline. With OLEDs catching up and exceeding the (monumentally pointless) LCD/QD thing.










Seems like I have to hand it to LG on some things at least:


Samsung bet on curves and stayed there, LG experimented and pulled out
Samsung pushed active 3D, LG experimented and came out with passive 3D (a Godsend to us 3D lovers)
Samsung tried desperately with the single emitter OLED (S9C), LG came out with the layered sheets.
Samsung's premium TV slice went from 55% to 15%.
Samsung can do phones like there's no tomorrow. But for TVs, am I over simplifying by saying that this seems like a not-yet drowning man flailing around for a branch like Sharp eventually did (hokey almost-4K, uncleanable MothEye...)?


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> Hey, look, if my posting of anything either here or on the main board causes any members distress and it would be better to do things differently, I'm all ears. But my general rule of thumb has been to post here when I am happy letting things slip silently into the ether and posting a new thread on the main board when I'm interested enough in a subject to want to track it and keep the thread updated as long as it is relevant.


If I visit a *science* forum, I visit it because I want to know things for what they *are*, not what I'd like them to be. IMHO you should keep on posting things as you see them. Your opinions are informed opinions. When they are facts you substantiate them with sources, when they are predictions you clearly qualify them as such. I could ask nothing more and I'm actually really grateful for all the info you share here and on the main board.


----------



## gorman42

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Well as I just stated, you'd typically get 50 or 100 black frames per second, and obviously that's going to be more noticeable than 60 or 120 black frames per second (though of course it will additionally depend on how sensitive you are to flicker).


Reports described stuff worse than "increased flicker". Obviously, it's a matter of language used but I got that impression, let's say. My guess is that something "wrong" was going on behind the scenes. Similar to 24fps material being brought back to 3:2 judder when BFI was activated. But I might me wrong. Now, I seem to remember that the 24fps problems is no more for 2019 models. I simply hope that the same will hold true for 25fps material.
Cheers.


----------



## 8mile13

tgm1024 said:


> Yeah, well this dates back to Q2, (can't find anything more recent that's clear) and certainly seems like a fairly unrelenting decline. With OLEDs catching up and exceeding the (monumentally pointless) LCD/QD thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like I have to hand it to LG on some things at least:
> 
> 
> Samsung bet on curves and stayed there, LG experimented and pulled out
> Samsung pushed active 3D, LG experimented and came out with passive 3D (a Godsend to us 3D lovers)
> Samsung tried desperately with the single emitter OLED (S9C), LG came out with the layered sheets.
> Samsung's premium TV slice went from 55% to 15%.
> Samsung can do phones like there's no tomorrow. But for TVs, am I over simplifying by saying that this seems like a not-yet drowning man flailing around for a branch like Sharp eventually did (hokey almost-4K, uncleanable MothEye...)?


01 may 2018 article
Samsung last year only got an 18.5 percent share of global sales for premium TVs, based on dollar revenue, down from 54.7 percent in 2015, according to research firm IHS Markit.
https://www.businessinsider.com/r-h...tv-market-2018-5?international=true&r=US&IR=T


----------



## circumstances

Mark Rejhon said:


> It was the AUO 85 inch panel doing 8K 120Hz.
> 
> I've decided to post publicly. In lieu of specific connections, sometimes advocacy works. Many engineers will forward this to Microsoft over the coming weeks (If you're an a manufacturer/engineer reading this, as many lurk Blur Busters already -- please do me a favour and forward this too).
> 
> 
> 
> By advocacy, I've definitely changed the display industry a millimeter at a time, in some arenas such as gaming monitors. Some features you see in gaming monitors on the shelf are a direct result of Blur Busters advocacy.
> 
> I met with NVIDIA at CES 2019, and I'll forward them to my NVIDIA contacts.
> 
> *EDIT: (that was fast, received multiple messages by email/messenger/etc) -- Since this article was published, a source has reported that they were able to get 8K 120Hz functioning through various engineering hacks, as long as they were using the latest version of Windows 10. Three sources, have however confirmed the 512 Hz limit is being enforced by Microsoft Windows.*


I've never heard of AUO.

What technology is that 85 inch television they are displaying?


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> I've never heard of AUO.
> 
> What technology is that 85 inch television they are displaying?


AUO is one of the largest flat-panel manufacturers in the world: https://www.auo.com/en-global/TFT-LCD_Introduction/index

AUO does not market finished TV, they just sell panels to OEMs like Sony, Vizio, etc...

The fact they showed a 120Hz 8K LCD panel at CES means we probably ate not going to see any 120Hz 8K LCDs this year, but are likely to see some at CES 2020...

Here is more info on their 8K 120Hz panel (they apparently announced it last August): https://www.tweaktown.com/news/62978/auo-announces-85-inch-8k-120hz-hdr-tv-best/index.html

and https://www.blurbusters.com/auo-teases-85-inch-8k-120-hz-hdr-television/


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> AUO is one of the largest flat-panel manufacturers in the world: https://www.auo.com/en-global/TFT-LCD_Introduction/index


I think this break-down makes the point pretty well. It's important to note, BTW, Samsung & LG make a great deal of their own panels, Sony once did, and even in the cases where they make their own, they often run short and end up using 3rd party panels. Oye, the good-old lottery days.....

https://www.statista.com/statistics/552052/worldwide-large-display-market-vendor-share/


----------



## Mark Rejhon

circumstances said:


> I've never heard of AUO.
> 
> What technology is that 85 inch television they are displaying?


The way things work in television manufacturing is you've got companies like RealTek making scalers/TCONs (those motherboard thingies inside a TV) to AUO being the foundry that makes the LCD (the glass screen that displays the actual pixels).

It's kinda like NVIDIA or Apple ordering chips being to be manufactured by a 3rd party silicon fab such as TSMC or GlobalFoundries. 

In the display industry, AUO is a "nuts and bolts" supplier, and not a store brand name.

---

On the topic, speaking of 8K and HDR OLEDS. Holy retina rez and dynamic range. Delicious for my eyes. But wither, refresh rate? The blur during fast-pans of 8K turning it into VHS quality! Holy incredible delta between stationary and motion image sharpness! Now, that displays have maxed out resolution and HDR, and looking for other unturned stones (such as refresh rate!). The hertz race is slower but retina refresh rates will probably occur well before the end of the 21st century. The hertz race has begun with the 240Hz+ eSports monitors and 120Hz HDR video standardizing that's now occuring, with 480Hz+ and 1000Hz+ prototypes in the lab, so in 20-40 years, we might finally reach retina refresh rate. It'll be a slower technical progress than resolution though, but OLED manufacturers need to continue to crank the refresh rate over the years on the path to low-persistence blurfree sample-and-hold. Til then, the impulse/strobing/BFI/flicker/phosphor/modulation band-aid beckons (a good band-aid for fixing display motion blur, but real life doesn't strobe) until tech catches up to retina refresh rates!


----------



## tgm1024

Mark Rejhon said:


> On the topic, speaking of 8K and HDR OLEDS. Holy retina rez and dynamic range. Delicious for my eyes. But wither, refresh rate? The blur during fast-pans of 8K turning it into VHS quality! Holy incredible delta between stationary and motion image sharpness! Now, that displays have maxed out resolution and HDR, and looking for other unturned stones (such as refresh rate!). The hertz race is slower but retina refresh rates will probably occur well before the end of the 21st century. The hertz race has begun with the 240Hz+ eSports monitors and 120Hz HDR video standardizing that's now occuring, with 480Hz+ and 1000Hz+ prototypes in the lab, so in 20-40 years, we might finally reach retina refresh rate. It'll be a slower technical progress than resolution though, but OLED manufacturers need to continue to crank the refresh rate over the years on the path to low-persistence blurfree sample-and-hold. Til then, the impulse/strobing/BFI/flicker/phosphor/modulation band-aid beckons (a good band-aid for fixing display motion blur, but real life doesn't strobe) until tech catches up to retina refresh rates!


Yep. Imagine this historical rewrite: Motion comfort (and in particular frame rates, because that's the ultimate real solution as you've pointed out many times) actually took front and center _before_ 4K and HDR. And _forget_ about 8K until later. I don't care how big the TV is. People simply have limited understanding of how a clearly moving object essentially equates to an increase in effective resolution (using the original term: ability to resolve).

The standardization HFR pipelines would be more established, the content would be there, the learning curve of how to actuall_y film_ the stuff with the ultra realism in place would be further along, etc., etc., etc. All because the emphasis on a temporal resolution took precedent over the spatial. And the spatial would have happened anyway, just _after the better fish was fried._

There's only so much energy and focus to a company. They've been spending it in the wrong places for too long. The world has _got_ to fix frame rates.


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> AUO is one of the largest flat-panel manufacturers in the world: https://www.auo.com/en-global/TFT-LCD_Introduction/index
> 
> AUO does not market finished TV, they just sell panels to OEMs like Sony, Vizio, etc...
> 
> The fact they showed a 120Hz 8K LCD panel at CES means we probably ate not going to see any 120Hz 8K LCDs this year, but are likely to see some at CES 2020...
> 
> Here is more info on their 8K 120Hz panel (they apparently announced it last August): https://www.tweaktown.com/news/62978/auo-announces-85-inch-8k-120hz-hdr-tv-best/index.html
> 
> and https://www.blurbusters.com/auo-teases-85-inch-8k-120-hz-hdr-television/


Thanks.

I couldn't get the link to work.

They just supply LCD panels?

Not working on other OLED-like panels?

I guess LGD is still the only game in town for actual OLED panels?


----------



## circumstances

Mark Rejhon said:


> The way things work in television manufacturing is you've got companies like RealTek making scalers/TCONs (those motherboard thingies inside a TV) to AUO being the foundry that makes the LCD (the glass screen that displays the actual pixels).
> 
> It's kinda like NVIDIA or Apple ordering chips being to be manufactured by a 3rd party silicon fab such as TSMC or GlobalFoundries.
> 
> In the display industry, AUO is a "nuts and bolts" supplier, and not a store brand name.
> 
> ---
> 
> On the topic, speaking of 8K and HDR OLEDS. Holy retina rez and dynamic range. Delicious for my eyes. But wither, refresh rate? The blur during fast-pans of 8K turning it into VHS quality! Holy incredible delta between stationary and motion image sharpness! Now, that displays have maxed out resolution and HDR, and looking for other unturned stones (such as refresh rate!). The hertz race is slower but retina refresh rates will probably occur well before the end of the 21st century. The hertz race has begun with the 240Hz+ eSports monitors and 120Hz HDR video standardizing that's now occuring, with 480Hz+ and 1000Hz+ prototypes in the lab, so in 20-40 years, we might finally reach retina refresh rate. It'll be a slower technical progress than resolution though, but OLED manufacturers need to continue to crank the refresh rate over the years on the path to low-persistence blurfree sample-and-hold. Til then, the impulse/strobing/BFI/flicker/phosphor/modulation band-aid beckons (a good band-aid for fixing display motion blur, but real life doesn't strobe) until tech catches up to retina refresh rates!


Thanks, but only LCD panels? That's what I couldn't figure out.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Sure, motion blur is lovely when the director wants it -- but what if the director wants zero blur? 

Sports camera operators have to struggle frequently, deciding on slowing shutter to increase motion blur. 
1/1000sec camera shutter often adds stroboscopic stepping effects caused by low refresh rates. 

Set camera shutter speed to 1/60sec, and you got lots of motion blur. 
Set camera shutter speed to 1/1000sec, and you've got lots of stroboscopic stepping effects.
(e.g. backgrounds scrolling by in stepped motion behind an athlete, skiier, or racecar). 

Solving both simultaneously (*zero blur & zero stroboscopics*) requires source persistence & destination persistence to be in sync without black frames. 1/1000sec camera shutter & 1/1000sec refresh cycles filling the whole second with no black frame = [email protected] 

By eliminating the display as the motion blur & strobscopics weak link, the director has more control over everything matching reality, historically. 

In addition, even 1000Hz looks like defacto per-pixel VRR, since the refresh cycle granularity is so tiny, four simultaneous video windows 24fps, 25fps, 50fps, 59.94fps, all look like they're playing smoothly on the same display, *all simultaneously with their original stroboscopics and original motion blur, as director intended!* The refresh rate ceases to be a visible roundoff error, no 3:2 judder, it's all perfect 24p/25p/50p/59.94p smoooooth concurrently on the same panel. And we gain full director access to director releasing video of blurless strobeless motion (realtime 1000fps at realtime 1000Hz) that looks analog continuous stepfree motion where all motion blur is 100% human eye, never anything added by camera blur or display blur. And 1000Hz means VSYNC ON and VSYNC OFF lag is almost the same. So we've merged VSYNC ON, VSYNC OFF, and VRR, all into one technology: Ultra-Hz.

Race to retina resolution... DONE.
Race to max HDR range... DONE. 
Refresh rate race time, baby!


----------



## stl8k

Mark Rejhon said:


> Sure, motion blur is lovely when the director wants it -- but what if the director wants zero blur?
> 
> Sports camera operators have to struggle frequently, deciding on slowing shutter to increase motion blur.
> 1/1000sec camera shutter often adds stroboscopic stepping effects caused by low refresh rates.
> 
> Set camera shutter speed to 1/60sec, and you got lots of motion blur.
> Set camera shutter speed to 1/1000sec, and you've got lots of stroboscopic stepping effects.
> (e.g. backgrounds scrolling by in stepped motion behind an athlete, skiier, or racecar).
> 
> Solving both simultaneously (*zero blur & zero stroboscopics*) requires source persistence & destination persistence to be in sync without black frames. 1/1000sec camera shutter & 1/1000sec refresh cycles filling the whole second with no black frame = [email protected]
> 
> By eliminating the display as the motion blur & strobscopics weak link, the director has more control over everything matching reality, historically.
> 
> In addition, even 1000Hz looks like defacto per-pixel VRR, since the refresh cycle granularity is so tiny, four simultaneous video windows 24fps, 25fps, 50fps, 59.94fps, all look like they're playing smoothly on the same display, *all simultaneously with their original stroboscopics and original motion blur, as director intended!* The refresh rate ceases to be a visible roundoff error, no 3:2 judder, it's all perfect 24p/25p/50p/59.94p smoooooth concurrently on the same panel. And we've got blurless strobeless motion that looks analog continuous stepfree motion where all motion blur is 100% human eye, never anything added by camera blur or display blur. And 1000Hz means VSYNC ON and VSYNC OFF lag is almost the same. So we've merged VSYNC ON, VSYNC OFF, and VRR, all into one technology: Ultra-Hz.
> 
> Race to retina resolution... DONE.
> Race to max HDR range... DONE.
> Refresh rate race time, baby!





> Race to retina resolution... DONE.
> Race to max HDR range... DONE.
> Refresh rate race time, baby!


Love your passion for motion quality, Mark!

Ultra-Hz ← trademark that!


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> Sure, motion blur is lovely when the director wants it -- but what if the director wants zero blur?
> 
> Sports camera operators have to struggle frequently, deciding on slowing shutter to increase motion blur.
> 1/1000sec camera shutter often adds stroboscopic stepping effects caused by low refresh rates.
> 
> Set camera shutter speed to 1/60sec, and you got lots of motion blur.
> Set camera shutter speed to 1/1000sec, and you've got lots of stroboscopic stepping effects.
> (e.g. backgrounds scrolling by in stepped motion behind an athlete, skiier, or racecar).
> 
> Solving both simultaneously (*zero blur & zero stroboscopics*) requires source persistence & destination persistence to be in sync without black frames. 1/1000sec camera shutter & 1/1000sec refresh cycles filling the whole second with no black frame = [email protected]
> 
> By eliminating the display as the motion blur & strobscopics weak link, the director has more control over everything matching reality, historically.
> 
> In addition, even 1000Hz looks like defacto per-pixel VRR, since the refresh cycle granularity is so tiny, four simultaneous video windows 24fps, 25fps, 50fps, 59.94fps, all look like they're playing smoothly on the same display, *all simultaneously with their original stroboscopics and original motion blur, as director intended!* The refresh rate ceases to be a visible roundoff error, no 3:2 judder, it's all perfect 24p/25p/50p/59.94p smoooooth concurrently on the same panel. And we gain full director access to director releasing video of blurless strobeless motion (realtime 1000fps at realtime 1000Hz) that looks analog continuous stepfree motion where all motion blur is 100% human eye, never anything added by camera blur or display blur. And 1000Hz means VSYNC ON and VSYNC OFF lag is almost the same. So we've merged VSYNC ON, VSYNC OFF, and VRR, all into one technology: Ultra-Hz.
> 
> Race to retina resolution... DONE.
> Race to max HDR range... DONE.
> Refresh rate race time, baby!


Back to the real world, if AUO already has an 8K 120Hz panel (which is the limit of the HDMI2.1 spec and the requirement for NHKs Super-Hi-Vision, it seems like a near certainty that by 2020 (or 2021 at the latest) we'll have 120Hz 8K TVs upon us.

That's going to require backlplanes at least twice as fast as what we have today in 120Hz 4K panels and that double-speed backplane technology could easily support 240Hz 4K native refresh speeds. So my question for you is whether you have any insight as to whether panel manufacturers like LG (or even AUO) will be introducing 240Hz 4K panels on the same time horizon?


----------



## Mark Rejhon

(Crossposted to Blur Busters Forums Display Engineering Forum Thread)

The refresh rate race will be slower than the retina race & HDR race, with true native non-faked refresh rates doubling approximately every 5-to-10 years. 

There's a very approximately Blur Busters version of Moore's Law that started roughly 2010 where refresh rates double approximately every 5-10 years, with the first 120Hz gaming monitors, more recently the 240Hz gaming monitor boom, and also the 480Hz experimentals plus the far early-canary 1000Hz I now am seeing. 

However, mainstreamization of a refresh rate and frame rate lags approximately 10-15 years afterwards. The first true-120Hz gaming monitors arrived in 2009-2010 (including the ASUS VG236H and the Samsung 2233RZ) and today, mainstream 120fps HFR is only now being standardized. 

The refresh rate race can easily be sped up -- *with some help by Blur Busters* -- if manufacturers put a lot of effort in it, and it's possible that will happen -- e.g. at least "not slower than the NTSC to HDTV transition" even if somewhat slower than the 1080p->4K->8K transition.

.....

240Hz-native OLED timing is indeterminate. But it would be theoretically possible to do it with LG 2019 OLED panels with some upgraded TCONs possibly, if the refreshing architecture is what I think it is, via the use of a 2-channel concurrent scanout technique.

I've written about these diagrams before, but I am now rewriting these into new context. Recycling/spinning them into LG's split-refresh OLED, to explain how 240Hz could theoretically be engineered into their OLED via a pair of TCONs:

*Faster OLED Backplanes are NOT necessarily needed for Higher Hz*










(Except at 240Hz onto a dual-scan 120Hz OLED, instead)

A split-scanout OLED such as the LG 2019 OLEDs, would theoretically be able to do 240Hz this way simply by treating the top/bottom halves as independent 120Hz displays, temporally displacing the next scanout pass by 1/120sec, to make sure that the top-to-bottom continuous sweep belongs to the same refresh cycle (Even as it transfers from one scan segment to the next). 

*Avoiding Zig-Zag Artifacts of Split Refresh Architectures*

This avoids the zig-zag artifact often found in split-scan multi-scan architectures, seen in Charles Poynton's paper










However, if you do it the way I describe, this artifact disappears and you're refreshing at 240Hz true refresh cycles using two concurrent scanouts -- like a two-gun CRT keeping the scanouts contiguous. You'd simply make sure when the other split-refresh begins on the bottom half, it "takes over" the top half scanout continuing the scanout of the same refresh cycle that the top half did. 

e.g. For a 120Hz split-channel refresh architecture outputting great looking 240Hz, the bottom half 120Hz must continue scan-out the same refresh cycle that the top half 120Hz did 1/120sec ago. Do not refresh both halves concurrently off the same refresh cycle framebuffer. The raster scanout of the top raster must be the newer frame buffer -- one refresh cycle ahead of the raster scanout of the bottom raster. So the top half "hands over" the scanout to the next segment.

Viola. *NO ZIG ZAG ARTIFACT*.

I wrote about this technique in the Theoretical OLED Scanning Patterns thread where there may be a cheap way to create a 960Hz OLED via a 8-channel split refresh architecture -- essentially subdividing the same OLED into 8 different zones.

So, without further ado, theoretically 960Hz OLED can be achieved via running 8-concurrent strips of 120Hz OLEDs that automatically handsover refresh cycles to the next segment below (Creating continous-scanning rasters that are always assigned to their refresh cycles, never multiscanning concurrently the same refresh cycle -- e.g. 8 different frames are always being scanned simultaneously in one continuous sweep per scanout):










*Scan algorithm to Eliminate Sawtooth Artifacts & Tearing of Multiscan Displays*

For multi-raster approaches like this, you may need to framebuffer a few refresh cycles so each raster is scanning-out their independent refresh cycle. Scanout latency will always match lowest refresh rate, e.g. 960Hz will look like a perfect 960Hz screen, but will have 1/120sec scanout latency and very minor 1/120sec scanskew (See www.testufo.com/scanskew ...) which will be unnoticeable.

The rule is:


Display is subdivided into horizontal display-slices, refreshed independently at lower Hz
The scanout line above is always the next refresh cycle [aka Frame+1 if framerate=Hz], permanently, at all times. 
No two rasters are ever multiscanning the same refresh cycle framebuffer. 
Each raster is its own unique refresh cycle. 
If there are 8 display-slices, that means 8 different refresh cycle framebuffers are scanning out concurrently
When the raster hits bottom of their slices, the display-slice immediately underneath "inherits" the full refresh cycle framebuffer for the next refresh cycle of that display-slice. This is a seamless cascade.
The top display-slice is assigned a brand new refresh cycle framebuffer
The result is that each raster "appears" to all separately be doing one continuous sweep of their own respective cycles.
It takes count of [display-slice count] refresh cycle for the sweep from top to bottom. If there's 8 display slices, it takes 8/960sec to refresh a 960Hz refresh cycle in one continuous top-to-bottom sweep in the seamless cascade.
The result is that lower-Hz ends up successfully doing higher-Hz.
Each raster will sweep slower than a refresh rate. 
This 960Hz example have 8 concurrent rasters taking 1/120sec to sweep top-to-bottom.
There will be no tearing nor zigzag artifacts, because the continuous raster sweep stays assigned to its own specific frame (thanks to the hand-over cascade).
For 960Hz generated from eight 120Hz display-slices, it will look like 960fps @ 960Hz, with 0.8ms MPRT(90%) or 1.0ms MPRT(100%) assuming sufficiently fast GtG. Zero strobing is needed, except it has the latency of 1/120sec as well as 1/120sec scanskew.
You may have to buffer a few refresh cycles off the cable (since they transmit one refresh cycle at a time over the cable), to allow the concurrent simultaneous scanout of independent refresh cycles. Latency will be the slowest refresh cycle used (e.g. 1/120sec if using eight 120Hz display-slices to create a 960Hz display).

Follow this rule correctly, and *All zig zag sawtooth artifacts disappear*. 

A Blur Busters idea. Zero zig-zag artifacts. 

*This Algorithm is still compatible with black frame insertion.*

Specific raster passes can still be assigned black frames too! This technique can do 120fps with 1/960sec persistence.

I have a different rolling-scan diagram, but the granular 8-channel OLED can still emulate rolling-window scan in 1/960sec persistence increments, simply by giving some refresh cycles as complete blackness. Then you'd have low-blur 60Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz, 480Hz, which are all divisors of 960Hz.










*This Algorithm Is Compatible With VRR*

*NOTE: Depending on capabilities, and whether or not it is possible to attach 2 TCONs, it may even be possible to do 240Hz VRR on LG's 120Hz dual-scan OLED panel, given sufficient modifications, and sufficient cable bandwidth.*

It is also possible to do a VRR-cascade with this algorithm.

All display slices must be VRR compatible, capable of variable blankings
Simply make the top display-slice immediately refresh on a variable refresh cycle received from the computer (variable blanking intervals for all display-slices)
Once the raster hits bottom of the frame-slice, immediately chain-over to the next display-slice: Immediately begin refreshing the display-slice right immediately underneath. 
Continue cascade in one continuous sweep. So the concurrent-multiscan approach is VRR-compatible. 
You still need to keep [displayslices]* buffers of refresh cycles from the computer, due to the separate-refresh-per-scanout rule
This can work for 2-displayslice, 4-displayslice, and 8-displayslice, possibly (even) including LG's 2019 OLED panel assuming this algorithm is followed.

If anyone is spinning their heads and needs training to explain VRR multiscan without zigzags....ok, we're getting into "*hire me and fly me in as a PowerPoint trainer for your display engineers*" territory.... It's really simple to my brain, but a lot of algorithms require custom purpose-built TestUFO animations running in slow-motion for me to explain. I do this from time to time.

*No faster backplanes needed.*

This *specific idea of mine is patent free as far as I know*, though double-check your patent searches. I originally wrote about this over 1 year ago in year 2017, so not patentable, as I intentionally put this idea out in the open. Permission hereby granted to use idea, e.g. to pull off 240Hz successfully from a 120Hz OLED. Yes, manufacturers including LG, *you have my permission* to use this Blur Busters idea for your display at no charge. You're welcome.

_EDIT: Even a prototype exists! It's easy to test this experimentially with an Arduino and a small LED matrix. I have already demonstrated it with an Arduino LED matrix like those old 1980s marquees. Done, that. Just a low-rez prototype (32x32 pixel). Confirmed refresh increase effect with zero zigzag artifact. So prototype done, just a minor modification of an old Charles Poynton test...and yep! Dead simple. *It experimentally proves this can be scaled up.*_

Refresh rate increase via zig-zag-free multiscanning algorithm! Yes, it requires an octo-channel OLED -- and probably eight TCONS -- but it's potentially doable with today's technology for an experimental lab prototype.

_(2-displayslice split scan architecture may be easier than 4-displayslice or 8-displayslice because of the available of the long top edge, and the long bottom edge being available -- while octochannel would require unconventional modifications to the left/right edges that probably complicate ribbon cables. However, I leave this exercise to the panel engineers...)_

*AI interpolation will help fill the missing 1000fps equation*

Video sources will now become the limiting factor until ultra-high-framerate interpolation is done, or ultra-high-framerate video is done. (e.g. 100fps->1000fps versions of Oculus asynchronous timewarp 45fps->90fps nearly laglessly). 

Ultimately, it can just take only a little extra GPU silicon to multiply frame rates virtually laglessly when given realtime high-Hz input from controllers (1000Hz+ mice, 1000Hz+ head trackers, etc) continually feedbacking into an AI interpolator to make the interpolator less blackbox and more accurate-guessing. That's the key to making 1000fps nearly lagless from a 100fps game frame rate source, by approximately ~2025-ish, without needing unobtainum GPU. I deem this universe "Frame Rate Amplification Technologies". 

And I already own such a "Frame Rate Amplification Technology" (FRAT): Oculus Rift VR, which converts 45fps->90fps darn near laglessly and mostly artifactlessly.


----------



## tgm1024

Mark Rejhon said:


> This *specific idea of mine is patent free as far as I know*, though double-check your patent searches. I originally wrote about this over 1 year ago in year 2017, so not patentable,


The "13th month prior art" problem has to do with implementations of a prototype, not merely expressed ideas, unless it's a mathematical patent (and software). At least that's how it was explained to me, so {shrug}, YMMV. I understand that you already public-domain'd it, but I'm not sure you had to.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

tgm1024 said:


> The "13th month prior art" problem has to do with implementations of a prototype, not merely expressed ideas, unless it's a mathematical patent (and software). At least that's how it was explained to me, so {shrug}, YMMV. I understand that you already public-domain'd it, *but I'm not sure you had to*.


I have already demonstrated it with an Arduino LED matrix like those old 1980s marquees. Done, that. Public domain already, just low-rez prototype (32x32 pixel). Confirmed refresh increase effect with zero zigzag artifact. So prototype done. Dead simple. So, I guess that covers that.

Some inventions of mine are being monetized to put enough food on my table -- just not being greedy about it -- and may selectively patent an idea (or few) at the right time. 

Also, being a deafie affects things (maybe that's why I concentrate so much more on vision) so I often compensate reputationally, too. I need to be a CEO without ever touching a telephone due to my deafness. So I do give out a lot of refresh rate candy.

Historically, Blur Busters has built up a reputation for releasing numerous free inventions, such as the pursuit camera method of motion blur photography (technical paper and the brand new easy explanation/video -- only a hand-waved iPhone needed for that one!). Being the little guy, sometimes the best way to gain publicity is to be loud about it (advocacy), and it's brought lots of recognition in the display industry to Blur Busters.

*I do have an ulterior motive to accelerate the refresh rate race, and I'm unashamed to admit that* -- even with freebies, demos, and incentives from Blur Busters. 

In my ongoing works, I give plenty many more ideas to manufacturers (usually on a non-exclusive basis, though negotiable) that has cut costs, influenced research direction, inserted new ideas at big companies that they weren't planning to cover, saved money at some manufacturers, since I break the mold of classic expensive display engineering and come up with cheaper/faster/more obvious ways to do the same things many times more cheaply.

What they teach you in University/College is useful, yet I have the applied experience, visual science, and incredible refresh rate brain matter (predicting artifacts in my head accurately before testing the display -- leading up to my accurate invention of www.testufo.com/eyetracking and www.testufo.com/persistence exactly as my human brain emulated the display artifact directly in my brain matter -- plus also www.testufo.com/vrr variable refresh rate emulation animation. My uncanny ability to understand display behaviour experimentally in my brain matter BEFORE the display is tested, enables my understandings *.....like how to fix the zigzag artifact of multiscan*. Instead of 2 weeks of scientific experiments, I can emulate a display artifact in my brain -- from known variables input -- instead and directly create the test on first try. One that experimentally proves the problem/artifact rather than accidentally discovering it along the way in weeks of lab experimentation. 

Mental emulation of artifacts in my brain is exactly how I invented the pursuit camera test pattern that turned a $30,000 lab camera into something accurately achieved [peer review confirmed by NIST.gov, NOKIA, Keltek] using homebrew materials now frequently used by bloggers and companies such as RTINGS and many others.

I don't know why, but I can emulate display refreshing "and discover display artifacts" directly in my brain before prototype displays are even invented. Maybe it's the Hertz equivalent of photogenic memory, except my brain seems able to accurately mentally picture artifacts from a display refreshing behaviour. Only the best display engineers can predict/estimate refreshing-related display artifacts the way I can.

Whether strobe crosstalk, LCD GtG, multiscan, temporal dither, interlace artifacts, contouring issues, sometimes even unexpected interactions, etc. I'm an idea factory of well over 100 ideas, not just this one. Fixing other problems cheaply. Thomas Edison and Bill Gates both did dropout of University, but applied some incredible experiences and applied the necessary knowledge in the right places to enable their success. 

Although I'm never going to be famous, I'm continually surprised how many Chinese display manufacturers treats me like a hero/royalty when I visit some of their booths (not surprising: 7% of my TestUFO traffic is surprisingly coming from China, occasionally as high as 10%! Of all places -- and some from manufacturers testing their displays). To them, I'm the refresh rate Einstein! I am thinking this is making traditional higher-cost manufacturers realize that they should find ways to cut costs, and from time to time, that attracts business to me to help them out on things they overlooked. Though I have never worked for mainland China manufacturers who utilize the free tools, I've worked/collaborated with some Taiwanese display manufacturers (BenQ, ViewSonic, and others) who are eager to keep increasing refresh rates. And also work with USA manufacturers who want to keep up with the Joneses. I'm based in Canada, by the way.

That said, I need to formalize more of my research into ResearchGate because much of my research is original or "Popular Science" (more prosumer/trainer/mainstream than scientific journal). So I'm always looking for coauthors and peer reviewers to formalize some more of my findings better to a researcher audience that often educates classic-era display engineers that are being left behind by the Joneses (that are including Blur Busters in their research). 

Maybe even a scientific paper that explains how to fix zigzag artifacts of multiscan -- [email protected]. Just because I can emulate in my brain, doesn't mean it doesn't need a scientific paper to convince others that something exists.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Oh, while this is LED, and not *O*LED, I saw The Wall at Samsung's booth at CES 2018
(It appeared to be doing 120Hz during the full-framerate Forza game animations)










Discrete micro LED displays is simply a miniaturized version of a large-scale LED Jumbotron, except that the pixels of The Wall are *extremely tiny* in comparison. 

Now while The Wall did a great job -- older Jumbotrons had an interesting *textbook case study of zigzag artifacts on older versions of LED jumbotrons*. This is because they are concurrenly multiscanning all the small sub-panels. Nowadays, they've mostly optimized this out via fast scan velocity of individual 32x32's, 64x32's and 64x64's which are typically matrixed together into concurrently-scanning "miniscreens" that refresh simultaneously on a large jumbotron.

On some LED jumbotrons (especially older models showing fast horizontal motion), there is a *zigzag artifact problem* of fast-panning horizontal motion on concurrently-refreshing 32x32 jumbotron LED squares. They had to come up with solutions such as accelerated scanout of the matrixes to reduce/eliminate the zigzag artifact problem. They now run at a 600Hz refresh rate, even though frame image rate is limited to 60 (refreshing 10 times per frame).

Now, this is not The Wall which uses ultra-tiny pixels -- but its beady grandfather: The garden-variety outdoor waterproof 32x32 LED panel, commonly found at stadiums, New York Times Square, video billboards, or even DIY jumbotrons. Mass-manufactured by the millions of modules, cost fell to under $20/module in factory quantities, and are a fascinating textbook case study of a variety of refresh-pattern behaviours -- older slower-refreshing ones from more than 10 years ago had more zigzag artifact issues.










The concurrent-refreshing technique can still be used to prototype zigzag-free multiscanned refreshing (at lower Hz, anyway) -- these panels are off-the-shelf, available on AliExpress for about $20-$30 per jumbotron panel (if you want to DIY build your jumbotron). 

Depending on how fast these can be scanned-out per individual refresh cycle (it would probably require replacing the 32x32 drivers with something that can refresh 960Hz....). Once done, possibly 16 rows of 32x32 jumbotron LED panels could turn into 960Hz using 16-concurrent 1/60sec raster sweeps (60x16=960), though that means each 32x32 panel will need to be refreshsed 960 times per second(!) -- something the existing off-the-shelf LED jumbotron panels can't do without some major modifications. 

With some modifications to individual panels, I suspect that these can be used for ultra-refresh-rate experiments -- as a low-lying display research apple, e.g. 240Hz, 480Hz, 960Hz. Depending on how the shift registers behave or can be replaced (I haven't tried), it might be theoretically possible to turn these into true 600Hz panels, and then use the zig-zag-free multiscan technique, to have high quality [email protected] from a full jumbotron image -- though that requires 10x as much bandwidth to deliver new image data to all these jumbotron panels!

An individual jumbotron panel had to accelerate scan velocity to minimize the zigzag artifacts (in vertical edges of horizontal panning motion). Scan velocity acceleration of often at a ratio of 10:1, so jumbotron panels can operate at high Hz already though for a totally different purpose. For example this jumbotron 32x32 element operates at 600Hz refresh rate. Now, if there were a way to commandeer it as 600Hz discrete refresh (frame refresh the same as refresh rate, rather than rescanning the same refresh cycle 10 times), then combine with the multiscan-artifact-elimination technique above -- then things improve even further. One may be able to have amazingly clear true 600Hz (non-faked) fast-motion quality from today's technology. They are limited to a "Frame Frequency" of 60Hz, despite having a "Refresh Frequency" of 600Hz. Now, how to pump true 600Hz frame image data into a jumbotron panel. Details, pesky details -- which I'll leave to tweakers.

Or...maybe we'll eventually see a 960fps @ 960Hz version of The Wall in 10-20 years from now?


----------



## rogo

8mile13 said:


> 01 may 2018 article
> Samsung last year only got an 18.5 percent share of global sales for premium TVs, based on dollar revenue, down from 54.7 percent in 2015, according to research firm IHS Markit.
> https://www.businessinsider.com/r-h...tv-market-2018-5?international=true&r=US&IR=T


And essentially all of that share went to LG. The rest went to LG OEMs.



tgm1024 said:


> I think this break-down makes the point pretty well. It's important to note, BTW, Samsung & LG make a great deal of their own panels, Sony once did, and even in the cases where they make their own, they often run short and end up using 3rd party panels. Oye, the good-old lottery days.....


Sony has never made its own TV panels at any point. The closest they ever came was an investment in an already existing Samsung fab, which led to something called S-LCD. That was all Samsung, but with some Sony money in exchange for guaranteed output. Sony divested interest it anyway.


----------



## stl8k

rogo said:


> And essentially all of that share went to LG. The rest went to LG OEMs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sony has never made its own TV panels at any point. The closest they ever came was an investment in an already existing Samsung fab, which led to something called S-LCD. That was all Samsung, but with some Sony money in exchange for guaranteed output. Sony divested interest it anyway.


Did not know that about Sony, rogo. Does this include its professional OLED panels too?


----------



## tgm1024

rogo said:


> And essentially all of that share went to LG. The rest went to LG OEMs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sony has never made its own TV panels at any point. The closest they ever came was an investment in an already existing Samsung fab, which led to something called S-LCD. That was all Samsung, but with some Sony money in exchange for guaranteed output. Sony divested interest it anyway.


Huh, vivere et discere. I would have sworn that the 2005 offerings were first Sony made panels, and that the later SPVA stuff was entirely Sony. Maybe I was taking marketing literature too liberally. Or more likely I wasn't paying attention. Either way, thanks for the info.


----------



## rogo

stl8k said:


> Did not know that about Sony, rogo. Does this include its professional OLED panels too?


To my knowledge Sony makes those professional OLED panels on a small fab it owns/controls.



tgm1024 said:


> Huh, vivere et discere. I would have sworn that the 2005 offerings were first Sony made panels, and that the later SPVA stuff was entirely Sony. Maybe I was taking marketing literature too liberally. Or more likely I wasn't paying attention. Either way, thanks for the info.


Fairly sure their marketing was hyping a phony reality. Sony punted become a flat-panel manufacturer thinking IP in that realm wasn't important. It was wrong.


----------



## video_analysis

As a fan of sunsetted 3D, I'm exceedingly thankful I'm not a motion junkie excessively perturbed by the onslaught of persistence-induced motion blur. I would be in a greater world of hurt than I am right now with the backplane uniformity debacle.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

video_analysis said:


> As a fan of sunsetted 3D, I'm exceedingly thankful I'm not a motion junkie excessively perturbed by the onslaught of persistence-induced motion blur. I would be in a greater world of hurt than I am right now with the backplane uniformity debacle.


Ironically about 3D...

Whether for 3D lovers or haters -- history note -- it's worth noting, that it was 3D that led to CRT-motion-clarity on desktop gaming LCD monitors (e.g. LightBoost, ULMB, etc). Those had crappy uniformity, colors, contrast, but shook traditional notions about LCD motion clarity. LightBoost was originally designed for 3D glasses but apparently became more popular as a motion blur reduction mode. Blur reduction survived while 3D did not, and many gaming monitors still have the blur reduction modes long after discontinuing 3D modes.

The 120Hz+BFI OLEDs are likely one of the world's best 3D televisions (less 3D crosstalk) -- with third party appliances/glasses, even though the televisions are no longer designed for 3D and the manufacturers never tested them for 3D compatibility. 

It is the monitors with good blur-reduction that are very good "hackable to 3D" monitors. Meaning, we've (and others) succeeded in getting excellent 3D from displays normally not designed for 3D glasses -- as long as the display had an excellent motion blur reduction mode during 120Hz. 

Also, from an engineering perspective... Ultra-Hz also helps improve color depth for HDR algorithms, e.g. by adding temporal dithering (ultra-bitdepth FRC algorithms) to convert 8-bit/10-bit into 12-bit or even 14-bit, even for lower refresh rates, without adding visible temporal dither artifacts (thanks to ultra-Hz). Some of the insanity of bitdepth is necessary for potential future anti-vignette/anti-band algorithms. Preventing low-Hz temporal dithering that is annoying to eyes. There are some great applications of ultra-Hz that can be applied to improving HDR color quality and dim-image-quality of low-Hz. 

With some auto-calibration (e.g. feedbacking high-def calibration camera into the OLED electronics -- onetime or occasional use (ala ISF calibrator) -- or embedding light/pixel-leakage monitoring within the panel / behind the panel) it may even be possible to self-capture the darkfields of OLED to do anti-band/anti-vignette compensatory imagedata (a realtime ultra-Hz temporally dithered inverse image that cancels-out, at ultraprecise bitdepths made possible via ultra-Hz) *that makes every fractional IRE of a darkfield of OLED perfectly solid uniform with zero visible temporal dither artifacts, zero banding, zero vignetting!*. 

So, that's why in applied display engineering, ultra-Hz has a huge potential, algorithmically, to *fix backplane uniformity problems*, too.

_Also, keep in mind temporal dither at 10-bit converting to 14-bit or even more is ultra-faint compared to 1-bit DLP temporal dither pixel flicker. You're only dealing with alternating shades of colors only 1/1024 apart to generate the extra bits. Now, consider that this will be achieved via ultra-Hz too, so you have none of the low-frequency FRC flicker at all. Normally these extra bits are way excess overkill but are needed at the dark end for high quality realtime anti-vignette/anti-band algorithms in future OLED panels via realtime inverse-images that perfectly balance-out the banding/vignette realtime custom generated automatically on a per-panel basis._

_(Real World Textbook Case Study Equivalent: SLR darkfields that de-noises long camera exposures. Same principle. This post describes the OLED equivalent, which is massively more complex but much easier/simplified with ultra-Hz)_

*So there's eye candy for low-Hz use cases too!*

This is above and beyond knowing that the technology requirements (of 3D, and of blur reduction) already have a very heavily-overlapping venn diagram.


----------



## dvrw3

Mark Rejhon said:


> The 120Hz+BFI OLEDs are likely one of the world's best 3D televisions (less 3D crosstalk) -- with third party appliances/glasses, even though the televisions are no longer designed for 3D and the manufacturers never tested them for 3D compatibility.
> 
> It is the monitors with good blur-reduction that are very good "hackable to 3D" monitors. Meaning, we've (and others) succeeded in getting excellent 3D from displays normally not designed for 3D glasses -- as long as the display had an excellent motion blur reduction mode during 120Hz.



Can you elaborate more? Is it possible to activate 3D in any way on these current OLEDs?


----------



## dfa973

dvrw3 said:


> Can you elaborate more? Is it possible to activate 3D in any way on these current OLEDs?


Yes you can, but remember that the 2017-2018-future OLED panels lack the FPR filter that was used to separate Left from Right image, so the only solution for current OLED's is to use active glasses, with an external transmitter to sync glasses to the displayed TV image. Things get complicated fast...


----------



## stl8k

*HFR In Film*

Very interesting read on Ang Lee's use of HFR in film.

https://www.ibc.org/production/ang-lees-high-frame-rate-gemini-man-the-future-of-cinema/3505.article

I found this especially interesting:



> “For older generations of audience and filmmaker 24 frames is the world of cinema but there is a new wave coming out of video gaming who are far more familiar with viewing content at 60, 120 and even 240 frames.
> 
> “For this audience, [HFR] is not a new experience and the more likely it will be for high frame rates to become a theatrical standard.”


----------



## gmarceau

QD OLED and more


----------



## bombyx

gmarceau said:


> https://youtu.be/b2dEaq-_AIM
> 
> QD OLED and more



At 3min 14s in the video , he says that he expects something like 5 to 10 millions Quantum Dot LCD sets to be sell in 2019 but I remember this forecast from three years ago : 














QD LCD are far from the "proliferation phase" these forecasters were hoping for .




.


----------



## gmarceau

It's too bad that QDCF is no more- I thought that would make it to market first, but with QD OLED on the horizon, that'll work before emissive QD.


----------



## stl8k

Skyworth will be selling its 65" 8K OLED (seen below in wall form) later this year in the US.


----------



## homogenic

Why won't any company commission an entry model OLED just to see market response?


----------



## fafrd

homogenic said:


> Why won't any company commission an entry model OLED just to see market response?


Not sure what your idea of 'entry model' is, but LGD is rumored to be introducing a 48" WOLED panel this year that is likely to result in sub-$1000 48B0Ps by Black Friday 2020 (and possibly 48B9Ps by this zblack Friday): https://www.oled-a.org/lg-to-use-mmg-to-expand-output-of-gen-85-fab8203_121018.html


----------



## Mark Rejhon

dvrw3 said:


> Can you elaborate more? Is it possible to activate 3D in any way on these current OLEDs?


Third-party 3D shutter glasses hacks. They work excellently on "120Hz+BFI" displays.

The hacks can get complicated, with a manual shutter-delay calibration to match the specific display's latency -- until the correct eye is synchronized with the correct frame. But it works perfectly.

It's been done with DLP projectors (with no 3D feature) and OLED displays (with no 3D feature), and it's worked before.


----------



## homogenic

fafrd said:


> Not sure what your idea of 'entry model' is, but LGD is rumored to be introducing a 48" WOLED panel this year that is likely to result in sub-$1000 48B0Ps by Black Friday 2020 (and possibly 48B9Ps by this zblack Friday): https://www.oled-a.org/lg-to-use-mmg-to-expand-output-of-gen-85-fab8203_121018.html


Smaller than that in size to be price compatible with LCDs you can get under 500. I'm a movie person so I like TVs for the purpose of enjoying my DVDs and Blu-rays. LCD is such a garbage tech for this.


----------



## gorman42

Mark Rejhon said:


> Third-party 3D shutter glasses hacks. They work excellently on "120Hz+BFI" displays.
> 
> The hacks can get complicated, with a manual shutter-delay calibration to match the specific display's latency -- until the correct eye is synchronized with the correct frame. But it works perfectly.
> 
> It's been done with DLP projectors (with no 3D feature) and OLED displays (with no 3D feature), and it's worked before.


Any source to read about OLED? I think many "3D lovers" would be interested.


----------



## fafrd

homogenic said:


> Smaller than that in size to be price compatible with LCDs you can get under 500. I'm a movie person so I like TVs for the purpose of enjoying my DVDs and Blu-rays. LCD is such a garbage tech for this.


Afraid you'll be waiting for a while. If the 88" and larger WOLEDs don't sell well a few years from now, 8.5G is ver efficient manufacturing 32" panels (18 per 8.5G sheet, meaning 1/3 the cost of a 55" WOLED panel...).

The new 10.5G fab will be used exclusively for 65" (8-up), 75" (6-up) and 88" (3-up) WOLED production, but if demand at those sizes ever stalls, it is also capable of producing 43" WOLED panels 18-up (1/3 the cost of 75" WOLED panels).

So it'll come, but not before some new challenger emerges to threaten WOLEDs dominance and market share in the Premium TV Segment. As it is, LG shippd close to 3 million WOLED panels in 2018 and is building up towards shipping 10 million WOLED panels by 2021: http://elb01-2039628332.us-west-2.e...TV-panel-output-sixfold-to-10m-by-2021?page=2

10 million WOLED TVs sold in 2021 (by LGE, Sony, etc...) translates to ~50% of the Premium TV market, so it'll be at least another ~5 years before LG has the capacity to saturate the Premium TV Segment and starts going after down-market share with zeal (unless, of course, Samsung comes roaring back with cost-effective QD-BOLED before then...).


----------



## austinsj

A bit of a tengent, but what are we expecting with QD-BOLED vs Top-Emission WOLED in terms of brightness, color, and cost? Is one clearly superior than the other?


----------



## fafrd

austinsj said:


> A bit of a tengent, but what are we expecting with QD-BOLED vs Top-Emission WOLED in terms of brightness, color, and cost? Is one clearly superior than the other?


QD-BOLED should beat TEWOLED on peak brightness (for equivalent power consumption) and color volume (RGB versus WRGB), but is unlikely to beat TEWOLED on cost (especially during the first couple years of ramp-up).

LG introduced their first 65" 4K WOLED for $9000, priced multiples higher than equivalenty-sized 65" flagship LED/LCD but found success because there were enough enthusiasts ready to pay that premium for the superior picture-quality.

If Samsung inroduces their first 65" QD-BOLED for $9000, they are unlikely to sell enough units against 65" TEWOLEDs costing under $2000 to successfully ramp production, so ramp-up is likely to be exceedingly expensive for Samsung.

But the big question mark about QD-BOLED is lifetime and burn-in. Blue is the OLED material with the poorest lifetime and QD-BOLED relies exclusively on blue OLED material to generate all OLED photons...


----------



## homogenic

@fafrd


So there's no hope of a Chinese manufacturer making a cheap competitive version of WOLED?


----------



## th1nk

In his latest video, Vincent from HDTVtest says that 2020 LG OLED models will still be using bottom emission technology, even the 8k models. 






Does this mean the 65 inch 8k presented this year was also bottom emission? Are improvements in color space for the so-called Super-OLED rumored for next year also bound to the move to top-emission or can they be implemented separately?


----------



## video_analysis

Mr. Teoh has been wrong before...


----------



## fafrd

th1nk said:


> In his latest video, Vincent from HDTVtest says that 2020 LG OLED models will still be using bottom emission technology, even the 8k models.
> 
> https://youtu.be/F8pdFOeWb20


Yes, all 2019 LGE WOLEDs, including the 88Z9, are bottom-emission.



> Does this mean the 65 inch 8k presented this year was also bottom emission?


The 65" 8K panel shown by LG in a private booth was al most certainly top-emission. LGE will not be introducing any products based on that panel this year, but LGD hinted that there might be a late-year release if 65" 8K WOLED TVs by other brands (most likely Philips and possibly also Sony).



> Are improvements in color space for the so-called Super-OLED rumored for next year also bound to the move to top-emission or can they be implemented separately?


I have not heard anything about these rumors - do you have a link?


----------



## fafrd

homogenic said:


> @fafrd
> So there's no hope of a Chinese manufacturer making a cheap competitive version of WOLED?


There will be WOLEDs manufactured this year in China and they will be cheaper, but they are not goung to be 'competetive' (manufactured by LGD Guangzhou).

According to DSCCs 2017 forecast: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction

the cost for a 55" WOLED manufactured in Korea this year will be ~$700 compated to a cost of ~$450 for the same panel manufactured in China.

If you are talking about unlicensed copycats, not sure we'll ever see WOLED and printed RGB OLED using the JOLED process and equipment currently looks to be more likely...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> There will be WOLEDs manufactured this year in China and they will be cheaper, but they are not goung to be 'competetive' (manufactured by LGD Guangzhou).
> 
> *According to DSCCs 2017 forecast*: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction
> 
> the cost for a 55" WOLED manufactured in Korea this year will be ~$700 compated to a cost of ~$450 fir the same panel manufactured in China.
> 
> If you are talking about unlicensed copycats, not sure we'll ever see WOLED and printed RGB OLED using the JOLED process and equipment currently looks to be more likely...



DSCC put out a revised forecast last December: https://www.displaydaily.com/articl...-to-look-at-profit-in-the-oled-panel-business

According to that revised forecast, 55" WOLED panels manufactured in Korea will be costing ~$435 at the end of this year and ~$350 in China dropping to $290 by 2022...


----------



## th1nk

fafrd said:


> Yes, all 2019 LGE WOLEDs, including the 88Z9, are bottom-emission.


But Vincent says 2020! Meaning this year and next year! I do not know if LG told him that at CES...



fafrd said:


> The 65" 8K panel shown by LG in a private booth was al most certainly top-emission. LGE will not be introducing any products based on that panel this year, but LGD hinted that there might be a late-year release if 65" 8K WOLED TVs by other brands (most likely Philips and possibly also Sony).


Vincent said models in 2020 will be bottom emission, so I find it unlikely that LG Display announces top emission panels, but LG Electronics will not use it next year? Vincent has been wrong about HDMI 2.1 because he was just guessing, but I think if an LG representative told him it certainly would be interesting.



fafrd said:


> I have not heard anything about these rumors - do you have a link?


Sorry, it may just have been wishful thinking, I read it on a forum somewhere...


----------



## fafrd

th1nk said:


> But Vincent says 2020! Meaning this year and next year! I do not know if LG told him that at CES...
> 
> Vincent said models in 2020 will be bottom emission, so I find it unlikely that LG Display announces top emission panels, but LG Electronics will not use it next year? Vincent has been wrong about HDMI 2.1 because he was just guessing, but I think if an LG representative told him it certainly would be interesting.
> 
> Sorry, it may just have been wishful thinking, I read it on a forum somewhere...


I don't have any direct information from LG Display, so if Vincent says LG Display informed him that TE-WOLED panels will not reach the market before 2021, it is hard to understand why LGD would say that if it were not true.

Things can be lost in translation and Vincent has misinterpreted before, so I'd suggest it's important to focus on a few things:

1/ we've assumed that once LG has too-emission in production, they will switch all 4K WOLEDs to TE-WOLED immediately, but they may be more cautious than that ('if it ain't broke, don't fix it') and continue 4K bottom-emission production for another year before switching 4K panels to TE-WOLED. Among other things, we don't know what new reliability risks and/or uniformity risks may be introduced by TE-WOLED, so if LGD were to decide to test TE-WOLED 'in the field' using a single high-priced, low-volume model such as a 65" 8K TE-WOLED for a year to gain confidence before committing their full bread-and-butter 4K production to this same new technology, that would be understandably prudent.

2/ it should be impossible to manufacture a 65" 8K bottom emission WOLED with sufficient peak brightness (because aperature ratio would be too small) and so many including me have assumed that the 65" 8K WOLED LG Display exhibited in their private booth was based on top-emission but if Vincent was told that panel was also bottom-emission, that assumption could be incorrect. LGD hinted that that 65" 8K panel may be introduced by OEM customers (probably Philips, possibly also Sony) before year-end, so we'll learn a great deal more about the status of LGD's TE-WOLED production when first 65" 8K panels hit the market...

3/ It seems increasingly clear that LGD is introducing MMG into their 8.5G WOLED fabs this year (which will get 65" and 75/77" 8.5G WOLED production down to close to 10.5G-level costs) and that may be their primary 4K WOLED focus for 2019. Moving 4K WOLED production to MMG while leaving all else unchanged (bottom emission) while at the same time introducing TE-WOLED on a single low-volume panel such as 65" 8K without MMG would be the prudent way to introduce and gain experience with both new technologies (seperately). Attempting to switch from bottom-emission to top-emission while also attempting to introduce MMG for all 65" and 75/77" WOLED production coukd be a recipe for disaster (biting off more than LGD can chew).

So even if LGD has TE-WOLED far enough along for introduction into products in 2020, there are very credible reasons for why they may choose to hold off for another year. 

And then, of course, the alternative perspective is that LGD needs to sell-through a great number of BE-WOLEDs this year, and so they have an incentive to avoid the entire market starting to buzz about how 2020 will be another 'tock' year with significant panel WOLED improvements versus 2019...


----------



## JasonHa

Even if LG knew the 2020 models won't be top-emission, I can't imagine them saying that publicly now.


----------



## fafrd

th1nk said:


> But Vincent says 2020! Meaning this year and next year! I do not know if LG told him that at CES...
> 
> 
> 
> *Vincent said models in 2020 will be bottom emission*, so I find it unlikely that LG Display announces top emission panels, but LG Electronics will not use it next year? Vincent has been wrong about HDMI 2.1 because he was just guessing, but I think if an LG representative told him it certainly would be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it may just have been wishful thinking, I read it on a forum somewhere...


It this youtube the source of your statement: 



 (around 3:00).

Vincent's states 'this will be the case going into 2020 as well' (speakng about all LGD WRGB WOLED panels, including 8K).

'Going into 2020' does not mean 'through 2020', especially since 2020 WOLEDs won't be getting introduced until April-June 2020...

The key will be the 65" 8K WOLED panel he panned on during that statement - if it gets introduced to the market befire year-end (by Philips or Sony), we're going to learn a great deal more...


----------



## fafrd

Just ran into this research paper which gives a pretty good idea of where LGD was as far as their approach to TE-WOLED in 2016: https://www.researchgate.net/public...itting_White_OLED_for_High_Resolution_OLED_TV

Punchline: "For an application to large-sized high-resolution OLED TV, we demonstrated TE-WOLED consisting of three OLED units (two blue and one yellow-green units) adopting transparent TCO cathode formed by sputtering. In spite of the concern on the damage to organic layers during sputtering process for TCO cathode, *the TE-WOLED showed electro-optical properties comparable to the BE-WOLED, in terms of efficiency, voltage and color shift by viewing angle. *Through this study, we also confirmed that the device architecture for TE-WOLED can be designed, based on the optical simulation. According to our internal study on pixel design, *TE-WOLED was simulated to offer a large aperture ratio at least by 40%, which is expected to enhance lifetime by 60%.* In conclusion, WOLED technology is proved to have the potential for being applied to the future OLED TV with a high resolution such as 8K x 4K." 

Of course, this was all 'simulation' so the first measured results will be more meaningful, but attached is the stack they used:


----------



## th1nk

Top emission remains in research phase:

https://twitter.com/vincent_teoh/status/1087019578234933253?s=21


----------



## fafrd

th1nk said:


> Top emission remains in research phase:
> 
> https://twitter.com/vincent_teoh/status/1087019578234933253?s=21


That!s neither here nor there. We know it's not yet in production, so of course it's in 'research phase'...

If anyone is in contact with Vincent, the question he needs to ask LGD is whether the 65" 8K panel they showed privately at CES was based on bottom-emission or top-emission...


----------



## th1nk

fafrd said:


> That!s neither here nor there. We know it's not yet in production, so of course it's in 'research phase'...
> 
> If anyone is in contact with Vincent, the question he needs to ask LGD is whether the 65" 8K panel they showed privately at CES was based on bottom-emission or top-emission...


I asked him:
https://twitter.com/vincent_teoh/status/1087097373531230208?s=21


----------



## fafrd

th1nk said:


> I asked him:
> https://twitter.com/vincent_teoh/status/1087097373531230208?s=21





Vincent Toh said:


> I was told the 65in 8K OLED is still bottom-emission when I asked specifically.


Well that is new information - thanks.

If LGD has managed to maintain peak brightness levels while shrinking pixel size by 75%, that would represent a breakthrough.

I'm going to reserve judgement until we have first reports on a 65" 8K panel. The entire HDMI2.1 saga has shown that LG has gotten more wiley about their marketing (undercommit and overdeliver )...


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Well that is new information - thanks.
> 
> If LGD has managed to maintain peak brightness levels while shrinking pixel size by 75%, that would represent a breakthrough.
> 
> I'm going to reserve judgement until we have first reports on a 65" 8K panel. The entire HDMI2.1 saga has shown that LG has gotten more wiley about their marketing (undercommit and overdeliver )...


Which orientation (top/bottom) are the flexible OLEDs?


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Well that is new information - thanks.
> 
> If LGD has managed to maintain peak brightness levels while shrinking pixel size by 75%, that would represent a breakthrough.
> 
> I'm going to reserve judgement until we have first reports on a 65" 8K panel. The entire HDMI2.1 saga has shown that LG has gotten more wiley about their marketing (undercommit and overdeliver )...


There's a report from Asia from this Summer [update: link] saying something to the effect that LG Display had cancelled a 65" 8K OLED project. (I found that and the article below with 1-2 hours of effort on Google.) Clearly this wasn't the cancellation of the 65" 8K OLED product, just presumably the cancellation a top-emission approach to that product.

There's also this from UBI Research from late August:



> LG Display is developing 75-inch and 64-inch [stl8k: Clearly a typo] 8K OLED panels other than 88-inch panels, and it is expected that all of these products will be on the market next year. *All 8K OLED panels under development are bottom emission structures.*


http://ubiresearch.co.kr/oled-tv/

I said previously and I think is now absolutely the case for TE(W)OLED:



> ... a better approach for *main board posting* is to a) speculate on quantifiable display characteristic improvements irrespective of the tech innovations that will deliver those improvements and b) set a really high bar for the info that is backing up the prediction.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

gorman42 said:


> Any source to read about OLED? I think many "3D lovers" would be interested.


There are many possible methods but they're all very hacky and hard. There are mixed reports. You have to actually really shorten the shutter-open duration time because of the OLED rolling scan artifact, unless the OLED has a black frame insertion behaviour. Then 3D becomes much, much easier to hack. 

I predict 2019 LG OLEDs to be easily hackable to use 3D glasses, becoming usable with an approximately "25% L-EYE-OPEN, 25% BOTH-CLOSED, 25% R-EYE-OPEN, 25% BOTH-CLOSED" shutter glasses sequence sequencing for a LG 120Hz OLED. Once phase (lag) is adjusted correctly, you may get a darkening gradient for the top/bottom edges but this would not be important for 2.35:1 films.

Here's a high speed video of an OLED, just recently filmed (of the new TestUFO Scanout Test designed for high speed cameras):






Now, assume a 120Hz OLED behaves this way (no black frame) -- then this is only barely suitable for 3D as it will have to open the shutter really briefly (e.g. 2ms OPEN one eye, 14ms CLOSED both eyes) which darkens the image during 3D OLED operation (e.g. LG 2017 OLED running at 1080p 120Hz). To do that, you need to use the same shutter-glasses shutter operation sequence that was originally used for the very old 120Hz displays Asus VG236H or Samsung 2233RZ (pre-LightBoost NVIDIA 3D Vision I original before 3D Vision 2). Those glasses often operated short-open shutter, long-duration closed shutter, e.g. (10% L-EYE-OPEN, 40% BOTH-CLOSED, 10% R-EYE-OPEN, 40% BOTH-CLOSED). 

This approximate shutter operation sequence more-or-less works on 2017/2018 LG OLED HDTVs (with some crosstalk due to two refresh cycles being visible simultaneously on an OLED, due to the scan-wipe effect seen in the high speed video). In order to get usable (but dark) 3D from a legacy sample-and-hold OLED, you need very brief shutter-open with long periods of both-shutter-closed. But it works, if you've hacked 3D glasses this way.

Now, the inclusion of BFI *and* 120Hz means the shutter can be open much longer, with less interference between refresh cycles (e.g. sample-and-hold wipe effect), which is a rolling-window scan roughly similar to a Sony Trimaster except done at 120Hz. This leads to much, much brighter 3D in "3D glasses hacks".






I am easily able to deduce recipies for shutter-glasses open/close sequences simply by looking at TestUFO Scanout Videos (percentage open, percentage closed). By being supplied with a copy of 1000fps video of TestUFO scanout, it is now possible to calculate the shutter-glasses sequence recipie (thanks to brand new cheap high-def high-speed true-960fps cameras such as Samsung Galaxy S9/S9+Note9 or Sony Xperia Premium XZ/XZ2). The name of the game is to open the shutter only when the screen is NOT displaying portions of two separate refresh cycles. That's how you get 3D. 

Thanks to cheap 300 dollar high speed cameras, designing shutter-glasses recipies have gotten much easier. There's a few new high speed videos of display scan-out behaviours that demonstrates this new display-analysis technique, and manufacturers should now begin using high-speed camera analysis of their displays. And as many know, I already have a deep understanding of 3D and the requirements behind them.

After looking at such a 1000fps video, it becomes a matter (for a technical-minded person) of programming an Arduino-based shutter glasses emitter to sync to a VBI (whether by sensor, or cable dongle, or cable to computer) with an analog phase/lag adjustment knob (or onscreen slider, or register variable) to accomodate the unknown absolute latency of the display chain / processing. Then adjust the lag until crosstalk becomes minimum. Then should provide an adequate 3D-glasses hack that produces functioning 3D. Based on looking at the high speed video, and knowing how fast the GtG of a certian shutter glasses is, I can even predict (in advance) how bad the crosstalk will look.

I am researching ways to simplify automation of this, and might possibly provide a way to make this more plug-n-play for users. I am obtaining some third party shutter glasses kits to research how they may be modified (custom shutter sequences). 

By the 2020s decade, one can theoretically develop an app for a 960fps smartphone to auto-calibrate some specific off-the-shelf shutter glasses (As long as they support custom-percentage shutter open/close sequences) for a brand new display, eliminating user intervention. *Making this easy*. As long as the display meets specific criteria it will function with active shutter 3D even though it was not designed to -- whether the display is invented today, 5 years from now, or 10 years from now. Even a single-scanned 240Hz or 480Hz display can use software-BFI to do the "120Hz+BFI" needed too, and more Hz just makes the job easier (ultra-Hz solving the 3D shutter glasses incompatibility problem). Manufacturers will be potentially be able to cease caring about 3D (though I prefer that not to happen), yielding it to 3rd party glasses kits, thanks to the magic of high-Hz, as long as the display has a sufficiently prompt scanout sweep.

It definitely will need shutter-percentage-sequence (and phase/lag) customization but once that is nailed, the 3D works. It is much darker for slow-scanning non-BFI displays and much brighter for BFI-capable displays and/or global-refresh displays like DLP (thanks to longer shutter-open times made possible from lack of the "two-refresh-cycle-on-screen-at-same-time" conflcit as seen in high speed videos) but regardless 3D would then work at its optmium possible for a given said 120Hz-capable (or higher) display.

There is some spinoffs from Blur Busters research that may bear fruit in this arena sometime by 2020, since it's an applied spinoff of the BFI work I'm currently doing. Although 3D is low priority at the moment (unless someone incentivizes this leg of Blur Busters research -- [email protected]).


----------



## AmishAnarchist

rogo said:


> It seems 2019 is a big improvement with 2020-21 likely to improve strongly again.
> 
> There may be nothing left to complain about by 2022-23.
> 
> But I'm sure some will find a way.



Here's a complaint: Why can't we get fast input switching? When everything was analog, it was instant. Now we're constantly waiting on HDMI/HDCP handshake nonsense. For all the advanced technology they put in these things, they still can't keep an active handshake for EVERYTHING that's power on and connected instead of just the active input. It's stupid. Honestly, the fact companies still won't offer bluetooth remotes, even as an extra accessory, is nuts. PS3 did it like 12 years ago and it was great.


----------



## rogo

AmishAnarchist said:


> Here's a complaint: Why can't we get fast input switching? When everything was analog, it was instant. Now we're constantly waiting on HDMI/HDCP handshake nonsense. For all the advanced technology they put in these things, they still can't keep an active handshake for EVERYTHING that's power on and connected instead of just the active input. It's stupid. Honestly, the fact companies still won't offer bluetooth remotes, even as an extra accessory, is nuts. PS3 did it like 12 years ago and it was great.


Those are perfectly legitimate complaints. They aren't, however, related to the technology of displays themselves.

Certainly, the remote thing is merely a marketing / tech choice. 

The input stuff is an idiotic approach to copyright management combined with a spec (HDMI) that is both too flexible and too inflexible. Blame Hollywood. Blame the idea of making it PC / multi-device compatible.


----------



## gorman42

AmishAnarchist said:


> Here's a complaint: Why can't we get fast input switching? When everything was analog, it was instant. Now we're constantly waiting on HDMI/HDCP handshake nonsense. For all the advanced technology they put in these things, they still can't keep an active handshake for EVERYTHING that's power on and connected instead of just the active input. It's stupid. Honestly, the fact companies still won't offer bluetooth remotes, even as an extra accessory, is nuts. PS3 did it like 12 years ago and it was great.


Isn't QMS (Quick Media Switching) designed for this in HDMI 2.1?


----------



## tgm1024

AmishAnarchist said:


> Honestly, the fact companies still won't offer bluetooth remotes, even as an extra accessory, is nuts. PS3 did it like 12 years ago and it was great.


It wasn't until the advent of cars _requiring_ bluetooth seamless connections and phones dumping the 3.5mm phone jack that the bluetooth consortium finally got their head out of someplace dark. Prior to that, bluetooth had always been something that year after year the tech world had considered a series of "once again, botched" implementations. There have been a lot of apologists out there (Business Insider: Why Does Bluetooth Still Suck) running to the nonsense that it's because of the 2.4Ghz cluster-F sharing, but it's much more than that. There are a few places on line detailing this anti-evolution of a should-have-been great standard, but this simple conversation here is among the best IMO of showing a techie-based ire.

In short, it's no amazing shock to me that companies are reticent to adopt that standard. Wanting 20,000 returns because of unhappy customers? Perhaps now things will be better going forward, but I doubt it. Even Roku remotes use Direct-WiFi and not bluetooth.

For me, I _still_ will not buy another bluetooth mouse or keyboard. Prove it works well for another few years please. Until then, no way Jose.


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> Well that is new information - thanks.
> 
> If LGD has managed to maintain peak brightness levels while shrinking pixel size by 75%, that would represent a breakthrough.
> 
> I'm going to reserve judgement until we have first reports on a 65" 8K panel. The entire HDMI2.1 saga has shown that LG has gotten more wiley about their marketing (undercommit and overdeliver )...


fafrd, how likely do you think it is that we will see top emission from Sony (or LG) at any time in 2020?


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> There's a report from Asia from this Summer [update: link] saying something to the effect that LG Display had cancelled a 65" 8K OLED project. (I found that and the article below with 1-2 hours of effort on Google.) Clearly this wasn't the cancellation of the 65" 8K OLED product, just presumably the cancellation a top-emission approach to that product.
> 
> There's also this from UBI Research from late August:
> 
> 
> 
> http://ubiresearch.co.kr/oled-tv/
> 
> I said previously and I think is now absolutely the case for TE(W)OLED:


The key will be the 65" 8K WOLED panel LGD is likely to release late this year - if it proves to be bottom-emission, TE-WOLED may never happen.

The primary driver of TE-WOLED was supposed to be the fact that 65" 8K pixels could not reach target brightness (or targe lifetime) without it - aperature ratio too small.

If LGD found other ways around those limitations, the only other real advantage TE-WOLED offers over BE-WOLED is decreased current density and hence increased lifetime (and decreased burn-in risk).

So aside from the fact that there may have been some 'problem'/complexity with TE-WOLED, another possibility is that development has come alog just fine but it is just not worth the trouble/effort to make the change in manufacturing.

If this ends up being the case and LGD sticks to BE-WOLED for the next few years, the 2019 WOLEDs may prove to be as good as we're going to get for some time...


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Which orientation (top/bottom) are the flexible OLEDs?


From what I've understood, transparent WOLEDs are both bottom-emission and top-emission (at least the ones that emit through both sides).

So the fact that LGD has been demonstrating transparent WOLEDs for years indicates that they probably already have all of the requisite technologies for top-emission in development/prototyping, but on the other hand, they have not yet i troduced any transparent WOLED panels to the market: https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-unveil-new-transparent-automotive-and-cso-oleds-ces-2019


----------



## AmishAnarchist

gorman42 said:


> Isn't QMS (Quick Media Switching) designed for this in HDMI 2.1?


Who knows. I've been hearing about HDMI 2.1 for like 8 years now, but hardware STILL doesn't support it. Any chance 2019 will be the year everything is 2.1 capable?


----------



## lsorensen

AmishAnarchist said:


> Who knows. I've been hearing about HDMI 2.1 for like 8 years now, but hardware STILL doesn't support it. Any chance 2019 will be the year everything is 2.1 capable?


Well LG OLED TVs will have full HDMI 2.1 in 2019 it seems. Marantz is supposed to have a full HDMI 2.1 capable option for their highest end AVR sometime this year. I don't think there will be any HDMI 2.1 source devices though, other than the partial things like VRR and such on the Xbox One X that already exists, but maybe someone is working on something.


----------



## AmishAnarchist

lsorensen said:


> Well LG OLED TVs will have full HDMI 2.1 in 2019 it seems. Marantz is supposed to have a full HDMI 2.1 capable option for their highest end AVR sometime this year. I don't think there will be any HDMI 2.1 source devices though, other than the partial things like VRR and such on the Xbox One X that already exists, but maybe someone is working on something.


Well how much support is needed on the source device side for this supposed quick media switching? Seems to me, the TV/AVR should be able to keep the handshake active on non-selected inputs all on its own.


----------



## lsorensen

AmishAnarchist said:


> Well how much support is needed on the source device side for this supposed quick media switching? Seems to me, the TV/AVR should be able to keep the handshake active on non-selected inputs all on its own.



What QMS is solving is the need to re-handshake when changing frame rate but keeping the same resolution. Before QMS that required redoing the connection handshake, but with QMS it uses VRR to just change the frame rate on the fly without changing the connection data rate. If the resolution changes, it still has to redo the connection though. This has nothing to do with input switching on your TV.


So if you have an Apple TV or similar device playing a TV show at 4K 60Hz and then change to a movie at 4K 24Hz, the transition will be seamless, which is not the case without QMS.


So support requires the source device to support VRR and QMS to allow the transmission of a lower frame rate than the link is setup to handle.


----------



## artur9

AmishAnarchist said:


> Seems to me, the TV/AVR should be able to keep the handshake active on non-selected inputs all on its own.


IIRC the Krell Foundation does that or something similar. I have one, seems pretty quick in changing inputs.


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> From what I've understood, transparent WOLEDs are both bottom-emission and top-emission (at least the ones that emit through both sides).
> 
> So the fact that LGD has been demonstrating transparent WOLEDs for years indicates that they probably already have all of the requisite technologies for top-emission in development/prototyping, but on the other hand, they have not yet i troduced any transparent WOLED panels to the market: https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-unveil-new-transparent-automotive-and-cso-oleds-ces-2019


Are flexible OLED's always using transparent OLED technology (but presumably with a backing of some kind)?


----------



## fafrd

artur9 said:


> IIRC the Krell Foundation does that or something similar. I have one, seems pretty quick in changing inputs.


This is the OLED Technology Advancements Thread and I fail to see how all this discussion about HDMI2.1 and the features it supports is OLED-specific. Please take the discussuon elsewhere...


----------



## fafrd

tgm1024 said:


> Are flexible OLED's always using transparent OLED technology (but presumably with a backing of some kind)?


I believe flexible OLEDs are always based on a plastic substrate but don't believe that means they must be transparent. A reflective metal can be deposited on either a transparent anode or a transparent cathode (and that is all this is needed to turn a transparent OLED into either bottom-emission or top-emission...

Of course, in LGD's case with WOLED, bottom or top emission (or both) also impacts where the color filters must be deposited/patterned...


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> I believe flexible OLEDs are always based on a plastic substrate but don't believe that means they must be transparent. A reflective metal can be deposited on either a transparent anode or a transparent cathode (and that is all this is needed to turn a transparent OLED into either bottom-emission or top-emission...
> 
> Of course, in LGD's case with WOLED, bottom or top emission (or both) also impacts where the color filters must be deposited/patterned...


I only ask because I asked about flexible, and you answered about transparent. I was then confused if you had a link between the two.


----------



## stl8k

Now that the dust has settled from CES, I'm ready to put some stakes in the ground for 2019 and early 2020 wrt the OLED TV/Display market.

*OLED is Clearly the Premium TV Display Technology
*
This is the year where it's clear that if you're a premium TV buyer, the OLED technology brand is the one driving your default choice. Top corporate consumer OLED TV brands like Sony and LG (in the US) only reinforce that default technology choice.

*Innovative Form Factors and Innovative Sound Features Are the Primary Market Drivers
*
CES this year made it clear that innovative TV form factors like LG's rollable will be primary market drivers. Innovations in sound, especially the elimination of peripheral speakers, is a clear second but feels like it's in the same ballpark as form factor innovations.

*Display Picture Quality (PQ) Characteristics Are Secondary Market Drivers and There's No Single Leading Characteristic
*
Color Volume/Accuracy, Brightness, Motion Quality, etc are clearly secondary drivers. This isn't to say that folks in the premium market aren't interested in these, but 1) the current levels of these are sufficient for most and 2) most of the consumer brands don't know how to make any improvements in them tangible for folks. Also, related to LGDs role as OEM supplier discussed below, most of the improvements will accrue equally to all the consumer brands LGD supplies.

For brightness, it's very clear from LGD that they will not be competing on brightness in this time frame. This likely stems from a combination of 1) the risk required for a stepwise brightness-level innovation (e.g. fafrd's _oft-mentioned_ top-emission innovation) and 2) a principled belief that high levels of (blue light) brightness are detrimental to consumer's health. Also, it may simply want to wait to collect data from its 2019 ambient light sensor TVs to determine precisely what level of brightness is justifiable.

*The Nature of LGD as an OEM Supplier to Many Credible Consumer Brands Has Strong Implications for PQ Innovation
*
Given the proclivity for the consumer brands to innovate on form and sound (and with recent heavy investment in AI/algorithmic capabilities), it's hard to imagine LGD making significant investments in productizing PQ innovations. All signs are pointing toward LGD, having established OLED as the premium TV tech leader, playing things conservatively for the next year.

*An Open Question about Content as a PQ Innovation Driver
*
As I've written before, content plays a huge role in PQ innovation success. It's unsurprising then that innovation through exclusive or preferred content would be a consideration. Will there be "Best Viewed On" content-technology partnerships for the Tokyo Summer 2020 Olympics? Will there be a "Premium Superbowl LIV (2020) Experience" broadcast in 120p exclusive to Sony-YouTube, LG-Fox, etc?

I found it interesting that it was LGD, not LG, announcing it was going to collaborate with NHK on the Tokyo 2020 viewing experience. Additionally, where is the comparable announcement from Sony, Panasonic, etc (excluding announcements on the camera/capture side)?

I'm relatively new to innovation in the TV/Display market, but not new to innovation—I'm an digital innovation pro, so I'd love to hear divergent views or more depth on the above (e.g., I have no instincts for LGDs OLED manufacturing maturity wrt productizing PQ innovations).

I also reserve the right to change my mind in the next week as LGD informs the markets about its plans


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Now that the dust has settled from CES, I'm ready to put some stakes in the ground for 2019 and early 2020 wrt the OLED TV/Display market.
> 
> OLED is Clearly the Premium TV Display Technology
> 
> This is the year where it's clear that if you're a premium TV buyer, the OLED technology brand is the one driving your default choice. Top corporate consumer OLED TV brands like Sony and LG (in the US) only reinforce that default technology choice.
> 
> Innovative Form Factors and Innovative Sound Features Are the Primary Market Drivers
> 
> CES this year made it clear that innovative TV form factors like LG's rollable will be primary market drivers. Innovations in sound, especially the elimination of peripheral speakers, is a clear second but feels like it's in the same ballpark as form factor innovations.
> 
> Display Picture Quality (PQ) Characteristics Are Secondary Market Drivers and There's No Single Leading Characteristic
> 
> Color Volume/Accuracy, Brightness, Motion Quality, etc are clearly secondary drivers. This isn't to say that folks in the premium market aren't interested in these, but 1) the current levels of these are sufficient for most and 2) most of the consumer brands don't know how to make any improvements in them tangible for folks. Also, related to LGDs role as OEM supplier discussed below, most of the improvements will accrue equally to all the consumer brands LGD supplies.
> 
> For brightness, it's very clear from LGD that they will not be competing on brightness in this time frame. This likely stems from a combination of 1) the risk required for a stepwise brightness-level innovation (e.g. fafrd's _oft-mentioned_ top-emission innovation) and 2) a principled belief that high levels of (blue light) brightness are detrimental to consumer's health. Also, it may simply want to wait to collect data from its 2019 ambient light sensor TVs to determine precisely what level of brightness is justifiable.
> 
> The Nature of LGD as an OEM with Many Credible Consumer Brands Has Strong Implications for PQ Innovation
> 
> Given the proclivity for the consumer brands to innovate on form and sound (and with recent heavy investment in AI/algorithmic capabilities) and *LGDs weakness as a consumer brand*, it's hard to imagine LGD making significant investments in productizing PQ innovations. All signs are pointing toward LGD, having established OLED as the premium TV tech leader, playing things conservatively for the next year.


LG Display is not a consumer brand, I think you are confusing LG Display and LG Electronics... LG Display is a component supplier (the leading/only supplier of large-sized OLED panels for consumer televisions, supplying to OEM customers including Sony, Panasonic, LG Electronics, and others...).



> An Open Question about Content as a PQ Innovation Driver
> 
> As I've written before, content plays a huge role in PQ innovation success. It's unsurprising then that innovation through exclusive or preferred content would be a consideration. Will there be "Best Viewed On" content-technology partnerships for the Tokyo Summer 2020 Olympics? Will there be a "Premium Superbowl LIV (2020) Experience" broadcast in 120p exclusive to Sony-YouTube, LG-Fox, etc?
> 
> *I found it interesting that it was LGD, not LG, announcing it was going to collaborate with NHK on the Tokyo 2020 viewing experience.* Additionally, where is the comparable announcement from Sony, Panasonic, etc (excluding announcements on the camera/capture side)?
> 
> I'm relatively new to innovation in the TV/Display market, but not new to innovation—I'm an digital innovation pro, so I'd love to hear divergent views or more depth on the above (e.g., I have no instincts for LGDs OLED manufacturing maturity wrt productizing PQ innovations).
> 
> I also reserve the right to change my mind in the next week as LGD informs that markets about its plans


NHK is pretty interested in improving framerate and motion performance, and that is all baked into the backplane, which means it has everything to do with LG Display and little to do with LG Electronics (or the other OEM customers of WOLED).

LGD made major strides in their IGZO backplane in 2019, and it is unlikely those improvements to Effective Refresh Rate would have materialized without LGD's partnership with NHK. Going from a single-column refresh architcture to a dual-column refresh architecture adds cost and the only real benefit for 4K panels is that 75% BFI @ 60 Hz as well as 50% BFI @ 120Hz can be supported, both of which deliver ~4ms MPRT.

Of course, the same split-column refresh architecture is what has allowed LGD to deliver 8K WOLEDs with 60Hz refresh rates, so reduced 4K MPRT was not the sole motivation. But they could have limited the use of dual-column to 8K panels and left the 4K panels with the same single-column 120Hz Native Refresh Rate backplane they used in 2018 (which would have been less expensive). The fact LGD invested in improvng the speed and BFI capability of their 2019 4K WOLEDs despite increased cost is almost certainly the inflence of NHK.

The capability is there, but in the end it is the OEM customers that must exploit it. LGE has already crowed about their 3.5ms MPRT (like it was their doing ) and I'll be surprised if we don't see Sony and Panasonic 2019 WOLEDs exploit the same capability.

LG Display has an incentive to reserve as little 'special' capability as possible for LG Electronics - they are much better served having WOLED TVs universally superior to LED/LCD TVs in as many ways as possible and through as many OEM brands as possible.

LG Electronics no doubt has a special relationship with LG Display which probably allows them earliest access to WOLED roadmap plans as well as likely earliest access to development prototypes, so it makes sense that LGE is positioned to consistently be the 'first' OEM to capitalize on and launch the newest capability that LGD has baked into new-generation WOLED panels.

But except for a bit of a headstart on timing (includng whatever new capability they design into thier newst generation of Alpha processors), LG Electronics is on equal footing with the other WOLED OEM customers in terms of access to newest WOLED capability...


----------



## stl8k

@fafrd, No confusion at all on LGD vs LG(E). LGD like every modern company wants to be closer to end users. For example, they recently made a significant marketing investment in a consumer portal in Asia:

https://www.oledspace.com/

I think they likely recognize that they need to be the steward of the OLED brand and the marketer of PQ innovations.


----------



## tgm1024

stl8k said:


> @*fafrd* , No confusion at all on LGD vs LG(E). LGD like every modern company wants to be closer to end users. For example, they recently made a significant marketing investment in a consumer portal in Asia:
> 
> https://www.oledspace.com/
> 
> I think they likely recognize that they need to be the steward of the OLED brand and the marketer of PQ innovations.


Sure, except LGD isn't the brand that the consumers see at all. It's a B2B outfit _only_....consumer brands happen after LG/Sony/etc. get ahold of their product.

I think that's all that @*fafrd* was saying.


----------



## video_analysis

LGD uses LGE to get closer to end users.  That's the default vehicle the Chaebol uses. Oh, and OLED (with its nagging warts) has been the premium choice for TVs for at least 3 years now, IMO.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> @fafrd, No confusion at all on LGD vs LG(E). *LGD like every modern company wants to be closer to end users. *For example, they recently made a significant marketing investment in a consumer portal in Asia:
> 
> https://www.oledspace.com/


Thanks for the link, but I'm not convinced that LGD wants to be closer to end-users. When we see a Superbowl ad paid for by LGD, you'll have me convinced, but until then, this small investment in a web portal could just as easily be aimed at employees of LGD as consumers (in case you had not heard, LGD is going through tough times with lots of belt tightening, all to allow continued investment in WOLED, promised to lead to a brighter future for the company).



> I think they likely recognize that they need to be the steward of the OLED brand and the marketer of PQ innovations.


Not saying you are wrong, but also not ready to agree you are right.

In fairness to your conclusion, LGE had been making significant investments in WOLED TV marketing (including at least one Super Bowl ad), but LGD's early achievement of profitability in the WOLED panel business in Q3'18 supposedly stemmed in large part from raising WOLED panel prices in general and cessation of offering MDF (Market Development Funds) to their OEM customers (cash kick-backs to be used for advertising) in particular.

So it is very possible that the WOLED marketing $$$s that had been getting spent by LGE and Sony and Panasonic is now going through dramatic cutbacks and LGD will need to spend some of their preciously-earned profit on increased WOLED marketing investments themselves...

Time will tell.


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Thanks for the link, but I'm not convinced that LGD wants to be closer to end-users.


I don't see a win for LGD in trying to be somehow closer to end users, but more to the point, I don't believe this part of the statement either:
stl8k: "LGD *like every modern company* wants to be closer to end users."​It depends entirely upon the nature of the business. I would argue that there would be a great incentive for suppliers to other companies to be no where near the vagaries of the end user. Dealing with the end user is expensive and involves a lot of corporate energy to front line all of that nonsense. The folks that make airbags for cars, for example, would want to be as far from the end user's concerns as possible. It's a completely different discipline for a company to manage.


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Thanks for the link, but I'm not convinced that LGD wants to be closer to end-users. When we see a Superbowl ad paid for by LGD, you'll have me convinced, but until then, this small investment in a web portal could just as easily be aimed at employees of LGD as consumers (in case you had not heard, LGD is going through tough times with lots of belt tightening, all to allow continued investment in WOLED, promised to lead to a brighter future for the company).
> 
> 
> 
> Not saying you are wrong, but also not ready to agree you are right.
> 
> In fairness to your conclusion, LGE had been making significant investments in WOLED TV marketing (including at least one Super Bowl ad), but LGD's early achievement of profitability in the WOLED panel business in Q3'18 supposedly stemmed in large part from *raising WOLED panel prices in general *and cessation of offering MDF (Market Development Funds) to their OEM customers (cash kick-backs to be used for advertising) in particular.
> 
> So it is very possible that the WOLED marketing $$$s that had been getting spent by LGE and Sony and Panasonic is now going through dramatic cutbacks and LGD will need to spend some of their preciously-earned profit on increased WOLED marketing investments themselves...
> 
> Time will tell.


Just to put some scale on the $$$s we are talking about: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/...-lgd-turning-the-corner-on-oled-profitability

This report estimates that Q1'19 55" WOLED panel prices have increased from ~$500 to ~$550, or 10% between their Q2'18 and Q3'18 forecasts.

LGD is sellng ~3M WOLED panels per year or ~0.75M per quarter based on current production levels, so a 10% price increase translates to ~$37.5M per quarter is all of those 750,000 panels are 55" and over $50M per quarter if they are selling only 500,000 55" panels per quarter and 250,000 65" and 77" panels per quarter (and even more if the mix of 65" WOLEDs is higher).

Spending even a mere 10% of that additional profitability on WOLED marketing would get LG Display a great deal more visibility that they are getting through that modest Korean-only web portal...

And it's also clear that they have the funds to back a WOLED TV add during the Superbowl if they choose.

I'm still suspecting that continued profitability and positive cash flow to keep fueling WOLED manufacturing increases is a far higher priority that taking on the mantle of branding and marketing to end-consumers, as you believe. But it's clear they have the funds to invest in some serious marketing if you are correct.

So let's see how it all plays out (especially the Super Bowl ).


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Just to put some scale on the $$$s we are talking about: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/...-lgd-turning-the-corner-on-oled-profitability
> 
> This report estimates that Q1'19 55" WOLED panel prices have increased from ~$500 to ~$550, or 10% between their Q2'18 and Q3'18 forecasts.
> 
> LGD is sellng ~3M WOLED panels per year or ~0.75M per quarter based on current production levels, so a 10% price increase translates to ~$37.5M per quarter is all of those 750,000 panels are 55" and over $50M per quarter if they are selling only 500,000 55" panels per quarter and 250,000 65" and 77" panels per quarter (and even more if the mix of 65" WOLEDs is higher).
> 
> Spending even a mere 10% of that additional profitability on WOLED marketing would get LG Display a great deal more visibility that they are getting through that modest Korean-only web portal...
> 
> And it's also clear that they have the funds to back a WOLED TV add during the Superbowl if they choose.
> 
> I'm still suspecting that continued profitability and positive cash flow to keep fueling WOLED manufacturing increases is a far higher priority that taking on the mantle of branding and marketing to end-consumers, as you believe. But it's clear they have the funds to invest in some serious marketing if you are correct.
> 
> So let's see how it all plays out (especially the Super Bowl ).


 @fafrd, I think you may have gotten caught up on a throwaway phrase in that paragraph "LGDs weakness as a consumer brand".

How about this instead...

"Given the proclivity for the consumer brands to innovate on form and sound (and with recent heavy investment in AI/algorithmic capabilities), it's hard to imagine LGD making significant investments in productizing PQ innovations. All signs are pointing toward LGD, having established OLED as the premium TV tech leader, playing things conservatively for the next year."

The point is with the consumer brands so focused on form factor, sound, and algorithmic innovation in 2019, I don't see any *strong motivations *for significant OLED PQ innovations (recognizing that the some of the algo innovation does influence PQ).


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> @fafrd, I think you may have gotten caught up on a throwaway phrase in that paragraph "LGDs weakness as a consumer brand".
> 
> How about this instead...
> 
> "Given the proclivity for the consumer brands to innovate on form and sound (and with recent heavy investment in AI/algorithmic capabilities), it's hard to imagine LGD making significant investments in productizing PQ innovations. All signs are pointing toward LGD, having established OLED as the premium TV tech leader, playing things conservatively for the next year."
> 
> The point is with the consumer brands so focused on form factor, sound, and algorithmic innovation in 2019, I don't see any *strong motivations *for significant OLED PQ innovations (recognizing that the some of the algo innovation does influence PQ).


I think we may be talking past each other (mixing marketing/brand awareness and technology improvement) but I'll attempt to respond.

LGD may well have a relatively 'light' year as far as further improvements to WOLED technology, prefering to focus on profitability instead. Introduction of MMG is a significant change to manufacturing flow which will strongly and positively impact profitability but will not result in any changes to technology. So MMG (and ramp-up of Guanhshou, LGD's first non-Korean WOLED manufacturing facility) may be all that LGD focuses on in 2019.

On the other hand, they don't want to be 'late' with 120Hz 8K refresh rates, so who's to say?

As far as the WOLED OEMs, they focus on the things they can control/develop. So yeah, AI, sound, processing, calibration, and now MPRT (and hopefully also near-black uniformity and linearity).

LGE still has a ways to go in catching up to Panasonic in near-black, so we know that is managed at the processing level and not by LGD's WOLED panel...


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> I think we may be talking past each other (mixing marketing/brand awareness and technology improvement) but I'll attempt to respond.


Thanks fafrd! Yeah, I make a strong distinction between an org's ability to innovate technically and an org having the capabilities/desire to effectively market those innovations.



> LGD may well have a relatively 'light' year as far as further improvements to WOLED technology, prefering to focus on profitability instead. Introduction of MMG is a significant change to manufacturing flow which will strongly and positively impact profitability but will not result in any changes to technology. *So MMG (and ramp-up of Guanhshou, LGD's first non-Korean WOLED manufacturing facility) may be all that LGD focuses on in 2019.*
> 
> On the other hand, they don't want to be 'late' with 120Hz 8K refresh rates, so who's to say?
> 
> As far as the WOLED OEMs, they focus on the things they can control/develop. So yeah, AI, sound, processing, calibration, and now MPRT (and hopefully also near-black uniformity and linearity)..
> 
> LGE still has a ways to go in catching up to Panasonic in near-black, so we know that is managed at the processing level and not by LGD's WOLED panel...


It's worth noting that LGD is moving into a variety of new markets, like Automotive, coincident with its defending its premium TV market position.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Thanks fafrd! Yeah, I make a strong distinction between an org's ability to innovate technically and an org having the capabilities/desire to effectively market those innovations.
> 
> 
> 
> It's worth noting that LGD is moving into a variety of new markets, like Automotive, coincident with its defending its premium TV market position.


Hey, look - I'm all for LGD's innovations and believe they are enjoying more and more success in that department.

Other than marketing the capability of their WOLEDs to OEM customers in the TV (and now automotive) market(s), I'm just not seeing significant efforts and investments to market to end-consumers being nearly as important to their continued success...

The fact that Apple is apparently moving all of their new above-entry-level iPhones to OLED screens (https://www.oled-info.com/wsj-apple-use-oleds-all-its-2020-iphones) will have more of an impact on WOLED TVs contintinued success than anything LG Display could do marketing-wise.


----------



## irkuck

*Finally, Samsung mastered 15" OLED size, 4K OLEDs for laptops coming*.


----------



## Ted99

Is there any technical reason the anti-reflective coatings, such as those being used in the new 8K Samsung QLED, cannot be added to the top of the line OLED panels? This is a very big deal for me with a bright daytime environment.


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> *Finally, Samsung mastered 15" OLED size, 4K OLEDs for laptops coming*.


You have to love this:

"Outstanding HDR captures details even in the dark
The new panel features a brightness level ranging from 0.0005 to 600 nits, and a dynamic contrast ratio of 120,000:1. *Compared to LCDs, black color appears 200 times darker and whites twice as bright, maximizing the benefits of HDR to deliver the utmost in high-resolution video and images.*"


----------



## fafrd

It's time for my annual analysis of WOLED TV pricing (and WOLED-vs-LCD TV cost analysis).

First and foremost, I'm basing all of this on DSCC' October 2018 TV Cost Report: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-tv-panel-makers-push-for-cost-reduction

This report shows LGD raising 55" WOLED panel pricing by ~10% in Q3'18, as was widely reported, and states that 55" panel prices went from ~$500 to $550. Let's assume that this is correct and use it to calculate a target revenue of $3300 per 8.5G WOLED sheet (we're assuming 100% yield both because LGD is close enough to 100% for this analysis as well as the fact that the DSCC model already includes a small cost factor for yield loss).

I'm going to focus on C8P pricing for this analysis, both because the C8 appears to be LGs volume-leader as well as the fact that the C8-Series was the only 2018 model spanning 55", 65" abd 77" WOLED panel sizes.

From camelcamel, we can see that 55C8 pricing has bottomed-out at $1700, and this allows us to make a simple model of WOLED TV cost. I'm going to assume that even a this bottom pricing, LGE is generating 50% gross margin, so pricing of $1700 equates to cost of $850.

Of that $850, $550 is WOLED panel cost (based on DSCC) and the remaining $300 is fixed and independant of screen size (processor, power supply, remote, etc...).

So we end up with a simple model for LGE's WOLED TV cost of:

$300 + WOLED panel cost (price to LG Display) and a simple model for LGE's C-Series bottom-level pricing of:

2 x ($300 + WOLED panel cost).

So first, we can use this model and DSCCs forecast of 2019 55" WOLED panel pricing to understand that we have reached the end of the phase of 20%+ yearly declines in 55" WOLED TV pricing.

DSCC is estimating that LGD will be reducing 55" WOLED panel prices by ~10% over the course of this year, so 55" panels will drop from $550 today to $500 by yearend. Using our model, that would mean 2019 55" WOLED pricing should bottom-out at about:

2 x ($300+$500) = $1600 by this time next year, less than 6% below today's 55C8 pricing.

10.5G fabs and MMG have no impact on 55" WOLED panel pricing, which is optimized on today's 8.5G manufacturing (6-up), so until there are other breakthroughs, $100/6% per year drops may be the best we can hope for and it may take another 5-6 years to see 55" WOLED TVs break under $1000...


Now let's have a look at 65". Without MMG, a 65" WOLED panel costs twice as much as a 55" WOLED panel, so $1100 today.

Plugging that panel cost into our model nets 65" WOLED TVs costing:

$300+$1100 = $1400 and bottom pricing of double that, or $2800.

If we look at camelcamel, the 65C8P is currently being sold for $2700, so I'd say the model can't be too far off .

So first, if we assume no MMG and the same 10% drop in WOLED panel pricing, a year from now, 65C9 TVs will cost about 

$300+$1000 = $1300 resulting in bottom pricing of $2600 a year from now and 5-6 years before we are going to see 65" WOLEDs bottoming-out under $2000.

But now let's have a look at the impact of MMG, which LGD is slated to bring into production before year-end.

LG is currently planning to use MMG to manufacture 2 48" WOLED panels on 8.5G substrates used to manufacture 65" and 77" WOLEDs: 
https://www.oled-a.org/lg-to-use-mmg-to-expand-output-of-gen-85-fab8203_121018.html

48" WOLEDs can be manufactured 8-up versus 55" WOLEDs which are manufactured 6-up, so if a 55" WOLED is 'worth' $500 a year from now, a 48" WOLED is 'worth' about $375 and two of them contribute ~$750 towards LGD's per-sheet income target of $3000, meaning the 3 65" WOLEDs manufactured in parallel only need to be priced at $750 each instead of $1000.

Plugging this into our simple cost model, that means 65" WOLED TV costs dropping to $300+$750 = $1050 a year from now supporting 65" bottom-pricing of as low as $2100.

Of course, this MMG model is best-case, because it does not assume any additional per-substrate cost associated with the use of MMG, so the reality will be 65C9 pricing somewhere between $2100 and $2600 a year from now, so let's say ~$2350+/- seems like a realistic target.

Now let's have a look at 77". First of all, today, with the $3300 per-sheet revenue target, 77" WOLED panels could be priced as low as $1650 if LGD was only generating the same income at 77" as they are at 55" and 65". If 77" WOLED panels were bring priced by LGD at $1650, that would translate to the 77C8 costing LGE $300+$1650 = $1950 and they could easily be selling at bottom pricing under $4000 at good margin if they were motivated to do so.

The 77C8 is currently priced at $7000, so either LGE is not motivated to sell more of them (unlikely) or LGD is selling 77" WOLED panels for far more than $1650 (almost certainly the case).

If we assume that LGE is selling the 77C8 for the same ~50% gross margin we've assumed for the 55C8 and 65C8, a $7000 bottom price translates to costs of ~$3500 meaning ~$3200 for the 77" WOLED panel (the other $300 in cost being fixed)!

Fantastic for LGD's per-sheet revenue on 77" WOLEDs but lousy for selling any significant volume of them.

An LG executive is on record somewhere stating that LG has a 'mandate' to sell more 77" WOLEDs this year, so let's see what that could translate into.

First, without assuming MMG, per-sheet revenue of $3000 a year from now translates to 77" WOLED panel pricing of $1500 and 77" WOLED TV cost of ~$1800 which could result in 77" WOLED TV bottom-pricing of $3600 at healthy margins. It's clear that LGD has wanted to focus on 55" and 65" WOLEDs and has reserved 77" WOLEDs for the very well-heeled.

77" WOLEDs priced under $4000 would already boost sales significantly, but let's now consider the impact of MMG. $750 worth of 48" WOLED panels means 2 77" WOLEDs only need to generate $2250 in income for LGD, or $1125 each. That could translate to 77" WOLED TV costs of $1425 resulting in bottom pricing of under $3000 at healthy gross margins over 50%!

Again, this is best-case because there is no additional cost factored-in for MMG, but it is safe to say 77C9s could be priced between $3000 and $4000 a year from now if LGD and LGE are serious about this 'mandate'.

So it's looking to me that the outlook for rapid price drops to $1000 55" WOLEDs and $2000 65" WOLEDs currently appears dim, while the outlook for accelerated price drops towards $3000 75/77" WOLEDs has never looked better.

As a reference, Samsung's 75Q9FN is priced at $5000 today, ~30% below LG's 77C8, while Samsung's 65Q9FN is currently priced at $2800, ~4% higher than current 65C8 pricing. A year from now, I'm guessing we will see much less of a disparity between relative price positioning of LGs 65C9 and 77C9 against Samsung's flagship 65" and 75" 4K QLED/LCD offerings...


----------



## fafrd

Yet another sign that we may be slowly moving into the era of Ultra-HFR: https://www.oled-info.com/new-960fps-videos-show-fast-refresh-cycle-high-end-amoled-displays


----------



## rogo

I do not see how they can reach their production targets without lower pricing.

They were not "selling out" at existing prices. And while they can surely increase demand with increases in marketing, but it seems like an expensive fix. And also less likely to increase demand than with lower prices.

If the price stays flat / minus 10%, there will likely be minimal increase in total demand, almost certainly less than 25%.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I do not see how they can reach their production targets without lower pricing.
> 
> They were not "selling out" at existing prices. And while they can surely increase demand with increases in marketing, but it seems like an expensive fix. And also less likely to increase demand than with lower prices.
> 
> *If the price stays flat / minus 10%, there will likely be minimal increase in total demand, *almost certainly less than 25%.


At 55" and 65", I fear you are correct, and demand is likely to stay relatively flat (as is capacity, at least through this year).

But there is a massive opportunity to increase demand of 77" WOLEDs, as I've suggested.

Would be interested if you'd like to take a swag at the number of 75/77" TVs sold in 2018 and forcasted for this year, but I'm guessing it's growing at a good clip and LG can easily move from capturing a sliver to capturing the lion's-share of the 'over $3000 75/77" Premium TV Market' with much more aggressive 77" WOLED panel pricing.

Here is an April 2018 article from Business Korea where Samsung claims their domestic (Korean) sales of TVs 75" and larger increased by 150% compared to year-ago levels: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=21770

"in the case of Samsung Electronics, domestic sales of super-sized TVs of over 75 inches in January this year increased by 1.5 times compared with the delivery and doubled from the same month of last year."

As far as LGD's production targets, the only question is whether LGE, Sony and Panasonic are reducing demand in the face of increased prices or not. Since LGE and Sony have the highest operating profit in the TV industry due to their sales of WOLED TVs, it appears they have agreed to share some if that excess profitability with LGD and accept the higher prices without reducing demand: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/...-lgd-turning-the-corner-on-oled-profitability

So since the 'price up' is behind us and the forecast is now for steady but modest 'price down' going forward, I don't see any problem for LG Display to reach their production targets (at least for this year). Especially with the 75/77" lever they are apparently ready to (finally) pull this year...


----------



## ALMA

In Germany the best regional street prices in shops were:

55B87/B8 for 999€ - 1199€
65B87 for 1499€ - 1699€
77C8 for 3999€ - 4499€

All prices incl. 19% tax.

The 65C8 is currently sold under 2000€. You can get OLED-TVs in 65" from all big players here under 2500€ (Philips OLED873/803, Sony AF8, Panasonic FZW804).


----------



## tgm1024

fafrd said:


> Yet another sign that we may be *slowly* moving into the era of Ultra-HFR: https://www.oled-info.com/new-960fps-videos-show-fast-refresh-cycle-high-end-amoled-displays


(emphasis mine)

It's just soooooo frustrating to me that HFR keeps taking a back seat to far lesser goals (like 8K/HDR/whathaveyou...)


----------



## stl8k

rogo said:


> I do not see how they can reach their production targets without lower pricing.
> 
> They were not "selling out" at existing prices. And while they can surely increase demand with increases in marketing, but it seems like an expensive fix. And also less likely to increase demand than with lower prices.
> 
> If the price stays flat / minus 10%, there will likely be minimal increase in total demand, almost certainly less than 25%.


I concur with you Rogo about the use of marketing. Having LGD attempt to direct marketing through its consumer-facing suppliers would be really inefficient.


----------



## stl8k

HDR Nerdery from LG Display...

"High Dynamic Range (HDR) content standards such as HDR10, Dolby Vision, HLG (Hybrid Log Gamma) have been presented over a last couple of years, and these standards commonly have both wider dynamic range and color gamut than that of the legacy content. However, it is practically hard to fully satisfy the HDR content standards with the current TV technology. Although various standards for display metrology regarding HDR content standards have been released to evaluate the performance of HDR TVs, it has been controversial whether the performance obtained from measurements using artificial test patterns is well consistent with the actual performance of HDR TVs from which viewers are expecting. For this reason, we examined how the performance of HDR TVs is varied in case measurements are made using actual HDR contents instead of artificial test patterns in terms of peak luminance, black level, and Electro-Optical Transfer Function (EOTF) accuracy. Our investigation was carried out using two different types of TV, an Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) and a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD). As a result, while the measurements of the OLED TV were quite coincided with the measurements made from artificial test patterns, those of the LCD TV were not."

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/ist/cic/2018/00002018/00000001/art00035


----------



## tgm1024

stl8k said:


> HDR Nerdery from LG Display...
> 
> "High Dynamic Range (HDR) content standards such as HDR10, Dolby Vision, HLG (Hybrid Log Gamma) have been presented over a last couple of years, and these standards commonly have both wider dynamic range and color gamut than that of the legacy content. However, it is practically hard to fully satisfy the HDR content standards with the current TV technology. Although various standards for display metrology regarding HDR content standards have been released to evaluate the performance of HDR TVs, it has been controversial whether the performance obtained from measurements using artificial test patterns is well consistent with the actual performance of HDR TVs from which viewers are expecting. For this reason, we examined how the performance of HDR TVs is varied in case measurements are made using actual HDR contents instead of artificial test patterns in terms of peak luminance, black level, and Electro-Optical Transfer Function (EOTF) accuracy. Our investigation was carried out using two different types of TV, an Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) and a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD). As a result, while the measurements of the OLED TV were quite coincided with the measurements made from artificial test patterns, those of the LCD TV were not."
> 
> https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/ist/cic/2018/00002018/00000001/art00035


Interesting abstract, thanks for posting. But ugh. If there's anyone willing to buy that thing, please review it here. I'm not: They're trying too hard with the muddle-wording.


----------



## bjaurelio

That's an intriguing abstract. I wonder what accounts for the differences in OLED vs LCD performance in real content compared to test patterns. My first guess is the difference in test pattern vs real content comes down to the limitations LCDs experience in native contrast.


----------



## fafrd

This is from last October: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-materials-report-brings-new-insight-on-qd-oleds

I had scanned it before but had missed this small detail: 

"*because the current quantum dots from Nanosys cannot absorb all the blue light*, Samsung will use a color filter in front of the red and green sub-pixels to filter out the remaining blue light."

So Samsung's dual-layer BOLED may have a cost advantage over LG's quad-layer WOLED (only 13 instead of 22 layers to deposit), but then has cost adders reducing much of that cost advantage, or to put in DSCC's words:

"The advantages of the QD OLED in the deposition process might be more than overwhelmed by the challenge of making the QDCC."

First: "Because the quantum dots in the QDCC are emitting in all directions, the structure requires a *Yellow Reflective Film (YRF) *in the back, which lets blue light pass through but reflects green and red light forward."

Then: "Because quantum dots can be illuminated by ambient light, the QDCC needs a *quarter wave plate (QWP) *in front to cut off ambient light."

And finally, there is the cost of the QDCCs themselves (which had generslly been seen as about a wash with the cost of LGs color filters, but now we understand that Samsung needs red and green color filters anyway, so in any case, it seems likely that R+G+B CF < (R+G CF + R+G QDCC).

The cost of YRF + QWP + QDCC may well swamp whatever cost advantages Samsung has in manufacturing the OLED stack itself...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> At 55" and 65", I fear you are correct, and demand is likely to stay relatively flat (as is capacity, at least through this year).
> 
> But there is a massive opportunity to increase demand of 77" WOLEDs, as I've suggested.
> 
> [b_Would be interested if you'd like to take a swag at the number of 75/77" TVs sold in 2018 and forcasted for this year, [/b]but I'm guessing it's growing at a good clip and LG can easily move from capturing a sliver to capturing the lion's-share of the 'over $3000 75/77" Premium TV Market' with much more aggressive 77" WOLED panel pricing.
> 
> Here is an April 2018 article from Business Korea where Samsung claims their domestic (Korean) sales of TVs 75" and larger increased by 150% compared to year-ago levels: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=21770
> 
> "in the case of Samsung Electronics, domestic sales of super-sized TVs of over 75 inches in January this year increased by 1.5 times compared with the delivery and doubled from the same month of last year."
> 
> As far as LGD's production targets, the only question is whether LGE, Sony and Panasonic are reducing demand in the face of increased prices or not. Since LGE and Sony have the highest operating profit in the TV industry due to their sales of WOLED TVs, it appears they have agreed to share some if that excess profitability with LGD and accept the higher prices without reducing demand: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/...-lgd-turning-the-corner-on-oled-profitability
> 
> So since the 'price up' is behind us and the forecast is now for steady but modest 'price down' going forward, I don't see any problem for LG Display to reach their production targets (at least for this year). Especially with the 75/77" lever they are apparently ready to (finally) pull this year...


Found this report on Q3'18 which provides first 3rd-party evidence that LG is selling next to no volume of 77" WOLEDs: https://technology.ihs.com/608655/b...-in-the-third-quarter-of-2018-ihs-markit-says

"The average size of OLED TVs increased to more than 59 inches for the first time, as the 65-inch shipments share grew to a new high of more than 38 percent."

If we assume 77" WOLED sales constiute 0% of volume, 55" would be 100% - (38% +0%) = 62% and the average screen size comes out to 58.8".

If we assume 77" WOLED sales comstitute 1% of volume, 55" would be 100% - (38% + 1%) = 61% and the average screen size comes out to 59.02".

Pretty solid evidence that no more than 1% of LGDs panel sales by volume are 77" WOLEDs.

There are two numbers being thrown around for LGDs 2018 WOLED panel production, 2.5M or 2.9M, so these numbers translate to the following ranges for LGDs 2018 sales volumes:

55": 1525 - 1769K
65": 950 - 1102K
77": 25 - 29K

With the introduction of 88" WOLEDs as the new flagship, LGD has a clear opportunity to increase 77" Premium TV market share to ~10% of their 2019 sales with much more agressive 77" panel pricing. Sub-$5K pricing for 77C9 is a given is serious about increasing 77" WOLED TV sales and LG could even break under $4K and still make more margin than they make om 65" or 55" WOLED sales.

Samsung has priced their 75" Q900 8K QLED/LCD at $7000, suggesting that their MSRP for the 2019 4K 75Q9FN equivalent will not be much higher than the $4500 price of the 2018 74Q9FN today, so a $4999 MSRP for the 2018 75Q9FN replacement appears likely and sets a ceiling of LGs pricing for the 77C9 if they are serious about increasing 77" WOLED sales volumes and taking share from Samsung in that class.

As I'd already summarized in an earlier post, LGs 65C8 is currently priced at $2700, 4% below the current $2800 pricing of Samsung's 65Q9FN, so there is no reason LG cannot shadow Samsung's pricing for the 75" Q9FN-equivalent (other than lack of interest).

The other 2019 75" Premium TV to keep an eye on will be Vizio's P-Series Quantum-X - Vizio's pricing on that probably sets another cieling on pricing of the 77C9 if LG is serious about growing 77" WOLED sales volumes by ~10X this year...


----------



## helvetica bold

I just realized the LG's C9 should be able to display HDR with will chroma 4:4:4 since it has full HDMI 2.1 support correct? However I dont know any current sources that can output 4:4:4 HDR. Xbox One X max for games is 4:2:2 but perhaps the Panasonic 820 for movies?


----------



## RoninJT

In the 2018 and upcoming 2019 OLED tvs how much of a concern is burn-in? We watch a couple of channels for a couple hours at a time that have a near static station logo on-screen. I also game for 2-5 hours straight with games that have static HUDs. Has the risk of burn-in come down enough I should feel safe getting an OLED this year or am I still better off getting a high-end LCD (like QLED) for the time being?


----------



## Panson

Jeffrey Tabbott said:


> In the 2018 and upcoming 2019 OLED tvs how much of a concern is burn-in? We watch a couple of channels for a couple hours at a time that have a near static station logo on-screen. I also game for 2-5 hours straight with games that have static HUDs. Has the risk of burn-in come down enough I should feel safe getting an OLED this year or am I still better off getting a high-end LCD (like QLED) for the time being?



Two cents worth. I consider myself a potential customer, but not now.

"OLED is an expensive new technology that even after several years is still proving difficult for manufacturers to get right."
- Tech Radar, Sept. '18

I see current OLED buying depending on stomach and mind. Similar analogy might be stock market investing. In other words, Can you deal with the unknown?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Jeffrey Tabbott said:


> In the 2018 and upcoming 2019 OLED tvs how much of a concern is burn-in?


Don't we know that the 2019 OLED panels have a larger red subpixel, and that it was red that was the most problematic in terms of premature aging? 

That alone would make the 2019 panels better than at least the 2018 panels.


----------



## Rich Peterson

irkuck said:


> *Finally, Samsung mastered 15" OLED size, 4K OLEDs for laptops coming*.


Is there any chance these are being built by printing of the actual OLED materials (not just TFE)? I know Samsung was an early evaluator of Kateeva's systems so could that be how they are producing them?


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> At 55" and 65", I fear you are correct, and demand is likely to stay relatively flat (as is capacity, at least through this year).
> 
> But there is a massive opportunity to increase demand of 77" WOLEDs, as I've suggested.
> 
> *Would be interested if you'd like to take a swag at the number of 75/77" TVs sold in 2018 and forcasted for this year, *but I'm guessing it's growing at a good clip and LG can easily move from capturing a sliver to capturing the lion's-share of the 'over $3000 75/77" Premium TV Market' with much more aggressive 77" WOLED panel pricing.
> 
> Here is an April 2018 article from Business Korea where Samsung claims their domestic (Korean) sales of TVs 75" and larger increased by 150% compared to year-ago levels: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=21770
> 
> "in the case of Samsung Electronics, domestic sales of super-sized TVs of over 75 inches in January this year increased by 1.5 times compared with the delivery and doubled from the same month of last year."
> 
> As far as LGD's production targets, the only question is whether LGE, Sony and Panasonic are reducing demand in the face of increased prices or not. Since LGE and Sony have the highest operating profit in the TV industry due to their sales of WOLED TVs, it appears they have agreed to share some if that excess profitability with LGD and accept the higher prices without reducing demand: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/...-lgd-turning-the-corner-on-oled-profitability
> 
> So since the 'price up' is behind us and the forecast is now for steady but modest 'price down' going forward, I don't see any problem for LG Display to reach their production targets (at least for this year). Especially with the 75/77" lever they are apparently ready to (finally) pull this year...


Ran into this from April'18: https://news.samsung.com/global/next-for-qled-part-1-samsung-dominates-the-large-screen-tv-market

"While growth in the overall global TV market has plateaued, sales of larger screen TVs 65-inch and over has grown by more than 30 percent in recent years. According to research firm IHS Markit, the market volume of 65-inch and over TVs was 8 million in 2016 and increased to 11.4 million in 2017. This year, market volume is expected to reach 16 million units."

So ~16 million TVs 65" and over in 2018, 140% of 11.4 million in 2017, which was 143% of 8 million in 2016.

Even if we assume the growth rate has continued to slow to ~35% this year, that would translate to over 21 million TV 65" and over in 2019, meaning close to 10% of the overall market.

In addition: "The market for extra-large, or above 75-inch, TVs is expected to experience even more pronounced growth of 47% this year" (meaning 2018).

So while we don't have similar baseline figure for the number of 'extra large' (75" or larger) TVs sold last year, if we assume that growth rates of ~50% are going to continue as 10.5G manufacturing and 8K get up to steam, LG can no longer afford to cede the the 75-80" WOLED market to Samsung's much better-priced Q9FN QLED/LCDs. And as a placeholder, it seems as though the 75"-and-larger market ought to be at least 5-10% of the 65"-and-over market this year, meaning 1-2million units.

If the 1% share for 77" of LGs 2018 WOLED production is correct, that translates to 25-29K units or 1.25% - 2.9% share of WOLED in the 75"-and-over market based on this rough swag - pitiful.

Launch MSRP pricing on the 75" 8K Q900 has been announced at $7000, so it's hard to see how Samsng can avoid reducing the $6000 launch MSRP pricing of the 2018 75Q9FN to $5000 and I don't see any way LG can avoid reducing the MSRP of the 77C9 to $5000 or $6000 if they are serious about selling a great deal more 77" WOLEDs this year...

Street pricng of the 75Q900R probably sets the ceiling on street pricing for the 77C9 and street pricing of the 2019 4K 75Q9FN-equivalent probably sets the floor.

I believe we are going to see much cheaper 77" entry-level WOLEDs late this year (assumimg LG is serios about selling 10 times more, meaning increasing WOLED market share in the 75"-and-over segment to 12.5% - 29%).


----------



## AnalogHD

helvetica bold said:


> I just realized the LG's C9 should be able to display HDR with will chroma 4:4:4 since it has full HDMI 2.1 support correct? However I dont know any current sources that can output 4:4:4 HDR.


Only a full HDMI 2.1 source will be able to output 4:4:4 [email protected] None currently exist. They likely won't be available before the C9 or even till late 2019.






Panson said:


> Similar analogy might be stock market investing. In other words, Can you deal with the unknown?


 Yes, definitively. I deal with the unknown every time I watch a non-sequel movie. 

There is a way not to deal with the unknown - watch forever-running soaps, sports (the occasional shocker happens), so-biased-all-news-sound-the-same programs, and play repetitive games... and some of that does tend to burn TVs in. So certainly, OLED TVs are both more oriented towards the innovative type of consumer and much more appropriate for one.


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Ran into this from April'18: https://news.samsung.com/global/next-for-qled-part-1-samsung-dominates-the-large-screen-tv-market
> 
> "While growth in the overall global TV market has plateaued, sales of larger screen TVs 65-inch and over has grown by more than 30 percent in recent years. According to research firm IHS Markit, the market volume of 65-inch and over TVs was 8 million in 2016 and increased to 11.4 million in 2017. This year, market volume is expected to reach 16 million units."
> 
> So ~16 million TVs 65" and over in 2018, 140% of 11.4 million in 2017, which was 143% of 8 million in 2016.
> 
> Even if we assume the growth rate has continued to slow to ~35% this year, that would translate to over 21 million TV 65" and over in 2019, meaning close to 10% of the overall market.
> 
> In addition: "The market for extra-large, or above 75-inch, TVs is expected to experience even more pronounced growth of 47% this year" (meaning 2018).
> 
> So while we don't have similar baseline figure for the number of 'extra large' (75" or larger) TVs sold last year, if we assume that growth rates of ~50% are going to continue as 10.5G manufacturing and 8K get up to steam, LG can no longer afford to cede the the 75-80" WOLED market to Samsung's much better-priced Q9FN QLED/LCDs. And as a placeholder, it seems as though the 75"-and-larger market ought to be at least 5-10% of the 65"-and-over market this year, meaning 1-2million units.
> 
> If the 1% share for 77" of LGs 2018 WOLED production is correct, that translates to 25-29K units or 1.25% - 2.9% share of WOLED in the 75"-and-over market based on this rough swag - pitiful.
> 
> Launch MSRP pricing on the 75" 8K Q900 has been announced at $7000, so it's hard to see how Samsng can avoid reducing the $6000 launch MSRP pricing of the 2018 75Q9FN to $5000 and I don't see any way LG can avoid reducing the MSRP of the 77C9 to $5000 or $6000 if they are serious about selling a great deal more 77" WOLEDs this year...
> 
> Street pricng of the 75Q900R probably sets the ceiling on street pricing for the 77C9 and street pricing of the 2019 4K 75Q9FN-equivalent probably sets the floor.
> 
> I believe we are going to see much cheaper 77" entry-level WOLEDs late this year (assumimg LG is serios about selling 10 times more, meaning increasing WOLED market share in the 75"-and-over segment to 12.5% - 29%).


Interesting analysis.

For me, this points to the structural problem I see with the LGD OLED TV ecosystem. The consumer TV companies also sell LCD-based TVs (all?, nearly all?), thus have no intrinsic motivation to give OLED-based TVs preference. If it's more profitable to sell a comparable LCD-based TV, they'll do just that.

I imagine that LGD's and LG's economic/marketing models may have some inputs about major technological competition, but I can't imagine that they're making MSRP decisions based on a competitor's products in the same way that I don't imagine Apple pricing say its laptops based on Lenovo's pricing.

BTW, LGD just had a meeting with its ecosystem and presented its plan for growth to them. I can't imagine portions of those plans not leaking as a natural consequence of those partners communicating to the markets and their own stakeholders.


----------



## wco81

AnalogHD said:


> Only a full HDMI 2.1 source will be able to output 4:4:4 [email protected] None currently exist. They likely won't be available before the C9 or even till late 2019.


Can UHD BD output that format if it had HDMI 2.1?


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> I believe we are going to see much cheaper 77" entry-level WOLEDs late this year (assumimg LG is serios about selling 10 times more, meaning increasing WOLED market share in the 75"-and-over segment to 12.5% - 29%).


Sony has also gone back offering a 77" model, that would contribute to more sales, I guess. Not 10 times as much, clearly, and I can only hope you are right.


----------



## AmishAnarchist

Jeffrey Tabbott said:


> In the 2018 and upcoming 2019 OLED tvs how much of a concern is burn-in? We watch a couple of channels for a couple hours at a time that have a near static station logo on-screen. I also game for 2-5 hours straight with games that have static HUDs. Has the risk of burn-in come down enough I should feel safe getting an OLED this year or am I still better off getting a high-end LCD (like QLED) for the time being?


I'm curious about that too. I've got 2 TCL 55" TVs that are both kind of going to hell (one has dust inside the screen and the other keeps shutting off randomly). When I game though, it's 16 hours straight. Only time the huds go away is for load screens. I also use my main screen for the PC on occasion.


----------



## stl8k

*Display Latency Calibration*

Found this patent titled "Display latency calibration for organic light emitting diode (OLED) display" by Facebook super-interesting. Might be of interest to folks here too.

I didn't realize that display latency calibration was a thing. Mark, wondering if this only applies to HMDs or is necessary for any high speed display application?

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US233947125


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Interesting analysis.
> 
> For me, this points to the structural problem I see with the LGD OLED TV ecosystem. The consumer TV companies also sell LCD-based TVs (all?, nearly all?), thus have no intrinsic motivation to give OLED-based TVs preference. If it's more profitable to sell a comparable LCD-based TV, they'll do just that.
> 
> I imagine that LGD's and LG's economic/marketing models may have some inputs about major technological competition, but I can't imagine that they're making MSRP decisions based on a competitor's products in the same way that I don't imagine Apple pricing say its laptops based on Lenovo's pricing.
> 
> BTW, LGD just had a meeting with its ecosystem and presented its plan for growth to them. I can't imagine portions of those plans not leaking as a natural consequence of those partners communicating to the markets and their own stakeholders.


It's actually pretty simple - all LGD can control is WOLED panel pricing, and they will offer the volume pricing needed to 'lock-up' the purchasing commitments from their OEM customers that are required to absorb their full production.

Up to now, they have focused on 55" and 65" and offered far more competetive pricing at those sizes than they have on 77" WOLED panels, which probably constitute 1-2% of their production capacity.

They had to offer discounted pricing on 55" and 65" panels along with incentives like MDF to close the volume contracts needed and the result has been that LGE and Sony have been making money hand over fist selling WOLED TVs while LG Display has not even been breaking even.

That changed in Q3 of last year when LGD raised 55" and 65" WOLED panel prices by a small % and stopped all MDF. LGE and Sony still sold a boatload of WOLED TVs over the past 6 months but those sales now had slightly less excess margin for them.

At 55", production is already optimized on 8.5G manufacturing so it is difficult to see any catalysts for significant future cost savings - perhaps 5-10% from lower amortization costs and lower costs for components and materials.

At 65", with MMG, they will have another ~25% on top of that (best case) so we may see another year of ~20% price reductions in 65" WOLED panel pricing depending how quickly LGD gets MMG into production.

At 77", LG has not even been trying. They have been producing 25-30 thousand 77" WOLED panels a year and pricing them accordingly (for showcases and low-volume flagship TVs).

LG has stated that 'this is the year of 77" OLED" and we'll see if they mean it. At the drop of a hat, they can price 77" WOLED panels under 2x the price of 65" WOLED panels (for appropriate volume commitments) and increase 77" WOLED TV sales volumes by 10x.

Samsung has priced their 75" 8K Q900 at $7K and will likely price their 2019 4K Q9FN-equivalent under thr $4800 MSRP they introduced the 2018 model at. If LGD is serious about selling more 77" WOLEDs this year, they will offer LGE and Sony the 77" WOLED panel pricing needed for them to shadow 2019 75Q9FN-equivalent pricing.

LGD can easily offer WOLED panel pricing to support the following entry-level WOLED TV pricing by their OEM customers (at standard/acceptable margins):

$1000 48"
$1500 55"
$2000 65"
$3000 77" 

Now we all know that if there were $3000 77" WOLEDs on the market, they would sell out very quickly and LGD would not have the capacity to meet the demand, hence the reason that they will allocate some fixed % of their capacity for 77" WOLED panel production and offer the highest price they can that absorbs that production.

So we will not see $3000 77" WOLEDs this year, but we should almost certainly see entry-level 77" WOLED prices shadow 75" Q9FN prices much more closely than they did in 2018 (77C8P is $7000 right now while 75Q9FN is $3800!).

Hopefully what LGD told their customers is that '88" is the new 77"' and that will now be the flagship-only WOLED size while 77" 4K WOLED joins the ranks of volume-sellers and is goung to be priced much more competetively .


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> LG has stated that 'this is the year of 77" OLED" and we'll see if they mean it. At the drop of a hat, they can price 77" WOLED panels under 2x the price of 65" WOLED panels (for appropriate volume commitments) and *increase 77" WOLED TV sales volumes by 10x*.


That 10x figure seems like it should be presented with more uncertainty ;-)


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> It's actually pretty simple - all LGD can control is WOLED panel pricing, and they will offer the volume pricing needed to 'lock-up' the purchasing commitments from their OEM customers that are required to absorb their full production.
> 
> Up to now, they have focused on 55" and 65" and offered far more competetive pricing at those sizes than they have on 77" WOLED panels, which probably constitute 1-2% of their production capacity.
> 
> They had to offer discounted pricing on 55" and 65" panels along with incentives like MDF to close the volume contracts needed and the result has been that LGE and Sony have been making money hand over fist selling WOLED TVs while LG Display has not even been breaking even.
> 
> That changed in Q3 of last year when LGD raised 55" and 65" WOLED panel prices by a small % and stopped all MDF. LGE and Sony still sold a boatload of WOLED TVs over the past 6 months but those sales now had slightly less excess margin for them.
> 
> At 55", production is already optimized on 8.5G manufacturing so it is difficult to see any catalysts for significant future cost savings - perhaps 5-10% from lower amortization costs and lower costs for components and materials.
> 
> At 65", with MMG, they will have another ~25% on top of that (best case) so we may see another year of ~20% price reductions in 65" WOLED panel pricing depending how quickly LGD gets MMG into production.
> 
> At 77", LG has not even been trying. They have been producing 25-30 thousand 77" WOLED panels a year and pricing them accordingly (for showcases and low-volume flagship TVs).
> 
> LG has stated that 'this is the year of 77" OLED" and we'll see if they mean it. At the drop of a hat, they can price 77" WOLED panels under 2x the price of 65" WOLED panels (for appropriate volume commitments) and increase 77" WOLED TV sales volumes by 10x.
> 
> Samsung has priced their 75" 8K Q900 at $7K and will likely price their 2019 4K Q9FN-equivalent under thr $4800 MSRP they introduced the 2018 model at. If LGD is serious about selling more 77" WOLEDs this year, they will offer LGE and Sony the 77" WOLED panel pricing needed for them to shadow 2019 75Q9FN-equivalent pricing.
> 
> LGD can easily offer WOLED panel pricing to support the following entry-level WOLED TV pricing by their OEM customers (at standard/acceptable margins):
> 
> $1000 48"
> $1500 55"
> $2000 65"
> $3000 77"
> 
> Now we all know that if there were $3000 77" WOLEDs on the market, they would sell out very quickly and LGD would not have the capacity to meet the demand, hence the reason that they will allocate some fixed % of their capacity for 77" WOLED panel production and offer the highest price they can that absorbs that production.
> 
> So we will not see $3000 77" WOLEDs this year, but we should almost certainly see entry-level 77" WOLED prices shadow 75" Q9FN prices much more closely than they did in 2018 (77C8P is $7000 right now while 75Q9FN is $3800!).
> 
> Hopefully what LGD told their customers is that '88" is the new 77"' and that will now be the flagship-only WOLED size while 77" 4K WOLED joins the ranks of volume-sellers and is goung to be priced much more competetively .


From English-language reporting of that same LGD partner event...

"In addition, LG Display exhibited automotive and commercial displays, which are the company’s next-generation key business items, *together with a 77” UHD OLED TV*."


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> That 10x figure seems like it should be presented with more uncertainty ;-)


In my opinion, increasing today's paltry level of 77" WOLED sales by 10x qualifies as being 'serious'.

77" panels constitue 1-2% of WOLED panel sales by volume today, and unless LG has a plan to increase that share into the 10-20% range, they are not being serious about taking action to stop ceding the 75/77" Premium TV market to Samsung...

Hopefully you agree with me that if LG were to offer 77" WOLED panels for $1200 instead of many times that, meaning 77" WOLED TVs reaching the market at ~1/2 of today's $7000 pricing, they could easily[] increase today's 25-30K units to over 300K...

Whether they do it is a different question (and a source of uncertainty), but the fact that they could do it and have a relatively easy path to achieving that goal appears pretty darned certain (at least to me)...


----------



## fafrd

New report from DSCC: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog

Note the expected impact of MMG (and producing in China) on 65" WOLED panel costs (which are about ~$1000 today):


----------



## fafrd

Another interestibg report from DSC from last December: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-panel-revenues-to-grow-19-in-2019

They are forecasting that by next year, total square meters of OLED production for TV panels will surpass total square meters of OLED production for phone screens:


----------



## Herve

There are now 15,546 posts on this thread. I am interested in only one thing and I don't want to search through all those posts to find it. Has the burn-in issue with OLED yet been solved (to the same level that LCD has "solved" this issue for the most part)?


Thanks.


----------



## tgm1024

Herve said:


> There are now 15,546 posts on this thread. I am interested in only one thing and I don't want to search through all those posts to find it. Has the burn-in issue with OLED yet been solved (to the same level that LCD has "solved" this issue for the most part)?


Nope. Have a nice day. Tip your waitress.


----------



## Herve

tgm1024 said:


> Nope. Have a nice day. Tip your waitress.


Thanks!


----------



## Clark Burk

Herve said:


> There are now 15,546 posts on this thread. I am interested in only one thing and I don't want to search through all those posts to find it. Has the burn-in issue with OLED yet been solved (to the same level that LCD has "solved" this issue for the most part)?
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Didn't really know LCD had a issue with burn-in. Glad it was solved though. Moving on......


----------



## stl8k

*Lgd q4 2019*

Here's an excerpt on 8K from the LGD investor Q4 call:



> Kim Dongwon
> 
> [Foreign Language] I have two questions and first is about the impact of your competitions, increased investment into the QD OLED and the entry into the market. So what you believe is going to be the impact on your companies of OLED business.
> 
> And then second question is about the TV market as well as the technology. So now in the next three years, it seems as if now, because of the Chinese suppliers 10.5 Gen, it seems as if now, they are going to have the 70 to 80 inch ultra large TV with 8K resolution. And then currently with your 8.5 Gen OLED technology, so do you believe that you will be able to have efficient transition into the mass production for the 8K with the MMG technology and also so basically then how do you intend to improve the efficiency of your production of 70 to 80 inch products for Gen 8.
> 
> Young-Kwon Song
> 
> [Foreign Language] This is Young-Kwon Song of Strategy and Marketing and I would like to answer the first question, which was on the impact coming from the competitions, entry into the QD OLED.
> 
> [Foreign Language] So that you know that the QD OLED basically is similar technology to the company's white OLED which is self-emitting. So I believe that if we were having the - if we were the only company with the OLED, then if there is competition coming in with QD OLED technology that I believe that it is good in terms of enlarging the OLED ecosystem and also degrading competition.
> 
> [Foreign Language] And the second question I believe was that, given the fact that some suppliers are now - will be producing ultra large size at 10.5 Gen, it will be possible for the company to produce large OLED with 8.5 Gen and with 8K resolution.
> 
> [Foreign Language] Now, then before responding to the question about the large size and you first expanded a bit about the 8K, so we have already demonstrated 8K resolution using OLED technology, so at the CES. So, we have already a secured proprietary technology for a producing OLED at 8K.
> 
> [Foreign Language] So that means that depending on the customers' needs, we already have the responsiveness to produce 8K resolution using OLED and then now whether we will be able to produce a large OLED at 8.5 Gen instead of 10.5 Gen, well based on our LCD technology, we already have the technological basis to produce large OLED.
> 
> 
> Hee Yeon Kim
> 
> [Foreign Language] And this is Kim Hee Yeon in charge of IR. Let me give further explanation. Now for the company, we believe that we move to larger size TV and to the 8K resolution is a given. So for the company, we are making preparations so that we will be able to respond to the trends in a timely manner.
> 
> [Foreign Language] And down the road, we believe that the customers' needs on the TV market are going to become even more diverse. So for example, in terms of the largest fabs and also higher resolution, not only that, also the design and better functionality as well as space freedom.
> 
> [Foreign Language] So going forward, not only the already launched Wallpaper TV and also the crystal sound OLED and the rollover TV, but we will also try to provide better and more diversified value to the customers by introducing a ultra size 8K as well.


Full excerpt and audio available here:

https://seekingalpha.com/amp/articl...-lpl-q4-2018-results-earnings-call-transcript


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Here's an excerpt on 8K from the LGD investor Q4 call:
> 
> "And then second question is about the TV market as well as the technology. So now in the next three years, it seems as if now, because of the Chinese suppliers 10.5 Gen, it seems as if now, Qb]they are going to have the 70 to 80 inch ultra large TV with 8K resolution. [/b]And then currently with your 8.5 Gen OLED technology, so do you believe that you will be able to have efficient transition into the mass production for the 8K with the MMG technology and also so basically then how do you intend to improve the efficiency of your production of 70 to 80 inch products for Gen 8."
> 
> 
> Full excerpt and audio available here:
> 
> https://seekingalpha.com/amp/articl...-lpl-q4-2018-results-earnings-call-transcript


10.5G for 70" and 80" panels - this 'analyst' obviously knows just what he's talking about.

More important excerpts from the earnings call:

"Foreign Language] This is the CFO speaking. First, the capacity for white OLED, at the product front, currently, it is 70,000 per month and then now in China, in our China front, *we are planning to increase this to 60,000 by the third quarter of this year.* So in all, it would be up to 130,000 within the year and then for the plastic OLED, currently, it is 45,000 and then in terms of the additional capacity, we are making the preparation according to the investment planning in the Chinese plant and that would be for *an increase of 30,000,* but that is not going to be within this year, but we will be making the preparation and perhaps will - that [/b]will be done sometime [/u]next year.[/u][/b]"

"[Foreign Language] Regarding your first question about the OLED TV shipment, *our plan for this year is 3.8 million units* and with that then, the contribution to revenue would be OLED TV would take up to 30% out of the total TV revenue and of course, we have continued with the efforts last year and into this year, but what we see is that our customers are now trying to position themselves in the high end market and of course the company is aligned with our customers, so that we will be able to have a win-win result for both the company and the customers."

So the increase from 2.9 million WOLEDs shipped in 2018 to 3.6 million in 2019 is only ~24% growth, but monthly runrate is increasing from 70,000 sheets per month today to 130,000 sheets per month by year-end, ~86% growth.

And with the additional 30,000 sheets coming online in 2020, LGD is on track for 160,000 sheet capacity in early 2020 and total production levels of over 6 million WOLEDs in 2020 (especially considering the per-sheet production boost coming from MMG).

Prices will remain high until late this year, but we should then see nice drops, especially in 65" and possibly dramatic drops in 77" .


----------



## fafrd

OLED Info's take on the earnings call: https://www.oled-info.com/lgd-start...gzhou-q3-2019-does-not-commit-poled-expansion

"LGD produced 2.9 million OLED TV panels in 2018, and it expects to produce 3.8 million in 2019. Its OLED TV fab in Guangzhou, China, is expected to start mass production in Q3 2019. It seems as if LGD commits to expanding the Guangzhou fab to 60,000 monthly substrate (the first line will have a capacity of 30,000 substrates) - as it states that when the fab is online it will increase the company's OLED TV capacity to 130,000 monthly substrates (up from 70,000 today)."

and also of note: 

"LGD says that it will invest $7.1 billion in 2019 in capacity expansion, and $3.5 billion in 2020. *It will divert all of its investments into OLED displays - with 60% going to large area OLED TV production and 40% going to small/medium pOLED production*."


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> 10.5G for 70" and 80" panels - this 'analyst' obviously knows just what he's talking about.


p.s. (for those who may not be as up on this flat-panel production stuff as I am).

10.5G is optimized for 65" (8-per-sheet) and 75" (6-per-sheet) production.

Producing a 60" panel or an 80" panel on a 10.5G production line would be about the most bone-headed thing you could imagine (it would be cheaper to produce those sizes on an 8.5G line, especially with MMG...).

Sharp's 10G Sakai plant (the only 10G plant in the world) is optimized for 60" and 70" panels, so perhaps that's what the analysyt was thinking about when he asked the bone-headed question...


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> p.s. (for those who may not be as up on this flat-panel production stuff as I am).
> 
> 10.5G is optimized for 65" (8-per-sheet) and 75" (6-per-sheet) production.
> 
> Producing a 60" panel or an 80" panel on a 10.5G production line would be about the most bone-headed thing you could imagine (it would be cheaper to produce those sizes on an 8.5G line, especially with MMG...).
> 
> Sharp's 10G Sakai plant (the only 10G plant in the world) is optimized for 60" and 70" panels, so perhaps that's what the analysyt was thinking about when he asked the bone-headed question...


Maybe he/she was generalizing, i.e., 7x" and 8x"?


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> Maybe he/she was generalizing, i.e., 7x" and 8x"?


One of the biggest takeaways from the call for me was the recognition that the TV market is going to be increasingly diverse. People are habituating to products that are tailored/personalized and I think the TV market will follow that larger trend. Also, the consumer TV companies are looking for ways to differentiate themselves.


----------



## Ruppgu

All I hope is that they continue to make large sizes in 4k. I know when I'm looking for my next TV I will be AVOIDING 8k. I want a large screen that is 4k. There is no 8k content and with the upscaling required.... lower res content will look even worse than it does on my 4k. It's bad enough on my 4k when my wife wants to pop in an old dvd or watch TV and it looks worse than my HD TV. We gain very little with 8k so I don't appreciate it being shoved down our throat for large TV sizes when it comes with major drawbacks which in my opinion outway the positives. 

Give me an affordable 75" 4k TV and I'm in.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

wco81 said:


> Can UHD BD output [4:4:4 [email protected]] if it had HDMI 2.1?


Does the UHD BD spec even include support for 4:4:4 chroma? 99.99% of all digitally recorded video uses some sort of chroma subsampling anyway (either 4:2:2 or 4:2:0). 

4:4:4 tends to only commonly exist from real-time computer-generated imagery such as PCs and game consoles, but possibly from disc/streaming player GUIs as well (though greyscale elements will look identical between 4:4:4 and 4:2:0).


----------



## wco81

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Does the UHD BD spec even include support for 4:4:4 chroma? 99.99% of all digitally recorded video uses some sort of chroma subsampling anyway (either 4:2:2 or 4:2:0).
> 
> 4:4:4 tends to only commonly exist from real-time computer-generated imagery such as PCs and game consoles, but possibly from disc/streaming player GUIs as well (though greyscale elements will look identical between 4:4:4 and 4:2:0).


Not sure. Didn't look it up again but I vaguely recall when UHD BD was introduced, there were a lot of formats which weren't likely to be commonly used for feature films.

However more than chroma subsampling modes, I know it supports 8k and 4k HFR modes, which is now possible with the advent of HDMI 2.1.



> Dual-layer UHDBR discs (66GB capacity) will support a max bitrate of 108Mbps, while triple-layer discs (100GB) will allow for up to 128Mbps. With the increased encoding efficiency offered by H.265, 128Mbps would *theoretically allow for a (Main 10) 4K video stream at 256 FPS, or 8K (7680×4320) at 64 FPS. That's to say nothing of the rest of the hardware chain, too: HDMI 2.0 can only transport up to 4K @ 60 FPS, and there are no 4K TVs on the market capable of higher than 60 FPS at the moment.* It bodes well for the future-proofing of the new UHDBR standard, though.


https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...nfirmed-4k-at-high-frame-rates-10-bit-colour/

I don't know how likely HFR content is though.

But maybe if there is a lot of [email protected] fps content released, they won't have to come up with a new format.


----------



## GregLee

Ruppgu said:


> There is no 8k content and with the upscaling required.... lower res content will look even worse than it does on my 4k.


People who have actually seen the 8k displays say that lower res content looks better, not worse.


----------



## stl8k

*Testing uhd-hdr-hfr-nga live*

Interesting story about the challenges of broadcasting a sports event in UHD-HDR-HFR-NGA



> Athletics was chosen as it provides fast-moving action, making it ideal for testing HFR. To achieve capturing at 100 Hz, four Sony HDC-4300 cameras were positioned in the stadium and connected via SMPTE 311M cable. In the technical area the video was obtained as two separate 2160p/50 signals, each representing either the ‘odd’ or the ‘even’ frames of the full 100 Hz signal. Using 3G-SDI interfaces, this meant eight cables were needed per source.
> 
> The trial proved it is possible to achieve high-quality images this way, but it also showed it is not (yet) practical. Besides the SDI interfacing, there is no phase signalling, nor p/100 timecode and it is currently not possible to properly monitor the p/100 signals, as *there are no p/100 reference monitors yet*. The only 100 Hz capable displays available are consumer devices, and even those are very rare. In Berlin two 55” LG televisions with prototype software were used to receive the signals using a DVB input. The production monitoring was done using one phase only, on Sony BVM X-300 reference monitors.


https://tech.ebu.ch/news/2018/12/testing-uhd-hdr-hfr-nga-live


----------



## thomopolis

fafrd said:


> p.s. (for those who may not be as up on this flat-panel production stuff as I am).
> 
> 10.5G is optimized for 65" (8-per-sheet) and 75" (6-per-sheet) production.
> 
> Producing a 60" panel or an 80" panel on a 10.5G production line would be about the most bone-headed thing you could imagine (it would be cheaper to produce those sizes on an 8.5G line, especially with MMG...).
> 
> Sharp's 10G Sakai plant (the only 10G plant in the world) is optimized for 60" and 70" panels, so perhaps that's what the analysyt was thinking about when he asked the bone-headed question...



Question - I've never understood this about how they make any flat panel tech - how can they have the same sheet's making different sized panels when the pixel density is higher on the smaller screens? Panasonic always said they did this with plasmas, but if a 65" was 1080 and a 50" is 1080, where are the extra pixels going?

I had figured maybe they made one batch of one density and one batch with another and cut them accordingly, but I see layups for OLED panels that mix and match screen cutouts on the same sheet....don't get it.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

stl8k said:


> The only 100 Hz capable displays available are consumer devices, and even those are very rare


I'm guessing they mean 100Hz @ 4k consumer displays? Because there are plenty of consumer displays capable of 100Hz at 1440p and 1080p.

And technically one could always cheat and do a sort of video wall with four 1080p 100Hz displays. One could even use the nearest neighbor function on a Sony or Panasonic calibrated OLED TV for a very accurate image to boot.


----------



## stl8k

*Temporal Resolution Research*

Just came across a couple of interesting items related to motion (aka temporal resolution):



> This paper details the results of a study initiated to determine, in fast-moving televisual environments (primarily sports), whether an increase in spatial or temporal resolution delivers an actual increase in detail. Our findings indicate that an increase in temporal resolution yields much finer details than an increase in spatial resolution (with the exception of very static shots). For sports, higher shutter speeds, associated with superior frame rates, capture significantly more detail than lower-frame-rate/higher-spatial-resolution options. Whenever motion is involved, the difference in detail has shown to be dramatic, even with a relatively low amount of motion on the screen. *These developments provide objective evidence of the need to prioritize increases in temporal resolution for displays and content delivery, as well as suggesting alternate uses of increased efficiency codecs by trading spatial resolution for temporal resolution* to provide a better overall user experience when dealing with content that includes motion.


Temporal vs. Spatial Resolution: Comparative Tests for Broadcast Sports
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7306433




> In the opinion of the writer, progress in sensor technology, bandwidth and compression would be more effectively leveraged in the delivery of “better” pixels, instead of “more” pixels. The author describes several avenues that could be explored using this philosophy, *namely the use of ultra high frame rates (240Hz)*, lesser compression, higher dynamic range and more immersive media.


Beyond 4K: Can We Actually Tell Stories In Motion Pictures And Television In 8K?
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8281410


----------



## -Axle-

thomopolis said:


> Question - I've never understood this about how they make any flat panel tech - how can they have the same sheet's making different sized panels when the pixel density is higher on the smaller screens? Panasonic always said they did this with plasmas, but if a 65" was 1080 and a 50" is 1080, where are the extra pixels going?
> 
> I had figured maybe they made one batch of one density and one batch with another and cut them accordingly, but I see layups for OLED panels that mix and match screen cutouts on the same sheet....don't get it.


+1

Curious about the same thing. Anyone know?


----------



## stl8k

*8K Has Definitely Arrived*

I'm a father to young daughters and I overhear what they watch on TV from time to time. Moments ago on an ALVINNN!!! and The Chipmunks episode, I had to do a double-take when I heard:



> "Megascreen 99 inch 8K TV"
> 
> https://alvin.fandom.com/wiki/The_Fugitives


8K has definitely arrived!


----------



## Mark Rejhon

stl8k said:


> Temporal vs. Spatial Resolution: Comparative Tests for Broadcast Sports
> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7306433


One big problem is increasing temporal resolution requires shortening the camera shutter speed, which has side effects such as stroboscopic effects and wagon wheel effects. There is a ultra-long-term solution. I'm talking like those distant-future 8K futurists back in the days of the 720p->1080p transition, but we need *retina refresh rates*.

In the vert long term (after 120fps HFR) the ultimate will be UltraHFR -- true 1000fps on a true 1000Hz display.

Not 48fps HFR.
Not 120fps HFR.
*True 1000fps HFR.*

It's the Holy Grail. Blurless sample and hold. Real life doesn't flicker, so why should displays flicker to reduce motion blur? Flickerless CRT clarity, no need for phosphor/flash/strobe/BFI/pulse/impulse/whatever to reduce blur! Sports-camera-shutter speed (1/1000sec) matching display persistence (1/1000sec) with full second full of unique frames, on a true 1000-Hz display! No stroboscopic artifacts like the ones I still see on my experimental 480Hz display.

You try to lengthen camera shutter, you add blur.
You try to shorten camera shutter, you add stroboscopic effects.
You can't have cake and eat it too.
*But at true-1000fps at true-1000Hz, then yes, you can have cake and eat it too. No blur, no stroboscopics!*

We're already experimenting with UltraHFR. Take a slo-mo high speed camera, record, then use command-line utilities to speed up the video to realtime, and playback on an ultra-Hz display!

- Cinematography of 2030s: Ultra HFR! I have witnessed realtime 1000fps on real 1000Hz
- Ultra HFR 240fps Real Time Video Now Possible Today, 1000fps Tomorrow
- Blur Busters Law And The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays



Mark Rejhon said:


> *Higher Resolutions Demand Higher Temporal Resolutions*
> 
> The clarity difference between stationary images and moving images becomes amplified at higher resolutions. With Retina Resolutions, this is slowly causing a pressure to begin a Retina Refresh Rate race over the long term, which has already started with eSports gaming monitors, and the start of 120fps HFR standardization. Many of us are finding that 120fps HFR is not even the final frontier. Also consider that display persistence and shutter persistence is additive, so 1/60sec shutter + 1/60sec display persistence = 1/30sec motion blur. Source persistence (camera) and display persistence has an additive effect to final human perceived motion blur. The jump from 60fps(16.7ms/frame)->120fps(8.3ms/frame) gives a 8.3ms improvement in motion blur, and the jump from 120fps(8.3ms/frame)->1000fps(1ms/frame) gives another massive 7.3ms improvement in motion blur.
> 
> The Blur Busters Law (1ms of persistence = 1 pixel of motion blurring per 1000 pixels/sec) becomes a vicious cycle when it comes to increasing resolutions and increasing FOV. Persistence limitations are more easily noticed with the following:
> 
> 
> *Higher resolution displays:*
> _The same physical motion speed travels more pixels per second. This creates more pixels of motion blur for the same persistence (MPRT)._
> *Wider field of vision (FOV) displays:*
> _The same angular display motion speed (eye tracking speed) stays onscreen longer. This extra time makes display motion blur more easily seen._
> *You need lower persistence to compensate:*
> _Increasingly bigger & higher resolution screens as time progresses, requires lower persistence (MPRT) numbers to keep motion blur under control._
> Display persistence is more noticeable for bigger FOV (bigger displays or virtual reality) and for higher resolutions (retina resolutions) due to bigger clarity differences between stationary & moving images.


----------



## bjaurelio

Someone has developed copper based blue, green, and yellow OLED emitters that are cheaper then the current iridium based emitters.

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-scientists-cheaper-oled-screens.amp


----------



## stl8k

*Motion Research Out of University of Cambridge*

"Rendering in virtual reality (VR) requires substantial computational power to generate 90 frames per second at high resolution with good-quality antialiasing. The video data sent to a VR headset requires high bandwidth, achievable only on dedicated links. In this paper we explain how rendering requirements and transmission bandwidth can be reduced using a conceptually simple technique that integrates well with existing rendering pipelines. Every even-numbered frame is rendered at a lower resolution, and every odd-numbered frame is kept at high resolution but is modified in order to compensate for the previous loss of high spatial frequencies. When the frames are seen at a high frame rate, they are fused and perceived as high resolution and high-frame-rate animation. The technique relies on the limited ability of the visual system to perceive high spatio-temporal frequencies. Despite its conceptual simplicity, correct execution of the technique requires a number of non-trivial steps: display photometric temporal response must be modeled, flicker and motion artifacts must be avoided, and the generated signal must not exceed the dynamic range of the display. Our experiments, performed on a high-frame-rate LCD monitor and OLED-based VR headsets, explore the parameter space of the proposed technique and demonstrate that its perceived quality is indistinguishable from full-resolution rendering. The technique is an attractive alternative to resolution reduction for all frames, which is a current practice in VR rendering."

https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/rainbow/projects/trm/ieeevr19_video.mp4

Full project page here: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/rainbow/projects/trm/


----------



## Micolash

^ This has been obvious to me comparing my plasma to my OLED with sports content. Even my family commented that the 1080p plasma looked sharper.


----------



## stl8k

*HFR Research at Bristol Vision Institute*

Nice to see academic research focused on HFR...



> The work that has been selected to be presented in this paper includes the description of a unique high frame rate (up to 120 fps) video quality database (BVI-HFR), which can be used as a basis for research in the HFR area. Next, an objective quality metric tailored for HFR video sequences and with better correlation with perceived quality is reviewed and compared to state-of-the-art objective quality metrics. Last, motivated by the fact that not all video content benefits from HFR, we outline our frame rate selection method that is solely based on spatio-temporal features extracted from the original sequences is discussed.


http://mmc.committees.comsoc.org/fi...unication_Frontier_May_2018-Final-Revised.pdf

More Depth
https://research-information.bristo...High_Frame_Rate_Video_Formats_HFR2_single.pdf


----------



## Micolash

What is the latest on JOLED development? Is this something that can realistically compete with LGD's WOLED in TV sizes?


----------



## stl8k

*Sublime 4K60p Content*






This looks sublime on my Retina Macbook.

8K version is forthcoming.


----------



## wco81

Retina MacBook wouldn't have 4k pixels.


----------



## Wizziwig




----------



## gorman42

Wizziwig said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbGHURbx4B4


Is this related to OLED tech advancements? I don't get it.
It's quite a long video, could you provide a TLDW or something?


----------



## Wizziwig

There's a lot of stuff buried in the video. If you bothered to watch it, you would have seen Quantum Dot tech has applications and benefits equally applicable to future OLED designs. There's also a rare demonstration why PFS phosphor backlights are crap but are unfortunately showing up in many FALD LCD models (Sony Master series for example).


----------



## Wizziwig

If you'd rather discuss some QLED and OLED sales figures for 2018:

QLED TV sales outpace OLED editions in 2018

Looks like Samsung is still hanging in there despite lower revenue but are they actually making any QLED profit?


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> If you'd rather discuss some QLED and OLED sales figures for 2018:
> 
> QLED TV sales outpace OLED editions in 2018
> 
> Looks like Samsung is still hanging in there despite lower revenue but are they actually making any QLED profit?


This is an overall ertimate of total QLED sales including any TV Samsung Markets as QLED (including the 55Q6 that Best But is currently offeribg for $999).

This last statement says it all:

"In yearly terms, Samsung’s QLED TVs sold 2.6 million units and LG‘s OLED about 1.56 million units, according to IHS Markit.

*The year’s sales amount, however, was higher for OLEDs at US$6.53 million compared with US$6.34 million for QLEDs.*"

$6.34 billion in revenue for 2.6 million QLEDs sold translates to an ASP of $2438 per QLED, while OLED had an ASP of $4186

And in answer to your last question, while I suspect Samsung is making some profit on overall QLED sales, it'l almost certainly a fraction of the profit the various brands are generating selling OLED:


----------



## Wizziwig

Just realized that previous article cut off the future projections. Here's a more complete version: https://hdtvtest.co.uk/n/Samsungs-QLED-TVs-Outsold-OLED-in-2018

"IHS Markit says QLED TV sales will continue to grow. It’s forecasting sales of 4.17 million units this year, rising to 8.47 million by 2021. In contrast, it expects OLED TV sales to reach just 3.4 million this year, and 7.1 million by 2021."

Kind of disappointing. I was hoping QLED sales would collapse much sooner in order to push Samsung into releasing something new.


----------



## video_analysis

It would help to get official mouthpieces at the likes of AVS and Forbes to stop hyperventilating over the marketing spiel every year.


----------



## irkuck

*LCD comes with revenge for OLED?*

There is no display with highest PQ requirements than master monitor used in suites for color grading of movies. Sony was producing such a monitor based on OLED but more recently they switched to an LCD one, a model called BVM-HX310. Reason for this given by Sony is that LCD can provide much higher light output than OLED which is needed nowadays for HDR. But, according to Sony, the BVM-HX310 has also *black levels and contrast ratio matching OLED*. This of course is unprecedented and it can not be a PR pitch since the talk is about high-end professional stuff. Explanation is that a special LCD is used, a "Light Modulating Cell LCD Technology" but no further details are provided apart of this picture









There are some indications that this, or similar, technology is used by Samsung in their 2019 top 8K QLED lineup. If true, it would mean OLED is losing its superiority over LCD in every aspect and LCD is winning overall with its high light output...


----------



## 8mile13

irkuck said:


> There is no display with highest PQ requirements than master monitor used in suites for color grading of movies. Sony was producing such a monitor based on OLED but more recently they switched to an LCD one, a model called BVM-HX310. Reason for this given by Sony is that LCD can provide much higher light output than OLED which is needed nowadays for HDR. But, according to Sony, the BVM-HX310 has also *black levels and contrast ratio matching OLED*. This of course is unprecedented and it can not be a PR pitch since the talk is about high-end professional stuff. Explanation is that a special LCD is used, a "Light Modulating Cell LCD Technology" but no further details are provided apart of this picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some indications that this, or similar, technology is used by Samsung in their 2019 top 8K QLED lineup. If true, it would mean OLED is losing its superiority over LCD in every aspect and LCD is winning overall with its high light output...


That is the Panasonic 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio IPS LCD stuff which is only used in very expensive, like $30,000, pro-monitors. 
https://www.avsforum.com/new-panasonic-ips-lcd-panel-claims-1m1-native-contrast-ratio/


----------



## fafrd

irkuck said:


> There is no display with highest PQ requirements than master monitor used in suites for color grading of movies. Sony was producing such a monitor based on OLED but more recently they switched to an LCD one, a model called BVM-HX310. Reason for this given by Sony is that LCD can provide much higher light output than OLED which is needed nowadays for HDR. But, according to Sony, the BVM-HX310 has also *black levels and contrast ratio matching OLED*. This of course is unprecedented and it can not be a PR pitch since the talk is about high-end professional stuff. Explanation is that a special LCD is used, a "Light Modulating Cell LCD Technology" but no further details are provided apart of this picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some indications that this, or similar, technology is used by Samsung in their 2019 top 8K QLED lineup. If true, it would mean OLED is losing its superiority over LCD in every aspect and LCD is winning overall with its high light output...


as 8mile13 just posted, that is another dual-layer-LCD design.

Take a 1000:1 LCD layer, combine it with a second 1000:1 LCD layer, and voila, you've got a 1,000,000:1 display.

The problem with all of your 'the OLED-sky-is-falling' posts it that they are based on technical superiority without factoring in cost.

Below $1000 LCD continues to be king (the low-cost volume leader), which will likely continue to be the case for the next decade.

Between $1000 and $5000, WOLED has clawed it's way to king of the Premium TV Hill (where all signs are that it will remain, at least until if/when QD-BOLED becomes a reality).

Above $5000 (or perhaps better $10,000), fancy expensive technologies such as MicroLED, dual-layer-LCD, and others will continue to generate buzz and dominate the (paltry) market share.

In the end, the most objective measure of any technologies relative dominance is total gross margin $$$s generated and by that measure, the envious position of WOLED is clear - gross margin $$$s generated in the TV industry are dominated by WOLED technology today, a major shift that has occurred over the past 5 years and is likely to continue for the next 5 years, and beyond (unless QD-BOLED proves to be ready for prime-time).


----------



## video_analysis

He's pushing that theory to the LCD camp (in addition to it being what Samsung is using on their Q9), and it unfortunately already caught a few eager and believing likes. I think $5k (and even $10k) is being too generous for dual-LCD. As mentioned above, only Panasonic has a $30k monitor available in that size range, which should tell you about the prospects for mass manufacturing televisions starting at 55".

I don't understand the mass delusions on LCD.


----------



## Micolash

video_analysis said:


> He's pushing that theory to the LCD camp (in addition to it being what Samsung is using on their Q9), and it unfortunately already caught a few eager and believing likes. I think $5k (and even $10k) is being too generous for dual-LCD. As mentioned above, only Panasonic has a $30k monitor available in that size range, which should tell you about the prospects for mass manufacturing televisions starting at 55".
> 
> I don't understand the mass delusions on LCD.


I don't get it either. OLED already has 0 idling luminance and they are hyping up the potential of LCD to achieve _merely _9G Kuro/ZT60 black level, using an outrageously expensive design. Like, who cares? If you want OLED picture quality, then get an OLED, not an LCD. It's just not going to happen.


----------



## video_analysis

Yup, and I'm saying this as someone contemplating purchasing the Z9D (3D!), which already reaches the Kuro/ZT60 level, before it's gone forever!


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> He's pushing that theory to the LCD camp (in addition to it being what Samsung is using on their Q9), and it unfortunately already caught a few eager and believing likes. * I think $5k (and even $10k) is being too generous for dual-LCD. *As mentioned above, only Panasonic has a $30k monitor available in that size range, which should tell you about the prospects for mass manufacturing televisions starting at 55".
> 
> I don't understand the mass delusions on LCD.


Oh, I didn't consider the $5K (or $10K) threshold as an indication of what dual-lcd would cost - it was just defined to roughly seperate the moderate-volume Premium TV class that matters (at least in terms of defining technology leadership in a meaningful way) from low-volume Ultra Premium TV class that does not (at least as far as margin $$$s generated).

WOLED is the current king of the 'delivering-world-class-picture-quality-for-affordable-prices' hill.

Vanilla LCD can deliver pretty darned good PQ for at pricing less than half of WOLED and will continue to dominate the low end and remain king of the market share hill (I'm still floored by tue quality of the 55" TCL 4-Series I picked up for my mother for ~$350).

And there will always be technologies that can best WOLED on PQ but not at prices the typical videophile will consider attractive/competetive.

Whatever the appropriate price threshold for Ultra Premium TV should be, LQ's Wallpaper TV and now their Rollable TV probably belong in it.

Which brings up an intetesting observation.

As long as MicroLED TVs and/or any dual-LCD TVs reaching consumers cost more than LGs rollable TVs, should we even care?

The only technology of any real interest I see on the horizon is QD-BOLED - if Samsung proves that technology is as cost-effective as promised and it proves ready for prie-time in terms of lifetime and reliability, that will be a game-changer.


----------



## GregLee

fafrd said:


> Oh, I didn't consider the $5K (or $10K) threshold as an indication of what dual-lcd would cost - it was just defined to roughly seperate the moderate-volume Premium TV class that matters (at least in terms of defining technology leadership in a meaningful way) from low-volume Ultra Premium TV class that does not (at least as far as margin $$$s generated).


I'm right on your borderline, having ordered a 65" Samsung 8k qled for $5K. Arriving mid-March. Is that a moderate-volume premium TV? Can it compete with the new hypothetical premium 8k OLED TVs?


----------



## irkuck

8mile13 said:


> That is the Panasonic 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio IPS LCD stuff which is only used in very expensive, like $30,000, pro-monitors.
> https://www.avsforum.com/new-panasonic-ips-lcd-panel-claims-1m1-native-contrast-ratio/





fafrd said:


> as 8mile13 just posted, that is another dual-layer-LCD design.
> Take a 1000:1 LCD layer, combine it with a second 1000:1 LCD layer, and voila, you've got a 1,000,000:1 display.
> The problem with all of your 'the OLED-sky-is-falling' posts it that they are based on technical superiority without factoring in cost.



To correct, what is described and linked monitor by Sony, not Panasonic. It is not known if they use the same technology and the same panels. The technology is obviously amazing but the price is obviously a big concern and the whole stuff would be just a curiosity if affordable only by Hollywood color grading types. But there is partially confirmed rumor that similar or maybe the same approach is used by Samsung in their top of the line 2019 8K Q900 TVs. This is supposed to be the main difference between the 2018 and 2019 Q900 even though they carry the same model designation. Now, if the rumor is true it means that this technology is getting to consumer level albeit to a very high-end at the beginning.





Micolash said:


> I don't get it either. OLED already has 0 idling luminance and they are hyping up the potential of LCD to achieve _merely _9G Kuro/ZT60 black level, using an outrageously expensive design. Like, who cares? If you want OLED picture quality, then get an OLED, not an LCD. It's just not going to happen.



Matching OLED black levels AND providing huge light output for HDR is not a hype. It is a new level of PQ.


----------



## gorman42

I'm sorry to repeat myself but why are we discussing LCD technology advancements in the OLED technology advancement discussion?


----------



## GregLee

gorman42 said:


> I'm sorry to repeat myself but why are we discussing LCD technology advancements in the OLED technology advancement discussion?


A post here on prospects of the premium TV market just drove consciousness of what thread I was posting in right out of my head. Sorry.


----------



## 8mile13

irkuck said:


> To correct, what is described and linked monitor by Sony, not Panasonic. It is not known if they use the same technology and the same panels.


According pro's it is...
https://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/sony-bvm-hx310-hdr-reference-monitor.11398/


irkuck said:


> But there is partially confirmed rumor that similar or maybe the same approach is used by Samsung in their top of the line 2019 8K Q900 TVs. This is supposed to be the main difference between the 2018 and 2019 Q900 even though they carry the same model designation. Now, if the rumor is true it means that this technology is getting to consumer level albeit to a very high-end at the beginning.


Samsung did not brought miniLED LCD to the market few months ago, according them it was to expensive. A LCD based upon Panasonic tech is going to be more expensive than that so forget about those rumors. We will see a prototype (accompanied by lots of bragging and vague launch plans) at best.


----------



## Micolash

irkuck said:


> Matching OLED black levels AND providing huge light output for HDR is not a hype. It is a new level of PQ.


Show me an LCD that can match OLED black, even in prototype form. 0.001 nits is not OLED black.


----------



## irkuck

Micolash said:


> Show me an LCD that can match OLED black, even in prototype form. 0.001 nits is not OLED black.



You are nit-picking at a 0.001 nit-level. It is likely that the lowest level is lower than the 0.001 but 0.001 is the lowest level in the HDR specs like in Dolby Vision. Stating that the display guarantees 0.001 nits means it is sufficient for Hollywood professionals.


----------



## ALMA

Only 10% in a HDR movie scene is allowed to be higher than 235nits. So a 4000nits TV doesn´t guaranteed much brighter movie pictures. There is so much misinterpretation of HDR around the web by LCD folks...



https://youtu.be/LUtA9PeyUM0?t=1435


----------



## GregLee

Micolash said:


> Show me an LCD that can match OLED black, even in prototype form. 0.001 nits is not OLED black.


Human vision works on contrast. If there are brighter areas in the vicinity, "oled black" and 0.001 nits will be distinguishable by instrumental measurement, but indistinguishable to human observers. So what good is "oled black" to us humans?


----------



## Micolash

GregLee said:


> Human vision works on contrast. If there are brighter areas in the vicinity, "oled black" and 0.001 nits will be distinguishable by instrumental measurement, but indistinguishable to human observers. So what good is "oled black" to us humans?


And then the illusion vanishes the moment a dark scene comes up. My old Panasonic plasma also looked like it had infinite blacks with the right content on screen or under the right lighting conditions. Didn't mean anything then, doesn't mean anything now. Also the perception things works the other way too. No need for five trillion nits for highlights when you are already working with a perfectly black canvas.

You guys simultaneously beat your chest about literally any improvement in LCD black level only to immediately downplay the entire concept of MLL the moment the vastly superior OLED black level is brought up. It's really amazing. Apparently going from .008 nits to .001 nits in an LCD is an earth-shattering development that will change the entire TV landscape... but taking that MLL all the way down to zero means nothing. 

If you just want to fool your eyes into seeing infinite black with bright content on screen, then any garbage LCD from Walmart can do the same thing. No need for $30,000 dual LCD, mini LCD, or whatever. And also no need to enter serious videophile discussion since clearly it's not what you're interested in.


----------



## GregLee

ALMA said:


> Only 10% in a HDR movie scene is allowed to be higher than 235nits. So a 4000nits TV doesn´t guaranteed much brighter movie pictures. There is so much misinterpretation of HDR around the web by LCD folks...


The misinterpretation is all yours. The point of HDR is not bright screens for room illumination, but pictures that have the bright highlights found in natural scenes. That's what the 4000 nits is for.


----------



## chunon

So “infinite blacks” provide no real world pq advantage smh , talk about twisting a narrative to fit an agenda lol and in an oled technology advancement thread no less 

I suppose pixel level dimming is an illusion also 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zetruz

Micolash said:


> And then the illusion vanishes the moment a dark scene comes up. My old Panasonic plasma also looked like it had infinite blacks with the right content on screen or under the right lighting conditions. Didn't mean anything then, doesn't mean anything now. Also the perception things works the other way too. No need for five trillion nits for highlights when you are already working with a perfectly black canvas.
> 
> You guys simultaneously beat your chest about literally any improvement in LCD black level only to immediately downplay the entire concept of MLL the moment the vastly superior OLED black level is brought up. It's really amazing. Apparently going from .008 nits to .001 nits in an LCD is an earth-shattering development that will change the entire TV landscape... but taking that MLL all the way down to zero means nothing.
> 
> If you just want to fool your eyes into seeing infinite black with bright content on screen, then any garbage LCD from Walmart can do the same thing. No need for $30,000 dual LCD, mini LCD, or whatever. And also no need to enter serious videophile discussion since clearly it's not what you're interested in.





chunon said:


> So “infinite blacks” provide no real world pq advantage smh , talk about twisting a narrative to fit an agenda lol and in an oled technology advancement thread no less
> 
> I suppose pixel level dimming is an illusion also


I think it's fair to say that at some point, saying "I think perfect blacks are vastly superior to 0.000001 nit blacks" is a distinction without a difference, because you truly won't be able to tell the difference even in a very dark and extended scene in which case it really doesn't matter. I don't know what that number is, but it exists, where the non-true black is so close to true black that you will literally never be able to tell the difference.

If LCD can get to visually perfect blacks while having pixel-level control of the backlight, that'd be awesome. I doubt it'll happen at competitive prices and there would still other potential issues, but competition is good.


----------



## chunon

zetruz said:


> I think it's fair to say that at some point, saying "I think perfect blacks are vastly superior to 0.000001 nit blacks" is a distinction without a difference, because you truly won't be able to tell the difference even in a very dark and extended scene in which case it really doesn't matter. I don't know what that number is, but it exists, where the non-true black is so close to true black that you will literally never be able to tell the difference.




And that technology does not exist right now , so why is everyone pretending oled has no strengths over lcd? I don’t do the inverse , the lcd crowd either doesn’t understand contrast ratio or refuse to acknowledge it , the old only useful in a cave environment argument is tiresome . I can tell the difference between any current lcd and a oled in any environment so to say there is no advantage at all is disingenuous imo . I still find it funny that this thread like all oled threads has been highjacked by lcd fans . 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ALMA

GregLee said:


> The misinterpretation is all yours. * The point of HDR is not bright screens for room illumination*, but pictures that have the bright highlights found in natural scenes. That's what the 4000 nits is for.



That´s what I said and it seems you still not understand. Films are art and not realism or naturalism... 10% is only a minor detail (small stars, sunshine effects, flashlights) and not the whole scene. For this 10% you need pixel dimming even mFALD LCDs will brighten up the darker details with maximum brightness of the backlight system. So the best way to measure the real peak brightness for LCD is the ANSI checkerboard and then you never reach the inky black of OLED, neither the peak brightness claimed by the marketing.


----------



## zetruz

chunon said:


> And that technology does not exist right now , so why is everyone pretending oled has no strengths over lcd? I don’t do the inverse , the lcd crowd either doesn’t understand contrast ratio or refuse to acknowledge it , the old only useful in a cave environment argument is tiresome . I can tell the difference between any current lcd and a oled in any environment so to say there is no advantage at all is disingenuous imo . I still find it funny that this thread like all oled threads has been highjacked by lcd fans .


Well the technology supposedly exists since it was shown at CES, though I'd need real reviews to know whether or not the blacks are close enough to perfect that they are _visually_ perfect in all real content. I currently doubt that they are, but they _can_ be.
And I think even dedicated LCD fans would acknowledge that OLED has some strengths over LCDs even if LCDs can match the perfect blacks. Pixel response time is one example. I also wonder what the input lag looks like on those double-panel LCDs, shouldn't there be extra processing required?
Either way, _if_ those double-panel LCDs can get visually perfect blacks and vastly superior brightness to OLED (double-panel plus miniLED-FALD would be good), I'd expect them to be fantastic at the very high end of the market. I doubt they'll manage to combine all the necessary features and make them cost-competitive in the "normal" premium range. My guess is that OLED will remain king in the premium range, though I'd love to be proven wrong if it led to better product offerings.


----------



## chunon

zetruz said:


> Well the technology supposedly exists since it was shown at CES, though I'd need real reviews to know whether or not the blacks are close enough to perfect that they are _visually_ perfect in all real content. I currently doubt that they are, but they _can_ be.
> 
> And I think even dedicated LCD fans would acknowledge that OLED has some strengths over LCDs even if LCDs can match the perfect blacks. Pixel response time is one example. I also wonder what the input lag looks like on those double-panel LCDs, shouldn't there be extra processing required?
> 
> Either way, _if_ those double-panel LCDs can get visually perfect blacks and vastly superior brightness to OLED (double-panel plus miniLED-FALD would be good), I'd expect them to be fantastic at the very high end of the market. I doubt they'll manage to combine all the necessary features and make them cost-competitive in the "normal" premium range. My guess is that OLED will remain king in the premium range, though I'd love to be proven wrong if it led to better product offerings.




The led hype group gets way out over its skis every year here and I am sure this year is no different. I still don’t understand what any of this has to do with the thread topic ? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 8mile13

chunon said:


> So “infinite blacks” provide no real world pq advantage smh , talk about twisting a narrative to fit an agenda lol and in an oled technology advancement thread no less
> 
> I suppose pixel level dimming is an illusion also
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That Panasonic dual layer IPS LCD monitor stuff actually has pixel level light control, blacks are good enough to replace the Sony highest-end OLED monitor (the one that was used at last years UK and US shootout), in fact it has been replaced by such IPS LCD monitor begin this year.


----------



## chunon

8mile13 said:


> That Panasonic dual layer IPS LCD monitor stuff actually has pixel level light control, blacks are good enough to replace the Sony highest-end OLED monitor (the one that was used at last years UK and US shootout), in fact it has been replaced by such IPS LCD monitor begin this year.




Where can I buy that ? On Amazon or at Best Buy , oh wait would need to finance that like I would a car. That is not availible to Consumers which is what I am talking about consumer televisions not broadcast monitors etc . 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 8mile13

chunon said:


> Where can I buy that ? On Amazon or at Best Buy , oh wait would need to finance that like I would a car. That is not availible to Consumers which is what I am talking about consumer televisions not broadcast monitors etc .
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What happens at the highest-end display stuff can happen at consumer level display stuff at some point. It is a demo of what LCD tech is capable of.


----------



## chunon

8mile13 said:


> What happens at the highest-end display stuff can happen at consumer level display stuff at some point. It is a demo of what LCD tech is capable of.




I get that, my point is the folks here trying to prop up current consumer lcd technology as superior to oled . I am not buying that . Right now we are stuck with fald and for me it is woefully inadequate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jrref

8mile13 said:


> That Panasonic dual layer IPS LCD monitor stuff actually has pixel level light control, blacks are good enough to replace the Sony highest-end OLED monitor (the one that was used at last years UK and US shootout), in fact it has been replaced by such IPS LCD monitor begin this year.


So Sony is coming out with a HX-310 reference monitor with this technology and it's about $45,000 for a 31inch 1,000 nit monitor. It's replacing the existing BVM-300 which was RGB OLED. I would expect consumer panels to be very expensive if they were available now.


----------



## fafrd

jrref said:


> So Sony is coming out with a HX-310 reference monitor with this technology and it's about $45,000 for a 31inch 1,000 nit monitor. It's replacing the existing BVM-300 which was RGB OLED. I would expect consumer panels to be very expensive if they were available now.


To me the endless 'LCD versus WOLED' debate is senseless (and annoying). Let's please pollute another thread with that drivvle - not here.

As far as the fact that Sony has elected to replace their RGB OLED Reference monitor with this Panasonic dual-LCD raises a worthwhile question as to why?

Cost is the obvious conclusion - if the dual-LCD can match the performance of Sony's boutique RGB-OLED at equivalent or better cost, it's easy to understand why Sony would prefer to shutter their low-volume n-house RGB-OLED panel production in favor of purchasing Dual-LCD panels from Panasonic.

But that begs the question of why they passed over WOLED as an option (which would be far cheaper, even if they paid LGD to develope a custom panel size).

And my guess as to the reason WOLED in its current form in not a contender is the poor near-black uniformity (and poor uniformity in general).

So my takeaway from Sony's decision to switch from RGB OLED to Dual-LCD is that LCD offers intrinsically better uniformity than WOLED (at least based on current state-of-the-art).

It would be fantastic to see LGD attempt to deliver a reference-quality WOLED panel - I suspect they'd learn a new trick of two that would likely benefit all of us consumers/videophiles .

Mura compensation and panel nonumiformity measurement and compensation is expensive, but it's not that expensive. When you can sell a reference-quality WOLED panel for thousands of dollars rather than hundreds of dollars, that's a pretty generous budget to delievr improved uniformity throuh characterization and compensation.

I suppose LGD needs to maintain a focus on volume, but it's a pity they don't partner with another vendor (like Sony) and provide access to the low level controls needed to deliver LCD-class uniformity from a WOLED panel...

Of course, as others have already pointed out, the other advantage of the Dual-LCD solution is higher peak output (for HDR), so putting any effort into reference-quality uniformity before WOLED can deliver dual-LCD levels of peak brightness is probably a non-starter...


----------



## video_analysis

Does this mean you're definitively delaying a WOLED upgrade this year, faf?


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Does this mean you're definitively delaying a WOLED upgrade this year, faf?


The 2019s look pretty great on paper, but I'll be keeping my eye on a few things as the year unfolds:

1/ Near-black nonuniformity panel lottery (2018s appeared to be a step in the right direction, but multiple recent reports are making me concerned LGD slipped backwards again...).

2/ What happens with WOLED backplane speed in 2020 (75% BFI @ 120Hz?)

3/ LGD seems pretty focused on MMG this year, but any developments on the Top-Emission Front also have my attention.

But a 77C9 for ~$4000 would be hard to pass up, so a high likelihood of having to play the panel lottery (again) is the only issue that might scare me away for another year...


----------



## stl8k

For folks attending the SXSW innovation festival, NHK-Sony will be showing off 8K content:



> Sony’s technology will also be presented at 8K theater within NHK (Nippon Hoso Kyokai- Japan Broadcasting Corporation) booth. Crystal LED Display System (approx. 440 inches size) adopting Sony’s uniquely developed high picture quality display technology is installed as the core system of the theater. Various 8K contents including gameplay footage specially edited for this occasion, and video from Carnival in Rio de Janeiro will be played, offering extraordinary lively and immersive viewing experience to the audience. (Open between Mar. 11 (Mon) to Mar.13 (Wed), 10:00 – 18:00 at Grimes Studio, 500 E 5th St, Austin, TX)


https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201902/19-015E/index.html


----------



## irkuck

jrref said:


> So Sony is coming out with a HX-310 reference monitor with this technology and it's about $45,000 for a 31inch 1,000 nit monitor. It's replacing the existing BVM-300 which was RGB OLED. I would expect consumer panels to be very expensive if they were available now.


There is no logical connection here if you take into account that price of the BVM-300 OLED price close to $30 000 while consumer OLEDs got much cheaper. Another aspect of this is that in consumer technology place of manufacturing, volumes and competition have decisive impact on prices. For example, there are indications that the price of Samsung 98"@8K QLED which has elements improving LCD performance will be in the range of $20 000 at introduction. This is relatively a bargain and if true it sounds like the panels are made by a Chinese company in Vietnam.


----------



## fafrd

Confirmation that 48" WOLED panels are on their way (as well as 65" and 77" 8K panels): https://www.oled-info.com/lg-plans-release-48-oled-tvs-future


----------



## hiperco

8K, ugh.


----------



## fafrd

hiperco said:


> 8K, ugh.


Hey, as long as LGD keeps producing 65" and 77" 4K panels, I'm all for 65" and 77" 8K WOLEDs.

Guaranteed these 8K panels will drive down prices on the pedestrian / down-market 4K panels and once LGD has improved backplane speeds to deliver 8K @ 120Hz, that will hopefully translate to 4K panels with 240Hz native refresh rate using the same technology...


----------



## wco81

When are the x9 LGs going to hit the streets?

Be nice to get feedback from AVS members on improvements if any.


----------



## ALMA

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1551936748


----------



## dnoonie

wco81 said:


> When are the x9 LGs going to hit the streets?
> 
> Be nice to get feedback from AVS members on improvements if any.



This week according to, https://www.soundandvision.com/content/lg-begins-rolling-out-new-oled-nanocell-4k-tvs.


Cheers,


----------



## austinsj

fafrd said:


> Hey, as long as LGD keeps producing 65" and 77" 4K panels, I'm all for 65" and 77" 8K WOLEDs.
> 
> Guaranteed these 8K panels will drive down prices on the pedestrian / down-market 4K panels and once LGD has improved backplane speeds to deliver 8K @ 120Hz, that will hopefully translate to 4K panels with 240Hz native refresh rate using the same technology...


I don't know, it seems unlikely LG will market one screen size with two resolution options for long. This could be an HD vs 4K situation again where the smaller resolution gets relegated to smaller sizes after a year or two. That doesn't prevent a 55" 240Hz TV eventually but here I'm also pessimistic. The 55" could be positioned as a low-cost option with the tech investment focused on the bigger sizes.


----------



## fafrd

dnoonie said:


> This week according to, https://www.soundandvision.com/content/lg-begins-rolling-out-new-oled-nanocell-4k-tvs.
> 
> 
> Cheers,


The 'rollout' is starting this week. The press release was the beginning of the 'rollout'. No indication when first units will be available for purchase in the channels (but almost certainly not this week ).


----------



## shibez

chunon said:


> And that technology does not exist right now , so why is everyone pretending oled has no strengths over lcd? I don’t do the inverse , the lcd crowd either doesn’t understand contrast ratio or refuse to acknowledge it , the old only useful in a cave environment argument is tiresome . I can tell the difference between any current lcd and a oled in any environment so to say there is no advantage at all is disingenuous imo . I still find it funny that this thread like all oled threads has been highjacked by lcd fans .
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I have probably one of the cheapest OLEDS one could have bought when it was still new. It is Only 1080P. I don't have the money to shove out for the very expensive OLEDS but I knew i had to have an OLED. Basically since the end of the CRT era I have had one major issue with HDTV's. The Blacks in dark scenes. I have had LCD, LED, DLP, Plasma...Plasma has come the closest but the Burn in was so bad on my samsung I had to leave it in ECO mode so it was rather pointless...Anyways Nothing I have owned has Ever even come remotely close to the blacks Levels that was just normal in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s. That is until I experienced OLED. Oh my god i can not even come close to tell you how refreshing it is to be able to make out whats going on in a dark scene. I have been a OLED owner for 2 years now and I have not not been this happy since the tube TV days. And yes I sacrificed 4K for Contrast ratio...and No i do not have a dedicated theater room with no windows...My OLED is in my living room and its bright as hell during the day. And yes I can make out dark scenes..the way it was meant to be. True blacks.


----------



## fafrd

austinsj said:


> I don't know, it seems unlikely LG will market one screen size with two resolution options for long. This could be an HD vs 4K situation again where the smaller resolution gets relegated to smaller sizes after a year or two. That doesn't prevent a 55" 240Hz TV eventually but here I'm also pessimistic. The 55" could be positioned as a low-cost option with the tech investment focused on the bigger sizes.


I agree, it's hard to see more than a ~2 year overlap of 4K and 8K at equivalent screen sizes, so that means 2020 or 2021 may be the last year to score a 77" 4K WOLED.

On a 240Hz 55", there are a coyple things go point out: the move to HDMI2.1 and support for VRR means there is attention and value being associated with higher refresh speeds (finally!).

Likewise for BFI and MPRT, and now that LG has opened the 3.5ms MPRT war,there's probably no going back.

It's a near-certainty that backplane speeds will increase to achieve [email protected], and once that is in the bag, it is actually a cost reduction for LGD to deliver single-column 4K @ 240Hz Native versus the current split-column 4K @ 120Hz Native / 240Hz Effective (half as many TCONs).

So I'm reasonably optimistic that we'll eventually see 240Hz Native Refresh on 4K panels - faster refresh is one of the areas where WOLED has a clear advantage over LCD and LG has just started to scratch the durface...

Less clear to me whether we'll see 120Hz 8K panels and 240Hz 4K panels @ 65" and 77" beyond 2021...

40" is the smallest 4K panel size available on the market today (and those are the exception - 43" is the smallest widely-available 4K TV size), so logic would dictate that 80-82" is the smallest 8K screensize that makes sense.

We already know manufacturers are going down to at least 65" if not 55" with 8K TV, but it's an interesting question as to which will sell better, a 65" [email protected] or an 65" [email protected] OLED?


----------



## RichB

fafrd said:


> We already know manufacturers are going down to at least 65" if not 55" with 8K TV, but it's an interesting question as to which will sell better, a 65" [email protected] or an 65" [email protected] OLED?


The cheaper one 

I'd rather have a 65" [email protected] but most people can't spell Hz.


- Rich


----------



## fafrd

Looks like LG is accelerating plans for P10: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=29687

'"We expected LG Display to begin placing equipment orders in the second half of the year. But the company is expected to advance its investment schedule," said a researcher at a securities firm. *“I understand that LG Display is already placing orders for equipment for 10.5th-generation lines even though it was not publicly disclosed.”* LG Display recently decided not to pay dividends, the first time in five years. Industry watchers say that the decision was made to raise funds for large-scale investment.'

Some other interesting tidbits:

"In addition, a recent decline in OLED panel prices seems to have affected LG Display’s decision. The price of a 65-inch OLED panel dropped from US$1,103 in the first quarter of 2017 to US$950 in the fourth quarter of 2018 and is expected to fall to US$903 in the fourth quarter of 2019."

That's only a 5% year-on-year price decline - not bad at all (for profitability).

And: 

"In 2020, 60- to 69-inch OLED TVs are forecast to sell 3,260,100 units and 50- to 59-inch OLED TVs, 2,762,500 units, so 60- to 69-inch OLED TVs will begin to outclass 50- to 59-inch OLED TVs in sale figures."

"It is forecast that in 2022, sales of 60- to 69-inch and 50- to 59-inch OLED TVs will reach 6,088,900 and 3,217,800 units, respectively. In terms of sales revenue, the size of the 60- to 69-inch OLED TV market is estimated to reach US7.6 billion in 2022, more than triple the size of the 50- to 59-inch OLED TV market."

So IHS is forecasting an ASP of $1250 for a 65" WOLED and an ASP of less than $790 for a 55" WOLED by 2022...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Looks like LG is accelerating plans for P10: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=29687
> 
> '"We expected LG Display to begin placing equipment orders in the second half of the year. But the company is expected to advance its investment schedule," said a researcher at a securities firm. “I understand that LG Display is already placing orders for equipment for 10.5th-generation lines even though it was not publicly disclosed.” LG Display recently decided not to pay dividends, the first time in five years. Industry watchers say that the decision was made to raise funds for large-scale investment.'
> 
> Some other interesting tidbits:
> 
> "In addition, a recent decline in OLED panel prices seems to have affected LG Display’s decision. The price of a 65-inch OLED panel dropped from US$1,103 in the first quarter of 2017 to US$950 in the fourth quarter of 2018 and is expected to fall to US$903 in the fourth quarter of 2019."
> 
> That's only a 5% year-on-year price decline - not bad at all (for profitability).
> 
> And:
> 
> "*In 2020, 60- to 69-inch OLED TVs are forecast to sell 3,260,100 units and 50- to 59-inch OLED TVs, 2,762,500 units,* so 60- to 69-inch OLED TVs will begin to outclass 50- to 59-inch OLED TVs in sale figures."
> 
> "It is forecast that in 2022, sales of 60- to 69-inch and 50- to 59-inch OLED TVs will reach 6,088,900 and 3,217,800 units, respectively. In terms of sales revenue, the size of the 60- to 69-inch OLED TV market is estimated to reach US7.6 billion in 2022, more than triple the size of the 50- to 59-inch OLED TV market."
> 
> So IHS is forecasting an ASP of $1250 for a 65" WOLED and an ASP of less than $790 for a 55" WOLED by 2022...


There is something that does not add up with the 2020 Forecast from IHS.

LG will end this year with 70,000 8.5G sheet/month capacity in Korea and 60,000 8.5G sheet/month capacity in Guangzhou. Even if we assume both lines have MMG the IHS 2020 forecast is out of reach:

3,217,800 65" WOLEDs require at least 1,072,600 Gen 8.5 Sheets (at 100% yield).

For the full year, there are only 130,000 x 12 = 1,560,000 8.5G sheets total, meaning only 488,000 remaining.

Those 488,000 8.5G Sheets can produce 2,928,000 55" WOLEDs (@ 100% yield) and MMG can yield another 2,144,000 from the 1,072,600 sheets used for 65" panels using MMG (again, assuming 100% yield) for a total of 5,072,000 55" WOLEDs produced in 2020.

But no way to produce over 6 million 55" WOLEDs in 2020 unless LG has some other capacity coming online that I'm missing.

Of course, yield loss will degrade these numbers, as will any 2020 production of 77" (and 88" ) WOLEDs.

At some point, I think I read something about a 'phase II' at Gangzhou that was supposed to take capacity up over 60,000 sheets/month (to 90,000 sheets/month?). Do we know anything about that and is it supposed to happen in 2020?

6 months with another 30,000 8.5G sheets per month would close this gap as far as 55" WOLED production...

And I suppose it's also true that the above analysis based on 130,000 8.5G sheet/month capacity totals to 5M WOLED panels, while the IHS 2020 Forecast is for 6M (without counting 48", 77", or 88" panel production) and LG themselves are claining a forecast of 7M WOLED panels in 2020, so there must be additional capacity increases beyond Guangzhou phase I in the pipeline...

[EDIT: Mystery solved: https://www.cnet.com/news/lg-display-wins-chinas-approval-to-open-oled-factory/

"The plant in Guangzhou will mainly produce OLED (organic light emitting diode) panels for TVs. The factory will initially aim to produce 60,000 panels each month and then *gradually ramp up to 90,000 per month.*"


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> For folks attending the SXSW innovation festival, NHK-Sony will be showing off 8K content:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201902/19-015E/index.html


https://twitter.com/ShinozakiKen/status/1105132827237072896

8K 120fps HDR


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> https://twitter.com/ShinozakiKen/status/1105132827237072896
> 
> 8K 120fps HDR


It'll be a race for 8K @ 120Hz refresh - I wonder if there is any chance LG can deliver that by next year?

The upper limit for HDMI 2.1 is 8K @ 120Hz (with DSC) for either 8 BPP SDR or 10 BPP HDR, so it's kind of the end of the (current) roadmap - who will get there first?


----------



## fafrd

Sounds like Samsung is getting more and more isolated (at least if they don't commit to QD-BOLED next month): https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=32064593

"What is the "OLED opposition" Hisense rebellion attitude?
Source: OFweek 2019-03-11

On March 7, Hisense officially released its technological breakthroughs in the field of OLED at the global R&D headquarters, and announced that it will officially exhibit the OLED TV product A8 at the Shanghai AWE exhibition, which opened on March 14. Hisense said that Hisense is actually the first company in China to develop OLED technology and launch the first OLED product.

Interestingly, in the impression of the outside world, Hisense has always been a strong opponent of OLED.

Some experts have compared Hisense's switch to the OLED camp as "repairing the dead" and returning to the mainstream after detours. *There are also views that Hisense's entry will weaken the voice of the market against OLEDs and drive the rapid advancement of China's OLED market.*

ULED is China's independent display technology developed by Hisense. It uses backlight multi-partition dynamic control technology, peak brightness control technology and backlight scanning control technology to raise the display quality of LCD screen to a higher level at a lower cost. Essentially still LED.

From the long-term opponents to the strong entry into the OLED market, the change in Hisense’s attitude is not overnight.

Previously, Hisense has always adhered to the strategic line of ULED and laser TV dual-line development. Its executives have repeatedly questioned the maturity of OLED technology in public, and Hisense has been labeled as “OLED opposition”.

However, in recent years, as more and more mainstream color TV manufacturers join the OLED camp, the market and consumers have increased their acceptance of OLEDs, and Hisense has gradually changed its attitude.

In November 2018, Hisense launched Hisense OLED 4K TV through its Australian social network account. In fact, Australia is not the mainstream market for OLED TVs. Hisense’s move is considered by the outside world to be a low-key temptation.

However, Hisense officially announced that Hisense has started research and development and storage of OLED technology since 2010. After Hisense acquired Toshiba TV and its R&D team, Hisense continued to overcome the difficulties of OLED technology and broke through the afterimages that have plagued the OLED market for many years. Technical problems such as image attenuation. At this point, OLED TV products have finally matured.

Hisense, which entered the market late, has already occupied most of the market share by competitors. Not to mention the strong LGE and Sony. In the local market, Skyworth has become the dominant player in the OLED market.

However, industry experts are optimistic about Hisense's development of OLED. Hong Shibin said that after all, Hisense has been operating in the TV sector for so many years, with scale advantages and market base. With its existing scale, the negotiation space and voice rights for obtaining upstream panels will be larger.

Liu Buchen believes that Skyworth is the first in China's own brand OLED TV, but everyone does not know who is the second, indicating that other brands have not cultivated success, and this is precisely the opportunity of Hisense, *Hisense may quickly seize China's OLED TV The second place in the local market brand,* although not necessarily threatening the status of Skyworth in the short term, will bring pressure to brands such as Konka and Changhong."


----------



## austinsj

It looks like there's a new version of HDMI every 4 years. In 2009, version 1.4 had a max bandwidth of 10.2 Gbps. This was bumped up to 18.0 Gbps in 2013 with version 2.0 (~2x increase) . In 2017, they released 2.1 with 48.0 Gbps bandwidth (~2.5x increase). 

I say this because, if the pattern hold true, we may see a new version of HDMI in 2021 (won't be on actual devices until ~2023) with a max bandwidth of about 120 Gbps. Unless my math is wrong, that would allow 10-bit 8K @ 240Hz but not 480Hz at that resolution. If this is the case, future motion resolution upgrades are going to be glacial unless they pick up the pace of updates or the bandwidth increase per update gets larger.


----------



## fafrd

In case this has not already been posted: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Bu...turers-OLED-TV-sales-poised-to-top-1m-in-2019

"The South Korean manufacturer is solidifying plans to supply 850,000 panels to Sony and 300,000 to Panasonic in 2019, up from an estimated 500,000 and 200,000 this year. It is not rare for Japanese and South Korean companies in the electronics industry to forge close business relationships involving core components.

LG Display plans to boost its total OLED panel output by 40% to 4 million units next year, while the share going to fellow group member LG Electronics is set to drop to 50%-plus from more than 60% this year. LG Display holds a near-monopoly on the market for OLED panels for commercially available TVs."

So Sony increasing by 70%, Panasonic increasing by 50%, and LG dropping from 60%+ in 2018 to 50%+ this year.

LG claims they sold 2.9million WOLED panels last year, meaning ~2.4million sold by LGE and other smaller brands like Philips.

And if the forecast of 4million panels this year is accurate, that would translate to 2.85 million WOLED TV slaes by LGE and those other brands.

This would all translate to WOLED TV sales volume growth of less than 20% by LG Electronics, meaning the era of ~20% year-on-year WOLED TV price declines has probably come to a close...

But is is great news for the continued growth and sustainability of WOLED that LGD now sells over 25% of their WOLED panel production to those two important Japanese brands.


----------



## dfa973

austinsj said:


> It looks like there's a new version of HDMI every 4 years.


Yes, about 4 years but not for every major bandwidth bump: 
- 4 years between 1.0 and 1.3
- 7 years between 1.3 and 2.0
- 4 years between 2.0 and 2.1
- ? years between 2.1 and 3.0 (?)

*HDMI VERSIONS*
*2002 - HDMI v1.0 - 4,95Gbit/s* TMDS (3,96Gbit/s video)
2004 - HDMI v1.1 - added support for DVD-Audio;
2005 - HDMI v1.2 - added the option of One Bit Audio, SACD;
2005 - HDMI v1.2 - added Consumer Electronic Control (CEC) features;
*2006 - HDMI v1.3 - 10.2Gbit/s* TMDS (8.16Gbit/s video), added Deep Color, x.v.Color, HD Audio (lossless compressed digital audio), audio & video sync capability (Lip Sync);
2006 - HDMI v1.3a- various modifications;
2009 - HDMI v1.4 - added support for 4K 24-30Hz, 3D, HDMI Ethernet Channel (HEC), audio return channel (ARC), expanded set of color spaces (sYCC601, Adobe RGB, and Adobe YCC601);
2010 - HDMI v1.4a- added two mandatory 3D formats for broadcast content;
2011 - HDMI v1.4b- minor clarifications to the 1.4a;
*2013 - HDMI v2.0 - 18Gbit/s* TMDS, added 4K 60Hz, Rec. 2020 color space, up to 32 audio channels, dynamic sync, 21:9 aspect ratio, improved 3D capability, additional CEC functions;
2015 - HDMI v2.0a- added support for static HDR (High Dynamic Range) and WCG (Wide Colour Gamut);
2016 - HDMI v2.0b- added support for HLG (Hybrid Log Gamma - HDR for broadcasting);
*2017 - HDMI v2.1 - 48Gbit/s* TMDS, 4K/8K/10K 120 Hz, Dynamic HDR, Display Stream Compression (DSC), High Frame Rate (HFR) for 4K, 8K, and 10K, Enhanced Audio Return Channel (eARC), Variable Refresh Rate (VRR), Quick Media Switching (QMS), Quick Frame Transport (QFT), Auto Low Latency Mode (ALLM);




austinsj said:


> I say this because, if the pattern hold true, we may see a new version of HDMI in 2021 (won't be on actual devices until ~2023) with a max bandwidth of about 120 Gbps. Unless my math is wrong, that would allow 10-bit 8K @ 240Hz but not 480Hz at that resolution. If this is the case, future motion resolution upgrades are going to be glacial unless they pick up the pace of updates or the bandwidth increase per update gets larger.


The progress will slow down because of the content and distribution must catch up with the available hardware. We may end up with a longer cycle of HDMI 2.1, because we have no mainstream 8K or HFR broadcasts/streaming.
If 4K was about HDR, I think 8K will be about HFR, but without HFR content...


----------



## avernar

fafrd said:


> The upper limit for HDMI 2.1 is 8K @ 120Hz (with DSC) for either 8 BPP SDR or 10 BPP HDR


12bpp 4:2:2 is also possible for 8K/120p. Same bandwidth as 10bpp 4:2:2 before DSC is applied.


----------



## avernar

austinsj said:


> I say this because, if the pattern hold true, we may see a new version of HDMI in 2021 (won't be on actual devices until ~2023) with a max bandwidth of about 120 Gbps.


I'm hoping it will be at around 130Gbps so we can have 8K/120p RGB 8bpp or 4:2:2 12bpp without DSC. 128Gbps would be a nice round number with 32Gbps per channel but it's 300Mbps shy of what we'd need.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "The progress will slow down because of the content and distribution must catch up with the available hardware. We may end up with a longer cycle of HDMI 2.1, because we have no mainstream 8K or HFR broadcasts/streaming. If 4K was about HDR, I think 8K will be about HFR, but without HFR content..."

I think 8K is a pipe dream and even HDMI 2.1 will have to sort out "standards" to ensure cross compatibility with whatever components (TV,AVR, Bluray, Gaming & Streaming Box) you use. But you really hit the nail on the head with the main issue of "content and distribution." And that's where I see no end to the mismatch between available and advancing technology versus the content we receive. While content has stood still (primarily cable/satellite/broadcast TV,) streaming has made advances possible with 4K & HDR. But for most people, it's cable and satellite TV as their main source of content. 

I've said this numerous times - - if you have a newer TV, either LCD or OLED/WOLED, we all have cars that can do 180 mph but we are stuck in the 40 mph "content" lane. Just one look at a pristine, 4K "You Tube" clip will let you know what your TV is capable of. To me - - all the advancing technology is great but my buying factors always revolve around price/performance relative to the largest screen size I can get and how well my TV can "upscale" and handle the majority of my content - - which is cable at 720p or 1080i. Everything else is nice to conjecture about but until content gets much closer to current technology - - we're all in the same boat.


----------



## avernar

Ricoflashback said:


> I think 8K is a pipe dream and even HDMI 2.1 will have to sort out "standards" to ensure cross compatibility with whatever components (TV,AVR, Bluray, Gaming & Streaming Box) you use. But you really hit the nail on the head with the main issue of "content and distribution." And that's where I see no end to the mismatch between available and advancing technology versus the content we receive. While content has stood still (primarily cable/satellite/broadcast TV,) streaming has made advances possible with 4K & HDR. But for most people, it's cable and satellite TV as their main source of content.


 At least with eARC we have the option of removing one component, the AVR, out of the chain if compatibility issues arise. I agree with the lack of 8K content in the near future. Gaming consoles are another main source of content but I don't see the next gen consoles being able to push 8K at decent frame rates. A mid cycle refresh might correct that like they did this gen with 4K but that's a ways off.


----------



## austinsj

Ricoflashback said:


> While content has stood still (primarily cable/satellite/broadcast TV,) streaming has made advances possible with 4K & HDR. But for most people, it's cable and satellite TV as their main source of content.


Not sure this is true. There were 186.7 million Americans watching cable or satellite in 2018. This number is trending down.

Meanwhile, there were 148 million subscribers for Netflix, 89 million for Amazon, 55 million for Hulu, 17 million for HBO, etc. There’s overlap here but tons and tons of Americans are subscribed to streaming services and these numbers are trending up.


----------



## Ricoflashback

austinsj said:


> Not sure this is true. There were 186.7 million Americans watching cable or satellite in 2018. This number is trending down.
> 
> Meanwhile, there were 148 million subscribers for Netflix, 89 million for Amazon, 55 million for Hulu, 17 million for HBO, etc. There’s overlap here but tons and tons of Americans are subscribed to streaming services and these numbers are trending up.


I subscribe to Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in addition to Comcast Cable. The majority of my content is still cable. Especially sports. Most streaming sites are still 1080p with more 4K available but often times, 1080p looks better than 4K material as upscaled by my Sony 900F (Especially Amazon Prime) 

The point is still the same - 8K is a pipe dream and content is still in the 40 mph lane. Broadcast TV is stuck in the 720p and 1080i mode. Now, if you watch zero broadcast television and zero sports - then the majority of your content can be compressed 4K. But the issue is still the same with no resolution (pun intended) in sight. Current LCD and OLED/WOLED technology far exceeds our source content and I see no change in this environment for the next 5 years with this mismatch.


----------



## fafrd

Getting back closer to the subject of this thread, just ran into this: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/archives/02-2019

"OLED TV panel shipments grew 66% in 2018 to 2.9 million units, with growth across all screen sizes. In 2019 we expect that growth will slow to 28% as LGD will be capacity constrained before it fully ramps its G8.5 fab in Guangzhou, China starting in the 2nd half of 2019. We forecast that 55” TV panels will increase 31% in 2019 to 2.4 million, while 65” will increase 23% to 1.2 million and *77” will increase 31% to 34,000 units*."

If DCSS's forecast is correct about only 34,000 77" WOLED panels being produced this year, we can forget about 2019 being the 'year of 77" OLED' as LG is claimed to have stated (along with any hope of much lower 77" WOLED TV prices).

Backing out the 31% year-on-year growth means 77" WOLED panel shipments totalled 26,000 last year, only 0.9% of 2019 panel shipments.


----------



## fafrd

Some tidbits regarding Samsung's QD-OLED initiative: https://www.oled-a.org/samsung-elec...look-at-qdoled-hybrid-mp-decision_021819.html

"The hybrid approach was expected to use two blue layers deposited by VTE and then printed QDs. However, Samsung Display appears to have run into technical bottlenecks;

-The two fluorescent blue layers may not provide sufficient luminance and lifetime, when considering the demands of HDR, so it appears that three blue layers will be required with the additional required common layers.

-The QDs do not absorb and convert all of the blue light, leaving a distorted color if it is not corrected. SDC R&D has chosen to use a color filter to eliminate the problem, but the color filter absorbs ~40%-50% of the light, which might be the source of the third blue layer. "

And Damsung Visual (the TV Division) is pushing hard fir MicroLED: 

"Samsung Visual is lobbying SEC management to invest more in micro LEDs and believe that future cost reductions, e.g. the reduction in the size of the LED from its existing 30x50 μm to ~5x5 μm, would make the product competitive in the consumer market and provide higher luminance, lower power consumption and eliminate image sticking of OLED based TVs. SDC countered with lower fundamental costs, real time OLED compensation and higher luminescent OLED materials (i.e. triple emitter blues from UDC or Cynora. "

Big decision next month!


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Getting back closer to the subject of this thread, just ran into this: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/archives/02-2019
> 
> "OLED TV panel shipments grew 66% in 2018 to 2.9 million units, with growth across all screen sizes. In 2019 we expect that growth will slow to 28% as LGD will be capacity constrained before it fully ramps its G8.5 fab in Guangzhou, China starting in the 2nd half of 2019. We forecast that 55” TV panels will increase 31% in 2019 to 2.4 million, while 65” will increase 23% to 1.2 million and *77” will increase 31% to 34,000 units*."
> 
> If DCSS's forecast is correct about only 34,000 77" WOLED panels being produced this year, we can forget about 2019 being the 'year of 77" OLED' as LG is claimed to have stated (along with any hope of much lower 77" WOLED TV prices).
> 
> Backing out the 31% year-on-year growth means 77" WOLED panel shipments totalled 26,000 last year, only 0.9% of 2019 panel shipments.


How many LCDs are they projecting in that size range?


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> How many LCDs are they projecting in that size range?


Difficult to gt an accurate number, but I found this: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=21770

"Last year, Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics accounted for more than half of the market for TVs 75 inches or bigger in the world last year, by enjoying markets shares of 50% and 10% respectively," a TV industry official said. “But for the time being, TVs made in Korea will display its power even though low-priced Chinese TVs and the revival of Japan’s Sony are threatening factors."

As a lower limit, if we assume LGs 10% market share of the 75"+ segment was fully achieved throught these 26,000 77" WOLED sales, that would mean a total 75"+ market size of 260,000 units.

LG's lowest-priced 75" IPS LED/LCDs cost just over $1000, so chances are that their volumes of 75" LCD sales drawfed their sales of 77" OLED TVs that together totaled to a 10% market share in 2018. 

I'd guess the 75" market this year will be at least 0.5M units and could easily exceed 1M (0.5% of the overall TV market; 5% of the Premium TV Market).

There is no question LG WOLED has got plenty of market share to gain in this segment when they decide to take it seriously and all of these numbers just bring into focus how utterly LG has ceded the 75"-and-over Premium TV market to Samsung last year...


----------



## stl8k

> Rakuten TV will share revenues with the manufacturers.


Easy to forget that TV manufacturers hold some very important real estate in the form of buttons on the remote and content distributors are willing to pay considerable money for that real estate.

Also, the speed at which content innovation occurs today makes the "there's no 8K content" crowd look silly.

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/201...ories/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=linkedin


----------



## rogo

I would not be shocked to learn the 75+" market has reached 1M units at this point -- because the prices are just so darned low -- but would be shocked to learn it was much above that. 

When the first affordable 70" screens came out, at prices as low as $2200-2500, the entire global market was about 200K units. Those prices were very reasonable at the time and the total volume of TVs sold was actually _higher_ than it is today. Obviously, we now have 70" sets below $1000 and 75" sets for not much more money than that. We've come a long way in a decade: less than half the price, quite a bit more picture quality (better motion, better resolution, better contrast).

Some cool noteworthy stats are:
* UHD/4K is approaching half of all shipments overall, 99 out of 221M, but gaining fast (by Q4, UHD > non-UHD!)
* Screen sizes trend up very, very slowly, but are slightly above 1" per year. (*Does anyone know the average?*)
* OLED got crushed in North America in Q4, with negative growth of about 25%. (Cheaper LCDs in big sizes, ouch!) 

But, screen size gains are slower in US, China, Japan. Most people upgrading screen sizes are Western Europe, Latin America. We are starting to approaching physical maximum sizes people will tolerate. We're not there yet.

LG's pricing strategies might be dictated by a lot of things, but the reality is they lost massive ground in the U.S. by being too expensive. The first 1M unit quarter for OLED TVs didn't happen in Q4 largely because of North America.


----------



## RichB

rogo said:


> I would not be shocked to learn the 75+" market has reached 1M units at this point -- because the prices are just so darned low -- but would be shocked to learn it was much above that.
> 
> When the first affordable 70" screens came out, at prices as low as $2200-2500, the entire global market was about 200K units. Those prices were very reasonable at the time and the total volume of TVs sold was actually _higher_ than it is today. Obviously, we now have 70" sets below $1000 and 75" sets for not much more money than that. We've come a long way in a decade: less than half the price, quite a bit more picture quality (better motion, better resolution, better contrast).
> 
> Some cool noteworthy stats are:
> * UHD/4K is approaching half of all shipments overall, 99 out of 221M, but gaining fast (by Q4, UHD > non-UHD!)
> * Screen sizes trend up very, very slowly, but are slightly above 1" per year. (*Does anyone know the average?*)
> * OLED got crushed in North America in Q4, with negative growth of about 25%. (Cheaper LCDs in big sizes, ouch!)
> 
> But, screen size gains are slower in US, China, Japan. Most people upgrading screen sizes are Western Europe, Latin America. We are starting to approaching physical maximum sizes people will tolerate. We're not there yet.
> 
> LG's pricing strategies might be dictated by a lot of things, but the reality is they lost massive ground in the U.S. by being too expensive. The first 1M unit quarter for OLED TVs didn't happen in Q4 largely because of North America.



This is good data but it makes me wonder if LG will stop listing TV's at high prices discoursing sales until the fall. I'd like to dive into a 77" before summer but wont spend 30% more for 6 months of ownership.


- Rich


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I would not be shocked to learn the 75+" market has reached 1M units at this point -- because the prices are just so darned low -- but would be shocked to learn it was much above that.
> 
> When the first affordable 70" screens came out, at prices as low as $2200-2500, the entire global market was about 200K units. Those prices were very reasonable at the time and the total volume of TVs sold was actually _higher_ than it is today. Obviously, we now have 70" sets below $1000 and 75" sets for not much more money than that. We've come a long way in a decade: less than half the price, quite a bit more picture quality (better motion, better resolution, better contrast).
> 
> Some cool noteworthy stats are:
> * UHD/4K is approaching half of all shipments overall, 99 out of 221M, but gaining fast (by Q4, UHD > non-UHD!)
> * Screen sizes trend up very, very slowly, but are slightly above 1" per year. (*Does anyone know the average?*)
> * OLED got crushed in North America in Q4, with negative growth of about 25%. (Cheaper LCDs in big sizes, ouch!)
> 
> But, screen size gains are slower in US, China, Japan. Most people upgrading screen sizes are Western Europe, Latin America. We are starting to approaching physical maximum sizes people will tolerate. We're not there yet.
> 
> LG's pricing strategies might be dictated by a lot of things, but the reality is they lost massive ground in the U.S. by being too expensive. The first 1M unit quarter for OLED TVs didn't happen in Q4 largely because of North America.


According to these guys: https://www.statista.com/statistics/760288/average-tv-screen-size-worldwide/

Average screen size was (and is forecasted to be):

2018: 45.2"
2019: 47.1" (+1.9")
2020: 47.9" (+0.8")
2021: 48.5" (+0.6")


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> I would not be shocked to learn the 75+" market has reached 1M units at this point -- because the prices are just so darned low -- but would be shocked to learn it was much above that.
> 
> When the first affordable 70" screens came out, at prices as low as $2200-2500, the entire global market was about 200K units. Those prices were very reasonable at the time and the total volume of TVs sold was actually _higher_ than it is today. Obviously, we now have 70" sets below $1000 and 75" sets for not much more money than that. We've come a long way in a decade: less than half the price, quite a bit more picture quality (better motion, better resolution, better contrast).
> 
> Some cool noteworthy stats are:
> * UHD/4K is approaching half of all shipments overall, 99 out of 221M, but gaining fast (by Q4, UHD > non-UHD!)
> * Screen sizes trend up very, very slowly, but are slightly above 1" per year. (Does anyone know the average?)
> * *OLED got crushed in North America in Q4, with negative growth of about 25%. (Cheaper LCDs in big sizes, ouch!) *
> 
> But, screen size gains are slower in US, China, Japan. Most people upgrading screen sizes are Western Europe, Latin America. We are starting to approaching physical maximum sizes people will tolerate. We're not there yet.
> 
> LG's pricing strategies might be dictated by a lot of things, but the reality is *they lost massive ground in the U.S. by being too expensive. *The first 1M unit quarter for OLED TVs didn't happen in Q4 largely because of North America.


I would greatly appreciate any sources you can point to regarding last market share by LG in Q4 in the US market.

I've seen a few reports like this: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1551945012

"For the full year of 2018, sales of “QLED” LCD TVs grew to 2.7 million units compared to 2.5 million for OLED TV, according to market data from IHS Markit shared with FlatpanelsHD."

"IHS Markit defines the sub segment as QD LCD while Samsung, TCL, and Hisense who together form the QLED Alliance are selling them as QLED TVs. Citing the data, Samsung has claimed that *QLED is leading the premium TV market*, according to reports in Korean media."

The problem with this definintion of the 'Premium Market' is that it includes all QD-enhanced LED/LCDs, regardless of price.

Samsung's 2018 49Q6FN is currently selling for $900 at Best Buy, with 43" and 40" models costing even less, yet all of those sales are being counted as 'Premium TV'. The TCL and Hisense quantum dot TVs sell for lower prices than Samsung's flagship QLED TVs as well. By this definition, the Premium TV market itself went through a massive increase last year and so LG WOLED has a smaller piece of a much larger pie.

2.5 million OLED TVs sold last year represents a significant i crease in sales volumes versus 2017, so I have difficulty seeing how their is any arguments that LG 'lost market share' in any segment they care about.

LG apparently noticed thecsame thing: 

"In response to release of the market data, vice chairman of LG Display has contested the premise of the QLED category in a meeting with Korean media, mirroring IHS Markit’s categorization of Samsung’s TV as QD LCD. He also argued that revenue matters more, pointing out that revenue for OLED TVs totaled $6.5 billion in 2018 compared to $6.3 billion for QD LCDs. The data was confirmed by IHS Markit in an email to FlatpanelsHD."

As long as LGD continues to increase capacity and sell out of every WOLED panel they can produce, I find it difficult to understand any perspective by which they are 'losing' anything... (but again, interested in any other sources you have).

Global TV shipments - 2018

2018	Units (in millions)	Revenue (in billions)
QD LCD	2.7	$6.3 
OLED	2.5	$6.5 
LCD	216.2	$102.6 
Total	221.4	$115.5
Source: IHS Markit - Table: FlatpanelsHD

Calculating from this raw data gives:

LCD Average ASP in 2018: $475
QD LCD Average ASP in 2018: $2333
OLED Average ASP in 2018: $2600


----------



## Menarini

*Do you expect top emission to happen?*

Do you think top emission is coming in 2020 or 2021..or ever? People just keep speculating about top emission, from lg there has been no news since the past couple of years at all. Is it possible they could have scrapped the idea of top emission for 4k oleds, or when it eventually happens it really wont make oleds' peak brightness much higher like people are hoping?


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> According to these guys: https://www.statista.com/statistics/760288/average-tv-screen-size-worldwide/
> 
> Average screen size was (and is forecasted to be):
> 
> 2018: 45.2"
> 2019: 47.1" (+1.9")
> 2020: 47.9" (+0.8")
> 2021: 48.5" (+0.6")


Statista is not a statistics, market research, or any-such-thing service. They compile data they source elsewhere. But that said, those figures look reasonable. The bulge in 2019 comes from regions that are "not the U.S." where sizes did increase, but nothing like 2". The averages are being pulled up by laggards like Western Europe/S. America.



fafrd said:


> I would greatly appreciate any sources you can point to regarding last market share by LG in Q4 in the US market.


Pretty sure that was IHS Markit actually. It was findable online, not an insider source. I'll have to go poke around. But it was clear that LG was hurt badly in Q4 in North America.


> 2.5 million OLED TVs sold last year represents a significant i crease in sales volumes versus 2017, so I have difficulty seeing how their is any arguments that LG 'lost market share' in any segment they care about.


They apparently did. They sold more via OEM channels and less insane pricing in non-North America regions. Plus better marketing and distribution for what remains a nascent produce?


> As long as LGD continues to increase capacity and sell out of every WOLED panel they can produce, I find it difficult to understand any perspective by which they are 'losing' anything... (but again, interested in any other sources you have).


From what I can glean, they literally lost volume in North America. But I'd have to see the source data to be sure. But they definitely lost momentum no matter how they spin it.



> Calculating from this raw data gives:
> 
> LCD Average ASP in 2018: $475
> QD LCD Average ASP in 2018: $2333
> OLED Average ASP in 2018: $2600


So maybe we read that differently, but to me it says "QD LCD is essentially as premium as OLED". They have nearly the same ASP. Sure, sure the OLEDs average higher. The OLEDs do benefit from having those wallpaper models, however few are sold. I guess QD LCD benefits from having bigger sizes, however few are sold. But this sure seems comparable.


----------



## fafrd

Put enough effort into this post I figured I'd copy it here:



rogo said:


> So I'm again befuddled. LG got absolutely decimated in North America in Q4. OLED sales dropped a whopping 26% in 2018 from 2017.


Again, would appreciate to see your sources for this statement. Everything I've seen has changed the metrics. In 2017, IHS presented data on 55" Premium TV ($2000+) and 65" Premium TV ($3000+) but everything I've found from IHS on 2018 is about 'OLED versus Quantum Dot LED/LCD' (which is a much larger market, since you can buy 43" LCDs with Quantum Dots now...).



> So the strategy for 2019 is... hold the line on pricing?


Apparently so, and remember, this is after LGD cut-off MDF and raised WOLED panel prices late last year. So LGD faced the music with their OEM customers, got them to accept higher prices which are lasting all the way until late this year when Guangzhou has ramped, and it means no accross-the-board OLED TV year-on-year cost reduction this cycle as we've come to expect.

Next year should be a very different story. With Guangzhou ramped and MMG in production, panel capacity will be almost double and 65" WOLED panel costs will beclose to 1/3rd cheaper (55" about the same). So I'm preficting a return to at least 20% reductions in 65" and 77" WOLED TV prices a year from now...



> Look, the 77 thing is what it is. That price fell about as much as is common. It's going to be a crazy premium set by current standards. And Samsung will absolutely mash them on volume.


As they did in 2018 because LGD is not producing any real volume. 26,000 in 2018 and 32,000 this year. The 75/77" market is not important to LG (yet). This is less than 1% of WOLED panel production. It is a placeholder awaiting the 10.5G fab to be ramping production. As long as LGD is sble to sell-through all of their 8.5G production of 55" and 65" WOLED panels at the higher prices they have established, the 75/77" market is largely inconsequental for the, (unfortunately for those of us coveting a 77" WOLED ).



> But apparently LG has no real new production capacity, right @fafrd? Because if they did, they couldn't possibly move more than last year's overall volume with this pricing scheme.


Correct, LGD hasno real production capacity going ito 77" WOLED panels because they are successfully selling all of the 55" and 65" WOLED panels they can produce. They are capacity-limited and will remain so at least until Guangzhou is fully-ramped.



> I imagine with OEM sales and better distribution overall they are selling through what they can make. But clearly they are suffering a bit of "valley of death" right now. All this mythic Guangzhou 8.5G is coming but still won't matter in 2019. And Paju 10.5G is presumably still a good but clearly will be making no panels this year *at all*
> 
> And the effect is OLED lost significant ground in the critical North American market last year. And right now, LG has no plans or ability to regain that ground.


Again, I would love to see your soirces stating that LG sold fewer 55" and 65" WOLED TV in the North American market in 2018 versus 2017. But it almost doesn't matter since LG Display does not care about the North American market, per se. LGD cares about volume commotments from their OEM customers to absorb the production they have coming.

Sony inceased their commitment from 500K to 800K.
Panasonic increased their commitmemt from 200K to 300K.

Both of these important customers increased their volume commitments by a greater % than LGDs year-on-year production increase (and in the context of higher prices).

This meand LG Electronics will represent a smaller share of LG Displays production in 2019 than they did in 2018, and that is very positive for LGD. LGD doesn't care where these OEM customers sell their OLED TVs, they just care that theybare successfull enough selling OLED bs each year to increase their demand for OLED panels the next year.



> 2020 seems to remain a make-or-break year as *even Guangzhou should produce volume LG can't sell without a ~20% across the board price cut..*


Now you've hit the nail on the head (assuming by LG you mean LGD and not LGE). If LGD can't sell all pf the WOLED panels they ate producing a year from now without reducing panel prices by 20%, they will no longer be capacity-constrained and will be in deep ****.

And it will be easy to see because their profitability will plummet.

On the other hand, it's a further rationale for holding the 75/77" market 'in their pocket' for as long as they can.

First, they have a new low-end market for 48" WOLEDs they are opening.

Second, with MMG, 65" panel prices can easily drop from ~2X 55" panels prices to 1.5X 55" panel prices, which will drive entry-level 65" WOLED TV prices down under $1500 in 2020 (which will drive a large increase in demand).

Third, they've got the opening of the China market (did you see the 'Waterfall' OLED TV that just got announced!).

Fourth, they have a tiny new Premium market for 88" 8K WOLEDs to start establishing.

And finally, if all of that does not succeed to absorb all of their 2020 panel production, they have the 77" market as their ace on the hole. With MMG, LGD could drop 77" WOLED panel prices to double the price of 55" panels , meaning LG Electronics could sell a 77B20 OLED TV for 2-3 times the price of a 55B20 (at equivalent profitability). We know they have pretty much no market share in that segment (32,000 out of 1 million this year means 0.4% market share ) so the opportunity is there to increase market share (and production levels) by 10-fold at the drop-of a hat.

I had hoped that LGD would have been forced to play that card this year (which is why I was precicting 77C9 MSRPs somewhere in the $5-6K range), but all indications are that they have not and have been able to keep that card tucked away for another year (probably 2020).



> And by 2021 (2022?) LG will need to be at approximately half -- or less -- of current pricing to move its planned volumes.


Assuming ~10% WOLED year-on-year price declines once manufacturing has matured (true only for 55" WOLED panels today), I think by the time P10 has ramped to acceptable yields, LGD should be able to sell their WOLED panels at prices allowing LGE to support the following WOLED TV prices:

48" $600
55" $800
65" $1000
75" $1400

I don't want to speculate into what that translates to in terms of launch MSRPs and pricing strategy, but I believe the fundamentals are in place (and underway) to allow a profitable business to be established at these prices. 



> Presumably the company's financial people know all of this. But nothing like this ever happened in the ramp phases of plasma or LCD. That's bad for LG and shows the danger of being a sole-manufacturer ecosystem.
> 
> Instead of steady 20-30% drops in price with the attendant increases in demand, we've basically gone flat for a year. *And will go flat for another year. *Yes, demand has risen globally, but overall is currently maxed out at these prices (yes, yes, so is supply.. it's all good... sort of). This seems like it's not a problem, except that it is.


Except for the expansion of the market by introducing 48" (as well as 88") panels...



> LG ceded share it had taken and gave Samsung life in premium LCD. LG failed to complete "ownership" of the premium segment at least from 55-65 (it couldn't own larger yet and sorry, folks, there is no "smaller" and still premium). And the opening it left has made those often-less-than-$1000 Vizios, TCLs, et al. a viable product category.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that LGD did not have the capacity to eliminated Samsung from the Premium Segment in any case, as well as the fact that they could never have done so with LG Electronics alone. The 60% increase in WOLED panel demand by Sony and 50% increase by Panasonic is significant progress by LGD towards this eventual goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still very, very skeptical around reasonably sized MicroLEDs that have reasonable pricing, but there is a bit of disruption theory working on those such that if a high resolution, decent sized, precision placeable tile does become real... it completely upends big TVs. And it certainly could become real.
> 
> Underinvesting may have left an opening here that LG should've already closed. It had the first half of the 2020s all to itself had Paju stayed on track. Now, I'm not so sure.
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of moving parts, but MMG is almost as good as 10.5G. 10.5G reduces 65" WOLED panel cost by ~44%.
> 
> MMG reduces 65" WOLED panel costs by ~33%.
> 
> At most, LGD is behind your hoped-for plan by 10%, not 50%.
> 
> Plus MMG reduces 77" panel prices by 25% and allows LG to keep serving the niche they have established versus facibg the transition they must when ditching 77" for the 75" they'll need to produce at 10.5G.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (n.b. Still buying one this year or next. So please spare me the accusations of bias. If anything the bias is pro-LG.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The C9 is looking like a great TV - your procrastination has played in your favor .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Statista is not a statistics, market research, or any-such-thing service. They compile data they source elsewhere. But that said, those figures look reasonable. The bulge in 2019 comes from regions that are "not the U.S." where sizes did increase, but nothing like 2". The averages are being pulled up by laggards like Western Europe/S. America.
> 
> *Pretty sure that was IHS Markit actually.* It was findable online, not an insider source. I'll have to go poke around. But it was clear that LG was hurt badly in Q4 in North America.


If your source is based on the IHS Markit report, my read is different than yours. A year ago, there were horrible headlines about Damsung tied to an IHS Markit report: https://www.businessinsider.com/r-h...d-sony-and-lg-in-the-premium-tv-market-2018-5

This year, all of the headlines are reversed, but all bcause IHS Markit focused on the 75"+ market and total Quantum Dot LED/LCD versus OLED rather than $2000+ 55" and $3000+ 65" Premium TV Segments as they did the years before.

I can't help but wonder whether someone at Samsung had something to do with that change in focus...

And I also can't help but wonder what similar data on 2018 $2000+ 55" and $3000+ 65" TVs would have shown had IHS Markit made it available. From an unsustainable 67% market share, I'm sure LG took a step backwards, but I seriously doubt it was as dramatic as some of these headlines would like us to think...



> They apparently did. They sold more via OEM channels and less insane pricing in non-North America regions. Plus better marketing and distribution for what remains a nascent produce?


As I've said before, from what I can see, LGE does an impressive job probing and using market elasticity through 3rd-party online discount channels and 'flash sales'. My suspicion is that they know exactly what pricing will move the volume of product they need to move. And have you seen LGE's TV Division profitability? It's at all-time highs (and same with Sony).



> From what I can glean, they literally lost volume in North America. But I'd have to see the source data to be sure. But they definitely lost momentum no matter how they spin it.


I've seen headlines leading me to think the same, but as I've dug deeper, they all seem tied to this most-recent IHS Markit report which changed the methodology and seems to have been concieved with an agenda in mind.

Have you ever had investment bankers present to you? Every investment bank is #1 based on some 3rd-party report. I'm pretty certain there are as many 3-party reporting outfits as their are investment banks...



> So maybe we read that differently, but to me it says "QD LCD is essentially as premium as OLED". They have nearly the same ASP. Sure, sure the OLEDs average higher. The OLEDs do benefit from having those wallpaper models, however few are sold. I guess QD LCD benefits from having bigger sizes, however few are sold. But this sure seems comparable.


We do see things differently. As long as LG Display is capacity-constrained, any discussion of 'market share' is almost meaningless. If LGD sold all of their 2018 WOLED production, which was greater than their 2017 WOLED production, then they gained in what matters most (especially if they did so at higher prices!).

Whether the Premium TV Market they are serving is growing or shrinking around them is pretty much immaterial.

And in terms of WOLED versus QD-LED/LCD, the very fact that WOLED TVs generated over 50% of the revenue of that Premium Segment is remarkable, especially when you consider the fact that WOLED only (really) serves only 55" and 65" sizes, compared to QD-LED/LCD that spans everything from 42" to 88" sizes!

In addition, you've now got many chinese brands like Hisense and TCL introducing low-priced QD-LED/LCD TVs into the US market, so it shouldn't be the least bit surprising that volumes of QD-LED/LCD sales in the US market increased last year.

If LG can maintain anywhere near equal revenues to the total revenue for QD-LED/LCD sales, there going to be fine...

I just hope IHS Markit starts delivering consistent market share analysis and definitions year to year so we have some hope of understanding if LG has truly taken a step backwards or not.

As I said in the other post, the ultimate metric of LGs progress (both LGD and LGE) is their profitability. Both LGD and LGE are now generating respectable profits on OLED TV sales. If that ever turns to losses again, that is a clear step backwards. As long as they maintain profitability while increasing capacity, the sky is the limit...


----------



## dkfan9

While Hisense and TCL may have produced QD sets for other markets, they did not sell any of those models in the US last year. The smallest size QD set available in the states to my knowledge was the 49Q6. Vizio did start selling the P Quantum which im sure contributed to the sales boost. But on the whole i would agree with the overall gist of fafrd's post, that the boost in QD sales likely came from increased size availability across the board but especially in the lower priced Q6 line. That was a big seller this year, and the previous year had a smaller size assortment (75 & 82 with QD in 2018 at more reasonable pricepoints for most buyers) and was only introduced as a mid year replacement for the phosphor based MU9000. On top of that, for those interested in more premium XL sets, Samsung introduced the 82Q8. So Samsung significantly increased its QD assortment YOY across the lineup and increased the value proposition of those sets by adding FALD at the upper tier and a full mid range QD line.


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> While Hisense and TCL may have produced QD sets for other markets, they did not sell any of those models in the US last year. The smallest size QD set available in the states to my knowledge was the 49Q6. Vizio did start selling the P Quantum which im sure contributed to the sales boost. But on the whole i would agree with the overall gist of fafrd's post, that the boost in QD sales likely came from increased size availability across the board but especially in the lower priced Q6 line. That was a big seller this year, and the previous year had a smaller size assortment (75 & 82 with QD in 2018 at more reasonable pricepoints for most buyers) and was only introduced as a mid year replacement for the phosphor based MU9000. On top of that, for those interested in more premium XL sets, Samsung introduced the 82Q8. *So Samsung significantly increased its QD assortment YOY across the lineup and increased the value proposition of those sets by adding FALD at the upper tier and a full mid range QD line.*


*

Yes, Samsung is at least ahead of LG Display in terms of the breadth of their QD-LED/LCD offerings. In addition, Vizio, TVL and Hisense are not constrained to use the same panel sizes as Samsung (as Sony and other WOLED customers are), so WOLED is only able to serve limited slices of the Premium TV market (55", 65", and 77").

The entire question of 'OLED versus QD-LCD' really doesn't matter as long as LG remains capacity-constrained while continueing to ramp capacity and increase the breadth of their OLED panel offering.

What matters is not WOLED snuffing out LCD; what matters is WOLED surviving (and not getting drowned in a sea of low-cost LCDs).

Based on that latest IHS report, OLED currently has ~50% of whatever specific slice of the Premium TV Market IHS has chosen to focus on.

LGD has plans underway to increase capacity to 10 million panels in 2021. The Premium Market we've always used as a swag around here has been the top 10% of the overall market, meaning about 20 million TVs.

If LGD is successful selling their 10 million OLED panels in 2021, WOLED will hae a ~50% market share of the most valuable 10% segment of the overall TV market and at that point, I'd say WOLEDs survival is assured...

By 2021 or 2022, here's my guess as to the WOLED panel sizes LGD will be offering:

43" (assuming the 48" panels were successful - 43" WOLED can be manufactured 18-up at 10.5G!)
48" (8-up @ 8.5G)
55" (6-up @ 8.5G)
65" (8-up @ 10.5G)
75" (6-up @ 10.5G)
82" (2-up @ 8.5G - I believe these plus the 10.5G 75" will eventually replace the 77")
88" (2-up @ 8.5G or 3-up @ 10.5G)
98" (2-up @ 8.5G - this will probably be for bragging rights only, but when Samsung introduces one, so will LG)

By that point, broad measures of market share may start to make sense.*


----------



## fafrd

TCL developing a QLED/OLED hybrid (manufactured with printing: https://www.oled-info.com/tcl-developing-hybrid-qd-oled-display-technology

"TCL unveiled that the company is developing a new hybrid display technology that uses a blue OLED emitter coupled with red and green QD emitters. All three emitter materials will be combined and printed using ink-jet printing technology. TCL calls this technology H-QLED and this could prove to be the technology of choice for TCL's future high-end emissive TV displays."


----------



## 8mile13

So how are they going to call it? Will probably be called ''OLED'' just like the Samsung QD OLED stuff. Nobody is going to buy a H-QLED TV or a QD OLED TV lol And what does the ''H'' stands for...let me guess...Hybrid?


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> So how are they going to call it? Will probably be called ''OLED'' just like the Samsung QD OLED stuff. Nobody is going to buy a H-QLED TV or a QD OLED TV lol And what does the ''H'' stands for...*let me guess...Hybrid?*


I'd say that's a safe bet.

Aparently they already demoed this technology at CES: 

"At CES 2019 the company demonstrated a 4K (3840x2160) 31" H-QLED display based on an Oxide-TFT backplane."

To me, the interesting thing about announcements like this is the idea that somehow history is going to reverse.

In the plasma days, every manufacturer (Panasonic, Samsung, LG) had their own captive plasma panel manufacturing technology and capacity.

The along came LCD and wiped out plasma, largely because LCD manufacturing became commoditized so that LCD panel manufacturing was divorced from LCD TV manufacturing - the LCD panel was one (important) component of an LCD TV that could be OEMs essentially free to purchase the LCD panel from whoever offered the best deal.

Captive in-house plasma panel manufacturing could not compete with the economies of scale presnted by the LCD panel commodity juggernaut, and that was one of the primary factors that ultimately led to plasmas demise.

WOLED promises to follow the same panel commoditization model as LCD and LG Display has been doing an outstanding bringing up an ecosystem of OEM customers adopting their WOLED panels in higher and higher volumes. Sony and Panasonic will absorb ~25% of LGD's 2019 WOLED panel capacity (which has taken 3-years of experience with the technology).

Now we've got TCL developing their H-QLED hybrid technology, Samsung possibly/hopefully developing their QD-BOLED technology, and who knows what other emissive display technology will get announced. Soon we are going to have as many or more emissive display manufacturers than we had plasma panel manufacturers.

So either the TCLs of this world believe they will use H-QLED exclusively in-house and go back to the plasma model, or they believe they are going to get Sony, Panasonic, and the TV industry broadly adopting their H-QLED panels the way they absorb commodity LCD panels today.

The latter sounds viable but there is a big problem with that approach:

-OEMs will face challanges with uniformity, burn-in, linearity, color-volume and reliability all over again with each new emissive technology they become interested to adopt

-this will take years, and unless the 'payoff' in terms of reduced panel costs is significant, it's doubtful OEMs are going to want to malke investment

So the only way I see this playing out is that the TCLs of this world have sufficient captive demand to prove their H-QLED technology in-house, ramping capacity to supply their entire in-house demand amd proving both the technologies reliability, (picture) quality, and cost-competetiveness over the course of 3-5 years before they have any chance of attracting the OEM customers they will need to achieve economies of scale.

Samsung is the world's largest TV manufacturer as well as one of the wolds top-3 LCD panel manufacturers. They can credibly execute a roadmap like this (and hopefully will attempt to do so with QD-BOLED).

But the TCLs of this world face an almost impossible hurdle - they may establish some captive in-house capability but breaking out beyond that level is going to take LCD-like panel costs at a fraction of typical LCD manufacturing volumes...


----------



## thomopolis

fafrd said:


> Yes, Samsung is at least ahead of LG Display in terms of the breadth of their QD-LED/LCD offerings. In addition, Vizio, TVL and Hisense are not constrained to use the same panel sizes as Samsung (as Sony and other WOLED customers are), so WOLED is only able to serve limited slices of the Premium TV market (55", 65", and 77").
> .............................
> SNIP
> ............................
> 
> By 2021 or 2022, here's my guess as to the WOLED panel sizes LGD will be offering:
> 
> 43" (assuming the 48" panels were successful - 43" WOLED can be manufactured 18-up at 10.5G!)
> 48" (8-up @ 8.5G)
> 55" (6-up @ 8.5G)
> 65" (8-up @ 10.5G)
> 75" (6-up @ 10.5G)
> 82" (2-up @ 8.5G - I believe these plus the 10.5G 75" will eventually replace the 77")
> 88" (2-up @ 8.5G or 3-up @ 10.5G)
> 98" (2-up @ 8.5G - this will probably be for bragging rights only, but when Samsung introduces one, so will LG)
> 
> By that point, broad measures of market share may start to make sense.



Just re-upping my question from a few weeks ago:

How can LG get different sized panels off the same printing tool when each size panel is going to have a different pixel density?

I'm guessing they just do different runs with different deposition maskings, but I was hoping for some more insight.

more specifically; 

if you make a 65, 75, 85 etc on the same machine, why don't they have different number of pixels? Or rather, how is it they have the same number of pixels each with different size and/or gap between them?


----------



## fafrd

thomopolis said:


> Just re-upping my question from a few weeks ago:
> 
> How can LG get different sized panels off the same printing tool when each size panel is going to have a different pixel density?
> 
> I'm guessing they just do different runs with different deposition maskings, but I was hoping for some more insight.
> 
> more specifically;
> 
> if you make a 65, 75, 85 etc on the same machine, why don't they have different number of pixels? Or rather, how is it they have the same number of pixels each with different size and/or gap between them?


In general, the same 'mask' (or rather, mask-set) is used to pattern all the different (same-sized) panel locations on a substrate.

This means that use of MMG (multi-modal-glass or multi-mother-glass, take your pick), which means using two different masks at each patterning step, involved a loss of efficiency and throughput (because the mask would has to be changed partway through each masking step).

The MMG LG is deploying now may involve some breakthrough at the equipment level so that throughput loss is reduced. I suspect this may mean the photo-patterning machine can hold two different masks instead of just one, but I don't have any specific information to that effect.

Here is what I have read: https://www.displaydaily.com/article/display-daily/mmg-getting-more-interest

"Of course, the same logic applies in OLED manufacturing, but at the moment, according to DSCC, *going to MMG for OLED needs new exposure equipment from Canon and that won't be available until 2019*. However, when that is possible, LG should be able to make three 65" and two 55" from single G8.5 substrate..."

But the short answer to your question is that each panel size has a different set of masks which determine the pixel size .


----------



## thomopolis

fafrd said:


> In general, the same 'mask' (or rather, mask-set) is used to pattern all the different (same-sized) panel locations on a substrate.
> 
> ................
> 
> SNIP
> 
> ................
> 
> 
> But the short answer to your question is that each panel size has a different set of masks which determine the pixel size .





Thanks much! Figured it was something like this - similar to how I've scaled electrodes when etched out of sheets of tungsten


----------



## fafrd

OLED Info tours LG's Paju Facility (including the 10.5G fab): https://www.oled-info.com/visit-lg-displays-paju-oled-production-hub


----------



## fafrd

Looks as though 15.6" is current state-of-the-art for large-size RGB-OLEDs (and with some ongoing difficulties at that): https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20190319PD200.html

"*Samsung Display is soliciting orders for its 15.6-inch 4K OLED notebook panels* from brand vendors including HP, Dell and Lenovo, and new notebook models featuring 4K OLED panels are likely to hit the market in 2019, according to sources from Taiwan's notebook supply chain."

"However, initial trial production of notebooks using the 4K OLED panels reportedly has met with *some production issues, including deformation of the display during assembly due to the size of the panel. *There are also some problems for the integration of the panel with notebook chassis, resulting in abnormality in images, said the sources."


----------



## subtec

fafrd said:


> Looks as though 15.6" is current state-of-the-art for large-size RGB-OLEDs (and with some ongoing difficulties at that): https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20190319PD200.html


Wasn't the Samsung KN55S9C RGB-OLED?


----------



## fafrd

subtec said:


> Wasn't the Samsung KN55S9C RGB-OLED?


Oh, that's much larger 55" RGB-OLED, but look at the date on the article you linked, it's: 'OCTOBER 16, 2013 6:41 AM PDT'

That is the RFB-OLED TV that Damsubg failed to industrialize (yields were too low with no hope of getting them up where they needed to be...).


----------



## subtec

fafrd said:


> Oh, that's much larger 55" RGB-OLED, but look at the date on the article you linked, it's: 'OCTOBER 16, 2013 6:41 AM PDT'
> 
> That is the RFB-OLED TV that Damsubg failed to industrialize (yields were too low with no hope of getting them up where they needed to be...).


Right, that was my point. The "state of the art" for large size RGB-OLEDs has dropped 40 inches in 6 years - not the direction things should be heading.

Aren't we also forgetting about JOLED? They've shown 27" and 55" printed RGB OLED panels, and a 21.6" panel that is supposed to be in production soon (as the ASUS PQ22UC).


----------



## fafrd

subtec said:


> Right, that was my point. The "state of the art" for large size RGB-OLEDs has dropped 40 inches in 6 years - not the direction things should be heading.


Wouldn't consider Samsung's 55" RGB-OLED TV 'state-of-the-art' since it never made it into sustainable production...



> Aren't we also forgetting about JOLED? They've shown 27" and 55" printed RGB OLED panels, and a 21.6" panel that is supposed to be in production soon (as the ASUS PQ22UC).


Sure, as soon as larger JOLED monitors are actually in production and in the marketplace, that will represent a new high-water mark as far as RGB-OLED State-of-the-Art...

Today, Samsung's 15.6" RGB-OLED for laptop screens actually is in production and shipping on products, so it represents state-of-the-art until something larger is actually in production.


----------



## subtec

fafrd said:


> Wouldn't consider Samsung's 55" RGB-OLED TV 'state-of-the-art' since it never made it into sustainable production...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, as soon as larger JOLED monitors are actually in production and in the marketplace, that will represent a new high-water mark as far as RGB-OLED State-of-the-Art...
> 
> Today, Samsung's 15.6" RGB-OLED for laptop screens actually is in production and shipping on products, so it represents state-of-the-art until something larger is actually in production.


It doesn't appear any of those laptops are actually available yet, though, so it seems the jury's still out on whether it qualifies as "sustainable production," either. It seems to me if we're to consider these the "state of the art," then the 21.6" JOLED panel qualifies just as well (for now).


----------



## fafrd

subtec said:


> It doesn't appear any of those laptops are actually available yet, though, so it seems the jury's still out on whether it qualifies as "sustainable production," either. It seems to me if we're to consider these the "state of the art," then the 21.6" JOLED panel qualifies just as well (for now).


Well, laptops may not be in the channels yet but the dusplays are in production and the laptop design ins are underway: https://www.oled-info.com/digitimes...tops-displays-cost-50-60-more-comparable-lcds

Given that: "Digitimes also says that *notebook makers are facing some challenges with integrating the new OLED displays into their notebook chassis* - which could delay the availability of the 2019 OLED notebooks. We know that Dell already delayed its OLED laptops by at least one month. Samsung aims to produce 1 million OLED notebook panels in 2019.' I suppose you are correct that we should wait to see these laptops actually reaching consumers before awarding a new State-of-the-Art RGB-OLED King...


----------



## subtec

Also worth noting this isn't Samsung's first foray into OLED screens for laptops: the 2017 Lenovo X1 Yoga had a 14" SDC-made OLED, though Lenovo has since reverted to LCD on current models (supposedly for the increased brightness those offer). Other than the increased resolution and extra inch and a half, I wonder what differentiates these new 15.6" OLEDs from the 2016-era 14".


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> Looks as though 15.6" is current state-of-the-art for large-size RGB-OLEDs (and with some ongoing difficulties at that): https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20190319PD200.html


One question on this. Do you know if laptop OLED screens have pixels arranged in pentile configurations as smartphones screens do?


----------



## fafrd

Japan Display in big trouble: https://www.yahoo.com/news/focus-apples-iphone-struggles-unravel-060520400.html

"Desperate for capital, Japan Display is looking to an investor group, led by China Silkroad Investment Capital, for a bailout, two sources with direct knowledge of the matter said. The deal would give the Chinese group a near-majority stake in exchange for an investment of $500 million to $700 million, the sources said."

"Some board members have expressed concerns about technology transfer that may follow the proposed Chinese investment, sources familiar with the talks said. But the government investment fund has run out of patience."


----------



## wco81

What has JD produced, some small number of phone-sized displays?


----------



## dfa973

Yes, small- and medium-sized displays devices and related products.


----------



## fafrd

Asus shipping 21.6" 4K OLED monitor based on JOLED printed OLED technology: https://www.oled-info.com/asus-finally-starts-shipping-its-proart-pq22uc-216-4k-printed-oled-monitor


----------



## fafrd

Note that it took 11 years to go from 3% to 50%: https://www.gsmarena.com/counterclo..._on_mobile_and_why_it_happened-news-36176.php

A possible model for OLED TV to follow?


----------



## wco81

fafrd said:


> Dell shipping 21.6" 4K OLED monitor based on JOLED printed OLED technology: https://www.oled-info.com/asus-finally-starts-shipping-its-proart-pq22uc-216-4k-printed-oled-monitor


Link says Asus.

And it's $5000.

I suppose if you want good blacks when you're editing DLSR photos or videos?


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> Note that it took 11 years to go from 3% to 50%: https://www.gsmarena.com/counterclo..._on_mobile_and_why_it_happened-news-36176.php
> 
> A possible model for OLED TV to follow?


Not with a sole source producer, no.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> *Link says Asus.*
> 
> And it's $5000.
> 
> I suppose if you want good blacks when you're editing DLSR photos or videos?


My bad - thanks for the heads-up.

Yeah, and at $5000 for 21.6", unclear which will sell in smaller volumes, Asus' 22.6" OLED monitor or LG's 88" 8K WOLED TV...


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> Not with a sole source producer, no.


When did the second significant OLED small screen supplier materialize beyond Samsung?


----------



## Micolash

fafrd said:


> Asus shipping 21.6" 4K OLED monitor based on JOLED printed OLED technology: https://www.oled-info.com/asus-finally-starts-shipping-its-proart-pq22uc-216-4k-printed-oled-monitor


Theoretically is this a better technology than LG WOLED, if it were able to make it to TV sizes?


----------



## fafrd

Micolash said:


> Theoretically is this a better technology than LG WOLED, if it were able to make it to TV sizes?


Well, it's RGB-OLED rather than WOLED, so it should have better color purity near peak luminance levels (additive).

On the other hand, we don't know what those peak luminane levels are yet nor anything about the color gamut and/or lifetime of these displays...

But yes, theoretically, an RGB-OLED should be superior to a WOLED (and a printed OLED should be cheaper to manufacture than a chemical vapor deposition OLED).


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> On the other hand, we don't know what those peak luminane levels are yet nor anything about the color gamut and/or lifetime of these displays...


They claim 330 nits peak and 99% P3. It's also RGB stripe not pentile like you get on phones.

"95% uniformity compensation to avoid fluctuations in brightness and chromaticity on different parts of the screen" - wonder what that means. Maybe the bottom 5% grayscale has typical OLED garbage uniformity?

Rest of specs here:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14123/asus-proart-pq22uc-4k-oled-monitor-5150-usd


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> They claim 330 nits peak and 99% P3. It's also RGB stripe not pentile like you get on phones.
> 
> "95% uniformity compensation to avoid fluctuations in brightness and chromaticity on different parts of the screen" - *wonder what that means*. Maybe the bottom 5% grayscale has typical OLED garbage uniformity?
> 
> Rest of specs here:
> 
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/14123/asus-proart-pq22uc-4k-oled-monitor-5150-usd


Sounds as though they have built-in mura compensation into their final test flow and are guaranteeing '95% uniformity compensation.'

Strictly speaking, '95% uniformity compensation' is meaningless.

'95% *non*-unifomity compensation' would mean that whatever the degree of non-uniformity exists pre-compensation, it's been reduced below 5% of that initial level.

And '95% uniformity' would mean the same thing as 'Non-uniformity below 5%' (which might mean no pixels outside of 95% - 105% of the mean or it might mean total average variance from mean within 5% of mean, who knows?).

We'll just need to wait to see what early owners report / measure (if there are any ).

And 99% P3 is probably good enough for a monitor but is unlikely to cut it for a Premium TV in today's day and age...


----------



## Wizziwig

After looking at their other high-end LCD monitor lineup with similar uniformity claims, I don't think they're doing anything very sophisticated that would fix OLED near-black mura. Look towards the bottom of this page. Their monitors support color calibration on a grid up to 5x5 sample points which could be useful for reducing the "piss stains" that often show up on OLEDs. Not enough precision with this approach to correct smaller-sized non-uniformity like vertical banding or blotchiness. The 5% claim could be talking about maximum deviation in color temperature across the surface - 6500 += 325 for example.


----------



## Zellio2009

subtec said:


> Right, that was my point. The "state of the art" for large size RGB-OLEDs has dropped 40 inches in 6 years - not the direction things should be heading.
> 
> Aren't we also forgetting about JOLED? They've shown 27" and 55" printed RGB OLED panels, and a 21.6" panel that is supposed to be in production soon (as the ASUS PQ22UC).


RGB Oled is simply not stable enough for large scale production. You should be glad that LG's WOLED models look pretty much as good now

RCA was trying to make LCD tvs in the 60s, and due to many issues (Like a lack of blue leds) it never happened


----------



## rogo

It was completely impossible to sputter LC material with anywhere near the required uniformity until around the 2000s.

On the other hand, LCD TVs have never required blue LEDs. They have primarily used white LEDs and all color comes from color filters. There have been exceptions to be sure where RGB LEDs have been used for backlight.


----------



## stl8k

LGD's latest (2018) annual report is available and here's the list of notable R&D "Achievements". At quick glance, very little emphasis on large size panels.

----------------


(1)	
Developed the world’s first glass-integrated LCD television product (Art Glass Series)



• 
Achieved LCD modular appearance and simplicity in design by using glass material throughout product (including the panel, light guide plate and back cover)



• 
Strengthened competitiveness of frameless design by decreasing bezel size from 7.8mm to 5.9mm



(2)	
Developed our first 5.8-inch Ultra HD Mobile 4K product



• 
Developed our first Ultra HD mobile product



• 
Achieved high luminance, low power consumption and HD resolution by applying Ultra HD RGBW (M+) pixel structure



(3)	
Developed the world’s first 5.8-inch mobile FHD product applying M+



• 
Our first product applying camera notch concept technology



(4)	
Developed the world’s first four-side borderless curved monitor with 1900R curvature radius



• 
Our first product applying glass 0.25T (etching) bezel printing/reverse bonding process technology



• 
Strengthened product competitiveness with our first shared design applying three-side/four-side borderless TFT Mask



• 
Achieved high-speed driving at 144Hz, high color recall (DCI 98%) and HDR (peak luminance 550nit)



(5)	
Developed the world’s first 34-inch large-screen monitor/high-resolution four-sided borderless HDR



• 
Pioneered HD Premium 21:9 monitor market through development of the world’s first WUHD(5K2K), four-side borderless monitor



• 
Delivered Ultra HD (DCI 98Z%, sRGB 135%) by applying Adv. KSF LED PKG technology



• 
Achieved high luminance (HDR 600); typ. 450 nit, maximum 600nit



(6)	
Developed LGD 6.01QHD+M+ Full Screen Display (LG Electronics)



• 
Developed a full screen display concept smartphone product (G7) through strategic collaboration with other LG Group companies



• 
Implemented a full screen display product concept through achievement of our first 19.5:9 screen aspect ratio and lower bezel of 2.7mm



(7)	
Developed the world’s narrowest bezel videowall product (0.44mm bezel, 55-inch FHD)



• 
Achieved product competitiveness by developing the world’s narrowest bezel (originally 0.9mm g 0.44mm, Even Bezel)



(8)	
Developed the world’s first automotive glassless 3D cluster product



• 
Developed FHD glassless barrier type 3D model (12.3 inches, 167 ppi level)



• 
Achieved customers’ eye-tracking movement by applying a top moving barrier panel at the top of the panel



• 
Improved adhesion accuracy of image panel and barrier panel by using OCA bonding technology



• 
Improved barrier contrast ratio by applying a copper-based metal barrier panel



(9)	
Developed the world’s first 6th generation a-Si Indirect DXD product (21.9-inch, 14 x 17 resolution, 14 µm pixel pitches)


• 
Entered the DXD market through development of the world’s first 6th generation a-Si Indirect DXD product



• 
Set up infrastructure for DXD product development through the development of our first DXD product



(10)	
Developed the world’s first 17-inch large-sized and lightweight notebook monitor



• 
Developed large-sized (17-inch) product with a new screen aspect ratio (16:10)



• 
Developed light-weight product (268g) through securing 17-inch+ Slim Design model technology


----------



## dfa973

*LG acquires DuPont's OLED tech to inkjet-print OLED displays*

The deal was announced on April 2 in Seoul, South Korea. In statements to Korean media, LG Chem said that it expects production of these "next-generation" OLED displays to commence *within the next five years*.

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1554270848


----------



## wco81

Acquires as in buy or as in get access to or licensed?


----------



## hiperco

rogo said:


> On the other hand, LCD TVs have never required blue LEDs. They have primarily used white LEDs and all color comes from color filters. There have been exceptions to be sure where RGB LEDs have been used for backlight.


White LEDs are made with blue emmitters and a white phosphor. As an FYI


----------



## bombyx

New sub-pixels data . The pictures are fuzzy so the data are very poor . 

The fill in ratio of the C9 seems to be a bit low .


----------



## stl8k

bombyx said:


> New sub-pixels data . The pictures are fuzzy so the data are very poor .
> 
> The fill in ratio of the C9 seems to be a bit low .


What happened to the 42.5% calc from your January post?


----------



## bombyx

stl8k said:


> What happened to the 42.5% calc from your January post?


That was calculated from a picture of a 65'' OLED (Panasonic GZ2000 ) at CES . This new one is calculated from the photos of a 55'' LG OLED . 55'' and 65'' have different sub-pixels structure . And, may be, Panasonic got a custom panel from LGD , like Philips did last year with the 55 OLED 803 . (And I remember that Panasonic said that this panel was special .) 

We will learn more about that with the 'les numériques' and RTINGS' reviews ,because they both publish sub pixels structure photos .


----------



## stl8k

bombyx said:


> That was calculated from a picture of a 65'' OLED (Panasonic GZ2000 ) at CES . This new one is calculated from the photos of a 55'' LG OLED . 55'' and 65'' have different sub-pixels structure . And, may be, Panasonic got a custom panel from LDG , like Philips did last year with the 55 OLED 803 . (And I remember that Panasonic said that this panel was special .)
> 
> We will learn more about that with the 'les numériques' and RTINGS' reviews ,because they both publish sub pixels structure photos .


Oh, I saw an ostensibly erroneous post (by ALMA) saying "55" and 65" were always identical in pixel structure."


----------



## bombyx

stl8k said:


> Oh, I saw an ostensibly erroneous post (by ALMA) saying "55" and 65" were always identical in pixel structure."



For example :


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> For example :


Those are the same pixel structure with identical absolute inter-subpixel spacing.

To see that, you need to normalize the pixel size. The inter-pixel spacing of the 65" pixel needs to be 118.182% the inter-pixel spacing of the 55" pixel...

The relative fill-factor of the 65" pixel s and shoukd be greater than the fill-factor of the 55" pixel...


----------



## bombyx

fafrd said:


> Those are the same pixel structure with identical absolute inter-subpixel spacing.
> 
> To see that, you need to normalize the pixel size. The inter-pixel spacing of the 65" pixel needs to be 118.182% the inter-pixel spacing of the 55" pixel...
> 
> The relative fill-factor of the 65" pixel s and shoukd be greater than the fill-factor of the 55" pixel...



I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I understand your point . 55'' and 65'' pixels in the picture are scaled to the same size in order to show the obvious difference between 55'' and 65 panels fill-in ratio.


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I understand your point . 55'' and 65'' pixels in the picture are scaled to the same size in order to show the obvious difference between 55'' and 65 panels fill-in ratio.


Yes, the fill-in ratio should be different.

If the scale of the pictures is changed to represent the correct relative size of the 55" and 65" pixels, it will be more apparent that the inter-pixel and inter-subpixel spacing is the same on both (smaller) 55" pixel and (118.2% larger) 65" pixel...


----------



## fafrd

Looks like JOLED emerging as a viable supplier of mid-sized RGB-OLED panels: https://www.oled-info.com/joled-raises-228-million-build-module-production-line-chiba-2020

"The module production capacity at JOLED's upcoming Chiba site will be around 220,000 displays per month - and it is scheduled to start operations in 2020, simultaneously with the 5.5-Gen line at the Nomi Site. JOLED will focus on *medium-sized OLED panels (10 to 32 inch in size) for monitors, automotives and more.*"

JOLED is pioneering the use of printed OLED production, but if they prove there is market demand for medium-size WOLED panels, 32" WOLEDs would be easy for LGD to produce (18-up on 8.5G substrates)...


----------



## homogenic

fafrd said:


> Looks like JOLED emerging as a viable supplier of mid-sized RGB-OLED panels: https://www.oled-info.com/joled-raises-228-million-build-module-production-line-chiba-2020
> 
> "The module production capacity at JOLED's upcoming Chiba site will be around 220,000 displays per month - and it is scheduled to start operations in 2020, simultaneously with the 5.5-Gen line at the Nomi Site. JOLED will focus on *medium-sized OLED panels (10 to 32 inch in size) for monitors, automotives and more.*"
> 
> JOLED is pioneering the use of printed OLED production, but if they prove there is market demand for medium-size WOLED panels, 32" WOLEDs would be easy for LGD to produce (18-up on 8.5G substrates)...


I'd buy a 32" OLED today.


----------



## fafrd

homogenic said:


> I'd buy a 32" OLED today.


If you meam a 32" OLED monitor, you should be in luck.

If you mean a 32 OLED TV, unlikely that 'other' includes that application (at least for now)


----------



## fafrd

OLED TV sales grew 58% last year to solidly command over 1% of the overall TV market by sales volume for the first time: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=30794

"Meanwhile, LG Electronics accounted for 62.2 percent of the OLED camp's total market share in terms of quantity, followed by Sony (18.9 percent), Panasonic (7.7 percent), AOC/TP Vision (5.7 percent) and Skyworth (2.4 percent). OLED TV sales grew to 723,700 units in 2016, 1,592,100 units in 2017 and 2,514,200 units in 2018."


----------



## 8mile13

AOC makes LCD monitors, TP Vision is Philips who makes OLED TVs. Both are subsidairies of TPV Technology. So the 5.7% is Philips OLED related.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPV_Technology


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> AOC makes LCD monitors, TP Vision is Philips who makes OLED TVs. Both are subsidairies of TPV Technology. So the 5.7% is Philips OLED related.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPV_Technology


Yeah, thanks.

So this data translates to:

all others (B&O, Hisense, etc...): 78K (3.1%)
Skyworth: 60K (2.4%)
Philips/TPV: 143K (5.7%)
Panasonic: 194K (7.7%)
Sony: 475K (18.9%)
LGE: 1,564K (62.2%)
Total: 2,514K (100%)

Sony committed to 500K WOLED panels in 2018 and increased that commitment to 800K panels this year (60% growth).

Panasonic committed to 200K WOLED panels in 2018 and increased that commitment to 300K panels this year (50% growth).

We don't have any additional information on Philips/TPV or Skyworth (or Hisense), but odds are that their WOLED sales are also growing by at least 50% year-over year.

Since LG Display's planned WOLED panel production is forecasted to increase by 40% this year: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/LG-Display-to-increase-OLED-TV-panel-production-by-40 (from 2.8Mu in 2018 to 4.0Mu this year), LGE's share of WOLED TV sales should drop under 60% for the first rime this year (which is positive):

all others: 117K (3.3%)
Skyworth: 90K (2.6%)
Philips/TPV: 215K (6.1%)
Panasonic: 291K (8.3%)
Sony: 760K (21.6%)
LGE: 2,047K (58.2%)
Total: 3,520K (100%)


----------



## fafrd

Interesting chart on OLED Fab utilization found by stama: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/...cd-fab-utilization-data-updated-through-march

"OLED TV fab utilization is expected to achieve 93%, down from *99% in Q4’18 *but up from 87% in Q1’18 as demand remains high. Glass input for OLED TVs is expected to rise 23% Y/Y in Q1’19."

That grey line is LGD WOLeED TV and since mid-2018, they have been running flat-out at max throughput (calming down a little bit in Q1'19 as they prepare for the shift to 2019 models).

Once they have their second 8.5G WOLED fab up and running in Guangzhou (expected ~6 months from now), that will be a major milestone on terms of progress and maturity (as well as dramatically increased capacity).

Just imaging what whould have happened to the evolution of the entire OLED TV industry had LGD suffered a fire in their major OLED plant in Korea last fall


----------



## fafrd

A few interesting tidbits here regarding LG Chem' aquisitiin of Dupont's OLED Ink technology: https://www.oled-a.org/lg-chem-buys-dowdupontrsquos-soluble-oled-business_040819.html

"While the underlying reasoning behind LG Chem’s acquisition are masked by bland press release wording, *the decision is likely to have been made in consultation with LG Display, which has been running a Gen 8.5 ink-jet printing pilot line and could end up testing the concept before a Gen 10.5 Paju installation is advanced. *The use of ink-jet printing has been deterred by soluble material’s shorter lifetimes than comparable evaporative OLED emitter materials, lower efficiency and color gamut limitations. JOLED is the only panel maker using IJP for commercial panels and they use polymer material on a Gen 4.5 Fab. The polymer material need to be enhanced by a color filter in order to meet the color spec even though individual sub-pixels are printed, reducing the luminance with the secondary effect of shorter lifetimes.

DuPont has had a long history of developing soluble materials, originally competing with CDT in polymers and trying to build PMOLEDs. Then they switched to developing small molecule soluble material and acquired a license from UDC to make phosphorescent emitters. They were reported to have a reasonable blue soluble material, but it never met display specs nor was it adopted by any display makers. *The organization invested hundreds of millions with no return, so the sale is of little solace and an attempt by the newly established conglomerate to stop the bleeding.* LG Chem is a powerhouse in providing common layers for OLED displays but *producing soluble emitters that meet display specs is clearly a work in progress and we are hopeful that LG Chem can provide “solutions” currently unavailable from Merck, Sumitomo or DuPont.*"

And:

"OLED-Info reported that *Universal Display's RGBB architecture is back on the table* - and the company now highlights the architecture's low blue light emission. UDC seems more optimistic than ever regarding blue PHOLED commercialization. RGBB is essentially two blues; *one phosphorescent emitter with low lifetime and efficiency when fully saturated blue is required and one sky blue phosphorescent emitter with higher lifetimes and efficacies, when less intense shades of blue are required.* UDC had pushed this approach a few years ago but got little interest, so we wonder what has changed to reinvigorate the idea."

My guess as to what has 'reinvigorated the idea' is Samsung's QD-BOLED initiative. We know that they have had to go from a double-blue stack to a triple-blue stack.

If we assume one or two of those blues is the short-lifetime deep blue and one or two of them is the long-lifetime light blue, then Samsung could adopt a 4-subpixel architecture like LG with red QD and green QD subpixels driven primarily by light blue light, and two blue subpixels, one with a blue color filter only used when fully-saturated-deep-blue is required, and the other unfiltered to be used most of the time when less-than-fully-saturated-deep-blue is required.

We already know that Samsung has has to add an additional blue OLED layer to the stack as well as needing at least 2 color filters, so all of this fits closely with UDC's dual-blue architecture with the only additional puzzle piece needed to make it all work being use of a fourth subpixel: https://www.oled-a.org/samsung-elec...look-at-qdoled-hybrid-mp-decision_021819.html

"The hybrid approach was expected to use *two blue layers* deposited by VTE and then printed QDs. However, Samsung Display appears to have run into technical bottlenecks;

-The two fluorescent blue layers may not provide sufficient luminance and lifetime, when considering the demands of HDR, so it appears that *three blue layers will be required* with the additional required common layers.

-The QDs do not absorb and convert all of the blue light, leaving a distorted color if it is not corrected. *SDC R&D has chosen to use a color filter* to eliminate the problem, but the color filter absorbs ~40%-50% of the light, which might be the source of the third blue layer. "


----------



## dfa973

fafrd said:


> LG Chem is a powerhouse in providing common layers for OLED displays but *producing soluble emitters that meet display specs is clearly a work in progress and we are hopeful that LG Chem can provide “solutions” currently unavailable from Merck, Sumitomo or DuPont.*"


Soooo...., we are YEARS away from an actual large-size UHD HDR type TV that uses an IJP OLED panel... 

What IJP can actually achieve right now:
Smaller panels = yes
Low brightness = yes
Low color volume (SDR/EDR) = yes


----------



## slacker711

A report from Korea indicating that Vizio will launch an OLED in 2020.

Via Google Translate.

http://www.etnews.com/20190415000209


----------



## lsorensen

slacker711 said:


> A report from Korea indicating that Vizio will launch an OLED in 2020.
> 
> Via Google Translate.
> 
> http://www.etnews.com/20190415000209


So if google translate makes any sense it seems Vizio wanted to do it before, but LG Display said they didn't have enough production capacity.


----------



## fafrd

dfa973 said:


> Soooo...., *we are YEARS away *from an actual large-size UHD HDR type TV that uses an IJP OLED panel...
> 
> What IJP can actually achieve right now:
> Smaller panels = yes
> Low brightness = yes
> Low color volume (SDR/EDR) = yes


That is certainly the most likely reality, except for this tidbit I did not quote from the original source blog:

"While the underlying reasoning behind LG Chem’s acquisition are masked by bland press release wording, *the decision is likely to have been made in consultation with LG Display, which has been running a Gen 8.5 ink-jet printing pilot line and could end up testing the concept before a Gen 10.5 Paju installation is advanced*."

Does LGD & LGC have a chance of pulling this off in time for P10 installation to be 'advanced' and before 10.5G production begins to ramp? Seems like very much of a long--shot since LGD needs that capacity by 2021...

But if LGC does manage to pull off what Merck, Sumitomo, and Dupont could not in time for LGD to ramp 10.5G WOLED production using IJP, what a hell of an ace-in-the-hole that would be, wouldn't it


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> So if google translate makes any sense it seems Vizio wanted to do it before, but LG Display said they didn't have enough production capacity.


This is big on so many levels.

First, with the addition of Vizio, the 'OLED Camp' now includes virtually the entire TV industry with the lone exception of Samsung (and TCL as well as a plethora of non-premium brands in China and elsewhere).

Second, we now have some context to LG Display's bargaining position when they sat down for the 'Price Up' discussions with Sony and Panasonic. 'If you cannot accept our increased pricing (or increased volume commitment required for equivalent pricibg), that's fine, we have more demand than we can supply and there are other TV OEMs prepared to absorb your allocation.' Demand exceeded supply.

And third, looking into 2020 when LG Display will be increasing WOLED panel production capacity by over 50% to 7M panels, it no longer takes a great deal of imagination to wonder where all those additional WOLED panels will be going. Vizio is the #2 brand in the US (after Samsung) and has twice the market share of LGE: https://www.statista.com/statistics/782217/smart-tv-share-by-oem-in-the-us/

The path to WOLED owning ~50% of the Premium TV Segment (by 2021 and at the sizes it serves) has never looked more possible.

I even wonder whether Vizio may have nudged LGD to finally introduce a 48" panel .


----------



## fafrd

Sounds as though LGD may have decided to accelerate investments in P10 10.5G manufacturing following the 'pause' for Guangzhou: http://www.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=1320

(and also sounds as though LGD is gearing up for introduction of 43" WOLED panels next year following introduction of 48" panels this year):

"LG Display, LOI purchase of 10.5G OLED line equipment in Paju

LG Display has begun work on the P10 plant to invest 10.5G organic light emitting diode (OLED) lines.

According to industry sources, LG Display has confirmed that it has sent the LOI for the 10.5G OLED mass production line to Yasu, a key partner, at the end of last month. Yas said, *"Purchase intent is a signal to prepare for regular order (PO) three to four months later," *he said. The *equipment arrival time is expected at the beginning of next year*. Yasu is a company that exclusively supplies large OLED depositors to LG Display.

LG Display was reported to have built and operated a 10.5-generation OLED pilot (test) line at another plant in Paju late last year. An official of the company that supplied the equipment to the pilot line said, "We know that there was not a big issue (problem) in test production because it was technology that we prepared for several years ago."

However, the exact production date is not yet known. *It is expected that mass production will be possible in the second half of next year if equipment starts to be set for the second half of this year after ordering*. LG Display has caught the gap between equipment orders and mass production of the 8.5G OLED line in Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, for a year. However, industry sources say the 10.5G OLED production line is the first in the world to be put on the market. This means that unexpected technical problems may arise.

If LG Display starts to invest in Paju P10 plant,* it is expected that it will order one piece of 10.5G mass-production line. The production capacity is estimated to be about 30,000 pieces per month*. LG Display plans to build a 10.5-generation mass-production line at its P10 plant in Paju and then add another line to its 8.5-generation plant in Guangzhou. There are two production lines in Guangzhou 8.5-generation OLED factory. Production capacity per line is 30,000 per month, and space for three lines is secured.

LG Display 10.5G OLED investment seems to have been driven by LG Group companies. "A lot of people in the display industry said," LG Display is not able to make a large-scale investment, has delayed investment, and has been at odds when it comes to investing in OLEDs and LCDs. "

The LG Display Paju P10 plant, where 10.5-generation OLED mass production lines will be installed, currently has only a clean room installed on the third floor.* If we do not put in equipment until the first half of next year, the clean room that we prepared earlier this year will not play a role and waste time.*

The mass production of 10.5G OLEDs means an increase in the volume of large-area premium OLED TVs. The optimized panel area drawn from the 8.5G (2250x2500) substrate glass is 55 inches. When producing six sheets of 55 inch size, the beveling rate is more than 90%. If you do not use multi-model glass (MMG) technology, which produces panels of different sizes on one substrate, the number of 65-inch and 75-inch panels coming out of the 8.5 generation substrate is 3 or 2, respectively, .

For 10.5 generation boards, 65-inch and 75-inch panels are optimized areas. 65- and 75-inch panels can be made in 8 or 6 panels, respectively, and the chamfering rate is more than 95%. As the exposure, deposition, and cleaning equipment grows to match the substrate size, process tact time is not significantly affected. In the 10.5 generation line, it is possible to produce two or three times more 65-inch and 75-inch lines than the 8.5-generation line for the same time. Production costs are cheaper.

If mass production of 10.5 generation is smooth and successful, OLED TV will become more popular. *18 panels of 43-inch panels can be produced with a chamfering rate of 95% or more on a single substrate. *The 4K resolution at 43 inches is harder than the 65-inch 4K resolution, which is theoretical in theory, but it is not a big deal for LG Display, which has 65-inch to 8K resolution technology. [/b]The 43-inch FHD can be made with current production technology.[/b]

The production of rollerblind displays, a derivative of OLED panels, is also expected to be in short supply. Rollable displays that are rolled up can be produced in existing mass production lines without additional large-scale capital investment if only specific materials and parts are replaced, such as transparent PI and metal foil."


----------



## wco81

So any AVS consensus on the *9 LG models yet?


----------



## hiperco

wco81 said:


> So any AVS consensus on the *9 LG models yet?


Wrong thread, methinks.


----------



## wco81

Just want to see if they’re making incremental PQ improvements every year.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Just want to see if they’re making incremental PQ improvements every year.


The underlying WOLED stack has not changed since LGD adopted the B/Y-B/R stack in 2016. Changes to the WOLED stack itself (or LGD's IGZO backplane) are more aporopriate to this thread than processing improvements that LGE is responsible for...

The Aloga-9 processor (and all of it's FW) is LGE's baby, not LGD's... (and in fact, LGE also uses the Alpha-9 processor on their higher-end LCD offerngs as well...).


----------



## wco81

fafrd said:


> The underlying WOLED stack has not changed since LGD adopted the B/Y-B/R stack in 2016. Changes to the WOLED stack itself (or LGD's IGZO backplane) are more aporopriate to this thread than processing improvements that LGE is responsible for...
> 
> The Aloga-9 processor (and all of it's FW) is LGE's baby, not LGD's... (and in fact, LGE also uses the Alpha-9 processor on their higher-end LCD offerngs as well...).


Right but has the processing produced a noticeably better picture?

Are AVSers as a group going to try to get the *9s or look to scoop up the remaining *8s if they can be had for enough of a discount?


----------



## dnoonie

wco81 said:


> Right but has the processing produced a noticeably better picture?
> 
> Are AVSers as a group going to try to get the *9s or look to scoop up the remaining *8s if they can be had for enough of a discount?


The *9 owners thread might have some data and opinions, https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...2019-c9a-e9-owner-s-thread-no-price-talk.html.


Cheers,


----------



## dfa973

fafrd said:


> But if LGC does manage to pull off what Merck, Sumitomo, and Dupont could not in time for LGD to ramp 10.5G WOLED production using IJP, what a hell of an ace-in-the-hole that would be, wouldn't it


Yes, that would be revolutionary!!!! 

But I expect that the progress to be incremental, not revolutionary, so IJP probably will take it's time to become an alternative to deposition.

I just hope that at each CES LGD show us bigger and better (brighter) IJP OLED panels and a few years from now, *bang*, the first large size, true HDR IJP OLED UHD 8K/10K/whatever TV ready for sale..., cheaper and better than the "old" WRGB OLED's...


----------



## Micolash

wco81 said:


> Right but has the processing produced a noticeably better picture?
> 
> Are AVSers as a group going to try to get the *9s or look to scoop up the remaining *8s if they can be had for enough of a discount?


The most respected calibrator on this site has already said the 9 is not a worthwhile upgrade over the 8.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Micolash said:


> The most respected calibrator on this site has already said the 9 is not a worthwhile upgrade over the 8.


Uhhh...?



D-Nice said:


> Some quick notes on the C9.....
> 
> Motion is better compared to the C8. Setting TruMotion to User with De-Judder and De-Blur to zero is far superior to using the same settings on the C8.


----------



## wco81

Micolash said:


> The most respected calibrator on this site has already said the 9 is not a worthwhile upgrade over the 8.


That's what I wanted to hear, some general assessment.

Maybe when the 9 prices have dropped enough later in the year. But with news of the Vizio coming into the market, the 2020 models should have heavier price competition not to mention whatever improvements they bring to them.

Also the bottom line remains that there will be no new significant UHD HDR content this year.

Maybe some of the networks will do something for the Olympics next year but I'm not expecting it.


----------



## Micolash

wco81 said:


> That's what I wanted to hear, some general assessment.
> 
> Maybe when the 9 prices have dropped enough later in the year. But with news of the Vizio coming into the market, the 2020 models should have heavier price competition not to mention whatever improvements they bring to them.
> 
> Also the bottom line remains that there will be no new significant UHD HDR content this year.
> 
> Maybe some of the networks will do something for the Olympics next year but I'm not expecting it.


All of these OLEDs in the past couple of years are more than good enough. Problem is most of the content out there is garbage. We wouldn't need to even talk about black frame insertion or frame interpolation if sports were broadcast in 120fps for instance. Absolutely ridiculous that this hasn't happened yet. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUMJv1_JCwk&frags=pl,wn

Just look at the clarity of this. And this is on a mere B6 which has no BFI whatsoever.


----------



## fafrd

I've speculated (and estimated) for some time now that LG Display's production of 77" WOLED panels has been noise-level compared to their production of 55" and 65" WOLEDs and it seems DSCC believes the same: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-panel-revenues-to-grow-8-in-2019-to-29-billion

"As shown in the next chart, OLED TV panel shipments grew 66% in 2018 to 2.9 million units, with growth across all screen sizes. In 2019 we expect that growth will slow to 28% as LGD will be capacity constrained before it fully ramps its G8.5 fab in Guangzhou, China starting in the 2nd half of 2019. We forecast that 55” TV panels will increase 31% in 2019 to 2.4 million, while 65” will increase 23% to 1.2 million and 77” will increase 31% to 34,000 units."

34,000 77" WOLEDs in 2019 translates to less than 1% of the 3.7 mllion WOLED TV panels DSCC is forecasting will be produced this year...

(and backing out the 31% growth they have forecasted for 77" WOLEDs this year translates to only 26,563 77" WOLED panels produced in 2018.).


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> I've speculated (and estimated) for some time now that LG Display's production of 77" WOLED panels has been noise-level compared to their production of 55" and 65" WOLEDs and it seems DSCC believes the same: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-panel-revenues-to-grow-8-in-2019-to-29-billion
> 
> "As shown in the next chart, OLED TV panel shipments grew 66% in 2018 to 2.9 million units, with growth across all screen sizes. In 2019 we expect that growth will slow to 28% as LGD will be capacity constrained before it fully ramps its G8.5 fab in Guangzhou, China starting in the 2nd half of 2019. We forecast that 55” TV panels will increase 31% in 2019 to 2.4 million, while 65” will increase 23% to 1.2 million and 77” will increase 31% to 34,000 units."
> 
> 34,000 77" WOLEDs in 2019 translates to less than 1% of the 3.7 mllion WOLED TV panels DSCC is forecasting will be produced this year...
> 
> (and backing out the 31% growth they have forecasted for 77" WOLEDs this year translates to only 26,563 77" WOLED panels produced in 2018.).


77" isn't even acknowledged in LGDs 2018 Annual Report


----------



## fafrd

A good recap of the status of Blue TADF as of late last year: https://www.oled-a.org/oleds-world-summit-2018-blue-emitter_101518.html

The punchline: "Basically, the status of a triplet emitter blue is that none presently meet the specs of the current fluorescent blue and if history is any predictor *a high efficiency long lasting blue is still years away, despite the claims of the TADF and Polymer producers.*"


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> A goid recap of the status of Blue TADF as of late last year: https://www.oled-a.org/oleds-world-summit-2018-blue-emitter_101518.html
> 
> The punchline: "Basically, the status of a triplet emitter blue is that none presently meet the specs of the current fluorescent blue and if history is any predictor *a high efficiency long lasting blue is still years away, despite the claims of the TADF and Polymer producers.*"


And meanwhile, long-lasting soluble blue remains... excuse me, I gotta go listen to the crickets.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> And meanwhile, long-lasting soluble blue remains... excuse me, I gotta go listen to the crickets.


Yes, a printable, long-lifetime deep blue remains out of reach, but the fact that UDC is getting renewed interest in their 9-year old RGB1B2 architecture is interesting: https://www.oled-info.com/udc-show-...e-used-white-oleds-or-four-sub-pixel-displays

Samsung has had to add a 3rd blue OLED layer to make their QD-BOLED deliver sufficient brightness (probably because they also had to add a blue-blocking conventional color filter).

If they are going with 3 layers of Florescent blue, they will have a 3-subpixel architecture:

Red = Red QDCC + Deep Blue blocking color filter
Green =Green QDCC + Deep Blue blocking color filter
Blue = nothing (no QDCC and no color filter)

The big unkniwn with this architecture is the conflict between peak brightness and lifetime - deep blue is still unable to deliver both.

So consider the alternative if Samsung includes one or two layers of Light Blue (which delivers much higher peak brightness and lifetime than Deep Blue) in their 3-blue layer stack. They would now need 4 subpixels similar to LG WOLED:

Red = Red QDCC (from light blue) + Red Color Filter
Green = Green QDCC (from light blue) + Green Color Filter
Light Blue = Deep Blue blocking color filter (since that contribution will age so quickly)
Deep Blue = Blue Color Filter

They would have a fully additive RGB display over 90% of the DCI-P3 gamut and only when a deepr blue to deeper magenta color is required would the 4th deep blue subpixel be engaged.

This won't be any less expensive to manufacture that LGs WOLED (at least assuming chemical vapor deposition is required), but using both a long-lifetime, high-efficiency light blue and a shorter-lifetime, lower-efficiency deep blue may put Samsng on a clearer path to inkjet printing...


----------



## Menarini

Here's a cost comparison article on Samsung's QD-OLED using inkjet printing and LG's WOLED (dont know whether already posted, it's from december)



> Between the large organic light emitting diode (OLED) based on quantum dot (QD) color filter (CF) that is being prepared by Samsung Display and LG Display's white OLED (WOLED) panel, which has a superior competitive advantage?
> 
> The analysts say Samsung will take the lead if it achieves the yield of over 70%. In contrast, LG’s product cost competitiveness is estimated to be high. In the large OLED market, it is implied that Samsung should achieve the 70% yield within a short time to compete with LG Display.
> 
> According to IHS Market data on January 18, the initial cost of the QD OLED panel was estimated to be 1,000 dollars (about KRW 1,130,000) based on the price of a 55-inch 4K resolution screen. Cost of WOLED panel of the same specification is at the lower end of 400 dollars (about 450 thousand won). The price difference is double. The yield standard is assumed to be 30% for Samsung and 70% for LG. The yield of LG Display is currently estimated to be over 70%.
> 
> Assuming that the yield of both companies is the same at 70%, QD OLED is expected to be lower than WOLED by 70 dollars (about 80,000 won). This is because the material cost itself is low.
> 
> To implement the WOLED technology, LG puts the yellow, blue, and red light emitting materials on the substrate (to make white) and mixes the three colors. White forms the three primary colors of RGB light through CF. QD OLED uses only blue. It emits light (PL: Photo Luminescence) when it touches light, and by applying the characteristics of QD that emits different colors according to the wavelength to the OLED CF, it produces a RG color.
> 
> An industry expert said, "QD OLEDs that use fluorescence rather than phosphorescence-based WOLEDs can have a cost structure that is more advantageous, even in the same three-layer stacked light emitting structure." He said, "QD OLED is expected to use inkjet printing technology to save material to make CF."
> 
> Phosphorescent materials are four times more efficient at converting energy to light than fluorescent materials. But they are expensive. The blue color used for QD OLED exists only as a fluorescent. At the yield of 30%, QD OLED material costs were estimated to be around $200 (about 220,000 won) and, at the yields from 70%, to be about $150 (about 160,000 won). WOLED material cost of 70% yield is less than 250 dollars (about 280,000 won).
> 
> LG Display took five years to turn a profit after beginning mass production of WOLED in 2013. Samsung Display is expected to focus its efforts on overcoming the low yield of QD OLED. "QD OLED will emphasize that 8K is a basic and unique technology from OLED," said Jaehyuk Lee, Korea branch manager for Display Supply Chain Consultant (DSCC).
> 
> Samsung Display is currently preparing to operate the QD OLED pilot line at L8-1, the 8th generation LCD display production line in Tangjeong, Asan city, Chungcheongnam-do. Development, mass production verification and investment direction will be decided by next April. Jae-yong Lee, Vice Chairman of Samsung Electronics, is also reported to be interested in the issue as he has visited Samsung Display business sites several times this year.



http://en.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=85


----------



## fafrd

Menarini said:


> Here's a cost comparison article on Samsung's QD-OLED using inkjet printing and LG's WOLED (dont know whether already posted, it's from december)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=85


Here is a more detailed analysis if you give any credence to that sort of thing: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/tv-cost-report-provides-first-look-at-qd-oled-mmg

There are major flaws with both of these analysis because they were developed before Samsung decided that they needed to add a third blue oled layer as well as a blue-blocking color filter (on top of the QDCC). Those changes will add significant cost to Samsung's QD-BOLED which is no doubt part of the final debate and decision on invrsting in the initiative happening this month.

In addition, the analysis you quoted refers to a breakeven yield (with WOLED cost) of 70% but is assuming that 70% is the current yield of WOLED while WOLEDs yields are currently much higher than that (probably in excess of 90%).

So the correct way to read the analysis is that 'QD-BOLED will be less expensive than WOLED once it achieves sinilar yield levels' which will take at least two years.

The Addition of the 3rd BOLED layer and the blue-blocking conventional color filter put Samsung in a real bind. First-generation performance of QD-BOLED is not going to be markedly better than WOLED in any way (peak brightness, power consumption, lifetime) and it is going to cost at least twice as much during the early going while Samsung is attempting to ramp to WOLEDs scale. Hard to see why anyone is going to want to pay double the price for a similar-performing product and so Samsung is going to have to subsidize peicing to sell at parity with WOLED.

Taking a loss on some panel sales while volumes are ramping and yields are stabilizing is not the end of the world (and happens all the time), but LGD will be selling 10 million WOLED panels in 2021 when Samsung's QD-BOLED is just starting to ramp. Even selling 1 million QD-BOLEDs won't get Samsung's yields close to WOLED levels but is going to cost Samsung hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of subsidized pricing.

I'm hoping Samsung commits to the ramp of QD-BOLED this month because competition is good and it's a nifty innovative product class, but in all honesty, if I was a financial advisor to Samsung, I'd have great difficulty recomending this as a sound investment.

Seems as though Samsung is trying to catch a falling knife at this stage, and with LGD's 10.5G manufacturing plant slated to ramp essentially at the same time Samsung is trying to ramp QD-BOLED, the best they can hope for over the next 5 years is achieving profitability on 55" panels...


----------



## wco81

I thought they were suppose to have decided by April 1 -- no joke.

Do they have a choice? Seems like they're going to bleed share in the premium market as other brands take LG panels and offer their own OLED lines.


----------



## fafrd

Menarini said:


> So even if they shift to IJP, would there be no changes to the oled stack or subpixel structure, is LGD planning to stick to white-oled for the long run, they'll just move to IJP from the current CVD process they employ? What benefits is LG Chem targetting with the recent acquisition of DuPont's IP far as consumer oled panels go, *LGD's yields would be better with a printing process i guess *but from a consumer standpoint, would printing lead to better lifetime and possibly better gamut coverage (like 90% BT 2020)?


(moved from the C9 owner's thread)

There's alot of questions packed into your post.

First and foremost, IJP will not result in improved yields. The equipment for IJP is significantly lower-cost than the equipment for CVD, so the primary impact is lower cost. If LGD moves their current WOLED production from CVD to IJP (and does nothing else), that will result in a significant reduction in WOLED panel manufacturing cost (potentially approaching LCD-levels).

The question of IJP versus CVD manufacturing cost is especially significant considering that LGD has not yet placed orders for 10.5G CVD equipment. They apparently already have a pilot line manufacturing WOLEDs with IJP and if they can gain confidence with the technology in time to commit the 10.5G plant to IJP rather than CVD, that isca huuuuge win (much lower capital costs and much lower 65" and 75" WOLED panel costs).

The major issue with IJP is a printable blue with sufficient efficiency and lifetime. There currently is no printable blue sufficient to recreate LGD's current WOLED stack, so the options include a possible Rube-Goldberg-like combination of IJP and CVD (a total nightmare, hopefully LGD is not considering this) or a fundamental change in their WOLED stack to commit 10.5G manufacturing to IJP knowing that soluble materials including blue will almost certainly improve over time.

As I posted a few posts back, UDC has been recently been reviving discussion of their RGB1B2 OLED architecture. There exist printable blue emitters delivering acceptable efficiency and lifetime but only with light-blue ouput as well as printable blue enitters delivering derp blue output but with unnacceptably poor lifetime.

I posted earlier about how a B1B2B1 stack could help Samsung make a viable all-printable QD-BOLED but a similar architecture could also help LGD make an all-printable WOLED replacing their current BR-YB stack with a B1R-YB2 stack.

One option would be to ditch the white subpixel in favor of a light blue subpixel, so R, G, LB (B1), DB (B2) subpixels. They would use R, G and LB to deliver a true RGB additive display over 90% of the gamut. They would lose their current 'white-boost' so peak broghtness will take a hit of as much as 50%. When the remainng 10% of the gamut is needed (deep blue, deep magenta), the low-lifetime deep blue subpixel will be used. Because the deep blue layer of the light blue subpixel will degrade quickly, the light blue color filter must effectively filter out that fast-degrading component of lght-blue output.

Another option would be to add a fifth subpixel, W, R, G, LB, DP. This would allow LG to maintain whiteboost and current peak ouput levels at the cost of more complicated backplane design and subpixel management FW. (and slightly higher cost since the W subpixel would also need to filter out rapidly-degrading DB spectra).

On your final question, no, IJP will not lead to improved gamut and/or improved lifetime. In fact, degraded gamut, degraded efficiency and degraded lifetime are all factors that have been holding back adoption of IJP. Compare specs of JOLEDs recentlly-announced IJP RGB-OLED monitors with LGDs WOLEDs and you will see that they cannot yet deliver similar peak output levels or gamut (and we don't yet know about lifetime). IJP delivers lower manufacturing cost, pure and simple (at least for WOLED). Today, that lower manufacturing cost comes at the expense of degraded performance or added complexity, but there is the expectation that that materials gap will continue to close over time and many (including JOLED) consider that we are now 'close enough for jazz.'

All of the above is for WOLED (or BOLED) where a uniform OLED stack is not patterned and is applied in a uniform sheet either by CVD or IJP.

The 'holy grail' of IJP is to pattern as well as deposit to deliver RGB-OLED (as JOLED is doing). This offers the promise to eventually deliver greater efficiency and/or peak brightness since less of the OLED-generated photons are wasted from color filters...


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> I thought they were suppose to have decided by April 1 -- no joke.


Samsung releases their Q1'19 financial results on April 30th, and it's likely that they will have a board meeting as well as an investment committee meeting in the days leading up to that. So I expect we will all hear what Samsung decided at the end of rhe month...



> Do they have a choice? Seems like they're going to bleed share in the premium market as other brands take LG panels and offer their own OLED lines.


Samsung Visual, the branch selling TVs rather than panels, is urging Samsung to invest in ramping-up MicroLED rather than QD-BOLED. So there are two competing camps, two competing technology proposals, and Samsung can only afford to bet one parh to hang onto share in the Premium TV market. Samsung Visual has many options to remain in the Premium TV market including QLED/LCD manufactured with other suppliers panels (as they do in many cases today), MicroLED (as they are pushing for), and even, yes, purchasing WOLED panels from LGD (perish the thought ).

But as far as Samsung Display and their business selling LCD TV panels, you are correct - they either place the bet on QD-BOLED to establish another Premium TV panel technology or they 'milk the tail' of their QLED/LCD technology for as long as it lasts recognizing that they will untimately focus on small-screen OLED screens and cede their LCD-TV panel business to the Chinese once it stops being profitable... Oh, and then there is the always-available 'Korea Inc.' backup plan of Samsung licensing WOLED manufacturing rights from LGD .


----------



## fafrd

Here’s the reason UDC is reintroducing their RGB1B2 architecture: https://www.oled-info.com/udc-our-rgb1b2-amoled-architecture-minimizes-blue-light-hazard

“It turns out that in addition to the significant power savings, *the RGB1B2 also mimizies the blue light emission of the OLED display*. Excessive exposure to blue light has been linked to many health issues - including cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity and insomnia. There has been a lot of discussion on eye-safely and eye-comfort lately, with OLEDs seen as better displays than LCDs in this regard. *UDC's architecture could enable, perhaps, even safer displays for our mobile devices.”*


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Here’s the reason UDC is reintroducing their RGB1B2 architecture: https://www.oled-info.com/udc-our-rgb1b2-amoled-architecture-minimizes-blue-light-hazard
> 
> “It turns out that in addition to the significant power savings, *the RGB1B2 also mimizies the blue light emission of the OLED display*. Excessive exposure to blue light has been linked to many health issues - including cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity and insomnia. There has been a lot of discussion on eye-safely and eye-comfort lately, with OLEDs seen as better displays than LCDs in this regard. *UDC's architecture could enable, perhaps, even safer displays for our mobile devices.”*


UDC Presentation to BOE late last year:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-505.html#post57073106


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> UDC Presentation to BOE late last year:
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-505.html#post57073106


That link apoears to be invalid. Please cut and paste a translation of whatever paragraph you believe is relevant


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> Samsung releases their Q1'19 financial results on April 30th, and it's likely that they will have a board meeting as well as an investment committee meeting in the days leading up to that. So I expect we will all hear what Samsung decided at the end of rhe month...
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Visual, the branch selling TVs rather than panels, is urging Samsung to invest in ramping-up MicroLED rather than QD-BOLED. So there are two competing camps, two competing technology proposals, and Samsung can only afford to bet one parh to hang onto share in the Premium TV market. Samsung Visual has many options to remain in the Premium TV market including QLED/LCD manufactured with other suppliers panels (as they do in many cases today), MicroLED (as they are pushing for), and even, yes, purchasing WOLED panels from LGD (perish the thought ).
> 
> But as far as Samsung Display and their business selling LCD TV panels, you are correct - they either place the bet on QD-BOLED to establish another Premium TV panel technology or they 'milk the tail' of their QLED/LCD technology for as long as it lasts recognizing that they will untimately focus on small-screen OLED screens and cede their LCD-TV panel business to the Chinese once it stops being profitable... Oh, and then there is the always-available 'Korea Inc.' backuo plan of Samsung licensing WOLED manufacturing rights from LGD .


Somehow I always get the impression that LG and Samsung dealing with each other is about as likely as flying pigs. But maybe that aren't that bad.


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> Somehow I always get the impression that LG and Samsung dealing with each other is about as likely as flying pigs. But maybe that aren't that bad.


Well, I believe that certain of Samsung Visual Display's lower-end LCD TVs such as some of the NU Series are using IPS panels, meaning they were most likely purchased from LG Display, but as far as Samsung Display, licensing technology from their arch-rival is exceedingly unlikely, but if the only other alternative is to get out of the large-panel manufacturing business entirely, who can say which of those two fates appears least unnapealing...


----------



## bombyx

I don't know if this is the correct thread to post this sub pixels data but "les numériques" has tested a 65C9 , and it seems that the sub pixels structure is very similar to the 65'' Panasonic's one we saw during CES in January . 


Link : 

https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/lg-65c9-p51559/test.html














The sub pixels picture from this article is far better than the CES one, so I've updated the sub pixels fill-in ratio data , but it is very similar to my first set of data (red and blue are a little smaller than before) : 












I'm waiting for the RTINGS 55C9 test, so we can have good 55'' sub pixels data .


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> I don't know if this is the correct thread to post this sub pixels data but "les numériques" has tested a 65C9 , and it seems that the sub pixels structure is very similar to the 65'' Panasonic's one we saw during CES in January .
> 
> 
> Link :
> 
> https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/lg-65c9-p51559/test.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sub pixels picture from this article is far better than the CES one, so I've updated the sub pixels fill-in ratio data , but it is very similar to my first set of data (red and blue are a little smaller than before) :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for the RTINGS 55C9 test, so we can have good 55'' sub pixels data .


At a minmum, this data means that the C9 red subpixel will have 137.5% the lifetime and time-to-burn-in of the C8 (and 169% of the C6). The C9 green subpixel will have 116.7% the lifetime of the C7 and C6 green. And the blue subpixel, where LGs WOLEDs have shown little in the way of burn-in compared primarily to red and secondarily to green, has about 90% of the lifetime of the C7 blue, bringing it back to C6 levels.

This is at equivalent luminance levels and assuming no changes to WOLED stack composition.

Since LG introduced the BR-YB WOLED stack architecture in 2016, it has remained unchanged from what we have understood and remains limited to 100% peak ABL of 150 cd/m2.

In the roadmap LGD presented last year, they indicated an increase in the 100% peak ABL limit to 200cd/m2 and I don't believe they can deliver that 33% improvement without introducing changes to the WOLED stack.

We don't know whether these are oanels introduced in 2020 for TV sales in 2021 or panels introduced late this year for TV sales in 2020 but it seems likely that after 4 'tock years' we'll finally have a 'tick' year coming up soon...


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> The equipment for IJP is significantly lower-cost than the equipment for CVD, so the primary impact is lower cost.
> 
> The question of IJP versus CVD manufacturing cost is especially significant considering that LGD has not yet placed orders for 10.5G CVD equipment.
> 
> They apparently already have a pilot line manufacturing WOLEDs with IJP
> 
> The major issue with IJP is a printable blue with sufficient efficiency and lifetime.



LG placed a LOI for 10.5G WOLED vacuum deposition system a couple weeks ago with their equipment supplier YAS after testing out a prototype system.
http://www.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=1320

On ink jet printing. The point of ink jet is to print pixels rather than trying to completely cover a sheet like one would for a WOLED system. LG's ink jet prototype is RGB. 
https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-start-pilot-production-ink-jet-oleds-2017

There are some reports that try to claim the cost of ink jet printing equipment is less expensive (mostly originating from hopeful ink jet equipment suppliers) and some more neutral reports that state they would likely be very close to the same as vacuum deposition equipment. The most promising system from Kateeva creates a pure nitrogen environment vs a vacuum environment and there is extra drying equipment required for ink jet printing which adds costs. The main theory is the cost savings would come from reduced material usage though that also seems dubious since that's a relatively small part of the total production cost. It is true that a printable blue with sufficient efficiency and lifetime is a major issue though there seems to be at least some progress on it. The major reason, imo, for the interest in ink jet is to be able to manufacture large TV size RGB panels.


----------



## lsorensen

ynotgoal said:


> LG placed a LOI for 10.5G WOLED vacuum deposition system a couple weeks ago with their equipment supplier YAS after testing out a prototype system.
> http://www.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=1320
> 
> On ink jet printing. The point of ink jet is to print pixels rather than trying to completely cover a sheet like one would for a WOLED system. LG's ink jet prototype is RGB.
> https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-start-pilot-production-ink-jet-oleds-2017
> 
> There are some reports that try to claim the cost of ink jet printing equipment is less expensive (mostly originating from hopeful ink jet equipment suppliers) and some more neutral reports that state they would likely be very close to the same as vacuum deposition equipment. The most promising system from Kateeva creates a pure nitrogen environment vs a vacuum environment and there is extra drying equipment required for ink jet printing which adds costs. The main theory is the cost savings would come from reduced material usage though that also seems dubious since that's a relatively small part of the total production cost. It is true that a printable blue with sufficient efficiency and lifetime is a major issue though there seems to be at least some progress on it. The major reason, imo, for the interest in ink jet is to be able to manufacture large TV size RGB panels.


I wonder who supplies the inkjet tech for JOLED. They seem to have formed in 2014 and I see Epson mentioning they were supplying inkjet tech for printing OLED panels to someone in 2015, so timing wise, and all being in japan it would actually make sense if JOLED was using Epson's OLED inkjet printing technology. Of course developing the OLED "ink" is probably a much harder part of the equation.


----------



## ynotgoal

lsorensen said:


> I wonder who supplies the inkjet tech for JOLED.


JOLED's R&D Division Manager spoke at the PF&E China conference a couple of weeks ago, detailing the company's process. JOLED is producing RGB-strip OLED panels using ink-jet printers made by Panasonic and PLED materials produced by Sumitomo. The OLED structure is based on Sony's technology and the backplane is a transparent amorphous oxide semiconductor.
https://www.oled-info.com/joled-details-their-printing-process-and-materials


It's the same technology that Panasonic used to show a 55" prototype at CES a few years back. JOLED has had trouble raising cash in an era of free money to build production facilities which speaks to the viability of the technology. They did just recently make a deal with a Chinese group for some funding though.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> LG placed a LOI for 10.5G WOLED vacuum deposition system a couple weeks ago with their equipment supplier YAS after testing out a prototype system.
> http://www.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=1320
> 
> On ink jet printing. The point of ink jet is to print pixels rather than trying to completely cover a sheet like one would for a WOLED system. LG's ink jet prototype is RGB.
> https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-start-pilot-production-ink-jet-oleds-2017
> 
> There are some reports that try to claim the cost of ink jet printing equipment is less expensive (mostly originating from hopeful ink jet equipment suppliers) and some more neutral reports that state they would likely be very close to the same as vacuum deposition equipment. The most promising system from Kateeva creates a pure nitrogen environment vs a vacuum environment and there is extra drying equipment required for ink jet printing which adds costs. The main theory is the cost savings would come from reduced material usage though that also seems dubious since that's a relatively small part of the total production cost. It is true that a printable blue with sufficient efficiency and lifetime is a major issue though there seems to be at least some progress on it. The major reason, imo, for the interest in ink jet is to be able to manufacture large TV size RGB panels.


I'd heard about that LOI, but thanks for the link.

If IJP does not deliver a significant reduction in manufacturing cost, it's hard to fathom why LGD would be interested to switch from vapor deposition to printing.

Yes, RGB OLEDs will be more photon-efficient than filtered WOLED, including higher fully-saturated brightness, but as we are learning from JOLED, if soluble emitters mean lower EQE, shorter lifetime, and smaller color gamut, it's hard to see printed RGB-OLED quickly stealing the market from LGD.

If the printed RGB-OLED panels are alot cheaper than LGD's WOLED panels, then sure, that is a threat they need to be concerned about. But at price parity, printed RGB-OLED would need to deliver 2-3 times greater peak brightness at equivalent lifetime and gamut to be a real threat to WOLED.

LG has refined their WOLED technology to such high-performance levels that taking the risk of switching to RGB-OLED seems foolhardy unless it is life-or-death. If and when more efficient blue emitters materialize, WOLED will benefit with longer lifetime and/or higher brightness so it's hard to see printed RGB-OLED ever delivering more than double the peak brightness of WOLED (though that peak brightness will be fully-saturated and not undersaturated like WOLED).

So yeah, I can see LGD switching to IJP because it delivers a significant cost reduction, but not because it offers a pathway to switch from WOLED to RGB-OLED (at equivalent cost)...


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> JOLED's R&D Division Manager spoke at the PF&E China conference a couple of weeks ago, detailing the company's process. JOLED is producing RGB-strip OLED panels using ink-jet printers made by Panasonic and PLED materials produced by Sumitomo. The OLED structure is based on Sony's technology and the backplane is a transparent amorphous oxide semiconductor.
> https://www.oled-info.com/joled-details-their-printing-process-and-materials
> 
> 
> It's the same technology that Panasonic used to show a 55" prototype at CES a few years back. JOLED has had trouble raising cash in an era of free money to build production facilities which speaks to the viability of the technology. They did just recently make a deal with a Chinese group for some funding though.


If I'm not mistaken, peak brightness of JOLEDs panel is a fraction of LGD's WOLED (~1/3?) and gamut is only 90% DCI-P3 rather than 99% DCI-P3. And lifetime and reliability are still unknowns.

The OLED Info article contained this line in the first paragraph:

"JOLED is using a printing process which should result in lower cost production (*but of lower performance displays*) compared to evaporation printing."

If you are correct that the 'lower cost' promised by IJP is actually a mirage and unlikely to be significant in actual production, hard to see why LG would even consider IJP rather that vapor deposition for P10...


----------



## fafrd

We're going to know in less than a week now if Samsung Group has decided to move forward with investing in QD-BOLED production, but I've been thinking about the implications of this analysis: https://www.oled-a.org/samsung-elec...look-at-qdoled-hybrid-mp-decision_021819.html

"*The QDs do not absorb and convert all of the blue light*, leaving a distorted color if it is not corrected. SDC R&D has chosen to use a color filter to eliminate the problem, but *the color filter absorbs ~40%-50% of the light*, which might be the source of the third blue layer. "

If QDs only downconvert 50-60% of incoming blue light to red of green, this kicks the legs out from under the fundamental advantage of QD-BOLED (which was that it would delver 300% better efficiency and brightness levels than WOLED for lower cost).

Let's first consider the simple case that Samsung goes with a WRGB pixel architecture (I understand they would not do that, but it allows an Apples-to-Apples efficiency/brightness comparison).

If we assume all subpixels are the same size, QD-BOLED would have [email protected]%, [email protected]%, [email protected]%, [email protected]% Effciency or an overall efficiency of outputting 75% of the photons being generated by the Blue OLED Layers.

Compared WOLED which has [email protected]%, [email protected]%, [email protected]%, [email protected]% Efficiency for an overall efficiency of outputtng 50% of the photons being genetated by the White OLED Layers.

So the QD-BOLED is 150% the efficiency of the WOLED (again, assuming a 4th White Subpixel like WOLED), not 300% as efficient. And that 150% output matches WOLED in terms of lack of saturaion at higher output levels (White Boost). So instead of a fully-saturated limit of ~450 cd/m2, you'd have a fully-satiurated limi of ~675 cd/m2 and instead of peak brightness with Whiteboost of ~900 cd/m2, your have WhiteBoosted peak output levels of ~1350cd/m2.

There are only 3 blue oled layers rather than WOLEDs current 4 layers, so cost might be slightly less (but nowhere near 75%). It's a solid base-hit but not a home-run.

And if we consider the likely case of fully-saturated RGB subpixel architecture rather than WRGB, the QD-BOLED would have [email protected]%, [email protected]% and [email protected]% for overall efficiency of 67%, 133% the efficiency of WOLED. So that would deliver ~600cd/m2 of fully-saturaed peak output compared to WOLEDs ~900% of Whiteboosted peak output - probably not a winner in today's era of HDR...

And all of this analysis assumes a blue OLED material which is roughly as efficient as red and yellow OLED, which is not the case today. Factoring in a Blue EQE which is ~1/3rd the EQE of the Red and Yellow layers LGD is using for WOLED and it seems impossble for the first-generation QD-BOLEDs to achieve WOLED-like peak output levels...

Equally-efficient Blue OLED emitters are hopefully on the way over the next 4-5 years: https://www.oled-info.com/usc-resea...uld-pave-way-efficient-long-lasting-blue-oled

So there is reason to hope that QD-BOLED can achieve equal EQE to WOLED (which will be 133-150% as efficient accounting for losses on color filters), but with equally-efficient Blue OLED, WOLED will prbably be able to eliminate one of their two Blue OLED layers while QD-BOLED will not, so cost loks like a wash (3 OLED layers for both).

So 4-5 years out, having equivalently-priced QD-BOLEDs that are also based on WRGB pixel achitecture and deliver 150% the brightness levels of WOLED looks like the best case (assuming the 40-50% downconversion efficiency of the quantum dots cannot be dramatically improved). And getting to equally-priced meaning at equivalent manufacturing volumes is going to cost Samsung a very pretty penny...


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> I don't know if this is the correct thread to post this sub pixels data but "les numériques" has tested a 65C9 , and it seems that the sub pixels structure is very similar to the 65'' Panasonic's one we saw during CES in January .
> 
> 
> Link :
> 
> https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/lg-65c9-p51559/test.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sub pixels picture from this article is far better than the CES one, so I've updated the sub pixels fill-in ratio data , but it is very similar to my first set of data (red and blue are a little smaller than before) :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for the RTINGS 55C9 test, so we can have good 55'' sub pixels data .


This excellent work by bombyx can be used to get an idea what kind of performance LGD will be able to deliver once a more efficient blue emitter is finally available (3-5 years).

First, let's assume that LGD chooses to focus on improved peak brightness rather than reduced cost (since they coule eliminate one of two blue layers). An efficient blue emitter will result in ~3x the amount of blue photons for the same input current, so for starters, the blue subpixel can be reduced to ~1/3rd the size it has in 2019 (which means all other subpixels can be a bit bigger).

Taking the numbers bombyx published and optimizing to maintain relative sizes with a blue subpixel 1/3 today's size (EB), here is what I come up with:

Color C9 w/ EB %increase
Red 11% 12.9% 17%
Green 7% 8.2% 17%
Blue 8.5% 3.3% -61%
White 12.5% 14.6% 17%
Total 39% 39% 0%

So the net/net out of all of this is that a more efficient blue emitter (EB) would provide ~17% increased output for the same current, meaning peak output levels of over 1050 cd/m2 and increased ABL limits of over 175 cd/m2.

If LG chooses instead to capitalize on the more efficient blue emitter to reduce cost by eliminating one of the two blue OLED layers, blue output per cm^2 will be only ~150% of 2019 levels and the blue subpixel cannot be reduced as much:

Color C9 w/ EB %increase
Red 11% 11.8% 7.3%
Green 7% 7.5% 7.1%
Blue 8.5% 6.1% -28%
White 12.5% 13.4% 7.2%
Total 39% 39% 0%

So in this case, peak brightness only increases ~7.2% to 965cd/m2 but OLED layer manufacturing cost drops by ~25% to QD-BOLED-like levels...

1000 cd/m2 ouput with QD-BOLED-like cost and I don't see how QD-BOLED can do 1000+ cd/m2 output levels without also using an RGBW pixel architecture (again, unless the conversion efficiency of the QDCC improves dramatically past 50%).


----------



## bombyx

fafrd said:


> This excellent work by bombyx can be used to get an idea what kind of performance LGD will be able to deliver once a more efficient blue emitter is finally available (3-5 years).
> 
> First, let's assume that LGD chooses to focus on improved peak brightness rather than reduced cost (since they coule eliminate one of two blue layers). An efficient blue emitter will result in ~3x the amount of blue photons for the same input current, so for starters, the blue subpixel can be reduced to ~1/3rd the size it has in 2019 (which means all other subpixels can be a bit bigger).
> 
> Taking the numbers bombyx published and optimizing to maintain relative sizes with a blue subpixel 1/3 today's size (EB), here is what I come up with:
> 
> Color C9 w/ EB %increase
> Red 11% 12.9% 17%
> Green 7% 8.2% 17%
> Blue 8.5% 3.3% -61%
> White 12.5% 14.6% 17%
> Total 39% 39% 0%
> 
> So the net/net out of all of this is that a more efficient blue emitter (EB) would provide ~17% increased output for the same current, meaning peak output levels of over 1050 cd/m2 and increased ABL limits of over 175 cd/m2.
> 
> If LG chooses instead to capitalize on the more efficient blue emitter to reduce cost by eliminating one of the two blue OLED layers, blue output per cm^2 will be only ~150% of 2019 levels and the blue subpixel cannot be reduced as much:
> 
> Color C9 w/ EB %increase
> Red 11% 11.8% 7.3%
> Green 7% 7.5% 7.1%
> Blue 8.5% 6.1% -28%
> White 12.5% 13.4% 7.2%
> Total 39% 39% 0%
> 
> So in this case, peak brightness only increases ~7.2% to 965cd/m2 but OLED layer manufacturing cost drops by ~25% to QD-BOLED-like levels...
> 
> 1000 cd/m2 ouput with QD-BOLED-like cost and I don't see how QD-BOLED can do 1000+ cd/m2 output levels without also using an RGBW pixel architecture (again, unless the conversion efficiency of the QDCC improves dramatically past 50%).



Thanks, that's interesting , but I wonder what the color temperature of the white sub pixel would be with a x3 more efficient blue emitter ? The change from 6300K in 2013/2014 to 8500K in 2015/2016 put already a huge stress on the red sub pixel ,especially for TV calibrated to 6500K white .


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> Thanks, that's interesting , but I wonder what the color temperature of the white sub pixel will be with a x3 more efficient blue emitter ? The change from 6300K in 2013/2014 to 8500K in 2015/2016 put already a huge stress on the red sub pixel ,especially for TV calibrated to 6500K white .


Yes, that's another factor to consider (the native whitepoint of the WOLED stack).

That's an added reason LGD would probably reduce from 2 blue OLED layers to 1 if they got a ~3x more efficient blue emitter. By then there may also be more efficient Hyperflorescent yellow emitters to improve the balance: https://www.oled-info.com/wisechip-...worlds-first-hyperfluoresence-flexible-pmoled

For sure, there are a lot of moving parts but the bottom line is that once more efficient blue emitters are a reality, LGD has demonstrated that they have the experience as to how best to capitalize on that in a modified WOLED stack...

Having 4 colored OLED layers to dial-in whitepoint close to 6500K provides a great deal of flexibility, so I'm guessing that the worst-case result is that LG decides that they need to stick with 4 layers even after efficient blue arrives...

p.s. if you search, you will find many papers on more efficient blue+yellow WOLED stacks. This one combines TADF blue with florescent yellow in a combined layer (one OLED layer in the stack): https://www.researchgate.net/public...luorescent_and_yellow_phosphorescent_emitters

This is all futuristic stuff, but I think the main point is that WOLED still has a great deal of optimization to achieve in it's future (hence the whole 'catching a falling knife' issue for Samsung QD-BOLED ).


----------



## stl8k

Interesting to see that Samsung was able to engineer a high motion benchmarking panel/set with this year's 8K LCD, besting last years 4K LG WOLEDs:


----------



## stl8k

LG Display continues to struggle to be profitable.

http://www.lgdisplay.com/eng/prcenter/newsView?articleMgtNo=5183

Interestingly:



> "Panels for TVs accounted for 36% of the revenue in the first quarter of 2019, mobile devices for 25%, tablets and notebook PCs for 22%, and desktop monitors for 17%. Notably, the IT Business Unit of LG Display, which is in charge of panels for monitors, notebook PCs and tablet PCs, generated 39% of the total revenues in the first quarter, surpassing the revenue portion of the TV Business Unit."


And, from its investor call:



> [Interpreted] Now this is [Hwang Yong Gi] from strategy to respond to your question. Now first about the company's overall strategy. So our focus remains on mainstreaming OLED in our business, *so we would be moving toward larger OLED products*.
> 
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/edited-transcript-034220-ks-earnings-060110033.html


----------



## stl8k

This 2019 SID Display Week session next month looks interesting:



> 15.3 - A High Image-Quality OLED Display with Integrated Gate Driver Using MPRT-Enhancement Technology for Large Size Premium TVs (2:40 PM - 3:00 PM)
> Hong Jae Shin, Woo-Seok Choi, Min-Kyu Chang, Jae-Yi Choi, Soo-Hong Choi, Seong-Ho Yun, Jin-Mok Kim, Han-Seop Kim, Chang-Ho Oh
> *LG Display* Paju South Korea
> 
> The authors present high-image-quality OLED displays with integrated gate-driver circuit using moving-picture response time (MPRT) enhancement for large premium TVs. The methodology turns off emitting pixels in advance by giving black data, and the integrated gate driver is designed for normal display, black data insertion, and compensation mode.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> LG Display continues to struggle to be profitable.
> 
> http://www.lgdisplay.com/eng/prcenter/newsView?articleMgtNo=5183
> 
> Interestingly:
> 
> 
> 
> And, from its investor call:


The tidbits I found most interesting:

"...you mentioned that it [the Guangzhou fab] is said to go into operation in the third quarter. But then actually, it will go into operation in the first half of this year because the ramp-up activities are being undertaken in track."

and:

"MMG is already being applied to a part of the Guangzhou fab and already is getting prepared to be applied to the Paju fab."

At the end of the call, the head of IR states:

"I would like to explain the questions that we have recieved from the system from the minority shareholders. Many of these questions were regarding the timing of volume production n the Guangzhou OLED fab and potential changes and investment in the Paju P10 fab. *As they have been answered already in the Q&A session, * there will be no further response at this time."

I can't find any mention in the transcript of P10 or changes in investment schedule for P10, so LGD got away with a fast one and it looks like we'll need to wait until the next earnngs call ~3 months from now to learn whether 10.5G equipment orders have started to be placed...


----------



## Mark Rejhon

stl8k said:


> This 2019 SID Display Week session next month looks interesting:


Thank you for this. 

I may try attending that!

I'm attending DisplayWeek 2019 (look for the deaf guy wearing the Blur Busters logo T-Shirt)

Cheers,


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> Thank you for this.
> 
> I may try attending that!
> 
> I'm attending DisplayWeek 2019 (look for the deaf guy wearing the Blur Busters logo T-Shirt)
> 
> Cheers,


If you do attend, please ask what technical problem resulted in the feature being yanked back from the 2019 WOLEDs just prior to launch if there is any Q&A...


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Another DisplayWeek session I am interested in:



> *78.4 - An Evaluation of the Color Moving Picture Response Time for the Motion Blur by Brightness and Color of Actual Images (10:00 AM - 10:20 AM)*
> Seung-Won Jung, Ho-Gil Kang, Hye-Kyung Park, Seok-Ryoul Lee, Jong-Uk Bae, Soo-Yong Yoon, In-Byeong Kang
> _LG Display R&D center Paju South Korea_


New display measurement metrics are quite useful!

That said, for Blur Busters, I am more in a favour of a simplification of MPRT for displays where GtG approaches 0 or nearly 0.
In my 1000Hz Journey article, I state:


> *Scientific Paper Note: Blur Busters Simplification of MPRT*
> This is the Blur Busters simplification of the MPRT formula found in this scientific paper. We use MPRT100% instead of MPRT90% (in the scientific paper). A 120Hz ideal sample-and-hold display has identical motion blur (MPRT100% = 8.333ms) as a 1/120sec photo shutter for the same physical panning velocity of full frame rate material. We prefer MPRT100% at Blur Busters for simplicity and to match human-perceived motion blur on fast sample-and-hold displays. This is also easier for blogs to calculate from TestUFO motion tests.


*When GtG is exactly 0, the motion blur of a display of framerate=Hz is exactly the same as a photograph of shutter 1/Hz second.*

Meaning the display motion blur of 120fps at 120Hz has exactly the same 1/120sec motion blur of a photograph (at equivalent panning speed) of a 1/120sec shutter. 

This assumes source material is not the blur limiting factor -- no pre-added motion blur (artificial or naturally generated), *since source persistence and destination persistence is additive*. For example, 1/60sec camera shutter and 1/60sec display persistence, combines into 2/60sec (1/30sec) of human-perceived motion blur. 

So sports video material (1/1000sec) will tend to have a motion blur that is controlled by the display persistence, since that will be typically vastly larger.

The motion blur mathematics is actually quite that simple when the source/destination is squarewave persistence (0ms GtG for display).

This becomes mathematically more exact, the closer GtG (pixel transitions) approach 0. 

For sample-and-hold displays:










For impulsed displays:










However, it is indeed true that pixel response (GtG) can muddy this whenever GtG is a significant percentage of a refresh cycle (e.g. 2ms GtG is 50% of a 240Hz refresh cycle, but only 12% of a 60Hz refresh cycle). 

And GtG can muddy the BFI transitions if GtG is responsible for the on/off transition of OLED BFI. Meaning 0.2ms GtG on the leading/trailing edges of 1ms pulses, can actually distort the colors of OLED black frame insertion (e.g. creating worse/granier blacks and greys). Once GtG is shorter than a blanking interval, GtG is less of a problem for LCD strobe backlights because GtG is not responsible for the strobing on an LCD, while on an OLED, GtG is directly responsible for the strobing of an OLED. _So you need GtG to be an insignificant percentage of the pulse width, rather than an insignificant percentage of the refresh cycle!_ That's quite aggressive, and part of the reason why Oculus switched from OLED to LCD for their new Oculus Rift -- once you successfully cram the GtG elephant into the drinking-draw sized blanking interval between refresh cycles, it's possible to have less motion blur on LCD than on OLED. The way the LCD is lit is by an external light source (backlight, edgelight) instead of direct illumination, and you need brighter strobes for briefer persistence. That gets very difficult. 

Theoretically, LCD has no bounds to possible motion clarity at all. It's unbounded. It's simply limited by the lumens output of the external light source (baclight, edgelight). The Talbot-Plateau law is less of a barrier with LCD (outsourced light) than OLED (tiny pixels). Theoretically, you could even use a bigger, water-cooled edgelight to flash brighter & briefer into an LCD for low-persistence operation. There's also a reason why the Sony 10,000 nit display was an LCD display. Also, when GtG is slow enough, it's very problematic for LCD strobe crosstalk, but once GtG is fast enough to squeeze into the VBI (VSYNC) -- blanking interval -- between refresh cycles -- LCD has no motion clarity limitation anymore. This is easier with desktop monitors (0.5ms TN LCDs) than with televisions (5ms VA LCDs) so you don't see CRT clarity on LCD televisions nearly as often as CRT clarity on desktop gaming monitors (NVIDIA ULMB). That said, OLEDs are vastly superior in so many ways like color gamut. Really, really hard to have your cake and eat it too. 

But you can get "good enough" (whether OLED or LCD) with 2ms or 1ms persistence, as most video material aren't that low persistence. It requires sports-action camera shutters (1/1000sec) to be able to see the difference between 1ms and 2ms display persistence for video material, since source persistence (original camera shutter) and destination persistence (display pixel visibility time) are additive in human-perceived blur -- it's like running an Adobe Motion Blur filter twice in a row. 

However, instead of strobing (a humankind bandaid since real life does not strobe) -- in the long term, low-persistence blur-free sample-and-hold is the proper aspiration. Blur-free with no black periods. Theoretically, with [email protected] (e.g. Ultra HFR video which could be the next step after 120fps HFR), the director can actually gain control over display motion blur. Meaning the director can decide to go classic movie blur (24fps blur) or go CRT clarity (zero blur), no longer being bottlenecked by display persistence, and can then thusly control the amount of motion blur darn near entirely source-side. (Theoretically: Users can also override this and configure the amount of extra motion blur they want, if they don't like clarity too). 

Anyway, getting completely blur-free without black frames is long term stuff (2030s) much like scientists experimenting with 4K in the 1990s, but this is an ultra-long-term vision of Blur Busters. Most people don't even understand the behavior of motion blur and how the source material/destination display combines.


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> New display measurement metrics are quite useful!
> 
> That said, for Blur Busters, I am more in a favour of a simplification of MPRT for displays where GtG approaches 0 or nearly 0.
> In my 1000Hz Journey article, I state:
> 
> 
> *When GtG is exactly 0, the motion blur of a display of framerate=Hz is exactly the same as a photograph of shutter 1/Hz second.*
> 
> Meaning the display motion blur of 120fps at 120Hz has exactly the same 1/120sec motion blur of a photograph (at equivalent panning speed) of a 1/120sec shutter.
> 
> This assumes video material that has no pre-added motion blur (artificial or naturally generated), since source persistence and destination persistence is additive. For example, 1/60sec camera shutter and 1/60sec display persistence, combines into 2/60sec (1/30sec) of human-perceived motion blur.
> 
> The motion blur mathematics is actually quite that simple when the source/destination is squarewave persistence (0ms GtG for display).
> 
> This becomes mathematically more exact, the closer GtG (pixel transitions) approach 0.
> 
> For sample-and-hold displays:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For impulsed displays:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, it is indeed true that pixel response (GtG) can muddy this whenever GtG is a significant percentage of a refresh cycle (e.g. 2ms GtG is 50% of a 240Hz refresh cycle, but only 12% of a 60Hz refresh cycle). And GtG can muddy the BFI transitions if GtG is responsible for the on/off transition of OLED BFI. *Meaning 0.2ms GtG on the leading/trailing edges of 1ms pulses, can actually distort the colors of OLED black frame insertion (e.g. creating worse/granier blacks and greys). *GtG is less of a problem for LCD strobe backlights because GtG is not responsible for the strobing on an LCD, while on an OLED, GtG is directly responsible for the strobing of an OLED. _So you need GtG to be an insignificant percentage of the pulse width, rather than an insignificant percentage of the refresh cycle!_


In addition to whatever the 'native' GtG of the OLED subpixels are, you also need to take into account the 'overshoot' that LGD's WOLED panels add at native panel refresh rate (especially for transitions from black).

If you look at the attached image at the upper left corner, you see that rtings.com measured a 0-20% GtG transition time of 8.7ms for the LG C8 (as well as the 0-80% GtG just below it).

So especially when there is overdrive and overshoots involved, basing MPRT on some realistic threshold like 90% or 95% (the level below which the offset is unlikely to be detectable in fast-moving video) is probably more sensible than insisting on 100%...



> That's quite aggressive, and part of the reason why Oculus switched from OLED to LCD for their new Oculus Rift -- once you successfully cram the GtG elephant into the drinking-draw sized blanking interval between refresh cycles, it's possible to have less motion blur on LCD than on OLED. *Theoretically, LCD has no bounds to possible motion clarity at all. *


As long as the entire LCD transition (to whatever threshold is meaningful) is completed during the blanking interval. So in a world where frame rates edge past 120Hz to 240Hz, VA LCDs won't be able to keep up because the LCD lightvalves will still be settling during the entire frame interval (no time left to emit lumens).



> It's unbounded. It's simply limited by the lumens output of the external light source (baclight, edgelight). The Talbot-Plateau law is less of a barrier with LCD (outsourced light) than OLED (tiny pixels). Theoretically, you could even use a bigger, water-cooled edgelight to flash brighter& briefer into an LCD for low-persistence operation. When GtG is slow enough, it's very problematic for LCD strobe crosstalk, but once GtG is fast enough to squeeze into the VBI (VSYNC) -- blanking interval -- between refresh cycles -- LCD has no motion clarity limitation anymore. This is easier with desktop monitors (0.5ms TN LCDs) than with televisions (5ms VA LCDs) so you don't see CRT clarity on LCD televisions nearly as often as CRT clarity on desktop gaming monitors (NVIDIA ULMB). That said, OLEDs are vastly superior in so many ways like color gamut. Really, really hard to have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> However, instead of strobing (a humankind bandaid since real life does not strobe) -- in the long term, low-persistence blur-free sample-and-hold is the proper aspiration. Blur-free with no black periods. Theoretically, with *[email protected]* (e.g. Ultra HFR video which could be the next step after 120fps HFR), the director can actually gain control over display motion blur. Meaning the director can decide to go classic movie blur (24fps blur) or go CRT clarity (zero blur), no longer being bottlenecked by display persistence, and can then thusly control the amount of motion blur darn near entirely source-side. (Theoretically: Users can also override this and configure the amount of extra motion blur they want, if they don't like clarity too). Anyway, that's long term stuff (2030s) much like scientists experimenting with 4K in the 1990s, but this is an ultra-long-term vision of Blur Busters. Most people don't even understand the behavior of display motion blur.


Yes, OLED is better-suited to [email protected], and that would mean no loss of brightness due to black frames as well...

0.2-0.3ms GtG transition times probably make that about the limit for OLED though...

TN LCDs might be able to keep up but they'd make for expensive TVs (and VA LCDs will be left in the dust).

There are more and more reports about 240Hz 4K monitors: https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/23/...led-4k-pro-laptop-gaming-specs-price-features

So as backplane speeds improve to support [email protected], [email protected] is likely to become increasingly mainstream. At that point we're only a hop, skip, and jump away from 1000Hz 4K backplanes (2 small steps along Moore's Law ).

And in the meantime, a native 240Hz backplane and 1000+ cd/m2 of peak brightness will allow you to enjoy 1ms MPRT at up to 250cd/m2 of brightness with 75% BFI.


----------



## stl8k

Mark Rejhon said:


> Thank you for this.
> 
> I may try attending that!
> 
> I'm attending DisplayWeek 2019 (look for the deaf guy wearing the Blur Busters logo T-Shirt)
> 
> Cheers,


With the great, big smile!


----------



## austinsj

Mark Rejhon said:


> But you can get "good enough" (whether OLED or LCD) with 2ms or 1ms persistence, as most video material aren't that low persistence. It requires sports-action camera shutters (1/1000sec) to be able to see the difference between 1ms and 2ms display persistence for video material, since source persistence (original camera shutter) and destination persistence (display pixel visibility time) are additive in human-perceived blur -- it's like running an Adobe Motion Blur filter twice in a row.
> 
> However, instead of strobing (a humankind bandaid since real life does not strobe) -- in the long term, low-persistence blur-free sample-and-hold is the proper aspiration. Blur-free with no black periods. Theoretically, with [email protected] (e.g. Ultra HFR video which could be the next step after 120fps HFR), the director can actually gain control over display motion blur. Meaning the director can decide to go classic movie blur (24fps blur) or go CRT clarity (zero blur), no longer being bottlenecked by display persistence, and can then thusly control the amount of motion blur darn near entirely source-side. (Theoretically: Users can also override this and configure the amount of extra motion blur they want, if they don't like clarity too).
> 
> Anyway, getting completely blur-free without black frames is long term stuff (2030s) much like scientists experimenting with 4K in the 1990s, but this is an ultra-long-term vision of Blur Busters. Most people don't even understand the behavior of motion blur and how the source material/destination display combines.


In your 1000Hz article you indicate that the motion resolution needed to achieve 1ms persistence scales with pixel resolution. Is 1000Hz enough for 4K? What about 8K?




fafrd said:


> TN LCDs might be able to keep up but they'd make for expensive TVs (and VA LCDs will be left in the dust).
> 
> There are more and more reports about 240Hz 4K monitors: https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/23/...led-4k-pro-laptop-gaming-specs-price-features
> 
> So as backplane speeds improve to support [email protected], [email protected] is likely to become increasingly mainstream. At that point we're only a hop, skip, and jump away from 1000Hz 4K backplanes (2 small steps along Moore's Law ).
> 
> And in the meantime, a native 240Hz backplane and 1000+ cd/m2 of peak brightness will allow you to enjoy 1ms MPRT at up to 250cd/m2 of brightness with 75% BFI.



Just a heads up, that Verge article is referring to Razer laptop with the option of a 4K OLED *or* a 240Hz 1080p LCD, not a 240Hz 4K display.


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> If you do attend, please ask what technical problem resulted in the feature being yanked back from the 2019 WOLEDs just prior to launch if there is any Q&A...


I suppose you were referring to the improved BFI options here. If so, I'm very interested too. Especially interested in knowing whether it's something that might come with a firmware update (as a user has reported here on AVS) or if it's something that will come in 2020 on future models.


----------



## fafrd

austinsj said:


> In your 1000Hz article you indicate that the motion resolution needed to achieve 1ms persistence scales with pixel resolution. Is 1000Hz enough for 4K? What about 8K?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a heads up, that Verge article is referring to Razer laptop with the option of a 4K OLED *or* a 240Hz 1080p LCD, not a 240Hz 4K display.


Didn't realize that, thanks. So I guess we are still 3+ steps away... As far as backplane switching speed,

[email protected][email protected] (and = [email protected])

and when we eventually (2020?) see [email protected], that will mean:

[email protected][email protected] (and = [email protected], if anyone is still making premium 1080p displays by then).


----------



## G-Rex

I have waited years for Oled tech to mature and get to a point where I would be happy with my tv for a long time. Part of this was waiting for hdmi 2.1, waiting for smooth motion processing, and a bit more detail in darker areas. Unfortunately Sony held off on 2.1 this year. Is 2020 likely the year to jump in with a Sony or E series LG display? What are the odds top emissive panels will come in 2020 or at least the panels may get a fairly significant revision?


----------



## stl8k

G-Rex said:


> I have waited years for Oled tech to mature and get to a point where I would be happy with my tv for a long time. Part of this was waiting for hdmi 2.1, waiting for smooth motion processing, and a bit more detail in darker areas. Unfortunately Sony held off on 2.1 this year. Is 2020 likely the year to jump in with a Sony or E series LG display? What are the odds top emissive panels will come in 2020 or at least the panels may get a fairly significant revision?


G-Rex,

Instead of waiting for certain tech, especially top emission (for peak brightness), you'll be much better served choosing display metric levels you care about and investing in a TV that can meets those levels.

These panels are highly complex systems with lots of causality/connections between the components. I think you'll see continuous improvements in the panels, but likely not big panel innovations over the next few years.


----------



## fafrd

​


G-Rex said:


> I have waited years for Oled tech to mature and get to a point where I would be happy with my tv for a long time. Part of this was waiting for hdmi 2.1, waiting for smooth motion processing, and a bit more detail in darker areas. Unfortunately Sony held off on 2.1 this year. Is 2020 likely the year to jump in with a Sony or E series LG display? *What are the odds top emissive panels will come in 2020 or at least the panels may get a fairly significant revision?*


Well, on the one hand, LGD has been living off of the same fundamental 4-layer WOLED stack for 5 years now (after changing yearly in the early years), so that is an argument in favor of some WOLED stack innovation coming in 2020.

On the other hand, the current WOLED stack is performing pretty darned well and about the only improvement on the horizon will be a more efficient blue (TADF, supposedly) and it doesn't look like TADF blue or another long-lasting more efficient blue is ready for prime-time yet, so I'd put the odds at 50/50 for 2020.

We can speculate on what the impact of a more efficient blue emitter will be on the WOLEE stack. A single layer of TADF blue will be able to deliver ~3x the number of blue photons for the same current as a single one of the two Florescent blue emitters LGD is using today.

This means they will be able to replace the 2 blue florescent layers they are using today with a single TADF blue layer which could reduce manufacturing cost with blue photons to spare (smaller blue subpixel). There may be so much additional blue in the native whitepoint, in fact, that LGD may need to use a second layer of yellow to maintain whitepoint balance close to D65, so hard to know in advance if TADF results in lower manufacturing cost or not (and honestly, of secondary interest/concern to me).

More importantly, a more efficient blue emitter should allow higher peak brightness levels to be achieved with the same power consumption.

For the sake or argument, let's imagine that LGD goes from a BR-YB stack to a YB-RY stack using a blue emitter with ~300% the efficiency of the florescent blue they are using today. So hand-waving math this would mean:

150% as much blue (300% efficiency x 1/2 the number of layers)
150% as much red (R and Y layers today versus R and 2Y layers tomorrow)
200% as much green (2 Y layers versus 1 Y layer)

So that future efficient-blue WOLED panel should be able to deliver at least 150% the peak brightness and ABL-limited brightness levels we get today, or probably closer to 165% once subpixel sizes are optimized. That could mean HDR peak brightness levels for small highlights of 1300-1500 cd/m2 and full-field ABL limits of 225-250 cd/m2. And fully-saturated DCI-P3 color-volume without white-subpixel induced loss off saturation should also increase from ~450 cd/m2 to 675-750cd/m2.

LGD will not get all the way to these levels on year 1 but will probably need 2-3 years of optmization as we saw with the current 4-layer stack.

Will we see the first iteration of this new efficient-blue WOLED stack in 2020? Too early to say. But one argument in favor of sooner versus later is the new 10.5G fab - that starts into production in late 2020 and LGD has a large incentive to start it on the leadibg edge of a new WOLED stack rather than on the trailing-edge of a mature WOLED stack that is about to change...

You also asked about top-emission but I am becomng less and less convinced we will ever see top-emission WOLEDs. The primary driver for top-emission was 65" 8K panels. LGD could supposedly not deliver required brightness levels with 65" 8K pixels based on bottom emission, but apparently they found a way. If you look at the subpixel pictures that bombyx published earlier, you see that LGD has succeeded to increase pixel aperatire ratio (PAR) from 32.5% on the 2016 WOLEDs to 39% on the 2019 WOLEDs. That's a 20% increase in PAR since 2016 and the primary reason that the 650 cd/m2 sustained HDR peak levels of the 2016 WOLEDs has increased to close to 900cd/m2 on the 2019 WOLEDs.

At best, top-emission can deliver PAR approaching ~80%, so LGD is within a factor of 2 of what top-emission can deliver (at least on 65" and larger panel sizes). In addition, top-emission requires changing a nice, thick, low-resistance reflective metal top electrode into a thin, transparent, higher-resistance electrode and who knows what complications that may brng into the balance LGD has achieved.

So if top-emission is going to happen, I'd guess that it's also probably going to happen before P10 (the new 10.5G fab) starts ramping, but the bottom line is that with the bottom-emission PAR improvements LGD has succeeded to deliver over the past few years, a high-efficiency blue emitter is going to have more of an impact than top-emission.

Oh, and on 2020, there is also the roadmap LGD published last year indicating that 2020 would deliver an improved panel with ABL limits increasibg from 150cd/m2 to 200cd/m2 (attached). There may be other ways to achieve this than new WOLED stack, but a new stack with higher-efficiency blue such as TADF woukd be the easiest way. And wecalso don't know whether this roadmap is for 2020 panel developments resulting in 2021 TVs hitting consumers or panels being delivered for 2020 products. But that is a pretty strong indication that LGD is working on a modified WOLED stack which will deliver higher brightness levels and which they expect to deliver next year or the year after.

[p.s. the roadmap also shows another new WOLED panel in 2022 delivering a further increase in peak brightness levels to 300 cd/m2 as well as a doubling of lifetime from 15,000 hours to 30,000 hours. The primary impact of top-emission is to reduce current density and improve lifetime, so one read of ths WOLED roadmap is that the first step in 2020 is the addition of a high-efficiency blue emitter and the second step in 2022 it the move from bottom-emission to top-emission...]


----------



## G-Rex

Thanks for the responses, especially to Fafrd! That was very informative and technical. Great incite as to what to expect in the relatively near future for Oled.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> G-Rex,
> 
> Instead of waiting for certain tech, especially top emission (for peak brightness), you'll be much better served choosing display metric levels you care about and investing in a TV that can meets those levels.
> 
> These panels are highly complex systems with lots of causality/connections between the components. I think you'll see continuous improvements in the panels, but *likely not big panel innovations over the next few years*.


In general I agree with everythibg you have stated, but no big panel innovations 'over the *next few years*' is going a bit too far. Both high-efficiency blue (ie: TADF) as well as top-emission qualify as 'big panel innovations' and we know LGD is working on both: 

https://www.oled-info.com/lg-looking-adopt-blue-tadf-emitter-its-oled-tv-panels-next-year

https://www.oled-info.com/dscc-lgd-will-start-mass-producing-top-emission-oled-tv-panels-2019

The roadmap LGD has presented indicates a new panel innovation being introduced every 2 year at this stage, supposedly in 2020 and 2022.

No big panel innivations 'over the next few years' means LGD fails to introduce anything new before 2022 and I think that would have to be considered a worse-case (as opposed to expected) scenario.

Especially with the new 10.5G fab beginning to ramp in 2021, LGD will have major motivation to introduce anything 'new' before 2022 so I think the only way we don't see a new WOLED stack/architecture before then is if there are ongoing technical hurdles to both high-efficiency blue emitters as well as stable and high-yielding top-emission that go far longer than anyone has forecasted...

[p.s. Contrary to my just-prior post, seeing LGD's 2022 roadmap with 2X lifetime improvement makes me once again bullish about too-emission WOLED materializing eventually. LGD does not need top-emission for 65" 8K WOLEDs, but they need it to reduce current density and increase lifetime...{


----------



## stl8k

Really approachable article by folks at Google on "Temporal Requirements for VR Displays to Create a More Comfortable and Immersive Visual Experience"

"In an internal investigation on flicker perception in VR short-persistence displays, we explored this variability across people for the luminance at which flicker is perceived.Fig. 2 shows the cumulative distribution across 50 people. The results indicate that most people do perceive flicker in a wide field-of-view VR system at 60 hertz (Hz), even at low luminance. Advancing to 75 Hz enables a dramatic reduction in flicker, which allows for increased display luminance. This higher frame rate expands the triangular region in Fig. 1 to allow greater flexibility in satisfying the flicker and luminance requirements. The primary downsides in shifting to75 Hz are higher bandwidth and rendering requirements, shifting the balance of computational resources and impacting other aspects of the visual experience. New systems that are made for VR have begun to explore this space to understand the benefits and pitfalls of advancing the frame rate."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/msid.1018

Has lots of applicability to conventional (direct-view) displays.


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> In general I agree with everythibg you have stated, but no big panel innovations 'over the *next few years*' is going a bit too far. Both high-efficiency blue (ie: TADF) as well as top-emission qualify as 'big panel innovations' and we know LGD is working on both:
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/lg-looking-adopt-blue-tadf-emitter-its-oled-tv-panels-next-year
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/dscc-lgd-will-start-mass-producing-top-emission-oled-tv-panels-2019
> 
> The roadmap LGD has presented indicates a new panel innovation being introduced every 2 year at this stage, supposedly in 2020 and 2022.
> 
> No big panel innivations 'over the next few years' means LGD fails to introduce anything new before 2022 and I think that would have to be considered a worse-case (as opposed to expected) scenario.
> 
> Especially with the new 10.5G fab beginning to ramp in 2021, LGD will have major motivation to introduce anything 'new' before 2022 so I think the only way we don't see a new WOLED stack/architecture before then is if there are ongoing technical hurdles to both high-efficiency blue emitters as well as stable and high-yielding top-emission that go far longer than anyone has forecasted...
> 
> [p.s. Contrary to my just-prior post, seeing LGD's 2022 roadmap with 2X lifetime improvement makes me once again bullish about too-emission WOLED materializing eventually. LGD does not need top-emission for 65" 8K WOLEDs, but they need it to reduce current density and increase lifetime...{


I just don't think there's going to be a single big PQ innovation _in any given model year_, fafrd. The biggest innovations will be in form factor, like the Rollable (intro) this year.

LG Display had an oppty with the 8K intro to package a bunch of PQ innovations together, but chose not to, perhaps under timing pressure from Samsung to announce early.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Really approachable article by folks at Google on "Temporal Requirements for VR Displays to Create a More Comfortable and Immersive Visual Experience"
> 
> "In an internal investigation on flicker perception in VR short-persistence displays, we explored this variability across people for the luminance at which flicker is perceived.Fig. 2 shows the cumulative distribution across 50 people. The results indicate that most people do perceive flicker in a wide field-of-view VR system at 60 hertz (Hz), even at low luminance. Advancing to 75 Hz enables a dramatic reduction in flicker, which allows for increased display luminance. This higher frame rate expands the triangular region in Fig. 1 to allow greater flexibility in satisfying the flicker and luminance requirements. The primary downsides in shifting to75 Hz are higher bandwidth and rendering requirements, shifting the balance of computational resources and impacting other aspects of the visual experience. New systems that are made for VR have begun to explore this space to understand the benefits and pitfalls of advancing the frame rate."
> 
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/msid.1018
> 
> Has lots of applicability to conventional (direct-view) displays.


Interesting, but a pity they didn't also include 120Hz - I suspect it woukd have been 0% detectable all the way to an average frame liminance of 100 cd/m2 (undetectable).

And at 60 Hz, their graph indicates that 60% BFI is the 'sweet-spot' in delivering the best trade-off between noticable flicker and noticable motion blur...

If/when we see LGD deliver WOLEDs with 240Hz native refresh rates, 60% [email protected] should be possible (40% rolling-scan @ 60Hz update rate).


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> *I just don't think there's going to be a single big innovation* _in any given model year_, fafrd. The biggest innovations will be in form factor, like the Rollable (intro) this year.


First, rollable, crystal sound, etc... is LG Electronics, not LG Display (and really has little to do with the subject of this thread).

Second, in terms of 'big innivations', I've listed two (Efficient Blue / TADF and top-emission) and tied them to the roadmap LGD has presented. We can argue about whether LGD will deliver those innovation 'on schedule' or not, but there is no question that when they do deliver them, it's going to be within a single model year.

The only way LGD is done delivering any big WOLED panel innovations is if efficient blue emitters never materialize (which means Samsung's QD-BOLED initiative will fail) and top-emission never delivers bottom-emission-like yields.

Also, in terms of the 'last few years', LGD has delivered significant innovations on the IGZO backplane as well as PAR. We still don't know why they pulled the 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate FW features from the C9 at the 11th hour, but the fact is that the bakplane now supports a 4K refresh rate 2-4 times faster than the 60Hz refresh rate LG had 3 years ago. And increasing the pixel aperature ratio from the 32.5% of 2016 to the 39% of 2019 is another noteworthy panel-level improvement not involving the WOLED stack.



> LG Display had an oppty with the 8K intro to package a bunch of PQ innovations together, but chose not to, perhaps under timing pressure from Samsung to announce early.


I'm really not sure what you are alluding to. There were no PQ innovations ready (other than the split-column backplane needed to deliver 8K 60Hz refresh rate). For 88", LG knew that they could rely on their existing low-risk bottom emission technology and so that is what they committed to. For 65" 8K they believed they would need top-emission to deliver the required brightness but they found lower-risk ways to increase PAR so that 65" 8K could be delivered using less risky bottom-emission.

The big innovation for 8K is on the backplane, not the WOLED stack (and remember that LGD/LGE together will be delivering the first 8K TV supporting a 60Hz refresh rate).

The 'opportunity' (driver) for WOLED stack innovation is the new 10.5G manufacturing line, not a larger panel size or a higher panel resolution. LG will move from 'conservative-mode' to 'aggressive-mode' as the equipment orders and ramp-up of P10 become real. They wil have an incentive to take a bit more risk with innovations that are in the pipeline but not yet fully industrialized because they will not want brand-new manufacturing equipment and 10.5G manufacturing processes to become obsolete soon after they have been purchased/launched.

It is a much, much bigger deal to commit to a new manufacturing line with a whole new set of (very expensive) manufactiring equipment than it is to churn out a larger (or smaller) panel size or even a higher panel resolution or smaller pixel on an established manufacturing line.

The innovatons you seem to have been 'expecting' in 2019 with the launch of the 88" 8K panel is more approprately aimed at the launch of the 10.5G fab expected to start late next year or early 2021...


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> Well, on the one hand, LGD has been living off of the same fundamental 4-layer WOLED stack for 5 years now (after changing yearly in the early years), so that is an argument in favor of some WOLED stack innovation coming in 2020.
> 
> On the other hand, the current WOLED stack is performing pretty darned well and about the only improvement on the horizon will be a more efficient blue (TADF, supposedly) and it doesn't look like TADF blue or another long-lasting more efficient blue is ready for prime-time yet, so I'd put the odds at 50/50 for 2020.
> 
> We can speculate on what the impact of a more efficient blue emitter will be on the WOLEE stack. A single layer of TADF blue will be able to deliver ~3x the number of blue photons for the same current as a single one of the two Florescent blue emitters LGD is using today.
> 
> This means they will be able to replace the 2 blue florescent layers they are using today with a single TADF blue layer which could reduce manufacturing cost with blue photons to spare (smaller blue subpixel). There may be so much additional blue in the native whitepoint, in fact, that LGD may need to use a second layer of yellow to maintain whitepoint balance close to D65, so hard to know in advance if TADF results in lower manufacturing cost or not (and honestly, of secondary interest/concern to me).
> 
> More importantly, a more efficient blue emitter should allow higher peak brightness levels to be achieved with the same power consumption.
> 
> For the sake or argument, let's imagine that LGD goes from a BR-YB stack to a YB-RY stack using a blue emitter with ~300% the efficiency of the florescent blue they are using today. So hand-waving math this would mean:
> 
> 150% as much blue (300% efficiency x 1/2 the number of layers)
> 150% as much red (R and Y layers today versus R and 2Y layers tomorrow)
> 200% as much green (2 Y layers versus 1 Y layer)
> 
> So that future efficient-blue WOLED panel should be able to deliver at least 150% the peak brightness and ABL-limited brightness levels we get today, or probably closer to 165% once subpixel sizes are optimized. That could mean HDR peak brightness levels for small highlights of 1300-1500 cd/m2 and full-field ABL limits of 225-250 cd/m2. And fully-saturated DCI-P3 color-volume without white-subpixel induced loss off saturation should also increase from ~450 cd/m2 to 675-750cd/m2.
> 
> LGD will not get all the way to these levels on year 1 but will probably need 2-3 years of optmization as we saw with the current 4-layer stack.
> 
> Will we see the first iteration of this new efficient-blue WOLED stack in 2020? Too early to say. But one argument in favor of sooner versus later is the new 10.5G fab - that starts into production in late 2020 and LGD has a large incentive to start it on the leadibg edge of a new WOLED stack rather than on the trailing-edge of a mature WOLED stack that is about to change...
> 
> You also asked about top-emission but I am becomng less and less convinced we will ever see top-emission WOLEDs. The primary driver for top-emission was 65" 8K panels. LGD could supposedly not deliver required brightness levels with 65" 8K pixels based on bottom emission, but apparently they found a way. If you look at the subpixel pictures that bombyx published earlier, you see that LGD has succeeded to increase pixel aperatire ratio (PAR) from 32.5% on the 2016 WOLEDs to 39% on the 2019 WOLEDs. That's a 20% increase in PAR since 2016 and the primary reason that the 650 cd/m2 sustained HDR peak levels of the 2016 WOLEDs has increased to close to 900cd/m2 on the 2019 WOLEDs.
> 
> At best, top-emission can deliver PAR approaching ~80%, so LGD is within a factor of 2 of what top-emission can deliver (at least on 65" and larger panel sizes). In addition, top-emission requires changing a nice, thick, low-resistance reflective metal top electrode into a thin, transparent, higher-resistance electrode and who knows what complications that may brng into the balance LGD has achieved.
> 
> So if top-emission is going to happen, I'd guess that it's also probably going to happen before P10 (the new 10.5G fab) starts ramping, but the bottom line is that with the bottom-emission PAR improvements LGD has succeeded to deliver over the past few years, a high-efficiency blue emitter is going to have more of an impact than top-emission.
> 
> Oh, and on 2020, there is also the roadmap LGD published last year indicating that 2020 would deliver an improved panel with ABL limits increasibg from 150cd/m2 to 200cd/m2 (attached). There may be other ways to achieve this than new WOLED stack, but a new stack with higher-efficiency blue such as TADF woukd be the easiest way. And wecalso don't know whether this roadmap is for 2020 panel developments resulting in 2021 TVs hitting consumers or panels being delivered for 2020 products. But that is a pretty strong indication that LGD is working on a modified WOLED stack which will deliver higher brightness levels and which they expect to deliver next year or the year after.
> 
> [p.s. the roadmap also shows another new WOLED panel in 2022 delivering a further increase in peak brightness levels to 300 cd/m2 as well as a doubling of lifetime from 15,000 hours to 30,000 hours. The primary impact of top-emission is to reduce current density and improve lifetime, so one read of ths WOLED roadmap is that the first step in 2020 is the addition of a high-efficiency blue emitter and the second step in 2022 it the move from bottom-emission to top-emission...]


I was under the impression they used blue and yellow layers, with the yellow providing the red and green part through color filters.

Did the claim of going from one blue and one yellow to one blue and two yellow in 2017 panels happen as mentioned here: https://www.oled-info.com/lg-introduce-3-stack-structure-its-2017-oled-lighting-and-tv-panels
After all if it did that might explain why it seems 2016 was much more likely to get burn in from red/yellow than 2017 and newer. After all if they doubled up on the yellow layer that should give them about twice as much to work with for those problematic colors. Just speculation on my part here.


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> First, rollable, crystal sound, etc... is LG Electronics, not LG Display (and really has little to do with the subject of this thread).


https://www.tomsguide.com/us/lg-crystal-sound-8k-oled-tv,news-29035.html says crystal sound is LG Display not LG Electronics. So does many other articles about it over the last few years.

The rollable part, no idea, but that I could believe was LG Electronics.


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> https://www.tomsguide.com/us/lg-crystal-sound-8k-oled-tv,news-29035.html says crystal sound is LG Display not LG Electronics. So does many other articles about it over the last few years.
> 
> The rollable part, no idea, but that I could believe was LG Electronics.


My apologies, you are correct. It is LG Dispkay that pioneered both Crystal Soubd and Rollable WOLEDs in their R&D department researchibg new application areas for WOLED. Same is true of the transparent WOLEDs, the Art Frame WOLEDs, etc...

I was referring to the production of the actual products and the decision to bring them to market, not the research. LG Electronics made the decsion to take a pass on the furst year of Crystal Sound (while Sony jumped on it) and LG Electrnics made the decision to move forward with a Rollable WOLED product this year (we hope . It is LG Electronics that has to deal with all of the manufacturing complexities as well as product reliability complexities.

For these system-level demonstrations, the R&D is the asy part - the realities of manufacturing and having these to support these novel products in the real world is where most of the challange lies.

There have been and will continue to be many instances of LG Display demonstrating a proof-of-concept that gets attention at CES but never sees the light of day because LG Electronics decides it doesn't make sense in the real world.


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> I was under the impression they used blue and yellow layers, with the yellow providing the red and green part through color filters.
> 
> Did the claim of going from one blue and one yellow to one blue and two yellow in 2017 panels happen as mentioned here: https://www.oled-info.com/lg-introduce-3-stack-structure-its-2017-oled-lighting-and-tv-panels
> After all if it did that might explain why it seems 2016 was much more likely to get burn in from red/yellow than 2017 and newer. After all if they doubled up on the yellow layer that should give them about twice as much to work with for those problematic colors. Just speculation on my part here.


I found a very good article summarizing the development that went into the current WOLED panel and the history of different WOLED stacks LGD brought into production leading up to today's stack.

You'll have to search for posts by me in this thread to find it - I believe it was H2 last year...

So this is from memory and if some of the details are off, my apologies in advance.

LGD started with a 2-layer blue & yellow WOLED stack. This was the stack they were producing in 2014 and probably also before. It only delivered ~90% DCI-P3 primarily because it lacked sufficient blue (or driving blue harder would result in acceptably short lifetime). It also had a pretty-good close-to-D65 native whitepoint.

In 2015 LGD introdced the 3-layer B-Y-B WOLED stack. This allowed them to achieve a wider color gamut (95% DCI-P3?) as well as increased peak brightness but the native whitepoint went cool to the point that green and especially red were much more involved in delivering D65 than they used to be. Because of the 1-year difference between the year of WOLED panel introduction and year of TV production, I am honestly uncertain whether my C6P contains the 2015 B-Y-B WOLED stack or the new stack I'm about to describe for 2016, but since late 2016 is when LGD started touting relaxed ABL, I'm pretty sure the 2016 stack was in production starting with the 2016 WOLEDs including my C6.

In any case, that paper describes the current 4-layer stack, which is BR-YB. The 4th layer of red was added to bring the native whitepoint warmer and closer to D65. In addition, I believe that reinforced red allowed gamut to increase to the current 99% DCI-P3 as well as for a further incremental increase in peak brightness (remember, the Brightness Wars were in full-bloom in 2016 ).

I believe that that whole yellow-blue-yellow stack was confusion - that panel was for lighting, not TVs. The actual new TV panel developed around the same time was Blue-Yellow-Blue.

Now, you bring up 2016 burn-in of red which you might think is caused by a cool B-Y-B panel but it can also be caused by being overconfident about the increased-red BR-YB WOLED stack and making the red subpixels too small. The fact that the red subpixel burns out most quickly displaying bright fully-saturated red or yellow or orange but essentially does not burn out displaying bright D65 white suggests an undersized red subpixel rather than insufficient red in the native whitepoint.

If you look at the subpixel data bombyx has measured and posted, the red subpixel has gone from 6.5% in 2016 to 8% in 2018 to 11% in 2019 - an increase of 70%! Over that same period, the green subpixel has only increased from 6% to 7% (a 17% increase), the blue subpixel has only increased from 8% to 8.5% (a 6% increase), and the white subpixel has only increased from 12% to 12.5% (a 4% increase). So it's clear LGD was initially overconfident about the lifetime of red and undersized the red subpixel and in fact that overconfidence carried over into their first attempt to correct for the situation in 2018 (after the first rtings,com 2016 burn-in results were published in early 2017 after the 2017 WOLEDs had already launched on the same 2016 WOLED panel). This overconfidence was likely caused by the additional red layer added to the 4-layer WOLED stack to warm the native whitepoint closer to D65.

Over this period, LGD has doubled the number of OLED layers in the WOLED stack from 2 to 4, which has increased cost and decreased throughput, but it has allowed them to go from 90% DCI-P3 to 99%, to increase peak brightness from ~650 cd/m2 to ~900 cd/m2, to relax full-field ABL limits by 20% from 125cd/m2 to 150cd/m2, and to largely address the weakness discovered in red subpixel burn-in by rebalancing subpixel sizes, increasing Pixel Aperature Ratio, and introducing burn-in compensation technologies.

The only further improvements they can make are to:
-further increase peak brightness & efficiency (which is where a blue TADF emitter comes in)
-further increase lifetime and burn-in resistance (which is where top-emission comes in)
-reduce cost (which is where TADF Blue + Hyperflorescent Yellow 2-layer WOLED stack may eventually come in)

But overall, ever since they introduced this BR-YB 4-layer WOLED stack and survived the burn-in scare of 2017 (on 2016 WOLEDs), the crazy times have been over for the LGD WOLED enginers and this is now a pretty stable, mature, and optimized product/capability. Changes are no longer being made in fear of survival but rather to deliver a roadmap of incremental improvements and at low risk.


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> My apologies, you are correct. It is LG Dispkay that pioneered both Crystal Soubd and Rollable WOLEDs in their R&D department researchibg new application areas for WOLED. Same is true of the transparent WOLEDs, the Art Frame WOLEDs, etc...
> 
> I was referring to the production of the actual products and the decision to bring them to market, not the research. LG Electronics made the decsion to take a pass on the furst year of Crystal Sound (while Sony jumped on it) and LG Electrnics made the decision to move forward with a Rollable WOLED product this year (we hope . It is LG Electronics that has to deal with all of the manufacturing complexities as well as product reliability complexities.
> 
> For these system-level demonstrations, the R&D is the asy part - the realities of manufacturing and having these to support these novel products in the real world is where most of the challange lies.
> 
> There have been and will continue to be many instances of LG Display demonstrating a proof-of-concept that gets attention at CES but never sees the light of day because LG Electronics decides it doesn't make sense in the real world.


Appreciate the correction, fafrd!

Being a 20 year veteran of the tech industry and innovation generalist, I've watched lots of technology cycles. That experience and an increasing appreciation for OLED display tech and the TV distribution system leads me to believe that innovations born from LGD R&D and distributed by consumer TV brands are going to be gradual over the time horizon that I think I have visibility into (next few years).

LGD is in a market with strong competition, mfg is capital intensive, have a product with lots of natural complexity/tradeoffs, have an increasingly complex product line (that will span UHD and UHD2 for a significant time period and now has 2 major form factors), have very little agency in terms of marketing their innovations to end users, have very little agency in terms of affecting TV content that takes advantage of their innovations, etc.

All of that naturally leads to more gradual innovation diffusion.


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> My apologies, you are correct. It is LG Dispkay that pioneered both Crystal Soubd and Rollable WOLEDs in their R&D department researchibg new application areas for WOLED. Same is true of the transparent WOLEDs, the Art Frame WOLEDs, etc...
> 
> I was referring to the production of the actual products and the decision to bring them to market, not the research. LG Electronics made the decsion to take a pass on the furst year of Crystal Sound (while Sony jumped on it) and LG Electrnics made the decision to move forward with a Rollable WOLED product this year (we hope . It is LG Electronics that has to deal with all of the manufacturing complexities as well as product reliability complexities.
> 
> For these system-level demonstrations, the R&D is the asy part - the realities of manufacturing and having these to support these novel products in the real world is where most of the challange lies.
> 
> There have been and will continue to be many instances of LG Display demonstrating a proof-of-concept that gets attention at CES but never sees the light of day because LG Electronics decides it doesn't make sense in the real world.



Well I saw articles with Sony adamantly insisting the A1E (and descendants) audio system is not LGD's crystal sound but rather Sony's own development (with Sony's own patents supposedly).


Good to see LGD try stuff to see what they can sell and not just doing what LGE might be interested in.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

fafrd said:


> In addition to whatever the 'native' GtG of the OLED subpixels are, you also need to take into account the 'overshoot' that LGD's WOLED panels add at native panel refresh rate (especially for transitions from black).
> 
> If you look at the attached image at the upper left corner, you see that rtings.com measured a 0-20% GtG transition time of 8.7ms for the LG C8 (as well as the 0-80% GtG just below it).
> 
> So especially when there is overdrive and overshoots involved, basing MPRT on some realistic threshold like 90% or 95% (the level below which the offset is unlikely to be detectable in fast-moving video) is probably more sensible than insisting on 100%...


Correct, we needed cutoffs because it's a lab/automated measurement method.

Without cutoffs, the measuring equipment doesn't know how to stop measuring because of noise at the ceiling and floors -- there's never a "perfect 0%" or "perfect 100%" even if it's five-nines all the way there.

Unfortunately, beyond a "certain point" as pixel response becomes faster and more precise, the more imprecise MPRT becomes because of the arbitrarily-selected cutoff. 

MPRT only gets more accurate until that point, then starts becoming less accurate when GtG becomes perfect enough that the omission of the below-10% and above-90% becomes significant error margins. This happens with many OLEDs now.

With a 'near perfect' GtG pixel transition we now have MPRT(90%) numbers that are faster than actual perceived motion blur -- A 100Hz display with near-perfect GtG would have an MPRT(90%) of 8ms, which is different from the human-perceived 10ms (like a camera shutter of 1/100sec).

The overshoot of an OLED is extremely minor and a much more minor factor than this artificial "20%-less-than-actual" because MPRT is only the middle 80%.

Technology is getting better. Pixel response is getting faster. Pixel response is becoming more-and-more complete -- much more so than 10 years ago. Some are getting to 99%-completeness, and all that leftover excluded 19% is now a significant error margin (above human perceived blur) in some of my own tests.

*TL;DR: After a certain point, MPRT becomes less-and-less accurate the more perfect GtG pixel response becomes*

Since Blur Busters is the top-of-the-top venn diagram, all about those "really fast GtG displays", this starts becoming a significant error margin in divergence away from lab-measured and human-perceived. The arbitrarily-selected 10% and 90% cutoff points for MPRT and GtG cutoffs were good when things were very slow, but it's starting to be a significant error margin for Blur Busters now. Most MPRT measurements are one-off measurements, and doesn't consider the fact that subsequent refresh cycles are a continual stream that keeps erasing any overshoot artifacts. The OLED white ghosting becomes invisible in noisy-images which means a continual stream of refresh cycles rather than a one-off refresh cycle (that lab equipment likes to test). But what dominates more, is the 25%-more-blur (10ms instead of 8ms) seen than the MPRT numbers, for the near-perfect-GtG-transition displays. In many cases, faint-ghosts are insignificant compared to the 25%-extra-blur (tantamount to increasing Adobe Photoshop linear blur filter by 25% bigger).

Now for readers who do not understand, here's some images:

Both GtG and MPRT are based on the arbitrary human-selected 10%-to-90% cutoff points. 
Google Scholar: Cutoffs for GtG, and Cutoffs for MPRT


















(In this diagram, MPRT is based on the LC purple line, not the OLED)

That said, I understand why cutoff points are needed. But they're wholly arbitrary, and doesn't consider technological progress where the GtG error margins can be vanishingly tiny on certain kinds of displays (such as 60Hz OLEDs where GtG is a super-tiny-fraction of a refresh cycle duration), leading to a significant blur error for MPRT *where human-seen blur is as much as 25% more than measured MPRT (10%->90% metric)!*

As a result, one compromise move that I do is Blur Busters clips MPRT to never be less than a refresh cycle for a steady-state sample-and-hold display -- it's mathematically impossible for a symmetric-GtG-transition display*, as it's a constant like breaking the speed of light. That way, at least MPRT(100%) and MPRT(90%)-clipped becomes equal, and matches the blur of an equivalent photograph whose shutter speed is equal to the time duration of the equivalent one refresh cycle (e.g. blur of GtG-perfect 100Hz = blur of a 1/100sec photograph, and never less).

_Special note* -- Asymmetric pixel transitions that is faster in one direction and slower in the other direction, can distort MPRTs somewhat. In one direction (e.g. white to dark grey) can sometimes create MPRT less than a refresh cycle for one transition direction, but the converse opposite pixel transition (dark grey back to white) can have an MPRT higher than a refresh cycle. Bear this in mind in test pattern testing and the need to create average MPRT for a display containing many asymmetric GtG pixel transitions._

So a compromise will need to be found for high-Hz researchers like me, because as pixel response becomes more-and-more complete, the arbitrary 90% cutoff point, is now increasingly garbage/noise for my research use-cases.

That said, I do understand why arbitrary industry-standard cutoff points are needed. They are needed to allow electronic equipment to function and to allow automated measurements. But, there's a double edged sword factor now.

However, they also can *bite-ass* in different ways especially at the top-end of the fastest-GtG displays in situations where the cutoff points actually make things *less* accurate than *more* accurate!!! It creates a situation where accuracy can peak then MPRT becomes less and less accurate the more perfect GtG becomes. It's like passing past the uncanny valley -- a situation where GtG becomes almost perfect, then beyond that hump point, *the more perfect GtG becomes MPRT keeps shrinking to numbers smaller than a refresh cycle, the MPRT becomes less and less representative of human perceived motion blur*. (though only up to a 25% error margin, from MPRT(100%) being 25% more than MPRT(10-90%) ... which is range 100%/80% = 1.25x). The human perceived blur of a non-strobed display doesn't naturally (without enhancements) have less motion blur than an equivalent blurred camera photograph (of equivalent camera-panning motion speed) taken using a shutter duration of the same one-refresh-cycle. 

This wasn't historically happening, but is now beginning to. And now, recently, MPRTs of less than one refresh cycle for a non-strobed display, began to be quoted by manufacturers -- artificially low only because of the human-selected arbitrary decimal 10% and 90% cutoff points -- when actual human-perceived blur of that said display is actually never than one full refresh cycle.

That's why Blur Busters standardizes with MPRT(100%) where possible in those "GtG-more-perfect-than-it-historically-has-been" situations where MPRT(90%) makes results less accurate. The simplification also has one major advantage; perfect-GtG and near-perfect-GtG creates the simplified Blur Busters Law formula (*1ms of persistence = 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/second*) and the photograph shutter equivalence -- which also has the huge advantage of being much easier to understand and compare.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Here's some educational information about
- HDMI Quick Frame Transport
- Reducing Strobe Crosstalk
- Variable Refresh Rate

If you have seen those old PowerStrip or Custom Resolution numbers, did you know those numbers help make all the above possible? Here goes:



fafrd said:


> As long as the entire LCD transition (to whatever threshold is meaningful) is completed during the blanking interval. So in a world where frame rates edge past 120Hz to 240Hz, VA LCDs won't be able to keep up because the LCD lightvalves will still be settling during the entire frame interval (no time left to emit lumens).


The great thing is that you can also lengthen the blanking interval;
(1) Via Large Vertical Total (also the technique used by Quick Frame Transport -- basically a fast scanout followed by long VBI).
(2) Via internal scan-conversion (buffering the slow-scanning cable and converting to a fast-scanout on a panel)
Some displays do this already; that's how NVIDIA ULMB and LightBoost works; they create a 4ms VBI.

Most of the time, VBI is extremely small.
VBI = Vertical Blanking Interval
HBI = Horizontal Blanking Interval
The blanking interval consists of three components: FrontPorch + Sync + BackPorch. In both the horizontal directions (HBI) and vertical directions (VBI).










•	Display signals are an endless loop: .....-Sync-BackPorch-Active-FrontPorch-Sync-BackPorch-Active-FrontPorch-.....
•	Calendar-style outputting sequence, left to right (including horizontal porches/sync), top-to-bottom (including vertical porches/sync)
•	It's simply the art of serializing 2D image (refresh cycles) over a 1D medium (cable/transmission/etc)
•	Porches (black pixels, or 7.5 IRE on analog) are also sometimes called "overscan". Sync on analog video is traditionally "below-black" signal (historically was 0 IRE on analog)
•	The factory default EDID (DisplayID) for the 1920x1080 at 60Hz has 1125 pixel rows. *Vertical Total 1125*
•	1080 rows of pixels that are visible, 45 pixel rows in the blanking interval. *1080 + 45 = 1125*
•	The horizontal refresh rate (also called “scan rate”) is 67.50 kilohertz. *67500 pixel rows per second*
•	The scan rate can also be calculated as (Vertical Total) x (Vertical Refresh Rate). *1125 x 60 = 67500*
•	The time of the blanking interval is thus, 45 / 67500 second = *0.67 milliseconds*
•	That’s smaller than LCD pixel response time = not possible to go 100% crosstalk free
•	High refresh rates have smaller blanking intervals, and pixel response numbers are best-case only. *Ouch.*
•	Variable refresh rate display use the same signal except they dynamically vary the Back Porch between every refresh cycle, to temporally space out refresh cycles asynchronously (where refresh cycles are now software-triggered via frame Present() APIs)










(Images and text created by me; taken from classroom notes from a training class I give to a display manufacturer).

Also, related info for gamers -- the video game setting "VSYNC ON" versus "VSYNC OFF" was taken from the signal structure but few knows where "VSYNC" actually comes from -- that's Vertical Sync in this diagram! It is actually based on this info; VSYNC ON setting means the computer waits for the next vertical sync before beginning to deliver a new frame from GPU to monitor.

Yes.... Humankind has actually stuck to the same raster sequence for almost 100 years, from the 1930s TV broadcasts to a 2020s DisplayPort cable; it's always been sync signals and active, with some overscan padding (porches) between the sync and active. And always left-to-right, top-to-bottom, calendar scan. Even looks the same way when you measure FreeSync VRR with an oscilloscope (whenever the frame rate is running constant)! Sure, the digital equivalents are a little more parasitic and unnecessary than they were years ago, but the paddings are still there -- and that is what made variable refresh rate possible -- and that is what made quick frame transport possible too -- they're just simply tricks piggybacked on the old fashioned raster signal sequence. Now you better understand what those scary numbers in Custom Resolution are for!

Now you can scan faster in order to create a longer VBI.










Scan velocity increase techniques are a very common technique done by gaming monitors to allow 1ms GTG(~95-99%) TN LCD to be sufficiently complete in a roughly 4ms-long blanking interval; allowing most of strobe crosstalk to disappear. 1ms GtG is a 10%->90% metric, so a 4ms VBI does a huge favour to strobe-based motion blur reduction, since they have to flash between refresh cycle between LCD scanouts.









...Freeze frame from one of the high speed videos at www.blurbusters.com/scanout

Most of the scan velocity increase techniques are mainly done on the monitor side internally (internal scan conversion) but it can also be done externally via a Custom Resolution. The use of Large Vertical Totals have long benefitted certain models of strobe-backlight gaming displays such as the old BenQ XL2411Z and XL2720Z -- advanced end users have been decreasing strobe crosstalk by doing large vertical total tweaks.

In addition, Large Vertical Totals can also provide a *Quick Frame Transport (QFT)* benefit (it's the same technique as the HDMI specification) -- simply a raised horizontal scanrate for faster frame delivery -- without raising the vertical refresh rate, with a frame delivery acceleration ratio of (Vertical Total) / (Vertical Resolution) -- some displays can now tolerate a VBI bigger than Active. Quick Frame Transport, if properly implemented along with end-of-VBI page flipping for frame presentation in games (consoles, PC), can actually reduce latency. 

VRR displays (FreeSync, HDMI 2.1 VRR, and VESA Adaptive-Sync) can also have a blanking interval longer than active when running at frame rates that are less than half the maximum refresh rate (of the refresh rate range)!

*And it does get more complicated -- sometimes cable scan-rate and panel scan-rate is identical -- but sometimes scan-rates can be different on the cable than on the panel!* (or a completely different scan pattern, like DLP and plasma). Internal scan-rate conversion can occur in LCD displays with fixed-horizontal-scanrate LCDs and OLEDs too. Those particular displays must scan-velocity-convert internally if the scan-rate of the signal is different from the what the panel supports. Other panels are variable-scan-rate (like most desktop LCD gaming monitors). Most desktop gaming monitors can realtime synchronize cable scanout to LCD panel scanout (see High Speed Videos of LCD and OLED Scan-Out) but sometimes they automatically diverge when enabling a strobed mode to scan-convert to a larger blanking interval to reduce strobe crosstalk. 

Nontheless -- for both LCD and OLED -- understanding the signal structure (porches, sync, and all) is quite useful for

-- Understanding one part of strobe backlight engineering and reducing motion blur with less strobe crosstalk (LCD specific)
_......The art of using a large VBI to hide LCD GtG pixel response in the VBI, before flashing the strobe backlight for display motion blur reduction._

-- Understanding variable refresh for both LCD and OLED 
_......Simply a dynamic Vertical Back Porch that continually varies the Vertical Refresh Rate to match the frame rate_

-- Understanding quick-frame-transport (QFT) for both LCD and OLED
_......Simply a high horizontal scan rate + large VBI_

Cheers


----------



## Mark Rejhon

stl8k said:


> Really approachable article by folks at Google on "Temporal Requirements for VR Displays to Create a More Comfortable and Immersive Visual Experience"
> 
> "In an internal investigation on flicker perception in VR short-persistence displays, we explored this variability across people for the luminance at which flicker is perceived.Fig. 2 shows the cumulative distribution across 50 people. The results indicate that most people do perceive flicker in a wide field-of-view VR system at 60 hertz (Hz), even at low luminance. Advancing to 75 Hz enables a dramatic reduction in flicker, which allows for increased display luminance. This higher frame rate expands the triangular region in Fig. 1 to allow greater flexibility in satisfying the flicker and luminance requirements. The primary downsides in shifting to75 Hz are higher bandwidth and rendering requirements, shifting the balance of computational resources and impacting other aspects of the visual experience. New systems that are made for VR have begun to explore this space to understand the benefits and pitfalls of advancing the frame rate."
> 
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/msid.1018
> 
> Has lots of applicability to conventional (direct-view) displays.


This is a great article. However, even though raising to 75 Hz dramatically improves comfort, it is not a leap to five-sigma of humans. More realistically, it is tantamount to comfort for ~50% of humans leaping to comfort for 90% of humans.

To achieve five-sigma human comfort levels (Way more than >99.999% of humans) will require quadruple-digit refresh rates -- or a not-yet-invented framerateless flickerless analog-motion display -- to more accurately mimic analog-motion.










See lighting industry paper why fluorescent light ballasts are now running at 20,000Hz. 

This problem also applies to displays -- see mouse-arrow stroboscopic effect -- a sufficiently large full-FOV flickering-low-persistence VR display is tantamount to a flickering room under an old fluorescent ballast. So you see, ouchie for somewhere between 0.1%-10% of population. Never ever five sigma. *Strobing/BFI/phosphor/flashing is a bandaid in humankind because technology had not existed to do retina refresh rates.*

Also, lots of whac-a-mole to do. Tons of display side effects other than flicker too. Instead of flicker, some people get eye pain from wagon wheel artifacts or stroboscopic effects, so there's a lot of tiers to eliminate (*eliminating stroboscopics without adding motion blur is MUCH harder than fixing flicker fusion threshold*). Jumping from 60Hz->75Hz only fixes the human flicker fusion threshold, and solves one major problem -- but a lot of whac-a-mole still is needed. 

Not everyone can stand 90Hz VR. It's getting good for certain VR demos. Heck, even Oculus 90Hz is more comfortable than Real3D and Disney3D cinema glasses; at least for stationary "Comfortable" VR material such as standing in front of a virtual beach (with perfect vertigo-proof 6dof sync).... Obviously, you don't want to test rollercoaster-material as that produces instant nausea for many, but many calm VR material is now more comfortable than Real3D and Disney3D glasses at the cinema, that's how far VR engineering has...but it's very far from five-sigma visuals.

Now... even 120Hz and 240Hz flicker still creates problem (see people who get eyestrain from PWM dimming backlights and DLP rainbow artifacts; frequencies typically in the several hundred Hz), so there's still a LOT of diminishing curve to milk before you hit five-sigma population.

That's why I am such a huge fan in advocating the continuance of the *refresh rate race to retina refresh rates* (aka 1000Hz+) over the next twenty years. It's a long journey and won't happen quickly, but a major reason of existence of Blur Busters is to mythbust all the "Humans can't see X Hz" silliness -- I've been mythbusting this since 1993. I've totally shut-up people laughing about 1000Hz especially now that laboratory prototypes exist, in private show-and-tells, and every single person who I bought to a 240Hz or 480Hz display -- shown certain motion tests was able to tell apart 120Hz vs 240Hz vs 480Hz. So given the right tests and right testing variables, that's a non issue. Test cases are getting more and more extreme -- future retina-rendered retina-resolution full-FOV-retina VR, albiet not yet invented, will show glaring limitations of 1000Hz non-strobed. The bottom line is there's not yet a brick wall of "not worth it" yet. The refresh rate race continues, and will continue (slowly) for a long time where technological progress and Moore's Law headroom permits.

Incrementalism of 120Hz->240Hz->480Hz->960Hz actually "slows" down the refresh rate race, so I am a fan of "1000Hz should be the next step after 120Hz" in many contexts. There's a very clear diminishing curve of returns. To gain as big a jump of 60Hz->120Hz, requires a jump 120Hz->~1000Hz:

60Hz = 1/60sec ~= 16.666ms
120Hz = 1/120sec ~= 8.333ms, *which improves above by 8.333ms*
1000Hz = 1/1000sec = 1ms, *which improves above by 7.333ms*



austinsj said:


> In your 1000Hz article you indicate that the motion resolution needed to achieve 1ms persistence scales with pixel resolution. Is 1000Hz enough for 4K? What about 8K?


1000Hz is deemed as a "good enough" final point. 
But for "Can you tell apart X Hz and Y Hz" questions, it varies on:

*Higher resolution displays:* _The same physical motion speed travels more pixels per second. This creates more pixels of motion blur for the same persistence (MPRT)._
*Wider field of vision (FOV) displays:* _The same angular display motion speed (eye tracking speed) stays onscreen longer. This extra time makes display motion blur more easily seen._
*You need lower persistence to compensate:* _Increasingly bigger & higher resolution screens as time progresses, requires lower persistence (MPRT) numbers to keep motion blur under control._

In some situations, 1000Hz is undetectable (e.g. distant TV way across room) while in others 1000Hz ends up being a blatant limiting factor (Non-strobed retina-resolution(for full FOV) retina-GPU-rendering full-180-degree-FOV VR headsets that haven't come out yet).

For the ultimate extreme-ever test that probably won't happen until the end of this century or beyond: Five-sigma-population passing a Holodeck Turing Test for extreme-motion-material (_not being able to tell apart transparent ski goggles versus virtual reality goggles in a blind test_) will require non-strobed refresh rates of quintuple digits or some uninvented analog-motion display. But that's kinda overkill, since 1000Hz sufficiently milks the diminishing curve quite well to probably three-nines of population (99.9%) at minimum. *Today's 90Hz VR doesn't cut it at all, and way more than 0.1% of humans get headaches with motion (e.g. scrolling) via 360Hz-to-864Hz PWM dimming that they don't get with PWM-free displays. Or, likewise, 240Hz/360Hz rainbow artifacts on DLP.*

Here's what PWM dimming looks like during a TestUFO motion test:








This is 360 Hz PWM dimming -- it shows up as serrated-edge motion aritfacts instead of a continuous motion blur. The serrated look can be uncomfortable to look at. 

It's a stroboscopic artifact, but worse: It appears no matter how your eye tracking is occuring along the screen axis. And occurs with all panning motion. (e.g. during scrolling, during turning in FPS games). And on a big display? Now it becomes like the fluorescent light ballast and the graph. Big eyestrain in just 30 minutes. Ouch. 

For a few, it's even worse: the serrated-look motion actually gives instant discomfort/pain (immediate, not after 30 minutes) to some humans when they stare at this unnatural motion. Fixing PWM to one-flash-per-refresh (with near perfect GtG) can solve the serrated-look problems during eye-tracking situations since copies are (PWM frequency / frame rate). But that's just one fix; it doesn't completely fix stroboscopic artifacts for stationary-gaze (the mousearrow factor). 

Low-persistence strobing must properly synchronize PWM to 1 flash per frame, and frame rate at full refresh rate -- to minimize stroboscopics. That solves "tracking-gaze-on-moving-objects" stroboscopics. Serrating gone. However, stroboscopics from "fixed-gaze-moving-objects" are never fixable at low-Hz without adding intentional motion blur. Serrating still there (like mousearrow). Until you go 100% strobeless or do other complex tricks like eye-tracking-sensors with advanced algorithms and/or robotically physically-moving displays that moves along your eye-tracking (analog-motion). Lots of experimentation is going on in all those.

*Leaps In ComfortKind*
60Hz (strobed) -- many see flicker directly
75Hz (strobed) -- fewer see flicker directly
120Hz (strobed) -- most people can't directly see flicker from this but can still feel discomfort (dull headache in some individuals)
240Hz (strobeless) -- still has motion blur, some people get headaches from motion blur. Still has stroboscopic artifacts (like mousearrow)
240Hz (strobed) -- still has flicker, some people get headaches from either of those. Still has stroboscopic artifacts (like mousearrow)
480Hz (strobeless) -- almost blurless AND strobeless simultaneously
1000Hz (strobeless) -- virtually blurless AND strobeless simultaneously
etc.

Now, consider that's "comfort", not "detectability" -- many see rainbow DLP artifacts but are "comfortable" with them (rather than eyestrain from rainbow artifacts like other humans do get) -- there are those who cannot stand them and get eyestrain from DLP rainbow artifacts. It's all over the continuum. 

Nontheless, You solve a lot more whac-a-mole factors by the large leap in Hz. These following example numbers are arbitrary but illustrate the example "leaps of comfortkind" -- say, 60Hz strobe gets only a 10%-25% comfort rating. While 75Hz strobe gets a 50-75% comfort rating. And 90Hz strobe gets a 90% comfort rating. And 240Hz strobe gets a 99% comfort rating. And 1000Hz non-strobe can practically leap to >99.9% comfort rating. These numbers are only wild guesses and arbitrary, but you can see the geometric curve applicable. And the distinction between discomfort from direct flicker, versus discomfort from the artifacts themselves. (in a similar way like some humans can't tolerate bright light, or get headaches from excess blue light -- many of us get headaches from stroboscopic artifacts instead of the direct flicker itself!). But you get the idea; the continuum of improvement and the whac-a-mole factor of other issues well far beyond ordinary flicker fusion threshold (~60-90Hz numbers). 

(Note: I'm excluding other comfortkind Pandora's boxes, like vertigo disconnect between real-world and VR-world, and other issues unrelated to display quality.)

The artificial humankind invention of using static images to emulate moving images -- the invention of a frame rate -- the invention of a refresh rate -- and all its attendant related side effects -- is a big pain for VR. We can only do our best with limited technology such as strobed low-persistence which is a big improvement but is only a band aid for now. Going beyond that guarantees long display-improvement journey this century - *whether be LCD or OLED or other tech*. We've hit retina in resolution, but we're terribly far from retina in refresh rates. 

OK, now I'm caught up on my replies.


----------



## avernar

Mark Rejhon said:


> Sure, the digital equivalents are a little more parasitic and unnecessary than they were years ago, but the paddings are still there


They did put the padding to good use however. The audio and control packets are encoded in the blanking intervals.


----------



## fafrd

Well, it apears that Samsung has made the decision to move forward with QD-BOLED pilot production: https://www.kipost.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=200951

"This summer, LCD used equipment industry is a big place. *Samsung Display will sell its entire 8.5G (2200mm x 2500mm) LCD line to secure quantum dot-organic light emitting diode (QD-OLED) pilot line space. *This is the first case of liquidation of 8.5G LCD production lines all over the world. ..." (translated with google translate).


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Well, it apears that Samsung has made the decision to move forward with QD-BOLED pilot production: https://www.kipost.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=200951
> 
> "This summer, LCD used equipment industry is a big place. *Samsung Display will sell its entire 8.5G (2200mm x 2500mm) LCD line to secure quantum dot-organic light emitting diode (QD-OLED) pilot line space. *This is the first case of liquidation of 8.5G LCD production lines all over the world. ..." (translated with google translate).


Found this 2017 article from nanosys on QDCF/QDCC: http://palomakiconsulting.com/quantum-dot-color-filters-the-next-qd-display-technology/

This was written for QDCC-on-Blue-LED/LCD, but most of the 'technical hurdles apply to QD-BOLED as well:

"*Technical hurdles*

No new technology comes easy, and QD color filters are no exception. The technical challenges associated with this technology are very different than the challenges required to implement QD films. Scientists have been working on overcoming these hurdles, many of which have seen significant progress recently.

*Polarizer redesign* – Due to the fact that QDs depolarize light, the 2nd polarizer must move before QDs in the optical path (in cell). According to Samsung this is a problem that is solved on the R&D scale but still needs to be scaled to manufacturing. Other display makers are likely working to accomplish the same thing. [does not apply to QD-BOLED]

*Air processing* – The deposition and patterning process for color filters will require QDs to be stable in air. This is no small feat, as the processing requirements for photoresist patterning include multiple UV-curing, developer washes, and high temperature baking steps.

*Unintentional excitation* – neighboring green pixels could unintentionally excite red pixels. QDs can also be excited by blue room light. Additional filtering is needed, perhaps even retaining a color filter on top of the QD color filter layer so that blue room light does not excite the QD layer.[

*QDs emit in all directions* – This is a light management problem. Partially solved by including a short-pass reflector to maximize light output, but further optimization of light will improve efficiency and brightness.

*Custom QD/polymer mixtures* – Patterning will require the use of photoresist polymers or ink jet printable polymers which will be different than the polymers used for films. In addition, *these mixtures will need to have a very high concentration of QDs to achieve complete absorption.*

*Efficiency/reabsorption* – Due to the extremely high concentrations required for this application, reabsorption of emitted photons is a problem. *QD concentrations too low will allow blue light to leak through resulting in reduced color gamut.* QD concentrations too high will result in poor device efficiency. The following plots from Nanoco do a great job explaining this difficult trade off. As the %Abs of blue light increases, the QD efficiency (EQE) drops off dramatically. This is due to the significant overlap between the QD absorption (blue trace) and emission (green trace)."

The attached graph is difficult to understand, but if EQE translates to the % of blue photons converted to red (or green) photons, this jibes with the earlier statement I found about the 100% efficiency Samsung originally touted actually being 50-60% in practice because ofthe added blue-blocking filter (and hence the need for a 3rd blue OLED layer).


----------



## stl8k

*Some Motion Research Anecdotes*

Motion nerds may find these excerpts from display motion research interesting:

In "New Pixel Structure with High G-to-G Response Time for Large Size and High Resolution OLED TVs", LG researchers in 2013 concluded:


> "We found that device characteristics and driving timing are not the main cause of response time degradation... Through the simulation results, we found out that the main cause of response time degradation is pixel structure according to compensation method."


https://rdcu.be/bzyhT

Did this source-follow-based approach ever make it into 55"+ production?

----------
In "Evaluation of liquid-crystal-display motion blur with moving-picture response time and human perception", Mitsubishi researchers in 2012 found:



> These correlations show that we can use MPRT as a method of measuring the relative performance of motion blur of LCDs. However, we also found a difference between EBET and _perceived_ motion blur when the transition of luminance profiles is relatively slow in some profiles. The correlation becomes stronger when using other threshold values which determine EBET from the measured luminance profile. This shows there is a possibility that MPRT measurement can be made to come much closer to the results of subjective evaluation by reviewing the threshold.


https://rdcu.be/bzyGX


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Motion nerds may find these excerpts from display motion research interesting:
> 
> In "New Pixel Structure with High G-to-G Response Time for Large Size and High Resolution OLED TVs", LG researchers in 2013 concluded:
> 
> 
> https://rdcu.be/bzyhT
> 
> Did this diode-based approach ever made it into 55"+ production?
> 
> ----------
> In "Evaluation of liquid-crystal-display motion blur with moving-picture response time and human perception", Mitsubishi researchers in 2012 found:
> 
> 
> 
> https://rdcu.be/bzyGX


If you understand any of this, a translatuon would be appreciated...


----------



## Mark Rejhon

stl8k said:


> In "Evaluation of liquid-crystal-display motion blur with moving-picture response time and human perception", Mitsubishi researchers in 2012 found:
> 
> 
> 
> These correlations show that we can use MPRT as a method of measuring the relative performance of motion blur of LCDs. However, we also found a difference between EBET and perceived motion blur when the transition of luminance profiles is relatively slow in some profiles. The correlation becomes stronger when using other threshold values which determine EBET from the measured luminance profile. *This shows there is a possibility that MPRT measurement can be made to come much closer to the results of subjective evaluation by reviewing the threshold.*
> 
> 
> 
> https://rdcu.be/bzyGX
Click to expand...

Responding to red color. Unfortunately, it gets complex.

Yes, though alas, there are indeed situations where it appears that:
- Loosening the thresholds sometimes improves MPRT accuracy versus human-seen blur (when GtG is much slower than the MPRT thresholds)
- Tightening the thresholds sometimes improves MPRT accuracy versus human-seen blur (when GtG is far faster than the MPRT thresholds)

MPRT is much more accurate than GtG in measuring human-perceived motion blur, but only MPRT(100%) begins to approach equal to human-seen motion blur when GtG100% approaches closer and closer to 0 -- when measured on blurfree source material (material with no softening/preblurring/compression artifacts/etc -- usually computer rendered graphics). The MPRT(100%) number accuracy relative to human-see, starts to diverges away from MPRT(10->90%) when GtG is far faster than the MPRT thresholds. And, there exists displays where GtG is far faster than the MPRT thresholds (MPRT10-90% omits more than a millisecond at the top/bottom of curves of a 60Hz=16.7ms refresh cycle. And OLED GtG on some panels can now be faster than that). 

Such situations, for my situation, MPRT(10% -> 90%) only covers 80% range and creates artificially low MPRTs where human-seen blur can be up to 25% more than the MPRT number (the 100%/80% = 1.25). There can never be less average blur than the duration of a refresh cycle on any true non-pulsed sample-and-hold display with symmetric near-zero GtG. 

MPRT is only "perfect" (to human-seen blur) when we measure full MPRT(100%), and the full GtG(100%)=0ms, for source material that has no blurring/softenings. GtG may never reach perfectly zero but _at least_ it converges -- when doing MPRT(100%) measurements. MPRT(100%) does 'converges' to perfection, the faster-and-more-perfect GtG becomes -- as GtG has been for the last several years. We now have sub-1ms GtG today, which already begins to degrade MPRT(10->90%) accuracy for my use-cases, so that's why I default to MPRT(100%) for sheer simple mathmatical simplicity that enabled the easy Blur Busters Law formula (it's like an E=mc^2 style simplification, no calculus/algebra needed). Really fascinatingly simple as the simple Blur Busters Law formula becomes more and more perfectly accurate the closer GtG becomes 0. I like formulas that converges to perfect accuracy (to human-perceived blur) the more perfect GtG becomes. 

Only MPRT(100%) begins to match camera "blurred-photograph" equivalence the closer-and-closer GtG approaches to 0ms (which is what is being witnessed in today's technological progress).



Perhaps the MPRT thresholds should be dynamic. Cutoff thresholds for easier electronic measuring is unavoidable, but sometimes creates arbitrary results. That said, Blur Busters tends to deal with high-Hz fast-GtG displays and thus, defaults to a MPRT100% with a full-refresh-cycle cutoff (No MPRT numbers less than a refresh cycle for a non-impulsed display). 

There got to be a more permanent solution for arbitrary human-selected cutoffs for the refresh rate race to retina refresh rates.


----------



## bombyx

I've updated my chart with the help of the last Rtings C9 review : (D-Nice's pictures were too blurry to get accurate numbers. )


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> I've updated my chart with the help of the last Rtings C9 review : (D-Nice's pictures were too blurry to get accurate numbers. )


Appreciate all of the effort you put into this, but I assume there is a certain limit to the accuracy that you can provide from analyzing these subpixel macros.

Seeing these revised numbers, it seems very likely that the Philips 803 was using a 2019 WOLED panel early (it was a late-year release, correct?).

The liklihood of LGD supplying customized WOLED panels was always unfathomable to me, certainly at the low volumes Philips ships. These revised numbers just solidify my certainty that Philips gets access to new-year WOLED panels late in the prior year.

So the most significant change from the C8 to the C9 appears to be further reducing blue (which has pretty much never shown signs of burn-in) in favor of red (which has been the weakest color since the new BR-YB stack introduced in 2016).

Looking at 2016 (and 2017), LGD succeeded to increase pixel aperature ratio (PAR) by ~20% (from ~26% to ~31%) using the lion's-share of that increased aperature area to ~double the size of the red subpixel...


----------



## bombyx

fafrd said:


> Appreciate all of the effort you put into this, but I assume there is a certain limit to the accuracy that you can provide from analyzing these subpixel macros.


 Yes , something like +/- 0.5 in the best case . 





fafrd said:


> Seeing these revised numbers, it seems very likely that the Philips 803 was using a 2019 WOLED panel early (it was a late-year release, correct?).
> 
> The liklihood of LGD supplying customized WOLED panels was always unfathomable to me, certainly at the low volumes Philips ships. These revised numbers just solidify my certainty that Philips gets access to new-year WOLED panels late in the prior year.


The sub pixels shapes are different :


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> Yes , something like +/- 0.5 in the best case .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The sub pixels shapes are different* :


Well that is a good point, though between different panel sizes, fuzzy images, and even the possibility of running changes that maintain subpixel PARs, it's exceedingly difficult to get a solid grip on what LGD is manufacturing when. Short-run customized panels are not an impossibility, but they are unlikely...


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Unlike for LCDs -- *one interesting side effect of the different pixel shapes, different amperage-per-pixel, and different pixel chemistries is the different OLED pixel response speeds for different colors.* 

As a random example, it might be ~0.1ms versus ~0.2ms GtG (VESA 90% metric) when benchmarking the different primaries. 

Technologically, this is usually a non-issue for sample-and-hold operation -- but can become a noticeable issue during BFI operation, with increasingly worse tinting effects during shorter-and-shorter persistence. For a 1ms MPRT pulse, 0.2ms GtG is a whopping 20% of the pulsewidth. So inconsistent GtGs (In BFI's case, it is more Grey-to-Black, and Black-to-Grey) become a bigger error margin in short-pulse-BFI for ultra-low persistence. So a recalibration of color is done at different pulse:GtG ratio of the BFI, as has to be done by manufacturer for low-persistence VR OLEDs.

Theoretically, LEDs are much more instantaneous, but those really tiny grid wires that has to travel long distances along a panel surface to brightly illuminate an OLED pixel -- now you've got to contend with pixel response limitations caused by so many backplane factors (microwire line capacitance effects, speed of active matrix transistor switching from the microwire lines, etc). That can often become a bigger limiting factor in pixel response speed than the direct theoretical speed of the pixel itself (in ideal conditions).


----------



## fafrd

Finally found some market data on Ultra Large Screen TVs: https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-qled-tvs-2019-take-on-oled-with-bigger-screens-in-2019/

"Samsung cites IHS Markit saying the market for 75-inch or bigger TVs is expected to grow by 43 percent in *2019, to 3 million units, *and expand to 5.8 million units by 2022."

LGD is estimated to be producing 34,000 77" WOLEDs this year: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-panel-revenues-to-grow-8-in-2019-to-29-billion

"We forecast that 55” TV panels will increase 31% in *2019* to 2.4 million, while 65” will increase 23% to 1.2 million and *77” will increase 31% to 34,000 units."*

So if all of these numbers/forecasts are accurate, WOLED will own just 1.1% of the 75-inch-or-bigger market this year.

This compared to the Premium 55" and Premium 65" TV segments where WOLED owns over 50% market share.

To be fair, this IHS Forecast for 75-inch-and-bigger TVs is all 75"+ TVs, without making a distinction between Premium 75"+ TVs versus entry-level 75"+ TVs, but even if we assume that Premium 75"+ TVs constitute the top 10% of the overall 75"+ TV market, WOLED owns only 11% of that segment.

Starting in 2020 when Giangzhou will have ramped and certainly by 2022 when the 10.5G plant in Paju (P10) will have ramped, LGD is goimg to be increasing 75/77" WOLED poduction by ~10X. By 2022, they will almost certainly be producing over 300,000 75/77" WOLEDs (which will still mean less than 5.2% of the overall 75"+ TV market but will mean over 50% of the top 10% Premium segment of that market).

And for perspective, a 10X increase in 75/77" WOLED production merely translates into an increase to ~2% of overall WOLED panel production in 2022 compared to the 0.9% level where they are in 2019 (because overall WOLED panel production is increasing by over 4X over that same period...).


----------



## stl8k

Mark Rejhon said:


> Unlike for LCDs -- *one interesting side effect of the different pixel shapes, different amperage-per-pixel, and different pixel chemistries is the different OLED pixel response speeds for different colors.*
> 
> As a random example, it might be ~0.1ms versus ~0.2ms GtG (VESA 90% metric) when benchmarking the different primaries.
> 
> Technologically, this is usually a non-issue for sample-and-hold operation -- but can become a noticeable issue during BFI operation, with increasingly worse tinting effects during shorter-and-shorter persistence. For a 1ms MPRT pulse, 0.2ms GtG is a whopping 20% of the pulsewidth. So inconsistent GtGs (In BFI's case, it is more Grey-to-Black, and Black-to-Grey) become a bigger error margin in short-pulse-BFI for ultra-low persistence. So a recalibration of color is done at different pulse:GtG ratio of the BFI, as has to be done by manufacturer for low-persistence VR OLEDs.
> 
> Theoretically, LEDs are much more instantaneous, but those really tiny grid wires that has to travel long distances along a panel surface to brightly illuminate an OLED pixel -- now you've got to contend with pixel response limitations caused by so many backplane factors (microwire line capacitance effects, speed of active matrix transistor switching from the microwire lines, etc). That can often become a bigger limiting factor in pixel response speed than the direct theoretical speed of the pixel itself (in ideal conditions).


The LG Display paper I posted in the past week made it really clear that the OLED backplane driving can be a significant contributor to pixel response.

Wonder if the issue you mention was a primary reason for LG Display pulling back its user-defined BFI settings?


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Finally found some market data on Ultra Large Screen TVs: https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-qled-tvs-2019-take-on-oled-with-bigger-screens-in-2019/
> 
> "Samsung cites IHS Markit saying the market for 75-inch or bigger TVs is expected to grow by 43 percent in *2019, to 3 million units, *and expand to 5.8 million units by 2022."
> 
> LGD is estimated to be producing 34,000 77" WOLEDs this year: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/oled-panel-revenues-to-grow-8-in-2019-to-29-billion
> 
> "We forecast that 55” TV panels will increase 31% in *2019* to 2.4 million, while 65” will increase 23% to 1.2 million and *77” will increase 31% to 34,000 units."*
> 
> So if all of these numbers/forecasts are accurate, WOLED will own just 1.1% of the 75-inch-or-bigger market this year.
> 
> This compared to the Premium 55" and Premium 65" TV segments where WOLED owns over 50% market share.
> 
> To be fair, this IHS Forecast for 75-inch-and-bigger TVs is all 75"+ TVs, without making a distinction between Premium 75"+ TVs versus entry-level 75"+ TVs, but even if we assume that Premium 75"+ TVs constitute the top 10% of the overall 75"+ TV market, WOLED owns only 11% of that segment.
> 
> Starting in 2020 when Giangzhou will have ramped and certainly by 2022 when the 10.5G plant in Paju (P10) will have ramped, LGD is goimg to be increasing 75/77" WOLED poduction by ~10X. By 2022, they will almost certainly be producing over 300,000 75/77" WOLEDs (which will still mean less than 5.2% of the overall 75"+ TV market but will mean over 50% of the top 10% Premium segment of that market).
> 
> And for perspective, a 10X increase in 75/77" WOLED production merely translates into an increase to ~2% of overall WOLED panel production in 2022 compared to the 0.9% level where they are in 2019 (because overall WOLED panel production is increasing by over 4X over that same period...).


Would be interesting to create a model using historic market share by screen size independent of technology as a way to inform future growth in this segment. Of course, all trends are leading toward greater specialization/diversity, so screen size may not be the most interesting variable to classify sales by in the future. For example, if LG Display is able to define and lead a new rollable market, who cares at which screen sizes they do that.


----------



## fafrd

Looks like Samsung decided to take another 3 months to make a decision on investing in QD-OLED manufacturing equipment: https://kr.investing.com/news/economy-news/article-178587

'QD-OLED equipment investment decisions are expected to be delayed than expected, with the possibility of postponing or abandoning the investment itself is not high, analysts said.

Korea Investment & Securities said the QD-OLED investment issue is still ongoing.

*"The QD-OLED facility investment decision is delayed to June ~ July and is expected to be delayed about two months later than expected," said Kim Jung-hwan, a researcher at Korea Investment & Securities. "Said the statement.*'


----------



## fafrd

Looks as though UDC may have achieved a breakthrough in red needed to achieve Rec,2020 (at least the Deep Red needed for Rec.2020): https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...isplay-Corporation-Showcase-Organic-Vapor-Jet

"During an invited paper titled, “Narrow Spectrum Deep Red Emitters for OLED Lighting and Display,” Dr. Eric Margulies will detail some breakthrough PHOLED performance data towards automotive lighting applications, including:

Novel narrow emission Deep Red and Amber for automotive lighting:

*Deep Red:*
*1931 CIE: (0.70,0.30), *with a breakthrough narrow line shape of 43 nm FWHM
EQE of 25% and LT95 55,000 hours at L0=1,000 nits

Amber:
1931 CIE: (0.58,0.42), with a breakthrough narrow line shape of 36 nm FWHM
EQE of 28% and LT95 200,000 hours at L0=1,000 nits

Moving the bar on the efficiency-lifetime design space of Light Green for automotive applications:
1931 CIE: (0.42,0.56), with exciting advances in EQE with end use brightness and lifetime
EQE of 25% and LT95 300,000 hours at L0=1,000 nits"

Rec.2020 requires fully-saturated deep red of 0.708, 0.292: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020

The fact that this is being presented before mid-2019 means we may see it in a new WOLED stack as early as next year, though LGD's WOLED panel roadmap has not presented any increase in their current color gamut (99% DCI-P3) until 2022 (90% Rec.2020).
(credit to Slacker for this info - he seems to be spending more time at Silicon Investor than he does here on AVS .


----------



## austinsj

90% Rec. 2020 by 2022 is pretty damn good. I wonder how hard that last 10% will be.


----------



## rogo

It's interesting that, _assuming the forecast above_, 75-inch TVs will not reach 3% of all TV sales even by 2023. While the growth _rates_ in the category are quite good right now, they are expected to average only 25% per year for the next 3 years. And given that the rate for 2019 is 43%, it appears that even the bulls at IHS believe growth in the category will be below 20% by 2022. 

Why does this matter? Because for now, LG is taken what @fafrd calculates at barely a double-digit market share in premium. With significant boosts to capacity coming online, LG will likely achieve double digits of the whole segment by that year. And by then, they will likely capture the bulk of the profit in the segment too. This is truly awful news for everyone not named LG. While LG has dithered on pushing the advantage, it appears Samsung's lack of any technological roadmap is challenging it badly.

LG has an incredibly clear path to essentially win TV. The price is not as big as the one Samsung has won in mobile (displays) but it's a very nice prize.

They just have to execute.


----------



## dfa973

Cinth said:


> How OLED is different from normal LED?


"normal LED" is, in fact, a classic LCD panel with a LED backlight (instead of a classic CFL). Even "QLED" is the same sandwich of LCD+LED backlight... LCD panels are transmissive - the LCD layer filters the (CFL/LED) backlight.
OLED panels are emissive - every OLED pixel generates its own light - no backlight is used.



Cinth said:


> How are they manufactured?


The manufacturing process is pretty complex and is kind of outside of this topic.

You may want to read the Google search results for: "How LCD panels are manufactured" and "How OLED panels are manufactured" for further insight.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> It's interesting that, _assuming the forecast above_, 75-inch TVs will not reach 3% of all TV sales even by 2023. While the growth _rates_ in the category are quite good right now, they are expected to average only 25% per year for the next 3 years. And given that the rate for 2019 is 43%, it appears that even the bulls at IHS believe growth in the category will be below 20% by 2022.
> 
> Why does this matter? Because for now, LG is taken what @fafrd calculates at barely a double-digit market share in premium. With significant boosts to capacity coming online, LG will likely achieve double digits of the whole segment by that year. And by then, they will likely capture the bulk of the profit in the segment too. This is truly awful news for everyone not named LG. While LG has dithered on pushing the advantage, it appears Samsung's lack of any technological roadmap is challenging it badly.
> 
> LG has an incredibly clear path to essentially win TV. The price is not as big as the one Samsung has won in mobile (displays) but it's a very nice prize.
> 
> They just have to execute.


After all of that FUD was published earlier this year implying Samsung/QLED was kicking LG/WOLED in the tuckus, sounds like you finally see it the way I do,

LG has been wise to focus on 55" and 65" where all of the real Premium volume is while they continue to dabble in 77" awaiting their 10.5G fab before they get serious about 75" Premium share. We're lucky 77" WOLED prices have come down as much as they have (though 77C9 MSRP is still absurd at 200% of 65C9 MSRP).

And now with the introduction of 48" WOLED panels on the horizon, they have the choice to throttle 77/75" WOLED volume for another year or two even though they are reaching saturation in the 55"" and 65" Premium segments. I can't remember whether I posted in this thread or not, but I've even predicted that LGD may introduce both 75" WOLEDs and ~82" WOLED panels at the same time they begin phaseout of 77" panels. That would both mirror Samsung's Premium TV QLED offerings and quiet those complainers who need more than 75" but can't step all the way up to 88"...

And as you say, the path is clear - these are all now mature technologies that LG has in-hand. Winning Vizio for 2020 is a huge validation that LG has essentially consolidated the entire TV industry around WOLED as the Premium TV technology of choice...


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Cinth said:


> How OLED is different from normal LED? How are they manufactured?


Just to be clear, to cover all bases (adding to dfa973's answer), "normal LED", may refer to two different kinds of discrete LEDs:

*(A)* What manufacturers call "LED televisions" are actually LCD panels with a LED backlight or edgelight.
*(B)* Discrete LEDs like LED indicators. There is a new LED TV technology called "microLED", which are millions of separate discrete LEDs on the same screen. They are essentially like baby versions of your LED Jumbotron/billboard. Instead of looking beady/dotty close-up, the LEDs are so tiny at the same DPI as current televisions (of equivalent size)



stl8k said:


> The LG Display paper I posted in the past week made it really clear that the OLED backplane driving can be a significant contributor to pixel response. Wonder if the issue you mention was a primary reason for LG Display pulling back its user-defined BFI settings?


I'm not sure. LG says it's because of the flashing issue. But I wonder if there's additional deciding factors.

I know that noise can increase dramatically during BFI. Basically, vignetting effects and inconsistent blacks don't get better while the peak whites become dimmer. So you've got less contrast ratio between the noisy blacks to the full whites, during extreme BFI operation. This is also clearly seen on Oculus Rift VR headsets when viewing full-blacks -- the vignetting on those can be much worse than on HDTVs -- there's less dynamic range from the "noisyblacks-to-fullwhites". The more you try to lower OLED persistence, the more visible this issue is. Some Oculus Rift applications use algorithms to improve these noisy blacks (such as adding faint temporal white noise in the dark greys) as a workaround.

Maybe this is not one of the factors -- but perhaps enough borderline-manufactured panels showed up that those units looked really bad during 75% BFI, that LG didn't want the surge of warranty claims. Panel lottery effects have a way of enroaching into quality error margins quite badly. It would not have been the only deciding factor. Using the backplane bandwidth to instead improve higher-priority quality attributes is a very commendable goal, but still, it would have been nice to let the user choose. Sometimes motion clarity is a more important goal for certain use cases.

-----

*New GtG vs MPRT Article Inspired by my AVSFORUM Post*
By the way, you know the GtG and MPRT graphs I posted earlier in this AVSFORUM thread? That finally gave me major impetus to finally write GtG Versus MPRT: Frequently Asked Questions About Pixel Response about the two different pixel response benchmarks. Some of what I wrote in my AVSFORUM post was actually recycled into that new article, plus new images/text created from scratch. I've been meaning to write this article for years, but now it's finally up. If any of you see any inaccuracies/errors, send me a PM.


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> Just to be clear, to cover all bases, "normal LED", may refer to two things:
> 
> (A) What manufacturers call "LED televisions" are actually LCD panels with a LED backlight or edgelight.
> 
> (B) Discrete LEDs like LED indicators. There is a new LED TV technology called "microLED", which are millions of separate discrete LEDs on the same screen. They are essentially like baby versions of your LED Jumbotron/billboard. Instead of looking beady/dotty close-up, the LEDs are so tiny at the same DPI as current displays.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure. *LG says it's because of the flashing issue. *But I wonder if there's additional deciding factors.
> 
> But I know that noise can increase dramatically during BFI. Basically, the vignetting becomes worse (brighter) while the peak whites become dimmer. So you've got less contrast ratio between the noisy blacks to the full whites, during extreme BFI operation. This is also clearly seen on Oculus Rift VR headsets when viewing full-blacks -- the vignetting on those can be somewhat worse than on HDTVs -- there's less dynamic range from the "noisyblacks-to-fullwhites". The more you try to lower OLED Persistence, the more this problem crops up.
> 
> Maybe not -- but perhaps enough borderline-manufactured panels showed up that it looked really bad during 75% BFI, that LG didn't want the surge of warranty claims. Panel lottery effects have a way of enroaching into error margins quite badly. It would not have been the only deciding factor. Using the backplane bandwidth to instead improve higher-priority quality attributes is a very commendable goal, but still, it would have been nice to let the user choose. Sometimes motion clarity is a more important goal for certain use cases.
> 
> -----
> 
> *New GtG vs MPRT Article Inspired by my AVSFORUM Post*
> By the way, you know the GtG and MPRT graphs I posted earlier in this AVSFORUM thread? That finally gave me major impetus to finally write GtG Versus MPRT: Frequently Asked Questions About Pixel Response about the two different pixel response benchmarks. Some of what I wrote in my AVSFORUM post was actually recycled into that new article, plus new images/text created from scratch. I've been meaning to write this article for years, but now it's finally up. If any of you see any inaccuracies/errors, send me a PM.


I'm interested in any pointers you have to what LG has said on the subject of 120Hz BFI being yanked due to flashing. I've speculated as much but have not seen anything from LG on the question.

Also, we don't know what causes the flashing. Speeding up signal delays on long data lines using overdrive is one possibility, but the root cause has never been explained or proven. The rtings.com measurements consistently show a full-internal-refresh-cycle overshoot, which is most pronounced in their 0-20% measurement (upper left). If you have any explanation for why LGs WOLEDs suffer from this full-internal-refresh-cycle overshoot, I'm all ears. The only explanation I can come up with is that LG overdrives the data line to compensate for slow signal speeeds on the first 8ms internal refresh cycle (especially when transitioning from 0%) and the uses the immediately-subsequent 8ms internal refresh cycle to drive to actual target data levels.

LG's 'fix' for the overshoot issue involves both temporal and soatial dithering, and temporal dithering and 129Hz BFI are incompatible (which is why I've speculated that solving the flashing issue was the reason 120Hz BFI was yanked at the 11th hour...).


----------



## Micolash

Sorry if this sounds stupid, but when we say "black frame insertion" is the display actually inserting a black frame, or is it just turning the display off for a set amount of time? And does that distinction even matter? 

I'm just wondering if there are other ways to reduce persistence on OLED besides the split column/rolling refresh that LG was proposing for 2019. If the current displays are merely turning off for half each frame duration, why can't they remain off for 75% the frame duration? Or whatever percentage you choose. I get that the brightness would take an even bigger hit. Would the flicker be that unbearable?


----------



## lsorensen

Micolash said:


> Sorry if this sounds stupid, but when we say "black frame insertion" is the display actually inserting a black frame, or is it just turning the display off for a set amount of time? And does that distinction even matter?
> 
> I'm just wondering if there are other ways to reduce persistence on OLED besides the split column/rolling refresh that LG was proposing for 2019. If the current displays are merely turning off for half each frame duration, why can't they remain off for 75% the frame duration? Or whatever percentage you choose. I get that the brightness would take an even bigger hit. Would the flicker be that unbearable?


It doesn't make a difference effectively, other than in terms of the maximum frame rate of the panel limiting what you can do.

At least 2018 and older did not have any ability to turn of the picture for half a frame. They only had the option to change the output level of the pixels, which meant doing that as a frame. Some LCDs have the option of turning off the back light independently of the LCD being changed. The 2019 LG OLED was supposed to have some new method for changing the frame to black outside the normal setting of the pixel values, which would have allowed it to change to black at a time that wasn't a frame update, but that is no longer happening, although who knows if they will manage to fix it and bring it back in a firmware update.


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> It doesn't make a difference effectively, other than in terms of the maximum frame rate of the panel limiting what you can do.
> 
> At least 2018 and older did not have any ability to turn of the picture for half a frame. They only had the option to change the output level of the pixels, which meant doing that as a frame. Some LCDs have the option of turning off the back light independently of the LCD being changed. *The 2019 LG OLED was supposed to have some new method for changing the frame to black outside the normal setting of the pixel values, which would have allowed it to change to black at a time that wasn't a frame update*, but that is no longer happening, although who knows if they will manage to fix it and bring it back in a firmware update.


Sorry, but this is not correct. LGs WOLEDs always insert black frames by refreshing pixel data with values corresponding to a black frame - there is no method for changing pixel output luminance other than refreshing pixel data.

What the 2019 WOLEDs has implemented is a split-column refresh. Each half frame is able to refresh at 240Hz. This can be used to refresh a full frame at 120Hz. It can also be used to insert black frames at 120Hz (one half frame is writing fresh data on top of black while the other half frame is writing black on top of old data). The split-column refresh allows a line in the top-half frame and the corresponding line on the bottom half-frame to be refreshed in parallel and with different pixel values (because the data lines are split in the middle, half driven from the top and half driven from the bottom).

This capability is built into the 2019 WOLED backplane (including the 88Z9) but the reason it is not being used is because LG needed to employ temporal dithering to resolve the flashing/overshoot issue (in addition to spatial dithering).

120Hz BFI 4K backplane with 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate is incompatible with temporal dithering.

You can use a 4K backplane with 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate to refresh at 120Hz with temporal dithering and no BFI.

You can use a 4K backplane with 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate to refresh at 60Hz with temporal dithering and 60Hz BFI.

You cannot use a 4K backplane with 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate to refresh at 120Hz with temporal dithering and 120Hz BFI.

You could also use a 4K backplane with 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate to refresh at 120Hz without temporal dithering and with 120Hz BFI (which is what LG demonstrated at CES), but LGE elected not to allow that capability in the production FW release because it would not allow the temporal dithering aspect of the flashing/overshoot 'fix' to be active in that mode.

Perhaps they were hoping that spatial dithering alone would be enough to fix the flashing/overshoot issue but ultimately decided it was insufficient to keep the PQ defect from re-rearing its ugly head...


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> Sorry, but this is not correct. LGs WOLEDs always insert black frames by refreshing pixel data with values corresponding to a black frame - there is no method for changing pixel output luminance other than refreshing pixel data.
> 
> What the 2019 WOLEDs has implemented is a split-column refresh. Each half frame is able to refresh at 240Hz. This can be used to refresh a full frame at 120Hz. It can also be used to insert black frames at 120Hz (one half frame is writing fresh data on top of black while the other half frame is writing black on top of old data). The split-column refresh allows a line in the top-half frame and the corresponding line on the bottom half-frame to be refreshed in parallel and with different pixel values (because the data lines are split in the middle, half driven from the top and half driven from the bottom).
> 
> This capability is built into the 2019 WOLED backplane (including the 88Z9) but the reason it is not being used is because LG needed to employ temporal dithering to resolve the flashing/overshoot issue (in addition to spatial dithering).
> 
> 120Hz BFI 4K backplane with 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate is incompatible with temporal dithering.
> 
> You can use a 4K backplane with 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate to refresh at 120Hz with temporal dithering and no BFI.
> 
> You can use a 4K backplane with 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate to refresh at 60Hz with temporal dithering and 60Hz BFI.
> 
> You cannot use a 4K backplane with 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate to refresh at 120Hz with temporal dithering and 120Hz BFI.
> 
> You could also use a 4K backplane with 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate to refresh at 120Hz without temporal dithering and with 120Hz BFI (which is what LG demonstrated at CES), but LGE elected not to allow that capability in the production FW release because it would not allow the temporal dithering aspect of the flashing/overshoot 'fix' to be active in that mode.
> 
> Perhaps they were hoping that spatial dithering alone would be enough to fix the flashing/overshoot issue but ultimately decided it was insufficient to keep the PQ defect from re-rearing its ugly head...


I probably over simplified it. Yours is definitely the accurate answer.


----------



## fafrd

Micolash said:


> Sorry if this sounds stupid, but when we say "black frame insertion" *is the display actually inserting a black frame*, or is it just turning the display off for a set amount of time? And does that distinction even matter?


Yes, the WOLED display is just refreshing with pixel data corresponding tp an all-black frame.



> I'm just wondering if there are other ways to reduce persistence on OLED besides the split column/rolling refresh that LG was proposing for 2019. If the current displays are merely turning off for half each frame duration, why can't they remain off for 75% the frame duration? Or whatever percentage you choose. I get that the brightness would take an even bigger hit. Would the flicker be that unbearable?


A split-column 4K backplane supporting 240Hz effective refresh rate can be used in 2 ways at 120Hz and 4 ways at Hz:

*120Hz refresh rate w/o BFI* (top half writes fresh frame data while bottom half persists with stale frame data, then top half persists with that newly-written fresh frame data while bottom half writes the lower half of the frame data corresponding to that same fresh frame).

*120Hz refresh rate w/ 50% BFI* (top half writes fresh frame data while bottom half overwrites stale frame data with black data, then top half overwrites that newly-written fresh frame data with black data while bottom half writes the lower half of the frame data corresponding to that same fresh frame).

*60Hz refresh rate w/o BFI* (same as 120Hz w/o BFI but just write each frame twice).

*60Hz refresh rate w/ 25% BFI* (top half writes fresh frame data while bottom half overwrites stale (previous) frame data with black, then top half persists with newly-written fresh frame data while bottom half writes the lower half of the frame data corresponding to that same fresh frame, then top half and bottom half persist with fresh frame data, then top half overwrites with black while bottom half persists with fresh frame data.

*60Hz refresh rate w/ 50% BFI* (top half writes fresh frame data while bottom half persists with black, then top half persists with fresh frame data while bottom half writes the lower half of that same fresh frame, then top half writes black while bottom half persists with fresh frame data, then top half persists with black while bottom half writes black).

*60Hz refresh rate w/ 75% BFI* (top half writes fresh frame data while bottom half persists with black, then top half overwrites black data on top of newly-written fresh frame data while bottom half writes the lower half of the frame data corresponding to that same fresh frame, then top half persists with black while bottom half overwrites black data on top of newly-written fresh frame data, then top half and bottom half persists with black for one full 240Hz refresh cycle (4.2ms, or 1/4 of the full 16.7ms 60Hz refresh cycle)).

So the current split-column backplane w/ 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate could support 0%, 5%, 50% or 75% BFI @ 60Hz except for the conflict with temporal dithering needed to 'fix' the overshoot/flashing problem.

Once LG doubles intrinsic backplane speed (which they will need to do to in order to support 120Hz refresh rates @ 8K resolution) that will mean 4K backplanes could support a true 240Hz Native Refresh Rate (meaning single-column, no more split). At that point, a black frame can be overwritten on top of a fresh frame being refreshed @ 120Hz at any % to single-line resolution. 

For example, 67% BFI would correspond to overwriting with black the line 713 lines in front of the line currently being written with fresh frame data @ 120Hz (wrapping around when needed). Freshly-written lines output lumens for 713 out of 2160 lines (33%) and then get written to black and output no lumens for the remaining 1447/2160ths (67%) of the full 8.3ms refresh cycle. Output will be reduced to 1/3 of what it would have been with 0% BFI. 

You will effectively have the ability to control brightness level by increasing BFI% from 0% BFI (brightest) to the % BFI delivers which the brightness level you consider preferable. Lower output levels can correspond to shorter persistence rather than reduced drive current.


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> I probably over simplified it. Yours is definitely the accurate answer.


No worries. It's only because of the confusion regarding BFI on LED/LCD (which is based on a completely seperate mechanism from pixel refresh, since backlight segments can be independently controlled) that I felt clarification was important.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

fafrd said:


> I'm interested in any pointers you have to what LG has said on the subject of 120Hz BFI being yanked due to flashing.


I'm very curious because I haven't seen the flashing myself, so I'm unable to speculate the cause of flashing -- but I can pretty much guarantee you there's multiple engineering issues of BFI and _there may have been more than one._ Alas, display engineering is full of multiple simultaneous concurrent visits of Murphy's Law.



fafrd said:


> A split-column 4K backplane supporting 240Hz effective refresh rate can be used in 2 ways at 120Hz and 4 ways at Hz:
> 
> *120Hz refresh rate w/o BFI* (top half writes fresh frame data while bottom half persists with stale frame data, then top half persists with that newly-written fresh frame data while bottom half writes the lower half of the frame data corresponding to that same fresh frame).
> 
> *120Hz refresh rate w/ 50% BFI* (top half writes fresh frame data while bottom half overwrites stale frame data with black data, then top half overwrites that newly-written fresh frame data with black data while bottom half writes the lower half of the frame data corresponding to that same fresh frame).
> 
> *60Hz refresh rate w/o BFI* (same as 120Hz w/o BFI but just write each frame twice).
> 
> *60Hz refresh rate w/ 25% BFI* (top half writes fresh frame data while bottom half overwrites stale (previous) frame data with black, then top half persists with newly-written fresh frame data while bottom half writes the lower half of the frame data corresponding to that same fresh frame, then top half and bottom half persist with fresh frame data, then top half overwrites with black while bottom half persists with fresh frame data.
> 
> *60Hz refresh rate w/ 50% BFI* (top half writes fresh frame data while bottom half persists with black, then top half persists with fresh frame data while bottom half writes the lower half of that same fresh frame, then top half writes black while bottom half persists with fresh frame data, then top half persists with black while bottom half writes black).
> 
> *60Hz refresh rate w/ 75% BFI* (top half writes fresh frame data while bottom half persists with black, then top half overwrites black data on top of newly-written fresh frame data while bottom half writes the lower half of the frame data corresponding to that same fresh frame, then top half persists with black while bottom half overwrites black data on top of newly-written fresh frame data, then top half and bottom half persists with black for one full 240Hz refresh cycle (4.2ms, or 1/4 of the full 16.7ms 60Hz refresh cycle)).


One different way to explain this.

The sections refresh sequentially (top-to-bottom scanout) so it can look like a smoothly-scrolling rolling window despite being split. That's because scanout of one split finishes as the scanout begins on the next split.

For 60Hz BFI at 1/60sec scanout velocity.
25% BFI is a 3/4 height rolling window
50% BFI is a 1/2 height rolling window
75% BFI is a 1/4 height rolling window

For 60Hz BFI at 1/120sec scanout velocity
25% BFI is a 1.5x height rolling window
50% BFI is a full height rolling window
75% BFI is a 0.5x height rolling window

For a 1.5x height rolling window, it would wipe "ON" (taking 1/120sec to scanout sweep), then sustain for a bit, then wipe "OFF" (taking 1/120sec to scanout sweep).

Whether be the scanout being an "ON" pass or being an "OFF" pass. The top edge of a rolling window is the "OFF" scanout pass, and the bottom edge of rolling window is the "ON" scanout pass. Even if one of the four segments can only be refreshed with one "ON" pass at a time or one "OFF" pass at a time. The scanout pass (row refreshing) gets carried over to the top edge of next section as it finishes the bottom edge of previous section. So thusly, one seamless top-to-bottom screen scanout pass without visible segmentation. 

So effectively, when engineered and done correctly, it visually looks (in high speed videos) as if segmentation didn't exist.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

fafrd said:


> *120Hz refresh rate w/ 50% BFI* (top half writes fresh frame data while bottom half overwrites stale frame data with black data, then top half overwrites that newly-written fresh frame data with black data while bottom half writes the lower half of the frame data corresponding to that same fresh frame).


(I might be misinterpreting the phrasing, but...)
One question I have is -- Are there two concurrent scanout passes or four concurrent scanout passes at the time? 

If it's refreshing four strips concurrently, and both strips are refreshing with the same image data, that would generate the zigzag artifact problem. 










*This only applies to the 1/60sec scanout velocity situation, four scanout channels, two rolling windows*
To avoid the zigzag artifact, the raster wipe from top-to-bottom must be permanently continuously assigned to the same frame, from top-to-bottom, in the one continuous top-to-bottom scanout wipe. Necessarily that means that the other concurrent scanout wipe (even as the wipe hands-over to the next segment) must be assigned to a different frame. I can visually emulate all the theoretically possible "zig-zag avoiding" scanout patterns of 120Hz+BFI in my human head, but it's hard to explain in words without diagrams. However, I have an old diagram of the double-window rolling scan technique. If this is how LG OLED does it, and uses 1/60sec scanout, the scan passes would be 1/240sec (4ms) apart, vertically spaced at 1/4 screen height vertically. So that there's only one scanout pass (the ON pass or the OFF pass) per quarter-display, to keep in tune with the backplane. The two rolling windows would be permanently assigned its own consistent refresh cycle; the rolling window above the bottom will always be the next refresh cycle frame AFTER the one in the bottom rolling window (only way to avoid those pesky zig zag artifacts) -- it's an absolute requirement if you don't want zig zag aritfacts. The zig zag artifact problem is confirmed (not an assumption) so zig-zag-avoidance is simply 101 basic advice; the fundamental consistent assignment of a consistent refresh cycle to a scanout pass even in its continued hand-overs between sections/segments of the same display. If you're multiscanning a display with multiple visible simultaneous rolling scan windows -- AND -- you want to avoid zig zag artifacts -- then each scanout row refresh need to be permanently assigned its consistent refresh cycle frame from top-to-bottom even through the handover of the row refresh from one display strip to the next display strip.

*This applies to the 1/120sec scanout velocity situation, two scanout channels, one rolling window*
Now, if the LG OLED uses a 1/120sec velocity scanout pass, then only one rolling window is needed (And two concurrent scanout passes, one "OFF", one "ON"), but it all depends on how the panel/backplane is wired. People repeatedly say it's a split channel refreshing architecture.

I wish I had filmed a high speed video of the 120Hz+BFI to add to www.blurbusters.com/scanout high speed videos. *That would answer SO many questions, indeed.* Right now I'm making assumptions until someone points a Samsung Galaxy 960fps at www.testufo.com/scanout test pattern on a LG 120Hz+BFI.


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> (I might be misinterpreting the phrasing, but...)
> One question I have is -- *Are there two concurrent scanout passes or four concurrent scanout passes at the time?
> If it's refreshing four strips concurrently, and both strips are refreshing with the same image data, that would generate the zigzag artifact problem. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To avoid the zigzag artifact, the raster wipe from top-to-bottom must be permanently continuously assigned to the same frame, from top-to-bottom, in the one continuous top-to-bottom scanout wipe. Necessarily that means that the other concurrent scanout wipe (even as the wipe hands-over to the next segment) must be assigned to a different frame.
> 
> I can visually emulate all the theoretically possible "zig-zag avoiding" scanout patterns of 120Hz+BFI in my human head, but it's hard to explain in words without diagrams. However, I have an old diagram of the double-window rolling scan technique:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is how LG OLED does it, and uses 1/60sec scanout, the scan passes would be 1/240sec (4ms) apart, vertically spaced at 1/4 screen height vertically. So that there's only one scanout pass (the ON pass or the OFF pass) per quarter-display, to keep in tune with the backplane.
> 
> The two rolling windows would be permanently assigned its own consistent refresh cycle; the rolling window above the bottom will always be the next refresh cycle frame AFTER the one in the bottom rolling window (only way to avoid those pesky zig zag artifacts) -- it's an absolute requirement if you don't want zig zag aritfacts. The zig zag artifact problem is confirmed (not an assumption) so zig-zag-avoidance is simply 101 basic advice; the fundamental consistent assignment of a consistent refresh cycle to a scanout pass even in its continued hand-overs between sections/segments of the same display.
> 
> If you're multiscanning a display with multiple visible simultaneous rolling scan windows -- AND -- you want to avoid zig zag artifacts -- then each scanout row refresh need to be permanently assigned its consistent refresh cycle frame from top-to-bottom even through the handover of the row refresh from one display strip to the next display strip.
> 
> Now, if the LG OLED uses a 1/120sec velocity scanout pass, then only one rolling window is needed (And two concurrent scanout passes, one "OFF", one "ON"), but it all depends on how the panel/backplane is wired.
> 
> I wish I had filmed a high speed video of the 120Hz+BFI to add to www.blurbusters.com/scanout high speed videos. *That would answer SO many questions, indeed.* Right now I'm making assumptions until someone points a Samsung Galaxy 960fps at www.testufo.com/scanout test pattern on a LG 120Hz+BFI.


I went to the trouble of my more complcated explanation precisely to avoid this confusion.

It is a split-column, one line in the top-half of the array and the corresponding line of the bottom-half of the array can be written in parallel with different data (meaning at least one half-column is loaded with data corresponding to black, since LG has no way to get 240Hz frame data into the TV).

As your previous post clarifies, it appears like a continuous refresh from top to bottom requiring 8.3ms from begining of first line to end of last line (120Hz frame refresh speed).

But even at 120Hz, a second internally-generated 'frame' (black) can be written in parallel.
So at 120Hz refresh, there are two 'segments' being written in parallel, not 4. There is no tearing. Just one fresh frame being contnuously written at 120Hz with a black frame being written on its heals at 120Hz with an offset of 50% (half-frame).

At a 60Hz content refresh rate (which corresponds to repeating each frame twice at the 120Hz Native Refresh Rate), the second segment (parrallel black frame write) can be used to overwrite newly-written fresh frame data with an offset of 1-1/2 frame at 120Hz (meaning 3/4 frame @ 60Hz), a full frame at 120Hz (meaning 1/2 frame @60Hz), or 1/2 frame at 120Hz (meaning 1/4 frame @ 60Hz), resulting in 25%, 50% or 75% BFI @ 60Hz.

Once the native framerate is doubled from 240HzEffective/120Hz Native to 240Hz Native, the BFI Offset no longer needs to be llimited to 1/2 frame @ 120Hz but can be any number of lines (and I gave the example of a 713 line offset being used to deliver 67% BFI).


----------



## artur9

I got a store demo A1E to try out for motion and things. Sadly, they burned the Best Buy logo into it so it'll have to go back.

I was trying out its motion settings but not yet as good as my Panasonic plasma (very close!). I could see the BFI kick in, which was an interesting effect.

The A1E is from 2017. And Sony's supposedly have the best processing. 

When can I expect OLED to equal plasma in motion processing? Next year, with the 120Hz BFI? (here's hoping for 240Hz BFI)


----------



## Micolash

artur9 said:


> I got a store demo A1E to try out for motion and things. Sadly, they burned the Best Buy logo into it so it'll have to go back.
> 
> I was trying out its motion settings but not yet as good as my Panasonic plasma (very close!). I could see the BFI kick in, which was an interesting effect.
> 
> The A1E is from 2017. And Sony's supposedly have the best processing.
> 
> When can I expect OLED to equal plasma in motion processing? Next year, with the 120Hz BFI? (here's hoping for 240Hz BFI)


I think the A9F with BFI turned on is more or less equal to my 2008 Panasonic plasma in motion response.


----------



## fafrd

Samsung delaying first QD-BOLED trial production to end 2020 and jumping straight to 10G for true production start in 2023: https://www.oled-info.com/new-reports-suggest-samsung-delays-its-qd-oled-tv-production-plans

"Samsung will indeed go ahead with its QD-OLED production plans, but at a slower pace than was first estimated. Samsung will only begin trial production towards the end of 2020, with real mass production on a new 10-Gen line only at around 2023."


----------



## wco81

fafrd said:


> Samsung delaying first QD-BOLED trial production to end 2020 and jumping straight to 10G for true production start in 2023: https://www.oled-info.com/new-reports-suggest-samsung-delays-its-qd-oled-tv-production-plans
> 
> "Samsung will indeed go ahead with its QD-OLED production plans, but at a slower pace than was first estimated. Samsung will only begin trial production towards the end of 2020, with real mass production on a new 10-Gen line only at around 2023."


So nothing in the market until 2024 probably.

Buy LG OLED in 2020 or if there are good deals later this year and then you can see how the Samsung product looks 4-5 years later.

Though Samsung doesn't support Dolby Vision so that may be a dealbreaker.


----------



## stl8k

*Driving Method of Individually Toggling Driving Voltages*

Interesting LG Display patent that's relatively new:

"Disclosed are a display device, an electronic device, and a toggling circuit, which can reduce or _prevent a motion blur phenomenon_ without a significant change in the performance of an interface, a controller, or a source-driving circuit _by toggling driving voltages and individually executing driving voltage lines_."

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190051246A1/en


----------



## MikeBiker

stl8k said:


> Interesting LG Display patent that's relatively new:
> 
> "Disclosed are a display device, an electronic device, and a toggling circuit, which can reduce or _prevent a motion blur phenomenon_ without a significant change in the performance of an interface, a controller, or a source-driving circuit _by toggling driving voltages and individually executing driving voltage lines_."
> 
> https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190051246A1/en


Very interesting.


----------



## Micolash

stl8k said:


> Interesting LG Display patent that's relatively new:
> 
> "Disclosed are a display device, an electronic device, and a toggling circuit, which can reduce or _prevent a motion blur phenomenon_ without a significant change in the performance of an interface, a controller, or a source-driving circuit _by toggling driving voltages and individually executing driving voltage lines_."
> 
> https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190051246A1/en


How would this improve motion?


----------



## gorman42

Mark Rejhon said:


> I wish I had filmed a high speed video of the 120Hz+BFI to add to www.blurbusters.com/scanout high speed videos. *That would answer SO many questions, indeed.* Right now I'm making assumptions until someone points a Samsung Galaxy 960fps at www.testufo.com/scanout test pattern on a LG 120Hz+BFI.


It's a real shame that nobody of those that had the LG with pre-release firmware is available to do serious testing of what happens on those units. If the flashing problem remained with BFI activated or it didn't. It shouldn't be hard to test, as there's a very well thought out test to clearly see if the problem is there or not.


----------



## stl8k

Micolash said:


> How would this improve motion?


See the animation here that simulates BFI:

https://www.blurbusters.com/blur-bu...000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/

And, from the patent:

"As described above, _as the image is not displayed or the fake image different from the image is displayed during the predetermined period of at least one frame period, the user recognizes a frame rate higher than the actual frame rate._ Accordingly, the motion blur can be reduced or removed."

"As described above, when the individual driving voltage toggling control is performed under the rolling shutter-driving method, _the user may recognize the non-emission period (Tb) as separate frames and thus consider the actual two frames (the first frame and the second frame) as a total of four frames (two Te and two Tb). Accordingly, from the aspect of user recognition, it is possible to implement a higher frame rate and lower image persistence._ Therefore, motion blur can be reduced or prevented."

Mark Rejhon does a great job explaining things in this post from early 2018:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-486.html#post55597686


----------



## fafrd

Looks like LGD will be introducing 13.3" 4:3 WOLED panels for laptops/monitors next year: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lenovo-thinkpad-x1-foldable-laptop-2020,39331.html

"Lenovo today announced the first PC with a foldable screen, a ThinkPad X1-branded device with no final name or price. This full-on laptop is *scheduled for release sometime in 2020.*

We do know that it has a *13.3-inch 2KOLED screen in a 4:3 ratio made by LG Display* that can fold in half."

LGD can produce 96 13.3" WOLEDs per 8.5G glass substrate, or with MMG, they can produce 34 13.3" WOLEDs along with 2 77" or 27 13.3" WOLEDs along with 3 65" WOLEDs per 8.5G panel.

Manufacturing cost of a 13.3" 3:4 WOLED will be ~6.25% the cost of a 55" 16:9 TV panel and with the 55" WOLEDs forecast to be priced at ~$450 in 2020, that corresponds to 14.3" 4:3 WOLED panels being profitably sold next year at prices as low as $28!

And if we take that price to calculate savings on 65" and 77" WOLED manufacturing cost, it translates to 65" WOLED panels costing 72% of what they cost without MMG and 77" WOLED panels costing 65% of what they cost without MMG.

This announcement also is further proof that LGD has succeeded to reduce their minimum WOLED pixels size:

The 65" 8K pixel LGD demonstrated at CES has a pixel size of 187.4um X 187.4um (0.035mm^2).

A 13.3" 2K (1080 lines) pixel is the slightest of tads larger at 187.7um X 187.7um (0.035mm^2).

It looks as though investing in MMG first and pushing 10.5G off another year was a smart move for LGD because of the much greater manufacturing flexibility it affords them. And is looks like 2020 is goung to be another breakout year for WOLED!


----------



## Micolash

stl8k said:


> See the animation here that simulates BFI:
> 
> https://www.blurbusters.com/blur-bu...000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/
> 
> And, from the patent:
> 
> "As described above, _as the image is not displayed or the fake image different from the image is displayed during the predetermined period of at least one frame period, the user recognizes a frame rate higher than the actual frame rate._ Accordingly, the motion blur can be reduced or removed."
> 
> "As described above, when the individual driving voltage toggling control is performed under the rolling shutter-driving method, _the user may recognize the non-emission period (Tb) as separate frames and thus consider the actual two frames (the first frame and the second frame) as a total of four frames (two Te and two Tb). Accordingly, from the aspect of user recognition, it is possible to implement a higher frame rate and lower image persistence._ Therefore, motion blur can be reduced or prevented."
> 
> Mark Rejhon does a great job explaining things in this post from early 2018:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-486.html#post55597686


So this is like BFI but it is not tied to the panel's refresh rate?


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> See the animation here that simulates BFI:
> 
> https://www.blurbusters.com/blur-bu...000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/
> 
> And, from the patent:
> 
> "As described above, _as the image is not displayed or the fake image different from the image is displayed during the predetermined period of at least one frame period, the user recognizes a frame rate higher than the actual frame rate._ Accordingly, the motion blur can be reduced or removed."
> 
> "As described above, when the individual driving voltage toggling control is performed under the rolling shutter-driving method, _the user may recognize the non-emission period (Tb) as separate frames and thus consider the actual two frames (the first frame and the second frame) as a total of four frames (two Te and two Tb). Accordingly, from the aspect of user recognition, it is possible to implement a higher frame rate and lower image persistence._ Therefore, motion blur can be reduced or prevented."
> 
> Mark Rejhon does a great job explaining things in this post from early 2018:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-486.html#post55597686


Here's a diagram and video (1:14 mark) by Univ. of Cambridge researchers that also does a nice job of making motion concepts clearer:

https://youtu.be/UARADXX4ZMs?t=74


----------



## fafrd

Looks as though Samsung is pulling out all the stops in a campaign to recruit LGD Engineers: https://www.zdnet.com/article/fear-...e-axe-for-oled-tv-burn-in-and-market-squeeze/

There is so much in this 'article' that is incorrect I have to just laugh, but this little nugget has to take the cake:

"One reason LG's OLED burn-in is more noticeable is because of the use of different light sources for blue, red, and green. *Blue pixels dies quickly* as it becomes noticeable from the contras. *Samsung's QD-OLED will only use blue pixels as light emitters, so there is no anomaly; they all die or live together*, at least theoretically."

Enjoy - it's a good read with some good background on management changes at the two Chaebols as well as how major devisions are arrived at within the groups...

The article is entitled 'Fear and Trembling - LG Display Faces the Axe for OLED TV Burn-In and Market Squeeze' but it could have been called 'The Mantra Samsung Display Management Recites to Itself Every Night So They Can Get Some Sleep'


----------



## NintendoManiac64

fafrd said:


> 2KOLED screen in a 4:3 ratio
> 
> 13.3" 2K (1080 lines)


Considering the mention of both 2K and 4:3 but yet no mention of 1080p and such, I would say it's much more likely that the display is 2048x1536 aka "QXGA"

For reference, this is the same resolution that modern iPads use.


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Considering the mention of both 2K and 4:3 but yet no mention of 1080p and such, I would say it's much more likely that the display is 2048x1536 aka "QXGA"
> 
> For reference, this is the same resolution that modern iPads use.


If you are correct, that would mean that LGD has succeeded to further reduce their minimum WOLED pixel size:

1535 x 2048 pixels in a 13.3" WOLED panel would correspond to pixels of 0.132mm X 0.132mm, 30% smaller on each axis than the 0.187mm X 0.187mm pixel LGD demonstrated in their 65" 8K WOLED panel (and 50% of the area).


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> If you are correct, that would mean that LGD has succeeded to further reduce their minimum WOLED pixel size:
> 
> 1535 x 2048 pixels in a 13.3" WOLED panel would correspond to pixels of 0.132mm X 0.132mm, 30% smaller on each axis than the 187.4mm X 187.4mm pixel LGD demonstrated in their 65" 8K WOLED panel (and 50% of the area).


Possibly WQXGA unless this site just got the pixel dimensions wrong:

https://www.cdrinfo.com/d7/content/...c-display-technology-huawei-xiaomi-and-lenovo


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Possibly WQXGA unless this site just got the pixel dimensions wrong:
> 
> https://www.cdrinfo.com/d7/content/...c-display-technology-huawei-xiaomi-and-lenovo


Well, WQXGA (2560 x 1600) would mean even smaller pixels (105.6um x 126.7um), 38% the area of the 65" 8K pixels LGD demonstrated at CES.

This brings up the question as to whether these 13.3" laptop/monitor screens are based on WOLED or the RGB-OLED technology LG uses for cell phones? I can't find any clear indication anywhere...


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Considering the mention of both 2K and 4:3 but yet no mention of 1080p and such, I would say it's much more likely that the display is 2048x1536 aka "QXGA"
> 
> For reference, this is the same resolution that modern iPads use.





stl8k said:


> Possible WQXGA unless this site just got the pixel dimensions wrong:


This popular science article seems pretty pretty certain about screen size: https://www.popsci.com/lenovo-first-folding-screen-laptop

"The new Lenovo laptop, which is part of its ThinkPad X1 family, has a 13.3-inch OLED display that stretches across the entire face of the device, save for some bezel that surrounds the screen. There’s no keyboard. Instead you can rely on a software keyboard that appears in the bottom half of the screen’s user interface, or connect a wireless keyboard to use the Lenovo like a typical flat display. *It has a 1920 x 1440 pixel resolution* and an Intel processor inside."

A 13.3" display with 1920 x 1440 pixels corresponds to a pixel size of 140.1um x 140.1um, 25% smaller on each axis than the 187.4um x 187.4um pixel LGD demonstrated on their 65" 8K WOLED prototype at CES this January (and 56% of the overall pixel area of the 8K 65" pixel).

No information on what type of OLED it is, though the only reference they make is to the R-Series (which we know is a WOLED): 

"...it’s using a screen made by LG, a company which has been showing off its own *flexible OLED TV that rolls up into a tube* when you’re not watching it."


----------



## beltarr

There's a new in-depth article about LG and Samsung TV strategies. Due to my low post count I can't post links yet... To find the original article, simple search for "Fear and Trembling: LG Display faces the axe for OLED burn-in and market squeeze".

Interesting things from this article:

In 2018, LG Display (the company that makes the television panels; they don't make the TV's themselves) first started to make a profit from their OLED panels. This was a result of increasing the square footage of panels that they sold by 65% compared to 2017. However, the company as a whole saw its profits drop by 96% (!) because of plummeting LCD prices.

LG have put all of their eggs in one basket for premium TV's: all OLED, all the time. They don't have a Plan B. Samsung of course have decided not to make OLED TV's, and instead they use OLED only for small screens such as for phones. Instead, Samsung have 3 directions for premium TV's:

Samsung #1 : their current premium TV's use QLED technology. They sell well and are doing even better than Samsung had expected.

Samsung #2 : they're developing QD-OLED technology, which marries OLED and Quantum Dots. QD-OLED uses a different technology for the subpixels than LG uses, which will hopefully reduce the chance of burn-in. This technology isn't perfected yet, and Samsung haven't committed to a release date (or even if it will be released at all). Nevertheless, the market expects QD-OLED TV's to become commercial in 2021.

Samsung #3 : they're working on MicroLED technology, in which each pixel is a tiny LED. This makes it possible to turn off individual pixels, which provides perfect blacks just like OLED. The challenge is to miniaturize LED's enough so that the TV's are small enough for the mass market. Samsung aren't the only ones working on MicroLED technology, but so far no one has perfected the technology. It's unknown when it will become commercial.

The author of the article, who is critical of LG, stresses that Samsung are trying several directions while LG only has OLED. But he forgot to mention that LG have recently bought a technology that could allow for a new manufacturing process for OLED panels, which looks similar to how inkjet printers work (search for "Major LG Purchase Points To Cheaper, Better OLED TVs"). That would allow creating OLED panels more cheaply and with higher quality than the current process. To be fair, this is currently only basic technology, and it's unknown when (if ever) it will be usable for commercial purposes.

The author says that burn-in is a big problem for LG, but doesn't back this up with facts. Despite the risk of burn-in, LG Display have sold their entire OLED panel inventory (they're limited in their manufacturing capacity). Perhaps the burn-in risk depresses their prices, but given the premium price of OLED's (and the existence of the competing QLED technology) it's unlikely that LG could raise their prices even if burn-in didn't exist.

LG are currently building a second OLED factory in China, which should start working this year. This factory will allow them to make more OLED panels, and at a lower cost because the new factory creates larger surfaces than the current factory. Interestingly, the main reason to build this factory in China may not be cost: it's because LG Display are interested in selling OLED panels to Chinese TV manufacturers, and the Chinese want all of their components to be supplied from within China, where they have a great supply chain. Will we see cheap OLED's from Chinese companies in the near future?

The author, Cho Mu-Hyun, is very interested in some things that are of little interest to anyone who doesn't work in this field, such as exactly who took over the top LG job. He's also obsessed with honor, and mentioned that LG was "humiliated" because they're #2 in some market instead of #1 . Hey, are you a writer or a psychologist? Despite this, the article is interesting and illuminating even to those of us who are only interested in premium TV's as consumers and not as analysts.


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> This popular science article seems pretty pretty certain about screen size: https://www.popsci.com/lenovo-first-folding-screen-laptop
> 
> "The new Lenovo laptop, which is part of its ThinkPad X1 family, has a 13.3-inch OLED display that stretches across the entire face of the device, save for some bezel that surrounds the screen. There’s no keyboard. Instead you can rely on a software keyboard that appears in the bottom half of the screen’s user interface, or connect a wireless keyboard to use the Lenovo like a typical flat display. *It has a 1920 x 1440 pixel resolution* and an Intel processor inside."
> 
> A 13.3" display with 1920 x 1440 pixels corresponds to a pixel size of 140.1um x 140.1um, 25% smaller on each axis than the 187.4um x 187.4um pixel LGD demonstrated on their 65" 8K WOLED prototype at CES this January (and 56% of the overall pixel area of the 8K 65" pixel).
> 
> No information on what type of OLED it is, though the only reference they make is to the R-Series (which we know is a WOLED):
> 
> "...it’s using a screen made by LG, a company which has been showing off its own *flexible OLED TV that rolls up into a tube* when you’re not watching it."


Appreciate the analysis, fafrd, but I can't imagine such a low PPI in late 2019. A macro photo of the display would answer a number of Qs until the time LGD or Lenovo provide specs.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

beltarr said:


> There's a new in-depth article about LG and Samsung TV strategies. Due to my low post count I can't post links yet... To find the original article, simple search for "Fear and Trembling: LG Display faces the axe for OLED burn-in and market squeeze".


Not to be a party-pooper, but the article you're referring to was linked in this very thread just 6 posts above your own (right before my own "QXGA" post):



fafrd said:


> Looks as though Samsung is pulling out all the stops in a campaign to recruit LGD Engineers: https://www.zdnet.com/article/fear-...e-axe-for-oled-tv-burn-in-and-market-squeeze/
> 
> There is so much in this 'article' that is incorrect I have to just laugh


----------



## garbage98

Sort interruption about the ongoing discussion of motion resolution. Has anyone spotted the 2019 77 inch panels in the wild yet? I am wondering if these panels have got an upgrade this year or are we still sticking to the 2017 technology as we did last year?


----------



## fafrd

beltarr said:


> There's a new in-depth article about LG and Samsung TV strategies. Due to my low post count I can't post links yet... To find the original article, simple search for "Fear and Trembling: LG Display faces the axe for OLED burn-in and market squeeze".
> 
> Interesting things from this article:
> 
> In 2018, LG Display (the company that makes the television panels; they don't make the TV's themselves) first started to make a profit from their OLED panels. This was a result of increasing the square footage of panels that they sold by 65% compared to 2017. However, the company as a whole saw its profits drop by 96% (!) because of plummeting LCD prices.
> 
> LG have put all of their eggs in one basket for premium TV's: all OLED, all the time. They don't have a Plan B. Samsung of course have decided not to make OLED TV's, and instead they use OLED only for small screens such as for phones. Instead, Samsung have 3 directions for premium TV's:
> 
> Samsung [URL=https://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] : their current premium TV's use QLED technology. They sell well and are doing even better than Samsung had expected.
> 
> Samsung #2 : they're developing QD-OLED technology, which marries OLED and Quantum Dots. QD-OLED uses a different technology for the subpixels than LG uses, which will hopefully reduce the chance of burn-in. This technology isn't perfected yet, and Samsung haven't committed to a release date (or even if it will be released at all). Nevertheless, the market expects QD-OLED TV's to become commercial in 2021.
> 
> Samsung #3 : they're working on MicroLED technology, in which each pixel is a tiny LED. This makes it possible to turn off individual pixels, which provides perfect blacks just like OLED. The challenge is to miniaturize LED's enough so that the TV's are small enough for the mass market. Samsung aren't the only ones working on MicroLED technology, but so far no one has perfected the technology. It's unknown when it will become commercial.
> 
> The author of the article, who is critical of LG, stresses that Samsung are trying several directions while LG only has OLED. But he forgot to mention that LG have recently bought a technology that could allow for a new manufacturing process for OLED panels, which looks similar to how inkjet printers work (search for "Major LG Purchase Points To Cheaper, Better OLED TVs"). That would allow creating OLED panels more cheaply and with higher quality than the current process. To be fair, this is currently only basic technology, and it's unknown when (if ever) it will be usable for commercial purposes.
> 
> The author says that burn-in is a big problem for LG, but doesn't back this up with facts. Despite the risk of burn-in, LG Display have sold their entire OLED panel inventory (they're limited in their manufacturing capacity). Perhaps the burn-in risk depresses their prices, but given the premium price of OLED's (and the existence of the competing QLED technology) it's unlikely that LG could raise their prices even if burn-in didn't exist.
> 
> LG are currently building a second OLED factory in China, which should start working this year. This factory will allow them to make more OLED panels, and at a lower cost because the new factory creates larger surfaces than the current factory. Interestingly, the main reason to build this factory in China may not be cost: it's because LG Display are interested in selling OLED panels to Chinese TV manufacturers, and the Chinese want all of their components to be supplied from within China, where they have a great supply chain. Will we see cheap OLED's from Chinese companies in the near future?
> 
> The author, Cho Mu-Hyun, is very interested in some things that are of little interest to anyone who doesn't work in this field, such as exactly who took over the top LG job. He's also obsessed with honor, and mentioned that LG was "humiliated" because they're #2 in some market instead of [URL=https://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] . Hey, are you a writer or a psychologist? Despite this, the article is interesting and illuminating even to those of us who are only interested in premium TV's as consumers and not as analysts.


I guess you missed my (much shorter) recap a few posts back: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-528.html#post58052342

The most important points are that LGD sxselling all of thrir ever-increasibg WOLED panel production at profitabl prices. As long as they continue doing that, it's Samsung Display that shoukd br Trembling with Fear.

The article amounts to an admission that Samsung Group has elected to squeeze profitability from the LCD tail by selling TVs based on ever-cheaper Chinese LCD panels. Samsung Display was expecting the Group to give them the green light (and capital) to bring QD--BOLED into pilot production late last month but instead it's been pushed out by at least another year (and no true QD-BOLED production before 2023).. It's Samsung Display trying to save face - the Samsung Group has basically told them 'focus on phone screens and forget about the furure of producing flat-panels for TV' .

Obviously the decision to foxus on short-term profitability over investing in new technology and R&D is goid for profitability, and if the train has not left the station by the time you decide to start investing in catching up, you will look like a genius in hindsight.

Unfortunately, I believe it's exceedibgly unliely the future will unfold in that way. The other recent 'fact' in this overall debate/ecosystem is the announcement that Vizio will be introducing a WOLED TV in 2020. So LGD's 'ecosystem' is now the entire TV industry with the lone exception of Samsung (and TCL who is working on their own in-house QD/OLED hybrid). Don't get me wrong - Samsung will be profitably selling TVs for a long, long time and will probaly contnue to sell LCD panels for TVs for nearly as long (they have the #1 brand as a captive customer, after all).

But first, thrir outside sales of LCD panels for TVs will dry up (Chba will be mch cheaper) and second, Samsung Visual Display (or whichever arm manufactures and sells TVs) will get tired of sacrificibg profitability to prop up Samsung Display at higher internal pricing than they can get from China. Eventually all of Samsung's LCD-for-TV fabs will be converted to OLED-for-phone production or shut down.

I hate to say it, but this was the rational decision I was hoping that Samsung would 'go for it' as far as accelerating QD-BOLED poduction and trying to catch up with WOLED. But as I've posted earlier in this thread, the investments seemed huge and the chances of success seemed small (especially with the new technical ssues that have surfaced), so Samsung's decision is very understandable (but sad for the TV industry).

I can almost picture the conversation between Samsung Display and Samsung Group footing the bill:

Sansung Group: "How do you expect us to sell a product that is so dim and leaks blue light so it can't be properly calibrated?"

Samsung Display: "No problem, we're going to add a 3rd blue OLED layer and a conventional blue-blocking color filter!"

SG: 'But won't that add cost and make it more expensive to manufacture than LGD's WOLED technology?"

SD: "Well, yes, but that is only a temporary problem With long-lifetime soluble blue emitters and high-efficiency QDCC around the corner, we'll be able to manufacture QD-BOLED for less cost than WOLED!"

SG: "That sounds more interesting. Let's forget about investibg in production until you are ready to begin pilot oridction with those nee materials - when will that be?"

SD: "But, but, but, we don't have those materials yet and the earliest we'll have them looks like late next year If we can't start pilot production immediately, we may be too late to catch up with LGD and WOLED!"

SG: "We don't care. We're not investing our Group's future in a wild-goise chase. Come back to us when you have an actual competetive solution in hand that you are ready to bring into production and we will reconsider. In the meantime, research-only as far as QD-BOLED."


----------



## fafrd

garbage98 said:


> Sort interruption about the ongoing discussion of motion resolution. Has anyone spotted the 2019 77 inch panels in the wild yet? I am wondering if these panels have got an upgrade this year or are we still sticking to the 2017 technology as we did last year?


Wrong place for this question (more aporopriate in the owner's thread). But the short answer is that LG had everything teed-up for 120Hz BFI (3.5ms MPRT) on the 2019 WOLEDs (including 77" models) but decided to yank the feature at the 11th hour.

So 2019 motion performamce is essentially identical to 2018s (60Hz BFI).

In theory, 120Hz BFI could be 'fixed' via a FW update, but I've speculated that 120Hz BFI is incompatible with the 'fix' LGD developed for the flashing/overshoot issue (which appars to employ temporal dithering).


----------



## NintendoManiac64

stl8k said:


> Appreciate the analysis, fafrd, but I can't imagine such a low PPI in late 2019.


1440px wide on a 13" laptop screen is more pixels than the ever-present 1366px-wide laptop screens (which even exist on 15" models).

Additionally, 1440px like 1366px is a small enough horizontal resolution that it means you actually wouldn't need to use any DPI scaling, and therefore you're likely to actually have more horizontal screen real-estate than what you'd get with 1920px @ 150% DPI and 2560px @ 200% DPI (I've never actually used a 13" laptop with either resolution, so I'm just guessing that those would be the default DPI settings).

Now obviously the user can change the DPI setting themselves if they want more horizontal screen real-estate, but it's always a better idea to use percentages that are as close as possible to an exact multiple (so if not 2.0x or 3.0x, then 2.5x and 1.5x is the next best choice). Therefore, you'd then need a 2160px @ 150% or 2880px @ 200% in order to achieve the same screen real-estate as 1440px @ 100%.

And considering the fact that they're basically making it a laptop that is nothing _but_ screen, I think it's safe to say that maximizing the screen real-estate is a major point to this product.


----------



## fafrd

NintendoManiac64 said:


> 1440px wide on a 13" laptop screen is more pixels than the ever-present 1366px-wide laptop screens (which even exist on 15" models).
> 
> Additionally, 1440px like 1366px is a small enough horizontal resolution that it means you actually wouldn't need to use any DPI scaling, and therefore you're likely to actually have more horizontal screen real-estate than what you'd get with 1920px @ 150% DPI and 2560px @ 200% DPI (I've never actually used a 13" laptop with either resolution, so I'm just guessing that those would be the default DPI settings).
> 
> Now obviously the user can change the DPI setting themselves if they want more horizontal screen real-estate, but it's always a better idea to use percentages that are as close as possible to an exact multiple (so if not 2.0x or 3.0x, then 2.5x and 1.5x is the next best choice). Therefore, you'd then need a 2160px @ 150% or 2880px @ 200% in order to achieve the same screen real-estate as 1440px @ 100%.
> 
> And considering the fact that they're basically making it a laptop that is nothing _but_ screen, I think it's safe to say that maximizing the screen real-estate is a major point to this product.


I'm just surprised that we don't have any indication as to whether this 13.3" Laptop screen is a WOLED or not. I haven't tracked LGDs RGB-OLED phone screens, but I believe they've been struggling. Is there any chance that technology solid enough that they could be trying a 13.3" RGB-OLED? What is the largest RGB-OLED panel LGD has produced?


----------



## garbage98

fafrd said:


> Wrong place for this question (more aporopriate in the owner's thread). But the short answer is that LG had everything teed-up for 120Hz BFI (3.5ms MPRT) on the 2019 WOLEDs (including 77" models) but decided to yank the feature at the 11th hour.
> 
> So 2019 motion performamce is essentially identical to 2018s (60Hz BFI).
> 
> In theory, 120Hz BFI could be 'fixed' via a FW update, but I've speculated that 120Hz BFI is incompatible with the 'fix' LGD developed for the flashing/overshoot issue (which appars to employ temporal dithering).


My question wasn't strictly related to LG's 77 inch model models but include the new G series of Sony as well. Besides the different backplane I am wondering if the current 77 inch panels have a similar subpixel pattern and light output than the smaller sizes. Last years models had the 2017er panels with less fill factor and noticeable less light output than its 2018 little siblings.

So I want to discuss the current advances of the OLED technology regarding the 77 inch panels LGD can offer.


----------



## beltarr

fafrd said:


> I guess you missed my (much shorter) recap a few posts back


Sorry, I was very excited about this article and wanted to share what I thought was interesting.

There are a couple of things in that article that seem contradictory, perhaps you could help me understand them?

The first thing is about the pixel structure in WOLED. As you've mentioned, the article says: "One reason LG's OLED burn-in is more noticeable is because of the use of different light sources for blue, red, and green." But I thought LG's WOLED screens use the same organic materials for all of the subpixels, and the difference in color is due to color filters? At least, that's what a Google search for WOLED shows (search for "Reports say LGD aims to change its WOLED TV structure from Y/B to R/G/B").

The second thing: the article says "Blue pixels dies quickly..." But in other threads in this forum it was said that the red subpixels usually suffer burn-in first. This can also be seen in the Rtings burn-in test, where the red CNN logo has the most burn-in.


----------



## dfa973

beltarr said:


> There are a couple of things in that article that seem contradictory, perhaps you could help me understand them?


You picked the wrong article to understand the OLED tech details. That article is filled with PR talk and half-truths or straight lies.

If you want to understand more about OLED, go back a few pages on this thread - or even read the WHOLE thread and you will KNOW more than enough to make a judgment about OLED vs "whatever".


----------



## lsorensen

beltarr said:


> Sorry, I was very excited about this article and wanted to share what I thought was interesting.
> 
> There are a couple of things in that article that seem contradictory, perhaps you could help me understand them?
> 
> The first thing is about the pixel structure in WOLED. As you've mentioned, the article says: "One reason LG's OLED burn-in is more noticeable is because of the use of different light sources for blue, red, and green." But I thought LG's WOLED screens use the same organic materials for all of the subpixels, and the difference in color is due to color filters? At least, that's what a Google search for WOLED shows (search for "Reports say LGD aims to change its WOLED TV structure from Y/B to R/G/B").
> 
> The second thing: the article says "Blue pixels dies quickly..." But in other threads in this forum it was said that the red subpixels usually suffer burn-in first. This can also be seen in the Rtings burn-in test, where the red CNN logo has the most burn-in.


It may in fact be the case that the blue material does die quicker. But as far as I understand it, you need less blue light in general and also the blue has no filter (well as far as blue light is concerned, it is filtering out the yellow), while the yellow is filtered to either red or green (so at least half the light is thrown away in those two cases, while the blue isn't loosing anything). So you can run the blue at half the power and still get as much light as you do for red or green from the yellow since you aren't wasting half of it, so it should have less overall use and hence last longer, so even if the blue is less durable than the yellow it seems to work out OK. Also at least one place I read that they added an extra layer of blue in 2017 to the panels so blue seems well covered now.


----------



## Duc Vu

All these talks about oled being bright enough, but what’s more bothersome to me is how oled cannot display bright colors. I play Uncharted 4 today on my c7 versus x900f. When i throw a grenade and it explodes, on the c7 the explosion is mute and has a very pink-ish color, while on the x900f it’s a mixture of bright red and yellow and looks realistic.


----------



## stl8k

Duc Vu said:


> All these talks about oled being bright enough, but what’s more bothersome to me is how oled cannot display bright colors. I play Uncharted 4 today on my c7 versus x900f. When i throw a grenade and it explodes, on the c7 the explosion is mute and has a very pink-ish color, while on the x900f it’s a mixture of bright red and yellow and looks realistic.


https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/lg-c7-vs-sony-x900f/421/585?usage=7318&threshold=0.1

C7 has equal color volume.

I'd suggest starting a thread on the general OLED board with some comparison photos.


----------



## Duc Vu

stl8k said:


> Duc Vu said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these talks about oled being bright enough, but what’s more bothersome to me is how oled cannot display bright colors. I play Uncharted 4 today on my c7 versus x900f. When i throw a grenade and it explodes, on the c7 the explosion is mute and has a very pink-ish color, while on the x900f it’s a mixture of bright red and yellow and looks realistic.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/lg-c7-vs-sony-x900f/421/585?usage=7318&threshold=0.1
> 
> C7 has equal color volume.
> 
> I'd suggest starting a thread on the general OLED board with some comparison photos.
Click to expand...

Possibly because oled can display dark colors better, while the x900f can display bright colors better. As mentioned in their separate reviews:
- The Sony X900F's local dimming does a good job of extending its wide color gamut down to a range of different brightness, so darker colors will look as saturated as brighter colors.
- This OLED TV is able to show its wide color gamut for dark and moderately bright colors, but it is unable to show extremely bright colors at their proper brightness.


----------



## stl8k

Duc Vu said:


> Possibly because oled can display dark colors better, while the x900f can display bright colors better. As mentioned in their separate reviews:
> - The Sony X900F's local dimming does a good job of extending its wide color gamut down to a range of different brightness, so darker colors will look as saturated as brighter colors.
> - This OLED TV is able to show its wide color gamut for dark and moderately bright colors, but it is unable to show extremely bright colors at their proper brightness.


Yes, as depicted visually here by Sony:

https://youtu.be/CfNatefiAP8?t=2023


----------



## stl8k

*Guangzhou Ramp Up*

Where do you think these earliest panels from Guangzhou are destined? Exclusive to certain consumer brands? For use in TVs sold in China?

I imagine that if you took flights from Guangzhou↔Seoul on Fri through Mon you'd find a fair number of LGD engineers on those flights.

http://english.etnews.com/20190522200002


----------



## dnoonie

stl8k said:


> Where do you think these earliest panels from Guangzhou are destined? Exclusive to certain consumer brands? For use in TVs sold in China?
> 
> I imagine that if you took flights from Guangzhou↔Seoul on Fri through Mon you'd find a fair number of LGD engineers on those flights.
> 
> http://english.etnews.com/20190522200002



I have no idea where they might be headed but what I find interesting is that the plant is on schedule even with the current economic volatility. Here's a post from July 2018, https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-497.html#post56468498. The schedule seems to be on target.


Cheers,


----------



## fafrd

Still no indication as to whther it's WOLED or RGB-OLED: https://www.oled-info.com/lgd-confirms-it-lenovos-133-foldable-oled-supplier

"We speculated that LGD is the display supplier, and yesterday *LGD's CTO confirmed this*."


----------



## fafrd

LGD provided some onfo on their WOLED stack roadmap at SID 2019 last week: http://olednet.com/sid-2019-blue-tadf-hyperfluorescence-oled/

Looks like the first step will be an increase in color gamut by replacing yellow with green (probably next year) and the next step will be a 30% increase in peak brightness coming from the move from florescent blue to TADF blue (2021 or 2022).


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> LGD provided some onfo on their WOLED stack roadmap at SID 2019 last week: http://olednet.com/sid-2019-blue-tadf-hyperfluorescence-oled/
> 
> Looks like the first step will be an increase in color gamut by replacing yellow with green (probably next year) and the next step will be a 30% increase in peak brightness coming from the move from florescent blue to TADF blue (2021 or 2022).


In the same article on SID'19, Cynora presented results indicating that they had doubled lifetime of their Blue TADF since March (for a modest hit in efficiency):


----------



## sooke

I'm confused. From this information it looks like LG plans to move to a blue that is 1/10 the lifetime of the current blue in 2021. What am I not getting?


Thanks for all the great research and explanations you give, BTW fafrd.


----------



## fafrd

sooke said:


> I'm confused. From this information it looks like LG plans to move to a blue that is 1/10 the lifetime of the current blue in 2021. What am I not getting?
> 
> 
> Thanks for all the great research and explanations you give, BTW fafrd.


What data do you have on the lifetime of LG's current florescent blue emitter? The only thing we know is that blue is the only color that does not give LG issues with burn-in, so florescent blue is probably longer lifetime than it needs to be (at least relative to red, as aged by real-world content).

It's important to compare apples to apples, so LT97 versus LT95 or LT50 and also 1000cd/m2 versus 1200cd/m2.

Also, given the progress in TADF lifetime demonstrated between March and May, it's also possible that LGD is banking on a similar rate of improvements over the next 12-18 months (meaning 4-6X better before they launch)..,


----------



## sooke

Aahh, ok. I thought the hyperflourescent blue lifetime data was for what LG was using now (or was typical for the state of the art and so LG's blue would be similar).


LT95 means... time to 95% light output?


----------



## dfa973

sooke said:


> LT95 means... time to 95% light output?


Yup, LT95 = brightness drops 5% in ...... hours - LifeTime.


----------



## Duc Vu

True RGB oled laptop from Samsung. The guy in the video is saying it looks better than any WRGB tvs.

https://youtu.be/eHXvSGa60bE


----------



## stl8k

garbage98 said:


> Sort interruption about the ongoing discussion of motion resolution. Has anyone spotted the 2019 77 inch panels in the wild yet? I am wondering if these panels have got an upgrade this year or are we still sticking to the 2017 technology as we did last year?


A 2019 77" (LG) owner posted macro shots. My analysis is that we're going to see different pixel structures at all 3 panel size classes going forward.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...r-s-thread-no-price-talk-85.html#post58100924

If you're on the fence, I'd wait for a 77" review especially by someone who has also reviewed one of the other 2 panel size classes. In the mean time, negotiate a great price on it. Anecdotes from the Pricing thread suggests there lots of room to negotiate.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> A 2019 77" (LG) owner posted macro shots. My analysis is that we're going to see different pixel structures at all 3 panel size classes going forward.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...r-s-thread-no-price-talk-85.html#post58100924
> 
> If you're on the fence, I'd wait for a 77" review especially by someone who has also reviewed one of the other 2 panel size classes. In the mean time, negotiate a great price on it. Anecdotes from the Pricing thread suggests there lots of room to negotiate.


You linked to the wrong post: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...r-s-thread-no-price-talk-83.html#post58097522

And I'm not sure you've reached the correct conclusion - the 77C9 pixel looks very much like the 65C9 pixel - certainly much, much less 'different' than the C9 vetsus C8 or C9 versus C7 or C8 versus C7...


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> You linked to the wrong post: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...r-s-thread-no-price-talk-83.html#post58097522
> 
> And I'm not sure you've reached the correct conclusion - the 77C9 pixel looks very much like the 65C9 pixel - certainly much, much less 'different' than the C9 vetsus C8 or C9 versus C7 or C8 versus C7...


I posted an update in that thread...



> I misremembered the discussion on the OLED Technology Advancements Thread about pixel structure. There were some differing perspectives, but I think the conclusion was that there is no pixel shape differences between 55" and 65" in 2018. (I assume that there continues to be no distinction between those panel size classes in 2019).
> 
> So, you very well could be right that they're the same. I definitely see shapes reminiscent of the 2018 77" in your shots. Better macro shots like the one flatpanelshd captured of the Sony 65" AF8 would make it definitive.
> 
> Regardless, if the 2019 77" performs near how the 65" does, I don't think anyone will care what the pixel structure is. Looking forward to seeing the 1st technical review of the 77".


And, my advice to anyone trying to decide between the 2019 77" and 65" is to wait for a technical review of the 77" and see if any of the technical measure differences, if any, dissuade you from the 77".


----------



## dfa973

@fafrd you were right, *in 2020 we will have a 48-inch 4K OLED TV*!



> LG Display will start production of smaller 48-inch 4K OLED TV panels next year, the display maker's vice president has confirmed to China Business News.


https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1559553128


----------



## stl8k

*Apple's Display Innovations*

https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/

Apple raised the bar with its announcement of a pro-level display based on non-emissive tech. Lots of focus on HDR, color, viewing angle, and form (the stand is $1K!).

Apple needs to deliver on these announcements, but as I said elsewhere, if they do, this feels like a product that's going to catalyze lots of competition and innovation in both displays and imaging (where it creates pull for the capture of higher-quality imagery).

Will be interesting to hear more about the product and perhaps someone will do some informal testing/characterization of the displays being shown at Apple's conference.


----------



## Micolash

stl8k said:


> https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/
> 
> Apple raised the bar with its announcement of a pro-level display based on non-emissive tech. Lots of focus on HDR, color, viewing angle, and form (the stand is $1K!).
> 
> Apple needs to deliver on these announcements, but as I said elsewhere, if they do, this feels like a product that's going to catalyze lots of competition and innovation in both displays and imaging (where it creates pull for the capture of higher-quality imagery).
> 
> Will be interesting to hear more about the product and perhaps someone will do some informal testing/characterization of the displays being shown at Apple's conference.


This uses mini LED right? Even if it does, I'm not sure what it does better than OLED other than peak nits and a bit higher resolution. Especially with 48" OLEDs coming next year which will cost a fraction of this Apple monitor.


----------



## rogo

Micolash said:


> This uses mini LED right? Even if it does, I'm not sure what it does better than OLED other than peak nits and a bit higher resolution. Especially with 48" OLEDs coming next year which will cost a fraction of this Apple monitor.


For lots of the work that is done on monitors, an OLED won't work due to burn-in risk. You are talking static display elements with >50% on-screen time. Apple's display is also >4K, which matters for some uses.

That said, a 48-inch OLED for $1200 is going to make a pretty amazing monitor for some users here (and of course elsewhere). And I look forward to those arrivals in 2020.


----------



## wco81

Apples $4500 XDR display is LCD I believe.

Sustained 1000 nits and supposed some wide gamut compliance.


----------



## ttnuagmada

stl8k said:


> https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/
> 
> Apple raised the bar with its announcement of a pro-level display based on non-emissive tech. Lots of focus on HDR, color, viewing angle, and form (the stand is $1K!).
> 
> Apple needs to deliver on these announcements, but as I said elsewhere, if they do, this feels like a product that's going to catalyze lots of competition and innovation in both displays and imaging (where it creates pull for the capture of higher-quality imagery).
> 
> Will be interesting to hear more about the product and perhaps someone will do some informal testing/characterization of the displays being shown at Apple's conference.


This thing is still just going to be another FALD IPS display that can't break 3000:1 ANSI contrast.

It will be nice im sure, but you'll be paying a fat premium just for the "Apple" logo. If the price of their stand or VESA mount doesn't explain this clearly, then I don't know what else will.


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> @fafrd
> 
> I think I have this...
> 
> When LG and LGD communicate MPRT (via public marketing not scientific journals), it's an average MPRT (across all GTGs) as seen in this PDF:
> 
> https://www.lg.com/global/business/download/resources/id/OLED.pdf
> 
> So, assuming that the current 65" UHD consumer OLEDs have MPRT(Avg) = 6. They'll be showing a panel with 42% improvement in that motion metric.


The genesis of the 3.5 MPRT value that LGD was touting can be seen in this technical paper from SID '19:

https://rdcu.be/bFAfI (links to Wiley.com)

Things we now know:

- The 3.5 MPRT (at 50% duty) is a consequence of the black data insertion (BDI) feature
- The MPRT is an average of all the gray to grays and the 0% duty value of 6.6 is close to what LGD marketing was communicating prior to the LGD announcement.
- There's a pronounced non-linearity in the lower duty levels (from 0 to 10% duty)

Another thing that doesn't get talked enough about is how OLED sensing/compensation constrains the engineering design space for improvements like this.

Reading this, is the reason for LGD pulling the end-user configurability of the BDI clearer? @Mark Rejhon


----------



## stl8k

*Color Motion Quality*

Technical Paper from LGD Introducing a New Notion of Color MPRT

An early attempt by LGD to measure motion blurs when transitioning between colors:



> For the 60hz LCD... When the start colors are white and cyan and the end colors are
> gray 3.5 and red, the values of the color MPRT are 26.2, 24.9,
> 25.7 and 25.1 ms respectively. The motion blur of those colors
> appears large than other colors. In the achromatic colors it
> means the blur occurs long when changing from bright gray to
> any color and from any color to dark gray. In the chromatic
> colors it also means the blur occurs long when changing from
> cyan to any color and from any color to red. Conversely we can
> show short blurs when the start colors are red, dark skin and the
> end colors are white, Cyan and yellow; each value is 21.2, 21.4,
> 18.4, 19.8 and 19.8 ms.


https://rdcu.be/bFAr4 (links to wiley.com)


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Technical Paper from LGD Introducing a New Notion of Color MPRT
> 
> An early attempt by LGD to measure motion blurs when transitioning between colors:
> 
> 
> 
> https://rdcu.be/bFAr4 (links to wiley.com)


Would love to read the full paper (but don't have access).

In the meantime, I have to admit I am pretty confused by LG's use of the term MPRT - it almost seems as if they are using MPRT to mean GTG.

As you can see here, Motion Picture Response time is the same as persistance - the minimum time a pixel is outputting a given luminance level (within some % of target level): https://www.blurbusters.com/gtg-versus-mprt-frequently-asked-questions-about-display-pixel-response/

"MPRT is limited by refresh cycle duration, and by frametime."

For measuring a time 'between colors', GtG has a clear meaning (the time lag between initiating a change from any specific initial color to achieving target color withing whatever % specified).

But I'm not sure what it means to measure MPRT between colors. MPRT is determined by refresh cycle, so if you have a backplane supporting BFI (meaning an Effective Refresh Rate at least 2X the Native Refresh Rate, MPRT from any starting color to any new color should be the same as MPRT from any starting color to black, meaning 1/2 the Native Refresh Rate (assuming 2X Effective Refresh Rate).

As far as the comparison with LCD, of course if comparing to vanilla LCD without scanning bscklight (and hence no BFI), GtG is going to be far worse than OLED, is going to vary color-by-color and transition-by-transition, and any measurement of 'MPRT' is going to be much longer because it will be measured at Native Refresh Rate (since there is no BFI).

If the LCD had a basic scanning backlight allowing it to support the same Effective Refresh Rate as the OLED, it would be able to deliver similar uniform levels of MPRT from any starting color to any target color.

So again, I'd like to read the full papers LGD has published, but this 'Perfect Clear Motion' slide (4) they have presented strikes me as BS: https://www.lg.com/global/business/download/resources/id/OLED.pdf

Among other things, some greyscale-to-greyscale 'MPRTs' are smaller/missing (for example, where are the last two G191/purple measurements?) and this lowers the average, suggesting it is better that some greyscale-to-greyscale transitions took longer to reach target levels (and hence persisted for less time once BFI'd to black).

'Flagship LCD' implies it has a scanning backlight, but BFI cannot have been activated when those Flagship LCD results were measured.

Need to give LG credit for finally focusing on motion performance but I have to admit that my initial reaction at seeing this slide is that they must have hired a Marketer from Samsung's marketing department.

Would love to learn more about the 'pronounced nonlinearity in the lower duty levels (0% to 10% duty)' if there is any easy way you can share more details.

If you look at the '0% to 20%' GtG measurement frim the attached Rtings.com WOLED measurement (upper left) you see a GtG transition time of 8.7ms (compared to all other transitions times of ~0.3ms). Since MPRT is reduced by increased GtG (the point I was making earlier about how nonsensical this greyscale-to-greyscale MPRT measurement is), not reaching target for a full internal refresh cycle means that MPRT will measure 0ms which will result in 'missing' columns and will lower the average (implying this is a good thing when actually it is not).

The difficulty LG is having with 0-10% transitions is consistent with the rtings.com excessive 0-20% GtG measurements, the 'missing columns' of LGs mysterious MPRT data and the challanges LG has been having with near-black lineraity and overshoots)...


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Would love to read the full paper (but don't have access).
> 
> In the meantime, I have to admit I am pretty confused by LG's use of the term MPRT - it almost seems as if they are using MPRT to mean GTG.
> 
> As you can see here, Motion Picture Response time is the same as persistance - the minimum time a pixel is outputting a given luminance level (within some % of target level): https://www.blurbusters.com/gtg-versus-mprt-frequently-asked-questions-about-display-pixel-response/
> 
> "MPRT is limited by refresh cycle duration, and by frametime."
> 
> For measuring a time 'between colors', GtG has a clear meaning (the time lag between initiating a change from any specific initial color to achieving target color withing whatever % specified).
> 
> But I'm not sure what it means to measure MPRT between colors. MPRT is determined by refresh cycle, so if you have a backplane supporting BFI (meaning an Effective Refresh Rate at least 2X the Native Refresh Rate, MPRT from any starting color to any new color should be the same as MPRT from any starting color to black, meaning 1/2 the Native Refresh Rate (assuming 2X Effective Refresh Rate).
> 
> As far as the comparison with LCD, of course if comparing to vanilla LCD without scanning bscklight (and hence no BFI), GtG is going to be far worse than OLED, is going to vary color-by-color and transition-by-transition, and any measurement of 'MPRT' is going to be much longer because it will be measured at Native Refresh Rate (since there is no BFI).
> 
> If the LCD had a basic scanning backlight allowing it to support the same Effective Refresh Rate as the OLED, it would be able to deliver similar uniform levels of MPRT from any starting color to any target color.
> 
> So again, I'd like to read the full papers LGD has published, but this 'Perfect Clear Motion' slide (4) they have presented strikes me as BS: https://www.lg.com/global/business/download/resources/id/OLED.pdf
> 
> Among other things, some greyscale-to-greyscale 'MPRTs' are smaller/missing (for example, where are the last two G191/purple measurements?) and this lowers the average, suggesting it is better that some greyscale-to-greyscale transitions took longer to reach target levels (and hence persisted for less time once BFI'd to black).
> 
> 'Flagship LCD' implies it has a scanning backlight, but BFI cannot have been activated when those Flagship LCD results were measured.
> 
> Need to give LG credit for finally focusing on motion performance but I have to admit that my initial reaction at seeing this slide is that they must have hired a Marketer from Samsung's marketing department.
> 
> Would love to learn more about the 'pronounced nonlinearity in the lower duty levels (0% to 10% duty)' if there is any easy way you can share more details.
> 
> If you look at the '0% to 20%' GtG measurement frim the attached Rtings.com WOLED measurement (upper left) you see a GtG transition time of 8.7ms (compared to all other transitions times of ~0.3ms). Since MPRT is reduced by increased GtG (the point I was making earlier about how nonsensical this greyscale-to-greyscale MPRT measurement is), not reaching target for a full internal refresh cycle means that MPRT will measure 0ms which will result in 'missing' columns and will lower the average (implying this is a good thing when actually it is not).
> 
> The difficulty LG is having with 0-10% transitions is consistent with the rtings.com excessive 0-20% GtG measurements, the 'missing columns' of LGs mysterious MPRT data and the challanges LG has been having with near-black lineraity and overshoots)...


You're not seeing "Limited access to this article is provided by the Wiley Content Sharing initiative." with the ability to view them fully?

If not, try another browser.


----------



## fafrd

Article confirming Samsung's decision to delay QD-OLED program by at lleast 3-6 months: http://www.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=1892

Via google translate:

"*Samsung Display is experiencing difficulties in developing large-size OLED for next-generation TVs.*

An official in the display industry said, "Samsung Display has not been able to accurately capture the production concept," he said. *Samsung Display reported that it had delayed the request for deposition equipment to the first quarter of the next year from the fourth quarter of this year*. Organic deposition equipment to be used in the large-sized OLED production line of Samsung Display is to be supplied by Japan's Canon Torque.

Samsung Electronics' video display (VD) division launched OLED TVs with red, green and blue (RGB) emission in 2013. After that, Samsung Electronics folded its large OLED business. The next-generation large OLED for TVs developed by Samsung Display is known as the blue (B) emission method. In RGB subpixel configuration, red and green use quantum dot (QD) photoluminescence (PL) and blue uses organic luminescence as is.

One of the major issues in the technology, called QD-OLED, is the 'blue overkill'. QD light emission is a phenomenon in which blue light is emitted between particles and particles by hitting the quantum dot in a color filter with blue light. Quantum dot is used to increase the color purity, but *the problem of color mixing appears.*

Samsung Display plans to switch some of its LCD production lines from its L8 factory in Asan City, Chungcheongnam-do to a large OLED line for TVs. In the industry, this is called the 'C project'. *C project implementation was originally scheduled for the third quarter of this year. However, due to the delayed arrival of deposition equipment, which is the core equipment for large OLED production lines, the implementation of the C project is expected to start at the end of this year.*

Samsung Display's next-generation large OLED TVs are a group-wide move strategy. Lee Jae-yong, vice chairman of Samsung Electronics, was reported to have received in-depth reports from executives such as Lee Dong-hoon, CEO of Samsung Display at the end of last year, on the theme of "next-generation product development and investment strategy." The industry analysis shows that Samsung Display is sensitive to the recent news that it has suffered difficulties in the development of new OLED technology and management indicators.

In addition to mass production technology, *marketing points are also a challenge for Samsung Display*. Unless it is the RGB emission method, it is difficult to distinguish LG Display from its competitor, white (W) OLED. *The currently known QD-OLED concept is not significantly different from the light emitting structure of LG Display WOLED in that it emits light with organic materials and filters light through a color filter. *Samsung's VD division has said in recent years that OLEDs are not suitable for TV because of the burn-in phenomenon. The burning phenomenon caused by the lifetime of the organic material (especially blue) can not be avoided as long as the blue organic material is used."


So to translate the translation:

QDCC is not perfect and allows some blue photons to escape unconverted (the 'color-mixing' problem).

The proposed solution by Samsung Display is to add color filters to block the otherwise-escaping blue photons.

This solves the technical issue but then the Samsung Visual Display folks (who would rather see the Samsung Group invest in scaling up MicroLED) push back with the 'marketing point' that if Samsung uses color filters for QD-BOLED, they won't be able to distinguish it from LG's White-OLED+Color-Filter-based WOLED.

Oh, and in case that argument is not sufficient on its own, the Samsung Visual Display guys are arguing that they also can't use OLED for TV until Samsung Display has developed blue OLED material that does not suffer from burn-in...

'You say you can get rid of the color filters and solve the problem of blue burn-in? That sounds great - we'll check back in with in with you in another three months (and meanwhile, we've put all QD-BOLED pilot line investments on hold).'


----------



## fafrd

New fab utilization report from DSCC: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/rigid-oled-ut-continues-high-flexible-ut-recovering-in-june

OLED TV (meaning LGD WOLED) has been running flat-out at 100% utilization since May 2018!

No wonder LGD had to tell Vizio 'no, not 'til next year' .

Seriously, all the earlier talk about WOLED losing market share is nonsense when in a situation like this. Perhaps LGD has lost potential market share over the past year, since if they'd been able to produce more WOLED panels they likely would have been able to capture additional market share, but they have not really lost anything when they are able to sell everything they can produce (and at higher prices to boot).


----------



## fafrd

Another potential mechanism to deliver higher-efficiency OLEDs: https://www.photonics.com/Articles/Selective_Formation_of_Excitons_Could_Lower_OLED/a64795

"Typically, the excitons in OLEDs occur in two patterns, triplets and singlets. Singlets need more energy, and although they can be converted into triplets, additional energy is required to create them in the first place. The researchers found a way to lower the voltage in OLEDs so that only triplets are formed."

Current-generation OLEDs (both RGB-OLED and WOLED) largely rely on florescent blue emitters because phosphoescent blue emitters with acceptable lifetime have remained elusive.

Because the florescent blue emitters only convert singlets to photons, triplets and the energy that went into creating them is wasted, hence the reason that (florescent) blue OLED is much lower efficiency than (phosphorescent) red and green OLEDs (which convert triplets to photons).

Only 25% of the energy put into OLEDs is converted to singlets, the other 75% going into generating triplets. Hnce the reason why florescent OLED emitters are generally ~1/3 the electro-optical efficiency of phosphorescent OLED emitters.

Thermally Activated Delayed Forescence (TADF) is an alternative approach than converts those 75% triplets back to singlets for florescent emission, but acceptable lifetimes have proven elusive (always 'next year').

Only generating singlets woud have huge implications for OLED efficiency and lifetime.

Today's florescent blue would go from being ~1/3rd the electro-optical efficiency of phosphorescent red and green to being ~133% the efficiency of those phosphorescent emitters (~400% the efficiency of florescent blue without the lifetime issues of TADF).

It's also possible that the same singlet-only solution would allow florescent red and green to be used rather than phosphorescent, meaning 133% the efficiency of today's phosphorescent red and green.

With florescent blue beng 4 times as efficient as it is today, LGD's current B/R-Y/B WOLED stack would not need dual blue OLED layers any more and they could probably go to a the simple G/R-B stack which they have already shown on their roadmap with TADF Blue for 'Future' (attached).

Just replacing the TADF Blue with this singlet-only Floresecent solution would deliver the +30% electro-optical efficiency increase LGD is already touting for the 'Future' of WOLED, but if green and red were also converted to singlet-only florescence, the resulting efficiency increase could be closer to +75%.

There is no question that OLED has the technology roadmap before it to catch up to LED/LCD in the Brightness Wars (a question of when, not if).


----------



## fafrd

A promisng sign that LGD is trying to accelerate their 10.5G production schedule by 6-8 months: http://en.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=369

"LG Display has brought in TFT deposition equipment earlier than expected for 10.5th generation OLED lines at its P10 plant in Paju of Gyeonggi Province to help prep for mass production, sources close to the matter said on Jne 12th."

"Originally, the equipment was scheduled to be brought to the facilities in February next year, ahead of LG Display’s commencement of the OLED lines in 2021. The monthly production capacity is estimated at around 30,000 panels."

It's possible that we'll see the first 10.5G WOLEDs before the end of next year.


----------



## fafrd

And on another note, seems that Samsung is getting cold feet about going balls-to-the-wall to try catch up to WOLED with QD-OLED: https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=32196782

"There are also reports that uncertainty about the market and *doubts about profitability are delaying investment decisions*. As it is a late buyer of the large-size OLED market, it is also expected that the large-scale investment is required to improve the quality of the OLED market. An industry observer said, "Samsung Electronics recently announced a large-scale investment in non-memory semiconductors, and *the display investment seems to be falling out of priority,* There are aspects that we can not completely separate from the situation. "

With these developments by LGD (acceleration of 10.5G WOLED) and Samsung Display (delay of QD-BOLED) I think it's safe to say that LGD has finally recognized the intrinsic strength of their current position and has decided to put the pedal to the metal...


----------



## dfa973

Sooo, it seems that Samsung needs to pour A LOT of money into QD-OLED before they even get to the same level as the LGs WOLED, and they are not willing to do that, because it will take a lot of money and a lot of unprofitable time to get there.
They waited too long and have no money *and* the time to waste.
They better concentrate on micro/nano LED. And fast!


----------



## multiformous

> Sonia Chen of Samsung Display Company was asked if there will there be QD-OLED production in 2020. Her answer: "Optimistically, yeah."


 (source)


----------



## fafrd

multiformous said:


> (source)


Yes, the 'optimistic' scenario is that Samsung decides to move forward with the recently-announced revised (delayed) plan: https://www.oled-info.com/reports-k...till-faces-technology-challenges-it-can-begin

"According to a new report from China, Samsung will indeed go ahead with its QD-OLED production plans, but at a slower pace than was first estimated. *Samsung will only begin trial production towards the end of 2020*, with real mass production on a new 10-Gen line only at around 2023.


----------



## jl4069

*will Samsung possibly need to do what Sharp did?*

In introducing two extra primary colors into the RGB grid; yellow, cyan, in order to make their new OLEDs more efficient, and/or have better PQ in general? thanks j


----------



## fafrd

jl4069 said:


> In introducing two extra primary colors into the RGB grid; yellow, cyan, in order to make their new OLEDs* more efficient*, and/or have better PQ in general? thanks j


The issue is not innefficiency or inadequate picture quality.

The first issue is leakage of blue light. The Quantum Dot Color Converters (QDCC) do not convert 100% of the incoming blue light. That blue light leakong through red and green subpixels translates into a loss of saturation that Samsung has had to address by adding color filters to block blue light (so in that way, QD-BOLED will be more similar to WOLED than it was intended to be).

The second issue is lifetime and burn-in. Blue has the shortest lifetime of all 3 primary OLED colors, and while blue subpixels are exercised rately enough that LG's WOLEDs have not had an issue with blue lifetime (red has been the quickest-aging subpixel), QD-BOLED relies on blue OLED material to generate red as well as blue subpixel output.

New high-efficiency and long-lifetime next-generation blue OLED materials like TADF and Hyperflorescent Blue are needed to give QD-BOLED a chance at commercial success, but those new materials are not yet ready for prine-time.

Samsung Display is hoping they have a viable solution in pilot production by late 2020 so they can then invest in a 10.5G mass-production facility ready to ramp by 2023...


----------



## jl4069

fafrd said:


> New high-efficiency and long-lifetime next-generation blue OLED materials like TADF and Hyperflorescent Blue are needed to give QD-BOLED a chance at commercial success, but those new materials are not yet ready for prine-time.
> .


Thanks for the thoughtful response. Do you think that these next generation Blue materials will also require sub-filters for blue? Or will this function like Samsung's (or Sony's prograde OLED's) original RGB OLED's, but obviously rather better? thanks, j


----------



## wco81

2023 is an eternity away.

If they can still plow a lot of resources into micro LED at the same time, fine.

But if they're diverting resources on a bet the results of which won't be known for almost 5 years from now ...


----------



## fafrd

jl4069 said:


> Thanks for the thoughtful response. *Do you think that these next generation Blue materials will also require sub-filters for blue? *Or will this function like Samsung's (or Sony's prograde OLED's) original RGB OLED's, but obviously rather better? thanks, j


The QDCC and longer-lifetime blue OLED material are distinct technologies. If QDCC effectiveness improves to convert ~100% of incoming blue photons to red or green, blue-blocking conventional color filters could be eliminated.

WOLED and BOLED are based on a single sheet of unpatterned OLED material (white in the case of WOLED and blue in the case of QD-BOLED). The fine-pitch patterning needed to manufacture RGB-OLED does not scale up to TV-sized panels. Samsung tried and failed. More efficient / longer lifetime blue will also benefit RGB-OLED screens for phones and tablets, but won't make RGB-OLED TV panels any more viable.

Some of these new blue materials also offer the possibility of being printed, and if printed OLED eventually bears fruit, that's the most viable pathway to RGB-OLED for TV-sized panels...


----------



## jl4069

fafrd said:


> The QDCC and longer-lifetime blue OLED material are distinct technologies. If QDCC effectiveness improves to convert ~100% of incoming blue photons to red or green, blue-blocking conventional color filters could be eliminated.


It would appear that this is the main issue for Samsung.. whether or not they can make their QDCC's good enough to either convert 100% of incoming blue photons, or to find a percentage that is good enough for most consumers or compared to LG. Anytime I hear 100% I become skeptical, as that is truly a hard number to reach in any endeavor. I wonder what the minimum acceptable percentage might be to allow production. I'm sure they are trying to estimate such probabilities now. j


----------



## fafrd

jl4069 said:


> It would appear that this is the main issue for Samsung.. whether or not they can make their QDCC's good enough to either convert 100% of incoming blue photons, or to find a percentage that is good enough for most consumers or compared to LG. Anytime I hear 100% I become skeptical, as that is truly a hard number to reach in any endeavor. I wonder what the minimum acceptable percentage might be to allow production. I'm sure they are trying to estimate such probabilities now. j


The problem is not conversion efficiency, the problem is any unconverted blue photons. Premium TVs are now pushing beyond DCI-P3 and starting to chip away at Rec.2020.

As soon as you allow any blue photons to emit from red and/or green subpixels, it becomes impossible to deliver ~100% DCI-P3. Until QDCC conversion is essentially 100% effective at eliminating all blue photons (in red and green subpixels), Samsung will need to keep the blue-blocking color filters to deliver the color gamut Premium TV customers expect.

WOLED does not have this issue because the RGB color filters only pass the colored photons they are designed for (like LCD).


----------



## fafrd

On again, off again: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=33156

"Samsung Display is planning to make a final decision on investment in QD-OLED TV panels at the end of this month or early next month, according to display industry sources on June 23."

But this is the part I like best: 

"Industry watchers say that the firm may also build a QD-OLED production line at its new A5 plant which is under construction, but *it is difficult for Samsung Display to make a decision on the A5 plant as Samsung Electronics’ business support task force*, which controls Samsung Group’s electronics affiliates, *is currently under prosecutor's investigation*. Construction of the plant has also been suspended. In addition, Samsung Display is likely to make a decision on new investment after checking on the performance of the OLED line converted from the LCD line, considering the investment in TV QD-OLED is in its beginning stage."


----------



## Wizziwig




----------



## dfa973

Wizziwig said:


> CSOT 31" UHD Inkjet Printed AMOLED


A show panel with black stripes/defects? 

100-200nits brightness?  

NTSC color gamut?


----------



## fafrd

dfa973 said:


> A show panel with black stripes/defects?
> 
> 100-200nits brightness?
> 
> NTSC color gamut?


They will be cheap and they will come in small screen sizes, so I'm guessing they will be a nice complement for the higher-quality / larger-sized WOLED TVs LG is delivering...

LGD is introducing 48" WOLEDs next year and once their 10.5G fab is ramped in late 2021 / early 2022, they'll be able to produce 18 43" WOLED panels for roughly the same cost as 9 55" WOLED panels, so seems as though 43" -class may be where all of the action is as far as the performance / price competition between LGD's WOLED and CSOT's printed OLEDs...


----------



## Wizziwig

Couple more printed OLED monitors at about 8 minutes:

https://youtu.be/4hu0B2F4HU4?t=475


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> The genesis of the 3.5 MPRT value that LGD was touting can be seen in this technical paper from SID '19:
> 
> https://rdcu.be/bFAfI (links to Wiley.com)
> 
> Things we now know:
> 
> - The 3.5 MPRT (at 50% duty) is a consequence of the black data insertion (BDI) feature
> - The MPRT is an average of all the gray to grays and the 0% duty value of 6.6 is close to what LGD marketing was communicating prior to the LGD announcement.
> - There's a pronounced non-linearity in the lower duty levels (from 0 to 10% duty)
> 
> Another thing that doesn't get talked enough about is how OLED sensing/compensation constrains the engineering design space for improvements like this.
> 
> Reading this, is the reason for LGD pulling the end-user configurability of the BDI clearer? @Mark Rejhon


Here's the related patent to this applied BFI research.

This excerpt describing dynamic BFI caught my eye:

"Moreover, the organic light-emitting display according to the present disclosure may easily vary the duty cycle according to the n value. When a fast moving image is displayed, the duty cycle is decreased to improve MPRT, and when a still pattern is displayed, the duty cycle is decreased to near 100% to prevent flicker. The duty cycle may be adjusted for each frame through image processing, thereby giving the best picture quality to the user."

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190189060A1/en

@Mark Rejhon


----------



## dfa973

*LG expects Q2 profits to drop 15% from lacklustre OLED TV and mobile sales*



> The expected decline in profit is due to the lower than expected sales of its OLED TVs and the continued losses from its mobile business.
> 
> KB Securities analyst Kim Dong-won said LG's home appliance business would probably see improved profits, but the expanded shipment of QLED TVs by Samsung would dent LG's profitability in its TV business.





> Mirae Asset Daewoo analyst Park Won-jae said it was time for LG to take a "strategic approach" as Samsung QLED TV sales are gaining popularity while its OLED TV have experienced lower than expected sales.


https://www.zdnet.com/article/lg-ex...p-15-from-lacklustre-oled-tv-and-mobile-sales


----------



## fafrd

dfa973 said:


> *LG expects Q2 profits to drop 15% from lacklustre OLED TV and mobile sales*
> 
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/lg-ex...p-15-from-lacklustre-oled-tv-and-mobile-sales


Interesting, but this needs to be put in perspective.

First, we are talking about LGE, not LGD.

One year ago, LGE had higher profitability on TV sales than any other TV manufacturer, driven primarily by profits they generated on WOLED TV sales (attached). At that time, LGD was still losing money on WOLED panel sales, due largely to the 'strategic' discounted pricing they offered to LGE, Sony, and others.

LGD increased WOLED panel prices in Q3'18 (rumors are by 5-10%) and as a result has been turning a profit on WOLED panel sales for the first time in their history.

As a result, it was inevitable that LGE's profitability on WOLED TV sales would be 'dented'. Dropping from +10% into the red would be a bit of a surprise (and is not stated) but might be understandable given the price pressure Samsung and the 10.5G-driven LCD industry has been applying on pricing.

The Samsung 55Q6 is discounted to $900 at Best Buy currently, contrasted with LGE's 55C9 which is currently discounted to $1800, twice the price. The fact that increased sales of lower-end TVs given the 'QLED' moniker translates to 'QLED sales gaining popularity' is really irrelevant - what matters is whether WOLED TV sales have truly experienced 'lower than expected sales' or not.

If LGs sales of WOLED TVs is truly coming in below expectation, we'll be the first to know because LGE wil 'be strategic' and lower pricing to the levels needed to achieve sales targets.

We really don't need analysts to tell us any of this and I suspect this zdnet article is fueled by yet another attempt by Samsung at fear-mongering.

Samsung's 55" flagship, the 55Q900, is currently priced at $3500 at Best Buy, nearly 2X the discounted price of the 55C9. If someone has only $1500-2000 to spend on a 55" Premium TV, their choice today comes down to the Samsung 55Q8 at $1700, the Sony 55A8G at $2000, or the LGE 55C9 at $1800.

So my take is that this analyst report is a big nothing burger.

On the other han, here is an interesting thought:

LGD raised WOLED panel prices one year ago and no doubt it is time for annual price negotiations again. One year ago, LGE's highest-in-the-industry profitability on TV sales no doubt helped position LGD to argue for a refistribution of profits and hence higher WOLED panel prices.

Heading into this years negotiations, it makes sense that LGE wants to push for a reduction in WOLED panel prices (and to certainly avoid any further increase in WOLED panel prices from LGD). So perhaps rather than more Samsung fear-mongering, this article was fueled by LGE's leaking information to establish a strong negotiating position...


----------



## fafrd

On other news related to WOLED TVs, it appears that production levels are about to icrease dramatically (which should translate to noticably lower end-user prices by this Holiday Shopping Season): https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-start-producing-oled-tvs-its-guangzhou-85-gen-fab-next-month

"Today LG Display announced that the *Guangzhou will start production in August 2019*. The fab will begin with test runs in July but it seems that *LGD is confident that mass production will begin next month.* The initial capacity of this new fab will be *60,000 monthly substrates, which will bring LGD's total OLED TV capacity to 130,000 monthly 8.5-Gen substrates* (i.e. will almost *double its current capacity*)."

Guangzhou is expected to deliver a ~14% reduction in 55" WOLED panel production costs next year (from ~$550 per panel in Korea in 2020 to ~$475 in Guangzhou in 2020).


----------



## BlueChris

In another note there seem to be a problem for lg because there is a trade war between korea and Japan and in specific a crucial chemical that is needed for oled panels is produced 90% in Japan.
This maked LG to rush to finish really fast the factory in China because between China and Japan there isn't any problem.
Some info here

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ks-with-south-korea-on-trade-as-tensions-rise

But with a general google search you will find everything.


----------



## fafrd

BlueChris said:


> In another note there seem to be a problem for lg because there is a trade war between korea and Japan and in specific a crucial chemical that is needed for oled panels is produced 90% in Japan.
> This maked LG to rush to finish really fast the factory in China because between China and Japan there isn't any problem.
> Some info here
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ks-with-south-korea-on-trade-as-tensions-rise
> 
> But with a general google search you will find everything.


Yes, that is definitely a pitential cloud on the horizon, except first, it is unclear how much of that critical chemical LGD has stockpiled, second, it is unclear whether that chemical is even used in the production of WOLED panels (as opposed to flexible RGB-OLED panels for mobile phones), and third, as you say, Guangzhou offers a way around the any potential problem: https://www.oled-info.com/oled-production-korea-could-be-halted-end-july-due-japans-restcition-free

"In addition it is not clear whether these materials are actually used in OLED TV production (or only in flexible OLED production)."


----------



## fafrd

dfa973 said:


> *LG expects Q2 profits to drop 15% from lacklustre OLED TV and mobile sales*
> 
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/lg-ex...p-15-from-lacklustre-oled-tv-and-mobile-sales


Looking into this a bt more deeply, it appears that LG's Q2 guidance made absolutely no mention of OLED TV sales and primarily pointed to weak mobil phone sales for the profit decline: https://www.mobileworldlive.com/dev...s-profit-decline-after-weak-smartphone-sales/

"LG Electronics predicted sales in the second quarter had increased modestly, but warned of a double-digit drop in operating income as a weak global smartphone market weighed on its bottom-line."

"The vendor said the numbers are tentative, with its final results to be officially announced later this month. *It did not provide figures for each division*, but *analysts expect an operating loss* of more KRW200 billion *for its troubled mobile unit*, which would be the ninth consecutive quarterly loss, Yonhap News Agency reported."

Also, the guidance is for a 15% reduction in Q2 proditability, not a loss. Q2 profit is forecast to be dropping to $552 million from over $650 million in Q2'18. And that $100M+ drop in profitability is being more than fully explained by increased lossed in the mobile division by most analysts:

"analysts expect an operating loss of more KRW200 billion [US$169 milliom] for its troubled mobile unit, which would be the ninth consecutive quarterly loss, Yonhap News Agency reported."

In addition, Samsung's Q2'19 financial performance is expected to suffer even more than LGE's: 

"Rival Samsung estimated its Q2 operating profit would be *down 56 per cent* year-on-year..."

This report from the Korea Herald repeats much of the same information: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20190705000500

'LG Electronics Inc. said Friday its second-quarter operating profits are expected to have dropped 15.4 percent from a year earlier, *mainly due to its sluggish smartphone business*.'

"*Analysts attributed the worse-than-expected earnings to the sluggish mobile business*, which was expected to have eroded robust profits from the home appliance division."

'Market watchers say strong demand for LG's home appliances might have improved its overall sales.'

With this additional mention of TV sales in a quote from one analyst (and more related to LCD TV sales rather than anything related to WOLED TV sales):

'"The home appliance businesses drove up the overall performance thanks to robust sales of premium lineup and new lifestyle products, such as air purifiers and garment dryers," Koh Jung-woo, an analyst at NH Investment & Securities, said. "*LG's TV business likely suffered due to weak demand for LCD products and intensifying competition with Chinese makers*, and its smartphone division continued to book losses."

So LGE has warned of a 15% profit decline without saying anything about why or where.

Most analysts are prognosticating that increased losses from the mobile phone division are the primary culprit.

At least one analyst expects reduced margins on LCD TV sales due to increased price pressure ftom cheap Chinese TVs to also be a contributing factor.

According to ZDNET, another analyst agrees with Koh Jung-woo and believes reduced margin in TV sales will be a factor contributing to Q2'19s reduced profitability (again, with no mention of WOLED TV sales): 

"KB Securities analyst Kim Dong-won said LG's home appliance business would probably see improved profits, but the *expanded shipment of QLED TVs by Samsung would dent LG's profitability in its TV business*."

and according to ZDNET, there is just a single analyst forecasting that WOLED TV sales in Q2 were 'below expectation':

'Mirae Asset Daewoo analyst Park Won-jae said it was time for LG to take a "strategic approach" as Samsung QLED TV sales are gaining popularity while its *OLED TV have experienced lower than expected sales*.'

Since LGE apparently made no reference to WOLED TV sales (or any TV sales, for that matter) in their Q2 earnings guidance, Won-jae either made this supposition up out of thin air or has some inside source of information (back to LGE possibly positioning for a stronger negotiating position ).


----------



## bootymonger

fafrd said:


> " *Guangzhou will start production in August 2019*. The fab will begin with test runs in July but it seems that *LGD is confident that mass production will begin next month.* .


Now we can look forward to years of discussion/comparison/analysis trying to decide if the Korean panels have better/worse/same uniformity/tinting/banding vs. Chinese panels.


----------



## fafrd

More on the (non) impact of Japan's export ban on LGD's WOLED production: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=33740

'LG Display CTO Kang In-byeong said on July 9 that the company is currently testing Chinese and Taiwanese hydrofluoric acid with regard to Japan’s semiconductor and display material export restrictions. “*The impact of the restrictions on our OLED panel and rollable TV production is nothing to worry about*,” he said.'

'"In the display industry, the export restrictions are not as serious as in the semiconductor sector, and display manufacturers use less hydrofluoric acid than semiconductor manufacturers,” the CTO explained, adding, “*Chinese and Taiwanese hydrofluoric acid can be substitutes for the same material supplied by Japan*, and we will prepare countermeasures through inventory check.”'


----------



## FriscoDTM

Interesting report in Nature Photonics of a single layer TADF material demonstrating 10k cd/m2 @ 2.9V with 19% efficiency at typical operating point and LT50=~2khr:

Efficient and stable single-layer organic light-emitting diodes based on thermally activated delayed fluorescence

From a design, optimization and fabrication perspective, an organic light-emitting diode consisting of only one single layer of a neat semiconductor would be highly attractive. Here, we demonstrate an efficient and stable organic light-emitting diode based on a single layer of a neat thermally activated delayed fluorescence emitter. By employing ohmic electron and hole contacts, charge injection is efficient and the absence of heterojunctions results in an exceptionally low operating voltage of 2.9 V at a luminance of 10,000 cd m−2. Balanced electron and hole transport results in a maximum external quantum efficiency of 19% at 500 cd m−2 and a broadened emission zone, which greatly improves the operational stability, allowing a lifetime to 50% of the initial luminance of 1,880 h for an initial luminance of 1,000 cd m−2. As a result, this single-layer concept combines high power efficiency with long lifetime in a simplified architecture, rivalling and even exceeding the performance of complex multilayer devices.


----------



## stl8k

FriscoDTM said:


> Interesting report in Nature Photonics of a single layer TADF material demonstrating 10k cd/m2 @ 2.9V with 19% efficiency at typical operating point and LT50=~2khr:
> 
> Efficient and stable single-layer organic light-emitting diodes based on thermally activated delayed fluorescence
> 
> From a design, optimization and fabrication perspective, an organic light-emitting diode consisting of only one single layer of a neat semiconductor would be highly attractive. Here, we demonstrate an efficient and stable organic light-emitting diode based on a single layer of a neat thermally activated delayed fluorescence emitter. By employing ohmic electron and hole contacts, charge injection is efficient and the absence of heterojunctions results in an exceptionally low operating voltage of 2.9 V at a luminance of 10,000 cd m−2. Balanced electron and hole transport results in a maximum external quantum efficiency of 19% at 500 cd m−2 and a broadened emission zone, which greatly improves the operational stability, allowing a lifetime to 50% of the initial luminance of 1,880 h for an initial luminance of 1,000 cd m−2. As a result, this single-layer concept combines high power efficiency with long lifetime in a simplified architecture, rivalling and even exceeding the performance of complex multilayer devices.


Some additional background here:

http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/presse/pm-en-2019-09


----------



## Phantom Skim

Hi, does anybody knows is Bfi gives some benefit to the smoothens (motion) when watching 24fps movies with fast scenes, i am curious to know would it contribute to 24fps movie with fast scenes or not, i am sensitive to motion so i can't decide between C8 and C9. I dont watch to many sport but if Bfi contributes when watching sport than by some logic it would need to do the same with movies at 24fps or am i mistaken?


----------



## thebishman

fafrd said:


> On other news related to WOLED TVs, it appears that production levels are about to icrease dramatically (which should translate to noticably lower end-user prices by this Holiday Shopping Season): https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-start-producing-oled-tvs-its-guangzhou-85-gen-fab-next-month
> 
> "Today LG Display announced that the *Guangzhou will start production in August 2019*. The fab will begin with test runs in July but it seems that *LGD is confident that mass production will begin next month.* The initial capacity of this new fab will be *60,000 monthly substrates, which will bring LGD's total OLED TV capacity to 130,000 monthly 8.5-Gen substrates* (i.e. will almost *double its current capacity*)."
> 
> Guangzhou is expected to deliver a ~14% reduction in 55" WOLED panel production costs next year (from ~$550 per panel in Korea in 2020 to ~$475 in Guangzhou in 2020).


Will this new plant have any impact of quantity/pricing of the 77” panel?

TIA,

Bish


----------



## 8mile13

Phantom Skim said:


> Hi, does anybody knows is Bfi gives some benefit to the smoothens (motion) when watching 24fps movies with fast scenes, i am curious to know would it contribute to 24fps movie with fast scenes or not, i am sensitive to motion so i can't decide between C8 and C9. I dont watch to many sport but if Bfi contributes when watching sport than by some logic it would need to do the same with movies at 24fps or am i mistaken?


For 24fps movies best might be to focus on OLED motion comments on how turned off motion enhancement looks/ enhancers set to low looks. 2018/2019 Sony OLED seems to be the best choice for that. Advise is not to use BFI or agressive Motion Interpolation for 24fps movies, it ruins the look.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Some additional background here:
> 
> http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/presse/pm-en-2019-09


10,000 cd/m2 is interesting but it's strange that they only quote LT50: 

"In continuous operation, the researchers were able to measure a so-called *LT50 lifetime of almost 2000 hours* at a brightness equivalent to ten times that of modern displays. Within this time, the initial luminosity has dropped to 50% of its value."

2000 hours to half-brightness is not going to cut it and the more common LT97 or LT95 numbers are probably embarassing.

Even at 'only' 1000cd/m2, an LT97 of 1000 hours would imdicate this technology is ready for prime-time, so I suspect the actual [email protected]/m2 must be at least an order of magnutude below that (and probably more).

But if this technology is viable in time to impact Samsung's (hoped-for) QD-BOLED initiative, it could be a game-changer...


----------



## fafrd

thebishman said:


> Will this new plant have any impact of quantity/pricing of the 77” panel?
> 
> TIA,
> 
> Bish


Almost certainly.

LGD is producing only 1% of their output at 77" (~40,000 77" WOLED panels in 2019.

The new 8.5G plant in Guangxhou plant will ~double production capacity from 70,000 8.5G sheets per month to 130,000 once stage 1 is fully-ramped.

Even assuming LGD continues to be 'strategc' about the 75/77" Premium TV market (meaning they are not really taking it seriously yet) and stick to 1% levels for 77" production, that should mean close to twice as many 77" WOLEDs produced once the new 8.5G plant in Guangzhou is up and running.

And in our free-market economy, higher production levels = lower prices.

But this increased volume, incrementally lower pricing of 77" WOLEDs from increased 8.5G capacity nothing compared to what the ramp-up of the 10.5G plant will mean.

While LGD can use single 8.5G sheet to msnufacture 2 77" WOLED panels, they can use a single 10.5G sheet, costing 50% more, to manufacture 6 75" WOLED panels (the same as the number of 55" WOLED manufactured on an 8.5G sheet).

So in essence, while a 77" WOLED at 8.5G costs 3X the cost of a 55" WOLED panel, at 10.5G, a 75" WOLED costs 1.5x the cost of a 55" WOLED (~half as much).

Oh, and the 10.5G plant can pretty much only be used to manufacture 65" and 75" WOLEDs (55" much more efficient on 8.5G), so by the time the 10.5G plant is ramping, it's a near-certainly that LGD will be taking the 75/77" Premium TV market much more seriously and will have increased 75/77" WOLED production share more than 10-fold from today's 1% to over 10% (at the very least).

That means moving from ~40,000 77" WOLED panels produced in 2019 to over 1 million in 2021 or 2022 when LG is planning to be at a production level of over 10M WOLED panels annually.

By then, entry-level 75" WOLEDs are almost certian to be priced under $3000 (where Samsung's 75Q80 is priced today).


----------



## Wizziwig

5000-7500 nit RGB OLED Microdisplay:


----------



## dfa973

*LG pours additional $2.5b into P10 line for "next-gen supersized" OLED TVs*

*Supersized OLED displays*
With the release of its earnings report for Q2 2019, LG Display announced a large additional investment into its 10.5G OLED line that will enable "next-generation display technology such as supersized, rollable and transparent displays".



> - "LG Display announced today an additional investment of KRW 3 trillion into its Gen 10.5 OLED line in its P10 fab in Paju, Korea. The company plans to solidify its leadership in the OLED business through competitive OLED productivity and continues to create new value with next-generation display technology such as *supersized, rollable and transparent displays*," the company announced.


With the additional investment, production capacity at the 10.5 generation OLED line at the P10 plant in Paju, Korea, will increase from 30,000 sheets per month in the first half of 2022 to 45,000 sheets per month in the first half of 2023. The P10 line will mainly produce OLED panels sized 65 inches and larger.



> - "The company will mainly produce 65-inch and above supersized OLED panels from the Gen 10.5 production line. It will start producing 30,000 sheets per month from the first half of 2022. An additional 15,000 sheets per month will be produced from the first half of 2023."


Read more at https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1563870830


----------



## Ice Cold

fafrd said:


> Almost certainly.
> 
> LGD is producing only 1% of their output at 77" (~40,000 77" WOLED panels in 2019.
> 
> The new 8.5G plant in Guangxhou plant will ~double production capacity from 70,000 8.5G sheets per month to 130,000 once stage 1 is fully-ramped.
> 
> Even assuming LGD continues to be 'strategc' about the 75/77" Premium TV market (meaning they are not really taking it seriously yet) and stick to 1% levels for 77" production, that should mean close to twice as many 77" WOLEDs produced once the new 8.5G plant in Guangzhou is up and running.
> 
> And in our free-market economy, higher production levels = lower prices.
> 
> But this increased volume, incrementally lower pricing of 77" WOLEDs from increased 8.5G capacity nothing compared to what the ramp-up of the 10.5G plant will mean.
> 
> While LGD can use single 8.5G sheet to msnufacture 2 77" WOLED panels, they can use a single 10.5G sheet, costing 50% more, to manufacture 6 75" WOLED panels (the same as the number of 55" WOLED manufactured on an 8.5G sheet).
> 
> So in essence, while a 77" WOLED at 8.5G costs 3X the cost of a 55" WOLED panel, at 10.5G, a 75" WOLED costs 1.5x the cost of a 55" WOLED (~half as much).
> 
> Oh, and the 10.5G plant can pretty much only be used to manufacture 65" and 75" WOLEDs (55" much more efficient on 8.5G), so by the time the 10.5G plant is ramping, it's a near-certainly that LGD will be taking the 75/77" Premium TV market much more seriously and will have increased 75/77" WOLED production share more than 10-fold from today's 1% to over 10% (at the very least).
> 
> That means moving from ~40,000 77" WOLED panels produced in 2019 to over 1 million in 2021 or 2022 when LG is planning to be at a production level of over 10M WOLED panels annually.
> 
> By then, entry-level 75" WOLEDs are almost certian to be priced under $3000 (where Samsung's 75Q80 is priced today).


So if this is accurate a 77” WOLED will be sub $3,000 by 2021
Then a 65” WOLED could be $2,000 
And a 55” WOLED could be $1,000 wow

My C9 better last til 2021 then and a Buy a C12


----------



## boe

Ice Cold said:


> So if this is accurate a 77” WOLED will be sub $3,000 by 2021
> Then a 65” WOLED could be $2,000
> And a 55” WOLED could be $1,000 wow
> 
> My C9 better last til 2021 then and a Buy a C12


I was hoping to get news on big OLEDs.


----------



## Blackraven

Will the trade war between Japan and South Korea impact OLED panel shipments to Sony?


----------



## KOF

Blackraven said:


> Will the trade war between Japan and South Korea impact OLED panel shipments to Sony?


No, considering this is an one-sided sanction from Japan. If LGD has trouble procuring components from Japanese contractors, then it will impact everyone, not just Sony.

EDIT : Well...things have escalated quickly. South Korea has now put Japan in category 3 for preferred trade partnership. There used to be only 2, but a special one was created just for Japan. South Korea will now put export restriction on DRAM, OLED, and petro-chemical etc. A rumor says Sony has purchased considerable amounts of OLED panels from LGD prior to sanction. Things could get ugly for Sony and Panasonic OLED business.


----------



## TitusTroy

2 general questions...

1) why are movies and UHD Blu-ray's being mastered at peak HDR light levels of 4000 and 10,000 nits if the vast majority of theaters and consumer displays can only reach a maximum of 2000 nits?...I don't see any consumer display hitting anywhere close to 10,000 nits anytime in the next decade...why not master the movie at 2000-3000 nit max?

2) will there ever be a consumer display that has both zero blacks of OLED and max peak brightness of LCD...meaning 1 display that has both?...can this not be made with current technology or is just because manufacturers don't want to give us the 'perfect' display because that will prevent people from upgrading as much?


----------



## dfa973

TitusTroy said:


> 2 general questions...


1) Because once you have the master with a high light level you can display that image on any screen, regardless of its peak luminance - the more luminance levels you store for the master, the better will look when it will be displayed. So its better for present *and* future displays. Mastering a movie is expensive and you better do it well now and be sure that the future displays will have better/more info to show.

2) Probably, yes, but it will take time, regardless of what tech it will use (OLED, nano-LED, etc). The R&D for such high-contrast and high-brightness displays is very expensive and that's why it takes so much time to reach that "perfect" displays - and by the way, the "perfect" display will never exist, it will always have some feature that will prevent "that" display to be perfect... Manufacturers are very happy to sell you a "perfect" display as long as there are enough people that are willing to buy it so it's cost can be justified. So, after the "perfect" display will be made there will always be someone that will build a better version of that "perfect" display so it will be a neverending story in our search for the perfection...
No need for conspiracy theory, human desires and tech limits will always drive us for better, further, faster, etc...


----------



## bjaurelio

TitusTroy said:


> 2 general questions...
> 
> 1) why are movies and UHD Blu-ray's being mastered at peak HDR light levels of 4000 and 10,000 nits if the vast majority of theaters and consumer displays can only reach a maximum of 2000 nits?...I don't see any consumer display hitting anywhere close to 10,000 nits anytime in the next decade...why not master the movie at 2000-3000 nit max?
> 
> 2) will there ever be a consumer display that has both zero blacks of OLED and max peak brightness of LCD...meaning 1 display that has both?...can this not be made with current technology or is just because manufacturers don't want to give us the 'perfect' display because that will prevent people from upgrading as much?


The only way to get the blacks of OLED is with an emissive display. Based on current OLED tech, any display reaching 10k nits peak in a small window would not meet energy requirements. Plus, the lifetime of the material and enhanced degradation from heat of producing those levels, the TV probably wouldn't last more than a year, if that long. OLED will be getting brighter as improvements are made.

For the brightness levels you want, microLED or self emissive quantum for displays will be the most likely solutions. Neither are ready for either that level of brightness or cost. In a decade or two, we may reach emissive displays capable of 10k nits peak specular highlights.


----------



## jl4069

bjaurelio said:


> The only way to get the blacks of OLED is with an emissive display. Based on current OLED tech, any display reaching 10k nits peak in a small window would not meet energy requirements. Plus, the lifetime of the material and enhanced degradation from heat of producing those levels, the TV probably wouldn't last more than a year, if that long. OLED will be getting brighter as improvements are made.
> 
> For the brightness levels you want, microLED or self emissive quantum for displays will be the most likely solutions. Neither are ready for either that level of brightness or cost. In a decade or two, we may reach emissive displays capable of 10k nits peak specular highlights.


Not sure if anyone has seen this paper, but it is interesting in regard to the future of mini/micro LED:

"This paper reviews developments in mini-LEDs and micro-LEDs, while mainly focusing on the colorization method of the micro-LED displays. In general, micro-LEDs have the potential to improve the properties of miniature display systems such as LCDs and OLEDs displays, but the imperative mass production technology for micro-LEDs has still not yet been fully developed.A Mini-LED backlight significantly improves the performance of present LED backlight and the cost of the mini-LED is relatively easy to control. Due to the above advantages, the mini-LED runs ahead on the road towards commercialization, compared with micro-LEDs. For the latter, micro-LED,there are two major challenges before insertion in the market, the mass transfer printing, and the full-color solution, which, as introduced in this article, which have been under extensive research. It is reasonable to expect breakthroughs in these areas within a few years, as well as a bright future for micro-LED displays"

chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://res.mdpi.com/applsci/applsci-08-01557/article_deploy/applsci-08-01557.pdf?filename=&attachment=1


----------



## lifespeed

fixed the link:

https://res.mdpi.com/applsci/applsci-08-01557/article_deploy/applsci-08-01557.pdf


----------



## jl4069

Lifespeed, thank you! j


----------



## Blackraven

KOF said:


> No, considering this is an one-sided sanction from Japan. If LGD has trouble procuring components from Japanese contractors, then it will impact everyone, not just Sony.
> 
> EDIT : Well...things have escalated quickly. South Korea has now put Japan in category 3 for preferred trade partnership. There used to be only 2, but a special one was created just for Japan. South Korea will now put export restriction on DRAM, OLED, and petro-chemical etc. A rumor says Sony has purchased considerable amounts of OLED panels from LGD prior to sanction. Things could get ugly for Sony and Panasonic OLED business.


I see

So short-term is good.......but medium-term and long-term poses problems.

Question:
What if there is a workaround? 

Instead of shipping to Japan, maybe they can ship to the offshore assembly plants instead (e.g. Malaysia, Mexico, etc.)?


----------



## dfa973

*Thick OLEDs can have high light-emitting efficiencies too*

Researchers have made high-performance thick organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) by combining organic thin films and organic-inorganic perovskite transport layers. The materials, which have the same light-emitting efficiencies as reference thin OLEDs, could be used to make affordable displays and screens that emit the same colour from all viewing angles.

Continue reading at https://physicsworld.com/a/thick-oleds-can-have-high-light-emitting-efficiencies-too/


----------



## ttnuagmada

dfa973 said:


> *Thick OLEDs can have high light-emitting efficiencies too*
> 
> Researchers have made high-performance thick organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) by combining organic thin films and organic-inorganic perovskite transport layers. The materials, which have the same light-emitting efficiencies as reference thin OLEDs, could be used to make affordable displays and screens that emit the same colour from all viewing angles.
> 
> Continue reading at https://physicsworld.com/a/thick-oleds-can-have-high-light-emitting-efficiencies-too/


Very interesting. I wonder what the drawbacks would be though? The article mentions nothing and I'm sure there's a catch.


----------



## dnoonie

ttnuagmada said:


> Very interesting. I wonder what the drawbacks would be though? The article mentions nothing and I'm sure there's a catch.



Just possibilities...Power? Heat? Ageing/longevity? Too "thick" to compete in the thin wars? Checked the linked nature article too, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1435-5. Looks like it could be very early research right now, so early that feasibility hasn't even been explore yet. Fun to check out all the same!



Cheers,


----------



## bombyx

Interesting news :


https://www.oled-info.com/lg-start-offering-open-cell-oled-tv-panels-its-guangzhou-fab


----------



## gorman42

bombyx said:


> Interesting news :
> 
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/lg-start-offering-open-cell-oled-tv-panels-its-guangzhou-fab


Very interesting indeed. This will probably open the doors for much more differentiation among the different brands. Nice find.


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> One of the biggest takeaways from the call for me was the recognition that the TV market is going to be increasingly diverse. People are habituating to products that are tailored/personalized and I think the TV market will follow that larger trend. Also, the consumer TV companies are looking for ways to differentiate themselves.


Re: LGD's move to open cell OLED TV panels

I don't recall the specifics of the earnings call all these months later, but they were alluding to something like this in the call.

It's not surprising that the TV market would follow the increased specialization that happened in the monitor market (especially around gaming) and is happening in almost every market.

It will also accelerate the move to direct (e-commerce) selling. In a few years, it may be typical for you or I to go online and configure say a TV with sports quality motion bundled with a sports content package that takes advantage of that great motion tech and have the TV at our doorstep within a couple weeks.


----------



## Micolash

gorman42 said:


> Very interesting indeed. This will probably open the doors for much more differentiation among the different brands. Nice find.


So if a manufacturer wanted to make an OLED TV with the lowest MPRT, this would allow them to do so? Just buy an open cell OLED from LG and then make the necessary customizations.


----------



## gorman42

Micolash said:


> So if a manufacturer wanted to make an OLED TV with the lowest MPRT, this would allow them to do so? Just buy an open cell OLED from LG and then make the necessary customizations.


I'm absolutely no expert in this. What I think is happening is that, so far, the panels that LGD has been selling to other brands (and LGE) had a portion of electronics "built in". That portion was unchangeable. With this developement I guess OEM will be able to get absolutely "raw" panels and build on them all the electronics they deem necessary.


You'll need to wait for experts but, as far as I understand it, OLED motion performance does not stem from its MPRT values (which are, I believe, almost instant). Rather it depends on the sample and hold nature of OLED displays. As such better motion performance (at low framerates) can be had with rolling scan, strobing, black frame insertion, etc.


I guess that you could do worse than reading this: https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/

Again, I am no expert. I might have some or all info on the above wrong. Wait for people more in the know. I've just tried to explain what I understood so far.


----------



## bjaurelio

gorman42 said:


> ...as far as I understand it, OLED motion performance does not stem from its MPRT values (which are, I believe, almost instant). Rather it depends on the sample and hold nature of OLED displays. As such better motion performance (at low framerates) can be had with rolling scan, strobing, black frame insertion, etc.


You're on the right track, but you confuse MPRT (persistence) and GtG (pixel response). It's the near instantaneous GtG that result in high MPRT values on low frame rate content (movies) that cause stuttering with OLED displays. A rolling scan BFI does reduce MPRT and improve motion.


----------



## dfa973

gorman42 said:


> I'm absolutely no expert in this. What I think is happening is that, so far, the panels that LGD has been selling to other brands (and LGE) had a portion of electronics "built in". That portion was unchangeable. With this developement I guess OEM will be able to get absolutely "raw" panels and build on them all the electronics they deem necessary.


Panel manufacturers (like LGD) deliver to ODM/OEM's mostly the raw panel, with only the Driver IC's (that actually turn on/off the subpixels), as seen in the "Categorization of Internal Interface" attachment, and the ODM/OEM (like LGE/Sony/etc.) add their own video processor (scaler/graphics) and timing controller (TCON) - as seen in the "Display Scaler-TCON-Driver-Panel flow diagram".

The Driver IC and the interface used for the Driver IC determines what the panel can or can't do - the limits of the panel.

The driver circuits have a specific interface. LGD uses for its OLED panels EPI (Embedded Panel Interface). EPI is based on the VESA standard EDID 1.3 and defines the software format for display properties and the scalable hardware interface.

Attached is the Circuit Block diagram of the LG OLED C6 2016 model K2L, where you can see the output to the scaler and the display panel (noted as Vx1) and in the Vx1 diagram, you can see the EPI outputs to the panel.


----------



## stl8k

dfa973 said:


> Panel manufacturers (like LGD) deliver to ODM/OEM's mostly the raw panel, with only the Driver IC's (that actually turn on/off the subpixels), as seen in the "Categorization of Internal Interface" attachment, and the ODM/OEM (like LGE/Sony/etc.) add their own video processor (scaler/graphics) and timing controller (TCON) - as seen in the "Display Scaler-TCON-Driver-Panel flow diagram".
> 
> The Driver IC and the interface used for the Driver IC determines what the panel can or can't do - the limits of the panel.
> 
> The driver circuits have a specific interface. LGD uses for its OLED panels EPI (Embedded Panel Interface). EPI is based on the VESA standard EDID 1.3 and defines the software format for display properties and the scalable hardware interface.
> 
> Attached is the Circuit Block diagram of the LG OLED C6 2016 model K2L, where you can see the output to the scaler and the display panel (noted as Vx1) and in the Vx1 diagram, you can see the EPI outputs to the panel.


Appreciate the depth!


----------



## stl8k

*Mobile OLED Advancements (Samsung Galaxy Note 10+)*

I was struck reading the analysis of the new Samsung Galaxy Note 10+'s OLED display that its peak brightness is between 778-1,308 cd/m2.

http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note10_ShootOut_1G.htm

I think an interesting question then is to what extent will the displays on our smartphones begin to set expectations for the picture quality of our TVs. A few years back I would have said slightly and mostly for resolution. Today, I'd say significantly for all PQ aspects.

An additional thought is how much opportunity there is for someone like Samsung to control and optimize the experience from capture to playback. They wouldn't have to wonder if say an investment in 120hz video recording would be worth it, since they have the agency to ensure the most likely display used for playing back that video was the one on that same device.


----------



## wco81

They put bells and whistles on phones. I think the top end iPhones support Dolby Vision for instance.

But I think the demographic who watch a lot of videos, especially longer content like TV shows and movies, not just Youtube videos, are not the ones buying big screen TVs.

Instead they are watching shows and movies on their phones and avoid sitting down in front of a big screen.

So I doubt Samsung phablets are going to influence TV buying. Why would someone impressed by OLED on Samsung phones buy Samsung LED TVs?


----------



## dfa973

stl8k said:


> I think an interesting question then is *to what extent* will the displays on our smartphones begin to set expectations for the picture quality of our TVs.


I would say that "not much".
Smartphones are used with so much varied content and 99% of that content is unstandardized and uncalibrated (there are exceptions) and the users are very much not interested in calibrated content and display accuracy so the influence to the picture quality of our TVs is not that much.

There is a good thing about smartphones: there are very few controls left to the user for how the image is displayed - with very few exceptions.

The reverse is also true - the average TV customer has a very low interest in image accuracy. There are countless TV's that have weird image settings or are left in torch mode or whatever random mode that is pleasing to the owner.

The average conditions for a good display are like this:
- there is an image?
- it is colored?
- the colors are about right?
- if the colors are more saturated then good for me - I can brag about that and wow my friends/family/etc!
- does it have enough brightness?
- does it have enough contrast?
- it is the latest? (whatever that may mean)

If all/most are checked - the device is good. Carry on.


----------



## VA_DaveB

dfa973 said:


> The reverse is also true - the average TV customer has a very low interest in image accuracy. There are countless TV's that have weird image settings or are left in torch mode or whatever random mode that is pleasing to the owner.


I once went to my South African neighbor's house to watch the Super Bowl. Very nice guy, but I felt I was going blind watching his Sharp Aquos LCD. Colors were fully saturated at maximum with the brightness turned all the way up. The colors were way off as the grass looked yellowish. Thankfully the game was a bit of a blowout so I left at halftime. I was watching a Panasonic plasma at my home at the time so it was really hard on my eyes.


----------



## dfa973

*LG Display to focus on high-end LCD, OLED panels to ensure leadership in display*



> South Korea’s LG Display will deploy advanced interactive touch technology and other premium features to its *commercial displays* to widen the technology gap with its rivals to cement its leadership in the commercial display market.





> The company is also planning to double production of *transparent OLED displays* in the fourth quarter of this year and continue ramping up shipments in years to come. Transparent OLED displays use both front and back sides to show different information and can be applied to shop windows, building façades and exhibition spaces.


https://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2019&no=614774


----------



## Dianabol5mg

How about this little tidbit? 

Samsung reportedly shifting production of LCD TVs to OLED TVs
https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1565942818


----------



## Wizziwig

LG Is also considering shutting down LCD lines. Guess nobody can compete with China's Gen-11 LCD lines and prices.

http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=34986

http://en.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=460


----------



## homogenic

Isn't the shutting down of LCD lines a positive? Eventually emissive displays will have entry-level and mid-range price points.


----------



## hiperco

Wizziwig said:


> LG Is also considering shutting down LCD lines. Guess nobody can compete with China's Gen-11 LCD lines and prices.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=34986
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=460


LG LCD's are IPS garbage, no great loss.


----------



## fafrd

http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=34962

"IHS Markets forecast that shipments of 77-inch OLED panels, which remained at only 27,000 units last year, soar to 60,000 units next year."

I've been forecasting ~40,000 77" WOLEDs produced this year, or about 1% of WOLED panel production.

60,000 77" WOLEDs in 2020 is hardly 'soaring' and would actually represent a step backwards in 77" WOLED production share since a total of 7 million WOLED panels are forecastsd production next year (so only 0.86% of 2020 production, down from 1% this year).

On the other hand, if LGD does, indeed sell only 60,000 77" WOLEDs in 2020, it means they are going to be selling a boatload of 55" and 65" (and 48") WOLED panels in 2020 (as in 6.94M of boatload).


----------



## fafrd

"*Samsung Display's CEO confirms SDC will launch QD-OLEDs in the near future*": https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-display-ceo-confirms-sdc-will-launch-qd-oleds-near-future

Sounds impressive and significant until you click the source article from Busness Korea: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=34962

Which has a slightly less momentous title: '*Samsung Display CEO affirms QD-OLED efforts*' and an even less impressive quote from the Samsung Display CEO: Samsung Display CEO Lee Dong-hoon told The Korea Herald, “*The company is making good efforts” to launch QD-OLED panels in the near future.*"

Followed by some reality:

'There have not been any investment plans on QD-OLED production confirmed by the company so far.'

'It had been rumored since last year that the Samsung affiliate would make around 10 trillion won ($8.3 billion) worth of investments in QD-OLED in April, but this hasn’t taken place yet.'

Perhaps something was lost in translation, but at least in English 'making good efforts' is a far cry from 'confirming launch' (and usually translates to something more akin to 'we have not given up yet').

In fact, 'making good efforts' is what you say when you'd like to say 'making good progress' but can't (because you haven't).

So fafrd's translation of this 'news' reads as follows: '*The April Investment Decision by Samsung in QD-OLED Production That Was Delayed to June And Then Delayed Again to August Has Been Delayed Again to October, But Samsung Display Has Not Given Up And Continues To Work On Delivering The Breakthrough Demanded By Samsung Management Before Comitting Investments Of Over 8 Billion Dollars'*


----------



## wco81

Well with dual cell and mini LED TVs coming soon, they have to do something.


And LG can't rest on its laurels either.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> *Well with dual cell and mini LED TVs coming soon, they have to do something.*


Actually, they don't. Samsung visual display will remain the world's #1 TV vendor, whether thise TVs are based on LCD panels manufactured by Samsung Display or one of the up-and-coming Chinese LCD panel manufacturers.

Samsung Display may very well get out of the TV panel business and focus all of their display panel business on phone screens as well as other smaller-screen OLED screens where they can make use of their existing (and mature) Fine-Metal-Masked RGB-OLED Technology (ie: tablets, laptop screens, etc...).




> And LG can't rest on its laurels either.


You are correct that LGD cannot rest on their laurels, but that has little or nothing to do with continued innovation and breakthrough developments - it's all about the continued production ramp and year-on-year cost reductions when it comes to WOLED.

Of course there will continue to be incremental improvements annually:

-incrementally higher peak brightness
-incrementally higher full-screen ABL threshold
-incrementally greater color gamut (and color volume)
-incremental increases in lifetime and burn-in immunity
-incrementally better burn-in compensation / masking
-incrementally better near-black performance (linearity and also hopefully uniformity)

But the primary name-of-the-game for LGD WOLED is to continue to increase manufacturing capacity by 50% every year while continuing to drive down WOLED panel costs by 10-20% annually until they approach parity with LCD.

LGD will of course also benefit from industry-wide advances such as long-lifetime blue and they have already presented a roadmap where they have indicated a WOLED panel achieving 130% of today's WOLED Power Efficiency based on TADF Blue in the 'future' (meaning 2022 or later):


----------



## grajasekar

fafrd said:


> "*Samsung Display's CEO confirms SDC will launch QD-OLEDs in the near future*": https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-display-ceo-confirms-sdc-will-launch-qd-oleds-near-future
> 
> Sounds impressive and significant until you click the source article from Busness Korea: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=34962


Are QD-OLEDs any less susceptible to burn-in risk (small as it is depending on content)?


----------



## avernar

grajasekar said:


> Are QD-OLEDs any less susceptible to burn-in risk (small as it is depending on content)?



https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/3086078-qd-oled-burn.html


----------



## grajasekar

avernar said:


> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/3086078-qd-oled-burn.html


Thank you, but ouch. Even worse burn in risk :frown:


----------



## fafrd

*IHS: strong demand for OLED TVs helped LG become the leading premium TV vendor in Europe*

https://www.oled-info.com/ihs-stron...ed-lg-become-leading-premium-tv-vendor-europe

'IHS Markit says that LG Electronics is the leading European premium TV (over $2,500 in cost) vendor, with a market share of *33.3% in revenues and 38.7% in sales in Q1 2019*. LG's strong OLED TV sales helped it increase its market share *up from 22.9% (revenues) in 2018.*

*Samsung* is the second European TV maker, with a *market share of 25.2% (down from 42% in 2018).* Sony's market share increased to 25.5% (up from 21.5%). Together Sony, LG and Samsung took up 84.1% of the market.'

So LG's European revenue-based Premium TV market share increased by 45% year-on-year powered by WOLED while

Samsung's European revenue-based Premium TV market share cratered by 40% year-on-year powered by QLED/LCD and

Sony's European revenue-based Premium TV market share grew by 19%, also mainly driven by WOLED.

Conservatively taking half of Sony's European Premium TV Market Share as being WOLED, WOLED accounted for over 46% of European Premium TV revenues in Q1, and that is based only on LG and Sony. Add in Philips and Panasonic and WOLED' share of the Premium TV market is almost certainly well over 50%.

Compared to QLED which now commands ~half that share in Europe.

A pretty stunning reversal from the 'QLED is Killing WOLED' headlines we saw from IHS Markit early this year: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1551945012


----------



## stl8k

*Ever Greater Display Specialization*

The march toward display specialization continues. Here for retail LCDs...

"Different from general stretched displays cut from 16:9 LCD panels, TARTAN display technology implements native photomask manufacturing processes which can maintain high quality and stability, as well as being customizable in size according to customers’ requirements. In addition, AUO also offers specialized industrial-grade displays which feature high brightness and durability, wide temperature liquid crystal, 24/7 operation, and low power consumption to support long lasting operations, especially in harsh environments such as outdoors under strong sunlight."

https://auo.com/en-global/New_Archive/detail/News_Archive_Technology_190826


----------



## fafrd

There seems to be more widespread optimism that Samsung will actually commit to the QD-BOLED pilot production: https://www.oled-a.org/8203samsung-faces-up-to-reality-ndash-try-oleds--abandon-lcds_082519.html

'if Samsung is successful, with the pilot in 2020, the full Gen 8.5 in 2021 and the Gen 10.5 in 2022 reaching a capacity of *8m panels in 2025. *LGD by comparison is expected to have a capacity of *10m OLED TV panels by 2022.*'

And in addition to being ~3 years behind WOLED, there is also this:

'In addition, the architecture will have to include a mechanism to account for blue photons that are not ​converted to red or green. Reports indicate that this might be anywhere from 5% to 15% of all photons. One solution would be to put a color filter on top of the polarizer. *Reports that this manufacturing process would be less expensive that LG’s RGBW solution [/u]seem ill founded.[/u]* WE have also reported that *Samsung’s IGZO process uses 11 to 12 masks compared to LG’s 9 mask approach. *'

So it won't be cheap and threre is a significant that it never goes beyond the pilot phase, but it's starting to really look like we may see another generation of OLED TVs from Samsung...


----------



## fafrd

*The end of LCD TV is nigh...*

Don't get me wrong, the tail of LCD TV will be very, very, long. There is essentially enough instalked capacity already installed to supply the entire TV industry until 16K and/or 100"+ TVs become the norm. So LCD production and dominance of the TV market is not ending anytime soon.

That being said, it looks like the first clear sign that OLED TV is replacing LCD has emerged: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/...casts-extended-to-2024-as-visibility-improves

Next year, capital/equipment investments in new OLED capacity will match capicity investmebts in LCD and DSCC is foecasting that by 2023, new investmebts in equipment-capacity for LCD will have ended (forever) while 100% of new equipment/capital investment will be for OLED (among those two dominant technologies) [graph attached]

It will take decades for OLED TV to displace LCD TV the way LCD TV displaced CRT TV, but capital investmebts are a great leading indicator, and if the investment trend follows this forecast, it is only a matrer of time...


One other tidbit of note:

'We are starting to see more investments being made in China for RGB ink jet printing OLEDs.'

So it looks like by 2023 we may have a choice between three different flavors of OLED TV to choose from:

-WOLED (LGD)
-QD-BOLED (Samsung Display)
-Printed RGB OLED (Japan & China)


----------



## bjaurelio

fafrd said:


> Don't get me wrong, the tail of LCD TV will be very, very, long. There is essentially enough instalked capacity already installed to supply the entire TV industry until 16K and/or 100"+ TVs become the norm. So LCD production and dominance of the TV market is not ending anytime soon.
> 
> That being said, it looks like the first clear sign that OLED TV is replacing LCD has emerged: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/...casts-extended-to-2024-as-visibility-improves
> 
> Next year, capital/equipment investments in new OLED capacity will match capicity investmebts in LCD and DSCC is foecasting that by 2023, new investmebts in equipment-capacity for LCD will have ended (forever) while 100% of new equipment/capital investment will be for OLED (among those two dominant technologies) [graph attached]
> 
> It will take decades for OLED TV to displace LCD TV the way LCD TV displaced CRT TV, but capital investmebts are a great leading indicator, and if the investment trend follows this forecast, it is only a matrer of time...
> 
> 
> One other tidbit of note:
> 
> 'We are starting to see more investments being made in China for RGB ink jet printing OLEDs.'
> 
> So it looks like by 2023 we may have a choice between three different flavors of OLED TV to choose from:
> 
> -WOLED (LGD)
> -QD-BOLED (Samsung Display)
> -Printed RGB OLED (Japan & China)



Printed RGB OLED is the ultimate goal, but there's still concerns about peak brightness and lifetime. That's why LG's WOLED has been the only game in town for OLED TVs. Are there any reports of advances with lifetime and efficiency to believe these printed RGB OLED panels will be able to meet the demands of TV viewing as opposed to mobile phone use? They will probably be limited to 300-400 nit peak brightness to preserve lifetime. They will be amazing for SDR, but due to limited HDR tone mapping I expect them to be less popular.

Samsung's approach is very interesting, especially since it has a way to overcome the WOLED weakness in maintaining saturation at peak brightness. However, it's likely to be quite a bit more expensive than even Sony's OLED TVs. The extent of the PQ advantage for all the extra cost is still somewhat unknown. Peak brightness will be lower than WOLED unless they can overcome the QDCF issue where a traditional color filter is still needed. If, and that's a big IF, Samsung solves this issue the price of these TVs drops dramatically to the ballpark of Sony OLED. 

In the end, competition is good. I don't see any of these making significant gains against WOLED for the next 5-6 years. By that time, advances in OLED materials could result in LG changing its panel structure too if an RGB approach becomes viable.


----------



## fafrd

bjaurelio said:


> Printed RGB OLED is the ultimate goal, but there's still concerns about peak brightness and lifetime. That's why LG's WOLED has been the only game in town for OLED TVs. *Are there any reports of advances with lifetime and efficiency to believe these printed RGB OLED panels will be able to meet the demands of TV viewing as opposed to mobile phone use?* They will probably be limited to 300-400 nit peak brightness to preserve lifetime. They will be amazing for SDR, but due to limited HDR tone mapping I expect them to be less popular.


Not that I know of. They will be cheaper than WOLED, may be cheaper than LCD (eventually) and will extend OLED TVs reach into the lower--end of the market (eventually snuffing out LCD many years/decades from now).



> Samsung's approach is very interesting, especially since it has a way to overcome the WOLED weakness in *maintaining saturation at peak brightness.* However, it's likely to be quite a bit more expensive than even Sony's OLED TVs. The extent of the PQ advantage for all the extra cost is still somewhat unknown. Peak brightness will be lower than WOLED unless they can overcome the QDCF issue where a traditional color filter is still needed. If, and that's a big IF, Samsung solves this issue the price of these TVs drops dramatically to the ballpark of Sony OLED.
> 
> In the end, competition is good. I don't see any of these making significant gains against WOLED for the next 5-6 years. By that time, advances in OLED materials could result in LG changing its panel structure too if an RGB approach becomes viable.


QD-BOLED is unlikely to compete with WOLED on peak brightness levels (at least until high-efficiency blue is fully-industrialized). WOLED can also deliver full-saturation by not using the white subpixel when there is no white component in the color,but it's peak brightness for those fully-saturated colors is limited to ~400 nits. Until we see what peak brightness (and what lifetime) Samsung's first-generation QD-BOLED is able to deliver, it's not clear that it will offer and advantage over WOLED other than possibly improved off-angle viewing (color uniformity).

If Samsung commits to QD-BOLED (as is looking increasingly likely), my guess it that they are betting that the high-efficiency long-lifetime blue materials materialize to really make the architecture pay off. WOLED will also benefit from long-lifetime higher-efficiency blue (and in fact, LGD has already put a 30% boost to power efficiency associated with TADF blue on their roadmap - attached), but QD-BOLED will benefit more.

The first-generation QD-BOLED Samsung will introduce is a hack, requiring a blue-blocking color filter and a third blue OLED layer to compensate for the lost brightness. It will likely allow them to prove the viability of the technology from a manufacturing and lifetime point of view but will not be cheaper than WOLED (even at equivalent scale/volume).

QD-BOLED only has a chance over the long-term if they find the materials to deliver the double-Blue-Layer reduced-cost variant that Samsung touted at the outset. My guess is that they are placing a bet that they industrialize that more cost-effective architectute before they ramp their 10.5G QD-BOLED fab (scheduled for 2023).


----------



## fafrd

LG announced that their 8.5G WOLED plant in Giangzhou started production today: https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20190830001900320

No doubt it will take the new fab a few quarters to ramp to full stage-1 capacity of 60,000 8 5G sheets/month, ut this will almost double LGD's total WOLED production capacity from 70,000 8.5G sheets per month produced in Korea:

'The company said it plans to roll out 60,000 OLED sheets per month at the factory in the initial stage, which would increase its total monthly OLED sheet output capacity to 130,000 units this year when combined with its production line at its South Korean factory in Paju, north of Seoul.'

By 2022, when Samsung is ramping their first 8.5G QD-BOLED production line, LGD is forecasted by themselves and IHS to sell 10 million WOLED panels (~1 out of every 5 TVs sold...).p:

'The panel maker said it will ramp up the monthly production at the two factories to over 10 million by 2022.'

'Market researcher IHS Markit predicted sales of OLED TVs will rise from 5.5 million in 2020 to 10 million in 2022.'


----------



## bjaurelio

fafrd said:


> Not that I know of. They will be cheaper than WOLED, may be cheaper than LCD (eventually) and will extend OLED TVs reach into the lower--end of the market (eventually snuffing out LCD many years/decades from now).
> 
> 
> 
> QD-BOLED is unlikely to compete with WOLED on peak brightness levels (at least until high-efficiency blue is fully-industrialized). WOLED can also deliver full-saturation by not using the white subpixel when there is no white component in the color,but it's peak brightness for those fully-saturated colors is limited to ~400 nits. Until we see what peak brightness (and what lifetime) Samsung's first-generation QD-BOLED is able to deliver, it's not clear that it will offer and advantage over WOLED other than possibly improved off-angle viewing (color uniformity).
> 
> If Samsung commits to QD-BOLED (as is looking increasingly likely), my guess it that they are betting that the high-efficiency long-lifetime blue materials materialize to really make the architecture pay off. WOLED will also benefit from long-lifetime higher-efficiency blue (and in fact, LGD has already put a 30% boost to power efficiency associated with TADF blue on their roadmap - attached), but QD-BOLED will benefit more.
> 
> The first-generation QD-BOLED Samsung will introduce is a hack, requiring a blue-blocking color filter and a third blue OLED layer to compensate for the lost brightness. It will likely allow them to prove the viability of the technology from a manufacturing and lifetime point of view but will not be cheaper than WOLED (even at equivalent scale/volume).
> 
> QD-BOLED only has a chance over the long-term if they find the materials to deliver the double-Blue-Layer reduced-cost variant that Samsung touted at the outset. My guess is that they are placing a bet that they industrialize that more cost-effective architectute before they ramp their 10.5G QD-BOLED fab (scheduled for 2023).



I would say we're in large agreement. With printed RGB OLED, I'm less certain of its market viability. Yes it will be cheaper than WOLED, but without the material advances, a limitation to 200-300 nits peak brightness or high burn-in risk will make many prefer the TCL 6/Vizio M for a cheaper TV. In regards to QD-BOLED, I was expecting about 700 nits with full color saturation. If they're limited to the same 400 nits or so where WOLED maintains saturation, it's a worse TV for more money. All material advances that make the other tech more viable will also allow WOLED to further increase the brightness point with full color saturation.


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> LG announced that their 8.5G WOLED plant in Giangzhou started production today: https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20190830001900320
> 
> No doubt it will take the new fab a few quarters to ramp to full stage-1 capacity of 60,000 8 5G sheets/month, ut this will almost double LGD's total WOLED production capacity from 70,000 8.5G sheets per month produced in Korea:
> 
> 'The company said it plans to roll out 60,000 OLED sheets per month at the factory in the initial stage, which would increase its total monthly OLED sheet output capacity to 130,000 units this year when combined with its production line at its South Korean factory in Paju, north of Seoul.'
> 
> By 2022, when Samsung is ramping their first 8.5G QD-BOLED production line, LGD is forecasted by themselves and IHS to sell 10 million WOLED panels (~1 out of every 5 TVs sold...).p:
> 
> 'The panel maker said it will ramp up the monthly production at the two factories to over 10 million by 2022.'
> 
> 'Market researcher IHS Markit predicted sales of OLED TVs will rise from 5.5 million in 2020 to 10 million in 2022.'


Nice milestone!


----------



## fafrd

bjaurelio said:


> I would say we're in large agreement. With printed RGB OLED, I'm less certain of its market viability. Yes it will be cheaper than WOLED, but without the material advances, a limitation to 200-300 nits peak brightness or high burn-in risk will make many prefer the TCL 6/Vizio M for a cheaper TV. In regards to QD-BOLED, I was expecting about 700 nits with full color saturation. If they're limited to the same 400 nits or so where WOLED maintains saturation, it's a worse TV for more money. *All material advances that make the other tech more viable will also allow WOLED to further increase the brightness point with full color saturation.*


Yes, precisely. If today's WOLED can only deliver ~400 nits at full saturation, that 'future' OLED with high-efficiency blue will be able to deliver in excess of 500 nits at full saturation.

And then if fully-saturated color volume ever became a 'thing', WOLED could fitch
ditch the white subpixel to deliver a further ~33% boost to fully-saturated peak brightness (so now up close to 700 nits fully-saturated).

Personally, I think the white subpixel gives WOLED more flexibility to deliver bright white highlights and the failure of QLED to displace WOLED through the Brightness Wars shows that fully-saturated peak brightness is only worth something when it is not accompanied by other tradeoffs such as poor black levels.

So even though I'm excited to see QD-BOLED coming on the scene, I think it's going to have a challange winning significant share from WOLED (unless it's less expensive).

It's going to be interesting to see how Samsung markets their QD-BOLEDs against their QLEDs dekivering much higher peak-brightness...


----------



## gmarceau

I guess I’m not getting this. I thought the whole point of QDCC was to allow for a much higher peak brightness - 2 to 3x improvement. I’m not clear on the implementation of a blue only color filter for the Samsung qd OLED - wouldn’t that still allow more light to pass through than WOLED. I think from looking at the Nanosys literature, I was thinking they’d hit 2k or 3k nits with QDCC.


----------



## fafrd

gmarceau said:


> I guess I’m not getting this. I thought the whole point of QDCC was to allow for a much higher peak brightness - 2 to 3x improvement. I’m not clear on the implementation of a blue only color filter for the Samsung qd OLED - wouldn’t that still allow more light to pass through than WOLED. I think from looking at the Nanosys literature, *I was thinking they’d hit 2k or 3k nits with QDCC.*


No chance of that (at least on this first generation).

First, Blue is the least efficient OLED Color (Florescent Blue is about ~1/3rd the efficiency of Phosphorescent Red and Green).

So 3 Florescent Blue layers will generate about 38% as many photons as LGD's current BRYB stack.

Those blue photons are getting 90% converted through QDCC so this first-generation QD-BOLED will deliver somerhing like:

B 38%
R 34% (+4% blue)
G 34% (+4% blue)

And then the blue-blocking color filter will strip that 4% blue and also reduce red and green a bit (amount unknown at the moment).

Assuming each subpixel is 33% of the pixel area, average output compated to total photons generated by QD-BOLED is:
B 12.7% + R 11.3% + G 11.3% = 35.3%.

In the case of WOLED, those 100% photons-generated are largely blocked by the color filters, so we have:

W 100%
B 33%
R 33%
G 33%

Someone will need to to back to find the actual measured sizes of th 4 subpixels to calcularte actual average efficiency, but just using a simplified 25% per subpixel model gives:

W 25% + B 8.3% + R 8.3% + G 8.3% = 50%

So again, this simple-minded analysys can be more accurate by plugging-in actual retative WOLED pixel sizes, but it shows that first-generation QD-BOLED using florescent Blue will be only ~71% as efficient as WOLED (meaning peak brightness levels will be only ~71% as high).

Of course, in terms of fully-saturated color volume, RGB QD-BOLED will outperforn WOLED. Eliminating use of the white subpixel drops average WOLED efficiency by half to 25%, which is ~71% the efficiency of QD-BOLED (though of course if WOLED eliminated their white subpixel, the other three colored subpixels would grow to 33% each, giving RGB-WOLED an average efficiency of 33.3%, a mere 6% below QD-BOLED.

QD-BOLED is banking on high-efficiency blue being industrialized before volume production is ramped in 2023. With phosphorescent blue or the equivalent (TADF blue or Hyperflorescent Blue), QD-BOLED outputs 3 times more blue photons for the same energy (while WOLED only increase to 2.4 times the brightness of today's levels, though realistically, WOLED will use the increased Blue efficiency to eliminate one blue layer, reducing cost, while still gaining a 30% efficiency increase, as LGD has already shown on their roadmap for the 'future').

So assuming QD-BOLED decides to stick with 3 High-Efficiency Blue layers rather than also reducing cost by dropping down to 2 high-efficiency blue layers (as was Damsung's original plan), QD-BOLED would now have a fully-saturated peak brightness of ~106% of todays WOLED level (while WOLED will have increased to 130% of todays levels while reducing cost, meaning that future WOLED will still be ~23% brighter than future high-efficiency QD-BOLED, though less-saturated).

Samsung QD-BOLED is going to have an uphill climb until high-efficiency blue is a commercial reality...


----------



## hiperco

I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned, but when do we project to see an 8X inch OLED that doesn't cost as much as a Tesla model 3?


----------



## gmarceau

fafrd said:


> gmarceau said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Iâ€™️m not getting this. I thought the whole point of QDCC was to allow for a much higher peak brightness - 2 to 3x improvement. Iâ€™️m not clear on the implementation of a blue only color filter for the Samsung qd OLED - wouldnâ€™️t that still allow more light to pass through than WOLED. I think from looking at the Nanosys literature, *I was thinking theyâ€™️d hit 2k or 3k nits with QDCC.*
> 
> 
> 
> No chance of that (at least on this first generation).
> 
> First, Blue is the least efficient OLED Color (Florescent Blue is about ~1/3rd the efficiency of Phosphorescent Red and Green).
> 
> So 3 Florescent Blue layers will generate about 38% as many photons as LGD's current BRYB stack.
> 
> Those blue photons are getting 90% converted through QDCC so this first-generation QD-BOLED will deliver somerhing like:
> 
> B 38%
> R 34% (+4% blue)
> G 34% (+4% blue)
> 
> And then the blue-blocking color filter will strip that 4% blue and also reduce red and green a bit (amount unknown at the moment).
> 
> Assuming each subpixel is 33% of the pixel area, average output compated to total photons generated by QD-BOLED is:
> B 12.7% + R 11.3% + G 11.3% = 35.3%.
> 
> In the case of WOLED, those 100% photons-generated are largely blocked by the color filters, so we have:
> 
> W 100%
> B 33%
> R 33%
> G 33%
> 
> Someone will need to to back to find the actual measured sizes of th 4 subpixels to calcularte actual average efficiency, but just using a simplified 25% per subpixel model gives:
> 
> W 25% + B 8.3% + R 8.3% + G 8.3% = 50%
> 
> So again, this simple-minded analysys can be more accurate by plugging-in actual retative WOLED pixel sizes, but it shows that first-generation QD-BOLED using florescent Blue will be only ~71% as efficient as WOLED (meaning peak brightness levels will be only ~71% as high).
> 
> Of course, in terms of fully-saturated color volume, RGB QD-BOLED will outperforn WOLED. Eliminating use of the white subpixel drops average WOLED efficiency by half to 25%, which is ~71% the efficiency of QD-BOLED (though of course if WOLED eliminated their white subpixel, the other three colored subpixels would grow to 33% each, giving RGB-WOLED an average efficiency of 33.3%, a mere 6% below QD-BOLED.
> 
> QD-BOLED is banking on high-efficiency blue being industrialized before volume production is ramped in 2023. With phosphorescent blue or the equivalent (TADF blue or Hyperflorescent Blue), QD-BOLED outputs 3 times more blue photons for the same energy (while WOLED only increase to 2.4 times the brightness of today's levels, though realistically, WOLED will use the increased Blue efficiency to eliminate one blue layer, reducing cost, while still gaining a 30% efficiency increase, as LGD has already shown on their roadmap for the 'future').
> 
> So assuming QD-BOLED decides to stick with 3 High-Efficiency Blue layers rather than also reducing cost by dropping down to 2 high-efficiency blue layers (as was Damsung's original plan), QD-BOLED would now have a fully-saturated peak brightness of ~106% of todays WOLED level (while WOLED will have increased to 130% of todays levels while reducing cost, meaning that future WOLED will still be ~23% brighter than future high-efficiency QD-BOLED, though less-saturated).
> 
> Samsung QD-BOLED is going to have an uphill climb until high-efficiency blue is a commercial reality...
Click to expand...

Good stuff, fafrd! 

Ok one more thing - top emission. I think it was really to assist with brightness for 8k, but I imagine that the brightness benefits can help enhance future iterations of these sets along with the advancements in blue.


----------



## fafrd

hiperco said:


> I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned, but when do we project to see an 8X inch OLED that doesn't cost as much as a Tesla model 3?


If 8K is at all becoming a 'thing', next year.


----------



## fafrd

gmarceau said:


> Good stuff, fafrd!
> 
> Ok one more thing - *top emission*. I think it was really to assist with brightness for 8k, but I imagine that the brightness benefits can help enhance future iterations of these sets along with the advancements in blue.


Yes, that's true - QD-BOLED will be top-emission from the get-go, while LGD has decided to stick with bottom-emission despite having top-emission ready.

That means my earlier estimates are underestimating Florescent QD-BOLEDs brightness by ~20% or so.

LG has decided to hold off on top-emission because they don't need it and it adds cost to the IGZO backplane.

QD-BOLED has more manufacturing steps/layers on their IGZO backplane (probably for top-emission), wiping out any cost advantage they might have had on the OLED layers.

It seems that LGD's strategy, now that they are delivering a product with a performance the market wants for the pricepoints they can provide, will be to beat QD-BOLED on cost.

So QD-BOLED may well become the new Uber-Premium TV King, with some incremental improvements to offer versus WOLED (better off-angle viewing, wider color gamut (% BT.2020), larger fully-saturated color volume) at a probably not-insignificant price premium.

And LGD's strategywill be to do everything they can to assure that that price premium is as large as possible...

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.


----------



## hiperco

fafrd said:


> If 8K is at all becoming a 'thing', next year.


I meant "80+ inch" size OLEDS that are priced similarly to LCD sets in that size range ($3k-$5k)


----------



## AnalogHD

hiperco said:


> I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned, but when do we project to see an 8X inch OLED that doesn't cost as much as a Tesla model 3?


If I had to guess, probably within a month of when people start asking for a 9X inch OLED that doesn't cost as much as a Tesla model 4. Give or take.


----------



## stl8k

RGB OLED Monitor from Asus with high peak brightness and wide color gamut


https://youtu.be/koELTjuKxK0?t=3080


----------



## fafrd

hiperco said:


> I meant "80+ inch" size OLEDS that are priced similarly to LCD sets in that size range ($3k-$5k)


Then you should have said so.

What you posted was 'an 8X inch OLED that doesn't cost as much as a Tesla model 3' (as they will be priced this first year) and I answered your question literally.

If what you meant to ask was 'when will OLEDs over 80" cost $3-5K, that a very different question with a very different answer: not before 2030, or maybe not until 2040, or possibly never.


----------



## hiperco

fafrd said:


> Then you should have said so.
> 
> 
> 
> What you posted was 'an 8X inch OLED that doesn't cost as much as a Tesla model 3' (as they will be priced this first year) and I answered your question literally.
> 
> 
> 
> If what you meant to ask was 'when will OLEDs over 80" cost $3-5K, that a very different question with a very different answer: not before 2030, or maybe not until 2040, or possibly never.


Agreed my first attempt was poorly worded. So what is it about the extra 3 inches (80" vs 77") that makes a 80+ inch OLED so difficult to realize? LG is cranking out dirt cheap 86" LCD'S seemingly without issue...


----------



## fafrd

hiperco said:


> Agreed my first attempt was poorly worded. So what is it about the extra 3 inches (80" vs 77") that makes a 80+ inch OLED so difficult to realize? LG is cranking out dirt cheap 86" LCD'S seemingly without issue...


Here's a more carefully-thought-out response that ought to leave you happier:

77" WOLEDs cost 3 times more to produce at 8.5G than 55" WOLEDs to produce (2 per 8.5G shert versus 2 per sheet).

This means LG _could_ be selling 77" WOLEDs for ~3X the cost of 55" WOLEDs but they choose not too (essentialky because they are capacity-constrained and so allocate a mere ~1% of panel production to 77" WOLEDs).

Even at that paltry production level, forecasted to continue next year, 77" WOLED TV prices have been coming down by ~25% yearly, and I predicting we'll see 77" MSRPs of $5000-5500 next year (meaning didcounted pricing within your $3000-5000 target range).

On 8.5G, there is almost no cost difference between 77" and 80" (2-up in both cases), so LG could introduce an 80" panel priced close to 77" panels but chooses not to (again, because they are capacity-constrained).

The story once 10.5G manufacturing has ranped will be different. A 10.5G sheet can manufacture 6 75" WOLEDs or 3 77" WOLEDs, so LGD will have a huge incentive to phase-out 77" in favor of 75". 10.5G sheets cost ~1.5X 8.5G sheets, so once that new 10.5G plant has ramped to target yields, it will mean 75" WOLED TVs costing ~1.5X the cost of 55" WOLEDs.

My personal prediction is that when LGD announces the end of 77" WOLED panels (2022?, 2023?, 3024?), they may introduce an 82" WOLED panel to fill the large void between 75" and 88". If that happens, manufacturing cost would be pretty much identical to that of 77" WOLEDs (which will already be selling within your target price range), so the only thing oreventing LG from quickly offering their new 8K 88" WOLED for prices under $5K will be whether they continue to be capacity-constrained, how quickly the 8K market has taken off, and hiw 'strategic' they want to be.

If the transition to 8K comes hard and fast, the market for 80-85" is one of the hottest segments, and LGD finds themselves will more capacity than they know what to do with, it's concievable that we could see an 82" WOLED for under $5K before the end of 2024...


----------



## jl4069

fafrd said:


> Yes, that's true - QD-BOLED will be top-emission from the get-go, while LGD has decided to stick with bottom-emission despite having top-emission ready.
> 
> That means my earlier estimates are underestimating Florescent QD-BOLEDs brightness by ~20% or so.
> 
> LG has decided to hold off on top-emission because they don't need it and it adds cost to the IGZO backplane.
> 
> QD-BOLED has more manufacturing steps/layers on their IGZO backplane (probably for top-emission), wiping out any cost advantage they might have had on the OLED layers.
> 
> It seems that LGD's strategy, now that they are delivering a product with a performance the market wants for the pricepoints they can provide, will be to beat QD-BOLED on cost.
> 
> So QD-BOLED may well become the new Uber-Premium TV King, with some incremental improvements to offer versus WOLED (better off-angle viewing, wider color gamut (% BT.2020), larger fully-saturated color volume) at a probably not-insignificant price premium.
> 
> And LGD's strategywill be to do everything they can to assure that that price premium is as large as possible...
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.


It really seems that both Samsung and LG will need to be at 2000nits sooner (is this even possible?) than later. Of course if there is little content that needs HDR then maybe they can manage to hold off, but as time goes by and more and more HDR content comes about, with LCD's getting to 3,000 and 4,000 nits, we have to ask how these next gen OLED's will fare in the market in 2021/2/3. j


----------



## subtec

stl8k said:


> RGB OLED Monitor from Asus with high peak brightness and wide color gamut
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/koELTjuKxK0?t=3080


That's an LCD.


----------



## stl8k

subtec said:


> That's an LCD.


I was triple tasking while watching. I'm talking about this product mentioned by the colorist a minute or two later in the video:

https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ProArt-PQ22UC/

It ostensibly began shipping in April/May of this year. The presentation in the video confused me. Nice to see some innovation at the high end of monitors regardless of tech.


----------



## subtec

stl8k said:


> I was triple tasking while watching. I'm talking about this product mentioned by the colorist a minute or two later in the video:
> 
> https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ProArt-PQ22UC/


Linus did a video on that monitor. It's not great.


----------



## fafrd

jl4069 said:


> *It really seems that both Samsung and LG will need to be at 2000nits sooner* (is this even possible?) *than later*. Of course if there is little content that needs HDR then maybe they can manage to hold off, but as time goes by and more and more HDR content comes about, with LCD's getting to 3,000 and 4,000 nits, we have to ask how these next gen OLED's will fare in the market in 2021/2/3. j


The Brightness Wars have been tried. And failed.

For the same price, and everything else being equal (ie: black levels), premium consumers will buy the brightest set tyey can get.

But once that additional brightness cones at the cost of additional $$$s or tradeoffs with other PQ attributes like black levels, demand drops rapidly.

OLED (and especially WOLED) has a technology roadmap that will take them to 2000 nits and beyond. But there is no rush - when the new materials needed are fully industrialized, they will be used to improve peak brightness (and performance). But no urgency to take the risk of pushing those new materials out before they are ready for prime-time - steadily and safely ramping capacity is a much higher priority...


----------



## wco81

Problem with Samsung charging a premium for QD OLED is that people willing to pay such premium would want Dolby Vision support.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Problem with Samsung charging a premium for QD OLED is that people willing to pay such premium would want Dolby Vision support.


That's a very easy problem to fix.

After the billions they are investing, Samsung will not allow QD-BOLED to fail because of Dolby Vision.


----------



## video_analysis

Never underestimate their stubbornness. I haven't checked in several months, someone please tell me HDR10+ is faltering.


----------



## wco81

I don't know, it seems a lot of UHD BD releases don't have DV now but I think you can download the digital copy which will be UHD with DV?


----------



## dfa973

jl4069 said:


> It really seems that both Samsung and LG will need to be at 2000nits sooner (is this even possible?) than later. Of course if there is little content that needs HDR then maybe they can manage to hold off, but as time goes by and more and more HDR content comes about, *with LCD's getting to 3,000 and 4,000 nits,* we have to ask how these next gen OLED's will fare in the market in 2021/2/3. j


It will be very hard for LCD's to get to 3/4000 nits or higher, because:
- the backlight will be expensive (lots of high-quality LEDs, reliable and with high uniformity, do not forget the FALD zones controller)
- the backlight will consume a lot of energy - clashing with the EU energy economy standards
- the backlight will thicken the TV (cooling will be a nightmare if it's thin - active coolers from Plasma era?)
- the larger and larger screen sizes will only exacerbate the mentioned problems even more!
- 8K will only worsen the entire endeavor... (FALD will need to be even finer! - hence dual-layer?)
- dual-layer will automatically thicken the TV and enlarge the energy footprint even more (more backlight losses in the first LCD layer)

Solution: keep the high nits only for specular highlights and forget about full-screen 3/4000 nits - more ABL (the OLED way...).


----------



## gmarceau

QDCC for LCD is being scrapped I think although Nanosys still has it on the roadmap. Something about an in cell polarizer that they couldn’t get working or it screwed up the contrast. Once those color filters get removed, a mini LED or standard local dimming set should be able to hit 4000 nits.


----------



## lsorensen

video_analysis said:


> Never underestimate their stubbornness. I haven't checked in several months, someone please tell me HDR10+ is faltering.


As far as I can tell, a few UHD releases have HDR10+, but almost all of them also have DV, notably the exception being the IMAX releases which are HDR10+ only (Seems IMAX doesn't like Dolby for some reason).


----------



## fafrd

gmarceau said:


> QDCC for LCD is being scrapped I think although Nanosys still has it on the roadmap. Something about an in cell polarizer that they couldn’t get working or it screwed up the contrast. Once those color filters get removed, a mini LED or standard local dimming set should be able to hit 4000 nits.


If QDCC failed to convert 100% of the blue photobs to either red or green in the case of QD-BOLED, I don't see why it would have avoided that issue with a blue LED backlight transmissivly throttled by LCD lightvalves,

Once you've got blue light leakage, you need to add a blue-blocking (conventional) color filter, and once you add a blue-blocking color filter, your manufactiring costs increase and your efficiency gains drop well below the theoretical 100% conversion limit.

QDEF avoids this issue because it blocks all unwanted photons with conventional color filters...


----------



## gmarceau

Fafrd, I think we’re on the same page here. There’s an hdtvtest interview with Jason Hartlove of Nanosys at CES where he discusses the limitations of the photo emissive version of quantum dots for LCD. I actually thought there had been demos of this behind closed doors and the tech supposedly looked amazing. I was really hoping for this, but I’m not sure if it’s continuing if lcd production is ramping down in the next few years.


----------



## AnalogHD

gmarceau said:


> Once those color filters get removed, a mini LED or standard local dimming set should be able to hit 4000 nits.


A LED-backlit LCD can hit 50,000-80,000 nits if you're willing to live with the power consumption and the cooling fans' noise. LED can provide for up to 1M cd/m² backlights, you get considerable losses from transmissivity, aperture ratio, and color filters, and that still leaves over 5% left.

Brightness is cheap. Color quality is more tricky.


----------



## austinsj

With Samsung releasing an 8K 55-inch LCD TV for $2500, we're pretty much guaranteed an 8K 55-inch OLED. The only question in my mind is whether we will see it in 2020 or 2021. 

I have to imagine that 55-inches is that smallest TV anyone will manufacture in 8K.


----------



## stl8k

*Contrast Modulation as a New Metric for 8K TVs*

Interesting to see LG talking about Contrast Modulation as a key metric in their marketing of 8K TVs:

"The ICDM has defined the Contrast Modulation (CM) measurement which describes accurately and quantitatively how distinguishable the neighboring pixels are from each another. For any TV display to deliver the resolution indicated by its pixel count, the ICDM requires the minimum CM value to exceed a threshold of 25 percent for images and 50 percent for text. An 8K TV with a CM value that is lower than these required thresholds does not deliver real 8K, even though the TV may in fact have the sufficient number (7,680 x 4,320) of pixels. Tests performed in accordance with these universally-referenced industry standards resulted in both LG SIGNATURE OLED 8K and LG 8K NanoCell TVs achieving CM values in the 90 percent range, guaranteeing that viewers will be able to actually experience all of the additional detail in the 8K content when viewed on their LG 8K televisions."

http://www.lgnewsroom.com/2019/09/real-8k-oled-and-nanocell-tvs-from-lg-begin-global-rollout/

Will be interesting to see if that metric gains currency, especially among the sophisticated early buyers of these sets.


----------



## JasonHa

Vincent comments on contrast modulation in new video:


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> Vincent comments on contrast modulation in new video:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj_wPdXgUMA


Smart way for LG to prove that Samsung's 2019 improvemenn viewing angles did not come for free...


----------



## dfa973

fafrd said:


> Smart way for LG to prove that Samsung's 2019 improvemenn viewing angles did not come for free...


This reminds me of circa 2010/2011 when LG was hammered by all for using the FPR 3D passive filter and claiming that the resulting 3D image is 1080p/FullHD but physically the FPR filter was halving the vertical resolution no matter what and the only way to get a true 1080p/FullHD 3D image was to use a 4K 3D FPR TV instead of a "2K 3D" TV...


----------



## Wizziwig

Let's not forget LG's famous pentile 2.8K WRGB LCDs that were being passed off as 4K. This marketing game has gone both ways over the years.


----------



## dfa973

*LG Display changes boss amid LCD and OLED market squeezes*

*LG Display is expected to commence a tough restructuring on its money-losing Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) business and hopes to increase the profitability of its OLED display panels under new leadership.*

LG Display has changed its CEO in its bid to reorganise its businesses amid declining LCD profits and lackluster OLED display panel sales.

The company, which is the display panel-making affiliate of LG Group, approved the motion to name LG Chem President Jeong Ho-young as its new CEO in an emergency board meeting on Monday, LG Display said in a statement.

Current CEO and Vice Chairman Han Sang-beom had expressed his desire to resign in order to take responsibility for the company's recent profits decline, LG said.

Jeong is expected to officially take over the CEO position in the shareholders meeting in March next year but will become the acting CEO on Tuesday.

The move is highly unusual as it normally makes leadership changes during its group-wide year-end reshuffle.

LG Display had once been a profit darling for the group, but its fortunes have drastically changed since 2018 from intensifying competition in both its traditional LCD business as well as the newer OLED one.

It is losing out to Chinese rival BOE in the LCD market, while its large-sized OLED display panel business has suffered from slower than expected sales from increased competition by Samsung's QLED counterpart. 

LG Electronics' TV business saw its operating profit halved in the second quarter from slower than expected OLED TV sales.

In regards to the small-sized LCD and OLED display panels used in smartphones and tablets, Chinese clients are increasingly relying on local suppliers over LG. At the same time, the South Korean tech giant cannot match Samsung's volume and yield rate when it comes to providing display panels for the more profitable mobile OLEDs. 

LG Display posted operating losses of 369 billion won in the second quarter of 2019 with revenues of 5.35 trillion won, which was much lower than analysts' expectations.

But the company has increased the production capacity of its OLED factories in China and South Korea, with the goal of moving 10 million large-sized panels by 2022 to decrease unit cost and increase sales. 

LG Display has also commenced the restructuring of its LCD business, halting some of its factory lines and lowering production output, and will likely now make even tougher measures under new leadership.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/lg-display-changes-boss-amid-lcd-and-oled-market-squeezes/


----------



## fafrd

dfa973 said:


> *LG Display changes boss amid LCD and OLED market squeezes*
> 
> *LG Display is expected to commence a tough restructuring on its money-losing Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) business and hopes to increase the profitability of its OLED display panels under new leadership.*
> 
> LG Display has changed its CEO in its bid to reorganise its businesses amid declining LCD profits and lackluster OLED display panel sales.
> 
> The company, which is the display panel-making affiliate of LG Group, approved the motion to name LG Chem President Jeong Ho-young as its new CEO in an emergency board meeting on Monday, LG Display said in a statement.
> 
> Current CEO and Vice Chairman Han Sang-beom had expressed his desire to resign in order to take responsibility for the company's recent profits decline, LG said.
> 
> Jeong is expected to officially take over the CEO position in the shareholders meeting in March next year but will become the acting CEO on Tuesday.
> 
> The move is highly unusual as it normally makes leadership changes during its group-wide year-end reshuffle.
> 
> LG Display had once been a profit darling for the group, but its fortunes have drastically changed since 2018 from intensifying competition in both its traditional LCD business as well as the newer OLED one.
> 
> It is losing out to Chinese rival BOE in the LCD market, while its large-sized OLED display panel business has suffered from slower than expected sales from increased competition by Samsung's QLED counterpart.
> 
> LG Electronics' TV business saw its operating profit halved in the second quarter from slower than expected OLED TV sales.
> 
> In regards to the small-sized LCD and OLED display panels used in smartphones and tablets, Chinese clients are increasingly relying on local suppliers over LG. At the same time, the South Korean tech giant cannot match Samsung's volume and yield rate when it comes to providing display panels for the more profitable mobile OLEDs.
> 
> LG Display posted operating losses of 369 billion won in the second quarter of 2019 with revenues of 5.35 trillion won, which was much lower than analysts' expectations.
> 
> But the company has increased the production capacity of its OLED factories in China and South Korea, with the goal of moving 10 million large-sized panels by 2022 to decrease unit cost and increase sales.
> 
> LG Display has also commenced the restructuring of its LCD business, halting some of its factory lines and lowering production output, and will likely now make even tougher measures under new leadership.
> 
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/lg-display-changes-boss-amid-lcd-and-oled-market-squeezes/


LG Chem makes many of the chemicals used in WOLED manufacturing and I bekieve they acquired some additional OLED materials IP last year, so I read this as LG Group tecognizing that LCD is dead and wanting to ull the band-aiid off to conplete the transition out of LCD more quickly.

This new CEO will have no hesitation to shut it all done - not his baby, not his mess.

The only sensible interpretation I can place on te comment regarding QLED is that LGE is losing money on WOLED TV sales and based in the increased oanel cost they agreed with LG Display late last year.

So WOLED panel prices will need to go back down (due to competition from QLED) and so a new CEO who probably has much better understanding of OLED manufacturing than the old legacy-LCD CEO is stepping in.

It's the season for annual volume commitments and pricing decisions, so the fact that this change happened now makes total sense. The old CEO could not agree to lower the WOLED panel prices as much as needed by LGE because he doesn' see a pathway to profitability at that lower price-point. The new LG-Chem CEO is confident he can accelerate WOLED cost reduction and turn a profit even at the lower prices being committed.

Methinks we're going to be seeing especially significant declines in WOLED TV MSRPs next year...


----------



## normanfox

fafrd said:


> LG Chem makes many of the chemicals used in WOLED manufacturing and I bekieve they acquired some additional OLED materials IP last year, so I read this as LG Group tecognizing that LCD is dead and wanting to ull the band-aiid off to conplete the transition out of LCD more quickly.
> 
> This new CEO will have no hesitation to shut it all done - not his baby, not his mess.
> 
> The only sensible interpretation I can place on te comment regarding QLED is that LGE is losing money on WOLED TV sales and based in the increased oanel cost they agreed with LG Display late last year.
> 
> So WOLED panel prices will need to go back down (due to competition from QLED) and so a new CEO who probably has much better understanding of OLED manufacturing than the old legacy-LCD CEO is stepping in.
> 
> It's the season for annual volume commitments and pricing decisions, so the fact that this change happened now makes total sense. The old CEO could not agree to lower the WOLED panel prices as much as needed by LGE because he doesn' see a pathway to profitability at that lower price-point. The new LG-Chem CEO is confident he can accelerate WOLED cost reduction and turn a profit even at the lower prices being committed.
> 
> Methinks we're going to be seeing especially significant declines in WOLED TV MSRPs next year...


In order to make money while selling for less, they have to improve yield and cut cost at many levels. This would lead to poor quality in the long run, chasing to the bottom. Apple is an envy to the world: making high profit and selling high-end and high quality product while others chase to the bottom selling cheap products to get market share with low profit margin.

selling for less is double-edge sword.


----------



## ExcessFaith!

normanfox said:


> In order to make money while selling for less, they have to improve yield and cut cost at many levels. This would lead to poor quality in the long run, chasing to the bottom. Apple is an envy to the world: making high profit and selling high-end and high quality product while others chase to the bottom selling cheap products to get market share with low profit margin.
> 
> selling for less is double-edge sword.



Hi to all! First post but I've been a silent observer of the thread. 



To normanfox, not necessarily. They can just extend the lifetime of the iteration they are using. Since they are a monopoly now, they have the market power if they wish to. 



Also, if the goodwill of the new CEO on the board is something they can decide to bite the bullet and absorb short term losses. But all in all, I don't see a scenario where they decide to willingly take a hit in quality. Especially now when they have an "alleged" superiority to the QLED offerings, it would just be opening themselves up to a counter from their competitors. 



Anyway, that's what I'd do.


----------



## fafrd

normanfox said:


> In order to make money while selling for less, they have to improve yield and cut cost at many levels. This would lead to poor quality in the long run, chasing to the bottom. Apple is an envy to the world: making high profit and selling high-end and high quality product while others chase to the bottom selling cheap products to get market share with low profit margin.
> 
> selling for less is double-edge sword.


Firstly, Apple sells finished products while LG Display sells components (display panels) - the two companies and their business models have virtually nothing to do with each other (except in the case that Apple elects to integrate LGDs display panels in their finished products).

Secondly, in order to make money while selling for less, LGD just needs to keep doing what they've been doing (attached). WOLED is fundamentally less expensive to manufacture that LCD at equivalent scale, so LGD's challange is to continue to ramp capacity while selling their WOLED panels at prices that generate sufficient gross margin to allow them to continue making those investments.

And thirdly, as perfectly pointed out in the prior post, the last thing LGD would consider doing is to take a step backwards in quality. They've addressed the worst of their early non-uniformity issues, they survived the scare of burn-in, they were successful in withstanding the Brightness Wars and have won the reputation for delivering the world's highest-quality Premium TVs (and reasonably priced, at that!). The last thing they'd do is piss all that progress away by selling poor-quality panels.

It's likely they are being forced to give back the 'price-up' increases they forced through onto their customers including LGE a year ago to achieve profitability on WOLED panel sales. They will probably even be forced to sell below that early 2018 price level so that even achieving break-even on WOLED panel sales could be at risk.

On the other hand, Giangzhou is ramping, which delivers a significant cost refuction, MMG has apparently successfully been adopted in Paju, which reduces 65" and 77" WOLEDs manufacturing cost on 8.5G substrates by close to 25%, and the 10.5G fab is on the way.

The Q3 results are certain to be dismal and I'm guessing they already know that Q4 will be even worse. They are getting in front of it by making the change of CEO now, since a new CEO will be given at least a year to 'turn things around' and show results. This whole thing is so logical, it may even have been part of the planning since day 1 (at least as an option to activate or not depending on how things unfolded in the LCD world).


----------



## normanfox

fafrd said:


> Firstly, Apple sells finished products while LG Display sells components (display panels) - the two companies and their business models have virtually nothing to do with each other (except in the case that Apple elects to integrate LGDs display panels in their finished products).
> 
> Secondly, in order to make money while selling for less, LGD just needs to keep doing what they've been doing (attached). WOLED is fundamentally less expensive to manufacture that LCD at equivalent scale, so LGD's challange is to continue to ramp capacity while selling their WOLED panels at prices that generate sufficient gross margin to allow them to continue making those investments.
> 
> And thirdly, as perfectly pointed out in the prior post, the last thing LGD would consider doing is to take a step backwards in quality. They've addressed the worst of their early non-uniformity issues, they survived the scare of burn-in, they were successful in withstanding the Brightness Wars and have won the reputation for delivering the world's highest-quality Premium TVs (and reasonably priced, at that!). The last thing they'd do is piss all that progress away by selling poor-quality panels.
> 
> It's likely they are being forced to give back the 'price-up' increases they forced through onto their customers including LGE a year ago to achieve profitability on WOLED panel sales. They will probably even be forced to sell below that early 2018 price level so that even achieving break-even on WOLED panel sales could be at risk.
> 
> On the other hand, Giangzhou is ramping, which delivers a significant cost refuction, MMG has apparently successfully been adopted in Paju, which reduces 65" and 77" WOLEDs manufacturing cost on 8.5G substrates by close to 25%, and the 10.5G fab is on the way.
> 
> The Q3 results are certain to be dismal and I'm guessing they already know that Q4 will be even worse. They are getting in front of it by making the change of CEO now, since a new CEO will be given at least a year to 'turn things around' and show results. This whole thing is so logical, it may even have been part of the planning since day 1 (at least as an option to activate or not depending on how things unfolded in the LCD world).


a couple things that your post does not make sense:
the LG business of selling TV is more complex than the strategy that you roll up in a couple paragraphs.
Second if they keep doing what they been doing and keep the same quality that they have now, why the current CEO is fired? Third, this CEO firing is nothing planned or usual. if you read the article, many analysts were surprised that this happens now.


----------



## 8mile13

It looks like the CEO and Vice Chairman Han Sang-beom felt responsible for profit declines and wished to resign. LG held a emergency board meeting to find a replacement.


----------



## fafrd

normanfox said:


> a couple things that your post does not make sense:
> the LG business of selling TV is more complex than the strategy that you roll up in a couple paragraphs.
> Second* if they keep doing what they been doing and keep the same quality that they have now, why the current CEO is fired? *


https://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2019&no=736024

Here is the answer in LG's own words:
-to reform the profit structure, revitalize employees
-to sustain leadership in OLED TV panel market, *continue with the investment*
-to streamline low-profit LCD production lines
-to cope with external challanges, including Japan's restrictions on exports to Korea
-to foster new growth engines including automotive, commercial panels

This was well-orchestrated, clearly planned for carefully and not reactionary or done in crisis-mode. It shows investors and employees the LG Group does not consider this financial performance acceptable and that they are taking action while they prepare for a painful transition that was inevitable.



> Third, this CEO firing is nothing planned or usual. if you read the article, *many analysts were surprised that this happens now.*


Analysts have their heads up their a*sses all the time. This is not the least bit surprising to me and the fact that it's being done now so that there is a fresh face involved in what will no-doubt be difficult price negotiations with OEM customers after the LGD's truly surprising 'price up' position of of last season makes total sense.

'Planned for or usual' goes beyond what I stated - if things had evolved differently on the LCD panel business front, this transition would probably not have been needed. But collapse of the LCD business has certainly been foreseeable/possible to envision since Chinese investments in 10.5G manufacturing were initiated several years ago, and so contingency planning for 'what will we do if the LCD business collapses before we've completed investing in the transition to OLED' would merely be responsible management.

As things played out in the LCD industry, the contingency plan turns out to have been needed and this is the best time for the transition (start of annual price/volume negotiations).


----------



## ExcessFaith!

Hi to all!

A video to drive home OLED's advantage in the market right now, whoever advised Sony, Samsung and the rest to increase their viewing angles at the expense of contrast weren't reading the "OLED technology advancements thread". I would advise them to start NOW! Since its better than illogically worded pieces from ZDNet  Just joking of course! 

watch?v=D9K9oU_VTQ8 I need to do this in order to avoid the error message when posting, but it is a youtube link. Just place it after .com Or a member can link it on my behalf, thanks in advance. 

Also, the advent of 88" 8k screen sizes from many companies at IFA 2019 not to mention 77\75" 65" 8k screen sizes coming next year. I see in the coming years projectors having a shrinking role in home theater. 

As fafrd said, 2020 is the year for 8k. Olympics in 8k, the BDA already settled on a format for 8k in 2018, 8k Organic Panasonic camera, Next Xbox, PS5, 5G routers etc. So we'll have the cameras to shoot 8k, the format to transfer the media and the means to watch it at home. 

It'll be a good starting year for 8k which will only drive home OLED as the only true 8k technology. I say this because instead of Samsung agreeing, they want to change the standards by which the ISO tests the screens. Maybe they thought people will only know OLED just because of the viewing angles?

Anyway, that's what I think.


----------



## NintendoManiac64

ExcessFaith! said:


> watch?v=D9K9oU_VTQ8


Here:









And on the subject of static contrast, MIT scientists recently made the blackest black material, blacker than the "vantablack" I previously posted about. They mention looking into getting it used for NASA-grade telescopes to absorb unwanted light, and so I would imagine that the tech could be similarly applied to the likes of OLED displays so that black pixels can still be black even in daylight:

https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/diemut-strebe-diamond-1653130

As someone that dabbled into image editing at times, this photo is quite surreal in that it looks a lot like if you just lasso-selected a particular area and deleted it, replacing it with solid black (in fact, the second photo in the article actually shows the material being pure #000000 RGB black if you use the eyedropper tool in MS Paint or the like).


----------



## circumstances

Didn't CEDIA happen recently? Any news on the near future OLED front?


----------



## ExcessFaith!

Many thanks to NintendoManiac64


----------



## dfa973

circumstances said:


> Didn't CEDIA happen recently? Any news on the near future OLED front?


Yes, the new LG 55EW5F-A Transparent OLED, mostly for signage or other commercial settings, automotive, etc.
The 38% transparency is "much higher" than conventional transparent LCD displays, while there's 400 nits brightness for images on screen. It's a 55-inch screen here with a full HD resolution and 7.9mm-slim bezel.


----------



## dfa973

*LG Display and Samsung race Chinese rivals as LCD woes deepen*

*South Korean companies gear up for transition to OLED to keep edge*

Samsung Display and LG Display are racing to stay ahead of their Chinese rivals as a supply glut of LCD panels accelerates the shift to next-generation displays.

The two South Korean tech giants are cutting production of liquid crystal display panels to focus on premium organic light-emitting diode, or OLED, panels, a market they currently dominate.

LCD prices have plunged in recent years as Chinese makers, backed by generous state subsidies, aggressively expanded production capacity. Sluggish demand for large TV sets amid a global economic slowdown and the U.S.-China trade war has also weighed on prices.

This downturn has taken a heavy toll on Samsung and LG, for whom LCDs were once a cash cow. Now they are hoping to consolidate their lead in OLED panels, which are more expensive to make but potentially more profitable.

OLED displays boast higher color contrast and deeper blacks than their LCD counterparts, and they are also flexible. 

The market for these advanced displays is expected to grow rapidly, rising from last year's $25.5 billion to more than $30 billion this year, according to IDTechEx Research.

The transition to more advanced panels has not been painless -- or cheap. LG Display, a supplier to Apple, announced earlier this week that CEO Han Sang-beom would resign to take responsibility for poor earnings due to LCD woes. The company's operating loss in the second quarter widened to 369 billion won ($313.02 million), from 228 billion won a year earlier.

The following day it announced it would cut its workforce, with some analysts estimating as many as 5,000 employees could be let go.

Analysts say LG Display will cut its LCD production by 140,000 units per month on its 8th-generation lines and 105,000 pieces per month on its 7th-generation ones.

"LG Display plans to stop operation of its LCD production gradually in the fourth quarter," said Chung Won-seok, an analyst at Hi Investment and Securities. "The company also aims to cut about 5,000 employees to lower costs."

LG Display acknowledged that it is considering many options as it shifts its key business from LCD to OLED, but said nothing has been decided yet regarding production cuts. However, the company confirmed that it will accept applications for its early retirement program starting next week.

"We need to adjust our workforce as our business structure is changing," said Lee Hyung-kook, a spokesman for LG Display. "But we did not set the target of numbers for the [voluntary retirement ] program as it will be applied only to those who want it."

Samsung is also trimming down its LCD operations.

"We are cutting production of LCD panels. The market situation is too bad," said a source at Samsung Display. "Increasing stocks are burdening us. We believe it is time to adjust production and wait until panel price rebounds."

The source declined to reveal how much production Samsung has cut, but analysts estimate it to be 120,000 units per month, or one-third of the company's total LCD production capacity.

The company is expected to shed outdated production facilities.

"Samsung Display is expected to eventually sell its defunct 8.5-generation LCD lines in [the city of] Asan, as it has realized that it is impossible to compete with China's 10.5-generation lines," said Kim Dong-won, an analyst at KB Securities.

The different generations of LCD panels refers to their size -- the later the generation, the larger the panels, which are proportionally more challenging to produce. The most advanced generation currently in production is 10.5.

Yonhap news agency on Tuesday reported that Samsung Display plans to invest $11 billion to upgrade one of its domestic LCD facilities to produce "more advanced" displays. A spokesperson told the Nikkei Asian Review that "nothing has been decided" regarding the investment, but said company is working on producing an even more advanced type of OLED.

China has emerged as a major force in late-generation LCD production. National display champion BOE Technology began operating the country's first 10.5-generation LCD facility in 2017. The company started building its second such plant in April last year, with operation scheduled to begin next year.

BOE's plant can produce LCD sheets measuring 2,940 by 3,370 mm, enough to make eight 65-inch TV panels. This is markedly more efficient than Samsung's 8.5-generation line, which can make only three pieces of the same size panel from sheets measuring 2,200 by 2,500 mm, Kim at KB explained.

Other Beijing-backed display makers, such as China Star Optoelectronics Technology, HKC and Tianma Microelectronics, also added new capacity for LCDs last year.

LG Display is hoping it will be able to compete on technology rather than price. The company announced last month that it had begun producing 8.5-generation OLED panels in Guangzhou, China, as part of its goal of producing 10 million large-size OLED panels per year.

"LG Display, the pioneer and only manufacturer of large-size OLED panels in the world, plans to further widen the gap with its competitors and strengthen its leading position starting from the operation of its Guangzhou plant," said the company in a statement.

Despite the hefty investment required -- LG says it has invested 20 trillion won in OLED facilities -- analysts see the shift to OLED as a step in the right direction.

"I think it is positive that LG Display is changing to an OLED company by cutting its LCD TV business step by step," said Chung Won-seok, an analyst at Hi Investment & Securities. "Its valuation will increase. The OLED TV sector will account for 56% of its TV sales in 2020 thanks to the business restructuring."

Analysts expect Samsung to follow LG's footsteps. Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong discussed next-generation displays with company executives earlier this month during his visit to the company's research center in Seoul. Samsung Electronics is the parent of Samsung Display.

"We assume that Samsung Display will invest in QD OLED in the fourth quarter, and the size of the investments will increase further," said Kim at KB, referring to quantum dot OLED technology, which Samsung is studying for a potential next-generation display. Quantum dots are tiny particles that have excellent photonic emission properties.

BOE, however, is also working on its own OLED operations in hopes of eventually supplying the displays to Apple, as the Nikkei Asian Review reported. The company could pose a real challenge to its South Korean rivals if it gets the green light to supply the U.S. company.

Samsung and LG are not the only ones hit by the LCD glut. Taiwan's Chunghwa Pictures Tube, a small display maker founded in 1971, went bankrupt on Wednesday, having dismissed more than 2,000 employees last month following years of losses. AU Optoelectronics and Innolux, the island's leading display makers, both struggled to turn a profit in the first half of this year, and Japan Display is also struggling financially.

"The display industry enjoyed a temporary bounce back in 2017, but the industry was quickly plunged into a downturn from 2018 after many Chinese companies brought new capacity online to expand their market share with cheaper prices," said Tseng Chun-chou, senior industry analyst at the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research.

"The Chinese companies' goal is to grab their share in the global display industry. They care less about losing money," an executive at a Japanese display equipment supplier said.

But this approach is taking a toll even on China's BOE, CSOT and HKC, which have reduced their production. Sakai Display Products, which was previously backed by Foxconn founder Terry Gou, has paused plans to bring its new advanced display plant in Guangzhou up to full production capacity due to the supply woes, the Nikkei Asian Review reported.

"The capacity reduction across companies is a positive direction for the display industry, it could help shrink the scale of the falling prices in the market," Tseng said. However, the analyst said it still depends on whether Chinese players once again start ramping up capacity.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Te...amsung-race-Chinese-rivals-as-LCD-woes-deepen


----------



## circumstances

dfa973 said:


> Yes, the new LG 55EW5F-A Transparent OLED, mostly for signage or other commercial settings, automotive, etc.
> The 38% transparency is "much higher" than conventional transparent LCD displays, while there's 400 nits brightness for images on screen. It's a 55-inch screen here with a full HD resolution and 7.9mm-slim bezel.


Thank you!

How about for the home consumer? More brightness, top emission (or any other new innovations) coming our way soon? (Ideally in sizes above 70 inches)


----------



## dfa973

circumstances said:


> How about for the home consumer? More brightness, top emission (or any other new innovations) coming our way soon? (Ideally in sizes above 70 inches)


*Not soon.*
Sorry to disappoint you.
You will need to wait, the progress will be slow-incremental, not revolutionary!
Probably in 2023.
Search for @fafrd posts in this thread for the future improvements and the expected pace.


----------



## circumstances

dfa973 said:


> circumstances said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about for the home consumer? More brightness, top emission (or any other new innovations) coming our way soon? (Ideally in sizes above 70 inches)
> 
> 
> 
> *Not soon.*
> Sorry to disappoint you.
> You will need to wait, the progress will be slow-incremental, not revolutionary!
> Probably in 2023.
> Search for @fafrd posts in this thread for the future improvements and the expected pace.
Click to expand...

Oh, I follow fafrd's posts.

I was just wondering if I missed the announcement of any "incremental improvements" at CEDIA. 🙂


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> Oh, I follow fafrd's posts.
> 
> I was just wondering if I missed the announcement of any "incremental improvements" at CEDIA. 🙂


No idea what was announced at Cedia, but there is a good chance we see a change to the WOLED stack (first since 2016) and a wider color gamut next year (attached).

That and hopefully also the reemergence of the elusive 120Hz BFI feature may be all we get in 2020...


----------



## fafrd

https://www.oled-info.com/business-korea-samsung-invest-1085-billion-qd-oled-tv-production

I'll believe it when I see it (we should know in October one way or the other...).

If Samsung is actually able to catch up with LGD's current large-screen OLED panel production in a mere 3 years, that would be quite an achievement...


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> circumstances said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I follow fafrd's posts.
> 
> I was just wondering if I missed the announcement of any "incremental improvements" at CEDIA. 🙂
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what was announced at Cedia, but there is a good chance we see a change to the WOLED stack (first since 2016) and a wider color gamut next year (attached).
> 
> That and hopefully also the reemergence of the elusive 120Hz BFI feature may be all we get in 2020...
Click to expand...

Does the new WOLED stack offer anything on terms of increased brightness? Any advancements on minimizing burn in on the (very near) horizon?


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> Does the new WOLED stack offer anything on terms of increased brightness?


We won't know until it is announced at CES, but I'll be surprised if we see anything more than another small incremental bump in brightness (peak and ABL-limit).

The significant boost in peak brightness will come in the 'Future' when LGD adopts TADF blue into the stack. That 'Future' 30% increase in 'Power Efficiency' can translate to +30% brightness, or +30% lifetime and time-to-burn-in, or some combination of the two...



> Any advancements on minimizing burn in on the (very near) horizon?


Again, we won't know until the new WOLEDs are announced, but I won't be surprised if there are some modest incremental improvements, even if advances in burn-in protection is generally not an area LG wants to draw a great deal of attention to ('there is no spoon .


----------



## ALMA

According to the 2018 roadmap from LG Display we can expect an brightness increase in 2020 around 30% from 150nits to 200nits (APL 100%):



https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-504.html#post56972414


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2469872&d=1539811948


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2469874&d=1539811948


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-504.html#post56975142


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> We won't know until it is announced at CES, but I'll be surprised if we see anything more than another small incremental bump in brightness (peak and ABL-limit).
> 
> The significant boost in peak brightness will come in the 'Future' when LGD adopts TADF blue into the stack. That 'Future' 30% increase in 'Power Efficiency' can translate to +30% brightness, or +30% lifetime and time-to-burn-in, or some combination of the two...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we won't know until the new WOLEDs are announced, but I won't be surprised if there are some modest incremental improvements, even if advances in burn-in protection is generally not an area LG wants to draw a great deal of attention to ('there is no spoon .


Thanks! Glad I'm not in any hurry!


----------



## circumstances

ALMA said:


> According to the 2018 roadmap from LG Display we can expect an brightness increase in 2020 around 30% from 150nits to 200nits (APL 100%):
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-504.html#post56972414
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2469872&d=1539811948
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2469874&d=1539811948
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-504.html#post56975142


That's significant if it comes to pass!


----------



## gmarceau

I would seriously buy whatever company’s TV can get to 4000 nit peak brightness and 100 percent of rec 2020 first. I’m starting to get the feeling it’ll end up being a Samsung phone 🙂


----------



## Nugget

gmarceau said:


> I would seriously buy whatever company’s TV can get to 4000 nit peak brightness and 100 percent of rec 2020 first. I’m starting to get the feeling it’ll end up being a Samsung phone 🙂


Well if the phone unfolds to 80" I might be on board!


----------



## dfa973

gmarceau said:


> I would seriously buy whatever company’s TV can get to 4000 nit peak brightness and 100 percent of rec 2020 first.


That TV will consume around 600 Watts of power and at winter you will get a very warm feeling around it... You will get a free and mandatory AC with it that it will auto-start in sync with the TV in the summer... 
Slim chances that it will be available to consumers very soon...


----------



## Airikay

dfa973 said:


> That TV will consume around 600 Watts of power and at winter you will get a very warm feeling around it... You will get a free and mandatory AC with it that it will auto-start in sync with the TV in the summer...
> Slim chances that it will be available to consumers very soon...


Supposedly some of the larger 8k LCD TVs hit that. I've seen a few different review sites claim the Samsung and Sony hits around 4000 highlights and 2000 full image. Of course the Sony uses up to 1100W on the 98", but Samsung is quite a bit less.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...-review-big-and-oh-so-beautiful/#582549d6f5f2


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> According to the 2018 roadmap from LG Display we can expect an brightness increase in 2020 around 30% from 150nits to 200nits (APL 100%):
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-504.html#post56972414
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2469872&d=1539811948
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2469874&d=1539811948
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-504.html#post56975142


That was the roadmap LGD showed in 2018, but this Spring they showed a revised roadmap with some slip from that (attached).

The 'upcoming' move to 3-color 3-stack is hopefully coming next year, but will not be accompanied by an increase in efficiency as LGD had expected in 2018.

This is probably because LGD thought they would be moving to high-efficiency TADF blue in 2020, but TADF is still not ready for prime-time and so that +30% Efficiency Increase has now been pushed off to the 'Future'.

So next year, we should get the gamut increase from 99% DCI-P3 to 100% DCI-P3 & 85% Rec.2020 but we're almost certainly not going to get the 33% brightness increase to an ABL100% limit of 200 cd/m2.


----------



## fafrd

IHS estimates that WOLED will account for 8.6% of TV panel revenues this year and WOLED + QD-BOLED + printed-RGB-OLED TV panel revenues will grow to 20.6% of total TV panel revenues by 2025: https://www.oled-info.com/ihs-oled-tv-display-revenues-reach-75-billion-2025


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> ALMA said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the 2018 roadmap from LG Display we can expect an brightness increase in 2020 around 30% from 150nits to 200nits (APL 100%):
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-504.html#post56972414
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2469872&d=1539811948
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2469874&d=1539811948
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-504.html#post56975142
> 
> 
> 
> That was the roadmap LGD showed in 2018, but this Spring they showed a revised roadmap with some slip from that (attached).
> 
> The 'upcoming' move to 3-color 3-stack is hopefully coming next year, but will not be accompanied by an increase in efficiency as LGD had expected in 2018.
> 
> This is probably because LGD thought they would be moving to high-efficiency TADF blue in 2020, but TADF is still not ready for prime-time and so that +30% Efficiency Increase has now been pushed off to the 'Future'.
> 
> So next year, we should get the gamut increase from 99% DCI-P3 to 100% DCI-P3 & 85% Rec.2020 but we're almost certainly not going to get the 33% brightness increase to an ABL100% limit of 200 cd/m2.
Click to expand...

I want to wait for the blue! I don't like the sound of the "future."


----------



## Superman07

I wonder if the slumping LCD sales and note that LG will ramp down low end LCD sales means an accelerated push for LG to only offer OLED sets.

I was at the big box store and noticed a reasonable (?) prices on a 65” C9. If they can drive the price permanently under $2k I think they’ll sell a lot more sets.

Is next year when they’re expected to start rolling out sub 50” sets?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Superman07 said:


> I wonder if the slumping LCD sales and note that LG will ramp down low end LCD sales means an accelerated push for LG to only offer OLED sets.
> 
> I was at the big box store and noticed a reasonable (?) prices on a 65” C9. *If they can drive the price permanently under $2k I think they’ll sell a lot more sets.*


If by 'permanently', you mean launch MSRPs of $2000 for 65" C-Series, we're probably not going to get there before the 10.5G is in production (meaning 2023).

But I'm predicting a drop in launch MSRP to $3000 for the 2020 65" C-Series which means by this time next year (or even as early as late June) we could see the 65C20 officially discounted to $2000...

Also, when Vizio launches their WOLED TVs next year, they will almost certainly launch with MSRPs far below LGDs and possibly even below LGD's discounted pricing, so expect to see a launch MSRP on Vizio's 65" WOLED somewhere in the $2000-2500 range...



> Is next year when they’re expected to start rolling out sub 50” sets?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yes, 48" WOLEDs will be announced at CES'20. From LGE and Vizio for sure, possibly from other OEMs like Sony, Panasonic or Philips as well (if there is a market for Premium 48" TVs in Japan or Europe).


----------



## dfa973

*The "next-generation" 22-inch Foris Nova features the world's first printed 4K OLED panel.*

*OLED by printing method*

Japan's Eizo, known for its professional monitors, will launch its first OLED monitor next month. The Eizo Foris Nova was officially announced in Japan today and will reach the US, Europa, and China in the near future.

- "As a Visual Technology Company that creates new value for imaging solutions through the introduction of cutting-edge technologies and devices, we are excited to now provide the next-generation in content viewing by employing JOLED's high-definition 4K OLED," said Hiroshi Nagai, SM for Product Technology, Eizo.

The company confirms that it is using an OLED panel from display manufacturer Japan OLED (JOLED), a joint venture between Japan Display, Sony, and Panasonic. It uses RGB stripe sub-pixels rather than the 'white OLED' found in LG Display's panels for TVs. It is also the world's first 4K OLED panel produced by printing method.

The panel has 4K (3840x2160 pixels) resolution, 60Hz refresh rate,10-bit colors, and approximately 80% coverage of the BT.2020 gamut. The panel's response time is 0.04 ms but the screen is unlikely to reach those levels due to its low refresh rate of 60Hz. It claims to support HDR, including HDR10 and HLG, but its peak brightness is limited to 330 nits, signalling that Japan OLED still has work to do in the area of HDR.

More at https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1570008677


----------



## Mark Rejhon

dfa973 said:


> The panel's response time is 0.04 ms


Which pixel response benchmark, GtG or MPRT? 

If it is sample-and-hold which it is almost certainly is, that would only be possible for GtG. 0.04ms GtG for OLED is realistic, but 0.04ms MPRT isn't realistic unless you cram all those lumens in a short-flash.

For those confused, see *GtG versus MPRT: Frequently Asked Questions About Pixel Response*.

The above FAQ makes it much easier to understand GtG and MPRT difference.
MPRT number for a sample-hold display = refresh cycle length
MPRT number for a impulsed display = impulse flash length.

Which essentially means the same thing:
MPRT number = pixel illumination length 

(Minor nitpick: industry standard MPRT is MPRT 10%->90% would be 80% of pixel visibility length. But regardless of what MPRT measurement cutoff standard you use -- MPRT halvings still means exact halvings of display motion blur, regardless of impulsing versus sample-hold).

Even though it's an imperfect benchmark, *MPRT tends to be linearly proportional to motion blur (inverse of motion performance)*, becoming especially much more strongly exact linear relationship in situations where GtG or phosphor decay is an insignificant factor. This applies for all display technology, impulsed or sample-and-hold, including LCD and OLED. Meaning, a halving of MPRT means halving of motion blur, no matter how it does it, and no matter if it's sample-hold, and no matter if it's impulsing. Assuming you ignore other sources of blur (e.g. camera shutter blur, or interpolation algorithm flaws, etc). 

Some manufacturers mis-market MPRT specifically for strobe or sample-and-hold, but the same MPRT number (for a given display tech) tends to have the same motion blurring on both strobed and sample-and-hold. Most of the time where you see an advertisement for "1ms MPRT", that is achieved via impulsed method, since it is not possible to achieve 1ms MPRT with sample-and-hold less than 1000Hz. So low MPRTs are a dead giveaway for an impulsed technology (BFI, flashing, impulsing, strobing, etc).

Here, MPRT = persistence. 

For sample-and-hold:










For impulsed:










That means a 240Hz sample-and-hold display (at 240fps) has similar motion performance as a 60Hz impulsed display using 25%:75% ON:OFF strobe.

Although, the stroboscopic effect (*Stroboscopic Effect Of Fixed Frame Rate Displays*) can affect motion performance in fixed-gaze situations. So motion performance of displays can still look different during fixed-gaze versus eye-tracking. 

MPRT benchmarking only really covers motion performance of eye-tracking situation, and this is where equivalence between a sample-hold versus impulsed display (in motion blur performance) is achieved.


----------



## fafrd

If this is true, expect to see much cheaper WOLED TVs next year (possibly from Visio): https://www.oled-info.com/dscc-oled...462-billion-2023-lowers-its-oled-tv-forecasts

“DSCC further reports that *LG Electronics* will not be able to reach its 2 million OLED TV goal in 2019 - and *have asked LGD to supply it with only 2.5 million OLED TV panels in 2020 (the original plan was to supply 3.5 million panels to LGE)*.”

LGE’s ‘original’ plan to grow from 2 million WOLED TVs in 2019 to 3.5 million in 2020 sounds like it was a stretch to begin with.

But if 2020 represents a shift from ~75% year-on-year growth of WOLED TV sales volumes by LGE to only 25% year-on-year growth, LGD needs to find another 1 or 2 WOLED panel customers at least as big as Sony to absorb 2020 panel production.

The stage is set for Vizio to make a very big splash in the US TV market next year...


----------



## gorman42

Mark Rejhon said:


> That means a 240Hz sample-and-hold display (at 240fps) has similar motion performance as a 60Hz impulsed display using 25%:75% ON:OFF strobe.


Which would mean a 75% reduction in light output, correct?


Also, regarding your double shutter solution at 96Hz , for 24 fps material, may I ask a clarification? For it to work is it enough to have a display that accepts 96Hz as refresh rate or the display needs to support variable refresh rate? Edit: I've bothered fafrd too many times about this. Almost embarassed to admit... 
Thank you for all the enlightening info you share, here and on your website.


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> Mark Rejhon said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means a 240Hz sample-and-hold display (at 240fps) has similar motion performance as a 60Hz impulsed display using 25%:75% ON:OFF strobe.
> 
> 
> 
> Which would mean a 75% reduction in light output, correct?
> 
> 
> Also, regarding your double strobe solution at 96Hz , for 24 fps material, may I ask a clarification? For it to work* is it enough to have a display that accepts 96Hz as refresh rate *or the display needs to support variable refresh rate? Edit: I've bothered fafrd too many times about this. Almost embarassed to admit... /forum/images/smilies/redface.gif
> Thank you for all the enlightening info you share, here and on your website.
Click to expand...

Hope you don’t mind me clarifying your question to Mark.

The double-shutter simulation software would work on a display accepting a 96Hz refresh rate stream, but that’s really not the question.

The general question for Mark is: are there any TVs that accept 96Hz as a refresh rate without making use of VRR as a pipeline / interface protocol?

The more specific question is whether the 2019 LG WOLEDs can accept 96Hz input without making use of their VRR capability?

And the most specific question is, if the VRR interface/protocol/capability is disabled in a 2019 LG WOLED TV (through Service Menu or however), will that also disable the possibility to feed the TV with a 96Hz double-shutter presentation stream of a 24fps source?


----------



## NintendoManiac64

Don't forget that, if you're not an absolute purist, there's always the option of slightly speeding up 24fps content to 25fps (with optional pitch correction) and then just running the display at a plain-old fixed 100Hz.


(and as a side benefit, due to the reduction in bandwidth provided by 100Hz compared to 120Hz, you _may_ be able to even fit 4k 10bit HDR on even HDMI 2.0 when combined with 4:2:0 chroma sub-sampling, though this is not something I've ever tried)


----------



## gorman42

NintendoManiac64 said:


> Don't forget that, if you're not an absolute purist, there's always the option of slightly speeding up 24fps content to 25fps (with optional pitch correction) and then just running the display at a plain-old fixed 100Hz.


I don't think that's what the double shutter thing does. What you are describing is needed to achieve smooth motion in case you cannot have a straight multiple of 24 (or 23.976) as a refresh rate. But LG OLEDs natively run at 120Hz, so that's not the problem.


Double shutter tries to replicate, motion wise, what happens in theatres. Providing a picture that is smooth *and* not stuttering too much in pans (which is what happens with OLEDs, due to their almost instant response times and sample and hold nature).


This is how I understood things. As usual, if I'm wrong... first I'm sorry, as my objective is not to mislead anyone; second, I welcome any correction.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

gorman42 said:


> Which would mean a 75% reduction in light output, correct?


Generally, correct. 

That said, some LCD strobe-backlight displays use voltage-boosted strobes. For example, the BenQ XL2546 gaming monitor ("DyAc" version) uses a voltage-boost so its strobe-mode is the same brightness. Some LEDs are designed that you can strobe them brighter for shorter periods, as long as the average photons over time (heat) is roughly constant. 

It's a clever use of the Talbot-Plateau law; twice-bright strobe at half-length, looks equally bright (at frequencies above flicker fusion threshold).



gorman42 said:


> Also, regarding your double shutter solution at 96Hz , for 24 fps material, may I ask a clarification? For it to work is it enough to have a display that accepts 96Hz as refresh rate or the display needs to support variable refresh rate? Edit: I've bothered fafrd too many times about this. Almost embarassed to admit...
> Thank you for all the enlightening info you share, here and on your website.


There a few ways I know how to do 96Hz:

1. Fixed-Hz 96Hz.
2. Variable-refresh to access 96Hz.
3. Custom Timings & Resolution that create a fixed-Hz 96Hz within the scanrate-specs of VRR (compatible with a VRR display with 96Hz within its VRR range.

For the new LG VRR OLED firmware, I believe you can do either #2 (confirmed) or #3 (unconfirmed). For doing #2 and #3 you will need to use a HTPC. You could probably do a video capture card to accept an external signal, write an app to output to #2 to #3 .

Instructions on how to do #3 
1. Download a Custom Resolution Utility or use NVIDIA Custom Resolution
2. Test 120Hz and verify it works.
3. Open the Custom Resolution Utility and begin creating. View the current timings & resolution
4. Write down the Vertical Total, the Horizontal Total, the Pixel Clock, and the Horizontal Scan Rate.
5. Now change to "Manual" so you can edit.
6. If Vertical Total says "2300" at 120Hz, then you have a Horizontal Scan Rate of 276000 (276KHz)
7. To calculate the custom "Fixed-Hz-embedded-in-VRR" signal, divide this Vertical Total 276000 by your new fixed-Hz.

276000 / 120 = 2300 scanlines (2160p + 140 blanking)
276000 / 96 = 2875 scanlines (2160p + 715 blanking)

8. Now create a new Custom resolution
...Same scanrate as the original 120Hz
...Same pixel clock as original 120Hz
...Same Horizontal numbers as original 120Hz (sync, back porch, front porch, active)
...Same Vertical Front Porch as original 120Hz
...Same Sync as original 120Hz
...Change Refresh Rate to "96 Hz"
...Change Vertical Total to "2875". 
(If you can only edit Vertical Back Porch, then use 2877 minus Vertical Resolution minus Sync minus Front Porch)
...Save/Apply

Now you've got a fixed-Hz 96Hz that mimics the 120hz scanrate, and is behaving as a fixed-Hz-within-VRR-range, and might successfully sync on the new LG 4K HDTV with VRR, as long as 96Hz is within the VRR range.

Now the rest is HTPC software, you can create software than strobes ON-OFF-ON-OFF


----------



## Mark Rejhon

gorman42 said:


> Which would mean a 75% reduction in light output, correct?


Generally, correct. 

That said, some LCD strobe-backlight displays use voltage-boosted strobes. For example, the BenQ XL2546 gaming monitor ("DyAc" version) uses a voltage-boost so its strobe-mode is the same brightness. Some LEDs are designed that you can strobe them brighter for shorter periods, as long as the average photons over time (heat) is roughly constant. 

It's a clever use of the Talbot-Plateau law; twice-bright strobe at half-length, looks equally bright (at frequencies above flicker fusion threshold).



gorman42 said:


> Also, regarding your double shutter solution at 96Hz , for 24 fps material, may I ask a clarification? For it to work is it enough to have a display that accepts 96Hz as refresh rate or the display needs to support variable refresh rate? Edit: I've bothered fafrd too many times about this. Almost embarassed to admit...
> Thank you for all the enlightening info you share, here and on your website.


There a few ways I know how to do 96Hz:

1. Fixed-Hz 96Hz.
2. Variable-refresh to access 96Hz.
3. Custom Timings & Resolution that create a fixed-Hz 96Hz within the scanrate-specs of VRR (compatible with a VRR display with 96Hz within its VRR range.

For the new LG VRR OLED firmware, I believe you can do either #2 (confirmed) or #3 (unconfirmed). For doing #2 and #3 you will need to use a HTPC. You could probably do a video capture card to accept an external signal, write an app to output to #2 to #3 .

As VRR is just simply fundamentally a fixed-horizontal-scanrate varying-vlanking signal, we can piggyback on this fact to create a fixed-Hz-within-VRR custom Timings & Resolution.

Instructions on how to do #3 
1. Download a Custom Resolution Utility or use NVIDIA Custom Resolution
2. Test 4K 120Hz over HDMI and verify it works from HTPC
3. Open the Custom Resolution Utility and begin creating. View the current timings & resolution
4. Write down the Vertical Total, the Horizontal Total, the Pixel Clock, and the Horizontal Scan Rate.
5. Now change to "Manual" so you can edit.
6. If Vertical Total says "2300" at 120Hz, then you have a Horizontal Scan Rate of 276000 (276KHz)
7. To calculate the custom "Fixed-Hz-embedded-in-VRR" signal, divide this Vertical Total 276000 by your new fixed-Hz.

276000 / 120 = 2300 scanlines (2160p + 140 blanking)
276000 / 96 = 2875 scanlines (2160p + 715 blanking)

8. Now create a new Custom resolution
...Same scanrate as the original 120Hz
...Same pixel clock as original 120Hz
...Same Horizontal numbers as original 120Hz (sync, back porch, front porch, active)
...Same Vertical Front Porch as original 120Hz
...Same Sync as original 120Hz
...Change Refresh Rate to "96 Hz"
...Change Vertical Total to "2875". 
(If you can only edit Vertical Back Porch, then use 2877 minus Vertical Resolution minus Sync minus Front Porch)
...Save/Apply

IMPORTANT NOTE: Numbers will be different if your Vertical Total is not 2300 during 4K 120Hz

*For VRR TVs that tolerates VRR on signals that don't transmit VRR EDID/DisplayID*
Now you've got a fixed-Hz 96Hz that mimics the 120 Hz scanrate, and is behaving as a fixed-Hz-within-VRR-range, and might successfully sync on the new LG 4K HDTV with VRR, as long as 96Hz is within the VRR range. No VRR identification will be transmitted (no VRR EDID / no VRR DisplayID)

*For VRR TVs that mandatorily require VRR EDID/DisplayID before it works*
If that does not work, try a Radeon graphics card instead of NVIDIA graphics card, and use ToastyX CRU and make sure VRR range is 96Hz-96Hz (0Hz of variability) but keeping the original scanrate that successfully worked, and use HDMI output, force HDMI VRR in the HDMI identification (EDID). It will properly transmit VRR identification for your fake fixed-Hz VRR signal, and then thus may successfully tell the display to turn on VRR and then suddenly sync fixed-Hz-within-VRR.

Now the rest is HTPC software, you can create software than strobes ON-OFF-ON-OFF


----------



## gorman42

Many thanks Mark for your explanation. Is there a discussion on your forums where I could follow development of your software? I applied for the beta but, alas, I still don't own a compatible TV and, in all sincerity, one of the guiding principles for my upgrade would be checking whether the new TV would be compatible with your solution, as 90% of what I watch is 24 fps and I don't want to lose too much in motion quality compared to the current plasma.


----------



## helvetica bold

My C9’s panel developed a thin black vertical bar with a stuck pixel. I went from winning the panel lottery and loving the TV to a lemon within 3 months. Also I had it professionally calibrated which I will eat the cost as well. Having an LG tech come out next week to inspect the TV. 
What realist improvements do we expect for 2020 C10? Is top emissive a possibility with a decent increase in peak light output?
If I have the option for a refund (doubtful) 
I’ll just wait for CES 2020 to see what’s ahead. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AnalogHD

helvetica bold said:


> My C9’s panel developed a thin black vertical bar with a stuck pixel. I went from winning the panel lottery and loving the TV to a lemon within 3 months.


Textbook warranty case, you'll get replacement or refund. Too bad about the calibration, but that's a risk everyone takes.




helvetica bold said:


> What realist improvements do we expect for 2020 C10? Is top emissive a possibility with a decent increase in peak light output?


Unlikely and if it is top emission, it's not likely to be more than a marginal increase in peak light output.

We'll know more in January. So far nothing major has been promised.


----------



## dfa973

helvetica bold said:


> What realist improvements do we expect for 2020 C10?


Expected improvements for the C10:
1. WOLED panel stack - change from B-YG/R-B to B-G/R-B;
1. DCI-P3 - gamut increase from 99% DCI-P3 to 100% DCI-P3;
2. Rec.2020 - gamut increase from 85% Rec.2020;



helvetica bold said:


> Is top emissive a possibility


Nope.



helvetica bold said:


> with a decent increase in peak light output?


The increase in peak light output is expected beyond 2020 - maybe 2021 or even 2022...


----------



## helvetica bold

dfa973 said:


> Expected improvements for the C10:
> 
> 1. WOLED panel stack - change from B-YG/R-B to B-G/R-B;
> 
> 1. DCI-P3 - gamut increase from 99% DCI-P3 to 100% DCI-P3;
> 
> 2. Rec.2020 - gamut increase from 85% Rec.2020;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The increase in peak light output is expected beyond 2020 - maybe 2021 or even 2022...




A modest color gamut improvement and perhaps volume as well? Is that a result of the revised WOLED panel stack?

Not a major upgrade over the C9. If don’t get a refund I’ll be satisfied as long as my replacement panel is decent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## xsamx

Lg oled panels more n less the same since 2013 on Colour gammut only ben small tweaks each year. 
Like less picture noise, less banding , no dark sides the move to 2160p but things like hdr nits and Colour volume been almost at a stand still the last 4 years. Hopfully Samsung QD-Oled gets the oled tech finally moving along.


----------



## AnalogHD

xsamx said:


> Like less picture noise, less banding , no dark sides the move to 2160p but things like hdr nits and Colour volume been almost at a stand still the last 4 years. Hopfully Samsung QD-Oled gets the oled tech finally moving along.


That is not exactly true.
Between 2015's EG9100 and 2018-2019 models (4 years), panels have come from ~330 cd/m² peaks (no HDR then) to 800-980 cd/m². And full-screen luminance has increased to almost double too.

Samsung's competing tech might speed the progress up, but so far their RGB-OLED haven't been that big a PQ success compared to WOLED. They've recently broken through 1000 cd/m², but only as a temporary anti-sunlight measure, used with elevated full-screen luminance and no anti-BI headroom. 

Laptop RGB-OLED have been a disappointment, at only a decent 400 cd/m² for the latest panel and just 240 for the previous one, putting it not that far ahead of Surface and MBP displays in practical use. Reports of burn-in are common for both cell phones and laptops, so there's not much headroom to push them harder either. 

Now, QD-BOLED is a different tech, but it's also new, while WOLED has had a few generations to mature. So it's not likely to come out of the door with incredible specs. It will most likely come out very conservatively specced, Samsung will double up on marketing color volume (IOW, the lack of a white subpixel), and then we'll see. Samsung is also yet to develop anti-BI protections, without which they have to choose between brightness specs and useful panel lifespan.

On the upside, Samsung holds a lot of influence, and once they're also interested in suppressing BI rather than creating FUD marketing around it, the combined effort might have some effect on helping change some channels' mind about overly garish logos.


----------



## xsamx

Not talking of SD to HDR. Look at 2015 to 2019 oleds how little the hdr nits had Evolved on Lg chems panels Even a decreses from 2018 to 2019 to 2017 level.
A human eye cant se the diffrence only a meter.


----------



## helvetica bold

What has improved is calibration software and tone mapping etc. Even if the panels haven’t evolved we can squeeze out a little more performance. I’m very happy with the HDR on my C9. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## xsamx

helvetica bold said:


> What has improved is calibration software and tone mapping etc. Even if the panels haven’t evolved we can squeeze out a little more performance. I’m very happy with the HDR on my C9.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes its been yearly small tweaks hdr on oled looks magical on the right content.


----------



## dfa973

xsamx said:


> Not talking of SD to HDR. *Look at 2015 to 2019 oleds how little the hdr nits had Evolved on Lg chems panels Even a decreses from 2018 to 2019 to 2017 level.*
> A human eye cant se the diffrence only a meter.


This is just a lesson on *how hard is to make progress on hardware* (because of the needed time, money and brain-power).
This is the same road that Samsung is expected to take with their QD-BOLED - *a slow, step by step, money-sinking business, that will take years and years to bear fruit*.
We, consumers, expect breakthroughs every year. Cheap, if possible.
This is not how the world works.

On a "bright" side, the WOLED *IS* making progress:

*LG WOLED lifetime progress:*
WOLED gen. 2013 - LT50 = 36.000h
WOLED gen. 2016 - LT50 = 100.000h
WOLED gen. 2018 - LT50 = 150.000h
W/IP-OLED gen. 2022 - LT50 = 300.000h (estimated)


----------



## fafrd

dfa973 said:


> xsamx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking of SD to HDR. *Look at 2015 to 2019 oleds how little the hdr nits had Evolved on Lg chems panels Even a decreses from 2018 to 2019 to 2017 level.*
> A human eye cant se the diffrence only a meter.
> 
> 
> 
> This is just a lesson on *how hard is to make progress on hardware* (because of the needed time, money and brain-power).
> This is the same road that Samsung is expected to take with their QD-BOLED - *a slow, step by step, money-sinking business, that will take years and years to bear fruit*.
> We, consumers, expect breakthroughs every year. Cheap, if possible.
> This is not how the world works.
> 
> On a "bright" side, the WOLED *IS* making progress:
> 
> *LG WOLED lifetime progress:*
> WOLED gen. 2013 - LT50 = 36.000h
> WOLED gen. 2016 - LT50 = 100.000h
> WOLED gen. 2018 - LT50 = 150.000h
> W/IP-OLED gen. 2022 - LT50 = 300.000h (estimated)
Click to expand...

Yes, between the emergence of HDR and Samsung pushing the pedal to the metal with the Brightness Wars, LGD was forced to stick their next out and support peak HDR brightness levels that bumped up against the danger zone as far as aging & burn-in.

2016 was their most vulnerable year and they appear to have survived the scare (I’m sure a few executives and engineers were not sleeping well in late 2017 ).

Since then, all of the incremental improvements have been directed primarily towards increased lifetime and improved immunity from visible burn-in rather than continuing to push the envelope on peak brightness levels.

The new WOLED stack we’re expecting next year is actually a significant change. It’ll be the first new WOLED stack since 2016 and replacing yellow with green will allow for more saturated colors and increased color gamut/volume (mainly green).

A green OLED layer will put out fewer photons than a yellow (green+red) OLED layer, so maintaining brightness levels with this change is yet another reflection of increased efficiency (probably increased PAR).

My guess is that LGD was working on this new stack to also include TADF blue (from the 2018 roadmap) but when TADF was delayed (again), they decided to go ahead with the yellow->green change now in a first step and introduce TADF when it is finally ready in a second ‘Future’ step.

TADF will be a step change. As you can see in LGD’s 2019 roadmap, TADF will deliver a 30% increase in Power Efficiency. This will translate to a ~30% increase in brightness levels, so full-field (ABL-free) brightness will increase from 150cd/m2 to 200cd/m2 and HDR peak brightness will increase from the ~850cd/m2 we’re seeing on the C9 to over 1100cd/m2.

TADF (or another high-efficiency blue OLED emitter) is coming - it’s just a question of when.

Samsing’s QD-BOLED initiative will be a big flop without high-efficiency blue, so they are placing a huge bet that it will be ready for prime-time before 2023 when their new priduction line is expected to start ramping.

And aside from the new WOLED stack in 2020, I’m hoping we see the return of the 240Hz( Effective) IGZO backplane LGD demoed at CES’19 and yanked from production at the last minute.

[email protected] requires a backplane supporting [email protected], so we know LGD is working on it, we know they will eventually have it, and the half-step that wasn’t quite ready for the 2019 generation will hopefully be ready for prime-time with another year to get the kinks out...


----------



## AnalogHD

xsamx said:


> Not talking of SD to HDR. Look at 2015 to 2019 oleds how little the hdr nits had Evolved on Lg chems panels


If you look at the 2015 EF9500 (400 cd/m²) vs 2018-2019 models (800-950 cd/m²), that's a definite improvement of more than 2x.




xsamx said:


> Even a decreses from 2018 to 2019 to 2017 level.


Please don't read too much into the noise in Rtings measurements. They seem to be missing something; IDK if it has to do with calibration or something else, but the accuracy of their peak measurements appears to be in the +/- 25% range at best. Maybe they should have done this more scientifically, averaging out 20+ measurements after data cleaning, not one.

I've had all three C's (and two more B and E) from 2017-2019, and the 2019 is noticeably brighter than the 2018 in any real use. To the point that, for low-APL cases where I would normally drive my 2017-2018 into 100/100 mode to get max brightness, I'm usually split between 100/85 and 80/85 (Light/Contrast) for the same exact content with my 2019. 

Real scene peak brightness has improved by Rtings' measurements, too, so it's not really a data conflict.

100/100 was rarely too bright on the C7-C8, but it tends to be on the C9 for content other than native all-digital HDR movies. (That's an important distinction - native HDR is set on an absolute scale and always benefits from extra brightness. Remasters, film scans, and especially any "conversion tools" map non-HDR data to HDR on a curve, which arbitrarily turns local whites into peak highlights even in scenes not meant to have highlights at all, so the user still has to manage display brightness.)


----------



## stl8k

*LGD Top Emission Large Area OLED Patent*

This caught my eye:

"For example, the surface resistance increases if the cathode comprises a transparent conductive material or a material that has a higher resistivity than metals, such as indium tin oxide or indium zinc oxide, as in top-emissive displays. As a result, the voltage of the cathode may not be constant across the entire area of the display panel. //The uneven brightness of the display device across the entire screen// may become a more important issue, especially in the development of //large-area// organic light-emitting diode displays."

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10403861B2/en


----------



## bjaurelio

I saw this a few days ago and was surprised to see it's not discussed here. A new startup is hoping to be first to market with a TADF blue available by 2021-2022. If they're first in that time-frame, we're looking at 2022-2023 before it's in an OLED TV.

https://www.oled-info.com/new-early-stage-noctiluca-commercialize-new-tadf-oled-compounds


----------



## ALMA

Today Samsung confirmed the QD OLED investment and QD panel production starting in 2021:




> Samsung said that the new 8.5-generation QD lines will produce 30,000 panels per month from 2021, which will be used for making super-large QD displays of 65 inches or more. To accelerate this project, the company will gradually transform its 8th-generation LCD lines into QD lines.



https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Te...est-11bn-in-cutting-edge-quantum-dot-displays


----------



## wco81

Wow $11 billion by 2025.

If they get poor yields and they ship to get product out, losses increase?


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> Today Samsung confirmed the QD OLED investment and QD panel production starting in 2021:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung said that the new 8.5-generation QD lines will produce 30,000 panels per month from 2021, *which will be used for making super-large QD displays of 65 inches or more*. To accelerate this project, the company will gradually transform its 8th-generation LCD lines into QD lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Te...est-11bn-in-cutting-edge-quantum-dot-displays
Click to expand...

Yes, it appears the investment decision has finally been made.

If they are only going to produce QD-BOLEDs 65” or larger, 30,000 8.5G panels per month translates to 90,000 raw 65” panels or 60,000 raw panels at any size above that (all the way to 98”).

Yields will be awful to start, but should get to ~80% by the end of the first 12-18 months of production, so this first investment should result in 50,000 to 70,000 QD-BOLEDs per month by late 2022 / early 2023.

Samsung’s investment should benefit all videophiles, but the big question is what price QD-BOLED will be able to command the first year Samsung can produce ~400,000 to sell.

In 2015, when LGD first broke WOLED production into the ~500,000 annual production tier, they were able to price the 55” WOLED TVs for over $5000 and 65” WOLED TVs for $7000: https://www.cnet.com/reviews/lg-65ef9500-preview/

The 65C9 WOLED sells for less than a 3rd of that price today and by late 2022, we’ll almost certainly see 65” WOLEDs selling for under $1500...

Samsung will need to sell their QD-BOLED production at whatever price the market will bear, and they have verrry deep pockets to invest in buying market share, but the real question will be when will they start selling QD-BOLED panels to other OEMs like Sony and Panasonic and will they be able to sell those panels at prices no lower than break-even?

It’s very likely we’ll only see QD-BOLED produced at 8K resolution, so this initiative should also drive LGD to accelerate their 8K WOLED roadmap.

I’ll go out on a limb and forecast that LGD sells 8K WOLED panels at 65”, 75”, and 88” (and possibly also 82”) by 2021...


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> Today Samsung confirmed the QD OLED investment and QD panel production starting in 2021:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung said that the new 8.5-generation QD lines will produce 30,000 panels per month from 2021, which will be used for making super-large QD displays of 65 inches or more. To accelerate this project, the company will gradually transform its 8th-generation LCD lines into QD lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Te...est-11bn-in-cutting-edge-quantum-dot-displays
Click to expand...

Some more tidbits here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zd...amsung-to-invest-11-biilion-into-qd-displays/

“According to company insiders, the *development of QD-OLED technology is still in progress*. *Development for QD-OLED technology will proceed concurrently with the construction of the facilities and production equipment* that will be used for its eventual commercialisation. Production for the technology is expected to begin in 2021, and *commercial products using the display will likely enter the market in 2022*.’

As well as this erroneous statement:

‘Planned spending indicates that Samsung Display's production capacity, when it goes live, will likely be larger than its chief rival LG Display.’

LGD has a production capacity of 70,000 8.5G substrates per month before the initial ramp of Guangzhou to an additional 60,000 8.5G substrates per month. So LGD will be at 130,000 8.5G substrates per month we’ll before Samsung starts ramping their first 30,000 substrates per month (and will likely have completed the phase II ramp of Guangzhou to a total of 90,000 8.5G substrates/month before then as well, meaning more than 5-times Samsung’s initial QD-BOLED capacity).

Add in the new 10.5G WOLED plant in Paju, which should have started ramping essentially in parallel with Samsung’s first 8.5G QD-BOLED plant, and LGD will probably have close to 10x the OLED-TV panel production capacity of Samsung in 2022.

Said another way, 30,000 8.5G substrates per month X 3 65” QD-OLED panels per substrate X 80% yield X 12 months = annual production of 864,000 65” QD-BOLED panels in 2022.

LGD produced 3M WOLED panels last year, will produce close to 4M this year, and already has production investments underway to produce ~7M in 2020 and ~10M in 2021.

So yeah, LGD having 10X the OLED TV production capacity of Samsung in 2022 seems like a very conservative estimate...


----------



## xsamx

Im curious what issues Samsung brings to the oleds but its really exsiting its finally movment on oled tech.
Lg prob need to come out with improvments aswell.


----------



## wco81

If they want to command premium prices from videophiles, they better bring Dolby Vision on these sets.


----------



## fafrd

xsamx said:


> Im curious what issues Samsung brings to the oleds but its really exsiting its finally movment on oled tech.
> Lg prob need to come out with improvments aswell.


‘Issues’ can be taken mean either ‘challanges’ or ‘advances’...

In terms of ‘advances’, Samsung is bringing Quantum Dot Color Converters (QDCF) as well as a ‘pure’ (additive) RGB pixel structure.

In terms of the ‘challanges’ department, QB-BOLED brings several:

-lack of complete color conversion by QDCF necessitates blue-blocking color filters (adding cost and decreasing brightness)

-lack of high-efficiency Blue (such as TADF) in addition to the lost efficiency from the blue-blocking color filters means they will need a 3rd blue OLED layer (adding cost).

-blue is the OLED material most susceptible to burn-in, so lifetime / burn-in if these QD-BOLEDs will be a major concern.


----------



## homogenic

fafrd said:


> ‘Issues’ can be taken mean either ‘challanges’ or ‘advances’...
> 
> In terms of ‘advances’, Samsung is bringing Quantum Dot Color Converters (QDCF) as well as a ‘pure’ (additive) RGB pixel structure.
> 
> In terms of the ‘challanges’ department, QB-BOLED brings several:
> 
> -lack of complete color conversion by QDCF necessitates blue-blocking color filters (adding cost and decreasing brightness)
> 
> -lack of high-efficiency Blue (such as TADF) in addition to the lost efficiency from the blue-blocking color filters means they will need a 3rd blue OLED layer (adding cost).
> 
> -blue is the OLED material most susceptible to burn-in, so lifetime / burn-in if these QD-BOLEDs will be a major concern.


Sounds like an unnecessary headache for them. Why not buy their panels from LG Display?


----------



## hiperco

homogenic said:


> Sounds like an unnecessary headache for them. Why not buy their panels from LG Display?


Korean pride?


----------



## ALMA

fafrd said:


> Some more tidbits here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zd...amsung-to-invest-11-biilion-into-qd-displays/
> 
> “According to company insiders, the *development of QD-OLED technology is still in progress*. *Development for QD-OLED technology will proceed concurrently with the construction of the facilities and production equipment* that will be used for its eventual commercialisation. Production for the technology is expected to begin in 2021, and *commercial products using the display will likely enter the market in 2022*.’
> 
> As well as this erroneous statement:
> 
> ‘Planned spending indicates that Samsung Display's production capacity, when it goes live, will likely be larger than its chief rival LG Display.’
> 
> LGD has a production capacity of 70,000 8.5G substrates per month before the initial ramp of Guangzhou to an additional 60,000 8.5G substrates per month. So LGD will be at 130,000 8.5G substrates per month we’ll before Samsung starts ramping their first 30,000 substrates per month (and will likely have completed the phase II ramp of Guangzhou to a total of 90,000 8.5G substrates/month before then as well, meaning more than 5-times Samsung’s initial QD-BOLED capacity).
> 
> Add in the new 10.5G WOLED plant in Paju, which should have started ramping essentially in parallel with Samsung’s first 8.5G QD-BOLED plant, and LGD will probably have close to 10x the OLED-TV panel production capacity of Samsung in 2022.
> 
> Said another way, 30,000 8.5G substrates per month X 3 65” QD-OLED panels per substrate X 80% yield X 12 months = annual production of 864,000 65” QD-BOLED panels in 2022.
> 
> LGD produced 3M WOLED panels last year, will produce close to 4M this year, and already has production investments underway to produce ~7M in 2020 and ~10M in 2021.
> 
> So yeah, LGD having 10X the OLED TV production capacity of Samsung in 2022 seems like a very conservative estimate...





ZDNET is not a trustworthy source. They sell their own opinion as fact and are very anti-OLED and pro MicroLED and QLED. Production start is set for 2021. The first QD-OLED TVs for consumers are also expected in 2021 (Interview with CEO of Nanosys). One year later as originally planned.


https://translate.google.com/transl...ttp://www.etnews.com/20180903000337&sandbox=1


They don´t have much time and speed up the production process. 2022/23 is too late.



https://translate.google.de/transla...e.co.kr/article/2019083010233416139&sandbox=1



They had a 65" prototype at CES.


----------



## lsorensen

homogenic said:


> Sounds like an unnecessary headache for them. Why not buy their panels from LG Display?


I would suggest LG and Samsung working together would be like GM and Ford working together. But then I checked and GM and Ford are now developing a 10 speed transmission together, so that analogy doesn't work anymore.


----------



## AnalogHD

homogenic said:


> Sounds like an unnecessary headache for them. Why not buy their panels from LG Display?


Most TV brands don't manufacture much anymore, and many never did. They just order some panels from BOE or Sharp, order an electronics package with TSMC chips, design the software and the looks, and have it assembled at a third-party site. 

LG and Samsung are the two highest-volume TV brands with high-volume display panel business within the same conglomerate. It's a competition between integrated supply chains, not just brands. No difference to Sony if it's an AUO or LGD panel, but Samsung needs to sell their panels, and if they're not eating their own dog food...


----------



## fafrd

This is a good read if your are interested in Samsung’s QD-BOLED plan and the challanges they are facing: https://www.oled-a.org/samsung-formally-commits-to-qdoled-program-of-110b_100719.html

It’s summed up pretty well in the conclusion:

‘In the QD/OLED design, the separate red and green QDs are designed with a density that cause most of the photons to hit a QD to achieve the desired efficacy. However, the efficacy will still be impacted by a *~5-10% loss of photons, which strike a QD, but get converted to heat instead of light. * Moreover,* a small percentage of QDs will convert at the wrong wavelength*.

Samsung must also decide whether to *use a color filter or a polarizer to inhibit the ambient light from hitting the QDs and to improve the contrast ratio*, according to Nanosys.

Given this configuration and the current use of 12-15 masks for the IGZO process and the need to lay down 3 full organic layers plus the use of 5 IJPs, *the anticipated cost advantage over the LG Display approach is probably non-existent.* 

Also, if a color filter or polarizer is needed *the luminance advantage would be lost*. 

Samsung’s image sticking campaign against OLED TVs could also come back to haunt the company. Image sticking is caused by the high use and therefore the aging of specific sub-pixels. Since, Samsung uses *blue OLED material, which has by orders of magnitude the shortest lifetime of OLED emitters* (LG uses blue, red and yellow-green), the *QD/OLED design is susceptible to faster aging than the LG design. [/b{Samsung is apparently using an aging compensation technique similar to what Canadian-based IGNIS innovation developed to offset the aging process.

Finally, LG Display’s next OLED fab will be a Gen 10.5 and that will put more pressure on Samsung, since a Gen 10.5 substrate produces 8 65” panels with 94% glass usage efficiency, while a Gen 8.5 produces 3 65” panels at 64% glass efficiency. MMG helps to offset the difference but the smaller panels don’t generate the price/area of the 65” displays.’*


----------



## helvetica bold

I had my OLED serviced for a dead pixel and the tech said expect 240Hz panels next year.


----------



## ExcessFaith!

homogenic said:


> Sounds like an unnecessary headache for them. Why not buy their panels from LG Display?



I was going to suggest that GM make cars with Ford engines, but it looks like Toyota already did that with BMW. Soo who knows, Samsung elecronics may well still buy OLED panels from LG Display. 


BUT The article and the post commented on was about Samsung Display, not Samsung Electronics. One makes displays, the other makes TVs. Has nothing to do with Korean pride  LCD business is drying up, another cash cow is needed, and fast. That's why $10.9B was not alot at all but necessary! And I see it increasing. 



LGD will without a doubt, if they don't have one already, have a counter to their non RGB panels that samsung marketing will take a swing at. So one or two years after Samsung comes out with their panels, a newer one by LG will follow suit. Good time to be an enthusiast. Lets also not forget the partnership that Sony and Panasonic have on OLED technology over in Japan. It is a very good time to be an enthusiast indeed.


----------



## fafrd

helvetica bold said:


> I had my OLED serviced for a dead pixel and the tech said expect 240Hz panels next year.


It's not a question of if but when.

LGD introduced a 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate panel this year but decided at the 11th hour to pull back FW support of that capability.

4K @ 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate (split 1080-line 240Hz Native Refresh) is the minimum needed to support 8K & 60Hz refresh (split 2160-line 120Hz Native Refresh).

The entire TV panel industry is in a race to deliver 8K @ 120Hz Refresh Rate and that is going to require split 2160-line 240Hz Native Refresh.

And if you have the backplane technology to deliver 2160-line Native Refresh rates of 240Hz, that means you can deliver [email protected] Native Refresh Rate.

If LGD knew they were on track to deliver [email protected] and [email protected] Native Refresh Rate by 2020, it would be one factor to explain why the 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate 'b*stard' panel they introduced at CES 2019 was never activated in production TVs - to much trouble for only a single-year runway.

240Hz Native Refresh Rate is much more powerful/flexible than 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate and if LGD truly introduces 4K panels with 240Hz Native Refresh Rate next year, looks like I'll finally be upgrading my 65C6P...


----------



## fafrd

ExcessFaith! said:


> I was going to suggest that GM make cars with Ford engines, but it looks like Toyota already did that with BMW. Soo who knows, Samsung elecronics may well still buy OLED panels from LG Display.
> 
> 
> BUT The article and the post commented on was about Samsung Display, not Samsung Electronics. One makes displays, the other makes TVs. Has nothing to do with Korean pride  LCD business is drying up, another cash cow is needed, and fast. That's why $10.9B was not alot at all but necessary! And I see it increasing.
> 
> 
> 
> *LGD will without a doubt*, if they don't have one already, *have a counter to their non RGB panels* that samsung marketing will take a swing at. So one or two years after Samsung comes out with their panels, a newer one by LG will follow suit. Good time to be an enthusiast. Lets also not forget the partnership that Sony and Panasonic have on OLED technology over in Japan. *It is a very good time to be an enthusiast indeed.*


On your final statement, we are in complete agreement.

On your first, LGD can introduce RGB panels from their WOLED technology any time they want. The 4 RGBW subpixels each using ~25% of the pixel area are merely replaced with RGB subpixels using ~33% of the pixel area. Since the White subpixel is about 3-times more efficient than the colored sub-pixels (at peak brightness, ~50% of each primary color emits through the white subpixel), the net result is a 'pure' (additive) RGB pixel with peak luminance which is reduced to ~67% of what today's RGBW panels deliver (1/2 x 33%/25%).

That's probably a non-starter in today's HDR market, but what's interesting is that once LGD is able to deliver the high-efficiency Blue (TADF) that they have already shown in their roadmap (and which is also required for Samsung's QD-BOLED to have any chance at being competitive), the 3X increased efficiency that that technology delivers translate to a 30% increase in White Luminance or an RGB WOLED delivering 87% of today's peak brightness levels.

My guess is that the benefits of pure RGB pixels in the HDR era is overstated and all of the awards/shootouts LGD's WOLEDs have already won is proof that the most important impact of bright highlights in HDR is dominated by unsaturated / near-white highlights. So I will not be surprised to see LGD stick with RGBW pixel architecture even after they get the 30% brightness increase from TADF.

WOLED is far more efficient at generating white light that QD-BOLED can ever be...


----------



## Airikay

fafrd said:


> And if you have the backplane technology to deliver 2160-line Native Refresh rates of 240Hz, that means you can deliver [email protected] Native Refresh Rate.
> 
> If LGD knew they were on track to deliver [email protected] and [email protected] Native Refresh Rate by 2020, it would be one factor to explain why the 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate 'b*stard' panel they introduced at CES 2019 was never activated in production TVs - to much trouble for only a single-year


Or I mean the real reason they would add 240hz...3D with 120hz


----------



## ExcessFaith!

fafrd said:


> On your final statement, we are in complete agreement.
> 
> On your first, LGD can introduce RGB panels from their WOLED technology any time they want. The 4 RGBW subpixels each using ~25% of the pixel area are merely replaced with RGB subpixels using ~33% of the pixel area. Since the White subpixel is about 3-times more efficient than the colored sub-pixels (at peak brightness, ~50% of each primary color emits through the white subpixel), the net result is a 'pure' (additive) RGB pixel with peak luminance which is reduced to ~67% of what today's RGBW panels deliver (1/2 x 33%/25%).
> 
> That's probably a non-starter in today's HDR market, but what's interesting is that once LGD is able to deliver the high-efficiency Blue (TADF) that they have already shown in their roadmap (and which is also required for Samsung's QD-BOLED to have any chance at being competitive), the 3X increased efficiency that that technology delivers translate to a 30% increase in White Luminance or an RGB WOLED delivering 87% of today's peak brightness levels.
> 
> My guess is that the benefits of pure RGB pixels in the HDR era is overstated and all of the awards/shootouts LGD's WOLEDs have already won is proof that the most important impact of bright highlights in HDR is dominated by unsaturated / near-white highlights. So I will not be surprised to see LGD stick with RGBW pixel architecture even after they get the 30% brightness increase from TADF.
> 
> WOLED is far more efficient at generating white light than QD-BOLED can ever be...



We are in complete agreement with both our statements. That's why I said *Samsung Marketing*. Considering they put up a video to check for burn in, while their upcoming panels will use blue oleds. Not that WOLED is worse/better off than RGB. 



By the way, the improvement I was alluding to is the TADF blue that we were planning to already be using and other yet unannounced improvements.


----------



## hiperco

Airikay said:


> Or I mean the real reason they would add 240hz...3D with 120hz


Do we think we will ever see 3D capability again in a direct view display?


----------



## 8mile13

hiperco said:


> Do we think we will ever see 3D capability again in a direct view display?


 BOE, one of the largest flatpanels OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturer), plans to built StreamTV glasses free 3D technology into all its 8K panels.


----------



## fafrd

Airikay said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you have the backplane technology to deliver 2160-line Native Refresh rates of 240Hz, that means you can deliver [email protected] Native Refresh Rate.
> 
> If LGD knew they were on track to deliver [email protected] and [email protected] Native Refresh Rate by 2020, it would be one factor to explain why the 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate 'b*stard' panel they introduced at CES 2019 was never activated in production TVs - to much trouble for only a single-year
> 
> 
> 
> Or I mean the real reason they would add 240hz...3D with 120hz /forum/images/smilies/cool.gif
Click to expand...

Except that LG doesn’t use active 3D - they use passive 3D (the best implementation to date, at least for 1080p 3D through a 4K panel).


----------



## dfa973

8mile13 said:


> BOE, one of the largest flatpanels OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturer), plans to built StreamTV glasses free 3D technology into all its 8K panels.


One year has passed from that announcement and still no product on the market...

There ARE some auto-3D displays from StreamTV available for businesses, but the 3D image is underwhelming and is in no way comparable with an active or passive "classic" 3D TV.


----------



## 8mile13

dfa973 said:


> One year has passed from that announcement and still no product on the market...
> 
> There ARE some auto-3D displays from StreamTV available for businesses, but the 3D image is underwhelming and is in no way comparable with an active or passive "classic" 3D TV.


James Cameron
“I’m going to push. Not for better tools, workflow, high dynamic range (HDR) and high frame rates (HFR) – the things we are working toward. I’m still very much bullish on 3D, but we need brighter projection, and ultimately I think it can happen – with no glasses. We’ll get there.”


----------



## dfa973

8mile13 said:


> James Cameron
> “I’m going to push. Not for better tools, workflow, high dynamic range (HDR) and high frame rates (HFR) – the things we are working toward. I’m still very much bullish on 3D, but we need brighter projection, and ultimately I think it can happen – with no glasses. We’ll get there.”


Yes, I know the quote. 2016. 3 years ago. Still no progress on glassless 3D, neither in cinema or TV. Look at the technical marvel of "Gemini Man" - native 4K HDR 3D 120fps - still with 3D glasses and in only around 30 cinemas of all the planet (14 in the US).


----------



## 8mile13

dfa973 said:


> Yes, I know the quote. 2016. 3 years ago. Still no progress on glassless 3D, neither in cinema or TV. Look at the technical marvel of "Gemini Man" - native 4K HDR 3D 120fps - still with 3D glasses and in only around 30 cinemas of all the planet (14 in the US).


I started a thread on the subject a while back...should be close for commercialisation in TVs at this point.
CES 2019 Stream TV ''On display was a 65” version of this implementation. Once you’re in the sweet spot, the 3D can be quite good with small head movements not producing any discomfort. Larger head movements are not as good with a “swimming” kind of feel to the image quality.''
http://www.insightmedia.info/glasses-free-displays-at-ces/


----------



## Rysa_105

helvetica bold said:


> I had my OLED serviced for a dead pixel and the tech said expect 240Hz panels next year.


Native 240hz refresh panel? Did you ask the LG guy to clarify what he meant? A native 240hz panel would be a welcome upgrade, if it's only a 240 hz "effective" refresh rate (where they manipulate the TCON's to refresh the vertical resolution in two halves),then that isn't much.


----------



## Rysa_105

dfa973 said:


> Expected improvements for the C10:
> 1. WOLED panel stack - change from B-YG/R-B to B-G/R-B;
> 1. DCI-P3 - gamut increase from 99% DCI-P3 to 100% DCI-P3;
> 2. Rec.2020 - gamut increase from 85% Rec.2020;
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> 
> The increase in peak light output is expected beyond 2020 - maybe 2021 or even 2022...


Are we talking gamut or volume? If it's gamut that's a very minor change, oled can already do close to 100% DCI gamut. With Rec.2020 (HDR) 85% volume not gamut would make a real difference (currently oleds can do about 70%).
So nothing major on this front really, the best it will bring by replacing the YG stack to G is allow greens to have a little better saturation.


----------



## Rysa_105

xsamx said:


> Not talking of SD to HDR. Look at 2015 to 2019 oleds how little the hdr nits had Evolved on Lg chems panels Even a decreses from 2018 to 2019 to 2017 level.
> A human eye cant se the diffrence only a meter.


I actually agree with you, since the last 3 years at least it seems to be the case that oled hasn't really evolved on the peak brightness or color front. I don't know about 2015, but 2016 to 2019 hasn't seen any noteworthy improvement on the core technology front. Improvements have instead come in software - better tone mapping, better upscaling and motion, but the panel level technology in terms of peak brightness and color has remained more or less the same since three years. It's been 700-800 nits of peak brightness and about 65-70% rec 2020 volume. Sony's have the lowest peak brightness because sony does not drive the panel electronics as hard as other brands as a precaution against burn in. You could actually find some 2016 LG oled panels that measure higher on peak brightness than sony's A9G of this year (Vincent Teoh measured less than 600 nits on his A9G review sample this year). And LG has a roadmap of 30% higher peaks by 2022, I don't see what the fuss about 30% higher peaks is . If we take 750 nits to be the average of peak brightness currently across the various brands, then 30% higher peaks just gets you close to around 1000 nits. The GZ2000 from panasonic that has custom drive electronics already does 1000 nits this year on some panels (some people measuring 1000 nits after calibration on the gz2000). But visually, if you put a LG E9 next to it, it's not really any major difference, I've seen it. It just looks a tad brighter with highlights and APL , and that advantage is only in selected HDR scenes not all the time.


----------



## fafrd

Rysa_105 said:


> helvetica bold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had my OLED serviced for a dead pixel and the tech said expect 240Hz panels next year.
> 
> 
> 
> Native 240hz refresh panel? Did you ask the LG guy to clarify what he meant? A native 240hz panel would be a welcome upgrade, *if it's only a 240 hz "effective" refresh rate (where they manipulate the TCON's to refresh the vertical resolution in two halves),then that isn't much.*
Click to expand...

Actually, the only difference between true Natuve 240Hz refresh and a split-panel Effective refresh of 240Hz is that a 240Hz Effective panel is limited to 50% BFI @ 120Hz while a Native 240Hz panel could theoretically support 120Hz BFI at any % (in 1/2160 single-line increments).

BFI @ 60Hz is limited to 25%, 50%, or 75% on a 240Hz Effective panel (as LG demonstrated at CES early this year), while a Native 240Hz panel can also support any % of BFI (in single-line increments).

A 240Hz Native panel is a much smaller upgrade over a 240Hz Effective panel than a 240Hz Effective panel is over a 120Hz Native panel...


----------



## helvetica bold

Sorry the tech I talked to saw a slide for 2020 features (at LG) that stated 240 Hz. He didn’t not specify if it’s native or not. When he comes back to replace my panel I will ask specifically. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

helvetica bold said:


> Sorry the tech I talked to saw a slide for 2020 features (at LG) that stated 240 Hz. He didnâ€™️t not specify if itâ€™️s native or not. When he comes back to replace my panel I will ask specifically.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The only way to get a clear answer from him is to ask: ‘if I had a 240Hz 4K source, would I be able to play it a full framerate?(if he knows).


----------



## Rysa_105

QD-OLED officially Samsung Display’s next TV tech



> Heavily rumoured for months, foreshadowed by LCD plant closures and with the South Korean Government’s support, Samsung Display has now dug deep and committed to Quantum Dot Organic Light Emitting Diode technology for its future TVs.
> The formal announcement took place on 10th Oct at Samsung Display’s Asan factory with a signing ceremony that committed the $10.8 billion investment and saw South Korean President Moon Jae-in in attendance where he confirmed government support for the development of South Korea’s high tech display sector.
> 
> The investment is a response to falling global demand for TVs and oversaturation of the LCD panel market by Chinese manufacturers who are state-subsidised and are therefore capable of mass-producing large-sized LCD panels at much cheaper prices. It is hoped the investment package will secure South Korea’s technological superiority and widen the gap with Chinese rivals by moving towards the more advanced QD-OLED display and away from LCD panels.
> 
> "The investment plan is a starting point for the country to retain its competitiveness as the No.1 display powerhouse in the world. The government fully supports the development of next-generation display technology," Moon said.
> 
> The investment plan will span 6 years from 2019 - 2025 and will fund further R&D as well as production. One of the first steps will be to convert the LCD production lines at the company’s Asan plant south of Seoul to focus on production of the self emitting Quantum Dot OLED panels. It is expected that the monthly output will be around 30,000 sheets of 65-inch quantum dot OELD displays. Samsung Display said the repurposed line, dubbed Q1, will be able to mass produce QD-OLED panels from 2021.
> Currently SDC has two main problems to overcome, the development of efficient blue OLED emitters (fluorescent emitters are most likely to be used in first generation QD-OLED panels) and a good quantum-dot colour converter (QDCC). Light management in this architecture is also a serious challenge. Therefore, SDC will also invest in local display materials companies and conduct joint research with domestic universities to continue to develop innovative display and production technologies.
> 
> By the time all of the company’s 8-Gen LCD production lines have moved to QD-OLED panels, the overall monthly production of QD-OLED substrates is expected to be around 100,000, which is significantly lower than the current figure of 365,000 monthly LCD substrates. However, Samsung will most likely be taking a similar approach to local rivals, LG Display and market the new QD-OLED TVs as a premium product, which will draw higher margins for them than those TVs based on LCD screens. This will offset the lower initial substrate numbers.
> 
> The move to QG-OLED production should also see more efficient manufacturing costs when compared to LG’s current WRGB (four subpixels + colour filters) OLED system. According to DisplaySupplyChain.com (DSSC) Samsung will be able to use three subpixels and only two emitting layers, so its stack will include 13 layers compared to 22 layers in LGD's TVs - which means fewer deposition stages, improved yields and reduced material costs.
> 
> DSCC estimates that a square metre of QD-OLED production will require materials that cost around $26, compared to almost $95 in a metre of WOLED production.
> 
> Displays have been cited as one of the major future growth engines by South Korea and Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong - Samsung Electronics’ de facto leader - greeted the president and pledged to continue investing in new display technologies, saying, "The display sector is an industry full of opportunities to grow. Though the world's economy has seen stagnant growth and faces multiple uncertainties we will do our utmost to achieve technological innovation and nurture future talent.”
> 
> The company added the investment is expected to create 81,000 new jobs.
> 
> During the ceremony, President Moon also unveiled the government’s plan to support OLED technology by allocating 400 billion won from its budget over the next seven years.


https://www.avforums.com/news/qd-ol...billion-commitment-from-samsung-display.16694


----------



## fafrd

Rysa_105 said:


> QD-OLED officially Samsung Displayâ€™️s next TV tech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heavily rumoured for months, foreshadowed by LCD plant closures and with the South Korean Governmentâ€™️s support, Samsung Display has now dug deep and committed to Quantum Dot Organic Light Emitting Diode technology for its future TVs.
> The formal announcement took place on 10th Oct at Samsung Displayâ€™️s Asan factory with a signing ceremony that committed the $10.8 billion investment and saw South Korean President Moon Jae-in in attendance where he confirmed government support for the development of South Koreaâ€™️s high tech display sector.
> 
> The investment is a response to falling global demand for TVs and oversaturation of the LCD panel market by Chinese manufacturers who are state-subsidised and are therefore capable of mass-producing large-sized LCD panels at much cheaper prices. It is hoped the investment package will secure South Koreaâ€™️s technological superiority and widen the gap with Chinese rivals by moving towards the more advanced QD-OLED display and away from LCD panels.
> 
> "The investment plan is a starting point for the country to retain its competitiveness as the No.1 display powerhouse in the world. The government fully supports the development of next-generation display technology," Moon said.
> 
> The investment plan will span 6 years from 2019 - 2025 and will fund further R&D as well as production. One of the first steps will be to convert the LCD production lines at the companyâ€™️s Asan plant south of Seoul to focus on production of the self emitting Quantum Dot OLED panels. It is expected that the monthly output will be around 30,000 sheets of 65-inch quantum dot OELD displays. Samsung Display said the repurposed line, dubbed Q1, will be able to mass produce QD-OLED panels from 2021.
> Currently SDC has two main problems to overcome, the development of efficient blue OLED emitters (fluorescent emitters are most likely to be used in first generation QD-OLED panels) and a good quantum-dot colour converter (QDCC). Light management in this architecture is also a serious challenge. Therefore, SDC will also invest in local display materials companies and conduct joint research with domestic universities to continue to develop innovative display and production technologies.
> 
> By the time all of the companyâ€™️s 8-Gen LCD production lines have moved to QD-OLED panels, the overall monthly production of QD-OLED substrates is expected to be around 100,000, which is significantly lower than the current figure of 365,000 monthly LCD substrates. However, Samsung will most likely be taking a similar approach to local rivals, LG Display and market the new QD-OLED TVs as a premium product, which will draw higher margins for them than those TVs based on LCD screens. This will offset the lower initial substrate numbers.
> 
> The move to QG-OLED production should also see more efficient manufacturing costs when compared to LGâ€™️s current WRGB (four subpixels + colour filters) OLED system. According to DisplaySupplyChain.com (DSSC) Samsung will be able to use three subpixels and only two emitting layers, so its stack will include 13 layers compared to 22 layers in LGD's TVs - which means fewer deposition stages, improved yields and reduced material costs.
> 
> DSCC estimates that a square metre of QD-OLED production will require materials that cost around $26, compared to almost $95 in a metre of WOLED production.
> 
> Displays have been cited as one of the major future growth engines by South Korea and Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong - Samsung Electronicsâ€™️ de facto leader - greeted the president and pledged to continue investing in new display technologies, saying, "The display sector is an industry full of opportunities to grow. Though the world's economy has seen stagnant growth and faces multiple uncertainties we will do our utmost to achieve technological innovation and nurture future talent.â€
> 
> The company added the investment is expected to create 81,000 new jobs.
> 
> During the ceremony, President Moon also unveiled the governmentâ€™️s plan to support OLED technology by allocating 400 billion won from its budget over the next seven years.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avforums.com/news/qd-ol...billion-commitment-from-samsung-display.16694
Click to expand...

Looks like you missed post #16044 (from a week ago).


----------



## dfa973

fafrd said:


> Looks like you missed post #16044 (from a week ago).


Simply tagging the post number does not work, you must Copy the link (permalink) of that post and paste it.


----------



## stl8k

*Luminance Uniformity Paper from LGD*

LGD's top OLED and Hanyang University researchers discuss how they improved luminance uniformity.



> The current error in the lower data voltage range has an inherent limit because of insufficient data transfer characteristics [17]. Additionally, the kickback voltage effect caused by the driving waveform in the lower data voltage region becomes relatively larger. The luminance at the left edge and that at the right edge are lower than luminance at the panel’s center.


https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8704886


----------



## dfa973

stl8k said:


> LGD's top OLED and Hanyang University researchers discuss how they improved luminance uniformity.


So that is the explanation for better uniformity for the 2019 WOLED panels, each panel is individually measured, calibrated and then compensated at the TC level.


----------



## helvetica bold

I saw this rumor posted again (annoying me) in another forum, does this even make sense how LG achieved HDMI 2.1 this year?? Perhaps some of you are engineers can explain. 


“Now the word was was that in order to achieve 4K HFR they had to combine multiple HDMI 2.0 components.
Some part of the input pipeline couldn't handle the full bandwidth of HDMI 2.1 , so the 4K image is split into 4 parts at some point in the pipeline and then recombined once it's through those hardware bottlenecks.
This is how they are achieving "full bandwidth" using the current HDMI chipsets that were available thus suprising the entire AV community by somehow racing through the normal timescales involved for producing new hardware.”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rysa_105

HDMI consortium said that true hdmi 2.1 chipsets still aren't available to OEM's and might not be available until late 2020 or early 2021. When LG became the first manufacturer to announce hdmi 2.1 earlier this year, it was assumed that they were using an in-house built hdmi 2.1 solution, which is how they beat other OEM's to the market. When vincent teoh researched the service menu in the C9 , he saw entries for two chipsets hdmi 2.0 and hdmi 2.1, if it's a real 2.1 chipset you wouldn't need 2.0, so it could be possible that data pipelines are being shared among them. 4K HFR is still not available on the 2019 LG's and awaits firmware update, so we can't realy judge the performance of 4K HFR yet, plus there is lack of hdmi 2.1 graphics cards. Only 4k 120hz with 4:2:0 /8 bit chroma can be pushed from graphics cards at the moment and that mode does not work on the 2019 LG's as some people have tested. Once LG releases the firmware that enables 4K HFR it might work.
I'm personally wary of all these first-gen technologies and I never buy into a technology at least until it has settled 3 years into the market. I'll be doing the same with hdmi 2.1 as well as 8K TV's.


----------



## dfa973

Rysa_105 said:


> HDMI consortium said that true hdmi 2.1 chipsets still aren't available to OEM's and might not be available until late 2020 or early 2021. When LG became the first manufacturer to announce hdmi 2.1 earlier this year, it was assumed that they were using an in-house built hdmi 2.1 solution, which is how they beat other OEM's to the market.


There are already HDMI 2.1 PHYs available:

Silicon Library Inc, Japan - SLIFHDMIT21TM28 - a complete single-link HDMI transmitter function that complies with HDMI specification version 2.1.

Synopsys, USA - DesignWare HDMI 2.1 TX Controller and PHY - this solution was chosen by LGE - not in-house built (note - LGE collaborates with Synopsys from a long time, ten or more years)

Socionext, Japan - SNIHSKHD21RX1T28PNSV0 - HDMI 2.1 compatible data transmission and reception subsystem (Link/PHY)

Most of them were available last year, 2018.
Maybe they are not fully certified (right now) *but are available*.


----------



## avernar

helvetica bold said:


> “Now the word was was that in order to achieve 4K HFR they had to combine multiple HDMI 2.0 components.
> Some part of the input pipeline couldn't handle the full bandwidth of HDMI 2.1 , so the 4K image is split into 4 parts at some point in the pipeline and then recombined once it's through those hardware bottlenecks.
> This is how they are achieving "full bandwidth" using the current HDMI chipsets that were available thus suprising the entire AV community by somehow racing through the normal timescales involved for producing new hardware.”


I love how people just make stuff up. Nowhere else has this been stated. Besides, splitting processing into multiple pipelines is not a bad thing. GPUs have been doing it since forever.


----------



## avernar

Rysa_105 said:


> When vincent teoh researched the service menu in the C9 , he saw entries for two chipsets hdmi 2.0 and hdmi 2.1, if it's a real 2.1 chipset you wouldn't need 2.0, so it could be possible that data pipelines are being shared among them.


This is not true and keeps getting repeated. There's a *switch* chip version line in the service menu. There is no second HDMI 2.0 chipset. Go take a look at the block diagram in the first post here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...d-info-faq-troubleshooting-firmware-more.html . There is only one chip and I suspect the switch "chip" is just an integrated part of the main chip to select which of the four inputs feed into the processing pipeline.


----------



## dfa973

helvetica bold said:


> I saw this rumor posted again (annoying me) in another forum, does this even make sense how LG achieved HDMI 2.1 this year?? Perhaps some of you are engineers can explain.
> 
> 
> “Now the word was was that in order to achieve 4K HFR they had to combine multiple HDMI 2.0 components.
> Some part of the input pipeline couldn't handle the full bandwidth of HDMI 2.1 , so the 4K image is split into 4 parts at some point in the pipeline and then recombined once it's through those hardware bottlenecks.
> This is how they are achieving "full bandwidth" using the current HDMI chipsets that were available thus suprising the entire AV community by somehow racing through the normal timescales involved for producing new hardware.”


Maybe they confused how HDMI 2.1 works...
HDMI 2.1 uses 4 channels instead of 3 (HDMI 2.0), and each channel is capable of 12Gbps, so, to obtain 48Gbps 4 channels are aggregated. But those 4 channels of HDMI 2.1 are way faster (12Gbps) than those 3 channels (6Gps) of HDMI 2.0, there is no way you can achieve those speeds using HDMI 2.0 channels.


----------



## avernar

dfa973 said:


> HDMI 2.1 uses 4 channels instead of 3 (HDMI 2.0), and each channel is capable of 12Gbps, so, to obtain 48Gbps 4 channels are aggregated. But those 4 channels of HDMI 2.1 are way faster (12Gbps) than those 3 channels (6Gps) of HDMI 2.0, there is no way you can achieve those speeds using HDMI 2.0 channels.


Plus HDMI 2.1 uses 16b/18b encoding for greater than 18Gbps data rates. HDMI 2.0 can only do 8b/10b so even if they managed to severely overclock the HDMI 2.0 chip and got around the missing 4th channel, it wouldn't be able to decode the data stream.

For those that are curious, it's the clock pair that they've re-purposed for the 4th data channel. That's why the pin count on the cable stayed the same.


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> Actually, the only difference between true Natuve 240Hz refresh and a split-panel Effective refresh of 240Hz is that a 240Hz Effective panel is limited to 50% BFI @ 120Hz while a Native 240Hz panel could theoretically support 120Hz BFI at any % (in 1/2160 single-line increments).
> 
> BFI @ 60Hz is limited to 25%, 50%, or 75% on a 240Hz Effective panel (as LG demonstrated at CES early this year), while a Native 240Hz panel can also support any % of BFI (in single-line increments).
> 
> A 240Hz Native panel is a much smaller upgrade over a 240Hz Effective panel than a 240Hz Effective panel is over a 120Hz Native panel...


How would this compare to the current implementation of 50% BFI at 60hz? Right now it cuts luminance in half as it's 50% and we go from 300 lines to 600 lines in motion. Would 50% BFI at 120Hz give 900 or 1200 lines of resolution while cutting luminance in half? 25% BFI would be less of a hit to luminance but have less of an effect on motion res?


----------



## lsorensen

helvetica bold said:


> I saw this rumor posted again (annoying me) in another forum, does this even make sense how LG achieved HDMI 2.1 this year?? Perhaps some of you are engineers can explain.
> 
> 
> “Now the word was was that in order to achieve 4K HFR they had to combine multiple HDMI 2.0 components.
> Some part of the input pipeline couldn't handle the full bandwidth of HDMI 2.1 , so the 4K image is split into 4 parts at some point in the pipeline and then recombined once it's through those hardware bottlenecks.
> This is how they are achieving "full bandwidth" using the current HDMI chipsets that were available thus suprising the entire AV community by somehow racing through the normal timescales involved for producing new hardware.”
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sharp's first 8K LCD used 4 HDMI 2.0 ports together to do 8K (It has no HDMI 2.1 ports at all). LG does not. LG has licensed real HDMI 2.1 designs for their chips (this was in a press release at least 6 months before the 2019 TVs went on sale, and the press release was likely quite a while after they started the work).


----------



## Rysa_105

avernar said:


> This is not true and keeps getting repeated. There's a *switch* chip version line in the service menu. There is no second HDMI 2.0 chipset. Go take a look at the block diagram in the first post here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...d-info-faq-troubleshooting-firmware-more.html . There is only one chip and I suspect the switch "chip" is just an integrated part of the main chip to select which of the four inputs feed into the processing pipeline.


He specifically said additional hdmi chipset at ~1:29 in his C9 review.


----------



## avernar

Rysa_105 said:


> He specifically said additional hdmi chipset at ~1:29 in his C9 review.


The word that he uses just before that is "suggests" which means he's making a hypothesis about what this switch chip is for. The C9 block diagram from the service manual does not support this hypothesis. It shows just one main chip with all four HDMI inputs going into it.


----------



## helvetica bold

The person who made the HDMI 2.1 claim is Adam Fairclough (a.k.a. @evilboris) and he sometimes works with Vincent. Perhaps Vincent gets insider info or its pure speculation, who knows. 

Adam make these videos:


----------



## avernar

helvetica bold said:


> The person who made the HDMI 2.1 claim is Adam Fairclough (a.k.a. @evilboris) and he sometimes works with Vincent. Perhaps Vincent gets insider info or its pure speculation, who knows.


I'm leaning towards speculation rather than insider information. My reasoning is that all these claims keeps saying that there are multiple components/chips. The block diagram and some pictures of the main board show that there is only one main chip. As long as the chip does what it's supposed to do I don't see why people are getting perturbed by this.


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> Since, Samsung uses blue OLED material, which has by orders of magnitude the shortest lifetime of OLED emitters (LG uses blue, red and yellow-green), the QD/OLED design is susceptible to faster aging than the LG design. Samsung is apparently using an aging compensation technique similar to what *Canadian-based IGNIS innovation developed to offset the aging process*.


Is there info on this technique?


----------



## Airikay

gorman42 said:


> Is there info on this technique?


I'm not sure if this is what he is referring to

https://www.ignisinnovation.com/tec...nate-severe-burn-in-on-an-automotive-display/

No idea on how it actually works though.


----------



## gorman42

Airikay said:


> gorman42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there info on this technique?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if this is what he is referring to
> 
> https://www.ignisinnovation.com/tec...nate-severe-burn-in-on-an-automotive-display/
> 
> No idea on how it actually works though.
Click to expand...

That's interesting!
With that severe burn in there's a perceptible shift in colors when activated. But for normal use I guess it's quite promising.


----------



## Akash Makkar

dfa973 said:


> So that is the explanation for better uniformity for the 2019 WOLED panels, each panel is individually measured, calibrated and then compensated at the TC level.


But the uniformity isn't better as of yet. Check the banding thread. My 55 C9 manufactured on 9th September (the panel was probably august as it's shipped to my country and then TV assembled here) is bad too. I had written in the banding thread whether we can use the images we're taking of uniformity to do a targeted break-in and then pixel refresher to even out. I lack technical information to really be able to say whether that can work, so maybe others can chip in here. For example, can we run the uniformity image after correcting for angle to the best of our abilities on the screen for 30-40 hours and see if the in-built compensation mechanisms even out the lack of luminance. Now what kind of images to use that'll work, that's a conundrum. Do we need to inverse the luminance to target the dark areas? Which pixel needs to be targeted? Only the white or the other ones too? I took images of the pixels to identify which ones are turned on when 5% grey is being displayed, and the it was the white one mostly, along with red and blue being lit minimally. So which pixels are the ones causing the problem? If some method like this can work, then we can roughly compensate for big dark patches. We might not be able to perfectly line up the images we'll take to correct jailbars though. Thoughts?


----------



## dfa973

Akash Makkar said:


> But the uniformity isn't better as of yet.


Compared with 2018, 2017, 2016 generation of panels, yes, *uniformity is better*! There is no doubt that there is progress with uniformity! Not perfect, but progress none the less.

I was not talking about the uniformity of the panels of the same generation (2019 for example).


----------



## Akash Makkar

dfa973 said:


> Compared with 2018, 2017, 2016 generation of panels, yes, *uniformity is better*! There is no doubt that there is progress with uniformity! Not perfect, but progress none the less.
> 
> I was not talking about the uniformity of the panels of the same generation (2019 for example).


Maybe, but the technique outlined in the research is definitely not being used as of yet. There are way too many dark patches on many different sets, just like previous years, which wouldn't be happening with this methid. Maybe next year, if LGD deems individual calibration of each panel produced a worthwhile investment, as that time will definitely add to the cost. What might prompt them? If a lot of sets were returned for bad uniformity. Something to think about.


----------



## gmarceau

I really don't notice any of this uniformity stuff on my A8F. Like none of it. Are you guys all agonizing over test patterns or low APL scenes or is most of this noticeable with content?


----------



## Akash Makkar

gmarceau said:


> I really don't notice any of this uniformity stuff on my A8F. Like none of it. Are you guys all agonizing over test patterns or low APL scenes or is most of this noticeable with content?


This is my set after 100 hours. Definitely lottery lost. So I don't notice it much at all of now, but it is noticeable with the right content. Dark panning shots can be problematic. Dark shots with uniform color, such some shots in Arrival can also be problematic. I'm wondering myself whether to return it or not. Consumer isn't protected as well in my country; India. Will have to fight to get a new one, and I;m not sure if that'll be any better. I had a Metz OLED for a short while before C9, and that was also similar to this in banding. So in a way, I have lost lottery twice already.

Now had the method in the research provided had been used, uniformity couldn't have been this bad. So that's what makes me sure that it isn't being used.


----------



## fafrd

Akash Makkar said:


> gmarceau said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't notice any of this uniformity stuff on my A8F. Like none of it. Are you guys all agonizing over test patterns or low APL scenes or is most of this noticeable with content?
> 
> 
> 
> This is my set after 100 hours. Definitely lottery lost. So I don't notice it much at all of now, but it is noticeable with the right content. Dark panning shots can be problematic. Dark shots with uniform color, such some shots in Arrival can also be problematic. I'm wondering myself whether to return it or not. Consumer isn't protected as well in my country; India. Will have to fight to get a new one, and I;m not sure if that'll be any better. I had a Metz OLED for a short while before C9, and that was also similar to this in banding. So in a way, I have lost lottery twice already.
> 
> Now had the method in the research provided had been used, uniformity couldn't have been this bad. So that's what makes me sure that it isn't being used.
Click to expand...

This is the wrong thread for this discussion - please take it to the owner’s thread or the LG OLED Uniformity thread...


----------



## Akash Makkar

Thanks, Sheriff! I disagree though. I gave an example to show that the advancement tech that'll help with uniformity is clearly not being used in at least LG C series, and I ended my comment with that. Q.E.D.

Now getting back to the discussion, if this new method for getting excellent uniformity in grey area at least is being used, it might GZ2000. I went through the owner's thread here and Avforums too. There's no example of GZ2000 having bad grey uniformity, but some do have tinting issues. Can this method be correcting on end but making the other end just a bit worse? 

Also, I repeat again, any thoughts about using in-built compensation menchanism and uniformity images to break in OLEDs that don't cost high enough to corrected by LGD? If we cause uneven usage, maybe even take the uniformity image, inverse the luminance if needed and then more image manipulation to Target the dark blotchy areas, and then run it exclusively for let's say even 100 hours. Will it help? Does the image need to be inversed? What will result in better uniformity? Need people with technical knowledge to shed some more light. Now we know optical methods can work, but can they work with the tools consumers have?


----------



## fafrd

Guangzhou ramp-up running into difficulties (explaining the reduced 2019 WOLED production levels: https://www.oled-info.com/lgds-guan...rs-low-yield-mass-production-not-achieved-yet

One of the contributing factors was that LGD had the brilliant idea to make changes to the WOLED stack for Guanzhou (in addition to adopting new technologies):

"the company also decided to adopt several new technologies in this new fab - ironically mostly to improve productivity, and these hasn't been stabilized yet. In addition *LGD opted to use a new OLED stack* (to improve efficiency and productivity at the same time).'

They expect to have the problems solved ~3 months from now (especially since they are prepared to 'go back' to the same WOLED stack being produced in Paju:

'the company still hopes that by early 2020 its production rate will be as planned originally. *One way to achieve that is to revert the Gaungzhou fab to use the same technologies as materials as the ones used in LG's existing line in Paju.*'

This sounds like a rare unforced error on LGD's part (and probably caused by overconfidence).


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Guangzhou ramp-up running into difficulties (explaining the reduced 2019 WOLED production levels: https://www.oled-info.com/lgds-guan...rs-low-yield-mass-production-not-achieved-yet
> 
> One of the contributing factors was that LGD had the brilliant idea to make changes to the WOLED stack for Guanzhou (in addition to adopting new technologies):
> 
> "the company also decided to adopt several new technologies in this new fab - ironically mostly to improve productivity, and these hasn't been stabilized yet. In addition *LGD opted to use a new OLED stack* (to improve efficiency and productivity at the same time).'
> 
> They expect to have the problems solved ~3 months from now (especially since they are prepared to 'go back' to the same WOLED stack being produced in Paju:
> 
> 'the company still hopes that by early 2020 its production rate will be as planned originally. *One way to achieve that is to revert the Gaungzhou fab to use the same technologies as materials as the ones used in LG's existing line in Paju.*'
> 
> This sounds like a rare unforced error on LGD's part (and probably caused by overconfidence).


Making those changes coincident makes a ton of sense if you have confidence in the abilities of the team. I can't imagine they didn't go into it with eyes wide open and have a good contingency plan. This may be a lagging indicator of why the LGD CEO change was made.

I'm excited to see the benefits of a new stack as I can't imagine they aren't substantial, whenever they get here (in the next 12 months).


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> I was struck reading the analysis of the new Samsung Galaxy Note 10+'s OLED display that its peak brightness is between 778-1,308 cd/m2.
> 
> http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note10_ShootOut_1G.htm
> 
> I think an interesting question then is to what extent will the displays on our smartphones begin to set expectations for the picture quality of our TVs. A few years back I would have said slightly and mostly for resolution. Today, I'd say significantly for all PQ aspects.
> 
> An additional thought is how much opportunity there is for someone like Samsung to control and optimize the experience from capture to playback. They wouldn't have to wonder if say an investment in 120hz video recording would be worth it, since they have the agency to ensure the most likely display used for playing back that video was the one on that same device.


From LGD's quarterly reporting...



> Panels for TVs accounted for 32% of the revenue in the third quarter of 2019, *9% down* from the previous quarter due to the reduced utilization rate of LCD TV panel plants, while those for mobile devices accounted for 28%, *9% up* quarter-on-quarter, driven by an increase in POLED sales. Panels for tablets and notebook PCs accounted for 21% and desktop monitors for 18% respectively.


Expect mobile displays increasingly to set the expectations for our TVs.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guangzhou ramp-up running into difficulties (explaining the reduced 2019 WOLED production levels: https://www.oled-info.com/lgds-guan...rs-low-yield-mass-production-not-achieved-yet
> 
> One of the contributing factors was that LGD had the brilliant idea to make changes to the WOLED stack for Guanzhou (in addition to adopting new technologies):
> 
> "the company also decided to adopt several new technologies in this new fab - ironically mostly to improve productivity, and these hasn't been stabilized yet. In addition *LGD opted to use a new OLED stack* (to improve efficiency and productivity at the same time).'
> 
> They expect to have the problems solved ~3 months from now (especially since they are prepared to 'go back' to the same WOLED stack being produced in Paju:
> 
> 'the company still hopes that by early 2020 its production rate will be as planned originally. *One way to achieve that is to revert the Gaungzhou fab to use the same technologies as materials as the ones used in LG's existing line in Paju.*'
> 
> This sounds like a rare unforced error on LGD's part (and probably caused by overconfidence).
> 
> 
> 
> Making those changes coincident makes a ton of sense *if you have confidence in the abilities of the team. *
Click to expand...

Or more likely overconfidence, as I said,



> I can't imagine they didn't go into it with eyes wide open and have a good contingency plan. *This may be a lagging indicator of why the LGD CEO change was made.*


Delays in the ramp-up of Guangzhou (and the lower panel costs that Chinese plant represent) is going to hit both capacity and profitability, so you may very well be right...



> *I'm excited to see the benefits of a new stack as I can't imagine they aren't substantial*, whenever they get here (in the next 12 months).


It’s conceivable that LGD tried to ramp Guangzhou with the new B/R-G/B stack planned for next year, but not likely. It represents too much change and could not be delivered to OEM customers producing 2019 models.

The only ‘benefit’ mentioned by the article was improved productivity, so performance is not likely to be any different.

The 2020 stack will deliver enhanced performance (increased color gamut, especially near green), but it is unlikely that that has anything to do with the new higher-productivity WOLED stack LGD tried to introduce while ramping Guangzhou...


----------



## Airikay

fafrd said:


> The 2020 stack will deliver enhanced performance (increased color gamut, especially near green), but it is unlikely that that has anything to do with the new higher-productivity WOLED stack LGD tried to introduce while ramping Guangzhou...


Do we know what Guangzhou is mainly going to be responsible for? Are they going to be producing a primary size? I thought I read before they're expected just to mainly be responsible for the Chinese supply because demand is expected to grow to the greatest there and Paju would supply demand for the rest of the world. It was just someone guessing though and it was a month or two ago.


----------



## fafrd

Airikay said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 stack will deliver enhanced performance (increased color gamut, especially near green), but it is unlikely that that has anything to do with the new higher-productivity WOLED stack LGD tried to introduce while ramping Guangzhou...
> 
> 
> 
> Do we know what Guangzhou is mainly going to be responsible for? Are they going to be producing a primary size? I thought I read before they're expected just to mainly be responsible for the Chinese supply because demand is expected to grow to the greatest there and Paju would supply demand for the rest of the world. It was just someone guessing though and it was a month or two ago.
Click to expand...

Substrate sizes at Paju (Korea) and Guangzhou (China) are the same (8.5G) and so are the WOLED panel sizes both manufacturing plants will produce (48”, 55”, 65”, 77”).

The primary advantage of Guangzhou was going to be cheaper production costs (primarily because of Chinese Gov’t subsidies, secondarily cheaper labor costs).

The secondary advantage of Guangzhou was going to be freedom from the Japanese OLED materials blockade against Korea (Japan can freely ship OLED materials to China).

There never was going to be any specific WOLED panel sizes produced by Guangzhou that were any different than those produced by Paju - just cheaper (especially for the Chinese market).


----------



## Airikay

fafrd said:


> There never was going to be any specific WOLED panel sizes produced by Guangzhou that were any different than those produced by Paju - just cheaper (especially for the Chinese market).


I really hope this doesnt turn into a further exasperation with the panel lottery. Have your two plants running two different stack structures doesnt sound good in the first place.


----------



## helvetica bold

The LG tech came back today to replace my C9 panel. I asked about 2020 LG OLEDs hitting 240Hz. The Tech said it will be achieved by overclocking. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Airikay said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> There never was going to be any specific WOLED panel sizes produced by Guangzhou that were any different than those produced by Paju - just cheaper (especially for the Chinese market).
> 
> 
> 
> I really hope this doesnt turn into a further exasperation with the panel lottery. *Have your two plants running two different stack structures doesnt sound good in the first place.*
Click to expand...

Agreed. As I said earlier, a rare unforced error on the part of LG Display.

To be fair, we don’t know what benefit the ‘improved production effciency’ translates to.

The payoff may have been significant enough that LGD decided to capitalize on the ramp-up of Guangzhou to prove/qualify the new higher-production-efficiency/lower-cost stack before upgrading Paju to the same improvement.

If it doesn’t get sorted out quickly, they’ll need to go one step at a time and bring up Guangzhou with the Paju stack while possibly attempting to qualify the new stack at Paju.

Of course, as we get into next year, the idea of investing anything in improvements of the 2016-2019 stack seems idiotic - 2020 represents an entirely new WOLED stack anyway, so investing in production efficiency improvements of that new stack seems much wiser...


----------



## fafrd

helvetica bold said:


> The LG tech came back today to replace my C9 panel. I asked about 2020 LG OLEDs hitting 240Hz. *The Tech said it will be achieved by overclocking. *
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Proving the Tech has absolutely no clue what he is talking about...


----------



## gorman42

I'm having multiple confirmation by videogamers that smaller OLED panels will never be too early. Lots of people would like to go OLED but don't have the space. At least here in my country. They know C9 would be the best buy but 55" is too big/expensive. Are 48" expected for the 2020 lineup? Or is that further down the roadmap?


----------



## Airikay

gorman42 said:


> I'm having multiple confirmation by videogamers that smaller OLED panels will never be too early. Lots of people would like to go OLED but don't have the space. At least here in my country. They know C9 would be the best buy but 55" is too big/expensive. Are 48" expected for the 2020 lineup? Or is that further down the roadmap?


Yeah, the LGD VP said 2020. This doesn't necessarily mean they will launch when the 55/65/77 get released though. 

https://www.techradar.com/amp/news/lgs-48-inch-oleds-are-coming-in-2020


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> Proving the Tech has absolutely no clue what he is talking about...


Yeah it isn't overclocking if it is designed for it. Not that I think anyone that claims to be overclocking their panel are in fact doing so.


----------



## Airikay

Let's Go Digital found some new LG patents (Same group that found the PS5 Dev Kit) with OLED wrapping around like they do on cell phones

https://www.pocket-lint.com/tv/news/lg/149907-lg-s-2020-oled-tvs-to-have-edge-displays

Edit : Just guessing this is in an attempt to eliminate the bezel. Also, title of article is deceiving. Just because there are patents out doesnt mean itll be on the 2020 TVs. Good chance we may see one at CES though.


----------



## ttnuagmada

lsorensen said:


> Yeah it isn't overclocking if it is designed for it. Not that I think anyone that claims to be overclocking their panel are in fact doing so.


Display overclocking is definitely a legitimate thing. You can't necessarily do it with all or even most of them, but it is definitely a real thing.


----------



## lsorensen

ttnuagmada said:


> Display overclocking is definitely a legitimate thing. You can't necessarily do it with all or even most of them, but it is definitely a real thing.


I suspect my assumption that the panel runs at exactly 120 or 100 Hz is wrong. I guess with input being 60 or 59.97Hz depending on content for NTSC/ATSC in north america, being a bit flexible might actually be required. So if the panel rate is actually within a range, then I could see it allowing you to go a little bit above 120Hz (in which case 63 fps input running the panel at 126Hz would make sense).


----------



## zetruz

lsorensen said:


> I suspect my assumption that the panel runs at exactly 120 or 100 Hz is wrong. I guess with input being 60 or 59.97Hz depending on content for NTSC/ATSC in north america, being a bit flexible might actually be required. So if the panel rate is actually within a range, then I could see it allowing you to go a little bit above 120Hz (in which case 63 fps input running the panel at 126Hz would make sense).


It's nothing to do with that, though. OCing a monitor makes sense for gaming, and I have done so on my P2416D because I've been too cheap and/or lazy to buy a gaming monitor. A very in-depth review took their panel from 60 to 75 Hz, unfortunately mine starts skipping frames if I go above 65. But it's a real thing.


----------



## stl8k

bombyx said:


> Yes , something like +/- 0.5 in the best case .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sub pixels shapes are different :


 @bombyx

Have you analyzed the 88Z9's pixel structure?










https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/lg-88z9-p52367/test.html

Has the pixel order changed? Old order (55-77") was BW*RG* and this is BW*GR*?


----------



## ttnuagmada

lsorensen said:


> I suspect my assumption that the panel runs at exactly 120 or 100 Hz is wrong. I guess with input being 60 or 59.97Hz depending on content for NTSC/ATSC in north america, being a bit flexible might actually be required. So if the panel rate is actually within a range, then I could see it allowing you to go a little bit above 120Hz (in which case 63 fps input running the panel at 126Hz would make sense).


I have a Korean 1440p IPS monitor from several years back that will overclock from 60hz all the way to 120hz.

I think I remember Mark Rejhon making a post about TV overclocking on here several years ago too. If he sees this convo maybe he'll chime in on it.


----------



## wco81

Why would you overclock displays? Can you get faster refresh rates?

How about overclocking the application processor used for streaming apps. and I presume scaling?


----------



## ttnuagmada

wco81 said:


> Why would you overclock displays? Can you get faster refresh rates?


You can, though it's really only useful if the display is being used on a PC. 



> How about overclocking the application processor used for streaming apps. and I presume scaling?


I doubt you'd be able to gain that kind of access to the SoC to do something like that, though i supposes it's possible in theory. With display overclocking, you aren't really doing anything with the display itself, you're forcing a higher refresh rate as an input from a PC. Some displays can/will actually take that higher refresh input and turn it into a higher refresh output. However, most displays either won't accept the signal at all, or will frame-skip.


----------



## Airikay

stl8k said:


> @bombyx
> 
> Have you analyzed the 88Z9's pixel structure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/lg-88z9-p52367/test.html
> 
> Has the pixel order changed? Old order (55-77") was BW*RG* and this is BW*GR*?


Are you going right to left? Left to right is BGRW on B9/C9/E9(I prefer starting with W though so WBGR). And if that's the 88 it looks like it's BWGR. Basically B&W were flipped. 

https://www.rtings.com/images/reviews/tv/lg/e9/e9-pixels-all-4-subpixels-large.jpg


----------



## ericlhyman

1. Are 82 inch 4K OLEDs likely in 2020?

2. Are any new anti-burn in features expected in 2020 OLEDs?


----------



## dfa973

rogo said:


> I'm 95+% confident it's an LG panel.


Since LG is suing Hisense for infringing on its TV patents probably Hisense is sourcing its OLED panels from... who?...



> LG Electronics is suing Hisense for infringing on its TV patents but it may in fact be an attempt to hamper Hisense's launch of OLED TVs in the US next year, according to a report by Korea Herald.


https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1573021234


----------



## Mgibsoj

dfa973 said:


> Since LG is suing Hisense for infringing on its TV patents probably Hisense is sourcing its OLED panels from... who?...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1573021234


According to this: https://www.worldipreview.com/news/lg-sues-hisense-over-led-tv-technology-18858, the 4 infringements do not relate to the OLED panel.


----------



## fafrd

dfa973 said:


> rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 95+% confident it's an LG panel.
> 
> 
> 
> Since LG is suing Hisense for infringing on its TV patents probably]b] Hisense is sourcing its OLED panels from... who?...[/b]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG Electronics is suing Hisense for infringing on its TV patents but it may in fact be an attempt to hamper Hisense's launch of OLED TVs in the US next year, according to a report by Korea Herald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1573021234
Click to expand...

You are confusing LG Electronics with LG Display. Hisense is sourcing WOLED panels from LG Display but purportedly using technologies and IP patented by LG Electronics in building TVs from those WOLED panels.

LG Display wants Hisense to sell as many WOLED TVs as possible into the US market but LG Electronics has a very different perspective on that initiative...


----------



## AnalogHD

The most important patent LG is suing Hisense for appears to regard, copying their input selection interface. Specifically, their novel (is it?) idea of previewing an input when you mouse over it with your magic remote.

//Yes, there's very little limit to what one can patent in the US. Patent systems differ, most countries place more burden on the inventor. In the US, there's a "patent it all, let courts sort them out" attitude. This is why the case is in the US and not in multiple countries or in China. 

All patents are available on USPTO's website:
https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageN...311.PN.%26OS=PN/10,334,311%26RS=PN/10,334,311 

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...9,271,191.PN.&OS=PN/9,271,191&RS=PN/9,271,191

https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageN...9,452.PN.%26OS=PN/7,839,452%26RS=PN/7,839,452

One of the patents seems to be completely unapplicable to OLED TVs, as it's very LCD specific: https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageN...6,592.PN.%26OS=PN/8,456,592%26RS=PN/8,456,592


----------



## bombyx

stl8k said:


> @*bombyx*
> 
> Have you analyzed the 88Z9's pixel structure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/lg-88z9-p52367/test.html



Well, the fill in ratio is a bit low (27%) :


----------



## NintendoManiac64

AnalogHD said:


> their novel (is it?) idea of previewing an input when you mouse over it with your magic remote.


...so the same thing that Windows 7 does (which is from 2009 nonetheless) when hovering your mouse cursor over an open program on the taskbar?

You know, this thing:


----------



## AnalogHD

NintendoManiac64 said:


> ...so the same thing that Windows 7 does (which is from 2009 nonetheless) when hovering your mouse cursor over an open program on the taskbar?


But, but, you know, it's completely different when done on TV! Because there's an input source and a signal and you are doing something to that signal... invention. 

/sarcasm

No worse, though, than that time when Apple patented "an ornamental design for an electronic device" defined solely by being rectangular, having rounded corners, and optionally containing a charging port. 

(The magic is in the broken lines. The first picture looks specific - but, due to the clause that "the broken lines in the figures show portions of the electronic device that form no part of the claimed design", nothing but the rectangle counts for the legal claim. Then figure 3 makes even the charging port optional.)

Thanks to the public outcry, the suit wasn't followed by attacks on every electronic device that lacks razor-sharp edges, but the patent on rounded corners wasn't rendered void. The lower courts were merely ordered to revise their damage awards down to the % of profit attributable to the design feature.


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> stl8k said:
> 
> 
> 
> @*bombyx*
> 
> Have you analyzed the 88Z9's pixel structure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/lg-88z9-p52367/test.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the fill in ratio is a bit low (27%) :
Click to expand...

Which makes total sense when you consider that the Z9 is 8K and so has ‘4 pixels per 4K pixel’ of the 4K C9 and hence ~double the area lost to screen door.

If design rules remain unchanged and inter-pixel distance lost to screen door remains the same between 4K and 8K, the 8K full-factor would be 1 - 2 x (1 - 4K fill factor).

So your 77C9 fill factor of 40.5% should translate to a 65Z9 fil factor of 20.25% and the increase to 27% for the 88Z9 is due to to lower % lost to screen door due to fixed design rules when screen size and pixel size increases (such as can be seen between 55C9 and 65C9 and again between 65C9 and 77C9...).


----------



## bombyx

fafrd said:


> Which makes total sense when you consider that the Z9 is 8K and so has ‘4 pixels per 4K pixel’ of the 4K C9 and hence ~double the area lost to screen door.
> If design rules remain unchanged and inter-pixel distance lost to screen door remains the same between 4K and 8K, the 8K full-factor would be 1 - 2 x (1 - 4K fill factor).
> So your 77C9 fill factor of 40.5% should translate to a* 65Z9 fil factor of 20.25%* and the increase to 27% for the 88Z9 is due to to lower % lost to screen door due to fixed design rules when screen size and pixel size increases (such as can be seen between 55C9 and 65C9 and again between 65C9 and 77C9...).


20.25% is way too low : the lowest fill in factor ever was 25.5% ( 55C6 and 55C7) . You need something like 8% minimum for red because of the burn in risk, and you need at least 8% for white in order to have a sufficient peak luminance. That leaves only 2% for green and 2% for blue and that's not enough.


----------



## fafrd

bombyx said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes total sense when you consider that the Z9 is 8K and so has â€˜4 pixels per 4K pixelâ€™️ of the 4K C9 and hence ~double the area lost to screen door.
> If design rules remain unchanged and inter-pixel distance lost to screen door remains the same between 4K and 8K, the 8K full-factor would be 1 - 2 x (1 - 4K fill factor).
> So your 77C9 fill factor of 40.5% should translate to a* 65Z9 fil factor of 20.25%* and the increase to 27% for the 88Z9 is due to to lower % lost to screen door due to fixed design rules when screen size and pixel size increases (such as can be seen between 55C9 and 65C9 and again between 65C9 and 77C9...).
> 
> 
> 
> *20.25% is way too low* : the lowest fill in factor ever was 25.5% ( 55C6 and 55C7) . You need something like 8% minimum for red because of the burn in risk, and you need at least 8% for white in order to have a sufficient peak luminance. That leaves only 2% for green and 2% for blue and that's not enough.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why LGD started introducing 8K WOLEDs on 88” panels where the fill factor will be higher than 20.25%...

Delivering 25.5% fill factor on a 77” 8K WOLED (not to speak of a 65” 8K WOLED) will require improvements in design rules (smaller inter-sub-pixel spacing.

This was the original driver for LGD’s research into top-emission WOLED - to deliver acceptable fill-factor on 65” 8K WOLEDs.

But apparently they have found a way to do So sticking to bottom-emission (which has a cheaper manufacturing cost).

So if LGD delivers 65” 8K WOLEDs with fill factors of 35.5% (or even 20.25%), that means they achieved design rule improvements between 2020 and 2019...


----------



## Rysa_105

So might be that starting next year, vizio becomes the third oled brand that does universal hdr. They just put out a firmware update on their 2019 and 2018 PQ lcd's that enables hdr10+ support, in addition to dolby vision which they already support. I think now that they stepped into hdr10+, their oleds might also have it. Could be a selling point for them, because other US sold oled brands don't do universal hdr.


----------



## Dunebuster

Samsung announced QD-OLED technology

First saw this in the November OLED-Info newsletter and now in TechRadar:

Samsung seems to say they will merge OLED and QLED into a mix called QD-OLED. It supposed to reduce the number of layers needed in LG's OLED manufacturing, leading to a significant price advantage due to a big improvement in yields and faster ramp up.

From Tech Radar: "That’s where QD-OLED comes in. Rather than being wholly self-emissive, a QD-OLED panel would use a blue-light OLED panel acting as a backlight, with a quantum dot filter able to convert this into red or green light, for a full color display.

This would still make for the thin televisions and color-rich displays OLED is known for, while correcting the dim output of OLED panels compared to LEDs."

Samsung announced a $10.8 Billion investment in their L8 fab in Tangjong Korea. the newsletter says the L8 fab production will go from 125K monthly QLEDs to 30K QD-LED substrates beginning in Q1 2021. No mention about substrate sizes so maybe its not such a big reduction...


----------



## AnalogHD

Dunebuster said:


> Samsung seems to say they will merge OLED and QLED into a mix called QD-OLED...


They have a few months ago.
We have a whole thread on this: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...dly-shifting-production-lcd-tvs-oled-tvs.html

So far, my (partly research papers, partly history based) prediction is that:
1) The first generations of QD-BOLED panels will have significantly lower brightness than WOLED, probably in the 500 cd/m² range, but slightly higher color gamut and higher color volume. 
2) Samsung will market the sets heavily on color volume. 
3) There will be one line in 1-2 sizes, or two lines (One Connect and not) with 1 size each. 
4) All sets will be 4K.
5) The sets will be priced around LG's Z-series. 
5a) If there are two lines, they'll somewhat exceed W and Z prices.
6) There won't be a BI warranty, but burned-in sets will be quietly repaired once per customer.

The expectation of lower brightness is is because blue still has lower brightness:lifetime ratio than the YB or YGB stacks, and in addition Samsung is considerably behind in BI-prevention/compensation tech. It is not a TADF stack, because that's not ready, and Samsung wouldn't commit to OLED unless they had prototypes already working in the lab.


----------



## fafrd

AnalogHD said:


> Dunebuster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung seems to say they will merge OLED and QLED into a mix called QD-OLED...
> 
> 
> 
> They have a few months ago.
> We have a whole thread on this: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...dly-shifting-production-lcd-tvs-oled-tvs.html
> 
> So far, my (partly research papers, partly history based) prediction is that:
Click to expand...

 Except that:


> 1) The first generations of QD-BOLED panels will have significantly lower brightness than WOLED, probably in the 500 cd/mÂ² range, but *slightly higher color gamut and higher color volume. *


Gamut is very much TBD. In addition to how effective the blue-blocking color filters prove to be, they also have an issue with QDs sometimes sometimes converting to the wrong wavelength, especially from stray light coming into the panel from the viewing side (in fact, they’ve apparently had to add an additional filter layer to cut down on the amount of stray light reaching the QDs..).

And if gamut is more or less a wash and peak brightness is only ~50% of WOLED, no way they have higher color volume - WOLED could match that volume without using the white subpixels at all.. 



> 2) Samsung will market the sets heavily on color volume.


.
See above.



> 3) There will be one line in 1-2 sizes, or two lines (One Connect and not) with 1 size each.


Seems reasonable. Believe they have stated no 55” offering initially somewhere, so 65” and also possibly 75/77” would be the natural target(s) (which is unfortunately exceedingly inefficient on 8.5G).



> 4) All sets will be 4K.


Except I believe they have already stated they will exclusively aim QD-BOLED at 8K... They have gone too-emission, which costs them more, largely to more effectively offer 8K resolution (smaller pixels). So we’ll need to wait until 2021/2022 to know for sure, but believe this prediction of yours will prove to be incorrect.



> 5) The sets will be priced between LG's W-series and Z-series.


They will be priced wherever they need to to sell-through. By 2022, who knows what the volume of 8K TVs will be, but Samsung will be aiming at leapfrogging LG/WOLED in the emerging segment. So the pricing of LG’s 2022 65Z22 (and possibly also 75/77Z22) will be the primary driver for Samsung’s 65” offering (and possibly also 75/77” offering). If Samsung ends up needing to price their 65” 8K QD-BOLED below LG’s 65Z22 in order to sell-through, that will be a bad omen...



> 5a) If there are two lines, they'll ~match W and Z prices.


See above.

6) There won't be a BI warranty, but burned-in sets will be quietly repaired once per customer.[/quote]

Risks associated without burn-in won’t be apparent until ~1 year after they have sold their first ~300,000 units (meaning by 2024 at best...).



> The expectation of lower brightness is is because blue still has lower brightness:lifetime ratio than the YB or YGB stacks, and in addition Samsung is considerably behind in BI-prevention/compensation tech. It is not a TADF stack, because that's not ready, and Samsung wouldn't commit to OLED unless they had prototypes already working in the lab.


In case you have not yet run into this article, it gives a pretty good overview of some of the challanges Samsung needs to overcome before QD-BOLED can be successful against WOLED: https://www.oled-a.org/samsung-formally-commits-to-qdoled-program-of-110b_100719.html


----------



## AnalogHD

fafrd said:


> And if gamut is more or less a wash and peak brightness is only ~50% of WOLED, no way they have higher color volume - WOLED could match that volume without using the white subpixels at all.


For WOLED right now it's about 400-500 cd/m² without the white subpixels. 
A RGB layout rather than a RGBW one could grab color volume even while being considerably dimmer overall. Maybe not 500, but in the 700 cd/m² range. 

Not sure if Samsung would risk going very high due to BI concerns, but they simply *have* to beat LG on something to have any claim in the market. It's not going to be production cost, and it's not going to be overall brightness, because of how hard the white subpixel is to beat. It can't be price (they can't position it below their own LCD, and LG's OLED is already below that), They'll drive the pixels as hard as they need to measure ahead in color volume, then double down on marketing that as the defining metric of a TV.




fafrd said:


> Except I believe they have already stated they will exclusively aim QD-BOLED at 8K...


 Missed that apparently. Thought they'd do a 4K first, where it's easier. But makes sense. 




fafrd said:


> If Samsung ends up needing to price their 65” 8K QD-BOLED below LG’s 65Z22 in order to sell-through, that will be a bad omen...


Not sure if the Z-series will be LG's only 8K offering by 2022, or if there will be a Z-series as small as 65". The size is going out of style even for upper-middle class households, much less for the high-end segment.

Other than the relatively better fit on the glass, there seems to be little reason for Samsung will bother with a 65" model at all, if they're going all-8K. I agree that their 8K will definitely be priced above LG's 8K. 

Just wonder how many people are there that are willing to pay the N-times premium for LG's Z-series or something pricier, but for some reason can't fit anything larger than a 65". Most rooms, doorways and stairwells still fit TVs up to about 80" and a bit over. And almost everyone, once they've spent a couple years with a TV from the 55"-75" generation, still wants to go up in size.


----------



## fafrd

AnalogHD said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if gamut is more or less a wash and peak brightness is only ~50% of WOLED, no way they have higher color volume - WOLED could match that volume without using the white subpixels at all.
> 
> 
> 
> For WOLED right now it's about 400-500 cd/mÂ² without the white subpixels.
> A RGB layout rather than a RGBW one could grab color volume even while being considerably dimmer overall. Maybe not 500, but in the 700 cd/mÂ² range.
Click to expand...

My estimate as well. I see 0% chance LG abandons their white subpixel before TADF is in production (and likely even after) but the point is that first-generation fluorescent-blue QD-BOLED is unlikely to surpass WOLED on color volume.



> Not sure if Samsung would risk going very high due to BI concerns, but *they simply have to beat LG on something to have any claim in the market*. It's not going to be production cost, and it's not going to be overall brightness, because of how hard the white subpixel is to beat. It can't be price (they can't position it below their own LCD, and LG's OLED is already below that), They'll drive the pixels as hard as they need to measure ahead in color volume, then double down on marketing that as the defining metric of a TV.


I agree on the need for some differentiator. They will probably use ‘true RGB’ to attempt to differentiate on color ‘purity’ (which will be a stretch, especially if LG offers a lower peak brightness ‘pure color’ mode). Interestingly, it may be off-angle viewing performance. WOLED is not perfect when it comes to maintaining color uniformity off-angle and QD’s should deliver off-angle uniformity closer to plasma. WOLEDs other Achilles Heel is near-black uniformity and if QD-BOLED delivers plasma-like 3% grey, I’d be ready to pay a readonable premium for that...




> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except I believe they have already stated they will exclusively aim QD-BOLED at 8K...
> 
> 
> 
> Missed that apparently. Thought they'd do a 4K first, where it's easier. But makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Samsung ends up needing to price their 65â€Â 8K QD-BOLED below LGâ€™️s 65Z22 in order to sell-through, that will be a bad omen...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not sure if the Z-series will be LG's only 8K offering by 2022, or if there will be a Z-series as small as 65". *The size is going out of style even for upper-middle class households, much less for the high-end segment.
Click to expand...

I think we’ll see a 65” 8K WOLED announced at CES along with either a 77” or a 75” (planning ahead for the 10.5G fab). There is an outside chance we’ll also see an 82” 8K model announced, but this (along with 75” rather than 77”) may take another year or even 2...

Samsung has already established a (emerging) market for 65” 8K so even though I agree with you that there is little sense in the segment, LGD has little choice but to shadow Samsung’s lead...




> Other than the relatively better fit on the glass, there seems to be little reason for Samsung will bother with a 65" model at all, if they're going all-8K. I agree that their 8K will definitely be priced above LG's 8K.
> 
> *Just wonder how many people are there that are willing to pay the N-times premium for LG's Z-series* or something pricier, but for some reason can't fit anything larger than a 65". Most rooms, doorways and stairwells still fit TVs up to about 80" and a bit over. And almost everyone, once they've spent a couple years with a TV from the 55"-75" generation, still wants to go up in size.


This is the big challange Samsung has. Now, to their credit, they are banking on the industrialization of high-efficiency BLUE (TADF or whatever) which benefits QD-BOLED more than WOLED (~300% brightness or lower manufacturing cost) so if they have the deep pockets to invest until that future is a reality, there could be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for them.

But 2022 and possibly also 2023 will be brutal - they will need to sell every TV they produce at a loss (as did LG with WOLED through the early going). The difference is that LGD only produced 100,000 and then 300,000 panels in those first 2 years while Samsung is aiming to ramp QD-BOLED much more aggressively...


----------



## stl8k

Leading US professor's very recent thoughts on the future of organic electronics, incl. OLED displays, OLED lighting, solar, OTFT, and even imaging:






Great stuff if you're an emerging tech materials nerd!


----------



## fafrd

Looks like late 2020 will be the timeframe to get a (relative) bargain on a 77” WOLED: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=34962

“Currently, the volume of 77-inch OLED panels produced at LG Display's Paju plant is not large. IHS Markets forecast that shipments of 77-inch OLED panels, which remained at only *27,000 units last year*, soar to *60,000 units next year*.”

The report states that the new plant in Guangzhou is only producing 55” and 65” panels this year, meaning 2019 will probably be a relatively ‘flat’ year as far as 77” WOLED production (30,000? 35,000?).

While I question the choice of the word ‘soar’ when we are talking about reaching production levels which are still less than 0.03% of the overall TV market by volume, ~doubling 77” WOLED panel production next year will translate to price levels which are 2/3 to 3/4 of this season’s levels (meaning we should see the 77C20 widely available for under $4000 next year and possibly breaking under $3000 in bargain online channels).


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> Looks like late 2020 will be the timeframe to get a (relative) bargain on a 77” WOLED: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=34962
> 
> “Currently, the volume of 77-inch OLED panels produced at LG Display's Paju plant is not large. IHS Markets forecast that shipments of 77-inch OLED panels, which remained at only *27,000 units last year*, soar to *60,000 units next year*.”
> 
> The report states that the new plant in Guangzhou is only producing 55” and 65” panels this year, meaning 2019 will probably be a relatively ‘flat’ year as far as 77” WOLED production (30,000? 35,000?).
> 
> While I question the choice of the word ‘soar’ when we are talking about reaching production levels which are still less than 0.03% of the overall TV market by volume, ~doubling 77” WOLED panel production next year will translate to price levels which are 2/3 to 3/4 of this season’s levels (meaning we should see the 77C20 widely available for under $4000 next year and possibly breaking under $3000 in bargain online channels).


With the next big price reduction for 75/77in panels being in 2022 when the 10.5G panels are for sale?


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like late 2020 will be the timeframe to get a (relative) bargain on a 77â€Â WOLED: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=34962
> 
> â€œCurrently, the volume of 77-inch OLED panels produced at LG Display's Paju plant is not large. IHS Markets forecast that shipments of 77-inch OLED panels, which remained at only *27,000 units last year*, soar to *60,000 units next year*.â€Â
> 
> The report states that the new plant in Guangzhou is only producing 55â€Â and 65â€Â panels this year, meaning 2019 will probably be a relatively â€˜flatâ€™️ year as far as 77â€Â WOLED production (30,000? 35,000?).
> 
> While I question the choice of the word â€˜soarâ€™️ when we are talking about reaching production levels which are still less than 0.03% of the overall TV market by volume, ~doubling 77â€Â WOLED panel production next year will translate to price levels which are 2/3 to 3/4 of this seasonâ€™️s levels (meaning we should see the 77C20 widely available for under $4000 next year and possibly breaking under $3000 in bargain online channels).
> 
> 
> 
> With the next big price reduction for 75/77in panels being in 2022 when the 10.5G panels are for sale?
Click to expand...

Yes, in 2020, between the Guangzhou 8.5G fab starting to manufacture 77” panels and the introduction of MMG, will see a ~doubling in 77” WOLED production along with the price drops needed to absorb that increased volume.

The next big drop will be in 2022 when the new 10.5G plant in Paju starts pumping out 65” and 75” WOLED panels.

A 10.5G sheet costs less than 50% more than an 8.5G to manufacture and that 10.5G sheet can produce 6 75” WOLED panels where an 8.5G sheet can produce 6 55” WOLED panels.

You do the math 😉...


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> While I question the choice of the word ‘soar’ when we are talking about reaching production levels which are still less than 0.03% of the overall TV market by volume, ~doubling 77” WOLED panel production next year will translate to price levels which are 2/3 to 3/4 of this season’s levels (meaning we should see the 77C20 widely available for under $4000 next year and possibly breaking under $3000 in bargain online channels).


When you refer to 77C20 you're talking about the model that will be introduced next January at CES? Is it not going to be 77C10 or you're talking about the model introduced on Januray 2021? I guess the former from what you're writing about end of 2020 but do we know that they're going to jump from C9 to C20?


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I question the choice of the word â€˜soarâ€™️ when we are talking about reaching production levels which are still less than 0.03% of the overall TV market by volume, ~doubling 77â€Â WOLED panel production next year will translate to price levels which are 2/3 to 3/4 of this seasonâ€™️s levels (meaning we should see the 77C20 widely available for under $4000 next year and possibly breaking under $3000 in bargain online channels).
> 
> 
> 
> When you refer to 77C20 you're talking about the model that will be introduced next January at CES? Is it not going to be 77C10 or you're talking about the model introduced on Januray 2021? I guess the former from what you're writing about end of 2020 but do we know that they're going to jump from C9 to C20?
Click to expand...

LGE could call their 2020 WOLED TV lineup the C10 but I’m hoping their smarter than that.

Would you rather be purchasing a C13 or a C23 in 2023?

The only thing I’m reasonably certain of is that they are not going to loop around and introduce a C0, so they are likely going to expand from one digit to two.

Going for the ‘invisible 0’ approach makes them look like they’ve been planning their WOLED TV lineup to span decades since day 1 😉.


----------



## stl8k

I'd be wary of mid-Aug info. Lots of plans likely got rethought with new CEO and major leadership changes since that was published.



fafrd said:


> Looks like late 2020 will be the timeframe to get a (relative) bargain on a 77” WOLED: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=34962
> 
> “Currently, the volume of 77-inch OLED panels produced at LG Display's Paju plant is not large. IHS Markets forecast that shipments of 77-inch OLED panels, which remained at only *27,000 units last year*, soar to *60,000 units next year*.”
> 
> The report states that the new plant in Guangzhou is only producing 55” and 65” panels this year, meaning 2019 will probably be a relatively ‘flat’ year as far as 77” WOLED production (30,000? 35,000?).
> 
> While I question the choice of the word ‘soar’ when we are talking about reaching production levels which are still less than 0.03% of the overall TV market by volume, ~doubling 77” WOLED panel production next year will translate to price levels which are 2/3 to 3/4 of this season’s levels (meaning we should see the 77C20 widely available for under $4000 next year and possibly breaking under $3000 in bargain online channels).


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I'd be wary of mid-Aug info. Lots of plans likely got rethought with new CEO and major leadership changes since that was published.
> 
> 
> 
> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like late 2020 will be the timeframe to get a (relative) bargain on a 77â€ WOLED: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=34962
> 
> â€œCurrently, the volume of 77-inch OLED panels produced at LG Display's Paju plant is not large. IHS Markets forecast that shipments of 77-inch OLED panels, which remained at only *27,000 units last year*, soar to *60,000 units next year*.â€
> 
> The report states that the new plant in Guangzhou is only producing 55â€ and 65â€ panels this year, meaning 2019 will probably be a relatively â€˜flatâ€™️ year as far as 77â€ WOLED production (30,000? 35,000?).
> 
> While I question the choice of the word â€˜soarâ€™️ when we are talking about reaching production levels which are still less than 0.03% of the overall TV market by volume, ~doubling 77â€ WOLED panel production next year will translate to price levels which are 2/3 to 3/4 of this seasonâ€™️s levels (meaning we should see the 77C20 widely available for under $4000 next year and possibly breaking under $3000 in bargain online channels).
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting LGD may produce fewer than 60,000 77” WOLEDs next year? 

Not likely - the 8.5G investments in Paju and Guangzhou are completed, do 2020 is pretty much locked-and-loaded.

And 60,000 is still a drop in the bucket for the 75/77” Premium TV Market - as long as LGD produces fewer than 1% of their WOLED panels at 75/77”, it’s difficult to argue that they are taking that segment seriously.

To your point, the second-phase capacity addition from 60,000/month to 90,000/month at Guangzhou planned for H2’20 may get delayed, as well as the ramp/investment schedule for the 10.5G line, so there is great uncertainty about ‘21, ‘22, and ‘23, but 6.5M WOLED panels in 2020 out of which 60,000 or


----------



## Menarini

Sharp unveils 30-inch rollable OLED TV



> With the LG Signature Series OLED R rollable TV still not out in the consumer market yet, Sharp has revealed it has been developing its own version in partnership with broadcaster NHK.
> The Japanese firms recently unveiled their rival to LG’s CES 2019 debutant and will be demonstrating it at the Inter BEE 2019 international broadcaster show.
> 
> At only 30-inches in size, though still sporting a 4K resolution and 60Hz refresh rate, the Sharp rollable OLED might perhaps be a touch overshadowed by the 65-inch model LG had on show at CES 2019 in terms of pure dimensions but the OLED technology behind the screen offers advantages in other areas. The model on show is being described as a ‘prototype’ and ‘in development’.
> 
> The production process eschews the standard approach taken by LG Display in their manufacturing approach whereby the panel is made up of pixels that use four subpixels to produce the colours white, red, green and blue - hence LG Display’s WRGB OLED panels. Instead, Sharp has used a vapour deposition technique that creates an RGB pixel structure that produces red, green and blue directly, which according to Sharp, creates more vibrant colours since no colour filter is required. The screen itself is just 0.5mm thick and forms a tube with a diameter of 4cm when rolled up.
> 
> This RGB manufacturing approach allows Sharp to describe the screen as ‘the world’s largest colour filterless 4K display’ since LG’s process involves projecting the pixel’s self-emissive light through a filter to create the requisite colours.
> 
> There’s no word on when (or if) this concept will make it to the market and it could be that Sharp is waiting to see how consumers take to LG’s R9 rollable OLED, which is expected to be very expensive and will be seen as a premium product
> 
> With its smaller screen and compact case, Sharp could be aiming for the more affordable end of the TV market, perhaps with an eye on those whose living arrangements simply do not have the space for a 65-inch screen, such as those residents of flats and apartments.


https://www.avforums.com/news/sharp-unveils-30-inch-rollable-oled-tv.16844

No white subpixel and color filters, would love if they could adapt the core oled technology to larger screens.


----------



## stl8k

I just don't know, especially after the pronouncement last Jan by execs at a PR of "We are setting a formal direction to expand 77-inch sales this year." It certainly won't decrease. I think there's a very real dilemma for the wealthy urban segment in the US of simply not having the space for a 77", but wanting a premium product. Perhaps they're better served with say an 8K 65" with a premium form factor?



fafrd said:


> Are you suggesting LGD may produce fewer than 60,000 77” WOLEDs next year?
> 
> Not likely - the 8.5G investments in Paju and Guangzhou are completed, do 2020 is pretty much locked-and-loaded.
> 
> And 60,000 is still a drop in the bucket for the 75/77” Premium TV Market - as long as LGD produces fewer than 1% of their WOLED panels at 75/77”, it’s difficult to argue that they are taking that segment seriously.
> 
> To your point, the second-phase capacity addition from 60,000/month to 90,000/month at Guangzhou planned for H2’20 may get delayed, as well as the ramp/investment schedule for the 10.5G line, so there is great uncertainty about ‘21, ‘22, and ‘23, but 6.5M WOLED panels in 2020 out of which 60,000 or


----------



## stl8k

*Two Presentations by LGD in Asia*

I'm intrigued by these papers/presentations by LGD in a couple weeks time:



> *Development of 88-inch 120Hz 8K OLED TV for Mass Production*
> *Koichi Miwa1, Hyun-Haeng Lee1, Seong-Eok Han1, Yong-Joon Heo1, Du-Hwan Oh1, Shin-Kyun Park1 (1. LG Display Co., Ltd. (Korea))
> 
> 88-inch 8K OLED TV has been launched to the market. The display features 7680 x 4320 pixel resolution and 120Hz refresh rate. White OLED on Oxide TFT backplane architecture is applied as were in our 4K/2K OLED TV products. Design and driving features will be presented in this paper.
> https://confit.atlas.jp/guide/event/idw2019/subject/AMD2-1/classlist


What I find interesting is that this team of LGD presenters/researchers is quite different than the team(s) that presented on the development of the UHD panels. They certainly put an experienced team on the project (e.g., Koichi is a veteran with experience that dates back to Kodak) and I'm intrigued to see how this panel diverges from the UHD one.




> *The study on new evaluation index of Color MPRT (Motion Picture Response Time) considering human sensitivity characteristic*
> In this study, we introduce a new evaluation index for color motion blur characteristic using Color MPRT (Motion Picture Response Time). We have already introduced the Color MPRT in SID 2019, and this study proposes a new evaluation index for C-MPRT based on the C-MPRT evaluation method. When humans see the display, Motion blur is a very important factor about image quality. In the past, we were considered only the luminance component when considering the motion blur characteristics of the display. However, when evaluating the performance of the display, the motion blur characteristic of the color is also an important factor.
> 
> https://confit.atlas.jp/guide/event/idw2019/subject/VHFp1-1/detail


LGD continues to invest in motion x color research and I'd expect to see them begin to market around this in 2020.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I'm intrigued by these papers/presentations by LGD in a couple weeks time:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Development of 88-inch 120Hz 8K OLED TV for Mass Production*
> *Koichi Miwa1, Hyun-Haeng Lee1, Seong-Eok Han1, Yong-Joon Heo1, Du-Hwan Oh1, Shin-Kyun Park1 (1. LG Display Co., Ltd. (Korea))
> 
> 88-inch 8K OLED TV has been launched to the market. The display features 7680 x 4320 pixel resolution and *120Hz refresh rate*. White OLED on Oxide TFT backplane architecture is applied as were in our 4K/2K OLED TV products. Design and driving features will be presented in this paper.
> https://confit.atlas.jp/guide/event/idw2019/subject/AMD2-1/classlist
Click to expand...

If this is a true [email protected] refresh rate (a new random 8K image every 1/120th of a second) it probably means that they are describing a new 8K IGZO backplane being used in the Z20 (Or Z10, whatever next year’s model is called).

If it is only [email protected] Effective refresh rate (a new random 8K image every 1/60th of a second with the capability to insert black frames for 50% of the frame time @ 120Hz) then the paper will be describing the backplane used in the 88Z9...



> What I find interesting is that this team of LGD presenters/researchers is quite different than the team(s) that presented on the development of the UHD panels. They certainly put an experienced team on the project (e.g., Koichi is a veteran with experience that dates back to Kodak) and I'm intrigued to see how this panel diverges from the UHD one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The study on new evaluation index of Color MPRT (Motion Picture Response Time) considering human sensitivity characteristic*
> In this study, we introduce a new evaluation index for color motion blur characteristic using Color MPRT (Motion Picture Response Time). We have already introduced the Color MPRT in SID 2019, and this study proposes a new evaluation index for C-MPRT based on the C-MPRT evaluation method. When humans see the display, Motion blur is a very important factor about image quality. In the past, we were considered only the luminance component when considering the motion blur characteristics of the display. However, when evaluating the performance of the display, the motion blur characteristic of the color is also an important factor.
> 
> https://confit.atlas.jp/guide/event/idw2019/subject/VHFp1-1/detail
> 
> 
> 
> LGD continues to invest in motion x color research and I'd expect to see them begin to market around this in 2020.
Click to expand...

It’s great to see LG go on offense (perhaps for the first time, at least in TV). This year’s campaign of calling out Samsung 8K QLED for not delivering true 8K may have been the first sign that LG is starting to recognize that they are actually leading the TV display industry rather than their usual position of playing catch-up and ‘me too.’

This focus on ‘true 8K’ (versus the pseudo-8K that Samsung is peddling) as well as improved motion performance are likely the result of LG’s 2018 partnership with NHK: https://www.google.com/amp/m.koreaherald.com/amp/view.php?ud=20181207000442

This white paper is a good read if you want to get a bead on NHK’s picture-quality priorities, their view of OLED versus LCD when it comes to motion performance / MPRT, and the directions they are likely collaborating with LG to push WOLED further: https://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/bt/bt74/pdf/feature0074-1.pdf


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> LGE could call their 2020 WOLED TV lineup the C10 but I’m hoping their smarter than that.
> 
> Would you rather be purchasing a C13 or a C23 in 2023?


That's a small stroke of genius, right there. I didn't think about it but it would make *a lot* of sense doing it that way.


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> This white paper is a good read if you want to get a bead on NHK’s picture-quality priorities, their view of OLED versus LCD when it comes to motion performance / MPRT, and the directions they are likely collaborating with LG to push WOLED further: https://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/bt/bt74/pdf/feature0074-1.pdf


An interesting read, thank you. It's peculiar how they praise Japan's role while managing to avoid the fact that on mobile screens Samsung dominates and on TV screens LG dominates. National pride, I guess.


----------



## Sammael

I just want that rumored lg 48" oled panel so I can use it double duty as a tv and a monitor. I'm watching The Mandalorian (and soon the next season of the expanse) on my current monitor/tv, a 43" sony x800d, and the colors and contrast are nowhere near what I'd get from the standard oleds. They are already plenty bright for my usage, but I feel starved.

More than some new tech, more than top emission, more than just about anything, I just want to make sure lg actually releases the smaller oled so I can finally escape this smaller 4k display prison I am trapped in. With hdmi 2.1, and likely graphics cards getting those outputs sometime next year, the entire monitor market on the high end ought to be exploded for the trash heap it always was, gutter quality displays with ancient display tech, prices hiked up to the ceiling because of some base level higher refresh rates while the colors are muted trash and the contrast is a disaster? I hope that entire market gets burned to the ground once the tvs get an input that has the bandwidth needed for 120Hz 4k.


----------



## stl8k

Sammael said:


> I just want that rumored lg 48" oled panel so I can use it double duty as a tv and a monitor. I'm watching The Mandalorian (and soon the next season of the expanse) on my current monitor/tv, a 43" sony x800d, and the colors and contrast are nowhere near what I'd get from the standard oleds. They are already plenty bright for my usage, but I feel starved.
> 
> More than some new tech, more than top emission, more than just about anything, I just want to make sure lg actually releases the smaller oled so I can finally escape this smaller 4k display prison I am trapped in. With hdmi 2.1, and likely graphics cards getting those outputs sometime next year, the entire monitor market on the high end ought to be exploded for the trash heap it always was, gutter quality displays with ancient display tech, prices hiked up to the ceiling because of some base level higher refresh rates while the colors are muted trash and the contrast is a disaster? I hope that entire market gets burned to the ground once the tvs get an input that has the bandwidth needed for 120Hz 4k.


Love the passion @Sammael!


----------



## Jin-X

stl8k said:


> Love the passion @Sammael!


He's 100% correct on the picture quality of gaming monitors, even something like the TCL 6 series destroys them at more than twice the screen size and a lower price. So LG does have a market there at lower screen sizes, though 48in is probably still too big for some for this, they would need one more size shrink after 48.


----------



## circumstances

I'm as happy about lower prices as the next guy, but that isn't a top priority.

What I want is a 77" plus (88" would be much better) with great motion, great brightness and much diminished burn in concerns. No idea when that may occur. And I prefer Sony to LG, but I'm willing to buy an LG if necessary.


----------



## dfa973

*JOLED Starts Trial Production of Printed OLED Sheets at 5.5G Plant*



> JOLED has started trial production of printed OLED substrates at its 5.5G plant at its Nomi Site, which was officially completed on Monday, November 25. The sheets will be used to make high-resolution mid-size OLED displays in 2020, when the factory starts mass production.
> 
> JOLED’s 5.5G facility has a monthly production capacity of 20,000 1,300×1,500-mm substrates, which are processed using the company’s own high-speed printing method. Based around batch EL layer formation, LOLED's process is said to greatly improve productivity, which the company hopes will eventually give them an edge in producing cheaper OLED panels.
> 
> JOLED started to build its 5.5G OLED plant in July 2018, and aims to start volume production at the facility in 2020. Right now, the factory is producing samples, which will be sent to JOLED’s customers. The plant is located near Nomi in Ishikawa Prefecture in Japan.
> 
> Having inherited the OLED operations of Sony and Panasonic, JOLED currently uses a 4.5G production line near Nomi to make its printed OLED screens. That fab is considerably smaller than the new one, which limits the development of the company’s business.


https://www.anandtech.com/show/1516...roduction-of-printed-oled-sheets-at-55g-plant


----------



## MrPolkMan

Any news on LG's next OLED TV?


----------



## dfa973

*Samsung develops method for self-emissive QLED*

*Samsung says its new method for making self-emissive quantum dot diodes extended their lifetime to a million hours, opening the way for commercialisation.
*

Samsung Electronics has developed a new method to extend the lifetime and efficiency of quantum dot light-emitting diodes (QLEDs) that may lead to their commercialisation, which has been published in the science journal Nature .

A team led by Dr. Eunjoo Jang, a Samsung fellow, and Dr. Yu-Ho Won, a principal researcher at Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology, improved the structure of the quantum dot made out of environmentally-friendly indium phosphide.

Their proposed structure prevents oxidation of the core and builds a symmetrical and thick shell around it to prevent energy leaks. The ligand on the shell surface has also been made shorter to allow it to absorb electric current faster. 

Quantum efficiency improves by 21.4% and the lifetime of the diodes increased to a million hours, the South Korean tech giant said.

The company added that it has over 170 patents on element structure in QLEDs and will continue to develop new technology to lead in advanced displays. 

A Samsung spokesman declined to comment on when the company will commercialise self-emissive QLED technology. 

STILL A DISTANT FUTURE
Despite Samsung's announcement, the commercialisation of displays that uses quantum dot (QD) as the light source is still far away, and may never be realised at all as there are mountain of challenges ahead. 

Research into using QD has focused on avoiding cadmium, which is the best material to use as a light source thanks to its malleability and integrity, but is harmful to humans.

Materials such as indium phosphide have so far failed to match the performance of cadmium when used as the direct light source in actual practice. 

Samsung's current flagship TVs are called QLED, which does use QD that are cadmium-free. But they do not use QD as the light sources absorbs electricity directly. Rather, QD is used as a film on Liquid Crystal Display that emits luminance by absorbing the light from the backlight. 

In October, Samsung Display announced that it will invest $11 billion by 2025 to produce QD Displays.

The production of the first iteration of this will begin in 2021, but will be QD-enabled OLED, which uses organic material as the light source and QD material as a film. It will be more similar to Samsung's own AMOLED used for mobile phones and LG's OLED TVs.

If Samsung's eventual goal is to launch a self-emissive QLED display, at minimum, the industry will have to wait until 2025 to see if it is indeed viable.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-develops-method-for-self-emissive-qled/


----------



## video_analysis

Good luck. In the meantime, LG will just have more time to encroach in that sphere (along with LGD's partners) with lower prices.


----------



## circumstances

No CES rumors yet? It's just a few weeks away. I'd like to buy OLED in 2020!


----------



## ALMA

> *LG Display will expand its OLED display capacity for rollable TVs. It has been reported that it has made internal investment decisions and started preparations. By March next year, a supplier of transparent polyimide (PI) curing equipment will be selected. Vitron and Narae Nanotech are candidates. The lead time of the PI curing equipment will reach 6 months, and the equipment will be available in September next year.*
> 
> LG Display's OLED panel for TV built in Paju, Gyeonggi-do, has 70,000 8G (2.2mx 2.5m) substrates. Rollable TV OLEDs have a transparent PI forming process in OLED TVs. Transparent PI curing equipment coats and cures transparent PI varnish on glass substrates. Narae Nanotech was the first to supply 8G transparent PI curing equipment. Transparent PI Substrate Forming Process *Monthly production capacity reached 1000 sheets based on 8G substrate.*
> 
> *LG Display plans to increase the monthly production capacity of the transparent PI forming process to 10,000 units next year.* The processing time of 8th generation transparent PI curing equipment is said to be about twice that of 6th generation opaque PI curing equipment for small and medium size flexible OLED. The same production capacity requires more equipment.
> 
> 
> *LG Electronics is planning to release 65-inch rollable TV at the end of this year by receiving panels of LG Display. An official of LG Display Research Institute said, "TV sales price is said to be 80 million won."* Probably, competitors will be mostly exhausted for reverse engineering for technical analysis. "It's our job to lower the price to the average consumer."
> *
> Three 65-inch panels are produced on 8th generation boards. There are 3000 OLED panels for rollable TV that can be made at full operation with a monthly production capacity of 1000 sheets.*





> OLED panels for rollable TVs and general OLED panels differ greatly from each other in terms of substrates, and other processes are similar, and the expansion of transparent PI substrate forming equipment leads to an increase in rollable TV production capacity. OLEDs for rollable TVs need to be flexible, so PI is used as a substrate.



https://translate.google.de/transla...ww.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=4021


----------



## video_analysis

$68k for a rollable 65" if the translation is correct.


----------



## ALMA

video_analysis said:


> $68k for a rollable 65" if the translation is correct.



In South Korea the prices are much higher. The 88Z9 costs 50 Mio Won ($42000). 



If production with the new equipment ist stabilised and even if they can only make monthly 10000 panels at the end of the year, that results in much more than the currently planned 77" panels for 2020 (60000) in 2021. So prices will fall in 2021 if you compare it to the current street prices of 77" OLEDs with a much lower production rate.


----------



## video_analysis

Yes, I vaguely remember reading that concerning regional pricing differentials. Unfortunately, 65" is too tiny for my taste these days (thanks to being spoiled by the aforementioned 77" size). When the rollable monstrosity (88") arrives (starting no less than $100k in all probability), I'll finally see my replacement TV on the (distant) horizon.


----------



## circumstances

i don't care about rollable, but an 88" OLED is something I am most interested in.


----------



## hiperco

circumstances said:


> i don't care about rollable, but an 88" OLED is something I am most interested in.


I'm not greedy, I'll settle for an 82"


----------



## circumstances

hiperco said:


> I'm not greedy, I'll settle for an 82"


I think i'd go with 77 or up.

but the bigger the better!


----------



## SED <--- Rules

I have a question that somebody here may know. How will Samsung's QD-BOLEDs be better than LG's WOLEDs? 

I'm even more excited about QD-LEDs or Electro-Luminescent Quantum Dot Display. Self-emissive quantum dots. If Samsung can do that, they can have a display that can get much brighter than the current OLEDs, have zero burn-in issues, last longer, and have an expanded color gamut as well as all the other benefits of OLED like perfect blacks and contrast and good motion (possibly better than the current OLEDs). That is something substantial. I'm reading Samsung may be able to get these types of displays to market in 2-3 years from now. Micro-LED for example will take about 6 years to get to market, which is way too far from now. The only benefit micro-led may have to this technology is to be a little brighter.


----------



## AnalogHD

[QUOTE="SED


----------



## bombyx

dfa973 said:


> *Samsung develops method for self-emissive QLED*
> *Samsung says its new method for making self-emissive quantum dot diodes extended their lifetime to a million hours, opening the way for commercialisation.*
> Samsung Electronics has developed a new method to extend the lifetime and efficiency of quantum dot light-emitting diodes (QLEDs) that may lead to their commercialisation, which has been published in the science journal Nature .
> [.....]
> The production of the first iteration of this will begin in 2021, but will be QD-enabled OLED, which uses organic material as the light source and QD material as a film. It will be more similar to Samsung's own AMOLED used for mobile phones and LG's OLED TVs.
> If Samsung's eventual goal is to launch a self-emissive QLED display, at minimum, the industry will have to wait until 2025 to see if it is indeed viable.
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-develops-method-for-self-emissive-qled/


 You can find more data on Nature's website :
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1771-5/tables/1


----------



## fafrd

https://m.pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2019&no=985982

“OLED TV shipments surged from 76,000 units in 2014 to 666,000 units in 2016 and *1.564 million units in 2018.*”

https://www.oled-info.com/dscc-oled...462-billion-2023-lowers-its-oled-tv-forecasts

“DSCC further reports that *LG Electronics* will not be able to reach its 2 million OLED TV goal in 2019 - and *have asked LGD to supply it with only 2.5 million OLED TV panels in 2020* (the original plan was to supply 3.5 million panels to LGE).”

If we take these numbers at face value and LGE sold 1.564M OLED TVs in 2019 and will be selling ‘only’ 2.5M OLED TVs in 2020, that 60% unit growth is going to translate to continued significant price reductions...

It’s a near-certainty that the entry-level 48” WOLED TVs introduced next year will be priced under $1000 (at least on discount including Black Friday Season) and I think there is a good chance we’ll see the 55B20 and possibly even 55C20 dip to that level as well.

65C20 will almost certainly dip under $2000 and I’d expect launch MSRPs of at least 20% below 2019 levels pretty much across the board.

With Guangzhou fully-ramped (to initial capacity of 60,000 substrates / month), LGD will have capacity to pump out over 500,000 WOLED panels per month, so 2020 may represent the first year where LGD has more WOLED production capacity than they need to serve market demand.

Of course, a big unknown is how aggressively new brands including Vizio will enter the market next year (from the pulse article):

“China-based *Xiaomi* and *U.S. Visio* have confirmed their entry into the OLED TV market with *plans to release the first lineup within next year*. *Huawei* also is preparing launch of its first OLED TV next year.”


----------



## Superman07

fafrd said:


> https://m.pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2019&no=985982
> 
> “OLED TV shipments surged from 76,000 units in 2014 to 666,000 units in 2016 and *1.564 million units in 2018.*”
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/dscc-oled...462-billion-2023-lowers-its-oled-tv-forecasts
> 
> “DSCC further reports that *LG Electronics* will not be able to reach its 2 million OLED TV goal in 2019 - and *have asked LGD to supply it with only 2.5 million OLED TV panels in 2020* (the original plan was to supply 3.5 million panels to LGE).”
> 
> If we take these numbers at face value and LGE sold 1.564M OLED TVs in 2019 and will be selling ‘only’ 2.5M OLED TVs in 2020, that 60% unit growth is going to translate to continued significant price reductions...
> 
> It’s a near-certainty that the entry-level 48” WOLED TVs introduced next year will be priced under $1000 (at least on discount including Black Friday Season) and I think there is a good chance we’ll see the 55B20 and possibly even 55C20 dip to that level as well.
> 
> 65C20 will almost certainly dip under $2000 and I’d expect launch MSRPs of at least 20% below 2019 levels pretty much across the board.
> 
> With Guangzhou fully-ramped (to initial capacity of 60,000 substrates / month), LGD will have capacity to pump out over 500,000 WOLED panels per month, so 2020 may represent the first year where LGD has more WOLED production capacity than they need to serve market demand.
> 
> Of course, a big unknown is how aggressively new brands including Vizio will enter the market next year (from the pulse article):
> 
> “China-based *Xiaomi* and *U.S. Visio* have confirmed their entry into the OLED TV market with *plans to release the first lineup within next year*. *Huawei* also is preparing launch of its first OLED TV next year.”



I’d point out that just because LG is asking to cut supply, doesn’t mean LGD will have to, necessarily, reduce production volume. The difference, if not more, could be taken up by those new players in the market.

In related news, articles are out saying Panasonic and LG are looking to reduce LCD production. I’d hope that means a shift to OLEDS, but figure it may be another year or two until they become “budget”.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## VA_DaveB

fafrd said:


> “OLED TV shipments surged from 76,000 units in 2014 to 666,000 units in 2016 and *1.564 million units in 2018.*”
> 
> If we take these numbers at face value and LGE sold *1.564M OLED TVs in 2019* and will be selling ‘only’ 2.5M OLED TVs in 2020, that 60% unit growth is going to translate to continued significant price reductions...


How did you come to the conclusion that 2019 units would exactly match 2018? More likely is that it would be somewhere between the 1.564 million units shipped in 2018 and the 2 million unit goal for 2019. Just moving the 2019 estimate to 1.8 million units lowers the unit growth to just 38%. If the actual number is 1.9 million, the unit growth goes down to 31% which would essentially halve the price reductions.


----------



## stl8k

@Mark Rejhon is doing motion quality work! This is the 1st (of many?) display that has received the Blur Busters logo.

https://twitter.com/ViewSonicGaming/status/1202043187914629120?s=20


----------



## gorman42

stl8k said:


> @*Mark Rejhon* is doing motion quality work! This is the 1st (of many?) display that has received the Blur Busters logo.
> 
> https://twitter.com/ViewSonicGaming/status/1202043187914629120?s=20


Happy for Mark, seriously. But... what has this to do with OLED tech advancements? An LCD monitor?


----------



## stl8k

gorman42 said:


> Happy for Mark, seriously. But... what has this to do with OLED tech advancements? An LCD monitor?


Since lots of general display innovations are coming to market 1st in OLED, we tend to discuss them here and previous posts on motion quality had strong engagement here. I'm not aware of a generic display advancements topic on avsforum. Let me know if such a topic exists.


----------



## fafrd

VA_DaveB said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> â€œOLED TV shipments surged from 76,000 units in 2014 to 666,000 units in 2016 and *1.564 million units in 2018.*â€Â
> 
> If we take these numbers at face value and LGE sold *1.564M OLED TVs in 2019* and will be selling â€˜onlyâ€™️ 2.5M OLED TVs in 2020, that 60% unit growth is going to translate to continued significant price reductions...
> 
> 
> 
> How did you come to the conclusion that 2019 units would exactly match 2018? More likely is that it would be somewhere between *the 1.564 million units shipped in 2018* and the 2 million unit goal for 2019. Just moving the 2019 estimate to 1.8 million units lowers the unit growth to just 38%. If the actual number is 1.9 million, the unit growth goes down to 31% which would essentially halve the price reductions.
Click to expand...

I probably used a couple decimal places more than I should have, but my 2019 figure came from analyzing the graph:

Cumulative Total of 3.8M WOLED TVs shipped by LGE at the end of 2018.

Cumulative Total of 5.0M WOLED TVs shipped by LGE by November 20119.

Hence January-October 2019 WOLED TV shipments totaled 1.2M.

Since November runrate was stated to be 100,000 per month and there is always a spike during the Black Friday / Holiday discount season, a minimum of another 200,000 and a maximum of another 400,000 should ship in November and December.

So 2019 shipments should total to 1.4-1.6M.

In terms of the ‘coincidence’ between 2018 and 2019, production levels did not increase as much as forecast (Guangzhou delays) and Sony and Panasonic both committed to modest increases, so 2019 was essentially very similar to 2018 from 20,000 feet...


----------



## VA_DaveB

Yeah didn't go through the graphs and you just regurgitated the 2018 number exactly so it seemed a bit odd. Surprising that they could flatline like that at a time when the opportunity was ripe with Sony going pretty much all OLED on the high-end.


----------



## fafrd

VA_DaveB said:


> Yeah didn't go through the graphs and you just regurgitated the 2018 number exactly so it seemed a bit odd. Surprising that they could flatline like that at a time when the opportunity was ripe with Sony going pretty much all OLED on the high-end.


Sony plus Panasonic combined still sell a fraction of what LGE does (as far as WOLED TVs).

Up to now, WOLED has been capacity-constrained (meaning they’ve been able to sell every panel thet’ve been able to produce).

And LGE has shipped the lion’s share of WOLED TVs every year including this year.

It’s very positive for the future of LGD and WOLED that LGE drops below 50% of WOLED panels shipped.

So the big unknown for next year, between LGE ‘reducing’ their demand from 3 million to 2.5 million, Guangzhou ramp being delayed due to difficulties, and new customers including Vizio coming on board, will 2020 be the first year WOLED will not be capacity-constrained, or will LGD/WOLED continue to be capacity-constrained, but with a broader customer base and less reliance on LGE as the dominant channel for WOLED TVs?

Vizio is the second-largest TV brand in the US, almost as big as Samsung and twice as big as LGE (in the US market).

Depending on how aggressively Vizio introduces their WOLED TV ‘lineup’ into the US market next year, they could easily surpass LGE in US WOLED TV unit sales in 2020...

So I’m thinking it’s waaay to early to conclude that LGD is running into difficulties and having difficulty selling all of their 2020 WOLED panel production.

LGE may be slowing down the 30-50% year-on-year WOLED TV growth rate they’ve been maintaining over the past few years, but it looks like LGD’s penetration of WOLED to pretty much the entire Premuum TV market with the sole exceptions of Samsung and TCL could more than take up the slack...


----------



## Kamus

Any word on the new features of the 2020 sets, like 240Hz maybe? 

I finally bit the bullet on a B9. I had been holding out for years because 60Hz is a deal breaker to me, but now that they support 120Hz, I just couldn't resist, because it's finally a usable display for me as a PC monitor. I would've loved even higher refresh rates, but this will do for now.


----------



## stl8k

*Interesting LGD OLED Motion Patent*

@Mark Rejhon. Can you help us understand what motion/BFI problems LGD is addressing here? The lead researcher on the patent is the lead researcher on LGD's 8K panel work.

"Also provided are a display device and a method of driving the same that can prevent the periodic appearance of bright stripes, which may be caused by combined application of the overlap driving the fake data insertion driving, immediately before the insertion of fake data, thereby further improving image quality."

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190355309A1/en


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> @Mark Rejhon. Can you help us understand what motion/BFI problems LGD is addressing here? The lead researcher on the patent is the lead researcher on LGD's 8K panel work.
> 
> "Also provided are a display device and a method of driving the same that can prevent the periodic appearance of bright stripes, which may be caused by combined application of the overlap driving the fake data insertion driving, immediately before the insertion of fake data, thereby further improving image quality."
> 
> https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190355309A1/en


This sounds like it’s probably related to the ‘overshoot’ / flashing issue first noticed on 2018 WOLEDs and apparently still present on 2019 WOLEDs...


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> This sounds like it’s probably related to the ‘overshoot’ / flashing issue first noticed on 2018 WOLEDs and apparently still present on 2019 WOLEDs...


Yeah, let's hope they solved it for good, this time.


----------



## RichB

fafrd said:


> This sounds like it’s probably related to the ‘overshoot’ / flashing issue first noticed on 2018 WOLEDs and apparently still present on 2019 WOLEDs...


Perhaps, it seems a bit weird to patent a solution to a processing bug.

- Rich


----------



## fafrd

RichB said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds like itâ€™️s probably related to the â€˜overshootâ€™️ / flashing issue first noticed on 2018 WOLEDs and apparently still present on 2019 WOLEDs...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, it seems a bit weird to patent a solution to a processing bug.
> 
> - Rich
Click to expand...

Don’t think it’s a processing bug.

Sounds as though OLED sub-pixels need to be overdriven in certain situations, such as moving from black/off to near-black/barely on (similar to LCDs). Without that overdrive, response is too slow for certain situations (such as black to near-black).

That overdrive is generally supposed to be of short enough duration that it should get the subpixel turning on faster without actually getting anywhere close to it’s overdrive ‘target’ (which might be bright white for a 5% grey level, for example).

Sometimes, subpixels turn on much faster than expected and actually reach their overdrive target before the overdrive (‘false image’) is turned-off/replaced, in which case an overshoot / white flash results.

Whether this is caused by subpixel history or subpixel spatial context (surrounding) subpixels, I have no idea, though the pattern references to subpixel ‘overlap’ leads me suspect spatial context / neighboring subpixels is involved.

Good near-black uniformity / performance with high frame rates seem to be a challenge for WOLED (and perhaps for all OLED).

Hopefully whatever new approach LGD has described in this patent has already been tested and delivers a solution / improvement...


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> Hopefully whatever new approach LGD has described in this patent has already been tested and delivers a solution / improvement...


Unless I'm mistaken, the patent refers to this: https://patents.google.com/patent/KR20190132763A/en and looking at dates... I'm afraid that this is an old patent, what we've already seen in action as a not complete solution.


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully whatever new approach LGD has described in this patent has already been tested and delivers a solution / improvement...
> 
> 
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, the patent refers to this: https://patents.google.com/patent/KR20190132763A/en and looking at dates... *I'm afraid that this is an old patent*, what we've already seen in action as a not complete solution.
Click to expand...

Filed in May 2018, so unless they waited for the technology to be fully-developed for prime-time, too late for 2019 model year (and even if fully developed by May ‘18, it would be a stretch to squeeze it into the 2019 model year, since it seems to impact OLED panel design (subpixels).

Time multiplexing (interleaving ‘fake’ frames) and BFI (interleaving black frames) are closely related, so the fact LGD demonstrated 120Hz BFI at CES ‘19 then mysteriously yanked it from production release at the 11th hour could be related to LGD introducing some new ‘fake’ frame insertion to improve near-black linearity without causing overshoots...

But whatever it is, and whether any efforts were made to include this technology in the 2019 models or not, it should be mature enough to incorporate without compromise (and after sufficient testing) in the 2020 model-year.

So we’ll see - I’m looking forward to seeing what LGD has to announce and to demonstrate next month...


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Good near-black uniformity / performance with high frame rates seem to be a challenge for WOLED (and perhaps for all OLED).


It's a general OLED problem. On the mobile OLEDs, Samsung does not employ any overdrive and the results are pretty bad smearing of near-black colors. Google "oled black smear" for plenty of examples. Incidentally, the earlier WOLEDs were not immune either. I first saw the overshoot problem on the 2017 models but didn't really test for it on the earlier ones. It resembled the yellow phosphor trails that many saw on plasmas. I never noticed it in content but found it by accident while panning a dark scene around with a remote or in-game controls on a C7. You would get a bright trail behind very dark moving pixels on a dark (but not black) background. Whatever they did in 2018-2019 made it even worse to the point you don't need to go looking for it. At least in 2019 we finally had at least some reviewers stop blaming content and realize that this problem is caused by the display. Hopefully that forces LG's hand to come up with a real solution. At the very least, they could offer a menu option to turn off overdrive as you can do on all LCD computer monitors. For some content the smearing would be less offensive than overshoot artifacts.


----------



## Kamus

fafrd said:


> Sounds as though OLED sub-pixels need to be overdriven in certain situations, such as moving from black/off to near-black/barely on (similar to LCDs). Without that overdrive, response is too slow for certain situations (such as black to near-black).



I've yet to take delivery of my B9, and I haven't owned an LG display before this one so I can't comment on this specifically. But I will say, this sounds a lot like the "black smear" we see in VR OLED headsets. Once OLED is turned on, it can achieve ~ .1 MS response times, but if it's off, or near-off, you get black smearing, because it takes a bit for the OLED to power up.

The solution Oculus uses to mitigate the problem is called "SPUD". They don't allow for the OLED panels to be completely off, which does hinder contrast (but it's still orders of magnitude higher than LCD) and affects brightness uniformity a little bit at near-black, but it's not a big deal. That solution also seems to help with low APL brightness uniformity, getting rid of the "mura" artifacts for the most part. 

Another downside of that solution is that if your panel has any stuck pixels. (my Oculus Quest has two green ones) you will always see them on a black background, since the pixels never turn fully off.


Anyway, this is actually concerning for OLED moving forward. I personally can't wait for 240Hz OLED panels and beyond, but this limitation works against this goal.


----------



## fafrd

Kamus said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds as though OLED sub-pixels need to be overdriven in certain situations, such as moving from black/off to near-black/barely on (similar to LCDs). Without that overdrive, response is too slow for certain situations (such as black to near-black).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to take delivery of my B9, and I haven't owned an LG display before this one so I can't comment on this specifically. But I will say, this sounds a lot like the "black smear" we see in VR OLED headsets. Once OLED is turned on, it can achieve ~ .1 MS response times, but if it's off, or near-off, you get black smearing, because it takes a bit for the OLED to power up.
> 
> The solution Oculus uses to mitigate the problem is called "SPUD". They don't allow for the OLED panels to be completely off, which does hinder contrast (but it's still orders of magnitude higher than LCD) and affects brightness uniformity a little bit at near-black, but it's not a big deal. That solution also seems to help with low APL brightness uniformity, getting rid of the "mura" artifacts for the most part.
> 
> Another downside of that solution is that if your panel has any stuck pixels. (my Oculus Quest has two green ones) you will always see them on a black background, since the pixels never turn fully off.
> 
> 
> Anyway, this is actually concerning for OLED moving forward. I personally can't wait for 240Hz OLED panels and beyond, but this limitation works against this goal.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this interesting background.

If OLEDs struggle to quickly transition from completely off to weakly on, the obvious solution to me is to move to a CRT-like impulse mode as Mark Rejhorn and I have discussed several times on this thread. Making this work requires faster backplanes so there is actually alignment between achieving faster refresh speeds and better uniformity.

The essential paradigm shift involves moving from LCD-like sample-and-hold subpixels to time-controlled subpixels that are either fully off or strongly on.

With backplanes supporting native 1000Hz refresh (a different ‘artificial’ image inserted every ms), a 120Hz source requiring a large near-black field of 3% could instead be displayed at 24% flashed for 1/8th of a frame (1ms).

Brighter pixels could also be displayed at 875% BFI if the panel supports 800% peak brightness levels for 1ms duration (meaning 8000cd/m2 for 1ms based on current peak brightness levels) or alternatively could be displayed for longer time at lower brightness levels if peak brightness levels are limited due to lifetime concerns or whatever (so 1000cd/m2 for 8ms if 2000cd/m2 for 4ms is out of reach).

The key technology for moving from sample-and-hold to time-based control is backplane speed, so the drive towards 120Hz 8K panels and the fact that LGD is working with NHK on these OLED motion-performance issues is very positive.

BFI is a crude move to time-based control on an image-wide basis. The next step for LGD is to realize that a BFI-like approach can be applied to different subpixels differently within the same overall frame display period. So near-black subpixels are ‘flashed’ at higher brightness for less duration than brighter subpixels in the same scene.

Hopefully this patent and it’s references to inserting ‘artificial images’ is a reference to this approach...


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good near-black uniformity / performance with high frame rates seem to be a challenge for WOLED (and perhaps for all OLED).
> 
> 
> 
> It's a general OLED problem. On the mobile OLEDs, Samsung does not employ any overdrive and the results are pretty bad smearing of near-black colors. Google "oled black smear" for plenty of examples. Incidentally, the earlier WOLEDs were not immune either. I first saw the overshoot problem on the 2017 models but didn't really test for it on the earlier ones. It resembled the yellow phosphor trails that many saw on plasmas. I never noticed it in content but found it by accident while panning a dark scene around with a remote or in-game controls on a C7. You would get a bright trail behind very dark moving pixels on a dark (but not black) background. Whatever they did in 2018-2019 made it even worse to the point you don't need to go looking for it. At least in 2019 we finally had at least some reviewers stop blaming content and realize that this problem is caused by the display. Hopefully that forces LG's hand to come up with a real solution. *At the very least, they could offer a menu option to turn off overdrive as you can do on all LCD computer monitors. *For some content the smearing would be less offensive than overshoot artifacts.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, allowing user control of LGDs anti-smearing technology would be the best way for end-users to select the option that delivers the best image to their specific eyeballs.

If this smearing issue has been a problem with all OLEDs, it makes me wonder what backplane speed is supported by the phone OLEDs.

As I just posted, a very high refresh speed allows stronger near-black subpixel turn-one while also reducing persistence, and it is such an obvious solution to the problem of OLED smearing, it makes me suspect that phone OLED backplanes are even slower than the IGZO backplanes that LGD WOLED is using.

The drive towards 120Hz 8K refresh means investment is being made into speeding up backplanes, but I’m not sure the same is happening for phone screens.

But overall, LGD developing and deploying a sophisticated AFI (Artificial Frame Insertion) to allow different trade offs between persistence-based motion blur, weak-turn-on-based OLED smear, and overdrive-based WOLED flashing/overshoot to be controlled by the end user is where I hope this is all headed...


----------



## fafrd

Some updated information on the expected schedule for LGD’s ramp-up if the new 8.5G plant in Guangzhou: https://www.google.com/amp/en.thelec.kr/news/articleViewAmp.html?idxno=635

“LG Display won’t be able to mass produce OLED panels for TVs from its Gen-8.5 plant in Guangzhou of China until January next year, according to industry sources on Dec. 6.”


----------



## gorman42

That's in time for 2020 production, isn't it?


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> That's in time for 2020 production, isn't it?


Yes, if Guangzhou starts production in January, that would be in time to impact 2020 production.

There is more information on LGD’s WOLED capacity planning for the next several years here: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1563870830

“With the additional investment, production capacity at the 10.5 generation OLED line at the P10 plant in Paju, Korea, will increase from 30,000 sheets per month in the first half of 2022 to 45,000 sheets per month in the first half of 2023.”

Each 10.5G sheet is equivalent to 1.8 8.5G sheets, so summarizing LGD’s currently-committed WOLED production capacity in terms of 8.5G sheet equivalents looks like this:

2019: 70,000
2020: 130,000 (86% growth)
2021: 160,000 (23% growth)
2022: 214,000 (34% growth)
2023: 241,000 (13% growth)

I’ve been looking at 10.5G substrate layouts and have a new prediction to make: assuming the 48” WOLED panel LGD is launching next year is successful, I’m guessing we’ll see a 43-44” WOLED panel launched in 2022.

The reason is that ‘88” is the new 65”’ as far as 10.5G substrates versus 8.5G substrates and utilization of a 10.5G substrate to manufacture 3 88” panels and 6 43-44” panels is very high (over 90%). The attached image shows the similar efficiency of manufacturing 3 65” and 6 32” panels on an 8.5G substrate. Replace 65” with 88” and 32” with 43-44” and you get the idea of MMG layout of 88”/43-44” panels on a 3370mm x 2940mm 8.5G substrate.

Alternatively, LGD could use the leftover space to manufacture 2 75” panels using MMG but utilization is lower and cut complexity is higher, so 42-43” makes delivers lower cost (essentially optimal).

The same efficiency would be possible manufacturing 32” panels with 65” panels on 8.5G substrates but there is no market for 32” WOLED panels (at least not yet).

With MMG on 10.5G, 88” WOLED panel production will be 33% lower than production cost on 8.5G substrates, so there is no doubt LGD has started the 88” panel market on 8.5G with plans to move to 10.5G by 2022.

Assuming a 10.5G substrate costs 1.5x the cost of an 8.5G substrate to manufacture, here is my forecast of WOLED panel sizes and raw manufacturing costs (normalized against 55” WOLED raw panel cost) ignoring depreciation costs and ignoring yield effects LGD will be selling by 2022/2023:

42-43”: 50% [10.5G]
48”: 75% [8.5G]
55”: 100% [8.5G]
65”: 112.5% on 10.5G; 150% on 8.5G MMG
75”: 150% on [10.5G]
77”-82”: 225% either 10.5G or 8.5G MMG
88”: 200% [8.5G MMG]
98”: 300% [8.5G]

I’d been predicting that LGD would compensate for the phaseout if 77” in favor of 75” by introducing an 82” WOLED panel, but that will cost over 10% more than an 88” panel (on either 8.5G or 10.5G) so it’s hard to rationalize.

The stongest argument in favor of introducing an 82” size (or keeping 77”) is that manufacturing cost is roughly equivalent at 8.5G or 10.5G so that size can act as a buffer in case there is excess 8.5G capacity (not enough demand if 48” and 55”). Without a 77-82” size, 65” would need to be used to take up any excess 8.5G capacity and it will cost 33% more to manufacture 65” on 8.5G than 10.5G, even with MMG (and 78% more without MMG).

It’s real head scratcher why LGD chose to introduce 77” rather than 75” in September 2013: https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/lg-unveils-77-inch-4k-oled-tv-at-ifa-2013-2903738

Perhaps it’s because the next-generation P10 OLED TV fab LGD announced in late 2015 was expected to be 8G rather than 10.5G https://www.oled-info.com/lg-announ...ab-paju-make-oled-tv-and-flexible-oled-panels

“The OLED TV lines will be *Gen-9 *lines while the flexible OLED lines will host smaller substrates.”

I can’t find any references to Gen-9 substrate size, but Gen-8.5 was optimized for 48” and 55” and could produce 3 65” panels, Gen-10.5 was optimized for 65” and 75” and could produce 3 88” panels, and so it’s likely that whatever Gen-9 LGD was considering was intended to be optimized for 55” and 65” and could produce 3 77” panels (more accurately Gen-9.5).

At any rate, 2022 is shaping up to be a landscape-changing year...


----------



## subtec

fafrd said:


> [...]there is no market for 32” WOLED panels (at least not yet).


It would be an instant hit for the PC market (properly specced, of course), which has been *sorely* underserved for years (yes yes, burn in... I'd gladly treat it with kid gloves just to have something with miles better picture quality than the current cream-of-the-crap LCDs). Hell, they could price it at $2k and it would *still* sell like hotcakes - that's how starved PC enthusiasts are for something actually good.


----------



## fafrd

subtec said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]there is no market for 32â€ WOLED panels (at least not yet).
> 
> 
> 
> *It would be an instant hit for the PC market* (properly specced, of course), which has been *sorely* underserved for years (yes yes, burn in... I'd gladly treat it with kid gloves just to have something with miles better picture quality than the current cream-of-the-crap LCDs). Hell, they could price it at $2k and it would *still* sell like hotcakes - that's how starved PC enthusiasts are for something actually good.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s a question of price as much as volume.

For sh*ts and giggles, let’s assume LGD were to produce 6 32” panels alongside every 3 65” panels they produce in 2020 (so 2x).

Forecasts for 2020 are still up in the air, but conservatively are expected to be at least 6 million WOLED panels, and let’a assume half of those are 65” (so 3 million).

That means using MMG would allow LGD to produce ~6 million 32” panels in 2020. That MMG production would allow 65” panel cost to be refuced by 33%, so close to the $550 DSCC has forecast for Guangzhou with MMG: https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/tv-cost-report-provides-first-look-at-qd-oled-mmg and about $600 out of Korea with MMG.

Those 32” panels would cost 1/4 the cost of the 65” panels, so $138 to $150.

I have no idea what 32” LCD panels for OC display cost, but I’d guess far, far less ($50?).

But the issue is not the price as much as the demand - 6 million panels from a cold start is probably a non-starter.

And then there is also the fact that all of LGDs engineering, interfaces, etc is geared toward TV display. If anything different/additional is required for PC display, that’s a distraction. Far easier to just produce a couple more 55” or 48 TV displays...

But it’ll be interesting to see how the recently-launched Dell / Alienware 55” WOLED monitor sells: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/new...0qf/apd/210-auds/monitors-monitor-accessories

If Dell & Alienware sell a boatload of 55” WOLED panels as monitors for $3000, that means first that there is demand even at prices exceeding entry-level 55” WOLED TV pricing and second that the distraction could not have been too great.

Follow that up with a successful 48” Dell / Alienware WOLED monitor next year, and an even smaller 32” monitor might be in the cards for 2021 or 2022...

$3000 is a pricey 55” monitor and I doubt Dell /Alienware will sell a meaningful number this first year, but a 32” version for under $750 would appear to be low hanging fruit if the demand is there...


----------



## AnalogHD

fafrd said:


> $3000 is a pricey 55” monitor and I doubt Dell /Alienware will sell a meaningful number this first year, but a 32” version for under $750 would appear to be low hanging fruit if the demand is there...


That is not happening. What are they going to do with all the $1,500 32" LCD monitors that are not as fat, not as good at viewing angles, and not as bright?
Any potential 32" version will target the same professional or high-end market as Apple Display and Asus mini-LED. Meaning the same $3,999 $2,999 range and on sale for $2,390 here or there.

Very Large Monitors (40"+) are a recurring thing in the market. The business case for them is low capital cost - just slap new inputs on a TV panel already for sale, maybe upgrade the stand. They never do very well in the market, but enough to cover the logistics cost of an extra SKU. They traditionally cost less than a smaller high-end display such as a 27" or 30" or 32" or 34"W or whatever else is currently the largest size business IT departments won't declare a TV and refuse to place on an employee's desk.

The $5,000 now $3,000 Dell is an example of a low capital cost experiment to see if gamers will shell out $1,500 for having a DisplayPort added to their C8/C9.


----------



## fafrd

AnalogHD said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> $3000 is a pricey 55â€Â monitor and I doubt Dell /Alienware will sell a meaningful number this first year, but a 32â€Â version for under $750 would appear to be low hanging fruit if the demand is there...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not happening. What are they going to do with all the $1,500 32" LCD monitors that are not as fat, not as good at viewing angles, and not as bright?
> Any potential 32" version will target the same professional or high-end market as Apple Display and Asus mini-LED. Meaning the same $3,999 $2,999 range and on sale for $2,390 here or there.
> 
> Very Large Monitors (40"+) are a recurring thing in the market. The business case for them is low capital cost - just slap new inputs on a TV panel already for sale, maybe upgrade the stand. They never do very well in the market, but *enough to cover the logistics cost of an extra SKU. *They traditionally cost less than a smaller high-end display such as a 27" or 30" or 32" or 34"W or whatever else is currently the largest size business IT departments won't declare a TV and refuse to place on an employee's desk.
> 
> The $5,000 now $3,000 Dell is an example of a low capital cost experiment to see if gamers will shell out $1,500 for having a DisplayPort added to their C8/C9.
Click to expand...

I think you are reinforcing my point.

In the LCD world, the panels are there - they are a commodity and the overhead for an OEM to develop and introduce a new niche SKU is a low-enough bar that they can take a flyer, even if it’s just chasing a low-volume niche market.

It’s a different story in the WOLED world because the panels will only exist if LGD manufactures them and LGD has zero interest in setting up logistics and adding a new SKU for a low volume flyer.

So even if there were a few high-end OEMs like Alienware interested to introduce a premium 32” WOLED monitor, LGD is not going to be interested until the annual commitment level totals into the millions.

It’s a different story with 55” (and presumably 48”) because those WOLED panel sizes are already available to serve the TV market (so similar to the LCD panel market in that respect).

Said another way, LGD will be producing over 3 million 65” WOLED panels in 2020 and MMG allows them to use the remaining 1/3 8.5G substrate real estate to manufacture either 2 million 48” panels or 6 million 32” panels (or even 2 million 55” panels, though they have apparently decided to steer clear of that this first year, perhaps because it pushes the limits of 8.5G MMG too far).

Which is easier / more sensible for LGD to do, tack some additional capacity of 48” (or 55”) panels onto SKUs they already have at those volumes or set up logistics for a brand new SKU and find customers for those 6 million 32” WOLED panels in their first year of production?

Not going to happen.

Now it seems as though JOLED may be going after the 32” monitor market with their printed OLED technology and if they establish a volume market for 32” OLED monitor panels, that might pave the way for LGD to follow after a year or two. But leading that new market with everything else they have going on? That would be foolish.


----------



## fafrd

On the subject of smaller-sized OLED monitors, I found these:

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/j...f-monitor-oled-panels-10-to-32-next-year.html

“Company Joled has raised some serious capital and to start a new production line for *10" to 32" OLED panels for cards and high-end monitors*, and production starts next year in 2020. The company plans to fan *220,000 panels per month*. That means that OLED based monitors finally will make an appearance.”


https://www.anandtech.com/show/1516...roduction-of-printed-oled-sheets-at-55g-plant

“JOLED has started trial production of printed OLED substrates at its 5.5G plant at its Nomi Site, which was officially completed on Monday, November 25. The sheets will be used to make *high-resolution mid-size OLED displays in 2020*, when the factory starts mass production.


JOLED’s 5.5G facility has a *monthly production capacity of 20,000 1,300×1,500-mm substrates*, which are processed using the company’s own high-speed printing method.”


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.benzinga.com/amp/content/14527548

“FORIS NOVA, the first OLED product for EIZO, is a next-generation entertainment monitor that is ideal for watching videos and playing games. It will be *released at the EIZO official online shop EIZO Direct (Japan) on November 1,* followed by launches in the United States, Europe, and China. EIZO stated in their press release that, "In addition to the use of OLED with exceptional black expression, the *compact 21.6-inch body* / 4K high-definition and HDR-compatibility realize a more realistic video display. FORIS NOVA will provide a new viewing experience of enjoying high-quality video content in private spaces such as a study or library."


20,000 5.5G substrates (1300mm x 1500mm) per month translates to 120,000 raw 32” panels per month (so close to 100,000 per month assuming yield slightly over 80%); call it 1.2M 32” panels per year yielded or 45% of their 2020 production target of 2.64M panels.

A 5.5G substrate can produce 12 21.6” panels, so 20,000 per month translates to 240,000 raw or ~200,000 per month yielded, meaning still only 90% if stated production levels of 220,000 per month.

So first, we know JOLED will primarily be manufacturing panels which are 21.6”, and second, even if they were to manufacture exclusively 32” panels next year and sell all ~1.2M of them, that’s barely enough volume to get LGDs attention.

I’m guessing LGD is going to be watching the success of this initiative for at least 2 years before making any decisions to enter the ‘mid-size OLED display market.’


----------



## 8mile13

The 21,6" Eizo Foris Nova OLED monitor will cost $5,000 :frown:


----------



## circumstances

Isn't CES next month? Still no rumors or rumblings about improvements/features in the 2020 OLED offerings?


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> Isn't CES next month? Still no rumors or rumblings about improvements/features in the 2020 OLED offerings?


LG is being uncharacteristucally quiet this cycle... Hope that proves to be good news (building up a true surprise for CES).

Might we see the first 120Hz 8K TV? (And along with it the first 240Hz 4K displays?)


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> The 21,6" Eizo Foris Nova OLED monitor will cost $5,000


Wow! Talk about Niche!

Is there a reason I am missing that someone (ie: a hardcore gamer) would prefer to spend more on a 21.6” display than they could spend on an equally-performing or out-performing 77” display ???


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> circumstances said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't CES next month? Still no rumors or rumblings about improvements/features in the 2020 OLED offerings?
> 
> 
> 
> LG is being uncharacteristucally quiet this cycle... Hope that proves to be good news (building up a true surprise for CES).
> 
> Might we see the first 120Hz 8K TV? (And along with it the first 240Hz 4K displays?)
Click to expand...

I prefer Sony. No peeps out of them either?


----------



## subtec

fafrd said:


> Wow! Talk about Niche!
> 
> Is there a reason I am missing that someone (ie: a hardcore gamer) would prefer to spend more on a 21.6” display than they could spend on an equally-performing or out-performing 77” display ???


Given the lack of high refresh rate or G-sync/FreeSync/AdaptiveSync, it's not really targeted at gamers... or much of anyone else. It's little more than a tech toy for deep-pocketed geeks. The Foris Nova is limited to a run of 500 units, cementing the notion that it's more of halo product than anything. The panels it's using are made on JOLED's limited-capacity pilot line though; I wouldn't put _too_ much stock in it as an indicator of what the prices look like once they get the full production plant up and running.


----------



## AnalogHD

fafrd said:


> So even if there were a few high-end OEMs like Alienware interested to introduce a premium 32” WOLED monitor, LGD is not going to be interested until the annual commitment level totals into the millions.


I agree with that.

I'm just pointing out that a smaller display is not necessarily going to be cheaper. It's a non-linear curve that has its global minimum at the smallest size in wide demand, its local maximum at the largest size in wide demand, then a local minimum once it crosses over to TV panels, then it goes up again.

In other words, anything in the 30"-38" range will probably cost more than the $3,000 55" Dell, not less. The only way it will even match that $3,000 is through global price decreases.

LGD's tech is currently superior, but a 32" panel would be equivalent to 8K/65", and they're currently at 8K/88". It's not just a matter of cutting smaller pieces of substrate. Their phone screens at high ppi were unsuccessful.

With new tech, perhaps TE, going into the panels, they're not going to be at the $750 level even for the panel. If it does happen, with production in the millions, you're probably looking at at least the same price per unit as the newest 55", plus extra markup for being a monitor.


----------



## fafrd

subtec said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Talk about Niche!
> 
> Is there a reason I am missing that someone (ie: a hardcore gamer) would prefer to spend more on a 21.6â€ display than they could spend on an equally-performing or out-performing 77â€ display ???
> 
> 
> 
> Given the lack of high refresh rate or G-sync/FreeSync/AdaptiveSync, it's not really targeted at gamers... or much of anyone else. It's little more than a tech toy for deep-pocketed geeks. *The Foris Nova is limited to a run of 500 units, *cementing the notion that it's more of halo product than anything. The panels it's using are made on JOLED's limited-capacity pilot line though; I wouldn't put _too_ much stock in it as an indicator of what the prices look like once they get the full production plant up and running.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if it’s only priced at that level because there are only 500 units, thar’s really nothing more than a proof-of-concept.

We (and LGD) will need to wait to see whether JOLED successfully sells their 1.2N medium-sized panels (and at what price) to understand whether this is a market that might justify LGD’s attention...


----------



## Kamus

fafrd said:


> Thanks for this interesting background.
> 
> If OLEDs struggle to quickly transition from completely off to weakly on, the obvious solution to me is to move to a CRT-like impulse mode as Mark Rejhorn and I have discussed several times on this thread. Making this work requires faster backplanes so there is actually alignment between achieving faster refresh speeds and better uniformity.
> 
> The essential paradigm shift involves moving from LCD-like sample-and-hold subpixels to time-controlled subpixels that are either fully off or strongly on.
> 
> With backplanes supporting native 1000Hz refresh (a different ‘artificial’ image inserted every ms), a 120Hz source requiring a large near-black field of 3% could instead be displayed at 24% flashed for 1/8th of a frame (1ms).
> 
> Brighter pixels could also be displayed at 875% BFI if the panel supports 800% peak brightness levels for 1ms duration (meaning 8000cd/m2 for 1ms based on current peak brightness levels) or alternatively could be displayed for longer time at lower brightness levels if peak brightness levels are limited due to lifetime concerns or whatever (so 1000cd/m2 for 8ms if 2000cd/m2 for 4ms is out of reach).
> 
> The key technology for moving from sample-and-hold to time-based control is backplane speed, so the drive towards 120Hz 8K panels and the fact that LGD is working with NHK on these OLED motion-performance issues is very positive.
> 
> BFI is a crude move to time-based control on an image-wide basis. The next step for LGD is to realize that a BFI-like approach can be applied to different subpixels differently within the same overall frame display period. So near-black subpixels are ‘flashed’ at higher brightness for less duration than brighter subpixels in the same scene.
> 
> Hopefully this patent and it’s references to inserting ‘artificial images’ is a reference to this approach...



Thanks for the insight!

A method like this would be incredibly useful for VR. Current OLED HMDs rely on BFI to combat sample and hold artifacts. This is required in VR, because just the act of moving your head around would cause a lot of blur.

The downside, is that using this method shuts down any dreams of having HDR on an HMD; the brightness penalty is too high. Would this method allow for higher light output than traditional BFI?

On another note. There's a lot of people that aren't sold on the idea of HFR displays, but I suspect they'll come around when every phone manufacturer starts shipping 120hz OLED displays early next year. I personally would like 240+Hz for my twitch shooter needs, and VR can use even higher refresh rates.


----------



## video_analysis

circumstances said:


> I prefer Sony. No peeps out of them either?


LGD is doing the legwork in development, so there's likely a bit of symmetry/planning when it comes to their biggest partners currently (LGE and Sony).


----------



## fafrd

Kamus said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for this interesting background.
> 
> If OLEDs struggle to quickly transition from completely off to weakly on, the obvious solution to me is to move to a CRT-like impulse mode as Mark Rejhorn and I have discussed several times on this thread. Making this work requires faster backplanes so there is actually alignment between achieving faster refresh speeds and better uniformity.
> 
> The essential paradigm shift involves moving from LCD-like sample-and-hold subpixels to time-controlled subpixels that are either fully off or strongly on.
> 
> With backplanes supporting native 1000Hz refresh (a different â€˜artificialâ€™️ image inserted every ms), a 120Hz source requiring a large near-black field of 3% could instead be displayed at 24% flashed for 1/8th of a frame (1ms).
> 
> Brighter pixels could also be displayed at 875% BFI if the panel supports 800% peak brightness levels for 1ms duration (meaning 8000cd/m2 for 1ms based on current peak brightness levels) or alternatively could be displayed for longer time at lower brightness levels if peak brightness levels are limited due to lifetime concerns or whatever (so 1000cd/m2 for 8ms if 2000cd/m2 for 4ms is out of reach).
> 
> The key technology for moving from sample-and-hold to time-based control is backplane speed, so the drive towards 120Hz 8K panels and the fact that LGD is working with NHK on these OLED motion-performance issues is very positive.
> 
> BFI is a crude move to time-based control on an image-wide basis. The next step for LGD is to realize that a BFI-like approach can be applied to different subpixels differently within the same overall frame display period. So near-black subpixels are â€˜flashedâ€™️ at higher brightness for less duration than brighter subpixels in the same scene.
> 
> Hopefully this patent and itâ€™️s references to inserting â€˜artificial imagesâ€™️ is a reference to this approach...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the insight!
> 
> A method like this would be incredibly useful for VR. Current OLED HMDs rely on BFI to combat sample and hold artifacts. This is required in VR, because just the act of moving your head around would cause a lot of blur.
> 
> The downside, is that using this method shuts down any dreams of having HDR on an HMD; the brightness penalty is too high. *Would this method allow for higher light output than traditional BFI?*
> 
> On another note. There's a lot of people that aren't sold on the idea of HFR displays, but I suspect they'll come around when every phone manufacturer starts shipping 120hz OLED displays early next year. I personally would like 240+Hz for my twitch shooter needs, and VR can use even higher refresh rates.
Click to expand...

I was looking at the rtings.com review of the C9 and realize their response time measurements more or less prove that the C9 already has a 240Hz backplane (attached).

The pixels are being updated every ~4ms which is a 240Hz refresh rate. LG is using a first refresh at 240Hz to overdrive, as is most noticeable in the upper left measurement (0% to 20%). After the overdrive refresh, the subsequent 240Hz refresh is used to bring subpixel drive levels to target (not that the subpixel is already ‘on’ above target).

The net refresh rate is only 120Hz because LG needs to burn an entire refresh cycle for overdrive.

When they demoed 75% BFI @ 60Hz and 50% BFI @ 120Hz, that probably meant either skipping overdrive to accept some smearing or just accepting overdriven levels on weakly-driven subpixels (which is likely related to the ‘flashing’ artifact first seen in the C8).

So LGD may already have the backplane speed to deliver 8K @ 120Hz and if it is dual-drive as I suspect (half of the column from above and half from below) that would actually translate to a 480Hz Effective Refresh Rate allowing them to either deliver 25%, 50% and 75% BFI @ 120Hz or to overdrive for one cycle, adjust to target for a second cycle, and then deliver 25% or 50% BFI @ 120Hz.

It’ll be interesting to see what capability they announce in a few weeks..,

As far as VR, the question is what backplane technology/speed they are using. If using IGZO like LG or a similarly-fast backplane technology, they ought to be able to use similar techniques (but if slower, it would be out of reach).

The impact of BFI on brightness is complicated. The ‘easy’ thing to do is leave brightness alone, so 50% BFI cuts average light output in half.

With SDR, there is certainly the headroom to double brightness, so 50% BFI at 200% brightness and 0% BFI at 100% brightness output the same average brightness level.

With HDR highlights, there may not be the headroom to drive pixels to 200% brightness, so those pixels could be displayed at 0% BFI & 100% brightness.

In general, it is the photons that age the OLED material, so aging at 200% brightness for 50% time is roughly the same as aging at 100% brightness for 100% time but unfortunately it is not linear; aging at 200% brightness for 50% time will be a bit higher than aging at 100% brightness for 100% time.

LCD more or less forced all pixels of a frame to be treated the same as far as BFI but OLED does not impose that limitation. Eventually LGD will figure this out and they will be able to deliver outstanding motion performance on dim and under-APL driven pixels while the bright HDR highlight pixels can deliver full-framerate MPRT (and more persistence-based motion blur).


----------



## fafrd

AnalogHD said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> So even if there were a few high-end OEMs like Alienware interested to introduce a premium 32â€Â WOLED monitor, LGD is not going to be interested until the annual commitment level totals into the millions.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that.
> 
> I'm just pointing out that a smaller display is not necessarily going to be cheaper. It's a non-linear curve that has its global minimum at the smallest size in wide demand, its local maximum at the largest size in wide demand, then a local minimum once it crosses over to TV panels, then it goes up again.
> 
> In other words, *anything in the 30"-38" range will probably cost more than the $3,000 55" Dell, not less*. The only way it will even match that $3,000 is through global price decreases.
Click to expand...

If that’s true, that market will never be interesting to LGD (volume too low).

LGD needs to sell 100s of 1000s of square meters of WOLED production every month - making better margin on a very small % of those square meters is not worth the distraction...



> LGD's tech is currently superior, but a 32" panel would be *equivalent to 8K/65”, and they're currently at 8K/88"*. It's not just a matter of cutting smaller pieces of substrate. Their phone screens at high ppi were unsuccessful.
> 
> With new tech, perhaps TE, going into the panels, they're not going to be at the $750 level even for the panel. If it does happen, with production in the millions, you're probably looking at at least the same price per unit as the newest 55", plus extra markup for being a monitor.


Pretty certain LGD already demo’ed a 65” 8K panel based on their BE WOLED technology at CES’19 and I’m expecting the 2020 8K offerings announced at CES’20 to include 75/77” and 65”...

If LGD were to offer a 32” 4K panel for the same price as their 55” 4K panel (meaning ~$500) next year, how many such panels do you think they could sell over 12 months?

I don’t think it’s a large enough number to be interesting. JOLED is only aiming to sell 1.2M medium-sized OLED panels in 2020 and that quantity of 32” panels would only constitute 1/2 of one month’s capacity or a bit over 4% of LGD’s full-year 2020 WOLED production (by area)...

I think LGD is likely to work their way down to smaller panels one small step at a time. 2020 will bring 48” WOLEDs and I think the next smaller size we’re likely to see is 43/44” (perhaps by 2022...).


----------



## subtec

AnalogHD said:


> LGD's tech is currently superior, but a 32" panel would be equivalent to 8K/65", and they're currently at 8K/88". It's not just a matter of cutting smaller pieces of substrate. Their phone screens at high ppi were unsuccessful.


Here's an interesting thought: at that size, for the PC gaming market specifically, it doesn't actually need to be 4K. You need a powerful GPU to run games at 4K at decent frame rates, nevermind the higher frame rates favored by many gamers. For many, 1440p is a nice half-step between 1080p and 4K that strikes the best balance between visual quality and performance. A 1440p 32" OLED, at the right price point, would actually make for a very compelling product for PC gamers.

Now in regards to the technical aspects of a high PPI display, consider the following: we know LG is planning to release a 48" 4K TV in 2020, right? Let's compare that to a a hypothetical 1440p 32":

4K @ 48": *91.79 PPI*
1440p @ 32": *91.79 PPI*

It's _exactly_ the same PPI. Food for thought.


----------



## Micolash

fafrd said:


> I was looking at the rtings.com review of the C9 and realize their response time measurements more or less prove that the C9 already has a 240Hz backplane (attached).
> 
> The pixels are being updated every ~4ms which is a 240Hz refresh rate. LG is using a first refresh at 240Hz to overdrive, as is most noticeable in the upper left measurement (0% to 20%). After the overdrive refresh, the subsequent 240Hz refresh is used to bring subpixel drive levels to target (not that the subpixel is already ‘on’ above target).
> 
> The net refresh rate is only 120Hz because LG needs to burn an entire refresh cycle for overdrive.
> 
> When they demoed 75% BFI @ 60Hz and 50% BFI @ 120Hz, that probably meant either skipping overdrive to accept some smearing or just accepting overdriven levels on weakly-driven subpixels (which is likely related to the ‘flashing’ artifact first seen in the C8).
> 
> *So LGD may already have the backplane speed to deliver 8K @ 120Hz and if it is dual-drive as I suspect (half of the column from above and half from below) that would actually translate to a 480Hz Effective Refresh Rate allowing them to either deliver 25%, 50% and 75% BFI @ 120Hz or to overdrive for one cycle, adjust to target for a second cycle, and then deliver 25% or 50% BFI @ 120Hz.*
> 
> It’ll be interesting to see what capability they announce in a few weeks..,
> 
> As far as VR, the question is what backplane technology/speed they are using. If using IGZO like LG or a similarly-fast backplane technology, they ought to be able to use similar techniques (but if slower, it would be out of reach).
> 
> The impact of BFI on brightness is complicated. The ‘easy’ thing to do is leave brightness alone, so 50% BFI cuts average light output in half.
> 
> With SDR, there is certainly the headroom to double brightness, so 50% BFI at 200% brightness and 0% BFI at 100% brightness output the same average brightness level.
> 
> With HDR highlights, there may not be the headroom to drive pixels to 200% brightness, so those pixels could be displayed at 0% BFI & 100% brightness.
> 
> In general, it is the photons that age the OLED material, so aging at 200% brightness for 50% time is roughly the same as aging at 100% brightness for 100% time but unfortunately it is not linear; aging at 200% brightness for 50% time will be a bit higher than aging at 100% brightness for 100% time.
> 
> LCD more or less forced all pixels of a frame to be treated the same as far as BFI but OLED does not impose that limitation. Eventually LGD will figure this out and they will be able to deliver outstanding motion performance on dim and under-APL driven pixels while the bright HDR highlight pixels can deliver full-framerate MPRT (and more persistence-based motion blur).


So LGD and OLED TVs from their partners may be able to achieve 2.1 ms MPRT next year (or 1.7 ms based on whatever math LGD uses)? That's equal to plasma motion on paper.


----------



## gorman42

Micolash said:


> So LGD and OLED TVs from their partners may be able to achieve 2.1 ms MPRT next year (or 1.7 ms based on whatever math LGD uses)? That's *equal to plasma motion *on paper.


Please, stop torturing my upgrade dreams! 

When is LG usually doing its presentation at CES? It's earlier than official show start day, correct? I'm down to counting the days...


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> The impact of BFI on brightness is complicated. The ‘easy’ thing to do is leave brightness alone, so 50% BFI cuts average light output in half.
> 
> With SDR, there is certainly the headroom to double brightness, so 50% BFI at 200% brightness and 0% BFI at 100% brightness output the same average brightness level.
> 
> *With HDR highlights, there may not be the headroom to drive pixels to 200% brightness, so those pixels could be displayed at 0% BFI & 100% brightness.*
> 
> In general, it is the photons that age the OLED material, so aging at 200% brightness for 50% time is roughly the same as aging at 100% brightness for 100% time but unfortunately it is not linear; aging at 200% brightness for 50% time will be a bit higher than aging at 100% brightness for 100% time.
> 
> LCD more or less forced all pixels of a frame to be treated the same as far as BFI but OLED does not impose that limitation. *Eventually LGD will figure this out and they will be able to deliver outstanding motion performance on dim and under-APL driven pixels while the bright HDR highlight pixels can deliver full-framerate MPRT (and more persistence-based motion blur).*


To be clear, what you are saying is that they could develop a way to use BFI on the pixels working in SDR or low HDR nit range (while boosting light output automatically to overcome the BFI dimness as we currently do manually by increasing OLED light) while leaving pixels above a certain luminance without BFI so they could reach peak brightness? If so, this would be great because they need to figure out a way to make BFI work with HDR as a lot of the content that benefits from better motion resolution is increasingly in HDR (games & movies). Sports are the ones still stuck in SDR, at least in the US.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The impact of BFI on brightness is complicated. The â€˜easyâ€™️ thing to do is leave brightness alone, so 50% BFI cuts average light output in half.
> 
> With SDR, there is certainly the headroom to double brightness, so 50% BFI at 200% brightness and 0% BFI at 100% brightness output the same average brightness level.
> 
> *With HDR highlights, there may not be the headroom to drive pixels to 200% brightness, so those pixels could be displayed at 0% BFI & 100% brightness.*
> 
> In general, it is the photons that age the OLED material, so aging at 200% brightness for 50% time is roughly the same as aging at 100% brightness for 100% time but unfortunately it is not linear; aging at 200% brightness for 50% time will be a bit higher than aging at 100% brightness for 100% time.
> 
> LCD more or less forced all pixels of a frame to be treated the same as far as BFI but OLED does not impose that limitation. *Eventually LGD will figure this out and they will be able to deliver outstanding motion performance on dim and under-APL driven pixels while the bright HDR highlight pixels can deliver full-framerate MPRT (and more persistence-based motion blur).*
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, *what you are saying is that they could develop a way to use BFI on the pixels working in SDR or low HDR nit range (while boosting light output automatically to overcome the BFI dimness as we currently do manually by increasing OLED light) while leaving pixels above a certain luminance without BFI so they could reach peak brightness?* If so, this would be great because they need to figure out a way to make BFI work with HDR as a lot of the content that benefits from better motion resolution is increasingly in HDR (games & movies). Sports are the ones still stuck in SDR, at least in the US.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the concept. A 240Hz native backplane (which it appears LGD already has, at least at 4K) opens up a whole new world if considered properly.

The other aspect which adds complexity (as has caused issues in the past) is near-black linearity requiring temporal/spatial dithering (presumably at 240Hz).

So for completeness, let’s divide every incoming 120Hz frame into 3 sub-frames (this example will consider 80% BFI):

-pixels above ‘dithering threshold’ and below 200cd/m2 which are candidates for 80% BFI (1.67ms).

-pixels above 200cd/m2 which will be displayed for full frame interval (8.3ms).

-pixels below the ‘dithering threshold’ which will have values randomly assigned to the 3 colored subpixels at full 240Hz Native Framerate to delivered near-black linearity and color accuracy.

Each single line of the new frame will be scanned in at 120Hz but BFI pixels will be boosted by 500% (to 1000cd/m2 max).

Since native refresh rate is 240Hz, one line can be refreshed between every source frame write, and that extra ‘line write will be used 1/5 frame ‘behind’ the newly written line (so offset back by 432 lines) to blank all BFI pixels (bright >200cd/m2 pixels are refreshed with the same values while dithering pixels are dithered again with fresh random values).

The result is a rolling 1/5th frame at 500% brightness delivering 80% BFI (BPI?) or 1.67 MPRT. Bright ‘HDR’ pixels are displayed for full frame interval (no BFI/BPI). And near-black pixels are dithered at maximum frequency.

The major point is to treat all three classes of pixels differently but at the same time (on the same line schedule).

The second point is to recognize that a Native Refresh Rate of 240Hz allows any Effective Refresh Rate to be delivered (this example of 80% BFI/BPI translates to an Effective Rate of 600Hz - similar to plasma).

The reduced MPRT is only delivered for the APL / SDR-level pixels, but that is where it has the most impact (hard to suffer from motion blur of HDR highlights).


----------



## fafrd

Micolash said:


> So LGD and OLED TVs from their partners may be able to achieve 2.1 ms MPRT next year (or 1.7 ms based on whatever math LGD uses)? *That's equal to plasma motion on paper.*


*

Plasma is generally understood to deliver an Effective Refresh Rate of ~600Hz or an MPRT of ~1.67ms.

I was inspired by your post to summarize in the prior response how LGD’s 240Hz 4K Native Refresh Rate could be used to deliver an Effective Refresh Rate of 600Hz for 120Hz source material (in theory, at least /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif).

They just need to break out of their sample-and-hold LCD mindset (maybe bring a few of their old plasma engineers out of retirement /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif).*


----------



## GCTuba

gorman42 said:


> Please, stop torturing my upgrade dreams!
> 
> When is LG usually doing its presentation at CES? It's earlier than official show start day, correct? I'm down to counting the days...


Their keynote is January 6th at 8 AM PST.


----------



## fafrd

Printed OLED TV coming: https://www.oled-info.com/boe-demonstrates-55-8k-ink-jet-printed-oled-tv-prototype

“Yesterday BOE held its Innovation Partner Conference (IPC) at the Beijing APEC Center and the company unveiled a *55" 8K (160 PPI) OLED TV prototype produced by inkjet printing*. The panel achieves a maximum brightness of *400 nits *and a *color gamut of 95% DCI-P3.*”

“According to a report from Korea, BOE is working on two different technology tracks towards OLED TV commercialization - the inkjet printing one and also an architecture similar to LGD's WRGB (WOLED) TV architecture. It is reported that *BOE's plans is to start ink-jet printing of OLED TVs no sooner than 2024.*”

400 cd/m2 peak and 95% DCI-P3 is not going to cut it in this era of HDR, but perhaps most concerning is the fact that no spec for lifetime was provided...

2023/2024 is shaping up to be a bloodbath. We should have:

-10.5 WOLED from LGD
-8.5G QD-BOLED from Samsung
-Printed RGB-OLED from BOE

All hitting the market at the same time.


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> Yes, this is the concept. A 240Hz native backplane (which it appears LGD already has, at least at 4K) opens up a whole new world if considered properly.
> 
> The other aspect which adds complexity (as has caused issues in the past) is near-black linearity requiring temporal/spatial dithering (presumably at 240Hz).
> 
> So for completeness, let’s divide every incoming 120Hz frame into 3 sub-frames (this example will consider 80% BFI):
> 
> -pixels above ‘dithering threshold’ and below 200cd/m2 which are candidates for 80% BFI (1.67ms).
> 
> -pixels above 200cd/m2 which will be displayed for full frame interval (8.3ms).
> 
> -pixels below the ‘dithering threshold’ which will have values randomly assigned to the 3 colored subpixels at full 240Hz Native Framerate to delivered near-black linearity and color accuracy.
> 
> Each single line of the new frame will be scanned in at 120Hz but BFI pixels will be boosted by 500% (to 1000cd/m2 max).
> 
> Since native refresh rate is 240Hz, one line can be refreshed between every source frame write, and that extra ‘line write will be used 1/5 frame ‘behind’ the newly written line (so offset back by 432 lines) to blank all BFI pixels (bright >200cd/m2 pixels are refreshed with the same values while dithering pixels are dithered again with fresh random values).
> 
> The result is a rolling 1/5th frame at 500% brightness delivering 80% BFI (BPI?) or 1.67 MPRT. Bright ‘HDR’ pixels are displayed for full frame interval (no BFI/BPI). And near-black pixels are dithered at maximum frequency.
> 
> The major point is to treat all three classes of pixels differently but at the same time (on the same line schedule).
> 
> The second point is to recognize that a Native Refresh Rate of 240Hz allows any Effective Refresh Rate to be delivered (this example of 80% BFI/BPI translates to an Effective Rate of 600Hz - similar to plasma).
> 
> The reduced MPRT is only delivered for the APL / SDR-level pixels, but that is where it has the most impact (hard to suffer from motion blur of HDR highlights).


Oh man this sounds so brilliant and good. Please tell me it's not just fanfic and should happen


----------



## JazzGuyy

Relevant to all the discussion lately about the possibility of LG computer monitors, it appears there is a totally different application of smaller OLED screens that no one has mentioned. According to this (https://www.motorauthority.com/news...e-teased-with-curved-oled-screen-super-cruise), the 2021 Cadillac Escalade will offer an OLED instrument cluster/infotainment screen developed with LG (I assume LGD not LGE).


----------



## Rysa_105

fafrd said:


> Printed OLED TV coming: https://www.oled-info.com/boe-demonstrates-55-8k-ink-jet-printed-oled-tv-prototype
> 
> “Yesterday BOE held its Innovation Partner Conference (IPC) at the Beijing APEC Center and the company unveiled a *55" 8K (160 PPI) OLED TV prototype produced by inkjet printing*. The panel achieves a maximum brightness of *400 nits *and a *color gamut of 95% DCI-P3.*”
> 
> “According to a report from Korea, BOE is working on two different technology tracks towards OLED TV commercialization - the inkjet printing one and also an architecture similar to LGD's WRGB (WOLED) TV architecture. It is reported that *BOE's plans is to start ink-jet printing of OLED TVs no sooner than 2024.*”
> 
> 400 cd/m2 peak and 95% DCI-P3 is not going to cut it in this era of HDR, but perhaps most concerning is the fact that no spec for lifetime was provided...
> 
> 2023/2024 is shaping up to be a bloodbath. We should have:
> 
> -10.5 WOLED from LGD
> -8.5G QD-BOLED from Samsung
> -Printed RGB-OLED from BOE
> 
> All hitting the market at the same time.


400 nits for full screen white would've been great , oleds do 150 nits right now, but 400 nits for peak brightness with 95% dci p3 is weak, it's weaker than LGD right now and by 2024 LGD would have made some further advances to brightness and gamut. 
I really hope in few years printed RGB oleds in tv sizes can materialize from JOLED, would trust them more than BOE or any chinese firm.


----------



## fafrd

I recall debates on this thread from 5 years ago about if/when OLED would overtake LCD as the dominant TV display technology.

Looks like that transition is now in sight: https://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/n/Huawei-and-Xiaomi-To-Launch-OLED-TVs-Next-Year-As-Sun-Sets-On-LCD

“Meanwhile, the increased focus on OLED comes at a time when *the sun seems to be setting on the LCD TV market*. In recent months, big brands including LG Display, Samsung and Panasonic have all said they’re either giving up LCD production entirely, or will start transitioning away from it. In the case of LG Display, it has said it will halve LCD panel production from next year, while Samsung has already said it’s transitioning to new technologies such as Quantum Dot OLED. Panasonic has said it will end LCD production by 2021. 

While some Chinese TV panel makers have stepped up their own LCD display production capacity, this is only likely to be temporary as *IHS Markit says it expects investment in the sector to grind to a complete halt by 2022. At the same time, investment in OLED will surge*, it said. 

*The changes represent a major shift in the TV industry, which was dominated by LCD for more than a decade but now seems destined to be surpassed by OLED*.”

And for those of us focused on the US TV market, it looks like 2020 will add 2 budget brands of OLED TVs into our market to complement the Premium Brand (Sony) and Mid-tier Brand (LGE) we currently have to choose from:

“*Other companies to recently jump on the OLED boat include Vizio*, which is to start selling its first models next year. *Hisense is also going to expand its OLED lineup to the U.S. for the first time in 2020*, it said earlier this year.”


----------



## gorman42

Let's hope this will lead to more attention from networks about their logos... more transparent ones, for instance.


----------



## TommyJarvis

Has there been any news on the 48" OLED? After reading up a lot (concerns I had), I'm feeling comfortable now on OLED tech I think I'm ready to jump in. I want the 48" they confirmed earlier this year. I know CES is coming up next month. Is it supposed to make its debut there?


----------



## fafrd

TommyJarvis said:


> Has there been any news on the 48" OLED? After reading up a lot (concerns I had), I'm feeling comfortable now on OLED tech I think I'm ready to jump in. I want the 48" they confirmed earlier this year. I know CES is coming up next month. Is it supposed to make its debut there?


This is really not the correct thread for your question - one of the ‘OLED @ CES2020 threads would be more appropriate.

But since you asked, I’m predicting we’ll see a 48” WOLED announced by LGE at CES and probably also by Vizio at whatever announcement event they host early next year. Possibly also Hisense and I have no idea whether Sony is interested to bring their WOLED TV lineup down to 48”.

Announcements will come at CES or soon after but launch will generally not be before late March / early April at the earliest and possibly as late as June (at least for LGE if they only release a 48” B-Series WOLED).


----------



## TommyJarvis

fafrd said:


> This is really not the correct thread for your question - one of the ‘OLED @ CES2020 threads would be more appropriate.
> 
> But since you asked, I’m predicting we’ll see a 48” WOLED announced by LGE at CES and probably also by Vizio at whatever announcement event they host early next year. Possibly also Hisense and I have no idea whether Sony is interested to bring their WOLED TV lineup down to 48”.
> 
> Announcements will come at CES or soon after but launch will generally not be before late March / early April at the earliest and possibly as late as June (at least for LGE if they only release a 48” B-Series WOLED).



Ah, I see. Sorry. Is there a link to the the CES thread? I can't seem to find it.


That would be awesome if everybody starts announcing the smaller size. I really hope they do announce it at CES. I'm ready to get one. I just hope it has VRR and everything else is the same as the bigger sizes in whatever model (B series?) it comes in. Hope they don't pull a Samsung and gimp the smaller set(s).


----------



## fafrd

TommyJarvis said:


> Ah, I see. Sorry. Is there a link to the the CES thread? I can't seem to find it.
> 
> 
> That would be awesome if everybody starts announcing the smaller size. I really hope they do announce it at CES. I'm ready to get one. I just hope it has VRR and everything else is the same as the bigger sizes in whatever model (B series?) it comes in. Hope they don't pull a Samsung and gimp the smaller set(s).


Here is one: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...-2020-any-info-sony-lg-oled-improvements.html

And here is the other: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...al/3065798-you-waiting-2020-buy-new-oled.html


----------



## stl8k

*Guangzhou in Late 2019*

This is a rather unflattering Chinese-language article on the state of the new Guangzhou OLED plant from reporters in the area.

http://www.cb.com.cn/index/show/bzyc/cv/cv13440391649


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> This is a rather unflattering Chinese-language article on the state of the new Guangzhou OLED plant from reporters in the area.
> 
> http://www.cb.com.cn/index/show/bzyc/cv/cv13440391649


Probably an English version of the same information (problems with MMG causing further delays of Guangzhou ramp-up to Q2’20): http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=39505

‘Industry watchers say that the yield of the multi model glass (MMG) process, which is used for volume production of OLED panels in the Guangzhou plant, still remains well below 90 percent.’

‘"It's too late to start mass-production at the end of the first half of next year," said LG Display president Chung Ho-young, referring to when to begin volume production panels, in a recent meeting with reporters. He suggested that *volume production will begin after the first quarter of next year.*’


----------



## MrPolkMan

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wh...d-has-reached-its-peak-whats-the-future-of-tv


----------



## gorman42

MrPolkMan said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wh...d-has-reached-its-peak-whats-the-future-of-tv


I suggest nobody gifts a pageview to such a devoid of content article.Boring and inaccurate, sorry.


----------



## gmarceau

Where's ALMA? That guy always had good info right around the new year. fafrd, love ya brother, but we need some exclusives on this board - d-nice is lurking around here somewhere with the scoop.


----------



## ars92

CES is less than 1.5 weeks away and there’s not a hint of clue as to just what the C10/20 would be offering. Hope it just means we are in for a great surprise and not the other way around!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

ars92 said:


> CES is less than 1.5 weeks away and *thereâ€™️s not a hint of clue as to just what the C10/20 would be offering.* Hope it just means we are in for a great surprise and not the other way around!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not really correct:

-New WOLED stack with wider color gamut was shown mid-year.

-120 Hz BFI shown at CES’19 hopefully makes it into the product release in ‘20.

-LGD is resleasing a 48” WOLED panel and LGE is likely to announce a 48B20 if not also a 48C20.

Oh, and LG recently leaked the likelihood of a roll down model for 2020 (not a C-Series, but an 88D(own)20 looks likely /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif).


----------



## fafrd

Delays of at least 3 months in Samsung’s QD-BOLED schedule: https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-delaying-its-108-billion-qd-oled-investment-plans

“In October 2019 Samsung Display formally announced its decision to invest $10.85 billion in QD-OLED TV R&D and production lines. *SDC was supposed to start the plan in 2019, but according to a report from China the Company is delaying its initial investment. *Originally mass production was supposed to begin in Q1 2021, but this may happen later if the investment is delayed.

It seems as if equipment makers expected to receive orders for production equipment, but that did not happen. The report says that *Samsung decided to make personnel changes and transfer in January 2020 and only after these changes will the company finalize its investment plan in the new OLED TV fab.*”


----------



## KOF

fafrd said:


> Not really correct:
> 
> -New WOLED stack with wider color gamut was shown mid-year.
> 
> -120 Hz BFI shown at CES’19 hopefully makes it into the product release in ‘20.
> 
> -LGD is resleasing a 48” WOLED panel and LGE is likely to announce a 48B20 if not also a 48C20.
> 
> Oh, and LG recently leaked the likelihood of a roll down model for 2020 (not a C-Series, but an 88D(own)20 looks likely /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif).


Just a minor correction, Fafrd. The new LG models will carry the “X” numeral, instead of 10 or 20 according to Korean National Radio Research Agency. 

http://rra.go.kr/ko/license/A_b_popup.do?app_no=201917210000332330

So C9’s next year successor will be likely called the CX, at least in Korea.


----------



## ALMA

Great find!



There are more leaked model numbers and it seems the G-series coming back:




> According to the National Radio Research Institute on the 25th, LG Electronics has completed radio wave certification of OLED TV products to be released next year, including OLED65BXGNA, OLED65BXGNA, OLED65CXGNA, OLED77CXKNA and OLED65GXKNA. Electronic device products launched in Korea should receive radio certification from radio research institute to prevent problems of radio interference before launch. The timing of product launch depends on each company's management strategy.



https://translate.google.com/transl...ttps://m.sedaily.com/NewsView/1VS7N2T3P2/GD01


----------



## Rysa_105

My guess is LG's model naming for 2020 will change everywhere (CX, EX etc.), only the suffix letter/letters will be different among regions, the letters that have already been in use. For eg, the US LG models use P (C9P), so the 2020 model should be known as 55/65 CXP.
So probably no 10 or 20 in the model names.


----------



## fafrd

KOF said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really correct:
> 
> -New WOLED stack with wider color gamut was shown mid-year.
> 
> -120 Hz BFI shown at CESâ€™️19 hopefully makes it into the product release in â€˜20.
> 
> -LGD is resleasing a 48â€ WOLED panel and LGE is likely to announce a 48B20 if not also a 48C20.
> 
> Oh, and LG recently leaked the likelihood of a roll down model for 2020 (not a C-Series, but an 88D(own)20 looks likely /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif).
> 
> 
> 
> Just a minor correction, Fafrd. The new LG models will carry the â€œXâ€ numeral, instead of 10 or 20 according to Korean National Radio Research Agency.
> 
> http://rra.go.kr/ko/license/A_b_popup.do?app_no=201917210000332330
> 
> So C9â€™️s *next year successor will be likely called the CX*, at least in Korea.
Click to expand...

Great info - thanks.

C20 was just a guess. If you go back to my first posts on the subject, the primary prediction I made was that LG would not go with ‘C10’ as many were assuming (since C10 in 2020 would be boneheaded as LG would be stuck a decade into the past)..

I layed out a few better alternatives including replacing the digit with a character (such as ‘X’).

So 55CX, 65CX, 77CX and 88ZX makes total sense (along with hopefully a 48BX).

2020 looks set and LG has pushed their headache off for another 1-3 years (‘CY’ in 2021?).

And I may start setting my sights on an 88ZZ in 2022 😉.


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> Great find!
> 
> 
> 
> There are more leaked model numbers and it seems the G-series coming back:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the National Radio Research Institute on the 25th, LG Electronics has completed radio wave certification of OLED TV products to be released next year, including OLED65BXGNA, OLED65BXGNA, OLED65CXGNA, OLED77CXKNA and OLED65GXKNA. Electronic device products launched in Korea should receive radio certification from radio research institute to prevent problems of radio interference before launch. The timing of product launch depends on each company's management strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...ttps://m.sedaily.com/NewsView/1VS7N2T3P2/GD01
Click to expand...

So either no 48BX or not until later in the year (when it may still launch along with 55BX and 55CX)...


----------



## fafrd

LGDs 10.5G WOLED ramp delayed to 2023: https://www.oled-info.com

“The company's original plan was to start mass production (with 30,000 monthly substrate) in H1 2022, but *the date now shifted to 2023.*”

So this probably translates to no 10.5G-based WOLED TVs hitting the market before 2024.

With 4 years to go before they have much-cheaper 10.5G 75” WOLED panels to replace the much-more-expensive 8.5G 77” WOLED panels, it’ll be interesting to see whether LG elects to introduce an 8K 77ZX or 75ZX...

This delay also means that unless LGD elects to convert 1 or 2 more 8.5G LCD lines to WOLED by 2021/2022, production levels will stall at 160 8.5G substrates per month (Paju 8.5G + fully-ramped Guangzhou 8.5G).

Most importantly, we’re unlikely to see $1000 65” WOLEDs or $2000 75” WOLEDs before 2024...


----------



## ALMA

> So either no 48BX or not until later in the year (when it may still launch along with 55BX and 55CX)...


 For sure, that´s not a complete list of all the upcoming OLEDs. 55BX, EX,WX, RX, ZX are all missing. I don´t expect that LGE launches the BX only in 65" size.
I´m curious to see what benefits a new G model would bring compared to the W and E. 
It´s strange that the EX is not listed, but the GX is and also the entry level OLEDs.


In 2019 the E8 and G8 merged into the E9 and for 2020 could it be that the benefits of an E Series distributed in the CX (next with an integrated soundbar or more advanced integrated sound system?) and GX (glass design with Crystal Audio?) and the E Series will be replaced by CX and GX?


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> So either no 48BX or not until later in the year (when it may still launch along with 55BX and 55CX)...
> 
> 
> 
> For sure, thatÂ´s not a complete list of all the upcoming OLEDs. 55BX, EX,WX, RX, ZX are all missing. I donÂ´t expect that LGE launches the BX only in 65" size.
> IÂ´m curious to see what benefits a new G model would bring compared to the W and E.
> ItÂ´s strange that the EX is not listed, but the GX is and also the entry level OLEDs.
> 
> 
> In 2019 the E8 and G8 merged into the E9 and for 2020 could it be that the benefits of an E Series distributed in the CX (next with an integrated soundbar or more advanced integrated sound system?) and GX (glass design with Crystal Audio?) and the E Series will be replaced by CX and GX?
Click to expand...

I think you’re overthinking it a bit. The G-Series was phased out in favor of the W-Series in 2019 (B, E, and C basically carried forward).

If LGE is bringing back the G-Series in 2020 it’s likely because W-Series sales fell noticeably short of G-Series historical sales and so LG wants to bring back the G-Series to recapture that lost Premium TV market share.

I suspect sound will remain the same across the lineup (meaning integrated soundbar with the E-Series and rotatable Sound bar/box with the G-Series). I don’t believe the G8 supported Atmos, so I’d suspect the W-Series up-firing speakers to make it into the GX sound solution one way or another...


----------



## ALMA

The issue of the W-Series is the big soundbar. All consumers and reviewers like the paper thin design but they criticized the big ugly soundbar for three years now but LGE still not responded on the negative feedback. On the other hand Samsung's one connect box is a great success with positive feedback in the world of consumers and reviewers. It simplifies connections and wall mounting. It´s also easy to hide the box, because no audio and a much smaller form factor.

LG needs something like the W but without the included soundbar as a Q90/85 competitor. Look at the last pictures of the soundbar anouncement. There will be a TV with a sleek profile which can combined with the new soundbars for better audio. The OLED panel itself is very thin, but the electronic cabinet behind the current panels (with the exception of the W) is still very thick which looks strange in profile if you wall mounted the TV, because there is still a lot of space behind the panel and the wall.

In the current portfolio LG has still no perfect solution for wall mounting. A GX with Crystal Audio or an OLED TV with a smaller connect box could be such a solution. The G8 supported Dolby Atmos but the soundbar which also included the connections and electronics for a sleeker profile was integrated in the glass stand and not rotatable like the G6/7 version. As a result the G8 was not wall mountable.

https://www.lg.com/de/tv/lg-OLED65G8


----------



## ALMA

Samsung Display will exhibit QD OLED at CES 2020 at their private booth.




> [E-Daily Kim Jong-ho reporter] *Samsung Display will exhibit various prototypes of 'QD (Quantum Dot) Display' and communicate with customers through 'CES 2020', the world's largest consumer electronics exhibition held in the US next month.* Samsung Display, which is preparing to mass-produce QD displays for the first time in the world to strengthen its dominance in the next generation premium TV market, plans to show off its display 'super gap' technology in earnest.





> It is reported that Samsung Display will focus on creating a separate exhibition space related to QD Display, which has been recently selected as a future food and confirmed a large investment in this exhibition.
> 
> The QD display combines the advantages of OLED, which emits light without a backlight, and QD, a device with electrical and optical properties. It is one of the next generation large display to replace LCD.
> *
> This is not the first time Samsung Display has introduced QD display technology at CES. At CES 2019, which was held in January this year, a private booth was held to showcase 65-inch QD display prototypes. ** However, this time, it is reported that not only the prototype of various lineups including 65 inch but also the specific technology and completeness will be shared with customers and future business plans will be introduced*.





> An official of Samsung Display said, *“We are working on the QD display-related investment and business progress without any disruption.” *We will focus on restructuring the business structure centering on QD display for the time being.



https://translate.google.com/transl...446622723440&mediaCodeNo=257&ref=ca&sandbox=1


----------



## ALMA

GX also coming in 55" and 77" size:


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...112764-lg-oled-zx-8k-2020-a.html#post59025748


Looks like a replacement for the E-Series, because at the moment I can´t find any real reference to an EX-Series.


----------



## ALMA

> *LG Display will introduce 'Cinematic Sound OLED (OLED_Cinematic Sound)' technology, which has further evolved the sound function of OLED. ** In particular, 77-inch wallpapers cinematic sound OLED replaces exciters that produce vibration with film, so you can enjoy both vivid picture quality and integrated screen sound with just one sheet of paper-thin panels.*
> *Design completion is basic, extreme picture quality and magnificent 11.2 channel sound, 88-inch 8K cinematic sound OLED provides the best immersion to satisfy eyes and ears.*
> This exhibition will show you how to use the product to transform a luxury hotel room into a complete private theater.
> In the lobby of the hotel, media art sculptures will be unveiled for the first time.
> Weaving, which consists of eight 55-inch OLEDs with curved curved surfaces, shows OLED innovation and potential at a glance.
> OLED also changes the living room interior.
> *The 65-inch UHD roll-down OLED TV, which can be installed as naturally as part of the space and can be used down only when needed, increases space utilization.*
> It is expected to raise the dimension of smart home interior.
> *In addition to the 55, 65, 77, and 88-inch OLED TVs, 48-inch OLED TVs, which can be effectively used in small spaces* such as homes, are first introduced to further expand consumer choice.



https://translate.google.com/transl...s://www.fetv.co.kr/news/article.html?no=44160


----------



## wco81

LG trying to foist pricey gimmick sound systems again.


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> Probably an English version of the same information (problems with MMG causing further delays of Guangzhou ramp-up to Q2’20): http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=39505
> 
> ‘Industry watchers say that the yield of the multi model glass (MMG) process, which is used for volume production of OLED panels in the Guangzhou plant, still remains well below 90 percent.’
> 
> ‘"It's too late to start mass-production at the end of the first half of next year," said LG Display president Chung Ho-young, referring to when to begin volume production panels, in a recent meeting with reporters. He suggested that *volume production will begin after the first quarter of next year.*’





fafrd said:


> LGDs 10.5G WOLED ramp delayed to 2023: https://www.oled-info.com
> 
> “The company's original plan was to start mass production (with 30,000 monthly substrate) in H1 2022, but *the date now shifted to 2023.*”
> 
> So this probably translates to no 10.5G-based WOLED TVs hitting the market before 2024.
> 
> With 4 years to go before they have much-cheaper 10.5G 75” WOLED panels to replace the much-more-expensive 8.5G 77” WOLED panels, it’ll be interesting to see whether LG elects to introduce an 8K 77ZX or 75ZX...
> 
> This delay also means that unless LGD elects to convert 1 or 2 more 8.5G LCD lines to WOLED by 2021/2022, production levels will stall at 160 8.5G substrates per month (Paju 8.5G + fully-ramped Guangzhou 8.5G).
> 
> Most importantly, we’re unlikely to see $1000 65” WOLEDs or $2000 75” WOLEDs before 2024...


So with these news I take it the Guangzhou plant won't be contributing much, if any, in terms of panels for this year's supply; and it will be next year when that plant really comes into play to help drive greater panels along with some cost reductions due to MMG and just the higher volume of panels (provided there aren't any further delays, which is not something that can just be assumed). With the 10.5G plant's delay that probably keeps 75in OLEDS out of my price range, so I will probably be looking for the 2021 65in model (likely called the CX1) to upgrade from my C8. That will be their 3rd HDMI 2.1 tv and with the PS5 & Series X out by then there will be time to work out any HDMI 2.1 growing pains, as well as see how many games make use of higher than 60fps. Lot of variables at play that will be cleared up by that time.

What do you think the price will be then? If we were at 2000-2100 at big box retailers this past year, I imagine it would be around 1600 - 1700 for the 65 C series because of the Guangzhou plant


----------



## ALMA

wco81 said:


> LG trying to foist pricey gimmick sound systems again.



Sorry but a wallpaper TV with in the panel integrated audio is no gimmick! I´dont need a massive external soundbar or audio from an AV-R for news and daily use. I´m using my amp only for movies.

That´s the right step forward, if we got rid the massive soundbar from the W-Series. We live in the 21st century. The 1980s are over. Good industrial design is a big plus and not a gimmick and with OLED it will not harm picture quality. If you don't want or like it, buy the BX or CX ...


----------



## stl8k

Thanks for the find, Alma! I was looking for that release last night, but I live in North America.

For those who know my posts, I've always been intrigued by the relationship between LGD and its TV company customers.

What I see from this release is both a) a company that's embracing the role of a diverse OEM versus a company that wants to own the end-user relationship and b) one that's moving away from defining itself through tech specs and embracing a solution storytelling role, perhaps inspired by Sony and others.

This looks like LGD maturity to me.

Also, the OLED TV/display market is global and diverse. Being critical of one vendor's choice of 1-2 design dimensions is folly as you'll likely find 2-3 other vendors who haven't made those choices.

I for one am looking forward to the richness of the stories that emerge from the diversity of this ecosystem, especially as filmmakers and video storytellers push the envelope of what they want from display tech.


----------



## lsorensen

ALMA said:


> Sorry but a wallpaper TV with in the panel integrated audio is no gimmick! I´dont need a massive external soundbar or audio from an AV-R for news and daily use. I´m using my amp only for movies.
> 
> That´s the right step forward, if we got rid the massive soundbar from the W-Series. We live in the 21st century. The 1980s are over. Good industrial design is a big plus and not a gimmick and with OLED it will not harm picture quality. If you don't want or like it, buy the BX or CX ...


I see no way a wallpaper TV could use the screen for audio. The transducers on the back are way too thick for that. It works perfectly well on a non wallpaper model so the GX would make sense but of course like the Sony's it would need to place a normal speaker for lower frequency sounds somewhere too.


----------



## wco81

ALMA said:


> Sorry but a wallpaper TV with in the panel integrated audio is no gimmick! I´dont need a massive external soundbar or audio from an AV-R for news and daily use. I´m using my amp only for movies.
> 
> That´s the right step forward, if we got rid the massive soundbar from the W-Series. We live in the 21st century. The 1980s are over. Good industrial design is a big plus and not a gimmick and with OLED it will not harm picture quality. If you don't want or like it, buy the BX or CX ...


It's a gimmick when people who want good sound connect external sound systems anyways.


----------



## ALMA

> It's a gimmick when people who want good sound connect external sound systems anyways.


You don´t understand the potential. Its a big leap forward to integrate the sound in the panel of the W than outside. It makes the concept more apealing than with the massive soundbar.





> I see no way a wallpaper TV could use the screen for audio. The transducers on the back are way too thick for that. It works perfectly well on a non wallpaper model so the GX would make sense but of course like the Sony's it would need to place a normal speaker for lower frequency sounds somewhere too.


LG 55EA980. The speaker are integrated in the glass stand and not adding depth. They talking from an integrated extra layer, so it could be some sort of the same tech LG using in the EA980.


https://www.lg.com/de/tv/lg-55EA9809


----------



## fafrd

So looks like we’ve got another year of 77” WOLED offerings (which makes sense since the 10.5G plant has been delayed until 2023 (at least).

What’ll be interesting to see is whether LGD introduces an 8K 77” panel thus year (which will complicate the transition to 75” when the time comes...).

And 48” in 2020 is now official (and I imagine this announcement also assures we’ll see a 48” offering from LGE).


----------



## lsorensen

ALMA said:


> You don´t understand the potential. Its a big leap forward to integrate the sound in the panel of the W than outside. It makes the concept more apealing than with the massive soundbar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG 55EA980. The speaker are integrated in the glass stand and not adding depth. They talking from an integrated extra layer, so it could be some sort of the same tech LG using in the EA980.
> 
> 
> https://www.lg.com/de/tv/lg-55EA9809


That TV is at least 10x thicker than the wall paper TVs at the bottom. Plenty of space in that one for audio. The wallpaper TVs are 3mm thick in total as far as I recall.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably an English version of the same information (problems with MMG causing further delays of Guangzhou ramp-up to Q2â€™️20): http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=39505
> 
> â€˜Industry watchers say that the yield of the multi model glass (MMG) process, which is used for volume production of OLED panels in the Guangzhou plant, still remains well below 90 percent.â€™️
> 
> â€˜"It's too late to start mass-production at the end of the first half of next year," said LG Display president Chung Ho-young, referring to when to begin volume production panels, in a recent meeting with reporters. He suggested that *volume production will begin after the first quarter of next year.*â€™️
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> LGDs 10.5G WOLED ramp delayed to 2023: https://www.oled-info.com
> 
> â€œThe company's original plan was to start mass production (with 30,000 monthly substrate) in H1 2022, but *the date now shifted to 2023.*â€Â
> 
> So this probably translates to no 10.5G-based WOLED TVs hitting the market before 2024.
> 
> With 4 years to go before they have much-cheaper 10.5G 75â€Â WOLED panels to replace the much-more-expensive 8.5G 77â€Â WOLED panels, itâ€™️ll be interesting to see whether LG elects to introduce an 8K 77ZX or 75ZX...
> 
> This delay also means that unless LGD elects to convert 1 or 2 more 8.5G LCD lines to WOLED by 2021/2022, production levels will stall at 160 8.5G substrates per month (Paju 8.5G + fully-ramped Guangzhou 8.5G).
> 
> Most importantly, weâ€™️re unlikely to see $1000 65â€Â WOLEDs or $2000 75â€Â WOLEDs before 2024...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So with these news *I take it the Guangzhou plant won't be contributing much, if any, in terms of panels for this year's supply; *and it will be next year when that plant really comes into play to help drive greater panels along with some cost reductions due to MMG and just the higher volume of panels (provided there aren't any further delays, which is not something that can just be assumed).
Click to expand...

I think that’s too pessimistic. For LGD to run into hiccups with the new ‘leapfrog’ technologies they tried to introduce into the ramp of Guangzhou, back off after recognizing that was a mistake, and restart the ramp process mirroring Paju 8.5G in all respects should take no more than 6-months, (realistic) worst case.

So barring a fire, an explosion or another act of god, Guangzhou should be contributing to panel output in H2.

And what remains to be seen is whether LGD introduces MMG into Paju this year.

Just the introduction of MMG into Paju would allow LGD to increase monthly WOLED panel production by 33%... (all 48” panels).



> With the 10.5G plant's delay that probably keeps 75in OLEDS out of my price range, so *I will probably be looking for the 2021 65in model* (likely called the CX1) to upgrade from my C8. That will be their 3rd HDMI 2.1 tv and with the PS5 & Series X out by then there will be time to work out any HDMI 2.1 growing pains, as well as see how many games make use of higher than 60fps. Lot of variables at play that will be cleared up by that time.
> 
> *What do you think the price will be then? *If we were at 2000-2100 at big box retailers this past year, I imagine it would be around 1600 - 1700 for the 65 C series because of the Guangzhou plant


Who can say - when production volume has doubled, it’s realistic to assume lowest-end ASPs will decrease by 25-33%, but if China is absorbing all of that increased volume, we may not see much of that benefit stateside...

The only thing we can know with relative confidence is that once the new 10.5G fab is fully-ramped, we are almost certain to see 65” WOLEDs reaching discounted pricing of under &1000...


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> Who can say - when production volume has doubled, it’s realistic to assume lowest-end ASPs will decrease by 25-33%, but if China is absorbing all of that increased volume, we may not see much of that benefit stateside...
> 
> The only thing we can know with relative confidence is that once the new 10.5G fab is fully-ramped, we are almost certain to see 65” WOLEDs reaching discounted pricing of under &1000...


So in what way would it benefit LGD's profit margins to have prices drop that low? Given apparently LGE and other buyers didn't sell as many OLED TVs as expected in 2019, why would they want the capacity to increase a lot at this point?


----------



## ALMA

> That TV is at least 10x thicker than the wall paper TVs at the bottom.



No, the speakers are in the glass. The TV was thicker because it was curved and all the electronics are behind the panel.



https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/StApLYb8kniJ9wxceZKbhD-970-80.jpg


----------



## lsorensen

ALMA said:


> No, the speakers are in the glass. The TV was thicker because it was curved and all the electronics are behind the panel.
> 
> https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/StApLYb8kniJ9wxceZKbhD-970-80.jpg


Well it's a speaker mounted in a hole in the glass by the looks of it, and that glass is much thicker than the W series so room for a lot more speaker. I imagine the audio was likely also terrible on that model (as are most TVs).

No idea why that model seems to be German and Dutch areas only.


----------



## ALMA

> I imagine the audio was likely also terrible on that model (as are most TVs).


 No it wasn´t. The sound quality was quite good. The EA980 was the second FHD OLED TV from LG after the EM960.




> Kyocera reveals in LG's curvy OLED TV is Smart Sonic Sound, a new audio product that utilizes a piezoelectric actuator combined with a special film to create a piezo film speaker. *This new speaker tech comes in three sizes: Large measuring 1.5 mm thin, Medium at 1 mm thin, and Small measuring at 0.7 mm thin. The tech not only yields thinner devices like HDTVs, smartphones and tablets, but supposedly enhances audio quality for a more realistic audio experience.*
> 
> "The piezo actuator used in the new product was born from Kyocera’s proprietary fine ceramic material technology and lamination technology, combined with a special film," the company explains. "Smart Sonic Sound can create the same audio volume as conventional electromagnetic speakers in just a fraction of the width and weight. This allows for the speaker device to be built onto the front face of an end-product with ease ― contributing to flexibility and enhancements in end-product designs."


https://www.tomsguide.com/us/kyocera-smart-sonic-sound-thin-speakers,news-17466.html


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who can say - when production volume has doubled, itâ€™️s realistic to assume lowest-end ASPs will decrease by 25-33%, but if China is absorbing all of that increased volume, we may not see much of that benefit stateside...
> 
> The only thing we can know with relative confidence is that once the new 10.5G fab is fully-ramped, we are almost certain to see 65â€ WOLEDs reaching discounted pricing of under &1000...
> 
> 
> 
> So in what way would it benefit LGD's profit margins to have prices drop that low? *Given apparently LGE and other buyers didn't sell as many OLED TVs as expected in 2019, *why would they want the capacity to increase a lot at this point?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are echoing the misinformation and FUD the media tried to spread mid-year (likely seeded by Samsung).

LGD sold every WOLED panel they could produce in 2019. Prices won’t drop significantly until they have additional manufacturing capacity ramped...


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> I think that’s too pessimistic. For LGD to run into hiccups with the new ‘leapfrog’ technologies they tried to introduce into the ramp of Guangzhou, back off after recognizing that was a mistake, and restart the ramp process mirroring Paju 8.5G in all respects should take no more than 6-months, (realistic) worst case.
> 
> So barring a fire, an explosion or another act of god, Guangzhou should be contributing to panel output in H2.
> 
> And what remains to be seen is whether LGD introduces MMG into Paju this year.
> 
> Just the introduction of MMG into Paju would allow LGD to increase monthly WOLED panel production by 33%... (all 48” panels).
> 
> 
> 
> Who can say - when production volume has doubled, it’s realistic to assume lowest-end ASPs will decrease by 25-33%, but if China is absorbing all of that increased volume, we may not see much of that benefit stateside...
> 
> The only thing we can know with relative confidence is that once the new 10.5G fab is fully-ramped, we are almost certain to see 65” WOLEDs reaching discounted pricing of under &1000...


Got it, I mixed up the low yields/not at full capacity from the Guangzhou plant vs the volume production delay of the 10.5G. So the China plant is making panels, just not at full capacity yet, vs the 10.5G plant has delayed the start of making panels. As for the price, that's why I'm keeping it conservative, though $1600 might be on the more optimistic end, perhaps 1700-1800 is more realistic since that's a $300-400 drop from current prices.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> Got it, I mixed up the low yields/not at full capacity from the Guangzhou plant vs the volume production delay of the 10.5G. So the China plant is making panels, just not at full capacity yet, vs the 10.5G plant has delayed the start of making panels. As for the price, that's why I'm keeping it conservative, though $1600 might be on the more optimistic end, perhaps 1700-1800 is more realistic since that's a $300-400 drop from current prices.


The China 8.5G plant is trying to ramp but they have run into difficulties (very low yields - so low it's doubtful they are even trying to sell the few functional panels).

So the start of volume production has been delayed for 3-6 months while they get the issues ironed out.

It translates to only 6-9 months of production from Guangzhou this year rather than the full 12 months they were planning on (but they are likely to have significant production out of China in H2 this year.

While the 10.5G line is a shift of the entire schedule - they have not even ordered the bulk of the equipment yet...

You are very likely to be able to find an entry-level 65" WOLED for $1600 late this year (though possibly not through mainstream retailers). Suggest you start monitoring the Great Found Deals Forum .


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> Sounds like you are echoing the misinformation and FUD the media tried to spread mid-year (likely seeded by Samsung).
> 
> LGD sold every WOLED panel they could produce in 2019. Prices won’t drop significantly until they have additional manufacturing capacity ramped...


Well that's good. It was hard to believe they couldn't sell such lovely panels for TVs.


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are echoing the misinformation and FUD the media tried to spread mid-year (likely seeded by Samsung).
> 
> LGD sold every WOLED panel they could produce in 2019. Prices wonâ€™️t drop significantly until they have additional manufacturing capacity ramped...
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's good. It was hard to believe they couldn't sell such lovely panels for TVs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, LGD is selling every WOLED panel they can produce and LGE, Sony, Panasonic et. al. are selling all of the WOLED TVs they are making out of those panels.

The only question is at what ASP those WOLED TV sales were achieved at and how much or little margin LGE, Sony, Panasonic et. al. generated on those sales.

If there is any truth to the narrative that WOLEDs TVs did not sell well in 2019, that would mean more aggressive discounting by LGE, Sony, Panasonic, et. al. and a firmer negotiating position on pricing when negotiating season for 2020 WOLED panel committtments with LGD rolls around (typically early Q4).

So the worst-case outcome if there is any truth at all to WOLED TVs selling ‘poorly’ in 2019 is lower prices on WOLED panels in 2020 meaning less margin for LGD and more margin for LGE, Sony, Panasonic, et. al.


----------



## RDO CA

Where are the panels coming from, for the Konka 8K 88 inch OLED that I saw announced on CNET?


----------



## fafrd

RDO CA said:


> Where are the panels coming from, for the Konka 8K 88 inch OLED that I saw announced on CNET?


LG Display


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> The China 8.5G plant is trying to ramp but they have run into difficulties (very low yields - so low it's doubtful they are even trying to sell the few functional panels).
> 
> So the start of volume production has been delayed for 3-6 months while they get the issues ironed out.
> 
> It translates to only 6-9 months of production from Guangzhou this year rather than the full 12 months they were planning on (but they are likely to have significant production out of China in H2 this year.
> 
> While the 10.5G line is a shift of the entire schedule - they have not even ordered the bulk of the equipment yet...
> 
> You are very likely to be able to find an entry-level 65" WOLED for $1600 late this year (though possibly not through mainstream retailers). Suggest you start monitoring the Great Found Deals Forum .


The deals forum is just pain as I live in the Caribbean, Costco and Best Buy are my only options.


----------



## video_analysis

Oh no, living in the Caribbean, how painful it must be.


----------



## Jin-X

video_analysis said:


> Oh no, living in the Caribbean, how painful it must be.


Yes, January is probably not the time most people want to hear about the downsides of living in a tropical island lol.


----------



## stl8k

ALMA said:


> The issue of the W-Series is the big soundbar. All consumers and reviewers like the paper thin design but they criticized the big ugly soundbar for three years now but LGE still not responded on the negative feedback. On the other hand Samsung's one connect box is a great success with positive feedback in the world of consumers and reviewers. It simplifies connections and wall mounting. It´s also easy to hide the box, because no audio and a much smaller form factor.
> 
> LG needs something like the W but without the included soundbar as a Q90/85 competitor. Look at the last pictures of the soundbar anouncement. There will be a TV with a sleek profile which can combined with the new soundbars for better audio. The OLED panel itself is very thin, but the electronic cabinet behind the current panels (with the exception of the W) is still very thick which looks strange in profile if you wall mounted the TV, because there is still a lot of space behind the panel and the wall.
> 
> In the current portfolio LG has still no perfect solution for wall mounting. A GX with Crystal Audio or an OLED TV with a smaller connect box could be such a solution. The G8 supported Dolby Atmos but the soundbar which also included the connections and electronics for a sleeker profile was integrated in the glass stand and not rotatable like the G6/7 version. As a result the G8 was not wall mountable.
> 
> https://www.lg.com/de/tv/lg-OLED65G8


The next gen of LGD Crystal Audio looks to be called Cinematic Audio as described very recently by LGD's primary audio researcher (named on its sound-related patents) here:

https://en.oledspace.com/column/boardDetailUrl/2681

I don't follow the panel-integral audio research that closely but it looks like this is either the 2nd or 3rd major rev of the tech.


----------



## stl8k

*LGD Executives Press Conf*

The Korean press is covering this press conf from today at CES by LGD, but it's not being covered in the US press.



> LAS VEGAS, Jan. 6 (Yonhap) -- LG Display Co., a major display panel maker in South Korea, is likely to make a turnaround in the second half of the year on the back of increased production capacity for TV-sized OLED sheets, the company's CEO said Monday.
> 
> LG Display's operating losses were projected to have surpassed 1 trillion won in 2019 due to falling LCD prices and massive investment in OLED facilities.
> 
> "I know we're in a difficult situation, but I'm confident of our technology and the talent we have," Jeong Ho-young, who took over position in September, said at a press conference ahead of this year's Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, Nevada. "If we can execute our targets, I think we can recapture the No. 1 spot in the global display sector."
> 
> Jeong said the company's earnings will improve once its plant in Guangzhou, China, starts mass production. The plant will have a monthly capacity of 60,000 OLED sheets.
> 
> "It's true that we had some delays in Guangzhou, but that's because we were working to upgrade its yield rate," he said. "The plant will be able to mass produce no later than the first quarter of the year."
> 
> Jeong added that the company's profitability is getting better with improved cash flows.
> 
> "Over the last three years, we spent 22 trillion won (US$18.8 billion) in setting up and upgrading our facilities, but for the next two years, we will not make such massive investment," he said. "Our investment for this year is likely to be around 3 trillion won."
> 
> Due to a supply glut in the LCD sector, Jeong said his company will focus on securing competitiveness in the WOLED market and boosting its pOLED business.
> 
> LG Display produces WOLED displays, OLED screens with white subpixels, for large products such as TVs and signage, and pOLED displays, LG's brand name for screens using a plastic substrate, for smartphones and automotive displays.
> 
> "We aim to sell at least 6 million OLED panels for TVs this year, which is double what we sold in 2019," he said. "In the OLED business, I think we should achieve at least a 10 percent profit margin, and to do so, we have to make more differentiated products."
> 
> Jeong said the expansion of OLED screens in the global display market is "inevitable," since many companies are jumping on the bandwagon.
> 
> "Our customers are expanding their OLED products and we're also seeing that our competitors expanding their OLED investment plans," he said. "OLEDs are expected to make up 20 percent of the total TV market this year in terms of sales value, and their presence could increase up to 30 percent in the next two or three years."
> 
> For pOLED products, Jeong said it sees a positive future since there will be high demand in the automotive sector.
> 
> Jeong added a vehicle equipped with its pOLED display will be launched in the second quarter of this year, though he didn't unveil the name of the car or its manufacturer.
> 
> "We sold 1 trillion won worth of automotive displays in 2017, and next year, the figure may reach around 2 trillion won," he said. "I think 30 percent of our sales should come from the transportation sector, including automobiles and aircraft."
> 
> While beefing up its OLED production, Jeong said the company will make some adjustments in its LCD business.
> 
> "Our OLED businesses, WOLED and pOLED, will make up 40 percent of our sales next year and 50 percent next year," he said. "We plan to halt LCD TV screen production in South Korea after this year."


https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200107001800320?section=economy/consumer-electronics


----------



## ALMA

BOE has an own produced 55" OLED panel?

https://www.boe.com/en/product/xsqj/amoled/tv/


It seems BOE has even an better version:




> Product 55 inch OLED TV
> Resolution 3840x2160
> Technology AMOLED
> *Refresh Rate(Hz) 120*
> Brightness 150(100%)/*600(25%)*
> View Angle(L/R/U/D) 89/89/89/89
> Color Gamut 90% DCI-P3


https://www.boe.com/en/product/dkqj/xsycg/amoled/tv/


----------



## stl8k

*Panasonic Content-Adaptive BFI*

I'm calling what Panasonic appears to be describing in the video, content-adaptive BFI. I think this represents a true innovation in motion handling.

https://youtu.be/rhJqJRpQ8Mw?t=650


----------



## wco81

I thought Panasonic doesn't sell OLEDs in the US?


----------



## BreakPoint

wco81 said:


> I thought Panasonic doesn't sell OLEDs in the US?


Correct, at least not to consumers. They sell tvs in the US to movie and tv studios, mostly in Hollywood, thru the professional division. They hope many studios use the HZ2000 for the monitor that shows the final finished result after being color graded on a professional 1000 nit monitor. Panasonic also shows at CES for the European and Asian market press.


----------



## AnalogHD

ALMA said:


> BOE has an own produced 55" OLED panel?
> https://www.boe.com/en/product/xsqj/amoled/tv/


Mass-producing 55" OLED panels isn't something you just get up in the morning and do.
It takes the kind of ramp-up that gets noticed years in advance.

LG panels have been running at 120 Hz for the last 5 years.
150 cd/m² at 25% and 600 cd/m² at 100% is consistent with these panels.


----------



## dfa973

*LG Display to end domestic LCD TV panel production by end of 2020 - OLED production to double in 2020*

*LG Display confirms to Reuters and Yonhap that it will end LCD TV panel production in South Korea by the end of 2020. It is shifting LCD production to China and doubling its output of OLED TVs.*
.....

*OLED production to double in 2020*
LG Display told Korea's Yonhap news agency that although its new OLED TV factory in China has seen some delays, it is expected to start mass production this quarter. The company expects OLED TV panel production to double this year.

- "We aim to sell at least 6 million OLED panels for TVs this year, which is double what we sold in 2019," he told Yonhap.

OLED TV sales are expected to make up 20 percent of the total TV market this year in terms of sales value, according to the CEO. He expects that figure to approach 30 percent in the next 2-3 years as more TV manufacturers launch OLED TVs.

- "Our customers are expanding their OLED products and we're also seeing that our competitors expanding their OLED investment plans," he said. "OLEDs are expected to make up 20 percent of the total TV market this year in terms of sales value, and their presence could increase up to 30 percent in the next two or three years."

At CES 2020, brands such as Vizio, Konka, and Skyworth have announced plans to launch OLED TVs in the US. Huawei and OnePlus will also launch OLED TVs this year.

More at https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1578476838


----------



## stl8k

dfa973 said:


> *LG Display to end domestic LCD TV panel production by end of 2020 - OLED production to double in 2020*
> 
> *LG Display confirms to Reuters and Yonhap that it will end LCD TV panel production in South Korea by the end of 2020. It is shifting LCD production to China and doubling its output of OLED TVs.*
> .....
> 
> *OLED production to double in 2020*
> LG Display told Korea's Yonhap news agency that although its new OLED TV factory in China has seen some delays, it is expected to start mass production this quarter. The company expects OLED TV panel production to double this year.
> 
> - "We aim to sell at least 6 million OLED panels for TVs this year, which is double what we sold in 2019," he told Yonhap.
> 
> OLED TV sales are expected to make up 20 percent of the total TV market this year in terms of sales value, according to the CEO. He expects that figure to approach 30 percent in the next 2-3 years as more TV manufacturers launch OLED TVs.
> 
> - "Our customers are expanding their OLED products and we're also seeing that our competitors expanding their OLED investment plans," he said. "OLEDs are expected to make up 20 percent of the total TV market this year in terms of sales value, and their presence could increase up to 30 percent in the next two or three years."
> 
> At CES 2020, brands such as Vizio, Konka, and Skyworth have announced plans to launch OLED TVs in the US. Huawei and OnePlus will also launch OLED TVs this year.
> 
> More at https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1578476838


Repeat of the LGD Executives Press Conf post on this same page.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I'm calling what Panasonic appears to be describing in the video, content-adaptive BFI. I think this represents a true innovation in motion handling.
> 
> https://youtu.be/rhJqJRpQ8Mw?t=650


Just sounds like variable % BFI. The big question mark for me is whether they have variable % BFI at 120Hz or only 60Hz.

At 60Hz, it’s really no big deal and flicker is still going to be pretty bad.

But if they are capitalizing on the 240Hz native/hardware refresh rate of the inderlying WOLED panel to deliver variable % BFI @ 120Hz, that is a big step and I agree represents true innovation.


----------



## Cam1977

Jin-X said:


> Yes, January is probably not the time most people want to hear about the downsides of living in a tropical island lol.


Lol, I'm originally from a little tropical island in the Caribbean 100 miles long and 35 miles wide!


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> stl8k said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calling what Panasonic appears to be describing in the video, content-adaptive BFI. I think this represents a true innovation in motion handling.
> 
> https://youtu.be/rhJqJRpQ8Mw?t=650
> 
> 
> 
> Just sounds like variable % BFI. The big question mark for me is whether they have variable % BFI at 120Hz or only 60Hz.
> 
> At 60Hz, it’s really no big deal and flicker is still going to be pretty bad.
> 
> But if they are capitalizing on the 240Hz native/hardware refresh rate of the inderlying WOLED panel to deliver variable % BFI @ 120Hz, that is a big step and I agree represents true innovation.
Click to expand...

It’s looking increasingly likely that LGE has implemented 120Hz BFI on their 2020 WOLEDs.

So it’ll be interesting to see how LG’s BFI performance stacks up against Panasonic’s ‘content-adaptive’ BFI.

Between their custom heat-handling backplane delivering a +20% increase in brightness levels (both peak and ABL) and their new BFI capability which I am hoping translates to variable % BFI exceeding 50% @ 120Hz, Panasonic is truly pushing the envelope of WOLED performance.

Too bad we can’t get Panasonic TVs here in the US (perhaps by the 2022 Winter Olympics?)...


----------



## Desk.

fafrd said:


> It’s looking increasingly likely that LGE has implemented 120Hz BFI on their 2020 WOLEDs.
> 
> So it’ll be interesting to see how LG’s BFI performance stacks up against Panasonic’s ‘content-adaptive’ BFI.
> 
> Between their custom heat-handling backplane delivering a +20% increase in brightness levels (both peak and ABL) and their new BFI capability which I am hoping translates to variable % BFI exceeding 50% @ 120Hz, Panasonic is truly pushing the envelope of WOLED performance.
> 
> Too bad we can’t get Panasonic TVs here in the US (perhaps by the 2022 Winter Olympics?)...


Yeah, but disappointingly only 55" and 65" versions of the Panasonic HZ2000 were announced at CES - no sign of a 77" in this series, or as any part of Panny's 2020 line-up.

Unless a 77" set is announced at a later point, you're going to be restricted to 'content-adaptive' BFI at sizes of 65" and below.

Desk


----------



## fafrd

Desk. said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Itâ€™️s looking increasingly likely that LGE has implemented 120Hz BFI on their 2020 WOLEDs.
> 
> So itâ€™️ll be interesting to see how LGâ€™️s BFI performance stacks up against Panasonicâ€™️s â€˜content-adaptiveâ€™️ BFI.
> 
> Between their custom heat-handling backplane delivering a +20% increase in brightness levels (both peak and ABL) and their new BFI capability which I am hoping translates to variable % BFI exceeding 50% @ 120Hz, Panasonic is truly pushing the envelope of WOLED performance.
> 
> Too bad we canâ€™️t get Panasonic TVs here in the US (perhaps by the 2022 Winter Olympics?)...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but disappointingly only 55" and 65" versions of the Panasonic HZ2000 were announced at CES - no sign of a 77" in this series, or as any part of Panny's 2020 line-up.
> 
> Unless a 77" set is announced at a later point, you're going to be restricted to 'content-adaptive' BFI at sizes of 65" and below.
> 
> Desk
Click to expand...

I’m taking the longer view of this stuff. A world where Panasonic pushes the envelope of WOLED and LGE invests to catch up a year later (and across their entire WOLED lineup) is an OK world to me 😉.

Between their collaboration with NHK and their increased willingness to chase Panasonic and Sony in those areas where they continue to lead, LG has really upped their game over the past few years.

Just think about the response any suggestion that LGE would be adding integrated 3D LUTs into their TVs would have gotten a mere 5 years ago!


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> I’m taking the longer view of this stuff. A world where Panasonic pushes the envelope of WOLED and LGE invests to catch up a year later (and across their entire WOLED lineup) is an OK world to me 😉.
> 
> Between their collaboration with NHK and their increased willingness to chase Panasonic and Sony in those areas where they continue to lead, LG has really upped their game over the past few years.
> 
> Just think about the response any suggestion that LGE would be adding integrated 3D LUTs into their TVs would have gotten a mere 5 years ago!


I concur, @fafrd. There's going to be newfound motivation to compete on things like perfect motion. Also, I'd expect a wave of 120hz sports content buzz to be created during Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games that's going to be motivating.

Having talked with folks that catalyzed the drive towards perfect color, we'll get to a tipping point in perfect motion soon and then who knows where we'll go.


----------



## Micolash

Actually having native 120 hz sports broadcasts would be a bigger game changer than 120 hz BFI. Will it actually happen? 

A couple of years ago LG demoed 120 hz sports on a 2016 OLED (which had no BFI whatsoever), and the clarity was unbelievable. It looked like you were actually there.


----------



## wco81

Doesn’t matter what the TV can do if they won’t broadcast.

They won’t even do 4K sports regularly so what chance of 120fps?


----------



## helvetica bold

I’m a bit of a noob when it comes to BFI.
What are the real world advantages of 120Hz BFI? For example smoother motion while watching sports. What other applications? My C9 has 60Hz BFI, correct? How about next gen game systems, will I be missing out not having 120Hz BFI?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ALMA

No delay for QD-OLED by Samsung Display and it seems they'll get rid of the color filters.





> At their private suite in the Encore, *SDC showed 2 versions of a 65” QD-OLED; a 4K and an 8K. they ran at 150 nits, which was equivalent to an LG RGBW OLED, they had previously acquired. Must have been a very old model as the new ones operate at 650 -765*0 nits. But the big difference from what we and others had previously published *was that the TVs not no color filter nor a circular polarizer. All that was used was a proprietary anti-reflective film that they claimed cut the reflection down to *


----------



## stl8k

*LGD's Main BFI Patent for 2020 Displays*



> As described above, the organic light - emitting display according to the present disclosure may improve motion picture response time by using a black data display period . Particularly, the organic light - emitting display according to the present disclosure may display black data without changing driving frequency. That is, it is possible to improve motion picture response time by inserting black data without reducing the length of a programming period.
> 
> Moreover, the organic light - emitting display according to the present disclosure may easily vary the duty cycle according to the n value. When a fast moving image is displayed , the duty cycle is decreased to improve MPRT, and when a still pattern is displayed, the duty cycle is decreased to near 100% to prevent flicker. The duty cycle may be adjusted for each frame through image processing, thereby giving the best picture quality to the user.


The above excerpt taken from the linked LGD patent describes content-adaptive BFI. (See Panasonic shot below from a Vincent Teoh video for an example.) I presume there would be default logic that chose a driving frequency for a given piece of movie content and then adjusted the duty cycle within playback of that particular content.

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/29/7b/6b/6623100f5348f5/US20190189060A1.pdf


----------



## th1nk

Hmm the best possible way would be able to adjust the duty cycle per pixel, not per frame. I guess we will have to wait for a future OLED for that.


----------



## stl8k

th1nk said:


> Hmm the best possible way would be able to adjust the duty cycle per pixel, not per frame. I guess we will have to wait for a future OLED for that.


Pixel-level BFI? As in BFI for identified objects in a scene that are say predicted to move fast. Mind blown.

Has anyone even investigated this in a lab?


----------



## stl8k

*Skyworth 2020 Product Line Video*

From the Skyworth boot at CES. This company is maturing nicely.


----------



## wco81

What do we know about their engineering chops for motion processing, processor design, etc.?

Also any history or suspicions of spying?


----------



## Jin-X

Cam1977 said:


> Lol, I'm originally from a little tropical island in the Caribbean 100 miles long and 35 miles wide!


As Mr. White told Bond and M, we have people everywhere 

But it feels like California lately down here, but without a ChadB or D-Nice calibration tour.


----------



## fafrd

Seems like TCL may be a step or two ahead of Samsung: https://www.oled-info.com/tcl-and-j...jet-printed-31-fhd-rollable-hybrid-qd-oled-tv

"TCL and Juhua Printing demonstrated a 31" FHD inkjet-printed rollable hybrid QD-OLED TV prototype. The display uses an IGZO (Oxide-TFT) backplane and TCL says that it has an aperture ratio of over 50%, brightness of 200 nits and a 90% DCI-P3 color gamut.

TCL's hybrid display technology (which TCL calls H-QLED) uses a blue OLED emitter coupled with red and green QD emitters. All three emitter materials are combined and printed using ink-jet printing technology."

TCL's 200cd/m2 is insufficient but looks to be ahead of the 150cd/m2 QD-BOLED Samsung demo'ed at CES, but 90% DCI-P3 is obvious, a long way from what today's TV market expects...


----------



## Jin-X

So when they talk about Samsung being at 150 nits and TCL at 200 nits they are talking about peak highlights at a 10% window or similar? Also everyone seems to be desperately wishing for a better solution for blue but are struggling to find it.


----------



## ALMA

> So when they talk about Samsung being at 150 nits and TCL at 200 nits they are talking about peak highlights at a 10% window or similar?



APL 100%. That means fullscreen white. Peaks should be much higher than 150nits.














> Samsung Display began ordering equipment related to the quantum dot display production line at the end of last year. *The company plans to finish the equipment setup in the second half of this year and start production lines next year.* An inkjet printing process was applied to form a quantum dot light conversion layer for color filters.
> 
> *Samsung Display will make a quantum dot display by laminating the quantum dot (QD) light conversion layer color filter substrate and the blue OLED substrate.*
> 
> A photo process is used to raise the color pigment for color filters. Color photoresist (PR) mixed with pigment is applied onto the substrate and left in the desired position through photo process such as exposure, development and cleaning. The oven is then heated and hardened. JSR and Samsung SDI are both color photoresist producers.
> 
> Quantum dot display manufacturing uses a color filter with an additional quantum dot light conversion layer. Quantum Dot's light emitting (PL) technology is applied. Each of the red and green quantum dots receives light from the blue OLED and emits red and green with high color purity. Increasing the color purity of individual pixels widens the entire color gamut of the display.
> 
> The quantum dot light conversion layer is formed using an inkjet printing process rather than a photo process. Quantum dot ink is dropped on each color filter and then cured with ultraviolet (UV) light. Quantum Dot is developed by Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology and mass produced by Hansol Chemical. Quantum dot ink makers take quantum dots and turn them into inks.
> 
> Samsung SDI said it is developing QD ink at the 3Q earnings conference call last year. At the time, Kim Kyung-hoon, executive director of Samsung SDI's Electronic Materials Division, said, "We are developing QD ink, anti-reflective film and low refractive material for QD-OLED TV." Kim described quantum dot display as 'QD-OLED'.



https://translate.google.com/transl...ww.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=4700


----------



## gmarceau

ALMA said:


> APL 100%. That means fullscreen white. Peaks should be much higher than 150nits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...ww.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=4700



It was mentioned in one of the reports that blacks seemed to almost float - that could be a translation issue, but honestly if there's no Dolby Vision, this is almost not going to be worth it. That type of HDR is just too good.

My understanding was that mass production is happening in 2022, so we're realistically looking at a 2023 launch.


----------



## video_analysis

Yea, with LCD continuing to outpacing OLED in brightness, Dolby Vision is a must. Bend over already, Samdung.


----------



## MicroLEDfuture

video_analysis said:


> Yea, with LCD continuing to outpacing OLED in brightness, Dolby Vision is a must. Bend over already, Samdung.


The QD-OLEDs prototypes haven't impressed Samsung Electronics. 150 nits? A plasma Tv without the response time maybe? The heat was also said to be bad.


----------



## video_analysis

Concerning heat output, maybe we shouldn't put much weight in that single report, unless there have been other confirmations.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Concerning heat output, maybe we shouldn't put much weight in that single report, unless there have been other confirmations.


One thing that is pretty certain is that we are unlikely to be seeing QD-BOLEDs on the shelves of our local Best Buy’s before 2023 (best-case)...

One possible explanation for this ‘heat issue’ is that Samsung made a comment that they could not increase light output levels without running into issues with increased heat...

We’ll see what Musings has to say after he’s had a chance for a follow-on discussion with his industry contacts - his information is generally some of the most accurate.

If the Blue-blocking filter has been eliminated as claimed, that is significant progress, though the result should be higher light output, not less light output.

One possibility is that after finding efficiency increases in the QDCC that would allow the blue-blocking color filters to be eliminated, they elected to drop back down to two blue OLED layers (the original plan) to address cost issues (from the 3 blue layers they had to go to to compensate for lost light output caused by the blue-blocking color filter),

With cheap printed RGB OLEDs on the way, as well as the internal competition from Samsung MicroLED, Samsung Display May have recognized that ‘cost is king’ and their only chance for success with QD-BOLED will come from hitting the low manufacturing cost targets they originally touted, even if it means some sacrifice in performance.

The comment about ‘confirming 2 more layers for IGZO manufacturibg than LG WOLED’ is consistent with this and confirms the discussion surrounded manufacturing cost ;and likely how it compares to WOLED).

So my guess is they are back to the original 2-layer Blue OLED stack architecture with printed QDCC and no color filters. 

Manufacturing cost of the OLED layer should be lower than WOLED (at equal scale), IGZO backplane will be more expensive (so perhaps a wash overall?).

There will likely be some blue light leakage but we won’t know how much until color gamut’s are measured.

It’s unlikely they have TADF or another high-efficiency Blue Emitter yet or we’d be hearing about how bright the Demo’s were rather than the opposite (and that is probably the ‘Ace in the Hole’ they are banking in by production time).

Sounds like they have made some progress, but those of us who slogged through the early data of WOLED TV recognize the signs - it’s still very early days...


----------



## gmarceau

fafrd said:


> One thing that is pretty certain is that we are unlikely to be seeing QD-BOLEDs on the shelves of our local Best Buy’s before 2023 (best-case)...
> 
> One possible explanation for this ‘heat issue’ is that Samsung made a comment that they could not increase light output levels without running into issues with increased heat...
> 
> We’ll see what Musings has to say after he’s had a chance for a follow-on discussion with his industry contacts - his information is generally some of the most accurate.
> 
> If the Blue-blocking filter has been eliminated as claimed, that is significant progress, though the result should be higher light output, not less light output.
> 
> One possibility is that after finding efficiency increases in the QDCC that would allow the blue-blocking color filters to be eliminated, they elected to drop back down to two blue OLED layers (the original plan) to address cost issues (from the 3 blue layers they had to go to to compensate for lost light output caused by the blue-blocking color filter),
> 
> With cheap printed RGB OLEDs on the way, as well as the internal competition from Samsung MicroLED, Samsung Display May have recognized that ‘cost is king’ and their only chance for success with QD-BOLED will come from hitting the low manufacturing cost targets they originally touted, even if it means some sacrifice in performance.
> 
> The comment about ‘confirming 2 more layers for IGZO manufacturibg than LG WOLED’ is consistent with this and confirms the discussion surrounded manufacturing cost ;and likely how it compares to WOLED).
> 
> So my guess is they are back to the original 2-layer Blue OLED stack architecture with printed QDCC and no color filters.
> 
> Manufacturing cost of the OLED layer should be lower than WOLED (at equal scale), IGZO backplane will be more expensive (so perhaps a wash overall?).
> 
> There will likely be some blue light leakage but we won’t know how much until color gamut’s are measured.
> 
> It’s unlikely they have TADF or another high-efficiency Blue Emitter yet or we’d be hearing about how bright the Demo’s were rather than the opposite (and that is probably the ‘Ace in the Hole’ they are banking in by production time).
> 
> Sounds like they have made some progress, but those of us who slogged through the early data of WOLED TV recognize the signs - it’s still very early days...







For those that haven't caught this most recent meetup with Nanosys. Honestly, watching my A8F last night, even streaming no HDR 1080 content still looks impressive. If Samsung can increase rec 2020 to 90% plus and keep the same peak brightness, this is enough of an upgrade for me. MicroLED is not coming anytime soon for the mass market.


----------



## 8mile13

I guess Samsung felt the urge to show some proof that they actually have a sort of QD BOLED prototype...


----------



## fafrd

gmarceau said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that is pretty certain is that we are unlikely to be seeing QD-BOLEDs on the shelves of our local Best Buyâ€™️s before 2023 (best-case)...
> 
> One possible explanation for this â€˜heat issueâ€™️ is that Samsung made a comment that they could not increase light output levels without running into issues with increased heat...
> 
> Weâ€™️ll see what Musings has to say after heâ€™️s had a chance for a follow-on discussion with his industry contacts - his information is generally some of the most accurate.
> 
> If the Blue-blocking filter has been eliminated as claimed, that is significant progress, though the result should be higher light output, not less light output.
> 
> One possibility is that after finding efficiency increases in the QDCC that would allow the blue-blocking color filters to be eliminated, they elected to drop back down to two blue OLED layers (the original plan) to address cost issues (from the 3 blue layers they had to go to to compensate for lost light output caused by the blue-blocking color filter),
> 
> With cheap printed RGB OLEDs on the way, as well as the internal competition from Samsung MicroLED, Samsung Display May have recognized that â€˜cost is kingâ€™️ and their only chance for success with QD-BOLED will come from hitting the low manufacturing cost targets they originally touted, even if it means some sacrifice in performance.
> 
> The comment about â€˜confirming 2 more layers for IGZO manufacturibg than LG WOLEDâ€™️ is consistent with this and confirms the discussion surrounded manufacturing cost ;and likely how it compares to WOLED).
> 
> So my guess is they are back to the original 2-layer Blue OLED stack architecture with printed QDCC and no color filters.
> 
> Manufacturing cost of the OLED layer should be lower than WOLED (at equal scale), IGZO backplane will be more expensive (so perhaps a wash overall?).
> 
> There will likely be some blue light leakage but we wonâ€™️t know how much until color gamutâ€™️s are measured.
> 
> Itâ€™️s unlikely they have TADF or another high-efficiency Blue Emitter yet or weâ€™️d be hearing about how bright the Demoâ€™️s were rather than the opposite (and that is probably the â€˜Ace in the Holeâ€™️ they are banking in by production time).
> 
> Sounds like they have made some progress, but those of us who slogged through the early data of WOLED TV recognize the signs - itâ€™️s still very early days...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those that haven't caught this most recent meetup with Nanosys. Honestly, watching my A8F last night, even streaming no HDR 1080 content still looks impressive. *If Samsung can increase rec 2020 to 90%* plus and keep the same peak brightness, this is enough of an upgrade for me. MicroLED is not coming anytime soon for the mass market.
Click to expand...

The ASUS monitor appears impressive. Achieving 90% Rec.2020 requires;

1/ Using high-quality Blue LEDs with narrow width peak at Blue.

2/ Using QDEF to create narrow width peaks at Red and Green.

3/ Using conventional color filters to block all of the Red and Green from Blue Subpixels, all of the Red and Blue from Green subpixels, and all of the Green and Blue from Red subpixels.

The Blue LEDs and QDEF already do a fantastic job delivering pure (narrow) Red Green and Blue light so the gamut coverage really all comes down to the quality of the conventional color filters (and especially how effectively the Green Peak is blocked by the Blue Color Filter and the Red Color Filter).

QD-BOLED has a challange because the Quantum Dots do not capture and convert 100% of the incoming Blue light, so the Red and Green subpixels will also have some % of Blue light, reducing saturation.

It’s unlikely QD-BOLED will be able to achieve 90% of Rec.2020 without use of Blue-blocking color filter over the Red and Green subpixels (as Samsung had originally planned but apparently has now backed away from, probably because of cost concerns).


----------



## fafrd

Somone posted a link to this video purporting to be LGs 120Hz BFI: 




The video 'shows' a scrolling black bar that is roughly ~10% of the screen height (~216 lines), but without knowing the capture rate of the camera which was used, it's essentially worthless.

The black bar appears the be scrolling 'up' which means whatever % of the screen is being blanked, at most 90% of a full-frame refresh has been completed. If we assume a 60Hz refresh rate with some % of BFI enabled, or a 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate, a 240fps capture rate should show a static image with some fixed % of the screen (like 50%) blanked, while a 250fps capture rate would show the blanked % of the screen slowly moving up (and taking 25 frames to move from the bottom of the screen to the top back to the same position, since 24 * 4.16667 ms = 25 * 4.0ms). Assuming a 60fps playback, 25 frames would correspond to 0.25 seconds.

This video shows about 6 seconds for the black bar to scroll through the full screen, meaning about 360 frames, so the conclusion is a capture rate which is 359/360 of 4.166667ms or 4.155ms, meaning a capture rate of about 240 6ms.

So this video which is probably captured at a rate close to (but not exactly) Native Refresh Rate tells us next to nothing about what is going on.

To reverse-engineer what LGE's 120Hz BFI modes are doing requires capturing at multiples of the panel's native refresh rate (meaning at least 480fps if not 960fps).

The Samsung S9 supports Ultra Slo Mo capture which is 960fps, so once the 2020 WOLEDs are available in the wild, I'll hope some enterprising AVSers with S9s and some time to waste at Best Buy can share some videos of Low Medium and High BFI settings for 60Hz content as well as BFI for 120Hz content (or perhaps BFI with Smooth enabled) so we can gain some insight as to what LGE has actually delivered thus cycle...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Somone posted a link to this video purporting to be LGs 120Hz BFI: https://youtu.be/waT5XSP6QZw
> 
> The video 'shows' a scrolling black bar that is roughly ~10% of the screen height (~216 lines), but without knowing the capture rate of the camera which was used, it's essentially worthless.
> 
> The black bar appears the be scrolling 'up' which means whatever % of the screen is being blanked, at most 90% of a full-frame refresh has been completed. If we assume a 60Hz refresh rate with some % of BFI enabled, or a 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate, a 240fps capture rate should show a static image with some fixed % of the screen (like 50%) blanked, while a 250fps capture rate would show the blanked % of the screen slowly moving up (and taking 25 frames to move from the bottom of the screen to the top back to the same position, since 24 * 4.16667 ms = 25 * 4.0ms). Assuming a 60fps playback, 25 frames would correspond to 0.25 seconds.
> 
> This video shows about 6 seconds for the black bar to scroll through the full screen, meaning about 360 frames, so the conclusion is a capture rate which is 359/360 of 4.166667ms or 4.155ms, meaning a capture rate of about 240 6ms.
> 
> So this video which is probably captured at a rate close to (but not exactly) Native Refresh Rate tells us next to nothing about what is going on.
> 
> To reverse-engineer what LGE's 120Hz BFI modes are doing requires capturing at multiples of the panel's native refresh rate (meaning at least 480fps if not 960fps).
> 
> The Samsung S9 supports Ultra Slo Mo capture which is 960fps, so once the 2020 WOLEDs are available in the wild, I'll hope some enterprising AVSers with S9s and some time to waste at Best Buy can share some videos of Low Medium and High BFI settings for 60Hz content as well as BFI for 120Hz content (or perhaps BFI with Smooth enabled) so we can gain some insight as to what LGE has actually delivered thus cycle...


Looking at the video again, it seems to be playing back in real-time, meaning it was probably captured at 60fps. This means almost 2 Full 120 Hz refresh cycles of the video contend have completed during each captured frame (and almost 2 full scans of whatever BFI % is scrolling),

And since it's taking about 8 rather than 6 seconds for the bar to scroll the height of the screen, that corresponds to a beat of 2160 lines in 8 seconds or 270 lines per second or 4-5 lines per 60Hz source frame, meaning a capture rate which is 100.002% the display rate, or 59.9fps.

The GCD test pattern disk includes Moving Bar Test Patterns at 29.97fps, which is a frame interval of 33.3667 or 200.2% of a frame interval of 16.6666667ms from 60Hz refresh, so I suspect whatever beating this video represents, it may be related (29.97fps content being captured at 60fps).


----------



## bombyx

> *According to a new report from Korea, LGD finally fixed its technical issues and managed to optimize the yields at the new fab. Mass production will begin in Guangzhou by the end of this month.*


https://www.oled-info.com/lg-displa...sues-guangzhou-fab-will-begin-mass-production


----------



## gorman42

bombyx said:


> https://www.oled-info.com/lg-displa...sues-guangzhou-fab-will-begin-mass-production


I wonder if this will lead to a new kind of panel lottery...


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> I wonder if this will lead to a new kind of panel lottery...


Most of those panels will be going to Chinese/Taieanese OEMs, so at most, we might see a different class of panel lottery from Vizio, Hisense, Konka, etc compared to LG and Sony...


----------



## 8mile13

bombyx said:


> https://www.oled-info.com/lg-displa...sues-guangzhou-fab-will-begin-mass-production


A few days ago LG stated (koreatimes translation)
''OLED displays had a shorter lifespan, as well as a higher number of issues with the production yield defect rate, utilization rate and "burn-in" than conventional LCD-backed displays.''
"LED technology (folks argue over what is meant with ''LED tech'', probably microLED since they launched their first microLED demo at the time of the article) could be one possible option for products with enhanced picture quality and improved contrast ratio because the technology is well-positioned to effectively address such looming issues that appeared in OLED displays," the company said.''


So it looks like the yield defect rate is to high and nothing can be done about it according LG.


----------



## Micolash

fafrd said:


> Looking at the video again, it seems to be playing back in real-time, meaning it was probably captured at 60fps. This means almost 2 Full 120 Hz refresh cycles of the video contend have completed during each captured frame (and almost 2 full scans of whatever BFI % is scrolling),
> 
> And since it's taking about 8 rather than 6 seconds for the bar to scroll the height of the screen, that corresponds to a beat of 2160 lines in 8 seconds or 270 lines per second or 4-5 lines per 60Hz source frame, meaning a capture rate which is 100.002% the display rate, or 59.9fps.
> 
> The GCD test pattern disk includes Moving Bar Test Patterns at 29.97fps, which is a frame interval of 33.3667 or 200.2% of a frame interval of 16.6666667ms from 60Hz refresh, so I suspect whatever beating this video represents, it may be related (29.97fps content being captured at 60fps).


This is blowing my mind. Does this mean the BFI works differently than what was planned last year? Are we still looking at a theoretical max MPRT of 3.5 ms?


----------



## fafrd

Micolash said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the video again, it seems to be playing back in real-time, meaning it was probably captured at 60fps. This means almost 2 Full 120 Hz refresh cycles of the video contend have completed during each captured frame (and almost 2 full scans of whatever BFI % is scrolling),
> 
> And since it's taking about 8 rather than 6 seconds for the bar to scroll the height of the screen, that corresponds to a beat of 2160 lines in 8 seconds or 270 lines per second or 4-5 lines per 60Hz source frame, meaning a capture rate which is 100.002% the display rate, or 59.9fps.
> 
> The GCD test pattern disk includes Moving Bar Test Patterns at 29.97fps, which is a frame interval of 33.3667 or 200.2% of a frame interval of 16.6666667ms from 60Hz refresh, so I suspect whatever beating this video represents, it may be related (29.97fps content being captured at 60fps).
> 
> 
> 
> This is blowing my mind. Does this mean the BFI works differently than what was planned last year? Are we still looking at a theoretical max MPRT of 3.5 ms?
Click to expand...

That was exactly the point of my post(s) - O think that video is meaningless because it was taken at too low of a frame rate. What your eyes ‘see’ in the video is not a reflection of what is actually going on.

Video needs to be captured at 960Hz (or at least 480Hz) to get any semblance of the real story.

So I’m optimistic that LG’s 2020 WOLEDs deliver the 3.5ms MPRT they touted at CES 2019, but we’ll need to wait for reviews, measurements, and early owner reports (and videos ) to be sure...


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> bombyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/lg-displa...sues-guangzhou-fab-will-begin-mass-production
> 
> 
> 
> A few days ago *LG stated* (koreatimes translation)
Click to expand...

LG Display or LG Electronics?



> ''OLED displays had a shorter lifespan, as well as a higher number of issues with the production yield defect rate, utilization rate and "burn-in" than conventional LCD-backed displays.''
> "LED technology (folks argue over what is meant with ''LED tech'', probably microLED since they launched their first microLED demo at the time of the article) could be one possible option for products with enhanced picture quality and improved contrast ratio because the technology is well-positioned to effectively address such looming issues that appeared in OLED displays," *the company said*.''


Sounds like LG Electronics to me...

We’ve already seen repeated evidence of the tug-of-war between Samsung Display and Samsung Visual Display (the subsidiary selling TVs) on competing visions for the future of TV display technology and this looks like a similar internal conflict brewing within the LG chaebol.



> So it looks like the yield defect rate is to high and nothing can be done about it according LG.


Please post your source article - I’m guessing this is a false flag planted by LG Electronics to justify / gin up support for their copycat investments in MicroLED but I’d like to review the source article for any further insights I might be able to glean.


----------



## bombyx

8mile13 said:


> A few days ago LG stated (koreatimes translation)
> ''OLED displays had a shorter lifespan, as well as a higher number of issues with the production yield defect rate, utilization rate and "burn-in" than conventional LCD-backed displays.''
> "LED technology (folks argue over what is meant with ''LED tech'', probably microLED since they launched their first microLED demo at the time of the article) could be one possible option for products with enhanced picture quality and improved contrast ratio because the technology is well-positioned to effectively address such looming issues that appeared in OLED displays," the company said.''
> 
> 
> *So it looks like the yield defect rate is to high and nothing can be done about it according LG*.



The article I posted (Source : The Elec) doesn't say anything like that.  



Here is the source: http://www.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=4756

Here is the translation from Korean :


> LG Display It is reported that a large organic light emitting diode (OLED) plant in Guangzhou, Guangdong, China will begin mass production at the end of this month. OLED TV demand is expected to be a key issue in the future. "It wasn't enough to sell because it was in low demand, even though it was mass-produced in the second half of last year," the insider said.
> 
> According to the industry on the 16th, the mass production time of LG Display's Guangzhou OLED factory is 28th after the Lunar New Year holiday. At the end of last month, a local event was held to celebrate the achievement of the target yield. It will begin mass production five months after its completion in August last year. LG Display was confident that mass production was possible before the completion of the construction, but mass production was delayed due to yield problems.
> 
> Chung Ho-young, CEO of LG Display, told reporters at the CES 2020 Opening Ceremony earlier this month that "*Optimization of the yield took longer than expected, but we found the root cause of the problem.*" "Said. "We will look at the point of mass production flexibly according to customer demand."
> 
> LG Display is expected to actively reduce costs through mass production at the OLED factory in Guangzhou. The demand for OLED panels for TVs in the second half of last year was less than expected, and LG Display was reported to have been concerned.
> 
> Chung said, "We are planning to add up to 90,000 additional sheets or more after the Guangzhou OLED plant starts this year."
> 
> The current production capacity of the Guangzhou OLED plant is 60,000 sheets per month for 8.5 generations. Some 30,000 additional expansion equipments were received at the OLED factory in Guangzhou at the end of last year. If the capacity is expanded to 90,000 sheets, it will exceed 70,000 sheets per month, the domestic 8.5G OLED production capacity.
> 
> LG Display announced the completion of the Guangzhou OLED plant last year, and said that "more than 70% are made of domestic equipment." About 60% of the materials will be supplied from domestic producers.
> 
> Source: Electronic parts specialized media Dilek (http://www.thelec.kr)


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> 8mile13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bombyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.oled-info.com/lg-displa...sues-guangzhou-fab-will-begin-mass-production
> 
> 
> 
> A few days ago *LG stated* (koreatimes translation)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LG Display or LG Electronics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''OLED displays had a shorter lifespan, as well as a higher number of issues with the production yield defect rate, utilization rate and "burn-in" than conventional LCD-backed displays.''
> "LED technology (folks argue over what is meant with ''LED tech'', probably microLED since they launched their first microLED demo at the time of the article) could be one possible option for products with enhanced picture quality and improved contrast ratio because the technology is well-positioned to effectively address such looming issues that appeared in OLED displays," *the company said*.''
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like LG Electronics to me...
> 
> We’ve already seen repeated evidence of the tug-of-war between Samsung Display and Samsung Visual Display (the subsidiary selling TVs) on competing visions for the future of TV display technology and this looks like a similar internal conflict brewing within the LG chaebol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it looks like the yield defect rate is to high and nothing can be done about it according LG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Please post your source article* - I’m guessing this is a false flag planted by LG Electronics to justify / gin up support for their copycat investments in MicroLED but I’d like to review the source article for any further insights I might be able to glean.
Click to expand...

Found it: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=281788

Sounds like a reporter just trying to gin-up conflict (very possibly with assistance provided by Samsung). The underlying issue is probably that LGE is unhappy that WOLED panel prices supplied by LGD have not come down as quickly as they had hoped (remember that a 10% price-up in WOLED panels was forced upon them one year ago to boost LGD’s profitability).

The article confirms that LGE’s newly announced MicroLED initiative is not aimed at the consumer market:

‘...an LG Electronics official said the move was intended to respond to the growing demand for larger displays for the business-to-business (B2B) segment [b{not for the business-to-consumer (B2C) segment.[/b]’


But this was the most important statement:

‘This does not mean LG Electronics will step back from its earlier commitment to embrace the OLED TV business. It means, from a business standpoint, that *LG will regard its push for the OLED TV market as a "strategic investment" that will set the advanced TV technology roadmap for years.*’

Translation: LG is committed to their WOLED initiative even if LGE’s profitability continues to suffer for the next few years...


----------



## video_analysis

IOW, LGE is taking one for the team then (I'm sure they've taken a hit with these 2016-2017 post warranty panel replacements).


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> Found it: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=281788
> 
> Sounds like a reporter just trying to gin-up conflict (very possibly with assistance provided by Samsung).
> The underlying issue is probably that LGE is unhappy that WOLED panel prices supplied by LGD have not come down as quickly as they had hoped (remember that a 10% price-up in WOLED panels was forced upon them one year ago to boost LGD’s profitability).


Those are LG Electronics statements (unless the reporter is lying) which owns like 40% of LG Display stocks.
It looks to me like those comments are LGs first microLED demo related...which in a number of ways could be a improvement over OLED as stated. One would expect such comments being made behind closed doors..not in the open. As you know at times closed door stuff is shared with the public (stuff like how LG Electronics really feels about OLED).


fafrd said:


> The article confirms that LGE’s newly announced MicroLED initiative is not aimed at the consumer market:
> 
> ‘...an LG Electronics official said the move was intended to respond to the growing demand for larger displays for the business-to-business (B2B) segment [b{not for the business-to-consumer (B2C) segment.[/b]’





fafrd said:


> But this was the most important statement:
> 
> ‘This does not mean LG Electronics will step back from its earlier commitment to embrace the OLED TV business. It means, from a business standpoint, that *LG will regard its push for the OLED TV market as a "strategic investment" that will set the advanced TV technology roadmap for years.*’
> 
> Translation: LG is committed to their WOLED initiative even if LGE’s profitability continues to suffer for the next few years...


 It is pretty clear that LG will commit to OLED for the coming years we already knew that. The important news afaik is that LG Electronics is not a real believer in OLED and is already actively looking for something to replace it with may it be 5 years or more from now.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> Those are LG Electronics statements (unless the reporter is lying) which owns like 40% of LG Display stocks.
> It looks to me like those comments are LGs first microLED demo related...which in a number of ways could be a improvement over OLED as stated. One would expect such comments being made behind closed doors..not in the open. As you know at times closed door stuff is shared with the public (stuff like how LG Electronics really feels about OLED).
> 
> 
> It is pretty clear that LG will commit to OLED for the coming years we already knew that. *The important news afaik is that LG Electronics is not a real believer in OLED and is already actively looking for something to replace it with may it be 5 years or more from now.*


My read is different.

LGE grudgingly agreed to 10% price up on panel prices in late 2018 (which allowed LGD to achieve profitability but ate into LGEs best-in-the-industry TV profitability (which was fueled by OLED TV sales) [see attached].

Then in 2019 they had to discount more than they expected to sell-through the increased volume of OLED TVs and their TV profitability suffered even more than they expected (they have not reported yet, but expect a bloodbath).

So entering the 2019 negotiating session, they believed they were positioned for a reversal of 'price-up' and for chaebol management to support an additional ~10% decline in WOLED panel prices (which they very possibly had been promised a year ago).

The negotiations have no doubt ended badly and the TV division is pissed. The chaebol is more concerned about the survival of LG Display through this critical few-year period of cash crunch while 10.5G investments still need to be made in the face of evaporating LCD panel profits than they are LGE TV division posting poor results and so they are forcing LGE to continue to absorb an ever-increasing volume of WOLED panels at prices that won't allow the profitability LGE was hoping for.

The LGE TV executives are no doubt licking their wounds, positioning for excuses / cover stories for when results are announced, and planting the seeds for a strengthened 2020 bargaining position late this year in the hopes of avoiding a similar fate this fall.

I read all of this as a strong confirmation that LG as a Chaebol has hitched their success in the display panel business to WOLED (regardless of the impact that decision has on profitability of their TV division).

Grumbling by LG's TV division is frankly immaterial - it is volume of WOLED TV sales by Sony and Panasonic (as well as newcomers like Vizio) that is much more important. As long as their WOLED TV sales volume continues to increase year-over-year, WOLED is winning and is here to stay (for at least the couple decades it will take for any new display technology to displace it).

If Sony, Panasonic, or Vizio WOLED TV sales volumes ever decline dramaticalLy or god-forbid they cease WOLED TV production, that would be a major warning sign.


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> My read is different.
> 
> LGE grudgingly agreed to 10% price up on panel prices in late 2018 (which allowed LGD to achieve profitability but ate into LGEs best-in-the-industry TV profitability (which was fueled by OLED TV sales) [see attached].
> 
> Then in 2019 they had to discount more than they expected to sell-through the increased volume of OLED TVs and their TV profitability suffered even more than they expected (they have not reported yet, but expect a bloodbath).
> 
> So entering the 2019 negotiating session, they believed they were positioned for a reversal of 'price-up' and for chaebol management to support an additional ~10% decline in WOLED panel prices (which they very possibly had been promised a year ago).
> 
> The negotiations have no doubt ended badly and the TV division is pissed. The chaebol is more concerned about the survival of LG Display through this critical few-year period of cash crunch while 10.5G investments still need to be made in the face of evaporating LCD panel profits than they are LGE TV division posting poor results and so they are forcing LGE to continue to absorb an ever-increasing volume of WOLED panels at prices that won't allow the profitability LGE was hoping for.
> 
> The LGE TV executives are no doubt licking their wounds, positioning for excuses / cover stories for when results are announced, and planting the seeds for a strengthened 2020 bargaining position late this year in the hopes of avoiding a similar fate this fall.
> 
> I read all of this as a strong confirmation that LG as a Chaebol has hitched their success in the display panel business to WOLED (regardless of the impact that decision has on profitability of their TV division).
> 
> Grumbling by LG's TV division is frankly immaterial - it is volume of WOLED TV sales by Sony and Panasonic (as well as newcomers like Vizio) that is much more important. As long as their WOLED TV sales volume continues to increase year-over-year, WOLED is winning and is here to stay (for at least the couple decades it will take for zany new display technology to displace it).
> 
> If Sony, Panasonic, or Vizio WOLED TV sales volumes ever decline dramaticalLy or god-forbid they cease WOLED TV production, that would be a major warning sign.


Those ''Plan B'' comments were probably made at LGs first microLED prototype demo. It looks to me like they sum up reasons why they are putting money in microLED development. What is wrong with that?


_1 ''OLED displays had a shorter lifespan, as well as a higher number of issues with the production yield defect rate, utilization rate and "burn-in" than conventional LCD-backed displays.''_

_2 .. because the _''LED technology'' _is well-positioned to effectively address such looming issues that appeared in OLED displays," *the company said*.''_


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> As long as their WOLED TV sales volume continues to increase year-over-year, WOLED is winning and is here to stay (for at least *the couple decades* it will take for zany new display technology to displace it).


Isn't the above a little excessive? While I agree that we're probably not going to see microled at consumer level prices for at least 5 years, betting on OLED dominance for twenty years seems a little "up there".


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> My read is different.
> 
> LGE grudgingly agreed to 10% price up on panel prices in late 2018 (which allowed LGD to achieve profitability but ate into LGEs best-in-the-industry TV profitability (which was fueled by OLED TV sales) [see attached].
> 
> Then in 2019 they had to discount more than they expected to sell-through the increased volume of OLED TVs and their TV profitability suffered even more than they expected (they have not reported yet, but expect a bloodbath).
> 
> So entering the 2019 negotiating session, they believed they were positioned for a reversal of 'price-up' and for chaebol management to support an additional ~10% decline in WOLED panel prices (which they very possibly had been promised a year ago).
> 
> The negotiations have no doubt ended badly and the TV division is pissed. The chaebol is more concerned about the survival of LG Display through this critical few-year period of cash crunch while 10.5G investments still need to be made in the face of evaporating LCD panel profits than they are LGE TV division posting poor results and so they are forcing LGE to continue to absorb an ever-increasing volume of WOLED panels at prices that won't allow the profitability LGE was hoping for.
> 
> The LGE TV executives are no doubt licking their wounds, positioning for excuses / cover stories for when results are announced, and planting the seeds for a strengthened 2020 bargaining position late this year in the hopes of avoiding a similar fate this fall.
> 
> I read all of this as a strong confirmation that LG as a Chaebol has hitched their success in the display panel business to WOLED (regardless of the impact that decision has on profitability of their TV division).
> 
> Grumbling by LG's TV division is frankly immaterial - it is volume of WOLED TV sales by Sony and Panasonic (as well as newcomers like Vizio) that is much more important. As long as their WOLED TV sales volume continues to increase year-over-year, WOLED is winning and is here to stay (for at least the couple decades it will take for zany new display technology to displace it).
> 
> If Sony, Panasonic, or Vizio WOLED TV sales volumes ever decline dramaticalLy or god-forbid they cease WOLED TV production, that would be a major warning sign.
> 
> 
> 
> Those ''Plan B'' comments were probably made at LGs first microLED prototype demo. It looks to me like they sum up reasons why they are putting money in microLED development. *What is wrong with that?*
> 
> 
> _1 ''OLED displays had a shorter lifespan, as well as a higher number of issues with the production yield defect rate, utilization rate and "burn-in" than conventional LCD-backed displays.''_
> 
> _2 .. because the _''LED technology'' _is well-positioned to effectively address such looming issues that appeared in OLED displays," *the company said*.''_
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong at all. Both quotes are 100% accurate when cost is not a consideration (and especially for massive-sized displays of 100”+...)

And for the business-to-business market where prices and margins are high, but volumes are exceedingly low, investing in MicroLED is a wise decision for LGE’s TV Division.

It’s the implication that any of this means LGD’s WOLED is facing unexpected difficulties and/or that LGE is losing faith in WOLED as the Premium Consumer technology of choice that is ‘wrong.’


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as their WOLED TV sales volume continues to increase year-over-year, WOLED is winning and is here to stay (for at least *the couple decades* it will take for *zany *new display technology to displace it).
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the above a little excessive? While I agree that we're probably not going to see microled at consumer level prices for at least 5 years, betting on OLED dominance for twenty years seems a little "up there".
Click to expand...

While it’s entirely possible that the technology that ultimately dethrones WOLED in the Premium TV market proves to be zany, I appreciate your helping me to catch my typo (since corrected).

On my ‘couple decades’ statement being ‘excessive’ and ‘up there’, I don’t think so.

OLED was first discovered in the ‘60s, patented in the 70s, first built into a practical device in the 80s, and first manufactured with polymers in the 90s.

The first prototype of a 15” HDTV display based on WOLED was st CEATEC in 2002 (by Kodak in partnership with Sanyo).

Samsung Display began working on small molecule OLED displays in 2002 and this thread was started in 2006: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED

So the first point is that new display technologies take decades to industrialize and the second point is that any new display technology which will materialize to dethrone OLED in less than 2 decades must already be well-past the early proof-of-concept / research phase and should be well into the early industrialization phase (where WOLED was in ~1999).

You mentioned MicroLED and it certainly qualifies as being well into the industrialization phase (in fact, it’s now fully-industrialized and well into the cost-reduction / economies-of-scale phase), but even 20 years from now, I don’t believe MicroLED has a chance of being the dominant Premium TV technology.

The cost structure is fundamentally too high and the continued trends towards higher resolution (8K) work against it. In my view, MicroLED will dominate a lucrative but low-volume niche as the commercial display technology of choice (along with a few very well-healed video enthusiasts) but is unlikely to dominate the Premium TV market, even 20 years from now.

In terms of the other technologies on the horizon that I know about and that could threaten WOLEDs dominance in the Premium TV Market:

QD-BOLED certainly has the potential to threaten WOLED, but it is another OLED TV variant and my comment was intended to cover all OLED-based technologies, not merely WOLED.

QD-MiniLED may deliver WOLED-level performance but it is unlikely to be less expensive than WOLED, certainly by the time 10.5G WOLED manufacturing begins in a few years ($1000 65”).

ILED or in-organic LED (the original QLED before Samsung bought and bastardized the acronym) offers the potential to dethrone WOLED but seems to still be in the early research phase (as further evidenced by the fact that the most advanced manufacturer, Samsung Display, elected to invest in QD-BOLED rather than ILED/EL-QLED).

Printed RGB-OLED may accelerate OLED-TV’s move OLED down the cost reduction curve and into larger markets, but it, again, is just another variant of OLED-TV.

Of everything I know that’s out there, the only other technology I’ve seen with the potential performance, maturity, and cost-effectiveness to potentially dethrone OLED-TV in less than 20 years may be the printed QD-OLED hybrid being developed by TCL: https://www.oled-info.com/tcl-developing-hybrid-qd-oled-display-technology

But again, that’s really just another OLED-TV variant.

So again, don’t see my original statement as excessive, don’t believe MicroLED has a chance as a consumer technology (certainly at least within the next 20 years), and not aware of anything which is not another variant of OLED which is mature enough to infustrialize quickly enough to threaten OLED-TVs continued dominance of the Premium TV Market through 2040...


----------



## gmarceau

fafrd said:


> While it’s entirely possible that the technology that ultimately dethrones WOLED in the Premium TV market proves to be zany, I appreciate your helping me to catch my typo (since corrected).
> 
> On my ‘couple decades’ statement being ‘excessive’ and ‘up there’, I don’t think so.
> 
> OLED was first discovered in the ‘60s, patented in the 70s, first built into a practical device in the 80s, and first manufactured with polymers in the 90s.
> 
> The first prototype of a 15” HDTV display based on WOLED was st CEATEC in 2002 (by Kodak in partnership with Sanyo).
> 
> Samsung Display began working on small molecule OLED displays in 2002 and this thread was started in 2006: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED
> 
> So the first point is that new display technologies take decades to industrialize and the second point is that any new display technology which will materialize to dethrone OLED in less than 2 decades must already be well-past the early proof-of-concept / research phase and should be well into the early industrialization phase (where WOLED was in ~1999).
> 
> You mentioned MicroLED and it certainly qualifies as being well into the industrialization phase (in fact, it’s now fully-industrialized and well into the cost-reduction / economies-of-scale phase), but even 20 years from now, I don’t believe MicroLED has a chance of being the dominant Premium TV technology.
> 
> The cost structure is fundamentally too high and the continued trends towards higher resolution (8K) work against it. In my view, MicroLED will dominate a lucrative but low-volume niche as the commercial display technology of choice (along with a few very well-healed video enthusiasts) but is unlikely to dominate the Premium TV market, even 20 years from now.
> 
> In terms of the other technologies on the horizon that I know about and that could threaten WOLEDs dominance in the Premium TV Market:
> 
> QD-BOLED certainly has the potential to threaten WOLED, but it is another OLED TV variant and my comment was intended to cover all OLED-based technologies, not merely WOLED.
> 
> QD-MiniLED may deliver WOLED-level performance but it is unlikely to be less expensive than WOLED, certainly by the time 10.5G WOLED manufacturing begins in a few years ($1000 65”).
> 
> ILED or in-organic LED (the original QLED before Samsung bought and bastardized the acronym) offers the potential to dethrone WOLED but seems to still be in the early research phase (as further evidenced by the fact that the most advanced manufacturer, Samsung Display, elected to invest in QD-BOLED rather than ILED/EL-QLED).
> 
> Printed RGB-OLED may accelerate OLED-TV’s move OLED down the cost reduction curve and into larger markets, but it, again, is just another variant of OLED-TV.
> 
> Of everything I know that’s out there, the only other technology I’ve seen with the potential performance, maturity, and cost-effectiveness to potentially dethrone OLED-TV in less than 20 years may be the printed QD-OLED hybrid being developed by TCL: https://www.oled-info.com/tcl-developing-hybrid-qd-oled-display-technology
> 
> But again, that’s really just another OLED-TV variant.
> 
> So again, don’t see my original statement as excessive, don’t believe MicroLED has a chance as a consumer technology (certainly at least within the next 20 years), and not aware of anything which is not another variant of OLED which is mature enough to infustrialize quickly enough to threaten OLED-TVs continued dominance of the Premium TV Market through 2040...


fafrd, this is so similar to what rogo used to write about OLED being commercially viable. But agreed, let's not put the cart before the horse. QDCC is the next step and it's likely 2 years away. Then it's at least another 5-10 years before QD-LED. Rohinni is claiming some really interesting stuff with patented MicroLED mass production. If anyone will make a push for MicroLED, it's the Chinese.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

I’m a lurker, popping his head up for a minute!
Watching and investigating display technologies I agree with fafrd that uLED has shown no known path to consumer level price points for 75” TV or smaller within any knowable timeframe. Unless/until that changes via invention (not cost reduction churn) variants of OLED and LCD seem destined to duke it out. Your definition of ‘dominance’ would help here. We are obviously talking about the ~5% high end (by # of units) of the total TV market here. Maybe it will move to 10% once OLED G10.5 brings down costs to $1000/65”?? Maybe. No doubt that whatever real profit there is for OEMs in the TV space comes in this little 5-10% pool however. If you mean dominance as defined by attributes as described in professional reviews YoY vs. various LCD tech flavors, I tend to agree – at least over the next several years. If you mean dominance as defined by market share >>50% over most of that 20yrs in the small pool noted above, I’m not convinced. Even if Samsung is successful moving to QDOLED over time, can the new OLED combo of LG and Samsung take 70%+ of that market? Yes, I might be convinced. But I’m not convinced by Samsung yet. And we best not poo-poo the Chinese capabilities with various LCD flavors over time if at a decent price advantage for slightly less performance (see Hisense statement about waiting on 2020 OLED pricing before announcing dual cell price @ $200 less. Whether this is a smoke screen or not for other dual cell issues doesn’t matter here). Huge infrastructure base, large subsidies (if they continue), improving tech are levers that they have to woo consumers via price. 
Personally, ACR is important to me given TV placement in the home. IMO, LCD will be battling OLED wrt this using HDR and daylight viewing marketing vehicles unless OLED can solve the brightness issues they face. I don’t think that fight is over. We can argue that 4K nits in a 2% or 10% window isn’t necessary, but the studies I’ve read (I’d have to look them up: from UCF?) say that people easily prefer that display as more lifelike. Can LCD solve heat issues cost effectively if the BLU (FALDLED, miniLED, dual cell, etc…) is pumped to 1k(?) nits 100% window (as needed) and 4k nits 2% window? I don’t know. If so, and at a slightly lower price point, that ~70% OLED dominance seems questionable. If solved by OLED (I think there was a persistence discussion recently as a possible path?), OLED would be a no-brainer for me given all other attributes plus G10.5 pricing. Burn in is a non-issue for me other than current fixes reduce brightness. 
Anyway, I really appreciate the discussions on this thread and especially the key contributors. Thanks for indulging me! Back to lurker mode…


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I’m a lurker, popping his head up for a minute!


Thanks for chiming in! And from the thoughtful contribution you've added below, I hope you continue to stay out of 'lurker mode' and post additional thoughts...



> Watching and investigating display technologies I agree with fafrd that uLED has shown no known path to consumer level price points for 75” TV or smaller within any knowable timeframe. Unless/until that changes via invention (not cost reduction churn) variants of OLED and LCD seem destined to duke it out. *Your definition of ‘dominance’ would help here. *


My apologies - there is such a long history of that discussion on this thread (primarily posts by Rogo - miss his inputs ) that I generally assume everyone knows what market we are talking about 'dominating'.

The simplest measure of doninance is % of profit within the overall TV market, and by that measure, there are several analysts already stating that WOLED dominates % of overall profit (like Apple dominates profit in the smartphone market).

It's kind of hard to forecast based on that definition, since we don't have access to the data.

So the next most meaningful definition of dominance is share of the Premium TV Market, which is often estimated to be the top 10% of the overall TV market (so ~20M units). LGD only sold 3-4M WOLED panels last year, so 15-20% of the overall Premium TV market by volume and clearly not yet dominant.

The definition I believe is most meaningful for discussing WOLED in dominance as a % of Premium Market Share in the sizes within which WOLED competes (which makes sense as long as WOLED production in capacity-limited and must be selective about which sizes it competes in).

I've attached below market data from IHS illustrating WOLEDs growth to dominance of the 55" and 65" Premium TV markets in 2016. More recent reports indicate that WOLED now dominates the 55" and 65" Premium TV markets on a worldwide basis.

LGD has now started to offer a 48" panel and we are all awaiting for when they decide to compete for share of the 75/77" Premium TV market (they only produced ~30,000 77" panels last year and are forcasted to only have increased production to ~45,000 panels this year, so they are clearly just maintaining a niche placeholder until they decide they need additional volume at that size to absorb excess production capacity - possibly not before the new 10.5G plant ramps-up).

So we'll see how quickly their new 48" offering comes to dominate that Premium Segment and when they decide to get serious about 75/77", we'll see how quickly they take the crown from Samsung in that segment,

So my definition of 'dominate' is dominating profits within the size segments at which they compete and also dominating the 'Premium' segment of those sizes based on whatever definition ends up being used by outfits like IHS (usually a size-specific price threshold).

More below.



> We are obviously talking about the ~5% high end (by # of units) of the total TV market here. Maybe it will move to 10% once OLED G10.5 brings down costs to $1000/65”?? Maybe. No doubt that whatever real profit there is for OEMs in the TV space comes in this little 5-10% pool however. If you mean dominance as defined by attributes as described in professional reviews YoY vs. various LCD tech flavors, I tend to agree – at least over the next several years. *If you mean dominance as defined by market share >>50% over most of that 20yrs in the small pool noted above, I’m not convinced. *Even if Samsung is successful moving to QDOLED over time, can the new OLED combo of LG and Samsung take 70%+ of that market? Yes, I might be convinced. But I’m not convinced by Samsung yet.


There is a broad definition of dominance of the overall Premium TV Market which LGD is not yet poised to achieve. With that 'top 10% of the overall TV market' definition, WOLED will need to reach production levels in excess of 10 million panels annually to dominate the overall Premium TV market.

LGD is aiming for 6M panels this year and should deliver an additional ~20% production next year assuming phase 2 expansion of the new Guangzhou plant proceeds as planned. But this will mean a best case of ~7M WOLED panels in 2021 and at best only ~35% of the overall TV Market.

Timing of the new 10.5G plant keeps fluctuating but last forecast was for starting in 2023. When phase I of the 10.5G plant is fully-ramped, that will mean an additional 30,000 10.5G substrates or an additional ~50% on a meter-squared basis. The 10.5G plant will produce 6 75" panels per sheet compared to 2 75/77" panels on existing 8.5G substrates, so it is likely LG will devote a greatly increased share of that additional 10.5G capacity to 75" WOLED panel production and overall unit production is likely to increase by well below 50%, but still, the first year LGD has a chance to reach 10M panel production is after phase I of the 10.5G plant has ramped and it is not reached that year, it will certainly be reached once 10.5G phase II has ramped (to 60,000 10.5G substrates/month).

So it looks as though we are talking 2024 or 2025 before LGD will have the production capacity needed to supply 50% of the overall Premium TV market.

But until then, if they continue to dominate Premium share at 55", 65", and soon 48", Zi'm comfortable stating that they continue to dominate the Premium TV market - it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

And you are right, if Samsung's QD-BOLDED gets into production by 2023 and is as successful as they are hoping, that could allow 'OLED' to dominate the overall Premium TV Market before LGD's 10.5G plant is fully-ramped (though I also am not yet convinced QD-BOLED will prove successful).

There are also the printed OLEDs coming, but I don't believe they will be competing for Premium TV market share and see that technology more as potentially accelerating OLEDs displacement of LCD from the low-end TV market.



> And we best not poo-poo the Chinese capabilities with various LCD flavors over time if at a decent price advantage for slightly less performance (see Hisense statement about waiting on 2020 OLED pricing before announcing dual cell price @ $200 less. Whether this is a smoke screen or not for other dual cell issues doesn’t matter here). Huge infrastructure base, large subsidies (if they continue), improving tech are levers that they have to woo consumers via price.


I don't see the dual-LCD as threatening WOLEDs dominance over the coming decade for one simple reason:

LCD is already at it's cost-bottom while WOLED has only begun pushing down it's cost-reduction curve.

There are several cost-analysis posts you can find early in this thread indicating that once ramped to equivalent volume and equally mature, WOLED will match or even undercut LCD on material cost.

We can debate whether that will ever actually be achieved and how long it might take, but it is certainly the case that WOLED will be cheaper to produce than dual-LCD, if not already then on the horizon. Hisense's sacrificing profit to gain market share is not a sustainable strategy.

So I'm not poo-pooing the Chinese but I see low-priced large-screen QDEF as the more sustainable technology (which probably just translates into better performance for the lower-cost non-Premium TV Market rather than threatening WOLEDs share of the top 10% Premium TV Market).



> Personally, ACR is important to me given TV placement in the home.


You'll need to explain what ACR is - something to do with Contrast Ratio?



> IMO, LCD will be battling OLED wrt this using HDR and daylight viewing marketing vehicles unless *OLED can solve the brightness issues they face*. *I don’t think that fight is over. * We can argue that 4K nits in a 2% or 10% window isn’t necessary, but the studies I’ve read (I’d have to look them up: from UCF?) say that people easily prefer that display as more lifelike. Can LCD solve heat issues cost effectively if the BLU (FALDLED, miniLED, dual cell, etc…) is pumped to 1k(?) nits 100% window (as needed) and 4k nits 2% window? I don’t know. If so, and at a slightly lower price point, that ~70% OLED dominance seems questionable. If solved by OLED (I think there was a persistence discussion recently as a possible path?), OLED would be a no-brainer for me given all other attributes plus G10.5 pricing. Burn in is a non-issue for me other than current fixes reduce brightness.


I just added a long post in the New LG OLED TVs at CES thread and am not going to repeat here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...w-lg-oled-tvs-ces-2020-a-28.html#post59132378

The bottom line is that I believe the Brightness Wars are over, WOLED does not have any 'problem' with brightness, and LGD knows it (as evidenced by the fact that they elected not to bring top-emission into production despite having industrialized it - top emission would have increased brightness by ~20% but would have added manufacturing cost, so LGD wisely elected to stick with their bottom-emission).

I believe that the next big wave of innovation from WOLED will be based on backplane technology and moving from pure LCD-like sample-and-hold towards CRT-like impulse-modes. Hopefully LG delivers their first LCD-beating BFI implementation this year.

From their, possibly by following Panasonic's leadership and hopefully with guidance by NHK, they will understand that all pixels in the frame do not need to be displayed in the same manner (as they have already started to do with their Panasonic-like spatial and temporal dithering to improve near-black linearity).

With further advances in backplane technology, OLED fundamentally has the technical capability to emulate virtually every other display technology already developed, including:

Film projectors (single, double, and triple-shutter).
LCD
Plasma
CRT

Once LGD figures this out (and survives the cash crunch of the next couple years), the sky's the limit!



> Anyway, I really appreciate the discussions on this thread and especially the key contributors. Thanks for indulging me! Back to lurker mode…


Again, appreciate your thoughtfulness and hoping we see you straying out of lurker-mode more often on this thread


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Thanks for the follow-up and clarifications on your definition of dominance fafrd. I gotcha. 
A few thoughts:
Agreed that since there isn’t a black and white cutoff for where a premium segment starts, I’ve used $1500+ as a starting point and


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Thanks for the follow-up and clarifications on your definition of dominance fafrd. I gotcha.
> A few thoughts:
> Agreed that since there isnâ€™️t a black and white cutoff for where a premium segment starts, Iâ€™️ve used $1500+ as a starting point and


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

re: fafrd 
I'd love to see a dual cell BOM to at least get a baseline. Also, I've had people definitively say the panels are VA (BOE) and others just as definitively say they are IPS (INX). You'd think IPS would be the way to go with its better off axis viewing mated with the new higher contrast. But, this is an OLED thread, so off that topic...
When the VESA HDR standards came out I do remember wondering what the political wranglings must have been like in the back room. You make a good point that with Dolby assisting LG, Dolby obviously made the strategic decision not to push their brightness roadmap "at all costs" even though research shows that brighter (w color saturation) is better in the real world. I'm guessing Dolby was still unhappy about the HDR10 competing format that Samsung was a part of.
Honestly, LGD and LGE long term management worry me more than the technology as of right now. Of course I don't know a thing about what's really going on, but replacing both CEO's within a few months is crazy. We all know about their financial woes. Let's hope they keep their house in order as the tech takes care of itself.
I'm sure you've seen this https://www.avforums.com/articles/has-oled-reached-its-peak.16953 (I'm guessing it is the article form of the podcast you already reacted to in the thread you copied earlier.). Came out yesterday? Have a good weekend all.


----------



## gorman42

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I'm sure you've seen this https://www.avforums.com/articles/has-oled-reached-its-peak.16953 (I'm guessing it is the article form of the podcast you already reacted to in the thread you copied earlier.). Came out yesterday? Have a good weekend all.


Considering they don't mention motion *once* in the whole article, I'm led to discount their opinion. Not for the first time, to be honest.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> re: fafrd
> *I'd love to see a dual cell BOM to at least get a baseline. *


Me too. Competition is good (for both performance and price).



> Also, I've had people definitively say the panels are VA (BOE) and others just as definitively say they are IPS (INX). You'd think IPS would be the way to go with its better off axis viewing mated with the new higher contrast. But, this is an OLED thread, so off that topic...


 I won't tell if you don't . And I agree, IPS would seem better with 1,000,000:1 CR.

In fact, now that I think about it, the fact LGD is shutting down IPS LCD production is a testament to dual-LCDs long-term challenges. We're entering the all-VA decade .



> When the VESA HDR standards came out I do remember wondering what the political wranglings must have been like in the back room. You make a good point that with Dolby assisting LG, Dolby obviously made the strategic decision not to push their brightness roadmap "at all costs" even though research shows that brighter (w color saturation) is better in the real world. I'm guessing Dolby was still unhappy about the HDR10 competing format that Samsung was a part of.


Yeah, Dolby Vision was competing against 'free', so they needed a first believer (LG). That was a very wise move for both of them.



> Honestly, *LGD and LGE long term management worry me more than the technology as of right now. *Of course I don't know a thing about what's really going on, but [/b]replacing both CEO's within a few months is crazy. [/b]We all know about their financial woes. Let's hope they keep their house in order as the tech takes care of itself.


The 'financial woes' associated with investing in an entirely new TV panel technology at scale to supply the entire Premium TV market was completely predictable. The Rose-colored-glasses world where LGD could milk their IPS business to fund WOLED manufacturing investments was a nice story to keep the stock price from plunging but had close to zero percent chance of materializing.

The far more likely evolution was that the IPS business would go dry before WOLED profits had reached the scale to compensate and LGD was going to have to go through a 'chasm of loss-making quarters/years'.

Investors are impatient (and short-sighted) and the classic way for a company to show they understand their investors unhappiness and are 'taking action' is to replace the CEO. The new guy still has to slog through the same chasm of losses but he'll be given more slack since investors will consider it a chasm he inherited rather than architected.

If LGD gets over the hump financially with nothing more than canning two long-in-the-tooth CEOs, it will be so brilliant as to almost certainly have been planned in advance (at least on a contingency basis).

The only reason to have any worries about LGDs financial position is if they are unable to borrow the remaining billions they need to ramp the 10.5G plant into production, and there are not yet any signs of that being likely...



> I'm sure you've seen this https://www.avforums.com/articles/has-oled-reached-its-peak.16953 (I'm guessing it is the article form of the podcast you already reacted to in the thread you copied earlier.). Came out yesterday? Have a good weekend all.


I saw a blog video that sounds like is was the source discussion for that article. Look, they've got to provide content that generates clicks, so I have some sympathy for the 'sky is falling' on OLED narrative - I just think is's not anchored in reality. Here's an example of a statement which is almost certainly untrue:

*
'Colours are an area where it would seem that OLED has reached its limit as well, *although to be fair, achieving 100% of DCI-P3 is sufficient at the moment because no content is created using Rec.2020. However, that will change over time and manufacturers will want to expand the colour space of their displays to get closer to the Rec.2020 standard. The introduction of Quantum Dot OLED might also help widen the colour gamut, but *as it stands OLED doesn’t appear able to cover more than DCI-P3.*'

When LGD decides to deliver a new WOLED stack with >DCI-P3 gamut is another question, but there is a huge difference between the technology having 'reached its peak' and LGD biding their time because they have more important priorities to address (as I summarized in an earlier post).

As long as LGD continues to increase WOLED TV panel production levels by 20-50% every year, and as long as that every-increasing volume of WOLED panels sells-through to their OEM customers, they are winning the war (and all of these 'the sky is falling on WOLED' articles/analyses are nothing more than clickbait).

The two important financial metrics to watch are:

-*WOLED panel profitability*: LGD increased WOLED panel prices by ~10% to all of their OEM customers to achieve profitability in late 2018. LGE's Premium TV profitability suffered as a result and they are not happy about that and pushed for a price reduction late last year to regain lost profitability. The 'price down' initiative apparently failed because we saw reports of LGE losing faith in WOLED and ramping up investments into MicroLED as a 'Plan B' (which is nonsense - those investments are being made to capture share of the lucrative but small-volume B-B market). Bottom line is, as long as LGD continues to sell all of their WOLED production at prices generating profit, they will be fine. But if they ever need to discount pricing enough to fall back into losses in order to sell-through their increased production volume, that would be a major warning sign that WOLEDs future may be dimming.

-*WOLED capital investments*: it really doesn't matter how LGD finances their continued WOLED manufacturing expansion (profit or debt), it just matters that they have a source of capital to continue making those multi-billion-dollar investments for the next 5+ years. If LGD is not generating enough profit to fund capital investments internally and the bond market is unwilling to lend LGD the needed capital at market rates, that would be a major vote of 'no confidence' from the marketplace and a reason to fear for WOLEDs future.

I don't see any signs of either of those indicators changing over the next year and so don't see any reason for concern as we watch LGD practically double WOLED panel production this year with the newly-producing 8.5G plant in Guangzhou.

And on the 'bullish indicators' front, signing up Vizio as a customer is a major, major vote of confidence. Vizio was the largest US TV vendor who had held off from WOLED offerings in favor of quantum dots. They are paying the same (increased) WOLED panel prices as LGE, Panasonic, and Sony so we know LGDs current pricing is not prohibitive.

I suppose if Vizio's WOLED initiative flops and they pull out a year from now, that would be another warning flare but I have no reason to think that is likely.

As things stand, in 2020 LGD WOLED will be supplying 100% of the Premium TV Market OEMs with the sole exceptions of Samsung and TCL. Unimaginable even 3 years ago!


----------



## jl4069

The new Panasonic HZ-2000 just announced at CES is interesting. It would appear that this OLED has between 1100 and maybe 1200 nits. They are claiming a 20% improvement in full screen brightness (over the I assume the recent top LG screens) for this set. 

This being the case it would be informative to know if Panasonic and/or Hollywood studios will opt for this new set over their also new Mega Con dual layer LCD screen. Panasonic said they went with the Dual Layer tech because users were demanding higher NIT counts and HDR grading. They claim 1000 nits for the Mega-Con, so it would now appear that the new HZ-1000 would be rather brighter, and will also benefit from OLED inherent abilities over Dual LCD's. Wondering if Panasonic will go back to OLED as their reference. j


----------



## fafrd

jl4069 said:


> The new Panasonic HZ-2000 just announced at CES is interesting. It would appear that this OLED has between 1100 and maybe 1200 nits. They are claiming a 20% improvement in full screen brightness (over the I assume the recent top LG screens) for this set.
> 
> This being the case it would be informative to know if Panasonic and/or Hollywood studios will opt for this new set over their also new Mega Con dual layer LCD screen. Panasonic said they went with the Dual Layer tech because *users were demeaning higher NIT counts and HDR grading. *They claim 1000 nits for the Mega-Con, so it would now appear that the new HZ-1000 would be rather brighter, and will also benefit from OLED inherent abilities over Dual LCD's. Wondering if Panasonic will go back to OLED as their reference. j


Yeah, I go out of my way to demean those higher Nit counts whenever I can .

Panasonic has focused on heat management to push LGDs WOLED panels to higher brightness levels. Think about overclicking a PC with a water-based cooling solution (no water in Panasonic's case, just a large sheet of aluminum acting as a heat sink attached to the back of the WOLED panel).

It's all about maintaining pixel temperatures below a maximum threshold and Panasonic is able to do that with +20% light output (and current levels). So the HZ-200 delivering 1100-1200 cd/m2 bodes well for the 2020 LG WOLEDs delivering peak brightness levels of 900-1000 cd/m2.

We know LGD is working on a TADF (or other high-efficiency) blue WOLED stack which will deliver a +30% bump in power efficiency, which means that at the same temperature / power consumption, LGE will be able to deliver peak brightness levels of 1200-1300 cd/m2 and Panasonic will be able to deliver brightness levels of 1450-1550 cd/m2.

And you raise a good point - it will be interesting to see whether Panasonic Studios switches back to WOLED or sticks with the MegaCON dual-LCD...


----------



## jl4069

sorry fast typing and auto-correct got the best of me. "Demanding". Though I must admit demeaning has a nice semantic feel to it. lol j


----------



## fafrd

jl4069 said:


> sorry fast typing and auto-correct got the best of me. "Demanding". Though I must admit demeaning has a nice semantic feel to it. lol j


Figured as much (and happens to me all the time as well).

I think we should all be 'demeaning' those users demanding higher Nits .


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Figured as much (and happens to me all the time as well).
> 
> I think we should all be 'demeaning' those users demanding higher Nits .


Hey, I resemble that remark!


----------



## video_analysis

All this MicroLED fanaticism makes me sick. I want an 88" OLED now. That might be doable in 5 years, microLED not ever.


----------



## hiperco

video_analysis said:


> All this MicroLED fanaticism makes me sick. I want an 88" OLED now. That might be doable in 5 years, microLED not ever.


I'd settle for an OLED that is at least 80". (I'm not greedy )


----------



## video_analysis

Yea, if it ever came in that size, you might have the op. They have been pretty customary in how they stay steadfast to their predetermined cut sizes over the years (with only new sizes well outside the range being introduced in ensuing years, like 49" and 88" now). The 55", 65", and 77" trifecta has been with us since at least 2015.


----------



## hiperco

Here is an excellent commentary on (large) OLED screen sizes: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=58512274


----------



## video_analysis

Fafrd always delivers, maybe you'll get some respect in 2022 as he speculates.  Though I'm betting on some of the later estimates since I don't believe 8K will generate barnstorming sales (and probably hasn't since that post was made last September).


----------



## fafrd

hiperco said:


> I'd settle for an OLED that is at least 80". (I'm not greedy )


I was just getting ready to repeat the story about the pretty-much-forced transition from 77" on 8.5G to 75" on 10.5G and how that larger 17% 'gap' from 75" to 88" might motivate LGD to introduce a new panel size near the midpoint (80-82") but you saved me the trouble with the link you subsequently posted - thanks.

In terms of timeframe, we now know LGD is sticking to 77" through 2020 and the additional ~1 year delay in the ramp-up of the 10.5G plant means LGD may not be 'forced' to introduce 75" panels before the 2024 model year.

So at this stage, it looks like the earliest we'll see a 75" WOLED TV is 2021 and the latest is 2024. My guess is we won't see a 75" panel before at least 2023 and that probably also means that 2023 is also the earliest we're likely to possibly see a new WOLED panel in the 80-82" class...

The big wildcard is 8K. If the 8K market starts taking off faster than it has started, that may put pressure on LGD to expand their 8K WOLED panel lineup (including a possible 80-82" offering).

I'm actually surprised that LGD introduced a 77" 8K panel rather than a 75" 8K panel, as the 4K-to-8K transition would have offered a natural 'break-point' to introduce the smaller panel size much better-suited to 10.5G manufacturing.

Now, unless 65" WOLED TVs absolutely take over the world and completely absorb early 10.5G manufacturing (meaning 77", 55", and 48" remain on 8.5G), LGD will be facing a transition from 8K 77" to 8K 75" if/when they want to capitalize on the 50% cost reduction 75"@10.5G represents over 77"@8.5G...

I suppose all of the logistics surrounding manufacturing and introduction of a new panel size may be pretty involved and LGD probably had enough on their plate in 2020 preparing for successful introduction of the new 48" panel.


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Fafrd always delivers, maybe you'll get some respect in 2022 as he speculates.  Though I'm betting on some of the later estimates since I don't believe 8K will generate barnstorming sales (and probably hasn't since that post was made last September).


Yeah, just said the same. The 8K market is developing far slower than originally forecast, and that is no-doubt also slowing down the move to larger screen sizes which probably also explains LGDs ~1year delay on 10.5G manufacturing (as well as the case crunch they are navigating).

'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' has a lot to be said for it .


----------



## fafrd

video_analysis said:


> Yea, if it ever came in that size, you might have the op. They have been pretty customary in how they stay steadfast to their predetermined cut sizes over the years (with only new sizes well outside the range being introduced in ensuing years, like 49" and 88" now). The 55", 65", and 77" trifecta has been with us since at least 2015.


8.5G was designed to optimize manufacturing cost of 48" and 55" panels, so it makes complete sense that after establishing success at 55", LGD would want to 'circle-back' and expand 'down-market' by introducing 48" panels.

10.5G is optimized for 65" and 75", so we can debate 'buy when' but there is little question that those WOLED panel sizes are what the future holds.

88" is a truly interesting size. 88" fits 3-up on a 10.5G substrate (like 3 65" panels fit on an 8.5G substrate) and it also fits 2-up on an 8.5G substrate (similar to 77" on an 8.5G substrate). And since we've been estimating that a 10.5G substrate costs 150% the cost of an 8.5G substrate to manufacture, than means 88" is a 'crossover' panel size and can be interchangeably manufactured on either 8.5G or 10.5G for approximately the same cost (so 88" manufacturing can be used to absorb excess capacity on either 8.5G or 10.5G).

77" is a truly mysterious panel size but I believe I may have solved the mystery. I found an article from 2012 or 2013 referring to LGDs next-generation WOLED manufacturing plans, and it refers to '9.5G' rather than 10.5G.

A 9.5G substrate will max out at 3 77" panels exactly the way a 10.5G substrate maxes out with 3 88" panels. So my guess is that the 'interchangeable large WOLED panel' strategy has been part of LGD's plan since early on, but the industry evolution skipping generation-9 completely and going straight to 10.5G was not expected and caught them by surprise.

So now LGD has a legacy panel size that is ill-suited to both 8.5G and 10.5G and they will need to make a transition away from 77" in favor of 75" when the time comes (10.5G manufacturing ramping-up).

There are far worse problems/headaches to have.


----------



## RWetmore

*Why isn't OLED impulse (instead of sample and hold)?*

I've wondered about this for some time, and I'm hoping some of our more technically knowledgeable posters can tell us why. As many of us know, it is that Plasma is impulse that it has such good motion resolution/motion clarity (albeit is inherently less bright I know).


So why wasn't and isn't OLED made to be impulse? Is it solely a design decision or is there some inherent technical limitation for why it can't be? Or is it solely that achieving HDR brightness with impulse is just that much more difficult that it was rejected?


Any thoughts?


----------



## fafrd

RWetmore said:


> I've wondered about this for some time, and I'm hoping some of our more technically knowledgeable posters can tell us why. As many of us know, it is that Plasma is impulse that it has such good motion resolution/motion clarity (albeit is inherently less bright I know).
> 
> 
> So why wasn't and isn't OLED made to be impulse? Is it solely a design decision or is there some inherent technical limitation for why it can't be? Or is it solely that achieving HDR brightness with impulse is just that much more difficult that it was rejected?
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?


It's a very good question and I've wondered the same thing.

I'm guessing that OLED displays developed as sample-and-hold because it was easier and they could leverage all of their LCD sample-and-hold capability (processors, calibration FW, etc...).

So it makes a lot of sense that that came first.

But now, both driven by Virtual Reality displays as well as renewed interest in motion performance, I believe OLED is pushing past LCDs capability and opening up a new frontier in display science which may start to bridge to the gap to plasma-like and even CRT-like impulse displays.

As far as overall panel output levels and being able to increase instantaneous output levels when duty cycle is decreased, I think we already know that that is possible (so delivering SDR brightness levels with 50% or even 75% BFI should be feasible).

What is unknown (to me, at least) is whether there is a maximum current limit above which individual subpixels may be damaged as well as whether there is a maximum current that can be driven through a small local region of subpixels that generates enough heat to cause damage, even if only 'ON' for 3.5ms out of 8.3ms (for example).

What LGD has now works, they have survived most of the risk points, and they are in the process of taking over the world, so I don't blame them for being conservative and innovating with caution.

A few pages back in this thread, you will find posts where I outline what I call BPI (Black Pixel Insertion) as my catch-all for where I believe OLED display technology can go once freed of it's LCD-persistence-mode shackles.

The first key observation is that all pixels in an image do not need to be handled in the same way and the second key abservatin is that advances in computing power open up all sorts of possibilities that woukd have been impossible even a decade ago.

So here is the concept of BPI:

-Near-Black pixels do not need reduced persistence, what they need is improved linearity which can be delivered through spatial and/or temporal dithering, so identify those near-black portions of the image stream and dither at will using your 240Hz Native Refresh Rate.

-Pixels associated with small specular highlights also do not need reduced persistence, they need peak brightness, so drive them constantly at required intensity over the full frame duration without blanking (no black insertion).

-Pixels at SDR/APL intensity levels of under 200cd/m2 will benefit from reduced persistence, especially if associated with motion, so strobe them at 25% or even 20% duty cycle with intensities of up to 1000cd/m2).

-Pixels brighter than 200cd/m2 but no brighter than 500cd/m2 and especially if associated with motion can be strobed at 50% duty cycle with intensities of up to 1000 cd/m2.

All of these differing pixel requirements / output modes can be handled by a backplane supporting a Native Refresh Rate of 240Hz (which LG D already has).

One full line can be written with fresh data every 3.6 microseconds (120Hz frame refresh rate) and one full line can be blanked or written with whatever combination of black and above-black data every 3.6 microseconds (so a line-write occurs every 1.8 microseconds, as is the case today internally).

Being able to turn on and off an entire lines-worth of subpixels every 1.8 microseconds allows LGD all the latitude they need to handle distinct sections of an image in the best way possible (dithering, persistent, strobed) - it's all about analyzing the incoming image stream to determine what to do where quickly-enough...

This should allow WOLED to deliver at least plasma-level motion performance of ~1.7ms (and without phosphor trails) and could also allow CRT-like persistence levels on 1ms MPRT, at least for SDR viewing levels of 100 cd/m2.

Not going to happen quickly or soon, but WOLED has a bright future.


----------



## th1nk

I guess those sample-and-hold highlights may look weird next to the strobed other parts of the picture if the highlights are moving. But otherwise this could be great! For people who have seen it: is 120 fps BFI looking great? I tried the 60 fps BFI on my C8 and the flickering is horrible, to say the least. Instant headache!


----------



## fafrd

th1nk said:


> *I guess those sample-and-hold highlights may look weird next to the strobed other parts of the picture if the highlights are moving. *But otherwise this could be great! For people who have seen it: is 120 fps BFI looking great? I tried the 60 fps BFI on my C8 and the flickering is horrible, to say the least. Instant headache!


I don't think they will 'look weird' since our eyes do a fantastic job of putting everything together in the most sensible way to explain the series of photons we are seeing based on the real-world.

At worst, moving HDR highlights might suffer from more persistence-bases motion blur than other lower-intensity moving parts of the video...

On the other hand, HDR highlights are so bright that you generally can't focus right on them (almost like staring at the sun), so I'm not sure anyone will notice increased persistence-based motion blur of HDR highlights.


----------



## gorman42

th1nk said:


> I guess those sample-and-hold highlights may look weird next to the strobed other parts of the picture if the highlights are moving. But otherwise this could be great! For people who have seen it: is 120 fps BFI looking great? I tried the 60 fps BFI on my C8 and the flickering is horrible, to say the least. Instant headache!


This is an interesting watch to understand what our eyes/brain do with really fast moving stuff happening.


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> th1nk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess those sample-and-hold highlights may look weird next to the strobed other parts of the picture if the highlights are moving. But otherwise this could be great! For people who have seen it: is 120 fps BFI looking great? I tried the 60 fps BFI on my C8 and the flickering is horrible, to say the least. Instant headache!
> 
> 
> 
> This is an interesting watch to understand what our eyes/brain do with really fast moving stuff happening.
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks. I had no idea they had cameras with frame-rates that high...

Now if only he’d have combined his high-framerate photography with his macro photography, we could have seen in detail how LGD’s WOLED subpixels overshoot when coming out of black, as well as how they are now employing temporal as well as spatial dithering to improve near-black linearity...


----------



## fafrd

A good read on the progress of inkjet-printed OLEDs: https://www.oled-a.org/ink-jet-printing-and-soluble-material_12020.html

Bottom line is they are coming but there remains significant progress to make before they have any hope of threatening WOLED for a share of the Premium TV market.

'The lifetime tests are conducted at 3,000 cd/m2 for red and 10,000 cd/m2 for green and the lifetime appears to be for T97. We can conclude that the *polymer performance remains orders of magnitude below UDC phosphorescence so much work remains.*'

Beyond that fundamental issue of lifetime, there are also challanges regarding gamut which (48.6% BT.2020) are being addressed by JOLED through the addotion of conventional color filters (which increases cost):

'There remains however, a gap in the color gamut and it is necessary to use a color filter to attain the market requirements of ~80% BT.2020.'


----------



## fafrd

Very interesting read on exactly where Samsung is with QD-BOLED and what they demonstrated at CES a few weeks ago: https://www.oled-a.org/8203musing-in-shanghai-at-the-international-oled-summit_qd-oled-_12020.html

A few things are more clear:

-first and foremost, Samsung's current QD-BOLED technology does continue to require color filters (the Samsung engineers at CES were confusing patterned color filters with unpatterned color filters (i.e. film) when they answered 'no' to the question at CES).

The technology requires a first yellow reflective film between the BOLED and the QDCC to prevent red and green photons generated by the QDs to travel back into the BOLED layers. Yellow reflective film is a color filter that allows only blue photons to pass through and reflects non-blue (yellow) photons meaning either Red or Green photons.

And then a second color filter layer is required on the screen/emitting surface to prefect stray blue light from emitting. The Red and Green QDCC does not convert 100% of the incoming blue light and so gamut will be impacted if the remaining blue photons are not filtered out of the red subpixel and green subpixel ouput. This second color filter layer may be able to be a single layer of yellow-passing (blue-blocking/reflecting) color filter patterned to only be present over the red and green subpixels, but a full-blown red, green, blue conventional color filter arrangement as pictured here probably delivers a better color gamut (possibly at some incremental manufacturing cost).

-secondly, the attached picture makes clear Samsung is going with top-emission for their QD-BOLED technology. This is good for increased Aperature Ratio and increased lifetime (decreased current density), but it is bad for cost. QD-BOLEDs IGZO backplane will involve 2-3 additional manufacturing steps and mask layers than LGDs bottom-emission IGZO backplane, partially negating any manufacturing cost advantage QD-BOLED may eventually have over WOLED.

-thirdly, the current-generation is based on a 3-layer BOLED stack. The original plan had been for only 2 blue OLED layers which was one of the major potential cost savings versus LGDs WOLED (which currently has 4 OLED layers), but loss of efficiency associated with the color filters that have been added have required addition of a third Blue emitting layer to achieve acceptable output levels.

So overall, these additional details that have been filled-in jibe very closely with the information and expectations that were set last fall.

What does it all mean?

Well first, the most concerning thing we heard out of CES was that the QD-BOLED on display was only capable of 100 cd/m2 output levels and would suffer from 'excessive heat' if driven any harder.

We still don't know what that means - was that a 100cd/m2 ABL limit (compated to the 150 cd/m2 ABL limit current-generation WOLED delivers today? Seems likely. So between the poor-efficiency of Blue versus LGDs White OLED stack and the additional lost efficiency associated with the second layer of color filters added at the subpixel output layers, the current technology can't deliver enough brightness and will need to improve in some way before it will be ready for market.

And then secondly on cost, until further breakthroughs have been delivered, it looks as though hoped-for reduced manufacturing promised by QD-BOLED remains a hope - this technology as described probably has a similar manufacturing cost to LGD's WOLED (at similar economies of scale, which will be 5+ years off once Samsung has committed to a similar-scale ramp).

And finally, on the subject of breakthroughs, this article discusses at least one being worked on: more efficient QDCC:

*
'Nanosys has improved materials in development*

Absorption is critical to the performance of the TV so the QD concentration must be very high in QDCC films. The figure of merit for QD performance in QDCC is OD450nm/mass, essentially the measure of blue absorption per gram of QDs. *Red InP is inherently a better absorber than green and close to adequate for QD/mass for QDCC*, but a small improvement is still required. *Green QD absorption levels need to be improved by a factor of 2X.'*

So red QDCC is almost good enough to do away with the need for the second blue-blocking color filter, but green requires a 2X breakthrough before the film can be eliminated (which sounds like several years out, in the best case).

And the other critical breakthrough for QD-BOLED is a high-efficiency Blue OLED Emitter (TADF or other). Samsung is placing a bet that high-efficiency Blue will be ready for prime-time before manufacturing ramps, and since LGD also has TADF blue on their 'future' roadmap (to deliver a ~30% increase in efficiency or peak brightness levels), it seems like a reasonably safe bet to be making.

So to summarize my read of the current situation and the outlook:

It seems as though Samsung has a full QD-BOLED display manufacturing technology established. It will be more expensive than originally hoped but should deliver a competetive color gamut and the only potential showstopper on its materializing in products is the brightness limitation of 100cd/m2 (likely the ABL limit).

With high-efficiency blue, that brightness limitation should be resolved (and Samsung might even eventually be able to drop back to 2 blue layers), but by then LGD will presumably also have a 30% efficiency improvement (meaning ABL limits of 200 cd/m2 and peak brightness levels of ~1300 cd/m2). This probably means Samsung will need to stick to 3 OLED layers to remain competetive (funny how the Brightness Wars are coming back to haunt them ).

If/when Nanosys can deliver a 2X improvement in green QDCC efficiency, Samsung will be able to reduce cost and increase output levels by eliminating the need for the second color filter layer. This will realize the vision Samsung had when they first settled on this initiative (instead of QDCC on Blue LED backlight). They will have a greater possibility of reducing to 2 BOLED layers for cost savings with both high-efficiency blue and high-efficiency QDCC, but the brightness wars and WOLEDs continued progress on efficiency and brightness levels in parallel may never make that potential cost-savings realistic (low-end market?).

So in short, Samsung is making a major bet on high-efficiency blue (which seems like a relatively safe bet), a major bet on Nanosys delivering high-efficiency green QDCC (which seems like a far riskier bet), and it seems likely that QD-BOLED will be a step behind WOLED on performance as well as cost for at least it's first half-decade.

But honestly, it's a pretty elegant technology and I'm wishing Damsung's bet pays off. Among other things, I'm very interested to see how QD-BOLED performs in the area of uniformity. WOLEDs greatest defect (to my eyes) is it's poor uniformity (both near-black and near-white) and the panel-lottery that creates.

If Samsung's QD-BOLED proves capable of delivering improved uniformity on a consistent basis (no panel lottery), that might be the ace up their sleeve that allows QD-BOLED to take Premium TV market share from WOLED, regardless of the the specs are a tiny bit deficient and/or the price is a tiny bit higher...


----------



## fafrd

Another interesting read from Musings that hopefully puts to bed any idea that MiniLED or DualLCD will be able to compete with WOLED on performance while also undercutting it on cost: https://www.oled-a.org/8203musing-i...d-tvs--raising-the-contrast-ratio-_12020.html


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> Another interesting read from Musings that hopefully puts to bed any idea that MiniLED or DualLCD will be able to compete with WOLED on performance while also undercutting it on cost: https://www.oled-a.org/8203musing-i...d-tvs--raising-the-contrast-ratio-_12020.html


The main goal of mini-LED LCD and Dual Layer LCDs is improvement of LCD picture quality, which the first mini-LED LCD already succeeded in*. Manufacturers will use that improvement to talk people into buying LCD instead of OLED. 

* according C|NET the TCL 8 series, Q825, first mini-LED LCD for sale in the US, is not as good as samsung QN65Q80R in bright rooms or from off angle, LGs B9 OLED outperformed it in many aspects, but it came closer to standards set by OLED than any other TV Katzmaier tested this year (2019) ''from what i have seen of the 8-series, they do lead to better picture quality'' ''as proving ground for mini-LED and four-digit zone counts, it's a flying succes''.


----------



## jl4069

Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd

"So in short, Samsung is making a major bet on high-efficiency blue (which seems like a relatively safe bet), a major bet on Nanosys delivering high-efficiency green QDCC (which seems like a far riskier bet), and it seems likely that QD-BOLED will be a step behind WOLED on performance as well as cost for at least it's first half-decade."

Seems that unless this QD-BOLED tech is very nearly as good as LG's WOLED, that it would be very hard to sell these for the first 5 years. Right now Samsung has HDR and cheaper prices, to lure the consumer. It appears QD-BOLED won't have much of any major draws over WOLED for 5 years. Seems the BOLED tech will have to be just about as good or have certain important attributes that are better, soon, in order for Samsung to sell them. j


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another interesting read from Musings that hopefully puts to bed any idea that MiniLED or DualLCD will be able to compete with WOLED on performance while also undercutting it on cost: https://www.oled-a.org/8203musing-i...d-tvs--raising-the-contrast-ratio-_12020.html
> 
> 
> 
> The main goal of mini-LED LCD and Dual Layer LCDs is improvement of LCD picture quality, which the first mini-LED LCD already succeeded in*. Manufacturers will use that improvement to talk people into buying LCD instead of OLED.
> 
> * according C|NET the TCL 8 series, Q825, first mini-LED LCD for sale in the US, is not as good as samsung QN65Q80R in bright rooms or from off angle, LGs B9 OLED outperformed it in many aspects, but it came closer to standards set by OLED than any other TV Katzmaier tested this year (2019) ''from what i have seen of the 8-series, they do lead to better picture quality'' ''as proving ground for mini-LED and four-digit zone counts, it's a flying succes''.
Click to expand...




jl4069 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by fafrd
> 
> "So in short, Samsung is making a major bet on high-efficiency blue (which seems like a relatively safe bet), a major bet on Nanosys delivering high-efficiency green QDCC (which seems like a far riskier bet), and it seems likely that QD-BOLED will be a step behind WOLED on performance as well as cost for at least it's first half-decade."
> 
> *Seems that unless this QD-BOLED tech is very nearly as good as LG's WOLED, that it would be very hard to sell these for the first 5 years. *Right now Samsung has HDR and cheaper prices, to lure the consumer. It appears QD-BOLED won't have much of any major draws over WOLED for 5 years. Seems the BOLED tech will have to be just about as good or have certain important attributes that are better, soon, in order for Samsung to sell them. j


Well first, Samsung won’t really be in a position to manufacture any kind of meaningful volume until 2023, the next 5 years really translates to only 2 years of selling head-to-head against WOLED.

And second, Samsung has very deep pockets and can afford to sell at a loss for several years if they believe there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow...

Which is why the terminal cost is so critical - if Samsung sees the improvements needed to know they can beat WOLED on cost and come close on performance or best WOLED on performance and come.close on cost, their QD-BOLED initiative will have legs and should be successful (at least in capturing a profitable share of the Premium TV Market).

The while initiative only become dubious if QD-BOLED is inherently more expensive to manufacture than WOLED amd is always one step behind on performance...


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> Cool, thanks. I had no idea they had cameras with frame-rates that high...
> 
> Now if only he’d have combined his high-framerate photography with his macro photography, we could have seen in detail how LGD’s WOLED subpixels overshoot when coming out of black, as well as how they are now employing temporal as well as spatial dithering to improve near-black linearity...


You want high frame rate?


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, thanks. I had no idea they had cameras with frame-rates that high...
> 
> Now if only heâ€™️d have combined his high-framerate photography with his macro photography, we could have seen in detail how LGDâ€™️s WOLED subpixels overshoot when coming out of black, as well as how they are now employing temporal as well as spatial dithering to improve near-black linearity...
> 
> 
> 
> You want high frame rate? /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Very cool (but the ‘Ring’ probably goes beyond what we need to see WOLED’s overshoot behavior remains and LG’s near-black dithering ).

Line refresh rate is 518.4KHz and OLED pixel response time is under 10us (200KHz) so you’d learn a lot just filming a WOLED screen at 1,000,000fps (1us frame interval).

On the other hand, between the extremely short capture interval and the fact that it’s the near-black realm which would be most interesting, sensitivity requirements may go beyond today’s state-of-the-art...


----------



## Avs2022

*Variable BFI for gaming*

Hi,

Is variable BFI for gaming something that could be implemented? Maybe through a software update?


----------



## stl8k

Avs2022 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Is variable BFI for gaming something that could be implemented? Maybe through a software update?


This will be implemented in 2020 OLEDs from LG, Panasonic, and possibly other LGD licensees with the engineering chops to do it well. Here's the relevant LGD patent:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-544.html#post59082828


----------



## Juginabi

stl8k said:


> This will be implemented in 2020 OLEDs from LG, Panasonic, and possibly other LGD licensees with the engineering chops to do it well. Here's the relevant LGD patent:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-544.html#post59082828


Are we talking about user selectable duty cycle for BFI or BFI with variable refresh rate? I did not find anything of the latter from the patent, but then again I am bad at understanding patent language.


----------



## stl8k

Juginabi said:


> Are we talking about user selectable duty cycle for BFI or BFI with variable refresh rate? I did not find anything of the latter from the patent, but then again I am bad at understanding patent language.


Either user-selectable or what I'm calling content-adaptive BFI. For content-adaptive, I'm presuming that this will be adaptive at playback start time, but not continuously adaptive. All this for non-game content.

I'm not deep enough into the research to know about the challenges of coincident VRR and BFI and thus speculate whether we will see it in 2020.


----------



## 8mile13

There was a interview with Panasonic which has 120Hz BFI in the 2020 HZ2000 OLED TV. Statement is that the length of the black frame is adjusted based upon the kind of content..without the darkening which we usualy see with BFI. According spokesman they are the only ones who made custom improvements to the 120Hz BFI.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> There was a interview with Panasonic which has 120Hz BFI in the 2020 HZ2000 OLED TV. Statement is that the length of the black frame is adjusted based upon the kind of content..without the darkening which we usualy see with BFI. *According spokesman they are the only ones who made custom improvements to the 120Hz BFI.*


First, how would they know (unless there was a contractual issue that caused LG to yank 120Hz BFI from the 2019 WOLEDs at the 11th hour last year)?

Second, adjusting the length (%) of the inserted black frame based on content type sounds awfully like the LGD patent someone has posted on the Technology Advancements Thread, so just like LGD offered Sony a 1-year exclusivity on their Crystal Sound technology, it’s believable that they have done the same with Panasonic with their content-adaptive BFI technology.

Sony and Panasonic were LGD’s first two (very important) non-LGE OEM customers for WOLED, so it makes sense LGD may have had to offer something exceptional to each of them to sweeten the pot and get them on board...

And thirdly, this means the Adaptive 120Hz BFI implementation on the HZ2000 probably provides a 1-year look-ahead on the BFI capability LGE will integrate into their 2021 WOLED offerings...

I’m debating jumping on a 77CX or holding off another year for the 77CY (or whatever the 2021 offerings end up getting called), so I’ll be especially interested in this year’s HDTVTEST Shootout results to understand whether there is enough of a difference between LGE’s ‘vanilla’ 120Hz BFI and the content-adaptive variant Panasonic has put out in the HZ2000 to justify the delay...

Taking Panasonic’s statement at face value, ‘no darkening’ means that any specific brightness setting translates to a maximum BFI % that can be driven before instantaneous cd/m2 maxes out and darkening will start to result (if BFI % was further increased).

Watching the Super Bowl in a dark room at 120cd/m2 peak could allow BFI as high as 88% (with Panasonic’s peak brightness of 1000+ cd/m2).

Coupled with frame interpolation from 60Hz to 120Hz, 88% BFI translates to a CRT-like MPRT of 1ms!!! :eek

It’s unlikely the HZ2000 will allow their adaptive BFI to go that far, but this summer’s Olympics in Japan are obviously driving this, they have already made the changes to deliver higher peak brightness than any other WOLED TV, and it’s a near-certainty they will deliver minimum MPRT which is at least half of the 3.5ms LGE touted last year (and will presumably deliver this year).

Plasma was generally considered to have Effective MPRT of ~1.67ms. If Panasonic were to announce a Plasma-like 1.67ms MPRT more for the Olympics, it would require ‘only’ 80% BFI and could deliver peak brightness levels of 200cd/m2 (or even more if Panasonic has succeeded to push peak brightness levels higher).

Sounds very doable and I’m excited to see what Panasonic has delivered on the HZ2000.

(And unfortunately for me, the fact that it’s becoming increasingly-likely that LGD/Panasonic has opened the door to CRT-like impulse modes translates to me almost certainly pushing my upgrade off by another year...).


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> *There was a interview with Panasonic which has 120Hz BFI in the 2020 HZ2000 OLED TV. *


Is this the interview you are referring to: https://youtu.be/rhJqJRpQ8Mw?t=650

If not, please provide a link.



> Statement is that the length of the black frame is adjusted based upon the kind of content..


Yes, that statement is in the video I posted.



> without the darkening which we usualy see with BFI.


I did not see any reference to ‘darkening’ in the video I posted, so would appreciate to understand to know where you heard/saw that...



> According spokesman they are the only ones who made custom improvements to the 120Hz BFI.


And also saw no references to what any other WOLED OEMs are doing not to 120Hz BFI in the video above, so am interested in your source for this reason as well.

The video above talks about adapting the BFI % based on content but makes no mention of darkening, only talking about finding the ‘sweat-spot’ as far as improving motion performance without introducing ‘flicker’.

Flicker is generally only an issue at 60Hz, so if I just take the statements at face value, it sounds as though the HZ2000 only has 60Hz BFI and reduces the BFI % as much as possible to reduce 60Hz flicker whenever there is not a great deal of motion requiring 50% BFI to reduce persistance-based motion blur.

Of course, doing this ‘on the fly’ (based on actual sequence of frames within content) would require brightness compensation (or brightness levels would shift mid-stream) but I’m not even sure he’s saying that.

Based on the statement made by Panasonic in the video I posted, the HZ2000 may be automatically determining 60Hz BFI % based on whether 24Hz cinema or 60Hz video (or gaming) is being viewed.

Hope I’m wrong and you have another source you were referring to...


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> Is this the interview you are referring to: https://youtu.be/rhJqJRpQ8Mw?t=650
> 
> If not, please provide a link.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that statement is in the video I posted.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not see any reference to ‘darkening’ in the video I posted, so would appreciate to understand to know where you heard/saw that...
> 
> 
> 
> And also saw no references to what any other WOLED OEMs are doing not to 120Hz BFI in the video above, so am interested in your source for this reason as well.
> 
> The video above talks about adapting the BFI % based on content but makes no mention of darkening, only talking about finding the ‘sweat-spot’ as far as improving motion performance without introducing ‘flicker’.
> 
> Flicker is generally only an issue at 60Hz, so if I just take the statements at face value, it sounds as though the HZ2000 only has 60Hz BFI and reduces the BFI % as much as possible to reduce 60Hz flicker whenever there is not a great deal of motion requiring 50% BFI to reduce persistance-based motion blur.
> 
> Of course, doing this ‘on the fly’ (based on actual sequence of frames within content) would require brightness compensation (or brightness levels would shift mid-stream) but I’m not even sure he’s saying that.
> 
> Based on the statement made by Panasonic in the video I posted, the HZ2000 may be automatically determining 60Hz BFI % based on whether 24Hz cinema or 60Hz video (or gaming) is being viewed.
> 
> Hope I’m wrong and you have another source you were referring to...


It is the Vincent Teoh clip..avforums and hdtvtest both talked to the english Panasonic guy at CES.

In the clip you can see user menu were BFI is Auto Min etc... It is the Auto setting he is talking about i think.

starts at 7:40 min


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the interview you are referring to: https://youtu.be/rhJqJRpQ8Mw?t=650
> 
> If not, please provide a link.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that statement is in the video I posted.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not see any reference to â€˜darkeningâ€™️ in the video I posted, so would appreciate to understand to know where you heard/saw that...
> 
> 
> 
> And also saw no references to what any other WOLED OEMs are doing not to 120Hz BFI in the video above, so am interested in your source for this reason as well.
> 
> The video above talks about adapting the BFI % based on content but makes no mention of darkening, only talking about finding the â€˜sweat-spotâ€™️ as far as improving motion performance without introducing â€˜flickerâ€™️.
> 
> Flicker is generally only an issue at 60Hz, so if I just take the statements at face value, it sounds as though the HZ2000 only has 60Hz BFI and reduces the BFI % as much as possible to reduce 60Hz flicker whenever there is not a great deal of motion requiring 50% BFI to reduce persistance-based motion blur.
> 
> Of course, doing this â€˜on the flyâ€™️ (based on actual sequence of frames within content) would require brightness compensation (or brightness levels would shift mid-stream) but Iâ€™️m not even sure heâ€™️s saying that.
> 
> Based on the statement made by Panasonic in the video I posted, the HZ2000 may be automatically determining 60Hz BFI % based on whether 24Hz cinema or 60Hz video (or gaming) is being viewed.
> 
> Hope Iâ€™️m wrong and you have another source you were referring to...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Vincent Teoh clip..avforums and hdtvtest both talked to the english Panasonic guy at CES.
> 
> In the clip you can see user menu were BFI is Auto Min etc... It is the Auto setting he is talking about i think.
> 
> starts at 7:40 min
Click to expand...

Very informative - thanks.

On BFI, I did not hear anything about on the fly changes to BFI % nor to variable BFI %. The 25% (Low/Min), 50% (Mid/Medium) and 75% (High/Max) BFI settings are achieved by ‘changing the length in the inserted black frame,’ so at most, it sounds like Panasonic may be supporting all three of those modes at 120Hz (where LGD only supports all three modes at 60Hz and 120Hz BFI only supports a 50% mode).

If this proves to be true and the HZ2000 supports 75% BFI @ 120Hz, that would correspond to an MPRT if ~2.1ms, significantly better than the 3.5ms LGE’s 2020 WOLEDs can deliver (and close to plasma-levels).

Darkening is visible as the BFI settings are increased, so at most there is some limited brightness boost to partially compensate for BFI (such as +25% brightness which LG may also deliver) - it is not fully compensated.

And my guess is that the Auto Mode is merely picking the BFI settings based on content type for the entire piece of content - not adjusting on the fly.

60Hz Sports will get 75% BFI and frame interpolation to 120Hz (2.1ms MPRT).

24Hz Cinema may get 25% BFI with +25% brightness applied to 5-frame repeats (for a very modest 2.6% reduction in MPRT) with no impact on brightness.

If Auto actually translates to double-shutter or triple-shutter simulation on 24fps content, that would be great, but I’m not optimistic (since they would likely have said so).

This Auto setting is a ‘custom improvement’ on what LG will be offering and if it actually delivers 2.1ms MPRT with 75% BFI supported at 120Hz, it will be the best tv to watch the Olympics on this summer, but it is unlikely to be the truly brightness-compensated variable BFI % I was hoping for based on your earlier post.

Other takeaways for me from the Video:

-Panasonic’s custom heatsink delivers +20% brightness (both peak and ABL).

-new calibration points at 0.5% (video level 17) and 1.3% (video level 18) complement the existing point at 2.5% (video level 19) to basically allow near-black gamma to be dialed-in at the finest level possible.

I hope Panasonic eventually changes their decision to pull out of the US matket - the HZ2000 sounds like the best TV of 2000 for both Cinema and sports.

Panasonic is lagging on HDMI 2.1 and features/specifications for gamers, but that is not a priority for me - Cinema/Streaming/HDR with occasional Sports viewing is exactly how I use my OLED TV.

Hopefully LG will catch up in 2021...


----------



## fafrd

Investments in 10.5G production further delayed until ‘at least 2023’: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...-co-ltd-lpl-q4-2019-earnings-call-transc.aspx

‘*In terms of the investment going forward in the 10G fab*, we are conducting a very thorough review of the market in order to be able to decide the right timing for setting up the equipment and going into production. As of now, *we expect possible investment after 2023 and beyond. *Until then, we will be closely examining the market in terms of new devices and other changes in order to come to a conclusion on the best timing.’

This means we are unlikely to see 75” WOLED panels from the 10.5G fab in Best Buy before 2025 (at best)..,


----------



## gorman42

fafrd said:


> I’m debating jumping on a 77CX or holding off another year for the 77CY (or whatever the 2021 offerings end up getting called), so I’ll be especially interested in this year’s HDTVTEST Shootout results to understand whether there is enough of a difference between LGE’s ‘vanilla’ 120Hz BFI and the content-adaptive variant Panasonic has put out in the HZ2000 to justify the delay...
> 
> 
> (And unfortunately for me, the fact that it’s becoming increasingly-likely that LGD/Panasonic has opened the door to CRT-like impulse modes translates to me almost certainly pushing my upgrade off by another year...).


Do you think there's a risk 2021 4K models will be gimped, in order to offer cutting edge features on 8K only?


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> Do you think there's a risk 2021 4K models will be gimped, in order to offer cutting edge features on 8K only?


I think that is very unlikely.

My read is that LGD is tieing the schedule of the 10.5G fab to 8K, and the delay to 'after 2023' means they don't see much chance of the 8K market gaining any real momentum before then.

IHS significantly reduced their forecasts for the 8K market last May: https://www.fiercevideo.com/tech/dark-clouds-invade-forecast-for-8k-tv-shipments

"IHS—which in 2015 looked pessimistic for predicting shipments of only 911,000 8K TVs in 2019—doesn’t have much higher expectations for the U.S. in the following years. To wit: 43,900 8K sets will be shipped in 2019, 258,600 in 2020, *547,700 in 2021*, and 843,400 in 2022.'

That is for the US only, but still, LGD will be producing close to 9 million WOLED panels in 2021, and even if we were to assume WOLED capturing ~half of the 2021 8K TV sales (which is unlikely), those 275,000 WOLED panel sales would amount to only 3% of overall WOLED panel production.

So LGD and LGE will be doing everything they can to assure their 4K WOLED panels and TVs sell-through and continue gaining market share and I believe the possibility of any 'gimping' is exceedingly low.

Whether LGD continues to invest development $$$s and added manufacturing cost into 4K WOLEDs as 8K continues to evolve is another question.

IGZO backplane speeds will eventually increase to support 8K @ 120Hz (the speed of 4K IGZO backplanes today). When that happens, LGD will have three choices:

A) Double 4K WOLED Refresh speeds to 240Hz (meaning support for MPRT of 2ms or less).

B) reduce cost by reengineering for lowered component cost while maintaining 4K refresh speeds of 120Hz.

C) do nothing (maintain 120Hz with no change), meaning no engineering investments and no improvements or savings.

Depending on when the improved backplane speed developments materialize, I suppose a 4th option would be to do both of the first two investments, the first for higher-end gaming-oriented displays and the second for lower-end entry-level displays.


----------



## rogo

fafrd said:


> A good read on the progress of inkjet-printed OLEDs: https://www.oled-a.org/ink-jet-printing-and-soluble-material_12020.html
> 
> Bottom line is they are coming but there remains significant progress to make before they have any hope of threatening WOLED for a share of the Premium TV market.
> 
> 'The lifetime tests are conducted at 3,000 cd/m2 for red and 10,000 cd/m2 for green and the lifetime appears to be for T97. We can conclude that the *polymer performance remains orders of magnitude below UDC phosphorescence so much work remains.*'
> 
> Beyond that fundamental issue of lifetime, there are also challanges regarding gamut which (48.6% BT.2020) are being addressed by JOLED through the addotion of conventional color filters (which increases cost):
> 
> 'There remains however, a gap in the color gamut and it is necessary to use a color filter to attain the market requirements of ~80% BT.2020.'


So much vindication here.

As always, the "next big thing" in flat panels is either (a) farther away than all the optimists think or (b) quite literally never coming.

* Printable OLEDs
* Blue-based OLEDs
* Emissive quantum dots
* Micro LED displays

All fit into the "lab experiments", "non-manufacturable", "niche" categories. Exactly where is the perfect fodder for endless AVS debates.


----------



## fafrd

rogo said:


> So much vindication here.
> 
> As always, the "next big thing" in flat panels is either (a) farther away than all the optimists think or (b) quite literally never coming.
> 
> * Printable OLEDs
> * Blue-based OLEDs
> * Emissive quantum dots
> * Micro LED displays
> 
> All fit into the "lab experiments", "non-manufacturable", "niche" categories. Exactly where is the perfect fodder for endless AVS debates.


I don't know whether you've seen the latest news about LGD's 10.5G manufacturing plans: https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-...-co-ltd-lpl-q4-2019-earnings-call-transc.aspx

"In terms of the *investment going forward in the 10G fab*, we are conducting a very thorough review of the market in order to be able to decide the right timing for setting up the equipment and going into production. As of now, *we expect possible investment after 2023 and beyond*. Until then, we will be closely examining the market in terms of new devices and other changes in order to come to a conclusion on the best timing."

So first investments in 10.5G equipment in early 2024 at the earliest.

This means first volume 10.5G 65" and 75" WOLED panel production in late 2024 at the earliest and the soonest we are likely to see 65" and 75" WOLED TVs built around 10.5G WOLED panels is 2025...

You will probably see this as a bad sign but I see it as positive - LGD has decided to hunker down and focus on cost reduction and capacity expansion based on the 8.5G WOLED manufacturing they have 'in the hand', rather than take the risk of chasing after 10.5G WOLED manufacturing 'in the bush' before they need it.

6 million WOLEDs produced this year growing to ~9 million next year based on announced expansion of Guangzhou from 60,000 8.5G sheets starting next month to 90,000 8.5G sheets in 2021 (along with adoption of MMG).

I won't be surprised to see LGD announce conversion of another 8.5G LCD fab in Korea to kick-in in 2022/23 and sounds like there may even be another 8.5G conversion beyond that announced before they begin investing in 10.5G.

With MMG, 65" 8.5G panels drop in cost by 33% and the incremental savings offered by 10.5G manufacturing are only a drop of a further 16% reduction in cost.

MMG also drops the cost of a 77" panel by 25%, but a 75" WOLED manufactured on 10.5G has a cost which is a full 33% below that level, so LGD 'needs' 10.5G manufacturing by the time the 75" Premium TV market is getting 'serious'

My view is that LGD is tieing their decision on 10.5G manufacturing to the 8K market - as low as 8K is a slow-growing niche, 8.5G manufacturing and a primary focus on 48", 55", and 65" Premium TV markets is 'good enough' (especially in the cash-crunch LGD is sneaking through).

Once the 8K market becomes a real 'thing' and 8K drives greatly increased demand for 75" and above screens, LGD wants to be ready (but from, that looks like 2025 at the earliest).

LGD probably saw what happened to Sharp with their 10G fab in Sakai and does not want to repeat the same mistake (investing too far ahead of the market).

Investing in MMG on 8.5G was a much wiser investment than going all-in on 10.5G before the market is ready to absorb the resulting greatly-increased production of 75" WOLED panels.

And plus, by then, LGD will get to see another card or two as to how any/all of the 4 'niche' technologies you have itemized have progressed...


----------



## stl8k

From one of the leading academics that studies motion x displays.

*Predicting visible flicker in temporally changing images*



> The critical flicker frequency (CFF) alone does not model this phenomenon well, as flicker sensitivity varies with contrast, and spatial frequency; a content-aware model is required. In this paper, we introduce a visual model for predicting flicker visibility in temporally changing images.
> https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rkm38/pdfs/denes2020flicker_model.pdf


The model will pair nicely with the LGD content adaptive BFI tech.


----------



## Avs2022

Why are oled tvs not individually calibrated at the factory like iphones are? Could they not apply some compensation for near black performance for example while doing the calibration? Win win for everybody..?


----------



## stl8k

Avs2022 said:


> Why are oled tvs not individually calibrated at the factory like iphones are? Could they not apply some compensation for near black performance for example while doing the calibration? Win win for everybody..?


Compensation is done at the panel factory (aka LGD) as described here:



> The measurement system gathers the two-dimensional luminance profiles of the panels at several data voltages and stores information in the flash memory before shipment to display systems.


https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8704886


----------



## Avs2022

Is this compensation method going to be applied on the 2020 displays? Can they compensate for the color tinting as well?


----------



## anwsmh

*New photolithography technique with application to display panels*

This was announced by HDVTest.

The paper concerned appears to have this article id, s41467-020-14439-1 from Nature dot Com.

The abstract, "Photolithography is the prevalent microfabrication technology. It needs to meet resolution and yield demands at a cost that makes it economically viable. However, conventional far-field photolithography has reached the diffraction limit, which imposes complex optics and short-wavelength beam source to achieve high resolution at the expense of cost efficiency. Here, we present a cost-effective near-field optical printing approach that uses metal patterns embedded in a flexible elastomer photomask with mechanical robustness. This technique generates sub-diffraction patterns that are smaller than 1/10th of the wavelength of the incoming light. It can be integrated into existing hardware and standard mercury lamp, and used for a variety of surfaces, such as curved, rough and defect surfaces. This method offers a higher resolution than common light-based printing systems, while enabling parallel-writing. We anticipate that it will be widely used in academic and industrial productions."


----------



## fafrd

Not a promising sign for the future of low-cost printed OLEDs: https://www.oled-info.com/kateeve-announces-massive-layoffs


----------



## mreendoor

> truth is simple - nobody want ijp lor large (tv) screens. Lg do not need this, samsung too (qd can be deposited by other cheaper methods), chiniese and taiwanese are focused on mini and micro led



quote


----------



## fafrd

mreendoor said:


> truth is simple - nobody *want* ijp lor large (tv) screens. Lg do not *need* this, samsung too (qd can be deposited by other cheaper methods), chiniese and taiwanese are focused on mini and micro led
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote
Click to expand...

Want and need are very different things.

You are 100% correct that nobody needsijp to manufacture large-screen OLEDs.

But you are 100% wrong if you believe no one wants ijp for cheaper manufacturing of large-screen OLEDs...


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd, we were both interested in BOM cost for dual cell panels as a calibration point for possibility of biz longevity vs OLED (putting aside the many attribute issues dual cell currently has to overcome). A TrendForce summary doesn't give a BOM but bottom line breakdown for 65" is roughly $630 dual cell, $690 miniLED(PM), ~$575 FALD, ~$800 WOLED in 4Q19 per their research. Does the WOLED panel cost approximate your understanding for 4Q?
Cheers 
https://www.witsview.com/2019/12/30...elop-active-matrix-technology-says-trendforce


----------



## stl8k

State of the Art for Mobile OLED
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_S20_ShootOut_1U.htm

I found the oval green pixel shape to be particularly interesting.

http://www.displaymate.com/Diamond_52U.html

Also, "when Automatic Brightness is turned On, the Galaxy S20 Ultra has a High Brightness Mode that produces between 823 cd/m2 and 1,342 cd/m2 (nits) in High Ambient Light."

http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_S20_ShootOut_1U.htm#Brightness_Contrast

As I've argued, people will be increasingly exposed to display innovations via smartphones not TVs and so it will be interesting to see which of the smartphone innovations diffuse to TVs.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> fafrd, we were both interested in BOM cost for dual cell panels as a calibration point for possibility of biz longevity vs OLED (putting aside the many attribute issues dual cell currently has to overcome). A TrendForce summary doesn't give a BOM but bottom line breakdown for 65" is roughly $630 dual cell, $690 miniLED(PM), ~$575 FALD, *~$800 WOLED in 4Q19* per their research. *Does the WOLED panel cost approximate your understanding for 4Q?*
> Cheers
> https://www.witsview.com/2019/12/30...elop-active-matrix-technology-says-trendforce


It depends what they mean by 'cost'. DSCC has estimated that the 'cost' (price to LGD) to OEMs for a 65" WOLED panel was about $800 between 2019 and 2020 (so ~$800 in Q4'19 for the cost to OEMs.

LGDs actual manufacturing cost is below this level (since they are making some margin); about $650 in Q4'19 (in China which was delayed to March).

More importantly, WOLED panel pricing is on a steeper year-on-year price reduction curve than LCDs.

So that ~$800 price to OEMs in Q4'19 is forecasted to drop to a little north of $700 by Q4'20 and south of $650 by Q4'21 (about a 10% year-on-year price reduction). So even if WOLED carries a cost premium of ~27% versus dual-cell today, that delta probably drops to less than 5% 2 years from now...

I think it's very unlikely that any of those emerging (or established: FALD) technologies will displace WOLED from it's perch atop the Premium TV market (by which I mean market share of the most expensive 10% of TVs sold within the segments where WOLED competes: 55", 65". 75/77", 88", and soon 48").


----------



## stl8k

Panasonic's content-adaptive BFI looks to be mod'ing the black duty on a per frame basis.
https://twitter.com/Vincent_Teoh/status/1229750572535963649?s=19

This is impressive engineering if they've done it well.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> It depends what they mean by 'cost'. DSCC has estimated that the 'cost' (price to LGD) to OEMs for a 65" WOLED panel was about $800 between 2019 and 2020 (so ~$800 in Q4'19 for the cost to OEMs.
> 
> LGDs actual manufacturing cost is below this level (since they are making some margin); about $650 in Q4'19 (in China which was delayed to March).
> 
> More importantly, WOLED panel pricing is on a steeper year-on-year price reduction curve than LCDs.
> 
> So that ~$800 price to OEMs in Q4'19 is forecasted to drop to a little north of $700 by Q4'20 and south of $650 by Q4'21 (about a 10% year-on-year price reduction). So even if WOLED carries a cost premium of ~27% versus dual-cell today, that delta probably drops to less than 5% 2 years from now...
> 
> I think it's very unlikely that any of those emerging (or established: FALD) technologies will displace WOLED from it's perch atop the Premium TV market (by which I mean market share of the most expensive 10% of TVs sold within the segments where WOLED competes: 55", 65". 75/77", 88", and soon 48").


We all know 'price' refers to what a TV maker would pay for a panel and 'cost' is what the panel maker has into it prior to sale. The delta is of course margin. That being said, people mix up the terms all the time, at least where I work! The initial paragraph of the article seems to discuss panel 'price' to the OEM from the panel maker and switch frame of reference to the OEM such that the 'cost' of the panel is now in the TV BOM, leading to an implied conclusion that we are indeed talking about 'price' to the OEM. But later on the table title is "Processing costs of 65" TV Panels". If the title didn't have 'Panels' in it I'd have still interpreted it as 'price' to the OEM. But 'processing costs of panels' is pretty clearly not 'price' in my mind. However, see sentence #3 above! Did I create enough confusion above?! For now, I'll still assume the author was talking about cost to the panel maker. Your appended OLED graph is much clearer, having a price line above the cost bars. And most importantly, thanks for your estimated 10% YoY cost reduction for WOLED panels. That is a number to apply to the other technologies over time and see if they can keep up. Cheers--


----------



## Micolash

stl8k said:


> Panasonic's content-adaptive BFI looks to be mod'ing the black duty on a per frame basis.
> https://twitter.com/Vincent_Teoh/status/1229750572535963649?s=19
> 
> This is impressive engineering if they've done it well.


Will this method result in even lower MPRT than 3.5 ms? That's what LGD was quoting last year.

EDIT: actually looking at the picture a bit closer it seems it will be the same 25%, 50%, or 75% black frame options seen on the LG OLEDs, only Panasonic will adjust the black duration on the fly instead of giving you three different options to choose from.


----------



## Desk.

stl8k said:


> Panasonic's content-adaptive BFI looks to be mod'ing the black duty on a per frame basis.
> https://twitter.com/Vincent_Teoh/status/1229750572535963649?s=19
> 
> This is impressive engineering if they've done it well.


Do we know if it's likely, or at least possible, that LG's 2020 OLED sets will implement BFI in the same way?

I ask because I don't just want an OLED with workable BFI - I specifically want a 77" OLED with workable BFI, and frustratingly Panasonic are just doing 55" and 65" again this year.

Desk


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Panasonic's content-adaptive BFI looks to be mod'ing the black duty on a per frame basis.
> https://twitter.com/Vincent_Teoh/status/1229750572535963649?s=19
> 
> This is impressive engineering if they've done it well.


We’ll see - at most it looks like to me that it may be selecting between 60% and 25% BFI.

The ‘conventional BFI’ looks like inserting black frames into the video stream - so 60Hz content can alternate black frames in a 120Hz stream (60Hz BFI)

They show a true 120Hz BFI and switching between 50% [email protected] and 25% BFI ‘on the fly’.

Let’s hope they can also support 75% [email protected] since otherwise they can only achieve MPRT of 7.0-8.3ms instead of the 3.5-4.1ms MPRT LGE can deliver.

If they can deliver ‘on-the-fly’ adjustments to BFI%, it would certainly mean that they are automatically compensating for brightness loss.

When there is not enough motion in a particular scene to ‘need’ 50% BFI, they could drop down BFI to 25% and halve peak brightness, which would have a modest impact on extending lifetime.

Unless 120Hz flicker at 25% is markedly less noticeable than at 50%, this is really not going to deliver much of a difference in terms of perceived motion performance, just slightly higher lifetime.

And if all of this adaptive BFI technology is only at 60Hz (where flicker is very noticable and very objectionable), it’s less impactful of an improvement than true 120Hz BFI will be.

But if I am correct about ‘conventional BFI’ being at 60Hz and the images mean Panasonic will be able to deliver 25% BFI @ 120Hz (meaning a 480Hz Effective Refresh Rate), then they can certainly deliver 3.5-4.1ms MPRT like LG and may even be able to halve that if they can also support 75% [email protected] (1.8-2.1ms MPRT).

It’s good news in any case but we won’t know how good until reviews come out...


----------



## fafrd

Micolash said:


> stl8k said:
> 
> 
> 
> Panasonic's content-adaptive BFI looks to be mod'ing the black duty on a per frame basis.
> https://twitter.com/Vincent_Teoh/status/1229750572535963649?s=19
> 
> This is impressive engineering if they've done it well.
> 
> 
> 
> Will this method result in even lower MPRT than 3.5 ms? That's what LGD was quoting last year.
> 
> EDIT: actually looking at the picture a bit closer it seems it will be the same 25%, 50%, or *75% black frame options* seen on the LG OLEDs, only Panasonic will adjust the black duration on the fly instead of giving you three different options to choose from.
Click to expand...

As I just posted, if the image we’ve seen translate to ‘Cobbentional BFI @ 30Hz (60Hz stream with alternating black frames), was will prove to be much ado about nothing since the 60Hz flicker will be objectionable.

50% [email protected] will have double the MPRT of LGE’s true 120HZ BFI and if they can also support 75% [email protected], they will be able to match LGE’s MPRT of 3.5-4.1ms (though the 60Hz flicker will still be a showstopper for most).

If the ‘Conventional BFI’ represents a 60fps source presented as a 50% BFI stream @ 120Hz rather than 60Hz, then the 50% BFI would represent an MPRT equal to LGE’s and if the 25%[email protected] also translates to support for 75% [email protected], they may be able to deliver even lower MPRT than LGE (1.8-2.1ms).

My guess is that this will prove to be a straight-up 50% [email protected] matching LGEs MPRT of 3.5-4.1ms (without any ‘on-the-fly’ adaptation) and the adaptive stuff only comes into play for 60Hz BFI where it’s really not going to be terribly impactful (because of 60Hz flicker)...

(P.S. - I see 50% or 25% black frame insertion options, but what about that picture leads you to see a 75% BFI option???)


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends what they mean by 'cost'. DSCC has estimated that the 'cost' (price to LGD) to OEMs for a 65" WOLED panel was about $800 between 2019 and 2020 (so ~$800 in Q4'19 for the cost to OEMs.
> 
> LGDs actual manufacturing cost is below this level (since they are making some margin); about $650 in Q4'19 (in China which was delayed to March).
> 
> More importantly, WOLED panel pricing is on a steeper year-on-year price reduction curve than LCDs.
> 
> So that ~$800 price to OEMs in Q4'19 is forecasted to drop to a little north of $700 by Q4'20 and south of $650 by Q4'21 (about a 10% year-on-year price reduction). So even if WOLED carries a cost premium of ~27% versus dual-cell today, that delta probably drops to less than 5% 2 years from now...
> 
> I think it's very unlikely that any of those emerging (or established: FALD) technologies will displace WOLED from it's perch atop the Premium TV market (by which I mean market share of the most expensive 10% of TVs sold within the segments where WOLED competes: 55", 65". 75/77", 88", and soon 48").
> 
> 
> 
> We all know 'price' refers to what a TV maker would pay for a panel and 'cost' is what the panel maker has into it prior to sale. The delta is of course margin. That being said, people mix up the terms all the time, at least where I work! The initial paragraph of the article seems to discuss panel 'price' to the OEM from the panel maker and switch frame of reference to the OEM such that the 'cost' of the panel is now in the TV BOM, leading to an implied conclusion that we are indeed talking about 'price' to the OEM. But later on the table title is "Processing costs of 65" TV Panels". If the title didn't have 'Panels' in it I'd have still interpreted it as 'price' to the OEM. But 'processing costs of panels' is pretty clearly not 'price' in my mind. However, see sentence #3 above! Did I create enough confusion above?! For now, I'll still assume the author was talking about cost to the panel maker. Your appended OLED graph is much clearer, having a price line above the cost bars. And most importantly, thanks for your estimated *10% YoY cost reduction for WOLED panels. *That is a number to *apply to the other technologies over time and see if they can keep up.* Cheers--
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I pointed it out - WOLED is still in the very early stages of it’s industrialization cycle where year-on-year cost reduction are high.

LCD, on comparison, is a fully-industrialized very mature technology which will not be able to deliver equivalent years if annual cost reductions.

If LCD is able to deliver any consistent levels of year-on-year cost reductions, it is at most 1/3rd of WOLED levels (if not as low as 1/10th).

So WOLED is still pretty far behind LCD but is catching up a bit closer with every passing year...

Any LCD-based technology that does not outperform WOLED in any important way and has a cost-structure which is only ~20% cheaper than WOLED today does not have a very long future (~3 years)...


----------



## Micolash

fafrd said:


> As I just posted, if the image we’ve seen translate to ‘Cobbentional BFI @ 30Hz (60Hz stream with alternating black frames), was will prove to be much ado about nothing since the 60Hz flicker will be objectionable.
> 
> 50% [email protected] will have double the MPRT of LGE’s true 120HZ BFI and if they can also support 75% [email protected], they will be able to match LGE’s MPRT of 3.5-4.1ms (though the 60Hz flicker will still be a showstopper for most).
> 
> If the ‘Conventional BFI’ represents a 60fps source presented as a 50% BFI stream @ 120Hz rather than 60Hz, then the 50% BFI would represent an MPRT equal to LGE’s and if the 25%[email protected] also translates to support for 75% [email protected], they may be able to deliver even lower MPRT than LGE (1.8-2.1ms).
> 
> My guess is that this will prove to be a straight-up 50% [email protected] matching LGEs MPRT of 3.5-4.1ms (without any ‘on-the-fly’ adaptation) and the adaptive stuff only comes into play for 60Hz BFI where it’s really not going to be terribly impactful (because of 60Hz flicker)...
> 
> (P.S. - I see 50% or 25% black frame insertion options, but what about that picture leads you to see a 75% BFI option???)


The picture seems to show three different "sizes" for black frame duration. I assume that corresponds to 25, 50, and 75% like we've seen with LG.


----------



## fafrd

Micolash said:


> The picture seems to show three different "sizes" for black frame duration. I assume that corresponds to 25, 50, and 75% like we've seen with LG.


I'm glad I asked - I had missed that (relevant picture attached).

So first, if this is 50%, 25%, or 75% BFI only at 60Hz, that is exactly what LGD displayed a year ago and presumably will be releasing this year.

Second, whether this is truly frame-by-frame on-the-fly adjustments to BFI %, or fixed throughout each piece of content (based on the type of content and its motion) or even on-the-fly increases to BFI% only when required (for fast-action sports, for example), it's really not going to be all that that impactful, especially if only supported at 60Hz (because of the flicker).

And third, if this ends up being 25%, 50%, or 75% BFI @ 120Hz (whether adjustable or not), that is a significant leap over what LGE will offer in 2020 (and also one requiring a 480Hz Effective Refresh Rate, which is why I am skeptical).

If Panasonic has figured out how to drive LGD's WOLED panels in a single cycle instead of the two cycles used by LGE, that means they should be able to deliver a plasma-like MPRT of 1.8-2.1ms rather than the 3.5-1.8ms LGE delivers (plasma generally considered to have ~600Hz or ~1.7ms MPRT-equivalent)..


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> I'm glad I asked - I had missed that (relevant picture attached).
> 
> So first, if this is 50%, 25%, or 75% BFI only at 60Hz, that is exactly what LGD displayed a year ago and presumably will be releasing this year.
> 
> Second, whether this is truly frame-by-frame on-the-fly adjustments to BFI %, or fixed throughout each piece of content (based on the type of content and its motion) or even on-the-fly increases to BFI% only when required (for fast-action sports, for example), it's really not going to be all that that impactful, especially if only supported at 60Hz (because of the flicker).
> 
> And third, if this ends up being 25%, 50%, or 75% BFI @ 120Hz (whether adjustable or not), that is a significant leap over what LGE will offer in 2020 (and also one requiring a 480Hz Effective Refresh Rate, which is why I am skeptical).
> 
> *If Panasonic has figured out how to drive LGD's WOLED panels in a single cycle instead of the two cycles used by LGE*, that means they should be able to deliver a plasma-like MPRT of 1.8-2.1ms rather than the 3.5-1.8ms LGE delivers (plasma generally considered to have ~600Hz or ~1.7ms MPRT-equivalent)..


Attached is the evidence that LGE uses one ~4ms refresh cycle to change output level (which often overshoots when coming out of black) and a second ~4ms refresh cycle to settle at the desired output level. The WOLED panel supports an internal refresh rate of 480Hz which LGE halves in order to overdrive pixel transitions, especially to


----------



## Desk.

fafrd said:


> If Panasonic figured out how to drive in a single cycle without overshooting when coming out of black, it would mean they can support a maximum refresh rate of a full 480Hz, meaning they can support 25% or 75% BFI @ 120Hz (rather than just 50% like LGE).


I'm taking it that BFI at 120Hz doesn't rely on the source actually being native 120Hz? That is, I take it that an OLED set which usually would display at 60Hz will implement BFI by doubling up to 120Hz, allowing dark frames (or partial frames) to be inserted without being so visible and thus causing flicker?

My main interest is in a means other than frame interpolation which would address the 'stutter' on 24fps material caused by the frames being stationary for 1/24 of a second at the time, messing with the brain's expectation of fluid motion (and which I find particularly noticeable with dark objects moving across a light background).

Desk


----------



## fafrd

Desk. said:


> I'm taking it that BFI at 120Hz doesn't rely on the source actually being native 120Hz? That is, I take it that *an OLED set which usually would display at 60Hz will implement BFI by doubling up to 120Hz, allowing dark frames (or partial frames) to be inserted without being so visible and thus causing flicker?*


Frame-doubling to 120Hz will avoid flicker but will reduce persistence-based motion blur by only 25% (worse MPRT than you would get with 50% [email protected]).

Getting up to 120Hz using frame interpolation will get you the full persistence-based motion blur reduction of 3.5ms MPRT from a source that was 60Hz (hopefully without noticable interpolation artifacts).



> My main interest is in a means other than frame interpolation which would address the 'stutter' on 24fps material caused by the frames being stationary for 1/24 of a second at the time, messing with the brain's expectation of fluid motion (and which I find particularly noticeable with dark objects moving across a light background).
> 
> Desk


For 24fps content, 50% [email protected] with 5 frame-repeats is not going to reduce stutter match (MPRT reduced by only 10%). Simulating a double-shutter projector @ 96 Hz or a triple-shutter projector @ 144Hz would be more effective at reducing stutter (but not yet supported, except possibly by Sony).


----------



## Kamus

fafrd said:


> Adding in 50% [email protected] halves this refresh rate again means a maximum of 50%BFI @ 120Hz (240Hz Effective Refresh Rate).


I wouldn't mind an option for a true 240hz refresh rate if it's at all possible... 240hz at 240 fps, would look smoother than 120hz BFI in PC games. 

There would be very few games that we'd be able to drive at 240 FPS, but since we have adaptive sync support it wouldn't matter. And the thought of 480Hz support makes me more excited than 8k ever would (at any TV sizes anyway) 

OLED has an inherent advantage over LCD on the 1,000Hz race. I hope LGD leverages this advantage and leaves LCD in the dust; LCD is getting a 360Hz display this year (a PC gaming monitor) hopefully this recent refresh rate craze turns into an arms race until at least 1,000Hz.


----------



## fafrd

Kamus said:


> I wouldn't mind an option for a true 240hz refresh rate if it's at all possible... 240hz at 240 fps, would look smoother than 120hz BFI in PC games.
> 
> There would be very few games that we'd be able to drive at 240 FPS, but since we have adaptive sync support it wouldn't matter. And the thought of 480Hz support makes me more excited than 8k ever would (at any TV sizes anyway)
> 
> OLED has an inherent advantage over LCD on the 1,000Hz race. I hope LGD leverages this advantage and leaves LCD in the dust; LCD is getting a 360Hz display this year (a PC gaming monitor) hopefully this recent refresh rate craze turns into an arms race until at least 1,000Hz.


I've been thinking over Panasonic's slide and I believe there are only 3 ways to explain it:

*240Hz Native Refresh Rate:* As I've already stated in an earlier post, this explanation means that 'Conventional BFI' refers to a 60fps source presented at 120Hz with interleaved black frames (50% BFI).

By this interpretation, each 'Conventional' frame has a duration of 8.3ms (corresponding to 120Hz) and 'Panasonic BFI' corresponds to 120Hz BFI that also supports 25% or 75% [email protected]

75% [email protected] requires a Native Tefresh Rate of 240Hz and delivers on MPRT of ~50% the 3.5-4.1ms delivered by 50% [email protected]

This is the best-case and would represent a breakthrough (which is unfortunately why I give it low-likelihood).

*Deceptive Marketing and 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate:* If the 'Panasonic BFI' actually represents 60Hz [email protected]%, 50%, or 75% (as LGE supports), then each 'Frame' corresponds to 16.7ms and the 'Conventional BFI' corresponds to a 30fps source with black frames interleaved into a 60Hz stream. The sorts of content where BFI is attractive to improve motion performance (like live-action sports) are broadcast at 60fps, not 30fps, so if Panasonic knowing presented 'Conventional BFI' from a 30fps source, that is deceptive marketing (and means 'Panasonic BFI' is only represented to mean 25%, 50% and 75% BFI @ 60Hz and either Panasonic has no 120Hz BFI or if they do, it is limited to 50% (like LGE).

*An Honest Mistake and 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate:* Same as above but the misrepresention of 'Conventional BFI' at 30fps rather than 60fps is the result of an honest mistake rather than deliberate misrepresentation (this is my guess as the most likely explanation for this slide, since it will be impossible to cover up any misrepresentation after the TVs launch and are reviewed).

If 'Conventional BFI' is intended to be an LED/LCD with a scanning backlight, the frequency of the scanning backlight doubles or quadruples the native refresh rate of the LCD panel to 120Hz or 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate, and the 'Conventional BFI' line should show half-black frames within each 'frame interval' just like the Panasonic BFI (for 50% BFI) or also quarter-black or three-quarters-black frames within each 'frame interval' just like Panasonic BFI for 25% or 75%.

So sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but my guess is that Panasonic is unlikely to be delivering much of anything beyond what LGD already demonstrated at CES'19 (25%, 50% and 75% [email protected] + 50% [email protected]).


----------



## Paweł Dobrzycki

2020 bfi is hardware rolling scan bfi which (from my understanding) is largely independent of panel refresh rate. "black bar" width is variable, not panel refresh rate. Its not really black frame length.


----------



## stl8k

Paweł Dobrzycki said:


> 2020 bfi is hardware rolling scan bfi which (from my understanding) is largely independent of panel refresh rate. "black bar" width is variable, not panel refresh rate. Its not really black frame length.


What Paweł said. @fafrd, I think you're looking at this from a lense of global not rolling shutter BFI and thus the contention.


----------



## fafrd

PaweÅ‚ Dobrzycki;59275658 said:


> 2020 bfi is hardware rolling scan bfi which (from my understanding) is largely independent of panel refresh rate. "black bar" width is variable, not panel refresh rate. Its not really black frame length.


WOLED BFI is always ‘rolling scan’ (identical to refresh). There are two refresh cycles interleaved, one writing new frame data on one line and the other blanking a line to black a few lines back (1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 frame back).

The use of rolling scan to implement BFI requires a native panel refresh rate which is 2X the framerate (120Hz native Refresh Rate to support 60Hz BFI, 240Hz Refresh Rate to support 120Hz BFI).

‘Conventional BFI’ can mean one of two things.

The sensible thing for it to mean is how an LED/LCD implements BFI with a scanning backlight. 1, 2, or 3 horizontal segments of the backlight are blanked in a course ‘rolling’ pattern and fresh lines of frame data are written into the quarter segment which is blanked (so slow LCD GtG transition times are masked).

The backlight is blinked at 4 times the refresh rate of the LCD panel (or only 2 times in the case of a 2-segment scanning backlight).

An LCD panel supporting 120Hz native refresh with a 4-segment scanning backlight will deliver identical BFI to a WOLED with 240Hz native Refresh Rate except that the WOLED will support single-line rolling blanked segment (of 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 screen) while the scanning backlight will support course 1/4 screen rolling blanked segment (of 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 screen), but this is clearly NOT what Panasonic is representing,

The other thing ‘Conventional BFI’ could mean is inserting BFI into the video stream (ie: with an HTPC) so that a 120Hz stream is reduced to a 60Hz content stream with black frames replacing every other frame.

This is what Panasonic is showing and it is bone-headed (virtually no one reduces their frame rate in half by when implementing BFI).

Now, if we talk about 24fps Cinema (where BFI does not add much of anything), the ‘easy’ way to implement BFI with a 240Hz display is to interleave black frames within 5 frame repeats (so a 240Hz stream), while a WOLED would allow those same 5 frame repeats to be either full-frame interval (50% BFI), half frame interval (25% BFI), or one-and-a-half frame-interval (75% BFI), so this might be a more generous alternative interpretation of Panasonic’s representation of ‘Conventional BFI’, except that a 120Hz LCD with a 4-segment scanning backlight could deliver exactly the same thing (except for single-line rolling segment versus courser quarter-screen rolling segment).

No matter how I slice and dice it, that slide is misleading (or incorrect).


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> PaweÅ‚ Dobrzycki;59275658 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2020 bfi is hardware rolling scan bfi which (from my understanding) is largely independent of panel refresh rate. "black bar" width is variable, not panel refresh rate. Its not really black frame length.
> 
> 
> 
> What PaweÅ‚ said. @fafrd, I think you're looking at this from a lense of global not rolling shutter BFI and thus the contention.
Click to expand...

If someone has an alternative interpretation of Panasonuc’s slide where ‘Conventional BFI’ is accurate and makes sense, I’m all ears.

As I just posted, BFI on WOLED is always ‘rolling shutter’ (with single-line granularity) as is BFI on LED/LCD with scanning backlight (with quarter-screen granularity for 4-segment scanning backlight).

In the very earliest days of BFI, perhaps the entire backlight was blanked while a full new frame was refreshed in (which would pretty much require panel refresh to operate at half-maximum Refresh Rate if you want to avoid GtG blurring), but pretty much everyone uses scanning backlights now (so framerate can be maintained).


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Which is exactly why I pointed it out - WOLED is still in the very early stages of it’s industrialization cycle where year-on-year cost reduction are high.
> 
> LCD, on comparison, is a fully-industrialized very mature technology which will not be able to deliver equivalent years if annual cost reductions.
> 
> If LCD is able to deliver any consistent levels of year-on-year cost reductions, it is at most 1/3rd of WOLED levels (if not as low as 1/10th).
> 
> So WOLED is still pretty far behind LCD but is catching up a bit closer with every passing year...
> 
> Any LCD-based technology that does not outperform WOLED in any important way and has a cost-structure which is only ~20% cheaper than WOLED today does not have a very long future (~3 years)...


Offline for awhile..
Yes, coming from a mfg background, maintaining 10% YoY cost reduction year after year after year on a legacy product is extremely difficult. I considered adding an edit to this effect after I originally posted, and smiled when I saw the reply - I agree. This is why the BOM would be so good to see for any of the technologies to compare along with PPE situations. For example, what is the dual cell breakdown? Is panel alignment a driving cost? There are things that might be done to remove components when putting two panels together that might keep you on a 10% CR path for awhile. I don't see an obvious 10% path for LED FALD. There might be one for miniLED BLU, I don't know. The point being just how i ended the post: can any of them keep up with OLED cost reduction over time as we believe their path is pretty doable via volume expansion at the least. I gotcha that you don't believe so.


----------



## fafrd

Found by LDBetaGuy: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=41833

1.1M WOLED TVs shipped in Q4’19 (3 million for the full year),

IHS Markit is forecasting:

4.5 million units in 2020 (50% growth)
6.7 million units in 2021 (49% growth)
9.35 million units in 2022 (40% growth)
11.5 million units in 2023 (23% growth)

If we take the 3 million units sold in 2019 off of 70,000 8.5G sheets per month production, add in the 60,000+30,000 8.5G sheets from Guangzhou as well as the 30,000+15,000 10.5G sheets from the 10.5G plant in Paju, that translates to 227,500 8.5G-sheet-equivalents per month’s, or 325% the monthly production rate through 2019.

3.25 x 3 million = 9.75 million WOLED panels, only 85% of IHS Markit’s forecast for 2023, so it sounds as though IHS Markit is expecting another 8.5G conversion from LCD to WOLED before then... (or a huge increase in smaller panel-size sales ).


----------



## stl8k

BFI on Sony's flagship OLED smartphone...

"The new Motion blur reduction technology reduces the in-between frame lag for a clearer image quality."
https://www.sony.com/electronics/cell-phones/xperia-1m2

This may be the 1st BFI implementation on a smartphone.


----------



## dfa973

*First look: Panasonic 2020 OLED & LCD TVs*


> Another tweak this year is that the 2020 OLED panel from LG Display has a more advanced - and now actually useful - BFI (Black Frame Insertion) system, which inserts black frames into the video stream to 'reset' the human eye in order to make motion appear less blurry. The improved BFI system can operate at shorter duty cycles (Low, Medium, High or Auto) meaning that flicker and brightness loss can be reduced.
> 
> The High setting still produces far too much flicker but the Low and Medium options do a better job at keeping flicker below the visible threshold (at least for us) while still maintaining a fairly high brightness level. The Auto setting will apply either Low or Medium depending on the content. *The same BFI system will be available in 2020 OLED TVs from LG and Sony, and LG also has the Auto option* (Sony may have it too - we don't know yet).


----------



## stl8k

dfa973 said:


> *First look: Panasonic 2020 OLED & LCD TVs*


Saw that too. The differentiation will come via the implementations of "Auto".


----------



## fafrd

dfa973 said:


> *First look: Panasonic 2020 OLED & LCD TVs*


So first, all the reference to 'flicker' means they are referring to 60Hz BFI (@ 25%, 50%, or 75%). LGE is hopefully also delivering 120Hz BFI @ 50% which should avoid 60Hz flicker much more effectively (after frame interpolation or frame repeat to 120Hz), so Panasonic will probably offer that as well (but still unclear).

Second, all this commentary about 'reducing brightness loss" means this is almost certainly one BFI setting for an entire piece of content, and not any kind of BFI adjustment 'on the fly' (within the same piece of content). The only way you could adjust BFI settings 'on the fly' within a single piece of content is if you fully compensated for any brightness loss (since otherwise, the changes in BFI setting and resulting changes in brightness would be very apparent and annoying).

So at best, the 2020 BFI capability delivered by Panasonic (and LGE) seems like nothing more than what LGD demonstrated at CES'19 (and LGE aborted just before 2019 model launch).


----------



## VA_DaveB

Ryan-x said:


> I just saw the LG Nanocell model, and It was terrible.
> 
> I'm not sure If using some calibration I could get something better from that display.


It's an IPS panel so black levels are atrocious.


----------



## Ryan-x

VA_DaveB said:


> It's an IPS panel so black levels are atrocious.


It's been a while since I last bought a TV.

I had a Panasonic 50GT30 that I loved, but it's broken now and I need something to replace it.

Thank you


----------



## VA_DaveB

Ryan-x said:


> It's been a while since I last bought a TV.
> 
> I had a Panasonic 50GT30 that I loved, but it's broken now and I need something to replace it.
> 
> Thank you


This really isn't the right thread for this discussion. If you're thinking LCD, go over to their help me choose an LCD thread or start a thread here in the OLED forum if that's what you're thinking.


----------



## Ryan-x

VA_DaveB said:


> This really isn't the right thread for this discussion. If you're thinking LCD, go over to their help me choose an LCD thread or start a thread here in the OLED forum if that's what you're thinking.



I liked the quality of the oled TVs, I will start reading the previous posts. Thanks again for helping


----------



## ALMA

CYNORA announces 15% more efficient fluorescent blue emitter for commercialisation:





> The launch marks CYNORA’s transition from cutting-edge research and development to commercialization. The new product is the first on a technology roadmap that will later include green and blue emitters based on the company’s proprietary and differentiated TADF materials platform.
> The OLED market continues to grow with the technology driving an array of flexible, foldable and ultra-thin displays. To enable the novel form factors and achieve superior color points, low power consumption is a central imperative. Yet, while OLED technology is well in the mainstream, the OLED devices have still to reach peak efficiency. The emission layers determine the overall performance of the OLED stack and exert a strong influence on power consumption. Blue is the least efficient emitter. Consequently, the industry is focusing intensely on finding new ways to improve efficiency. *Also, with next-generation displays like QD OLEDs using blue emitters only, the need for ultra-high-efficiency options is even more urgent.*



https://www.cynora.com/de/news/pres...-oled-devices-a-substantial-efficiency-boost/





> *CYNORA’s cyBlueBooster is a fluorescent blue emitter that enables display leaders to optimize the efficiency of their OLED devices.* The product was developed in collaboration with CYNORA’s OLED ecosystem partners. It employs an advanced molecular design and is >15 percent more efficient than comparative emitters. Introduced in March 2020, it is the first product on CYNORA’s technology roadmap that will later include green and blue emitters based on the company’s proprietary and differentiated TADF materials platform.





> *15 percent more efficient than comparative emitters*
> Available in diverse shades of blue, giving customers flexibility to select the shade that optimizes their unique OLED application(s)
> *Improved color point*
> Better viewing experience, thanks to a narrow emission spectrum (


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> CYNORA announces 15% more efficient fluorescent blue emitter for commercialisation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The launch marks CYNORAâ€™️s transition from cutting-edge research and development to commercialization. The new product is the first on a technology roadmap that will later include green and blue emitters based on the companyâ€™️s proprietary and differentiated TADF materials platform.
> The OLED market continues to grow with the technology driving an array of flexible, foldable and ultra-thin displays. To enable the novel form factors and achieve superior color points, low power consumption is a central imperative. Yet, while OLED technology is well in the mainstream, the OLED devices have still to reach peak efficiency. The emission layers determine the overall performance of the OLED stack and exert a strong influence on power consumption. Blue is the least efficient emitter. Consequently, the industry is focusing intensely on finding new ways to improve efficiency. *Also, with next-generation displays like QD OLEDs using blue emitters only, the need for ultra-high-efficiency options is even more urgent.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cynora.com/de/news/pres...-oled-devices-a-substantial-efficiency-boost/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CYNORAâ€™️s cyBlueBooster is a fluorescent blue emitter that enables display leaders to optimize the efficiency of their OLED devices.* The product was developed in collaboration with CYNORAâ€™️s OLED ecosystem partners. It employs an advanced molecular design and is >15 percent more efficient than comparative emitters. Introduced in March 2020, it is the first product on CYNORAâ€™️s technology roadmap that will later include green and blue emitters based on the companyâ€™️s proprietary and differentiated TADF materials platform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *15 percent more efficient than comparative emitters*
> Available in diverse shades of blue, giving customers flexibility to select the shade that optimizes their unique OLED application(s)
> *Improved color point*
> Better viewing experience, thanks to a narrow emission spectrum (
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## [email protected]

Hi. I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right place, but if anyone would take pity on a newbie AVS neophyte, I'm on here because I bought this crazy w8 Wallpaper TV hoping to have the closest experience to being in a theater and so far, I'm really less than pleased.

The issue is motion smoothing / video processing, which appears to get a little better when you turn trumotion either to off or choose user w/ the settings for De-judder and De-blurring at 0. 

But, still. Movies usually look like they're halfway between a movie theater and a soap opera. Think: Masterpiece theater.

I've tinkered with Real Cinema, turned deep color off, kept the noise reduction at 0. But for the most part, what comes out of movie just doesn't usually move like film. 

There are a few exceptions, but not many. Last week I went into Best Buy and spent some time with the C9, which seems to be somewhat more competent at delivering film in a way that makes it look like film.

But maybe I'm doing something wrong and/or there's a lifehack way to get this to show movies as if they're movies. Can anyone help?


----------



## Avs2022

When can we expect an 8K 120Hz 48” oled? I would like that as my pc display.


----------



## fafrd

[email protected] said:


> Hi. *I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right place*, but if anyone would take pity on a newbie AVS neophyte, I'm on here because I bought this crazy w8 Wallpaper TV hoping to have the closest experience to being in a theater and so far, I'm really less than pleased.
> 
> The issue is motion smoothing / video processing, which appears to get a little better when you turn trumotion either to off or choose user w/ the settings for De-judder and De-blurring at 0.
> 
> But, still. Movies usually look like they're halfway between a movie theater and a soap opera. Think: Masterpiece theater.
> 
> I've tinkered with Real Cinema, turned deep color off, kept the noise reduction at 0. But for the most part, what comes out of movie just doesn't usually move like film.
> 
> There are a few exceptions, but not many. Last week I went into Best Buy and spent some time with the C9, which seems to be somewhat more competent at delivering film in a way that makes it look like film.
> 
> But maybe I'm doing something wrong and/or there's a lifehack way to get this to show movies as if they're movies. Can anyone help?


Wrong place.

Try the W8 or 2018 LG OLED owner’s thread.


----------



## stl8k

*Details on LGD Guangzhou*

LGD got the A team down to Guangzhou, but then they were quarantined.

https://engnews24h.com/lg-display-gwangju-oled-fab-first-quarter-mass-production-exhibition/

Think the implication is less supply and thus prices will stay higher longer.


----------



## stl8k

The paper LGD presented at IDW Japan last Fall "Development of 88-inch 120Hz 8K OLED TV for Mass Production" is now available to SID Members.

I'll do my best to summarize some of the key innovations. See the paper itself for full details and all of the figures.

*120Hz Driving*
The backplane remains at 120hz, but they used some clever engineering to provide 8K at 120hz.



> When 8K is driven at 120Hz, addressing time for 1 horizontal line (1HT) is less than *2usec*.





> We also applied scan overlap drive and scan under-drive to improve rising and falling characteristics of scan signal. Scan overlap drive is to turn scan voltage high before target line addressing timing to reduce scan signal rising delay influence on data charging.


They call the driving 4HT (vs 1HT) because "drive scan signal is turned high at 3 horizontal line time ahead of the addressing timing".



> Scan under-drive is to add an extra low voltage lower than scan low voltage (VGL) to accelerate falling edge reaching down to scan off voltage, the threshold voltage (VTH) for the switching TFTs on pixels.


They also mention "adaptive Scan-to-Data offset" as a way to deal with "scan signal delay is relatively smaller near panel edge and gets larger around the center of the display".

*30+% Aperture Ratio*
As I posted about the macro pixel structure of the 88"...


> WRGB sub-pixel layout is optimized with putting aperture ratio higher priority. After studying several layouts, arrangement in the order of R-B-W-G exhibits the maximum aperture ratio with less winding in data lines. Figure 2 shows the comparison of aperture ratio between (a) R-W-B-G layout and (b) R-B-W-G layout.





> Bank layer material is also newly chosen for a better aperture ratio. Bank layer lies between anode layer and OLED organic layers to prevent electrical short between anode and cathode metal, and also defines the emission area. Bank layer material used to be a transparent resin in our previous models. Distance between sub-pixel apertures were determined to block the stray light from the neighboring sub-pixels through the transparent Bank layer. Opaque Bank material is newly applied in 8K OLED. As the Black Bank bridges anode between two sub- pixels, it must be high-resistive. Since stray light is absorbed in the Black Bank layer, the distance between the sub-pixels can be reduced and improve the aperture ratio.


|| TCON


> The image data are timing- controlled and image-processed in two separate TCON chips in parallel. Each covers half of the display which is 3840 x 4320 pixels per frame, the same as 4K to the horizontal, but twice as many to the vertical. They are synchronized each other so that no image discrepancy occurs between left and right half of the display.


Net-net, based on lots of good engineering design choices made years before, the LGD folks were able to meet their aperture ratio, 120hz speed, etc goals through smaller, lower-risk innovations rather than potentially risky innovations like a higher-speed backplane or a top-emission architecture. And, it's clear they put their A team on this project, led by veteran Koichi Miwa.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> The paper LGD presented at IDW Japan last Fall "Development of 88-inch 120Hz 8K OLED TV for Mass Production" is now available to SID Members.
> 
> I'll do my best to summarize some of the key innovations. See the paper itself for full details and all of the figures.
> 
> *120Hz Driving*
> The backplane remains at 120hz, but they used some clever engineering to provide 8K at 120hz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When 8K is driven at 120Hz, addressing time for 1 horizontal line (1HT) is less than *2usec*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also applied scan overlap drive and scan under-drive to improve rising and falling characteristics of scan signal. Scan overlap drive is to turn scan voltage high before target line addressing timing to reduce scan signal rising delay influence on data charging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They call the driving 4HT (vs 1HT) because "drive scan signal is turned high at 3 horizontal line time ahead of the addressing timing".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scan under-drive is to add an extra low voltage lower than scan low voltage (VGL) to accelerate falling edge reaching down to scan off voltage, the threshold voltage (VTH) for the switching TFTs on pixels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also mention "adaptive Scan-to-Data offset" as a way to deal with "scan signal delay is relatively smaller near panel edge and gets larger around the center of the display".
> 
> *30+% Aperture Ratio*
> As I posted about the macro pixel structure of the 88"...
> 
> 
> 
> WRGB sub-pixel layout is optimized with putting aperture ratio higher priority. After studying several layouts, arrangement in the order of R-B-W-G exhibits the maximum aperture ratio with less winding in data lines. Figure 2 shows the comparison of aperture ratio between (a) R-W-B-G layout and (b) R-B-W-G layout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bank layer material is also newly chosen for a better aperture ratio. Bank layer lies between anode layer and OLED organic layers to prevent electrical short between anode and cathode metal, and also defines the emission area. Bank layer material used to be a transparent resin in our previous models. Distance between sub-pixel apertures were determined to block the stray light from the neighboring sub-pixels through the transparent Bank layer. Opaque Bank material is newly applied in 8K OLED. As the Black Bank bridges anode between two sub- pixels, it must be high-resistive. Since stray light is absorbed in the Black Bank layer, the distance between the sub-pixels can be reduced and improve the aperture ratio.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This explains the increasing aperture ratio we have seen.

Remains to be seen whether this new opaque material was already used on 4K WOLEDs in 2019 or not (in which case we might hopefully see additional aperature ratio gains on 4K panels this year...



> || TCON
> 
> 
> 
> The image data are timing- controlled and image-processed in two separate TCON chips in parallel. Each covers half of the display which is *3840 x 4320 pixels* per frame, the same as 4K to the horizontal, but twice as many to the vertical. They are synchronized each other so that no image discrepancy occurs between left and right half of the display.
Click to expand...

Confirmation of parallel-drive of 8K panel from above and below (as we’ve been speculating).

This means that underlying 4K panel speed is already 240Hz...



> Net-net, based on lots of good engineering design choices made years before, the LGD folks were able to meet their aperture ratio, 120hz speed, etc goals through smaller, lower-risk innovations rather than potentially risky innovations like a higher-speed backplane or a top-emission architecture. And, it's clear they put their A team on this project, led by veteran Koichi Miwa.


I agree. It appears LGD has had a native backplane speed of 240Hz since their very first 1080p WOLEDs, so they have been planning for a roadmap to 8K pretty much since the beginning.

They apparently had top-emission ready for 8K but the new opaque inter-subpixel material achieves the same (or more) increase in aperture ratio at lower cost (and also lower risk, though LGD already has top-emission in production for their transparent WOLEDs).


----------



## Mark Rejhon

stl8k said:


> BFI on Sony's flagship OLED smartphone...
> 
> "The new Motion blur reduction technology reduces the in-between frame lag for a clearer image quality."
> https://www.sony.com/electronics/cell-phones/xperia-1m2
> 
> This may be the 1st BFI implementation on a smartphone.


Actually, there's some precedents:
-- 2015: Samsung GearVR switched a Galaxy into pulsed mode for improved virtual reality with the smartphone. Granted, it was a low-Hz 60Hz or 75Hz flicker, so it was not practical for non-VR use.
-- 2019: The Sharp 240Hz smartphone uses strobing

It's worth noting that I had a little bit role in influencing the VR industry early on; How Blur Busters Convinced Oculus Rift To Go Low Persistence.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

fafrd said:


> I've been thinking over Panasonic's slide and I believe there are only 3 ways to explain it:
> 
> *240Hz Native Refresh Rate:* As I've already stated in an earlier post, this explanation means that 'Conventional BFI' refers to a 60fps source presented at 120Hz with interleaved black frames (50% BFI).
> 
> By this interpretation, each 'Conventional' frame has a duration of 8.3ms (corresponding to 120Hz) and 'Panasonic BFI' corresponds to 120Hz BFI that also supports 25% or 75% [email protected]
> 
> 75% [email protected] requires a Native Tefresh Rate of 240Hz and delivers on MPRT of ~50% the 3.5-4.1ms delivered by 50% [email protected]
> 
> This is the best-case and would represent a breakthrough (which is unfortunately why I give it low-likelihood).
> 
> *Deceptive Marketing and 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate:* If the 'Panasonic BFI' actually represents 60Hz [email protected]%, 50%, or 75% (as LGE supports), then each 'Frame' corresponds to 16.7ms and the 'Conventional BFI' corresponds to a 30fps source with black frames interleaved into a 60Hz stream. The sorts of content where BFI is attractive to improve motion performance (like live-action sports) are broadcast at 60fps, not 30fps, so if Panasonic knowing presented 'Conventional BFI' from a 30fps source, that is deceptive marketing (and means 'Panasonic BFI' is only represented to mean 25%, 50% and 75% BFI @ 60Hz and either Panasonic has no 120Hz BFI or if they do, it is limited to 50% (like LGE).
> 
> *An Honest Mistake and 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate:* Same as above but the misrepresention of 'Conventional BFI' at 30fps rather than 60fps is the result of an honest mistake rather than deliberate misrepresentation (this is my guess as the most likely explanation for this slide, since it will be impossible to cover up any misrepresentation after the TVs launch and are reviewed).
> 
> If 'Conventional BFI' is intended to be an LED/LCD with a scanning backlight, the frequency of the scanning backlight doubles or quadruples the native refresh rate of the LCD panel to 120Hz or 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate, and the 'Conventional BFI' line should show half-black frames within each 'frame interval' just like the Panasonic BFI (for 50% BFI) or also quarter-black or three-quarters-black frames within each 'frame interval' just like Panasonic BFI for 25% or 75%.
> 
> So sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but my guess is that Panasonic is unlikely to be delivering much of anything beyond what LGD already demonstrated at CES'19 (25%, 50% and 75% [email protected] + 50% [email protected]).


Basically 4ms MPRT is a motion clarity ratio of 240, or the equivalent of 240fps @ 240Hz sample and hold.

Here are convenient charts for comparison:



















This applies equally to all displays capable of pulsed strobes (OLED and LCD alike). Theoretically, proper motion clarity ratios is essentially the inverse of MPRT(100%). Clear Motion 240, Sony Motionflow 960, etc. 

The problem is they're not accurately benchmarked, e.g. very poor MPRTs creating underperformance of real world results. Like contrast ratios worse than manufacturer claims. A display must be benchmarked first with proper VESA MPRT, for all screen locations (top, center, bottom -- MPRTs can vary due to strobe crosstalk). A screen centre may be low MPRT but the top and bottom edges might not be, because of excess strobe crosstalk. 

You need to divide honest measured MPRT as 1/MPRT to get a more honest marketable motion clarity ratio. So if you successfully get 1/240sec MPRT(100%) with OLED, you can honestly market it as a true Motion Clarity Ratio 240. OLEDs will be relatively honest with this. Yes, it's not a refresh rate, but the motion blur is actually identical to my human eyes if it's a virtually perfect 4.2ms MPRT(100%).

Historically, 10 years ago, *the marketing hype was garbage* because they were pretty poorly co-related with real world results because of 
--> problems such as low-quality interpolation 
--> problems such as poor-quality strobe backlights with lots of strobe crosstalk
--> problems such as slow phosphors, creating colored ghosting effects (KSF Red Phosphor ghosting during strobe backlights)










Fortunately, OLED is immune to this (unlike most LCDs), and OLED pixel response (on many models of displays) is almost insignificant compared to the currently-planned BFI pulse cycles. (ratio of OLED GtG-vs-PulseWidth needs to be insignificant in order to have a meaningless effect to motion blur)

Thusly, OLED 120Hz BFI 50% (for blurless source material 120fps) will have a true Honest Measured Motion Clarity Ratio of 240, exactly as the diagrams above (same blur as [email protected]).

Note: Currently, there is already an internal benchmarks we use that produces a much more honest measured motion clarity ratio. We currently have a Blur Busters Approved Logo Certification Program for LCDs that may be extended to OLEDs. Our first logo was awarded to the ViewSonic XG270 monitor, and is currently exhibited in marketing such as the Amazon product page for the XG270. 

Personally, I think that 120Hz OLED BFI deserves Blur Busters Approved if it can generate a true 1/240sec MPRT(99%) or better. I would be happy to assist any OLED panel manufacturer in standardizing an OLED variant of our existing LCD certification programme.


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking over Panasonic's slide and I believe there are only 3 ways to explain it:
> 
> *240Hz Native Refresh Rate:* As I've already stated in an earlier post, this explanation means that 'Conventional BFI' refers to a 60fps source presented at 120Hz with interleaved black frames (50% BFI).
> 
> By this interpretation, each 'Conventional' frame has a duration of 8.3ms (corresponding to 120Hz) and 'Panasonic BFI' corresponds to 120Hz BFI that also supports 25% or 75% [email protected]
> 
> 75% [email protected] requires a Native Tefresh Rate of 240Hz and delivers on MPRT of ~50% the 3.5-4.1ms delivered by 50% [email protected]
> 
> This is the best-case and would represent a breakthrough (which is unfortunately why I give it low-likelihood).
> 
> *Deceptive Marketing and 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate:* If the 'Panasonic BFI' actually represents 60Hz [email protected]%, 50%, or 75% (as LGE supports), then each 'Frame' corresponds to 16.7ms and the 'Conventional BFI' corresponds to a 30fps source with black frames interleaved into a 60Hz stream. The sorts of content where BFI is attractive to improve motion performance (like live-action sports) are broadcast at 60fps, not 30fps, so if Panasonic knowing presented 'Conventional BFI' from a 30fps source, that is deceptive marketing (and means 'Panasonic BFI' is only represented to mean 25%, 50% and 75% BFI @ 60Hz and either Panasonic has no 120Hz BFI or if they do, it is limited to 50% (like LGE).
> 
> *An Honest Mistake and 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate:* Same as above but the misrepresention of 'Conventional BFI' at 30fps rather than 60fps is the result of an honest mistake rather than deliberate misrepresentation (this is my guess as the most likely explanation for this slide, since it will be impossible to cover up any misrepresentation after the TVs launch and are reviewed).
> 
> If 'Conventional BFI' is intended to be an LED/LCD with a scanning backlight, the frequency of the scanning backlight doubles or quadruples the native refresh rate of the LCD panel to 120Hz or 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate, and the 'Conventional BFI' line should show half-black frames within each 'frame interval' just like the Panasonic BFI (for 50% BFI) or also quarter-black or three-quarters-black frames within each 'frame interval' just like Panasonic BFI for 25% or 75%.
> 
> So sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but my guess is that Panasonic is unlikely to be delivering much of anything beyond what LGD already demonstrated at CES'19 (25%, 50% and 75% [email protected] + 50% [email protected]).
> 
> 
> 
> Basically 4ms MPRT is a motion clarity ratio of 240, or the equivalent of 240fps @ 240Hz sample and hold.
> 
> Here are convenient charts for comparison:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This applies equally to all displays capable of pulsed strobes (OLED and LCD alike). Theoretically, proper motion clarity ratios is essentially the inverse of MPRT(100%). Clear Motion 240, Sony Motionflow 960, etc.
> 
> The problem is they're not accurately benchmarked, e.g. very poor MPRTs creating underperformance of real world results. Like contrast ratios worse than manufacturer claims. A display must be benchmarked first with proper VESA MPRT, for all screen locations (top, center, bottom -- MPRTs can vary due to strobe crosstalk). A screen centre may be low MPRT but the top and bottom edges might not be, because of excess strobe crosstalk.
> 
> You need to divide honest measured MPRT as 1/MPRT to get a more honest marketable motion clarity ratio. So if you successfully get 1/240sec MPRT(100%) with OLED, you can honestly market it as a true Motion Clarity Ratio 240. OLEDs will be relatively honest with this. Yes, it's not a refresh rate, but the motion blur is actually identical to my human eyes if it's a virtually perfect 4.2ms MPRT(100%).
> 
> Historically, 10 years ago, *the marketing hype was garbage* because they were pretty poorly co-related with real world results because of
> --> problems such as low-quality interpolation
> --> problems such as poor-quality strobe backlights with lots of strobe crosstalk
> --> problems such as slow phosphors, creating colored ghosting effects (KSF Red Phosphor ghosting during strobe backlights)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, OLED is immune to this (unlike most LCDs), and OLED pixel response (on many models of displays) is almost insignificant compared to the currently-planned BFI pulse cycles. (ratio of OLED GtG-vs-PulseWidth needs to be insignificant in order to have a meaningless effect to motion blur)
> 
> Thusly, OLED 120Hz BFI 50% (for blurless source material 120fps) will have a true Honest Measured Motion Clarity Ratio of 240, exactly as the diagrams above (same blur as [email protected]).
> 
> Note: Currently, there is already an internal benchmarks we use that produces a much more honest measured motion clarity ratio. We currently have a Blur Busters Approved Logo Certification Program for LCDs that may be extended to OLEDs. Our first logo was awarded to the ViewSonic XG270 monitor, and is currently exhibited in marketing such as the Amazon product page for the XG270.
> 
> Personally, I think that 120Hz OLED BFI deserves Blur Busters Approved if it can generate a true 1/240sec MPRT(99%) or better. I would be happy to assist any OLED panel manufacturer in standardizing an OLED variant of our existing LCD certification programme.
Click to expand...

Mark, great to hear from you and now that we know LG will finally be releasing 120Hz BFI this cycle, I hope we’ll see inputs from you on the thread more often 😉.

Yes, a certification for LG’s 120Hz BFI would be great. Hopefully you have the contacts to approach them about that and if not, please let us know if there is anything we can do to help (reps from LG monitor the burn-in threads).

Assuming we get 120Hz BFI with MPRT of 3.5ms (LG’s claim) to 4.1ms (theoretical result for 240 Hz Effectuve Refresh Rate), I’m interested in your opinion on something:

Now that LGs paper on how they achieved 8K WOLED w/ 120Hz refresh rate (split column-architecture supporting 2160 lines @ 240Hz Native Refresh Rate for 4320 lives with 120Hz Native / 240Hz Effective Refresh Rate) has emerged, it’s clear the 4K WOLED backplane supports a native refresh rate of 240Hz.

For 2020, it appears LG is using that 240Hz Native Refresh Rate to support 25%, 50% and 75% BFI @ 60Hz as well as 50% BFI @ 120Hz.

But with a Native Refresh rate of 240Hz, they can refresh one line with new frame data at 120Hz and blank any other line (arbitrary offset) with black, meaning the backplane should be able yo support 25%, 50%, 75%, and in fact any BFI %(limited to 1/2160th increments).

75% [email protected] will have 1/2 the MPRT of 75% BFI @ 60Hz at equivalent light output, so this would translate to plasma-like MPRT levels of 1.8-2,1ms with acceptable output levels of ~250cd/m2 peak.

I’m interested in your comments on this - it’s probably not coming on the 2020 WOLEDs but seems like it should be easily achievable on the 2021 models...

And the same architecture without change could support 87.5% BFI @ 120Hz (rolling 270 lines) which would deliver CRT-like MPRT levels of 0.9-1.0ms with brightness levels of ~125cs/m2 - thoughts?

We’ve often bandied about what architectural changes would be needed for WOLED to achieve CRT-like MPRT levels of ~1ms, but I believe with LGs 8K backplane supporting 120Hz Refresh rates, we are there today (at least on 4K WOLEDs).


----------



## gorman42

On a related note: are there news about the strobed 96Hz solution for 24fps movies with HTPCs, Mark? That's something that new VRR tech on OLED panels should make doable, right?


----------



## stl8k

*LGD and TADF-OLEDs*

To be presented at SID Display Week 2020 in June



> 6.1 - Invited Paper: Lifetime Improvement of TADF-OLEDs (11:10 AM - 11:30 AM)
> Jun-Yun Kim, Tae-Ryang Hong, Ik-Rang Choe, Ji-Ae Lee, Hye-Gun Ryu, Bo-Min Seo, Joong-Hwan Yang, Chang-Wook Han, Ji-ho Baek, Hyun-Chul Choi, In-Byeong Kang
> LG Display Seoul South Korea
> 
> 
> R/G/B hyperfluorescence OLEDs with high color purity and long operational lifetime are reported. The R/G-HF-OLEDs exhibited LT95s of 230 hrs and 300 hrs. Furthermore, B-HF-OLED has FWHM of 20 nm, external quantum efficiency of 20% and the LT95 of 300 hrs, doubled efficiency of monochromic color and half lifetime.


----------



## AnalogHD

stl8k said:


> To be presented at SID Display Week 2020 in June


Unless it's canned due to CoV-2, that is.

This is really putting some dents into a lot of market forecasts.


----------



## ALMA

News from QD-OLED by Samsung.


KATEEVA out, SEMES in:




> Perhaps some of you heard the news about Kateeva laying off nearly 150 people earlier this year? Well there is a direct link between this layoff and Samsung’s QD-OLED plans. It seems Kateeva got the short end of the stick as Samsung has chosen Semes to provide ink-jet printing equipment for the QD-OLED project on the Q1 line. Kateeva was banking on this customer to expand their IJP equipment into a new product line, so the blow was a big one for the relatively small company.


ttps://www.displaydaily.com/article/display-daily/kateeva-out-semes-in-as-samsung-closes-in-on-qd-oled


First pictures from the prototype:




> Flanked by the heads of key affiliates, Samsung heir Lee Jae-yong toured the display panel production lines at Samsung Display’s Asan facilities on Mar. 19, taking a closer look at the next generation Quantum Dot (QD) display samples. The lines are now readying for mass production.


http://www.thelec.kr/news/photo/202003/5382_4831_1033.jpg



http://www.thelec.kr/news/photo/202003/5382_4832_1035.jpg



http://en.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=780


----------



## gmarceau

ALMA said:


> News from QD-OLED by Samsung.
> 
> 
> KATEEVA out, SEMES in:
> 
> 
> 
> ttps://www.displaydaily.com/article/display-daily/kateeva-out-semes-in-as-samsung-closes-in-on-qd-oled
> 
> 
> First pictures from the prototype:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thelec.kr/news/photo/202003/5382_4831_1033.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thelec.kr/news/photo/202003/5382_4832_1035.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=780


ALMA, you always find the best stuff. I think I've looked forward to your posts for almost a decade.

Likelihood of this making it out in 2021????


----------



## ALMA

> Likelihood of this making it out in 2021????



Hopefully. Samsung Display working on a 2021 release.



Also in 2021 we should see the new blue emitter by CYNORA in first devices.




> *CYNORA, which has funding from both Samsung and LG has developed a blue fluorescent material that has been tested by panel makers to achieve 15% higher efficiency than current products from competitor’s Idemitsu Kosan and SFC with the same color point and lifetime. The new product is currently undergoing qualification by a number of panel makers and expectations are it could be used in products as early as Q121.* CYNORA will provide the dopant and claim it is compatible with hosts currently used by panel makers.


The first TADF emitter will be a green emitter aimed for first devices in 2022:




> *They are also developing a TADF green material, which would be competitive with UDC’s green due to its narrower light spectrum and a cost that could be as much as 50% lower than phosphorescent material, with no royalties.* Panel makers are expected to welcome a second source and Kablanian reports *the material will be ready for qualification by late 2020 or early 2021. *


https://www.oled-a.org/cynora-revam...oper-to-an-oled-materials-supplier_31520.html


----------



## Mark Rejhon

gorman42 said:


> On a related note: are there news about the strobed 96Hz solution for 24fps movies with HTPCs, Mark?


There's a great project that Blur Busters financed -- and currently half-own -- to do precisely this. However, that specific project is under legal limbo at the moment so I'm not focussed on that one. For now, I've been focussing Blur Busters on other more fun initiatives and bigger, more valuable things, and higher refresh rates (the 1000 Hz Journey!).



fafrd said:


> And the same architecture without change could support 87.5% BFI @ 120Hz (rolling 270 lines) which would deliver CRT-like MPRT levels of 0.9-1.0ms with brightness levels of ~125cs/m2 - thoughts?


In theory. 

However, the OLED panel design / architecture may not permit this, since a panel-refresh architecture may enforce specific granularities that prevent such tight rolling-scan windows on a specific panel.

In addition, OLED has non-zero GtG. Your GtG-vs-persistence ratio needs to be insignificant. The GtG of the leading-edge "ON" scanout, and the GtG of the trailing-edge "OFF" scanout, may or may not produce artifacts (whether be gamma distortions, gamut distortions, fixed-noise in dark colors, color tinting effects, etc). A GtG of 0.2ms would be a significant percentage of a 1ms MPRT. Some mitigations can be done (e.g. temporal dithering to reduce noise effects, color calibration to compensate for GtG-induced color distortions, etc). GtG is not an issue for LCD strobe backlights, because backlight LEDs are much faster than LCD cells, but OLED BFI is sometimes more directly bottlenecked by OLED GtG depending on how the OLED refreshing architecture is designed. It may not be, depending on how the panel is designed.

Long term, the panel could be subdivided and multiscanned as per my old ideas (along with some sawtooth-artifact compensation algorithms) -- this could enable ultra-high-refresh rates, such as a 960 Hz refresh rate using only a 60 Hz scan velocity.


----------



## ALMA

Samsung will end LCD production in Korea and China end of the year. Next year we will see QD OLED TVs by Samsung.




> Samsung Display will end its liquid crystal display (LCD) production in South Korea and China by the end of the year, the company announced.
> 
> *Samsung Display, the display-making unit of Samsung Electronics, said the decision was made to provide more resources for its quantum dot (QD) displays. *
> *As part of the decision, existing personnel at its LCD business will be shifted to organic light-emitting diode (OLED) and QD display businesses. *
> 
> 
> The company will continue to supply LCD panels to clients without issue until the end of the year, Samsung Display said.
> The factories that still produce LCD panels are based in Asan, South Korea and Suzhou, China. The majority of the LCD panels produced by these factories are used by Samsung Electronics' TV business for the production of its QLED TV brand.



https://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-display-to-end-lcd-production/


----------



## gorman42

Mark Rejhon said:


> There's a great project that Blur Busters financed -- and currently half-own -- to do precisely this. However, *that specific project is under legal limbo at the moment* so I'm not focussed on that one. For now, I've been focussing Blur Busters on other more fun initiatives and bigger, more valuable things, and higher refresh rates (the 1000 Hz Journey!).


Oh, sad to hear this. I had been waiting for VRR and HDMI 2.1 in no small part looking forward to that development.


----------



## austinsj

ALMA said:


> Samsung will end LCD production in Korea and China end of the year. Next year we will see QD OLED TVs by Samsung.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-display-to-end-lcd-production/


If we do see QD OLED in 2021, I wonder how much more they'll cost, size-for-size, than the LG TVs. If it's too much more, no one will buy them unless they show us significantly better performance.


----------



## mrtickleuk

austinsj said:


> If we do see QD OLED in 2021, I wonder how much more they'll cost, size-for-size, than the LG TVs. If it's too much more, no one will buy them unless they show us significantly better performance.


Don't forget another key factor - they will be extremely expensive TVs yet they won't have Dolby Vision.


----------



## wco81

Samsung could try to raise prices over the current QD LCD products but the world will be coming off a steep recession.

They're going to lose sales volume if they try to push higher prices.

They might lose sales volumes regardless.


----------



## lsorensen

austinsj said:


> If we do see QD OLED in 2021, I wonder how much more they'll cost, size-for-size, than the LG TVs. If it's too much more, no one will buy them unless they show us significantly better performance.


That didn't stop some people buying their QLED TVs.


----------



## bjaurelio

ALMA said:


> Samsung will end LCD production in Korea and China end of the year. Next year we will see QD OLED TVs by Samsung.


Except the QLED TVs made by Samsung are still LCDs. The explosion of "Samsung stops production of all LCDs" articles goes to show how little so much of the tech media know about tech or are willing to pass along knowingly misleading information. Samsung is trying to hide the fact that it's QLED TVs are still LCDs, and everyone is playing along.


----------



## gmarceau

Hey all, trying to understand the ramifications of Samsung stopping LCD production. If it's true that there are two different companies here - Samsung Electronics and Samsung Display - will we possibly still see LCD QLED but panels being sourced from China for Samsung Electronics, but then Samsung Display pushing QD OLED as the top end of the range for the QLED tvs next year.

Also, anyone have thoughts on RGB OLED vs QD OLED? If both were easy to manufacture at large sizes, any advantage to one over the other?


----------



## MrSniper1401

I'll be interested to see if QD-OLED comes out next year whether it will be in 4k or 8k. I would think 4k since QD-OLED seems hard enough to manufacture


----------



## Jin-X

bjaurelio said:


> Except the QLED TVs made by Samsung are still LCDs. The explosion of "Samsung stops production of all LCDs" articles goes to show how little so much of the tech media know about tech or are willing to pass along knowingly misleading information. Samsung is trying to hide the fact that it's QLED TVs are still LCDs, and everyone is playing along.


Eh that's not at all what's happening here, Samsung does a lot of misleading things but they aren't doing anything of the sort here, they are just stating they are not making more LCD panels after this year. That doesn't mean no more LCD tvs just like LG stating the same about their LCD panel production earlier didn't mean they were only selling OLED tvs. The problem is that people can't tell the difference between the panel manufacturing arm of a conglomerate and the consumer electronics division. Samsung sells more tvs than anyone and probably has the biggest size and model range of all tv makers, they aren't just going to abandon that and only sell expensive QD-OLEDs. They will use what panels they bought from Samsung Displays and then buy them from the other LCD panel makers that are undercutting them. Same as Sony, Panasonic, Phillips and now Vizio buy OLED panels from LG Displays.


----------



## stl8k

*LG Display R&D Highlights*

I grab these every year and post. Here's the list from its 2019 Annual Report

Achievements in 2019

Developed the world’s first ultra large-sized in-TOUCH product (50-inch UHD)
World’s first to apply in-TOUCH technology on ultra large-sized products (50-inch and larger)
World’s first to apply low temperature PAS to achieve in-TOUCH function

Developed the world’s first transparent WOLED product (55-inch FHD)
Developed WOLED-based Top Emission OLED device and process technology

Developed the world’s first OLED 8K product (88-inch 8K)
Developed gearing technology that secures and compensates aperture ratio for high resolution (8K) product implementation

Developed the world’s first gaming monitor product applying OLED (55” UHD)
Developed 55” UHD gaming monitor product using advantages of OLED (latency, gray to gray, color recall)

Developed the world’s first curved gaming monitor product applying AH-IPS COT (37.5” WQ+)
Developed and produced the world’s first monitor product applying AH-IPS COT
Pioneered gaming/curved premium monitor product market

Developed the world’s first monitor product applying Crystal Sound Display (“CSD”) (27.0” FHD)
Developed and produced the world’s first monitor product applying CSD
Developed large-sized, front-oriented stereo speaker through the application of exciter and piezo to the bottom cover of the liquid crystal module

Developed the world’s first automotive product applying plastic OLED (16.9” + 7.2” / 14.2”)
Developed and produced the world’s first 1CG multi-display product applying plastic OLED (16.9” + 7.2” / 14.2”)


----------



## wco81

So any verdict on the CX models vs. the C9? Looks like AVSers are starting to get them.


----------



## stl8k

*LGD's Emitter Change. What model year.*

Barry Young, a veteran of the display industry said the following in Information Display mag this month:

"For its OLED panels, LG initially used two blue layers and yellow/green to make white, with a color filter. A year ago, they switched to red, green, and blue layers to make white, with a color filter to create red, green, and blue pixels."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/msid.1100

What model year (2020, 2019, or 2018) did this change ship? Could it be 2020 and it's just not (yet) obvious that the change occurred. One anecdote is this difference in the 2020 EDID Rx and Gx values in the attached (vs 2019 on right).


----------



## lsorensen

stl8k said:


> Barry Young, a veteran of the display industry said the following in Information Display mag this month:
> 
> "For its OLED panels, LG initially used two blue layers and yellow/green to make white, with a color filter. A year ago, they switched to red, green, and blue layers to make white, with a color filter to create red, green, and blue pixels."
> 
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/msid.1100
> 
> What model year (2020, 2019, or 2018) did this change ship? Could it be 2020 and it's just not (yet) obvious that the change occurred. One anecdote is this difference in the 2020 EDID Rx and Gx values in the attached (vs 2019 on right).


I believe the big change in layers used happened between 2016 and 2017 models and correlates with the time burn-in occurrences dropped a lot. You see way more instances of LG 6 series with burn in than you do for 7 and newer series.


----------



## stl8k

lsorensen said:


> stl8k said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barry Young, a veteran of the display industry said the following in Information Display mag this month:
> 
> "For its OLED panels, LG initially used two blue layers and yellow/green to make white, with a color filter. A year ago, they switched to red, green, and blue layers to make white, with a color filter to create red, green, and blue pixels."
> 
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/msid.1100
> 
> What model year (2020, 2019, or 2018) did this change ship? Could it be 2020 and it's just not (yet) obvious that the change occurred. One anecdote is this difference in the 2020 EDID Rx and Gx values in the attached (vs 2019 on right).
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the big change in layers used happened between 2016 and 2017 models and correlates with the time burn-in occurrences dropped a lot. You see way more instances of LG 6 series with burn in than you do for 7 and newer series.
Click to expand...

I think that was the transition to 3s2c. But, there was another one from 3s2c to 3s3c.


----------



## mrtickleuk

stl8k said:


> I think that was the transition to 3s2c.


That's "three-stack two-colour", to save everyone else from googling it.



stl8k said:


> I think that was the transition to 3s2c. But, there was another one from 3s2c to 3s3c.


"three-stack three-colour".


----------



## Rysa_105

lsorensen said:


> I believe the big change in layers used happened between 2016 and 2017 models and correlates with the time burn-in occurrences dropped a lot. You see way more instances of LG 6 series with burn in than you do for 7 and newer series.


So you are saying a woled stack change is what resulted in BI resistance getting much better in 2017, however I see many articles say that LGD introduced memory based compensation in 2017 and this was the reason for BI becoming less of an issue (and in subsequent years they also increased the size of the red subpixel for further improvement). Do you have proof for what you are saying?


----------



## Akash Makkar

stl8k said:


> I think that was the transition to 3s2c. But, there was another one from 3s2c to 3s3c.


https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1482983106

Not sure when exactly, but Barry Young comments here underneath about the switch to 3s3c. So did it happen in 2017 panels? 

If yes, then saying a year ago in March 2020, doesn't fit the timeline.


----------



## dfa973

Rysa_105 said:


> ....however I see many articles say that *LGD introduced memory based compensation in 2017* and this was the reason for BI becoming less of an issue ....


Do you refer to the Ignis Compensation Algorithm for OLED panels that was licensed by LGD?


----------



## dfa973

Akash Makkar said:


> Not sure when exactly, but Barry Young comments here underneath about the switch to 3s3c. So did it happen in 2017 panels?


The change to 3S3C was available to TVs (panels) manufactured in 2016, see the attachments (Table 5).

Regarding Table 4 - the stack that was chosen for 2016 was Ph-Red (phosphorescent red), not the Fl-Red (fluorescent red).


----------



## Akash Makkar

dfa973 said:


> The change to 3S3C was available to TVs (panels) manufactured in 2016, see the attachments.


Maybe 2016 was the year for 3s3c then. So what exactly changed from 2016 to 2017 that improved the performance substantially? Pixel structure seems identical in macro shots. If 3s3c was implemented in 2016 too, and IGNIS tech was licensed but not deployed, what changed?


----------



## dfa973

Akash Makkar said:


> Maybe 2016 was the year for 3s3c then. So what exactly changed from 2016 to 2017 that improved the performance substantially? Pixel structure seems identical in macro shots. If 3s3c was implemented in 2016 too, and IGNIS tech was licensed but not deployed, what changed?


Probably the new 3S3S panels were designed in 2016 but were shipped in actual TVs at the end of 2016 and during 2017.


----------



## dfa973

Akash Makkar said:


> Pixel structure seems identical in macro shots.


No, it's not identical, the red subpixel on 2017 panels is bigger.


----------



## dfa973

Akash Makkar said:


> Maybe 2016 was the year for 3s3c then.


It was, but the 2016 gen. TVs had the 2015 gen. (3S2C B-YG-B) of panels, not the new 3S3C B-Ph_Red-YG-B panels - those new panels ended in the 2017 gen. TVs! 
Stack change corroborated with the bigger Red sub-pixel -> the 2017 TVs had more burn-in resistant panels.


----------



## Akash Makkar

dfa973 said:


> It was, but the 2016 gen. TVs had the 2015 gen. (3S2C B-YG-B) of panels, not the new 3S3C B-Ph_Red-YG-B panels - those new panels ended in the 2017 gen. TVs!
> Stack change corroborated with the bigger Red sub-pixel -> the 2017 TVs had more burn-in resistant panels.


When I mention years, I mean the years when those panels came to consumers in TV series. By 2016 I mean panels in 6 series and then 2017, 7 series. Whether they were designed in 1994, 2005, or 2016, that's not what I meant.

Anyway, my point was that if the change to 3 colors in stacks happened in 2017, as in, it was implemented in TVs releasing in 2017, Barry Young saying LG shifted to that a year ago in an article in March 2020, the timeline seems a bit off. Maybe he misspoke or...I don't know.

For the subpixel size, what you're saying is contrary to what I have read previously in this thread. As in, C6 and C7 has the same pixel structure and size. So the difference between those in Rtings test can be attributed only to the changes in the stack, if that's the only change that happened between panels in C6 and C7.


----------



## dfa973

Akash Makkar said:


> For the subpixel size, what you're saying is contrary to what I have read previously in this thread. As in, C6 and C7 has the same pixel structure and size. So the difference between those in Rtings test can be attributed only to the changes in the stack, if that's the only change that happened between panels in C6 and C7.


Actually, the red sub-pixel changes between 2016 and 2017 are different than we know.
In 2017 the red sub-pixel is thinner than the 2016 gen relative to the white sub-pixel. The 2016 red sub-pixel was bigger.

The 2018 panel had the bigger red-pixel vs. the 2017 panel! So the 2018 panel had returned to approx. the 2016 red sub-pixel size (the burn-in scare effect, when LG has reacted, probably exaggeratedly, downsizing the red sub-pixel too much).

2016 - big red
2017 - thin red
2018 - big red again


----------



## Akash Makkar

Here's the image of C7's and C8's pixels from Rtings with R, G and W subpixels lit. Their C6 image is blurry. Hard to be 100% sure by eye, but C7 seems quite similar to C6 to me, and C8's red subpixel is definitely bigger than C6.

Anyway, since I don't have similar images for all the sets, I don't want to get into splitting hairs over this. The ones who were making the pixel % graphs can recheck their calculations if they want based on your input. I guess they are itching to get to updating it for 2020 models too.

The entire point was to figure out the color change in the stack, and that seems to be panels in C7. As otherwise, even if what you're saying in the latest comment is true, that red subpixel in 2017 panels is thinner, their performance with regards to burn-in is 5-6x superior as compared to C6, and to what can we attribute that change? We have locked horns over IGNIS earlier, and I have since asked them for clarification, and this was their response:

"all I can speak to is that LGD licensed our patent portfolio which deals with the pixel circuitry. They opted not to use/pay for our algorithms as they believed their solution was sufficient."

So maybe LG learned something and improved their circuitry, which helped the performance? If not, was it just the change in stack that helped so much? 

Btw, you have mentioned conflicting things in the past few comments.

"Stack change corroborated with the bigger Red sub-pixel -> the 2017 TVs had more burn-in resistant panels."

"In 2017 the red sub-pixel is thinner than the 2016 gen relative to the white sub-pixel. The 2016 red sub-pixel was bigger."

Both can't be true.


----------



## dfa973

Akash Makkar said:


> Btw, you have mentioned conflicting things in the past few comments.


True.



Akash Makkar said:


> "Stack change corroborated with *the bigger Red sub-pixel* -> the 2017 TVs had more burn-in resistant panels."


The bigger 2017 red sub-pixel was unsubstantiated - I checked again the info I had and is not true.


----------



## AnalogHD

Akash Makkar said:


> As otherwise, even if what you're saying in the latest comment is true, that red subpixel in 2017 panels is thinner, their performance with regards to burn-in is 5-6x superior as compared to C6, and to what can we attribute that change?


2017 panels introduce software-based burn-in compensation.

It's a massive advancement: rather than leaving each pixel to act as it pleases, 2017+ sets manage each pixel's brightness according to its anticipated degradation, recorded over time. The first ~25% of the brightness range are reserved for this compensation exclusively.

As a result, at 25% aging, a C6 will show a very obvious dark image, while a C7 will still look perfect. Past that, both sets will visibly degrade. In practice, short of CNN and a few obnoxiously oversaturated games, it's difficult to burn through this headroom.

The difference until first signs is even greater:
2016 models show visible signs of burn-in on *week 2. *By week 4 the TVs have clear and irreversible burn-in on all colors. 
2017 models show slight overcompensation on week 4, but it takes them until *week 18 *to develop the first darkened areas on max light CNN, and week 24 on normal light CNN.

Basically, if I had to weigh software burn-in compensation versus all other anti-BI improvements and measures from 2013 to 2020 combined, the former will probably win, and probably by a good margin.


----------



## Rysa_105

^Thx analog, i mentioned memory based compensation some posts back as an advancement on 2017 models and a poster sought clarification on what i meant by it, it's just what Analog is describing above (he uses the term software based BI compensation, in some articles i have seen it referred to as memory based compensation, but it's the same thing)


----------



## Rysa_105

On a side note, i used to see fafrd all the time active in this oled advancement thread, is he no longer around these days?


----------



## Akash Makkar

It's like no one here is on the same page at all. Lol


----------



## lsorensen

Rysa_105 said:


> So you are saying a woled stack change is what resulted in BI resistance getting much better in 2017, however I see many articles say that LGD introduced memory based compensation in 2017 and this was the reason for BI becoming less of an issue (and in subsequent years they also increased the size of the red subpixel for further improvement). Do you have proof for what you are saying?


I just thought that's what I recalled reading, although it was a few years ago, and a lot of articles are speculations based on press releases and trying to read between the lines.


----------



## 8mile13

2018 OLEDs have a bigger red subpixel. Discussed on page 483.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...d-tvs-technology-advancements-thread-483.html


----------



## Akash Makkar

lsorensen said:


> I just thought that's what I recalled reading, although it was a few years ago, and a lot of articles are speculations based on press releases and trying to read between the lines.


That is what I had assumed by going through this thread, but it's not the case if you're talking about press releases I think you are, which is why dfa973 also asked whether Rysa_105 is talking about the tech licensed from IGNIS Innovation. We have since then new information that dfa973 posted in a similar discussion we had on another thread, about industry sources mentioning that the tech has not been deployed. 

Then I emailed IGNIS, and they have said all that they could, which I posted above. Here it is again:

"all I can speak to is that LGD licensed our patent portfolio which deals with the pixel circuitry. They opted not to use/pay for our algorithms as they believed their solution was sufficient."

So whether the licensed pixel circuitry of IGNIS made it into 2017 panels and had any impact, I don't think we know for sure. If it has not be deployed, can the change from 3s2c to 3s3c be enough to improve the performance 5-6x?

Btw, this is why I mentioned nobody being on the same page, as everyone has different stages of information it seems. Maybe now we can settle it.


----------



## dfa973

Akash Makkar said:


> can the change from 3s2c to 3s3c be enough to improve the performance 5-6x?


What we have / know:

1. Change from 3S2C to 3S3C - high confidence (we have evidence)
2. Red sub-pixel size decreased- low to medium confidence (evidence is undecisive)
3. IGNIS pixel circuitry deployed - high confidence (we have evidence)
4. IGNIS algorithms deployed - low confidence (we have evidence)
5. LGD own software/memory based compensation deployed - medium confidence (evidence?)


----------



## Akash Makkar

dfa973 said:


> What we have / know:
> 
> 1. Change from 3S2C to 3S3C - high confidence (we have evidence)
> 2. Red sub-pixel size decreased- low to medium confidence (evidence is undecisive)
> 3. IGNIS pixel circuitry deployed - high confidence (we have evidence)
> 4. IGNIS algorithms deployed - low confidence (we have evidence)
> 5. LGD own software/memory based compensation deployed - medium confidence (evidence?)


Just one question, 2016 series also had compensation cycles, right?

https://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/oled55e6-201604274285.htm

Both short one and long ones are mentioned. So it was already being deployed in 2016 models. I think we can rule 5 out then, unless there was a change in algorithm between C6 and C7 that I don't know about.


----------



## dfa973

Akash Makkar said:


> ....unless there was a change in algorithm between C6 and C7 that I don't know about.


Even if the OLED TV had no Compensation Cycle exposed to the user (and older versions did not - example EF9500, 2015 gen.) it was supposed to be run automatically by the firmware at a pre-programmed time interval. 

AFAIK, the 2015 gen. did not have the big Compensation Cycle implemented, it only run the small Compensation Cycle (at 3-4h of usage). 

AFAIK, the big Compensation Cycle (named CLEAR PANEL NOISE) was introduced and exposed to the user in the 2016 gen.

Probably, the 2017 big Compensation Cycle (named Pixel Refresher from 2017 to now on) is an enhanced version of the 2016 CLEAR PANEL NOISE version.


----------



## stl8k

dfa973 said:


> Even if the OLED TV had no Compensation Cycle exposed to the user (and older versions did not - example EF9500, 2015 gen.) it was supposed to be run automatically by the firmware at a pre-programmed time interval.
> 
> AFAIK, the 2015 gen. did not have the big Compensation Cycle implemented, it only run the small Compensation Cycle (at 3-4h of usage).
> 
> AFAIK, the big Compensation Cycle (named CLEAR PANEL NOISE) was introduced and exposed to the user in the 2016 gen.
> 
> Probably, the 2017 big Compensation Cycle (named Pixel Refresher from 2017 to now on) is an enhanced version of the 2016 CLEAR PANEL NOISE version.


Appreciate y'all diving into this. For me, the one thing that's confused me is seeing these 2 roadmap slides from LGD in Oct 2018:

http://en.olednet.com/icel-2018-wha...or-lg-display-to-improve-oled-tv-performance/

Without much context for these slides, I presumed that the move to 3S3C hadn't yet occurred, but I think what that 1st slide is conveying is that 3S3C will eventually get to BT2020 90% and 200nits.


----------



## scowly78

*pixel structure oled 8K*

hi guys

if i'm correct new oled 8K from LG have a different pixel structure with inverted color than 4K, even in this year ZX vs CX range
what is the concrete benefit of it? is it done to achieve the proper CM?

cheers


----------



## dfa973

stl8k said:


> Without much context for these slides, I presumed that the move to 3S3C hadn't yet occurred, but I think what that 1st slide is conveying is that 3S3C will eventually get to BT2020 90% and 200nits.


I can only *speculate *that the move from 3S2C to 3S3C was just a 2016-2017 stage and each year after that they tweaked other parts of the stack with different outcomes, and the planned changes occurred at different moments that they state in the publicly available documents. 

Maybe some planned changes did not even occur - just like the Top Emission - postponed for other generations of panels.

Maybe 3S3C is just a foundation that is to be fully exploited in the future - reaching its full potential at a later time. 

Maybe LGD waits for Samsung's move in the OLED space, so they can show that the current WOLED stack has not reached its limits - as many think.


----------



## jerrytsao

Any latest update from LG OLED panel development? Assuming they are on track, are we still expecting OLED TV with >90% BT.2020 appear in 2023?


----------



## stl8k

jerrytsao said:


> Any latest update from LG OLED panel development? Assuming they are on track, are we still expecting OLED TV with >90% BT.2020 appear in 2023?


Here's one perspective on it:

https://www.oled-a.org/lgd-stuck-with-falling-oled-tv-demand-and-a-cash-flow-crunch-_5420.html

I think the post's focus on things like top-emission is misplaced. LGD appears to have solved the biggest 4K to 8K transition *engineering* problems.

They and their customers need to increase the pace of 8K adoption through investment in content that puts those pixels and motion to great use. I continue to think the best way to create demand for 8K consumer TVs is to deeply integrate them with consumer 8K capture, which in 2020+ means smartphone capture. Find ways to get people into a cycle of buying their TVs and smartphones in pairs, smartphones every 2 years and TVs every 4 or somesuch. Make it too easy to transition to the big screen from the small (smartphone) screen that's playing a video. (Bring the smartphone into close proximity and see the TV begin playing where the smartphone got paused.) Would be a great way for LGE and Sony to get back into the smartphone game.


----------



## fafrd

Rysa_105 said:


> On a side note, i used to see fafrd all the time active in this oled advancement thread, is he no longer around these days?


I’m generally checking in once a week or so, but there has really been very little in the way of news to talk about (probably exaccerbared by the pandemic). 

As far as the debate about stack & burn-in, here is my understanding:

1/ stack has not changed since 2016 model year sales.

2/ increasing subpixel sizes has delivered intrinsic improvements in lifetime and burn-in immunity.

3/ reserving a portion of increased lifetime to be used for compensation of burn-in was the significant change LGD introduced in 2017 which resulted in a much longer timeframe to visible burn-in on 2017 versus 2016 WOLEDs (don’t know and don’t care whether the technology used was licensed from IGNIS or developed in-house; it’s not rocket-science).

4/ Ongoing imorovements in reduced inter-subpixel spacing is the backdrop that has made continued improvements in burn-in immunity possible without sacrificing brightness. It is improved PAR (pixel aperature ratio) which allowed LGD to ditch plans for top-emission and deliver 8K panels with (lower-cost) bottom-emission WOLED and those same improvements in PAR have allowed 4K subpixel sizes to continue to increase (overall - LGD has continued to rebalance relative subpixel sizes to reinforce most vulnerable colors like red at the expense of less vulnerable colors like blue).

I had been hoping LGD was going to introduce their first new WOLED stack in 5 years this cycle, but that appears not to be the case. LG’s roadmap indicated a first step increasing color gamut and a second step increasing blue efficiency (likely TADF). Hopefully LG decided two stack changes in two years didn’t make sense and we get both advances at once in 2021...

Samsung’s QD-BOLED only has a chance of being viable over the long term with TADF or another high-efficiency Blue, so it makes sense for LGD to hold off on any new stack changes until that important new technology is ready for prime-time (synchronized with Samsung).


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> I’m generally checking in once a week or so, but there has really been very little in the way of news to talk about (probably exaccerbared by the pandemic).
> 
> As far as the debate about stack & burn-in, here is my understanding:
> 
> 1/ stack has not changed since 2016 model year sales.
> 
> 2/ increasing subpixel sizes has delivered intrinsic improvements in lifetime and burn-in immunity.
> 
> 3/ reserving a portion of increased lifetime to be used for compensation of burn-in was the significant change LGD introduced in 2017 which resulted in a much longer timeframe to visible burn-in on 2017 versus 2016 WOLEDs (don’t know and don’t care whether the technology used was licensed from IGNIS or developed in-house; it’s not rocket-science).
> 
> 4/ Ongoing imorovements in reduced inter-subpixel spacing is the backdrop that has made continued improvements in burn-in immunity possible without sacrificing brightness. It is improved PAR (pixel aperature ratio) which allowed LGD to ditch plans for top-emission and deliver 8K panels with (lower-cost) bottom-emission WOLED and those same improvements in PAR have allowed 4K subpixel sizes to continue to increase (overall - LGD has continued to rebalance relative subpixel sizes to reinforce most vulnerable colors like red at the expense of less vulnerable colors like blue).
> 
> I had been hoping LGD was going to introduce their first new WOLED stack in 5 years this cycle, but that appears not to be the case. LG’s roadmap indicated a first step increasing color gamut and a second step increasing blue efficiency (likely TADF). Hopefully LG decided two stack changes in two years didn’t make sense and we get both advances at once in 2021...
> 
> Samsung’s QD-BOLED only has a chance of being viable over the long term with TADF or another high-efficiency Blue, so it makes sense for LGD to hold off on any new stack changes until that important new technology is ready for prime-time (synchronized with Samsung).


Perhaps a stack change in the middle of a major transition like 4K to 8K was deemed too risky. They probably thought they had to do the 4K to 8K transition. Perhaps the stack transition will be 8K only.


----------



## wco81

So what's the consensus on the CX models?

Worth the current price premium over the C9 models?

Or hope for more bigger improvements in the panels next year?


----------



## no1special

I'm hoping this is the right thread to ask this. I figured those keeping up with OLED technology advancements might have an idea.


Is LG using the more efficient and presumably longer-lasting organic emitter materials in the replacement panels it makes for older model OLED sets like the B6 and others? Would an improved design panel such as this in theory be more burn-in resistant (due to longer emitter life) and be compatible with the older hardware/electronics? See linked post below in which I replied to a member who just had his panel replaced and claims that it's brighter and more saturated than the original panel, even at lower OLED light settings.



https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...tion-burn-thread-photos-146.html#post59615350


----------



## lsorensen

wco81 said:


> So what's the consensus on the CX models?
> 
> Worth the current price premium over the C9 models?
> 
> Or hope for more bigger improvements in the panels next year?


My impression so far from following the owner threads is that some people are disappointed in some features of the CX being downgrades versus the C9 which is of course unusual and clearly a surprise to most people. Normally new model years just improve on previous years, but the CX dropped DTS support entirely, and reduced the HDMI ports from 48 to 40 Gbps max. A few people would appear to have returned their TVs and bought C9s instead due to this. Some slight improvements in image processing, but nothing major it would seem.


----------



## wco81

Really, no DTS and slower HDMI?


----------



## lsorensen

wco81 said:


> Really, no DTS and slower HDMI?


Samsung removed DTS in 2018, and apparently LG has done so in 2020.


----------



## wco81

But wait, DTS is decoded in the AVR anyways right?


----------



## avernar

wco81 said:


> But wait, DTS is decoded in the AVR anyways right?


This is a licensing issue and not technical. The 2020 LGs won’t output DTS from the internal apps nor will they pass DTS from any external device.


----------



## wco81

OK but you can use a streaming box or a Blu Ray player which will output DTS which would be processed by the AVR and output to your speakers, while passing the video signal from those sources to the LG CX?


----------



## avernar

wco81 said:


> OK but you can use a streaming box or a Blu Ray player which will output DTS which would be processed by the AVR and output to your speakers, while passing the video signal from those sources to the LG CX?


Yes. No restrictions on audio hooking up this way. But now you may have restrictions on video such as no VRR or 4K120.


----------



## 34-hfx-83

*We Might Have Just Found the Next Great Lighting Material*

**


https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a30105879/new-oled-material-better-lighting/


----------



## dfa973

34-hfx-83 said:


> We Might Have Just Found the Next Great Lighting Material





> The scientists *hope* others will be able to find and fine-tune even more versions of this *copper TADF*, with an eye on applications and even more reduction in cost. And when it comes to your TV or home lighting future, this new look could be just *years away*.


... many years away, maybe...


----------



## hiperco

34-hfx-83 said:


> *We Might Have Just Found the Next Great Lighting Material*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a30105879/new-oled-material-better-lighting/


I stopped reading the moment they talked about LED TVs being the current technology.


----------



## dfa973

Kyulux TADF materials have been discussed before here in 2017 - I found a new paper about it, LG Display-Kyulux TADF based OLED Devices paper at SID DisplayWeek, May 2019 (PDF).



> *Introduction*
> Recently, we have witnessed the prevalence of OLED in our
> surroundings, such as TV, smartphone and lighting. Its
> application is also trying to expand into auto and VR/AR.
> Among them, TV requires large size panel and lighting needs
> white light mimicking solar spectrum. Therefore, WOLED has
> emerged as a key technology for display and lighting. Currently,
> WOLED is composed of three colors, using fluorescent blue,
> phosphorescent green and red.
> Relatively low efficiency of fluorescent blue limits the
> performance of OLED TV and lighting. The early OLED TV,
> employing 2-stack WOLED composed of blue and yellow green
> (YG), suffered from the relatively low correlated color
> temperature (CCT) and brightness. Adding one more fluorescent
> blue stack into 2-stack WOLED satisfied the demand of efficient
> blue. In spite of voltage rising, CCT and current efficiency were
> enhanced to display high quality image [1]. Furthermore,
> engineering of 2nd stack in 3-stack WOLED enhanced color
> gamut from DCI 90% to DCI 99% [2]. For OLED lighting, most
> of current products have shown the efficacy lower than 90 lm/W
> [3]. Konica Minolta reported OLED lighting equipped with
> phosphorescent blue. Although it shows CCT and operational
> lifetime were a bit lower such as 2857K and T50 > 65,000 hr,
> respectively, its efficacy was record-high, close to 140 lm/W [4].
> Thus, it is obvious that highly efficient blue will boost up the
> performance of WOLED. As an alternative to phosphorescent
> blue, TADF blue has been widely studied [5].
> In this paper, we demonstrate two WOLEDs for lighting which
> incorporate TADF blue and green, respectively. High efficiency
> TADF blue used in 3-stack WOLED shows the efficiency of 111
> lm/W. TADF green in 2-stack WOLED shows 70% of lifetime,
> compared with WOLED in 2-stack using phosphorescent green.
> This implies that TADF green may be the potential alternative to
> phosphorescent green.


----------



## avernar

hiperco said:


> I stopped reading the moment they talked about LED TVs being the current technology.


Where did the say that? All I read was a comparison to plasma TVs.



dfa973 said:


> Kyulux TADF materials have been discussed before here in 2017 - I found a new paper about it, LG Display-Kyulux TADF based OLED Devices paper at SID DisplayWeek, May 2019 (PDF).


Was that also using copper or some other element?


----------



## hiperco

avernar said:


> Where did the say that? All I read was a comparison to plasma TVs.


"Instead of the bright backlight of a LED TV, OLEDs have their own light. "

:Rolleyes


----------



## dfa973

avernar said:


> Was that also using copper or some other element?


No, the Kyulux TADF is using "classic" TADF blue material, not copper-based TADF blue.


----------



## avernar

hiperco said:


> "Instead of the bright backlight of a LED TV, OLEDs have their own light. "


While it uses simpler technical language I don't see the problem with that sentence.


----------



## hiperco

avernar said:


> While it uses simpler technical language I don't see the problem with that sentence.


Then you don't understand the technology. It's LCD, with an LED backlight.


----------



## avernar

hiperco said:


> Then you don't understand the technology. It's LCD, with an LED backlight.


I do understand the technology. That article is not aimed at people who understand the technology. It's Popular Mechanics and they're geared for the (slightly above) average person. "LED TV" is the marketing term for LCD with LED backlight that those people will understand. Saves the author from having to explain that.


----------



## hiperco

avernar said:


> I do understand the technology. That article is not aimed at people who understand the technology. It's Popular Mechanics and they're geared for the (slightly above) average person. "LED TV" is the marketing term for LCD with LED backlight that those people will understand. Saves the author from having to explain that.


Popular Mechanics should know better. LED TV is an abomination of a term used by the industry to fool people that don't know better. Let's agree to disagree with the usage (and continued propagation) of the term.


----------



## avernar

hiperco said:


> Popular Mechanics should know better. LED TV is an abomination of a term used by the industry to fool people that don't know better. Let's agree to disagree with the usage (and continued propagation) of the term.


I hate that marketing term as well, along with QLED, mini-LED and a whack of other misleading terms. I hate marketing departments in general. But when you're talking to Joe Sixpack you're kind of stuck using these marketing terms or you'll spend an inordinate amount of time explaining things. Happens all the time with computers.

My point is to ignore that stuff and just mine the nuggets, like copper being the advancement here. No need to "stop reading".


----------



## Rysa_105

hiperco said:


> Then you don't understand the technology. It's LCD, with an LED backlight.


Actually there are quite a few technically incorrect but widely used terms floating around. And in most cases, their roots can be traced back to Scamsung's marketing department.
Now 3840 x 2160p is technically not 4K, it is UHD, but regardless people use 4K. 
Yeah, a LCD is also not a LED , that is only the backlighting used, but regardless people say LED. I have a 2006 philips tv and by this flawed 'LED' logic, i could say that I own a philips CCFL.


----------



## ALMA

New subpixel layout confirmed for the European 65CX6:












https://www.homecinemamagazine.nl/2020/05/review-lg-oled65cx6la-cx-serie-oled-tv/


65C9








https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/lg-65c9-p51559/test.html


----------



## stl8k

*Pixel and Subpixel Spacing and Sizing Talk*

Hey folks,

I did some pixel peeping of the Rtings.com photos they provide in their reviews. I did visual diffs (in a Mac app that also does textual diffs) of those photos comparing C9 and CX at 55". Outputs from the diff tool enclosed.

The 1st photo (which is using transparency) shows that there's ostensibly an aperture difference between model years at the same 55" size.

The second photo is simply showing that the RWB pixels are the same shape and size.
@mike123abc made a good point in the CX owners thread that perhaps the reason is that it's to be able to use that same pixel/subpixel structure for the new (not yet shipping) 48".

Additionally it dawned on me that a full pixel is RWBG and the only way to get the size of the pixel (and thus the spacing between the pixels in the horizontal direction) is to composite in an adjacent green subpixel. I haven't done that for either model year.

All that said, my Q is, when the pixel spacing changes for a given model (and the subpixel sizes stay the same), do they simply have a smaller/large panel by the same % amount?

TIA.


----------



## stl8k

*Linus and Team on Quantum Dots*

These guys do a really credible job tackling complex tech like Quantum Dots for displays. Includes QD-OLED coverage.


----------



## mrtickleuk

wco81 said:


> Really, no DTS and *slower HDMI*?


No, not really. The speed of the signals going into the HDMI ports is still roughly ~90% of the speed of light. LG doesn't have the capability to make the HDMI signals travel at different speeds to last year. HTH HAND 

ps. ITYM bandwidth, not speed.


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> Hey folks,
> 
> I did some pixel peeping of the Rtings.com photos they provide in their reviews. I did visual diffs (in a Mac app that also does textual diffs) of those photos comparing C9 and CX at 55". Outputs from the diff tool enclosed.
> 
> The 1st photo (which is using transparency) shows that there's ostensibly an aperture difference between model years at the same 55" size.
> 
> The second photo is simply showing that the RWB pixels are the same shape and size.
> 
> @mike123abc made a good point in the CX owners thread that perhaps the reason is that it's to be able to use that same pixel/subpixel structure for the new (not yet shipping) 48".
> 
> Additionally it dawned on me that a full pixel is RWBG and the only way to get the size of the pixel (and thus the spacing between the pixels in the horizontal direction) is to composite in an adjacent green subpixel. I haven't done that for either model year.
> 
> All that said, my Q is, when the pixel spacing changes for a given model (and the subpixel sizes stay the same), do they simply have a smaller/large panel by the same % amount?
> 
> TIA.


Adam at rtings.com confirmed what I suspected after thinking about this more:



> This is most likely just due to a slightly different position of the camera. The panels and subpixels are identical between the C9 and CX.


I followed up to see if they have a shot of the CX's green subpixel.


----------



## ALMA

@*stl8k* 


The 55CX in the rtings review has the same panel than the 55C9 but the 65CX has a different panel than the 65C9 but the same as the 55CX. That means in 2019 55C9 and 65C9 were different and in 2020 55CX and 65CX are now equal.


----------



## stl8k

ALMA said:


> @*stl8k*
> 
> 
> The 55CX in the rtings review has the same panel than the 55C9 but the 65CX has a different panel than the 65C9 but the same as the 55CX. That means in 2019 55C9 and 65C9 were different and in 2020 55CX and 65CX are now equal.


Wild, how did you determine?


----------



## D-Nice

ALMA said:


> @*stl8k*
> 
> 
> The 55CX in the rtings review has the same panel than the 55C9 but the 65CX has a different panel than the 65C9 but the same as the 55CX. That means in 2019 55C9 and 65C9 were different and in 2020 55CX and 65CX are now equal.


My 55CX is not the same as my 55C9.


----------



## stl8k

D-Nice said:


> My 55CX is not the same as my 55C9.


 @dnice, nice to see you over in advanced OLED land!

Same from a pixel size, spacing perspective (ie, things we can see with a camera/consumer microscope).


----------



## D-Nice

stl8k said:


> @dnice, nice to see you over in advanced OLED land!
> 
> Same from a pixel size, spacing perspective (ie, things we can see with a camera/consumer microscope).


Similar subpixel size. But the shapes are slightly different.


----------



## ALMA

From rtings:



55CX


red
https://i.rtings.com/images/reviews/tv/lg/cx/cx-pixels-large.jpg

green subpixels
https://www.rtings.com/images/reviews/tv/lg/cx/cx-pixels-alt-large.jpg

55C9


red
https://i.rtings.com/images/reviews/tv/lg/c9/c9-pixels-large.jpg


green subpixels
https://www.rtings.com/images/reviews/tv/lg/c9/c9-pixels-alt-large.jpg

*Subpixel layout 65" in 2019:*

65C9 from lesnumeriques.fr
https://dyw7ncnq1en5l.cloudfront.net/optim/test/18/18459/souspix2-lg-c9.webp

Panasonic GZ950 from lesnumeriques.fr
https://dyw7ncnq1en5l.cloudfront.ne...iseur-oled-ultra-hd-sans-fioriture__w800.webp

*Subpixel layout 65" in 2020:*

65CX6 from homecinemamagazine.nl
https://www.homecinemamagazine.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/[email protected]


In 2016/17 LGD had 3 different panel layouts.


----------



## dfa973

*Samsung and LG Agree to End the QLED War
*

*The incessant bickering between Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics over QLED HDTVs has come to an abrupt halt after the two Korean tech giants told the Fair Trade Commission to stop further investigations.*

The two longtime archrivals told the FTC that they would immediately discontinue any smear campaigns against each other, and only place more emphasis on improving the quality of their own respective products.

In the cutthroat global premium TV market, both Samsung and LG have claimed to possess top-notch systems to give their TV panels unrivaled clarity and depth. LG’s go-to panel in recent years has been OLEDs, while Samsung has heavily advertised its next-gen technology of QLEDs.

Relations between the two companies soured even more during a press conference in September last year, when LG began to claim that Samsung’s highly regarded QLED display isn’t really QLED at all.

LG said that according to some engineers and tech experts, a “true” QLED panel should utilize quantum dots that emit their own light, jettisoning the need for backlighting, which Samsung’s QLED TVs use.

Essentially, according to LG, Samsung continues to flaunt the fancy name despite the products basically being LCD TVs enhanced with quantum dots, which are microscopic particles that when hit by light, emit a certain different colored light.

LG later irked Samsung further by reporting the company to the FTC for misleading consumers.

The FTC eventually concluded that QLED TVs, including those manufactured by Samsung, can in fact be considered to possess self-emitting displays, according to a statement.

Continued at https://nationalinterest.org/blog/techland/samsung-and-lg-agree-end-qled-war-162670


----------



## mrtickleuk

dfa973 said:


> Continued at https://nationalinterest.org/blog/techland/samsung-and-lg-agree-end-qled-war-162670


Thanks for that. From reading the article, it seems that LG has *agreed to stop telling the truth* about the QLEDs (that they are not self-emitting).
Also Samsung has agreed to confess that there's a backlight on their QLEDs and say so in marketing.


----------



## bryantc

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.co.../quantum-dot-OLED-QLED/20200608183000169.html


The source article has conflicting statements:




"The FTC ruled that Samsung must make it clear that their QLED TVs have a backlight in their advertisements."


“We were able to ease concerns of Samsung misleading consumers, as the company will *not* have to clearly state in its various advertisement that its QLED TVs use a backlight,” said Gu Seong-rim, a manager at the consumer safety and information division at the FTC.


----------



## avernar

bryantc said:


> The source article has conflicting statements:
> 
> "The FTC ruled that Samsung must make it clear that their QLED TVs have a backlight in their advertisements."
> 
> “We were able to ease concerns of Samsung misleading consumers, as the company will *not* have to clearly state in its various advertisement that its QLED TVs use a backlight,” said Gu Seong-rim, a manager at the consumer safety and information division at the FTC.


Might be a typo. The not probably should have been a now.

EDIT: Changed type to typo.


----------



## 8mile13

“Both Samsung QLED TV and LG OLED TV are self-emissive TVs _in a broad sense_,” the FTC said.
However, the agency _advised_ Samsung to provide consumers with a clear notice that QLED TVs have backlights in all kinds of commercial advertisements.


----------



## dfa973

*LG showcases transparent OLED display technology at InfoComm 2020*

LG Electronics has just showcased certain new display technologies at the InfoComm 2020 event. The conference that took place from 16th to 18t June had the South Korean tech giant reveal new LG LED Cinema Display and a transparent OLED touch display.

The LG LED Cinema Display utilizes high brightness LED modules for movie screens at theaters. This technology is said to offer a more uniform movie screen that is less susceptible to distortions when compared to their digital projector counterparts. The company has already supplied this type of large display to a Taiwanese cinema chain called Showtime Cinema.

Furthermore, LG also unveiled its new transparent OLED touch screen, which has a transmittance of 38 percent and its possible applications have been aimed at commercial spheres like airports, museums, and even stores. Notably, multiple such transparent displays can be attached side by side, with the technology already being utilized by a store run by Top Golf.

More at https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/06/...ent-oled-display-technology-at-infocomm-2020/


----------



## dfa973

*TCL invests $187 million in JOLED, to jointly-develop OLED TV inkjet printing technologies*

JOLED announced that TCL CSoT has invested 20 billion Yen (around $187 million USD) in the company, and has also signed an agreement to jointly develop OLED TV printing technologies.

This is a very interesting development. TCL has been a long time believer in inkjet printing for OLED displays, and the company has established Juhua Printing in 2016 (together with TianMa and other collaborators) as an "open-innovation platform" to develop ink-jet printing of OLED panels. JOLED was not involved as far as we know in this alliance - so has TCL given up on Juhua and is now aiming to rely on JOLED's technology?

JOLED has been focused on medium-sized displays (for monitors, automotive and signage), and in December 2018 JOLED demonstrated its first OLED TV prototype, a 55" 4K (3840x2160, 80 PPI) panel that offers a 120Hz refresh rate and a color gamut of 100% DCI (135% sRGB). The OLED panel was printed on JOLED's Transparent Amorphous Oxide Semiconductor (TAOS) backplane. In 2018 JOLED told us that it has no plans to produce large size OLEDs at this stage - and this TV is on display just to demonstrate JOLED's printing technology, but now obviously this has changed.

More at https://www.oled-info.com/tcl-invests-187-million-joled-jointly-develop-oled-tv-inkjet-printing


----------



## pbc

Curious, I'm having my B6 panel replaced likely this week. Wanted to take a picture of the sub pixel structure. Is this possible with a "regular" camera (I have a Nikon P7100 that has a Macro setting).

Also, what field does one put up on the display? A 100IRE screen sort of thing?


----------



## InnerCircle

*Investment in LCD TVs dry up. OLED Investment to surge.*



-diVe- said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by *nnarum23*
> 
> OLED is becoming SED...
> 
> 
> OLED is a proven technology. For example, OLED products actually exist in the marketplace to be purchased. SED was never brought to the market. The future of TVs will be Plasma vs. OLED. LCDs will be phased out like CRTs.


I know it's an old post but I am glad to report that the demise of LCD has been forecasted and may be a positive development for OLED.

Investment into LCD to dry up by 2022, says IHS Markit | FlatpanelsHD


----------



## Jin-X

*Gen 10 Paju Plant delayed to 2025-2026*

Looks like the economic impact of Covid is decreasing OLED sales for this year, causing another delay to the Paju plant:

https://www.techradar.com/news/lgs-massive-oled-tv-expansion-has-been-delayed-yet-again

At least one other place I saw is saying this is actually an indefinite delay, and that LG will provide more info on their next quaterly conference call. I wonder what effect this will have on OLED tv prices, bad financials and lower demand due to the bad Covid economy may mean prices don't go down like they originally intended to, since they might not be as willing to trade lower margins for market share.


----------



## wco81

Virus won't let us have nice things ...


----------



## taichi4

Rysa_105 said:


> Actually there are quite a few technically incorrect but widely used terms floating around. And in most cases, their roots can be traced back to Scamsung's marketing department.
> Now 3840 x 2160p is technically not 4K, it is UHD, but regardless people use 4K.
> Yeah, a LCD is also not a LED , that is only the backlighting used, but regardless people say LED. I have a 2006 philips tv and by this flawed 'LED' logic, i could say that I own a philips CCFL.



I think the term LED TV should be reserved for emissive (micro) LED TVs.


----------



## dfa973

taichi4 said:


> I think the term LED TV should be reserved for emissive (micro) LED TVs.


In an ideal world, yes.

And the LCD TV of the past should be called LCD-CCFL TVs...


----------



## JJ1156

*Ovjp*

*Universal Display Corporation Announces Formation of OVJP Corporation to Advance the Commercialization of Groundbreaking OLED TV Manufacturing Technology*

*Names Jeff Hawthorne CEO of OVJP Corporation, 25+ Year Capital Equipment Industry Veteran*


Universal Display Corporation (Nasdaq: OLED), enabling energy-efficient displays and lighting with its UniversalPHOLED technology and materials, today announced the formation of its wholly-owned subsidiary OVJP Corporation (OVJP Corp). To be headquartered in Silicon Valley, California, OVJP Corp was established to advance the commercialization of Universal Display’s (UDC) novel, mask-less, solvent-less, OLED printing manufacturing platform. This newly established subsidiary will be led by Jeff Hawthorne, who has been appointed Chief Executive Officer of OVJP Corp.


Organic Vapor Jet Printing (OVJP) is a groundbreaking dry direct printing technology for depositing organic materials to manufacture 4K and 8K resolution OLED TVs. This technology represents a high-throughput, high-performance, efficient, large-area patterned OLED manufacturing process platform and enables cost-effective printing of side-by-side red, green and blue (RGB) OLED TVs. OVJP technology originated at Princeton University with Professor Stephen Forrest and his research team under the long-term research program with UDC. The Company has made significant advancements through the years and is currently working on printing full-color phosphorescent RGB 4K test panels. OVJP research and development will continue in Ewing N.J., and OVJP Corp. will focus on scaling the technology into a commercial equipment system.


Jeff Hawthorne brings a wealth of technical, strategic and operational leadership expertise, and over 25 years of experience in the capital equipment industry, primarily at Photon Dynamics (PDI). Under his leadership, Photon successfully scaled its tools from Gen 4.5/5 to Gen 6, 7.5, 8 and to Gen 10 as panel makers broadened its manufacturing of displays from small/mid-size to large-size and PDI became the market leader of test and repair equipment for the global flat panel display market.


"The formation of OVJP Corporation is the next step in our strategic roadmap for commercializing our state-of-the-art OLED printing technology and we are pleased to have Jeff join us to lead our new subsidiary," said Steven V. Abramson, Universal Display's President and Chief Executive Officer. "UDC was founded with the mission to enable the OLED industry. We began with the idea of energy-efficient, high-performing phosphorescent OLED emissive technology and forged a path of discovery, development and delivery to now a broadening portfolio of commercial UniversalPHOLED materials. We are now taking the idea of dry printing OLED TVs in a vacuum environment and accelerating its commercial path. Jeff’s seasoned background and in-depth knowledge of the display capital equipment industry, from both the technical and operational aspects, will be valuable during this critical period as we further shape and evolve OVJP into the OLED market."


"I am excited to join OVJP Corporation and build on UDC’s technical innovation and momentum of this revolutionary manufacturing technology," said Jeff Hawthorne. "Universal Display’s leadership in the OLED industry and its outstanding history of successfully commercializing technology innovation is remarkable. OVJP has the tremendous potential to transform OLED TV manufacturing and further enable proliferation of OLEDs in the marketplace. I look forward to contributing to UDC and the OLED industry’s next stage of growth."


----------



## dfa973

*LG Display to ship only 3.6 million units of large-sized OLED panels in 2020*

LG Display is one of the well-known OLED suppliers apart from Samsung Display. The company excels in large-sized OLED panels, however, it is expected to ship only 3.6 million units of those this year as a result of COVID-19 pandemic. The new forecast is about 1.3 million units lesser than the initial estimation of 4.9 million units.

Yesterday, at a conference (via The Elec), Choong Hoon Yi, the CEO of UBI Research broke out the news that LG Display will be shipping a lower number of large-sized OLED panels compared to the initial forecast.

Even the current number is only based on the assumption that the global TV market will recover. If the company could not operate its facility located in Guangzhou, China normally, the shipments may further decrease to 3.2 million units.

For comparison, last year, the company shipped 3.3 million large-sized OLED panels. Before the global pandemic, the South Korean analysts forecasted as high as 6 million units of shipments for 2020.

A total of 19 companies, excluding Samsung and TCL are expected to launch OLED TVs. However, the demand for OLED panels has remained small so far. LG accounted for 60% of the demand, followed by Sony at 20% and the remaining 17 companies.

https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/07/...ion-units-of-large-sized-oled-panels-in-2020/


----------



## stl8k

dfa973 said:


> *LG Display to ship only 3.6 million units of large-sized OLED panels in 2020*
> 
> LG Display is one of the well-known OLED suppliers apart from Samsung Display. The company excels in large-sized OLED panels, however, it is expected to ship only 3.6 million units of those this year as a result of COVID-19 pandemic. The new forecast is about 1.3 million units lesser than the initial estimation of 4.9 million units.
> 
> Yesterday, at a conference (via The Elec), Choong Hoon Yi, the CEO of UBI Research broke out the news that LG Display will be shipping a lower number of large-sized OLED panels compared to the initial forecast.
> 
> Even the current number is only based on the assumption that the global TV market will recover. If the company could not operate its facility located in Guangzhou, China normally, the shipments may further decrease to 3.2 million units.
> 
> For comparison, last year, the company shipped 3.3 million large-sized OLED panels. Before the global pandemic, the South Korean analysts forecasted as high as 6 million units of shipments for 2020.
> 
> A total of 19 companies, excluding Samsung and TCL are expected to launch OLED TVs. However, the demand for OLED panels has remained small so far. LG accounted for 60% of the demand, followed by Sony at 20% and the remaining 17 companies.
> 
> https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/07/...ion-units-of-large-sized-oled-panels-in-2020/


Those new numbers are staggering. Overall, were LGD to not grow units and revenues in a market that should be relatively unaffected by COVID-19 (more people working and recreating at home thus more time in front of displays), would be disappointing.


----------



## mrtickleuk

The whole world economy, and ALL markets, are massively affected by Covid. Open your eyes!


----------



## dfa973

*BOE manages to produce QLED panel with 500ppi and 114% NTSC color gamut*

*BOE is one of the largest Chinese display makers. On Friday (July 17), the company announced that they have achieved a breakthrough in QLED technology. The firm says that it has managed to produce a panel with a resolution of 500ppi and 114% NTSC color gamut.*

AMOLED (Active-Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode) displays are considered superior. It is a type of OLED panel with TFT (thin-film transistors) for better light control. This type of display is found on premium smartphones, laptops, TVs, and more.

For the past few years, display manufacturers are investing more in a new type of panel called QLED (Quantum Dot Light-Emitting Diode). A few months back, Samsung Display even officially announced to exit the LCD business by the end of 2020 to focus more on QLED. It even has plans to invest $11 billion for this tech.

When the world’s largest OLED maker is crazy towards QLED, why would other companies miss out? Hence, firms like BOE has been researching on the same.

Now, for the first time, the Chinese display maker has achieved to manufacture QLED panel with higher pixel density and color gamut. Hence, it is indeed a breakthrough for the company.

Having said that, BOE OLED panels were previously inferior to those by Samsung Display and LG Display. But the company has now caught up and even Apple is reported to use its panels for the upcoming iPhone 12 series.

https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/07/...d-panel-with-500ppi-and-114-ntsc-color-gamut/


----------



## avernar

dfa973 said:


> and 114% NTSC color gamut.


If my math is right that's 66% of Rec 2020.


----------



## stl8k

*From (Black Magic) RGBW Capture to (LGD) OLED Display*

Hey folks,

Was interesting to see that Black Magic's newest custom-engineered sensor for its 12K motion camera is RGBW:

https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2020/07/16/it-goes-to-12k/

Instinctually, I'd imagine then that such a sensor would pair really well with an RGBW display like LGD's panels. Anyone have deeper, more informed thoughts on this?


----------



## mrtickleuk

avernar said:


> If my math is right that's 66% of Rec 2020.


Thanks for the conversion. I think it's extremely odd and archaic for them to use the dead NTSC system as a reference? It must be years since the last time there was an analogue 480-line NTSC broadcast, surely? It's as bonkers as LG using "IRE" in their menus instead of %ages for 20/22 pt white balance.


----------



## avernar

mrtickleuk said:


> Thanks for the conversion. I think it's extremely odd and archaic for them to use the dead NTSC system as a reference? It must be years since the last time there was an analogue 480-line NTSC broadcast, surely? It's as bonkers as LG using "IRE" in their menus instead of %ages for 20/22 pt white balance.


Maybe because 114% sounds better than 66%?


----------



## dfa973

stl8k said:


> Instinctually, I'd imagine then that such a sensor would pair really well with an RGBW display like LGD's panels. Anyone have deeper, more informed thoughts on this?


That it will work only if you export the RAW image of that camera and use that RAW file to show it on the display - as if the display will know to interpret exactly what camera has seen. 
In practice, the camera will produce a RAW image that is in no way compatible with specific display technology, so you will still need to convert the RAW to a compatible format that the display scaler will understand.
Linking a specific camera with a specific display would be a bad move for interoperability - but it can be done, of course...


----------



## biliam1982

avernar said:


> If my math is right that's 66% of Rec 2020.



How does one calculate that?


I've never seen any calculators or anything online that shows how to convert from percentages of say Rec. 709 to DCI/P-3 or Rec. 2020. Or sRGB. Or Adobe. Etc.


----------



## avernar

biliam1982 said:


> How does one calculate that?
> 
> I've never seen any calculators or anything online that shows how to convert from percentages of say Rec. 709 to DCI/P-3 or Rec. 2020. Or sRGB. Or Adobe. Etc.


I've found some better numbers which changes things a little (I did have a disclaimer in my previous post  ). Looks like 114% of NTSC works out to 75.81% of Rec 2020, which is what the current LGs can do.

NTSC is 66.5% of Rec 2020. So adding an extra 14% to 66.5% brings it to 75.81%.

Keep in mind that no TV has ever used the NTSC colour gamut. SMPTE-C (Conrac Color Gamut) is what TVs used to use.

Using NTSC as a reference is silly now days as it doesn't completely cover the other common colour gamuts: https://www.saji8k.com/displays/color-space/ntsc-1953/. While Rec 2020 pretty much covers everything fairly closely: https://www.saji8k.com/displays/color-space/rec-2020/


----------



## stl8k

dfa973 said:


> That it will work only if you export the RAW image of that camera and use that RAW file to show it on the display - as if the display will know to interpret exactly what camera has seen.
> In practice, the camera will produce a RAW image that is in no way compatible with specific display technology, so you will still need to convert the RAW to a compatible format that the display scaler will understand.
> Linking a specific camera with a specific display would be a bad move for interoperability - but it can be done, of course...


Appreciate that background!

I would say that Apple is a pretty good example of the commercial success of deep integration across tech systems with just enough openness with a combo of APIs, tools, and specifications. Given the number of display scientists and engineers they employee, I think it's a foregone conclusion that Apple is going to try to bring that formula to imaging+display systems.


----------



## dfa973

stl8k said:


> I think it's a foregone conclusion that Apple is going to try to bring that formula to imaging+display systems.


If it makes money? Maybe.
Just for the sake of tech? No.


----------



## avernar

mrtickleuk said:


> Thanks for the conversion. I think it's extremely odd and archaic for them to use the dead NTSC system as a reference? It must be years since the last time there was an analogue 480-line NTSC broadcast, surely? It's as bonkers as LG using "IRE" in their menus instead of %ages for 20/22 pt white balance.


Here's a good article: http://www.displaymate.com/Display_Color_Gamuts_1.htm



> Manufacturers of high-tech products should be embarrassed for publishing their specifications in terms of NTSC, an obsolete 60+ year old technology! So please everyone, let’s stop referring to the very outdated NTSC and instead move on to the actual Color Gamuts that are being used in today’s displays. But before we bury it, we’re going to show you what the NTSC Color Gamut looks like in Figure 3 below together with many of the current Color Gamuts, which we’ll cover in turn below...


----------



## RWetmore

dfa973 said:


> *BOE manages to produce QLED panel with 500ppi and 114% NTSC color gamut*
> 
> *BOE is one of the largest Chinese display makers. On Friday (July 17), the company announced that they have achieved a breakthrough in QLED technology. The firm says that it has managed to produce a panel with a resolution of 500ppi and 114% NTSC color gamut.*
> 
> AMOLED (Active-Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode) displays are considered superior. It is a type of OLED panel with TFT (thin-film transistors) for better light control. This type of display is found on premium smartphones, laptops, TVs, and more.
> 
> For the past few years, display manufacturers are investing more in a new type of panel called QLED (Quantum Dot Light-Emitting Diode). A few months back, Samsung Display even officially announced to exit the LCD business by the end of 2020 to focus more on QLED. It even has plans to invest $11 billion for this tech.
> 
> When the world’s largest OLED maker is crazy towards QLED, why would other companies miss out? Hence, firms like BOE has been researching on the same.
> 
> Now, for the first time, the Chinese display maker has achieved to manufacture QLED panel with higher pixel density and color gamut. Hence, it is indeed a breakthrough for the company.
> 
> Having said that, BOE OLED panels were previously inferior to those by Samsung Display and LG Display. But the company has now caught up and even Apple is reported to use its panels for the upcoming iPhone 12 series.
> 
> https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/07/...d-panel-with-500ppi-and-114-ntsc-color-gamut/


I thought 'QLED' = Quantum Dot LED/LCD? Why would they use the same acronym Samsung used for their quantum dot LCDs?


----------



## lsorensen

RWetmore said:


> I thought 'QLED' = Quantum Dot LED/LCD? Why would they use the same acronym Samsung used for their quantum dot LCDs?


Because they used it first before Samsung's marketing morons hijacked it for a dumb use. Just like they hijacked LED in the first place to describe LCDs with LED backlighting rather than actual LED displays. Some of us will continue to call an LCD an LCD and nothing else because that is what they are.


----------



## dfa973

*World's second OLED TV factory now in 'full-scale mass production'*

*LG Display has announced that the world's second OLED TV panel factory is now running "full-scale mass production", almost doubling the production capacity of OLED TVs.*

Second OLED TV factory
Coronavirus and other factors have delayed mass production at LG Display's new factory in Guangzhou, China. The company started small-scale production of 48-inch panels this summer and at ceremony today the company announced "the beginning of mass production in earnest".

With the world's only second OLED TV panel factory up and running capacity has almost doubled from 70,000 to 130,000 8.5G sheets per month. Each sheet can be cut into smaller panels. The new factory is using a MMG (multi-model glass) method to enable production of 48-inch OLED panels for the first time.

LG Display says that consumers can expect 48- to 77-inch OLED TVs including more affordable "extra-large" OLED TVs.

- "LG Display’s Guangzhou OLED panel plant will focus on manufacturing large-size high-resolution OLED products including 48-inch, 55-inch, 65-inch, and 77-inch panels, as it boasts high efficiency and productivity, which makes it more advantageous for the production of extra-large and high value-added OLED panels," the company said.

More at https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1595497703


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> Those new numbers are staggering. Overall, were LGD to not grow units and revenues in a market that should be relatively unaffected by COVID-19 (more people working and recreating at home thus more time in front of displays), would be disappointing.


As expected, LGD did benefit from aspects of COVID like working from home, but there's clearly softness in demand for premium smartphones and TVs.



> The company generated a 12% quarter-on-quarter increase in revenue in the second quarter thanks to a surge in IT panel shipments driven by the growing trends of working-from-home and online education amid COVID-19.
> 
> LG Display recorded an operating loss of KRW 517 billion, compared with the previous quarter’s operating loss of KRW 362 billion, due to a growing burden of fixed costs resulting from adjusting panel production for TV and mobile products to respond to global uncertainty in demand in addition to the impact of weakening demand in some industries including smartphones and automobiles.
> 
> Panels for IT devices, such as tablets, notebook PCs, and desktop monitors, accounted for 52% of the revenue in the second quarter of 2020, passing the 50% mark for the first time thanks to the growing trends of working-from-home and online education. Panels for tablets and notebook PCs accounted for 29% and desktop monitors for 23% respectively, while those for mobile devices accounted for 25% and TVs for 23%.


https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1290109/000119312520197469/d944754d6k.htm


----------



## stl8k

dfa973 said:


> *World's second OLED TV factory now in 'full-scale mass production'*
> 
> *LG Display has announced that the world's second OLED TV panel factory is now running "full-scale mass production", almost doubling the production capacity of OLED TVs.*
> 
> Second OLED TV factory
> Coronavirus and other factors have delayed mass production at LG Display's new factory in Guangzhou, China. The company started small-scale production of 48-inch panels this summer and at ceremony today the company announced "the beginning of mass production in earnest".
> 
> With the world's only second OLED TV panel factory up and running capacity has almost doubled from 70,000 to 130,000 8.5G sheets per month. Each sheet can be cut into smaller panels. The new factory is using a MMG (multi-model glass) method to enable production of 48-inch OLED panels for the first time.
> 
> LG Display says that consumers can expect 48- to 77-inch OLED TVs including more affordable "extra-large" OLED TVs.
> 
> - "LG Display’s Guangzhou OLED panel plant will focus on manufacturing large-size high-resolution OLED products including 48-inch, 55-inch, 65-inch, and 77-inch panels, as it boasts high efficiency and productivity, which makes it more advantageous for the production of extra-large and high value-added OLED panels," the company said.
> 
> More at https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1595497703


Have any owners confirmed that they're getting finished TVs with panels from Guangzhou? Perhaps there's no indicator at the TV level?


----------



## dfa973

stl8k said:


> Have any owners confirmed that they're getting finished TVs with panels from Guangzhou? Perhaps there's no indicator at the TV level?


In the Service Menu, on page 13 there is a Module Info and Panel Matching fields - but only LG knows if those fields differ with the panel origin...

The most probable place of identifying the factory is trough the label on the back of the OLED panel/module, but that label is not accessible unless you remove the electronics boards.


----------



## Mr. Wonderful

dfa973 said:


> *World's second OLED TV factory now in 'full-scale mass production'
> 
> LG Display has announced that the world's second OLED TV panel factory is now running "full-scale mass production", almost doubling the production capacity of OLED TVs.*
> 
> Second OLED TV factory
> Coronavirus and other factors have delayed mass production at LG Display's new factory in Guangzhou, China. The company started small-scale production of 48-inch panels this summer and at ceremony today the company announced "the beginning of mass production in earnest".
> 
> With the world's only second OLED TV panel factory up and running capacity has almost doubled from 70,000 to 130,000 8.5G sheets per month. Each sheet can be cut into smaller panels. The new factory is using a MMG (multi-model glass) method to enable production of 48-inch OLED panels for the first time.
> 
> LG Display says that consumers can expect 48- to 77-inch OLED TVs including more affordable "extra-large" OLED TVs.
> 
> - "LG Display’s Guangzhou OLED panel plant will focus on manufacturing large-size high-resolution OLED products including 48-inch, 55-inch, 65-inch, and 77-inch panels, as it boasts high efficiency and productivity, which makes it more advantageous for the production of extra-large and high value-added OLED panels," the company said.
> 
> More at World's second OLED TV factory now in 'full-scale mass production'


Oooh. Really interested to see what this does to 77" prices.


----------



## Jin-X

I'm not sure why some didn't expect Covid to impact Oled sales. Economic impact is drastic and far reaching, just because one fortunate to not lose their job doesn't mean you went unscathed. Some had to take cuts, or delay raises; and even if you were 100% not impacted, there is still the uncertainty that the economic outlook creates for one's job security. Oled is 100% a luxury purchase of zero need, these are the kinds of things that people delay on purchasing as for many it's time to be thriftier and save some cash. These lower sales could go both ways in terms of impact on tv prices for this year.


----------



## stl8k

Anecdotally, I see strong interest in TVs in the US. Consider the US College Football season ticket holder (season starts in 1 month) that may only be able to attend say 1/3 of the games that they would in an otherwise normal season. For 2 tickets per household, that may represent $1K in savings on tickets. That's goes a long way towards upgrading the experience of the TV whose watching is the substitute for attending.

Also, in the US, home refinancing is saving people more money every month.

And, did you see Apple's latest quarterly results?!

Finally, of all of the industries that should do well in a pandemic or in post-pandemic recovery times, imaging and displays are among the top.

Catch me in +6 months and I may have a different perspective, especially in the US where in some geo's we're not controlling the viral spread well.


----------



## stl8k

I noticed that the MediaTek S900, announced around this time last year, is starting to appear in real products. Here's its decode support:

HEVC: [email protected]
VP9: [email protected]
H.264: [email protected]
AV1: [email protected]
AVS2: [email protected]






S900 (MT9950)







www.mediatek.com





One OLED TV company using it is Skyworth with its recently announced S81 Pro. If anyone sees a quality review of this set regardless of language, drop a link here—my searches tend to be YouTube and Google (US) only.






SKYWORTH S81 Pro｜240HZ自发光电视


SKYWORTH S81 Pro是240HZ自发光OLED电视，具有3D LUT电影原彩显示技术和效果，拥有DASS杜比全景声音响系统、CSO屏幕声场音画合一。




www.skyworth.net


----------



## spintronics

Folks, just to reconfirm if the panel in LG CX series has been redesigned compared to its predecessors and hence, less susceptible to burn-ins? Read somewhere that the panel design for C7-9 is similar.


----------



## dfa973

spintronics said:


> ...if the panel in LG CX series has been redesigned ....


We have no proof of a *redesign*, just some tweaks here and there, also we have no proof that the 2020 panels are less susceptible to Burn-In. The panel stack is apparently unchanged, and also apparently, the DCI-P3 and Rec.2020 gamuts were not changed.
The 2017-2019 panel _evolution_ probably was larger than the 2019-2020 panel _evolution_.


----------



## dfa973

*BOE details its 55" 8K inkjet-printed OLED TV prototype*

In December 2019 BOE unveiled a 55" 8K (160 PPI) OLED TV prototype produced by inkjet printing. The panel achieves a maximum brightness of 400 nits and a color gamut of 95% DCI-P3.

At SID Displayweek 2020, the company demonstrated this display and gave more details regarding its production process and display structure.

BOE says that this 8K display is produced on a coplanar Oxide TFT backplane, with a top-emissive structure. The backplane, based on 8.5-Gen glasses (which are cut to 6 pieces for the inkjet process), uses a 1G1D structure and is capable of driving the display at 120Hz.

More at BOE details its 55" 8K inkjet-printed OLED TV prototype | OLED-Info


----------



## boe

dfa973 said:


> *BOE details its 55" 8K inkjet-printed OLED TV prototype*
> 
> In December 2019 BOE unveiled a 55" 8K (160 PPI) OLED TV prototype produced by inkjet printing. The panel achieves a maximum brightness of 400 nits and a color gamut of 95% DCI-P3.


Sorry for my ignorance but isn't 400 nits very low for a large display?


----------



## lsorensen

boe said:


> Sorry for my ignorance but isn't 400 nits very low for a large display?


It is a measure of light per area. So a larger screen gives of more light total, but the brightness for a given area is the same.


----------



## mch11

Xiaomi just announced a 55” Transparent OLED. It appears to be called the MI TV LUX and is priced at the equivalent of $7200 USD with orders beginning August 16th. (I’ll let those more knowledgeable than me dive into the details...)


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1293184765344899080
press release






Turning moment for TV industry: Xiaomi Unveils Mi TV LUX OLED Transparent Edition – Mi Blog







blog.mi.com


----------



## Kamus

stl8k said:


> I noticed that the MediaTek S900, announced around this time last year, is starting to appear in real products. Here's its decode support:
> 
> HEVC: [email protected]
> VP9: [email protected]
> H.264: [email protected]
> AV1: [email protected]
> AVS2: [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S900 (MT9950)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediatek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One OLED TV company using it is Skyworth with its recently announced S81 Pro. If anyone sees a quality review of this set regardless of language, drop a link here—my searches tend to be YouTube and Google (US) only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SKYWORTH S81 Pro｜240HZ自发光电视
> 
> 
> SKYWORTH S81 Pro是240HZ自发光OLED电视，具有3D LUT电影原彩显示技术和效果，拥有DASS杜比全景声音响系统、CSO屏幕声场音画合一。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.skyworth.net



240Hz HDMI 2.1? What panel are they using? If it's an LG panel, this would confirm that these panels can in fact do 240hz.

If this has VRR support, I'd probably want one if latency, and PQ are comparable to an LG OLED.


----------



## Rysa_105

The recently announced Xiaomi transparent OLED tv that is about to launch in china has something that caught my eye, it is claimed to have a top emission oled panel that allows for a larger aperture ratio than bottom emission panels like LGD's WRGB. I know a couple of people on an asian forum who are ordering this, I was curious when I would see it in my country, and my dealer has said Xiaomi has plans to launch in other asian countries in a few months, but there is no date or price.Though one area of doubt I have is that Xiaomi can't match the japanese established brands in picture processing. Also, looking at the renminbi price at which some people are pre ordering, this is going to be one very expensive tv.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Rysa_105 said:


> Also, looking at the renminbi price at which some people are pre ordering, this is going to be one very *expensive tv.*


From the article.
"*Not a TV,* but an *art piece*"


----------



## frisbfreek

Rysa_105 said:


> The recently announced Xiaomi transparent OLED tv that is about to launch in china has something that caught my eye, it is claimed to have a top emission oled panel that allows for a larger aperture ratio than bottom emission panels like LGD's WRGB. I know a couple of people on an asian forum who are ordering this, I was curious when I would see it in my country, and my dealer has said Xiaomi has plans to launch in other asian countries in a few months, but there is no date or price.Though one area of doubt I have is that Xiaomi can't match the japanese established brands in picture processing. Also, looking at the renminbi price at which some people are pre ordering, this is going to be one very expensive tv.


Unless a transparent “TV” can also make an opaque black “pixel”, it will be a hard pass.


----------



## mrtickleuk

frisbfreek said:


> Unless a transparent “TV” can also make an opaque black “pixel”, it will be a hard pass.


A transparent OLED would have worse blacks than a transparent LCD, so finally an LCD beats an OLED at blacks!  (Yes I know there's no such thing)


----------



## avernar

frisbfreek said:


> Unless a transparent “TV” can also make an opaque black “pixel”, it will be a hard pass.


Paint wall black. Mount transparent TV on wall. I don't see a problem.


----------



## Rysa_105

frisbfreek said:


> Unless a transparent “TV” can also make an opaque black “pixel”, it will be a hard pass.


They are claiming in the spec an infinite dynamic contrast ratio, how would that be possible if they couldn't keep pixels black? If you remember, LG at last year's CES showcased a transparent oled (still in prototype stage) and they also claimed infinite contrast with it. From the lone account of the Mi oled i can find so far, it says the contrast looked much better than the Mi LCD's that were being showcased alongside it at an event hosted by Mi. I'm more interested in what top emission does to peak brightness of the panel and burn in resistance/panel ageing compared to LGD's wrgb. I'm doubtful of Mi's processing , dont think they are on the level of japanese companies, but certainly among the chinese brands sold here, they are considered one of the better ones. Mi cellphones are very popular in many asian countries, so i do see them introducing this oled in some months after they are done with china.


----------



## dvrw3

Rysa_105 said:


> I'm more interested in what top emission




where did you see this information? I searched and found nothing on this screen to use this.


----------



## 8mile13

''Samsung Display has started to promote QD-OLED panels to global TV producers. It has recently supplied prototypes of QD-OLED TVs to Samsung Electronics' TV division, Sony, and Panasonic, according to market research firm Omdia. On the premise that there will be a company that will accept Samsung Display's offer, Omdia predicted that mass-production of QD-OLED panels could start as early as the third quarter of 2021.''

''However, it is uncertain whether Samsung Electronics, which is at the top of the potential customer list, will adopt QD-OLED panels as the global TV giant is considering promoting mini-LED TVs as a major new product for 2021. "Samsung Electronics has already decided on a TV lineup that it will release next year," an industry analyst said. "If Samsung Electronics decides to adopt QD-OLED panels, it will be able to release QD-OLED TVs in 2022 at the earliest, I think."''









Samsung Electronics, Sony and Panasonic Reviewing Samsung Display's QD-OLED TV Prototypes


Samsung Display has started to promote QD-OLED panels to global TV producers. It has recently supplied prototypes of QD-OLED TVs to Samsung Electronics' TV division, Sony, and Panasonic, according to market research firm Omdia. On the premise that there will be a company that will accept Samsung




www.businesskorea.co.kr


----------



## wco81

I hope they get takers. Samsung TV is no-go unless they support Dolby Vision.


----------



## bobbyg53

*Samsung starts to ship QD-OLED TV prototypes to potential customers, including Sony*

“According to DSCC, Samsung's QD-OLEDs will offer several advantages compared to LG's current WRGB (four subpixels + color filters) system. Samsung will be able to use three sub pixels and only two emitting layers (LGD uses four), and so its stack will include 13 layers compared to 22 layers in LGD's TVs - which means fewer deposition stages, improved yields and lower material costs.”





Samsung starts to ship QD-OLED TV prototypes to potential customers, may produce QD-OLED gaming monitors | OLED Info


According to Omdia, Samsung Display has started to provide QD-OLED TV prototypes to potential customers - including Samsung Electronics, Sony and Panasonic. Samsung Display is on track to start mass production in Q3 2021.Interestingly, Samsung Electronics is still not sure whether it will adopt...




www.oled-info.com


----------



## jrref

bobbyg53 said:


> *Samsung starts to ship QD-OLED TV prototypes to potential customers, including Sony*
> 
> “According to DSCC, Samsung's QD-OLEDs will offer several advantages compared to LG's current WRGB (four subpixels + color filters) system. Samsung will be able to use three sub pixels and only two emitting layers (LGD uses four), and so its stack will include 13 layers compared to 22 layers in LGD's TVs - which means fewer deposition stages, improved yields and lower material costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung starts to ship QD-OLED TV prototypes to potential customers, may produce QD-OLED gaming monitors | OLED Info
> 
> 
> According to Omdia, Samsung Display has started to provide QD-OLED TV prototypes to potential customers - including Samsung Electronics, Sony and Panasonic. Samsung Display is on track to start mass production in Q3 2021.Interestingly, Samsung Electronics is still not sure whether it will adopt...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-info.com


Interesting but it's Samsung, ugh!


----------



## D-Nice

jrref said:


> Interesting but it's Samsung, ugh!


It’s Samsung Display, not Samsung Electronics so calibration issues inherent with Samsung Electronic’s TV’s have no bearing on OEM display modules from Samsung Display. No different than LGE and LGD.


Competition in the Consumer OLED market is very much welcomed.


----------



## jrref

D-Nice said:


> It’s Samsung Display, not Samsung Electronics so calibration issues inherent with Samsung Electronic’s TV’s have no bearing on OEM display modules from Samsung Display. No different than LGE and LGD.
> 
> 
> Competition in the Consumer OLED market is very much welcomed.


Yep agreed. We will have to see how they look when they are released. I'm just not happy with the PQ of the new Samsungs. It's much better than previous years though which is a good sign.


----------



## Jin-X

I take it that if Samsung Displays is able to ship them on Q3 2021, as stated in the article, then the first tvs will be at CES 2022 and releasing March/April 2022. Maybe this spurs LG to apply that new subpixel (I think I'm getting the exact term wrong here) that they backed off of with the issues at the China plant to expand the color gamut, and maybe top emission to boost efficiency and thus color volume/peak brightness. That should keep them ahead of any theoretical performance of these new displays, plus they will definitely have their own issues, even more on first gen tech.


----------



## rmongiovi

Rysa_105 said:


> They are claiming in the spec an infinite dynamic contrast ratio, how would that be possible if they couldn't keep pixels black?


That's what the black sub-pixel is for. It's a blacklight.


----------



## mrtickleuk

rmongiovi said:


> That's what the black sub-pixel is for. It's a blacklight.



Black is the *absence *of light.


----------



## Rysa_105

rmongiovi said:


> That's what the black sub-pixel is for. It's a blacklight.


Black subpixel? There is no black subpixel. Oleds being self emissive can independently switch pixels on and off. To generate black, oleds switch off the pixels i.e. the pixels stop emitting any light. Something as basic as this shouldn't need an explanation.


----------



## Jobastion

Rysa_105 said:


> Black subpixel? There is no black subpixel. Oleds being self emissive can independently switch pixels on and off. To generate black, oleds switch off the pixels i.e. the pixels stop emitting any light. Something as basic as this shouldn't need an explanation.


Whoosh? I'm not 100 percent certain, but I believe that was a joke. Blacklight, instead of backlight.


----------



## rmongiovi

Thank you. What is it they say? If you have to explain the joke you've already failed?


----------



## Rysa_105

Jin-X said:


> I take it that if Samsung Displays is able to ship them on Q3 2021, as stated in the article, then the first tvs will be at CES 2022 and releasing March/April 2022. Maybe this spurs *LG to apply that new subpixel* (I think I'm getting the exact term wrong here) that they backed off of with the issues at the China plant to expand the color gamut, and maybe top emission to boost efficiency and thus color volume/peak brightness. That should keep them ahead of any theoretical performance of these new displays, plus they will definitely have their own issues, even more on first gen tech.


Are you talking of using the TADF emitter?


----------



## Jin-X

Rysa_105 said:


> Are you talking of using the TADF emitter?


Don't think that had to do with a new emitter, it was just a new subpixel stack that would have expanded color gamut that didn't make it to this year's model.


----------



## rmongiovi

Cameras record RGB. Digital media records YCbCr. The conversion from RGB to TCbCr and back is governed by mathematics based on those three primary colors and the white point. Screen manufacturers have historically been unable to do that translation accurately even when the subpixels in the camera and the subpixels in the display mapped one-to-one. It's really unclear to me how they expect to be able to support any sort of fidelity if they're making up new subpixels. An expanded gamut isn't worth anything unless the camera actually supports it and the human eye can interpret it without metamerism errors. This is just like the total harmonic distortion battles in audio. If it doesn't translate into a more accurate representation of the actual recorded image then it's worthless.


----------



## Jin-X

This the WOLED stack there was hope would be for the X series to boost color gamut, going by oled-info it was being used in the Chinese plant but that plant had tons of delays so I wasn't surprised it was scrapped for this year. Hopefully 2021 panels have it, don't think we have heard anything on the TADF Blue emitter. But maybe Samsung QD-OLED panels possibly being ready for 2022 tvs gives them the push they need to implement some of the tech they seem to be holding back in pursuit of lower costs, such as top emission. Though I expect those Samsung panels to have plenty of their own shortcomings/issues being new tech.


----------



## stl8k

Jin-X said:


> This the WOLED stack there was hope would be for the X series to boost color gamut, going by oled-info it was being used in the Chinese plant but that plant had tons of delays so I wasn't surprised it was scrapped for this year. Hopefully 2021 panels have it, don't think we have heard anything on the TADF Blue emitter. But maybe Samsung QD-OLED panels possibly being ready for 2022 tvs gives them the push they need to implement some of the tech they seem to be holding back in pursuit of lower costs, such as top emission. Though I expect those Samsung panels to have plenty of their own shortcomings/issues being new tech.


This Olednet.com story has the details of what they expected:









프리미엄 TV 시장에서 경쟁하기 위한 white OLED TV의 향후 변화는? | OLEDNET


현재 프리미엄 TV 시장을 주도하고 있는 OLED TV는 엘지 디스플레이의 white OLED로 제작된다. 프리미엄 TV 시장을 양분하고 있는 QLED TV 뿐만 아니라 미래의 경쟁 제품으로 언급되는 QD-OLED TV와 QNED TV와의 경쟁을 위한 white OLED의 변화가 관측되고 있다.




olednet.com





I wonder if this represented that extra capacity that LGD always discussed for Guangzhou (OLED) that would come online at later date?

I've talked about this before but LG Display's OLED TV panel product line has become really diverse and it's going to complicate (i.e. slow down) the pace at which they are able to diffuse innovations, especially those that require significant manufacturing changes like the above. A hedge on this is to only diffuse the innovations to the portion of the TV panel product lines where that market cares deeply about the innovation (e.g. gaming). Lots of companies diffuse innovations from the high-end down over time, but the recent history of OLED is one where the high-end is priced so high initially that the _learning_ at meaningful scale doesn't happen.


----------



## Jin-X

stl8k said:


> This Olednet.com story has the details of what they expected:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 프리미엄 TV 시장에서 경쟁하기 위한 white OLED TV의 향후 변화는? | OLEDNET
> 
> 
> 현재 프리미엄 TV 시장을 주도하고 있는 OLED TV는 엘지 디스플레이의 white OLED로 제작된다. 프리미엄 TV 시장을 양분하고 있는 QLED TV 뿐만 아니라 미래의 경쟁 제품으로 언급되는 QD-OLED TV와 QNED TV와의 경쟁을 위한 white OLED의 변화가 관측되고 있다.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> olednet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if this represented that extra capacity that LGD always discussed for Guangzhou (OLED) that would come online at later date?
> 
> I've talked about this before but LG Display's OLED TV panel product line has become really diverse and it's going to complicate (i.e. slow down) the pace at which they are able to diffuse innovations, especially those that require significant manufacturing changes like the above. A hedge on this is to only diffuse the innovations to the portion of the TV panel product lines where that market cares deeply about the innovation (e.g. gaming). Lots of companies diffuse innovations from the high-end down over time, but the recent history of OLED is one where the high-end is priced so high initially that the _learning_ at meaningful scale doesn't happen.


Here it is through google translate:

_OLED TVs that are currently leading the premium TV market are manufactured with LG Display's white OLED. Not only QLED TVs that are dividing the premium TV market, but also the changes in white OLED to compete with QD-OLED TVs and QNED TVs, which are mentioned as future competitors, are being observed.

The first and most probable change is the use of green devices instead of yellow-green devices currently used in light emitting layers. The yellow-green light emitting layer has a good lifespan, but it needs to be replaced with a green light emitting layer in order to increase the color reproduction rate.

Initially, LG Display planned to mass-produce white OLED with green emission layer applied at its Guangzhou plant, but due to process issues, it plans to use the existing yellow-green emission layer. Currently, LG Display is continuously developing white OLED with a green light emitting layer, and plans to launch it in the TV market within this year or in the near future.

It is also expected to change from the current back light emission method to the top light emission method. In the rear light emission method, where light generated from the organic light emitting layer is emitted in the direction of the substrate TFT and the substrate, the TFT element blocks the light, resulting in loss of luminance. Existing large-area OLEDs have not been a big problem because the light emitting area of the pixels itself is wide even when the TFT blocks some light, but the need for a front light emitting structure has been raised as the resolution gradually increases. In addition, if a QD-OLED of a front-emitting method or a QNED manufactured with a high-brightness LED is developed and released into the TV market, competition for specifications such as brightness becomes inevitable, so the development of a front-emitting structure is essential. In order to develop a top emission structure, various changes in materials and processes are required, such as micro-cavity design of the organic emission layer, development of transparent encapsulant, and color filter process change. It is expected that the development of a light emitting structure is sufficiently possible. In the future, attention is paid to future OLED TVs that will improve performance such as color gamut and luminance._


----------



## wco81

We've been waiting for top emission for how many years now?


----------



## avernar

.


----------



## fafrd

Good summary: QD-OLED Production to Start without Endorsement of Samsung Visual


----------



## Rysa_105

Jin-X said:


> This the WOLED stack there was hope would be for the X series to boost color gamut, going by oled-info it was being used in the Chinese plant but that plant had tons of delays so I wasn't surprised it was scrapped for this year. Hopefully 2021 panels have it, don't think we have heard anything on the TADF Blue emitter. But maybe Samsung QD-OLED panels possibly being ready for 2022 tvs gives them the push they need to implement some of the tech they seem to be holding back in pursuit of lower costs, such as top emission. Though I expect those Samsung panels to have plenty of their own shortcomings/issues being new tech.


Oh you are referring to the Y/G to G stack change that would bring some improvement to the color gamut, that was rumored once to happen on 2020 panels but did not, don't think it'll happen next year either. And TADF emitter or top emission oled may have been dropped by LGD for now, they were able to make their 8K model work without top emission. If QD-OLED materializes and starts doing well, we may see LGD getting more innovative and trying some new things.


----------



## Jin-X

Rysa_105 said:


> Oh you are referring to the Y/G to G stack change that would bring some improvement to the color gamut, that was rumored once to happen on 2020 panels but did not, don't think it'll happen next year either. And TADF emitter or top emission oled may have been dropped by LGD for now, they were able to make their 8K model work without top emission. If QD-OLED materializes and starts doing well, we may see LGD getting more innovative and trying some new things.


Correct, top emission was due to 8k and they found a more cost effective solution for that, so no one should stay waiting for that. At least the Y/G to G change was something they were trying to put in the new plant last year. Color volume and peak luminance improvements due to the new blue emitter and top emission will probably depend on what Samsung does with it's QD-OLED. And even if they implement those things there is no guarantee it will be to improve PQ, they may just bake that in to advertise they are even more burn in resistance than before (a mistake in my opinion, because no matter what they do the burn in meme will persist) and lower power usage.


----------



## ALMA

TCL begin selling inkjet printed QDOLED TVs late this year. Panel suppliers are JOLED (confirmed by TCL) and likely Samsung Display (for next year):



> I had a telephone interview with Marek Maciejewski, *TCL Product Development Director for Europe. Maciejewski revealed that TCL will begin selling quantum-dot OLED (QDOLED) TVs made with inkjet printing (IJP) late this year, and that prototypes are available now.* TCL is not the only company that will introduce QDOLED TVs within the next year but, to my knowledge, is the only one to have announced it publicly. That TCL will use IJP came as a surprise to me.





> *Maciejewski said that JOLED will be one of TCL's panel suppliers, and that there will be more than one. Of course, when we think of QDOLED panels we think of Samsung Display Company (SDC). Samsung has been using evaporation to put down its three layers of unpatterned blue OLED. I will guess -- and it is a guess -- that TCL will be using IJP to put down an unpatterned blue layer.* Samsung has been using IJP to fabricate its quantum-dot color converter, so it could presumably use the technology for the blue layer given sufficient development time. But TCL did not identify its supplier(s), other than JOLED.


https://www.displayd...qdoled-tvs-this-year

More about the collaboration between TCL and JOLED:









TCL and JOLED Connect to Make IJP OLED TV Panels


TCL's CSoT and JOLED formed an alliance to "start joint-development of large-sized OLEDs for TV", printed with RGB pixels. CSoT has a Gen 6 OLED fab in Wuhan for small/medium displays and has prototyped printed OLED TV panels in the past.




www.displaydaily.com


----------



## helvetica bold

Is it safe to say there won’t be significant changes to OLED technology in 2021 but definitely in 2022? All manufacturers should have at least HDMI 2.1 implemented next year. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jin-X

helvetica bold said:


> Is it safe to say there won’t be significant changes to OLED technology in 2021 but definitely in 2022? All manufacturers should have at least HDMI 2.1 implemented next year.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


HDMI 2.1 should be about the only thing to expect, anything else is unknown unless someone in the know let's us know and that's unlikely. LGD seems focused on driving down costs and increasing capacity recently, they also didn't need top emission for their 8ks so no reason to expect that. Competition from Samsung is likely the best bet to force some not minor panel tech improvements.


----------



## Rysa_105

I hope that VVC makes it to next year's high end sets.



> The Fraunhofer Heinrich Hertz Institute, the electrical engineering and computer science division of the esteemed German research organization, on Tuesday announced VVC, a new video codec standard that promises to bring around 50 percent efficiency gains in streaming video compression.
> The codec’s full name is H.266/Versatile Video Coding, as Fraunhofer says it’s designed to be a successor to the industry-standard H.264/Advanced Video Coding (AVC) and H.265/High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) formats that combined make up about 90 percent of global digital video transmission and compression on the market today. While HEVC was first released in 2013, the codec has proved controversial due to aggressive patent disputes from its various stakeholders. That's why AVC, the predecessor to HEVC, still remains the more dominant standard, despite first releasing back in 2003.
> But Fraunhofer says VVC could be a path forward for the industry, as almost every major hardware and software company is currently tied up in a messy patent royalty system that dictates how much various stakeholders must pay to use different compression and transmission standards for devices, websites, and apps. With VVC, Fraunhofer says you can get something far better than AVC and HEVC without any of the licensing headaches.
> 
> “Through a reduction of data requirements, H.266/VVC makes video transmission in mobile networks (where data capacity is limited) more efficient. For instance, the previous standard H.265/HEVC requires 10 gigabytes of data to transmit a 90-min UHD video,” reads Fraunhofer’s press release. “With this new technology, only 5 gigabytes of data are required to achieve the same quality. Because H.266/VVC was developed with ultra-high-resolution video content in mind, the new standard is particularly beneficial when streaming 4K or 8K videos on a flat screen TV. Furthermore, H.266/VVC is ideal for all types of moving images: from high-resolution 360° video panoramas to screen sharing contents.”
> 
> Fraunhofer’s parent organization — the Fraunhofer Society, which is comprised of many smaller institutes like Fraunhofer HHI and others — is best known in the world of digital media standards as the creator of the MP3. It also contributed heavily to the creation of H.264 and H.265. So the research organization certainty has a storied and successful history working in data compression. But Fraunhofer does not mention in its press release the existence of AV1, an open-source and royalty-free competitor to the HEVC standard created by the Open Media Alliance, which includes all five major US tech giants after Apple signed on in early 2018. AV1 and its predecessor, VP9, are integral for streaming 4K content from platforms like YouTube, so it’s likely these standards will continue to compete for years to come.
> It’s not clear to what extent AV1, AVC, HEVC, and VVC will all coexist in the future, but Fraunhofer claims the Media Coding Industry Forum — the industry consortium to which it belongs alongside Apple, Sony, and others — is currently working toward chip designs to support VVC at the hardware level. “This autumn Fraunhofer HHI will publish the first software (for both encoder and decoder) to support H.266/VVC,” Thomas Schierl, head of the Video Coding and Analytics department at Fraunhofer HHI, said in a statement.











Fraunhofer’s new H.266 codec promises to cut the cost of streaming 4K video in half


Fraunhofer says VVC is a much more efficient successor to H.265/HEVC.




www.theverge.com


----------



## 8mile13

jin-X said:


> Correct, top emission was due to 8k and they found a more cost effective solution for that, so no one should stay waiting for that. At least the Y/G to G change was something they were trying to put in the new plant last year. Color volume and peak luminance improvements due to the new blue emitter and top emission will probably depend on what Samsung does with it's QD-OLED. And even if they implement those things there is no guarantee it will be to improve PQ, they may just bake that in to advertise they are even more burn in resistance than before (a mistake in my opinion, because no matter what they do the burn in meme will persist) and lower power usage.


Are you saying this info is outdated?

may 04 2020 OLED association:
''Another issue is when to adopt a top emission OLED structure, which would be a step toward G10.5, facilitating the production of 8K panels and competing with Samsung’s top emission QD-OLED in 2021''








LGD Stuck with Falling OLED TV Demand and a Cash Flow Crunch _5/4/20


LGD Stuck with Falling OLED TV Demand and a Cash Flow Crunch May 04, 2020 LGD’s intended business model—using cashflow generated with LCD to grow the OLED business—has not materialized, and...



www.oled-a.org


----------



## frisbfreek

Rysa_105 said:


> I hope that VVC makes it to next year's high end sets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraunhofer’s new H.266 codec promises to cut the cost of streaming 4K video in half
> 
> 
> Fraunhofer says VVC is a much more efficient successor to H.265/HEVC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theverge.com


Given the slow adoption of H.265/HEVC, I highly doubt H.266/VVC will be widely supported in the next 2 years. Wider adoption of AV1 will likely be first.


----------



## Jin-X

8mile13 said:


> Are you saying this info is outdated?
> 
> may 04 2020 OLED association:
> ''Another issue is when to adopt a top emission OLED structure, which would be a step toward G10.5, facilitating the production of 8K panels and competing with Samsung’s top emission QD-OLED in 2021''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LGD Stuck with Falling OLED TV Demand and a Cash Flow Crunch _5/4/20
> 
> 
> LGD Stuck with Falling OLED TV Demand and a Cash Flow Crunch May 04, 2020 LGD’s intended business model—using cashflow generated with LCD to grow the OLED business—has not materialized, and...
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-a.org


LGD's 10.5G plant has been delayed several times, now it's 2025 at the earliest.

LG Display delays its P10 10.5-Gen OLED TV fab to 2025 | OLED-Info


----------



## 8mile13

Jin-X said:


> LGD's 10.5G plant has been delayed several times, now it's 2025 at the earliest.
> 
> LG Display delays its P10 10.5-Gen OLED TV fab to 2025 | OLED-Info


Looks like the Samsung OLED launch will be in 2022 and will use top emission from the get-go. LG will likely react by starting using top emission themself 2022/2023..


----------



## Jin-X

8mile13 said:


> Looks like the Samsung OLED launch will be in 2022 and will use top emission from the get-go. LG will likely react by starting using top emission themself 2022/2023..


Hoping someone else can chime in here, but I believe they are using top emission because they need to compensate for the brightness loss from all the layers their panel has, something in the way their panel works means they lose more luminance than WOLED before the image is displayed, so they have to incur the higher cost of top emission to compensate for it. So we can't assume LG will switch to this, but just having a competitor means we have a better chance at seeing new technologies deployed to improve the panel.


----------



## wco81

frisbfreek said:


> Given the slow adoption of H.265/HEVC, I highly doubt H.266/VVC will be widely supported in the next 2 years. Wider adoption of AV1 will likely be first.


You would think over time, the processors they use are more and more powerful. More power is needed for these more advanced codecs.

Also more power means better motion processing and better implementation of HDMI 2.1. In general, you'd hope for more refined, efficient, reliable implementations, since they've shipped 2 generations of HDMI 2.1.


----------



## 8mile13

Jin-X said:


> Hoping someone else can chime in here, but I believe they are using top emission because they need to compensate for the brightness loss from all the layers their panel has, something in the way their panel works means they lose more luminance than WOLED before the image is displayed, so they have to incur the higher cost of top emission to compensate for it. So we can't assume LG will switch to this, but just having a competitor means we have a better chance at seeing new technologies deployed to improve the panel.


yes. Lets hope Samsung and LG will get into a OLED fight...


----------



## TitusTroy

Vincent of HDTVTest did a recent video on MicroLED...basically anyone waiting on this is going to be waiting a long time...

*Revealing Brutal Truth about MicroLED*


----------



## mrtickleuk

TitusTroy said:


> Vincent of HDTVTest did a recent video on MicroLED...basically anyone waiting on this is going to be waiting a long time...


When he got to the bit where he said "you can buy them for $200,000 from Samsung" I was shouting "Yes 200K, and even for all that money it *still *doesn't do Dolby Vision"


----------



## helvetica bold

Samsung OLED Panels next year for TCL TVs?


----------



## 8mile13

There is a two weeks old C|NET article on the subject in which Jason Hartlove states ''We've worked closely with a number of development partners on implementations for both LCD and OLED technologies and expect to see the first QDCC product launches over the next 12-18 months." 



















Samsung's QD-OLED TV might be here very soon. Here's everything we know


Samsung's rumored OLED TV with quantum dots could be coming as soon as 2022, and the new technology is set to challenge the best from rival LG.




www.cnet.com


----------



## Upandown

Hey guys, can anyone tell me how to decipher the serial number on my C9 panel replacement? So I can know which panel it is and any other info. Thanks.


----------



## Rysa_105




----------



## Thebarnman

I'm referring to the image above my post. It does not matter to me that the power consumption is "Worse" and the cost competitiveness is "Worse." What matters most to me is performance.


----------



## Fjodor2000

So vastly superior QD-OLED products on the market in 12-18 months from competitors, according to the article. What will be LG’s counter move?

Currently LG is the undisputed market leader for high quality TVs. They have not improved much in the last ~3 years though. And no major improvements in the near time have been announced.

So has LG become lazy and are going to let themselves be run over in the next 1-2 years?


----------



## circumstances

Fjodor2000 said:


> So vastly superior QD-OLED products on the market in 12-18 months from competitors, according to the article. What will be LG’s counter move?
> 
> Currently LG is the undisputed market leader for high quality TVs. They have not improved much in the last ~3 years though. And no major improvements in the near time have been announced.
> 
> So has LG become lazy and are going to let themselves be run over in the next 1-2 years?


I'd much rather buy Sony. But I will be looking closely at the Samsung QD-OLED's when they are released.


----------



## wco81

Still no Dolby Vision on Samsung?


----------



## Thebarnman

Sony might soon be using QD-OLED displays (from Samsung) towards the end of 3rd quarter 2021 if their tests with the newer panels go well in this next few months. However, that will only be temporary till QNED comes along.


----------



## circumstances

Thebarnman said:


> Sony might soon be using QD-OLED displays (from Samsung) towards the end of 3rd quarter 2021 if their tests with the newer panels go well in this next few months. However, that will only be temporary till QNED comes along.


Speaking of QNED, are there shenanigans afoot?


----------



## Thebarnman

circumstances said:


> Speaking of QNED, are there shenanigans afoot?


Not to worry since the legs on these latest TVs don't spread apart.


----------



## lsorensen

Fjodor2000 said:


> So vastly superior QD-OLED products on the market in 12-18 months from competitors, according to the article. What will be LG’s counter move?
> 
> Currently LG is the undisputed market leader for high quality TVs. They have not improved much in the last ~3 years though. And no major improvements in the near time have been announced.
> 
> So has LG become lazy and are going to let themselves be run over in the next 1-2 years?


Until we see them, we won't know if they are in fact going to be superior.
As for LG, well they have at least 10 times the production capacity then Samsung (as far as I have understood it), and a mature product. I would not be surprised if LG does have some improvements in the works, but have been holding off on them and instead just focused on trying to make the production stable and reliable with the current design and increasing volumes.
But we will see. Some competition would certainly be nice to make sure LG does keep up on the improvements.


----------



## Fjodor2000

lsorensen said:


> Until we see them, we won't know if they are in fact going to be superior.


True. But based on the specs posted, QD-OLED should be superior, no?


lsorensen said:


> As for LG, well they have at least 10 times the production capacity then Samsung (as far as I have understood it), and a mature product.


Yes, but OLED is becoming mainstream. If QD-OLED has superior quality, it should be able to grab the high-end segment of the market initially, and then continue to grow.



lsorensen said:


> I would not be surprised if LG does have some improvements in the works, but have been holding off on them and instead just focused on trying to make the production stable and reliable with the current design and increasing volumes.
> But we will see. Some competition would certainly be nice to make sure LG does keep up on the improvements.


So LG is like Intel was for CPUs some years ago before AMD did a come-back? LG is becoming lazy, and might be run over by e.g. Samsung QD-OLED. And LG will then be sorry they were only doing incremental upgrades of OLED for several years in a row?


----------



## Thebarnman

Fjodor2000 said:


> True. But based on the specs posted, QD-OLED should be superior, no?
> 
> Yes, but OLED is becoming mainstream. If QD-OLED has superior quality, it should be able to grab the high-end segment of the market initially, and then continue to grow.
> 
> So LG is like Intel was for CPUs some years ago before AMD did a come-back? LG is becoming lazy, and might be run over by e.g. Samsung QD-OLED. And LG will then be sorry they were only doing incremental upgrades of OLED for several years in a row?


The reported specs on QD-OLED is higher brightness and higher color gamut. But, that will only be around for a short time before the new QNED arrives. QNED will be using inorganic materials so their blue Gallium Nitride based Nano Rod LEDs will be very stable, have a longer lifetime than regular blue Organic Light-Emitting Diodes, be more efficient in terms of energy conversion and therefore can even be brighter, be less susceptible to burn-in (meaning it probably gets less hot) and have a longer lifetime.

If I can be so bold to make a prediction here; unless there's a huge advancement in the way MircoLED and Sony's Crystal Display are manufactured, QNED will be the technology that will send MicroLED and Sony's Crystal Display into agent history territory. QNED may not be able to be as bright as MicroLED or Crystal Display, but it will be bright enough for most applications.


----------



## lsorensen

Fjodor2000 said:


> True. But based on the specs posted, QD-OLED should be superior, no?
> 
> Yes, but OLED is becoming mainstream. If QD-OLED has superior quality, it should be able to grab the high-end segment of the market initially, and then continue to grow.
> 
> So LG is like Intel was for CPUs some years ago before AMD did a come-back? LG is becoming lazy, and might be run over by e.g. Samsung QD-OLED. And LG will then be sorry they were only doing incremental upgrades of OLED for several years in a row?


Well we can only guess. LG might be behaving like intel.
As for Samsung, they have a history of promising everything and delivering a lot less than they promise. Time will tell I suppose.


----------



## Fjodor2000

Well, Samsung is losing market share since they're behind in the technology race for TV picture quality, so for them sitting back and relaxing does not work.

And since they're successfully present in a lot of other technology areas, they make a huge profit company-wide. So they've got plenty of R&D money to spend. Is there any reason to believe they will not try to catch up with LG in the TV arena? Remember, Samsung used to be the market leader for TVs not many years ago, so I'd assume they are dying to get back in that position.


----------



## VA_DaveB

Fjodor2000 said:


> Remember, Samsung used to be the market leader for TVs not many years ago, so I'd assume they are dying to get back in that position.


A quick internet search shows Samsung is the "market leader" in sales with LG second and Sony third.


----------



## 8mile13

Samsung is not doing well in high-end that is why they put lots of money in miniLED LCDs and QD OLEDs next few years.


----------



## Fjodor2000

VA_DaveB said:


> A quick internet search shows Samsung is the "market leader" in sales with LG second and Sony third.


Market leader in sales perhaps, but not in picture quality any longer.


----------



## D-Nice

Fjodor2000 said:


> Market leader in sales perhaps, but not in picture quality any longer.


The only people who care about PQ are those who subscribe to forums like this one. Niche individuals in other words. THAT is why they are the market leader.

Cold, hard truth.


----------



## Jin-X

Don't think Samsung has ever been the market leader in picture quality, maybe you could say their last flagship plasma in bright room performance. It's not something they tend to care much about.


----------



## stl8k

Let's all acknowledge that there's at least 2 major displays that pervade our lives now, TVs and smartphones, and for many a 3rd, a laptop or desktop display. Samsung's a really strong smartphone brand and a leader in smartphone display quality. Samsung is also making those displays interoperable through easy content movement between them. I think it's now a lot more interesting to discuss a brand as a combination of its performance across at least those 2 display classes.


----------



## Fjodor2000

Jin-X said:


> Don't think Samsung has ever been the market leader in picture quality, maybe you could say their last flagship plasma in bright room performance. It's not something they tend to care much about.


Yes, you are probably right, not the absolutely best quality. But at least previously they used to be the main player in the higher quality segment at least, in the sense that they were the market leader in number of units sold in that segment.


----------



## Fjodor2000

D-Nice said:


> The only people who care about PQ are those who subscribe to forums like this one. Niche individuals in other words. THAT is why they are the market leader.
> 
> Cold, hard truth.


What do other people care about then, if not PQ?


----------



## Chirosamsung

Fjodor2000 said:


> What do other people care about then, if not PQ?


The other 99 %?

cost, availability, smart features, cost, weight of unit, brand recognition, market penetration and probably cost.
Macdonald’s doesn’t make better coffee then Starbucks and Honda and Toyota don’t make better cars then Ferrari but I don’t think the best car or coffee makes for the market leader in sales and size.
They are two different things

why do you think most people had way more PCs instead of macs...not because PCs were considered better...

no one is arguing that Samsung is better PQ-but I don’t really think they care if they have the BEST tv, as long as they sell the MOST tvs


----------



## Fjodor2000

I think you are underestimating the amount of people that care about PQ. Sure, they may not be in the majority, but it’s far more than 1%!

Also, I think Samsung cares about making as much money as possible. You don’t do that by competing in the cheap bulk LCD segment, competing with chinese low cost and low margin brands and what not.

You don’t think Samsung wants to get back in the high quality and high margin TV segment, regaining some of the market share in that segment that has been lost to OLED?


----------



## D-Nice

Fjodor2000 said:


> I think you are underestimating the amount of people that care about PQ. Sure, they may not be in the majority, but it’s far more than 1%!
> 
> Also, I think Samsung cares about making as much money as possible. You don’t do that by competing in the cheap bulk LCD segment, competing with chinese low cost and low margin brands and what not.
> 
> You don’t think Samsung wants to get back in the high quality and high margin TV segment, regaining some of the market share in that segment that has been lost to OLED?


No, you are over estimating. PQ is an afterthought to everyone except those who choose to post on forums like this. People who care about PQ get their TVs calibrated. Now what percentage of buyers actually do that? Better yet, what percentage of AVS forum members actually do that?


----------



## Chirosamsung

Fjodor2000 said:


> I think you are underestimating the amount of people that care about PQ. Sure, they may not be in the majority, but it’s far more than 1%!
> 
> Also, I think Samsung cares about making as much money as possible. You don’t do that by competing in the cheap bulk LCD segment, competing with chinese low cost and low margin brands and what not.
> 
> You don’t think Samsung wants to get back in the high quality and high margin TV segment, regaining some of the market share in that segment that has been lost to OLED?


I don’t think you are getting the point-I am using 99 percent because that’s what was said. The true number of CASUAL tv purchasers vs HARDCORE ENTHUSIASTS may be more like 85/15-the exact number doesn’t matter.
The POINT that everybody but yourself is trying to make is ALOT more buyers are not trying to buy flagships or OLEDs

Samsung doesn’t just do low end or high end-they have all options in between. ALOT of options and ranges/lines in slot of places in the world.

That’s why Samsung is number one. It’s a numbers game. It’s volume. That’s the point


----------



## Chirosamsung

Chirosamsung said:


> I don’t think you are getting the point-I am using 99 percent because that’s what was said. The true number of CASUAL tv purchasers vs HARDCORE ENTHUSIASTS may be more like 85/15-the exact number doesn’t matter.
> The POINT that everybody but yourself is trying to make is ALOT more buyers are not trying to buy flagships or OLEDs. Samsung doesn’t just do low end or high end-they have all options in between. ALOT of options and ranges/lines in slot of places in the world.
> 
> That’s why Samsung is number one. It’s a numbers game. It’s volume. That’s the point.


----------



## Rysa_105

Fjodor2000 said:


> You don’t think Samsung wants to get back in the high quality and high margin TV segment, regaining some of the market share in that segment that has been lost to OLED?


Hopefully with the sane decision from SD of abandoning LCD panel production this year and going forward with QD-BOLED, they can regain some of the premium market which has been taken away from them since they started pursuing QLED. But not if SD and SV continue to have differences of opinion on what is the correct way forward, where SD insists on quantum dot oled but SV is looking towards QNED or mini led. They need a comprehensive strategy and goal and if they fall in line behind QD-BOLED, they have a chance of regaining some of that high end market share. QD-BOLED while not the holy grail of a 4000 nits, 90% BT 2020 volume tv, still looks better on paper than WOLED in terms of brightness and color volume specification. If they can solve the questionable lifespan of the blue emitter, along with better quality control in terms of panel uniformity, i don't see why it couldn't succeed and why it couldn't make people move away from woled. Another marketing decision that also needs changing is the company's ego driven reluctance of not supporting dolby vision. Dolby vision has good enough market penetration by now and samsung should read the market, they need to submit and adopt dolby vision instead of clinging onto HDR10 , the way HD DVD did against blu ray.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Chirosamsung said:


> I don’t think you are getting the point-I am using 99 percent because that’s what was said. The true number of CASUAL tv purchasers vs HARDCORE ENTHUSIASTS may be more like 85/15-the exact number doesn’t matter.
> The POINT that everybody but yourself is trying to make is ALOT more buyers are not trying to buy flagships or OLEDs
> 
> Samsung doesn’t just do low end or high end-they have all options in between. ALOT of options and ranges/lines in slot of places in the world.
> 
> That’s why Samsung is number one. It’s a numbers game. It’s volume. That’s the point


There's no doubt that ~75% of people (let's use US stats since I have the article link handy) buy on price.... and perhaps diagonal. Period. 3 out of 4 paying <$400 is pretty clear. The same article says 4% purchase >$1K in price. You can argue 4% of people really 'care' about continually improving PQ. No more. Today's entry level TV PQ is quite acceptable obviously. So be it. The profits (whatever meager amounts there may be in a 200M unit/yr world) are almost all in 'our' space as well as OEM bragging rights. I'll take it, so that I/we can have the opportunity to purchase based on PQ (just clicked 'buy' on a 65" LG CX which has lightened my wallet considerably). But none of us should think that 96% of viewers care enough about PQ to even know what it stands for. --Cheers--









US TV Market Strong, but Low Priced


Earlier this week, I started to write an article about the talk at the DSCC/SID Business Conference by Stephen Baker of NPD, but it turned into a different article as I wrote it! (Pricing Reality in the Display Market) Still, overall the topic was much the same. However exciting new products...




www.displaydaily.com


----------



## lsorensen

Chirosamsung said:


> The other 99 %?
> 
> cost, availability, smart features, cost, weight of unit, brand recognition, market penetration and probably cost.
> Macdonald’s doesn’t make better coffee then Starbucks and Honda and Toyota don’t make better cars then Ferrari but I don’t think the best car or coffee makes for the market leader in sales and size.
> They are two different things
> 
> why do you think most people had way more PCs instead of macs...not because PCs were considered better...
> 
> no one is arguing that Samsung is better PQ-but I don’t really think they care if they have the BEST tv, as long as they sell the MOST tvs


Pretty sure Honda and Toyota do make better cars than Ferrari. Unless of course you think top speed and handling are the only things that matter. Certainly for reliability, durability, efficiency, etc it is clear who makes better cars. Now if you had said Koenigsegg instead of Ferrari I would have a hard time deciding on the reliability and durability since they seem to be quite good, and even quite efficient for their performance, although good grief the price tag.


----------



## VA_DaveB

Chirosamsung said:


> *Samsung doesn’t just do low end or high end-they have all options in between. ALOT of options and ranges/lines in slot of places in the world.*
> 
> That’s why Samsung is number one. It’s a numbers game. It’s volume. That’s the point
> 
> The same article says 4% purchase >$1K in price.


So for the 96% of TV buyers who spend under $1,000, a perusal of the TVs available at Best Buy in 55" and larger sizes, shows 16 of 34 are Samsung. For comparison, LG and Sony have just 5 TVs each available for under 1,000. So if you shop there for a sub $1,000 TV, nearly half of the TVs available are Samsung and that's how you become the market leader. And since most of these buyers are watching SD over cable or satellite, the PQ of these "budget" TVs is fine. Especially since most all low-end Samsungs are VA panels with decent black levels.


----------



## Fjodor2000

Scrapper102dAA said:


> You can argue 4% of people really 'care' about continually improving PQ. No more. Today's entry level TV PQ is quite acceptable obviously.


If that's the case, then I don't see why TV manufacturers should care about trying to improve PQ. It's already good enough. So just focus on lowering production cost.

And still they all try to improve PQ. They must be really stupid.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Fjodor2000 said:


> If that's the case, then I don't see why TV manufacturers should care about trying to improve PQ. It's already good enough. So just focus on lowering production cost.
> 
> And still they all try to improve PQ. They must be really stupid.


I'm sure a number of 3rd tier OEM's agree with you: the big guys are stupid. I'm making my 10% GM (with govt incentives) and I'm happy. But, see above, there is enough profit in the high end TV's plus the brand image enhancement (helps sell cheap TVs too) to keep working on both PQ, and perhaps more importantly whatever the next 'big thing' is that hopefully will some day be cheap enough to beat the competition. 
Cheap TV's bring much needed cash flow to these corporations, even if little GM. "Focus on lowering production costs" is exactly what they've done. The result: The Chinese beat the Koreans who beat the Japanese who beat the Americans. Those with strong brands have to try to move on via the innovations that we all know about that are in progress. They may or may not end up successful (profitable). 
PQ and other benefits do trickle down of course IF they can be made cost effective (CCFL to LED BLU's; low # count FALD replacing edge lit perhaps for LCD?). --Cheers--


----------



## Rysa_105

Fjodor2000 said:


> If that's the case, then I don't see why TV manufacturers should care about trying to improve PQ. It's already good enough. So just focus on lowering production cost.
> 
> And still they all try to improve PQ. They must be really stupid.


I think it's pointless bringing up casuals not caring about PQ in an oled advancements thread, we already know that. The people who genuinely care about PQ, tech advancements and calibrations and to whom price tag is a secondary factor, are and will always be a minority group, like 15-20% of the total consumer tv market at best. Samsung has lost ground in the videophile market since they adopted QLED, but if you add in the much larger 80% or more casual segment of buyers, they continue to be the leader in tv sales globally.
Bringing production costs down is fine, but to me as an enthusiast it shouldn't be at the expense of stalling advancements. And that is sort of what we are seeing with WOLED right n ow, LGD has sort of stalled in terms of advancements in the last few years, the rumored 1000 nits + peak brightness and higher color volumes 'by 2020' are still nowhere to be found. And that's one reason i want QD-BOLED from SD to materialize soon and provide competition, it will pave the way for LGD to act faster in terms of advancing their tech.


----------



## 8mile13

According to reports from China, TCL says its CSOT OLED inkjet printing project is going well, and the company expects to start mass production at its 8.5-Gen Guangzhou T8 (owned by Huaxing Optoelectronics) production line in 2024. 






TCL to invest $6.8 billion, plans to start producing inkjet-printed OLED TVs in Guangzhou in 2024 | OLED-Info







www.oled-info.com


----------



## Fjodor2000

Rysa_105 said:


> And that is sort of what we are seeing with WOLED right n ow, LGD has sort of stalled in terms of advancements in the last few years, the rumored 1000 nits + peak brightness and higher color volumes 'by 2020' are still nowhere to be found. And that's one reason i want QD-BOLED from SD to materialize soon and provide competition, it will pave the way for LGD to act faster in terms of advancing their tech.


Yes. My point was mainly that if you compare picture quality for mid-range TVs from year 2010 with 2020, you'll definetly notice an improvement. And if you will compare TVs to from 2020 to 2030, I think you'll also notice a picture quality improveent.

If the customers would think the current TVs are "good enough" and only care about price, then the TV manufacturers would only focus on lowering cost, and totally ignore picture quality. But from what I wrote in the previous paragraph, that is not the case based on previous track record.


----------



## RWetmore

8mile13 said:


> According to reports from China, TCL says its CSOT OLED inkjet printing project is going well, and the company expects to start mass production at its 8.5-Gen Guangzhou T8 (owned by Huaxing Optoelectronics) production line in 2024.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TCL to invest $6.8 billion, plans to start producing inkjet-printed OLED TVs in Guangzhou in 2024 | OLED-Info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-info.com


But is this native RGB inkjet printed OLED or something else?


----------



## 8mile13

RWetmore said:


> But is this native RGB inkjet printed OLED or something else?


JOLED proprietary RGB printed OLED technology. As stated by OLED info TCL also signed an agreement juni 2020 to jointly develop OLED TV printing technologies. 

''JOLED Inc., a Japanese firm that makes OLED displays, announced this week (june 2020) that it has reached an agreement with TCL CSOT, a subsidiary of the well-known Chinese manufacturer TCL, to "start joint-development of large-sized OLEDs for TV application." 

''In the deal, JOLED "will raise JPY20 billion, $187 million in U.S. dollars, in capital through a third-party allocation of new shares underwritten by CSOT-JAPAN."

"While mass-producing medium-sized displays, JOLED will prove the adaptability and effectiveness of printing technology to large-sized displays through the joint-development with TCL CSOT," the announcement said. "By leveraging our proprietary RGB printed OLED technology, JOLED will continue to take on challenges with the aim of establishing a unique positioning within the OLED industry and fulfilling its mission of realizing a world full of excitement and emotions through its cutting-edge devices." 








TCL teams up with JOLED to develop printed OLED TVs


Guide to TVs, media streamers & monitors




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## Fjodor2000

Scientists borrow solar panel tech to create new ultrahigh-res OLED display


By expanding on existing designs for electrodes of ultra-thin solar panels, Stanford researchers and collaborators in Korea have developed a new architecture for OLED—organic light-emitting diode—displays that could enable televisions, smartphones and virtual or augmented reality devices with...




techxplore.com


----------



## Donny84

will there be a technology in 2021 that can resolve a lot more lines of motion resolution and zero or nearly no motion blur. current displays can only do a measly 300 lines, and even OLEDs suffer from motion blur. using BFI increases up to 1080 lines depending on your set and reduces blur, but for gaming this feature is useless to me as it increases input lag and significantly drops screen brightness. I miss the days of CRT! 

give me at 1080 lines of motion res and zero blur with a 2021 OLED. if this happened without BFI, I would sell my C9 in a heart beat.


----------



## stl8k

Donny84 said:


> will there be a technology in 2021 that can resolve a lot more lines of motion resolution and zero or nearly no motion blur. current displays can only do a measly 300 lines, and even OLEDs suffer from motion blur. using BFI increases up to 1080 lines depending on your set and reduces blur, but for gaming this feature is useless to me as it increases input lag and significantly drops screen brightness. I miss the days of CRT!
> 
> give me at 1080 lines of motion res and zero blur with a 2021 OLED. if this happened without BFI, I would sell my C9 in a heart beat.


I'd be a lot less prescriptive and say give me great motion... the next big step in OLED motion in TVs is native 240hz backplanes. LGD is working on it. They've said as much in published research. Hard to say how close they are. It's a big lift. 2021 model year would be surprising.


----------



## RWetmore

8mile13 said:


> JOLED proprietary RGB printed OLED technology. As stated by OLED info TCL also signed an agreement juni 2020 to jointly develop OLED TV printing technologies.
> 
> ''JOLED Inc., a Japanese firm that makes OLED displays, announced this week (june 2020) that it has reached an agreement with TCL CSOT, a subsidiary of the well-known Chinese manufacturer TCL, to "start joint-development of large-sized OLEDs for TV application."
> 
> ''In the deal, JOLED "will raise JPY20 billion, $187 million in U.S. dollars, in capital through a third-party allocation of new shares underwritten by CSOT-JAPAN."
> 
> "While mass-producing medium-sized displays, JOLED will prove the adaptability and effectiveness of printing technology to large-sized displays through the joint-development with TCL CSOT," the announcement said. "By leveraging our proprietary RGB printed OLED technology, JOLED will continue to take on challenges with the aim of establishing a unique positioning within the OLED industry and fulfilling its mission of realizing a world full of excitement and emotions through its cutting-edge devices."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TCL teams up with JOLED to develop printed OLED TVs
> 
> 
> Guide to TVs, media streamers & monitors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flatpanelshd.com


Well this sounds good, but how are they getting around the short life of the blue native OLED emitter?


----------



## Fjodor2000

stl8k said:


> I'd be a lot less prescriptive and say give me great motion... the next big step in OLED motion in TVs is native 240hz backplanes. LGD is working on it. They've said as much in published research. Hard to say how close they are. It's a big lift. 2021 model year would be surprising.


How would 240 Hz help with motion resolution? Because they can interpolate more frames, or that they can have BFI frames displayed for less percentage of the time?


----------



## 8mile13

RWetmore said:


> Well this sounds good, but how are they getting around the short life of the blue native OLED emitter?


Looks like they will use three blue layers...in QD OLED that is..

''The hybrid approach was expected to use two blue layers... However, Samsung Display appears to have run into technical bottlenecks; The two fluorescent blue layers may not provide sufficient luminance and lifetime, when considering the demands of HDR, so it appears that three blue layers will be required with the additional required common layers.''









Samsung Electronics to Take a Hard Look at QD/OLED Hybrid MP Decision_02/18/19


Samsung Electronics to Take a Hard Look at QD/OLED Hybrid MP Decision February 18, 2019 Reports from Korea indicate that Samsung Display Co. will hold an investment review committee in April to...



www.oled-a.org


----------



## RWetmore

8mile13 said:


> Looks like they will use three blue layers...in QD OLED that is..
> 
> ''The hybrid approach was expected to use two blue layers... However, Samsung Display appears to have run into technical bottlenecks; The two fluorescent blue layers may not provide sufficient luminance and lifetime, when considering the demands of HDR, so it appears that three blue layers will be required with the additional required common layers.''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics to Take a Hard Look at QD/OLED Hybrid MP Decision_02/18/19
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics to Take a Hard Look at QD/OLED Hybrid MP Decision February 18, 2019 Reports from Korea indicate that Samsung Display Co. will hold an investment review committee in April to...
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-a.org


QD OLED isn't native RGB OLED.


----------



## 8mile13

RWetmore said:


> QD OLED isn't native RGB OLED.


The Samsung 1080p OLED from a while back was RGB..had a larger sized blue pixel. So more layers, larger size etc..






Samsung's KN55S9C sub-pixel design | OLED Info


French site Lesnumeriques posted an article on Samsung's KN55S9C curved OLED TV, in which they include a macro-photo showing the TV's sub pixels up close:As you can see, the blue subpixels are bigger than the red and green ones (about twice as large). This was designed this way because the blue...




www.oled-info.com





Looking at a june 2020 Joled rgb printing related OLED-a.org article..
''Recently, JOLED has been printing emitter lines instead of sub-pixels to reduce the effects of the poorer soluble material performance. They call it a_ Pure RGB Stripe OLED panel_.''

The Asus ProArt PQ22UC (4K HDR professional monitor €5,000) which was launched march 2019..was according OLED-info.com the world's first ink-jet printed OLED product.
''_Pure R,G,B Strips OLED display _presents extremely high color saturation''


----------



## aats

Any chance of getting 192 Hz panels next year (or at least 144?)


----------



## mreendoor

*Seeya starts producing OLED microdisplays*
Seeya produces several OLED microdisplays, including a 0.49" FHD, 1.03" 2560x2560 and a large 1.4" 2560x2560 display 
*SEY140-25602560*

A 1.4" 90Hz 2560x2560 2,500 nits OLED microdisplay
Seeya starts producing OLED microdisplays, available now on the OLED marketplace | OLED-Info
OLED Marketplace - SEY140-25602560

A 1.4" 90Hz 2560x2560 2,500 nits OLED microdisplay ist good for movies in the neer future


----------



## circumstances

i like when this thread is hopping.

gives me hope my endless wait will eventually end.

the snail's pace of development is killing me.


----------



## Fjodor2000

Here's a new FlatpanelsHD article about advancements for AMQLED (also called QD-LED, EL-QLED, ELQD and QDEL)

"World's first' 55-inch AMQLED display developed by BOE"









'World's first' 55-inch AMQLED display developed by BOE


True QLED, not souped-up LCD




www.flatpanelshd.com





Not strictly a type of OLED panel as I understand it, but may be of interest anyway since it's self-emissive pixels technology just like OLED.


----------



## KindOldRaven

Fjodor2000 said:


> Here's a new FlatpanelsHD article about advancements for AMQLED (also called QD-LED, EL-QLED, ELQD and QDEL)
> 
> "World's first' 55-inch AMQLED display developed by BOE"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'World's first' 55-inch AMQLED display developed by BOE
> 
> 
> True QLED, not souped-up LCD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flatpanelshd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not strictly a type of OLED panel as I understand it, but may be of interest anyway since it's self-emissive pixels technology just like OLED.


Honestly since as of right now OLED is the only commercially available self-emissive TV tech... would 'real' QLED be discussed together with OLED (becoming ''self-emissive'' category) or should it be its own thing? I'm still wanting to go with a self-emissive display one day (currently using a DSE-rich Q90T) and am quite curious to see how the new OLED varieties and things like real QLED end up performing. Thanks for the link!


----------



## Chirosamsung

I wish they would make an 80-82 inch OLED-88 is a bit too large for most and 77 is nice but a bit bigger would be sweet


----------



## Thebarnman

Chirosamsung said:


> OLED-88 is a bit too large for most


You make me want a 88" OLED, but it would have to be 4k.


----------



## avernar

Thebarnman said:


> You make me want a 88" OLED, but it would have to be 4k.


I'd take an 8K 88" OLED.... if it was priced as a 4K.


----------



## Chirosamsung

I think 80-82 inches would be a seer upgrade for most and a sweet spot for oled and more practical than 88 for most homes


----------



## K Sec

Fjodor2000 said:


> So LG is like Intel was for CPUs some years ago before AMD did a come-back? LG is becoming lazy, and might be run over by e.g. Samsung QD-OLED. And LG will then be sorry they were only doing incremental upgrades of OLED for several years in a row?


That is not a fair assessment for LG. Intel didn't even have their capacity planning done right. And that was in 2016 when I made the call. LG has been adding capacity, improving the process, cost, yield and performance ( in terms of longitivtiy ). In the display panel market you need significant volume to spread and amortised R&D. Hence having "the" best performance panel technology with no market shares in the volume segment would have zero chance in the tech getting adopted. Even tech giant like Samsung dont waste money like that. Especially when their Smartphone AMOLED market are being attacked from all corners. 

The question for QD-OLED will be how much more expensive would it be compare to WOLED, how much synergy are there with their AMOLED panel equipment and manufacturing. How will it improve its learning curve. So despite this forum has little interest in the "cost" department from a consumer / user prospective. It is the key to succeed.


----------



## circumstances

Are we expecting anything exciting in the realm of OLED, QD-OLED, QNED, MiniLED, MicroLED, or any other advances in televisions I may be missing, at CES in a few weeks?


----------



## wco81

Are they holding CES or is it just a virtual event?


----------



## circumstances

wco81 said:


> Are they holding CES or is it just a virtual event?


Virtual, I believe.


----------



## Thebarnman

circumstances said:


> Are we expecting anything exciting in the realm of OLED, QD-OLED, QNED, MiniLED, MicroLED, or any other advances in televisions I may be missing, at CES in a few weeks?


The trend with OLED has been the reducing of APL for 100% peak windows to help extend the life of the product. Personally I think it needs to be boosted to levels they had a few years ago. 

Sony MIGHT introduce a QD-OLED for 2021, but it still might be too soon. 

QNED won't happen for at least two (or more) years . 

MiniLED has it's advantages but I really don't follow LED as much as I do with OLED, QD-OLED and QNED. I think QNED will be the MicroLED killer. MicroLED currently is way too hard to manufacture even in the future to keep prices that normally would be targeted for mainstream consumers...QNED does the same and has the same advantages and can be manufactured in a way that keeps prices in the realistic realm for many consumers (notice I didn't say all consumers since I believe QNED will remain in the high end class for some time.)


----------



## circumstances

Thebarnman said:


> The trend with OLED has been the reducing of APL for 100% peak windows to help extend the life of the product. Personally I think it needs to be boosted to levels they had a few years ago.
> 
> Sony MIGHT introduce a QD-OLED for 2021, but it still might be too soon.
> 
> QNED won't happen for at least two (or more) years .
> 
> MiniLED has it's advantages but I really don't follow LED as much as I do with OLED, QD-OLED and QNED. I think QNED will be the MicroLED killer. MicroLED currently is way too hard to manufacture even in the future to keep prices that normally would be targeted for mainstream consumers...QNED does the same and has the same advantages and can be manufactured in a way that keeps prices in the realistic realm for many consumers (notice I didn't say all consumers since I believe QNED will remain in the high end class for some time.)


This evolution is taking too long


----------



## Thebarnman

circumstances said:


> This evolution is taking too long


I hear what your saying, but I do understand the millions spent in investment, engineering and the risk bringing things to market (and only if they think something will sell, be competitive and realize a profit) so it takes a while. It's a wonder these products work the way they do. I bet there's much in the way of discs that have not been watched yet, libraries of music and other media that hasn't been touched in years and possibly some new titles that haven't been opened yet. 

In times like these (or any time for that matter) what we all ultimately want is to be entertained by our equipment. I bet if anyone thinks about what equipment they had 15 years ago compared to what one has today; I would say the future is here now. I would say right now is the time to enjoy the library of titles of movies bought years ago and discover what it was that compelled all of us to buy it in the first place. There's always room for improvement and that's part of the hobby. Till the newer stuff arrives, now is the time to enjoy what we have today.


----------



## circumstances

Thebarnman said:


> I hear what your saying, but I do understand the millions spent in investment, engineering and the risk bringing things to market (and only if they think something will sell, be competitive and realize a profit) so it takes a while. It's a wonder these products work the way they do. I bet there's much in the way of discs that have not been watched yet, libraries of music and other media that hasn't been touched in years and possibly some new titles that haven't been opened yet.
> 
> In times like these (or any time for that matter) what we all ultimately want is to be entertained by our equipment. I bet if anyone thinks about what equipment they had 15 years ago compared to what one has today; I would say the future is here now. I would say right now is the time to enjoy the library of titles of movies bought years ago and discover what it was that compelled all of us to buy it in the first place. There's always room for improvement and that's part of the hobby. Till the newer stuff arrives, now is the time to enjoy what we have today.


I agree.

I'm one that keeps electronics for a very long time.

When I upgrade I don't mind paying the price, but I'm also willing to wait.

In this situation, I am upgrading from a 70 inch, 1080p display.

I want the quality of OLED picture, but I also want much bigger (at least 77 inches), bright enough for lots of daytime sports viewing, excellent motion, and no burn-in or image retention concerns.

Until all of these issues are addressed, I will remain on the sidelines. My 1080p tv (and projector) are still in excellent working order.


----------



## Thebarnman

circumstances said:


> I agree.
> 
> I'm one that keeps electronics for a very long time.
> 
> When I upgrade I don't mind paying the price, but I'm also willing to wait.
> 
> In this situation, I am upgrading from a 70 inch, 1080p display.
> 
> I want the quality of OLED picture, but I also want much bigger (at least 77 inches), bright enough for lots of daytime sports viewing, excellent motion, and no burn-in or image retention concerns.
> 
> Until all of these issues are addressed, I will remain on the sidelines. My 1080p tv (and projector) are still in excellent working order.


The latest Sony Master series (if you're in the U.S.) would be today's choice for you at least it seems like. With BFI with SDR content, motion is closest to plasma (better than your projector)...boosting the contrast and brightness a little bit would be fine for daytime sports viewing. Image retention is not a concern since 99% of the time you won't notice it and if it does have any image retention, it's only there for a few seconds (if you notice it.) I still use my 60' plasma Pioneer Kuro from over 12 years ago and I don't have burn-in and the only time I've experienced image retention is possibly a scene with something really bright in it, then goes to black before commercial, but it's only viewable when it's black then it's gone once other material is being displayed. The secret is to mix your media. If you watch a letterbox movie, play some full screen content afterwards. I've played video games for a couple hours at a time and haven't experienced burn-in. Possibly that's too much for you to worry about? Even today's OLEDs are way more capable of preventing the things you're asking about. 

The only time you would have to worry is if you leave it on a news channel with scrolling tickers 24 hours at a time.


----------



## circumstances

Thebarnman said:


> The latest Sony Master series (if you're in the U.S.) would be today's choice for you at least it seems like. With BFI with SDR content, motion is closest to plasma (better than your projector)...boosting the contrast and brightness a little bit would be fine for daytime sports viewing. Image retention is not a concern since 99% of the time you won't notice it and if it does have any image retention, it's only there for a few seconds (if you notice it.) I still use my 60' plasma Pioneer Kuro from over 12 years ago and I don't have burn-in and the only time I've experienced image retention is possibly a scene with something really bright in it, then goes to black before commercial, but it's only viewable when it's black then it's gone once other material is being displayed. The secret is to mix your media. If you watch a letterbox movie, play some full screen content afterwards. I've played video games for a couple hours at a time and haven't experienced burn-in. Possibly that's too much for you to worry about? Even today's OLEDs are way more capable of preventing the things you're asking about.
> 
> The only time you would have to worry is if you leave it on a news channel with scrolling tickers 24 hours at a time.


The burn in, image retention was not high on my list of concerns.

Brightness, motion, and larger than 77 inches are all more important to me.

Future proofing is good too, my AVR is hdmi 2.1 (with issues, lol), so having that capability in a display would be nice.


----------



## Thebarnman

circumstances said:


> The burn in, image retention was not high on my list of concerns.
> 
> Brightness, motion, and larger than 77 inches are all more important to me.
> 
> Future proofing is good too, my AVR is hdmi 2.1 (with issues, lol), so having that capability in a display would be nice.


Larger than 77 inches for a OLED type? In that case we might have to wait. I too would like to have a bigger than 77" OLED type display.

The Sony Master series (in my opinion) does have the brightness and motion needed. When it comes to motion however, I think there's only so much that can be achieved when it applies to display and hold technology. Maybe one day, but I don't think we will get the kind of motion we were used to from CRT and Plasma. 

I don't give too much credence to future proofing anymore. I bought the very first CD player to arrive in the U.S. I'm still waiting for Sony to create a cord that connects to the back of it that was suppose to display data from CDs.


----------



## Wizziwig

Might be good news for anyone looking for an OLED computer monitor. Will likely be announced at CES.
Samsung secures a new OLED-selling trademark for the European market


----------



## Chirosamsung

*wish LG would just make a 80-82 inch oled...that would satisfy me*


----------



## helvetica bold

What if any advancements should we expect from LG’s C1 OLED? I’m thinking with Covid it’s another incremental improvement/refinement over previous years. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

helvetica bold said:


> What if any advancements should we expect from LG’s C1 OLED? I’m thinking with Covid it’s another incremental improvement/refinement over previous years.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think that was the case whether covid was an issue or not...


----------



## Fjodor2000

helvetica bold said:


> What if any advancements should we expect from LG’s C1 OLED? I’m thinking with Covid it’s another incremental improvement/refinement over previous years.


I would not be surprised if that is the case. But that would mean ~4+ years of only incremental improvements. Before that, we got quite substantial improvements year-over-year.

I wonder how long they can get by with just providing incremental updates...


----------



## Wizziwig

I can easily answer that. For exactly as long as it takes for viable competition to appear.  

With current competition, they are still selling all panels they can produce so no reason to put in any additional effort.


----------



## ALMA

There should be a new more efficient blue emitter in 2021:









CYNORA Introduces Fluorescent Blue Emitter That Gives OLED Devices a Substantial Efficiency Boost


CYNORA today debuted its first commercial product, a fluorescent blue emitter that promises to significantly improve the efficiency of Organic Light E



www.businesswire.com










cyBlueBooster™ - Cynora


Wer wir sind Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://cynora.com. Welche personenbezogenen Daten wir sammeln und warum wir sie sammeln Kommentare Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des...




cynora.com


----------



## Wizziwig

You posted the exact same thing 9 months ago but nothing new materialized in 2020. LG has been in a holding pattern for years now - only making minor processing improvements in the electronics attached to the panel. No major gains in any measurable performance parameters of the actual panel. Full screen brightness tells the true story - same 150 nits max since 2013 introduction. All they've been doing is messing around with the ABL algorithm over the years to try and squeeze out better results for lower APL scenes. Their priorities appear focused on improving production volume so they can sell more panels.


----------



## ALMA

The emitter was introduced in March which is too late for 2020 products.

LGD and Samsung cooperate with Cynora:





Cynora extends its cooperation with LGD for deep-blue TADF emitters, samples green TADF emitters | OLED-Info







www.oled-info.com






Leaked G1 pictures:








LG OLED 2021 A/B/C/evo G/Z1 | 4K 48-83"/ 8K 77-88"/ A9 Gen4 AI Pro/ webOS 6.0, LG - HIFI-FORUM


Ist ja bald November und so langsam sollten auch erste Gerüchte zur neuen Serie für 2021 auftauchen. Aktuell - wohl auch wegen Corona - ist noch gar




www.hifi-forum.de


----------



## Chirosamsung

So this will be on the new OLeDs then? What’s it do so different?


----------



## ALMA

According to AV-Cesar.com LG will reveal a new 4K 83" OLED as a new size between 77" 4K and 88" 8K and also OLED TVs with higher peak brightness.



> *The first major development is the arrival in the LG Display portfolio of OLed TV slabs with "high luminosity" with a bright peak of around 1,000 nits. The goal of LG Display is to offer slabs with performance somewhat similar to those of The Professional Edition Oled slabs signed by Panasonic and shipped by the brand on its Oled Premium TVs since 2019. *Panasonic engineers have demonstrated that it is possible to boost, to some extent, the bright peak of The Oled slabs. LG Display, which has since worked in this direction, will have this type of Oled TV panel in its catalogue in 2021. And according to our information, in addition to LG Electronics, some TV brands with Oled TV series in its range will offer them from 2021.
> 
> 
> *OLed 83'' TV panel (211 cm)*
> 
> Another major evolution of the LG Display catalogue is the manufacture of a new Oled TV panel with a new diagonal. After the 48', 55', 65', 77' and 88'', a sixth size of 83'' (211 cm), of Ultra HD 4K obedience, makes its appearance. Again, this new screen size will appear as early as 2021. At LG Electronics of course but also in other brands with Oled TV series in their range.
Click to expand...










CES 21 > Panneaux TV Oled LG Display : les nouveautés du CES Las Vegas 2021


Si les informations sur les gammes TV 2021 des marques commencent à poindre sur le Net, la rédaction d'AVCesar.com a récolté aussi quelques précisions sur les nouveautés Oled proposées par LG Display, toujours unique fournisseur mondial de panneaux TV Oled.




translate.google.com


----------



## ALMA

With MMG LGD can cut 2x 83" and 2x 48" from one 8.5G mother glass with lower waste than combined with 77" (also only 2 cuts possible). The choice for 83" will also been an economic choice and so I guees the price difference between 77" and 83" will be comparable between 65" and 77" and not in the same exaggerated range like the 77" to 88". Also it´s a wise decision to compete against the many 85" LCD panels from China.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Instant buy if 83 inch oled


----------



## circumstances

Yup. 83 inch would do it for me.


----------



## hiperco

77" with 1000 nits real scene peak brightness and sub $3k is where I'm at.


----------



## stl8k

Nice recognition of 4k 120fps being the 2021 sweet spot for premium content creation and distribution.


----------



## Fjodor2000

stl8k said:


> Nice recognition of 4k 120fps being the 2021 sweet spot for premium content creation and distribution.


What do the news say about 4K120Hz content creation and distribution in 2021?


----------



## Thebarnman

Yep, ready for a 83" OLED, now let's see if Sony can implement display led Dolby Vision!


----------



## Technology3456

Is this still an issue for 2020 OLEDs specifically the Sony A8H? 






Had a white box in the middle of the black screen for only 10 seconds, and after taking it away, the OLED retained a shadow where the box was for the next 5 or 10 seconds. Does this mean any time I watch a movie where there is a bright background in the same place for a 10 second shot, the brightness and colors will be totally off for the next 5-10 seconds, and I will see it fade in and out, on the next shot?


----------



## hiperco

Technology3456 said:


> Is this still an issue for 2020 OLEDs specifically the Sony A8H?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had a white box in the middle of the black screen for only 10 seconds, and after taking it away, the OLED retained a shadow where the box was for the next 5 or 10 seconds. Does this mean any time I watch a movie where there is a bright background in the same place for a 10 second shot, the brightness and colors will be totally off for the next 5-10 seconds, and I will see it fade in and out, on the next shot?


No


----------



## Technology3456

hiperco said:


> No


That was the LG C9. Clearly your answer includes the CX in TVs it was fixed in, but would you say every 2020 OLED has the issue fixed, or just LG? You dont have to tell me every model, I am just interested in the Sony A8H. Is the issue fixed for Sony's A8H too, or just LG? Thank you so much.


----------



## hiperco

Technology3456 said:


> That was the LG C9. Clearly your answer includes the CX in TVs it was fixed in, but would you say every 2020 OLED has the issue fixed, or just LG? You dont have to tell me every model, I am just interested in the Sony A8H. Is the issue fixed for Sony's A8H too, or just LG? Thank you so much.


It's called "temporary image retention", it's usually not noticeable outside of torture testing. It is the nature of the beast for OLED panels. Panasonic does some special things to minimize the time duration of the effect (better heat management), which also allows them to drive the peak brightness a little higher. LG is rumored to offer this feature in (some?) of next year's panels.


----------



## Technology3456

hiperco said:


> It's called "temporary image retention", it's usually not noticeable outside of torture testing. It is the nature of the beast for OLED panels. Panasonic does some special things to minimize the time duration of the effect (better heat management), which also allows them to drive the peak brightness a little higher. LG is rumored to offer this feature in (some?) of next year's panels.


So it's still there on the Sony A8H? The guy said he had the white on the screen for 10 seconds and then that happened. What if he'd only done it for 5? On most movies, the same bright surface isnt in the same place for 10 seconds very often, but it would be for 5. And if there's a scene on a beach with a sunset in the distance, or you're watching a sports game, the same thing will be on the same part of the screen even for 10 seconds or more.


----------



## helvetica bold

I wonder if LG's new C1 will have the "high luminosity" panel (if true) or if it will be used in select high end models.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Hi end only. E1, G1


----------



## Fjodor2000

Chirosamsung said:


> Hi end only. E1, G1


Has this been confirmed, and if so by what source? For previous generations, the C and G series have used the same panel.


----------



## yogi6807

Fjodor2000 said:


> Has this been confirmed, and if so by what source? For previous generations, the C and G series have used the same panel.


If that is correct they are going to use the same panel. Whatever cooling they use will be different.


----------



## MechanicalMan

yogi6807 said:


> If that is correct they are going to use the same panel. Whatever cooling they use will be different.


I have no personal knowledge of what is happening, but the rumors I saw were that LG is not obtaining higher brightness through cooling. It also doesn't make sense to me that they would take that approach with either the G-series (size and weight) or C-series (size and cost).









83" 4K OLED TV, brighter OLED panel rumored for 2021


48 to 83-inch 4K OLED TVs next year




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## Chirosamsung

The cooling is separate from the panel. They will definetly use the cooling for the upcharged 2021 versions


----------



## MechanicalMan

They will _definitely_ start selling bulkier, heavier, more costly to manufacture TVs in 2021? Okay. I guess I'll believe that when I see it. I haven't yet seen anything to indicate that is definitely happening.


----------



## nickinhb

circumstances said:


> I agree.
> 
> I'm one that keeps electronics for a very long time.
> 
> When I upgrade I don't mind paying the price, but I'm also willing to wait.
> 
> In this situation, I am upgrading from a 70 inch, 1080p display.
> 
> I want the quality of OLED picture, but I also want much bigger (at least 77 inches), bright enough for lots of daytime sports viewing, excellent motion, and no burn-in or image retention concerns.
> 
> Until all of these issues are addressed, I will remain on the sidelines. My 1080p tv (and projector) are still in excellent working order.


Thank you for sharing. Like I care about your personal problems. Not.


----------



## tonydeluce

Hopefully we will see a 1000 NIT Sony 77 in or 83 in Master Series by next Black Friday...


----------



## hiperco

MechanicalMan said:


> They will _definitely_ start selling bulkier, heavier, more costly to manufacture TVs in 2021? Okay. I guess I'll believe that when I see it. I haven't yet seen anything to indicate that is definitely happening.


You left out "higher performing" from your list. Given the possibility of 1000nits peak brightness, it seems like a good thing for them to pursue, since the LCD sets are killing OLEDs on peak brightness. (And, it has worked for Panasonic, who has the best OLED TVs on the planet, by most accounts)


----------



## Technology3456

hiperco said:


> You left out "higher performing" from your list. Given the possibility of 1000nits peak brightness, it seems like a good thing for them to pursue, since the LCD sets are killing OLEDs on peak brightness. (And, it has worked for Panasonic, who has the best OLED TVs on the planet, by most accounts)


Apparently there are a lot of problems with the HZ2000's panel, tons of red tinting issues and dirty screen effect, like maybe whatever they had to alter on the panel to get it to 1000 nits without getting burn in created problems with the panel. And apparently for most content, the much less bright HZ1000 basically looks the same because you only see the higher brightness of the 2000 in very limited HDR content. It's to the point I saw some in various threads I read them basically saying the HZ1000 is the same TV most of the time just with better panels.

Obviously if there's a way to get the OLEDs brighter highlights without sacrificing anything else, including tint and screen uniformity, then that would be a good thing, but it seems like they haven't figured out yet how to make that improvement without introducing just as much or more downside. It basically seems to cost a lot more to produce the TV, and so the TV becomes much more expensive, yet it actually creates a worse TV not a better one unless you are the 1 person out of 100 who wins the panel lottery. But I looked at the HZ2000 thread on the UK forums and like 9 out of 10 people who do the test have massive tinting and or color banding on the screen, it appears. Pretty much everyone who does the test and posts photos of it has big problems with their screen in that thread. Then there was 1 person whose screen was just like perfect, it was crazy. But that seems very rare. The rest werent just imperfect, they were a mess.


----------



## MechanicalMan

hiperco said:


> (And, *it has worked for Panasonic*, who has the best OLED TVs on the planet, by most accounts)


Oh yes, it has worked beautifully. Panasonic is really killing it in the TV business these days. They apparently have the top OLED, just like Pioneer had the top plasma. I'm sure LG's goal is to find themselves in exactly the same position that Panasonic is in. Now it makes sense to me.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MechanicalMan said:


> Oh yes, it has worked beautifully. Panasonic is really killing it in the TV business these days. They apparently have the top OLED, just like Pioneer had the top plasma. I'm sure LG's goal is to find themselves in exactly the same position that Panasonic is in. Now it makes sense to me.


???


----------



## MechanicalMan

Chirosamsung said:


> ???


Apparently it needs explained that nothing Panasonic is doing with TVs is "working" for Panasonic. If selling uber-expensive, 90 lb, 3" thick, 65" OLED TVs was the resounding success for Panasonic that people here seem to think it has been, then it might actually make sense for you people to assume that LG is "*definitely*" following in their footsteps. But that isn't the case at all. Panasonic's TV business is a failure. Personally, I think it seems ridiculous for anyone to assume that the 2021 C or G-series is going to be a copycat of the Panasonic "modified panel" models that have sold.... how many units worldwide? But I guess we'll know soon enough who is right, won't we? (???)


----------



## hiperco

MechanicalMan said:


> Apparently it needs explained that nothing Panasonic is doing with TVs is "working" for Panasonic. If selling uber-expensive, 90 lb, 3" thick, 65" OLED TVs was the resounding success for Panasonic that people here seem to think it has been, then it might actually make sense for you people to assume that LG is "*definitely*" following in their footsteps. But that isn't the case at all. Panasonic's TV business is a failure. Personally, I think it seems ridiculous for anyone to assume that the 2021 C or G-series is going to be a copycat of the Panasonic "modified panel" models that have sold.... how many units worldwide? But I guess we'll know soon enough who is right, won't we? (???)


You are quite something to be getting yourself all worked up about this.


----------



## Chirosamsung

They don’t nearly sell as many rolls Royce or Lamborghinis world wide as Lexus or Toyota Either but what’s your point? People still envy the Panasonic sets as they do luxury cars-doesn’t matter if they sell as much volume. You are very confused about quality vs quantity for success


----------



## circumstances

nickinhb said:


> Thank you for sharing. Like I care about your personal problems. Not.


Thanks for bumping the thread with your useless content.

It got people chatting again.


----------



## jrref

MechanicalMan said:


> Apparently it needs explained that nothing Panasonic is doing with TVs is "working" for Panasonic. If selling uber-expensive, 90 lb, 3" thick, 65" OLED TVs was the resounding success for Panasonic that people here seem to think it has been, then it might actually make sense for you people to assume that LG is "*definitely*" following in their footsteps. But that isn't the case at all. Panasonic's TV business is a failure. Personally, I think it seems ridiculous for anyone to assume that the 2021 C or G-series is going to be a copycat of the Panasonic "modified panel" models that have sold.... how many units worldwide? But I guess we'll know soon enough who is right, won't we? (???)


We will know in about a week or so at CES. I can tell you the Panasonic OLED even using the regular panel like the EZ1000's we have at the store is very heavy and thicker than the competition. It's not just the panel with the heatsink that's making the TV thicker. My guess if Sony and LG come out with something similar it will be slightly thicker and heavier that what we are seeing in the current models.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Are the heavy oleds still much lighter than a similar sized FALD panel??


----------



## hiperco

Not sure why anyone would care about how much a TV weighs. And I would gladly add weight to a LG set to avoid the paper thin screen border (which often times is not flat due to how flimsy it can be)


----------



## Chirosamsung

hiperco said:


> Not sure why anyone would care about how much a TV weighs. And I would gladly add weight to a LG set to avoid the paper thin screen border (which often times is not flat due to how flimsy it can be)


obviously for mounting. That’s why.
If I already have a mount that’s up to a certain weight for a 75 inch FALD I want to be able to see if it will support and 77 inch thicker/heavier or maybe even 83 inch thicker/heavier..,why else would it matter??


----------



## hiperco

Chirosamsung said:


> obviously for mounting. That’s why.
> If I already have a mount that’s up to a certain weight for a 75 inch FALD I want to be able to see if it will support and 77 inch thicker/heavier or maybe even 83 inch thicker/heavier..,why else would it matter??


Well, ok. I was thinking about the weight among models with the same screen size, which shouldn't vary by so much that it makes an existing mount unsuitable (if it did, the existing mount was flimsy anyways).


----------



## Chirosamsung

My existing mount isn’t flimsy at all-I believe it’s a high end sanus that is about 150-200 dollars. It articulates to both sides and up down and goes out 2 feet from wall.

what are you talking about buddy?!

My mount holds my not light 75Z9D which is why I wondered if a heavier type oled at 77 or 83 would be much heavier

every mount has a weight limit!


----------



## hiperco

Chirosamsung said:


> My existing mount isn’t flimsy at all-I believe it’s a high end sanus that is about 150-200 dollars. It articulates to both sides and up down and goes out 2 feet from wall.
> 
> what are you talking about buddy?!
> 
> My mount holds my not light 75Z9D which is why I wondered if a heavier type oled at 77 or 83 would be much heavier
> 
> every mount has a weight limit!


"Buddy", pay attention. This sub-topic started when I questioned the guy complaining about how an OLED with better thermal management would be heavier. Which hopefully now brings us back on topic.


----------



## whirling

I’m excited at the prospect of OLEDs taking a step forward in performance.

Panasonic’s top tier model was great last year but prohibitively expensive.

This year they are no longer here (Australia) at all. 

Thanks for helping to keep me informed.


----------



## love_that_sound

whirling said:


> I’m excited at the prospect of OLEDs taking a step forward in performance.
> 
> Panasonic’s top tier model was great last year but prohibitively expensive.
> 
> This year they are no longer here (Australia) at all.
> 
> Thanks for helping to keep me informed.


panasonic has a habit of manufacturing what people want, but those same people aren't typically willing to pay for what it was they wanted. Hence, panasonic fails over and over again.


----------



## Bud-man

When I first joined this group this was exciting but it took so many years to come out.........


----------



## Technology3456

Bud-man said:


> When I first joined this group this was exciting but it took so many years to come out.........


What did?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Technology3456 said:


> What did?


From the context of this thread, he means OLED televisions.


----------



## Technology3456

mrtickleuk said:


> From the context of this thread, he means OLED televisions.


OLEDs took many years to come out? Im only seeing the last few messages I havent gone back pages to read, maybe thats why its confusing.


----------



## dontpokethebear3893

Technology3456 said:


> OLEDs took many years to come out? Im only seeing the last few messages I havent gone back pages to read, maybe thats why its confusing.


this thread started in 2006 hahaha


----------



## mrtickleuk

Technology3456 said:


> *I havent gone back pages to read*, maybe thats why its confusing.


^^^ That's your problem. At the very minimum, read the first few pages and the last few, before posting in any thread.


----------



## 8mile13

''The modern-day _OLED_ device was invented in 1987 by Ching Tang and Steven Van Slyke at Kodak.''


----------



## Bud-man

I meant OLED large televisions, C'mon give me a break, I haven't been on AVS for 10+ years, this place and people will drive you crazy


----------



## dkfan9

On a similar topic to potential high end panel differentiation in 2021, has there been any discussion here of what seems to be low end panel differentiation with the lower brightness 2020 models from Vizio and the LG B series? Basing this idea on HDTVtest's and rtings' measurements, and the ability of Vizio to hit such a low price point (I'm guessing LGE doesn't see room for an aggressively lower B series price without cannibalizing sales from both the C series above and the LCD lineup below).


----------



## Chirosamsung

I’m hoping for 83 inches at a decent price announced until 11 days at CES


----------



## jrref

8mile13 said:


> ''The modern-day _OLED_ device was invented in 1987 by Ching Tang and Steven Van Slyke at Kodak.''
> 
> View attachment 3072642


And LG smartly bought the patents which is why we have consumer OLED TVs today.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Chirosamsung said:


> I’m hoping for 83 inches at a decent price announced until 11 days at CES


I would be gladly surprised if they are launched at a 50-100% premium over a 77", however as long as they follow the same price trajectory as the 77" I will get one in 2-3 years.

The 83" is pretty much the perfect size for my room, seating distance is already optimized for a 4k 85" screen and nothing bigger could be carried in there thanks to a narrow staircase with two 90 degree turns.


----------



## Rod#S

Thinking about 8K OLED and LG's models, how much do you think that ridiculous integrated metal A/V stand costs that comes with the 88" model? That must account for a good portion of the cost difference between the 8K 77" model and the 88". Not that the 77" model is affordable by any stretch of the imagination but the cost of the 88" would be more attainable and I use that word lightly if the tv could be purchased without that stand and used a traditional stand. The other thing I find odd about the 8K LG's is why on earth do they include cheap looking chicken feet legs for the 77" when they have a far superior stand already being used on the their 4k 77" CX model. That perplexes me. 

LG made similar poor choices with their W series in my opinion by coupling those models since their inception with those hideous soundbars. I suspect if that had of offered to also sell them as monitors with an external media box sales would have been much higher.

Thinking about the 83", it'll obviously be offered in 4K however with LG already offering a 77" 8K model for the past 2 seasons it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that the 83" would also be available in 8K.

Unfortunately the 8K prices probably won't move much. Did the price drop at all between the 88" Z9 to the ZX?


----------



## Troy LaMont

New pure-blue OLED could overcome current challenges for OLED displays

FYI. New advances in the arena are always welcome.


----------



## circumstances

Troy LaMont said:


> New pure-blue OLED could overcome current challenges for OLED displays
> 
> FYI. New advances in the arena are always welcome.


I just asked in the other thread (2021 OLED advancements) if they had solved the blue problem yet


----------



## Chirosamsung

Troy LaMont said:


> New pure-blue OLED could overcome current challenges for OLED displays
> 
> FYI. New advances in the arena are always welcome.


unfortunatly this doesn’t look like it will be part of the 2021 or 2022 panels


----------



## circumstances

Not OLED, but thought some here might be interested:


----------



## crussellsprout

jrref said:


> And LG smartly bought the patents which is why we have consumer OLED TVs today.


They wouldn't be that smart if they bought patents around that original invention, as patents only last for 20 years so they would be long expired by now. Perhaps they have patented or bought patents to more recent improvements to OLED panel technology, however.


----------



## Wizziwig

For TV applications, the OLED patent that matters is the Kodak WRGB one from 2004.



https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050147844



Still a few years to go before we see Chinese flood the market with cheap WRGB panels. Assuming they don't come up with something else first.


----------



## Chere

I've been puzzled why HDR10+ has not been incorporated into OLEDs yet... Can someone explain to me why?


----------



## Technology3456

Chere said:


> I've been puzzled why HDR10+ has not been incorporated into OLEDs yet... Can someone explain to me why?


Edit: apparently the information I shared to try to help what I could, that I read in other comments and heard in HDTV test video was either incorrect or out of date, so I've deleted it and hopefully others who do know the most up to date and most accurate information can help answer your question where I cannot. Sorry about that!


----------



## avernar

Technology3456 said:


> it's an exclusive technology to Samsung


No it's not. What is HDR10+? What you need to know | Trusted Reviews


----------



## Fjodor2000

HDR10+ is an open and royalty-free format. There are also movies available that use the format e.g. on 4K UHD Blu-ray.

But it has not gained as much traction as Dolby Vision so far.


----------



## Wizziwig

Chere said:


> I've been puzzled why HDR10+ has not been incorporated into OLEDs yet... Can someone explain to me why?


Not sure what you mean. Many OLED models have HDR10+ support. Models from Vizio, Panasonic, Philips, etc.


----------



## dabrit

Chere said:


> I've been puzzled why HDR10+ has not been incorporated into OLEDs yet... Can someone explain to me why?


LG kinda addressed it at last years CES. Their reason stated that their TV's already implement what HDR10+ has to offer via onboard processing, if you enable dynamic contrast and set it to low the TV will take an HDR10 signal and then adjust the HDR brightness on a scene basis essentially changing the static metadata to dynamic metadata in much the same fashion as Dolby Vision and HDR 10+ so they didn't see any need to add any support( They also probably didn't want to have to pay for it either as it's unnecessary)


----------



## avernar

dabrit said:


> LG kinda addressed it at last years CES. Their reason stated that their TV's already implement what HDR10+ has to offer via onboard processing, if you enable dynamic contrast and set it to low the TV will take an HDR10 signal and then adjust the HDR brightness on a scene basis essentially changing the static metadata to dynamic metadata in much the same fashion as Dolby Vision and HDR 10+ so they didn't see any need to add any support


Marketing BS by LG. Dynamic Tone Mapping algorithms just make predictions and guesses. It will never match a human adjusting scene by scene beforehand.

In many cases we've seen DTM make things worse by adjusting dark scenes to be too bright.



dabrit said:


> ( They also probably didn't want to have to pay for it either as it's unnecessary)


HDR10+ is free.


----------



## Rysa_105

avernar said:


> Marketing BS by LG. Dynamic Tone Mapping algorithms just make predictions and guesses. It will never match a human adjusting scene by scene beforehand.
> 
> In many cases we've seen DTM make things worse by adjusting dark scenes to be too bright.
> 
> 
> HDR10+ is free.


Sony is of the same opinion, that their always on DTM with HDR10 produces as good results as dynamic metadata embedded originally in the video stream. And so they don't see the need to add support for HDR10+.
Sony's DTM works really well compared to lg. It's one of the plus points of the sony oleds.
Panasonic, philips and vizio have HDR10+ on their tv's, but it's just not a selling point when you have very little HDR10+ content. I mean if you don't have amazon prime video, what content outside of that is available in HDR10+? In my country, there is absolutely nothing available in HDR10+ content, even though a couple of options exist for HDR10+ tv's.

As for HDR10+ being free to use for any manufacturer that's true, quite a few people still live under the misconception that HDR10+ is samsung's proprietary format.


----------



## LSG_Da_Bears

avernar said:


> HDR10+ is free.


But not everything that would go with implementing it. Eng time on down to maintenance adds cost for something not widely in use.


----------



## avernar

LSG_Da_Bears said:


> But not everything that would go with implementing it. Eng time on down to maintenance adds cost for something not widely in use.


But they just snapped their fingers and had dynamic tone mapping?

Compared to that if’s easy to implement.


----------



## Jin-X

avernar said:


> But they just snapped their fingers and had dynamic tone mapping?
> 
> Compared to that if’s easy to implement.


Well their DTM was implemented before HDR10+ was a thing and is something that is always used on all HDR10 signals the tv receives, which is the vast majority of HDR content. Whereas HDR10+ content is few and far between


----------



## lsorensen

Chere said:


> I've been puzzled why HDR10+ has not been incorporated into OLEDs yet... Can someone explain to me why?


Pretty sure both Vizio and Panasonic have both DV and HDR10+ on their OLEDs. Not sure why anyone cares though.


----------



## avernar

Jin-X said:


> Well their DTM was implemented before HDR10+ was a thing and is something that is always used on all HDR10 signals the tv receives, which is the vast majority of HDR content. Whereas HDR10+ content is few and far between


Wrong. Tone Mapping is always used for HDR (except for Game mode with HGIG). *Dynamic* Tone Mapping is an option that can be turned on or off via the settings menu.

It is Dynamic Tone Mapping that LG wants us to believe is an equivalent substitute for HDR10+.










On is Dynamic Tone Mapping. Off is normal Tone Mapping. HGIG is no Tone Mapping.


----------



## Rysa_105

Jin-X said:


> Well their DTM was implemented before HDR10+ was a thing and is something that is always used on all HDR10 signals the tv receives, which is the vast majority of HDR content. Whereas HDR10+ content is few and far between


DTM on LG and panasonic oleds can be turned off if you dont like it as it's a user selectable option in the settings (on lg oleds, most calibrators suggest turning it off as it compromises on the accuracy of midtones in HDR content). But on sony oleds ever since the A1E in 2017, DTM has existed baked into the processing, it is always on whenever you use HDR10 or HLG content and can't be switched off.


----------



## Jin-X

Rysa_105 said:


> DTM on LG and panasonic oleds can be turned off if you dont like it as it's a user selectable option in the settings (on lg oleds, most calibrators suggest turning it off as it compromises on the accuracy of midtones in HDR content). But on sony oleds ever since the A1E in 2017, DTM has existed baked into the processing, it is always on whenever you use HDR10 or HLG content and can't be switched off.


I'm aware of all of that, which is why it's curious there has been no mention of HGiG support to fully turn off all tone mapping for gaming for the A80/90Js. Sony makes PlayStation so it would be odd but I can see that being a clash with the tv division who may think they know better and are too fond of their processing.


----------



## ALMA

LGD confirms 83" and 42" OLED panels and a new higher luminance panel generation:



> LG Display’s new 77-inch OLED display shows significant progress in picture quality through *newly developed and highly efficient materials as well as the addition of a layer to the display, thereby improving its efficiency by around 20%. Higher efficiency means that the display improves its brightness to realize more vivid images.*





> LG Display is planning to apply its advanced next-generation OLED technology to high-end TV models that will be launched this year and gradually expand its adoption. In addition, *the company is set to strengthen its lineup by producing 83-inch and 42-inch OLED TV displays starting this year,* (...)








Press Release - Press Center | LG Display


Find the latest press releases of LG Display, or search by topic.




www.lgdisplay.com





I guess they will cut 3x 55" with 4x 42" from one mother glass to keep the costs of the 42" size down. Combining the 42" size in a limited production with the bigger sizes - like the 48" with 83", makes no sense to me.


----------



## 8mile13

''It also plans to significantly expand its mid-range TV display lineup down to the 20-30-inch range, enhancing not only TV, but also gaming, mobility, and personal display options''


----------



## stl8k

ALMA said:


> LGD confirms 83" and 42" OLED panels and a new higher luminance panel generation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Press Release - Press Center | LG Display
> 
> 
> Find the latest press releases of LG Display, or search by topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lgdisplay.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess they will cut 3x 55" with 4x 42" from one mother glass to keep the costs of the 42" size down. Combining the 42" size in a limited production with the bigger sizes - like the 48" with 83", makes no sense to me.


77" 4K with the higher luminance is: *Luminance (APL 25/100%): 550/185nit*
Per LG Display's virtual conference info.


----------



## RichB

stl8k said:


> 77" 4K with the higher luminance is: *Luminance (APL 25/100%): 550/185nit*
> Per LG Display's virtual conference info.


That does not sound like much.
It is disappointing that there is 83" high luminance from LG.

- Rich


----------



## Jin-X

RichB said:


> That does not sound like much.
> It is disappointing that there is 83" high luminance from LG.
> 
> - Rich


You mean there isn't a 83in? Genuinely asking, I haven't seen a report yet, though I know the conference is/should be happening now. As for the nit jump, I don't know what the 25% window used to be, but the 100% currently is 150 if I'm not mistaken, so that's a 23.5% jump, in line with their claimed 20% efficiency gains. The raw number just won't go up by much on the 100% window.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Jin-X said:


> You mean there isn't a 83in? Genuinely asking, I haven't seen a report yet, though I know the conference is/should be happening now. As for the nit jump, I don't know what the 25% window used to be, but the 100% currently is 150 if I'm not mistaken, so that's a 23.5% jump, in line with their claimed 20% efficiency gains. The raw number just won't go up by much on the 100% window.


I was just wondering about this. RTINGS CX values for SDR are 414 and 176 peak. IF these are the appropriate values to compare, then it's about 33% and 5% brighter respectively. Also, IF people buy the very rough rule of thumb that the human eye needs to see ~30-50% brighter to be 'noticeable' (qualitative  ) since we have a logarithmic response, then we might say this improvement might be juuuust noticeable for the glint off some chrome or a brighter moon, etc. You won't notice anything for full screen. I'd hazard a guess that you wouldn't notice the difference unless you had a CX and C1 side by side. That's my 2 minutes of thinking about, which is always dangerous. Any other thoughts?


----------



## Jin-X

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I was just wondering about this. RTINGS CX values for SDR are 414 and 176 peak. IF these are the appropriate values to compare, then it's about 33% and 5% brighter respectively. Also, IF people buy the very rough rule of thumb that the human eye needs to see ~30-50% brighter to be 'noticeable' (qualitative  ) since we have a logarithmic response, then we might say this improvement might be juuuust noticeable for the glint off some chrome or a brighter moon, etc. You won't notice anything for full screen. I'd hazard a guess that you wouldn't notice the difference unless you had a CX and C1 side by side. That's my 2 minutes of thinking about, which is always dangerous. Any other thoughts?


I think for the 100% "window" the most important thing isn't how high it can now reach for a moment, but how much has the ABL been relaxed now that the panel is more efficient and has more heat dissipation for the high end models with the heat sink.


----------



## stl8k

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I was just wondering about this. RTINGS CX values for SDR are 414 and 176 peak. IF these are the appropriate values to compare, then it's about 33% and 5% brighter respectively. Also, IF people buy the very rough rule of thumb that the human eye needs to see ~30-50% brighter to be 'noticeable' (qualitative  ) since we have a logarithmic response, then we might say this improvement might be juuuust noticeable for the glint off some chrome or a brighter moon, etc. You won't notice anything for full screen. I'd hazard a guess that you wouldn't notice the difference unless you had a CX and C1 side by side. That's my 2 minutes of thinking about, which is always dangerous. Any other thoughts?


From a YouTube post by LTT.com, sounds like they finally achieved the goals shown in the 3rd column here:









Image taken from [ICEL 2018] What are the future challenges for LG Display to improve OLED TV performance? ⋆ OLED


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Jin-X said:


> I think for the 100% "window" the most important thing isn't how high it can now reach for a moment, but how much has the ABL been relaxed now that the panel is more efficient and has more heat dissipation for the high end models with the heat sink.





Jin-X said:


> I think for the 100% "window" the most important thing isn't how high it can now reach for a moment, but how much has the ABL been relaxed now that the panel is more efficient and has more heat dissipation for the high end models with the heat sink.


I think you're saying possible negative impact on the display via ABL has hopefully been reduced more so than negligible increase in brightness. That makes sense if so.


----------



## mrtickleuk

stl8k said:


> From a YouTube post by LTT.com, sounds like they finally achieved the goals shown in the 3rd column here:


Hmm, dunno. The talk was about the ABL and brightness, but looking at the third column, if they had really done that and achieved *90% of BT.2020*, then *that *is the headline I would have expected; it would be absolutely huge news!


----------



## Jin-X

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I think you're saying possible negative impact on the display via ABL has hopefully been reduced more so than negligible increase in brightness. That makes sense if so.


That is what I would do, yes. I'm not that interested in the peak 100% increasing that much, that can already be quite bothersome whereas increasing the 5, 10, 25% window brightness/color volume I'm down with. People talk about HDR sometimes being too bright and hurting their eyes but this depends on the content. Scenes in games/movies with HDR highlights are quite pleasing to the eye in general (car front/rear headlights at night on racing games or movies like John Wick 3, lightning in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, neon signs in Resident Evil 3) and those can go up as much as the tv can do. But you watch The Matrix, when Morpheus takes Neo to the loading system with it's all white background, and I had to cover my eyes some, even though that's hitting a much lower nit value in part because of ABL, but since it occupies most of my 65in screen, it's harder on the eyes. But relaxing ABL a bit has benefits for things like hockey or certain games that are vibrant (Mario Sunshine, Dragon Ball FighterZ).



mrtickleuk said:


> Hmm, dunno. The talk was about the ABL and brightness, but looking at the third column, if they had really done that and achieved *90% of BT.2020*, then *that *is the headline I would have expected; it would be absolutely huge news!


I don't know whether they have expanded color gamut or not, but I think "more brightness!" would still be the #1 thing they would highlight at CES if they do both things. Brighter image probably makes more sense to the marketing team.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Jin-X said:


> That is what I would do, yes. I'm not that interested in the peak 100% increasing that much, that can already be quite bothersome whereas increasing the 5, 10, 25% window brightness/color volume I'm down with. People talk about HDR sometimes being too bright and hurting their eyes but this depends on the content. Scenes in games/movies with HDR highlights are quite pleasing to the eye in general (car front/rear headlights at night on racing games or movies like John Wick 3, lightning in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, neon signs in Resident Evil 3) and those can go up as much as the tv can do. But you watch The Matrix, when Morpheus takes Neo to the loading system with it's all white background, and I had to cover my eyes some, even though that's hitting a much lower nit value in part because of ABL, but since it occupies most of my 65in screen, it's harder on the eyes. But relaxing ABL a bit has benefits for things like hockey or certain games that are vibrant (Mario Sunshine, Dragon Ball FighterZ).
> 
> Yes, I think all of us that follow HDR and (think we) understand it, agree that we're looking for brightness in the pixel/2%/10% windows so to speak. I haven't read Dolby's 10K lumen roadmap white paper in quite a while but i don't believe they ever advocated increasing the 100% window by much if at all.


----------



## RichB

Jin-X said:


> You mean there isn't a 83in? Genuinely asking, I haven't seen a report yet, though I know the conference is/should be happening now. As for the nit jump, I don't know what the 25% window used to be, but the 100% currently is 150 if I'm not mistaken, so that's a 23.5% jump, in line with their claimed 20% efficiency gains. The raw number just won't go up by much on the 100% window.


I don't really know. The G1 series has the "Evo" panel with advertised brightness that tops out at the 77".

We may need reviewers to measure the LG and Sony 83 peak and full screen brightness to see what is what.

Still, a G183 would be my first choice.

- Rich


----------



## Wizziwig

Jin-X said:


> As for the nit jump, I don't know what the 25% window used to be, but the 100% currently is 150 if I'm not mistaken, so that's a 23.5% jump, in line with their claimed 20% efficiency gains. The raw number just won't go up by much on the 100% window.


Here you go. I didn't collect these figures. Found them on another international forum. Keep in mind we don't know if LG's figures are D65 calibrated or Vivid torch mode.


----------



## Jin-X

RichB said:


> I don't really know. The G1 series has the "Evo" panel with advertised brightness that tops out at the 77".
> 
> We may need reviewers to measure the LG and Sony 83 peak and full screen brightness to see what is what.
> 
> Still, a G183 would be my first choice.
> 
> - Rich


For sure, we won't know what's what until the experts have them on hand. Though I would say just measuring peak brightness won't tell the whole story, have to compare color volume across both as well. Right now Sony uses the same panels but they hit lower peaks, but higher color volume.



Wizziwig said:


> Here you go. I didn't collect these figures. Found them on another international forum. Keep in mind we don't know if LG's figures are D65 calibrated or Vivid torch mode.
> 
> View attachment 3077387


Thanks! I think the C8 at least is probably in some sort of torch mode there, mine measured around 720, though there is always panel variance at play.

I also tried to explain what the 20% efficiency gains could mean in terms of performance on the OLED advancements for 2021 thread. I'm sure you can clear up anything I might have gotten wrong there.


----------



## MechanicalMan

Wizziwig said:


> Here you go. I didn't collect these figures. Found them on another international forum.


FWIW, those seem to be taken from flatpanelshd reviews. Rtings provides similar measurements in their reviews.


----------



## jrref

Jin-X said:


> For sure, we won't know what's what until the experts have them on hand. Though I would say just measuring peak brightness won't tell the whole story, have to compare color volume across both as well. Right now Sony uses the same panels but they hit lower peaks, but higher color volume.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! I think the C8 at least is probably in some sort of torch mode there, mine measured around 720, though there is always panel variance at play.
> 
> I also tried to explain what the 20% efficiency gains could mean in terms of performance on the OLED advancements for 2021 thread. I'm sure you can clear up anything I might have gotten wrong there.


Right i only saw one C8 measure 800 nits so i think those numbers are not correct. The rest look like calibrated to D65.


----------



## Wizziwig

jrref said:


> Right i only saw one C8 measure 800 nits so i think those numbers are not correct. The rest look like calibrated to D65.


As suggested above, looks like the 825 nit figure came from this review.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jin-X said:


> For sure, we won't know what's what until the experts have them on hand. Though I would say just measuring peak brightness won't tell the whole story, have to compare color volume across both as well. Right now Sony uses the same panels but they hit lower peaks, but higher color volume.


On the LGs you can also choose to have lower peaks with a better colour volume, by changing the "Peak Brightness" control in HDR10/HLG/DV modes. You know, the control that users ask over and over and over and over and over and over in the LG threads what it should be set to. Despite the fact that it's explained almost every week, and the defaults are correct/best in all modes. 
You get quite a significant difference by changing it! I found on my C8 (where you need to use the service menu) that the colours were quite a lot richer in HDR modes this way, but a lot of impact was lost with the reduced peak brightness.


----------



## Cam1977

Delete.


----------



## Jin-X

mrtickleuk said:


> On the LGs you can also choose to have lower peaks with a better colour volume, by changing the "Peak Brightness" control in HDR10/HLG/DV modes. You know, the control that users ask over and over and over and over and over and over in the LG threads what it should be set to. *Despite the fact that it's explained almost every week*, and the defaults are correct/best in all modes.
> You get quite a significant difference by changing it! I found on my C8 (where you need to use the service menu) that the colours were quite a lot richer in HDR modes this way, but a lot of impact was lost with the reduced peak brightness.


Every page on the Calman Home for LG thread has this question 😂


----------



## Robertoy

stl8k said:


> From a YouTube post by LTT.com, sounds like they finally achieved the goals shown in the 3rd column here:
> View attachment 3077290
> 
> 
> Image taken from [ICEL 2018] What are the future challenges for LG Display to improve OLED TV performance? ⋆ OLED


Is this LG's G1 Evo 77" oled panel using *CYNORA's* blue TADF technology ??











Our TADF Technology Platform | CYNORA


Our highly efficient OLED materials are based on the TADF (thermally activated delayed fluorescence) technology, enabling highest OLED performance.




cynora.com









Cynora extends its cooperation with LGD for deep-blue TADF emitters, samples green TADF emitters | OLED-Info







www.oled-info.com





_"The 77" G1 featuring their OLED EVO 2 panel, LG is calling second generation of their oled technology.

For the first time since they started shipping oleds to consumers in the mid 2010's, and the biggest jump in performance is that this generation is not just a little bit brighter. This is in large part due to the new luminous elementos for the blue light, which is the majority…" _






_"The first display to adopt this new structure and materials is the company's 77-inch OLED panel, but LGD will also apply it to its other panels over 2021."_





LGD announces a higher efficiency WOLED stack, to start producing 42-inch and 83-inch panels | OLED Info


LG Display announced that it has developed and employed new OLED technologies, including new OLED materials and a new OLED device structure (with a new added layer) that enabled it to improve the efficiency of its large-area WOLED panels by around 20%. This enabled LGD to increase the brightness...




www.oled-info.com


----------



## Robertoy

TADF: la tecnología que podría revolucionar las Smart TV OLED


Parece ser que finalmente las nuevas Smart TV con panel LG EVO de la marca coreana (que sepamos, de momento, solo lo tendrá el modelo G1) tendrán guardado




www.avpasion.com


----------



## ALMA

> Marking a new innovation trajectory for the OLED industry, *CYNORA today announced that device test kits for its Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence (TADF)-based Deep Green emitter for next-generation OLED displays are now available to customers.* The development is an industry-first milestone for TADF technology, and validates CYNORA’s roadmap commitment.
> 
> *Known as the cyUltimateGreen™, the product delivers efficiency of more than 20 percent, which meets current industry specifications of 150cd/A in top emission devices.* *It demonstrates lifetime of 400h [email protected]/cm², and color point and spectra that match today’s DCI-P3 standard. In addition, the product shows compatibility with BT2020*, a color standard that requires greater color purity than DCI-P3, and one that will significantly enlarge the color depth.











CYNORA Announces Availability of Industry’s First Device Test Kits for TADF Deep Green Emitters for Next-Generation OLED Displays - Cynora


Marking a new innovation trajectory for the OLED industry, CYNORA today announced that device test kits for its Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence (TADF)-based Deep Green emitter for next-generation OLED displays are now available to customers. The development is an industry-first...




cynora.com


----------



## ALMA

Robertoy said:


> TADF: la tecnología que podría revolucionar las Smart TV OLED
> 
> 
> Parece ser que finalmente las nuevas Smart TV con panel LG EVO de la marca coreana (que sepamos, de momento, solo lo tendrá el modelo G1) tendrán guardado
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avpasion.com


I doubt LGD using TADF. There is currently no blue TADF emitter available. The new more efficient blue emitter by Cynora is still flourescent.






cyBlueBooster™ - Cynora


Wer wir sind Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://cynora.com. Welche personenbezogenen Daten wir sammeln und warum wir sie sammeln Kommentare Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des...




cynora.com





The green TADF will be the first one, but I doubt the published lifetime is sufficient enough for an HDR TV, but for better evaluation we need the lifetime specifications for the new green TADF emitter of [email protected](=cd/m²).

With TADF we also get better values for BT.2020 and LDG didn´t puplished better numbers for BT.2020.

The new generation of WOLED is only an intermediate step of WOLED. With TADF the APL 100% window will be brighter than only 180 nits and we will get more than only 99% DCI-P3 colors.

Some reports talking from a new reflective layer combined with more efficient emitters. That can be also stand for Top Emission WOLED, but LGD currently didn´t confirmed this.









Figure 2 from Exploiting the Potential of OLED-Based Photo-Organic Sensors forBiotechnological Applications | Semantic Scholar


Figure 2: Layer structure of: a bottom-emitting OLED (A) and a top-emitting OLED (B). - "Exploiting the Potential of OLED-Based Photo-Organic Sensors forBiotechnological Applications"




www.semanticscholar.org


----------



## stl8k

Fjodor2000 said:


> What do the news say about 4K120Hz content creation and distribution in 2021?


As discussed here:






This could have been an 8K panel, but I think LGD and its customers are correct that the consensus short-form content for 2021 is 4K120, not say 8K30.


----------



## stl8k

mrtickleuk said:


> Hmm, dunno. The talk was about the ABL and brightness, but looking at the third column, if they had really done that and achieved *90% of BT.2020*, then *that *is the headline I would have expected; it would be absolutely huge news!


If the biggest addition to the stack is green and a big difference in BT.2020 (vs the other major color spaces) is the green portion, would a large jump in BT.2020 be surprising?


----------



## stl8k

Here's the best public info to date on the Evo changes...


----------



## ALMA

Also very good report about OLED vs. MiniLED:



> TCL hopes that Mini-LED technology will be a clear and present challenge to OLED’s self-emissive attraction. But the TCL’s Mini-LED TCL models released don’t compare with OLED’s pixel-level light control
> *Mini-LEDs being at an early stage of development do not even offer an advantage in terms of cost. *





> But Mini-LEDs will introduce a number of weaknesses including:
> 
> 
> Color Distortion
> Flicker
> Slow Response time
> Blue Light Emission
> Reduced Viewing Angles
> Halo Effect





> The rise of Mini LEDs will not in the immediate future effect sales of OLED TVs, except for the improvements LGD makes to improve the OLED performance to maintain or increase the performance difference. *For example, DSCC recently reported that LG is raising the luminance by 20% initially and then will increase another 30% by developing non-device solutions. *











Dispelling the Myths of Mini LED TVs on OLED TV Sales_01/24/20


Dispelling the Myths of Mini LED TVs on OLED TV Sales by Barry Young, CEO Association The LCD TV panel industry has a long history of making incremental improvements in performance and...



www.oled-a.org


----------



## Michellstar

Non device solutions?? What that would be, backpanel heatsink perhaps?

Enviado desde mi Mi MIX 2S mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Wizziwig

All those listed mini-led weaknesses are existing LCD weaknesses and not introduced by this technology. People will continue to buy them despite these weaknesses. All mini-led will do is narrow the performance gap to OLED. At the end of the day, nothing OLED does really matters when 97% of the consumer TVs sold will continue to use LCD by 2024 (source). Only thing that can change that would large increase in OLED production capacity and drop to < $1K pricing. Right now they are selling everything they can produce at current prices.


----------



## JasonHa

"Breaking news: Market not targeted by OLED won't be penetrated by OLED."


----------



## 8mile13

''weaknesses'' 
According plenty of sources miniLED LCD in general has a improvement in color and contrast over LED LCD.
A larger number of leds in miniLED LCD/ more heat dispension problems. Other than that weaknesses/strengthts are the same as LED LCD.

''Only thing that can change that would large increase in OLED production capacity and drop to < $1K pricing. Right now they are selling everything they can produce at current prices. ''
Since they stated that they will put all sort of sizes OLED TVs on the market, still being far behind LCD, increasement of production is a problem.


----------



## Donny84

I desperately need better BFI that can whip out at 'least' 200 nits brightness, 1080 lines of motion resolution, minimal and i mean MINIMAL motion blur when watching movies/streaming in a dark room. 

Hopefully this will be a thing for 2021 OLED's. My LG C9's BFI is underwhelming as it dims the screen down to just under 140 nits(with OLED light maxed), gives you 500-600 lines of motion res, a good reduction in blur(although not good enough) and unfortunately increases video game input lag/latency from about 14ms to 27ms....


----------



## Wizziwig

Donny84 said:


> I desperately need better BFI that can whip out at 'least' 200 nits brightness, 1080 lines of motion resolution, minimal and i mean MINIMAL motion blur when watching movies/streaming in a dark room.
> 
> Hopefully this will be a thing for 2021 OLED's. My LG C9's BFI is underwhelming as it dims the screen down to just under 140 nits(with OLED light maxed), gives you 500-600 lines of motion res, a good reduction in blur(although not good enough) and unfortunately increases video game input lag/latency from about 14ms to 27ms....


The motion resolution discussions have come up many times in this thread already. You're not going to get CRT like performance any time soon (if ever) from any current or upcoming display. This prior post has a good explanation of the issues. It would require something on the order of 99% BFI which would required OLEDs to be many times brighter than they are today. Just not going to happen. That being said, there have been some improvements like 120Hz BFI introduced last year and more brightness this year to reduce the dimming.


----------



## Wizziwig

Here is an excellent demonstration of how CRTs worked and where the 99% BFI figure comes from. As you can see a CRT screen was mostly black with only a thin strip showing the current frame. By the time the next frame arrived, the previous frame was long gone and replaced with black. This made it impossible for blur with the previous frame to occur. There was some phosphor decay lag but this was only noticeable against a black background on the ones I owned. Kind of amazing that this ancient tech introduced in 1930s TVs is still the gold standard for motion resolution.


----------



## Donny84

Wizziwig said:


> The motion resolution discussions have come up many times in this thread already. You're not going to get CRT like performance any time soon (if ever) from any current or upcoming display. This prior post has a good explanation of the issues. It would require something on the order of 99% BFI which would required OLEDs to be many times brighter than they are today. Just not going to happen. That being said, there have been some improvements like 120Hz BFI introduced last year and more brightness this year to reduce the dimming.


Well, LG is touting the 2021 G1 to be their brightest OLED yet. The C9 could reach around 400 nits for SDR content unless i'm mistaken. i'm not sure how much brighter the G1 will be but every single nit helps which in return should give a brighter BFI performance. I'm just saying, i'm fine with these displays not being entirely blur free. Seems like that's too much to ask for I guess when tube tv's have being do so for decades.....lol

Anyways, if a 2021 OLED's BFI could at least get up to 200 nits or so of brightness, while maintaining 1080 lines, a lot less blur and less agressive ABL would be fantastic for streaming in a dark room I'd be more content.

I currently have a C9....and i struggle with the motion with film. It's noticeably better with BFI, but then i struggle from the 140 nits of dimness. it's basically like watching a movie with ABL activated all the time. ABL is another thing that never existed with CRT OR input lag when gaming.

Out of all the TV's i've owned, my favorite hands down was an early to mid 2000's 32" Sony Wega KV(or was it KD) Trinitron CRT SDTV using component cables. Damn do i miss that thing, minus he ugly silver bezel 

But ya, i must not be the only one who feels like it's pure robbery for these companies to charge as much as they do for an OLED that's plagued with motion blur + 300 lines of motion resolution. I can't stomach spending three to four thousand dollars on something like an LG CX knowing that i'm getting 140 nits from it's BFI.

200 Nits? Sign me up! Wont be suitable for gaming because of the lag increase to 27ms, but there is a nice workaround for this. IF you play games in 120fps on PC you get 7ms of lag, a big reduction in blur and of course 120fps.


----------



## Yeti89

How does the pixel layout vary across OLED screen size? The A90J will have three sizes, all 4K models. Are the pixels made larger as screen size goes up, or, do the pixels stay the same size but become more spaced out? How does this potentially impact performance? Additionally, assuming the heatsink construction is consistent across sizes, the heat dissipation rate per pixel would go up. An 83" tv has almost 2.3X the area of a 55", and in turn, 2.3X heatsink capacity per pixel.

*Panel Measurements *- Screen Calculator

A90J 55"A90J 83"Total Area:1292.6 square inches2943.7 square inchesWidth:47.9 inches72.3 inchesHeight:27 inches40.7 inchesDiaginal:55 inches83 inches


----------



## Jin-X

Donny84 said:


> Well, LG is touting the 2021 G1 to be their brightest OLED yet. The C9 could reach around 400 nits for SDR content unless i'm mistaken. i'm not sure how much brighter the G1 will be but every single nit helps which in return should give a brighter BFI performance. I'm just saying, i'm fine with these displays not being entirely blur free. Seems like that's too much to ask for I guess when tube tv's have being do so for decades.....lol
> 
> Anyways, if a 2021 OLED's BFI could at least get up to 200 nits or so of brightness, while maintaining 1080 lines, a lot less blur and less agressive ABL would be fantastic for streaming in a dark room I'd be more content.
> 
> I currently have a C9....and i struggle with the motion with film. It's noticeably better with BFI, but then i struggle from the 140 nits of dimness. it's basically like watching a movie with ABL activated all the time. ABL is another thing that never existed with CRT OR input lag when gaming.
> 
> Out of all the TV's i've owned, my favorite hands down was an early to mid 2000's 32" Sony Wega KV(or was it KD) Trinitron CRT SDTV using component cables. Damn do i miss that thing, minus he ugly silver bezel
> 
> But ya, i must not be the only one who feels like it's pure robbery for these companies to charge as much as they do for an OLED that's plagued with motion blur + 300 lines of motion resolution. I can't stomach spending three to four thousand dollars on something like an LG CX knowing that i'm getting 140 nits from it's BFI.
> 
> 200 Nits? Sign me up! Wont be suitable for gaming because of the lag increase to 27ms, but there is a nice workaround for this. IF you play games in 120fps on PC you get 7ms of lag, a big reduction in blur and of course 120fps.












BFI got improved in 2020 and this is one of the ways to get better motion resolution sure, but the reality is that all modern display tech won't be able to come close to CRTs: not LCD, not OLED, not QD-OLED, not Micro-LED, nothing. Do I wish we could have that on OLED? Yes but everything is a trade-off, and when you add it all up, the advantages of OLED far outweigh those of CRTs (unless you are talking about physical weight )


----------



## Donny84

Jin-X said:


> BFI got improved in 2020 and this is one of the ways to get better motion resolution sure, but the reality is that all modern display tech won't be able to come close to CRTs: not LCD, not OLED, not QD-OLED, not Micro-LED, nothing. Do I wish we could have that on OLED? Yes but everything is a trade-off, and when you add it all up, the advantages of OLED far outweigh those of CRTs (unless you are talking about physical weight )



I never experienced Black Crush, auto brightness limiting and WRGB's cool like colors on any of my CRT's.
a few more trade offs. And you're right, i do need to let it go. It's just tough to swallow when you've experienced how amazing motion can be, be it CRT or certain plasmas. But if i settled for a plasma, i'd be complaining about the lack of brightness hehe. the 50" panasonic G10(or 15 was it) that my cousin owned from 2010 was a fantastic tv. 1080 lines of motion res, great color, minimal blur, watching movies on that thing was a real treat. even if the black levels weren't OLED level. its one of the brighter plasmas, can't say the same for panasonics 2013 line up.

Out of curiosity, what is the peak brightness with BFI on the LG CX when OLED light is set to 100?
My C9, drops down to 140 nits, give or take. again, not ideal for somebody like me.

I have my OLED light(Dark room settings) set to 65-70, with contrast at 98. I have no idea what those OLED light levels equal to in nits.


----------



## ALMA

On the CX there is no significant brightness drop from Low to Medium if you don´t use maximum brightness on settings without BFI.
We have a BFI thread in the german Hifi-Forum.de with measurements.
BFI brightness measurement for 100nits calibration are:



> Ich habe SDR ohne BFI mit Weißpunkt auf 100 cd/m² eingestellt. Dann habe ich mit diesen Einstellungen die verschiedenen Optionen zu BFI gemessen.
> 
> BFI Niedrig: 89 cd/m²
> BFI Mittel: 93 cd/m²
> BFI Hoch: 39 cd/m²











Der große BFI-/Rolling-Scan-Thread für OLED-TVs - Messwerte, Bildvergleiche etc., OLED-Fernseher - HIFI-FORUM (Seite 2)


2020 sind die BFI-Neuerungen das große Thema der OLED-TVs. Es wird Zeit das mal gesondert bezüglich OLED-TVs losgelöst der 24p- und MCFI-Diskussion z




www.hifi-forum.de





There is an auto compensation against the brightness drop on all 2020 OLED-TVs. BFI on the CX is much better than on the C9. Even on the BFI high mode, motion is sharper on the CX than on the C9 with 60Hz-BFI. LG always working with 120Hz, Sony and Panasonic with 96Hz.
If you watching movies on CRT brightness levels, there is no visible brightness drop with BFI on the CX.

UFO test:









LG OLED CX | TEST | Przełom w telewizorach OLED związany z odwzorowaniem ruchu – prawie jak realne 200Hz!


Nadszedł rok 2020, a wraz z nim nowa odsłona fantastycznych telewizorów OLED od LG! Niewielkie spóźnienie można producentowi wybaczyć, wszak koronawirus branży RTV też nie przepuścił. Nazewnictwo nowej serii kontynuuje trend zwiększania cyferki na końcu oznaczenia modelu. By nazwa lepiej...




hdtvpolska.com













LG CX OLED Review - TFTCentral


LG's popular CX OLED TV range including a 48" sized model suitable for monitor/TV cross-over. With 120Hz and G-sync




www.tftcentral.co.uk





Brightness measurements by flatpanelsHD.com:



> In LG CX there are five levels for OLED Motion Pro (Off, Low, Medium, High and Auto).* With a special test pattern we measured 'Off' to 318 nits brightness, 'Low' to 273 nits, 'Medium' to 187 nits and 'High' to 77 nits. The exact brightness values are not important so focus on the relative change in brightness: 'Low' will reduce brightness by 15%, 'Medium' by 40% and 'High' by 75%.* The 'High' setting produces visible flicker and is not recommended for any type of content (it should probably be removed). 'Medium' is more effective at increasing motion resolution than 'Low' but brightness obviously takes a more significant hit. Lastly, there is an 'Auto' option that varies between 'Low' and 'Medium' but avoids 'High'.











LG CX OLED review


LG CX is the successor to LG C9. In addition to HDMI 2.1 and webOS, LG CX features Filmmaker Mode, HGiG, three VRR systems & more




www.flatpanelshd.com





With 120fps + BFI at high you get the sharpest motion on every available consumer TV with the CX. At 120fps, BFI on high is also brighter than BFI on the Auto setting.


----------



## Wizziwig

That video demonstrates the problems with BFI. To get the most motion resolution increase, you need to extend the dark period of the panel as long as possible. The dark bands would need to cover the entire screen except for a thin strip to come close to a CRT. But that would make the panel too dim to be useful. Hopefully the extra brightness of the 2021 panels will help.

The other issue is that retro gaming is all at 60Hz and will flicker heavily. If you speed up the BFI to reduce flicker, you introduce ghosting and image duplication like you see on the Vizio OLED BFI images posted by rtings.


----------



## lsorensen

Yeti89 said:


> How does the pixel layout vary across OLED screen size? The A90J will have three sizes, all 4K models. Are the pixels made larger as screen size goes up, or, do the pixels stay the same size but become more spaced out? How does this potentially impact performance? Additionally, assuming the heatsink construction is consistent across sizes, the heat dissipation rate per pixel would go up. An 83" tv has almost 2.3X the area of a 55", and in turn, 2.3X heatsink capacity per pixel.
> 
> *Panel Measurements *- Screen Calculator
> 
> A90J 55"A90J 83"Total Area:1292.6 square inches2943.7 square inchesWidth:47.9 inches72.3 inchesHeight:27 inches40.7 inchesDiaginal:55 inches83 inches


Yes the pixel size increases as the screen size increases. Hence brightness and power consumption per unit of area stays pretty constant no matter what size you have.


----------



## Robertoy




----------



## stl8k

Robertoy said:


>


Nice to see the pros dig deeper! I recall a patent or maybe SID paper this summer taking me to Dupont's OLED materials site, but don't recall it being about its blue-related materials.


----------



## Robertoy

Let's hope that in not too distant future, in a new "tick-tock" LG Display OLED cycle, panels appears through printing, with technologies from DuPont and Cynora.








LG acquires DuPont's OLED tech to inkjet-print OLED displays


Inkjet printing can reduce production costs and improve picture quality




www.flatpanelshd.com









CYNORA and LG Display expand their cooperation | CYNORA


CYNORA, a leader in TADF (thermally activated delayed fluorescence) materials for Next-generation OLEDs, extends its Joint Development Agreement with LG Display.




cynora.com


----------



## Robertoy

CYNORA said:


> *What’s next?
> 
> Adam:* _"Today’s product launch is CYNORA’s first step towards mass production. From here you can expect further products, which we believe will revolutionize the OLED industry: TADF green and TADF blue. TADF blue will enable substantial energy savings for OLED displays and a tremendous reduction in the complexity of OLED TV stacks. This will result in additional production cost savings for our customers. TADF green will enable OLED display manufacturers to finally cover the color space of the display standard BT.2020, which will open up new dimensions of picture quality."_











A conversation with CYNORA CEO about our first product - Cynora


We marked a big milestone earlier this month when we introduced our first product, the cyBlueBooster. It is a fluorescent blue emitter that is >15% more efficient than the leading alternative product. The market response has been amazing! We selected some of the questions that came our way and...




cynora.com


----------



## stl8k

*Sensors for Your TV*

An ambitious startup funded by LGD is thinking about future use cases for them.

Future OLED TVs could get eye-tracking sensors, but do we need them?


----------



## Donny84

Well it's great to hear that Both Sony & Panasonic have put more of a focus on gaming for 2021, promising low latency, HDMI 2.1+120hz, and whatever other bells & Whistles for Game Mode.

I'm personally tired of 55", and my LG C9's motion.
Looking for a 65" for either the Sony A90J(1300 nits total peak brightness which should allow for a nice brightness boost with BFI), Panasonic JZ2000 or the LG G1(Blugh, i can't stand the gallery stand though)

I'm guessing the launch dates for all three will be for April? Guess i'll just have to hold out for the reviews.
Crossing my fingers Sony to bust out 1080 lines of motion clarity, minimal blur + 200 or more Nits of brightness with Black frame insertion. that would PERFECT for movies in a dark room. For gaming however, i prefer a bit of a brighter picture and BFI typically adds over 10ms of latency...


----------



## Robertoy

2021: OLED TVs for Everyone, Finally?


LG made all the necessary moves, we’re now waiting for the price tags




medium.com


----------



## Robertoy




----------



## Robertoy

*Samsung MiniLED, QD-OLED, QNED, MicroLED: "The knife and cheese in the hands"*










*Customer to Samsung:* "Hello, I have a *QLED* with a 10-year warranty against burn-in. At *QD-OLED*, I will have it too, right?"

*Samsung:* *"Well..."

Customer to Samsung:* "Hello, I have a *QLED* with a 10-year warranty against burn-in. At *QNED*, I will have it too, right?"

*Samsung:* *"YES!"*










*Vincent :*


> _QNED: "This is the next step in relation to QD-OLED, so when investing so much money in QD-OLED equipment, Samsung Display is actually planning to eventually replace the blue OLED with these blue light-emitting nano LEDs to become QNED, so you won't even have to buy new equipment, as you know they can use many of the existing QD-OLED manufacturing equipment to produce QNED, and this is a genious step."_


----------



## robertw11

That’s a lot of Q’s.


----------



## avernar

robertw11 said:


> That’s a lot of Q’s.


----------



## RichB

avernar said:


> View attachment 3089143


Of course, it sounds better than *tiny-little *dots.

It's not as bad as Panasonic's "Infinite Black Pro Panel":
Panasonic TC-P50ST50 - SMART VIERA 50 Class ST50 Series Full HD Plasma HDTV (49.9 Diag.) 

Apparently, nobody in marketing took middle-school math. 

- Rich


----------



## Robertoy

8mile13 said:


> ''weaknesses''
> According plenty of sources miniLED LCD in general has a improvement in color and contrast over LED LCD.
> A larger number of leds in miniLED LCD/ more heat dispension problems. Other than that weaknesses/strengthts are the same as LED LCD.


_Early adopter factor_ also can be considered for first Samsung and LG miniLED lines (TCL are more mature).

The same can be true for the first products with Samsung QD-OLED and QNED panels.


----------



## Arese

Hi everyone, 
I'm reading a lot of news around Samsung bringing to the market QD-OLED. 
I thought Samsung didn't want to touch to OLED because of a war of principles against LG and wanted to beat them using their own technology (QLED at their moment) 
Why this shift in strategy?


----------



## Robertoy




----------



## RichB

Arese said:


> Hi everyone,
> I'm reading a lot of news around Samsung bringing to the market QD-OLED.
> I thought Samsung didn't want to touch to OLED because of a war of principles against LG and wanted to beat them using their own technology (QLED at their moment)
> Why this shift in strategy?


Forgive me if I am wrong, but hasn't Samsung been know to announce products that arrives years late?

- Rich


----------



## robertw11

Arese said:


> Hi everyone,
> I'm reading a lot of news around Samsung bringing to the market QD-OLED.
> I thought Samsung didn't want to touch to OLED because of a war of principles against LG and wanted to beat them using their own technology (QLED at their moment)
> Why this shift in strategy?


Vincent from HDTV test explained it, not enough money in lcd panel business, but regardless, it’s going to be entertaining watching Samsung eat crow after all that oled burn in campaigning LOL.

Curious if these will stay on their YouTube channel, and what their burn in warranty policy will be.


----------



## correcthorsebatterystaple

robertw11 said:


> Vincent from HDTV test explained it, not enough money in lcd panel business, but regardless, it’s going to be entertaining watching Samsung eat crow after all that burn in oled burn in campaigning LOL.
> 
> Curious if these will stay on their YouTube channel, and what their burn in warranty policy will be.


Samsung Mobile do exactly that in their love/hate relationship with Apple.

Apple does something anti-consumer, like remove the 3.5mm jack, phone charger from the box etc; Samsung launches an ad campaign "calling them out" on doing the thing, then turns around next-gen and proudly touts that they are doing the exact same thing while simultaneously scrubbing their previous qualms from the net.


----------



## Robertoy

*QD-OLED* (organic material (susceptible to burn-in) in a first stage, and, after that, *QNED* (inorganic materials (no burn-in)), with equipment adaptation in the factory.









OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


Sensors for Your TV An ambitious startup funded by LGD is thinking about future use cases for them. Future OLED TVs could get eye-tracking sensors, but do we need them?




www.avsforum.com







> QNED uses a long blue bar-shaped LED called nanorod as a light emitting device. Because it is a structure in which inorganic materials emit light, it has the advantage that there is no burn-in problem (post-image of the screen), unlike OLED (organic light-emitting diode) in theory, it has a long service life and can reduce energy consumption.
> 
> UBI Research said, "Samsung Display started filing patents for QNED in 2016."
> 
> In the industry, Samsung's screen is believed to be preparing to mass produce QD (Quantum Dot) screens that combine OLED and QD to dominate the large screen market, while developing QNED technology.











"삼성 차세대 QNED 디스플레이, 기술 완성도 양산 가능 수준 근접" - 머니투데이


삼성디스플레이가 차세대 디스플레이로 점찍은 QNED(퀀텀닷나노발광다이오드) 기술 완성도가 양산이 가능한 수준에 근접했다는 분석이 나왔다.13일 디스플레이 시장조사업체 유비리서치에 ...




m.mt.co.kr





With *QNED *(and not with *QD-OLED*) Samsung can continue marketing campain with 10 year warranty against burn-in.

_"10 year warranty against burn in"_


----------



## robertw11

I was making a point about Samsung’s efforts with QD-OLED...


----------



## butch666

Hmmm... So 2021 is a really crap year for an OLED screen...

LG is offerering its "evo" panel, which might bring a brightness increase of up to 20%. But only in its "more expensive" G-Series, which means bigger bucks to be an early adopter. The "evo" panel will then likely be available in more series in 2022, without the early adopter risk!
Samsung is planning to bring out its first QD-Display (RGB-OLED) in 2022. This might blow LG's WOLED out of the water?? Still gonna be the early-adopter risk though!

There is always gonna be something better and brighter coming around the corner, but having been used to the slow pace of OLED development, these developments seem almost dramatic! (And it really sucks for me because I was convinced a new LG 77inch C-model was gonna be perfect until CES2021 came around!)

/Butch666


----------



## 8mile13

Arese said:


> Hi everyone,
> I'm reading a lot of news around Samsung bringing to the market QD-OLED.
> I thought Samsung didn't want to touch to OLED because of a war of principles against LG and wanted to beat them using their own technology (QLED at their moment)
> Why this shift in strategy?


 Samsung did launch a (rgb) OLED (that does not uses a LG OLED panel) .. few years back..that did not go well. After that they said goodby to OLED. Later on it was stated that they believed that OLED would not make it and admitted it was a miscalculation. After that they started looking at OLED again. Reasons for that are stuff like OLED dominating high-end market and the believe that over time chinese will take over LCD market.


----------



## MechanicalMan

butch666 said:


> Hmmm... So 2021 is a really crap year to for an OLED screen...


Well, if you say so. 😕
There will be a new panel in at least some models, and Sony is copying Panasonic's heatsink in their flagship. I think those are pretty non-crappy developments.

I don't understand the holy grail talk about QD-OLED by some people. How have people determined that this is going to mop the floor with WOLED right out of the gate? IIRC, the first reports I saw about QD-OLED structure were that Samsung was going to be using two blue layers. Then it changed to three layers. Now, apparently the most recent reports are that Samsung will be using _four_ blue layers to reach adequate brightness. If the reporting is accurate, then anyone who was expecting these to be much brighter upon release than existing WOLED panels is apparently going to be proven wrong. And I don't want to get too hung up on a very early product demo, but it was reported that the QD-OLED panels demoed at CES last year couldn't even display true black. So, I don't think we can even take it for granted that the first QD-OLED panels will display true black. It seems at least conceivable that they could have a higher black point _and_ a lower white point than the WOLED panels that they'll be competing against. Also, it was initially reported that Samsung would probably be making panels in 65" and higher screen sizes, but now it's being reported that they're going to start larger than that, probably competing more in the 77" - 85" class. So for anyone who is interested in 42 - 65" OLED, WOLED is probably going to be their only option. For those of you who _do_ want to buy larger, 75+ in screen sizes but feel like LG's Gallery series is too expensive, I'd love to see the looks on your faces when Samsung announces pricing for their QD-OLED models. What do you think those are going to cost? Even several years from now, those panels are expected to be in very short supply. And we already know that Samsung is perfectly comfortable charging higher prices, even if they don't have a superior product.


----------



## Robertoy

The China factor

Korea IT News:


> *Meaning and Prediction on Cooperation between Samsung Electronics and Samsung Display Regarding Commercialization of QD Display TV*
> 
> QD display is a display that has improved color gamut as it has QD color filters on top of a blue OLED that emits blue light. Because it is a technology that has never been attempted before, there were huge concerns about commercialization and marketability. In particularly, there were mixed opinions on quality, yield, price, and production capacity.
> 
> Samsung Display’s Q1 line has a capacity of 30,000 substrates (8.5th generation) per month and is only able to make about 2 million TVs (50 to 60 inches) annually. Considering the fact that 200 million TVs are shipped globally every year, the production capacity of the Q1 line is very low.
> 
> However, the story changes once Samsung Electronics receives QD display panels from Samsung Display. Samsung Display will be able to increase production capacity of QD display panels by making additional investments once Samsung Electronics, which is the world’s biggest TV manufacturer, starts to receive its QD display panels and it will also have easier time securing other customers as well as Samsung Electronics using Samsung Display’s QD display panels proves their quality.
> 
> Commercialization of QD displays is closely related to competitive edge of South Korea’s display industry as well. Although Samsung Display and LG Display have been the leaders in the global display market, concerns about their next-generation large displays have never stopped. As the global LCD market has become a red ocean due to rapid growth of Chinese display makers backed by the Chinese government, Samsung Display and LG Display lacked preparations on their next-generation large displays that can replace their LCDs.
> 
> Although LG Display and Samsung Display possess W-OLED technology and QD display technology respectively, they have yet to reach a level where their technologies can be leading technologies in the global market. Although LG Display is looking to ship 8 million W-OLED display panels this year as its technology has made some growth, Chinese companies are forcing LG Display and Samsung Display to develop their next-generation large display technologies as fast as possible as they are growing their business sizes by taking advantage of increased demands from COVID-19.











Meaning and Prediction on Cooperation between Samsung Electronics and Samsung Display Regarding Commercialization of QD Display TV


The cooperation between Samsung Electronics and Samsung Display is drawing much attention as it brings commercialization of the world’s first QD (Quantum Dot) display TV one step closer and sets up a




english.etnews.com


----------



## JasonHa

For people who keep posting the "Stop the FOMO" guy's videos: Who is this guy? What is his name? What expertise or information does he have?


----------



## RichB

JasonHa said:


> For people who keep posting the "Stop the FOMO" guy's videos: Who is this guy? What is his name? What expertise or information does he have?


Those white gloves have hypnotized me.
There is useful information from time to time.

- Rich


----------



## MechanicalMan

JasonHa said:


> For people who keep posting the "Stop the FOMO" guy's videos: Who is this guy? What is his name? What expertise or information does he have?


He's just a dopey YouTuber. But I do watch some of his videos, like his interview with Zohn. I thought it was funny how surprised he was when learning that the 2021 Sony OLEDs won't have the filter used to improve viewing angles on VA panels.


----------



## Wizziwig

Youtube is probably the worst platform for spreading news. Lag of filming and editing the video. Difficult to auto-translate to other languages. Padding of what amounts to two sentences of actual news into a 10+ minute video so it can be monetized. Even the HDTVtest videos are painful to watch with the amount of times he repeats the same thing over and over. It's like he's speaking to a 3-year old. Youtube also sucks for reviews since you can't easily search or reference any of the measurements like you can a written article. All images have horrible video compression so practically useless.

Oh well. Guess most people are too lazy to read these days so we're stuck with this format from now on.


----------



## Robertoy

TIMESTAMP Index 


Introducing Bob O’Brien of DSCC 0:00
Real Improvements to OLED & MiniLED 06:20
MiniLED Improvements 9:08
Active Matrix miniLED 9:55
Double Dimming Zones 16:33
Diminishing Returns 17:39 - Why OD Zero? 19:27
TCL vs Samsung MiniLED Pricing Strategy
*- OLED Improvements 25:20 

More green for more brightness 26:26
Sony’s heat sink for brightness 27:39
What’s left to improve? 30:10
QD-OLED is a game changer! 32:47
True RGB subpixel 35:06
Its Weaknesses 36:46
QD-OLED in 75 inches 39:58
*
MiniLED vs OLED: which is better? 45:01
Samsung TV Leadership 45:40
Sony Falling Behind 46:30
LG on the Rise 52:15
8K vs 4K: what to buy 53:35
Your Favorite TV maker 54:57
Bob, Your Personal TV is HOW OLD?? 55:43
How Bob Resists FOMO 58:20
Predicting Affordable MicroLED TVs! 59:31


----------



## JasonHa

Who is that YouTuber? What is his name? Does he work for any companies in the industry?


----------



## Robertoy




----------



## circumstances

so when is the shoot-out between all these 2021 players?


----------



## MechanicalMan

circumstances said:


> so when is the shoot-out between all these 2021 players?


No date has been set for the VE shootout, but hopefully that will be in the first half of summer. You can bet that VE won't hold it until they've received all models that they want to include in it. The HZ2000 will be included, and they expect to have that by late spring or early summer. They're also going to include an 8K Sharp LCD, and I don't know when those arrive. If you haven't already heard, they are planning for separate 4K and 8K shootouts and then a comparison of the winners from each.


----------



## Technology3456

Does anyone know if any OLED TV models have ever come out with 3D glasses that were either of the "linear polarization" type of technology, or the "color bandwidth" type of technology (like Dolby 3D cinema)? I am looking for good passive 3D glasses, but there are so many choices you don't know what's what. 

The only potential identifier of quality I could find in my searches was that some glasses were overstock of ones that came with certain big name TV models. 

However, most of these appeared to be circular polarization, which is the type I probably do not want. But it made me wonder if anyone knows any TV models I could search for glasses that also used passive 3D, but not circular polarization, a different type that I might be looking for.


----------



## circumstances

MechanicalMan said:


> No date has been set for the VE shootout, but hopefully that will be in the first half of summer. You can bet that VE won't hold it until they've received all models that they want to include in it. The HZ2000 will be included, and they expect to have that by late spring or early summer. They're also going to include an 8K Sharp LCD, and I don't know when those arrive. If you haven't already heard, they are planning for separate 4K and 8K shootouts and then a comparison of the winners from each.


i have no idea if any of the upstart technologies can compete but i'd like to see QNED, Crystal LED, MicroLED, MiniLED, QD-OLED, Ned, Fred, Ted, Bruce, Fruit Loop, etc. etc.

I need to know where i'm going for a new TV in the next couple of years!!


----------



## robertw11

RichB said:


> Those white gloves have hypnotized me.
> There is useful information from time to time.
> 
> - Rich


I watch his (FOMO) videos for entertainment, and Vincent’s videos for actual information and testing. FOMO guy provides very little useful info, it’s more of a tv tech drama channel vs actual technical information.


----------



## robertw11

Robertoy said:


>


Im seeing this video shared and boy are the LCD warriors coming out of the wood work for it, this is their “gotcha, I told you so” moment. LOL


----------



## BriscoCountyJr

Technology3456 said:


> Does anyone know if any OLED TV models have ever come out with 3D glasses that were either of the "linear polarization" type of technology, or the "color bandwidth" type of technology (like Dolby 3D cinema)? I am looking for good passive 3D glasses, but there are so many choices you don't know what's what.
> 
> The only potential identifier of quality I could find in my searches was that some glasses were overstock of ones that came with certain big name TV models.
> 
> However, most of these appeared to be circular polarization, which is the type I probably do not want. But it made me wonder if anyone knows any TV models I could search for glasses that also used passive 3D, but not circular polarization, a different type that I might be looking for.


The LG C6 models (about 2016) were the last OLED TV models with passive 3D capability.


----------



## Technology3456

BriscoCountyJr said:


> The LG C6 models (about 2016) were the last OLED TV models with passive 3D capability.


Thank you. For me the older the better because Im just looking for glasses. So if either something better came out in 2010, or if equal glasses but available at better price now because it's 6 years older, then it's the rare case of preferring older to newer. I'll see what I can find as well.


----------



## lsorensen

Technology3456 said:


> Does anyone know if any OLED TV models have ever come out with 3D glasses that were either of the "linear polarization" type of technology, or the "color bandwidth" type of technology (like Dolby 3D cinema)? I am looking for good passive 3D glasses, but there are so many choices you don't know what's what.
> 
> The only potential identifier of quality I could find in my searches was that some glasses were overstock of ones that came with certain big name TV models.
> 
> However, most of these appeared to be circular polarization, which is the type I probably do not want. But it made me wonder if anyone knows any TV models I could search for glasses that also used passive 3D, but not circular polarization, a different type that I might be looking for.


I believe LG was the only maker of 3D OLED TVs, which ended with the 2016 models. As far as I know they use REAL-D compatible glasses, which means the are circular polarization (which I always considered by far the best passive design since it doesn't break if you tilt your head, and in fact I can't imagine any other kind of passive 3D glasses being considered good). I would not expect to find one of those cheap given some people like their 3D and the LG 3D OLED was probably the best 3D display ever made and the people that have them tend to know what they have.


----------



## WOLVERNOLE

robertw11 said:


> I watch his (FOMO) videos for entertainment, and Vincent’s videos for actual information and testing. FOMO guy provides very little useful info, it’s more of a tv tech drama channel vs actual technical information.


Not necessarily true at all. His recent two videos were very informative and technical, especially the last one with that DSDC (?) guy. You call that “video entertainment?” He went into extreme detail.


----------



## Technology3456

lsorensen said:


> I believe LG was the only maker of 3D OLED TVs, which ended with the 2016 models. As far as I know they use REAL-D compatible glasses, which means the are circular polarization (which I always considered by far the best passive design since it doesn't break if you tilt your head, and in fact I can't imagine any other kind of passive 3D glasses being considered good). I would not expect to find one of those cheap given some people like their 3D and the LG 3D OLED was probably the best 3D display ever made and the people that have them tend to know what they have.


Maybe for TVs its not an issue, but for projection, apparently silver screens retain circular polarization much worse than linear, so what you end up with is that for linear, when your head is upright, its much better than circular, but when you tilt your head, it degrades except the degraded version of linear with the head tilted is about the same as circular would be regardless on a silver screen.

But someone told me recently it's different now than 2012 so I have no idea.


----------



## lsorensen

Technology3456 said:


> Maybe for TVs its not an issue, but for projection, apparently silver screens retain circular polarization much worse than linear, so what you end up with is that for linear, when your head is upright, its much better than circular, but when you tilt your head, it degrades except the degraded version of linear with the head tilted is about the same as circular would be regardless on a silver screen.
> 
> But someone told me recently it's different now than 2012 so I have no idea.


Well it seems no OLED TV ever did anything else for 3D. My DLP projector uses active glasses of course, so totally different and DLP only as far as I know.


----------



## Robertoy

hdtvtest:


> *Cheaper 48-inch OLED TV Coming As LG Display Increase Production to 1 Million Panels*
> 
> LG Display will begin producing more 48-inch OLED panels start from next month, by operating a new OLED production line at the company's Paju fab, cutting 8 pieces of 48" panels from an 8.5G motherglass.
> 
> Industry estimates that this ramp-up in production will yield more than 1 million units of 48in OLED panels in 2021, up from 220,000 units last year. With an increase in supply, hopefully this will mean cheaper 48-inch OLED TVs going forward.















게이머들 열광에…LG, 내달 파주에서 48인치 OLED 양산 돌입


게이머들 열광에LG, 내달 파주에서 48인치 OLED 양산 돌입 48인치, 55인치보다 비싸게 팔리기도 중형 모니터의 반란




www.chosun.com


----------



## lsorensen

Robertoy said:


> hdtvtest:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 게이머들 열광에…LG, 내달 파주에서 48인치 OLED 양산 돌입
> 
> 
> 게이머들 열광에LG, 내달 파주에서 48인치 OLED 양산 돌입 48인치, 55인치보다 비싸게 팔리기도 중형 모니터의 반란
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.chosun.com


I was amused to read an article this morning talking about LG's 2021 TV lineup. They called 48" compact and space friendly TVs. Apparently LG doesn't make anything smaller.


----------



## Robertoy

Robertoy said:


> With *QNED *(and not with *QD-OLED*) Samsung can continue marketing campain with 10 year warranty against burn-in.
> 
> _"10 year warranty against burn in"_











OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


Sensors for Your TV An ambitious startup funded by LGD is thinking about future use cases for them. Future OLED TVs could get eye-tracking sensors, but do we need them?




www.avsforum.com





*Early adopter factor*









OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


Sensors for Your TV An ambitious startup funded by LGD is thinking about future use cases for them. Future OLED TVs could get eye-tracking sensors, but do we need them?




www.avsforum.com












OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


Sensors for Your TV An ambitious startup funded by LGD is thinking about future use cases for them. Future OLED TVs could get eye-tracking sensors, but do we need them?




www.avsforum.com





*Early adopter "burn-in"*










Brazilian early adopter consumers suffering (literally) with burn-in...😁😭 (with cars : - )














Novo Chevrolet Onix Plus 2020 pega fogo em pátio da GM; assista ao vídeo


Novo Chevrolet Onix Plus 2020 estava sendo manobrado no pátio da fábrica da GM em Gravataí, no Rio Grande do Sul, quando pegou fogo




jornaldocarro.estadao.com.br

















Veja o que pode estar causando os incêndios no Chevrolet Onix Plus 2020


Vendas do Chevrolet Onix Plus 2020 estão suspensas por risco de incêndio e montadora fará um recall




jornaldocarro.estadao.com.br


----------



## Robertoy

lsorensen said:


> I was amused to read an article this morning talking about LG's 2021 TV lineup. They called 48" compact and space friendly TVs. Apparently LG doesn't make anything smaller.


----------



## robertw11

WOLVERNOLE said:


> Not necessarily true at all. His recent two videos were very informative and technical, especially the last one with that DSDC (?) guy. You call that “video entertainment?” He went into extreme detail.


Having an informed guest on ones channel does not mean that channel is now a technical channel. There's a big difference between FOMO tv reviews and HDTV Test reviews.


----------



## lsorensen

Robertoy said:


>


Well the monitor doesn't count, it is not a television. The 42" on the other hand would count. I wonder if they were talking only about the north american market, or they could just have been wrong.


----------



## MechanicalMan

This is from the old LG Display press release during CES:

"_LG Display is planning to apply its advanced next-generation OLED technology to high-end TV models that will be launched this year and gradually expand its adoption. In addition, the company is set to strengthen its lineup by producing 83-inch and *42-inch OLED TV displays starting this year*, adding to the existing 88-inch, 77-inch, 65-inch, 55-inch, and 48-inch OLED TV displays. It also plans to *significantly expand its mid-range TV display lineup down to the 20-30-inch range*, enhancing not only TV, but also gaming, mobility, and personal display options._"






Press Release - Press Center | LG Display


Find the latest press releases of LG Display, or search by topic.




www.lgdisplay.com





My initial interpretation of that was that LG was planning to release a 42" OLED TV later this year, along with small LCD TVs in a size range that manufacturers have largely abandoned. However:

"_In two separate statements to FlatpanelsHD, *LG Display confirmed that the mention of 20-30-inch displays above are in fact OLED displays*. It did not say when it is planning to start mass production._"









42" OLED TVs & 'next-generation OLED' coming in 2021, 20-30" OLED later


'Next-generation OLED technology' for high-end 2021 TVs




www.flatpanelshd.com





So, it sounds like LG plans to have 42" panels available this year with even smaller sizes coming at some point in the future -- for planned use in TVs, not just monitors. This is old news now, but I'm reposting for anyone who may have missed it. Also for those who don't already know, the LG OLED monitors are said to use panels from JOLED, not LG Display.


----------



## Robertoy

lsorensen said:


> Well the monitor doesn't count, it is not a television.  The 42" on the other hand would count. I wonder if they were talking only about the north american market, or they could just have been wrong.


For the use of OLED monitors as well as TV's (even without having tuner, OS, app's) 4K TV box/stick/dongle are welcome, and even better if they already have support for the AV1 codec, as already present in Samsung and LG TV lines since the 2020 models.

Smart TV - Build | Samsung Developers





::: LG | webOS TV Developer :: AV Format on webOS TV 5.0







webostv.developer.lge.com





AV1 Box/Dongle



























Google, Netflix & YouTube to require AV1 video decoding support


Yes, Philips 2021 TVs will also support AV1




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## Robertoy




----------



## Robertoy

China Attempting to Take OLED Engineers from Samsung and LG Electronics


Multiple headhunting firms have recently posted job offers for South Korean OLED experts to work in China. The offers include OLED material R&D engineer positions, mask and deposition expert positions and mobile flexible OLED panel engineer positions.The offers are for those who worked for at least




www.businesskorea.co.kr


----------



## Robertoy

> Demand for OLED Panels Keeps Growing
> *Samsung Display and LG Display Follow Different Approaches in OLED Panel Business*
> 
> LG Display will start mass-producing new 42-inch OLED TV panels starting in 2021. The company is planning to expand its mid-sized panel lineup to 20 to 30 inches in the future and expand its business area to gaming monitors.
> 
> Industry watchers say that the company’s move is related to the increase in demand for mid-sized OLED panels for laptops, tablets, and gaming monitors since the spread of COVID-19. In particular, OLED use is on a sharp rise for laptops and gaming monitors.
> 
> As a result, some industry experts predict that OLED displays will quickly replace LCDs in the display market. They say that OLED displays will become the mainstream as OLED adoption is on the uptick.











Samsung Display and LG Display Follow Different Approaches in OLED Panel Business


Samsung Display and LG Display are making contrasting moves in the OLED panel business.Samsung Display, which has been focused on small OLED panels for smartphones, is seeking to enter the laptop market by increasing the panel size.LG Display, which is the world’s only producer of large OLED panels




www.businesskorea.co.kr


----------



## Robertoy




----------



## circumstances

I wish every TV model came in a monitor only version.

I never use any TVs speakers, and I have Fire TV Cube Gen 2 for streaming.


----------



## lsorensen

circumstances said:


> I wish every TV model came in a monitor only version.
> 
> I never use any TVs speakers, and I have Fire TV Cube Gen 2 for streaming.


Too bad you won't save anything if they removed that. Making one model for everyone with higher volumes is cheaper.


----------



## circumstances

lsorensen said:


> Too bad you won't save anything if they removed that. Making one model for everyone with higher volumes is cheaper.


Seems counterintuitive buying an item with tons of features you don't want, need, and will never use.


----------



## lsorensen

circumstances said:


> Seems counterintuitive buying an item with tons of features you don't want, need, and will never use.


Yes but other people will use them and making a lot of identical items is simpler. Besides if you ever go to sell it some day those features will probably make it a lot more appealing in general.


----------



## circumstances

lsorensen said:


> Yes but other people will use them and making a lot of identical items is simpler. Besides if you ever go to sell it some day those features will probably make it a lot more appealing in general.


I tend to keep things until they have no more useful life


----------



## Robertoy




----------



## Robertoy




----------



## WOLVERNOLE

circumstances said:


> I tend to keep things until they have no more useful life


My aunt told that to my uncle. Poor guy.


----------



## Rysa_105

QD-OLED: the challenge of creating the perfect hybrid TV – ElettroAmici







www.elettroamici.org


----------



## MechanicalMan

Rysa_105 said:


> QD-OLED: the challenge of creating the perfect hybrid TV – ElettroAmici
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.elettroamici.org


FWIW, other sources have indicated that Samsung will be using three (or "at least three") blue emitter layers, until if or when a better material emerges. Nanosys and Omdia have depicted QD-OLED stacks with three blue layers. Omida's depiction:


----------



## Robertoy




----------



## stl8k

Great overview of the state of OLED emitter development from researchers at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT).









A Brief History of OLEDs—Emitter Development and Industry Milestones


The history of emitter development and industry's interest in organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology are reviewed. OLED device technology has equally inspired and driven innovation in academi...




onlinelibrary.wiley.com





We're apparently in the "Fourth Generation" of OLEDs (Next‐Generation Emitter Development).


----------



## slacker711

Samsung Display says that they are fairly near to adopting a phosphorescent blue into their display products. This is the summary of a technical presentation that they are supposed to give at SID in May. 

A phosphorescent blue with a long life would dramatically increase the odds of QD-OLED's becoming successful. 





__





Display Week 2022 Symposium Program






www.scomminc.com


----------



## stama

What is new in the LG Display OLED EVO panels?
1. instead of a Blue/Yellow-Green/Red/Blue sandwich structure, the new panel has a Blue/Green/Yellow-Green/Red/Blue structure (as already mentioned here)
2. LG switched the supplier of the emitters from Idemitsu Kosan to DuPont, at least for the blue emitter; DuPont's blue emitter uses deuterium atoms instead of hydrogen which are more efficient at converting current to light

All this is according to this forum post (this forum is usually quite detailed when it comes to the tech behind TVs).

My suspicion regarding the switch from a Japanese supplier to a US one is that it is also partly due to the frictions between Japan and Korea that flared two years ago, with Japan imposing export control restrictions on chemicals used by the Korean electronics manufacturers as a retribution.


----------



## theone26

So with the introduction of LG's Evo panel, the Oled heatsink and the QD Oled tech on the horizon, what kind of peak brightness can we realistically expect flagship Oled from the big players to reach in 2-3 years of time? Sony's A90J has come real close to 1400 nits already in Standard mode at 2% window, is it still daydreaming to reach 1800 - 2000 nits?


----------



## MechanicalMan

theone26 said:


> So with the introduction of LG's Evo panel, the Oled heatsink and the QD Oled tech on the horizon, what kind of peak brightness can we realistically expect flagship Oled from the big players to reach in 2-3 years of time? Sony's A90J has come real close to 1400 nits already in Standard mode at 2% window, is it still daydreaming to reach 1800 - 2000 nits?


It could be interesting to see how QD-OLED compares. But from what we've heard so far, I'm not expecting brightness miracles from the first generation of QD-OLED. They may not be as bright as the new WOLED models; who knows? As for WOLED, LG Display roadmaps have indicated that the panels will improve to 300 nits full field, so it seems reasonable to hope for that in 2 - 3 years. I don't know what that would mean for brightness on smaller fields, but I think the improvement on larger fields would probably be more exciting to a lot of people.


----------



## theone26

MechanicalMan said:


> It could be interesting to see how QD-OLED compares. But from what we've heard so far, I'm not expecting brightness miracles from the first generation of QD-OLED. They may not be as bright as the new WOLED models; who knows? As for WOLED, LG Display roadmaps have indicated that the panels will improve to 300 nits full field, so it seems reasonable to hope for that in 2 - 3 years. I don't know what that would mean for brightness on smaller fields, but I think the improvement on larger fields would probably be more exciting to a lot of people.


300 nit full screen would be exciting for sure, I'm just glad the drought to Oled brightness increase is finally over, not that I think they're too dim or anything but it's exciting again to anticipate new models. Would want my next Oled upgrade be as big of a leap as possible.


----------



## Rod#S

I know OLED is more of a nice market segment vs the various LCD technologies in the grand scheme of things however one additional hurdle I see OLED's are soon going to have to face head on is 8k because it's not going to be long now when it'll be hard to find a flagship 4k LCD as things move much faster to 8k than I would have ever imagined so OLED will have to have relatively affordable models to complete. So in the marketplace with consumers making purchasing decisions, specs drive a lot of sales and with 8k OLED's at present being a product way out of reach for most that's going to have to change. I suppose more so with larger screen sizes becoming more and more popular as they have become considerably more affordable lately. Heck with 8K OLED's being limited to 2 LG Signature models and 1, maybe 2 B&O models I suspect most consumers don't even know OLED at 8k is even possible as these aren't exactly models you'll find at Best Buy, etc. so hardly anyone gets to see them. I know I sure haven't.


----------



## MechanicalMan

Rod#S said:


> I know OLED is more of a nice market segment vs the various LCD technologies in the grand scheme of things however one additional hurdle I see OLED's are soon going to have to face head on is 8k because it's not going to be long now when it'll be hard to find a flagship 4k LCD as things move much faster to 8k than I would have ever imagined so OLED will have to have relatively affordable models to complete. So in the marketplace with consumers making purchasing decisions, specs drive a lot of sales and with 8k OLED's at present being a product way out of reach for most that's going to have to change. I suppose more so with larger screen sizes becoming more and more popular as they have become considerably more affordable lately. Heck with 8K OLED's being limited to 2 LG Signature models and 1, maybe 2 B&O models I suspect most consumers don't even know OLED at 8k is even possible as these aren't exactly models you'll find at Best Buy, etc. so hardly anyone gets to see them. I know I sure haven't.


Hopefully people won't care too much about a TV being 8K when there is no 8K content for them to watch from 14' away on the 65" TV that they've hung over a fireplace, but I don't want to overestimate the intelligence of the average consumer.
FWIW, DSCC has _speculated_ that Samsung's initial QD-OLED lineup will be entirely 4K. So it's possible that the Kings of TV Marketing will be put in a position of pushing some pretty expensive 4K TVs (in addition to their much more expensive 4K microLED TVs).
The LG ZX is actually displayed in some Best Buys. I'm guessing they aren't big sellers.


----------



## JasonHa

8K arriving and 8K arriving to the non-premium market are two different things.


----------



## Wizziwig

TCL is including 8K in their budget 6 series LCDs this year. Far from premium market. I suspect this will be just like the 2K to 4K transition where 2K TVs quickly became impossible to find regardless of price. In a couple of years likely all LCD TVs will only be 8K. Increasing resolution on an LCD costs you essentially nothing from a manufacturing perspective. WOLED on the other hand has very complex backplanes and per-pixel circuits that are hard to miniaturize. This is why you see so much dead black space surrounding each pixel - there are traces and driving components located there which have nowhere else to go.


----------



## hiperco

8K having 4 times as many pixels to go bad, and 4 times as many drivers to go bad would seem to have a non-zero cost associated?


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Wizziwig said:


> TCL is including 8K in their budget 6 series LCDs this year. Far from premium market. I suspect this will be just like the 2K to 4K transition where 2K TVs quickly became impossible to find regardless of price. In a couple of years likely all LCD TVs will only be 8K. Increasing resolution on an LCD costs you essentially nothing from a manufacturing perspective. WOLED on the other hand has very complex backplanes and per-pixel circuits that are hard to miniaturize. This is why you see so much dead black space surrounding each pixel - there are traces and driving components located there which have nowhere else to go.


Agreed - I think the forum discussed this months ago. There's no reason LCD OEMs wouldn't go 8K as it is pretty cheap to do, and not a significant increase increase in failure rate as far as I've heard. OLED must follow or deal with explaining the gap. Folks that haunt these forums likely would have no issue buying a 4K OLED vs an 8K QLED if they thought the PQ was best for their viewing environment. But the general public sees 4K vs 8K and assumes 8K must be better. The LG LCD biz and new Samsung QD-OLED (future QNED) biz have to live with their in-house counterparts (WOLED and QLED respectively) at the OEM marketing level. I'm sure the marketing dance will be fun to watch with respect to 4K vs 8K 'goodness' depending on core technology being pitched by the same nameplate.


----------



## biliam1982

Vincent's latest video on forecasted manufacturing costs (not including distrubution or retail mark-up) of 75" panel sizes for OLED, QNED and Micro-LED. Looks like 2022 will be a good year for price drops on OLED. I'm guessing when then next-gen factory comes online.

HDTVTest MicroLED vs QNED vs OLED TV Price Comparison - Would You Pay More to Avoid Burn-In?


----------



## 59LIHP

LGE OLED TVs Impacted by Luminance Overshoot








LGE OLED TVs Impacted by Luminance Overshoot_03/07/21


LGE OLED TVs Impacted by Luminance Overshoot LG’s new ‘OLED evo’ high brightness sets are expected to reach peaks of somewhere around 1000 nits (versus around 800 on 2020 models). This will...



www.oled-a.org


----------



## 59LIHP

OLED Panel Prices Keep Falling
LCD Panel Prices Rising Fast to Accelerate Transition to OLED








LCD Panel Prices Rising Fast to Accelerate Transition to OLED


Market research firm Omdia reported on March 7 that the prices of 32- to 65-inch LCD panels rose about 4.5 percent last month. Specifically, the price of 55-inch 4K LCD panels rose from US$182 to US$191, up more than 70 percent from a year ago. Likewise, the price of 65-inch LCD panels jumped from U




www.businesskorea.co.kr


----------



## stl8k

Want to be credible in 2021 on deep discussions of display (and thus imaging) tech? Immerse in and quote/reference this document!

The present state of ultra-high definition television


https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-BT.2246-7-2020-PDF-E.pdf


----------



## Donny84

Would native 4K content be it games or movies look just as sharp/clear on a 77" OLED vs a 65"?
I always assumed you needed 8K once you dip over 65".....77" wouldn't interest me if native 4K ended up looking softer than on a 65"


----------



## hiperco

Donny84 said:


> Would native 4K content be it games or movies look just as sharp/clear on a 77" OLED vs a 65"?
> I always assumed you needed 8K once you dip over 65".....77" wouldn't interest me if native 4K ended up looking softer than on a 65"


8k is stupid. End of story.


----------



## valerianf

hiperco said:


> 8k is stupid. End of story.


For movies in theaters the professional cameras have a native resolution a little below 8k (i.e. >6k).
Post production and special effects are cutting the native image and deliver a 4k master.
If one day there is a 8k consumer movie market, it will be a 4k master oversampled to 8k.
Clearly there is no other interest than marketing.

If a manufacturer is able to deliver a 4k Oled TV without any burning or color balance issue I am ready to switch to Oled.
Until then I will stay with 4k LCD, may be with an improved angle of vision.
Any news about OLED burning improvement?


----------



## Donny84

Native 4K
5.1 Sound System


hiperco said:


> 8k is stupid. End of story.


I just read that Native 4K looks it's sharpest at 55", once you trickle over that into 65" you lose pixel density and the image looks a bit softer, the worse it gets the higher your go, 77" and then 85". This is where 8k comes in, especially at 85" you'll be getting a razor sharp crystal clear image, unlike 4K at that size.

I'm currently rocking a 55" LG C9, but the screen size just doesn't cut it for me anymore. I'd be content with 65" for now, even if doesn't quite look as sharp as the 55"

8k is pointless as of now, heck, 4K still isn't even the new 1080p yet. maybe in a couple or so years.


----------



## JazzGuyy

Donny84 said:


> Would native 4K content be it games or movies look just as sharp/clear on a 77" OLED vs a 65"?
> I always assumed you needed 8K once you dip over 65".....77" wouldn't interest me if native 4K ended up looking softer than on a 65"


It would really depend on how close you sat to the screen. A secondary factor would be how good the upscaling is. Unless you were pretty close to the screen, you would see no difference between the screen sizes. Few people would want to sit as close as you would have to in order to see the difference. 8k isn't stupid but it's probably unnecessary.


----------



## GCTuba

I can't see the pixels on my 77" C9 from 10 feet away and I have 20/20 vision with glasses.


----------



## P a n

hiperco said:


> 8k is stupid. End of story.


It's unnecessary if you sit too far away from a small screen, and doesn't help during motion where the motion blur of the capture and eye can't discern such detail moving around.

For static shots, it is real. I was lucky enough to see one of the very early demos of NHK super-hi vision (8k 120fps) on a theater-size screen in a lecture hall/auditorium. It is real, and it is glorious.

For a 65" TV mounted over the fireplace, 8k probably isn't worth it. On a theater-size screen it's absolutely worth it. If you have a big TV and sit nice and close, it's probably worth it.


----------



## Bruce Watson

P a n said:


> For a 65" TV mounted over the fireplace, 8k probably isn't worth it. On a theater-size screen it's absolutely worth it.


The science says that 8K output is not worth it for theaters (remember those?). Sony put out a white paper more than a decade ago (if I could find it I'd post a link to it, but alas, I can't lay my hands on it right now) that showed that 4k isn't worth it for display purposes in theaters with stadium seating. Only people in the first few rows were close enough to be able to see the difference between 4K and 2K (this is why the vast majority of DCPs delivered to theaters for display are 2k). People in the middle 80% of rows could see 2K just fine, but people in the back few rows couldn't tell the difference between 2K and 720p. Just too far away.

The thing about 8k is that you have to be so close to see the difference between 4k and 8k. If you're that close, you can't see the whole screen. Turns watching movies into watching tennis -- head keeps twisting back and forth and up and down. When you put your eyes that close to the screen, you are well inside the recommendations of THX and SMPTE for viewing angle limits. 

Thus my assertion that 8k is pointless as a display format.

Now, if what you want is a format that lets you walk right up to it and have it still look sharp, giving you that "looking through a window" vibe, 8k is your format (and, you know, 16k will be even better, and 32k after that...). When I was still into photography, that's what we used to call "nose sharp" -- you walk up to a print on a gallery wall and put your nose almost on it to see just how sharp the printer could make a darkroom print. It's a heck of a test, but it doesn't let you see the full picture. So I guess it depends on what you want.


----------



## Soccerdude

Is the FW 5.30.10 the latest on LG OLED C8


----------



## SeeMoreDigital

Soccerdude said:


> Is the FW 5.30.10 the latest on LG OLED C8


Perhaps you'll have more luck finding what you're looking for here: 2018 LG C8-E8 Owners' Thread (No Price Talk)


----------



## circumstances

I'm still rocking a 70 inch television and 110 inch projector from +/- 10 feet away.

Both 1080p. Both excellent picture.

Desperately want to go (much) larger on the television, and waiting (im)patiently for OLED, or some successor technology, to get me to pull the trigger.

So, I check this thread quite a bit and appreciate all the info as it's posted.


----------



## LeKnobber

Have you been following the Sony A90J thread? The 83” could be what you are looking for. A big leap in picture quality this time. 



circumstances said:


> I'm still rocking a 70 inch television and 110 inch projector from +/- 10 feet away.
> 
> Both 1080p. Both excellent picture.
> 
> Desperately want to go (much) larger on the television, and waiting (im)patiently for OLED, or some successor technology, to get me to pull the trigger.
> 
> So, I check this thread quite a bit and appreciate all the info as it's posted.


----------



## circumstances

LeKnobber said:


> Have you been following the Sony A90J thread? The 83” could be what you are looking for. A big leap in picture quality this time.


Yes.

Anxiously waiting for the VE shoot out!

My television and projector are both Sony, so I'm already a fan.


----------



## Xayd

valerianf said:


> For movies in theaters the professional cameras have a native resolution a little below 8k (i.e. >6k).
> Post production and special effects are cutting the native image and deliver a 4k master.
> If one day there is a 8k consumer movie market, it will be a 4k master oversampled to 8k.
> Clearly there is no other interest than marketing.
> 
> If a manufacturer is able to deliver a 4k Oled TV without any burning or color balance issue I am ready to switch to Oled.
> Until then I will stay with 4k LCD, may be with an improved angle of vision.
> Any news about OLED burning improvement?


I've actually done the math on this recently, a friend had the idea of a sort of traveling documentary project...

Blackmagic Design has done a lot of work in minimal loss compression recently, theirs is the only camera set up that would be small enough for a person with no crew to carry around by themselves. Uncompressed raw 6k 30fps video takes up right at 1GB/sec, the DSLR-sized "pocket cinema" camera that Blackmagic makes with on-board compression can get that down to 500 MB/sec with relatively lossless compression. So that's about 1.8 terabytes per hour for your ungraded, uncut footage. If you don't mind lossy compression of your ungraded, uncut footage you can probably cut that in half again and get it slightly below 1 terabyte per hour.

We also know that if we want to compare with feature films, it's not uncommon for the ratio of footage shot to footage in the final cut is anywhere from 20:1 to 60:1, commonly (Apocalypse Now for an outlier example was 95:1). So even if you could upload your... say... 3 terabytes per day to a cloud service for 3 hours of uncompressed footage per day, to wipe out the NAS you're using to store all of it locally wherever you are, which is a dubious proposition if you're going to be out and about in oddball places that don't have internet access capable of that, there's the cost...

Amazon S3 storage is $0.021/GB per month, so if you were putting your daily footage there to clean out the NAS you're traveling with, Apocalypse Now toward the end of its shooting phase would cost $1995/month to store, just in data, until you could get to wherever you were going to work on the footage in terms of grading, editing, cutting, etc. Considering AWS charges $0.12/GB for data transfer, just moving all of the footage out of S3 would cost $1140.00

So with all of this in mind if a 4k BluRay is 50GB/hour does anyone really think there's ever going to be 8k streaming or 8k consumer content? I've got 488 regular ole 1080p movies in my NAS right now, and cringe at the prospect of upgrading mechanical HDs to SSDs due to the cost (6x WD Red 2TBs would cost me about $1700). If they were all 8k I'd need what... 100 terabytes of storage at home? If I wanted to do that in SSDs that's $14,000 dollars.

tl;dr: I agree, no, we're not going to have 8K or even 6K content at home for a very long time.


----------



## Wizziwig

People already have 8K video content at home. It's just not coming from studios.

*The Best 8K Phones in 2021*

You either shoot it yourself or watch someone else's on youtube. Agree it's unlikely to ever come to physical media. Streaming providers will almost certainly adopt it. Since the summer Olympics are being shot in 8K, hopefully someone will offer it in that format outside of Japan.


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> People already have 8K video content at home. It's just not coming from studios.
> 
> *The Best 8K Phones in 2021*
> 
> You either shoot it yourself or watch someone else's on youtube. Agree it's unlikely to ever come to physical media. Streaming providers will almost certainly adopt it. Since the summer Olympics are being shot in 8K, hopefully someone will offer it in that format outside of Japan.


4K 120fps HDR is the consensus sweet spot for great content in 2021 whether that content was created from a camera or rendered. 8K 30+fps camera capture has too many compromises (browse the reviews of serious camera reviews) and the compute needed to render at 8K 30fps just isn't economic (as you would hear from folks in the gaming threads here).

We'll get to 8K 30+fps as the next sweet spot in a few years time.


----------



## stl8k

Speaking of smartphone OLED displays...

Just saw today that Samsung's smartphone OLED's have an MPRT of 11 milliseconds (at 120hz). Didn't realize it was so high (relative to TVs).









Samsung Display OLED panel wins SGS certificate


Samsung Display's OLED smartphone panels with 90 hertz and 120 hertz refresh rates were certified by Swiss-based certification agency SGS as “seamless” displays, according to the panel maker, Tuesday.




www.koreatimes.co.kr





Also, to get a sense for how dramatic peak brightness changes depending on what you measure for the same display, see this discussion of the forthcoming OnePlus Pro. 1% APL can peak at ~1600 nits.









Exclusive: First Test Results of the Radical OnePlus 9 Pro Display


The OnePlus 9 Pro's new screen ramps itself down to 1Hz to save power, the company says.




www.pcmag.com


----------



## Wizziwig

Kind of depressing that OLED phones now have better displays than OLED TVs. 1000 nits at 50% APL vs. 300 from the 2021 OLED TVs. If only I could shrink myself and setup a home theater in a doll house.


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> Kind of depressing that OLED phones now have better displays than OLED TVs. 1000 nits at 50% APL vs. 300 from the 2021 OLED TVs. If only I could shrink myself and setup a home theater in a doll house.


Haha!

I don't measure it closely but I estimate my own viewing of media (including professional/tech media) is 1/2 on a Retina Macbook display, 1/4 on various TVs around the house, and 1/4 on a smartphone display.

There's certainly a lot of innovation in smartphone tech generally and the degree of difficulty of innovating in smartphone displays is a bit higher owing to touch interaction requirements and the huge importance of energy consumption.

BTW, the French testing lab DXOMARK is doing great work on smartphone display testing as seen in this recent test:









Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos) Display: Outstanding video


Samsung's Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos) takes the top score in DXOMARK'S Display ranking for its readability and video performance.




www.dxomark.com


----------



## Micolash

stl8k said:


> Speaking of smartphone OLED displays...
> 
> Just saw today that Samsung's smartphone OLED's have an MPRT of 11 milliseconds (at 120hz). Didn't realize it was so high (relative to TVs).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Display OLED panel wins SGS certificate
> 
> 
> Samsung Display's OLED smartphone panels with 90 hertz and 120 hertz refresh rates were certified by Swiss-based certification agency SGS as “seamless” displays, according to the panel maker, Tuesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.koreatimes.co.kr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, to get a sense for how dramatic peak brightness changes depending on what you measure for the same display, see this discussion of the forthcoming OnePlus Pro. 1% APL can peak at ~1600 nits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exclusive: First Test Results of the Radical OnePlus 9 Pro Display
> 
> 
> The OnePlus 9 Pro's new screen ramps itself down to 1Hz to save power, the company says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pcmag.com


What is the MPRT of the iphone OLED? Or is it the same thing?


----------



## wco81

There is a lot more money in smart phones Han TVs.

A LOT more.


----------



## Wizziwig

Mobile devices are not ideal for good motion resolution because high refresh rates equate to higher power consumption. Adding any sort of BFI would dim the screen which then consumes more power to compensate. Mobile OLEDs also suffered from what is commonly referred to as "black smear" when coming out of the "off" state. The delay turning "on" the pixel would create black trails visible on certain darker backgrounds. It's one of the reasons most VR headsets abandoned OLED in favor of LCDs. Their contrast advantage was also reduced in VR applications because most were driven above absolute black to mitigate the "black smear" and improve uniformity.

Too bad DXOMARK doesn't publish their entire test reports. I guess their business model is to sell them. In their testing methodology video, you can glimpse a few pages. This one showed a full ABL graph of the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G. 800 nits full screen compared to the 170 nits we get from 2021 OLED TVs. Imagine if they were not battery power constrained. The real OLED "Evolution" appears to be coming from mobile, not from LG "Evo".


----------



## lsorensen

Wizziwig said:


> Mobile devices are not ideal for good motion resolution because high refresh rates equate to higher power consumption. Adding any sort of BFI would dim the screen which then consumes more power to compensate. Mobile OLEDs also suffered from what is commonly referred to as "black smear" when coming out of the "off" state. The delay turning "on" the pixel would create black trails visible on certain darker backgrounds. It's one of the reasons most VR headsets abandoned OLED in favor of LCDs. Their contrast advantage was also reduced in VR applications because most were driven above absolute black to mitigate the "black smear" and improve uniformity.
> 
> Too bad DXOMARK doesn't publish their entire test reports. I guess their business model is to sell them. In their testing methodology video, you can glimpse a few pages. This one showed a full ABL graph of the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G. 800 nits full screen compared to the 170 nits we get from 2021 OLED TVs. Imagine if they were not battery power constrained. The real OLED "Evolution" appears to be coming from mobile, not from LG "Evo".
> 
> View attachment 3113373


Well too bad the production methods for a mobile screens don't scale to TV sizes.


----------



## zetruz

Wizziwig said:


> Kind of depressing that OLED phones now have better displays than OLED TVs. 1000 nits at 50% APL vs. 300 from the 2021 OLED TVs. If only I could shrink myself and setup a home theater in a doll house.





Wizziwig said:


> Mobile OLEDs also suffered from what is commonly referred to as "black smear" when coming out of the "off" state. The delay turning "on" the pixel would create black trails visible on certain darker backgrounds. It's one of the reasons most VR headsets abandoned OLED in favor of LCDs. Their contrast advantage was also reduced in VR applications because most were driven above absolute black to mitigate the "black smear" and improve uniformity.


Yeah, I was so impressed with the screen on my Galaxy S10 that I once tried watching parts of Schindler's List on it, in a completely black room. The black smear was completely and utterly unacceptable and you'd never _ever_ accept that on a TV. It was just a blurry mess from being a black-and-white movie. Horrible. Maybe the newer phones have improved?


----------



## 59LIHP

JOLED starts mass producing inkjet-printed OLED displays under the OLEDIO brand













JOLED starts mass producing inkjet-printed OLED displays under the OLEDIO brand | OLED Info


JOLED announced that it has started to mass produce OLEDs at its new 5.5-Gen production line in Nomi, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan. JOLED brands its new displays as OLEDIO displays. JOLED plans to produce 10- to 32-inch displays, targeting applications such as high-end monitors, automotive...




www.oled-info.com





JOLED Starts Shipment of OLED Display OLEDIOTM





JOLED Starts Shipment of OLED Display OLEDIOTM – JOLED Inc.


World’s first mass production of printed OLEDJOLED Inc. (headquartered in Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan; Representative D...



www.j-oled.com





JOLED starts shipment of printed 22-32" 4K OLED panels to monitor makers








JOLED starts shipment of printed 22-32" 4K OLED panels to monitor makers


The panels inside LG's first OLED monitors




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## 59LIHP

P&H Tech Playing a Crucial Role in Localizing OLED Materials





대한민국 IT포털의 중심! 이티뉴스


전자신문인터넷




english.etnews.com


----------



## fafrd

It’s interesting that LG has elected to introduce a 42” panel.

42” is no more efficient to manufacture at 8.5G than 48” (8-up), so they cannot be planning to manufacture only 42” panels on an 8.5G substrate (nor on the leftover space after manufacturing 3 65”, 2 77” or 2 83” panels - cost will be the same as 48” panels).

After manufacturing 2 88” panels, there is not enough space remaining to manufacture 48” panels, but 2 42” panels can be manufactured with MMG, so one way to read the decision is that they believe 88” panel sales will start to grow and LG wants product in the lineup to use the leftover substrate (and drive down 88” panel costs).

If they use MMG when manufacturing 42” panels, they can make 2x4 in landscape plus another 1x2 in portrait, for 10-42” panels total per 8.5G sheet or 80% the cost of 48” panels, so perhaps they are getting very confident about of their MMG technology and planning that as their ‘escape hatch’ in the case that 42” panel sales take-off.

But 42” is most strategic at 10.5G. A single 10.5G substrate is optimally efficient for manufacturing 8 65” panels (2x4), which is exactly the same area as that needed to manufacture 18 42” panels (3x6). 

So 42” WOLED panels eventually costing 44.4% the cost of 65” WOLED panels looks very achievable...


----------



## wco81

Where do you see 42 inch OLED?


might be perfect bedroom TV


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Where do you see 42 inch OLED?
> 
> 
> might be perfect bedroom TV


LG Display announces its smallest OLED TV panel yet


----------



## MechanicalMan

wco81 said:


> Where do you see 42 inch OLED?


LG Display announced during CES that 42" WOLED TV panels would be available this year. They also did make clear that the panels are going to to be used _in televisions_.






Press Release - Press Center | LG Display


Find the latest press releases of LG Display, or search by topic.




www.lgdisplay.com


----------



## fafrd

I circled back to find the WOLED stack roadmap LGD published in late 2019 to see how this new Evo panel they have introduced stacks up (pun intended .

They were aiming for a 33% increase in full-field brightness from 150 cd/m2 to 200 cd/m2 and for an 11% increase in HDR peak brightness levels from 450 cd/m2 to 500 cd/m2 (this is probably supposed to be peak brightness on a 25% window).

HDTVTEST claims that they have confirmed a 20% increase in full-field brightness on the Evo panel, from 130cd/m2 to 160cd/m2, let’s call it ~half of the increase LG was aiming for (the difference in numbers is also probably impacted by D65 vs. Vivid).

HDTVTEST also confirmed a 20% brightness increase in a 10% window, from 650cd/m2 to 790cd/m2, going beyond what LG indicated they were aiming for. Since LGD didn’t specify how they were measuring HDR peak brightness, it’s difficult to compare Apples to Apples, but it appears they have relaxed ABL on the Evo panel more than they had originally been aiming for and can now deliver HDR highlights at sustained brightness levels approaching 800cd/m2.

The original roadmap indicated a switch to TADF Blue or Phosphorescent blue to achieve that brightness increase, and we’ve seen no indication that those high-efficiency blue emitters are ready for prime-time and in production yet, so that is probably the reason LGD has only delivered ~half of the underlying brightness increase / efficiency increase that they were aiming for.

Part of the increase LGD display delivered was apparently achieved by switching from Idemetsu’s hydrogen-based Blue florescent emitter to Dupont’s deuterium-based florescent blue emitter (with longer lifetime thus allowing blue to be driven harder).

And the rest of the increase LGD display delivered appears to be from going to a 3-stack 4-color structure with an additional dark green color sandwiched in the middle stack layer rather than the 3-stack 3-color structure they were originally working toward.

So on brightness, LGD found an alternative approach to deliver about half of the increase they had hoped for using high-efficiency blue.

On gamut, LGD expected to deliver 90% BT.2020 with this 3-stack 3-color structure but the Evo panel falls far short in that department, delivering only 72% BT.2020 (similar to the 2019 panels).

So while the Evo panel is a step forward, it’s really only a single or at most a double.

To deliver the home run they are hoping for LGD (as well as Samsung’s QD-BOLED) really needs high-efficiency blue emitters (TADF or phosphorescent).

With high-efficiency blue, LGD will be able to deliver the same brightness without the light-green layer, which will improve color gamut. Or they could stick with a more limited BT.2020 color gamut than they could otherwise deliver and achieve an additional ~20-30% brightness increase with high-efficiency blue (meaning 190-210 cd/m2 full-field and 950-1025cd/m2 @ 10% window).


----------



## Wizziwig

One problem with all that. HDTVtest numbers are comparing to the "gimped" models they released in 2020. Compared to the 2019 models, there is much less progress. They were already at 147 nits full screen and 704 peak on the C9. HDTVtest C9 review.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> One problem with all that. HDTVtest numbers are comparing to the "gimped" models they released in 2020. Compared to the 2019 models, there is much less progress. They were already at 147 nits full screen and 704 peak on the C9. HDTVtest C9 review.


Remember all that he confusion regarding the WOLED stack change LGD introduced in 2016? I just found this paper describing the details: (PDF) 3-1: Invited Paper : 3 Stack-3 Color White OLEDs for 4K Premium OLED TV

So by 2026, we should understand definitively what LGD has changed for their new 2021 stack and why.

Between ‘gimping’ or trading off increased brightness for increased lifetime/burn-in immunity as well as any panel mixing that may be going on in the non-G lineup this year, it’ll be a while before we know definitively what LGD has achieved with this new stack.

The things that do seem certain are that:

-A new stack has been introduced (and 3-layer / 5 color from all reports).

-This new stack almost certainly falls short of what LGD was aiming for on their earlier-published roadmap (probably primarily due to continued delays with high-efficiency blue / TADF).

-The new stack must offer some meaningful improvements, otherwise it’s difficult to understand why LGD would have made the change.

Assuming a 20% increase in efficiency has been delivered, how much of that LG decided to ‘keep in their pocket’ to reduce burn-in concerns will take time (and perhaps several generations) to suss-out...

Remember all the subpixel design iterations after the 2016 stack change?


----------



## Wizziwig

It's still a mystery why they reduced brightness performance on the 2020 sets (confirmed by HDTVtest in their GX review). If you're the tinfoil hat type, you might think they did it to make the 2021 models appear like a larger upgrade. Could also be they were getting too many burn-in warranty claims and this was their means of mitigating the issue until the more efficient 2021 panels arrived.

In any event, the progress of OLED brightness improvements has stagnated compared to the level of brightness improvements seen on LCDs over the same time period of last few years. With LCD it seems to be mostly just a function of price - when it's no object they can make models hitting 4000 nits (case in point 2019 Sony Z9G). To meet more consumer friendly pricing, they generally keep them below 2000 nits. Best measured so far this year appears to be the Samsung 8K mini-led models at ~2600 nits. At least they are advancing by a noticeable amount vs last year and the brightness gap to OLED keeps increasing.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> It's still a mystery why they reduced brightness performance on the 2020 sets (confirmed by HDTVtest in their GX review). If you're the tinfoil hat type, you might think they did it to make the 2021 models appear like a larger upgrade. Could also be they were getting too many burn-in warranty claims and this was their means of mitigating the issue until the more efficient 2021 panels arrived.
> 
> In any event, the progress of OLED brightness improvements has stagnated compared to the level of brightness improvements seen on LCDs over the same time period of last few years. With LCD it seems to be mostly just a function of price - when it's no object they can make models hitting 4000 nits (case in point 2019 Sony Z9G). To meet more consumer friendly pricing, they generally keep them below 2000 nits. Best measured so far this year appears to be the Samsung 8K mini-led models at ~2600 nits. At least they are advancing by a noticeable amount vs last year and the brightness gap to OLED keeps increasing.


I can’t argue with you.

It’ll be interesting to see what Rtings.com has measured once they publish their review on Monday, but looking over their reviews since the C6, what you basically see is that LGD succeeded to move full-field brightness up from 125 cd/m2 to ~140-150 cd/m2 and monkeyed around with ABL curves to get 10% up from 650 cd/m2 on the C6, to peak at 876 cd/m2 on the C8, then backing off to 800 cd/m2 on the C9 and again to 776cd/m2 on the CX (which HDTVTEST reported as 650cd/m2 but that could have been impacted by calibration).

I’m actually very happy with the brightness of my C6, so it the new stack delivers nothing more that 20% extra piece of mind against any issues with burn-in, that alone might interest me.

We’ll never know how much ‘risk’ LGD took to avoid being wiped-out by the Brightness Wars, so the Evo panel may translate to nothing more than delivering the OLED brightness spec the market has settled on at much lower risk than LGD took with the C8...

Based on the HDTVTEST results, the G1 delivered a ~20% improvement in both full-field and 10% HDR brightness levels.

That drops to +7% full-field and -10% @ 10% HDR using the Rtings.com C8 measurements as the reference (which is why it’ll be interesting to compare using their G1 measurements).

But a +20% improvement across-the-board from the reference point of the C6 seems assured in any case (and hopefully at much lower risk of burn-in than the C6 suffered).


----------



## Wizziwig

LG is basically just "phoning it in" every year with minor processing improvements. All the major OLED advancements are in mobile as discussed on this thread recently. This is what happens when there is no competition in the OLED TV panel space forcing you to innovate or be left behind. At least they are lowering prices so you can get the same thing for less money each year.


----------



## wco81

Well Samsung is in hot pursuit right?

I don't know if Sony is exploring alternate display technologies.

Or if the Chinese are ever going to be able to produce OLEDs themselves. 

There was some hype a year or two ago about dual LCDs but then it turned out too energy-hungry so did the manufacturers just give up?


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> LG is basically just "phoning it in" every year with minor processing improvements. All the major OLED advancements are in mobile as discussed on this thread recently. This is what happens when there is no competition in the OLED TV panel space forcing you to innovate or be left behind. *At least they are lowering prices so you can get the same thing for less money each year.*


Hey, ramping up production while driving down costs is nothing to sneeze at (especially when it involves complicated and risky new manufacturing technologies like MMG).

The fact that you can easily find a new 65” WOLED for under $2000 and a 77” WOLED can now be had for $3000 is pretty amazing.

LGD is aiming to sell 7-8 million panels this year - that’s 3-4% of the overall TV market but a whopping 25-33% of the Premium TV market.

Yes, high-end LCDs continue to put pressure on the Peak Brightness Front, but that’s coming at increasing cost.

So the trend over the past few years has been steady price declines with WOLED and steady price increases with Premium-LED/LCD, meaning the cost gap has narrowed and is now basically closed.

If you want bright peaks (for example you watch in the day or with lights on), you’ll prefer the brightness of LED/LCD and there is nothing LGD/WOLED can do to win your business.

If you watch in the dark or dim and appreciate the value of truly perfect (anomaly-free) blacks more highly that even-brighter highlights, today’s WOLED is tough to beat.

LGD went on a wild ride in 2016-2018 chasing the Brightness Wars and we’ll never no how close they came to losing everything. In their shoes, I’d be playing my cards very close to my chest at this stage as well.

If we assume they’ve introduced a new stack with 20% better efficiency, it would not surprise me to learn they’ve saved the lion’s share of that to deliver (safe) incremental improvements in peak levels over the next several years.

Also, the fact that LGD as not followed Panasonic and now Sony in investing in heat sinks can be read in two ways:

- they are focusing on best bang-for-the-buck and don’t consider the added cost justified

- they know high-efficiency blue is on the horizon and will make heatsinks unnecessary

The timing of TADF is a huge unknown, but LGD WOLED is now well-positioned for continued growth regardless of when or if it ever emerges.

High-efficiency blue will deliver a massive brightness boost essentially overnight, getting WOLEDs over 1500 Nits and approaching 2000 Nits without breaking much of a sweat.

In the meantime, it’s continued delay / hiccups is much worse news for Samsung’s QD-BOLED than it is for WOLED (which is already way over the hump).


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Well Samsung is in hot pursuit right?
> 
> I don't know if Sony is exploring alternate display technologies.
> 
> Or if the Chinese are ever going to be able to produce OLEDs themselves.
> 
> There was some hype a year or two ago about dual LCDs but then it turned out too energy-hungry so did the manufacturers just give up?


QD-BOLED is all but dead. Samsung Visual Display (the TV unit) cuts deal with Samsung the panel-making unit to introduce a QD-BOLED TV in exchange for an extension of LCD panel supply: 








Samsung Display to produce QD-OLED TV prototype in June


Samsung Display is planning to produce a prototype of a TV that uses its quantum dot organic light emitting diode (QD-OLED) panel in June, TheElec has learned.The company is also planning to produce a QD-OLED monitor prototype as well. These prototypes will be sent to potential customers such as Sam




www.thelec.net





That TV will be ridiculously expensive and at best, will outperform WOLED on Rec.2020 color gamut%. It is almost certain to flop (especially since Samsung Visual Display is more motivated to see it flop than to see it succeed)

The other part of the Samsung inter-unit ‘deal’ is that the panel unit can deliver samples to potential customers such as Sony to conduct a ‘survey’ on market suitability and demand.

Any further investments into QD-BOLED production have been put on hold until September pending the outcome of that ‘survey.’

There may be a fall-back plan based on inorganics rather than OLED (the true QLED) but that will mean years of additional delay.

And in the meantime, there will just be continued (slow) trickle-down of MicroLED at the ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous’ apex of the market and hoped-for trickle-up of lower-cost printed OLEDs (which are unlikely to ever threaten WOLED on performance).

So until TADF or another high-efficiency blue materializes, it’s difficult to see any catalyst for significant change in the performance of WOLED.

LGD focusing on driving down cost and driving up volume while the LCD competition is focused on driving up performance (and cost with it) is exactly where LGD wants to be...


----------



## fafrd

Gotta love the spin: Samsung Display to start producing QD OLED module samples by June 2021 | OLED-Info

“SDC will produce both TV and monitor prototypes, which it will send to potential customers (such as Samsung Electronics, Sony, and Chinese TV makers). *When customers approve the prototypes, SDC will be ready for commercial production*.”

‘When’ not ‘if’.

Also, the article included this little tidbit that I had not seen before:

‘SDC had to increase the brightness of its panels as TV makers said it is not enough for premium TV adoption.’

So that suggests that the QD-BOLED panels SDC demonstrated in January have already been shown to ‘TV makers’ such as Sony and the feedback was ‘not bright enough.’

Which further suggests that SDC has had to add an additional blue OLED layer since January to get brightness higher (which means a total of 4 blue OLED layers, I believe).

The continued delay of a high-efficiency Blue OLED emitter has basically derailed this whole QD-BOLED initiative...


----------



## fafrd

Possibly old news, but since I ran into it figured I would share: MiniLED Backlight Technology, Cost and Shipment Report - Display Supply Chain Consultants

DSCC very bullish on MiniLED, forecasting MiniLED to catch up with WOLED this year and ~double WOLEDs volume by 2023...

(And by way of comparison, they don’t see QD-BOLED getting to ~1Mu / ~10% of WOLED until 2025...).


----------



## chros73

Interesting, and not in a good way  
Here's Fomo's video about qdoled not bright enough.


----------



## MechanicalMan

chros73 said:


> Interesting, and not in a good way
> Here's Fomo's video about qdoled not bright enough.


As is completely typical of FOMO, he has already put out a new video basically admitting that he was talking out of his ass in that one. I guess Nanosys responded to say that they aren't to blame for whatever brightness problems that Samsung may be experiencing with QD-OLED.


----------



## fafrd

MechanicalMan said:


> As is completely typical of FOMO, he has already put out a new video basically admitting that he was talking out of his ass in that one. I guess Nanosys responded to say that they aren't to blame for whatever brightness problems that Samsung may be experiencing with QD-OLED.


He’s definitely an acquired taste, but his overall messages are generally more right than wrong.

I was about to add a post saying he was way off on the cause of QD-BOLED not being bright enough, but you beat me too it.

Here is an article on the underlying science he’s referring to:




__





Scientists uncover a process that stands in the way of making quantum dots brighter | College of Chemistry







chemistry.berkeley.edu





It’s unlikely the effect they’ve discovered impacts the efficiency of quantum dots at the luminance levels required for QD-BOLED since they are already successfully converting that intensity of Blue Light for current-generation QLED/LCDs.

It does, however raise interesting questions about whether how bright QD-based TVs can get before they start to max out and waste additional light energy as heat rather than converted light (10,000 cd/m2 QD-TV?).

And if there is any such limit impacting HDR-level intensities of 4000-10,000 cd/m2, that will be a fundamental limit applying equally to QLED/LCD, QD/BOLED, or the new inorganic ‘QNEDs’ Samsung is now working on.


I found another video of his that does a decent job describing the ‘deal’ reached between Samsung Display and Samsung Electronics: 




In it, he claims that the QD-BOLED prototypes shown at CES ‘20 (January 2020) were already panned as being ‘too dim’ and so caused Samsung to increase from 3 BOLED layers to 4.

If true, and if reports that the CES ‘21 prototypes were still ‘not bright enough’ are true, Samsung may now be in the process of developing 5-layer BOLED stack to use for their Q3 customer ‘survey’...


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> It's still a mystery why they reduced brightness performance on the 2020 sets (confirmed by HDTVtest in their GX review). *If you're the tinfoil hat type, you might think they did it to make the 2021 models appear like a larger upgrade. * Could also be they were getting too many burn-in warranty claims and this was their means of mitigating the issue until the more efficient 2021 panels arrived.


I am a bit of the tinfoil hat type, but I have an alternate motivation.

Sitting where LG WOLED is now, the only threat to their continued dominance of the ‘dark’ end of the Premium TV market is QD-BOLED.

So if I’m LGD and I’ve got some new arrows in my quiver (+20% efficiency), I’m going to keep my cards very close to my chest until QD-BOLED shows more cards.

The worst-case scenario I want to position myself to avoid is that Samsung actually goes into full-scale production of 30K substrates per month in Q4 and sells over a million QD-BOLED TVs in 2022.

So I wouldn’t really care too much about 2021 and would be much more focused on showroom-floor comparisons and shootouts a year from now (2022).

QD-BOLED will be much more expensive than WOLED in it’s first year of production, but Samsung will be prepared to lose money to gain market share and I’d have to assume price will match market price of WOLED and probably will even undercut it.

So first, I’d need to be prepared for a price war which LGD+LGE is pretty well positioned for now (especially with introduction of new 83” size).

And second, I’d need to be sure my TVs look better. QD-BOLED will have the edge on color gamut and color space, and there is not much I can do about that, but increased color space is hard to ‘see’ in a shootout let alone a showroom floor, as compared to brightness.

Differences in brightness are pretty apparent (as LG knows having barely survived the Brightness Wars) and if I’m LG, I’m going to want to be positioned to spring a CES ‘22 surprise and announce a much brighter lineup of WOLED TVs after the first generation of QD-BOLEDs is fully locked and loaded.

Samsung is certainly going to launch at least one QD-BOLED TV next year if not a full lineup, but there heart will not be in it, they are not going to lose money at Samsung Display’s account, and I doubt they’ll be motivated to take much technical/warranty risk either (pushing brightness to the levels that cause burn-in within 2 years).

So Sony really is the kingmaker. But Sony is also not going to lose money on Samsung’s account and Sony is also very conservative in terms of pushing specs.

It’s difficult to imagine Sony making enough of a commitment to absorb 100s of thousands of QD-BOLED panels their first year out the chute, but if I’m LGD, I’m going to save some arrows in my quiver to share with Sony in Q3 just as they are approaching a decision on moving forward with QD-BOLED.

I’m guessing the new Evo panel is already able to safely deliver over 1000 cd/m2 peak levels but LGD was smart enough to realize that boost will be much more important in 2022 than it is in 2021...


----------



## RWetmore

Very interesting speculation, fafrd.


----------



## chros73

fafrd said:


> QD-BOLED will be much more expensive than WOLED in it’s first year of production, but Samsung will be prepared to lose money to gain market share and I’d have to assume price will match market price of WOLED and probably will even undercut it.


I highly doubt this part, take look at their LCD prices, err sorry QLED


----------



## 8mile13

...chinese will launch a QD OLED TV likely in 2021.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> ...chinese will launch a QD OLED TV likely in 2021.


Are you making that statement based on their own panel production or relying on QD OLED panel production by Samsung?

If you are assuming Chinese demand will be sufficient to convince Samsung Display to move forward with QD-BOLED production, that is a pretty huge assumption.

If the results of the ‘customer survey’ come back in September and the only customers Samsung Display have managed to get commitments from are Chinese TV manufacturers (and more specifically that Sony said ‘pass’), assuming Samsung Electronics remains as lukewarm as they have been up to now, it’s hard to see Samsung Display investing in full-blown QD-BOLED production ramp-up based only on that.

But if you’ve got any further information or sources, I’m interested.


----------



## 8mile13

This is rather old news. At the time on top of the 2021 QD OLED launch claim they claimed that they might show a inkjet printed QD OLED at IFA 2021 also.
TCL wants to launch its first QD-OLED TV next year (hdtvtest.co.uk)

My guess is that we might see a few QD OLED models end 2021 in China only.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> This is rather old news. At the time on top of the 2021 QD OLED launch claim they claimed that they might show a inkjet printed QD OLED at IFA 2021 also.
> TCL wants to launch its first QD-OLED TV next year (hdtvtest.co.uk)
> 
> My guess is that we might see a few QD OLED models end 2021 in China only.


Thanks.

I certainly see much higher likelihood of TCL working to develop their own QD-BOLED technology with JOLED and bringing something to market based on that than I see possibility that Samsung decides to ramp up production of a new panel technology because only TCL wants it (along with Samsung Electronic’s half-hearted peace offering).

And 2021 is off the table in any case - if JOLED + TCL actually does show off a prototype at IFA ‘21 in September, at best you’ll a product announced at CES’22 which becomes available a year from now.

On the Samsung QD-OLED front, I just ran into this from over a year ago:Samsung Experiments w/Blue Nanorods as an Alternative for Blue OLED Material_3/15/20

So they’ve been pursuing a dual-track of QD-Display 1.0 (QD-BOLED) and QD-Display 2.0 (QNED) pretty much since the beginning and the September ‘Decision’ following their market survey will be whether they have anything by mid-year good-enough to start investing in ramping-up production.

Even if they decide to go balls-to-the-wall, any equipment they commit to in September won’t be installed by year’s end (let alone ramped).

So to my relatively-fresh eyeballs on this, it looks like 0% chance of any kind of QD-BOLED of any flavor in Best Buy this year and less than 10% chance of any QD-BOLED on the shelves of Best Buy by Black Friday ‘22.

The continued delay of high-efficiency Blue Emitters is pretty much of a showstopper for the entire concept.

When there are clear signals that high-efficiency blue has arrived, it will take LGD a minimum of 1 year to release new panels adopting it (and longer for any new not-yet-ramped technology like QD-BOLED).

I see LGD’s decision to release a new panel stack this year to mean exceedingly low likelihood that high-efficiency blue emitters are ready for prime time by the end of this year.

Ergo, my forecast that we’re not going to see any viable QD -BOLED hit store shelves in meaningful quantities before 2023 (best case).

In the absence of High-Efficiency Blue, Samsung’s QNED looks more viable than QD-BOLED, but that is so early on in the industrialization cycle (let alone the R&D cycle) and facing so many unknown risks and technical challenges that it is very difficult to forecast with any kind of confidence.


----------



## MechanicalMan

Planning to show a display is a lot different than planning to release one, perhaps especially for TCL. I don't think what we heard last year guarantees that we'll see something at IFA this year, and I _definitely_ don't think it means we should expect a product on the market by the end of the year. Doesn't TCL have a history of showing off displays at trade shows that never materialize? Like Vidrian? Anyway, it seems like it might be awhile before TCL is actually mass producing something. I wouldn't think there would be another supplier ready to deliver something affordable enough for TCL TVs either. I don't pay much attention to this, but aren't JOLED monitors _very_ expensive? Maybe cheap IJP OLED TVs are coming at some point, but I doubt they're coming this year.


----------



## fafrd

Here’s my attempt at explaining why lack of a high-efficiency Blue Emitter is pretty much of a showstopper for QD-BOLED.

LG’ new EVO 3-stack 4-color WOLED stack deliver white light with 2 blue layers and a single combined red+deep_green+light_green layer.

Let’s assume that LGs florescent blue emitters are similar to Samsung’s current blue emitters.

For the Blue Subpixel, LG WOLED will capture pretty much all of that 3-layer blue light in both the blue subpixel area as well as the white subpixel area, so let’s call that 2-layer blue intensity captured over ~60% of the overall pixel area, or 1.2 ‘units’.

QD-BOLED will also capture 100% of blue light but only for the blue subpixel which is 33% of the overall pixel area, so let’s call it #B/3 ‘units.’

LG’s green is much, much more efficient than blue, do the green subpixel can safely be a fraction of the size of the blue subpixel and easily get the needed amount of light out.

Even though the green subpixel is ~1/3 the size of the blue subpixel, it can put out equal light, or 0.6 ‘units’ in the green subpixel plus another 0.6 ‘units’ through the white subpixel, or another 1.2 ‘units’ total.

In the case of QD-BOLED, the green subpixel will convert the same oncoming blue light to green light and will have the same size, so another #B/3 ‘units’.

Red is not as efficient as green but more efficient than blue and this is reflected on the fact that the WOLED red sibpixel is larger than green, but the same analysis holds: 0.6 ‘units’ through the red subpixel and another 0.6 ‘units’ through the white subpixel for 1.2 ‘units’ total, while QD-BOLED get’s another #B/3 ‘units’ out of the red subpixel.

So WOLED gets a total of 1.2x3 = 3.6 ‘units’ of luminance from it’s 3 OLED layers while QD-BOLED will get #B/3 x 3 = #B from it’s number of blue layers.

To match WOLEDs peak white output levels, QD-BOLED will require at least 4 layers of Florescent Blue OLED, so 1.33 times the number of OLED layers LG WOLED is using.

So without a high-efficiency Blue emitter, the cost advantage QD-BOLED promised is actually a cost disadvantage.

There some statements that Samsung Display showed 3-layer QD-BOLED at CES’20 and was told it was ‘too dim’ resulting in them going back to develope 5-layer QD-BOLED.

This simplistic, idealistic analysis shows why 4 layers is the minimum to deliver WOLED-like brightness, but there are further statements that what Samsung showed at CES’21 (presumably 4-layer) was again rejected as ‘not bright enough’ and so again went back to add another blue layer to increase brightness.

Whether 4 layers were insufficient to deliver WOLED-level brightness or customers are not interested to merely match WOLED-level brightness but want to noticeably surpass it (perhaps looking more like QD-LED/LCD rather than WOLED, the net result is that it seems likely the QD-BOLED Samsung will be showing to customers in June will have an intrinsic manufacturing cost which is at least 33% higher if not 67% higher than WOLED (assuming equivalent economies of scale but specific to OLED layer cost only).

The arrival of a high-efficiency Blue emitter would change this analysis in a second, but unless it is a bridge to a certain and lower-cost evolution, a 4 or 5 layer QD-BOLED makes little sense...


----------



## Wizziwig

How did you come up with the idea that QD-OLED will be cheaper or close to WOLED pricing? It's pretty much a given that it will be a premium product over $10K if/when it launches - just like WOLED was when it launched. Remember those $15K 55" panels back in 2013? Higher prices allow them to consider solutions that aren't practical for LG's current race to the bottom strategy.

As far as what will justify those higher prices, I have no idea. But then again, I have no idea what justifies Samsung's current TCL/CSOT rebadged mini-LED's selling for up to $9K. Especially when TCL will probably sell those exact same LCD panels for less than half the price by Fall. Never underestimate Samsung's marketing prowess.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> How did you come up with the idea that QD-OLED will be cheaper or close to WOLED pricing? It's pretty much a given that it will be a premium product over $10K if/when it launches - just like WOLED was when it launched. Remember those $15K 55" panels back in 2013? Higher prices allow them to consider solutions that aren't practical for LG's current race to the bottom strategy.


Well first, I explicitly mentioned that I was discussing ‘intrinsic cost’ (meaning at equivalent production volume and maturity of manufacturing).

And second, if you’ve been following any of the discussion/analysis about the Samsung Electronics- Samsung Display ‘agreement’ one of the only things blindingly clear is that Samsung Electronics has absolutely no interest in or intention to follow LGE’s/LGD’s ‘go slow’ approach.

They are saying 30,000 8.5G substrates per month is not enough and they will want full approvals and financing lined up to convert all LCD fans over to QD-BOLED and catch up to LGD’s production capacity of 140,000 substrates per month as a precondition to launching QD-BOLED products into the marketplace.

30,000 8.5G substrates per translates to ~1.5 million QD-BOLEDs in their first year of production, and no way those are selling-through at $15K @ 55” or even $5K @ 65”.

If Samsung decides to go forward with QD-BOLED this September, it’s pretty clear it will be a Go Big or Go Hone decision (meaning they will be prepared to sell at whatever price they need to to catch up to WOLEDs sales volumes within a couple years or three at most).



> As far as what will justify those higher prices, I have no idea. But then again, I have no idea what justifies Samsung's current TCL/CSOT rebadged mini-LED's selling for up to $9K. Especially when TCL will probably sell those exact same LCD panels for less than half the price by Fall. Never underestimate Samsung's marketing prowess.


I agree that if any company can sell 1.5 million of a new TV technology in their first year of sales at a 200% to 300% premium to what the closest competitor (WOLED) is offering, that would be Samsung.

I just don’t see it happening. As I just posted in the QNED thread, I think the smart money is on another 6-month kicking of the can down the road come September (especially if the LCD market stays as strong as it is currently...).


----------



## fafrd

Not directly related to OLED Technology Advancements, but since Samsung’s decision to move forward with QD-BOLED in September or kick the can down the road for another ~6 months will likely be directly impacted by LCD panel outlook, I thought it would be worth posting: 





__





LCD TV Panel Prices Keep Going Up - Display Supply Chain Consultants







www.displaysupplychain.com


----------



## Michellstar

Hell's going to freeze?









Samsung reportedly inks deal to buy OLED TV panels from rival LG Display


Rising LCD panel prices are reportedly to blame.




www.theverge.com





Enviado desde mi Mi MIX 2S mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Jin-X

Michellstar said:


> Hell's going to freeze?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung reportedly inks deal to buy OLED TV panels from rival LG Display
> 
> 
> Rising LCD panel prices are reportedly to blame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theverge.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enviado desde mi Mi MIX 2S mediante Tapatalk


I feel like that should get it's own thread on the forum. Obviously a bad sign for how QD-OLED progress is going.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> I feel like that should get it's own thread on the forum. Obviously a bad sign for how QD-OLED progress is going.
> 
> Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


I you guys believe this ‘news’ I’ve got a bridge I want to sell you .

‘The deal... would see 1 million panels supplied to Samsung in the second half of this year, rising to 4 million next year.’

Please explain to me what Samsung would do with 1 million WOLED panels supplied in the second half of this year?


----------



## MechanicalMan

fafrd said:


> Please explain to me what Samsung would do with 1 million WOLED panels supplied in the second half of this year?


Open the world's best Buffalo Wild Wings


----------



## fafrd

This is also just another rumor as far as I am concerned, but I give it more credence than the ‘Samsung buying 1 million WOLED panels in the second half of this year’ story: LG Display to rank 5th in TV panel shipments this year: report | Yonhap News Agency

"LGD will expand the OLED production capacity of its Guangzhou fab *in the second quarter of 2021* as part of its effort to dominate the OLED market," TrendForce said.

LGD increasing Guangzhou from the current 60,000 8.5G sheets/month to the maximum of 90,000 sheets per month would be a sensible and bullish move (and increase total capacity by ~21% from 140k/mo to 170k/mo).

LG Display’s next earnings call is scheduled for April 28th, so we’ll know whether either of these ‘rumors’ is true in less than 3 weeks...


----------



## Robertoy

Robertoy said:


>


----------



## fafrd

Robertoy said:


>


Vincent gives the rumor much more credence than I do because he’s claiming it’s coming from multiple sources (and I’d want to be sure those are not just echoing the original report).

So confirming whether all this noise is coming from a single report or is a campaign of several ‘leaks’ is an important indicator of how seriously to take this ‘news’.

Assuming we get confirmation that this is a media leak campaign and not just one confused report, Samsung Visual Display in discussion with LG Display about sourcing WOLED panels as a negotiating tactic against Samsung Display makes sense.

We’ve just recently heard reports of the ‘Great Peace’ between these two divisions that have historically been at odds, but if Samsung Display is trying to get Samsung Visual Display (TV Division) to adopt WD-BOLED panels that will be more expensive and dimmer than WOLED, what better way to make the point that that isn’t happening than beginning discussions with LGD.

The ‘million panels in H2 2021’ makes no sense but that could be LGD’s requirement to know these discussions are serious and they may be willing to stick those panels in inventory until they have launched 2022 WOLED TVs that can use them.

So again, with confirmation of multiple independent reports, these ‘discussions’ are probably for real.

The likelihood that they are just discussions and part of SCD’s negotiation strategy (including the media leaks) is high. I mean, if this deal is actually ‘inked’ and a done deal, what’s the value in leaking the information?

Obviously, if SVD doesn’t get whatever they are pushing Samsung Display to give them, they may actually be prepared to move forward with sourcing WOLED panels from LGD, but it’s a bit difficult to imagine that commitment getting made prior to the September QD-BOLED Market Evaluation and Decision Point that has apparently already been agreed to by both SVD and a Samsung Display.

Interesting times for sure. The pressure/conflict between SVD and Samsung Display appears to be reaching the breaking point. And that kind of conflict can lead to all sorts of instability and strange bedfellows...

And all I can advise through an unstable situation like that is that: ‘all is often not as it seems’...


----------



## wco81

So for the foreseeable future, WOLED is it as far as anything better than LCD.

I mean if Samsung is signing on at this point in time, that means not only is QD-BOLED in question but also not a huge endorsement of the mini-LED products they introduced just this year.


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Vincent gives the rumor much more credence than I do because he’s claiming it’s coming from multiple sources (and I’d want to be sure those are not just echoing the original report).
> 
> So confirming whether all this noise is coming from a single report or is a campaign of several ‘leaks’ is an important indicator of how seriously to take this ‘news’.
> 
> Assuming we get confirmation that this is a media leak campaign and not just one confused report, Samsung Visual Display in discussion with LG Display about sourcing WOLED panels as a negotiating tactic against Samsung Display makes sense.
> 
> We’ve just recently heard reports of the ‘Great Peace’ between these two divisions that have historically been at odds, but if Samsung Display is trying to get Samsung Visual Display (TV Division) to adopt WD-BOLED panels that will be more expensive and dimmer than WOLED, what better way to make the point that that isn’t happening than beginning discussions with LGD.
> 
> The ‘million panels in H2 2021’ makes no sense but that could be LGD’s requirement to know these discussions are serious and they may be willing to stick those panels in inventory until they have launched 2022 WOLED TVs that can use them.
> 
> So again, with confirmation of multiple independent reports, these ‘discussions’ are probably for real.
> 
> The likelihood that they are just discussions and part of SCD’s negotiation strategy (including the media leaks) is high. I mean, if this deal is actually ‘inked’ and a done deal, what’s the value in leaking the information?
> 
> Obviously, if SVD doesn’t get whatever they are pushing Samsung Display to give them, they may actually be prepared to move forward with sourcing WOLED panels from LGD, but it’s a bit difficult to imagine that commitment getting made prior to the September QD-BOLED Market Evaluation and Decision Point that has apparently already been agreed to by both SVD and a Samsung Display.
> 
> Interesting times for sure. The pressure/conflict between SVD and Samsung Display appears to be reaching the breaking point. And that kind of conflict can lead to all sorts of instability and strange bedfellows...
> 
> And all I can advise through an unstable situation like that is that: ‘all is often not as it seems’...


This article from Samobile :Samsung and LG are entering into a historic partnership for OLED panels

references this report from MTN Korea as it’s source:[단독] 삼성전자-LGD, 패널 공급 확대 급물살

This article from the Verge cites 3 sources: Samsung reportedly inks deal to buy OLED TV panels from rival LG Display

‘Samsung Electronics is close to ordering millions of OLED TV panels from LG Display, according to new reports from _MTN_, _ETNews__, _and _Seoul Economic Daily_.’

So someone more facile with Google Translate than I could check the ET News article and the Seoul Economic Daily article to see whether they also cite MTN as their source or not (as well as checking the MTN article itself to check whether it cites sources or is claiming a source at Samsung).


----------



## 8mile13

Vincent Teoh commented on the news..
Samsung to Buy WRGB OLED TV Panels from LG Display, Ditching QD-OLED? - YouTube


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> Vincent Teoh commented on the news..
> Samsung to Buy WRGB OLED TV Panels from LG Display, Ditching QD-OLED? - YouTube


Guess you missed post #16940...


----------



## Jason626

Sounds like lg and Samsung have finally come to their senses. Probably realizing to work together somewhat before the Chinese put them out of the tv business sooner than later. Together they can push the development of newest technologies while letting the Chinese kind of have the older sector such as lcd.


----------



## Robertoy

2017...

In prison, after watching a lot of LG TV and square sunrise in the cell, the idea of using OLED came back...









Samsung heir's prison life: no smartphone, cannibal neighbour


While accused of bribing South Korea's president, Lee is locked up at a prison notorious for housing convicted billionaires, a serial killer and the hangman's noose.




www.stuff.co.nz





2021...

Prison, LG (WOLED) again...









Samsung Billionaire Heir Jay Y. Lee Sentenced To 2.5 Years In Prison For Bribery


The de facto leader of Samsung was first convicted in 2017 for bribing the confidante of former South Korean President Park Geun-hye in a corruption scandal that led to the impeachment and jailing of the country’s first female leader.




www.forbes.com





and...Were is the cannibal?

😁


----------



## ttnuagmada

Samsung just going to use LG panels for their lower and mid-tier OLEDs, and their own for high-end maybe?


----------



## wco81

8mile13 said:


> Vincent Teoh commented on the news..
> Samsung to Buy WRGB OLED TV Panels from LG Display, Ditching QD-OLED? - YouTube


Vincent trolls Samsung:

"Maybe they'll even license Dolby Vision."


----------



## 8mile13

This comes to mind..
Screen Burn-in Test: Samsung QLED vs LG OLED - YouTube


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> This article from Samobile :Samsung and LG are entering into a historic partnership for OLED panels
> 
> references this report from MTN Korea as it’s source:[단독] 삼성전자-LGD, 패널 공급 확대 급물살
> 
> This article from the Verge cites 3 sources: Samsung reportedly inks deal to buy OLED TV panels from rival LG Display
> 
> ‘Samsung Electronics is close to ordering millions of OLED TV panels from LG Display, according to new reports from _MTN_, _ETNews__, _and _Seoul Economic Daily_.’
> 
> So someone more facile with Google Translate than I could check the ET News article and the Seoul Economic Daily article to see whether they also cite MTN as their source or not (as well as checking the MTN article itself to check whether it cites sources or is claiming a source at Samsung).


I'm intrigued by the timing of the big announcement by LGE about leaving the smartphone market and this news about Samsung entering the OLED TV market via LGD panels. (LG Electronics controls 37.9 percent of LG Display and LG Corp and Samsung Group are chaebols.)


----------



## Robertoy

8mile13 said:


> This comes to mind..
> Screen Burn-in Test: Samsung QLED vs LG OLED - YouTube











OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


Interesting, and not in a good way :) Here's Fomo's video about qdoled not bright enough. As is completely typical of FOMO, he has already put out a new video basically admitting that he was talking out of his ass in that one. I guess Nanosys responded to say that they aren't to blame for...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## fafrd

Robertoy said:


> OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread
> 
> 
> Interesting, and not in a good way :) Here's Fomo's video about qdoled not bright enough. As is completely typical of FOMO, he has already put out a new video basically admitting that he was talking out of his ass in that one. I guess Nanosys responded to say that they aren't to blame for...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


I’ve been thinking about this some more and found an additional little tidbit here: Report: Samsung may change course and begin selling OLED TVs

‘The report also states that the meeting between Samsung and LG, both South Korean companies, was *initially arranged by the South Korean government* but that the talks have progressed from there.’

I still think the odds are that this is just a negotiating tactic on the part of SVD to put pressure on Samsung Display but I also now see a rationale where this could actually make sense and could materialize.

About the only thing that is certain out of this half-decade-long saga is that SVD will not agree to carry Samsung Display’s water on a doomed OLED TV initiative again.

But now they have agreed to launch a QD-BOLED TV in exchange for continued supply of LCD panels until the end of this year.

And the Samsung Group as a whole is working towards a September decision point about moving forward with ramping-up production of QD-BOLED.

SVD has apparently made capacity commitments of over 100,000 8.5G sheets per month a condition of their agreement to move forward with QD-BOLED, positioning themselves with an ‘out’ in case the group only has confidence to invest in a single 15,000 or 30,000 sheets/per month initial production line without having the confidence to make investment commitments beyond that.

So SVD clearly does not want to be trapped into being the only captive customer for a new technology that is too expensive to succeed (the way LGE was captive to LGD WOLED in the early years).

The other ‘complaint’ about QD-BOLED has been brightness and no doubt Samsung Display has understood that not being noticeably brighter than WOLED could be a showstopper for their QD-BOLED initiative and are developing brighter panels as quickly as they can.

There are no major technical challenges to delivering brighter panels - just add additional blue OLED layers. So they will likely deliver samples in June that are much brighter, incorporating at least 5, possibly 6, and even possibly 7 blue OLED layers.

So performance/brightness should be fantastic but the issue will be cost.

And Samsung Display’s response is like to be ‘cost is too high now but before we ramp to full production, high-efficiency blue will be here, and we’ll be able to eliminate many OLED layers and reduce cost.’

In which case, the Samsung Group is exceedingly likely to decide to invest in only a single 15,000 or 30,000 8.5G sheets/month production capacity in September and hold off on further capital commitments until Samsung Display has qualified lower-cost QD-BOLEDs based on high-efficiency blue OLED.

Which is exactly the scenario SVD is afraid of and which has motivated their stipulation of the capacity commitment ‘out’ described above.

In that situation, they can say ‘look, we made full commitment a condition of our agreement to launch a QD-BOLED TV, but they probably know that argument is likely to fail and they will be asked to launch QD-BOLED as it’s only real customer while the technology is prohibitively expensive and without a certainly regarding the promised cost-reduction.

So if you put yourselves in that position and ask what you would do to avoid being trapped into supporting a technology that is too expensive to be successful, the ‘discussions’ with LGD and the possibility of committing to also launch WOLED TVs next year is exceedingly rational.

15,000 8.5G sheets/month would translate to ~0.8M panels per year (assuming 90% yield which is very optimistic for year 1) and 30,000 sheets per month will realistically result in no more that 1.5M QD-BOLED panels in 2022.

So with 4M WOLED panels in addition, SVD can launch two lines of premium TVs, a lower-volume premium-priced QD-BOLED line and a higher-volume sub-flagship premium line based on WOLED.

Now fast-forward one year and one of two things will materialize:

High-efficiency Blue has materialized, Samsung Display has dramatically reduced QD-BOLED cost as promised, and Samsung Group can commit to full-volume production.

High-efficiency Blue has not materialized, QD-BOLED remains too expensive for all but a niche Premium-TV market, and SVD is positioned to only commit to the production volume that makes sense based on panel price, relying on WOLED for the bulk of their Premium TV volume.

This makes so much sense if you assume that SVD’s wariness regarding Samsung Display is at least as great as their wariness of LG Display that I have to give it much higher likelihood of possibly materializing tan I initially did (though I still believe the smart money is on this being a negotiating tactic on SVD’s part...).


----------



## RWetmore

The problem for Samsung was the longer this went on, the more it favored LG. Because production costs for LG keep going down (and are now set to make a really big drop), the chances of Samsung being able to introduce a whole new tech at a competitive price are rapidly diminishing. LG already has long had a viable and proven product with their panels now being used by multiple additional brands (Sony, Vizio, Panasonic) and readily available to purchase at all major retailers around the world. They've also just recently improved it with these new panels which are brighter and more energy efficient.

Baring some major, unforeseen breakthrough in technology or development that they're investigating and investing in, I just don't think they are going to make it. But we will see. They do have resources financially, which means that if they get desperate, they could literally sell their panels for a loss (or no profit) if they believed they had a long term prospect of eventually turning them a big profit.


----------



## Rod#S

Question, what is the technological challenge yet to be overcome to bring 12bit displays to market? Would 12bit achieve more of the BT2020 color space?


----------



## avernar

Rod#S said:


> Would 12bit achieve more of the BT2020 color space?


No. Bit depth and colour space are separate things. The bit depth determines the number of colours you can choose from the colour space.


----------



## fafrd

RWetmore said:


> The problem for Samsung was the longer this went on, the more it favored LG. Because production costs for LG keep going down (and are now set to make a really big drop), the chances of Samsung being able to introduce a whole new tech at a competitive price are rapidly diminishing. LG already has long had a viable and proven product with their panels now being used by multiple additional brands (Sony, Vizio, Panasonic) and readily available to purchase at all major retailers around the world. They've also just recently improved it with these new panels which are brighter and more energy efficient.
> 
> Baring some major, unforeseen breakthrough in technology or development that they're investigating and investing in, I just don't think they are going to make it. But we will see. They do have resources financially, which means that if they get desperate, *they could literally sell their panels for a loss (or no profit) if they believed they had a long term prospect of eventually turning them a big profit.*


I think that is a near-certainty.

Samsung will probably decide to begin production of QD-BOLED in September, but I’m guessing at only modest volume of 15,000 8.5G panels per month.

This fist year of QD-BOLED manufactured with low-efficiency Blue will likely be intrinsically more expensive than WOLES (I’m guessing 6 layers to deliver ~150% the brightness of WOLED) and will suffer from very poor yield, at least for the first ~12 months.

Add it all up and the first year’s worth of QD-BOLED panels will cost Samsung Display 2-2-3 times the cost of LGD’s WOLED but it’s unlikely that will be able to sell those panels for more than a 50% premium over the price of corresponding-size WOLED panels.

So I’d guess the negative gross margin over the first year of sales will be at least -25% and possibly as high as -50%.
At high yields,15,000 substrates per month could allow Samsung Display to produce close to 1 million panels per year but they’ll be fortunate to reach 750,000.

So if we assume Samsung sells 750,000 QD-BOLED panels for $600-900, that would translate to 450 to 675 million in sales, meaning an annual loss/subsidy of at least $100M and possibly as high as $400M.

Samsung has the financial strength to sustain that level of loss for several years and are likely do so until high-efficiency blue materializes, but it’s clear they will want to limit volumes to the lowest practical level while they are selling at a loss...


----------



## fafrd

Interested in any tidbits Korean-speakers can glean: 




The only thing I believe I may have understood is that LCD prices have increased 74% versus a year ago (and this is probably being used to explain why Samsung Visual Display is on discussions to secure WOLED supply from LGD).


----------



## 8mile13

One translation from a korean paper states that according a official negotiations that have stopped several times have been resumed..which is where they are now..


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> One translation from a korean paper states that according a official negotiations that have stopped several times have been resumed..which is where they are now..


Thanks - I can believe that.

I’m guessing SVD leaked ‘news’ of these resumed talks with LGD regarding WOLED to the press in order to put increased pressure on Samsung Display heading into the June - September QD-BOLED Market Evaluation Period.

I’ll be surprised is anything gets fully signed/committed before September, but SVD having that ‘escape hatch’ to hold over Samsung Display’s head as negotiations get difficult puts them in the Cat Seat as far as driving decisions in a direction they can live with...


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Interested in any tidbits Korean-speakers can glean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing I believe I may have understood is that LCD prices have increased 74% versus a year ago (and this is probably being used to explain why Samsung Visual Display is on discussions to secure WOLED supply from LGD).


I believe @KOF is a Korean-speaker.


----------



## fafrd

LGD growing while Samsung Display shrinking: LG Display to rank 5th in TV panel shipments this year: report | Yonhap News Agency

‘LG Display's TV panel shipments are projected to reach 25 million units in 2021, up from 23.6 million units a year earlier, and represent 9.3 percent of the global TV panel market, according to market researcher TrendForce.’

So LG Display is expected to grow 6% on shipments this year and expected to rank 5th worldwide on 2021.

‘It predicted Samsung Display Co. (SDC) to drop out of the top six in the TV panel shipment ranking this year due to its lowered production capacity as the company pushes its migration to quantum-dot (QD) displays.
The affiliate of Samsung Electronics Co. ranked fifth in worldwide TV shipments last year.’

And Samsung Display expected to drop from the #5 position to #7 or lower in 2021.

Because: 

‘ "However, new TV sets featuring SDC's QD-OLED panels are expected to officially hit the market in the fourth quarter of 2021, in turn driving SDC's yearly TV panel shipment to 2 million units in 2022," TrendForce said.’

They are forecasting only 2 million panel shipments total from Samsung Display due to total shutdown of LCD production by year’s end and only 30,000 8.5G sheets per month of the new QD-BOLED production in 2022...


----------



## Robertoy




----------



## Robertoy

Beyound QD-OLED








OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


Sensors for Your TV An ambitious startup funded by LGD is thinking about future use cases for them. Future OLED TVs could get eye-tracking sensors, but do we need them?




www.avsforum.com





It would be interesting for Samsung Display to accelerate the development of QNED.








OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


Sensors for Your TV An ambitious startup funded by LGD is thinking about future use cases for them. Future OLED TVs could get eye-tracking sensors, but do we need them?




www.avsforum.com












OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


hdtvtest: https://www.chosun.com/economy/tech_it/2021/02/16/IPNXHCR2PVFDXKANV7WV6GLEMM/ I was amused to read an article this morning talking about LG's 2021 TV lineup. They called 48" compact and space friendly TVs. Apparently LG doesn't make anything smaller.




www.avsforum.com


----------



## fafrd

Robertoy said:


> Beyound QD-OLED
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread
> 
> 
> Sensors for Your TV An ambitious startup funded by LGD is thinking about future use cases for them. Future OLED TVs could get eye-tracking sensors, but do we need them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be interesting for Samsung Display to accelerate the development of QNED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread
> 
> 
> Sensors for Your TV An ambitious startup funded by LGD is thinking about future use cases for them. Future OLED TVs could get eye-tracking sensors, but do we need them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread
> 
> 
> hdtvtest: https://www.chosun.com/economy/tech_it/2021/02/16/IPNXHCR2PVFDXKANV7WV6GLEMM/ I was amused to read an article this morning talking about LG's 2021 TV lineup. They called 48" compact and space friendly TVs. Apparently LG doesn't make anything smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


If the agreement to start selling WOLED actually materializes, I think the most rational way to think about it is that the Samsung Group has decided to go slow on Low Efficiency Blue QD-BOLED rather than going all-in this year, allowing Samsung Display more time to dual-track R&D on both High Efficiency Blue QD-OLED and QNED.

On the one hand, LGD has to know this is only a temporary marriage of convenience and that SVD will drop WOLED like a hot potato the moment Samsung Display can deliver an alternative that is competitive.

On the other hand, this agreement will probably accelerate WOLED’s industrialization and justify LGD investing in a 3rd 8.5G WOLED manufacturing line.

So LGD is probably betting that once they open a large-enough lead over Samsung Display in OLED TV panel manufacturing, they will be far-enough ahead on the cost-reduction curve to stay 1-2 steps ahead and increase their share of the overall TV market while Samsung Display starts eating into WOLED sales from the top of the Premium TV pyramid...


----------



## Robertoy

fafrd said:


> On the one hand, LGD has to know this is only a temporary marriage of convenience and that SVD will drop WOLED like a hot potato the moment Samsung Display can deliver an alternative that is competitive.


Yes.

And while Samsung Display is working on the development/enhancement of QD-OLED/QNED, LG Display, in addition to increasing efficiency and reducing the cost of production on its WOLED lines, has to be working on developing inkjet printing OLED, with DuPont technology acquired years ago.👍









LG acquires DuPont's OLED tech to inkjet-print OLED displays


Inkjet printing can reduce production costs and improve picture quality




www.flatpanelshd.com












Inkjet Printing Tech Expected To Lower Costs, Up Capacity For Big OLED Screens


The research firm IHS Markit says OLED display costs are expected to drop as technology that effectively prints the displays matures and production capacity expands. Inkjet-printed (IJP) organic li…




www.sixteen-nine.net


----------



## wco81

Is Samsung does sell TVs with WOLED panels, it will still probably have "quantum dot" in the product name.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Is Samsung does sell TVs with WOLED panels, it will still probably have "quantum dot" in the product name.


Except that there won’t be any quantum dots, so I suspect not.

If they do move forward with WOLED, I expect SVD to position WOLED as the ‘best non-QD-TV.’ They may not even position it as a Premium TV:

BEST/Top of the Pyramid: QD-Display
BETTER/Next-tier down: QDLED
GOOD/Step below QLED: WOLED
BASiC: LED/LCD


----------



## fafrd

Robertoy said:


> Yes.
> 
> And while Samsung Display is working on the development/enhancement of QD-OLED/QNED, LG Display, in addition to increasing efficiency and reducing the cost of production on its WOLED lines, has to be working on developing inkjet printing OLED, with DuPont technology acquired years ago.👍
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG acquires DuPont's OLED tech to inkjet-print OLED displays
> 
> 
> Inkjet printing can reduce production costs and improve picture quality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flatpanelshd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inkjet Printing Tech Expected To Lower Costs, Up Capacity For Big OLED Screens
> 
> 
> The research firm IHS Markit says OLED display costs are expected to drop as technology that effectively prints the displays matures and production capacity expands. Inkjet-printed (IJP) organic li…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sixteen-nine.net


On the one hand,I suspect developments on the IJP front may be a primary factor driving LGD’s delay on 10.5G manufacturing.

And on the other hand, it’s interesting to see LGE enter the OLED monitor market based on printed RGB OLED panels from JOLED.
I suspect they want to be on the cutting-edge of assessing suitability of printed OLED technology to the demands of the TV market to address these concerns:

‘IJP OLEDs don’t perform as well as WOLEDs, especially in terms of lifetime and brightness’

Once it proves suitable for TVs, IJP will help Samsung Display just as much as it does LGD, so it’ll be more relevant to OLED-TVs continued market share growth into the overall TV market and the eventual demise of LCD than to changing the WOLED vs. QD-BOLED dynamic...


----------



## MechanicalMan

fafrd said:


> If they do move forward with WOLED, I expect SVD to position WOLED as the ‘best non-QD-TV.’ *They may not even position it as a Premium TV*:
> 
> BEST/Top of the Pyramid: QD-Display
> BETTER/Next-tier down: QDLED
> GOOD/Step below QLED: WOLED
> BASiC: LED/LCD


Are WOLED panel prices going to drop so much over the next year that this would even be possible? DSCC's cost forecast for 65" LG WOLED panels:


----------



## fafrd

MechanicalMan said:


> Are WOLED panel prices going to drop so much over the next year that this would even be possible? DSCC's cost forecast for 65" LG WOLED panels:


Generally, DSCC has been forecasting a ~5% year-over-year cost reduction for WOLED, which seems to approximately be getting born out through annual declines in WOLED TV pricing.

For QLED, LCD panel prices have increased ~74% versus a year ago and in addition, the cost of MiniLED backlights are much higher than for a basic BLU, so we’re probably already at the point where WOLED TV cost is close to parity with QLED/LCD w/ MiniLED BLU (at least at 55” and lower).

I don’t see SVD going WOLED unless they are going to position WOLED as being inferior to QLED in performance (and thus incrementally less expensive) and I also don’t see them launching this WOLED initiative unless they see it as a low-risk path to higher gross margins...


----------



## Robertoy

fafrd said:


> On the one hand,I suspect developments on the IJP front may be a primary factor driving LGD’s delay on 10.5G manufacturing.
> 
> And on the other hand, it’s interesting to see LGE enter the OLED monitor market based on printed RGB OLED panels from JOLED.





> "The first mass production runs of the medium-sized high-performance panels are intended for use in high-end monitors, medical monitors, and automotive displays, but the company is already working on expanding to television sized panels.
> 
> The technology is expected to bring cost savings to the high-end OLED display technology, which LG has dominated using its WRGB white OLED technology made with vapor deposition production techniques to date.
> 
> Research quoted by the OLED Association estimated a 10% cost savings could be realized if ink-jet printing techniques were used with LG Display’s white OLED panel approach, “mostly due to the reduction in the number of organic layers, the higher material utilization (95% vs. 50%) and the lower cost of polymers.”
> 
> Looking to develop larger-sized printed RGB-based OLED panels, TCL’s CSoT display panel manufacturing subsidiary has taken an investment position in JOLED.







__





JOLED Celebrates Mass Production Of Printed OLED Screens – HD Guru







hdguru.com


----------



## JasonHa

If this deal goes through, it will be interesting to see what Samsung's marketing department comes up with


----------



## fafrd

Robertoy said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JOLED Celebrates Mass Production Of Printed OLED Screens – HD Guru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hdguru.com


Size is not the issue - lifetime and peak brightness are. LGE and all of us will discover the lifetime of these first 540 Nit JOLED monitors as they hit the market.

540 Nits if that is full-screen is not too bad but if aggressive ABL needs to be implemented to deliver an acceptable lifetime at that brightness, that would be another story...


----------



## Rod#S

avernar said:


> No. Bit depth and colour space are separate things. The bit depth determines the number of colours you can choose from the colour space.


Thanks 

So having a 12-bit panel then doesn't necessarily mean an improvement in color and using more of the color space, that would depend on whether a particular manufacturer wanted to take advantage of it in a 12-bit panel. Did I understand that correctly? If so currently with 10bit, are OLED tv manufacturers essentially tapped out with what they can achieve or is there yet more to squeeze out of 10-bit?

Other than providing the possibility of improved colors and using more colors from the BT 2020 color space, what other, if any advantages would 12-bit panels offer?


----------



## avernar

Rod#S said:


> So having a 12-bit panel then doesn't necessarily mean an improvement in color and using more of the color space


It would use more of the inside of the colour space but not expand the colour space. So if a TV can do 75% of Rec. 2020 at 10-bit it will still do 75% of Rec. 2020 at 12-bit.



Rod#S said:


> what other, if any advantages would 12-bit panels offer?


Less banding.


----------



## fafrd

Credible indication that LGD has kicked off Guangzhou capacity expension from current 60,000 8.5G sheets/month to the maximum of 90,000 sheets/month: LG디스플레이, 中광저우 OLED 공장 증설 본격화..셋업 돌입

‘LG Display begins full-scale expansion of OLED plant in Guangzhou, China..Starts setup

It has been confirmed that LG Display (034220) has expanded its factory in Guangzhou, China, which is an advanced base for organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs). It is a policy to actively respond to the demand by increasing production capacity while the demand for OLED panels has recently increased due to Corona 19.

According to related industries on the 12th, LG Display recently started set-up work, such as bringing in OLED production line equipment for the second stage expansion of the Guangzhou plant. In fact, it is known that equipment makers such as *Invenia*, who previously participated in the construction of the first phase of the Guangzhou plant, *recently signed an equipment contract related to the second phase expansion with LG Display.*

LG Display's Guangzhou plant is a large OLED advance base considering the Chinese market. It invested a total of 5 trillion won, including capital, to start production after completion last year. Currently, it is producing 60,000 large OLED panels per month in the first phase. At the time of the second stage of expansion, 30,000 sheets are added per month, and it has the ability to produce up to 90,000 sheets per month. Including the domestic factory in Paju, LG Display's large OLED production capacity will expand to 170,000 units per month.’

30,000 8.5G sheets per month will yield about 2M more WOLED panels produced starting in 2022 or an additional 21% versus today’s established production capacity of 140,000 sheets/month / 9M WOLED panels / year.

This should be enough to satisfy WOLED demand from existing customers in 2022 but will not be enough to also supply Samsung if any agreement materializes, so it’ll be interesting to hear whether LGD has anything to say regarding conversion of another 8.5G LCD line in Paju to WOLED during their Q1 earnings call late this month...


----------



## fafrd

And meanwhile, more details about the next phase QD-BOLED investment Samsung will be deciding on in September: Yield rate to decide Samsung Display’s 2nd stage spending on QD-OLED

‘Whether Samsung Display will commence its second stage spending on its quantum dot (QD)-OLED display panel this year as planned will be determined by the yield rate of its Q1 production line, according to market research firm Omdia.

The company had planned to commence its second stage spending near the end of the year to add another 30,000 substrates per month in production capacity, the firm said.
The first stage spending for the Q1 line, which began in July last year, had secured a production capacity of 30,000 substrates per month. The line uses Gen 8.5 substrates. This current state is only a quarter of the capacity that Samsung Display has planned for the line.

If this plan isn’t changed, Samsung Display would begin putting in equipment against for the line next year. The second stage will go live in mid-2023.

The third stage spending would start in 2022, with the equipment being placed in 2023 and the additional production capacity going live in 2024.

Omdia noted that Samsung Display’s QD-OLED has great performance, but their yield rate and productivity will need to be verified. *The company will need to secure oxide thin-film transistor back plane, inkjet QD printing and blue OLED deposition technologies. *Cost of QD-OLED and having to develop the unique process and equipment for their production will also be another challenge.

Whether Samsung Display will commence the third stage spending on QD-OLED, planned next year, will be determined by the progress of other technologies such as quantum dot nanorod LED (QNED) as well as Samsung Electronics’ MicroLED.
QNED, unlike QD-OLED, uses inorganic materials as the light emitters.
Samsung Display can use most of the equipment used in QD-OLED line for QNED if it chooses to.

Meanwhile, Samsung Display is planning to manufacture QD-OLED TV and monitor panels in the fourth quarter. The firm is hoping to supply the panels to Samsung, Sony and TCL.

With 30,000 substrates per month capacity, Samsung Display is projected to be able to manufacture a total of 1.4 million to 1.5 million units of QD-OLED panels for TVs and monitors.

This is dwarfed by LG Display’s production capacity for large OLED panels, which stands at 140,000 substrates per month.’

Alot to unpack there, but it sounds like the initial phase-I investment in a 30,000 8.5G sheets/month line has been decided and production of ~1.5 million QD-BOLED panels/year will start after Samsung acquires TFT backplane, QD printing, and Blue OLED deposition equipment (so still a lot to do).

This article makes it sound as though the Phase II investment in a 2nd 30,000 sheets/month QD-BOLED in 2022 is the ‘decision’ being made in September, and that yields on the 30,000 sheet line will be a deciding factor in the decision as to whether to begin phase II investments. I can believe that Samsung wants to stabilize yields on a first line as a prerequisite to beginning invests in a second line, but no way yield get stabilized by September or even year-end, especially if there is still new equipment for the first line that needs to be installed.

So the first 30,000 line is either on the way or there is a final decision point in September based on the ‘Market Survey’ and feedback from Sony and TCL. In the worst-case, final purchase decision for the TFT, QD printing, and Blue OLED deposition equipment has not happened yet and is awaiting that September checkpoint.

Assuming Samsung decides in September to move forward with the first 30,000 sheets/month line, they will produce ~1.5M QD-BOLEDs to be used by Samsung Visual Display and also hopefully Sony and/or TCL and they will wait for yield to stabilize before moving forward with investments in a 2nd 30,000 sheets/month line next year.

So they would now have capacity for 3-4M QD-BOLED panels per year on the way and would be contemplating phase III investments in a further 60,000 sheets per month.

Those phase III investments will be determined by both QNED and MicroLED. The less likely real consumer MicroLED delivering Premium Consumer pricing is by that time, and the more progress QNED R&D has made in delivering a high-brightness, long-lifetime flat-panel capability that can leverage all of the QD-printing capacity being installed for QD-BOLED, the more likely that Samsung will move forward with that additional phase III capacity expansion.

But the two scenarios I see as most likely are the following:

Best Case: first true production at either 30,000 sheets/month or 15,000 sheets per month begins by year-end and Samsung spends all of 2022 trying to get yields stabilized to the point that phase II investments could be considered.

Worst Case: the market survey is sufficiently negative in September that Samsung decides to hold off on purchasing TFT, QD-printing, and Blue OLED deposition equipment for another ~6 months while Samsung Display works to further improve QD-BOLED in areas highlighted by Sony and TCL as being deficient.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

avernar said:


> It would use more of the inside of the colour space but not expand the colour space. So if a TV can do 75% of Rec. 2020 at 10-bit it will still do 75% of Rec. 2020 at 12-bit.
> 
> 
> Less banding.


Reduced banding is the biggest improvement for sure as it is so noticeable.


----------



## wco81

Which models has reduced banding due to better color space?


----------



## avernar

wco81 said:


> Which models has reduced banding due to better color space?


None because better colour space does not reduce banding. 

If you read me previous post OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread it's a 12-bit panel that will have less banding. Assuming the source is sending an actual 12-bit signal.


----------



## Rod#S

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Reduced banding is the biggest improvement for sure as it is so noticeable.


Thanks

Is there any hopes of seeing 12-bit panels then within say the next year or 2, so 2022 or 2023 models perhaps? Or is this a really difficult technological challenge? If it isn't obvious I have no concept of why 12-bit is apparently so difficult and why we have been at 10-bit for a while now, at least in tech years seeing as tech tends to move so fast


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

avernar said:


> None because better colour space does not reduce banding.
> 
> If you read me previous post OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread it's a 12-bit panel that will have less banding. Assuming the source is sending an actual 12-bit signal.


Think of the digitization of analog photos if helpful (switching from spatial to color resolution in your head). Higher spatial resolution of the imager reduces the staircase effect of diagonal lines. A higher bit signal can give you more colors as noted earlier, reducing the visual banding as a continuously changing color view shows on screen (it's still there at 10 bit and 12 bit but less and less). Think of the Disney+ blue intro screen. On my old 8 bit LCD there's plenty of annoying banding. On my new 10 bit CX there is significantly less. Somewhere i have a good article on this, including a bit level that for all practical purposes removes banding to the human eye at viewing distance but as usual i can't find it right now. I'll keep looking.


----------



## fafrd

Cheap printed RGB-OLED TVs apparently hitting shelves in 2024: TCL plans to start producing OLED TV panels by 2023, using an inkjet printing process | OLED-Info

It’ll be interesting to see what kind of brightness and lifetime the first printed OLED screens being produced by JOLED this year are able to deliver...


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Cheap printed RGB-OLED TVs apparently hitting shelves in 2024: TCL plans to start producing OLED TV panels by 2023, using an inkjet printing process | OLED-Info
> 
> It’ll be interesting to see what kind of brightness and lifetime the first printed OLED screens being produced by JOLED this year are able to deliver...


If they use the same process for the LG monitor 32EP950, specs on that are 250 nits full screen and 540 nits in some small area. 31.5" LG 32EP950 - Specifications


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Based on feedback, I'm rolling the QNED - Quantum Nanorod Emitting Diode discussion back into this sticky thread. See the kickoff discussions over there to catch up if interested. Future QNED and QD-OLED talk continues here...


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> If they use the same process for the LG monitor 32EP950, specs on that are 250 nits full screen and 540 nits in some small area. 31.5" LG 32EP950 - Specifications


Yes, LG is using the JOLED printed OLED panels for their monitors.

250 cd/m2 is almost double the full-field brightness of their WOLED TVs, so impressive if true.

It’ll be interesting to see what the first reviews measure...


----------



## Wizziwig

Rod#S said:


> Thanks
> 
> Is there any hopes of seeing 12-bit panels then within say the next year or 2, so 2022 or 2023 models perhaps? Or is this a really difficult technological challenge? If it isn't obvious I have no concept of why 12-bit is apparently so difficult and why we have been at 10-bit for a while now, at least in tech years seeing as tech tends to move so fast


Considering LG can't even reproduce an 8-bit signal without quantization artifacts and dithering noise, what would be the point of adding 12-bit support? 12-bit makes more sense on the content creation side.


----------



## Robertoy

Chosun:


> *Samsung Electronics is in a hurry to convert QD-OLED and struggles with '"neo QLED"*
> 
> According to industry, on the 15th, Samsung Display will launch a large QD-OLED prototype for TV produced in the same way as the actual mass production process on the Q1 line of generation 8.5 (2200 × 2500㎜) on campus Asan in Chungnam, around June. And it will be sent to the main TV manufacturers. TV manufacturers are expected to decide to develop and launch QD-OLED TVs after analyzing the prototype.
> 
> At the same time, there have been reports that Samsung Electronics is trying to obtain panels from LG Display, which supplies 99% of the world's OLED panels. Both companies denied it, but the industry interpreted the fact that this story was made public can be seen as a sign that Samsung Electronics' OLED conversion is imminent.
> 
> It can be said that QD-OLED is the first step in the "QD panels" strategy, which Samsung Electronics vice president Lee Jae-yong has defined as the group's "food for the future" and is actively pursuing that. In 2019, Samsung Display announced that it would invest 1.310 trillion won by 2025 to carry out the transformation of the QD screen. The import of equipment started last year and the related facilities were expanded earlier this year, and mass production is ahead.
> 
> Samsung Electronics is currently promoting Neo QLED as the top class of existing LCD TV products. The Neo QLED is characterized by the application of a mini LED, smaller in size than the existing LED, in the backlight unit (BLU), which is the part that emits light from the LCD panel. It is characterized by high color reproducibility and sharpness thanks to the light source more densely incorporated in the same area. In addition, Samsung Electronics emphasized that it achieved an image quality comparable to competitors' OLED TVs by applying a quantum dot film (QD), which is a unique technology. However, the LCD panels applied to Neo QLED are not provided by Samsung Display, an affiliate, but are provided by external suppliers.
> 
> The reason why Samsung Display is in a hurry to switch to QD-OLED is that the price of LCD panels for TVs has recently increased, which has also played an important role. An industry official said: "As prices for LCD panels have increased, the burden on TV manufacturers has increased and the price difference for OLED panels has narrowed from 3 to 2 times in the past." . It may be more important for Samsung to change.
> 
> The industry recognizes that Mini LED TVs have enough advantages, but explains that there is a clear difference from OLED in terms of technology. In particular, the Mini LED TV is an LCD panel that requires a BLU and has the disadvantage that the shape of the panel is less flexible and has a thicker thickness compared to an OLED that adopts an element that emits light by itself.
> 
> LG Electronics expects the Mini LED TV market to fully flourish due to Samsung Electronics, but in the end, the expansion of the OLED TV market is expected to accelerate further due to technological differences. Thus, LG Electronics defined the status of the TV product family in the order of OLED (LG OLED) -Mini LED (LG QNED) -LCD (Nanocell TV) and the mini LED that Samsung Electronics presented as the flagship (product main) is OLED technology, emphasizing that it is a subordinate relationship.
> 
> Global OLED TV shipments increased to 1.12 million units in the first quarter of this year, compared with 620,000 units last year. More than half were sold by LG Electronics. LG's prediction that OLED sales should increase is correct. LG Electronics also delayed the global launch of LG QNED, which was scheduled for April.
> 
> If Samsung Electronics launches a QD-OLED TV early next year, it is highly likely that Neo QLED will lose its primary TV status within one year of its launch. Samsung Display, which is developing QD-OLED panels, is planning to start mass production on the Asan Q1 line, which has a monthly production capacity of 30,000 units in the fourth quarter. Kim Dong-won, a researcher at KB Securities, said: "Samsung Electronics is expected to launch QD-OLED TVs in early 2022." We are expected to actively review the launch of QD-OLED TV. "











삼성전자, QD-OLED 전환 서두르며 ‘네오 QLED’ 고심


삼성전자, QD-OLED 전환 서두르며 네오 QLED 고심




biz.chosun.com


----------



## fafrd

Robertoy said:


> Chosun:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 삼성전자, QD-OLED 전환 서두르며 ‘네오 QLED’ 고심
> 
> 
> 삼성전자, QD-OLED 전환 서두르며 네오 QLED 고심
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biz.chosun.com


“Global OLED TV shipments increased to *1.12 million units in the first quarter of this year, compared with 620,000 units last year. *More than half were sold by LG Electronics. LG's prediction that OLED sales should increase is correct. LG Electronics also delayed the global launch of LG QNED, which was scheduled for April.”

620,000 to 1,120,000 year-on-year represents over 80% growth.

If LG succeeds to maintain that growth rate through all of 2021, that would translate to WOLED TV sales of over 8 million units...

Assuming an average of 5.5 WOLED panels per 8.5G sheet and yield of 90%, the 140,000 8.5G sheet/month capacity LGD has currently in production translates to 693,000 WOLED panels per month or 8.3 million WOLED panels for the year...

No way will LGD maintain such exuberant growth rates for a second year, but it’s looking like LGD will need to start committing to additional capacity expansion for 2022.

At a minimum, I expect we’ll hear about further expansion at Guangzhou from the current 60,000 8.5G sheets per month to the maximum of 90,000 sheets per month at their upcoming Q1 investor conference call.

And whether it’s an additional commitment they mention in this month’s call or the Q2 call in 3+ months, I suspect we’ll be hearing about a further 8.5G LCD fab in Korea being converted to WOLED production kicking-off before the year is out...


----------



## Rod#S

Wizziwig said:


> Considering LG can't even reproduce an 8-bit signal without quantization artifacts and dithering noise, what would be the point of adding 12-bit support? 12-bit makes more sense on the content creation side.


I didn't realize 8-bit was still presenting challenges for companies.


----------



## fafrd

Bob O’Brian of DSCC skeptical that any LGD / SCD WOLED deal actually gets made: 








Is Samsung finally making an OLED TV? Not so fast


Rumors suggest Samsung is buying millions of LG OLED panels, but Samsung OLED TVs may not be a sure thing.




www.google.com





On the other hand, he’s assuming Samsung would be paying much more than LGE for their WOLED panels, would be forced to price any WOLED TV offerings at higher prices than their NeoQLED/MiniLED offerings and so would ‘squeeze’ NeiQLED demand by having it positioned as 2nd behind WOLED.

I think all off those assumptions may prove to be wrong. If SVD does move forward with WOLED offerings, I believe they will get equivalent pricing-per-volume as LGE (meaning prices for a 5M panel commitment much closer to LGE’s prices than Sony’s prices) and I believe they are likely to position an WOLED offerings as less-expensive and 2nd-tier to their NeoQLED/MicroLED Flagships (Flagships at least until QD-BOLED offerings emerge).

The potential Samsung positioning I foresee is:

MicroLED
QD-BOLED
NeoQLED/MicroLED
WOLED
QLED/LCD
LED/LCD


----------



## dkfan9

@fafrd That's the lineup that makes the most sense to me. Possibly eliminating 4K NeoQLEDs in the process.


----------



## Jin-X

Instead of a 3rd 8.5g fab they should resume the 10.5g Paju one

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> Instead of a 3rd 8.5g fab they should resume the 10.5g Paju one
> 
> Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


I believe there are a couple gating factors holding up the schedule for the new 10.5G P10 fab:

-high-efficiency blue (TADF of HF): LG just launched a new 3S4C stack which was originally on their roadmap for 2022, but the 2022 3C4F stack on that roadmap was expected to include TADF Blue and the 2021 3S4C stack uses a DuPont Florescent Blue (with typical low Blue efficiency). I believe LGD probably wants to hold off ramping P10 until they have a high-efficiency blue emitter (since we are presumably only ~18 months away at this point).

-printed WOLED: with JOLED now in production, LGD probably wants to assess whether printed WOLED is ready for prime time, and if so, P10 will likely be launched with 10.5G printing equipment of one variety or another.

For example, the prototype OVJP equipment UDC is developing is for 10.5G substrates:




-the successful adoption of MMG technology in Guangzhou and eventually Paju has dramatically extended the lifetime and flexibility of 8.5G manufacturing lines so there is really much less benefit for LG to ramp up 10.5G manufacturing until there is proven market demand to absorb all of the 65” and 75” panels that new line would be capable of manufacturing.

Using 8-up 65” 10.5G manufacturing as the baseline (100%), here is how 8.5G w/ MMG costs compare:

8.5G 3-up w/o MMG; 178%
8.5G 3-up w/ 2 48” MMG: 133%
8.5G 3-up w/ 2 55” MMG: 118.5.%

10.5G 8-up (150% for 10.5G sheet): 100%

So LGD is only going to save ~15% by moving 65” WOLED production to 10.5G (compared to the ~44% savings they would have achieved prior to MMG).

The motivation for P10 is now more tied to the 77/75” market:

8.5G 2-up w/o MMG: 200%
8.5G 2-up w/ 2 48”: 150%
8.5G 2-up w/ 2 55”: 133%

So LGD can save 25% in the cost of producing a 75” WOLED at 10.5G versus the cost of producing 2 75” (or 77”) WOLED at 8.5G w/ MMG. But for that move to make sense, they need to have a market for all of those cheaper 75” WOLED panels they will be producing.

Assuming P10 starts with an initial capacity of 30,000 10.5G sheets/month and 1/3 of that capacity must be used for 75” WOLED panel production for the effort to be worthwhile, that translates to 60,000 75” WOLED panels/month raw or 54,000 assuming 90% yield, meaning ~650K 75” WOLED panels being absorbed per year.

According to DSCC, there were fewer than 200,000 77” WOLED TVs sold in 2020 (out of a total of ~1M premium TVs including LCD) , so LGD safely has until 2024 before 75” WOLED panel demand reaches the level they need to justify 10.5G manufacturing:Worldwide Advanced TV Shipments to Grow by 22% CAGR to 32 Million in 2025 - Display Supply Chain Consultants

So LGDs revised P10 schedule of ~2025 sounds about right (though at this stage, I see the possibility of some acceleration to that schedule as being more likely than further delay)


----------



## fafrd

Ran into this on the Deuterium Blue Emitter LGD is apparently using in their new ‘Evo’ 3S4C stack: Deuterium substitution blue, will be next generation blue materials? ⋆ OLED

‘It is expected that the OLED device to which the deuterium-substituted compound is applied can *improve the lifetime by more than 20% * compared to the previous one.’

So the Deuterium-based blue LGD is using in the new stack should deliver ~20% longer lifetime at the same output intensity or similar lifetime at an output intensity which is as much as 20% greater than the output intensity of the old 3S3C stack...

Several sources including HDTVTEST and CNET have now confirmed the ~20% increase in full-field brightness from GX to G1 (from 130 cd/m2 to 160cd/m2) but the increase for a 10% window appears to be much less (~3%).

I haven’t seen any good explanation for why output intensity of small HDR windows should increase by a smaller % than for a full-field window yet...


----------



## wco81

fafrd said:


> Bob O’Brian of DSCC skeptical that any LGD / SCD WOLED deal actually gets made:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Samsung finally making an OLED TV? Not so fast
> 
> 
> Rumors suggest Samsung is buying millions of LG OLED panels, but Samsung OLED TVs may not be a sure thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, he’s assuming Samsung would be paying much more than LGE for their WOLED panels, would be forced to price any WOLED TV offerings at higher prices than their NeoQLED/MiniLED offerings and so would ‘squeeze’ NeiQLED demand by having it positioned as 2nd behind WOLED.
> 
> I think all off those assumptions may prove to be wrong. If SVD does move forward with WOLED offerings, I believe they will get equivalent pricing-per-volume as LGE (meaning prices for a 5M panel commitment much closer to LGE’s prices than Sony’s prices) and I believe they are likely to position an WOLED offerings as less-expensive and 2nd-tier to their NeoQLED/MicroLED Flagships (Flagships at least until QD-BOLED offerings emerge).
> 
> The potential Samsung positioning I foresee is:
> 
> MicroLED
> QD-BOLED
> NeoQLED/MicroLED
> WOLED
> QLED/LCD
> LED/LCD


They have 5 lines of TVs?

What a mess.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> They have 5 lines of TVs?
> 
> What a mess.


Well right now, today, Samsung Visual Display (SVD) is selling:

1/ Entry-level LED/LCD
2/ QLED (non-MiniLED)
3/ NeoQLED (MiniLED)
4/ MicroLED

And assuming they introduce QD-BOLED (QD-Display 1.0) as promised to Samsung Display, that’s certainly not going to displace MicroLED from it’s position at the top of the Pyramid, but the cost will almost certainly be higher than the new NeoQLED MicroLED/LCDs. So being positioned on top of NeoQLED as the new ‘more affordable pseudo-Flagship’ is the only position that makes sense for QD-Display 1.0.

So yes, that’s a minimum of 5 TV Lines for 2022 (again, assuming SVD introduces QD-BOLED next year as promised).

And so if they also actually move forward with an agreement with LGD for WOLED, that would be a 6th TV line in 2022 since it’s pretty clear WOLED can’t displace any of the other lines.

I can’t see them promoting WOLED as superior to NeoQLED and according to all reports, WOLED will cost less to manufacture than MicroLED/LCD next year, so being positioned just behind the NeoQLED line but on top of basic (non-MicroLED) QLED line would be the most logical positioning.

If any company could manage to successfully sell 6 distinct lines of Televisions in one year, it would be Samsung...


----------



## dkfan9

Although MicroLED could almost be considered a separate entity from the rest of the TV lineup.


----------



## fafrd

I’ve done a bit more noodling about QD-BOLED with low-efficiency Florescent Blue Emitters and thought I would share the conclusions of my quick-and-dirty analysys.

Bottom Line: *a bright QD-BOLED achieving -~1500 Nits of peak brightness will be possible but it will be expensive and more importantly, it will be a real power hog.*

This analysis is based on UDC’s phosphorescent Red and Green emitters using efficiency of 24% for Red and 72% for green (the lowest figures they have published).

I’m using 7% for Florescent Blue Efficiency and assuming the recent move to Deuterium-based blue may have increased that by 20% to ~8.4% (though if anyone has better numbers to use for WOLEDs blue efficiency, I’m all ears (and eyes)).

The new 3S4C stack has two blue layers and a third red, yellow-green, and deep-green composite layer.

For the sake of this analysis, I’m going to assume that the electrical energy is shared equally 1/3rd per layer and that red consumes 1/3rd of the composit layer and green consumes 2/3rds of the composite layer.

So 66.7% of energy goes to Blue, 11.1% goes to red, and 22.2% goes to green.

Using the emitter efficiencies above, this allows us to estimate the efficiency of LGD’s 3S4C WOLED Stack:

Blue Light: 67.7% x 8.4% = 5.6%
Red Light: 11.1% x 24% = 2.67%
Green Light: 22.2% x 72% = 16.0%
*TOTAL: 24.27% conversion efficiency*

First-generation QD-BOLED will be based only on low-efficiency Florescent Blue emitters, meaning conversion efficiency will be only 8.4% or ~1/3rd of WOLED.

But QD-BOLED will emit close to 100% of those generated photons because of the Quantum Dot Color Converters (QDCC) where WOLED will waste a high % of those generated photons with conventional color filters.

So let’s assume total electrical efficiency for QD-BOLED is 8.4% and now look at wasted photons of WOLED.

I’m going to use estimated subpixel sizes of:
30% Blue
30% Red
10% Green
30% White

So for the blue subpixel, only the photons generated by the 2 blue layers are not wasted, corresponding to an overall efficiency of 67% x 8.4% x 30% area = 1.7% (!)

While for the red supixel, only ~1/9th of the electrical energy goes unwasted through the color filters, corresponding to 11.1% x 24% x 30% area = 0.8% (!!!)

And for the green subpixel, only ~2/9th of the electrical energy goes unwasted through the color filters, corresponding to 22.2% x 72% x 10% area = 1.6%.

For the 3 RGB subpixels corresponding to ~70% of the pixel area, these efficiencies total to only 3.1%, or 37% of the efficiency of QD-BOLED, but now we need to add the efficiency of the White Subpixel.

The white subpixel has an electro-optical efficiency of ~24.27% and an area of ~30% of the pixel area, corresponding to an overall pixel efficiency contribution of 7.3% (more than double the total electro-optical efficiency of the entire 70% of the WOLED sub-pixel area devoted to RGB).

So total overall electro-optical efficiency of WOLED when the White sub-pixel is contributing can be as much as 3.1% + 7.3% = *10.4%*, 123% the QD-BOLED conversion efficiency of 8.4%.

The only way QD-BOLED can close this brightness gap is to generate more blue photons by consuming more electrical energy. A 4S1C QD-BOLED composed of 4 blue layers will consume 133% the energy of WOLED but will generate 133% the number of Blue Photons as would be generated by a 3S1C stack. 133% x 8.4% = 11.2% overall relative electro-optical efficiency compared to the 3S4C WOLED baseline, 7.7% higher than current WOLED.

4S1C is apparently what Samsung Display demonstrated at CES 2020 and apparently it was ‘not bright enough.’ That January 2020 version may have been based on a ~7% Florescent Blue emitter, meaning overall efficiency of 9.33% rather than 11.2% (so ~90% of WOLED), we just don’t know.

Samsung showed a new brighter QD-BOLED panel at CES’21 this January. That may have been a 4S1C panel using a new more-efficient Florescent blue emitter delivering ~11.2% overall efficiency (7.7% higher than current WOLED, or ~800-850 nits), or it may have been a 5S1C stack consuming 166% the power of WOLED to deliver ~135% the peak brightness of WOLED (~1000 nits). Again, we just don’t know.

In any case, the feedback was apparently again that the QD-BOLED panel was ‘not bright enough.’

So whatever Samsung Display is cooking up for the June samples, at this point it’s pretty safe to assume it can only be one of two options:

A 5S1C stack using ~8.4% efficiency Blue Florescent Emitter consuming 167% the energy of WOLED to deliver ~1000nits of peak brightness.

Or a 6C1S stack using ~8.4% efficiency Blue Florescent Emitter consuming ~double the energy of WOLED to deliver ~1200 nits of brightness (~150% the peak brightness of WOLED).

Either way, it is going to be a power hog and have a higher panel production cost than WOLED (because there are 5 or 6 OLED layers in the stack rather than 3).

This entire analysis changes dramatically with a high-efficiency Blue OLED emitter delivering 2-3 times the electro-optical efficiency of the low-efficiency Blue Florescent Emitters currently being used by LGD (and Samsung Display for smaller RGB-OLEDs), but trying to get this first-generation of QD-BOLED off the ground with Florescent Blue will be like watching an Albatross try to take flight...


----------



## fafrd

Seems as though the likelihood of an SVD/LGD deal on WOLED supply needs to increase a little bit based on this: 정호영 LGD 사장, 삼성 '올레드 공급설'에 "할말 없다"


‘LGD President Chung Ho-young, "Nothing to say" in Samsung's 'OLED'

LG Display President Chung Ho-young was silent about the supply of OLED TV panels to Samsung Electronics.

President Jeong attended the inauguration ceremony of the'Carbon Neutral Industry Transformation Promotion Committee' held at the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Jung-gu, Seoul on the morning of the 16th, as chairman of the Korea Display Industry Association.

After the event, President Jeong met with <News1> reporter, and he spared his words, saying, "I have nothing to say" to the question, "Is it true that some media reports that LG Display supplies OLED panels for TV to Samsung Electronics?"

This is an answer that is neither positive nor negative, and it is analyzed that President Chung deliberately took an ambiguous attitude. Since LG Display is a parts company, the industry practice of not being able to reveal whether or not a contract with a set maker has been concluded has also had an impact.

In recent years, inside and outside the display industry, rumors have spread that LG Display is supplying OLED panels for TVs to large electronic companies. As the world's only TV OLED panel manufacturer, LG Display is already supplying panels to leading domestic and overseas TV manufacturers such as LG Electronics, Sony, Panasonic, Vizio, and Philips.

In the electronics industry, only Korea's Samsung Electronics and China's TCL are being discussed as large TV makers with potential for cooperation. Among them, TCL's display company CSOT, which is a subsidiary, is researching the production of inkjet-based OLED panels in cooperation with Japan's JOLED, and the industry evaluation is that it is unlikely to cooperate with LG Display.

In the midst of this, in April, some media reported that a senior executive of Samsung Electronics and LG Display had recently met in their home country, and reported that the partnership between the two companies has entered the phase of materialization. However, *immediately after the report, Samsung Electronics refuted that it was "unworked."*

LG Display and Samsung Electronics have already established a cooperative relationship. Samsung Electronics, which has been supplying LCD (liquid crystal display) panels from Chinese companies, requested help from LG Display due to a lack of supply, and the two companies cooperated in the LCD field.

In particular, it seems that the industry is paying more attention to the fact that OLED is a newly mentioned field. This is because Samsung Electronics has pointed out the shortcomings of OLED TV several times and cut it down in the relationship between Samsung Electronics competing with LG Electronics' OLED in the premium TV market with'QLED'.

Kim Hyun-seok, CEO of Samsung Electronics' CE (consumer electronics) division, as well as Han Jong-hee, president of the video display business division, have repeatedly stressed that Samsung Electronics is unlikely to produce OLED TVs, saying, "It is true that there is only an OLED TV." .

In particular, Samsung is analyzed as a situation where Samsung Display, a display subsidiary, is producing'QD displays' as the next-generation food, and *Samsung Electronics also needs to reduce the proportion of LCD TVs and speed up the transition to next-generation products.*

In this process, Samsung Electronics puts products using micro LEDs and QD displays in the'super premium' group, but there is a *possibility to produce OLED TVs as transitional'semi-premium' products before QD products are commercialized.*

An industry official said, "From the standpoint of panel supplier LG Display, there will be no reason to supply OLED panels by covering up set companies." Said.’

My takeaway from this:

-SVD recognizes it’s vulnerability arising from over-dependency on LCD and has decided it needs to accelerate a transition away from LCD to ‘next-generation’ products with or without QD-BOLED.

-Any introduction of WOLED would be positioned as a ‘semi-premium’ product line, 
and would be ‘transitional’ intended to cover whatever gap may remain before QD-Display can be commercialized (meaning QD-BOLED and/or QNED).

-MicoLED and ‘QD-Display’ (which may include NeoQLED/MiniLED) will be positioned as the Super Premium product lines while any WOLED product line would be positioned as ‘semi-premium’ (at least including non-MiniLED QLEDs and possibly also including NeoQLED/MiniLEDs).

-At a minimum, I think we can take this to mean that Samsung is in advanced discussion with LGD to prepare a ‘backup plan’ in case Samsung decides to further delay the launch of QD-BOLED (or to conservatively launch a very expensive first QD-BOLED generation in such low volumes as to essentially be the same thing as a delay, considering the panel volumes SVD needs to effectively start moving away from 100% reliance on LCD panels). In this case, actually moving forward with an agreement may not occur until after the September QD-BOLED ‘checkpoint.’

-At a maximum, SVD already understands that there is no way QD-BOLED Gen1 can satisfy all of their LCD-diversification goals for 2022 and so they already have entered into a supply agreement with LGD or are prepared to do so in any case and in advance of the September checkpoint.

As long as the commitment is significant enough (and 5 million WOLED panels certainly qualifies), it’s hard to see why LGD would not be willing to supply SVD, even if it is ‘transitional’ and understood that SVD will switch from WOLED to QD-Display once Samsung Display’s new technology is ready for prime-time.

On the other hand, at a minimum, I’d expect LGD to require that Samsung cease with the ‘burn-in’ campaign against WOLED (which makes sense anyway, given that Samsung will be selling the same WOLED technology). This may even have been a condition of LGD to enter into serious discussions with SVD.

It’ll be very interesting to listen to what LGD has to report in their earnings call in 1+ week. Expanding Guangzhou from 60,000 to 90,000 sheets per month is something that makes sense anyway (organically), but if there is any discussion about beginning another 8.5G LCD fab conversion starting this year, it’s highly likely that that urgency is being driven by a massive uptick in expected 2022 WOLED panel demand due to SVD.

And that is also the reason SVD may need to commit before September. LGD can reasonably say to SVD that they cannot commit such a large WOLED supply volume without a lead time of at least 12 months...

Especially after the Gen1 QD-BOLED analysis I just posted earlier today, I’m probably now approaching 50/50 probability of an SVD/LGD WOLED supply agreement of as many as 5 million WOLED panels going forward...


----------



## fafrd

Sobering analysis of the rise of China’s flat-panel dominance (at the expense of Korea’s, meaning LGD and especially Samsung Display): Latest industry news | EqualOcean


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> Seems as though the likelihood of an SVD/LGD deal on WOLED supply needs to increase a little bit based on this: 정호영 LGD 사장, 삼성 '올레드 공급설'에 "할말 없다"
> 
> 
> ‘LGD President Chung Ho-young, "Nothing to say" in Samsung's 'OLED'
> 
> LG Display President Chung Ho-young was silent about the supply of OLED TV panels to Samsung Electronics.
> 
> President Jeong attended the inauguration ceremony of the'Carbon Neutral Industry Transformation Promotion Committee' held at the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Jung-gu, Seoul on the morning of the 16th, as chairman of the Korea Display Industry Association.
> 
> After the event, President Jeong met with <News1> reporter, and he spared his words, saying, "I have nothing to say" to the question, "Is it true that some media reports that LG Display supplies OLED panels for TV to Samsung Electronics?"
> 
> This is an answer that is neither positive nor negative, and it is analyzed that President Chung deliberately took an ambiguous attitude. Since LG Display is a parts company, the industry practice of not being able to reveal whether or not a contract with a set maker has been concluded has also had an impact.
> 
> In recent years, inside and outside the display industry, rumors have spread that LG Display is supplying OLED panels for TVs to large electronic companies. As the world's only TV OLED panel manufacturer, LG Display is already supplying panels to leading domestic and overseas TV manufacturers such as LG Electronics, Sony, Panasonic, Vizio, and Philips.
> 
> In the electronics industry, only Korea's Samsung Electronics and China's TCL are being discussed as large TV makers with potential for cooperation. Among them, TCL's display company CSOT, which is a subsidiary, is researching the production of inkjet-based OLED panels in cooperation with Japan's JOLED, and the industry evaluation is that it is unlikely to cooperate with LG Display.
> 
> In the midst of this, in April, some media reported that a senior executive of Samsung Electronics and LG Display had recently met in their home country, and reported that the partnership between the two companies has entered the phase of materialization. However, *immediately after the report, Samsung Electronics refuted that it was "unworked."*
> 
> LG Display and Samsung Electronics have already established a cooperative relationship. Samsung Electronics, which has been supplying LCD (liquid crystal display) panels from Chinese companies, requested help from LG Display due to a lack of supply, and the two companies cooperated in the LCD field.
> 
> In particular, it seems that the industry is paying more attention to the fact that OLED is a newly mentioned field. This is because Samsung Electronics has pointed out the shortcomings of OLED TV several times and cut it down in the relationship between Samsung Electronics competing with LG Electronics' OLED in the premium TV market with'QLED'.
> 
> Kim Hyun-seok, CEO of Samsung Electronics' CE (consumer electronics) division, as well as Han Jong-hee, president of the video display business division, have repeatedly stressed that Samsung Electronics is unlikely to produce OLED TVs, saying, "It is true that there is only an OLED TV." .
> 
> In particular, Samsung is analyzed as a situation where Samsung Display, a display subsidiary, is producing'QD displays' as the next-generation food, and *Samsung Electronics also needs to reduce the proportion of LCD TVs and speed up the transition to next-generation products.*
> 
> In this process, Samsung Electronics puts products using micro LEDs and QD displays in the'super premium' group, but there is a *possibility to produce OLED TVs as transitional'semi-premium' products before QD products are commercialized.*
> 
> An industry official said, "From the standpoint of panel supplier LG Display, there will be no reason to supply OLED panels by covering up set companies." Said.’
> 
> My takeaway from this:
> 
> -SVD recognizes it’s vulnerability arising from over-dependency on LCD and has decided it needs to accelerate a transition away from LCD to ‘next-generation’ products with or without QD-BOLED.
> 
> -Any introduction of WOLED would be positioned as a ‘semi-premium’ product line,
> and would be ‘transitional’ intended to cover whatever gap may remain before QD-Display can be commercialized (meaning QD-BOLED and/or QNED).
> 
> -MicoLED and ‘QD-Display’ (which may include NeoQLED/MiniLED) will be positioned as the Super Premium product lines while any WOLED product line would be positioned as ‘semi-premium’ (at least including non-MiniLED QLEDs and possibly also including NeoQLED/MiniLEDs).
> 
> -At a minimum, I think we can take this to mean that Samsung is in advanced discussion with LGD to prepare a ‘backup plan’ in case Samsung decides to further delay the launch of QD-BOLED (or to conservatively launch a very expensive first QD-BOLED generation in such low volumes as to essentially be the same thing as a delay, considering the panel volumes SVD needs to effectively start moving away from 100% reliance on LCD panels). In this case, actually moving forward with an agreement may not occur until after the September QD-BOLED ‘checkpoint.’
> 
> -At a maximum, SVD already understands that there is no way QD-BOLED Gen1 can satisfy all of their LCD-diversification goals for 2022 and so they already have entered into a supply agreement with LGD or are prepared to do so in any case and in advance of the September checkpoint.
> 
> As long as the commitment is significant enough (and 5 million WOLED panels certainly qualifies), it’s hard to see why LGD would not be willing to supply SVD, even if it is ‘transitional’ and understood that SVD will switch from WOLED to QD-Display once Samsung Display’s new technology is ready for prime-time.
> 
> On the other hand, at a minimum, I’d expect LGD to require that Samsung cease with the ‘burn-in’ campaign against WOLED (which makes sense anyway, given that Samsung will be selling the same WOLED technology). This may even have been a condition of LGD to enter into serious discussions with SVD.
> 
> It’ll be very interesting to listen to what LGD has to report in their earnings call in 1+ week. Expanding Guangzhou from 60,000 to 90,000 sheets per month is something that makes sense anyway (organically), but if there is any discussion about beginning another 8.5G LCD fab conversion starting this year, it’s highly likely that that urgency is being driven by a massive uptick in expected 2022 WOLED panel demand due to SVD.
> 
> And that is also the reason SVD may need to commit before September. LGD can reasonably say to SVD that they cannot commit such a large WOLED supply volume without a lead time of at least 12 months...
> 
> Especially after the Gen1 QD-BOLED analysis I just posted earlier today, I’m probably now approaching 50/50 probability of an SVD/LGD WOLED supply agreement of as many as 5 million WOLED panels going forward...


Funny I see this post after I buy some LGD stock lol.


----------



## fafrd

Funny, first time I saw this I assumed they were talking about production efficiency: LGD sees further delays in its Guangzhou OLED TV fab, mass production now expected in early Q2 2020 | OLED-Info

‘LGD's new fab has a monthly capacity of 60,000 substrates, which will be expanded to 90,000 by 2021 (that's the plan, anyway). The new Gaungzhou fab is similar to LG's current Paju OLED TV fab, and LGD believed it will ramp up very quickly. But the company also decided to adopt several new technologies in this new fab - ironically mostly to improve productivity (including MMG, which seems to be the most challenging technology and the main cause of the low yields) and these hasn't been stabilized yet. In addition* LGD opted to use a new OLED stack (to improve efficiency* and productivity at the same time) and also for new equipment produced in China (rather than the Korean equipment in uses in Paju).’

Now with hindsight, it’s clear OLED Info was referring to a new OLED stack to improve electro-optical efficiency... (ie: the new ‘Evo’ 3S4C stack ).


----------



## fafrd

Blue Hyperflorescent Emitter: Long live the efficient, pure-blue OLED

Still in the University so years from production, but if neither Cynora nor Kyulux (nor UDC) succeed to deliver over the coming years, there seems to be other eggs entering the basket...


----------



## Robertoy

*Eastmoney:*


> *Samsung Electronics is expected to adopt QD-OLED*
> 
> SDC will produce prototypes of QD-OLED hybrid TV in June for Samsung Electronics, Sony and potential customers, such as Chinese manufacturers.
> 
> The prototype includes TV's and finished QD-OLED monitors, and their panels are produced in the special QD-OLED line "Q1". If it passes the customer's certification, mass production will begin. The QD-OLED TV panel that Samsung demonstrated at CES 2020 is manufactured on the existing large LCD production line.
> 
> Last January, SDC had already sent samples of unfinished QD-OLED panels to VD. The test result shows that the brightness is low. However, if the brightness is increased, it will have a negative impact on the life of the OLED light-emitting organic layer.
> 
> Agenda: delivery of the sample in June, market assessment in September and launch in 2022. In July last year, SDC initiated the purchase of quantum dot production line (QD) equipment at Samsung Display Factory in Asan, Chungnam.
> 
> After samples are shipped in June, SDC will conduct a consumer survey on QD-OLED products in September. After thoroughly evaluating the finished products of QD-OLED products from VD and other companies, SDC will decide on the direction of the additional investment in QD Display.
> 
> If the feedback is positive, QD-OLED hybrid TVs could be put into production later this year or in 2022.
> 
> Samsung Electronics is expected to adopt QD-OLED, production efficiency is key
> 
> Samsung Electronics' DV division, which said it "will not launch OLED TVs", changed its position and decided to conditionally consider adopting QD-OLED.
> 
> The condition presented by VD to SDC is to guarantee commercial viability and improve the efficiency and production capacity of QD-OLED. Currently, the efficiency of the production line in the first quarter is not high.
> 
> Based on the current production capacity of the SDC "Q1" production line and the investment in 8.5 generation mother glass, 30,000 sheets per month is far from enough for VD. The production capacity of LG Display, which produces large-scale OLED panels en masse, plus the 8.5-generation factories in Paju, Gyeonggi and Guangzhou, China, can reach 140,000 sheets per month. This is almost 5 times the production capacity of the Samsung Display Q1.
> 
> SDC is currently focusing on improving product quality. Only by improving the utilization rate and the yield rate can the supply of QD-OLED panels be guaranteed and the decision to invest an additional trillion won can be made.
> 
> In addition, in response to current rumors that Samsung is buying OLED panels from LG, Horse analyst at RUNTO believes that before VD actually adopts SDC's QD-OLED panels, there will be no possibility of buying rival OLED panels. LGD.
> 
> In the high-end market, VD has other options, this year it is conquering the high-end market with the "NEO QLED" series of MiniLED backlit TVs. VD is more concerned with the quality of state-of-the-art LCD TV panels purchased from other panel manufacturers and does not want to rely heavily on suppliers in mainland China. Therefore, it requires SDC to extend the production of LCD panels needed for the MiniLED backlight of 8K TV's. In return, VD began to actively assess the credibility of adopting the QD OLED panel.
> 
> RUNTO predicts that the global MiniLED backlit TV will reach 3 million units in 2021, of which Samsung can account for 2 million units.
> 
> Hybrid TV can be a good solution
> 
> The hybrid QD-OLED TV can overcome both, thus ending the dispute over the direction of QLED and OLED. In theory, it can combine the deep black and the self-luminous characteristics of OLED panels with the excellent brightness and color of QLED TVs. It uses blue OLED as the light source and prints color filters of red and green quantum dots at the top of the blue OLED layer, resulting in super-powerful images.
> 
> However, it is important to note that Samsung Electronics VD has long opposed OLED technology. How to deal with "long-term image retention and material aging" concerns will be an interesting thing.
> 
> The lack of continuity in the product's sales outlets is one of the factors contributing to the decline of Samsung TVs in China
> 
> In 2020, China is Samsung's penultimate country with the worst performance in the world, second only to India. According to RUNTO data, Samsung TV will ship less than one million units in China in 2020.
> 
> Horse, an analyst at RUNTO, believes that Samsung has achieved yet another success in the world, but still performs poorly in China. The main reason is that Samsung TV's operations in China are not localized enough. It doesn't matter in terms of TV operating system development, e-commerce investment, refined user operation or marketi








东方财富资讯


手机东方财富网是东方财富网的手机门户网站，为亿万用户打造一个手机联通世界的超级平台，提供7*24小时全面及时的财经中文资讯，内容覆盖国内外突发事件、股市资讯、全球新闻、产业资讯、实用信息等。手机东方财富网触屏版 - eastmoney.com




wap.eastmoney.com












OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


hdtvtest: https://www.chosun.com/economy/tech_it/2021/02/16/IPNXHCR2PVFDXKANV7WV6GLEMM/ I was amused to read an article this morning talking about LG's 2021 TV lineup. They called 48" compact and space friendly TVs. Apparently LG doesn't make anything smaller.




www.avsforum.com




OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


----------



## fafrd

I think we already knew this: QD-OLED Expansion Decision Expected in Q421_04/18/21

‘*QD-OLED Expansion Decision Expected in Q421*

Omdia expects Samsung Display to make a decision on the 2nd of 4 potential phases of capacity expansion for the QD/OLED project later this year, which would add another 30,000 sheets/month to the project’s potential capacity by 2023. That same timeline would begin phase 3 build-out in 2022, with that additional capacity (30,000 sheets/month) slated for production in 2024. *SDC has a number of hurdles to cross before those decisions are set and is still researching whether the lines will use an OLED material as a light source or whether it will switch to nano-rods for the emitters.*’

Highly unlikely Samsung will commit to expanding capacity if they are still unsure about whether the light source will be BOLED or nanorods.

This is yet another analysis which assumes that all equipment for the first phase 30,000 8.5G sheets/line has been committed/installed, but there is at least one differing view suggesting that the expensive volume OLED deposition machine has not yet been installed.

September is the end of Q3, so Omdia’s forecast for a phase 2 decision in ‘Q420’ can be taken as an expectation for delays past September on their part...


----------



## fafrd

I finally tracked down the source suggesting Samsung Display may not yet have acquired the expensive OLED deposition equipment needed to start mass-production of QD-BOLED: Are Quantum Nano Emitting Diodes (QNEDs) the Next Big Thing? - Display Supply Chain Consultants

‘*QNED Timeline and Cost: *
Samsung is believed to be in the R&D stage now with a target of moving to pilot production in the first half of 2021. If the technology is successful in pilot line, it is possible that the QD-OLED process lines planned for future may be converted to the QNED architecture where the blue OLED will be replaced by the Nanorod LED. We don’t expect this to happen for the first QD-OLED line as *once Samsung buys the expensive open mask VTE system from Canon for OLED deposition, they will use it, *but a success in the QNED technology can likely impact future OLED deposition tool orders.’

This article was from March 2020, so it’s likely/possible that Samsung has acquired this VTE system by now. I’ve searched for but found no news reports on the subject one way or the other.

If anyone has better information on this subject, I’m all ears/eyes.

But in the absence of any clear indication one way or the other, it’s very possible that the September ‘Market Survey / Decision Point’ is actually the decision point to purchase this expensive open mask VTE system.

Obviously, the QD-OLED prototypes that Samsung demonstrated at CES’20 were manufactured without that expensive machine, and so the prototypes shown at CES’21 as well as the new prototypes being developed for this June could also be manufactured with whatever low-volume OLED deposition capability Samsung Visual has been using for R&D / prototyping up to March 2020.

It sounds as though the open-mask VTE system from Canon for OLED deposition is an expensive-enough investment that Samsung does not want to make it until they are certain they will begin ramp-up to 30,000 8.5G sheets per month.

So until I see some indication to the contrary, I believe the odds are at least 50/50 that this VTE machine has not yet been installed (and the decision to move forward with it may be awaiting a customer commitment).

All other equipment Samsung has installed can be used for QNED, but if Samsung Display decides to skip-over ‘QD-Display 1.0’ (QD-BOLED) and go straight to bringing ‘QD-Display 2.0’ (QNED) into production, the $billion+ they spent on that expensive VTE machine would be totally wasted (sell it in the used market for a dime on the dollar).

Again, if I missed some earlier news on this and the VTE machine has already been installed, I’d appreciate being brought up to speed...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> I finally tracked down the source suggesting Samsung Display may not yet have acquired the expensive OLED deposition equipment needed to start mass-production of QD-BOLED: Are Quantum Nano Emitting Diodes (QNEDs) the Next Big Thing? - Display Supply Chain Consultants
> 
> ‘*QNED Timeline and Cost: *
> Samsung is believed to be in the R&D stage now with a target of moving to pilot production in the first half of 2021. If the technology is successful in pilot line, it is possible that the QD-OLED process lines planned for future may be converted to the QNED architecture where the blue OLED will be replaced by the Nanorod LED. We don’t expect this to happen for the first QD-OLED line as *once Samsung buys the expensive open mask VTE system from Canon for OLED deposition, they will use it, *but a success in the QNED technology can likely impact future OLED deposition tool orders.’
> 
> This article was from March 2020, so it’s likely/possible that Samsung has acquired this VTE system by now. I’ve searched for but found no news reports on the subject one way or the other.
> 
> If anyone has better information on this subject, I’m all ears/eyes.
> 
> But in the absence of any clear indication one way or the other, it’s very possible that the September ‘Market Survey / Decision Point’ is actually the decision point to purchase this expensive open mask VTE system.
> 
> Obviously, the QD-OLED prototypes that Samsung demonstrated at CES’20 were manufactured without that expensive machine, and so the prototypes shown at CES’21 as well as the new prototypes being developed for this June could also be manufactured with whatever low-volume OLED deposition capability Samsung Visual has been using for R&D / prototyping up to March 2020.
> 
> It sounds as though the open-mask VTE system from Canon for OLED deposition is an expensive-enough investment that Samsung does not want to make it until they are certain they will begin ramp-up to 30,000 8.5G sheets per month.
> 
> So until I see some indication to the contrary, I believe the odds are at least 50/50 that this VTE machine has not yet been installed (and the decision to move forward with it may be awaiting a customer commitment).
> 
> All other equipment Samsung has installed can be used for QNED, but if Samsung Display decides to skip-over ‘QD-Display 1.0’ (QD-BOLED) and go straight to bringing ‘QD-Display 2.0’ (QNED) into production, the $billion+ they spent on that expensive VTE machine would be totally wasted (sell it in the used market for a dime on the dollar).
> 
> Again, if I missed some earlier news on this and the VTE machine has already been installed, I’d appreciate being brought up to speed...


Found this from 2 months ago: [단독] Samsung Display's'JY 13 trillion project' QD-OLED mass production countdown… Additional import of core equipment - World Today News

So sounds as though the equipment to print QDCC was installed only recently.

That equipment is far less expensive than the QD-BOLED-specific open-mask OLED deposition equipment and can be used for either QD-BOLED or QNED.

It’s difficult to understand/rationalize why Samsung would have installed the much more expensive QD-BOLED-specific deposition equipment in advance of these QDCC printers...

So I’m now up to 75% odds that the VTE deposition equipment has not yet been installed and that that major $$$ commitment to QD-BOLED-specific production is part of the September ‘Market Survey’ / decision point that Samsung is preparing for this summer...


----------



## fafrd

Ran into this dated Dec. 2020
which may be the most accurate summary I’ve seen: Samsung Display to start trial runs for QD-OLED line - i-Micronews

‘Samsung Display will begin trail runs of its production line for Quantum Dot (QD) displays *next month*, TheElec has learned.’

So from December ‘20, that would have meant trial production starting in January, but we know that didn’t happen because the. Prototypes shown by Samsung Display at CES ‘21 were deemed ‘too dim’ (sending Samsung Display back to the drawing board to increase brightness).


‘The line, dubbed Q1, at its factory in Asan, was designed to produce QD-OLED(organic light emitting diode) panels. QD-OLED will be the first iteration of Samsung Display’s so-called QD displays.
The company put in the necessary equipment to produce QD-OLED panels back in July. At the time, *Samsung Display said it will wrap up building the line by the end of the year *and begin mass production in 2021.’

And since we now know that the QDCC printers were only installed this February, it’s clear that ‘wrapping-up’ building the Q1 production line by the end of last year has been delayed as well (and in particular, installation of the expensive QD-BOLED-specific deposition machine may not yet have occurred).

‘The Q1 line is an 8.5th generation line (2,200×2,500mm.

From December, *it will take Samsung Display around 3 months to properly set-up the necessary steps for production and around 6 months to stabilize yield rate.*’

3-months from GO decision to set up the remaining equipment (especially deposition) and 6 months to stabilize yield sounds optimistic, but realistic for what Samsung may be aiming at.

That GO decision was expected in January and now will likely be delayed to September at the earliest.

‘[/b]Q1 is expected to operate at a rate of [u{15,000 substrates per month in the beginning[/u][/b]. It has a capacity of 30,000 substrates.’

All the other sources make it sound as though Q1 will immediately begin production at 30,000 substrates/month, but starting at half-max-capacity of 15,000 substrates per month sounds more realistic. That’s probably the production rate over the first 6 months while yields are stabilized,

‘Whether Samsung Display decides put in additional investments into QD-OLED will be *determined in May*.

We now now that in the best case, this May decision point has been delayed to September, and in the worst case, the January checkpoint has also been delayed until September (which would mean yield stabilization efforts couldn’t begin until year-end).

‘It needs to stabilize yield rate to clinch customers such as Samsung Electronics and Sony.’

Starting to stabilize yields in January and needing to achieve that and clinch customers by May could have been the realistic target last December, but that yield-stabilization effort won’t likely begin until September now (in the best-case that the deposition equipment is already secured - if not end-of-year is the earliest to begin yield stabilization efforts).

‘*If the yield rate is too low or QD-OLED isn’t up to the standard of customers, Samsung Display will likely shift additional investments into QD nanorod LED (QNED) technology instead.*’

This makes it sound as though if the September ‘Market Survey’ comes back negative, Samsung Display has already been planning for a contingency of ditching QD-BOLED (QD-Display 1.0) and focusing all of their QD-Display efforts on QNED (QD-Display 2.0) instead...

‘Samsung Electronics has so far not been receptive towards Samsung Display’s pitch for QD-OLED.
Samsung Electronics is planning to ship 2 million [b{miniLED TVs [/b]next year. *The South Korean tech giant expects the models to be sufficient to stand toe-to-toe with LG’s OLED TV in the premium sector for the next two to three years*. If this pans out, it will *likely shift to QNED more aggressively rather than put too much efforts in QD-OLED.*’

This has the ring of truth to it. SVD believes they are well-positioned enough with NeoQLED (QD-MicroLED) that they believe they can give Samsung Display another 2-3 years to come up with something new/better.

Hence the contingency plan to ditch QD-BOLEDand focus on QNED if QD-BOLED doesn’t win customers by the 2021 checkpoint...


‘Last year in October, Samsung Display said it will invest 13.1 trillion won into QD display. QD display includes both QD-OLED and QNED. 
It is planning to halt all LCD production by March. It was planning to end it within the year but COVID-19 has caused demand and price for LCD TVs to rise. Its customers have asked the firm to extend the production date, which Samsung Display complied to.’

At the time this was written, Samsung Display had been planning to shutter all LCD production by the end of 2020 but has agreed to an extension until March 2021.

Now we know that there has been a further extension until at least the end of this year (possibly made in exchange for a commitment by SVD to launch a QD-BOLED TV next year).


----------



## fafrd

I realize I’m obsessing about whether this open-mask VTE system has been installed by Samsung Display or not, but as I run into additional breadcrumbs, figure I might as well share: DSCC Report Shows Equipment Suppliers Recover in Q3’20 - Display Supply Chain Consultants

This was published on DECEMBER 14, 2020 and states:

Canon surged to #2 helped by a FMM VTE system installed. *In Q4’20, it could recognize more than $1B in revenues led by an open mask system at SDC*, FMM VTE systems at CSOT T4 and Visionox V3 and litho tools at BOE, China Star, SDC and Visionox.’

So as of mid-December, Samsung had not installed the $1B open-mask VTE system from Canon.

The recognition of that $1B on revenue is certain to be something Canon had to report on their Q4’20 financial report, do it should be easy to track down..,

(and I’m guessing the answer will prove to be that the revenue was not recognized in Q4’20, nor even soon-to-be-reported Q1’21...).


----------



## Robertoy

*Yonhap News*


> *LG OLED R at BVLGARI shop*
> 
> This photo, provided by LG Electronics Inc. on April 19, 2021, shows the world's first rollable TV made by the South Korean home appliances giant, the LG Signature OLED R, displayed at a BVLGARI shop in Geneva and Zurich, Switzerland. (PHOTO NOT FOR SALE) (Yonhap) (END)



















LG OLED R at BVLGARI shop | Yonhap News Agency


This photo, provided by LG Electronics Inc. on April 19, 2021, shows the world's firs...




en.yna.co.kr


----------



## Robertoy

fafrd said:


> ‘*If the yield rate is too low or QD-OLED isn’t up to the standard of customers, Samsung Display will likely shift additional investments into QD nanorod LED (QNED) technology instead.*’
> 
> This makes it sound as though if the September ‘Market Survey’ comes back negative, Samsung Display has already been planning for a contingency of ditching QD-BOLED (QD-Display 1.0) and focusing all of their QD-Display efforts on QNED (QD-Display 2.0) instead...
> 
> ‘Samsung Electronics has so far not been receptive towards Samsung Display’s pitch for QD-OLED.
> Samsung Electronics is planning to ship 2 million [b{miniLED TVs [/b]next year. *The South Korean tech giant expects the models to be sufficient to stand toe-to-toe with LG’s OLED TV in the premium sector for the next two to three years*. If this pans out, it will *likely shift to QNED more aggressively rather than put too much efforts in QD-OLED.*’



















OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


Sensors for Your TV An ambitious startup funded by LGD is thinking about future use cases for them. Future OLED TVs could get eye-tracking sensors, but do we need them?




www.avsforum.com


----------



## fafrd

Any other old timers from this thread will remember when slacker was active here.

He hangs out at Silicon Investor now but I just ran into a post of his and thought I’d share:OLED Universal Display Corp Message Board - Msg: 33287067

‘From: slacker711

If LGD can't justify building out additional capacity right now (on top of moving Guangzhou to 90,000) then I doubt that they will add significant capacity before they can commercialize a printable system. The demand environment and LGD's financial position are about as good as they are going to get.’


​


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Any other old timers from this thread will remember when slacker was active here.
> 
> He hangs out at Silicon Investor now but I just ran into a post of his and thought I’d share:OLED Universal Display Corp Message Board - Msg: 33287067
> 
> ‘From: slacker711
> 
> If LGD can't justify building out additional capacity right now (on top of moving Guangzhou to 90,000) then I doubt that they will add significant capacity before they can commercialize a printable system. The demand environment and LGD's financial position are about as good as they are going to get.’
> 
> 
> ​


"printable system" means IJP I assume? That is an interesting take. So no Paju G10.5 buildout until an IJP process can be installed in his scenario???


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> "printable system" means IJP I assume? That is an interesting take. So no Paju G10.5 buildout until an IJP process can be installed in his scenario???


Oh, I think it’s a near-certainty that P10 is on hold until IJP manufacturing is ready for prime-time (at least if the growth of the 75” Premium TV market remains slow enough to gives them that time). P10 moving forward may also be gated by the availability of a high-efficiency blue emitter (as detailed a page or two back in this thread).

Slacker’s point is that if LGD does not announce another 8.5G fab conversion soon (in addition to +30,000 substrates/month expansion of Guangzhou which is now pretty much being taken as a given), the only explanation would be that LGD has decided to hold off on any further investments in 8.5G vapor deposition manufacturing (the current process), awaiting IJP equipment (at either 10.5G or 8.5G).

Bringing up IJP on an 8.5G line has huge appeal since it would allow LGD to later bring up their first-ever 10.5G fab with a known and proven manufacturing process.

But LGD needs to make decisions to do something beyond the Guangzhou expansion relatively soon:

-2021 current capacity: 140,000 8.5G sheets/month = 8.3M panels /year (@90%)

-2022 w/ Guangzhou expansion: 170,000 8.5G sheets/month =10.1M panels/year

-2023 needs at least 30,000 sheets per month from a new fab:
a/ 8.5G means total of 200,000 8.5G sheets per month for 11.9M panels/year
b/ 10.5G means a total of 170,000 8.5G sheets/month + 30,000 10.5G sheets/month for 12.7M panels/year

Especially with the plan to wind-down LCD production, conversion of another 8.5G LCD fab to WOLED is the smarter choice and so the only detail may be whether to ‘go-fast’ using the existing vapor deposition process or to ‘go slow’ attempting to bring up printed WOLED manufacturing for the first time at 8.5G.

The fact that LGD decided to launch two OLED monitors based on printed OLED manufacturing from JOLED this year is strategic, in my view.

If those new printed OLED products prove reliable, long-lived, and don’t result in disastrous failures in the field, that may be a final proof-point to convince LGD to give printed WOLED a try. And if they are disastrous for whatever reason, they can still fall-back and stick with evaporation to maintain the 2023 expansion schedule...


----------



## fafrd

__





Redirect Notice






www.google.com





‘According to market researcher Omdia on Apr. 19, the average price of the industry-standard 55-inch OLED panel dropped to $510 in the first quarter of this year, compared with $200 for LCD panels. Year-on-year, OLED panel prices declined 8.1% on average, whereas LCD panel prices spiked 73.9%. As a result, their price gap has narrowed to $310 from $440.’

WOLED dropping from 730% comparable LCD cost to 255% still doesn’t sound terribly competitive until you realize that this is for the LCD panel itself (w/o backlight) which is becoming a smaller and smaller piece of the overall MicroLED/LCD cost pie:






DSCC TV Cost Report Highlights Battle Between OLED and MiniLED - Display Supply Chain Consultants







www.displaysupplychain.com





According to DSCC, the yielded cost of a MiniLED backlight in 2021 is over $300, meaning that WOLED TV cost and MiniLED/LCD TV cost have essentially reached parity this year...


----------



## fafrd

DSCC forecasting 134% year-on-year growth for OLED TV production in Q2’21: OLED Production to Increase 94% Y/Y in Q2 2021 - Display Supply Chain Consultants

‘A recovery from the pandemic, combined with strong demand for OLEDs in smartphones, TVs and other devices, and coupled with capacity increases, will lead OLED production to grow 94% Y/Y in the second quarter of 2021, according to the latest update to DSCC’s Quarterly OLED and Mobile LCD Fab Utilization Report released last week. Growth in OLED input area for small & medium displays is expected to come in at 68% Y/Y, while *growth in OLED TV input area will more than double at +134% Y/Y.*


----------



## dkfan9

fafrd said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redirect Notice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘According to market researcher Omdia on Apr. 19, the average price of the industry-standard 55-inch OLED panel dropped to $510 in the first quarter of this year, compared with $200 for LCD panels. Year-on-year, OLED panel prices declined 8.1% on average, whereas LCD panel prices spiked 73.9%. As a result, their price gap has narrowed to $310 from $440.’
> 
> WOLED dropping from 730% comparable LCD cost to 255% still doesn’t sound terribly competitive until you realize that this is for the LCD panel itself (w/o backlight) which is becoming a smaller and smaller piece of the overall MicroLED/LCD cost pie:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DSCC TV Cost Report Highlights Battle Between OLED and MiniLED - Display Supply Chain Consultants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaysupplychain.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to DSCC, the yielded cost of a MiniLED backlight in 2021 is over $300, meaning that WOLED TV cost and MiniLED/LCD TV cost have essentially reached parity this year...


I think this shows a compelling reason Samsung is using an IPS panel for the QN80. Not because the panel is necessarily less expensive than a VA but it allows removal of the wide viewing angles filter's cost that is baked into their wide viewing angles QLED marketing.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> They have 5 lines of TVs?
> 
> What a mess.


Further confirmation: TV QD Oled Samsung and 2022, official

‘*Samsung TV 2022 multi-technology range*

The Samsung 2022 TV range should therefore see many technologies coexist, the large and very large *1) Samsung Micro LED TVs.* (see our news Micro LED Ultra HD 4K Samsung 110 ” TV at € 130,000, official!), *2) Mini LED LCD TVs, 3) “classic” Qled TVs, 4) LCD TVs* and, therefore, * 5) Oled QD TVs. *It remains to be seen how they will be positioned within the Samsung offer. Our little finger tells us that they will not be far from the Mini LED specimens…’

(And of course, this was written before[/b] the recent news about SVD’s discussions with LGD regarding possible WOLED panel supply for 2022...).


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redirect Notice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘According to market researcher Omdia on Apr. 19, the average price of the industry-standard 55-inch OLED panel dropped to $510 in the first quarter of this year, compared with $200 for LCD panels. Year-on-year, OLED panel prices declined 8.1% on average, whereas LCD panel prices spiked 73.9%. As a result, their price gap has narrowed to $310 from $440.’
> 
> WOLED dropping from 730% comparable LCD cost to 255% still doesn’t sound terribly competitive until you realize that this is for the LCD panel itself (w/o backlight) which is becoming a smaller and smaller piece of the overall MicroLED/LCD cost pie:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DSCC TV Cost Report Highlights Battle Between OLED and MiniLED - Display Supply Chain Consultants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaysupplychain.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to DSCC, the yielded cost of a MiniLED backlight in 2021 is over $300, meaning that WOLED TV cost and MiniLED/LCD TV cost have essentially reached parity this year...


The LCD Crystal Cycle is at a (very high) price peak right now, and probably an extended peak due to the pandemic. But the Cycle has been repeatable for more than a decade, right, maybe much longer (memory fails me)? When LCD panel prices drop, and they will, will WOLED be able to maintain the parity through various improvements made during this unprecedented 'gift' of time and LCD panel supply constraint? I say parity instead of delta to acknowledge the BLU % of price keeps increasing. The delta to LCD panel minus BLU will go back up I'm sure. 




__





LCD TV Panel Prices Keep Going Up - Display Supply Chain Consultants







www.displaysupplychain.com


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> The LCD Crystal Cycle is at a (very high) price peak right now, and probably an extended peak due to the pandemic. But the Cycle has been repeatable for more than a decade, right, maybe much longer (memory fails me)? When LCD panel prices drop, and they will, will WOLED be able to maintain the parity through various improvements made during this unprecedented 'gift' of time and LCD panel supply constraint? I say parity instead of delta to acknowledge the BLU % of price keeps increasing. The delta to LCD panel minus BLU will go back up I'm sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LCD TV Panel Prices Keep Going Up - Display Supply Chain Consultants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaysupplychain.com


Let’s take the current $510/65” WOLED panel price as a reasonable swag at today’s BOM cost for both WOLED and MiniLED/LCD.

Today, there is ~$130 in ‘inflated’ LCD panel cost in that MiniLED BOM which will eventually go away once supply catches up with demand.

That $130 surcharge represents about 25% of the overall BOM cost but the WOLED trend has been for a 5-7% cost drop per year (or $25-36/year), meaning that $130 gap will have closed in 3 to 4 years.

But the other factor is that the trend for MiniLED BLUs is that they are getting more expensive every year, not less expensive (more dimming zones, more LEDs).

And in addition, when WOLED moves to 10.5G (where LCD is today), 65” WOLED panels will enjoy a ~15% / $80 cost reduction, so by 2025 when LGD has stated their 10.5G fad will be in production, cost parity versus MiniLED/LCD should be forever...


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Let’s take the current $510/65” WOLED panel price as a reasonable swag at today’s BOM cost for both WOLED and MiniLED/LCD.
> 
> Today, there is ~$130 in ‘inflated’ LCD panel cost in that MiniLED BOM which will eventually go away once supply catches up with demand.
> 
> That $130 surcharge represents about 25% of the overall BOM cost but the WOLED trend has been for a 5-7% cost drop per year (or $25-36/year), meaning that $130 gap will have closed in 3 to 4 years.
> 
> But the other factor is that the trend for MiniLED BLUs is that they are getting more expensive every year, not less expensive (more dimming zones, more LEDs).
> 
> And in addition, when WOLED moves to 10.5G (where LCD is today), 65” WOLED panels will enjoy a ~15% / $80 cost reduction, so by 2025 when LGD has stated their 10.5G fad will be in production, cost parity versus MiniLED/LCD should be forever...


I'm not so sure about a _long term_ trend for miniLED BLU cost rising; we'll have to watch that. Price/performance balance is on OEM radars. However, I totally agree the LGD 10.5G fab is indeed a big deal in closing a long term cost delta.


----------



## PynkFloydd

Here's an interesting article that suggests OLED will be around for quite a while longer. My takeaway from this is that Micro LED won't have an opportunity to be refined in high volume products like phones, laptops, etc. and will take much longer to come down in price. I'm sure everyone remembers plasma, but when those came out a $10k TV was unheard of, so it'll be interesting to see how Micro LED evolves and what price it settles down to.

Sounds like affordable 8k OLED TVs are more likely to appear before Micro LEDs.




https://www.eetimes.com/micro-leds-have-complex-value-proposition/#


----------



## fafrd

PynkFloydd said:


> My takeaway from this is that Micro LED won't have an opportunity to be refined in high volume products like phones, laptops, etc. and will take much longer to come down in price.
> 
> *Sounds like affordable 8k OLED TVs are more likely to appear before Micro LEDs.*


Oh, that’s an absolute certainty...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Oh, that’s an absolute certainty...


I think the real question at this point is which we’ll see first: affordable consumer MicroLED TVs or affordable consumer QNED TVs (as in Quantum Nano-Emitting Diode)?


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> I think the real question at this point is which we’ll see first: affordable consumer MicroLED TVs or affordable consumer QNED TVs (as in Quantum Nano-Emitting Diode)?


You already know my opinion but i can't resist: QNED seems to have fewer hurdles to jump than MicroLED. It may still be a long race, but MicroLED large display is running a 1500 while QNED is running an 800  Or, maybe I should say the QNED hurdles at least appear to be potentially jumpable as we see things today; consumer MicroLED has some hurdles of unknown height...


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> You already know my opinion but i can't resist: QNED seems to have fewer hurdles to jump than MicroLED. It may still be a long race, but MicroLED large display is running a 1500 while *QNED is running an 800 * Or, maybe I should say the QNED hurdles at least appear to be potentially jumpable as we see things today; consumer MicroLED has some hurdles of unknown height...


I would love to see whatever references you’ve found that have convinced you QNED is ‘running’ anywhere...

From what I’ve seen, QNED is in the early, early industrialization phase and it’s not even clear yet whether it’s manufacturable in a cost-effective high-volume manner.

If Samsung knew with high confidence that they could manufacture a cost-effective QNED display delivering 800 nits, I’m pretty certain they’d drop QD-BOLED and switch horses in a heartbeat.

So if that read is correct, the kind of ‘hurdles’ QNED and MicroLED are facing are fundamentally different:

*MicroLED: *we know we can make it, but can we ever make it inexpensively-enough to sell at consumer prices?

*QNED: *we know that if we can make it, we’ll be able to profitably scale manufacturing to consumer price points, but we’re not certain we have a way to make it yet (in a low-cost, high-volume manufacturing sense).

And for sake of completeness:

*QD-BOLED: *we know that we can make it and we know that we can make it inexpensively-enough to profitably sell at consumer pricepoints, but if it is more expensive than WOLED and no brighter than WOLED, is it really worth betting our entire future on?


----------



## Wizziwig

LCD backlight prices will likely continue to increase because their manufacturers are actually improving them every year. Increasing brightness, adding more dimming zones, gamut coverage, etc. The LCD modules are also rapidly switching to 8K even on lower end models. If they let the designs stagnate and just kept selling the same old thing every year (the way WOLED has done since ~2016), the prices would have likely fallen or stayed the same (ignoring the current momentary spike due to pandemic).


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> LCD backlight prices will likely continue to increase because their manufacturers are actually improving them every year. Increasing brightness, adding more dimming zones, gamut coverage, etc. The LCD modules are also rapidly switching to 8K even on lower end models. If they let the designs stagnate and just kept selling the same old thing every year (the way WOLED has done since ~2016), the prices would have likely fallen or stayed the same (ignoring the current momentary spike due to pandemic).


Yes, a non-MiniLED/LCD is less costly that a WOLED - so what’s your point?

‘Conventional’ (non-MiniLED-BLU) LED/LCDs are the least expensive game on town and dominate the low-end of the overall TV market (which is not really our interest here).

The lowest-end of the Premium TV market is characterized by non-MiniLED-BLU QLEDs but WOLED is increasingly taking share in that slice (and hence the recent introduction of MiniLED/QLEDs).

The mid-tier of the Premium TV market has been characterized by WOLED and FALD QLED/LCD, but those FALD BLUs are now in the process of being replaced by more costly MiniLED BLUs. This is where most of the action is as far as Premium TV market share battles and the primary interest of this Forum.

And then if you want to talk about the High End of the Premium TV Market, there are really two sub-tiers, ‘down-to-earth’ and ‘sky’s-the-limit’ (which really belongs in the $20,000+ Forum ).

Within ‘down-to-earth, we’ve got 8K MiniLED/QLEDs, 88” WOLEDs, concept WOLEDs like LG’s W-Series, and eventually LG’s rollable R-Series TVs.

And within ‘sky’s-the-limit’ where you can find LG’s Rollable WOLED and Samsung’s MicroLEDs, the volumes are so low as to be irrelevant to what we are discussing.

LGD’s primary focus has been on scaling up production and lowering cost of the WOLED performance they have now established, while Samsung has been forced to add cost in order to better-compete against WOLED’s superior dark-room viewing performance.

Until High-Efficiency Blue OLED emitters emerge, there is really not much for LGD to ‘do’ other than continue to fiddle with their near-black dithering to improve shadow detail performance (though I do wish they’d finally improve native refresh rates to 240Hz).


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> I would love to see whatever references you’ve found that have convinced you QNED is ‘running’ anywhere...
> 
> From what I’ve seen, QNED is in the early, early industrialization phase and it’s not even clear yet whether it’s manufacturable in a cost-effective high-volume manner.
> 
> If Samsung knew with high confidence that they could manufacture a cost-effective QNED display delivering 800 nits, I’m pretty certain they’d drop QD-BOLED and switch horses in a heartbeat.
> 
> So if that read is correct, the kind of ‘hurdles’ QNED and MicroLED are facing are fundamentally different:
> 
> *MicroLED: *we know we can make it, but can we ever make it inexpensively-enough to sell at consumer prices?
> 
> *QNED: *we know that if we can make it, we’ll be able to profitably scale manufacturing to consumer price points, but we’re not certain we have a way to make it yet (in a low-cost, high-volume manufacturing sense).
> 
> And for sake of completeness:
> 
> *QD-BOLED: *we know that we can make it and we know that we can make it inexpensively-enough to profitably sell at consumer pricepoints, but if it is more expensive than WOLED and no brighter than WOLED, is it really worth betting our entire future on?


Fair enough - to use your breakdown above what I'm saying is MicroLED seems to have SO many cost hurdles that QNED's apparent single primary hurdle of nanorod alignment at HVM seems more doable in the long run as the other parts of the process are already cost competitive or close to it. Of course it's only opinion. My references are only SDC $12B investment (would they really do that for QD-OLED as an end game? Seems unlikely), and the UBI Research patent analysis from Nov.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Fair enough - to use your breakdown above what I'm saying is MicroLED seems to have SO many cost hurdles that QNED's apparent single primary hurdle of nanorod alignment at HVM seems more doable in the long run as the other parts of the process are already cost competitive or close to it. Of course it's only opinion. My references are only SDC $12B investment (would they really do that for QD-OLED as an end game? Seems unlikely), and the UBI Research patent analysis from Nov.


Sounds like we’re using different language to say the same thing.

MicroLED daunting cost-reduction challenges but pretty much no remaining technical challenges at this point.

QNED one+ significant (and possibly unsolvable) technical challenge but clear sailing on cost if they can overcome that last hurdle.

MicroLED is ‘running’ but it’s a big, heavy runner trying to run much faster.

QNED is not ‘running’ yet and is still at the starting blocks waiting for the starting gun (but will get up to speed very quickly once gun goes off).

Kind of like the Tortoise and the Hare (except the Hare is still tangled in chucked-wire)..,


----------



## fafrd

삼성전자 한종희 사장 "LGD OLED 패널 도입 계획 없다"


(지디넷코리아=황정빈 기자)삼성전자 한종희 영상디스플레이(VD)사업부장(사장)이 LG디스플레이의 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 패널 도입 계획이 없다고 공식 입장을 밝혔다. 한종희 사장은 21일 서울 코엑스에서 열린 월




n.news.naver.com





‘Samsung Electronics' video display (VD) division head (President) Han Jong-hee announced that there is no plan to introduce LG Display's organic light-emitting diode (OLED) panel. President Han Jong-hee said, *"There is no plan to introduce LG OLED panel"* to reporters' questions about whether LG Display's OLED TV panel was introduced recently at the World IT Show held at COEX in Seoul on the 21st. Regarding Samsung Display's QD display, he said, "The display panel is undergoing a sample review."’


----------



## fafrd

Stable pure-blue hyperfluorescence organic light-emitting diodes with high-efficiency and narrow emission - Nature Photonics


Pure-blue organic LEDs with narrow emission and improved stability show promise for display applications.




www.nature.com





‘Here, we report pure-blue (Commission Internationale de l’ Eclairage (CIE) coordinates of 0.13, 0.16) OLEDs with high efficiency (*external quantum efficiency of 32 per cent at 1,000 cd m−2*), narrow emission (*full-width at half-maximum of 19 nm*) and good stability (*95% of the initial luminacnce (LT95) of 18 hours at an initial luminance of 1,000 cd m−2*).’

Promising (especially % efficiency) except for that L95 number of 18 hours, but:

‘With stricter control of device fabrication and procedures *it is expected that device lifetimes will further improve to rival commercial fluorescent blue OLEDs.*’

Coming from university researchers, who knows how long that might take, but we’ll (hopefully) get there one way or the other (eventually)...[/b]


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Stable pure-blue hyperfluorescence organic light-emitting diodes with high-efficiency and narrow emission - Nature Photonics
> 
> 
> Pure-blue organic LEDs with narrow emission and improved stability show promise for display applications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nature.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Here, we report pure-blue (Commission Internationale de l’ Eclairage (CIE) coordinates of 0.13, 0.16) OLEDs with high efficiency (*external quantum efficiency of 32 per cent at 1,000 cd m−2*), narrow emission (*full-width at half-maximum of 19 nm*) and good stability (*95% of the initial luminacnce (LT95) of 18 hours at an initial luminance of 1,000 cd m−2*).’
> 
> Promising (especially % efficiency) except for that L95 number of 18 hours, but:
> 
> ‘With stricter control of device fabrication and procedures *it is expected that device lifetimes will further improve to rival commercial fluorescent blue OLEDs.*’
> 
> Coming from university researchers, who knows how long that might take, but we’ll (hopefully) get there one way or the other (eventually)...[/b]


I may have found some dots that are connecting:

First, the Nature Photonics paper reporting High-Efficiency Blue OLED breakthrough based on introduction of v-DABNA: Stable pure-blue hyperfluorescence organic light-emitting diodes with high-efficiency and narrow emission

Second, evidence that one of the largest OLED materials suppliers, JNC, is also working on v-Dabna-enhanced blue OLED emitter: JNC and Kansai University have successfully developed an organic series of blue light-emitting materials (ν-DABNA) with a color purity exceeding the Gallium series LED and Cadmium series quantum dots.-Industry News-新闻中心

Anted third, relatively recent news (late last year) that JNC has just opened a joint venture in Korea to supply LGD and Samsung with OLED materials: Korea’s SK Materials and Japan’s JNC set up OLED materials JV in Korea - Pulse by Maeil Business News Korea

Between UDC (PhOLED), TADF (Cynora), Hyperflorescence (Kyulux), and this little-talked-about v-Dabna-enhanced approach, I’m guessing/hoping something materializes within the next two years and JNC and this v-Dabna-enhanced approach may well be the sleeper...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> I may have found some dots that are connecting:
> 
> First, the Nature Photonics paper reporting High-Efficiency Blue OLED breakthrough based on introduction of v-DABNA: Stable pure-blue hyperfluorescence organic light-emitting diodes with high-efficiency and narrow emission
> 
> Second, evidence that one of the largest OLED materials suppliers, JNC, is also working on v-Dabna-enhanced blue OLED emitter: JNC and Kansai University have successfully developed an organic series of blue light-emitting materials (ν-DABNA) with a color purity exceeding the Gallium series LED and Cadmium series quantum dots.-Industry News-新闻中心
> 
> Anted third, relatively recent news (late last year) that JNC has just opened a joint venture in Korea to supply LGD and Samsung with OLED materials: Korea’s SK Materials and Japan’s JNC set up OLED materials JV in Korea - Pulse by Maeil Business News Korea
> 
> Between UDC (PhOLED), TADF (Cynora), Hyperflorescence (Kyulux), and this little-talked-about v-Dabna-enhanced approach, I’m guessing/hoping something materializes within the next two years and JNC and this v-Dabna-enhanced approach may well be the sleeper...


This write-up makes it even clearer that the JNC / SK JV in Korea is aiming at high-efficiency blue OLED emitters: SK Materials Now Capable of Localizing “Blue OLED Material” through a Joint Venture with JNC

‘JNC possesses key technology to *blue OLED *material and its patents related to the technology will be transferred to their joint venture.’

‘Reportedly, the company already finalized a supply contract with a major OLED display company from South Korea.’

‘Korea’s materials industry as JNC’s patents related to *blue OLED material *will be transferred to their joint venture. Development of *blue OLED material* is seen as the most difficult task out of all OLED materials. While phosphorescent material with high efficiency is used for red and green colors, fluorescent material with low efficiency is used for blue OLED material. Also, South Korean companies have not been able to enter the global market for blue OLED material as *Japanese companies such as Idemitsu Kosan have built tall barrier to entry. As a result, Samsung Display and LG Display have been purchasing blue OLED materials from Japanese companies such as Idemitsu Kosan *and Hodogaya Chemical even through they are leaders in the global OLED display market.

SK Materials is now able to internalize and localize *blue OLED material* through the joint venture. Because *JNC possesses key patents on [u{boron family[/u] that is seen as a next-generation material, *it is expected to assist in preparing an important foundation for SK Materials to grab upper hands in future markets. Their joint venture will target related markets based on SK Materials’ production capacity and business network and patents transferred from JNC. *Starting with blue OLED material, *it will also develop red and green luminescent materials and expand its business towards all OLED materials such as ETL.’


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Sounds like we’re using different language to say the same thing.
> 
> MicroLED daunting cost-reduction challenges but pretty much no remaining technical challenges at this point.
> 
> QNED one+ significant (and possibly unsolvable) technical challenge but clear sailing on cost if they can overcome that last hurdle.
> 
> MicroLED is ‘running’ but it’s a big, heavy runner trying to run much faster.
> 
> QNED is not ‘running’ yet and is still at the starting blocks waiting for the starting gun (but will get up to speed very quickly once gun goes off).
> 
> Kind of like the Tortoise and the Hare (except the Hare is still tangled in chucked-wire)..,
> [/QUOTE





fafrd said:


> Sounds like we’re using different language to say the same thing.
> 
> MicroLED daunting cost-reduction challenges but pretty much no remaining technical challenges at this point.
> 
> QNED one+ significant (and possibly unsolvable) technical challenge but clear sailing on cost if they can overcome that last hurdle.
> 
> MicroLED is ‘running’ but it’s a big, heavy runner trying to run much faster.
> 
> QNED is not ‘running’ yet and is still at the starting blocks waiting for the starting gun (but will get up to speed very quickly once gun goes off).
> 
> Kind of like the Tortoise and the Hare (except the Hare is still tangled in chucked-wire)..,


My only difference wrt uLED might be feeling pretty antsy about transfer capability of <40um sub-pixel LEDs (<40 is from memory...might be smaller) *at high volume mfg *to enable 8K at 75" (or smaller) which seems to be future 'table stakes' in the premium market whenever uLED would be at a consumer price level. I'd be interested in anyone posting published HVM roadmap successes from any of the many transfer tech companies.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> 삼성전자 한종희 사장 "LGD OLED 패널 도입 계획 없다"
> 
> 
> (지디넷코리아=황정빈 기자)삼성전자 한종희 영상디스플레이(VD)사업부장(사장)이 LG디스플레이의 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 패널 도입 계획이 없다고 공식 입장을 밝혔다. 한종희 사장은 21일 서울 코엑스에서 열린 월
> 
> 
> 
> 
> n.news.naver.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Samsung Electronics' video display (VD) division head (President) Han Jong-hee announced that there is no plan to introduce LG Display's organic light-emitting diode (OLED) panel. President Han Jong-hee said, *"There is no plan to introduce LG OLED panel"* to reporters' questions about whether LG Display's OLED TV panel was introduced recently at the World IT Show held at COEX in Seoul on the 21st. Regarding Samsung Display's QD display, he said, "The display panel is undergoing a sample review."’


Interesting....so did Han say this twice (see earlier here), in which case they are either maybe truly staying away OR doubling down on the misdirection(!) or is ZDNet Korea picking up on the earlier comment?


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Interesting....so did Han say this twice (see earlier here), in which case they are either maybe truly staying away OR doubling down on the misdirection(!) or is ZDNet Korea picking up on the earlier comment?


Duh, sorry I see his comments are from the 21st. So, he's denied it twice....


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> Sounds like we’re using different language to say the same thing.
> 
> MicroLED daunting cost-reduction challenges but pretty much no remaining technical challenges at this point.
> 
> QNED one+ significant (and possibly unsolvable) technical challenge but clear sailing on cost if they can overcome that last hurdle.
> 
> MicroLED is ‘running’ but it’s a big, heavy runner trying to run much faster.
> 
> QNED is not ‘running’ yet and is still at the starting blocks waiting for the starting gun (but will get up to speed very quickly once gun goes off).
> 
> Kind of like the Tortoise and the Hare (except the Hare is still tangled in chucked-wire)..,


No remaining technical challenges for MicroLED? Having your tv be a bunch of modules snapped together is a pretty big technical challenge. Until they can make a single solid 55/65/75 tv panel they are a non-starter for consumer tvs. Their market will be as a replacement for those high end $40k Sony projectors.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


----------



## dkfan9

Jin-X said:


> No remaining technical challenges for MicroLED? Having your tv be a bunch of modules snapped together is a pretty big technical challenge. Until they can make a single solid 55/65/75 tv panel they are a non-starter for consumer tvs. Their market will be as a replacement for those high end $40k Sony projectors.
> 
> Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


That's a good way to put it. These microLED sets are competitors to projectors more than TVs.


----------



## fafrd

I’ve been looking over this data a bit more closely and there are a few interesting conclusions; LG and Sony Led OLED TV Gains in Advanced TV Market in Q4 - Display Supply Chain Consultants

This ‘Advanced TV’ category is a sub segment DSCC made up, but it’s probably a reasonable placeholder for ‘WOLED + FALD-or-MiniLED/QDLED/LCD’ (and mainly WOLED vs Samsung high-end QLED).












First, WOLED (LGE+Sony) has slipped from a high of over 45% market share in 2018 to a low of about 2/3 that share in 2019 (~30%).

That sounds bad, until you realize that according to DSCC, Advanced TV shipments increased from ~5.5M in 2018 to ~12M in 2019 (118% growth), and WOLED shipments grew by over 30% year-on-year (from ~2.6M to ~3.4M).

So the overall Advanced TV market grew by 118% in 2019 but LGD WOLED was only able to capture a bit over 1/4 of that growth. Poor them.

Since a low of ~30% market share in Q3 ‘19, LGE and Sony have been on a steady growth trend while Samsung has dropped from a high of 55% market share in the 1st quarter of 2020 to 45% market share in Q4’20.

Again, because the overall Advanced TV Market has been growing, that doesn’t translate to that much, but comparing Q4’19 to Q4’20 does:










Out of total Advanced TV shipments of ~3.8M in Q4’19, WOLED had shipments of ~1.1M or ~28.9% compared to LCD shipments of ~2.7M or ~71.1%.

Advanced TV shipments in Q4’20 grew by ~22% to~4.625M out which WOLED captured shipments of ~1.4M or 30.3% (a 3.6% gain in year-on-year share).

So from a high-level, WOLED has seemingly settled-in at a ~30% market share in this relevant market and is trying to claw share back to 40% and beyond one % at a time...

That conclusion is a bit over simplistic and some interesting trends emerge by digging deeper:

First, if we look only at 55” panels in Q4’19 and compare to Q4’20, we see:

Q4’19 55” LCD ATV shipments = ~950K
Q4’19 55” WOLED ATV shipments = ~700K
Q4’20 55” LCD ATV shipments = ~900K
Q4’20 55” WOLED ATV shipments = ~625K

So the 55” ATV market actually declined by ~125K units or 7.6% from Q4’19 to Q4’20 and WOLED’s share slipped from ~42.4% in Q4’19 to ~41.0% in Q4’20.

To me, this signals a relatively mature market - technology of both WOLED and QLED/LCD is now relatively stable, market size is slowly shrinking as larger screen sizes become more affordable and WOLED versus QLED/LCD is in a close-to-steady-state market share division of 40/60.

We see a similar picture at 65”:

Q4’19 LCD ATV shipments = ~950K
Q4’19 WOLED ATV shipments = ~450K
Q4’20 LCD ATV shipments = ~975K
Q4’20 WOLED ATV shipments = ~500K

The 65” ATV market is also fairly mature, but whereas the 55” ATV market declined by ~7.6%, the 65” ATV market grew by ~5.4% (from 1.400M in Q4’19 to ~1.475M in Q4’20.

But out of this ~75,000 additional 65” ATVs sold in Q4, WOLED took the lion’s share of 2-out-of-every-3 additional shipments and increased overall share of 65” ATVs from 32.1% in Q4’19 to 33.9% in Q4’20 (5.6% growth in market share).

This market also seems fairly mature and stable but the addition of MMG technology to 65” WOLED panels should reduce cost by ~25% so we’ll see as 2021 unfolds whether that translates to increased 65” ARV market share closer to the 40% achieved at 55” (where MMG adds nothing).

A different trend is found at 75” LCD vs 77+” WOLED (I’m going to take 88” WOLED sales as immaterial):

Q4’19 75” LCD ATV shipments = ~200K
Q4’19 77” WOLED ATV shipments = <25k
Q4’20 75” LCD ATV shipments = ~425K
Q4’20 77” WOLED ATV shipments = ~50k

The first trend that jumps out is that compared to the 55” ATV market that declined by ~7.6% and the 65” ATV market that grew by ~5.4%, the 75/77” ATV market increased by a whopping more than 111%, from less that 225k units to ~475k units.

And while both LCD and WOLED increased by about that same amount, if total 75/77” annual shipments are estimated, the trend becomes more visible:

2019 75” LCD ATV shipments = ~575K
2019 77” WOLED ATV shipments = ~100K
2020 75” LCD ATV shipments = ~900K
2020 77” WOLED ATV shipments = ~200K

So on an annualized basis, WOLED grew by ~100% versus LCD which grew by 56.5%.

More importantly, compared to the 55” and 65” ATV markets where WOLED has captured 34-41%, WOLED only had a 10.5% share of the 75/77” ATV market in Q4’20 and only an 18% share over all of 2020 (up from ~15% in 2019).

So the 77” WOLED share of the ATV market is growing (and by ~20%) but it still has a looong way to go before it gets near the 30-40% share of the more mature 55” and 65” ATV markets.

MMG has also reduced the cost of 77” WOLED panels by ~25% and 2021 is the first year LGE is introducing a budget-series 77” WOLED offering (77A1) so we’ll see how that translates to market share gains in this ATV subsegment as the year unfolds.

But to me, overall key takeaways from all this data are:

-WOLED in it’s current form is positioned to capture 35-40% of Advanced TV sales within the market subsegments in which it competes (meaning cost and performance).

-with introduction of 48” and now 42” WOLEDs, LGD is positioning themselves to compete across the full spectrum of ATV subsegments and needs to plan sufficient capacity to deliver 40% of overall market volume if they want to succeed.

-another year of ~11% growth in ATV volume this year will translate to close to 15M unit sales and so LGD needs production capacity of at least 6M WOLEDs (which they have today).

-for 2022, similar ATV unit growth would translate to just under 17M units, meaning LGD needs increased capacity of just under 7M units to capture 40% (which they also have today).

-and for 2023, similar ATV unit growth would translate to ~19M units, meaning LGD needs capacity of just under 8M units to capture 40% (which they also have in place today without further expansion of Guangzhou to 90,000 substrates/month).

So investing in expansion at Guangzhou this year only makes sense if something additional is happening (such as Samsung purchasing 4 million WOLED panels next year).

Adding 4M additional panels to the ~7M panel demand for 2022 I already outlined brings total 2022 demand to ~11M panels, which goes beyond LGDs current 140,000 8.5G substrates/month capacity and fully absorbs the ~11M panels LGD could produce in 2022 with Guangzhou increased to 90,000 panels/month for the full year.

And in the scenario that Samsung is committing to WOLED in 2022 to the tune of 4Mu, the 11M WOLEDs LGD would sell in 2022 could be as many as 12.25Mu in 2023, meaning LGD will need at least another ~20,000 8.5G substrates in production for the full year or 30,000 substrates in production for over half of the year.

With a best-case 18 months from capital approvals to ramp-to-production, that means LGD would need to announce a new fab start before this year is out...

So I’ll be taking any signals regarding WOLED capacity expansion coming from LGD as far more telling about Samsungs’s intention to launch WOLED TVs than any public denials made by Samsung (without Samsung coming on board, LGD doesn’t need to expand capacity; with Samsung coming on board, they urgently do).


----------



## dkfan9

I wonder if the TCL 6 Series and Vizio M Series count...


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> I wonder if the TCL 6 Series and Vizio M Series count...


Well, Vizio is below 3% and that includes their WOLED sales and TCL is below 2%, so I’d guess that the Vizio M and TCL 6 are both too inexpensive/high-volume to count as ATVs.

On the other hand, Vizio’s P-Series Quantum QD-FALD-LED/LCD probably is being counted as an Advanced TV as well as probably TCL’s 8-Series MiniLED/LCD...


----------



## fafrd

Printed WOLED TV panels from China are a much greater threat to LGD’s WOLED than Samsung’s QD-BOLED (or QNED): Chinese Suppliers Poised to Dominate OLED Market


----------



## dkfan9

fafrd said:


> Well, Vizio is below 3% and that includes their WOLED sales and TCL is below 2%, so I’d guess that the Vizio M and TCL 6 are both too inexpensive/high-volume to count as ATVs.
> 
> On the other hand, Vizio’s P-Series Quantum QD-FALD-LED/LCD probably is being counted as an Advanced TV as well as probably TCL’s 8-Series MiniLED/LCD...


The TCL S525 should be included honestly...


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Printed WOLED TV panels from China are a much greater threat to LGD’s WOLED than Samsung’s QD-BOLED (or QNED): Chinese Suppliers Poised to Dominate OLED Market


For the likely heart of the market segment in 2023/4 (eg. LG A, B, C? series) at least, that should be a big concern. Articles specific to TV space: TCL IJP G8.5 and TCL timing. Brightness for IJP is to be watched, and of course, can they hit low cost projections.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> For the likely heart of the market segment in 2023/4 (eg. LG A, B, C? series) at least, that should be a big concern. Articles specific to TV space: TCL IJP G8.5 and TCL timing. Brightness for IJP is to be watched, and of course, can they hit low cost projections.


Honestly, my only real concern is the success and continuation of OLED for TV displays, rather than necessarily LGD WOLED remaining King of the Hill.

So the emergence of printed RGB OLED will either result in a ‘better’ OLED TV if it can match WOLED in peak brightness and lifetime, or a lower-end lower-cost OLED TV which will accelerate the decline of LCD downmarket if it can’t.

And it’s not even OLED I care about as much as true emissive displays. So if QNED or el-QLED emerges at performance/price points that displace WOLED/OLED, I’m all for it.

It’s the close-to-zero-cost LCD technology that has me concerned and the fact that BLU costs have exploded in order for transmissible LCD technology to compete for Advanced TV Market Share against WOLED is great news.

At this stage, it seems pretty certain that emissive Premium TV is here to stay, but ~33% share of Advanced/Premium TV market and/or 3.3% of overall TV sales is less comfortable than it will be once WOLED/emissive TV has broken-through 50% of Advanced/Premium TV sales and/or >5% of the overall TV market share (meaning ~14 million TV panel sales annually).


----------



## fafrd

Seems like the market positioning of QD Display versus WOLED is starting:

삼성전자 퀀텀닷TV 출시 준비, 한종희 LG전자 올레드와 차별화 씨름 (businesspost.co.kr) 

'*Samsung Electronics Prepares to Launch Quantum Dot TV, Wrestles With LG Electronics Oled han Jong-hee*
2021-04-23 14:19:29

As Samsung Electronics prepares to launch a new Premium TV Quantum Dot (QD) display TV, the product range configuration strategy has become more important to Han Jong-hee, President of Samsung Electronics' Video Display Business Department. Samsung Electronics has operated a wide range of premium TVs, including LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY (LCD) TVs, miniLEDTV, and microLEDTV. With the addition of new products, the TV family will become more diverse, contributing to Samsung Electronics' remaining number one in the TV market. 

However, as there are many types of displays that make up the TV, there is also the fear of confusion among consumers, and marketing is likely to be necessary to point out the pros and cons of each product with a clear distinction. According to the electronics industry, the next-generation TV Quantum Dot Display TV is expected to serve as a de facto representative product, taking the next position in Samsung Electronics Premium TVs after microLEDTV. 

MicroLEDTV is literally a TV that gathers very fine light emitting diode (LED) devices and makes each one act as a
pixel. It is currently the top premium TV of Samsung Electronics. In December last year, Han Jong-hee put out his first home microLEDTV 110-inch product.

This year, it plans to launch products that are more accessible to consumers in smaller forms. "In the second half of the year, when 70-inch, 80-inch products come out, they will sell quite a bit," han said of the microLEDTV at the 21st WorldIT Show 2021event.

However, there is a reality that microLEDTV is the representative TV of Samsung Electronics.MicroLEDTV is difficult to assemble LED components and costs a lot of production costs. This is connected at an excessively high price among premium TVs.

The 110-inch microLEDTV was priced at 170 million won. Even if a smaller product comes out, as one president said, there is a high publicity that will be priced at least tens of millions of won. There is still a long way to go to popularize.
Accordingly, quantum dot display TV is expected to be an alternative for consumers who are willing to purchase microLEDTV.

Quantum dot display is an OLED-based display similar to a microLEDTV in that each pixel has its own 'self-light' structure. The self-illuminated display does not illuminate the back like traditional LCD TVs, so it can be fully black. A full black representation can express a clear image with a better contrast ratio than an LCDTV.

Considering the performance of each product, one president has a large public market to place premium products such as traditional LCDTV and mini-REDTV under Quantum Dot DisplayTV.

Samsung Electronics has been selling QLEDTV, an LCD TV, as its flagship product until last year. In March of this year, miniLEDTV, an developed form of LCDTV, was released to the market under the brand NeoQLED. LCDTV requires a light emitting body (backlight) that illuminates separately, unlike self-emitting displays such as quantum dot displays and microLEDTV.

Mini-LEDTV replaces the LED device used in LCDTV luminescents with smaller ones, so you can adjust the screen brightness more delicately than before. However, compared to the self-emitting display that does not require a light emitting body, the product is bound to be thicker, and that there is a limit to the expression of complete black is edging to the disadvantage.
That's why Quantum Dot DisplayTV is considered the top product than Samsung Electronics QLEDTV and NeoQLEDTV.

With Quantum Dot DisplayTV on the market, Han is likely to highlight what makes it different from traditional Oled
TV. This is because the oled display for TVs, which Samsung Electronics rated low, and quantum dot displays may look similar. All of the Oled TVs currently on the market are based on LG Display's Oled Display for TVs.
The display is created by combining red, green, and blue oled devices to form a white light and then color it with a color filter on top of it. Quantum dot display, on the other, is believed to have adopted a structure that utilizes blue oleds as lighting and adds a quantum dot material color filter. It is also called quantum dot oled (QD-OLED) in that it is used. 

Samsung Electronics has pointed out that the organic materials that make up the oled display are vulnerable to pixel thermalization (burn-in), making them difficult to use for a long time and do not show high brightness. "The lifespan of organic light emitting diodes is limited," Samsung Electronics said at Samsung First Look 2021, a new TV public event in January, "and when applied to tVs, burn-in (pixel thermalization) can occur."

He also claimed that neoQLEDTV, which was presented to reporters in March, was better than OledTV in many ways, including brightness and color expression. That's why we need a marketing strategy that allows consumers to distinguish between quantum dot display TV and traditional oledTV.

On the Samsung side, Quantum Dot Display is considered to be a better technology than Oled Display, so it is likely to actively differentiate itself. "The light generated by the blue light source of quantum dot displays has a very high color purity, and the red and green color that quantum dot devices create also have a very high color purity," explains Samsung Display.

In the market, the opinion prevails that Samsung Electronics' quantum dot display TV launch is only a question of
time. This is because Samsung Display, Samsung Electronics' main display supplier, is pursuing a quantum dot display business with the goal of production within this year. "Samsung Electronics is likely to enter the Oled TV market in 2022 with the launch of Quantum Dot DisplayTV," said Kim Dong-wen, researcher at KB Securities.

In fact, on 21 June, when asked if he planned to introduce Quantum Dot Display, one president said, "Samsung Display is developing hard" and "received a prototype." Samsung Electronics is expected to strengthen its position as a leader in the TV market by using Quantum Dot DisplayTV.

According to market research company Omnia, Samsung Electronics achieved a 31.9% share of the TV market last year as a basis for sales, ranking first in the market for the 15th consecutive year.'


----------



## JasonHa

> "The light generated by the blue light source of quantum dot displays has a very high color purity, and the red and green color that quantum dot devices create also have a very high color purity," explains Samsung Display.


I wonder if Samsung marketing will highlight color volume in these TVs, instead of brightness? Have there been any indications of how the QD-OLED tech will do with respect to color volume?


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> I wonder if Samsung marketing will highlight color volume in these TVs, instead of brightness? Have there been any indications of how the QD-OLED tech will do with respect to color volume?


QD-OLED should deliver a classic fully-saturated color volume ‘pyramid’ where WOLED delivers lower peak intensity at the fully-saturated boundaries of the color gamut, but an accelerated slope through less-and-less-saturated colors towards the central white point (because of the white subpixel).

I don’t believe Samsung is going to accept QD-BOLED being less bright than WOLED at 100% white, which is why the feedback they have received on two separate prototypes now is that the QD-BOLED is ‘not bright enough’.

In fact, if you considers today’s WOLED being ~800 nits in peak white brightness and NeoLED/MiniLED/QDLCDs delivering 1100-1500 nits of peak white brightness, I doubt SVD is going to accept any QD-BOLED that doesn’t deliver at least 1000 nits (125% of WOLED) if not 1200 nits (150% of WOLED,110% of sub-flagship QN85A, 80% of Flagship QN90A).

Peak White Brightness is much more visible and sells much more easily that ‘dimmer whites but brighter fully-saturated colors’ so I doubt SVD even wants to consider going down that complicated path.

Matching WOLED peak whites but beating WOLED with brightness of fully-saturated red, green, blue might be successful, but beating WOLED with visibly brighter peak whites and besting WOLED by even more with fully-saturated colors is a slam-dunk.

So I believe this is why SVD has asked Samsung Display to go back to the drawing board twice now to make a brighter QD-BOLED.

With low-efficiency (Florescent) Blue OLED emitter, my estimates indicate Samsung Displsy will need to employ at least 5 BOLED layers if not 6 to achieve that bright.

It’ll be a beautiful display - true RGB versus WRGB, and visibly brighter than WOLED across the entire gamut (so 125% to 150% WOLED’s color volume, or possibly even more depending on the performance of the QDCCs and the color filters).

But it ain’t gonna be cheaper than WOLED and it’s gonna consume a lot more power than WOLED (at least until high-efficiency blue materializes).


----------



## gorman42

A pleasure to read you again, fafrd. When is Samsung expected to debut with these new screens? 2022 or 2023?


----------



## stl8k

Tyler at Portrait Display breaks some news (to me)...

LG has a professional OLED.

https://youtu.be/YywSHGQhd1c?t=1739

It's marketed/spec'd here:

https://www.lg.com/global/business/oled-signage/lg-65ep5g

Nothing jumps out to say this panel is deeply customized. It may even lag the panels found in the latest, high-end OLED TV models much like Panasonic's pro displays lag.


----------



## fafrd

gorman42 said:


> A pleasure to read you again, fafrd. When is Samsung expected to debut with these new screens? 2022 or 2023?


Still too many unknowns to speculate with high confidence, but here is what I think is going on and the different ways I can foresee it playing out:

We know Samsung Display is busy developing a new generation of brighter QD-BOLED 3.0 prototypes scheduled to be available in June. I believe those prototypes can only be based on one of two possible architectures based on the maturity of High-Efficiency Blue:

A/ Low Efficiency Blue: if there is not yet any High Efficiency Blue Emitter sufficiently mature to bring into production late this year (the more likely scenario), then the June prototypes will either be based on at least 5 BOLED layers and very possibly 6. There are no technical hurdles to this Avenue but the QD-BOLED panels will be more expensive than WOLED and will consume ~double the power (which may be a technical challenge if it requires cooling). QD-BOLED TVs could easily reach the market in 2022 with this path if Samsung decides to move forward (which they may not either because cost is prohibitive and/or yields are disastrous).

2/ High Efficiency Blue: if Samsung Display has a High Efficiency Blue Emitter that delivers acceptable lifetime, the other option for the June prototypes is that they will be based on a 4-layer High Efficiency BOLED-architecture. The CES ‘20QD-BOLED samples were based on a 4-layer Low Efficiency BOLED and they were deemed ‘too dim’. The CES’20 samples were also deemed ‘too dim’ but there has been nothing disclosed about what architecture was used. If this January’s BOLED samples were based on 3-layer High Efficiency Blue (which would deliver cost parity and power-consumption parity with WOLED for ~110% WOLED brightness), the the June samples could be based on 4-layer High Efficiency BOLED (which can deliver ~150% peak brightness of WOLED for ~133% power consumption and a modest cost premium). 

So if High Efficiency Blue is that far along, Samsung Visual Display launching first QD-BOLED in 2022 would be likely (as would the possibility of other brands like Sony joining in).

But there is also a 3rd scenario that High Efficiency Blue is literally on the bleeding-edge but not yet ready for primetime. Perhaps, for example, lifetime is insufficient but development efforts are underway that should demonstrate significant improvements early next year. Or perhaps there is some horrendous yield loss issue associated with Deposition (or printing) of High Efficiency Blue which also has new developments underway promising to deliver significant improvements early next year.

Either way, this is the ‘ongoing development’ scenario where Samsung may launch a single QD-BOLED TV in 2022 in modest volumes of ~300Ku just to begin to prepare the market and understand the marketing. Sony would be unlikely to join in because cost would be prohibitive, and Samsung will hold off on any additional investments in Phase II or Phase III until promised improvements have been proven/delivered.

And assuming those improvements do materialize by mid-2022, that is the scenario where the real launch of 1M+ WD-BOLEDs including other brands like Sony is likely to happen in 2023 (including restarted investments in capacity expansion).

But that also opens up the fourth scenario that promised improvements do not materialize next year meaning Samsung will be half-pregnant, unlikely to attract new customers like Sony, yet unlikely to pull the plug. That could mean an entire repeat of the 2022 ‘plan’ in 2023 with no true QD-BOLED launch until 2024 (assuming those improvements do materialize by mid-2023).

And as delays increase, that also opens up various other alternatives including QNED making sufficient progress by 2022 or 2023 for Samsung to ‘switch horses’ before the true QD-Display launch in 2023 or 2024.

The schedule of the first viable High Efficiency Blue Emitter is the primary driver of the next phase of change coming to the flat-panel display market, but that timeframe is a big unknown (at least to us peons, though most analysts also seem to have no clue).

High Efficiency Blue will hasten the departure of LCD-based displays from the Premium TV Market (except for that small niche needing 2000 nits or more). Samsung knows this. LG knows this. Even the Chinese probably know this. They are like horses fidgeting in the gates before the horse race starts.

My own view of the most likely scenario based on what we know today is that Samsung Visual Display launches a single high-cost QD-BOLED TV next year (because they promised they would). They’ll be priced higher than the NeoQLEDs but cheaper than the uLEDs (which will represent Samsung Marketing with a challenge) and they will sell in very modest volumes (probably fewer than 100,000).

From various factors detailed in earlier posts in this thread, I believe there is a reasonable chance High Efficiency Blue emerges in 2022, meaning 2023 will be a year of great change, including for both SVD and LGD.

But things often take longer than they should, so I’d give the probability of High Efficiency Blue not materializing until 2023 50/50 odds.

There is, of course, the possibility that High Efficiency Blue proves impossible and never materializes but from the various University Research results that have been published over the past 12-24 months, that outcome would surprise me and I see High Efficiency Blue OLED in production by 2024 as highly likely.

So there you have it - my prognostication for the next 3 years .


----------



## Wizziwig

stl8k said:


> Tyler at Portrait Display breaks some news (to me)...
> 
> LG has a professional OLED.
> 
> https://youtu.be/YywSHGQhd1c?t=1739
> 
> It's marketed/spec'd here:
> 
> https://www.lg.com/global/business/oled-signage/lg-65ep5g
> 
> Nothing jumps out to say this panel is deeply customized. It may even lag the panel's found in the latest, high-end OLED TV models much like Panasonic's pro displays lag.


At least we finally know what some of the cryptic acronyms in the service menu stand for. From the manual.

TPC = TemporalPeak Lumninace Control
GSR = Global Sticky Reduction
CPC = Convex Power Control

They also offer toggle to enable/disable the factory uniformity compensation LUT. That must be a horror show if disabled.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> At least we finally know what some of the cryptic acronyms in the service menu stand for. From the manual.
> 
> *They also offer toggle to enable/disable the factory uniformity compensation LUT*. That must be a horror show if disabled.


Don’t you think that’s the working LUT used by Pixel Refresh?

If it is, that would mean you may now have a way to assess the true underlying level of panel wear / burn-in... (if burn-in compensation uses the same LUT...).


----------



## Wizziwig

That's not for uniformity compensation. That's for uneven wear compensation. To compensate for crap color uniformity, you need some optical instrument looking at the screen. This kind of uniformity compensation toggle is universal on professional LCD monitors.

From the manual:

[OLED Panel Settings]
• [TPC (TemporalPeak Luminance Control)]: Lowers the brightness to protect the screen when a static image is detected.
• [Pixel Refresher]: Corrects any issues that may arise on the screen when the TV has been turned on for a long time. This may take more than an hour.
• [Screen Shift]: Moves the screen slightly at regular intervals to prevent image sticking on the display panel.
• [Logo Luminance Adjustment]: Adjusts the luminance of static images such as on-screen logos to correct potential screen issues.
• [Global Sticky Reduction]: Gradually reduces the luminance of the screen when a specific area on the screen has a fixed image for a certain period of time without changing.
• [Convex Power Control]: The brightness of the central part of the screen is expressed as 100 %, and the farther away from the centre, the darker it is because of the Gradation Gain applied to the image for reducing power consumption.
• [Uniformity Compensation]: Evens out luminance/Color across the panel using SuperSign WB.

Looks like this is mostly for coarse grayscale color tints. See here for the procedure:









SuperSign WB | LG SuperSign Software | Business | LG Global


LG SuperSign WB Software solution that controls the white balance of a video wall or standard signage monitors. Learn more now.




www.lg.com





Edit: This is more useless than I thought. It's just for calibrating uniformity across the panel tiles of a video wall. Not for improving uniformity on a single panel.
Manual for their software.


----------



## chros73

Wizziwig said:


> At least we finally know what some of the cryptic acronyms in the service menu stand for. From the manual.
> 
> TPC = TemporalPeak Lumninace Control
> GSR = Global Sticky Reduction
> CPC = Convex Power Control





Wizziwig said:


> • [Convex Power Control]: The brightness of the central part of the screen is expressed as 100 %, and the farther away from the centre, the darker it is because of the Gradation Gain applied to the image for reducing power consumption.


Good find, thanks. Is CPC the standard ABL?


----------



## fafrd

I found this 2018 paper from Idemitsu Kosan: https://www.sid.org/Portals/sid/Publications/DW2018 Distinguished Papers/6-3.pdf

This is probably a good proxy for the Florescent Blue emitter LGD used until the recent switch to DuPont deuterium-based Florescent emitter.

This Idemitsu Kosan Florescent emitter had:
Efficiency: 6.9% (@10mA/cm^2)
LT95: 650h (@10mA/cm^2)

Since Blue Lifetime appears to have been sufficient on LGDs 3S3C WOLEDs based on Idemitsu Florescent Blue emitter, [email protected]/cm^2 of 650 hours probably sets a realistic minimum for the lifetime needed from High Efficiency Blue Emitters before they will be suitable for adoption in TV application.

For comparison, here is a report from this January of a High Efficiency Hyperflorescent Blue emitter: Stable pure-blue hyperfluorescence organic light-emitting diodes with high-efficiency and narrow emission

This Hyperflorescent Blue emitter currently delivers:
Efficiency: 32% (@1000cd/m^2)
LT95: 18h (@1000cd/m^2)

Any mismatch between 10mA/cm^2 and 1000cd/m^2 needs to be accounted for, but assuming that does not introduce a huge change in these relative measurements, these results translate to:

Efficiency 4.7 times higher
Lifetime 3% of requirement

Even if this Hyperflorescent Blue OLED is driven ~20% as hard due to the increased efficiency (5 times the blue light output for equivalent current), lifetime would still need to improve by almost 8 times before lifetime would be suitable for TV application...

The authors end their abstract by stating:

‘With stricter control of device fabrication and procedures it is expected that device lifetimes will further improve to rival commercial fluorescent blue OLEDs.’

Rivaling commercial Florescent blue emitters would mean at least an ~7-8x improvement based on equivalent light output ([email protected]/m^2) and would mean as much as a ~36x improvement based on equivalent current density ([email protected]/cm^2) so if that degree of improvement is realistic within 1-3 years of focused industrialization (‘stricter control of device fabrication and procedures’) then we could finally be on a (slow) downhill glide to having a long-enough-lifetime High Efficiency Blue emitter...


----------



## fafrd

Just ran into this article from November of last year: LG resumes investment in Paju’s 10.5-generation OLED production line, and P10 mass production may be ahead of schedule - Trade News - Shenzhen LightS Technology Co.,Ltd

Nov 17, 2020-
Recently, LG Display restarted its investment in the OLED business. On July 23, after the Guangzhou plant in China started mass production, *the 10.5-generation OLED plant (P10) in Paju, Gyeonggi Province will also resume.* Earlier, it was decided to start investment in the sixth-generation OLED production line E6-3 (P9) in the first quarter of next year. At this point, both large-size and small- and medium-size OLEDs have had a clear timetable for expansion.

The 10th generation OLED production line (P10) began to introduce equipment. According to Korean media, LGD began to introduce equipment to the Paju 10.5 generation OLED production line (P10). *In September, LGD and YAS signed an evaporation machine purchase agreement*. Prior to this, it had purchased Nikon's exposure machine and is expected to sign contracts with other equipment companies in turn.

Last year, LG Display announced that it would invest 3 trillion won in P10 and mass-produce 30,000 mother substrates per month by 2022. However, due to the delay of the Guangzhou plant and environmental degradation, the start-up time was delayed. *The official statement is mass production after 2023, and will be adjusted according to the large-size OLED market conditions.*’

‘*But the phenomenon shows that as the Guangzhou factory returns to normal, the P10 mass production time may be advanced.*’

I’m a bit skeptical since I’ve seen no wider reporting about a resumption of investments in P10 but if there is any truth to this report that LGD has ordered a 10.G evaporation machine from YAS and is in the process of committing to other 10.5G equipment orders, we should hear about it in Wednesday’s Q1 Financial Results conference call...


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> I’m a bit skeptical since I’ve seen no wider reporting about a resumption of investments in P10 but if there is any truth to this report that LGD has ordered a 10.G evaporation machine from YAS and is in the process of committing to other 10.5G equipment orders, we should hear about it in Wednesday’s Q1 Financial Results conference call...[/b][/b]


Since LGD has an investment (15%) in YAS it has to report its purchasing with them. From the latest SEC and the Korean equivalent reporting for LGD and YAS, investment in 10.5G _may_ have begun in Q4 2020.

Receipts below.

From LGD Edgar filings...
















From Korean Financial Reporting for YAS...
I believe Client N is LGD (for P10).


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Since LGD has an investment (15%) in YAS it has to report its purchasing with them. From the latest SEC and the Korean equivalent reporting for LGD and YAS, investment in 10.5G _may_ have begun in Q4 2020.
> 
> Receipts below.
> 
> From LGD Edgar filings...
> View attachment 3127430
> View attachment 3127429
> 
> 
> From Korean Financial Reporting for YAS...
> I believe Client N is LGD (for P10).
> View attachment 3127432


Nice sleuthing - thanks.

On the one hand, this seems to likely confirm that LGD moved forward with an equipment order for P10 late last year (n contradiction of the ‘delay until 2025’ they announced 3-4 months earlier).

On the other hand, with YAS being 15% owned by LG and with continued delays on the order they had started likely to impact YAS and LG where it hurts, the decision to proceed with the order before the end of the fiscal year may be motivated by concerns other than the schedule for P10.

I believe that if other equipment orders for P10 have been resumed, as suggested by the article I found, LGD will need to say something about it in tomorrow’s conference call...


----------



## Jin-X

At this rate the 10.5G plant will be producing consumer panels before the CE industry at large gets HDMI 2.1 right 

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> I found this 2018 paper from Idemitsu Kosan: https://www.sid.org/Portals/sid/Publications/DW2018 Distinguished Papers/6-3.pdf
> 
> This is probably a good proxy for the Florescent Blue emitter LGD used until the recent switch to DuPont deuterium-based Florescent emitter.
> 
> This Idemitsu Kosan Florescent emitter had:
> Efficiency: 6.9% (@10mA/cm^2)
> LT95: 650h (@10mA/cm^2)
> 
> Since Blue Lifetime appears to have been sufficient on LGDs 3S3C WOLEDs based on Idemitsu Florescent Blue emitter, [email protected]/cm^2 of 650 hours probably sets a realistic minimum for the lifetime needed from High Efficiency Blue Emitters before they will be suitable for adoption in TV application.
> 
> For comparison, here is a report from this January of a High Efficiency Hyperflorescent Blue emitter: Stable pure-blue hyperfluorescence organic light-emitting diodes with high-efficiency and narrow emission
> 
> This Hyperflorescent Blue emitter currently delivers:
> Efficiency: 32% (@1000cd/m^2)
> LT95: 18h (@1000cd/m^2)
> 
> Any mismatch between 10mA/cm^2 and 1000cd/m^2 needs to be accounted for, but assuming that does not introduce a huge change in these relative measurements, these results translate to:
> 
> Efficiency 4.7 times higher
> Lifetime 3% of requirement
> 
> Even if this Hyperflorescent Blue OLED is driven ~20% as hard due to the increased efficiency (5 times the blue light output for equivalent current), lifetime would still need to improve by almost 8 times before lifetime would be suitable for TV application...
> 
> The authors end their abstract by stating:
> 
> ‘With stricter control of device fabrication and procedures it is expected that device lifetimes will further improve to rival commercial fluorescent blue OLEDs.’
> 
> Rivaling commercial Florescent blue emitters would mean at least an ~7-8x improvement based on equivalent light output ([email protected]/m^2) and would mean as much as a ~36x improvement based on equivalent current density ([email protected]/cm^2) so if that degree of improvement is realistic within 1-3 years of focused industrialization (‘stricter control of device fabrication and procedures’) then we could finally be on a (slow) downhill glide to having a long-enough-lifetime High Efficiency Blue emitter...


You may find this recent presentation from OLED Blue Materials startup Lordin informative:

*Challenge for Blue Organic Light Emitting Diode*
http://www.lordin.net/summit.pdf

And, those looking for tells about where things are headed in this space would be well-served to follow the Dean of applied organic materials for electronics, Stephen Forrest at Univ. of Michigan:

Google Scholar for Stephen


----------



## stl8k

> LG Display aims to sell a total of 8 million OLED TV panels by the end of the year.


From the LDG quarterly earnings PR today. They went from "7-8 Million" to "8 Million" guidance in 3 months time.

The Q&A with analysts is here, beginning ~20:20:

mp3 link


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

FWIW as of February, Mizuho still believes 2023 P10 date. 








LGD OLED TV Panel Capacity to Remain Static in 2021 _01/31/20


LGD OLED TV Panel Capacity to Remain Static in 2021 LG’s OLED TV panel at the end of 2020 was 7.0m panels and in 2021 they could produce up to 8m panels, without adding capacity by making more...



www.oled-a.org


----------



## stl8k

Scrapper102dAA said:


> FWIW as of February, Mizuho still believes 2023 P10 date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LGD OLED TV Panel Capacity to Remain Static in 2021 _01/31/20
> 
> 
> LGD OLED TV Panel Capacity to Remain Static in 2021 LG’s OLED TV panel at the end of 2020 was 7.0m panels and in 2021 they could produce up to 8m panels, without adding capacity by making more...
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-a.org


In LGD investor relations Q&A today (audio link in my post above) regarding on how they would get from 8 to 10 million panels per year, LGD said it would analyze future demand over the next Qtr or 2 before making a commitment to expansion.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> In LGD investor relations Q&A today (audio link in my post above) regarding on how they would get from 8 to 10 million panels per year, LGD said it would analyze future demand over the next Qtr or 2 before making a commitment to expansion.


Exact (Google-translated) quote: 

Q: ‘Please tell me how to increase capacity in the mid- to long-term after the Guangzhou line, which has been set up...’

A: ‘...we are closely watching how demand will change after various market conditions and the easing of the pandemic situation. After reviewing such areas in the second quarter and, if necessary, until the third quarter, we plan to decide on further expansion plans. When it is decided, I will share it quickly.’

As I’ve already commented on in earlier posts, LGD already has capacity in place to deliver over 8 million WOLED panels this year without needing any additional capacity.

They will not be able to deliver 10 million WOLED panels in 2022 with gaveling Guangzhou increased to 90,000 substrates per month, but they only need that additional 30,000 capacity in production for ~9 months to reach 10M panels (meaning ramp completed by beginning Q2’22).

Ramping additional capacity in an established production capacity may be possible in as little as 6-months (and almost certainly no more than 9 months) if vendors have been told equipment orders will be issued before the end of this year and they should reserve inventory to deliver soon after POs have issued.

So it’s possible for LGD to delay the formal ‘commitment’ until Q3 and still get the Guangzhou expansion up and running in time to deliver 10M panels in 2022.

This would allow LGD to see what moves Samsung decides to make with QD-BOLED before showing their cards.

The Q3 earnings call is not until mid-November, so LGD can make the decision to commit POs any time between July 1 and September 30 and won’t need to report that decision to the street until mid-November.

If LGD makes the decision to move forward in the next two months (before June 30th), we’ll hear about it around mid-August, but at this point, I think the odds are that LGD will delay any formal commitment until Q3...

And since the additional capacity LGD will need for 2023 will take longer than 6-9 months, they will probably need to make decisions on that by the end of this year and there is a good chance they’ll decide to get all of the good/bad capital investment news out of the way in one shot and announce everything for both 2022 and 2023 capital investments late this year...


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> FWIW as of February, Mizuho still believes 2023 P10 date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LGD OLED TV Panel Capacity to Remain Static in 2021 _01/31/20
> 
> 
> LGD OLED TV Panel Capacity to Remain Static in 2021 LG’s OLED TV panel at the end of 2020 was 7.0m panels and in 2021 they could produce up to 8m panels, without adding capacity by making more...
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-a.org


That’s a great reference - we should bookmark it somewhere (especially when we are reviewing Samsung’s QD-BOLED ramp plan ).

He’s forecasting 13 million panels for 2023 and LGD will only have sufficient capacity for 11M based on a full-year’s production of Paju+Guangzhou alone.

The missing ~2M panels could be delivered by P10 or they could be delivered by another 8.5G LCD plant conversion.

At 8.5G, LGD would need at least 30,000 sheets for the full year or 60,000 sheets for 6 months, so they would need to commit to that 30,000 8.5G sheet expansion plan by the end this year or early next to maintain the schedule, but if they decide to aim for 60,000 substrates they could delay the decision until this time next year.

At 10.5G, LGD would also need 30,000 substrates per month but for only 9 full months, but since it would be their first-ever ramp of a 10.5G fab, they’ll probably need to plan for at least 15 months from commitment to end of ramp and the decision will need to be made by the late his year or early next (at the latest).


----------



## fafrd

FOMO is always a mixed bag (and he obviously doesn’t understand the difference between a patent and a trademark), but he makes some interesting observations about MiniLED-QLED/LCD having hit a wall over the past three years (owning the last 3 QLED flagships including the QN90A): 




I’m still on the fence about the Samsung / LGD ‘deal’ rumor. If the production launch of QD-BOLED gets delayed another year, I can see the rationale on SVD’s part (especially if QLED has truly maxed-out the PQ it can deliver), so I guess the most likely scenario may be that SVD and LGD are in detailed discussions regarding a potential contingency deal that Samsung would only commit to in late September and in the scenario that QD-BOLED is still not ready for prime-time and gets delayed (again) until 2023...

(Forget everything he says about Samsung adding quantum dots on top of WOLED - he demonstrates how little understanding he actually has of manufacturing when he makes wild statements like that...).


----------



## dkfan9

I don't know what they could do to really improve QLED. It seems the 8K panels are limited to about 3000:1 contrast and have some issues that require dithering, unless a panel maker is actively working to improve those. MiniLED, wide viewing angle filter, and quantum dots are all incorporated already. What else are they gonna do?


----------



## Jin-X

dkfan9 said:


> I don't know what they could do to really improve QLED. It seems the 8K panels are limited to about 3000:1 contrast and have some issues that require dithering, unless a panel maker is actively working to improve those. MiniLED, wide viewing angle filter, and quantum dots are all incorporated already. What else are they gonna do?


Not much as dual layer LCD gives you great contrast ratio but reduces the viewing angles to original 3DS 3D (before the New 3DS with head tracking model), so they are abysmal. And power consumption/heat shoot way up to unreasonable levels for a consumer tv. The Sony X310 mastering monitor that replaced the X300 RGB OLED mastering monitor is a dual layered LCD with a super thick chassis that uses 3 fans. 

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Jin-X said:


> Not much as dual layer LCD gives you great contrast ratio but reduces the viewing angles to original 3DS 3D (before the New 3DS with head tracking model), so they are abysmal. And power consumption/heat shoot way up to unreasonable levels for a consumer tv. The Sony X310 mastering monitor that replaced the X300 RGB OLED mastering monitor is a dual layered LCD with a super thick chassis that uses 3 fans.
> 
> Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


I'm looking forward to seeing RTINGS review of the TCL ODZero miniLED TV whenever it shows up, particularly for viewing angle impact, but also to see if there were any compromises to enable zero optical distance technically or to keep a decent price (brightness or miniLED # or DZ reduction for cost??).


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> I don't know what they could do to really improve QLED. It seems the 8K panels are limited to about 3000:1 contrast and have some issues that require dithering, unless a panel maker is actively working to improve those. MiniLED, wide viewing angle filter, and quantum dots are all incorporated already. *What else are they gonna do?*


I think your post (as well as the two they follow it) is pretty much spot-on: LCD has reached the end of it’s development curve (which is that point FOMO was also making).

From the days when the Sharp Elite was the pinnacle of TV technology, LCD has made impressive strides:

-4K and now 8K resolution
-Wider viewing angles with 3000:1 CR
-Quantum Dots to extend gamut well beyond Rec.709 yo DCI-P3 and beyond (BT.2020)
-HDR and peak brightness levels approaching 2000 cd/m2
-near-OLED blacks and dimming zone count that puts the 240 zones of the Sharp Elite to shame

So at this point there is pretty much nothing left to do but add additional cost for little to know return or start splintering the product lineup for better-contrast-with-poorer-off-angle and better-off-angle-with-poorer-contrast niches (as Samsung-VA versus LG-IPS already largely accomplish).

It already sounds as though Samsung has been stalled over the past year or two (at least according to FOMO) so what can they do for 2022?

If they add more zones they will judd as to add cost without improving PQ.

If they do nothing, they are are just waiting while the Chinese lower cost for closer and closer performance and just watch as they nibble further and further into Samsung’s Premium TV Market Share.

They wanted something ‘new’ for exactly this reason but MicroLED is coming out of the stratosphere too slowly and QD-Display isn’t ready for prime-time yet.

So jumping on the WOLED bandwagon for a year or two makes a great deal of sense - at least they’d be doing something...


----------



## dkfan9

Well the 8Ks are only hitting 1500:1 with the wide viewing angle filter. Based on the halving of CR the wide angle filter causes at 4k, it seems like the 8k panels are limited to 3000:1 native. Along with the dithering on Samsung 8Ks (maybe an indication of problems controlling luminance at low levels, sounds familiar...), 8K seems to be posing some large challenges for LCD manufacturing. Hitting some physical limits.


----------



## stl8k

I found it peculiar that a US Samsung TV marketing _exec_ very recently went over to the same role at LG.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I found it peculiar that a US Samsung TV marketing _exec_ very recently went over to the same role at LG.


The other direction might be noteworthy (Samsung starting to get ready to market WOLED?), but LGE reinforcing their marketing talent be recruiting from Samsung really isn’t the least bit surprising. 

Perhaps they want to do a better job marketing their ‘QNED’ MiniLED-QD-LED/LCDs (LG’s version of NeoQLED)...


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

DSCC's sneak peak marketing release on IJP. The provided graph shows their thinking on QD-OLED glass area in 2025 as a data point to add to the mix (as well as IJP estimate of course). No details since they'd like you to buy the report.

Also, OLED-Assoc gives their view of IJP cost hurdles vs current WOLED mfg. Also, note their cost comparison of TCL QLED vs WOLED if a miniLED BLU is added.

_While IJP has the potential to reduce the costs of the organic layers, which are ~$200 in 2021. The promise of IJP is to increase the material utilization from 50% to 90%, which would take ~$90 out of the cost. But this savings would be offset by higher depreciation, 1) because IJP’s cost more than VTE equipment and 2) LG’s Guangzhou fab will have been amortized for at least 4 years and 3) TCL’s yields for its initial fab are likely to be much lower than LGs mature operation. _


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> DSCC's sneak peak marketing release on IJP. The provided graph shows their thinking on QD-OLED glass area in 2025 as a data point to add to the mix (as well as IJP estimate of course). No details since they'd like you to buy the report.


To me, the fact that Samsung is adopting IJP for small-screen RGB OLED but not even considering it as an option to consider for TV display OLED speaks volumes...

Of course IJP will have a significant impact on small-format OLEDs and of course several Chinese competitors will introduce low-cost large-format RGB OLED panels for TV, but it is still far too early to have a bead in what this will end up meaning for LG’s WOLED and OLED TV in general...

DSCC obviously did not get the memo that Samsung has delayed QD-BOLED’s launch until late this year or more likely mid-2022...

But perhaps the statement I found most significant was this:

‘However, there are many challenges related to inkjet printing covering *various mura defects *to material challenges.’

I think we (and LG) will learn a great deal from the first JOLED IJP monitor displays sold by LGE. Uniformity, lifetime, gamut, brightness,...



> Also, OLED-Assoc gives their view of IJP cost hurdles vs current WOLED mfg. Also, note their cost comparison of TCL QLED vs WOLED if a miniLED BLU is added.
> 
> _While IJP has the potential to reduce the costs of the organic layers, which are ~$200 in 2021. The promise of IJP is to increase the material utilization from 50% to 90%, which would take ~$90 out of the cost. But this savings would be offset by higher depreciation, 1) because *IJP’s cost more than VTE equipment* and 2) LG’s Guangzhou fab will have been amortized for at least 4 years and 3) TCL’s yields for its initial fab are likely to be much lower than LGs mature operation. _


Yes, I noticed that. And also noticed that the DSCC report you linked to stated:

‘The core competitiveness of inkjet printing is higher utilization of expensive OLED and QD materials, *lower frontplane equipment costs *and better performance enabled by top emission structures resulting in higher resolution and brightness with potential for a better lifetime and burn-in performance.’

My personal view is that IJP TVs may materialize by 2023 (TCL) but it is far too early to predict how quickly they will succeed to eat into LGD’s WOLED market share.

LGD has done s remarkable job bringing down WOLED costs (I paid over $4000 for my first 55” 1080p 55EC9300 WOLED in 2015!) and as pointed out by Musings, Amortization of the first WOLEDs is nearing their end.

If you look at this chart, WOLEDs cost today is still over 33% Depreciation (and close to 50% for the smaller screen sizes) and that entire green ‘cost’ will be disappearing over the next several years...


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd wrote: "To me, the fact that Samsung is adopting IJP for small-screen RGB OLED but not even considering it as an option to consider for TV display OLED speaks volumes... "
Aren't QD-OLED QD's deposited by IJP? If they successfully move to QNED later in the decade, the nanorods are also IJP'd. 

Also, i was surprised at the Musings statement that IJP equipment is more expensive than VTE. I thought DSCC research declared the opposite, but maybe i inferred incorrectly: 
_QNED cost is expected to be lower than QD-OLED due to the removal of the OLED deposition which eliminates the largest and most expensive tool in the fab, removes the costs associated with OLED materials and OLED TFE. __HERE_
Good highlight of the depreciation % of cost structure. I wonder how aggressive LG was with their depreciation schedule when approving a G8.5 fab years back?


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> To me, the fact that Samsung is adopting IJP for small-screen RGB OLED but not even considering it as an option to consider for TV display OLED speaks volumes...
> 
> Of course IJP will have a significant impact on small-format OLEDs and of course several Chinese competitors will introduce low-cost large-format RGB OLED panels for TV, but it is still far too early to have a bead in what this will end up meaning for LG’s WOLED and OLED TV in general...
> 
> DSCC obviously did not get the memo that Samsung has delayed QD-BOLED’s launch until late this year or more likely mid-2022...
> 
> But perhaps the statement I found most significant was this:
> 
> ‘However, there are many challenges related to inkjet printing covering *various mura defects *to material challenges.’
> 
> I think we (and LG) will learn a great deal from the first JOLED IJP monitor displays sold by LGE. Uniformity, lifetime, gamut, brightness,...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I noticed that. And also noticed that the DSCC report you linked to stated:
> 
> ‘The core competitiveness of inkjet printing is higher utilization of expensive OLED and QD materials, *lower frontplane equipment costs *and better performance enabled by top emission structures resulting in higher resolution and brightness with potential for a better lifetime and burn-in performance.’
> 
> My personal view is that IJP TVs may materialize by 2023 (TCL) but it is far too early to predict how quickly they will succeed to eat into LGD’s WOLED market share.
> 
> LGD has done s remarkable job bringing down WOLED costs (I paid over $4000 for my first 55” 1080p 55EC9300 WOLED in 2015!) and as pointed out by Musings, Amortization of the first WOLEDs is nearing their end.
> 
> If you look at this chart, WOLEDs cost today is still over 33% Depreciation (and close to 50% for the smaller screen sizes) and that entire green ‘cost’ will be disappearing over the next several years...
> 
> View attachment 3129687


I’ve been thinking about this some more:

‘_While IJP has the potential to reduce the costs of the organic layers, which are ~$200 in 2021. *The promise of IJP is to increase the material utilization from 50% to 90%*, which would take ~$90 out of the cost. But this savings would be offset by higher depreciation, 1) because IJP’s cost more than VTE equipment and 2) LG’s Guangzhou fab will have been amortized for at least 4 years and 3) TCL’s yields for its initial fab are likely to be much lower than LGs mature operation.’_

If you look at the graph, the % of cost for ‘Yielded OLED Material Cost is ~25% of the total, so dropping the material usage from 200% (50% utilization) to 111% (90% utilization) translates to a reduction of 45% in that ~25% of the pie, or ~11% reduction of overall COGs.

While an 11% reduction in COGS is nothing to sneeze at, it’s unlikely to change the world (especially once you consider that the green Depreciation slice of the pie is larger than the orange OLED materials slice of the pie, and LG WOLED will largely eliminate that green slice entirely while IJP will have ~5 years to go (which is the point being made by OLED association).

So for the first 5 years of production, it’s hard to see printed RGB OLED beating WOLED on cost, so to take market share it will need to beat WOLED on performance.

In this era of Low Efficiency Blue, IJP RGB OLED has an opportunity to outperform WOLED on brightness but that potential advantage will be all but nullified once High Efficiency Blue emerges (by which time WOLED will easily reach 1250-1500 cd/m2).

I don’t know enough to understand whether printed RGB OLED may have an easier path than WOLED increasing color gamut towards BT.2020, but with current-generation WOLEDs pretty-well covering DCI-P3, it’s hard to see Color Gamut Wars being the winning strategy to gaining market share (as evidenced by Samsung’s recent failure with their attempt at Color Space Wars).

So honestly, I think it may all come down to uniformity and whether IJP RGB OLED can clearly deliver improved uniformity over WOLED. By uniformity, I’m includ

1/ Near-Black uniformity (the famous near-black non-uniformity/streaking/DSE that plagues WOLED.

2/ Near-White uniformity (which includes off-angle chroma-shift, an area where RGB OLED should have an advantage over WOLED)

3/ Near-black / shadow detail handling and especially lack of luminance artifacts in dynamic near-black content (the famous Luminance Overshoot / Flashing artifact that continues to plague WOLED). This is another area that pure RGB pixels (instead of WRGB pixels) could offer an advantage.

So the way I see it, WOLED has now reached the point that it has solidified a baseline of performance at acceptable cost and that essentially assures that the only way a new technology such as IJP RGB OLED or QD-BOLED or QNED is going to displace it / take significant market share from it will be to deliver superior uniformity at comparable cost.

I’m excited - we’re actually in a very good place now (certainly compared to where we were when the plug was pulled on plasma ~7 years ago...).


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> fafrd wrote: "To me, the fact that Samsung is adopting IJP for small-screen RGB OLED but not even considering it as an option to consider for TV display OLED speaks volumes... "
> Aren't QD-OLED QD's deposited by IJP? If they successfully move to QNED later in the decade, the nanorods are also IJP'd.


Yes, but that was not my point.

Samsung is the leading RGB OLED manufacturer in the world (phone screens).

They already attempted to introduce RGB OLED TV but failed because the Fine Metal Mask process they use for small screens did not work for large screens.

The promise of IJP RGB OLED is to replace FMM with IJP. If it ‘solves’ the problem Samsung faced last time they tried RGB OLED TV, that would be the easiest way to go ;and they have been researching / working on it all these years...).

Instead of coming back to market with an IJP RGB OLED TV (supposedly low-hanging fruit), Samsung has chosen to bushwhack into risky, uncharted territory with QD-BOLED (which still may not be ready for Prime-Time).

I can think of only three possible reasons for why Samsung Display may have made that decision:

A/ They know that IJP is not yet ready for large-panel production of RGB OLED and have no confidence the challenges that remain can be resolved any time soon...

B/ IJP will work for large-panel production of RGB OLED but performance is insufficient (either uniformity or peak brightness) and they have no confidence those deficiencies can be addressed any time soon.

C/ The lifetime of the OLED emitters used for IJP RGB OLED is insufficient for display of HDR (burn-in, panel degradation) and they have no confidence of lifetime improving enough to reach their design targets any time soon.

The point I was trying to make was that if IJP RGB OLED was ready for Prime Time by 2024, Samsung Display would be all over it and busy converting over their LCD fans as quickly as they could...



> Also, i was surprised at the Musings statement that IJP equipment is more expensive than VTE. I thought DSCC research declared the opposite, but maybe i inferred incorrectly:
> _QNED cost is expected to be lower than QD-OLED due to the removal of the OLED deposition which eliminates the largest and most expensive tool in the fab, removes the costs associated with OLED materials and OLED TFE. __HERE_



Yes, DSCC and Musings said opposite things about the cost of equipment for IJP versus equipment for VTE deposition.

QNED will probably be less expensive because it will not need either vapor deposition nor patterned IJP deposition (I’m still unclear whether it can be manufactured with a pure solution-based process, possibly roll-to-roll, as perhaps also is Samsung).



> Good highlight of the depreciation % of cost structure. I wonder how aggressive LG was with their depreciation schedule when approving a G8.5 fab years back?


I believe the industry standard is a 5-year depreciation schedule. So the first 30,000 8.5G sheet line at Paju installed in ~2014 should now be fully-depreciated, the other two lines at Paju should be fully-depreciated soon, and as they point out, by the time TCL starts to ramp up IJP RGB TV panel production in 2024, even Guangzhou will have only one year of remaining depreciation.

IJP RGB TV panels are unlikely to be less expensive than WOLED for the first 5 years of production, and as I just posted, I believe they are going to need to beat WOLED on performance to take market share...


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> If you look at the graph, the % of cost for ‘Yielded OLED Material Cost is ~25% of the total, so dropping the material usage from 200% (50% utilization) to 111% (90% utilization) translates to a reduction of 45% in that ~25% of the pie, or *~11% reduction of overall COGs.*


Two other points to make about this.

First, that ~11% cost reduction is in the presence of Depreciation making up ~33% of total cost, so after depreciation, the savings from increased utilization of IJP deposition increases to ~17% of the total.

That’s a significant-enough savings that it explains LGD’s decision to delay equipment purchase for their 10.5G fab. They will be stuck with whatever expensive machine they purchase (V, so if they believe that by holding off another year they can purchase a fully-industrialized and low-risk IJP machine to lower OLED Material cost by 45% and overall cost by 11%, it’s understandable.

LGD can’t afford to take manufacturing risk while Samsung Display can (since they have no established QD-BOLED panel business yet).

So if I’m LGD and I know Samsung is going to deposit their BOLED layers using IJP (without any patterning), I’m going to hold off to see how those QD-BOLED panels perform in terms of uniformity, quality, and lifetime before deciding to go down the same path for 10.5G WOLED production (again, without any patterning).

Beyond the Guangzhou expansion to 90,000 8.5G sheets per month, LGD needs another fab in production by late 2022 / early 2023 to fuel continued growth, so they need to make a decision before the end of this year.

If LCD prices collapse back down to earth (and all profitability collapses with it), it’s an easy decision - they convert another 8.5G LCD line in Paju to WOLED (probably using the existing VTE process).

But if LCD prices remain high throughout this year and look like they may stay highly profitable into 2022 and possibly through the end of 2022, LGD will face a difficult decision:

-sacrifice LCD ‘gravy’ to allow themselves another year for 10.5G equipment decisions, or

-continue to milk the unexpected LCD gravy train for another year and ramp P10 first with VTE.

The JOLED IJP monitor panels LGE is selling will tell them a great deal about the maturity of IJP OLED technology, but since that is patterned and both BOLED and WOLED are not, any limitations/failures of JOLEDs RGB panels wouldn’t necessarily translate blindly to WOLED/BOLED.

That’s why Samsung’s QD-BOLED production is a better proxy for what LGD is interested to do with 10.5G WOLED manufacturing..,


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> I’ve been thinking about this some more:
> 
> ‘_While IJP has the potential to reduce the costs of the organic layers, which are ~$200 in 2021. *The promise of IJP is to increase the material utilization from 50% to 90%*, which would take ~$90 out of the cost. But this savings would be offset by higher depreciation, 1) because IJP’s cost more than VTE equipment and 2) LG’s Guangzhou fab will have been amortized for at least 4 years and 3) TCL’s yields for its initial fab are likely to be much lower than LGs mature operation.’_
> 
> If you look at the graph, the % of cost for ‘Yielded OLED Material Cost is ~25% of the total, so dropping the material usage from 200% (50% utilization) to 111% (90% utilization) translates to a reduction of 45% in that ~25% of the pie, or ~11% reduction of overall COGs.
> 
> While an 11% reduction in COGS is nothing to sneeze at, it’s unlikely to change the world (especially once you consider that the green Depreciation slice of the pie is larger than the orange OLED materials slice of the pie, and LG WOLED will largely eliminate that green slice entirely while IJP will have ~5 years to go (which is the point being made by OLED association).
> 
> So for the first 5 years of production, it’s hard to see printed RGB OLED beating WOLED on cost, so to take market share it will need to beat WOLED on performance.
> 
> In this era of Low Efficiency Blue, IJP RGB OLED has an opportunity to outperform WOLED on brightness but that potential advantage will be all but nullified once High Efficiency Blue emerges (by which time WOLED will easily reach 1250-1500 cd/m2).
> 
> I don’t know enough to understand whether printed RGB OLED may have an easier path than WOLED increasing color gamut towards BT.2020, but with current-generation WOLEDs pretty-well covering DCI-P3, it’s hard to see Color Gamut Wars being the winning strategy to gaining market share (as evidenced by Samsung’s recent failure with their attempt at Color Space Wars).
> 
> So honestly, I think it may all come down to uniformity and whether IJP RGB OLED can clearly deliver improved uniformity over WOLED. By uniformity, I’m includ
> 
> 1/ Near-Black uniformity (the famous near-black non-uniformity/streaking/DSE that plagues WOLED.
> 
> 2/ Near-White uniformity (which includes off-angle chroma-shift, an area where RGB OLED should have an advantage over WOLED)
> 
> 3/ Near-black / shadow detail handling and especially lack of luminance artifacts in dynamic near-black content (the famous Luminance Overshoot / Flashing artifact that continues to plague WOLED). This is another area that pure RGB pixels (instead of WRGB pixels) could offer an advantage.
> 
> So the way I see it, WOLED has now reached the point that it has solidified a baseline of performance at acceptable cost and that essentially assures that the only way a new technology such as IJP RGB OLED or QD-BOLED or QNED is going to displace it / take significant market share from it will be to deliver superior uniformity at comparable cost.
> 
> I’m excited - we’re actually in a very good place now (certainly compared to where we were when the plug was pulled on plasma ~7 years ago...).


My only add to the mix might be: Chinese OEMs have always been willing to take a few points less in margin and have historically been subsidized by local/central govt as well - so they can handle negative margin for some time if they must. Especially when trying to gain a foothold in a space. Therefore, there's a good chance they will have more wiggle room to work with so it may not come down to performance only. 

Tangential QD-OLED/QNED thought: depreciation of core QD-OLED assets has already begun(?) or will soon if they move ahead. If QNED is successful some day, the depreciation % of COGS will end sooner than you'd otherwise expect due to QD-OLED bearing some of that burden. 
Finally, to your note of a typical panel mfg site depreciation schedule of 5yrs: WOW. I would have never thought capex for plant/property would be that aggressive. I'm used to 10-15yrs+ for p/p.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Yes, LG is using the JOLED printed OLED panels for their monitors.
> 
> 250 cd/m2 is almost double the full-field brightness of their WOLED TVs, so impressive if true.
> 
> It’ll be interesting to see what the first reviews measure...


B&H currently expecting June 16th release. Let's hope RTINGS can get one soon after.








LG UltraFine 32EP950-B 31.5" 16:9 4K HDR OLED Monitor


Buy LG UltraFine 32EP950-B 31.5" 16:9 4K HDR OLED Monitor featuring 31.5" OLED Panel, DisplayPort + HDMI + USB Type-C Inputs, 3840 x 2160 UHD Resolution @ 60 Hz, 1 Million:1 Contrast Ratio, 250 cd/m² Brightness, 178°/178° Viewing Angles, 1 ms Response Time (GtG), 1.07 Billion Colors with HDR...




www.bhphotovideo.com


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> My only add to the mix might be: Chinese OEMs have always been willing to take a few points less in margin and have historically been subsidized by local/central govt as well - so they can handle negative margin for some time if they must. Especially when trying to gain a foothold in a space. Therefore, there's a good chance they will have more wiggle room to work with so it may not come down to performance only.


Certainly you are correct that the Chinese know how to buy market share, but there are some nuances:

-WOLED was life-or-death for LG Display (as QD-BOLED will be life-or-death for Samsung Display). They could see the end of their run at LCD writing on the wall and understood that unless they could get another advanced-display-technology ship floated quickly, they’d be swamped/sunk.

Different for TCL and the Chinese panel manufacturers. They have an incentive to milk the LCD cow for as long as they can and taking market share from their own LCD TV sales by displacing it with less-profitable OLED TV sales doesn’t make much sense.

So it’s easy to see how they want to be in position to capture the downdraft as OLED displaces LCD downmarket but hard to see why they’d have any incentive to accelerate that process.

They do have an incentive to gain market share in the Premium TV segment where they are also-rans to Samsung, LGE, and Sony (where Panasonic and Phillips are also also-rans with Vizio potentially the next to emerge beyond that level).

Being the Low Cost Leader doesn’t hurt in the Premium TV segment, but only if performance is similar.



> Tangential QD-OLED/QNED thought: depreciation of core QD-OLED assets has already begun(?) or will soon if they move ahead. If QNED is successful some day, the depreciation % of COGS will end sooner than you'd otherwise expect due to QD-OLED bearing some of that burden.


I believe this is correct. Depreciation begins once you’ve purchased the asset, whether you are using it or not.

But Samsung Display has only bought the equipment for a first 30,000 8.5G sheets/month line (if not only a 15,000 sheets/month pilot line) and it is not even clear whether they have actually purchased the most expensive equipment yet (VTE depositi

Since they have a 3-phase plan to quickly scale up production to ~100,000 substrates/month: Samsung to Invest $11 Billion in QD-OLED Panel Production

the ‘head-start’ they get from whatever equipment has already been purchased is likely to be largely immaterial.



> Finally, to your note of a typical panel mfg site depreciation schedule of 5yrs: WOW. I would have never thought capex for plant/property would be that aggressive. I'm used to 10-15yrs+ for p/p.


I’m not an accountant, so I could be wrong.

But first, most everything I’ve read about LGD’s WOLED depreciation seems to imply a 5-year schedule.

And second, once IJP manufacturing becomes the norm, the VTE equipment LGD has purchased will be pretty much worthless (nobody will want it; street value of $0).

That VTE equipment is only 5-years old but is on the verge of technological obsolescence.

I don’t know what the ‘rules’ are but the flat panel manufacturing industry is currently in such an extreme state of flux these days that I think it’s hard to argue any equipment you purchase today will continue to have significant remaining value 5 years into he future…

(and I believe non-equipment depreciation such as for buildings and facilities is on a longer-term depreciation schedule of at least 10 years and possibly more…)


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> B&H currently expecting June 16th release. Let's hope RTINGS can get one soon after.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG UltraFine 32EP950-B 31.5" 16:9 4K HDR OLED Monitor
> 
> 
> Buy LG UltraFine 32EP950-B 31.5" 16:9 4K HDR OLED Monitor featuring 31.5" OLED Panel, DisplayPort + HDMI + USB Type-C Inputs, 3840 x 2160 UHD Resolution @ 60 Hz, 1 Million:1 Contrast Ratio, 250 cd/m² Brightness, 178°/178° Viewing Angles, 1 ms Response Time (GtG), 1.07 Billion Colors with HDR...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bhphotovideo.com


$4000 for 32” - aside from how they perform technically, it will be very interesting to see how well these sell.

Brilliant move by LGE to probe the 32” OLED monitor market as well as IJP RGB OLED panel performance, longevity, and reliability with this initiative.

32” panel production is optimized for 8.5G and LGD can produce 18 32” WOLEDs on an 8.5G substrate without even needing to use MMG.

That means that in volumes of millions/year, a 32” TV/monitor should easily be able to be sold for an acceptable profit at prices approaching 1/4 the price of a 65” TV today (which are currently selling for a fraction of $4000!).

Assuming LGE and LGD decides that there is an attractive market for 32” WOLEDs, they will probably also decide to ‘fill the gap’ between 32” and 42”.

At 8.5G with MMG, LGD can manufacture 14 panels sized 36-36.5”, so I believe that is likely to be the next WOLED panel size they announce (after delivering the 42” WOLED panel).

Technically, since 77”@8K is possible, 36.5”@4K is almost certainly possible as well (only ~5% smaller pixels).

For a 32” 4K WOLED, LGD has demonstrated a 65” 8K WOLED TV prototype but never brought it into production. If that is just demand/priority driven then 32” @ 4K should be feasible. If it is performance or lifetime-driven, they may need to stick with JOLEDs panels until they develop a solution for 65” @ 8K…


----------



## 8mile13

Today big news is that what some consider to be a new TV tech, Dual Layer LCD, will be in the 2021 Hisense USA line-up.

Starts at 19:00
Hisense at Home: 2021 TV Line Up - YouTube


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> Today big news is that what some consider to be a new TV tech, Dual Layer LCD, will be in the 2021 Hisense USA line-up.
> 
> Starts at 19:00
> Hisense at Home: 2021 TV Line Up - YouTube


Saw that. No pricing released yet…


----------



## MechanicalMan

8mile13 said:


> Today big news is that what some consider to be a new TV tech, Dual Layer LCD, will be in the 2021 Hisense USA line-up.
> 
> Starts at 19:00
> Hisense at Home: 2021 TV Line Up - YouTube


I'm confused. The video shows a graphic for the U9DG with a 65" display, but all media reports that I've seen say that it will be offered only in a 75" screen size. Did they hire a semi-celebrity for a splashy promo video and then display the wrong screen size in it?? They must be poaching LG employees.


----------



## Wizziwig

Anyone interested in the Hisense dual cell LCD should check this thread for some links to reviews of the 65" model released a while back in other parts of the world. Definitely huge potential from this tech. Hopefully someone more competent like Sony will build a flagship out of it in the future. Their BVM-HX310 broadcast monitors performed very well using a different Panasonic MegaCon dual cell panel. This Hisense uses a BOE panel with reduced 1080p resolution for the second LCD layer.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Saw that. No pricing released yet…


$3500 i believe.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> I’m not an accountant, so I could be wrong.
> 
> But first, most everything I’ve read about LGD’s WOLED depreciation seems to imply a 5-year schedule.
> 
> And second, once IJP manufacturing becomes the norm, the VTE equipment LGD has purchased will be pretty much worthless (nobody will want it; street value of $0).
> 
> That VTE equipment is only 5-years old but is on the verge of technological obsolescence.
> 
> I don’t know what the ‘rules’ are but the flat panel manufacturing industry is currently in such an extreme state of flux these days that I think it’s hard to argue any equipment you purchase today will continue to have significant remaining value 5 years into he future…
> 
> (and I believe non-equipment depreciation such as for buildings and facilities is on a longer-term depreciation schedule of at least 10 years and possibly more…)


If a 5yr schedule is implied in the literature, so be it. That is super aggressive for the costliest equipment, eating into margin as an early business tries to survive (internally and to investors). It's always a balance but i've never seen it tilted that far for the very largest equipment appropriation requests. Though, I agree that the general rule about scheduling based on obsolescence should hold IF you can swing it. Maybe if you have the deep pockets you go for it...and write-off magic happens sometimes too if things don't work out, which isn't the worst thing at the corporate level sometimes but is beyond my pay grade.


----------



## 8mile13

MechanicalMan said:


> I'm confused. The video shows a graphic for the U9DG with a 65" display, but all media reports that I've seen say that it will be offered only in a 75" screen size. Did they hire a semi-celebrity for a splashy promo video and then display the wrong screen size in it?? They must be poaching LG employees.


Like you state most report it is only one size, a 75'' at $3,500 so that is what we will see i guess..

I add a Hisense Global link here_
Dual-cell ULED 4K TV U9DG - Hisense Global


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> $3500 i believe.


Link?

This is what I saw from yesterday: Hisense's next-gen Dual Cell 4K TVs are finally coming to the US

‘We've yet to receive pricing information’


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> Link?
> 
> This is what I saw from yesterday: Hisense's next-gen Dual Cell 4K TVs are finally coming to the US
> 
> ‘We've yet to receive pricing information’


That is the price that is floating around the net...also for sale in Canada (since the model is present on the canadian Hisense site).
Hisense USA unveils its first 8K TV & 4K 'Dual-Cell' LCD TV - FlatpanelsHD


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> That is the price that is floating around the net...also for sale in Canada (since the model is present on the canadian Hisense site).
> Hisense USA unveils its first 8K TV & 4K 'Dual-Cell' LCD TV - FlatpanelsHD


Interesting, thanks.

‘It will be available this summer in 75 inches (75U9DG) only for $3500, which is similar to a 2021 77-inch 4K OLED TV that Hisense is pegging it against.’

LG typically discounts by as much as 20-30% below MSRP by peak season in November, so it’ll be interesting to see what the 75U9DG is discounted to when a 77” WOLED is discounted under $3000…

But between WOLED’s steady year-over-year (with a special focus on 77” this cycle), Samsung’s MiniLED NeoQLED/LCD, and Hisense’s Dual-LCD, it seems as though 2021 is the year when LCDs have improved performance to match WOLED blacks and contrast ratio as closely as possible without increasing cost/price beyond the ‘curling’ that WOLED has established.

The performance-for-price comparison becomes much simpler when prices are all the same - the best-performing TV should have the most sales.

Also, I scrolled through the comments below that article and saw this comment from Australia (where Hisense’s dusk-cell TVs have apparently been available for a year:

‘Prices for dual cell did come down recently with new products coming, but not by much which means that retailers don't have much of a mark up on these products, I also suspect that Hisense wont be making big dollars either.’

Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see how it’s all shaken-out a year from now. I wonder whether VE will sell the 75U9DG and whether it’ll be included in this year’s shoot-out..,


----------



## 8mile13

There is right now a special deal on the 65SX which is the Hisense 2020 Dual Cell TV in Australia...australian dollar $2,000 (which was like $3,500 at start of launch)= €1,300/$1,550.
Buy Hisense 65-inch SX Dual Cell 4K LED LCD Smart TV | Harvey Norman AU


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> There is right now a special deal on the 65SX which is the Hisense 2020 Dual Cell TV in Australia...australian dollar $2,000 (which was like $3,500 at start of launch)= €1,300/$1,550.
> Buy Hisense 65-inch SX Dual Cell 4K LED LCD Smart TV | Harvey Norman AU


I don’t know anything about the Australian TV market but if we assume a 2020 MSRP of $3500 Australian dollars for 65” translates to a 2021 MSRP of $3500 dollars for 75”, it’s obvious they’d have to deeply-discount the 65” to flush out the old inventory (who’d pay the same for 65” as they could get 75” for?).

My only point it that a ~30% cost reduction from the first year of introduction to the second year doesn’t necessarily say anything about the level of cost reduction to expect in year 3.

LG is delivering steady ~5% cost reductions year-over-year for over 4 years now and that 5% cost-down trend is likely to continue for the next 5-10 years.

If Hisense can sell at prices matching LG’s and can outpace their ~5% year-over-year cost reductions, they’ll have a winner on their hands and should capture Premium TV market share from LG, Samsung, and Sony.

But my guess is that the apparent 30% cost reduction of Hisense dual-LCD from 2020 to 2021 is likely to prove to be a one-off (meaning the 2022 dual-LCD models will be introduced at prices close to these 2021 launch prices and discounting of the 2021 models will prove to be far less than 30% come this November…

Anyway, it’ll be interesting to watch how things unfold this November: 

75U9DG vs 75QN90A vs 77C1


----------



## whirling

Speaking from Australia that Hisense dual-cell was never that expensive here.

They started at ~$3500 AUD, and are now at clearance rates of ~$2000 AUD or less as mentioned.

I don’t think they were selling, as the discounts showed up very quickly.

If $3500 is the overseas price of items like a 77” OLED, and this new 75” Dual-Cell is the same, then that translates to around $7000 AUD here (which is what LG’s C1 (edit: 77 inch) current price is if memory serves)

Thanks for all the info you pop in this thread, I appreciate it.


----------



## fafrd

whirling said:


> Speaking from Australia that Hisense dual-cell was never that expensive here.
> 
> They started at ~$3500 AUD, now at clearance rates of ~$2000 AUD or so as mentioned.
> 
> I don’t think they were selling, as the discounts showed up very quick.
> 
> If $3500 is the overseas price of items like a 77” OLED and this new 75” Dual-Cell is the same then that translates to around $7000 AUD here (which is what LG’s C1 current price is if memory serves)
> 
> Thanks for all the info you pop in this thread, I appreciate it.


Well hello Down Under! (I’ve still not learned to use the little flag icons the Forum has added).

What has been the reception of Hisense’s Dual-LCD over the past year? Have their been reviews? If it was priced well-below the price of similar-sized WOLEDs, is there a primary reason it has not sold as well? (Ie: quality or buginess)?


----------



## whirling

Sorry, to be clear, the 65” inch model was priced close to but below a comparably sized OLED at launch. Though, as I said, the discounts arrived early so it is hard to recall. And now it is at the price of a Q60 Samsung.

The reception has been muted because most of the market would not be aware it was anything different. Hisense did not work hard to differentiate it. Only enthusiasts would be aware that it was not the usual LCD. If I recall it got plaudits for black levels combined with brightness, but criticisms for viewing angle and image processing (the same bugbear that hampered Hisense’s OLED released here).

Edit: 
Cheers, fafrd, thanks for the effort you put in to track down info.

I think we are a convenient test bed for Hisense. A small market but with enough wealth to trial new toys at low risk.

To re-iterate my main point, a good rule of thumb is to halve an Australian price to get a US/UK market price. It’s not truly accurate but it gets you ballpark.


----------



## fafrd

whirling said:


> Sorry to be clear, the 65” inch model was priced close to but below a comparably sized OLED at launch. Though, as I said, the discounts arrived early so it is hard to recall. And now is at the price of a Q60 Samsung.
> 
> The reception has been muted because most of the market would not be aware it was anything different. Hisense did not work hard to differentiate it. Only enthusiasts would be aware that it was not the usual LCD. If I recall it got plaudits for black levels combined with brightness, but criticisms for viewing angle and image processing (the same bugbear that hampered Hisense’s OLED released here).


Thanks for the added detail. If it’s got much poorer off-angle performance than WOLED, is noticably thicker/chunkier than WOLED, is buggier/less-mature than WOLED, is not much brighter than WOLED, and costs the same as WOLED, it is hard to see why it’s going to sell well compared to WOLED (or NeoQLED) at similar pricing.

The ‘No Burn-in’ messaging may be the best they have and pricing at parity with the Q60 may be the realistic price-level Hisense needs to reach to sell-through.

I can’t find any clear indication of the MSRP of the 2021 75Q60A, but the 2020 75Q60T is currently discounted to $1300…


----------



## andy sullivan

So it looks like we'll see the 75U9dg inch Hisense and the 77 inch C1 and the 85 inch TCL OD Zero probably all three for around $3500. Picture Quality + Screen Size = The Bang for the Buck Winner.


----------



## fafrd

andy sullivan said:


> So it looks like we'll see the 75U9dg inch Hisense and the 77 inch C1 and the 85 inch TCL OD Zero probably all three for around $3500. Picture Quality + Screen Size = The Bang for the Buck Winner.


We’re probably straying a bit too far OT for the OLED Technology Advancements Thread, but I agree we seem to be entering an interesting period for $3500 Premium TVs (and the QN90A probably should be added to your list).


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> We’re probably straying a bit too far OT for the OLED Technology Advancements Thread, but I agree we seem to be entering an interesting period for $3500 Premium TVs (and the QN90A probably should be added to your list).


To your point, the Hisense dual cell thread is HERE as has been posted before i think. Also, on that thread someone posted long ago a link to an interesting Aussie forum on the 2020 Hisense release Down Under. Problems as whirling notes above----


----------



## Robertoy

*heise online*


> *Apparently, Samsung wants to offer OLED TVs and also produce them themselves*
> 
> Samsung is negotiating with LG Display on OLEDs for TVs, while Samsung Display makes OLEDs on its own. Barry Young analyzes China's role in this chaos.
> 
> Samsung President Han Jong-hee recently agreed to use OLED panels with color-enhanced quantum dots, called QD-OLEDs, on their televisions. For almost a year he was of the opinion that the technology was incompatible with Samsung's current strategy. This provided for the following:
> 
> -LED backlit LCDs for entry models
> -LCDs with quantum dots in the backlight for the intermediate segment
> -Mini LED LCDs reinforced with QD for the upper segment
> -Micro LED TVs for "one percent"
> 
> To get Samsung Electronics to add QD OLED panels - something that no other TV brand has done so far - Samsung Display has extended the closing schedule for its remaining LCD factories from March to the end of this year. Apparently, it was President Han who first proposed this compromise.
> 
> Samsung Display (SDC) set up an 8.5 generation Q1 production line in Asan, South Korea, with a capacity of 30,000 substrates per month; has been operating in pilot operation since December last year. SDC expects to have prototypes in mid-2021 and start mass production from 2022. Samsung Electronics employees (more precisely, Samsung Visual Displays TV and monitors) expressed concern about the high costs of the panel and the difficulty of add one more technology to the TV line.
> 
> Samsung Electronics' renewed interest in QD OLEDs was sparked by changes in TV panel supply chains. This goes back to early 2019, when TV panel production capacity grew faster than demand. Overcapacity prompted Samsung Display and LG Display to sell production facilities in China and plan to close old LCD factories in Korea or convert them to OLEDs.
> 
> Then came the pandemic and the phenomenon of working at home increased the demand for notebooks and monitors. As a result, panel makers have shifted LCD production from televisions to notebooks and monitors, where sales per square meter are higher. This has led to a shortage of TV panels, which has caused their prices to rise by 50 to 70 percent in the past eight months. SDC and LGD delayed their LCD elimination plans.
> 
> *China has modern factories*
> 
> However, the number of 10.5 generation factories in China is increasing, the growth of notebooks and monitors is decreasing and TV panel prices are expected to fall again in the second half of 2021. This would allow Samsung Display and LG Display to revert to their LCD output strategy.
> 
> The two tables show the nature of Samsung Electronics' delivery problems: In 2019 and 2020, China delivered 32 percent and 31 percent of TV panels to Samsung, respectively, and Samsung Display's share decreased at the same time. This year, SDC's LCD panel capacity may decrease by 20%, making Samsung Electronics even more dependent on Chinese panel makers. Should SDC completely close its LCD factories, China's share will increase by 10 million panels and reach more than 50% of Samsung Electronics' TV business. Any overt or covert action by Chinese manufacturers to reduce sales to Samsung would be devastating for business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics has already purchased a large number of LCD panels from China in recent years and participation will continue to increase with the sale of its own factories to CSOT.
> (Image: Source: Omdia)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The global panel market is dominated by Chinese panel makers BOE, CSOT and HKC.
> (Image: Source: Trendforce)
> 
> Samsung Electronics' strategy to focus on "advanced TVs" (according to the DSCC definition) is also threatened by Chinese manufacturers, as the main source of 65 "TV panels is the many 10.5-generation factories in China China wants to dominate the lucrative advanced TV market in the future, which generates annual sales of about $ 20 billion and in which Samsung currently has a 50 percent share.
> 
> This is where Samsung Display, which still operates LCD factories, comes in, but has also invested $ 12 billion in quantum dot OLEDs (QD-OLEDs), although there are no commitments from any TV manufacturer yet. Samsung Electronics has proposed to SDC to extend its LCD production at least until the end of this year and in return has promised to use QD OLED panels for its internal TVs. SDC has agreed to the extension as it is desperately looking for customers for its QD OLED panels and will continue to mass produce LCDs on its Generation 8 LCD production line in Asan until at least the end of 2021.
> 
> *LG OLED panels for Samsung?*
> 
> But the new cooperation is not the end of the story. At the foot of this OLED QD announcement followed an unconfirmed report by Korea MTN that Samsung Electronics and LG Display entered into a conditional agreement to purchase up to one million OLED panels in the second half of 2021 and up to four million panels per year Completed in 2022. Samsung Electronics vaguely denied the report (there was an interview by IT Chosun with the president of Samsung Electronics, who said they were "just rumors" - note B. Raikes). However, Samsung Electronics and LG Display have been meeting regularly for more than a year to negotiate the purchase of OLED panels from Samsung Electronics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Han Jong-hee (left) of Samsung Electronics and President Choi Joo-seon of Samsung Display.
> (Image: Source: ETNews)
> 
> The last critical point was the marketing strategy: Samsung has been criticizing the aging problems and lower luminance levels of LG's OLEDs for years, while LG is opposed to poorer contrast, lower color quality and faster response times. Samsung LCDs are slow. The companies have not reached an agreement on how to reverse these marketing strategies.
> 
> Given the current capacity of LG Display, the additional demand for four million panels would exceed the total production of LG Electronics, Sony and Samsung Electronics by about 30 percent - not to mention the needs of the other 15 TV brand manufacturers. The contract would help LGD justify the expansion of the Generation 8.5 plant in Paju, South Korea, by 30,000 substrates / month and equip the Gen 10.5 empty building in Paju. LG Display's advances in testing the inkjet printing process for OLEDs (IJP) are complicating matters, which is why the purchase of the equipment (possibly from Tokyo Electron) may be delayed.
> 
> SDC can be positive about Samsung Electronics' action, as it accelerates Samsung's entry into the OLED TV market while the company awaits the results of the QD-OLED experiment. Alternatively, the action can also be seen as a question by Samsung Electronics about the SDC strategy, since QD OLEDs are lagging behind and are also more expensive than LGD OLED panels - which would be even cheaper if the LG Display had a Gen-10.5 factory for inkjet printing.
> 
> *Samsung needs a plan B.*
> 
> It is of the utmost importance for Samsung Electronics to break free from China's dominance over LCD capabilities. As things stand at the moment, it will be years before microLED technology reaches price ranges of $ 2,000 to $ 4,000. But this will be necessary to be able to compete in the high-end television market (if applicable).
> 
> If it takes until 2025 to reach a competitive price of $ 4,000 for a 65 "microLED TV with 8K resolution, and microLEDs account for 80 percent of the panel's cost, LED emitters would have to drop in the next four years 99 percent of the current microLED costs. Obviously, Samsung Electronics needs a backup plan!











Samsung will offenbar OLED-TVs anbieten und auch selbst produzieren


Samsung verhandelt mit LG Display über OLEDs für TVs, während Samsung Display selbst OLEDs fertigt. Die Rolle Chinas in diesem Tohuwabohu analysiert Barry Young




www.heise.de


----------



## Robertoy




----------



## Wizziwig

Let's hope it's better than JOLED's first printed OLED monitor. Their $4K 22" model from 2019 had a few issues. Supposedly 335 nits peak, 140 sustained. In reality, this guy measured 200 nits peak and 80 nits full screen.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Let's hope it's better than JOLED's first printed OLED monitor. Their $4K 22" model from 2019 had a few issues. Supposedly 335 nits peak, 140 sustained. In reality, this guy measured 200 nits peak and 80 nits full screen.


It’ll be interesting to see what Vincent has to report…

And in any case, I have to say I am consistently impressed with LGE’s mechanical design - that stand seems to be very well-conceived and well-executed…


----------



## Wizziwig

Looks like the pricing hasn't changed since 2019. Still around $4K for this 32" model from what I've been able to find. Like the guy in the video mentioned, the 50% production savings from printing never materialized and you're better off buying 3 of the LG 48" WOLEDs and burning through those for the same price. Even abusing them as a computer monitor, 3 of them are bound to last longer in total that this single unit.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Looks like the pricing hasn't changed since 2019. Still around $4K for this 32" model from what I've been able to find. Like the guy in the video mentioned, the 50% production savings from printing never materialized and you're better off buying 3 of the LG 48" WOLEDs and burning through those for the same price. Even abusing them as a computer monitor, 3 of them are bound to last longer in total that this single unit.


Any savings are only at equivalent volume and after achieving equivalent yields.

LGD will produce 770,000 square meters of WOLED this year a yields of ~95%.

How many square meters do you think JOLED will produce this year and at what yield?

A more relevant comparison against WOLED is not against this year (year 8 or 9) but rather against WOLED in 2014 (year 2) when shipments totaled ~100,000 units and yields were rumored to be ~60%..,

The 55EM9800 went on sale in 2013 for $15,000 and was followed in 2014 by the 55EC9300 that went for the ‘bargain’ price of $3500: LG cuts price of OLED TV entry to $3,500

Those were both 1080p TVs and that same year (2014) LG announced their first 4K TV, the 65EC9700 which launched at an MSRP of $10,000









Printed Electronics World by IDTechEx


This free daily journal provides updates on the latest industry developments and IDTechEx research on printed electronics; from sensors, displays and materials to manufacturing.




www.printedelectronicsworld.com





So on a year-2 cost-per-pixel basis, the 32EP950 is only 40% of where LG was with the 65EC9700…

But yeah, if LGE senses any worthwhile market for 32-inch monitors at all, they’ll be able to sell a 36” WOLED for a fraction of the cost of the 32EP950 and if their 8K 65” WOLED was for real, they can also produce a 32” WOLED panel which will cost less than ~1/4 the cost of a 65” WOLED… (because no MMG needed for 18-up).


----------



## fafrd

Lot’s of interesting WOLED and QD-BOLED information on Musings today: TV Market Expected to Absorb the Widest Range of Panel Technologies_05/09/21









This is probably a fairly-realistic summary of current QD-BOLED manufacturing complexity / cost versus WOLED (and the punch line is that QD-BOLED is costlier, as I’ve been suggesting).

They are claiming that first-generation QD-BOLED will be 3S (3-Tandem) and I suspect that is wrong. If what Samsung Display already showed at CES ‘20 was ‘4-layer / 2-Tandem’ then yes, they’ve had to increase to ‘6-layer / 3 Tandem’. But if # ‘layers’ = # ‘Tandem’ then this is an underestimation (QD-BOLED will be launching with at least 5 if not 6 Blue OLED layers, at least if it ends up actually launching with Florescent Blue (Low Efficiency).

Next there is this on OLED TV panel demand and capacity:










As far as I understand, they’ve got Guangzhou wrong - phase I and 2 are each 30,000, not 45,000 and Guangzhou is currently at 60,000 total, not 90,000.

They are also assuming the 10.5G WOLED fab is brought up by 2023/2024 and it’s still unclear whether LGD will accelerate that schedule from the current delay ‘at least until 2025’…

But in any case, it makes the point that LGD needs to make decisions by the end of this year about capacity they need to ramp by 2023 or they will not be positioned to capture expected growth.

Then there is this on all the new technologies in the market and on the horizon:











They have overlooked Hisense’s Dual-LCD as well as the Printed RGB-OLED currently being shipped by JOLED and eventually TCL, but still, it does a good job summarizing the relative strength of WOLEDs current position and the ‘million flowers blooming’ on the horizon…

And lastly, there is this data on WOLED unit shipments by screen size and by year:










They have overlooked the 42” WOLED which will be shipping by year’s-end, but still it gives an interesting reference-point for WOLEDs shipments by screen size and how volumes at those different screen sizes have grown since the beginning of the WOLED story.

My personal view is that their forecast of 65” WOLED sales caching up to 55” WOLED sales by next year is probably correct, but with the recent dramatic price moves LG has finally made on 77” WOLEDs, I believe their forecast of only 1 77” WOLED selling for every 8 65” WOLEDs next year and growing at a rate slightly slower than 65” WOLED sales through 2025 is likely a significant underestimation.

And even worse for the new 83” WOLED sales.

Less than 50Ku this year is probably realistic given current pricing of $6000, but to assume sales will remain flat at ~100Ku until 2025 assumes LG is going to leave pricing pretty much flat for 3 years straight (which is exceedingly unlikely).

My own view is that the growth in 65” WOLED provides a good model which LGD/LGE is finally in the process of repeating at 77” and they will do so with 83” as well as soon as they need the demand…

Production costs of 83” 4K WOLED panels are identical to production costs of 77”
WOLED panels (not including yield impact from the larger panel size which I estimate would add less than 1.5% cost assuming 55” WOLED yields of 95%).

So it’s exceedingly difficult to see why LG would continue driving towards 65” WOLED prices under $2000 and/or 77” WOLED prices under $3000 while leaving 83” WOLEDs priced at ~$6000, when they could make a lot more margin lowering 83” panel prices a bit closer to 77” WOLED prices and slowing down the 77” and 65” panel prices declines by a bit…

My own forecast is that we’ll see LG’s 83” WOLED prices drop to $5000 by next year and very possibly as low as $4000 by 2023…

There were over 0.5M 80”+ Advanced LCDs (meaning QLEDs) sold last year and that is one of the fastest-growing segments of the Advanced TV market:










So it’s hard to fathom why LG would be content with ~15% market share once they’ve proven to have an attractive 83” product offering (assuming they have sufficient manufacturing capacity to capitalize on the opportunity).

And the final detail this report misses is that once the 10.5G fab is ramped up, 75” WOLED panels will be introduced (and at significantly lower prices than 77” WOLED panels).

A 10.5G sheet can manufacture 75” WOLEDs 6-up, so even if you assume identical manufacturing cost per mm^2 at 10.5G and 8.5G, that translates to a 75” WOLED on 10.5G costing 25% less than a 77” WOLED on 8.5G with MMG…

Whether LG does in fact ramp up their 10.5G fab by 2023/24 or delays it until after 2025 as they have stated is a question mark, and predicting the tail/end of 77” WOLEDs after 75” WOLEDs have been introduced is a different question, but to assume LGD ramps their 10.5G fab in 2023/2024 but then assume no 75” WOLEDs selling through 2025 is not consistent…


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Let's hope it's better than JOLED's first printed OLED monitor. Their $4K 22" model from 2019 had a few issues. Supposedly 335 nits peak, 140 sustained. In reality, this guy measured 200 nits peak and 80 nits full screen.


Wow, yeah - pretty brutal review.

Will be interesting to see whether LGE’s experience with WOLED can translate to significantly better performance than first-timers Asus and JOLED were able to deliver…

Here is something with the specs of the JOLED 2021 OLED panels:JOLED starts shipment of printed 22-32" 4K OLED panels to monitor makers

And down in the comments, you can find this:

‘soluble OLED material have shorter lifetime than evaporated, and they advertize to use 100nits to prevent burn-in. As for 'cheap ink-jet printing', it is mainly myth, cost difference is 15-30% compared to evaporation, depending on size and other factors.’

as well as this:

‘The blue sub-pixels are larger than red and green.

Peak luminance is 10% window. Full field is limited to 100nits for short amount of time.’

I’ll be interested to see whether Vincent Toh confirms Full-field peak brightness of only 100 Nits and specified peak brightness of 540 Nits only on a 10% field…

LG specifies a minimum brightness of 250 Nits for the 32EP950 without specifying any field size (so presumably full-field) :https://www.lg.com/ca_en/desktop-monitors/lg-32ep950-b


----------



## 59LIHP

[영상] 삼성이 LG OLED 패널 도입한다면? LGD 대형 사업 전망 괜찮네








[영상] 삼성이 LG OLED 패널 도입한다면? LGD 대형 사업 전망 괜찮네


한: 오랜만에 유비산업리서치 이충훈 대표님 모시고 OLED 얘기 한번 해보도록 하겠습니다. 대표님 안녕하세요.이: 반갑습니다. 이충훈입니다.한: 요즘에 LCD 패널 가격 엄청나게 오르고 있는 것 같은데. 많이 올랐죠?이: 엄청 오르고 있죠.한: 어느 정도나 올랐습니까?이: 거의 대형에서는 모든 사이즈가 100불씩 올랐다고 보시면 됩니다. 예를 들어서 65인치 같은 경우는 평균 가격이 작년만 하더라도 170불 정도였는데 지금은 270불. 100불 정도 하던 건 200불, 120불 하던 건 220불. 이렇게 하니까 거의 50




www.thelec.kr


----------



## 59LIHP

Display Dynamics – March 2021: Micro LED display advantages, technical challenges, and manufacturers’ prospect












https://omdia.tech.informa.com/OM017417/Display-Dynamics--March-2021-Micro-LED-display-advantages-technical-challenges-and-manufacturers-prospect


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> But yeah, if LGE senses any worthwhile market for 32-inch monitors at all


Let me remove this doubt, there is huge pent up demand for a WOLED gaming monitor. It's why the 48in was so popular, but that is far too big for most PC gaming setups. A 32in 4k/120 WRGB OLED panel would move huge numbers.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> Let me remove this doubt, there is huge pent up demand for a WOLED gaming monitor. It's why the 48in was so popular, but that is far too big for most PC gaming setups. A 32in 4k/120 WRGB OLED panel would move huge numbers.


Oh, I believe you, but LGD has a track-record of being cautious about expanding target markets for WOLED.

Either late this year or in 2022, LGD should start selling 42” 4K TVs and they hopefully repeat the success they found at 48”.

Next I expect we’ll see them release a ~36” 4K WOLED in late 2022 or 2023 which is relatively low-risk (since they already have 77” @ 8K pixels).

So by ~2023, they should have over 2 years selling JOLED’s 32” printed RGB OLED and more time to decide whether their own 32” 4K WOLEDs could measure-up.

They demoed a 65” 4K WOLED at CES’20 but it was never released. And after several years of rumors that LGD/WOLED needed to move to top-emission to deliver 8K @ 65”, it’s still unclear whether there is a problem when WOLED pixels are that small or not…

So the ‘demand’ I was referring to was 32” OLED monitor @ $4000 - if LG can sell 32” WOLED panels for a higher price than they sell 77” WOLED panels, they’ll find a way…


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> Let's hope it's better than JOLED's first printed OLED monitor. Their $4K 22" model from 2019 had a few issues. Supposedly 335 nits peak, 140 sustained. In reality, this guy measured 200 nits peak and 80 nits full screen.


tftcentral.co.uk has a review of this in early access (requires $ponsorship). If you don't want to pay, it will be public in a week or so.

A few highlights without giving away the store:

Really impressive gamut. The spectral response graph shows much stronger/clearer separation between green and red than WOLED.
Really strong response times (at 60hz) throughout the gray-to-gray ranges.
"100% APL brightness capability" between 300 and 400 nits.
Peak HDR Brightness of between 500-600 nits. (Closer to 600 and above the spec)
No ABL for office and general PC, unlike WOLED TVs for that same content. They explain why in their analysis.
This thing checks all of the boxes for its target market, video production and should do well in that competitive space.


----------



## Wizziwig

How about uniformity, especially near black? Same mura issues?


----------



## Wizziwig

Making smaller WOLEDs isn't just a marketing decision. They have a very hard time making it work at higher pixel densities. It's one of the contributing reasons why they are not taking 8K mainstream like you're seeing from budget Chinese LCD brands and why the 77" 8K WOLED is staying at $20K for 2 years now. The pixels are too complex. It's obvious from the trace routing around each subpixel and creating those wacky shapes for each color just to get it all to fit into the available space.


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> How about uniformity, especially near black? Same mura issues?


"Excellent" rating with what looks like a sophisticated/comprehensive measurement approach. Measurements at 120 cd/m2.


----------



## Jin-X

Wizziwig said:


> Making smaller WOLEDs isn't just a marketing decision. They have a very hard time making it work at higher pixel densities. It's one of the contributing reasons why they are not taking 8K mainstream like you're seeing from budget Chinese LCD brands and why the 77" 8K WOLED is staying at $20K for 2 years now. The pixels are too complex. It's obvious from the trace routing around each subpixel and creating those wacky shapes for each color.


Yeah but that's a different thing as to whether there is demand, the demand is there. I think it was one of the Display Consultant firms that had the 30-39in class being 1080p for the reasons you mentioned. Personally I think that wouldn't work for the target market. If it can't be 4k at a "reasonable" price it needs to be either:

1. 1080p/240hz
2. 1440p/120-144hz (this is probably the easier one)

I'm not sure how much this would save on costs but they can also strip away the tv tuner, speakers and most standard tv features and just make it a dedicated PC monitor with a Displayport input and maybe limit it to 2 HDMI inputs, both 2.1; depending on whether stripping away HDMI inputs gives them a significant savings from just using the same setup they have on the rest of the lineup. That's enough inputs for most situations that would involve a 30in class monitor.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Making smaller WOLEDs isn't just a marketing decision. *They have a very hard time making it work at higher pixel densities.*


I think that is exactly what I posted earlier (regarding 4K @ 32”)…. And it may also be the case at 4K @ ~36” if the 65” 8K TV LGD demoed at CES 2 years ago was not actually ready for prime-time. But at 42”, no such concerns (since they’ve already launched 77” @ 8K).



> It's one of the contributing reasons why they are not taking 8K mainstream like you're seeing from budget Chinese LCD brands and why the 77" 8K WOLED is staying at $20K for 2 years now.


This is incorrect. LG is not taking 8K WOLED ‘mainstream’ because they don’t have production capacity to capitalize on the opportunity.

As long as LGD can sell every 4K WOLED they can produce, that’s what they will continue to do.



> The pixels are too complex. It's obvious from the trace routing around each subpixel and creating those wacky shapes for each color.


Is the trace routing around a 77” 8K pixel more ‘complex’ than the trace-routing around a 42” 4K pixel? No.

LG (both LGD and LGE)’s approach the the WOLED TV market is well-established by now:

-they target at market-share of 35-45% at a given Premium TV size and work on driving up production volumes and driving down cost until they get close to that goal.

-once the market-share targets at a first size have been reached, they focus on the next size up and start more aggressively driving down costs and driving up production until they reach their targets at that size as well.

-they always have a larger size ‘in the market’ and teed-up to begin gaining market share at larger panel sizes once it’s needed.

The OLED77G6P was first introduced at $25K and stayed relatively high-priced until LG started to get serious about gaining 75/77” WOLED sales with the introduction of the 77C8 with a launch MSRP of $9000.

The 77C8 paved the way, but 2021 is the true ‘year of 77” WOLED’ - the 77C1 launched with an MSRP of $3800 (at parity with Samsung’’s QLED/MiniLED/LCD Flagship). And in addition, LGE will be introducing an entry-level 77” WOLED, the 77B1 with an even lower MSRP.

So 77” WOLED sales are going to take a big step forward this year and LG will soon be capturing the same 35-45% Premium TV market share that they have won at 55” and 65”.

And what’s the other thing LG did this year? They introduced a new ‘escape hatch’ to pave the way for the next 4K market to go after once 77” WOLED sales achieve their market-penetration targets…

The 83C1 has an MSRP of $6000, 158% the MSRP of the 77C1 despite the fact that manufacturing costs are virtually identical,

Why did LG introduce an 83C1 instead of lowering prices on the stratospheric 88Z1 and 77Z1? Because they could.

The 8K WOLEDs are being ‘held in reserve’ for when a transition to 8K truly begins.

There were a total of 250-300K 8K TVs sold in 2020, versus 4.5M WOLEDs, 8K TV sales represented less than 7% of WOLED TV sales…


Even if LG had dramatically dropped the price of the 77ZX and 88ZX to match ‘market’ pricing at those sizes (Samsung) and took 50% of 8K TV sales at those sizes, the additional ~150K WOLED sales would be a drop in the bucket (and almost certainly less meaningful than the incremental 4K WOLED sales LG discovered at 42”).

Let’s look at 2021. Some analysts are spouting off about 300% growth and 1M 8K TV sales this year, while the one more measured analyst I have found (Paul Gray of Omedia) is forecasting 8K TV sales growth of 100% and 600K units in 2021: 8K TVs are surging in sales, but things won’t change overnight

So again, if LG performed unnatural acts and drastically dropped 77Z1 and 88Z1 prices to match Samsung @ 8K, perhaps they take 1/3 of that market for incremental sales of ~200Ku this year.

LGD’s production plan is for 8 *million* WOLED panel sales in 2021 - that incremental 200Ku @ 8K represents only 2.5% of their production goals (doesn’t really move the needle at all).

There were ~1.2M 75”+ Advanced LCD TVs sold last year versus ~100K 77” WOLEDs:

If









If LG can increase 77” 4K WOLED sales by 200% or 200Ku this year, they will still be at only ~23% market share with plenty of room to grow in the 75/77” ATV segment - it’s low-hanging fruit.

There is an interesting way to see the sizes LG is ‘holding in reserve’ for expansion: TV revenue per 8.5G panel at the various sizes. I’ve used a 55” yield of 95% as a baseline, scaled yields down for increased panel sizes, and included the cost-reduction impact of MMG, and at 2021 Launch MSRPs, here is what I found:

48C1 @ $1500 = $11,550 per 8.5G sheet
55C1 @ $1800 = $10,260 per 8.5G sheet
65C1 @ $2500 = $10,500 per 8.5G sheet
77C1 @ $3800 = $9,185 per 8.5G sheet
83C1 @ $6000 = $14,200 per 8.5G sheet

It’s blindingly-obvious that the 83” market is being teed-up (and held in reserve) as the ‘next 77”’ for when 77” WOLED sales at these (finally!) competitive prices start to reach market share targets.

And it’s equally-obvious that LGD does not have a concern in the world over the 8K TV market. They are ready, and if/when the 8K Tsunami finally arrives, they will switch gears and you’ll quickly see 8K WOLED prices drop to competitive levels.

The only small piece of evidence of that continued preparation for 8K on LGD’s part is the announced introduction of a 42” 4K WOLED panel late this year. LGD can use MMG to produce 2 42” 4K WOLEDs alongside 2 88” 8K WOLEDs on a single 8.5G sheet, resulting in ~20% lower pricing for those 88”
8K WOLEDs.

48” fits with 83” and 77” (as well as 65”, which can also fit 2 55” WOLEDs), so the only reason for LG to announce 42” instead of, say 43”, is that they are looking to use this new panel size to cost-reduce the 88” panels using MMG…

At lower sizes including possibly 65” and certainly 55”, I agree with you that technical challenges may prevent WOLED from fully-entering the market, but at 77”, 83”, 88”, and larger, the only reason WOLED can’t be competitive is that it’s not yet worth the effort to LG given all the other easier 4K opportunity they are aiming at with WOLED…


----------



## Wizziwig

You are aware that both TCL and Hisense will be releasing 8K TVs under $2K this year? Maybe even under $1K for the smaller sizes.

Once the floodgates open and these cheap Chinese 8K TVs are everywhere, everyone will question why any "premium" TV is still at 4K. Samsung's marketing push won't help either. Whether anyone needs 8K is irrelevant when it comes to marketing and perception of the average consumer. If LG had any technical capability to build 8K OLEDs at reasonable prices and sizes, they would have started moving in that direction.

Don't get your comment regarding cost reducing 88" via 42" panels. Two 88" panels don't leave room for any 42" or even 32" for that matter. MMG is irrelevant when there is no contiguous space left on the glass. Two 42" can be paired with two 83" but so can two 48". They can also just put 10 of the 42" on one sheet.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> You are aware that both TCL and Hisense will be releasing 8K TVs under $2K this year? Maybe even under $1K for the smaller sizes.


That must be what’s getting several analysts so excited. The 55” Samsung Q900R is currently $1800, so I’m just not seeing any inflection point driven by cheap 8K TVs this year…



> Once the *floodgates open *and these cheap Chinese 8K TVs are everywhere, everyone will question why any "premium" TV is still at 4K.


I’ve been hearing the forecast of the ‘8K Tsunami’ arriving for 3 years now…

There is an assumption that Premium TV customers want 8K TVs and the only thing holding them back is price.

With 8K TVs already at price-parity with WOLED and WOLED sales outpacing 8K TV sales by ~15 times last year, the cost-driven ‘push’ demand does not appear to be working out as the 8K Evangelists have been expecting.., 



> Samsung's marketing push won't help either. Whether anyone needs 8K is irrelevant when it comes to marketing and perception of the average consumer. *If LG had any technical capability to build 8K OLEDs at reasonable prices and sizes, they would have started moving in that direction.*


I’ve already provided several examples regarding how LG is ready for the 8K market and the recent move to introducing a 42” 4K WOLED panel which is a further move in that direction…


Don't get your comment regarding cost reducing 88" via 42" panels. Two 88" panels don't leave room for any 42" or even 32" for that matter. [/quote]

An 8.5G sheet is 2500mm x 2200mm.

An 88” WOLED panel is 1948mm x 1096mm and 2-up totals to 1948mm x 2192mm (perfect fit).

A 42” WOLED panel is 930mm x 523mm and 2 of them side-by-side 1860mm x 523mm.

The ~550mm x 2200mm ‘strip’ available after manufacturing 2 88” WOLEDs can (just barely) be used to manufacture 2 42” WOLEDs…



> MMG is irrelevant when there is no contiguous space left on the glass. Two 42" can be paired with two 83" but so can two 48". They can also just put 10 of the 42" on one sheet.


Yes, 42” panels can be manufactured 10-up using MMG (2x4 + 2x1), which is why I stated that 42” panels would allow LGD to reduce the manufacturing cost of 88” panels by ~20%.

MMG will allow 2 48” panels to be manufactured along with with 2 77” or 2 83” panels (as well as along with 3 65” panels, but 2 55” panels will also fit on the leftover space from 3 65” panels).


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> An 8.5G sheet is 2500mm x 2200mm.
> 
> An 88” WOLED panel is 1948mm x 1096mm and 2-up totals to 1948mm x 2192mm (perfect fit).
> 
> A 42” WOLED panel is 930mm x 523mm and 2 of them side-by-side 1860mm x 523mm.
> 
> The ~550mm x 2200mm ‘strip’ available after manufacturing 2 88” WOLEDs can (just barely) be used to manufacture 2 42” WOLEDs…


Never even considered orienting two 88" panels in that direction. You really think they can get away with only 2mm bezel? I don't have an OLED at home but maybe you can check yours to see how many mm the unused glass extends beyond the active pixel area along each border.

Don't get me wrong about 8K. I think it's the dumbest thing since bent screens. But so are most consumers. Guess we'll see how this plays out.


----------



## fafrd

_I’m_


Wizziwig said:


> *Never even considered orienting two 88" panels in that direction. You really think they can get away with only 2mm bezel?*


Yeah, with MMG you want to fill the smaller dimension first…

88” will definitely not fit with 48”, but the fact that it exactly fits with the 42” panel size they just announced can’t be coincidence.



> I don't have an OLED at home but maybe you can check yours to see how many mm the unused glass extends beyond the active pixel area along each border.


The 88Z1 is actually 87.6” and when I plug that in I get 1939.3mm x 1090.85, so that translates to a border of over 4.5mm / ~1/5th”. My 65C6 definitely doesn’t haa narrower boundary than that.



> Don't get me wrong about 8K. I think it's the dumbest thing since bent screens. But so are most consumers. Guess we'll see how this plays out.


To the extent cheap 8K TVs eat into cheap 4K TV sales, it’s really pretty immaterial to what we care about here.

If cheap 8K TVs without MiniLED backlights are able to sidetrack a Premium TV sale that otherwise would have gone to WOLED, that would translate to LGD needing to get more aggressive about 8K TV sales (but I’m doubtful there are any significant of sidetracked WOLED sales this year…).


----------



## 59LIHP

TV 잘나가네!... LG디스플레이, 중국 대형 OLED 공장 증설 








TV 잘나가네!... LG디스플레이, 중국 대형 OLED 공장 증설


LG디스플레이가 중국 광저우 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 공장 생산능력을 6월까지 50% 늘린다. 7월부터는 50% 확대된 생산능력으로 대형 OLED 패널을 제조할 예정이다.11일 업계에 따르면 LG디스플레이는 광저우 OLED 공장 생산능력을 8.5세대(2200x2500mm) 원판 투입 기준으로 기존 월 6만(60K)장에서 다음달까지 월 9만(90K)장으로 늘릴 계획이다. LG디스플레이는 지난달부터 3개월 일정으로 매달 월 10K씩 단계적으로 확대하고 있다.광저우 OLED 공장에는 월 30K 규모 생산라인이 두 개 있다. 둘을 더하면




www.thelec.kr


----------



## dkfan9

fafrd said:


> To the extent cheap 8K TVs eat into cheap 4K TV sales, it’s really pretty immaterial to what we care about here.
> 
> If cheap 8K TVs without MiniLED backlights are able to sidetrack a Premium TV sale that otherwise would have gone to WOLED, that would translate to LGD needing to get more aggressive about 8K TV sales (but I’m doubtful there are any significant of sidetracked WOLED sales this year…).


The TCL 6 Series will be miniLED and 8K this year.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> TV 잘나가네!... LG디스플레이, 중국 대형 OLED 공장 증설
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TV 잘나가네!... LG디스플레이, 중국 대형 OLED 공장 증설
> 
> 
> LG디스플레이가 중국 광저우 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 공장 생산능력을 6월까지 50% 늘린다. 7월부터는 50% 확대된 생산능력으로 대형 OLED 패널을 제조할 예정이다.11일 업계에 따르면 LG디스플레이는 광저우 OLED 공장 생산능력을 8.5세대(2200x2500mm) 원판 투입 기준으로 기존 월 6만(60K)장에서 다음달까지 월 9만(90K)장으로 늘릴 계획이다. LG디스플레이는 지난달부터 3개월 일정으로 매달 월 10K씩 단계적으로 확대하고 있다.광저우 OLED 공장에는 월 30K 규모 생산라인이 두 개 있다. 둘을 더하면
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.kr


LGD has been pretty playing their WOLED production cards very close to their chest (from Google translate):

‘There are two factors that caused LG Display to increase its OLED plant production capacity in Guangzhou by 50% *without additional large-scale investment*. The Tact Time (product production time) of some equipment has been shortened, and other equipment has already been in stock at the 90K level per month.

First, it is known that the evaporation equipment's tact time has decreased, and the production capacity, which was previously 60K per month, has increased to 90K per month. As the tact time decreases, the congestion section decreases, increasing production efficiency.

The equipment required for the formation of the oxide (oxide) thin film transistor (TFT) backplane was *initially brought in at 90K per month by LG Display and has been installed and used only at 60K per month.* The TFT acts as a switch to turn the pixels on and off in the panel.

For two reasons, the Guangzhou OLED plant can secure 90K per month by increasing the production capacity of the existing two lines by 50% without installing additional 30K lines per month. This is why the interpretation that *the Guangzhou OLED plant's production capacity based on design for each line was 45K per month, not 30K per month,* which was previously known.’

So Guangzhou was outfitted to manufacture ‘up to’ 90K 8.5G substrates/month from day 1 and they were just waiting from production efficiencies at the evaporation step to improve enough the capitalize on the full capacity potential of the line:

‘According to the industry on the 11th, LG Display plans to increase the production capacity of the Guangzhou OLED factory from 60,000 (60K) sheets per month to 90,000 sheets (90K) per month by next month based on the input of 8.5G (2200x2500mm) original plates. *LG Display is gradually expanding by 10K per month on a three-month schedule from last month.*

…*From July*, it will produce large-sized OLED panels in a line of *90K per month.*’

In LGD’s Q1 earnings conference call April 28th, they were asked about capacity expansion plans and answered that no decisions about additional capital investments for WOLED had been made but they would re-evaluate in Q2.

They obviously had already started on the ‘Paju production increase plan’ and now they want they are leaking out this information to minimize the chance anyone can blame them of misleading investors / financial markets:

‘LG Display responded to a question about its plans to expand large OLED lines in a conference call after its earnings announcement on the 28th of last month. *The expansion of the production capacity of the OLED plant in Guangzhou*, which LG Display is currently in, *is not an additional investment as it is an approach through the installation of equipment already in stock and production efficiency.*’

So 170,000+ 8.5G substrates for WOLED production by this July is pretty much a done deal and all LGD needs to decide and communicate by their next earnings call is whether they are going to convert a second 8.5G LCD line to WOLED in Paju (meaning 3 8.5G WOLED lines total including Guangzhou) or accelerate the ‘delayed’ bring-up of the 10.5G line in Paju.

No wonder LGD changed their 2021 WOLED forecast from ‘7-8 million’ to ‘8 million’ in the earnings call!!!

175,000 8.5G panels/month with with MMG translates to close to 11 million panels per year, so the WOLED capacity to deliver 10 million WOLEDs in 2022 is all set…


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> The TCL 6 Series will be miniLED and 8K this year.











TCL TVs make 8K more affordable, slim down Mini-LED and expand Roku


The 6-Series with Roku, our favorite 4K TV for the money, will get an 8K version in sizes up to 85 inches.




www.google.com





‘The biggest detail TCL has yet to disclose is the price of its 8K TV -- and yes, I asked. But given the company's history of aggressive prices I'm willing to bet it will cost a lot less than $2,700 (which is about £2,000 or AU$3,500). *If I had to guess, I'd say $2,000 for the 65-inch model to start, falling to $1,500 for the 2021 holidays. *’

So yeah, if there are enough consumers that decide they’d prefer to spend $1500-2000 on a 65” 8K MiniLED LCD than spend ~10% more on an entry-level 65” WOLED, this could cut into LGE’s WOLED sales.

I’m guessing any such videophiles are more likely to be deciding between the TCL 8K MiniLED and Samsung’s 65” 8K MiniLED priced way above either the 8K TCL or an entry-level 4K WOLED…

So I think TCL’s 8K MiniLEDs are a greater threat to Samsung’s 8K NeoQLED sales than they are to WOLED.

If those who prefer bright can get Bright at 8K for the same price as Bright at 4K, why not go for the higher resolution.

But extra resolution does nothing to improve darks and so the 35-40% of videophiles who prefer darks are unlikely to find an 8K QD-MiniLED/LCD with higher resolution but poorer blacks an attractive trade-off…


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> You really think they can get away with only 2mm bezel? I don't have an OLED at home but maybe you can check yours to see how many mm the unused glass extends beyond the active pixel area along each border.


I actually checked today and the border on my 65C6P is 7mm.

But this doesn’t change my view of the 42” MMG with 88” story.

It’s just too much of a coincidence to believe that LG would have chosen 88” / 87.6” for the size of their largest WOLED panel if it was just 0.33% (7.2mm) to large to fit perfectly 2-up across the shorter dimension of an 8.5G panel…

I suppose one of us could post on the 88Z owner’s thread and ask an owner to make that same measurement.


----------



## Wizziwig

I think you mean *owner* thread.  The place is a graveyard. Almost as bad as the Micro LED owner thread in the $20K+ forum. Until proven otherwise, I'm sticking with my original assumption that they orient them with more room to spare and forego combining with 42". Sooner or later the truth will leak out.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I think you mean *owner* thread.  The place is a graveyard. Almost as bad as the Micro LED owner thread in the $20K+ forum. Until proven otherwise, I'm sticking with my original assumption that they orient them with more room to spare and forego combining with 42". Sooner or later the truth will leak out.


Yeah, both the 8K WOLEDs and MicroLEDs currently belong in the ‘Unobtainium Forum’ 

The short side of an 83” panel (or rather 83.5” panel) is smaller than the long side of a 48” panel (let alone 49” panel) and even if I add 7mm of border, the long 2500mm side of the panel has over 637mm remaining after cutting out the long side of 2 side-by-side 83.5” panels, more than enough to fit 2 48” panels with borders of 7mm…

So 3 65” WOLEDs with 2 48” or 2 55” panels along with 2 77” or 83.5” WOLEDs with 2 48” WOLEDs is certain.

The 42” is either being introduced just because it can be layed-out 10-up with MMG on 8.5G, or because 2 42” panels can be produced alongside 2 87.6” panels to lower the cost of the larger panels by ~20%.

But you are right, we’ll just need to wait and see.

I mean, would you be interested to save ~20% by ‘stepping down’ from an 87.6” WOLED to an 87.2” WOLED?

If LGD can’t already fit 2 88” WOLEDs with 2 42” WOLEDs, they’ll make some tweaks to make it happen (including possibly reducing border to 5mm…).


----------



## fafrd

I love how this headline: LCD Capex Up, OLED Capex Down in Latest DSCC Equipment Spending Report Reflecting Market Conditions - Display Supply Chain Consultants

* ‘LCD Capex Up, OLED Capex Down in Latest DSCC Equipment Spending Report Reflecting Market Conditions‘*

Get’s translated to this headline:OLED TV production is dropping amid surge of Mini LED screens

*‘OLED TV production is dropping amid surge of Mini LED screens’*

On the same day that LGD leaks out that Guangzhou will have increased from 60,000 8.5G sheets per month to 90,000 8.5G sheets per month by July. What poppycock.


----------



## 59LIHP

59LIHP said:


> TV 잘나가네!... LG디스플레이, 중국 대형 OLED 공장 증설
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TV 잘나가네!... LG디스플레이, 중국 대형 OLED 공장 증설
> 
> 
> LG디스플레이가 중국 광저우 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 공장 생산능력을 6월까지 50% 늘린다. 7월부터는 50% 확대된 생산능력으로 대형 OLED 패널을 제조할 예정이다.11일 업계에 따르면 LG디스플레이는 광저우 OLED 공장 생산능력을 8.5세대(2200x2500mm) 원판 투입 기준으로 기존 월 6만(60K)장에서 다음달까지 월 9만(90K)장으로 늘릴 계획이다. LG디스플레이는 지난달부터 3개월 일정으로 매달 월 10K씩 단계적으로 확대하고 있다.광저우 OLED 공장에는 월 30K 규모 생산라인이 두 개 있다. 둘을 더하면
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.kr


LG Display to expand production capacity of TV OLED factory in China 








LG Display to expand production capacity of TV OLED factory in China


LG Display is planning to expand the production capacity of its TV OLED panel factory in Guangzhou, China, TheElec has learned.The factory, which makes panels based on 8.5th-generaetion (2200x2500mm) substrates, currently has a capacity of 60,000 substrates per month.This will be expanded to 90,000




thelec.net


----------



## 59LIHP

LG Electronics Expanding Ultra-large TV Lineup
Popularity of Ultra-large OLED TVs Expected to Increase








Popularity of Ultra-large OLED TVs Expected to Increase


Market research firm Omdia reported on May 11 that the global sales volume of OLED TVs with a size of at least 80 inches is estimated to exceed 22,000 units this year. For reference, the shipments added up to 900 units last year.At present, a very small number of such products are available in the m




www.businesskorea.co.kr


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Scrapper102dAA said:


> B&H currently expecting June 16th release. Let's hope RTINGS can get one soon after.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG UltraFine 32EP950-B 31.5" 16:9 4K HDR OLED Monitor
> 
> 
> Buy LG UltraFine 32EP950-B 31.5" 16:9 4K HDR OLED Monitor featuring 31.5" OLED Panel, DisplayPort + HDMI + USB Type-C Inputs, 3840 x 2160 UHD Resolution @ 60 Hz, 1 Million:1 Contrast Ratio, 250 cd/m² Brightness, 178°/178° Viewing Angles, 1 ms Response Time (GtG), 1.07 Billion Colors with HDR...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bhphotovideo.com


BTW, RTINGS has 'rejected' review of the monitor after voting ended. Something about it being too niche or high end. 
Take it away Vincent...


----------



## stl8k

Scrapper102dAA said:


> BTW, RTINGS has 'rejected' review of the monitor after voting ended. Something about it being too niche or high end.
> Take it away Vincent...


It's already been reviewed by someone more experienced with _monitor_ reviews.

OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread

It may be interesting to see Vincent analyze it with test patterns that the monitor review folks don't and then _speculate_ about what that printed OLED tech could mean for TVs in the future, but let's not expect a TV reviewer to be able to situate this relative to other monitors that it will compete against.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> LG Electronics Expanding Ultra-large TV Lineup
> Popularity of Ultra-large OLED TVs Expected to Increase
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Popularity of Ultra-large OLED TVs Expected to Increase
> 
> 
> Market research firm Omdia reported on May 11 that the global sales volume of OLED TVs with a size of at least 80 inches is estimated to exceed 22,000 units this year. For reference, the shipments added up to 900 units last year.At present, a very small number of such products are available in the m
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businesskorea.co.kr


LGD must have provided Omedia with some data as all of these recent articles are driven by Omedia’s newly-released OLED TV Report/Forecast.

We don’t have access to Omedia’s report, only various reflections of it like the Business Korea article you linked to as well as the one from OLED-A that I linked to in an earlier post: TV Market Expected to Absorb the Widest Range of Panel Technologies_05/09/21

Presumably all of these articles are being driven by the same Omedia report / data but something is getting lost in translation since they don’t add up.

For example, the Business Korea article claims Omedia reporting that 65” WOLED sales caught up to and barely surpassed 55” WOLED sales last year (2020) while the OLED-A article includes this graph from the Omedia report showing 65” WOLED sales only increasing from 60% of 55” WOLED sales in 2019 to 74% in 2020 and not reaching parity until 2022:









The Omedia report seems to be about all WOLED TV including TCL printed RGB OLED TV starting in 2023 as well as QD-BOLED TV starting in 2022 or 2023, so that may explain some mismatch with LG WOLED-specific reporting like the Business Korea article from 2023 or 2022 on, but still doesn’t explain the mismatch in WOLED numbers for 2019, 2020 and 2021.

The 77” WOLED growth numbers reported by Business seem specific-enough that I’m guessing they must be explicitly mentioned in the Omedia report and I’m guessing those growth numbers may have been leaked by LG Display.

So I did some calculations based on the widely-agreed upon 2020 WOLED unit sales figure if 4.5M (also shown in the Omedia graph above) to calculate 77” WOLED sales volumes as follows:

2019: 55.5k
2020: 191.25k (245% growth)
2021: 325.7k (70.3% growth)

If we take the sales totals of 3.3M in 2019, 4.5M in 2020 and 7.1M in 2021, this gives us:

2019: 77” WOLED sales = 1.7% of total
2020: 77” WOLED sales = 4.25% of total
2021: 77” WOLED sales = 4.6% of total

2020 was definitely the year LG decided to increase 77” WOLED share, but especially with the introduction of a new entry-level 77” WOLED this year (77A1), I’m suspecting that 2021 forecast may have been sandbagged.

Still, it’s an impressive example of how quickly LGD can increase sales volume when they decide to target a market and drop pricing from stratospheric levels down to competitive levels (I’m thinking about their 2 8K WOLED offerings).

And the ‘80-88”’ sales numbers are explicit enough that I’m also suspecting LG Display leaked them to Omedia:

2020: 900 ([email protected])
2021: 22,000 ([email protected] + [email protected])

I’m a bit skeptical LG sold 900 88ZXs last year, but let’s run with it and throw in 11% growth this year for 2021 sales of 1000 88” 8K WOLEDs. That would mean a 2021 sales target of ~21,000 for the new 83” 4K WOLEDs.

The 77C9 had a launch MSRP of $6000 (identical to the launch MSRP of the 83C1) and over 55k 77” WOLEDs sold in 2019, so a sales target of 21k 83” WOLEDs launching at the same MSRP seems like low-hanging fruit…

Whether 65” WOLED sales reached parity with 55” WOLED sales last year or won’t get there until next year doesn’t really matter - LG has a good handle on both markets which are mature and can rebalance between them as needed.

More important to LGD’s growth prospects is 48” WOLED sales: 200K in 2020 (105% of 77” sales volume) forecasted to grow by 350% (!) to 900K this year (276% of 77” sales volume).

Since LGD can manufacture 3 48” WOLED panels for the same cost as a single 77” WOLED panel and since the 48C1 sells for well-over 1/3 the price of the 77C1, 48” WOLED sales have come out of nowhere to be as important or even more important to LGD’s profitability as the 77” WOLED market they have spent over 5 years developing…


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

stl8k said:


> It's already been reviewed by someone more experienced with _monitor_ reviews.
> 
> OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread
> 
> It may be interesting to see Vincent analyze it with test patterns that the monitor review folks don't and then _speculate_ about what that printed OLED tech could mean for TVs in the future, but let's not expect a TV reviewer to be able to situate this relative to other monitors that it will compete against.


I'm missing something I'm sure: the link is the 2019 JOLED 22" for ASUS. Is there reason to assume that the 32" version two years later for LG wouldn't have performance improvements?


----------



## Wizziwig

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I'm missing something I'm sure: the link is the 2019 JOLED 22" for ASUS. Is there reason to assume that the 32" version two years later for LG wouldn't have performance improvements?


Read his comments below the quoted post/video for the 22" model. He is describing the 32" model tested by tftcentral.









LG UltraFine 32EP950 OLED Pro - TFTCentral


An exclusive first look at the new OLED monitor from LG. Designed for professional users, media and HDR content creators. A 31.5" 4K OLED panel with a wide range of picture and colour modes and hardware calibration.




www.tftcentral.co.uk


----------



## fafrd

This has already been commented on in the C1 owner’s thread, but I thought it deserved repeating here: LG reveals the best OLED TV size – and it's huge

‘So far, so good. But the kicker comes at the end of the video, when we're told that* "the 83-inch OLED display, newly developed in 2021, is the most representative product with improved luminance improvement technology*."

The 48”, 55”, 65”, and 77” 3S4C ‘Evo’ panels were all constrained to reuse the same 2020 subpixel design used on the 2020 3S3C panels which looked like this:










This was necessary so that LGD could manage the transition from 3S3C to 3S4C this year while Guangzhou was producing 3S4C and Paju was producing 3S3C (at least in the period before they complete their own transition to 3S4C sometime this year).

The C-Series and probably also the A-Series are designed to work with either 3S4C or 3S3C WOLED panel and so for that reason, it was important that the two panels have a common subpixel design (so they ‘looked’ the same).

So the C1-Series (with the exception of the 83C1) contains:

-either 3S3C panel with 3S3C subpixels or
-3S4C panel with 3S3C subpixels and
-Alpha9 FW that ‘gimps’ 3S4C panel to perform like 3S3C panel.

While the G1-Series contains:
-3S4C panel with 3S3C pixels (55/65/77”)
-Alpha9 ‘Evo’ FW that optimizes performance with these new 3S4C w/ 3S3C subpixel panels.

And since the 83C1 is the only 3S4C panel size free of any such legacy / transition constraints, it is likely to be the only 2022 WOLED TV containing:

-3S4C panel with new 3S4C subpixels
-Alpha9 FW optimized for 3S4C w/ 3S4C subpixels.

I was very confused why the switch to Deuterium-based Blue Florescent OLED emitter with ~20% improved lifetime did not translate to a smaller blue subpixel, but once the constraint of needing to look identical to the legacy panels is considered, it makes sense.

So I’m guessing they this is what LGD is referring to when they state that the 83” WOLED products will be the ‘Most Representative’ of the improvements Evo has to offer - only the 83” WOLED panel was free to have new subpixels designed to fully-exploit the capability of the new 3S4C stack.

I’m expecting we’ll see the Blue pixel has been reduced by as much as 20% versus it’s relative size in the other panel sizes (above picture) and then that ~5%!savings in overall pixel active area will be distributed amongst all subpixels to deliver optimized peak brightness increase of 5.5-10% at equivalent power consumption.

If we take Vincent Toh’s G1 measurements of 160cd/m2 full field and 780cd/m2 @ 10%,this could translate to the 83C1 delivering:

Full-field peak brightness of 170-176cd/m2
10% peak brightness of 820-860 cd/m2.

The Sony 83” A90J could easily exceed these levels by 10% or more due to the Aluminum heat sink if Sony did not elect to gimp it’s performance (to make the 65A90J look good).

But at least in terms of peak brightness, LG clearly means the 83C1 to be the best-performing WOLED they sell this year (better than G1).


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> This has already been commented on in the C1 owner’s thread, but I thought it deserved repeating here: LG reveals the best OLED TV size – and it's huge
> 
> ‘So far, so good. But the kicker comes at the end of the video, when we're told that* "the 83-inch OLED display, newly developed in 2021, is the most representative product with improved luminance improvement technology*."
> 
> The 48”, 55”, 65”, and 77” 3S4C ‘Evo’ panels were all constrained to reuse the same 2020 subpixel design used on the 2020 3S3C panels which looked like this:
> 
> View attachment 3135358
> 
> 
> This was necessary so that LGD could manage the transition from 3S3C to 3S4C this year while Guangzhou was producing 3S4C and Paju was producing 3S3C (at least in the period before they complete their own transition to 3S4C sometime this year).
> 
> The C-Series and probably also the A-Series are designed to work with either 3S4C or 3S3C WOLED panel and so for that reason, it was important that the two panels have a common subpixel design (so they ‘looked’ the same).
> 
> So the C1-Series (with the exception of the 83C1) contains:
> 
> -either 3S3C panel with 3S3C subpixels or
> -3S4C panel with 3S3C subpixels and
> -Alpha9 FW that ‘gimps’ 3S4C panel to perform like 3S3C panel.
> 
> While the G1-Series contains:
> -3S4C panel with 3S3C pixels (55/65/77”)
> -Alpha9 ‘Evo’ FW that optimizes performance with these new 3S4C w/ 3S3C subpixel panels.
> 
> And since the 83C1 is the only 3S4C panel size free of any such legacy / transition constraints, it is likely to be the only 2022 WOLED TV containing:
> 
> -3S4C panel with new 3S4C subpixels
> -Alpha9 FW optimized for 3S4C w/ 3S4C subpixels.
> 
> I was very confused why the switch to Deuterium-based Blue Florescent OLED emitter with ~20% improved lifetime did not translate to a smaller blue subpixel, but once the constraint of needing to look identical to the legacy panels is considered, it makes sense.
> 
> So I’m guessing they this is what LGD is referring to when they state that the 83” WOLED products will be the ‘Most Representative’ of the improvements Evo has to offer - only the 83” WOLED panel was free to have new subpixels designed to fully-exploit the capability of the new 3S4C stack.
> 
> I’m expecting we’ll see the Blue pixel has been reduced by as much as 20% versus it’s relative size in the other panel sizes (above picture) and then that ~5%!savings in overall pixel active area will be distributed amongst all subpixels to deliver optimized peak brightness increase of 5.5-10% at equivalent power consumption.
> 
> If we take Vincent Toh’s G1 measurements of 160cd/m2 full field and 780cd/m2 @ 10%,this could translate to the 83C1 delivering:
> 
> Full-field peak brightness of 170-176cd/m2
> 10% peak brightness of 820-860 cd/m2.
> 
> The Sony 83” A90J could easily exceed these levels by 10% or more due to the Aluminum heat sink if Sony did not elect to gimp it’s performance (to make the 65A90J look good).
> 
> But at least in terms of peak brightness, LG clearly means the 83C1 to be the best-performing WOLED they sell this year (better than G1).


Nah, here's the exact same spec (excerpt below from SID) found at both LGD's CES 2021 and SID 2021 virtual conference booths. It's the same panel (as shipped to its TV-producing customers) at a larger size. Simplest explanation is that LGD wanted to market something big-best and new (i.e. has not yet shipped) at SID 2021 and that's what the 83" is.

Why did LG choose to have the 83" as part of its C1 line and not its G1 line? Simplest explanation to me is they wanted to keep the price point at a level they could sell them at certain min volume.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Nah, here's the exact same spec (excerpt below from SID) found at both LGD's CES 2021 and SID 2021 virtual conference booths. It's the same panel (as shipped to its licensees) at a larger size. Simplest explanation is that LGD wanted to market something big-best and new (i.e. has not yet shipped) at SID 2021 and that's what the 83 is.
> 
> View attachment 3135419


Well firstly, no 83” WOLEDs have shipped yet. Word is first ones will be coming in by the end of this month.

So it almost appears that LGE has been holding off on delivery of the 83C1 (as well as Sony on the 83A90J) until after this weeks’s conference and the noise LGD wanted to make surrounding it.

I’ve seen places like Tom’s Guide completely confused and thinking LGD’s just announced a new panel that won’t ship until 2022, and that’s almost certainly not the case.

The 48” and 55” and 65” and 75” 3S4C panels will all almost-certainly be redesigned with updated subpixels for 2022, but the 83” 3S4C panel that will start showing up on 83C1s and 83A90Js is unlikely to be changed for 2022…

So I am agreeing with you that the 83” panel LGD announced at CES’21 is exactly the same panel as the one they announced and showed you today.



> Why did LG choose to have the 83" as part of its C1 line and not its G1 line? Simplest explanation to me is they wanted to keep the price point at a level they could sell them at certain min volume.


I have two even simpler explanations:

1st, LG wanted to aggressively increase 77” WOLED sales by dropping prices down to 65” and 55”- commensurate levels and so they needed a new ‘big kid on the block’ holding the premium-priced position the C77” used to hold. They would have sold far fewer 83G1s than they will sell 83C1s.

And 2nd - gallery mounting an 83” TV was either impossible or too complicated or too expensive to make sense…

LGD is upping WOLED production volumes from 4.5 million panels in 2020 to 8 million panels this year - that’s a great deal of additional m^2 of WOLED that needs to sell-through this year (and a more-Premium-priced gallery-hanging 83” 83G1 WOLED TV would consume far fewer of those m^2 than a somewhat-reasonably-priced 83C1 offering).


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> Since LGD has an investment (15%) in YAS it has to report its purchasing with them. From the latest SEC and the Korean equivalent reporting for LGD and YAS, investment in 10.5G _may_ have begun in Q4 2020.
> 
> Receipts below.
> 
> From LGD Edgar filings...
> View attachment 3127430
> View attachment 3127429
> 
> 
> From Korean Financial Reporting for YAS...
> I believe Client N is LGD (for P10).
> View attachment 3127432


The latest LGD financial reporting from Q1 confirms they aren't yet investing in 10.5G:


----------



## stl8k

*Q1 2021 LGD R&D Highlights*

From its Q1 financial reporting. Anyone know the notebook company for the 240hz panel?


(1) Developed the world’s first bendable OLED television display product (65” UHD)

• Implemented both flat and bendable forms based on the scene usage and provided diverse form factors to customers


(2) Developed the world’s first 83” OLED television display product 

• Increased the range of options for customers by developing the new 83” UHD


(3) Developed the world’s first QHD 240Hz gaming notebook product

• Developed the world’s first QHD resolution 240Hz high-speed notebook product (obtained panel characteristics through new design and process optimization)

• Led the QHD high-speed gaming product market


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Nah, here's the exact same spec (excerpt below from SID) found at both LGD's CES 2021 and SID 2021 virtual conference booths.
> 
> View attachment 3135419


Do you have a link to wherever you found these ‘specs’ of

185cd/m^2 @ Full-field
550cd/m^2 @ 25%

I’d like to read the full contents of what you found.

Using the 20% increase statement, that means they are referring to 3S3C performance of:

154cd/m^2 Full-field
458 cd/m^2 @ 25%

Which is about what Rtings measured at full-field for the C9 and about 90% of the ~500 cd/m^2 Rtings measured at 25% for the C9.

If the 83” 3S4C panel can actually deliver to these specs, it would surpass the performance we have seen from any WOLED panel up to now (and if the ~90% increase we’ve seen between 25% and 2% holds true, it could translate to small speculation highlight brightness levels exceeding 1000cd/m^2).


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Do you have a link to wherever you found these ‘specs’ of
> 
> 185cd/m^2 @ Full-field
> 550cd/m^2 @ 25%
> 
> I’d like to read the full contents of what you found.
> 
> Using the 20% increase statement, that means they are referring to 3S3C performance of:
> 
> 154cd/m^2 Full-field
> 458 cd/m^2 @ 25%
> 
> Which is about what Rtings measured at full-field for the C9 and about 90% of the ~500 cd/m^2 Rtings measured at 25% for the C9.
> 
> If the 83” 3S4C panel can actually deliver to these specs, it would surpass the performance we have seen from any WOLED panel up to now (and if the ~90% increase we’ve seen between 25% and 2% holds true, it could translate to small speculation highlight brightness levels exceeding 1000cd/m^2).


SID is behind a registration wall. PDF attached.
CES doesn't have a precise direct link, but see image which I snapped moments ago from a live site as seen in the included URL bar. (As previously posted back in January.)


----------



## tghood85

stl8k said:


> SID is behind a registration wall. PDF attached.
> CES doesn't have a precise direct link, but see image which I snapped moments ago from a live site as seen in the included URL bar. (As previously posted back in January.)
> 
> 
> View attachment 3135457


I’m confused. Are you basically saying this is the G1 Evo panel just placed on the C1 83? Based on the knits, that would seem plausible.


----------



## stl8k

tghood85 said:


> I’m confused. Are you basically saying this is the G1 Evo panel just placed on the C1 83? Based on the knits, that would seem plausible.


I'm saying based on this evidence only, that LGD's brightest, newest panel (the one intro'd in Jan 2021 and widely shipping in TVs today) is the same one LGD is marketing for SID 2021, just at 83".


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> SID is behind a registration wall. PDF attached.
> CES doesn't have a precise direct link, but see image which I snapped moments ago from a live site as seen in the included URL bar. (As previously posted back in January.)
> 
> 
> View attachment 3135457


I’d missed that - thanks.

So 185 Nits full-field and 550 Nits @ 25% seems to be a spec LGD truly believes they are delivering to, at least at 83” (and also 77”, it appears).

What’s interesting about this is that they were aiming for 200 Nits full-field and 500 Nits @ 25% based on High Efficiency Blue (from the roadmap they presented 2 years ago):










So with Deuterium-based blue rather than High-Efficiency Blue, they fell 7.5% short of their full-field target but exceeded their 25% peak brightness target by 10% (they claim).

So far the HDTVTEST measurements of the 65G1 are the only G-Series measurements we have and they indicate:

160cd/m2 full-field
790cd/m2 @ 10%

So the 65G1 using the new 3S4C (‘WBE’) WOLED stack but with last-year’s 3S3C subpixel design (to allow panel mixing this year) is delivering 86.5% of LGD’s claimed full-field brightness.

D-Nice’s measurements of a *C*1 indicated full-field brightness which is an additional 12% below this level (140 cd/m2) but indicated a 10% peak brightness of 766 cd/m2 (97% of HDTVTEST’s G1 10% measurement).

And D-Nice measured 429 cd/m2 @ 25% field, 22% below LGDs 83” Evo target of 550cd/m2.

The G1 should be brighter than the C1 @ 25% and the 83” panel designed with optimized subpixels for 3S4C WOLED stack should be brighter than the 65G1 @ 25%.

We’ll get first measurements off of an 83C1 early next month and it will be interesting to see how close the full-field and 25% measurements come to LGD’s claimed specs…


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I'm saying based on this evidence only, that LGD's brightest, newest panel (the one intro'd in Jan 2021 and *widely shipping in TVs today*) is the same one LGD is marketing for SID 2021, just at 83".


I just want to clarify one nuance.

The 3S4C (‘WBE’) WOLED *stack* is shipping exclusively of G1-Series TVs and in combination with 3S3C (‘WBC’) panels on 48”, 55”, 65”, and 77” C1-Series TVs today, but all of these sub-83” panels are b*stard panels because they have been forced to use the same 2020 subpixel design that was used in 2020 for 3S3C panels. (this was necessary to allow for easy mixing / switching of 3S4C and 3S3C panels on the C1-Series during this transition year).

ONLY the 83” panel has the combination of the new 3S4C WOLED stack with new subpixels designed to optimize performance of that new stack.

Will the 83C1 (or the 83A90J) fully unlock the potential of the 83” panel this year? Hard to say (though we’ll know soon). But the fact that LGD has recently stated that the new 83” panel is the ‘most representative’ product to represent the full potential of their new luminance element is almost-certainly a reference to the additional performance available once new subpixels have been optimized for the new 3S4C stack…

[And that additional performance will either be available only on the 83C1 (or 83A90J) this year or will be held in reserve for a broad rollout by LGE & Sony in 2022…]


----------



## tghood85

fafrd said:


> I just want to clarify one nuance.
> 
> The 3S4C (‘WBE’) WOLED *stack* is shipping exclusively of G1-Series TVs and in combination with 3S3C (‘WBC’) panels on 48”, 55”, 65”, and 77” C1-Series TVs today, but all of these sub-83” panels are b*stard panels because they have been forced to use the same 2020 subpixel design that was used in 2020 for 3S3C panels. (this was necessary to allow for easy mixing / switching of 3S4C and 3S3C panels on the C1-Series during this transition year).
> 
> ONLY the 83” panel has the combination of the new 3S4C WOLED stack with new subpixels designed to optimize performance of that new stack.
> 
> Will the 83C1 (or the 83A90J) fully unlock the potential of the 83” panel this year? Hard to say (though we’ll know soon). But the fact that LGD has recently stated that the new 83” panel is the ‘most representative’ product to represent the full potential of their new luminance element is almost-certainly a reference to the additional performance available once new subpixels have been optimized for the new 3S4C stack…
> 
> [And that additional performance will either be available only on the 83C1 (or 83A90J) this year or will be held in reserve for a broad rollout by LGE & Sony in 2022…]


I’m not seeing any mention of changes the sub-pixels and I’ve watched that video ten times now. She just mentions that new layer to improve luminance. I take most representative to me it’s just the best example because it’s the largest. Def could be wrong tho.


----------



## fafrd

tghood85 said:


> *I’m not seeing any mention of changes the sub-pixels and I’ve watched that video ten times now. *She just mentions that new layer to improve luminance. I take most representative to me it’s just the best example because it’s the largest. Def could be wrong tho.


Why would LGD say anything about that?

LGD wants to get the word out that if you want to see everything the new WOLED stack is capable of, you need to check out the 83” product (‘most representative’).

We know all smaller panel sizes reused the 2020 subpixel design which were optimized for the older 3S3C WOLED stack (we know from inspection, but LGD did not tel us).

It won’t be a certainty until we see the first 83” panels in early June, but it is extremely likely that given the freedom associated with a new-size panel design, LGD chose to design new subpixels optimized for the new 3S4C stack rather than blindly copying the 3S3C subpixel design they were forced to use on the smaller panel sizes.

LGD likes to make noise about WOLED stack, ‘Liminance Elements’, and color gamut - they pretty much never say anything about subpixels (sausage-making)…


----------



## fafrd

From our old friend slacker, information from Samsung’s presentation today at Display Week indicating that QD-BOLED is still not ready for prime-time: OLED Universal Display Corp Message Board - Msg: 33325532

‘ The positives.

- They are using a *phosphorescent blue from Universal Display.*

- The presenter expressed confidence that we would see *Samsung Display would adopt a phosphorescent blue "soon"*.

- They are using a blue that is roughly 460nm.

The negatives.

- No concrete data. Everything was relative to the baseline performance of the emitter. They are using a LT95% lifetime which is positive but it could be 50 hours or 2000 hours. 

- The presenter mentioned ongoing work that they might present sometime in the "near future". They might be close but *it doesn't sound like they have hit commercial specs.*

The first half of the presentation was the same data as last year where they managed to increase lifetime by 5x due by adding two host layers. The 2nd half talked about using two exciplex hosts to increase lifetime by 3x.* It sounds like they are still working on finding the right exciplex hosts.*’

So first, this means UDC’s phosphorescent blue OLED emitter is the furthest-along as far as the various High Efficiency Blue initiatives.

Second, if Samsung is working with UDC’s blue phosphorescent emitter, it’s a near-certainty LGD is as well (especially since WOLED already uses UDCs Red, Yellow and Green phosphorescent emitters…).

And third, perhaps Samsung Display is able to pull a rabbit out of a hat in the next ~4 weeks, but it’s looking increasingly likely that Samsung kicks the QD-BOLED can down the road for another year…


----------



## stl8k

Here's my best guess at the high level logic that LGD and the TV makers it supplies OLED panels to are using in 2021:

In any given product line year, focusing primarily on panel/TV size...

For LGD, *minimize panel manufacturing differences for any given model line-size combination*. Having customers playing games at retail to get a TV panel that was manufactured in plant X (or choose a different size in the same line because that panel size was manufactured at plant X) is a recipe for disaster. The need to optimize for manufacturing cost means it's impractical to always manufacture all panel sizes for a given product line in the same plant or to centralize the production of panel size YY" to plant X. _*Counter* Example: folks at enthusiast sites like this are talking about differences between, for example, 77" panels from Paju and Guangzhou._


For TV makers, *minimize the non-size differences in a given product line*, _but_ often the top of a product line, especially when that top is a new model for the year/generation, may diverge from the rest of the line. _Example: LG's having the more luminant LGD panel at the top of its C1 line._


New, high-end products (panels or TVs) *don't necessarily follow this logic* because at their low sales volume, they are often only manufactured in a single plant or owing to being a new physical form are often given their own product line. _Example: 88" 8K OLEDs in 2020-21._

This feels like the essence of the high level logic. Would like to hear other high level ones or corollaries to the above 3.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Here's my best guess at the high level logic that LGD and the TV makers it supplies OLED panels to are using in 2021:
> 
> In any given product line year, focusing primarily on panel/TV size...
> 
> For LGD, minimize panel manufacturing differences for any given model line-size combination. Having customers playing games at retail to get a TV panel that was manufactured in plant X (or choose a different size in the same line because that panel size was manufactured at plant X) is a recipe for disaster. The need to optimize for manufacturing cost means it's impractical to always manufacture all panel sizes for a given product line in the same plant or to centralize the production of panel size YY" to plant X. _*Counter* Example: folks at enthusiast sites like this are talking about differences between 77" panels between Paju and Guangzhou._
> 
> 
> For TV makers, minimize the non-size differences in a given product line, _but_ often the top of a product line, especially when that top is a new model for the year/generation, may diverge from the rest of the line. _Example: LG's having the more luminant LGD panel at the top of its C1 line._
> 
> 
> New, high-end products (panels or TVs) don't necessarily follow this logic because at their low sales volume, they are often only manufactured in a single plant or owing to being a new physical form are often given their own product line. _Example: 88" 8K OLEDs in 2020-21._
> 
> This feels like the essence of the high level logic. Would like to hear other high level ones or corollaries to the above 3.


My read is simpler. LGD elected to bring-up their new plant with their new 3S4C WOLED stack. This means that until they have converted their Paju plant from 3S3C to 3S4C, they are going to have 2 flavors of WOLED panels to deal with this cycle (which they would have had to some degree anyway due to inventory of the older panel).

Sony (and probably also Panasonic and very possibly all non-LGE customers) insisted on only receiving ‘new’ 3S4C panels for their 2021 WOLED TVs.

LGE had to support LGD by accepting a mixture of panel stacks and elected to limit that ‘panel lottery’ to the C1-Series (and possibly also the A1 Series), assuring that the G1-Series was only manufactured with the new 3S4C panels.

In fact, that 3S3C / 3S4C panel lottery was started with the CX-Series in 2020, with late-year CXs being designed to work with either 3S3C panels out of Paju or the first (low-volume) 3S4C panels out of Guangzhou (which started bring-up in August 2019).

So the ‘pain’ of this transition has been relatively isolated (to the CX/C1-Series TVs) but came at the ‘cost’ of designing the 3S4C panels below 83” with identical subpixel structure to that used on the 3S3C panels in 2020 (to help mask the C-Series panel lottery).

The only wildcard in all of this is the new 83” 3S4C panel. It’s almost-certainly designed with different subpixels optimized for 3S4C performance (since their was no 83” 3S3C legacy panel to deal with). So it’s probably the best-performing 3S4C WOLED panel being produced this year.

LGD understandably wants to jump up and down and crow about having delivered >20% performance increase with the new 3S4C WOLED stack compared to the old 3S3C stack.

But LGE (and Sony) have a decision to make: do they allow the 83C1 to outperform the 77C1 and even 77G1 (or the 83A90J to outperform the 65A90J in Sony’s case) as LGD would no-doubt like to see, or do they gimp the large-screen WOLED TVs to perform at similar levels to their smaller-sized siblings?

How the 83” WOLEDs are positioned this year and what level of full-blown 3S4C performance they are allowed to exhibit really just boils down to marketing strategy and is relatively immaterial to what we generally care most about here. By 2022 all of this 3S3C -> 3S4C transition nonsense should be behind us and all 2022 WOLED panels should be produced with new subpixels designed to optimize 3S4C WOLED performance.

LGD has staked their claim to having achieved 185 cd/m2 full-field and 550 cd/m2 @ 25% with their new WOLED stack, so now we just need to see how first measurements of the 83C1 (and 83A90J) measure up against those targets…


----------



## fafrd

In case it hasn’t been posted here yet: 




From the English translation starting at 1:33:

‘The 83” OLED display, newly-developed in 2021, is the most representative product with *improved Luminance Improvement Technology*.’

Perhaps it’s just something that hit garbled by the translator (need to find a member who speaks Korean to be sure), but the other read is that:

-Going from 3S3C to 3S4C WOLED stack is Luminance Improvement Technology (even using suboptimal subpixel design).

-Designing subpixel size for optimal 3S4C performance is ‘improved’ Luminance Improvement Technology.

-Only the 83” panel (which is the only panel designed in 2021 - all other panel sizes were designed in 2020 and in full production by ~August 2020) contains improved Luminance Improvement Technology and represents the highest-performing WOLED panel we’ll see this year (‘most representative product’).


----------



## fafrd

Managed to find this from 2017 a year after LGD had introduced the 3S3C WOLED stack (which we’ve had ever since until the 2020/2021 3S4C WOLED stack (‘Luminance Improvement Technology’):









Of note is that full-field was 130 cd/m2, as Vincent measured on his GX, so an improvement to 160 cd/m2 represents +23% and an improvement to 175 cd/m2 would represent +35%.

At 25%, LGD aimed their improved ABL deliver 450 cd/m2 in HDR or 430 cd/m2 in SDR, versus the 3S4C 25% of 550 cd/m2.

If confirmed, that would represent an increase of +22% in HDR or +28% in SDR.

Finally, if improvements of ~20% are also delivered at 10% and 3%, that could translate to as much as 864 cd/m2 @ 10% (HDTVTEST measured their 65G1 at 790 cd/m2, or 91% this level) and as much as 1080 cd/m2 @ 3% (higher than any WOLED measured after calibration to D65 up to now).

And please remember, these are LG Display specifications and LG Electronics as well as Sony etc.., are free to be as much more conservative versus these levels as they see fit…


----------



## Wizziwig

As usual, you are reading way too much into a single sentence with dubious translation quality. Most likely they just mean that the 83" is the flagship size for these new brighter panels. As already pointed out, the specs are identical for 77" and 83" Evo panels.

Of course it will have a different sub-pixel arrangement. Every single panel size uses a different mask. This alone proves nothing.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> As usual, you are reading way too much into a single sentence with dubious translation quality. Most likely they just mean that the 83" is the flagship size for these new brighter panels. As already pointed out, the specs are identical for 77" and 83" Evo panels.


You’re probably correct (as I already suggested before getting out over of my skis).



> *Of course it will have a different sub-pixel arrangement.* Every single panel size uses a different mask[/u]. This alone proves nothing.


Of course every panel size has it’s own dedicated mask. It’s not subpixel ‘arrangement’ that matters, but rather relative subpixel size.

The smaller 3S4C panels all have identical subpixel design and relative size as the 3S3C panels. Green output was increased at the expense of red and so this should translate to a larger red subpixel relative to white.

Without increasing the red subpixel size, peak D65 white luminance will need to be ‘held back’ to avoid overstressing the relatively-undersized red subpixel (and result in a repeat of 2016 concerns regarding potential for red burn-in).

I admit it is confusing to see the 77” and 88” panels have identical specifications from LGD’s perspective, but if we see that the 77G1 has identical subpixel sizes to the 77GX but the 83C1 has a different ratio of red-subpixel-to-white-subpixel size, I’m pretty sure that ends up translating to improved performance of 83” panel over 77” panel (whether exploited by the 83C1 or not).

Ultimately, the full potential of this ‘improved Luminance Improvement Technology’ may not be delivered in end-user products until 2022, but if nothing else, I suspect LGD has gotten word out to Samsung Visual Display (as well as Sony) so that they can evaluate the June QD-BOLED samples from Samsung Display in the proper competitive landscape (for 2022…).


----------



## tghood85

fafrd said:


> You’re probably correct (as I already suggested before getting out over of my skis).
> 
> 
> 
> Of course every panel size has it’s own dedicated mask. It’s not subpixel ‘arrangement’ that matters, but rather relative subpixel size.
> 
> The smaller 3S4C panels all have identical subpixel design and relative size as the 3S3C panels. Green output was increased at the expense of red and so this should translate to a larger red subpixel relative to white.
> 
> Without increasing the red subpixel size, peak D65 white luminance will need to be ‘held back’ to avoid overstressing the relatively-undersized red subpixel (and result in a repeat of 2016 concerns regarding potential for red burn-in).
> 
> I admit it is confusing to see the 77” and 88” panels have identical specifications from LGD’s perspective, but if we see that the 77G1 has identical subpixel sizes to the 77GX but the 83C1 has a different ratio of red-subpixel-to-white-subpixel size, I’m pretty sure that ends up translating to improved performance of 83” panel over 77” panel (whether exploited by the 83C1 or not).
> 
> Ultimately, the full potential of this ‘improved Luminance Improvement Technology’ may not be delivered in end-user products until 2022, but if nothing else, I suspect LGD has gotten word out to Samsung Visual Display (as well as Sony) so that they can evaluate the June QD-BOLED samples from Samsung Display in the proper competitive landscape (for 2022…).


Preferred they just kept the old versions for the A and B series. Annoying having to wait a year to realize benefits. Do you know what about the new process is allowing for the red to become larger? How come the 2021 panels have the diff red blue and green peaks (forget what that chart is but VT posted it in his review) than the 2020 and yet the pixels are the same?


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> As usual, you are reading way too much into a single sentence with dubious translation quality. Most likely they just mean that the 83" is the flagship size for these new brighter panels. As already pointed out, the specs are identical for 77" and 83" Evo panels.
> 
> Of course it will have a different sub-pixel arrangement. Every single panel size uses a different mask. This alone proves nothing.


For reference, here is the C6 subpixel design:













Kind of fuzzy, but red is clearly much smaller (~50%) or white.

And here is the subpixel of the CX:










Red has increased in size relative to the white subpixel and is now about the same size (so a ~100% increase versus 2016).

And here is the subpixel of the C1:










It’s exactly the same subpixel design as that of the CX (no change)…


----------



## fafrd

tghood85 said:


> Preferred they just kept the old versions for the A and B series.


The problem is that the A/B Series don’t sell in high-enough volumes. The C-Series is the highest-volume WOLED sold and for a good part of this year, over half of the WOLED panels LGD is producing are of the ‘old’ 3S3C variety…



> Annoying having to wait a year to realize benefits.


First, this is the case each and every year…

And second, you can realize most of the benefits by purchasing a G1-Series (exclusive with only 3S4C / WBE panel…).



> Do you know what about the new process is allowing for the red to become larger?


Don’t understand the question. If LGD decides the red subpixel needs to be larger to maximize the luminance performance of the 3S4C panels, they will do so as normal part of 2022 WOLED panel design and introduction. 2022 is the only year since 2016 that LGD has not modified subpixel design between panel years…



> How come the 2021 panels have the diff red blue and green peaks (forget what that chart is but VT posted it in his review) than the 2020 and yet the pixels are the same?


The Spectral Power Disyribution (SPD) of the panel depends primarily on the WOLED stack, not the subpixels.

The SPD of the 2016 3S3C / WBC stack (Blue-Red/Yellow-Blue) has shallower trench between blue and green as well as less-pronounced red hump than the new 2019/2020/2021 3S4C / WBE stack (Blue-Red/Yellow/Green-Blue).

It’s the WOLED stack that determines the SPD but also the subpixel sizes that determine peak brightness levels.

So I don’t expect modifies subpixels to change the SPD but they should result in further-improved peak brightness levels…


----------



## tghood85

fafrd said:


> The problem is that the A/B Series don’t sell in high-enough volumes. The C-Series is the highest-volume WOLED sold and for a good part of this year, over half of the WOLED panels LGD is producing are of the ‘old’ 3S3C variety…
> 
> 
> 
> First, this is the case each and every year…
> 
> And second, you can realize most of the benefits by purchasing a G1-Series (exclusive with only 3S4C / WBE panel…).
> 
> 
> Don’t understand the question. If LGD decides the red subpixel needs to be larger to maximize the luminance performance of the 3S4C panels, they will do so as normal part of 2022 WOLED panel design and introduction. 2022 is the only year since 2016 that LGD has not modified subpixel design between panel years…
> 
> 
> The Spectral Power Disyribution (SPD) of the panel depends primarily on the WOLED stack, not the subpixels.
> 
> The SPD of the 2016 3S3C / WBC stack (Blue-Red/Yellow-Blue) has shallower trench between blue and green as well as less-pronounced red hump than the new 2019/2020/2021 3S4C / WBE stack (Blue-Red/Yellow/Green-Blue).
> 
> It’s the WOLED stack that determines the SPD but also the subpixel sizes that determine peak brightness levels.
> 
> So I don’t expect modifies subpixels to change the SPD but they should result in further-improved peak brightness levels…


Thanks for sharing your knowledge! What I meant to say, is what does the new panel offer that the prior one didn’t in regards to allowing changes to the sub pixels? I would have figured LG would of already implemented this change if it was possible on last years panels.


----------



## fafrd

tghood85 said:


> Thanks for sharing your knowledge! What I meant to say, is what does the new panel offer that the prior one didn’t in regards to allowing changes to the sub pixels? I would have figured LG would of already implemented this change if it was possible on last years panels.


It’s a one-time issue associated with this year of ‘transition’ from 3S3C / WBC to 3S4C / WBE WOLED stacks.

LGD knew that they needed a volume TV design that could work with either old or new panel (the CX and then C1) so the 2 panel types needed to look and perform identically to allow them the flexibility to use whichever panel type they had inventory/production of.

The G1-Series will exclusively get the new 3S4C / WBE panels along with new Firmware that allows them to exploit the increased luminance capability of the new stack (Evo).

But those new 3S4C / WBE panels are the same as those being used in the C-Series (without Evo firmware) and so they look the same as the 3C3S / WBC panels as far as subpixel design.

LGD has implemented (and continues to implement) all the changes they could on the 2021 panels (meaning the WOLED stack) but the changes to subpixel design will not happen until 2022 (after all WOLED production has completed the conversion to 3S4C / WBE)…

I’m not sure whether any time LGD makes a change in WOLED stack they will keep subpixel design unchanged for a year or if this cycle was a one-time event because of the bring up of a new fan with new technology (MMG).

In any case, what LGD is doing this time around makes a great deal of sense logistically and will result in some additional incremental improvements next year…


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> My read is simpler. LGD elected to bring-up their new plant with their new 3S4C WOLED stack. This means that until they have converted their Paju plant from 3S3C to 3S4C, they are going to have 2 flavors of WOLED panels to deal with this cycle (which they would have had to some degree anyway due to inventory of the older panel).
> 
> Sony (and probably also Panasonic and very possibly all non-LGE customers) insisted on only receiving ‘new’ 3S4C panels for their 2021 WOLED TVs.
> 
> LGE had to support LGD by accepting a mixture of panel stacks and elected to limit that ‘panel lottery’ to the C1-Series (and possibly also the A1 Series), assuring that the G1-Series was only manufactured with the new 3S4C panels.
> 
> In fact, that 3S3C / 3S4C panel lottery was started with the CX-Series in 2020, with late-year CXs being designed to work with either 3S3C panels out of Paju or the first (low-volume) 3S4C panels out of Guangzhou (which started bring-up in August 2019).
> 
> So the ‘pain’ of this transition has been relatively isolated (to the CX/C1-Series TVs) but came at the ‘cost’ of designing the 3S4C panels below 83” with identical subpixel structure to that used on the 3S3C panels in 2020 (to help mask the C-Series panel lottery).
> 
> The only wildcard in all of this is the new 83” 3S4C panel. It’s almost-certainly designed with different subpixels optimized for 3S4C performance (since their was no 83” 3S3C legacy panel to deal with). So it’s probably the best-performing 3S4C WOLED panel being produced this year.
> 
> LGD understandably wants to jump up and down and crow about having delivered >20% performance increase with the new 3S4C WOLED stack compared to the old 3S3C stack.
> 
> But LGE (and Sony) have a decision to make: do they allow the 83C1 to outperform the 77C1 and even 77G1 (or the 83A90J to outperform the 65A90J in Sony’s case) as LGD would no-doubt like to see, or do they gimp the large-screen WOLED TVs to perform at similar levels to their smaller-sized siblings?
> 
> How the 83” WOLEDs are positioned this year and what level of full-blown 3S4C performance they are allowed to exhibit really just boils down to marketing strategy and is relatively immaterial to what we generally care most about here. By 2022 all of this 3S3C -> 3S4C transition nonsense should be behind us and all 2022 WOLED panels should be produced with new subpixels designed to optimize 3S4C WOLED performance.
> 
> LGD has staked their claim to having achieved 185 cd/m2 full-field and 550 cd/m2 @ 25% with their new WOLED stack, so now we just need to see how first measurements of the 83C1 (and 83A90J) measure up against those targets…


Man, I broke the details about the Evo luminance spec during CES here and posted about the DSCC interview with Nanosys that provided details on the stack (which Vincent picked up a couple days later), but I'm just not seeing _evidence_ for what you're saying.

Occam's razor suggests that you don't build the same size + product line panel at your new fab that's substantially different than your existing fab at which you make that same thing (size + product line) or ask your TV maker customers to choose a fab for that size + product line. So, _absent evidence_ that they did something different (like all LGE 77" 4Ks in 2020 model year came from Paju and the same Sony's all came from Guangzhou), you have to assume Occam's razor.

For the 83" C1, the evidence directly from LGD suggests its luminance performance will be the same as the 77" G1 because LGD said it has the same luminance spec. I don't expect to see it have different relative size subpixels than the 77" G1 either.

I do think you're correct that the LGD higher luminance product line does represent a compromise relative to some ideal engineering state, but every complex product that ships represents compromises. Perhaps the selection/qualification of the new emitters came so late that it didn't allow for an optimized relative pixel sizing? Does that justify (us) calling some or all of that 2021 product line gimp'd? Nah. Only the LGD and TV maker engineers, etc on the team get to say that (privately).


----------



## Wizziwig

Apparently the panel code can be retrieved from service menu. See last few posts in uniformity thread. It tells us if panel used MMG and country of origin. Paju is using MMG based on that info.









OLED Screen Uniformity Discussion-Banding and Vignetting


I let my TV on for 4/5 hours this afternoon, then turned it off so the automatic pixel refresher could run, and damn the line has disappeared again when I turned it on 15 minutes later.... I swear I don't get it. It has to be some kind of "electric issue/solder joint breaking at times" as some...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Of course every panel size has it’s own dedicated mask. It’s not subpixel ‘arrangement’ that matters, but rather relative subpixel size.
> 
> The smaller 3S4C panels all have identical subpixel design and relative size as the 3S3C panels. Green output was increased at the expense of red and so this should translate to a larger red subpixel relative to white.


My point was that you can't determine anything definitive by comparing totally different panel sizes. Like I said, the masks are different and so are the relative pixel sizes even when built on the exact same panel year/generation. Since we have no prior year example at 83", there is nothing to compare with and you shouldn't jump to conclusions if its sub-pixels end up looking slightly different than other 2021 panels.

As an example, this was posted several years ago in this thread. Don't have the time to find the exact post.


----------



## tghood85

Wizziwig said:


> My point was that you can't determine anything definitive by comparing totally different panel sizes. Like I said, the masks are different and so are the relative pixel sizes even when built on the exact same panel year/generation. Since we have no prior year example at 83", there is nothing to compare with and you shouldn't jump to conclusions if its sub-pixels end up looking slightly different than other 2021 panels.
> 
> As an example, this was posted several years ago in this thread. Don't have the time to find the exact post.
> 
> View attachment 3135959


Good stuff. Do the new panels allow for larger sub pixel sizes?


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Man, I broke the details about the Evo luminance spec during CES here and posted about the DSCC interview with Nanosys that provided details on the stack (which Vincent picked up a couple days later), but I'm just not seeing _evidence_ for what you're saying.[/b]


Congrats for being the one to break the news. From what I’ve seen, (after being tipped off by you or Bob O’Brian) Vincent Teoh did the best job of digging deeper, finding the interview with the CEO of UBI research and translating that Korean interview into English: 




Only because of UBI do we understand the change LGD made in blue emitter that gets the lion’s share of the credit for the increased luminance (deuterium allows blue to be driven 20% harder than hydrogen for equivalent lifetime).

We don’t know how long LGD had been working on the switch from Idemetsu hydrogen-based blue to Dupont Deuterium-based blue (possibly motivated by the Japanese export ban against Korea) or the addition of a 3rd phosphorescent green emitter but we do know a few things about what LGD did when (all related to Guangzhou):

-Pilot production at Guangzhou began in August 2019:Mass production at LGD's Guangzhou OLED TV fab delayed to after Q1 2020 | OLED-Info

‘On August 2019 LG Display announced today that it started producing OLED TV panels at its 8.5-Gen OLED fab in Guangzhou, China. But in October it was reported that LGD's *yields at the new fab were still low (50-60%)* and mass production did not start as planned.’

From that same 2019 article we also know that once LGD accepted that mass-production at Guangzhou would be delayed (largely because of teething problems with MMG), they decided to introduce a new WOLED stack in Guangzhou (likely a predecessor to Evo, we don’t know):

‘But the company also decided to adopt several new technologies in this new fab - ironically mostly to improve productivity (including MMG, which seems to be the most challenging technology and the main cause of the low yields), and these hasn't been stabilized yet. [bwIn addition LGD opted to use a new OLED stack (to improve efficiency and productivity at the same time)[/b].’

So in August LGD started producing the Paju 3S3C stack at Guangzhou and attempted to bring up the new fab with a known WOLED stack and a new technology (MMG) but by October yields remained poor (50-60%) primarily because of issues with MMG and LGD realized bring-up to mass-production of Guangzhou would take much longer than planned.

So they decided to use the unexpected delay to being up the new Evo 3S4C WOLED stack they had ready and kill to birds with one stone (or rather one being-up).

So to recap, from ~August to ~October Guangzhou produced the 3S3C (‘WBC’) WOLED stack in low volumes and at low yields including the only 48” WOLED panels manufactured at the time (with MMG).

We have to speculate as to manufacturing volumes, but 5K 8.5G sheeets/month (~8% of Mass-production) is a reasonable guess and translates to 10,000 48” WOLEDs produced raw per month or 5000/month @ 50% yield.

So from August to October it’s a reasonable guess that LGD manufactured ~15,000 48” WOLEDs where were the first 48” WOLEDs available in late 2019.

What is factual is that LGD did not throw those early 48” 3S3C WOLEDs into the garbage - we now have confirmation from a 48CX owner that he has a WBC/MMG/GZ panel in his TV (which is the 3S3C stack manufactured at Guangzhou using MMG technology, almost certainly from this August to October 2019 period).

We have no visibility on whether ‘WBD’ was a first version of the 3S4C stack (possibly using the same Idemetsu blue rather than the new Deuterium-based blue from DuPont), whether any ‘WBD’ panels were ever produced, and whether any WBD panels were ever sold (nine found yet), but we do know that by beginning
August 2020 Guangzhou was fully-ramped to mass-production of 60,000 8.5G sheets/month based on the new 3S4C ‘WBE’ WOLED stack that LGD later announced at CES’21:LG Display's Guangzhou OLED panel plant to start mass production in earnest

From October ‘19 through July ‘20 LGD was presumably producing 3S4C WOLEDs at low volumes and at low yields that may either have been an initial ‘WBD’ version that they abandoned or may have been the ‘WBE’ flavor we have now, but what happened with the ~50,000 8.5G sheets LGD manufactured in Guangzhou through this period is unimportant.

What’s more important is the status of LGDs production as of August 2020:

Guangzhou was producing 3S4C WBE WOLEDs in Guangzhou using MMG technology (primarily 3 65” panels along with 2 48” panels per 8.5G sheet using MMG, possibly also 2 77” panels along with 2 48” panels using MMG.

Paju was producing 3S3C WBC panels, primarily 55” manufactured 6-up without MMG, possibly also 77” manufactured 2-up without MMG (~25% more costly than if they were moved to Guangzhou and manufactured with MMG).

So LGD had both 3S3C WBC 55” WOLEDs and 3S4C 65” and 48” WOLEDs in production in high-volume mid-cycle in the lead-up to the Holiday Shopping Season with 2020 CX TV designs that were already in production - what to do?

LGD knew they would be facing this issue from October 2019 when they made the decision to bring up 3S4C at Guangzhou first. LGE sells ~75% of the world’s WOLED TVs, do the problem could be solved with LGE’s cooperation alone. Whether it happened as early as October 2019 or a few months later when they had their first working samples of 3S4C WBE panels,LGE agreed to design all 2020 WOLEDs so that they could support either 3S3C WBC panels or 3S4C WBE panels running in 3S3C / WBC ‘emulation mode’.

We now have confirmation of 48CX owners with both WBC/ONE/PJ panels as well as WBE/MMG/GZ panels as well as a recent WBC/MMG/PJ panel (suggesting Paju now has MMG but has not yet converted to 3S4C WBE WOLED stack),

At this point, there is no question that LGE supported LGD by designing 2020 WOLEDs as well as 2021 C-Series (and probably also A/B-Series) WOLEDs to work seamlessly with either 3S3C WBC panels out of Paju or 3S4C WBE panels out of Guangzhou (in 3S3C WBC emulation mode).

LGD’s other WOLED customers are such low volume that their cooperation in this transition plan was probably not needed.

In 2020 (including the tail of 2020 model-year production this Spring), LGD was probably able to steer only 3S3C panels out of Paju to Sony, Panasonic, and other ‘outside’ customers while directing 100% of 3S4C production out of Guangzhou to LG Electronics.

By CES 2021 this January, LGD announced their new WOLED stack and LGE announced Evo. Sony and others no-doubt knew about this new panel much earlier and it was probably presented to them as a new improved WOLED stack for 2021.

For the 2021 model-year, Sony and others have probably made a clean transition from 3S3C panels out of Paju to 3S4C panels from Guangzhou. This means producing all panel sizes including 55” in Guangzhou but it should be straightforward for LGD to switch gears and now direct only 3S4C panels out of Guangzhou to Sony and others while directing all 3S3C panels produced out of Paju to LGE (along with whatever Guangzhou production of 3S4C WOLEDs are not absorbed by other customers.

So Sony and other outside customers see a clean transition from 3S3C out of Paju for 2020 model year to 3S4C out of Guangzhou for 2021 model year. Only LGE had to manage TVs like the C1 designed to work with either a 3S3C WBC panel out of Paju or a 3S4C WBE panel out of Guangzhou operating in WBC emulation mode.

LGE can direct only 3S4C WBE panels to the lower-volume G1-Series so they can announce Evo and make it exclusive to the G1 this year.

The C1-Series contains the same ‘WBE in WBC-emulation-mode’ firmware as all of the 2020 LGE WOLEDs and only the G1 gets the special Evo firmware that allows a 3S4V WBE panel to operate in native 3S4C WBE mode (unlocking the additional 20% brightness).

Given all of the challenges they faced, including MMG-caused delays in Guangzhou ramp-up, the pandemic, and the uncertainties of timing associated with both issues, it’s a brilliant solution and my hat is off to both LGD and LGE - this would have been a huge mess without a very close relationship and close cooperation between them both.

So the plan was brilliant, is smoothly allowed a transition between two different factories producing two different WOLED stacks, but it did come at one tiny cost: the need for 3S4C WBE WOLEDs to operate in 3S3C WBC emulation mode meant that the 2021 WOLED panels based on the new 2021 3S3C WOLED stack needed to reuse the same subpixel design at all panel sizes as the 2020 3S3C WBC WOLEDs (so that they would appear identical under inspection, if nothing else).

You may call that being ‘gimped’ but I would certainly not use that term - usage of a common subpixel design between two WOLED stacks over a 2-year transition plan is a very elegant solution and as the G1-series has proven, still allow’s the lion’s share of the ‘>20%’ improvement offered by the new 3S4C WBE stack to be realized by Sony, Panasonic and others including LGE on the G1-Series.

The new 83” and 42” panels being introduced this year are the only panels that were free from this 3S3C legacy emulation issue and so were the only 2 panel sizes where LGD was free to design new subpixel sizes designed to optimize 3S4C WOLED performance.

Those optimized subpixel designs have no-doubt happened and will be introduced at all panel sizes as 2022 WOLED panels. By next year, both factories will be producing the 3S4C stack and the overlap between 2021 subpixel design and 2022 subpixel design will be managed in the standard way LGD has managed subpixel generations for years now (back to business as usual).

Since we probably won’t be seeing 42” WOLED products until 2022, it’s only the 83” WOLED panel which represents a ‘2022’
panel product which will show up in 2021 TVs (the 83C1 and the 83A90J).

Whatever improvements we end up seeing n 2022 WOLEDs is available early in the 83C1 and 83A90J. If Sony decides to emulate 65A90J performance with the 83A90J (to avoid making the 65A90J look bad in comparison), that’s what I call ‘gimping’). And same for 83C1 emulating the other C1-Series WOLEDs.

All of the 2022 3S4C-optimized subpixel designs are no-doubt completed (since the 84” panel is now in production), were probably completed or at least understood by CES last January (since LGD presented specs for 2022 83” and 77” panels at CES - trying to find evidence of first 83” panel demonstration prior to this week at Display Week), and were no-doubt presented to key customers like Sony by late 2021 (since Sony announced the 83A90J at CES).

So my guess is that the entire line-up of 2022 WOLED panels was clear before the end of last year (or at least the 83” and 77” 2022 panels), only the 83” 2022 panel is being introduced for production in 2021, and time will tell whether Sony and/or LGE elected to ‘gimp’ performance if this year’s 83A90J and/or 83C1 performance in order to align with smaller-panel sizes and save some ‘improvement’ to deliver in 2022…

The final ‘fact’ I’ll point to is the specs LGD has published for the 2022 83” and 77” panels:

185 cd/m2 full-field
550 cd/m2 @ 25% window

It’s pretty clear that the G1 does not deliver to these specs (though we’ll know more soon).

It’s highly likely we’ll see improvements in the 2022 WOLEDs that achieve these specs or at least get closer to them.

Only in hindsight and with the perspective of 2022 83” WOLED performance, will we be in a position to understand for certain whether the performance of the 83A90J and/or 83C1 was ‘gimped’ this year (and by how much)..,



> Occam's razor suggests that you don't build the same size + product line panel at your new fab that's substantially different than your existing fab at which you make that same thing (size + product line)


And yet, that is precisely what LGD has done (so Occam’s razor may not be as reliable during a once-in-a-century Pandemic ).



> or ask your TV maker customers to choose a fab for that size + product line.


Hopefully my above discussion has made clear that only LG Electronics was impacted by (and needed to design for) this 2-year emulation mode and needing to design TVs to mix 3S3C WBC and 3S4C WBE panels. Sony and all other customers merely received ‘2020 Mode year’ and ‘2021 model year’ panels as they are used to doing (business as usual).

And only Sony received the 2022 83” 3S4C panel in 2021 and had to decide how they would manage the better potential performance of the 83” panel versus panel the smaller sizes. Sony’s decision to only offer the A90J at 83” and not 77” as well as to only offer the A80J at 77” and not 83” makes more sense when viewed in this light…



> So, _absent evidence_ that they did something different (like all LGE 77" 4Ks in 2020 model year came from Paju and the same Sony's all came from Guangzhou), *you have to assume Occam's razor.*


You may need to but I don’t.

We now have have evidence (from AVS members) of 48CXs sold with both WBC (3S3C) panels manufactured from Paju as well as WBE (3S4C) panels manufactured from Guangzhou, as well as evidence of 55C1s manufactured with both 3S3C and 3S4C panels. Since LGE electEd to make the ‘OLED Cell Info’ visible within the service menu, whatever sliver of uncertainty of this entire transition saga remained had now been eliminated…



> For the 83" C1, the evidence directly from LGD suggests its luminance performance will be the same as the 77" G1 because LGD said it has the same luminance spec. I don't expect to see it have different relative size subpixels than the 77" G1 either.


Except that the 77G1 is using a 2020 3S3C WBE panel (meaning the same as LGD was selling as early as early 2020 and using the 2020 3S3C subpixels) while the 83” and 77” ‘Improved Luminance Technology’ panels LGD announced and showed specs for at CES were 2022 panels based on new subpixel designs designed to optimize 3S4C WOLED stack performance without needing to worry about a 3S3C emulation mode…

We’ll know soon - you expect the 83C1 and 83A90J to have the same relative subpixel sizes as the 65G1/C1 and 65A90J and I don’t.

In particular, the 3S4C WOLED stack has ~33% reduced Red efficiency for the full stack in favor of greatly increased (by ~100%) green efficiency (for the full stack). So I’m expecting an optimized subpixel design for the new 3S4C stack to translate to a larger relative red subpixel and/or a smaller relative green subpixel.

If the ratio of red subpixel size to green subpixel size on the 83” panel is identical to the 65” panel, you were right and I was wrong. But if the green subpixel on the 83” panel is even smaller relative to the red subpixel than it is in the 65” panel, hopefully you’ll agree to throw Occam’s Razor out the window (at least as far as understanding LGD’s 2020/2021 transition plan).

And as far as the 77” panel, you are expecting the 77G1 to be using the 77” panel announced at CES while I’m expecting the 77G1 to have identical subpixels to the 77C/GX and the 77C/G2 to have identical relative subpixels to the 83C1 and 83C3 (meaning the CES 77” panel was a 2022 panel not being released for 2021 model-year production).



> I do think you're correct that the LGD higher luminance product line does represent a compromise relative to some ideal engineering state, but every complex product that ships represents compromises. Perhaps the selection/qualification of the new emitters came so late that it didn't allow for an optimized relative pixel sizing?


Good, at least one thing we are looking n agreement on. But the decision to ‘compromise’ on subpixel design was not caused by how ‘late’ the 3S4C emitters were selected/qualified but by the constraints required in order to get LG Electronic’s to buy into this 2-year transition plan (during which 2 different WOLED factories would be producing 2 different WOLED stacks for a period of ~year+)..,



> Does that justify (us) calling some or all of that 2021 product line gimp'd?
> Nah. Only the LGD and TV maker engineers, etc on the team get to say that (privately).


As already stated, you are the only one to apply he word ‘gimped’ to LGD’s decision to use the 2020 3S3C subpixel design for the first year+ production of 3S4C WOLEDs. I call it brilliant.

Knowing/suspecting that the highest-performing / only fully-3S4C-optimized / 2022 WOLED panel used in products this year will be the 83” panel used in the 83C1 and 83A90J, I’ll only use the word ‘gimped’ if we end up discovering that the 83A90J performs more closely to the 65A90J than it does to whatever 83” flagship WOLED Sony releases in 2022 and/or if we end up discovering that the 83C1 performs more closely to the 77/65C1 than it does to the 83C2 once the dust has cleared a year from now…

And by the way, I’m pretty certain LGD and the TV makers / engineers don’t use the word ‘gimped’ to describe these design decisions - ‘engineered for a successful transition’ (in the face of overwhelming challenges) would be a more appropriate description….


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Apparently the panel code can be retrieved from service menu. See last few posts in uniformity thread. It tells us if panel used MMG and country of origin. Paju is using MMG based on that info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED Screen Uniformity Discussion-Banding and Vignetting
> 
> 
> I let my TV on for 4/5 hours this afternoon, then turned it off so the automatic pixel refresher could run, and damn the line has disappeared again when I turned it on 15 minutes later.... I swear I don't get it. It has to be some kind of "electric issue/solder joint breaking at times" as some...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


And also the WOLED stack.

‘White Balance C’ (*WBC*) is the 3rd WOLED stack LGD produced, the Blue-Red/Yellow-Blue 3S3C stack they introduced in 2015 for the 2016 model year.

‘White Balance E’ (*WBE*) is the new 3S4C Deuterium-blue-based Blue-Red/Yellow/Green-Blue WOLED stack LGD calls ‘Improved Liminance Technology’ and LGE had branded ‘Evo Panel’ (which also requires new Evo FW).

We don’t know what ‘White Balance D’ is - could have been skipped entirely or could have been a Hydrogen-based 3S4C that LGD/Guangzhou started on before ditching Idemetsu Hydrogen-based blue in favor or DuPont Deuterium-based blue.

In any case, until we see evidence that a WBD WOLED stack was released into products, WBE should be considered LGD’s 4th WOLED stack.,,


----------



## tghood85

fafrd said:


> Congrats for being the one to break the news. From what I’ve seen, (after being tipped off by you or Bob O’Brian) Vincent Teoh did the best job of digging deeper, finding the interview with the CEO of UBI research and translating that Korean interview into English:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because of UBI do we understand the change LGD made in blue emitter that gets the lion’s share of the credit for the increased luminance (deuterium allows blue to be driven 20% harder than hydrogen for equivalent lifetime).
> 
> We don’t know how long LGD had been working on the switch from Idemetsu hydrogen-based blue to Dupont Deuterium-based blue (possibly motivated by the Japanese export ban against Korea) or the addition of a 3rd phosphorescent green emitter but we do know a few things about what LGD did when (all related to Guangzhou):
> 
> -Pilot production at Guangzhou began in August 2019:Mass production at LGD's Guangzhou OLED TV fab delayed to after Q1 2020 | OLED-Info
> 
> ‘On August 2019 LG Display announced today that it started producing OLED TV panels at its 8.5-Gen OLED fab in Guangzhou, China. But in October it was reported that LGD's *yields at the new fab were still low (50-60%)* and mass production did not start as planned.’
> 
> From that same 2019 article we also know that once LGD accepted that mass-production at Guangzhou would be delayed (largely because of teething problems with MMG), they decided to introduce a new WOLED stack in Guangzhou (likely a predecessor to Evo, we don’t know):
> 
> ‘But the company also decided to adopt several new technologies in this new fab - ironically mostly to improve productivity (including MMG, which seems to be the most challenging technology and the main cause of the low yields), and these hasn't been stabilized yet. [bwIn addition LGD opted to use a new OLED stack (to improve efficiency and productivity at the same time)[/b].’
> 
> So in August LGD started producing the Paju 3S3C stack at Guangzhou and attempted to bring up the new fab with a known WOLED stack and a new technology (MMG) but by October yields remained poor (50-60%) primarily because of issues with MMG and LGD realized bring-up to mass-production of Guangzhou would take much longer than planned.
> 
> So they decided to use the unexpected delay to being up the new Evo 3S4C WOLED stack they had ready and kill to birds with one stone (or rather one being-up).
> 
> So to recap, from ~August to ~October Guangzhou produced the 3S3C (‘WBC’) WOLED stack in low volumes and at low yields including the only 48” WOLED panels manufactured at the time (with MMG).
> 
> We have to speculate as to manufacturing volumes, but 5K 8.5G sheeets/month (~8% of Mass-production) is a reasonable guess and translates to 10,000 48” WOLEDs produced raw per month or 5000/month @ 50% yield.
> 
> So from August to October it’s a reasonable guess that LGD manufactured ~15,000 48” WOLEDs where were the first 48” WOLEDs available in late 2019.
> 
> What is factual is that LGD did not throw those early 48” 3S3C WOLEDs into the garbage - we now have confirmation from a 48CX owner that he has a WBC/MMG/GZ panel in his TV (which is the 3S3C stack manufactured at Guangzhou using MMG technology, almost certainly from this August to October 2019 period).
> 
> We have no visibility on whether ‘WBD’ was a first version of the 3S4C stack (possibly using the same Idemetsu blue rather than the new Deuterium-based blue from DuPont), whether any ‘WBD’ panels were ever produced, and whether any WBD panels were ever sold (nine found yet), but we do know that by beginning
> August 2020 Guangzhou was fully-ramped to mass-production of 60,000 8.5G sheets/month based on the new 3S4C ‘WBE’ WOLED stack that LGD later announced at CES’21:LG Display's Guangzhou OLED panel plant to start mass production in earnest
> 
> From October ‘19 through July ‘20 LGD was presumably producing 3S4C WOLEDs at low volumes and at low yields that may either have been an initial ‘WBD’ version that they abandoned or may have been the ‘WBE’ flavor we have now, but what happened with the ~50,000 8.5G sheets LGD manufactured in Guangzhou through this period is unimportant.
> 
> What’s more important is the status of LGDs production as of August 2020:
> 
> Guangzhou was producing 3S4C WBE WOLEDs in Guangzhou using MMG technology (primarily 3 65” panels along with 2 48” panels per 8.5G sheet using MMG, possibly also 2 77” panels along with 2 48” panels using MMG.
> 
> Paju was producing 3S3C WBC panels, primarily 55” manufactured 6-up without MMG, possibly also 77” manufactured 2-up without MMG (~25% more costly than if they were moved to Guangzhou and manufactured with MMG).
> 
> So LGD had both 3S3C WBC 55” WOLEDs and 3S4C 65” and 48” WOLEDs in production in high-volume mid-cycle in the lead-up to the Holiday Shopping Season with 2020 CX TV designs that were already in production - what to do?
> 
> LGD knew they would be facing this issue from October 2019 when they made the decision to bring up 3S4C at Guangzhou first. LGE sells ~75% of the world’s WOLED TVs, do the problem could be solved with LGE’s cooperation alone. Whether it happened as early as October 2019 or a few months later when they had their first working samples of 3S4C WBE panels,LGE agreed to design all 2020 WOLEDs so that they could support either 3S3C WBC panels or 3S4C WBE panels running in 3S3C / WBC ‘emulation mode’.
> 
> We now have confirmation of 48CX owners with both WBC/ONE/PJ panels as well as WBE/MMG/GZ panels as well as a recent WBC/MMG/PJ panel (suggesting Paju now has MMG but has not yet converted to 3S4C WBE WOLED stack),
> 
> At this point, there is no question that LGE supported LGD by designing 2020 WOLEDs as well as 2021 C-Series (and probably also A/B-Series) WOLEDs to work seamlessly with either 3S3C WBC panels out of Paju or 3S4C WBE panels out of Guangzhou (in 3S3C WBC emulation mode).
> 
> LGD’s other WOLED customers are such low volume that their cooperation in this transition plan was probably not needed.
> 
> In 2020 (including the tail of 2020 model-year production this Spring), LGD was probably able to steer only 3S3C panels out of Paju to Sony, Panasonic, and other ‘outside’ customers while directing 100% of 3S4C production out of Guangzhou to LG Electronics.
> 
> By CES 2021 this January, LGD announced their new WOLED stack and LGE announced Evo. Sony and others no-doubt knew about this new panel much earlier and it was probably presented to them as a new improved WOLED stack for 2021.
> 
> For the 2021 model-year, Sony and others have probably made a clean transition from 3S3C panels out of Paju to 3S4C panels from Guangzhou. This means producing all panel sizes including 55” in Guangzhou but it should be straightforward for LGD to switch gears and now direct only 3S4C panels out of Guangzhou to Sony and others while directing all 3S3C panels produced out of Paju to LGE (along with whatever Guangzhou production of 3S4C WOLEDs are not absorbed by other customers.
> 
> So Sony and other outside customers see a clean transition from 3S3C out of Paju for 2020 model year to 3S4C out of Guangzhou for 2021 model year. Only LGE had to manage TVs like the C1 designed to work with either a 3S3C WBC panel out of Paju or a 3S4C WBE panel out of Guangzhou operating in WBC emulation mode.
> 
> LGE can direct only 3S4C WBE panels to the lower-volume G1-Series so they can announce Evo and make it exclusive to the G1 this year.
> 
> The C1-Series contains the same ‘WBE in WBC-emulation-mode’ firmware as all of the 2020 LGE WOLEDs and only the G1 gets the special Evo firmware that allows a 3S4V WBE panel to operate in native 3S4C WBE mode (unlocking the additional 20% brightness).
> 
> Given all of the challenges they faced, including MMG-caused delays in Guangzhou ramp-up, the pandemic, and the uncertainties of timing associated with both issues, it’s a brilliant solution and my hat is off to both LGD and LGE - this would have been a huge mess without a very close relationship and close cooperation between them both.
> 
> So the plan was brilliant, is smoothly allowed a transition between two different factories producing two different WOLED stacks, but it did come at one tiny cost: the need for 3S4C WBE WOLEDs to operate in 3S3C WBC emulation mode meant that the 2021 WOLED panels based on the new 2021 3S3C WOLED stack needed to reuse the same subpixel design at all panel sizes as the 2020 3S3C WBC WOLEDs (so that they would appear identical under inspection, if nothing else).
> 
> You may call that being ‘gimped’ but I would certainly not use that term - usage of a common subpixel design between two WOLED stacks over a 2-year transition plan is a very elegant solution and as the G1-series has proven, still allow’s the lion’s share of the ‘>20%’ improvement offered by the new 3S4C WBE stack to be realized by Sony, Panasonic and others including LGE on the G1-Series.
> 
> The new 83” and 42” panels being introduced this year are the only panels that were free from this 3S3C legacy emulation issue and so were the only 2 panel sizes where LGD was free to design new subpixel sizes designed to optimize 3S4C WOLED performance.
> 
> Those optimized subpixel designs have no-doubt happened and will be introduced at all panel sizes as 2022 WOLED panels. By next year, both factories will be producing the 3S4C stack and the overlap between 2021 subpixel design and 2022 subpixel design will be managed in the standard way LGD has managed subpixel generations for years now (back to business as usual).
> 
> Since we probably won’t be seeing 42” WOLED products until 2022, it’s only the 83” WOLED panel which represents a ‘2022’
> panel product which will show up in 2021 TVs (the 83C1 and the 83A90J).
> 
> Whatever improvements we end up seeing n 2022 WOLEDs is available early in the 83C1 and 83A90J. If Sony decides to emulate 65A90J performance with the 83A90J (to avoid making the 65A90J look bad in comparison), that’s what I call ‘gimping’). And same for 83C1 emulating the other C1-Series WOLEDs.
> 
> All of the 2022 3S4C-optimized subpixel designs are no-doubt completed (since the 84” panel is now in production), were probably completed or at least understood by CES last January (since LGD presented specs for 2022 83” and 77” panels at CES - trying to find evidence of first 83” panel demonstration prior to this week at Display Week), and were no-doubt presented to key customers like Sony by late 2021 (since Sony announced the 83A90J at CES).
> 
> So my guess is that the entire line-up of 2022 WOLED panels was clear before the end of last year (or at least the 83” and 77” 2022 panels), only the 83” 2022 panel is being introduced for production in 2021, and time will tell whether Sony and/or LGE elected to ‘gimp’ performance if this year’s 83A90J and/or 83C1 performance in order to align with smaller-panel sizes and save some ‘improvement’ to deliver in 2022…
> 
> The final ‘fact’ I’ll point to is the specs LGD has published for the 2022 83” and 77” panels:
> 
> 185 cd/m2 full-field
> 550 cd/m2 @ 25% window
> 
> It’s pretty clear that the G1 does not deliver to these specs (though we’ll know more soon).
> 
> It’s highly likely we’ll see improvements in the 2022 WOLEDs that achieve these specs or at least get closer to them.
> 
> Only in hindsight and with the perspective of 2022 83” WOLED performance, will we be in a position to understand for certain whether the performance of the 83A90J and/or 83C1 was ‘gimped’ this year (and by how much)..,
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, that is precisely what LGD has done (so Occam’s razor may not be as reliable during a once-in-a-century Pandemic ).
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully my above discussion has made clear that only LG Electronics was impacted by (and needed to design for) this 2-year emulation mode and needing to design TVs to mix 3S3C WBC and 3S4C WBE panels. Sony and all other customers merely received ‘2020 Mode year’ and ‘2021 model year’ panels as they are used to doing (business as usual).
> 
> And only Sony received the 2022 83” 3S4C panel in 2021 and had to decide how they would manage the better potential performance of the 83” panel versus panel the smaller sizes. Sony’s decision to only offer the A90J at 83” and not 77” as well as to only offer the A80J at 77” and not 83” makes more sense when viewed in this light…
> 
> 
> 
> You may need to but I don’t.
> 
> We now have have evidence (from AVS members) of 48CXs sold with both WBC (3S3C) panels manufactured from Paju as well as WBE (3S4C) panels manufactured from Guangzhou, as well as evidence of 55C1s manufactured with both 3S3C and 3S4C panels. Since LGE electEd to make the ‘OLED Cell Info’ visible within the service menu, whatever sliver of uncertainty of this entire transition saga remained had now been eliminated…
> 
> 
> Except that the 77G1 is using a 2020 3S3C WBE panel (meaning the same as LGD was selling as early as early 2020 and using the 2020 3S3C subpixels) while the 83” and 77” ‘Improved Luminance Technology’ panels LGD announced and showed specs for at CES were 2022 panels based on new subpixel designs designed to optimize 3S4C WOLED stack performance without needing to worry about a 3S3C emulation mode…
> 
> We’ll know soon - you expect the 83C1 and 83A90J to have the same relative subpixel sizes as the 65G1/C1 and 65A90J and I don’t.
> 
> In particular, the 3S4C WOLED stack has ~33% reduced Red efficiency for the full stack in favor of greatly increased (by ~100%) green efficiency (for the full stack). So I’m expecting an optimized subpixel design for the new 3S4C stack to translate to a larger relative red subpixel and/or a smaller relative green subpixel.
> 
> If the ratio of red subpixel size to green subpixel size on the 83” panel is identical to the 65” panel, you were right and I was wrong. But if the green subpixel on the 83” panel is even smaller relative to the red subpixel than it is in the 65” panel, hopefully you’ll agree to throw Occam’s Razor out the window (at least as far as understanding LGD’s 2020/2021 transition plan).
> 
> And as far as the 77” panel, you are expecting the 77G1 to be using the 77” panel announced at CES while I’m expecting the 77G1 to have identical subpixels to the 77C/GX and the 77C/G2 to have identical relative subpixels to the 83C1 and 83C3 (meaning the CES 77” panel was a 2022 panel not being released for 2021 model-year production).
> 
> 
> Good, at least one thing we are looking n agreement on. But the decision to ‘compromise’ on subpixel design was not caused by how ‘late’ the 3S4C emitters were selected/qualified but by the constraints required in order to get LG Electronic’s to buy into this 2-year transition plan (during which 2 different WOLED factories would be producing 2 different WOLED stacks for a period of ~year+)..,
> 
> 
> 
> As already stated, you are the only one to apply he word ‘gimped’ to LGD’s decision to use the 2020 3S3C subpixel design for the first year+ production of 3S4C WOLEDs. I call it brilliant.
> 
> Knowing/suspecting that the highest-performing / only fully-3S4C-optimized / 2022 WOLED panel used in products this year will be the 83” panel used in the 83C1 and 83A90J, I’ll only use the word ‘gimped’ if we end up discovering that the 83A90J performs more closely to the 65A90J than it does to whatever 83” flagship WOLED Sony releases in 2022 and/or if we end up discovering that the 83C1 performs more closely to the 77/65C1 than it does to the 83C2 once the dust has cleared a year from now…
> 
> And by the way, I’m pretty certain LGD and the TV makers / engineers don’t use the word ‘gimped’ to describe these design decisions - ‘engineered for a successful transition’ (in the face of overwhelming challenges) would be a more appropriate description….


So bottom line your hunch was correct and we can expect all C and G series OLED to have 20% improvement?


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> My point was that you can't determine anything definitive by comparing totally different panel sizes. Like I said, the masks are different and so are the relative pixel sizes even when built on the exact same panel year/generation. Since we have no prior year example at 83", there is nothing to compare with and you shouldn't jump to conclusions if its sub-pixels end up looking slightly different than other 2021 panels.
> 
> As an example, this was posted several years ago in this thread. Don't have the time to find the exact post.
> 
> View attachment 3135959


You are my hero! I wanted to refer to this data but didn’t have the heart to slog through an exhaustive search through the thread for it,

You are absolutely correct that there are small differences in subpixel design/ratio between panel sizes (but also, remember that these ‘measurements’ / estimates are very crude with huge error bars).

And also, assignment of these measurements to specific model years is sketchy at best and wrong at worst. LGE mixes and matches different panel generations within a single model year and managed the transitions on different schedules for different panel sizes, so only the sequence in terms of years at a specific panel size is reliable.

But here are the key takeaways I get from this data:

2016: LGD had a red subpixel which was too weak/small. They suffered from a burn-in vulnerability which was most pronounced on red. The Rtings C6 subpixel image makes it appear that red is ~50% of white.

They increased the relative red subpixel size to compensate and this 55” 2016/2017 data indicates 6.2%/7.9% or a relative Red/White size of 78.5% (an increase of ~57%).

In 2018, the 55” data indicates a Red/White ratio of 8.4%/11.1% = 75.7% (a slight decrease of ~4% which could be noise-level).

If we look at the 65” data, 2016/17 shows 6.2%/10% = 62%, possibly a reflection a 2016 panel (when Rtings image makes it look like red was ~50% White) while 2018 shows an increase to 8.2%/11.1% = 73.9%, very close to 55” levels.

We could really use a similar measure of the 2020/2021 subpixels:










But my ‘by eyeball’ estimate is that red is now exceedingly close to if not even slightly larger that white (so ~100%).

So 3S3C Red = ~50% of white was too small / weak.

3S3C Red = ~75% of white seems to have been about right (red burn-in concerns faded starting in 2018).

What is interesting is that the 3S4C stack has weakened Red Efficiency within the WOLED stack by ~33%, so a 75%-sized red subpixel at ~67% relative strength would be the same as a 50%-sized red subpixel at 100% strength (too weak / likely to result in a resurgence of Red burn-in).

But the 2020/2021 Red Subpixel is larger at ~100% of white and a ~67% strength red subpixel at ~100% size translates to a ~67%-sized red subpixel at 100% strength, closer to the ‘safe-zone’ of 75-78% than the ‘too small zone’ of 50%…

So finally seeing this data, I’m now thinking that LGD had at least their first-generation of a 3S4C stack defined by as early as 2019 (possibly/likely based on Idemetsu Hydrogen-based blue rather than DuPont Deuterium-based Blue), that they understood what subpixel modifications would be needed to reinforce the red subpixel with that new Red-weakened 3S4C stack, and that they implemented that ‘even stronger Ref’ subpixel design 2020 model-year production on order to pave the way for a transition to the 3S4C stack.

I was concerned that LGD needed to enlarge the red subpixel on 3S4C WOLEDs or they risked repeating the burn-in scare of 2016, but I am no longer concerned and now believe they have been planning for a transition to a 3S4C WOLED stack with weakened Ted goe several years.

In fact, we’ve all been scratching our heads (and complaining) about why WOLED peak brightness levels have been decreasing year-over-year after peaking in 2018 and I think this gives us the answer: LGD has been preparing for the transition from 3S3C to a 3S4C WOLED stack with strengthened Green and weakened Red since 2019 and has been modifying subpixel design to prepare for that transition for the last several years (2019 and possibly also 2020).

A subpixel design that is going to support 2 WOLED stacks needs to be sized to support the weakest color of each stack.

The 3S3C stack delivers green that is ~50% the strength of the green in the 3S4C stack, so a common subpixel design needs to size green large-enough to support 3S3C green,

The 3S4C stack delivers red that is ~67% the strength of the red in the 3S3C stack, so a common subpixel design needs to size red large-enough to support 3S4C red.

Except for the 83” panels, these are the 3S3C-3S4C common subpixel designs we’re getting this year.

Sib-pixels designed to optimize 3S4C performance will increase Red subpixel size and will decrease green subpixel size and should deliver some further increase in peak luminance as a result.

I’m increasingly-impressed with LGD’s capability for multi-year long-range planning… (who knows what they are teeing up for us for 2025 when they’ve indicated their 10.5G plant will begin ramping into production…).


----------



## fafrd

tghood85 said:


> So bottom line your hunch was correct and we can expect all C and G series OLED to have 20% improvement?


I believe that’s the longest post I’ve ever contributed to AVS, so I don’t blame you for not having the patience to slog through all the details, but no, that is not my hunch.

I believe the G1 WOLEDs are designed to deliver the best performance they can from a green subpixel designed for the older 3S3C stack and a red subpixel designed for the newer 3S4C stack. 20% improvement over GX has been claimed and appears to be delivered by the G1.

And the C1 has been designed to deliver similar performance from either older 3S3C panel or newer 3S4C panel, so I’ll be surprised if we see a 20% improvement on the C1.

As far as 2022, today’s analysis has convinced me that LGD has opened up a path for themselves to match and even exceed 2018’s brightest-ever WOLED performance.

Whether we get there in a single step in 2022 or LGD gets there over several years, we should now be on a pathway to get at least back to 2019 performance and possibly as much as 20% beyond that.

LGD has already published specs of 185 cd/m2 full-field and 550 cd/m2 @ 25% for their 83” and 77” 2022 panels, so that sets a marker for the kind of experience we can expect from new subpixel designs in 2022. Whether ‘that’s all there is’ or LGD/LGE has further tricks up their sleeve to push 10% performance up to 860 cd/m2 and/or 3% performance up over 1000 cd/m2 only time will tell…

Here, again, is the ABL LGD promised to deliver in 2017 right after introduction of the 3S3C stack:











This ABL was largely achieved by the 2018 WOLEDs (at least in vivid mode).

185 cd/m2 is a 42% improvement over 130 cd/m2.

550 cd/m2 is a 22% improvement over 450 cd/m2.

If LGD can extend that 20% improvement from 25% to 10% and hopefully also 3%, we should finally see WOLEDs delivering over 1000 cd/m2 (at least for small specular highlights in HDR).

Whether we get all the way there in 2022 or it takes two steps until 2023 is anyone’s guess…


----------



## Wizziwig

For anyone interested. First review of the 32" JOLED printed OLED monitor:









LG UltraFine 32EP950 OLED Pro - TFTCentral


An exclusive first look at the new OLED monitor from LG. Designed for professional users, media and HDR content creators. A 31.5" 4K OLED panel with a wide range of picture and colour modes and hardware calibration.




www.tftcentral.co.uk


----------



## tghood85

fafrd said:


> I believe that’s the longest post I’ve ever contributed to AVS, so I don’t blame you for not having the patience to slog through all the details, but no, that is not my hunch.
> 
> I believe the G1 WOLEDs are designed to deliver the best performance they can from a green subpixel designed for the older 3S3C stack and a red subpixel designed for the newer 3S4C stack. 20% improvement over GX has been claimed and appears to be delivered by the G1.
> 
> And the C1 has been designed to deliver similar performance from either older 3S3C panel or newer 3S4C panel, so I’ll be surprised if we see a 20% improvement on the C1.
> 
> As far as 2022, today’s analysis has convinced me that LGD has opened up a path for themselves to match and even exceed 2018’s brightest-ever WOLED performance.
> 
> Whether we get there in a single step in 2022 or LGD gets there over several years, we should now be on a pathway to get at least back to 2019 performance and possibly as much as 20% beyond that.
> 
> LGD has already published specs of 185 cd/m2 full-field and 550 cd/m2 @ 25% for their 83” and 77” 2022 panels, so that sets a marker for the kind of experience we can expect from new subpixel designs in 2022. Whether ‘that’s all there is’ or LGD/LGE has further tricks up their sleeve to push 10% performance up to 860 cd/m2 and/or 3% performance up over 1000 cd/m2 only time will tell…
> 
> Here, again, is the ABL LGD promised to deliver in 2017 right after introduction of the 3S3C stack:
> 
> View attachment 3136019
> 
> 
> 
> This ABL was largely achieved by the 2018 WOLEDs (at least in vivid mode).
> 
> 185 cd/m2 is a 42% improvement over 130 cd/m2.
> 
> 550 cd/m2 is a 22% improvement over 450 cd/m2.
> 
> If LGD can extend that 20% improvement from 25% to 10% and hopefully also 3%, we should finally see WOLEDs delivering over 1000 cd/m2 (at least for small specular highlights in HDR).
> 
> Whether we get all the way there in 2022 or it takes two steps until 2023 is anyone’s guess…


Haha I read the entire thing but there’s a lot going on there. Any chance they are referring to the Sony A90J 83? The part I can’t figure out is where you are getting the changes in sizes of the sub-pixels? The math seems to add up but can’t tell where the assumptions of the size changes are coming from.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> For anyone interested. First review of the 32" JOLED printed OLED monitor:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG UltraFine 32EP950 OLED Pro - TFTCentral
> 
> 
> An exclusive first look at the new OLED monitor from LG. Designed for professional users, media and HDR content creators. A 31.5" 4K OLED panel with a wide range of picture and colour modes and hardware calibration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tftcentral.co.uk


That’s a lot to read through - can you summarize the highlights and lowlights?

From my quick perusal and review of Conclusions, uniformity seems quite good and at over 250 cd/m2 SDR and ~580 cd/m2 HDR, brightness seems close to WOLED levels - were these both full-field measurements?

Of course, lifetime is the other big question mark and we’ll need to wait a couple years ;or for Rtings to start a new burn-in test) to get any insight in that…


----------



## fafrd

tghood85 said:


> Haha I read the entire thing but there’s a lot going on there. Any chance they are referring to the Sony A90J 83? The part I can’t figure out is where you are getting the changes in sizes of the sub-pixels? *The math seems to add up but can’t tell where the assumptions of the size changes are coming from.*


If you are referring to my estimates of ~33% degradation of 3S4C red versus 3S3C red as well as ~100% increase of 3S4C green versus 3S3C green, I just assumed a 50/50 Red/Yellow split for 3S3C and a 33%/33%/33% Red/Yellow/Green split for 3S4C and used UDC’s published phosphorescent OLED emitter efficiency numbers of 24%/72%/72% for Red / Yellow / Green (and also assuming Yellow amounts to 50% (36%) going to Red and 50% (36%) going to green)…


----------



## Wizziwig

Don't confuse what LG claims are the specs vs. what reality says are the specs of their panels. Nobody in the real world is going to get LG's exact numbers because we don't know how they are measuring them - what equipment, what color temperature, how-long the pattern stays onscreen, was the meter profiled, firmware version, panel cooling/temperature, etc. Then there is obvious panel variance in the real world vs. the single number quoted by LG. This is why no two reviewers or calibrators ever come up with the same numbers. I only care what trusted calibrators measure on retail units averaged over MANY samples using a consistent measuring method.

What some are attributing to "progress" on LG's part could just be measurement noise from the sources I listed. We have yet to see a consistent large improvement vs. every older panel they shipped in the past. I don't count single year blips that are often regressed the very next year.

Here is what LG was claiming a couple years ago. Nobody has measured anything like this but as I said, we don't know what they are actually measuring in any of the slides posted in this thread. Here is another:


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> That’s a lot to read through - can you summarize the highlights and lowlights?


Now you know how we feel reading your wall-of-text posts. 
You can always wait for HDTVtest's TLDR video version. He will probably post his review of this monitor soon.

Edit: To save you the time:

HDR Peak: 582 cd/m2
HDR Full Field: 340 cd/m2

ABL doesn't activate in HDR until 50% window size.

Unfortunately, they only tested white uniformity (excellent) and nothing was mentioned about near-black.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Don't confuse what LG claims are the specs vs. what reality says are the specs of their panels. Nobody in the real world is going to get LG's exact numbers because we don't know how they are measuring them - what equipment, what color temperature, how-long the pattern stays onscreen, was the meter profiled, firmware version, panel cooling/temperature, etc. Then there is obvious panel variance in the real world vs. the single number quoted by LG. This is why no two reviewers or calibrators ever come up with the same numbers. I only care what trusted calibrators measure on retail units averaged over MANY samples using a consistent measuring method.
> 
> What some are attributing to "progress" on LG's part could just be measurement noise from the sources I listed. We have yet to see a consistent large improvement vs. every older panel they shipped in the past. I don't count single year blips that are often regressed the very next year (2020 vs 2019 for example).


Agreed (and understood). The specs we see from LGD are likely related to what they show to their customers.

In the end, it’ll be LGE, Sony, Panasonic, etc… that characterize each generation of LGD’s WOLED technology and decide what performance limits they are comfortable with…

Of course, the big unknown in lifetime. In 2016 (just after launch of the 3S3C WOLED stack and the addition of a second blue layer), LGD announced that their WOLEDs had achieved a lifetime of ‘100,000 hours’:'Thorough inspection brings perfection to LG's OLED TV'

Whatever test spec that was based on, hopefully LGD has stuck to that as a reference as they claim improvements in efficiency and peak brightness…

LGE and Sony fin’t likely perform their own work independent lifetime testing before launching mew TVs based on LG’s WOLEDs, so they probably rely on LGD’s lifetime data / specs and derate it by whatever amount they are comfortable with…



> Here is what LG was claiming a couple years ago. Nobody has measured anything like this but as I said, we don't know what they are actually measuring in any of the slides posted in this thread. Here is another:
> 
> View attachment 3136060


And here is the corresponding slide that was presented as part of that same Roadmap presentation:












This was presented in 2016 after the introduction of the 3S2C stack and before the introduction of the 3S3C stack (which doesn’t even appear on this roadmap since the 3S3C stack was delivered expected to include a high-efficiency blue emitter (TADF or phosphorescent).

So the ‘2018’ entry on the roadmap slide you presented hadn’t even been introduced yet and was probably intended to be some intermediate step between the 3S3C Blue-Yellow-Blue stack that had already been introduced in 2015 and the 3S3C Blue-Red/Green-Blue stack LGD aspired to but never introduced (they introduced the 2016 3S3C Blue-Red/Yellow-Blue stack we’ve all come to know and love instead, which delivered specs close to the ‘2018’ entry in your slide but 2 years earlier (accelerated by the emergence of HDR/UHD).

The only point I am trying to make is that the specifications shown in any roadmap slide need to be taken as aspirational, not announced.

The 3S2C Blue-Yellow-Blue specs were first/generation delivered specs in the first 1080p and 4K WOLEDs before 2015.

The 3S3C Blue-Yellow-Blue specs were what LGD was working in and thought they would introduce next, but it was dropped in favor or the 3S3C Blue-Red/Yellow-Blue stack which has been their mainstay since 2016 (and again, did not even appear on these early WOLED roadmap slides).

The ABL roadmap LGD presented in 2017 does the best job documenting their view of what they believed they delivered with first-generation Blue-Red/Yellow-Blue 3S3C WOLEDs in 2016 along with how they believed they had further relaxed ABL for HDR in 2017:









As I already indicated, this ‘2017’ ABL spec was not (largely) achieved in products until 2018 by LGE, required some further improvements in subpixel full factor, and is likely reflective of Vivid mode rather than D65.

But still, it provides a reference of what LGD was trying to deliver and was largely reflected in 2018 LGE WOLED TVs.

So now we come to 2021 and the new 3S4C ‘Evo’ panel (WBE).

We know LGD believes the new WOLED stack achieved improved peak brightness by at least 20%.

We know LGD believes the new 3S4C stack can deliver 185 cd/m2 full-field which is 142% of 2016 3S3C levels of 130 cd/m2 full field, as well as 550 cd/m2 @ 25% which is 22% above 2016 levels of 450 cd/m2 @ 25%.

And because of legacy and marketing constraints (the possibility of gimping the 83A90J in order to make the 65A90J look better and/or the possibility of gimping the 77/83C1 in order to make the 65C/G1 look better), there is a good chance we won’t know clearly until a year from now what LGD’s new 3S4C Improved Luminance Technology if fully capable of…


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Now you know how we feel reading your wall-of-text posts.


Yes, today was bad. Probably the longest posts I’ve ever contributed to AVS (though there were a lot of details to spell out correctly). Often, writing these long posts help me to clarify my own thinking, though I suppose I should start thinking about adding a Cliff-Notes Version / Recap at the beginning …



> You can always wait for HDTVtest's TLDR video version. He will probably post his review of this monitor soon.


Yeah - saw Vincent’s unboxing and am eagerly awaiting his review…



> Edit: To save you the time:
> 
> HDR Peak: 582 cd/m2
> HDR Full Field: 340 cd/m2
> 
> ABL doesn't activate in HDR until 50% window size.


Appreciate the effort .

Pretty impressive specs (especially for Gen-2).



> Unfortunately, they only tested white uniformity (excellent) and *nothing was mentioned about near-black.*


So that’s one potential bugaboo to be concerned about (especially after the abysmal
review of last year’s ASUS 27” monitor).

Will be interested to see Vincent’s verdict…


----------



## 59LIHP

The Display Show Episode 11 – Jason Hartlove of Nanosys







> This month’s episode features special guest Jason Hartlove, President and CEO of Nanosys. Nanosys is far and away the leading producer of quantum dots for display applications. Jason and Brian go way back, long before he took over the reins at Nanosys. The two talk about developing the world’s first optical mouse, discussed life in Korea, and focus on the significant role that quantum dots play in the display industry today.
> You’ll also hear about how Nanosys became the industry’s QD leader, there’s news of a major and recent acquisition by Nanosys, and Jason describes his vision of what to expect for quantum dot applications in the future.
> 
> Contents
> 00:00:00 – Intro & Credits
> 00:01:02 – Developing the Optical Mouse
> 00:07:25 – Why Apple for the first Optical Mouse
> 00:10:20 – CMOS Image Sensors & the first camera phones
> 00:14:48 – Life in Korea
> 00:20:54 – 10 Year Anniversary of Quantum Dots at DisplayWeek
> 00:21:51 – What led Nanosys to focus on Quantum Dots for displays?
> 00:26:41 – Maintaining leadership in a large market
> 00:28:52 – Commercializing Quantum Dots & the very first component
> 00:30:30 – Early QDEF development
> 00:32:55 – Air Stable Quantum Dots & the xQDEF™ Diffuser Plate
> 00:34:56 – The Berkeley Exponent of Development Rule & high volume manufacturing
> 00:35:42 – Why Manufacture Quantum Dots here in Silicon Valley?
> 00:40:18 – When did you realize that Quantum Dots were going mainstream?
> 00:43:20 – Biggest challenge in commercializing Quantum Dots
> 00:45:50 – Biggest challenges facing Quantum Dots going forward
> 00:47:27 – Intro to QD-OLED
> 00:52:50 – Nanosys Acquisition of glō
> 00:53:46 – The Future of Displays is Electroluminescent
> 00:55:00 – MicroLED & Nanosys’s future roadmap
> 01:00:00 – RGB MicroLED vs QDCC MicroLED
> 01:01:13 – Future of Quantum Dots
> 01:03:00 – Biggest challenge for the display industry
> 01:06:25 – Displays making the world a better place
> 01:08:25 – Best display demo
> 01:12:11 – Can small companies change the world?
> 01:13:10 – Outro & Credits


----------



## 59LIHP

Prices Likely to Continue on an Uptrend
LG Display: TV Panel Prices Hit Six-year High








LG Display: TV Panel Prices Hit Six-year High


The author is an analyst of KB Securities. He can be reached at [email protected] -- Ed. 32’’/55’’ LCD TV panel prices hit six-year high— According to market research firm WitsView (May 20), 2H May LCD panel prices for TVs and PCs rose 3-7% MoM (up 2-5% compared to 1H May), beating market expectati




www.businesskorea.co.kr


----------



## 59LIHP

Mini LED TV Shipment for 2021 Projected to Reach Three Million Units, Says TrendForce








Press Center - Mini LED Backlight TV Shipment for 2021 Projected to Reach Three Million Units, Says TrendForce | TrendForce - Market research, price trend of DRAM, NAND Flash, LEDs, TFT-LCD and green energy, PV


For the past two years, brands such as Samsung, LG, TCL, and Xiaomi have successively released their own Mini LED backlight TVs, which are expected to reach a yearly shipment of about 2.6-3 million units in 2021 because Korean brands have successfully trailblazed the high-end market, and because...




www.trendforce.com


----------



## stl8k

59LIHP said:


> Prices Likely to Continue on an Uptrend
> LG Display: TV Panel Prices Hit Six-year High
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG Display: TV Panel Prices Hit Six-year High
> 
> 
> The author is an analyst of KB Securities. He can be reached at [email protected] -- Ed. 32’’/55’’ LCD TV panel prices hit six-year high— According to market research firm WitsView (May 20), 2H May LCD panel prices for TVs and PCs rose 3-7% MoM (up 2-5% compared to 1H May), beating market expectati
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businesskorea.co.kr


Why the heck did they not describe who "SEC" is?

On a related topic of OLED demand, Silicon Works is LGD's primary TCON, power, and related panel electronics parts (sometimes referred to as display driver ICs (DDICs)) supplier and optimism from them is likely a leading indicator of strong panel demand.









Silicon Works: Structural Improvement in Earnings


The authors are analysts of Shinhan Investment Corp. They can be reached at [email protected] and [email protected], respectively. -- Ed. 1Q21 earnings surprise: Operating profit of KRW59.2bnSilicon Works posted operating profit of KRW59.2bn (+139.8% QoQ, +406.1% YoY) on sales of KRW405.6bn (+11.7




www.businesskorea.co.kr


----------



## stl8k

59LIHP said:


> The Display Show Episode 11 – Jason Hartlove of Nanosys


Jason is a great tech CEO and technical communicator/storyteller.


----------



## 59LIHP

SID/DSCC Business Conference Q&A Interview with Jason Hartlove, CEO of Nanosys.


----------



## Wizziwig

BOE shows off display expertise in five innovative fields at SID Display Week 2021


/PRNewswire/ -- Display Week 2021, a world-renowned display event hosted by the Society for Information Display (SID), opened on May 17. A myriad of...




www.prnewswire.com





"BOE has launched the active-matrix quantum dot light-emitting diode (AMQLED) display, which is equipped with disruptive next-generation display technology. Different from photoluminescent quantum dot-based backlight unit (QD-BLU), BOE's AMQLED displays do not require a backlight; instead, quantum dots can emit light themselves when stimulated by an electric current. This technology marks another milestone the display maker has achieved in the field of electroluminescent quantum dots. BOE's 55-inch 4K AMQLED display, features a resolution of 3840×2160, over 90% BT.2020 color gamut coverage and a million-level contrast ratio. Thanks to these strengths, the display has enormous potential and promising prospects in the field of large-sized displays. "

Still years away from mass production but great progress.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> BOE shows off display expertise in five innovative fields at SID Display Week 2021
> 
> 
> /PRNewswire/ -- Display Week 2021, a world-renowned display event hosted by the Society for Information Display (SID), opened on May 17. A myriad of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.prnewswire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "BOE has launched the active-matrix quantum dot light-emitting diode (AMQLED) display, which is equipped with disruptive next-generation display technology. Different from photoluminescent quantum dot-based backlight unit (QD-BLU), BOE's AMQLED displays do not require a backlight; instead, quantum dots can emit light themselves when stimulated by an electric current. This technology marks another milestone the display maker has achieved in the field of electroluminescent quantum dots. BOE's 55-inch 4K AMQLED display, features a resolution of 3840×2160, over 90% BT.2020 color gamut coverage and a million-level contrast ratio. Thanks to these strengths, the display has enormous potential and promising prospects in the field of large-sized displays. "
> 
> Still years away from mass production but great progress.


Talk about an embarrassment of riches!

Between WOLED, QD-BOLED, QNED, printed RGB-OLED, uLED and now EL-QLED, the next decade promises to be an large-screen emissive display enthusiast’s Wet Dream .

Any word on peak brightness or lifetime yet on BOE’s EL-QLED?


----------



## Wizziwig

Problem is they are all likely based on current-driven TFT backplanes. Any emissive display based on such a design will have the same old uniformity issues. That is closer to my worst nightmare than any dream. We need to pray for some breakthrough in cost reduction, speed, and accuracy of the various mura correction/compensation techniques. The near-black noise and quantization issues will likely also persist.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Problem is they are all likely based on current-driven TFT backplanes. Any emissive display based on such a design will have the same old uniformity issues. That is closer to my worst nightmare than any dream. We need to pray for some breakthrough in cost reduction, speed, and accuracy of the various mura correction/compensation techniques. The near-black noise and quantization issues will likely also persist.


I’m probably just being naive, but I’m getting the sense that Guangzhou is putting out more uniform WOLED panels.

For sure, there are plenty of poor-uniformity panels we’ve seen here on AVS, but it’s a tiny, tiny % of the 2M+ LG has already sold and many/most of those were not properly broken-in before inspecting. And some of the panels we’ve seen are the most uniform WOLEDa we’ve ever seen (Unicorns).

Tint and near-white uniformity is another subject, but I feel like near-black uniformity is now largely under control and secondary to other PQ artifacts like near-black overshoot / Flashing and near-black linearity / avoiding Black Crush.

Whether the new technologies will be able to hit the ground running at the level LGD WOLED has achieved or they will need to slug through the same multi-year teething pains is another question…


----------



## Davenlr

I really could not find a forum that matches this question, so I will ask here.

I am not sure what the minumum size of a pixel needs to be for a 65" or larger TV at 4K or 8K resolution, but I was curious on the development of microLED if they could perhaps do something like this:
Have six separate panels, two for each color R, G, and B. And stack them. These would provide the top half and bottom half of each screen, for each color. Then connect fiber optic strands between those panels and the actual display surface. Since fiber optic fibers are smaller than actual LEDs, they could be packed closer together to allow the larger LEDs light to be transmitted to the surface in a smaller size. While the TV itself would be rather thick and heavy, the display would be bright with no chance of burn in. 
Would something like that be possible?


----------



## fafrd

A few small items of note: LGD’s Q121 Financial Report Redux_05/23/21

‘Despite the quality evaluation for TV brand QD-OLED samples being extremely high, SDC has been slow to make investment decisions due to poor visibility on profitability from high technological and cost hurdles. *If SDC were to abandon additional investment and shift to preparations for QNED mass production in 2023–2024, it could increase the likelihood of LG Display supplying OLED panels to Samsung’s VD division*. If that were to happen:


Additional capacity investment at the Guangzhou plant (+30,000–60,000 units).
*Converting P7/P8 to OLED panel production.*
Resumption of G10.5 investment may look more realistic.’


‘


----------



## stl8k

Davenlr said:


> I really could not find a forum that matches this question, so I will ask here.
> 
> I am not sure what the minumum size of a pixel needs to be for a 65" or larger TV at 4K or 8K resolution, but I was curious on the development of microLED if they could perhaps do something like this:
> Have six separate panels, two for each color R, G, and B. And stack them. These would provide the top half and bottom half of each screen, for each color. Then connect fiber optic strands between those panels and the actual display surface. Since fiber optic fibers are smaller than actual LEDs, they could be packed closer together to allow the larger LEDs light to be transmitted to the surface in a smaller size. While the TV itself would be rather thick and heavy, the display would be bright with no chance of burn in.
> Would something like that be possible?





fafrd said:


> Congrats for being the one to break the news. From what I’ve seen, (after being tipped off by you or Bob O’Brian) Vincent Teoh did the best job of digging deeper, finding the interview with the CEO of UBI research and translating that Korean interview into English:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because of UBI do we understand the change LGD made in blue emitter that gets the lion’s share of the credit for the increased luminance (deuterium allows blue to be driven 20% harder than hydrogen for equivalent lifetime).
> 
> We don’t know how long LGD had been working on the switch from Idemetsu hydrogen-based blue to Dupont Deuterium-based blue (possibly motivated by the Japanese export ban against Korea) or the addition of a 3rd phosphorescent green emitter but we do know a few things about what LGD did when (all related to Guangzhou):
> 
> -Pilot production at Guangzhou began in August 2019:Mass production at LGD's Guangzhou OLED TV fab delayed to after Q1 2020 | OLED-Info
> 
> ‘On August 2019 LG Display announced today that it started producing OLED TV panels at its 8.5-Gen OLED fab in Guangzhou, China. But in October it was reported that LGD's *yields at the new fab were still low (50-60%)* and mass production did not start as planned.’
> 
> From that same 2019 article we also know that once LGD accepted that mass-production at Guangzhou would be delayed (largely because of teething problems with MMG), they decided to introduce a new WOLED stack in Guangzhou (likely a predecessor to Evo, we don’t know):
> 
> ‘But the company also decided to adopt several new technologies in this new fab - ironically mostly to improve productivity (including MMG, which seems to be the most challenging technology and the main cause of the low yields), and these hasn't been stabilized yet. [bwIn addition LGD opted to use a new OLED stack (to improve efficiency and productivity at the same time)[/b].’
> 
> So in August LGD started producing the Paju 3S3C stack at Guangzhou and attempted to bring up the new fab with a known WOLED stack and a new technology (MMG) but by October yields remained poor (50-60%) primarily because of issues with MMG and LGD realized bring-up to mass-production of Guangzhou would take much longer than planned.
> 
> So they decided to use the unexpected delay to being up the new Evo 3S4C WOLED stack they had ready and kill to birds with one stone (or rather one being-up).
> 
> So to recap, from ~August to ~October Guangzhou produced the 3S3C (‘WBC’) WOLED stack in low volumes and at low yields including the only 48” WOLED panels manufactured at the time (with MMG).
> 
> We have to speculate as to manufacturing volumes, but 5K 8.5G sheeets/month (~8% of Mass-production) is a reasonable guess and translates to 10,000 48” WOLEDs produced raw per month or 5000/month @ 50% yield.
> 
> So from August to October it’s a reasonable guess that LGD manufactured ~15,000 48” WOLEDs where were the first 48” WOLEDs available in late 2019.
> 
> What is factual is that LGD did not throw those early 48” 3S3C WOLEDs into the garbage - we now have confirmation from a 48CX owner that he has a WBC/MMG/GZ panel in his TV (which is the 3S3C stack manufactured at Guangzhou using MMG technology, almost certainly from this August to October 2019 period).
> 
> We have no visibility on whether ‘WBD’ was a first version of the 3S4C stack (possibly using the same Idemetsu blue rather than the new Deuterium-based blue from DuPont), whether any ‘WBD’ panels were ever produced, and whether any WBD panels were ever sold (nine found yet), but we do know that by beginning
> August 2020 Guangzhou was fully-ramped to mass-production of 60,000 8.5G sheets/month based on the new 3S4C ‘WBE’ WOLED stack that LGD later announced at CES’21:LG Display's Guangzhou OLED panel plant to start mass production in earnest
> 
> From October ‘19 through July ‘20 LGD was presumably producing 3S4C WOLEDs at low volumes and at low yields that may either have been an initial ‘WBD’ version that they abandoned or may have been the ‘WBE’ flavor we have now, but what happened with the ~50,000 8.5G sheets LGD manufactured in Guangzhou through this period is unimportant.
> 
> What’s more important is the status of LGDs production as of August 2020:
> 
> Guangzhou was producing 3S4C WBE WOLEDs in Guangzhou using MMG technology (primarily 3 65” panels along with 2 48” panels per 8.5G sheet using MMG, possibly also 2 77” panels along with 2 48” panels using MMG.
> 
> Paju was producing 3S3C WBC panels, primarily 55” manufactured 6-up without MMG, possibly also 77” manufactured 2-up without MMG (~25% more costly than if they were moved to Guangzhou and manufactured with MMG).
> 
> So LGD had both 3S3C WBC 55” WOLEDs and 3S4C 65” and 48” WOLEDs in production in high-volume mid-cycle in the lead-up to the Holiday Shopping Season with 2020 CX TV designs that were already in production - what to do?
> 
> LGD knew they would be facing this issue from October 2019 when they made the decision to bring up 3S4C at Guangzhou first. LGE sells ~75% of the world’s WOLED TVs, do the problem could be solved with LGE’s cooperation alone. Whether it happened as early as October 2019 or a few months later when they had their first working samples of 3S4C WBE panels,LGE agreed to design all 2020 WOLEDs so that they could support either 3S3C WBC panels or 3S4C WBE panels running in 3S3C / WBC ‘emulation mode’.
> 
> We now have confirmation of 48CX owners with both WBC/ONE/PJ panels as well as WBE/MMG/GZ panels as well as a recent WBC/MMG/PJ panel (suggesting Paju now has MMG but has not yet converted to 3S4C WBE WOLED stack),
> 
> At this point, there is no question that LGE supported LGD by designing 2020 WOLEDs as well as 2021 C-Series (and probably also A/B-Series) WOLEDs to work seamlessly with either 3S3C WBC panels out of Paju or 3S4C WBE panels out of Guangzhou (in 3S3C WBC emulation mode).
> 
> LGD’s other WOLED customers are such low volume that their cooperation in this transition plan was probably not needed.
> 
> In 2020 (including the tail of 2020 model-year production this Spring), LGD was probably able to steer only 3S3C panels out of Paju to Sony, Panasonic, and other ‘outside’ customers while directing 100% of 3S4C production out of Guangzhou to LG Electronics.
> 
> By CES 2021 this January, LGD announced their new WOLED stack and LGE announced Evo. Sony and others no-doubt knew about this new panel much earlier and it was probably presented to them as a new improved WOLED stack for 2021.
> 
> For the 2021 model-year, Sony and others have probably made a clean transition from 3S3C panels out of Paju to 3S4C panels from Guangzhou. This means producing all panel sizes including 55” in Guangzhou but it should be straightforward for LGD to switch gears and now direct only 3S4C panels out of Guangzhou to Sony and others while directing all 3S3C panels produced out of Paju to LGE (along with whatever Guangzhou production of 3S4C WOLEDs are not absorbed by other customers.
> 
> So Sony and other outside customers see a clean transition from 3S3C out of Paju for 2020 model year to 3S4C out of Guangzhou for 2021 model year. Only LGE had to manage TVs like the C1 designed to work with either a 3S3C WBC panel out of Paju or a 3S4C WBE panel out of Guangzhou operating in WBC emulation mode.
> 
> LGE can direct only 3S4C WBE panels to the lower-volume G1-Series so they can announce Evo and make it exclusive to the G1 this year.
> 
> The C1-Series contains the same ‘WBE in WBC-emulation-mode’ firmware as all of the 2020 LGE WOLEDs and only the G1 gets the special Evo firmware that allows a 3S4V WBE panel to operate in native 3S4C WBE mode (unlocking the additional 20% brightness).
> 
> Given all of the challenges they faced, including MMG-caused delays in Guangzhou ramp-up, the pandemic, and the uncertainties of timing associated with both issues, it’s a brilliant solution and my hat is off to both LGD and LGE - this would have been a huge mess without a very close relationship and close cooperation between them both.
> 
> So the plan was brilliant, is smoothly allowed a transition between two different factories producing two different WOLED stacks, but it did come at one tiny cost: the need for 3S4C WBE WOLEDs to operate in 3S3C WBC emulation mode meant that the 2021 WOLED panels based on the new 2021 3S3C WOLED stack needed to reuse the same subpixel design at all panel sizes as the 2020 3S3C WBC WOLEDs (so that they would appear identical under inspection, if nothing else).
> 
> You may call that being ‘gimped’ but I would certainly not use that term - usage of a common subpixel design between two WOLED stacks over a 2-year transition plan is a very elegant solution and as the G1-series has proven, still allow’s the lion’s share of the ‘>20%’ improvement offered by the new 3S4C WBE stack to be realized by Sony, Panasonic and others including LGE on the G1-Series.
> 
> The new 83” and 42” panels being introduced this year are the only panels that were free from this 3S3C legacy emulation issue and so were the only 2 panel sizes where LGD was free to design new subpixel sizes designed to optimize 3S4C WOLED performance.
> 
> Those optimized subpixel designs have no-doubt happened and will be introduced at all panel sizes as 2022 WOLED panels. By next year, both factories will be producing the 3S4C stack and the overlap between 2021 subpixel design and 2022 subpixel design will be managed in the standard way LGD has managed subpixel generations for years now (back to business as usual).
> 
> Since we probably won’t be seeing 42” WOLED products until 2022, it’s only the 83” WOLED panel which represents a ‘2022’
> panel product which will show up in 2021 TVs (the 83C1 and the 83A90J).
> 
> Whatever improvements we end up seeing n 2022 WOLEDs is available early in the 83C1 and 83A90J. If Sony decides to emulate 65A90J performance with the 83A90J (to avoid making the 65A90J look bad in comparison), that’s what I call ‘gimping’). And same for 83C1 emulating the other C1-Series WOLEDs.
> 
> All of the 2022 3S4C-optimized subpixel designs are no-doubt completed (since the 84” panel is now in production), were probably completed or at least understood by CES last January (since LGD presented specs for 2022 83” and 77” panels at CES - trying to find evidence of first 83” panel demonstration prior to this week at Display Week), and were no-doubt presented to key customers like Sony by late 2021 (since Sony announced the 83A90J at CES).
> 
> So my guess is that the entire line-up of 2022 WOLED panels was clear before the end of last year (or at least the 83” and 77” 2022 panels), only the 83” 2022 panel is being introduced for production in 2021, and time will tell whether Sony and/or LGE elected to ‘gimp’ performance if this year’s 83A90J and/or 83C1 performance in order to align with smaller-panel sizes and save some ‘improvement’ to deliver in 2022…
> 
> The final ‘fact’ I’ll point to is the specs LGD has published for the 2022 83” and 77” panels:
> 
> 185 cd/m2 full-field
> 550 cd/m2 @ 25% window
> 
> It’s pretty clear that the G1 does not deliver to these specs (though we’ll know more soon).
> 
> It’s highly likely we’ll see improvements in the 2022 WOLEDs that achieve these specs or at least get closer to them.
> 
> Only in hindsight and with the perspective of 2022 83” WOLED performance, will we be in a position to understand for certain whether the performance of the 83A90J and/or 83C1 was ‘gimped’ this year (and by how much)..,
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, that is precisely what LGD has done (so Occam’s razor may not be as reliable during a once-in-a-century Pandemic ).
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully my above discussion has made clear that only LG Electronics was impacted by (and needed to design for) this 2-year emulation mode and needing to design TVs to mix 3S3C WBC and 3S4C WBE panels. Sony and all other customers merely received ‘2020 Mode year’ and ‘2021 model year’ panels as they are used to doing (business as usual).
> 
> And only Sony received the 2022 83” 3S4C panel in 2021 and had to decide how they would manage the better potential performance of the 83” panel versus panel the smaller sizes. Sony’s decision to only offer the A90J at 83” and not 77” as well as to only offer the A80J at 77” and not 83” makes more sense when viewed in this light…
> 
> 
> 
> You may need to but I don’t.
> 
> We now have have evidence (from AVS members) of 48CXs sold with both WBC (3S3C) panels manufactured from Paju as well as WBE (3S4C) panels manufactured from Guangzhou, as well as evidence of 55C1s manufactured with both 3S3C and 3S4C panels. Since LGE electEd to make the ‘OLED Cell Info’ visible within the service menu, whatever sliver of uncertainty of this entire transition saga remained had now been eliminated…
> 
> 
> Except that the 77G1 is using a 2020 3S3C WBE panel (meaning the same as LGD was selling as early as early 2020 and using the 2020 3S3C subpixels) while the 83” and 77” ‘Improved Luminance Technology’ panels LGD announced and showed specs for at CES were 2022 panels based on new subpixel designs designed to optimize 3S4C WOLED stack performance without needing to worry about a 3S3C emulation mode…
> 
> We’ll know soon - you expect the 83C1 and 83A90J to have the same relative subpixel sizes as the 65G1/C1 and 65A90J and I don’t.
> 
> In particular, the 3S4C WOLED stack has ~33% reduced Red efficiency for the full stack in favor of greatly increased (by ~100%) green efficiency (for the full stack). So I’m expecting an optimized subpixel design for the new 3S4C stack to translate to a larger relative red subpixel and/or a smaller relative green subpixel.
> 
> If the ratio of red subpixel size to green subpixel size on the 83” panel is identical to the 65” panel, you were right and I was wrong. But if the green subpixel on the 83” panel is even smaller relative to the red subpixel than it is in the 65” panel, hopefully you’ll agree to throw Occam’s Razor out the window (at least as far as understanding LGD’s 2020/2021 transition plan).
> 
> And as far as the 77” panel, you are expecting the 77G1 to be using the 77” panel announced at CES while I’m expecting the 77G1 to have identical subpixels to the 77C/GX and the 77C/G2 to have identical relative subpixels to the 83C1 and 83C3 (meaning the CES 77” panel was a 2022 panel not being released for 2021 model-year production).
> 
> 
> Good, at least one thing we are looking n agreement on. But the decision to ‘compromise’ on subpixel design was not caused by how ‘late’ the 3S4C emitters were selected/qualified but by the constraints required in order to get LG Electronic’s to buy into this 2-year transition plan (during which 2 different WOLED factories would be producing 2 different WOLED stacks for a period of ~year+)..,
> 
> 
> 
> As already stated, you are the only one to apply he word ‘gimped’ to LGD’s decision to use the 2020 3S3C subpixel design for the first year+ production of 3S4C WOLEDs. I call it brilliant.
> 
> Knowing/suspecting that the highest-performing / only fully-3S4C-optimized / 2022 WOLED panel used in products this year will be the 83” panel used in the 83C1 and 83A90J, I’ll only use the word ‘gimped’ if we end up discovering that the 83A90J performs more closely to the 65A90J than it does to whatever 83” flagship WOLED Sony releases in 2022 and/or if we end up discovering that the 83C1 performs more closely to the 77/65C1 than it does to the 83C2 once the dust has cleared a year from now…
> 
> And by the way, I’m pretty certain LGD and the TV makers / engineers don’t use the word ‘gimped’ to describe these design decisions - ‘engineered for a successful transition’ (in the face of overwhelming challenges) would be a more appropriate description….


You lost me in a few places here, especially with the 77" analysis which I think you may have misunderstood that the 77" panel LGD announced and featured in its virtual CES 2021 booth was the panel that would ship a few months later in the 77" G1 (and in other TV makers with 77" TVs).

I saw in the C1 thread, that LGE-LGD appears to have broken the golden rule of multi-site manufacturing and distribution. (Spoiler: _depending on the site of manufacture_, 55" and 65" C1s may have the higher luminance panel and a motivated owner could flip a software switch to activate more performance. Same with 77", but all from a single site. And, fafrd isn't going to be getting an invite to the LGE Christmas party!) Let's hope that LGD learns its lesson and puts in place a plan that doesn't break this golden rule again the next time it brings a new fab online.

Generally, I find it really hard to follow what public _facts/info_ (or possible non-public facts/info) are leading you to make big conclusions _that nobody else has_. And, sometimes you miss certain sources, some of which are sitting right here a few pages previous to your post. Example: LGD's public, certified-as-factual financial reporting docs answer definitively things like what were the first sizes to be produced at Guangzhou:


Developed the first products in our Guangzhou OLED panel production facility (77” UHD, 48” UHD)​
 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001290109/000119312521162671/d719227d6k.htm#tx719227_35

Or,


For example, we commenced mass production of large-sized OLED panels at our CO fabrication facility, located in Guangzhou, China, in July 2020



https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001290109/000119312521138471/d76980d20f.htm#rom76980_9



I say the above because you have a track record of imagining things that don't exist (240hz LDG OLED backplanes despite every major LGD research paper on the OLED backplanes saying it was 120hz) or being really confident that a big thing is happening, but it doesn't come to pass (LGD top emission panels in its consumer line).

In terms of any discussion of the imminent-into-retail 83" panel, why are you considering it a "2022" panel? I imagined that the reason those panels (and then the TVs that include them) are being released later than the other sizes is because they are brand new to manufacture.

Net-net: bring _more receipts_ to any claims you're the _first and only to make_.


----------



## 59LIHP

LG Display registreert Smart OLED Plate en One Cord OLED TV
LG Display heeft een nieuwe type OLED scherm in ontwikkeling, zo blijkt uit een zestal trademark aanvragen die zijn ingediend in thuisland Zuid-Korea.
















LG Display registreert Smart OLED Plate en One Cord OLED TV | LetsGoDigital


LG Display heeft een nieuwe type OLED scherm in ontwikkeling, zo blijkt uit een zestal trademark aanvragen die zijn ingediend in thuisland Zuid-Korea.




nl.letsgodigital.org












LG Display registreert Smart OLED Plate en One Cord OLED TV | LetsGoDigital


LG Display heeft een nieuwe type OLED scherm in ontwikkeling, zo blijkt uit een zestal trademark aanvragen die zijn ingediend in thuisland Zuid-Korea.




translate.google.com


----------



## acus231

Hello.. 55BX has the same panel like 55CX or worse? Im thinking about BX... I dont need very bright screen becouse of usage (as PC screen, sometimes HDR gaming).. If he has same panel, then risk of burn-in will be the same with low bright screen as I think.


----------



## chozofication

Boy I wish LG would put heat sinks in their displays. I already have burn in or banding that got worse over time on the left side of my A8h and Sony won’t replace it... refuse to buy another oled without a heatsink.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> You lost me in a few places here, especially with the 77" analysis which I think you may have misunderstood that the 77" panel LGD announced and featured in its virtual CES 2021 booth was the panel that would ship a few months later in the 77" G1 (and in other TV makers with 77" TVs).


77” WOLED volume is low enough that LGD was able to make a ‘clean break’ between 2020 model year and 2021 model year for everyone including LGE (‘business as usual’).

All 77C1s (as well as A/B1s) are shipping with WBE Evo-capable panels (as are all 83C1s).

55” and 65” (and probably now also 48”) volumes are so high that until LGD has completed transitioning Paju from the 3S3C / WBC / non-Evo-capable WOLED stack to the same 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable WOLED stack being produced in Guangzhou, they have no choice but to have mixed 55” and 65” (and 48”) WOLED panels types flowing to LGE for use in the A/B/C1 Series.

All other 2021 customers including Sony and all LGE 2021 77” and 83” WOLED TVs (in addition to all G1 TV sizes) will be on the ‘2021’ 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable panel (‘business as usual’).



> I saw in the C1 thread, that LGE-LGD appears to have broken the golden rule of multi-site manufacturing and distribution.


Yes, it’s proven now. Initial measurements by a few brave members indicate an increase of 8-12% when switching a WBC-enabled C1 from C-mode to G-mode. Obviously LGD would have preferred a clean break at both factories but the need to manage WOLED stack changes with a high-volume mixed design is probably now a reality for LGD/LGE regardless. 

When LGD last introduced a WOLED stack change from 3S2C to 3S3C in 2016, LGE was the only customer and production volumes were ~5% of what they are today. LGD could easily have decided to write off whatever excess inventory (overhang) of the older panel generation (or just build and sell more 2015s on closeout) as less costly than designing the 2016 WOLED TVs to work with either panel generation.

Now that they are producing ~750,000 WOLED panels per month (and ~900,000 per month by August ), the value of the overhang is too great to write it off and LGD will need LGE to plan for a high-volume dual-panel emulated design to allow for a smooth transition.

No unaffiliated customers like Sony, Panasonic, etc would ever accept the engineering headache of designing a TV-generation to work with 2 different panel generations, so they will expect and receive ‘business-as-usual’ clean-break panel generations each directed to distinct TV-product generations.

But LGE will need to plan for their highest-volume OLED TV to work with either the older panel generation or the newer panel generation operating in older-panel-emulation-mode whenever LGD wants to introduce a new WOLED stack.

It’s actually a very effective solution to a pretty complicated problem and as I stated earlier, I believe LGD has been working on this 3S3C-to-3S4C transition plan since 2019 when the 2020 WOLED panels with larger red subpixel were introduced (and possibly even a year earlier, since 2019 was the first year LGD backed-off on peak brightness achieved).

The good news is it looks like LGD is managing this 2020/2021 WOLED transition successfully and future WOLED stack changes are likely to be increasingly few and far-between (I’m expecting a last or near-to-last WOLED stack change when high-efficiency blue is finally industrialized).



> (Spoiler: _depending on the site of manufacture_, 55" and 65" C1s may have the higher luminance panel and a motivated owner could flip a software switch to activate more performance. Same with 77", but all from a single site. And, fafrd isn't going to be getting an invite to the LGE Christmas party!) Let's hope that LGD learns its lesson and puts in place a plan that doesn't break this golden rule again the next time it brings a new fab online.


Looks like I may have inserted my above response one paragraph early  but in any case, I don’t see how LGD can avoid overlapping panel generations and the need for a high-volume dual-panel emulating TV design (by LGD) whenever they switch WOLED stack going forward (the timing of bringing up a ‘new fab’ was a coincidence and an opportunity rather than the root cause this time around).

And I don’t see LGE being upset with my reverse-engineering of their 2021 product strategy. The only other alternative they had was to sacrifice 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable performance on all of their 2021 WOLED TVs…

Instead, they limited the damage / sacrifice to the C1-Series and ‘mistakenly’ allowed some lucky & adventurous C1 owners to ‘score’ additional performance through a Service Menu option. If anything, this should increase C1 demand (especially 77C1 and 83C1 demand).

I don’t buy the argument that this ‘hack’ will reduce G1 demand and cost LGD potential margin - the cost difference between the G1 and C1 is too small and the G1 is a niche product for other unrelated reasons (the wall-mount).



> Generally, I find it really hard to follow what public _facts/info_ (or possible non-public facts/info) are leading you to make big conclusions _that nobody else has_.


I do have a tendency to get out over the tips of my skis more often than many might be comfortable with, but I generally try to disclose all of the tea leaves that drive my hunches.

The HDMI 2.1 story was perhaps the most glaring example. Virtually everyone in the Forum stated I was wrong / nuts when I suggested the press-release between Synopsis and LG Electronics suggested LGD was working on a secret stealth HDMI 2.1 development and might be the first to introduce the capability ~1 year before any of the professional pundits thought it would arrive…



> And, sometimes you miss certain sources, some of which are sitting right here a few pages previous to your post. Example: LGD's public, certified-as-factual financial reporting docs answer definitively things like what were the first sizes to be produced at Guangzhou:
> 
> 
> Developed the first products in our Guangzhou OLED panel production facility (77” UHD, 48” UHD)​
> https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001290109/000119312521162671/d719227d6k.htm#tx719227_35
> 
> Or,
> 
> 
> For example, we commenced mass production of large-sized OLED panels at our CO fabrication facility, located in Guangzhou, China, in July 2020
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001290109/000119312521138471/d76980d20f.htm#rom76980_9


I value AVS Forum (and particularly this thread) because of the multiple brains sleuthing for tea leaves. Absolutely I miss things, it’s the reason I check out this thread from time-to-time. Some stuff unfortunately slips into the ether because after a long hiatus, I generally start scrolling back pages from the end until I feel tired / caught up (which sometimes isn’t all the way to where I last left off…).

A few years back, between rogo, slacker, ynotgoal and others, there were a bunch of WOLED sleuths far more experienced that me on this thread and I was picking up most of what learned from them.

It’s a different crop now and I see that you are one of the posters who’s contributed the most in terms of tea leaves to this thread recently (wasn’t it you who linked to the article indicating how LGD found improvements to bottom-emission-based WOLED that allowed them to deliver 8K @ 65” without needing to use top-emission, as they expected?).



> I say the above because you have a track record of *imagining things that don't exist *(240hz LDG OLED backplanes despite every major LGD research paper on the OLED backplanes saying it was 120hz)


That’s a bit of a mischaracterization. What I’m pretty sure I said was that LGD’s backplane solution for 8K (split-plane, as confirmed by that article you linked to) allowed them to deliver [email protected] refresh rate but not [email protected] and that *if/when* they invested in increased backplane speed to deliver 8K @ 120Hz, that would allow them to deliver 4K @ 240Hz if they decided to keep investing in improved 4K performance rather than abandoning 4K the same way 1080p was abandoned once 4K became mainstream.

It’s probably true that I got caught up in the 8K ‘hype’ and believed that the importance/priority/timing of delivering [email protected] WOLED was greater/higher/faster than it has turned out to be.

At that time (several years ago) it looked like the race-to-8K might be WOLED’s greatest threat (after 4K killed plasma) and between backplane speeds, the move to top-emission, and 10.5G manufacturing, LGD had a number of initiatives underway to position themselves to survive a quick transition to 8K.

The 8K market has developed far, far, slower than was forecasted by the ‘experts’ at the time (and far, far slower than the 4K market developed, which was the template used by many of those experts).

Obviously, forecasted developments under the umbrella of a forecast for the emergence of 8K that proved totally wrong means many forecasts as to the timing of 8K-motivated WOLED technology developments would also be wrong.



> or being really confident that a big thing is happening, but it doesn't come to pass (LGD top emission panels in its consumer line).


I don’t have any specific information as to whether LGD ever developed too-emission consumer TV WOLED panels.

But we do know that they have top-emission WOLED technology in production (for their transparent commercial WOLED panels);

we do know they want to be ready with an 8K WOLED @ 65” (LGD had already demonstrated a 65” 8K WOLED);

we do know that LGD will want to deliver 8K @ 65” in the most inexpensive cost / performance manner that they can (WOLED’s greatest threat is being undercut by a less-expensive equally-performing technology);

we do know that LGD found a way to deliver 8K @ 65” based on bottom-emission (the 65” 8K prototype they showed at CES);

we do know that top-emission increases production cost;

and thanks to that article you found, we do know that by finding opaque inter-subpixel spacers, LGD was able to reduce inter-subpixel spacing, increase pixel fill-factor, and deliver more light output through a smaller pixel size.

So yes, between the additional time that the delayed 8K-train-leaving-the-station has provided and LGD’s productive engineering efforts in finding a lower-cost bottom-emission-based pixel solution to deliver 8K @ 65” without needing to resort to top-emission, all forecasts about top-emission consumer WOLED including mine proved incorrect / premature…



> In terms of any discussion of the imminent-into-retail 83" panel, why are you considering it a "2022" panel? I imagined that the reason those panels (and then the TVs that include them) are being released later than the other sizes is because they are brand new to manufacture.


The short answer is that I’m expecting modification of subpixel design on all WOLED sizes between 2021 and 2022 with the exception of 83” (and also 77”) sizes. Said another way, I don’t think we’ll see any changes in the 83” and 77” WOLED panels LGD sells in 2022 (while the 48”, 55”, and 65” panel / subpixel design is likely to change in 2022).

The reason for this is that only the 83” and 77” 2021 panel sizes are being manufactured exclusively with the new 3S4C WOLED stack and hence have the luxury of implementing subpixel sizes optimized for that new go-forward stack.

When designing subpixels to support either 3S3C or 3S4C stacks, the subpixels need to be sized to support each color at the weakest efficiency level of both WOLED stacks.

Red efficiency is weaker in the 3S4C stack than it is in the 3S3C stack (~33% weaker by my estimates), so the red subpixel needs to be designed larger to support the 3S4C stack than it would need to be if it only had to support the 3S3C stack (ie: ~33% larger than the 2018 red subpixel).

Green efficiency is weaker in the 3S3C stack than it is in the 3S4C stack (~50% weaker by my estimates), so the green subpixel needs to be designed at the size to support the 3S3C stack (similar in size to the 2018 green subpixel) which is ~50% larger than it would need to be to exclusively support the 3S4C stack.

So bottom-line is that the 48” and 55” and 65” 2021 panels have a green subpixel that is twice as large as it needs to be in a subpixel design optimized for 3S4C performance, while the 77” and 83” panels have the luxury of having an optimized 3S4C subpixel design this year.

So I’m expecting the green-subpixel-size-to-red-subpixel-size-ratio to be smaller on the 83” and 77” panels than it is on the 65”, 55” and 48” panels.

If this is confirmed (still awaiting macro shots of the 77” and soon-to-be-released 83” panels), it would mean that subpixels have already been optimized for 3S4C performance on the two larger panel sizes and does not need to change (for this reason) in 2022 (compared to 65”, 55” and 48” panels which are likely to have their subpixels redesigned to more closely-align with optimized-for-3S4C-performance by reducing green subpixel size to more closely align with that of the larger panel sizes in 2021/2022).

The fact that LGD has only released specs for the 83” and 77” panels with the Evo stack this year is a tiny bit of evidence supporting this speculation.

And just to be clear, my conjecture that we may not see any 83” and 77” subpixel design changes for 2022 is predicated on panel efficiency / peak performance only.

This new ‘structured-grid’ DSE that has emerged over the past 2 years is very likely associated in some way with the new 3S4C WOLED stack (which started selling through CX WOLED TVs as early as late 2019). If LGD decides that issue is serious-enough that it needs to be addressed then that may necessitate panel changes at all panel sizes for 2022 (especially if subpixel size has anything to do with the root cause)…



> Net-net: bring _more receipts_ to any claims you're the _first and only to make_.


Well how about this: I’ll do me and you do you. 

If you’re truly uncomfortable with my tendency to sometimes get out over the tips of my skis, there is always the ‘ignore’ button…

Otherwise, I appreciate the exchange with informed members such as yourself who are more conservative - I think the dialog results in getting to correct answers / speculation more quickly.

This is, after all, something we do for sh*ts and giggles, right?


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> Problem is they are all likely based on current-driven TFT backplanes. Any emissive display based on such a design will have the same old uniformity issues. That is closer to my worst nightmare than any dream. We need to pray for some breakthrough in cost reduction, speed, and accuracy of the various mura correction/compensation techniques. The near-black noise and quantization issues will likely also persist.


I'm assuming Wizziwig is talking about how difficult it is to innovate when sensing and compensation is this complicated—see quote below from an LGD research paper.



> The difficulty of gate integration specifically for OLED displays is that unlike LCDs with simple gate driving, OLED displays need sophisticated sensing and compensation. We don’t just drive gate lines sequentially, but we also need Vth sensing and mobility sensing functions. Our integrated gate driver circuit for OLED displays must have dedicated blocks for sensing, and we also need to drive a scan line and a sense line with different timing.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I'm assuming Wizziwig is talking about how difficult it is to innovate when sensing and compensation is this complicated—see quote below from an LGD research paper.


Yes, calibrating (compensating for mismatch) of transistor-based voltage sources is easier than calibrating transistor-based current sources (compensation of ~single parameter mismatch versus compensation of a more complex function that depends on 2 or 3 different parameters that may be mismatched…).

Though I don’t see any reason this should be any more complicated for printed RGB OLEDs than WOLEDs manufactured through vapor deposition…


----------



## Davenlr

chozofication said:


> Boy I wish LG would put heat sinks in their displays. I already have burn in or banding that got worse over time on the left side of my A8h and Sony won’t replace it... refuse to buy another oled without a heatsink.


That is why I returned my CX and turned down the offer to get a A8H in exchange, and went with a LCD.


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> 77” WOLED volume is low enough that LGD was able to make a ‘clean break’ between 2020 model year and 2021 model year for everyone including LGE (‘business as usual’).
> 
> All 77C1s (as well as A/B1s) are shipping with WBE Evo-capable panels (as are all 83C1s).
> 
> 55” and 65” (and probably now also 48”) volumes are so high that until LGD has completed transitioning Paju from the 3S3C / WBC / non-Evo-capable WOLED stack to the same 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable WOLED stack being produced in Guangzhou, they have no choice but to have mixed 55” and 65” (and 48”) WOLED panels types flowing to LGE for use in the A/B/C1 Series.
> 
> All other 2021 customers including Sony and all LGE 2021 77” and 83” WOLED TVs (in addition to all G1 TV sizes) will be on the ‘2021’ 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable panel (‘business as usual’).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it’s proven now. Initial measurements by a few brave members indicate an increase of 8-12% when switching a WBC-enabled C1 from C-mode to G-mode. Obviously LGD would have preferred a clean break at both factories but the need to manage WOLED stack changes with a high-volume mixed design is probably now a reality for LGD/LGE regardless.
> 
> When LGD last introduced a WOLED stack change from 3S2C to 3S3C in 2016, LGE was the only customer and production volumes were ~5% of what they are today. LGD could easily have decided to write off whatever excess inventory (overhang) of the older panel generation (or just build and sell more 2015s on closeout) as less costly than designing the 2016 WOLED TVs to work with either panel generation.
> 
> Now that they are producing ~750,000 WOLED panels per month (and ~900,000 per month by August ), the value of the overhang is too great to write it off and LGD will need LGE to plan for a high-volume dual-panel emulated design to allow for a smooth transition.
> 
> No unaffiliated customers like Sony, Panasonic, etc would ever accept the engineering headache of designing a TV-generation to work with 2 different panel generations, so they will expect and receive ‘business-as-usual’ clean-break panel generations each directed to distinct TV-product generations.
> 
> But LGE will need to plan for their highest-volume OLED TV to work with either the older panel generation or the newer panel generation operating in older-panel-emulation-mode whenever LGD wants to introduce a new WOLED stack.
> 
> It’s actually a very effective solution to a pretty complicated problem and as I stated earlier, I believe LGD has been working on this 3S3C-to-3S4C transition plan since 2019 when the 2020 WOLED panels with larger red subpixel were introduced (and possibly even a year earlier, since 2019 was the first year LGD backed-off on peak brightness achieved).
> 
> The good news is it looks like LGD is managing this 2020/2021 WOLED transition successfully and future WOLED stack changes are likely to be increasingly few and far-between (I’m expecting a last or near-to-last WOLED stack change when high-efficiency blue is finally industrialized).
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like I may have inserted my above response one paragraph early  but in any case, I don’t see how LGD can avoid overlapping panel generations and the need for a high-volume dual-panel emulating TV design (by LGD) whenever they switch WOLED stack going forward (the timing of bringing up a ‘new fab’ was a coincidence and an opportunity rather than the root cause this time around).
> 
> And I don’t see LGE being upset with my reverse-engineering of their 2021 product strategy. The only other alternative they had was to sacrifice 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable performance on all of their 2021 WOLED TVs…
> 
> Instead, they limited the damage / sacrifice to the C1-Series and ‘mistakenly’ allowed some lucky & adventurous C1 owners to ‘score’ additional performance through a Service Menu option. If anything, this should increase C1 demand (especially 77C1 and 83C1 demand).
> 
> I don’t buy the argument that this ‘hack’ will reduce G1 demand and cost LGD potential margin - the cost difference between the G1 and C1 is too small and the G1 is a niche product for other unrelated reasons (the wall-mount).
> 
> 
> 
> I do have a tendency to get out over the tips of my skis more often than many might be comfortable with, but I generally try to disclose all of the tea leaves that drive my hunches.
> 
> The HDMI 2.1 story was perhaps the most glaring example. Virtually everyone in the Forum stated I was wrong / nuts when I suggested the press-release between Synopsis and LG Electronics suggested LGD was working on a secret stealth HDMI 2.1 development and might be the first to introduce the capability ~1 year before any of the professional pundits thought it would arrive…
> 
> 
> I value AVS Forum (and particularly this thread) because of the multiple brains sleuthing for tea leaves. Absolutely I miss things, it’s the reason I check out this thread from time-to-time. Some stuff unfortunately slips into the ether because after a long hiatus, I generally start scrolling back pages from the end until I feel tired / caught up (which sometimes isn’t all the way to where I last left off…).
> 
> A few years back, between rogo, slacker, ynotgoal and others, there were a bunch of WOLED sleuths far more experienced that me on this thread and I was picking up most of what learned from them.
> 
> It’s a different crop now and I see that you are one of the posters who’s contributed the most in terms of tea leaves to this thread recently (wasn’t it you who linked to the article indicating how LGD found improvements to bottom-emission-based WOLED that allowed them to deliver 8K @ 65” without needing to use top-emission, as they expected?).
> 
> 
> 
> That’s a bit of a mischaracterization. What I’m pretty sure I said was that LGD’s backplane solution for 8K (split-plane, as confirmed by that article you linked to) allowed them to deliver [email protected] refresh rate but not [email protected] and that *if/when* they invested in increased backplane speed to deliver 8K @ 120Hz, that would allow them to deliver 4K @ 240Hz if they decided to keep investing in improved 4K performance rather than abandoning 4K the same way 1080p was abandoned once 4K became mainstream.
> 
> It’s probably true that I got caught up in the 8K ‘hype’ and believed that the importance/priority/timing of delivering [email protected] WOLED was greater/higher/faster than it has turned out to be.
> 
> At that time (several years ago) it looked like the race-to-8K might be WOLED’s greatest threat (after 4K killed plasma) and between backplane speeds, the move to top-emission, and 10.5G manufacturing, LGD had a number of initiatives underway to position themselves to survive a quick transition to 8K.
> 
> The 8K market has developed far, far, slower than was forecasted by the ‘experts’ at the time (and far, far slower than the 4K market developed, which was the template used by many of those experts).
> 
> Obviously, forecasted developments under the umbrella of a forecast for the emergence of 8K that proved totally wrong means many forecasts as to the timing of 8K-motivated WOLED technology developments would also be wrong.
> 
> 
> I don’t have any specific information as to whether LGD ever developed too-emission consumer TV WOLED panels.
> 
> But we do know that they have top-emission WOLED technology in production (for their transparent commercial WOLED panels);
> 
> we do know they want to be ready with an 8K WOLED @ 65” (LGD had already demonstrated a 65” 8K WOLED);
> 
> we do know that LGD will want to deliver 8K @ 65” in the most inexpensive cost / performance manner that they can (WOLED’s greatest threat is being undercut by a less-expensive equally-performing technology);
> 
> we do know that LGD found a way to deliver 8K @ 65” based on bottom-emission (the 65” 8K prototype they showed at CES);
> 
> we do know that top-emission increases production cost;
> 
> and thanks to that article you found, we do know that by finding opaque inter-subpixel spacers, LGD was able to reduce inter-subpixel spacing, increase pixel fill-factor, and deliver more light output through a smaller pixel size.
> 
> So yes, between the additional time that the delayed 8K-train-leaving-the-station has provided and LGD’s productive engineering efforts in finding a lower-cost bottom-emission-based pixel solution to deliver 8K @ 65” without needing to resort to top-emission, all forecasts about top-emission consumer WOLED including mine proved incorrect / premature…
> 
> 
> The short answer is that I’m expecting modification of subpixel design on all WOLED sizes between 2021 and 2022 with the exception of 83” (and also 77”) sizes. Said another way, I don’t think we’ll see any changes in the 83” and 77” WOLED panels LGD sells in 2022 (while the 48”, 55”, and 65” panel / subpixel design is likely to change in 2022).
> 
> The reason for this is that only the 83” and 77” 2021 panel sizes are being manufactured exclusively with the new 3S4C WOLED stack and hence have the luxury of implementing subpixel sizes optimized for that new go-forward stack.
> 
> When designing subpixels to support either 3S3C or 3S4C stacks, the subpixels need to be sized to support each color at the weakest efficiency level of both WOLED stacks.
> 
> Red efficiency is weaker in the 3S4C stack than it is in the 3S3C stack (~33% weaker by my estimates), so the red subpixel needs to be designed larger to support the 3S4C stack than it would need to be if it only had to support the 3S3C stack (ie: ~33% larger than the 2018 red subpixel).
> 
> Green efficiency is weaker in the 3S3C stack than it is in the 3S4C stack (~50% weaker by my estimates), so the green subpixel needs to be designed at the size to support the 3S3C stack (similar in size to the 2018 green subpixel) which is ~50% larger than it would need to be to exclusively support the 3S4C stack.
> 
> So bottom-line is that the 48” and 55” and 65” 2021 panels have a green subpixel that is twice as large as it needs to be in a subpixel design optimized for 3S4C performance, while the 77” and 83” panels have the luxury of having an optimized 3S4C subpixel design this year.
> 
> So I’m expecting the green-subpixel-size-to-red-subpixel-size-ratio to be smaller on the 83” and 77” panels than it is on the 65”, 55” and 48” panels.
> 
> If this is confirmed (still awaiting macro shots of the 77” and soon-to-be-released 83” panels), it would mean that subpixels have already been optimized for 3S4C performance on the two larger panel sizes and does not need to change (for this reason) in 2022 (compared to 65”, 55” and 48” panels which are likely to have their subpixels redesigned to more closely-align with optimized-for-3S4C-performance by reducing green subpixel size to more closely align with that of the larger panel sizes in 2021/2022).
> 
> The fact that LGD has only released specs for the 83” and 77” panels with the Evo stack this year is a tiny bit of evidence supporting this speculation.
> 
> And just to be clear, my conjecture that we may not see any 83” and 77” subpixel design changes for 2022 is predicated on panel efficiency / peak performance only.
> 
> This new ‘structured-grid’ DSE that has emerged over the past 2 years is very likely associated in some way with the new 3S4C WOLED stack (which started selling through CX WOLED TVs as early as late 2019). If LGD decides that issue is serious-enough that it needs to be addressed then that may necessitate panel changes at all panel sizes for 2022 (especially if subpixel size has anything to do with the root cause)…
> 
> 
> Well how about this: I’ll do me and you do you.
> 
> If you’re truly uncomfortable with my tendency to sometimes get out over the tips of my skis, there is always the ‘ignore’ button…
> 
> Otherwise, I appreciate the exchange with informed members such as yourself who are more conservative - I think the dialog results in getting to correct answers / speculation more quickly.
> 
> This is, after all, something we do for sh*ts and giggles, right?


Good post, fafrd. Agreed that the dialogue gets us to correct answers. And, I'd love to see some LGD or OLED TV maker engineers drop some knowledge here from time to time.

I knew you had the goods on HDMI 2.1 and that was a great find.

And, I have a lot of empathy for the two groups of people below and that empathy drives some of my conservatism:

The people that find their way to avsforum who want to buy a premium TV and are anxious about the volume of information they're having to analyze to make an informed decision. I'd never want to foist more _speculative_ info at them. I'd personally only ever take a scoop to the main OLED board if it were rock solid.


The engineers, especially the ones at LGD, who deal with all of the complexity/constraints. It rarely gets acknowledged how hard it is to ship all of these innovations (and cost improvements), for example the latest round of BDI improvements, _while doing real-time sensing and compensation in the service of luminance uniformity_. I think we do everyone here a disservice when we describe these OLED display systems as super-simple or mostly unconstrained.
I've had a few scoops here like seeing Adaptive BDI (aka BFI) described in a patent before it was announced publicly and fishing out the 88" 8K paper from the bowels of SID.org. I also share some things privately on other sites around HDR/WCG. Finally, I like to make connections between imaging/capture and display and would love to see others do this more often too—I love how @Mark Rejhon does this when talking about temporal things.

Cheers!


----------



## stl8k

Here's fafrd's invite to the LGE Christmas party, oddly with no date, time, or venue included. 










Via


----------



## Yeti89

Do we have insight into how many temperature sensors are in the new panels going into the A90J, A80J, and the G1? As well as their layout across the display?


----------



## fafrd

Yeti89 said:


> Do we have insight into how many temperature sensors are in the new panels going into the A90J, A80J, and the G1? As well as their layout across the display?


I’ve heard that Sony has integrated temperature sensors into their A90J Aluminum Heatsink, but not that LG was integrating temperature sensors into the G1…

What is your source for that information?


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Good post, fafrd. Agreed that the dialogue gets us to correct answers. And,* I'd love to see some LGD or OLED TV maker engineers drop some knowledge here from time to time.*


I suspect that at best, they may pay an intern to monitor certain threads here at AVS. Doubt you’ll ever see them contribute on the Forum…



> I knew you had the goods on HDMI 2.1 and that was a great find.
> 
> And, I have a lot of empathy for the two groups of people below and that empathy drives some of my conservatism:





> *The people that find their way to avsforum who want to buy a premium TV *and are anxious about the volume of information they're having to analyze to make an informed decision. I'd never want to foist more _speculative_ info at them. I'd personally only ever take a scoop to the main OLED board if it were rock solid.


I generally try to keep technology speculation to this Technology Thread but sometimes pushing back against misinformation on the Owner’s Threads leads me into getting into more details about WOLED Technology than I’d otherwise aim for.

Engaging with AVS for the first time is an adventure but I’m generally not of the view that we need to worry about protecting new members from ‘information overload’ or fact versus speculation..



> The engineers, especially the ones at LGD, who deal with all of the complexity/constraints. It rarely gets acknowledged how hard it is to ship all of these innovations (and cost improvements), for example the latest round of BDI improvements, _while doing real-time sensing and compensation in the service of luminance uniformity_. I think we do everyone here a disservice when we describe these OLED display systems as super-simple or mostly unconstrained.


I believe I’m one of the members that goes out of my way to compliment LG and express how impressed I am with what they have achieved, the obstacles they have overcome, and the effectiveness of their multi-year planning when it comes to their WOLED initiative.

I am not sure what you mean about ‘mostly unconstrained’ but if you think any of my posts suggests a view on my behalf that these WOLED displays are ‘super simple’ I’d appreciate you pointing them out.



> I've had a few scoops here like seeing Adaptive BDI (aka BFI) described in a patent before it was announced publicly and fishing out the 88" 8K paper from the bowels of SID.org. I also share some things privately on other sites around HDR/WCG. Finally, I like to make connections between imaging/capture and display and would love to see others do this more often too—I love how @Mark Rejhon does this when talking about temporal things.


You do a great job digging up information that goes outside my usual (fairly pedestrian) sources - keep it coming!

And Mark Rejhorn is a treasure when we occasionally get him engaged. He’s wet my appetite for the possibility of WOLED to deliver a CRT-like impulse mode that compelling (especially after High Efficiency Blue arrives) but may never be a priority for LG (too niche).

On the other hand, LG’s focus on gaming performance may eventually lead them there (once they’ve got High Efficiency Blue and 8K & 120Hz…).

As far as the AVS community at large (at least the Display Community), there has been a lot of change over the past half-decade.

Many users here seem to take reference-quality affordable display technology for granted. The ‘democratization’ of plasma-like performance to much higher volumes of emissive WOLED displays and Sharp-Elite-besting MiniLED/QLED/LCD ‘Super FALDs’ (as well as just basic QLED/LCD FALDs) has meant a much higher number of members with different priorities and perspectives than in the ‘old days’.

My main concern is monitoring how Display technology evolves hopefully to see that things don’t take a step backwards towards an LCD-only lowest-common-denominator world.

With LGD more than doubling production volumes to a run rate of over 900,000 WOLED panels per month by this August and seemingly successfully maneuvering through the most important WOLED stack change in 5 years, I’m pretty certain that WOLED is over the hump (meaning it’s only going to enter a phase of decline once either something better-performing for equivalent cost or equivalent-performing for markedly lower cost emerges)…

At any rate, it’s the thoughtful contributions of informed and long-standing members like yourself that makes me keep coming back to AVS even after my occasional hiatuses getting distracted with other interests / activities…


----------



## 59LIHP

SID/DSCC Business Conference Download – TV Display Technology and Markets






















SID/DSCC Business Conference Download – TV Display Technology and Markets - Display Supply Chain Consultants







www.displaysupplychain.com






DSCC Report Catalog 2020








DSCC Report Catalog 2020.pdf


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## husky8585

chozofication said:


> Boy I wish LG would put heat sinks in their displays. I already have burn in or banding that got worse over time on the left side of my A8h and Sony won’t replace it... refuse to buy another oled without a heatsink.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> SID/DSCC Business Conference Download – TV Display Technology and Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SID/DSCC Business Conference Download – TV Display Technology and Markets - Display Supply Chain Consultants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaysupplychain.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DSCC Report Catalog 2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DSCC Report Catalog 2020.pdf
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


One tidbit I found buried near the bottom:

‘Finally, looking out longer term Hartlove described the prospects for NanoLED, better known as electroluminescent quantum dot LED or EL-QD. He cited *demonstrations by BOE and Sharp and believes that products using this technology could be shipping in 2025*. A Nanosys Invited Paper in the Display Week Symposium described the progress in EL-QD since 2019, with more than two orders of magnitude in lifetime increase and a 24% efficiency gain.’

Coming from Hartlove, it’s unlikely we’ll see EL-QD in the market any sooner than that but 2025 could be shaping up to be an important year for emissive displays (also the expected schedule for LGD’s 10.5G WOLED fab…).


----------



## fafrd

This paper published by LGD in 2018 does a good job explaining what went into developing the 3S3C (WBC) WOLED stack LGD developed in 2015 and introduced into 2016-generation WOLED TVs (and beyond through this year’s C1): (PDF) Advanced Technologies for Large-Sized OLED Display

Sometime in ~2023 I imagine we’ll see a similar paper materialize detailing all of the work and analysis LGD put into the newly-released 3S4C (WBE) ‘Evo’ WOLED stack…


----------



## chozofication

husky8585 said:


>


Yep lol watched it before work. Next year hopefully!


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> This paper published by LGD in 2018 does a good job explaining what went into developing the 3S3C (WBC) WOLED stack LGD developed in 2015 and introduced into 2016-generation WOLED TVs (and beyond through this year’s C1): (PDF) Advanced Technologies for Large-Sized OLED Display
> 
> Sometime in ~2023 I imagine we’ll see a similar paper materialize detailing all of the work and analysis LGD put into the newly-released 3S4C (WBE) ‘Evo’ WOLED stack…


Yep, that's LGD's single-most comprehensive paper on OLED TVs and contains a number of figures/charts that aren't available elsewhere.


----------



## Yeti89

fafrd said:


> I’ve heard that Sony has integrated temperature sensors into their A90J Aluminum Heatsink, but not that LG was integrating temperature sensors into the G1…
> 
> What is your source for that information?


I don’t have any info or knowledge on the temp tire sensors. I was checking to see if anyone here did.


----------



## Wizziwig

I'm not so sure they have any temperature sensors.  They could just be predicting the temperature in real-time based on settings and content played. While this does sound very complex, they are bragging about the capabilities of their XR processor.



fafrd said:


> This paper published by LGD in 2018 does a good job explaining what went into developing the 3S3C (WBC) WOLED stack LGD developed in 2015 and introduced into 2016-generation WOLED TVs (and beyond through this year’s C1): (PDF) Advanced Technologies for Large-Sized OLED Display
> 
> Sometime in ~2023 I imagine we’ll see a similar paper materialize detailing all of the work and analysis LGD put into the newly-released 3S4C (WBE) ‘Evo’ WOLED stack…


I'm still waiting for a paper describing what they broke in 2018 that caused the massive increase in near-black luminance overshoot and has never been fixed to date.


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> I'm not so sure they have any temperature sensors. They could just be predicting the temperature in real-time based on settings and content played. While this does sound very complex, they are bragging about the capabilities of their XR processor.
> 
> I'm still waiting for a paper describing what they broke in 2018 that caused the massive increase in near-black luminance overshoot and has never been fixed to date.


Yeah, the sensing in WOLED TV is done through dedicated circuits built for sensing pixels in the service of luminance uniformity.

LGD does not use that phrase in its research papers or patent applications. I checked a year or so ago. Perhaps there's something close that would turn up patents... if not from LGD from an upstart (the Chinese companies are actively patenting OLED display inventions). I was missing a lot of LGD motion patents when looking for "Black Frame Insertion" until I found that it's much more common to find "Black Data Insertion" or less commonly "Fake Data Insertion".


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Yeah, the sensing in WOLED TV is done through dedicated circuits built for sensing pixels in the service of luminance uniformity.
> 
> LGD does not use that phrase in its research papers or patent applications. I checked a year or so ago. Perhaps there's something close that would turn up patents... if not from LGD from an upstart (the Chinese companies are actively patenting OLED display inventions). I was missing a lot of LGD motion patents when looking for "Black Frame Insertion" until I found that it's much more common to find "Black Data Insertion" or less commonly "Fake Data Insertion".


So you’ve found LGD patents where temperature-sensing circuits are integrated into the array itself? Did the description include using those sensors to inform an Automatic Brightness Limiter when it was time to kick-in and do it’s thing?


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> Yeah, the sensing in WOLED TV is done through dedicated circuits built for sensing subpixels in the service of luminance uniformity.
> 
> LGD does not use that phrase in its research papers or patent applications. I checked a year or so ago. Perhaps there's something close that would turn up patents... if not from LGD from an upstart (the Chinese companies are actively patenting OLED display inventions). I was missing a lot of LGD motion patents when looking for "Black Frame Insertion" until I found that it's much more common to find "Black Data Insertion" or less commonly "Fake Data Insertion".





fafrd said:


> So you’ve found LGD patents where temperature-sensing circuits are integrated into the array itself? Did the description include using those sensors to inform an Automatic Brightness Limiter when it was time to kick-in and do it’s thing?


No, I was agreeing with Wizziwig. But, I see from for example the comprehensive research paper you posted a few posts ago, there is temperature sensing:



> Firstly, being current-driven, OLED pixels generate
> heat when they emit light, and there may be a luminance change because of high temperature.
> Secondly, luminance will drop according to total driving time because of OLED degrada-
> tion, like any other self-luminous device. For the former issue, we have designed a mechani-
> cal structure to release heat efficiently, and we use real-time temperature compensation.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> No, I was agreeing with Wizziwig. But, I see from for example the comprehensive research paper you posted a few posts ago, there is temperature sensing: *‘we use real-time temperature compensation’*


That last sentence refers to temperature compensation and not temperature sensing, and could be interpreted several ways:

-cumulatung drive current and modeling based on that to estimate generated heat would allow for ‘real-time compensation’

-monitoring drive current from the edges of the panel and monitoring how it changes with use / generated heat could provide an estimate of temperature shift sufficient to allow for ‘real-time compensation’

We know LGD’s panel design probably includes a mechanism to measure subpixel-level IV curves which allows them to perform their ‘pixel repair’ function and normalize near-black uniformity and offsets. Those IV curves almost-certainly have a temperature-dependenand likely allow a means to estimate localized panel temperature.

Pixel repair is a very slow process but if any aspect of that capability allows for real-time estimation of subpixel or localized temperature that could provide a cheap and easy mechanism for the ‘temperature sensing’ you suggest is there.

I’m not aware of anything LGD has presented on how they have implemented ABL and I‘ve also not seen any characterization of how localized it is (pre-heated areas of the panel treated differently than cooler areas of the panel?) nor how dynamic it is (how peak brightness level changes over time).

Have you ever seen any patents from LGD describing technologies and algorithms that suggest Automatic Brightness Limiter capability for WOLED?


----------



## Wizziwig

You also need to consider what they can measure at run-time while actually displaying user content vs what they can measure while the set is idle/off. You can see they run some kind of line sweep pattern during the longer 2000-hour interval compensation cycles and use a black screen during the shorter 4-hour ones. I doubt they can sense much of anything during normal use because they need to drive the pixels with actual video data that is not under their control. They could still infer things like temperature from the content and settings used to drive the display.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> You also need to consider what they can measure at run-time while actually displaying user content vs what they can measure while the set is idle/off. You can see they run some kind of line sweep pattern during the longer 2000-hour interval compensation cycles and use a black screen during the shorter 4-hour ones.





> I doubt they can sense much of anything during normal use because *they need to drive the pixels with actual video data that is not under their control. *They could still infer things like temperature from the content and settings used to drive the display.


Yes, that’s the challenge. But if the sense circuit is fast enough to measure IV data at line refresh rates (<4uS) then it’s just a question of processing power. Give me real-time data of every individual subpixels instantaneous IV characteristic and infinite compute power and I can give you a real-time estimated heat-map of the panel surface which would almost-certainly be sufficient to execute an effective ABL…

I don’t know whether LGD is as into algorithm patents as they are into manufacturing/device patents but it seems like it would be a fertile area for some solid claims…


----------



## Wizziwig

The fact the wear compensations can only run during idle periods and not while actually using the set tells you a lot. If they could do it during use, I'm sure they would. This would prevent weird cases where some TVs never run compensation routines because owners either never turn them off (some kind of information or store display) or because they cut power to the set instead of letting it go to standby.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> The fact the wear compensations can only run during idle periods and not while actually using the set tells you a lot. If they could do it during use, I'm sure they would. This would prevent weird cases where some TVs never run compensation routines because owners either never turn them off (some kind of information or store display) or because they cut power to the set instead of letting it go to standby.


Measuring and compensating subpixel neae-black nonuniformity / Mura requires careful measurement of the full subpixel IV curves (or at least several points over the full curve) to characterize / estimate both offset and gain.

Estimating temperature, or rather change in temperature only requires IV measurement at a single point and can probably be done much more quickly (and less accurately if it is being use for ABL rather that improving uniformity).


----------



## fafrd

Since I finally tracked it down, here is the paper on 3S3C WOLED stack design that does a good job explaining the technical basis of the off-angle color shift visible on multi-stack WOLEDs: (PDF) Advanced Technologies for Large-Sized OLED Display

Figure 7 shows how SPD changes with viewing angle and the description above explains what you’d expect: the deeper down within the WOLED stack an emissive layer is (further away from the emitting surface), the greater the wavelengths emitted by that emissive layer will suffer from off-axis degradation…

We have not yet seen any details on how LGD designed the new 3S4C / Evo stack (and likely won’t for several years), but since the addition of the ‘green luminance element’ likely means green being further from the emissive surface than the red luminance element, this is likely the reason green degrades more quickly off angle than red, resulting in the panel exhibiting an off-angle red tint…


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Since I finally tracked it down, here is the paper on 3S3C WOLED stack design that does a good job explaining the technical basis of the off-angle color shift visible on multi-stack WOLEDs: (PDF) Advanced Technologies for Large-Sized OLED Display
> 
> Figure 7 shows how SPD changes with viewing angle and the description above explains what you’d expect: the deeper down within the WOLED stack an emissive layer is (further away from the emitting surface), the greater the wavelengths emitted by that emissive layer will suffer from off-axis degradation…
> 
> We have not yet seen any details on how LGD designed the new 3S4C / Evo stack (and likely won’t for several years), but since the addition of the ‘green luminance element’ likely means green being further from the emissive surface than the red luminance element, this is likely the reason green degrades more quickly off angle than red, resulting in the panel exhibiting an off-angle red tint…


I’m not able to see the full article, but this appears to show LGD’s original 2S2C (Blue-Yellow) / WBA? WOLED Stack as well as LGD’s 3S2C (Blue-Yellow-Blue) / WBB? WOLED Stack and also contains a graph showing how color shift increases as emitting layer is positioned deeper in the stack: (PDF) 45-1: Invited Paper : Recent Progress of White Light-Emitting Diodes for an Application to New Models of OLED TV


----------



## Wizziwig

Off axis OLED tint happens even without any emitter stack at all. Look at any mobile RGB OLED phone and you will see a similar issue. Stacking and filtering just makes it even worse. On older WOLEDs it would tint green. Now some are reporting the new panels tinting red. Unfortunately days of perfect CRT and plasma viewing angles are gone and it's unclear if any future tech will again match those older phosphor-based devices. At least it's usually tolerable if you're sitting in the center and don't get too close to the panel where the off-axis borders begin to tint.


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> That last sentence refers to temperature compensation and not temperature sensing, and could be interpreted several ways:
> 
> -cumulatung drive current and modeling based on that to estimate generated heat would allow for ‘real-time compensation’
> 
> -monitoring drive current from the edges of the panel and monitoring how it changes with use / generated heat could provide an estimate of temperature shift sufficient to allow for ‘real-time compensation’
> 
> We know LGD’s panel design probably includes a mechanism to measure subpixel-level IV curves which allows them to perform their ‘pixel repair’ function and normalize near-black uniformity and offsets. Those IV curves almost-certainly have a temperature-dependenand likely allow a means to estimate localized panel temperature.
> 
> Pixel repair is a very slow process but if any aspect of that capability allows for real-time estimation of subpixel or localized temperature that could provide a cheap and easy mechanism for the ‘temperature sensing’ you suggest is there.
> 
> I’m not aware of anything LGD has presented on how they have implemented ABL and I‘ve also not seen any characterization of how localized it is (pre-heated areas of the panel treated differently than cooler areas of the panel?) nor how dynamic it is (how peak brightness level changes over time).
> 
> Have you ever seen any patents from LGD describing technologies and algorithms that suggest Automatic Brightness Limiter capability for WOLED?


This LGD patent may have what you're looking for. It mentions temperature compensation as well.






US10062324B2 - Luminance control device and display device comprising the same - Google Patents


A display device is disclosed in which a luminance control device includes a temperature sensor that detects a temperature of a display device; an average picture level part that calculates an average picture level, which defines an average brightness of an image input into the display device...



patents.google.com





I believe the key search phrase is "peak luminance control".


----------



## fafrd

First picture of subpixel design of a 77C1 (posted by member ‘nlh’ on the C1/G1 owner’s thread:










This looks pretty different than the subpixels Rtings saw on their 55C1:











Someone with the wherewithal to estimate subpixel sizes from these images needs to chime in but blue looks slightly smaller than green in the 77C1 while it looks slightly larger than green on the 55C1…

It’s also interesting that all 4 subpixels were active on that subpixel shot of the 77C1 where, in general, I thought we were told that LG only allowed a maximum of three subpixels to be activated together an any point in time…


----------



## 59LIHP

世界初量産化、ソニー&パナの資産宿る印刷方式「OLEDIO」とは何か

History of JOLED panel development









Comparison of manufacturing methods











OLEDIO pixel structure










OLEDIO batch-molds RGB subpixels by printing

















世界初量産化、ソニー&パナの資産宿る印刷方式「OLEDIO」とは何か


ソニーとパナソニック、有機ELテレビで提携交渉。



av.watch.impress.co.jp












世界初量産化、ソニー&パナの資産宿る印刷方式「OLEDIO」とは何か


ソニーとパナソニック、有機ELテレビで提携交渉。



translate.google.com


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> First picture of subpixel design of a 77C1 (posted by member ‘nlh’ on the C1/G1 owner’s thread:
> 
> View attachment 3138900
> 
> 
> This looks pretty different than the subpixels Rtings saw on their 55C1:
> 
> 
> View attachment 3138899
> 
> 
> Someone with the wherewithal to estimate subpixel sizes from these images needs to chime in but blue looks slightly smaller than green in the 77C1 while it looks slightly larger than green on the 55C1…
> 
> It’s also interesting that all 4 subpixels were active on that subpixel shot of the 77C1 where, in general, I thought we were told that LG only allowed a maximum of three subpixels to be activated together an any point in time…


I thought that too about 4 simultaneous pixels until I remembered the below from an LGD paper in 2017 (HJ Shin is its stud engineer). Part b) reminds me of the graph @fafrd posted recently.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I thought that too about 4 simultaneous pixels until I remembered the below from an LGD paper in 2017 (HJ Shin is its stud engineer). Part b) reminds me of the graph @fafrd posted recently.
> 
> View attachment 3139020


That suggests that the white subpixel is not used below 25% APL / 450 cd/m2 and I’m pretty sure that is not the case.

I almost feel as though LG does the opposite - maximize use of white subpixel as soon as possible (near-black, where white subpixel overshoot has caused all flashing problems especially during pans) and only turn on the blue subpixel when a ‘bluer than native white’ color is needed.

Easy enough to check and in any case, it is interesting that that graph corresponds almost perfectly with the APL graph LGD presented in 2017:










Several years ago, I believed LGD could use WOLED deliver a ‘pure RGB’ OLED for SDR by only using the White Subpixel when they needed HDR-high brightness levels and asked the pro calibrators like D-Nice who told me that is not what they do.

Using as much white as possible as early as possible will greatly extend panel life(at the expense of color purity).


----------



## stl8k

AUO with a 4K 144hz Printed RGB OLED Prototype


----------



## stl8k

I noticed a new (hand)book on Advanced Display Technology for Next Generation Self-Emitting Displays is available and searchable/previewable on Google. Edited by the former CTO at LGD.

Advanced Display Technology

After a quick look, it has some unique content not available elsewhere. Serious OLED display enthusiasts might want to consider a purchase of the whole book or individual chapters.


----------



## dkfan9

stl8k said:


> I noticed a new (hand)book on Advanced Display Technology for Next Generation Self-Emitting Displays is available and searchable/previewable on Google. Edited by the former CTO at LGD.
> 
> Advanced Display Technology
> 
> After a quick look, it has some unique content not available elsewhere. Serious OLED display enthusiasts might want to consider a purchase of the whole book or individual chapters.


Thanks for this. The pixel circuits chapter is interesting.


----------



## CA22EF

Delete


----------



## 59LIHP

Nanosys Acquires μLED’ Display Developer glō
















Nanosys Acquires μLED’ Display Developer glō_05/30/21


Nanosys Acquires μLED’ Display Developer glō Glō’s contribution is efficient xGaN MicroLEDs based on proprietary methods and processes. The acquisition puts Nanosys’ is a position to...



www.oled-a.org


----------



## 59LIHP

TV MicroLED SAMSUNG : Premières Impressions et Interview Vérité (en France)





_The Samsung Micro-Led television visible at Fnac des Ternes in Paris: *our first measurements







*_
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-tel...s-n164321.html
https://translate.google.com/transla...html&sandbox=1


----------



## stl8k

A recent patent from LGD veteran Shinji Takasugi looks interesting enough to mention here:

The patent covers a variety of benefits (see the 12 patent classifications) that come from working around a phenomenon unique to WOLED (which involves RGB→RGBW conversion) that complicates sensing and compensation.



> When the voltage is continuously applied to the gate of the driving transistor M*2*, a phenomenon that the threshold voltage is shifted occurs due to a charge trap in a channel. The voltage compensation of the step S*107* is performed for compensating the shift (variation) of the threshold voltage. A shift direction of the threshold voltage depends on a magnitude of the applied voltage, especially a difference between the applied voltage and the threshold voltage. Since the difference between the applied voltage and the threshold voltage in the sub-pixel of the off state and the difference between the applied voltage and the threshold voltage in the sub-pixel of the on state are opposite to each other, the shift direction of the sub-pixel of the off state and the shift direction of the sub-pixel of the on state are opposite to each other. In the voltage compensation of the step S*107*, compensation along an opposite direction to the other sub-pixel is required for the sub-pixel of the off state. However, the compensation of the threshold voltage shift _along an opposite direction_ may be difficult because of reasons such that sensing the threshold voltage shift along an opposite direction is hard and the compensation range has a limitation.












US20200402440A1 - Display control device, display device and method of controlling display device - Google Patents


----------



## Robertoy

Transferred to:








LGs 2021 OLED TV lineup


One might even suggest that is what the shipping box is for! ...along with giant blocks of styrofoam.




www.avsforum.com


----------



## dkfan9

Robertoy said:


> Soon we will know about rtings impressions regarding stutter (with OLED fast response time) in OLED 60Hz (and also the tv working in 48Hz (2:2 pulldown))
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reviews and Ratings
> 
> 
> Find the best products for your needs, based on our reviews, ratings and recommendations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rtings.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LG C1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This year 60Hz LG tv´s (as 60Hz TCL models) are 100% judder free.
> 
> *LG UP8000*


LG TVs have had this down for years, thankfully.


----------



## Robertoy

Stop the FOMO:


> _Use this sample video to test the motion processing quality of your TV with all motion processing (soap opera effect) disabled for movie content.
> Directions:
> 
> 1. Disable all motion processing such as motion smoothing
> or anti-judder or anti-blur settings
> 2. Or enable "Filmmaker Mode" which should effectively
> disable all motion processing
> 3. This eliminates the "soap opera" look but
> exposes your TV's motion processor to stutter/judder,
> which the following series of footage determine
> how well your TV processes 24p motion (movie content)_







Sony, Vizio, Hisense and TCL















TrueCut | Pixelworks


----------



## fafrd

Seems like Kyulux is pretty much there with Green and Red now, but still has a long way to go on Blue: OLED Info | The OLED Experts


----------



## fafrd

Not a good sign for Samsung deciding to commit to the launch of QD-BOLED this September: Samsung Display may manufacture LCD up to 2022, CEO says

‘Samsung Display CEO Choi Joo-sun said the company was reviewing extending the production of large-sized LCD panels to the *end of 2022*, in an email sent to employees of its large-sized panel business unit.’

So it’s either going to be a September commitment to ‘as-fast-as-possible’ QD-BOLED launch meaning terminating large-panel LCD production at the end of this year (so that those additional 8.5G LCD fabs can be converted to QD-BOLED manufacturing in 2022, as has been planned).

Or it’s going to be a half-baked commitment to launch a single low-volume QD-BOLED product based on the one 8.5G LCD fab which has already been shut-down and converted to QD-BOLED R&D and pilot production with a delay of another year to 2023 before converting the additional LCD fans to QD-BOLED production (meaning Samsung will be limited to no more than ~5000 QD-BOLED panels per month through 2023).

Or it means yet another ’kick-the-can-down-the-road’ delay of 6-12 months on starting pilot production of QD-BOLED and also probably a delay until 2023 of the first QD-BOLED TV launched by Samsung Visual Display…

Final decision not expected before September, but tea leaves are now pointing towards the last of those three possible outcomes…


----------



## Robertoy

Transferred to:








LGs 2021 OLED TV lineup


One might even suggest that is what the shipping box is for! ...along with giant blocks of styrofoam.




www.avsforum.com


----------



## MechanicalMan

Maybe we need a dedicated thread for posting worthless Quantum troll videos.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Not a good sign for Samsung deciding to commit to the launch of QD-BOLED this September: Samsung Display may manufacture LCD up to 2022, CEO says
> 
> ‘Samsung Display CEO Choi Joo-sun said the company was reviewing extending the production of large-sized LCD panels to the *end of 2022*, in an email sent to employees of its large-sized panel business unit.’
> 
> So it’s either going to be a September commitment to ‘as-fast-as-possible’ QD-BOLED launch meaning terminating large-panel LCD production at the end of this year (so that those additional 8.5G LCD fabs can be converted to QD-BOLED manufacturing in 2022, as has been planned).
> 
> Or it’s going to be a half-baked commitment to launch a single low-volume QD-BOLED product based on the one 8.5G LCD fab which has already been shut-down and converted to QD-BOLED R&D and pilot production with a delay of another year to 2023 before converting the additional LCD fans to QD-BOLED production (meaning Samsung will be limited to no more than ~5000 QD-BOLED panels per month through 2023).
> 
> Or it means yet another ’kick-the-can-down-the-road’ delay of 6-12 months on starting pilot production of QD-BOLED and also probably a delay until 2023 of the first QD-BOLED TV launched by Samsung Visual Display…
> 
> Final decision not expected before September, but tea leaves are now pointing towards the last of those three possible outcomes…


At least in my world, if the CEO emails all employees that this might happen, it's gonna happen, barring some big change elsewhere (which sr leadership doesn't expect - hence the email). So, is the projected cash too enticing or are the politics too locked up or a little of both?


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> At least in my world, if the CEO emails all employees that this might happen, it's gonna happen, barring some big change elsewhere (which sr leadership doesn't expect - hence the email). So, is the projected cash too enticing or are the politics too locked up or a little of both?


The entire company (Samsung Display) had their full workforce focused on finding a better future by escaping the LCD trap and forging ahead to pioneer QD-BOLED.

So yes, I think you are correct that ‘letter from the CEO’ = done deal, but no, I don’t think ‘the money’ has anything to do with it. QD-BOLED is not yet ready for prime-time, the CEO already knows what the outcome of the ‘September Market Survey’ is going to be, and he’s getting the employees prepared in advance with a ‘glass half full’ cover story for what would otherwise be pretty disappointing news…


----------



## stl8k

Form Factor Innovation via LG Display


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> The entire company (Samsung Display) had their full workforce focused on finding a better future by escaping the LCD trap and forging ahead to pioneer QD-BOLED.
> 
> So yes, I think you are correct that ‘letter from the CEO’ = done deal, but no, I don’t think ‘the money’ has anything to do with it. QD-BOLED is not yet ready for prime-time, the CEO already knows what the outcome of the ‘September Market Survey’ is going to be, and he’s getting the employees prepared in advance with a ‘glass half full’ cover story for what would otherwise be pretty disappointing news…


How is extending LCD production into 2022 disappointing news? They will probably have record profits this year. LCD panel prices are higher than they've been for many years and they would be crazy not to profit from this opportunity while it lasts. QD-OLED only made more sense when there was no money in LCD due to Chinese competition.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> *How is extending LCD production into 2022 disappointing news? *They will probably have record profits this year. LCD panel prices are higher than they've been for many years and they would be crazy not to profit from this opportunity while it lasts. QD-OLED only made more sense when there was no money in LCD due to Chinese competition.


It depends on which audience you’re speaking about. To investors it may well be welcome news. Possibly also to executives with bonus plans tied to profitability.

But think about the line workers assembling those LCDs - they don’t get any bonuses tied to profitability and their main concern is the future of their jobs.

With a post-LCD flat-panel technology that has started to take off, the future of those jobs is reasonably assured. With another year playing the game of LCD chicken with the Chinese, there is a great deal more uncertainty…


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> The entire company (Samsung Display) had their full workforce focused on finding a better future by escaping the LCD trap and forging ahead to pioneer QD-BOLED.
> 
> So yes, I think you are correct that ‘letter from the CEO’ = done deal, but no, I don’t think ‘the money’ has anything to do with it. QD-BOLED is not yet ready for prime-time, the CEO already knows what the outcome of the ‘September Market Survey’ is going to be, and he’s getting the employees prepared in advance with a ‘glass half full’ cover story for what would otherwise be pretty disappointing news…


When I posted above I had first tried to get a breakdown of SDC revenue (and profit - why not?!) for TV panels and mobile OLED panels ("90% of the market"), but couldn't find it as I assume it is folded up into the SEC operations numbers that I did find for Q1. Anybody have an idea of the split?


----------



## fafrd

WOLED making significant market share gains in Q1’21: LG Gained, Samsung Lost Share in Booming Advanced TV Market in Q1 2021 - Display Supply Chain Consultants

I’m unable to copy any of the graphs so you’ll need to follow the link if you want to see them, but here are a few key takeaways:

‘While in 2020, we observed that the smaller screen sizes of Advanced TVs recorded the biggest gains, in the first quarter of 2021 it was all about the biggest sizes. Advanced LCD TVs of 75” increased 158% Y/Y to 336K, and Advanced LCD TVs larger than 75” increased 103% to 123K, while *OLED TVs 77” and larger increased by 430% to 85K,* more than the total cumulative volume of this category for all years up to the end of 2019.’

‘While OLED TV share of all Advanced TV had declined during 2018-2020, the additional capacity from LG Display’s Guangzhou fab combined with rising LCD TV panel prices helped OLED TV regain some share in the premium category. *OLED TV shipments increased by 97% Y/Y in Q1 2021,* while Advanced LCD TV shipments increased by a more modest 61% Y/Y, and *OLED TV share increased from 26% in Q1 2020 to 30% in Q1 2021.*’

‘Revenues for 75” Advanced LCD TVs increased by 105%, those for >75” increased by 106% and *revenues for 77”+ OLED TV increased by 358% as the sales volume increased dramatically with only modest price declines.*’

‘Overall, *OLED TV revenues increased by 111% Y/Y on the strength of increasing 77” OLED TV sales as well as sales of 48”, which was introduced in Q2 2020*. Advanced LCD TV revenues increased by 54% Y/Y as the mix shifted to large sizes and price increases remained modest. As a result, *OLED TV revenue share of Advanced TV increased from 33% in Q1 2020 to 41% in Q4 2020.*’

‘Another interesting cut of the brand data is the battle by screen size, with *the 55” battle shown in the next chart*. After leading the category for more than two years, *Samsung has been passed by LG for the top spot*, as LG revenues for 55” Advanced TVs increased 93% Y/Y while Samsung revenues for 55” TVs declined by 2%. Samsung’s unit share of 55” Advanced TV declined from 51% in Q1 2020 to 42% in Q1 2021, and its revenue share declined from 48% to 34%. *LG’s share of 55” Advanced TV *units increased Y/Y from 20% to 23%, and LG’s *revenue share increased to 37%.* Sony, Panasonic and TCL round out the top five brands for 55” Advanced TV.’

‘In the largest size category of 70”+ Samsung has seen its position erode from a near-monopoly in 2018 to 2019 to mere dominance in 2020-2021 as *LGE and Sony sales of 77” OLED *and TCL sales of 75” LCD have increased dramatically. In Q1 2021, Samsung still captured 67% unit share of 70”+ Advanced TV shipments and 59% revenue share, but these figures were down from 81% and 77%, respectively, from Q1 2020. Meanwhile, *LG’s revenue share increased from 10% to 21% during the same time period*, and both Sony and TCL gained two share points.’

‘The chart shows that* Samsung’s leading position in Advanced TV is mostly a function of its dominance in Advanced TVs under $1000. *Samsung’s strategy of pushing its QLED product line toward mainstream price points has allowed it to thrive, but Vizio, TCL and Hisense also appear as competitors at these lower prices.* LG’s OLED TVs give it the leading position in the range of $1000-$2000 and a strong position in the market above $3000, *and TCL’s MiniLED TVs have given that brand a foothold in the price range of $2000-$3000.’

Cliff-notes version:

-LG now dominates 55” Advanced TV sales as well as Advanced TV sales in the $1000-2000 price range (which is probably two ways of saying the same thing).

-LG is in the process of repeating that dominance in Advanced TVs priced over $3000 with their 2021 drive to lower price and increase volume of 77” WOLED sales.

-WOLED now captures 30% of all advanced TV sales by volume and 41% of all advanced TV sales by revenue.

-Samsung is only holding onto their in the Advanced TV Market because they are bottom-feeding with low-priced (and low margin) QDEF-based QLED/LCD TVs where it’s now under pressure from TCL, Vizio, and Hisense (nothing particularly special / proprietary about QDEF).

When you digest this data and consider that Samsung saw all of these trends months ago, the ‘rumors’ about Samsung entering into discussions with LGD about sourcing WOLED panels takes on a whole new light…

We’ll need to wait to see how the dust clears on the whole year, but it’s looking likely that 2021 will go down as the year WOLED came to dominate the Advanced TV Market…


----------



## dkfan9

"Domination" sounds a little strong to me. Only 3% difference in revenue share overall at 55". And Samsung still has a 20% margin over LG in unit share at 55".


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> "Domination" sounds a little strong to me. Only 3% difference in revenue share overall at 55". And Samsung still has a 20% margin over LG in unit share at 55".


When a technology comes out of nowhere to capture the majority of the revenue (and almost-certainly profit as well) in a target market, I’m comfortable with the term ‘dominate’.

The real question is whether the trend over the past year continues if was a flash in the pan…

But when you add in the fact that LGD will be further increasing monthly WOLED production levels by over 21% come July as well as the likely development that they’ll be announcing another LCD fab conversion or acceleration of their 10.5G manufacturing schedule before the year is out, continued domination is likely to be looking more and more likely…

Of course, Samsung actually becoming a WOLED customer and selling ~5million WOLED TVs next year would be the final nail in the ‘LCD-domination-of-Advanced-TV-Market’ coffin.


----------



## fafrd

Found this from a little less than a year ago, and kind of interesting how quickly things can change: QD-OLED to account little in large-sized OLED market: UBI Research

‘In 2021, shipment of WRGB-OLED panels, produced solely by LG Display, will reach *4.69 million units*, while only 360,000 units of QD-OLED panels will be moved.’

Woops! LGD shipped 1.6M WOLED panels in the slowest Q1 quarter alone and is planning to ship 8M this year (70% more than UBI’s forecast).

Oh, and QD-OLED shipments this year will be zero (100% miss).

‘*In 2024, 9.77 million WRGB-OLED will be shipped* while QD-OLED shipment will reach 830,000 units.’

With the July ‘21 expansion of Guangzhou to 90,000 8.5G substrates per month, LGD will enter 2022 with a monthly production capacity of over 914,000 WOLED panels per month (assuming 95% yield). That translates to 11 million WOLED panels in *2022*!!!

It’s likely LGD will announce another 8.5G LCD fab conversion to WOLED or an acceleration of the 10.5G WOLED production schedule before this year is out (certainly if WOLED panel supply to Samsung is confirmed), so it’s highly-likely LGD will enter 2024 with another 30-60% in WOLED production capacity and should be in a position to deliver 140-150% of what UBI forecasted only a year ago…


----------



## stl8k

*TCL's Printed 65" 8K OLED Proto's*

However, as of now, TCL Huaxing engineers have rushed to Japan to do experiments on the JOLED production line and successfully developed 65-inch 8K printed OLED samples.

Google Translate


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> *TCL's Printed 65" 8K OLED Proto's*
> 
> However, as of now, TCL Huaxing engineers have rushed to Japan to do experiments on the JOLED production line and successfully developed 65-inch 8K printed OLED samples.
> 
> Google Translate


Is that reall anything different than this which was posted over a month ago: TCL plans to start producing OLED TV panels by 2023, using an inkjet printing process | OLED-Info

‘TCL said in a recent press conference that the company plans to start producing OLED TV panels in *2023*.’

It’ll be interesting to see whether TCL demonstrates prototypes of printed RGB-OLED TVs at CES’22.

But in some ways, it’ll be even more interesting to see how LGD’s 32” printed RGB-OLED monitors hold up (lifetime) as well as how their prices start drifting down out of the Stratosphere (yield)…

65” OLED TVs hitting price points of $1000 by 2025 is looking like an increasingly good bet .


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

some more tidbits on QD-OLED ongoing development.








Samsung System LSI begins development of 3 T-Con for QD-OLED


Samsung System LSI, the logic chip unit of Samsung Electronics, has begun development of three timing controller (T-Con) for quantum dot (QD)-OLED panels being developed by Samsung Display, TheElec has learned.Samsung Display is planning to send its prototypes of QD-OLED TVs and a monitor to potenti




www.thelec.net


----------



## fafrd

Samsung System LSI begins development of 3 T-Con for QD-OLED


Samsung System LSI, the logic chip unit of Samsung Electronics, has begun development of three timing controller (T-Con) for quantum dot (QD)-OLED panels being developed by Samsung Display, TheElec has learned.Samsung Display is planning to send its prototypes of QD-OLED TVs and a monitor to potenti




www.thelec.net





‘Samsung Display is planning to send its prototypes of QD-OLED TVs and a monitor to potential customers this month.’

‘The samples are for a 4K QD-OLED TV, a 8K QD-OLED TV and a QD-OLED monitor.’

‘Samsung Display has previously sent QD-OLED panel samples to its potential customers, but these samples were not in a completed product format and were made to inspect the quality of the panels. The samples that will be sent this month will be a prototype that is a completed product.’

‘Samsung Display will conduct a market review in September. If the results are favorable, it will begin production of QD-OLED TV and monitor panels in November. System LSI’s T-Con will be in the customer sample stages before November.’


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> some more tidbits on QD-OLED ongoing development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung System LSI begins development of 3 T-Con for QD-OLED
> 
> 
> Samsung System LSI, the logic chip unit of Samsung Electronics, has begun development of three timing controller (T-Con) for quantum dot (QD)-OLED panels being developed by Samsung Display, TheElec has learned.Samsung Display is planning to send its prototypes of QD-OLED TVs and a monitor to potenti
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net


Great minds think alike? 

This is more or less a repeat of the same plan that was disclosed in April.

The one new tidbit is the fact that Samsung Display has commissioned Samsung LSI (the chip branch) to tool up a custom TCON controller chip for QD-OLED.

The one aspect that doesn’t quite square is that the ‘June samples’ will be completed TVs and yet ‘System LSI’s T-Con will be in the customer sample stages before November.’

So sounds like whatever samples Samsung Visual Display and Sony get this month will either be ‘fresh-out-of-the-fab’ engineering samples or will be based on a prototype T-Con using other chips.

It sounds as though they’ll at least be in a position to launch production of 2022 models before the end of this year (though customer samples of the new T-CON in November is cutting it exceedingly close for CES ‘22 product announcements).


----------



## 59LIHP

Mid- to large-sized OLED panel sales jump 156% in Q1








Mid- to large-sized OLED panel sales jump 156% in Q1


Sales of middle to large sized OLED panels in the first quarter of 2021 surged 156% from a year prior, according to market research firm UBI Research.The firm calculated the sales of OLED panels sized 10-inch or larger used in TVs, monitors, notebooks and tablets.Sales for these panels reached US$1.




www.thelec.net


----------



## 59LIHP

Nanosys shakes the microLED world with glō Acquisition – An interview by Yole Developpement








Nanosys shakes the microLED world with glō acquisition - An interview by Yole Developpement - i-Micronews


MicroLEDs are progressing on all fronts. Investments are increasing. Alliances and partnerships are multiplying. Dozens of large corporations and startups have presented prototypes. The first commercial products are hitting the market in 2021. In the longer term, bringing microLEDs from the...




www.i-micronews.com


----------



## fafrd

I wasted some time today analyzing the impact of MMG on LGD’s 8.5G manufacturing lines and the results were surprising enough that I thought I’d share:

8.5G was optimized for 48” (8-up) and 55” (6-up) panel manufacturing, so I’m going to use the utilization rate of those two panel sizes to compare the relative efficiency of LGD’s other panel offerings on 8.5G with and without MMG

Kerf (border around active array) is an important factor and I’m going to use the ~6.5mm border I’ve measured on my 65” WOLED to calculate panel requirements:

55” (54.6”) 8.5G utilization = 92.3%
48” (48.2”) 8.5G utilization = 94.4%

So achieving utilization rates above 92% is generally considered ‘optimal’ and means production costs at 10.5G are unlikely to be much better at 10.5G (and can easily be worse, depending on panel size).

65” (64.5”) 8.5G utilization = 64.1% w/o MMG
65” (64.5”) 8.5G utilization = 96.2% w/ MMG
65” (64.5”) 10.5G utilization = 95.0%

MMG means 65” WOLED utilization on 8.5G substrate is now better than either 55” or 48” and LGD will have better utilization manufacturing 65” panels on 8.5G with MMG than manufacturing them at 10.5G (95.0%).

77”(76.7”) 8.5G utilization = 60.2% w/o MMG
77”((76.7”) 8.5G utilization = 80.3% w/ MMG
75” (75.0”) 10.5G utilization = 94.6%

So MMG reduced raw 77” WOLED panel costs by ~25%, but moving to 10.5G (with a slightly smaller panel size of 75”) is going to reduce raw 75” WOLED costs by an additional ~32% beyond 8.5G w/ MMG (to ~half of the cost on 8.5G w/o MMG!).

83” (82.5”) 8.5G utilization w/o MMG = 70.0%
83” (82.5”) 8.5G utilization w/ MMG = 93.3%
83” (82.5”) 10.5G utilization = 58.3%

This newly-introduced panel size was optimized for 8.5G with MMG and will never be produced on 10.5G.

42” (42.0”?) 8.5G utilization w/o MMG = 73.5%
42” (42.0”?) 8.5G utilization w/ MMG = 98%

Another new panel size that has been optimized for 8.5G…

88” (87.6”) 8.5G utilization w/o MMG = 78.3%
88” (87.6”) 8.5G utilization w/ MMG = 96.3%
88” (87.6”) 10.5G utilization = 65%

Another panel size that will never make sense to move to 10.5G now that LGD has MMG for 8.5G…

So the bottom line from all of this is that the only reason LGD really needs to invest in ramping up 10.5G manufacturing is when they see enough demand of 75” WOLED panels to justify he move (meaning ~250K 75” WOLED panels per month or 3M 75” WOLED panels per year assuming LGD aims to fill initial capacity of 45,000 10.5G substrates / month with 75” WOLED panel production.

That level of demand for 75” WOLEDs is likely a long way off, so LGD could fill a new 10.5G line with 65” and 75” WOLED panel production once 65” WOLED demand approaches 340k/month (4M /year), a level that we should start approaching by next year and should safely reach before 2025…


----------



## fafrd

Q121 Advanced TV Shipments up 70% Y/Y to 3.8m_06/05/21


Q121 Advanced TV Shipments up 70% Y/Y to 3.8m The term Advanced TV (ATV) shipments was created by DSCC and has now been widely adopted by market research firms including Omdia. DSCC defines the...



www.oled-a.org














This is a mixture of QD-LCD and WOLED in LGE’s case, but remarkable nonetheless.

In Q1, 2021, LGE was close to parity with Samsung in TV’s selling for $1000-1500 (LGE ~80% of Samsung) but was slightly ahead Samsung’s share in the $1500-2000 segment and at parity in the $3000-5000 category (where the 77” WOLEDs are selling).

Summing it all up LGE appears to have been ahead by a nose:

‘Taking a more conservative view of the definition of Advanced TV by eliminating the <$1,000 category, *LGE and Samsung were close in shipment volume in Q121 with 34% and 30% shares respectively’*

Why does this matter? We’ll here’s another story from Musings analyzing how Samsung has aggressively discounted Advanced TV prices just weeks after launch in response to the market share they lost in Q1: Samsung Discounts Advanced TVs to Compete with LGE and TCL_06/05/21

‘*Samsung is discounting 10 of its new TV models within two weeks of releasing them as they lost share in the Advanced TV market *and TCL released their 3rd generation Mini LED TVs, which will soon be available in the US at prices substantially less than Samsung Neo Series.’

*







*

Samsung may or may not succeed in reversing market share losses through the rest of this year, but profitability is going to get squeezed in any case.

I think this is an important context for the QD-BOLED decision Samsung will be making in September and even more importantly, any decision Samsung makes to actually commit to WOLED sales in 2022.

2022 is going to be a year of continued market share losses and/or abysmal profitability for Samsung without WOLED offerings. QD-BOLED can’t move the needle on 2022 in any case and won’t be able to move the needle on 2023 either if Samsung decides to delay the ramp/launch for another year come September.

Interesting times in the display world…


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Great minds think alike?
> 
> This is more or less a repeat of the same plan that was disclosed in April.
> 
> The one new tidbit is the fact that Samsung Display has commissioned Samsung LSI (the chip branch) to tool up a custom TCON controller chip for QD-OLED.
> 
> The one aspect that doesn’t quite square is that the ‘June samples’ will be completed TVs and yet ‘System LSI’s T-Con will be in the customer sample stages before November.’
> 
> So sounds like whatever samples Samsung Visual Display and Sony get this month will either be ‘fresh-out-of-the-fab’ engineering samples or will be based on a prototype T-Con using other chips.
> 
> It sounds as though they’ll at least be in a position to launch production of 2022 models before the end of this year (though customer samples of the new T-CON in November is cutting it exceedingly close for CES ‘22 product announcements).


I also would take the English translation with a grain of salt, especially when things don't seem to add up. All that means I guess is it would be nice to get a second source report on the chip timing. Cheers-


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> I wasted some time today analyzing the impact of MMG on LGD’s 8.5G manufacturing lines and the results were surprising enough that I thought I’d share:
> 
> 8.5G was optimized for 48” (8-up) and 55” (6-up) panel manufacturing, so I’m going to use the utilization rate of those two panel sizes to compare the relative efficiency of LGD’s other panel offerings on 8.5G with and without MMG
> 
> Kerf (border around active array) is an important factor and I’m going to use the ~6.5mm border I’ve measured on my 65” WOLED to calculate panel requirements:
> 
> 55” (54.6”) 8.5G utilization = 92.3%
> 48” (48.2”) 8.5G utilization = 94.4%
> 
> So achieving utilization rates above 92% is generally considered ‘optimal’ and means production costs at 10.5G are unlikely to be much better at 10.5G (and can easily be worse, depending on panel size).
> 
> 65” (64.5”) 8.5G utilization = 64.1% w/o MMG
> 65” (64.5”) 8.5G utilization = 96.2% w/ MMG
> 65” (64.5”) 10.5G utilization = 95.0%
> 
> MMG means 65” WOLED utilization on 8.5G substrate is now better than either 55” or 48” and LGD will have better utilization manufacturing 65” panels on 8.5G with MMG than manufacturing them at 10.5G (95.0%).
> 
> 77”(76.7”) 8.5G utilization = 60.2% w/o MMG
> 77”((76.7”) 8.5G utilization = 80.3% w/ MMG
> 75” (75.0”) 10.5G utilization = 94.6%
> 
> So MMG reduced raw 77” WOLED panel costs by ~25%, but moving to 10.5G (with a slightly smaller panel size of 75”) is going to reduce raw 75” WOLED costs by an additional ~32% beyond 8.5G w/ MMG (to ~half of the cost on 8.5G w/o MMG!).
> 
> 83” (82.5”) 8.5G utilization w/o MMG = 70.0%
> 83” (82.5”) 8.5G utilization w/ MMG = 93.3%
> 83” (82.5”) 10.5G utilization = 58.3%
> 
> This newly-introduced panel size was optimized for 8.5G with MMG and will never be produced on 10.5G.
> 
> 42” (42.0”?) 8.5G utilization w/o MMG = 73.5%
> 42” (42.0”?) 8.5G utilization w/ MMG = 98%
> 
> Another new panel size that has been optimized for 8.5G…
> 
> 88” (87.6”) 8.5G utilization w/o MMG = 78.3%
> 88” (87.6”) 8.5G utilization w/ MMG = 96.3%
> 88” (87.6”) 10.5G utilization = 65%
> 
> Another panel size that will never make sense to move to 10.5G now that LGD has MMG for 8.5G…
> 
> So the bottom line from all of this is that the only reason LGD really needs to invest in ramping up 10.5G manufacturing is when they see enough demand of 75” WOLED panels to justify he move (meaning ~250K 75” WOLED panels per month or 3M 75” WOLED panels per year assuming LGD aims to fill initial capacity of 45,000 10.5G substrates / month with 75” WOLED panel production.
> 
> That level of demand for 75” WOLEDs is likely a long way off, so LGD could fill a new 10.5G line with 65” and 75” WOLED panel production once 65” WOLED demand approaches 340k/month (4M /year), a level that we should start approaching by next year and should safely reach before 2025…


I've been saying for years that 75" appears to me to be the future plateau for annually increasing diagonal trend (in volume) for fixed TV (not projector). I base that on my understanding of worldwide dwelling sizes (and therefore wall space). I wonder if LG thinks the same (and OEMs in general)? My point in posting this is I'd love to have someone point to research either confirming that plateau (or lower) or forecasting a continued increase in diagonal beyond 75" with associated reasoning. Cheers


----------



## CA22EF

fafrd said:


> The one aspect that doesn’t quite square is that the ‘June samples’ will be completed TVs and yet ‘System LSI’s T-Con will be in the customer sample stages before November.’


The manufacture procedure is as follows.
1st Engineering Sample 
2nd Working Sample
3rd Pre Production
4th Mass Production
If you have just completed a prototype, it is a "working sample".
The June sample may be using FPGAs.


----------



## dkfan9

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I've been saying for years that 75" appears to me to be the future plateau for annually increasing diagonal trend (in volume) for fixed TV (not projector). I base that on my understanding of worldwide dwelling sizes (and therefore wall space). I wonder if LG thinks the same (and OEMs in general)? My point in posting this is I'd love to have someone point to research either confirming that plateau (or lower) or forecasting a continued increase in diagonal beyond 75" with associated reasoning. Cheers


I think that's right. 85-90" will still grow especially in the US but I don't think it will ever become the new main size like we've seen with 55, 65, and starting to see with 75. And there's still a lot of people for whom 75 is too big so I think even that size will never become as focal as 65 has become.


----------



## fafrd

If this turning point materializes as being forecast by DSCC, it’s likely to mean some especially steeply-discounted TVs come this Black Friday Shopping Season: LCD Supply Demand Shifting to Oversupply - Display Supply Chain Consultants

‘While demand for in-home entertainment soared during the pandemic, US consumers are starting to spend more on travel and other areas that were restricted during lockdown, and therefore will spend less on TVs. *We estimate that US TV shipments in the second quarter of 2021 are likely to be *about the same as 2019 and *down 24% Y/Y from 2020.*’

‘With this combination of factors, *DSCC has concluded that the reversal of supply and demand for large LCDs has begun*.’


----------



## Davenlr

59LIHP said:


> Nanosys shakes the microLED world with glō Acquisition – An interview by Yole Developpement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nanosys shakes the microLED world with glō acquisition - An interview by Yole Developpement - i-Micronews
> 
> 
> MicroLEDs are progressing on all fronts. Investments are increasing. Alliances and partnerships are multiplying. Dozens of large corporations and startups have presented prototypes. The first commercial products are hitting the market in 2021. In the longer term, bringing microLEDs from the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.i-micronews.com


Why do I think the reason we are not seeing microLED, and instead seeing all this work to improve OLED (QD) going on is because the corporations realize once someone buys a microLED, it wont be selling them another TV for a decade while they know the lifespan of OLED is not infinite and has about reached peak brightness, and LCD has inherent issues with blooming and blacks meaning people will still upgrade as new tricks like Mini-LED are introduced, the ODZero, then 8K. A good microLED would last 2X longer than even the best current TV. I just feel if they can shrink organic LEDs they can shrink non-organic microLEDs but are holding back on purpose.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Not a lot of new info in this NIKKEI article, but useful to post in that they appear to see things similarly. Saving jobs as a reason to continue the LCD fabs into 2022 hasn't been discussed much here as far as I remember though. Also, I wonder if SEC having a captive supply of chips from their in-house division will indeed position them for significantly higher sales into '22-'23 vs the competition w/o such in-house capabilities. Though that itself is off topic,_ if it was substantial_ it would be a factor in a QD-OLED decision at least to some degree. 

_"Samsung Electronics intends to manufacture liquid crystal display panels through the end of 2022, reversing plans to end production due to an unexpected spike in demand."
"But the change in plan also highlights Samsung's difficulty in developing next-generation displays, and the tech giant's outlook after the pandemic-driven demand fizzles remains uncertain."
"But Samsung's decision to extend production also suggests the company is not progressing as planned with development of next-generation displays, which were to be mass-produced at the Asan plant."
"With the pricing edge for LCD panels, the tech group apparently thinks continuing output is more advantageous, especially from the perspective of maintaining jobs."
""Demand is starting to soften, and supply may begin to overwhelm demand in the second half of this year," said Yoshio Tamura, president of Asian operations at U.S.-based research firm DSCC."_









Samsung postpones LCD exit to 2022 on pandemic demand


Electronics giant struggles with mass producing next-gen displays




asia.nikkei.com


----------



## lsorensen

Davenlr said:


> Why do I think the reason we are not seeing microLED, and instead seeing all this work to improve OLED (QD) going on is because the corporations realize once someone buys a microLED, it wont be selling them another TV for a decade while they know the lifespan of OLED is not infinite and has about reached peak brightness, and LCD has inherent issues with blooming and blacks meaning people will still upgrade as new tricks like Mini-LED are introduced, the ODZero, then 8K. A good microLED would last 2X longer than even the best current TV. I just feel if they can shrink organic LEDs they can shrink non-organic microLEDs but are holding back on purpose.


We have no idea how long a microLED would last. People seem to be assuming they will somehow last longer and have less chance of burn-in than OLED, but we don't actually know that. People also seem to assume they are close to being able to produce them, which I don't think is actually the case. Someone needs to find a reliable cheap way to put the individual LEDs onto the panel, and that does not sound easy at all.

And any company that could make one to sell affordably would be taking market share from its competitors. Who cares how long until they sell you another TV? There are plenty more customers to steal from the other brands. Besides they will find new features to add that make some people want to upgrade, even just larger screen sizes.

OLED is manufactured in a totally different way than microLED so far. OLED is just putting the white OLED material (in theory, not entirely in practice) equally across the panel, and then using a simple color filter to make some subpixels red, green or blue and leaving one white. The white OLED is made of layers of different colors, but they are all activated at the same time whenever the subpixel is on and then filtered. Not efficient to throw away a lot of the light, but cheap and simple to make.

MicroLED so far seems to be producing red green and blue LEDs, and then moving each one onto the panel and trying to hook them up to the control circuitry. I read some kind of electrostatic alignment (or something) is used to help with this, but it might not always work 100%. I think for some of the large panels they are just physically placing the LEDs on the panel module. But you are moving and attaching 24 million LEDs for a 4K display. Almost 100 million LEDs for an 8K display. And if you don't want to allow any dead pixels, none of those can fail. Try performing 24 or 100 million tiny operations without any errors, then try to do it cheap enough that you can sell it. Good luck to those that are trying. Based on the numbers that have been posted here, I get the impression Samsung is making and selling less than 100 microLED TVs per year at this point. So yes they exist, but at this point they are about as exclusive as hypercars and about as hand made too.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Not a lot of new info in this NIKKEI article, but useful to post in that they appear to see things similarly. Saving jobs as a reason to continue the LCD fabs into 2022 hasn't been discussed much here as far as I remember though. Also, I wonder if SEC having a captive supply of chips from their in-house division will indeed position them for significantly higher sales into '22-'23 vs the competition w/o such in-house capabilities. Though that itself is off topic,_ if it was substantial_ it would be a factor in a QD-OLED decision at least to some degree.
> 
> _"Samsung Electronics intends to manufacture liquid crystal display panels through the end of 2022, reversing plans to end production due to an unexpected spike in demand."
> "But the change in plan also highlights Samsung's difficulty in developing next-generation displays, and the tech giant's outlook after the pandemic-driven demand fizzles remains uncertain."
> "But Samsung's decision to extend production also suggests the company is not progressing as planned with development of next-generation displays, which were to be mass-produced at the Asan plant."
> "With the pricing edge for LCD panels, the tech group apparently thinks continuing output is more advantageous, especially from the perspective of maintaining jobs."
> ""Demand is starting to soften, and supply may begin to overwhelm demand in the second half of this year," said Yoshio Tamura, president of Asian operations at U.S.-based research firm DSCC."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung postpones LCD exit to 2022 on pandemic demand
> 
> 
> Electronics giant struggles with mass producing next-gen displays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asia.nikkei.com


Yeah, they are taking the ‘continued LCD manufacturing through end 2022’ as a done deal, as well as another delay in QD-BOLED launch.

Since the ‘June samples’ have not yet gone out, it’s hard to understand whether they are forecasting a foregone conclusion or they have inside information on some change in the plan for QD-BOLED.

The ‘saving jobs’ angle only makes sense if Samsung Display knows they have nothing new to start producing in their fabs as they shutdown LCD manufacturing. So if they continue to see a bright future for QD-BOLED but have determined they need another year, this all makes sense…

The other angle to consider is what this may mean for any plans Samsung had to launch QD-BOLED. There will be a 1-2 year gap between when Samsung shuts down LCD manufacturing and when QD-BOLED has ramped to fill those 8.5G fabs (assuming all goes as well as possible).

That gap will be a period of vulnerability for SVD, certainly as far as profitability but also in terms of supply, so the ‘let’s commit to 5 million WOLED panels’ seems like a rational decision to hedge their bets and reduce their risk during this manufacturing changeover.

With a shift of one year in the overall plan, that may also translate to a 1year shift in whatever supply agreement SVD has been discussing with LGD…

And that may translate to LGD deciding they don’t need to make any further WOLED fab commitments this year.

Guangzhou moving from 60,000 to 90,000 substrates per month gets them to a maximum of ~11million WOLED panels for 2022 which will be sufficient capacity with Samsung and more than enough without them.

The difference between LGD and Samsung Display when it comes to legacy LCD manufacturing, however, is that LGD already has their ‘new thing’ and will be ready to shut down LCD manufacturing and convert to WOLED whenever the bottom falls out of the LCD market (no worries about ‘saving jobs’ for LGD).

So if Samsung delays WOLED demand by ~1 year and the tide starts turning to oversupply in the LCD panel market as DSCC is forecasting, the result may be that LGD elects to move forward with another 8.5G LCD to WOLED fab conversion for 2023/24 rather than restarting their stalled 10.5G manufacturing plan…


----------



## Davenlr

Technically they only need blue LEDs and quantum dots according to the article above. Apparently the red is the issue, with those LEDS not being as bright as the blue and green, but using Sony's method of a blue backlight and quantum dots (triluminos) seems to have promise. Curious how long quantum dots last? Do they burn out or lose brightness over time?


----------



## wco81

So that new pixel structure on the 77-inch model, do we expect that to be used in the 2022 LG models throughout the line?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> So that new pixel structure on the 77-inch model, do we expect that to be used in the 2022 LG models throughout the line?


The 48”, 55” and 65” panels have subpixel designs optimized to work with either the newer 3S4C / WBE / Evo-enabled WOLED stack or the older 3S3C / WBC / non-Evo WOLED stack, while the 83” and also purportedly 77” panels have subpixel designs optimized only for the new 3S4C / WBE / Evo-enabled panel.

The difference should translate to larger Red:Green subpixel ratio on the 83” and 77” panels compared to the smaller panel sizes, but we don’t yet have any confirmation of that.

So at a minimum, I’d expect 48”, 55”, and 65” WOLED panels to have different WBE-optimized subpixel designs in 2022, and it’s possible that all panel sizes may have their subpixel sizes tweaked for next year.


----------



## wco81

Yeah I just ordered a CX for the bedroom.

Going to hold out and see if they use the new stack for 65-inch for the living room next year.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Yeah I just ordered a CX for the bedroom.
> 
> Going to hold out and see if they use the new stack for 65-inch for the living room next year.


All 2022 WOLEDs are likely to use exclusively the new 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable panel and most are also likely to be fully Evo-enabled (unclear whether they might gimp the A2, for example).

If you’re thinking about waiting to purchase a C1 during Spring Closeout next year hoping you’ll get the WBE panel, that’s a riskier proposition (and won’t have Evo-capability enabled in any case)…


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Yeah, they are taking the ‘continued LCD manufacturing through end 2022’ as a done deal, as well as another delay in QD-BOLED launch.
> 
> Since the ‘June samples’ have not yet gone out, it’s hard to understand whether they are forecasting a foregone conclusion or they have inside information on some change in the plan for QD-BOLED.
> 
> The ‘saving jobs’ angle only makes sense if Samsung Display knows they have nothing new to start producing in their fabs as they shutdown LCD manufacturing. So if they continue to see a bright future for QD-BOLED but have determined they need another year, this all makes sense…
> 
> The other angle to consider is what this may mean for any plans Samsung had to launch QD-BOLED. There will be a 1-2 year gap between when Samsung shuts down LCD manufacturing and when QD-BOLED has ramped to fill those 8.5G fabs (assuming all goes as well as possible).
> 
> That gap will be a period of vulnerability for SVD, certainly as far as profitability but also in terms of supply, so the ‘let’s commit to 5 million WOLED panels’ seems like a rational decision to hedge their bets and reduce their risk during this manufacturing changeover.
> 
> With a shift of one year in the overall plan, that may also translate to a 1year shift in whatever supply agreement SVD has been discussing with LGD…
> 
> And that may translate to LGD deciding they don’t need to make any further WOLED fab commitments this year.
> 
> Guangzhou moving from 60,000 to 90,000 substrates per month gets them to a maximum of ~11million WOLED panels for 2022 which will be sufficient capacity with Samsung and more than enough without them.
> 
> The difference between LGD and Samsung Display when it comes to legacy LCD manufacturing, however, is that LGD already has their ‘new thing’ and will be ready to shut down LCD manufacturing and convert to WOLED whenever the bottom falls out of the LCD market (no worries about ‘saving jobs’ for LGD).
> 
> So if Samsung delays WOLED demand by ~1 year and the tide starts turning to oversupply in the LCD panel market as DSCC is forecasting, the result may be that LGD elects to move forward with another 8.5G LCD to WOLED fab conversion for 2023/24 rather than restarting their stalled 10.5G manufacturing plan…


Has there been any reason to think LG won't get the processor chips that they need in '22-'23+? I'm making a big assumption that they don't have their own captive chip house. That may blow up the thinking right there if they do! Or for that matter, any of the top tier Chinese LCD makers expect significant shortages? That would be very interesting if SEC could take share just because of being able to supply when other can't. I know it's an issue in the Auto space based on all the news, but I haven't seen much impact in the TV space - but may have missed it. Again, the only reason it is interesting here would be if it helped them push out the QD-OLED decision without sustaining a big impact.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Has there been any reason to think LG won't get the processor chips that they need in '22-'23+?


I’m not sure whether your referring to the current shortage or not, but that is for driver chips, not processor chips (and I’m pretty sure WOLED uses different driver chips than LCD in any case).

I’m not sure whether LGE has any preferential semiconductor manufacturer or not (they merged their semiconductor division with Hynix, but that’s primarily a memory manufacturer), but they design their own custom TV processors (like Sony)…



> I'm making a big assumption that they don't have their own captive chip house. That may blow up the thinking right there if they do! Or for that matter, any of the top tier Chinese LCD makers expect significant shortages? That would be very interesting if SEC could take share just because of being able to supply when other can't. I know it's an issue in the Auto space based on all the news, but I haven't seen much impact in the TV space - but may have missed it. Again, the only reason it is interesting here would be if it helped them push out the QD-OLED decision without sustaining a big impact.


DSCC believes that manufacturers will continue to manufacture LCD panels at higher volumes than needed despite the growing glut because of fears of component shortages (so they’d rather over-commit on inventory).

My view is that 3-6 months from now the entire ‘component shortage scare’ will be behind us.

The pandemic interfered with supply chains while at the same time, changing consumption patterns (especially notebook and TV). It was a double-wammy that understandably resulted in some imbalances in historic supply-and demand.

Now with the pandemic fading, supply chains are largely back to work-as-usual and consumption patterns are also reversing back towards historic trends (at least for TVs, according to DSCC).

So I see little chance that we’ll still be talking about IC component shortages come 2022, let alone 2023…


----------



## Robertoy

*Sina Technology*


> _*Product diversification. The popularity of OLED TV in China accelerates*
> 
> Recently, TV manufacturers launched the latest OLED TV, Skyworth launched 65-inch deformable OLED TV, Kangjia launched the APHAEA OLED TV series, Sony also held the Sony Expo in Shanghai, and launched new 83-inch OLED TV products .
> 
> Industry insiders say that, with the impact of the new outbreak of coronary pneumonia, consumers prefer greener OLED television. It is reported that the epidemic causes TV watching, home office and network education to increase, eye care health has become the choice of new television standards, harmful to the eyes of blue light emissions for the industry's smallest phenomenon , and the OLED television screenless flash phenomenon has become a consumer focus.
> 
> Recently, the price of OLED TV was close to the price of LCD TV. According to Ovy Cloud, the average sales price in China's OLED TV market dropped 10.6% compared to the first quarter of 2021. Since the first half of 2020, LCD TV panel prices continue to rise, making cause LCD TV prices to rise significantly. In fact, Kangjia's newly launched 55-inch OLED TV is priced at Rmb5,999, just 300 yuan less than the same size LCD TV. Industry analysts said the same price compared to LCD TV, comfortable eye protection on OLED TV, outstanding tiered value, popular speed on the rise.
> 
> It is reported that OLED TV by self-illuminated pixels, without backlight causing eyestrain, harmful to the eyes with blue light emissions for the industry's smallest LCD TV (LCD TV) 50%. At the same time, unlike LCD TVs, OLED TVs do not have a flickering screen that is prone to eye discomfort. OlED TV panels are known to have been certified as "low blue light emissions" and "non-screen flash" by UL and TUV Rheinland, respectively. At the same time, in Eye's safety testing process, certified as the industry's lowest blue light emission, it won Eye's healthy eye protection certification.
> 
> Since the launch of OLED TV in the Chinese market, the differentiated value of high-end products has been widely recognized by Chinese consumers. In the last year, the prices of OLED TV's have become more popular and have been similar to that of LCD TV. Data from market research agency Omdia show that since the first half of 2020, LCD TV panel prices have continued to rise, causing LCD TV prices to rise significantly. LCD TV prices rose 10.4% in April in April, while 55 inches rose 6.4%.
> 
> Meanwhile, the average selling price in China's OLED TV market dropped 10.6% from the first quarter of 2021, according to Ovy Cloud. Industry sources say rising LCD TV panel prices and the downward trend in OLED TV panel prices will affect OLED TV sales. According to Qunzhi Consulting, global OLED TV shipments will reach 6.15 million units in 2021, an increase of 71.8% on YoY, and are expected to reach 8.5 million units by 2022, an increase of 38, 2% in YoY.
> 
> LG Display, the world's only maker of OLED TV panels, will benefit from increased demand for OLED TVs, according to industry analysts. LG Display commented in its first quarter results: "The most significant part of the first quarter results were the results of OLED TV sales, which changed the lifestyle as a result of the new corona outbreak. The original differentiated value of OlED TV has been widely recognized by customers and end consumers."
> 
> Currently, LG Display's OLED TV panel factory in Guangzhou, China has a monthly production capacity of 60,000 pieces (glass panels), and the Guangzhou factory has a combined production capacity of 80,000 pieces per month with the factory in Pozhou in South Korea, and currently has a monthly production capacity of 140,000 pieces of OLED TV panels (glass substrates).
> 
> Meanwhile, LG Display will add 42-inch and 83-inch OLED TV panels this year to further enrich its product lineup. In addition, LG Display's 83-inch OLED panel, which was publicly illuminated by 20% on the recent Society for Information Display, further improves contrast and color performance. Industry sources say that TV panel production capacity, product line diversification and technological upgrades will further enhance OLED TV in the next generation of competitive advantage in the TV market.
> 
> The upcoming 6.18 (China E-commerce Festival) is a golden promotion period for home appliances. The industry expects 6.18 to be an opportunity for OLED TV sales to increase as more manufacturers launch new OLED TVs and the price of OLED TVs becomes more popular._








产品多样化 中国市场OLED电视普及提速


产品多样化 中国市场OLED电视普及提速



finance.sina.com.cn


----------



## fafrd

Robertoy said:


> *Sina Technology*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 产品多样化 中国市场OLED电视普及提速
> 
> 
> 产品多样化 中国市场OLED电视普及提速
> 
> 
> 
> finance.sina.com.cn


‘LCD TV prices rose 10.4% in April in April, while 55 inches rose 6.4%.

Meanwhile, the average selling price in China's OLED TV market dropped 10.6% from the first quarter of 2021…’

‘In fact, Kangjia's newly launched 55-inch OLED TV is priced at Rmb5,999, just 300 yuan *less than* the same size LCD TV.’

It’s probably just a temporary trend that will start reversing before year-end, but remarkable nonetheless…

But in any case, it looks like Chinese brands starting to jump more strongly onto the OLED bandwagon could provide LGD (as well as Sony) with a nice new source of momentum heading into 2022:

‘Recently, TV manufacturers launched the latest OLED TV, *Skyworth *launched 65-inch deformable OLED TV, *Kangjia *launched the APHAEA OLED TV series, Sony also held the *Sony Expo in Shanghai*, and launched new 83-inch OLED TV products.’[/b][/b]


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> The 48”, 55” and 65” panels have subpixel designs optimized to work with either the newer 3S4C / WBE / Evo-enabled WOLED stack or the older 3S3C / WBC / non-Evo WOLED stack, while the 83” and also purportedly 77” panels have subpixel designs optimized only for the new 3S4C / WBE / Evo-enabled panel.
> 
> The difference should translate to larger Red:Green subpixel ratio on the 83” and 77” panels compared to the smaller panel sizes, but we don’t yet have any confirmation of that.
> 
> So at a minimum, I’d expect 48”, 55”, and 65” WOLED panels to have different WBE-optimized subpixel designs in 2022, and it’s possible that all panel sizes may have their subpixel sizes tweaked for next year.


77" Panels have always had different sub-pixel structure compared to the smaller panels. You are incorrectly assuming those differences have anything to with changes to the emitter layer.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> 77" Panels have always had different sub-pixel structure compared to the smaller panels. You are incorrectly assuming those differences have anything to with changes to the emitter layer.


You could be correct - the only subpixel pictures I have access to are those from Rtings which are always from sub-77” panels.

Do you have access to any older 77” subpixel pictures?

The key point is that it’s been proven/confirmed that LGD used the same subpixel design in 2020 and 2021 for the smaller panel sizes (48”, 55”, 65”) and that that subpixel layout was designed to support either the ‘old’ (2016) 3S3C/WBC/non-Evo WOLED stack or the ‘new’ (2020) 3S4C/WBE/Evo-capable WOLED stack, while the 77” and 83” panels were not intended to support panel/stack mixing and so could have been designed for optimal WBE performance without needing to worry about WBC performance.

LGD certainly had the freedom to introduce new / optimized subpixels at 77” than they used in 2019/2020, but that doesn’t mean they did. The only way to have any idea would be to see 77” subpixel pictures from a 77C9 and a 77CX…

And while we’re on the subject, are you aware of any comparisons between color volume of different WOLED panel sizes?


----------



## Wizziwig

There is a partial photo of a 77" C8 from 2018 in this review (link includes correct time offset). Unfortunately he didn't include all the colors. Rtings only tests 55" OLEDs so only useful for comparing to other 55" OLEDs.
The 88" 8K here but again can't be compared due to the very different pixel pitch.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> There is a partial photo of a 77" C8 from 2018 in this review (link includes correct time offset). Unfortunately he didn't include all the colors. Rtings only tests 55" OLEDs so only useful for comparing to other 55" OLEDs.
> The 88" 8K here but again can't be compared due to the very different pixel pitch.


Thanks, but that doesn’t tell us much.

77” Red was too small in 2018 and it’s much larger now (but we don’t know since when: 2019? 2020? 2021?).

Perhaps with WOLED prices coming down, we can convince Rtings to start buying 77” WOLEDs going forward…


----------



## CA22EF

Robertoy said:


> _It is reported that the epidemic causes TV watching, home office and network education to increase, eye care health has become the choice of new television standards, harmful to the eyes of blue light emissions for the industry's smallest phenomenon , and the OLED television screenless flash phenomenon has become a consumer focus._


I like non-PWM to.
Here is the certification database.


https://www.certipedia.com/quality_marks/0217008111




https://www.certipedia.com/quality_marks/0000074818


----------



## Wizziwig

Whatever sub-pixel changes are made for each panel size are irrelevant to performance. D-Nice has now tested 55", 65", and 83" A90J and they produce similar results.


----------



## dkfan9

Robertoy said:


> *Sina Technology*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 产品多样化 中国市场OLED电视普及提速
> 
> 
> 产品多样化 中国市场OLED电视普及提速
> 
> 
> 
> finance.sina.com.cn


For me, the most telling piece of this article is the price of the recently released Kangjia OLEDs, $938. Looks like the Chinese domestic TV market is pretty well integrated into the global TV market.


----------



## wco81

Wizziwig said:


> Whatever sub-pixel changes are made for each panel size are irrelevant to performance. D-Nice has now tested 55", 65", and 83" A90J and they produce similar results.


Yeah but we will KNOW that it has a tighter pixel structure.

😊


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> 77" Panels have always had different sub-pixel structure compared to the smaller panels. You are incorrectly assuming those differences have anything to with changes to the emitter layer.


I recall the same about the 77"s.


----------



## ALMA

Wizziwig said:


> There is a partial photo of a 77" C8 from 2018 in this review (link includes correct time offset). Unfortunately he didn't include all the colors. Rtings only tests 55" OLEDs so only useful for comparing to other 55" OLEDs.
> The 88" 8K here but again can't be compared due to the very different pixel pitch.


The 77" C8 has a different panel than the 77" C9!



https://www.avsforum.com/attachments/77c9-altenate-zoom-png.2571680/











2019 C9–E9 Owner's Thread (No Price Talk)


Lol how can you stand 1440p on a 77” screen? I’m playing 4k on a 55” oled and really want more pixel density. 40”-43” would be ideal for me. I bet 120hz is awesome though. Interestingly I felt the same sitting a few feet away playing 4k on my 55 E6, that I would appreciate even more pixels, but...




www.avsforum.com







> Curious how long quantum dots last? Do they burn out or lose brightness over time?


Currently organic emitters last much longer than inorganic ELQD. Blue is always an issue. It´s the
rarest color in nature, because it requires the highest energy to be created. ELQD has the same issues than OLED.
There is a reason why no long lifetime blue QD (transmissive and emissive) is available and Samsung working only with green and red transmissive QD for color conversion of blue light created by LED or OLED.
The debate about organic will burn in and inorganic not is completely nonsense and only driven by marketing. 
You can´t compare LCD technology with self emitting millions of pixels in an OLED TV. It´s a debate which needed to be enlightened and put right. Even Vincent Teoh doing wrong assumption about this topic, every time when he talking about MicroLED, QD and OLED. Every light will fade over time. Organic in OLED standing for an carbonaceous emitter and not vegetables. ELQD having crystalline raw materials.









Sony A8 (A8H) 4K OLED TV Review & Comments


Coming from someone who owns and uses almost daily both a Panny and a Sony OLED, the DV implementation on the Sony lacks quite a bit. They should have fixed it by now really. DV on my XH95 is superb.




www.avforums.com













Sony A8 (A8H) 4K OLED TV Review & Comments


Coming from someone who owns and uses almost daily both a Panny and a Sony OLED, the DV implementation on the Sony lacks quite a bit. They should have fixed it by now really. DV on my XH95 is superb.




www.avforums.com


----------



## CA22EF

ALMA said:


> The 77" C8 has a different panel than the 77" C9!
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/attachments/77c9-altenate-zoom-png.2571680/


great!
Indeed, T-CON is also very different.
OLED77C8PUA








LG 6871L-5467C (6870C-0758A) T-Con Board


Shop this replacement part to repair a variety of Lg models. 180-Day Warranty. Ships same business day.




www.shopjimmy.com




OLED77C9AUB








LG 6871L-5917B (6870C-0809A) T-Con Board


Shop this replacement part to repair a variety of LG models. 180-Day Warranty. Ships same business day.




www.shopjimmy.com




OLED77CXAUA








LG 6871L-6457B 6871L-6457C 6871L-6457D T-Con Board


Shop this replacement part to repair a variety of LG models. 180-Day Warranty. Ships same business day.




www.shopjimmy.com





77C9 and 77CX had similar model names stamped on the board.
77C8 "LE770AQD-ALA1"
77C9 "V19 77U CPCB"
77CX "V20 77U"


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> I’m not sure whether your referring to the current shortage or not, but that is for driver chips, not processor chips (and I’m pretty sure WOLED uses different driver chips than LCD in any case).
> 
> I’m not sure whether LGE has any preferential semiconductor manufacturer or not (they merged their semiconductor division with Hynix, but that’s primarily a memory manufacturer), but they design their own custom TV processors (like Sony)…
> 
> 
> DSCC believes that manufacturers will continue to manufacture LCD panels at higher volumes than needed despite the growing glut because of fears of component shortages (so they’d rather over-commit on inventory).
> 
> My view is that 3-6 months from now the entire ‘component shortage scare’ will be behind us.
> 
> The pandemic interfered with supply chains while at the same time, changing consumption patterns (especially notebook and TV). It was a double-wammy that understandably resulted in some imbalances in historic supply-and demand.
> 
> Now with the pandemic fading, supply chains are largely back to work-as-usual and consumption patterns are also reversing back towards historic trends (at least for TVs, according to DSCC).
> 
> So I see little chance that we’ll still be talking about IC component shortages come 2022, let alone 2023…


Thanks for you thoughts--


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> The 77" C8 has a different panel than the 77" C9!
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/attachments/77c9-altenate-zoom-png.2571680/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2019 C9–E9 Owner's Thread (No Price Talk)
> 
> 
> Lol how can you stand 1440p on a 77” screen? I’m playing 4k on a 55” oled and really want more pixel density. 40”-43” would be ideal for me. I bet 120hz is awesome though. Interestingly I felt the same sitting a few feet away playing 4k on my 55 E6, that I would appreciate even more pixels, but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently organic emitters last much longer than inorganic ELQD. Blue is always an issue. It´s the
> rarest color in nature, because it requires the highest energy to be created. ELQD has the same issues than OLED.
> There is a reason why no long lifetime blue QD (transmissive and emissive) is available and Samsung working only with green and red transmissive QD for color conversion of blue light created by LED or OLED.
> The debate about organic will burn in and inorganic not is completely nonsense and only driven by marketing.
> You can´t compare LCD technology with self emitting millions of pixels in an OLED TV. It´s a debate which needed to be enlightened and put right. Even Vincent Teoh doing wrong assumption about this topic, every time when he talking about MicroLED, QD and OLED. Every light will fade over time. Organic in OLED standing for an carbonaceous emitter and not vegetables. ELQD having crystalline raw materials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sony A8 (A8H) 4K OLED TV Review & Comments
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who owns and uses almost daily both a Panny and a Sony OLED, the DV implementation on the Sony lacks quite a bit. They should have fixed it by now really. DV on my XH95 is superb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avforums.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sony A8 (A8H) 4K OLED TV Review & Comments
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who owns and uses almost daily both a Panny and a Sony OLED, the DV implementation on the Sony lacks quite a bit. They should have fixed it by now really. DV on my XH95 is superb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avforums.com


This is great, everyone, thanks.

All we need now is a picture of the 77CX pixel structure to have the complete sequence.

But from the images that have already been found for C8 and C9 we can already get an idea what LGD has been changing as far as subpixel design on the 77” panels;

2018: R << W
2019: G < B < R < W (red enlarged 
2020: ?
2021: G < B < R = W (red enlarged again)

We can see how this compares to the 55C1 captured by Rtings (which is the same subpixel design as the 55CX):










Using my similar simple codification, I’d characterize this as:

55C1 (and 55CX): G = B < R < W

So similar to the 77C9 layout with the possible change of a slightly smaller relative Blue subpixel.

And if we compare to the large-panel 2020 subpixels D-Nice captured off of an 83A90J:2021 LG OLED C1 + G1 Owner's Thread + FAQ - No...

Which I would characterize as G < B < R = W the primary change versus the 55C1 appears to be red increased again to approximately match the size of white.

Red has been WOLEDs weakest color and the new 3S4C / WBE / Evo-enabled stack makes it even weaker, so an Evo-optimized subpixel design having the largest Red:White Subpixel ratio we’ve ever seen makes sense.

Blue is stronger by +20% in the 3S4C stack so the blue subpixel being slightly reduced in favor or red also makes sense.

Green is much stronger in the 3S4C stack. The new ‘green luminance element’ improves green efficiency by as much as +100%, so an Evo-optimized green subpixel could be smaller by as much as 50%, but appears to have been reduced by less than that.

One explanation is that LGD has decided that fully-saturated color volume is now as important or more important than maximizing peak White level.

The only way we’ll be able to determine that is to compare fully-saturated peak measurements off of a 77G1 to those of a 77C9.

But of course, the easiest way to determine whether the current 77/83” subpixel designs have already been optimized for 3S4C performance or not will be to see whether LGD introduces any changes (like relatively smaller green subpixel) in the 2022 panels…


----------



## Wizziwig

You are ignoring other reasons why one might change sub-pixel geometry that have nothing to do with color efficiency. The driving circuits for each sub-pixel need to go somewhere and are not symmetrical in layout for all 4 colors. This is why you get those weird shapes instead of simple rectangles of various sizes for each color. They have buried circuit traces and components inside some of those indentations. The spare room varies by pixel pitch which is why the shapes change with panel size. Obviously color efficiency plays a role too but it needs to be balanced with what they can fit in the available "dead space" of the panel.


----------



## RichB

fafrd said:


> This is great, everyone, thanks.
> 
> All we need now is a picture of the 77CX pixel structure to have the complete sequence.
> 
> But from the images that have already been found for C8 and C9 we can already get an idea what LGD has been changing as far as subpixel design on the 77” panels;
> 
> 2018: R << W
> 2019: G < B < R < W (red enlarged
> 2020: ?
> 2021: G < B < R = W (red enlarged again)
> 
> We can see how this compares to the 55C1 captured by Rtings (which is the same subpixel design as the 55CX):
> 
> View attachment 3142780
> 
> 
> Using my similar simple codification, I’d characterize this as:
> 
> I will be getting a LG 83C1. What is needed to tack pictures like this?
> 
> - Rich
> 55C1 (and 55CX): G = B < R < W
> 
> So similar to the 77C9 layout with the possible change of a slightly smaller relative Blue subpixel.
> 
> And if we compare to the large-panel 2020 subpixels D-Nice captured off of an 83A90J:2021 LG OLED C1 + G1 Owner's Thread + FAQ - No...
> 
> Which I would characterize as G < B < R = W the primary change versus the 55C1 appears to be red increased again to approximately match the size of white.
> 
> Red has been WOLEDs weakest color and the new 3S4C / WBE / Evo-enabled stack makes it even weaker, so an Evo-optimized subpixel design having the largest Red:White Subpixel ratio we’ve ever seen makes sense.
> 
> Blue is stronger by +20% in the 3S4C stack so the blue subpixel being slightly reduced in favor or red also makes sense.
> 
> Green is much stronger in the 3S4C stack. The new ‘green luminance element’ improves green efficiency by as much as +100%, so an Evo-optimized green subpixel could be smaller by as much as 50%, but appears to have been reduced by less than that.
> 
> One explanation is that LGD has decided that fully-saturated color volume is now as important or more important than maximizing peak White level.
> 
> The only way we’ll be able to determine that is to compare fully-saturated peak measurements off of a 77G1 to those of a 77C9.
> 
> But of course, the easiest way to determine whether the current 77/83” subpixel designs have already been optimized for 3S4C performance or not will be to see whether LGD introduces any changes (like relatively smaller green subpixel) in the 2022 panels…


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> You are ignoring other reasons why one might change sub-pixel geometry that have nothing to do with color efficiency. *The driving circuits for each sub-pixel need to go somewhere and are not symmetrical in layout for all 4 colors. *This is why you get those weird shapes instead of simple rectangles of various sizes for each color. They have buried circuit traces and components inside some of those indentations. The spare room varies by pixel pitch which is why the shapes change with panel size. Obviously color efficiency plays a role too but it needs to be balanced with what they can fit in the available "dead space" of the panel.


I’m well-aware if that.

In the end, the pixel full-factor depends on the ‘dead space’ needed for subpixel circuitry, the minimum inter-subpixel distances required, and the dead space caused by any top traces routed in non-transparent metal (is that what causes the large black lines between WOLED rows?).

But no matter the pixel size and no matter how much dead space is needed for curcuitry, in the end it all translates to relative mm^2 (or rather um^2) of W, R, G and B subpixels.

Subpixel size determines current density and lifetime / aging and the only reason you’d choose a different set of active subpixel area ratios is if you decided to match performance / specifications of a larger panel with larger fill factor to the performance of a smaller panel with smaller fill factor (meaning you’ve got excess real-estate / subpixel area to burn).

I circled back and had another look at the 88Z9 subpixel shot by HDTVTEST, since that’s the smallest subpixel we’ve seen (4K @ 44” equivalent). The 88Z9 has a larger white subpixel relative to the colored subpixel than any of the other designs we’ve seen. I’d characterize it as G < B < R << W, and this should mean higher peak whites but at the expense of lower peak fully-saturated colors.

So comparing 2019 WOLED sub-pixels for different panel sizes, we’ve got:

88Z9: G < B < R << W
55C9: G = B < R < W
77C9: G < B < R < W
(and 83C1: G < B < R = W)

Obviously, this is very handwavy and wend need someone with the wherewithal to translate these pictures and eyeball estimates into measured % for each subpixel to confirm this trend definitively.

But that being said, to me it seems likely that LGD has made the decision to maintain peak white levels across different panel sizes of a generation and to use additional available pixel space on larger panel sizes to increase peak fully-saturated color levels (or just to increase lifetime if they’ve decided to fully-match color volume, even at the fully-saturated extremes).

Geometry / design changes to accommodate subpixel circuitry, but overall area does not (need to, at least)…


----------



## 59LIHP

OLED emission material market to grow 9% per year until 2025 








OLED emission material market to grow 9% per year until 2025


OLED emission market will grow 9% a year on average from 2021 to 2025, market research firm UBI Research said.The market will be worth US$2.25 billion in 2025, it said.Despite Chinese panel makers expanding their OLED production line, the OLED emission material market will be led by their South Kore




thelec.net


----------



## 8mile13

Samsung Display on track to roll out QD displays in H2 | Yonhap News Agency (yna.co.kr)


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> Samsung Display on track to roll out QD displays in H2 | Yonhap News Agency (yna.co.kr)


Yes, ‘On Track’ with the plan to send out samples for evaluation this month for a September ‘Market Evaluation’ checkpoint.

‘Samsung Display is set to release pilot products of the quantum-dot (QD) display for TVs and monitors this month and send them to its clients for further testing, according to the sources.’

Whether production starts this year depends critically on whether Sony says the technology is ‘good enough’ and is ready to commit some orders.

We already know what Samsung Visual Display’s feedback is likely to be (‘keep working on it for another year’) but the agreement is to allow Sony to provide an impartial 3rd-party assessment…

My guess is the chance of Samsung actually launching QD-BOLED this year is down under 10% (hugely supported by the recent rumors of communications to employees and suppliers about continued LCD production through 2022…).


----------



## pakotlar

fafrd said:


> You could be correct - the only subpixel pictures I have access to are those from Rtings which are always from sub-77” panels.
> 
> Do you have access to any older 77” subpixel pictures?
> 
> The key point is that it’s been proven/confirmed that LGD used the same subpixel design in 2020 and 2021 for the smaller panel sizes (48”, 55”, 65”) and that that subpixel layout was designed to support either the ‘old’ (2016) 3S3C/WBC/non-Evo WOLED stack or the ‘new’ (2020) 3S4C/WBE/Evo-capable WOLED stack, while the 77” and 83” panels were not intended to support panel/stack mixing and so could have been designed for optimal WBE performance without needing to worry about WBC performance.
> 
> LGD certainly had the freedom to introduce new / optimized subpixels at 77” than they used in 2019/2020, but that doesn’t mean they did. The only way to have any idea would be to see 77” subpixel pictures from a 77C9 and a 77CX…
> 
> And while we’re on the subject, are you aware of any comparisons between color volume of different WOLED panel sizes?


Not all 77CX have the old panel. Some also have the WBE panel, so it is likely that the sub pixel structure also has not changed.


----------



## Adonisds

Reviews show that the G1 consumes much less power. Do you people think that this means that LG could have released a G1 with a much higher peak brightness (while still having the same burn-in risk as a CX), but decided not to to reduce the burn-in risk compared to the CX?


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> Reviews show that the G1 consumes much less power. Do you people think that this means that LG could have released a G1 with a much higher peak brightness (while still having the same burn-in risk as a CX), but decided not to to reduce the burn-in risk compared to the CX?


Yes (and the new G1-exclusive 5-year warranty is pretty solid confirmation of this).


----------



## 59LIHP

The State-of-the Art in IJP of OLEDs and QDs
















The State-of-the Art in IJP of OLEDs and QDs_06/12/21


The State-of-the Art in IJP of OLEDs and QDs This article appeared in Display Daily and has been modified by OLED-A for purposes of brevity and accuracy Inkjet printing is used in the...



www.oled-a.org


----------



## 59LIHP

*LGD -- OLED vs. OLED evo*








LGD -- OLED vs. OLED evo_06/12/21


LGD -- OLED vs. OLED evo OLED evo is LG next generation OLED panel. Although the standard LG OLED hasn’t changed much since the introduction of HDR in 2015, it’s still considered the best...



www.oled-a.org


----------



## 59LIHP

*Getting to BT 2020 -- OLEDs vs. LCDs*
















Getting to BT 2020 -- OLEDs vs. LCDs_06/12/21


Getting to BT 2020 -- OLEDs vs. LCDs In 2012, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), an international agency regulating telecommunications under the umbrella of the U.N., released its...



www.oled-a.org


----------



## 59LIHP

Solus to supply LG Display with HTL for OLED panels 








Solus to supply LG Display with HTL for OLED panels


Solus Advanced Materials said on Monday that it will be supplying hole transport layer (HTL) to LG Display for use in OLED panels.OLED panels are comprised of layers for electric current movements and layers that emit light.HTL is one of the layers that electricity flows through and determines the l




thelec.net


----------



## CA22EF

We would like to inform you that we have confirmed that a trademark for a cute mark has been applied for.








ECO OLED - Samsung Display Co., Ltd. Trademark Registration


Trademark registration for Samsung Display Co., Ltd.. The mark consists of




uspto.report






https://uspto.report/TM/90761665/mark.png










ECO2 OLED - Samsung Display Co., Ltd. Trademark Registration


Trademark registration for Samsung Display Co., Ltd.. The mark consists of




uspto.report






https://uspto.report/TM/90761739/mark.png


----------



## dkfan9

CA22EF said:


> We would like to inform you that we have confirmed that a trademark for a cute mark has been applied for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ECO OLED - Samsung Display Co., Ltd. Trademark Registration
> 
> 
> Trademark registration for Samsung Display Co., Ltd.. The mark consists of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uspto.report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://uspto.report/TM/90761665/mark.png
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ECO2 OLED - Samsung Display Co., Ltd. Trademark Registration
> 
> 
> Trademark registration for Samsung Display Co., Ltd.. The mark consists of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uspto.report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://uspto.report/TM/90761739/mark.png


And the guessing game is over that quick.


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> And the guessing game is over that quick.


Would love to understand what guessing game you think is over…

What Samsung Display will call their QD-BOLED when it finally launches?


----------



## dkfan9

fafrd said:


> Would love to understand what guessing game you think is over…
> 
> What Samsung Display will call their QD-BOLED when it finally launches?


Samsung launching WOLED. Idk, maybe I'm wrong. The reduced power consumption of Evo seems like it's a part of this. QD OLED deserves a cooler name than eco.


----------



## CA22EF

dkfan9 said:


> QD OLED deserves a cooler name than eco.


I understand that feeling.
I'm hoping for something aggressive for QD OLED.


----------



## fafrd

Looks like another WOLED stack change coming next year (though this next one should hopefully be less painful / more transparent than the 3S3C->3S4C transition has been)): Solus’ HTL supply to LG for OLED is bad news for Merck


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> The State-of-the Art in IJP of OLEDs and QDs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State-of-the Art in IJP of OLEDs and QDs_06/12/21
> 
> 
> The State-of-the Art in IJP of OLEDs and QDs This article appeared in Display Daily and has been modified by OLED-A for purposes of brevity and accuracy Inkjet printing is used in the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-a.org


I’ve seen multiple reports of QD-BOLED (including the one from OLED-A linked above) reporting that Samsung’s June QD-BOLED prototypes are still based on a 4S1C 4-layer blue OLED stack:

‘In Samsung’s QD-OLED manufacturing process, multiple (*4) blue layer stacks* are vacuum deposited and the diver supplies 4x the voltage of a single layer, which is converted is converted to a standard current across each layer, generating higher luminance at the same current.’

If this is true, either Samsung has switched to High Efficiency Blue or these June QD-BOLED prototypes are still not going to bright enough to be acceptable to Sony.

If we assume Samsung is using 4 Deuterim-based Florescent layers similar to the 2 DuPont Blue layers LGD is using in their new Evo stack, that means QD-BOLED will have ~2X the blue output of Evo-WOLED.

But that Blue Luminance is driving Red and Green (through Quantum Dots) a well as Blue, and since D65 White is composed of ~10% Blue, ~30% Red and ~60% Red, Samsung will need to size their colored subpixels accordingly and peak Blue output will be ~2X the blue light through a blue subpixel which is sized at ~10% of overall pixel area rather than the ~30% Blue subpixel size on WOLED, or 1/3rd of 200% = 67%.

So 4-layer QD-BOLED will have only 2/3rd the peak blue output of WOLED. QD-BOLED has no Blue Filter where WOLED does, so that may more than close the gap for blue, but is unlikely to close the gap for red and green where both QD-BOLED and WOLED have color filters.

Worse, when outputting white, WOLED has no color filter and so achieves a peak brightness level proportional to 2 blue layers through a white subpixel which is ~30% of total pixel area, meaning it requires green output which is ~6-times that level (through both white subpixel as well as green subpixel). So we can summarize WOLEDs peak white as composed of:

Blue = 2 layers x 30% white subpixel = 0.6
Red = ~3 x 0.6 = ~1.8
Green = ~6 x 0.6 = ~3.6
TOTAL = 5.0

Compare that to 4S1C QD-BOLED where we get:

Blue = 4 layers x 10% blue subpixel = 0.4
Red = 4 layers x 30% red subpixel = 1.2
Green = 4 layers x 60% green subpixel = 2.4
TOTAL = 4.0

Because of the much poorer efficiency of driving green through a blue Florescent OLED emitter versus the much higher efficiency with which WOLED is able to drive teen through a green Phosphorescent OLED emitter (~10 times higher efficiency per layer), peak white output of 4S1C QD-BOLED will be only ~80% of 3S4C WOLED.

Of course, QD-BOLED will be RGB color pure, and that increased color volume in the fully-saturated extremes of the gamut may more than compensate for the ~20% loss of peak white output, but it’s certainly not a slam-dunk.

If we assume the A90J has achieved ~900 Nit peak levels at 1% using a heatsink, Sony would be looking at ~720 Nit peak white levels at power consumption levels which are ~133% those of WOLED (because of 4 layers versus 3).

The one reason for hope is I don’t understand how Samsung could brand a new OLED technology ‘Evo’ if it consumes 33% more power…

So the other read is that the June prototypes are based on phosphorescent blue that does not yet achieve the full lifetime Samsung would like.

Phosphorescent blue has an efficiency that is more tan 300% that if florescent blue, so in a heartbeat, a 20% peak white deficit turns into a +140% advantage (over 2100 Nits peak instead of 720 Nits peak).

But lifetime is only ~10% of what’s needed (at last report).

But if you limit peak brightness back down to 1/3 of what it could be, you’ve got the same 20% peak white deficit (back to 720 Nits peak), but now at 44% the power consumption of WOLED rather than 133% (and hence ‘Evo’).

That would still result in a lifetime that is only ~33% of what’s needed, but if Samsung Display has found further lifetime improvements of 3x or possibly even 2x, this dog could hunt…

The recent branding of Eco must mean that Samsung is planning on launching Phosogirescebt-blue-based QD-BOLED, and so the only question is whether they can deliver the lifetime Sony considers the minimum needed to Go To Market…


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> I’ve seen multiple reports of QD-BOLED (including the one from OLED-A linked above) reporting that Samsung’s June QD-BOLED prototypes are still based on a 4S1C 4-layer blue OLED stack:
> 
> ‘In Samsung’s QD-OLED manufacturing process, multiple (*4) blue layer stacks* are vacuum deposited and the diver supplies 4x the voltage of a single layer, which is converted is converted to a standard current across each layer, generating higher luminance at the same current.’
> 
> If this is true, either Samsung has switched to High Efficiency Blue or these June QD-BOLED prototypes are still not going to bright enough to be acceptable to Sony.
> 
> If we assume Samsung is using 4 Deuterim-based Florescent layers similar to the 2 DuPont Blue layers LGD is using in their new Evo stack, that means QD-BOLED will have ~2X the blue output of Evo-WOLED.
> 
> But that Blue Luminance is driving Red and Green (through Quantum Dots) a well as Blue, and since D65 White is composed of ~10% Blue, ~30% Red and ~60% Red, Samsung will need to size their colored subpixels accordingly and peak Blue output will be ~2X the blue light through a blue subpixel which is sized at ~10% of overall pixel area rather than the ~30% Blue subpixel size on WOLED, or 1/3rd of 200% = 67%.
> 
> So 4-layer QD-BOLED will have only 2/3rd the peak blue output of WOLED. QD-BOLED has no Blue Filter where WOLED does, so that may more than close the gap for blue, but is unlikely to close the gap for red and green where both QD-BOLED and WOLED have color filters.
> 
> Worse, when outputting white, WOLED has no color filter and so achieves a peak brightness level proportional to 2 blue layers through a white subpixel which is ~30% of total pixel area, meaning it requires green output which is ~6-times that level (through both white subpixel as well as green subpixel). So we can summarize WOLEDs peak white as composed of:
> 
> Blue = 2 layers x 30% white subpixel = 0.6
> Red = ~3 x 0.6 = ~1.8
> Green = ~6 x 0.6 = ~3.6
> TOTAL = 5.0
> 
> Compare that to 4S1C QD-BOLED where we get:
> 
> Blue = 4 layers x 10% blue subpixel = 0.4
> Red = 4 layers x 30% red subpixel = 1.2
> Green = 4 layers x 60% green subpixel = 2.4
> TOTAL = 4.0
> 
> Because of the much poorer efficiency of driving green through a blue Florescent OLED emitter versus the much higher efficiency with which WOLED is able to drive teen through a green Phosphorescent OLED emitter (~10 times higher efficiency per layer), peak white output of 4S1C QD-BOLED will be only ~80% of 3S4C WOLED.
> 
> Of course, QD-BOLED will be RGB color pure, and that increased color volume in the fully-saturated extremes of the gamut may more than compensate for the ~20% loss of peak white output, but it’s certainly not a slam-dunk.
> 
> If we assume the A90J has achieved ~900 Nit peak levels at 1% using a heatsink, Sony would be looking at ~720 Nit peak white levels at power consumption levels which are ~133% those of WOLED (because of 4 layers versus 3).
> 
> The one reason for hope is I don’t understand how Samsung could brand a new OLED technology ‘Evo’ if it consumes 33% more power…
> 
> So the other read is that the June prototypes are based on phosphorescent blue that does not yet achieve the full lifetime Samsung would like.
> 
> Phosphorescent blue has an efficiency that is more tan 300% that if florescent blue, so in a heartbeat, a 20% peak white deficit turns into a +140% advantage (over 2100 Nits peak instead of 720 Nits peak).
> 
> But lifetime is only ~10% of what’s needed (at last report).
> 
> But if you limit peak brightness back down to 1/3 of what it could be, you’ve got the same 20% peak white deficit (back to 720 Nits peak), but now at 44% the power consumption of WOLED rather than 133% (and hence ‘Evo’).
> 
> That would still result in a lifetime that is only ~33% of what’s needed, but if Samsung Display has found further lifetime improvements of 3x or possibly even 2x, this dog could hunt…
> 
> The recent branding of Eco must mean that Samsung is planning on launching Phosogirescebt-blue-based QD-BOLED, and so the only question is whether they can deliver the lifetime Sony considers the minimum needed to Go To Market…


A few more tidbits on Samsung’s progress working to improve UDC’s deep blue PHOLED emitter can be found here: OLED Universal Display Corp Message Board - Msg: 33272927

‘Display Week 2021 includes the following invited paper:

27.1 - _Invited Paper:_ *Blue Phosphorescent Organic Light-Emitting Diodes for Future Displays *_Jinwon_ _Sun, Changwoong Chu
*Samsung Display, Co., Ltd. *Yongin South Korea_

*The device lifetime of a blue phosphorescent OLED was extended more than tenfold over existing device architecture, *further enhancing the improved chemical stability of a blue phosphorescent emitter. The authors' current work shows that blue phosphorescent OLED will become actively adopted in display products in the near future.’[/QUOTE]

More than 10-fold compared to what baseline is the $1000 question, but the same Author reported on a 5-fold improvement in 2020:

‘_6.4 Late-News Paper: *Realizing Deep Blue Emission in Blue Phosphorescent Organic Light- Emitting Diodes* (12:10 PM - 12:30 PM)
Jinwon Sun, Hyein Jeong, Jaejin Lyu
*Samsung Display, Co., Ltd. *Yongin South Korea

The origin of spectrum broadening in blue phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) was investigated in order to improve color purity of the OLED device aiming to realize efficient blue phosphorescent OLED with deep blue emission. Assuming the formation of exciplex between host and guest (H-G) material from intermolecular charge transfer (CT) state of the two, the experiment was performed controlling the distance between H-G for the verification. The exciplex formation was observed dependent on the distance of H-G, indicating that the spectrum broadening occurred due to H-G CT state. The critical distance to avoid H-G CT state was found which can be further utilized in designing host and dopant materials for blue phosphorescent OLEDs. *The efficiency and the stability of the blue phosphorescent device were enhanced by 1.2 and 5 times*, respectively, by minimizing H-G CT state.’_

And that 2020 report of 5-fold improvement appears to have included the following chart repeated by DSCC:










So a 563.5% improvement reported in 2020 appears to now have further improved to ‘more than tenfold’ by this Spring - so pretty solid evidence that Samsung achieved a further ~doubling in UDC’s deep blue PHOLED lifetime over the past year.

OLED Info shows that UDC’s Light Blue PHOLED Emitter has an LT95 lifetime of 700 hours, so that’s probably an upper limit for the Deep Blue baseline Samsung was starting from:OLED Lifetime: introduction and market status | OLED-Info

And I found this table which could be from Cynora or Kyulux but probably provides a lower bound of 280 hours of Deep Blue LT95 Lifetime that Samsung probably started with:










So a realistic swag is that Samsung started with a Deep Blue PHOLED emitter from UDC delivered 280h to 700h of LT95 Lifetime, that they improved that by 563.5% by 2020 to 1580h to 4000 hours by 2022 and further improved in by ~2X to between 3000h and 8000h by this Spring.

I continue to believe the smart money is on another year of QD-BOLED delay, but at least I now understand why Samsung Visual Display wanted to be ready for a GO decision in September and invested some effort in getting OLED Eco branding teed-up in advance…

If we take the more likely lower end of that range but now use 4 layers to effectively quadruple blue lifetime (by reducing current to 1/4), we’re up to 12,000 hours to LT95, which starts getting within striking distance of the Florescent Blue Lifetime used by WOLED or the 14,000 hours delivered by UDC’s Deep Red PHOLED emitter used by WOLED…

Still a great deal of speculation but it’s looking to me that Samsung may be within a factor of 1.5 to 2 of where they need to be on Deep Blue PHOLED lifetime rather than another factor of 5-10…


----------



## 59LIHP

Solus’ HTL supply to LG for OLED is bad news for Merck 








Solus’ HTL supply to LG for OLED is bad news for Merck


Solus Advanced Materials is planning to supply the core layers of the hole transporting layer (HTL) for OLED panels produced by LG Display at its E3 line at Paju.While Merck has previously supplied all four layers of HTL to LG Display used in E3, the fourth and first layers will now be replaced by t




www.thelec.net


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> Solus’ HTL supply to LG for OLED is bad news for Merck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solus’ HTL supply to LG for OLED is bad news for Merck
> 
> 
> Solus Advanced Materials is planning to supply the core layers of the hole transporting layer (HTL) for OLED panels produced by LG Display at its E3 line at Paju.While Merck has previously supplied all four layers of HTL to LG Display used in E3, the fourth and first layers will now be replaced by t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net


Bad news for us all - it suggests we’re facing another stack change next year (but hopefully an invisible one this time)…


----------



## Xavier_Martin

42 and 31.5 inch OLED panels on the go by LG....aleluyah!


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> A few more tidbits on Samsung’s progress working to improve UDC’s deep blue PHOLED emitter can be found here: OLED Universal Display Corp Message Board - Msg: 33272927
> 
> ‘Display Week 2021 includes the following invited paper:
> 
> 27.1 - _Invited Paper:_ *Blue Phosphorescent Organic Light-Emitting Diodes for Future Displays *_Jinwon_ _Sun, Changwoong Chu
> *Samsung Display, Co., Ltd. *Yongin South Korea_
> 
> *The device lifetime of a blue phosphorescent OLED was extended more than tenfold over existing device architecture, *further enhancing the improved chemical stability of a blue phosphorescent emitter. The authors' current work shows that blue phosphorescent OLED will become actively adopted in display products in the near future.’
> 
> More than 10-fold compared to what baseline is the $1000 question, but the same Author reported on a 5-fold improvement in 2020:
> 
> ‘_6.4 Late-News Paper: *Realizing Deep Blue Emission in Blue Phosphorescent Organic Light- Emitting Diodes* (12:10 PM - 12:30 PM)
> Jinwon Sun, Hyein Jeong, Jaejin Lyu
> *Samsung Display, Co., Ltd. *Yongin South Korea
> 
> The origin of spectrum broadening in blue phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) was investigated in order to improve color purity of the OLED device aiming to realize efficient blue phosphorescent OLED with deep blue emission. Assuming the formation of exciplex between host and guest (H-G) material from intermolecular charge transfer (CT) state of the two, the experiment was performed controlling the distance between H-G for the verification. The exciplex formation was observed dependent on the distance of H-G, indicating that the spectrum broadening occurred due to H-G CT state. The critical distance to avoid H-G CT state was found which can be further utilized in designing host and dopant materials for blue phosphorescent OLEDs. *The efficiency and the stability of the blue phosphorescent device were enhanced by 1.2 and 5 times*, respectively, by minimizing H-G CT state.’_
> 
> And that 2020 report of 5-fold improvement appears to have included the following chart repeated by DSCC:
> 
> View attachment 3144859
> 
> 
> So a 563.5% improvement reported in 2020 appears to now have further improved to ‘more than tenfold’ by this Spring - so pretty solid evidence that Samsung achieved a further ~doubling in UDC’s deep blue PHOLED lifetime over the past year.
> 
> OLED Info shows that UDC’s Light Blue PHOLED Emitter has an LT95 lifetime of 700 hours, so that’s probably an upper limit for the Deep Blue baseline Samsung was starting from:OLED Lifetime: introduction and market status | OLED-Info
> 
> And I found this table which could be from Cynora or Kyulux but probably provides a lower bound of 280 hours of Deep Blue LT95 Lifetime that Samsung probably started with:
> 
> View attachment 3144875
> 
> 
> So a realistic swag is that Samsung started with a Deep Blue PHOLED emitter from UDC delivered 280h to 700h of LT95 Lifetime, that they improved that by 563.5% by 2020 to 1580h to 4000 hours by 2022 and further improved in by ~2X to between 3000h and 8000h by this Spring.
> 
> I continue to believe the smart money is on another year of QD-BOLED delay, but at least I now understand why Samsung Visual Display wanted to be ready for a GO decision in September and invested some effort in getting OLED Eco branding teed-up in advance…
> 
> If we take the more likely lower end of that range but now use 4 layers to effectively quadruple blue lifetime (by reducing current to 1/4), we’re up to 12,000 hours to LT95, which starts getting within striking distance of the Florescent Blue Lifetime used by WOLED or the 14,000 hours delivered by UDC’s Deep Red PHOLED emitter used by WOLED…
> 
> Still a great deal of speculation but it’s looking to me that Samsung may be within a factor of 1.5 to 2 of where they need to be on Deep Blue PHOLED lifetime rather than another factor of 5-10…


I've been doing a bit more digging into 2019 'baseline' Lifetime of deep blue PHOLED that Samsung have started from and found this May 2017 paper: Hot excited state management for long-lived blue phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes | Nature Communications

This seems to describe the approach that has been picked up by Samsung and moved forward over the past 2 years and so I think we can consider that the 50-70 hours LT95 / ~300 hours LT80 @ 1000 cd/m2 is an absolute worst-case baseline from where Samsung started from.

So that worst-case starting point would translate to Samsung achieving at least 300-400 hours LT95 / ~1700 hours LT80 @ 1000cdm2 in 2020 and and 600-800 hours LT95 / ~3400 hours LT80 @ 1000 cd/m2 this spring.

600-800 hours of LT95 @ 1000cd/m2 would put Samsung's internal development at at 214% to 286% of Kyulux's most-recently reported results (so passes the sniff test).

I've been trying to figure out if a high-efficiency blue with that little lifetime could be 'good-enough' for QD-BOLED and I'm coming to the conclusion it could be (maybe just barely).

First, Samsung will use 4 layers, so each layer is only being driven at 250/cdm2 to deliver a total of 1000 cd/m2, meaning at least 4x the lifetime getting us to 2400-3200 hours LT95 or ~6800 hours LT80.

Second, let's assume that Samsung is not aiming for a full 1000 cd/m2 but only 800 cd/m2 similar to current-generation WOLEDs - that increases lifetime by another 20% to ~2900-3800 hours LT95 or 8160 hours LT80 @ 800 cd/m2.

Third, OLED lifetime is not linear in current density - I found one article showing LT80 @ 10mA/cm2 was 1000 hours while LT80 @ 40mA/cm2 was ~160 hours (so ~6 times the lifetime at 1/4 the current density rather than only 4 times).

These are relatively high current levels and this superlinear effect may not scale down to current levels below 5mA/cm2, but it's not out of the question that there could be as much as a further ~750% increase in deep blue PHOLED lifetime when run at 200 cd/m2 per layer rather than at 1000 cd/m2 from a single layer.

Add all this up and it translates to a 4S1C Deep Blue PHOLED stack that could deliver 800 cd/m2 for at least 8000 hours to LT80 and possibly as much as 12,000 hours. If Samsung is managing burn-in compensation the same way LG is, they can operate down to LT80 (if not further) and that dog may be able to hunt.

I'm still hung up on peak brightness levels as those 800 cd/m2 of blue are divided up into the three primary subpixels. Green, which is the main driver of peak white is only ~60% of overall pixel area, meaning 800 cd/m2 of blue cannot translate into more than ~500 cd/m2 of white (too low).

But I believe the key point is that we are within a factor of 2, and between UDC likely starting Samsung out from a higher starting point (closely-guarded secret), continued progress Samsung has made since that most recent paper was published (publications are generally ~1 year behind the work), Samsung possibly designing compensation all the way down to LT50 instead of LT80, and the boost Samsung will get from using Top Emission versus Bottom Emission, I believe Samsung Display is likely to be delivering samples of QD-BOLED panels using a 4S1C stack based on their in-house improvements to UDC's Deep Blue PHOLED emitter that will be able to deliver lifetime of 80% to 100% of WOLED Lifetime at peak brightness levels which are 80% to 100% of what current-generation WOLEDs deliver.

It's probably not the home-run that Samsung was hoping for, but it may be good enough to launch a first TV product and begin a first line of modest-volume production (30,000 8.5G substrates/month or 0.5-0.75 million units in their first year of low-yield production).

So I'm up to 50/50 that Samsung decides to move forward in September (but probably with a 1-year delay on the phase-2 capacity increase in any case, so only 30,000 8.5G substrates/month through 2023...).

The epiphany I had recently is that QD-BOLED can make up for still-deficient Deep Blue PHOLED lifetime by adding additional blue layers while WOLED can not. Once Deep Blue PHOLED lifetime is within ~1/5th of where it needs to be, QD-BOLED can begin working with that emitter while WOLED is stuck waiting for a High Efficiency Blue Emitter which achieves close to Florescent-Blue lifetime levels...

At least for this first generation, it won't be cheaper to manufacture than WOLED (and likely more expensive while yields are poor), it won't be brighter than WOLED (and possibly a bit dimmer), and it won't last longer than WOLED (and possibly be a bit more vulnerable to burn-in than latest-generation Evo WOLED).

But it will be a true RGB emissive display that should outperform WOLED in terms of color volume at the fully-saturated edges of the color gamut, it may also deliver enhanced color gamut versus WOLED, and off-angle viewing performance should exceed that of WOLED.

So I'm hoping Samsung decides to finally bring QD-BOLED to market this September...


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> I've been doing a bit more digging into 2019 'baseline' Lifetime of deep blue PHOLED that Samsung have started from and found this May 2017 paper: Hot excited state management for long-lived blue phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes | Nature Communications
> 
> SNIP


Nice analysis, @fafrd. I was looking at the senior author (Stephen Forrest) of that paper's book content last night and thinking what you described in your previous post may have come from his lab. You may find newer details in that content:





__





Organic Electronics: Foundations to Applications






organic-electronics.engin.umich.edu





And, there's a reason I posted this:


> And, those looking for tells about where things are headed in this space would be well-served to follow the Dean of applied organic materials for electronics, Stephen Forrest at Univ. of Michigan:
> 
> Google Scholar for Stephen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread
> 
> 
> I’m a bit skeptical since I’ve seen no wider reporting about a resumption of investments in P10 but if there is any truth to this report that LGD has ordered a 10.G evaporation machine from YAS and is in the process of committing to other 10.5G equipment orders, we should hear about it in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Also, from a previous post:
*A Brief History of OLEDs—Emitter Development and Industry Milestones*








A Brief History of OLEDs—Emitter Development and Industry Milestones


The history of emitter development and industry's interest in organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology are reviewed. OLED device technology has equally inspired and driven innovation in academi...




onlinelibrary.wiley.com


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Nice analysis, @fafrd. I was looking at the senior author (Stephen Forrest) of that paper's book content last night and thinking what you described in your previous post may have come from his lab. You may find newer details in that content:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organic Electronics: Foundations to Applications
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> organic-electronics.engin.umich.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, there's a reason I posted this:
> 
> 
> Also, from a previous post:
> *A Brief History of OLEDs—Emitter Development and Industry Milestones*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Brief History of OLEDs—Emitter Development and Industry Milestones
> 
> 
> The history of emitter development and industry's interest in organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology are reviewed. OLED device technology has equally inspired and driven innovation in academi...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> onlinelibrary.wiley.com


I appreciate all the inputs. I’d reviewed that survey before but it seems mainly focused on the ‘generation’ of OLED Emitter development and says next to nothing about lifetime.

The Kyulux specifications are probably the most reliable industrialized-product-level specs that are out there:










That’s a more complicated Hyperflorescent emitter and it’s a pretty safe bet that Samsung’s improvements on UDC’s simpler Deep Blue PHOLED Emitter are beyond this level today.

Where UDC is on deep blue PHOLED specs is a closely-guarded secret, but Samsung’s claims of a cumulative 10x if not 11x improvement from that starting point needs to be taken seriously.

It’s challenging to extrapolate from Academic results or guesstimate what’s going on in private commercial labs, but the fact that Samsung elected to start with the simplest near-commercial deep blue PHOLED emitter out there (likely from proven-supplier UDC) and has now invested more than 2 years in improving it’s performance through modifications to the supporting layers says a great deal.

QD-BOLED has one card to play that no other OLED platform has: an easy path to increasing Blue lifetime by adding layers (and cost).

Of course their are limits before that approach becomes Frankenstein-like, but 4 layers and even 6 layers of deep blue PHOLED is a realistic path for Samsung Display to multiply Blue Lifetime by 4 to 9 x.

When you combine a 4-9x improvement factor with Samsung’s claims of improving the nearly-commercialized deep blue PHOLED they started with (likely from UDC) by 10 or 11x, you’re talking about total lifetime improvements in the range of 40 to 100x.

New and even better things are likely to be coming (ie: Kyulux and/or Cynora) based on more complex/advanced emitters, but Samsung Display/QD-BOLED likely has what it needs to get started today (and if not today, almost-certainly tomorrow / next year).

I’d been so focused on Samsung adding layers to get enough output from long-lived Florescent Blue emitters similar to what LGD WOLED is using, I completely missed the lifetime extension they have available to them by using a high-efficiency, short-lifetime deep blue PHOLED emitter and just increasing lifetime by adding layers…

The ongoing developments by Kyulux, Cynora and academic labs will be critical to LGD being able to increase WOLED efficiency and peak brightness, but it’s pretty certainly no longer a stumbling block for Samsung to get first-generation QD-BOLED out of the gate…

(which is my long-winded way of saying I’m more motivated to attempt to read the tea leaves and prognosticate about the future of QD-BOLED than I am to try to understand all of the developments and challenges associated with High Efficiency Blue OLED in general…)


----------



## Wizziwig

@fafrd Your lifetime calculations are ignoring pixel aperture ratio. Nobody here knows if it will be as poor as WOLED, better, or worse. If Samsung can reduce that non-emitting surface area, they can drive the pixels with less current and still achieve similar brightness as current WOLED.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> @fafrd Your lifetime calculations are ignoring pixel aperture ratio. Nobody here knows if it will be as poor as WOLED, better, or worse. If Samsung can reduce that non-emitting surface area, they can drive the pixels with less current and still achieve similar brightness as current WOLED.


QD-BOLED will be Top-Emission, so the pixel aperture will be better than WOLED (but not enough to make much of a difference). I mentioned Top Emission (without specifically calling out improved PAR) in my list of 3-4 factors that could help Samsung close what I estimated to be a remaining ~2X gap…

Of course, if Samsung elects to launch WD-BOLED exclusively with 8K panels, any advantage Top Emission delivers in terms of increased PAR is probably out the window (against equivalent-sized WOLED panels with 4K pixels).

The key factor governing QD-BOLED subpixel size is the need for green lumens (~60% of D65 white).

WOLED delivers a huge number of green lumens with very highly-efficient green OLED emitters (yellow and deep green) in the stack which also deliver such long lifetimes that they can be as overdriven as needed (hence the result that the green sub-pixel for Evo WOLED is the smallest, despite needing to deliver the most lumens on average).

Compare that to QD-BOLED where each colored sub-pixel has the same intensity of incoming blue energy: the only way QD-BOLED can deliver ~6 times as many peak green lumens as peak Blue lumens (without aging green faster) is to make the green subpixel ~6 times larger than the blue subpixel so mA/cm^2 is similar.

This also ignores the loss of efficiency from the blue-blocking color filters, which reduce red and green efficiency further but no not impact (unfiltered) blue. This means the QD-BOLED Blue Subpixel could probably even smaller than ~1/6th the green subpixel, but the impact is minor.

To repeat my earlier conclusion, I’ve convinced myself that, based on Samsung’s published claims of 10-11x cumulative Blue PHOLED lifetime improvements through engineering of supporting layers, they are likely within 80% of WOLED on peak brightness and within 80% of WOLED on lifetime (and very possibly in a position to trade off one of those gaps for the other).

Where I come from, that’s close enough for jazz…


----------



## fafrd

This is old (2006), but since it’s from UDC, worth highlighting: Universal Display Announces Advances in Blue Phosphorescent OLED Technology | OLED-Info

‘The Company has also made significant progress in the demonstration of deeper blue performance. Mr. Rosenblatt will present a proprietary new blue PHOLED with CIE (0.16, 0.29), excellent luminous efficiency of 21 cd/A and over *17,500 hours of operating lifetime at 200 cd/m2.* This corresponds to over 3,000 hours at 500 cd/m2, a target luminance for commercial applications.’

This is lifetime to LF50, not LT80 (let alone LT95), so if we take Samsung’s claims of 10-11x improvement over the past 2 years and assume this 2006 Deep Blue PHOLED from UDC as the starting point, that would translate to a 4S1C Blue WOLED stack delivering 4x200=800 cd/m2 with a lifetime of over 175,000 to 190,000 hours LT50 (more than sufficient for first-generation QD-BOLED).

Of course, this is the last I’ve found regarding any kind of quantitative statement regarding Deep Blue PHOLED from UDC since 2006 and it’s pretty clear nothing from this effort/announcement has yet been put in production yet, so take this claim with a grain of salt…


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> I've been doing a bit more digging into 2019 'baseline' Lifetime of deep blue PHOLED that Samsung have started from and found this May 2017 paper: Hot excited state management for long-lived blue phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes | Nature Communications
> 
> This seems to describe the approach that has been picked up by Samsung and moved forward over the past 2 years and so I think we can consider that the 50-70 hours LT95 / ~300 hours LT80 @ 1000 cd/m2 is an absolute worst-case baseline from where Samsung started from.
> 
> So that worst-case starting point would translate to Samsung achieving at least 300-400 hours LT95 / ~1700 hours LT80 @ 1000cdm2 in 2020 and and 600-800 hours LT95 / ~3400 hours LT80 @ 1000 cd/m2 this spring.
> 
> 600-800 hours of LT95 @ 1000cd/m2 would put Samsung's internal development at at 214% to 286% of Kyulux's most-recently reported results (so passes the sniff test).
> 
> I've been trying to figure out if a high-efficiency blue with that little lifetime could be 'good-enough' for QD-BOLED and I'm coming to the conclusion it could be (maybe just barely).
> 
> First, Samsung will use 4 layers, so each layer is only being driven at 250/cdm2 to deliver a total of 1000 cd/m2, meaning at least 4x the lifetime getting us to 2400-3200 hours LT95 or ~6800 hours LT80.
> 
> Second, let's assume that Samsung is not aiming for a full 1000 cd/m2 but only 800 cd/m2 similar to current-generation WOLEDs - that increases lifetime by another 20% to ~2900-3800 hours LT95 or 8160 hours LT80 @ 800 cd/m2.
> 
> Third, OLED lifetime is not linear in current density - I found one article showing LT80 @ 10mA/cm2 was 1000 hours while LT80 @ 40mA/cm2 was ~160 hours (so ~6 times the lifetime at 1/4 the current density rather than only 4 times).
> 
> These are relatively high current levels and this superlinear effect may not scale down to current levels below 5mA/cm2, but it's not out of the question that there could be as much as a further ~750% increase in deep blue PHOLED lifetime when run at 200 cd/m2 per layer rather than at 1000 cd/m2 from a single layer.
> 
> Add all this up and it translates to a 4S1C Deep Blue PHOLED stack that could deliver 800 cd/m2 for at least 8000 hours to LT80 and possibly as much as 12,000 hours. If Samsung is managing burn-in compensation the same way LG is, they can operate down to LT80 (if not further) and that dog may be able to hunt.
> 
> I'm still hung up on peak brightness levels as those 800 cd/m2 of blue are divided up into the three primary subpixels. Green, which is the main driver of peak white is only ~60% of overall pixel area, meaning 800 cd/m2 of blue cannot translate into more than ~500 cd/m2 of white (too low).
> 
> But I believe the key point is that we are within a factor of 2, and between UDC likely starting Samsung out from a higher starting point (closely-guarded secret), continued progress Samsung has made since that most recent paper was published (publications are generally ~1 year behind the work), Samsung possibly designing compensation all the way down to LT50 instead of LT80, and the boost Samsung will get from using Top Emission versus Bottom Emission, I believe Samsung Display is likely to be delivering samples of QD-BOLED panels using a 4S1C stack based on their in-house improvements to UDC's Deep Blue PHOLED emitter that will be able to deliver lifetime of 80% to 100% of WOLED Lifetime at peak brightness levels which are 80% to 100% of what current-generation WOLEDs deliver.
> 
> It's probably not the home-run that Samsung was hoping for, but it may be good enough to launch a first TV product and begin a first line of modest-volume production (30,000 8.5G substrates/month or 0.5-0.75 million units in their first year of low-yield production).
> 
> So I'm up to 50/50 that Samsung decides to move forward in September (but probably with a 1-year delay on the phase-2 capacity increase in any case, so only 30,000 8.5G substrates/month through 2023...).
> 
> The epiphany I had recently is that QD-BOLED can make up for still-deficient Deep Blue PHOLED lifetime by adding additional blue layers while WOLED can not. Once Deep Blue PHOLED lifetime is within ~1/5th of where it needs to be, QD-BOLED can begin working with that emitter while WOLED is stuck waiting for a High Efficiency Blue Emitter which achieves close to Florescent-Blue lifetime levels...
> 
> At least for this first generation, it won't be cheaper to manufacture than WOLED (and likely more expensive while yields are poor), it won't be brighter than WOLED (and possibly a bit dimmer), and it won't last longer than WOLED (and possibly be a bit more vulnerable to burn-in than latest-generation Evo WOLED).
> 
> But it will be a true RGB emissive display that should outperform WOLED in terms of color volume at the fully-saturated edges of the color gamut, it may also deliver enhanced color gamut versus WOLED, and off-angle viewing performance should exceed that of WOLED.
> 
> So I'm hoping Samsung decides to finally bring QD-BOLED to market this September...


Ok, as I am definitely NOT an OLED jockey I'll just take my chances that this further 2014 PHOLED Nature Communications article from Forrest et al might support non-linear lifetime improvements. If this is apples and oranges, you'll have to set me straight...
As I read your thoughts above my immediate question was what if the improvement isn't linear? And you addressed that a couple sentences down (kudos). 
_"Third, OLED lifetime is not linear in current density - I found one article showing LT80 @ 10mA/cm2 was 1000 hours while LT80 @ 40mA/cm2 was ~160 hours (so ~6 times the lifetime at 1/4 the 
current density rather than only 4 times)."_
If I'm interpreting Table 1 correctly in the paper cited below, at a little less than half the current density (6.2 vs 2.9) LT80 was about 11x (56 vs 616) @ 1000 nits. So definitely non-linear and at least in the context of that paper, beyond the 6x you saw in another paper from the same folks. Am I offbase? 


https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6008.pdf


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Ok, as I am definitely NOT an OLED jockey I'll just take my chances that this further 2014 PHOLED Nature Communications article from Forrest et al might support non-linear lifetime improvements. If this is apples and oranges, you'll have to set me straight...
> As I read your thoughts above my immediate question was what if the improvement isn't linear? And you addressed that a couple sentences down (kudos).
> _"Third, OLED lifetime is not linear in current density - I found one article showing LT80 @ 10mA/cm2 was 1000 hours while LT80 @ 40mA/cm2 was ~160 hours (so ~6 times the lifetime at 1/4 the
> current density rather than only 4 times)."_
> If I'm interpreting Table 1 correctly in the paper cited below, at a little less than half the current density (6.2 vs 2.9) LT80 was about 11x (56 vs 616) @ 1000 nits. So definitely non-linear and at least in the context of that paper, beyond the 6x you saw in another paper from the same folks. Am I offbase?
> 
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6008.pdf


I think you are a bit off base, but only a bit.

Table 1 is a description of different devices/structures and any non linearity between different device types is inconsequential.

But there are 2 lines which are very relevant, line 3 (D3) and line 5 (D3S) which is a double stack of the same D3 device/structure.

Because the EQE of the double D3 stack is slightly less than double the EQE of the single stack, current density (mA/cm^2) for 1000 cd/m2 is slightly less than double for the single stack versus the double stack.

But despite total light output which is identical and current density which is 50.9%, the double-stack D3 structure has a T80 which is almost 3 times that of the single stack (289%) and a T50 which is estimated to be over 2.3 times (231% to 233%).

The bottom line is that generating 1000 cd/m2 from 2 stack instead of 1 stack increased lifetime by well over 100% (+130% to T80 or +190% to T50).

If we extrapolate by assuming that the same non-linearity occurs when going from 2S to 4S, that would translate to a total lifetime increase of ~8.35x to T80 or ~5.38x to T50.

If we go back to the conclusion I reached in my earlier post:



> So that worst-case starting point would translate to Samsung achieving at least 300-400 hours LT95 / ~1700 hours LT80 @ 1000cdm2 in 2020 and and 600-800 hours LT95 / ~3400 hours LT80 @ 1000 cd/m2 this spring.


If a 1S1C stack of Samsung’s improvements to UDC’s deep blue PHOLED now deliver ~3400 hours T80 as of this Spring, that translates to a 4S1C structure probably delivering at least 7900 hours and possibly as many as 28,000 hours to T80.

That’s getting up to Florescent-Blue lifetime levels and would almost certainly mean Samsung is over the hump in terms of delivering a viable first-generation QD-BOLED (though at higher cost than they were originally aiming for, since it uses 4 Blue OLED layers instead of only 2).

I’ve been reassessing what we knew/heard about the various past Samsung QD-BOLED demos/checkpoints as well as the upcoming September ‘Market survey’ decision point in light of all this additional information/analysis, and it’s given me a different narrative for the past several years and what is likely being decided by Samsung in September.

CES 2020: first prototype QD-BOLEDs were demonstrated based on 2 blue layers that were ‘too dim’ and ‘not saturated enough’ (blue light leakage). I now think it’s likely those first prototypes were already based on UDC blue PHOLED emitter, probably already including some enhancements by Samsung up to possibly the full ‘5 times’ lifetime improvement Samsung published later in 2020.

We know Samsung then went from 2 layers to 4 and added blue-blocking color filters resulting in the prototypes that were shown at CES this January. Those prototypes were also deemed ‘too dim’ and Samsung essentially decided to delay the entire launch plan by another year.

My current guess is that those first 4S1C prototypes were based on the 2020 published blue PHOLED results and likely achieved peak brightness levels of at least 500 cd/m2 but probably less than 1000 cd/m2 (and likely even less than LGD’s ~800 cd/m2 from WOLED).

On the other hand, the ~2X further lifetime improvements to deep blue PHOLED that Samsung presented this Spring were likely largely known in January, so a decision to improve the brightness with the latest developments from the research lab before launching QD-BOLED production ramp-up makes total sense.

So my guess is that that’s what these June customer samples are: 4S1C QD-BOLED using Samsung’s latest and greatest 10-11x lifetime improvements to UDC’s base deep blue PHOLED emitter.

Note that the nonlinearloty we started this exchange over goes both ways: a 2x lifetime improvement will only allow a +50-70% increase in brightness for equivalent lifetime.

Still, if my guess that Samsung wouldn’t even show prototypes this January if they were incapable of achieving at least 500 cd/m2 peak is correct, that would translate to 750-850cd/m2 peak levels from the June samples.

This is good enough for a first product and so I now see low likelihood that Samsung has not made the decision to start production on the pilot line for first product introduction in time for 2022 TV launch (at least the 1 QD-BOLED product Samsung Visual Display committed to in exchange for a continuation of LCD supply from Samsung Display).

It remains a big unknown whether Samsung has already purchased/installed the expensive vapor deposition machine yet, but I’m guessing they have (or are at least in the process of doing so) and so I believe the first pilot production line beginning to ramp production at a level of 15,000 or 30,000 8.5G substrates before year’s-end is now high-likelihood.

And while I think it’s also likely already been decided to delay ‘phase II’ for a year in order to continue LCD production through end 2022, I think what is being decided in September is how aggressively to ramp up the pilot line based on Sony’s interest to launch a QD-BOLED product in the first year of production.

If Samsung is the only one selling QD-BOLED in 2022 and they only do a single model, let’s assume it’s going to be a large-panel 8K TV. Any size above 65” is going to translate to only 2 QD-BOLED panels per 8.5G substrate.

Assuming piss-poor starting yields of 50% and minimum production level of 15,000 8.5G substrates / month translates to 15,000 75-88” 8K QD-BOLED panels per month or 180,000 for the full year (plenty).

If Sony wants in and if they want a panel lineup including 65” 8K QD-BOLEDs, production can easily be increased to 30,000 8.5G substrates per month and 65” panels are 3/substrate instead of 2, so total 2022 production levels of 0.5M to 1M are easily within reach (depending on how quickly yields improve).

And one final point to make is that QD-BOLED has a very bright roadmap in front of it.

Samsung improved UDC’s Deep Blue PHOLED lifetime by 400% in 2019 (5x) and by another 100% in 2020 (2x). Even if we assume a continued slowdown in the rate of future improvements, it’s likely that that will have an additional increase of at least 25% to deliver in 2022 followed by another 10% in 2023…

At some point they will elect to reduce cost by dropping back to 3S1C or 2S1C (their original target), but emissive displays delivering 1500 cd/m2 peak levels by 2025 now looks to be high-likelihood…

Thanks again for that Nature reference - it makes real and quantitative a hunch I’ve had for some time (but have struggled to confirm).


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> I think you are a bit off base, but only a bit.
> 
> Table 1 is a description of different devices/structures and any non linearity between different device types is inconsequential.
> 
> But there are 2 lines which are very relevant, line 3 (D3) and line 5 (D3S) which is a double stack of the same D3 device/structure.
> 
> Because the EQE of the double D3 stack is slightly less than double the EQE of the single stack, current density (mA/cm^2) for 1000 cd/m2 is slightly less than double for the single stack versus the double stack.
> 
> But despite total light output which is identical and current density which is 50.9%, the double-stack D3 structure has a T80 which is almost 3 times that of the single stack (289%) and a T50 which is estimated to be over 2.3 times (231% to 233%).
> 
> The bottom line is that generating 1000 cd/m2 from 2 stack instead of 1 stack increased lifetime by well over 100% (+130% to T80 or +190% to T50).
> 
> If we extrapolate by assuming that the same non-linearity occurs when going from 2S to 4S, that would translate to a total lifetime increase of ~8.35x to T80 or ~5.38x to T50.
> 
> If we go back to the conclusion I reached in my earlier post:
> 
> 
> 
> If a 1S1C stack of Samsung’s improvements to UDC’s deep blue PHOLED now deliver ~3400 hours T80 as of this Spring, that translates to a 4S1C structure probably delivering at least 7900 hours and possibly as many as 28,000 hours to T80.
> 
> That’s getting up to Florescent-Blue lifetime levels and would almost certainly mean Samsung is over the hump in terms of delivering a viable first-generation QD-BOLED (though at higher cost than they were originally aiming for, since it uses 4 Blue OLED layers instead of only 2).
> 
> I’ve been reassessing what we knew/heard about the various past Samsung QD-BOLED demos/checkpoints as well as the upcoming September ‘Market survey’ decision point in light of all this additional information/analysis, and it’s given me a different narrative for the past several years and what is likely being decided by Samsung in September.
> 
> CES 2020: first prototype QD-BOLEDs were demonstrated based on 2 blue layers that were ‘too dim’ and ‘not saturated enough’ (blue light leakage). I now think it’s likely those first prototypes were already based on UDC blue PHOLED emitter, probably already including some enhancements by Samsung up to possibly the full ‘5 times’ lifetime improvement Samsung published later in 2020.
> 
> We know Samsung then went from 2 layers to 4 and added blue-blocking color filters resulting in the prototypes that were shown at CES this January. Those prototypes were also deemed ‘too dim’ and Samsung essentially decided to delay the entire launch plan by another year.
> 
> My current guess is that those first 4S1C prototypes were based on the 2020 published blue PHOLED results and likely achieved peak brightness levels of at least 500 cd/m2 but probably less than 1000 cd/m2 (and likely even less than LGD’s ~800 cd/m2 from WOLED).
> 
> On the other hand, the ~2X further lifetime improvements to deep blue PHOLED that Samsung presented this Spring were likely largely known in January, so a decision to improve the brightness with the latest developments from the research lab before launching QD-BOLED production ramp-up makes total sense.
> 
> So my guess is that that’s what these June customer samples are: 4S1C QD-BOLED using Samsung’s latest and greatest 10-11x lifetime improvements to UDC’s base deep blue PHOLED emitter.
> 
> Note that the nonlinearloty we started this exchange over goes both ways: a 2x lifetime improvement will only allow a +50-70% increase in brightness for equivalent lifetime.
> 
> Still, if my guess that Samsung wouldn’t even show prototypes this January if they were incapable of achieving at least 500 cd/m2 peak is correct, that would translate to 750-850cd/m2 peak levels from the June samples.
> 
> This is good enough for a first product and so I now see low likelihood that Samsung has not made the decision to start production on the pilot line for first product introduction in time for 2022 TV launch (at least the 1 QD-BOLED product Samsung Visual Display committed to in exchange for a continuation of LCD supply from Samsung Display).
> 
> It remains a big unknown whether Samsung has already purchased/installed the expensive vapor deposition machine yet, but I’m guessing they have (or are at least in the process of doing so) and so I believe the first pilot production line beginning to ramp production at a level of 15,000 or 30,000 8.5G substrates before year’s-end is now high-likelihood.
> 
> And while I think it’s also likely already been decided to delay ‘phase II’ for a year in order to continue LCD production through end 2022, I think what is being decided in September is how aggressively to ramp up the pilot line based on Sony’s interest to launch a QD-BOLED product in the first year of production.
> 
> If Samsung is the only one selling QD-BOLED in 2022 and they only do a single model, let’s assume it’s going to be a large-panel 8K TV. Any size above 65” is going to translate to only 2 QD-BOLED panels per 8.5G substrate.
> 
> Assuming piss-poor starting yields of 50% and minimum production level of 15,000 8.5G substrates / month translates to 15,000 75-88” 8K QD-BOLED panels per month or 180,000 for the full year (plenty).
> 
> If Sony wants in and if they want a panel lineup including 65” 8K QD-BOLEDs, production can easily be increased to 30,000 8.5G substrates per month and 65” panels are 3/substrate instead of 2, so total 2022 production levels of 0.5M to 1M are easily within reach (depending on how quickly yields improve).
> 
> And one final point to make is that QD-BOLED has a very bright roadmap in front of it.
> 
> Samsung improved UDC’s Deep Blue PHOLED lifetime by 400% in 2019 (5x) and by another 100% in 2020 (2x). Even if we assume a continued slowdown in the rate of future improvements, it’s likely that that will have an additional increase of at least 25% to deliver in 2022 followed by another 10% in 2023…
> 
> At some point they will elect to reduce cost by dropping back to 3S1C or 2S1C (their original target), but emissive displays delivering 1500 cd/m2 peak levels by 2025 now looks to be high-likelihood…
> 
> Thanks again for that Nature reference - it makes real and quantitative a hunch I’ve had for some time (but have struggled to confirm).


Thanks for the clarification! If Samsung does move ahead with low level production in '22, I do wonder if it will be 8K or 4K. If it is marketed as a flagship, they have no choice but 8K. If it is marketed directly vs. C or G-series WOLED then it seems less clear, based on your and wizziwig's PAR discussion impact as well as mfg cost impact. If I'm following properly, 4K might enable any initial 'poor' offering to compete on specs better than 8K. If they compete against mid-level C/G consumer WOLED they will take a bath, profitwise, but if in it for the long haul, not that big a deal. What was the private CES demo resolution? Was it leaked?


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Thanks for the clarification! If Samsung does move ahead with low level production in '22, I do wonder if it will be 8K or 4K.


I’d guess that the only way they produce 4K panels this first year is if Sony insists on it (further purpose of the September ‘Market Survey’.



> If it is marketed as a flagship, they have no choice but 8K. *If it is marketed directly vs. C or G-series WOLED then it seems less clear, *


There is no way Samsung will be aiming at taking market share from the LG C-Series or G-Series next year. 77Z2 or 88Z2 is more realistic. LG will be selling over 2 million 65G/C/A1s this year and Samsung will be much better-served pricing at levels to take a significant share of the 1-2M 8K advanced TV sales in 2022 rather than pricing down at levels to take share from LG’s 4K WOLED sales…



> based on your and wizziwig's PAR discussion impact as well as mfg cost impact. If I'm following properly, 4K might enable any initial 'poor' offering to compete on specs better than 8K.


Top-emission largely overcomes the issue bottom-emission faces with PAR.

There is still some impact of improved PAR at larger pixel sizes with top emission, but it makes more sense for Samsung to go after that with larger 8K panel sizes rather than stepping back to 4K where they won’t be able to compete on price…



> If they compete against mid-level C/G consumer WOLED they will take a bath, profitwise, but if in it for the long haul, not that big a deal.


If Samsung was sticking to their original ‘go fast and go big’ plan (commit phase II this summer and phase III early next year to get to 90,000 8.5G substrates as quickly as possible), going against WOLED for 4K market share might make sense, but the new ‘go slow and steady’ plan they appear to be converging on means they are likely aligning their QD-BOLED ramp up to the ‘speed’ of the 8K market.

8K is unfolding slower than everyone had been forecasting and so that means Samsung can afford to ramp QD-BOLED more slowly for 8K while focusing 4K sales on QLED/LCD (and possibly also WOLED).



> What was the private CES demo resolution? Was it leaked?


I don’t know (though again, the impact is unlikely to be that significant). QD-BOLED will have an easier time delivering 8K down to 65” and even 55” than WOLED and according to this (probably now outdated) report, they were originally aiming at 55”, 65”, 75/77”, 82/83” panels at both 4K and 8K resolution: Samsung Display is on track to launch QD-OLED displays in H2 2021

‘These panels will be available from 55-inch to 82-inch sizes in 4K and 8K resolution.’

And this report from TheElec indicates that TCONs are being developed for 3 different QD-BOLED applications: Samsung System LSI begins development of 3 T-Con for QD-OLED

‘The samples are for a 4K QD-OLED TV, a 8K QD-OLED TV and a QD-OLED monitor.’

My guess is that Samsung Display is offering 55” and 65” QD-BOLED panels at both 4K and 8K resolution to Sony (along with 65/77” and 82/83” 8K panels) but based on pricing, Sony is unlikely to find the 4K offerings attractive (hence the ‘Market Survey’).

And Samsung Visual Display themselves is unlikely to want to have anything to do with 4K QD-BOLEDs (nowhere near enough production volume to back it up). 8K offerings with both QD-BOLED and MiniLED/QLED/LCD combined with 4K offerings with both QLED/LCD and WOLED makes much more sense for Samsung.

Once QD-BOLED rides the 8K sales volume ramp up to the point that QD-BOLED can compete against 4K WOLED on price (and Samsung Display has ramped sufficient production volume), they can always circle-back to 4K later.

Sony is much lower volume than Samsung, so they may have a different perspective (though I doubt it once Samsung has shared possible 4K QD-BOLED panel pricing).


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Ok, as I am definitely NOT an OLED jockey I'll just take my chances that this further 2014 PHOLED Nature Communications article from Forrest et al might support non-linear lifetime improvements. If this is apples and oranges, you'll have to set me straight...
> As I read your thoughts above my immediate question was what if the improvement isn't linear? And you addressed that a couple sentences down (kudos).
> _"Third, OLED lifetime is not linear in current density - I found one article showing LT80 @ 10mA/cm2 was 1000 hours while LT80 @ 40mA/cm2 was ~160 hours (so ~6 times the lifetime at 1/4 the
> current density rather than only 4 times)."_
> If I'm interpreting Table 1 correctly in the paper cited below, at a little less than half the current density (6.2 vs 2.9) LT80 was about 11x (56 vs 616) @ 1000 nits. So definitely non-linear and at least in the context of that paper, beyond the 6x you saw in another paper from the same folks. Am I offbase?
> 
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6008.pdf


I just read through that 2014 Nature article you found more carefully, and two little factoids I found seemed important enough to highlight:

‘Moreover, adopting a degradation acceleration factor that relates luminance to lifetime, viz. *T50(100cd/m2) = T50(1000cd/m2) x [1000cd/m2 / 100cd/m2]^n with n = 1.55*, the extrapolated blue PHOLED lifetime is 1.3x10^5 hours.’

So now we know that at the modest luminance levels we are concerned with here, doubling of lifetime equals being able to increase luminance by ~56.4% for equivalent lifetime… (1.564^1.55 = 2.0).

And here is the second tidbit:

‘Although the blue PHOLED lifetime reported here remains substantially less than that of red and green PHOLEDs at similar luminances, *blue sub-pixels in displays operate at a considerably lower luminance than either the red or green sub-pixels*. For example, *the required luminance to achieve an sRGB colour gamut for green is 9.9 times the luminance for blue*. Thus, a comparison between blue and green PHOLED lifetimes for
displays suggests that the *blue PHOLED sub-pixel luminance needs to be only 10% that of the green.* ‘

I had a hunch this was the case since D65 is composed of ~10% Blue, ~30% Red, and ~60% Green so I’ve been assuming green had to be ~6 times stronger than blue but now I understand that assumption was off by more than 50%.

If Green needs to be ~10-times stronger than Blue for sRGB, it would be great to nail down the equivalent factor for red…

All in all, that was a very useful article and I believe one way of interpreting Samsung’s progress with UDC’s Deep Blue PHOLED over the past few years is that they have recreated these results in a more industrialized and repeatable way…

[EDIT: Found this: sRGB - Wikipedia

‘ Red Green Blue White point
x	0.6400	0.3000	0.1500	0.3127
y	0.3300	0.6000	0.0600	0.3290
Y	0.2126	0.7152	0.0722	1.0000’

Ygreen / Yblue = 0.7152 / 0.0722 = 9.9
Ygreen / Yred = 0.7152 / 0.2126 = 3.36
Yred / Yblue = 0.2126 /0.0722 = 2.94

This is for sRGB and I would love to find equivalent information for D65 or whatever would be most relevant for HDR TVs, but I don’t know how.

My placeholder until then will be to continue to assume Red must be ~3 times stronger than Blue and assume Green must be 6-10 times stronger than Blue…]

[EDIT bis]: OK, found this in Rec.2020: Rec. 2020 - Wikipedia

‘BR.2020 RGB color space parameters
Primary colors
xR. yR. xG. yG. xB. yB
0.708 0.292 0.17 0.797 0.131 0.046’

So:

yG / yB = 0.797 / 0.046 = 17.3 (!!!)
yR / yB = 0.292 / 0.046 = 6.35
yG / yR = 0.797 / 0.292 = 2.73

And for completeness, here is SDR (Rec.709): Rec. 709 - Wikipedia

‘Rec.709 RGB color space parameters
Primaries
xR. yR. xG. yG. xB. yB
0.64 0.33	l 0.30 0.60 0.15 0.06’

So:
yG / yB = 0.60 / 0.06 = 10.0
yR / yB = 0.33 / 0.06 = 5.5
yG / yR = 0.60 / 0.33 = 1.8

So tying all of this together, to be able to display either SDR (Rec.709) or HDR (Rec.2020), using blue intensity as a baseline, you need to be able to deliver green intensity that is a minimum of 10x and as much as 17.3x and red intensity that is at least 5.5x and as much as 6.35x.

This hurts QD-BOLED and plays to the strengths of WOLED… (since WOLED is mute efficient generating green lumens than QD-BOLED can be…).]


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> I just read through that 2014 Nature article you found more carefully, and two little factoids I found seemed important enough to highlight:
> 
> ‘Moreover, adopting a degradation acceleration factor that relates luminance to lifetime, viz. *T50(100cd/m2) = T50(1000cd/m2) x [1000cd/m2 / 100cd/m2]^n with n = 1.55*, the extrapolated blue PHOLED lifetime is 1.3x10^5 hours.’
> 
> So now we know that at the modest luminance levels we are concerned with here, doubling of lifetime equals being able to increase luminance by ~56.4% for equivalent lifetime… (1.564^1.55 = 2.0).
> 
> And here is the second tidbit:
> 
> ‘Although the blue PHOLED lifetime reported here remains substantially less than that of red and green PHOLEDs at similar luminances, *blue sub-pixels in displays operate at a considerably lower luminance than either the red or green sub-pixels*. For example, *the required luminance to achieve an sRGB colour gamut for green is 9.9 times the luminance for blue*. Thus, a comparison between blue and green PHOLED lifetimes for
> displays suggests that the *blue PHOLED sub-pixel luminance needs to be only 10% that of the green.* ‘
> 
> I had a hunch this was the case since D65 is composed of ~10% Blue, ~30% Red, and ~60% Green so I’ve been assuming green had to be ~6 times stronger than blue but now I understand that assumption was off by more than 50%.
> 
> If Green needs to be ~10-times stronger than Blue for sRGB, it would be great to nail down the equivalent factor for red…
> 
> All in all, that was a very useful article and I believe one way of interpreting Samsung’s progress with UDC’s Deep Blue PHOLED over the past few years is that they have recreated these results in a more industrialized and repeatable way…
> 
> [EDIT: Found this: sRGB - Wikipedia
> 
> ‘ Red Green Blue White point
> x 0.6400 0.3000 0.1500 0.3127
> y 0.3300 0.6000 0.0600 0.3290
> Y 0.2126 0.7152 0.0722 1.0000’
> 
> Ygreen / Yblue = 0.7152 / 0.0722 = 9.9
> Ygreen / Yred = 0.7152 / 0.2126 = 3.36
> Yred / Yblue = 0.2126 /0.0722 = 2.94
> 
> This is for sRGB and I would love to find equivalent information for D65 or whatever would be most relevant for HDR TVs, but I don’t know how.
> 
> My placeholder until then will be to continue to assume Red must be ~3 times stronger than Blue and assume Green must be 6-10 times stronger than Blue…]
> 
> [EDIT bis]: OK, found this in Rec.2020: Rec. 2020 - Wikipedia
> 
> ‘BR.2020 RGB color space parameters
> Primary colors
> xR. yR. xG. yG. xB. yB
> 0.708 0.292 0.17 0.797 0.131 0.046’
> 
> So:
> 
> yG / yB = 0.797 / 0.046 = 17.3 (!!!)
> yR / yB = 0.292 / 0.046 = 6.35
> yG / yR = 0.797 / 0.292 = 2.73
> 
> And for completeness, here is SDR (Rec.709): Rec. 709 - Wikipedia
> 
> ‘Rec.709 RGB color space parameters
> Primaries
> xR. yR. xG. yG. xB. yB
> 0.64 0.33 l 0.30 0.60 0.15 0.06’
> 
> So:
> yG / yB = 0.60 / 0.06 = 10.0
> yR / yB = 0.33 / 0.06 = 5.5
> yG / yR = 0.60 / 0.33 = 1.8
> 
> So tying all of this together, to be able to display either SDR (Rec.709) or HDR (Rec.2020), using blue intensity as a baseline, you need to be able to deliver green intensity that is a minimum of 10x and as much as 17.3x and red intensity that is at least 5.5x and as much as 6.35x.
> 
> This hurts QD-BOLED and plays to the strengths of WOLED… (since WOLED is mute efficient generating green lumens than QD-BOLED can be…).]


So just to wrap up this subject of ‘relative strength’ needed from the color primaries, here is DCI-P3 (probably the most relevant for today’s HDR displays): DCI-P3 - Wikipedia

yG = 690
yR = 320
yB = 60

Green is 690 / 60 = 11.5x stronger than blue.
Red is 320 / 60 = 5.33x stronger than blue.
Green is 690 / 320 = 2.17x stringer than red.

So to summarize across all of the color spaces, the increased strength of green versus blue is:

Rec.709: yG / yB = 10.0
sRGB: yG / yB = 9.9
DCI-P3: yG / yB = 11.5
Rec.2020: yG / yB = 17.3 (!!!)

As the demands of Rec.2020 push to a purer and purer (meaning narrower and narrower) green primary, a greater and greater intensity of that purer green is needed to create D65 white.

That’ll be the challenge for future displays but for now, we are generally aiming at >95% or >99% DCI-P3, meaning a green subpixel strength that is 10x or 11x the strength of the blue subpixel is sufficient.

And as far as the strength of the red suboixel versus the blue subpixel, we have:

Rec.709: yR / yB = 5.5
sRGB: yR / yB = 2.94
DCI-P3: yR / yB = 5.33
Rec.2020: yR / yB = 6.35

So covering Rec.709 should already cover DCI-P3 and pushing towards Rec.2020 means going after a further ~15% strength from a purer / narrower red. So 5.5x to 6x is a realistic range to shoot for in today’s HDR displays.

And both for completeness and because it’ll be needed for the following analysis of QD-BOLED, here are the ratios for Green / Red strength:

Rec.709: yG / yR = 1.8
sRGB: yG / yR = 3.36
DCI-P3: yG / yR = 2.17
Rec.2020: yG / yR = 2.73

So 2.17 or 2.0 is probably the lower limit and getting to 2.2 is probably a realistic upper limit for today’s HDR displays.

I believe all of this translates to a big challange for QD-BOLED.

If we assume all the blue power we could want and extrapolate all the way to a zero-sized blue subpixel, we still need a green strength that is at least double the red strength, meaning a maximum of 2/3 of pixel area devoted to green subpixel and 1/3 of pixel area devoted to red subpixel area.

If we want a peak output level of at least 800 cd/m2, 800 cd/m2 of blue intensity through a 33% / 67% / 0% RGB pixel could deliver that.

Of course, the blue subpixel can’t be zero-sized and 10% of overall pixel area is probably a reasonable minimum subpixel size.

That translates to a 30% / 60% / 10% RGB pixel that can only deliver ~720 cd/m2 peak white output from 800 cd/m2 blue, meaning 800 cd/m2 of peak white output requires at least 890 cd/m2 of blue output.

So each of the 4 blue OLED layers needs to emit ~222 cd/m2 of output rather than 200 cd/m2 which degrades lifetime by ~18% (111%^1.55).

If we take the T50 lifetime results of the 2S1C stack @ 1000 cd/m2 of 3500h to 3700h and translate to a 4S1C stack @ 890 cd/m2, the T50 lifetime comes to 12,000 to 13,000h (using the ^1.55 formula).

If we take the UDC announced presentation I referred to earlier which was supposed to announce a Deep Blue PHOLED T50 lifetime of:

‘17,500 hours of operating lifetime at 200 cd/m2’

and make the same adjustment for a per-layer output of 111.25%, that translates to a 4S1C T50 lifetime of ~14,300 hours.

So if we assume that Samsung’s internal developments over the past several years have successfully industrialized similar ‘10x’ improvements to Blue PHOLED lifetime as those reported by the University of Michigan 7 years ago or industrialized Deep Blue PHOLED lifetime at least as long as UDC was ready to report around the same time, it seems likely that they should be in a position to deliver T50 4S1C Deep Blue OLED lifetime in excess of 10,000 hours.

Making a viable QD-BOLED from that starting point requires compensating all the way down to 50% degradation (much easier for BOLED than WOLED) and we’re also assuming 100% QDCF conversion efficiency as well as ignoring whatever efficiency losses are introduced by the blue-blocking conventional color filter on red and green subpixels, but this looks solidly to be in the ballpark of a viable first-generation display…


----------



## fafrd

I realize I’m getting way ahead of myself and this is pure, utter speculation, but since I’ve now got some solid numbers as far as starting points as well as quantitate models to translate future improvements into specs, here is what a future QD-BOLED would look like assuming at least 500 cd/m2 peak levels were delivered by this January’s CES demos, the +100% lifetime improvements Samsung announced this spring making it into the June samples, and future lifetime improvements of at least +25% in 2022 and +6.25% in 2023 materialize as I’ve forecasted (for delivery in 2023 and 2024 TV products):

2022 QD-BOLED peak brightness: ~800cd/m2
2023 QD-BOLED peak brightness: ~924cd/m2
2024 QD-BOLED peak brightness: ~961 cd/m2

This is based on blue PHOLED lifetime improvements alone and any other improvements, such as to QDCF conversion efficiency, for example, would be additive/multiplicative…


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> I realize I’m getting way ahead of myself and this is pure, utter speculation, but since I’ve now got some solid numbers as far as starting points as well as quantitate models to translate future improvements into specs, here is what a future QD-BOLED would look like assuming at least 500 cd/m2 peak levels were delivered by this January’s CES demos, the +100% lifetime improvements Samsung announced this spring making it into the June samples, and future lifetime improvements of at least +25% in 2022 and +6.25% in 2023 materialize as I’ve forecasted (for delivery in 2023 and 2024 TV products):
> 
> 2022 QD-BOLED peak brightness: ~800cd/m2
> 2023 QD-BOLED peak brightness: ~924cd/m2
> 2024 QD-BOLED peak brightness: ~961 cd/m2
> 
> This is based on blue PHOLED lifetime improvements alone and any other improvements, such as to QDCF conversion efficiency, for example, would be additive/multiplicative…


All of this analysis / simulation has been based on 100% QDCC efficiency, which is not realistic.

I just ran into this 2018 whitepaper from Nanosys:Quantum Dot Conversion Layers Through Inkjet Printing — Nanosys – The Quantum Dot Company

QDCC delivered 175% the conversion efficiency of QDEF, and earlier in the paper they state:

‘The external quantum efficiency (EQE) in this measurement is defined by the number of green or red photons emitted divided by the number of blue photons incident on the QD ink film. *EQEs as high as 29.8% for green QD ink films and 38.2% for red QD ink films have been obtained* after all of the above processing with films of thickness in the 4-9μm range (see Figure 3).’

So taking 175% of these QDEF figures would give us:

Green QDCC efficiency: 1.75 x 29.8% = 52.1%
Red QDCC efficiency: 1.75 x 38.2% = 66.9%

So this in an additional gap of 33% to 50% that QD-BOLED will need to overcome…

This has been posted earlier but it contained another useful tidbit from Nanosys:Getting to BT 2020 -- OLEDs vs. LCDs_06/12/21

‘The analysis wouldn’t work for *OLED TVs using* RGBW or *QD-OLED since they require color filters, which would reduce the efficiency by *~70% for RGBW OLEDs and *~15% for QD-OLEDs.*’

Ignoring the ~70% efficiency loss for WOLED (which can be interpreted in a bunch of different ways), the ~15% efucuency loss from color filters on QD-OLED must be a reference to the blue-blocking color filters used on red and green subpixels having only ~85% efficiency.

So if we put these two seperate Nonosyss-supplied factoids together, we can estimate the total external efficiency with which QD OLED can convert 1000 cd/m2 of blue light to green and red to come up with:

Green: 52.1% x 85% = 44.3% (443 cd/m2)
Red: 66.9% x 85% = 56.9% (569 cd/m2)

Green strength / Red strength = 79%.

Going back to the earlier conclusion that we need green strength to be ~200% of red strength and seeing that we are starting with green which is only 79% as strong as red (assuming equal subpixel sizes), this translates to a green subpixel that needs to be 253% the size of the red subpixel.

And if we again further assume that a minimum-size blue subpixel consumes 10% of total pixel size, that translates to a red subpixel sized to be 25.5% of overall pixel area and a green subpixel sized to be 64.5% of overall pixel area.

If we’ve got a 4S1C QD-BOLED structure putting out 1000 cd/m2 of blue light through a pixel sized this way, we’ll get:

Green: 1000 x 64.5% x 44.3% = 286 cd/m2
Red: 1000 x 25.5% x 56.9% = 145 cd/m2

And factoring in the fact that the red lumens plus the green lumens adds up to 94.4% of the total white lumens for DCI-P3, this translates to a peak white output of 456 cd/m2…

And that means a starting blue intensity of 1000 cd/m2 isn’t going to cut it and to achieve our target peak white output of 800 cd/m2 is going to require a 4S1C starting intensity of ~1750 cd/m2.

1750 cd/m2 total translates to 438 cd/m2 per layer or 2.19 times the 200 cd/m2 intensity we started with.

And if we crank up the output level per layer from 200 cd/m2 to 438 cd/m2, T50 lifetime will be reduced to ~30% of what it was at 200 cd/m2 per layer (using the ^1.55 formula).

And if we take the two [email protected] cd/m2 figures of 12,000-13,000 or 17,500 hours that I’ve been using from two different sources and reduce them to 30%, that translates to a T50 lifetime of 3600-3900 or 5250 hours @ 438 cd/m2 per layer or 1750 cd/m2 for a full 4S1C stack…

And that’s probably not viable (meaning hopefully Samsung has actually achieved further improvements of at least +100% if not +300% or even +900% from these early results…).


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> All of this analysis / simulation has been based on 100% QDCC efficiency, which is not realistic.
> 
> I just ran into this 2018 whitepaper from Nanosys:Quantum Dot Conversion Layers Through Inkjet Printing — Nanosys – The Quantum Dot Company
> 
> QDCC delivered 175% the conversion efficiency of QDEF, and earlier in the paper they state:
> 
> ‘The external quantum efficiency (EQE) in this measurement is defined by the number of green or red photons emitted divided by the number of blue photons incident on the QD ink film. *EQEs as high as 29.8% for green QD ink films and 38.2% for red QD ink films have been obtained* after all of the above processing with films of thickness in the 4-9μm range (see Figure 3).’
> 
> So taking 175% of these QDEF figures would give us:
> 
> Green QDCC efficiency: 1.75 x 29.8% = 52.1%
> Red QDCC efficiency: 1.75 x 38.2% = 66.9%
> 
> So this in an additional gap of 33% to 50% that QD-BOLED will need to overcome…
> 
> This has been posted earlier but it contained another useful tidbit from Nanosys:Getting to BT 2020 -- OLEDs vs. LCDs_06/12/21
> 
> ‘The analysis wouldn’t work for *OLED TVs using* RGBW or *QD-OLED since they require color filters, which would reduce the efficiency by *~70% for RGBW OLEDs and *~15% for QD-OLEDs.*’
> 
> Ignoring the ~70% efficiency loss for WOLED (which can be interpreted in a bunch of different ways), the ~15% efucuency loss from color filters on QD-OLED must be a reference to the blue-blocking color filters used on red and green subpixels having only ~85% efficiency.
> 
> So if we put these two seperate Nonosyss-supplied factoids together, we can estimate the total external efficiency with which QD OLED can convert 1000 cd/m2 of blue light to green and red to come up with:
> 
> Green: 52.1% x 85% = 44.3% (443 cd/m2)
> Red: 66.9% x 85% = 56.9% (569 cd/m2)
> 
> Green strength / Red strength = 79%.
> 
> Going back to the earlier conclusion that we need green strength to be ~200% of red strength and seeing that we are starting with green which is only 79% as strong as red (assuming equal subpixel sizes), this translates to a green subpixel that needs to be 253% the size of the red subpixel.
> 
> And if we again further assume that a minimum-size blue subpixel consumes 10% of total pixel size, that translates to a red subpixel sized to be 25.5% of overall pixel area and a green subpixel sized to be 64.5% of overall pixel area.
> 
> If we’ve got a 4S1C QD-BOLED structure putting out 1000 cd/m2 of blue light through a pixel sized this way, we’ll get:
> 
> Green: 1000 x 64.5% x 44.3% = 286 cd/m2
> Red: 1000 x 25.5% x 56.9% = 145 cd/m2
> 
> And factoring in the fact that the red lumens plus the green lumens adds up to 94.4% of the total white lumens for DCI-P3, this translates to a peak white output of 456 cd/m2…
> 
> And that means a starting blue intensity of 1000 cd/m2 isn’t going to cut it and to achieve our target peak white output of 800 cd/m2 is going to require a 4S1C starting intensity of ~1750 cd/m2.
> 
> 1750 cd/m2 total translates to 438 cd/m2 per layer or 2.19 times the 200 cd/m2 intensity we started with.
> 
> And if we crank up the output level per layer from 200 cd/m2 to 438 cd/m2, T50 lifetime will be reduced to ~30% of what it was at 200 cd/m2 per layer (using the ^1.55 formula).
> 
> And if we take the two [email protected] cd/m2 figures on 12,000-13,000 or 17,500 hours that I’ve been using for two different sources and reduce them to 30%, that translates to a lifetime of 3600-3900 or 5250 hours…
> 
> And that’s probably not viable (meaning hopefully Samsung has actually achieved fritter improvements of at least +100% if not +300% or even +900% from these early results…).


Did your relative pixel sizing in this analysis come close to the Joled OLED that's in the new LG pro monitor as seen here:








LG UltraFine 32EP950 OLED Pro Monitor


Links to this were posted in the OLED advancements thread ( thanks @stl8k ) but since most probably don't read that thread: https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_ultrafine_32ep950_oled.htm If anyone buys one, please post your impressions here.




www.avsforum.com


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Did your relative pixel sizing in this analysis come close to the Joled OLED that's in the new LG pro monitor as seen here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG UltraFine 32EP950 OLED Pro Monitor
> 
> 
> Links to this were posted in the OLED advancements thread ( thanks @stl8k ) but since most probably don't read that thread: https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_ultrafine_32ep950_oled.htm If anyone buys one, please post your impressions here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


I have not really looked too closely at printed RGB OLED yet, but my understanding is that the efficiency they deliver is so much higher than that delivered by either WOLED or QD-BOLED, that the drivers for subpixel sizing will be very different (almost no relationship).

Blue has been made double or triple the size of red and green because the printed blue OLED emitter lifetime must be the limiting factor on lifetime and JOLED felt the need to increase the blue lifetime by +50% to +80% versus what they would have had with equal-sized subpixels (33.3% each).

Now that I have a full model of QDCC efficiencies and color-filter efficiencies, I’ve done a comparison of the estimated power consumption of a 4S1C QD-BOLED based on either FOLED or PHOLED compared to WOLED and here is what I came up with:

QD-FOLED power consumption ~156% of WOLED (but with FOLED-level lifetime of 11,00h T50).

QD-PHOLED power consumption of ~42% to ~53% of WOLED (but with lifetime of only 5000h T50 unless Samsung has made further improvements).

The fact that 4S1C QD-PHOLED can deliver ~half the power consumption of WOLED must mean that that is what is driving Samsung Visual Display’s ‘Eco’ branding exercise and suggests that QD-Display 1.0 is now being planned to be based on PHOLED rather than FOLED (whether it ends up ramping production late this year or not until another year has passed)…


----------



## fafrd

Looks like the WOLED supply agreement between Samsung Visual Display and LG Display is for real and is being signed this week: [단독] 마침내 LGD 손잡은 삼성전자… OLED패널 年 300만장 공급 계약

‘*Samsung Electronics finally joined hands with LGD... OLED panel annual supply contract of 3 million sheets*


Supply contract for *3 years from 2022 to 2024*... Contract size expected to exceed 5 cents
Faced with LGD in the face of threats from Chinese companies… Full-scale entry into the OLED TV market

Samsung Electronics will receive organic light emitting diode (OLED) panels from LG Display and enter the OLED TV market in earnest. As Chinese companies control the supply of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels and the prices continue to rise and LCD TV profitability gradually deteriorates, it is interpreted that they have joined hands with rival LG Display.

According to the financial investment industry and the display industry on the 21st, *Samsung Electronics is planning to sign a contract with LG Display to supply 2 million to 3 million OLED panels per year from next year to 2024. *It is known that *as early as this week, Han Jong-hee, head of Samsung Electronics' video display (VD) business division, will make an announcement directly. *According to market research firm Omdia last month, the average price of an OLED panel in the first quarter of this year based on a 55-inch general-purpose product is $510 (about 580,000 won). Taking this into consideration, a simple calculation would estimate the contract size to exceed 5 trillion won.

Accordingly, Samsung Electronics, which has not yet released an OLED TV, is expected to enter the market in earnest. While the OLED TV market is growing rapidly, it is determined that it will be difficult to keep pace with the market growth rate with the large OLED panel 'QD OLED' being developed by its subsidiary Samsung Display. Although there is a forecast that Samsung Display will mass-produce QD OLED within this year, it takes considerable time for yield stabilization in the initial stage of production. For this reason, it is predicted that it will be difficult to exceed 1 million shipments next year by only supplying itself.

Cooperation between Samsung Electronics and LG Display has been discussed several times in the past, but has been canceled due to various circumstances such as security. However, with the recent surge in LCD demand due to COVID-19 and Chinese companies such as BOE raising prices, it is no longer possible to guarantee profitability with LCD TV alone. In the OLED TV market, which is considered to be the future food of the future, some analysts say that the two companies have joined hands by winning over concerns that the future of the domestic display industry will be uncertain if they do not secure cost competitiveness from Chinese companies.

An industry official said, "As the price bargaining power with Chinese display companies is low, they are trying to change the plate to OLED while holding hands with LG Display, which is in competition with its subsidiaries." "In particular, the Chinese display industry is at a serious level for domestic companies. It seems that the two companies have decided to cooperate with each other for the protection and development of the domestic display ecosystem in the face of threats.” ‘


----------



## mreendoor

*LG starts shipping the 83-inch OLED C1, for $5,999 in the US*



In 2021, LG Display started shipping a new 83-inch 4K OLED TV panel, and LG Electronics is now shipping the 83-inch OLED C1 in the US and Korea. The 83-inch C1 is now shipping $5,999. The 48-inch C1 model costs $1,399.








The 2021 C1 OLED TV range features LG's 4th generation a9 AI processor, the company's latest webOS v6 and supports HDR10, HLG, Dolby Vision IQ and Dolby Atmos. For gamers, the TVs offer HDMI 2.1, G-SYNC, FreSync, VRR and ALLM.


LG starts shipping the 83-inch OLED C1, for $5,999 in the US | OLED-Info


----------



## RichB

mreendoor said:


> *LG starts shipping the 83-inch OLED C1, for $5,999 in the US*
> 
> 
> 
> In 2021, LG Display started shipping a new 83-inch 4K OLED TV panel, and LG Electronics is now shipping the 83-inch OLED C1 in the US and Korea. The 83-inch C1 is now shipping $5,999. The 48-inch C1 model costs $1,399.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2021 C1 OLED TV range features LG's 4th generation a9 AI processor, the company's latest webOS v6 and supports HDR10, HLG, Dolby Vision IQ and Dolby Atmos. For gamers, the TVs offer HDMI 2.1, G-SYNC, FreSync, VRR and ALLM.
> 
> 
> LG starts shipping the 83-inch OLED C1, for $5,999 in the US | OLED-Info


I can confirm this. The 83C1 in my home was apparently shipped 

- Rich


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Looks like the WOLED supply agreement between Samsung Visual Display and LG Display is for real and is being signed this week: [단독] 마침내 LGD 손잡은 삼성전자… OLED패널 年 300만장 공급 계약
> 
> ‘*Samsung Electronics finally joined hands with LGD... OLED panel annual supply contract of 3 million sheets*
> 
> 
> Supply contract for *3 years from 2022 to 2024*... Contract size expected to exceed 5 cents
> Faced with LGD in the face of threats from Chinese companies… Full-scale entry into the OLED TV market
> 
> Samsung Electronics will receive organic light emitting diode (OLED) panels from LG Display and enter the OLED TV market in earnest. As Chinese companies control the supply of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels and the prices continue to rise and LCD TV profitability gradually deteriorates, it is interpreted that they have joined hands with rival LG Display.
> 
> According to the financial investment industry and the display industry on the 21st, *Samsung Electronics is planning to sign a contract with LG Display to supply 2 million to 3 million OLED panels per year from next year to 2024. *It is known that *as early as this week, Han Jong-hee, head of Samsung Electronics' video display (VD) business division, will make an announcement directly. *According to market research firm Omdia last month, the average price of an OLED panel in the first quarter of this year based on a 55-inch general-purpose product is $510 (about 580,000 won). Taking this into consideration, a simple calculation would estimate the contract size to exceed 5 trillion won.
> 
> Accordingly, Samsung Electronics, which has not yet released an OLED TV, is expected to enter the market in earnest. While the OLED TV market is growing rapidly, it is determined that it will be difficult to keep pace with the market growth rate with the large OLED panel 'QD OLED' being developed by its subsidiary Samsung Display. Although there is a forecast that Samsung Display will mass-produce QD OLED within this year, it takes considerable time for yield stabilization in the initial stage of production. For this reason, it is predicted that it will be difficult to exceed 1 million shipments next year by only supplying itself.
> 
> Cooperation between Samsung Electronics and LG Display has been discussed several times in the past, but has been canceled due to various circumstances such as security. However, with the recent surge in LCD demand due to COVID-19 and Chinese companies such as BOE raising prices, it is no longer possible to guarantee profitability with LCD TV alone. In the OLED TV market, which is considered to be the future food of the future, some analysts say that the two companies have joined hands by winning over concerns that the future of the domestic display industry will be uncertain if they do not secure cost competitiveness from Chinese companies.
> 
> An industry official said, "As the price bargaining power with Chinese display companies is low, they are trying to change the plate to OLED while holding hands with LG Display, which is in competition with its subsidiaries." "In particular, the Chinese display industry is at a serious level for domestic companies. It seems that the two companies have decided to cooperate with each other for the protection and development of the domestic display ecosystem in the face of threats.” ‘


Further confirmation of a likely SVD LGD supply announcement coming this week: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sammobile.com/news/new-samsung-oled-tvs-lg-deal-finalize/amp/

Sammobile is not a difinitive source but when I see how much effort these ‘leaks / rumors’ put into face-saving logic for Samsung, it’s makes me increase my likelihood this is for real to 90%:

‘Samsung and LG are two of South Korea’s top companies. These diversified conglomerates compete in a variety of industries at home and overseas. In some areas, *Samsung is in the clear lead, leaving LG so far behind that it’s no longer in the rear view mirror*.’

‘Samsung might be the world’s top supplier of mobile OLED panels but LG Display dominates the large OLED panel segment.* Samsung’s dislike for OLED TVs is well known so the company didn’t bother manufacturing OLED panels for TVs.*’

‘It perfected its own QLED panel technology for high-end TVs while *using LCD panels for the more affordable second-tier TVs. *This strategy has worked well for Samsung over the years since there was enough of a price difference between LCD and OLED panels. Then came the *Chinese*. They *improved the quality and yields of their LCD panels and made their products competitive*.’

‘The price for LCD panels has risen as demand increases to the point that *the gap between LCD and OLED panel prices has drastically reduced. So Samsung can now switch to OLED, which provides benefits over LCD, without taking a big hit on its margins.*’

The key thing to notice here is that WOLED offers ‘benefits over LCD’ but no benefits over QLED. Samsung’s ‘second-tier non-QLED LCD TV’s are getting squeezed on margin by the cheap Chinese LCDs (but the Flagship (MiniLED) NeoQLEDs for high-end TVs are fine).

So that’s where LGD’s lowly WOLEDs come in. They are inferior to QLED but offer ‘some advantages’ over the cheap Chinese LCDs Samsung is competing agains for second-tier TV sales and will allow Samsung to maintain better margins in that ‘second-tier’ segment than continuing to compete with LCD-only.

And so:

‘Samsung will reportedly use LG’s OLED panels in its *second-tier *TVs. It’s flagship models will continue to use QLED. *This will be enough to hold Samsung over until Samsung Display is able to sort out the yield constraints for its next-gen QD-OLED panels*‘

So Samsung will just be using LG Display WOLED to better-compete in the second-tier TV market against cheap Chinese LCDs for the next several years while they give Samsung Display time to ‘sort out’ QD-OLED yield.

Samsung doesn’t really think much of WOLED at all and has no intention to continue with WOLED sales once QD-BOLED is ready for Prime Time. WOLED is merely a cost-competitive 2nd-tier display technology with ‘advantages’ versus generic LCD technology which will allow Samsung to hang onto second-tier TV market share for the 2-3 years QD-BOLED needs to get their act together without costing SVD an arm and a leg (better margins).

That silly second-tier crew over at LG Display, how desperate they must be to allow their bigger, so-much-more-successful-brother Samsung to so obviously use them just to gain another few years for QD-BOLED to industrialize without losing their shirt in no-margin second-tier LCD TV sales..

And following all that careful laid-out face-saving context, Sammobile gets to the punch in the gut:

‘Korean media is now reporting that *the head of Samsung Electronics’ video display business division Han Jong-hee will confirm the partnership with LG Display as early as this week. Samsung is expected to sign a contract to source between 2 to 3 million OLED panels from LG Display per year until 2024.*’

So this basically confirms the marketing positioning I forecasted when rumors of SVD sourcing WOLED from LGD first emerged:

MicroLED - future Top-Tier (unnaffordable)

QD-Display - next-Gen Flagship (ramping)

NeoQLED - today’s Flagship (MiniLED)

QLED/LCD - (non-MiniLED) 2nd-tier

WOLED - another 2nd-tier superior to LCD

Generic LCD (non-QD) entry-level 2nd-tier

The only real question is how SVD will position WOLED against entry-level QLED/LCDs and I wouldn’t be surprised to see them gradually shift ‘QLED’ to mean NeoQLED (MiniLED) and shift QDEF LCD with standard backlight to mean ‘Generic LCD’ instead of QLED.

I’m still on the fence as to whether we’ll see QD-BOLED going into production next year or not but my gut tells me we’re likely to see 1 or 2 8K models launched by Samsung next year, probably at very high prices (similar to 77/88Z1…). And if anything, the Sammobile reference to ‘sorting out yield constraints for it’s next-gen QD-OLED panels’ reinforces that view…


----------



## pakotlar

”The key thing to notice here is that WOLED offers ‘benefits over LCD’ but no benefits over QLED. Samsung’s ‘second-tier non-QLED LCD TV’s are getting squeezed on margin by the cheap Chinese LCDs (but the Flagship (MiniLED) NeoQLEDs for high-end TVs are fine)”

huh? Mini-led is at best a minor improvement over previous best LCD efforts (FALD with up to ~1000 zones, typically in 300-400 range, with quantum dot color filter). WOLED offers massive benefits over mini-LED + quantum dot.


----------



## lsorensen

pakotlar said:


> ”The key thing to notice here is that WOLED offers ‘benefits over LCD’ but no benefits over QLED. Samsung’s ‘second-tier non-QLED LCD TV’s are getting squeezed on margin by the cheap Chinese LCDs (but the Flagship (MiniLED) NeoQLEDs for high-end TVs are fine)”
> 
> huh? Mini-led is at best a minor improvement over previous best LCD efforts (FALD with up to ~1000 zones, typically in 300-400 range, with quantum dot color filter). WOLED offers massive benefits over mini-LED + quantum dot.


From Samsung's point of view. They don't care about color accuracy after all, just how much brightness they can push.


----------



## pakotlar

Yeah, I really doubt that. The premium technology in the market is WOLED, if there is any doubt take a look at pricing. LG is selling every unit they can produce, especially at the high end, hence production increases for 77” models. Samsung is aware of this.


----------



## fafrd

pakotlar said:


> ”The key thing to notice here is that WOLED offers ‘benefits over LCD’ but no benefits over QLED. Samsung’s ‘second-tier non-QLED LCD TV’s are getting squeezed on margin by the cheap Chinese LCDs (but the Flagship (MiniLED) NeoQLEDs for high-end TVs are fine)”
> 
> huh? Mini-led is at best a minor improvement over previous best LCD efforts (FALD with up to ~1000 zones, typically in 300-400 range, with quantum dot color filter). WOLED offers massive benefits over mini-LED + quantum dot.


I was referring to key points of the ‘context’ / positioning / face-saving in the Sammobile article, nothing at all to do with my personal views of reality (which are very different )..,

In reality, Samsung realized that once they ceased LCD production, they would be utterly at the mercy of the Chinese in terms of LCD panel pricing (and hence QLED margins would get squeezed to 0%).

As they start to ramp-up QD-BOLED production, their plan is to convert one 30,000 substrate / month LCD line per year over 3 years.

Each line produces ~2M LCD’s per year, so this way, they can backfill the lost production as they convert LCD lines to QD-BOLED production with WOLED at known / acceptable margin rather than putting themselves at the mercy of the Chinese.

And an additional bonus of the WOLED agreement is it gives to SVD control over QD-BOLED pricing - hard to see SVD allowing high volumes of QD-BOLED panes getting rammed down their throats by Samsung Display at much above ~2 times WOLED pricing…

SVD’s supply agreement with LGD will put them in a much better negotiating position vis-a-vis Samsung Display (as well as vis-a-vis the Chinese).

It’s a very smart move (and I’m now over 95% that it’s going to happen, with or without a QD-BOLED launch come September)…


----------



## dkfan9

pakotlar said:


> ”The key thing to notice here is that WOLED offers ‘benefits over LCD’ but no benefits over QLED. Samsung’s ‘second-tier non-QLED LCD TV’s are getting squeezed on margin by the cheap Chinese LCDs (but the Flagship (MiniLED) NeoQLEDs for high-end TVs are fine)”
> 
> huh? Mini-led is at best a minor improvement over previous best LCD efforts (FALD with up to ~1000 zones, typically in 300-400 range, with quantum dot color filter). WOLED offers massive benefits over mini-LED + quantum dot.


Considering the article also says
"*Samsung’s dislike for OLED TVs is well known so the company didn’t bother manufacturing OLED panels for TVs.*’"

I'm going to question most of the contextual statements in the article. They didn't choose to not be competitive with LG on OLED TV because they don't like OLED--they were unable to field a competitive product.


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> Considering the article also says
> "*Samsung’s dislike for OLED TVs is well known so the company didn’t bother manufacturing OLED panels for TVs.*’"
> 
> I'm going to question most of the contextual statements in the article. They didn't choose to not be competitive with LG on OLED TV because they don't like OLED--they were unable to field a competitive product.


I think you guys are both missing the point of these articles (as well as my commentary posted above).

This is the positioning / face-saving narrative being put out by Samsung to explain why Samsung Visual Display sourcing WOLED panels from LG Display is actually a big ‘win’ for Samsung (and not a huge ‘win’ for LGD).

LG Display does not care about the narrative Samsung wants to spin surroundings this supply agreement. They are on the cusp of finalizing a 3-year supply agreement with the largest TV manufacturer in the world (and the last holdout against promoting WOLED Technology).

The win for LG Display is so monumental, they just want to quietly sign the contract and begin delivering WOLED panels to their Big Brother (without the slightest amount of chest-beating or ‘I-told-you-so’s).

I’m now expecting LG Display to announce another 8.5G LCD fab conversion to WOLED or an acceleration of their 10.5G schedule (or possibly even both!) before the the end of this year (and possibly even at their n xR August Earnings call in August)…


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> From Samsung's point of view. They don't care about color accuracy after all, just how much brightness they can push.


Actually, I’d say the news surrounding this Supply Agreement with LGD suggests something different: that the only thing Samsung cares about more than hanging onto their world-leading TV market share is to do so without losing their shirt in the process…

For those of us who have been following (and rooting for) WOLED since the beginning, think about what a massive win this is for LGD / WOLED: Samsung realized they would make more money/margin building WOLED TVs to compete against Chinese LCDs than they would by purchasing commodity QDEF-LCD panels from China to compete against Chinese TVs using the same panels / technology…

If anyone had any doubts WOLED was over the hump against LCD, hopefully this supply agreement with Samsung will put those remaining fears to rest…

WOLED may end up eventually getting snuffed-out by QD-BOLED or QNED or printed RGB-OLED or some other futuristic emissive display technology, but it won’t get snuffed out by LCD (no matter how inexpensive they may get through China-subsidized initiatives to gain market share).


----------



## fafrd

Another article: Will Samsung sign deal with LG over OLED purchases?




‘Samsung Electronics is very close to ordering between three million and four million organic light-emitting diode (OLED) TV panels from LG Display, as *the world's top TV manufacturer plans to hedge its possible investment risk in OLED panels by outsourcing them*, according to multiple industry sources, Monday.

‘ “Samsung Electronics is seriously considering *purchasing LG Display-manufactured OLED panels for use in its second-tier TV brands. *The number of TV OLED panels that Samsung Electronics will procure could be up to 4 million," one senior industry executive said by telephone.’

‘Even if the envisioned agreement is made ― the monetary value of which is estimated at a few billion dollars ― *Samsung Electronics plans to employ LG-sourced OLED panels for use in its second-tier TV lineup* as Samsung is pushing to move up its quantum dot OLED (QD-OLED) TV variants. Samsung's display affiliate Samsung Display is in the process of improving the picture ratio of its QD-OLEDs.’

‘*Samsung Electronics has been preparing to produce QD-OLED hybrids,* which blend the company's quantum dot filter technology with panels used in OLED TVs. But *it is unknown when the QD-OLED panels will enter production.*’


----------



## 59LIHP

Contract Value to Exceed 5 Tril. Won
LG Display to Supply 3 Million OLED Panels per Year to Samsung Electronics








LG Display to Supply 3 Million OLED Panels per Year to Samsung Electronics


Samsung Electronics is set to accelerate its penetration of the global OLED TV market using OLED panels from LG Display.Samsung Electronics will reportedly sign a contract with LG Display to procure two to three million OLED panels annually from next year to 2024. The average price of a 55-inch gene




www.businesskorea.co.kr


----------



## 59LIHP

QNED advancement ...

"차세대 디스플레이 QNED 구조 완성" 유비리서치








"차세대 디스플레이 QNED 구조 완성" 유비리서치


삼성디스플레이가 개발 중인 차세대 디스플레이 퀀텀닷 나노로드 발광다이오드(QNED:Quantum Dot Nano-rod LED)는 구조를 이미 완성했다는 주장이 나왔다.22일 시장조사업체 유비리서치는 삼성디스플레이가 개발 중인 QNED 특허 160건을 분석한 결과 "QNED를 구성하는 구조가 이미 완성됐다"며 "남은 유일한 과제는 빛을 내는 화소 내 나노로드 LED 정렬 개수를 일정하게 유지하는 것"이라고 밝혔다.유비리서치는 이번에 발간한 'QNED 기술 완성도 분석' 보고서에서 QNED 특허를 출원(신청) 목적에 따




www.thelec.kr












"차세대 디스플레이 QNED 구조 완성" 유비리서치


삼성디스플레이가 개발 중인 차세대 디스플레이 퀀텀닷 나노로드 발광다이오드(QNED:Quantum Dot Nano-rod LED)는 구조를 이미 완성했다는 주장이 나왔다.22일 시장조사업체 유비리서치는 삼성디스플레이가 개발 중인 QNED 특허 160건을 분석한 결과 "QNED를 구성하는 구조가 이미 완성됐다"며 "남은 유일한 과제는 빛을 내는 화소 내 나노로드 LED 정렬 개수를 일정하게 유지하는 것"이라고 밝혔다.유비리서치는 이번에 발간한 'QNED 기술 완성도 분석' 보고서에서 QNED 특허를 출원(신청) 목적에 따




translate.google.com





[영상] 삼성 QNED는 대형 디스플레이 판도를 바꿀 수 있을까?








[영상] 삼성 QNED는 대형 디스플레이 판도를 바꿀 수 있을까?


차세대 디스플레이 최신기술 및 개발 이슈 세미나한: 오늘은 삼성디스플레이가 개발하고 있는 삼성디스플레이의 QNED. LG전자가 말하는 그 'LG QNED' 말고. 삼성이 애초에 먼저 얘기했던 QNED에 대해서 유비리서치 이충훈 대표님 모시고 얘기를 한번 해보도록 하겠습니다. 대표님 안녕하세요.이: 반갑습니다. 이충훈입니다.한: 작년부터 해서 저희가 삼성디스플레이의 QNED. 중간에 갑자기 LG전자가 미니LED TV의 'LG QNED'라고 브랜딩을 해버려서.이: 그러니까 말이에요.한: 혼란스러운




www.thelec.kr












[영상] 삼성 QNED는 대형 디스플레이 판도를 바꿀 수 있을까?


차세대 디스플레이 최신기술 및 개발 이슈 세미나한: 오늘은 삼성디스플레이가 개발하고 있는 삼성디스플레이의 QNED. LG전자가 말하는 그 'LG QNED' 말고. 삼성이 애초에 먼저 얘기했던 QNED에 대해서 유비리서치 이충훈 대표님 모시고 얘기를 한번 해보도록 하겠습니다. 대표님 안녕하세요.이: 반갑습니다. 이충훈입니다.한: 작년부터 해서 저희가 삼성디스플레이의 QNED. 중간에 갑자기 LG전자가 미니LED TV의 'LG QNED'라고 브랜딩을 해버려서.이: 그러니까 말이에요.한: 혼란스러운




translate.google.com





Edit:

Samsung Display completes QNED structure development 








Samsung Display completes QNED structure development


Samsung Display has completed the development of the structure of its quantum dot nanorod LED (QNED), market research firm UBI Research claimed.UBI Research said it analyzed 160 patents filed by Samsung Display related to QNED to draw its conclusion.The structure of how QNED will be composed has bee




thelec.net


----------



## 59LIHP

Kopin Corporation Produces World’s First 35,000-nit HDR Green OLED Microdisplay

Duo-Stack OLED Structure
Brightness over 35,000 nits with low power consumption
High Dynamic Range (HDR) 14 bits


















Kopin Corporation Produces World’s First 35,000-nit HDR Green OLED Microdisplay


Kopin® Corporation (NASDAQ: KOPN), a leading developer and provider of high-resolution microdisplays, display subassemblies and systems for defense, e



www.businesswire.com


----------



## 59LIHP

59LIHP said:


> Contract Value to Exceed 5 Tril. Won
> LG Display to Supply 3 Million OLED Panels per Year to Samsung Electronics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG Display to Supply 3 Million OLED Panels per Year to Samsung Electronics
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics is set to accelerate its penetration of the global OLED TV market using OLED panels from LG Display.Samsung Electronics will reportedly sign a contract with LG Display to procure two to three million OLED panels annually from next year to 2024. The average price of a 55-inch gene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businesskorea.co.kr


삼성전자 “OLED 보다 QLED 낫다” LGD 거래설 종지부








삼성전자 “OLED 보다 QLED 낫다” LGD 거래설 종지부


삼성전자가 LG디스플레이와 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 패널 거래설에 대해 사실무근이며 일말의 가능성도 없다는 입장을 내놨다. 4월 한종희 영상디..



it.chosun.com












삼성전자 “OLED 보다 QLED 낫다” LGD 거래설 종지부


삼성전자가 LG디스플레이와 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 패널 거래설에 대해 사실무근이며 일말의 가능성도 없다는 입장을 내놨다. 4월 한종희 영상디..



translate.google.com


----------



## dkfan9

fafrd said:


> I think you guys are both missing the point of these articles (as well as my commentary posted above).
> 
> This is the positioning / face-saving narrative being put out by Samsung to explain why Samsung Visual Display sourcing WOLED panels from LG Display is actually a big ‘win’ for Samsung (and not a huge ‘win’ for LGD).
> 
> LG Display does not care about the narrative Samsung wants to spin surroundings this supply agreement. They are on the cusp of finalizing a 3-year supply agreement with the largest TV manufacturer in the world (and the last holdout against promoting WOLED Technology).
> 
> The win for LG Display is so monumental, they just want to quietly sign the contract and begin delivering WOLED panels to their Big Brother (without the slightest amount of chest-beating or ‘I-told-you-so’s).
> 
> I’m now expecting LG Display to announce another 8.5G LCD fab conversion to WOLED or an acceleration of their 10.5G schedule (or possibly even both!) before the the end of this year (and possibly even at their n xR August Earnings call in August)…


Well maybe it's a pure spin article but then I'll stick by my previous stance and put zero credence in the contextual statements in the article. I'm even less interested in Samsung's spin than LGD


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> 삼성전자 “OLED 보다 QLED 낫다” LGD 거래설 종지부
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 삼성전자 “OLED 보다 QLED 낫다” LGD 거래설 종지부
> 
> 
> 삼성전자가 LG디스플레이와 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 패널 거래설에 대해 사실무근이며 일말의 가능성도 없다는 입장을 내놨다. 4월 한종희 영상디..
> 
> 
> 
> it.chosun.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 삼성전자 “OLED 보다 QLED 낫다” LGD 거래설 종지부
> 
> 
> 삼성전자가 LG디스플레이와 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 패널 거래설에 대해 사실무근이며 일말의 가능성도 없다는 입장을 내놨다. 4월 한종희 영상디..
> 
> 
> 
> translate.google.com


“Milady, me thinks thou dost protest too much…”

Samsung seems to be very worried that any news of them adopting WOLED (or even considering WOLED) will cut into this season’s QLED sales.

They may keep the wraps on this until after next Spring’s closeout season when their first WOLED TVs hit the shelves…


----------



## stl8k

@fafrd 
This from Samsung looks new to your research from a quick glance at your previous posts. Only 1 week old in terms of publishing.









Improved Efficiency and Lifetime of Deep‐Blue Hyperfluorescent Organic Light‐Emitting Diode using Pt(II) Complex as Phosphorescent Sensitizer


A novel technology of deep-blue hyperfluorescent organic light-emitting diode using Pt(II) complex as phosphorescent sensitizer and multiple resonance-based fluorophore can pave the way of commercial...




onlinelibrary.wiley.com


----------



## Thomqsb

I've seen a lot of sources that samsung is denying claims of the WOLED panel deal with LG. They were very critical of WOLED and claimed that "QLED is better". Anyone know what is up with these contradicting reports?


----------



## fafrd

Thomqsb said:


> I've seen a lot of sources that samsung is denying claims of the WOLED panel deal with LG. There were very critical of WOLED and claimed that "QLED is better". *Anyone know what is up with these contradicting reports?*


Look back two posts from yours (#17,356)…


----------



## Thomqsb

fafrd said:


> Look back two posts from yours (#17,356)…


Oh sorry, didn't know you were talking about their statement. Thanks.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> @fafrd
> This from Samsung looks new to your research from a quick glance at your previous posts. Only 1 week old in terms of publishing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Improved Efficiency and Lifetime of Deep‐Blue Hyperfluorescent Organic Light‐Emitting Diode using Pt(II) Complex as Phosphorescent Sensitizer
> 
> 
> A novel technology of deep-blue hyperfluorescent organic light-emitting diode using Pt(II) complex as phosphorescent sensitizer and multiple resonance-based fluorophore can pave the way of commercial...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> onlinelibrary.wiley.com


Interesting - thanks.

I’m not going to wade back to find the posts, but there was slot I posted earlier about vDabna including both similar research results as well as a subsidiary being set up in Korea with full license rights to all related patents from the Japanese parent Company (~March posts?).

So I don’t understand whether there are two separate research threads or this vDabna-based hyperflorescent blue is the same as the effort by Samsung to improve UDC’s deep-blue PHOLED…

But in any case, there is a great deal of activity.

This paper describes a 3.6x improvement in maximum efficiency and a 7.72x improvement in efficiency at 1000 cd/m2, as well as an 19x improvement in T50 lifetime @ 1000 cd/m2, even beyond the other references to ‘improvements’ that Samsung has reported.

That sounds impressive until you look at the absolute numbers:

48.9 cd/A maximum or 37.8 cd/A @ 1000 cd/m2, so similar to Kyuluxe’s reported efficiency of 43 cd/A for their hyperflorescent blue emitter.

But T50 lifetime @ 1000 cd/m2 of only 253.8 hours compared to Kyluxes reporters T*95* lifetime of 280 hours (so still far behind than Kyulux, who believes they need to make further improvements in lifetime before their deep blue hyperflorescent emitter is ready for market).

Between T50 and T95, efficiency measured in cd/A and efficiency measured in EQE %, these OLED researchers make it nearly impossible to compare apples to apples.

If I use some of the other high-efficiency numbers from the table in that paper, an estimate that EQE% ~ (cd/A x 0.58) seems to be a reasonable estimate, meaning the results reported in this paper correspond to an EQE of ~22% versus Kyulux’s deep blue with an EQE of ~25% (both similar to the efficiency levels I’ve been assuming will be delivered by the first high-efficiency blue OLED emitter to materialize in OLED TVs).

The big unknown is where these various initiatives are in lifetime delivered at these efficiency levels and for brightness levels of at least 480 cd/m2, which is the minimum level Samsung needs to deliver 800 cd/m2 of peak white with a 4-layer QD-BOLED.

Even if Samsung were to track subpixel usage in a manner that allowed them to ride (compensate) luminance degradation all the way down to T50, the 253.8 hours @ 1000 cd/m2 reported here would translate to less than 1000 hours @ 480cd/m2…

The blue FOLED used by LG (and Samsung on their RGB OLEDs) delivers 10,000-11,000 hours of lifetime and I don’t believe 1000 hours or even 2000 hours is going to come close (especially if that is T50 lifetime).

10,000 hours would certainly be sufficient and even 5000 hours to T50 could be enough to get started into the market place, but that means a ~5x lifetime gap versus the results reported in this paper that Samsung has to close before QD-Display 1.0 based on blue PHOLED or Hyperflorescence will be ready for market…

My gut tells me that Samsung has either already closed that gap or they are close enough to have confidence it will be closed by this time next year.


----------



## fafrd

Thomqsb said:


> Oh sorry, didn't know you were talking about their statement. Thanks.


Yeah, it’s unfortunate when a member merely posts a link to Google translate. Far more valuable when they also go to the trouble to cut and paste one or several excerpts / quotes that they believe are the most important / relevant to what we care about here.

I actually read the translation and it’s all about another Samsung representative denying there is any shred of truth to this latest rumor and repeating ‘QLED is vastly superior to WOLED’ like a chant / mantra…

[EDIT: Oh, look, a new article on Sammobile where you can read all about it without needing translation:Samsung says it is not buying OLED panels from LG, claims QLED is better]


----------



## 8mile13

Each time these rumors popup Samsung says ''No, no, not true...''. At this point the denials looks like nonsense.

Koreatimes few days ago:
''Samsung Electronics is very close to ordering between three million and four million organic light-emitting diode (OLED) TV panels from LG Display according to multiple industry sources. A Samsung Electronics official said nothing has been decided yet at this moment. Some industry views are that Samsung could reach an OLED agreement with LG given it has not secured its next-generation panel yet. Samsung said it could not comment on when it would begin production on its QD-OLEDs.''
Will Samsung sign deal with LG over OLED purchases? (koreatimes.co.kr)


----------



## Wizziwig

If this does happen, I suspect they will follow Sony's approach to their model lineup. Always keep all the flagship TVs LCD and relegate the OLEDs to your second tier products. That's the only logical approach because making a high performing LCD will always cost more than a similar performing OLED.


----------



## fafrd

TheElec believes LGD’s decision to accelerate P10 (10.5G WOLED line) will be tied to whatever WOLED panel orders Samsung ends up committing to:









Samsung, LG to likely spend conservatively in new OLED lines in 2nd half


Samsung Display and LG Display are expected to spend conservatively on expanding their OLED production capacities in the second half of the year, according to multiple sources working at South Korean equipment makers.There are some expectations that the pair may start investing more on OLED panels f




www.thelec.net





‘*When LG Display spend on Gen 10.5 OLED line will likely be effected by Samsung Electronics’ decision.* If Samsung demands millions of units per year, LG Display will likely decided to build a new Gen 10.5 OLED line in September. LG Display is currently expanding its Gen 8.5 OLED line at Guangzhou, China from 60,000 substrates per month to 90,000 substrates per month. *Unless Samsung orders in huge quantities, it has no need to build another OLED line for TVs.* A new Gen 10.5 OLED line will also likely start with a capacity of 15,000 substrates per month.’


15,000 10.5G substrates translates to ~114,000 65” WOLED panels per month or ~81,000 75” WOLED panels per month, so another ~1 to ~1.3 million WOLEDs annually on top of the ~11 million LGD will already be positioned to produce annually after Guangzhou has increased from 60,000 8.5G sheets per month to 90,000 later this year.

I don’t know whether LGD could get their first-ever 10.5G fab ramped to 15,000 sheets per month by early 2023, but if so, it would translate to an additional ~1 to ~1.3 million WOLED panels annually, meaning a ~10% capacity increase versus the ~11 million WOLED panels per year LGD will be positioned to produce once Guangzhou has increased from 60,000 8.5G sheets per month to 90,000 8.5G sheets per month later this year.

And the same article also suggests that Samsung has more or less already made the decision to delay further investments in QD-BOLED until after the first 30,000 QD-BOLED line has ramped to production and yields have stabilized:

‘*Meanwhile, Samsung Display* is yet spend more on quantum dot (QD)-OLED. It *will likely decide whether to spend more on QD-OLED capacity* after customer review is completed, as well as *when production of the panels start at its current capacity in the fourth quarter*. Q1 line, where QD-OLED panels are made, currently has a capacity of 30,000 Gen 8.5 (2200x2500mm) per month. Q1 line was previously the L8-1-1 line that use to manufacture LCD.’

30,000 8.5G sheets per month starting QD-BOLED production by late this year and assuming a piss-poor average first-year ramping yield of ~50% for 55” panels would translate to a total of:

1 million 55” QD-WOLED panels or
360,000 65” QD-WOLED panels or
100,000 75”-77” QD-WOLED panels or
80,000 83” QD-WOLED panels

So I expect the goal of the September ‘Market Survey’ meeting will be first, to give Sony first-dibs on any QD-BOLED panels they feel bold enough to launch 2022 TVs around (I predict they will pass), and then second, for Samsung Visual Display to decide which QD-BOLED TV size they are interested to sell in 2022.

I’m predicting SVD will choose to sell at an 83” 8K QD-BOLED with an MSRP of over $30,000 aimed at absorbing ~25% of the available production capacity (meaning ~20,000 units), followed by a 75-77” 8K QD-BOLED with an MSRP of over $20,000 aimed at absorbing a further ~40% of available production capacity (meaning ~40,000 units), followed by a 65” 8K QD-BOLED with an MSRP of over $10,000 aimed at absorbing the remaining ~35% of production capacity (meaning ~126,000 units).

If Samsung introduced any 55” QD-BOLEDs at all next year (whether 4K or 8K), it will be purely as a favor to Samsung Display since both parties will take an absolute bloodbath on any 55” QD-BOLED sales…


----------



## fafrd

I did a bit of quick modeling to understand what a ramp-up yield averaging 50% @ 55” for QD-BOLED’s first year of production would translate to at other panel sizes, and here is what I came up with:

55” QD-BOLED costs ~2.0x 55” WOLED
65” QD-BOLED costs ~2.5x 65” WOLED
77” QD-BOLED costs ~3.0x 77” WOLED
83” QD-BOLED costs ~3.65x 83” WOLED

The WOLEDs are all 4K while the QD-BOLED panels could be 4K or 8K (but electronics for 8K no doubt adds some additional cost which this doesn’t account for).

So looking at average WOLED TV revenue break-even sales for an 8.5G sheet of $5800 and scaling by these factors, what I come up with is:

83” 8K QD-BOLED costing as little as $12,000 (~2X current 83” 4K WOLED)

77” 8K QD-BOLED costing as little as $10,000 (175% of current 75” 8K NeoQLED; 50% of current 77” 8K WOLED; ~3x 77” 4K WOLED)

65” 8K QD-BOLED costing as little as $5400 (125% of current 65” 8K NeoQLED; ~3-3.5x 65” 4K WOLED)

So I’m performing our own little AVS quick-and dirty QD-OLED market survey in advance of Samsung’s this September: which of these dogs hunts?

Note that this is not MSRP pricing, merely deepest-discount-pricing-to-avoid-taking-a-loss, so I’d expect MSRP pricing that is at least 50% higher.

$18K MSRP for an 83” 8K QD-BOLED discounted to as low as $12,000?

$15,000 MSRP for a 77” 8K QD-BOLED discounted to as low as $10,000?

$8000 MSRP for a 65” 8K QD-BOLED discounted to as low as $5400?

Personally, I think all of these could sell equally well (and far better than a 4K 55” QD-BOLED costing double what a 55” 4K WOLED costs).

The 8K market is still small enough, it’s unclear whether SVD can achieve the needed volumes to sell-through all of Samsung Display’s QD-BOLED production, but they’ve got a much better chance aiming their early QD-BOLED sales at the 8K market rather than 4K (in my opinion). And if 8K volume proves to be a challenge, that is a further reason to prioritize the larger-size 77” and 83” 8K screens…


----------



## fafrd

Another method to increase OLED output by 20%: Nanotech OLED electrode liberates 20% more light, could slash display power consumption

Replacing ITO with nanotechnology silver+copper drastically reduces internal reflections and increases net output levels by 20%.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> @fafrd Your lifetime calculations are ignoring pixel aperture ratio. Nobody here knows if it will be as poor as WOLED, better, or worse. If Samsung can reduce that non-emitting surface area, they can drive the pixels with less current and still achieve similar brightness as current WOLED.


I’ve been looking at PAR a bit more and realize I wasn’t fully understanding how significant of an impact it is.

2016 WOLEDs only filled ~1/3rd of the height, and after also factoring in the small inter-subpixel spacing, overall PAR was only ~27.8% (so only a bit over a quarter of total pixel area is being used to emit photons).

LGD has made pretty dramatic improvements to PAR since 2016 and the 2020/2021 WOLEDs now fill ~2/3rds of the height and deliver PAR of ~56.4%, an increase of 103% since 2016 (more than doubling the portion of total pixel area being used to emit photons).

QD-BOLED will be Top-emission, meaning a much better PAR. If I assume the same inter-subpixel spacing used by WOLED, I get a PAR of ~80%, 142% the PAR of this-year’s WOLEDs.

Higher PAR translates to lower mA/cm^2 for the same pixel output which translates to longer lifetime, so that’s a significant factor which will help QD-BOLED by 42% or actually 73% once the ^1.55 formula is applied.

To understand the impact of better top-emission PAR, we can consider an idealized QD-BOLED with infinitesimally-small blue subpixel and equal Red and Green QD-efficiency which we’ll assume is 100% to start.

If we assume 4 layers of the same blue FOLED LGD is using and blue-blocking color filter efficiency of ~85%, that translates to total red+green output of 3.4 blue layers or 2.72 blue layers after the 80% PAR is factored-in.

Since 94% of white photons are green and red, 2.72 blue layers of green plus red output translates to 2.9 blue layers equivalent of peak white output, or 276 cd/m2 per layer to deliver 800 cd/m2.

Assuming WOLED’s peak white output is limited by blue emission from the white subpixel, 800 cd/m2 white requires 47.44 cd/m1 of blue emission, or 23.72 cd/m2 from each blue layers in WOLEDs 3S4C stack.

So for this FOLED-based QD-BOLED to deliver 800 cd/m2, it needs to drive each blue layer 11.6 times harder than WOLED needs to drive it’s 2 blue FOLED layers, meaning QD-BOLED will be aging ~45 times faster.

And this is all assuming idealized QD efficiency of 100%, while actual efficiency is closer to 50% based on that Nanosys reference I found.

So the long and short of this is that it doesn’t appear possible for QD-BOLED to match WOLED brightness with 4 FOLED layers (even accounting for it’s superior PAR).

Kyulux has presented a Blue Hyperflorescent emitter with an efficiency of 43 cd/A compared to LGDs blue FOLED which is probably closer 10 cd/A, so using 4 layers of Blue PHOLED (or whatever flavor of high-efficiency blue emitter) with that efficiency drops the current per layer for QD-BOLED to deliver 800 cd/m2 white by a factor of ~4.

The 276 cd/m2 output per layer remains the same but only consumes ~25% of the power needed by 4 FOLED layers.

Kyulux claims to deliver 280 hours LT95 @ 1000 cd/m2, which increases to over 2000 hours at lower output levels of 276 cd/m2.

LT50 is more than 10 times longer than LT95, so if Samsung is planning to compensate for aging/burn-in all the way down to half of initial output levels, a 4-layer PHOLED solution could pass the sniff test.

But again, this is all based on idealized QDCF with 100% conversion efficiency, while actual efficiency will only be about half that level (doubling output per layer to ~550 cd/m2 and reducing lifetime by 2.9 down to LT95 of ~700 hours.

So Samsung either needs a high-efficiency Blue emitter delivering a lifetime 3-4 times greater than that published by Kyulux or they need to improve QD conversion efficiency from ~50% to 80-90% (or some combination of improvements to both).

Top emission and increased PAR does help QD-BOLED, but not enough to make up for the lack of a green emitter.

67.8% of the emitted photons are green, and UDCs green emitter has an efficiency almost double that of even Kyulux’s blue Hyperflorescent emitter, but more importantly has a lifetime that is 2 orders of magnitude higher (so it can easily by driven much harder without fear of rapid aging).

UDC’s green emitter has LT95 of 18,000 hours at 1000 cd/m2, so even driving all 542 cd/m2 of green through a tiny green subpixel covering only ~5% of total pixel area translates to 10,800 cd/m2 of green density delivering reduced LT95 of ~450 hours (1.6 times better than Kyulux’s blue). 

LT50 of UDC’s green is a whopping 400,000 hours, so if LGD is compensating down that far, the same logic would translate to an LT50 of 10,000 hours…


----------



## RWetmore

All of this is very interesting, but what is primarily holding back native RGB OLED? The shorter life of the blue color or other issues?

I'm holding out for some native RGB tech, but it seems like it may never come. I don't like the look of color filters.


----------



## fafrd

RWetmore said:


> All of this is very interesting, but what is primarily holding back native RGB OLED? The shorter life of the blue color or *other issues*?


OLEDs for phone screens are RGB-OLED. They are patterned with Fine Metal Mask (FMM).

Samsung tried to scale FMM manufacturing from phone and tablet-sized screens up to 55” RGB-OLED TVs and it was a huge flop (abysmal yields because the FMM that worked so well manufacturing small RGB-OLEDs sagged when used to try to manufacture 55” screens…).

So viable patterning technology for large-size screens is the primary roadblock for RGB-OLED TVs and printed OLED appears to be the most promising solution on the horizon.

JOLED is already printing 32” RGB-OLEDs and LGE has introduced a 32” monitor based on those printed panels.

And TCL claims they will scale JOLED’s printed RGB-OLED manufacturing up to large-screen TVs and will introduce first consumer products based on the technology in 2023…

The remaining issues surrounding viability of printed OLED is first and foremost yield (LGE is selling their 32” OLED monitor for $4000, suggesting that JOLED’s 32” panel is expensive, as in $2000 per 32” panel or more than double the cost of LGD’s 65” WOLED panels!).

And the second issue surrounds lifetime, especially of printed blue OLED emitters. Blue OLED emitter lifetime is a challenge, printed OLED lifetime is a challenge, printed blue OLED lifetime is a double challenge…

So between WOLED-WRGB OLED TV, which is now fully over-the-hump, printed RGB OLED TV which is on the horizon and for which characterization of smaller 32” screens is now beginning, and QD-BOLED -RGB OLED TV which is being gated by a high-efficiency blue emitter but seems likely to emerge in 2022 or 2023, it like old like we’re going to have 3 emissive TV technologies in the marketplace before 2025…



> I'm holding out for some native RGB tech, but it seems like it may never come. I don't like the look of color filters.


If you can make do with a 32” TV, a $4000 32” printed RGB option is available today (no color filters): 




QD-BOLED does have a color filter over the green and red subpixels (not blue) but those are merely blue-blocking color filters (as opposed to the blue-passing, green-passing, and red-passing color filters used on WOLED’s RGB subpixels), so whatever it is that bothers you about the color filters used on WOLED, I wouldn’t assume that that’s going to carry over blindly to QD-BOLED…

And then there is always MicroLED if you’ve got the deep pockets to afford it and aren’t bothered by the seams .


----------



## RWetmore

That's good news about printed RGB OLED, and especially that LG has a 32" monitor available. I think that is along the lines of what I want and am waiting for in a 55" size, but yes -- QD-BOLED might not have the same 'look' I don't like as the color filters on LG's WRGB OLED.


----------



## RWetmore

Basically, LG's WRGB OLED looks like an LED/LCD with perfect blacks, because this is basically what it is since it uses essentially the same kind of color filters. My parents bought the Sony A8H when it was on sale last year for Black Friday, and I set it up for them and broke it in for few days. It was impressive in a lot of ways, but still exhibited the same 'color quality' and color look as LCD/LED, i.e. slightly artificial and not completely natural and organic looking. Even after calibration. IME, there is nothing quite like native RGB pixels for 'color quality', despite what many claim to the contrary.


----------



## RWetmore

For these reasons, I still argue that LG's WRBG OLED is NOT a true emissive technology, but rather an emissive/transmissive hybrid technology. So would be QD-BOLED, but to a lesser degree.


----------



## avernar

RWetmore said:


> For these reasons, I still argue that LG's WRBG OLED is NOT a true emissive technology, but rather an emissive/transmissive hybrid technology. So would be QD-BOLED, but to a lesser degree.


Colour filters do not make an emissive display a hybrid.


----------



## RWetmore

avernar said:


> Colour filters do not make an emissive display a hybrid.


OK, what would make a display tech. a hybrid emissive/transmissive then?

With WRGB OLED, the backlight is each individual pixel's white OLED, which then passes through, i.e. is transmitted through, a color filter in order to produce the color and the image. How is this fundamentally different than an LED/LCD that uses a white backlight separate from the individual pixels that passes through, i.e. is transmitted through, color filters to produce the image? Other than of course that the white back light level is controlled at the individual pixel level and can be completely turned off with WRGB OLED?


----------



## fafrd

RWetmore said:


> OK, what would make a display tech. a hybrid emissive/transmissive then?
> 
> With WRGB OLED, the backlight is each individual pixel's white OLED, which then passes through, i.e. is transmitted through, a color filter in order to produce the color and the image. How is this fundamentally different than an LED/LCD that uses a white backlight separate from the individual pixels that passes through, i.e. is transmitted through, color filters to produce the image? Other than of course that the white back light level is controlled at the individual pixel level and can be completely turned off with WRGB OLED?


The key limitation of transmissible display technology (LCD) is that they cannot block all of the light (impossible), so there is an upper limit on contrast ratio which is pretty poor.

An emissive display emits photons at the subpixel level and has the ability to turn pixels off (0 cd/m2), meaning it can deliver infinite contrast.

As far as a ‘hybrid’ emissive/transmissive technology, use of QDCF on top of the LCD light valves is probably the only approach I’ve seen that qualifies.

The QDCF generated the photons (emits) powered by incoming photons that are gated by light valves, so surface emission should translate to OLED-like viewing angles but use of light valves means the pixels cannot be turned completely off and so contrast will be much lower than that of OLED.

The two big PQ drawbacks of transmissive display technology are the limited contrast and the poor viewing angles.

The color filters really have nothing to do with anything, they merely block certain photons from passing through. At most, they add unnecessary cost if they are not needed (as in the case of RGB-OLED, though they may have also have some minor impact on off-angle chroma shift (though in WOLED’s-case, the different colors in the 3S4C stack are the primary culprit).


----------



## avernar

RWetmore said:


> OK, what would make a display tech. a hybrid emissive/transmissive then?


Something that has both a per pixel emissive layer and a light valve layer (LCD for example). Something like this:





__





US20080303994A1 - Hybrid display - Google Patents


A hybrid display capable of operating under any ambient illumination. The hybrid display includes a reflective substrate, a plurality of self-emissive units and a plurality of reflective light valves. The reflective substrate has a first surface and a second surface. The self-emissive display...



patents.google.com












Apple Invents a More Efficient OLED Hybrid Display to Save Power


A news report that broke in July stated that LG thought that OLED displays weren't suitable for smartphones and tablets. Some debated that claim and now we see that Apple does as well. In a new patent application published by the US Patent and Trademark Office this morning, we discover that...




www.patentlyapple.com








__





StackPath






www.laserfocusworld.com







RWetmore said:


> With WRGB OLED, the backlight is each individual pixel's white OLED, which then passes through, i.e. is transmitted through, a color filter in order to produce the color and the image. How is this fundamentally different than an LED/LCD that uses a white backlight separate from the individual pixels that passes through, i.e. is transmitted through, color filters to produce the image? Other than of course that the white back light level is controlled at the individual pixel level and can be completely turned off with WRGB OLED?


The difference is that the "backlight" is per pixel in an emissive dispplay and the pixel brightness is directly controlled by that per pixel emitter. A transmissive display uses light values to control the light from a common backlight and the pixel itself is not the source of the light.


----------



## avernar

fafrd said:


> As far as a ‘hybrid’ emissive/transmissive technology, use of QDCF on top of the LCD light valves is probably the only approach I’ve seen that qualifies.


That would still be transmissive as the light source is still the backlight which as you said would leak through adjacent pixels for that zone. I'd maybe call that a hybrid colour filter but not a hybrid display.

Check the bunch of examples I found above.


----------



## fafrd

avernar said:


> That would still be transmissive as *the light source is still the backlight which as you said would leak through adjacent pixels for that zone. *I'd maybe call that a hybrid colour filter but not a hybrid display.


We’ll first, I said as much (which you noted) but second, I believe there are some QDCF efforts looking at a minimum excitation threshold, meaning infinite contrast would be possible with such a hybrid approach (which at that point would be closer to emissive than transmissive since every photon you see has been emitted by the subpixels and pixels can be turned completely off as long as the lightvalve drops residual photon excitation levels below the minimum threshold).


> Check the bunch of examples I found above.


I assume we’re limiting the discussion to technologies that are suitable for application to TVs (meaning practical / cost-effective at large screen sizes among other things).

Controlling reflected ambient light using light valves is an interesting idea but not really relevant for dark-room TV viewing.

Assuming hybrid involves combining lightvalves with some form of emissive technology, there are only two ways to combine them:

Emissive layer outside of transmissive layer (and stimulated by the output of the transmissive layer) - the ‘hybrid’ approach I outlined.

Emissive layer inside transmissive layer (and gated by that transmissive layer). So let’s say, for example, it was much less costly to make WOLED displays elements that are pixel-sized rather than subpixel-sized (or even 1080p resolution rather than 4K or 8K resolution).

Combining a white low-resolution emissive display gated by light valves at full subpixel resolution passing through conventional color filters would be another ‘hybrid’ approach that essentially delivers local dimming zones too small to be visible from viewing distance (so close enough to ‘infinite contrast’).

But first, that low-resolution WOLED would need to cost less than an equivalent-sized LCD panel or the cost would be prohibitive.

And second, this approach is going to reintroduce all of the drawbacks of poor off-angle viewing performance which plague transmissive displays.

So between light valves before emissive layer or lightvalves after emissive layer, it’s clear to me which is the only one with any chance of being suitable for application to TVs.

(Note that viewing small phone screens from on-center outdoors in the bright sun is a very different application environment that brings with it very different PQ priorities).


----------



## RWetmore

avernar said:


> The difference is that the "backlight" is per pixel in an emissive dispplay and the pixel brightness is directly controlled by that per pixel emitter. A transmissive display uses light values to control the light from a common backlight and the pixel itself is not the source of the light.


I'm aware of this and pointed it out myself in the last sentence. It's not the point. It's fundamentally a semantical argument I'm making.


----------



## RWetmore

fafrd said:


> An emissive display emits photons at the subpixel level and has the ability to turn pixels off (0 cd/m2), meaning it can deliver infinite contrast.


Not necessarily. Plasma is an emissive technology, but it cannot do infinite contrast ratio. Some LCDs have better contrast ratios, i.e. deeper blacks, than plasmas, but they're still transmissive displays.


----------



## fafrd

RWetmore said:


> Not necessarily. Plasma is an emissive technology, but it cannot do infinite contrast ratio. Some LCDs have better contrast ratios, i.e. deeper blacks, than plasmas, but they're still transmissive displays.


Both good points - I stand corrected.


----------



## avernar

fafrd said:


> We’ll first, I said as much (which you noted) but second, I believe there are some QDCF efforts looking at a minimum excitation threshold, meaning infinite contrast would be possible with such a hybrid approach (which at that point would be closer to emissive than transmissive since every photon you see has been emitted by the subpixels and pixels can be turned completely off as long as the lightvalve drops residual photon excitation levels below the minimum threshold).


But you are still wasting power blocking light which is a characteristic of an emissive display. The line between the two technologies is going to get blurred as transmissive technologies perfect more of the defining features of emissive displays.



fafrd said:


> I assume we’re limiting the discussion to technologies that are suitable for application to TVs (meaning practical / cost-effective at large screen sizes among other things).


It will be interesting to see which hybrid type technologies become practical or if some perfected/new emissive technology will just make it all moot.



fafrd said:


> Emissive layer inside transmissive layer (and gated by that transmissive layer). So let’s say, for example, it was much less costly to make WOLED displays elements that are pixel-sized rather than subpixel-sized (or even 1080p resolution rather than 4K or 8K resolution).


That sounds so familiar. Who was working on that?



fafrd said:


> And second, this approach is going to reintroduce all of the drawbacks of poor off-angle viewing performance which plague transmissive displays.


Yeah. That's one of the drawbacks of mult LCD displays as well.


----------



## avernar

RWetmore said:


> I'm aware of this and pointed it out myself in the last sentence. It's not the point. It's fundamentally a semantical argument I'm making.


But blurring the distinction between the two technologies doesn't make things clearer. Reclasifying almost all emissive displays as hybrid because of colour filters doesn't help anyone. The ones that actually don't need a filter had poor efficiencies or uneven wear issues.


----------



## Wizziwig

I prefer to refer to OLEDs as having self-emitting pixels. I don't see them in the same group as CRTs and Plasmas which had nothing but clear glass blocking the path of photons from emission to your eyeball. This offered perfect viewing angles along with other benefits traditionally reserved to emissive displays. Contrast has nothing to do with it.



fafrd said:


> Top emission and increased PAR does help QD-BOLED, but not enough to make up for the lack of a green emitter.


Are you accounting for the fact that typically not all 4 sub-pixels are ever lit at the same time? This wastes a lot of emitting surface area compared to a traditional 3 sub-pixel design where all 3 are always lit unless you're displaying pure primaries - in that case a WOLED would be even worse with only 1 of 4 sub-pixels active vs 1 of 3.


----------



## fafrd

avernar said:


> But you are still *wasting power blocking light which is a characteristic of an emissive display. *The line between the two technologies is going to get blurred as transmissive technologies perfect more of the defining features of emissive displays.


I don’t believe the use or not of color filters and/or power efficiency has anything to do with the definition of emissive versus transmissive display technology.

Emissive is pretty black and white - different pixels put out different numbers of photons by emitting them within the confines of the subpixels themselves.

Transmissive is a slightly more nuanced word because on could say that a color filter ‘transmits’ photons, for example, but it’s generally used to mean a lightvalve of some type that allows regulation of transmitted photons under the auspices of a control signal. So transmissive = lightvalve is the widely-accepted common definition.

I agree with you that as transmissive technology comes closer to matching the black levels, effective contrast ratio, and off-angle viewing performance of emissive displays, distinguishing emissive from transmissive dispkays will get harder and harder based on the use of eyeballs alone (and hence there might be some ‘blurrring’ of which looks like which), but even if the two displays look absolutely identical in every way, that won’t blur the definition of which is emissive and which is transmissive…



> It will be interesting to see which hybrid type technologies become practical or if some perfected/new emissive technology will just make it all moot.


Part of being ‘perfect’ is being cheapest. As long as emissive display technology continues to cost more than transmissive technology, the two will co-exist.



> That sounds so familiar. Who was working on that?


I forget and don’t have the energy to search the thread for it. I’m pretty sure there are some posts in this thread around ~2016 or 2017 when quantum dots were first coming in the scene in the form of QDEF and the idea of Quantum Dot Color Converters were a new concept…



> Yeah. That's one of the drawbacks of mult LCD displays as well.


In my view, the greatest drawback of transmissive / LCD display technology is the poor black levels and resulting poor contrast ratio.

With FALD backlights driving to smaller and smaller dimming zones epitomized by dual-LCDs effectively driving one local dimming zone per 4 pixels or 16 pixels, black level performance and contrast ratio of LCD / transmissive displays can largely match that of WOLED (for a significant increase in cost).

But the second greatest drawback of transmissive / LCD display technology is off-axis luminance shift and black-level shift, and that’s a far tougher problem to see how transmissive can ever match emissive.

I mean, think about it, your sending photons through a small tube / channel that’s either fully-open, as closed as it can be, or somewhere in between. Now can that not look different when viewed from off-angle versus straight on-angle.

Samsung appears to have made some advances, but again, at the cost of reduced native contrast ratio (like IPS-LCD), so there appears to be no free lunch when it comes to emissive-like off-angle performance for transmissive / LCD…


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I prefer to refer to OLEDs as having self-emitting pixels. I don't see them in the same group as CRTs and Plasmas which had nothing but clear glass blocking the path of photons from emission to your eyeball. This offered perfect viewing angles along with other benefits traditionally reserved to emissive displays. Contrast has nothing to do with it.


 So unless I’m not understanding RGB-OLEDs qualify by your definition, correct? Or only Top Emission RGB-OLED?




> *Are you accounting for the fact that typically not all 4 sub-pixels are ever lit at the same time? * This wastes a lot of emitting surface area compared to a traditional 3 sub-pixel design where all 3 are always lit unless you're displaying pure primaries - in that case a WOLED would be even worse with only 1 of 4 sub-pixels active vs 1 of 3.


It’s funny, the WOLED stack is designed to be blue-dominant, meaning the whitepoint can either have blue contributed by the white subpixel or the blue subpixel, but never both.

If a light blue is needed, the blue subpixel and the white subpixel will both be on, but the white subpixel will supply sufficient red or green to allow one of those two subpixels to stay off.

So the only time all 4 subpixels need to be on is if you want to maximize native panel output, which will be a vivid mode which is quite cool (since it’ll have almost twice the blue photons needed for D65).

In the end, peak white is determined by the size and efficiency of the white subpixel (assuming the red subpixel is strong enough to fully-support) while peak luminance for each of the RGB primaries is determined by the size of each respective sub-pixel and the efficiency of the WOLED stack in generating photons of each of those respective colors…

The key factor causing WOLED to lose efficiency is the use of the 3 colored filters, rather than the white subpixel.

You could make an RGB WOLED by eliminating the white subpixel and increasing the size of the RGB subpixels by ~23%.

Since over ~54% the lumens emit through the white subpixel for peak white (~half before accounting for the additional ~15% loss from each colored filter), the result would be a ~43% drop in peak white level (so ~450 cd/m2 with today’s Evo panels).

The white subpixel helps WOLED efficiency because it has no color filter, but it helps it most because of all of the green photons it generates at very high efficiency.

WOLED can get away with a tiny green subpixel because green has such a long lifetime and such a big efficiency, as well as the relatively large area of the white subpixel which will contribute lots of green photons whenever it can (and especially for peak white highlights),

An RGB OLED can make use of that same highly-efficient green emitter and so can also get away with a small green subpixel.

But QD-BOLED has the double-whammy of needing to generate ~60% of it’s photons as green photons converted from blue photons, as well as have the worst conversion efficiency of blue to green.

The net result of all that is that the green subpixel of a QD-BOLED should consume ~65% of the active subpixel area…


----------



## FernandoValdirNayron

For what I consider emissive displays, wOLED is pure emmisive, the color filters is a static and uncontrollable element. The pixel emits and control it's own light. 

In transmissive displays, the pixel control the amount of light that it transmit, rather than the amount of light it produces.


----------



## fafrd

FernandoValdirNayron said:


> For what I consider emissive displays, wOLED is pure emmisive, the color filters is a static and uncontrollable element. The pixel emits and control it's own light.
> 
> In transmissive displays, the pixel control the amount of light that it transmit, rather than the amount of light it produces.


Yes, you and I see it the same way…


----------



## fafrd

avernar said:


> That sounds so familiar. Who was working on that?


I stumbled onto this old thread if you want to see when all the hype surrounding Quantum Dot Color Converters (QDCC) was breaking news (2016): New Quantum Dot Tech from Samsung

A real walk down memory lane (and makes you realize how many years / millions of dollars Samsung has spent researching the Next Great Display Technology…).


----------



## LeRoyK

Is there a Quantum Dot like technology that can convert green light into red and blue? Seems like that would be the solution to brightness problems.


----------



## avernar

LeRoyK said:


> Is there a Quantum Dot like technology that can convert green light into red and blue? Seems like that would be the solution to brightness problems.


There's blue to green and red conversion and UV to blue, green and red conversion. Green to red is doable but haven't seen anything about green to blue. The conversion is traditionally higher energy to lower energy.


----------



## 59LIHP

Tackling light trapping in organic light-emitting diodes by complete elimination of waveguide modes








Tackling light trapping in organic light-emitting diodes by complete elimination of waveguide modes


Efficiency improvement of organic light-emitting diodes was achieve by complete elimination of waveguide modes.




advances.sciencemag.org







> *Abstract*
> _Conventional waveguide mode decoupling methods for organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) are typically not scalable and increase fabrication complexity/cost. Indium-tin-oxide–free transparent anode technologies showed efficiency improvement without affecting other device properties. However, previous works lack rigorous analysis to understand the efficiency improvement. Here, we introduced an ultrathin silver (Ag) film as transparent electrode and conducted systematic modal analysis of OLEDs and report that waveguide mode can be completely eliminated by designing an OLED structure that is below the cutoff thickness of waveguide modes. We also experimentally verified the waveguide mode removal in organic waveguides with the help of index-matching fluid and prism. The negative permittivity, extremely thin thickness (~5 nanometers), and highly conductive properties achieved by a uniform copper-seeded Ag film can suppress waveguide mode formation, enhancing external quantum efficiency without compromising any other characteristics of OLEDs, which paves the way for cost-effective high-efficiency OLEDs in current display industry._


----------



## fafrd

A couple of tidbits I gleaned from closer reading of this article: Samsung, LG to likely spend conservatively in new OLED lines in 2nd half

‘*For IT OLED panels, Samsung Display is considering converting its L8-1-2 LCD line*, or using its A5 line, which has halted production temporarily as of now. Samsung Display has been developing the equipment needed IT OLED with a partner. It is waiting to place orders for them. *If Samsung Display decides to give the go-ahead for the IT OLED line, spending will likely start in the first half of 2022.*’

So Samsung Display is considering conversion of the L8-1-2 LCD line to OLED panels for IT, a decision it sounds like they’ll make before the end of this year for investments starting early next year.

‘Meanwhile, *Samsung Display* is yet spend more on quantum dot (QD)-OLED. It *will likely decide whether to spend more on QD-OLED capacity after customer review is completed*, as well as when production of the panels start at its current capacity in the fourth quarter. *Q1 line, where QD-OLED panels are made,* currently has a capacity of 30,000 Gen 8.5 (2200x2500mm) per month. *Q1 line was previously the L8-1-1 line that use to manufacture LCD.*’

So L8-1-1 is the LCD line which was shut down last year for conversion to QD-BOLED production to start in Q4 in what Samsung called ‘Phase I’ of their QD-BOLED production/investment plan.

And Phase II was supposed to involve converting L8-1-2 from LCD to QD-BOLED next year, but that has been delayed and apparently is no longer even under consideration,

In fact, it appears Samsung is debating converting L8-1-2 from LCD to IT OLED production next year.

If Samsung makes that decision, it will be very negative for the future ramp-up of QD-BOLED, and the maximum QD-BOLED production capacity they could ever get out if the L8-1 lines would be only 60,000 8.6G sheets per month instead of 90,000.

In addition, there have been rumors of Samsung continuing TV LCD panel production in L8-1-2 and L8-1-3 until the end of 2022, but if they instead shut down L8-1-2 for conversion to IT OLED panel production, that will open up a capacity gap of 30,000 8.5G LCD substrates per year representing ~2 million panels (55”).

That hole would either need to be filled by ordering another 2M LCD panels from the Chinese or by ordering 2M WOLED panels from LGD.

And so then there is this:

‘*When LG Display spend on Gen 10.5 OLED line will likely be effected by Samsung Electronics’ decision*. If Samsung demands millions of units per year, LG Display will likely decided to build a new Gen 10.5 OLED line in September. LG Display is currently expanding its Gen 8.5 OLED line at Guangzhou, China from 60,000 substrates per month to 90,000 substrates per month. *Unless Samsung orders in huge quantities, it has no need to build another OLED line for TVs. A new Gen 10.5 OLED line will also likely start with a capacity of 15,000 substrates per month.*’

15,000 10.5G panels per month translates to ~27,000 8.5G panels, sufficient to almost perfectly back-fill for Samsung’s panel production hole should they decide to convert L1-1-2 to IT OLED production next year…

As they say, ‘it’s all connected.’ The decisions Samsung ends up making in their September Market Survey / planning meeting will cascade through the industry over the next 1-2 years…

I’ll be surprised if LGD announces anything about P10 in their Q2 earnings call. Their Q3 earnings call in late October / early November after Samsung’s September meeting and decisions looks far more likely.


----------



## 59LIHP

LG Chemicals expects to expand supply of large OLED blue light emitting layers








LG화학, 대형 OLED 청색 발광층 공급 확대 기대감


LG화학이 LG디스플레이가 양산 중인 대형 유기발광다이오드(OLED)용 청색(블루) 발광층 납품 확대를 노린다. 1일 업계에 따르면 LG화학은 LG디스플레이의 대형 OLED용 새로운 재료세트 'WBE'용 블루 호스트를 연내 납품한다는 목표를 세운 것으로 파악됐다.OLED 재료세트는 빛을 내는 발광층과, 전류(전자·정공)가 이동하는 공통층으로 구성된다. 다시 발광층 안에서 호스트와 도판트는 빛을 내고, 프라임은 발광효율 향상을 돕는다. LG디스플레이의 새로운 대형 OLED 재료세트 WBE는 지난해 중국 광저우 생산라인에




www.thelec.kr


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> LG Chemicals expects to expand supply of large OLED blue light emitting layers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG화학, 대형 OLED 청색 발광층 공급 확대 기대감
> 
> 
> LG화학이 LG디스플레이가 양산 중인 대형 유기발광다이오드(OLED)용 청색(블루) 발광층 납품 확대를 노린다. 1일 업계에 따르면 LG화학은 LG디스플레이의 대형 OLED용 새로운 재료세트 'WBE'용 블루 호스트를 연내 납품한다는 목표를 세운 것으로 파악됐다.OLED 재료세트는 빛을 내는 발광층과, 전류(전자·정공)가 이동하는 공통층으로 구성된다. 다시 발광층 안에서 호스트와 도판트는 빛을 내고, 프라임은 발광효율 향상을 돕는다. LG디스플레이의 새로운 대형 OLED 재료세트 WBE는 지난해 중국 광저우 생산라인에
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.kr


Nice find.

We finally have an explanation for WBE and WBC:

‘The *WB stands for white bottom*: LG Display’s OLED uses white OLED and a bottom emission structure. The E or C behind WB refers to the material’s characteristics. WBE offers longer life span and higher color gamut than WBC.’

As well as confirmation that Paju is still producing the older 3S3C / WBC / non-Evo WOLED stack today:

‘LG Display is still using its older WBC material set at its E3 and E4 production liens at Paju, South Korea.’

And we also finally have a schedule for conversion of Paju to the new 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable WOLED stack:

‘LG Display is planning to apply WBE to its E3 and E4 lines at a later date. *E3 will likely start using WBE within the year *and *E4 by the first half of 2022. *This expanded application of WBE is the reason why LG Chem is pushing to supply more blue host to LG Display.’

The fact that E4 will be continuing to manufacture WBC / non-Evo panels through mid-2022 is a disappointment.

It means that LG will have to continue to sell some TVs with mixed panel types through 2022. WBC production will drop from ~60% today to ~25% by year’s end, but that’s still too many WBC panels to sell-through without involving the highest-volume C-Series in 2022…

I’d been hoping that LG would upgrade the C2 to Evo technology next year, but that’s now looking less likely.

Let’s just hope LGE brings back the E-Series or introduce a new WOLED TV line like the H Series (*H*eatsink] or *H*igh Luminance) combining Evo panels with a Panasonic/Sony-like heatsink and a conventional stand to deliver a mainstream performance bump in 2022 despite the continued panel-mixing sh*tshow.

[EDIT: my less-pessimistic side just reread what TheElec wrote and realized that ‘the first half 2022’ may just mean ‘not before the end of 2021’ and may still allow for conversion to be completed while 2021 WOLEDs are still being manufactured. So LGD/LGE may still be trying to complete production conversion to WBE before rhe 2022 WOLED TVs begin production and there is still a possibility that all 2022 WOLED TVs will be based on 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable panels…]


----------



## 59LIHP

IIt always takes a while to get the article in English but always less complete than the Korean article...

LG Chem aims to expand blue OLED layer supply to LG Display 








LG Chem aims to expand blue OLED layer supply to LG Display


LG Chem is aiming to expand its supply of blue OLED emission layer to LG Display this year, TheElec has learned.LG Chem is hoping to supply the blue host for the WBE material set used by LG Display for their large-sized OLED panels.An OLED material set is comprised of an emission layer __ which admi




www.thelec.net


----------



## fafrd

The Elec has an English tab


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> The Elec has an English tab


Yes, I know. But the article in English always arrives later and as I already specified, it is provided less in English than in Korean.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> Yes, I know. But the article in English always arrives later and as I already specified, it is provided less in English than in Korean.


OK, understand. Can you summarize any important discrepancies / additional details?


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> OK, understand. Can you summarize any important discrepancies / additional details?


Being French, I express myself poorly in English. I wanted to indicate in Korean there is more comment to say one thing. Otherwise the English translation is well syntetized. The essential is well restored.


----------



## hotskins

The Future of OLED TVs May Be Much Brighter | The National Interest (couple days old, sorry if posted)


----------



## fafrd

hotskins said:


> The Future of OLED TVs May Be Much Brighter | The National Interest (couple days old, sorry if posted)


Yeah, this was posted a couple weeks ago (or more precisely, a technical article on this same subject).

They formed a new company and filed some patents, so it’s likely to be a minimum of 3-4 years before this shows up in products…

But yeah, just one more reason that 1000+ Nit OLED TV will likely be a reality by no later than 2025…


----------



## hotskins

fafrd just a question for you since you know alot about technology. In your opinion did plasma ever reach its peak or do you think plasma could have improved if engineers were allowed more time to perfect the technology.


----------



## MechanicalMan

I don't see how plasma could have adapted to a 4K HDR world with increasing energy regulation. Most plasma TVs had significant ABL at high APL, even with relatively conservative peak SDR brightness. Energy consumption would be even higher at 4K, and you'd be dealing with major brightness limitations. It doesn't seem to me like the technology was on track to transition to 4K. I think it was discussed previously in the thread (or at least somewhere in this sub) that Panasonic's 152" 4K plasma was said to use 3,000 watts on average and 7,000 watts peak (and weighed 1,700 lb). Yes, 152" is large, but keep in mind that it was surely also very dim. Plasma also didn't seem to be making a lot of progress with IR. The final Panasonic models, at least, had horrible IR. If they could have somehow been made brighter, then the IR and burn-in problems would have presumably gotten even worse, just as the high energy consumption would have gotten even higher. I'm sure the manufacturing cost for 4K plasma would have been terrible as well -- so an expensive but anemic display with very limited brightness, which there would have been no real demand for even at a competitive price. It presumably also would have been a major problem trying to chase increasingly large LCD screen sizes while also dealing with all of these other issues. Consider how long it took for other companies just to somewhat catch up to where Pioneer had been. Aside from the brightness of the F8500, what real advancements were even made in the final ~5 years of plasma? We were basically just waiting for them to again be as good as old, discontinued models from many years earlier. There was no indication that the industry was on the verge of creating a larger, 4K HDR plasma with reasonable energy consumption and a competitive price. It just wasn't going to happen.


----------



## fafrd

hotskins said:


> fafrd just a question for you since you know alot about technology. In your opinion did plasma ever reach its peak or do you think plasma could have improved if engineers were allowed more time to perfect the technology.


Appreciate the question, but I’m really not the right guy to ask. I only owned my first plasma (65ZT60) at the end of the era for a couple months before ditching it out of disappointment (letterbox bars were not invisible and it was unwatchable during the day).

From what I’ve understood, 4K resolution was the final nail in the coffin for plasma. Just in terms of scalability, plasma could not keep up with 8K resolution, let alone 8K. 4K plasma we’re possible, but they were huge and huge power hogs. I doubt plasma could ever have delivered a 48” 4K panel (let alone 42”).

And then there is HDR and peak brightness. My older-generation WOLED doesn’t look great during the day, but at least it is watchable at ~300 Nits peak. My 65ZT60 could only get to 125-130 Nits full-field and whatever the peak levels were, they were far below WOLED levels (let alone QLED/LCD levels).

So in terms of ‘perfecting the technology’, I’m not sure which areas of improvement you are focused on:

-uniformity was one of plasma’s strong suits and OLED and LCD still don’t measure up.

-motion was another strong suit in general, though plasma also suffered from ghosting and blur due to it’s slow phosphors.

-off-angle viewing performance was plasma’s third string suit, an area where LCD continues to fall short but OLED measured up and WOLED comes close (some chroma shift but luminance and contrast maintained).

-burn-in was plasma’s Achilles-heel and so if you are asking whether plasma’s vulnerability to burn-in could have been reduced with additional engineering, I’d guess perhaps, but I don’t think it would have mattered much.

-limited resolution, limited peak brightness, and high power consumption were pretty much intrinsic to the technology, from my limited understanding. 

So in an SDR Rec.709 1080p world, plasma was well-positioned and just needed to address concerns with vulnerability to burn-in and high cost.

But in a world that has moved on to HDR, DCI-P3/BT.2020, and HDR, plasma had no hope of keeping up and got left in the dust (joining CRT).

Some statistics from here:Plasma display - Wikipedia

‘In the first quarter of 2008, a comparison of worldwide TV sales broke down to 22.1 million for direct-view CRT, 21.1 million for LCD,* 2.8 million for plasma, *and 0.1 million for rear projection.[71]’

‘At the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Panasonic introduced their 152" 2160p 3D plasma. *In 2010 Panasonic shipped 19.1 million plasma TV panels*.[74]’

‘In 2010, the *shipments of plasma TVs reached 18.2 million units globally*.[75] Since that time, shipments of plasma TVs have declined substantially.’

So 2.8 million plasma panels shipped in Q1 2008 and a high-water-mark of 18.2 million plasma TVs sold in 2010, versus today’s WOLEDs which sold 1.6 million panels in Q1 of this year and are on track to sell ~11 million panels next year.

The point is that WOLED has just this year passed the halfway mark of where plasma production got to, but at screen sizes with resolution and price points that plasma never could have competed with.

Short answer, no, I don’t think any amount of additional engineering could have extended plasma’s run (given the market shift to HDR/UHD.)

The other interesting fact that emerges from this history lesson, however, is that the ‘Premium’ / ‘Advanced’ TV market has stayed relatively flat at 20-30M units and within that market (which was once completely dominated by plasma), WOLED has been steadily gaining share and is now positioned to capture ~half in 2022.

With WOLED continuing to drive down costs while QLED/LCD has driven up costs through addition of MiniLED backlights, the next couple years will be an important inflection point in the market.

Whether it’s because QD-BOLED starts ramping to join WOLED or LGD continues to add WOLED manufacturing capacity, we should see OLED TV continue to push forward towards Plasma’s high-water-mark of ~20M in annual sales.

But it’s sobering to realize that even with all the progress they’ve made since 2914/15, LGD/WOLED has still only gotten halfway to where Panasonic/plasma plateaued a decade ago…


----------



## fafrd

MechanicalMan said:


> I don't see how plasma could have adapted to a 4K HDR world with increasing energy regulation. Most plasma TVs had significant ABL at high APL, even with relatively conservative peak SDR brightness. Energy consumption would be even higher at 4K, and you'd be dealing with major brightness limitations. It doesn't seem to me like the technology was on track to transition to 4K. I think it was discussed previously in the thread (or at least somewhere in this sub) that Panasonic's 152" 4K plasma was said to use 3,000 watts on average and 7,000 watts peak (and weighed 1,700 lb). Yes, 152" is large, but keep in mind that it was surely also very dim. Plasma also didn't seem to be making a lot of progress with IR. The final Panasonic models, at least, had horrible IR. If they could have somehow been made brighter, then the IR and burn-in problems would have presumably gotten even worse, just as the high energy consumption would have gotten even higher. I'm sure the manufacturing cost for 4K plasma would have been terrible as well -- so an expensive but anemic display with very limited brightness, which there would have been no real demand for even at a competitive price. It presumably also would have been a major problem trying to chase increasingly large LCD screen sizes while also dealing with all of these other issues. Consider how long it took for other companies just to somewhat catch up to where Pioneer had been. Aside from the brightness of the F8500, what real advancements were even made in the final ~5 years of plasma? We were basically just waiting for them to again be as good as old, discontinued models from many years earlier. There was no indication that the industry was on the verge of creating a larger, 4K HDR plasma with reasonable energy consumption and a competitive price. It just wasn't going to happen.


Thanks for a much more informed response confirming my gut feel / short answer (typed while you were also typing ):



fafrd said:


> Short answer, no, I don’t think any amount of additional engineering could have extended plasma’s run (given the market shift to HDR/UHD).


----------



## mrtickleuk

59LIHP said:


> Display Dynamics – March 2021: Micro LED display advantages, technical challenges, and manufacturers’ prospect
> 
> View attachment 3132421
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://omdia.tech.informa.com/OM017417/Display-Dynamics--March-2021-Micro-LED-display-advantages-technical-challenges-and-manufacturers-prospect


I know this is old, sorry but I'm catching up. That's a bit ludicrous. Who decided that OLED should score "1" for Contrast Ratio with its infinite blacks, with LCD scoring "2" for the same measure? What a joke.


----------



## fafrd

mrtickleuk said:


> I know this is old, sorry but I'm catching up. That's a bit ludicrous. Who decided that OLED should score "1" for Contrast Ratio with its infinite blacks, with LCD scoring "2" for the same measure? What a joke.


Yeah, old news (or rather, old fake news ).

OLED is such a joke, the only ways in which it is in any way superior to MicroLED is that it is cheaper, it can be bent or rolled, and it’s more likely to survive an accidental encounter with a hammer…

The only way Omedia could have decided that OLED has inferior contrast ratio to LCD is if they took the effective black levels delivered by QLED/LCDs, decided that is as close to 0 as makes sense (so all displays including WOLED that deliver on better blacks get ‘rounded up’ to that value), and compute CR by taking peak brightness and dividing by that same ‘good enough’ black…

Omedia survives by selling expensive ‘industry reports’ and ‘industry analyses’; Samsung Visual Display is the world’s largest TV brand/manufacturer; SVD favors MicroLED over QD-BOLED and does not want to be forced to adopt/support a technology they do not believe in; no doubt SVD has deep-enough pockets to afford a lot of expensive industry reports/analyses (especially those that reinforce the position they have taken )…


----------



## fafrd

Mostly stuff we already knew, but one new tidbit: Samsung Visual at the Brink of Adopting of OLED TVs _07/04/21



Samsung Electronics and LG Display officials have been meeting for months to discuss the possible supply of OLED panels, though Samsung denied the report. *The key stumbling block appears to be *how each company will promote the deal and *whether Samsung’s historic critical comments will be walked back.*


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Mostly stuff we already knew, but one new tidbit: Samsung Visual at the Brink of Adopting of OLED TVs _07/04/21
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics and LG Display officials have been meeting for months to discuss the possible supply of OLED panels, though Samsung denied the report. *The key stumbling block appears to be *how each company will promote the deal and *whether Samsung’s historic critical comments will be walked back.*


This deal represents a stiff test for the execs at LGD. They have to decide how much upside having Samsung as a customer represents (which involves estimating how much OLED TV/Display demand would be without Samsung as a customer) and then act accordingly. That's to say nothing about tying capital investment decisions to them becoming a customer.


----------



## Jin-X

stl8k said:


> This deal represents a stiff test for the execs at LGD. They have to decide how much upside having Samsung as a customer represents (which involves estimating how much OLED TV/Display demand would be without Samsung as a customer) and then act accordingly. That's to say nothing about tying capital investment decisions to them becoming a customer.


I'd say it's worse for Samsung since it would be them buying into the tech from their competitor that they have bashed repeatedly, basically an admission of defeat to their biggest rival and a major win for LGD. That doesn't make it simple for LGD though as you mentioned, as they can't really count on Samsung being a long term customer as they will be looking to cut bait as soon as possible. These details are probably taking some time to hash out as I would want some kind of secure long term commitment, if I'm LGD, on top of a stop to the OLED FUD campaign.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> This deal represents a stiff test for the execs at LGD. They have to decide how much upside having Samsung as a customer represents (which involves estimating how much OLED TV/Display demand would be without Samsung as a customer) and then act accordingly. That's to say nothing about tying capital investment decisions to them becoming a customer.


I don’t see this as a test for LGD executives at all. If Samsung commits to the numbers being discussed (2-3 million WOLED panels per year for 3 years), it basically pays for the completion of P10.

Without a contractual obligation to supply Samsung, they can bide their time on investing in P10.

With a contractual obligation to supply 6-9 million WOLED panels to Samsung over 3 years, they’ll need another fab (and they’ll have the guaranteed income stream to pay for it).

The only thing LGD has in the line is their hope for a less expensive 10.5G manufacturing technology.

Of printed OLED matures before 10.5G investments are made, LGD can go straight to that lower-cost production method.

Delaying P10 until ‘at least 2025’ was probably at least partly motivated by a desire to keep their options open and to avoid committing to a soon-to-be-outdated 10.5G manufacturing method.

So if Samsung commits by September and if LGD needs to move forward with an investment plan for more WOLED production capacity, they may need to commit P10 y to I VTE earlier than they hoped to…

First-world problem (though they may still have the option of converting another 8.5G LCD fab to WOLED rather than completing P10).


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> I don’t see this as a test for LGD executives at all. If Samsung commits to the numbers being discussed (2-3 million WOLED panels per year for 3 years), it basically pays for the completion of P10.
> 
> Without a contractual obligation to supply Samsung, they can bide their time on investing in P10.
> 
> With a contractual obligation to supply 6-9 million WOLED panels to Samsung over 3 years, they’ll need another fab (and they’ll have the guaranteed income stream to pay for it).
> 
> The only thing LGD has in the line is their hope for a less expensive 10.5G manufacturing technology.
> 
> Of printed OLED matures before 10.5G investments are made, LGD can go straight to that lower-cost production method.
> 
> Delaying P10 until ‘at least 2025’ was probably at least partly motivated by a desire to keep their options open and to avoid committing to a soon-to-be-outdated 10.5G manufacturing method.
> 
> So if Samsung commits by September and if LGD needs to move forward with an investment plan for more WOLED production capacity, they may need to commit P10 y to I VTE earlier than they hoped to…
> 
> First-world problem (though they may still have the option of converting another 8.5G LCD fab to WOLED rather than completing P10).


Not even close to that simple. No way Samsung is contracting 3 years out. Too much risk and do you think LGD wants to share their 3 year roadmap with Samsung? And, you're discounting the 15 or so existing LGD customers who have ambitions to be the OLED leader either worldwide or in their country/region? Every special Samsung ask needs to go through a filter of equitability—that is, would we do the same for our other customers. The 15 or so may be reduced down to a smaller number of raw panel customers, but those raw panel customers are among the largest and most ambitious.

All this is manageable and they have the experience of working with Apple on smartphones, but doing this /well/ is a stiff management challenge.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> I'd say it's worse for Samsung since it would be them buying into the tech from their competitor that they have bashed repeatedly, basically an admission of defeat to their biggest rival and a major win for LGD.


I think all of the face-saving narrative is exaggerated and jived-up like big-time wrestling. I assume you are all aware that Samsung has sold TVs based on IPS panels from LGD for decades now…

Evo gives Samsung an easy out if they decide to move forward: ‘with their new Evo stack, LGD finally addressed WOLEDs vulnerability to burn-in to the degree that we feel confident using this technology for our 2nd-tier TV offerings.’

Samsung stops bashing WOLED, LG doesn’t beat their chest or crow from the rooftops, the business gets started. Easy Peazy.



> That doesn't make it simple for LGD though as you mentioned, as *they can't really count on Samsung being a long term customer as they will be looking to cut bait as soon as possible. *These details are probably taking some time to hash out as I would want some kind of secure long term commitment, if I'm LGD, on top of a stop to the OLED FUD campaign.
> 
> Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


I think we’ve seen enough of LGD over the past 8 years to know they are not stupid.

LGD is in the catseat. SVD needs LGD far more than LGD needs SVD.

If SVD does not meet their terms, it’s just a continuation of business as usual for LGD and SVD just finds themselves squeezed even more tightly between a rock and a hard place.

There are only 3 ways the next ~2 years are going to unfold for SVD and all of them worse without an agreement with LGD:

*QD-BOLED ready for ramp* - on this most-optimistic scenario for Samsung Display, SVD gives a green light to ramping QD-BOLED as quickly as possible (the 3-year plan). This means SVD will lose another 30,000 8.5G LCD substrates from Samsung Display in 2022 and an additional 30,000 8.5G substrates in 2023.

That translates to about 2 million QD-LED/LCD panels that they will need to source from China beyond the LCD panels they already source from China for their entry-level TVs.

The Chinese will be able to have their way with them on pricing.

The agreement with LGD for 2-3 million WOLED panels per year puts a backstop on that. The LCD production lost by Samsung Display as they convert to QD-BOLED is perfectly filled by WOLEDs from LGD. 

And a side bonus for SVD from a supply agreement for WOLEDs is it gives them a backstop on QD-BOLED pricing as well (‘no way we are going to pay twice as much for QD-BOLED panel over what we can purchase WOLED panels from LGD for!’)

*QD-BOLED not yet ready to ramp but will be soon (most likely scenario)* My guess is that this is most likely to be where things end up come September. In this scenario, QD-BOLED works well enough to begin ramping pilot production in the first fab but Samsung has elected to delay the Phase II expansion until 2023. SVD will launch 2-4 pilot products next year but Sony takes a pass in 2022. Everything is pretty much as I outlined above, but a year slower. The likelihood of a full-blown phase II + phase III ramp of QD-BOLED in 2023 & 2024 looks probable enough that SVD enters into a supply agreement with LGD to pave the way. There is less urgency in this scenario and so there is a possibility that the agreement does not get entered into until a year from now (so one more year of business as usual).

*QD-BOLED still not ready for Prime-Time* (and Samsung Display needs another year for R&D on QD-BOLED and QNED): if QD-BOLED performance is do poor this summer that even SVD refuses to launch and 2022 products and the group decides to hold off on ramping up the first pilot line for another year, it means another year of lower WOLED pricing in the face of increasing LCD prices and increasing MiniLED backlight prices. SVD’s margins will be squeezed even harder than this year with no end in sight.

I actually see the likelihood of a supply agreement with LGD for 2022 supply as being higher in this scenario than the middle scenario above. If Samsung knows something new is in the way but needs another year, they can afford to wait another year before making commitments.

But if they have no confidence in the timeframe by which Samsung Display will be able to offer them something new (and ready for Prime Time), the future of MiniLED-QLED/LCD is clear enough and grim enough that I can see SVD deciding to launch WOLED in 2022 just so they have something new to start making better margins with in the mid-tier and putting themselves in better positioning for price negotiations with the Chinese…

But again, Samsung needs an agreement to access the panel technology capturing ~1/3rd of the Advanced TV Market far more than LGD needs an agreement to supply the current market leader in that segment. WOLED has been gaining market share over the past several years at Samsung’s / QLED’s expense, and that trend will continue if 2022 is another year of status-quo. Samsung has nothing to offer to change that trajectory other than introducing WOLED TVs themselves.

Even assuming QD-BOLED Ramps with a 1-year delay, that means 90,000 8.5G substrates in 2025, by which time, LGD is likely to have ramped WOLED production to ~350,000 8.5G substrate-equivalents.

Even with QD-BOLED delivering superior color volume to WOLED, it’s almost-certainly going to be more expensive (since the only way QD-BOLED can realize their goal of lower cost will be to deliver inferior brightness).

So I believe WOLED is here to stay with or without an agreement to supply SVD…


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Not even close to that simple. *No way Samsung is contracting 3 years out.*


I’ll tell you what, how about you play SVD and I’ll play LGD. If you, SVD, are only interested in a supply agreement for 2021, I (LGD) am either going to say ‘no thank you’ or I am going to charge you a very high price…



> Too much risk and do you think LGD wants to share their 3 year roadmap with Samsung?


You’ll have to detail what risk you are posting about. Multi-year supply agreements are common and generally have provisions to address all specific risks of concern to both parties…

And as as roadmap, I suspect LGD would treat SVD the same way they treat other customers such as Sony. There may be specific NDA provisions to explicitly prohibit SVD from sharing any roadmap / technical information with Samsung Display, but LGD is likely to treat the subject in exactly he same way they have for their IPs LCD technology…



> And, you're discounting the 15 or so existing LGD customers who have ambitions to be the OLED leader either worldwide or in their country/region? Every special Samsung ask needs to go through a filter of equitability—that is, would we do the same for our other customers. The 15 or so may be reduced down to a smaller number of raw panel customers, but those raw panel customers are among the largest and most ambitious.


I’m really not understanding what your getting at here. How much experience fo you have with supply agreements? At most, your ‘filter of equitability’ is likely to translate t most-favored nation clauses (meaning no customer buying similar volumes of similar products under similar terms will be given lower pricing). SVD would be purchasing in such high volumes the only thing LGD would need to worry about is assuring LGE gets better pricing than whatever they agree with SVD…



> All this is manageable and they have the experience of working with Apple on smartphones, but doing this /well/ is a stiff management challenge.


Which may be why they have been working on it for close to two years now…


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> I’ll tell you what, how about you play SVD and I’ll play LGD. If you, SVD, are only interested in a supply agreement for 2021, I (LGD) am either going to say ‘no thank you’ or I am going to charge you a very high price…
> 
> 
> You’ll have to detail what risk you are posting about. Multi-year supply agreements are common and generally have provisions to address all specific risks of concern to both parties…
> 
> And as as roadmap, I suspect LGD would treat SVD the same way they treat other customers such as Sony. There may be specific NDA provisions to explicitly prohibit SVD from sharing any roadmap / technical information with Samsung Display, but LGD is likely to treat the subject in exactly he same way they have for their IPs LCD technology…
> 
> I’m really not understanding what your getting at here. How much experience fo you have with supply agreements? At most, your ‘filter of equitability’ is likely to translate t most-favored nation clauses (meaning no customer buying similar volumes of similar products under similar terms will be given lower pricing). SVD would be purchasing in such high volumes the only thing LGD would need to worry about is assuring LGE gets better pricing than whatever they agree with SVD…
> 
> Which may be why they have been working on it for close to two years now…


On vacation in Hawaii rn, so no role playing for me. 🌴

I think through _business_ considerations from first principles, draw on decades of biz experience, and often through analogy to supply chains i know more about. I presume that the premium TV supply chain will increasingly take on the qualities of the premium smarthpone display supply chain as opposed to say the historic middle of TV market's supply chain.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> On vacation in Hawaii rn, so no role playing for me. 🌴
> 
> I think through _business_ considerations from first principles, draw on decades of biz experience, and often through analogy to supply chains i know more about.


well first off, enjoy Hawaii 



> *I presume that the premium TV supply chain will increasingly take on the qualities of the premium smarthpone display supply chain *as opposed to say the historic middle of TV market's supply chain.


And secondly, nothing important enough to disrupt your vacation over, but I think it’s that presumption that’s leading you astray.

I’m not sure what the number premium smartphone displays sold per year is, but I’m pretty sure that in comparison, the <30 million Advanced TV screens sold per year is mice nuts (as in well less than 10%).

On the ‘middle of TV market supply chain’, it sounds like we are pretty much in alignment, but if you think LGD supplying WOLED panels to SVD is akin to their supplying iPhone screens to Apple, I can’t easily think of another example as far off the mark.

LGD has sold each and every WOLED panel they have manufactured since 2014, increasing production volumes by 100-fold over that 7-year timeframe. Until there are other emissive display competitors at similar levels of maturity/scale, such as printed RGB OLED or QD-BOLED, it’s a seller’s market…

At least today, LGD needs Apple (for iPhone & iPad screen sales) far more than they need SVD (for WOLED sales) and whether they have figured it out or not, SVD needs LGD far more than Apple needs either LGD or Samsung Display…


----------



## fafrd

A few interesting factoids: Press Center - QLED/OLED TV Shipment Projected to Break Records This Year Thanks to Brands’ Focus on Large-Sized, Mid- to High-End TVs Says TrendForce | TrendForce - Market research, price trend of DRAM, NAND Flash, LEDs, TFT-LCD and green energy, PV

‘This shift is expected to propel the *annual shipment of QLED TV for 2021 to 11.02 million units*, a *22.4% YoY increase.*’

‘On the other hand, *OLED TV shipment for 2021 is expected to reach 7.1 million units*, an *80% increase YoY*.’

If the dust settles on 2021 in this way, it will mean a ~33% increase in market share for WOLED from ~30% in 2020 to ~40% this year (and a drop for QLED from ~70% in 2020 to ~60% in 2021 - all in terms of share within the ‘QLED + OLED market’).

‘*Samsung’s lineup includes about 1.5 million Mini LED backlight TVs*, mostly with 65-inch and 55-inch displays, and these sizes account for 33% and 30% of the company’s total Mini LED backlight TV shipment, respectively, while the ultra-large, 75-inch model will account for 17%.’

So if we just take Samsung’s flagship MiniLED NeoQLEDs, we’re talking 1.5 million compared to 7.1 million WOLEDs (so WOLED sales of 4.7 times NeoQLED sales…).

‘TCL’s annual shipment of Mini LED backlight TV for 2021 will likely reach 800,000 units. Apart from the aforementioned two brands, Xiaomi and LG are also eager to enter the Mini LED backlight TV market. As such, TrendForce forecasts a *total annual Mini LED backlight TV shipment of three million units for 2021*.’

So 2021 WOLED sales of more than 2.3 times total MiniLED TV sales…

‘strategic reductions in *OLED panel costs have now significantly narrowed the gap between the cost of OLED panels and that of equivalent LCD panels*, thereby giving OLED panels a cost advantage that allows TV brands to reap increased profitability.’

‘With regards to TV brands, *LG Electronics remains the industry leader* in terms of OLED TV shipment this year *with a market share of more than 50%*, while *Sony takes second place with a 20% market share*. Other Japanese brands (Panasonic, Sharp, etc.) and Chinese brands (Skyworth, Hisense, Xiaomi, etc.) are likewise expected to experience shipment growths going forward.’

So over 3.5 million WOLED TV sales by LGE this year compared to 11 million QLED sales by Samsung out of which only 1.5 million were MiniLED…

It’s easy to see how Samsung could position WOLED below NeoQLED MiniLED/QLED in their pecking order, but difficult to see how they could position WOLED behind their entire QLED lineup (which include some budget side-lit models)…


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> In my view, the greatest drawback of transmissive / LCD display technology is the poor black levels and resulting poor contrast ratio.
> 
> With FALD backlights driving to smaller and smaller dimming zones epitomized by dual-LCDs effectively driving one local dimming zone per 4 pixels or 16 pixels, black level performance and contrast ratio of LCD / transmissive displays can largely match that of WOLED (for a significant increase in cost).
> 
> But the second greatest drawback of transmissive / LCD display technology is off-axis luminance shift and black-level shift, and that’s a far tougher problem to see how transmissive can ever match emissive.
> 
> I mean, think about it, your sending photons through a small tube / channel that’s either fully-open, as closed as it can be, or somewhere in between. Now can that not look different when viewed from off-angle versus straight on-angle.
> 
> Samsung appears to have made some advances, but again, at the cost of reduced native contrast ratio (like IPS-LCD), so there appears to be no free lunch when it comes to emissive-like off-angle performance for transmissive / LCD…


So I go away for a few weeks i have 5 pages of this forum to catch up on. You all are making me work too much and fafrd is the worst!  
A couple quick posts with hopefully a bit of usefulness- 
In my use case (and the majority of owners I'd posit) ACR is more important than native CR as I've mentioned before (and UCF research supports). Our viewing conditions are 'living room' ambient, ie a few lights on or couple std windows shining light in. So, I'd switch your drawback ranking to off-axis issues first, and poor contrast second since LCD has come a long way here, mostly via brightness and Samsung-type tricks. A living room / family room almost by definition can/will have many people watching the TV from many locations, so off-axis issues are a big deal. That, plus acceptable brightness pushed me to the LG CX as i have mentioned in the past.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Yeah, old news (or rather, old fake news ).
> 
> OLED is such a joke, the only ways in which it is in any way superior to MicroLED is that it is cheaper, it can be bent or rolled, and it’s more likely to survive an accidental encounter with a hammer…
> 
> The only way Omedia could have decided that OLED has inferior contrast ratio to LCD is if they took the effective black levels delivered by QLED/LCDs, decided that is as close to 0 as makes sense (so all displays including WOLED that deliver on better blacks get ‘rounded up’ to that value), and compute CR by taking peak brightness and dividing by that same ‘good enough’ black…
> 
> Omedia survives by selling expensive ‘industry reports’ and ‘industry analyses’; Samsung Visual Display is the world’s largest TV brand/manufacturer; SVD favors MicroLED over QD-BOLED and does not want to be forced to adopt/support a technology they do not believe in; no doubt SVD has deep-enough pockets to afford a lot of expensive industry reports/analyses (especially those that reinforce the position they have taken )…


I did eventually see the full report and they correctly rank OLED on the inside text. But the graph was wrong. And to make matters worse, someone chose that graph to share 'for free' in the marketing article to the masses in an effort get report buyers. And nobody caught that it was wrong. That doesn't help their credibility. sheesh.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Awhile back I had wondered what portion of the $12B QD-BOLED investment SDC has spent to date. We guessed a small portion if i remember correctly. OLED Assoc blogged: _SDC has used just 1/3rd of the $12B set aside for its OLED TV adventure and the phase 2 plan has been delayed. 








Samsung Visual at the Brink of Adopting of OLED TVs _07/04/21


Samsung Visual at the Brink of Adopting of OLED TVs Last week, we discussed how multiple price reductions on Samsung’s 2021 TV lineup were failing to grow sales in the US. Samsung Visual...



www.oled-a.org




_


----------



## mrtickleuk

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I did eventually see the full report and they correctly rank OLED on the inside text. But the graph was wrong. And to make matters worse, someone chose that graph to share 'for free' in the marketing article to the masses in an effort get report buyers. And nobody caught that it was wrong. That doesn't help their credibility. sheesh.


Many thanks for this! What were the numbers of the inside text? Did they get labels the wrong way around on the graph, or was it not that simple?


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

mrtickleuk said:


> Many thanks for this! What were the numbers of the inside text? Did they get labels the wrong way around on the graph, or was it not that simple?


Ha - I knew someone would ask this! Good question of course, but sorry I don't have it now. Cheers-


----------



## fafrd

I take these forecasts as far as I can throw them, but there are a couple interesting tidbits: Q2 OLED Supply/Demand Update – Oversupply to Persist - Display Supply Chain Consultants

‘While LGD will continue to lead in OLED TV capacity throughout our forecast, *capacity additions by Samsung, BOE, and CSOT will reduce LGDs share of capacity from 100% in 2020 to 52% in 2025, *as *Samsung grows to 26% of industry capacity.*’

First and foremost, this means OLED’s share of the TV Market will be 2-3 times larger than it is this year.

With the Guangzhou expansion, LGD will be at 175,000 7.5G substrates/month by this August.

I suppose a ‘most conservative view’ might be that LGD will not add any additional capacity by 2025, but that is unrealistic.

A growth rate averaging 10%/year from 2023 to 2025 seems like a realistic minimum, meaning ~230,000 8.5G sheets / month by 2025 (~55,000 8.5G sheets above today’s production level).

P10 running at 2/3 max capacity (30,000 10.5G sheets per month is 54,000 8.5G sheets equivalent) gets LGD there. Another 8.5G LCD line converted to WOLED and manufacturing 60,000 8.5G sheets/month is an alternative way for LGD to reach ~230,000 8.5G sheets / month by 2025. One or the other of these by 2025 is a near-certainty in my opinion.

So if DSCC is correct that LGD is down to 52% of OLED TV panel supply by 2025, that translates to a total of ~440,000 8.5G sheets per month by 2025 out of which Samsung QD-BOLED 26% share translates to ~115,000 8.5G sheets/month.

Samsung’s 3-phase QD-OLED production plan going out to 2025 only includes 3 phases of 30,000 8.5G sheets per phase, or 90,000 sheets total.

So using Samsung’s 26% share translates to a total OLED TV panel supply of only ~350,000 8.5G sheets per month meaning LGD’s 52% share translates to only ~180,000 sheets / month (where they will be by the end of July).

So DSCC is forecasting LGD to not add any additional WOLED capacity by 2025. I’m not sure how much respect I’ve ever had for this source, but whatever it might have been, it is now shattered.

DSCC is forecasting LGD WOLED flat at 180,000 8.5G sheets/month trough 2025; Samsung QD-BOLED fully-ramped to 90,000 by 2025, and BOE + CSOT ramped to a total of 80,000 8.5G sheets per month by 2025.

My view is that they are being unrealistically pessimistic about LGD and by 2025, LGD is likely to be at at least 230,000 8.5G sheets per month (if not at 260,000).

I also believe Samsung ramped to 90,000 sheets per month by 2025 is best-case and optimistic. Samsung could easily still be at 30,000 sheets / month by 2025 if they decide QD-BOLED will never perform well-enough to capture the market share they are aiming for and they want to develop QNED (or rather, NanoLED) before converting their remaining two LCD fabs.

So the 80,000 sheets per month forecast for BOE + CSOT is probably the most realistic portion of DSCC’s revised forecast, in my view. Those two OLED fabs are being built, and by 2025, that capacity will probably be in place whether those OLED-TV panels work well enough to find demand in the Advanced TV market or not (meaning cheaper down-market OLED TVs have a high-likelihood of materializing by 2025).

The other slightly-interesting tidbit from that report is that 2021 represents the first year that total meters-squared of OLED manufacturing for TV panels will outpace the total for smartphone manufacturing.

DSCC sees that modest dominance growing through 2025 by which time TV manufacturing represents ~53% of the the TV+Smartphone total (can’t capture the chart so you’ll need to follow the link if you want to see it).


----------



## Wizziwig

They are probably assuming that competitors (China for sure) would be able to produce cheaper printed RGB OLEDs by 2025. A cheaper panel would take market share from the more expensive LG products fairly quickly if the performance is similar. China does have a lot of LCD capacity they could convert to OLED.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

I hesitate to post this as it is a bit tangential, but a good example of what a huge corporation can endure if needed and sticking to the plan...
LG large panel OLED finally profitable after 8 years, and the visible road ahead looks awesome. Both enduring the investment Valley of Death as well as internal political pressures is tough to do. I'm sure some of you have seen this.

OLED Musings:
_KB Securities raised its target price for LGD by 12% to KRW37,00 based on the OLED division turning profitable for first time in eight years. They anticipate (1) the large-size OLED panel business to generate significant profit for the first time in eight years, fueled by double-digit ASP growth and more shipments, and (2) the small-/mid-size OLED panel business to turn profitable for the first time since opening in 2017, as 2H21 panel orders are expected to surge with Apple’s next iPhone. 2Q21 earnings will likely hit a four-year high. 2Q21 OP were forecasted at KRW708.8bn (turn to profit Y/Y, +35.5% sequentially), which is 51.5% above the market consensus of KRW468.0bn, the best quarterly performance since 2Q17. 

They are forecasting 2021 record earnings with expanding OLED panel client base _


----------



## fafrd

LG’s 2021 OLED Production: Large-Size Panels To Grow 80% Y/Y To 8m; Small-/Mid-Size Panels Grow 60% Y/Y To 50m _07/11/21


LG’s 2021 OLED Production: Large-Size Panels To Grow 80% Y/Y To 8m; Small-/Mid-Size Panels Grow 60% Y/Y To 50m In the 2nd half of 2021, LGD will finally make the shift to OLED profitability,...



www.oled-a.org





‘Given the high LCD ASPs, *LGD is expected to retain the LCD production thru 2022* and *is likely to continue producing LCD panels as long as they can add to unit profitability*.’

If this proves true, it decreases the likelihood that LGD can add WOLED capacity before the end of 2023 by converting another 8.5G LCD fab to WOLED production and increases the odds they accelerate their stalled plan for P10 (10.5G)…


----------



## Adonisds

Why are 8k oleds much more expensive? Are the panels much more expensive to produce?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Adonisds said:


> Why are 8k oleds much more expensive? Are the panels much more expensive to produce?


Hopefully it's because sales are bombing and no-one wants them. 8k in the home is ludicrous. The screen size you'd need for that resolution to be worth it wouldn't fit in a normal UK living room.


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> Why are 8k oleds much more expensive? Are the panels much more expensive to produce?


Because there is no market. 77” 4K WOLEDs were much more expensive until LGD had sufficient capacity and there was a large enough market to make it worth their while to get aggressive about gaining share.

The 88Z and 77Z products are for signaling ‘LGD/WOLED will be ready when the 8K market is ready’ only…

At equal production volumes, the cost of a 77” 8K panel is pretty much identical to the cost set of a 77” 4K panel.


----------



## fafrd

I spent some time comparing 55C7 subpixels to 55C1 subpixels in any attempt to roughly quantify the improvements LGD has made over the past 4 years: (Lack of) Burn-in on Evo WOLEDs

The punchline is that the red subpixel on the 55C1 is ~175% the size of the red subpixel on the 55C7:











There is more commentary on how I did that analysis and what it translates to as far as better immunity from red burn-in on the C1 / Evo WOLEDs in the thread...


----------



## K Sec

LG 32-inch UltraFine OLED Pro display could be arriving soon [Update: Now available]


First unveiled at CES back in January, LG’s new high-end UltraFine displays are expected to arrive sometime this summer. Now a new product listing at BH Photo says that the 32-inch UltraFine OLED Pro display could arrive on July 16. Update 8/12: The 32-inch UltraFine OLED Pro display is now...




9to5mac.com





Does any one know anything about these panels? 4K on 32" and 27" I am wondering if these are the same WOLED panel used on TV. But PPI ratio dont fit.


----------



## Davenlr

I was watching some YouTube reviews on one of them, cant remember the brand, and I think they said it was RGB but the red (or blue, I forget) pixel was like 3 times larger than the other two.


----------



## fafrd

K Sec said:


> LG 32-inch UltraFine OLED Pro display could be arriving soon [Update: Now available]
> 
> 
> First unveiled at CES back in January, LG’s new high-end UltraFine displays are expected to arrive sometime this summer. Now a new product listing at BH Photo says that the 32-inch UltraFine OLED Pro display could arrive on July 16. Update 8/12: The 32-inch UltraFine OLED Pro display is now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9to5mac.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does any one know anything about these panels? 4K on 32" and 27" I am wondering if these are the same WOLED panel used on TV. But PPI ratio dont fit.


Those are IJP RGB-OLED panels LGE purchased from JOLED.

So not WOLED (and monitor-only, not TV).

But a very smart way for LGE to start to gain experience with market acceptability of IJP OLED.

Very expensive (so yields likely very, very poor), limited brightness, and the really big question mark is what lifetime / burn-in protection they deliver under real-world use conditions…


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> The paper LGD presented at IDW Japan last Fall "Development of 88-inch 120Hz 8K OLED TV for Mass Production" is now available to SID Members.
> 
> I'll do my best to summarize some of the key innovations. See the paper itself for full details and all of the figures.
> 
> *120Hz Driving*
> The backplane remains at 120hz, but they used some clever engineering to provide 8K at 120hz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They call the driving 4HT (vs 1HT) because "drive scan signal is turned high at 3 horizontal line time ahead of the addressing timing".
> 
> 
> 
> They also mention "adaptive Scan-to-Data offset" as a way to deal with "scan signal delay is relatively smaller near panel edge and gets larger around the center of the display".
> 
> *30+% Aperture Ratio*
> As I posted about the macro pixel structure of the 88"...
> 
> 
> 
> || TCON
> 
> 
> Net-net, based on lots of good engineering design choices made years before, the LGD folks were able to meet their aperture ratio, 120hz speed, etc goals through smaller, lower-risk innovations rather than potentially risky innovations like a higher-speed backplane or a top-emission architecture. And, it's clear they put their A team on this project, led by veteran Koichi Miwa.


Here's another group at LGD's take on the 88" 8K OLED panel.






Error - Cookies Turned Off







sid.onlinelibrary.wiley.com





Something that's striking to me is the relative times for the data writing vs sensing:

The proposed method of real time compensation is necessary to make additional gate pulse during blank time. The operation of the compensation gate pulse period (T5-T8) is 100 times longer than display data writing period driving (T1-T4)


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> Those are IJP RGB-OLED panels LGE purchased from JOLED.
> 
> So not WOLED (and monitor-only, not TV).
> 
> But a very smart way for LGE to start to gain experience with market acceptability of IJP OLED.
> 
> Very expensive (so yields likely very, very poor), limited brightness, and the really big question mark is what lifetime / burn-in protection they deliver under real-world use conditions…


Weren't printed oleds supposed to be cheaper?


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

mrtickleuk said:


> Many thanks for this! What were the numbers of the inside text? Did they get labels the wrong way around on the graph, or was it not that simple?


I was able to get another look. I don't want to publish report screenshots but there are indeed some additional differences between the data table in the report and the graph of that data. The graph designer was on dope...

AxisLCDOLEDuLEDCommentLuminance EfficiencyLowMediumHighOk. Example of how Med is graphed by them. Other similar point plots bear this out.Contrast RatioMediumHighHighgraph messed up. We got that one.Power ConsumptionMediumMediumLowgraph shows LCD/OLED as _*High *_vs 1st example approach aboveLife SpanLongMediumLongOLED graph shows _*Short *_vs 1st egOperating Temp-20-80C-30-70C-100-120CDoes this delta warrant worst vs best plotting as shown? I guess that's for debate.

As POTUS would say, "C'mon man!"


----------



## mrtickleuk

Brilliant, thanks!
EDIT: using your comments and numbers I've tried to show what the "fixed" graph should look like.

Original:









Corrected:


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

mrtickleuk said:


> Brilliant, thanks!
> EDIT: using your comments and numbers I've tried to show what the "fixed" graph should look like.
> 
> Original:
> View attachment 3154000
> 
> 
> Corrected:
> View attachment 3154001


Low power consumption is a good thing. uLED should be graphed high, ie '3' using their calibration.


----------



## Adonisds

What the minimum brightness an oled tv can produce?

If you set maximum brightness to the minimum nits and send it a 10 bit sdr signal showing the first step above bit 0, what brightness would you measure?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Low power consumption is a good thing. uLED should be graphed high, ie '3' using their calibration.


Good point, thanks. I've edited the post above.


----------



## K Sec

fafrd said:


> Those are IJP RGB-OLED panels LGE purchased from JOLED.
> 
> So not WOLED (and monitor-only, not TV).
> 
> But a very smart way for LGE to start to gain experience with market acceptability of IJP OLED.
> 
> Very expensive (so yields likely very, very poor), limited brightness, and the really big question mark is what lifetime / burn-in protection they deliver under real-world use conditions…


Thanks. Somehow HDTVTest stopped showing up on my Youtube Recommendation and my Google search didn't show that as a result. Off to watch Vincent's review now.

Edit: This is exciting news for JOLED!


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Here's another group at LGD's take on the 88" 8K OLED panel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Error - Cookies Turned Off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sid.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something that's striking to me is the relative times for the data writing vs sensing:
> 
> The proposed method of real time compensation is necessary to make additional gate pulse during blank time. The operation of the compensation gate pulse period (T5-T8) is 100 times longer than display data writing period driving (T1-T4)


Great find. Finally confirmation that LGD performs real-time sensing of output levels during drive.

(Tried to cut and paste from the article but could not)

One sense line per pixel allows LG to sense the output level of any single subpixel as well as to estimate the local temperature of the panel in real-time.

This is key to the ‘pixel refresh’ technology which characterizes mismatch between pixels/subpixels and compensates through drive levels.

And it’s also probably key to monitoring local panel temperature and reducing drive levels when local panel temps get too high (ABL).


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> Weren't printed oleds supposed to be cheaper?


In terms of material cost, yes (by ~20%) but until yields reach WOLED-like levels, they’ll be more expensive…


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Great find. Finally confirmation that LGD performs real-time sensing of output levels during drive.
> 
> (Tried to cut and paste from the article but could not)
> 
> One sense line per pixel allows LG to sense the output level of any single subpixel as well as to estimate the local temperature of the panel in real-time.
> 
> This is key to the ‘pixel refresh’ technology which characterizes mismatch between pixels/subpixels and compensates through drive levels.
> 
> And it’s also probably key to monitoring local panel temperature and reducing drive levels when local panel temps get too high (ABL).


As usual, you are misunderstanding the paper or didn't fully read it. There is no temperature sensing. The sense line in the pixels is used to detect threshold voltage drift during compensation cycles. Charging that sense line is a slow process and not something done while the panel is in active use.

Maybe you are confusing the gate driver wear compensation which is a different process. Their use of "real time" in that paper is very ambiguous.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> As usual, you are misunderstanding the paper or didn't fully read it. There is no temperature sensing. The sense line in the pixels is used to detect threshold voltage drift during compensation cycles. Charging that sense line is a slow process and not something done while the panel is in active use.
> 
> Maybe you are confusing the gate driver wear compensation which is a different process. Their use of "real time" in that paper is very ambiguous.


Fundamentally, if you have the ability to apply a voltage to the gate of a transistor and measure the resulting current through it, you can measure temperature.

That sense circuit is certainly how they measure burn-in to compensate it.

It also allows them to measure localized temperature through the temperature dependence of threshold voltage.

The article suggested the sense circuit could work in real-time but if that was miswritten and it is as slow as you say, that still opens up a whole new world of possibilities for ways they can monitor one pixel per column…

The addition of a sense output for each column of pixels is a game-changer.


----------



## Davenlr

fafrd said:


> Fundamentally, if you have the ability to apply a voltage to the gate of a transistor and measure the resulting current through it, you can measure temperature.
> 
> That sense circuit is certainly how they measure burn-in to compensate it.
> 
> It also allows them to measure localized temperature through the temperature dependence of threshold voltage.
> 
> The article suggested the sense circuit could work in real-time but if that was miswritten and it is as slow as you say, that still opens up a whole new world of possibilities for ways they can monitor one pixel per column…
> 
> The addition of a sense output for each column of pixels is a game-changer.


Why is there not an app you can run, that would run the original program that made sure each pixel was exactly the same, so you could get rid of banding and some of the awful screen issues? If I understand correctly, the TV keeps a master list of the original factory measurements and compares that to the current draw when running the refresh to compensate. If the original factory measurement was incorrect (which it appears happens a lot with LG TVs), the refresh and compensation wont help fix the problem unless it occurred after the original measurement, assuming that was successful. There should be a way to fix all these ugly panels without exchanging the TVs 8 times.


----------



## ALMA

> There is no temperature sensing.


Of course there is:









How’s this for sun burn on my OLED


There’s pros and cons to everything. I’m not going to lie and say oled looks better in every scene. It’s scene dependent and viewing environment dependent. I like both led and oled and the reason I chose an oled this year is because I prefer the current offering more on the oled side after...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## lsorensen

Adonisds said:


> What the minimum brightness an oled tv can produce?
> 
> If you set maximum brightness to the minimum nits and send it a 10 bit sdr signal showing the first step above bit 0, what brightness would you measure?


OLED pixels can turn off (as in zero current flow) and hence zero light emission. Of course the panel will still reflect a tiny bit of ambient light, so perhaps you could find a tiny bit of light, although I suspect very few measuring tools are accurate for such low values.

You don't even have to reduce the brightness setting for blacks to be off with OLED. If you watch a movie (which tends to have black bars at the top and bottom since they like being 2:35:1 aspect ratio it seems) in a dark room, you can't actually see the black bars. They simply look the same as the dark room behind the TV and disappear. It's pretty neat. People that have bias lighting obviously don't get that benefit.


----------



## Adonisds

lsorensen said:


> OLED pixels can turn off (as in zero current flow) and hence zero light emission. Of course the panel will still reflect a tiny bit of ambient light, so perhaps you could find a tiny bit of light, although I suspect very few measuring tools are accurate for such low values.
> 
> You don't even have to reduce the brightness setting for blacks to be off with OLED. If you watch a movie (which tends to have black bars at the top and bottom since they like being 2:35:1 aspect ratio it seems) in a dark room, you can't actually see the black bars. They simply look the same as the dark room behind the TV and disappear. It's pretty neat. People that have bias lighting obviously don't get that benefit.


I know the pixels can go completely black. I'm asking what would it measure for the smallest step above black, assuming there is no reflection on the screen


----------



## lsorensen

Adonisds said:


> I know the pixels can go completely black. I'm asking what would it measure for the smallest step above black, assuming there is no reflection on the screen


Oh so the difference between step 0 (totally black) and step 1 (next lowest level above absolute black)? I am sure there is some threshold voltage to get it to turn on, which is probably why some brands do some dithering at near black to get an effective better low level black handling. I don't know what the value is, maybe someone that does calibration and has done measurements would know that.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> As usual, you are misunderstanding the paper or didn't fully read it. There is no temperature sensing. The sense line in the pixels is used to detect threshold voltage drift during compensation cycles.





> *Charging that sense line is a slow process *and not something done while the panel is in active use.
> 
> Maybe you are confusing the gate driver wear compensation which is a different process. Their use of "real time" in that paper is very ambiguous.


I went through and read that paper much more carefully and it is very confusing and poorly written.

A sense line has apparently been added but only one per pixel, meaning W, R, G, and B subpixels are connected through sense transistors (Tse) to the same sense line.

Connection to that sense line appears to be controlled by the same scan line control signal used to control line data writing.

So during the time data is being written into all subpixels, they are also all shorted together to the common sense line through Tse transistors. This will only display properly if the sense line is clamped to Vdd.

Something is woefully lacking in the description and/or the circuit diagram.

You seem to have understood something about the timing / speed under which this ‘sensing’ operates and if you gleaned that understanding from this paper, I’d love to see where…

The introduction mentions ‘current sensing’ and if all subpixels are being written with 0 (OFF) save one, and the common sense line is being clamped to ground, all current through the single ON subpixel will flow through it’s Tse and into the common sense line (while the OFF subpixels will contribute no current), so that must be how it’s intended to work.

And during the actual display cycle, the Tse sense transistors will have essentially no impact if the sense line is clamped at Vdd.

So this circuit allows each subpixel drive transistor (Tdr) to be fully-characterized in terms of I-V characteristic. This should allow for compensation for any mismatch in transistor mobility or size as well as threshold shift.

And since transistor I-V characteristics depend on temperature (especially threshold voltage), this sense line could be used to estimate subpixel temperature (but not in real-time while also displaying an image).

Current sensing can be quite fast, so I’m curious where you’ve seen an indication of the speed of this sense circuit.

Assuming the current-sensing circuit is fast enough, it looks like a split-column drive architecture might be able to sense temperature while displaying, but it would take some fancy footwork.

With half the array being blanked for BFI, temperature across one line of the blanked half-array might be estimated while the other half-array is displaying image data (though I agree that does not seem to be the intent of this circuit as designed).

I’m going to have to check in with our few 88/77Z owners to see what they think of their near-black uniformity.

If superior to that of the 4K WOLEDs, the only reason I can think of that LGD wouldn’t port this same capability over to their 4K WOLEDs is that the cost in terms of lower manufacturing yield is prohibitive…


----------



## andy sullivan

fafrd said:


> I went through and read that paper much more carefully and it is very confusing and poorly written.
> 
> A sense line has apparently been added but only one per pixel, meaning W, R, G, and B subpixels are connected through sense transistors (Tse) to the same sense line.
> 
> Connection to that sense line appears to be controlled by the same scan line control signal used to control line data writing.
> 
> So during the time data is being written into all subpixels, they are also all shorted together to the common sense line through Tse transistors. This will only display properly if the sense line is clamped to Vdd.
> 
> Something is woefully lacking in the description and/or the circuit diagram.
> 
> You seem to have understood something about the timing / speed under which this ‘sensing’ operates and if you gleaned that understanding from this paper, I’d love to see where…
> 
> The introduction mentions ‘current sensing’ and if all subpixels are being written with 0 (OFF) save one, and the common sense line is being clamped to ground, all current through the single ON subpixel will flow through it’s Tse and into the common sense line (while the OFF subpixels will contribute no current), so that must be how it’s intended to work.
> 
> And during the actual display cycle, the Tse sense transistors will have essentially no impact if the sense line is clamped at Vdd.
> 
> So this circuit allows each subpixel drive transistor (Tdr) to be fully-characterized in terms of I-V characteristic. This should allow for compensation for any mismatch in transistor mobility or size as well as threshold shift.
> 
> And since transistor I-V characteristics depend on temperature (especially threshold voltage), this sense line could be used to estimate subpixel temperature (but not in real-time while also displaying an image).
> 
> Current sensing can be quite fast, so I’m curious where you’ve seen an indication of the speed of this sense circuit.
> 
> Assuming the current-sensing circuit is fast enough, it looks like a split-column drive architecture might be able to sense temperature while displaying, but it would take some fancy footwork.
> 
> With half the array being blanked for BFI, temperature across one line of the blanked half-array might be estimated while the other half-array is displaying image data (though I agree that does not seem to be the intent of this circuit as designed).
> 
> I’m going to have to check in with our few 88/77Z owners to see what they think of their near-black uniformity.
> 
> If superior to that of the 4K WOLEDs, the only reason I can think of that LGD wouldn’t port this same capability over to their 4K WOLEDs is that the cost in terms of lower manufacturing yield is prohibitive…


Just curios but is anyone anticipating a wow factor jump in OLED in 2022 or 2023?


----------



## Davenlr

Only wow factor will be if they start using Quantum Dots and Blue Oleds


----------



## fafrd

andy sullivan said:


> Just curios but is anyone anticipating a wow factor jump in OLED in 2022 or 2023?


If/when Samsung launches QD-BOLED, it should be impressive.

By 2023, printed RGB-OLED TVs may be out and possibly also printed ELQLED.

We’ll probably see some modest brightness improvements from the new Evo stack as LGD optimizes subpixel design over the next 1-2 years but the big game-changer on the horizon is high-efficiency blue (which QD-BOLED needs to succeed).

Once high-efficiency blue emerges. WOLED should be able to increase brightness by at least 50% if not close to 100% (assuming they elect to stick with a 3S architecture rather than reducing to 2S to shave cost).

By 2025 I’m guessing we’ll have OLED TV offerings delivering ~1500 Nits peak white for HDR. By 2022 no way and by 2023 unlikely and only has a chance if Samsung moves forward with launching QD-BOLED late this year…


----------



## Wizziwig

ALMA said:


> Of course there is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How’s this for sun burn on my OLED
> 
> 
> There’s pros and cons to everything. I’m not going to lie and say oled looks better in every scene. It’s scene dependent and viewing environment dependent. I like both led and oled and the reason I chose an oled this year is because I prefer the current offering more on the oled side after...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


There is no temperature sensing *within the sub-pixels* as I stated. Nothing in that link refutes that.

The OLED response is non-linear with varying temperature which is why heating up the panel will produce incorrect compensation results. Temperature is especially critical when calculating a new voltage scaling value that needs to be applied to the data line to compensate for OLED deterioration. This is why the panel shuts off for an hour to cool off before they run that part of the compensation cycle. The threshold voltage compensation that happens every 4 hours is less temperature dependent and can run immediately after powering off.



fafrd said:


> I went through and read that paper much more carefully and it is very confusing and poorly written.
> 
> A sense line has apparently been added but only one per pixel, meaning W, R, G, and B subpixels are connected through sense transistors (Tse) to the same sense line.
> 
> Connection to that sense line appears to be controlled by the same scan line control signal used to control line data writing.
> 
> So during the time data is being written into all subpixels, they are also all shorted together to the common sense line through Tse transistors. This will only display properly if the sense line is clamped to Vdd.
> 
> Something is woefully lacking in the description and/or the circuit diagram.
> 
> You seem to have understood something about the timing / speed under which this ‘sensing’ operates and if you gleaned that understanding from this paper, I’d love to see where…
> 
> The introduction mentions ‘current sensing’ and if all subpixels are being written with 0 (OFF) save one, and the common sense line is being clamped to ground, all current through the single ON subpixel will flow through it’s Tse and into the common sense line (while the OFF subpixels will contribute no current), so that must be how it’s intended to work.
> 
> And during the actual display cycle, the Tse sense transistors will have essentially no impact if the sense line is clamped at Vdd.
> 
> So this circuit allows each subpixel drive transistor (Tdr) to be fully-characterized in terms of I-V characteristic. This should allow for compensation for any mismatch in transistor mobility or size as well as threshold shift.
> 
> And since transistor I-V characteristics depend on temperature (especially threshold voltage), this sense line could be used to estimate subpixel temperature (but not in real-time while also displaying an image).
> 
> Current sensing can be quite fast, so I’m curious where you’ve seen an indication of the speed of this sense circuit.
> 
> Assuming the current-sensing circuit is fast enough, it looks like a split-column drive architecture might be able to sense temperature while displaying, but it would take some fancy footwork.
> 
> With half the array being blanked for BFI, temperature across one line of the blanked half-array might be estimated while the other half-array is displaying image data (though I agree that does not seem to be the intent of this circuit as designed).
> 
> I’m going to have to check in with our few 88/77Z owners to see what they think of their near-black uniformity.
> 
> If superior to that of the 4K WOLEDs, the only reason I can think of that LGD wouldn’t port this same capability over to their 4K WOLEDs is that the cost in terms of lower manufacturing yield is prohibitive…


If having a sense line is a game changer, then the game changed many years ago. They've been employing that same basic circuit design since at least the launch of the 4K models. The 1080p models were probably also using it but I wasn't following their published papers very closely at the time. Since they employ an external compensation method, the sense line is a requirement.

During the 4-hour-interval compensation cycles when the set if in standby, they apply a fixed known voltage (higher than threshold voltage) to the data line. This causes current to flow through the OLED. As this current also charges the sense line and increases its voltage, the voltage between the gate and source of the OLED driving transistor eventually falls below the threshold voltage and current stops flowing. This causes the sense line voltage to saturate to a constant value. At this moment, they sample the sense line voltage and use it to calculate a new threshold voltage. Vth = Vdata - Vsense. Repeating charging/saturation/sampling for all sub-pixels on a 4K panel is slow as evident from the 5 minute duration of this process.

There is a similar faster process for calculating the gain or scaling value applied to the drive voltage to compensate for the changes in mobility and OLED efficiency. But that degradation is much slower and only done every few thousand hours unless manually triggered. This part of wear compensation is faster than the threshold voltage calculation as you can see the horizontal line sweep down the screen in only a few seconds. You can't do this step without first getting an accurate threshold voltage which is why that step (explained above) is always performed first, then panel is turned off to cool for about an hour before resuming to complete the process.

Like I said earlier, that 8K paper is very ambiguous and missing a lot of details that were covered in earlier papers and patent applications LG released many years ago. I get the sense that when they say "real time" what they really mean is "not during manufacturing time" but during "customer time". Probably something lost in translation.


----------



## RichB

fafrd said:


> If/when Samsung launches QD-BOLED, it should be impressive.
> 
> By 2023, printed RGB-OLED TVs may be out and possibly also printed ELQLED.
> 
> We’ll probably see some modest brightness improvements from the new Evo stack as LGD optimizes subpixel design over the next 1-2 years but the big game-changer on the horizon is high-efficiency blue (which QD-BOLED needs to succeed).
> 
> Once high-efficiency blue emerges. WOLED should be able to increase brightness by at least 50% if not close to 100% (assuming they elect to stick with a 3S architecture rather than reducing to 2S to shave cost).
> 
> By 2025 I’m guessing we’ll have OLED TV offerings delivering ~1500 Nits peak white for HDR. By 2022 no way and by 2023 unlikely and only has a chance if Samsung moves forward with launching QD-BOLED late this year…


I get that high-efficiency blue is needed but, the current WOLED panels are limited by red. Larger red pixels are required to reduce burn-in as well, meaning less durable.
To the initiated, it seems like a more efficient red is needed as it is the limiting factor, is it not?

- Rich


----------



## fafrd

RichB said:


> I get that high-efficiency blue is needed but, the current WOLED panels are limited by red. Larger red pixels are required to reduce burn-in as well, meaning less durable.


Good question, and I’ll use it to walk-through the limits on all three technologies.

Printed RGB OLED is the easiest to understand, so let’s start with that. Blue is the shortest-lifetime and least efficient of the 3 OLED emitters so in terms of lifetime with equal subpixel sizes, it will give up the ghost first. Increasing the size of the blue subpixel will decrease the current density through blue and increase it’s lifetime, so that is what IJP-RGB-OLED such as what JOLED is putting out does - Blue is the largest subpixel (about double the size of Red and Green from what’s been reported).

Next QD-BOLED where all three subpixels are driven by identical blue OLED layers (4 of them, from what’s been reported). Let’s assume perfect Quantum Dots that convert 100% of incoming blue photons to red or green. D65 within DCI-P3 is composed of over 69% green photons, so equal-sized subpixels where only 33% of the photons are green would be severely green-limited and would be very dim. For this reason, QD-BOLED will have a green subpixel which is 60-70% of the overall active pixel area. This way when all three colored siubpuxels are putting out their maximum intensity, D65 white intensity can be maximized.

And finally WOLED, where the blue emitter is also the weakest and shortest-lived of the 4 emitters used (Red, Green, and Yellow being the other 3), but those 4 emitters are composed into a stack of 3 layers containing 1-3 colors each. Blue gets 2 full layers to itself, so compared to IJP-RGB-OLED where blue current density was decreased by increasing blue subpixel area, 3S4C WOLED decreases blue current density and increases blue lifetime by adding additional blue layers to the stack and making the overall stack 67% blue emitter. Blue is now so strong that LGD can get away with making a minimum-sized blue subpixel and as measurements by you and CTM Audi showed, blue output is the highest versus D65 on the C1 (~75%) and the G1 (~175%).

Let’s next consider green within 3S3C WOLED. The 3rd (middle) stack in WOLED is actually a composite of 3 emitting layers, Red, Yellow (Red-Green), and Green (the new Green Luminance Element). So if we assume that yellow is 50% green and 50% red, and we assume 1/3rd of the layer is given to each color, we come up with ~1/2 layer emitting green photons (1/6 as the stack devoted to emitting green photons). That sounds bad except that the efficiency of the green and yellow emitter is 10-11 times the efficiency of a single-layer blue emitter, meaning ~1/2 of one layer emitting green will result in ~2.5 to ~2.75 the amount of green photos as compared to the blue photons emitting from two full blue layers.

That means the white subpixel puts out ~2.5 to ~2.75 as many green subpixels as blue subpixels but D65 needs almost 9 times as many green photons as blue photons, meaning the rest need to be supplied through the green subpixel. Assuming equal green efficiency, a green subpixel ~2.5 times as big as the white subpixel could provide those missing green photons for D65 white (like in the case of QD-BOLED), but WOLED has an ace up it’s sleeve: green lifetime ~40 times longer than blue lifetime, and that the means the green subpixel can be driven at over 10 times the current density of blue for equivalent lifetime.

So rather than needing a larger green subpixel like QD-BOLED, WOLED can push its green photons through a minimum-sized green subpixel (~1/4 to ~1/3 of white) and drive it harder by ~7.5x to ~10x the current density to deliver ~2.5x more green photons than what is emitting through the white subpixel (in fact, the white subpixel appears to be emitting almost the full needed quantity of green photons for D65 versus blue, so these estimates are off in favor of even more efficient green within the WOLED stack, but the principle is correct: green is by far the strongest primary in a WOLED and WOLED needs only a minimum-sized green subpixel).

Which leaves us with red. The Red emitter material is ~3.5 times stronger than the blue emitter but it gets only ~1/3 to a maximum of ~1/2 of a layer to itself (including red photons from the yellow emitter). So 2 full blue layers has higher total efficiency than the ~1.17 to 1.74 of relative red efficiency in the stack. Let’s say red output is no stronger than blue output and leave it at that.

D65 requires 2.9 times the quantity of red photons versus blue photons and the WOLED stack itself is only putting out about ~1/3 of that quantity, so like QD-BOLED, WOLED will need to put out the missing red photons through the red subpixel. If red had the extremely high efficiency of green, a minimum-sized red subpixel could be overdriven in a similar way, but the efficiency of red is less than 1/3 that of green, so like IJP-RGB OLED did for blue, WOLED will need to increase red output (decrease red current density) by increasing red subpixel size instead.

In short, blue is strong in WOLED despite being the weakest emitter material because it has 67% of the WOLED stack to itself (so blue can get by with a minimum-sized subpixel); green is strong in WOLED because the green emitter is so much more efficient than red or green and so it dominates WOLED emission despite having only a fraction of one layer to itself (and it can be overdriven through a minimum-sized subpixel because of its extremely long lifetime); and red is the weakest emitter within the WOLED stack, having a similar fraction of one layer to green but efficiency which is only ~1/3rd that of green, so it needs to be reenfirced through a larger subpixel size (similar size to white and larger than blue or green).

The largest subpixel of IJP-RGB-OLED will be blue.

The largest subpixel of QD-BOLED will be green.

The largest primary subpixel of 3S4C WOLED will be red.




RichB said:


> To the initiated, it seems like a more efficient red is needed as it is the limiting factor, is it not?
> 
> - Rich


You are correct that a more efficient (or much longer-lifetime) red PHOLED emitter would change this calculus, but only in terms of allowing the size of the red subpixel to shrink and all subpixels (and peak output levels) to be increased accordingly. If the red subpixel could shrink from ~40% of active area to ~20%, that would translate to a ~25% increase in peak output levels.

Let’s contrast that with what will happen once a high-efficiency blue emitter emerges. Switching from a FOLED blue to a PHOLED Blue (or equivalent such as TADF of hyperflorescent Blue) should increase blue efficiency by ~3x.

That means LGD can replace 2 Blue FOLED layers with a single Blue PHOLED layer and get 150% of the blue output they have now (at equivalent power consumption).

The empty layer can now be used to increase green and red output to as much as 100% (by just using 2 of the red/yellow/green layers that they have now).

That Red/Yellow/Green-Blue-Red/Yellow/Green 3S4C stack would instantaneously increase peak output levels by 50% (~double the increase from a higher-efficiency red emitter).

LGD can reduce cost and increase peak levels further by optimizing and if UDC is the source of the blue PHOLED emitter and it can be mixed on a layer with yellow PHOLED, I’m guessing that a Red/Green-Blue-Yellow/Blue 3S4C stack can be optimized to deliver close to 200% peak brightness levels compared to today’s 3S4C stack (at equivalent manufacturing cost).

So higher-efficiency Red PHOLED would be good, but high-efficiency Blue is the Holy Grail .


----------



## fafrd

UBI has finally caught up to what I’ve been pointing out for months now: 삼성에 OLED 공급위해 LGD 10.5세대 투자 '필수'

‘LGD 10.5th generation investment 'essential' to supply OLED to Samsung

In order for LG Display to supply organic light emitting diode (OLED) panels for TVs to Samsung Electronics, there has been an observation that it should hurry up to invest in the 10.5th generation (2940 × 3370 mm) fab.

Choong-Hoon Lee, CEO of UBI Research, a market research company, said at a display technology seminar held online on the 16th, "In order for LG Display to supply OLED panels for TVs to Samsung Electronics, it will need 10.5G investment this year."

The timing of resuming investment in 'P10', LG Display's 10.5th generation OLED fab in Paju, is currently unclear. LG Display has been responding to increased OLED demand by operating the Guangzhou OLED line in China since the second half of last year.

CEO Lee Choong-hoon said, *"Even if Samsung Electronics does not join as a customer, LG Display will have to invest in the 10.5th generation next year at the latest." "Otherwise, OLED supply for TVs in 2024 will fall short of demand,"* he emphasized.

He added, "If we do not change the existing LCD fab to 10.5G OLED, it is time to make a new investment."

LG Display is expected to operate large LCD lines in Korea at least until this year. As LCD prices are not expected to drop significantly next year, many view that LG Display will maintain its large LCD line next year.

According to UBI Research, the demand for OLED panels for TVs is increasing rapidly recently. In the second quarter of this year, LG Display's TV OLED panel shipments were counted as 1.8 million units, up 185.7% from the same period last year.

LG Display is expected to ship 7.2 million OLED panels for TV this year. It is suggested that this number will increase to 8 million units next year and 10 million units in 2024.

CEO Lee said, *"If Samsung Electronics receives OLED panels from LG Display and makes TVs, LG Display's shipment of 10 million large OLEDs can be advanced by one year." “Eventually, 10 million shipments will be possible in 2023,”* he explains.’


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> The OLED response is non-linear with varying temperature which is why heating up the panel will produce incorrect compensation results. Temperature is especially critical when calculating a new voltage scaling value that needs to be applied to the data line to compensate for OLED deterioration. This is why the panel shuts off for an hour to cool off before they run that part of the compensation cycle. The threshold voltage compensation that happens every 4 hours is less temperature dependent and can run immediately after powering off.



*



If having a sense line is a game changer, then the game changed many years ago. They've been employing that same basic circuit design since at least the launch of the 4K models.

Click to expand...

*


> The 1080p models were probably also using it but I wasn't following their published papers very closely at the time. Since they employ an external compensation method, the sense line is a requirement.


I didn’t think this statement was correct based on circuit diagrams I remember seeing from older papers:Advanced Technologies for Large-Sized OLED Display

Upon closer reading, I see I was fooled by the ‘simplified’ subpixel circuit diagrams and the existence of the same sense line has been there (in print) since early-on:

‘We use a single data line and a single gate line for each subpixel, and *the four subpixels in a full RGBW pixel share a sensing line and a power line*, which reduces line crossings and thus reduces defects.’



> During the 4-hour-interval compensation cycles when the set if in standby, they apply a fixed known voltage (higher than threshold voltage) to the data line. This causes current to flow through the OLED. As this current also charges the sense line and increases its voltage, the voltage between the gate and source of the OLED driving transistor eventually falls below the threshold voltage and current stops flowing. This causes the sense line voltage to saturate to a constant value. At this moment, they sample the sense line voltage and use it to calculate a new threshold voltage. Vth = Vdata - Vsense. Repeating charging/saturation/sampling for all sub-pixels on a 4K panel is slow as evident from the 5 minute duration of this process.





> There is a similar faster process for calculating the gain or scaling value applied to the drive voltage to compensate for the changes in mobility and OLED efficiency. But that degradation is much slower and only done every few thousand hours unless manually triggered. This part of wear compensation is faster than the threshold voltage calculation as you can see the *horizontal line sweep down the screen* in only a few seconds. You can't do this step without first getting an accurate threshold voltage which is why that step (explained above) is always performed first, then panel is turned off to cool for about an hour before resuming to complete the process.


Yes, as long as the applied data voltage keeps drive voltage below OLED turn-on voltage, I can see how threshold voltage could be measured through voltage-sensing of the sense line as you are suggesting.

The other paper does mention current sensing of the sense line, however, and as long as the sense line is clamped at ground or any voltage below OLED turn-on voltage, current-sensing of the sense line can also allow characterization of threshold voltage as well as full characterization of the I-V characteristics of the drive transistor…

But sensing of the OLED wear is trickier any can it make use of this sense line (since all of the WRGB OLED diodes are shorted together when the scan line is active and if any single OLED diode is active, all 4 are…).

I’ve always assumed that the OLED current was sensed through the horizontal power line. Only one subpixel ON per row (the scanning vertical line of bright pixels) means that each horizontal power line can be sensed to measure the current through one specific subpixel. You mention a ‘horizontal line sweep’ above but I thought it was a vertical line sweeping during the long Pixel Refresh Cycle…

If an individual OLED current can be measured through this single shared sense line (one per column in that case, so sweeping of a horizontal line of on subpixels), please explain.



> Like I said earlier, that 8K paper is very ambiguous and missing a lot of details that were covered in earlier papers and patent applications LG released many years ago. I get the sense that when they say "real time" what they really mean is "not during manufacturing time" but during "customer time". Probably something lost in translation.


Yes, the papers are very poorly written and confusing (perhaps on-purpose). That shared sense line has been there since early-on, so you were correct and thanks for pointing that out. If it was a game-changer, the game was changed long ago and there is nothing new for the 8K panel as that paper suggested…

That older paper also makes use of the term ‘real-time’:

‘Through the *real-time sensing *and compensation, our methods compensate threshold voltage shift and mobility shift.’

That same article also states this (which supports your interpretation):

‘The pixel characteristics are sensed and compensated before shipment and *in real time*.’

(so it appears that in LGD’s parlance, ‘real-time’ = after shipment).

My excitement that this meant LGD had a way to perform subpixel characterization in real-time with active display was almost certainly misplaced (though I continue to believe that drive transistor characterization equates to a crude ‘anywhere on panel’ temperature estimation capability which could possibly be utilized while BFI is blanking half the array).

That older paper also includes this intriguing paragraph:

‘Other quality issues include image sticking. Firstly, being current-driven, OLED pixels generate heat when they emit light, and there may be a luminance change because of high temperature. Secondly, luminance will drop according to total driving time because of OLED degradation, like any other self-luminous device. For the former issue, *we have designed a mechanical structure to release heat efficiently, and we use real-time temperature compensation.* For the latter issue, we use a known correlation between current efficiency decrease and electric characteristic change of OLED [30]. OLED voltage–current characteristics change according to degradation, and we need a higher voltage to have the same current after OLED usage. *We sense voltage for the same predetermined current to estimate OLED degradation at each subpixel *and use a lookup table to translate OLED voltage shift to luminance compensation value.’

‘Real-time temperature compensation’ must refer to real-time during active image display, so that remains a mystery to solve…

And that reference to ‘sensing voltage for the same predetermined current is also intriguing / confusing. Row select cannot be involved since that would short all suboixel diodes together, so sense line cannot be involved.

Sensing row current when only a single subpixel is activated per row (through the row power line) could work (finding the subpixel input value that results in a target current through the OLED diode), but if that is what they are referring to as ‘sensing voltage’ that is worse than poorly written - do you have any understanding of what this is referring to?


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> ‘Real-time temperature compensation’ must refer to real-time during active image display, so that remains a mystery to solve…


What's not poorly written or ambiguous are patents. And, here's the one on temperature sensing for max luminance control (note that it's not predicting the temp through sensing smth else, but rather using a temperature sensor):






US10062324B2 - Luminance control device and display device comprising the same - Google Patents


A display device is disclosed in which a luminance control device includes a temperature sensor that detects a temperature of a display device; an average picture level part that calculates an average picture level, which defines an average brightness of an image input into the display device...



patents.google.com





It happens once per frame. That's still real-time and we don't need to have a debate about that.

So, we have a patent that describes what's likely shipping/available to the TV makers. It wouldn't be surprising at all to know that each TV maker customizes the curves and ranges described in the patent.

Patents solve a lot of mysteries and they show that these displays are really sophisticated systems that defy simple reduction—the algo in the patent above would be tricky to explain! I'd suggest reading more of them, @fafrd.

One more thing about patents is that they get classified really precisely and often with multiple classifications that often correspond to the end-user benefits they provide. Here's an excerpt of the classifications for the patent linked above:

G09G2320/041 Temperature compensation
G09G2320/045 Compensation of drifts in the characteristics of light emitting or modulating elements
G09G2320/0626 Adjustment of display parameters for control of overall brightness
G09G2360/16 Calculation or use of calculated indices related to luminance levels in display data

Related, anyone found the patent around LGE's Game Input Lag Boost feature—I'm intrigued based on a recent mention on Classy Tech's livestream (link: 



), but haven't hunted it down?


----------



## stl8k

Pixar thought highly enough of LG's RGB OLED monitor to do this testimonial.


----------



## mrtickleuk

stl8k said:


> Pixar thought highly enough of LG's RGB OLED monitor to do this testimonial.


Out of pure kindness alone, with no money changing hands? Wow!


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> I didn’t think this statement was correct based on circuit diagrams I remember seeing from older papers:Advanced Technologies for Large-Sized OLED Display
> 
> Upon closer reading, I see I was fooled by the ‘simplified’ subpixel circuit diagrams and the existence of the same sense line has been there (in print) since early-on:
> 
> ‘We use a single data line and a single gate line for each subpixel, and *the four subpixels in a full RGBW pixel share a sensing line and a power line*, which reduces line crossings and thus reduces defects.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as long as the applied data voltage keeps drive voltage below OLED turn-on voltage, I can see how threshold voltage could be measured through voltage-sensing of the sense line as you are suggesting.
> 
> The other paper does mention current sensing of the sense line, however, and as long as the sense line is clamped at ground or any voltage below OLED turn-on voltage, current-sensing of the sense line can also allow characterization of threshold voltage as well as full characterization of the I-V characteristics of the drive transistor…
> 
> But sensing of the OLED wear is trickier any can it make use of this sense line (since all of the WRGB OLED diodes are shorted together when the scan line is active and if any single OLED diode is active, all 4 are…).
> 
> I’ve always assumed that the OLED current was sensed through the horizontal power line. Only one subpixel ON per row (the scanning vertical line of bright pixels) means that each horizontal power line can be sensed to measure the current through one specific subpixel. You mention a ‘horizontal line sweep’ above but I thought it was a vertical line sweeping during the long Pixel Refresh Cycle…
> 
> If an individual OLED current can be measured through this single shared sense line (one per column in that case, so sweeping of a horizontal line of on subpixels), please explain.
> 
> 
> Yes, the papers are very poorly written and confusing (perhaps on-purpose). That shared sense line has been there since early-on, so you were correct and thanks for pointing that out. If it was a game-changer, the game was changed long ago and there is nothing new for the 8K panel as that paper suggested…
> 
> That older paper also makes use of the term ‘real-time’:
> 
> ‘Through the *real-time sensing *and compensation, our methods compensate threshold voltage shift and mobility shift.’
> 
> That same article also states this (which supports your interpretation):
> 
> ‘The pixel characteristics are sensed and compensated before shipment and *in real time*.’
> 
> (so it appears that in LGD’s parlance, ‘real-time’ = after shipment).
> 
> My excitement that this meant LGD had a way to perform subpixel characterization in real-time with active display was almost certainly misplaced (though I continue to believe that drive transistor characterization equates to a crude ‘anywhere on panel’ temperature estimation capability which could possibly be utilized while BFI is blanking half the array).
> 
> That older paper also includes this intriguing paragraph:
> 
> ‘Other quality issues include image sticking. Firstly, being current-driven, OLED pixels generate heat when they emit light, and there may be a luminance change because of high temperature. Secondly, luminance will drop according to total driving time because of OLED degradation, like any other self-luminous device. For the former issue, *we have designed a mechanical structure to release heat efficiently, and we use real-time temperature compensation.* For the latter issue, we use a known correlation between current efficiency decrease and electric characteristic change of OLED [30]. OLED voltage–current characteristics change according to degradation, and we need a higher voltage to have the same current after OLED usage. *We sense voltage for the same predetermined current to estimate OLED degradation at each subpixel *and use a lookup table to translate OLED voltage shift to luminance compensation value.’
> 
> ‘Real-time temperature compensation’ must refer to real-time during active image display, so that remains a mystery to solve…
> 
> And that reference to ‘sensing voltage for the same predetermined current is also intriguing / confusing. Row select cannot be involved since that would short all suboixel diodes together, so sense line cannot be involved.
> 
> Sensing row current when only a single subpixel is activated per row (through the row power line) could work (finding the subpixel input value that results in a target current through the OLED diode), but if that is what they are referring to as ‘sensing voltage’ that is worse than poorly written - do you have any understanding of what this is referring to?





stl8k said:


> What's not poorly written or ambiguous are patents. And, here's the one on temperature sensing for max luminance control (note that it's not predicting the temp through sensing smth else, but rather using a temperature sensor):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US10062324B2 - Luminance control device and display device comprising the same - Google Patents
> 
> 
> A display device is disclosed in which a luminance control device includes a temperature sensor that detects a temperature of a display device; an average picture level part that calculates an average picture level, which defines an average brightness of an image input into the display device...
> 
> 
> 
> patents.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens once per frame. That's still real-time and we don't need to have a debate about that.


Yes, appears to be one discrete temperature sensor for the entire WOLED panel:

‘The temperature sensor *140* is placed near the display panel *100*'s module and detects the temperature of the ambient environment of the display device.’



So, we have a patent that describes what's likely shipping/available to the TV makers. It wouldn't be surprising at all to know that each TV maker customizes the curves and ranges described in the patent.

Patents solve a lot of mysteries and they show that these displays are really sophisticated systems that defy simple reduction—the algo in the patent above would be tricky to explain! I'd suggest reading more of them, @fafrd.

One more thing about patents is that they get classified really precisely and often with multiple classifications that often correspond to the end-user benefits they provide. Here's an excerpt of the classifications for the patent linked above:

G09G2320/041 Temperature compensation
G09G2320/045 Compensation of drifts in the characteristics of light emitting or modulating elements
G09G2320/0626 Adjustment of display parameters for control of overall brightness
G09G2360/16 Calculation or use of calculated indices related to luminance levels in display data

Related, anyone found the patent around LGE's Game Input Lag Boost feature—I'm intrigued based on a recent mention on Classy Tech's livestream (link: 



), but haven't hunted it down?
[/QUOTE]

Very possible that’s what is embodied in shipping TVs, would be interesting to nfrrsrand where that discrete temperature sensor is located if anyone has done a year-down…

Without a temperature spreader / heatsink, it’s hard to understand how a single temperature sensor located anywhere on the array is going to be able to have any effectiveness at detecting and preventing hotspots…


----------



## CA22EF

stl8k said:


> Related, anyone found the patent around LGE's Game Input Lag Boost feature—I'm intrigued based on a recent mention on Classy Tech's livestream (link:


I don't know anything about patents, so I can't help you...

I was hoping to give you some hints on what to expect.
Technology like "Game Input Lag Boost" was introduced by Samsung first.
That time is 2020.
The article targets mobile, but the same technology can be seen in Samsung TVs of the same period.
Samsung Display Announces First VRR Mobile Display - Inside Note20 Ultra


> Samsung describes the usage of a new backplane technology in order to achieve this ? whilst we haven’t had an official response from Samsung to our questions on the matter, there’s been rumours that this is the generation in which the company has introduced LTPO backplane technology, allowing it higher switching performance and lower power consumption.


According to RTINGS.
The Frame 2020 [email protected] 4:4:4 10.3ms
Samsung The Terrace TV [email protected] 4:4:4 9.0ms


----------



## Adonisds

Are smaller displays more susceptible to burn-in?


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> UBI has finally caught up to what I’ve been pointing out for months now: 삼성에 OLED 공급위해 LGD 10.5세대 투자 '필수'
> 
> ‘LGD 10.5th generation investment 'essential' to supply OLED to Samsung
> 
> In order for LG Display to supply organic light emitting diode (OLED) panels for TVs to Samsung Electronics, there has been an observation that it should hurry up to invest in the 10.5th generation (2940 × 3370 mm) fab.
> 
> Choong-Hoon Lee, CEO of UBI Research, a market research company, said at a display technology seminar held online on the 16th, "In order for LG Display to supply OLED panels for TVs to Samsung Electronics, it will need 10.5G investment this year."
> 
> The timing of resuming investment in 'P10', LG Display's 10.5th generation OLED fab in Paju, is currently unclear. LG Display has been responding to increased OLED demand by operating the Guangzhou OLED line in China since the second half of last year.
> 
> CEO Lee Choong-hoon said, *"Even if Samsung Electronics does not join as a customer, LG Display will have to invest in the 10.5th generation next year at the latest." "Otherwise, OLED supply for TVs in 2024 will fall short of demand,"* he emphasized.
> 
> He added, "If we do not change the existing LCD fab to 10.5G OLED, it is time to make a new investment."
> 
> LG Display is expected to operate large LCD lines in Korea at least until this year. As LCD prices are not expected to drop significantly next year, many view that LG Display will maintain its large LCD line next year.
> 
> According to UBI Research, the demand for OLED panels for TVs is increasing rapidly recently. In the second quarter of this year, LG Display's TV OLED panel shipments were counted as 1.8 million units, up 185.7% from the same period last year.
> 
> LG Display is expected to ship 7.2 million OLED panels for TV this year. It is suggested that this number will increase to 8 million units next year and 10 million units in 2024.
> 
> CEO Lee said, *"If Samsung Electronics receives OLED panels from LG Display and makes TVs, LG Display's shipment of 10 million large OLEDs can be advanced by one year." “Eventually, 10 million shipments will be possible in 2023,”* he explains.’


A few more observations from this related article:








Large OLED panels to likely face shortage in 2024


There will likely be a shortage of large-sized OLED panels used in TVs starting in 2024, UBI Research CEO Choong Hoon Yi said.Yi based his forecast on the production capacity for large-sized OLED panels and t here expected demand going forward.Demand for large-sized OLED panels is expected to be aro




www.thelec.net





UBI claims it’s OLED TV panel demand forecast is based on discussions with current WOLED customers:

‘Yi also said his demand forecast is based on those from LG Electronics, Sony and other exiting OLED panel customers.’

I’m unable to cut and paste the graph of UBI’s forecasted demand versus supply as presented, but the demand numbers are as follows:

2021 7.2 million
2022 8.0 million (11.1% increase)
2023 10.0 million (25% increase)
2024 12.0 million (20% increase)
2025 14.5 million (20.8% increase)

Why they see the most modest demand growth next year followed by the greatest year-on-year growth in 2023 is a mystery (Samsung?), but if we just take growth from 2021 to 2025 from 7.2 million to 14.5 million, that translates to a 4-year CAGR of just over 19% (and a doubling of demand over 4 years).

The article repeats the need for LG to accelerate investment n their 10.5G fab:

‘Yi said LG Display will start investing no later than next year as it will take more time to secure the needed yield rate in a Gen 10.5 line, considering that the firm has no prior experience using such a large substrate in production.’

But adds this additional tidbit:

‘However, the CEO also said LG Display doesn’t necessarily need to focus on Gen 10.5 and *can upgrade its existing Gen 8.5 lines to expand production capacity.*’

From what I sussed-out on LGD’s current 8.5G LCD manufacturing lines, they have two 8.5G manufacturing lines still churning out LCDs:

P8 (which contains the existing Paju WOLED TV manufacturing lines) still manufactures LCD TV panels and could most easily be converted for additional 8.5G WOLED panel production of LGE is ready to rely only on LGD’s line remaining 8.5G TV LCD production line in China (this is what I’d view as the most likely 8.5G scenario).

P9 which manufactures smaller LCD panels for IT (notebook, monitors, and tablets).

Because it’s been the IT LCDs that have been most profitable for LGD, converting the remaining LCD line at P8 seems more sensible, but that’s probably not enough for another ~30,000 8.5G panels per year (+17% of current production), meaning it only buys LGD ~one year.

P9 ceasing LCD production and converting to WOLED probably offers twice that capacity but will cost more and will sacrifice more short-term profit.

Wherher it’s announced at LGD’s upcoming Q2 investor call or not until their Q3 investor call in October/November and whether it’s announced in one step or two, I’m expecting LGD to announce both conversion of the remaining LCD TV panel production at P8 to WOLED as well as acceleration / resumption of investments in the 10.5G WOLED production line (P10) to bring it into production by late 2024 / early 2025.

Assuming only another 30,000 8.5G substrates from P8 plus an initial ramp to 15,000 10.5G substrates in P10 by early 2025 translates to a 33% increase in WOLED panel production capacity and puts LGD in position to produce ~14.6 million WOLED panels in 2025 (with an easy addition of 15,000 to 30,000 more 10.5G substrates whenever needed).

Guangzhou at 90,000 8.5G substrates plus
P8 at a total of 115,000 8.5G substrates plus
P10 at a maximum of 45,000 10.5G substrates

would put LGD in a position to manufacture up to 18 million WOLED TV panels per year and is probably the maximum that makes sense for them to aim for as a singlesupplier…

Translating a 10.5G sheet to 1.8 8.5G sheet-equivalents, this maximum capacity also translates to 286,000 8.5G sheet-equivalents of manufacturing capacity.

By way of comparison, Samsung’s 3-phase ramp plan for QD-BOLED will reach a best-case of 90,000 8.5G sheets of manufacturing capacity by 2025 (45% of where I’m forecasting LGD will be by 2025 and 31.5% of where LGD can be when P10 is maxed-out).

Then we’ve got to throw TCL’s IJP-RGB-OLED 2023 ramp-plan into the mix as well as BOE’s plan to ramp EL-QLED production sometime in the next few years, and it all adds up to emissive TV panel production LGD looking well-positioned to push past 10% of overall TV panel production by 2025 and starting to eat noticeably into LCD TV market share…


----------



## fafrd

Looks like Samsung is running into some hiccups with their IJP-QDs for QD-OLED: 삼성디스플레이, QD 잉크젯 장비 이원화 추진

If they are still in the vendor/equipment qualification/selection stage today, I see it as highly unlikely QD-BOLED production actually begins in volume by year’s end…


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Looks like Samsung is running into some hiccups with their IJP-QDs for QD-OLED: 삼성디스플레이, QD 잉크젯 장비 이원화 추진
> 
> If they are still in the vendor/equipment qualification/selection stage today, I see it as highly unlikely QD-BOLED production actually begins in volume by year’s end…


I love the English translation (via Google) here:

"When you use a ballpoint pen, ink agglomeration called 'ballpoint pen ****' occurs.


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> I love the English translation (via Google) here:
> 
> "When you use a ballpoint pen, ink agglomeration called 'ballpoint pen ****' occurs.


S-h-i-t has been substituted by the forum software here.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I love the English translation (via Google) here:
> 
> "When you use a ballpoint pen, ink agglomeration called 'ballpoint pen occurs.


Yeah, seems like that ballpoint pen **** is causing a big problem with the IJP-QDCC supplier Samsung Display chose (SEMES, an affiliate that supples them with LCD-related IJP equipment) and so they are scrambling to evaluate whether another Kateeva-linked IJP supplier (LET) can get the QDCC printed without the same problems associated with ink agglomeration (‘ballpoint pen ****).

Just doesn’t sound to me like a technology ready to ramp to high-volume production at this stage…


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Yeah, seems like that ballpoint pen *** is causing a big problem with the IJP-QDCC supplier Samsung Display chose (SEMES, an affiliate that supples them with LCD-related IJP equipment) and so they are scrambling to evaluate whether another Kateeva-linked IJP supplier (LET) can get the QDCC printed without the same problems associated with ink agglomeration (‘ballpoint pen ***).
> 
> Just doesn’t sound to me like a technology ready to ramp to high-volume production at this stage…


I didn't know that LCD's were being produced with IJP equipment. I tend to forget that major tech like this wasn't produced specifically for OLED since I haven't had an in-depth interest in display tech before OLED.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I didn't know that LCD's were being produced with IJP equipment. I tend to forget that major tech like this wasn't produced specifically for OLED since I haven't had an in-depth interest in display tech before OLED.


I read about SEMES at Musings or somewhere but forget what LCD-related steps are now being handled by IJP (conventional color filters?).

At any rate, from the translation:

‘Another official said, *"SEMES will have sufficient mechanical know-how, such as supplying liquid crystal display (LCD)-related inkjet equipment, but I know that it does not meet the level that Samsung Display wants in SW technology and tact."* Samsung Display is in the process of improving it in many ways,” he explained.’


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I didn't know that LCD's were being produced with IJP equipment. I tend to forget that major tech like this wasn't produced specifically for OLED since I haven't had an in-depth interest in display tech before OLED.


Here is a bit more on SEMES and their experience with IJP for LCDs: Samsung to select supplier of QD display ink-jet printing equipment

‘Semes has the experience of supplying LC printing equipment and PI ink-jet printing equipment to the Gen-8.5 LCD production lines at Samsung Display’s Suzhou plant.’

Looks like both the liquid crystal itself as well as polyimide are deposited by IJP (at least at Samsung), but neither of those materials are inks (no issues with agglomeration)…

And here is the Musings article regarding Samsung’s decision to select SEMES over Kateeva:Samsung Selects SEMES Instead of Kateeva for IJP of QDs_1/27/20

‘As Samsung Display has decided to go with SEMES as the key supplier of front-end solutions, it is expected that the process of expanding production facilities to operate Q1 line will speed up.’

Pretty clear that didn’t unfold as expected. Now Samsung has to scramble to determine whether Kateeva’s IJP will actually allow them to print QDCC with enough reliability and quality to allow them to begin to ramp up production (and if not, they’ll piss away another year staring at their navels and selling QLED/LCDs…).

In addition to wanting to keep expertise associated with IJP of QDCC in-house, the other big driver of the decision was apparently cost:SEMES IJP for QDs Substantially Lower Cost than Comparable Kateeva Tool_2/02/20

‘Reports from Korea indicate that SDC chose the SEMES IJP because it was substantially less expensive than the competing Kateeva tool *even though it was unproven in mass production. *The loss is a major blow to Kateeva, but the company believes they have an advantage in printing OLEDs. With the selection of SEMES, the IJP market is getting crowded as Panasonic supplies the tool for JOLED and TEL also has a competitor.

Whoops!


----------



## kokishin

Probably been mentioned before, but if Samsung were to intro an OLED TV without DoVi, I would think that would be a bust.


----------



## 59LIHP

_Samsung Display may make LTPS TFT for Micro LED
Per Samsung Electronics’ request 
Samsung Electronics to apply LTPS TFT for smaller Micro LED TV models
Samsung Electronics says it could buy QD-OLED from Samsung Display in return








Samsung Display may make LTPS TFT for Micro LED


Samsung Display was considering manufacturing thin-film transistors (TFT) that will be used in Micro LED TVs made by Samsung Electronics, TheElec has learned.The South Korean display maker has formed a team to oversee the project, sources said. This team was formed in April and the project is called




www.thelec.net




_


----------



## 59LIHP

.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> Large OLED panels to likely face shortage in 2024
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large OLED panels to likely face shortage in 2024
> 
> 
> There will likely be a shortage of large-sized OLED panels used in TVs starting in 2024, UBI Research CEO Choong Hoon Yi said.Yi based his forecast on the production capacity for large-sized OLED panels and t here expected demand going forward.Demand for large-sized OLED panels is expected to be aro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net


You need to fo a better job keeping up with the thread before posting - that was discussed extensively 4 days ago: OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread

as well as 12 posts back on this same page: OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> You need to fo a better job keeping up with the thread before posting - that was discussed extensively 4 days ago: OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread
> 
> as well as 12 posts back on this same page: OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


I did not see the article in English that you posted afterwards.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> I did not see the article in English that you posted afterwards.


No worries. I went back to that original article in Korean and finally found an image of UBI’s demand versus supply graph that I could copy:









I’m guessing these articles/forecasts are being leaked by LGD as a precursor to the investment announcements they will be making late this week (or 3 months from now, at latest)…


----------



## CA22EF

I found the 77A80J T-con board.
I compared it to 77A9G, but there doesn't seem to be much difference in the layout.
However, there were two types of boards regarding 77A9G.
Lists 77 inches only.

SONY
77A1E PART NUMBER: 6871L-5110A BOARD NUMBERS: 6870C-0719A
//difference
77A9G PART NUMBER: 6871L-6021A BOARD NUMBERS: 6870C-0822A
77A9G PART NUMBER: 6871L-6021B BOARD NUMBERS: 6870C-0822B
//difference
77A9G PART NUMBER: 6871L-6630B BOARD NUMBERS: 6870C-0887A
77A9G PART NUMBER: 6871L-6630C BOARD NUMBERS: 6870C-0887B
77A80J PART NUMBER: 6871L-6682A BOARD NUMBERS: 6870C-0887B

LG
77C8 PART NUMBER: 6871L-5467A BOARD NUMBERS: 6870C-0758A
77C8 C9 PART NUMBER: 6871L-5467C BOARD NUMBERS: 6870C-0758A
//difference
77C9 PART NUMBER: 6871L-5917C BOARD NUMBERS: 6870C-0809A
77C9 PART NUMBER: 6871L-6321B BOARD NUMBERS: 6870C-0845A
//difference
77CX PART NUMBER: 6871L-6457A BOARD NUMBERS: 6870C-0850A
77CX PART NUMBER: 6871L-6457B BOARD NUMBERS: ?
77CX PART NUMBER: 6871L-6457C BOARD NUMBERS: 6870C-0858B
77CX PART NUMBER: 6871L-6457D BOARD NUMBERS: 6870C-0858C


----------



## 59LIHP

_Supertest OLED EVO LG 55G1 4K👏
"The first TV from LG Electronics, equipped with the new 'EVO' technology, brings with it tangible improvements in image quality, in the richness of shades - especially in low lights - as well as operating system, menus and some improved functions"_








Supertest OLED EVO LG 55G1 4K


Il primo TV di LG Electronics, dotato della nuova tecnologia 'EVO', porta con sé tangibili miglioramenti nella qualità d'immagine, nella ricchezza di sfumature - soprattutto nelle basse luci - oltre a sistema operativo, menu e alcune funzioni migliorate



www.avmagazine.it





_LG OLED 55G1 EVO pixel structure








Short educational video on the microscopic structure of the sub-pixels of a panel with LG Electronics OLED technology and on the particular modulation of the RGBW components by varying the white balance from cold to warm and vice-versa.

Click to expand...

_


----------



## 59LIHP

_The next generation of LG OLED TVs from 2022 will use a heatsink to shine even more_

















La próxima generación de televisores LG OLED de 2022 utilizará un disipador para brillar aún más


Parece ser que veremos la inclusión de disipadores también en los televisores LG OLED. La primera en idear este sistema fue Panasonic, allá por el 2019, con




www.avpasion.com


----------



## 59LIHP

_Merck starts mass production of hole transport materials for OLED mobile devices_








Merck starts mass production of hole transport materials for OLED mobile devices


Merck, a key player in science and technology, announced on July 22 that it starts mass production of hole transport materials (HTM) at its new production facility in Poseung, Pyeongtaek-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea. HTM produced by Merck will be applied to common layers of organic light emitting diodes (




www.koreaittimes.com


----------



## 59LIHP

Narrowing Price Gap Between OLED and LCD Panels Causing Increased Demand for OLED TV Sets








Narrowing Price Gap Between OLED and LCD Panels Causing Increased Demand for OLED TV Sets_07/25/21


Narrowing Price Gap Between OLED and LCD Panels Causing Increased Demand for OLED TV Sets A rapid increase in liquid crystal display (LCD) panel prices has sharply narrowed the price gap between...



www.oled-a.org


----------



## 59LIHP

After the forerunner Panasonic who worked closely with LG Display, since 2020 LG Display offers an optional heatsink kit with their Oled panels. So far we have Toshiba, Sharp and Sony who use a heat sink in their Oled tv in addition to Panasonic.









テレビ買うならOLED! 麻倉怜士が解説、'20夏・最新OLED TV業界事情【麻倉怜士の大閻魔帳】


残念ながらオリンピックは延期となったが、各社が気合MAXで製品開発をした結果、この夏のテレビはいずれのメーカーからも非常に気合の入った製品がズラリと並んだ。こんな状況、高画質大好き麻倉怜士が黙っているハズが無い。



av.watch.impress.co.jp













シャープ、有機ELは「AQUOS OLED」に。独自パネルの「DS1」


シャープは22日、4K有機ELテレビを「AQUOS OLED」ブランドとして展開すると発表。「DS1」と「DQ1」の2ライン4機種を5月22日より発売する。65、55型の2サイズを用意し、価格はオープンプライス。店頭予想価格はDS1ラインが34.1万円前後(55型)、DQ1ラインが30.8万円前後(55型)から。



av.watch.impress.co.jp





With a greater quantity of production of the new generation Olel panel (Evo), we will undoubtedly have more manufacturers next year with this option.
New generation of slab plus the option of heatsink structure, we will certainly have the best OLEDs produced to date.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> After the forerunner Panasonic who worked closely with LG Display, since 2020 LG Display offers an optional heatsink kit with their Oled panels. So far we have Toshiba, Sharp and Sony who use a heat sink in their Oled tv in addition to Panasonic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> テレビ買うならOLED! 麻倉怜士が解説、'20夏・最新OLED TV業界事情【麻倉怜士の大閻魔帳】
> 
> 
> 残念ながらオリンピックは延期となったが、各社が気合MAXで製品開発をした結果、この夏のテレビはいずれのメーカーからも非常に気合の入った製品がズラリと並んだ。こんな状況、高画質大好き麻倉怜士が黙っているハズが無い。
> 
> 
> 
> av.watch.impress.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> シャープ、有機ELは「AQUOS OLED」に。独自パネルの「DS1」
> 
> 
> シャープは22日、4K有機ELテレビを「AQUOS OLED」ブランドとして展開すると発表。「DS1」と「DQ1」の2ライン4機種を5月22日より発売する。65、55型の2サイズを用意し、価格はオープンプライス。店頭予想価格はDS1ラインが34.1万円前後(55型)、DQ1ラインが30.8万円前後(55型)から。
> 
> 
> 
> av.watch.impress.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a greater quantity of production of the new generation Olel panel (Evo), we will undoubtedly have more manufacturers next year with this option.
> New generation of slab plus the option of heatsink structure, we will certainly have the best OLEDs produced to date.


Thanks for the fantastic finds.

From the google translation of the first article, first this fabulous quote from Reiji Asakura:

"――In the world of physics, it is said that* heat is the graveyard of energy*."

Referring to Panasonic:

'The company has a long day in the management technology of self-luminous devices, and this is what is now useful. These management techniques also *share technology with LG, contributing greatly to the longevity and high brightness of the entire device*.'

And while the translation is garbled, the reference to 'plate' cannot be a coincidence and suggests it is LGD and not LGE working to integrate a heat dissipation plate into the WOLED panel itself:

'In fact, as an *LG display*, I want to run a custom* embedded program of the inner plate* by each set manufacturer* as standard*. For that reason, panasonic, the brain idea, is supplied with a cooling partless panel body, and the peak brightness corresponding to HDR is issued with the original *heat dissipation plate*. If that goes well, we will open up the custom *inner plate plan from the next year's panels to all manufacturers*.'

This is a pretty clear statement that if things go according to plan, LG Display will offer WOLED panels in two configurations starting in 2022 model year: integrated with heat dissipation 'plate' or standalone (without heat dissipation plate) as they are sold currently:

'In other words, oled procurement from LG Display can be considered in the following two patterns. One option is to receive an *all-in-one package with an inner plate reference model with LG display*. The other option, like Panasonic, is to supply *oled panels alone and incorporate inner plates in-house*.'

So understanding the appeal of an added heat-sink as demonstrated by Panasonic, LG as a group decided that rather than having LGE make a similar engineering investment, they would instead have LGD make that investment in a way that it could benefit LGE as well as any other customers who wanted to pay LGD a bit more for an integrated heatsink rather than invest in manufacturing their own.

And the only other quote that rises to the level of 'heat is the graveyard of energy' is this reference Asakura makes to the coming 'Post-OLED War':

'Looking at the last five years or so at the product level, lg Display, which developed white OLED with tenacity, was one of the best. However, looking at the recent industry situation, it is very likely that the *"Post-OLED War" will begin around next year.* Lg Display, which is currently in business, also wants to *offer a variety of options as OLED to counter these emerging powers. One of the options is a custom inner plate.*

So LG Display is concerned about the coming Post-OLED War and so feels the heat (pun intended ) to develop some plate armor in the hopes it will help them to fight off the onslaught of the coming OLED Hoards (IJP-RGB, QD-BOLED, etc...).

But bottom line is that this is great news for 2022. Panasonic is apparently still using the 3S3C / non-Evo panel on their 2021 WOLED TVs but delivering 900 Nits peak because of their heatsink.

LG is delivering a 20% brightness increase on their 2021 G-Series WOLEDs over their 2020 G-Series WOLEDs because of the new 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable WOLED panels (delivering ~800 Nits peak).

So if we anticipate a 2022 G2 WOLED TV combining a Panasonic-like heatsink ('plate') with a 3S4C / WBE / Evo WOLED panel, delivering >1000 Nit peak brightness levels seems highly-likely (and possibly close to 1100 Nits).

Since we first heard about the new 3S4C WOLED stack, I've had the suspicion that LGD was keeping a lot of the potential performance improvements under wraps and close to their chest this cycle (2021). This article pretty much confirms that and suggests it is concern for 2022 or possibly 2023 that is driving LGD to innovate ways to keep WOLED out in front of the coming Emissive competition...


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> After the forerunner Panasonic who worked closely with LG Display, since 2020 LG Display offers an optional heatsink kit with their Oled panels. So far we have Toshiba, Sharp and Sony who use a heat sink in their Oled tv in addition to Panasonic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> テレビ買うならOLED! 麻倉怜士が解説、'20夏・最新OLED TV業界事情【麻倉怜士の大閻魔帳】
> 
> 
> 残念ながらオリンピックは延期となったが、各社が気合MAXで製品開発をした結果、この夏のテレビはいずれのメーカーからも非常に気合の入った製品がズラリと並んだ。こんな状況、高画質大好き麻倉怜士が黙っているハズが無い。
> 
> 
> 
> av.watch.impress.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> シャープ、有機ELは「AQUOS OLED」に。独自パネルの「DS1」
> 
> 
> シャープは22日、4K有機ELテレビを「AQUOS OLED」ブランドとして展開すると発表。「DS1」と「DQ1」の2ライン4機種を5月22日より発売する。65、55型の2サイズを用意し、価格はオープンプライス。店頭予想価格はDS1ラインが34.1万円前後(55型)、DQ1ラインが30.8万円前後(55型)から。
> 
> 
> 
> av.watch.impress.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a greater quantity of production of the new generation Olel panel (Evo), we will undoubtedly have more manufacturers next year with this option.
> New generation of slab plus the option of heatsink structure, we will certainly have the best OLEDs produced to date.


And from the second article regarding Sharp WOLED TVs, that is old news (April), but what is interesting is the claimed improvements they get by adding a heatsink:










I’m guessing that photo is comparing HDR to SDR rather than HDR with heatsink to HDR without heatsink, but we’ll just need to await reviews and measurements.

In any case, it’s pretty clear that Japan Inc. is jumping onto the WOLED train with both feet (at least for Flagship / Premium TVs)…


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung to launch much-anticipated QD-OLED TV, expand MicroLED lines
New technology launches are aimed at strengthening its TV market leadership








Samsung to launch much-anticipated QD-OLED TV, expand MicroLED lines - KED Global


Samsung's MicroLED TV Samsung Electronics Co., the world’s largest TV maker, will launch the much-anticipated QD-OLED TV in the first half of next year,



www.kedglobal.com


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> Samsung to launch much-anticipated QD-OLED TV, expand MicroLED lines
> New technology launches are aimed at strengthening its TV market leadership
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung to launch much-anticipated QD-OLED TV, expand MicroLED lines - KED Global
> 
> 
> Samsung's MicroLED TV Samsung Electronics Co., the world’s largest TV maker, will launch the much-anticipated QD-OLED TV in the first half of next year,
> 
> 
> 
> www.kedglobal.com


A couple things I found interesting:

‘The company will *initially launch the 55-inch and 65-inch models*, consumers' preferred sizes, and *later unveil larger 70-inch QD-OLED TVs*, according to industry officials.’

No mention of 8K or 4K, but if these are 4K TVs it’s going to be challenging for them to be priced competitively.

And the jump to 70” is also surprising (since they’ll only be able to manufacture 2 70” panels per 8.5G sheet, meaning 300% the cost of a 55” panel or 150% the cost of a 65” panel.

A 77” panel would have cost just about as much, but then there is this tidbit:

‘When launched, the QD-OLED TVs will be placed between its top-premium segment of MicroLED TVs and its flagship QLED lines.’

Positioning QD-BOLED below MicroLED is no surprise, but positioning QD-BOLED above QLED/LCD is a change (which makes sense since QD-BOLED is likely to be much more expensive than QLED/LCD).

And:

‘Industry officials said Samsung plans to build a new TV manufacturing facility in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam dedicated to making *smaller 77-inch and 88-inch MicroLED TVs*, scheduled for launch by the end of this year.’

So it seems as though SVD is likely following-through on their commitment to launch QD-BOLED next year but following a stipulations:

MicroLED is king of the hill and QD-BOLED is being positioned beneath MicroLED.

Large panel sizes (77”, 88”) being reserved for MicroLED and QD-BOLED being limited to smaller screen sizes (55”, 65”, and eventually 70”).

I also found this use of the word ‘could’ telling:

‘Samsung *could* showcase its first-ever QD-OLED TVs during next year’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in January, according to the sources.’

That lack of certainty from ‘Industry Sources’ is surprising, given their confidence on MicroLED:

‘Industry officials said Samsung plans to build a new TV manufacturing facility in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam dedicated to *making smaller 77-inch and 88-inch MicroLED TVs, scheduled for launch by the end of this year*.’

At first I read that to mean 77” and 88” MicroLED TVs will launch by the end of this year (which we know is not happening) but now I understand the the new MicroLED manufacturing plant in Vietnam will start bringing-up production by the end of 2021.

So it’s highly likely that these ‘Industry Sources’ were from SVD…


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> A couple things I found interesting:
> 
> ‘The company will *initially launch the 55-inch and 65-inch models*, consumers' preferred sizes, and *later unveil larger 70-inch QD-OLED TVs*, according to industry officials.’
> 
> No mention of 8K or 4K, but if these are 4K TVs it’s going to be challenging for them to be priced competitively.
> 
> And the jump to 70” is also surprising (since they’ll only be able to manufacture 2 70” panels per 8.5G sheet, meaning 300% the cost of a 55” panel or 150% the cost of a 65” panel.
> 
> A 77” panel would have cost just about as much, but then there is this tidbit:
> 
> ‘When launched, the QD-OLED TVs will be placed between its top-premium segment of MicroLED TVs and its flagship QLED lines.’
> 
> Positioning QD-BOLED below MicroLED is no surprise, but positioning QD-BOLED above QLED/LCD is a change (which makes sense since QD-BOLED is likely to be much more expensive than QLED/LCD).
> 
> And:
> 
> ‘Industry officials said Samsung plans to build a new TV manufacturing facility in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam dedicated to making *smaller 77-inch and 88-inch MicroLED TVs*, scheduled for launch by the end of this year.’
> 
> So it seems as though SVD is likely following-through on their commitment to launch QD-BOLED next year but following a stipulations:
> 
> MicroLED is king of the hill and QD-BOLED is being positioned beneath MicroLED.
> 
> Large panel sizes (77”, 88”) being reserved for MicroLED and QD-BOLED being limited to smaller screen sizes (55”, 65”, and eventually 70”).
> 
> I also found this use of the word ‘could’ telling:
> 
> ‘Samsung *could* showcase its first-ever QD-OLED TVs during next year’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in January, according to the sources.’
> 
> That lack of certainty from ‘Industry Sources’ is surprising, given their confidence on MicroLED:
> 
> ‘Industry officials said Samsung plans to build a new TV manufacturing facility in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam dedicated to *making smaller 77-inch and 88-inch MicroLED TVs, scheduled for launch by the end of this year*.’
> 
> At first I read that to mean 77” and 88” MicroLED TVs will launch by the end of this year (which we know is not happening) but now I understand the the new MicroLED manufacturing plant in Vietnam will start bringing-up production by the end of 2021.
> 
> So it’s highly likely that these ‘Industry Sources’ were from SVD…


I had read this article earlier today, and also saw the Musings post on KB Securities belief that QD-OLED mass production was moved up a quarter (or part of a quarter) into Q3.
Positioning QD-OLED (QNED later hopefully) under uLED is a requirement both due to cost (primarily) and years-long hype associated with uLED, IMO. Agreed that positioning above QLED right out of the gate was a little surprising. While cost (and therefore price) is obviously higher initially, if performance isn't obviously better than QLED out of the gate, then it might be a little uncomfortable for the marketers to dance around this until performance provides an obvious separation.
If uLED never makes it into mainstream premium segment, then QNED could be a pretty good fallback position in out years.









QD-OLED Mass Production Moved Up 1 Quarter to Q321_07/25/21


QD-OLED Mass Production Moved Up 1 Quarter to Q321 Kim Dongwon, a researcher at KB Securities in South Korea, said that plans for mass producing QD-OLED panels has been advanced from the...



www.oled-a.org


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I had read this article earlier today, and also saw the Musings post on KB Securities belief that QD-OLED mass production was moved up a quarter (or part of a quarter) into Q3.
> Positioning QD-OLED (QNED later hopefully) under uLED is a requirement both due to cost (primarily) and years-long hype associated with uLED, IMO. Agreed that positioning above QLED right out of the gate was a little surprising. While cost (and therefore price) is obviously higher initially, if performance isn't obviously better than QLED out of the gate, then it might be a little uncomfortable for the marketers to dance around this until performance provides an obvious separation.
> If uLED never makes it into mainstream premium segment, then QNED could be a pretty good fallback position in out years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QD-OLED Mass Production Moved Up 1 Quarter to Q321_07/25/21
> 
> 
> QD-OLED Mass Production Moved Up 1 Quarter to Q321 Kim Dongwon, a researcher at KB Securities in South Korea, said that plans for mass producing QD-OLED panels has been advanced from the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-a.org


Yeah, I saw that Musings last weekend but took it with a grain of salt given the September ‘market survey’ (which is still pending).

One way to read all of these different tea leaves is that SVD has agreed to launch 55” & 65” QD-BOLED TVs next year (I’m guessing 8K but still unclear) regardless of whether Sony and/or Panasonic are also interested or not. This would allow Samsung Display to begin to ramp production.

Since the September market-survey / decision point was primarily aimed at the decision to convert another 8.5G LCD fab to QD-BOLED early next year and since it seems Samsung Display has already agreed to extend LCD production for another year at SVD’s request, all decisions to be made in September could be set now regardless of what Sony decides.

Positioning QD-BOLED was always going to be a challenge due to price: QD-BOLED TVs are almost certain to be much more expensive than QLED/LCD, including MiniLED Neo-QLED/LCD.

The last shoe to drop may be whether SVD also launches WOLED next year (in which case QLED might get sandwiched between QD-BOLED above and WOLED below)…


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> So if we anticipate a 2022 G2 WOLED TV combining a Panasonic-like heatsink ('plate') with a 3S4C / WBE / Evo WOLED panel, delivering >1000 Nit peak brightness levels seems highly-likely (and possibly close to 1100 Nits).
> 
> Since we first heard about the new 3S4C WOLED stack, I've had the suspicion that LGD was keeping a lot of the potential performance improvements under wraps and close to their chest this cycle (2021). This article pretty much confirms that and suggests it is concern for 2022 or possibly 2023 that is driving LGD to innovate ways to keep WOLED out in front of the coming Emissive competition...


You don't need to wait for 2022. Sony is already shipping TVs (A90J) with heatsink and updated OLED panels. They can only sustain over 1000 nits for a few seconds and only at extremely high 9600K color temperature. In any accurate picture mode, they are not much better than LG's 2021 offerings. Why do you think LG will do much better using a similar design and panel in 2022? It will probably just be much cheaper if produced at large volume by LGD.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> You don't need to wait for 2022. Sony is already shipping TVs (A90J) with heatsink and updated OLED panels. They can only sustain over 1000 nits for a few seconds and only at extremely high 9600K color temperature. In any accurate picture mode, they are not much better than LG's 2021 offerings. *Why do you think LG will do much better using a similar design and panel in 2022? * It will probably just be much cheaper if produced at large volume by LGD.


Sony has always been more conservative with WOLED ABL limitthan LGE.

CTM Audi measured 850 Nits @ 2% on his 77G1 with standard White Point and 890 Nits @ 2% with D-Nice’s perceptually-matched AWP (which pushes blue and green a bit).

So I don’t think LGD would be going to the trouble of integrating a heatsink into the panel if it delivered much less than a 20% boost to peak brightness levels compared to the G1…

So with standard WP I’m expecting the P2 (‘Plate’) to deliver over 1000 Nits of instantaneous / burst peak brightness and using D-Nice’s AWP, possibly achieving instantaneous / burst 2% peak levels approaching 1100 Nits…

P.S. I went back to compare the Rtings reviews of the A90J to the A80J, and while it is still unclear to me whether the A80J also uses the new 3S4C WOLED panel, their measurements indicate an across-the-board increase in peak brightness levels of 15% for the A90J (with heatsink) over the A80J (without).

So a 15% increase in peak brightness levels on the P2 is probably more realistic, which translates to 2% peak levels of ~980 Nits with default whitepoint or ~1020 Nits with D-Nice’s AWP…

P.P.S. Turns out CTM Audi’s measurements were in a game mode (which may have boosted output levels).

In the most accurate Cinema mode using D-Nice’s AWP he measured 10% peak white of 806 Nits, not 890. So a 15% bump in brightness levels from a heatsink on the D2 would bring peak brightness levels to ~925 cd/m2 (10% higher than what Rtings measured on the A90J).


----------



## stl8k

LG Display Q2 Conference Call Audio



https://yvhrpsbbzkdb6082755.cdn.ntruss.com/210728LGDisplay.mp3



🤫


----------



## 59LIHP

LG Display Reports Second Quarter 2021 Results





Press Release - Press Center | LG Display


Find the latest press releases of LG Display, or search by topic.




www.lgdisplay.com


----------



## 59LIHP

LG Display’s large OLED, 8-year investment is about to pay off… "Realization of surplus in the second half"








LG디스플레이 대형 OLED, 8년 투자 결실 눈앞…"하반기 흑자 실현"


LG디스플레이가 마침내 대형 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 패널 사업 흑자 달성에 다가섰다. TV에 사용되는 대형 OLED 패널은 LG디스플레이가 전 세계 유일 양산에 나섰지만 그동안 시장 개화 지연, 생산 및 공급 차질로...




www.etnews.com












LG디스플레이 대형 OLED, 8년 투자 결실 눈앞…"하반기 흑자 실현"


LG디스플레이가 마침내 대형 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 패널 사업 흑자 달성에 다가섰다. TV에 사용되는 대형 OLED 패널은 LG디스플레이가 전 세계 유일 양산에 나섰지만 그동안 시장 개화 지연, 생산 및 공급 차질로...




translate.google.com





Edit:

LG Display's large OLED, 8-year investment is about to pay off... "Realization of surplus in the second half" 








LG Display's large OLED, 8-year investment is about to pay off... "Realization of surplus in the second half"


LG Display has finally reached surplus in the large-scale organic light emitting diode (OLED) panel business. LG Display is the only company in the world to mass-produce large OLED panels used in TVs,




english.etnews.com


----------



## 59LIHP

OLED vs MicroLED - a technology comparison













OLED vs MicroLED - a technology comparison | OLED Info


MicroLED displays are exciting to many, as the technology seems to be the front runner for the next-generation display of choice in many market segments - from AR/VR glasses through wearables to TVs and IT displays.The MicroLED industry though, even after billions of dollars spent on R&D, is...




www.oled-info.com


----------



## 59LIHP

59LIHP said:


> _Supertest OLED EVO LG 55G1 4K👏
> "The first TV from LG Electronics, equipped with the new 'EVO' technology, brings with it tangible improvements in image quality, in the richness of shades - especially in low lights - as well as operating system, menus and some improved functions"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supertest OLED EVO LG 55G1 4K
> 
> 
> Il primo TV di LG Electronics, dotato della nuova tecnologia 'EVO', porta con sé tangibili miglioramenti nella qualità d'immagine, nella ricchezza di sfumature - soprattutto nelle basse luci - oltre a sistema operativo, menu e alcune funzioni migliorate
> 
> 
> 
> www.avmagazine.it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _LG OLED 55G1 EVO pixel structure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


The new OLED panel of LG EVO TVs
















Il nuovo pannello OLED dei TV LG EVO


Le innovazioni di LG Electronics quest'anno segnano un ulteriore primato, grazie alla disponibilità dei nuovi TV OLED con tecnologia EVO: in questo articolo troverete la nostra analisi su alcune delle innovazioni del nuovo pannello OLED da 55, in collaborazione con LG Electronics



www.avmagazine.it












Il nuovo pannello OLED dei TV LG EVO


Le innovazioni di LG Electronics quest'anno segnano un ulteriore primato, grazie alla disponibilità dei nuovi TV OLED con tecnologia EVO: in questo articolo troverete la nostra analisi su alcune delle innovazioni del nuovo pannello OLED da 55, in collaborazione con LG Electronics



translate.google.com


----------



## chros73

Vincent's stake on Samsung oleds:


----------



## fafrd

This is as good a summary as any I’ve seen regarding Samsung’s plan for QD-BOLED:









QD-OLED TVs Expected in H122_08/02/21


QD-OLED TVs Expected in H122 Samsung Electronics vice chairman Jay Y. Lee and the heir apparent to the Samsung Group’s chairman position, should be very pleased when he is released from jail in...



www.oled-a.org





As I’ve stated in the dedicated thread, my guess is that 65” 8K is the primary target for TV panels and the 55” TVs will be manufactured as a byproduct of MMG.

Samsung may attempt to sell 8K 55” TVs at prices of ~$3500-$4500 but I doubt those will find interest levels close to that of 65” 8K QD-BOLEDs costing ~$7000 (or eventually even less).

And the reference to introducing a 70” QD-BOLED later in the year is clearly a reference to waiting for yields to improve to the point that that would not be disasterous.

Where LGD chose to ramp their yields with 55” panels and move to 65” and then 77” panels as yields improved, Samsung seems to be relying on smaller 33” monitor panels to ramp their yields:Samsung planning to launch QD-OLED monitor

‘- _"(Samsung's) Visual Display division, which is also responsible for monitors and notebooks has agreed to sell QDOLED high end monitors in the 33” to 35” range, almost as a way of expressing some corporate loyalty,"_ wrote Barry Young.’

That article is 18 months old now but it is clear Samsung is planning to introduce QD-BOLED monitors and 33” to 35” is a sensible target.

8.5G is optimum for 33” monitor manufacturing (18-up) and so my guess is that Samsung plans to start manufacturing both:

3 8K 65” with 2 8K 55” and
3 8K 65” with 6 4K 33”

And adjust the mix between 55” and 33” to market reception.

It’s unclear if there is much of any market at all for 55” 8K TVs (especially at excessively high costs) while LGE’s recently-introduced 32” IJP-RGB 4K OLED monitor priced at $4000, suggests Samsung is likely to find much more success with a 33” 4K QD-BOLED monitor priced at prices as low as half that level…

So using LGD’s currently-assumed yield of 95% on 55” WOLED production as a reference point, it’s interesting to understand what Samsung’s QD-BOLED yields would look like once yields reach ~half LGD’s current level:

If LGD has 55” yields of ~95% that translates to 65” yields of ~93.3%

If we assume Samsung has 65” yield of ~half of LGD’s level or ~47% that translates to 70” yields of ~35% (probably a non-starter to begin 70” panel production).

If we assume Samsung wants yields of at least 50% before starting 70” QD-BOLED panel production, that would translate to a ~33% reduction in defectivity rate, meaning 65” yields of over 70%.

70% yield when manufacturing 65” panels on 8.5G is an interesting threshold because it corresponds to an average of ~1 defect per 65” panel area or an average of ~1.5 defects per 8.5G sheet.

An average defectivity rate 1.5 defects per 8.5G panel translates to:

55” yield of 76.4%
65” yield of 69.1%
70” yield of 68.1%
33” yield of 91.8%

So my guess is that Samsung’s going to be pumping out a large number of 33” monitors before we see a 70” QD-BOLED TV…


----------



## fafrd

This is as good a summary as any I’ve seen regarding Samsung’s plan for QD-BOLED:









QD-OLED TVs Expected in H122_08/02/21


QD-OLED TVs Expected in H122 Samsung Electronics vice chairman Jay Y. Lee and the heir apparent to the Samsung Group’s chairman position, should be very pleased when he is released from jail in...



www.oled-a.org





As I’ve stated in the dedicated thread, my guess is that 65” 8K is the primary target for TV panels and the 55” TVs will be manufactured as a byproduct of MMG.

Samsung may attempt to sell 8K 55” TVs at prices of ~$4500 but I doubt those will find interest levels close to that of 65” 8K QD-BOLEDs costing ~$7000.

And the reference to introducing a 70” QD-BOLED later in the year is clearly a reference to waiting for yields to improve to the point that that would not be disasterous.

Where LGD chose to ramp their yields with 55” panels and move to 65” and then 77” panels as yields improved, Samsung seems to be relying on smaller 33-35” monitor panels to ramp their yields: Samsung planning to launch QD-OLED monitor

‘- _"(Samsung's) Visual Display division, which is also responsible for monitors and notebooks has agreed to sell QDOLED high end *monitors in the 33” to 35” range*, almost as a way of expressing some corporate loyalty,"_ wrote Barry Young.’

That article is 18 months old now but it is clear Samsung is planning to introduce QD-BOLED monitors and 33” to 35” is a sensible target.

8.5G is optimum for both 33” (18-up for 95% efficiency) and 35” (15-up for 92% efficiency) monitor manufacturing and so my guess is that Samsung plans to start manufacturing both:

3 8K 65” with 2 8K 55” and
3 8K 65” with 6 4K 33” or
15 4K 35”

33” monitors allow Samsung to adjust the mix between 55” and 33” to adapt to market reception, but 35” allows them to easily manufacture 2 8K 70” with 7 4K 35” using MMG once yields have improved enough.

It’s unclear if there is much of any market at all for 55” 8K TVs (especially at excessively high costs) while LGE’s recently-introduced 32” IJP-RGB 4K OLED monitor priced at $4000, suggests Samsung is likely to find much more success with a 33” or 35” 4K QD-BOLED monitor priced at prices as low as half that level…

So using LGD’s currently-assumed yield of 95% on 55” WOLED production as a reference point, it’s interesting to understand what Samsung’s QD-BOLED yields would look like once yields reach ~half LGD’s current level:

If LGD has 55” yields of 95% that translates to 65” yields of ~93.3%

If we assume Samsung achieves 65” yield of ~half of LGD’s level or 47%, that translates to an average of ~3 defects per 8.5G sheet.

An average defectivity of 3 defects per 8.5G sheet translates to a yield of ~27.6% when manufacturing 2 70” panels - probably a non-starter.

If we consider the yields once defectivity has been halved to an average of 1.5 defects per 8.5G sheet, things look alot better:

55” yield of 76.4%
65” yield of 69.1%
70” yield of 68.4%

And even average defectivity of 2 defects per 8.5G sheet may be good enough for Samsung to launch 70” panel production, as it translates to:

70” yield of 53.4%
65” yield of 60.5%
55” yield of 69.4%
35” yield of 87.1%

55” WOLED yields achieving 70% was a big milestone for LGD and Samsung Display may be looking for 65” yields to reach 60% or 35” monitor yields to exceed 85% as a similar milestone of maturity before beginning 70” QD-BOLED production…


----------



## 59LIHP

'Samsung Display focusing on securing uniformity in QNED panel'

























'Samsung Display focusing on securing uniformity in QNED panel'


Samsung Display was currently focusing on securing the screen uniformity of its quantum dot nanorod LED (QNED) display panel, as it wraps up development, market research firm UBI Research said on Friday.The research firm unveiled core patents filed by Samsung Display it found, which shows the struct




www.thelec.net





Edit:

"Samsung Display QNED, the best in structure" UBI Research








"삼성디스플레이 QNED, 구조부터 최상" 유비리서치


시장조사업체 유비리서치는 "삼성디스플레이가 개발 중인 차세대 디스플레이 퀀텀닷 나노로드 발광다이오드(QNED:Quantum dot Nano-rod LED)는 구조부터 최상의 디스플레이"라고 평가했다.유비리서치는 30일 삼성디스플레이의 QNED 핵심 특허를 공개하면서 이같이 밝혔다.유비리서치에 따르면 QNED는 대형 유기발광다이오드(OLED)가 사용하는 3T1C(트랜지스터3·커패시터1)의 박막트랜지스터(TFT) 위에 나노로드 LED 화소층, 그리고 퀀텀닷(QD)과 컬러필터(CF) 등 색변환층을 차례로 올린다.OLED는 화소에 신호를




www.thelec.kr












"삼성디스플레이 QNED, 구조부터 최상" 유비리서치


시장조사업체 유비리서치는 "삼성디스플레이가 개발 중인 차세대 디스플레이 퀀텀닷 나노로드 발광다이오드(QNED:Quantum dot Nano-rod LED)는 구조부터 최상의 디스플레이"라고 평가했다.유비리서치는 30일 삼성디스플레이의 QNED 핵심 특허를 공개하면서 이같이 밝혔다.유비리서치에 따르면 QNED는 대형 유기발광다이오드(OLED)가 사용하는 3T1C(트랜지스터3·커패시터1)의 박막트랜지스터(TFT) 위에 나노로드 LED 화소층, 그리고 퀀텀닷(QD)과 컬러필터(CF) 등 색변환층을 차례로 올린다.OLED는 화소에 신호를




translate.google.com







> UBI Research said, "QNED was proven to drive 65 inches with 4K resolution two years ago.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> 'Samsung Display focusing on securing uniformity in QNED panel'
> View attachment 3160486
> 
> View attachment 3160487
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Samsung Display focusing on securing uniformity in QNED panel'
> 
> 
> Samsung Display was currently focusing on securing the screen uniformity of its quantum dot nanorod LED (QNED) display panel, as it wraps up development, market research firm UBI Research said on Friday.The research firm unveiled core patents filed by Samsung Display it found, which shows the struct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net


I love how UBI ends their article:

‘“It can be confirmed” by the structures UBI Research analyzed that QNED is the display with the best characteristics, the firm claimed.’

If we can find a Samsung QNED display on the shelves of our local Best Buys before the end of 2025, I’ll be shocked…


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> As I’ve stated in the dedicated thread, my guess is that 65” 8K is the primary target for TV panels and the 55” TVs will be manufactured as a byproduct of MMG.
> 
> Samsung may attempt to sell 8K 55” TVs at prices of ~$3500-$4500 but I doubt those will find interest levels close to that of 65” 8K QD-BOLEDs costing ~$7000 (or eventually even less).


How do you know that the QD-Oled will be 8k?


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> How do you know that the QD-Oled will be 8k?


Well I know they are going to be exceedingly expensive to start and we’ve been told they will be top-emission (which makes 8K easier because of increased PAR).

So it’s a near-certainty that Samsung will attempt to open up a niche for their new premium technology by selling premium Flagship 8K TVs (65” for sure, possibly/probably also 55”).

Could they sell 4K version's as well? Perhaps, but since they’ll cost about as much as the 8K version, I doubt it.

Which has a better chance of winning customers in 2022, a $7000 65” 8K OLED or a $7000 65” 4K OLED?

I suspect the 55” panels are being produced as a byproduct of 65” panel production for now (during ramp-up), and there is pretty much no market for 55” 8K Tv’s today, so perhaps Samsung will make the 55” models 4K and sell at a steep discount just to get rid of them, but even at ‘only’ double the price of LG’s 55” 4K WOLEDs, how much success do you think a 4K TV offering is likely to have in today’s market?


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> This is as good a summary as any I’ve seen regarding Samsung’s plan for QD-BOLED:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QD-OLED TVs Expected in H122_08/02/21
> 
> 
> QD-OLED TVs Expected in H122 Samsung Electronics vice chairman Jay Y. Lee and the heir apparent to the Samsung Group’s chairman position, should be very pleased when he is released from jail in...
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-a.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I’ve stated in the dedicated thread, my guess is that 65” 8K is the primary target for TV panels and the 55” TVs will be manufactured as a byproduct of MMG.
> 
> Samsung may attempt to sell 8K 55” TVs at prices of ~$4500 but I doubt those will find interest levels close to that of 65” 8K QD-BOLEDs costing ~$7000.
> 
> And the reference to introducing a 70” QD-BOLED later in the year is clearly a reference to waiting for yields to improve to the point that that would not be disasterous.
> 
> Where LGD chose to ramp their yields with 55” panels and move to 65” and then 77” panels as yields improved, Samsung seems to be relying on smaller 33-35” monitor panels to ramp their yields: Samsung planning to launch QD-OLED monitor
> 
> ‘- _"(Samsung's) Visual Display division, which is also responsible for monitors and notebooks has agreed to sell QDOLED high end *monitors in the 33” to 35” range*, almost as a way of expressing some corporate loyalty,"_ wrote Barry Young.’
> 
> That article is 18 months old now but it is clear Samsung is planning to introduce QD-BOLED monitors and 33” to 35” is a sensible target.
> 
> 8.5G is optimum for both 33” (18-up for 95% efficiency) and 35” (15-up for 92% efficiency) monitor manufacturing and so my guess is that Samsung plans to start manufacturing both:
> 
> 3 8K 65” with 2 8K 55” and
> 3 8K 65” with 6 4K 33” or
> 15 4K 35”
> 
> 33” monitors allow Samsung to adjust the mix between 55” and 33” to adapt to market reception, but 35” allows them to easily manufacture 2 8K 70” with 7 4K 35” using MMG once yields have improved enough.
> 
> It’s unclear if there is much of any market at all for 55” 8K TVs (especially at excessively high costs) while LGE’s recently-introduced 32” IJP-RGB 4K OLED monitor priced at $4000, suggests Samsung is likely to find much more success with a 33” or 35” 4K QD-BOLED monitor priced at prices as low as half that level…
> 
> So using LGD’s currently-assumed yield of 95% on 55” WOLED production as a reference point, it’s interesting to understand what Samsung’s QD-BOLED yields would look like once yields reach ~half LGD’s current level:
> 
> If LGD has 55” yields of 95% that translates to 65” yields of ~93.3%
> 
> If we assume Samsung achieves 65” yield of ~half of LGD’s level or 47%, that translates to an average of ~3 defects per 8.5G sheet.
> 
> An average defectivity of 3 defects per 8.5G sheet translates to a yield of ~27.6% when manufacturing 2 70” panels - probably a non-starter.
> 
> If we consider the yields once defectivity has been halved to an average of 1.5 defects per 8.5G sheet, things look alot better:
> 
> 55” yield of 76.4%
> 65” yield of 69.1%
> 70” yield of 68.4%
> 
> And even average defectivity of 2 defects per 8.5G sheet may be good enough for Samsung to launch 70” panel production, as it translates to:
> 
> 70” yield of 53.4%
> 65” yield of 60.5%
> 55” yield of 69.4%
> 35” yield of 87.1%
> 
> 55” WOLED yields achieving 70% was a big milestone for LGD and Samsung Display may be looking for 65” yields to reach 60% or 35” monitor yields to exceed 85% as a similar milestone of maturity before beginning 70” QD-BOLED production…


I’ve been a bit mystified by LG’s decision to launch a 42” WOLED panel this year after understanding even the new 83” panels can easily accommodate 2 48” panels with MMG.

Seeing that Samsung has clearly laid out a roadmap to introduce a 70” QD-BOLED panel once yields have stabilized, I circled-back to understand the efficiency of a 70” panel I’d never thought twice about on 8.5G.

It turns out that 70” (or even 71”) actually fits pretty well with 42” with MMG.

4 42” panels fit perfectly across the short (2200mm) side of an 8.5G panel and the remaining space will hold 2 70” or even 2 71” panels.

LGD is currently manufacturing 2 77” panels with 2 48” panels for an 8.5G efficiency of ~82.5% and manufacturing 2 70” or 71” panels with 4 42” panels delivers efficiency of 83.4% (70”) to 84.8% (71”).

Especially since we now know that Samsung is planning to introduce a 70” OLED TV panel late next year, I won’t be the least bit surprised to see LG announce their own 70-71” WOLED panel at CES in January…


----------



## 59LIHP

QNED (quantum dot nano-rod LED) structure and core technology
















QNED (quantum dot nano-rod LED) 구조와 핵심 기술 | OLEDNET


삼성디스플레이 연구소는OLED에 이은 차세대 디스플레이로서QNED 개발에 박차를 가하고 있다. 삼성디스플레이가 QNED를 대형 디스플레이 사업의 일환으로 개발하고 있는 이유는, 삼성디스플레이의 가장 큰 고객사인 삼성전자가 만족할 수 있는 화질을 낼 수 있는 유일한 디스플레이이기 때문이다.




olednet.com












QNED (quantum dot nano-rod LED) 구조와 핵심 기술 | OLEDNET


삼성디스플레이 연구소는OLED에 이은 차세대 디스플레이로서QNED 개발에 박차를 가하고 있다. 삼성디스플레이가 QNED를 대형 디스플레이 사업의 일환으로 개발하고 있는 이유는, 삼성디스플레이의 가장 큰 고객사인 삼성전자가 만족할 수 있는 화질을 낼 수 있는 유일한 디스플레이이기 때문이다.




translate.google.com







> QNED has already proven that 4K 65 inches can be driven two years ago. Samsung Display is concentrating on finishing work to secure the screen uniformity of QNED.


----------



## CA22EF

I also found the G1 and A90J T-CON boards.
OLED55G1RLA AC550AQL WNA1_MA
OLED65G1RLA AC650AQL WPA1_MA
OLED65GX6LA AC55AQL WNA1

OBM is used for all three models.

Next is A90J.
XR-55A90J LE550PQL-HPA2
SONY Custom module name YDBO055UTG01
XBR-55A8H LE550PQL-HNA1-TCA
SONY Custom module name YDAS055UNG01

These two models also use OBM.
There was no significant difference in the board layout of both G1 and A90J compared to the previous year.

by UL


> Applicable SKUs:
> 4K : LE480*Q*, LE550*Q*, LE650*Q*, LE770*Q* LE830*Q*
> 8K : LE770*Z*, LE880*Z*
> Model differences:
> 1’st * : A(Flat), F(Bendable), P(Without Back cover), R(Rollable) Q : 4K UHD, Z : 8K UHD
> 2’nd * : D(120Hz, OCM), L(120Hz, OBM), P(120Hz, CSO), N(60Hz , OCM), Y(60Hz, OBM)
> where OCM : Module (Panel + Back cover), OBM : Panel only, CSO : Audio Exciter embedded


----------



## CA22EF

LG Electronics, Sony, TPV, and Skyworth, which invested in the OBM project in 2020, may have preferential.
It is only SONY that evo is confirmed in a third party at the present...
I'm curious to see what Philips is up to.
https://omdia.tech.informa.com/OM00...crease-its-OLED-business-through-OBM-projects


> As of 2020, the number of customers that invested in OBM has expanded to four: LG Electronics, Sony, TPV, and Skyworth. Panasonic could be LG Display’s next customer. The aforementioned customers have invested in and produced OBM projects for themselves. LG Electronics invested in an OBM fab in Korea, Mexico, and Poland, whereas Sony invested in Malaysia. Expansions might continue in the future because LG Display might change all of its business modes from OLED customized module (OCM) to OBM.





https://omdia.tech.informa.com/-/media/tech/omdia/assetfamily/2020/05/21/display-dynamics-lg-display-will-increase-its-oled-business-through-obm-projects/623724.jpg


https://inf.news/en/digital/3f65efe6a481e5a2de608197211eb907.html


> As early as August 2019, Skyworth officially announced the successful launch of its own OLED module (OBM), which marked that Skyworth became the first domestic TV manufacturer and the second global TV manufacturer with OBM capabilities and qualifications. What is OBM? OBM, the full name of OLED Basic Module, refers to the entire process of R&D, design, system testing, and manufacturing of OLED modules independently completed by TV manufacturers. At present, only a few companies worldwide have this qualification.


----------



## fafrd

CA22EF said:


> LG Electronics, Sony, TPV, and Skyworth, which invested in the OBM project in 2020, may have preferential.
> It is only SONY that evo is confirmed in a third party at the present...
> I'm curious to see what Philips is up to.
> https://omdia.tech.informa.com/OM00...crease-its-OLED-business-through-OBM-projects
> 
> 
> 
> https://omdia.tech.informa.com/-/media/tech/omdia/assetfamily/2020/05/21/display-dynamics-lg-display-will-increase-its-oled-business-through-obm-projects/623724.jpg
> 
> 
> https://inf.news/en/digital/3f65efe6a481e5a2de608197211eb907.html


So is there any difference between this ‘OBM’ panel and what was being called ‘Open Cell’ WOLED panels last year?






LG to start offering open cell OLED TV panels from its Guangzhou fab | OLED-Info







www.google.com





And now that LGD is apparently poised to offer ‘Plate’ WOLED modules with integrated heatsinks next year, it’ll be interesting to see how that figures into this whole OBM concept…

I suppose ‘low-end’ WOLED TVs may be based on bare-bones OBM modules while premium offerings which include either Crystal Sound and/or Plate heatsinks could be based on the more advanced / expensive modules LGD is offering…


----------



## CA22EF

I think this article is also useful in understanding OBM.








LG Display cambia strategia. I TV OLED non saranno più tutti uguali e costeranno meno


Xiaomi ha creato un TV trasparente e ha dichiarato di essere diventata il più grande produttore di moduli OLED per TV in Cina. Ci è riuscita grazie al cambiamento di LG Display che ha iniziato una nuova strategia: farà costruire i moduli ai clienti, e il risultato saranno televisori con...




www.dday.it


----------



## ALMA

Product page for QD-OLED with first specs (1000nits, 80% BT.2020, 4K):



> The QD display has a very high degree of color purity of blue light produced from the blue light source, and the color purity of red and green that receive this light and form the QD device is high. With this high color purity, this technology has one of the broadest color expressions among current displays. Also, it can express a very broad range of colors at any brightness, from dark to light. *Based on BT.2020 Color Volume*, a typical large display has a color volume of less than 60%. But *QD displays can express a color volume of above 80%*.





> Conventional displays limit screen brightness because of light source or power consumption issues. With the backlight unit as the light source, it is almost impossible for LCDs to control the brightness of each individual pixel, limiting their ability to show you perfect blacks on screen. Unlike LCDs, the blue light source of the QD display can control the light source of each individual pixel. *QD displays with 4K resolution has about 8.3 million (3840x2160) light sources that can be controlled separately. This way, the QD display enables a high contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1 for perfect blacks to compose a deeper and more detailed image quality.*





> *Images that feel brighter than they actually are*
> When you perceive the brightness of a display, you are not only seeing the actual physical brightness of the display, but also the expressiveness of blacks and color saturation. Even with the same luminance, the contrast looks different depending on the contrast of the background. The better the display shows the blacks, the brighter it looks. Also, the brightness feels different depending on the color type. The higher the saturation of the same color, the brighter it looks. *But the QD display's excellent expression of blacks and a broader range of colors makes the display look brighter than it actually is.*











#










Samsung Display | Products/Technology – QD-OLED


Quantum dots that emit their own light can compose a wide range of detailed and precise colors at every contrast level.




www.samsungdisplay.com


----------



## thadoggfather

fafrd said:


> So is there any difference between this ‘OBM’ panel and what was being called ‘Open Cell’ WOLED panels last year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG to start offering open cell OLED TV panels from its Guangzhou fab | OLED-Info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now that LGD is apparently poised to offer ‘Plate’ WOLED modules with integrated heatsinks next year, it’ll be interesting to see how that figures into this whole OBM concept…
> 
> I suppose ‘low-end’ WOLED TVs may be based on bare-bones OBM modules while premium offerings which include either Crystal Sound and/or Plate heatsinks could be based on the more advanced / expensive modules LGD is offering…


it is curious Sony beat LG to the punch for the heat sink brightness gains on a90j vs. 2021 lg’s that don’t have a high end model offering that

as well as 2021 Sony’s being available in the supply chain at distributors and retailers a bit sooner than the 2021 LG’s though the point is moot now that you can find either anywhere


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> Product page for QD-OLED with first specs (1000nits, 80% BT.2020, 4K):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Display | Products/Technology – QD-OLED
> 
> 
> Quantum dots that emit their own light can compose a wide range of detailed and precise colors at every contrast level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.samsungdisplay.com


The only reference to 1000 Nits seems to be in that one chart - it’ll be interesting to see what that translates to in the wild.

In any case, the likelihood we actually see QD-OLED TVs launch next year just too went up significantly…


----------



## fafrd

thadoggfather said:


> it is curious Sony beat LG to the punch for the heat sink brightness gains on a90j vs. 2021 lg’s that don’t have a high end model offering that
> 
> as well as 2021 Sony’s being available in the supply chain at distributors and retailers a bit sooner than the 2021 LG’s though the point is moot now that you can find either anywhere


I think the key point is that Sony (and Panasonic) invested in developing their own heatsinks while LGE waited for LGD decided to invest in making heatsink a standard option for WOLED panels.

I’m also not going to rule out the possibility that the A90J is already based on heatsink technology from LGD. Sony has Crystal Sound first despite LGD developing the technology, and I can easily imaging LGD offering Sony first crack at new integrated-heat sink technology they were developing.

Between the G1 not being offered in 83” and the Sony A90J having a heatsink a year before LGD offers similar capability to all customers, it’s entirely possible that one of the ‘prices’ LGD had to make in order to get Sony on the WOLED bandwagon in the early days was one-year exclusivity on all new WOLED technologies/offerings introduced by LGD…

Just to point out that LGD may already be producing integrated heat sinks and we just don’t know it yet…


----------



## thadoggfather

fafrd said:


> I think the key point is that Sony (and Panasonic) invested in developing their own heatsinks while LGE waited for LGD decided to invest in making heatsink a standard option for WOLED panels.
> 
> I’m also not going to rule out the possibility that the A90J is already based on heatsink technology from LGD. Sony has Crystal Sound first despite LGD developing the technology, and I can easily imaging LGD offering Sony first crack at new integrated-heat sink technology they were developing.
> 
> _*Between the G1 not being offered in 83” *_and the Sony A90J having a heatsink a year before LGD offers similar capability to all customers, it’s entirely possible that one of the ‘prices’ LGD had to make in order to get Sony on the WOLED bandwagon in the early days was one-year exclusivity on all new WOLED technologies/offerings introduced by LGD…
> 
> Just to point out that LGD may already be producing integrated heat sinks and we just don’t know it yet…


Did not know there was no 83 G1. interesting!

They definitely have a symbiotic relationship regardless, but some interesting points you bring up!


----------



## fafrd

thadoggfather said:


> Did not know there was no 83 G1. interesting!
> 
> They definitely have a symbiotic relationship regardless, but some interesting points you bring up!


Let’s face it, Sony’s decision to adopt LGD’s WOLED in 2016 (for A1E introduction in 2017) literally put WOLED over the hump.

It’s hard to imagine what WOLED’s future would have been if LGD didn’t have Sony in the market at the height of the Burn-In-Scare, the Brightness Wars, and Samsung’s UHD Alliance.

So if Sony demanded guarantees that they would always have access to LGD’s latest and greatest WOLED developments a year before any competitors including LGE, I’d say Sony is a savvy negotiator and LGD probably made the right call in accepting their hardball offer.

I have no information to this effect, it’s just a pure speculation I’ve entertained ever since we saw Sony launch LGD’s Crystal Sound a year before LGE…


----------



## 59LIHP

World First: WOLED Display with an a-Si Backplane
















World First: WOLED Display with an a-Si Backplane


Of those things that are accepted wisdoms in the display industry, one of them is that a-Si (the standard backplane for 75% of the display industry) is simply not stable enough to drive AMOLED displays. AUO tried back in 2003 and came up with an RGB demo but ultimately failed. Since, more...




www.displaydaily.com


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Blue OLED is called "blue self-luminescent layer". I love marketers


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Blue OLED is called "blue self-luminescent layer". I love marketers


per post 17514....I screwed up my edit. doh.


----------



## Adonisds

ALMA said:


> Product page for QD-OLED with first specs (1000nits, 80% BT.2020, 4K):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Display | Products/Technology – QD-OLED
> 
> 
> Quantum dots that emit their own light can compose a wide range of detailed and precise colors at every contrast level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.samsungdisplay.com


What is the burn in susceptbility of this panel expected to be compared to current and previous WOLEDs?


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> What is the burn in susceptbility of this panel expected to be compared to current and previous WOLEDs?


Hopefully better than previous-generation WOLEDs (and especially the 2016 WOLEDs), but unlikely to be any better than the 2021 Evo-WOLEDs (which are essentially already impossible to burn-in).


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> The only reference to 1000 Nits seems to be in that one chart - it’ll be interesting to see what that translates to in the wild.


Especially since they say "the display looks brighter than it actually is".


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> Hopefully better than previous-generation WOLEDs (and especially the 2016 WOLEDs), but unlikely to be any better than the 2021 Evo-WOLEDs (which are essentially already impossible to burn-in).


I thought it was supposed to be bad because the blue OLEDs have the shortest life by far. What compensates that?


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> I thought it was supposed to be bad because the blue OLEDs have the shortest life by far. What compensates that?


Blue has the shortest lifetime but also the smallest contribution to white (6-7%).

LGD more than compensated for that on WOLED by doubling up on blue layers (compared to ~1/3rd of a layer for Red, ~1/3rd of a layer for Deep Green, and ~1/3rd if a layer for Yellow = Red+Green).

Blue is probably the color least likely to burn-in on WOLED (where historically Red has been the first color to burn-in).

On QD-BOLED, Samsung apparently has 4 Blue OLED layers, so the unfiltered blue subpixel will be ~2.35 times stronger than WOLED’s filtered blue pixel and the real challenge will be green.

White is 60-65% green, so a display must be able to generate more green photons than any other color (and ~10 times more green photons than blue photons).

WOLED has a highly-efficient and long-lifetime green OLED emitter, and even ~1/3 of a full layer through a color filter provides sufficient green output with long lifetime.

QD-BOLED needs to rely on those same 4 blue OLED layers to generate all of the blue photons to be converted to green photons, so the green subpixel in QD-BOLED will need to be much bigger than the blue subpixel (as well as the red subpixel).

To make matters worse, green Quantum Dots are less than 50% efficient and the blue-blocking color filter needed to block those unconverted blue photons also blocks ~15% of the green photons.

All-in, the green subpixel is only about 40% efficient, meaning a green subpixel generating 10 times the photons of the blue subpixel would need to be 25 times as large…

There is a minimum size below which the blue subpixel cannot be reduced which I’m estimating to be 10% of overall pixel area, so factoring in red which constitutes ~31% of white and is ~50% efficient, I’m estimating the green pixel will consume ~65% of pixel area and the red subpixel will consume the remaining ~25% of pixel area.

There is no question that blue will be the longest-lasting color on QD-BOLED. The only question is whether red or green ages fastest and how long they last without burning-in at the peak output levels and ABL limits that Samsung has established.

By my estimates, it will be tough for QD-BOLED to deliver peak White levels matching today’s WOLED levels (Evo) while at the same time delivering equivalent lifetime (at least if QD-BOLED is still using the same low-efficiency Blue Florescent emitter as WOLED) but that will take at least a year if not 2 of usage in the wild to understand one way or the other.

If QD-BOLED is employing a new high-efficiency blue emitter, delivering 1000 Nit peak levels with at least WOLED-level lifetime should be low-hanging fruit (though rumors are that high-efficiency blue is still on the horizon and not yet ready for Prime Time).

Time will tell…


----------



## thadoggfather

fafrd said:


> Hopefully better than previous-generation WOLEDs (and especially the 2016 WOLEDs), but unlikely to be any better than the 2021 Evo-WOLEDs (which are essentially already impossible to burn-in).


Didn’t realize evo is even less prone to burn in 

you’re full of awesome knowledge ! Always appreciated


----------



## fafrd

thadoggfather said:


> Didn’t realize evo is even less prone to burn in
> 
> you’re full of awesome knowledge ! Always appreciated


Yeah, the new 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable stack is better for burn-in than the older 3S3C / WBC / non-Evo stack for 2 reasons:

Deuterium-based blue can be driven ~20% harder for equal lifetime than the older hydrogen-based blue. This means that the blue subpixel can be made a bit smaller and that shaved space can be used to reinforce another weaker color like red, for example.

The new deep green OLED emitter used in the 3S4C stack ~doubles the efficiency generating green photons and increases the efficiency when generating White through the white subpixel by ~20%.

Bottom line is that the Evo stack can deliver ~30% longer lifetime at the same output levels or can deliver equivalent lifetime at output levels ~12% higher than those of the older stack…


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung Display begins mass production of QD-OLED in the fourth quarter of 2021











Samsung Display begins mass production of QD-OLED in the fourth quarter of 2021 | OLEDNET


Samsung Display begins mass production of QD-OLED in the fourth quarter of 2021, a new growth opportunity in the large OLED market




en.olednet.com







> *Samsung Display begins mass production of QD-OLED in the fourth quarter of 2021, a new growth opportunity in the large OLED market*
> _Samsung Display is planning to start mass production of QD-OLED in earnest from the fourth quarter of 2021. The mass production scale is 8.5G 30K/month, and it is expected to be mass-produced mainly for 65-inch 4K resolution panels. Since three 65-inch panels can be produced in the 8.5th generation, about 1 million panels are expected to be mass-produced annually.
> At the closing seminar held in the second half of 2020, UBI Research predicted that Samsung Display’s QD-OLED will produce 200,000 units in 2021, 600,000 units in 2022, and 800,000 units in 2025. However, as Samsung Display announced in its second quarter conference call that it will also introduce a monitor product with a smaller QD display than a TV, production is expected to vary depending on the proportion of products..
> If mass production begins in the fourth quarter, QD-OLED TV will be unveiled for the first time at the CES 2022 exhibition held in Las Vegas in 2022, and the product is expected to be officially released in the first half of the year.
> Joo-seon Choi, president of Samsung Display, emphasized in a recently published sustainability report that “If QD displays are commercialized, new growth opportunities will be created in the large display industry, which has been stagnant for a long time.”
> Attention is paid to how much influence Samsung Display’s QD-OLED mass production will have in the large OLED market led by LG Display._


----------



## 59LIHP

QNED Structure and Manufacturing Technology Analysis Report










https://ubiresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/QNED-Structure-and-Manufacturing-Technology-Analysis-Report_sample.pdf


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

59LIHP said:


> Samsung Display begins mass production of QD-OLED in the fourth quarter of 2021
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3163162
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Display begins mass production of QD-OLED in the fourth quarter of 2021 | OLEDNET
> 
> 
> Samsung Display begins mass production of QD-OLED in the fourth quarter of 2021, a new growth opportunity in the large OLED market
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.olednet.com


Q4 in this report vs KB Securities who were hearing Q3 possibly. If that was true then they've run into a little hiccup, pushing things out a bit.
Has the monitor product been discussed before? That is interesting. Maybe I just missed it.
_"However, as Samsung Display announced in its second quarter conference call that it will also introduce a monitor product with a smaller QD display than a TV, production is expected to vary depending on the proportion of products.."_


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> On QD-BOLED, Samsung apparently has 4 Blue OLED layers, so the unfiltered blue subpixel will be ~2.35 times stronger than WOLED’s filtered blue pixel and the real challenge will be green.


Are you shure it is 4 now? Originaly it was two layers with a third one added for HDR.

This article of a few days ago speaks of three layers. btw it also states QD OLED could be replaced by QNED rather soon. The QNED thing shows that they have way more trust in Non-organic Quantum Nano Emitting Diodes than several layers of blue OLED. The article is speaking of a *''longer lasting stable blue light source''.*
Samsung QD-OLED TVs are Coming in 2022 Signaling Change - ecoustics.com


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> Bottom line is that the Evo stack can deliver ~30% longer lifetime at the same output levels or can deliver equivalent lifetime at output levels ~12% higher than those of the older stack…


But that's only if they change the subpixels like you suggested, and they didn't this year, right? How likely (in %) would you say that WOLEDs next year will have a new subpixel structute?


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> Are you shure it is 4 now? Originaly it was two layers with a third one added for HDR.
> 
> This article of a few days ago speaks of three layers. btw it also states QD OLED could be replaced by QNED rather soon. The QNED thing shows that they have way more trust in Non-organic Quantum Nano Emitting Diodes than several layers of blue OLED. The article is speaking of a *''longer lasting stable blue light source''.*
> Samsung QD-OLED TVs are Coming in 2022 Signaling Change - ecoustics.com


The picture 59LIHP attached to his post 3 posts back shows 3 Blue OLED layers, but following the link he provided to the UBI article actually shows this picture:










Too early to take this at face value yet, but note the addition of a 4th layer which is *Green PHOLED* rather than blue.

As I’ve been saying all year, green is the weakest color for QD-BOLED and I didn’t see how Samsung could deliver WOLES-like pea brightness levels with 4 low-efficiency blue FOLED layers alone.

Use of a high efficiency blue would easily get them there but using just FOLED, it seemed like they’d need at least 5 blue layers to get close to WOLED if not 6 to safely match and even surpass WOLED (at which point power consumption has become a real issue).

Well, Green PHOLED efficiency is ~10 times that of Blue FOLED, so switching one Blue FOLED layer to Green PHOLED would be one (very smart) way of closing the gap and even surpassing WOLED peak brightness levels.

There is some cost, because now the Blue Subpixel will need to be filtered by a conventional color filter (like WOLED’s) versus being unfiltered, so Blue output of this 4S2C COLED stack will drop to 85%x75%=64% of what it would be in a 4S1C BOLED stack (so blue subpixel size will need to increase by ~50% to compensate).

And the 75% blue output level means the Red subpixel will need to be at least 33% larger as well for equivalent output levels.

But while green quantum dot conversion also drops to 75% of what it was with 4-layer BOLED, the Green PHOLED layer contributed 6.25 times the green photons of 4-layer BOLED through green QDCF, meaning this 4S1C QD-COLED will have about 700% the green output per unit area of a 4S1C QD-BOLED (meaning the green subpixel can shrink to 14.3% of it’s size on 4S1C QD-BOLED.

The bottom line is that the green subpixel can be much smaller while the Blue and Red subpixels will need to be larger.

D65 has a R:G:B ration of about 5 : 10 : 1 and this 4S2C COLED stack will deliver R:G:B output of about 0.59 : 3.8 ; 1 we can calculate the subpixel sizes to deliver D65 need time have a ratio of 8.5 : 2.6 : 1

70.2% Red
21.5% Green
8.3% Blue

This is almost 3-times the red subpixel size I had calculated with a 3S1C QD-BOLED, meaning red output has increased to 281% x 75% = 211% of my prior 4S1C QD-BOLED estimates.

Fully-saturated blue output has an identical structure to WOLED so we can directly compare fully-saturated blue output levels based on these subpixel size estimates (and the ~15% size of WOLED’s blue subpixel):

WOLED = 2 Blue layers x 15% = 30 Blue Units
COLED = 3 Blue layers x 8.3% = 25 Blue Units

So Blue COLED seems to be only 83% of WOLED but we’re forgetting about PAR.

QD-COLED is top-emission, which delivers a ~33% higher PAR than the bottom emission currently used by WOLED, so once we factor that in we end up with 25 x 133% = 33.3 Blue Units for QD-COLED which is ~11% higher than WOLED.

Red is WOLEDs weakest color (especially in the new 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable WOLED stack so that’s probably a better color to use to determine peak white output than blue (since WOLEDs peak D65 white output is limited by red output through it’s red subpixel).

QD-COLED will have 3 Blue Layers x 59% Red Conversion Efficiency x 70.2% Red Subpixel Area x 133% PAR = 165 Blue Units equivalents of fully-saturated output.

WOLED’s fully-saturated Red output is a bit tricky to estimate since Red PHOLED has a longer lifetime than Blue FOLED and so can be overdriven to some degree, and the Yellow Emitter contributes some red photons which are difficult to account for. So bracketing is about the best we can do.

At the low end end, WOLED has only 1/3 of one layer of Red PHOLED with 3.43 times the efficiency of blue = 1.143 blue layer equivalents within the stack. Multiplied by a Red subpixel area of 35% translates to 40 Blue Unit equivalents of fully-saturated red output (24% of QD-COLED).

Between being overdriven by 100% and/or another 1.43 blue layer equivalents being contributed by the yellow PHOLED, fully-saturated Red output could easily be double this level or 2.86 blue layer equivalents (48% of QD-COLED).

When outputting peak white, WOLED Red benefits in a couple ways:

-an ~18% boost in output because the White Subpixel of WOLED is (now) the only subpixel from both technologies that does not lose ~15% efficiency from conventional color filters.

-the highly-efficient 1/3 layer of yellow contributes a full ~50% of it’s photons to red output, boosting Red output in the stack from ~1.14 blue layer equivalents to ~2.28 blue layer equivalents.

Combining these two factors, red photon output through the white subpixel is 2.68 blue layer equivalents and when we combine that with our bracket for Fully-Saturated Red, we end up with 3.82 to 4.96 blue layer equivalents of red output when outputting D65 white through both Red and White subpixels (because the red and white subpixels are pretty much the same size).

WOLED’s Red and White subpixels are each about 35% of total active pixel area, so we end up with red output of peak D65 white of somewhere between 133.7 and 176.3 Blue Unit equivalents (between 81% and 107% of QD-COLED or an average of 94% of QD-COLED +/-).

So I’m guessing this new 4S2C QD-COLED will prove to deliver ~5% greater peak brightness levels at calibrated white while pretty much doubling WOLED’s fully-saturated output levels.

But 4S2C QD-COLED will be fundamentally more expensive than WOLED for 3 reasons:

QD-COLED has 4 OLED layers versus WOLED’s 3;

QD-COLED has a top-emission backplane which involves more processing steps than WOLED’s bottom-emission backplane;

QD-COLED has 2 QDCF color converters that WOLED does not have, in addition to a full 3 distinct conventional Color Filters, similar to WOLED.

On short, 4S2C COLED has all of 3S4C WOLED’s cost and then some in all three areas of Backplane, OLED Stack, and Frontplane (color conversion/filter) and it also won’t deliver the full off-angle viewing improvements of QD-BOLED.

Off-angle color shift of QD-COLED Red should be just as good as QD-BOLED (and noticeably superior to WOLED), but off-angle color shift of QD-COLED should take a step backwards compared to QD-BOLED (though should still be superior to WOLED, since the green OLED emitter appears to be the closest to the surface) and the blue off-angle color shift of QD-COLED should be worse than both QD-BOLED and WOLED (since all blue photons emitter through the blue subpixel cone from deeper within the stack than either QD-BOLED or WOLED, both of which have a blue FOLED emission layer at the top of the stack).

But it’ll be a true additive display, it should deliver 125% to 133% the intrinsic cost of WOLED (at equal production volumes and maturity), and it’s a much more sensible way for Samsung Display to answer the shortcomings of not being ‘bright enough’ than adding even more blue OLED layers…


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> *Are you shure it is 4 now? Originaly it was two layers with a third one added for HDR.*
> 
> This article of a few days ago speaks of three layers. btw it also states QD OLED could be replaced by QNED rather soon. The QNED thing shows that they have way more trust in Non-organic Quantum Nano Emitting Diodes than several layers of blue OLED. The article is speaking of a *''longer lasting stable blue light source''.*
> Samsung QD-OLED TVs are Coming in 2022 Signaling Change - ecoustics.com


We’ll just need to wait and see. From everything I’ve understood, QD-BOLED based on low-efficiency Blue FOLED cannot compete against WOLED with 3 blue layers (or even 4),

If Samsung has high-efficiency Blue, then 3S1C stack should easily outperform today’s WOLED (though LGD will be able to catch up tomorrow).

But if QD-Display 1.0 launches with only Blue FOLED, a 4S2C QD-COLED stack like what I just walked-through after discovering that picture in the article by UBI is going to deliver far higher brightness than either a ‘pure’ 3S1C or 4S1C QD-BOLED stack…

So as a potential Roadmap,Samsung Display has 4 potential steps which can be leapfrogged as possible:

4S2C QD-COLED (using blue FOLED)

After high-efficiency blue becomes a reality

3S2C QD-COLED (for higher peak output) or
2S2C QD-COLED (for even lower cost)

And once they see QNED on the horizon:

3S1C QD-BOLED (if needed for brightness) or
2S1C QD-BOLED (initial low-cost QD-BOLED idea)

QNED (note that QNED can directly replace 3S1C or 2S1C BOLED but not 4S2C or 3S2C/2S2C COLED, so Samsung is likely to want to capitalize on the opportunity to learn about manufacturing all-Blue WD-BOLED if they can before switching to QNED which is also all-blue).

If we assume high-efficiency blue materializes before QNED is ready for prime-time, there will probably be at least a QD-Display 1.5 if not several QD Display 1.x generations…

Lowest possible manufacturing cost is not Samsung’s priority at this stage (first year is going to be absurdly expensive because of poor yields anyway); getting a noticablly superior self-emissive product into the market compared to LGD’s WOLED while steadily ramping to high production levels is much more important at this beginning stage.

While LGD started with 2S2C WOLED, then went to 3S2C, then went to 3S3C, and most recently went to 3S4C (meaning a cost increase for each improvement), Samsung is choosing a highest-performance starting point from which the roadmap will be maintaining or improving performance while reducing cost at each step along the way.

Coming late to the emissive TV game and having to take share from LGD’s Premium-priced WOLEDs rather than cut into LCD’s lower-cost and lower-performance offerings, this ‘performance now, cost tomorrow’ approach is a very sound strategy…


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> But that's only if they change the subpixels like you suggested, and they didn't this year, right? How likely (in %) would you say that WOLEDs next year will have a new subpixel structute?


At least on the larger 2021 panel sizes, it appears that LGD had already optimized subpixel sizes for 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable lifetime:










To me, it looks like that larger-panel blue subpixel is smaller relative to the others than this picture from Rtings of the 65” subpixel structure:










So I don’t have a crystal ball or anything, but once Paju has fully-converted to the new 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable stack, I’d expect LGD to eventually modify 48”, 55”, and 65” WOLED subpixel designs to align with the relative sizes of the 77” and 83” panels (which may take them until the 2023 product cycle, since they have stated that Paju won’t complete conversion to 3S4C until ‘early’ 2022…).

So I’d have to guesstimate there’s only a 50/50 chance we’ll see new subpixel designs at smaller panel sizes for 2022 unless we get an indication that Paju is completing by the end of this year plus or minus.

On the other hand, with the recent news that Samsung will be primarily targeting 65” 4K with their first QD-COLEDs next year, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see LGD pull out all the stops to deliver a 2022 65” 4K WOLED with all the best performance they can muster.

So perhaps I’ll change my odds to 65/35…

The fact that Samsung is making noise about QD-COLED delivering 1000 cd/m2 peak throws down a gauntlet that I’ve got to believe LGD will find a way to match.

The integrated heatsink ‘Plate’ LGD is apparently launching for 2022 should get them pretty close to 1000 Nits peak @ 65” but unlocking the full ~12% higher peak brightness levels of the Evo stack with an Evo-optimized subpixel design would almost certainly guarantee that their 65” 4K WOLED measures up against Samsung’s QD-Display 1.0 in 2022…


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Q4 in this report vs KB Securities who were hearing Q3 possibly. If that was true then they've run into a little hiccup, pushing things out a bit.
> *Has the monitor product been discussed before? *That is interesting. Maybe I just missed it.
> _"However, as Samsung Display announced in its second quarter conference call that it will also introduce a monitor product with a smaller QD display than a TV, production is expected to vary depending on the proportion of products.."_


Yea, I’ve got a long post regarding QD-BOLED panel sizes including the monitors Samsung is aiming at several posts/pages back.

As I had speculated, 65” is the main target. I had thought it would be 8K because of QD-BOLED’s top-emission backplane (which should allow them to have an easier time introducing a 65” 8K panel than LGD’s bottom-emission WOLED) but it’s now clear that between Samsung’s QD-Display 1.0 (4S/2C QD-COLED just barely getting to 1000 cd/m2 @ 4K and concerns that there is an insufficient market for expensive 65” 8K TVs, Samsung seems to be (prudently) aiming at 4K instead (65” as well as 55”).

They have MMG, so they can manufacture 3 65” and 2 55” TVs per 8.5G panel (optimal) which will probably be their primary focus to start.

But a 32” 4K monitor (which essentially utilizes 8K @ 65” resolution) is also optimum for 8.5G (6 along with 3 65” panels). But Samsung has stated their monitor will be ‘33” to 35”’ so that means no more than 5 or possibly even 4 alongside 3 65” panels.

Beyond that, Samsung has stated that they want to introduce a 70” QD-Display 1.0 once yields have improved, and 2 70” panels can be manufactured alongside 7 35” panels using MMG.

32” monitors are optimum for 8.5G (18-up) and 35” monitors are also pretty much optimum (15-up), so Samsung is probably going to forego the additional monitor available at 32” and elect a monitor size closer to 35” but that fits well alongside 65” panel production as well.

Only 3 35” monitor panels fit alongside 3 65” panels while 5 34” monitor panels will fit, so I’m guessing Samsung will elect to introduce a 34” monitor that can be manufactured either 15-up all alone or 5-up alongside 3 65” panels or 7-up alongside 2 70” panels (unless they ditch their plan for 70” in favor of something larger like LGD’s 77” or perhaps 75”, which changes all these calculations).


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> QNED Structure and Manufacturing Technology Analysis Report
> View attachment 3163168
> 
> 
> 
> https://ubiresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/QNED-Structure-and-Manufacturing-Technology-Analysis-Report_sample.pdf


The interesting thing to watch will be Samsung’s decision to invest in a second QD-COLED fab.

They have already made the decision to continue LCD production for another year (through 2022) and will need to make decisions about converting a second 8.5G LCD fab to QD-COLED production no later than late this year / early next year if they want any chance for increased QD-COLED capacity by 2024…

If they have confidence that QNED will be ready for prime-time by 2024 or even 2025, they may elect to stand par with a single 8.5G QD-COLED fab through 2023 (and forever), electing to convert a second 8.5G LCD fab to QNED as soon as the equipment choice becomes clear.

If Samsung does decide to convert a second 8.5G LCD fab to QD-COLED by early 2023, it likely means the schedule for QNED remains highly uncertain…


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> The interesting thing to watch will be Samsung’s decision to invest in a second QD-COLED fab.
> 
> They have already made the decision to continue LCD production for another year (through 2022) and will need to make decisions about converting a second 8.5G LCD fab to QD-COLED production no later than late this year / early next year if they want any chance for increased QD-COLED capacity by 2024…
> 
> If they have confidence that QNED will be ready for prime-time by 2024 or even 2025, they may elect to stand par with a single 8.5G QD-COLED fab through 2023 (and forever), electing to convert a second 8.5G LCD fab to QNED as soon as the equipment choice becomes clear.
> 
> If Samsung does decide to convert a second 8.5G LCD fab to QD-COLED by early 2023, it likely means the schedule for QNED remains highly uncertain…


What does MMG mean? Does 3S3C mean 3 stacks and 3 colors?

Your posts are really impressive. Why did you decide to learn so much and make such detailed and informative posts here, where few people read them? I'm thankful that you did.


----------



## Adonisds

What do you people think of the so called "lightfield displays"? It seems many companies, like Google, think they could be the future. They are autostereoscopic display with multiple views. Because of the many multiple views, the autostereospic layer transforms even an 8K screen into a low resolution 3D screen.

For instance, the Leia displays reduce the resolution by 16 (and maybe the brightness too but I'm not sure about the brightness) to create 4 views, and competitors usually create even more views.

I'm really not sure about this but it seems LCD screens can be cheaply manufactured to have really high pixel density, but not OLEDs and micro LEDs. It seems the industry is moving away from screens that would allow lightfield displays to pursue better colors, contrast and brightness.

Do you think insanely high resolution screens (more than 16K) that allow multiple views are the next big thing?

I hope not. I wish we could bring back 3D with glasses and continue to focus on better colors, contrast, brightness and refresh rates.


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> What does MMG mean?


Multi Modal Glass (the ability to cut both smaller panels and larger panels out of the same 8.5G motherglass, greatly increasing utilization and reducing cost.

For example, LGD now manufactures 2 55” WOLEDs alongside 3 65” panels, reducing 65” panel cost by ~33% (since the same 8.5G sheet can be used to manufacture 6 55” panels without MMG).



> Does 3S3C mean 3 stacks and 3 colors?


Yes, exactly (you can search for 3S3C and 3S 4C on Google and find references).



> Your posts are really impressive. Why did you decide to learn so much and make such detailed and informative posts here, where few people read them? I'm thankful that you did.


When I first discovered this thread many years ago, I learned a great deal so I’m happy to add what I can to the knowledge base.

2022/2023 is shaping up to be the most interesting year in the flat panel display space since 2015/2016 .


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> The picture 59LIHP attached to his post 3 posts back shows 3 Blue OLED layers, but following the link he provided to the UBI article actually shows this picture:
> 
> View attachment 3163344
> 
> 
> Too early to take this at face value yet, but note the addition of a 4th layer which is *Green PHOLED* rather than blue.
> 
> As I’ve been saying all year, green is the weakest color for QD-BOLED and I didn’t see how Samsung could deliver WOLES-like pea brightness levels with 4 low-efficiency blue FOLED layers alone.
> 
> Use of a high efficiency blue would easily get them there but using just FOLED, it seemed like they’d need at least 5 blue layers to get close to WOLED if not 6 to safely match and even surpass WOLED (at which point power consumption has become a real issue).
> 
> Well, Green PHOLED efficiency is ~10 times that of Blue FOLED, so switching one Blue FOLED layer to Green PHOLED would be one (very smart) way of closing the gap and even surpassing WOLED peak brightness levels.
> 
> There is some cost, because now the Blue Subpixel will need to be filtered by a conventional color filter (like WOLED’s) versus being unfiltered, so Blue output of this 4S2C COLED stack will drop to 85%x75%=64% of what it would be in a 4S1C BOLED stack (so blue subpixel size will need to increase by ~50% to compensate).
> 
> And the 75% blue output level means the Red subpixel will need to be at least 33% larger as well for equivalent output levels.
> 
> But while green quantum dot conversion also drops to 75% of what it was with 4-layer BOLED, the Green PHOLED layer contributed 6.25 times the green photons of 4-layer BOLED through green QDCF, meaning this 4S1C QD-COLED will have about 700% the green output per unit area of a 4S1C QD-BOLED (meaning the green subpixel can shrink to 14.3% of it’s size on 4S1C QD-BOLED.
> 
> The bottom line is that the green subpixel can be much smaller while the Blue and Red subpixels will need to be larger.
> 
> D65 has a R:G:B ration of about 5 : 10 : 1 and this 4S2C COLED stack will deliver R:G:B output of about 0.59 : 3.8 ; 1 we can calculate the subpixel sizes to deliver D65 need time have a ratio of 8.5 : 2.6 : 1
> 
> 70.2% Red
> 21.5% Green
> 8.3% Blue
> 
> This is almost 3-times the red subpixel size I had calculated with a 3S1C QD-BOLED, meaning red output has increased to 281% x 75% = 211% of my prior 4S1C QD-BOLED estimates.
> 
> Fully-saturated blue output has an identical structure to WOLED so we can directly compare fully-saturated blue output levels based on these subpixel size estimates (and the ~15% size of WOLED’s blue subpixel):
> 
> WOLED = 2 Blue layers x 15% = 30 Blue Units
> COLED = 3 Blue layers x 8.3% = 25 Blue Units
> 
> So Blue COLED seems to be only 83% of WOLED but we’re forgetting about PAR.
> 
> QD-COLED is top-emission, which delivers a ~33% higher PAR than the bottom emission currently used by WOLED, so once we factor that in we end up with 25 x 133% = 33.3 Blue Units for QD-COLED which is ~11% higher than WOLED.
> 
> Red is WOLEDs weakest color (especially in the new 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable WOLED stack so that’s probably a better color to use to determine peak white output than blue (since WOLEDs peak D65 white output is limited by red output through it’s red subpixel).
> 
> QD-COLED will have 3 Blue Layers x 59% Red Conversion Efficiency x 70.2% Red Subpixel Area x 133% PAR = 165 Blue Units equivalents of fully-saturated output.
> 
> WOLED’s fully-saturated Red output is a bit tricky to estimate since Red PHOLED has a longer lifetime than Blue FOLED and so can be overdriven to some degree, and the Yellow Emitter contributes some red photons which are difficult to account for. So bracketing is about the best we can do.
> 
> At the low end end, WOLED has only 1/3 of one layer of Red PHOLED with 3.43 times the efficiency of blue = 1.143 blue layer equivalents within the stack. Multiplied by a Red subpixel area of 35% translates to 40 Blue Unit equivalents of fully-saturated red output (24% of QD-COLED).
> 
> Between being overdriven by 100% and/or another 1.43 blue layer equivalents being contributed by the yellow PHOLED, fully-saturated Red output could easily be double this level or 2.86 blue layer equivalents (48% of QD-COLED).
> 
> When outputting peak white, WOLED Red benefits in a couple ways:
> 
> -an ~18% boost in output because the White Subpixel of WOLED is (now) the only subpixel from both technologies that does not lose ~15% efficiency from conventional color filters.
> 
> -the highly-efficient 1/3 layer of yellow contributes a full ~50% of it’s photons to red output, boosting Red output in the stack from ~1.14 blue layer equivalents to ~2.28 blue layer equivalents.
> 
> Combining these two factors, red photon output through the white subpixel is 2.68 blue layer equivalents and when we combine that with our bracket for Fully-Saturated Red, we end up with 3.82 to 4.96 blue layer equivalents of red output when outputting D65 white through both Red and White subpixels (because the red and white subpixels are pretty much the same size).
> 
> WOLED’s Red and White subpixels are each about 35% of total active pixel area, so we end up with red output of peak D65 white of somewhere between 133.7 and 176.3 Blue Unit equivalents (between 81% and 107% of QD-COLED or an average of 94% of QD-COLED +/-).
> 
> So I’m guessing this new 4S2C QD-COLED will prove to deliver ~5% greater peak brightness levels at calibrated white while pretty much doubling WOLED’s fully-saturated output levels.
> 
> But 4S2C QD-COLED will be fundamentally more expensive than WOLED for 3 reasons:
> 
> QD-COLED has 4 OLED layers versus WOLED’s 3;
> 
> QD-COLED has a top-emission backplane which involves more processing steps than WOLED’s bottom-emission backplane;
> 
> QD-COLED has 2 QDCF color converters that WOLED does not have, in addition to a full 3 distinct conventional Color Filters, similar to WOLED.
> 
> On short, 4S2C COLED has all of 3S4C WOLED’s cost and then some in all three areas of Backplane, OLED Stack, and Frontplane (color conversion/filter) and it also won’t deliver the full off-angle viewing improvements of QD-BOLED.
> 
> Off-angle color shift of QD-COLED Red should be just as good as QD-BOLED (and noticeably superior to WOLED), but off-angle color shift of QD-COLED should take a step backwards compared to QD-BOLED (though should still be superior to WOLED, since the green OLED emitter appears to be the closest to the surface) and the blue off-angle color shift of QD-COLED should be worse than both QD-BOLED and WOLED (since all blue photons emitter through the blue subpixel cone from deeper within the stack than either QD-BOLED or WOLED, both of which have a blue FOLED emission layer at the top of the stack).
> 
> But it’ll be a true additive display, it should deliver 125% to 133% the intrinsic cost of WOLED (at equal production volumes and maturity), and it’s a much more sensible way for Samsung Display to answer the shortcomings of not being ‘bright enough’ than adding even more blue OLED layers…


Can we assume that any time you write 3S4C you meant 4S3C? Not sure how you can have 4 colors in 3 layers, and my understanding was LG had gone from 3S3C to 4S3C this year by adding an extra layer of one of the colors (I can't recall which one right now).


----------



## andy sullivan

fafrd said:


> Multi Modal Glass (the ability to cut both smaller panels and larger panels out of the same 8.5G motherglass, greatly increasing utilization and reducing cost.
> 
> For example, LGD now manufactures 2 55” WOLEDs alongside 3 65” panels, reducing 65” panel cost by ~33% (since the same 8.5G sheet can be used to manufacture 6 55” panels without MMG).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly (you can search for 3S3C and 3S 4C on Google and find references).
> 
> 
> When I first discovered this thread many years ago, I learned a great deal so I’m happy to add what I can to the knowledge base.
> 
> 2022/2023 is shaping up to be the most interesting year in the flat panel display space since 2015/2016 .


Do you think that the improvements coming in 2022-2023 are directly responsible to the dramatic lowering of OLED TV's for 2021? Will the new improvements coming be such a uptick in performance that the current models will very difficult to sell at anything other than a greatly reduced price.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> We’ll just need to wait and see. From everything I’ve understood, QD-BOLED based on low-efficiency Blue FOLED cannot compete against WOLED with 3 blue layers (or even 4),
> 
> If Samsung has high-efficiency Blue, then 3S1C stack should easily outperform today’s WOLED (though LGD will be able to catch up tomorrow).
> 
> But if QD-Display 1.0 launches with only Blue FOLED, a 4S2C QD-COLED stack like what I just walked-through after discovering that picture in the article by UBI is going to deliver far higher brightness than either a ‘pure’ 3S1C or 4S1C QD-BOLED stack…
> 
> So as a potential Roadmap,Samsung Display has 4 potential steps which can be leapfrogged as possible:
> 
> 4S2C QD-COLED (using blue FOLED)
> 
> After high-efficiency blue becomes a reality
> 
> 3S2C QD-COLED (for higher peak output) or
> 2S2C QD-COLED (for even lower cost)
> 
> And once they see QNED on the horizon:
> 
> 3S1C QD-BOLED (if needed for brightness) or
> 2S1C QD-BOLED (initial low-cost QD-BOLED idea)
> 
> QNED (note that QNED can directly replace 3S1C or 2S1C BOLED but not 4S2C or 3S2C/2S2C COLED, so Samsung is likely to want to capitalize on the opportunity to learn about manufacturing all-Blue WD-BOLED if they can before switching to QNED which is also all-blue).
> 
> If we assume high-efficiency blue materializes before QNED is ready for prime-time, there will probably be at least a QD-Display 1.5 if not several QD Display 1.x generations…
> 
> Lowest possible manufacturing cost is not Samsung’s priority at this stage (first year is going to be absurdly expensive because of poor yields anyway); getting a noticablly superior self-emissive product into the market compared to LGD’s WOLED while steadily ramping to high production levels is much more important at this beginning stage.
> 
> While LGD started with 2S2C WOLED, then went to 3S2C, then went to 3S3C, and most recently went to 3S4C (meaning a cost increase for each improvement), Samsung is choosing a highest-performance starting point from which the roadmap will be maintaining or improving performance while reducing cost at each step along the way.
> 
> Coming late to the emissive TV game and having to take share from LGD’s Premium-priced WOLEDs rather than cut into LCD’s lower-cost and lower-performance offerings, this ‘performance now, cost tomorrow’ approach is a very sound strategy…


I'd love to see the UBI report to know if that BBBG structure is expected for "1.0". Assuming it is, I was wondering about the impact to QNED process costs and you touched on that:
_QNED (note that QNED can directly replace 3S1C or 2S1C BOLED but not 4S2C or 3S2C/2S2C COLED, so Samsung is likely to want to capitalize on the opportunity to learn about manufacturing all-Blue WD-BOLED if they can before switching to QNED which is also all-blue).
If we assume high-efficiency blue materializes before QNED is ready for prime-time, there will probably be at least a QD-Display 1.5 if not several QD Display 1.x generations…_

So, if I follow correctly, a high efficiency blue would kick COLED out and allow them to work on the nS1C structure mfg capability while QNED gets ready to come out of development (as originally discussed here earlier). The structure process change itself is pretty straightforward I am guessing since WOLED has made improvements over the years probably on the same basic equipment set?? (Remember, not an OLED guy here....). Meaning, costs associated with moving from COLED to BOLED aren't heavy on the capital, but you'd of course lose the time for building process capability for BOLED. Invested equipment for COLED still (all?/most?) works with BOLED. Yes?


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> Can we assume that any time you write 3S4C you meant 4S3C? Not sure how you can have 4 colors in 3 layers, and my understanding was LG had gone from 3S3C to 4S3C this year by adding an extra layer of one of the colors (I can't recall which one right now).


No, 3S4C means 3 OLED layers containing 4 colors.

A single OLED layer can be split between different colors.

LGD WOLED started as 2S2C - one blue layer and one yellow layer.

Then they needed more peak brightness for HDR so they went to 3S2C - two full blue layers sandwiching a full yellow layer.

Then they needed more deep red than they were getting from heir yellow emitter layer to better cover DCI-P3, so they went to 3C3C by spitting the yellow layer into a ~half thickness red layer and a ~half thickness yellow layer (less yellow output in exchange for more deep red output).

That’s rhe 3S3C WOLED has been based on since rhe 2016 model year when LG introduce it.

The ‘Evo’ stack has added deep green to that middle layer so that it is ~1/3 deep red, ~1/3 yellow and ~1/3 deep green sandwiched between 2 full blue layers - 3S4C.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I'd love to see the UBI report to know if that BBBG structure is expected for "1.0".


I’ve spent more time than I want to admit searching for that UBI Research Note or any other references to that same 4S2C B-B-B-G structure - can’t find anything (yet).

But the image appears to have been generated by UBI and is similar to other images they have created in the past regarding QD-BOLED structure, so my gut tells me that they’ve had a recent discussion with Samsung Displsy regarding launch of QD-OLED 1.0 and Samsung leaked a tidbit about switching the 4th layer to green PHOLRD (priobsbly in response to how many additional blue layers they needed to add to address peak brightness concerns).



> Assuming it is, I was wondering about the impact to QNED process costs and you touched on that:
> _QNED (note that QNED can directly replace 3S1C or 2S1C BOLED but not 4S2C or 3S2C/2S2C COLED, so Samsung is likely to want to capitalize on the opportunity to learn about manufacturing all-Blue WD-BOLED if they can before switching to QNED which is also all-blue).
> If we assume high-efficiency blue materializes before QNED is ready for prime-time, there will probably be at least a QD-Display 1.5 if not several QD Display 1.x generations…_





> So, if I follow correctly, a high efficiency blue would kick COLED out and allow them to work on the nS1C structure mfg capability while QNED gets ready to come out of development (as originally discussed here earlier).


Yes, once high-efficiency blue is available, they can almost certainly replace the 3 blue FOLED layers with a single high-efficiency blue layer.

If they just do that it becomes a 2S2C QD-COLED and they are still relying on their he green OLED layer to generate the lion’s share of the green potons.

Since QNED must rely 100% on QDs to generate all green photons and since burn-in of green is probably the greatest single risk factor of QD-BOLED or QNED, I would not be at all surprised to see Samsung take the opportunity to ditch the Green PHOLED layer entirely and go with the 2S1C High-Efficiency Blue double stack they originally planned on (or even a 3S1C stack if needed to achieve peak brightness requirements



> The structure process change itself is pretty straightforward I am guessing since WOLED has made improvements over the years probably on the same basic equipment set??


We’re talking about 2S or 3S or 4S 1C or 2V or 3C or 4C COLED or BOLED or WOLED, the process steps are all the same - no need for any equipment change just a change in materials used and/or a reduction of process steps…



> (Remember, not an OLED guy here....). Meaning, costs associated with moving from COLED to BOLED aren't heavy on the capital, but you'd of course lose the time for building process capability for BOLED. Invested equipment for COLED still (all?/most?) works with BOLED. Yes?


The risk factor moving from COLED to QNED does not involve manufacturing risk of the Front End (QDCCs). At least because of the way Samsung seems to be moving forward. They could have skipped the Green QDs. They have a full deep-green PHOLED layer where LGD WOLED has ~1/3rd of a deep green PHOLED layer + ~1/3rd of a yellow (green + red) PHOLED layer - so let’s say ~half the green emission from their WOLED stack.

Samsung could have elected to rely in QDs for the red subpixel only but this would have meant a major manufacturing change and new manufacturing risk when they added green QDs for QNED.

So they smartly decided to begin manufacturing QD-COLED with green QDs as well - it is exactly the same Top Pkane they will need to use with QNED, so only the emissive layer changes from 4S2C COLED to QNED and the Too-Emission Bottom Plane and QDCC+CF Top Plane remain unchanged (only subpixel sizes may need to change).

All manufacturing risk is focused on the QNED emissive layer (which is where to want the focus).

But the other risk aside from manufacturing risk is reliability and especially risk if burn-in.

A green subpixel generating only ~13% of its green photons from green QDs is probably going to burn-in differently than a green subpixel generating 100% of its green photons from green QDs.

So capitalizing on an opportunity to gain field experience with a 2S1C or 3S1C QD-BOLED with all green photons being generated by quantum dots is the main reason I believe Samsung Display may elect to go that route if a high-efficiency blue emitter materializes before QNED is ready for Prime Time…

It won’t be any cheaper and 3S2C QD-BOLED will actually be more expensive than a 2S2C QD-COLED alternative, but reducing market risk is likely to be a higher priority than lowering cost to capture more market share if QNED is truly on the horizon when that time comes…


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> The picture 59LIHP attached to his post 3 posts back shows 3 Blue OLED layers, but following the link he provided to the UBI article actually shows this picture:
> 
> View attachment 3163344
> 
> 
> Too early to take this at face value yet, but note the addition of a 4th layer which is *Green PHOLED* rather than blue.
> 
> As I’ve been saying all year, green is the weakest color for QD-BOLED and I didn’t see how Samsung could deliver WOLES-like pea brightness levels with 4 low-efficiency blue FOLED layers alone.


..looks like that picture from 3 posts back is from a 2019 UBIresearch annual report.

There is this 2021 article which speaks of a green Quantum Dot layer and a green color filter for optimum structure for optaining high green color purity.








Applied Sciences | Free Full-Text | Device Modeling of Quantum Dot–Organic Light Emitting Diodes for High Green Color Purity | HTML (mdpi.com)


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> ..looks like that picture from 3 posts back is from a 2019 UBIresearch annual report.
> 
> There is this 2021 article which speaks of a green Quantum Dot layer and a green color filter for optimum structure for optaining high green color purity.
> 
> 
> View attachment 3163772
> 
> Applied Sciences | Free Full-Text | Device Modeling of Quantum Dot–Organic Light Emitting Diodes for High Green Color Purity | HTML (mdpi.com)


Look more closely at this picture of QD-OLED ‘Expected Structure’ published by UBI:










This picture from that article referencing UBI’s just-published ‘Research Note’ has a4th Green OLED emitter labeled ‘PL Green’ (meaning Phosphorescent Layer Green) instead of the other 3 blue layers all labeled ‘FL Blue’ (meaning Florescent Blue Layer).

There is also Greed QD and Green CF on top of the green subpixel (as there has been since the earliest structure drawings of QD-BOLED), but look more closely at the Blue Subpixel.

Where the Blue Subpixel has always had ‘Overcoat’ where the Red and green subpixels have had their respective QDs, the QD-COLED structure has CF on all three subpixels including blue, while QD-BOLED had no color filter over the Blue Subpixel.

No Blue color filter is needed over the blue subpixel with QD-BOLED (or QNED) because the primary (OLED) emissive stack emits only pure blue photons to start with.

But by adding a green phosphorescent layer in QD-COLED, the primary emissive stack emits cyan (blue + green), meaning that the blue subpixel needs a blue color filter in order to filter out the green photons and deliver pure blue.


----------



## fafrd

Since we first understood how LGD modified their WOLED stack for their new 3S4C / WBE / Evo panels, I’ve been troubled by how weak LGD made red.

Since rhe 3S3C / WBC stack LGD introduced in 2015/2016, red has been the weakest primary color within the WOLED stack and with the 3S4C stack, LGD has further weakened Red in favor of stronger / deeper green..,

Measurements by early G1 owners confirm that the 3S4C stack is red-limited, with calibrated peak white output limited by maximum output of the red subpixel and fully-saturated red output being far weaker than either green or blue (which is the strongest primary).

The arrival of Hugh-Efficiency Blue will change the entire context of this speculation, but UDC just stated that High Effuciency Blue is essentially ready but will only benefit power-critical applications such as battery-powered mobile phones, which means acceptable lifetime will require so many layers to reduce current density to the point that it won’t benefit line-powered applications like TV and will only justify a cost premium for certain premium battery-powered applications such as mobile phones or tablets.

I’m not even certain I take UDC’s claims at face value, but I believe it is safe to say it does not look like there will be a high-efficiency Blue emitter for TV application as far out as makes sense to look (if ever).

LGD knows there is no high-efficiency blue coming and they know Samsung Display is adding QD color converters to blue OLED, so how will they respond?

WOLED already has an extremely efficient and long-lifetime green PHOLED emitter (hence why they can get away with a minimum-sized green subpixel) and with two full blue FOLED emitter layers, they also have all the blue efficiency and lifetime they need (at least until a better blue PHOLED emitter emerges to force them to switch).

So red is WOLEDs problem.

We speculated years ago about what LGD could achieve by combing QDCF with WOLED, but recent developments make that so much more clear now: by only using Red QDCC to reinforce Red, WOLED will get the greatest bang for the buck.

If LGD adds blue-driven Red QDCC to the red subpixel, the two blue layers essentially convert to 1.2 blue-layers-worth of red output (because of ~60% Red QDCC efficiency), complimenting the ~1.2 blue-layers worth of Red PHOLED output within the 3S4C stack.

This means Red subpixel output from the current 3S4C stack can be doubled by merely adopting Red QDCC over the red subpixel.

With current red output, that would basically bring fully-saturated red output up to the level of Green and Blue (and peak white output will be able to increase along with it, probably easily exceeding 1000 cd/m2 @ 10%.

And a side benefit of the addition of Red QDCC over the red subpixel is that red off-axis color shift reduced dramatically (because ~half the red photons are generated right at the outer surface of display by the QDs) so WOLEDs recently-exaccerbated problem with red off-axis color **** is virtually eliminated.

If one were planning a WOLED stack for the addition of Red QDs, one would want to reduce the strength of the Red OLED emitter within the WOLED stack, exactly as LGD has done with their recently-introduced 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable stack (where Deep Green was added at the expense of Red).

So putting all of this together, I won’t be at all surprised to see LGD introduce an Evo II stack adopting the use of Red QDCC by 2023 and possibly even next year.

And in addition, I won’t be at all to see LGD continue to promote a ‘2-stack’ portfolio as they introduced this year.

Red QDCC will add cost, so Evo II (or QD-Evo) will better compete against Samsung’s QD-COLED but at a price premium.

The old 3S3C /WBC / non-Evo stack will be retired in favor of the 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable stack, which will become the value / entry-level WOLED panel..,

LGD’s hot to maintain their lower-cost advantage over Samsung’s QD-COLED (despite whatever performance gaps that may mean) and they’ve got to find ways to improve WOLED to better-compete against QD-COLED on performance and specification (despite what that may entail in terms of adding cost).

The newly-introduced red-weakened Evo stack gives LGD a strong foundation to do exactly that over the coming 2-5 years…

So I suspect we’re about to enter into a new eta of OLED TV innovation (which LGD has probably already been planning for for 2+ years…).


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Since we first understood how LGD modified their WOLED stack for their new 3S4C / WBE / Evo panels, I’ve been troubled by how weak LGD made red.
> 
> Since rhe 3S3C / WBC stack LGD introduced in 2015/2016, red has been the weakest primary color within the WOLED stack and with the 3S4C stack, LGD has further weakened Red in favor of stronger / deeper green..,
> 
> Measurements by early G1 owners confirm that the 3S4C stack is red-limited, with calibrated peak white output limited by maximum output of the red subpixel and fully-saturated red output being far weaker than either green or blue (which is the strongest primary).
> 
> The arrival of Hugh-Efficiency Blue will change the entire context of this speculation, but UDC just stated that High Effuciency Blue is essentially ready but will only benefit power-critical applications such as battery-powered mobile phones, which means acceptable lifetime will require so many layers to reduce current density to the point that it won’t benefit line-powered applications like TV and will only justify a cost premium for certain premium battery-powered applications such as mobile phones or tablets.
> 
> I’m not even certain I take UDC’s claims at face value, but I believe it is safe to say it does not look like there will be a high-efficiency Blue emitter for TV application as far out as makes sense to look (if ever).
> 
> LGD knows there is no high-efficiency blue coming and they know Samsung Display is adding QD color converters to blue OLED, so how will they respond?
> 
> WOLED already has an extremely efficient and long-lifetime green PHOLED emitter (hence why they can get away with a minimum-sized green subpixel) and with two full blue FOLED emitter layers, they also have all the blue efficiency and lifetime they need (at least until a better blue PHOLED emitter emerges to force them to switch).
> 
> So red is WOLEDs problem.
> 
> We speculated years ago about what LGD could achieve by combing QDCF with WOLED, but recent developments make that so much more clear now: by only using Red QDCC to reinforce Red, WOLED will get the greatest bang for the buck.
> 
> If LGD adds blue-driven Red QDCC to the red subpixel, the two blue layers essentially convert to 1.2 blue-layers-worth of red output (because of ~60% Red QDCC efficiency), complimenting the ~1.2 blue-layers worth of Red PHOLED output within the 3S4C stack.
> 
> This means Red subpixel output from the current 3S4C stack can be doubled by merely adopting Red QDCC over the red subpixel.
> 
> With current red output, that would basically bring fully-saturated red output up to the level of Green and Blue (and peak white output will be able to increase along with it, probably easily exceeding 1000 cd/m2 @ 10%.
> 
> And a side benefit of the addition of Red QDCC over the red subpixel is that red off-axis color shift reduced dramatically (because ~half the red photons are generated right at the outer surface of display by the QDs) so WOLEDs recently-exaccerbated problem with red off-axis color **** is virtually eliminated.
> 
> If one were planning a WOLED stack for the addition of Red QDs, one would want to reduce the strength of the Red OLED emitter within the WOLED stack, exactly as LGD has done with their recently-introduced 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable stack (where Deep Green was added at the expense of Red).
> 
> So putting all of this together, I won’t be at all surprised to see LGD introduce an Evo II stack adopting the use of Red QDCC by 2023 and possibly even next year.
> 
> And in addition, I won’t be at all to see LGD continue to promote a ‘2-stack’ portfolio as they introduced this year.
> 
> Red QDCC will add cost, so Evo II (or QD-Evo) will better compete against Samsung’s QD-COLED but at a price premium.
> 
> The old 3S3C /WBC / non-Evo stack will be retired in favor of the 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable stack, which will become the value / entry-level WOLED panel..,
> 
> LGD’s hot to maintain their lower-cost advantage over Samsung’s QD-COLED (despite whatever performance gaps that may mean) and they’ve got to find ways to improve WOLED to better-compete against QD-COLED on performance and specification (despite what that may entail in terms of adding cost).
> 
> The newly-introduced red-weakened Evo stack gives LGD a strong foundation to do exactly that over the coming 2-5 years…
> 
> So I suspect we’re about to enter into a new eta of OLED TV innovation (which LGD has probably already been planning for for 2+ years…).


One big potential gotcha with this rampant speculation of mine is that is is no clear to me whether QDCC can easily be added to LGD’s current Bottom-Emission-based WOLED or whether use of QDCC fundamentally requires a top-emission Backplane.

Any insight on that appreciated.

LGD already has top-emission in production for their transparent WOLEDs, so it’s not a showstopper, but Top-Emission WOLED panels for TV is more involved, a lot more added cost than merely the additional cost of Red QDCC, and means a High-performance Evo-II / QD-Evo stack would fundamentally be different than a bottom-emission non-QDCC WOLED stack (so no real synergy to be had by having common emission layers…).


----------



## fafrd

Someone needs to track down the recently-released 2021 Version 4 of this document:



https://s7c093c6ff6cff6e7.jimcontent.com/download/version/1598315102/module/10012144585/name/AMOLED%20Manufacturing%20Process%20Report_EN_Sample.pdf



This is now out of date and the new version should include this image of the final QD-OLED (QD-COLED) structure:


----------



## RichB

fafrd said:


> Since we first understood how LGD modified their WOLED stack for their new 3S4C / WBE / Evo panels, I’ve been troubled by how weak LGD made red.
> 
> Since rhe 3S3C / WBC stack LGD introduced in 2015/2016, red has been the weakest primary color within the WOLED stack and with the 3S4C stack, LGD has further weakened Red in favor of stronger / deeper green..,
> 
> Measurements by early G1 owners confirm that the 3S4C stack is red-limited, with calibrated peak white output limited by maximum output of the red subpixel and fully-saturated red output being far weaker than either green or blue (which is the strongest primary).
> 
> The arrival of Hugh-Efficiency Blue will change the entire context of this speculation, but UDC just stated that High Effuciency Blue is essentially ready but will only benefit power-critical applications such as battery-powered mobile phones, which means acceptable lifetime will require so many layers to reduce current density to the point that it won’t benefit line-powered applications like TV and will only justify a cost premium for certain premium battery-powered applications such as mobile phones or tablets.
> 
> I’m not even certain I take UDC’s claims at face value, but I believe it is safe to say it does not look like there will be a high-efficiency Blue emitter for TV application as far out as makes sense to look (if ever).
> 
> LGD knows there is no high-efficiency blue coming and they know Samsung Display is adding QD color converters to blue OLED, so how will they respond?
> 
> WOLED already has an extremely efficient and long-lifetime green PHOLED emitter (hence why they can get away with a minimum-sized green subpixel) and with two full blue FOLED emitter layers, they also have all the blue efficiency and lifetime they need (at least until a better blue PHOLED emitter emerges to force them to switch).
> 
> So red is WOLEDs problem.
> 
> We speculated years ago about what LGD could achieve by combing QDCF with WOLED, but recent developments make that so much more clear now: by only using Red QDCC to reinforce Red, WOLED will get the greatest bang for the buck.
> 
> If LGD adds blue-driven Red QDCC to the red subpixel, the two blue layers essentially convert to 1.2 blue-layers-worth of red output (because of ~60% Red QDCC efficiency), complimenting the ~1.2 blue-layers worth of Red PHOLED output within the 3S4C stack.
> 
> This means Red subpixel output from the current 3S4C stack can be doubled by merely adopting Red QDCC over the red subpixel.
> 
> With current red output, that would basically bring fully-saturated red output up to the level of Green and Blue (and peak white output will be able to increase along with it, probably easily exceeding 1000 cd/m2 @ 10%.
> 
> And a side benefit of the addition of Red QDCC over the red subpixel is that red off-axis color shift reduced dramatically (because ~half the red photons are generated right at the outer surface of display by the QDs) so WOLEDs recently-exaccerbated problem with red off-axis color **** is virtually eliminated.
> 
> If one were planning a WOLED stack for the addition of Red QDs, one would want to reduce the strength of the Red OLED emitter within the WOLED stack, exactly as LGD has done with their recently-introduced 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable stack (where Deep Green was added at the expense of Red).
> 
> So putting all of this together, I won’t be at all surprised to see LGD introduce an Evo II stack adopting the use of Red QDCC by 2023 and possibly even next year.
> 
> And in addition, I won’t be at all to see LGD continue to promote a ‘2-stack’ portfolio as they introduced this year.
> 
> Red QDCC will add cost, so Evo II (or QD-Evo) will better compete against Samsung’s QD-COLED but at a price premium.
> 
> The old 3S3C /WBC / non-Evo stack will be retired in favor of the 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable stack, which will become the value / entry-level WOLED panel..,
> 
> LGD’s hot to maintain their lower-cost advantage over Samsung’s QD-COLED (despite whatever performance gaps that may mean) and they’ve got to find ways to improve WOLED to better-compete against QD-COLED on performance and specification (despite what that may entail in terms of adding cost).
> 
> The newly-introduced red-weakened Evo stack gives LGD a strong foundation to do exactly that over the coming 2-5 years…
> 
> So I suspect we’re about to enter into a new eta of OLED TV innovation (which LGD has probably already been planning for for 2+ years…).


It is also clear from my tests using the service menu that red is limited to 192 somewhere in the pipeline.
D65 can be achieved with much higher red level, there was no problem with red 235 with the service menu pattern in Warm mode.
However, external patterns are not D65 at these settings lack red so this does not work. 

D-nice has been able to boost output using the Sony service menu.
So there is untapped performance in the current WBE panels from LG

- Rich


----------



## fafrd

RichB said:


> It is also clear from my tests using the service menu that red is limited to 192 somewhere in the pipeline.
> D65 can be achieved with much higher red level, there was no problem with red 235 with the service menu pattern in Warm mode.
> However, external patterns are not D65 at these settings lack red so this does not work.
> 
> D-nice has been able to boost output using the Sony service menu.
> So there is untapped performance in the current WBE panels from LG
> 
> - Rich


From other measurements that were sent to me from a 77G1, here is what current Evo angels deliver in terms of peak fully-saturated primary levels:


White 806 (10% peak)
Red target 184.574 so 99.5 = 53.9% of target
Green target 557.51 so 414.5 = 74.35% of t
Blue target 63.916 so 81.4 = 127.4% of target

So fully-saturated red reaches only 53.9% of what it should to fully deliver it’s contribution to White at 806 cd/m2 (for DCI-P3).

The missing 85 cd/m2 of red output gets supplied through the white subpixel (along with a lot of blue and green photons).

By using an alternate whitepoint which is slightly cooler and increases the green and blue output for that same amount of red (actually slightly more, since there will also be some additional red photons included in the increased white pixel output),peak white output can increase above this level (and several have reported achieving 10% peak levels of close to 900 Nits using perceptually-matched AWPs which are slightly cooler (less red).

If we now add Red Quantum Color Converters on top of that same Red subpixel, blue photons that would otherwisebe filtered ou and wasted will be converted to additional Red photons that essentially double Red output to over 100% of DCI-P3 Red (for a 10% window)..

This means there is more than enough red lumens available to drive the white subpixel to it’s next limit, which is probably green.

If peak white can increase from 53,9% to 74.35%, that’s a ~38% increase in peak white output or as much as 1100 cd/m2 if the white subpixel can be driven that hard (which, since HDTVTEST reported 1200 cd/m2 peak in Vivid, I suspect it can).

So yeah, I believe LGD has some cards up their sleeve which they should start to play next year…

It’s still not clear to me whether they can easily add QDCC to a bottom-emission stack, but it looks like the color filters are already ‘under’ the WOLED layers so it be itching more than a slightly more complicated color filter configuration (Top Plane, even though it’s located on the bottom)…


----------



## 59LIHP

QD-OLED (blue OLED + QD CF) is only one step to go to QNED (Nanorod LED + QD CF)...

_Samsung Display large business division investment timeline_













_Samsung Electronics Next-Generation TV Technology Roadmap_















Positive Vibes : 네이버 블로그







blog.naver.com






_Are Quantum Nano Emitting Diodes (QNEDs) the Next Big Thing?_






Are Quantum Nano Emitting Diodes (QNEDs) the Next Big Thing? - Display Supply Chain Consultants







www.displaysupplychain.com


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> No, 3S4C means 3 OLED layers containing 4 colors.
> 
> A single OLED layer can be split between different colors.
> 
> LGD WOLED started as 2S2C - one blue layer and one yellow layer.
> 
> Then they needed more peak brightness for HDR so they went to 3S2C - two full blue layers sandwiching a full yellow layer.
> 
> Then they needed more deep red than they were getting from heir yellow emitter layer to better cover DCI-P3, so they went to 3C3C by spitting the yellow layer into a ~half thickness red layer and a ~half thickness yellow layer (less yellow output in exchange for more deep red output).
> 
> That’s rhe 3S3C WOLED has been based on since rhe 2016 model year when LG introduce it.
> 
> The ‘Evo’ stack has added deep green to that middle layer so that it is ~1/3 deep red, ~1/3 yellow and ~1/3 deep green sandwiched between 2 full blue layers - 3S4C.


Oh OK. Thanks.


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Since we first understood how LGD modified their WOLED stack for their new 3S4C / WBE / Evo panels, I’ve been troubled by how weak LGD made red.
> 
> Since rhe 3S3C / WBC stack LGD introduced in 2015/2016, red has been the weakest primary color within the WOLED stack and with the 3S4C stack, LGD has further weakened Red in favor of stronger / deeper green..,
> 
> Measurements by early G1 owners confirm that the 3S4C stack is red-limited, with calibrated peak white output limited by maximum output of the red subpixel and fully-saturated red output being far weaker than either green or blue (which is the strongest primary).
> 
> The arrival of Hugh-Efficiency Blue will change the entire context of this speculation, but UDC just stated that High Effuciency Blue is essentially ready but will only benefit power-critical applications such as battery-powered mobile phones, which means acceptable lifetime will require so many layers to reduce current density to the point that it won’t benefit line-powered applications like TV and will only justify a cost premium for certain premium battery-powered applications such as mobile phones or tablets.
> 
> I’m not even certain I take UDC’s claims at face value, but I believe it is safe to say it does not look like there will be a high-efficiency Blue emitter for TV application as far out as makes sense to look (if ever).
> 
> LGD knows there is no high-efficiency blue coming and they know Samsung Display is adding QD color converters to blue OLED, so how will they respond?
> 
> WOLED already has an extremely efficient and long-lifetime green PHOLED emitter (hence why they can get away with a minimum-sized green subpixel) and with two full blue FOLED emitter layers, they also have all the blue efficiency and lifetime they need (at least until a better blue PHOLED emitter emerges to force them to switch).
> 
> So red is WOLEDs problem.
> 
> We speculated years ago about what LGD could achieve by combing QDCF with WOLED, but recent developments make that so much more clear now: by only using Red QDCC to reinforce Red, WOLED will get the greatest bang for the buck.
> 
> If LGD adds blue-driven Red QDCC to the red subpixel, the two blue layers essentially convert to 1.2 blue-layers-worth of red output (because of ~60% Red QDCC efficiency), complimenting the ~1.2 blue-layers worth of Red PHOLED output within the 3S4C stack.
> 
> This means Red subpixel output from the current 3S4C stack can be doubled by merely adopting Red QDCC over the red subpixel.
> 
> With current red output, that would basically bring fully-saturated red output up to the level of Green and Blue (and peak white output will be able to increase along with it, probably easily exceeding 1000 cd/m2 @ 10%.
> 
> And a side benefit of the addition of Red QDCC over the red subpixel is that red off-axis color shift reduced dramatically (because ~half the red photons are generated right at the outer surface of display by the QDs) so WOLEDs recently-exaccerbated problem with red off-axis color **** is virtually eliminated.
> 
> If one were planning a WOLED stack for the addition of Red QDs, one would want to reduce the strength of the Red OLED emitter within the WOLED stack, exactly as LGD has done with their recently-introduced 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable stack (where Deep Green was added at the expense of Red).
> 
> So putting all of this together, I won’t be at all surprised to see LGD introduce an Evo II stack adopting the use of Red QDCC by 2023 and possibly even next year.
> 
> And in addition, I won’t be at all to see LGD continue to promote a ‘2-stack’ portfolio as they introduced this year.
> 
> Red QDCC will add cost, so Evo II (or QD-Evo) will better compete against Samsung’s QD-COLED but at a price premium.
> 
> The old 3S3C /WBC / non-Evo stack will be retired in favor of the 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable stack, which will become the value / entry-level WOLED panel..,
> 
> LGD’s hot to maintain their lower-cost advantage over Samsung’s QD-COLED (despite whatever performance gaps that may mean) and they’ve got to find ways to improve WOLED to better-compete against QD-COLED on performance and specification (despite what that may entail in terms of adding cost).
> 
> The newly-introduced red-weakened Evo stack gives LGD a strong foundation to do exactly that over the coming 2-5 years…
> 
> So I suspect we’re about to enter into a new eta of OLED TV innovation (which LGD has probably already been planning for for 2+ years…).


Looking into this some more, I’ve come to the conclusion that adding Quantum Dots to LGD’s WOLED would be a bad idea and would actually decrease red output.

What I didn’t realize is that LGD can fully-exploit their red and green PHOLED emitters by driving them much harder than their blue layers, while the use of Quantum Dots means Samsung can only drive their green OLED emitter at the same level they drive their blue emitters (because if they drive any harder, the blue emitters exciting the quantum dots would age/fade).

So if LGD added quantum dots to their red subpixel, they would need to pull back the strength that pixel is driven today to extend the lifetime of the blue layers within the red pixel, and in the end, total red output decreases rather than doubling (non-starter).

But I still believe LGD will need to respond with a 2-product offering (probably by 2023) and so here is more speculation on how I think they can do that:

Samsung QD-COLED has 4 emission layers, more expensive than LGD’s current 3-layer WOLED.

LGD can introduce a premium ‘high color volume’ WOLED Evo-II (or Revo ) more effectively by adding a 4th emission layer themselves.

That Premium Panel offering loses a major cost advantage versus QD-COLED but should still be no more costly, and with a 4S4C stack, LGD can essentially increase Red output by 2-3 times very easily.

A B-R-Y/G-B stack would triple red output while increasing green output by 50% and increasing white output by over 50%.

Rather than pushing peak white levels to the maximum, LGD can reduce white subpixel size in order to increase fullly-saturated output levels to match those of QD-COLED.

This would allow LGD’s 4S4C Revo panel to perform as a true additive RGB display without making use of the white subpixel.

Whatever size white subpixel may remain can provide ‘bonus brightness’ for bright white highlights exceeding the ~1000 Nit peak levels available in RGB.

Because LGD’s WOLED manufacturing is so much more mature than Samsung’s just-starting-to-ramp QD-COLED, their Premium Revo panels will be priced lower than Samsung’s QD-COLED panels and they can offer them across the product range from 48” to 83” or even 8K.

The key thing for LGD/WOLED is to make it easy for Sony and Panasonic to stay with WOLED. It’s unlikely either Sony or Panasonic is jumping onto QD-COLED before it’s proven itself in the field for at least one year, so the 2023 product cycle is the key decision point.

By this time next year, LGD has to be giving Sony any Panasonic a choice between both a Premium QD-COLED-matching WOLED panel and/or a budget entry-level WOLED panel (today’s Evo).

If performance is close to identical and cost is no more (and likely cheaper), they make Sony’s and Panasonic’s decision easy - sticking with a known supplier and a known technology is always the obvious / less risky choice everything else being equal.

Hopefully LGD has already been working on this and is well on their way towards having samples of 4S4C Revo Premium panels in the hands of Sony and Panasonic by this time next year.

Panasonic especially is going to be very attracted by an RGB OLED offering and LGD will be taking a big risk if they do not have an RGB+W product offering in Panasonic’s hands for evaluation well in advance if 2023 product decisions…

I’ve been thinking about this ‘dual-track’ two product offering strategy triggered by the arrival of high-efficiency blue for awhile now (dropping to 2S4C B-R/Y/G and offering a Premium 3S4C Y-B-R/G) but now that it is pretty clear that a low-cost high-efficiency blue is years away, I think LGD needs to plan for a Premium / Budget WOLED panel offering based on the 2 Deuterium-based Blue FOLED layers they are using for WBE / Evo.

LGD has always had the capability to introduce an RGB WOLED panel. Using the measurements I posted earlier, an Evo panel with White subpixel completely eliminated to increase R,G,B subpixel sizes should be able to deliver a true additive display with 800-900 Nits of DCI-P3 ColorSpace.

Coupling that true RGB panel with a Plate heatsink my be able to get LGD to over 1000 Nits without even needing to add a 4th emission layer.

At that point it comes down to a question of which avenue is less costly.

Though an integrated heat sink is technoloogy always available to Samsung QD-COLED as well (so not a sustainable advantage).

So to be safe as far as staying one step ahead of Samsung QD-COLED, LGD needs to have a 4-stack WOLED ready.

A 4S4C WOLED should increase peak brightness levels by over 55%, so true RGB levels (no white subpixel) should be able exceed 1250 Nits and could go as high as 1400 Nits.

With the addition of a Plate heatsink, that could translate to 1500-1700 Nits of full DCI-P3 ColorSpace.

Or a bit of that fully-saturated peak output could be pulled-back to leave a smaller white subpixel that could probably boost peak white levels to 2000 Nits while leaving fully-saturated colors close to QD-COLED’s 1000 Nits (RGB+W).

There are a few strange aspects of LGD’s new 3S4C / WBE / Evo WOLED stack that are best-explained by them planning for exactly this coming battle of Best Premium OLED TV panel, so hopefully LGD has laid the groundwork with Evo and has the full multi-year campaign well underway…

But in short, my prediction is that we see a dual-stack WOLED product offering from LGD by 2023 product cycle (or at least by the 2024 product cycle).

Isn’t competition grand


----------



## 59LIHP

[이재용 가석방] JY 디스플레이 QD-OLED, 4분기 양산 돌입…연간 100만대로 시작








[이재용 가석방] JY 디스플레이 QD-OLED, 4분기 양산 돌입…연간 100만대로 시작


이재용 가석방 JY 디스플레이 QD-OLED, 4분기 양산 돌입연간 100만대로 시작 13조1000억 들이는 차세대 디스플레이 QD-OLED 이재용, 직접 투자 계획 밝히며 챙겨와 연말 본격 양산해 TV 신제품 내년 초 출시 전망 시장 점유율 70%, LG전자와 경쟁 구도




biz.chosun.com












[이재용 가석방] JY 디스플레이 QD-OLED, 4분기 양산 돌입…연간 100만대로 시작


이재용 가석방 JY 디스플레이 QD-OLED, 4분기 양산 돌입연간 100만대로 시작 13조1000억 들이는 차세대 디스플레이 QD-OLED 이재용, 직접 투자 계획 밝히며 챙겨와 연말 본격 양산해 TV 신제품 내년 초 출시 전망 시장 점유율 70%, LG전자와 경쟁 구도




translate.google.com






"4분기 삼성 QD-OLED 양산"…판 커지는 OLED TV 시장








"4분기 삼성 QD-OLED 양산"…판 커지는 OLED TV 시장


삼성디스플레이가 올 4분기 TV용 OLED(유기발광다이오드) 패널 ‘퀀텀닷(QD) 디스플레이’ 양산을 공식화하면서 OLED 시장의 판이 커질 전망이다. 삼성의 참전으로 현재 OLED 패널·세트 모두 LG가 주도하는 대형 OLED 시장에 지각변동이 일어날지 관심이 쏠린...




www.edaily.co.kr












"4분기 삼성 QD-OLED 양산"…판 커지는 OLED TV 시장


삼성디스플레이가 올 4분기 TV용 OLED(유기발광다이오드) 패널 ‘퀀텀닷(QD) 디스플레이’ 양산을 공식화하면서 OLED 시장의 판이 커질 전망이다. 삼성의 참전으로 현재 OLED 패널·세트 모두 LG가 주도하는 대형 OLED 시장에 지각변동이 일어날지 관심이 쏠린...




translate.google.com


----------



## fafrd

Vincent doesn’t believe first-generation QD-COLED will get to 1000 Nits (and is forecasting only ~half that level…):


----------



## fafrd

Finally found it: Samsung Display begins mass production of QD-OLED in the fourth quarter of 2021

It’s basically the exact same text that other articles including the earlier linked one from OledNet used (‘cut and paste’) but the new picture of the 4Smodified structure including 4th Green PHOLED layer is there and the caption says;

‘<Expected structure of QD-OLED. Source UBI Research>‘ without further explanation.

UBI issued this presentation in July 2020 which included a 3S1C ‘QD-OLED Expected structure’ :
https://s7c093c6ff6cff6e7.jimcontent.com/download/version/1598315102/module/10012144585/name/AMOLED Manufacturing Process Report_EN_Sample.pdf










It is a 3S1C Blue Florescent OLED stack.

Now in their recent August 2021 Resrar h Note on QD-OLED they are presenting a revised ‘Expected QD-OLED Structure ‘ which adds a 4th OLED layer to the stack but it is Green PHOLED rather than another Blue FOLED layer:











The addition of a Green PHOLED layer to Samsung’s QD-OLED is a big deal which no one else seems to have picked up on…


----------



## 59LIHP

삼성, 이재용 가석방 後 차세대 디스플레이 궤도 수정








삼성, 이재용 가석방 後 차세대 디스플레이 궤도 수정


이재용 부회장의 가석방 확정에 따라 삼성의 차세대 디스플레이 전략이 수정될지 관심이 쏠린다. 앞서 삼성디스플레이는 LCD 사업을 접고 미래 먹거..



it.chosun.com












삼성, 이재용 가석방 後 차세대 디스플레이 궤도 수정


이재용 부회장의 가석방 확정에 따라 삼성의 차세대 디스플레이 전략이 수정될지 관심이 쏠린다. 앞서 삼성디스플레이는 LCD 사업을 접고 미래 먹거..



translate.google.com


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> 삼성, 이재용 가석방 後 차세대 디스플레이 궤도 수정
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 삼성, 이재용 가석방 後 차세대 디스플레이 궤도 수정
> 
> 
> 이재용 부회장의 가석방 확정에 따라 삼성의 차세대 디스플레이 전략이 수정될지 관심이 쏠린다. 앞서 삼성디스플레이는 LCD 사업을 접고 미래 먹거..
> 
> 
> 
> it.chosun.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 삼성, 이재용 가석방 後 차세대 디스플레이 궤도 수정
> 
> 
> 이재용 부회장의 가석방 확정에 따라 삼성의 차세대 디스플레이 전략이 수정될지 관심이 쏠린다. 앞서 삼성디스플레이는 LCD 사업을 접고 미래 먹거..
> 
> 
> 
> translate.google.com


I appreciate the links you post but it's really alot more helpful if you also cut and paste whatever key elements are noteworthy (especially with a foreign-language article since google translate can be hit-or-miss).

From this article (after finally finding a way to read an english translation) here are the key elements from my perspective:

'Samsung Display folded its LCD business and brought out QD Display (QD-OLED) as a food of the future. However, if progress is made in the development of quantum nanoluminescent diodes (QNED), which is evaluated as a more advanced display, *there is a possibility of quantum jumping to QNED rather than the QD display all-in strategy*. This analysis is that the electronics industry *can make such decisions faster after the vice president's return to management.*'

'if Samsung Electronics decides that QD Display TV is difficult to become its main cash kau (cash-generation application), *it is also possible to change its next-generation display strategy*. *Samsung Display can rush development for QNED conversion by taking only a certain level of QD display.*'

'The electronics industry believes that *Samsung Electronics is more capable of falling QNED as a future display than OLED-based QD Display.* The current *QD display production line is close to the pilot concept*, and there are some observations that the *QNED process is not completely different, so switching to QNED in the future will not cause much damage.*'

'"QLED has process elements common to the QD display family, such as the application of inkjet printing technology," said an electronics official, "and *if we make progress in the QLED device life issue, samsung display will have no reason to stick to QD display*."'

'"*In the wake of Lee's parole, we cannot rule out the possibility of reshaping the strategy with QLED complicity to clean up the tangled relationship between the VD Division and Samsung Display,*" he added.’

So in short, just when you thought it had finally been settled and SVD was in agreement with Samsung Display to proceed with launching QD-OLED, it seems as though there remain sharp disagreements about what to do beyond this first 'pilot production phase' in 2022 and that the review following Lee's parole is being set up as the major investment and strategic direction decision point.

Samsung Display wants to move forward with converting the other two 8.5G LCD Fabs to QD-OLED (which will take at least 2 years given current equipment delays).

SVD wants Samsung Display to continue LCD production while working like crazy to 'make progress in the QLED device life issue' and to hold off on further investment decisions beyond this first QD-OLED pilot phase in the hopes that Samsung Display can be convinced to ditch QD-OLED and invest directly in QNED production (QD Display 2.0).

The backplane manufacturing for QD-OLED nd QNED is largely the same and all of the top-plane equipment including IJP equipment for printing QDs can be recycled from a QD-OLED line converting to a QNED line, but the equipment used for the manufacture of the OLED emission layers ad especially the very expensive VTE deposition equipment will be totally wasted.

SVD wants the Samsung Group to hold off on placing additional order for 2 VTE machines for the time being and is hoping to convince the Chairman that that is the correct decision in the 'September review'.

Other customers like Sony and Panasonic are certainly going to hold off until this mess is cleared up before making any decision to adopt QD-OLED, so looks lie it will be SVD-only in 2022 (which was likely in any case, since they probably will ant to see how the new technology performs in the field for at lest a year before jumping on board...).


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> I appreciate the links you post but it's really alot more helpful if you also cut and paste whatever key elements are noteworthy (especially with a foreign-language article since google translate can be hit-or-miss).
> 
> From this article (after finally finding a way to read an english translation) here are the key elements from my perspective:
> 
> 'Samsung Display folded its LCD business and brought out QD Display (QD-OLED) as a food of the future. However, if progress is made in the development of quantum nanoluminescent diodes (QNED), which is evaluated as a more advanced display, *there is a possibility of quantum jumping to QNED rather than the QD display all-in strategy*. This analysis is that the electronics industry *can make such decisions faster after the vice president's return to management.*'
> 
> 'if Samsung Electronics decides that QD Display TV is difficult to become its main cash kau (cash-generation application), *it is also possible to change its next-generation display strategy*. *Samsung Display can rush development for QNED conversion by taking only a certain level of QD display.*'
> 
> 'The electronics industry believes that *Samsung Electronics is more capable of falling QNED as a future display than OLED-based QD Display.* The current *QD display production line is close to the pilot concept*, and there are some observations that the *QNED process is not completely different, so switching to QNED in the future will not cause much damage.*'
> 
> '"QLED has process elements common to the QD display family, such as the application of inkjet printing technology," said an electronics official, "and *if we make progress in the QLED device life issue, samsung display will have no reason to stick to QD display*."'
> 
> '"*In the wake of Lee's parole, we cannot rule out the possibility of reshaping the strategy with QLED complicity to clean up the tangled relationship between the VD Division and Samsung Display,*" he added.’
> 
> So in short, just when you thought it had finally been settled and SVD was in agreement with Samsung Display to proceed with launching QD-OLED, it seems as though there remain sharp disagreements about what to do beyond this first 'pilot production phase' in 2022 and that the review following Lee's parole is being set up as the major investment and strategic direction decision point.
> 
> Samsung Display wants to move forward with converting the other two 8.5G LCD Fabs to QD-OLED (which will take at least 2 years given current equipment delays).
> 
> SVD wants Samsung Display to continue LCD production while working like crazy to 'make progress in the QLED device life issue' and to hold off on further investment decisions beyond this first QD-OLED pilot phase in the hopes that Samsung Display can be convinced to ditch QD-OLED and invest directly in QNED production (QD Display 2.0).
> 
> The backplane manufacturing for QD-OLED nd QNED is largely the same and all of the top-plane equipment including IJP equipment for printing QDs can be recycled from a QD-OLED line converting to a QNED line, but the equipment used for the manufacture of the OLED emission layers ad especially the very expensive VTE deposition equipment will be totally wasted.
> 
> SVD wants the Samsung Group to hold off on placing additional order for 2 VTE machines for the time being and is hoping to convince the Chairman that that is the correct decision in the 'September review'.
> 
> Other customers like Sony and Panasonic are certainly going to hold off until this mess is cleared up before making any decision to adopt QD-OLED, so looks lie it will be SVD-only in 2022 (which was likely in any case, since they probably will ant to see how the new technology performs in the field for at lest a year before jumping on board...).


Yes this is going to be a "proof of concept" level product to try and convince the skeptics inside Samsung and Sony/Panasonic. Similar to when WOLED first launched.


----------



## Davenlr

It appears to be the same "concept" as Triluminous with OLED for the backlight. Surprised Sony didnt do this a few years ago.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> Yes this is going to be a "proof of concept" level product to try and convince the skeptics inside Samsung and Sony/Panasonic. Similar to when WOLED first launched.


I think that’s exactly right.

I posted earlier that Vincent Toh of HDTVTest does not believe these Gen 1 QD-COLEDs will deliver a full 1000 Nits peak and he might be correct, but I don’t think so. I believe Vincent is analyzing the peak levels Samsung can deliver with 4 blue PHOLED layers and missed the switch of the new 4th layer from Blue FOLED to Green PHOLED.

If we assume Samsung is using a similar Blue FOLED to LGD WOLED and that they are not going to drive that Blue OLED emitter any harder than LGD is driving theirs, here’s what I come up with for the 4S2C QD-COLED UBI recently published:

QD-COLED 3 layers blue vs WOLED 2 layers blue = 150%

QD-COLED ~80% PAR vs WOLED ~60% PAR = 133%

QD-COLED 12.34% Blue subpixel area vs WOLED ~15% Blue Subpixel area = 82.7%

150% x 133% x 82.7% = 165%

So the Blue Subpixel of QD-COLED should be able to be 165% the strength of WOLED’s blue subpixel, meaning a 77G1 WOLED putting out a maximum of 81.4 Nits of fully-saturated blue @ 10% window (as measured by CTM Audi) should translate to as much as 134 Nits of blue on a QD-COLED.

Blue constitutes 7.93% of DCI-P3 white, so if the subpixel size has been balanced for DCI-P3 white, 134 Nits of blue should translate to 1690 Nits peak white @ 10%…

Contrast this with a QD-BOLED based on 4 blue FOLED layers (and no blue color filter over the blue subpixel). In that case the green subpixel needs to be 2.7 times bigger (consuming 75% of the available subpixel area) while the blue subpixel can be reduced to 30% of the size it needs in 4S2C QD-COLED.

Moving from 3 blue layers to 4 and removing the color filter increases the strength of blue output per unit area by ~133% / 0.85% = 157% but reducing the blue subpixel size by 70% reduces net blue output (as well as DCI-P3 peak white output) to 47% of it’s 4S2C QD-COLED level (meaning 63 Nits of fully-saturated peak blue or 507 Nits of peak white, similar to the peak levels Vincent Toh is suggesting).

So my guess is that the switch to a 4th layer composed of green PHOLED rather than another layer of blue FOLED is going to easily allow Samsung’s QD-COLED to deliver a full 1000 Nits of peak brightness @ 10% (and likely even more).


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> I appreciate the links you post but it's really alot more helpful if you also cut and paste whatever key elements are noteworthy (especially with a foreign-language article since google translate can be hit-or-miss).


I'm glad you enjoy the articles I post...
I let the members judge the merits of the articles I post without influencing them. I am not like you to speculate all the time. I just share information without teaching anyone a lesson.
Continue to enjoy what I post without telling you how I should do it.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> I'm glad you enjoy the articles I post...
> I let the members judge the merits of the articles I post without influencing them. I am not like you to speculate all the time. I just share information without teaching anyone a lesson.
> Continue to enjoy what I post without telling you how I should do it.


Fair enough. An English translation would be appreciated but if that’s too much trouble I’ll keep fumbling my way through with Google translate (which seems more straightforward on PC than iPhone).


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> Fair enough. An English translation would be appreciated but if that’s too much trouble I’ll keep fumbling my way through with Google translate (which seems more straightforward on PC than iPhone).


As I already indicated to you I am French.
I speak two languages fluently, French and Arabic and I fumble with three other languages, Spanish, Italian and English. You will understand that I have even more difficulty than you in translating Korean into English to make a synthesis.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> As I already indicated to you I am French.
> I speak two languages fluently, French and Arabic and I fumble with three other languages, Spanish, Italian and English. You will understand that I have even more difficulty than you in translating Korean into English to make a synthesis.


I didn’t know that and I apologize for assuming you were a native English speaker.

Please keep your excellent links coming and I’ll do what I can to interpret them for the Thread.

I generally scan TheElec, Korean Economics Daily, and a few aggregator sites such as OLED Info, but you have a touch for unearthing source articles in foreign language (ie: Korean) that is greatly appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## fafrd

Looks like Q2’21 may go down in history as the quarter LGD WOLED gained dominance of the $1000-2000 Advanced TV Market: OLED Share Increased in Booming Advanced TV Market in Q2 2021 - Display Supply Chain Consultants

‘*Overall, OLED TV revenues increased by 176% Y/Y on the strength of increasing 77” OLED TV sales as well as sales of 48”*, which was introduced in Q2 2020. Advanced LCD TV revenues increased by 51% Y/Y as the mix shifted to large sizes and price decreases remained modest. As a result, *OLED TV revenue share of Advanced TV increased from 36% in Q2 2020 to 51% *in Q2 2021, as OLED took a majority of Advanced TV revenues for the first time since 2018.’

This is for LGE, which is a combination of LCD and the lion’s share or WOLED, but remarkable nonetheless:

‘*Samsung’s* unit share of 55” Advanced TV declined from 50% in Q2 2020 to 36% in Q2 2021, and its *revenue share declined from 37% to 23%. *LG’s share of 55” Advanced TV units increased Y/Y from 20% to 34%, and *LG’s revenue share increased to 44%.*’

So in Q2’21, LGE’s combined Advanced 55” LCD + WOLED revenue was almost double Samsung’s 55” QLED/LCD revenue.

And at 77” where LGD/LGE has put a major focus this cycle, the gains are nothing short amazing:

‘Advanced LCD TVs of 75” increased 88% Y/Y to 317K, and Advanced LCD TVs larger than 75” increased 121% to 150K, while *OLED TVs 77” and larger increased by 308% to 113K*, more than the total cumulative volume of this category for all years up to the end of 2019.’

So 77” WOLED sales have grown by more than 3-fold since 2021 and more 77” WOLEDs sold in H1’21 than the cumulative total though 2019 (and this is before the ~20% / +30,000 8.5G substrates of additional capacity from Guangzhou that was scheduled to kick-in this month…).


----------



## wco81

BTW, looks like the C1 is down almost to the lowest prices of the CX.

Can it get even lower by BF?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> BTW, looks like the C1 is down almost to the lowest prices of the CX.
> 
> Can it get even lower by BF?


Certainly - it all comes down to supply and demand. LG has planned for a certain Q4 / BF demand and is filling he channels with that supply.

LGE will discount pricing to whatever level is needed to increase BF demand until that supply sells-through.

A ~5% year-on-year reduction is a pretty safe bet but with the focus LG is putting on 77” market share gains this cycle (finally!), I’m pretty sure the 77” C1 BF pricing will be below 95% of the CX BF pricing…


----------



## wco81

I'm actually surprised they still have CX for sale. Pretty sure the C9 was long gone by mid August.

Price delta isn't that much so the CX has held up.


----------



## 59LIHP

AMOLED Materials Market to Grow to $1.4 Billion in 2021





AMOLED Materials Market to Grow to $1.4 Billion in 2021 - Display Supply Chain Consultants







www.displaysupplychain.com


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> AMOLED Materials Market to Grow to $1.4 Billion in 2021
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMOLED Materials Market to Grow to $1.4 Billion in 2021 - Display Supply Chain Consultants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaysupplychain.com


‘We expect that steady, incremental improvements in material utilization and price will help LGD drive the unyielded stack cost of its standard WOLED panels from $88.14 per square meter in 2019 to $47.19 per square meter in 2025. With the additional emitting layer, we estimate that the unyielded stack cost of the OLED Evo panel adds almost $20 per square meter in cost. Although this figure also declines over time, we estimate the cost adder in 2025 remains more than $15 per square meter. With this continuing cost adder, *we expect that OLED Evo will continue to be positioned as a premium product, and that the additional green layer will not be used on LGD’s mainstream products.*’

I’ll take that bet.

LGD may not finalize conversion of Paju to Evo before 2022 (they have basically said as much), but once all lines can manufacture the Evo stack, I’ll be very surprised if LGD continues to manufacture any of the 3S3C / WBC / non-Evo panels (which may mean we don’t see a 100% Evo lineup before CES2023…).


----------



## lsorensen

59LIHP said:


> AMOLED Materials Market to Grow to $1.4 Billion in 2021
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMOLED Materials Market to Grow to $1.4 Billion in 2021 - Display Supply Chain Consultants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaysupplychain.com


Wouldn't that be callphone/tablet OLED news, not OLED TV news?


----------



## Davenlr

lsorensen said:


> Wouldn't that be callphone/tablet OLED news, not OLED TV news?


Pull up the article. The graph breaks down the material by mobile and TV.


----------



## lsorensen

Davenlr said:


> Pull up the article. The graph breaks down the material by mobile and TV.


Well AMOLED certainly isn't used for televisions. I guess the title of the article was badly done or the article covered much more than just what the title would indicate.

Or is it just that essentially all OLED is AMOLED but only Samsung ever feels the need to call it that?


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> I’ll take that bet.
> 
> LGD may not finalize conversion of Paju to Evo before 2022 (they have basically said as much), but once all lines can manufacture the Evo stack, I’ll be very surprised if LGD continues to manufacture any of the 3S3C / WBC / non-Evo panels (which may mean we don’t see a 100% Evo lineup before CES2023…).


You are more optimistic than DSCC ...


> _ While OLED Evo goes in the other direction by adding cost to the OLED stack, we expect that OLED Evo will represent only a small fraction of LGD’s output,* rising to 10% in 2025,* so the added revenue contribution from OLED Evo will be modest._


----------



## Davenlr

lsorensen said:


> Well AMOLED certainly isn't used for televisions. I guess the title of the article was badly done or the article covered much more than just what the title would indicate.
> 
> Or is it just that essentially all OLED is AMOLED but only Samsung ever feels the need to call it that?


AMOLED has layers, and as far as I know, current TVs use multiple layers. If the current TVs use active matrix, then they are AMOLED. I have no clue if they are active matrix or passive matrix.


----------



## 59LIHP

lsorensen said:


> Wouldn't that be callphone/tablet OLED news, not OLED TV news?


Please make the effort to read the article to the end.


----------



## fafrd

Davenlr said:


> AMOLED has layers, and as far as I know, current TVs use multiple layers. If the current TVs use active matrix, then they are AMOLED. I have no clue if they are active matrix or passive matrix.


Active matrix.

Any OLED based on a thin film transistor backplane (IGZO in LGD WOLED’s case) is AMOLED…


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> You are more optimistic than DSCC ...


I guess they missed the part of the memo where it stated 100% of Guangzhou production is 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable WOLED stack.

Guangzhou represents 60,000 out of a total of 145,000 8.5G sheets per month (41%).

By ‘August’ Guangzhou will increase production to 90,000 8.5G sheets per month (51%).

In addition, LGD has stated they will be converting one of the two WOLED lines in Paju to 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable panel production before year-end and will convert the remaining Paju line ‘early 2022’.

If LGD were planning to only manufacture ~10% of their WOLED panels with the new stack, DSCC needs to explain why they would go to the expense and disruption of converting a single Paju line to Evo (let alone both).

Also, is seems that DSCC missed the part of the memo explaining that C1-Series WOLEDs are largely built with 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable panels (including all 77C1s and 83C1s), even if they are not marketed as having ‘Evo’ technology and don’t make use of the added peak brightness available in the panel (because some C1-Series WOLEDs don’t have it).

Having y to manage two WOLED stacks being manufactured on the same production line would cost LGD more than the supposed savings of not adding the new deep green emitter to those ‘budget / entry-level’ WOLED panels that don’t need it.


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> I guess they missed the part of the memo where it stated 100% of Guangzhou production is 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable WOLED stack.
> 
> Guangzhou represents 60,000 out of a total of 145,000 8.5G sheets per month (41%).
> 
> By ‘August’ Guangzhou will increase production to 90,000 8.5G sheets per month (51%).
> 
> In addition, LGD has stated they will be converting one of the two WOLED lines in Paju to 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable panel production before year-end and will convert the remaining Paju line ‘early 2022’.
> 
> If LGD were planning to only manufacture ~10% of their WOLED panels with the new stack, DSCC needs to explain why they would go to the expense and disruption of converting a single Paju line to Evo (let alone both).
> 
> Also, is seems that DSCC missed the part of the memo explaining that C1-Series WOLEDs are largely built with 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable panels (including all 77C1s and 83C1s), even if they are not marketed as having ‘Evo’ technology and don’t make use of the added peak brightness available in the panel (because some C1-Series WOLEDs don’t have it).
> 
> Having y to manage two WOLED stacks being manufactured on the same production line would cost LGD more than the supposed savings of not adding the new deep green emitter to those ‘budget / entry-level’ WOLED panels that don’t need it.


You should to apply to DSCC for to fill their lack of discernment...


----------



## Davenlr

fafrd said:


> I guess they missed the part of the memo where it stated 100% of Guangzhou production is 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable WOLED stack.


Newbie OLED question. I have the 77A80J with the new EVO capable panel. I watch a lot of CNN during the day. I have been using the "ambient light sensor" which dims the TV down when watching, and then turn it off at night when I watch regular programming of varied types. Am I being over cautious?


----------



## fafrd

Davenlr said:


> Newbie OLED question. I have the 77A80J with the new EVO capable panel. I watch a lot of CNN during the day. I have been using the "ambient light sensor" which dims the TV down when watching, and then turn it off at night when I watch regular programming of varied types. *Am I being over cautious?*


The lower the brightness level you can enjoy on your WOLED TV, the better.

At this stage, I don’t think concern for burn-in rises to the level of needing to force yourself to watch an image that looks to ‘dim’ to you but if you can watch CNN during the day without needing to crank brightness up high, you’ll only be extending the usable lifetime of your new TV…


----------



## Wizziwig

59LIHP said:


> You are more optimistic than DSCC ...


They probably don't consider fafrd as an authority on LGs production plans. He tends to jump to conclusions and theories based on the smallest shred of actual evidence. By evidence, I mean facts coming out of a confirmed LG source or supplier. Stuff posted on some blog without clear citation or anonymous source is not credible evidence. Same as that entire Samsung buying WOLEDs BS that went around a few months ago. First rule of internet news: always skip to the end and follow the source to determine the likelihood that it's legit. Too many guys out there trying to pump stocks or other agendas.

As for the limited Evo panel production.... could be supply side limitations or pricing preventing them from moving their entire production to the updated process. Since the performance difference is marginal at best, they can continue with the old design for a few more years for the majority of their production.

Unless DSCC cited some sources such as limited orders of the new materials by LG suppliers, then it's hard to judge validity of their predictions.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> They probably don't consider fafrd as an authority on LGs production plans. He tends to jump to conclusions and theories based on the smallest shred of actual evidence. By evidence, I mean *facts coming out of a confirmed LG source or supplier*. Stuff posted on some blog without clear citation or anonymous source is not credible evidence. Same as that entire Samsung buying WOLEDs BS that went around a few months ago. First rule of internet news: always skip to the end and follow the source to determine the likelihood that it's legit. Too many guys out there trying to pump stocks or other agendas.





> As for the limited Evo panel production.... could be supply side limitations or pricing preventing them from moving their entire production to the updated process. Since the performance difference is marginal at best, *they can continue with the old design for a few more years for the majority of their production.*


Perhaps you consider DSCC a more credible source of ‘facts coming out of a confirmed LG source or supplier’ than TheElec, but I certainly don’t:









LG Chem aims to expand blue OLED layer supply to LG Display


LG Chem is aiming to expand its supply of blue OLED emission layer to LG Display this year, TheElec has learned.LG Chem is hoping to supply the blue host for the WBE material set used by LG Display for their large-sized OLED panels.An OLED material set is comprised of an emission layer __ which admi




www.thelec.net





‘LG Display is planning to apply WBE to its E3 and E4 lines at a later date. *E3 will likely start using WBE within the year and E4 by the first half of 2022. *This expanded application of WBE is the reason why LG Chem is pushing to supply more blue host to LG Display.’


----------



## MechanicalMan

Davenlr said:


> Newbie OLED question. I have the 77A80J with the new EVO capable panel. I watch a lot of CNN during the day. I have been using the "ambient light sensor" which dims the TV down when watching, and then turn it off at night when I watch regular programming of varied types. Am I being over cautious?


I wouldn't be at all comfortable watching a cable news channel on mine daily, so some people here are obviously much more convinced than I am that OLED burn-in is a thing of the past. I would probably be toggling the picture off feature if that was something that I was doing daily. Honestly, there's no way that I would even purchase an OLED for watching cable news daily, unless I was also purchasing a 5-year warranty that covers burn-in. So no, I don't think you're being overly cautious. I know someone with a 2017 OLED purchased in 2018 that has terrible burn-in from a station logo just from watching local news and whatnot on a network affiliate. FWIW, that TV is being used at around 170 nits. If you'll be watching a lot of CNN, I'd keep it as dim as you can tolerate.


----------



## Davenlr

Well, the commercials take up 33% of the time, so there is that  Yea, I keep it pretty dim, plus it has an auto dimmer for static logos.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Perhaps you consider DSCC a more credible source of ‘facts coming out of a confirmed LG source or supplier’ than TheElec, but I certainly don’t:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG Chem aims to expand blue OLED layer supply to LG Display
> 
> 
> LG Chem is aiming to expand its supply of blue OLED emission layer to LG Display this year, TheElec has learned.LG Chem is hoping to supply the blue host for the WBE material set used by LG Display for their large-sized OLED panels.An OLED material set is comprised of an emission layer __ which admi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘LG Display is planning to apply WBE to its E3 and E4 lines at a later date. *E3 will likely start using WBE within the year and E4 by the first half of 2022. *This expanded application of WBE is the reason why LG Chem is pushing to supply more blue host to LG Display.’


Do you see a single LG official's name quoted in that article? Instead all you get is "TheElec has learned.". From where?

The point is that unless a story references some official source, you have to treat them with some level of healthy skepticism instead of creating pages of lengthy posts treating their info as hard facts.


----------



## CA22EF

OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


CA22EF said:


> ECO OLED - Samsung Display Co., Ltd. Trademark Registration
> 
> 
> Trademark registration for Samsung Display Co., Ltd.. The mark consists of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uspto.report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://uspto.report/TM/90761665/mark.png
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ECO2 OLED - Samsung Display Co., Ltd. Trademark Registration
> 
> 
> Trademark registration for Samsung Display Co., Ltd.. The mark consists of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uspto.report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://uspto.report/TM/90761739/mark.png


This trademark was for mobile displays.









[Press Release] Samsung Display Unveils New Eco² OLED™ that Reduces Power Consumption, Offers Enhanced Under-Panel Camera, and Features Eco-Friendly Design


Latest OLED technology from Samsung Display sets new industry standard for smartphone market with its first-ever integrated polarizer Samsung Display today unveils its new Eco2 (Eco Square) OLED™ technology, which further reduces power consumption and offers an improved Under-Panel Camera...




global.samsungdisplay.com


----------



## tonydeluce

Davenlr said:


> Newbie OLED question. I have the 77A80J with the new EVO capable panel. I watch a lot of CNN during the day. I have been using the "ambient light sensor" which dims the TV down when watching, and then turn it off at night when I watch regular programming of varied types. Am I being over cautious?


I used my Sony A8G as a computer monitor by day and watched cable news for a couple hours each evening - no sign of burn in after 16 months; using my a90j the same way.


----------



## Wizziwig

FYI, first 10K nit consumer display finally released. Measurements by D-Nice.

Hopefully LG has something more impressive than "Evo" ready for next year.

Edit: Corrected numbers posted here.


----------



## 59LIHP

[증시톱픽] 삼성디스플레이, 4분기 QD OLED 양산 -KB








아이투자


올해 4분기부터 삼성디스플레이는 QD OLED 생산라인 글라스 투입량을 전분기 대비 10배 증가시킬 것으로 추정되어 QD OLED 양산 본격화가 예상된다는 리포트가 나왔다. 최선호주(톱픽)은 삼성전자, LG전자, 한솔케미칼, LX세미콘을 제시했다. 20일 KB증권 김동




www.itooza.com


----------



## 59LIHP

LG전자, 42인치 OLED TV 출시 내년 초로 가닥








LG전자, 42인치 OLED TV 출시 내년 초로 가닥


LG전자, 42인치 OLED TV 출시 내년 초로 가닥, 이수빈 기자, 경제




www.hankyung.com


----------



## tonydeluce

Wizziwig said:


> FYI, first 10K nit consumer display finally released. Measurements by D-Nice.
> 
> Hopefully LG has something more impressive than "Evo" ready for next year.


like "Revo"


----------



## stl8k

LGD's 6-month 2021 financial reporting is out.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001290109/000119312521248307/d177833d6k.htm

I took a _quick_ glance and concluded the following:

No major investment in 10.5 to date (would have shown up in the YAS reporting here), but I think this is the 1st mention in LGD financial reporting of 10.5 investment.
In terms of R&D, it looks to be up a bit from the past couple years. Always interesting to see what they emphasize with 2021 to date including: bendable OLED television display product (65” UHD), the 83" UHD OLED TVs, and QHD resolution 240Hz high-speed notebook displays.
Unsurprisingly, they don't get into stack details (Evo vs non-Evo) or where Evo panels are or are not being produced.
Generally, I don't think there are any major surprises here and the doc isn't going to be the source of intel on where LGD is headed. Anyone see nuggets that I may have missed?


----------



## fafrd

LG Electronics postpones 42-inch OLED Gaming TV launch to early 2022 - KED Global


LG's OLED TV supports the Dolby Vision Gaming solution LG Electronics Inc., one of the world’s largest TV makers, plans to launch the much-anticipated 42



www.kedglobal.com


----------



## Wizziwig

Wizziwig said:


> FYI, first 10K nit consumer display finally released. Measurements by D-Nice.
> 
> Hopefully LG has something more impressive than "Evo" ready for next year.


For those who didn't follow the thread, corrected measurements posted here. Looks like there was a software error with those original numbers.


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> LG Electronics postpones 42-inch OLED Gaming TV launch to early 2022 - KED Global
> 
> 
> LG's OLED TV supports the Dolby Vision Gaming solution LG Electronics Inc., one of the world’s largest TV makers, plans to launch the much-anticipated 42
> 
> 
> 
> www.kedglobal.com


Will this be cheaper than the 48 inch or could it somehow be more expensive because they will market it as a computer monitor for gamers? I want to buy it


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> Will this be cheaper than the 48 inch or could it somehow be more expensive because they will market it as a computer monitor for gamers? I want to buy it


The panels will be ~20% cheaper (10 42” WOLEDs per 8.5G sheet versus 8 48” WOLEDs per sheet) but who knows what that’ll translate to at the end-user product level..


----------



## 59LIHP

LG Display to show life-customized displays at IMID 2021








LG Display to show life-customized displays at IMID 2021


LG Display announced on August 24 that it will unveil life-customized displays by participating in the 'International Meeting on Information Display (IMID) 2021', a South Korea's key Display Industry Exhibition, held at COEX from August 25 to 27.At the exhibition, LG Display plans to del




www.koreaittimes.com


----------



## 59LIHP

Advanced TV Market to Exceed $50 Billion in 2026













Advanced TV Market to Exceed $50 Billion in 2026 - Display Supply Chain Consultants







www.displaysupplychain.com


----------



## 59LIHP

IMID 2021 Opening Ceremony & Keynote Addresses


----------



## mreendoor

*INT Tech developed a 5,000 nits AMOLED microdisplay, is still on track for mass production in Q4 2021*
Taiwan-based INT Tech announced that it has produced new AMOLED microdisplay samples at its $143 million fab in Taizhou in Zhejiang province, China, and the company is still on track for mass production in Q4 2021.








The new 0.7-inch INT Tech uNEEDXR display is a direct-emission display that features a brightness of over 5,000 nits, 3147 PPI and a low power consumption (less than [email protected]).


In fact INT Tech says that its direct-emission AMOLED display technology consumes around 30% less power compared to current silicon-based microOLEDs that use white OLEDs and color filters (see the chart above for more info).



INT Tech developed a proprietary glass-based high pixel density OLED technology - which enables ultra high-resolution displays on glass TFT backplanes. The company is aiming to produce lower-cost and higher-performance microdisplays for the AR/XR markets.
The company's fab in Taizhou will have an annual capacity of 4.7 million displays (not sure what size, maybe this refers to 0.7" ones). The company is also developing new materials and processes which will allow it to achieve a brightness of over 10,000 nits by the end of the year. The company will also invest a further $1 billion to expand capacity and continue its R&D efforts.
As companies invest in future VR and AR technologies, the OLED microdisplay market is heating up. Click here to learn all about that market via our $299.99 OLED and MicroLED Microdisplay Market Report.






INT Tech developed a 5,000 nits AMOLED microdisplay, is still on track for mass production in Q4 2021 | OLED Info


Taiwan-based INT Tech announced that it has produced new AMOLED microdisplay samples at its $143 million fab in Taizhou in Zhejiang province, China, and the company is still on track for mass production in Q4 2021.The new 0.7-inch INT Tech uNEEDXR display is a direct-emission display that...




www.oled-info.com


----------



## stl8k

59LIHP said:


> IMID 2021 Opening Ceremony & Keynote Addresses


I found this slide from UDC detailing how they see and describe the OLED design space interesting.


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung D and LGD lowered their dependence on the US and Japan for OLED materials








[IT클로즈업] 삼성D·LGD, OLED 소재 '美·日 의존도' 낮췄다


- 레드·그린 도판트 및 블루 소재 제외 내재화 성공[디지털데일리 김도현 기자] 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 시장이 확대하면서 소재 업체도 주목받고 있습니다. 시장조사기관 유비리서치에 따르면 2021년 OLED 발광재료 시장규모는 17억4000만달러(약 2조300억원)로 전망됩니다. 연평균 9% 성장해 오는 2025년에는 22억5000만..



www.ddaily.co.kr












[IT클로즈업] 삼성D·LGD, OLED 소재 '美·日 의존도' 낮췄다


- 레드·그린 도판트 및 블루 소재 제외 내재화 성공[디지털데일리 김도현 기자] 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 시장이 확대하면서 소재 업체도 주목받고 있습니다. 시장조사기관 유비리서치에 따르면 2021년 OLED 발광재료 시장규모는 17억4000만달러(약 2조300억원)로 전망됩니다. 연평균 9% 성장해 오는 2025년에는 22억5000만..



translate.google.com


----------



## stl8k

Great, detailed IMID 2021 coverage from this YouTube channel (no affiliation)



https://www.youtube.com/user/aving/videos






 (Samsung Display booth from beginning to 12 minute mark)




 (LG Display Booth)


----------



## Adonisds

Don't forget to always use tropicamide eye drops before watching HDR content to dilate your pupil and make your TV brighter. No need to wait and spend thousands of dollars on a new, brighter, emissive TV 😂


----------



## Davenlr

Adonisds said:


> Don't forget to always use tropicamide eye drops before watching HDR content to dilate your pupil and make your TV brighter. No need to wait and spend thousands of dollars on a new, brighter, emissive TV 😂


No joke. I came back from the eye doctor with my eyes dilated, and the TV brightness on SDR was so bright I had to turn it down almost to minumum.


----------



## 59LIHP

> *Some Clues on QD-OLED Marketing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This week, Samsung Display released some marketing materialabout its QD-OLED technology and at the same time we saw a interesting research paper that between them suggest how Samsung Display may be planning to promote its new TV display technology.
> For those that haven't been following the technology over recent years, Samsung's QD-OLED technology could be viewed as a development of the approach taken by LG Display in making its OLED TV panels. Samsung's first project to make large OLEDs was based on using separate RGB pixels, like its smartphone OLEDs. However, one of the tough challenges was in depositing the separate pixels on large substrates. In contrast, LG puts the layers of RGB down on top of each other, without patterning. That creates white light. It separates the colours with filters. This WOLED system works and has made OLED TV possible as a mass production product, but the use of filters throws away a lot of the light that you have made with such difficulty.
> Samsung's QD-OLED takes the idea of not patterning the emitting layer but then uses patterned quantum dots to convert a flat blue emitting system (it's more than just a layer) to red and green. Some filtering may still be needed, but it's much less aggressive than the filters used by LG. The filtering may be needed because otherwise you have to use a lot of quantum dots to completely convert the blue light as any blue light leakage reduces the chromaticity range that the display can produce. That's important.
> One advantage of QDs as materials compared to OLEDs is that the emissions of the dots have a very pure colour or a narrow Full Width Half Maximum (FWHM), in the jargon. That means that you have the potential to cover more of the chromaticity range of the BT2020 wide colour gamut. Being able to claim a bigger percentage of coverage is a clear marketing advantage as 'everyone knows', don't they, that bigger specification numbers mean better products, so more sales?
> *Some QD OLED Details*
> I noted that at the end of the material on the Samsung Display website, is a section that is headed "Images that feel brighter than they actually are".
> 
> The text highlights that displays with a wider gamut look brighter than those with a narrower colour range and with less saturated colours. That is a well known effect called the Helmholtz Kohlrausch known for convenience reasons as the H-K effect'. For more depth on the effect, there is an article on Wikipedia that covers it.
> Each color on top has approximately the same luminance level and yet they do not appear equally bright or dark. The yellow (second from the left) appears to be much darker than the magenta (right-most). However, when the top image is converted to grayscale, we have the image on the bottom--a single shade of gray. Source:Wikipedia
> As it happens, I recently saw the August issue of the SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal that includes a lot of technical information about HDR (and is worth a look if you are interested in the details of that technology). One particular paper caught my attention "A Visual Model for Very Wide-Gamut HDR Displays That Accounts for the Helmholtz–Kohlrausch Effect"¹. The paper explains that the researchers found a way, using a specialist measurement system, to measure displays in a very detailed way and used that data to compare it with subjective experiments on perceived brightness. They came up with a model that can be used to 'predict brightness as a function of colourfulness'. That means that display makers could use the model to either minimise the luminance (the measured light output) needed to achieve particular levels of brightness (the perceived level of output) which could help to reduce power consumption.
> However, the research could also be used, I think, to show one how one kind of display with more saturated primaries would look better than one with wider primaries. What a coincidence that such a paper should come out at this time! Hmmm... It turns out that three of the four researchers work for Samsung Display and the fourth did until 2020. The lead author is Dale Stolitzka, the principal engineer at the Samsung Display America Lab, San Jose, CA, who leads display standardization and this location’s Vision Lab. The others are also distinguished display scientists.
> All of that suggests to me that the benefits of the H-K effect and the advantages of QD-OLED may well be a significant part of the marketing for QD-OLED by Samsung Display and its partners that will use the technology in their TVs. The research could be used to show how a TV with the same brightness as another, but with more saturated primaries could look better than another. For example, a QD-OLED vs LG's WOLED.
> Don't misunderstand me. I have absolutely no problem with Samsung backing up marketing claims with research published in independent journals. If every marketing claim was based on such firm foundations, the world would be a better place!











Some Clues on QD-OLED Marketing


This week, Samsung Display released some marketing material about its QD-OLED technology and at the same time we saw a interesting research paper that between them suggest how Samsung Display may be planning to promote its new TV display technology.




www.displaydaily.com


----------



## 59LIHP

LG Display to invest 1.6 trillion won in Vietnam... Expand OLED module facilities








LG디스플레이, 베트남에 1.6조원 추가 투자...OLED 모듈 설비 확충


LG디스플레이가 베트남 하이퐁 캠퍼스 모듈 조립 공장에 1조6000억원을 추가 투자한다. 이번 투자로 하이퐁 캠퍼스에서 중소형·대형 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 모듈 생산량이 늘어날 전망이다.로이터는 31일(현지시간) 베트남 정부가 LG디스플레이의 하이퐁 캠퍼스에 대한 14억달러(약 1조6200억원) 추가 투자를 승인했다고 보도했다. 이번 투자로 LG디스플레이 하이퐁 캠퍼스 OLED 모듈 생산량은 현재 월 960만~1010만대에서 월 1300만~1400만대로 늘어날 예정이다.14억달러 추가 투자로 LG디스플레이의 누적 투자 규모는 모




www.thelec.kr












LG디스플레이, 베트남에 1.6조원 추가 투자...OLED 모듈 설비 확충


LG디스플레이가 베트남 하이퐁 캠퍼스 모듈 조립 공장에 1조6000억원을 추가 투자한다. 이번 투자로 하이퐁 캠퍼스에서 중소형·대형 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 모듈 생산량이 늘어날 전망이다.로이터는 31일(현지시간) 베트남 정부가 LG디스플레이의 하이퐁 캠퍼스에 대한 14억달러(약 1조6200억원) 추가 투자를 승인했다고 보도했다. 이번 투자로 LG디스플레이 하이퐁 캠퍼스 OLED 모듈 생산량은 현재 월 960만~1010만대에서 월 1300만~1400만대로 늘어날 예정이다.14억달러 추가 투자로 LG디스플레이의 누적 투자 규모는 모




translate.google.com


----------



## stl8k

59LIHP said:


> Some Clues on QD-OLED Marketing
> 
> 
> This week, Samsung Display released some marketing material about its QD-OLED technology and at the same time we saw a interesting research paper that between them suggest how Samsung Display may be planning to promote its new TV display technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaydaily.com


That samsungdisplay.com page does the best job of advocating for OLED TV that I've seen to date.


----------



## 8mile13

There will be static images and TV may not be turned off warnings stuff in the QD OLED manual for shure.


----------



## Adonisds

59LIHP said:


> Some Clues on QD-OLED Marketing
> 
> 
> This week, Samsung Display released some marketing material about its QD-OLED technology and at the same time we saw a interesting research paper that between them suggest how Samsung Display may be planning to promote its new TV display technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaydaily.com


I don't think the Helmholtz–Kohlrausch Effect will be felt much in calibrated displays because most content uses sRGB colors, and a few go up to DCI P3. It's really rare to see rec 2020


----------



## ALMA

TPV/ Philips is the first one, talking about a micro-lens array in the new WBE OLED panels.



> The new generation panels are also equipped *with a new series of micro-lenses that direct the light towards the color filters* (red, green, blue and a part that allows white light to pass).





























TV Philips OLED+: nuovi pannelli più luminosi e audio Bowers & Wilkins | Prezzi


La serie OLED+ 936 parte dai 48' e arriva ai 65' mentre l'ammiraglia OLED+ 986 è disponibile nel taglio da 65'.




translate.google.com





Very strange, why peak brightness (D65) is still not much better than in 2020 OLED TVs with a 20% more efficient emitter combined with a new micro-lens array.






Researchers develop a sub-electrode micro-lens array that can increase the light output in OLEDs by a factor of 3 | OLED-Info







www.oled-info.com


----------



## StreaMRolleR

ALMA said:


> TPV/ Philips is the first one, talking about a micro-lens array in the new WBE OLED panels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TV Philips OLED+: nuovi pannelli più luminosi e audio Bowers & Wilkins | Prezzi
> 
> 
> La serie OLED+ 936 parte dai 48' e arriva ai 65' mentre l'ammiraglia OLED+ 986 è disponibile nel taglio da 65'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> translate.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very strange, why peak brightness (D65) is still not much better than in 2020 OLED TVs with a 20% more efficient emitter combined with a new micro-lens array.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers develop a sub-electrode micro-lens array that can increase the light output in OLEDs by a factor of 3 | OLED-Info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-info.com


I dont think those have new micro lens breakthrough equipped yet. Maybe a typo mistake. 2022 panels for sure have this.

Or maybe that claimed 1200 nits for test purpose. Philips dont have heatsink so its logical to not implement 1200 nits


----------



## 59LIHP

BOE vivo X series mass production, next year’s new OLED pixel array structure
















BOE vivo X시리즈 양산, 내년 NEW OLED 픽셀 배열 구조 | OLEDNET


Vivo X시리즈 라인업에 BOE 프리미엄 플렉시블 디스플레이를 도입한다. 일부 플래그십에는 여전히 삼성제품을 적용할 것이고 향후 중고급 모델도 점차적으로 중국산 디스플레이를 도입하는게 추세라고 했다. 올해 들어 BOE AMOLED는 이미 독자적으로 여러 브랜드 제품에 제공됐다. 예를 들면 Huawei Mate X2, P50시리즈, Honor Magic 3, Iqoo 8 등 여러가지 모델이 포함된다. 새로운 기술이나 언더디스플레이 카메라방면에서 OPPO와 합작해서 차세대 […]




olednet.com












BOE vivo X시리즈 양산, 내년 NEW OLED 픽셀 배열 구조 | OLEDNET


Vivo X시리즈 라인업에 BOE 프리미엄 플렉시블 디스플레이를 도입한다. 일부 플래그십에는 여전히 삼성제품을 적용할 것이고 향후 중고급 모델도 점차적으로 중국산 디스플레이를 도입하는게 추세라고 했다. 올해 들어 BOE AMOLED는 이미 독자적으로 여러 브랜드 제품에 제공됐다. 예를 들면 Huawei Mate X2, P50시리즈, Honor Magic 3, Iqoo 8 등 여러가지 모델이 포함된다. 새로운 기술이나 언더디스플레이 카메라방면에서 OPPO와 합작해서 차세대 […]




translate.google.com


----------



## fafrd

Will SVD launch QD-OLED TV products next year or not?:








삼성디스플레이, 삼성전자와 디스플레이 동행 삐걱대 독자생존도 찾아


이재용 삼성전자 부회장이 3월19일 삼성디스플레이 아산사업장을 방문해 제품을 살펴보고 있다.삼성전자와 삼성디스플레이 사이가 점점 멀어진다.삼성전자로 LCD패널공급을 중국 업체가..




m.businesspost.co.kr





And how far away from being ready for launch is QNED / QD-Display 2.0, really?:








삼성디스플레이의 야심작 ‘QNED’, 구조와 핵심 기술


[테크월드뉴스=이재민 기자] 삼성디스플레이의 차세대 디스플레이 ‘QNED(quantum dot nano-rod LED)’ 개발이 거의 마무리 단계에 접어들었다.지난 6월 시장조사업체인 유비리서치 보도자료에 따르면, 삼성디스플레이가 최근까지 출원한 특허 160건을 분석한 결과 QNED를 구성하는 구조는 이미 완성된 것으로 파악됐다. 다만 빛을 내는 화소 내의 나노로드(nano-rod) LED 정렬 개수를 일정하게 유지하는 것이 해결 과제인 것으로 확인됐다.삼성디스플레이가 QNED를 대형 디스플레이 사업의 일환으로 개발하고 있는 이유는




www.epnc.co.kr


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung Display approves Wonik’s etcher for QD Display 








Samsung Display approves Wonik’s etcher for QD Display


Samsung Display has approved the use of Wonik IPS’ dry etcher for use in the production of quantum dot (QD) displays, TheElec has learned.The etchers can’t be used right away in Samsung Display’s existing Q1 line, but will be used in future lines if the display maker decides to expand its QD display




www.thelec.net


----------



## ALMA

StreaMRolleR said:


> I dont think those have new micro lens breakthrough equipped yet. Maybe a typo mistake. 2022 panels for sure have this.
> 
> Or maybe that claimed 1200 nits for test purpose. Philips dont have heatsink so its logical to not implement 1200 nits


Interview with Danny Tack about the new panel with the micro lens array in the new Philips OLED TV:






1100 nits is "native" light output. After D65 calibration, it is 950nits.


----------



## 59LIHP

StreaMRolleR said:


> I dont think those have new micro lens breakthrough equipped yet. Maybe a typo mistake. 2022 panels for sure have this.
> 
> Or maybe that claimed 1200 nits for test purpose. Philips dont have heatsink so its logical to not implement 1200 nits





ALMA said:


> Interview with Danny Tack about the new panel with the micro lens array in the new Philips OLED TV:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1100 nits is "native" light output. After D65 calibration, it is 950nits.


For info you have a dedicated thread...








2021 Philips OLED+986 and OLED+936 (No Price Talk)


New Philips OLED+ TVs TV becomes a touch more Premium as Philips TV unveils two new OLED+ series Philips TV and Bowers & Wilkins combine to make OLED+ an extraordinary TV viewing and listening experience https://www.tpvision.com/blog/new-philips-oled-tvs/ Philips TV Picture Quality new Philips...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## 59LIHP

The LG 65" UltraFine Display OLED Pro (LG 65EP5G) is a new specialized display for professionals








The LG 65" UltraFine Display OLED Pro (LG 65EP5G) is a new specialized display for professionals


The LG 65" UltraFine Display OLED Pro with model name LG 65EP5G has been unveiled today. This is a professional display that features a 65-inch OLED Pro screen with a resolution of 4096 x 2160 pixels, 770 nits of peak brightness, 1.85M:1 contrast...



www.displayspecifications.com


----------



## ALMA

New LGE OLED 65ART90EKPA leaked:






소비자24(옛 행복드림 열린소비자포털)


텔레비전수상기 65ART90EKPA 오디오·비디오 응용기기>텔레비전수상기>텔레비전수상기 XL090008-21346A LG전자(주) A3공장 전기용품 및 생활용품 안전관리법 대상>안전확인대상 전기용품 산업통상자원부 국가기술표준원-인증정보 한국기계전기전자시험연구원(KTC)




www.consumer.go.kr







엘지전자(주) | OLED TV 인증현황


----------



## 59LIHP

Big appetite for large-sized OLEDs








Big appetite for large-sized OLEDs | LG Display Newsroom


By Alex Jensen - As OLED TVs continue their march to dominance, we're seeing a really interesting trend develop at the highest end of this technology's mainstream appeal. And by highest end, I also mean tall and wide! Not only are more people buying OLED TVs than ever before, but an increasing...




news.lgdisplay.com


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

The ELEC info from a QD-OLED supplier of circuit board. Not sure about the numbers. Does this mean their PCA capacity eventually for 200K TV's/month (600/3 per TV)? Of course, even if correct, that doesn't mean Samsung is trying to hit that capacity by YE2024.

_"Samsung Display was preparing to start production of QD-OLED around the end of the year, a CU-Tech executive said at an online press event on Friday"

"CU-Tech, once it secures five PCA lines, can handle around 600,000 units of QD-OLED TVs a month. The company expects a single QD-OLED TV to require one controller board and two source boards."









CU-Tech aims to secure 5 PCA lines for Samsung Display’s QD-OLED


CU-Tech said on Friday that it plans to secure five production lines for printed circuit assembly (PCA) for use by Samsung Display in quantum dot (QD)-OLED display panels.CU-Tech said Samsung Display has sent QD-OLED samples to Samsung Electronics and Sony. The company expects the display panel make




www.thelec.net




_


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> The ELEC info from a QD-OLED supplier of circuit board. Not sure about the numbers. Does this mean their PCA capacity eventually for 200K TV's/month (600/3 per TV)? Of course, even if correct, that doesn't mean Samsung is trying to hit that capacity by YE2024.
> 
> _"Samsung Display was preparing to start production of QD-OLED around the end of the year, a CU-Tech executive said at an online press event on Friday"
> 
> "CU-Tech, once it secures five PCA lines, can handle around 600,000 units of QD-OLED TVs a month. The company expects a single QD-OLED TV to require one controller board and two source boards."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CU-Tech aims to secure 5 PCA lines for Samsung Display’s QD-OLED
> 
> 
> CU-Tech said on Friday that it plans to secure five production lines for printed circuit assembly (PCA) for use by Samsung Display in quantum dot (QD)-OLED display panels.CU-Tech said Samsung Display has sent QD-OLED samples to Samsung Electronics and Sony. The company expects the display panel make
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


‘CU-Tech, once it secures five PCA lines, can handle around [b{600,000 units of QD-OLED TVs a month.[/b]’

No, five lines translates to 600K TV’s per month or 7.2million TV’s per year.

‘CU-Tech will build *three PCA lines in 2023* and *two PCA lines in 2024* to meet the expected production expansion of QD-OLED by the South Korean display panel maker, the executive said.’

We have no idea of the lag between ‘building’ a new PCA line and achieving full production ramp, but a beat-case full-capacity on January 1 through to a worst-case full-capacity ramp by June 30th is probably a reasonable bracket.

This would translate to 360k/month or a maximum of 4 million units in 2023 increasing to a maximum of 7.2million in 2024 (and likely closer to ~3 million in 2023 and ~5.7million in 2024 assuming a more realistic ramp schedule.

At the moment, Samsung Display only has 30,000 8.5G substrates of QD-OLED panel production, translating to a maximum of 170k panels per month or 2 million panels per year even if they exclusively manufacture 55” panels (6-up) and quickly achieve LGD-WOLED-like yield levels of ~95%.

So Samsung Display has no way to come close to utilizing the 3 pca lines CU-Tech will have available for them in 2023 without having another 8.5G QD-OLED line of 30,000 substrates in production by 2023.

We have not heard anything about the results of the ‘September Market Feedback and QD-OLED Production Plan Approval Meeting’, but even if Samsung recently made the decision to move forward with conversion of their two remaining 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED, a ramp in H2’23 would be an very optimistic assumption.

If Samsung comes anywhere close to selling a million QD-OLEDs in their first year of production, that will be quite an achievement (and my hat will be off to them), but anything more than doubling by 2023 seems like about the best that they could hoped for at this late stage…

(Though whipping suppliers to be ready in advance is always a wise strategy).


----------



## wco81

So has Samsung shown QD-OLED to anyone?

Or they're just going to spring it at CES and expect all the stores to order tons of units?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> So has Samsung shown QD-OLED to anyone?
> 
> Or they're just going to spring it at CES and expect all the stores to order tons of units?


The newest prototypes were apparently shipped to Sony and Panasonic in June (in addition to SVD).

I’ll be totally shocked if either of those brands decide to launch any QD-OLED TV offerings this first year out of the gate, so my guess is we’ll see only SVD in the market with QD-OLED TVs in 2022…

Not clear how many they’ll attempt to sell in year 1 - they’re also developing monitor-sized QD-OLEDs do those could absorb some of the capacity and yields on 55” QD-OLEDs will be abysmal as they ramp production (<<50% for 55”, even worse for 65”).

Raw (unyielded) production of 55” panels only would be 180,000 per month once they are ramped to max throughout, or 90,000 55” and 45,000 65” panels per month if they split panel allocation 50/50.

So 135,000 raw panels or 50,000 to 70,000 yielded panels per month is a realistic target to aim for in 2022, meaning that if SVD can sell anything over 500,000 QD-OLED TVs in 2022, it will be a real achievement….


----------



## supaflyz

I have a tough choice to make. I'm trying to decide between the a80j and lg c1 77 inch version. I know that \n that the c1 is better for gaming and Sony better for movies and upscaling. The question is. What if I get a xbox series X and ps5 with the Sony only having 2 hdmi 2.1 with one of them the eARC. Will I lose any benefit of surround sound when having one hdmi out to the receiver. I currently have bower wilkins cm10 with the matching center channel and a svs pb4000 sub. I want to enjoy gaming and watching movies. Maybe 50/50


----------



## 59LIHP

supaflyz said:


> I have a tough choice to make. I'm trying to decide between the a80j and lg c1 77 inch version. I know that \n that the c1 is better for gaming and Sony better for movies and upscaling. The question is. What if I get a xbox series X and ps5 with the Sony only having 2 hdmi 2.1 with one of them the eARC. Will I lose any benefit of surround sound when having one hdmi out to the receiver. I currently have bower wilkins cm10 with the matching center channel and a svs pb4000 sub. I want to enjoy gaming and watching movies. Maybe 50/50


First HDMI 2.1 switch in the test!








Xbox Series X and S


Get the Denon 2016 AVR Remote App. It can display both the input and output info. On a phone you need to press the question mark in a circle icon and select AVR Info to see the Input screen. Then swipe left and right to toggle between Input and Output. if you look at my inital post (#2988)...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## mrtickleuk

supaflyz said:


> I have a tough choice to make. I'm trying to decide between the a80j and lg c1 77 inch version. I know that \n that the c1 is better for gaming and Sony better for movies and upscaling. The question is. What if I get a xbox series X and ps5 with the Sony only having 2 hdmi 2.1 with one of them the eARC. Will I lose any benefit of surround sound when having one hdmi out to the receiver. I currently have bower wilkins cm10 with the matching center channel and a svs pb4000 sub. I want to enjoy gaming and watching movies. Maybe 50/50


Definitely the wrong thread for that question.


----------



## Prototime

Any new word on whether LG will bring a heatsink to its OLED TV lineup next year (whether as the "plate" or something else)? And any thoughts on whether it'll likely cost a hefty premium if they do? Trying to figure out if I should expect LG to roll out a worthwhile tech enhancement to its OLED TVs next year, or if the current "Evo" tech is probably as good as they're going to get for a while.


----------



## lsorensen

Prototime said:


> Any new word on whether LG will bring a heatsink to its OLED TV lineup next year (whether as the "plate" or something else)? And any thoughts on whether it'll likely cost a hefty premium if they do? Trying to figure out if I should expect LG to roll out a worthwhile tech enhancement to its OLED TVs next year, or if the current "Evo" tech is probably as good as they're going to get for a while.


CES is in January. I guess in 3 months or so we will know.


----------



## Prototime

Thanks, but I'm wondering if we have any early indications.


----------



## fafrd

Prototime said:


> Any new word on whether LG will bring a heatsink to its OLED TV lineup next year (whether as the "plate" or something else)? And any thoughts on whether it'll likely cost a hefty premium if they do? Trying to figure out if I should expect LG to roll out a worthwhile tech enhancement to its OLED TVs next year, or if the current "Evo" tech is probably as good as they're going to get for a while.


Put yourself in LGE’s shoes. They spend all year filling the channels in anticipation of a breakout holiday season.

They want to sell a boatload of WOLED TVs in November and December.

They last thing they’d want to do in the run-up to Black Friday Season is to leak word of whatever fantastic new features / advancements they are planning for 2022…

2022 is what CES2022 is for (in January). At best, a few rumors and tidbits might start leaking out in ~mid December )to begin building some buzz heading into CES).

But in answer to your other question, I’d say it’s highly-likely we’ll see an integrated heatsink offering from LG next year. And about the only guess I could give you on price is that it’s almost certain to be priced below Sony’s heatsink-laden flagship WOLED TV next year .


----------



## chozofication

I really don’t see LG not having a heatsink next year, in a way i’m surprised Sony beat them to it really. 

Sony got really lazy with lcd recently but they’re still trying to innovate on oled. At least on the panel side of things… not impressed with their picture processing now.

For that matter, i’d wonder if samsung will use a heatsink… I mean we really don’t know if they’ll have a product stack or just one model in different sizes I guess.


----------



## 8mile13

A Sony OLED won the 2021 VE Shootout. With Panasonic OLED being not for sale in the USA there is no need for Sony to improve their products. Talking about innovation there might be a Sony QD OLED next year.


----------



## chozofication

^^ Sony has lost the motion crown to LG. Upscaling and AI picture manipulation is over processed On XR. Both of these categories are a step back from prior year Sony chipsets. 900h is the exception because it doesn't even have a second picture processor ; that was a super lazy product.

Sony lcds are 100 percent worse than prior years. 24 dimming zones on x90j is just laughable.

Sony's XR HDR is best for movies, meaning A90J vs. LG, but for games Sony got whooped without hgig which they just announced an update which is great news. Sony still has the best gradients, LG needs major work there.

Bottom line, Sony and LG need to improve different things, but Sony unlike LG has regressed in ways which really disappoints me as a major Sony TV fan.

Sony doesn't rush to new tech ; definitely no sony qd oled 2022. Hopefully mini led but Sony barely gives a rats about lcd lately.


----------



## 8mile13

Sony 24fps movies motion was best at VE Shootout. It is also stated by hdtvtest that Sony (2021) motionflow has less issues compared to the competition. So it is safe to say that in general for TV content Sony motion improvement options is pretty much considered best in 2021.


----------



## chozofication

8mile13 said:


> Sony 24fps movies motion was best at VE Shootout. It is also stated by hdtvtest that Sony (2021) motionflow has less issues compared to the competition. So it is safe to say that in general for TV content Sony motion improvement options is pretty much considered best in 2021.


It’s not. VE has a bunch of hacks like fomo who don’t calibrate rating the sets.

It’s been empirically proven that lg c1 has less artifacts than sony currently, even VT said that and I have found that to be the case as well. Last year Sony actually did have best motion.

Seriously, Lg’s Cinematic motion interpolation is industry leading atm. I’m not going to cheerlead for Sony just because.

Edit : we know where we stand on this issue, i’ll get back on topic.

I thought about it and i’d be pretty surprised to see Samsung implement a heatsink, because in one of their product slides they pointed out that qd oled isn’t going to be technically as bright as woled and i’m sure they’re referencing a non heatsink woled. 

It might be hard enough just to get the panel out there, let alone put on an optional heatsink but willing to be surprised. If anything you’d think samsung needs a heatsink more than lg due to blue oled lifespan.


----------



## bareyb

chozofication said:


> ^^ Sony has lost the motion crown to LG. Upscaling and AI picture manipulation is over processed On XR. Both of these categories are a step back from prior year Sony chipsets. 900h is the exception because it doesn't even have a second picture processor ; that was a super lazy product.
> 
> Sony lcds are 100 percent worse than prior years. 24 dimming zones on x90j is just laughable.
> 
> Sony's XR HDR is best for movies, meaning A90J vs. LG, but for games Sony got whooped without hgig which they just announced an update which is great news. Sony still has the best gradients, LG needs major work there.
> 
> Bottom line, Sony and LG need to improve different things, but Sony unlike LG has regressed in ways which really disappoints me as a major Sony TV fan.
> 
> Sony doesn't rush to new tech ; definitely no sony qd oled 2022. Hopefully mini led but Sony barely gives a rats about lcd lately.


They've lost the reliability crown to LG too. I returned two 65" A90Js and both were buggy as hell. Went through a month of trouble shooting with the best and the brightest on AVS and Sony Tech Support and never could get it working with my Set Top Boxes (Tivo and Comcast) and it had a myriad of day to day operational problems. Long delays on my ATV between formats, audio lip sync issues, audio dropouts, "no signal on input" errors etc.

Got the LG and all those problems went away. So while Sony may have the hearts of some reviewers, if you're in the market for a new TV stay far away from the Sony. The mediatek chipsets are rife with well documented problems and the type of problems are not worth it. Imagine my horror in the middle of Michigan Football game with my friends and family all there to enjoy the new TV and right in the middle I have to unplug the TV, wait 30 seconds and plug it back to get it to work! This happened 3 times during the game. Anyway, that was it for me. Lol. I'm an LG fan all the way now. It looks just as good to me and it's much more stable and with the money I saved I was able to upgrade to an 83 incher and _"*L*ife is *G*ood" _again.


----------



## mrtickleuk

None of those recent posts are on-topic for this thread.


----------



## bareyb

A good technology advancement for Sony would be to dump the crappy Mediatek Chipset they are currently using and use whatever LG is using now. How's that?


----------



## chozofication

bareyb said:


> A good technology advancement for Sony would be to dump the crappy Mediatek Chipset they are currently using and use whatever LG is using now. How's that?


That is definitely true. Hopefully next year. With regards to your issues, it’s probably just down to luck. Although, and this is anecdotal, but my a8h had a t con issue where the panel got dark streaks on the sides within 4 months. But I purchased 2 lg sets (c9 and c1) and both were returned due to grid. To be fair a8h had more subtle grid. Every one of these companies is having issues.

Both LG and Sony are beholden to LG display’s panel quality control, which is horrible atm. Perhaps next year LG display’s heatsink option that is hopefully available next year will be a better binned unit, probably reserved for the g2. This is the main reason i’m excited for qd oled, as lg needs competition. 

I wonder if Sony would rather pay for lg display’s custom heatsink design or continue with their own. Whatever’s cheaper i’m guessing.


----------



## bareyb

chozofication said:


> That is definitely true. Hopefully next year. With regards to your issues, it’s probably just down to luck. Although, and this is anecdotal, but my a8h had a t con issue where the panel got dark streaks on the sides within 4 months. But I purchased 2 lg sets (c9 and c1) and both were returned due to grid. To be fair a8h had more subtle grid. Every one of these companies is having issues.
> 
> Both LG and Sony are beholden to LG display’s panel quality control, which is horrible atm. Perhaps next year LG display’s heatsink option that is hopefully available next year will be a better binned unit, probably reserved for the g2. This is the main reason i’m excited for qd oled, as lg needs competition.
> 
> I wonder if Sony would rather pay for lg display’s custom heatsink design or continue with their own. Whatever’s cheaper i’m guessing.


Not bad luck. Bad TV. There's dozens of complaints similar to mine on the Sony Forum and I've had none of the problems with the LG. I do have to say, I've been lucky with the Panels on both Sonys and the new LG though. No noticeable problems on any of them. So perhaps LG has gotten it sorted now. Fingers crossed...


----------



## GuitarmanSD

I've been reading and researching for the last couple of weeks and this is the first discussion in which I've seen people say that the LG C1 is a better choice than the Sony A80J for regular TV watching. Everything else I've read, all the videos I've seen, reviews, discussions, etc, seem to agree that for regular TV the Sony is better but for Gaming the LG is the best choice.

As for the issues bareyb mentioned, signal dropouts, av sync, etc... If you go to the any manufacturer's forum you'll see complaint after complaint about various problems. TCL/roku, Samsung, Hisense, Sony, LG, etc... soundbars, TVs, other accessories or components, all have various problems. I bought the most expensive soundbar Samsung makes. It was a pile of junk. Problems left and right. CEC, sync, the bass and treble controls simply didn't work. All my TVs going back to a circa 2000 Mitsubishi 65" RPTV, various DLPs, plasmas, LED, QLED, etc.. have all had some kind of problem or another.

My current main setup is a TCL 65r635 and a Vizio M512a H6 soundbar. The TV looks great, the soundbar sounds great, but every so often I have to unplug everything because the CEC stops working, the volume goes out, the AV get out of sync, etc..

Today while watching my second TV/soundbar, I had to unplug everything because every couple of minutes the soundbar would drop out for a few seconds, the subwoofer and satellites would lose connectivity, and finally the sound died and wouldn't come back until I unplugged everything.

I'm firmly convinced that pretty much all home theater products are full of problems. 

The technology advancements I'd like to see are simply a uniform and consistent implementation of HDMI, CEC, and other interconnectivity technologies so that all of these products would actually work as they're supposed to either by themselves or when connected to other devices. They should focus on that rather than spending a boatload of money on display technologies when those technologies are already excellent but the other surrounding tech doesn't work.


----------



## bareyb

GuitarmanSD said:


> I've been reading and researching for the last couple of weeks and this is the first discussion in which I've seen people say that the LG C1 is a better choice than the Sony A80J for regular TV watching. Everything else I've read, all the videos I've seen, reviews, discussions, etc, seem to agree that for regular TV the Sony is better but for Gaming the LG is the best choice.


I thought the same thing, but it's not _all_ reviews. It's more mixed than I thought from reading here. I think people are summarizing or perhaps simply parroting something they read on the Forum without actually reading the reviews. My personal experience is they are comparable in PQ (I personally like DV better on the LG) but the LG is more stable. I haven't had to unplug anything or had any dropouts since I got it. Of course now that I said that...  









LG OLED65C1PUB Review


The LG C1 OLED TV line offers one of the best pictures we've seen, with nearly perfect cinema color. It also features AMD FreeSync and Nvidia G-Sync, making it a terrific high-end option for gamers.




www.pcmag.com






*CNET also says this about the out-of-the-box color accuracy:*











LG C1 OLED TV: Worth the price if you want the best


With a world-beating picture, oodles of features and slim styling, the LG C1 remains the TV to beat.




www.cnet.com




*multiple professional reviewers who use the SAME equipment as professional calibrators say the C1 is has excellent color accuracy out of the box:*


----------



## GuitarmanSD

bareyb said:


> I thought the same thing, but it's not _all_ reviews. It's more mixed than I thought from reading here. I think people are summarizing or perhaps simply parroting something they read without actually reading the reviews. Other than the Rtings review which later discovered they had reviewed a defective Panel. My personal experience is they are comparable in PQ (I personally like DV better on the LG) but the LG is more stable. I haven't had to unplug anything since I got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG OLED65C1PUB Review
> 
> 
> The LG C1 OLED TV line offers one of the best pictures we've seen, with nearly perfect cinema color. It also features AMD FreeSync and Nvidia G-Sync, making it a terrific high-end option for gamers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pcmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CNET also says this about the out-of-the-box color accuracy:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG C1 OLED TV: Worth the price if you want the best
> 
> 
> With a world-beating picture, oodles of features and slim styling, the LG C1 remains the TV to beat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *multiple professional reviewers who use the SAME equipment as professional calibrators say the C1 is has excellent color accuracy out of the box:*
> 
> View attachment 3183879


Interesting. But neither the PCmag or Cnet review compared it to the Sony A80J. I know the LG C1 has great reviews and it's the model that started my search for the best OLED I could afford, but like I mentioned, most of the reviews that compare the C1 with the A80J head to head seem to agree that they are both excellent sets and you can't go wrong with either one, but the Sony edges out the LG for regular TV watching while the LG is better for gaming. 

I'm also curious to know how cnet and pcmag found the color accuracy of the C1 to be so great out of the box when rtings found the out-of-the-box color accuracy to be pretty horrible. Could it just be that the unit rtings had was defective or were the pcmag and cnet units the unusual ones and they just got lucky?


----------



## bareyb

GuitarmanSD said:


> I'm also curious to know how cnet and pcmag found the color accuracy of the C1 to be so great out of the box when rtings found the out-of-the-box color accuracy to be pretty horrible. Could it just be that the unit rtings had was defective or were the pcmag and cnet units the unusual ones and they just got lucky?


As I understand it, the rtings people later said they may have gotten a defective Panel, but unfortunately they didn't find out until after the review had been published.


----------



## GuitarmanSD

bareyb said:


> As I understand it, the rtings people later said they may have gotten a defective Panel, but unfortunately they didn't find out until after the review had been published.


They did mention that as a possibility but didn't follow up on it. But still, all head to head comparisons I've read and videos I've watched mostly agree that both are great but the LG excels in gaming and the Sony is usually better for non-gamers. 

Again, just to be clear, I have never seen a bad review for either set. All the comparisons rate both of them excellent, just they each have slightly different pros and cons and areas in which they do slightly better than the other one. There are also differences in the technologies they have. The LG has 4 HDMI 2.1 ports. The Sony has 2. The Sony does DTS sound, the LG doesn't. The Sony also has the newer ATSC 3.0 tuner. The LG has a few black level settings in the service menu that the Sony doesn't have. 

So depending on what someone needs or wants, one set might work better for them than the other. For me, I value audio options (DTS), out of the box picture (despite a couple of reviews stating otherwise, the consensus seems to be that the Sony has better OOTB color accuracy), upscaling SDR content (regular cable), and believe it or not, the stand makes a difference to me too. The LG's stand puts the TV too low to put a soundbar in front of it. The piece that extends behind the TV also creates some challenges for where I'll be placing it. The Sony's stand can be set in "soundbar" position so you can put a soundbar in front of it. Basically, weighing the pros and cons, the Sony wins for me.


----------



## MechanicalMan

CNET's Katzmaier reviews about 2 TVs per year these days. The annual "best TV I've ever seen" type of comments made about LG OLEDs are from someone who never reviews any Sony OLED models.


----------



## Adonisds

I'm tempted to buy this year a 48" C1 to use as a computer monitor if I can find it here for less than 725 USD, and I think I can. But I would prefer to buy a 42" with an evo panel next year. Do you think that will be available?

Are you able to find OLEDs as cheaply as this in your countries? The 55" is also priced very similarly here


----------



## GuitarmanSD

Adonisds said:


> I'm tempted to buy this year a 48" C1 to use as a computer monitor if I can find it here for less than 725 USD, and I think I can. But I would prefer to buy a 42" with an evo panel next year. Do you think that will be available?
> 
> Are you able to find OLEDs as cheaply as this in your countries? The 55" is also priced very similarly here


Isn't an OLED a poor choice for a computer monitor given the risk of burn-in? There is always some static content on my computer screen.


----------



## wco81

You're not getting an LG OLED for $725.


----------



## Davenlr

wco81 said:


> You're not getting an LG OLED for $725.


Yea, I dont think even in Brazil they are that cheap. I think I got the lowest priced OLED with my 55" Vizio on a one day sale for $899


----------



## Adonisds

wco81 said:


> You're not getting an LG OLED for $725.





Davenlr said:


> Yea, I dont think even in Brazil they are that cheap. I think I got the lowest priced OLED with my 55" Vizio on a one day sale for $899


$725 is currently 4000 BRL.

You could find the 55" CX for 4400 BRL last year, and it has a list price a bit higher than the C1, so the C1 should be cheaper after november.

I see in a deal tracker website that a "repackaged" 55" C1 could be found recently for 4000 BRL. These products are usually like new and you can return them if they are not. I think a new C1 could reach that price here starting in black friday.

I bought my B7 near launch for 5500 BRL.

Could someone please answer if they think a 42" oled with evo panel will be cheaply available next year? @*fafrd ?*


----------



## Davenlr

Are you sure you would want a 42" OLED with the wide pixel pitch? Text would look like crap if you had the computer set to 4K. Might be ok at 1080P. At that size, I think a real computer monitor would be a lot better choice.


----------



## tlguapo

I picked up the A1 for my bedroom and returned it after a few days for the C1. I found the A1 wasn't bright enough and it was really noticeable with Dolby Vision or HDR. Motion didn't look as good - especially with sports. The up scaling (big issue for me) just wasn't as good with the older chip. Black transitions were OK, but just not as good as the C1. Finally, there was no HDMI 2.1 on the A1. 

I went back and forth between the C1 and the A80J. The extra expense for the A90J and/or the G1 just didn't seem worth it to me. The A80J was about $200 more expensive and then the C1 went on sale and it became a no brainer for me. The picture between the two were both excellent. I like the web OS on the C1 better than the Sony. It's stable and super fast. One of the things I really liked about the Sony was the sound quality, but that also made me a little nervous at the same time. In my experience, heat and vibrating parts wear out. The speaker situation on the Sony reminds me of the Martin Logan electrostatic speakers. Cool concept.


----------



## lsorensen

tlguapo said:


> I picked up the A1 for my bedroom and returned it after a few days for the C1. I found the A1 wasn't bright enough and it was really noticeable with Dolby Vision or HDR. Motion didn't look as good - especially with sports. The up scaling (big issue for me) just wasn't as good with the older chip. Black transitions were OK, but just not as good as the C1. Finally, there was no HDMI 2.1 on the A1.
> 
> I went back and forth between the C1 and the A80J. The extra expense for the A90J and/or the G1 just didn't seem worth it to me. The A80J was about $200 more expensive and then the C1 went on sale and it became a no brainer for me. The picture between the two were both excellent. I like the web OS on the C1 better than the Sony. It's stable and super fast. One of the things I really liked about the Sony was the sound quality, but that also made me a little nervous at the same time. In my experience, heat and vibrating parts wear out. The speaker situation on the Sony reminds me of the Martin Logan electrostatic speakers. Cool concept.


They are nothing like electrostatic speakers. They are actually quite a lot like a regular speaker. You have a heavy electromagnet that is moved by electricity that is attached to a surface that moves air back and forth. Speaker cone or OLED panel doesn't really matter. Doing the same thing. Of course since it has a much larger area it can probably do the same volume with less movement than a normal speaker would have to do for the higher frequencies. Electrostatics are totally different. They are lightweight (no big magnets there) and use high voltage and other stuff that definitely has different ways to wear out.


----------



## Adonisds

Davenlr said:


> Are you sure you would want a 42" OLED with the wide pixel pitch? Text would look like crap if you had the computer set to 4K. Might be ok at 1080P. At that size, I think a real computer monitor would be a lot better choice.


Why would it be bad? Is there any disadvantage of the 42" compared to the 48" OLED regarding this? Do smaller pixels mean more burn-in susceptability?

I use the B7 as a monitor sometimes and I love it. I think the only disadvantage is that cleartype doesn't work properly, but the other advantages more than make up for it.

I think "gamer" monitors are way overpriced when compared to TVs, even in the US, but much more here in Brazil because the OLEDs are manufactured here while the monitors have to pay exorbitant import taxes.


----------



## VA_DaveB

mrtickleuk said:


> None of those recent posts are on-topic for this thread.


Nobody paid any attention. This thread appears permanently derailed.


----------



## fafrd

VA_DaveB said:


> Nobody paid any attention. This thread appears permanently derailed.


It’s happened before and it will happen again. There are large lulls where there is literally no new ‘OLED Technology News’ to discuss. Inappropriate posts about detailed TV-versus-TV comparisons or which new features are likely to be announced at the upcoming CES often creep in during those periods of vacuum.

You can either politely nudge those posters to find a more appropriate thread or just let the inappropriate chatter slowly fade into the ether.

Once there is some actual news to discuss, posting in the thread should return to more appropriate topics.

I, for one, am waiting for the next real news regarding Samsung’s QD-OLED, but it’s been radio silence while they work away to wow the world at CES in 3 months…


----------



## mrtickleuk

fafrd said:


> You can either politely nudge those posters to find a more appropriate thread or just let the inappropriate chatter slowly fade into the ether.


Neither worked, and it didn't fade far from it, they just kept adding more and more replies.


----------



## Ahmadss

I moved from Q80R to LG C1 i wasn't impressed at all .


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> It’s happened before and it will happen again. There are large lulls where there is literally no new ‘OLED Technology News’ to discuss. Inappropriate posts about detailed TV-versus-TV comparisons or which new features are likely to be announced at the upcoming CES often creep in during those periods of vacuum.
> 
> You can either politely nudge those posters to find a more appropriate thread or just let the inappropriate chatter slowly fade into the ether.
> 
> Once there is some actual news to discuss, posting in the thread should return to more appropriate topics.
> 
> I, for one, am waiting for the next real news regarding Samsung’s QD-OLED, but it’s been radio silence while they work away to wow the world at CES in 3 months…


I'm more interested in whether Mediatek has a new chip for 2022 tvs so that they can finally do all the HDMI 2.1 features without compromises; in particular for the Sonys. Only LG (and maybe Samsung?) have this right since they have their own chips. Second thing would be if LG is going to use a heatsink on one or more of their models.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


----------



## MSchu18

I haven't read this ENTIRE thread... but have LG/oled makers solved or lessened the effects of ghosting in this latest generation panels? my c7 is suffering badly from youtube ghosting in the red spectrum... but it still doesn't spoil the overall beautiful.

I am considering getting a 83" LG C1 within a week or so.


----------



## video_analysis

I'm sure @fafrd can answer this. Being out of the loop on latest devs, what's the burn-in resistance percentage increase on the 2021 versus 2016 models?


----------



## bellhead197024

I have a 77inch C9, & am following because I want to buy a 88inch or bigger 8k oled when they become available & affordable.


----------



## LordTyler1

LG expected to release 97" OLED TVs next year (Update: Reportedly 4K)


According to Korean media




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## Wizziwig

Adonisds said:


> I'm tempted to buy this year a 48" C1 to use as a computer monitor if I can find it here for less than 725 USD, and I think I can. But I would prefer to buy a 42" with an evo panel next year. Do you think that will be available?
> 
> Are you able to find OLEDs as cheaply as this in your countries? The 55" is also priced very similarly here





GuitarmanSD said:


> Isn't an OLED a poor choice for a computer monitor given the risk of burn-in? There is always some static content on my computer screen.





video_analysis said:


> I'm sure fafrd can answer this. Being out of the loop on latest devs, what's the burn-in resistance percentage increase on the 2021 versus 2016 models?


A lot of incorrect information in this video but at least gives an example or real world use after a few months. Wonder if the 42" version will ever see light of day since most people would probably buy them for computer monitors.


----------



## video_analysis

^Thanks. Thinking of getting a 48" that'll mainly be used for streaming (including YT). I think it'll fare well for that usage.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Wizziwig said:


> A* lot of incorrect information* in this video but


Par for the course with that (incredibly annoying, I'm sure he's a perfectly friendly person but that on-screen persona is really insufferable!) presenter, sadly.


----------



## CliffordinWales




----------



## Rod#S

LordTyler1 said:


> LG expected to release 97" OLED TVs next year (Update: Reportedly 4K)
> 
> 
> According to Korean media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flatpanelshd.com


97" is crazy  but it a good way.

At that size you would think it would be a 8k display but personally I wish they would focus on making the 2 current 8k models affordable rather than come out with another display no ordinary person can afford. With the 88" model still being $30k US a 97" will probably be like $50k or above.

To save money on the 88" model they could simply do away with that ridiculous stand it has to be attached to and design a table stand like is found on the C series. It still mystifies me why they don't offer that C series type stand on the 77" 8k model instead opting for the clumsy and cheap looking chicken feet.


----------



## lsorensen

Rod#S said:


> 97" is crazy  but it a good way.
> 
> At that size you would think it would be a 8k display but personally I wish they would focus on making the 2 current 8k models affordable rather than come out with another display no ordinary person can afford. With the 88" model still being $30k US a 97" will probably be like $50k or above.
> 
> To save money on the 88" model they could simply do away with that ridiculous stand it has to be attached to and design a table stand like is found on the C series. It still mystifies me why they don't offer that C series type stand on the 77" 8k model instead opting for the clumsy and cheap looking chicken feet.


But if they make two 88" panels from a sheet, I don't think there is anything leftover they can use, so the 97" uses a full sheet too, so really it seems the panel ought to not really be much more than the 88". And the stand is not what makes the 88" expensive. They just want to make a good profit on that top model. There is no way the stand costs even $500 to make. Now if 1 sheet can make 2 97" or 2 77" and 2 42", then given what they are selling the 77 and 42 for, I think there is lots of room for profit in making 97" panels instead given the smaller ones are not that expensive anymore.


----------



## tonydeluce

Rod#S said:


> 97" is crazy  but it a good way.
> 
> At that size you would think it would be a 8k display but personally I wish they would focus on making the 2 current 8k models affordable rather than come out with another display no ordinary person can afford. With the 88" model still being $30k US a 97" will probably be like $50k or above.
> 
> To save money on the 88" model they could simply do away with that ridiculous stand it has to be attached to and design a table stand like is found on the C series. It still mystifies me why they don't offer that C series type stand on the 77" 8k model instead opting for the clumsy and cheap looking chicken feet.


I doubt it will be 4K... The point of 8K today for OLED is to charge as much premium as possible, not to reduce the price...


----------



## mrtickleuk

tonydeluce said:


> I doubt it will be 4K... The point of 8K today for OLED is to charge as much premium as possible, not to reduce the price...


...and to trick people into thinking there's any useful visible difference when there really, _really _isn't:
(the thread contains a link to the paper including easy-to-understand diagrams)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450609025687515142
...instead of giving us the technical advancements we* really want: fully 12 bit panels, full rec.2020 coverage, improved near-black rendering, perfect mura uniformity, better anti-reflective coatings, longer lifespans, zero tinting and vignetting, etc.

*those of us who understand and appreciate these things and don't believe hype, instead believing actual science.


----------



## tonydeluce

mrtickleuk said:


> ...and to trick people into thinking there's any useful visible difference when there really, _really _isn't:
> (the thread contains a link to the paper including easy-to-understand diagrams)
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450609025687515142
> ...instead of giving us the technical advancements we* really want: fully 12 bit panels, full rec.2020 coverage, improved near-black rendering, perfect mura uniformity, better anti-reflective coatings, longer lifespans, zero tinting and vignetting, etc.
> 
> *those of us who understand and appreciate these things and don't believe hype.


Those are all great advancements as well but if you can not see the difference between 8K and 4K then stick with 4K ( that is, if and when 8K content becomes prevalent ). For myself, I sit about six feet away from the screen and am very much looking forward to a future 8K 88inch OLED display.

Just like when moving from 1080p to 4K, 8K vs 4K, is a function of your eyesight, distance from and size of the screen (yes ppi matters). Most people site the distance to the screen one must be to resolve every detail of 8K resolution as if there is suddenly something magic that causes it to instantly become more perceivable than the distance from screen required to resolve every detail of 4K. But in fact there is a continuum between these distances where one is able to perceive greater detail that is inherent in 8K. So depending on the actual distance from the screen, the 8K may not be worth any premium over 4K but again, that will be a function of your eyesight and seating distance.


----------



## Wizziwig

lsorensen said:


> But if they make two 88" panels from a sheet, I don't think there is anything leftover they can use, so the 97" uses a full sheet too, so really it seems the panel ought to not really be much more than the 88". And the stand is not what makes the 88" expensive. They just want to make a good profit on that top model. There is no way the stand costs even $500 to make. Now if 1 sheet can make 2 97" or 2 77" and 2 42", then given what they are selling the 77 and 42 for, I think there is lots of room for profit in making 97" panels instead given the smaller ones are not that expensive anymore.


You can see some examples of the possible configurations on this site.


----------



## chros73

That's interesting to see that 97" and 88" is the same price


----------



## mrtickleuk

tonydeluce said:


> Those are all great advancements as well


If you mean the things which are higher priority that we aren't getting? They would be great, if the manufacturers would give them to us. Instead, they are giving something which is easy for them and provides virtually no visible benefit at all, as proved by the study.



tonydeluce said:


> Those are all great advancements as well but if you can not see the difference between 8K and 4K then stick with 4K ( that is, if and when 8K content becomes prevalent ). For myself, I sit about six feet away from the screen and am very much looking forward to a future 8K 88inch OLED display.


a) we won't have the choice if they steamroller the market and make all panels 8K
b) I can only suggest you please read the study linked to if even now you still believe there's a visible benefit


----------



## Wizziwig

mrtickleuk said:


> If you mean the things which are higher priority that we aren't getting? They would be great, if the manufacturers would give them to us. Instead, they are giving something which is easy for them and provides virtually no visible benefit at all, as proved by the study.


It's worse than that. Not only is there no benefit for most consumers, it's actually a detriment. The pixel aperture ratio is reduced on 8K panels, thus reducing efficiency and brightness vs an identical 4K panel. I posted an example a while back in the LCD forum here.


----------



## Jin-X

Wizziwig said:


> It's worse than that. Not only is there no benefit for most consumers, it's actually a detriment. The pixel aperture ratio is reduced on 8K panels, thus reducing efficiency and brightness vs an identical 4K panel. I posted an example a while back in the LCD forum here.


I'll add to the list of things on how it's worse: video games. The last thing games need is any pull or reason to care about higher than 4k res. The amount of resources/power needed to deliver an 8k/8k like image (even with things like DLSS) is massive and better used for things like better visuals and higher frame rates. 8k is actively detrimental to games.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


----------



## 8mile13

Looks like 8K is better for glassless 3D. Also there is a big player that has 3D functionality build in all its 8K panels.


----------



## chozofication

mrtickleuk said:


> ...and to trick people into thinking there's any useful visible difference when there really, _really _isn't:
> (the thread contains a link to the paper including easy-to-understand diagrams)
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450609025687515142
> ...instead of giving us the technical advancements we* really want: fully 12 bit panels, full rec.2020 coverage, improved near-black rendering, perfect mura uniformity, better anti-reflective coatings, longer lifespans, zero tinting and vignetting, etc.
> 
> *those of us who understand and appreciate these things and don't believe hype, instead believing actual science.


Unfortunately it’s hard to sell these improvements to the masses. 

Thing is though, i’d be surprised if 4k goes away in sizes smaller than 75 in even the next 5 years. It just makes zero sense at 55 inch size.

Samsung : “hold my beer.”


----------



## Donny84

So are the new upcoming Phillips TP Vision OLED +986 & +936 only available in the UK?


----------



## Donny84

chozofication said:


> Unfortunately it’s hard to sell these improvements to the masses.
> 
> Thing is though, i’d be surprised if 4k goes away in sizes smaller than 75 in even the next 5 years. It just makes zero sense at 55 inch size.
> 
> Samsung : “hold my beer.”


4K content like LG's 4K HDR Demo Reels, including tourist 4K POV videos on YouTube etc looked tack sharp on my 55" C9, not quite as crystal clear on my current 65" C1. Maybe because you're losing pixel density after gaining 10". To get the same level of sharpness wouldn't you need 8K? Especially at 77" & 85"?


----------



## chozofication

Donny84 said:


> 4K content like LG's 4K HDR Demo Reels, including tourist 4K POV videos on YouTube etc looked tack sharp on my 55" C9, not quite as crystal clear on my current 65" C1. Maybe because you're losing pixel density after gaining 10". To get the same level of sharpness wouldn't you need 8K? Especially at 77" & 85"?


The same demo would technically be sharper on a 48 inch c1. But it really just depends on viewing distance... How close is your 65? Same distance as your 55 was? 

If it's just movies, I don't think you need more than 4k even at 65 inch. For video games, where edges are harsh and jagged, 8k makes a bit more sense. But only when we have the computer power to actually run 8k, right now it's a waste.

Edit : Like I said for 75 and up 8k makes more sense.


----------



## 8mile13

Donny84 said:


> So are the new upcoming Phillips TP Vision OLED +986 & +936 only available in the UK?


TP Vision has the Philips rights in Europe, Russia, the Middle East, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico, Perú, Chile and selected countries in Asia-Pacific. So in plenty of those countries their OLED TVs will be sold. In the USA Funai has the Philips rights.

Last year there was the odd news that Funai would have a 2019 TP Vision OLED TV in its line up. Funai stated that the OLED they will have in their line-up will be the same as the European one (the 804). They work together on some products so likely we will see more TP Vision stuff in the USA coming years,


----------



## mrtickleuk

chozofication said:


> Edit : Like I said for 75 and up 8k makes more sense.


8k in the home makes zero sense at *any *screen size IMHO. That was why I posted the link to the study in the first place.


----------



## chozofication

mrtickleuk said:


> 8k in the home makes zero sense at *any *screen size IMHO. That was why I posted the link to the study in the first place.


Don't get me wrong I agree, I don't want 8k. For movies at least, and barely for games.

I'm mostly just trying to come to terms with our inevitable 8k future lol. For 75 at least 4k is perfectly fine, at optimal distance. I think 8k starts to make a difference only at super close which... Yes I know, why do that?


----------



## Donny84

8mile13 said:


> TP Vision has the Philips rights in Europe, Russia, the Middle East, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico, Perú, Chile and selected countries in Asia-Pacific. So in plenty of those countries their OLED TVs will be sold. In the USA Funai has the Philips rights.
> 
> Last year there was the odd news that Funai would have a 2019 TP Vision OLED TV in its line up. Funai stated that the OLED they will have in their line-up will be the same as the European one (the 804). They work together on some products so likely we will see more TP Vision stuff in the USA coming years,


Ahhh I see.
Do you know if the 804's BFI has Zero brightness loss and no flicker like the newer two +936 & +987 that were just released in Europe? It's too bad that we wont see either for quite a while, as they're no solid confirmation date. Looks like I'll be rolling with the A80J instead of the C1, simply for it's Sharper brighter game mode. C1's looks lousy compared to gaming in ISF BrighDark Expert. But Blur and low motion resolution will still be a big problem for me until i can eventually get my hands on a +936.


----------



## 8mile13

Donny84 said:


> Ahhh I see.
> Do you know if the 804's BFI has Zero brightness loss and no flicker like the newer two +936 & +987 that were just released in Europe? It's too bad that we wont see either for quite a while, as they're no solid confirmation date. Looks like I'll be rolling with the A80J instead of the C1, simply for it's Sharper brighter game mode. C1's looks lousy compared to gaming in ISF BrighDark Expert. But Blur and low motion resolution will still be a big problem for me until i can eventually get my hands on a +936.


It looks like the 804 is unreleased in the USA..eventhough it was announced at CES in a press release. 

Philips 804 OLED TV Review - YouTube


----------



## Donny84

8mile13 said:


> It looks like the 804 is unreleased in the USA..eventhough it was announced at CES in a press release.
> 
> Philips 804 OLED TV Review - YouTube


Well, As for the new Phillips OLED +936, it scored a disappointing 21.6ms for input lag in game mode...That would make more sense when using Game mode IN combination with Black frame insertion, but the 21.6ms is actually without it and probably nearly doubled with it On. So it's a no go for gaming if you're looking for under 10ms like I am, but it would be great for movies, just to have no brightness loss or any noticeable flicker with it's BFI for SDR content. Because of this, this particular OLED is a plasma killerl 

There's no reason to fall back on something like an ST60 plasma when the Philips +936 can resolve 1080p motion resolution, minimal blur, no motion dithering or green phosphor trails, no noticeable flicker, and zero brightness loss with it's shnazzy BFI Maximum setting. Then you toss in the advancements of OLED tech as a whole > True Blacks, Whites that actually white instead of grey, 200-300 SDR Nits(Plasmas are dim by comparison), cleaner/crisper picture, 4K, HDR and much larger sizes from 77" to now 97"

As for me, I'm just not happy with how Game Mode 'looks' on my C1. This is where the A80J has the edge, but i dont know if I'd be willing to deal with it's 17ms of lag. Either way, the motion sucks on both OLEDs, and their BFI is useless. Heck, my C1's Low, Medium and Auto Motion Pro settings suffer from motion duplication. they're unusable. High is the only one that's worth a damn if you can actually tolerate the eye melting flicker, severe brightness drop.... AFTER you get that extra black crush corrected with a $400-$500...


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

mrtickleuk said:


> ...and to trick people into thinking there's any useful visible difference when there really, _really _isn't:
> (the thread contains a link to the paper including easy-to-understand diagrams)
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450609025687515142
> ...instead of giving us the technical advancements we* really want: fully 12 bit panels, full rec.2020 coverage, improved near-black rendering, perfect mura uniformity, better anti-reflective coatings, longer lifespans, zero tinting and vignetting, etc.
> 
> *those of us who understand and appreciate these things and don't believe hype, instead believing actual science.


I’d feel a lot better if the parties involved were not those that benefit the most by staying with 4K (LG, content producers). That said, it was well written and easy to follow. The quantitative scale results of 8K ‘slightly better’ for these 135 people are what they are based on the approach used. I have an LG CX and am exceedingly happy with my 4K, as there is real content out there. And, I’m in total agreement that I want HFR and 12 bit before I want 8K.

That being said, unless the other side of the story has been debunked (I don’t live and breathe this issue), in order to show both sides for this forum to digest, I’ll note a couple places where people are convinced 8K does make a difference. I saved these links a year or more ago when the hullabaloo first came out after 8k CES releases. Another study in Korea (Park) appears to have shown a different result from Smith et al, in which 120 viewers showed 8K to be 35% better performance (was Samsung behind this study? The same argument as in my opening above would apply…). Importantly, (as far as I can tell vs Smith) they noted qualitative adjectives pointing to why it was better (more lifelike, depth, warmer, etc..). Many anecdotal accounts of the 8K beating the 4K side by side are out there too. Two other things about human vision that aren’t in Smith (as far as I can tell) relate to Vernier acuity and Mach banding. The other side of the story uses these as arguments for why 8K appears to be better in conjunction with how our brain works. They also say the same reasoning applies when you compare HD to 4K at distances beyond supposed limit, where 4K improvements also appear to be obvious.

I have not experienced 4K and 8K side by side in any setting outside of a store, so I can’t tell you if I’d report results akin to Smith or Park. But with 20/20 corrected vision on a good day(!) I’m in the 70% of folks that wouldn’t see any resolution improvement with 8K. Whether I would see an improved depth of realism akin to Park and others arguments, is a good question. Until there’s content, I don’t really care……

Finally, I fully admit to falling off the topical thread wagon, just because there’s nothing else going on with QD-OLED, QNED, etc right now. 😊

Why 8K TVs Matter (forbes.com)

Basically the same argument:
Why 8K is NOT Pointless (theunlockr.com)

*Here's an excerpt from Ken Werner in a Display Daily article from a couple years ago with a very interesting conclusion on resolution needed due to sampling requirements:*
_8K is not just about quadrupling the number of pixels in UHD; it is the vehicle for a new level of image perception, some aspects of which are not measurable in traditional ways (at least not yet). I will make use of quotes from the speakers to present this case, and I reserve the right to toss in quotes that are just plain interesting even if they are not closely related to the theme.
The theme was established early when Mauricio Alvarez-Mesa (CEO of Spin Digital) quoted Sony's T. Ogura:
"Large color volume with higher peak luminance and 8K for smooth gradation realizes a very realistic picture. Non-numerical picture information: realness and immersion."
But before you get to the idea of non-numerical picture information, you have to dispose of the widely held misconception that the difference between 8K and 4K (and 2K) cannot be seen at normal viewing distances. I've been addressing this for years, but Florian Friedrich (Principal, FF Pictures) did it very effectively in only a few slides.
Friedrich: "Some people say you need to sit 60 cm away from a 65-inch TV in order to see the resolution of 8K. Some people say you need binoculars at normal viewing distances to see a benefit compared to 4K or even Full HD. Both are terribly wrong. I knew I had to go after these prejudices, because the prejudices fundamentally conflicted with what I could see."
"Average Human Visual Acuity is being able to separate objects at 1 arc minute (1/60°) distance. That is about 3mm from 10- meters away. [This leads to the] common miscalculation FOV°/(Visual Acuity°) = required horizontal display resolution. So, for a normal TV viewing distance of 2.5H [picture heights] this would mean 44.4/(1/60) = 2664 horizontal pixels. [Two obvious problems with] this analysis are that the diagonal spacing is greater than the horizontal or vertical spacing, [and] if objects don't fall precisely into the pixel grid, they are undersampled." According to the Nyquist sampling theorem, a signal must be sampled at twice the highest frequency contained in the signal. By incorporating a 1.41 factor for diagonal spacing and a Nyquist factor of 2 in the equation, we get a required horizontal resolution at 2.5H of 7512 pixels if we are to avoid artifacts. That is 8K.
Friedrich did not mention that human vernier resolution -- the ability to detect slight misalignment in two line segments -- is ten times more sensitive than standard visual acuity as measured by the classic Snellen chart or one of its variants. It is this exquisite sensitivity that makes it possible to see very slight aliasing or "jaggies." In the demo area, a test pattern showed that an 8K set virtually eliminated aliasing, while a 4K set showed obvious aliasing at normal viewing distances and greater._


----------



## chozofication

^^ Regarding 8k :

"Some people say you need binoculars to see the difference at normal distances between 8k and 4k *AND EVEN FULL HD"

*Nobody is saying that except maybe the ultra price conscious supermarket shoppers and those desperately holding onto their 1080p plasmas lol.


----------



## tonydeluce

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I’d feel a lot better if the parties involved were not those that benefit the most by staying with 4K (LG, content producers). That said, it was well written and easy to follow. The quantitative scale results of 8K ‘slightly better’ for these 135 people are what they are based on the approach used. I have an LG CX and am exceedingly happy with my 4K, as there is real content out there. And, I’m in total agreement that I want HFR and 12 bit before I want 8K.
> 
> That being said, unless the other side of the story has been debunked (I don’t live and breathe this issue), in order to show both sides for this forum to digest, I’ll note a couple places where people are convinced 8K does make a difference. I saved these links a year or more ago when the hullabaloo first came out after 8k CES releases. Another study in Korea (Park) appears to have shown a different result from Smith et al, in which 120 viewers showed 8K to be 35% better performance (was Samsung behind this study? The same argument as in my opening above would apply…). Importantly, (as far as I can tell vs Smith) they noted qualitative adjectives pointing to why it was better (more lifelike, depth, warmer, etc..). Many anecdotal accounts of the 8K beating the 4K side by side are out there too. Two other things about human vision that aren’t in Smith (as far as I can tell) relate to Vernier acuity and Mach banding. The other side of the story uses these as arguments for why 8K appears to be better in conjunction with how our brain works. They also say the same reasoning applies when you compare HD to 4K at distances beyond supposed limit, where 4K improvements also appear to be obvious.
> 
> I have not experienced 4K and 8K side by side in any setting outside of a store, so I can’t tell you if I’d report results akin to Smith or Park. But with 20/20 corrected vision on a good day(!) I’m in the 70% of folks that wouldn’t see any resolution improvement with 8K. Whether I would see an improved depth of realism akin to Park and others arguments, is a good question. Until there’s content, I don’t really care……
> 
> Finally, I fully admit to falling off the topical thread wagon, just because there’s nothing else going on with QD-OLED, QNED, etc right now. 😊
> 
> Why 8K TVs Matter (forbes.com)
> 
> Basically the same argument:
> Why 8K is NOT Pointless (theunlockr.com)
> 
> *Here's an excerpt from Ken Werner in a Display Daily article from a couple years ago with a very interesting conclusion on resolution needed due to sampling requirements:*
> _8K is not just about quadrupling the number of pixels in UHD; it is the vehicle for a new level of image perception, some aspects of which are not measurable in traditional ways (at least not yet). I will make use of quotes from the speakers to present this case, and I reserve the right to toss in quotes that are just plain interesting even if they are not closely related to the theme.
> The theme was established early when Mauricio Alvarez-Mesa (CEO of Spin Digital) quoted Sony's T. Ogura:
> "Large color volume with higher peak luminance and 8K for smooth gradation realizes a very realistic picture. Non-numerical picture information: realness and immersion."
> But before you get to the idea of non-numerical picture information, you have to dispose of the widely held misconception that the difference between 8K and 4K (and 2K) cannot be seen at normal viewing distances. I've been addressing this for years, but Florian Friedrich (Principal, FF Pictures) did it very effectively in only a few slides.
> Friedrich: "Some people say you need to sit 60 cm away from a 65-inch TV in order to see the resolution of 8K. Some people say you need binoculars at normal viewing distances to see a benefit compared to 4K or even Full HD. Both are terribly wrong. I knew I had to go after these prejudices, because the prejudices fundamentally conflicted with what I could see."
> "Average Human Visual Acuity is being able to separate objects at 1 arc minute (1/60°) distance. That is about 3mm from 10- meters away. [This leads to the] common miscalculation FOV°/(Visual Acuity°) = required horizontal display resolution. So, for a normal TV viewing distance of 2.5H [picture heights] this would mean 44.4/(1/60) = 2664 horizontal pixels. [Two obvious problems with] this analysis are that the diagonal spacing is greater than the horizontal or vertical spacing, [and] if objects don't fall precisely into the pixel grid, they are undersampled." According to the Nyquist sampling theorem, a signal must be sampled at twice the highest frequency contained in the signal. By incorporating a 1.41 factor for diagonal spacing and a Nyquist factor of 2 in the equation, we get a required horizontal resolution at 2.5H of 7512 pixels if we are to avoid artifacts. That is 8K.
> Friedrich did not mention that human vernier resolution -- the ability to detect slight misalignment in two line segments -- is ten times more sensitive than standard visual acuity as measured by the classic Snellen chart or one of its variants. It is this exquisite sensitivity that makes it possible to see very slight aliasing or "jaggies." In the demo area, a test pattern showed that an 8K set virtually eliminated aliasing, while a 4K set showed obvious aliasing at normal viewing distances and greater._


Well balanced post. If I recall the following correctly from my level 2 ISF training a decade ago, the following is a ranking of importance of PQ characteristics:

1. Black level
2. Contrast
3. Color accuracy
4. Resolution

Still important but certainly not the most important. Resolution and PPI absolutely does matter. With my 15/20 (17/20 in one eye and 13/20 in the other) vision, from six feet away I can definitely see a difference but it certainly is not the most important factor when deciding to purchase my next TV.

And if 8K content does not become prevalent, I would likely stick with a 75 / 77 inch 4K size maximum ( for exactly the PPI arguments you site ) but if it does, as long as it is an OLED flagship ( or a superior future technology ) in every other way, I will be pulling the trigger on an 8K 88 inch most definitely.


----------



## CherylJosie

Didn't find this in a search of the site, so figured I'd drop it here just in case someone is interested.

*LED Material Shines Under Strain*
*Berkeley Lab researchers devise a simple tactic to increase the efficiency of LED devices*
News Release By Rachel Berkowitz (510) 486-5183 • August 26, 2021

Applying mechanical strain on this atomically thin, transparent monolayer semiconductor results in a material with near 100% light-emission efficiency. (Credit: Ali Javey/Berkeley Lab)

*Smartphones, laptops, and lighting applications* rely on light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to shine bright. But the brighter these LED technologies shine, the more inefficient they become, releasing more energy as heat instead of light.

Now, as reported in the journal Science_, _a team led by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and UC Berkeley has demonstrated an approach for achieving near 100% light-emission efficiency at all brightness levels.

Their approach focuses on stretching or compressing a thin semiconductor film in a way that favorably changes its electronic structure.









Berkeley Lab Scientists Develop LED Material That Shines Under Strain


Our scientists designed an ultrathin LED material that approaches near 100% light-emission efficiency at all brightness levels.




newscenter.lbl.gov


----------



## 8mile13

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Finally, I fully admit to falling off the topical thread wagon, just because there’s nothing else going on with QD-OLED, QNED, etc right now. 😊


25-10-2021
(Sony) ''DECIDED THAT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF COMMERCIALIZING QD-OLED AND DECIDED TO MAKE A QD-OLED TV. BY MID-NOVEMBER, SAMSUNG DISPLAY QD-OLED PANELS ARE EXPECTED TO BE SUPPLIED TO SONY.'' So there likely will be a Sony QD OLED demo soon...


----------



## chozofication

8mile13 said:


> 25-10-2021
> (Sony) ''DECIDED THAT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF COMMERCIALIZING QD-OLED AND DECIDED TO MAKE A QD-OLED TV. BY MID-NOVEMBER, SAMSUNG DISPLAY QD-OLED PANELS ARE EXPECTED TO BE SUPPLIED TO SONY.'' So there likely will be a Sony QD OLED demo soon...


Do you have a source for this?

I'm not sure if that'd even be enough time to cobble together a prototype for ces.

Definitely no qd oled from sony in 2022. But i'd be excited to see a prototype


----------



## 59LIHP

chozofication said:


> Do you have a source for this?











News: Displays and Their Technologies


Samsung, LG Vie for the Upper Hand in 100-inch TV Market LG Electronics is also expected to release 97-inch OLED TVs next year. The likelihood increased after LG Display announced a plan to release 97-inch ultra large-sized panels at an international forum. To compete in the ultra large-sized...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## chozofication

59LIHP said:


> News: Displays and Their Technologies
> 
> 
> Samsung, LG Vie for the Upper Hand in 100-inch TV Market LG Electronics is also expected to release 97-inch OLED TVs next year. The likelihood increased after LG Display announced a plan to release 97-inch ultra large-sized panels at an international forum. To compete in the ultra large-sized...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Wow, this makes it sound as if Sony might actually have a qd oled product available this year! Exciting.


----------



## wco81

Would they offer QD OLED in addition to new OLED TVs using LG panels or instead of?


----------



## 59LIHP

chozofication said:


> Do you have a source for this?
> 
> I'm not sure if that'd even be enough time to cobble together a prototype for ces.
> 
> Definitely no qd oled from sony in 2022. But i'd be excited to see a prototype


We must not forget that Sony has had QD-Oled samples to do their tests for over 1 year already ...

Samsung Display Promoting QD-OLED TV Panels
Samsung Electronics, Sony and Panasonic Reviewing Samsung Display's QD-OLED TV Prototypes








Samsung Electronics, Sony and Panasonic Reviewing Samsung Display's QD-OLED TV Prototypes


Samsung Display has started to promote QD-OLED panels to global TV producers. It has recently supplied prototypes of QD-OLED TVs to Samsung Electronics' TV division, Sony, and Panasonic, according to market research firm Omdia. On the premise that there will be a company that will accept Samsung




www.businesskorea.co.kr





Since...

CU-Tech aims to secure 5 PCA lines for Samsung Display’s QD-OLED








CU-Tech aims to secure 5 PCA lines for Samsung Display’s QD-OLED


CU-Tech said on Friday that it plans to secure five production lines for printed circuit assembly (PCA) for use by Samsung Display in quantum dot (QD)-OLED display panels.CU-Tech said Samsung Display has sent QD-OLED samples to Samsung Electronics and Sony. The company expects the display panel make




www.thelec.net












씨유테크 "삼성디스플레이 QD-OLED용 PCA 라인 확보 계획"








씨유테크 "삼성디스플레이 QD-OLED용 PCA 라인 확보 계획"


다음달 코스닥 상장 예정인 씨유테크가 삼성디스플레이가 개발 중인 퀀텀닷(QD)-유기발광다이오드(OLED)용 인쇄회로조립(PCA) 생산라인 5개를 2024년까지 확보하겠다고 밝혔다. 씨유테크는 삼성디스플레이가 TV용 QD-OLED 시제품을 삼성전자와 소니 등에 전달했고 향후 2차 투자에 나설 것이라고 기대했다.유희승 씨유테크 부사장은 24일 온라인으로 진행한 기자간담회에서 "삼성디스플레이가 올해 말 QD-OLED 양산을 준비하고 있다"며 "씨유테크는 고객사 QD-OLED TV 생산에 대응할 수 있도록 2023년과 2024년에 PCA




www.thelec.kr





What is interesting is that Sony has validated the QD-Oled to market it.


----------



## 8mile13

wco81 said:


> Would they offer QD OLED in addition to new OLED TVs using LG panels or instead of?


There likely will be a few Samsung models using LG OLED panels. On a much smaller scale we likely will see Samsung and other manufacturers launching QD OLED TVs next year. I guess they feel the urgency to move to OLED asap.


----------



## wco81

8mile13 said:


> There likely will be a few Samsung models using LG OLED panels. On a much smaller scale we likely will see Samsung and other manufacturers launching QD OLED TVs next year. I guess they feel the urgency to move to OLED asap.


I meant Sony, will they offer two lines of OLED TVs next year? Expensive and very expensive?


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

8mile13 said:


> There likely will be a few Samsung models using LG OLED panels. On a much smaller scale we likely will see Samsung and other manufacturers launching QD OLED TVs next year. I guess they feel the urgency to move to OLED asap.


CES just got more interesting. Thanks to 59LIHP for the Chosun article--


----------



## 8mile13

wco81 said:


> I meant Sony, will they offer two lines of OLED TVs next year? Expensive and very expensive?


Not shure how they are going to market the QD OLED stuff..but it will be very expensive for shure.


----------



## Wizziwig

Given the presumed size limitations of the initial QD OLEDs (<= 65" ?), I don't see how you can find any spot for them in Sony's or anyone else's lineup. Too small for flagship tier and probably too expensive for the mainstream. So where does that leave you? Maybe selling to the small niche that was buying the 55/65" Panasonic OLED monitors in the USA? Or maybe they will skip USA as there is more demand for small premium TVs elsewhere.


----------



## chozofication

wco81 said:


> I meant Sony, will they offer two lines of OLED TVs next year? Expensive and very expensive?


This is interesting, and there's so many different options we might see. The cheapest one would just be an 80 series woled without heatsink, but then will the 90 series be woled with heatsink, or be qdoled with heatsink? Maybe the A85K will be the former, and qd oled the new A90K? 

I do wonder if anyone will offer qdoled without heatsink... You would think it would be not worth it considering how much less durable blue oled is, and lower on paper brightness.

Also, no way we see a woled from samsung despite the rumors. They're going out of their way to not call qd oled as such, but simply quantum display ; I can't see them buying lg oled panels that they've been dogging for so long, and their product lineup would be too crowded.


----------



## chozofication

Wizziwig said:


> Given the presumed size limitations of the initial QD OLEDs (<= 65" ?), I don't see how you can find any spot for them in Sony's or anyone else's lineup. Too small for flagship tier and probably too expensive for the mainstream. So where does that leave you? Maybe selling to the small niche that was buying the 55/65" Panasonic OLED monitors in the USA? Or maybe they will skip USA as there is more demand for small premium TVs elsewhere.


Simple, it will be their flagship at the 55 and 65 sizes. Like how they had the master G series ; 55, 65 and 77 inch was a9g while 85 and 98 was lcd z9g.

Alternatively it's just in its own lineup of 2 units 

They will bring it to USA, and I refuse the idea that a 65 is small! You're right that it's niche though, only hardcore enthusiasts that prefer quality over size will buy. If uniformity is solved, i'm willing to pay.


----------



## video_analysis

That would be dreamy re: uniformity, but if is the operative word.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

chozofication said:


> Also, no way we see a woled from samsung despite the rumors. They're going out of their way to not call qd oled as such, but simply quantum display ; I can't see them buying lg oled panels that they've been dogging for so long, and their product lineup would be too crowded.


It seems very unlikely that a deal could have been kept under wraps this far into the year if Samsung expects to offer WOLED product in Q1/Q2 next year - also meaning that they would launch at CES, so a deal would have to be already done or so close as to be 'leak worthy'.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Scrapper102dAA said:


> It seems very unlikely that a deal could have been kept under wraps this far into the year if Samsung expects to offer WOLED product in Q1/Q2 next year - also meaning that they would launch at CES, so a deal would have to be already done or so close as to be 'leak worthy'.


I agree, I'd say Q3/Q4 next year is more feasbile.


----------



## Donny84

Am i the only one who feels like 4K is a bit of a waste when watching movies? Mind you, i guess it all depends on how close you sit and how large your TV is.

Eye distance wise, i'm like 10-11 feet away from my 65" OLED. And to be honest, i can't tell the difference in resolution vs my Panasonic S60 1080p 60" plasma. HDR is another feature that i typically dont give a flying squirrel about either. it has no quality standards. Sometimes it looks amazing, while in other cases its typically dim, dreary, dull with washed out colors. Queens Gambit is a fine example. Far more enjoyable to look at in SDR on my plasma.

I would trade both 4K, HDR and 120fps(at this point....only because 120fps is scarce with console gaming with visual performance compromises to boot) for much higher motion resolution(1080p motion), nearly zero motion blur, and less judder like what a top tier plasma(ST60) is capable of. but alas, seems like the Phillips +936 OLED which is only available in the UK is capable of plasma grade motion with it's BFI 'without' the draw backs like brightness loss and flicker which plague LG & SONY OLEDS.


----------



## chozofication

Donny84 said:


> Am i the only one who feels like 4K is a bit of a waste when watching movies? Mind you, i guess it all depends on how close you sit and how large your TV is.
> 
> Eye distance wise, i'm like 10-11 feet away from my 65" OLED. And to be honest, i can't tell the difference in resolution vs my Panasonic S60 1080p 60" plasma. HDR is another feature that i typically dont give a flying squirrel about either. it has no quality standards. Sometimes it looks amazing, while in other cases its typically dim, dreary, dull with washed out colors. Queens Gambit is a fine example. Far more enjoyable to look at in SDR on my plasma.
> 
> I would trade both 4K, HDR and 120fps(at this point....only because 120fps is scarce with console gaming with visual performance compromises to boot) for much higher motion resolution(1080p motion), nearly zero motion blur, and less judder like what a top tier plasma(ST60) is capable of. but alas, seems like the Phillips +936 OLED which is only available in the UK is capable of plasma grade motion with it's BFI 'without' the draw backs like brightness loss and flicker which plague LG & SONY OLEDS.


For movies, esp. at your viewing distance, 4k is less of a big deal than games. Hdr is the main benefit, but like you said, it's very hit or miss still. At my distance, 4k video makes a noticeable difference i.e. 5ft or so on 49/55 inch.

For games, 4k is a huge difference. 

What oled do you have? Oled with interpolation can actually beat plasma for movies. On plasma, you have phosphor trails so it's not perfect either.

For judder, without using interpolation on 24p movies, or 30fps games (or less) lcd with slow response time i.e. Z9D 65 inch is best. But of course that's a very specific use case and you wouldn't want that much motion blur otherwise.


----------



## Donny84

chozofication said:


> For movies, esp. at your viewing distance, 4k is less of a big deal than games. Hdr is the main benefit, but like you said, it's very hit or miss still. At my distance, 4k video makes a noticeable difference i.e. 5ft or so on 49/55 inch.
> 
> For games, 4k is a huge difference.
> 
> What oled do you have? Oled with interpolation can actually beat plasma for movies. On plasma, you have phosphor trails so it's not perfect either.
> 
> For judder, without using interpolation on 24p movies, or 30fps games (or less) lcd with slow response time i.e. Z9D 65 inch is best. But of course that's a very specific use case and you wouldn't want that much motion blur otherwise.


I have the LG C1. I've done some comparisons with a few first person titles running at 60fp, even super Mario odyssey and the like, between my Panny S60 plasma and C1's BFI 'high' setting and to my surprise the C1 seemed like it had just a little less blur while maintaining about the same or slightly higher motion resolution, and without any green phosphor trails. But BFI high is useless to me since brightness plunges to nothing, there's more shadow detail crushing and the flicker on whites just destroys my eyes. 

The LG C1's base motion however is pure trash.....I can't stomach anything in first or 3rd person, with all of that motion blur smothering only 300p motion. Even in Mega Man 11, mega man's entire body turns to a blur and helmet cascades when jumping off a platform. Neither of these issues exist with my plasma or when using the C1's BFI HIGH Setting. Neither are in same ball park as CRT mind you.


----------



## chozofication

Donny84 said:


> I have the LG C1. I've done some comparisons with a few first person titles running at 60fp, even super Mario odyssey and the like, between my Panny S60 plasma and C1's BFI 'high' setting and to my surprise the C1 seemed like it had just a little less blur while maintaining about the same or slightly higher motion resolution, and without any green phosphor trails. But BFI high is useless to me since brightness plunges to nothing, there's more shadow detail crushing and the flicker on whites just destroys my eyes.
> 
> The LG C1's base motion however is pure trash.....I can't stomach anything in first or 3rd person, with all of that motion blur smothering only 300p motion. Even in Mega Man 11, mega man's entire body turns to a blur and helmet cascades when jumping off a platform. Neither of these issues exist with my plasma or when using the C1's BFI HIGH Setting. Neither are in same ball park as CRT mind you.


You're doing it wrong brother! The high setting is 60hz bfi which is why it flickers. You need to use a lower setting for 120hz bfi. For Sdr, you have plenty of brightness headroom to compensate for the brightness loss. But I even use bfi on hdr as well.

And yeah, you need bfi on oled. 120hz bfi on c1 is the gold standard (for oled), try mega man 11 again. It's really quite good motion, best oled to date.

For 30fps on oled, there's not much you can do besides hope the game has good motion blur.


----------



## Donny84

chozofication said:


> You're doing it wrong brother! The high setting is 60hz bfi which is why it flickers. You need to use a lower setting for 120hz bfi. For Sdr, you have plenty of brightness headroom to compensate for the brightness loss. But I even use bfi on hdr as well.
> 
> And yeah, you need bfi on oled. 120hz bfi on c1 is the gold standard (for oled), try mega man 11 again. It's really quite good motion, best oled to date.
> 
> For 30fps on oled, there's not much you can do besides hope the game has good motion blur.


MotionPro Low, Medium & high on the C1 suffer from Motion Duplication/doubling. They're horrible! lol  I had no idea going in. HIGH doesn't have this issue. it's probably because you're feeding Low, Medium & Auto(which are 120hz bfi) a 60hz game into 120hz, hence the doubling. Panning shots in movies with those three settings are unbearable compared to base motion too.

Putting aside the weird doubling effect. Low & auto don't reduce enough blur or increase enough motion resolution to even consider. Medium is when there's a noticeable difference but it's still not even in the same ball park as plasma. HIGH is when you're entering Plasma-ville  But like you said, Flicker ruins it all and the brightness drop is too severe.

The best way to remedy motion blur and increase motion clarity with the C1 as far as gaming goes would be to play games running in 120fps. But it's slim pickings when you're a console gamer. 120fps is scarce outside of PC. 
I dont know what to do at this point. Ya know, if my Panasonic S60 plasma had lower input lag i'd just roll with that, but the 34ms isn't ideal, at all.


----------



## BriscoCountyJr

Donny84 said:


> Am i the only one who feels like 4K is a bit of a waste when watching movies? Mind you, i guess it all depends on how close you sit and how large your TV is.
> 
> Eye distance wise, i'm like 10-11 feet away from my 65" OLED. And to be honest, i can't tell the difference in resolution vs my Panasonic S60 1080p 60" plasma. HDR is another feature that i typically dont give a flying squirrel about either. it has no quality standards. Sometimes it looks amazing, while in other cases its typically dim, dreary, dull with washed out colors. Queens Gambit is a fine example. Far more enjoyable to look at in SDR on my plasma.
> 
> I would trade both 4K, HDR and 120fps(at this point....only because 120fps is scarce with console gaming with visual performance compromises to boot) for much higher motion resolution(1080p motion), nearly zero motion blur, and less judder like what a top tier plasma(ST60) is capable of. but alas, seems like the Phillips +936 OLED which is only available in the UK is capable of plasma grade motion with it's BFI 'without' the draw backs like brightness loss and flicker which plague LG & SONY OLEDS.


Yeah you have to view from a lot closer to make out the full 4K details.
I found a good test pattern for checking 4K resolution on youtube and for my Sony 65" A80J I had to view from 6feet or closer to fully resolve the 4K with my eyes. My regular viewing distance is a little over 8 feet so I can't resolve the full 4K from that distance but still better than 1080p slightly at that distance.
From 10feet+ indeed 1080p is probably the most your eyes could resolve with a 65" screen.


----------



## Donny84

BriscoCountyJr said:


> Yeah you have to view from a lot closer to make out the full 4K details.
> I found a good test pattern for checking 4K resolution on youtube and for my Sony 65" A80J I had to view from 6feet or closer to fully resolve the 4K with my eyes. My regular viewing distance is a little over 8 feet so I can't resolve the full 4K from that distance but still better than 1080p slightly at that distance.
> From 10feet+ indeed 1080p is probably the most your eyes could resolve with a 65" screen.



Sitting 10-11 feet when watching a movie(etc) on a 65" is ideal for me. I couldn't bare to sit 6 feet away unless it was a first or 3rd person video game, or possibly a racer for better immersion. With movies, that distance would be very uncomfortable because movies are constantly firing different shots at you and you'll often find yourself having a hard time making out what's happening around the corners of the screen.

I guess i figure 1080p might look worse even at 10-11 feet just because my C1 has to upscale 1080p into 4K instead of 1080. But ya, it would be great if i could disable HDR & Dolby vision, if there's a way. There are so many movies that look worse with it compared to watching them in SDR.

And ugh, i'm jealous! The A80J has the better picture compared to the C1. It's more three dimensional and sharper. I mean, people keep touting the C1 for it's game optimizer settings and low 10ms latency, but the reality is game mode looks poor compared to ISF Bright/Expert. I can't believe how much duller, softer and dimmer it looks compared to the latter. It's trash, especially for lower resolution content. Sony A80J's game mode doesn't have this problem or at least to this extent and it allows you to use the peak brightness setting which is greyed out on the C1.


----------



## chozofication

Donny84 said:


> MotionPro Low, Medium & high on the C1 suffer from Motion Duplication/doubling. They're horrible! lol  I had no idea going in. HIGH doesn't have this issue. it's probably because you're feeding Low, Medium & Auto(which are 120hz bfi) a 60hz game into 120hz, hence the doubling. Panning shots in movies with those three settings are unbearable compared to base motion too.
> 
> Putting aside the weird doubling effect. Low & auto don't reduce enough blur or increase enough motion resolution to even consider. Medium is when there's a noticeable difference but it's still not even in the same ball park as plasma. HIGH is when you're entering Plasma-ville  But like you said, Flicker ruins it all and the brightness drop is too severe.
> 
> The best way to remedy motion blur and increase motion clarity with the C1 as far as gaming goes would be to play games running in 120fps. But it's slim pickings when you're a console gamer. 120fps is scarce outside of PC.
> I dont know what to do at this point. Ya know, if my Panasonic S60 plasma had lower input lag i'd just roll with that, but the 34ms isn't ideal, at all.


I’ve never seem the doubling effect on either the c1 or any sony display ; any theoretical doubling gets blended with the sample and hold ghosting. 

People tell me about this and point to blur busters, but i’ve never seen it manifest in my real content. I’ve been using 120hz bfi since the excellent 2017 sony’s. Are you sure there’s a doubling effect and it isn’t just the frame rate itself? I went back and forth between on and off on sony x900e, sony a8h snd c1 and saw no difference in ghosting. 

Mind you, I have seen more evidence of this doubling on someone elses sony z9f, which is a poorer implementation of 120hz bfi.


----------



## a/v HD fan

Wizziwig said:


> You can see some examples of the possible configurations on this site.
> 
> View attachment 3188481


This is fascinating but there’s a part of this I can’t wrap my head around. How do you cut a 55” 4k glass and 65” 4k glass from the same sheet? Wouldn’t the pixel densities necessarily be different? Does the sheet get manufactured with different PPI depending on how it’s going to be cut later?


----------



## Wizziwig

a/v HD fan said:


> This is fascinating but there’s a part of this I can’t wrap my head around. How do you cut a 55” 4k glass and 65” 4k glass from the same sheet? Wouldn’t the pixel densities necessarily be different? Does the sheet get manufactured with different PPI depending on how it’s going to be cut later?


That's solved through multi-model glass (MMG in the images I linked). The technique started being used on LCDs a bit earlier but OLEDs are now also being produced this way for past few years. It does slow down the production of each glass sheet slightly but greatly reduces wasted material at certain TV sizes.


----------



## stl8k

LG Display Q3 Transcript



> In terms of the market, the mainstream market is contracting in the second half, but the high end keeps growing, creating a wider gap in the market. This is due to the consumer’s willingness to pay more for higher specifications, as TV increasingly becomes a multi-use device with more time spent and higher quality content.
> 
> Based on such change, LG Display intends to segment the consumer market more finely and develop product offerings customized for each segment. This will help build the basis for profitable growth for large OLED to keep growing and improve profitability at the same time.


It will be really interesting to see how LGD will attempt to segment a market for which it doesn't have much agency today. It doesn't have an end-user OS. It doesn't/can't dictate other components of sets like the networking (speed), and there's the historical inertia of a TV having an average blend of features, none of which are individually maximized. Brightness maximization with outdoor TVs (LCD) is the only counterexample with a modicum of volume.

Perhaps they have form factor innovations in mind that they will be sharing and they're prepared to get the prices of their rollables out of the stratosphere.

Also, its most important customer outside of LG, Sony, might think they are doing a very credible job servicing the high end with OLED. Perhaps this is a tell that its relationship with Sony is strained.


----------



## KOF

Donny84 said:


> I would trade ...120fps(at this point....only because 120fps is scarce with console gaming with visual performance compromises to boot) for much higher motion resolution(1080p motion)


You CANNOT get both higher motion resolutions and zero flicker with low FPS on sample and hold displays! Because as you already know, BFI is NOT cheap! Like I said numerously, their will be NO saving for 60 FPS games. So forget about those legacy games, prepare for the future of 120 FPS gaming, because visual cutbacks of those 120 FPS games still far outstrips any piss poor attempts at trying to save those 60 FPS games.

You have to understand LCDs and OLEDs are not, and will never function as either CRT or plasma. Their motion competitiveness will only come from FPS brute forcing, and the 120 FPS input is the maximum the TV standard allows for. Rolling scan also can only give you ONE free lunch, you have to pay for it with brightness cutback for the second time or have to deal with interpolation and increased lag.

If I were you, I would forget about dim the A80J (I was amazed at how much more tame it was compared to my light cannon the GZ2000) and go straight to the A90J, do the D-Nice mod to get as close as 203 nits paper white, buy a gaming PC (easier said than done) to output 120Hz, then perform 120Hz rolling scan only once to keep as many nits as possible along with protecting it from flickers. This will give 240Hz identical motion blur, just like my Sharp Zero2 phone that also supports 240Hz through rolling scan. (but unlike the Sony and LG, my Sharp behaves more like Philips meaning there is barely any drops in brightness when rolling scan is engaged so I can keep not only 800 nits of eye searing brightness AND 240 Hz equivalent motion smoothness, but also almost indistinguishable flickers)

Then when the PS5 Pro and Xbox Series X2 comes out with 120 FPS support blaring it out of the box, I would switch back to consoles, but for the Switch, I would limit it to handheld mode so that I would at least avoid frame doubling judder.


----------



## Donny84

KOF said:


> You CANNOT get both higher motion resolutions and zero flicker with low FPS on sample and hold displays! Because as you already know, BFI is NOT cheap! Like I said numerously, their will be NO saving for 60 FPS games. So forget about those legacy games, prepare for the future of 120 FPS gaming, because visual cutbacks of those 120 FPS games still far outstrips any piss poor attempts at trying to save those 60 FPS games.
> 
> You have to understand LCDs and OLEDs are not, and will never function as either CRT or plasma. Their motion competitiveness will only come from FPS brute forcing, and the 120 FPS input is the maximum the TV standard allows for. Rolling scan also can only give you ONE free lunch, you have to pay for it with brightness cutback for the second time or have to deal with interpolation and increased lag.
> 
> If I were you, I would forget about dim the A80J (I was amazed at how much more tame it was compared to my light cannon the GZ2000) and go straight to the A90J, do the D-Nice mod to get as close as 203 nits paper white, buy a gaming PC (easier said than done) to output 120Hz, then perform 120Hz rolling scan only once to keep as many nits as possible along with protecting it from flickers. This will give 240Hz identical motion blur, just like my Sharp Zero2 phone that also supports 240Hz through rolling scan. (but unlike the Sony and LG, my Sharp behaves more like Philips meaning there is barely any drops in brightness when rolling scan is engaged so I can keep not only 800 nits of eye searing brightness AND 240 Hz equivalent motion smoothness, but also almost indistinguishable flickers)
> 
> Then when the PS5 Pro and Xbox Series X2 comes out with 120 FPS support blaring it out of the box, I would switch back to consoles, but for the Switch, I would limit it to handheld mode so that I would at least avoid frame doubling judder.


So, 120fps + MotionPro/Rolling Scan 'Low' on the LG C1 or in Sony's case Clearness 1 on the A80J/A90J are the to-go to settings for 120fps PC gaming? Like i mentioned before, outside of game mode, setting De-Blur to 10(If that does in fact artificially mimic or force 120fps for 60fps games, not too sure.) and MotionPro/Rolling Scan to Medium makes the motion almost CRT-like, it looks phenomenal but of course like you pointed out there's a severe brightness drop the second time aside from crushing more blacks, so falling back to LOW(or clearness 1) seems ideal or basically the sweet spot, especially with the A80J/A90J since you can also use the peak brightness setting(Which doesn't negatively effect color unlike the LG C1) to regain a bit of those nits that you use for the first rolling scan setting of the two. But obviously you dont want to dip outside game mode doing the following above, i was just seeing if De-Blur operated similarly to 120fps, because set to '10' on it's own it reduces a lot of blur.

It's too bad about the Switch... I'm just not really into hand held gaming anymore. A 7" OLED switch screen combined with those terrible joy-cons Vs a 65" A80J/A90J with a Pro controller? I'll take the latter! even if motion appears tighter on the 7" switch OLED.

What's even worse is that Nintendo most likely wont even be able to push 120fps with their true next gen console which i'm guessing will arrive some time in 2023. It will be boasting PS4 Pro power at best with HDR. Hopefully i'm wrong! Because OLED NEEDS to be fed 120fps when gaming at this point, unless LG or Sony adopts Phillips +936 OLED BFI techniques with barely any brightness loss and no noticeable flicker. as is, I can't stand BFI.

BTW, the A90J is a little out of my price range at this point unless i opt for the 55" which wont cut it in the size department. I'd rather just go for the 65" A80J after i sell my C1. Also, does the A80J's Clearness/Rolling Scan 1 setting cause more shadow detailing crushing like LG's MotionPro settings? And can you run any game on PC at 120fps?

Like Resident Evil 2, 3 & 8, others like Mega Man 11, Bioshock 1 & infinite, Little Nightmares 2, Subnautica, Titanfall 2, Dragonball Fighterz, just to name a few or is the frame rate thing a complete mixed bag? Ideally, i would roll with the smallest, most quite, All black PC Tower with no flashy lights that operates like a plug and play console, using a Duel Sense controller. Are there any All-in one options with an RTX3080(Or whatever it is i need to get 120fps + 4K or at least 1440p) instead of having to go down the route of building my own? Oh! And according to RTNGS 120fps gives you around 8ms of lag on the A80J, question is, how much latency would you have in total when using the Clearness/Rolling Scan 1 setting with 120fps? Hopefully it's no more than 16ms.

For now, until i eventually get the following above(Swap C1 for A80J, 120fps capable PC with DuelSense & Switch pro Controller) up and running, I'll just stick with Quest 2, PSVR and Retro Gaming on my CRT.


----------



## KOF

Donny84 said:


> So, 120fps + MotionPro/Rolling Scan 'Low' on the LG C1 or in Sony's case Clearness 1 on the A80J/A90J are the to-go to settings for 120fps PC gaming? Like i mentioned before, outside of game mode, setting De-Blur to 10(If that does in fact artificially mimic or force 120fps for 60fps games, not too sure.) and MotionPro/Rolling Scan to Medium makes the motion almost CRT-like, it looks phenomenal but of course like you pointed out there's a severe brightness drop the second time aside from crushing more blacks, so falling back to LOW(or clearness 1) seems ideal or basically the sweet spot, especially with the A80J/A90J since you can also use the peak brightness setting(Which doesn't negatively effect color unlike the LG C1) to regain a bit of those nits that you use for the first rolling scan setting of the two. But obviously you dont want to dip outside game mode doing the following above, i was just seeing if De-Blur operated similarly to 120fps, because set to '10' on it's own it reduces a lot of blur.
> 
> It's too bad about the Switch... I'm just not really into hand held gaming anymore. A 7" OLED switch screen combined with those terrible joy-cons Vs a 65" A80J/A90J with a Pro controller? I'll take the latter! even if motion appears tighter on the 7" switch OLED.
> 
> What's even worse is that Nintendo most likely wont even be able to push 120fps with their true next gen console which i'm guessing will arrive some time in 2023. It will be boasting PS4 Pro power at best with HDR. Hopefully i'm wrong! Because OLED NEEDS to be fed 120fps when gaming at this point, unless LG or Sony adopts Phillips +936 OLED BFI techniques with barely any brightness loss and no noticeable flicker. as is, I can't stand BFI.
> 
> BTW, the A90J is a little out of my price range at this point unless i opt for the 55" which wont cut it in the size department. I'd rather just go for the 65" A80J after i sell my C1. Also, does the A80J's Clearness/Rolling Scan 1 setting cause more shadow detailing crushing like LG's MotionPro settings? And can you run any game on PC at 120fps?
> 
> Like Resident Evil 2, 3 & 8, others like Mega Man 11, Dragonball Fighterz, just to name a few or is the frame rate thing a complete mixed bag? Ideally, i would roll with the smallest, most quite, All black PC Tower with no flashy lights that operates like a plug and play console, using a Duel Sense controller. Are there any All-in one options with an RTX3080(Or whatever it is i need to get 120fps + 4K or at least 1440p) instead of having to go down the route of building my own?
> 
> For now, until i eventually get the following above up and running, I'll just stick with Playstation VR, Quest 2 and Retro Gaming on my CRT.


That's why despite your not so big enthusiasm, you have to be a friend with 120Hz and HDR. 120Hz so that you wouldn't rely on rolling scan as much as possible, and also HDR because it will satiate your hunger for more brightness with LESS APL. My Panasonic GZ2000 for example is a beast a for both SDR and HDR, exceeding 500 nits for SDR and reaching 1,000 nits for HDR. Whenever I watch SDR contents including gaming, despite having much higher average brightness, I keep on wanting for more brightness. (Well, comparatively speaking that is, because unlike plasmas, I'm quite satisfied with SDR brightness) But whenever I watch HDR contents, despite its average APL only reaching 203 nits much lower than what I can reach with SDR, I'm actually more satisfied with the brightness because peak brightness reaching up to 1,000 nits more than makes up for deficits in average APL. My Xbox Series X's Auto Game mode seems to be operating around 203 nits APL too, so whenever I play legacy games like Soul Calibur 2 that doesn't seem to take advantage of Auto HDR that well, its actually dimmer than playing it in SDR mode, but with excellent native HDR supporting games like Star Wars Battlefront 2, I had to move back because specular highlight explosion was too much for my eyes to handle lol. I'm sure your current negative opinion of HDR will improve once you also get an OLED with very high peak brightness because I'm loving HDR on my Panny OLED.

What LG display is preparing for next is merging 120Hz rolling scan with HDR. Since majority of HDR materials have paper white of 203 nits, they will provide a headroom for 100% window brightness so that with rolling scan, it can remain in 203 nits. Then, any pixels with higher than 203 nits can skip be skipped applying rolling scan so luminance can be maintained. Last and current year WOLED's Dynamic BFI is actually a precursor of this technique. Your endgame WOLED then can be whatever the Panasonic is cooking with their heat sync based OLED once LGD succeeds with both providing HDR rolling scan that can maintain 203 nits paper white with no drops to highlight region, and almost zero drop SDR rolling scan a la Philips OLED TVs and Sharp OLED mobile phones. But seeing as there is a likely chance Panasonic is pulling out of TV market, you better act fast just as you acted fast for Panasonic's final year plasma. As of now, your only probability will be importing one from Value Electronics. It will be expensive, but worth it. But since I'm more of a dynamic range preserver unlike you, I will be fine with either Sony or LG. My endgame equipments will be 105 inches 8K LG OLED that reaches 2,000 nits peak brightness that can also maintain it in 120Hz rolling scan with 203 nits peak white. My endgame HD device will be Kuro 500m with the ABL mod, and I already own the Sony FW900 CRT for classic SD games.


----------



## Donny84

KOF said:


> That's why despite your not so big enthusiasm, you have to be a friend with 120Hz and HDR. 120Hz so that you wouldn't rely on rolling scan as much as possible, and also HDR because it will satiate your hunger for more brightness with LESS APL. My Panasonic GZ2000 for example is a beast a for both SDR and HDR, exceeding 500 nits for SDR and reaching 1,000 nits for HDR. Whenever I watch SDR contents including gaming, despite having much higher average brightness, I keep on wanting for more brightness. (Well, comparatively speaking that is, because unlike plasmas, I'm quite satisfied with SDR brightness) But whenever I watch HDR contents, despite its average APL only reaching 203 nits much lower than what I can reach with SDR, I'm actually more satisfied with the brightness because peak brightness reaching up to 1,000 nits more than makes up for deficits in average APL. My Xbox Series X's Auto Game mode seems to be operating around 203 nits APL too, so whenever I play legacy games like Soul Calibur 2 that doesn't seem to take advantage of Auto HDR that well, its actually dimmer than playing it in SDR mode, but with excellent native HDR supporting games like Star Wars Battlefront 2, I had to move back because specular highlight explosion was too much for my eyes to handle lol. I'm sure your current negative opinion of HDR will improve once you also get an OLED with very high peak brightness because I'm loving HDR on my Panny OLED.
> 
> What LG display is preparing for next is merging 120Hz rolling scan with HDR. Since majority of HDR materials have paper white of 203 nits, they will provide a headroom for 100% window brightness so that with rolling scan, it can remain in 203 nits. Then, any pixels with higher than 203 nits can skip be skipped applying rolling scan so luminance can be maintained. Last and current year WOLED's Dynamic BFI is actually a precursor of this technique. Your endgame WOLED then can be whatever the Panasonic is cooking with their heat sync based OLED once LGD succeeds with both providing HDR rolling scan that can maintain 203 nits paper white with no drops to highlight region, and almost zero drop SDR rolling scan a la Philips OLED TVs and Sharp OLED mobile phones. But seeing as there is a likely chance Panasonic is pulling out of TV market, you better act fast just as you acted fast for Panasonic's final year plasma. As of now, your only probability will be importing one from Value Electronics. It will be expensive, but worth it. But since I'm more of a dynamic range preserver unlike you, I will be fine with either Sony or LG. My endgame equipments will be 105 inches 8K LG OLED that reaches 2,000 nits peak brightness that can also maintain it in 120Hz rolling scan with 203 nits peak white. My endgame HD device will be Kuro 500m with the ABL mod, and I already own the Sony FW900 CRT for classic SD games.



So can you actually play or force any PC game that's in your steam library to 120fps if you have a graphics card that's capable? or is it a complete mess where numerous games are capped at 60fps? And no, i wouldn't say I'm an HDR hater at all, i think it looks amazing depending on the content, but like i mentioned earlier at times, it can look a bit washed out, colors look desaturated and the picture is just too dim, but then it's the complete opposite in other cases. Some games like Resident Evil 2 & 3 remake look down right _awful_ in HDR, what was capcom thinking? Also, perhaps the LG C1's limited HDR brightness as you pointed out, isn't showcasing the real deal. You need at least 1000 nits for HDR content correct?

Oh, and does the 60fps limitation to Legacy games only apply to consoles or are PC gamers screwed as well? There are other newer retro remaster releases or spiritual sequels to older games, like Wild Arms Reloaded, The Ninja Saviours, Blood Stained Curse of the Moon, Blaster Master Zero, even compilations like the Capcom Beat em' up collection, Castlevania Advance collection etc that are locked in at 60fps on modern consoles, but you'd think just maybe, _Maybe_ with PC you can push the following into 120fps considering all of the options you have at your disposal which in return would be a piece of cake considering how undemanding they all are in the graphics department.

I'm itching to test 120fps out on my LG C1, both by itself and in combination with Rolling Scan/Motion Pro 'Low'. DOOM Eternal & Monster Boy in the Cursed Kingdom now run in 120fps on PS5 for example. BTW that panny OLED has 21ms latency for 60fps games. So basically 21ms of latency for all Nintendo Switch games in my case. I'm trying to score under 16ms at this point. The closer to CRT the better obviously.

As for that Pioneer Plasma, i'm guessing you're holding on to that solely for movies? It's the same reason why i still have my panny S60. I mean, once LG or Sony figures out a way to advance their BFI Max settings, like Phillip's +936 OLED, where they have hardly any brightness loss or noticeable flicker than I'll be able to finally retire and stop talking about Plasma....Well, THAT and hopefully OLED being able to cut down judder and have smoother panning transitions like plasma without incorporating the SOE effect.... Phillips BFI maximum setting on their latest +936 i'm guessing works wonders for both movies and gaming, if you can get past the base 21ms latency....It might nearly double with BFI on for all we know. 21ms as it is, is a little too much depending on the genre, especially for platformers. for anything in first or 3rd or first person with traditional controls, 21ms is actually fine for me.


----------



## 8mile13

According Mark Rejhon (Blurbusters) it takes 1000hz for OLED to emulate CRT very well. And your are still dealing with emulation there so look alike CRT motion...


----------



## stl8k

As if on cue, the Sky Glass is precisely the TV I imagined in previous posts on personalization/specialization.








stl8k said:


> Re: LGD's move to open cell OLED TV panels
> 
> I don't recall the specifics of the earnings call all these months later, but they were alluding to something like this in the call.
> 
> It's not surprising that the TV market would follow the increased specialization that happened in the monitor market (especially around gaming) and is happening in almost every market.
> 
> It will also accelerate the move to direct (e-commerce) selling. In a few years, it may be typical for you or I to go online and configure say a TV with sports quality motion bundled with a sports content package that takes advantage of that great motion tech and have the TV at our doorstep within a couple weeks.


----------



## VA_DaveB

Donny84 said:


> And no, i wouldn't say I'm an HDR hater at all, i think it looks amazing depending on the content, but like i mentioned earlier at times, it can look a bit washed out, colors look desaturated and the picture is just too dim, but then it's the complete opposite in other cases. Some games like Resident Evil 2 & 3 remake look down right _awful_ in HDR, what was capcom thinking? Also, perhaps the LG C1's limited HDR brightness as you pointed out, isn't showcasing the real deal. You need at least 1000 nits for HDR content correct?


ABL ruins bright HDR gaming scenes on OLEDs. So more the fault of ABL, than peak brightness. I am an ABL hater!


----------



## Wizziwig

The whole concept of ABL is incompatible with HDR because HDR calls for absolute luminance values, not values that change depending on what's on the screen. This is why they stopped mastering HDR content on OLEDs. Unfortunately in the consumer space, both LCD and OLEDs still employ ABL to varying degrees.


----------



## Donny84

VA_DaveB said:


> ABL ruins bright HDR gaming scenes on OLEDs. So more the fault of ABL, than peak brightness. I am an ABL hater!


Can't you disable ABL or at least ASBL, by turning off GSR(or GRS) and TCP in the service Menu?


----------



## AnalogHD

Donny84 said:


> So can you actually play or force any PC game that's in your steam library to 120fps if you have a graphics card that's capable? or is it a complete mess where numerous games are capped at 60fps?


Steam has nothing whatsoever to do with the game's graphics engine and thus its framerate. It's just a distribution and DRM service.

Most PC-first games support any framerate. PS or Xbox ports vary.


----------



## Donny84

AnalogHD said:


> Steam has nothing whatsoever to do with the game's graphics engine and thus its framerate. It's just a distribution and DRM service.
> 
> Most PC-first games support any framerate. PS or Xbox ports vary.


I wouldn't be this obsessive over 120fps if OLED motion was Blur free or near blur free like CRT and had more motion resolution, but alas, with sample and hold displays you need a higher frame rate to get the best results with motion in regards to gaming. BFI however kills way too much brightness and adds flicker...Although, Phillips seems to of figured out a work around with their latest +936 OLED in the UK. No flicker, and lots of brightness to spare. I want a super bright punchy picture with no added flicker in SDR with BFI maxed and based on what's available in NA OLED can't to do it. Not worth the latency increase anyways, 120fps is the way to go. But at least with that Phillips, you can use BFI with movies and get a plasma-like experience.

'Most' doesn't cut it for me.  I need every game on PC with an RTX3080Ti to run at 120fps, which seems to cut motion blur in half(or more), increases motion resolution from 300p to 600p, cuts input lag in half, and of course gives you that buttery smooth realistic 120fps than i'd be pretty happy.

Everything from modern to modern retro, like > Cuphead, BloodStained Cursed of the Moon, Bioshock Infinate, Mega Man 11, Dragon ball Fighterz, Little Nightmares 2, Blazing Chrome, etc.


----------



## Adonisds

Donny84 said:


> I wouldn't be this obsessive over 120fps if OLED motion was Blur free or near blur free like CRT and had more motion resolution, but alas, with sample and hold displays you need a higher frame rate to get the best results with motion in regards to gaming. BFI however kills way too much brightness and adds flicker...Although, Phillips seems to of figured out a work around with their latest +936 OLED in the UK. No flicker, and lots of brightness to spare. I want a super bright punchy picture with no added flicker in SDR with BFI maxed and based on what's available in NA OLED can't to do it. Not worth the latency increase anyways, 120fps is the way to go. But at least with that Phillips, you can use BFI with movies and get a plasma-like experience.
> 
> 'Most' doesn't cut it for me.  I need every game on PC with an RTX3080Ti to run at 120fps, which seems to cut motion blur in half(or more), increases motion resolution from 300p to 600p, cuts input lag in half, and of course gives you that buttery smooth realistic 120fps than i'd be pretty happy.
> 
> Everything from modern to modern retro, like > Cuphead, BloodStained Cursed of the Moon, Bioshock Infinate, Mega Man 11, Dragon ball Fighterz, Little Nightmares 2, Blazing Chrome, etc.


Sample and hold motion resolution at 60fps is 300p!? I thought that was for 24fps. What's the motion resolution at 24fps? 120p!?

How is motion resolution measured? I assume these numbers are only for very fast motion. The slower the motion, the higher the resolution of the image, right?


----------



## Donny84

Adonisds said:


> Sample and hold motion resolution at 60fps is 300p!? I thought that was for 24fps. What's the motion resolution at 24fps? 120p!?
> 
> How is motion resolution measured? I assume these numbers are only for very fast motion. The slower the motion, the higher the resolution of the image, right?


KOF explained to me a while back about the measurements.
Here's what would happen on something like an A80J OLED when gaming >
Everything seems to get cut down in half the higher the frame rate basically

60fps - 300p Motion - Lots of Motion Blur - 17ms Latency

120fps - 600p Motion - Motion Blur Greatly reduced - 9ms Latency

240fps - 1200p Motion - Motion Blur Eliminated, or nearly - 4.5ms Latency

If high end PC's were capable of running at least 1440p at 240fps on a 240fps capable(Whenever that happens) OLED i'd be set for PC Gaming.  But i'm getting a little ahead of myself here. Heck, a 240fps capable console wont even be a thing until 6 or so years from now with the PS6. And with PC native 4K + 120fps seems extremely demanding. Meanwhile Nintendo's true next gen successor which might get a release in 2023 will be maxed to 60fps with the power of a PS4.lol sigh* 

Until then, 120fps + RollingScan 1 is our best bet, or even just 120fps depending.


----------



## chros73

Adonisds said:


> Sample and hold motion resolution at 60fps is 300p!? I thought that was for 24fps. What's the motion resolution at 24fps? 120p!?
> 
> How is motion resolution measured? I assume these numbers are only for very fast motion. The slower the motion, the higher the resolution of the image, right?


When Vincent test this in his videos he uses the modified fdp benchmark test video (1080p @ 23p, original is 29i) for it, and he says all the time that default (without any interlolation) motion resolution is 300 lines. He basically tests the motion interpolation of the TV sets (to 60-120Hz) with it.


----------



## 8mile13

With motion improvements turned off one would get 300 lines of motion resolution with 120fps HDR movies on a Sample & Hold TV. Lots got better over time but motion went downhill from CRT to Plasma to Sample & Hold. They really need to replace Sample & Hold with something better.


----------



## mrtickleuk

8mile13 said:


> With motion improvements turned off one would get 300 lines of motion resolution with 120fps HDR movies on a Sample & Hold TV. Lots got better over time but motion went downhill from CRT to Plasma to Sample & Hold. They really need to replace Sample & Hold with something better.


You flogging that point to death every day in this thread won't make it happen, that's for sure!


----------



## hotskins

How is motion on micro-led


----------



## chozofication

mrtickleuk said:


> You flogging that point to death every day in this thread won't make it happen, that's for sure!


He should write to Toshiba to make that SED tv finally!


----------



## 8mile13

MicroLED and QNED will also be Sample & Hold. Everything will be more fantastic than ever before up until there is movement in the picture. I find that laughable.


----------



## chozofication

8mile13 said:


> MicroLED and QNED will also be Sample & Hold. Everything will be more fantastic than ever before up until there is movement in the picture. I find that laughable.


Until interpolation is artifact free across the board.


----------



## Donny84

8mile13 said:


> According Mark Rejhon (Blurbusters) it takes 1000hz for OLED to emulate CRT very well. And your are still dealing with emulation there so look alike CRT motion...


1000?....I thought it took at least 240hz?
120hz already greatly reduces motion blur, so why would you even need 1000? that sounds like overkill.


----------



## Donny84

chozofication said:


> Until interpolation is artifact free across the board.


lol Nobody ever seems to talk about motion these days, it's always about wanting more brightness, higher resolutions and better color etc. OLED base motion is pure trash. If they weren't capable of dishing out 120fps for gaming and didn't have BFI as an option for movies we would be completely screwed.

I fired up Mario odyssey for the Switch on my LG C1 today, testing out the base motion in game Mode at 60fps, along with the BFI High setting AND forcing De-Blur '10' outside of game mode which if i'm correct artificially makes the picture 120fps.

De-Blur 10/120fps made it 'look' playable, motion was a huge step up and it retained it's high brightness. It smashes game mode's 60fps....To take it a step further, enabling MotionPro '1' makes the motion resolution even higher with less blur while 'medium' gets it looking closer to CRT, but there's too much brightness loss by that point. '1' is the sweet spot. ISF Expert Bright mode looks so much nicer than Game mode on this TV too.

Base blur at 60fps in game mode was a total farking' nightmare... Environments blurred to nothing destroying all detail in a blazing drunken blur, while Mario's head & Body blurs and cascades as he jumps around ect. Makes the TV look broken and for me personally and completely destroys the experience. I just can't do it. Not enjoyable, at all. Motion is just nauseating and makes my eye balls wanna throw up. lol

And finally, BFI HIGH in game mode produces mid tier-plasma motion. it's very nice,, and i'd be content with that for now if there was ZERO brightness loss. the C1's game mode can't afford to lose any brightness as it is... Brightness plummets down to basically nothing and makes the game look lifeless, depressing and dead. There's even more shadow detail crushing but that may be able to be corrected with calibration....Input lag shoots up to 21ms and then there's flicker. i'd be able to live with 21ms if brightness didn't take a hit but eh. Completely useless otherwise, at least for me.

120fps gaming is my answer for now at this point. 60fps is a matchmade in hell for OLED.


----------



## chozofication

Donny84 said:


> lol Nobody ever seems to talk about motion these days, it's always about wanting more brightness, higher resolutions and better color etc. OLED base motion is pure trash. If they weren't capable of dishing out 120fps for gaming and didn't have BFI as an option for movies we would be completely screwed.
> 
> I fired up Mario odyssey for the Switch on my LG C1 today, testing out the base motion in game Mode at 60fps, along with the BFI High setting AND forcing De-Blur '10' outside of game mode which if i'm correct artificially makes the picture 120fps.
> 
> De-Blur 10/120fps made it 'look' playable, motion was a huge step up and it retained it's high brightness. It smashes game mode's 60fps....To take it a step further, enabling MotionPro '1' makes the motion resolution even higher with less blur while 'medium' gets it looking closer to CRT, but there's too much brightness loss by that point. '1' is the sweet spot. ISF Expert Bright mode looks so much nicer than Game mode on this TV too.
> 
> Base blur at 60fps in game mode was a total farking' nightmare... Environments blurred to nothing destroying all detail in a blazing drunken blur, while Mario's head & Body blurs and cascades as he jumps around ect. Makes the TV look broken and for me personally and completely destroys the experience. I just can't do it. Not enjoyable, at all. Motion is just nauseating and makes my eye balls wanna throw up. lol
> 
> And finally, BFI HIGH in game mode produces mid tier-plasma motion. it's very nice,, and i'd be content with that for now if there was ZERO brightness loss. the C1's game mode can't afford to lose any brightness as it is... Brightness plummets down to basically nothing and makes the game look lifeless, depressing and dead. There's even more shadow detail crushing but that may be able to be corrected with calibration....Input lag shoots up to 21ms and then there's flicker. i'd be able to live with 21ms if brightness didn't take a hit but eh. Completely useless otherwise, at least for me.
> 
> 120fps gaming is my answer for now at this point. 60fps is a matchmade in hell for OLED.


Brightness is more than fine with bfi in SDR. It’s still brighter than plasma by far so i’m not sure why it’s a big deal to you. 21ms is very responsive for games. 

120hz bfi is better than 60 as it doesn’t have flicker, but you said you saw image duplication resulting from that. I absolutely do not, and think it’s just the base fps you’re seeing ; going back and forth between bfi on and off results in the same amount of ghosting on oled but it’s much smoother with bfi.

A point I would like to add is, I would actually prefer a proper mini led from Sony to oled as it would be much brighter which we need in hdr with bfi. But also because the frame hold time is much lower than on oled and judder is not as bad. 60fps with 120hz bfi on my x900e has the least judder in games on a modern display that i’ve seen. But for 120fps, oled is undoubtedly better when adding in 120hz bfi.

Either way, when artifact free interpolation is available for games in the future, we will solve this problem. And we WILL get to that point, eventually, but it will take years from now. 

Sample and hold is here to stay for better or worse so we need interpolation.


----------



## Donny84

chozofication said:


> Brightness is more than fine with bfi in SDR. It’s still brighter than plasma by far so i’m not sure why it’s a big deal to you. 21ms is very responsive for games.
> 
> 120hz bfi is better than 60 as it doesn’t have flicker, but you said you saw image duplication resulting from that. I absolutely do not, and think it’s just the base fps you’re seeing ; going back and forth between bfi on and off results in the same amount of ghosting on oled but it’s much smoother with bfi.
> 
> A point I would like to add is, I would actually prefer a proper mini led from Sony to oled as it would be much brighter which we need in hdr with bfi. But also because the frame hold time is much lower than on oled and judder is not as bad. 60fps with 120hz bfi on my x900e has the least judder in games on a modern display that i’ve seen. But for 120fps, oled is undoubtedly better when adding in 120hz bfi.
> 
> Either way, when artifact free interpolation is available for games in the future, we will solve this problem. And we WILL get to that point, eventually, but it will take years from now.
> 
> Sample and hold is here to stay for better or worse so we need interpolation.


To me, BFI HIGH in game mode on the C1 looks horribly dim, I wish i could be content with it like you are but i just can't. 21ms isn't great either, but it's not the end of the world. It's fine for most genres. Plus, The extra shadow detail crushing from using BFI definitely needs to be corrected with a calibration. Oh, and Just for kicks, on the C1 if you use BFI high outside of game mode in ISF Bright picture mode(Which is already brighter than game mode to begin with, and noticeably sharper etc) and set peak brightness to HIGH with OLED light maxed, the boost in brightness makes BFI high more tolerable and pretty decent actually... This is where the A90J or A80J come in handy because you have access to the peak luminance setting in their game modes if you need more brightness, again when using bfi HIGH.

I think that's the route i'll have to take for now until Nintendo's Next gen console comes out and supports 120fps....Then again, that might be wishful thinking! Hopefully i'm wrong, but everybody knows that Nintendo next console will have the same horse power as a PS4. Will that even be enough to run 120fps at 1080p? I doubt it.

As for 120hz BFI, when playing a game in 60fps there IS Motion doubling with the Low, medium & Auto. I've tested it through the ringer. lol gaming at 120fps, Low & Medium work perfectly fine. HIGH works properly for 60fps games.

I'm going to sell my C1 for either the A90J(on sale) or A80J, and just use BFI(Clearness 3 i think it is) and max the OLED light to 100 and set peak luminance to HIGH in game mode for 60fps titles, and then use 120fps on PC for everything else.

Still, it's pretty underwhelming going from 120fps + Rollingscan 1 while retaining that amazing brightness in ISF Bright, to BFI HIgh(using peak brightness High) in the same picture setting.
Not only is there a huge difference in brightness, but there's no flicker, no extra black crush, latency is less than half and the motion resolution is superior.


----------



## chozofication

Donny84 said:


> To me, BFI HIGH in game mode on the C1 looks horribly dim, I wish i could be content with it like you are but i just can't. 21ms isn't great either, but it's not the end of the world. It's fine for most genres. Plus, The extra shadow detail crushing from using BFI definitely needs to be corrected with a calibration. Oh, and Just for kicks, on the C1 if you use BFI high outside of game mode in ISF Bright picture mode(Which is already brighter than game mode to begin with, and noticeably sharper etc) and set peak brightness to HIGH with OLED light maxed, the boost in brightness makes BFI high more tolerable and pretty decent actually... This is where the A90J or A80J come in handy because you have access to the peak luminance setting in their game modes if you need more brightness, again when using bfi HIGH.
> 
> I think that's the route i'll have to take for now until Nintendo's Next gen console comes out and supports 120fps....Then again, that might be wishful thinking! Hopefully i'm wrong, but everybody knows that Nintendo next console will have the same horse power as a PS4. Will that even be enough to run 120fps at 1080p? I doubt it.
> 
> As for 120hz BFI, when playing a game in 60fps there IS Motion doubling with the Low, medium & Auto. I've tested it through the ringer. lol gaming at 120fps, Low & Medium work perfectly fine. HIGH works properly for 60fps games.
> 
> I'm going to sell my C1 for either the A90J(on sale) or A80J, and just use BFI(Clearness 3 i think it is) and max the OLED light to 100 and set peak luminance to HIGH in game mode for 60fps titles, and then use 120fps on PC for everything else.
> 
> Still, it's pretty underwhelming going from 120fps + Rollingscan 1 while retaining that amazing brightness in ISF Bright, to BFI HIgh(using peak brightness High) in the same picture setting.
> Not only is there a huge difference in brightness, but there's no flicker, no extra black crush, latency is less than half and the motion resolution is superior.


Edit : Edited the last part of this post for clarity.

To clarify, I don't own a c1 and when I did I didn't use high bfi due to flicker. 21 ms is just over 1 frame of lag, and I was using A8h with 120hz bfi which had 26ms lag which was responsive. I think the doubling you see is probably a placebo effect, but i'm not you so i'll leave it at that.

Unless you're a turbo cod player on red bull or pro tekken player, 21 ms is pretty good for a flat panel. The Panasonic ZT60 had over 40ms lag, for reference. My x900e has 32ms lag, and when a display hits 40ms or more like sony x1 extreme chip tvs is when I take issue.

If Sony can get to c9 level lag, i.e. 13ms with 120hz bfi on a mini led lcd (as bfi is lag free on sony lcd due to the backlight unlike oled) that will be where I am satisfied lol. 

For reference, (EDIT : on x900e, forgot to specify) with bfi clearness set to 2 (max, 120hz) the brightness setting of 40 out of 50 is PLENTY bright in a dark room, in SDR. For HDR, I have to drop bfi by one setting.


----------



## 8mile13

Donny84 said:


> 1000?....I thought it took at least 240hz?
> 120hz already greatly reduces motion blur, so why would you even need 1000? that sounds like overkill.


He stated a few years ago.
''Entry-level rolling-scan emulation is feasible at 240Hz, first real-looking rolling-scan emulation at 360Hz+, and indistinguishable-from-real-CRT rolling-scan emulation at 1000Hz+ (''By around year 2040+ or thereabouts, a 1000Hz+ OLED can emulate the look of a CRT pretty well'')''.

emulation = imitation.


----------



## Donny84

8mile13 said:


> He stated a few years ago.
> ''Entry-level rolling-scan emulation is feasible at 240Hz, first real-looking rolling-scan emulation at 360Hz+, and indistinguishable-from-real-CRT rolling-scan emulation at 1000Hz+ (''By around year 2040+ or thereabouts, a 1000Hz+ OLED can emulate the look of a CRT pretty well'')''.
> 
> emulation = imitation.


So what category does something like a Panasonic S60 plasma fall under?


----------



## 8mile13

Donny84 said:


> So what category does something like a Panasonic S60 plasma fall under?


LCD/OLED Black Frame Insertion imitates how the brain reacts to Plasma and CRT motion. Plasma's have fast pixel response and lots of Plasma's do 1080 lines of motion resolution without any help of motion improvement options which is something what basically every TV tech should be able to do.. Drawback is phosfor trailing..which is a issue for very few though. Phosfor decay makes mild stutter in 24fps movie motion less visible. Lag can be a issue with gaming.

ST60? There are plenty of reviews out there. At the time it was considered a bang for the buck. Even a pro (and AVS member) like Chad B was enthousiast and owned one. It is 3D also.
42ST60 
Fast pixel response. 1080 lines of motion resolution. At HDTVtest Leo Bodnar Lag Tester measurement was like 74.5ms but that needs confirmation. Lag could be reduced to 47ms. Larger versions of this model likely perform better in some regards.


----------



## Donny84

8mile13 said:


> LCD/OLED Black Frame Insertion imitates how the brain reacts to Plasma and CRT motion. Plasma's have fast pixel response and lots of Plasma's do 1080 lines of motion resolution without any help of motion improvement options which is something what basically every TV tech should be able to do.. Drawback is phosfor trailing..which is a issue for very few though. Phosfor decay makes mild stutter in 24fps movie motion less visible. Lag can be a issue with gaming.
> 
> ST60? There are plenty of reviews out there. At the time it was considered a bang for the buck. Even a pro (and AVS member) like Chad B was enthousiast and owned one. It is 3D also.
> 42ST60
> Fast pixel response. 1080 lines of motion resolution. At HDTVtest Leo Bodnar Lag Tester measurement was like 74.5ms but that needs confirmation. Lag could be reduced to 47ms. Larger versions of this model likely perform better in some regards.


I've Got the 60" S60 still, would of went for the ST60 at the time but because of it's crazy high latency i decided to drop down to the S60. Even then, 34ms isn't ideal at all especially for platformers and the like. When you compare the response to a CRT it's a sad story for the former.

Even with BFI HIgh on my C1 with streaming, there's too much shadow detail crushing and judder is unchanged and as expected seems noticeably worse than my S60. People keep swooning over HDR, but it's almost useless to me since i can't use BFI with it, so it's back to crappy base motion. Squid Game in HDR on the C1 in motion looked so distracting and artificial. Much nicer on the plasma. On the plasma, it was almost like i was watching movies on a flat screen CRT.

But ya, as far as gaming your best bet is too feed OLED 120fps + RollingScan 1 OR settle for the dim/lifeless looking BFI HIGH setting(looks terrible in game mode on the C1), and then BFI for movies(while setting peak brightness or peak luminance to high) if you can get past that gnarly flicker and correct that extra shadow detail crushing with a calibration.


----------



## Donny84

8mile13 said:


> LCD/OLED Black Frame Insertion imitates how the brain reacts to Plasma and CRT motion. Plasma's have fast pixel response and lots of Plasma's do 1080 lines of motion resolution without any help of motion improvement options which is something what basically every TV tech should be able to do.. Drawback is phosfor trailing..which is a issue for very few though. Phosfor decay makes mild stutter in 24fps movie motion less visible. Lag can be a issue with gaming.
> 
> ST60? There are plenty of reviews out there. At the time it was considered a bang for the buck. Even a pro (and AVS member) like Chad B was enthousiast and owned one. It is 3D also.
> 42ST60
> Fast pixel response. 1080 lines of motion resolution. At HDTVtest Leo Bodnar Lag Tester measurement was like 74.5ms but that needs confirmation. Lag could be reduced to 47ms. Larger versions of this model likely perform better in some regards.


How exactly can the lag be reduced down to 47ms from 74ms and can the same be done somehow with the S60?


----------



## valin

Wow, you guys are keeping this thread alive, albeit in a very derailed fashion. Not sure if this is good or bad.


----------



## hotskins

might have to wait till CES for more info


----------



## 8mile13

Donny84 said:


> How exactly can the lag be reduced down to 47ms from 74ms and can the same be done somehow with the S60?


Sorry, measurements where at fastest configuration. 
''The fastest configuration is to enable the “Game Mode” and make sure that “1080p Pixel Direct” is disabled.''
..between 47ms and 62ms, using the high-speed camera measurement method
...Leo Bodnar Lag Tester, the measurement came out as 74.5ms


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

valin said:


> Wow, you guys are keeping this thread alive, albeit in a very derailed fashion. Not sure if this is good or bad.


----------



## stl8k

IDW Japan OLED program



IDW '21 Final Program



Do a search on that page for "LG Display" to see its 5 sessions. Here's a couple that interest me:


VHF8-3
16:00A New Approach to the Response Time Measurement Method of OLED TVs
*Seung-Won Jung1, Jang-Hyun Cho1, Ho-Gil Kang1, Jin-Sang Lee1, Seung-Ki Chae1, Young-Seok Choi1
1. LG Display (Korea)This study suggests a problem in the existing response time evaluation method focusing on the traditional LCD in the evaluation method for a display with a very fast response time such as OLED. In addition, for a new display with better performance than LCD, we understand the display driving behavior, including pixel addressing time and pixel response time, and reconsider the response time evaluation method.


AMD2-3
15:30Internal Compensation by Offset Method for QHD OLED Display Using High Mobility Oxide TFT
*Yong Ho Jang1, Kwang Il Chun1, Younghyun Ko1, Uyhyun Choi1, Min-Gu Kang1, Hyung Joon Koo1, Seung Chan Choi1, Dae Hwan Kim1, Jiyong Noh1, Kwon-shik Park1, JeomJae Kim1, SooYoung Yoon1
1. LG Display (Korea)A new internal compensation method for OLED display with high mobility oxide TFT is presented. The offset method can preemptively eliminate Vth-dependent voltage errors, ameliorating the mismatches after-sensing step. Fabricated 5.5-in. QHD OLED displays show improved uniformity.


----------



## VA_DaveB

valin said:


> Wow, you guys are keeping this thread alive, albeit in a very derailed fashion. Not sure if this is good or bad.


Not good. No point in coming to it anymore the way its gone to hell in a hand basket. All this banal mumblings about motion when this thread is supposed to be concerned with:

*Technology Advancements Thread*

Too bad the mods seem to only be obsessed with any mention of TV pricing.


----------



## 8mile13

well..there is the guy who posts all these links in a seperate thread which might as well could be posted here. Without it this thread will dry up.


----------



## stl8k

As if on cue (i.e. within hours of my posting), Vincent has a great video (sponsored by LGD) on relative pixel response times and total system latency!








stl8k said:


> IDW Japan OLED program
> 
> 
> 
> IDW '21 Final Program
> 
> 
> 
> Do a search on that page for "LG Display" to see its 5 sessions. Here's a couple that interest me:
> 
> 
> VHF8-3
> 16:00A New Approach to the Response Time Measurement Method of OLED TVs
> *Seung-Won Jung1, Jang-Hyun Cho1, Ho-Gil Kang1, Jin-Sang Lee1, Seung-Ki Chae1, Young-Seok Choi1
> 1. LG Display (Korea)This study suggests a problem in the existing response time evaluation method focusing on the traditional LCD in the evaluation method for a display with a very fast response time such as OLED. In addition, for a new display with better performance than LCD, we understand the display driving behavior, including pixel addressing time and pixel response time, and reconsider the response time evaluation method.
> 
> 
> AMD2-3
> 15:30Internal Compensation by Offset Method for QHD OLED Display Using High Mobility Oxide TFT
> *Yong Ho Jang1, Kwang Il Chun1, Younghyun Ko1, Uyhyun Choi1, Min-Gu Kang1, Hyung Joon Koo1, Seung Chan Choi1, Dae Hwan Kim1, Jiyong Noh1, Kwon-shik Park1, JeomJae Kim1, SooYoung Yoon1
> 1. LG Display (Korea)A new internal compensation method for OLED display with high mobility oxide TFT is presented. The offset method can preemptively eliminate Vth-dependent voltage errors, ameliorating the mismatches after-sensing step. Fabricated 5.5-in. QHD OLED displays show improved uniformity.


----------



## Davenlr

Some info on the
SAMSUNG QD-OLED


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

TCL announces 65" printed OLED TV (JOLED process). If they are truly releasing in '22 I'd assume they will also be unveiling at CES. If so, yet another reason to look forward to the show.
TCL developed a 65" 8K inkjet printed OLED TV display, as it gets ready for mass production in 2023 | OLED-Info


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Scrapper102dAA said:


> TCL announces 65" printed OLED TV (JOLED process). If they are truly releasing in '22 I'd assume they will also be unveiling at CES. If so, yet another reason to look forward to the show.
> TCL developed a 65" 8K inkjet printed OLED TV display, as it gets ready for mass production in 2023 | OLED-Info


Forgot to note that the Chinese language original article is accessible at the bottom of the OLED-info summary.


----------



## Jin-X

Scrapper102dAA said:


> TCL announces 65" printed OLED TV (JOLED process). If they are truly releasing in '22 I'd assume they will also be unveiling at CES. If so, yet another reason to look forward to the show.
> TCL developed a 65" 8K inkjet printed OLED TV display, as it gets ready for mass production in 2023 | OLED-Info


It looks like they would release in 2023 from that, but could be at CES to show off to prospective clients. Hopefully it's shown to public but wouldn't surprise me if it's a closed door affair.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


----------



## chozofication

stl8k said:


> As if on cue (i.e. within hours of my posting), Vincent has a great video (sponsored by LGD) on relative pixel response times and total system latency!


I have to say, his input lag claims don't pass the sniff test. I've tested multiple oled and lcd sets, and when they're rated the same ; i.e. 18ms vs 18ms, they feel the same. I.E. X950g vs. A8h, both 18ms via leo bodnar lag tester by myself.

Vincent can be a shill despite his expertise.

I can notice the difference between a few ms if it's at least a 10 percent difference i.e. 18ms vs 21ms but it is very very small...


----------



## lsorensen

chozofication said:


> I have to say, his input lag claims don't pass the sniff test. I've tested multiple oled and lcd sets, and when they're rated the same ; i.e. 18ms vs 18ms, they feel the same. I.E. X950g vs. A8h, both 18ms via leo bodnar lag tester by myself.
> 
> Vincent can be a shill despite his expertise.
> 
> I can notice the difference between a few ms if it's at least a 10 percent difference i.e. 18ms vs 21ms but it is very very small...


Depends if you are measuring when the change starts to happen versus when the change is complete.


----------



## Wizziwig

chozofication said:


> I have to say, his input lag claims don't pass the sniff test. I've tested multiple oled and lcd sets, and when they're rated the same ; i.e. 18ms vs 18ms, they feel the same. I.E. X950g vs. A8h, both 18ms via leo bodnar lag tester by myself.
> 
> Vincent can be a shill despite his expertise.
> 
> I can notice the difference between a few ms if it's at least a 10 percent difference i.e. 18ms vs 21ms but it is very very small...


Check the description under the video: "The "Includes Paid Promotion" message in this video refers to the sponsorship by LG Display. "

It's a "Promoted" video (aka paid for by LG infomercial). Were you expecting an unbiased evaluation? 

With current display technology, the closest match to the motion resolution gold standard of CRT, are some low persistence LCD gaming monitors. Some go as high as 480Hz native input now plus backlight scanning/strobing. Not sure if any LCD TV models can come close. OLED is not even in the running because it's much too dim for effective mitigation of sample-and-hold induced blurring. Regarding the response time claims - OLED has issues coming out of black. See rtings OLED response time measurements where they start lagging to 8+ ms and producing overshoot artifacts. Non LG OLEDs that don't suffer from overshoot instead produce black smearing even worse than LCDs. Of course you won't hear any of that in a video designed to promote OLEDs.


----------



## 59LIHP

8mile13 said:


> well..there is the guy who posts all these links in a seperate thread which might as well could be posted here. Without it this thread will dry up.


The guy you're talking about, he didn't want to just stick with oled only...


----------



## chozofication

Wizziwig said:


> Check the description under the video: "The "Includes Paid Promotion" message in this video refers to the sponsorship by LG Display. "
> 
> It's a "Promoted" video (aka paid for by LG infomercial). Were you expecting an unbiased evaluation?
> 
> With current display technology, the closest match to the motion resolution gold standard of CRT, are some low persistence LCD gaming monitors. Some go as high as 480Hz native input now plus backlight scanning/strobing. Not sure if any LCD TV models can come close. OLED is not even in the running because it's much too dim for effective mitigation of sample-and-hold induced blurring. Regarding the response time claims - OLED has issues coming out of black. See rtings OLED response time measurements where they start lagging to 8+ ms and producing overshoot artifacts. Non LG OLEDs that don't suffer from overshoot instead produce black smearing even worse than LCDs. Of course you won't hear any of that in a video designed to promote OLEDs.


I expect some amount of bias from Vinny but this is a bit much. Not that he cares, but I lost a bit of respect.

LCD is better for low fps content but not for high fps. Oled has too much judder even at 60fps. But C1 at 60+ 120hz bfi looked pretty good.

Those 1ms lcd monitor claims on the box are FUD.


lsorensen said:


> Depends if you are measuring when the change starts to happen versus when the change is complete.


Which the end result is the same, hence it being click baity!

Edit : At this point maybe we should have a motion thread before @mrtickleuk throws us all out lol.


----------



## Donny84

So what's the deal with Phillips *+936* OLED's BFI? According to HDTVtest it has no noticeable Flicker and barely ANY brightness loss when set to maximum. How exactly is phillips pulling this off and will Sony & LG adopt the same technique for their 2022 OLED's?

Sounds promising for Movies/TV, but for gaming? Not so much as input lag is already 21ms without BFI, i can only imagine how bad it is when it's turned on.


----------



## valin

Should the thread be renamed into Oled TVs *Motion* Technology Advancements, I wonder? 

A thread discussion in this respect would be beneficial, plus it might relieve this one to thrive as OP originally planned...


----------



## Blackvette94

chozofication said:


> I have to say, his input lag claims don't pass the sniff test. I've tested multiple oled and lcd sets, and when they're rated the same ; i.e. 18ms vs 18ms, they feel the same. I.E. X950g vs. A8h, both 18ms via leo bodnar lag tester by myself.
> 
> Vincent can be a shill despite his expertise.
> 
> I can notice the difference between a few ms if it's at least a 10 percent difference i.e. 18ms vs 21ms but it is very very small...


So just so I am understanding this correctly, you are saying his testing method is possibly wrong because you tested lcd and oled tvs with the same input lag numbers and they felt the same to you?

So the Nvidia LDAT tool with accompany software and the 100 samples with a graph that includes the low, mid and high average input numbers is not sufficient enough and your unscientific method of testing is?


----------



## chozofication

Blackvette94 said:


> So just so I am understanding this correctly, you are saying his testing method is possibly wrong because you tested lcd and oled tvs with the same input lag numbers and they felt the same to you?
> 
> So the Nvidia LDAT tool with accompany software and the 100 samples with a graph that includes the low, mid and high average input numbers is not sufficient enough and your unscientific method of testing is?


Leo bodnar tool is unscientific now?

My point is the end result is the same, and clearly, more than clearly the video was designed to sell lg oled tvs. Of course people that constantly need to validate their oled purchases will defend the video as well. 

If you claim to tell a difference in current Samsung lag, and c1 for example you are fooling yourself. There's no need for that, just enjoy your oled.


----------



## lsorensen

Blackvette94 said:


> So just so I am understanding this correctly, you are saying his testing method is possibly wrong because you tested lcd and oled tvs with the same input lag numbers and they felt the same to you?
> 
> So the Nvidia LDAT tool with accompany software and the 100 samples with a graph that includes the low, mid and high average input numbers is not sufficient enough and your unscientific method of testing is?


Certainly the result is what one would expect based on the technology of the TVs. Now does a difference of 10 or 20 or 30ms actually make a difference? Probably not, at least to the vast majority of users. I certainly don't give any credibility to claims of being able to tell the difference of 3 ms as a human.


----------



## chozofication

lsorensen said:


> Certainly the result is what one would expect based on the technology of the TVs. Now does a difference of 10 or 20 or 30ms actually make a difference? Probably not, at least to the vast majority of users. I certainly don't give any credibility to claims of being able to tell the difference of 3 ms as a human.


3ms would be virtually imperceptible for me, and definitely negligible. I'd have to be looking for it to even attempt to discern. Hence the "very very small" part of my post # 17,770. Never claimed that was a meaningful difference, which is another reason VT's video is fud.

But I can easily discern between 18 and 26ms for example without looking for it. An A8h oled, you can immediately compare because turning on bfi adds 8ms of lag. Ditto CX/C1.

Difference is even larger on c1 because of 60hz boost mode ; 9ms with boost vs. 21ms with bfi.


----------



## Blackvette94

chozofication said:


> Leo bodnar tool is unscientific now?
> 
> My point is the end result is the same, and clearly, more than clearly the video was designed to sell lg oled tvs. Of course people that constantly need to validate their oled purchases will defend the video as well.
> 
> If you claim to tell a difference in current Samsung lag, and c1 for example you are fooling yourself. There's no need for that, just enjoy your oled.


What I am trying to say is I doubt you could feel the difference in ms between the two panels he is showing. The data he is showing is that in the end, the oled is from a numbers perspective has lower input lag, so I don’t understand why your saying his numbers are funky because of what you felt?

His numbers are accurate, so from a numbers perspective it is clear but feel is subjective and I don’t think most can feel or notice 8-10ms difference between both displays.


----------



## chozofication

Blackvette94 said:


> What I am trying to say is I doubt you could feel the difference in ms between the two panels he is showing. The data he is showing is that in the end, the oled is from a numbers perspective has lower input lag, so I don’t understand why your saying his numbers are funky because of what you felt?
> 
> His numbers are accurate, so from a numbers perspective it is clear but feel is subjective and I don’t think most can feel or notice 8-10ms difference between both displays.


If there is any difference at all, differences which are undetected by humans, which I doubt as in the video his aim down sights test appears to me to occur simultaneously ; it’s definitely not a practical difference of 8 to 10 ms which I absolutely can notice personally, easily. 5ms is in the realm of insignificant, but can be perceived if you try. No one should care about such difference though.

The message of the video is fud, and not the numbers recorded ; which the point of showing them in the first place is just misleading.

If he had said at the end that it makes no perceptible difference, and it was just a test for science and the video wasn’t sponsored it would be a different story.


----------



## Wizziwig

He does say it makes no difference in the respective reviews of each TV. Each deliver the same 300 lines of sample-and-hold motion resolution at 60Hz and 600 lines at 120Hz. Both can eke out more with black frame strobing/scanning engaged if you can tolerate the flicker and/or brightness loss. He just doesn't mention these facts in this sponsored video for obvious reasons. If he wants to take proper photos of motion blur as would be evident to a human, he needs to invest in the pursuit camera method pioneered by blurbusters and employed by other sites like rtings.


----------



## isamudaison

Interesting qd-oled just got a Sony customer....




__





Samsung and Sony to launch QD-OLED TVs | CdrInfo.com







cdrinfo.com




Wonder if they're hedging their bets or they think it's a "better" tech?


----------



## JasonHa

> "With the backlight unit as the light source, it is almost impossible for LCDs to control the brightness of each individual pixel, limiting their ability to show you perfect blacks on screen."


It's going to be fun watching Samsung Display keep saying things like that.


----------



## chozofication

isamudaison said:


> Interesting qd-oled just got a Sony customer....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung and Sony to launch QD-OLED TVs | CdrInfo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cdrinfo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder if they're hedging their bets or they think it's a "better" tech?


It absolutely sounds like the better tech, in everything but brightness. Only less than 2 months to see it!

I doubt uniformity could be any worse than woled :/ or that's my naive hope.

What will be interesting to see is if Sony continues to make 2 different woled models (80/90) after their QD set launches.


----------



## fafrd

chozofication said:


> It absolutely sounds like the better tech, in *everything but brightness*. Only less than 2 months to see it!


And cost…

[quote
I doubt uniformity could be any worse than woled :/ or that's my naive hope.

What will be interesting to see is if Sony continues to make 2 different woled models (80/90) after their QD set launches.
[/QUOTE]

I’m guessing the battle will be between 4K QD-BOLED and 8K WOLED…

If Samsung elects to introduce only 8K QD-BOLED TVs next year, there is a sliver of a chance they will be price-competitive with 8K WOLED.

But if they attempt to sell any 55” or 65” 4K QD-BOLEDs, I’m predicting a bloodbath…


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> Et le coût...
> 
> [citation
> Je doute que l’uniformité puisse être pire que celle de woled :/ ou c’est mon espoir naïf.
> 
> Ce qui sera intéressant à voir, c’est si Sony continue à faire 2 modèles différents (80/90) après le lancement de leur ensemble QD.
> [/CITATION]
> 
> Je suppose que la bataille se jouera entre 4K QD-BOLED et 8K WOLED...
> 
> Si Samsung choisit de n’introduire que des téléviseurs 8K QD-BOLED l’année prochaine, il y a une petite chance qu’ils soient compétitifs en prix avec 8K WOLED.
> 
> Mais s’ils tentent de vendre des QD-BOLED 4K de 55 » ou 65 », je prédis un bain de sang...




There is a high probability that LG Electronic's weapon is Oled panels with heat sink provided by LG Display for an increase in brightness which in my opinion will have more weight to counter QD-Oled.


----------



## lsorensen

59LIHP said:


> There is a high probability that LG Electronic's weapon is Oled panels with heat sink provided by LG Display for an increase in brightness which in my opinion will have more weight to counter QD-Oled.


I wonder if LG has top emission anywhere near ready to deploy.


----------



## Wizziwig

Wasn't it already established that Samsung is only releasing 55" and 65" top emission 8K models? That makes perfect sense because then they don't need to deal with LG at all because they don't have any competing models at those smaller sizes. LG's bottom emission approach for 8K doesn't really work below 77" - the reduced aperture ratio would make them way too dim to be competitive.

Releasing a 4K QD-OLED would be suicide given current 55" and 65" 4K WOLED pricing.


----------



## yogi6807

Wizziwig said:


> Wasn't it already established that Samsung is only releasing 55" and 65" top emission 8K models? That makes perfect sense because then they don't need to deal with LG at all because they don't have any competing models at those smaller sizes. LG's bottom emission approach for 8K doesn't really work below 77" - the reduced aperture ratio would make them way too dim to be competitive.
> 
> Releasing a 4K QD-OLED would be suicide given current 55" and 65" 4K WOLED pricing.


Samsungs marketing department seemingly can spin anything and make many people want it.


----------



## chozofication

Wizziwig said:


> Wasn't it already established that Samsung is only releasing 55" and 65" top emission 8K models? That makes perfect sense because then they don't need to deal with LG at all because they don't have any competing models at those smaller sizes. LG's bottom emission approach for 8K doesn't really work below 77" - the reduced aperture ratio would make them way too dim to be competitive.
> 
> Releasing a 4K QD-OLED would be suicide given current 55" and 65" 4K WOLED pricing.


Unless I missed something, QD oled would have to be 4k. 55/65 at 8k makes 0 sense at that size and that would cripple qd oled's brightness. 

They're going to be 4k right?


----------



## chros73

chozofication said:


> Unless I missed something, QD oled would have to be 4k. 55/65 at 8k makes 0 sense at that size and that would cripple qd oled's brightness.
> 
> They're going to be 4k right?


As far as we know they will be 4k.


----------



## Wizziwig

chozofication said:


> Unless I missed something, QD oled would have to be 4k. 55/65 at 8k makes 0 sense at that size and that would cripple qd oled's brightness.
> 
> They're going to be 4k right?


Top emission would eliminate that 8K performance penalty. In that design the light doesn't pass through the TFT layer so would not be limited by the reduced pixel aperture ratio at higher pixel densities that kills light output on bottom emission LCD and 8K WOLED. That's why those products are mostly limited to larger panel sizes to keep the pixel density low and power consumption in check. The lower current density would also help with OLED lifespan.

8K makes no logical sense at 55 and 65" for 99.9% of viewers but it's marketing gold. I can already see the CES 2022 signs: "World's first 55" 8K OLED TV!".

I guess such products may also make sense in Sony's lineup since their smallest 8K displays are currently 75".

I'm okay with 8K as long as it comes for "free". That means no price or performance penalty vs equivalent 4K model. We'll have to see how quickly they drop the pricing.



JasonHa said:


> It's going to be fun watching Samsung Display keep saying things like that.


If you think those comparison's to LCD are amusing, you're going to love their mobile OLED page. Samsung has been juggling their split personality marketing department for years. Apparently OLEDs have sucked for TVs but are the best thing since sliced bread for other applications.


----------



## hotskins

qd-oled will be 4k unless they want to fail hard. 8 k is a gimmick


----------



## chozofication

chros73 said:


> As far as we know they will be 4k.


I also think they're going to be 4k but I can see the possibility for 8k after Wizziwig's post.

I mean Samsung is pushing 8k qleds so you never know... I hope they're 4k though.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> And cost…
> 
> [quote
> I doubt uniformity could be any worse than woled :/ or that's my naive hope.
> 
> What will be interesting to see is if Sony continues to make 2 different woled models (80/90) after their QD set launches.


I’m guessing the battle will be between 4K QD-BOLED and 8K WOLED…

If Samsung elects to introduce only 8K QD-BOLED TVs next year, there is a sliver of a chance they will be price-competitive with 8K WOLED.

But if they attempt to sell any 55” or 65” 4K QD-BOLEDs, I’m predicting a bloodbath…
[/QUOTE]
AVS found a source suggesting around 6000 quid as ASP. I haven't seen that confirmed elsewhere, but may have missed it. 
_"Since the relatively low levels of initial production will not see any economies of scale kick in for some time, the expected price of a QD-OLED TV is expected to be around 10 million won which comes out at just over £6,000..."._
Rumour: Samsung and Sony lining up QD-OLED TVs for CES 2022? | AVForums


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

I'm also interested to see the QD-OLED contrast (0.0005/1000nits) in conjunction with 80% of BT2020 spec right out of the gate. That may color pop to the eye vs WOLED, even w/ heatsinks enabling higher brightness from LG. Back to discussion of many months ago, something had to convince Sony to take a shot on the tech. We'll "see"...


----------



## chozofication

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I'm also interested to see the QD-OLED contrast (0.0005/1000nits) in conjunction with 80% of BT2020 spec right out of the gate. That may color pop to the eye vs WOLED, even w/ heatsinks enabling higher brightness from LG. Back to discussion of many months ago, something had to convince Sony to take a shot on the tech. We'll "see"...


Imo no way does Sony make a qd oled set without heatsink.


----------



## stl8k

Mediatek's New TV SoC

Let's hope they learned some lessons from the poor quality of the last generation.









MediaTek's new Pentonic 2000 SoC for TVs is powerful enough to support 8K 120Hz displays


MediaTek today announced the new Pentonic 2000 SoC for next-gen smart TVs, which is powerful enough to support 8K 120Hz displays.




www.xda-developers.com


----------



## wco81

Which companies use Mediatek SOCs?

Which models, high-end or lower end?


----------



## Jin-X

wco81 said:


> Which companies use Mediatek SOCs?
> 
> Which models, high-end or lower end?


Pretty much all of them save for LG and Samsung ones.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


----------



## chros73

Scrapper102dAA said:


> AVS found a source suggesting around 6000 quid as ASP. I haven't seen that confirmed elsewhere, but may have missed it.
> _"Since the relatively low levels of initial production will not see any economies of scale kick in for some time, the expected price of a QD-OLED TV is expected to be around 10 million won which comes out at just over £6,000..."._
> Rumour: Samsung and Sony lining up QD-OLED TVs for CES 2022? | AVForums


Fomo states 8-9000 bucks for 65"


----------



## Donny84

Man, am i the only one here who doesn't care for HDR and Dolby Vision on OLED? For starters, there's no quality standard. So quality ends up being all over the map. Second, LG & Sony OLED's can't even hit at least 1000 nits which is required for proper HDR & DV, you either deal with a dim HDR picture or use gimmicky settings like Dynamic Contrast to artificially brighten things up which has it's set of compromises....And finally you have to deal with OLED's 'base' motion handling, which imo is trash.

It's super Artificial with all of it's motion blur slathered on top of 300p motion resolution. Yuck! Using Black frame insertion (MotionPro High) would be great if it didn't rob you of any brightness. Using BFI with HDR completely defeats the purpose. So for a motion Snob like me and somebody that wants at least 1000 nits DV/HDR they're both useless at this point.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like MicroLED will be the OLED killer while also delivering a proper 1000+ nits HDR/DV experience, combined with BFI HIGH with minimal brightness loss... Here's hoping! For now, i'm going to have to disable HDR/DV. StrangerThings season 3 for example in SDR looks_ miles_ better on my panasonic S60 plasma than it does in Dolby Vision on my OLED. Can't stomach the latter.

Really, if OLED didn't have BFI High the technology would be dead to me. lol It is it's saving grace and what is preventing me from going back to plasma. Still BFI High isn't without it's compromises....Flicker, you lose quite a bit of brightness, 21ms input lag(Still better than my plasma's 34ms), and more shadow detail crushing. Real cute, i've got to spend another $500 to calibrate and correct the C1's out of the box black crush _and_ the extra black crush caused by using black frame insertion. Total farkin' pain in the turtle booty.


----------



## chozofication

stl8k said:


> Mediatek's New TV SoC
> 
> Let's hope they learned some lessons from the poor quality of the last generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MediaTek's new Pentonic 2000 SoC for TVs is powerful enough to support 8K 120Hz displays
> 
> 
> MediaTek today announced the new Pentonic 2000 SoC for next-gen smart TVs, which is powerful enough to support 8K 120Hz displays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.xda-developers.com


Is it going to make it in time for 2022 Sony sets?! One can hope.


----------



## 59LIHP

chozofication said:


> Is it going to make it in time for 2022 Sony sets?! One can hope.


I hope so too...



> _MediaTek says that next-generation 8K smart TVs featuring the new Pentonic 2000 SoC will reach consumers by Q2 2022._











MediaTek's new Pentonic 2000 SoC for TVs is powerful enough to support 8K 120Hz displays


MediaTek today announced the new Pentonic 2000 SoC for next-gen smart TVs, which is powerful enough to support 8K 120Hz displays.




www.xda-developers.com







> _The new MediaTek Pentonic 2000 will power next generation flagship 8K TVs that are expected to launch in the global market in 2022._








MediaTek Announces New Pentonic Smart TV Family with New Pentonic 2000 for Flagship 8K 120Hz TVs


/PRNewswire/ -- MediaTek today unveiled its new Pentonic smart TV family with the introduction of the Pentonic 2000, which will power next generation flagship...




www.prnewswire.com


----------



## chozofication

59LIHP said:


> I hope so too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MediaTek's new Pentonic 2000 SoC for TVs is powerful enough to support 8K 120Hz displays
> 
> 
> MediaTek today announced the new Pentonic 2000 SoC for next-gen smart TVs, which is powerful enough to support 8K 120Hz displays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.xda-developers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MediaTek Announces New Pentonic Smart TV Family with New Pentonic 2000 for Flagship 8K 120Hz TVs
> 
> 
> /PRNewswire/ -- MediaTek today unveiled its new Pentonic smart TV family with the introduction of the Pentonic 2000, which will power next generation flagship...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.prnewswire.com


I think it could make it to the 2022 lineup. The mt 5895 released in q3 2019 and made it inside the x900h.

Albeit, that was just 1 TV, and not the whole lineup.


----------



## Wizziwig

Good luck to them getting any fab time from TSMC. Their 7nm lines are backed up making much more profitable chips for GPUs, game consoles, etc. Unless they got allocation reserved many months ago, no way it will ship in any volume on 2022 TV sets.


----------



## Wizziwig

Dying to see a macro photo of Samsung's QD-OLED sub-pixels. They have been very creative in their designs over the years so I'm sure it will be something unusual again. For those who don't remember, check out what they did on their short lived 2013 55" OLEDs. Sub-pixel colors were stacked in horizontal lines with some weird diffusion layer merging adjacent pixels. According to DSCC's old articles, this was a top emission design so hopefully they spent the last decade refining the backplane to work at larger scales.


----------



## chozofication

Wizziwig said:


> Good luck to them getting any fab time from TSMC. Their 7nm lines are backed up making much more profitable chips for GPUs, game consoles, etc. Unless they got allocation reserved many months ago, no way it will ship in any volume on 2022 TV sets.


Maybe they'll pull another x900h where one model has it. If it's limited to one lcd again I hope it's mini led... but we probably would have heard something if mini led was in the works, right? 

I think the lineup could go either way but i'm not getting my hopes up too much. Optimistically, maybe Sony is in a rush to acquire the chips because of all the issues the last one had. You'd think if anything would have it, their expensive qd oled would.


----------



## CA22EF

Sony's current 8K TVs have the original board aka "ONT" which drives up the manufacturing cost.
By using the New SoC, the cost will be lowered and it may be the beginning of the 65-inch 8K LCD TV.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Donny84 said:


> Man, am i the only one here who doesn't care for HDR and Dolby Vision on OLED? For starters, there's no quality standard. So quality ends up being all over the map. Second, LG & Sony OLED's can't even hit at least 1000 nits which is required for proper HDR & DV, you either deal with a dim HDR picture or use gimmicky settings like Dynamic Contrast to artificially brighten things up which has it's set of compromises....And finally you have to deal with OLED's 'base' motion handling, which imo is trash.
> 
> It's super Artificial with all of it's motion blur slathered on top of 300p motion resolution. Yuck! Using Black frame insertion (MotionPro High) would be great if it didn't rob you of any brightness. Using BFI with HDR completely defeats the purpose. So for a motion Snob like me and somebody that wants at least 1000 nits DV/HDR they're both useless at this point.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like MicroLED will be the OLED killer while also delivering a proper 1000+ nits HDR/DV experience, combined with BFI HIGH with minimal brightness loss... Here's hoping! For now, i'm going to have to disable HDR/DV. StrangerThings season 3 for example in SDR looks_ miles_ better on my panasonic S60 plasma than it does in Dolby Vision on my OLED. Can't stomach the latter.
> 
> Really, if OLED didn't have BFI High the technology would be dead to me. lol It is it's saving grace and what is preventing me from going back to plasma. Still BFI High isn't without it's compromises....Flicker, you lose quite a bit of brightness, 21ms input lag(Still better than my plasma's 34ms), and more shadow detail crushing. Real cute, i've got to spend another $500 to calibrate and correct the C1's out of the box black crush _and_ the extra black crush caused by using black frame insertion. Total farkin' pain in the turtle booty.


If you want to jump into understanding microLED and the big hurdles it has, there's lots of info out there. There is a thread here on AVS too. Start maybe a year back if you don't want to go through all 31 pages, just 4. I wouldn't put too many eggs into the uLED TV basket just yet, unless you also own a Gulfstream, in which case I defer....
(1) MicroLED: Technology Advancements Thread | Page 28 | AVS Forum


----------



## Donny84

Scrapper102dAA said:


> If you want to jump into understanding microLED and the big hurdles it has, there's lots of info out there. There is a thread here on AVS too. Start maybe a year back if you don't want to go through all 31 pages, just 4. I wouldn't put too many eggs into the uLED TV basket just yet, unless you also own a Gulfstream, in which case I defer....
> (1) MicroLED: Technology Advancements Thread | Page 28 | AVS Forum


That's ok, Sony & Samsungs's 2022 QD-OLED sounds pretty promising and they're launching in Q1 too,  RGB QLED Color, True Whites, A brighter picture which will come in handy when using Black frame insertion, etc.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

34" QD-OLED monitor confirmed it appears, in addition to 55/65" TV.








Report: Samsung Display to start mass-production of 34, 55 & 65" QD-OLED on Nov 30


55-65" QD-OLED TVs and a 34" QD-OLED monitor




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## 59LIHP

Scrapper102dAA said:


> 34" QD-OLED monitor confirmed it appears, in addition to 55/65" TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Report: Samsung Display to start mass-production of 34, 55 & 65" QD-OLED on Nov 30
> 
> 
> 55-65" QD-OLED TVs and a 34" QD-OLED monitor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flatpanelshd.com











News: Displays and Their Technologies


Philips OLED TV shootout at Abbey Road Studios - The Results! :unsure: https://www.avforums.com/news/philips-oled-tv-shootout-at-abbey-road-studios-the-results.19300




www.avsforum.com


----------



## JRNO

Shame if a 77 inch set doesn't make the cut.


----------



## tonydeluce

This thread served for well over a decade as the "go to" resource for upcoming technological advancements and has now degenerated into a loose discussion of everything but... Can a moderator please clean up the last a few months of this off-topic discussion? I am going to report my own post to the moderators to get their attention...


----------



## filmoreXXX

More like clean up last few years


----------



## Adonisds

tonydeluce said:


> This thread served for well over a decade as the "go to" resource for upcoming technological advancements and has now degenerated into a loose discussion of everything but... Can a moderator please clean up the last a few months of this off-topic discussion? I am going to report my own post to the moderators to get their attention...


I disagree that the thread should only allow discussion of a very specific topic.
I think we could allow related subjects like speculation on future tv models, pricing, the competition, etc


----------



## mrtickleuk

Adonisds said:


> I disagree that the thread should only allow discussion of a very specific topic.
> I think we could allow related subjects like speculation on future tv models, pricing, the competition, etc


Speculation on pricing is already banned. No price talk.
Also I don't agree at all that those things would ever belong in THIS thread.


----------



## Kamus

Donny84 said:


> Man, am i the only one here who doesn't care for HDR and Dolby Vision on OLED? For starters, there's no quality standard. So quality ends up being all over the map. Second, LG & Sony OLED's can't even hit at least 1000 nits which is required for proper HDR & DV, you either deal with a dim HDR picture or use gimmicky settings like Dynamic Contrast to artificially brighten things up which has it's set of compromises....And finally you have to deal with OLED's 'base' motion handling, which imo is trash.
> 
> It's super Artificial with all of it's motion blur slathered on top of 300p motion resolution. Yuck! Using Black frame insertion (MotionPro High) would be great if it didn't rob you of any brightness. Using BFI with HDR completely defeats the purpose. So for a motion Snob like me and somebody that wants at least 1000 nits DV/HDR they're both useless at this point.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like MicroLED will be the OLED killer while also delivering a proper 1000+ nits HDR/DV experience, combined with BFI HIGH with minimal brightness loss... Here's hoping! For now, i'm going to have to disable HDR/DV. StrangerThings season 3 for example in SDR looks_ miles_ better on my panasonic S60 plasma than it does in Dolby Vision on my OLED. Can't stomach the latter.
> 
> Really, if OLED didn't have BFI High the technology would be dead to me. lol It is it's saving grace and what is preventing me from going back to plasma. Still BFI High isn't without it's compromises....Flicker, you lose quite a bit of brightness, 21ms input lag(Still better than my plasma's 34ms), and more shadow detail crushing. Real cute, i've got to spend another $500 to calibrate and correct the C1's out of the box black crush _and_ the extra black crush caused by using black frame insertion. Total farkin' pain in the turtle booty.


I'll tell you what. I'll do you a favor and trade your horrible C1 for my Plasma.


----------



## 59LIHP

Jin-X said:


> Pretty much all of them save for LG and Samsung ones.
> 
> Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk


In the 2021 lineup, Samsung uses Mediatek chips.


----------



## Donny84

Kamus said:


> I'll tell you what. I'll do you a favor and trade your horrible C1 for my Plasma.



lol If my C1 didn't have BFI, i'd trade it in a heart beat.
Once we get QD-OLED BFI with no noticeable flicker, higher brightness and motion quality in the same ball park or even better than the CX's BFI high setting for SDR content than i'll never bring up the word plasma ever again.lol

HDR is still screwed though for motion sticklers, but i turn that crap off anyways. Perfectly fine with SDR for now.


----------



## Kamus

Donny84 said:


> BFI, i'd trade it in a heart beat.
> Once we get QD-OLED BFI with no noticeable flicker, higher brightness and motion quality in the same ball park or even





Donny84 said:


> lol If my C1 didn't have BFI, i'd trade it in a heart beat.
> Once we get QD-OLED BFI with no noticeable flicker, higher brightness and motion quality in the same ball park or even better than the CX's BFI high setting for SDR content than i'll never bring up the word plasma ever again.lol
> 
> HDR is still screwed though for motion sticklers, but i turn that crap off anyways. Perfectly fine with SDR for now.


So wait... you're using BFI at 60Hz? that makes your OLED look just as bad as your Plasma. At 120hz BFI i get 0 flicker on mine.

I don't know why anyone would choose an SDR presentation over the HDR one given the option. It always looks better in HDR.


----------



## Donny84

Kamus said:


> So wait... you're using BFI at 60Hz? that makes your OLED look just as bad as your Plasma. At 120hz BFI i get 0 flicker on mine.
> 
> I don't know why anyone would choose an SDR presentation over the HDR one given the option. It always looks better in HDR.


Just as bad as my plasma? in what way. I dont notice ANY flicker on my plasma and it curb stomps the base motion of my C1 or any OLED for that matter. OLED has motion blur slathered on top of only 300p motion resolution. My S60 has a lot less blur and 700-800p motion res' But when using BFI High on the C1 it evens the playing field, aside from the OLED having far worse judder.

btw, BFI HIGH is 60hz. Low, Medium & Auto are 120hz Rolling Scan/BFI, designed for 120fps content. If you use Low, medium and Auto for lower frame rate content like movies(24fps) or games running at either 30fps or 60fps you'll get motion doubling. lol It's pretty terrible.

HDR looks like crap if you have to deal with motion blur and low resolution imo, which is the case with any OLED not using BFI. Queens Gambit and Stranger things season 3 in SDR on my plasma & OLED(using BFI High) both in SDR SPANKED the HDR versions on my C1.

The plasma ultimately faired the best simply because it didn't have any unbearable judder during certain scenes and i preferred the RGB color. Black levels aren't everything and neither is HDR when you're motion is so unnatural, artificial and gross. I dont know what plasma you have, but I'd still rather watch movies on my S60 than my C1 in SDR. Simply because it doesn't have any noticeable flicker, shadow detail crushing or anywhere near the amount of judder as my OLED.


----------



## chozofication

Donny84 said:


> Just as bad as my plasma? in what way. I dont notice ANY flicker on my plasma and it curb stomps the base motion of my C1 or any OLED for that matter. OLED has motion blur slathered on top of only 300p motion resolution. My S60 has a lot less blur and 700-800p motion res' But when using BFI High on the C1 it evens the playing field, aside from the OLED having far worse judder.
> 
> btw, BFI HIGH is 60hz. Low, Medium & Auto are 120hz Rolling Scan/BFI, designed for 120fps content. If you use Low, medium and Auto for lower frame rate content like movies(24fps) or games running at either 30fps or 60fps you'll get motion doubling. lol It's pretty terrible.
> 
> HDR looks like crap if you have to deal with motion blur and low resolution imo, which is the case with any OLED not using BFI. Queens Gambit and Stranger things season 3 in SDR on my plasma & OLED(using BFI High) both in SDR SPANKED the HDR versions on my C1.
> 
> The plasma ultimately faired the best simply because it didn't have any unbearable judder during certain scenes and i preferred the RGB color. Black levels aren't everything and neither is HDR when you're motion is so unnatural, artificial and gross. I dont know what plasma you have, but I'd still rather watch movies on my S60 than my C1 in SDR. Simply because it doesn't have any noticeable flicker, shadow detail crushing or anywhere near the amount of judder as my OLED.


Someone make it stop


----------



## Donny84

chozofication said:


> Someone make it stop


My goal is to say BFI HIGH 100 times so i can get a nice shiny apple.


----------



## Adonisds

Donny84 said:


> Just as bad as my plasma? in what way. I dont notice ANY flicker on my plasma and it curb stomps the base motion of my C1 or any OLED for that matter. OLED has motion blur slathered on top of only 300p motion resolution. My S60 has a lot less blur and 700-800p motion res' But when using BFI High on the C1 it evens the playing field, aside from the OLED having far worse judder.
> 
> btw, BFI HIGH is 60hz. Low, Medium & Auto are 120hz Rolling Scan/BFI, designed for 120fps content. If you use Low, medium and Auto for lower frame rate content like movies(24fps) or games running at either 30fps or 60fps you'll get motion doubling. lol It's pretty terrible.
> 
> HDR looks like crap if you have to deal with motion blur and low resolution imo, which is the case with any OLED not using BFI. Queens Gambit and Stranger things season 3 in SDR on my plasma & OLED(using BFI High) both in SDR SPANKED the HDR versions on my C1.
> 
> The plasma ultimately faired the best simply because it didn't have any unbearable judder during certain scenes and i preferred the RGB color. Black levels aren't everything and neither is HDR when you're motion is so unnatural, artificial and gross. I dont know what plasma you have, but I'd still rather watch movies on my S60 than my C1 in SDR. Simply because it doesn't have any noticeable flicker, shadow detail crushing or anywhere near the amount of judder as my OLED.


Queen's Gambit and Stranger Things are examples of one of the many fake HDR titles. See if a real HDR title like Mad Max Fury Road looks better on your plasma


----------



## Kamus

Donny84 said:


> BFI HIGH is 60hz, Low, Medium & Auto are 120hz Rolling Scan/BFI, designed for 120fps content. If you use Low, medium and Auto for lower frame rate content like movies(24fps) or games running at either 30fps or 60fps you'll get motion doubling. lol It's pretty terrible.


I use my OLED mainly with 120hz sources (PC gaming mainly), so motion always looks way smoother than on my Plasma. It sucks that you care so much about motion clarity, but are stuck watching 24 FPS content, which goes against the concept of motion clarity at its core.

Doesn't look like content creators are moving away from 24 FPS any time soon either. If you had a PC and ran madVR, you could use the 120hz input without frame doubling.



Donny84 said:


> DR looks like crap if you have to deal with motion blur and low resolution imo, which is the case with any OLED not using BFI. Queens Gambit and Stranger things season 3 in SDR on my plasma & OLED(using BFI High) both in SDR SPANKED the HDR versions on my C1.


I personally would never pick a dull SDR presentation over high quality HDR grade (there are movies that claim to be "HDR", but are really just SDR in an HDR container) But different strokes, for different folks! and again, it's just very unfortunate that you care so much about motion clarity, but your main sources of content are 24 FPS. It's a sad state of affairs when 24 FPS is still considered acceptable in late 2021.



Donny84 said:


> The plasma ultimately faired the best simply because it didn't have any unbearable judder during certain scenes and i preferred the RGB color. Black levels aren't everything and neither is HDR when you're motion is so unnatural, artificial and gross. I dont know what plasma you have, but I'd still rather watch movies on my S60 than my C1 in SDR. Simply because it doesn't have any noticeable flicker, shadow detail crushing or anywhere near the amount of judder as my OLED.


Color on plasma is notoriously limited compared to OLED or quantum dots displays, don't know how you'd ever prefer that, it's objectively worse in every scenario.Maybe your brain just got used to it, and prefers that look?

I'll take the contrast advantage any day of the week personally, but to each his own.


----------



## andy sullivan

Well, I read this site because I'm interested in anything new concerning OLED and only OLED. Any new players coming like TCL, Hisense? Will they introduce something new in their offerings that will wow us? Anything new on heat related problems beyond heat sinks? QOLED WOLED Printed OLED, Inkjet OLED? Anything coming new from Vizio? Any new sizes? Is Panasonic dropping totally out of the TV market? What's new in combating turn-in?


----------



## VA_DaveB

andy sullivan said:


> Well, I read this site because I'm interested in anything new concerning OLED and only OLED. Any new players coming like TCL, Hisense? Will they introduce something new in their offerings that will wow us? Anything new on heat related problems beyond heat sinks? QOLED WOLED Printed OLED, Inkjet OLED? Anything coming new from Vizio? Any new sizes? Is Panasonic dropping totally out of the TV market? What's new in combating turn-in?


Too bad the mods here seem to only be concerned about posters mentioning TV prices. This thread is constantly being de-railed these days to the detriment of all. Too bad as it used to be informative and interesting even if I didn't understand half of it.


----------



## tonydeluce

VA_DaveB said:


> Too bad the mods here seem to only be concerned about posters mentioning TV prices. This thread is constantly being de-railed these days to the detriment of all. Too bad as it used to be informative and interesting even if I didn't understand half of it.


I messaged the mods but no response - I guess it is too much work to clean up and police - they are apparently fine with letting this thread deteriorate beyond reproach. Too bad there are forum members that simply do not care about the integrity of threads and think it is o.k. to crap all over threads like they are doing with this one. This was a go to resource for well over a decade - could always count on finding discussions related to technological advancements. All of this extraneous discussion could have occurred on one or more other threads - but that would have been too easy and not as "fun" as hijacking this one.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

tonydeluce said:


> I messaged the mods but no response - I guess it is too much work to clean up and police - they are apparently fine with letting this thread deteriorate beyond reproach. Too bad there are forum members that simply do not care about the integrity of threads and think it is o.k. to crap all over threads like they are doing with this one. This was a go to resource for well over a decade - could always count on finding discussions related to technological advancements. All of this extraneous discussion could have occurred on one or more other threads - but that would have been too easy and not as "fun" as hijacking this one.


I'm guessing there is a lull in much new info coming up to CES. Let's hope to re-kick start the thread's purpose as info comes shortly after the new year....


----------



## 8mile13

So what will the QD OLED tech be called? I read that ''OLED'' will not be part of it since people associate that with LG. Looks like ''QD Display'' is high on the list.. I guess we will see what the name is at CES 2022.


----------



## CliffordinWales

There's renewed speculation that Samsung Electronics will launch TVs based on LG Display's WOLED panels in addition to its new QD-OLED models. Samsung pursuing 'dual-track' approach in OLED business


----------



## 8mile13

Like i said elsewere at the start of 2022 the Samsung focus will likely be on the QD OLED stuff with possible LG OLED stuff news and launch later on in the year. Maybe there is urgency and because of that we likely will see LG OLED earlier in the Samsung lineup.


----------



## stl8k

LGDs first patent that I've seen regarding OLED low luminance.



> Light emitting display devices may have decreased low grayscale expression because they cannot represent discriminable grayscale (luminance) steps using low current during representation of low grayscales. Since light emitting display devices have specific points and gamma forms at which low grayscale expression decreases and which are different for colors, color unevenness due to luminance deviation and artifacts such as color distortion may occur in a low-grayscale area. In light emitting display devices, image sticking may be caused by luminance deviation due to lifespan deviations between light emitting elements according to usage thereof.








US20210343223A1 - Light emitting display device and method for driving same - Google Patents


The present disclosure relates to a display device and a method for driving the same which can improve color unevenness in a low-grayscale (low-luminance) area and improve color accuracy and grayscale expression, and an image processor of a display device according to an embodiment identifies a...



patents.google.com


----------



## stl8k

The scan overlap driving that was implemented for the LGD 8K OLEDs as described here (Figure 5.):


https://confit.atlas.jp/guide/event-img/idw2019/AMD2-1/public/pdf_archive?type=in



Makes an appearance in this LGD patent:




__





US20210193028A1 - Display device, driving circuit, and driving method - Google Patents


A display device, a driving circuit, and a driving method, and there are provided a structure and a driving circuit allowing overlap driving for improving a charging rate and fake data insertion driving, in which a fake image is inserted between real images to prevent afterimages and improve...



patents.google.com





Interestingly, scan overlap driving and black frame insertion (aka black or fake data insertion in patent speak) have symbiosis.

Finally, there's this twist...



> The present disclosure is also directed to providing a display device, a driving circuit, and a driving method allowing overlap driving for improving a charging rate and fake data insertion driving for preventing afterimages and improving moving picture response time to be independently performed *by newly disposing a dedicated structure for the fake data insertion driving on a display panel.*


There's not a lot of high frame rate 8K content and the cost of 8K OLED needs to come down to earth, but this clearly shows when those things mainstream, LGD wants their panels to set the standard for great motion.


----------



## chozofication

stl8k said:


> The scan overlap driving that was implemented for the LGD 8K OLEDs as described here (Figure 5.):
> 
> 
> https://confit.atlas.jp/guide/event-img/idw2019/AMD2-1/public/pdf_archive?type=in
> 
> 
> 
> Makes an appearance in this LGD patent:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US20210193028A1 - Display device, driving circuit, and driving method - Google Patents
> 
> 
> A display device, a driving circuit, and a driving method, and there are provided a structure and a driving circuit allowing overlap driving for improving a charging rate and fake data insertion driving, in which a fake image is inserted between real images to prevent afterimages and improve...
> 
> 
> 
> patents.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, scan overlap driving and black frame insertion (aka black or fake data insertion in patent speak) have symbiosis.
> 
> Finally, there's this twist...
> 
> 
> 
> There's not a lot of high frame rate 8K content and the cost of 8K OLED needs to come down to earth, but this clearly shows when those things mainstream, LGD wants their panels to set the standard for great motion.


Motion interpolation for games on LG i s coming. Believe


----------



## nickinhb

8mile13 said:


> Like i said elsewere at the start of 2022 the Samsung focus will likely be on the QD OLED stuff with possible LG OLED stuff news and launch later on in the year. Maybe there is urgency and because of that we likely will see LG OLED earlier in the Samsung lineup.


Like i said elsewere at the start of 2022 the Samsung focus will likely be on the QD OLED stuff with possible LG OLED stuff news and launch later on in the year. Maybe there is urgency and because of that we likely will see LG OLED earlier in the Samsung lineup.

likely.....maybe.....likely
that's what I need on this thread, cold hard facts.


----------



## th1nk

stl8k said:


> LGDs first patent that I've seen regarding OLED low luminance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US20210343223A1 - Light emitting display device and method for driving same - Google Patents
> 
> 
> The present disclosure relates to a display device and a method for driving the same which can improve color unevenness in a low-grayscale (low-luminance) area and improve color accuracy and grayscale expression, and an image processor of a display device according to an embodiment identifies a...
> 
> 
> 
> patents.google.com


Wow, if they implement that in 2022 OLEDs it would make buying a new TV so much less stressful. Of course they would never advertise that they solved a problem that plagued their TVs since inception, but solving this issue is like the holy grail for me. My brother just bought a new 83 inch C1 and the banding is horrible compared to my super clean 65 inch C8. I am also itching to buy a 83 inch A90J, but the banding issues are keeping me from pulling the trigger. Waiting for the A90K now I guess…


----------



## D-Nice

th1nk said:


> Wow, if they implement that in 2022 OLEDs it would make buying a new TV so much less stressful. Of course they would never advertise that they solved a problem that plagued their TVs since inception, but solving this issue is like the holy grail for me. My brother just bought a new 83 inch C1 and the banding is horrible compared to my super clean 65 inch C8. I am also itching to buy a 83 inch A90J, but the banding issues are keeping me from pulling the trigger. Waiting for the A90K now I guess…


A95K


----------



## 8mile13

nickinhb said:


> Like i said elsewere at the start of 2022 the Samsung focus will likely be on the QD OLED stuff with possible LG OLED stuff news and launch later on in the year. Maybe there is urgency and because of that we likely will see LG OLED earlier in the Samsung lineup.
> 
> likely.....maybe.....likely
> that's what I need on this thread, cold hard facts.


If you want cold hard facts you should join the physics Forum..There is all sort of news and what it suggests will happen.

I actually narrowed it down with my post. There will be Samsung QD OLED presentation on CES 2022 for sure. Samsung wanting that to be at the center of attention in its line up is also sure. Not having Samsung using LG OLED panels in the way of that is also sure. Samsung using LG OLED panels is less sure..though more and more news points toward that..and that is going since april. Samsung having OLEDs using LG OLED panels in its line-up will likely happen later in the year. That is a high probability. Also a high probablity that that news will get to us after the QD OLED presentation (and launch).

Samsung OLED TVs, built with LG panels, look ready to join QD-OLEDs next year | What Hi-Fi? (whathifi.com)
''The suggested intention is for the release of 1.5 million Samsung OLED TVs to the market in 2022, alongside 500,000QD OLED TVs and its QNED range.''


----------



## Jin-X

D-Nice said:


> A95K


Now we are getting back on track here. Here would be my predictions:


99.999999% Certainty: 77in and 97in models
Probably: New Mediatek Pentonic SoC and all HDMI 2.1 features fully working out of the box
Wishlist items (low probability/not going to happen):
Expanded white balance settings: 0.x, 1.x. 2.5 video levels to match Panasonic level granularity
Custom for Pro 3 so you can have individual SDR Day, Night and HDR modes; and for Game SDR and HDR to keep their own settings so you don't have to toggle Clearness on and off every time you switch
Ability to disable ASBL in service menu like the LGs
Proper HGIG mode with ability to tell tv what it's peak brightness is post calibration, like the LGs.
3D LUT upload capability via Calman and Colourspace


----------



## wco81

Why would Samsung have both?

They can't produce enough of the QD-OLEDs?


----------



## D-Nice

Jin-X said:


> Now we are getting back on track here. Here would be my predictions:
> 
> 
> 99.999999% Certainty: 77in and 97in models
> Probably: New Mediatek Pentonic SoC and all HDMI 2.1 features fully working out of the box
> Wishlist items (low probability/not going to happen):
> Expanded white balance settings: 0.x, 1.x. 2.5 video levels to match Panasonic level granularity
> Custom for Pro 3 so you can have individual SDR Day, Night and HDR modes; and for Game SDR and HDR to keep their own settings so you don't have to toggle Clearness on and off every time you switch
> Ability to disable ASBL in service menu like the LGs
> Proper HGIG mode with ability to tell tv what it's peak brightness is post calibration, like the LGs.
> 3D LUT upload capability via Calman and Colourspace


Nurp on many of the above


----------



## th1nk

D-Nice said:


> A95K


Nice! Will you be able to share any info on picture quality improvements or do we have to wait until CES? Is there hope for improved low brightness behaviour (banding) in 2022? Thank you!


----------



## VA_DaveB

8mile13 said:


> If you want cold hard facts you should join the physics Forum..There is all sort of news and what it suggests will happen.
> 
> I actually narrowed it down with my post. There will be Samsung QD OLED presentation on CES 2022 for *shure*. Samsung wanting that to be at the center of attention in its line up is also *shure*. Not having Samsung using LG OLED panels in the way of that is also *shure*. Samsung using LG OLED panels is less *shure*..though more and more news points toward that..and that is going since april. Samsung having OLEDs using LG OLED panels in its line-up will likely happen later in the year. That is a high probability. Also a high probablity that that news will get to us after the QD OLED presentation (and launch).
> 
> Samsung OLED TVs, built with LG panels, look ready to join QD-OLEDs next year | What Hi-Fi? (whathifi.com)
> ''The suggested intention is for the release of 1.5 million Samsung OLED TVs to the market in 2022, alongside 500,000QD OLED TVs and its QNED range.''


*Shure*? No, the word is sure.


----------



## 8mile13

wco81 said:


> Why would Samsung have both?
> 
> They can't produce enough of the QD-OLEDs?


Looks like production and yield (which seems to be like 50% at this point going for 70% next year) is the problem.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jin-X said:


> Probably: New Mediatek Pentonic SoC and *all HDMI 2.1 features fully working out of the box*


I'd say that second part is only about 50% probable! Fully working in the very first launch firmware, lol! Has that ever happened from any manufacturer before?  Also it depends how you define "all HDMI 2.1 features" - are you including the 48Gbps capability, for example, I suspect not?

Your wishlist items are all very sensible things to want I agree, in an ideal world.


----------



## Jin-X

mrtickleuk said:


> I'd say that second part is only about 50% probable! Fully working in the very first launch firmware, lol! Has that ever happened from any manufacturer before?  Also it depends how you define "all HDMI 2.1 features" - are you including the 48Gbps capability, for example, I suspect not?
> 
> Your wishlist items are all very sensible things to want I agree, in an ideal world.


40 is fine since it's a 10 bit panel but they already have 48Gbps ports and fixed the 4k/120 banding on the A80/90. They are missing VRR. If someone launches a flagship tv without fully working 4k/120 and VRR out of the box in 2022...

LG has had it working out of the box before already, their firmware is just half baked in other areas and takes them the rest of the year to figure it out, and then fix the things they broke that were working lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chozofication

mrtickleuk said:


> I'd say that second part is only about 50% probable! Fully working in the very first launch firmware, lol! Has that ever happened from any manufacturer before?  Also it depends how you define "all HDMI 2.1 features" - are you including the 48Gbps capability, for example, I suspect not?
> 
> Your wishlist items are all very sensible things to want I agree, in an ideal world.


Well when _I_ say they’ll probably have all 2.1 features working out of the box, I just mean hgig  

VRR, hell no. Although VRR I don’t care about anyway, it’s got too many problems and you can’t use glorious bfi with it simultaneously anyway.

Side note, but all this talk of samsung using woled panels seems about as crazy as them using dolby vision to me, not betting on it.


----------



## lsorensen

chozofication said:


> Well when _I_ say they’ll probably have all 2.1 features working out of the box, I just mean hgig
> 
> VRR, hell no. Although VRR I don’t care about anyway, it’s got too many problems and you can’t use glorious bfi with it simultaneously anyway.
> 
> Side note, but all this talk of samsung using woled panels seems about as crazy as them using dolby vision to me, not betting on it.


Well HGiG isn't an HDMI 2.1 feature (or in fact an official HDMI feature at all). It's something defined by a few companies to try and making HDR gaming work better.


----------



## chozofication

lsorensen said:


> Well HGiG isn't an HDMI 2.1 feature (or in fact an official HDMI feature at all). It's something defined by a few companies to try and making HDR gaming work better.


Unless i’m mistaken, no 2.0 set had hgig support? Not even samsung q90r iirc.

Nevertheless, it’s an important feature.


----------



## lsorensen

chozofication said:


> Unless i’m mistaken, no 2.0 set had hgig support? Not even samsung q90r iirc.
> 
> Nevertheless, it’s an important feature.


It's a pretty new feature, but it is NOT an HDMI feature (it's not in any HDMI spec). HGiG comes from here: HGiG | HDR Gaming Interest Group


----------



## chozofication

I thought about what a hypothetical samsung (w)oled would bring to the table over Sony and LG, and I could only think of 2 things ; input lag and motion interpolation in game mode.

Input lag would be a negligible increase over LG, which is at 13ms currently. Samsung lcds have been 10ms for a while now, so if they can match that they’ll beat lg by a tad. No important difference there, but an on paper win that may sway a few gamers that think they need it. If they have a boost mode for 60hz ala lg they could get it down around 6ms 

Motion interpolation in game mode is far more interesting, and although it’s pretty artifact ridden on their qleds currently, maybe it’ll be better on oled. If they ever get this feature right it’ll be a nice advantage.

Can’t think of anything else, can anybody think of anything? It will likely be less color accurate than the lg, and not have processing anywhere near Sony, so. 

That’s if they even have a woled on offer


----------



## Jawad

Will this be the year Samsung adopts Dolby Vision?


----------



## fafrd

Jawad said:


> Will this be the year Samsung adopts Dolby Vision?


No idea, but I’d be surprised. 

Lack of Dolby Vision has not impacted Samsung’s QLED/LCD TV sales (at least from their perspective, and it’s pretty hard to argue with them).

So only in the case that Samsung launches WOLED TVs based on LGD’s panels at price-parity with LGE’s offerings but they don’t sell at volume-parity until Samsung discounts them enough to compensate for the lack of Dolby Vision do I see a scenario where Samsung finally sees irrefutable evidence that they will need to offer Dolby Vision if they want to succeed with Premium TV customers preferring OLED over QLED/LCD.

For 2022, I predict it’s going to be ‘steady as she goes’ as far as Samsung’s HDR strategy…


----------



## Wizziwig

I hope Samsung stands their ground. DV is an utter mess. Ask anyone else who works in content creation and they will tell you the same thing.


----------



## Jin-X

Wizziwig said:


> I hope Samsung stands their ground. DV is an utter mess. Ask anyone else who works in content creation and they will tell you the same thing.


Calibrators too. In theory it’s great but they just mess up the implementation all over the place it seems (tvs, playback devices, content creation)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chozofication

Wizziwig said:


> I hope Samsung stands their ground. DV is an utter mess. Ask anyone else who works in content creation and they will tell you the same thing.


At the risk of derailing the thread further, I understand DV is an mess with its implementation (I mean heck Sony only just now got tv led dolby vision out of the box) but when working correctly it does add to the presentation via downscaling 12 bit color, no?

Seems like it’s here to stay until we get 12 bit panels. Maybe Samsung is correct in that it’s not ideal, but it’s become a checkbox for tv buyers.

Either way, I don’t think Samsung will cave.


----------



## asharma

Deleted


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Donny84 said:


> lol If my C1 didn't have BFI, i'd trade it in a heart beat.
> Once we get QD-OLED BFI with no noticeable flicker, higher brightness and motion quality in the same ball park or even better than the CX's BFI high setting for SDR content than i'll never bring up the word plasma ever again.lol
> 
> HDR is still screwed though for motion sticklers, but i turn that crap off anyways. Perfectly fine with SDR for now.





Kamus said:


> So wait... you're using BFI at 60Hz? that makes your OLED look just as bad as your Plasma. At 120hz BFI i get 0 flicker on mine.
> 
> I don't know why anyone would choose an SDR presentation over the HDR one given the option. It always looks better in HDR.


For some fast content and motion sickness (motion blur headaches), sometimes BFI trumps HDR for certain content (e.g. Sonic Hedgehog, high speed sports, POV camera, etc). 

Maybe you don't get motion blur headaches, but some of us do... Different people are visually sensitive to different things, after all. There are certain situations where the motionblur sickness exceeds the flicker sickness.

Long term, it'd be nice to have both BFI and HDR, but for now, BFI necessarily dims an OLED picture due to Talbot-Plateau law -- pixels need to flash twice as bright at half the time -- to get same brightness at half motion blur -- and OLED just doesn't have enough nitroom for BFI+HDR simultaneously, until newer technology. You need 10,000 nit OLED to get 1,000 nit BFI at 90% motion blur reduction, for example (closer to CRT levels of motion clarity, not mere plasma levels).

(We know our audience, because we are Blur Busters, the _*motion videophiles of the world*_...)

60Hz flickers badly on big screens using square-wave pixel control (even with rolling scan). We need combined rolling scan _and_ phosphor simulation, to minimize 60 Hz flicker eyestrain as much as possible. A rolling-scan fade emulation system is required for the least flickery 60Hz flicker. Basically, an emulated phosphor fade trailing behind the rolling scan.

I would like to see a true ~960 Hz OLED with sub-refresh phosphor fade emulation, so we have 16 true native genuine OLED refresh cycles (960 / 16 = 60) to emulate phosphor fade at 60Hz in 1/960sec steps, to reduce flicker of squarewave BFI.

Since it's a digital emulation/simulation of phosphor, then an OSD menu setting to adjust the persistence (adjusted emulated phosphor fade speed).

Phosphor fade emulators is also possible to do in a software-based manner too, written as part of a RetroArch BFIv3 feature request, [Feature Request] (BFIv3) Emulate a CRT Electron Beam Via Rolling-Scan BFI · Issue #10757 · libretro/RetroArch

The art of a phosphor simulator/emulator is to use brute refresh cycles to fade BFI in a sub-refresh manner, to mimic phosphor. Fade-wave is less flickery looking than square-wave. Today, at 240Hz-360Hz, we're now starting to reach LCD/OLED refresh rates necessary for basic phosphor fade simulation. 360Hz allows 6 steps of fade per 60Hz refresh cycle.

Scientifically, it's like playing a 960fps high speed video of a CRT tube, in real time, to a 960Hz display. When this is done, the display looks much like the original CRT (as much as the gamut is matched). Instead, we're needing to do this algorithmically (rolling-scan BFI with phosphor fade trailbehind effect)

(The same 960Hz display should be made compatible with native 960fps Ultra HFR content natively, for blurless sample-and-hold operations, since ~1ms frametimes results in ~1ms MPRT without needing BFI. Ergonomic flicker-free blur-free requires ultra high frame rates, but that does not help retro 60fps content that you do not want to interpolate...)

Maybe I need to collaborate on this in a research paper on this eventually. I'm now cited in over 20 display-related research papers, including a paper by Samsung last year.


----------



## that0neguy

Mark Rejhon said:


> Phosphor fade simulation....60hz


I wonder if it would even make a difference in terms of flicker with the large screen sizes of today.
I think most would be happy with the CX's 4ms window for 60hz if it were rolling scan and was significantly brighter than it is.
Even with phosphor fade(which does decrease the motion clarity somewhat depending on how harsh it is) you'd still would probably need to settle for 2ms MPRT(or even higher) for it not to appear too flicker-y.
It's like putting lipstick on a pig.

I can see this being useful for monitor distance viewing and for MAMEcabs for example where you sit pretty close to the screen.
If you're on a small screen like a 13-20 inch CRT TV like back in the day for retro gaming and sit from a normal TV viewing distance(3-4 feet away from the screen at least) then I'd argue squarewave pixel control would be superior for motion and flicker wouldn't be as noticeable in that situation.

Bottom line is we really need to move away from 50/60hz because it doesn't make sense for today's screen-sizes and resolutions.

For legacy content we could always have more dedicated setups with smaller screens. If we're being honest with ourselves most people who care about smooth 60hz motion do so because of old games since other content like movies is 24fps which would look better with more motion blur if anything(LCD motion blur simulation on OLED or MicroLED anyone? How's that for an idea?).
And if we're being honest to ourselves old games look like crap on big screen sizes since they were designed with smaller screens in mind.
I shudder when I see somebody playing Original Super Mario Bros. on NES on their 65 inch OLED. It's just so wrong.

That only leaves us with TV broadcasting which is still 25/30fps at 50hz/60hz depending on where you live.
Broadcasting needs to move on from this, it's not the 1950s anymore.
Still with CX's 4ms window it looks fine enough for most content except for say Sports which could benefit from smoother motion but I don't see the point of say seeing the news at glorious motion because who cares it's just news.
So I say they at least need to broadcast Sports at higher framerates, at least 120fps minimum(though 150fps would be a better choice since it would be easily compatible with both PAL and NTSC and they wouldn't need to convert for regions anymore. With VRR 24fps material would be presented at 6:6 pulldown at 144hz). At that point even square-wave pixel control rolling scan would be acceptable I'd imagine, depending on MPRT value depending on the person etc. etc.

That said the idea of phosphor fade emulation is not a bad idea but it's far from a magic bullet especially for modern content and bigger screens.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

that0neguy said:


> I wonder if it would even make a difference in terms of flicker with the large screen sizes of today.


Laboratory tests have *already confirmed* that fade simulators make a huge difference in making 60+ years of legacy 60Hz material more comfortable.

BFI on OLED is much harsher than plasma, because of the squarewave nature. Sudden photons hitting eyes, sudden darkness.


Rolling scan BFI
Fadebehind rolling scan BFI
Scanout looparound effect (bottom still fading when top part illuminates)

This helps keeps the average numbers of photons hitting human eyeballs per millisecond more constant, as you're not assaulting the human brain/eyeballs with a full PWM squarewave of time-varying count of photons per unit of time. And when BFI reaches the bottom, it may disappear for a while due to the blanking interval, before the BFI reaches the top edge. So you've got that momentary zero illumination moment too.

I assure you that it is already confirmed in the laboratory that the comfort is much better with a rolling-scan + fadebehind. The problem is that large-scale TV displays don't support the digital refresh rates necessary to do this quite yet. But as ultra HFR capabilities arrive in televisions, this option becomes available.



that0neguy said:


> I think most would be happy with the CX's 4ms window for 60hz if it were rolling scan and was significantly brighter than it is.


Yes it will be. Even if it is just rolling scan, it is more comfortable.

But the 4ms window could get superior motion clarity if you had 10,000 nits for 1ms, 2,000 nits for 1ms, 400 nits for 1ms, and 100 nits for 1ms, 25 nits for 1ms. That 5ms sequence of a fast-fade sequence, will look really nice. Most of the motion clarity would be in the first 1ms, while the fadeout beyond (over the following few milliseconds), so you get a much clearer motion, with less of an issue.

This fade curve could even be adjustable in the OSD, since it'd be a digital fade simulation.



that0neguy said:


> Even with phosphor fade(which does decrease the motion clarity somewhat depending on how harsh it is) you'd still would probably need to settle for 2ms MPRT(or even higher) for it not to appear too flicker-y.
> It's like putting lipstick on a pig.


Yup. Lipstick, meet pig. Pig, meet lipstuck,

But only because *we have millions of hours in 60+ years of legacy 60fps 60Hz material. *

Ever since the first Ampex video recorders began to record 60 images per second in year 1957 (a bit more than 60 year ago), we are legacy-addled with millions of hours of pre-recorded 60fps 60Hz material. Not to mention the universe of games -- Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Sega Master System, Sega Genesis, TurboGrafx 16, NeoGeo, thousands of arcade titles, etc.



that0neguy said:


> I can see this being useful for monitor distance viewing and for MAMEcabs for example where you sit pretty close to the screen.
> If you're on a small screen like a 13-20 inch CRT TV like back in the day for retro gaming and sit from a normal TV viewing distance(3-4 feet away from the screen at least) then I'd argue squarewave pixel control would be superior for motion and flicker wouldn't be as noticeable in that situation.
> 
> Bottom line is we really need to move away from 50/60hz because it doesn't make sense for today's screen-sizes and resolutions.


Yes, because of the Vicious Cycle Effect.

Higher resolutions amplify refresh rate limitations, and the retina refresh rate of an 8K HDTV can reach quintuple digit refresh rates (aka 10,000Hz -- human visible differences remain for 1000Hz vs 5000Hz -- the diminishing curve of returns goes a long way. For more reading, see all the articles in the Blur Busters research area).



that0neguy said:


> That said the idea of phosphor fade emulation is not a bad idea but it's far from a magic bullet especially for modern content and bigger screens.


Definitely. It's not a magic bullet.

The beauty is all you need is a ~1000Hz-ish screen to do 60Hz fade simulators very accurately *in an external box!* Fade emulation then can thus be done in software (or in a video processor box, like yesterday's Faroudja or Runco boxes). HDR can surge the nitroom where necessary in the rolling-scan scanout, and some displays can provide thousands of nits necessary to compensate for BFI darkness.

It can even done raster-beamraced, so fade simulators can be done laglessly.


----------



## that0neguy

Mark Rejhon said:


> Laboratory tests have *already confirmed* that fade simulators make a huge difference in making 60+ years of legacy 60Hz material more comfortable.
> 
> BFI on OLED is much harsher than plasma, because of the squarewave nature. Sudden photons hitting eyes, sudden darkness.
> 
> 
> Rolling scan BFI
> Fadebehind rolling scan BFI
> Scanout looparound effect (bottom still fading when top part illuminates)
> 
> This helps keeps the average numbers of photons hitting human eyeballs per millisecond more constant, as you're not assaulting the human brain/eyeballs with a full PWM squarewave of time-varying count of photons per unit of time. And when BFI reaches the bottom, it may disappear for a while due to the blanking interval, before the BFI reaches the top edge. So you've got that momentary zero illumination moment too.


I'm not disputing that, however I'm wondering how much of a difference it will make for screens 50 inch and bigger.
The bigger the display the worse the flicker.
And now that you mention Plasma, don't forget that people used to complain about phosphor trails. Also Plasma only went to 1080p, now we have 4K screens.



Mark Rejhon said:


> Yes it will be. Even if it is just rolling scan, it is more comfortable.
> 
> But the 4ms window could get superior motion clarity if you had 10,000 nits for 1ms, 2,000 nits for 1ms, 400 nits for 1ms, and 100 nits for 1ms, 25 nits for 1ms. That 5ms sequence of a fast-fade sequence, will look really nice. Most of the motion clarity would be in the first 1ms, while the fadeout beyond (over the following few milliseconds), so you get a much clearer motion, with less of an issue.
> 
> This fade curve could even be adjustable in the OSD, since it'd be a digital fade simulation.


Of course the transitions to dark scenes or very bright scenes would be noticeably blurrier so it's a pick your poison-type scenario.
These effects will be much more noticeable on huge screen sizes.



Mark Rejhon said:


> But only because *we have millions of hours in 60+ years of legacy 60fps 60Hz material. *
> 
> Ever since the first Ampex video recorders began to record 60 images per second in year 1957 (a bit more than 60 year ago), we are legacy-addled with millions of hours of pre-recorded 60fps 60Hz material. Not to mention the universe of games -- Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Sega Master System, Sega Genesis, TurboGrafx 16, NeoGeo, thousands of arcade titles, etc.


Well actually most content was like 60 interlaced images 60hz so effectively 30fps. And technically most stuff that anybody cares about watching(TV Shows, Movies etc.) was shot at 24fps. Even music concerts and whatever mostly 24fps. Even sports broadcasts were just 60 interlaced frames(or 50 on PAL regions).
So 60fps was mostly a video game thing.

Going back to what I was saying earlier about retro games looking terrible on huge screen sizes, 480i(and 576i) content fares better than 240p games but not by much. Even on a CRT projector they don't look very good because the resolution is too low.
Monitor sizes sure they can hold up pretty well but on a 60inch screen not so much(even with a perfect CRT shader) so people need to keep their expectations in check.
The idea of basically having a supercharged giant CRT seems nice on paper until you start to notice the flaws of the low resolution of all this legacy content.



Mark Rejhon said:


> Definitely. It's not a magic bullet.
> 
> The beauty is all you need is a ~1000Hz-ish screen to do 60Hz fade simulators very accurately *in an external box!* Fade emulation then can thus be done in software (or in a video processor box, like yesterday's Faroudja or Runco boxes). HDR can surge the nitroom where necessary in the rolling-scan scanout, and some displays can provide thousands of nits necessary to compensate for BFI darkness.
> 
> It can even done raster-beamraced, so fade simulators can be done laglessly.


They could actually even build it inside the Displays themselves if somebody convinces manufacturers to do it.
By the time we get 1000hz commoditized technology will improve too. Heck even now there's some powerful processors built-in in many TVs and Monitors which could do the job.
CRT spatial shaders on the other hand require more power due to their complexity but I bet even that could be done.

One thing though I'm curious about. If you have a response time fast enough couldn't you do the fade emulation by sub-refresh increments and technically not even need 1000hz?
I'm not sure OLED could do it well but maybe MicroLED perhaps?
Though of course 1000hz would still be better for the additional decrease in scanout lag but that's a different topic.

But anyways the 50hz/60hz is a problem even today not just for old content. In fact it's a much bigger problem considering the higher resolutions and screen sizes.
Broadcasting hasn't moved on. Film will never move on(but it's okay I guess since Film should be kinda blurry).
Even many video games now are still stubbornly developed at a fixed framerate of 60fps with many of them being games made by indie developers. They still haven't gotten the memo of how disastrous this kind of practice is. Games should never be developed that way again.


----------



## mrtickleuk

that0neguy said:


> Well actually *most* content was like 60 interlaced images 60hz so* effectively 30fps.* And technically most stuff that anybody cares about watching(TV Shows, Movies etc.) was shot at 24fps. Even music concerts and whatever mostly 24fps. Even sports broadcasts were just 60 interlaced frames(or 50 on PAL regions).
> So 60fps was mostly a video game thing.


I don't agree with that at all. *Most* 60Hz interlaced content wasn't "effectively 30fps" nor was 50Hz interlaced content "effectively 25fps". That only happens with a rare niche special-case scenario where the camera is set to only capture 30fps or 25fps. Eg when the creator wants to get a "filmic effect". But the vast majority of the time, the cameras are in "soap opera" mode capturing beautiful slick smooth 50fps or 60fps content.

No, what happens is that the camera generally shoots and records 50 or 60 *different moments in time, with movement happening between each frame captured.*
The fact that they are only half-resolution is a shame, but either way they are definitely different moments in time, they were *not *"half of the next frame" which you them combine to get only a crappy 25fps or 30fps result. You've got, from the camera, a slick smooth 50fps or 60fps capture.

People who wrongly assume that interlacing is always that "half-frame" system, thinking wrongly that there are only 25 or 30 moments in time per second, often "de-interlace" content with that in mind, and in doing so they *throw away half the temporal resolution*! That is an act of pure vandalism which can never be undone, it's a one-way trip from 50/60 movements/second to 25/30 movements/second.


----------



## algee

Yeah interlaced content doesn’t cut the frame rate in half vs progressive, it cuts the resolution. 

Interlaced technology was all about CRTs displaying half the horizontal resolution in scan lines that alternated each frame, quick enough that the viewers eyeballs wouldn’t notice


----------



## mrtickleuk

algee said:


> Yeah interlaced content doesn’t cut the frame rate in half vs progressive, it cuts the resolution.
> 
> Interlaced technology was all about CRTs displaying half the horizontal resolution in scan lines that alternated each frame, quick enough that the viewers eyeballs wouldn’t notice


Indeed. If you think about it, it's an 80-year-old "compression algorithm" that gives super-slick _clear movement_ when the camera pans, yet it can _also _give full resolution when both the camera and subject are mostly still with little movement. Ingenious.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

that0neguy said:


> Well actually most content was like 60 interlaced images 60hz so effectively 30fps.
> [...]
> So 60fps was mostly a video game thing.


*Blur Busters Mythbusters Answer: FALSE*
_Reason: Semi-misleading legacy terminological technicality on "frames" vs "fields"_

I even have TestUFO proof, see-for-yourself: www.testufo.com/interlace

Compare testufo.com in left browser window with testufo.com/interlace in right browser window. The motion clarity of 60fps progressive and 60fps interlaced is identical for horizontal motion. This is how analog sports broadcasts worked.

*Specifically for interlaced material, "Frames" is NOT the number of images per second the human eyes get! It's the number of "Fields" per second, not the "Frames" per second, when you're measuring human visible temporal resolution of interlaced.*

Don't blame yourself, it's a common confusion / misconception because of terminology.

*Short Answer: *There is still 60 completely unique pictures (fields) per second embedded in the 30 frames per second.

*Long Answer: *Even though terminologically it was 30 frames per second, there are two temporally-different images interlaced in the frame, like *two very different images (fields) embedded in one frame (The two fields can be different. The picture in odd scanlines and even scanlines can be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, and that often happens during sports broadcasts)*.

*Fields are the actual "frames per second" seen by human eyes. *The name "frame" in interlaced is just a confusing textbook vestigal written terminology not necessarily related to the number of actual pictures received by the human eyes per second. Do not confuse the two when it comes to interlacing!

*Source Camera:*

T+0/60sec = camera capture even scanlines of scenery at this instant
T+1/60sec = camera capture odd scanlines of scenery at this instant
T+2/60sec = camera capture even scanlines of scenery at this instant
T+3/60sec = camera capture odd scanlines of scenery at this instant
T+4/60sec = camera capture even scanlines of scenery at this instant
T+5/60sec = camera capture odd scanlines of scenery at this instant

*Destination Television:*

T+0/60sec = television displays even scanlines
T+1/60sec = television displays odd scanlines
T+2/60sec = television displays even scanlines
T+3/60sec = television displays odd scanlines
T+4/60sec = television displays even scanlines
T+5/60sec = television displays odd scanlines

Live sports television took advantage of this since the first 60Hz broadcasts of the 1930s and 1940s because there was no memory to merge two fields into one frame. So what happened? The fields were broadcast real time, and the televisions displayed the fields in real time. So the fields were temporally-correct relative to human eye-time. It just was the way it was. Field pictures were realtime displayed camera-to-television, and thus preserved the full temporal resolution of 60 images per second received by eyes.

As *inventor of TestUFO myself*, I correctly simulate interlaced's full temporal resolution concept via the top UFO at www.testufo.com/interlaced if you do not believe me, and wish to see-for-yourself.

That is why 60fps sports was 2.5x smoother than movies, especially in horizontal motions in things like football, hockey, soccer, etc.

You did halve vertical resolution during vertical motion especially if the camera speed was an odd integer multipler of the interlacing speed (i.e. camera moving upwards/downwards 1,3,5,7,9 scanlines per 1/60sec), because it was a kind of a vertical picket fence effect blocking half of the underlying motion.

And yes, fade simulators could also simultaneously do interlaced simulation too, in a stacked fashion.

Theoretically, an infinite-refresh display can emulate the artifacts of all displays known to humankind. At certain refresh rates I can now accurately simulate DLP rainbow effect on a gaming LCD monitor now -- I even have a TestUFO Rainbow Effect demo (WARNING: Not for epileptics. Best for 120Hz+ displays). Try the Stars image, and roll your eyes to see the rainbow effect similar to a DLP of same colorwheel Hz. Virtually identical rainbowing to a DLP of equal colorwheel Hz as the LCD Hz. So use a 360Hz LCD to simulate a 360Hz color wheel. As refresh rates go up, it becomes easier to simulate certain elements of legacy displays of various kinds.

Yes, yes, yes, later technology captured 30 frames per second by capturing two fields and merging them into one frame. This is common in the streaming era now, and lower-end IPTV offerings (barf). Which looks less smooth than it looked on a CRT tube because the temporal resolution is definitely halved. You could have instead used a video deinterlacer and recorded a 60fps progressive video file to look 2x as smoother when streaming. But before the digital era (~1990), everything broadcast live was a temporal resolution of 50 or 60 pictures (fields) per second.

Just don't confuse what was done in the analog interlaced era. It was *always* a temporal resolution of 50 or 60 if it was broadcast analog live or if it was an analog video camera recorded directly to analog videotape. Back then, untouched-by-digital-processing 100% analog sports, sitcoms, weather, news, were all *always* 50 or 60 unique images per second hitting human eye balls for NTSC, for PAL, and for SECAM.

When digital video arrived, things became somewhat different and more flexible depending on what the camera operator wanted to do. A few shows such as Max Headroom used 30 images per second (half temporal resolution of a normal sitcom or sports recording), for artistic reasons, thanks to the advent of digital availability. But CNN/Fox/NBC/ESPN/WWF/etc continued to permanently use 60 fields per second as 60 unique images per second, all the way through the analog shutdown. As did many major sitcoms such as the original analog-video-recorded episodes of Sienfield (rather than telecined from film, or rebroadcast-from-film).

Digital reruns and digital rebroadcasts of analog videotape are often 30 images per second *only* because they were lazy and did not bother to deinterlace at the full field temporal resolution. Do not confuse this with how beautiful the same videotape looks like on my LCD TV, when I pipe it through a video processor first.

I know this because some video processors reduce temporal resolution in the art of converting the original 60-images-per-second analog material for display on a progressive scan display. So things became half as smooth as they would on a better deinterlacer. Many digital streaming services (YouTube, Netflix, etc) are lazy and lost half of the temporal resolution built into the videotape when it could have instead been saved.

When re-interlacing (playing back this digitally deinterlaced material back to an analog TV to re-interlace it)... The motion is no longer as smooth as it is when played by original videotape. Re-interlaceability could have been 100% preserved if deinterlaced correctly. That's a lot to cry about, when certain preservationists accidentally throw away some (or all) of the original temporal resolution by choosing the wrong deinterlacing algorithm.

If you were born after 1990s, it is easy to confuse the lack of 60-temporals-per-second television material, with the fault of video preservationists using the wrong deinterlace processing that destroys the original temporal resolution of the original interlaced material in the original recordings. Those who were born in the 1990s often make mis-assumptions about exactly how much temporal resolution were originally available in the original recordings, that could have been successfully preserved in this digital era.

You do realize I used to work for RUNCO, Key Digital, and TAW? And I worked with the Faroudja chip in the Immersive HOLO3DGRAPH. See my Linkedin, and scroll to older history ("See all 25 experiences" -> scroll to year 2000-2004).

You do realize I invented the world's first open-source 3:2 pulldown deinterlacer in dScaler too, more than 20 years ago? (Internet Archive with my name)

So don't tell me I don't know this bleep. 



that0neguy said:


> One thing though I'm curious about. If you have a response time fast enough couldn't you do the fade emulation by sub-refresh increments and technically not even need 1000hz?
> I'm not sure OLED could do it well but maybe MicroLED perhaps? Though of course 1000hz would still be better for the additional decrease in scanout lag but that's a different topic.


I can see granularity in low-Hz fade emulator tests at 240Hz. It's better than nothing, but it doesn't retina-out the stepping-effects in the fade emulator. Especially during fast-panning material like white circles moving on black background.

*For low-Hz fade emulators/simulators, the phosphor ghosting effect becomes "contoured"* with low-refresh-rate algorithmic fade emulators, rather than an analog-looking phosphor trailing on a CRT for white objects on black backgrounds.

At 960 pixels/sec movement, that's 16 pixels per 60Hz. If you only have 4 fade steps per 60Hz (e.g. using 240Hz to fade-simulate phosphor), you will have countour bands in the phosphor-blur-gradient every 4 pixels, as 4 bands of solid colors, instead of a smooth gradient-fill phosphor trail.

You need 1000Hz or more, ideally for a very good algorithmic phosphor fade simulator that is accurate at subrefresh intervals.

*More advanced reading:*

Interlaced was chosen because you could increase resolution without increasing bandwidth.

For NTSC, full 483-visible resolution at full 60 temporal was almost always done in the analog live-broadcast era. (Near the wartime era, before 480 was chosen for digital convenience, it was actually 483 scanlines with 42 scanlines of VBI at 21 scanlines per field). The analog electronics mechanism for interlacing necessitated an odd number to force the analog electronics to vertically offset the scanlines between the previous refresh cycles' scanlines. Digital used 480 as a round number for convenience.

525 was chosen because it is 3x5x5x7 which was easy to do with vaccuum tubes, and 21 VBI was chosen because it's 3x7. Prime numbers were a common system used to create the numbers of old analog standards such as 405i (early TV), 525i (NTSC), 625i (PAL), and 1125i (1980 analog HD), because it was easier to use stages of analog electronics to count the number of scanlines to sync to, and then slew the VBI (roll the VHOLD automatically) to lock the picture in place using 100% analog electronics. Conveniently, multiplying primes together results in odd numbers, which was a natural fit for the invention of interlacing.

Interestingly, the sizes of VBIs are also products of prime numbers (since it was easy for simple dumb analog electronics to "count" the number of scanlines per refresh cycles). NTSC VBI is 21 lines (7x3) and HDTV VBI is 45 lines (5x3x3). Eventually this became less important as televisions had a little bit of error tolerance (a few percent), allowing the odd 60Hz->59.94Hz (addition of color signal) or the 240p computer mode (interlacing at 524i instead of 525i caused the scanlines to overlap instead of offset, even on a 1950s TV), or the addition of closed captioning (digital data in Line 21 of VBI).

Now, enough of analog history. Let's talk effective temporal resolution of interlaced.

You do lose resolution during vertical motion because of how the motion interacts with the vertical interlacing . But interlacing is just metaphorically/effectively a vertical picket fence effect, that does not affect the original 60 pictures per second captured by the camera, despite embedding two pictures in one frame. Horizontal motion resolution was 60 unique pictures per second by eye in motion resolution. I even have TestUFO Interlacing in Vertical Motion, just play with even-and-odd pixel steps.

Try TestUFO Interlace #1 and TestUFO Interalce #2 (change your refresh rate to either 60Hz or 120Hz before trying these two tests for this specific demonstration) and you will observe one of them preserves full spatial resolution during vertical motion, because it's going at a motion speed at an even-numbered pixel steps per second, so it's alternating between the even and odd fields, preserving full spatial resolution. But even though the vertical spatial resolution is halved, you observe that the temporal resolution is still fully preserved regardless. So you could still be getting 60 unique images per second of half-vertical-resolution, don't confuse halving of spatials with halving of temporals.

So as you see motion speeds vary in interlaced material, you sometimes see vertical resolution vary a bit -- as the camera vertical panning speed slightly varied back in the era. Most people did not notice, but I did, when sitting 12 inches from a 27 inch tube -- and watching how the vertical resolution varied somewhat. Like two humans moving at the same time on opposite sides of a picket fence. If the speed was sufficiently different, you still saw the whole object rather than half of the object. But if both was moving in sync, the other human remained half-obscured. But if the human moved slower or moved faster, it revealed more of the resolution of the human at the other side of the picket fence. Now imagine interlacing as simply a vertical version of a picket fence. The underlying images were still 60 images per second, but how the underlying motion scrolled relative to the "interlace scrolling" (1 scanline/refresh), determines how much of the vertical motion resolution is preserved or not.

It's plainly evident in the TestUFO links. Still don't believe your eyes? Point a high speed camera (240fps will do for 60Hz) to the TestUFO Interlace (scrolling at fast speeds like 960 pixels/sec) in macro-closeup and you will see the interlacing in action, and realize that there are 2 completely different images ("fields") embedded in 1 "interlaced frame". Study closely. It'll click eventually.

A tracking human eye plots the temporals along the axis of the eye tracking motion vector, creating contouring (plasma), rainbow effects (DLP), ghosting (LCD GtG), interlacing (combing), multiscan (sawtoothing), coronas (LCD excess overdrive), and other temporals. Sub-millisecond temporals are now visible because of the Vicious Cycle Effect

One reason Blur Busters creates unusual display tests nobody else did before, is that I'm one of the few individuals in the world to successfully emulate a display in my head even before it is prototyped. I invented testufo.com/eyetracking, testufo.com/persistence and testufo.com/ghosting (now a peer reviewed paper with NIST.gov, NOKIA, and Keltek) in my head before creating the tests.

I can tell you a portion of the predicted artifacts of a theoretical display, after given the specifications of how the display is refreshed, long before the display is built. The more details you tell me (backlight behavior, temporal color behavior, other subrefresh behaviors, pulse width modulation behavior, pixel response behavior), the more accurately I can emulate a display in my brain.

Before you get tempted to describe a hypothetical display for my brain to emulate, post that hypothetical display question in Blur Busters Display Engineering Discussion Forum, not on here. I'd be glad to freely emulate a display in my head for you -- and sometimes I even create TestUFO tests to prove that I'm right. In fact, 50% of TestUFO tests were actually created this way to micdrop a lot of online debate. A lot of TestUFO etymology traces back to forum posts years ago in places like AVSFORUM, Overclock, HardForum, and eventually my Blur Busters Forums, which were dominoed into into Blur Busters articles. Which then dominoed into one of over 20 peer reviewed research papers (including big names like this Samsung research paper that cites my Blur Busters and my TestUFO). Nobody else in the field could emulate a hypothetical display in their head but I could prior to creating a TestUFO proof. I was able create see-for-yourself proofs (TestUFO) that was scientifically accurate enough to create research papers from.

Some people have a math brillance, others have a photogenic memory, but my brain has the display brillance.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

*Concept of an Open Source Display Temporals Simulation Library*
(I'm willing to fund $ for this)

This is probably a cheaper/easier route to more quickly incubating a CRT simulator with rolling-scan phosphor-fadebehind effect. Hits dozens of birds with one stone.

*Purpose:*

*Better motion smoothing modes for future high-hz OLED HDTVs
(that's why this post is relevant for this OLED HDTV thread)*
Easier display engineering (e.g. for motion smoothing algorithms)
Simulation of retro displays (e.g. simulating a CRT tube on a high-Hz LCD or OLED)
Simulation of hypothetical displays (e.g. simulating a display before building it)
Create simulated pursuit "photographs" of any of the above (for easier education)
I forgot to mention that there is already open-source display emulator software for LCDs:


Blurinator 9000 - Blur simulation software - Blur Busters Forums



Many apps such as PixPerAn had an LCD emulator built in, but early tests show it would be relatively simple for almost all displays (LCD/DLP/plasma/CRT/BFI/rolling scan/etc) can be emulated in the same software-based universal display emulator. All it is simply compact plug-in shader formulas for various variables (phosphor curves, backlight strobing curves, LCD pixel response curves, temporal dithering formulas).

I found out it can easily be simultaneously run together (e.g. LCD pixel curves + backlight strobe curves + scanout simulation = creates accurately simulated strobe crosstalk in my tests in less than 1,000 lines of source code!!)

Initially, it'd be useful for stationary (simulated photograph) or slow-motion (simulated high speed recording of a hypothetical ultra-Hz display), but can also be used real-time thanks to GPUs being fast enough (e.g. emulating 60Hz CRT rolling scan with fadebehind on a current 360Hz gaming monitor).

And I also make a post where I even mention my willingness to fund a bounty to porting this to a C/C++ library (Apache/MIT) with additional enhancements for simulating other temporals (CRT/plasma/PWM/temporal dither/DLP/etc). A universal display emulator would be a boon for display engineering (prototyping) as well as also simulating retro displays realtime on future ultra-Hz displays.

Theoretically this software can be modified to accurately simulate CRTs, plasmas, DLP, KSF-phosphor, OLED BFI, etc. And theoretically this could also be done real-time on each refresh cycle (e.g. Windows indirect display driver reprocessing each refresh cycle frame) to turn a high-Hz display into a simulated retro display. Also, some software, such as Special K now has a built-in software BFI for PC-based video games.

So various bits of open source software now exist that may eventually converge/coalesce into a CRT emulator with rolling-scan phosphor fadebehind, but also be able to be configured to simulate a plasma, a DLP, or a LCD of your pixel response fastness/slowness of your choice. The only limitation is your Hz granularity (so more Hz, the more accurate a retro display simulation becomes).

Shader programs for a specific retro display are as small as 100 lines, while others need lots more shader programming, so emulating another retro display would be adding a shader plug-in to a display emulator library. Plug in shaders can choose to do things like add extra frames or simulate VRR too (using an algorithm similar to www.testufo.com/vrr which can sometimes create better quality VRR than generic unoverdriven VESA Adaptive Sync -- imagine software simulated VRR superior to the worst artifacty hardware VRR)

Display vendors would be allowed to use this open source display simulation library for their motion-enhancing modes -- at no cost (e.g. motion smoothing modes for retro 60Hz material).

I may create a BountySource for this hypothetical library if other people are willing to match dollar-for-dollar donate money for this currently-very-niche-project (which might eventually become a textbook mainstay building block of 2030s display engineering).

Earlier, Blur Busters worked on a BFI library, but that is completely scrapped (a partner got greedy), and I am going for a clean-room open source approach now for a display temporals simulator. And other open source vendors now already do software BFI in their driver (e.g. Special K).

The path is now a generic open source display temporals simulator with stock shaders (predefined displays like LCD, OLED, CRT) and plug in any custom shaders (to simulate any hypothetical display).

Note: This is a temporal simulation only, not spatial simulation. This can be simultaneously layered on other algorithms (like spatial CRT simulators like scanline filters). The display temporals simulation library would handle by this temporal domain only -- other libraries can handle spatials (e.g. CRT lines filters).


----------



## that0neguy

mrtickleuk said:


> snip


I'm aware of all that.
The point is you kinda sorta essentially get 30hz equivalent flicker.
Interlaced flickers much more than progressive. Also interlaced 480i only looks passable on crappy consumer CRT to me because of the blending effect that occurs that somewhat minimizes the flicker.


----------



## that0neguy

Mark Rejhon said:


> snip


Ah.
I know all that.
But the terminology of "half-frame" is not necessarily a wrong one if by frame you mean progressive since 480i/60 gets deinterlaced to 480p/30.
That's why they differentiate between "fields per second" and "frames per second" with the latter usually referring to progressive scan.
And as you know 60hz interlaced flickers more than 60hz progressive(and you get combing artifacts and whatnot) that's part of the reason why of course it wasn't used for video games back in the 80s and early 90s apart from some games here and there.

That's sad to hear that phosphor fade emulation is a long way from now. I thought for sure MicroLED could do it with its fast response times even at 60hz just like a CRT but I guess not.
Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

that0neguy said:


> The point is you kinda sorta essentially get 30hz equivalent flicker. Interlaced flickers much more than progressive. Also interlaced 480i only looks passable on crappy consumer CRT to me because of the blending effect that occurs that somewhat minimizes the flicker.


Nuancing required:
60Hz interlaced flickers more than 60Hz progressive, but far less than 30Hz progressive.

Thus, it's not 30Hz-equivalent effective human flicker from viewing distance, even though close up each individual scanline flickers alternatingly at 30Hz. At viewing distances typical of yesterday's CRTs, they just blended into one effective 60Hz flicker to eyes. But some edges flicker more (e.g. top/bottom edges of bright objects), but they're often single-line flickers made visible because of a high-contrast edge.

NOW... this is what 30 Hz progressive scan flicker looks like: www.testufo.com/flicker (when tested at 60Hz and zoomed to full screen). Don't click if you are epileptic. Now you're having a full-screen flicker that's fairly blatant.

Thus, 60 Hz interlaced flicker is not nearly as terrible to eyes as a 30 Hz progressive scan flicker.

Yes, 60Hz progressive-scan flicker is better than 60Hz interlaced flicker.



that0neguy said:


> That's sad to hear that phosphor fade emulation is a long way from now. I thought for sure MicroLED could do it with its fast response times even at 60hz just like a CRT but I guess not. Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait.


Yeah. Sadly, fast pixel response does not create the only thing needed for a correct CRT feel if you want the most eye-friendly 60Hz flicker possible.

It is impossible to correctly emulate a CRT at 16 millisecond intervals or 8 millisecond intervals, even at 0ms GtG, no matter what pulse duty you choose (even if it's just a microsecond flash). The 60Hz squarewave flicker is harsher to eyes than 60Hz phosphor-fade flicker.

For the most perfect CRT simulation, with the softest possible 60 Hz flicker (polishing the turd as much as laws of physics will allow a turd to be pulished) -- then you really need to simulate in a sub-refresh manner. That's rolling scan BFI + simulated phosphor fadebehind effect. No current non-phosphor flat panel display does that.

In my proposed algorithmic display simulation workflow, interlacing vs progressive can be a configurable option in any futuristic CRT simulation algorithm. I'd choose progressive obviously, but interlacing is just a spatial algorithm that can be done as a separate filter independently of CRT temporal emulation filter (library).

Thus, framebuffers can go through the interlace filter first, before going through a CRT temporal emulation filter (generate multiple refresh cycles out of a refresh cycle, e.g. 16 refresh cycles on a 960Hz screen to emulate one 60Hz CRT refresh cycle).


----------



## JSchulte

So which of these advancements do we expect to see at CES in January 2022😎


----------



## GuitarmanSD

fafrd said:


> No idea, but I’d be surprised.
> 
> *Lack of Dolby Vision has not impacted Samsung’s QLED/LCD TV sales (at least from their perspective, and it’s pretty hard to argue with them).*
> 
> So only in the case that Samsung launches WOLED TVs based on LGD’s panels at price-parity with LGE’s offerings but they don’t sell at volume-parity until Samsung discounts them enough to compensate for the lack of Dolby Vision do I see a scenario where Samsung finally sees irrefutable evidence that they will need to offer Dolby Vision if they want to succeed with Premium TV customers preferring OLED over QLED/LCD.
> 
> For 2022, I predict it’s going to be ‘steady as she goes’ as far as Samsung’s HDR strategy…


Is that what Samsung claims? How would they even know this? I bought a TV about 6 weeks ago. I researched and shopped for a while before making my decison (Sony A80J). I looked at most brands but right out of the gate I eliminated Samsung from my search because they don't support Dolby Vision. 

How does Samsung know that there aren't thousands of people who have done the same thing? I'd say it has absolutely impacted their sales and they just aren't aware of it. I know Samsung sells plenty of TVs but they would sell more if they added DV. If companies like Hisense can afford to pay the licensing for DV, surely Samsung can.



Wizziwig said:


> I hope Samsung stands their ground. DV is an utter mess. Ask anyone else who works in content creation and they will tell you the same thing.


Meh... consumer electronics in general are an utter mess. DV content done right looks great. Sure, many content producers don't do it right but it's nice to have the option to view well-made DV content in DV rather than downscaled to HDR10 like Samsungs do. 

And the reason Samsung hasn't added DV isn't because they think it's a mess, it's because they have a vested interest in a competing format, HDR10+, that they helped develop as a direct competitor to DV.


----------



## chozofication

GuitarmanSD said:


> Is that what Samsung claims? How would they even know this? I bought a TV about 6 weeks ago. I researched and shopped for a while before making my decison (Sony A80J). I looked at most brands but right out of the gate I eliminated Samsung from my search because they don't support Dolby Vision.
> 
> How does Samsung know that there aren't thousands of people who have done the same thing? I'd say it has absolutely impacted their sales and they just aren't aware of it. I know Samsung sells plenty of TVs but they would sell more if they added DV. If companies like Hisense can afford to pay the licensing for DV, surely Samsung can.
> 
> 
> Meh... consumer electronics in general are an utter mess. DV content done right looks great. Sure, many content producers don't do it right but it's nice to have the option to view well-made DV content in DV rather than downscaled to HDR10 like Samsungs do.
> 
> And the reason Samsung hasn't added DV isn't because they think it's a mess, it's because they have a vested interest in a competing format, HDR10+, that they helped develop as a direct competitor to DV.


Hisense is the Chinese government. So they can afford a lot of things. Like 360 regular sized dimming zones in a 65 inch.

If only Sony got some gubmint money for such things lol


----------



## stl8k

For Vincent's latest video mentioning the need for gamma to be a function of frame rate, here's a relevant patent from LG Display:



> The present disclosure relates to a display device and a method of driving the same, and more specifically, to a display device for preventing a user from recognizing a change in luminance when a frame frequency is changed, and a method of driving the same. A display device of the present disclosure includes a display panel including a plurality of pixel regions, a gate driver configured to sequentially supply light emission control signals to horizontal lines of the display panel, a data driver configured to supply a data signal corrected by a source voltage to the display panel, and a dimming controller configured to control whether to gradually change a frame frequency and gamma correction data according to a duty ratio of the light emission control signal.








US20210201738A1 - Display Device and Method of Driving the Same - Google Patents


The present disclosure relates to a display device and a method of driving the same, and more specifically, to a display device for preventing a user from recognizing a change in luminance when a frame frequency is changed, and a method of driving the same. A display device of the present...



patents.google.com


----------



## Wizziwig

chozofication said:


> At the risk of derailing the thread further, I understand DV is an mess with its implementation (I mean heck Sony only just now got tv led dolby vision out of the box) but when working correctly it does add to the presentation via downscaling 12 bit color, no?


The vast majority of DV content is not 12-bit and never will be. It's an optional feature only used on select disc titles. HDR10+ also supports up to 16-bit in theory.

Anyway... moving on since that's not really on topic.

As for advancing OLED motion, 960Hz refresh is not happening any time soon. The electron mobility of IGZO backplanes is currently too low at 4K TV panel resolutions. Maybe possible with some small LTPS panels. You can see a chart of requirements in this old article.


----------



## chozofication

Wizziwig said:


> The vast majority of DV content is not 12-bit and never will be. It's an optional feature only used on select disc titles. HDR10+ also supports up to 16-bit in theory.
> 
> Anyway... moving on since that's not really on topic.
> 
> As for advancing OLED motion, 960Hz refresh is not happening any time soon. The electron mobility of IGZO backplanes is currently too low at 4K TV panel resolutions. Maybe possible with some small LTPS panels. You can see a chart of requirements in this old article.


Really? I thought the whole point of DV was 12 bit. The tone mapping part of DV was always seen as pointless by me, at least for high nit LCD.

And yeah, I was referring to 4k disc DV


----------



## wco81

Wizziwig said:


> As for advancing OLED motion, 960Hz refresh is not happening any time soon. The electron mobility of IGZO backplanes is currently too low at 4K TV panel resolutions. Maybe possible with some small LTPS panels. You can see a chart of requirements in this old article.


That's depressing.

OLED is the best we have for the foreseeable future.

I'm not talking about micro LED or the expensive Samsung wall TVs.

There was some hype about mini LED and dual LED for awhile but that seems to have evaporated quickly.


----------



## D-Nice

Wizziwig said:


> The vast majority of DV content is not 12-bit and never will be. It's an optional feature only used on select disc titles. HDR10+ also supports up to 16-bit in theory.


Thank you for posting this. Dolby zealots and the brain dead/ignorant have touted "on paper" numbers and unused features far too long.


----------



## chozofication

D-Nice said:


> Thank you for posting this. Dolby zealots and the brain dead/ignorant have touted "on paper" numbers and unused features far too long.


Would you go as far to say that when shopping for a tv, dolby vision shouldn’t even be a concern? Or buy a 4k player without dolby vision?


----------



## Wizziwig

chozofication said:


> Really? I thought the whole point of DV was 12 bit. The tone mapping part of DV was always seen as pointless by me, at least for high nit LCD.
> 
> And yeah, I was referring to 4k disc DV


All streaming is 10-bit. For UHD discs, you can consult this thread to find which titles support FEL (12-bit). Even for those that support it, the differences are not going to be huge if the base HDR10 layer was mastered correctly. Personally, I see no need to obsess over 12-bit when many TVs still struggle to even display 8-bit without additional posterization and other artifacts. I would rather see limited R&D budgets spent on better video processing or dimming algorithms than on debugging DVs messy ecosystem.


----------



## chozofication

Wizziwig said:


> All streaming is 10-bit. For UHD discs, you can consult this thread to find which titles support FEL (12-bit). Even for those that support it, the differences are not going to be huge if the base HDR10 layer was mastered correctly. Personally, I see no need to obsess over 12-bit when many TVs still struggle to even display 8-bit without additional posterization and other artifacts. I would rather see limited R&D budgets spent on better video processing or dimming algorithms than on debugging DVs messy ecosystem.


I can agree on your comment about video processing and algorithms. Sony is the only one I can even tolerate anymore, after getting used to their gradation it’s kind of a system shock when you look at an lg oled.

And then of course their dimming algorithm is also great but they cheap out on the zone counts anymore. 

I wish samsung and lg would greatly improve their gradients/processing so I can have more options lol.


----------



## stl8k

chozofication said:


> I can agree on your comment about video processing and algorithms. Sony is the only one I can even tolerate anymore, after getting used to their gradation it’s kind of a system shock when you look at an lg oled.
> 
> And then of course their dimming algorithm is also great but they cheap out on the zone counts anymore.
> 
> I wish samsung and lg would greatly improve their gradients/processing so I can have more options lol.


LGD has a patent addressing gradient display. It's pretty clever! Don't know if this has shipped in panels and then onto sets.









OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


A recent patent from LGD veteran Shinji Takasugi looks interesting enough to mention here: The patent covers a variety of benefits (see the 12 patent classifications) that come from working around a phenomenon unique to WOLED (which involves RGB→RGBW conversion) that complicates sensing and...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## wco81

dimming algorithms?

gradients?

Are you talking about OLED or FALD?


----------



## VA_DaveB

The original point was about the DV Cluster-F and spending R&D money on anything but that. I'm sure those nasty sample and hold OLED motion twerks could use some better processing.


----------



## mailiang

Change of topic. Thoughts?









Samsung's QD-OLED TV might be here very soon. Here's everything we know


----------



## yobbo

Would they be less likely to have burn in problems?


----------



## chozofication

yobbo said:


> Would they be less likely to have burn in problems?


IIRC qd oled has a stack of blue oled and 1 layer of green… seems like if anything it will be more prone to burn in (at least to current woled, hopefully not 2017 or older oled) but that’s just my armchair engineer theory.

The question is will Samsung use a heatsink or not… Sony probably will, i’m guessing.


----------



## Moravid

Doubt Sony would they never did for WOLED, IIRC 2021 flagship OLEDs have flimsy integrated metal foil from LGD, compares poorly to metal heatsink from Panasonic's 2019-2020 2000 series OLEDs that have superior image retention properties


----------



## mrtickleuk

Moravid said:


> Doubt Sony would they never did for WOLED, IIRC 2021 flagship OLEDs have flimsy integrated metal foil from LGD, compares poorly to metal heatsink from Panasonic's 2019-2020 2000 series OLEDs that have superior image retention properties


I've never seen anyone accuse it of being a "flimsy integrated metal foil" before. Actually, it's a proper heatsink and makes a considerable difference compared with the same panels without the heatsink - eg LG G1 vs C1.


----------



## Jin-X

mrtickleuk said:


> I've never seen anyone accuse it of being a "flimsy integrated metal foil" before. Actually, it's a proper heatsink and makes a considerable difference compared with the same panels without the heatsink - eg LG G1 vs C1.


It was so flimsy it won both the VE US shootout and dethroned the Panasonic on Vince’s Euro shootout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

chozofication said:


> IIRC *qd oled has a stack of blue oled and 1 layer of green*… seems like if anything it will be more prone to burn in (at least to current woled, hopefully not 2017 or older oled) but that’s just my armchair engineer theory.
> 
> The question is will Samsung use a heatsink or not… Sony probably will, i’m guessing.


Has the 3B1G COLED stack been confirmed anywhere? The only reference I’ve seen to that stack was the UBI report from last summer - every reference I’ve seen since still refers to the Blue-only BOLED stack…

The addition of a green OLED layer will greatly improve the brightness and lifetime of QD-OLED, but at the cost of increased manufacturing cost (as well as some loss of off-angle viewing gains versus WOLED).

Comparing QD-COLED to WOLED, only red is going to be truly different (surface emission, so should deliver reduced off-angle color shift). Both blue and green are going to be filtered photons from deep in the OLED stack and so will suffer from similar levels of off-axis color shift…


----------



## wco81

Does the OLED heat sink stick out the back of the TVs?


----------



## chozofication

fafrd said:


> Has the 3B1G COLED stack been confirmed anywhere? The only reference I’ve seen to that stack was the UBI report from last summer - every reference I’ve seen since still refers to the Blue-only BOLED stack…
> 
> The addition of a green OLED layer will greatly improve the brightness and lifetime of QD-OLED, but at the cost of increased manufacturing cost (as well as some loss of off-angle viewing gains versus WOLED).
> 
> Comparing QD-COLED to WOLED, only red is going to be truly different (surface emission, so should deliver reduced off-angle color shift). Both blue and green are going to be filtered photons from deep in the OLED stack and so will suffer from similar levels of off-axis color shift…


As a matter of fact I saw it in a thread you posted, soo… _scratches head_

thread

Edit: Ok I see what you’re saying, it’s just one source. But at the same time, no one has denied it has a green layer, so. It would certainly make more sense if it had green for extra longevity/brightness.


----------



## 59LIHP

Confirmation again...


















News: Displays and Their Technologies


Not to keep derailing a thread but no one made a 4K plasma. And as a former retailer most of us could not compete against the return policies of these big box stores. Most didn’t have the storage space for these returns nor could withstand the strain on our relationship with the vendors. Sent...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Moravid

mrtickleuk said:


> I've never seen anyone accuse it of being a "flimsy integrated metal foil" before. Actually, it's a proper heatsink and makes a considerable difference compared with the same panels without the heatsink - eg LG G1 vs C1.


2021 Panasonic JZ2000 utilizing this integrated heatsink has worse image retendtion than 2019- and 2020 Panasonic OLEDs with the custom heatsink solution. It's a cost cutting solution


----------



## mrtickleuk

Moravid said:


> 2021 Panasonic JZ2000 utilizing this integrated heatsink has worse image retendtion than 2019- and 2020 Panasonic OLEDs with the custom heatsink solution. It's a cost cutting solution


That doesn't change what I wrote. As I say, "flimsy integrated metal foil" isn't at all a description of what it is.


----------



## chozofication

Moravid said:


> 2021 Panasonic JZ2000 utilizing this integrated heatsink has worse image retendtion than 2019- and 2020 Panasonic OLEDs with the custom heatsink solution. It's a cost cutting solution


Hmm? I thought Sony and Panasonic made their own heatsink solution this year? I read about LG going to provide integrated heatsinks but it hasn’t happened yet right? Otherwise why wouldn’t they have had a heatsink in 2021?


----------



## helvetica bold

It might be too soon to speculate but how will gaming be on the new QD-OLED? It sounds like burn in will be a concern on this first gen. Games however should look incredible due to the increase in color volume. Hopefully Sony will get VRR sorted out on their displays in '22.


----------



## stl8k

helvetica bold said:


> It might be too soon to speculate but how will gaming be on the new QD-OLED? It sounds like burn in will be a concern on this first gen. Games however should look incredible due to the increase in color volume. Hopefully Sony will get VRR sorted out on their displays in '22.


I wonder how much iteration will need to happen for games to work well with Samsung's HDR implementation for these panels. There's often a long lag between fundamental capabilities and real games taking correct/appropriate advantage of those capabilities.


----------



## chozofication

helvetica bold said:


> It might be too soon to speculate but how will gaming be on the new QD-OLED? It sounds like burn in will be a concern on this first gen. Games however should look incredible due to the increase in color volume. Hopefully Sony will get VRR sorted out on their displays in '22.


I wouldn’t worry about burn in, in so far as I recommend getting a burn in warranty on lg oled as well. 

Anyone that pays to be a first adopter should 100 percent get that warranty then if it dies you have a hefty free upgrade lol.

No white pixel to desaturate colors plus QD should give a really nice pop indeed.


----------



## helvetica bold

Realistically a Samsung QD-OLED panel used for a Sony master series at 65" is going to cost 8K (rumored ballpark)?


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Has the 3B1G COLED stack been confirmed anywhere? The only reference I’ve seen to that stack was the UBI report from last summer - every reference I’ve seen since still refers to the Blue-only BOLED stack…
> 
> The addition of a green OLED layer will greatly improve the brightness and lifetime of QD-OLED, but at the cost of increased manufacturing cost (as well as some loss of off-angle viewing gains versus WOLED).
> 
> Comparing QD-COLED to WOLED, only red is going to be truly different (surface emission, so should deliver reduced off-angle color shift). Both blue and green are going to be filtered photons from deep in the OLED stack and so will suffer from similar levels of off-axis color shift…


Could you deduce whether it had a green layer from the reporting that it supports 80% of BT 2020?


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Could you deduce whether it had a green layer from the reporting that it supports 80% of BT 2020?


No. I suppose specifics of the SPD might provide some insight but I’m not certain.

Green generated exclusively by green QDs followed by a blue-blocking filter to filter out remaining blue photons could/should have a tighter distribution (higher peak and narrower half-width) than green photons generated from green OLED and then passed through the same blue-blocking filter.

4S2C COLED would have green photons created both by green QDs excited by blue photons as well as created by a green OLED layer, so tough to know what it should look like compared to green-QD-only 4S1C QD-BOLED.

if the SPD of green looks similar to the WOLED’s green SPD, tat would almost certainly be a confirmation of COLED.

And if the SPD of green looks much tighter than the WOLED’s green SPD (and as tight ad the red SPD of QD-Display), that would probably suggest a green-QD-only 4S1C QD-BOLED.

But if the green SPD of QD-Display is somewhere between those two extremes, it’s going to be impossible to say based on green SPD or % BT.2020 coverage alone…


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> Confirmation again...
> 
> 
> View attachment 3210611
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News: Displays and Their Technologies
> 
> 
> Not to keep derailing a thread but no one made a 4K plasma. And as a former retailer most of us could not compete against the return policies of these big box stores. Most didn’t have the storage space for these returns nor could withstand the strain on our relationship with the vendors. Sent...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


As I just posted in your ‘Developments’ thread, this is just ‘confirmation’ by the same source I originally highlighted last Spring (UBI)…

At least UBI appears to be doubling-down, so there is that.

(And as I stated this Spring, my vote has been that UBI had disclosed the real scoop without fanfare since they first quietly slipped that green layer into the 4-blue-only QD-OLED stack picture they’d used in all of their previous QD-OLED ‘report’ iterations before then).


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> As I just posted in your ‘Developments’ thread, this is just ‘confirmation’ by the same source I originally highlighted last Spring (UBI)…
> 
> At least UBI appears to be doubling-down, so there is that.
> 
> (And as I stated this Spring, my vote has been that UBI had disclosed the real scoop without fanfare since they first quietly slipped that green layer into the 4-blue-only QD-OLED stack picture they’d used in all of their previous QD-OLED ‘report’ iterations before then).


Between the article I posted four months ago and this video which dates from December 15th, to my knowledge, there has been no denial against UBI Research.


----------



## 8mile13

But there is no confirmation either.. I think it is not what they know for shure. It is what they suspect will happen. So there is the 4 blue stack which seems to be confirmed and the blue/green layer based upon UBI beliefs which is not confirmed. ''the real scoop'' thing..well..if that was true we would see other observers telling us about ''the real scoop'' which did not happen. So i stick with 4 blue stack for the time being.
Samsung Visual Display Division Forsakes QD-OLEDs in Favor of Mini LED TVs_11/22/20 - OLED Association (oled-a.org)


----------



## Moravid

First sighting of 42 inch OLED?





LM Tokyo ELLDE | OLED Info


LM Tokyo's first OLED TV, the ELLDE, offer 43-, 48-, 55- and 65-inch 4K WOLED panels, ambient lighting and tempered glass casing.The ELLDE is now shipping in Japan, starting at Â¥99,800 (around $880) for the 43-inch model.




www.oled-info.com













日本初の43インチを含む、4K大画面・高画質有機ELテレビ「ELLDE」を正式リリース。¥99,800〜 - LED TOKYO株式会社 LED事業運営


LM TOKYO株式会社は、2021年12月10日（金）より、日本初の43インチを含む4K大画面・高画質有機E




1-lm--tokyo-co-jp.translate.goog





"* 2 Conventionally, the panel itself emits light by the EL phenomenon, but this method uses a special drive circuit panel and white OLED light emission. "


----------



## Jin-X

Still no word on an LGE model with a heat sink this close to CES. Either there isn't one coming or they are keeping it real close to the vest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chozofication

Jin-X said:


> Still no word on an LGE model with a heat sink this close to CES. Either there isn't one coming or they are keeping it real close to the vest.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I would be shocked if there’s no heatsink option for LG next year. We know they’ve (LGD) been gearing up to manufacture panels with integrated heatsink, so.

My question is will it be on the g2 or will it be reserved for a new model aka h2?


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Green generated exclusively by green QDs followed by a blue-blocking filter to filter out remaining blue photons could/should have a tighter distribution (higher peak and narrower half-width) than green photons generated from green OLED and then passed through the same blue-blocking filter.


I doubt those filters are there just to block emitted light. They are present on all 3 colors in the UBI diagram. If that diagram is accurate, those filters could also be there to reduce reflected ambient light. It's a more efficient solution than using a circular polarizer like on Samsung's older mobile OLEDs or current LG WOLEDs. About 50% of transmitted light is lost in polarizers. The old linked article estimates about 20-30% brighter panels are possible after factoring in other limitations of the design. While originally developed for mobile applications, maybe Samsung decided to also use it for their QD-OLEDs. Makes you wonder how much brighter they could make a TV panel marketed specifically for batcave installs where reflection handling was not required.






New Insights on How SDC Will Introduce Polarizer-Free OLEDs, Significant Increase in Brightness Also Expected - Display Supply Chain Consultants







www.displaysupplychain.com


----------



## Jin-X

chozofication said:


> I would be shocked if there’s no heatsink option for LG next year. We know they’ve (LGD) been gearing up to manufacture panels with integrated heatsink, so.
> 
> My question is will it be on the g2 or will it be reserved for a new model aka h2?


I would be surprised too. As for the model they already have a few models that are too close in price, so something they could do is keep the A series as is, give the B series the Alpha 9 (effectively making it the new C series) and give the C and G series the heatsink. But that would be a tough sell from a marketing perspective as the C is established as the main line and increasing it's price, while explaining to people the B is now the same as the old C, would be too confusing.

The easiest way is to just put it on the G series and call it a day, just like only the G was marketed as "Evo". So call it Evo+ now.

Edit:

A series: 60hz, Alpha 7, old panel
B series: 120hz, Alpha 7, panel lottery but locked to old panel performance for consistency like C1
C series: Alpha 9 and Evo (performs like G1)
G series: Evo+ (the more efficient panel with a heatsink. Will push for higher peak brightness at the cost of color volume/saturation as they usually do in contrast to Sony's approach).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tonydeluce

Jin-X said:


> I would be surprised too. As for the model they already have a few models that are too close in price, so something they could do is keep the A series as is, give the B series the Alpha 9 (effectively making it the new C series) and give the C and G series the heatsink. But that would be a tough sell from a marketing perspective as the C is established as the main line and increasing it's price, while explaining to people the B is now the same as the old C, would be too confusing.
> 
> The easiest way is to just put it on the G series and call it a day, just like only the G was marketed as "Evo". So call it Evo+ now.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> A series: 60hz, Alpha 7, old panel
> B series: 120hz, Alpha 7, panel lottery but locked to old panel performance for consistency like C1
> C series: Alpha 9 and Evo (performs like G1)
> G series: Evo+ (the more efficient panel with a heatsink. Will push for higher peak brightness at the cost of color volume/saturation as they usually do in contrast to Sony's approach).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If they utilize a heat sink this year, in all likely hood they will create a new series above the G so as not have the marketplace complain that they raised prices on the 'G'...


----------



## chozofication

tonydeluce said:


> If they utilize a heat sink this year, in all likely hood they will create a new series above the G so as not have the marketplace complain that they raised prices on the 'G'...


Plus the g series is more for hanging on the wall ; would they have to start bundling a stand with g series if they did that.

I’m thinking the same, that there will be an H series or some such.


----------



## Donny84

Does setting De-Blur to '10' outside of game mode artificially Brute force 120fps into a game that's running in 60fps? Because it sure seems like it does! Blur reduction is BIG, motion resolution seems higher and you're getting that smoother realistic motion as if you're looking through a window. 60fps by comparison looks unrealistic.

But since it's being artificially forced, there's jerky motion problems and motion artificats, plus latency sky rockets to around 85ms. Obviously, it's not recommended but it's neat to get an idea of how a 60fps game would look running in 120fps. I usually hate gaming at 60fps on OLED, simply because there's too much motion blur and only 300p motion resolution. 120fps makes all the difference and yearn for the day when a future TV technology can finally give us blur free motion with at least 1080p motion resolution @ 24fps for movies/TV and at least 120fps when gaming


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I doubt those filters are there just to block emitted light. They are present on all 3 colors in the UBI diagram. If that diagram is accurate, those filters could also be there to reduce reflected ambient light. It's a more efficient solution than using a circular polarizer like on Samsung's older mobile OLEDs or current LG WOLEDs. About 50% of transmitted light is lost in polarizers. The old linked article estimates about 20-30% brighter panels are possible after factoring in other limitations of the design. While originally developed for mobile applications, maybe Samsung decided to also use it for their QD-OLEDs. Makes you wonder how much brighter they could make a TV panel marketed specifically for batcave installs where reflection handling was not required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Insights on How SDC Will Introduce Polarizer-Free OLEDs, Significant Increase in Brightness Also Expected - Display Supply Chain Consultants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaysupplychain.com


The ‘original’ QD-BOLED had no color filters at all because it assumed close to 100% of blue photons were converted to red or green.

Then Samsung discovered they could not get anywhere close to that conversion efficiency so they had to add a blue-blocking color filter over both the red and green subpixels.

With the addition of a green OLED layer, they now need to add a blue and green blocking color filter to the red subpixel which is the same thing as a red color filter.

Since there are no red photons in the green Subpixel, they could still get away with a simple blue-blocking color filter, but in any case, it’s usually depicted as a green color filter.


----------



## Wizziwig

I just had some time to watch the UBI presentation video that 59LIHP linked earlier. At about 3 minute mark they also discussed the removal of the polarizer since the color filters and black light absorbing material on the pixel borders will be more efficient at reducing reflections. If true, at least Samsung is managing to leverage some of their mobile OLED R&D into these TVs. Their mobile division has been on fire compared to the snails-pace development at LGD. Between 2015 and 2021, Samsung increased brightness by 3-4x. Supposedly their 2022 phones without the polarizer will hit 1800 nits peak and over 1000 full screen with accurate color settings. Too bad their uniformity still sucks but I guess it's not a focus of R&D since most don't watch low-APL videos on mobile devices.

I wish UBI or some other source would reveal something about the pixel driving circuit. Will they do in-pixel compensation or go with external like LG. That would give us some clue whether uniformity has any chance of improving.


----------



## video_analysis

Samdung accounts for the majority of the cell phone market (whereas LG just bailed due to failing to keep its head above water with claims to just over 1% of the market) and has only had its TV market share eroding this past year thanks to cutthroat OLED competition. I can understand why they have more money to throw at R&D across the 2 product divisions resulting in the creation of some horizontal synergy.


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> I just had some time to watch the UBI presentation video that 59LIHP linked earlier. At about 3 minute mark they also discussed the removal of the polarizer since the color filters and black light absorbing material on the pixel borders will be more efficient at reducing reflections. If true, at least Samsung is managing to leverage some of their mobile OLED R&D into these TVs. Their mobile division has been on fire compared to the snails-pace development at LGD. Between 2015 and 2021, Samsung increased brightness by 3-4x. Supposedly their 2022 phones without the polarizer will hit 1800 nits peak and over 1000 full screen with accurate color settings. Too bad their uniformity still sucks but I guess it's not a focus of R&D since most don't watch low-APL videos on mobile devices.
> 
> I wish UBI or some other source would reveal something about the pixel driving circuit. Will they do in-pixel compensation or go with external like LG. That would give us some clue whether uniformity has any chance of improving.


They've applied for a ton of US patents around QD-OLED in 2021, but I don't recall seeing much related to compensation. Would a patent cross-licensing agreement (with LGD) be surprising?

What is clear to me is Samsung Display kept its TV OLED talent and began to acquire more in the past couple of years. Two researchers I came across that were interesting include:

Jaekook Ha
Named on ~20 patents in the past ~1-2 years








Jaekook Ha (Ph.D, Principal Engineer, Project Leader)


Samsung Display Co., Ltd. - Cited by 337 - Quantum Dots - OLED - Organic Electronics - Printed Electronics - Organic & Polymeric Materials




scholar.google.com





Joon-Hyung Kim
20 year LG Chem vet now at SD








Joon-Hyung Kim - Master - Samsung Display | LinkedIn


View Joon-Hyung Kim’s profile on LinkedIn, the world’s largest professional community. Joon-Hyung has 4 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Joon-Hyung’s connections and jobs at similar companies.




www.linkedin.com


----------



## wco81

Heard companies are starting to drop out of CES.

So it will either go virtual or maybe the companies will just do their virtual press conferences again.


----------



## stl8k

wco81 said:


> Heard companies are starting to drop out of CES.
> 
> So it will either go virtual or maybe the companies will just do their virtual press conferences again.


Hard to imagine folks with physical products like TVs (that they shipped to Vegas) not simply doing a virtual keynote from Vegas. For virtual booths, should be straightforward to spin up what they did last year, replacing it with this year's models.


----------



## Wizziwig

I have a CES pass and was looking forward to seeing these QD-OLEDs in person. But definitely having second thoughts. Risking going to a super-spreader event doesn't sound like the brightest idea just to see a new TV.  



video_analysis said:


> Samdung accounts for the majority of the cell phone market (whereas LG just bailed due to failing to keep its head above water with claims to just over 1% of the market) and has only had its TV market share eroding this past year thanks to cutthroat OLED competition. I can understand why they have more money to throw at R&D across the 2 product divisions resulting in the creation of some horizontal synergy.


Let's also not forget all the money Apple is pumping into Samsung's mobile OLEDs. Who knows, maybe they are also helping drive some of the advancements since they are a pretty demanding customer of all their component suppliers.

I definitely have concerns over uniformity given Samsung's track record. Their LCDs are poor on average regarding DSE. Their largest mainstream OLEDs currently available (15.6" notebooks) are also poor. Hoping they pull some miracle at least during the launch window to set a good first impression.


----------



## chozofication

Wizziwig said:


> I have a CES pass and was looking forward to seeing these QD-OLEDs in person. But definitely having second thoughts. Risking going to a super-spreader event doesn't sound like the brightest idea just to see a new TV.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's also not forget all the money Apple is pumping into Samsung's mobile OLEDs. Who knows, maybe they are also helping drive some of the advancements since they are a pretty demanding customer of all their component suppliers.
> 
> I definitely have concerns over uniformity given Samsung's track record. Their LCDs are poor on average regarding DSE. Their largest mainstream OLEDs currently available (15.6" notebooks) are also poor. Hoping they pull some miracle at least during the launch window to set a good first impression.


If you got the jab anyway you should go, I mean the whole point of getting it was to feel safe right? Of course I didn’t get it and would only go to ces if they didn’t require the jab because, well… yeah. So i’m pretty much your opposite.

Why let fear ruin your fun? This is all in good faith btw, not attacking you.

I do not have high expectations for qd oled uniformity, but on the other hand I don’t think it could get much worse than lg’s ****show. Esp. at the prices Samsung will charge. IMO it can only get better from here.


----------



## Fabio Zanellato

LG Display annuncia OLED EX: TV OLED del 30% più luminosi grazie al deuterio


LG Display annuncia l'arrivo nel 2022 dei nuovi pannelli basati su tecnologia EX: nuovi materiali organici arricchiti di deuterio, ma anche algoritmi di pilotaggio del pannello basati su machine learning, permetteranno di aumentare la luminosità degli schermi del 30%.




www.dday.it





Yes…🎉🎉🎉


----------



## mrtickleuk

Fabio Zanellato said:


> LG Display annuncia OLED EX: TV OLED del 30% più luminosi grazie al deuterio
> 
> 
> LG Display annuncia l'arrivo nel 2022 dei nuovi pannelli basati su tecnologia EX: nuovi materiali organici arricchiti di deuterio, ma anche algoritmi di pilotaggio del pannello basati su machine learning, permetteranno di aumentare la luminosità degli schermi del 30%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dday.it


Marvellous! Technology wise, all great stuff.

On the other hand, now as well as "does my oled have an EVO panel" questions posted every 5 minutes, despite EVO being other things, *not just the panel*; we'll get a thousand "is it an EX panel" posts, despite this article confirming that it's *again* *not just the panel*. Along with a bunch of people wrongly thinking that you get an increase in luminance by changing service menu items when you never did; people buying service remotes to check if they've got an EX panel fitted to their late-build of a C1, etc etc! LOL


----------



## Jin-X

mrtickleuk said:


> Marvellous! Technology wise, all great stuff.
> 
> On the other hand, now as well as "does my oled have an EVO panel" questions posted every 5 minutes, despite EVO being other things, *not just the panel*; we'll get a thousand "is it an EX panel" posts, despite this article confirming that it's *again* *not just the panel*. Along with a bunch of people wrongly thinking that you get an increase in luminance by changing service menu items when you never did; people buying service remotes to check if they've got an EX panel fitted to their late-build of a C1, etc etc! LOL


Yes but at least it’s now LGD with the moniker instead of LGE so we have something to properly call models that fully incorporate this (I still expect Sony to try and twist their way out of it)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CliffordinWales

Jin-X said:


> Yes but at least it’s now LGD with the moniker instead of LGE so we have something to properly call models that fully incorporate this (I still expect Sony to try and twist their way out of it)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I seem to remember Vincent Teoh explaining that hydrogen had been replaced by deuterium in the Evo panel, so how is EX different to Evo?


----------



## stl8k

Here (linked below) are the patents relating to LGDs use of deuterium in its new 2022 panels. Excerpting from one of them:



> It is possible to implement sufficiently improved luminous efficiency and luminous life time by introducing the organic compound substituted with deuterium to only some moieties according to the present disclosure, without substituting deuterium for the entire molecule. The present disclosure has an advantage of economical utilization of expensive deuterium, and therefore, can significantly reduce the manufacturing cost of the organic light emitting diode and the organic light emitting device.


Patents on Google Scholar

Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials Korea Ltd is the Dupont subsidiary that LGD refers to as "Dupont" in its marketing.


----------



## JasonHa

CliffordinWales said:


> I seem to remember Vincent Teoh explaining that hydrogen had been replaced by deuterium in the Evo panel, so how is EX different to Evo?


I believe the EVO panels were 20% brighter so EX seems to nudge it a little further. Press releases won't answer our technical questions so we'll have to ultimately wait for independent third party reviews once the products get sold at retail.


----------



## Jin-X

CliffordinWales said:


> I seem to remember Vincent Teoh explaining that hydrogen had been replaced by deuterium in the Evo panel, so how is EX different to Evo?


It’s most likely a refinement on last year’s new panels, alongside a bezel reduction and now being deployed in both plants. So a 10% boost in efficiency at best from WBE panels.

Would be awesome if he was wrong and last year’s panel only got it’s extra brightness from the added green emitting layer and they weren’t really using deuterium/not using it for added performance until now. But I doubt that’s really the case and it’s best to keep expectations in check.

D-Nice already said some would be disappointed in terms of next year. And while that could just as easily apply to Sony still not having VRR and only 2 ports and being a disappointment in terms of gaming, I doubt he would say that if we were getting another noticeable jump in performance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stl8k

Jin-X said:


> It’s most likely a refinement on last year’s new panels, alongside a bezel reduction and now being deployed in both plants. So a 10% boost in efficiency at best from WBE panels.
> 
> Would be awesome if he was wrong and last year’s panel only got it’s extra brightness from the added green emitting layer and they weren’t really using deuterium/not using it for added performance until now. But I doubt that’s really the case and it’s best to keep expectations in check.
> 
> D-Nice already said some would be disappointed in terms of next year. And while that could just as easily apply to Sony still not having VRR and only 2 ports and being a disappointment in terms of gaming, I doubt he would say that if we were getting another noticeable jump in performance.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


See the patent I excerpted from.

Evo = Let's see how well this performs in the field and damn, deuterium is expensive so we can't mainstream this yet.

Ex = This is performing well, but we have to find a way to make it cheaper to mainstream it. Researchers come up with "use less deuterium" solution. They find another 10% brightness improvement through various optimizations.


----------



## Jin-X

stl8k said:


> See the patent I excerpted from.
> 
> Evo = Let's see how well this performs in the field and damn, deuterium is expensive so we can't mainstream this yet.
> 
> Ex = This is performing well, but we have to find a way to make it cheaper to mainstream it. Researchers come up with "use less deuterium" solution. They find another 10% brightness improvement through various optimizations.


What I can't figure out is the Q2 timing. I have to think this will be on the models about to be announced next week as they would otherwise be undercutting the tvs about to be announced next week with the perception that better models are right around the corner (waiting for EX panel). You don't really want to say that until the tvs with it are about to launch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mrtickleuk

stl8k said:


> Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials Korea Ltd is the Dupont subsidiary that LGD refers to as "Dupont" in its marketing.


The same DuPont (it's a capital "P" in the middle) featured in the excellent movie "Dark Waters" starring Mark Ruffalo: Dark Waters (2019)
_Not_ a nice company.


----------



## Patrik Westberg

"Starting in Q2 2022, LGD will integrate OLED EX technology into all of its WOLED TV panels manufactured at both its Paju fabs and Guangzhou fabs. This means that all OLED TV panels produced in the second half of 2022 and further will employ the new OLED EX technology. "


----------



## wco81

Will they have EX and non EX lines?

Or will the C2 TVs be all EX?


----------



## mrtickleuk

wco81 said:


> Will they have EX and non EX lines?
> 
> Or will the C2 TVs be all EX?




Too soon to ask.


----------



## Jin-X

wco81 said:


> Will they have EX and non EX lines?
> 
> Or will the C2 TVs be all EX?


LG Electronics presentation is next Wednesday, Sony's is Tuesday morning. We'll know more then


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chozofication

Did I hear right that these panels will be even thinner? As if they need to be any thinner, they already feel like you’re going to break them whilst you’re setting them up lol.

Nevertheless, very excited to see the new panels and hope uniformity is improving.


----------



## wco81

Thinner bezels, goes from 6 mm on the 65-inch CX to supposedly 4 mm.

Who knows, this whole EX thing is marketing hype to respond to QD OLED or whatever Samsung is calling their version.


----------



## chozofication

wco81 said:


> Thinner bezels, goes from 6 mm on the 65-inch CX to supposedly 4 mm.
> 
> Who knows, this whole EX thing is marketing hype to respond to QD OLED or whatever Samsung is calling their version.


Hmm the bezels as well are already more than thin enough… are there actually people looking at their c1 saying “man I wish the bezel was thinner.”. lol


----------



## Wizziwig

Aside from the deuterium changes we got in 2021 on a small fraction of panels, the rest sounds like continued tweaks to the ABL algorithm that they've been doing for many years. It's just a means of squeezing more out of the same panel while staying under the power limits. It's all very obvious when you track the lack of progress in full screen brightness where these software tricks don't work.

Maybe this will be enough for 2022 to stay competitive with Samsung's QD-OLED published specs of 1000 nits peak / 80% normalized BT.2020. Won't know until someone measures the ABL response of Samsung's panel.


----------



## Wizziwig

Jin-X said:


> And while that could just as easily apply to Sony still not having VRR and only 2 ports and being a disappointment in terms of gaming


VRR will be available on PS5 before the 2022 models hit. You can guess what that means for the TV lineup.


----------



## CliffordinWales

Wizziwig said:


> Aside from the deuterium changes we got in 2021 on a small fraction of panels, the rest sounds like continued tweaks to the ABL algorithm that they've been doing for many years. It's just a means of squeezing more out of the same panel while staying under the power limits. It's all very obvious when you track the lack of progress in full screen brightness where these software tricks don't work.
> 
> Maybe this will be enough for 2022 to stay competitive with Samsung's QD-OLED published specs of 1000 nits peak / 80% normalized BT.2020. Won't know until someone measures the ABL response of Samsung's panel.


I thought the Evo panel's advantage was in full screen white. Reviewers like AV Forums in the UK said the G series lived up to its "20% brighter" promise full screen, but found the 10% window peak to be more or less the same as the regular panel?

It does make me wonder what else can be done with WOLED... the game changer would presumably be a high-performance blue emitter, but if that comes along why not switch to RGB OLED anyway?


----------



## chozofication

Wizziwig said:


> VRR will be available on PS5 before the 2022 models hit. You can guess what that means for the TV lineup.


I’ll believe it when I see it!


----------



## fafrd

LG Display Unveils Next-Generation OLED TV Display 'OLED.EX' | LG Display Newsroom


SEOUL, Korea (Dec. 29, 2021) – LG Display, the world's leading innovator of display technologies, unveiled today its newest OLED TV technology 'OLED.EX'. The next-generation OLED.EX display implements LG Display's deuterium and personalized algorithm-based 'EX Technology,' which helps boost the...




news.lgdisplay.com





‘The next-generation OLED EX display implements LG Display’s deuterium and personalized algorithm-based ‘EX Technology,’ which helps boost the innovative display’s overall picture quality by *enhancing brightness up to 30 percent compared to conventional OLED displays.*’


I strongly suspected that LGD kept a lot of the potential performance boost from the move to deuterium blue up their sleeves this year (2021) and the claim of ‘30% increase in brightness’ pretty much confirms that.

As usual, the devil is in the detail of ‘30% brighter compared to what?’ (or precisely which conventional OLED displays?

Going back to pre-Evo brightness levels of ~130 cd/m2 full-field and ~650cd/m2 HDR peak, that would suggest that ~170cd/m2 full-field and ~850cd/m2 HDR peak is about the least we should hope for.

At the other extreme, if we take the C1’s levels of 150-160cd/m2 full-field and 750-800cd/m2 HDR peak, we can hope to finally see levels breaking above ~200cd/m2 full-field and ~1000cd/m2 HDR peak.

My bet is that LG was keeping cards up their sleeve last year until they saw where Samsung was going with QD-BOLED/COLED and now that it is clear Samsung is bringing something new to market next year, LGD/LGE is pulling out all the stops.

And just to be clear, assuming LG does deliver 200cd/m2 full-field and 1000cd/m2 HDR peak brightness levels in 2022, that would put them exactly 2 years behind the roadmap they published in 2019:


----------



## chozofication

Imo 1000 nits peak brightness is extremely optimistic and unlikely to happen… UNLESS they have a heatsink as well. 

If they (LG) don’t have a heatsink i’ll be interested to see how bright the A90k gets… 

Would be funny if the A95k with qd oled panel had no heatsink but the A90k does but that may end up happening.


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> I strongly suspected that LGD kept a lot of the potential performance boost from the move to deuterium blue up their sleeves this year (2021) and the claim of ‘30% increase in brightness’ pretty much confirms that.


Could LG also be sacrificing lifetime (and burn in risk) for increased brightness?


----------



## fafrd

chozofication said:


> Imo 1000 nits peak brightness is extremely optimistic and unlikely to happen… UNLESS they have a heatsink as well.
> 
> If they (LG) don’t have a heatsink i’ll be interested to see how bright the A90k gets…
> 
> Would be funny if the A95k with qd oled panel had no heatsink but the A90k does but that may end up happening.


I’m more optimistic about LG EX delivering 1000cd/m2 peak brightness levels for HDR highlights than I am about it delivering 200cd/m2 full-field sustained.

Among other things, they always have the ‘escape hatch’ of reducing window size further to increase output intensity.

Will be interesting to see what comes of all the 2021 ‘integrated heatsink’ rumors. That could be a pathway to a further ~10% increase on certain premium WOLEDs…

Also, with the news about Samsung not demoing QD-OLED at CES, it’ll be interesting to see what Sony has to say.


----------



## Jin-X

Wizziwig said:


> VRR will be available on PS5 before the 2022 models hit. You can guess what that means for the TV lineup.


I just want to tell the 2 interns that Sony has working on this on Windows Millennium Edition Pentium 3sPCs the following:











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> Could LG also be sacrificing lifetime (and burn in risk) for increased brightness?


Always. But they are unlikely to do so.

Having survived the near-death experience of red burn-in on 2016 WOLEDs, LG has understood that they have far, far more to lose by delivering WOLEDs TVs that fail to deliver in the field and result in a bad reputation for the technology than they have to gain from pushing to ever-higher peak brightness levels in a misguided effort to stem market share losses from the Brightness Wars.

Been there, done that.

I suspect we will see LGD/LGE prioritize solid 10,000 hour lifetime performance over increased brightness levels until their dying breath.

Which, of course, does not mean that they have the motivation and the efforts underway to increase brightness levels as soon as they are confident they can do so ‘safely’ (meaning in a manner that will deliver over 10,000 hours of lifetime for 99% of consumers).


----------



## D-Nice

fafrd said:


> LG Display Unveils Next-Generation OLED TV Display 'OLED.EX' | LG Display Newsroom
> 
> 
> SEOUL, Korea (Dec. 29, 2021) – LG Display, the world's leading innovator of display technologies, unveiled today its newest OLED TV technology 'OLED.EX'. The next-generation OLED.EX display implements LG Display's deuterium and personalized algorithm-based 'EX Technology,' which helps boost the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.lgdisplay.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The next-generation OLED EX display implements LG Display’s deuterium and personalized algorithm-based ‘EX Technology,’ which helps boost the innovative display’s overall picture quality by *enhancing brightness up to 30 percent compared to conventional OLED displays.*’
> 
> 
> I strongly suspected that LGD kept a lot of the potential performance boost from the move to deuterium blue up their sleeves this year (2021) and the claim of ‘30% increase in brightness’ pretty much confirms that.
> 
> As usual, the devil is in the detail of ‘30% brighter compared to what?’ (or precisely which conventional OLED displays?
> 
> Going back to pre-Evo brightness levels of ~130 cd/m2 full-field and ~650cd/m2 HDR peak, that would suggest that ~170cd/m2 full-field and ~850cd/m2 HDR peak is about the least we should hope for.
> 
> At the other extreme, if we take the C1’s levels of 150-160cd/m2 full-field and 750-800cd/m2 HDR peak, we can hope to finally see levels breaking above ~200cd/m2 full-field and ~1000cd/m2 HDR peak.
> 
> My bet is that LG was keeping cards up their sleeve last year until they saw where Samsung was going with QD-BOLED/COLED and now that it is clear Samsung is bringing something new to market next year, LGD/LGE is pulling out all the stops.
> 
> And just to be clear, assuming LG does deliver 200cd/m2 full-field and 1000cd/m2 HDR peak brightness levels in 2022, that would put them exactly 2 years behind the roadmap they published in 2019:
> 
> View attachment 3216334


Conventional OLED is defined as pre WBE based modules.


----------



## Wizziwig

CliffordinWales said:


> I thought the Evo panel's advantage was in full screen white. Reviewers like AV Forums in the UK said the G series lived up to its "20% brighter" promise full screen, but found the 10% window peak to be more or less the same as the regular panel?
> 
> It does make me wonder what else can be done with WOLED... the game changer would presumably be a high-performance blue emitter, but if that comes along why not switch to RGB OLED anyway?


They did boost full screen brightness *on white test patterns *~20%. The problem is that when you're starting from such a low number, it's really not worth talking about due to how we perceive brightness. You need to double the brightness (post ABL) for it to really matter in anything but side-by-side comparisons. Real content also doesn't benefit to the same extent as test patterns.

At least after 2nd quarter all panels will be the same again and we can stop talking about what flavor of WOLED your model is using.



chozofication said:


> I’ll believe it when I see it!


Some of us have already seen it so belief is not required.


----------



## fafrd

D-Nice said:


> Conventional OLED is defined as pre WBE based modules.


Cool, so that means if WBE was ~+20% versus WBC that EX should deliver a further ~8.3% increase versus the CX/GX.

Do you believe the claims of +30% brightness levels compared to WBC panels is realistic?

By my estimates that should easily mean 170/m2 brightness levels full-field and close to 1000cd/m2 brightness levels for HDR highlights (at least for short-duration bursts).

Do you believe this is finally the year we’ll see WOLED deliver 1000cd/m2 brightness levels for HDR highlights?


----------



## filmoreXXX

All for nothing if they can’t fix near black banding and motion resolution


----------



## Hotobu

I'm torn on whether to route for the new line of TVs being an improvement, so I can get something better, or just being a small incremental increase so I can finally buy my 77". LGEX sounds like mostly marketing fluff accompanied by some tweaks to the algorithm. 

I wish Sony got it's **** together and released a TV with a feature set equal to LG's along with a 77" size so I could go for that, but that's a whole 'nother can o' worms.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> They did boost full screen brightness *on white test patterns *~20%. The problem is that when you're starting from such a low number, it's really not worth talking about due to how we perceive brightness. You need to double the brightness (post ABL) for it to really matter in anything but side-by-side comparisons. Real content also doesn't benefit to the same extent as test patterns.
> 
> At least after 2nd quarter all panels will be the same again and we can stop talking about what flavor of WOLED your model is using.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us have already seen it so belief is not required.


Yeah, EX seems like it is more of a ‘mopping-up’ / consolidation of the Evo panel change across the WOLED lineup rather than anything really ‘new’.

The subpixel designs needed to support both WBC and WBE stacks were suboptimal for either, so just optimizing subpixel dimensions for the WBE stack exclusively will probably deliver the full 8.3% (130%/120%) increase LG is delivering on the 2022 WOLEDs.

Not exactly an earth-shattering development, but coupled with an integrated heatsink, it should get premium WOLEDs up over the 200cd/m2 / 1000cd/m2 hump…


Hotobu said:


> I'm torn on whether to route for the new line of TVs being an improvement, so I can get something better, or just being a small incremental increase so I can finally buy my 77". LGEX sounds like mostly marketing fluff accompanied by some tweaks to the algorithm.
> 
> I wish Sony got it's **** together and released a TV with a feature set equal to LG's along with a 77" size so I could go for that, but that's a whole 'nother can o' worms.


sounds like it’s pretty certain to be a small incremental improvement.

Stack changes cause a sh*tshow like the one we saw in 2020/2021, so consolidation years are actually the safer bet as far as going for an upgrade.

I’ve also been waiting to move up to a 77”, though I’ll also be watching where 83” WOLED prices go next year…


----------



## ttnuagmada

mrtickleuk said:


> Marvellous! Technology wise, all great stuff.
> 
> On the other hand, now as well as "does my oled have an EVO panel" questions posted every 5 minutes, despite EVO being other things, *not just the panel*; we'll get a thousand "is it an EX panel" posts, despite this article confirming that it's *again* *not just the panel*. Along with a bunch of people wrongly thinking that you get an increase in luminance by changing service menu items when you never did; people buying service remotes to check if they've got an EX panel fitted to their late-build of a C1, etc etc! LOL


You most certainly could get a luminance boost by changing modes in the service menu, it's just that there was a whole 2 weeks between it being discovered and LG mostly fixing it with firmware. Even now it still gives a 5% boost to 2% windows. Not saying it was ever a good idea, but it was 100% something that worked.


----------



## yobbo

Would brighter mean more prone to burn in?

I've had burn in with an LG and Sony OLED.


----------



## helvetica bold

It appears that the tech media has picked up the LG OLED EX news in the past 24hrs. We know Sony is going to use Samsung's new OLED panel but what are the chances Sony will also use LG's EX panel in some models?


----------



## Davenlr

helvetica bold said:


> It appears that the tech media has picked up the LG OLED EX news in the past 24hrs. We know Sony is going to use Samsung's new OLED panel but what are the chances Sony will also use LG's EX panel in some models?


Well, Sony would only have 55 and 65" if they only used Samsung, since QD-Display maxes out at 65", so I suspect Sony will use LGD for 77, 83 and 9x


----------



## Hotobu

Davenlr said:


> Well, Sony would only have 55 and 65" if they only used Samsung, since QD-Display maxes out at 65", so I suspect Sony will use LGD for 77, 83 and 9x


But that's only IF they make a 77" model. Any idea why they didn't this year?


----------



## Jin-X

If Sony does end up making some QD-OLEDs that’s a completely different product line than their current OLED tvs. Samsung’s panels are far more expensive with a very limited capacity and only available in limited sizes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Davenlr

Hotobu said:


> But that's only IF they make a 77" model. Any idea why they didn't this year?


They did, I bought one. XR77A80J


----------



## tonydeluce

Sony will have a series with only 55 inch and 65 inch (Samsung panels) and then one or two step down models with LG panels...


----------



## Davenlr

Im not sure I would call 77 and 83" OLEDS step downs, especially if they put the heat sink in the 77 next year, and what about the 90+ inch, LG the only one that is going to have one, or will Sony buy some panels too?
As far as I know, the A80J is their best selling OLED TV right now.


----------



## Hotobu

Davenlr said:


> They did, I bought one. XR77A80J


I guess I was thinking about the A90J


----------



## tonydeluce

Davenlr said:


> Im not sure I would call 77 and 83" OLEDS step downs, especially if they put the heat sink in the 77 next year, and what about the 90+ inch, LG the only one that is going to have one, or will Sony buy some panels too?
> As far as I know, the A80J is their best selling OLED TV right now.


LOL, if I am calling my A90J a step down model then yes your A80J is even more of a step down model  Size is a completely different consideration. 

They may put a heat sink in the Samsung panel models as well - we will soon find out.

Not sure why people do not want to see real advancements and continue to cling onto their prior purchase decisions..


----------



## Davenlr

I am all for advancement, but at the price it is rumored to be, without solving any of the real issues of the format, I would call it a parallel development. Now, if it can hit 1500 nits, and not burn in, that would be an advancement.


----------



## CA22EF

"EX Panel" is a trademark.








OLED EX - Lg Display Co., Ltd. Trademark Registration


Trademark registration by Lg Display Co., Ltd. for the trademark OLED EX.




uspto.report




I don't think any manufacturer other than LG will use the term.

Sony has adopted the original module for A90J.
We have a track record of releasing panels with features similar to Evo.
It may be possible that the next one will follow the same path.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Davenlr said:


> Now, if it can hit 1500 nits, and not burn in, that would be an advancement.


Personally I don't care at all whether the peak brightness is 700, 1000 or 1500 nits.
What I would like to see all the focus on, and all the publicity, and all the discussions, and all the industry articles on, is

near-black performance,
addressing the _near-black chroma overshoot_ *in the hardware* (which has been present in hardware since the 2018 panels and only ever "worked around" with firmware dithering),
better mura correction, and
better gamut coverage.
Instead all the fuss is about peak brightness! For me peak brightness is nice sure *but far less important than those other things*. They are distracting us all with that one thing, and it looks like it's working .

So, I wouldn't be able to fight against the tsunami of "ooo, peak brightness" excitement - but I have a glimmer of hope that the recent patent from LG will address the near-black chroma overshoot in the 2022 panels. My thanks go out to any journalist who asks about *that*, and print the answers, instead of bloody peak brightness all the time.


----------



## Adonisds

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1476522501513617408


----------



## Jin-X

mrtickleuk said:


> Personally I don't care at all whether the peak brightness is 700, 1000 or 1500 nits.
> What I would like to see all the focus on, and all the publicity, and all the industry articles on, is
> 
> near-black performance,
> addressing the _near-black chroma overshoot_ *in the hardware* (which has been present in hardware since the 2018 panels and only ever "worked around" with firmware dithering),
> better mura correction, and
> better gamut coverage.
> Instead all the fuss is about peak brightness! For me peak brightness is nice sure *but far less important than those other things*. They are distracting us all with that one thing, and it looks like it's working .
> 
> So, I wouldn't be able to fight against the tsunami of "ooo, peak brightness" excitement - but I have a glimmer of hope that the recent patent from LG will address the near-black chroma overshoot in the 2022 panels. My thanks go out to any journalist who asks about *that *instead of bloody peak brightness all the time.


I’ll add the VRR near black issue in there as well, we’ll see if they addressed that as well.

On better gamut coverage, not only should they be aiming for the goals in some of those old slides of 90% Rec 2020, but to use the efficiency gains on the panel to retain more saturation the higher the brightness, with a mid to long term goal of achieving enough efficiency and gamut improvements to hit 1000nits on a 25% window at above 90% Rec 2020 while maintaining near full saturation aka try and get as close as possible to reference for =

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

D-Nice said:


> Conventional OLED is defined as pre WBE based modules.


I went back to Vincent Toh’s GX versus G1 review and here is what he measured and what it translates to as far as increasing the WBC-based brightness levels of the G1/C1 by 30%:

GX 130cd/m2 full-field 650cd/m2 @ 10% HDR
G1 160cd/m2 full-field 790cd/m2 @ 10% HDR
G2 170cd/m2 full-field 850cd/m2 @ 10% HDR

This is calibrated to D65 and it’s likely that higher peak levels will be possible with an AWP…


----------



## Fabio Zanellato

Erste Bilder der LG C2 OLED TVs mit 42 Zoll und neuem Display aufgetaucht


Die ersten Bilder der 2022 LG 4K OLED TVs der C2-Serie offenbaren das neue 42 Zoll-Modell und den Einsatz der OLED-EX-Displays!




www.4kfilme.de


----------



## 59LIHP

Fabio Zanellato said:


> Erste Bilder der LG C2 OLED TVs mit 42 Zoll und neuem Display aufgetaucht
> 
> 
> Die ersten Bilder der 2022 LG 4K OLED TVs der C2-Serie offenbaren das neue 42 Zoll-Modell und den Einsatz der OLED-EX-Displays!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.4kfilme.de











News: Displays and Their Technologies


New LG OLEDs For 2022 Promise 30% More Brightness https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2021/12/29/new-lg-oleds-for-2022-promise-30-more-brightness/?sh=241d98aa49dd




www.avsforum.com


----------



## mrtickleuk

fafrd said:


> I went back to Vincent Rig’s


Who?


----------



## renny402181

This was linked in another thread, but I haven’t seen anyone comment directly:
OLED.EX | All About OLED | All About OLED
It’s an official official LG website and states the EX panels will have “an enhanced brightness of 1300 nits” with a * indicating “max brightness (full white)”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t this represent a more sizable increase than posters in this thread have been theorizing? How that value was measured isn’t stated, but it would appear to significantly outclass published results for any of the heatsink-equipped 2021 sets - even with a 2% window.


----------



## tonydeluce

renny402181 said:


> This was linked in another thread, but I haven’t seen anyone comment directly:
> OLED.EX | All About OLED | All About OLED
> It’s an official official LG website and states the EX panels will have “an enhanced brightness of 1300 nits” with a * indicating “max brightness (full white)”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t this represent a more sizable increase than posters in this thread have been theorizing? How that value was measured isn’t stated, but it would appear to significantly outclass published results for any of the heatsink-equipped 2021 sets - even with a 2% window.


The Sony A90J already achieves "1300 NITs" in VIVID mode ( I believe with a 10% window ). And not sure anyone would want to look at full field brightness of 1300 NITs ( or look at any set in VIVID mode for critical viewing ;-)

It appears that this year will be an "evolutionary" rather than a "revolutionary" upgrade cycle...


----------



## renny402181

tonydeluce said:


> The Sony A90J already achieves "1300 NITs" in VIVID mode ( I believe with a 10% window ). And not sure anyone would want to look at full field brightness of 1300 NITs ( or look at any set in VIVID mode for critical viewing ;-)
> 
> It appears that this year will be an "evolutionary" rather than a "revolutionary" upgrade cycle...


That was a non-sustained measurement. After a couple seconds it drops to around 800. I might be wrong, but I sincerely doubt LG would advertise a value obtained under those circumstances. Seems like a good way to run afoul of the FCC.


----------



## tonydeluce

renny402181 said:


> That was a non-sustained measurement. After a couple seconds it drops to around 800. I might be wrong, but I sincerely doubt LG would advertise a value obtained under those circumstances. Seems like a good way to run afoul of the FCC.


Actually, after a few seconds I believe jrref measured it ramping up a bit higher. You may be thinking of the _calibrated_ hdr mode which did settle to around 800 NITs after a period of time.

And I bet any amount of money you like that you are dead wrong. But anyway, keep dreaming - someday your dream will come true - just not going to be this year...


----------



## chozofication

renny402181 said:


> This was linked in another thread, but I haven’t seen anyone comment directly:
> OLED.EX | All About OLED | All About OLED
> It’s an official official LG website and states the EX panels will have “an enhanced brightness of 1300 nits” with a * indicating “max brightness (full white)”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t this represent a more sizable increase than posters in this thread have been theorizing? How that value was measured isn’t stated, but it would appear to significantly outclass published results for any of the heatsink-equipped 2021 sets - even with a 2% window.


Vivid mode on 2 to 10% window most likely.


----------



## RichB

This far, it looks like LG is moving WBE (Evo) panels to the entire line. There will like be processor improvement, perhaps they will add something akin to the Sony perceptual sharpening (gamma or whatever the secret sauce is), or at least advertise improvements.

- Rich


----------



## Davenlr

Guess the 77A80J was a good choice


----------



## fafrd

mrtickleuk said:


> Who?


How my spellchecker decided to morph ‘Toh’ into ‘Rig’ I’ll never know….


----------



## renny402181

tonydeluce said:


> Actually, after a few seconds I believe jrref measured it ramping up a bit higher. You may be thinking of the _calibrated_ hdr mode which did settle to around 800 NITs after a period of time.
> 
> And I bet any amount of money you like that you are dead wrong. But anyway, keep dreaming - someday your dream will come true - just not going to be this year...


I’m definitely not getting my hopes up; I just found it surprising they would advertise that number. CNET’s review of the G1 reported an HDR peak luminance of 769 in vivid mode with a 10% window. He even mentioned that he confirmed with LG that it was a representative measurement. Anyways, I guess we’ll see soon enough.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> I went back to Vincent Toh’s GX versus G1 review and here is what he measured and what it translates to as far as increasing the WBC-based brightness levels of the G1/C1 by 30%:
> 
> GX 130cd/m2 full-field 650cd/m2 @ 10% HDR
> G1 160cd/m2 full-field 790cd/m2 @ 10% HDR
> G2 170cd/m2 full-field 850cd/m2 @ 10% HDR
> 
> This is calibrated to D65 and it’s likely that higher peak levels will be possible with an AWP…


Problem is that none of this manifests in actual content improvements that match those figures. It's getting really tiresome to see all TV manufacturers (LCD and OLED) game this stupid 10% white window metric year after year. Even worse when most of the "professional" reviewers never call them out on it.

Get yourself a cheap portable luminance meter from Amazon and a flash drive with HDR scenes from various 4000 nit graded content. Not that difficult to find scenes with bright areas large enough for a meter to measure that are still well below 10% screen area. You will not measure anywhere near the 20% improvement (or peak values) suggested by those test patterns. Nobody watches white squares on a black background. So then what's the point in measuring them for anything but calibration purposes?

I've taken real-content measurements of many different consumer HDR TVs and found them all really disappointing. Some models that measure 2000+ nits on test patterns can't even match the results I see from much dimmer reference monitors. I'm not alone in this as rtings.com, hdtvpolska, and a few others who measure real content report the same thing. It was also evident to those who had a chance to watch a 1000-nit capped monitor next to supposedly much brighter TVs at the last hdtv shootout.


----------



## fafrd

renny402181 said:


> I’m definitely not getting my hopes up; I just found it surprising they would advertise that number. CNET’s review of the G1 reported an HDR peak luminance of 769 in vivid mode with a 10% window. He even mentioned that he confirmed with LG that it was a representative measurement. Anyways, I guess we’ll see soon enough.


I’m guessing 2022 will just deliver 2021/WBE/3S4C/Evo-capability cleaned up and ready for prime-time.

But to be fair, for those of us coming from older 3S3C/WBC panels (like me with my 65C6), it is a solid +30% increase in peak brightness levels across the board (along with some improvement in color gamut, especially for green).

And more importantly, there are probably not going to be any further significant improvements to stack / brightness /efficiency until ~2024 or 2025 (high-efficiency Blue).

So 2022 may be a good year for an upgrade from early-generation WOLEDs. (though I’ll be waiting to see whether LGD has finally put the luminance overshoot issue to bed, at least matching the non-issue visible on content on my 2016-vintage WOLED).


----------



## 8mile13

Digital Trend just posted a video in which they stated that they believe QD OLED probably will be the show stealer at CES 2022.


----------



## Moravid

Digital Trend didn't get the memo...


----------



## chozofication

8mile13 said:


> Digital Trend just posted a video in which they stated that they believe QD OLED probably will be the show stealer at CES 2022.


To be fair how can it not be? Unless Sony brings the mini led high nit goodness… ok i’ll stop with that


----------



## Thebarnman

8mile13 said:


> Digital Trend just posted a video in which they stated that they believe QD OLED probably will be the show stealer at CES 2022.


Sounds about right. What I'm really interested in is how much coverage (in percent) of DCI-P3 and Rec. 2020 will the new display show?


----------



## ssj3rd

8mile13 said:


> Digital Trend just posted a video in which they stated that they believe QD OLED probably will be the show stealer at CES 2022.


How can that be, if the QD-OLEDs won’t be on the CES 2022? 








[단독] 삼성, CES 2022서 QD-OLED TV 공개 안하기로


삼성전자가 CES 2022에서 첫 OLED 기반 TV인 QD디스플레이(QD-OLED) TV를 공개하지 않는 것으로 확인됐다. QD-OLED TV..



it.chosun.com


----------



## mrtickleuk

Thebarnman said:


> Sounds about right. What I'm really interested in is how much coverage (in percent) of DCI-P3 and Rec. 2020 will the new display show?


Me too, and the near-black issues I mentioned the other day. I bet they don't mention these things though, or if they do only through gritted teeth. Seems that they've all descended into brightness wars, which is very sad to see.


----------



## 8mile13

ssj3rd said:


> How can that be, if the QD-OLEDs won’t be on the CES 2022?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [단독] 삼성, CES 2022서 QD-OLED TV 공개 안하기로
> 
> 
> 삼성전자가 CES 2022에서 첫 OLED 기반 TV인 QD디스플레이(QD-OLED) TV를 공개하지 않는 것으로 확인됐다. QD-OLED TV..
> 
> 
> 
> it.chosun.com


What the Samsung official is saying is unclear "I'm not going to tell you what I'm talking about," (??)

latest news
''Recently, according to upstream and downstream industry chain information, Samsung Display's (SDC) QDOLED panel will be mass-produced in November at the earliest in the fourth quarter. TVs based on QD OLED panels will be released at CES in 2022.''


----------



## 8mile13

It is stated that Sony and Samsung will get the first batch of QD OLED. There is always a chance that Sony will demo a QD OLED at CES. I am pretty sure Samsung will not let that happen. They will be the first that demo a QD OLED which is the unfinished product they will sell.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> It is stated that Sony and Samsung will get the first batch of QD OLED. There is always a chance that Sony will demo a QD OLED at CES. *I am pretty sure Samsung will not let that happen. *They will be the first that demo a QD OLED which is the unfinished product they will sell.


Uhh, except Samsung Electronics is only selling QD-OLED TVs as a favor to Samsung Display, actually a quid-pro-quo for Samsung Display agreeing to manufacture low-cost substrates for MicroLED backplanes.

Samsung Electronics is not a believer in QD-OLED and will hold Samsung Display’s feet to the fire in terms of delivering agreed-upon specs including yields and production levels before actually launching any product to the market.

Sony, assuming it is true that they have developed a QD-OLED TV, represents the only open-market endorsement of the QD-OLED technology unfettered by corporate politics.

So I can easily see Samsung Electronics balk at making a lot of noise about QD-OLED at CES while Samsung Display cheers on Sony to make as big of a splash as possible.

Remember, Samsung Display is relegated to private suites in the back where they are only allowed to give demonstrations of new panel offerings under Embargo / NDA.

CES is Samsung Electronics show to use as they see fit (for the Samsung Group) and if they do, in fact, hold off on any public demonstration or announcement regarding QD-OLED TVs, it suggests they still have serious doubts about whether the technology is ready for prime-time and it has not yet earned their full-throated endorsement…

Samsung Electronics has absolutely no say in what the Sony Corporation demonstrates or makes noise about at CES.


----------



## chros73

fafrd said:


> I’m guessing 2022 will just deliver 2021/WBE/3S4C/Evo-capability cleaned up and ready for prime-time.
> 
> But to be fair, for those of us coming from older 3S3C/WBC panels (like me with my 65C6), it is a solid +30% increase in peak brightness levels across the board (along with some improvement in color gamut, especially for green).
> 
> And more importantly, there are probably not going to be any further significant improvements to stack / brightness /efficiency until ~2024 or 2025 (high-efficiency Blue).
> 
> So 2022 may be a good year for an upgrade from early-generation WOLEDs. (though I’ll be waiting to see whether LGD has finally put the luminance overshoot issue to bed, at least matching the non-issue visible on content on my 2016-vintage WOLED).


That's a good point, I feel the same wirh my B8!  
And I don't even care about increased brightness/gamut coverage/etc. All I need is a nice, clean, proper image with all formats and the ability to disable most of the bloody ABL algos  
E.g. 2018 models have serious issues with HDR10 (internal bt2020 3dlut processing bug, allegedly 2019 models too), PC mode is basically unuseable with HDR10, there's no true black in DoVi modes, just to mention a few  And we haven't talked about panel lottery yet. 
Interestingly, I'm not bothered by chrominance overshoot.


----------



## fafrd

chros73 said:


> That's a good point, I feel the same wirh my B8!
> And I don't even care about increased brightness/gamut coverage/etc. All I need is a nice, clean, proper image with all formats and the ability to disable most of the bloody ABL algos
> E.g. 2018 models have serious issues with HDR10 (internal bt2020 3dlut processing bug, allegedly 2019 models too), PC mode is basically unuseable with HDR10, there's no true black in DoVi modes, just to mention a few  And we haven't talked about panel lottery yet.
> Interestingly, I'm not bothered by chrominance overshoot.


When I bought my C6, my logic was that I’m getting a ‘perfect’ TV for SDR with some bleeding-edge capability for this new emerging format called HDR.

2022 could finally be year that LGE/WOLED delivers a ‘perfect TV’ for HDR (at least as far as HDR implementation and within the brightness/gamut limits of 3S4C OLED).

My C6 doesn’t suffer from luminance overshoot (though near-black linearity was poor) so that’s the one ‘new’ PQ defect that I’m probably most concerned about.

And then there is always the panel lottery - my near-black uniformity is about as good as the best WOLEDs I’ve seen.

So I’m any case, I’ll be waiting until late next year monitoring early owner threads to understand whether LGD has finally found a way to deliver improvements in panel-to-panel variation as far as near-black uniformity or at least has hopefully not taken another step backwards.

Then there is the whole ‘structured grid’ / ‘Venetian blind’ near-white DSE which does’t get talked about much anymore, so hopefully that prices to have been a false alarm.


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> Uhh, except Samsung Electronics is only selling QD-OLED TVs as a favor to Samsung Display, actually a quid-pro-quo for Samsung Display agreeing to manufacture low-cost substrates for MicroLED backplanes.
> 
> Samsung Electronics is not a believer in QD-OLED and will hold Samsung Display’s feet to the fire in terms of delivering agreed-upon specs including yields and production levels before actually launching any product to the market.
> 
> Sony, assuming it is true that they have developed a QD-OLED TV, represents the only open-market endorsement of the QD-OLED technology unfettered by corporate politics.
> 
> So I can easily see Samsung Electronics balk at making a lot of noise about QD-OLED at CES while Samsung Display cheers on Sony to make as big of a splash as possible.
> 
> Remember, Samsung Display is relegated to private suites in the back where they are only allowed to give demonstrations of new panel offerings under Embargo / NDA.
> 
> CES is Samsung Electronics show to use as they see fit (for the Samsung Group) and if they do, in fact, hold off on any public demonstration or announcement regarding QD-OLED TVs, it suggests they still have serious doubts about whether the technology is ready for prime-time and it has not yet earned their full-throated endorsement…
> 
> Samsung Electronics has absolutely no say in what the Sony Corporation demonstrates or makes noise about at CES.


 As i understand it because of the QD OLED problems they buy lots LG OLED panel stuff for the time being till the QD OLED issues are dissolved. Aside from that they want a piece of the OLED cake desperately so they have no choice but invest in QD OLED even having a few doubts (keep in mind the 2013 Samsung OLED and the statement afterwards in which they spoke about doing everything they could to put their own OLED on the market but it did not work out). They will try hard to make QD OLED work.

Samsung Display did demo QD OLED prototypes behind closed doors last year. I guess someone will demo the unfinished consumer product at CES 2022 likely Samsung Electronics. Samsung Display could simply choose to give that product to Sony somewhat later (as a favor to Samsung Electronics..) so Samsung Electronics can do the first demo. btw there is this 2022 Sony lineup rumour floating on the net which calls the Sony QD OLED stuff A95K series which would be the first confirmation of a QD OLED consumer product.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> As i understand it because of the QD OLED problems they buy lots LG OLED panel stuff for the time being till the QD OLED issues are dissolved.


These rumors have been floating around all (last) year, so we’ll just need to see what fire materializes from the smoke.

But Samsung faces a big problem in shutting down their LCD panel production, and it seems likely that they have made the rational decision to spread the risk between LGD WOLED, LGD IPS LCD and Chinese VA LCD rather than find themselves 100% dependent on Chinese suppliers…



> Aside from that they want a piece of the OLED cake desperately so they have no choice but invest in QD OLED even having a few doubts (keep in mind the 2013 Samsung OLED and the statement afterwards in which they spoke about doing everything they could to put their own OLED on the market but it did not work out). They will try hard to make QD OLED work.


Samsung Electronics does not believe in QD-OLED and never has. They believe in MicroLED and they believe in Quantum Nanorods (QNED).

They are advocating for Samsung Display to accelerate the development of QNED and to hold off on converting the remaining LCD fans to next-generation flat-panel display technology until they can be converted to QNED directly.

The entire QD-OLED initiative is a placeholder and a way to buy another year or two in giving the appearance of being an innovator in display technology while working feverishly to accelerate MicroLED (and pushing Samsung Display to accelerate QNED).

My guess is that they have been forced to accept some significant compromises on performance but will now stand firm in forcing Samsung Display to deliver what has been promised (primarily in terms of brightness & lifetime).

The fact Sony is seemingly moving forward suggest those performance criteria may now be sufficient, but Samsung Display also has inside information on production yield and manufacturing capacity, and my suspicion is that they will hold off on launching a QD-OLED product to market until Samsung Display has improved manufacturing yields to agreed-upon levels.

While Sony first will be a much lower-volume customer (so easier to satisfy with prototype / pilot-line production levels), second has no visibility on manufacturing volumes, and third, won’t care nearly as much as Samsung Electronics if the technology never really takes off and is only a 1-year niche product before getting replaced with something better in a year or two.



> Samsung Display did demo QD OLED prototypes behind closed doors last year. I guess someone will demo the unfinished consumer product at CES 2022 likely Samsung Electronics. *Samsung Display could simply choose to give that product to Sony somewhat later (as a favor to Samsung Electronics..) so Samsung Electronics can do the first demo. *
> I’m absolutely certain that’s not going to happen. First, Samsung Display ‘gave’ QD-OLED panels to Sony starting last summer and is no doubt delivering additional panels every month since then.
> 
> And second, Sony is an important-enough customer that they would never, ever accept to enter into a supply agreement with Samsung Display where their freedom to demo and announce their new product plus be controlled/dictated by Samsung Electeibics or the Samsung Group.
> 
> If anything, they have the leverage to get first demonstration rights on the new technology so that Samsung Electronics cannot publicly demonstrate QD-OLED until Sony has first (and exclusively) done so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw there is this 2022 Sony lineup rumour floating on the net which calls the Sony QD OLED stuff A95K series which would be the first confirmation of a QD OLED consumer product.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it’s a the rumor stage for another week - curious to see what Sony demos/announced at CES…
Click to expand...


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> These rumors have been floating around all (last) year, so we’ll just need to see what fire materializes from the smoke.
> 
> But Samsung faces a big problem in shutting down their LCD panel production, and it seems likely that they have made the rational decision to spread the risk between LGD WOLED, LGD IPS LCD and Chinese VA LCD rather than find themselves 100% dependent on Chinese suppliers…
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics does not believe in QD-OLED and never has. They believe in MicroLED and they believe in Quantum Nanorods (QNED).
> 
> They are advocating for Samsung Display to accelerate the development of QNED and to hold off on converting the remaining LCD fans to next-generation flat-panel display technology until they can be converted to QNED directly.
> 
> The entire QD-OLED initiative is a placeholder and a way to buy another year or two in giving the appearance of being an innovator in display technology while working feverishly to accelerate MicroLED (and pushing Samsung Display to accelerate QNED).
> 
> My guess is that they have been forced to accept some significant compromises on performance but will now stand firm in forcing Samsung Display to deliver what has been promised (primarily in terms of brightness & lifetime).
> 
> The fact Sony is seemingly moving forward suggest those performance criteria may now be sufficient, but Samsung Display also has inside information on production yield and manufacturing capacity, and my suspicion is that they will hold off on launching a QD-OLED product to market until Samsung Display has improved manufacturing yields to agreed-upon levels.
> 
> While Sony first will be a much lower-volume customer (so easier to satisfy with prototype / pilot-line production levels), second has no visibility on manufacturing volumes, and third, won’t care nearly as much as Samsung Electronics if the technology never really takes off and is only a 1-year niche product before getting replaced with something better in a year or two.


As i understand it, article after article confirms this, Samsung wants to buy a lot of LG OLED panels, LG and Samsung are negotiating. Not shure when this will end and when we will see Samsung OLED TVs using a LG OLED panel, i am confident it will happen.. The Samsung QD OLED will likely hit the market end of the year.

From what i read i conclude that QD OLED isues will be countered by buying LG OLED panels for the time being. Few years from now when QNED is ready for mass production it will become more important than QD OLED but QD OLED will still be for sale for years to come the reason for that being that there is to much money put in its development to let it go that easily. Maybe when sales are disappointing year after year QD OLED will end within 5 years from now.

QNED launch depends on progress of QD OLED production line, since QNED will make use of a modified QD OLED production line, as well as QNED manufacturing costs. All that is not clear at this point so it could delay QNED for a few years...with everthing going as planned QNED thing will start in 2025 at a high price. ''a year or two'' that is just not going to happen. MicroLED is only in reach for the rich and that will stay that way for years to come..

My guess is that Sony is at least partly interested in QD OLED because of QNED.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> As i understand it, article after article confirms this, Samsung wants to buy a lot of LG OLED panels, LG and Samsung are negotiating. Not shure when this will end and when we will see Samsung OLED TVs using a LG OLED panel, i am confident it will happen.. The Samsung QD OLED will likely hit the market end of the year.


The key fact to focus on is Samsung ending TV LCD panel production. Until they have definitively cut that cord, anything can happen.

But once they make the decision to end LCD TV panel production they have a big problem - where to get enough TV panels to fuel their #1 share of the TV market?

They would like to have something new lined up such as QD-OLED to transition 8.5G LCD fabs to through a painful year or two (which is the fab transition plan Samsung Display has proposed). But Samsung Electronics is hesitant to allow that major investment in manufacturing to be made before the new technology has proven itself on the market and all remaining technical challenges including lifetime @ target brightness have been resolved.

So escaping this ‘chicken-and-egg’ trap they find themselves in by spreading the supply risk among a few different technologies including WOLED and a few different suppliers including LGD makes a great deal of sense for Samsung Electronics…



> From what i read i conclude that QD OLED isues will be countered by buying LG OLED panels for the time being.


I don’t see Samsung’s decision to launch WOLED TVs to have any impact on their ability to deal with Samsung Display’s hiccups/challenges bringing up QD-OLED except it puts them in a much better negotiating position to stick to their guns and not launch a QD-OLED TV before Samsung Display has delivered on 100% of what was agreed-upon (as well as reducing supply risk, as already mentioned).



> Few years from now when QNED is ready for mass production it will become more important than QD OLED but QD OLED will still be for sale for years to come *the reason for that being that there is to much money put in its development to let it go that easily. *


I suspect Samsung Electronics does not give a hoot about how much money Samsung Display has ‘wasted’ developing QD-OLED. Any investments made in R&D and even pilot production pale in comparison to the investments made in converting full 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED production.

So my advise is to track the capital investment decisions Samsung Group makes and announcements to see the best Tea Leaves to indicate where this QD-OLED initiative is headed…



> Maybe when sales are disappointing year after year QD OLED will end within 5 years from now.


They can keep selling pilot production for as long as they have any interest to do so. It is the ramping-up of the remaining 2-3 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED production which will indicate when Samsung Group has committed to industrialize and promote the technology for the kind of time horizon you are speaking of.



> QNED launch depends on progress of QD OLED production line, since *QNED will make use of a modified QD OLED production line*, as well as QNED manufacturing costs. All that is not clear at this point so it could delay QNED for a few years...with everthing going as planned QNED thing will start in 2025 at a high price. ''a year or two'' that is just not going to happen. MicroLED is only in reach for the rich and that will stay that way for years to come..


I’m pretty sure that the only real synergy / recycling of technology between QD-OLED and QNED is the QDCF. The major capital investments in OLED deposition equipment will be completely wasted. The entire story about QD-OLED ‘paving the way’ for QNED production is a narrative promoted by Samsung Display to convince the Group to move forward with capital investment plan to convert all 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED production.

We have no idea of what the real maturity of the QNED technology nor how long it will take to be ready for production. The two things we can be relatively confident of are that as long as Samsung holds off on converting the remaining fabs to QD-OLED production it means that either there remain unsolved problems with QD-OLED or the timeline to industrialize QNED appears similar to they’re timeline to resolve the remaining challanges associated with QD-OLED (or both).



> My guess is that Sony is at least partly interested in QD OLED because of QNED.


Now that they no longer produce any panel technology themselves, Sony will always be interested in any promising new display technology on the horizon. I doubt they would decide to launch a TV based on a technology they did not believe in because they saw that as a necessary investment / ante needed to get first dibs on the ‘good stuff’ they believed was in the pipeline.

My feeling is that if Sony has in fact developed a QD-OLED TV they plan to sell this year, it is a strong endorsement of the technology in its current form delivering a noticeably superior picture quality in some important PQ aspect (likely color gamut).


----------



## samuel1983

Jin-X said:


> I’ll add the VRR near black issue in there as well, we’ll see if they addressed that as well.
> 
> On better gamut coverage, not only should they be aiming for the goals in some of those old slides of *90% Rec 2020*, but to use the efficiency gains on the panel to retain more saturation the higher the brightness, with a mid to long term goal of achieving enough efficiency and gamut improvements to hit 1000nits on a 25% window at above *90% Rec 2020* while maintaining near full saturation aka try and get as close as possible to reference for =
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


90% Rec.2020 is still some ways off for consumer displays, but the more relevant question presently is why do you want it when there isn't content to support it? As the situation stands presently, majority of HDR content is just DCI-P3 colors inside a BT.2020 Container. And there are also HDR movies, tv shows especially on streaming that don't even make use of the complete 100% DCI-P3 colorspace. So 90% BT. 2020 is wasted when the content creators are as lazy as they are.
It's kind of a similar argument with respect to 12 bit panels too. Some people say they want 12 bit panels. But what's the use when apart from FEL Dolby Vision 4K Blu Rays, there isn't content out there to support 12 bit?


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> I don’t see Samsung’s decision to launch WOLED TVs to have any impact on their ability to deal with Samsung Display’s hiccups/challenges bringing up QD-OLED except it puts them in a much better negotiating position to stick to their guns and not launch a QD-OLED TV before Samsung Display has delivered on 100% of what was agreed-upon (as well as reducing supply risk, as already mentioned).


Well..it has to do with Samsung wanting to offer lots of OLED TV stuff as soon as possible. As long as QD OLED production is limited they compensate that with buying LG OLED panels.


fafrd said:


> I suspect Samsung Electronics does not give a hoot about how much money Samsung Display has ‘wasted’ developing QD-OLED. Any investments made in R&D and even pilot production pale in comparison to the investments made in converting full 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED production.


So aside from developing QD OLED converting LCD fabs to QD OLED production costs a lot of money. The high price of consumer QD OLED for next few years which will make QD OLED a hard sell also. And you think they will dump QD OLED after a few years anyway..throwing away the expensive OLED deposition tool also. (once QNED starts mass production which will be 2025-2027)? If that would be the case would it not be smarter to just skip QD OLED, buy LG OLED panels and prepare QNED for mass production instead of basically throwing away all that money?


fafrd said:


> I’m pretty sure that the only real synergy / recycling of technology between QD-OLED and QNED is the QDCF. The major capital investments in OLED deposition equipment will be completely wasted. The entire story about QD-OLED ‘paving the way’ for QNED production is a narrative promoted by Samsung Display to convince the Group to move forward with capital investment plan to convert all 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED production.


It is stated that
''Since the GaN Nanorod LEDs will emit in the blue light wavelength, Quantum Dots will still be required for red and green pixels using a colour conversion process. Thus, the overall QNED layer structure will include the backplane - which can be manufactured using existing QD-OLED techniques and equipment - a layer of blue GaN Nanorod LEDs and a layer for colour conversion. ''

Regarding production proces QNED ''the removal of OLED deposition eliminates the most expensive production tool as well as removing costs associated with OLED materials.'' with being unclear the costs of process steps involved in fabricating and integrating the Nanorods.


fafrd said:


> We have no idea of what the real maturity of the QNED technology nor how long it will take to be ready for production. The two things we can be relatively confident of are that as long as Samsung holds off on converting the remaining fabs to QD-OLED production it means that either there remain unsolved problems with QD-OLED or the timeline to industrialize QNED appears similar to they’re timeline to resolve the remaining challanges associated with QD-OLED (or both).


August news stated that Samsung is close to wrapping up QNED development ''The next step will be to produce prototypes and send these to customers for testing. It will then need to iron out kinks in the design.'' Doesn't that mean that there are just a few chalenges left aside from mass production chalenges?
Samsung Display close to wrapping up QNED development (hdtvtest.co.uk)[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]


----------



## JasonHa

There were years of hype for SED TVs, including prototypes at multiple trade shows. I'll believe new technology when it makes it to the production stage.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> Well..it has to do with Samsung wanting to offer lots of OLED TV stuff as soon as possible. As long as QD OLED production is limited they compensate that with buying LG OLED panels.


I honestly can’t tell if you are disagreeing with me or just using different language to support the same arguments:



> So aside from developing QD OLED converting LCD fabs to *QD OLED production costs a lot of money. *The high price of consumer QD OLED for next few years which will make QD OLED a hard sell also. *And you think they will dump QD OLED after a few years anyway..throwing away the expensive OLED deposition tool also.*


No, and that is precisely the point. Once 
Samsung has invested in converting all of their fabs to QD-OLED manufacturing (and purchased all those expensive OLED deposition machines), that is almost certainly going to result in a delay to any mass production of QNED.

But that investment decision has not yet been made…



> (once QNED starts mass production which will be 2025-2027)? If that would be the case *would it not be smarter to just skip QD OLED, buy LG OLED panels and prepare QNED for mass production instead of basically throwing away all that money?*


Yes, precisely. That is exactly the argument Samsung Electronics has been making for several years now. Wiser to limit QD-OLED to the one 8.5G fab that has been converted but hold off converting the other 8.5G fabs to QD-OLED in the hopes they can instead be converted directly to QNED.



> It is stated that
> ''Since the GaN Nanorod LEDs will emit in the blue light wavelength, Quantum Dots will still be required for red and green pixels using a colour conversion process. Thus, the overall QNED layer structure will include the backplane - which can be manufactured using existing QD-OLED techniques and equipment - a layer of blue GaN Nanorod LEDs and a layer for colour conversion. ''
> 
> Regarding production proces QNED ''*the removal of OLED deposition eliminates the most expensive production tool* as well as removing costs associated with OLED materials.'' with being unclear the costs of process steps involved in fabricating and integrating the Nanorods.


It’s precisely the investment decisions in those expensive QD-OLED-only deposition tools that I’m suggesting is the ball to keep our eye on in terms of forecasting where this QD-OLED initiative is going. At the moment, only a single OLED deposition machine deployed in a single QD-OLED pilot line has been purchased…



> August news stated that Samsung is close to wrapping up QNED development ''*The next step will be to produce prototypes and send these to customers for testing*. It will then need to iron out kinks in the design.'' *Doesn't that mean that there are just a few chalenges left aside from mass production chalenges?*
> Samsung Display close to wrapping up QNED development (hdtvtest.co.uk)


If they are truly able to get samples out to customers before year’s end, it means QNED is literally on the heels of QD-OLED as far as maturity.

The ‘final’ / acceptable customer samples of QD-OLED only went out to customers last June!

Will QNED require the same 3-generations of samples before delivering acceptable performance? Probably not.

Because of the lack of High-Efficiency Blue, QD-OLED (or actually QD-COLED because of the likely addition of the green layer) has been a hack since the start. The challenge was not on how to manufacture it but how to get it to deliver acceptable performance.

The challenges with QNED will be primarily surrounding manufacturability but performance should be what QD-OLED was originally intended to deliver right out of the gate…

So my guess is if QNED customers samples come out before year’s end, Samsung continues to delay conversion of any other 8.5G fabs to QD-OLED…


----------



## 8mile13

"Samsung's Vice Chairman Han Jong-hee, who oversees TVs and mobile phone businesses, will specify its updated strategies and plans regarding the OLED TV business to top retailers and buyers on the sidelines of his participation in Las Vegas tech fair,"

The latest news i found=
''clarification provided by the site The Elec, the contract for the supply of 4K Oled TV panels between LG Display and Samsung would cover only two years, 2022 and 2023. From 2024, Samsung plans to use exclusively, for its TV offer Oled, QD Oled's “in-house” technology.''


----------



## OLED4UNME

Wizziwig said:


> I definitely have concerns over uniformity given Samsung's track record. Their LCDs are poor on average regarding DSE. Their largest mainstream OLEDs currently available (15.6" notebooks) are also poor. Hoping they pull some miracle at least during the launch window to set a good first impression.


The uniformity on my Samsung _Galaxy Book Pro_ 15.6" OLED screen is excellent — LCD-like. No vertical stripes/bands or noticeable vignetting. Super pleased with the uniformity.


----------



## Thebarnman

samuel1983 said:


> 90% Rec.2020 is still some ways off for consumer displays, but the more relevant question presently is why do you want it when there isn't content to support it? As the situation stands presently, majority of HDR content is just DCI-P3 colors inside a BT.2020 Container. And there are also HDR movies, tv shows especially on streaming that don't even make use of the complete 100% DCI-P3 colorspace. So 90% BT. 2020 is wasted when the content creators are as lazy as they are.
> It's kind of a similar argument with respect to 12 bit panels too. Some people say they want 12 bit panels. But what's the use when apart from FEL Dolby Vision 4K Blu Rays, there isn't content out there to support 12 bit?


There's two types of consumer displays that currently provide 100% of DCI-P3 colorspace & BT. 2020. One is a triple laser short throw projector and the other is Micro LED TV (new ones at 89", 101" and 110" this year.) As far as movies taking advantage of Rec. 2020, two off the top of my head are Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and The Wizard of OZ. On a internet search, Pixar's "Inside Out" takes full advantage of it. I'm sure there's more, but I wanted to point out in some cases more than DCI-P3 color space has been used.


----------



## samuel1983

Thebarnman said:


> There's two types of consumer displays that currently provide 100% of DCI-P3 colorspace & BT. 2020. One is a triple laser short throw projector and the other is Micro LED TV (new ones at 89", 101" and 110" this year.) As far as movies taking advantage of Rec. 2020, two off the top of my head are Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and The Wizard of OZ. On a internet search, Pixar's "Inside Out" takes full advantage of it. I'm sure there's more, but I wanted to point out in some cases more than DCI-P3 color space has been used.


Link me a consumer tv supported by measurements which covers 100% bt.2020. Even sony's pro monitors used at tv shootouts (BVM X300 and BVM HX310) don't do 100% bt. 2020. As far as content goes, movies that utilize beyond dci p3 are few and far between, majority of hdr doesn't which is what i stated.


----------



## chozofication

Would be so weird for Sony to have qd oled this year and not Samsung. I’ll believe that when I see it.

Because if Sony thinks it’s good enough to charge a steep premium, then clearly it brings a lot to the table and Samsung won’t want to miss that even if micro led is their baby.

…Of course maybe they are just that damn stubborn xD. Or maybe Sony is rushing this and it will have issues.


----------



## djsimmz

Sony having issues and not being able to deliver certain features that's never happened before  loooooool


----------



## gomo657

Yes that’s exactly what we need is another Samsung vs Sony thread  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Jin-X

samuel1983 said:


> 90% Rec.2020 is still some ways off for consumer displays, but the more relevant question presently is why do you want it when there isn't content to support it? As the situation stands presently, majority of HDR content is just DCI-P3 colors inside a BT.2020 Container. And there are also HDR movies, tv shows especially on streaming that don't even make use of the complete 100% DCI-P3 colorspace. So 90% BT. 2020 is wasted when the content creators are as lazy as they are.
> It's kind of a similar argument with respect to 12 bit panels too. Some people say they want 12 bit panels. But what's the use when apart from FEL Dolby Vision 4K Blu Rays, there isn't content out there to support 12 bit?


While there isn’t a lot of content yet that utilizes 2020, there are some movies that do use it as mentioned a few posts above this (and I would add The Matrix as well as that goes right to the edge of what 2020 is capable of), it is an easier and more sensical upgrade than 8k. It is also hard to tell how much it is being used since the tools to analyze the color gamut use of movies, tv and video games are not easy to come by. Vincent did some of it while he had a Canon mastering monitor on loan.

I mainly mentioned it because it was in some old LG Display roadmaps that they haven’t followed up on, disappointingly. I’m going to make a similar argument to what 8k proponents use, if displays supported it we would have more content but explain why it makes more sense here:

1. It’s already part of the 4K HDR spec. So no upgrades are needed in terms of content creation workflows, no new codecs are needed, streamers don’t have to increase bandwidth (which they are loathe to do). For video games it doesn’t use up more GPU or memory resources. 4k Blu Ray players, streaming devices, consoles and PC GPUs already support it.

2. It doesn’t require super large screen sizes and/or specific seating distances like 8k. Wider color gamuts can be enjoyed from anything from a computer monitor up to the largest screen sizes. 

3. OLEDs are already used as client reference monitors next to the mastering monitor. If these tvs had more comprehensive 2020 use, they might just experiment more with it’s use as they can see the difference immediately. Same can be said with video game developers now that there are smaller sizes, the part of the team in charge of that aspect can try it out more and that can lead to increase use.

4. Marketing (because let’s be real, you need to have one as well). The marketing team can use this and talk about how many more millions of colors their display/tv can do vs the competition and do all their little nonsense slides where they will show a “conventional” panel and it’s duller than a washed out IPS monitor vs previous OLED vs new “super wide color” OLED. Insert marketing terms regarding colors here. And the people that like using vivid and garish looking images will get an even more over saturated image if that’s what they want. So win/win for everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 8mile13

chozofication said:


> Would be so weird for Sony to have qd oled this year and not Samsung. I’ll believe that when I see it.
> 
> Because if Sony thinks it’s good enough to charge a steep premium, then clearly it brings a lot to the table and Samsung won’t want to miss that even if micro led is their baby.
> 
> …Of course maybe they are just that damn stubborn xD. Or maybe Sony is rushing this and it will have issues.


Looking at the situation now there is likely no QD OLED at CES 22. There are problems with Samsung/LG OLED panel prices negotiations which looks like being the reason for Samsung not showing a QD OLED (LG OLED panel price matters when Samsung Electronics negotiates with Samsung Display over QD OLED panel price). With that being the case and Sony having non such probems there still is a chance there will be a Sony QD OLED at CES. 

It would be nice if we see those next few days (there have been QD OLED demo's behind closed doors last year so why not now?). If that not happens we surely will see it later in the year at IFA.


----------



## joe75xp

You guys are speculating on old* news. Where exactly do you think Sony is getting QD-OLED if Samsung didn't already have the panels?


----------



## 8mile13

joe75xp said:


> You guys are speculating on old* news. Where exactly do you think Sony is getting QD-OLED if Samsung didn't already have the panels?


Samsung and Sony got the first batch of QD OLED. So Sony can demo it at CES 22 if they want.


----------



## chros73

fafrd said:


> 2022 could finally be year that LGE/WOLED delivers a ‘perfect TV’ for HDR (at least as far as HDR implementation and within the brightness/gamut limits of 3S4C OLED).


I agree, hopefully that will be the case, without any weird crap introduced by them this year 
I hope they will have at least 1 model with heatsink.
Btw I'm only interested in LG, we know a lot about them already, and we have amazing tools for them, e.g. like this: bscpylgtv



fafrd said:


> Then there is the whole ‘structured grid’ / ‘Venetian blind’ near-white DSE which does’t get talked about much anymore, so hopefully that prices to have been a false alarm.


That will be "interesting" to see it in person, it's not an issue on 2018 models.



fafrd said:


> So I’m any case, I’ll be waiting until late next year monitoring early owner threads to understand whether LGD has finally found a way to deliver improvements in panel-to-panel variation as far as near-black uniformity or at least has hopefully not taken another step backwards.


Same here, see you there 



fafrd said:


> When I bought my C6, my logic was that I’m getting a ‘perfect’ TV for SDR ...


Interesting you mentioned this: try this one out if you have an external device with which you can modify gamma (since until 2018 they don't have internal 1dlut/3dlut).


----------



## fafrd

chozofication said:


> Would be so weird for Sony to have qd oled this year and not Samsung. I’ll believe that when I see it.


I agree it’s not likely, but if it comes to pass, there is a logical explanation:

Sony will happily launch a high-end niche product that sells in very low volumes and only lasts a year or two while Samsung would balk.

This would suggest that the underlying issue is not associated with performance or quality, but rather with poor manufacturing yields and very low production volumes.



> Because if Sony thinks it’s good enough to charge a steep premium, then clearly it brings a lot to the table and *Samsung won’t want to miss that *even if micro led is their baby.


The volumes Sony needs to move the needle in terms of TV profit are a fraction of what Samsung would require to be interesting,

Plus, for very low volume, very expensive TVs, Samsung has MicroLED and Sony has nothing else (Cledis?). So it’s easy to imaging Sony being interested in a new low-volume offering while Samsung elects to hold off until manufacturing volumes have ramped to the levels needed to interest them…



> …Of course maybe they are just that damn stubborn xD. Or maybe Sony is rushing this and it will have issues.


I highly doubt Sony will introduce anything based on immature technology as far as performance or reliability.

I think it’s much more likely that Samsung Electronics will take a hard line on promised manufacturing yields and production volumes and will refuse to introduce the new product class as long as it remains in pilot production phase and before it is fully ramped.


----------



## chozofication

fafrd said:


> I agree it’s not likely, but if it comes to pass, there is a logical explanation:
> 
> Sony will happily launch a high-end niche product that sells in very low volumes and only lasts a year or two while Samsung would balk.
> 
> This would suggest that the underlying issue is not associated with performance or quality, but rather with poor manufacturing yields and very low production volumes.
> 
> 
> The volumes Sony needs to move the needle in terms of TV profit are a fraction of what Samsung would require to be interesting,
> 
> Plus, for very low volume, very expensive TVs, Samsung has MicroLED and Sony has nothing else (Cledis?). So it’s easy to imaging Sony being interested in a new low-volume offering while Samsung elects to hold off until manufacturing volumes have ramped to the levels needed to interest them…
> 
> 
> 
> I highly doubt Sony will introduce anything based on immature technology as far as performance or reliability.
> 
> I think it’s much more likely that Samsung Electronics will take a hard line on promised manufacturing yields and production volumes and will refuse to introduce the new product class as long as it remains in pilot production phase and before it is fully ramped.


Sony sells micro led as well, definitely not many but they call them the C and B series apparently.

But I agree with you now that you said it ; it’s probably a volume issue for Samsung. IF they don’t show up with qd oled. 

I think Sony also wants to keep winning those shootouts! Even though I think those shootout results are 100% wrong lately with regards to motion performance, and picture accuracy seems to mean less as well (XR processor).


----------



## Wizziwig

Thebarnman said:


> Sounds about right. What I'm really interested in is how much coverage (in percent) of DCI-P3 and Rec. 2020 will the new display show?


According to Samsung's own specs: ~80% ICtCp BT2020 Normalized. That's similar to their QD LCDs but at smaller non-normalized volume due to the lower 1000 nit brightness.



OLED4UNME said:


> The uniformity on my Samsung _Galaxy Book Pro_ 15.6" OLED screen is excellent — LCD-like. No vertical stripes/bands or noticeable vignetting. Super pleased with the uniformity.


Could be you just got lucky. How did you test this? The issues I noted were specifically in the 0-3% grayscale range. On the units I've seen, either the entire 0-3% range was crushed to black (thus hiding any uniformity issues present there) or showed lots of blotchiness and vignetting. If you get the chance, please post a photo of your panel in the OLED uniformity tracking thread (link to patterns in first post).



Jin-X said:


> While there isn’t a lot of content yet that utilizes 2020, there are some movies that do use it as mentioned a few posts above this (and I would add The Matrix as well as that goes right to the edge of what 2020 is capable of), it is an easier and more sensical upgrade than 8k. It is also hard to tell how much it is being used since the tools to analyze the color gamut use of movies, tv and video games are not easy to come by. Vincent did some of it while he had a Canon mastering monitor on loan.


Just in case you have not seen it yet, there is a HDR content analysis thread over on another forum here. Shows you both luminance range and gamut coverage of a few frames from numerous popular movies. I didn't double check his math yet but it looks plausible. Some of the examples include large enough screen areas that could be used for meter validation if you have the right equipment.


----------



## Jin-X

Wizziwig said:


> According to Samsung's own specs: ~80% ICtCp BT2020 Normalized. That's similar to their QD LCDs but at smaller non-normalized volume due to the lower 1000 nit brightness.
> 
> 
> 
> Could be you just got lucky. How did you test this? The issues I noted were specifically in the 0-3% grayscale range. On the units I've seen, either the entire 0-3% range was crushed to black (thus hiding any uniformity issues present there) or showed lots of blotchiness and vignetting. If you get the chance, please post a photo of your panel in the OLED uniformity tracking thread (link to patterns in first post).
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you have not seen it yet, there is a HDR content analysis thread over on another forum here. Shows you both luminance range and gamut coverage of a few frames from numerous popular movies. I didn't double check his math yet but it looks plausible. Some of the examples include large enough screen areas that could be used for meter validation if you have the right equipment.


Thanks, that was an interesting thread. Shame that it appears he is no longer doing it. Looks like there is more Rec 2020 use than we thought, even though the number is still small. Wondering if anyone here has their UB820/9000 at 500 nits for the HDR Optimizer like some did in that thread, I have wondered that myself sometimes but never gone and tried it. My C8 measures between 655 (DV Game) to 690 nits (DV Cinema) from the config files, using Leon's i1Pro2 white point and an i1Display profiled to an i1Pro2. Might be worth a test to see if giving up 150-200 nits peak in exchange for more detail and color saturation preservation is worth it.


----------



## Jin-X




----------



## Jin-X

Jin-X said:


> A series: 60hz, Alpha 7, old panel
> B series: 120hz, Alpha 7, panel lottery but locked to old panel performance for consistency like C1
> C series: Alpha 9 and Evo (performs like G1)
> G series: Evo+ (the more efficient panel with a heatsink. Will push for higher peak brightness at the cost of color volume/saturation as they usually do in contrast to Sony's approach).


Called it 😁


----------



## wco81

So what happened to all the EX stuff?


----------



## Jin-X

wco81 said:


> So what happened to all the EX stuff?











LG 2022 4K OLED TV Lineup (42-inch C2 & 97-inch G2)


Here we go...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## 8mile13

Looks like there is gonna be some room for the QD OLED Display stuff soon on this Forum.

*''there is no longer any doubt that Samsung QD-OLED TVs are real''*
Samsung's first QD-OLED TV will have HDMI 2.1, 144Hz - FlatpanelsHD


----------



## Thebarnman

samuel1983 said:


> Link me a consumer tv supported by measurements which covers 100% bt.2020. Even sony's pro monitors used at tv shootouts (BVM X300 and BVM HX310) don't do 100% bt. 2020. As far as content goes, movies that utilize beyond dci p3 are few and far between, majority of hdr doesn't which is what i stated.


According to what I read, it looks like the BVM X300 covers most of BT.2020 and along with the BVM HX310. I would say close enough. My NEC MultiSync PA241W covers 98.1% Adobe RGB...again I would say close enough as I probably would not be able to see the difference between that and 100% coverage of Adobe RGB. 

The consumer display JMGO U2 4K Ultra-Short Throw triple Laser Projector covers 96.97% of BT.2020 and 98.57% (damn near 99%) of DCI-P2. 




According to Vincent, the new Samsung Micro LED TV covers 100% DCI-P2 and (as he says) Adobe RGB gamut coverage. 



 I'll take his word for it, but I don't know why he mentions Adobe RGB when he's talking about MicroLED display. 

By the way talking about discs that has REC.2020 coverage, I can add;
The Greatest Showman
Aquaman
The Fifth Element 
Lego Batman
The Matrix 

Personally I think there's many more movies out there that has REC.2020 information on Ultra HD Blu-ray and would be easy to spot if you look at the extreme greens, blues and reds.


----------



## CliffordinWales

Thebarnman said:


> According to what I read, it looks like the BVM X300 covers most of BT.2020 and along with the BVM HX310. I would say close enough. My NEC MultiSync PA241W covers 98.1% Adobe RGB...again I would say close enough as I probably would not be able to see the difference between that and 100% coverage of Adobe RGB.
> 
> The consumer display JMGO U2 4K Ultra-Short Throw triple Laser Projector covers 96.97% of BT.2020 and 98.57% (damn near 99%) of DCI-P2.


I think most of those triple laser UST projectors get close to 100% of Rec2020. Here's Vincent's review of the Samsung Premiere; there are also competing models from Hisense and LG if memory serves.


----------



## ssj3rd

wco81 said:


> So what happened to all the EX stuff?


They just called it again Evo, but EX is on the inside. That’s because of the „different“ companies LGD and LGE.


----------



## djsimmz

I wonder if LG will add DTS back in.


----------



## ssj3rd

djsimmz said:


> I wonder if LG will add DTS back in.


Nope, not a single world in all the Press Releases


----------



## helvetica bold

Whoop there it is. 








Sony Unveils World’s First QD OLED TVs


And they’ve already got actual model numbers, confirmed feature lists and everything




www.forbes.com


----------



## Adonisds

Was it confirmed that C2 and G2 will have new subpixels?


----------



## stl8k

helvetica bold said:


> Whoop there it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sony Unveils World’s First QD OLED TVs
> 
> 
> And they’ve already got actual model numbers, confirmed feature lists and everything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


Wow, LGD got their asses handed to them in the 2022 race, losing Sony's top tier in emissive-land. Stunning that an incumbent didn't anticipate this and come out with a better response. And, LGE's lineup and partnerships (e.g. with NVIDIA) <<< Sony abandoning you in their top tier.

Stunning!

They can use size and price (via their partners) to compete in 2022, but there ought to be hair-on-fire planning going on within LGD for 2023 to change the premium game.


----------



## helvetica bold

UGH the A95K QD OLED: "two of the A95Ks’ HDMIs will support 48Gbps bandwidths."  What will the other ports support? Im scared to find out the price.


----------



## MisterXDTV

stl8k said:


> Wow, LGD got their asses handed to them in the 2022 race, losing Sony's top tier in emissive-land. Stunning that an incumbent didn't anticipate this and come out with a better response. And, LGE's lineup and partnerships (e.g. with NVIDIA) <<< Sony abandoning you in their top tier.
> 
> Stunning!
> 
> They can use size and price (via their partners) to compete in 2022, but there ought to be hair-on-fire planning going on within LGD for 2023 to change the premium game.


When they see the prices for QD-OLED, LGD will laugh all day


----------



## CA22EF

I was surprised that "Acoustic Surface" was adopted for QD-OLED as well.


----------



## stl8k

MisterXDTV said:


> When they see the prices for QD-OLED, LGD will laugh all day


Sony didn't make that top-tier emissive replacement choice lightly. Getting them back (at that tier) will be difficult and I'm sure SD put impediments in place.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

helvetica bold said:


> Whoop there it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sony Unveils World’s First QD OLED TVs
> 
> 
> And they’ve already got actual model numbers, confirmed feature lists and everything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


Glad to see Sony announce something. 200% color saturation claimed vs 'normal' LCD. Let's see how their XR Triluminos Max processor does with what this panel offers (or doesn't offer).
Also, did you see Samsung and LG are $100 apart on WOLED panel pricing? And that's already lower than LGD sells to LGE. That appears to be a big hill to climb. Maybe just exercising their negotiating skills....
Sony announces the first QD-OLED TV of CES 2022 | TechRadar 
Samsung and LG Display can’t agree on TV OLED panel price - THE ELEC, Korea Electronics Industry Media (thelec.net)


----------



## MisterXDTV

stl8k said:


> Sony didn't make that top-tier emissive replacement choice lightly. Getting them back (at that tier) will be difficult and I'm sure SD put impediments in place.


The question will become: is QD-OLED a game changer compared to WRGB OLEDs?

How much PQ difference?

I very much doubt it's the same as going LCD->OLED


----------



## helvetica bold

Robert Zohn said the Sony QD-OLED won’t come out until Dec of this year and it will be “very, very, very expensive” lol. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VA_DaveB

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Glad to see Sony announce something. 200% color saturation claimed vs 'normal' LCD. Let's see how their XR Triluminos Max processor does with what this panel offers (or doesn't offer).
> Also, did you see Samsung and LG are $100 apart on WOLED panel pricing? And that's already lower than LGD sells to LGE. That appears to be a big hill to climb. Maybe just exercising their negotiating skills....
> Sony announces the first QD-OLED TV of CES 2022 | TechRadar
> Samsung and LG Display can’t agree on TV OLED panel price - THE ELEC, Korea Electronics Industry Media (thelec.net)


They must be comparing to the 2021 Sony FALD LCDs that don't even hit the WCG threshold. Look at how the "Flagship" 4K Sony LCD compares to the lowly Hisense U8G for WVG.


----------



## hamad138

Robert Zohn who works with LG engineer said this.

LG G2 aims to have 1000 nits calibrated and 1400 Nits in Vivid mode

The Upscaling is much cleaner

LG Engineer worked on Shadow Details and there will be 0,5 , 1 and 1,5 IRE to calibrate all the Shadow Details to get rid of black crush



Gesendet von meinem GM1913 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Wizziwig

Weren't LG TVs already capable of calibrating grayscale steps even lower by uploading a custom LUT?
Let's hope that black crush is not replaced by noise and overshoot artifacts.

As for brightness claims.... as I mentioned earlier, let's see what they and Sony can deliver on actual content. Not just white squares on black backgrounds.


----------



## Wizziwig

"Dell has confirmed that they will also launch a 34-inch QD-OLED monitor in the form of the Alienware AW3423DW. This too has won a CES Award. It supports 175Hz refresh over DisplayPort or up to 100Hz refresh over HDMI 2.0. It also supports Nvidia G-SYnc. It is the same panel so it will be interesting to see pricing.

Brightness was not specified but Dell's version has been certified as 'DisplayHDR 400 True Black' so peak brightness should exceed 400 nits while full-screen brightness should exceed 250 nits.

Samsung has yet to comment on availability but Dell expects its QD-OLED monitor to ship starting in March. Pricing will be announced later."

Looks like we won't have to wait too much longer to get some reviews of QD Display. Was expecting more brightness even with the higher pixel pitch of a desktop monitor.









Samsung and Dell to launch 34" QD-OLED monitors in 2022


Samsung Odyssey G8QNB and Dell Alienware AW3423DW




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## jl4069

Sponcered advertorial but hopeful.


----------



## jk82

Wizziwig said:


> Weren't LG TVs already capable of calibrating grayscale steps even lower by uploading a custom LUT?


Yes using unofficial tools I can definitely adjust the 1DLUT from 0.5% and maybe even lower on my 2018 C8. Not sure what you can do with calman. I find it surprising that it took them so long to add manual calibration points for the lowest near-black range when the technical capability was already there years ago. It's as if they weren't aware how 'way off' near-black gamma can be on these TVs.


----------



## fafrd

ssj3rd said:


> Nope, not a single world in all the Press Releases


DTS seems to be to LGE what Dolby Vision is to Samsung…

I wonder why?

Could it actually be related to Dolby? Could Dolby have made dropping DTS a condition of the preferred agreement they reached with LGE in the early days of WOLED?


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Wow, LGD got their asses handed to them in the 2022 race, losing Sony's top tier in emissive-land. Stunning that an incumbent didn't anticipate this and come out with a better response. And, LGE's lineup and partnerships (e.g. with NVIDIA) <<< Sony abandoning you in their top tier.
> 
> Stunning!
> 
> They can use size and price (via their partners) to compete in 2022, but *there ought to be hair-on-fire planning going on within LGD for 2023 to change the premium game.*


Uhhh, there’s premium and then there is niche. If Sony sells 10 WOLEDs or even 20 WOLED for every QD-OLED they sell, the only ‘game’ LGD needs to worry about is continuing to increase production volume.

LGD’s already been trough the phase where they struggled to sell a few 100,000 new-tech panels off of an 8.5G pilot line, remember?

The last thing they want to do is light their pants on fire to get back in that mode…

The powers that be keep shifting the goalposts / definitions, but the old definition of the Premium TV market wax the most expensive 10% of the overall market by volume, meaning ~20 million units per year.

LGD now has established capacity to deliver over 1.1 *million* WOLED panels a month now, meaning they are in position to utterly dominate the Premium TV market with over 50% share if they can sell everything they manufacture this year.

It’s a stunning achievement in just 10 years and QD-OLED is basically at the starting blocks of that same trajectory (assuming Samsung sticks with it).

I’m pretty certain LGD/LGE is far more interested in the lowest-end 50% of the Premium TV market than they are in the highest-end 5%…


----------



## th1nk

Any news about the improved near-black handling of the new TVs? I was hoping for at least some sort of news from LG display regarding the new patented algorithm…


----------



## lsorensen

fafrd said:


> DTS seems to be to LGE what Dolby Vision is to Samsung…
> 
> I wonder why?
> 
> Could it actually be related to Dolby? Could Dolby have made dropping DTS a condition of the preferred agreement they reached with LGE in the early days of WOLED?


They had DTS in 2019 years after they started doing Dolby Vision and such. Seems neither LG nor Samsung care to support DTS for some reason. Probably license costs. Amazingly Sonos finally added DTS to some of their products back in November, after people saying for a long time they would never do it. Only basic DTS support but better than no DTS.


----------



## djsimmz




----------



## fafrd

jl4069 said:


> Sponcered advertorial but hopeful.


Promising.

And a few numbers:

200 cd/m2 full-field
1000 cd/m2 @ 10%
1500 cd/m2 @ 3%

All presumably at 90% BT.2020.

Lifetime is still a big question mark but if Samsung and/or Sony are launching QD-OLED TVs that deliver to these specs this year, at least we have to recognize Samsung Display for a significant jump in performance.

Of course, manufacturability and cost are the other significant concern, especially in these early years. If these QD-OLEDs round closer to Sony’s RGB OLED reference monitors than they do to LG’s WOLED, it’s going to be some time before most of us can really get excited about QD-OLED since we can afford one…

But I’m truly excited to see that it appears QD-OLED may actually reach the market this year!


----------



## wco81

fafrd said:


> DTS seems to be to LGE what Dolby Vision is to Samsung…
> 
> I wonder why?
> 
> Could it actually be related to Dolby? Could Dolby have made dropping DTS a condition of the preferred agreement they reached with LGE in the early days of WOLED?


What is DTS on a TV? It puts out some 2 channel mix of a DTS sound track over the TV speakers?

Or does it output a DTS multi channel track that you can connect directly to a multichannel amp or hook up to an AVR and bypass surround sound processing on the AVR?


----------



## jl4069

fafrd said:


> Promising.
> 
> And a few numbers:
> 
> 200 cd/m2 full-field
> 1000 cd/m2 @ 10%
> 1500 cd/m2 @ 3%
> 
> All presumably at 90% BT.2020.
> 
> Lifetime is still a big question mark but if Samsung and/or Sony are launching QD-OLED TVs that deliver to these specs this year, at least we have to recognize Samsung Display for a significant jump in performance.
> 
> Of course, manufacturability and cost are the other significant concern, especially in these early years. If these QD-OLEDs round closer to Sony’s RGB OLED reference monitors than they do to LG’s WOLED, it’s going to be some time before most of us can really get excited about QD-OLED since we can afford one…
> 
> But I’m truly excited to see that it appears QD-OLED may actually reach the market this year!


The full field number seems the most interesting. Have to wonder if Samsung is using some sort of "vivid" mode here just like the others have used, to push big numbers. Also interesting is that in none of these presentations on qd-oled has anyone yet mentioned a green layer; maybe it is there but Samsung doesn't want to ruin the pure RGB narrative. Suppose they could hide this for awhile. j


----------



## Wizziwig

stl8k said:


> Sony didn't make that top-tier emissive replacement choice lightly. Getting them back (at that tier) will be difficult and I'm sure SD put impediments in place.


Sony's lineup tiers are definitely interesting. They are placing the LG OLEDs even below their Mini-LED LCDs. Similar to what Samsung was rumored to do with their 2022 OLEDs.

Per this press-release, these are their tiers:

MASTER Series Z9K 8K Mini LED TV
MASTER Series A95K OLED TV
X95K 4K Mini LED TV
MASTER Series A90K 4K OLED TV
A80K OLED TV
X90K 4K LED TV
X85K 4K LED TV
X80K 4K LED TV


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> "Dell has confirmed that they will also launch a 34-inch QD-OLED monitor in the form of the Alienware AW3423DW. This too has won a CES Award. It supports 175Hz refresh over DisplayPort or up to 100Hz refresh over HDMI 2.0. It also supports Nvidia G-SYnc. It is the same panel so it will be interesting to see pricing.
> 
> Brightness was not specified but Dell's version has been certified as 'DisplayHDR 400 True Black' so *peak brightness should exceed 400* nits while *full-screen brightness should exceed 250 nits.*


Where did you see 250 nits full-field? The TVs apparently only deliver 200 cd/m2 full field, so I’m surprised to see the monitors driven harder.

And 400 nits peak is far lower than the 1500 nits @ 3% being claimed by the TVs, which causes questions about burn-in immunity when peak levels are cranked up as high as 1500 nits as the TVs are apparently planning to do…



> Samsung has yet to comment on availability but Dell expects its QD-OLED monitor to ship starting in March. Pricing will be announced later."
> 
> Looks like we won't have to wait too much longer to get some reviews of QD Display. Was expecting more brightness even with the higher pixel pitch of a desktop monitor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung and Dell to launch 34" QD-OLED monitors in 2022
> 
> 
> Samsung Odyssey G8QNB and Dell Alienware AW3423DW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flatpanelshd.com


I’ve always had much higher confidence that Samsung Display would spin up QD-OLED monitors since that is a much better product class to stabilize yields in a new fab manufacturing a new technology.

If we assume 34” QD-OLED panel yields of ~67%, that translates to 55” panel yields of under 10% and 65” yields close to 0%.

Once yields have stabilized to the point that 34” QD-OLED yield reaches 83%, 55” yields will be close to 70% while 65” yields should be close to 45%.


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> Where did you see 250 nits full-field? The TVs apparently only deliver 200 cd/m2 full field, so I’m surprised to see the monitors driven harder.


He was quoting the article. 


> Brightness was not specified but Dell's version has been certified as 'DisplayHDR 400 True Black' so peak brightness should exceed 400 nits while full-screen brightness should exceed 250 nits.











Samsung and Dell to launch 34" QD-OLED monitors in 2022


Samsung Odyssey G8QNB and Dell Alienware AW3423DW




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## 59LIHP

With QD Display, Samsung debuts new premium OLED TV tech at CES 2022
The electronics giant says quantum dots offer more vivid colors than regular OLED TVs made by rival LG. But they're gonna cost you.








Samsung says its new quantum dot TV tech boosts image quality over regular OLED displays


The electronics giant says quantum dots offer more vivid colors than regular OLED TVs made by rival LG. But they're gonna cost you.




www.cnet.com






> Samsung QD Display by the numbers
> Samsung did offer some statistics. Overall brightness is 200 nits for the full TV screen, 1,000 nits for a 10% patch and 1,500 nits for a 3% patch. By comparison, we've measured about 800 nits for the industry standard 10% patch with the LG C1 OLED TV, so by that measure the QD Display can get 25% brighter. Meanwhile the brightest LCD TVs hit more than 2,000 nits with a 10% patch, and the brightness advantage of LCD is even greater at full screen.
> 
> In terms of color gamut, the QD OLED TVs reach 99.8% of the P3 color space, which is basically the same as standard OLED TVs we've measured. Samsung claims a bigger advantage with the wider BT2020 color space (90.3% vs 77.4%), but that test isn't widely used yet. The computer monitor reaches 99.3% of P3 color and 80.7% of BT2020 color.
> 
> QD OLED displays have some other limits. They don't have small enough pixels, at least yet, to support phones, laptops or TVs with monster 8K resolution. But Samsung says it's working on improvements that'll permit the latter.


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> He was quoting the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung and Dell to launch 34" QD-OLED monitors in 2022
> 
> 
> Samsung Odyssey G8QNB and Dell Alienware AW3423DW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flatpanelshd.com


Yeah, the specification for HDR 400 True Black means that the screen had to maintain over 250cd/m2 for over 30 minutes to achieve that certification.

So the monitor must have a setting that allows that level of full-screen brightness to be delivered and it’ll be interesting to see what lifetime gets reported by gamers using that full capability…


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> So the monitor must have a setting that allows that level of full-screen brightness to be delivered and it’ll be interesting to see what lifetime gets reported by gamers using that full capability…


The TV-tech seems to have differences from the monitor tech. From the CNET article linked in the post above yours.


> In terms of color gamut, the QD OLED TVs reach 99.8% of the P3 color space, which is basically the same as standard OLED TVs we've measured. Samsung claims a bigger advantage with the wider BT2020 color space (*90.3%* vs 77.4%), but that test isn't widely used yet. The computer monitor reaches 99.3% of P3 color and *80.7%* of BT2020 color.


90.3% BT2020 vs 80.7%.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> With QD Display, Samsung debuts new premium OLED TV tech at CES 2022
> The electronics giant says quantum dots offer more vivid colors than regular OLED TVs made by rival LG. But they're gonna cost you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung says its new quantum dot TV tech boosts image quality over regular OLED displays
> 
> 
> The electronics giant says quantum dots offer more vivid colors than regular OLED TVs made by rival LG. But they're gonna cost you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnet.com


So these seem to be the specs they are aiming to deliver:

‘Samsung did offer some statistics. Overall brightness is *200 nits for the full TV screen, 1,000 nits for a 10% patch and 1,500 nits for a 3% patch. *By comparison, we've measured about 800 nits for the industry standard 10% patch with the LG C1 OLED TV, so by that measure the QD Display can get 25% brighter. Meanwhile the brightest LCD TVs hit more than 2,000 nits with a 10% patch, and the brightness advantage of LCD is even greater at full screen.’

I don’t see LG feeling much pressure on this first year of QD-OLED while prices are likely to be stratospheric and availability is rumored to be start until December, but for the 2023 cycle, this should put some pressure on LG to at least increase brightness levels above 1000 cd/m2 @ 3%…

The price gap for a 65G2 compared to a 65” QD-OLED delivering to these specs will be telling.

Even if the early claims of a ~20% improvement in picture quality prove justified in the wild, if the 65” QD-OLED is priced higher than the 83G2, it’s going to be relegated to a small niche of deep-pocketed videophiles this first year or two…

Sony’s pricing will be very interesting and may be the best indicator of actual WOLED versus QD-OLED panel pricing (though Samsung Display could of course have offered Sony ‘strategic’ pricing to get an endorsement from such an important brand right out of the gate).


----------



## 59LIHP

Meet QD-Display, Samsung's New TV Tech That Combines OLED With Quantum Dots
The 4K display raises the bar on what an OLED panel can do in terms of colors and brightness.
















Meet QD-Display, Samsung's New TV Tech That Combines OLED With Quantum Dots


The 4K display raises the bar on what an OLED panel can do in terms of colors and brightness.




uk.pcmag.com


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> The TV-tech seems to have differences from the monitor tech. From the CNET article linked in the post above yours.
> 90.3% BT2020 vs 80.7%.


Good observation. With QD-OLED increasing brightness at the expense of gamut is a real option (especially if the rumored green OLED layer proves accurate).

Without a green OLED layer, green should be the weakest primary requiring the largest subpixel. With a green OLED layer, red should be the weakest primary needing the largest subpixel.

So once we see marcoshots of subpixel designs of both the QD-OLED monitors as well as the TVs, we should be able to reverse-engineer quote a bit (including whether Samsung Display has architected to monitors to deliver higher levels of sustained white at the expense of a slightly reduced color gamut.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> Meet QD-Display, Samsung's New TV Tech That Combines OLED With Quantum Dots
> The 4K display raises the bar on what an OLED panel can do in terms of colors and brightness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet QD-Display, Samsung's New TV Tech That Combines OLED With Quantum Dots
> 
> 
> The 4K display raises the bar on what an OLED panel can do in terms of colors and brightness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uk.pcmag.com


I’m waiting to see Samsung’s logo on any of these marketing posters.

The claims of ‘not filtering’ and ‘blue self-emissive layer’ could get Samsung into some trouble, from what I said understand & suspect..

It’s one thing if Samsung allows 3rd parties to repeat misinformation without correcting it (plausible deniability).

It’s a different thing if Samsung themselves promotes information that proves to be incorrect/exaggerated/inflated…


----------



## Wizziwig

A lot of data to digest in that LTT video. Actually surprised Samsung allowed them to take all these measurements so early before release.

Samsung's presentation says this uses Oxide TFT backplane. Really hoping that means LTPO like their recent flagship phone OLEDs and not IGZO (like LG WOLEDS). That would combine the best of LTPS and IGZO and offer higher electron mobility (faster switching, VRR range of 10Hz to 175+ Hz, less switching artifacts), more power efficiency, better uniformity.

Not sure about their 80% better viewing angle claims but returning to plasma/crt level of performance would be huge after all these years of color, gamma, and saturation shifting displays.

Just keep in mind that this same guy made an LG sponsored Evo hype video after last year's CES. We all know how that turned out in reality.


----------



## Jin-X

Let’s all pump the brakes on these marketing numbers and company controlled presentations and wait for the pros to put them through it’s paces. These numbers could easily be in Vivid at 10k color temperature. The A90J could easily cross 1000nits too in those situations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> A lot of data to digest in that LTT video. Actually surprised Samsung allowed them to take all these measurements so early before release.





> Samsung's presentation says this uses Oxide TFT backplane. *Really hoping that means LTPO like their recent flagship phone OLEDs and not IGZO (like LG WOLEDS). *That would combine the best of LTPS and IGZO and offer higher electron mobility (faster switching, VRR range of 10Hz to 175+ Hz, less switching artifacts), more power efficiency, better uniformity.


Wouldn’t LTPO be more expensive than IGZO? 

I believe Samsung has enough of a fundamental cost challenge with current QD-OLED as it is (4 OLED layers including a green OLED layer as well as red, green-blocking, and blue-blocking conventional color filters translate to higher fundamental cost that 3S4C WOLED, even assuming equivalent maturity / manufacturing volumes…).

Running a pilot line for some cool new technology after having next to nothing new to make noise about for close to a decade is one thing.

Betting the company on taking over the market with that new technology my investing to convert all of your former LCD manufacturing capacity to build that new thing is quite another.

I’m thrilled Samsung has seemingly decided to launch QD-OLED into the market. Based on initial specs, I even hope I may be able to afford one.

But in terms of whether all of this is really worth getting excited about or merely yet another high-priced niche technology that will take a decade to impact the mainstream of the Premium TV market, I’m holding off my judgement until I see what Samsung announced as far as investments to convert their remaining 8.5G LCD lines to QD-OLED production…



> Not sure about their 80% better viewing angle claims but returning to plasma/crt level of performance would be huge after all these years of color, gamma, and saturation shifting displays.


No one can complain about better off-angle viewing, but near black uniformity, and even near white uniformity is a far higher priority (at least for me).

If Samsung can immediately deliver far better uniformity that WOLED (no panel lottery), they will immediately build a large fan-base for QD-OLED within the videophile community (unless they are priced out of reach with no obvious pathway to getting within reach).



> Just keep in mind that this same guy made an LG sponsored Evo hype video after last year's CES. We all know how that turned out in reality.


It’s the new model for advertising. Though the fact that CNET repeated exactly the same specs suggests they came directly from Samsung…

For me, the huuuge question mark is on lifetime. OLED makes it trivially easy to trade off greater brightness for reduced lifetime and any such trade off takes over a year or even as long as 3 years or more to be exposed (Rtings?).

Samsung has deep enough pockets to sell a bunch of TVs to the market knowing they will fail before delivering promised lifetime because they are confident they will have something better (QNED?) to make affected customers whole with when that time comes.

That’s not a strategy Sony would likely be motivated to follow, so I’ll be very interested to see how Sony specs their QD-OLED offering…


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

59LIHP said:


> Meet QD-Display, Samsung's New TV Tech That Combines OLED With Quantum Dots
> The 4K display raises the bar on what an OLED panel can do in terms of colors and brightness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet QD-Display, Samsung's New TV Tech That Combines OLED With Quantum Dots
> 
> 
> The 4K display raises the bar on what an OLED panel can do in terms of colors and brightness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uk.pcmag.com


"QD-Display provides almost two times the color volume of even the most recent white OLEDs," Shah added. Hmmm. I hope....
"Pricing wasn't revealed, but we're not talking about $20,000 sets, according to Samsung Display. Instead, pricing will be comparable to a premium 4K TV or PC monitor, which can cost closer to $2,000. Samsung also expects the pricing to go down as the technology matures." $2K? They must be talking monitor price, not TV, right?


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> Let’s all pump the brakes on these marketing numbers and company controlled presentations and wait for the pros to put them through it’s paces. These numbers could easily be in Vivid at 10k color temperature. The A90J could easily cross 1000nits too in those situations.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In general, I agree.

But in the specific case of QD-OLED, there is unlikely to be any blue-dominated ‘vivid’ mode like their is with WOLED.

WOLED gets a boost by using the white subpixel at maximum intensity, meaning the whitepoint will be shifted in the direction of the native white (determined by the 3S4C WOLED stack).

QD-OLED has no white subpixel and no brightness to spare, so it is likely that R and G and B subpixels have been sized to match D65 (which would mean the native whitepoint and D65 are pretty much the same, with no ‘vivid’ whitepoint to get any further boost from)…


----------



## Wizziwig

^^^

It's all in the LTT video data. Definitely not at D65 (0.3127,0.3290) white point. QD-OLED: 0.3045, 0.3356. Their comparison WOLED: 0.3137, 0.3317. See attached screenshot white column.



fafrd said:


> Even if the early claims of a ~20% improvement in picture quality prove justified in the wild, if the 65” QD-OLED is priced higher than the 83G2, it’s going to be relegated to a small niche of deep-pocketed videophiles this first year or two…


Level of improvement will depend on content. A 20% improvement on 10% white squares/black background (ideal case for WOLED due to white sub-pixel), could be a lot more when displaying actual colors seen in content, especially at higher APL. From that LTT video:

Peak Red Luminance: 159 vs 67
Peak Green Luminance: 882 vs 269
Peak Blue Luminance: 70 vs 28

Current simplistic methods of measuring HDR performance don't tell the full story for OLED or LCD. You need to factor in color, ABL, tone-mapping algorithms, dimming algorithm, etc. Hard to quantify but easy to see when comparing two HDR displays side-by-side.


----------



## valin

Wizziwig said:


> It's all in the LTT video data. Definitely not at D65 white point. xy: 0.3045, 0.3356.


Indeed it is. And these xy coordinates point to a CCT of 6901K. But I do not think this is the native white point of the panel, it may merely be the white point of the picture mode used in the testing. I think the true native panel is more like 13-14000K due to the blue emissive stack, but I may very well be wrong here (gladly so in this case).


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> "QD-Display provides almost two times the color volume of even the most recent white OLEDs," Shah added. Hmmm. I hope....
> "Pricing wasn't revealed, but we're not talking about $20,000 sets, according to Samsung Display. Instead, pricing will be comparable to a premium 4K TV or PC monitor, which can cost closer to $2,000. Samsung also expects the pricing to go down as the technology matures." * $2K? They must be talking monitor price, not TV, right?*


First, talk is cheap (especially this time of year).

Second, they are no doubt talking about cost targets associated with fully-ramped production delivering target yield.

In the early going, 18 34” monitors at 50% yield translates to $18,000 of revenue based on 34” monitors priced at $2000.

That compares very favorably with LGD’s current $7000-8000 of revenue per 8.5G sheet manufacturing 8 48” or 6 55” WOLED panels at much higher yield, so it’s not even out of the question to imagine 34” QD-OLED monitors to be discounted well below $2000 relatively early in the ramp cycle.

$2000 for a 55” QD-OLED TV is not out if the question but won’t happen until yield have greatly improved (meaning late this year which is exactly the rumor).

LG generates close to $7000 of 55” TV sales manufacturing 6 55” WOLEDs at yields of ~95%.

So if we assume Samsung needs to achieve a similar revenue target of $7000 manufacturing 55” QD-OLED TVs being sold for $2000, that translates to needing yield levels of at least 58% (an average of 3.5 acceptable panels per 8.5G sheet).

So it’s credible to believe that Samsung Display will actually not begin manufacturing 55” QD-OLED panels in volume until yield approach 60% and when they do come out, they’ll be priced at $2000…

First, $2000 for 55” represents a 67% premium over LG’s $1200 55” offering, and second, achieving the same $7000-per-8.5G-sheet revenue target based on 65” panels when 55” panels are yielding 60% would translate to a price of over $5000 (65” QD-OLED yield of ~46%).

The point being that Samsung will either price their 65” QD-OLED at 2.5 times the price of the 55” model or it won’t start selling until far later than the 55” model (and possibly not until 2023…).


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> ^^^
> 
> It's all in the LTT video data. Definitely not at D65 white point. xy: 0.3045, 0.3356. See attached screenshot white column.
> 
> 
> 
> Level of improvement will depend on content. A 20% improvement on 10% white squares/black background (ideal case for WOLED due to white sub-pixel), could be a lot more when displaying actual colors seen in content, especially at higher APL. From that LTT video:
> 
> Peak Red Luminance: 159 vs 67
> Peak Green Luminance: 882 vs 269
> Peak Blue Luminance: 70 vs 28
> 
> Current simplistic methods of measuring HDR performance don't tell the full story for OLED or LCD. You need to factor in color, ABL, tone-mapping algorithms, etc. Hard to quantify but easy to see when comparing two HDR displays side-by-side.
> 
> View attachment 3219028


Sounds like we’ll have some exciting things to talk about later this year. Can’t wait to see pixel macro shots. My prediction is a red subpixel that dominates (which would confirm the presence of a green OLED layer).


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> For me, the huuuge question mark is on lifetime. OLED makes it trivially easy to trade off greater brightness for reduced lifetime and any such trade off takes over a year or even as long as 3 years or more to be exposed (Rtings?).


From the QD-OLED monitor article:

"According to the press material, _“the new Alienware 34 Curved QD-OLED Gaming Monitor comes with improved OLED reliability and a 3-year premium warranty, *including coverage for OLED burn-in*, for additional peace of mind.”_ – so it looks like they are covering concerns of image retention and burn in at least to some extent. More details when we have them. "

"Spec wise the AW3423DW is impressive. It is 34″ in size with a 21:9 aspect ratio and a curved (1800R) ultrawide format. There is a 3440 x 1440 resolution, 0.1ms G2G response time (realistic on OLED), 1 million:1 static contrast ratio (realistic on OLED), 250 cd/m2 brightness, 178/178 viewing angles, 1.07b colour depth and a wide colour gamut covering ~149% sRGB and 99.3% DCI-P3. "

They are also claiming 1000 nits peak in addition to the VESA DisplayHDR True Black 400 certification (see here for requirements to meet that certification. at least 250 nits sustained full-screen, etc.).


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> From the QD-OLED monitor article:
> 
> "According to the press material, _“the new Alienware 34 Curved QD-OLED Gaming Monitor comes with improved OLED reliability and a 3-year premium warranty, *including coverage for OLED burn-in*, for additional peace of mind.”_ – so it looks like they are covering concerns of image retention and burn in at least to some extent. More details when we have them. "
> 
> They are also claiming 1000 nits peak in addition to the VESA DisplayHDR True Black 400 certification (see here for requirements to meet that certification. at least 250 nits sustained full-screen, etc.).


Nice. 3 years is not 10, but it’s a lot more than 1.

This may also put pressure on LG to extend their warranty to 3 years (at least if Samsung QD-OLED TVs offer the same…).

If Samsung Display designed the QD-OLED monitors to back off on color gamut a bit, that could translate to significant increases in brightness levels without accelerating aging.

Red is likely to be the weakest color in QD-OLED (assuming the addition of a green OLED layer), so if the red subpixel is a smaller % of the monitor pixel than the TV pixel, that should translate to a lot more green and blue photons that can be emitted in a slightly cooler white.

If Samsung Display is at all successful in establishing a market for premium 34” monitors selling for $1000-2000 this year, I’ll be surprised if we don’t see LG follow suit by 2023.

The comparisons between Samsung’s 34” QD-OLED monitor, LGE’s 42” WOLED TV/monitor and LGE’s 32” RGB printed OLED monitor should prove very interesting…


----------



## stl8k

Unpersuasive!

In biz, losing business to a competitor when you're an incumbent is failing. Losing that biz to a competitor that telegraphs their entry years in advance is utter failure.

This isn't some new TV maker trying to establish themselves at the high end you created. This is a top 2 customer of yours, the most respected brand in consumer electronics, replacing you in the top of their lineup and signaling to the rest of the market, "here's where to invest".

LGD better start training for a race they can win in late 2022 or early 2023 or they may face additional of their TV maker customers doing just what Sony did.



fafrd said:


> Uhhh, there’s premium and then there is niche. If Sony sells 10 WOLEDs or even 20 WOLED for every QD-OLED they sell, the only ‘game’ LGD needs to worry about is continuing to increase production volume.
> 
> LGD’s already been trough the phase where they struggled to sell a few 100,000 new-tech panels off of an 8.5G pilot line, remember?
> 
> The last thing they want to do is light their pants on fire to get back in that mode…
> 
> The powers that be keep shifting the goalposts / definitions, but the old definition of the Premium TV market wax the most expensive 10% of the overall market by volume, meaning ~20 million units per year.
> 
> LGD now has established capacity to deliver over 1.1 *million* WOLED panels a month now, meaning they are in position to utterly dominate the Premium TV market with over 50% share if they can sell everything they manufacture this year.
> 
> It’s a stunning achievement in just 10 years and QD-OLED is basically at the starting blocks of that same trajectory (assuming Samsung sticks with it).
> 
> I’m pretty certain LGD/LGE is far more interested in the lowest-end 50% of the Premium TV market than they are in the highest-end 5%…


----------



## stl8k

Regarding a green emitting layer for Samsung Display QD OLED...

Samsung Display engineers were showing diagrams on the SD YouTube channel 1-2 weeks ago that showed only a blue emitting layer. That's about as definitive as it gets.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Unpersuasive!
> 
> In biz, losing business to a competitor when you're an incumbent is failing. Losing that biz to a competitor that telegraphs their entry years in advance is utter failure.
> 
> This isn't some new TV maker trying to establish themselves at the high end you created. This is a top 2 customer of yours, the most respected brand in consumer electronics, replacing you in the top of their lineup and signaling to the rest of the market, "here's where to invest".
> 
> LGD better start training for a race they can win in late 2022 or early 2023 or they may face additional of their TV maker customers doing just what Sony did.


I think you’re confused about the race LGD is in. Since day 1, their strategy was to first establish a premium market for a ‘better than LCD’ TV technology, then to push manufacturing volumes to dominate share of that premium TV market (meaning dominating the low-end which usually also translates to ceding the high-end).

We’re now witnessing exactly the unfolding of that second phase (according to plan).

And the third phase will be to push lower and lower into the ‘non-premium’ end of the overall TV market.

LGD does not care about having the reputation of having THE best technology in the TV market. What they care about is keeping their fabs filled while selling at an acceptable profit margin.

LGD will care greatly if QD-OLED cuts significantly into WOLED’s market-share or forced them to lower WOLED prices and sell at a loss (again).

So the dance to watch will be what decisions LGD makes about ramping their 10.5G fab as well as what decisions Samsung makes about converting their remaining 8.5G LCD fabs over to QD-OLED manufacturing.

Just look at all the rumors about LGD’s negotiations with Samsung. Nowhere do you see anything about LGD unhappy or complaining about Samsung’s plan to promote WOLED as an inferior technology (a positioning that Sony is apparently copying).

LGD wants to be successful dominating a profitable new market - now that being ‘best’ and ‘premium’ has served it’s purpose of establishing WOLED as the price-performance leader in the Premium TV market, bar none, LGD couldn’t give a rat’s *ss about Samsung’s QD-OLED taking the best TV technology crown from them.

The real question is whether QD-OLED can ever deliver on it’s promise of delivering lower manufacturing cost than WOLED. As long as the answer to that questions remains ‘NO’ (as is my suspicion today as far as Samsung’s current QD-COLED compromise), LGD WOLED will be fine…


----------



## Adonisds

Why don't the numbers add to 1448?


----------



## Wizziwig

They are not supposed to. They do add up to 1111. Just as the individual color luminance adds up to 1004 in the BT2020 gamut chart I posted earlier. On a WOLED this is not the case. The individual colors will add up to about half of the total white luminance. Rest will come from white sub-pixel. White sub-pixel is useless when displaying saturated colors.

I'm not sure what the 1448 number is supposed to represent. Maybe a smaller white window for which they didn't include the individual color values.


----------



## Wizziwig

Wizziwig said:


> I wish UBI or some other source would reveal something about the pixel driving circuit. Will they do in-pixel compensation or go with external like LG. That would give us some clue whether uniformity has any chance of improving.


To answer my own question above from two weeks ago:

"Like all OLED displays, Samsung's QD Display products will suffer from some burn-in issues. Samsung says it's still running tests to assess long-term performance, but it promises the QD Display products will meet or beat OLED rivals in longevity. And it can deal with the problem by monitoring each pixel's performance and adjusting its behavior, a new technology it calls real-time image sticking compensation. According to Samsung, that's better than rivals' manual process that takes 15 or 20 minutes. "

Source.


----------



## wco81

Are they actually showing these displays at CES or just announcing specs?

I thought they weren't going to show?

Let's face it, the Sony QD-OLEDs will probably start at $3500 for the 55-inch and possibly more.

The 65-inch Sony QD-OLED will be $4500 or more?


----------



## JasonHa

wco81 said:


> Are they actually showing these displays at CES or just announcing specs?


Not sure, but most outlets published articles or videos based on seeing the tech elsewhere. For example, CNET said:


> I visited Samsung Display's campus in San Jose, California, to see the panels firsthand...


----------



## 8mile13

After all the criticism (at CES 21 behind closed doors QD OLED Display demo) they got a bit scared..Only viewing in Samsung controlled environment this time lol.


----------



## Adonisds

Wizziwig said:


> They are not supposed to. They do add up to 1111. Just as the individual color luminance adds up to 1004 in the BT2020 gamut chart I posted earlier.
> 
> I'm not sure what the 1448 number is supposed to represent. Maybe a smaller white window for which they didn't include the individual color values.



























Aren't those numbers supposed to be 3% window measurements, and therefore the white brightness should be 1448 and not 1111?


----------



## wco81

So these could be hand-built prototypes, not representative of what their manufacturing process at scale will produce.


----------



## Wizziwig

Adonisds said:


> View attachment 3219115
> View attachment 3219119
> 
> View attachment 3219116
> 
> 
> Aren't those numbers supposed to be 3% window measurements, and therefore the white brightness should be 1448 and not 1111?


Everything I've read said ~1500 nits on 3% window. That's probably what the 1448 number represents. With 10% window it was supposed to be ~1000 nits. Not too far from the 1111 reported here, especially if it's at a cooler white point than D65.

I don't see evidence of any shenanigans. Their WOLED measurement also add up when you account for all the missing 50% nits contributed by the white sub-pixel when displaying non-saturated colors.


----------



## 8mile13

Waiting for the Rtings QD OLED burn-in test lol


----------



## 8mile13

wco81 said:


> Are they actually showing these displays at CES or just announcing specs?
> 
> I thought they weren't going to show?
> 
> Let's face it, the Sony QD-OLEDs will probably start at $3500 for the 55-inch and possibly more.
> 
> The 65-inch Sony QD-OLED will be $4500 or more?


Double it you will be closer!


----------



## helvetica bold

8mile13 said:


> Double it you will be closer!


Yes, 65” LG G2 will be $3800, maaaybe 4K at the most. Sony QD OLED at least 8-10K and not available until Dec. QD is just not worth it at the moment but really cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wco81

Then you'd have to see a big noticeable improvement for people to pay over a 100% premium.

Vivid torch mode!


----------



## Wizziwig

Still catching up on some of the articles posted here today.

""We're not doing any filtering. Almost all the energy hitting the Quantum Dot is usually converted. Not the whole thing, but it's a very high number. And that creates better light efficiency," said Chirag Shah, Samsung Display's director of Quantum Dot technology. "

""QD-Display provides almost two times the color volume of even the most recent white OLEDs," Shah added. "And that means you not only get more color, you get more thrills, more emotions out of the images that you're seeing on the screen."

"Pricing wasn't revealed, but we're not talking about $20,000 sets, according to Samsung Display. Instead, pricing will be comparable to a premium 4K TV or PC monitor, which can cost closer to $2,000. Samsung also expects the pricing to go down as the technology matures. "

They also include illustration of the sub-pixels geometry. Contrary to fafrd's theories, they all look exactly the same. Aperture ratio is huge compared to WOLED.

Source.


----------



## D-Nice

Adonisds said:


> View attachment 3219116


If this holds for real production units, this is probably the most telling chart related to Samsung's brightness performance vs. LG. 

With real content, many of you are going to be highly disappointed based on how these QD-OLEDs ABL works in relation to APL.


----------



## Wizziwig

Brightness difference looked significant (and noticeable according to the reporter) in real content in that LTT video and they didn't gimp the WOLED settings since it was putting out the typical ~800 nits. But without some reference calibrated display, we don't know for sure what's going on. Samsung could be playing games with the EOTF tracking like they do on their LCDs. I suspect for highlights that are not white (like the flames below), the difference will be noticeable but still not on par with top LCD brightness (hence Samsung and Sony keeping LCDs as their flagships).

Just a random frame from their comparison (taken with heap of salt):


----------



## Davenlr

The QD OLED picture looks blown out and clipped.


----------



## Wizziwig

Do you understand how camera exposure works? Neither is likely representative of what was actually visible to the naked eye. To prevent all white clipping in an SDR photo, they would have had to under-expose and dim the heck out of the photo and still unable to capture all the detail.


----------



## Davenlr

Yes, I know how camera exposures work. I was taking time exposure and action shots for a newspaper back in 1974 with real film. Film was expensive, so you didnt take 30 shots and hope one came out right.
Why post an A/B comparison as an example if its not representative?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> So these could be hand-built prototypes, not representative of what their manufacturing process at scale will produce.


Precisely.

Between cherry picking the absolute best panels that they are currently unable to manufacture in volume with any repeatability or juicing the output levels in a manner that will sacrifice lifetime but not at a rate that would show up in a demo, there are a ton of ways a co trolled demo can be rigged.

I’d take the specs Samsung is putting out as a reliable guide to what they are aiming for and believe they have at hand.

When the manufacturing if will have settled out so panels achieving those specs can be mass produced at acceptable yields is another thing entirely…


----------



## Wizziwig

Davenlr said:


> Yes, I know how camera exposures work. I was taking time exposure and action shots for a newspaper back in 1974 with real film. Film was expensive, so you didnt take 30 shots and hope one came out right.
> Why post an A/B comparison as an example if its not representative?


It's all the photo evidence we have at this time. That youtube channel is not exactly "expert" level if you know what I mean. Many of these influencer channels fall into that camp. Try taking a simultaneous SDR photo of two displays with very different brightness capabilities yourself. It's very challenging and usually ends up looking exactly like you see in that photo. The brighter one gets blown out and loses all bright detail. That's why we invented HDR.

Nobody is claiming these photos are 100% representative. The difference could be even larger than in the photo. It's just another data point for those not satisfied with just the instrument readings they included. Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Davenlr

Well, according to Sony, the QD-OLEDs wont release until Nov/Dec 2022 so it looks like a long wait.


----------



## MisterXDTV

Davenlr said:


> Well, according to Sony, the QD-OLEDs wont release until Nov/Dec 2022 so it looks like a long wait.


Really??? So they basically wasted a whole year with a top model that doesn't exist?


----------



## ssj3rd

Davenlr said:


> Well, according to Sony, the QD-OLEDs wont release until Nov/Dec 2022 so it looks like a long wait.


It’s basically a Paper Tiger Release for 2022, and I think they will postpone it further to Q1/2023 because of the Chip/Corona crisis.


----------



## 8mile13

So Samsung QD OLED Display also end of the year release? And what about Samsung OLEDs using LG OLED panels? And what are they gonna call those?

Samsung yesterday
''we'll have more to share about the 2022 TV lineup in the next several weeks."


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> It's all the photo evidence we have at this time. That youtube channel is not exactly "expert" level if you know what I mean. Many of these influencer channels fall into that camp. Try taking a simultaneous SDR photo of two displays with very different brightness capabilities yourself. It's very challenging and usually ends up looking exactly like you see in that photo. The brighter one gets blown out and loses all bright detail. That's why we invented HDR.
> 
> Nobody is claiming these photos are 100% representative. The difference could be even larger than in the photo. It's just another data point for those not satisfied with just the instrument readings they included. Draw your own conclusions.


Also, a fact in evidence is Sony choosing to replace LGD with SDC for their flagship emissive. There had to be extensive comparisons made by Sony to do that.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> First, talk is cheap (especially this time of year).
> 
> Second, they are no doubt talking about cost targets associated with fully-ramped production delivering target yield.
> 
> In the early going, 18 34” monitors at 50% yield translates to $18,000 of revenue based on 34” monitors priced at $2000.
> 
> That compares very favorably with LGD’s current $7000-8000 of revenue per 8.5G sheet manufacturing 8 48” or 6 55” WOLED panels at much higher yield, so it’s not even out of the question to imagine 34” QD-OLED monitors to be discounted well below $2000 relatively early in the ramp cycle.
> 
> $2000 for a 55” QD-OLED TV is not out if the question but won’t happen until yield have greatly improved (meaning late this year which is exactly the rumor).
> 
> LG generates close to $7000 of 55” TV sales manufacturing 6 55” WOLEDs at yields of ~95%.
> 
> So if we assume Samsung needs to achieve a similar revenue target of $7000 manufacturing 55” QD-OLED TVs being sold for $2000, that translates to needing yield levels of at least 58% (an average of 3.5 acceptable panels per 8.5G sheet).
> 
> So it’s credible to believe that Samsung Display will actually not begin manufacturing 55” QD-OLED panels in volume until yield approach 60% and when they do come out, they’ll be priced at $2000…
> 
> First, $2000 for 55” represents a 67% premium over LG’s $1200 55” offering, and second, achieving the same $7000-per-8.5G-sheet revenue target based on 65” panels when 55” panels are yielding 60% would translate to a price of over $5000 (65” QD-OLED yield of ~46%).
> 
> The point being that Samsung will either price their 65” QD-OLED at 2.5 times the price of the 55” model or it won’t start selling until far later than the 55” model (and possibly not until 2023…).


Re-reading the article it still appears that the rough $2K price is at release, not after mfg maturation, and for both TV and high end monitor. Perhaps the YE22 release announced by Sony works to the cost & revenue scenario you have above, making those types of ASP possible. I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## JasonHa

JasonHa said:


> The TV-tech seems to have differences from the monitor tech.


FlatpanelsHD responded to a question about this on Twitter:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1478745784824713217


----------



## Rod#S

I was hoping that this would be the year LG finally decided to make an attempt at making their 8K OLED's attenable to the masses and aggressively price them but wow, no mention at all of 8k. I was hoping this would be used to counter Sony and I'm assuming Samsung's introduction of QD-OLED which will of course be marked as having better picture quality than WRGB OLED. Instead LG introduces and even larger 4k OLED and at 97" surely this is now in the size where 8k makes sense. It was probably arguable at the 77" size as to any real benefits of 8k over 4k in a typical living room but 88" and 97" to me this if nothing else would be a marketing wet dream as a tool to use against QD-OLED. The 77" 8k model would probably need to be priced around what the 65" Sony QD-OLED will be with the 88" perhaps only a few $k more than the 77".


----------



## stl8k

The *big tell *about how Sony feels about QD OLED will be what they contrast it publicly to.

Here's them comparing QD OLED with conventional OLED (on color volume):

News: Displays and Their Technologies

Sony generally has kept its TV marketing rather neutral between LCD and OLED (e.g. see here).

Will be very telling how they move forward!


----------



## stl8k

Rod#S said:


> I was hoping that this would be the year LG finally decided to make an attempt at making their 8K OLED's attenable to the masses and aggressively price them but wow, no mention at all of 8k. I was hoping this would be used to counter Sony and I'm assuming Samsung's introduction of QD-OLED which will of course be marked as having better picture quality than WRGB OLED. Instead LG introduces and even larger 4k OLED and at 97" surely this is now in the size where 8k makes sense. It was probably arguable at the 77" size as to any real benefits of 8k over 4k in a typical living room but 88" and 97" to me this if nothing else would be a marketing wet dream as a tool to use against QD-OLED. The 77" 8k model would probably need to be priced around what the 65" Sony QD-OLED will be with the 88" perhaps only a few $k more than the 77".


LGD is giving more prominence to its 8K 77" OLED. I'd expect its panel pricing to come down out of the stratosphere and wouldn't be surprised to see one of its customers not named Sony intro a set priced accordingly. Also could see LG and NVIDIA cross-promoting the 8K 77" around the launch of a prominent game optimized for 8K.


----------



## hamad138

Dell is giving 4 years Warranty for their QD OLED gaming Monitor.

They are confident it won't burn in

Gesendet von meinem GM1913 mit Tapatalk


----------



## elgreco1

hamad138 said:


> Dell is giving 4 years Warranty for their QD OLED gaming Monitor.
> 
> They are confident it won't burn in
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GM1913 mit Tapatalk


Are you sure about that? I saw 3 years.


----------



## algee

D-Nice said:


> If this holds for real production units, this is probably the most telling chart related to Samsung's brightness performance vs. LG.
> 
> With real content, many of you are going to be highly disappointed based on how these QD-OLEDs ABL works in relation to APL.


Reads to me that outside of test patterns and starfield scenes, brightness is going to be about the same as WOLED - With some certain wins here or there for the QD OLED depending on the scene. From 25% onwards they look almost identical, with a small edge on full field white for the QD OLED.


----------



## circumstances

can someone please tell me what our outlook on OLED, QD-OLED, NEO QD-OLED, MiniLED, MicroLED (and any other potential technologies), are for best picture if you have a year or three to wait?

that will be available in large sizes (like 80" and above).

(factoring in brightness, motion, possible burn-in on organic tech, sample and hold, yadda yadda yadda).

Zero gaming. All movie and tv watching.

i need to know what pie in the sky thing I am waiting for!


----------



## irkuck

Are 8K OLED panels dead for good? Even the new LG 97 incher where 8K would make most sense is 4K. So bye, bye 8K or one can expect its return in the future?


----------



## Davenlr

circumstances said:


> i need to know what pie in the sky thing I am waiting for!


MicroLED - available end of this year. 89" and higher. Have your wallet ready. Probably 5 years before its affordable.
I just pre-ordered the Sony X95K with backlight master drive, miniLED, and local dimming zones with its own XR backlight processor. Ill never be able to afford microLED before I die, so this would be the closest to perfect if they actually have the blooming controlled, which I would hope they would since it has its own chip to do it.


----------



## tonydeluce

Davenlr said:


> MicroLED - available end of this year. 89" and higher. Have your wallet ready. Probably 5 years before its affordable.
> I just pre-ordered the Sony X95K with backlight master drive, miniLED, and local dimming zones with its own XR backlight processor. Ill never be able to afford microLED before I die, so this would be the closest to perfect if they actually have the blooming controlled, which I would hope they would since it has its own chip to do it.


I will be definitely waiting for your as well as other reviews for the X95K - this set looks very promising..


----------



## Rod#S

irkuck said:


> Are 8K OLED panels dead for good? Even the new LG 97 incher where 8K would make most sense is 4K. So bye, bye 8K or one can expect its return in the future?


I suspect it's probably the same as last year, no real mention/talk about the 2 8k models as they were carry overs from the ZX series. I think some regions did get a Z1 series update in name but from my understanding those are just the ZX models. Other regions simply carried over the previous years naming. So even though the 8k sets weren't mentioned in the CES releases I suspect they are still there. Since there was no mention of them my take is unfortunately they will continue on with the ZX models at the same prices because at the very least if LG were going to significantly reduce the pricing that to me would be a point worth mentioning in the CES material, even if in passing like oh, by the way, our previous $20k 77" and $30k 88" pricing on the 8k models has been reduced to $8k and $10k (or $12k) respectively


----------



## circumstances

Davenlr said:


> MicroLED - available end of this year. 89" and higher. Have your wallet ready. Probably 5 years before its affordable.
> I just pre-ordered the Sony X95K with backlight master drive, miniLED, and local dimming zones with its own XR backlight processor. Ill never be able to afford microLED before I die, so this would be the closest to perfect if they actually have the blooming controlled, which I would hope they would since it has its own chip to do it.


My current 1080p televsion and projector are working well enough, i just have the itch to move the tv upstairs (70 inches) and go larger (and into 4K or 8K).

Of course, if I go large enough, I can eliminate replacing my projector, as I am limited to a 106" screen in my viewing room.

So that $$$ projector (and possibly new screen) expenditure, could go into the TV purchase.

But it would have to be damn close to 106" for me to give up front projection.

I have no idea what the logistics of delivering and setting up TVs that large would even look like.

I am willing to wait until I can afford MicroLED, but i'd rather not wait 5 years.

I'm not an cutting edge upgrader, I am happy to keep things for decades, so this may be my last TV!


----------



## Davenlr

The BEST will be 97" OLED by LG coming out this summer. Probably the best you will find in that size. Next would be the QN90A LCD 98" for followed by Sony X92J 100" non-mini-led, and in the affordable budget catagory, TCL 98".


----------



## wco81

So if nothing else, LG will be forced to up their OLED game, bring out top-emission panels next year at the latest and pursue other enhancements?

Or try to drive cost and volumes down even further so the QD-OLED premium is too high for a lot of people?


----------



## MisterXDTV

wco81 said:


> So if nothing else, LG will be forced to up their OLED game, bring out top-emission panels next year at the latest and pursue other enhancements?
> 
> *Or try to drive cost and volumes down even further so the QD-OLED premium is too high for a lot of people?*


The bold one: QD-OLED will be crazy expensive for years...


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Still catching up on some of the articles posted here today.
> 
> ""We're not doing any filtering. Almost all the energy hitting the Quantum Dot is usually converted. Not the whole thing, but it's a very high number. And that creates better light efficiency," said Chirag Shah, Samsung Display's director of Quantum Dot technology. "
> 
> ""QD-Display provides almost two times the color volume of even the most recent white OLEDs," Shah added. "And that means you not only get more color, you get more thrills, more emotions out of the images that you're seeing on the screen."
> 
> "Pricing wasn't revealed, but we're not talking about $20,000 sets, according to Samsung Display. Instead, pricing will be comparable to a premium 4K TV or PC monitor, which can cost closer to $2,000. Samsung also expects the pricing to go down as the technology matures. "





> They also include illustration of the sub-pixels geometry. *Contrary to fafrd's theories, they all look exactly the same. *Aperture ratio is huge compared to WOLED.
> 
> Source.
> 
> View attachment 3219134


What the heck is that a picture of? It is certainly not a macro shot of the subpixel structure.

When a true zoom of subpixel structure emerges showing the red subpixel and the blue subpixel have equal size, I’ll be the first to eat crow, but then ain’t now…


----------



## Fabio Zanellato

Deleted


----------



## algee

fafrd said:


> *What the heck is that a picture of? It is certainly not a macro shot of the subpixel structure.
> 
> When a true zoom of subpixel structure emerges showing the red subpixel and the blue subpixel have equal size, I’ll be the first to eat crow, but then ain’t now…*


maybe i'm ignorant, but why wouldn't they be the same size? at the end of the day all subpixels are really blue subpixels, with different size quantum dots in the green / red to convert the blue to the appropriate color. this color conversion approach via QDs is substantially different than the LG color transmission approach using filters.


----------



## lsorensen

Fabio Zanellato said:


> Sony XR-65X95J TV review
> 
> 
> Did you just see a real bright light?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.whathifi.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry! I can't figure out how to delete a post from my smartphone, can someone help me for the future? Thank you


The forum does not permit deleting posts anymore. You can edit it and remove the content and just leave a note that it is deleted.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Re-reading the article it still appears that the rough $2K price *is at release, not after mfg maturation,* and for both TV and high end monitor. Perhaps the YE22 release announced by Sony works to the cost & revenue scenario you have above, making those types of ASP possible. I'll believe it when I see it.


By ‘market maturation’ I assume you mean once yields have reached minimally acceptable levels.

When ‘release’ is delayed until yields have reached minimally acceptable levels, yes, they are exactly the same thing.

And yes, the YE22 release date by Sony is confirmation - Samsung will not be shipping production volumes of TV panel volumes until yields have ramped to acceptable levels, currently scheduled/hoped for by late September / early October.

Until then, it will be full steam ahead ramping up manufacturing yields on 34” QD-OLED monitors.

So the schedule confidence on QD-OLED products this year is high.

QD-OLED TV is essentially a 2023 product at this point…

It will be interesting to see what Samsung announces as far as conversion of their remaining 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED production.

I’ll be surprised if they commit to that before they have extremely high confidence / proof that the yield issues they are dealing with are surmountable, so if we don’t se any announcement to that effect by mid-year, it starts to say something…


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> QD-OLED TV is essentially a 2023 product at this point…


How do you know that. Can you explain? I read that begin december QD OLED panelproduction began and Samsung and Sony would get the first batch...beyond that i cannot find any info.



Davenlr said:


> Well, according to Sony, the QD-OLEDs wont release until Nov/Dec 2022 so it looks like a long wait.


Where did they say that?


----------



## fafrd

hamad138 said:


> Dell is giving 4 years Warranty for their QD OLED gaming Monitor.
> 
> *They are confident it won't burn in*
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GM1913 mit Tapatalk


Or more likely, Samsung Display is giving them a back-to-back warranty and plans to provide free replacement panels for any failures (as LGD did with 2016 WOLEDs).

In any case, customers should have nothing to worry about as far as burn in for 4 years (or is it 3?).


----------



## Fabio Zanellato

lsorensen said:


> The forum does not permit deleting posts anymore. You can edit it and remove the content and just leave a note that it is deleted.


Thanks so much! Noted ...


----------



## fafrd

algee said:


> maybe i'm ignorant, but why wouldn't they be the same size? at the end of the day all subpixels are really blue subpixels, with different size quantum dots in the green / red to convert the blue to the appropriate color. this color conversion approach via QDs is substantially different than the LG color transmission approach using filters.











OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


Blue OLED is called "blue self-luminescent layer". I love marketers :LOL:




www.avsforum.com





(Post #17535 in case that link doesn’t work).


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> How do you know that. Can you explain?


When both Sony and Samsung announce a late 2022 / December TV release data, isn’t that self-explanatory? Do you think they are going to release QD-OLED TVs in December 2022 and then announce new models at CES 2023?

Thee are some review sites that will review prototypes but the reputable ones wait to purchase an actual product from an actual retailers, so we’re not going to know much of anything about what these QD-OLED TVs actually deliver in the whole for close to a year.

They also don’t be participating in any of this year!s shootouts (at least assuming VE and HDTVTEST stick to their guns about entering shipping product only)…



> I read that begin december QD OLED panelproduction began and Samsung and Sony would get the first batch...beyond that i cannot find any info.
> 
> 
> Where did they say that?


Pilot production likely began late last year and first prototype panels were likely delivered to all early customers including Sony and Dell.

But pilot production is not the same as ramped volume production, which won’t happen until yields have stabilized at an acceptable level (too expensive otherwise).

What they have said is that monitor products will ship starting this Spring and TV products will ship at the end of this year.

What that almost certainly means is that they will not begin manufacturing TV panels in full volume until yields reach minimally acceptable levels, generally considered to mean close to 60%.

It took LGD over 2 years to stabilize WOLED yields at levels approaching 60% when they first ramped WOLED panel production.

So it’s a reasonably safe bet that Samsung has high confidence of achieving 34” monitor yields of over 50% by this Spring while getting to that level with 55” QD-OLED TV panels is not expected to occur before this fall (which is probably best-case).

When 34” monitor yields manufactured 18-up are achieving 50% yield or an average of 9 good panels per 8.5G sheet, that translates to yield levels of 55” panels manufactured 6-up that are below 17% (fewer than 1 good 5” panel manufactured on each 8.5G sheet).

Where yields are now and where yields are planned to be late this year is speculation, but it is a fact that the 34” monitors by Samsung, Dell and others are schedule for release far in advance of the scheduled release of larger TV products and it is a fact that yields on smaller panel production will always improve much earlier than yields on larger panel production (so 34” monitors will achieve yields of 50-60% far earlier than yields of 55” TV panels).

I put a few more details here in this post about rumored prices of $2000 for both 34” QD-OLED monitors as well as 55” QD-OLED TVs: OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


----------



## tonydeluce

fafrd said:


> When both Sony and Samsung announce a late 2022 / December TV release data, isn’t that self-explanatory? Do you think they are going to release QD-OLED TVs in December 2022 and then announce new models at CES 2023?


Sounds like a strategy geared towards selling miniLED and mainstream OLED and to cause buyers that would purchase premium OLED to hold off until the QD-OLEDs become available (and hence no effort to improve A90K/A90J for now )....

I am expecting the LG G2 to outperform the Sony A90K/A90J this year to pull in as many of those buyers as possible. The LG G2 is the OLED to keep your eye on in 2022 in my opinion...


----------



## wco81

So Sony is going to have a prime premium on miniLED compared to their WOLED TVs?

Are other manufacturers doing something similar or most of them don't offer both miniLED and WOLED?

But Samsung we can expect will have a price premium on miniLED anyways.

Question is does miniLED merit a price premium over OLED? Probably a lot brighter peaks but otherwise?


----------



## tonydeluce

wco81 said:


> So Sony is going to have a prime premium on miniLED compared to their WOLED TVs?
> 
> Are other manufacturers doing something similar or most of them don't offer both miniLED and WOLED?
> 
> But Samsung we can expect will have a price premium on miniLED anyways.
> 
> Question is does miniLED merit a price premium over OLED? Probably a lot brighter peaks but otherwise?


I do not believe the Sony miniLEDs will have a price premium over their WOLED TVs (at lest not their A90J/A90Ks anyway) but may offer enough other benefits (much higher NITs for the NIT chasers and more HDR wow factor particular when watching outside of a completely darkened environment). The X95J will offer an 85 inch screen size for potentially just under $5K ( and likely stunning PQ )..


----------



## madsushi

circumstances said:


> can someone please tell me what our outlook on OLED, QD-OLED, NEO QD-OLED, MiniLED, MicroLED (and any other potential technologies), are for best picture if you have a year or three to wait?
> 
> i need to know what pie in the sky thing I am waiting for!


I think I'm going with the 97" LG OLED G2. I think that's the best available at the size and quality. QD is still too far out / new tech, and MicroLED is too expensive. I'll check again in a few years, but I can't imagine not being happy with the 97" G2. Well... maybe I should wait until they post the price tag.


----------



## Davenlr

8mile13 said:


> Where did they say that?


Robert Zohn in a livestream last night with Spare Change.


----------



## fafrd

madsushi said:


> I think I'm going with the 97" LG OLED G2. I think that's the best available at the size and quality. QD is still too far out / new tech, and MicroLED is too expensive. I'll check again in a few years, but I can't imagine not being happy with the 97" G2. Well... maybe I should wait until they post the price tag.


Yeah, the price of the 97G2 versus the price of the 65” QD-OLED will be an interesting matchup to watch.

I’m predicting LG discounts the 83G2 to maintain price parity with the 65” QD-OLED (if that even proves necessary).

I’d be surprised if LG felt enough pressure to discount the 97G2 to the price level of the 65” QD-OLED (at least this first year) but the trade off between screen size and the improved color volume of QD-OLED will be an interesting battle to watch…


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> So Sony is going to have a prime premium on miniLED compared to their WOLED TVs?
> 
> Are other manufacturers doing something similar or most of them don't offer both miniLED and WOLED?
> 
> But Samsung we can expect will have a price premium on miniLED anyways.





> Question is *does miniLED merit a price premium over OLED? *Probably a lot brighter peaks but otherwise?


That is precisely the strategy Samsung has been attempting (with limited success).

More importantly, the trends are clear:

WOLED gets less and less expensive to manufacture with each passing year.

MiniLED LES/LCD get more and more expensive to manufacture with each passing year (since and tiny reduction in LCD panels cost is more than wiped out by the added cost of additional dimming zones in an attempt to better-match WOLED black levels).

So last year represented the first year that WOLED was fundamentally lower cost than MiniLED/LCD and that gap will only continue to increase.

It’s hard to justify selling a lower-performance product for a higher price, hence the marketing challenge to come up with a set of factors for why the more expensive technology is superior.


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> When both Sony and Samsung announce a late 2022 / December TV release data, isn’t that self-explanatory? Do you think they are going to release QD-OLED TVs in December 2022 and then announce new models at CES 2023?


I was under the impression that Sony will share info on QD OLED availability in the spring. Samsung will share some OLED info a few weeks from now. Robert Zohn stated that QD OLED is not ready yet and like you and others thinks end of the year it will be for sale. I see that you state '' they have said (QD OLED) TV products will ship at the end of this year''. Maybe i missed that info..


fafrd said:


> Thee are some review sites that will review prototypes but the reputable ones wait to purchase an actual product from an actual retailers, so we’re not going to know much of anything about what these QD-OLED TVs actually deliver in the whole for close to a year.
> 
> They also don’t be participating in any of this year!s shootouts (at least assuming VE and HDTVTEST stick to their guns about entering shipping product only)…





fafrd said:


> Pilot production likely began late last year and first prototype panels were likely delivered to all early customers including Sony and Dell.


Is this the pilot line?
Mass Production Begins of Samsung’s QD-OLED Panels | The National Interest


fafrd said:


> But pilot production is not the same as ramped volume production, which won’t happen until yields have stabilized at an acceptable level (too expensive otherwise).
> 
> What they have said is that monitor products will ship starting this Spring and TV products will ship at the end of this year.
> ok.
> What that almost certainly means is that they will not begin manufacturing TV panels in full volume until yields reach minimally acceptable levels, generally considered to mean close to 60%.
> So that is likely the reason why it is not ready...
> 
> It took LGD over 2 years to stabilize WOLED yields at levels approaching 60% when they first ramped WOLED panel production.
> 
> So it’s a reasonably safe bet that Samsung has high confidence of achieving 34” monitor yields of over 50% by this Spring while getting to that level with 55” QD-OLED TV panels is not expected to occur before this fall (which is probably best-case).
> 
> When 34” monitor yields manufactured 18-up are achieving 50% yield or an average of 9 good panels per 8.5G sheet, that translates to yield levels of 55” panels manufactured 6-up that are below 17% (fewer than 1 good 5” panel manufactured on each 8.5G sheet).
> 
> Where yields are now and where yields are planned to be late this year is speculation, but it is a fact that the 34” monitors by Samsung, Dell and others are schedule for release far in advance of the scheduled release of larger TV products and it is a fact that yields on smaller panel production will always improve much earlier than yields on larger panel production (so 34” monitors will achieve yields of 50-60% far earlier than yields of 55” TV panels).
> 
> I put a few more details here in this post about rumored prices of $2000 for both 34” QD-OLED monitors as well as 55” QD-OLED TVs: OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


----------



## 8mile13

Davenlr said:


> Robert Zohn in a livestream last night with Spare Change.


Right. I saw him say it to FOMO also a livestream.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Just to mix things up a little...
According to Yonhap, Samsung said Tuesday:
_The company said 65- and 55-inch display panels for QD OLED TVs and 34-inch monitor panels will be released within the next six months._
I suppose you could argue that's close enough to "Fall" based on the uncertainty level of mfg yield improvement pace, and of course they would be optimistic since it's only the beginning of January.
They used 'and' not 'or' when discussing TV vs Monitor FWIW.
(LEAD) Samsung Display to produce QD OLED TV displays in 1st half of 2022 | Yonhap News Agency (yna.co.kr)


----------



## Wizziwig

Davenlr said:


> Robert Zohn in a livestream last night with Spare Change.


That's just his guess. Not saying it's false but nothing official from Sony or Samsung has been released with release dates.



algee said:


> Reads to me that outside of test patterns and starfield scenes, brightness is going to be about the same as WOLED - With some certain wins here or there for the QD OLED depending on the scene. From 25% onwards they look almost identical, with a small edge on full field white for the QD OLED.


Full white screen is not the most challenging pattern. Try a full screen yellow. The WOLED will have to turn off the white sub-pixel and rely on the much dimmer red/green. With the QD-OLED, it just turns off the blue sub-pixel while still delivering full brightness from red and green. White is definitely most common in regular content but there will be some scenes where being able to display saturated colors at full brightness will matter. More so with monitor and gaming applications showing artificially created content.



fafrd said:


> *What the heck is that a picture of? It is certainly not a macro shot of the subpixel structure.
> 
> When a true zoom of subpixel structure emerges showing the red subpixel and the blue subpixel have equal size, I’ll be the first to eat crow, but then ain’t now…*


I said it was an i*llustration* and not a photo. Taking a close look, it appears like a model they made where they put a blue light (or likely UV) inside a box. Then cut some slits for each sub-pixel with colored QD color conversion material on the top of the box. You press a button on the box to turn the light on/off. Probably easier and more convenient to setup for the press than a microscope. If this is a false representation at Samsung's own booth then they are deliberately misleading people. We'll know in March when someone gets the monitors.


----------



## Wizziwig

For what it's worth, Sony has A95K listed as "Available Soon" with Pre-Order option available. Seems like an odd choice if the TV is coming out in 2023.


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> That's just his guess. Not saying it's false but nothing official from Sony or Samsung has been released with release dates.
> 
> 
> 
> Full white screen is not the most challenging pattern. Try a full screen yellow. The WOLED will have to turn off the white sub-pixel and rely on the much dimmer red/green. With the QD-OLED, it just turns off the blue sub-pixel while still delivering full brightness from red and green. White is definitely most common in regular content but there will be some scenes where being able to display saturated colors at full brightness will matter. More so with monitor and gaming applications showing artificially created content.
> 
> 
> 
> I said it was an i*llustration* and not a photo. Taking a close look, it appears like a model they made where they put a blue light (or likely UV) inside a box. Then cut some slits for each sub-pixel with colored QD color conversion material on the top of the box. You press a button on the box to turn the light on/off. Probably easier and more convenient to setup for the press than a microscope. If this is a false representation at Samsung's own booth then they are deliberately misleading people. We'll know in March when someone gets the monitors.


Concur on the QD model. Probably worked with Nanosys on it.


----------



## algee

Wizziwig said:


> Full white screen is not the most challenging pattern. Try a full screen yellow. The WOLED will have to turn off the white sub-pixel and rely on the much dimmer red/green. With the QD-OLED, it just turns off the blue sub-pixel while still delivering full brightness from red and green. White is definitely most common in regular content but there will be some scenes where being able to display saturated colors at full brightness will matter. More so with monitor and gaming applications showing artificially created content.


Sure, like I said, wins in content here and there depending on scene. 

Now I may be totally wrong here, but from what I recall from an analysis of HDR content a year or so ago, most if not all HDR content uses relatively low brightness full color blue, green, and red colors in P3 anyways so I feel like it may be another test pattern win for color saturation that doesn't show up in real content much.

But, like I said, I could be remembering that totally wrong.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> I was under the impression that Sony will share info on QD OLED availability in the spring. Samsung will share some OLED info a few weeks from now. Robert Zohn stated that QD OLED is not ready yet and like you and others thinks end of the year it will be for sale. I see that you state '' they have said (QD OLED) TV products will ship at the end of this year''. Maybe i missed that info..


In one thread or the other I believe their are reported comments from both Samsung Electronics as well Sony of a ‘late year’ or ‘December’ launch of QD-OLED TVs…


[/quote]
Is this the pilot line?
Mass Production Begins of Samsung’s QD-OLED Panels | The National Interest
[/QUOTE]

Yes. Don’t blame yourself for the confusion - Samsung presents things in an inflated way and always reporters to report on their misinformation in a further in accurate way:

‘Nikkei Asia also reported about the start of large-scale production at the facility, stating that the celebration was also for the *first shipment of product from the facility*.’

Step one is committing the capital investment plan and placing orders for equipment (this started tentatively in 2019 and fully in 2020).

Step two is installing equipment and getting the production process steps ironed out. This started in 2020 and continued into 2021). Prototypes will result from this phase and there were demos of prototype panels both at CES ‘20 and CES ‘21.

Step three is finalizing the production process (the final ‘recipe’) and successfully manufacturing the first working samples of the target panels.

This is the step Samsung reached as made a lot of noise about last December. These first working prototypes manufactured on the actual pilot line (with no steps produced by equipment vendors or elsewhere) is what Samsung misrepresentigly calls the ‘start of mass production’.

It means the production line has started the process of ramping yields, which means they are manufacturing at very low pilot volumes to identify and correct sources of yield loss.

Being ‘ramped’ to full production volume means that yields have stabilized to the point that produces ruin volumes can be increased to levels approaching maximum capacity without wasting tons of money (generally meaning yields of 30% as an absolute minimum and typically more than 50%).

What Samsung presents as the ‘start of mass production’ should more accurately be called the ‘start of production ramp’ and that’s where they are now.

Step four will be the mass production of 35” monitors, which they are anticipating within the next 2-3 months. Until then, they will only be producing pilot volumes of monitors to get the line debuted and the yields up. So it’s reasonable to assume that by this Spring, 34” monitor yields will have improved to ~50%.

So that means Samsung Display can begin manufacturing 34” QD-OLED panels at high volume and can expect to get at least 9 good 34” panels per 8.5G sheet.

If the rumors of $2000 price point for 34” QD-OLED monitors are correct, at least half of that ASP is likely going to Samsung Display, meaning $9000 per 8.5G sheet which is more than enough to justify cranking out 34” monitor panels as fast as they can.

When 34” monitor panels are yielding 50% (9 functional panels per 8.5G sheet), that same level of defectivity translates to yield of less than 15% manufacturing 55” QD-OLED panels (less than one working 55” panel per 8.5G sheet). So even though at this stage the line can be changed suffered too be fully-ramped for 34” QD-OLED monitor panel production, it is still a pilot line for 55” QD-OLED TV panel production.

Samsung can manufacture 10 85G sheets of 55” panels whenever they want but they will only get 5-10 working panels for the effort and cannot sell them at a price that will come anywhere close to covering their manufacturing cost.

But by producing 34” QD-OLED panels in high volume, they will be able to reduce defectivity 
and improve yields more rapidly which will result in:

Step five, which is the start of mass-production of 55” QD-OLED panels at high volume. This will require yields of 30% as an absolute minimum (1.8 working 55” panels per 8.5G sheet) and realistically needs yields of at least 50% if not 60% to be sustainable.

Again, based on rumored pricing of $2000 for 55” QD-OLED TVs, 60% yield translates to 3.6 working panels per 8.5G sheet which means $7200 per 8.5G sheet even if we assume 100% of TV ASP equals panel price (which it doesn’t).

At 30% yield, revenue per 8.5G sheet is halved, meaning Samsung Display will be losing their shirt for every 55”
QD-OLED panel they produce and would only be doing so because of contractual obligations that give them no choice or because they are confident enough if yield improvements in the pipeline to justify investing to seed the market.

So yeah, a true high-production line for QD-OLED manufacturing has almost certainly started the yield-ramp process (which means regular low-volume production runs of 34” monitor panels on some schedule at least bi-daily if not twice per day).

But having that pilot line move out of pilot production / yield-ramp phase to fully-ramped high-volume production is another think g entirely and will require at least this full year if not a big chunk of the next (at least when talking about 65” QD-OLED TV panels).


----------



## JasonHa

FWIW, Vincent described the Samsung Electronics QD-OLED TV as "not finalised"


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1478800616923217920


----------



## MisterXDTV

JasonHa said:


> FWIW, Vincent described the Samsung Electronics QD-OLED TV as "not finalised"
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1478800616923217920


As I said this is just a prototype, anyone thinking this is coming out in 4-6 months is dreaming....


----------



## ssj3rd

MisterXDTV said:


> As I said this is just a prototype, anyone thinking this is coming out in 4-6 months is dreaming....


Why didn’t they just announce it in 2023 then? A paper tiger release will just create dissatisfaction/disappointment and even Hate.

But well, maybe they are deserving a little Hatred for this little mess called QD-OLED.


----------



## MisterXDTV

ssj3rd said:


> Why didn’t they just announce it in 2023 then? A paper tiger release will just create dissatisfaction/disappointment and even Hate.
> 
> But well, maybe they are deserving a little Hatred for this little mess called QD-OLED.


My idea is that Sony invested a lot of money in this technology from Samsung Display that is not quite ready for primetime yet

But in the meantime they put the brakes on WOLED improvements because of this (expensive) choice...

What happened:

CES 2022 arrives and they can't afford to tell the world: "Our best TV this year is... A90J from last year!!!"

So they announced the next big thing regardless of how far away is gonna be launched

Samsung Electronics doesn't care about WOLEDs so it's a different situation. 

They can wait one more year trying to sell the same LCD panels they have been selling for the last 10 years...


----------



## fafrd

MisterXDTV said:


> My idea is that Sony invested a lot of money in this technology from Samsung Display that is not quite ready for primetime yet
> 
> But in the meantime they put the brakes on WOLED improvements because of this (expensive) choice...
> 
> What happened:
> 
> CES 2022 arrives and they can't afford to tell the world: "Our best TV this year is... A90J from last year!!!"
> 
> So they announced the next big thing regardless of how far away is gonna be launched
> 
> Samsung Electronics doesn't care about WOLEDs so it's a different situation.
> 
> They can wait one more year trying to sell the same LCD panels they have been selling for the last 10 years...


I think this is exactly right. It’s a repeat of 2021 but with much higher confidence that QD-OLED is in the way (at least 34” QD-OLED monitors).

Sony has something new to talk about even though their 2023 WOLEDs will be a rehash of their 2021 models.

After the egg on their face over the rumored QD-OLED launch before the end of 2021 that never materialized, they can rinse, wash, and repeat with an actual first QD-OLED manufacturing line starting to ramp up so it’s unlikely that will be in a similar situation late this year (at least as far as 34” QD-OLED monitors).

And LG? LG’s now got their next-generation panel manufacturing fully deployed and it looks like they’ve finally got a panel-integrated heatsink to boot. They should be able to parrot Sony’s 2021 flagship OLED performance at a lower price point while making some modest but well-deserved noise about extending their WOLED TV offering to both smaller (42”) and larger (97”) sizes.

If I had to guess, I’m seeing LG’s 83G2 take the best TV crown at VE’s 2022 shootout this summer (no new Sony, no Samsung QD-OLED, so the crown is LGE’s for the taking if they’ve spent the past year wisely matching Sony’s 2021 flagship OLED in the areas it outperformed LG).


----------



## Davenlr

fafrd said:


> If I had to guess, I’m seeing LG’s 83G2 take the best TV crown at VE’s 2022 shootout this summer


You are assuming OLED will always win. I have faith their XR backlight master drive processor and mini-LED backlight MIGHT just compete this year at least in the 8K category. When the Z9D (think that was the model) was their flagship, and totally out of my price range, I always thought some day a regular price TV they make might match it. Looks like the X95K might be that TV. Im on the list for one, if it pans out. I loved the TCL Series 8 picture. The quality and OS and firmware bugs were horrible which is why I went with OLED for now. If they can duplicate TCL's picture with their XR everything, I am going to be a happy camper. I love this A80J for movies, but I love Sports and News, and dont want to waste all those organic pixels on tickers and banners and logos.


----------



## wco81

I bought a 48 CX last June, figuring the C1 and the Sonys were not worth the price premium for a bedroom TV.

I also got the BB Total Tech membership because that would cover TV mounting for a full year. So the plan is to buy a 65-inch by this June, before the membership runs out.

I thought I might get whatever the newest OLED is, even pay a premium for the current model year.

But with better displays for 2023 and beyond, I'm now thinking of getting the best deal available around June, even if that means probably a C1 rather than a C2 or a Sony.

Then looking at upgrading in a few years.

So far, I'm pretty happy with the CX. I don't have it hooked up to a surround sound system or even a sounder. Just to Apple TV 4K and Google TV dongles so the main 4K content I've watched is on Showtime and a Paramount Plus movie.

Looking like C1 may be good enough for a few years and C2 may not be worth the price premium by June. Well there are still reviews to come but unless the price difference was only $200, the PQ improvements would have to be significant over the C1 series.


----------



## tonydeluce

Davenlr said:


> You are assuming OLED will always win. I have faith their XR backlight master drive processor and mini-LED backlight MIGHT just compete this year at least in the 8K category. When the Z9D (think that was the model) was their flagship, and totally out of my price range, I always thought some day a regular price TV they make might match it. Looks like the X95K might be that TV. Im on the list for one, if it pans out. I loved the TCL Series 8 picture. The quality and OS and firmware bugs were horrible which is why I went with OLED for now. If they can duplicate TCL's picture with their XR everything, I am going to be a happy camper. I love this A80J for movies, but I love Sports and News, and dont want to waste all those organic pixels on tickers and banners and logos.


The manner in which TVs are measured during the VE shootout and results weighted, my money is on the G2 this year. But for viewing outside of a completely darkened environment ( I typically have my fireplace burning all winter long for example ), I believe the X95K may offer a number of benefits (2000+ NITs calibrated, HDR "wow" factor, near OLED blacks, minimal blooming, XR processing, etc.) that will place it above the G2 as a larger screen size option for me (as I already have a 65A90J)...


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> I bought a 48 CX last June, figuring the C1 and the Sonys were not worth the price premium for a bedroom TV.
> 
> I also got the BB Total Tech membership because that would cover TV mounting for a full year. So the plan is to buy a 65-inch by this June, before the membership runs out.
> 
> I thought I might get whatever the newest OLED is, even pay a premium for the current model year.
> 
> But with better displays for 2023 and beyond, I'm now thinking of getting the best deal available around June, even if that means probably a C1 rather than a C2 or a Sony.
> 
> Then looking at upgrading in a few years.
> 
> So far, I'm pretty happy with the CX. I don't have it hooked up to a surround sound system or even a sounder. Just to Apple TV 4K and Google TV dongles so the main 4K content I've watched is on Showtime and a Paramount Plus movie.
> 
> Looking like C1 may be good enough for a few years and C2 may not be worth the price premium by June. Well there are still reviews to come but unless the price difference was only $200, the PQ improvements would have to be significant over the C1 series.


I’d suggest you hold off on finalizing your decision until 3 thinks become clear on the C2 versus the C1 (in order of priority):

#1: Panel Lottery (especially in terms of near-black uniformity, or rather, lack of it).

#2: Near-Black Overshoot / Flashing (or hopefully lack of it).

#3: Structured-Grid DSE / Venetian Blind (or hopefully lack of it).

I’d pay an increasing large premium for seeing each of these issues on the C1 resolved on the C2 (in reverse order).


----------



## Thebarnman

stl8k said:


> The *big tell *about how Sony feels about QD OLED will be what they contrast it publicly to.
> 
> Here's them comparing QD OLED with conventional OLED (on color volume):
> 
> News: Displays and Their Technologies
> 
> Sony generally has kept its TV marketing rather neutral between LCD and OLED (e.g. see here).
> 
> Will be very telling how they move forward!


QNED is how they will move forward. QD OLED has always been reported as the stepping stone to QNED (according to Vincent.)


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> I think this is exactly right. It’s a repeat of 2021 but with much higher confidence that QD-OLED is in the way (at least 34” QD-OLED monitors).
> 
> *Sony has something new to talk about even though their 2023 WOLEDs will be a rehash of their 2021 model*s.
> 
> After the egg on their face over the rumored QD-OLED launch before the end of 2021 that never materialized, they can rinse, wash, and repeat with an actual first QD-OLED manufacturing line starting to ramp up so it’s unlikely that will be in a similar situation late this year (at least as far as 34” QD-OLED monitors).
> 
> And LG? LG’s now got their next-generation panel manufacturing fully deployed and it looks like they’ve finally got a panel-integrated heatsink to boot. They should be able to parrot Sony’s 2021 flagship OLED performance at a lower price point while making some modest but well-deserved noise about extending their WOLED TV offering to both smaller (42”) and larger (97”) sizes.
> 
> If I had to guess, I’m seeing LG’s 83G2 take the best TV crown at VE’s 2022 shootout this summer (no new Sony, no Samsung QD-OLED, so the crown is LGE’s for the taking if they’ve spent the past year wisely matching Sony’s 2021 flagship OLED in the areas it outperformed LG).


Sony does have a very ambitious 8K Z9K miniLED LCD (which is the flagship also) that uses a updated version of their 2016 Backlight Master Drive*. But it looks like LCD is no longer a ''hot'' TV tech.

*''A Sony-developed local dimming algorithm to control thousands of tiny, ultra-dense Mini LEDs with absolute precision and independence, delivering extraordinary brightness, impressive dynamic range, deep blacks, and beautifully natural colors.''


----------



## Thebarnman

circumstances said:


> can someone please tell me what our outlook on OLED, QD-OLED, NEO QD-OLED, MiniLED, MicroLED (and any other potential technologies), are for best picture if you have a year or three to wait?
> 
> that will be available in large sizes (like 80" and above).
> 
> (factoring in brightness, motion, possible burn-in on organic tech, sample and hold, yadda yadda yadda).
> 
> Zero gaming. All movie and tv watching.
> 
> i need to know what pie in the sky thing I am waiting for!


QNED.


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> View attachment 3219115
> View attachment 3219119
> 
> View attachment 3219116
> 
> 
> Aren't those numbers supposed to be 3% window measurements, and therefore the white brightness should be 1448 and not 1111?


I went through and attempted to estimate the readings from these graphs and here is what I came up with:

G1 WOLED QD-OLED G2 WOLED (est)
1%. 800 1425 1000
2% 800 1425. 1000
5%. 800 1375 (-4%) 1000
10% 800 1000 (-27%) 1000
25% 600 (-25%) 550 (-45%) 750 (-25%)
50% 250 (-42%) 280 (-49%) 310 (-42%)
75% 225 (-10%) 240 (-14%) 280 (-10%)
100% 175 (-22%) 200 (-17%) 220 (-22%)

[disclaimer: I’ve used the term ‘APL’ or average picture level to refer to the window size % of these ABL/brightness measurements and that may not be the correct term - please don’t nail me to a cross if this in an incorrect use of that term and replace with whatever you believe to be more appropriate. The point below itself is the main point and is unaffected by whatever term is used - Samsung’s ~double-sized step between 10% and 25% (window or APL or whatever) may cause more visible ABL artifacts (visible scene dimming and brightening) on actual content).]

These ABL curves are most important in terms of the likelihood that they can result in mid-scene brightness changes when playing actual content.

If a scene can smoothy change from 10% APL to 25% APL, LG’s ABL will cause a brightness reduction that is only ~half of this ABL curve for Samsung’s QD-OLED.

At APL levels of 10% or less, the QD-OLED ABL curve will push brightness levels beyond what WOLED has typically delivered, but this is unlikely to be an area where significant flashing and dimming artifacts are caused.

At 25% APL and higher, the two technologies appear very similar and this is also such a bright screen that it’s unlikely to be common on average content.

But the step from 10% to 25% is likely to be a step much more common on average content within a single scenes (panning, for instance), and Samsung’s much more aggressive dimming within that range may cause much more frequent visible dimming when watching actual content.

Not saying this will prove true, just pointing out that Samsungs decision to juice low-APL (window %) peak brightness levels by more aggressively increasing between 25% and 10% will be an issue to keep an eye on (which I believe is also related to the ‘actual content’ concern that D-Nice has raised).

For the G2, I’ve just assumed a +10% increase from finally unlocking Evo’s full potential as well as a further 10-14% increase coming from the G2’s new heatsink (so +25% versus G1 levels total).

If those estimates prove realized by the actual G2 that LG delivers, it will mean that the G2 delivers slightly higher brightness levels that QD-OLED over the full range from 10% and 100% and only in very small specular highlights of 5% or less should the QD-OLED deliver higher peak white brightness of ~40%.

But the more important message is that the G2 may appear very similar to the QD-OLED as far as peak brightness on content, at least content that doesn’t push fully-saturated colors near absolute maximum levels…


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> Sony does have a very ambitious 8K Z9K miniLED LCD (which is the flagship also) that uses a updated version of their 2016 Backlight Master Drive*. But it looks like LCD is no longer a ''hot'' TV tech.
> 
> *''A Sony-developed local dimming algorithm to control thousands of tiny, ultra-dense Mini LEDs with absolute precision and independence, delivering extraordinary brightness, impressive dynamic range, deep blacks, and beautifully natural colors.''


It’s true that Value Electronics award the best TV based on performance and with no regard for price.

So I think with 2021 we crossed the threshold where WOLED is now less expensive to manufacture that Flagship MiniLED/LCD and the real question is whether MiniLED /LCD can truly deliver close-to-OLED-blacks in a dark viewing environment (at least close enough to be an attractive trade-off for the increased brightness…).


----------



## tonydeluce

fafrd said:


> I went through and attempted to estimate the readings from these graphs and here is what I came up with:
> 
> G1 WOLED QD-OLED G2 WOLED (est)
> 1%. 800 1425 1000
> 2% 800 1425. 1000
> 5%. 800 1375 (-4%) 1000
> 10% 800 1000 (-27%) 1000
> 25% 600 (-25%) 550 (-45%) 750 (-25%)
> 50% 250 (-42%) 280 (-49%) 310 (-42%)
> 75% 225 (-10%) 240 (-14%) 280 (-10%)
> 100% 175 (-22%) 200 (-17%) 220 (-22%)
> 
> [disclaimer: I’ve used the term ‘APL’ or average picture level to refer to the window size % of these ABL/brightness measurements and that may not be the correct term - please don’t nail me to a cross if this in an incorrect use of that term and replace with whatever you believe to be more appropriate. The point below itself is the main point and is unaffected by whatever term is used - Samsung’s ~double-sized step between 10% and 25% (window or APL or whatever) may cause more visible ABL artifacts (visible scene dimming and brightening) on actual content).]
> 
> These ABL curves are most important in terms of the likelihood that they can result in mid-scene brightness changes when playing actual content.
> 
> If a scene can smoothy change from 10% APL to 25% APL, LG’s ABL will cause a brightness reduction that is only ~half of this ABL curve for Samsung’s QD-OLED.
> 
> At APL levels of 10% or less, the QD-OLED ABL curve will push brightness levels beyond what WOLED has typically delivered, but this is unlikely to be an area where significant flashing and dimming artifacts are caused.
> 
> At 25% APL and higher, the two technologies appear very similar and this is also such a bright screen that it’s unlikely to be common on average content.
> 
> But the step from 10% to 25% is likely to be a step much more common on average content within a single scenes (panning, for instance), and Samsung’s much more aggressive dimming within that range may cause much more frequent visible dimming when watching actual content.
> 
> Not saying this will prove true, just pointing out that Samsungs decision to juice low-APL (window %) peak brightness levels by more aggressively increasing between 25% and 10% will be an issue to keep an eye on (which I believe is also related to the ‘actual content’ concern that D-Nice has raised).
> 
> For the G2, I’ve just assumed a +10% increase from finally unlocking Evo’s full potential as well as a further 10-14% increase coming from the G2’s new heatsink (so +25% versus G1 levels total).
> 
> If those estimates prove realized by the actual G2 that LG delivers, it will mean that the G2 delivers slightly higher brightness levels that QD-OLED over the full range from 10% and 100% and only in very small specular highlights of 5% or less should the QD-OLED deliver higher peak white brightness of ~40%.
> 
> But the more important message is that the G2 may appear very similar to the QD-OLED as far as peak brightness on content, at least content that doesn’t push fully-saturated colors near absolute maximum levels…


Yeah, but I will take that _only_ 5% or less window advantage with even a slight disadvantage for windows over 10%+ as spectacular highlights impress me far more than overall brightness. Then of course, you have the additional perceived brightness from higher color saturation...

For OLEDs, this is the year of the G2 (until the A95K starts shipping which is unlikely to be before the very end of this year )...


----------



## D-Nice

tonydeluce said:


> Yeah, but I will take that _only_ 5% or less window advantage with even a slight disadvantage for windows over 10%+ as spectacular highlights impress me far more than overall brightness. Then of course, you have the additional perceived brightness from higher color saturation...
> 
> For OLEDs, this is the year of the G2 (until the A95K starts shipping which is unlikely to be before the very end of this year )...


For LG to win the shootout, they have to surpass the A90J, not equal it. Nothing I have access to for 2022 says they will. 

They have yet to equal processing, their tone mapping scheme is not as good as Sony and they care more about pumping the white subpixel for specular highlights instead of all 4 like Sony, Yeah, specular highlights may look brighter, but they will be no where near as color saturated. All one has to do is have them side by side to view what I'm posting.


----------



## Wizziwig

algee said:


> Sure, like I said, wins in content here and there depending on scene.
> 
> Now I may be totally wrong here, but from what I recall from an analysis of HDR content a year or so ago, most if not all HDR content uses relatively low brightness full color blue, green, and red colors in P3 anyways so I feel like it may be another test pattern win for color saturation that doesn't show up in real content much.
> 
> But, like I said, I could be remembering that totally wrong.


I posted a link to another forum a few days ago where you can see per-pixel color and luminance range of a few movies. In general, specular highlights from sun will be close to white. Not everything in HDR is specular highlights. Emissive lighting in the frame often has high color saturation - think fire, lava, laser beams, neon lights, etc. It may not be common but has much more visual impact due to larger screen area than a few scattered pixels of specular reflections.



fafrd said:


> If I had to guess, I’m seeing LG’s 83G2 take the best TV crown at VE’s 2022 shootout this summer (no new Sony, no Samsung QD-OLED, so the crown is LGE’s for the taking if they’ve spent the past year wisely matching Sony’s 2021 flagship OLED in the areas it outperformed LG).


Why wasn't LG watching Panasonic who offered the same (or slightly higher 1000 nit) level of performance in 2019 with their original heatsink design and older panel? Hoping Samsung will be more effective at putting some fire under LG's ass to actually innovate on performance instead of just lowering prices and shipping the same basic product year after year with minor processing/connectivity upgrades.


----------



## tonydeluce

D-Nice said:


> For LG to win the shootout, they have to surpass the A90J, not equal it. Nothing I have access to for 2022 says they will.
> 
> They have yet to equal processing, their tone mapping scheme is not as good as Sony and they care more about pumping the white subpixel for specular highlights instead of all 4 like Sony, Yeah, specular highlights may look brighter, but they will be no where near as color saturated. All one has to do is have them side by side to view what I'm posting.


Thank you, I am at a disadvantage as I have not seen one yet but for now will of course take your word for it.

I agree they will have to surpass the A90J but they came close and even surpassed the A90J last year in a few categories so it is at least a distinct possibility.


----------



## asc671

fafrd said:


> Yeah, the price of the 97G2 versus the price of the 65” QD-OLED will be an interesting matchup to watch.
> 
> I’m predicting LG discounts the 83G2 to maintain price parity with the 65” QD-OLED (if that even proves necessary).
> 
> I’d be surprised if LG felt enough pressure to discount the 97G2 to the price level of the 65” QD-OLED (at least this first year) but the trade off between screen size and the improved color volume of QD-OLED will be an interesting battle to watch…


I really don't think anyone will be cross shopping between a 65" screen and a 97" screen.


----------



## CliffordinWales

Does anyone have an idea what the development path for WOLED looks like beyond the Evo / EX panel? It seems the big hope is a new long-lasting, narrow blue OLED emitter but if one of those becomes available, presumably you don't need the white subpixel anymore and can just move to an RGB OLED structure? Or maybe Samsung Display's QD-BOLED approach then becomes significantly more attractive? Or will WOLED be with us for the foreseeable future simply because it's easier to manufacture, regardless of the type of blue emitter used?


----------



## MisterXDTV

CliffordinWales said:


> Does anyone have an idea what the development path for WOLED looks like beyond the Evo / EX panel? It seems the big hope is a new long-lasting, narrow blue OLED emitter but if one of those becomes available, presumably you don't need the white subpixel anymore and can just move to an RGB OLED structure? Or maybe Samsung Display's QD-BOLED approach then becomes significantly more attractive? Or will WOLED be with us for the foreseeable future simply because it's easier to manufacture, regardless of the type of blue emitter used?


Not much they can do hardware wise: now it's time to improve processing/tone mapping and for LG to drop prices and expand the lineup in all kind of different sizes...

As someone else said in this thread: LG Display wants to sell the best value display in the market, not necessarily the best display...

Let's be honest: the jump LCD -> WOLED is gonna be far greater than any WOLED -> QD-OLED improvement imaginable


----------



## mrtickleuk

lsorensen said:


> The forum does not permit deleting posts anymore. You can edit it and remove the content and just leave a note that it is deleted.


Yes that's one way, but _far_ better is to "report" your own post and ask "please delete my post". A mod will always delete it for you properly. That' was the advice from the people running AVS when people complained bitterly at the removal of the feature. HTH


----------



## Rod#S

Since there has been no mention of it I assume these new 2022 tvs' continue on as 10-bit panels and the move to 12-bit continues to be out of reach? If so what is it about 12-bit that is proving so difficult unless it's technically not that difficult but it's absence is merely due to a lack of interest from the manufacturers?


----------



## MisterXDTV

Rod#S said:


> Since there has been no mention of it I assume these new 2022 tvs' continue on as 10-bit panels and the move to 12-bit continues to be out of reach? If so what is it about 12-bit that is proving so difficult unless it's technically not that difficult but it's absence is merely due to a lack of interest from the manufacturers?


The 12 bit content is missing anyway except for a minority of Dolby Vision FEL discs

DV on streaming is still 10 bit


----------



## irkuck

I found this information buried in the CNET article about QD-OLED:

_QD OLED displays have some other limits. *They don't have small enough pixels*, at least yet, to support phones, laptops or *TVs with monster 8K resolution*. But Samsung says it's working on improvements that'll permit the latter. _


----------



## RobertR1

D-Nice said:


> If this holds for real production units, this is probably the most telling chart related to Samsung's brightness performance vs. LG.
> 
> With real content, many of you are going to be highly disappointed based on how these QD-OLEDs ABL works in relation to APL.


Aggressive abl to keep the blue lifespan up?


----------



## fafrd

58LIHP uncovered this very telling article: Samsung Electronics Keeps `QD-Display’ Plans A Mystery – HD Guru

‘Among the biggest head scratchers of CES 2022 has been *Samsung Electronics’ silence on plans for* its sister company Samsung Display’s previously announced* “QD-OLED” hybrid quantum dot/OLED panel technology this year.*’

Samsung Electronics Vice-Chair J.H. Han didn’t even mention the technology in his Tuesday evening CES 2022 opening keynote address.’
But then this:

‘Samsung’s display panel manufacturing arm, *Samsung Display*, aggressively promoted the technology at the show’

‘Nevertheless, *Samsung Display* (SD) is aggressively promoting the benefits of this new technology approach. According to material supplied to us by SD’

In addition, there is another article quoting an interview with Samsung Electronics Vice Chair Han Jing-hee where in answer to a question about why Samsung Electrinics decided to pull promotion of QD-OLED from CES, he states:

“Samsung Display is mass-producing QD displays, but the desired quantity is not yet available, so it was removed from the exhibition." "I will introduce it when the quantity is secured.”

My read is that TV panel yields are not close to what was promised by CES and are not on track for high-volume production of QD-OLED panels this year.

This sets up ‘round two’ of the investment decision meeting that occurred last year. Samsung Electronics got Samsung Display to continue LCD production through 2021 and into 2022 and I’m exchange, agreed to launch QD-OLED monitors and TVs this year.

The monitors will likely happen this year but the TVs will probably not (Samsung QD-OLED TVs, anyway), so this sets up a repeat of last years investment decision.

Samsubg Display will want to move forward with the next phase of the investment plan and convert the remaining 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED production.

Samsung Electronics will want the LCD fabs to continue pumping out LCD for their NeoQLED Flagship TVs through 2022 and into 2023.

In the case the Samsung Group elects to move forward with conversion, Samsung Electrinics has already teed-up a potential supply agreement with LG Display to backfill with WOLED panels and LGD IPS LCD panels in order to backfill for the 1-2 year supply void converting the remaining LCD fabs to QD-OLED will create.

In case the decision is instead to conit ie LCD production for another year while yields on QD-OLED monitors improved to the point that manufacturing TV panels would be viable, it’ll be interesting to watch whether Samsung Electronics elects to Introduce WOLED TVs anyway, or decides to punt that initiative for another year as well…

And I’m guessing that Samsung Display is engaged in a desperate campaign to generate industry buzz in the hope that that can have an influence on the investment committees decision later this year.

For reference, I went back to check the scale and the speed of LGD’s WOLED ramp-up and there are some interesting comparisons:

2010 LG introduced a 15” WOLED TV manufactured on a pilot line which was followed by a 31” TV manufactured on the same pilot line with 12,000 substrate per month capacity. The M1 pilot line which was included to manufacture the initial 55” TVs was a half-8.5G sheet line but these smaller panels may have been manufactured on even smaller substrates.

2012 LG introduced their 55” WOLED TV which win Best of CES award but suffered a one-year delay and didn’t begin shipping until 2013 (55EM9600). That same year, LGD made the decision to invest in the M2 8.5G fab with capacity of 32,000 8.5G substrates per month.

2014 M2 came online propelling WOLED TV shipments of 76,000 in 2014 growing to 606,000 in 2016 (so two years to ramp yields to high-production levels). For context, unyielded capacity of M2 was 192,000 55” panels per month or 2.3million per year, so we are talking about yield levels of only 26% if the line had to run flat-out to deliver those 606,000 panels…

So Samsung Display is already where LGD was in 2014 by having a full 8.5G fab they are ramping up.

On the other hand, they will be closer to where LGD was in 2012 in terms of just starting to manufacture their first 55” panels (and LGD already had 2 years-worth of experience manufacturing 15” and then 31” displays, so you could argue Samsung in now as much as a year behind where LGD was at CES 2012).

Samsung Display has decades of experience manufacturing RGB OLED for phones and they will also benefit from lessons LGD learned ramping WOLED TV manufacturing, so I am certain they will ramp QD-OLED faster than LGD ramped WOLED.

But still, Samsung Electronics wants Samsung Display to be at the maturity level M2 was in 2016 (year 3) before launching QD-OLED TVs and the absolute most optimistic analogy is that Samsung Display may be where LGD was in 2014 when M2 just started operating (year 1).

I can see Samsung Display ramping twice as fast as LGD ramped M2, meaning it could take 1 year instead of 2, but anything faster than that is a pipe-dream (which is the pipe dream I suspect Samsung Display committed to Samsung Electronics as part of the mid-2021 ‘agreement’).

So anything can happen, but my guess is we end up seeing a year of 34” QD-OLED monitor production and another 1-year delay on everything else (possibly including Samsung’s introduction of WOLED TVs).

Of course, everything I’m saying is in regards to Samsung QD-OLED TVs. Sony will happily sell low volumes of a niche product (as long as Samsung Display sells the panels to them at a steep loss), so I think it’s likely we may see Sony 55” QD-OLED TVs by next Spring if not before the end of this year…


----------



## Wizziwig

@fafrd You might enjoy this. Another illustration of QD-OLED (looks like this was for their mobile OLEDs) sub-pixel structure. Samsung should make up their mind and not present both at the same booth. Maybe they will do something different for TVs and monitors due to the different usage patterns?










Source:









News: Displays and Their Technologies


Wow, so all the promotional materials and demos we’ve been seeing have been driven by Samsung Display, not Samsung Electronics? It sure seems as though Samsung Display had made the decision to try to force Samsung Electronics’ hand on introducing QD-OLED TVs this year. The only explanation...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Wizziwig

The guy who filmed the video also says that it does use filtering. That's kind of what I expected. Not sure how else they could deal with reflections or block external light hitting the screen from getting color converted.

Later in the video he has a caption saying: "Printed Quantum Dot Layer Color Conversion, NOT Filtering."


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> The guy who filmed the video also says that it does use filtering. That's kind of what I expected. Not sure how else they could deal with reflections or block external light hitting the screen from getting color converted.
> 
> Later in the video he has a caption saying: "Printed Quantum Dot Layer Color Conversion, NOT Filtering."


Yeah, the fudgificatiom being allowed / encouraged by Samsung Display is astounding.

100% of blue photons are not converted by the quantum dots, so they need a blue-blocking conventional color filter over the red and green subpixels to deliver color purity (as a minimum).

In addition, if they have in fact, increased brightness by replacing one blue OLED layer with a green OLED layer, that means the red subpixel will need exactly the same type of red-bandpass color filter as is used by WOLED (blocks both green and blue light).

Samsung’s presenting of LED-backlit LCD as ‘LED display technology, not LCD’ comes to mind…


----------



## Jin-X

Wizziwig said:


> @fafrd You might enjoy this. Another illustration of QD-OLED sub-pixel structure. Samsung should make up their mind and not present both at the same booth. Maybe they will do something different for TVs and monitors due to the different usage patterns?
> 
> View attachment 3220118
> 
> 
> Source:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News: Displays and Their Technologies
> 
> 
> Wow, so all the promotional materials and demos we’ve been seeing have been driven by Samsung Display, not Samsung Electronics? It sure seems as though Samsung Display had made the decision to try to force Samsung Electronics’ hand on introducing QD-OLED TVs this year. The only explanation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


They are using a variation of the diamond pentile subpixel matrix that they use on their mobile OLED displays?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> @fafrd You might enjoy this. Another illustration of QD-OLED sub-pixel structure. Samsung should make up their mind and not present both at the same booth. Maybe they will do something different for TVs and monitors due to the different usage patterns?
> 
> View attachment 3220118
> 
> 
> Source:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News: Displays and Their Technologies
> 
> 
> Wow, so all the promotional materials and demos we’ve been seeing have been driven by Samsung Display, not Samsung Electronics? It sure seems as though Samsung Display had made the decision to try to force Samsung Electronics’ hand on introducing QD-OLED TVs this year. The only explanation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


is that an image of a QD-OLED or a QLED? And is it a presentation by Samsung Electronics or Samsung Display.

As soon as we have actual macro shots of the monitor and TV QD-OLED subpixel structures, I’m happy to share my view of what it may mean, but I want actual photos that are definitive first…


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> They are using a variation of the diamond pentile subpixel matrix that they use on their mobile OLED displays?
> 
> But the red subpixel being the smallest of the three makes no sense for QD-OLED, so I suspect that that is either an image of an RGB OLED display or an LCD…
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If that is what it is, it makes alot more sense for a monitor than a TV…

But red being the smallest-sized subpixel makes no sense for QD-OLED (which is why I suspect that is an image from either an RGB OLED display or an LCD….).


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> is that an image of a QD-OLED or a QLED? And is it a presentation by Samsung Electronics or Samsung Display.
> 
> As soon as we have actual macro shots of the monitor and TV QD-OLED subpixel structures, I’m happy to share my view of what it may mean, but I want actual photos that are definitive first…


That is from a Samsung Display promotional video. Lots of different display tech in that video along with cuts by the uploader make it very confusing what is being advertised.


----------



## Wizziwig

After watching the video again, I think this was referring to their mobile phone/tablet OLEDs. Really confusing because on the right of the display it said QD-DISPLAY.

Watch it yourself and decide. Maybe someone else will post a cleaner uncut version of the video.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> After watching the video again, *it's possible that this was referring to their mobile phone/tablet OLEDs. *Really confusing because on the right of the display it said QD-DISPLAY.
> 
> Watch it yourself and decide. Maybe someone else will post a cleaner version of the video.


That would make alot more sense.

Red is the strongest color in RGB OLEDs (and blue is the weakest color) while in a true QD-BOLED (blue OLED layers only), green is the weakest color and blue is the strongest color, while in a QD-COLED (at least one green OLED layer), red is the weakest color and blue and green will be within noise level of each other depending on the details…


----------



## 8mile13

Samsung Display's new panel utilizes self-emitting quantum dot (QD) technology, which it says offers higher resolution, better picture quality and more life-like visuals than conventional OLED panels, based on the display technology called *Diamond Pixel(?).*
Samsung Display to produce QD OLED TV displays in 1st half of 2022 (koreaherald.com)

*diamond OLED trademark* ''that is supposed to target a wide array of devices including computer displays, digital signage display panels, display screens for digital cameras, smartphone displays, video monitors, TV panels, wearable displays, tablet screens and notebook displays.''
Samsung files for Diamond OLED patent in the UK - NotebookCheck.net News


----------



## Wizziwig

I think there is a lot of confusion out there because all of this info is coming out of Samsung Display. They supply and demo a lot of different products at their booth for different applications (phones, laptops, monitors, TVs, automotive, etc) and it's all being mixed up by some of the reporters. This would have been clearer if Samsung Electronics had shown a proper TV at their booth. Hopefully the truth will come out once the CES dust settles.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> Samsung Display's new panel utilizes self-emitting quantum dot (QD) technology, which it says offers higher resolution, better picture quality and more life-like visuals than conventional OLED panels, based on the display technology called *Diamond Pixel(?).*
> Samsung Display to produce QD OLED TV displays in 1st half of 2022 (koreaherald.com)
> 
> *diamond OLED trademark* ''that is supposed to target a wide array of devices including computer displays, digital signage display panels, display screens for digital cameras, smartphone displays, video monitors, TV panels, wearable displays, tablet screens and notebook displays.''
> Samsung files for Diamond OLED patent in the UK - NotebookCheck.net News


There is so much noise, sloppy reporting, and deliberate fudgification going on right now, I’m going to sit back until we see reports from UBI and others.

For example, the Korea Hersld article also states this:

‘Samsung Display Co., the display panel-making arm of Samsung Group, said Tuesday it will *roll out QD OLED TV displays in two sizes as well as a monitor display in the first half of the year, ending industry speculations regarding the timing of the commercial debut of the company's next-generation display.*’

So Samsung Display will ‘roll out’ low volume pilot line TV panels to Sony and perhaps also Samsung Electronics which they expect to be paid for rather than giving them away for free, hence the ‘commercial debut’ (of their QD-OLED business).

And from that same article:

‘The company said 65- and 55-inch display panels for QD OLED TVs and 34-inch monitor panels will be released within the next six months.’

Meaning Samsung Display will ‘release’ 55”i and 65” QD-OLED panels to Sony and Samsung Electronics by mid-year which translates to samples of the final product to which no further changes / modifications are expected to be made prior to volume deliveries (but still no manufacturing volume to speak of).

Ans then the sloppy reporting:

‘With the expected launch of QD OLED display panels in the coming months, the global premium TV market is in for serious competition.’

Yea, there will be serious competition, but it’s not going to materialize at the consumer level until 2023…

My guess is that Samsung Display committed to 55” and 65” QD-OLED product ‘launch’ by this week, meaning product finalization and probably also yield and delivery levels that they can’t hit.

So now they are aiming to reach those same milestones by mid-year just in time for the next Samsung Group Investmevt Committee meeting / decision on moving forward with the next phase of the 8.5G LCD conversion plan.

With a 6-month delay on the overall schedule, Samsung Electronics is going to push vociferously for another full year’s-worth of LCD supply before converting the remaining LCD fabs to QD-OLED.

So my guess is that the odds-on favorite outcome is for a full year delay on everything (2022 will aim to deliver what 2021 was supposed to).

Just getting QD-OLED monitors into volume production and reaching the market this year is an achievement, especially if it translates to TV panel production being teed up for volume deliveries a year from now.

But I suspect we’re in for another couple months of noise / misinformation before the press catches up with the reality…


----------



## Wizziwig

The most shocking thing to me was the amount of detailed specifications and measurements they released without NDAs. That's unprecedented for even mature products shown at these trade shows. Much less for prototypes. Usually you just get useless marketing lingo out of CES and have to wait months until D-Nice and others post actual performance measurements. Samsung Display is either really desperate for customers (TV and monitor manufacturers) or extremely confident they can deliver exactly what they promised in final products. I guess they also needed to clearly differentiate what makes this different from WOLED which would be hard without data.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> The most shocking thing to me was the amount of detailed specifications and measurements they released without NDAs. That's unprecedented for even mature products shown at these trade shows. Much less for prototypes. Usually you just get useless marketing lingo out of CES and have to wait months until D-Nice and others post actual performance measurements.





> *Samsung Display is either really desperate for customers (TV and monitor manufacturers) or extremely confident they can deliver exactly what they promised in final products.* I guess they also needed to clearly differentiate what makes this different from WOLED which would be hard without data.


You can probably guess which way I’d vote…

I think the entire QD-OLED initiative is on shakier ground than we suspect.

Samsung display desperately wants the corporation to back their escape from manufacturing LCD panels.

Samsung Electronics want Samsung Display to keep producing LCDs for as long as QLED/LCD continues to capture significant market share.

And Sony, Sony just wants as many Premium TV panel technologies to choose from as possible…

I’m pretty sure QD-OLED cannot be a disaster or Sony would not want their name associated with it. But I can easily see So y doing everything they can to help Samsung Displsy get their QD-OLED initiative funded (certainly at the level of developing and launching one expensive, low-volume Flagship TV model…).

The QD-OLED monitors appear to be going into volume production for real, and they will tell us a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of the technology.

But one 8.5G fan is going to be enough to satisfy the wiorld’s appetite for expensive 34” QD-OLED mo it OTS for years, if not forever.

So the only rationale for investing in additional 8.5G LCD fab conversions to QD-OLED is high confidence that it will quickly capture Premium TV market share to dominate the segment.

Samsung Display obviously believes that to be the case, but Samsung Electronics appears to still have serious reservations (at least right now).


----------



## 8mile13

The last has not been said since Samsung will give more info on the lineup few weeks from now. Part of that will likely be the name of their QD OLED Display models....and maybe even names for Samsung models using LG OLED panels.

I think there really is not that much hurry since Sony (and Samsung) will sell OLEDs using LG OLED panels long before QD OLEDs hits the market.


----------



## Davenlr

Alienware first to announce a QD-OLED display for computer use. HDMI 2.0, and Displayport. 3 yr warranty which includes burn in. Max nits are capped to 250 full field by hardware to prevent burn in, but they said they TV versions later on would not have that restriction.


----------



## Thebarnman

asc671 said:


> I really don't think anyone will be cross shopping between a 65" screen and a 97" screen.


I thought about it, but then again, I USUALLY shop quality not quantity. I keep reading it's better to go bigger regardless if the larger screen is of lesser quality. I'm still watching with my 60" Kuro so 65" would be bigger and so would the 83" A90J and the 97" LG. So I'm going to be looking at all the options!


----------



## Thebarnman

CliffordinWales said:


> Does anyone have an idea what the development path for WOLED looks like beyond the Evo / EX panel? It seems the big hope is a new long-lasting, narrow blue OLED emitter but if one of those becomes available, presumably you don't need the white subpixel anymore and can just move to an RGB OLED structure? Or maybe Samsung Display's QD-BOLED approach then becomes significantly more attractive? Or will WOLED be with us for the foreseeable future simply because it's easier to manufacture, regardless of the type of blue emitter used?


QD-OLED has always been a a stepping stone to QNED.


----------



## dnoonie

Thebarnman said:


> I thought about it, but then again, I USUALLY shop quality not quantity. I keep reading it's better to go bigger regardless if the larger screen is of lesser quality. I'm still watching with my 60" Kuro so 65" would be bigger and so would the 83" A90J and the 97" LG. So I'm going to be looking at all the options!


I went from a 60" kuro to a 65" OLED C8 in November of 2018. I only notice that it's larger on certain content. My space is limited so a 77" would have compromised my audio. I'm glad I purchased when I did I'm really enjoying the HDR and deep color. I have no plans to upgrade while living in this home, if the the new HT room is a little wider that would accommodate a larger screen, but I don't know how or when that might happen. 
Still I'm happy to see these advancements!!!


----------



## CliffordinWales

Thebarnman said:


> QD-OLED has always been a a stepping stone to QNED.


Yes possibly - although I'm always mindful of all the tech that's reached prototype stage then never made it to market. Remember SED TV from Canon and Toshiba, anyone? That was supposed to be the next big thing back in 2006.

Anyway, I'm more interested in where LGD might take its WOLED technology. I think @fafrd mentioned in a post many pages ago that apart from introducing the Evo/EX panel, all LGD can really do with WOLED now is to introduce a next-generation blue OLED emitter, when one finally becomes available (speaking of which?) Is there anything else they could do with WOLED - could you replace the colour filters with quantum dots, for example, to create a QD-WOLED?


----------



## kokishin

~


----------



## kokishin

fafrd said:


> You can probably guess which way I’d vote…
> 
> I think the entire QD-OLED initiative is on shakier ground than we suspect.
> 
> Samsung display desperately wants the corporation to back their escape from manufacturing LCD panels.
> 
> Samsung Electronics want Samsung Display to keep producing LCDs for as long as QLED/LCD continues to capture significant market share.
> 
> And Sony, Sony just wants as many Premium TV panel technologies to choose from as possible…
> 
> I’m pretty sure QD-OLED cannot be a disaster or Sony would not want their name associated with it. But I can easily see So y doing everything they can to help Samsung Displsy get their QD-OLED initiative funded (certainly at the level of developing and launching one expensive, low-volume Flagship TV model…).
> 
> The QD-OLED monitors appear to be going into volume production for real, and they will tell us a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of the technology.
> 
> But one 8.5G fan is going to be enough to satisfy the wiorld’s appetite for expensive 34” QD-OLED mo it OTS for years, if not forever.
> 
> So the only rationale for investing in additional 8.5G LCD fab conversions to QD-OLED is high confidence that it will quickly capture Premium TV market share to dominate the segment.
> 
> Samsung Display obviously believes that to be the case, but Samsung Electronics appears to still have serious reservations (at least right now).


Hey Man, thanks for your always inciteful INSIGHTFUL posts. You're like the ghost whisperer of OLED tech.

Perhaps this has been posted before... got to believe Sony is also sending a message to LG Displays that they had better treat Sony right because Sony now has other sources for premium OLED displays. Tangentially, Sony is also taking it up a notch or two with their LCD TV's this year so another safe bet for Sony in lieu of being totally dependent on LGD.


----------



## fafrd

CliffordinWales said:


> Yes possibly - although I'm always mindful of all the tech that's reached prototype stage then never made it to market. Remember SED TV from Canon and Toshiba, anyone? That was supposed to be the next big thing back in 2006.


I’ll be surprised if QD-OLED stalls at the prototype stage at this point. The Alienware/Dell monitor announcement makes me pretty confident we’ll see 34” QD-OLED monitors, and probably by Spring.

It’s just the timeframe to when yields have improved sufficiently to manufacture 55” QD-OLED panels for TVs that I see as the biggest question mark. Could easily take 2 years or more (though I’m guessing closer to one year is possible).



> Anyway, I'm more interested in where LGD might take its WOLED technology. I think @fafrd mentioned in a post many pages ago that apart from introducing the Evo/EX panel, all LGD can really do with WOLED now is to introduce a next-generation blue OLED emitter, when one finally becomes available (speaking of which?) Is there anything else they could do with WOLED - *could you replace the colour filters with quantum dots, for example, to create a QD-WOLED?*


LGD’s primary focus now is on lowering the cost of WOLED to deliver on it’s promise of matching LCD manufacturing costs (at equal scale/volume, which is still well over a decade away, best-case).

Quantum Dot Color Converters do not replace color filters, they increase efficiency, increase off-angle-viewing performance by raising the emission layer closer to the surface, and increase color purity by delivering more distinct/pure/narrower primaries, but all at the cost of additional manufacturing steps and cost.

Adding quantum dots to WOLED wouldn’t make much sense because first, it would not work as well as QD-COLED and second it would likely add noticeable additional cost.

High-efficiency blue will have a major impact on both WOLED and QD-OLED.

For WOLED, it will result in as much as 50% increase in brightness for no added cost.

The market/press commonly confuses white OLED with white subpixel but the two are not the same. With the increased brightness from a blue subpixel, WOLED can make panels with RGB subpixels to deliver increased color gamut, but at the expense of reduced peak white levels.

High-efficiency blue could make a WOLED portfolio of both higher-brightness current color volume as well as current-brightness higher-color-volume possible.

If Samsung abandons QD-OLED for QNED and high-efficiency blue OLED never materializes, LGD delivering a QD-COLED (Cyan OLED, meaning green & blue OLED layers) makes more sense than adding quantum dots to WOLED. Almost all of the manufacturing steps are the same so it would just be a question of whether there is sufficient demand to cover the additional cost of the quantum dot material / manufacturing steps.

Until there are developments on the high-efficiency blue front, improving backplane speed and increasing pixel aspect ratio (allowing for even smaller screen sizes and 65” 8K panels) are really the only two avenues for improvement LGD WOLED has open to them on the manufacturing front…


----------



## fafrd

kokishin said:


> Hey Man, thanks for your always inciteful posts. You're like the ghost whisperer of OLED tech.
> 
> Perhaps this has been posted before... got to believe Sony is also sending a message to LG Displays that they had better treat Sony right because Sony now has other sources for premium OLED displays. Tangentially, Sony is also taking it up a notch or two with their LCD TV's this year so another safe bet for Sony in lieu of being totally dependent on LGD.


LGE will always be largely captive to LGD’s in-house technology (WOLED & IPS-LCD) while Sony has an interest to exploit as many Display technologies as are available, especially at the Flagship end.

No message is needed. Sony wants to see LGD continue to drive down WOLED panel cost so that WOLED can grow to cover a larger and larger percentage of Sony’s TV portfolio while they will introduce higher-performing higher-cost panel technologies such as QD-OLED as they materialize.

There is 0% chance LGD is considering raising WOLED panel pricing on Sony just as there is 0% chance Sony is considering dropping WOLED in favor of QD-OLED.

Samsung Display promised that QD-OLED would be lower cost than WOLED and that’s what’s gotten lost in the mix (and has caused Samsung Electronics to lose confidence in Samsung Display).

This first generation of QD-OLED based on low-efficiency blue OLED emitter has more OLED layers than WOLED instead of less, has more expensive QDCC & conventional CF top layers instead of replacing WOLED’s CCF with printed QDCC, and the top-emission backplane they went with to increase pixel aspect ratio and boost brightness requires more manufacturing steps than WOLED’s bottom-emission backplane.

So QD-OLED is an intriguing technology, but it is fundamentally more expensive than WOLED and that is gong to limit its penetration to the upper tier of the Premium TV market.


----------



## JasonHa

@fafrd So we aren't expecting LG to switch to top emission for WOLED?


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> The last has not been said since Samsung will give more info on the lineup few weeks from now. Part of that will likely be the name of their QD OLED Display models....and maybe even names for Samsung models using LG OLED panels.
> 
> I think there really is not that much hurry since Sony (and Samsung) will sell OLEDs using LG OLED panels long before QD OLEDs hits the market.


My prediction is that if Samsung does in fact give any update several weeks from now, they will either say nothing substantive regarding QD-OLED TVs (‘we will provide a further update once the schedule become clear’) or they will announce that the QD-OLED monitors will launch this year but the first QD-OLED TVs will be 2023 models that will launch late this year (and that pricing details will be released closer to launch).

My guess is that Samsung Electronics has an entire launch plan teed-up for CES based on an agreed-upon manufacturing schedule and volume.

And then just before CES, Samsung Display came forward with some bad news. Schedule delay alone is a possibility but my guess is that there was also a cost factor (meaning yields will not be where they were expected to be so panel cost will need to increase).

Whatever it was, I think the only decision that might be clear two weeks from now is that a QD-OLED TV launch in 2022 no longer makes sense (though again, I think the more likely scenario is that Samsung delays any definitive decision on QD-OLED TV until ~mid-year).


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> @fafrd So we aren't expecting LG to switch to top emission for WOLED?


They had it tee-up and even demoed it, but in the end it wasn’t needed.

Top-emission allows for smaller pixels but increases cost. The only way LGD could deliver 65” 8K panels was by moving to top emission, so they developed the technology in case the 8K market took off as was being forecast so they wouldn’t be left in the dust.

Then, the 8K market launched as a meow rather than a roar.

And with added time, LGD found waysyo increase pixel PARcand size by reducing inter-pixel spacing.

Net-net, top-emission was not needed for 88” and 77” 8K WOLEDs (and I suspect they can deliver a 65” 8K WOLED based on existing lower-cost bottom-emission technology).

Top-emission might buy WOLED as much as a ~10% boost in brightness, but LGD has apparently continued to see that as not being worth the added cost…

LGD is now in the mode of maintaining current WOLED performance (or rather, making incremental improvements without adding cost) while driving down manufacturing cost as fast as they can.


----------



## TitusTroy

a bit OT but...I bought my first iPhone a few days ago (regular iPhone 13 non-Pro)...can someone answer a basic question for me... is there a way to tell if a movie is playing in 4K DV?...I have an LG 4K DV OLED and every time DV content is enabled I get a pop-up on the top right hand corner of the screen

does the iPhone 13 have something similar where I can verify if I'm getting 4K HDR?...I have a subscription to Apple TV+ and it works fine when using my OLED plus Apple TV 4K box...the video works fine on my iPhone 13 but I can't tell if it's being output in Dolby Vision 4K


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> LGE will always be largely captive to LGD’s in-house technology (WOLED & IPS-LCD) while Sony has an interest to exploit as many Display technologies as are available, especially at the Flagship end.
> 
> No message is needed. Sony wants to see LGD continue to drive down WOLED panel cost so that WOLED can grow to cover a larger and larger percentage of Sony’s TV portfolio while they will introduce higher-performing higher-cost panel technologies such as QD-OLED as they materialize.
> 
> There is 0% chance LGD is considering raising WOLED panel pricing on Sony just as there is 0% chance Sony is considering dropping WOLED in favor of QD-OLED.
> 
> Samsung Display promised that QD-OLED would be lower cost than WOLED and that’s what’s gotten lost in the mix (and has caused Samsung Electronics to lose confidence in Samsung Display).
> 
> This first generation of QD-OLED based on low-efficiency blue OLED emitter has more OLED layers than WOLED instead of less, has more expensive QDCC & conventional CF top layers instead of replacing WOLED’s CCF with printed QDCC, and the top-emission backplane they went with to increase pixel aspect ratio and boost brightness requires more manufacturing steps than WOLED’s bottom-emission backplane.
> 
> So QD-OLED is an intriguing technology, but it is fundamentally more expensive than WOLED and that is gong to limit its penetration to the upper tier of the Premium TV market.


I was about to mention top emission on QD OLED vs bottom emission on WOLED, that’s something else they can do to increase performance, with the trade-off of higher costs.

But that’s something that might make more sense if they open a 3rd plant, like say the 10.5g one, and dedicate it to making higher performance 65/75in and some 8x inch panels that they can charge a premium for. Can also add higher color gamut, basically what the old roadmap had.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

A few (preliminary and) interesting factoids on the 2021 TV market: - Display Supply Chain Consultants

‘according to DSCC’s latest _Advanced TV Shipment Report_, we now expect MiniLED TV shipments of only 2.3 million, and panel shipments of 2.7 million.’

‘According to DSCC’s latest _Advanced TV Shipment Report_, we now expect MicroLED TV shipments of only 30 units in 2021, at an average price of $120,000.’

‘According to the latest update to DSCC’s _Quarterly Flat Panel Display Supply/Demand Report__, _we now expect the 2021 TV market will end the year down 3% compared to 2020 at 251M units.’

Couple that with the forecast of 7.1 million WOLED panel shipments LGD forecast mid-2021:OLEDs accelerate despite wider TV slowdown | LG Display Newsroom

If these numbers are accurate, it translates to these market share numbers by technology:

MicroLED 0.000012%
MiniLED 0.92%
WOLED ~2.83% (slightly less because TVs sold always lag panel sales).

The old definition of the Premium TV Market was the most expensive 10% of TVs by units sold, which means all those above market share %s get multiplied by 10, meaning WOLED captured ~28.3% share of the 2021 Premium TV market while MiniLED (including Samsung’s NeoQLED) captured less than 10%.

LGD now has fully-ramped 8.5G capacity of 175,000 8.5G substrates translating to a maximum of 12 million 55” WOLED panels running flat-out and assuming yields of 95%.

That means that if LGD succeeds to sell their full potential capacity in 2022 or 2023 (depending on the timing of Samsung’s rollout of WOLED TVs), it would translate to a 47% share of the Premium TV market (assuming the size of that market stays flat for another 1 or 2 years).

That same Blog from DSCC also had this to say about the timing of high-efficiency Blue OLED:

‘UDC has for years worked on developing a phosphorescent blue emitter, but each quarter the company uses identical language in its earnings call about phosphorescent blue: “we continue to make excellent progress at our ongoing development work for our commercial phosphorescent blue emissive system.” Cynora for its part has described its progress in achieving the three goals of efficiency, color point, and lifetime, but that progress seems to have stalled since 2018, and Cynora has shifted its short-term approach to an improved fluorescent blue and a TADF green.

A more efficient blue OLED material may eventually happen, and when it does it will accelerate the growth of the OLED industry, but it didn’t happen in 2021. Read our first issue next year to see what we predict for 2022.’


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> I was about to mention top emission on QD OLED vs bottom emission on WOLED, that’s something else they can do to increase performance, with the trade-off of higher costs.


How would your feelings about that change if you knew that LGD can gain more brightness increase and at the expense of less added cost by integrating a heatsink at the panel level?

Of course they could do both (and they always can), but if you’ve got to prioritize, a new technology added to some higher-end panels following the final stages of thin-film manufacturing is the better option to start with versus another option that requires manufacturing of two entirely different thin-film ‘recipes’ within the same factory…

But that’s something that might make more sense if they open a 3rd plant, like say the 10.5g one, and dedicate it to making higher performance 65/75in and some 8x inch panels that they can charge a premium for. Can also add higher color gamut, basically what the old roadmap had.[/quote]

Improvements to the WOLED stack will generally be universally deployed (like the WBE/3S3C/Evo-capable stack being deployed for all 2022 WOLED TVs manufactured).

LGD manufactures some top-emission WOLED panels in their existing 8.5G fab in Paju now, transparent WOLEDs require top-emission (as well as bottom-emission within the same panel).

So mixing top emission and bottom emission within the same line is possible, but expensive. I suspect LGD runs the line for bottom-emission-only production 29 days a month and produces a limited number of transparent WOLEDs one day a month or even one or two days a quarter.

So needing another gab (either 10.5G or 8.5G) is pretty much not involved - since LGD can’t fill an 8.5G fab with top-emission-WOLED only…

My guess is that decisions on moving forward with the 10.5G fab are on hold because of high-efficiency Blue. We saw how much of a hassle rolling out a stack modification through multiple fabs can be last year ad if LGD knows they are likely to be making a further change to the stack for High Efficiency Blue in the next 2-3 years, I can easily see them wait to complete that stack change in the 8.5G fabs before bringing up P10 (10.5G fab).

The real question is when they will next need to add additional WOLED capacity and I suspect the answer to that question may depend on the timing of their agreement to supply Samsung.

So if Samsung ends up deciding to punt any decision to convert their remaining LCD fabs to QD-OLED production for another year, and the decision to introduce WOLED TVs gets delayed another year along with it, I can easily see this giving LGD another year to make decisions on bringing up additional WOLED capacity…

When they do bring up P10, it is likely going to be used exclusively to manufacture 65” and 75” WOLED panels (as well as 42” which can be manufactured 32-up at 10.5G!).

Panels larger than 75” are more efficient manufactured on 8.5G (especially with MMG, which will almost certainly never be brought up at P10).


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> They had it tee-up and even demoed it, but in the end it wasn’t needed.
> 
> Top-emission allows for smaller pixels but increases cost. The only way LGD could deliver 65” 8K panels was by moving to top emission, so they developed the technology in case the 8K market took off as was being forecast so they wouldn’t be left in the dust.
> 
> Then, the 8K market launched as a meow rather than a roar.
> 
> And with added time, LGD found waysyo increase pixel PARcand size by reducing inter-pixel spacing.
> 
> Net-net, top-emission was not needed for 88” and 77” 8K WOLEDs (and I suspect they can deliver a 65” 8K WOLED based on existing lower-cost bottom-emission technology).
> 
> Top-emission might buy WOLED as much as a ~10% boost in brightness, but LGD has apparently continued to see that as not being worth the added cost…
> 
> LGD is now in the mode of maintaining current WOLED performance (or rather, making incremental improvements without adding cost) while driving down manufacturing cost as fast as they can.


Do you work for or own stock in LG? I'm trying to understand why you keep spinning every single bit of news into LG's favor.  

They have no working top emission WOLED. They demoed a *transparent* 77" prototype in 2018 with visible pixel defects even in the one unit they managed to produce. Crickets since then. They also have no working 65" 8K. They published a paper explaining the hoops they had to jump through to even produce them at 77". That approach is not going to scale to 65". 8K without top emission will also be too dim to compete in HDR. I'm also not seeing the massive pixel aperture ratio improvements you keep fantasizing about. It's still the worst of any display technology out there due to the complexity of the driving circuits combined with bottom emission.


----------



## Avs2022

What about QNED? When can we buy a tv with that technology?


----------



## CliffordinWales

Avs2022 said:


> What about QNED? When can we buy a tv with that technology?


I think we have to categorise QNED as purely conceptual at this stage. There isn't even a prototype. 








'Samsung Display focusing on securing uniformity in QNED panel'


Samsung Display was currently focusing on securing the screen uniformity of its quantum dot nanorod LED (QNED) display panel, as it wraps up development, market research firm UBI Research said on Friday.The research firm unveiled core patents filed by Samsung Display it found, which shows the struct




www.thelec.net


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Do you work for or own stock in LG? I'm trying to understand why you keep spinning every single bit of news into LG's favor.


No stock, no attempt at spin, just trying to call balls and strikes the way I see them in an effort to inject a dose of reality into what’s been a repeated campaign of fudgification and confusion).



> They have no working top emission WOLED.


Perhaps I was sloppy with my language.

My understanding is that LGD has demonstrated a ‘dual display’ WOLED able to emit a different image on front and back sides and that that display required both ‘top emission’ and ‘bottom emission’ backplanes on a single backplane (but typing this makes me realize I’m unsure about how it ‘s architected).

I confused that dual-emission prototype with the transparent WOLEDs LGD is shipping today, so my bad.

I also believe I recall posts about CES demos of 65” 8K WOLEDs based on top-emission, but it would take to long to track those down (and I could be confused).




> They demoed a *transparent* 77" prototype in 2018 with visible pixel defects even in the one unit they managed to produce.


Do you mean ‘transparent’ or dual-emission?

LG Digital Signage is selling transparent WOLEDs today: LG Transparent OLED Signage | LG Information Display



> Crickets since then.


I suspect you may be talking about WOLED TVs, while I’m referring to the transparent WOLEDs LG is selling for signage.



> They also have no working 65" 8K.


That they are panning to introduce, absolutely.

But am I correct that there were rumors / posts regarding a 65” 8K WOLED demo at CES several years back?

As far as a 65” 8K product, if/when LG decides there is a significant-enough 65” 8K market to go after (which may not happen for 5+ years), I suspect they have already made sufficient improvements to deliver 8K 65” using bottom-emission.

The 42” 4K pixel is ~9% smaller than the 88”
8K pixel. If/when LGD introduces a 32-34” 4K panel, it will mean 65” 8K is also possible based on bottom-emission…



> They published a paper explaining the hoops they had to jump through to even produce them at 77".


As I have already stated, there is no question that too-emission adds complexity and cost. The future of low-cost WOLED panels is far better-off without ever needing to resort to top-emission.

Samsung Display’s QD-OLED apparently had no choice but to rely on top-emission to reach target brightness levels. That added significant cost as as a result, rather than being fundamentally lower-cost than LGD’s WOLED, the QD-OLED Samsung Display announced at CES last week is fundamentally higher-cost than WOLED.



> That approach is not going to scale to 65".


Sounds as though you’ve been studying the question more closely than me. If you can articulate any reason why Samsung can utilize top-emission for QD-OLED in ways that LGD could not exploit for WOLED, I’m interested.

As long as there is no meaningful market for 65” 8K TVs, the question is academic in any case.

Top-emission has never delivered enough bang for the added buck from LGD’s/WOLED point of view to justify bringing it into production (for low-cost WOLED TV panels, at least).



> 8K without top emission will also be too dim to compete in HDR.


Anither academic discussion. Let’s revisit when 8K TVs sold actually exceed 10% of the Premium TV market….



> I'm also not seeing the massive pixel aperture ratio improvements you keep fantasizing about.


Who’s fantasizing? A 42” 4K pixel is 58% the size of a 55” 4K pixel. How do you think LGD is able to keep shrinking pixel size while maintaining brightness levels without improving
PAR?

Here’s the pixel from a 55 C6:









And here’s the pixel from the 55C1:









If you don’t see a pretty impressive improvement in fill-factor, I don’t know what to say…



> It's still the worst of any display technology out there due to the complexity of the driving circuits combined with bottom emission.


If you want to provide more details of which other display technologies you are referring too and especially why they have cost advantages over WOLED, I’m interested to learn more.

The bottom line I am interested in is bang-for-the-buck, and while vanilla LCD is still less expensive than WOLED, 2021 was the year that WOLED proved it could deliver better bang-for-the-buck than MicroLED/LCD in the Premium TV market.

Top-performing MicroLED/LCDs rivaling the performance of entry-level WOLED were more expensive.

Entry-level MicroLEDs matching or even beating WOLED on price clearly couldn’t measure up on performance.

The most valuable market in terms of profit within the TV market is the bottom ~75% of the Premium TV market, and LGD WOLED is poised to dominate that market (at least until Samsung Display fully industrializes and ramps QD-OLED).[/quote][/quote]


----------



## fafrd

CliffordinWales said:


> I think we have to categorise *QNED as purely conceptual at this stage*. There isn't even a prototype.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Samsung Display focusing on securing uniformity in QNED panel'
> 
> 
> Samsung Display was currently focusing on securing the screen uniformity of its quantum dot nanorod LED (QNED) display panel, as it wraps up development, market research firm UBI Research said on Friday.The research firm unveiled core patents filed by Samsung Display it found, which shows the struct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net


I believe that may be a bit of an overstatement.

QNED apparently has a pilot line, active R&D. and is in the process of developing a full manufacturing flow that can deliver working prototypes.

So it is well behind QD-OLED for sure, but private demos at CES 2024 or possibly even 2023 don’t seem completely outside the realm of the possible…


----------



## wco81

It's one thing to pay $120k for microLED.

But a year or two later, microLED could be a lot better.

If it was a mature technology, there would be a better argument for it.

But there must be a few people willing to spend that kind of money, with the expectation that it will continue to be refined every year and they're putting a lot of money into a moving target.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> No stock, no attempt at spin, just trying to call balls and strikes the way I see them in an effort to inject a dose of reality into what’s been a repeated campaign of fudgification and confusion).
> 
> 
> Perhaps I was sloppy with my language.
> 
> My understanding is that LGD has demonstrated a ‘dual display’ WOLED able to emit a different image on front and back sides and that that display required both ‘top emission’ and ‘bottom emission’ backplanes on a single backplane (but typing this makes me realize I’m unsure about how it ‘s architected).
> 
> I confused that dual-emission prototype with the transparent WOLEDs LGD is shipping today, so my bad.
> 
> I also believe I recall posts about CES demos of 65” 8K WOLEDs based on top-emission, but it would take to long to track those down (and I could be confused).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean ‘transparent’ or dual-emission?
> 
> LG Digital Signage is selling transparent WOLEDs today: LG Transparent OLED Signage | LG Information Display
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you may be talking about WOLED TVs, while I’m referring to the transparent WOLEDs LG is selling for signage.
> 
> 
> 
> That they are panning to introduce, absolutely.
> 
> But am I correct that there were rumors / posts regarding a 65” 8K WOLED demo at CES several years back?
> 
> As far as a 65” 8K product, if/when LG decides there is a significant-enough 65” 8K market to go after (which may not happen for 5+ years), I suspect they have already made sufficient improvements to deliver 8K 65” using bottom-emission.
> 
> The 42” 4K pixel is ~9% smaller than the 88”
> 8K pixel. If/when LGD introduces a 37-38” 4K panel, it will mean 65” 8K is also possible based on bottom-emission…
> 
> As I have already stated, there is no question that too-emission adds complexity and cost. The future of low-cost WOLED panels is far better-off without ever needing to resort to top-emission.
> 
> Samsung Display’s QD-OLED apparently had no choice but to rely on top-emission to reach target brightness levels. That added significant cost as as a result, rather than being fundamentally lower-cost than LGD’s WOLED, the QD-OLED Samsung Display announced at CES last week is fundamentally higher-cost than WOLED.
> 
> 
> Sounds as though you’ve been studying the question more closely than me. If you can articulate any reason why Samsung can utilize top-emission for QD-OLED in ways that LGD could not exploit for WOLED, I’m interested.
> 
> As long as there is no meaningful market for 65” 8K TVs, the question is academic in any case.
> 
> Top-emission has never delivered enough bang for the added buck from LGD’s/WOLED point of view to justify bringing it into production (for low-cost WOLED TV panels, at least).
> 
> 
> Anither academic discussion. Let’s revisit when 8K TVs sold actually exceed 10% of the Premium TV market….
> 
> 
> Who’s fantasizing? A 42” 4K pixel is 58% the size of a 55” 4K pixel. How do you think LGD is able to keep shrinking pixel size while maintaining brightness levels without improving
> PAR?
> 
> Here’s the pixel from a 55 C6:
> View attachment 3220538
> 
> 
> And here’s the pixel from the 55C1:
> View attachment 3220541
> 
> 
> If you don’t see a pretty impressive improvement in fill-factor, I don’t know what to say…
> 
> 
> If you want to provide more details of which other display technologies you are referring too and especially why they have cost advantages over WOLED, I’m interested to learn more.
> 
> The bottom line I am interested in is bang-for-the-buck, and while vanilla LCD is still less expensive than WOLED, 2021 was the year that WOLED proved it could deliver better bang-for-the-buck than MicroLED/LCD in the Premium TV market.
> 
> Top-performing MicroLED/LCDs rivaling the performance of entry-level WOLED were more expensive.
> 
> Entry-level MicroLEDs matching or even beating WOLED on price clearly couldn’t measure up on performance.
> 
> The most valuable market in terms of profit within the TV market is the bottom ~75% of the Premium TV market, and LGD WOLED is poised to dominate that market (at least until Samsung Display fully industrializes and ramps QD-OLED).


The jump in PAR between the 2016 generation and those that followed was primarily due to the removal of 3D. The 3D models needed that larger inter-row gap to make the film patterned retarder function properly. Ideally the gap needed to be even larger since cross-talk on some parts of the screen was still noticeable depending on viewing angle. But larger gap would have made 3D too dim. At some point, not sure if 2017 or 2018, once 3D was dead and buried, they finally updated the pixel geometry to take advantage.

Since then, there's been very little PAR improvement. Whatever they did achieve may have had unintended side-effects like the persistent overshoot issue. The poor PAR made going to 8K difficult and is starting to hurt them on the smaller 42/48 panels since the PAR and brightness are worse as mentioned by HDTVtest in this video.

I was referring to this 77" prototype from 2018. Video here where you can see a column of stuck blue pixels and diagram of the top emission stack. Let's assume they eventually got it working on those 55" transparent signage panels you linked. How many do you think they are producing today and at what yield? Until they demo it on something with good image quality (i.e non-transparent) and larger scale, I don't see it as proof that they can start mass producing consumer TVs using the tech as you assume. If they could, why not use it on the 8K models where it made the most sense and price was already astronomical?

In contrast, Samsung has been mass producing top emission in mobile oleds for years and included it on their first 55" OLED TV back in 2013. They continued using it with QD-OLED. Unlike LG, they have a proven track record with the technology. They also have a track record of delivering large year-over-year mobile OLED brightness improvements. Since 2015 (Galaxy S6), they have gone from 348 nits full screen to 1051 in 2021 (iPhone 13 Pro). Compare that to what LG has done since their 2015 EF9500 model at 135 nits full screen. LG's mobile OLEDs fared no better and got crushed for market share and performance by Samsung.

Given their history, I'll give Samsung the benefit of the doubt on QD-OLED and wait to see where it evolves. Finally having two competitors in this space after years of LG monopoly should hopefully accelerate progress on performance, not just price.


----------



## CliffordinWales

Wizziwig said:


> In contrast, Samsung has been mass producing top emission in mobile oleds for years and included it on their first 55" OLED TV back in 2013. They continued using it with QD-OLED. Unlike LG, they have a proven track record with the technology. They also have a track record of delivering large year-over-year mobile OLED brightness improvements. Since 2015 (Galaxy S6), they have gone from 348 nits full screen to 1051 in 2021 (iPhone 13 Pro). Compare that to what LG has done since their 2015 EF9500 model at 135 nits full screen. LG's mobile OLEDs fared no better and got crushed for market share and performance by Samsung.


I agree that Samsung has innovated further and faster than LGD in small OLEDs. I don't know whether to see LGD through a "glass half empty" or "glass half full" lens, though. They've only just started making money on large OLEDs. They've opened the Guangzhou fab finally giving them economies of scale and allowing them to bring WOLED to a mass market. If the EX panel can reach 1,000 nits without too much degradation in colour performance it will be a much-needed improvement.


----------



## K Sec

fafrd said:


> I believe that may be a bit of an overstatement.
> 
> QNED apparently has a pilot line, active R&D. and is in the process of developing a full manufacturing flow that can deliver working prototypes.
> 
> So it is well behind QD-OLED for sure, but private demos at CES 2024 or possibly even 2023 don’t seem completely outside the realm of the possible…


I think that is way too optimistic, considering QD-OLED is basically the front end / first step in QNED. A 3 years gap since first QD-OLED shipping would be a decent time for prototype / demo. That put it at 2026. I dont see they are in a hurry for QNED anyway. QNED is basically competing against MicroLED. 

I would love to be wrong though. Unfortunately all these tech aren't going to Smartphone anytime soon.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Given their history, I'll give Samsung the benefit of the doubt on QD-OLED and wait to see where it evolves. *Finally having two competitors in this space after years of LG monopoly should hopefully accelerate progress on performance*, not just price.


On this overarching point, we are in total agreement.

The only point I wanted to make is that while a ‘better’ OLED TV technology emerging should push LGD to accelerate improvements (or at least not to sit on their heels), probably not to the point of increasing cost.

WOLED was always aiming to be the low-cost leader of the Premium TV market.

LGD has a large incentive to deliver the best performance they can at the manufacturing cost they have established.

They don’t have any incentive to try to match QD-OLED performance no matter the cost.



> The jump in PAR between the 2016 generation and those that followed was primarily due to the removal of 3D. The 3D models needed that larger inter-row gap to make the film patterned retarder function properly. Ideally the gap needed to be even larger since cross-talk on some parts of the screen was still noticeable depending on viewing angle. But larger gap would have made 3D too dim. At some point, not sure if 2017 or 2018, once 3D was dead and buried, they finally updated the pixel geometry to take advantage.
> 
> Since then, there's been very little PAR improvement.


I’ll take your word for it.



> Whatever they did achieve may have had unintended side-effects like the persistent overshoot issue.


If you have any evidence of that claim, I’m interested to learn more. My understanding of the overshoot issue is that it is related to LGD’s attempt to improve near-black linearity and has nothing to do with changes in subpixel design or inter-subpixel spacing.



> The poor PAR made going to 8K difficult and is starting to hurt them on the smaller 42/48 panels since the PAR and brightness are worse as mentioned by HDTVtest in this video.


On 8K WOLED sales, since the 8K market share is inconsequential, I don’t see how you can claim LGD WOLED is having any ‘difficulty’ with 8K.

My guess is that they could drop 77” and 88” 8K pricing to competitive levels and daily and quickly as soon as they become convinced that it would generate more profit for them.

We’ll only know of I’m right once the 8K market grows into millions of units per year and not hundreds of thousands of units we year.

If brightness of 42” OLEDs starts dropping from the levels of larger-sized panels, I agree they are running into fundamental limitations and will start looking out for that.

I agree that if they can’t deliver a suitably-bright 42” 4K WOLED, they will also be unable to deliver a suitably-bright 77” 8K WOLED.



> I was referring to this 77" prototype from 2018. Video here where you can see a column of stuck blue pixels and diagram of the top emission stack. Let's assume they eventually got it working on those 55" transparent signage panels you linked. *How many do you think they are producing today and at what yield? *


I suspect volume is low but I have no reason to suspect t that is because yield is low. Do you?

My default assumption would be yields on 55” signage panels are similar to 55” TV panels (with some factor for much lower production volumes). But if you’ve got any evidence to the contrary, I’m all ears/eyes.



> Until they demo it on something with good image quality (i.e non-transparent) and larger scale, I don't see it as proof that they can start mass producing consumer TVs using the tech as you assume. If they could, why not use it on the 8K models where it made the most sense and price was already astronomical?


I don’t have proof that LGD can deliver a top-emission WOLED at acceptable yield and volume, but I assume they pursued that path until they were confident the technology was ready and then decided there was no need to being into production for TV panels (at least not yet).

I can easily explain why LGD has not introduced top-emission WOLED for 8K panels: it’s a huge effort, a major distraction, and will add cost for next to no impact on market share or profit. Far easier for them to position placeholder products for an 8K market that repeatedly fails to take-off based on the same technology they use for their bread-and-butter 4K panels.

You seem to believe LG’s 8K TV price has something to do with poor yield, while I see it as strategic (placeholder pricing). If/when we see the 8K TV market, I expect to see LG’s 8K prices plummet, but I see no reason for them to aggressively drop pricing before them.

Of course, we’ll only know if my assumption was wrong once the 8K TV market explodes and of LG fails to follow with competitive pricing (meaning they will be squeezed out and remain a niche player at 8K).



> In contrast, Samsung has been mass producing top emission in mobile oleds for years and included it on their first 55" OLED TV back in 2013. They continued using it with QD-OLED. Unlike LG, they have a proven track record with the technology. They also have a track record of delivering large year-over-year mobile OLED brightness improvements. Since 2015 (Galaxy S6), they have gone from 348 nits full screen to 1051 in 2021 (iPhone 13 Pro). Compare that to what LG has done since their 2015 EF9500 model at 135 nits full screen. LG's mobile OLEDs fared no better and got crushed for market share and performance by Samsung.


I certainly agree with you that Samsung has far more experience and success than LGD with top-emission OLED and even with OLED displays in general from their dominance of the mobile phone screen business.

And I’m honestly excited to see Samsung seemingly introduce 34” QD-OLED monitor products this year and hope to see them forge ahead with the introduction of moderate-volume Samsung QD-OLED TV products by next year. If any company could pull this off, it would be Samsung.

I just feel the need to inject a dose of reality into all of the hype - this is a very steep hill they are trying to climb and if QNED is anywhere near as far along as Samsung Electronics seems to believe/hope, QD-OLED may easily end up being limited to full-volume production of 34” monitors for a few years until ultimately being converted to QNED production.

If QD-OLED ends up being more expensive to produce than QNED, it’s longevity could end up being very limited.



> Given their history, I'll give Samsung the benefit of the doubt on QD-OLED and wait to see where it evolves. Finally having two competitors in this space after years of LG monopoly should hopefully accelerate progress on performance, not just price.


I think you may be confusing some of my question / doubts about QD-OLED with questions or doubts about Samsung, but nothing could be further from the truth.

I have high confidence in Samsung Display’s ability to deliver a viable QD-OLED product either exceeding or matching WOLED in pretty much all areas.

I have more doubt about Samsung Display’s ability to deliver a QD-OLED that is lower cost than WOLED as well as their ability to deliver on the ramp schedule they have promised. 

I also have high confidence in Samsung Electronics to understand the challenges of the situation they are facing as well as to have perspective on the sunshine being promised by their colleagues in Samsung Display (especially after following them through the disaster PID RGB OLED TV initiative a decade ago). They have repeatedly demonstrated an attitude of caution about heading down a path which may lead them over a cliff and I have every reason to suspect they will continue to do so.

And finally, I have confidence in the Samsung Group to make the wisest decisions for the family of corporations as a whole (meaning to carefully balance the perspectives and arguments of both divisions before deciding on the timing and magnitude of investment commitments).

If the timeframe to QDLED production is likely to be more than 3 years behind where QD-OLED is now, I’m guessing they will go ahead and commit the remaining 8.5G fabs for conversion to QD-OLED production.

If QNED has a chance of demonstrating it is no more than a year or two behind QD-OLED (meaning working prototypes this year or next), I won’t be at all surprised to see Samsung continue to delay conversion of the remaining 8.5G fabs to QD-OLED production 6 months at a time. And if QNED does succeed to prove itself ready for production, I can easily see Samsung as a Group decide to leapfrog QD-OLED in favor of going straight to QNED with the remaining 8.5G fabs.

From everything I’ve seen and understood, the QD-OLED Samsung Display has introduced will perform close to what they had imagined as far as specs, but will be significantly more expensive that they had planned for (and promised).

If that’s correct, iQD-OLED will never displace WOLED from the TV market and may not even take a large-enough share of the Premium TV market to absorb the full production levels Samsung is aiming for by converting all of their 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED (Samsung almost certainly does not need more than one 8.5G fan to serve the worldwide demand of QD-OLED monitor panels…).

So much should become more clear over the coming 6 to 12 months…[/quote][/quote]


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> You seem to believe LG’s 8K TV price has something to do with poor yield, while I see it as strategic (placeholder pricing). If/when we see the 8K TV market, I expect to see LG’s 8K prices plummet, but I see no reason for them to aggressively drop pricing before them.


Let's look at reality:

1) Their 8K models are priced 6x the same sized 4K model. Samsung 8K models are around 1.6 times 4K model.
2) Prices have not changed at all in 3 generations of 8K product (Z9, ZX, Z1).
3) Z1 was so limited they didn't even introduce it in the USA. They are still sitting on 2020 ZX inventory here which nobody is buying due to the price.

What's more likely, they priced them not to sell on purpose because they can't actually produce them at scale. Or your theory that they are fully capable of cost effective mass production but would rather sit on the tech and profits while Samsung caches in.

This is not a debate about necessity of 8K. I have about as much interest in it as most on this forum (i.e none). I'm only discussing it in regard to LGs current ability to actually produce them. I believe they released an expensive kludge solution based on their older bottom emission tech because Samsung forced their hand. The fact it wasn't top emission is a clue to where they are with that backplane technology. I recall lots of folks (including yourself) were predicting top emission for 2020. How did that turn out?


----------



## JasonHa

Wizziwig said:


> This is not a debate about necessity of 8K.


Of course it is. IMHO, the 8K market has been far too small for us to gain insight on the technical capabilities of LG. We'll know more (in a few years?) when 8K TV sets sell more.


----------



## fafrd

K Sec said:


> I think that is way too optimistic, considering *QD-OLED is basically the front end / first step in QNED. *


You’ll need to explain why you think QD-LED production represents the first steps of QNED production.

Whether first steps or last steps, the primary area of synergy I’m aware of between QD-OLED and QNED as the printing of quantum dot color converters (QDCC).

When QD-OLED was blue-only (QD-BOLED) and QDCC was expected to convert 100% of incoming blue photons to red or green, that printed QDCC technology could be reused with QNED (which must be blue-only).

First, the OLED deposition equipment is the most expensive piece of equipment in the fab, and that is totally wasted in the case of QNED production (so silly to purchase another 2 or 3 of those expensive machines if they are only sure to be needed for 3 years or less).

Second, now that QD-OLED has had to add a green OLDD layer to boost brightness to target levels, the synergy between QNED and what I’ll call QD-COLED (Cyan OLED), some of that synergy will be lost. The printed QD equipment should be able to be reused, but materials being printed as well as subpixel sizes will need to be very different.

I would have thought ‘front-end’ was the emission layers (OLED layers for QD-OLED or quantum nanorod layer for QNED). I could be wrong about that nomenclature, but whatever the emission layer is called, that is where there is no synergy between QD-OLED and QNED and where all the manufacturing risk (and lack of maturity) lies with QNED. 



> A 3 years gap since first QD-OLED shipping would be a decent time for prototype / demo.


I’m not sure what you mean by ‘decent’. It’s a question of process definition, equipment design/assembly, and then trials / bring-up.

The reports are that process definition was completed last year (meaning they now have a complete process / plan for the manufacturing steps they want to establish).

Assuming that is correct, they should now be in the process of equipment design / assembly with vendors which will lead to evaluation as soon as candidate equipment is ready.

I have no idea of how long that process could last, but going from specs / process to evaluating candidate equipment doesn’t seem outside the realm of the possible.

So without bracketing for the worst case, Samsung being in a position to start experimenting with prototype production using candidate equipment on a pilot line before the end of this year seems possible.

Especially since the electric drive layers and much of the QDCC steps can exploit the synergy with the existing pilot QD-OLED line, the timeframe from prototype working QNED emission layers to working QNED TV panel prototype can be very accelerated.

So I can see a credible scenario where QNED TV prototypes are achieved in 2023. Probably not in time for CES 2023, but by mid-year or CES 2024, not at all out of the question.

The two things to realize are that first, you can’t ‘schedule’ R&D. It will take the time it’s going to take to develop something new (and the riskier the more difficult to plan/schedule).

And second, Samsung is not waiting to consolidate QD-OLED before beginning to invest in QNED. Reports are that there have been two separate groups working in two distinct pilot fabs on QNED and QD-OLED since early-on / the beginning.

So Samsung will not be waiting a ‘decent time’ before beginning investments to develop QNED. Those investments are already being made and have been ongoing for years now.

So it’s really just a question of whether it’s possible (as Samsung now seems to believe) and how long development of equipment and proof of manufacturing flow takes to achieve…

[qiote]
That put it at 2026. I dont see they are in a hurry for QNED anyway. *QNED is basically competing against MicroLED. *[/quote]
I don’t think you’ve understood what Samsung Display’s preferred strategy is.

They want the very top tier of the market to be dominated by MicroLED. MicroLED is the ‘perfect’ display, so nothing can compete with it on performance.

But MicroLED will always be much more expensive than flat-panel display technologies, so it will only extend down a limited extent into y to he high-middle tier of the Premium TV market.

That’s where QNED comes in. Samsung Electronics believes that performance of QNED will be close enough to MicroLED but at much lower cost so that it will dominate all or most of the Premium TV market.

And whatever share of the market QNED is too expensive to capture, that’s where QLED/LCD and MiniQLED/LCD come in to mop up the lowest tiers of the Premium TV market and extend into the upper tiers of the non-Premium TV market.

There is no place for OLED TV (QD-OLED or WOLED) in that Vision.

Samsung Electronics would rather continue with QLED/LCD for another year or even two before jumping straight to QNED rather than cutting off their supply of high-end LCD panels for only a year or two of QD-OLED before making another painful transition to QNED.

The issue is that Samsung Electronics depends on Samsung LCD panels to fuel their high-end QLED TVs and they will be facing a 2-year supply ‘gap’ once they begin conversion of those fabs from LCD to anything new (QD-OLED or QNED).

They’ve prepared to backfill for that 2-year supply gap by purchasing IPS LCD panels and WOLED panels from LGD but they’d prefer to only activate that conversion plan to get straight to QNED if it is on the horizon rather than having to manage a first transition away from LCD to QD-OLED and then a second transition from AD-OLED to QNED.

So Samsung Electronics is in no rush to convert away from LCD/QLED and would happily wait another year or two for QNED, is is Samsung Display that wants to get out of the business of manufacturing LCDs for something ‘better’ / differentiated like QD-OLED as fast as they can…



> I would love to be wrong though. Unfortunately all these tech aren't going to Smartphone anytime soon.


Again, I’m not saying your wrong. History is littered with promising new Display technologies that never materialized.

Just saying that there is no ‘schedule’ other than what is possible and it’s not outside the realm of possibility to see prototypes of QNED by 2023 from everything I’ve seen…


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Let's look at reality:
> 
> 1) Their 8K models are priced 6x the same sized 4K model. Samsung 8K models are around 1.6 times 4K model.
> 2) Prices have not changed at all in 3 generations of 8K product (Z9, ZX, Z1).
> 3) Z1 was so limited they didn't even introduce it in the USA. They are still sitting on 2020 ZX inventory here which nobody is buying due to the price.





> What's more likely, they priced them not to sell on purpose because they can't actually produce them at scale. Or your theory that they are fully capable of cost effective mass production but would rather sit on the tech and profits *while Samsung caches in.*


Ahhhj, therein lies the gap between us. Tell me exactly how much profit you believe that Samsung ‘cashed in’ on 8K TV sales in 2021 and get back to me when you’ve got some numbers to discuss.

You seem to believe LG is missing out on a big fat 8K gravy train while I’ve looked into it enough to conclude there is not yet any 8K gravy to be had.

I don’t have any facts or numbers to share with you, but my guess is that LGE’s profit selling 48” 4K WOLEDs far exceeded Samsung’s profit selling 8K QLED/LCDs (and I’ll even go a step further and bet that LGE makes more profit selling 48” and 42” 4K WOLEDs this year than Samsung makes selling 8K QLED/LCDs).



> This is not a debate about necessity of 8K. I have about as much interest in it as most on this forum (i.e none). I'm only discussing it in regard to LGs current ability to actually produce them. I believe they released an expensive kludge solution based on their older bottom emission tech because Samsung forced their hand. The fact it wasn't top emission is a clue to where they are with that backplane technology. I recall lots of folks (including yourself) were predicting top emission for 2020. *How did that turn out?*


How it turned out was that they had it ready in case the 65” 8K market exploded but then that market stalled (and stalled, and stalled), so there was no reason to introduce a product.

LGD/LGE goes where the money is.

Why in the world would you lower your prices in an emerging / premature / low volume market so that the result would be to increase sales volume by 10% but halve your gross margins?

I give LGE/LGD far more credit for being cautious and wide-eyed about the 8K market than you do. Again, until there is some actual gravy to be had in the 8K market, our argument is academic and we can’t know if my analysis is correct or not.

If/when the 8K market grows to be at least 10% of the Premium TV market (30 to 40 times the volume it had in 2021), if LGs 8K TV prices have not dropped to under 150% of Samsung’s 8K NeoQLED MiniLED/LCD prices, you were right and I was wrong.


----------



## Wizziwig

Most of Samsung's premium TVs don't use LCD panels produced by Samsung Display at all. The panel codes are easily accessible via service menu:










I don't know who the VA code stands for. For sake of argument, let's pretend it's Samsung Display. Seems to be limited mostly to 85" models. Oddly those are the sizes (both 8K and 4K) that have been sold out everywhere since the BF price drops.


----------



## Wizziwig

Amid those long winded excuses and rationalizations of LGs failures and delays, I missed your earlier question regarding the overshoot.

I have a hard time understanding how improving near-black gradation could cause this problem. I don't think it's related but would like to hear your theory.

My theory is that it's linked to backplane changes. Maybe in an attempt to free up space so they can increase emitting pixel area, they reduced the size of the transistors. This would reduce electron mobility and increase the pre-charge delay for the driving transistors. To compensate for that delay, they would have to increase the voltage on the data line to a value above the correct level for the desired luminance. The degree of this overdriving would need to be highest at lowest luminance values - exactly where we see the problem. By the time they drop the voltage to the correct value, the luminance has already overshot its target value. Result is akin to the reverse ghosting you see on some LCDs when you attempt to overdrive them to improve response times.

Whatever they gained from this change (cost, yield, pixel fill factor, reduced switching times, etc.) appears to be more important to them than the side effects it caused. They are definitely aware of it since HDTVtest routinely tests for it on every model since 2018 when this got all the press.


----------



## 8mile13

Wizziwig said:


> Most of Samsung's premium TVs don't use LCD panels produced by Samsung Display at all. The panel codes are easily accessible via service menu:
> 
> View attachment 3221009
> 
> 
> I don't know who the VA code stands for. For sake of argument, let's pretend it's Samsung Display. Seems to be limited mostly to 85" models. Oddly those are the sizes (both 8K and 4K) that have been sold out everywhere since the BF price drops.


A similar chart posted on avforums states all 85 inch panels being VA AUO except for QN700A which is blank (because such TV is not for sale).


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Most of Samsung's premium TVs don't use LCD panels produced by Samsung Display at all. The panel codes are easily accessible via service menu:
> 
> View attachment 3221009
> 
> 
> I don't know who the VA code stands for. For sake of argument, let's pretend it's Samsung Display. Seems to be limited mostly to 85" models. Oddly those are the sizes (both 8K and 4K) that have been sold out everywhere since the BF price drops.


I trust that you understand more details than me, but you need to explain to me why you believe Samsung Electronics begged / reached an agreement with Samsung Display to extend LCD production for another year last year?

If Samsung Electronics is already producing the majority of their QLED TVs using commodity LCD panels, whi is it so important to them to fight the DSE vision to convert Samsung Display’s tensing LCD TV panel production to QD-OLED?


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Amid those long winded excuses and rationalizations of LGs failures and delays, I missed your earlier question regarding the overshoot.
> 
> I have a hard time understanding how improving near-black gradation could cause this problem. I don't think it's related but would like to hear your theory.


Oh, my theory is simple. First, there is this ever-present nonlinearity / overshoot coming out of black since the beginning:











Added to this, my C6 exhibits a huge nonlinearity going from video level 16 to video level 17 and 18 that I have had to perform unnatural acts in terms of calibration parameters to reign in.

Left at default settings, my zC6 crushes near-blacks into black (black-crudh

The nonlinearity coming out of black / off has been an issue plaguing WOLED since the beginning and at the same time LGD attempted to ameliorate that by introducing the use of dithering, they also introduced the new PQ flaw of luminance overshoot / flashing.

I don’t have any quantitative proof, but intuitively, it is clear to me that the introduction of spatial dithering coupled with a significant no linearity in near-black coming out of black has caused the luminance overshoot / flashing problem thsf has plagued newer-generation WOLEDs…


> My theory is that it's linked to backplane changes.


I don’t believe so, I suspect it’s been caused by the introduction of dithering near-black to improve linearity near-black that is the culprit…



> Maybe in an attempt to free up space so they can increase emitting pixel area, they reduced the size of the transistors. This would reduce electron mobility and increase the pre-charge delay for the driving transistors. To compensate for that delay, they would have to increase the voltage on the data line to a value above the correct level for the desired luminance. The degree of this overdriving would need to be highest at lowest luminance values - exactly where we see the problem. By the time they drop the voltage to the correct value, the luminance has already overshot its target value. Result is akin to the reverse ghosting you see on some LCDs when you attempt to overdrive them to improve response times.


Thst’s not a bad theory. All I know is that overshoot of WOLED coming out of black has been there since the beginning, it appears to be approximately constant in absolute luminance, meaning much more significant in % amount and noticeable degree coming out of black into near-black luminance levels, and the issue appears to have been greatly amplified by the introduction of dithering to improve near-black linearity and reduce black crush.




> Whatever they gained from this change (cost, yield, pixel fill factor, reduced switching times, etc.) appears to be more important to them than the side effects it caused.


On that overall statement, I agree, though I suspect it is more related to near-black dithering than any changes made to the backplane…

[qupte]
They are definitely aware of it since HDTVtest routinely tests for it on every model since 2018 when this got all the press.
[/QUOTE

I’d appreciate a link up the specific test by HDTVTEST you are referring to. What I have seen is that Rtings.com timing / pixel response tests have shown an overshoot coming out of black since the earliest days of their WOLED testing but since the lowest test they perform is 0% to 20%, the magnitude of the overshoot isn’t enough to be a concern.

A similar test from 0% to 5% or even 3% would be much more useful…


----------



## Avs2022

Does anybody know how bright a QNED tv could be? Higher than LCD?


----------



## 8mile13

According UBI research:
''(QNED)tech has best characteristics for display''

looking at several articles...

No burn-in since there are no organic emitters (in case there is burn-in it will be lesser a issue with inorganic emitters)
longer lasting than OLED emitters
superior color gamut compared to OLED
improved higher brightness than what we have now
faster respons time than what we have now
more uniform luminosity across the entire screen


----------



## wco81

8mile13 said:


> According UBI research:
> ''(QNED)tech has best characteristics for display''
> 
> looking at several articles...
> 
> No burn-in since there are no organic emitters (in case there is burn-in it will be lesser a issue with inorganic emitters)
> longer lasting than OLED emitters
> superior color gamut compared to OLED
> improved higher brightness than what we have now
> faster respons time than what we have now
> more uniform luminosity across the entire screen


How quickly would Samsung roll out those benefits? Because if they're so good, people won't keep buying TVs.

Likely what will happen is that they will start selling TVs before the tech and the manufacturing processes are refined enough to deliver all those benefits.

And the first ones will carry high premiums even though after a few years of refinement, they will deliver better performance at lower cost and could sell it at lower prices.


----------



## RichB

8mile13 said:


> According UBI research:
> ''(QNED)tech has best characteristics for display''
> 
> looking at several articles...
> 
> No burn-in since there are no organic emitters (in case there is burn-in it will be lesser a issue with inorganic emitters)
> longer lasting than OLED emitters
> superior color gamut compared to OLED
> improved higher brightness than what we have now
> faster respons time than what we have now
> more uniform luminosity across the entire screen


Do these exist in any size?

- Rich


----------



## 8mile13

RichB said:


> Do these exist in any size?
> 
> - Rich


august 2021 
''Samsung Display is close to wrapping up QNED's development, it will still be some time before the technology can be launched commercially. The next step will be to produce prototypes and send these to customers for testing. It will then need to iron out kinks in the design. Only when customers are satisfied will Samsung Display invest in the equipment it needs to put QNED into mass production. That's likely still a good 2-3 years away, experts believe.''
Samsung Display close to wrapping up QNED development (hdtvtest.co.uk)


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> august 2021
> ''Samsung Display is close to wrapping up QNED's development, it will still be some time before the technology can be launched commercially. The next step will be to produce prototypes and send these to customers for testing. It will then need to iron out kinks in the design. Only when customers are satisfied will Samsung Display invest in the equipment it needs to put QNED into mass production. *That's likely still a good 2-3 years away, experts believe.*''
> Samsung Display close to wrapping up QNED development (hdtvtest.co.uk)


If there is any real possibility at all that equipment investments in QNED production could be made by August 2023 (2 years from August 2021), I predict Samsung will drag out further QD-OLED fab conversions into next year and will do everything possible to leapfrog QD-OLED TV to get straight to QNED TV…


----------



## RichB

So, no reason to hold off on buying an LG 97G2.
When Sony announced product I believe it, Samsung, requires additional evidence.

- Rich


----------



## wco81

Even if QD-OLED is all that and a bag of chips, is it worth spending a lot of money on a first-generation product?

Depending on what kind of premium pricing they want but it's telling that the only two brands which have signaled they will make TVs with the new panels are Sony and Samsung, both notorious for high prices, low bang for the buck.


----------



## Hotobu

wco81 said:


> Even if QD-OLED is all that and a bag of chips, is it worth spending a lot of money on a first-generation product?
> 
> Depending on what kind of premium pricing they want but it's telling that the only two brands which have signaled they will make TVs with the new panels are Sony and Samsung, both notorious for high prices, low bang for the buck.


QNED is also right around the corner, and should be out right when QD-OLED matures, and by that time maybe they'll figure out a way to get micro LED down to a smaller size. OLED was a "top-dog" tech for quite a while, but there's a good chance we'll be seeing next gen leaps every 3 years. Just gotta decide how much of an incremental improvement you want for the $, jump in and and then enjoy what you have.


----------



## circumstances

Is any current or announced OLED or QD-OLED top emission, and have any solved the blue issue yet?


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> Is any current or announced OLED or QD-OLED top emission, and have any solved the blue issue yet?


High Efficiency Blue OLED emitter still ‘on the horizon’.

QD-OLED is top emission…


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> High Efficiency Blue OLED emitter still ‘on the horizon’.
> 
> QD-OLED is top emission…


thanks, fafrd!

all of them are top emission, or depends on the brand?

(I might just skip all OLED based technologies, and die waiting for QNED)


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> thanks, fafrd!
> 
> all of them are top emission, or depends on the brand?
> 
> (I might just skip all OLED based technologies, and die waiting for QNED)


All QD-OLED panels including the 34” QD-OLED monitor panels are too-emission.

All WOLED TV panels are bottom-emission (at least through 2022).


----------



## Thebarnman

Hotobu said:


> QNED is also right around the corner, and should be out right when QD-OLED matures, and by that time maybe they'll figure out a way to get micro LED down to a smaller size. OLED was a "top-dog" tech for quite a while, but there's a good chance we'll be seeing next gen leaps every 3 years. Just gotta decide how much of an incremental improvement you want for the $, jump in and and then enjoy what you have.


That's the way I see it. Still watching my 60" Kuro Plasma and I feel confident enough that WOLED has matured to the point there won't be too many more developments to wait for. What I'm saying is, my Kuro will have held me over for 14 years (this June) and that's about the time I expect to get the 83" A90J. Sure, there's the new QD-OLED, but it's at a size I'm not interested in. There's the (97") LG coming out this year? I don't know the price of that yet, but I do know one thing, the quality won't be as nice when compared to the Sony...(but they do say size matters more!) 

I believe the 83" A90J will hold me over till QNED has been around a good four years or so. And then of course, I would want it to be a larger size than what I would be accustomed to at that time (83".) I'm guessing I'll be ready for QNED in a good seven or eight years. The only thing I think would compete with QNED is possibly MicroLED if the price is right.


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung QD-Display Globally Certified by SGS for Outstanding Picture Quality

















[Press Release] Samsung QD-Display Globally Certified by SGS for Outstanding Picture Quality







global.samsungdisplay.com


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

I see it has been a busy weekend on this thread! Good dialog IMO.

FWIW, fafrd’s comment a couple pages back about max profit in the whole TV industry being the bottom 75% of the premium market is key. I haven’t seen the profit breakdown (maybe I have via DSCC and have forgotten) but from various business article sources that is clearly where the profit is (someone might argue with the 75% choice).

LGE doing whatever it takes to win in this segment is a no-brainer since they are the lead horse there today. SVD is a distant 2nd. SVD makes A LOT of cash (in fact the most in the industry) in the mainstream segment (I’ll choose <~$1200 today), but % profit not so much. They make decent profit in the low-end premium, but numbers show they aren’t winning the lucrative profit segment with QLED vs WOLED. 

SEC is looking for the next premium segment winner (ie. High profits on decent volume – up to 5-10% of total TV market in their dreams) since their tech isn’t dominating today. Hence looking at QD-OLED (then QNED) and microLED, through their SDC and SVD operations, with the ever-present internal politics at play. I think LGE is focusing furiously on making big profits on bigger and bigger volume in mid to low premium for the rest of this decade. If they get a boost from better blue OLED materials, that’s a bonus. I’m not sure what leverage the long-term thinkers at LGE (or LGD) have with the C-suite as far as internally generated next-gen technologies to battle Samsung. Their microLED publicity is a whisper amongst Samsung’s shouts. Getting a CEO/CFO to really think beyond a decade’s worth of awesome profit, which they are well on their way to setting up, is almost impossible for all but the most forward-thinking CEO. 

Just my 2 cents of course as always….


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> Second, now that QD-OLED has had to add a green OLDD layer to boost brightness to target levels


Is there something more than speculation from OLEDNET and DSCC to support that this is really being done?


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> Is there something more than speculation from OLEDNET and DSCC to support that this is really being done?


The only other reference I’ve seen to ‘rumors’ may be references to the same article by UBI, so I’m not aware of any other independent source of that 4S2C B-B-B-G stack other the UBI article yet.

I just scanned the Silicon Investor UDC board and see that the addition of a green OLED layer appears to be news there. If you search back to this Spring, I have several long posts where my analysis lead to the conclusion that QD-OLED (BOLED) could not compete with WOLED on brightness based on Florescent blue, even with 4 layers.

I was stating that Samsung Display would need at least 5 Florescent blue layers if not 6 to match WOLED brightness and lifetime when the UBI article appeared and bowed the 4th green OLED layer without even mentioning it (you can trace back from the below ‘COLED’ link to find a link to the UBI article).

So to my knowledge, the spring 2021 UBI article is the original (and still only) ‘rumor’ of a green OLED layer though I recognized immediately that this would be a much more viable and attractive way for QD-OLED to compete with WOLED.

I’ve been calling it QD-COLED since that time, since it is actually a Cyan OLED stack and no longer blue: OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread

My gut tells me that is the direction Samsung Display has decided to go to the n order to salvage their QD-OLED program and I’ve been awaiting independent confirmation, but seen nothing yet.

If you have not yet seen the Spring 2022 UBI article, it would interest you, and here is the image it contained:










I have been looking at the different specs that have emerged for QD-OLED monitors versus QD-OLED TVs and Samsung Displays statement that monitor and TV panels have been ‘tuned’ differently for the two differing applications, however, and I’m ready to pile more speculation into what this will turn out to mean.

I believe the QS-OLEDs for monitors have an additional blue OLED layer versus rhe QD-OLEDs for TVs.

So 4S2C B-B-B-G for TV and 5S2C B-B-B-B-G for monitors.

It’s the only way I can explain the +25% brightness spec on the monitors (as well as Dells very confident 3-year warranty including burn-in, no doubt backed by Samsung Display).

Adding a 4th blue layer will increase blue and red subpixel strength by 33% (while green will also increase, but by less because of the green OLED layer).

That means red and green subpixels could be shrunk by 25% to deliver equivalent brightness and lifetime to the 4S2C stack.

That saved space can be used to increase all three subpixel by 20% to deliver a 20% increase in peak brightness levels without degrading lifetime / time-to-burn-in.

So I’m predicting we’ll see that the red:green subpixel ratio is smaller on QD-OLED monitors than on QD-OLED TVs and if/when someone goes to the trouble to reverse-engineer the OLED stack, we’ll see that the monitor panels have an additional blue layer.

Because literally everything else except voltage levels stays the same between 4S2C QD-COLED and 5S2C QD-COLED (including manufacturing steps other than those repeated an additional time for the 4th blue OLED layer),
it’s an elegant and appealing solution to increase brightness without taking the risk of sacrificing lifetime (except that it adds to manufacturing cost).


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> the conclusion that QD-OLED (BOLED) could not compete with WOLED on brightness based on Florescent blue, even with 4 layers.


The color filters and polarizer in WOLED significantly reduces brightness. Removing those in QD-OLED would make a big difference. 



fafrd said:


> I just scanned the Silicon Investor UDC board and see that the addition of a green OLED layer appears to be news there.
> 
> So to my knowledge, the spring 2021 UBI article is the original (and still only) ‘rumor’ of a green OLED layer though I recognized immediately that this would be a much more viable and attractive way for QD-OLED to compete with WOLED.


The Silicon Investor discussion is also largely based on UBI though their information is rather vague. DSCC also picked up on the rumor but neither has reported it as confirmed so was just wondering if someone else has stated that.



fafrd said:


> I have been looking at the different specs that have emerged for QD-OLED monitors versus QD-OLED TVs and Samsung Displays statement that monitor and TV panels have been ‘tuned’ differently for the two differing applications
> 
> It’s the only way I can explain the +25% brightness spec on the monitors (as well as Dells very confident 3-year warranty including burn-in, no doubt backed by Samsung Display).


In this video from HDTVTest they show the peak brightness of the monitor is limited to be lower (1000 nits) than for the TV (1500 nits) to preserve lifetime though overall brightness could be higher (250 v 200). I wonder if that's what they mean by "tuned"?


----------



## Misuspita

OK, Samsung's path is discussed here but... What is LG's plans after woled?


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> The color filters and polarizer in WOLED significantly reduces brightness. Removing those in QD-OLED would make a big difference.


The polarizer was a factor I did not account for in my analysis. So if you have an estimate of what % of photons are blocked in WOLED by the polarizer, I’d appreciate it and will attempt to assess the impact. It may mean QD-OLED for TVs are only 3S2C B-B-G and QD-OLED for monitors is the stack UBI-disclosed of 4S2C B-B-B-G.

I did take the impact f the color filters into account. The addition of a green OLED layer means that there is little difference in list efficiency g conventional color filters between QD-COLED and WOLED:

-Blue subpixel of QD-COLED requires a green-blocking conventional color filter similar to WOLED’s red-and-green-blocking color filter.

-Red subpixels of QD-COLED and WOLED need identical red-bandpass conventional color filters.

-Green subpixel of QD-OLED needs a yellow (blue-blocking) conventional color filter compared to WOLED’s blue-and-red-blocking green conventional color filter.

I used similar estimates for the efficiency of all conventional color filters (of about ~85% if memory serves) so if you’ve got any more detailed information indicating that a yellow conventional color filter is more efficient for green than a green conventional color filter, for example, I’d be happy to add any such details to my model.

But the bottom line is that between quantum dot color converters not being 100% efficient (meaning blue photons leaking through Red and Green QDCCs need to be filtered out) and now the addition of green photons to the OLED emissive layer, there is little difference between QD-OLED 1.0 and WOLED in terms of color filter efficiency (certainly a fraction of what it was supposed to be based on a pure blue OLED stack and 100% efficient QDCCs…).



> The Silicon Investor discussion is also largely based on UBI though *their information is rather vague. *


Absolutely. They slipped that change into he QD-OLED stack image they’d presented before 
without making any textual reference at all to the change not the addition of a green OLED layer to the stack…


> DSCC also picked up on the rumor but neither has reported it as confirmed so was just wondering if someone else has stated that.


Yes, the DSCC pick-up was what I was referring to, but they may just now be picking up on what UBI slipped out last summer…

Until I see someone referring to having heard it from Samsung directly, I’m erring on the side of caution that it has been confirmed (though personally, I’m certain this is what Samsung Display has done).

Samsung has now got so much marketing investment behind the concept of blue-only QD-BOLED which is a perfect lead-in to blue-only QD-Display 2.0 based on QNED, my gut feeling is they don’t want to risk confusing the market and are hoping to stick to the simple concept they’ve already disclosed without being called on the fact that the QD-OLED they are manufacturing is quite different…



> In this video from HDTVTest they show the peak brightness of the monitor is limited to be lower (1000 nits) than for the TV (1500 nits) to preserve lifetime though overall brightness could be higher (250 v 200). I wonder if that's what they mean by "tuned"?


Yes, I’ve seen that. Here is my read:

Full-field brightness dominates gaming monitor lifetime far more than peak brightness of highlights, so bumping monitor brightness from 200 Nits to 250 Nits without sacrificing brightness is far more important for a successful gaming monitor than delivering 50% brighter highlights at the expense of reduced full-field brightness.

The average occurrence of HDR highlights while gaming is far more frequent than while viewing random content, so whatever ‘risk’ is being taken by modeling % of time at HDR highlight levels, that risk is greatly amplified on a gaming monitor versus a TV viewing random content.

So if you can boost both TV brightness levels with the additional of another Blue OLED layer by ~20% to 250 cd/m2 full-field and 1800cd-m2 @1%, delivering 100% of that increase for full-field levels but only delivering ~56% of the peak highlight levels @ 1% you could have delivered (along with a much smoother ABL curve reducing noticeable dimming artifacts) it is a wise move.

Also, wherever the Samsung comment came from, it suggested ‘tuning’ in manufacturing in likely in addition to SW/ABL. That could just mean a different subpixel allocation, but I suspect it’s more than that.

Which is why my guess is that it’s both an added blue layer with modified subpixel sizes as well as modified ABL for gaming monitors versus TVs.

From my prior analysis, I would have guessed 4S2C B-B-B-G for TVs and 5S2C B-B-B-B-G for monitors but since I may have overestimated WOLED’s efficiency by overlooking the impact of the pollorizer, it’s possible that it is 4S2C B-B-B-G for monitors and 3S2C B-B-G for TVs (which would reduce the QD-OLED’s COGs gap closer to WOLED, since both QD-OLED TVs and WOLED would be based on 3 OLED layers…


----------



## uniqueemailomine

Misuspita said:


> OK, Samsung's path is discussed here but... What is LG's plans after woled?



This was discussed as well. It may be the case that they have no plans. Remember that until OLED LG was a second tier electronics manufacturer, good, but not necessarily top of the line. OLED was so much better than LCD that they became a premium brand just because they were pretty much the only player in the space. QD-OLED is Samsung's baby, and the next technology after that is QNED, which maybe LG is working on for OLED, I'm not sure. What's probably going to happen is that other "premium" brand manufacturers (Sony, Samsung, LG) are going to exit the LCD space, because the profit margins in that space are shrinking due to bottom tier manufacturers (TCL, Hisense, Vizio, etc.) offering super cheap products, and LG may just exist in limbo and keep churning out OLED sets with incremental improvements for years to come.


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> So if you have an estimate of what % of photons are blocked in WOLED by the polarizer, I’d appreciate it and will attempt to assess the impact.


Samsung has been putting out numbers of 20-30% for the effect of the polarizer in mobile OLEDs. It's probably something similar to that for WOLED / QD-OLED.








Samsung Display Announces Polarizer-less OLED With 25% Less Power







www.anandtech.com









Here come Samsung polarizer-free POL-LESS OLEDs | OLED Info


Samsung Display has been developing polarizer-free AMOLED displays for many years, and last year UBI detailed how the company plans to use color filters to eliminate the need for polarizers and so increase the efficiency of their OLED panels while also lowering the thickness.DSCC posted an...




www.oled-info.com


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> Samsung has been putting out numbers of 20-30% for the effect of the polarizer in mobile OLEDs. It's probably something similar to that for WOLED / QD-OLED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Display Announces Polarizer-less OLED With 25% Less Power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.anandtech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here come Samsung polarizer-free POL-LESS OLEDs | OLED Info
> 
> 
> Samsung Display has been developing polarizer-free AMOLED displays for many years, and last year UBI detailed how the company plans to use color filters to eliminate the need for polarizers and so increase the efficiency of their OLED panels while also lowering the thickness.DSCC posted an...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-info.com


Thanks. It it’s that big of an impact, it’s essentially the equivalent of a full Blue OLED layer, so this would definitely increase the chances that the 4S2C B-B-B-G stack disclosed by UBI is what Samsung Display is using for the QD-OLED monitor panels and the QD-OLED TV panels could be a lower-cost 3S2C B-B-G stack…

Once we get macro shots of the subpixels we’ll hopefully be able to make a more educated guess…

If WOLED is using 2 blue Florescent OLED layers passing through polarizers cutting out ~25% of the photons, that means delivering equivalent blue performance for QD-OLED through an identical-sized blue subpixel would only require 1.5 equal blue OLED layers (meaning that a blue subpixel based on 2 blue OLED layers could be only 2”3/4ths the size to deliver equivalent brightness.

We have to wave our hands about lifetime (at least until there is any lifetime data to compare) but just assuming equivalent lifetime, with peak brightness measurements and subpixel dimensions, we can suds out alot about the QD-OLED ATSC compared to the WOLED stack…


----------



## CherylJosie

What is even more amazing than the major advances in the technology is that we have a forum where it is possible for the layperson to keep up with the developments in pseudo-lay terms.

Thank you so much guys for sharing your expertise. I was wondering if a quantum dot OLED was in the works and if it could improve lifespan, reduce burn-in, or improve uniformity while raising brightness. Apparently the jury is still out?

I'm really enjoying the clarity and accuracy of my CX. I hope LG stays competitive. I chose this over the Samsung Q90 because LG has a better reputation for properly implemented and reliable functionality, and the wide viewing angle helps in my application. The tradeoff was less color volume, and although that's painful, it's better than a glitchy expensive TV that fails prematurely. I'm not even all that concerned about my sub-par 5% gray scale nonuniformity with apparent automation sucker marks in addition to the banding and dark blotches. I don't notice anything amiss even at night with the shades closed unless I'm watching specific video clips that bring it out and I'm looking for it.

I don't regard LG as a low budget second tier manufacturer. I view LG as the most competitively priced high performance manufacturer out there. I've got recently upgrated microwave, laundry, and refrigeration appliances from LG and wouldn't trade them for the world. The only thing edging LG out in terms of the dishwasher was Bosch. Definitely top notch gear at the right price. Hope they stick around for a long, long time.


----------



## Hotobu

CherylJosie said:


> Thank you so much guys for sharing your expertise. I was wondering if a quantum dot OLED was in the works and if it could improve lifespan, reduce burn-in, or improve uniformity while raising brightness. Apparently the jury is still out?


The jury is still out in the sense that no 3rd party reviewer has had a chance to get their hands on one, which subsequently means that it hasn't been stress tested, but pretty much all signs point to this being true. A major indicator is that Dell/Alienware has already stated that the warranty on their QD-OLED monitor will be 3 years, which is a bold statement for any display, but for a computer monitor that's unheard of. So the answer to all of your questions is almost certainly yes, unless there's just some weird anomalous thing that no one has considered.

As for LG staying competitive, they'll only do so in the OLED space, not in QD-OLED, and quite frankly, even now they aren't the _best_ in all categories, they just had a huge lead in the OLED space, and are currently checking the most boxes. Panasonic and Sony have better image processing, but Panasonic isn't available in most territories, and Sony's best (A90J) is way more expensive, doesn't come in 77", and still doesn't have VRR.

LG is the type of brand where you can almost never go wrong, but you can almost always do better.


----------



## Jin-X

Hotobu said:


> The jury is still out in the sense that no 3rd party reviewer has had a chance to get their hands on one, which subsequently means that it hasn't been stress tested, but pretty much all signs point to this being true. A major indicator is that Dell/Alienware has already stated that the warranty on their QD-OLED monitor will be 3 years, which is a bold statement for any display, but for a computer monitor that's unheard of. So the answer to all of your questions is almost certainly yes, unless there's just some weird anomalous thing that no one has considered.
> 
> As for LG staying competitive, they'll only do so in the OLED space, not in QD-OLED, and quite frankly, even now they aren't the _best_ in all categories, they just had a huge lead in the OLED space, and are currently checking the most boxes. Panasonic and Sony have better image processing, but Panasonic isn't available in most territories, and Sony's best (A90J) is way more expensive, doesn't come in 77", and still doesn't have VRR.
> 
> LG is the type of brand where you can almost never go wrong, but you can almost always do better.


Either that or Samsung is the one covering the warranty for them to get companies and people onboard. I think this is more likely as Dell wouldn’t really be able to properly gauge burn in risk since there is no real data on it yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 59LIHP

> New display technology QD-OLED, combination of Quantum Dot and OLED was demonstrated for the first time at CES 2022 by Samsung Display. This technology and the products have received the most attention including innovation awards.
> 
> It has also started the beginning of the use of QD-OLED display for TVs and monitors and will contribute to the growth and expanded presence of Quantum Dot (QD) technology. QD is enhancing LCD, OLED and MicroLED displays and is progressing towards next generation self-emissive display.
> 
> Sony announced the launch of the first QD-OLED consumer TV in 55” and 65” sizes. Samsung is also expected to bring in a QD-OLED TV this year. Dell Alienware and Samsung are also adopting 34" QD-OLED for monitors. At CES, Samsung, LG, TCL and other brands showcased products that are continuing to push the envelope in terms of screen size and performance for TV, monitor, notebooks and other applications based on OLED, MiniLED, MicroLED and LCD technology.
> 
> *QD-OLED: Bringing in Higher Display Performance*
> According to Samsung Display, QD-Display (QD-OLED) combines the best in material engineering, quantum physics and vision science to create stunning color, dazzling details and a thrilling experience. This is the world’s first display to integrate printed Quantum Dots with blue self-emitting pixels. The company is introducing QD-Display for the home entertainment market in two TV sizes, 55” and 65”, along with a 34” curved gaming monitor. It has red and green QD material printed on each pixel. QD-Display can provide superior color performance as it does not rely on color filters like WOLED or LCD.
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Display has highlighted some of the performance advantages of QD-Display.
> 
> Exceptional color performance (narrow band primary color emission provides, 90% BT2020, 99% DCI-P3)
> Full width at half maximum (FWHM) is 20 to 40 nanometers (nm) wide, about 10 to 20 nanometer narrower than that of other self-emitting displays. The slim spectral cones help to achieve an exceptional degree of color purity. The display also provides higher color volume.
> Lowest measurable black level of 0.0005 cd/m², achieving a true black.
> Uses true RGB additive light to create 'perfect whites' and high luminosity, providing extended HDR experience with an infinite contrast ratio.
> Superior XCR (experienced color range) almost 1.6x wider than contemporary displays
> Perfect black level as it can individually turn off each pixel, but controls local dimming at a sub-pixel level, enabling deeper blacks
> No halo, as millions of self-emitting pixels can adjust over all luminance with pinpoint accuracy. A brightly lit pixel can be next to a black pixel, thereby producing sharp character edges for images as well as subtitles
> One of the lowest levels of potentially harmful blue light, typically 40 to 50% less than LCD. The blue light of the QD-Display’s self–emitted light layer is fine-tuned to minimize the wavelengths in the harmful blue-light zone.
> Enables a wider viewing angle due to dome-shaped flux structure and it is also a top-layer emission display. Display also has low reflection.
> Provides an almost instantaneous native (GtoG) response time of 0.1ms. Because of its faster response time, QD-Display is able to re-create motion with significantly less blur.
> Both Samsung Electronics and Dell Alienware have announced new gaming monitor using a 34" curved QD-OLED display. Alienware's 34" gaming monitor comes in ultra wide format, 3440 x 1440 with 0.1ms GtoG response time and 175Hz refresh rates. It supports Nvidia G-Sync and is DisplayHDR 400 true black certified. Both Samsung and Dell Alienware gaming monitors received CES innovation awards. With higher display performance QD-Display (QD-OLED) curved gaming monitor expects to provide more immersive experience.
> 
> Sony announced the master series XR A95K TV, the first TV using Samsung Display’s QD-OLED panel, with Cognitive Processor XR and XR Triluminous. The 4K TV will come in 65” and 55”. Samsung Display is the only company so far to manufacture QD-OLED display panel and it can sell to multiple brands.











News: Displays and Their Technologies


BenQ Launches Projector for Open-World Gaming https://www.soundandvision.com/content/benq-launches-projector-open-world-gaming




www.avsforum.com


----------



## fafrd

uniqueemailomine said:


> This was discussed as well. It may be the case that they have no plans. Remember that until OLED LG was a second tier electronics manufacturer, good, but not necessarily top of the line. OLED was so much better than LCD that they became a premium brand just because they were pretty much the only player in the space. QD-OLED is Samsung's baby, and the next technology after that is QNED, which maybe LG is working on for OLED, I'm not sure. What's probably going to happen is that other "premium" brand manufacturers (Sony, Samsung, LG) are going to exit the LCD space, because the profit margins in that space are shrinking due to bottom tier manufacturers (TCL, Hisense, Vizio, etc.) offering super cheap products, and LG may just exist in limbo and keep churning out OLED sets with incremental improvements for years to come.


I think this is pretty spot-on.

Both LG Display and Samsung Display have been searching for a future for their flat panel manufacturing business that allows them to get out of LCD.

LG Display has now found their future. They are over the hump. They now only retain LCD manufacturing capacity because they see the it will be more profitable for them then manufacturing WOLED panels (forLCD IT panels, for example).

They can smoothly transition their remaining 8.5G LCD capacity over to WOLED whenever it makes sense (and if anything, they now have conflicting priorities for their remaining 8.5G LCD fabs since converting them to WOLED would be a less costly / risky proposition than trying to being up the world’s firs 10.5G OLED fab, but they are hesitant to do so while they can continue to milk those fans to bring in profit hand over fist in the IT space).

LGD will likely need to announce plans for their next WOLED fab this summer/fall, though everything could be on hold awaiting finalization of a WOLED supply agreement with Samsung.

In any case, LGD will be expanding and incrementally improving WOLED manufacturing for years (decades?), eating further and further down into the upper tiers of the sub-premium TV market.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> Either that or Samsung is the one covering the warranty for them to get companies and people onboard. I think this is more likely as Dell wouldn’t really be able to properly gauge burn in risk since there is no real data on it yet.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oh, I’m pretty certain Samsung Displsy is providing a back-to-back warranty to Dell for the 4 year no-burn-in warranty (as well as controlling / providing the ABL limits).

First-movers are hard to come by and vendors of new technology are desperate to get respected names to be first to sign up…


----------



## Wizziwig

@fafrd I told you weeks ago that QD-OLED would likely not use a polarizer in this post. Later I found confirmation in the UBI presentation in this post.

Regarding your luminance overshoot theory that's old news. I discussed this with jk82 when he first discovered the issue and linked him to those rtings graphs (see here and here). The problem with those graphs is that they don't go low enough. 20% luminance is much too bright to really see the issue. They would need to graph 0->5% or lower for us to compare how this looked on the older pre-2018 panels.

All I can say is that the visible (not just in graphs) overshoot existed as early as 2017 (maybe longer). If I had access to a 2017 panel, I could make you a test pattern to illustrate it. It would look similar to the panning pattern that HDTVtest now uses in every single OLED review to show quantization artifacts. It also shows overshoot.

While the pre-2018 panels suffered from the issue, it was minor enough so nobody really noticed in regular content. Those panels also had more severe issues such as large near-black quantization errors (aka macroblocking, color banding, or posterization). Maybe those issues helped mask the overshoot to some degree.

Something changed in 2018 that made it much more severe. That was also the same year they changed the pixel structure. I think 2016 and 2017 used the same pixel structure because they were not yet committed or didn't have enough time to take advantage of 3D removal. While 3D was in play, there was a lot of "free" dead real-estate between pixel rows that was available to run traces, place components, or use larger components. It couldn't be used for anything else since it had to remain black to prevent passive 3D crosstalk with an imperfectly aligned row polarizer. Once they removed 3D, that space was too valuable to just leave black. They likely rearranged the traces, capacitors, and transistors to move them out of that space so it could be used to emit light.

Panasonic WOLEDs had better near black gradation and shadow detail (or nonlinearity as you call it) for years. Nobody complained of overshoot. So I doubt improvements in this area are responsible. Additional dithering was actually added via firmware update *AFTER* the overshoot complains started in order to mitigate it.

I could be totally wrong. But it fits my understand of OLED near-black challenges. The change in sub-pixel shape (for whatever reason other than 3D removal) in 2018 is clear evidence they changed something in the pixel driving circuits. Since it's all black in photos, there is no way to know what exactly was modified in this part of the backplane.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> I trust that you understand more details than me, but you need to explain to me why you believe Samsung Electronics begged / reached an agreement with Samsung Display to extend LCD production for another year last year?
> 
> 
> 
> If Samsung Electronics is already producing the majority of their QLED TVs using commodity LCD panels, whi is it so important to them to fight the DSE vision to convert Samsung Display’s tensing LCD TV panel production to QD-OLED?


I'm an engineer, not a business expert. As you can see from the expanded table that 8mile13 posted, Samsung Electronics does still use some panels from Samsung Display. While they are not a huge part of the premium models, maybe they make up a larger chunk of the budget models? Although as we all know, there's not much profit there. Samsung Electronics may also want to keep them around as an LCD supplier for leverage during negotiations with Chinese LCD suppliers? Having all your eggs in one Chinese basket in never a good idea.

Ever consider that not everything you read on the internet is true? All these supposed negotiations within Samsung could be pure BS. Just like the forever imminent announcement of Samsung WOLED contract with LG. I told you this before but you put way too much faith into what some analysts and pundits post online. Their predictions are about as reliable as your average stock analyst on the financial news channels. Then you have the clickbait bloggers who create news from "sources" without ever identifying anyone specific. You can't rely on any of this for hard facts.


----------



## Wizziwig

A few days ago we were discussing pixel aperture and I linked to the video where HDTVtest assumes this will cause the 42" WOLEDs to be dimmer unless driven harder (not ideal for monitor applications displaying static content). Attached below are examples of a 65 CX and 48" CX taken by the same person so we know the methodology is consistent and both panels are from the same generation:

65"









48"









Just for comparison, take a look at what a top-emission OLED looks like. This photo is from the 32" LG OLED monitor (32EP950) where they opted for a JOLED panel instead of using their own.










Advantages are clear for TV and monitor applications. Even if we ignore the efficiency and brightness disadvantages, look at the mess a WRGB OLED makes of single-pixel text (where no color utilizes all 4 sub-pixels and many only use 1 or 2 of the 4 sub-pixels). Legibility will be very poor. I can only assume people will be buying the 42" and 48" models for media consumption and gaming instead of productivity.











You really think LG would be wasting their time on minor year-over-year improvements like the whole "Evo" initiative if they were able to switch to top-emission on a whim since 2019 and reap the many benefits?



uniqueemailomine said:


> This was discussed as well. It may be the case that they have no plans. Remember that until OLED LG was a second tier electronics manufacturer, good, but not necessarily top of the line. OLED was so much better than LCD that they became a premium brand just because they were pretty much the only player in the space. QD-OLED is Samsung's baby, and the next technology after that is QNED, which maybe LG is working on for OLED, I'm not sure. What's probably going to happen is that other "premium" brand manufacturers (Sony, Samsung, LG) are going to exit the LCD space, because the profit margins in that space are shrinking due to bottom tier manufacturers (TCL, Hisense, Vizio, etc.) offering super cheap products, and LG may just exist in limbo and keep churning out OLED sets with incremental improvements for years to come.


Bingo! It's been this way since the LCD and Plasma days. LG made the cheapest and worst performing plasma and LCD TVs for many years. They didn't even try competing with Pioneer, Samsung or Panasonic on performance. This pattern was broken when they bought their way into the premium segment by acquiring Kodak's WOLED patents. Since nobody else was competing against them in OLED TVs, they won by default. Would not surprise me at all if they eventually return to second tier status and are satisfied with that market position while Samsung regains the high-end in emissive displays (be it QD-OLED, QNED, or Micro-LED).


----------



## Wizziwig

RichB said:


> So, no reason to hold off on buying an LG 97G2.
> When Sony announced product I believe it, Samsung, requires additional evidence.
> 
> - Rich


Be sure you have an appropriate viewing distance to mitigate the color shift that will be visible at the left/right edges when sitting too close to such a large screen. Issue was briefly explained in HDTVtest's 88" OLED review. He also mentions that uniformity of larger OLED sizes is usually much worse as on the sample he reviewed. Hopefully the low dot pitch and screen-door-effect of 4K WRGB won't be an issue when blown up to this size.


----------



## tazanddo

Does anyone have information regarding the QD-OLED near-black performance? Will it have overshoot? If so, would QNED improve on that?


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

DSCC Bob O'Brien's take on QD-OLED he saw at CES:

_My contact at Samsung Display mostly confirmed some elements of the QD-OLED architecture, but left a few items uncertain with a promise to follow up:_


_The panel includes a color filter in front of the QDCC. This color filter does not filter much light coming from the panel but serves to enhance contrast by preventing ambient light from activating the quantum dots._
_The QDCC is inkjet-printed._
_*The sub-pixel structure is unique. The RGB sub-pixels are not stripes, and they are not equal size.* The details of the structure are confidential, but they will become readily apparent once the product hits the market._
_*Samsung described the OLED as “self-emitting blue”. When asked about the rumor that Samsung included a green OLED emitting layer to boost brightness, my contact said he was unsure and would follow up.*_
He also said the color volume was obviously better with QD-OLED, and it will perhaps be the driving factor for pushing buyers to it (paraphrasing here..), price notwithstanding. Other attributes seemed roughly equal.
CES 2022: In-Person Observations - Display Supply Chain Consultants

Added later: I see Vincent also noted color volume win was his primary/obvious takeaway from comparison of QD-OLED/WOLED/QLED, though everything else is open as the panels weren't calibrated..
QD-OLED vs WRGB OLED vs Mini LED TV First Impressions at CES 2022 - Them COLOURS! - YouTube


----------



## stl8k

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I see it has been a busy weekend on this thread! Good dialog IMO.
> 
> FWIW, fafrd’s comment a couple pages back about max profit in the whole TV industry being the bottom 75% of the premium market is key. I haven’t seen the profit breakdown (maybe I have via DSCC and have forgotten) but from various business article sources that is clearly where the profit is (someone might argue with the 75% choice).
> 
> LGE doing whatever it takes to win in this segment is a no-brainer since they are the lead horse there today. SVD is a distant 2nd. SVD makes A LOT of cash (in fact the most in the industry) in the mainstream segment (I’ll choose <~$1200 today), but % profit not so much. They make decent profit in the low-end premium, but numbers show they aren’t winning the lucrative profit segment with QLED vs WOLED.
> 
> SEC is looking for the next premium segment winner (ie. High profits on decent volume – up to 5-10% of total TV market in their dreams) since their tech isn’t dominating today. Hence looking at QD-OLED (then QNED) and microLED, through their SDC and SVD operations, with the ever-present internal politics at play. I think LGE is focusing furiously on making big profits on bigger and bigger volume in mid to low premium for the rest of this decade. If they get a boost from better blue OLED materials, that’s a bonus. I’m not sure what leverage the long-term thinkers at LGE (or LGD) have with the C-suite as far as internally generated next-gen technologies to battle Samsung. Their microLED publicity is a whisper amongst Samsung’s shouts. Getting a CEO/CFO to really think beyond a decade’s worth of awesome profit, which they are well on their way to setting up, is almost impossible for all but the most forward-thinking CEO.
> 
> Just my 2 cents of course as always….


Interesting to have a financial-first perspective on this. What kinds of tells will you be looking for in the quarterly (Q4) results coming out in the next couple of weeks for LGD and SVD (to the extent their financials are broken out) that let you know how bullish or bearish each company feels about its future? Do you look at suppliers to them like LX Semicon, Samsung System LSI, or even an equipment provider like YAS.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

stl8k said:


> Interesting to have a financial-first perspective on this. What kinds of tells will you be looking for in the quarterly (Q4) results coming out in the next couple of weeks for LGD and SVD (to the extent their financials are broken out) that let you know how bullish or bearish each company feels about its future? Do you look at suppliers to them like LX Semicon, Samsung System LSI, or even an equipment provider like YAS.


I note that there are a number of posters here with roughly the same thinking as I have regarding LGE motives (profit, baby). This is not surprising (I suppose it wouldn't be, huh? Confirmation bias at work in me  ). Anyway, yes, watching quarterly financial & investment announcements throughout the year will be very telling (from both companies). And equipment suppliers announcements (one example among a few) in 2021 gave us early indications that SDC was starting ramp up of QD-OLED mfg mid(?) last year. Big investment decisions are on the horizon for both companies as well depending on how the markets are going. I think we as a group here are pretty good at posting the type of thing you note above, when appropriate. Keep watching.


----------



## RichB

Wizziwig said:


> Be sure you have an appropriate viewing distance to mitigate the color shift that will be visible at the left/right edges when sitting too close to such a large screen. Issue was briefly explained in HDTVtest's 88" OLED review. He also mentions that uniformity of larger OLED sizes is usually much worse as on the sample he reviewed. Hopefully the low dot pitch and screen-door-effect of 4K WRGB won't be an issue when blown up to this size.


I suspect the dot-pitch is not an issue as it is not an issue at all with the 83.
In that video, Vincent also doubts there will ever by a 4K 88 (or larger) OLED... 

With the 83, off angle color-shift can be seen on test patterns from few feet but is not an issue at my 12 foot viewing distance.
I suspect this will remain true for the 97, if it fits in my budget.

- Rich


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I note that there are a number of posters here with roughly the same thinking as I have regarding LGE motives (profit, baby). This is not surprising (I suppose it wouldn't be, huh? Confirmation bias at work in me  ). Anyway, yes, watching quarterly financial & investment announcements throughout the year will be very telling (from both companies). And equipment suppliers announcements (one example among a few) in 2021 gave us early indications that SDC was starting ramp up of QD-OLED mfg mid(?) last year. Big investment decisions are on the horizon for both companies as well depending on how the markets are going. I think we as a group here are pretty good at posting the type of thing you note above, when appropriate. Keep watching.


Yes, for me the biggest ‘tea leaves’ out there are the capital investment decisions both companies are facing in order to expand OLED TV panel production.

For LGD, it means either converting another one of their last 8.5G LCD fabs to WOLED or bringing up their first 10.5G fab (P10). They’ve got installed capacity for close to 12 million yielded WOLED panels per year now, so investing in P10 only makes sense they are confident they’ll find demand for more than that and for as many as 16 million WOLED panels once P10 is running maxed-out at 45,000 10.5G substrates per month.

For Samsung Display, they’ve got one 8.5G QD-OLED manufacturing line ramping now which will be more than enough to satisfy worldwide demand for QD-OLED monitors for as far out as we can see, along with pilot production of QD-OLED TV panels including whatever Sony is buying from them, so the next big ‘tea leaf’ is when they announce they are investing to convert the remaining 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED.

The natural progression would be to take one step at a time, but if any company can pull off an unnatural ‘tsunami’ of new technology ramp up into multiple manufacturing lines at once, it’s Samsung…


----------



## Wizziwig

tazanddo said:


> Does anyone have information regarding the QD-OLED near-black performance? Will it have overshoot? If so, would QNED improve on that?


If Samsung's other smaller OLEDs are any indication, then it's unlikely to have overshoot. It may have black smearing and black crush instead. Uniformity will almost certainly still be a problem as on every other OLED.

Higher efficiency displays tend to have more problems in this area because of the lower currents near black.

I have not seen their newer LTPO backplanes yet in person. If they use those on QD-OLED, it may surprise us on near-black performance.



RichB said:


> I suspect the dot-pitch is not an issue as it is not an issue at all with the 83.
> In that video, Vincent also doubts there will ever by a 4K 88 (or larger) OLED...
> 
> With the 83, off angle color-shift can be seen on test patterns from few feet but is not an issue at my 12 foot viewing distance.
> I suspect this will remain true for the 97, if it fits in my budget.
> 
> - Rich


That should be plenty of distance to avoid the issue. Some people sit ridiculously close to the TVs and then end up with issues like this because the outer edges will be way off-axis.

Hope you know someone to take that 83" off you hands. Selling these huge TVs is next to impossible.


----------



## Wizziwig

Scrapper102dAA said:


> _The panel includes a color filter in front of the QDCC. This color filter does not filter much light coming from the panel but serves to enhance contrast by preventing ambient light from activating the quantum dots._
> _The QDCC is inkjet-printed._
> _*The sub-pixel structure is unique. The RGB sub-pixels are not stripes, and they are not equal size.* The details of the structure are confidential, but they will become readily apparent once the product hits the market._
> _*Samsung described the OLED as “self-emitting blue”. When asked about the rumor that Samsung included a green OLED emitting layer to boost brightness, my contact said he was unsure and would follow up.*_


Looks like I was right on the purpose of those filters. It's basically the exact method they used on last year's top mobile screens and are going to use this year on their 1800 nit phones.

Looks like the pixel model from their booth was wrong if the sub-pixels will not be symmetrical. Not ideal for monitors but okay for TV. As long as it's not pentile!

Regarding the rumored green layer. They were very adamant to the press that it was all blue. They also claimed that this would help with wear compensation since they only needed to compensate for loss of luminance. With multiple colored layers, they would also need to deal with color shift as the layers would decay at different rates.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Wizziwig said:


> Looks like I was right on the purpose of those filters. It's basically the exact method they used on last year's top mobile screens and are going to use this year on their 1800 nit phones.
> 
> Looks like the pixel model from their booth was wrong if the sub-pixels will not be symmetrical. Not ideal for monitors but okay for TV. As long as it's not pentile!
> 
> Regarding the rumored green layer. They were very adamant to the press that it was all blue. They also claimed that this would help with wear compensation since they only needed to compensate for loss of luminance. With multiple colored layers, they would also need to deal with color shift as the layers would decay at different rates.


If it is all blue, and given what we supposedly 'know' about coming brightness from CES, perhaps fafrd will rerun his analysis (forward from the polarizer removal @ 25% of a page or so back that left green in) to reveal what he thinks must then be true to provide the brightness numbers discussed at CES with only blue.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I doubt those filters are there just to block emitted light. They are present on all 3 colors in the UBI diagram. If that diagram is accurate, those filters could also be there to reduce reflected ambient light. It's a more efficient solution than using a circular polarizer like on Samsung's older mobile OLEDs or current LG WOLEDs. About 50% of transmitted light is lost in polarizers. The old linked article estimates about 20-30% brighter panels are possible after factoring in other limitations of the design. While originally developed for mobile applications, maybe Samsung decided to also use it for their QD-OLEDs. Makes you wonder how much brighter they could make a TV panel marketed specifically for batcave installs where reflection handling was not required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Insights on How SDC Will Introduce Polarizer-Free OLEDs, Significant Increase in Brightness Also Expected - Display Supply Chain Consultants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaysupplychain.com


Apologies for not having seen this earlier post.

What is going on with QD-OLED as far as the presence of not of circular polarizers is certainly an important factor that none of my analysis from last year was taking bro account.

From what I’ve understood about Samsung’s ‘polorizorless’ technology, it was developed for RGB OLED where the emission layer is the outermost layer, so it’s unclear to me whether it can apply easily to QD-BOLED and if it can, there is no reason it could not also apply to WOLED (both of which have greater distance between the reflective backplane and the top surface):










So the first point is that if Samsung is using this technology on QD-OLED, it will mean full RGB conventional color filters on all subpixels, which means identical filters to WOLED and the blue subpixel will be negatively impacted versus the ‘unfiltered blue’ design.

Sp if we take the model that QD-BOLED is identical to WOLED as far as filtering but has eliminated a circular polarizer sacrificing as much as 50% of brightness, it translates to QD-OLED having 200% the brightness of WOLED until LGD figures out how to eliminate their own circular polarizer and Robles their brightness while reducing cost.

Sounds too good to be true and also doesn’t jibe with all the history of QD-BOLED being ‘too dim’ in early CES demos and needing to add blue OLED layers (as well as too unsaturated and needing to add blue-blocking color filters to filter out blue photons which were not converted by the QDCCs).

So I don’t know whether QD-OLED has a fundamental difference versus WOLED at this stage and propose we await samples and the first breakdowns before we continue the debate.

The one thing I am pretty certain of is that if QD-OLED can go the direction of adopting Samsung’s polorizerless structure, there is no fundamental reason WOLED could not adopt the same approach…


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> @fafrd I told you weeks ago that QD-OLED would likely not use a polarizer in this post. Later I found confirmation in the UBI presentation in this post.
> 
> Regarding your luminance overshoot theory that's old news. I discussed this with jk82 when he first discovered the issue and linked him to those rtings graphs (see here and here). The problem with those graphs is that they don't go low enough. 20% luminance is much too bright to really see the issue. They would need to graph 0->5% or lower for us to compare how this looked on the older pre-2018 panels.
> 
> All I can say is that the visible (not just in graphs) overshoot existed as early as 2017 (maybe longer). If I had access to a 2017 panel, I could make you a test pattern to illustrate it. It would look similar to the panning pattern that HDTVtest now uses in every single OLED review to show quantization artifacts. It also shows overshoot.
> 
> While the pre-2018 panels suffered from the issue, it was minor enough so nobody really noticed in regular content. Those panels also had more severe issues such as large near-black quantization errors (aka macroblocking, color banding, or posterization). Maybe those issues helped mask the overshoot to some degree.
> 
> Something changed in 2018 that made it much more severe. That was also the same year they changed the pixel structure. I think 2016 and 2017 used the same pixel structure because they were not yet committed or didn't have enough time to take advantage of 3D removal. While 3D was in play, there was a lot of "free" dead real-estate between pixel rows that was available to run traces, place components, or use larger components. It couldn't be used for anything else since it had to remain black to prevent passive 3D crosstalk with an imperfectly aligned row polarizer. Once they removed 3D, that space was too valuable to just leave black. They likely rearranged the traces, capacitors, and transistors to move them out of that space so it could be used to emit light.
> 
> Panasonic WOLEDs had better near black gradation and shadow detail (or nonlinearity as you call it) for years. Nobody complained of overshoot. So I doubt improvements in this area are responsible. Additional dithering was actually added via firmware update *AFTER* the overshoot complains started in order to mitigate it.
> 
> I could be totally wrong. But it fits my understand of OLED near-black challenges. The change in sub-pixel shape (for whatever reason other than 3D removal) in 2018 is clear evidence they changed something in the pixel driving circuits. Since it's all black in photos, there is no way to know what exactly was modified in this part of the backplane.


I appreciate your taking the time to explain.

And I agree with what you are suggesting - if LGD increased PAR at the expense of reducing in-pixel drive transistor sizes or even trace widths, that could cause an already-present overshoot issue when being subpixels out of black to be worsened.

I’ve been waiting to upgrade my 3D-enabled 65C6 to a 77C2, but you’ve now given me reason to pause until I’m confident the near-black performance is no worse.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I'm an engineer, not a business expert. As you can see from the expanded table that 8mile13 posted, Samsung Electronics does still use some panels from Samsung Display. While they are not a huge part of the premium models, maybe they make up a larger chunk of the budget models? Although as we all know, there's not much profit there. Samsung Electronics may also want to keep them around as an LCD supplier for leverage during negotiations with Chinese LCD suppliers? Having all your eggs in one Chinese basket in never a good idea.





> *Ever consider that not everything you read on the internet is true? *All these supposed negotiations within Samsung could be pure BS. Just like the forever imminent announcement of Samsung WOLED contract with LG. I told you this before but you put way too much faith into what some analysts and pundits post online. Their predictions are about as reliable as your average stock analyst on the financial news channels. Then you have the clickbait bloggers who create news from "sources" without ever identifying anyone specific. You can't rely on any of this for hard facts.


Believe me, you are preaching to the choir. 

It’s all clickbait and ‘news’ that is mirage-like and almost never materializes as it was presented.

The bottom-line as far as I am concerned is that either QD-WOLED as currently being manufactured is fundamentally more expensive than WOLED (meaning at equivalent maturity and scale) or it is not.

My guess is that it is more expensive and if this proves true, it will never displace WOLED from the market (while printed RGB OLED, for example, might).

I’ve never had doubts that Samsung could deliver a superior OLED TV panel, got me it’s always been a question of whether they could achieve that while also undercutting WOLED on fundamental cost (which was their initial premise/promise).

Top-emission backplanes have additional manufacturing steps versus bottom-emission backplanes and are fundamentally more expensive.

A Front-plane composed of printed QDCC plus conventional color filters is fundamentally more expensive than WOLED than a front-plane composed of conventional color filters alone.

Lack of a circular polorizer is the one area QD-OLED may have a small fundamental cost advantage over current-generation WOLED but first I prefer to err on the side of caution and so will await confirmation before assuming this is the case, and second, I don’t see any reason WOLED can’t catch up within a year or two, so this is not a sustainable cost advantage.

So everything boils down to the OLED stack.

WOLED has 3 OLED layers and will be able to reduce to 2 OLED layers (again, since they initially started with only two layers) if/when high-efficiency blue emerges.

Even UBI is presenting that QD-OLED is using 4 OLED layers and even if we assume this is for the ‘monitor’ QD-OLEDs and that the reduced specs of QD-OLEDs for TV (200 cd/m2 versus 200 cd/m2) will allow them to cut this back to only 3 OLED layers, that means equal cost to WOLED in the stack, so parity at best (QD-OLED is using only one or two emitter colors/materials versus the 4 colors being used by 3S4C WOLED, so that’a some factor in QD-OLED’s favor).

The best-case I can see for this first-generation of Florescent-blue-based QD-OLED is that it’s only a bit more expensive than WOLED, but that’s at equivalent scale and maturity meaning years off…

And even if I look ahead to how things change with the emergence of high-efficiency blue, I don’t see how QD-OLED can reduce to a single OLED layer and WOLED can reduce to 2 OLED layers, so I don’t see any scenario where QD-OLED kills WOLED based on fundamental cost (QNED a different question).

Of course, all of this is based on a world where ~1000 nits is ‘enough’ for the sweet spot of the market (though Samsung has already tried the Brightness Wars once and failed).


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> It’s all clickbait and ‘news’ that is mirage-like and almost never materializes as it was presented.


I'd say the one recent difference is the new CEO of Samsung Electronics saying "we are open to all options" when asked about it (instead of shooting it down and attacking WOLED).


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> The best-case I can see for this first-generation of Florescent-blue-based QD-OLED is that it’s only a bit more expensive than WOLED, but that’s at equivalent scale and maturity meaning years off…
> 
> And even if I look ahead to how things change with the emergence of high-efficiency blue, I don’t see how QD-OLED can reduce to a single OLED layer and WOLED can reduce to 2 OLED layers, so I don’t see any scenario where QD-OLED kills WOLED based on fundamental cost (QNED a different question).
> 
> Of course, all of this is based on a world where ~1000 nits is ‘enough’ for the sweet spot of the market (though Samsung has already tried the Brightness Wars once and failed).


Based on many posts over the last year, I think most of us assume QD-OLED is transitory (but pick your length of time) towards QNED. Winning a cost war with LG WOLED isn’t in the equation. 

Samsung pulling share from LG in the high (and if lucky, medium) premium segment (that's many of us of course) via QD-OLED performance (color volume & localized brightness = most realistic picture per the pundits) is a good transitory goal. Biz theories teach “go niche to start” for many scenarios. If QNED comes in successfully later in the decade, they could perhaps move down-market and up their profits (ala LG w WOLED over the last several yrs). They have nothing to lose today as far as I can see, and everything to gain. LCD should be (for SVD) a cash cow for another decade at least, longer if WOLED can’t break into mainstream segment in any meaningful way (pick your level, 25%+?). If QNED crashes (or even QD-OLED in the next few yrs) they keep buying LGD WOLED panels until microLED……ha! Can’t go there.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Based on many posts over the last year, I think most of us assume QD-OLED is transitory (but pick your length of time) towards QNED. Winning a cost war with LG WOLED isn’t in the equation.


Agreed, except if you back even further to the early days of QD-OLED, being better while also being lower-cost to produce was the initial goal.

Between High Efficiency Blue not materializing, Quantum Dot Color Converters having less efficiency than assumed, and unconverted blue photons needing to be filtered out to retain color saturation, the goalposts have changed to ‘noticeably outperform WOLED for as small of a cost premium as we can get away with’…




> Samsung pulling share from LG in the high (and if lucky, medium) premium segment (that's many of us of course) via QD-OLED performance (color volume & localized brightness = most realistic picture per the pundits) is a good transitory goal.


No argument there; that’s the sensible path to introduce a new Premium technology…



> Biz theories teach “go niche to start” for many scenarios.


Agreed - that’s LGD/WOLED got over the hump and would be the sensible path for Samsung QD-OLED to follow as well:

34” QD-OLEDs for monitors n a first pilot fab in year 1

55” QD-OLED TVs in year 2 along with bringing up a second fab

65” QD-OLED TVs added to the mix in year 3 while contemplating conversion of the last LCD fab.

The problem is that Samsung Electronics says they want to ‘secure’ the supply from all 3 8.5G fabs to take over the market in a Tsunami of New King in Town to rather than support this more prudent and sensible approach.

It could all be Kabuki Theater, but Samsung Electronics says that they do not want to begin the transition away from QLED/LCD until they have sufficient QD—OLED capacity ‘secured’ to drive a full transition (at least at the High - Premium tier of the market).




> If QNED comes in successfully later in the decade, they could perhaps move down-market and up their profits (ala LG w WOLED over the last several yrs).


If QD-OLED is fundamentally more expensive than WOLED, Samsung is unlikely to ever be able to sell-through a full 3 8.5G fab’s-worth of production,

Wiser to just convert the first pilot fab until demand justifies converting a second fab and getting the third fab converted as the first QNED fab when the time is right.

Again, this plan is so obvious that all talk of Tsunami-like bet-the-company alternatives may just be Kabuki Theater…



> They have nothing to lose today as far as I can see, and everything to gain. *LCD should be (for SVD) a cash cow for another decade at least, *longer if WOLED can’t break into mainstream segment in any meaningful way (pick your level, 25%+?).


The problem is that the Mainstream (non-Premium) tier of the TV market is not a cash cow. 

It generates the bulk of the revenue (by far) but only a sliver of the profit (by far).

Being a ‘cash cow’ generally implies taking on profit hand over fiat, not merely revenue for next to no profit.



> If QNED crashes (or even QD-OLED in the next few yrs) they keep buying LGD WOLED panels until microLED……ha! Can’t go there.


If you accept the ‘Samsung and LG hate each other’ narrative as just that (Kabuki Theater) then you can consider the ‘Korea Inc.’ strategy.

LGD focusing on lowest-cost WOLED while Samsung Display focuses on higher-end QD-OLED and then QNED, while both Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics sell TVs based on both panel types is the best way for both Korean Chaebols to maximize their ability to fend off encroachment and damage from low-cost Chinese TVs as effectively as possible.


----------



## chros73

Wizziwig said:


> Panasonic WOLEDs had better near black gradation and shadow detail (or nonlinearity as you call it) for years. Nobody complained of overshoot. So I doubt improvements in this area are responsible.


This part is not true: probably you also remember @jk82's Panasonic xZ2000 (with 2 panels! ) that had the same overshoot but at a different luminance range. (I can't find the post now) 
As it turned out they only turnewd on tbe W subpixel way later than LG and that's why all the currently used scenes/patterns are passing on them (just as on recent Sonys)


----------



## Wizziwig

chros73 said:


> This part is not true: probably you also remember @jk82's Panasonic xZ2000 (with 2 panels! ) that had the same overshoot but at a different luminance range. (I can't find the post now)
> As it turned out they only turnewd on tbe W subpixel way later than LG and that's why all the currently used scenes/patterns are passing on them (just as on recent Sonys)


You misunderstood. I should have been more clear.

I was referring to Panasonic panels *before* the overshoot reports started from all manufacturers. Like 2017 and older. Those older panels were hailed for having better shadow detail handling than models available from LG at the time. Panasonic even made a huge deal out of it at their launch press conferences. That's why I don't think better near-black linearity alone causes overshoot.


----------



## Wizziwig

Scrapper102dAA said:


> If it is all blue, and given what we supposedly 'know' about coming brightness from CES, perhaps fafrd will rerun his analysis (forward from the polarizer removal @ 25% of a page or so back that left green in) to reveal what he thinks must then be true to provide the brightness numbers discussed at CES with only blue.


We don't really need to keep doing any guesswork calculations because Samsung released all the luminance numbers during CES. Even the ABL curve.

While those numbers were in an inaccurate vivid mode, we can easily adjust them to D65.

Take this slide for example:










In this case, red is the only color below the D65 target so we need to lower the other 2 primaries to reach the D65 white point.

You end up with:

335 / 864.599 / 75.62 => *1278.219 nits* on what I assume is a 3% window (since they advertised 1500 uncalibrated nits at 3%).

While not earth shattering, it's better than we've seen after calibration from any WOLED and that's after 9 years of LG trying. Even more impressive if it can maintain it for more than a few seconds. Also don't forget it can hit 3x WOLED brightness on saturated colors where the white sub-pixel is useless.

Based on their advertised 1000 uncalibrated nits with 10% window, we can scale the above 3% window value to arrive at *852 nits* after D65 calibration on 10% window. In the ballpark of 2021 WOLEDs on this particular "white only" benchmark. 2022 WOLEDs are expected to be brighter than 2021 so may even surpass the QD-OLED on this test.

I'm more interested in how they compare in real content against a reference display so we can judge both brightness and color saturation.


----------



## Thebarnman

RichB said:


> I suspect the dot-pitch is not an issue as it is not an issue at all with the 83.
> In that video, Vincent also doubts there will ever by a 4K 88 (or larger) OLED...
> 
> With the 83, off angle color-shift can be seen on test patterns from few feet but is not an issue at my 12 foot viewing distance.
> I suspect this will remain true for the 97, if it fits in my budget.
> 
> - Rich


I sit at 13.1' so that's good news for when I finally get my 83" A90J. So I guess there IS an advantage to sitting further back!


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

JasonHa said:


> For people who keep posting the "Stop the FOMO" guy's videos: Who is this guy? What is his name? What expertise or information does he have?


A paid shill is all he is. Can't stand fomo and someone else even hates fomo.


----------



## Jeff Dorman

Posting videos from the clueless idiot Quantum does nothing to prove your point. I'd advise against people giving Quantum any views by clicking on those videos.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

My cat Bear finds the quantum hates stop the fomo, entertaining.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Agreed, except if you back even further to the early days of QD-OLED, being better while also being lower-cost to produce was the initial goal.


True, but that isn't the case now, so the cost argument in your post didn't make sense to me.



fafrd said:


> The problem is that Samsung Electronics says they want to ‘secure’ the supply from all 3 8.5G fabs to take over the market in a Tsunami of New King in Town to rather than support this more prudent and sensible approach.
> 
> It could all be Kabuki Theater, but Samsung Electronics says that they do not want to begin the transition away from QLED/LCD until they have sufficient QD—OLED capacity ‘secured’ to drive a full transition (at least at the High - Premium tier of the market).


Yes, if memory serves (questionable!), 1 fab at high yield puts out 45K panels per month. That's 540K panels per year. For the "High - Premium" portion of the segment, it seems to me that is enough as a start for a transitory tech that is more expensive. That's about 50% market share at 0.5% total TV market. 
If monthly output is considerably less, then that doesn't work of course. In any case, bringing on fabs as/if demand rises makes sense to me - I agree.
EDIT: FWIW I took 10% of the 4% WOLED prenetration as a rough cut for "High Premium" ~=0.5%



fafrd said:


> The problem is that the Mainstream (non-Premium) tier of the TV market is not a cash cow.
> 
> It generates the bulk of the revenue (by far) but only a sliver of the profit (by far).
> 
> Being a ‘cash cow’ generally implies taking on profit hand over fiat, not merely revenue for next to no profit.


No, I definitely meant cash = revenue, NOT profit. Sorry that was unclear, but cash cow means lots of income to me. That cash keeps the gears turning and execs happy while tech R&D bubbles along, as we all know.



fafrd said:


> If you accept the ‘Samsung and LG hate each other’ narrative as just that (Kabuki Theater) then you can consider the ‘Korea Inc.’ strategy.
> 
> LGD focusing on lowest-cost WOLED while Samsung Display focuses on higher-end QD-OLED and then QNED, while both Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics sell TVs based on both panel types is the best way for both Korean Chaebols to maximize their ability to fend off encroachment and damage from low-cost Chinese TVs as effectively as possible.


That is an interesting thought. As noted by someone recently, LG was never a display tech leader until WOLED worked out. Perhaps they will work together against the Chinese as the decade unfolds.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Wizziwig said:


> We don't really need to keep doing any guesswork calculations because Samsung released all the luminance numbers during CES. Even the ABL curve.
> 
> While those numbers were in an inaccurate vivid mode, we can easily adjust them to D65.
> 
> Take this slide for example:
> 
> View attachment 3222890
> 
> 
> In this case, red is the only color below the D65 target so we need to lower the other 2 primaries to reach the D65 white point.
> 
> You end up with:
> 
> 335 / 864.599 / 75.62 => *1278.219 nits* on what I assume is a 3% window (since they advertised 1500 uncalibrated nits at 3%).
> 
> While not earth shattering, it's better than we've seen after calibration from any WOLED and that's after 9 years of LG trying. Even more impressive if it can maintain it for more than a few seconds. Also don't forget it can hit 3x WOLED brightness on saturated colors where the white sub-pixel is useless.
> 
> Based on their advertised 1000 uncalibrated nits with 10% window, we can scale the above 3% window value to arrive at *852 nits* after D65 calibration on 10% window. In the ballpark of 2021 WOLEDs on this particular "white only" benchmark. 2022 WOLEDs are expected to be brighter than 2021 so may even surpass the QD-OLED on this test.
> 
> I'm more interested in how they compare in real content against a reference display so we can judge both brightness and color saturation.


Thanks for the inf! - so my question was, assuming the numbers are real ( we 'know' them from my post) what would a blue-only stack have to have as attributes (for lack of a better term from a non-OLED person. Maybe 'characteristics'?) to deliver those numbers? It seemed fafrd couldn't produce characteristics in his analysis earlier that delivered those numbers with blue only. Maybe the question isn't valid in this case for some reason that is beyond me!


----------



## 8mile13

OLED-info:
_A new report from Korea suggests that Samsung and LGD have finally reached an agreement over panel prices (Samsung will pay the same as LG Electronics), and it is estimated that an official agreement will be reached soon. *Samsung plans to unveil its first WOLED TV in July 202*_*2*.

Samsung close to signing an official WOLED supply agreement with LG, first TVs to appear in July | OLED-Info


----------



## stl8k

8mile13 said:


> OLED-info:
> _A new report from Korea suggests that Samsung and LGD have finally reached an agreement over panel prices (Samsung will pay the same as LG Electronics), and it is estimated that an official agreement will be reached soon. *Samsung plans to unveil its first WOLED TV in July 202*_*2*.
> 
> Samsung close to signing an official WOLED supply agreement with LG, first TVs to appear in July | OLED-Info


So odd that they couldn't get this done by CES. They'll have to make this public soon because it wouldn't be smth that could be hidden when all of the publicly traded companies report Q4 and advise on 2022.


----------



## wco81

Samsung gets the same panel costs as LGE. 

Watch them price their WOLED TVs higher, despite not having DV licensing costs.


----------



## mrtickleuk

JasonHa said:


> For people who keep posting the "Stop the FOMO" guy's videos: Who is this guy? What is his name? What expertise or information does he have?


Someone who increases the fear of missing out with his videos, rather than stopping it.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Thanks for the inf! - so my question was, assuming the numbers are real ( we 'know' them from my post) what would a blue-only stack have to have as attributes (for lack of a better term from a non-OLED person. Maybe 'characteristics'?) to deliver those numbers? It seemed fafrd couldn't produce characteristics in his analysis earlier that delivered those numbers with blue only. Maybe the question isn't valid in this case for some reason that is beyond me!


Here was the conclusion I reached from my prior analysis of a 4S2C B-B-B-G stack (without considering any factor for removing the polarizer): 

“So I’m guessing this new 4S2C QD-COLED will prove to deliver ~5% greater peak brightness levels at calibrated white while pretty much *doubling WOLED’s fully-saturated output levels.*”

So assuming that the circular polarizer absorbing ~50% of photons has been eliminated, that would translate to over double peak white levels and quadrupling WOLEDs fully-saturated levels (more than even the below claims of triple output levels Samsung Display is making).

There is not much point on us speculating whether Samsung has used their RGB OLED technology to remove the polarizer or not since we’ll know soon, but it is a game-changer and certainly makes QD-OLED much more competitive.

And because it is predicated on the use of conventional color filters and since blue light leakage was forcing QD-OLED to add Conventional color filters anyway, it passes the sniff test.

So the more useful exercise might be to understand whether removal of the polorizzer allows to remove a Blue OLED layer to reduce cost while still hitting their ‘3 times WOLED saturation levels’ target.

A 3S2C B-B-G OLED stack is identical to WOLEDs 3S4C WBE stack as far as blue, so QD-OLED gets a ~33% boost from top emission to 133% and a 100% boost from the lack of polarizer for a total of 266% WOLED’s blue strength. With a modest 12.5% increase in relative blue subpixel size versus WOLED, they could deliver their ‘3 times saturated blue’ target.

A full deep-green OLED layer is going to start QD-COLED out at ~double WOLED’s 3S4G green strength (where a single layer is shared between green, yellow, and red) which grows to 267% factoring in PAR and 533% factoring in the lack of polarizer, so far beyond the ‘3 times brighter’ target without even factor in the additional boost offers by any green QDCC (which probably adds about ~10% to green output on top of the highly-efficient green OLED layer). So QD-BOLED’s the green pixel could be even smaller than WOLED’s minimum-sized green subpixel ‘stripe’ while reaching the ‘3X’ target (consistent with reports of non-striped subpixel rumors).

So it all comes down to red. My prior analysis had already assumed that red would be the largest subpixel in 4S2C QD-COLED, using most of WOLEDs red and white subpixel area to reach target output levels. Removing the polarizer would get red to 4x WOLED’s red peak levels based on 3 blue levels so removing 1 blue layer drops that by 33% to 267% WOLED levels, meaning red subpixel size would only need to increase by only a another 12.5% increase to reach 3x.

So the cliff notes version is that removal of the polarizer should allow a 3-layer B-B-G QD-OLED to deliver 2.7 times WOLED’s fully-saturated output levels at the drop of a hat, and a bit of sub-pixel size rejiggering could get output levels even closer to Samsung Display’s claimed 300% WOLED fully-saturated output levels.

Trying to drop further to a single blue layer stack (B-G) would result in a noticeably dimmer display than WOLED so I think we can safely assume that that is not in the cards (based on Florescent blue emitters).

So I’m going to guess that at least the QD-OLED panels being manufactured for TVs will be based on a 3S2C B-B-G OLED stack, meaning they will not be less expensive to manufacture than WOLED but the cost premium should be much more modest than it would have been with a 4-layer OLED stack.

The monitors are spec’d for 25% higher full-field brightness, are for a much more demanding application environment, and are under far less pricing pressure, so I suspect they are based on the 4S2C B-B-B-G stack that UBI has disclosed and been talking about.

Once you have the ability to double output levels and reduce cost by removing the polarizer, that becomes a no-brainer.

Once you have conventional color filters anyway as part of your polarizer-removal technology, switching one blue OLED layer to green essentially cones at no cost and dramatically improves performance.

Everything ties together and the only question I still have is:

-if Samsung could double output levels by ditching the circular polarizer, how long until LGD can do the same?

With doubled output levels, I suspect LGD would go the route of eliminating a blue OLED layer and getting back to the 2-emitter stack they originally started with (which would give WOLED a significant cost reduction in their quest to displace LCD…).


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Here was the conclusion I reached from my prior analysis of a 4S2C B-B-B-G stack (without considering any factor for removing the polarizer):
> 
> “So I’m guessing this new 4S2C QD-COLED will prove to deliver ~5% greater peak brightness levels at calibrated white while pretty much *doubling WOLED’s fully-saturated output levels.*”
> 
> So assuming that the circular polarizer absorbing ~50% of photons has been eliminated, that would translate to over double peak white levels and quadrupling WOLEDs fully-saturated levels (more than even the below claims of triple output levels Samsung Display is making).
> 
> There is not much point on us speculating whether Samsung has used their RGB OLED technology to remove the polarizer or not since we’ll know soon, but it is a game-changer and certainly makes QD-OLED much more competitive.
> 
> And because it is predicated on the use of conventional color filters and since blue light leakage was forcing QD-OLED to add Conventional color filters anyway, it passes the sniff test.
> 
> So the more useful exercise might be to understand whether removal of the polorizzer allows to remove a Blue OLED layer to reduce cost while still hitting their ‘3 times WOLED saturation levels’ target.
> 
> A 3S2C B-B-G OLED stack is identical to WOLEDs 3S4C WBE stack as far as blue, so QD-OLED gets a ~33% boost from top emission to 133% and a 100% boost from the lack of polarizer for a total of 266% WOLED’s blue strength. With a modest 12.5% increase in relative blue subpixel size versus WOLED, they could deliver their ‘3 times saturated blue’ target.
> 
> A full deep-green OLED layer is going to start QD-COLED out at ~double WOLED’s 3S4G green strength (where a single layer is shared between green, yellow, and red) which grows to 267% factoring in PAR and 533% factoring in the lack of polarizer, so far beyond the ‘3 times brighter’ target without even factor in the additional boost offers by any green QDCC (which probably adds about ~10% to green output on top of the highly-efficient green OLED layer). So QD-BOLED’s the green pixel could be even smaller than WOLED’s minimum-sized green subpixel ‘stripe’ while reaching the ‘3X’ target (consistent with reports of non-striped subpixel rumors).
> 
> So it all comes down to red. My prior analysis had already assumed that red would be the largest subpixel in 4S2C QD-COLED, using most of WOLEDs red and white subpixel area to reach target output levels. Removing the polarizer would get red to 4x WOLED’s red peak levels based on 3 blue levels so removing 1 blue layer drops that by 33% to 267% WOLED levels, meaning red subpixel size would only need to increase by only a another 12.5% increase to reach 3x.
> 
> So the cliff notes version is that removal of the polarizer should allow a 3-layer B-B-G QD-OLED to deliver 2.7 times WOLED’s fully-saturated output levels at the drop of a hat, and a bit of sub-pixel size rejiggering could get output levels even closer to Samsung Display’s claimed 300% WOLED fully-saturated output levels.
> 
> Trying to drop further to a single blue layer stack (B-G) would result in a noticeably dimmer display than WOLED so I think we can safely assume that that is not in the cards (based on Florescent blue emitters).
> 
> So I’m going to guess that at least the QD-OLED panels being manufactured for TVs will be based on a 3S2C B-B-G OLED stack, meaning they will not be less expensive to manufacture than WOLED but the cost premium should be much more modest than it would have been with a 4-layer OLED stack.
> 
> The monitors are spec’d for 25% higher full-field brightness, are for a much more demanding application environment, and are under far less pricing pressure, so I suspect they are based on the 4S2C B-B-B-G stack that UBI has disclosed and been talking about.
> 
> Once you have the ability to double output levels and reduce cost by removing the polarizer, that becomes a no-brainer.
> 
> Once you have conventional color filters anyway as part of your polarizer-removal technology, switching one blue OLED layer to green essentially cones at no cost and dramatically improves performance.
> 
> Everything ties together and the only question I still have is:
> 
> -if Samsung could double output levels by ditching the circular polarizer, how long until LGD can do the same?
> 
> With doubled output levels, I suspect LGD would go the route of eliminating a blue OLED layer and getting back to the 2-emitter stack they originally started with (which would give WOLED a significant cost reduction in their quest to displace LCD…).


Thanks for putting in the work to walk through this. I see that you still include a green layer no matter what. My question was about all blue (if we are to believe the announcements) without the green. Perhaps it is obvious to those in the know that what you present is analogous to 3S1C with all blue instead of 3S2C (though with perhaps a bit less (color?) performance without green per what you state). Is that what I'm missing or is there some other reason not to do the above analysis for 3S1C?


----------



## Wizziwig

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Thanks for the inf! - so my question was, assuming the numbers are real ( we 'know' them from my post) what would a blue-only stack have to have as attributes (for lack of a better term from a non-OLED person. Maybe 'characteristics'?) to deliver those numbers? It seemed fafrd couldn't produce characteristics in his analysis earlier that delivered those numbers with blue only. Maybe the question isn't valid in this case for some reason that is beyond me!


I can only speak to the accuracy of Samsung's numbers. They also allowed the youtube channel "Linus Tech Tips" into their lab to take measurements. That's where we got the ABL curve data. If we apply the same math to his measurements, we get these figures after D65 calibration:

218.22 / 563.19 / 49.25 = 830.66 nits on 10% window.
1246 nits with 3% window.

Within usual panel variance of the figures Samsung listed at CES. If two sources agree, the numbers are probably legit - at least for whatever prototype TVs they were measuring. Who knows what the final retail units will do.

As I said earlier, I'm surprised Samsung let all these details out of the bag so early if the TVs are a year away. It gives their competitors early warning. LG was already close on 10% white window patterns and could tweak their firmware ABL algorithm to get close on 3% windows before the 2022 G2 TVs are released.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Thanks for putting in the work to walk through this. I see that you still include a green layer no matter what. My question was about all blue (if we are to believe the announcements) without the green. Perhaps it is obvious to those in the know that what you present is analogous to 3S1C with all blue instead of 3S2C (though with perhaps a bit less (color?) performance without green per what you state). Is that what I'm missing or is there some other reason not to do the above analysis for 3S1C?


A blue FOLED layer has an efficiency of ~8.4% (and that’s assuming the latest-and-greatest Deuterium-based blue) while a green PHOLED layer has an efficiency of ~72%, 8.6 times greater.

Then you factor in the fact that green Quantum Dots converting Blue Phiotons to Green photons are the least efficient, with conversion efficiency of ~52%, and you get green photon emission from a blue OLED layer + green QDCC being less than 4.4% or just 6% the efficiency of generating green photons from a green OLED layer.

This means that you would need more than 16 blue OLED layers to generate the same intensity of green output through green QDCC as a single green OLED layer through equal-sized green subpixels (or a green suboixel more than 16 times larger to generate equal green output from a single blue OLED layer with green QDCC).

The only downside to replacing a blue OLED layer with a green OLED layer is that you will need to filter out the green photons from the blue subpixel, meaning a conventional color filter that otherwise would not have been needed will need to be added, which increases cost and reduces blue output (by ~15%).

But if that conventional color filter is needed anyway to remove the polarizer, then there is no added cost at all and the green subpixel can be so much smaller with a green OLED layer that the size of the blue subpuxel can easily be increased by 33% or even 50% to compensate for the reduced blue output from the removed blue OLED layer.

So Blue+Green *C*yan *OLED* (COLED) is far lower cost than a blue-only BOLED based on blue FOLED ever could be.

I struggled for the longest time to understand how Samsung could commit to QD-BOLED (blue only) based on a blue FOLED emitter because it just never penciled out to be anywhere close to being competitive with WOLED (either much more expensive based on many more blue OLED layers or much lower performance based on similar cost). It seemed like a Don-Quixote-like quest and an act of desperation to commit that product to production.

The adoption of a green OLED layer solves that competitiveness issue so completely that I don’t think it’s worth putting any more effort into analyzing QD-BOLED.

QD-COLED largely closes the performance and cost gap with WOLED and if that can be married with removal of the polarizer as is seeming increasingly likely, QD-COLED jumps to a clear advantage of 3X fully-saturated color levels and ~1.5X peak white levels at manufacturing costs that can approach those of WOLED (at least until WOLED eliminates the polarizer as well).

I know a no-brainer when I see one:

-Samsung Display has almost certainly ditched pure-QD-BOLED for QD-COLED.

-they have also likely eliminated the circular polarizer by implementing conventional color filters on all subpixels (similar technology as wha they developed for their RGB phone OLEDs).

-while the QS-COLEDs fr TV application will likely be based on a WOLED-like 3-layer stack of B-B-G to get manufacturing costs down near WOLEDs 3S levels, the QD-COLED monitors are likely to be based on the 4-layer B-B-B-G COLEd stack disclosed by UBI, both because that higher-end monitor application can easily afford the greater manufacturing cost (which may be needed due to the more demanding application environment) and because getting real-world lifetime and burn-in data from a more robust stack for ~one year before putting hundreds of thousands of more fragile 3S B-B-G QD-COLEDs in the wild for TV application makes so much more sense (Samsung Electronics / Display is very aggressive and sometimes loose with the truth, but one thing they are not is stupid).


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> A blue FOLED layer has an efficiency of ~8.4% (and that’s assuming the latest-and-greatest Deuterium-based blue) while a green PHOLED layer has an efficiency of ~72%, 8.6 times greater.
> 
> Then you factor in the fact that green Quantum Dots converting Blue Phiotons to Green photons are the least efficient, with conversion efficiency of ~52%, and you get green photon emission from a blue OLED layer + green QDCC being less than 4.4% or just 6% the efficiency of generating green photons from a green OLED layer.
> 
> This means that you would need more than 16 blue OLED layers to generate the same intensity of green output through green QDCC as a single green OLED layer through equal-sized green subpixels (or a green suboixel more than 16 times larger to generate equal green output from a single blue OLED layer with green QDCC).
> 
> The only downside to replacing a blue OLED layer with a green OLED layer is that you will need to filter out the green photons from the blue subpixel, meaning a conventional color filter that otherwise would not have been needed will need to be added, which increases cost and reduces blue output (by ~15%).
> 
> But if that conventional color filter is needed anyway to remove the polarizer, then there is no added cost at all and the green subpixel can be so much smaller with a green OLED layer that the size of the blue subpuxel can easily be increased by 33% or even 50% to compensate for the reduced blue output from the removed blue OLED layer.
> 
> So Blue+Green *C*yan *OLED* (COLED) is far lower cost than a blue-only BOLED based on blue FOLED ever could be.
> 
> I struggled for the longest time to understand how Samsung could commit to QD-BOLED (blue only) based on a blue FOLED emitter because it just never penciled out to be anywhere close to being competitive with WOLED (either much more expensive based on many more blue OLED layers or much lower performance based on similar cost). It seemed like a Don-Quixote-like quest and an act of desperation to commit that product to production.
> 
> The adoption of a green OLED layer solves that competitiveness issue so completely that I don’t think it’s worth putting any more effort into analyzing QD-BOLED.
> 
> QD-COLED largely closes the performance and cost gap with WOLED and if that can be married with removal of the polarizer as is seeming increasingly likely, QD-COLED jumps to a clear advantage of 3X fully-saturated color levels and ~1.5X peak white levels at manufacturing costs that can approach those of WOLED (at least until WOLED eliminates the polarizer as well).
> 
> I know a no-brainer when I see one:
> 
> -Samsung Display has almost certainly ditched pure-QD-BOLED for QD-COLED.
> 
> -they have also likely eliminated the circular polarizer by implementing conventional color filters on all subpixels (similar technology as wha they developed for their RGB phone OLEDs).
> 
> -while the QS-COLEDs fr TV application will likely be based on a WOLED-like 3-layer stack of B-B-G to get manufacturing costs down near WOLEDs 3S levels, the QD-COLED monitors are likely to be based on the 4-layer B-B-B-G COLEd stack disclosed by UBI, both because that higher-end monitor application can easily afford the greater manufacturing cost (which may be needed due to the more demanding application environment) and because getting real-world lifetime and burn-in data from a more robust stack for ~one year before putting hundreds of thousands of more fragile 3S B-B-G QD-COLEDs in the wild for TV application makes so much more sense (Samsung Electronics / Display is very aggressive and sometimes loose with the truth, but one thing they are not is stupid).


Got it! Thanks alot for the clarifications on your thinking


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Wizziwig said:


> As I said earlier, I'm surprised Samsung let all these details out of the bag so early if the TVs are a year away. It gives their competitors early warning. LG was already close on 10% white window patterns and could tweak their firmware ABL algorithm to get close on 3% windows before the 2022 G2 TVs are released.


Given how SVD and SDC get along (like teenage brothers it seems), I wonder if all this SDC press was agreed to on the SEC mothership with SVD?
I'm also thinking of Heat Miser, Snow Miser, and Mother Nature right now...


----------



## hotskins

Hoping Lgs panel with heat sink isnt overpriced like sonys


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Got it! Thanks alot for the clarifications on your thinking


My pleasure.

Let’s go ahead and follow-up by thinking a few moves ahead.

I’m now convinced that 3S2C QD-COLED can be competitive with the manufacturing costs and price points that WOLED is achieving today. It will take some time to get there, probably at least 2 if not as many as 4 years, but Samsung Display will eventually be positions to deliver millions of premium TVs to the Premium TV market at the pricepoints WOLED has achieved today.

Before then, possibly as early as 2023 or perhaps not before 2024, I don’t see any reason that WOLED is also going to be able to eliminate their polarizer to achieve a ~doubling of all output levels while also lowering cost.

That would mean 3S4C WOLED closing the gap to delivering ~2/3 the fully-saturated color output of 3S2C QD-COLED while surpassing peak QD-COLED from ~67% peak white output levels to delivering ~133% of the peak white output levels of 3S2C QD-COLED (meaning 3S4C WOLED will be able to deliver ~2000 cd/m2 peak white).

If the market is ready to reward those higher peak white output levels with increased market share, LGD WOLED will be positioned to capitalize in the, but the 1500cd/n2 delivered by QD-COLED may be ‘enough’ meaning LGD won’t find many takers for their higher-but-less-saturated peak levels.

But LGD will have other options:

They will almost certainly be able to eliminate one blue layer to deliver a lower-cost 2S4C WOLED delivering output levels similar tithe 2022 WOKEDs at much lower cost (and lower cost than 3S2C QD-COLED).

They may even be able to ditch the yellow OLED partial-layer to deliver even lower-cost 2S3C B-R/G WOLED matching the 2022 WOLEDs in output levels but with improved color gamut (and again, at even lower cost).

How much further will WOLED be able to gain share from LCD as they continue to reduce the cost gap? Who can say. But the point is that the basic market structure of QD-COLED and eventually Blue-only-QNED at the highest tier (top-to-middle tier of the Premium TV Market), followed by lower-cost WOLED at middle tier (middle-to-lowest tier of the premium TV market into upper tier of the mainstream TV market), followed by LCD (including QD-LCD but not including MiniLED/LCD) at the bottom of the pyramid looks to be a structure that will stay in place and slowly evolve into deeper and deeper penetration levels over the coming decade or even two.

With ~double output levels from no polarizer, LGD also always has the option to stick to 3S4C but ditch their white subpixel.

An RGB subpixel WOLED based on today’s 3S4C WOLED stack without a polarizer would deliver fully-saturated colors at ~2.7 times current WOLED levels while delivering peak whites which are ~1.35 times today’s levels (so only ~1150 to 1350 cd/m2 but with no loss of saturation). And a reduced white subpixel size could allow WOLED to match or surpass QD-COLED peak white levels while significantly closing the gap on fully-saturated output levels.

Next there is LGD’s 10.5G WOLED fab, which will allow them to reduce the cost of 65” WOLEDs by over 15% versus 8.5G manufacturing with MMG but more significantly, will allow them to manufacture 75” WOLED panels for 1/3rd less than the cost of 75” or 77” panels manufactured at 8.5G.

There is nothing fundamental keeping a Samsung from establishing a 10.5G QD-COLED fab as well but that is a massive investment and is going to take a long time (probably at least 5 years), meaning LGD will be able to lick in a sustainable cost advantage for WOLED for at least 5 years once they bring their 10.5G fab into production.

Commitments ti 10.5G manufacturing by KGD WOLED and eventually Samsung Display QD-COLED or QNED will be the clearest sign that OLED TV will continue to close the cost gap and take share from LCD TV (which has already largely completed the transition to 10.5G manufacturing.

And finally, there is the ‘always-on-the-horizon’ arrival of a high-efficiency blue OLED emitter. High-efficiency blue OLED will be more than twice the efficiency of Deuterium-based Blue FOLED emitters and could approach three times the efficiency.

This will translate to a 2S2C stack for QD-COLED and almost-certainly a 2S3C stack for WOLED at brightness levels of at least 150% of today’s QD-OLED levels, if not 200% (so at least 2250 cd/m2 if not 3000).

The market may not assign much value to those increased output levels but coming along with even lower cost means the gap to LCD will inexorably just keep closing…

I’m keeping my fingers crossed that between overall confidence in the sustainable position WOLED has painfully carved out for itself in the TV marketplace as well as finally moving forward with a multi-year supply agreement with Samsung Electronics for the supply of millions of (additive) WOLED panels, that LGD decides to move forward with their 10.5G WOLED fab at their annual capital investment announcement in Q3 of this year.

That would be the final nail in the coffin to indicate we’ve entered a very favorable environment for emissive Display technology for as far out as we can see…


----------



## fafrd

hotskins said:


> Hoping Lgs panel with heat sink isnt overpriced like sonys


I doubt LGD would have gone to the trouble if they weren’t confident that they could deliver similar capability for a fraction of the cost.

Sony added their heatsink a panel at a time in their TV manufacturing line after receiving WOLED panels from LGD (as did Panasonic).

From what’s been rumored, we believe that LGD is now adding heatsinks to WOLED panels within the WOLED panel manufacturing line en-mass and offering those WOLED-panel-with-integrated-heatsink as a premium product.

So that should lower the cost of adding a heat sink for LGE as well as for Sony, for Panasonic, or for any customer that wants one…


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> A blue FOLED layer has an efficiency of ~8.4% (and that’s assuming the latest-and-greatest Deuterium-based blue) while a green PHOLED layer has an efficiency of ~72%, 8.6 times greater.
> 
> Then you factor in the fact that green Quantum Dots converting Blue Phiotons to Green photons are the least efficient, with conversion efficiency of ~52%, and you get green photon emission from a blue OLED layer + green QDCC being less than 4.4% or just 6% the efficiency of generating green photons from a green OLED layer.
> 
> This means that you would need more than 16 blue OLED layers to generate the same intensity of green output through green QDCC as a single green OLED layer through equal-sized green subpixels (or a green suboixel more than 16 times larger to generate equal green output from a single blue OLED layer with green QDCC).
> 
> The only downside to replacing a blue OLED layer with a green OLED layer is that you will need to filter out the green photons from the blue subpixel, meaning a conventional color filter that otherwise would not have been needed will need to be added, which increases cost and reduces blue output (by ~15%).
> 
> But if that conventional color filter is needed anyway to remove the polarizer, then there is no added cost at all and the green subpixel can be so much smaller with a green OLED layer that the size of the blue subpuxel can easily be increased by 33% or even 50% to compensate for the reduced blue output from the removed blue OLED layer.
> 
> So Blue+Green *C*yan *OLED* (COLED) is far lower cost than a blue-only BOLED based on blue FOLED ever could be.
> 
> I struggled for the longest time to understand how Samsung could commit to QD-BOLED (blue only) based on a blue FOLED emitter because it just never penciled out to be anywhere close to being competitive with WOLED (either much more expensive based on many more blue OLED layers or much lower performance based on similar cost). It seemed like a Don-Quixote-like quest and an act of desperation to commit that product to production.
> 
> The adoption of a green OLED layer solves that competitiveness issue so completely that I don’t think it’s worth putting any more effort into analyzing QD-BOLED.
> 
> QD-COLED largely closes the performance and cost gap with WOLED and if that can be married with removal of the polarizer as is seeming increasingly likely, QD-COLED jumps to a clear advantage of 3X fully-saturated color levels and ~1.5X peak white levels at manufacturing costs that can approach those of WOLED (at least until WOLED eliminates the polarizer as well).
> 
> I know a no-brainer when I see one:
> 
> -Samsung Display has almost certainly ditched pure-QD-BOLED for QD-COLED.
> 
> -they have also likely eliminated the circular polarizer by implementing conventional color filters on all subpixels (similar technology as wha they developed for their RGB phone OLEDs).
> 
> -while the QS-COLEDs fr TV application will likely be based on a WOLED-like 3-layer stack of B-B-G to get manufacturing costs down near WOLEDs 3S levels, the QD-COLED monitors are likely to be based on the 4-layer B-B-B-G COLEd stack disclosed by UBI, both because that higher-end monitor application can easily afford the greater manufacturing cost (which may be needed due to the more demanding application environment) and because getting real-world lifetime and burn-in data from a more robust stack for ~one year before putting hundreds of thousands of more fragile 3S B-B-G QD-COLEDs in the wild for TV application makes so much more sense (Samsung Electronics / Display is very aggressive and sometimes loose with the truth, but one thing they are not is stupid).


Perhaps for the same reasons LGD did 4ish years ago?

"Since phosphorescent green EML did not show long enough lifetime for WOLED TV" Advanced Technologies for Large-Sized OLED Display


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Perhaps for the same reasons LGD did 4ish years ago?
> 
> "Since phosphorescent green EML did not show long enough lifetime for WOLED TV" Advanced Technologies for Large-Sized OLED Display


Interesting find - thanks.

LGD’s decision to add a deep-green emitter to their new 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable WOLED stack last year and Samsung’s decision to replace a blue FOLED layer with a green PHOLED layer in their QD-OLED stack may both have been driven by the same recent advances in lifetime of green EML…


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Interesting find - thanks.
> 
> LGD’s decision to add a deep-green emitter to their new 3S4C / WBE / Evo-capable WOLED stack last year and Samsung’s decision to replace a blue FOLED layer with a green PHOLED layer in their QD-OLED stack may both have been driven by the same recent advances in lifetime of green EML…


I've read a fair amount of LGDs published research and patents (patents that interest me; many don't or don't seem like "big" innovations), but that statement was among the more definitive that I read in terms of x not being an acceptable design option where x seems like it would be, so it stuck in my mind.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I've read a fair amount of LGDs published research and patents (patents that interest me; many don't or don't seem like "big" innovations), but that statement was among the more definitive that I read in terms of x not being an acceptable design option where x seems like it would be, so it stuck in my mind.


We’re lucky to have you involved in the board .

If you’ve been following patents closely, are you aware of any Samsung Display patents on their polarizer-less technology that would present a barrier to LGD developing something similar?

Something like that would be the only reason I can think of for why LGD won’t introduce similar technology within the next year or two…


----------



## stl8k

No mention of Green anywhere in the QD OLED sections of this doc.

Annual Quantum Dot Display Technology and Market Outlook Report - Display Supply Chain Consultants

And, pretty specific about Blue emitters:

*



OLED with QDCC p.112

Click to expand...

*


> Samsung’s QD-OLED Fab
> QD-OLED Structure
> Brightness
> Material Usage
> *Blue Emitters*
> Material Costs


----------



## JasonHa

stl8k said:


> No mention of Green anywhere in the QD OLED sections of this doc.
> 
> Annual Quantum Dot Display Technology and Market Outlook Report - Display Supply Chain Consultants
> 
> And, pretty specific about Blue emitters:


FYI, recently that same website published a blog entry with this:


> Samsung described the OLED as “self-emitting blue”. When asked about the rumor that Samsung included a green OLED emitting layer to boost brightness, my contact said he was unsure and would follow up.


LINK


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> FYI, recently that same website published a blog entry with this:
> LINK


QD-BOLED based on blue FOLED made no sense (it was a desperation move to salvage something following the delay / dissappointment of high-efficiency Blue / Blue PHOLED since the beginning).

QD-COLED based on one green PHOLED layer in an otherwise all-Blue-FOLED stack makes a great deal of sense (especially if only recently-enabled by advances in green EML lifetime).

Samsung has promoted a simple and easy-to-understand Blue+Quantum Dot Color Converter story which they are understandably reluctant to undercut and risk causing confusion by introducing the idea of Blue + Green OLED.

So this becoming clear will be like pulling teeth with Samsung, but it’s too much of a no-brainer to be any other way. Once all stones have been overturned and Samsung Display has nowhere to hide, I’m pretty much certain about what the reality will prove to be.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> If you’ve been following patents closely, are you aware of any Samsung Display patents on their polarizer-less technology that would present a barrier to LGD developing something similar?
> Something like that would be the only reason I can think of for why LGD won’t introduce similar technology within the next year or two…


I don't think it's as trivial as you make it out. Several companies (including giants like BOE) have been working on polarizer free mobile displays for a long time but Samsung was the first to actually get it working in retail products. It adds a lot of cost and complexity, including backplane changes. Nobody was expecting it to be used on TVs. I suggest reading the original DSCC article linked earlier in the thread. As far as I can see, this is only for top emission devices.


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> QD-BOLED based on blue FOLED made no sense (it was a desperation move to salvage something following the delay / dissappointment of high-efficiency Blue / Blue PHOLED since the beginning).
> 
> QD-COLED based on one green PHOLED layer in an otherwise all-Blue-FOLED stack makes a great deal of sense (especially if only recently-enabled by advances in green EML lifetime).
> 
> Samsung has promoted a simple and easy-to-understand Blue+Quantum Dot Color Converter story which they are understandably reluctant to undercut and risk causing confusion by introducing the idea of Blue + Green OLED.
> 
> So this becoming clear will be like pulling teeth with Samsung, but it’s too much of a no-brainer to be any other way. Once all stones have been overturned and Samsung Display has nowhere to hide, I’m pretty much certain about what the reality will prove to be.


..only a few nerds care about such thing. If it is blue/green than it is a case of them (Samsung Display) being sloppy/generalising mentioning only blue. Odd thing though their site (Samsung Display) shows a drawing where it actually is a blue/ green layer (them calling it blue light emitting source).


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> I don't think it's as trivial as you make it out. Several companies (including giants like BOE) have been working on polarizer free mobile displays for a long time but Samsung was the first to actually get it working in retail products. It adds a lot of cost and complexity, including backplane changes. Nobody was expecting it to be used on TVs. I suggest reading the original DSCC article linked earlier in the thread. As far as I can see, this is only for top emission devices.


Concur after a very brief skim of the US patent app's.


----------



## Wizziwig

8mile13 said:


> ..only a few nerds care about such thing. If it is blue/green than it is a case of them (Samsung Display) being sloppy/generalising mentioning only blue. Odd thing though their site (Samsung Display) shows a drawing where it actually is a blue/ green layer (them calling it blue light emitting source).
> 
> View attachment 3223393


Good job catching that. It's actually cyan in color. Strange how it's angled out. Could be just there to add depth/dimension to the illustration and not actually indicative of another unique layer. Artistic license or closer to truth? You decide.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I don't think it's as trivial as you make it out. Several companies (including giants like BOE) have been working on polarizer free mobile displays for a long time but Samsung was the first to actually get it working in retail products. It adds a lot of cost and complexity, including backplane changes. Nobody was expecting it to be used on TVs. I suggest reading the original DSCC article linked earlier in the thread. As far as I can see, this is only for top emission devices.


No PDL on QD-OLED (or WOLED), so it doesn’t look like like removal of the polarizer from (either) OKED-based TV-panel technology is possible using this technology..,

Confusing that UBI seems to believe Samsubg Electronics has successfully eliminated the polarizer in QD-OLED, so I guess we’ll just need to wait for more (confirmed) details to emerge…


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> ..only a few nerds care about such thing. If it is blue/green than it is a case of them (Samsung Display) being sloppy/generalising mentioning only blue.
> [/quote{
> [quoote]
> Odd thing though their site (Samsung Display) shows *a drawing where it actually is a blue/ green layer (them calling it blue light emitting source*).
> 
> View attachment 3223393


Seems like these days you can call things anything you want - so calling a blue-blue-blue-green OLED stack a ‘blue light emitting source’ seems well within the rules.

I mean, it actually is a source of blue light emission, so overlooking to mention that it also emits green light is a relatively minor infraction (these days, anyway).


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Good job catching that. It's actually cyan in color. Strange how it's angled out. Could be just there to add depth/dimension to the illustration and not actually indicative of another unique layer. Artistic license or closer to truth? You decide.


Especially if the hope/rumor that the polarizer had been eliminated proves false, the use of a green emitter in the OLED is a certainty.

I’m guessing that Samsung is taking the view that as long as what they are stating is not probably false, it is OK.

So red and green photons are generated from blue photons using QDCC, and just because a majority of the green photons are generated using another means is irrelevant, They did not claim anything that was untrue.


----------



## Wizziwig

You think this statement would not be considered untrue? This is what Samsung told DSCC:


The panel includes a color filter in front of the QDCC. This color filter does *not filter much light coming from the panel* but serves to enhance contrast by preventing ambient light from activating the quantum dots.

Filtering out the amount of green being speculated here would definitely qualify as "much" in my book.


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Especially if the hope/rumor that the polarizer had been eliminated proves false, the use of a green emitter in the OLED is a certainty.
> 
> I’m guessing that Samsung is taking the view that as long as what they are stating is not probably false, it is OK.
> 
> So red and green photons are generated from blue photons using QDCC, and just because a majority of the green photons are generated using another means is irrelevant, They did not claim anything that was untrue.


There is no polarizer in QD OLED...

"How does QD-OLED solve this problem? When using a blue OLED backlight where each sub-pixel is operated independently, *there are no polarizers or polarized light*. This allows for a more simplified design where the QD-color filter layer converts the blue OLED light to red/green without the aid of polarizers and liquid crystals to select the amount of light delivered to each sub-pixel. The amount of light for each sub-pixel is selected at the OLED level in how the pixel is driven. If the scene calls for a black pixel, you maintain the awesome contrast ratio that OLED is known for by keeping the pixel turned off. If you need a bright red lipstick that only QDs can deliver, then your display will be able to give you that too! Since there is no LCD involved, the viewing angle will be awesome."









Have your cake and eat it too with QD-OLED technology - Palomaki Consulting


Have your cake and eat it too with QD-OLED technology UPDATE January 2022: We have finally seen the commercialization of QD-OLED, YAY! Samsung has developed the technology for QD-OLED to be used in TVs as well as computer monitors (gaming) with amazing color, viewing angle, and brightness...



palomakiconsulting.com





To summarize:

AMOLED for Smartphone: Samsung Display (eco2), today. Everyone else in that market, soon.
QD OLED: Intrinsically not needed
WOLED for Conventional TV: LG Display. No apparent R&D towards eliminating circular polarizer. (They are enhancing the polarizer, for example, through blue tuning.)


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> You think this statement would not be considered untrue? This is what Samsung told DSCC:
> 
> 
> The panel includes a color filter in front of the QDCC. This color filter does *not filter much light coming from the panel* but serves to enhance contrast by preventing ambient light from activating the quantum dots.
> 
> Filtering out the amount of green being speculated here would definitely qualify as "much" in my book.


Yeah, look at how carefully that statement was architected - the color filter ‘serves to enhance contrast by preventing ambient light from activating the quantum dots’ (with or without a polarizer) and the filter does not filter much blue light coming from the blue sub-pixel or much green light coming from the green subpixel (or much red light coming from the red subpixel, for that matter), so it really depends of what kind of light ‘much’ is being applied to.


I’m not a lawyer but I’m suspecting Samsung has the wiggle-room to argue the light they were referring to was the light color/wavelength associated with each specific subpixel, rather than any light…

Blue color filter doesn’t filter out ‘much’ blue light (~15%), green color filter doesn’t filter out much green light, etc…


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> There is no polarizer in QD OLED...
> 
> "How does QD-OLED solve this problem? When using a blue OLED backlight where each sub-pixel is operated independently, *there are no polarizers or polarized light*. This allows for a more simplified design where the QD-color filter layer converts the blue OLED light to red/green without the aid of polarizers and liquid crystals to select the amount of light delivered to each sub-pixel. The amount of light for each sub-pixel is selected at the OLED level in how the pixel is driven. If the scene calls for a black pixel, you maintain the awesome contrast ratio that OLED is known for by keeping the pixel turned off. If you need a bright red lipstick that only QDs can deliver, then your display will be able to give you that too! Since there is no LCD involved, the viewing angle will be awesome."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have your cake and eat it too with QD-OLED technology - Palomaki Consulting
> 
> 
> Have your cake and eat it too with QD-OLED technology UPDATE January 2022: We have finally seen the commercialization of QD-OLED, YAY! Samsung has developed the technology for QD-OLED to be used in TVs as well as computer monitors (gaming) with amazing color, viewing angle, and brightness...
> 
> 
> 
> palomakiconsulting.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To summarize:
> 
> AMOLED for Smartphone: Samsung Display (eco2), today. Everyone else in that market, soon.
> QD OLED: Intrinsically not needed
> WOLED for Conventional TV: LG Display. No apparent R&D towards eliminating circular polarizer. (They are enhancing the polarizer, for example, through blue tuning.)


I understand the statement but do not understand the logic.

The role of the polarizer for WOLED is to prevent outside light from entering into an (off) pixel, getting reflected off of the reflective backplane, and coming back out of the pixel as visible light.

The anti-reflective polarizer has nothing to do with the role a polarizer and polarized light plays in LCD (where polarized light is necessary for the LCD light valves to modulate transmissiveness).

Samsung’s anti reflective polarizer has been eliminated in their RGB phone OLEDs by adding color filters and an inter-subpixel masking layer at the OLED level, but QD-OLED has no ability to include a masking layer at the OLED layer (since the whole point of QD-OLED as well as WOLED before it is to avoid patterning of the OLED layer by depositing a uniform sheet).

If you can find any reason that that paragraph you quoted cannot replace every reference to QD OLED and blue with WOLED and white and still be true (other than he reference to Quantum Dots), please explain.


----------



## Fabio Zanellato

Bad news guys.









LG: i TV OLED C2 e G2 non sono OLED.EX ma le novità non mancano


Facciamo il punto sulle novità in arrivo nelle serie OLED C2 e G2 comparando le tecnologie OLED evo e OLED.EX.




www.hdblog.it


----------



## 59LIHP

Oups!


----------



## Achillias

Lol that's ridiculous. Would wait for that new tech.


----------



## hamad138

I heard Rumours there the EX Panels will be on the New E series from LG. It's going to be announced later on this year

Gesendet von meinem GM1913 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Achillias

hamad138 said:


> I heard Rumours there the EX Panels will be on the New E series from LG. It's going to be announced later on this year
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GM1913 mit Tapatalk


The E series are coming back? Lol would be nice if they use the E7 design.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Yeah, look at how carefully that statement was architected - the color filter ‘serves to enhance contrast by preventing ambient light from activating the quantum dots’ (with or without a polarizer) and the filter does not filter much blue light coming from the blue sub-pixel or much green light coming from the green subpixel (or much red light coming from the red subpixel, for that matter), so it really depends of what kind of light ‘much’ is being applied to.
> 
> 
> I’m not a lawyer but I’m suspecting Samsung has the wiggle-room to argue the light they were referring to was the light color/wavelength associated with each specific subpixel, rather than any light…
> 
> Blue color filter doesn’t filter out ‘much’ blue light (~15%), green color filter doesn’t filter out much green light, etc…


They told the same thing to pcmag:

"We're not doing *any filtering*. Almost all the energy hitting the Quantum Dot is usually converted. Not the whole thing, but it's a very high number. And that creates better light efficiency," said Chirag Shah, Samsung Display's director of Quantum Dot technology. "

I don't think they can wiggle their way out of these statements. Everything else in those statements in consistent with how QDCC work. Some small percent (maybe 2%?) of light not matching the QD color is not absorbed and leaks through and needs minor filtering to maintain high gamut coverage.



fafrd said:


> I understand the statement but do not understand the logic.
> 
> The role of the polarizer for WOLED is to prevent outside light from entering into an (off) pixel, getting reflected off of the reflective backplane, and coming back out of the pixel as visible light.
> 
> The anti-reflective polarizer has nothing to do with the role a polarizer and polarized light plays in LCD (where polarized light is necessary for the LCD light valves to modulate transmissiveness).
> 
> Samsung’s anti reflective polarizer has been eliminated in their RGB phone OLEDs by adding color filters and an inter-subpixel masking layer at the OLED level, but QD-OLED has no ability to include a masking layer at the OLED layer (since the whole point of QD-OLED as well as WOLED before it is to avoid patterning of the OLED layer by depositing a uniform sheet).
> 
> If you can find any reason that that paragraph you quoted cannot replace every reference to QD OLED and blue with WOLED and white and still be true (other than he reference to Quantum Dots), please explain.


After thinking about this more, I don't think traditional polarizers would work with QD-OLED regardless because light passing through QDCC gets depolarized. Instead of on the outer surface, the polarizer would need to be deep inside the stack so it's not affected by the QDCC. I don't think they had any real choice but to remove it.

Regarding the PDL layer, that's part of the backplane/TFT process. The BM (black matrix) between QDCC colors on the outer surface has to exist no matter what to prevent the inkjet printed QD material from spilling into neighboring sub-pixels. The "wells" formed to hold the QDCC ink (and possibly color filters) serve as the BM.


----------



## CliffordinWales

hamad138 said:


> I heard Rumours there the EX Panels will be on the New E series from LG. It's going to be announced later on this year
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GM1913 mit Tapatalk


Do you have a news source for this, or is it just forum chatter?


----------



## bobfimmer2

Hi guys stumbled upon this discussion board doing some research on the new QD-OLED TV's. I'm a complete novice, but I'm trying to understand if the QD-OLED TV use phosphorescent OLED materials for the red and green? or are the quantum dots the older fluorescent ones because the energy efficiency benefit of phosphorescent is not needed? I am assuming that the blue light source is definitely fluorescent since nobody has announced a breakthrough in blue phosphorescent. My apologies if this makes no sense or if you guys have already discussed this. Happy to be pointed to any discussion about it, I saw some from August talking about a blue-green light source combo I think. But trying to avoid going down a rabbit hole. I'll start reading and hopefully catch up to contribute. Thanks.


----------



## JasonHa

bobfimmer2 said:


> Hi guys stumbled upon this discussion board doing some research on the new QD-OLED TV's. I'm a complete novice, but I'm trying to understand if the QD-OLED TV use phosphorescent OLED materials for the red and green? or are the quantum dots the older fluorescent ones because the energy efficiency benefit of phosphorescent is not needed?


The Samsung Display's marketing seems to indicate that only blue OLEDs are present. Quantum dots are special (tiny) passive particles that radiate light of specific frequencies. In this case, they absorb the blue light and some transmit green and the others transmit red.

There have been rumors that Samsung is also using green OLEDs in these TVs for increased brightness, but this has yet to be confirmed. We may have to wait for the TVs to be released to find out.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> They told the same thing to pcmag:
> 
> "We're not doing *any filtering*. Almost all the energy hitting the Quantum Dot is usually converted. Not the whole thing, but it's a very high number. And that creates better light efficiency," said Chirag Shah, Samsung Display's director of Quantum Dot technology.”





> *I don't think they can wiggle their way out of these statements. *


Who needs to wiggle? Samsung is not filtering out any of the photons that have been generated by the quantum dots they print.



> Everything else in those statements in consistent with how QDCC work. Some small percent (*maybe 2%?*) of light not matching the QD color is not absorbed and leaks through and needs minor filtering to maintain high gamut coverage.


If you’ve got any references to the EQE of the green and red QDCC Samsung Display is using, please share.

Here is the best reference I could find (direct from Nanosys): https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...Conversion+Layers+Through+Inkjet+Printing.pdf

‘The external quantum efficiency (EQE) in this measurement is defined by the number of green or red photons emitted divided by the number of blue photons incident on the QD ink film. EQEs as high as *29.8% for green QD ink films* and *38.2% for red QD ink films* have been obtained after all of the above processing with films of thickness in the 4-9μm range (see Figure 3).’

These results were for QD ink films, not printed QDs.

Further down the same reference states this:

‘At a final display white point of D65 for both cases, *a QDCF using QD ink color conversion layers with demonstrated EQE values have a 75% higher photon conversion efficiency* (see Table 3). Improvements to the EQE of QD ink film will only further increase the optical efficiency gain relative to QDEF.‘

So 175% x 29.8% = 52.15% EQE is the best number I’ve seen for EQQ of green QDCC and 175% x 38.2% = 66.85% is the best number I’ve seen for the EQE of red QDCC.

If Samsung’s printed QSCC is delivering EQEs closer to the ~98% you’re indicating, that would be a major error in what I’ve been modeling (though you’d suspect Nanosys would have published such dramatic improvements to EQE of QDCC using their QDs by now…



> After thinking about this more, I don't think traditional polarizers would work with QD-OLED regardless because light passing through QDCC gets depolarized.


That’s an interesting point. You are saying that photons emitter by QDCC will have random polarization compared to the polarization of any incoming photons, right?



> Instead of on the outer surface, the polarizer would need to be deep inside the stack so it's not affected by the QDCC. I don't think they had any real choice but to remove it.


I see what you are getting at, but the only other solution I can think of is to make the bottom surface absorbing rather than reflective. This will sacrifice a great deal of the photons generated by the BOLED or COLED stack (as well as possibly some of the photons generated by the QDs), but would avoid the problem of incoming stray light being reflected back (and without the need of a circular polarizer).



> Regarding the PDL layer, that's part of the backplane/TFT process. The BM (black matrix) between QDCC colors on the outer surface has to exist no matter what to prevent the inkjet printed QD material from spilling into neighboring sub-pixels. The "wells" formed to hold the QDCC ink (and possibly color filters) serve as the BM.


Yes, the QD-OLED structure actually has 3 layers, not 2 as is the case for RGB OLED:

Outermost layer is CCF (conventional color filter) separated by BM

Middle layer is QDCC which must also be masked by BM or possibly PDL or something similar

Bottom layer is the OLED stack which will not have any inter-stack masking layer such as PDL

If the surface of the TFT layer is reflective, any incoming photons from the outside that reach it can be reflected back out, possibly activating QDCC if they happen to be blue photons.

If the surface of the TFT layer is anti-reflective, the problem can be avoided, but only at the cost of sacrificing reflected OLED and QDCC photons as well…

The ‘deeper’ the entire structure, the better from the point of view of making it less and less likely for stray photons from outside to ‘thread the needle’, but replacing a reflective TFT outer surface with an anti-reflective surface is the only way I can see to assure that stray light from outside cannot activate the QDCC in a way that results in some parasitic /unwanted photons being emitted…


----------



## bobfimmer2

Have to say, there are some really amazing post on here. Very informative. Good job by you guys. ONe more qeustion, then I'll get back to trying reading through the old threads. I'm curious on people's view on what the QD-OLED announcement means for anybody being close to figuring out a Blue PHOLED? Think it was referred to as the holy grail on here. I guess two ways to look at it: on the negative side, clearly not a good sign if they are using Blue FOLED and is there any read across from them having to add the green PHOLED in there as far as whether a Blue PHOLED would even work? Thought PHOLED vs. FOLED more about energy efficiency, but maybe there is more to it so can't condemn Blue PHOLED as completely off the table. ON the positive side, given QD-OLED was already delayed, would it make sense to go forward with Blue FOLED solution for a year if they feel confident on the Blue PHOLED being close to commercialization soon? Any thoughts much appreciated.


----------



## fafrd

bobfimmer2 said:


> Have to say, there are some really amazing post on here. Very informative. Good job by you guys. ONe more qeustion, then I'll get back to trying reading through the old threads. I'm curious on people's view on what the QD-OLED announcement means for anybody being close to figuring out a Blue PHOLED? Think it was referred to as the holy grail on here. I guess two ways to look at it: on the negative side, clearly not a good sign if they are using Blue FOLED and is there any read across from them having to add the green PHOLED in there as far as whether a Blue PHOLED would even work? Thought PHOLED vs. FOLED more about energy efficiency, but maybe there is more to it so can't condemn Blue PHOLED as completely off the table. ON the positive side, given QD-OLED was already delayed, would it make sense to go forward with Blue FOLED solution for a year if they feel confident on the Blue PHOLED being close to commercialization soon? Any thoughts much appreciated.


If/when high efficiency blue finally materializes (PHOLED or TADF or HyperFlorescence) it will lower OLED manufacturing cost, that’s about it.


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> Who needs to wiggle? Samsung is not filtering out any of the photons that have been generated by the quantum dots they print.
> 
> 
> 
> If you’ve got any references to the EQE of the green and red QDCC Samsung Display is using, please share.
> 
> Here is the best reference I could find (direct from Nanosys): https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...Conversion+Layers+Through+Inkjet+Printing.pdf
> 
> ‘The external quantum efficiency (EQE) in this measurement is defined by the number of green or red photons emitted divided by the number of blue photons incident on the QD ink film. EQEs as high as *29.8% for green QD ink films* and *38.2% for red QD ink films* have been obtained after all of the above processing with films of thickness in the 4-9μm range (see Figure 3).’
> 
> These results were for QD ink films, not printed QDs.
> 
> Further down the same reference states this:
> 
> ‘At a final display white point of D65 for both cases, *a QDCF using QD ink color conversion layers with demonstrated EQE values have a 75% higher photon conversion efficiency* (see Table 3). Improvements to the EQE of QD ink film will only further increase the optical efficiency gain relative to QDEF.‘
> 
> So 175% x 29.8% = 52.15% EQE is the best number I’ve seen for EQQ of green QDCC and 175% x 38.2% = 66.85% is the best number I’ve seen for the EQE of red QDCC.
> 
> If Samsung’s printed QSCC is delivering EQEs closer to the ~98% you’re indicating, that would be a major error in what I’ve been modeling (though you’d suspect Nanosys would have published such dramatic improvements to EQE of QDCC using their QDs by now…
> 
> 
> 
> That’s an interesting point. You are saying that photons emitter by QDCC will have random polarization compared to the polarization of any incoming photons, right?
> 
> 
> I see what you are getting at, but the only other solution I can think of is to make the bottom surface absorbing rather than reflective. This will sacrifice a great deal of the photons generated by the BOLED or COLED stack (as well as possibly some of the photons generated by the QDs), but would avoid the problem of incoming stray light being reflected back (and without the need of a circular polarizer).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the QD-OLED structure actually has 3 layers, not 2 as is the case for RGB OLED:
> 
> Outermost layer is CCF (conventional color filter) separated by BM
> 
> Middle layer is QDCC which must also be masked by BM or possibly PDL or something similar
> 
> Bottom layer is the OLED stack which will not have any inter-stack masking layer such as PDL
> 
> If the surface of the TFT layer is reflective, any incoming photons from the outside that reach it can be reflected back out, possibly activating QDCC if they happen to be blue photons.
> 
> If the surface of the TFT layer is anti-reflective, the problem can be avoided, but only at the cost of sacrificing reflected OLED and QDCC photons as well…
> 
> The ‘deeper’ the entire structure, the better from the point of view of making it less and less likely for stray photons from outside to ‘thread the needle’, but replacing a reflective TFT outer surface with an anti-reflective surface is the only way I can see to assure that stray light from outside cannot activate the QDCC in a way that results in some parasitic /unwanted photons being emitted…


Here's an SD technical exec explaining and contrasting (with WOLED) how they manage reflections...



> *Realizing Better Light Reflection and Contrast*
> Ambient light's reflection causes unwanted images on the screen's surface, which not only irritates the eyes but distorts the device's original information. When viewers see a clear-cut image of themselves or a shining lamp reflected from the screen, it is distracting and annoying.
> 
> Typically, total reflection is the sum of specular and diffused reflection. For WOLED, the reflection's main portion is specular or mirror-like, which explains the aforementioned irritation from seeing a clear-cut reflection image on the screen.9 On the contrary, the main portion of total reflection for a QD display is diffused.
> 
> Both QD displays' specular and diffused reflections are minimized by optical index matching and positioning the color filter's spectrum on that of the quantum dot emission. One of the main concerns about the QD display is color conversion by ambient light—but it's quite well suppressed by controlling the color filters and optical parameters.


QD Display: A Game‐Changing Technology for the Display Industry


----------



## stl8k

bobfimmer2 said:


> Have to say, there are some really amazing post on here. Very informative. Good job by you guys. ONe more qeustion, then I'll get back to trying reading through the old threads. I'm curious on people's view on what the QD-OLED announcement means for anybody being close to figuring out a Blue PHOLED? Think it was referred to as the holy grail on here. I guess two ways to look at it: on the negative side, clearly not a good sign if they are using Blue FOLED and is there any read across from them having to add the green PHOLED in there as far as whether a Blue PHOLED would even work? Thought PHOLED vs. FOLED more about energy efficiency, but maybe there is more to it so can't condemn Blue PHOLED as completely off the table. ON the positive side, given QD-OLED was already delayed, would it make sense to go forward with Blue FOLED solution for a year if they feel confident on the Blue PHOLED being close to commercialization soon? Any thoughts much appreciated.


Here's a 2021 retrospective look...


> UDC has for years worked on developing a phosphorescent blue emitter, but each quarter the company uses identical language in its earnings call about phosphorescent blue: “we continue to make excellent progress at our ongoing development work for our commercial phosphorescent blue emissive system.” Cynora for its part has described its progress in achieving the three goals of efficiency, color point, and lifetime, but that progress seems to have stalled since 2018, and Cynora has shifted its short-term approach to an improved fluorescent blue and a TADF green.


DSCC Blog Link

Here's the forward-look for 2022...
[Same as above. No progress.]


----------



## CliffordinWales

stl8k said:


> Here's a 2021 retrospective look...
> 
> 
> DSCC Blog Link
> 
> Here's the forward-look for 2022...
> [Same as above. No progress.]


There was a good article on Display Daily a year ago about the problems of a new blue emitter. No-one yet seems able to find one which can deliver a combination of efficency, lifetime and brightness.









A Breakthrough in Blue OLED?


For the whole life of the technology, blue has been a problem for OLEDs. Over 20 years ago, I caused consternation at a CDT press event when the firm was hyping up 'rollable TVs' (coming anytime soon, now, of course) when I asked "What about blue?" as there was no blue material in the firm's...




www.displaydaily.com


----------



## Nopa

QD-OLED, RGB-OLED, WRGB-OLED, J-OLED, QNED (Samsung), QNED (LG), Mini-LED, Micro-LED, Dual-Layer LCD.
So many choices, next year will be even better.


----------



## stl8k

Nopa said:


> QD-OLED, RGB-OLED, WRGB-OLED, J-OLED, QNED (Samsung), QNED (LG), Mini-LED, Micro-LED, Dual-Layer LCD.
> So many choices, next year will be even better.


Price sensitivity tends to focus people on 1-2 tech choices, but yeah there's a lot of R&D that goes into display tech and the success rate of that R&D is pretty high.

Also, there's the lighting applications of much of the tech. Here's Nanosys talking to the US Dept of Energy about its future QDEL tech:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2020/02/f71/ssl-rd2020-hartlove-quantumdots.pdf


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Price sensitivity tends to focus people on 1-2 tech choices, but yeah there's a lot of R&D that goes into display tech and the success rate of that R&D is pretty high.
> 
> Also, there's the lighting applications of much of the tech. Here's Nanosys talking to the US Dept of Energy about its future QDEL tech:
> https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2020/02/f71/ssl-rd2020-hartlove-quantumdots.pdf


There are a couple of interesting datapoints in that presentation:

Page 13 contains a table showing Quantum Yield of ‘>95%’ for printed ink red and green quantum dots.

Quantum yield, if I understand it correctly, is the probability that an absorbed photon results in the desired emitted photon, so 100 blue photons in will result in 95 or more Ref of green photons out.

Page 15 has a table on QDEL showing 16.9% EQE for red QDEL and 17.6% EQE for green QDEL (but this is QDEL, not QDCC).

Spurred on by this I have found the following paper: Precise theoretical model for quantum-dot color conversion

Figure 7 shows experimental results for Red and Green QDCC with increasing QD concentration.

As QD concentration increases, escaping blue light is reduced and converted light increases. But after reaching a maximum, additional density of QDs will continue to reduce escaping blue light but converted light output also decreases (due to interference, etc. More and more emitted photons collide with QDs before escaping).

So there is a maximum output level at which point escaping blue light is not 0%, but closer to ~10%. It can easily be driven down to ~5% with only modest decrease in converted output but adding additional quantum dots to get down to ~2.5% reduces converted output by ~15% and is not worth it (certainly if conventional color filters are present to block any escaping blue photons).

LCE% is the figure of merit for what % of incoming blue photons were converted to red of green emitted photons, and the experimental data in figure 7 shows a maximum LCE of 16.3% for red QDCC and 22.86% for green QDCC.

Figure 10 shows a simulation where they are optimizing QDCC thickness and the optimal thicknesses for red and green QDCC deliver LCE%s of roughly the same levels.

So the escaping blue photons are likely to be closer to 10% of incoming blue photons than the <2% that Wizziwig had assumed, but again, since there are conventional color filters on both red and green subpixels, the amount of escaping blue photons is largely irrelevant.

What is very relevant is how to translate incoming blue light energy into outgoing red and green light energy following conversion by the QDCC layers.

I look at this paper and it’s experimental results of 16.3% for red and 22.68% for green, and it makes me worried that even the 52.15% EQE for green and 66.85% EQE for red I estimated from the Nanosysy article I linked to earlier could be grossly optimistic.

If anyone has better references or understands the whole domain of the. EQE of QDCC in more depth than me, I’d appreciate an education…

Assuming 3 blue OLED layers (150% of WOLED) coupled with 133% PAR advantage from top-emission, 4S2C B-B-B-G QD-OLED blue is 200% the strength of 3S4C B-R/Y/G-B WOLED.

And with a full green layer, WD-COLED has 200% the raw deep green strength of WOLED. Even if we assume only 22.68% of blue photons are converted to green by the green QDCF, that adds a further ~8% to the photons generated by the green OLED. Factor in PAR and we get to 133% x 108% x 200% = 287% the strength of green in WOLED.

So it all comes down to red. If I assume the only red photons generated are 16.3% of the blue photons, that translates to only 16.3% of blue power or ~22% of the raw red power of WOLED. Factor in the 133% par advantage increases that to ~29%, but this still means that the relative red subpixel size of QD-COLED needs to be 3.5 times that of WOLED just to match WOLED’s fully-saturated red output levels (and Samsung has claimed they will deliver 300% WOLED red levels).

Using the red EQE of 66.85% I estimated from that Nanosys article means strengthening red by more than 4X in QD-OLED, translating to red being 117% the strength of WOLED at equivalent relative red subpixel size (meaning convert the area of WOLED’s white subpixel to red subpixel area in QD-OLED and red output increases to over 250% of WOLED levels, bringing red on a par with blue and green advantage over WOLED.

So I can make this all tie out pretty nicely with Samsung Display’s claims using the numbers for red QDCC I estimated out of the Nanosys paper but can’t make it work with the much lower LCE conversion efficiency numbers I pulled from the above reference.

Can anyone help educate me? Is LCE based on light energy and since a red photon has lower energy than a green photon, that multiplies red LCE to a higher number in terms of calculating the red output power that results from stimulating red QDCC with blue input power?


----------



## fafrd

I found this Nanosys presentation from 2020: 




At least back then, blue light absorption levels of green QDs was far behind that of red QDs (with new products on the works).

Interesting part related to QDCC starts around 15 minutes in…


----------



## Wizziwig

I saw that video a long time ago. I think that is where my recollection of only a small % amount of "leaking" blue light came from that needed minor filtering. Matches up with the 90% BT.2020 that Samsung is advertising.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I saw that video a long time ago. I think that is where my recollection of only a small % amount of "leaking" blue light came from that needed minor filtering. Matches up with the 90% BT.2020 that Samsung is advertising.


Yeah, whether 2% or 5% or even 10% of blue photons leak through the QDCC, I’m not concerned about it impacting color gamut once conventional color filters are added.

And as far as stray light, since it’s filtered on the way in, there is no way hit ambient blue photons to sneak in from outside and activate red or green QDs.

Whether Samsung has treated the surface of their top-emission backplane to be absorbing rather than reflective or the 3-layer structure they have is sufficient to use their RGB-OLED polorizerless technology, or UBI is incorrect and they actually use a polarizer, it is what it is and I don’t see much point in continuing to speculate since samples will hopefully be available on the wild within a few months.

The correct efficiency % to use when estimating how much converted light to expect from red and green QDCC still has me confused and concerned, however.

Do you have any references on what number of red photons out to expect from 100 photons of blue incoming light?


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> Further down the same reference states this:
> 
> ‘At a final display white point of D65 for both cases, *a QDCF using QD ink color conversion layers with demonstrated EQE values have a 75% higher photon conversion efficiency* (see Table 3). Improvements to the EQE of QD ink film will only further increase the optical efficiency gain relative to QDEF.‘
> 
> So 175% x 29.8% = 52.15% EQE is the best number I’ve seen for EQQ of green QDCC and 175% x 38.2% = 66.85% is the best number I’ve seen for the EQE of red QDCC.


I interpret this part of the paper as Nanosys taking a given EQE as input to their model, because they say:


> ...typical values for the optical properties of commercial QDEF (EQE, peak emission wavelengths, and emission FWHM) were chosen...


IMHO, they are modelling the overall "...photon conversion efficiency of displays..." and not EQE of the QDs. 

As an aside, to me it looks like their Figure 3 is an accidental duplicate of Figure 2.

Do we have an idea of the thickness of the QDCC film in the Samsung QD-OLED? Both this paper and the 2020 YouTube video mention how the blue absorption is dependent on the film thickness. The paper treats 6μm as reasonable. In the video, when he is touting how effective their new material is, he uses 12μm as an example. That's double the thickness of what might actually be used in the TVs.


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> I interpret this part of the paper as Nanosys taking a given EQE as input to their model, because they say:
> IMHO, they are modelling the overall "...photon conversion efficiency of displays..." and not EQE of the QDs.
> 
> As an aside, to me it looks like their Figure 3 is an accidental duplicate of Figure 2.
> 
> Do we have an idea of the thickness of the QDCC film in the Samsung QD-OLED? Both this paper and the 2020 YouTube video mention how the blue absorption is dependent on the film thickness. The paper treats 6μm as reasonable. In the video, when he is touting how effective their new material is, he uses 12μm as an example. That's double the thickness of what might actually be used in the TVs.


It’s surprising how hard it is to find measured of the conversion efficiency of QDCC.

With the emergence of QD-OLED, we should be getting some quantitative measurements soon enough, so I don’t think it makes sense to spend too much more effort sleuthing, but overall, I believe the emergence of printed QDCF is going to prove to be an exciting development.

The conversion efficiency translates to the amount of blue power (and hence cost) needed to deliver a viable display, and as I stated earlier, this really only matters for red (assuming the addition of a green OLED layer to QD-OLED, as rumored).

Top emission delivers a ~33% boost in output levels at an added cost which LGD finds unappealing but may eventually reconsider.

A white subpixel increases peak white levels by ~2X but at the expense of a ~40% reduction in fully-saturated output levels.

Addition of green QDCC over the green subpixel and red QDCC over the red subpixel offers the possibility to add a red and green color boost on top of that delivered by the respective OLED emitters, and while we’re struggling to estimate how big of a boost that might be, it would allow red subpixel size of WOLED to be reduced while creasing red output level (and green as well, though WOLED has already pretty much minimized green subpixel size).

So when I put all of this together, I can’t help but believe that once Samsung proves printed QDCC under conventional color filters is a viable and cost-effective volume manufacturing technology, LGD WOLED will end up adopting it as well.

The absolute worst-case conversion number of 16.3% I found in that earlier post for red would translate to a ~14% boost in red output based on today’s 3S4C B-R/Y/G-B WBE WOLED sack, so that’s probably an absolute worst-case boost available to WOLED red based on existing stack.

Using the worst-case green QDCC green deficiency of 22.68% from that same article, green in WOLED would get boosted by ~10.6% which would not allow the green subpixel to be reduced because it is already minimum-sized, but would allow the green power of the R/Y/G OLED layer to be reduced in favor of red, possibly allowing red power to be increased by as much as a further ~6%.

Combined, increasing red power of WOLED by more than 17% through addition of QDCC seems very possible, meaning red subpixel size could be reduced by 17% and then R & G & B subpixels could all be increased by over 9% (or all subpixels including white subpixel could be increased by 6%).

So for WOLED, an increase of 6% in output levels across the board or an increase in fully-saturated color levels by 9% and an increase in peak white output by half that, seem like low-hanging fruit once printed QDCC has been fully-industrialized.

The white subpixel is a special case because using QDCC to strengthen red and/or green output comes at the expense of reducing g blue output level, but there is probably some further boost factor available there.

Whatever is the brightness boost LGD delivers by offering WOLED panels with integrated heatsinks, it looks to me that adding QDCC when the time is right will be a less expensive way to achieve a similar boost…

Opening of an exciting new era…


----------



## stl8k

Deleted


----------



## stl8k

Via KJ on Twitter...



> Samsung Electronics is releasing both QD display TVs and *WOLED TVs* with a maximum of 65 inches.











[단독] 삼성, 연내 한국에 LG OLED 패널 탑재 TV 출시 안한다


삼성전자가 올해 LG디스플레이 패널을 채용한 OLED TV를 국내에 출시하지 않는다. 해외시장에 먼저 내놓는 것이 목표다. 그동안 LG전자의 O..



it.chosun.com





The number of Samsung WOLED TVs sold in 2022 is going to be quite small and very telling that it's positioned precisely against its QD OLEDs.


----------



## joe75xp

stl8k said:


> The number of Samsung WOLED TVs sold in 2022 is going to be quite small and very telling that it's positioned precisely against its QD OLEDs.


Their WOLED were supposedly positioned against their 4k miniLED and QD-Dispay against their 8k miniLED.


----------



## fafrd

DSCC forecasting 20% OED TV panel revenue growth in 2022 followed by slightly under 0% revenue growth in 2023 (meaning ASP declines offset whatever volume growth is achieved from yield improvementsespecially by Samsung QD-OLED): DSCC’s Latest Report Reveals $63B for OLED Panel Revenue in 2026 - Fueled by Growth from OLED IT Products, OLED TVs and Smartphones - Display Supply Chain Consultants









The fact that they are forecasting a second year of negative revenue growth in 2024 (-4%) suggests that they are assuming no new WOLED or QD-OLED capacity is coming online before 2025.

That’s probably a realistic assumption for any new OLED-TV-panel fab starts getting announced this summer (assuming a cold start),

The forecast of $6.4 billion in OLED-TV panels revenue by 2025 translates into ~11 million panels if using 2022 average pricing of $575 ($500 for 55”, $650 for 65”) but if we take a conservative assumption of 3% ASP declines per year, translates to 12.2 million panels at an average ASP of $525 (and would be more than that if small panel volumes drive average ASPs lower.

Considering that LGD’s established WOLED capacity of 175,000 8.5G sheets/month is sufficient to deliver 962,5000 raw panels per month or 924,314 panels yielded at 95%, LGD alone already had capacity to deliver 11 million panels all by themselves.

So 12.2 million panels by 2025 represents only 11% volume growth a full 3+ years from now - pretty pessimistic about the ramp-up of QD-OLED.

If LGD brings up their 10.5G P10 manufacturing line at it’s minimum single-line capacity of 30,000 10.5G substrates per month, that alone would represent an additional 2.4 million 65” and 75” panels per year yielded at 95%.

So DSCC must also be forecasting that LGD continues to hold off n investing in P10 and won’t begin any investment in that new plant before late 2023 at the earliest.

Their forecast is very optimistic about the growth of OLED monitors, OLED laptops, and OLED tablets, but very pessimistic about the growth of OLED TV.

Whee OLED Notebook+Monitor+Tablet revenue represented ~1 billion in 2021 versus $4.1 billion for OLED TV (less than 25%), by 2025, they are forecasting OLED Notebook+Monitor+Tablet revenue of $5.7 billion compared to OLED TV panel revenue of $6.2 billion (92%).

Most of that OLED TV panel revenue growth occurred this year (over 30% versus 2021) but if we just look at CAGR from 2021 to 2025, Notebook+Monitor+Tablet grew at a CAGR of 155% while OLED TV panel revenue only grew at a CAGR of less than 11%…

If I’m Samsung and I have a crystal ball and I see that reality over the next 4 years is going to unfold the way DSCC has forecasted it, I wouldn’t even bother introducing QD-OLED TVs. Prove that the technology is suitable for OLED monitors and run with it… (which may be an element of what drive DSCC’s very pessimistic forecast for growth of OLED TV panels…).


----------



## JasonHa

DSCC has also apparently forecasted out to 2026 for "Shipments of QD-OLED TVs and Monitors" but the report is not public. Link

They only released forecasts on QDEF revenues: Link


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

ChosunBiz reports that SDC is shutting down Korean LCD line L8-2 in June instead of YE *to focus on retooling for QD Display.* They also indicate the Q1 pilot line can put out 720K 55" and 1.08M 65" (once at high yield I assume). Anyone know L8-2 current LCD capacity offhand? I'll try to find it.
LCD WITHDRAWAL RUSHING SAMSUNG DISPLAY... PRODUCTION FINISHES IN JUNE THIS YEAR - CHOSUN VIZ

EDIT: Q1 is part of L8-2 it appears (from 2020 article): [Display Dynamics] Samsung Display proceeds with its LCD fab shutdown plan in South Korea :: Omdia (informa.com)

L8-2 (Gen 8 a-Si TFT-LCD) converted 35,000 per month capacity to support the new QD OLED in the fourth quarter of 2019 (4Q19). The remaining of a-Si TFT LCD capacity continues to make LCD TV panels in 2021.
EDIT: L8-2 150-190K G8.5/month depending who you might believe:
Samsung to Convert Fab 8-1 for Use in OLED/QD Hybrid_11/05/18 - OLED Association (oled-a.org)
LCD Display Industry Report 2021 (stoneitech.com)
150K/mo = 1.8M/yr which matches Chosun report at top.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> ChosunBiz reports that SDC is shutting down Korean LCD line L8-2 in June instead of YE *to focus on retooling for QD Display.* They also indicate the Q1 pilot line can put out 720K 55" and 1.08M 65" (once at high yield I assume). Anyone know L8-2 current LCD capacity offhand? I'll try to find it.
> LCD WITHDRAWAL RUSHING SAMSUNG DISPLAY... PRODUCTION FINISHES IN JUNE THIS YEAR - CHOSUN VIZ
> 
> EDIT: Q1 is part of L8-2 it appears (from 2020 article): [Display Dynamics] Samsung Display proceeds with its LCD fab shutdown plan in South Korea :: Omdia (informa.com)
> 
> L8-2 (Gen 8 a-Si TFT-LCD) converted 35,000 per month capacity to support the new QD OLED in the fourth quarter of 2019 (4Q19). The remaining of a-Si TFT LCD capacity continues to make LCD TV panels in 2021.
> EDIT: L8-2 150-190K G8.5/month depending who you might believe:
> Samsung to Convert Fab 8-1 for Use in OLED/QD Hybrid_11/05/18 - OLED Association (oled-a.org)
> LCD Display Industry Report 2021 (stoneitech.com)
> 150K/mo = 1.8M/yr which matches Chosun report at top.


It’s hard to get a clear bead on Samsung’s existing capacity of QD-OLED (phase 1) or the added capacity they will get from phase 2 or phase 3.

My read is that phase 1 aimed at a capacity of ~30,000 8.5G substrates per year (which Musing’s claims delivers only 25-27,0008.5G substrates per month).

Before figuring what that might translate to as far as QD-OLED capacity per month, let’s look at phase 2, originally slated for end 2020 and now claimed by ChosunBiz to be planned to start in mid-2022.

The original phase 2 plan was to add 35,000 8.5G substrates per month from L8-2, and more than doubling capacity in a single step is a reasonable target for a next step with an emerging technology.

And I’m guessing the original phase 3 plan was to cease remaining 80,000 8.5G substrate per month LCD production out of L3-1 to be converted to ~90,000 8.5G QD-OLED production (so ~150,000 8.5G QD-OLED substrates per month, and that still eaves as much as another 150,000 8.5G per month capacity manufacturing LCDs in L8-2.

What makes a clear determination of LCD capacity to QD-OLED capacity conversion difficult to pin down is that QD-OLED involves additional manufacturing steps and additional manufacturing equipment versus LCD, so the conversion ratio is less than 1:1.

It looks as though L8-1 will convert -170,000 8.5G substrates/month of LCD production to 25-30,000 + 90,000 = 115 -120,000 8.5G substrates of QD-OLED production once the entire capacity has been converted (so a conversion factor of 68% to 71%).

if this same conversion factor applies to L8-2, that could mean a further capacity of as much as much as another 130 to 135,000 (so up to 245 to 255,000 8.5G substrates per month total, 143% of LGD’s current 175,000 8.5G substrate per month capacity.

Even with ‘just’ phase 1 and phase 2, Samsung will have 60 to 65,000 8.5G substrates per month, over 37% of LGD’s WOLED panel capacity.

Phases 1 + phase 2 + phase 3 getting Samsung Display up o 150-155,000 8.5G substrates or month catches them pretty much up to where LGD is today (86-89%).

So no doubt Samsung Display is in a position to ramp up QD-OLED capacity quickly, but now let’s talk about yield.

If Samsung could get QD-OLED yield up near LGD WOLED’s level of 95% @ 55” by year’s end, 25,000 8.5G substrates per month would translate to over 140,000 55” panels per month or 1.7 million per year (2023).

Yields are unlikely to end the year anywhere near that level, however. It took LGD close to 2 years to announce 55” WOLED yields were approaching 60%, and that was after bragging about yields having improved to 30% after almost a year of volume production.

It would not be shocking if Damsung were to end 2022 at yields of 30%, meaning only 45,000 55” QD-OLEDs per month or 540,000 per year (assuming 100% of alacrity for 55” TV panels and none for monitors or 65” TV panels).

Ending this year with 55” yields of 60% would be a real achievement and a testimony to either Samsung Display’s greater OLED manufacturing prowess than their cohorts at LGD or the relative advantages of QD-OLED’s architecture versus WOLED’s where it comes to manufacturability.

But in any case, 60%yield would translate to 90,000 55” QD-WOLEDs per month 1.08 million per year.

So the statement that the Q1 pilot line with capacity of 25-30,000 8.5G substrates per month can manufacture 730K 55” and 1.08 million 65” QD—OLEDs per year is either impossible / mistaken or they were referring to raw (unyielded) production numbers.

Let’s take the maximum of 30,000 substrates per month and devote them all to manufacturing 65” panels (3-up). That’s a raw production capacity of 90,000 65” panels per month or 1.08 million per year.

Assume Samsung also has MMG and is manufacturing 2 55” QD-OLEDs alongside every 3 65” QD-OLEDs, that’s 60,000 per month or 720,000 55” QD-OLEDs per year.

So they are assuming a full 30,000 8.5G substrates per month used exclusively to manufacture 65” + 55” QD-OLEDs with MMG (and no capacity allocated to 34” QD-OLED monitor production() at 100% yield.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> It’s hard to get a clear bead on Samsung’s existing capacity of QD-OLED (phase 1) or the added capacity they will get from phase 2 or phase 3.
> 
> My read is that phase 1 aimed at a capacity of ~30,000 8.5G substrates per year (which Musing’s claims delivers only 25-27,0008.5G substrates per month).
> 
> Before figuring what that might translate to as far as QD-OLED capacity per month, let’s look at phase 2, originally slated for end 2020 and now claimed by ChosunBiz to be planned to start in mid-2022.
> 
> The original phase 2 plan was to add 35,000 8.5G substrates per month from L8-2, and more than doubling capacity in a single step is a reasonable target for a next step with an emerging technology.
> 
> And I’m guessing the original phase 3 plan was to cease remaining 80,000 8.5G substrate per month LCD production out of L3-1 to be converted to ~90,000 8.5G QD-OLED production (so ~150,000 8.5G QD-OLED substrates per month, and that still eaves as much as another 150,000 8.5G per month capacity manufacturing LCDs in L8-2.
> 
> What makes a clear determination of LCD capacity to QD-OLED capacity conversion difficult to pin down is that QD-OLED involves additional manufacturing steps and additional manufacturing equipment versus LCD, so the conversion ratio is less than 1:1.
> 
> It looks as though L8-1 will convert -170,000 8.5G substrates/month of LCD production to 25-30,000 + 90,000 = 115 -120,000 8.5G substrates of QD-OLED production once the entire capacity has been converted (so a conversion factor of 68% to 71%).
> 
> if this same conversion factor applies to L8-2, that could mean a further capacity of as much as much as another 130 to 135,000 (so up to 245 to 255,000 8.5G substrates per month total, 143% of LGD’s current 175,000 8.5G substrate per month capacity.
> 
> Even with ‘just’ phase 1 and phase 2, Samsung will have 60 to 65,000 8.5G substrates per month, over 37% of LGD’s WOLED panel capacity.
> 
> Phases 1 + phase 2 + phase 3 getting Samsung Display up o 150-155,000 8.5G substrates or month catches them pretty much up to where LGD is today (86-89%).
> 
> So no doubt Samsung Display is in a position to ramp up QD-OLED capacity quickly, but now let’s talk about yield.
> 
> If Samsung could get QD-OLED yield up near LGD WOLED’s level of 95% @ 55” by year’s end, 25,000 8.5G substrates per month would translate to over 140,000 55” panels per month or 1.7 million per year (2023).
> 
> Yields are unlikely to end the year anywhere near that level, however. It took LGD close to 2 years to announce 55” WOLED yields were approaching 60%, and that was after bragging about yields having improved to 30% after almost a year of volume production.
> 
> It would not be shocking if Damsung were to end 2022 at yields of 30%, meaning only 45,000 55” QD-OLEDs per month or 540,000 per year (assuming 100% of alacrity for 55” TV panels and none for monitors or 65” TV panels).
> 
> Ending this year with 55” yields of 60% would be a real achievement and a testimony to either Samsung Display’s greater OLED manufacturing prowess than their cohorts at LGD or the relative advantages of QD-OLED’s architecture versus WOLED’s where it comes to manufacturability.
> 
> But in any case, 60%yield would translate to 90,000 55” QD-WOLEDs per month 1.08 million per year.
> 
> So the statement that the Q1 pilot line with capacity of 25-30,000 8.5G substrates per month can manufacture 730K 55” and 1.08 million 65” QD—OLEDs per year is either impossible / mistaken or they were referring to raw (unyielded) production numbers.
> 
> Let’s take the maximum of 30,000 substrates per month and devote them all to manufacturing 65” panels (3-up). That’s a raw production capacity of 90,000 65” panels per month or 1.08 million per year.
> 
> Assume Samsung also has MMG and is manufacturing 2 55” QD-OLEDs alongside every 3 65” QD-OLEDs, that’s 60,000 per month or 720,000 55” QD-OLEDs per year.
> 
> So they are assuming a full 30,000 8.5G substrates per month used exclusively to manufacture 65” + 55” QD-OLEDs with MMG (and no capacity allocated to 34” QD-OLED monitor production() at 100% yield.


Agreed that we don't know future capacity of QD-OLED just based on LCD capacity in the same footprint, even though the numbers seemed to work out when I tried to compare apples and oranges. It was interesting that they are pulling in LCD shutdown from YE, to prepare for future capacity sooner (it appears). Great CES press coupled with plummeting LCD panel prices maybe drove that decision??
Long term they seem to have more than enough footprint for any (envisioned) QD-OLED mfg between L8-1 and L8-2. As we've noted in the past here, we need to follow the supply chain (equipment makers) announcements to get early indications of ramp up, prior to any SDC announcements. Of course, SDC announcements concerning more chunks of the remaining funds from the US$11B investment commitment will be telling!


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Agreed that we don't know future capacity of QD-OLED just based on LCD capacity in the same footprint, even though the numbers seemed to work out when I tried to compare apples and oranges.





> It was interesting that *they are pulling in LCD shutdown from YE, *to prepare for future capacity sooner (it appears).


My read was different.

The year-ago ‘agreement’ between Samsung Electronics and Samsung Display was to continue LCD panel production through the end of 2021 in exchange for introducing a QD-OLED Monitor product and a QD-OLED RV product in 2022.

So June 2022 represents a 6-month delay in cessation of LCD production for conversion to QD-OLED conversion, not a 6 month acceleration.

In addition, my suspicion is that the final decision about ceasing LCD production and beginning conversion to QD-OLED will be made in June (and is likely to be scheduled n at year-end, in the ‘fastest’ case).

So I see this as a minimum of a 6 month delay on planned additional QD-OLED conversion, likely at least a one-year delay, and possibly more than that.

What Samsung Display wants, is counting on, and is trying to ‘will’ into being us clear, but Samsung Electronics will have at least an equal say in the final schedule that materializes…



> Great CES press coupled with plummeting LCD panel prices maybe drove that decision??


Any ‘decisions’ that Samsung Display l aka to the press are more aspirations than decisions… (how many times have we already seen this pattern?).



> Long term they seem to have more than enough footprint for any (envisioned) QD-OLED mfg between L8-1 and L8-2. As we've noted in the past here, we need to follow the supply chain (equipment makers) announcements to get early indications of ramp up, prior to any SDC announcements. Of course, SDC announcements concerning more chunks of the remaining funds from the US$11B investment commitment will be telling!


The most telling sign to watch for will be commitment to another VTE OLED deposition machine.

They have one now, and it is not clear to me what throughout one single VTE machine can deliver for a 4-layer OLED stack, but it’s unlikely to get them much past the 25-30,000 8.5G substrate capacity they have now.

Those VTE machines are the most expensive pieces of equipment in the fab and will need to be written-off if/when QNED goes into production.

The one 8.5G pilot line Samsung has now should be sufficient to meet supply requirements for QD-OLED monitor production as well as Sony QD-OLED TV production for 2-3 years with ease, so it will ultimately be Samsung Electronics’ call as to when WD-OLED TV panel production ramps up to replace LCD panel production (since they are the only channel with any chance selling the volume that will result).

Until Samsung Electronics believes that QD-OLED TV is the technology to stake their future in TVs on, QD-OLED will remain on the single 25-30,000 8.5G/month pilot line (despite how much noise Samsung Display may make to the contrary…).


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> My read was different.
> 
> The year-ago ‘agreement’ between Samsung Electronics and Samsung Display was to continue LCD panel production through the end of 2021 in exchange for introducing a QD-OLED Monitor product and a QD-OLED RV product in 2022.
> 
> So June 2022 represents a 6-month delay in cessation of LCD production for conversion to QD-OLED conversion, not a 6 month acceleration.
> 
> In addition, my suspicion is that the final decision about ceasing LCD production and beginning conversion to QD-OLED will be made in June (and is likely to be scheduled n at year-end, in the ‘fastest’ case).
> 
> So I see this as a minimum of a 6 month delay on planned additional QD-OLED conversion, likely at least a one-year delay, and possibly more than that.
> 
> What Samsung Display wants, is counting on, and is trying to ‘will’ into being us clear, but Samsung Electronics will have at least an equal say in the final schedule that materializes…
> 
> 
> 
> Any ‘decisions’ that Samsung Display l aka to the press are more aspirations than decisions… (how many times have we already seen this pattern?).
> 
> 
> The most telling sign to watch for will be commitment to another VTE OLED deposition machine.
> 
> They have one now, and it is not clear to me what throughout one single VTE machine can deliver for a 4-layer OLED stack, but it’s unlikely to get them much past the 25-30,000 8.5G substrate capacity they have now.
> 
> Those VTE machines are the most expensive pieces of equipment in the fab and will need to be written-off if/when QNED goes into production.
> 
> The one 8.5G pilot line Samsung has now should be sufficient to meet supply requirements for QD-OLED monitor production as well as Sony QD-OLED TV production for 2-3 years with ease, so it will ultimately be Samsung Electronics’ call as to when WD-OLED TV panel production ramps up to replace LCD panel production (since they are the only channel with any chance selling the volume that will result).
> 
> Until Samsung Electronics believes that QD-OLED TV is the technology to stake their future in TVs on, QD-OLED will remain on the single 25-30,000 8.5G/month pilot line (despite how much noise Samsung Display may make to the contrary…).


I used The ELEC info (HERE) that LCD would be continuing until YE22 as my benchmark, when I read the ChosunBiz article and thought of it as a pull in, vs being late. 
BTW, while looking in my files for the ELEC article above, I stumbled upon this article which states that L8-1 has been "demolished". It is a translation, so perhaps they meant "equipment dismantled" in the "facility space". if not, then that space is essentially a brownfield for any future QD-OLED, not even a useable facility in that case. Interesting. 
_Recently, the facility space in L8-1, which was used as an LCD production line in Asan Campus, Chungnam, has been demolished._


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I used The ELEC info (HERE) that LCD would be continuing until YE22 as my benchmark, when I read the ChosunBiz article and thought of it as a pull in, vs being late.
> BTW, while looking in my files for the ELEC article above, I stumbled upon this article which states that L8-1 has been "demolished". It is a translation, so perhaps they meant "equipment dismantled" in the "facility space". if not, then that space is essentially a brownfield for any future QD-OLED, not even a useable facility in that case. Interesting.
> _Recently, the facility space in L8-1, which was used as an LCD production line in Asan Campus, Chungnam, has been demolished._


Who can say for sure, but here is an example of the ‘agreement’ for a 1-year extension of LCD production I was referring to:









Samsung Display extends South Korea LCD production for unspecified period


Samsung Electronics' display unit said on Tuesday it will extend production of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels for TVs and monitors, as more people sought home entertainment during the coronavirus pandemic.




mobile.reuters.com





‘Local media outlet IT Chosun reported earlier on Tuesday that *production would be extended by a year at the request of Samsung Electronics*' set manufacturing division, citing unnamed tech industry sources.’

That article was dated December 28, 2020.

That same article also states that: ‘Samsung Display said *the length of the extension would depend on profitability considerations and market conditions. *It had said in late October that it was considering a "short-term" extension.’

My guess is that the ‘agreement’ with Samsung Electronics was for a minimum of one year continued LCD production and in any case, no more than 2 years as an upper limit.

It really doesn’t matter if Samsung Electrinics focuses on the minimum extension and Samsung Display focuses on the maximum extension (to suggest things are accelerating) - what matters now is when they commit to a second VTE machine…


----------



## stl8k

What Samsung is officially saying they will be focusing on in '22 in TVs:



> 【 '22 Outlook 】 Large: Push to secure a position in premium TV segment with QD display
> 
> 
> https://images.samsung.com/is/content/samsung/assets/global/ir/docs/2021_3Q_conference_eng.pdf


This from its last public IR reporting. Samsung is going to go big/hard with QD OLED in 2022. I'd expect to see them restate this again in its Q1 reporting.


----------



## CliffordinWales

stl8k said:


> What Samsung is officially saying they will be focusing on in '22 in TVs:
> 
> 
> 
> This from its last public IR reporting. Samsung is going to go big/hard with QD OLED in 2022. I'd expect to see them restate this again in its Q1 reporting.


Great find, but it looks like the only references to QD display are in the section on the display panel business unit? The references to TVs in the Consumer Electronics business unit only mentions NeoQLED, 8k and MicroLED.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> What Samsung is officially saying they will be focusing on in '22 in TVs:
> 
> 
> 
> This from its last public IR reporting. Samsung is going to go big/hard with QD OLED in 2022. I'd expect to see them restate this again in its Q1 reporting.


As Clifford Wales has noted, the only reference you find on the Samsung Electronucs presentation is to this:

‘Capture premium demand with Neo *QLED/8K/Micro LED products* and add to growth momentum by creating sales opportunities with our differentiated lifestyle products’

Also, in reading this article on he ‘accelerated’ transition from LCD to QD-OLED from Busibess Korea, several details jumped out at me: Samsung Display to End LCD TV Panel Production in June 2022

‘Samsung Display is reportedly *considering* advancing its withdrawal from the liquid crystal display (LCD) business from the planned end of 2022 to June 2022.’

‘Considering’ is a big step backwards from ‘decided’ or ‘planning’…

and:

‘Samsung Display… will make a final decision *after a consultation with Samsung Electronics*, its largest customer and a sister company.’

So Samsung Display s pushing to cease LCD production by June and is no doubt lobbying for that, but it will ultimately be up to Samsung Electronics whether they are ready to allow Samsung Display to cut off continued LCD TV panel production by mid-year or they want a commitment to continue LCD production to year-end…


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Do you have any references on what number of red photons out to expect from 100 photons of blue incoming light?


38%+ for both red and green with their latest materials.










Source

I'm assuming the high blue absorption means the filters on the green and red sub-pixels can be of very low density and not have much impact on brightness. Unless a high density is needed for the ambient light rejection (assuming no polarizer).


----------



## JasonHa

That table shows 10μm thickness. Nanosys has shown (including in that paper) that these properties are very sensitive to film thickness. From that paper:









In the Nanosys paper referenced earlier, they seem to be using 6μm as a theoretical value.

It would be nice if we could know the thickness in the actual TV.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> 38%+ for both red and green with their latest materials.
> 
> View attachment 3227127
> 
> 
> Source
> 
> I'm assuming the high blue absorption means the filters on the green and red sub-pixels can be of very low density and not have much impact on brightness. Unless a high density is needed for the ambient light rejection (assuming no polarizer).


Thanks. Do you understand the precise definition of Photon Conversion Efficiency?

Does a PCE of 38% mean that for every 100 blue photons in there will be 38 red photons out?

Ted photons have lower energy than blue photons so that is the aspect I am struggling to factor in to how these metrics are calculated…

As for the conventional color filters, if Samsung has added a green OLED layer as has been rumored, there will be no difference between the RGB conventional color filters of QD-OLED and WOLED (nor would there be without any green OLED layer if QD-OLED is relying on conventional color filters to eliminate the polorizer


----------



## JasonHa

The paper that is cited defines PCE as "Total photon number of forward emission" divided by "Total photon number of blue light" (on page 2). Does that mean it counts blue photons that pass through?


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> The paper that is cited defines PCE as "Total photon number of forward emission" divided by "Total photon number of blue light" (on page 2). Does that mean it counts blue photons that pass through?


I’d think so. Assuming ‘forward emission’ translates to the total number of red photons exiting from the subpixel, that’s all that is needed to build a comprehensive model (for both QD-OLED and QD-WOLED).


----------



## Jin-X

59LIHP said:


> New Material Enhances Luminous Efficiency of OLED and QLED Display
> KAIST and ETRI Develop Material for Better OLED and QLED Display
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KAIST and ETRI Develop Material for Better OLED and QLED Display
> 
> 
> The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) and the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) announced on Jan. 19 that their research team has developed an innovative display material capable of enhancing the luminous efficiency of OLED and QLED display.The tea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businesskorea.co.kr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> 
> ETRI and KAIST researchers developed a new metal oxide charge transfer complex that can enhance OLED device efficiency
> View attachment 3226948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETRI and KAIST researchers developed a new metal oxide charge transfer complex that can enhance OLED device efficiency | OLED-Info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-info.com


Anyone looked into this post from the news thread?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 59LIHP

First look: QD-OLED displays
















First look: QD-OLED displays


We saw them. They're glorious. Info and first impressions inside




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Thanks. Do you understand the precise definition of Photon Conversion Efficiency?
> 
> Does a PCE of 38% mean that for every 100 blue photons in there will be 38 red photons out?
> 
> Ted photons have lower energy than blue photons so that is the aspect I am struggling to factor in to how these metrics are calculated…
> 
> As for the conventional color filters, if Samsung has added a green OLED layer as has been rumored, there will be no difference between the RGB conventional color filters of QD-OLED and WOLED (nor would there be without any green OLED layer if QD-OLED is relying on conventional color filters to eliminate the polorizer


The Source paper I linked defined PCE. Seems to match the interpretation above. There is definitely more energy in a blue photon than a red or green. The lost photons are not all leaking through according to the high absorption figures they included. I guess the rest is converted to heat?

Regarding the filters, don't forget they are also using this method on their RGB AMOLED phones without polarizers. Those phones only emit a single color from each sub-pixel so there are no other emitted colors that need filtering out. They are there only to filter ambient light hitting the screen. Despite the filters, the brightness hit is less than using a polarizer of older phones. If the 30% brightness improvement on phones is true and only caused by this single change, then total filter brightness penalty from all 3 sub-pixels is 35% vs 50% from a polarizer. On the QD-OLED they also need to filter out emitted leaking blue so I expect the efficiency will be lower than on the phones. I'm still not 100% convinced about the green emitting layer until someone from Samsung admits it.


----------



## Wizziwig

59LIHP said:


> First look: QD-OLED displays
> View attachment 3227355
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First look: QD-OLED displays
> 
> 
> We saw them. They're glorious. Info and first impressions inside
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flatpanelshd.com


This sounds promising:
"In response to a question by FlatpanelsHD, Samsung Display added that QD-OLED should not suffer from issues like flicker or raised blacks in VRR mode, but again we reserve judgment."

Another confirmation of no polarizer?:


----------



## JasonHa

Wizziwig said:


> I guess the rest is converted to heat?


I'm sure that is part of it. I also assume some photons emit backwards or sidewards (since their PCE definition mentions measuring forward emission). And I assume those get converted to heat.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> The Source paper I linked defined PCE. Seems to match the interpretation above.
> There is definitely more energy in a blue photon than a red or green.
> 
> The lost photons are not all leaking through according to the high absorption figures they included. I guess the rest is converted to heat?


OK, so 100 blue photons in results in 38 red photons out (for even less energy than that represented by 38 blue photons) as well as ~2-5 blue photons leaking through unaffected. Meaning that the energy corresponding to ~95 to 98 blue photons minus the energy corresponding to 38 red photons was converted to heat.

That’s what I was thinking as well…



> Regarding the filters, don't forget they are also using this method on their RGB AMOLED phones without polarizers. Those phones only emit a single color from each sub-pixel so there are no other emitted colors that need filtering out. They are there only to filter ambient light hitting the screen. Despite the filters, the brightness hit is less than using a polarizer of older phones. If the 30% brightness improvement on phones is true and only caused by this single change, then total filter brightness penalty from all 3 sub-pixels is 35% vs 50% from a polarizer. On the QD-OLED they also need to filter out emitted leaking blue so I expect the efficiency will be lower than on the phones. I'm still not 100% convinced about the green emitting layer until someone from Samsung admits it.


The efficiency hit I’ve read is caused by conventional bandpass color filters to the color they are passing is ~15%, so I don’t think there is any difference between the conventional WOLED is using and the conventional color filters Samsung is using for their polorizerless RGB AMOLEDs.

If QD-OLED has no polarizer, it will need roughly the same conventional
RGB color filters as WOLED.

If QD-OLED still has a polarizer to prevent reflection of ambient light, Red still needs a filter that blocks blue and green, while green needs only a blue-blocking color filter which could be a yellow. / red&green bandpass filter which might block less than 15% of green photons).

I understand your skepticism about a green OLED layer, but let’s look at what we’d get with 4 deuterium-FOLED based blue layers and red and green QD’s converting to red and green at a 38% PCE:

Red and Green both would have 38% the strength, 38%, 38%, 100% is what you’d get as RGB strength from equal-sized subpixels.

But the whitepoint for DCI-P3 requires 64.5% of the photons to be green, 30% of the photons to be red, and only 5.5% of the photons to be blue, meaning the blue subpixel should be less than 6% of the overall active pixel areas (or as small as possible) and the green subpixel should be 11.5-times larger.

The green subpixel should be ~2.16 times larger than the red subpixel if there is no green OLED layer, so in a blue-only QD-OLED, green will be the largest subpixel followed by red and blue will be smallest.

If a green PHOLED layer is added to a 4S blue OLED stack to form a 5S2C QD-COLED, the strength of green increases by ~6.64 times, meaning that the green would go from being 38% the strength of blue to being 2.55 times stronger than 4 blue OLED layers emitting blue.

And that means the green subpixel generating DCI-P3 whitepoint can drop from being ~11.5 times larger than blue to being only ~4.55 times larger. More obviously, with a green OLED layer, the size of the green subpixel needed to generate the DCI-P3 whitepoint will drop from being ~216% the size of red subpixel (larger) to being ~32.5% the size of the red subpixel (smaller).

So with a green OLED layer, red will be the largest subpixel followed by red and blue will still be the smallest subpixel.

Dropping from 4 blue OLED layers + 1 green OLED layer (5S2C) to 3 blue OLED layers + 1 green OLED layer (4S2C) as UBI depicted drops the strength of red and blue by 25% but only drops the strength of green by ~3.8%, so the green subpixel will shrink relative to the red subpixel to become even smaller than ~1/3 the size of the red subpixel (but the Red > Green >Blue subpixel sizing order remains the same.

With only 4 blue layers and red QD’s @ 38%, the raw stack power of Red would be ~67% the raw stack power of red in WOLED, so factoring in 133% factor for PAR and 200% factor for no circular polarizer would get red strength of 4S1C QD-BOLED up to 1.8 times the strength of red in WOLED.

QD-OLED is claiming ~300% the red output of WOLED, so the subpixel area devoted to red would need to be 167% the relative size of red subpixel in WOLED to deliver that. Since the red subpixel consumes ~35% of the active subpixel area of WOLED, that means the red subpixel for a 4S1C QD-BOLED would need to be over 58% of the total active subpixel area to deliver that.

If the ted subpixel consumes over half of the overall active subpixel area, there is no way the green subpixel can be larger than the red subpixel (as it must be to deliver DCI-P3 whitepoint with no green OLED layer), so I don’t see any way to make it work.

With a 5th green OLED layer, red can consume 58%, green can consume 19%, and blue can consume 4%, leaving close to another 20% of margin.

A UBI-like 4S2C QD-COLED with only 3 green layers will have roughly the same green output but red and blue output that is 25% weaker, translating into being right on the edge of being able to deliver Samsung’s stated specs with no margin to spare.

So my guess is that UBI got it right but in the end, the relative subpixel sizes we see on the QD-OLED monitor first and eventually thrcQD-OLED TV will tell the tale…


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> Dropping from 4 blue OLED layers + 1 green OLED layer (5S2C) to 3 blue OLED layers + 1 green OLED layer (4S2C) as UBI depicted...


FYI in today's video from Digital Trends (which really has nothing new), he says QD-OLED has three layers of blue OLEDs. Link to that part of the video. But maybe he's just assuming that since there are three colors (RGB).


----------



## 8mile13

There is this februari 2019 OLED association article where is suggested that there will be three blue layers*. 

''The hybrid approach _was expected to use two blue layers_ deposited by VTE and then printed QDs. However, Samsung Display appears to have run into technical bottlenecks;
- The two fluorescent blue layers may not provide sufficient luminance and lifetime, when considering the demands of HDR, _so it appears that three blue layers will be required_ with the additional required common layers.''
Samsung Electronics to Take a Hard Look at QD/OLED Hybrid MP Decision_02/18/19 - OLED Association (oled-a.org)


----------



## stl8k

Here's a recent SD patent with some info about a color control member (containing a color filter layer). They wrote this patent broadly, but it covers QD-OLED.



> An exemplary embodiment of the inventive concept provides a display apparatus including a color control member, in which an absorptive scattering element having high optical absorptivity in a specific wavelength range is added, and thereby reducing reflectance of an external light.
> ...
> The following Table 1 shows changes in efficiency, reflectance, and efficiency over equivalent reflectance, which are caused by the absorptive scattering element. The changes in efficiency and reflectance were obtained, based on the efficiency and reflectance which were set to 100% when TiO2, a scattering element without a light absorbing portion, was included in a color control unit.


Link to patents.google.com


----------



## yogi6807

Just out of curiosity has anybody heard anything about the Chinese companies with their own oleds. I thought one of them was building a factory. What ever happened to them?


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> FYI in today's video from Digital Trends (which really has nothing new), he says QD-OLED has three layers of blue OLEDs. Link to that part of the video. But maybe he's just assuming that since there are three colors (RGB).


Samsung is certainly not going to make any effort to correct any misinformation. The ‘blue only’ story is far easier to explain and market and leads straight to QLED.

I went ahead and remembered my QD-OLED model using the 38% PCE for both red and green, a 1/75% = 133% factor for increased PAR due to top emission, and a full 1/50% = 200# factor for elimination of the circular polarizer and here is what I come up with:

For a 4S2C B-B-B-G QD-OLED such as that depicted by UBI, optimizing subpixel sizes to maximize output at DCI-P3 whitepoint results in the following ratios:

Red = 75%
Green = 19%
Blue = 5.25%

Red is the limiting subpixel for both QD-OLED and WOLED, so if I estimate the red output of WOLED through both the red subpixel as well as the unfiltered white subpixel and compare to the peak red output of this optimized QD-OLED, I get 4S2C QD-COLED having 132% the peak white output of WBE WOLED.

So this would mean the 2022 WOLED full-field peak white output of ~170cd/m2 would translate to a full-field peak white output of ~220cd/m2 for 4S2C QD-COLED (in the midpoint of the two full-field white output levels Samsung Display has quoted for QD-OLED monitor @ 250 cd/m2 full field and QD-OLED TV @ 200 cd/m2 full-field).

If repeat the same exercise with a 3S2C B-B-G QD-OLED, blue and red power both get reduced by 33% while green power only gets reduced by ~4% (because the strength of the green OLED layer remains unchanged, only the green ‘boost’ from the green QDCC). And if I repeat the process of optimizing subpixel size to maximize output at the DCI-P3 whitepoint, I get:

Red = 80.3% (increased from 75%)
Green = 14.0% (decreased from 19%)
Blue = 5.6% (increased from 5.25%)

Ev n with the increased red subpixel size, the 1/3rd reduction in blue drive power results in a 28.5% reduction in red power also translating to the full-field white output of 3S2C AD-COKED dropping from 132% of 2022 WBE WOLED to only 84% (meaning ~160cd/m2).

Just considering fully-saturated peak red output, 4S2C QD-COLED delivers ~2.9 times the peak red output of WOLED (exactly where Samsung Displsy has stated fully-saturated output would land), while 3S2C QD-COLED only delivers fully-saturated red output levels that are ~2.1 times WOLED levels.

So my guess on all of this is that the QD-OLED monitor at least is highly likely to be based on a 4S2C B-B-B-G stack as first disclosed by UBI. That stack will deliver 3 times the saturated color output of WOLED, as Samsung Display has claimed, and will deliver well of 200 cd/m2 of full-field peak white output, within 90% of the 250 cd/m2 full-field peak white levels Samsung Display has claimed for the QD-OLED monitor (and certainly within the error-bars of my very crude model).

The QD-OLED TV will either be based on this same stack (possibly with different subpixel ratios to increase lifetime of one or two colors at the expense of the others based on content wear modelling) or QD-OLED TVs will be based on a 3S2C B-B-G stack to reduce cost closer to the cost of WBE/3S4C WOLED.

If QD-OLED TVs are based on the lower-cost 3S2C stack, the green subpixel will occupy a noticeably smaller % of total active pixel area (~14% instead of ~19%) and the QD-OLED TV is only going to be able to deliver ~200% of WOLED’s fully-saturated peak color output levels, not ~300% as Samsung Display has been representing (and as is likely to be true for any 4S2C B-B-B-G QD-OLEDs such as the monitors).

So I don’t see any way QD-OLED with even 4 layers of blue only can deliver the specs Samsung Display has claimed and believe both QD-OLED monitors and QD-OLED TVs will prove to have a green PHOLED layer (as UBI has presented) and th green subpixel area being smaller than the red subpixel area will be irrefutable confirmation of this.

In addition, and QD-OLED delivering 300% the fully-saturated color levels of WOLED is almost certain to be based on a 4S2C stack of B-B-B-G with 3 blue FOLED layers, while QD-OLEDs that only deliver 200% the fully-saturated color levels of WOLED are possibly based on a cost-reduced 3S2C stack of B-B-G with only 2 blue FOLED layers (and a smaller relative green subpixel size on any ‘200%’ QD-OLEDs would be compelling additional evidence of this).

4S2C versus 3S2C is really not going to be all that significant for any early adopters of QD-OLED while yields are low, but it will have a significant impact on bringing mature, high-yield, high-volume cost of QD-OLED closer to that of WOLED over the coming 4-5 years…

At this point, I’m not sure how much more there is to discuss and think we just need to wait for first macro-zooms of subpixel design and peak fully-saturated brightness measurements to settle what QD-OLED Samsung Display is likely to have built.


----------



## chozofication

59LIHP said:


> First look: QD-OLED displays
> View attachment 3227355
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First look: QD-OLED displays
> 
> 
> We saw them. They're glorious. Info and first impressions inside
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flatpanelshd.com


I know that “grey to grey” response times are pretty manipulated figures and not always representative of performance, but doesn’t lg tout woled as an “1ms gtg” display?

qd oled is being rated at “.1 ms gtg”… do we have information on why it would be faster vs. woled? Fewer layers perhaps? I wonder if qd oled have any other motion differences vs. woled as well.


----------



## CliffordinWales

Slightly quirky video presentation but an interesting take nonetheless-


----------



## fafrd

CliffordinWales said:


> Slightly quirky video presentation but an interesting take nonetheless-


Actually agree with pretty much everything he stated.

The one thing he mused is the resolution of the 34” QD-OLED monitor - it is 1440p, not 2160p/4K.

A 34” 1440p panel has pixels equal in size to those of a 51” 4K/2160p panel, so LGD could deliver 34” 1440p WOLED monitor panels with ease if it believed there was a lucrative market there.

The fact that LGE elected to introduce 32” 4K monitors based on IJP RGB OLED suggests that they believe 4K resolution and/or higher fully-saturated peak color output levels are a requirement for success in that market.

But overall, I agree with that guy that AD-OLED TV is likely to be a very tough slog for Dansubg for the next 2-4 years… (despite the fact that I am very impressed with the technology and it’s capability).

Samsung Display will need to pull a rabbit out of a hot on cost reduction to avoid being limited to a small niche market for the next few years…


----------



## Wizziwig

yogi6807 said:


> Just out of curiosity has anybody heard anything about the Chinese companies with their own oleds. I thought one of them was building a factory. What ever happened to them?


Probably waiting for the Kodak WRGB OLED patents that LG purchased to expire. In that case, should see something around 2024. 

My last post in this thread on the topic:



Wizziwig said:


> For TV applications, the OLED patent that matters is the Kodak WRGB one from 2004.
> 
> 
> 
> https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050147844
> 
> 
> 
> Still a few years to go before we see Chinese flood the market with cheap WRGB panels. Assuming they don't come up with something else first.


----------



## 59LIHP

yogi6807 said:


> Just out of curiosity has anybody heard anything about the Chinese companies with their own oleds. I thought one of them was building a factory. What ever happened to them?


This should not be long.



> _TCL informed FlatpanelsHD that it no longer has plans to launch QD-OLED TVs based on Samsung Display's panel. The company's display panel division, CSoT, is developing its own inkjet-printed OLED panel type._











TCL Europe teases new C935 miniLED LCD TVs with 'thousands of dimming zones'


Also C835, C735, C635 and P735 Google TV models




www.flatpanelshd.com







> _Printed 8K OLED_
> _CSoT is short for China Star Optoelectronics Technology, known locally as TCL Huaxing, and is TCL's subsidiary for display panel production and development. Its panels are used in popular TV models from TCL, Samsung, and other TV brands.
> 
> At DTC 2021 in Shenzhen, China, the company showcased an inkjet-printed 65-inch 8K OLED panel, according to a report by EET China. This is the result of 7 years of research into OLED inkjet-printing and TCL's partnership with the JOLED company, which was announced last year. TCL has invested 20 billion Yen in JOLED with a stated goal to "start joint-development of large-sized OLEDs for TV".
> 
> It is the third OLED panel type in play for OLED TVs, with the other two being LG Display's current WOLED and Samsung Display's upcoming QD-OLED._











TCL showcases 65" 8K OLED and 75" microLED panels


In an effort to move beyond traditional LCD technology




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## CliffordinWales

Vincent explains the new OLED EX technology. So there's been a change in the pixel aperture ratio on top of the enhancements in last year's Evo panel.


----------



## Wizziwig

If they revised the pixel driving circuits again to make room for larger pixels, that could be good or bad news. Depends on whether they fixed any existing near-black artifacts or introduced new ones.


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung Display to use inkjet kit from Kateeva for QD-OLED production








Samsung Display to use inkjet kit from Kateeva for QD-OLED production


Samsung Display is planning to use inkjet equipment from US firm Kateeva for use in its Q1 production line, which manufactures Gen 8.5 (2200x2500mm) quantum dot (QD)-OLED panels, TheElec has learned.Samsung Display will place the order to HB Solution, which adds software to Kateeva’s inkjet equipmen




thelec.net





one year before.

Kateeva out, SEMES in as Samsung closes in on QD-OLED








Kateeva out, SEMES in as Samsung closes in on QD-OLED


I wanted to write about an event that I look forward to every year, the QD Forum. Unfortunately, given the current pandemic, the event had to be postponed. When the QD Forum does happen, you can bet I’ll be there to report on it! In the meantime, I offer you some thoughts on a technology that...




www.displaydaily.com





In 2019

Samsung to select supplier of QD display ink-jet printing equipment








Samsung to select supplier of QD display ink-jet printing equipment


Samsung Display will be selecting the ink-jet printing equipment provider for the world’s first QD display color filter in December, according to industry sources on Nov. 26The top two competitors are US-based Kateeva that is a leading the market for small-sized OLED TFE ink-jet printing equipment a




www.thelec.net


----------



## Jin-X

59LIHP said:


> Samsung Display to use inkjet kit from Kateeva for QD-OLED production
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Display to use inkjet kit from Kateeva for QD-OLED production
> 
> 
> Samsung Display is planning to use inkjet equipment from US firm Kateeva for use in its Q1 production line, which manufactures Gen 8.5 (2200x2500mm) quantum dot (QD)-OLED panels, TheElec has learned.Samsung Display will place the order to HB Solution, which adds software to Kateeva’s inkjet equipmen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelec.net


So this is for the Quantum Dot portion of the panel, not the actual OLED layers, from reading the article; so it wouldn't be inkjet printed OLED yet. As an aside, man that's a lot of infighting at Samsung.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> If they revised the pixel driving circuits again to make room for larger pixels, that could be good or bad news. Depends on whether they fixed any existing near-black artifacts or introduced new ones.


The pixel pics and PAR comparison will tell the story.

I’m a bit skeptical that LGD did anything as drastic as eliminating sensing lines this cycle and suspect this 2022 marketing campaign may be based on technologies deployed long ago (possibly as early as 2018).

LGD needs to be out talking about something to counteract all the buzz aD-OLED has generated, so dusting off past improvements that were quietly slipped in long ago and talking about them as though they are something new and related to the 30% brightness increase they are promising for this year is smart marketing…

I’m also confused by Vincent’s reference to WBC panels delivering 150cd/m2 of full-field white -I thought his excellent 2021 video comparing GX to G1 indicated a calibrated GX delivered ~130cd/m2 of full-field white, not 150 cd/m2…

130cd/m2 x 130% = 170cd/m2 (similar to levels we saw on some models last year).

150cd/m2 x 130% = 195cd/m2, essentially on a par with what Samsung Display has promised for the QD-OLED TVs.

So LGD may be feeling a little bit of pressure to push the envelope on peak brightness a bit more than we’ve seen in recent years…

It’ll be interesting to see whether Vincent comes back after testing his first 2022 WOLED to report ~170cd/m2 or ~195cd/m2 of full field peak brightness after calibration…


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Actually agree with pretty much everything he stated.
> 
> The one thing he mused is the resolution of the 34” QD-OLED monitor - it is 1440p, not 2160p/4K.
> 
> A 34” 1440p panel has pixels equal in size to those of a 51” 4K/2160p panel, so LGD could deliver 34” 1440p WOLED monitor panels with ease if it believed there was a lucrative market there.
> 
> The fact that LGE elected to introduce 32” 4K monitors based on IJP RGB OLED suggests that they believe 4K resolution and/or higher fully-saturated peak color output levels are a requirement for success in that market.
> 
> But overall, I agree with that guy that AD-OLED TV is likely to be a very tough slog for Dansubg for the next 2-4 years… (despite the fact that I am very impressed with the technology and it’s capability).
> 
> Samsung Display will need to pull a rabbit out of a hot on cost reduction to avoid being limited to a small niche market for the next few years…


I'm not aware of anyone expecting SDC to have a cost competitive (w WOLED) panel in just a few years. That's part of the slog of most innovative product line introductions (ala LG WOLED in 2013). It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Watching mfg cost reductions and QNED advancement between now and end of decade will tell whether taking this risk paid off for Samsung. Taking the risk is justified no matter what based on where they are today in the industry, IMO. Whether it pays off or not in a successful business is to be determined of course.


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> The pixel pics and PAR comparison will tell the story.
> 
> I’m a bit skeptical that LGD did anything as drastic as eliminating sensing lines this cycle and suspect this 2022 marketing campaign may be based on technologies deployed long ago (possibly as early as 2018).
> 
> LGD needs to be out talking about something to counteract all the buzz aD-OLED has generated, so dusting off past improvements that were quietly slipped in long ago and talking about them as though they are something new and related to the 30% brightness increase they are promising for this year is smart marketing…
> 
> I’m also confused by Vincent’s reference to WBC panels delivering 150cd/m2 of full-field white -I thought his excellent 2021 video comparing GX to G1 indicated a calibrated GX delivered ~130cd/m2 of full-field white, not 150 cd/m2…
> 
> 130cd/m2 x 130% = 170cd/m2 (similar to levels we saw on some models last year).
> 
> 150cd/m2 x 130% = 195cd/m2, essentially on a par with what Samsung Display has promised for the QD-OLED TVs.
> 
> So LGD may be feeling a little bit of pressure to push the envelope on peak brightness a bit more than we’ve seen in recent years…
> 
> It’ll be interesting to see whether Vincent comes back after testing his first 2022 WOLED to report ~170cd/m2 or ~195cd/m2 of full field peak brightness after calibration…


He did say some sensing lines, not all sensing lines, so it would be a reduction in the amount used. Also you can't use LGE models to determine what the panel is capable of as everyone will tune it's capabilities differently, plus panel variance on top of that. If you look at his reviews from last year, his G1 measured 160 nits full field and 790 10% window, while the Philips 936 hit 180 full field, and 720 10%, so they took different approaches there and both are WBE non heatsink panels. I'm still expecting 850-925ish nits from the G2, though I do hope they are pushing the panel more, I've always felt like they have held back for several years now by directing behind the scenes improvements to further cut down on burn in, something that they have already successfully done previously and it's fruitless to keep cutting it down a little more each year because the people fearful of OLED burn in will always remain fearful no matter what you do, it's not really possible to completely eliminate that FUD and it has proven to not have an impact on sales/adoption. So yes please direct it to more performance at the panel level.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I'm not aware of anyone expecting SDC to have a cost competitive (w WOLED) panel in just a few years. That's part of the slog of most innovative product line introductions (ala LG WOLED in 2013). It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Watching mfg cost reductions and QNED advancement between now and end of decade will tell whether taking this risk paid off for Samsung. Taking the risk is justified no matter what based on where they are today in the industry, IMO. Whether it pays off or not in a successful business is to be determined of course.


Oh, I was talking about intrinsic cost, not about yielded cost while ramping.

With a 4S2C stack, QD-OLED as depicted by UBI will have an intrinsic cost which is 15-25% higher that current 3S4C WOLED.

This means at equivalent manufacturing volumes and after achieving equivalent manufacturing yields, QD-OLED will still cost 15-25% more than WOLED.

When you factor on much lower yields while ramping and increasing production volumes over the next several years, true cost will be far, far higher and Samsung Display will need to sell QD-OLED TV panels at a loss.

The QD-OLED monitor panels will have far higher yields right out of the gates (since they are so much smaller) and sell for a much higher price ($2000 for a 34” QD-OLED monitor from Dell almost certainly translates to over $500 for the panel).

For TV QD-OLED panels, they will need to hold off on production until yields have reached minimum acceptable levels (probably at least 60%) and will likely need to limit volumes since they will likely need to sell at a loss until yields get up over 75%.

So that is why a low-volume 55” QD-OLED TV launched by Sony late this year is the most likely scenario. Samsung Electronics will hold off on TVs until they can secure much higher volumes from Samsung Display.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> He did say some sensing lines, not all sensing lines, so it would be a reduction in the amount used.


As I said, I think that entire video was driven by LGD’s and Vincent’s desire to make some noise in the face of QD-OLED’s glowing coverage.

Whatever changes Vincent was attempting to describe happened long ago and is likely the big step change in PAR we saw between 2017 and 2018. Never disclosed publicly, so dusted off, fed to Vincent in answer to his question about ‘how does the EX panel deliver 30% increased brightness?’




> Also you can't use LGE models to determine what the panel is capable of as everyone will tune it's capabilities differently, plus panel variance on top of that.


Of course, each manufacturer has their own specific risk versus performance comfort zone…



> If you look at his reviews from last year, his G1 measured 160 nits full field and 790 10% window, while the Philips 936 hit 180 full field, and 720 10%, so they took different approaches there and both are WBE non heatsink panels.


For sure, each manufacturer makes their own individual decision about how much they want to trade off aging when watching SDR and non-highlight HDR aging versus HDR highlight aging (ABL limits).

Apples to Apples comparisons are the most useful and that is why Vincent’s reference to +30% should have been based on his GX baseline of 130cd/m2, not 150 cd/m2.

But you are correct, if it is LG Display themselves that markets their WBC panel as a ‘150 cd/m2 Full-field’ panel, then they could now be marketing their EX/WBE panels as ‘195 cd/m2 Full-field’ panels…



> I'm still expecting 850-925ish nits from the G2, though I do hope they are pushing the panel more, *I’ve always felt like they have held back for several years now by directing behind the scenes improvements to further cut down on burn in,* something that they have already successfully done previously and it's fruitless to keep cutting it down a little more each year because the people fearful of OLED burn in will always remain fearful no matter what you do, it's not really possible to completely eliminate that FUD and it has proven to not have an impact on sales/adoption. So yes please direct it to more performance at the panel level.


I felt that since the 2016 burn-in scare as well. Increases in red subpixel area have far outpaced increases in brightness limits.

But LGE knows in ways none of us can ever fathom how close they may have come to losing everything in 2017/18 when the burn-in on 2016 WOLEDs nearly derailed the entire initiative.

Each supplier has their own models about subpixel aging and their own models about average content being viewed by their customers, and the there is the real world.

I don’t blame LGE one bit for holding back and letting Philips and now perhaps Samsung take the lead on pushing ABL limits closer to the ‘burn-in zone’.

The G2 looks like it will have a heatsink, and that should easily provide a 10% bump in ABL limits across the board, so starting with Vincent’s calibrated 130 cd/m2 from the GX, 130% for EX should get us to 170cd/m2, and factoring in another +10% from the heatsink should allow the G2 to deliver 185-190 cd/m2 peak levels without taking any increased risk.

HDR peaks are a different beast, since the avenue of increasing peak levels limited to smaller window sizes is always an option (which Samsung Display appears to be promoting).

LGE has chosen to cap off ABL for HDR at a 10% window, while LGD disclosed ABL limits continuing to increase down to 3%.

At 10%, the 650 cd/m2 peak @ 10% of the GX should translate to 850 cd/m2 on EX @ 130% and the heat sink on the G2 should increase that another +10% to 930cd/m2, so I believe your 850-925 nit levels for the G2 are conservative and will not be at all surprised to see LGE spec 1000 cd/m2 peak levels (which could be at a cooler native whitepoint or could be at a slightly smaller window like 5% or 3% or could be by using a bit of that APL margin they’ve been saving up their sleeve ).


----------



## stl8k

Jin-X said:


> He did say some sensing lines, not all sensing lines, so it would be a reduction in the amount used. Also you can't use LGE models to determine what the panel is capable of as everyone will tune it's capabilities differently, plus panel variance on top of that. If you look at his reviews from last year, his G1 measured 160 nits full field and 790 10% window, while the Philips 936 hit 180 full field, and 720 10%, so they took different approaches there and both are WBE non heatsink panels. I'm still expecting 850-925ish nits from the G2, though I do hope they are pushing the panel more, I've always felt like they have held back for several years now by directing behind the scenes improvements to further cut down on burn in, something that they have already successfully done previously and it's fruitless to keep cutting it down a little more each year because the people fearful of OLED burn in will always remain fearful no matter what you do, it's not really possible to completely eliminate that FUD and it has proven to not have an impact on sales/adoption. So yes please direct it to more performance at the panel level.


I was looking into relevant public research papers or patents for the personalization portion of the EX panel from LGD. I didn't find anything that matched—there are very few papers/patents with LGDs name on them that involve machine learning or personalization _for driving_. I was waiting for more details before I attempted to communicate say the patent(s) that described the innovation at deeper levels.

I have to say I was confused about how certain of the benefits mapped to certain of the improvements in Vincent's video! Does I1 map to B1 and I2 to B2?

LGD's statement of "...after learning individual viewing patterns, and precisely controls the display's energy input to more accurately express the details and colors of the video content being played" doesn't seem to be captured in the benefits Vincent mentioned.


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> As I said, I think that entire video was driven by LGD’s and Vincent’s desire to make some noise in the face of QD-OLED’s glowing coverage.
> 
> Whatever changes Vincent was attempting to describe happened long ago and is likely the big step change in PAR we saw between 2017 and 2018. Never disclosed publicly, so dusted off, fed to Vincent in answer to his question about ‘how does the EX panel deliver 30% increased brightness?’
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, each manufacturer has their own specific risk versus performance comfort zone…
> 
> 
> 
> For sure, each manufacturer makes their own individual decision about how much they want to trade off aging when watching SDR and non-highlight HDR aging versus HDR highlight aging (ABL limits).
> 
> Apples to Apples comparisons are the most useful and that is why Vincent’s reference to +30% should have been based on his GX baseline of 130cd/m2, not 150 cd/m2.
> 
> But you are correct, if it is LG Display themselves that markets their WBC panel as a ‘150 cd/m2 Full-field’ panel, then they could now be marketing their EX/WBE panels as ‘195 cd/m2 Full-field’ panels…
> 
> 
> I felt that since the 2016 burn-in scare as well. Increases in red subpixel area have far outpaced increases in brightness limits.
> 
> But LGE knows in ways none of us can ever fathom how close they may have come to losing everything in 2017/18 when the burn-in on 2016 WOLEDs nearly derailed the entire initiative.
> 
> Each supplier has their own models about subpixel aging and their own models about average content being viewed by their customers, and the there is the real world.
> 
> I don’t blame LGE one bit for holding back and letting Philips and now perhaps Samsung take the lead on pushing ABL limits closer to the ‘burn-in zone’.
> 
> The G2 looks like it will have a heatsink, and that should easily provide a 10% bump in ABL limits across the board, so starting with Vincent’s calibrated 130 cd/m2 from the GX, 130% for EX should get us to 170cd/m2, and factoring in another +10% from the heatsink should allow the G2 to deliver 185-190 cd/m2 peak levels without taking any increased risk.
> 
> HDR peaks are a different beast, since the avenue of increasing peak levels limited to smaller window sizes is always an option (which Samsung Display appears to be promoting).
> 
> LGE has chosen to cap off ABL for HDR at a 10% window, while LGD disclosed ABL limits continuing to increase down to 3%.
> 
> At 10%, the 650 cd/m2 peak @ 10% of the GX should translate to 850 cd/m2 on EX @ 130% and the heat sink on the G2 should increase that another +10% to 930cd/m2, so I believe your 850-925 nit levels for the G2 are conservative and will not be at all surprised to see LGE spec 1000 cd/m2 peak levels (which could be at a cooler native whitepoint or could be at a slightly smaller window like 5% or 3% or could be by using a bit of that APL margin they’ve been saving up their sleeve ).


My thing about comparing LGE to LGE is that even there, you sometimes see a slight change in philosophy. If you look at some of the numbers for the X line vs the 8 and 9 lines, you can see that they appeared to have become more conservative on the X (would need some of the calibrators that have seen a large sample size of each to confirm, could have just been random luck that some of the X reviews had lower numbers). So it’s difficult to compare sometimes, even between the same brand. It would be useful if LGD provided their own “default” numbers at D65, but that wouldn’t be something their customers would like as it would invite comparisons if they are being more conservative. Best way to compare would be a calibrator who works on hundreds of each model each year, as there is more repeatability and reliability with the data since they would be using the same gear and targeting the same white point and using the same method of measurement.

I do think it’s very possible it’s just them marketing things they had already done due having a competitor now. But if this does push them to make actual improvements it’s great, as it’s what we wanted from having some competition. Last several years they had no incentive as they were the only game in town and LCD wasn’t even putting it’s best foot forward either, something that Sony looks to be rectifying this year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> I’m also confused by Vincent’s reference to WBC panels delivering 150cd/m2 of full-field white -I thought his excellent 2021 video comparing GX to G1 indicated a calibrated GX delivered ~130cd/m2 of full-field white, not 150 cd/m2…


Weren't the WBC panels used on models older than GX? Some of those measured around 150 back in 2019 and 2018. E9 for example at 144. Not clear if LG gimped the 2020 GX on purpose to make the 2021 G1 appear like a larger % upgrade or if it was to mitigate burn-in risk. In any case, I think it would be better to look at historical progress of *all* their panels, not just changes to prior year.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Weren't the WBC panels used on models older than GX? Some of those measured around 150 back in 2019 and 2018. E9 for example at 144. Not clear if LG gimped the 2020 GX on purpose to make the 2021 G1 appear like a larger % upgrade or if it was to mitigate burn-in risk. In any case, I think it would be better to look at historical progress of *all* their panels, not just changes to prior year.


Yeah, between changes LGD slips in without saying anything and the the occasional marketing push to make a lot of noise, it impossible to get a clear bead on what changed when. As mar as we can tell:

PAR: Between 2016 and 2018 PAR improved dramatatucally, especially in the inter-row dead-area:










This may or may not be related to the ‘removing some sensing lines’ improvement LGD is touting now or may have been merely based on shrinking drive transistor sizes and trace widths as you suspect.

If we don’t see any further then improvement in PAR between the G2 and the G1 (as I suspect), it’s almost certainly an echo of a long-ago-completed panel change and nothing new versus 2021 or even 2022…

Deuterium: When the ramp-up of Guangzhou got delayed in 2019 due to yield problems with MMG as well as other issues, LGD made the decision to capitalize on the delay by directly bringing up the new fab on the new 2S4C/WBE WOLED stack they had been working on. I believe we have some confirmed examples of C9s containing WBE panels, so whether before the end of 2019 of before transition to manufacturing of CX in spring 2020, it’s pretty clear that Guangzhou was already producing Deuterium-based WBE panel by mid-2020 and that the CX WOLEDs are based on a mixture of WBC panels from Paju and WBE panels from Guangzhou.

The ‘Evo’ panel was launched with great fanfare a year ago despite the fact that it had already been released on some products in the wild close to a year beforehand (I understand that the Evo FW unlocking that full WBE capability to deliver ‘Evo’ was something new, since the earlier WBE panels released were controlled via FW to emulate the WBC panels).

So 2021 was a mess with 2 different fabs producing two different panel stacks and volume runners like the C2 being released to market with a mixture of both panel types.

LGD/LGE got though it by continuing WBC-emulation by any C1s containing WBE panels and limiting WBE exclusivity to the lower-volume G1 series where ‘Evo’ firmware could be used to unlock the capability of the new Deuterium-based WOLED stack (which also contained a new deep-green emitter).

There are a few posts somewhere referencing articles where LGD layer out their plan to convert Paju over to WBE production in early 2022 and I don’t recall whether it was by March or by April that they targeted to have all WOLED fabs exclusively manufacturing the new 3S4C/WBE/Evo-capable stack.

The logical thing to do would be to direct any tail WBC production out of Paju to the tail end production of C1s (as well as B1s and A1s) but it doesn’t really matter.

All C2s as well as all G2s (as well as any E2s if rumors prove true) are almost certainly going to be WBE and EX-capable (whether A2s and B2s end up being manufactured with a mix of panel types or not).

I’ve been predicting that subpixel dimensions of all panel sizes will be optimized for WBE panels in 2022 (which will deliver an ~8% increase in peak white levels for those panels designed with WBE-or-WBC-optimized pixels in 2021 like the 55” and 65” panels).

83” panels which were exclusively manufactured as WBE presumably have had their subpixels designed for optimized output levels with that stack last year, and possibly 77” as well, but the 65” and especially the 55”
panels will get an EX-level boost from WBE-optimized subpixel design, whether for the C2 or not until the C3…

So you are correct. It’s a complicated story with many moving parts often evolving at different speeds and through multiple stages (compatibility modes). You can’t blame LGD for not wanting to attempt to explain all the gory details (sausage-making).

So when they are feeling defensive about the fact that Samsung gets all the press for being innovative and the perception is that since the early days of WOLED, LGD had been sitting in their coat tails and taking it easy on the engineering / improvements front, they leak out a relatively simple story like this (deuterium + increased PAR will deliver 30% brightness increase versus prior WBC panel generation).

I think it was you who said the last stack change (presumably WBB to WBC) was the 2015/2016 change from 3S2C (B-Y-B) to 3S3C (B-R/Y-B) for the 2016 WOLED TVs (including my 65C6) and that it’s been nothing but changes to subpixel design, polarizer, and possibly backplane design since then until WBE, and I suspect that is correct.

So once we finally see a 65” WBE-based WOLED with new subpixels designed to optimize peak brightness levels for WBE only (meaning larger red subpixel area and smaller green as well as possibly blue subpixel areas versus 65C1s WBE-or -WBC-optimized subpixels), we’ll be able to get some Apples-to-Apples assessment of the level of improvement LGD has delivered over those ~6 years (with the caveat that the 2016s took too much risk on red lifetime and so some % of the improvements LGD has delivered since then cannot be measured in terms of brightness alone…).


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Oh, I was talking about intrinsic cost, not about yielded cost while ramping.
> 
> With a 4S2C stack, QD-OLED as depicted by UBI will have an intrinsic cost which is 15-25% higher that current 3S4C WOLED.
> 
> This means at equivalent manufacturing volumes and after achieving equivalent manufacturing yields, QD-OLED will still cost 15-25% more than WOLED.
> 
> When you factor on much lower yields while ramping and increasing production volumes over the next several years, true cost will be far, far higher and Samsung Display will need to sell QD-OLED TV panels at a loss.
> 
> The QD-OLED monitor panels will have far higher yields right out of the gates (since they are so much smaller) and sell for a much higher price ($2000 for a 34” QD-OLED monitor from Dell almost certainly translates to over $500 for the panel).
> 
> For TV QD-OLED panels, they will need to hold off on production until yields have reached minimum acceptable levels (probably at least 60%) and will likely need to limit volumes since they will likely need to sell at a loss until yields get up over 75%.
> 
> So that is why a low-volume 55” QD-OLED TV launched by Sony late this year is the most likely scenario. Samsung Electronics will hold off on TVs until they can secure much higher volumes from Samsung Display.


Very interesting (and cool IMO) analysis of premium TV market in 2022 from DSCC. If I'm transcribing correctly, here are their QD-OLED expected price points, at least some based on "sources":

SONYSAMSUNG65" $5-6K65" $5K55" $3-4K55" just under $3K
Are both companies taking a bath this year to muscle in on some early premium share?
CES Review: What is the Landscape for Premium TV in 2022? - Display Supply Chain Consultants


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Very interesting (and cool IMO) analysis of premium TV market in 2022 from DSCC. If I'm transcribing correctly, here are their QD-OLED expected price points, at least some based on "sources":
> 
> SONYSAMSUNG65" $5-6K65" $5K55" $3-4K55" just under $3K
> *Are both companies taking a bath this year *to muscle in on some early premium share?
> CES Review: What is the Landscape for Premium TV in 2022? - Display Supply Chain Consultants


No, it’s only Samsung Display taking a bath. They are selling the early panels at a loss based on assumptions of yield increase and cost reduction.

Sony is very low volume, so it it not a huge investment on Samsung Display’s part.

But Samsung Electronics is a different story - the ‘small’ volume they want to launch is not something Samsung Display can afford until yields have improved.

Hence the ‘late year’ launch schedule for both companies and the high likelihood Samsung’s QD-OLED TV launch ends up pushing to 2023 (once the supply is ‘secured’).

Bit the predicted price points seem believable.

At $3000 for 55” (~250% WOLED 55” prices), the QD-OLED panels are likely being priced at least double the price of 55” WOLED panels and possibly as much as three times the price.

LGD is supposedly running at over 95% yield for 55” WOLED production and is eking out a small profit at that yield.

So Samsung Display breaking-even selling 55” QD-OLEDpanels for ~3 times WOLED prices means ~1.9 salable 55” panels per 8.5G sheet (31.7% yield) rather than the 5.7 salable WOLEDs LGD is achieving.

That is at equal underlying cost and QD-WOLED is likely ~10% higher in COGs than WOLED, so when that gets factored in, Samsung Display needs to sell ~2.1 panels per 8.5G sheet to break-even (35% yield).

Getting to 35% yields manufacturing 55” QD-OLED panels in the first year of production would be an achievement, but no way anymore than a low-volume of 65” QD-WOLEDs would be manufactured at that stage.

35% yield manufacturing 55” panels on 8.5G translates to an average of close to 5 defects per 85G sheet. When manufacturing 65” QD-OLEDs at 8.5G 3-up, that same defectivity rate translates to averaging well under 1 salable 65” panel for every 8.5G sheet manufactured….

So even at 3 times WOLED’s panel price at 65”, Samsung Display will not be able to afford to manufacture any meaningful number of 65”
QDs-OLEDs until 55” yields have improved to at least 50% (meaning late this year or more likely at least one year from now).


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> ...
> Getting to 35% yields manufacturing 55” QD-OLED panels in the first year of production would be an achievement, but no way anymore than a low-volume of 65” QD-WOLEDs would be manufactured at that stage.
> 
> 35% yield manufacturing 55” panels on 8.5G translates to an average of close to 5 defects per 85G sheet. When manufacturing 65” QD-OLEDs at 8.5G 3-up, that same defectivity rate translates to averaging well under 1 salable 65” panel for every 8.5G sheet manufactured….
> 
> So even at 3 times WOLED’s panel price at 65”, Samsung Display will not be able to afford to manufacture any meaningful number of 65”
> QDs-OLEDs until 55” yields have improved to at least 50% (meaning late this year or more likely at least one year from now).


I went looking at what's been reported publicly (via Google) about TV unit capacity and shipments and there's a fair amount of variability.



> The company is also planning to *ship around 500,000 units of TVs* that quantum dot (QD)-OLED panels.
> 출처 : THE ELEC, Korea Electronics Industry Media(THE ELEC, Korea Electronics Industry Media)


I presume they got this estimate from Samsung Display.



> Samsung Display has a production capacity of 30,000 sheets (8.5 generations) of the relevant QD display per month, *the amount capable of producing approximately one million 55-inch and 65-inch TVs*.


Presumably an estimate of capacity at 100% yield.



> RUNTO [STL8K: a Chinese research firm] predicts that, *considering the yield rate*, the annual shipment of QD OLED TV panels in 2022 will be *1.4 million*.


This seems way off as stated. This looks like an estimate of capacity at 100% yield.



> For OLED TV panel procurement, we expect OLED TV + QD-OLED TV panel shipments to reach *15.1M* panels and $6.4B in revenue in 2026. QD-OLED TVs are expected to account for a *~8%* unit share and ~12% revenue share *over the forecast period*.


This from DSCC is 1.2M TVs shipped per year over 2022-2026. Anyone have its 2022 estimate?

If we use Elec's shipments and the 1M units figure for 100% yield, you get around 50% yield.



> Samsung's QD-OLED production yield (defect rate) is known to be around 50 percent.


That recently from Korea Times bolsters the 50% estimate from above.

Looks like you're less optimistic on 2022 yield. Have any current receipts to suggest it's closer to 35%?


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I went looking at what's been reported publicly (via Google) about TV unit capacity and shipments and there's a fair amount of variability.
> 
> 
> 
> I presume they got this estimate from Samsung Display.
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably an estimate of capacity at 100% yield.
> 
> 
> 
> This seems way off as stated. This looks like an estimate of capacity at 100% yield.
> 
> 
> 
> This from DSCC is 1.2M TVs shipped per year over 2022-2026. Anyone have its 2022 estimate?





> If we use Elec's shipments and the 1M units figure for 100% yield, you get around 50% yield. Looks like you're less optimistic on 2022 yield. Do I have that correct?


At 100% yield, 30,000 8.5G substrates per month translates to 180,000 55” QD-OLED panels per month or 2.17 million QD-OLED panels per year.

Any 65” QD-OLED production cuts that in half (3 per sheet instead of 6 per sheet).

Through the early part of the year, Samsung Display is likely going to be producing only 34” QD-OLED monitor panels on any continuous basis, with 55” and 65” QD-OLED TV panels limited to pilot production only.

It’s highly unlikely that Samsung Display is going to be running QD-OLED production at anywhere near max capacity of 30,000 8.5G sheets per month until yields stabilize, but if they were to manufacture 34” QD-OLED panels at 30,000 8.5G sheets per month, that would translate to 540,000 monitor panels per month raw or 270,000 34” panels @ 50% yield (over 3 million 34” QD-OLED monitor panels per year running flat out since January 1 at an average annual yield of 50%).

The issue with any volume forecast for 2022 is that it is completely dependent on yield improvements, which is anyone’s guess.

I’m guessing a lot of 34” monitor panels will be produced through summer at which point yields will be reviewed.

If they can get defectivity down under an average of 5 defects per sheet, that would translate to 34” monitor yields of better than 75%.

55” QD-OLED TV panel yield would still be under 30% at that defectivity rate, but 30% yield would be an acceptable starting point to begin regular 55” panel production.

30% yield would translate to 54,000 yielded 55” QD-OLED panels per month (assuming all 30,000 panels per month were dedicated to 56” panel production), so depending on how many months you guess would be left in the year when that point is reached, Samsung Display might be able to pump out over 300,000 55” QD-OLED panels this year (or even more if yields continue to improve once 55” TV panel production really begins in earnest / volume.

So 500,000 QD-OLED TV panels shipped in 2022 is not impossible, but would take a lot of hard work with some good luck mixed in.

A million or more QD-OLED TV panels produced this year is not going to happen. Only monitor panels have any chance to reach that kind of number and it’s doubtful Samsung Dispjay has demand for 1 million 34” QD-OLED monitors on their first year hitting the market…

So my finger-in-the-wind forecast would be that 300,000 QD-OLED TV panels produced this year would be realistic, getting to 500,000 or more would be a real achievement, and only delivering 100-200K would indicate it’s going to be a much tougher slog than Samsung Display had hoped / promised…

LGD started bringing up WOLED on small monitor panel production for close to two years before moving on to 55” WOLED TV panels, so focusing on 34” QD-OLED monitor production until yields increase to minimum levels of 75% would be the most sensible (and affordable) plan.


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> At 100% yield, 30,000 8.5G substrates per month translates to 180,000 55” QD-OLED panels per month or 2.17 million QD-OLED panels per year.
> 
> Any 65” QD-OLED production cuts that in half (3 per sheet instead of 6 per sheet).
> 
> On the early part of the year, Samsung Display is likely going to be producing only 34” QD-OLED monitor panels on any continuous basis, with 55” and 65” QD-OLED TV panels limited to pilot production only.
> 
> It’s highly unlikely that Samsung Display is going to be running QD-OLED production at anywhere near max capacity of 30,000 8.5G sheets per month until yields stabilize, but if they were to manufacture 34” QD-OLED panels at 30,000 8.5G sheets per month, that would translate to 540,000 monitor panels per month raw or 270,000 34” panels @ 50% yield (over 3 million 34” QD-OLED monitor panels per year running flat out since January 1 at an average annual yield of 50%).
> 
> The issue with any volume forecast for 2022 is that it is completely dependent on yield improvements, which is anyone’s guess.
> 
> I’m guessing a lot of 34” monitor panels will be produced through summer at which point yields will be reviewed.
> 
> If they can get defectivity down under an average of 5 defects per sheet, that would translate to 34” monitor yields of better than 75%.
> 
> 55” QD-OLED TV panel yield would stil be under 30% at that dwfecticuty rate, but 30% yield would be an acceptable starting point to begin regular 55” panel production.
> 
> 30% yield would translate to 54,000 yielded 55” QD-OLED panels per month (assuming all 30,000 panels per month were dedicated to 56” panel production), so depending on how many months you guess would be left in the year when that point is reached, Samsung Display might be able to pump out over 300,000 55” QD-OLED panels this year (or even more if yields continue to improve once 55” TV panel production really begins in earnest / volume.
> 
> So 500,000 QD-OLED TV panels shipped in 2022 is not impossible, but would take a lot of hard work with some good luck mixed in.
> 
> A million or more QD-OLED TV panels produced this year is not going to happen. Only monitor panels have any chance to reach that kind of number and it’s doubtful Samsung Dispjay has demand for 1 million 34” QD-OLED monitors on their first year hitting the market…
> 
> So my finger-in-the-wind forecast would be that 300,000 QD-OLED TV panels produced this year would be realistic, getting to 500,000 or more would be a real achievement, and only delivering 100-200K would indicate it’s going to be a much tougher slog than Samsung Display had hoped / promised…
> 
> LGD started bringing up WOLED on small monitor panel production for close to two years before moving on to 55” WOLED TV panels, so focusing on 34” QD-OLED monitor production until yields increase to minimum levels of 75% would be the most sensible (and affordable) plan.


Thanks, that's helpful.

From DSCC in 2019...


> At 85% yields, they expect to be able to produce 1M panels per year from the 30K line.


So, 1M panels/TVs is at 85% not 100% yield. That brings yield calc down below 50% (assuming 500K shippable panels).


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Thanks, that's helpful.
> 
> From DSCC in 2019...
> 
> 
> So, 1M panels/TVs is at 85% not 100% yield. That brings yield calc down below 50% (assuming 500K shippable panels).


I don’t understand which panel size DSCC is talking about, but if we take 55”, 85% yield translates to 5.1 panels per sheet or 153,000 per 30,000 sheets.

1 million 55” QD-WOLED panels would require close to 200,000 8.5G sheets at an average yield of 85% or over 6.5 months running flat out at 30,000 sheets/month manufacturing 55” QD-OLED TV panels exclusively.

Is that scenario impossible? No. But if Samsung is able to kick off 55” QD-OLED panel production at 30,000 8.5G sheets per month starting in 5 months and achieves average yields of 85% through the end of this year, my hat will forever be off to them.

What Samsung Display is aiming for and even more likely what they have promised / committed to in order to agree to a 55” QD-OLED TV launch before yearend Samsung Electronics is another thing.

I can easily believe Samsung Display committed to achieving 55” yields of 85% yields before mid-year and to producing at least 1 million 55” QD-OLED TV panels before the end of this year.

If so, Samsung Electronics has some serious sunshine blown where it doesn’t belong.

And if the target is 85% yield before mid-year, there was almost certainly a schedule of target yield checkpoints starting from first months production of 34” QD-OLED monitor production in November or December and improving month by month.

85% yield manufacturing 55” panels means an average defectivity rate of just under one defect on average per 8.5G sheet.

One defect per 8.5G sheet translates to 34”QD-OLED monitor panel yield of 94.4%.

Who knows whether the roadmap was an average of less than 2 defects per 8.5G sheet by the end of March and an average of less than 3 defects per 8.5G sheet by the end of December ‘21 (for, example), but whatever the pre-CES year-end yield milestone was. It was likely missed badly enough that Samsung Dispkay had to conmunicate a delay on the agreed-upon schedule to Samsung Electrinics.

When Samsung Electronics learned that the year-end yield milestone had been missed and than the planned start of 55” TV panel production in May or June would be delayed, they stepped back from committing to a QD-OLED TV launch at CES because ‘the supply was not secured.’

I don’t have any specific information, it’s just what I’d expect given an overly-optimistic plan and if fits the few facts we know about.

Then there is this recent additional fact which makes delay in the QD-OLED production schedules a near certainty (or at least initial yields far below target):Samsung Display to use inkjet kit from Kateeva for QD-OLED production |

‘Samsung Display is planning to use inkjet equipment from US firm Kateeva for use in its Q1 production line, which manufactures Gen 8.5 (2200x2500mm) quantum dot (QD)-OLED panels, TheElec has learned.’

‘The use of equipment from Kateeva, which initially failed to win any orders for Samsung Display’s Q1 line, was due to *problems the panel maker faced from Semes’ equipment*.

Semes, the fab and display equipment making subsidiary of Samsung Electronics, [u[was given the entire order for inkjet equipment by Samsung Display back in 2019[/u].’

‘However, *the performance of Semes’ equipment wasn’t meeting Samsung Display’s standard as of the current time*, sources said. They were however still in use and are continued to be improved, they added.’

If that is not confirmation of a low-yielding pilot-production line, I don’t know what is…

So Samsung Display tells Samsung Electeonucs just before CES that the Semes QD printing equipment isn’t cutting it and will need to be swapped out for Kateeva equipment before yields will improve and production volumes can increase above pilot levels.

I’m not even sure that transition can be completed in 6 months (depends on how well Kateeva may have anticipated exactly this development).

So with this news, my forecast of 34” QD-OLED monitors from Samsung Electronics only this year as well as probably some 55” and even possibly a limited number of 65” QD-OLED TVs from Sony before year end just increased from 50% confidence level to 75% confidence level…

Suggest we recheck what DSCC is forecasting at mid-year and see what they have to say then .


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> I don’t understand which panel size DSCC is talking about, but if we take 55”, 85% yield translates to 5.1 panels per sheet or 153,000 per 30,000 sheets.
> 
> 1 million 55” QD-WOLED panels would require close to 200,000 8.5G sheets at an average yield of 85% or over 6.5 months running flat out at 30,000 sheets/month manufacturing 55” QD-OLED TV panels exclusively.
> 
> Is that scenario impossible? No. But if Samsung is able to kick off 55” QD-OLED panel production at 30,000 8.5G sheets per month starting in 5 months and achieves average yields of 85% through the end of this year, my hat will forever be off to them.
> 
> What Samsung Display is aiming for and even more likely what they have promised / committed to in order to agree to a 55” QD-OLED TV launch before yearend Samsung Electronics is another thing.
> 
> I can easily believe Samsung Display committed to achieving 55” yields of 85% yields before mid-year and to producing at least 1 million 55” QD-OLED TV panels before the end of this year.
> 
> If so, Samsung Electronics has some serious sunshine blown where it doesn’t belong.
> 
> And if the target is 85% yield before mid-year, there was almost certainly a schedule of target yield checkpoints starting from first months production of 34” QD-OLED monitor production in November or December and improving month by month.
> 
> 85% yield manufacturing 55” panels means an average defectivity rate of just under one defect on average per 8.5G sheet.
> 
> One defect per 8.5G sheet translates to 34”QD-OLED monitor panel yield of 94.4%.
> 
> Who knows whether the roadmap was an average of less than 2 defects per 8.5G sheet by the end of March and an average of less than 3 defects per 8.5G sheet by the end of December ‘21 (for, example), but whatever the pre-CES year-end yield milestone was. It was likely missed badly enough that Samsung Dispkay had to conmunicate a delay on the agreed-upon schedule to Samsung Electrinics.
> 
> When Samsung Electronics learned that the year-end yield milestone had been missed and than the planned start of 55” TV panel production in May or June would be delayed, they stepped back from committing to a QD-OLED TV launch at CES because ‘the supply was not secured.’
> 
> I don’t have any specific information, it’s just what I’d expect given an overly-optimistic plan and if fits the few facts we know about.
> 
> Then there is this recent additional fact which makes delay in the QD-OLED production schedules a near certainty (or at least initial yields far below target):Samsung Display to use inkjet kit from Kateeva for QD-OLED production |
> 
> ‘Samsung Display is planning to use inkjet equipment from US firm Kateeva for use in its Q1 production line, which manufactures Gen 8.5 (2200x2500mm) quantum dot (QD)-OLED panels, TheElec has learned.’
> 
> ‘The use of equipment from Kateeva, which initially failed to win any orders for Samsung Display’s Q1 line, was due to *problems the panel maker faced from Semes’ equipment*.
> 
> Semes, the fab and display equipment making subsidiary of Samsung Electronics, [u[was given the entire order for inkjet equipment by Samsung Display back in 2019[/u].’
> 
> ‘However, *the performance of Semes’ equipment wasn’t meeting Samsung Display’s standard as of the current time*, sources said. They were however still in use and are continued to be improved, they added.’
> 
> If that is not confirmation of a low-yielding pilot-production line, I don’t know what is…
> 
> So Samsung Display tells Samsung Electeonucs just before CES that the Semes QD printing equipment isn’t cutting it and will need to be swapped out for Kateeva equipment before yields will improve and production volumes can increase above pilot levels.
> 
> I’m not even sure that transition can be completed in 6 months (depends on how well Kateeva may have anticipated exactly this development).
> 
> So with this news, my forecast of 34” QD-OLED monitors from Samsung Electronics only this year as well as probably some 55” and even possibly a limited number of 65” QD-OLED TVs from Sony before year end just increased from 50% confidence level to 75% confidence level…
> 
> Suggest we recheck what DSCC is forecasting at mid-year and see what they have to say then .


This was DSCC /in 2019/ just saying how many TV panels could be produced at a /max/ of 85% yield.

You can then use that correspondence to estimate the yield when producing 500K panels. Assumes linear correspondence.


----------



## fafrd

From LGD’s newly-released earnings announcement: LG Display Reports Fourth Quarter 2021 Results | LG Display Newsroom

‘The company’s newly-unveiled OLED.EX is the next-generation TV panel technology which increases brightness by 30% by applying deuterium technology and *personalized algorithms *to organic light emitting devices…’

I can’t help but think these ‘personalized algorithms’ they keep referring to man’s we are entering into an era of use-based ABL.

Once the TV has collected enough data on average usage and subpixel wear rate to determine a new owner is ‘safe’ for increased ABL limits, they will be relaxed for those ‘safe’ owners that qualify.

They could do it the other way and start with more aggressive ABL limits that get ratcheted back for those owners whose viewing history puts them into the ‘at-risk’ category, but it would be far safer to unlock additional brightness limits only for those ‘safe’ owners that qualify (getting something extra) than it would be to ratchet back brightness on those owners whose viewing habits are deemed to be risky (taking something away).

We’ll see if I’m right, but if so, it makes a great deal of sense. All WOLED owners are not created equally and those who watch far fewer hours of HDR than heavy HDR gamers (for example) ought to be able run wilder/brighter when their HDR content wants to occasionally reach highlight levels close 1000 cd/m2…

If they do it in an ‘unlock’ manner, they won’t see the benefit in shootouts or reviews unless a break-in period is used pre-calibration and is sufficient to unlock the relaxed ABL limits.


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> From LGD’s newly-released earnings announcement: LG Display Reports Fourth Quarter 2021 Results | LG Display Newsroom
> 
> ‘The company’s newly-unveiled OLED.EX is the next-generation TV panel technology which increases brightness by 30% by applying deuterium technology and *personalized algorithms *to organic light emitting devices…’
> 
> I can’t help but think these ‘personalized algorithms’ they keep referring to man’s we are entering into an era of use-based ABL.
> 
> Once the TV has collected enough data on average usage and subpixel wear rate to determine a new owner is ‘safe’ for increased ABL limits, they will be relaxed for those ‘safe’ owners that qualify.
> 
> They could do it the other way and start with more aggressive ABL limits that get ratcheted back for those owners whose viewing history puts them into the ‘at-risk’ category, but it would be far safer to unlock additional brightness limits only for those ‘safe’ owners that qualify (getting something extra) than it would be to ratchet back brightness on those owners whose viewing habits are deemed to be risky (taking something away).
> 
> We’ll see if I’m right, but if so, it makes a great deal of sense. All WOLED owners are not created equally and those who watch far fewer hours of HDR than heavy HDR gamers (for example) ought to be able run wilder/brighter when their HDR content wants to occasionally reach highlight levels close 1000 cd/m2…
> 
> If they do it in an ‘unlock’ manner, they won’t see the benefit in shootouts or reviews unless a break-in period is used pre-calibration and is sufficient to unlock the relaxed ABL limits.


Or unless there is a way to manually set it in the service menu. Which would be my preference for those of us getting our displays calibrated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> Or unless there is a way to manually set it in the service menu. Which would be my preference for those of us getting our displays calibrated.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


‘Throw Caution to the Wind’ or ‘High Risk of Burn-in’ Mode


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> From LGD’s newly-released earnings announcement: LG Display Reports Fourth Quarter 2021 Results | LG Display Newsroom
> 
> ‘The company’s newly-unveiled OLED.EX is the next-generation TV panel technology which increases brightness by 30% by applying deuterium technology and *personalized algorithms *to organic light emitting devices…’
> 
> I can’t help but think these ‘personalized algorithms’ they keep referring to man’s we are entering into an era of use-based ABL.
> 
> Once the TV has collected enough data on average usage and subpixel wear rate to determine a new owner is ‘safe’ for increased ABL limits, they will be relaxed for those ‘safe’ owners that qualify.
> 
> They could do it the other way and start with more aggressive ABL limits that get ratcheted back for those owners whose viewing history puts them into the ‘at-risk’ category, but it would be far safer to unlock additional brightness limits only for those ‘safe’ owners that qualify (getting something extra) than it would be to ratchet back brightness on those owners whose viewing habits are deemed to be risky (taking something away).
> 
> We’ll see if I’m right, but if so, it makes a great deal of sense. All WOLED owners are not created equally and those who watch far fewer hours of HDR than heavy HDR gamers (for example) ought to be able run wilder/brighter when their HDR content wants to occasionally reach highlight levels close 1000 cd/m2…
> 
> If they do it in an ‘unlock’ manner, they won’t see the benefit in shootouts or reviews unless a break-in period is used pre-calibration and is sufficient to unlock the relaxed ABL limits.


Respectfully, fafrd, I don't think you appreciate what peak luminance control (what you call ABL) is intended for. It's really just a ceiling that is a panel design variable that gets set so that the panel isn't driven outside the bounds of what it was designed/tested for. Just like lots of other electronic devices set bounds. (Smartphone batteries come to mind as something with charging bounds to ensure designed/tested lifetimes.) It's also set to ensure that normal/tested pixel aging isn't further _accelerated_.

Further, a panel's peak luminance is a function of panel temperature (sensed with a single temp sensor) and (frame) average pixel level (APL).

Here's a really definitive statement in public research from LGD that panel temps are sensed and used for luminance control:


> Our TV has an embedded thermometer to measure the operating temperature to adjust the luminance.


And, here's the patent that makes it really clear that peak luminance is a function of temperature and APL:
US10062324B2 - Luminance control device and display device comprising the same - Google Patents

So knowing that peak luminance control is a function of a *panel-wide temperature* (presumably sensed per frame) and the *panel-wide frame average* of all the pixel luminances, per-pixel peak luminance control just isn't likely.

More generally, I think there is perhaps some board folklore about a simpler version of how peak luminance control works where relations of certain things are presumed to be independent. The patent above makes really clear that they are not independent and there's no simple description of its algorithm.

We'll determine what LGD is trying to describe in their poor marketing and we'll likely find that there's a public patent or research paper that describes it in detail. I'm digging, but it's not via an improvement to peak luminance control.


----------



## 59LIHP

Deuterium and the OLED Industry








Deuterium and the OLED Industry -


The global Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) display market is valued at USD 38.4 billion in 2021 and is projected to reach USD 72.8 billion by 2026, The global Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) display market is valued at USD 38.4 billion in 2021 and is projected to reach USD 72.8 billion...




www.isowater.com


----------



## SWonder

What is the difference between LG's Evo and Ex panel ?


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Respectfully, fafrd, I don't think you appreciate what peak luminance control (what you call ABL) is intended for. It's really just a ceiling that is a panel design variable that gets set so that the panel isn't driven outside the bounds of what it was designed/tested for. Just like lots of other electronic devices set bounds. (Smartphone batteries come to mind as something with charging bounds to ensure designed/tested lifetimes.) It's also set to ensure that normal/tested pixel aging isn't further _accelerated_.
> 
> Further, a panel's peak luminance is a function of panel temperature (sensed with a single temp sensor) and (frame) average pixel level (APL).
> 
> Here's a really definitive statement in public research from LGD that panel temps are sensed and used for luminance control:
> 
> 
> And, here's the patent that makes it really clear that peak luminance is a function of temperature and APL:
> US10062324B2 - Luminance control device and display device comprising the same - Google Patents
> 
> So knowing that peak luminance control is a function of a *panel-wide temperature* (presumably sensed per frame) and the *panel-wide frame average* of all the pixel luminances, per-pixel peak luminance control just isn't likely.
> 
> More generally, I think there is perhaps some board folklore about a simpler version of how peak luminance control works where relations of certain things are presumed to be independent. The patent above makes really clear that they are not independent and there's no simple description of its algorithm.
> 
> We'll determine what LGD is trying to describe in their poor marketing and we'll likely find that there's a public patent or research paper that describes it in detail. I'm digging, but it's not via an improvement to peak luminance control.


I was just taking a stab at what LGD though important enough to mention intheir earnings cal, and I probably could have done a better job describing my thought.

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written above. Aging depends on temperature and APL.

Bur it also depend on another important set variable which is usage which is a combination of viewing rate (hours per year), viewing brightness (at least for SDR), and viewing content type (HDR versus SDR, gaming versus TV, etc).

We know that LGE is already performing wear compensation (maintaining a reservoir of headroom which they release/consume to offset burn-in as the panel ages and is used), so they have the data to ‘know’ how fast each TV is aging based on average usage and typical viewing habits.

With LGE’s current ‘one-size-fits-all’ ABL solution, all owners are limited in peak brightness because of the few extreme users (or at least the average extreme user).

Between peak brightness for small HDR highlights, full-screen peak brightness, or max screen brightness for typical SDR content and gaming (50% to 20% APL), it’s not clear to me where LGD is feeling the greatest pressure to deliver increases, but it’s pretty clear that intend to deliver increases in some or all of those areas.

I’m going to focus on HDR highlights as an example, but the following logic could be used to raise the entire ABL curve for any individual users.

A user like me who views a modest amount of ~2 hours per day on average with SDR calibrated for dark room viewing and pretty much never games is aging his WOLED TV far more slowly than a heavy HDR gamer and broadcast sports enthusiast who views over 6 hours a day viewing sports at max ABL brightness levels and gaming in HDR.

LGD already ‘knows’ that my TV is aging more slowly and on that basis alone, they could ‘allow’ me to view the occasional HDR highlight at higher luminance levels without limiting them in the same way they are for that heavy gamer/sports viewer.

In fact, with a target to age a WOLED TV no more than a certain amount per year (consume a maximum of x% of headroom per year), the entire ABL curve could be relaxed for low-risk users who have proven they are low risk because of how they have been using their WOLED TVs and how slowly they are aging/wearing.

I should be ‘allowed’ to view my HDR highlights at brighter max levels because the tiny amount of increased aging/wear that will translate to is minor because of the greatly reduced aging my WOLED TV gets from low and gentle usage.

Said another way, ‘dream’ WOLED customers like myself (or perhaps ‘non-nightnare customers’ might be a better term) should be allowed to age their WOLED TVs more with brighter output levels when desired because we’ll still be aging at rates lower than the worst-case (‘nightmare’ ) customers LGE needs to plan for (and impose ABL limits for).

I’m probably just projecting my wishful thinking, meaning my desire for full non-ABL-limited HDR1000, onto LGD’s words, but I believe there could be something there.

‘Personalized algorithms’ likely translates to different things for different customers (or more likely different classes of customers) and it makes sense that customers enjoying their WOLED TVs in ways that result is low wear/aging should be able to enjoy higher brightness levels when the content they are viewing demands it (while 8-hours-per-day-CNN-viewers-at-OLES-Light-100 customers should not…).


----------



## fafrd

SWonder said:


> What is the difference between LG's Evo and Ex panel ?


New subpixel designs are likely to be involved for certain panel sizes whose subpixels were designed to be optimized for either WBC or WBE stacks, but beyond that we really have no idea.

EX could just translate to ‘finally being able to stop supporting legacy WBC WOLED stack’ or it could mean more.

As I just stated in my earlier post, LGD appears to be linking ‘personalized algorithms’ to EX, so even if the panel itself is identical to Evo, it appears likely that there will be new secret sauce algorithms that only unlock increased brightness on EX panels even if they are identical to Evo panels sold last year.

When we can finally peak into the service menu of a C2 WOLED, we may get some insight whether the physical differences go any deeper, but I’m predicting we’ll see ‘WBE’jyst like we saw on the G1 WOLEDs…


----------



## 59LIHP

> *Deuterium in OLED*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have been following the CES updates you have no doubt heard from LG about their newest OLED called “OLED EX” and their claim of “Deuterium-based stability.” So what in the world is deuterium and what does it have to do with OLED stability?
> 
> 
> 
> As a chemist and display enthusiast I was intrigued when our editor asked me to write about it. I have to be honest, it’s not something I had thought about much in the past, but I am always up for a challenge, especially when I can learn something new.
> 
> First, a chemistry lesson.
> 
> Hydrogen is known to exist as three isotopes (yes, dig deep for that general chemistry knowledge!). All three of these isotopes have one electron and one proton (charge = 0) but they contain different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus. Protium, Deuterium, and Tritium contain 0, 1, and 2 neutrons, but all are technically still considered to be hydrogen atoms.
> 
> 
> 
> Source: File:Hydrogen Deuterium Tritium Nuclei Schmatic-en.svg - Wikimedia Commons
> 
> Of course, hydrogen atoms rarely exist alone, more commonly as H2, H2O or as an important component of organic molecules. You may have heard of “heavy water” before. Heavy water contains deuterium instead of protium and it is more dense than standard water. Enough so that frozen D2O actually sinks in water! I point this out simply to show that deuterium can result in some pretty interesting physical and chemical changes to materials.
> 
> 
> Water with simple floating ice cube H2O (left) and with “heavy” ice cube D2O which sinks due to higher density (right). Source
> 
> So how common is deuterium (and tritium)? Not very. Naturally occurring abundance of the three isotopes of hydrogen are as follows:
> 
> 99.98% protium
> 0.016% deuterium
> <0.01% tritium
> Tritium is, in fact, unstable (hence its role in hydrogen bombs) which is why it’s pretty rare. But deuterium is also quite low, even though it is stable. Only about one in every 6000+ hydrogen atoms contain that extra neutron which make it deuterium. This fact will come in handy later for trivia night (ok, unlikely, but it will come in handy later in this piece).
> 
> So what in world does deuterium have to do with OLEDs?
> 
> As it turns out, deuterium has been studied as an OLED component for over a decade now in both host and emitter materials. Even before this, deuterium has been used for decades to study what is called the “isotope effect” on chemical reactions. Basically, chemists can use deuterium atoms in place of hydrogen to study how this changes things like reaction kinetics (aka speed of a reaction). Molecules that normally contain a hydrogen atom bonded to carbon (C-H) will have faster kinetics than the same molecule where the H is replace by D (C-D). Essentially a C-D bond is harder to break compared to a C-H bond, so C-D will react slower (or require higher temperature)).
> If you are a fellow chemist nerd like me who wants to geek-out on kinetic isotope effects, you can read more here.
> 
> Importantly, changing out H for D does not change electronic states, only kinetics, so things like emission wavelengths and energy levels should remain unchanged when dealing with OLED materials.
> 
> A shining (published) example of deuterium being used in and OLED devices from 2014 showed a dramatic 5x increase in lifetime when deuterium is used. In this example, deuterium was used in the host, and it was intentionally placed in a location on the molecule where the degradation mechanism was known to occur. Their data showed it would be even better if CH3 could replace H (>20x increase in lifetime) but that is not always realistic as the molecules would start to change at an electronic level.
> 
> 
> 
> One example of how deuterium impacts OLED properties. Source: Chem. Commun. 2014
> 
> So essentially by using deuterium at a location that is normally the “weak link” in terms of stability, chemists can slow down the reactions that cause these molecules to break down, thereby enhancing operating lifetime.
> 
> At CES, LG claimed 30% improvement in lifetime with “deuterium-based stability.” Since LG, UDC, and others have already done so much optimization of their organic molecules for OLED I’m not surprised they can’t claim a 5X increase (the paper I referenced is from 2014 so there was more room for improvement at that time). But also keep in mind this enhancement from deuterium may allow for the OLED to be run hotter (brighter) with less risk of burn in, reducing a major perceived risk for consumers while bolstering a historical weakness of OLED compared to LCDs (brightness).
> 
> So, why don’t chemists just change out H for D in all the OLED emitters, hosts, etc.? Trust me, we all wish it were that easy. Remember the trivia knowledge from earlier that only 1 in every 6000+ hydrogen atoms are deuterium? Herein lies the challenge. Isolating (or enriching) deuterium-containing molecules is hard and expensive work. And it’s not always perfect. So simply getting the precursors to make the deuterated molecules can be a challenge. And if you can get it, you better believe you will pay for it. For example, a liter of 99.9% D2O from Sigma Aldrich will run you north of $1,300 (as of January 2022). A liter of deionized water from the same source: ~$10/L (still a rip-off but you get the idea).
> 
> Clearly LG or their suppliers have figured out a cost-effective way to implement deuterium. And perhaps it has been happening for years but they are only now talking about it? Ultimately LG choose to use deuterium in their marketing probably because OLED’s have always had to answer the questions of burn in, lifetime, and brightness (when compared to LCD, and now QD-OLED too). Now LG can at least point to something concrete that has been done to mitigate this effect. Only time will tell if burn-in remains an issue or not.


----------



## CliffordinWales

The new Philips 807 features the EX panel









All Hail the new King!


Philips new OLED807 brings PQ and SQ improvements to one of 2021’s most award-winning OLED TVs




cmcpr.prowly.com


----------



## stl8k

Samsung's public reporting for Q4

Panel Side


> 【 Q1 '22 Outlook】Large
> Losses to narrow gradually thanks to increased demand with the release of TVs and monitors featuring QD display.


Q1 release. Not Q4 as wrongly speculated.

Consumer Side


> 【 '22 Outlook 】 TV
> Under uncertainties triggered by COVID-19 and supply and logistics issues, demand for premium and super big TVs to keep rising Pursue sustained growth by solidifying leadership with premium innovative products, including next-gen Micro LED and Neo QLED models, and by targeting consumer needs by expanding sales of Lifestyle products as well as those for accessory/service ecosystem


Continues to be no mention of QD display.

Link to Samsung.com IR

From its Q&A with Analysts ...



> Q: I'm hearing that the customers have received a QD display supply. Can you share with us your customers' response to the QD display? And also, can you share with us some details about where you think your technology level is and how you compare in terms of cost competitiveness?
> 
> A: To answer your question about the QD display, yes, we have heard the market has high expectations, but also some concerns about the QD display. We started mass production of the QD display fourth quarter last year and have made deliveries to the customers. The customer response is that the QD display has definitely advantages compared to competing products. We are currently working with customers to have TVs and monitors using the QD display be positioned in the higher end of the premium product lineup. We believe that as our utilization improves, we would also be able to increase the shipments of our QD display.
> 
> We believe that the QD display definitely will take position as a premium display. And we believe that as we are able to increase our shipments with improving utilization towards the end of this year, we will be able to see an increase in demand, especially around the premium products by offering QD as a way of differentiating the performance in the ultra large-sized TV and monitor market.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Samsung's public reporting for Q4
> 
> Panel Side
> 
> 
> Q1 release. Not Q4 as wrongly speculated.
> 
> Consumer Side
> 
> 
> Continues to be no mention of QD display.
> 
> Link to Samsung.com IR


My takeaway from this is that Samsung Display hopes to ‘narrow’ losses (‘gradually’) by ‘releasing’ QD-OLED Monitor and TV panels in Q2’22 but Samsung Electronics does not have any expectation of QD-QLED TV sales having any material impact on their pursuit of sustained growth in the premium TV market this year (while they expect sales of MicroLED TV and NeoQLED/LCD TVs to have a material impact on their ability to achieve that goal.

If Samsung Display sells any meaningful number of QD-OLED high-priced monitor panels to Samsung, Dell and others along with a minuscule number of high-priced prototype TV panels ‘released’ (meaning finalized) in Q2 along with a modest number of loss-making QD-OLED TV panels to Sony late this year, all forecasts will have been met…

As you picked up on, the fact that Samsung Electronics made no mention of QD-OLED TVs while mentioning both MicroLED and NeoQLED/LCD is very telling about where their heads are at as far as 2022 TV priorities…


----------



## fafrd

Signs that LGD may be gearing up to begin ramping up 10.5G production in P10 next year: LGD introduced Nikon’s stepper lithography machine to accelerate the shift to OLED to completely replace LCD panels - LCD Panel LTD

‘On March 18, according to Korean media reports, LG Display plans to introduce a stepper lithography machine from Nikon this month for the 10.5-generation OLED production line in the P10 factory in Paju City, in order to accelerate the shift of business focus to OLED.

“The new stepper will be installed next month,” said a spokesman for the P10 factory. LG Display has introduced three steppers for its P10 factory starting last year.’

‘LG Display last year invested US$2.48 billion in the 10.5-generation OLED production line, and has established a [b{goal of producing 30,000 OLEDs per month[/b] in the first half of 2022. However, the company had to delay the plan until 2023 due to recent market conditions. Nevertheless, LG Display will continue to introduce key production equipment to lay a solid foundation for the OLED production line.’

30,000 10.5G substrates per month translates to 240,000 unyielded 65” WOLED panels per month or 230,000 per month once yields approach the 95% level they are achieving on their 8.5G fabs.

If we assume ~20,000 10.5G substrates pe month devoted to 65” WOLED production and 10,000 10.5G substrates devoted to 75” WOLED production, that translates to 152,000 65” panels and 56,000 75” WOLED panels per month at current 8.5G yield levels or an additional 2.5 million WOLED panels per year (a 21% increase in total annual WOLED panel production volume over current peak production levels and an increase of over 30% in total m2 of WOLED panel production area per month or per year…


----------



## wco81

CliffordinWales said:


> The new Philips 807 features the EX panel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All Hail the new King!
> 
> 
> Philips new OLED807 brings PQ and SQ improvements to one of 2021’s most award-winning OLED TVs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cmcpr.prowly.com


but LG nor Sony have announced TVs using those panels yet?


----------



## JasonHa

wco81 said:


> but LG nor Sony have announced TVs using those panels yet?


Note that companies other than LG may choose to not use LG's branding terms.


----------



## Donny84

When will the Sony QD-OLED release this year and how much will the 65" cost? This is like, the only OLED that even matters to me for 2022. Not worth it to sell my LG C1 for either the LG G2(Has heatsink & Evo Panel which are probably the only substantial upgrades if that) or even the Sony A80K.

I know some of the following upgrades below are true, but overall here is what I'd like to see with the A95K >

QLED RGB Color.
Higher Color Volume.
True Whites.
Brighter Game mode - _(ISF SDR Bright & Dark Room modes are already bright enough on my LG C1. Yet it's Game Mode loses a noticrable amount)._
1000 nits possible for HDR? - _(HDR can't get bright enough on LG C1 without having to use Dynamic Contrast settings)._
No burn in.
Better picture processing, upscaling and sharper picture than LG OLED.
More gobs of brightness to spare for BFI settings
No Burn in.
Less Motion Blur? - _(Sony does have a reputation for having better motion than LG)._
No noticeable flicker for BFI High setting.
Even less motion blur for highest BFI Setting with at least 1080p motion resolution.
No BFI shadow detail crushing like LG OLED.


----------



## Donny84

When will the Sony QD-OLED release this year and how much will the 65" cost? This is like, the only OLED that even matters to me for 2022. Not worth it to sell my LG C1 for either the LG G2(Has heatsink & Evo Panel which are probably the only substantial upgrades if that) or even the Sony A80K.



QLED RGB Color.
Higher Color Volume.
True Whites.
Brighter Game mode - _(ISF SDR Bright & Dark Room modes are already bright enough on my LG C1. Yet it's Game Mode isn't as bright and could use a little boost.)_
1000 nits possible for HDR?_ - (HDR can't get bright enough on LG C1 without having to use Dynamic Contrast settings)._
No burn in.
Better picture processing, upscaling and sharper picture than LG OLED.
More gobs of brightness to spare for BFI settings.
No Burn in.
Less Motion Blur? - _(Sony does have a reputation for having better motion than LG)._
No noticeable flicker for BFI High setting.
Even less motion blur for highest BFI Setting with at least 1080p motion resolution.
No BFI shadow detail crushing like LG OLED.


----------



## JasonHa

Donny84 said:


> When will the Sony QD-OLED release this year and how much will the 65" cost?


We have conflicting rumors at this point. I'd suggest following the A95K thread here.


----------



## fafrd

Donny84 said:


> When will the Sony QD-OLED release this year and how much will the 65" cost?


Very late and very much.



> This is like, the only OLED that even matters to me for 2022. Not worth it to sell my LG C1 for either the LG G2(Has heatsink & Evo Panel which are probably the only substantial upgrades if that) or even the Sony A80K.
> 
> I know some of the following upgrades below are true, but overall here is what I'd like to see with the A95K >
> 
> QLED RGB Color.
> Higher Color Volume.
> True Whites.
> Brighter Game mode - _(ISF SDR Bright & Dark Room modes are already bright enough on my LG C1. Yet it's Game Mode loses a noticrable amount)._
> 1000 nits possible for HDR? - _(HDR can't get bright enough on LG C1 without having to use Dynamic Contrast settings)._
> No burn in.
> Better picture processing, upscaling and sharper picture than LG OLED.
> More gobs of brightness to spare for BFI settings
> No Burn in.
> Less Motion Blur? - _(Sony does have a reputation for having better motion than LG)._
> No noticeable flicker for BFI High setting.
> Even less motion blur for highest BFI Setting with at least 1080p motion resolution.
> No BFI shadow detail crushing like LG OLED.


----------



## ruffstik

Had a LG E6 that had all sorts of burn in. How far has LG come with minimizing this? Looking at the 83in C1.


----------



## yogi6807

ruffstik said:


> Had a LG E6 that had all sorts of burn in. How far has LG come with minimizing this? Looking at the 83in C1.


My c7 and B7A look great with over 15000 hours. I don’t watch the news though. The panels are supposed to be much better now. I still wouldn’t watch too much news channels though just in case. If you would have contacted lg through twitter they would have replaced your panel.


----------



## ruffstik

yogi6807 said:


> My c7 and B7A look great with over 15000 hours. I don’t watch the news though. The panels are supposed to be much better now. I still wouldn’t watch too much news channels though just in case. If you would have contacted lg through twitter they would have replaced your panel.


Funny you say that cause I did do exactly that a couple years ago. Second panel got burn in as well.


----------



## 8mile13

Donny84 said:


> Sony QD-OLED
> No burn in.
> 
> No Burn in.


They just use a different method to prevent burn in and claim it is better than LG OLED burn in prevention methods. You can count on it that there will be burn in warnings in manual of such TV surely with Sony QD OLED TVs.


----------



## stl8k

stl8k said:


> I was looking into relevant public research papers or patents for the personalization portion of the EX panel from LGD. I didn't find anything that matched—there are very few papers/patents with LGDs name on them that involve machine learning or personalization _for driving_. I was waiting for more details before I attempted to communicate say the patent(s) that described the innovation at deeper levels.
> 
> I have to say I was confused about how certain of the benefits mapped to certain of the improvements in Vincent's video! Does I1 map to B1 and I2 to B2?
> 
> LGD's statement of "...after learning individual viewing patterns, and precisely controls the display's energy input to more accurately express the details and colors of the video content being played" doesn't seem to be captured in the benefits Vincent mentioned.


I've been digging around the US patent and worldwide research search engines and have concluded that Vincent got the goods on this one. Well done, Vincent!

I want to identify the patent(s) that describes in more detail what Vincent described in his video.

The most general patent of a group of patents (who often share inventors) related to the innovation is this one:



> Disclosed are an electroluminescent display and a driving method thereof, the method comprising: generating a predicted value, indicating a degree of degradation of pixels, by accumulating pixel data of an input image at each pixel: and generating a compensation value by adjusting the predicted value to a current measurement value which is obtained by measuring a current in a power line connected to the pixels. Compensation data, which is to be written into each of the pixels, is generated by modulating the pixel data with the compensation value.
> Google Patents Link


The relevant TV user benefits/classifications are:


> G09G2320/0257 Reduction of after-image effects
> G09G2320/0295 Improving the quality of display appearance by monitoring one or more pixels in the display panel, e.g. by monitoring a fixed reference pixel by monitoring each display pixel
> G09G2320/043 Preventing or counteracting the effects of ageing
> G09G2320/045 Compensation of drifts in the characteristics of light emitting or modulating elements


This is a patent with big implications as it represents a new (for LGD) approach to certain real-time, pixel-level sensing and compensation it does. The new LGD approach goes by the name "Data Counting" (vs the old voltage sensing approach). The patent makes clear these benefits:



> Thus, the present disclosure makes it possible to remove sensing lines connected to pixels, a sensing transistor, a sensing switch circuit, etc. from a display panel, thereby increasing an aperture ratio of the pixels, reducing a manufacturing cost, and extending the lifespan of a display by compensating for degradation of the pixels.


Those are really substantial improvements, but I believe this sensing innovation may open up other design possibilities that were previous closed. For example, when you read about the BDI/BFI/MPRT research/patents that landed in panels a few years back, it's replete with additional engineering/complexity to work around the need for the former real-time sensing.

I'd be interested to know what other innovations/implications folks think could come from this innovation.

Back to the patent...










When LGD's EX marketing talks about the use of "Machine Learning" and "Personalization", that's embodied in the prediction unit as seen in the patent figure above. You see that the input to the prediction is the "Image Data". There's no greater form of pixel personalization than predicting from the pixels you send to the set/panel.


And, here's additional detail on the prediction unit...



> The prediction unit *202* receives pixel data of an input image, accumulates the pixel data at each pixel, calculates a consumption amount of each pixel, and predicts a degree of degradation of each pixel. The prediction unit *202* converts the consumption amount of each pixel into a threshold voltage predicted value ΔVth*1*, indicating a degree of degradation of a threshold voltage of the driving device T*2* for each pixel, and predicts a current IDS*1* of each pixel according to the pixel data based on the threshold voltage predicted value ΔVth*1*.


In terms of the machine learning involved in the prediction units, it's hard to speculate what classes of machine learning algos and training approaches are brought to bear. We may not get that level of detail. I'd be interested to hear informed speculation about the ML algos and training used here.

That's all this busy-with-kids, armchair OLED panel researcher has on this for now. For other OLED display nerds, I think dedicating 30 minutes to reading the patent will help you better understand what we'll see in the 2022 EX panels in the coming months and what innovations/optimization we may see in future panels revisions.

Additional Related Patents
A coarse search for "LG Display" "Prediction Unit" will find a handful of related patents in the same time frame. Replacing "Prediction Unit" with "Data Counting" may return some additional patents. Finally, since the researchers work is often narrow, searching inventors by clicking on their names in Google Scholar/Patents is another search strategy.

Notes:
- As the patent makes note the use of pixel in the patent could mean subpixel. I presume all prediction is being done per subpixel.


----------



## yogi6807

ruffstik said:


> Funny you say that cause I did do exactly that a couple years ago. Second panel got burn in as well.


So you didn’t learn how to treat your tv from the first panel. I suggest you get a Samsung lcd.


----------



## ruffstik

yogi6807 said:


> So you didn’t learn how to treat your tv from the first panel. I suggest you get a Samsung lcd.


yeah ok...cause the "ad" logo from hulu commercials is supposed to burn in


----------



## yogi6807

ruffstik said:


> yeah ok...cause the "ad" logo from hulu commercials is supposed to burn in


It isn’t but you have now had 2 panels. One was a newer panel. Whatever your viewing habits are the new panel will not help it. Get an lcd or the g model. I think it has a 5 year warranty.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> I've been digging around the US patent and worldwide research search engines and have concluded that Vincent got the goods on this one. Well done, Vincent!
> 
> I want to identify the patent(s) that describes in more detail what Vincent described in his video.
> 
> The most general patent of a group of patents (who often share inventors) related to the innovation is this one:
> 
> 
> 
> The relevant TV user benefits/classifications are:
> 
> 
> This is a patent with big implications as it represents a new (for LGD) approach to certain real-time, pixel-level sensing and compensation it does. The new LGD approach goes by the name "Data Counting" (vs the old voltage sensing approach). The patent makes clear these benefits:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are really substantial improvements, but I believe this sensing innovation may open up other design possibilities that were previous closed. For example, when you read about the BDI/BFI/MPRT research/patents that landed in panels a few years back, it's replete with additional engineering/complexity to work around the need for the former real-time sensing.
> 
> I'd be interested to know what other innovations/implications folks think could come from this innovation.
> 
> Back to the patent...
> 
> View attachment 3231528
> 
> 
> When LGD's EX marketing talks about the use of "Machine Learning" and "Personalization", that's embodied in the prediction unit as seen in the patent figure above. You see that the input to the prediction is the "Image Data". There's no greater form of pixel personalization than predicting from the pixels you send to the set/panel.
> 
> 
> And, here's additional detail on the prediction unit...
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of the machine learning involved in the prediction units, it's hard to speculate what classes of machine learning algos and training approaches are brought to bear. We may not get that level of detail. I'd be interested to hear informed speculation about the ML algos and training used here.
> 
> That's all this busy-with-kids, armchair OLED panel researcher has on this for now. For other OLED display nerds, I think dedicating 30 minutes to reading the patent will help you better understand what we'll see in the 2022 EX panels in the coming months and what innovations/optimization we may see in future panels revisions.
> 
> Additional Related Patents
> A coarse search for "LG Display" "Prediction Unit" will find a handful of related patents in the same time frame. Replacing "Prediction Unit" with "Data Counting" may return some additional patents. Finally, since the researchers work is often narrow, searching inventors by clicking on their names in Google Scholar/Patents is another search strategy.
> 
> Notes:
> - As the patent makes note the use of pixel in the patent could mean subpixel. I presume all prediction is being done per subpixel.


Nice sleuthing.

If you circle back to this thread around mid-2017 when the first reports of burn-in on 2015 WOLEDs started to emerge, I’m pretty sure you’ll see some speculation of that exact same concept mentioned here (sub-pixel-level use/wear modeling by tracking / integrating cumulative usage of time and intensity).

It now looks as though LGD needed several year to develop the technology and so jumped on an available 3rd-party band-aid to stop the bleeding in 2017.

What was the filing date of those patents?

We’ll know from inspections of subpixels whether this ‘removed sense lines’ aspect is something new for 2022 ‘EX’ panels or it has already been baked into panels a year or more ago (tieing into your suspicions about how LGD increased PAR in 2018/2019).

Whether deployment of g to his technology is truly something new for 2022 EX panels or it’s already quietly been in use for a year or more is really secondary to the repeated references to ‘personalized data’.

LGD got more aggressive with ABL in 2017 and then has pulled back ever since once the vulnerability of 2016 WOLEDs to burn-in became clear.

Now that they have the technology to model wear subpixel-level wear based on actual useage, I believe this is going to give them the ability to get more aggressive with ABL limits for those customers that are not at risk of burn-in.

We’re all getting the brightness limits needed to prevent heavy HDR gamers from burning in their WOLEDs and their is really no fundamental need for that.

Those whose WOLED usage is limited to a modest number of hours per week viewing HDR content in a dark room have the ‘wear budget’ needed to allow our HDR highlights to each higher levels than HDR gamers gaming during the day for hours and hours every day.

Whether it’s this year or next, I suspect LGD has a nice surprise in increased ABL limits for (some of) us lined up…

Oh, and I’m pretty sure Vincent ‘getting the goods’ is because LGD gave them to him…

Samsung’s repeated delays on QD-OLED has given LGD a lot of time to think about how they can better-market the technology advancements they’ve been working on a delivered to WOLED since 2016…


----------



## RichB

fafrd said:


> Nice sleuthing.
> 
> If you circle back to this thread around mid-2017 when the first reports of burn-in on 2015 WOLEDs started to emerge, I’m pretty sure you’ll see some speculation of that exact same concept mentioned here (sub-pixel-level use/wear modeling by tracking / integrating cumulative usage of time and intensity).
> 
> It now looks as though LGD needed several year to develop the technology and so jumped on an available 3rd-party band-aid to stop the bleeding in 2017.
> 
> What was the filing date of those patents?
> 
> We’ll know from inspections of subpixels whether this ‘removed sense lines’ aspect is something new for 2022 ‘EX’ panels or it has already been baked into panels a year or more ago (tieing into your suspicions about how LGD increased PAR in 2018/2019).
> 
> Whether deployment of g to his technology is truly something new for 2022 EX panels or it’s already quietly been in use for a year or more is really secondary to the repeated references to ‘personalized data’.
> 
> LGD got more aggressive with ABL in 2017 and then has pulled back ever since once the vulnerability of 2016 WOLEDs to burn-in became clear.
> 
> Now that they have the technology to model wear subpixel-level wear based on actual useage, I believe this is going to give them the ability to get more aggressive with ABL limits for those customers that are not at risk of burn-in.
> 
> We’re all getting the brightness limits needed to prevent heavy HDR gamers from burning in their WOLEDs and their is really no fundamental need for that.
> 
> Those whose WOLED usage is limited to a modest number of hours per week viewing HDR content in a dark room have the ‘wear budget’ needed to allow our HDR highlights to each higher levels than HDR gamers gaming during the day for hours and hours every day.
> 
> Whether it’s this year or next, I suspect LGD has a nice surprise in increased ABL limits for (some of) us lined up…
> 
> Oh, and I’m pretty sure Vincent ‘getting the goods’ is because LGD gave them to him…
> 
> Samsung’s repeated delays on QD-OLED has given LGD a lot of time to think about how they can better-market the technology advancements they’ve been working on a delivered to WOLED since 2016…


I'd like to think that pixel aging helps with ABL but I think it would be more effective at combating static image wear.
ABL seems to be geared to reducing heat buildup and power supply usage. I would think the heat sink would be more directly related to ABL.

- Rich


----------



## fafrd

RichB said:


> I'd like to think that pixel aging helps with ABL but I think it would be more effective at combating static image wear.
> ABL seems to be geared to reducing heat buildup and power supply usage. I would think the heat sink would be more directly related to ABL.
> 
> - Rich


ABL throttles the aging rate by limiting subpixel drive intensity.

Aging rate is temperature-dependent, so the modeling of aging as a function of output intensity & time will need to be different on a panel with a heatsink versus one without (with heat sink panel will age/wear more slowly than without heatsink panel or can be driven at higher intensity levels for equivalent aging rate).

So presumably, EX panels with integrated heatsinks will be able to deliver higher peak output levels than those without while delivering the same lifetime.

What is interesting is that LGD can perform this modeling at the panel level (with integrated heatsink) and deliver a personalized ABL solution that will apply differently with an LGD heatsink or without.

If Sony and/or Panasonic continues to add their own custom heatsinks rather than capitalize on the integrated heatsinks LGD is now offering, they either need to repertory all that same aging/wear testing with their unique heatsink at the TV level to develop their own custom ABL limits, or they need to take some risk that their heatsinks are as effective as LGD’s integrated heatsinks and use LGD’s heatsink-present ABL limits, or they need to leave some potential peak brightness on the table by using LGD default non-heatsink ABL limits…

The combination of use-driven aging/wear modeling with an integrated heatsink is a clever way for LGD to lock-in the unique value-add that their EX panels with integrated heat sink can offer…


----------



## stl8k

fafrd said:


> ABL throttles the aging rate by limiting subpixel drive intensity.
> 
> Aging rate is temperature-dependent, so the modeling of aging as a function of output intensity & time will need to be different on a panel with a heatsink versus one without (with heat sink panel will age/wear more slowly than without heatsink panel or can be driven at higher intensity levels for equivalent aging rate).
> 
> So presumably, EX panels with integrated heatsinks will be able to deliver higher peak output levels than those without while delivering the same lifetime.
> 
> What is interesting is that LGD can perform this modeling at the panel level (with integrated heatsink) and deliver a personalized ABL solution that will apply differently with an LGD heatsink or without.
> 
> If Sony and/or Panasonic continues to add their own custom heatsinks rather than capitalize on the integrated heatsinks LGD is now offering, they either need to repertory all that same aging/wear testing with their unique heatsink at the TV level to develop their own custom ABL limits, or they need to take some risk that their heatsinks are as effective as LGD’s integrated heatsinks and use LGD’s heatsink-present ABL limits, or they need to leave some potential peak brightness on the table by using LGD default non-heatsink ABL limits…
> 
> The combination of use-driven aging/wear modeling with an integrated heatsink is a clever way for LGD to lock-in the unique value-add that their EX panels with integrated heat sink can offer…


Here's an LGD patent (application in 2013) that describes accumulating data when doing Peak Luminance Control. Emphasis is mine.



> OLED display devices have a problem in that OLEDs are non-linearly degraded with passage of time due to electrical stress, thereby exhibiting a luminance deviation for the same data and, as such, a latent image is generated.
> In order to solve this problem, OLED display devices use a degradation compensation method for achieving an increase in luminance by *estimating* a degree of degradation, *based on accumulated data*, and compensating data, based on the estimated degradation degree... .
> 
> Google Patent Link


So, it's possible they could additionally/separately be bringing "machine learning" to bear for Peak Luminance Control. I don't see any significant patent activity on the idea after this one in 2013.


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Here's an LGD patent (application in 2013) that describes accumulating data when doing Peak Luminance Control. Emphasis is mine.
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's possible they could additionally/separately be bringing "machine learning" to bear for Peak Luminance Control. I don't see any significant patent activity on the idea after this one in 2013.


LGD developed/patented some stuff, they licensed some stuff, they implemented/deployed some stuff, and now they are marketing some stuff..

We’ll only know after enough measurements and pictures have come in whether EX panels are really delivering anything different than last years Evo panels or it’s just a bunch of (late) marketing-fluff.

LGD quietly did a great deal in 2017 to 2019 to improve burn-in performance, but their mindset was nose to the grindstone and surviving the crisis, so kudos, recognition, and fanfare was not a priority.

Now that the WOLED Burn-In Scare is a distant memory and Samsung is getting so much positive press for innovating QD-OLED, priorities are different.

How much LGD is truly doing new for this cycle and how much they are just playing catch up to make some noise about innovations they have developed over the past few years but stayed quiet about until now will take time to suds out.

I’m suspecting these no-longer-needed sensing lines were removed from WOLED panels long ago (and heavily factored into the PAR gains between 2017 and 2019/20):


----------



## stl8k

Man, comes across a bit cynical.

I can tell you unequivocally that major new functionality or improvements often show up in patents in the months preceding the announcements or shipments of new panels and when the inventor includes one of its top researchers/engineers, it's a near foregone conclusion that it will ship. When I saw numerous patents by Shinji Takasugi of LGD on Black Data Insertion (for MPRT improvement), I concluded we would see those improvements soon. They came months later. Also, seeing the categorization of the patents tells us the end-user benefits that are likely to accrue. I'm sure there's miscategorization, but it's in everyone's interest in the patent world to be precise about benefits.

In terms of improvements, I take representatives of public companies making public statements at face value. So, when they talk about deuterium-related eml improvements in 2022 and then I see a group of LGD patents published within 30 days of the 2022 announcement with co-inventors from the chemical company mentioned in the marketing, I conclude that those are the improvements that are being marketed in 2022. The TV set makers are also newly re-marketing LGDs panel branding so it's in their interest that what's implied by the OLED EX branding is real and unique.

Regarding the 2022 Personalization feature. It seems really plausible that (stability) improvements in the eml and the ability to do data accumulation would be the catalyst for removing the circuits that did real-time sensing/compensations. Given that LGD has only in the past couple of years brought on significant data science/ML talent, it's not hard to believe that this improvement is new for 2022.

In terms of waiting for sets. Some of these improvements may not be apparent even to the technical reviewers. I don't think even the top technical reviewers have the resources to run the experiment(s) that would show the panel "Personalization" innovation, especially if it's relegated to non-ABL improvements.

My advice for LGD is to embrace that people care enough to speculate on what they are doing and begin to share more technical details as soon as those technical details are public (e.g. in patents). I'd personally love to not have to go hunting for the details in patents or make an incorrect conclusion. I can't imagine the burden someone like Vincent feels about getting stuff right/precise. 



fafrd said:


> LGD developed/patented some stuff, they licensed some stuff, they implemented/deployed some stuff, and now they are marketing some stuff..
> 
> We’ll only know after enough measurements and pictures have come in whether EX panels are really delivering anything different than last years Evo panels or it’s just a bunch of (late) marketing-fluff.
> 
> LGD quietly did a great deal in 2017 to 2019 to improve burn-in performance, but their mindset was nose to the grindstone and surviving the crisis, so kudos, recognition, and fanfare was not a priority.
> 
> Now that the WOLED Burn-In Scare is a distant memory and Samsung is getting so much positive press for innovating QD-OLED, priorities are different.
> 
> How much LGD is truly doing new for this cycle and how much they are just playing catch up to make some noise about innovations they have developed over the past few years but stayed quiet about until now will take time to suds out.
> 
> I’m suspecting these no-longer-needed sensing lines were removed from WOLED panels long ago (and heavily factored into the PAR gains between 2017 and 2019/20):
> 
> View attachment 3232198


----------



## fafrd

stl8k said:


> Man, comes across a bit cynical.
> 
> I can tell you unequivocally that major new functionality or improvements often show up in patents in the months preceding the announcements or shipments of new panels and when the inventor includes one of its top researchers/engineers, it's a near foregone conclusion that it will ship. When I saw numerous patents by Shinji Takasugi of LGD on Black Data Insertion (for MPRT improvement), I concluded we would see those improvements soon. They came months later. Also, seeing the categorization of the patents tells us the end-user benefits that are likely to accrue. I'm sure there's miscategorization, but it's in everyone's interest in the patent world to be precise about benefits.
> 
> In terms of improvements, I take representatives of public companies making public statements at face value. So, when they talk about deuterium-related eml improvements in 2022 and then I see a group of LGD patents published within 30 days of the 2022 announcement with co-inventors from the chemical company mentioned in the marketing, I conclude that those are the improvements that are being marketed in 2022. The TV set makers are also newly re-marketing LGDs panel branding so it's in their interest that what's implied by the OLED EX branding is real and unique.
> 
> Regarding the 2022 Personalization feature. It seems really plausible that (stability) improvements in the eml and the ability to do data accumulation would be the catalyst for removing the circuits that did real-time sensing/compensations. Given that LGD has only in the past couple of years brought on significant data science/ML talent, it's not hard to believe that this improvement is new for 2022.
> 
> In terms of waiting for sets. Some of these improvements may not be apparent even to the technical reviewers. I don't think even the top technical reviewers have the resources to run the experiment(s) that would show the panel "Personalization" innovation, especially if it's relegated to non-ABL improvements.
> 
> My advice for LGD is to embrace that people care enough to speculate on what they are doing and begin to share more technical details as soon as those technical details are public (e.g. in patents). I'd personally love to not have to go hunting for the details in patents or make an incorrect conclusion. I can't imagine the burden someone like Vincent feels about getting stuff right/precise.


In terms of Vincent, I wouldn’t worry too much about him. He get’s most of his scoop information directly from LGD (just as UBI gets most of their QD-OLED scoop information directly from Samsung Display).

In terms of what fit fine when, the first WBE panels were dated from late 2019, all WBE panels contain deuterium, ergo…

I’m not being cynical - I understand the difference between marketing and reality.

And I’ve also lived through the ‘puzzle’ of why LG seemingly held back so much of the brightness improvements they should have been able to deliver since 2017 - I’m guessing that mystery will finally be solved this cycle…

Moving away from ‘one size fits all’ ABL limits would be a major advance. I hope that’s what we see.


----------



## zeromothra

fafrd said:


> ... Moving away from ‘one size fits all’ ABL limits would be a major advance. I hope that’s what we see.


I'm thinking that has indeed already begun, as my CX was bright, got much dimmer (forever) with 'updates' and has recently gotten brighter again (all this with a recent Sony A90J in the house for reference).


----------



## stl8k

OT: Happy Lunar New Year to those celebrating!


----------



## fafrd

zeromothra said:


> I'm thinking that has indeed already begun, as my CX was bright, got much dimmer (forever) with 'updates' and has recently gotten brighter again (all this with a recent Sony A90J in the house for reference).


Interesting observation - do you have any way to quantify? (Meter)?

Do you know which panel type your CX has, WBE or WBC?


----------



## zeromothra

fafrd said:


> Interesting observation - do you have any way to quantify? (Meter)?
> 
> Do you know which panel type your CX has, WBE or WBC?


Unfortunately no on both questions. I do have an E7 in another room that I always noted as being brighter, not so any more. And with the recent Sony A90J audition (which I felt got video game-like and soapy at times), another good ref point. All that said, eyeball test only, but over time FWIW.


----------



## thadoggfather

5-6k for 65” speculatively?
My 77” a80j for 3k was the right call in the end 

still lookin forward to seeing these in stores and YouTube deep dives


----------



## Bigdaddy619

yogi6807 said:


> So you didn’t learn how to treat your tv from the first panel. I suggest you get a Samsung lcd.


Gotta treat it real nice. Don't watch it too much!


----------



## adb280z

yogi6807 said:


> My c7 and B7A look great with over 15000 hours. I don’t watch the news though. The panels are supposed to be much better now. I still wouldn’t watch too much news channels though just in case. If you would have contacted lg through twitter they would have replaced your panel.


I got shot down for replacement of my E6.


----------



## fafrd

exactly as I’ve been predicting: Samsung Display to decide whether it will spend more in QD-OLED in 2nd half

‘The biggest obstacle for the company in deciding whether to spend more on QD-OLED production was also the *low production yield *rate of the panels, which was *around 30% currently*, they said.


*Samsung Display was facing difficulty especially in the deposition process* __ where organic materials are deposited on the panel.

The yield rate for the front-end processes of the production, which includes deposition, came down to 30% __ *the ultimate yield rate, when including back-end processes such as modularization, was even lower*, the sources said.’

‘This means *Samsung Display’s production capacity for QD-OLED will likely remain 30,000 substrates per month next year, same as in 2022*, they said.

This is because even if an investment review was conducted during the second half of this year, considering the time it takes to place orders for equipment as well as their delivery and installation, *Samsung Display will only be able to activate new production lines in 2024 at the earliest to expand its production capacity*, they said.’

‘This is not enough to expand aggressively in the high-end panel market. The sources said Samsung Display can likely offer up to *early-1 million units of QD-OLED panels for TVs and monitors per year with its current capacity. *However,* it will need to increase its yield rate for the panels to 70% within the year to achieve this volume*, they said.’

‘*Samsung Display could also decide to not to expand QD-OLED production and instead jump to QD nanorod LED (QNED) panels instead.

This will depend on *how much QD-OLED *Samsung Electronics*, Samsung Display’s biggest customer, decides to buy going forward.’

So sounds as though there will be no decision taken to invest in additional QD-OLED production until yields have improved from the ‘less than 30%’ of today to at least 70%, a target Samsung Display is aiming at for before year end.

Meanwhile, if QNED industrialization continues to progress, Samsung may elect to leapfrog QD-OLED and go straight to QNED for true mass-production.

By the time QD-OLED achieved yields of 70%, it’s only hung to get the nod for increased production investment if QNED proves much more uncertain (or impossible).

A bleak forecast would be that 55” QD-OLED production yields only average 30% for the year. That would mean that 30,000 substrates per month would translate to only ~50,000 55”’ QD-OLED panels per month or 600,000 per year running flat-out.

I’ve got to assume the yield rates being discussed are for 55” panels, since 34” QD-OLED monitor panels yields of only 30% would be so abysmal Samsung would not have even started production.

30% yield for 55” panels should translate to an average of about 5 defects per 8.5G sheet, so 34” QD-OLED monitor yields with that same average defectively should be better than 72%.

So my guess is that Samsung has a target of limiting mass production to starting only when yields approach ~70%. 34” monitor panels were already there before CES, so mass- production of QD-OLED monitor panels was initiated, product announcements for 2022 QD-OLED monitor products by Samsung and Dell were made, and we’re likely to see those products by Spring.

But 55” QD-OLED TV panels only achieved yields of <30% by CES with low confidence that abysmal yield rate will improve to 70% by midyear, hence the decision to put the production schedule on hold and the decision by Samsung Electronics to back away from a 2022 QD-OLED TV announcement at CES last month.

Any QD-OLED TV from Samsung is a near-certainty to be a 2023 launch at this point (best-case).

Sony may launch a low-volume QD-OLED TV late this year on pilot production alone if Samsung Display has agreed to sell a minimum quantity of QD-OLED TV panels to Sony this year to get Sony on board (even if sold at a very steep loss).

But QD-OLED monitors in 2022 and QD-OLED TVs next year is increasingly looking like the best-case.


----------



## JasonHa

FYI, @59LIHP has posted an article showing the sub-pixel structure of a QD OLED panel.









News: Displays and Their Technologies


It doesn’t just activate on overly bright settings, it activates on SDR games like Dragonball FighterZ & Mario Sunshine and I have my game mode at 120nits, and even going to 100 nits it still activates. It also activates on persistent low APL scenes, Ok but either way that is the other two...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> FYI, @59LIHP has posted an article showing the sub-pixel structure of a QD OLED panel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News: Displays and Their Technologies
> 
> 
> It doesn’t just activate on overly bright settings, it activates on SDR games like Dragonball FighterZ & Mario Sunshine and I have my game mode at 120nits, and even going to 100 nits it still activates. It also activates on persistent low APL scenes, Ok but either way that is the other two...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Interesting. That’s one blue and one green and one red square subpixel per pixel. Green and red are identical-sized and that is pretty much confirmation of a green OLED layer in the stack (green would need to be at least double the size of red in an all-blue QD-OLED architecture.

I’m surprised at how low the PAR is - arguably lower than WOLED, and certainly not 33% higher…

I’m going to guess the high and relatively uniform black space between active subpixel emitting areas has to do with Samsung’s eliminate-the-polarizer technology.

Giving up a ~33% advantage for a ~100% advantage is still a a 50% brightness increase…


----------



## 59LIHP

QD-Display with Chirag Shah of Samsung Display







> _Today, we’re going to be talking about Samsung’s new QD-Display, which was introduced at CES in January in new products from Dell, Samsung and Sony. Sometimes called "QD-OLED," Samsung's new QD-Display technology combines the Quantum Dots with OLED technology to create a new category of display.
> This month's guest is Chirag Shah of Samsung Display. Chirag is speaking to us from South Korea, where he leads the go-to-market team for QD-Display at Samsung Display Company. He is a graduate of Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management as well as an Electrical Engineer from Georgia Tech, and he’s passionate about bringing new technology to market. _
> 
> _00:00:00__ - Intro & overview
> 00:01:47 - First look at QD-Display
> 00:03:18 - Overview of QD-Display
> 00:04:38 - What makes up QD-Display?
> 00:06:20 - Why blue OLED?
> 00:07:14 - Design elements for long lifetime
> 00:10:45 - QD-OLED sub-pixel construction
> 00:13:05 - Manufacturing differences: conventional OLED, WOLED, and QD-OLED
> 00:17:50 - QD-Display performance
> 00:21:15 - Color volume
> 00:23:55 - Color volume is more than chromaticity
> 00:25:06 - Importance of color volume; CLO vs. WLO
> 00:27:00 - Luminance range
> 00:29:35 - Side viewing angles
> 00:31:50 - QD-Display for gaming
> 00:34:56 - LCD vs. WOLED vs. QD-OLED
> 00:43:33 - QD-Display in new products
> 00:44:37 - How much will it cost?
> 00:47:17 - 75" and larger display sizes?
> 00:49:21 - Outro & credits_


----------



## JasonHa

I quickly watched that whole video (so I may have missed something), but there wasn't much new. He did say they will at least match the lifetimes of competing OLED products. He also clarified that each blue OLED layer is not dedicated to a subpixel. This means an earlier video from Digital Trends was incorrect when it showed three blue OLED layers, with each layer dedicated to a subpixel.


----------



## irkuck

As announced by Dell, the Alienware curved 34" AW3423DW monitor, will cost *$1,300* in the U.S. and *$1,650* in Canada, coming early Spring.


----------



## hotskins

hard sell for dell when you can get the 42 inch from LG


----------



## RichB

Also more "affordable" Apple monitors are anticipated to arrive later this year.

The most anticipated monitors of 2022: Samsung, Apple, and more | Digital Trends

- Rich


----------



## Moravid

The 42 inch C2 isn't a gaming monitor. The QD-OLED monitor is actually priced very well given it's gaming credentials


----------



## lsorensen

hotskins said:


> hard sell for dell when you can get the 42 inch from LG


Well the alienware will have better color saturation, a better resolution for current video cards to drive, and displayport, 175Hz refresh rate support, and real gsync. I think they are going to be able to sell quite a few. That's a lot of advantages. Yeah a bit smaller, but not a lot.


----------



## RobertR1

hotskins said:


> hard sell for dell when you can get the 42 inch from LG


not at all. If it reviews well, they’ll sell a ton.


----------



## stl8k

*Getting Up to Speed on Unique Pixel Arrangements*

It's clear that QD OLED's will be using unique (to TV WOLED and LCD) pixel arrangements. I did some searching and one of the best public, approachable analysis of these unique pixel arrangements (throughout display land) was the following Chinese language site:

OLED像素排列最新大全：RoundDiamondPixel、六角形晶体、Delta、2in1.....-OLEDindustry

I'd be interested to know of other technical analysis beyond this one if you've found them.

I'm early in my patent searching on the topic, but hope to share what I find in the next week.

Note: Samsung's first foray into TV OLED used a pentile design:



> The displays made by this method have only RGB subpixels (no fourth white emitter); however, in the case of Samsung Display implementing the PenTile approach, there is a higher ppi number for green than for R and B.
> Display Week 2013 Review: OLEDs


----------



## 8mile13

Samsung Awarded “Diamond OLED” Trademark_04/25/21 - OLED Association (oled-a.org)


----------



## JasonHa

Samsung also used the term *Samsung Diamond Pixel* in marketing the QD OLED panels. 











That's from this video:


----------



## Moravid

I believe that was for their small form factor screens (mobile, laptops etc)


----------



## Nopa

For the Dell Alienware 34, it's much cheaper than I expected. Last month, I assumed it was gonna be 2.5-3K $. 
1.3K is a basically a steal!
Although, the Brightness, DCI-P3 & REC.2020 Color Volume percentages of 34" are significantly lower than the 55" and 65".

Here's the 2022 Samsung QD-OLED lineup.


----------



## 59LIHP

Two different stand directions, two different presentations...










OLED World by Diamond Pixel™ (Samsung Display)

















[OLED Story] | SAMSUNG DISPLAY OLED ERA | The Offical Samsung Display Site


We will inform you of the latest Samsung OLED updates through official promotional videos, press releases, news, and events.




oledera.samsungdisplay.com


























Samsung QD-Display l Home


Take the Quantum Leap. Meet Samsung QD-Display (QD-OLED), featuring the truest of colors, the sharpest of images and contrast that’s out of this world.




innovate.samsungdisplay.com


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
USPTO Trademark & Patent Filings





Samsung Display Co., Ltd. Trademarks & Logos







uspto.report


----------



## stl8k

*Going Really Deep on Unique (Biomimetic) Subpixel Layouts from the Woman Who Invented Them*

Candice Brown Elliott invented them (and licensed/sold them to Samsung) and goes deep in this doc (via her LinkedIn):

PDF Doc on LinkedIn CDN

Did I mention deep? Can't wait to forward that link to the YouTube personalities when they claim Samsung is "cheating" with QD OLED TV!


----------



## stl8k

Saturday afternoon (in NA) working theory...

SDC's QD OLED TV panel's pixel structure is a Delta arrangement.


----------



## D-Nice

stl8k said:


> *Going Really Deep on Unique (Biomimetic) Subpixel Layouts from the Woman Who Invented Them*
> 
> Candice Brown Elliott invented them (and licensed/sold them to Samsung) and goes deep in this doc (via her LinkedIn):
> 
> PDF Doc on LinkedIn CDN
> 
> Did I mention deep? Can't wait to forward that link to the YouTube personalities when they claim Samsung is "cheating" with QD OLED TV!


That is a name I have not seen/heard in about 5 years. I miss being on some Standards Committee calls with her.


----------



## chris7191

stl8k said:


> *Going Really Deep on Unique (Biomimetic) Subpixel Layouts from the Woman Who Invented Them*
> 
> Candice Brown Elliott invented them (and licensed/sold them to Samsung) and goes deep in this doc (via her LinkedIn):
> 
> PDF Doc on LinkedIn CDN
> 
> Did I mention deep? Can't wait to forward that link to the YouTube personalities when they claim Samsung is "cheating" with QD OLED TV!


We’ll have to see how this pattern works on the TVs. The matrix used on phone OLEDs does have minor negative impacts on text and color boundaries. It’s not cheating, but all of these techniques are to make the display easier to manufacture.


----------



## Wizziwig

Just catching up on last few weeks of news.

The low QD-OLED PAR is unexpected and disappointing. I was expecting something closer to JOLEDs printed OLEDs. It's not this bad on their polarizer-free phone displays but those are a very different display design. Maybe they need more buffer to absorb spillover or alignment issues during printing of the qdcc?

Hopefully the smaller 34" computer monitors won't use this sub-pixel arrangement. It looks terrible for fine text rendering. WRGB is also bad for such applications. Won't be an issue for typical TV viewing distances and content.

I'm skeptical of the supposed removal of the sensing lines from LG's new panels. Even if they could come up with AI to perfectly predict degradation and threshold voltage drift, how would you establish baseline compensation values to use as a starting point? As we've seen, uniformity on WOLEDs looks like trash when you take them out of the box before first compensation. For prediction alone to work, they would need to ship perfectly uniform panels or the prediction errors would just compound over time and actually make uniformity worse.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Just catching up on last few weeks of news.
> 
> The low QD-OLED PAR is unexpected and disappointing. I was expecting something closer to JOLEDs printed OLEDs. It's not this bad on their polarizer-free phone displays but those are a very different display design. *Maybe they need more buffer to absorb spillover *or alignment issues during printing of the qdcc?


The RGB OLEDs have a black seperator between subpixels at the OLED emitter level, while the QD-OLED subpixels do not.

So blue photons entering into a subpixel from the outside cannot leak over to neighboring subpixels in their polorizerless RGB-OLED but I suspect that cannot be prevented in QD-OLED unless they he separation at the subpixel level is increased…



> Hopefully the smaller 34" computer monitors won't use this sub-pixel arrangement. It looks terrible for fine text rendering. WRGB is also bad for such applications. Won't be an issue for typical TV viewing distances and content.
> 
> 
> I'm skeptical of the supposed removal of the sensing lines from LG's new panels. Even if they could come up with AI to perfectly predict degradation and threshold voltage drift, how would you establish baseline compensation values to use as a starting point? As we've seen, uniformity on WOLEDs looks like trash when you take them out of the box before first compensation. For prediction alone to work, they would need to ship perfectly uniform panels or the prediction errors would just compound over time and actually make uniformity worse.


I believe we’ve already had a discussion about these ‘sensing lines’ and you convinced me that LGD mcluded once sense line per pixel (one sense line for 4 subpixels).

Since early on, I’ve never understood why LGD needed a sense line unless they had a need to sense quickly (to compensate for IR, for example).

By only activating a single subpixel and putting appropriate sense circuitry in the row and column drivers, it shouldbe possible to sense individual subpixel characteristics from the edge of the array (but it will be slower).


----------



## OLED_Overrated

any thoughts on qned especially since samsung display is deciding whether to spend more on qdoled in the 2nd half of the year?


----------



## Nopa

-QNED (Sam's upcoming)
-QD-OLED
-QD Micro-LED
-Micro-LED
-RGB-OLED/J-OLED
-WRGB-OLED/W-OLED
-AMOLED
-CRT
-Dual-Cell LCD/Dual-Layer LCD
-QD Mini-LED IPS LCD
-QD Mini-LED VA LCD
-Mini-LED IPS LCD
-Mini-LED VA LCD
-IPS LCD
-VA LCD
-TN LCD


For most consumers, I believe money isn't much of a problem. It's just that we want the best we could possibly get our hands on. With that being said, 5000$ is my maximum end of the year budget. May the best display technology guides us in this turbulent times.


----------



## JasonHa

JasonHa said:


> FYI, @59LIHP has posted an article showing the sub-pixel structure of a QD OLED panel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News: Displays and Their Technologies
> 
> 
> It doesn’t just activate on overly bright settings, it activates on SDR games like Dragonball FighterZ & Mario Sunshine and I have my game mode at 120nits, and even going to 100 nits it still activates. It also activates on persistent low APL scenes, Ok but either way that is the other two...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Bob O'Brien of DSCC had this comment:


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> Interesting. That’s one blue and one green and one red square subpixel per pixel. Green and red are identical-sized and that is pretty much confirmation of a green OLED layer in the stack (green would need to be at least double the size of red in an all-blue QD-OLED architecture.
> 
> I’m surprised at how low the PAR is - arguably lower than WOLED, and certainly not 33% higher…
> 
> I’m going to guess the high and relatively uniform black space between active subpixel emitting areas has to do with Samsung’s eliminate-the-polarizer technology.
> 
> Giving up a ~33% advantage for a ~100% advantage is still a a 50% brightness increase…


That subpixels image probably means that either:
each pixel uses two identical green subpixels;

each pixel uses one green subpixel, half of a red subpixel and half of a blue subpixel;

or another possible custom subpixel configuration that uses more green than red or blue per pixel that I don't know about because I don't understand pentile.

So I really don't think it has a green OLED layer.


----------



## chris7191

Adonisds said:


> That subpixels image probably means that either:
> each pixel uses two identical green subpixels;
> 
> each pixel uses one green subpixel, half of a red subpixel and half of a blue subpixel;
> 
> or another possible custom subpixel configuration that uses more green than red or blue per pixel that I don't know about because I don't understand pentile.
> 
> So I really don't think it has a green OLED layer.


How would that work? The Youtube video with the SDI engineer confirms there is a uniform (though multilayer) blue OLED light source. The red and green subpixels are a quantum dot film deposited via an inkjet-like technique. The blue is a clear substance designed to have the same diffusion characteristics as the QD areas. There's no way they could control half of a subpixel because there is no mask inside the subpixels that you can see or has been described. I believe in that video the engineer also mentioned the multiple blue layers are for longevity and not assigned to specific colors.


----------



## JasonHa

In that video I wish the interviewer had directly asked the engineer to deny that there are green OLEDs in the display. The closest we've gotten is a comment from Bob O'Brien of DSCC in a January 10, 2022 blog article where he said:


> When asked about the rumor that Samsung included a green OLED emitting layer to boost brightness, my contact said he was unsure and would follow up.


As far as I know, Bob has not publicly said if he has received an answer.


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> That subpixels image probably means that either:
> each pixel uses two identical green subpixels;
> 
> each pixel uses one green subpixel, half of a red subpixel and half of a blue subpixel;
> 
> or another possible custom subpixel configuration that uses more green than red or blue per pixel that I don't know about because I don't understand pentile.
> 
> So I really don't think it has a green OLED layer.


There is only a single colored subpixel per pixel (one red blue green ‘pyramid’ per pixel).

Sure seems as though Samsung Display worked on a pixel design that would maximize inter-subpixel spacing (probably because it was necessary in order to eliminate the polarizer)


----------



## stl8k

JasonHa said:


> Bob O'Brien of DSCC had this comment:
> View attachment 3241050


Here's a description from the only SDC patent I've found that has the captured Sony 2022 TV pixel layout:



> Referring to FIG. 4, the display apparatus includes an array of pixels arranged in the display area DA. The array of the pixels may include blue pixels PAb, red pixels PAr, and green pixels PAg arranged two-dimensionally. In an embodiment, the array of the pixels may have a configuration in which a minimal repeating unit is repeatedly arranged in an x-direction and a y-direction. *The minimal repeating unit includes one blue pixel PAb, one red pixel PAr, and one green pixel PAg.* The minimal repeating unit is a repeating unit having the smallest number of pixels (e.g., three pixels). The centers of a blue pixel PAb, a red pixel PAr, and a green pixel PAg included in the minimal repeating unit may be located at the vertexes of a *virtual triangle* VT. In an embodiment, the above-mentioned virtual triangle VT may be an equilateral triangle.













So, for TVs in 2022, it's a virtual triangle as seen in plan view.

Patent also mentions what I think @Wizziwig was saying a few posts up:



> and prevent or reduce staining due to a process error during a process of manufacturing the display apparatus.








US20210249478A1 - Display apparatus - Google Patents


A display apparatus for providing an image through an array of a plurality of pixels includes: an optical panel which converts light of the light-emitting panel into light of another color or transmit the light of the light-emitting panel. The optical panel includes: a substrate; a plurality of...



patents.google.com





More recent applications by those same inventors may shed some additional light. (I use Google Patents and they appear to only include published patents.)


----------



## lsorensen

Adonisds said:


> That subpixels image probably means that either:
> each pixel uses two identical green subpixels;
> 
> each pixel uses one green subpixel, half of a red subpixel and half of a blue subpixel;
> 
> or another possible custom subpixel configuration that uses more green than red or blue per pixel that I don't know about because I don't understand pentile.
> 
> So I really don't think it has a green OLED layer.


The picture clearly shows an equal number of red, green and blue subpixels. Other than being aranged in a triangle instead of a line, there is nothing odd about this design. It is nothing like pentile at all. Every pixel clearly has one red, one blue and one green subpixel, nothing shared. The size of the subpixels compared to the black surrounding area is surprisingly small it would seem, but maybe that's not an issue.


----------



## mrtickleuk

stl8k said:


> Here's a description from the only SDC patent I've found that has the captured Sony 2022 TV pixel layout:


That's a great find!

Here's one I've coloured in


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

stl8k said:


> Here's a description from the only SDC patent I've found that has the captured Sony 2022 TV pixel layout:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, for TVs in 2022, it's a virtual triangle as seen in plan view.
> 
> Patent also mentions what I think @Wizziwig was saying a few posts up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US20210249478A1 - Display apparatus - Google Patents
> 
> 
> A display apparatus for providing an image through an array of a plurality of pixels includes: an optical panel which converts light of the light-emitting panel into light of another color or transmit the light of the light-emitting panel. The optical panel includes: a substrate; a plurality of...
> 
> 
> 
> patents.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More recent applications by those same inventors may shed some additional light. (I use Google Patents and they appear to only include published patents.)


Nice find-- 
Google (and others) includes published applications and granted patents. You can also go to the uspto for public documents on the back and forth office actions on any published application. I know you know this stuff stl8k, but maybe it will be clarifying to some others here.


----------



## LeRoyK

Question, If the 'blue' oled emission layer is uniform across the panel. Is the brightness of each sub pixel controlled with sub pixel logic behind the 'blue' layer? So each sub pixel would have its own way of exciting the blue layer above it without bleeding into adjacent area in the uniform layer. May explain the very large blank area between sub pixels. 

LeRoy


----------



## OLED_Overrated




----------



## stl8k

OLED_Overrated said:


>


Nice share. I like how you roll into an OLED forum with that username 😀


----------



## mrtickleuk

stl8k said:


> Nice share. I like how you roll into an OLED forum with that username 😀


... and expecting people not to notice the obvious open not-at-all-hidden agenda...


----------



## OLED_Overrated

mrtickleuk said:


> ... and expecting people not to notice the obvious agenda...


What hidden agenda, may I ask?


----------



## tonydeluce

I have never bought a LCD but really hoping Sony's Z9K is an OLED killer ( for low but unlikely no light ). If it delivers what Sony is touting, i.e. 3000+ NITs calibrated, very little blooming, with Sony XR processing, near OLED black levels ) I may have to change my moniker as well ;-)


----------



## Nopa

Not a single "Enchanted LCD" can be considered OLED-killer in my honest opinion.

My tier of display technologies:

-QNED
-QD Micro-LED
-QD OLED
-Micro-LED
-True RGB-OLED/JOLED
-WRGB-OLED/W-OLED
-AMOLED
-CRT
-Dual-Cell LCD/Dual-Layer LCD
-QD Mini-LED IPS LCD
-QD Mini-LED VA LCD
-Mini-LED IPS LCD
-Mini-LED VA LCD
-IPS LCD
-VA LCD
-TN LCD
-TFD LCD
-TFT LCD
-STN LCD


----------



## aron7awol

JasonHa said:


> In that video I wish the interviewer had directly asked the engineer to deny that there are green OLEDs in the display. The closest we've gotten is a comment from Bob O'Brien of DSCC in a January 10, 2022 blog article where he said:
> As far as I know, Bob has not publicly said if he has received an answer.


I found it interesting that multiple times in the video he says "blue OLED..." or "blue OLED layer" and then catches himself and says "blue self-emitting layer".



tonydeluce said:


> I have never bought a LCD but really hoping Sony's Z9K is an OLED killer ( for low but unlikely no light ). If it delivers what Sony is touting, i.e. *3000+ NITs calibrated, very little blooming*, with Sony XR processing, near OLED black levels ) I may have to change my moniker as well ;-)


I think expecting 3000 nits with very little blooming from any LCD is pretty much a pipe dream, short of something radical like dual cell. LCD contrast ratios are just simply nowhere near high enough to produce anything resembling a decent black level in a zone that contains a 3000 nit pixel (even if we could achieve a crazy high native CR of 10,000:1, we'd be looking at a "black" level of 0.3 nits in that zone). MiniLED can make the blooms smaller, but the zones simply can't be made small enough to eliminate blooming. Since switching to MiniLED generally supports higher peak brightness, what we actually see with MiniLED displays typically is smaller but more intense blooming. This is why personally, I'd rather not chase the nit dragon with LCDs. I'd actually prefer that all of these super-bright LCDs have a factory mode that still tracks the EOTF but tonemaps to 1000 nits, for dark room viewing. In reality, even 1000 nits in a dark room won't ever be a bloom-free experience, but it will still be better than a higher peak brightness.

Example of MiniLED having smaller but more intense blooming:


----------



## tonydeluce

As I stated, really hoping that Sony delivers on the claims they have been touting for Z9K - agreed it is unlikely but with the backlight master drive, a few thousand dimming zones, and Sony processing, it may get close... For my family room TV, does not need to get as black as OLED as I have a gas fireplace typically going in the winter so hoping it is close enough...


----------



## VA_DaveB

aron7awol said:


> I think expecting 3000 nits with very little blooming from any LCD is pretty much a pipe dream, short of something radical like dual cell. LCD contrast ratios are just simply nowhere near high enough to produce anything resembling a decent black level in a zone that contains a 3000 nit pixel (even if we could achieve a crazy high native CR of 10,000:1, we'd be looking at a "black" level of 0.3 nits in that zone). MiniLED can make the blooms smaller, but the zones simply can't be made small enough to eliminate blooming. Since switching to MiniLED generally supports higher peak brightness, what we actually see with MiniLED displays typically is smaller but more intense blooming. This is why personally, I'd rather not chase the nit dragon with LCDs. I'd actually prefer that all of these super-bright LCDs had a factory mode that still tracked the EOTF but peaked at 1000 nits, for dark room viewing. In reality, even 1000 nits in a dark room won't ever be a bloom-free experience, but it will still be better than a higher peak brightness.


Yes, no bloom free mini-LED that's for sure. The "mini-blooming" is definitely more intense and distracting than regular LED blooming, but more localized due to the more numerous and smaller zones. But just because the TV can be set for 3,000 nits doesn't mean you have to. Just calibrate it at 1,000 nits, add a bit of bias lighting, and the blooming will be less intense and still more localized within those smaller zones. Whether Sony can write firmware for local dimming of 1,000 or so zones, as opposed to the 32 to 50 zones their current firmware operates on, is another story. We can't even be sure the new Cognitive XR Processor is up to the job, and it would be hard to believe their programmers are. Local dimming will always be a kluge, concerned primarily with trying to limit black crush and lessen blooming, while doing very little to ensure the director's intent is what is actually displayed. No movie is shot with the intent that there will be an unknown number of rectangular zones of the screen separately controlled. Currently only OLEDs, with individual pixel control, can come close. But OLEDs have their own issues of sub 1,000 nit brightness and the effect of ABL on very bright white scenes. So, presently, no type of TV can cover all the bases.


----------



## zmarty

Posted some more details on AW3423DW: Dell Alienware AW3423DW Curved QD-OLED Monitor


----------



## tonydeluce

Robert Zohn, VE, claims he saw one and could not detect any blooming. Nor sure of the viewing conditions but perhaps Sony pulled it off - I guess we will soon see...

Sent from my SM-F926U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## chris7191

tonydeluce said:


> Robert Zohn, VE, claims he saw one and could not detect any blooming. Nor sure of the viewing conditions but perhaps Sony pulled it off - I guess we will soon see...
> 
> Sent from my SM-F926U1 using Tapatalk


It's physically impossible. It might be the best LCD and have good control, but even Apple can't get it to 0 and they are using 10000 LEDs with 2500 zones on a 12.9" iPad Pro display. Sony is using less than this on a 65-85" display and it gets brighter.


----------



## bargugl

Question about the LG A1, perhaps answered somewhere in this thread and I just haven't found it. Since from what I have seen, the panel in the A1 seems to be using the same 3S3C stack and same sub-pixel arrangement as the other 2021 LG models, is the fact that it is dimmer merely a matter of firmware preventing brighter output? If that is true, will the result of those firmware limits result in A1 panels potentially having longer lifespans from not being allowed to be driven as hard?

Finally, what distinguishes the A1 panels from those used in C1/G1 in terms of manufacture? Are A1 panels lesser panels that fail to meet some higher level spec promised for the mainline panels that are shipped by LGD (sort of like a factory 2nd)?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

tonydeluce said:


> Robert Zohn, VE, claims he saw one and could not detect any blooming. Nor sure of the viewing conditions but perhaps Sony pulled it off - I guess we will soon see...
> 
> Sent from my SM-F926U1 using Tapatalk


I would take the picture with a grain of salt. The x90k and x95k shown in the picture are early engineering samples. When taking a picture of two tvs side by side, the differences between two tvs is exaggerated if one tv is much brighter than the other. The picture could be overexposed or out of focus. Can't make any conclusive comments since the tvs aren't even out yet.


----------



## tonydeluce

OLED_Overrated said:


> I would take the picture with a grain of salt. The x90k and x95k shown in the picture are early engineering samples. When taking a picture of two tvs side by side, the differences between two tvs is exaggerated if one tv is much brighter than the other. The picture could be overexposed or out of focus. Can't make any conclusive comments since the tvs aren't even out yet.


This is off-topic so I will end with this - I was referring to the Z9K which Robert Zohn saw in person - I have no confidence that either the X90K or X95K will even come close.


----------



## stl8k

zmarty said:


> Posted some more details on AW3423DW: Dell Alienware AW3423DW Curved QD-OLED Monitor


Here's the compensation strategy:

OLED Panel
Maintenance
The feature prevents the screen from image retention
by offering these functions:

• Pixel Refresh: To reduce temporary image retention
on the screen, you can manually activate this function
after using the monitor for a couple of hours.
Alternatively, the function will be activated
automatically when you have used the monitor for 4
hours/20 hours. The process takes approximately 7
minutes to complete.

NOTE: If the accumulated usage time exceeds 4
hours, Pixel Refresh will be activated
automatically when the monitor goes into
Standby mode.

• Panel Refresh: To prevent permanent image
retention caused by static content when you use the
monitor for 1500 hours, you can manually activate
this function to refresh the pixels. Alternatively, the
function will be activated automatically when the
accumulated usage time exceeds the factory default
setting (1500 hours). The process takes
approximately an hour to complete.

NOTE: To obtain a better performance of Panel
Refresh, activate the function within a
temperature range of 0°C to 45°C.


----------



## CA22EF

Verify







verify.ul.com




Looks like the 42" has also received Flicker-free Display certification.


----------



## Nopa

stl8k said:


> Here's the compensation strategy:
> 
> OLED Panel
> Maintenance
> The feature prevents the screen from image retention
> by offering these functions:
> 
> 
> • Pixel Refresh: To reduce temporary image retention
> on the screen, you can manually activate this function
> after using the monitor for a couple of hours.
> Alternatively, the function will be activated
> automatically when you have used the monitor for 4
> hours/20 hours. The process takes approximately 7
> minutes to complete.
> 
> NOTE: If the accumulated usage time exceeds 4
> hours, Pixel Refresh will be activated
> automatically when the monitor goes into
> Standby mode.
> 
> • Panel Refresh: To prevent permanent image
> retention caused by static content when you use the
> monitor for 1500 hours, you can manually activate
> this function to refresh the pixels. Alternatively, the
> function will be activated automatically when the
> accumulated usage time exceeds the factory default
> setting (1500 hours). The process takes
> approximately an hour to complete.
> 
> NOTE: To obtain a better performance of Panel
> Refresh, activate the function within a
> temperature range of 0°C to 45°C.


Very helpful guide. Would you recommend Samsung QD-OLED Odyssey G8QNB over the Alienware's model?


----------



## stl8k

*// Samsung Display QD OLED/RBG OLED Pixel Layout Summary //*

SDC seems to heavily customize its OLED pixel layouts for individual applications. Here's a summary of what I know today.

*Smartphone OLED (Flagship)*
Pentile/Diamond since early days of Galaxy S. 2021-22 Tweaks for eco2/polarizer-free. 1-2-1 R-G-B pixels.

*Laptop OLED (1080p)*
Uniquely Striped as seen in this video. 1-1-1 R-G-B.





*TV QD OLED (55"-65" 4K)*
Virtual Triangle. 1-1-1 R-G-B.
Background AVS Forum Link

*Monitor QD OLED (34" 1440p)*
Unknown. Is Virtual Triangle plausible at 110 ppi?


----------



## fafrd

bargugl said:


> Question about the LG A1, perhaps answered somewhere in this thread and I just haven't found it. Since from what I have seen, the panel in the A1 seems to be using the same *3S3C stack* and same sub-pixel arrangement as the other 2021 LG models,


The newer WBE stack containing deuterium-based blue and a deep green emitter is 3S*4*C. The older-generation WBCstack was 3S3C…



> *is the fact that it is dimmer merely a matter of firmware preventing brighter output? *


Probably, unless LG also has some older WBC panel inventory they need to liquidate. Most WIOLED TVs are designed to support multiple panel generations…



> If that is true, will the result of those firmware limits result in A1 panels potentially having longer lifespans from not being allowed to be driven as hard?


Yes, an A1 or A2 containing a WBE panel is likely to have a longer lifetime than an A1 or A2 containing a WBC panel.



> Finally, what distinguishes the A1 panels from those used in C1/G1 in terms of manufacture? Are A1 panels lesser panels that fail to meet some higher level spec promised for the mainline panels that are shipped by LGD (sort of like a factory 2nd)?


Claims are that LGD is binning panels now.

Assuming that is true, that could/should mean that an A1 or A2 OLED could suffer from poorer near-black or near-white uniformity than a C1/C2 or G1/G2 WOLED (on average).


----------



## JJ1156

From UDC Press Release 

"With respect to blue, given recent advancements, we believe that we are on track to meet preliminary target specifications with our phosphorescent blue by year-end 2022, which should enable the introduction of our all-phosphorescent RGB (red, green and blue) stack into the commercial market in 2024. We believe that the commercial introduction of our full-color emissive stack has the potential to unlock a vast array of opportunities for higher energy-efficiency and higher performance across a broad range of OLED applications.”


----------



## fafrd

JJ1156 said:


> From UDC Press Release
> 
> "With respect to blue, given recent advancements, we believe that we are on track to meet preliminary target specifications with our phosphorescent blue by year-end 2022, which should enable the introduction of our all-phosphorescent RGB (red, green and blue) stack into the commercial market in 2024. We believe that the commercial introduction of our full-color emissive stack has the potential to unlock a vast array of opportunities for higher energy-efficiency and higher performance across a broad range of OLED applications.”


If true, this is significant.

First, it means WOLED could get a huge upgrade as early as next year (phosphorescent RGB stack).

Depending on exact specifications, LGD could use phosphorescent blue to deliver a lower-cost 2S3C or 2S4C WOLED stack matching current performance at lower cost, or they could use phosphorescent blue to deliver an equivalent-cost 3S4C or 3S3C WOLED stack delivering a ~30-50% increase in performance.

Or they could begin to deliver both lower-cost and higher-performance WOLED panels as two distinct product lines (which would be my guess).

And for Samsung Display, a phosphorescent blue emitter means one of two things:

1/ they already have it, meaning QD-OLED is already based on a phosphorescent blue stack and Samsung Display is a year ahead of LGD WOLED,

or 2/ first-generation QD-OLED based on Florescent blue will be short-lived and will be replaced with a higher-efficiency phosphorescent blue stack either next year or at most by 2023…

Stay tuned - after years of small incremental innovations/improvements, it looks like we may be entering a new phase of hyper-innovation…


----------



## JJ1156

oops


----------



## JJ1156

Universal Display Corporation Announces Fourth Quarter and Full | OLED Stock News


Universal Display Corporation, enabling energy-efficient displays and lighting with its UniversalPHOLED ® technology and




www.stocktitan.net


----------



## fafrd

JJ1156 said:


> Universal Display Corporation Announces Fourth Quarter and Full | OLED Stock News
> 
> 
> Universal Display Corporation, enabling energy-efficient displays and lighting with its UniversalPHOLED ® technology and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.stocktitan.net


I’d missed the part about commercialization ‘in 2024’:

‘With respect to blue, given recent advancements, we believe that we are on track to meet preliminary target specifications with our phosphorescent blue by year-end 2022, which should enable the *introduction of our all-phosphorescent RGB (red, green and blue) stack into the commercial market in 2024.*‘

So take everything I posted earlier about 2023 and replace with 2024…

The earliest we’re likely to see any new WOLED stacks from LGD is 2024 (2023 likely to be another year of WBE / 3S4C) and it seems highly unlikely that Samsung Display is already producing QD-OLED with phosphorescent blue and the Florescent-blue-based first generation QD-OLED they have just launched is likely to be with us through 2023…


----------



## Wizziwig

stl8k said:


> Here's the compensation strategy:
> 
> OLED Panel
> Maintenance
> The feature prevents the screen from image retention
> by offering these functions:
> 
> • Pixel Refresh: To reduce temporary image retention
> on the screen, you can manually activate this function
> after using the monitor for a couple of hours.
> Alternatively, the function will be activated
> automatically when you have used the monitor for 4
> hours/20 hours. The process takes approximately 7
> minutes to complete.
> 
> NOTE: If the accumulated usage time exceeds 4
> hours, Pixel Refresh will be activated
> automatically when the monitor goes into
> Standby mode.
> 
> • Panel Refresh: To prevent permanent image
> retention caused by static content when you use the
> monitor for 1500 hours, you can manually activate
> this function to refresh the pixels. Alternatively, the
> function will be activated automatically when the
> accumulated usage time exceeds the factory default
> setting (1500 hours). The process takes
> approximately an hour to complete.
> 
> NOTE: To obtain a better performance of Panel
> Refresh, activate the function within a
> temperature range of 0°C to 45°C.


This basically describes WOLED wear compensation. The 4 hour interval threshold voltage drift cycle tells me they must use very similar IGZO backplanes. Only difference being 1500 hour vs 2000 hour timing of the less frequent oled wear compensation cycles. I thought this would be like their mobile OLEDs and not use external compensation. Maybe that was only for the TV models.


----------



## fafrd

An Inflection Point on Blue OLED Materials


For more than two decades, OLED has had a particularly big weakness. Like other LEDs, it has always had challenges with producing blue light. But OLED material maker UDC may have made a significant breakthrough.




www.displaydaily.com





Will be interesting if UDC comes out with an industrialized Blue phosphorescent emitter by 2024, for sure, but I as surprised by this little tidbit hidden within the article:

Article seems to be behind a paywall now, but claims that LGDs current WILEDs uses two layers of blue with one deep blue layer with shorter lifetime and one light blue layer with longer lifetime.

That’s the first I’ve ever heard of that - does anyone else have any information either supporting or conflicting with that assertion?


----------



## Adonisds

stl8k said:


> Here's the compensation strategy:
> 
> OLED Panel
> Maintenance
> The feature prevents the screen from image retention
> by offering these functions:
> 
> • Pixel Refresh: To reduce temporary image retention
> on the screen, you can manually activate this function
> after using the monitor for a couple of hours.
> Alternatively, the function will be activated
> automatically when you have used the monitor for 4
> hours/20 hours. The process takes approximately 7
> minutes to complete.
> 
> NOTE: If the accumulated usage time exceeds 4
> hours, Pixel Refresh will be activated
> automatically when the monitor goes into
> Standby mode.
> 
> • Panel Refresh: To prevent permanent image
> retention caused by static content when you use the
> monitor for 1500 hours, you can manually activate
> this function to refresh the pixels. Alternatively, the
> function will be activated automatically when the
> accumulated usage time exceeds the factory default
> setting (1500 hours). The process takes
> approximately an hour to complete.
> 
> NOTE: To obtain a better performance of Panel
> Refresh, activate the function within a
> temperature range of 0°C to 45°C.


I can understand the monitors having much lower brightness and color volume, but why do they have much lower color gamut? How is it even possible that they have a lower color gamut if they use the same tech?


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> I can understand the monitors having much lower brightness and color volume, but why do they have much lower color gamut? How is it even possible that they have a lower color gamut if they use the same tech?


If you are worried about one color being used more heavily in one application than another application, you can prevent it from wearing more quickly by limiting that color’s peak brightness, which will reduce color volume.

Also, changing relative subpixel sizes will directly change peak color output levels and color volume.

Do we have pictures of the subpixels of both QD-OLED monitor and QD-OLED TV yet?


----------



## chris7191

Adonisds said:


> I can understand the monitors having much lower brightness and color volume, but why do they have much lower color gamut? How is it even possible that they have a lower color gamut if they use the same tech?


They probably don't have a lower native color gamut, but, that gamut could be way too wide for PC use without color management. Since many apps on Windows don't handle color management correctly and assume sRGB color space, wide gamut monitors oversaturate colors. This is already a problem with wide gamut LCD monitors with only LED + PFS phosphor. So, given that, the panel or firmware may be doing something to limit the gamut.


----------



## Wizziwig

From this older article:

"Why do the monitor and TV panels have different characteristics? Samsung Display told us that it is a design decision based on feedback from partners – not a technical limitation. It is the same technology but they prioritised other things (i.e. higher refresh rate, higher fullscreen brightness and different form factor) for the monitor panel."

But that same article also said:

"Samsung Display claims that the burn-in risk, as defined by a more than 5% difference in pixel saturation, is lower with QD-OLED as compared to WOLED partly because QD-OLED uses '*Real time Image Sticking Correction*' (ISC) to monitor and maintain pixels."

But as we've found out from the monitor user manual, that is not the case on the QD-OLED monitor. Compensation process takes anywhere from 7 minutes to an hour (just like WOLED).

The extremely low pixel aperture (at least on the TV model) could play a role in limiting the monitor to 250 full-field/1000 peak vs 200 full-field/1500 peak on the larger TVs.  LG said to expect less brightness on their smaller 2022 42/48" TVs as well. The rec.2020 % coverage figures they posted were normalized so peak brightness shouldn't play a role. There is likely some difference in software tuning as chris7191 suggested above or they have tweaked some physical attribute of the display like qd layer, conventional filters, etc.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> From this older article:
> 
> "Why do the monitor and TV panels have different characteristics? Samsung Display told us that it is a design decision based on feedback from partners – not a technical limitation. It is the same technology but they prioritised other things (i.e. higher refresh rate, higher fullscreen brightness and different form factor) for the monitor panel."
> 
> But that same article also said:
> 
> "Samsung Display claims that the burn-in risk, as defined by a more than 5% difference in pixel saturation, is lower with QD-OLED as compared to WOLED partly because QD-OLED uses '*Real time Image Sticking Correction*' (ISC) to monitor and maintain pixels."
> 
> But as we've found out from the monitor user manual, that is not the case on the QD-OLED monitor. Compensation process takes anywhere from 7 minutes to an hour (just like WOLED).
> 
> The extremely low pixel aperture (at least on the TV model) could play a role in limiting the monitor to 200 full-field/1000 peak vs 250 full-field/1500 peak on the larger TVs.  LG said to expect less brightness on their smaller 2022 42/48" TVs as well.





> *The rec.2020 % coverage figures they posted were normalized so peak brightness shouldn't play a role.*


Not understanding - are you saying that Samsung is only counting saturated red (for example) at the wavelength/color that can deliver 100% of what is required for the peak brightness they are delivering?



> There is likely some difference in software tuning as chris7191 suggested above or they have tweaked some physical attribute of the display like qd layer, conventional filters, etc.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Not understanding - are you saying that Samsung is only counting saturated red (for example) at the wavelength/color that can deliver 100% of what is required for the peak brightness they are delivering?


It's the percentage of the rec.2020 color volume coverage compared to a reference display with same measured peak brightness level. Everyone measures 'normalized' color volume this way. If they measured relative to full HDR10 10,000 nit theoretical range, the TV volume numbers would be much lower than 86%. Color gamut is usually measured at a single brightness level (a small slice through the volume) - I believe Samsung's 90% TV number was measured at 1000 nits.

Dell has the monitor up for ordering on their China website so we should know more very soon. Maybe HDTVtest will import one like they did for the LG JOLED model.


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> It's the percentage of the rec.2020 color volume coverage compared to a reference display with same measured peak brightness level. Everyone measures 'normalized' color volume this way. If they measured relative to full HDR10 10,000 nit theoretical range, the TV volume numbers would be much lower than 86%. Color gamut is usually measured at a single brightness level (a small slice through the volume) - I believe Samsung's 90% TV number was measured at 1000 nits.
> 
> Dell has the monitor up for ordering on their China website so we should know more very soon. Maybe HDTVtest will import one like they did for the LG JOLED model.


Available in Europe in ~3 weeks.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Wizziwig said:


> It's the percentage of the rec.2020 color volume coverage compared to a reference display with same measured peak brightness level. Everyone measures 'normalized' color volume this way. If they measured relative to full HDR10 10,000 nit theoretical range, the TV volume numbers would be much lower than 86%. Color gamut is usually measured at a single brightness level (a small slice through the volume) - I believe Samsung's 90% TV number was measured at 1000 nits.
> 
> Dell has the monitor up for ordering on their China website so we should know more very soon. Maybe HDTVtest will import one like they did for the LG JOLED model.


I happened to be looking at this last week as I try to become more dangerous when it comes to understanding color and how we perceive color changes (elsewhere, I asked about what does a 20% increase in Rec.2020 coverage (QD-OLED vs WOLED) really mean to the eye response and how we perceive that change. without any replies, btw). RTINGS has a normalized Rec.2020 % value, and also a reference 10k nits value. 
Two questions: 1) how did you know that the published SDC value was normalized to 1000 nits and 2) do you know if RTINGS first normalized value is also at 1000? Their "Learn About.." link doesn't say. 
Thx --
RTINGS LG C1 as an example.


----------



## stl8k

chris7191 said:


> They probably don't have a lower native color gamut, but, that gamut could be way too wide for PC use without color management. Since many apps on Windows don't handle color management correctly and assume sRGB color space, wide gamut monitors oversaturate colors. This is already a problem with wide gamut LCD monitors with only LED + PFS phosphor. So, given that, the panel or firmware may be doing something to limit the gamut.


Addressed at least partially here:




__





January 25, 2022—KB5008353 (OS Build 22000.469) Preview - Microsoft Support







support.microsoft.com





One would think Samsung is doing work to make sure its flagship 120% DCI P3 Color Volume OLED laptops are optimized (at OS level) for that internal display.








15" Galaxy Book 2 Pro 360 i5 Laptop | Samsung UK


Discover the 15.6" Galaxy Book2 Pro 360 for your business. The 2-in-1 Laptop with S-Pen & Super-AMOLED Touchscreen Display opens up the way you work.




www.samsung.com


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I happened to be looking at this last week as I try to become more dangerous when it comes to understanding color and how we perceive color changes (elsewhere, I asked about what does a 20% increase in Rec.2020 coverage (QD-OLED vs WOLED) really mean to the eye response and how we perceive that change. without any replies, btw). RTINGS has a normalized Rec.2020 % value, and also a reference 10k nits value.
> Two questions: 1) how did you know that the published SDC value was normalized to 1000 nits and 2) do you know if RTINGS first normalized value is also at 1000? Their "Learn About.." link doesn't say.
> Thx --
> RTINGS LG C1 as an example.


BTW, I understand that the CIE 1931 chromaticity diagram looks the way it does because it was created to show differences in color perception linearly, ie. along a given R, G, or B line, separation is linearly proportional to how the eye discriminates (and it is different for different colors, hence the strange shape that shows we have much more capability in the green - which we all know). So, off the top of my head, when I saw the 20% difference between the two technologies, you'd (I'd?) assume it would be an obvious difference. But it isn't that crystal clear it seems based on the various qualitative reviews. So, as a curiosity, I dig away to see what I might be missing.


----------



## Wizziwig

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I happened to be looking at this last week as I try to become more dangerous when it comes to understanding color and how we perceive color changes (elsewhere, I asked about what does a 20% increase in Rec.2020 coverage (QD-OLED vs WOLED) really mean to the eye response and how we perceive that change. without any replies, btw). RTINGS has a normalized Rec.2020 % value, and also a reference 10k nits value.
> Two questions: 1) how did you know that the published SDC value was normalized to 1000 nits and 2) do you know if RTINGS first normalized value is also at 1000? Their "Learn About.." link doesn't say.
> Thx --
> RTINGS LG C1 as an example.


They don't normalize to any fixed luminance value. They normalize to that specific display's peak luminance. Industry standard seems to be 10% windows so the Samsung QD-OLED TV was likely normalized to their claimed 1000 nits at this window size. Not sure about the monitor- 450 nits? The WOLEDs are normalized to around 800 nits depending on model and sample. The normalized number is not really useful for comparing color volume of displays that have different peak luminance values. For that purpose, you're better off using the volume relative to a fixed luminance like 10K nits.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Wizziwig said:


> They don't normalize to any fixed luminance value. They normalize to that specific display's peak luminance. Industry standard seems to be 10% windows so the Samsung QD-OLED TV was likely normalized to their claimed 1000 nits at this window size. Not sure about the monitor- 450 nits? The WOLEDs are normalized to around 800 nits depending on model and sample. The normalized number is not really useful for comparing color volume of displays that have different peak luminance values. For that purpose, you're better off using the volume relative to a fixed luminance like 10K nits.


Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## Adonisds

chris7191 said:


> They probably don't have a lower native color gamut, but, that gamut could be way too wide for PC use without color management. Since many apps on Windows don't handle color management correctly and assume sRGB color space, wide gamut monitors oversaturate colors. This is already a problem with wide gamut LCD monitors with only LED + PFS phosphor. So, given that, the panel or firmware may be doing something to limit the gamut.


We should have the option to enable the full color gamut in a setting hidden somewhere because it is possible to use a custom gamut on windows and some apps do color manage


----------



## mrtickleuk

Adonisds said:


> We should have the option to enable the full color gamut in a setting hidden somewhere because it is possible to use a custom gamut on windows and *some apps do color manage*


I agree that would be better. Note however that even those apps that attempt it are constrained within the confines of the ICC profiles system, though. 
See: https://www.lightillusion.com/what_is_wrong_with_iccs.html


----------



## Donny84

2022 OLED wish list for the Sony QD-OLED >

No noticeable Flicker for the Black frame insertion maxed setting for Movies&TV
less then <4ms motion persistence with BFI Maxed.
At least 900p motion resolution for BFI...again, when Maxed.
170+Nits for BFI Max
Less judder like a plasma without resorting to Soap Opera De-Judder settings.
QD-RGB Color
True Whites
No out of box Black Crush or BFI shadow detail crushing - (If not, a Pro calibration will fix both)
Less then 13ms latency for 60hz gaming
5ms latency for 120fps gaming like the LG C1
Less motion blur for 60hz @300p motion resolution. basically the 'base' motion
A brighter Game mode than LG C1's - (The A95K has HeatSink+Evo. Should do the trick!)
Sharper Game mode than LG C1's - Sony's picture processing & whatever should do the deed.


----------



## chris7191

Donny84 said:


> 2022 OLED wish list for the Sony QD-OLED >
> 
> No noticeable Flicker for the Black frame insertion maxed setting for Movies&TV
> less then <4ms motion persistence with BFI Maxed.
> At least 900p motion resolution for BFI...again, when Maxed.
> 170+Nits for BFI Max
> Less judder like a plasma without resorting to Soap Opera De-Judder settings.
> QD-RGB Color
> True Whites
> No out of box Black Crush or BFI shadow detail crushing - (If not, a Pro calibration will fix both)
> Less then 13ms latency for 60hz gaming
> 5ms latency for 120fps gaming like the LG C1
> Less motion blur for 60hz @300p motion resolution. basically the 'base' motion
> A brighter Game mode than LG C1's - (The A95K has HeatSink+Evo. Should do the trick!)
> Sharper Game mode than LG C1's - Sony's picture processing & whatever should do the deed.


A lot of these things are impossible though. Like less stutter without motion interpolation. Impossible to make it like plasma since QD-OLED is a sample-and-hold technology. Also disagree with a sharper game mode being a good thing. I don't want artificial video processing / sharpening on PC or game inputs. Might be fine for low quality video content, but it's fake and will inevitably add input lag.


----------



## Donny84

chris7191 said:


> A lot of these things are impossible though. Like less stutter without motion interpolation. Impossible to make it like plasma since QD-OLED is a sample-and-hold technology. Also disagree with a sharper game mode being a good thing. I don't want artificial video processing / sharpening on PC or game inputs. Might be fine for low quality video content, but it's fake and will inevitably add input lag.


That's too bad. There's got to be a way to reduce Judder somehow without forcing SOE. Maybe it's going to take Micro-LED to fix this. And i'm not saying to add artificial sharpness to game mode. I'm saying that LG had to compromise the clarity/sharpness of game mode to reduce input lag. If you compare ISF Bright for example with lets say Sharpness set to 10 Vs game mode at 10 when gaming, you'll notice that GM looks much softer. Sony does a better job at this supposedly.

Super Mario Odyssey running in 900p docked looks Super blurry with 10 sharpness on my C1. Total garbage. I understand that they're upscaling 900p to 4K, but the ISF Bright does a much better job. for ISF Bright, i like the sharpness at about 35 for Odyssey, but with GM you have to set it 50 + Super resolution High, and even then it doesn't look as good as ISF Bright. lol


----------



## OLED_Overrated

From my research on qned, samsung display has recently wrapped up developments on qned and filed most of its patents a few months ago. The display technology for qned and qdoled is similar except that the backlight is an inorganic blue nanorod. Samsung has obviously already figured out the quantum dot color conversion layer for qned and as I mentioned, samsung is wrapping up development on qned and has seemingly figured out the hard part of their technology which was making sure the nanorods align properly when they fall and making sure the panel is uniform. We can possibly see a prototype for qned in a year or two and very likely expect qned to be mainstream before microled comes down in affordable price anytime soon. There's currently a lot of hype for qd-oled but I think it will only be a short lived transitory technology which will only last a few years or two before the production lines for qdoled are fully converted to qned. Samsung display has mentioned that qned rivals OLED and MICroled, offering superior contrast, hdr, and response times than both technologies. What if QNED ends up turning out to be superior to microled? There would be no point in trying to put so much effort in bringing the the cost of microled led consumer tvs down. However, we don't even know if QNED is the true end game display since it's still a light emitting diode technology like OLED and Microled which may not have perfect response times, motion and input lag like CRTs which many people don't bring up when talking about the future displays. There's QDEL in the far future which supposedly uses the quantum dots themselves to make a display, having the least amount of layers in a tv which means perfect viewing angles, higher brightness, lower input lag etc. I am very excited for the future of display technologies.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

some pictures from an old article I have about qned.








the main difference between qdoled and qned is the backlight.








What I've gathered is that the nanorods are printed like droplets from a nozzle and this is the hardest process of making the display. to make sure the nanorods fall at the right angle parallel with each other. If not, the rgb pixel composed of many nanorod leds could short circuit. Samsung has filed many patents trying to make sure the led nanorods fall properly. In the case that there are nanorods not sprayed correctly and some nanorods can't function, the voltage for each pixel is individually controlled to guarantee that each pixel lights up at the right brightness to guarantee panel uniformity.


----------



## chris7191

OLED_Overrated said:


> However, we don't even know if QNED is the true end game display since it's still a light emitting diode technology like OLED and Microled which may not have perfect response times, motion and input lag like CRTs which many people don't bring up when talking about the future displays. There's QDEL in the far future which supposedly uses the quantum dots themselves to make a display, having the least amount of layers in a tv which means perfect viewing angles, higher brightness, lower input lag etc. I am very excited for the future of display technologies.


A few comments on the "perfect" characteristics of CRTs:

There is no such limitation or issue with a diode-based technology. Standard red LEDs can be switched so fast they can be used for data TX over optical fiber at Mbps. Many types of diodes can be switched at MHz or even GHz speeds. A display made of all LEDs could be faster than any CRT TV or monitor that ever made it to market. Remember that a CRT has to scan the entire frame out and has other practical limitations regarding scan rate and pixel clock. CRTs can be fast but do trade speed for resolution. The best Trinitron tubes ever made for PC monitors could do almost 200 Hz but only at low res like 800x600 or lower. Input lag is a function of processing, and since CRTs were all analog devices with analog inputs, it is near zero. You can get close enough with any technology that it's not a factor.

As far as motion, CRT motion is only superior to sample-and-hold displays to our eyes at the same rate. If high enough brightness and frame-rate can be achieved, you can get CRT-like motion with BFI or other techniques. 

Finally, as far as I can tell, QDEL is another type of LED. It seems to be called NanoLED in some materials. When you see an anode and a cathode in diagrams, plus mentions of Group III-V semiconductors like InP, it's likely another type of LED.









NanoLED - Next Generation Display


Display industry is continuing its journey in the path of innovation for next generation products. Quantum Dots have become a technology platform from LCDs to OLEDs and MicroLED displays to printable...



www.dash-insights.com


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

OLED_Overrated said:


> From my research on qned, samsung display has recently wrapped up developments on qned and filed most of its patents a few months ago. The display technology for qned and qdoled is similar except that the backlight is an inorganic blue nanorod. Samsung has obviously already figured out the quantum dot color conversion layer for qned and as I mentioned, samsung is wrapping up development on qned and has seemingly figured out the hard part of their technology which was making sure the nanorods align properly when they fall and making sure the panel is uniform. We can possibly see a prototype for qned in a year or two and very likely expect qned to be mainstream before microled comes down in affordable price anytime soon. There's currently a lot of hype for qd-oled but I think it will only be a short lived transitory technology which will only last a few years or two before the production lines for qdoled are fully converted to qned. Samsung display has mentioned that qned rivals OLED and MICroled, offering superior contrast, hdr, and response times than both technologies. What if QNED ends up turning out to be superior to microled? There would be no point in trying to put so much effort in bringing the the cost of microled led consumer tvs down. However, we don't even know if QNED is the true end game display since it's still a light emitting diode technology like OLED and Microled which may not have perfect response times, motion and input lag like CRTs which many people don't bring up when talking about the future displays. There's QDEL in the far future which supposedly uses the quantum dots themselves to make a display, having the least amount of layers in a tv which means perfect viewing angles, higher brightness, lower input lag etc. I am very excited for the future of display technologies.


There was a thread on QNED last year that was eventually brought under this OLED Advancement thread. You've probably seen most/all of the background content that is there, but worth a look in case you didn't see it.








QNED - Quantum Nanorod Emitting Diode


I looked unsuccessfully for an existing thread on this technology (and here). Please reply with link if it already exists and I'll jump over there instead. Thread to discuss QNED technology and commercialization developments. It appears SDC may be advancing QNED more quickly than anticipated...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## mrtickleuk

Donny84 said:


> 2022 OLED wish list for the Sony QD-OLED >
> 
> [snip]


I think you have a typo there; that's really a wishlist for 20*4*2.


----------



## Donny84

mrtickleuk said:


> I think you have a typo there; that's really a wishlist for 20*4*2.


Yeah....no. lol 2022 & 2023 will have already checked 99% of those boxes, blade runner boy.  

Phillips latest two 2021 OLED's in the UK have already achieved flicker-free looking Max Black frame insertion and neither barely lose any brightness in doing so to boot. You'd think LG or Sony would apply the same technique, if not this year than NEXT year. lol Also, <3ms motion persistence for BFI(high) is possible given that the CX(2020) achieved <4ms, although it sacrificed a LOT of brightness to hit that & 1080p motion resolution(at least 60 nits total. unusable imo), but with Sony's latest QD OLED tech combined with it's Heatsink & evo it will have more gobs of brightness to spare and could hit just over 100nits.. I'd be cool with <4ms persistence mind you, i could be wrong but I could of sworn somebody said the C1 had weaker BFI max at <5ms on BlurBusters.

Other things like RGB-like color, higher color volume, true whites, a brighter & sharper(Sonys superior picture processing comes into mind) game mode will in fact be a thing with the A95K.

Also, the 'no' out of box black crush & BFI shadow detail crushing aren't that big of a deal because you can just correct that bs with a Proper calibration anyways. As for 13ms latency for 60hz & 5ms for 120hz, they're obviously already a thing with the LG C1/G1 which i'm sure will carry over to the C2/G2(might even have ever so slightly less lag).

And less motion blur for base blur could very well happen, even by just a little. I could of sworn my LG C9 had more motion blur(not using BFI) than my C1. They both still have the same dog sh** 300p motion resolution, but the C9 was blurring more with my testing and had crappier upscaling.


----------



## Nopa

Within the next 26 days, we'll have LG C2 & Dell Alienware AW3423DW.
Hopefully within April-June, Sony Bravia XR A95K 55"-65", Samsung QD-OLED 55"-65" & Samsung Odyssey G8QNB will all be released.


----------



## Nopa

Btw, Samsung had planned to release 76" Micro-LED around 2H last year, but the plan never materialized. At that time, I was rooting badly for Vincent Teoh to get his hands on it. Instead, they ended up releasing only the 110" variant.














Samsung’s 76-inch MicroLED TV will be its smallest yet - Good Gear Guide Australia
Samsung's huge MicroLED TVs start at 110 inches and go down to 76


----------



## Wizziwig

Releasing microLED at sizes that overlap much cheaper LCD or OLED alternatives would not be a smart move at this stage even if they were technically possible. Maybe once they are price competitive. Until then, best stick to markets where there is zero competition. I don't count projection due to the huge performance gap and viewing environment restrictions for using them.


----------



## Wizziwig

For those who don't follow the QD-OLED monitor thread, we finally have some retail unit measurements:









Dell Alienware AW3423DW Curved QD-OLED Monitor


From looking at the chart it looks like you could use an Xbox Series X @ 2560 x 1440 @ 120hz Xbox supports HDR only when the output is set to 4K (2160p) If you set the resolution at 1440p, you are stuck with 8 bit SDR




www.avsforum.com


----------



## wco81

Nopa said:


> Within the next 26 days, we'll have LG C2 & Dell Alienware AW3423DW.
> Hopefully within April-June, Sony Bravia XR A95K 55"-65", Samsung QD-OLED 55"-65" & Samsung Odyssey G8QNB will all be released.



Someone at Digital Trends got to spend 12 hours at a Sony facility with a prototype of the A95K, raved about it.

Problem is, how representative is that prototype of what they're going to achieve when they're trying to manufacture in volume?

If yields are low, price will be high and availability low. The DT article speculated $3000 for the 55 inch and $4000 for the 65 inch. That seems lower than other price speculations.

But even thees prices may represent 100% price premium over the C2 street prices sometime during the year.


----------



## helvetica bold

Have we heard from D-Nice recently? Has he seen the A95J in person? If so not sure if there’s any embargoes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stl8k

// Tandem Structures for Tablets (RGB OLED) //



> Having a two-stack structure __ as opposed to the single-stack structure currently manufactured by Samsung Display __ doubles the brightness of the OLED panel while its life span is expected to be quadrupled.
> 
> The challenge in a two-stack structure is to have the charge generation layer, or CGL, control the charge to flow in the same locations on the two emission layers, or else this will negatively affect the color purity and brightness of the red, green and blue pixels on the two layers.











Samsung Display begins two-stack tandem OLED development to win iPad order


Samsung Display has begun the development of OLED panels with a two-stack tandem structure where the panel has two emission layers (EML), TheElec has learned.The South Korean display maker is developing the panels to win the orders from Apple for its OLED iPads that are expected to launch in 2024, s




www.thelec.net


----------



## Wizziwig

Yet more evidence that Samsung went without polarizer. Do you think this will hurt them in bright store showrooms? I mean they can't compete on brightness next to LCDs and won't be able to compete on blacks next to WOLEDs. It's like Plasma TV history repeating itself. LG C1 in back. QD-OLED monitor in front. Lights hitting front of panels displaying black.


----------



## RichB

Wizziwig said:


> Yet more evidence that Samsung went without polarizer. Do you think this will hurt them in bright store showrooms? I mean they can't compete on brightness next to LCDs and won't be able to compete on blacks next to WOLEDs. It's like Plasma TV history repeating itself. LG C1 in back. QD-OLED monitor in front. Lights hitting front of panels displaying black.
> 
> View attachment 3249332


Interesting. Plasmas looked washed out in showrooms and bright rooms.

- Rich


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Yet more evidence that Samsung went without polarizer. Do you think this will hurt them in bright store showrooms? I mean they can't compete on brightness next to LCDs and won't be able to compete on blacks next to WOLEDs. It's like Plasma TV history repeating itself. LG C1 in back. QD-OLED monitor in front. Lights hitting front of panels displaying black.
> 
> View attachment 3249332


Yes, between that and the huge inter-subpixel spacing, I think it’s a near-certainty that QD-OLED has ditched the polarizer…

It’s an interesting question - how much do consumers care about how ‘black’ their TVs look when off under lighting (ie: daytime)?

A better test might be how he two TVs compare when showing some typical ‘OLED Blacks’ material under showroom lights - if WOLED appears noticeably blacker / higher-contrast than QD-OLED,that could prove to be a problem for Samsung QD-OLED (back to selling best in a darkened Magnolia Room)…

The Sony demo material should prove especially interesting this year .


----------



## Wizziwig

I saw @Callsign_Vega post this on another forum. Supposedly the pixel structure of the monitor. Vega, can you confirm the source of this image? Thanks.
Also saw in one of the reddit owner threads that this uses active cooling fans. Fine text rendering looks pretty poor due to this strange sub-pixel layout.

Got to hand it to Samsung. They never cease to surprise with their sub-pixel layouts.


----------



## Hotobu

Is there any word on when/if QD-OLED will be available in 77"?


----------



## Wizziwig

Nothing official from Samsung. Maybe never if market adoption of the smaller sizes doesn't justify making larger sizes. Samsung is also working on better display tech like QNED which may completely replaced QD-OLED before they reach larger sizes.


----------



## djsimmz

All going to come down to chip shortages this year. While I can't give any details away, my mate who works for a known brand has said that if there is a demand this year for the new OLED models, they won't be able to fulfill orders once the initial stock is gone until 2023.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Yes, between that and the huge inter-subpixel spacing, I think it’s a near-certainty that QD-OLED has ditched the polarizer…
> 
> It’s an interesting question - how much do consumers care about how ‘black’ their TVs look when off under lighting (ie: daytime)?
> 
> A better test might be how he two TVs compare when showing some typical ‘OLED Blacks’ material under showroom lights - if WOLED appears noticeably blacker / higher-contrast than QD-OLED,that could prove to be a problem for Samsung QD-OLED (back to selling best in a darkened Magnolia Room)…
> 
> The Sony demo material should prove especially interesting this year .


ACR is partially made up of surface reflections of course. I posted something from UCF a long time ago for anyone interested. The reality of that photo comparison in the off state won't help. I agree, that future lab review by experts should help to determine if the surface reflection increase due to the SDC structure has a significant impact or not on real world contrast in various scenarios: does that threshold crossover somewhere in the 50-100 lux area move around significantly, or is it not a big deal (a change from WOLED)?

UCF paper _Abstract: We systematically analyze the ambient contrast ratio (ACR) of liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays for smartphones, TVs, and public displays. The influencing factors such as display brightness, ambient light illuminance, and surface reflection are investigated in detail. At low ambient light conditions, high static contrast ratio plays a key role for ACR. As the ambient light increases, high brightness gradually takes over. These quantitative results set important guidelines for future display optimization. 
_
Edit: after posting above, I went over to the A95K thread. It's important for context to show the other photos that guy took HERE. BTW, I'm sure I'm overreacting, but I like it over here better than any of the make/model-specific threads (I rarely even go to my CX thread anymore). While I enjoy reading the back and forth and get some smiles from both sides salvos, I feel like i need a shower after leaving sometimes 😄.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Wizziwig said:


> Got to hand it to Samsung. They never cease to surprise with their sub-pixel layouts.


 . That colour pixel structure is blurry as hell. I hope someone will be able to take a proper sharp picture in the next few weeks!


----------



## stl8k

Scrapper102dAA said:


> ACR is partially made up of surface reflections of course. I posted something from UCF a long time ago for anyone interested. The reality of that photo comparison in the off state won't help. I agree, that future lab review by experts should help to determine if the surface reflection increase due to the SDC structure has a significant impact or not on real world contrast in various scenarios: does that threshold crossover somewhere in the 50-100 lux area move around significantly, or is it not a big deal (a change from WOLED)?
> 
> UCF paper _Abstract: We systematically analyze the ambient contrast ratio (ACR) of liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays for smartphones, TVs, and public displays. The influencing factors such as display brightness, ambient light illuminance, and surface reflection are investigated in detail. At low ambient light conditions, high static contrast ratio plays a key role for ACR. As the ambient light increases, high brightness gradually takes over. These quantitative results set important guidelines for future display optimization. _
> 
> Edit: after posting above, I went over to the A95K thread. It's important for context to show the other photos that guy took HERE. BTW, I'm sure I'm overreacting, but I like it over here better than any of the make/model-specific threads (I rarely even go to my CX thread anymore). While I enjoy reading the back and forth and get some smiles from both sides salvos, I feel like i need a shower after leaving sometimes 😄.


Yeah, the simplified stories (or worse, just erroneous stories) people like to tell themselves about what is a really complex technical system (to say nothing of the market dynamics) with really difficult engineering tradeoffs is too much for me.

Love seeing the receipts you're bringing to the managing ambient light issue. A perfect "Advanced" forum for me would be one where folks brought receipts or if they work/have worked in the industry or have a great source in the industry, saying "trust me on this one".


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

stl8k said:


> Yeah, the simplified stories (or worse, just erroneous stories) people like to tell themselves about what is a really complex technical system (to say nothing of the market dynamics) with really difficult engineering tradeoffs is too much for me.
> 
> Love seeing the receipts you're bringing to the managing ambient light issue. A perfect "Advanced" forum for me would be one where folks brought receipts or if they work/have worked in the industry or have a great source in the industry, saying "trust me on this one".


Yes, having sources for discussion on this thread is refreshing as is the high level of thought, yet being accessible (not going over my head too often at least!). I've had times when I couldn't provide a source i had seen/read, since it was not mine to provide, as probably many others have as well. But I try to stick to public domain info here. Good stuff - keeps the brain lubricated!


----------



## Jin-X

mrtickleuk said:


> . That colour pixel structure is blurry as hell. I hope someone will be able to take a proper sharp picture in the next few weeks!


CTM Audi has one arriving on 3/9, he’s an ISF calibrator (level 3 I believe). He will be posting info on the Alienware thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 59LIHP

stl8k said:


> // Tandem Structures for Tablets (RGB OLED) //
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Display begins two-stack tandem OLED development to win iPad order
> 
> 
> Samsung Display has begun the development of OLED panels with a two-stack tandem structure where the panel has two emission layers (EML), TheElec has learned.The South Korean display maker is developing the panels to win the orders from Apple for its OLED iPads that are expected to launch in 2024, s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net


China's BOE is planning to mass-produce a 'two-stack tandem' OLED in which the light emitting layer is stacked in two layers



> In the two-stack tandem, the screen brightness can be doubled and the lifespan can be increased up to 4 times compared to the 'single stack' method in which the light emitting layer is one layer. As it became known that Apple plans to apply two-stack tandem OLED to its first OLED iPad, expected around 2024, two-stack tandem has recently emerged as a concern in the industry. So far, LG Display's automotive display is the only product group that applies two-stack tandem to mass-produced OLED. If BOE mass-produces two-stack tandem OLED for smartphones in the second half of the year, it will be the first in the industry.











BOE도 '투스택 탠덤 OLED' 기웃...하반기 스마트폰용 양산계획


중국 BOE가 발광층을 2개층으로 쌓는 '투 스택 탠덤' OLED 양산을 계획하고 있다. 투 스택 탠덤이 소비전력을 30%가량 줄일 수 있어 중국 스마트폰 업체도 관심을 보이고 있다. BOE 최종 목적은 애플 IT 제품용 OLED 납품에 필요한 기술 축적이다.8일 업계에 따르면 BOE는 '투 스택 탠덤'(Two Stack Tandem) 구조 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 패널을 하반기 스마트폰용으로 양산한다는 계획을 가진 것으로 파악됐다.투 스택 탠덤은 발광층이 1개층인 '싱글 스택'(Sing




www.thelec.kr


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I saw @Callsign_Vega post this on another forum. Supposedly the pixel structure of the monitor. Vega, can you confirm the source of this image? Thanks.
> Also saw in one of the reddit owner threads that this uses active cooling fans. Fine text rendering looks pretty poor due to this strange sub-pixel layout.
> 
> Got to hand it to Samsung. They never cease to surprise with their sub-pixel layouts.
> 
> View attachment 3249733
> 
> 
> View attachment 3249736


Isn’t that reminiscent of CRT subpixel layout?

The fact that the green and red subpixels are similar-sized strongly suggest use of a green OLED emission layer in the OLED stack.

Has anyone made a comparison of the differences between monitor subpixels and TV subpixels in terms of relative size?


----------



## Wizziwig

Funny, I thought the same thing when I first saw it. Looked like a traditional CRT shadowmask due to the slight overlap of the colors. Maybe Samsung is going retro. 

While the aperture ratio is much higher, the overall pattern is similar. Triad of red/blue/green with red/green being about equal and blue being the smallest. Here is the 65" TV again for comparison next to rescaled monitor.


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> Isn’t that reminiscent of CRT subpixel layout?
> 
> The fact that the green and red subpixels are similar-sized strongly suggest use of a green OLED emission layer in the OLED stack.
> 
> Has anyone made a comparison of the differences between monitor subpixels and TV subpixels in terms of relative size?


I don't think it necessarily indicates a green layer, because the efficiency of the exact quantum dots used are unknown.


----------



## fafrd

chris7191 said:


> I don't think it necessarily indicates a green layer, because the efficiency of the exact quantum dots used are unknown.


Ah, but the relative power of green versus red for Rec.2020 whitepoint is well-known: green needs to have about 273% the strength of red.

Since the stimulus for both red and green QDs is the same blue OLED layers (assuming no other source of green photons), either the conversion efficiency of the green QDCC is ~2.73 times better than that of the red QDCC or there must be an additional source of green photons than the green QDCC alone.

Nanosys has published quite a lot about the conversion efficiency of their red and green QDCC, so I don’t think it’s correct to characterize those numbers utterly ‘unknown.’


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Funny, I thought the same thing when I first saw it. Looked like a traditional CRT shadowmask due to the slight overlap of the colors. Maybe Samsung is going retro.
> 
> While the aperture ratio is much higher, the overall pattern is similar. Trident of red/blue/green with red/green being about equal and blue being the smallest. Here is the 65" TV again for comparison next to rescaled monitor.
> 
> View attachment 3250404


Thanks. So similar pattern but far lower inter-subpixel spacing on the QD-OLED monitor…

Is it conceivable that the QD-OLED monitors still have a polorizer?

Seems like either the monitor should have worse reflected light than the TV or it should have reduced brightness due to use of a polarizer…


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Thanks. So similar pattern but far lower inter-subpixel spacing on the QD-OLED monitor…
> 
> Is it conceivable that the QD-OLED monitors still have a polorizer?
> 
> Seems like either the monitor should have worse reflected light than the TV or it should have reduced brightness due to use of a polarizer…


Given how poorly it performs with light directly in front of the panel, it sure doesn't look like there is a polarizer but I'm basing that on other displays I've seen without polarizers. Also with this design, a polarizer would need to be under the qdcc layer and I'm not sure if that's economically or technically viable. Since this is the first consumer display of its type, it's possible there's additional issues we're overlooking. For example, the diffuser placed over the blue sub-pixel may be scattering external light in a way that raises apparent black level. Could also be that strong external light is activating the quantum dot layer causing it to glow slightly.


----------



## JasonHa

Wizziwig said:


> Could also be that strong external light is activating the quantum dot layer causing it to glow slightly.


That's possible. I'd assume that would give a yellowish tinge?


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> Ah, but the relative power of green versus red for Rec.2020 whitepoint is well-known: green needs to have about 273% the strength of red.
> 
> Since the stimulus for both red and green QDs is the same blue OLED layers (assuming no other source of green photons), either the conversion efficiency of the green QDCC is ~2.73 times better than that of the red QDCC or there must be an additional source of green photons than the green QDCC alone.
> 
> Nanosys has published quite a lot about the conversion efficiency of their red and green QDCC, so I don’t think it’s correct to characterize those numbers utterly ‘unknown.’


The overall efficiency of the conversion layer as printed on the panel is probably considered a trade secret. The Nanosys PDFs indicate they can control this via the optical density of quantum dots in a film or printed layer. None of their materials show QD-OLED or their QDCC example structures having a green source either. There's a lot of incentive to not require one, so I am going to go with what all the SDI, Sony, and Nanosys marketing material show for now and assume there is only a blue light source.


----------



## chris7191

Wizziwig said:


> Given how poorly it performs with light directly in front of the panel, it sure doesn't look like there is a polarizer but I'm basing that on other displays I've seen without polarizers. Also with this design, a polarizer would need to be under the qdcc layer and I'm not sure if that's economically or technically viable. Since this is the first consumer display of its type, it's possible there's additional issues we're overlooking. For example, the diffuser placed over the blue sub-pixel may be scattering external light in a way that raises apparent black level. Could also be that strong external light is activating the quantum dot layer causing it to glow slightly.


The Nanosys videos on QDCC briefly touch on the difficulties of a polarizer under the QDCC layer, so I would assume they are not doing that until QDCC appears in an LCD.


----------



## Wizziwig

JasonHa said:


> That's possible. I'd assume that would give a yellowish tinge?


That's what I would expect but looks more purple to me at the start of this video until he turns off the lights.


----------



## chris7191

Wizziwig said:


> That's what I would expect but looks more purple to me at the start of this video until he turns off the lights.


There could be a filter of some sort on there maybe? A Nanosys video I skimmed through mentioned a yellow film possibly being needed to avoid this.


----------



## Wizziwig

Based on the HDTVtest A95 teaser, these screens do have some sort of AR coating which may be tinted. It just seems to be for external reflections and doesn't do much for internal reflections causing the lifted blacks. You're seeing light reflecting off the inside of the panel, not the glass surface.

Found a few more pixel structure photos on reddit:


----------



## JasonHa

chris7191 said:


> The Nanosys PDFs indicate they can control this via the optical density of quantum dots in a film or printed layer.


The question is how thick the layer would have to be and does that match their statements elsewhere on the max thickness that is practical in a TV. There are limits on these adjustments.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Wizziwig said:


> Found a few more pixel structure photos on reddit:


Ta for passing them on.

Still baffled at those reddit users taking such terrible pictures. The world is waiting, and they come up with trash quality just so that they can boast about being first? 

These were taken with a *standard iPhone* through a loupe, of a C9 years ago. Nothing special at all. This is the sort of quality which is *simple *to do.


----------



## Jin-X

mrtickleuk said:


> Ta for passing them on.
> 
> Still baffled at those reddit users taking such terrible pictures. The world is waiting, and they come up with trash quality just so that they can boast about being first?
> 
> These were taken with a standard iPhone through a loupe, of a C9 years ago. Nothing special at all. This is the sort of quality which is simple to do.
> 
> View attachment 3250733
> 
> 
> View attachment 3250734


I mean they are taking a close up pic with their phone, not sure what else can you expect. I had to google what a loupe is, why would most people have one in their home?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stl8k

mrtickleuk said:


> Ta for passing them on.
> 
> Still baffled at those reddit users taking such terrible pictures. The world is waiting, and they come up with trash quality just so that they can boast about being first?
> 
> These were taken with a standard iPhone through a loupe, of a C9 years ago. Nothing special at all. This is the sort of quality which is simple to do.
> 
> View attachment 3250733
> 
> 
> View attachment 3250734


Those are really high quality and would suffice for back of the envelope area and spacing calcs.

I saw exact diagrams of the LGD WOLED pixel structure for the first time recently in patents from them.














US20220037440A1 - Pixel and display device including the same - Google Patents


A pixel comprises a pixel circuit connected to gate and data lines, and a light emitting diode having a first electrode connected to the pixel circuit, wherein the pixel circuit may include a driving thin film transistor connected to the first electrode of the light emitting diode, a first...



patents.google.com





Looks to be the R BW G config found on the 8K panels that go into the LGE Z series.


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> Based on the HDTVtest A95 teaser, these screens do have some sort of AR coating which may be tinted. It just seems to be for external reflections and doesn't do much for internal reflections causing the lifted blacks. You're seeing light reflecting off the inside of the panel, not the glass surface.
> 
> Found a few more pixel structure photos on reddit:
> 
> View attachment 3250673
> 
> 
> View attachment 3250675
> 
> 
> View attachment 3250674


I saw a recent patent from Samsung Electronics on a QD OLED with 2 separate optical layers. (Interestingly for a bottom emission config.)






US20220037417A1 - Display apparatus - Google Patents


A display apparatus includes an organic light-emitting device (OLED) substrate, a color control layer; a first optical layer to which the generated light of the organic light-emitting substrate is incident and from which wavelength range light is provided to the color control layer; and a second...



patents.google.com





It generally shows how the layers effect incident light.


----------



## 8mile13

Jin-X said:


> I mean they are taking a close up pic with their phone, not sure what else can you expect. I had to google what a loupe is, why would most people have one in their home?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Lots of people have a loupe in their homes because there is always stuff you can not see/or read with your bare eyes. There are also plenty folks with a camera with macro abilities.


----------



## Jin-X

8mile13 said:


> Lots of people have a loupe in their homes because there is always stuff you can not see/or read with your bare eyes. There are also plenty folks with a camera with macro abilities.


Never seen one in person, nor do I have a camera with that ability unless it's a feature on my phone that I'm not aware of. Don't know why one would expect anything different than the pictures we have seen as that's what most people can do or would know to do.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> Never seen one in person, nor do I have a camera with that ability unless it's a feature on my phone that I'm not aware of. Don't know why one would expect anything different than the pictures we have seen as that's what most people can do or would know to do.


A 10x loupe costs $25 on Amazon: Amazon.com: Loupe by Bausch & Lomb, 10x Watchmaker Loupe, Sight Savers, Black : Health & Household

Anyone concerned about dead subpixels is crazy not to own one of these.

Hold your smartphone camera with the lens pressed against the loupe and you have a cheap and easy way to take sharp close-up shots like those above… (at most, you might need a 3rd hand to press the button since the jury-rigged zoom camera needs to be held steady to avoid motion/blurring),


----------



## mrtickleuk

8mile13 said:


> Lots of people have a loupe in their homes because there is always stuff you can not see/or read with your bare eyes. There are also plenty folks with a camera with macro abilities.


Indeed, thanks. My point was, they should make a basic effort. If you're going to proudly world-first post macro closeup pics, the whole world is waiting, those blurry pictures are just embarrassingly bad.

ps. You don't _need _a loupe to take a sharp picture either, it just helps. Using a loupe wasn't at all the main thrust of my post. Taking basic care was.


----------



## stl8k

mrtickleuk said:


> Indeed, thanks. My point was, they should make a basic effort. If you're going to proudly world-first post macro closeup pics, the whole world is waiting, those blurry pictures are just embarrassingly bad.
> 
> ps. You don't _need _a loupe to take a sharp picture either, it just helps. Using a loupe wasn't at all the main thrust of my post. Taking basic care was.


I have some empathy—I failed to quickly (5-10 minutes of trial and error) get a macro shot of my Macbook Pro's subpixels with my Pixel 6 Pro's automatic settings.


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> Ah, but the relative power of green versus red for Rec.2020 whitepoint is well-known: green needs to have about 273% the strength of red.
> 
> Since the stimulus for both red and green QDs is the same blue OLED layers (assuming no other source of green photons), either the conversion efficiency of the green QDCC is ~2.73 times better than that of the red QDCC or there must be an additional source of green photons than the green QDCC alone.
> 
> Nanosys has published quite a lot about the conversion efficiency of their red and green QDCC, so I don’t think it’s correct to characterize those numbers utterly ‘unknown.’


Another option is that the subpixel structure is suboptimal.
But I do agree that all the options seem very strange


----------



## aron7awol

mrtickleuk said:


> Indeed, thanks. My point was, they should make a basic effort. If you're going to proudly world-first post macro closeup pics, the whole world is waiting, those blurry pictures are just embarrassingly bad.
> 
> ps. You don't _need _a loupe to take a sharp picture either, it just helps. Using a loupe wasn't at all the main thrust of my post. Taking basic care was.


He said on Reddit that the photos were of the pixel layout under a microscope, so I think in this case, the effort was there, whether or not the results met your standards.


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> Another option is that the subpixel structure is suboptimal.
> But I do agree that all the options seem very strange


Yes, if they have green output to spare, they could afford to make the green pixel smaller than it otherwise should be (though this translates to giving up some potential peak brightness).

Of course, the only easiest way to have green output to spare is to boost green output with a green OLED layer in the stack…

Determining whether the OLED stack is blue-only or also has a green layer is not straightforward - the only solution I’ve thought of involves aging subpixels to the point they are degrading.

If the green subpixel has a slower aging rate heading towards a higher asymptote than the blue or red subpixels, that would be pretty strong evidence of a second non-QDCC source of green photons…

Problem is, an aging test like that would require over a year (Rtings-like).


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> A 10x loupe costs $25 on Amazon: Amazon.com: Loupe by Bausch & Lomb, 10x Watchmaker Loupe, Sight Savers, Black : Health & Household
> 
> Anyone concerned about dead subpixels is crazy not to own one of these.
> 
> Hold your smartphone camera with the lens pressed against the loupe and you have a cheap and easy way to take sharp close-up shots like those above… (at most, you might need a 3rd hand to press the button since the jury-rigged zoom camera needs to be held steady to avoid motion/blurring),


I guess I really am in the right place here! I had a loupe in my pocket for years based on my job (not display related) and my dad had one in his pocket for 30+ years. Mine is used at home now fairly regularly for this-n-that. Personal preference: pay the extra for a triplet lens system.


----------



## jl4069

fafrd said:


> Yes, if they have green output to spare, they could afford to make the green pixel smaller than it otherwise should be (though this translates to giving up some potential peak brightness).
> 
> Of course, the only easiest way to have green output to spare is to boost green output with a green OLED layer in the stack…
> 
> Determining whether the OLED stack is blue-only or also has a green layer is not straightforward - the only solution I’ve thought of involves aging subpixels to the point they are degrading.
> 
> If the green subpixel has a slower aging rate heading towards a higher asymptote than the blue or red subpixels, that would be pretty strong evidence of a second non-QDCC source of green photons…
> 
> Problem is, an aging test like that would require over a year (Rtings-like).


Possibly doing a very through comparison of a qd-oled and a sony oled reference monitor mgiht reveal certain weaknesses in the qd-oled stack; and even potentially weaknesses in the reference Sony. j


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

fafrd said:


> Yes, if they have green output to spare, they could afford to make the green pixel smaller than it otherwise should be (though this translates to giving up some potential peak brightness).
> 
> Of course, the only easiest way to have green output to spare is to boost green output with a green OLED layer in the stack…


Before jumping to the conspiracy theory that there is a green OLED layer it would be logical to first rule out the possibility that the green QDCC layer is not able tp provide the required green output given a similar size blue OLED sub pixel. It is color conversion not color filtering after all.


----------



## aron7awol

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Before jumping to the conspiracy theory that there is a green OLED layer it would be logical to first rule out the possibility that the green QDCC layer is not able tp provide the required green output given a similar size blue OLED sub pixel. It is color conversion not color filtering after all.


I totally agree, but I do have to admit it is at least somewhat strange that Samsung appears to be trying not to say blue OLED anywhere.

I noted previously that in the Nanosys video the guy stopped/corrected himself multiple times to make sure he said "blue self-emitting layer" instead of "blue OLED layer", and the marketing material floating around avoids it as well for whatever reason, while calling it multiple other things. They even call it "White OLED layer" for the conventional OLED, but then call it "Blue Emitting Layer" for their QD-OLED.

It certainly could be nothing but a strange coincidence, but it really is pretty odd. If it's multiple blue layers and one green layer, I could see them justifying calling it all of the terms they have used, but wanting to stop short of specifically calling it "Blue OLED", which some would consider inaccurate.

Then again, they also seem to just be avoiding calling it OLED in a lot of places as well, maybe in an effort to differentiate, calling it QD Display instead. It's interesting, if nothing else!


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

Samsung has spent the last 8+ years telling the world that OLED is bad so of course they are trying to avoid using the term "OLED".


----------



## JasonHa

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Before jumping to the conspiracy theory that there is a green OLED layer it would be logical to first rule out the possibility that the green QDCC layer is not able tp provide the required green output given a similar size blue OLED sub pixel. It is color conversion not color filtering after all.


It's not a conspiracy theory. The only person I've seen directly ask a Samsung representative is Bob O'Brien at Display Supply Chain Consultants (in an article he wrote). The rep said they didn't know and would get back to him. Bob hasn't publicly stated if he got an answer.

Also, we've discussed some of the documents from Nanosys in this thread. Based on their documents, see if you can get the required output from the QDCC layer.


----------



## 59LIHP

BOE and Honor in talks to apply 2-stack tandem OLED in smartphones








BOE and Honor in talks to apply 2-stack tandem OLED in smartphones


Chinese display giant BOE was in talks with smartphone brand Honor to manufacture a two-stack tandem OLED panel to apply to a smartphone planned for later this year, TheElec has learned.The pair believe that the use of the technology, where the OLED panel has two emission layers, can reduce the powe




www.thelec.net


----------



## chris7191

JasonHa said:


> It's not a conspiracy theory. The only person I've seen directly ask a Samsung representative is Bob O'Brien at Display Supply Chain Consultants (in an article he wrote). The rep said they didn't know and would get back to him. Bob hasn't publicly stated if he got an answer.
> 
> Also, we've discussed some of the documents from Nanosys in this thread. Based on their documents, see if you can get the required output from the QDCC layer.


Why would Nanosys try to hide that there is a green layer if there was one? Not one graphic they have made shows it. I'm not saying there cannot be one, but LG specifically shows their W is made from B+Y. It seems strange to be evasive about it.


----------



## JasonHa

chris7191 said:


> Why would Nanosys try to hide that there is a green layer if there was one? Not one graphic they have made shows it. I'm not saying there cannot be one, but LG specifically shows their W is made from B+Y. It seems strange to be evasive about it.


The TVs are made by Samsung, not Nanosys. This article from 2021 probably started the speculation, showing a green OLED layer. It might have been speculation, but so far I've seen no direct denial from Samsung.


----------



## Fabio Zanellato

A little bit of results. It's in Italian…









Sony 65A95K QD-OLED prime misure


In occasione della presentazione delle nuove linee di TV Sony che arriveranno sul mercato a partire dalle prossime settimane, in collaborazione con Hardware Upgrade abbiamo effettuato i primi test su un campione di pre-serie del Sony 65A95K con nuovo pannello QD-OLED



www.avmagazine.it


----------



## Jin-X

Fabio Zanellato said:


> A little bit of results. It's in Italian…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sony 65A95K QD-OLED prime misure
> 
> 
> In occasione della presentazione delle nuove linee di TV Sony che arriveranno sul mercato a partire dalle prossime settimane, in collaborazione con Hardware Upgrade abbiamo effettuato i primi test su un campione di pre-serie del Sony 65A95K con nuovo pannello QD-OLED
> 
> 
> 
> www.avmagazine.it


Great find. So roughly from the Google translation, they did a quick 2pt calibration to D65 and got 900 nits for 10% window, 500 nits for 25% and 200 for full field.

They also have spectral charts for red, green and blue where they overlay WOLED spd into the QD-OLED one to compare them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chris7191

JasonHa said:


> The TVs are made by Samsung, not Nanosys. This article from 2021 probably started the speculation, showing a green OLED layer. It might have been speculation, but so far I've seen no direct denial from Samsung.


Yes, but the manufacturer of the QDs would have to know what light is going to excite it. It's a collaborative effort I am sure.


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> The TVs are made by Samsung, not Nanosys. This article from 2021 probably started the speculation, showing a green OLED layer. It might have been speculation, but so far I've seen no direct denial from Samsung.


That article references the structure from the UBI research article which was the original source of the QD-COLED structure. If you search with the thread for ‘UBI’ you can find a link to that first source article.

UBI says nothing about the modified Cyan OLED stack they depict in that article, though that was written following basically every analysts and enthusiasts such as myself questioning whether QD-BOLED could succeed with Florescent-blue only.

As far as any talk of conspiracy theories, the analysis is exceedingly simple:

A 4-layer QD-BOLED structure would have ~double the blue strength of WOLED.

With only red and green QDCC, neither red nor green can be stronger than blue normalized for subpixel area (since QDCC cannot be more than 100% efficient and in fact is likely far below that based on all published results).

So now you look at the relative red, green, and blue strength needed to deliver the BT.2020 whitepoint and see that the green contribution is 17.3 times stronger than the blue contribution (0.797 versus 0.046), meaning that the green subpixel would need to be 17.3 times larger than the blue subpixel to deliver BT.2020 white at an even aging rate, even if the green QDCC is 100% efficient.

There are some other factors involved but the bottom line is that with a blue-only OLED structure, the green subpixel of QD-BOLED would need to be significantly larger than the blue subpixel (if you want green to age at the same rate as blue when displaying white).

A single green phosphorescent OLED layer is ~10 times more efficient that a single blue florescent OLED layer, so replacing one of the 4 blue florescent layers with a single green phosphorescent layer is pretty much the only way to close that gap and get the green subpixel size down closer to the blue subpixel size.

In terms of why Samsung may be cagey on this subject, I think it really doesn’t matter much. What matters is what performance they can deliver (including lifetime performance) and at what fundamental cost (assuming fully-ramped yields).

A 4-layer OLED stack and the added manufacturing layers needed for a front-emission backplane (in addition to QDCC + conventional color filters) means florescent-blue-based QD-OLED is doomed to be intrinsically more expensive than WOLED.

But if Samsung can deliver the performance they have suggested and a a premium over WOLED that can drop from the 100%+ level where it is this first year while yields are ramping closer to 10-20% once they’ve gotten all their manufacturing ducks in a row ~1 year from now, they’ll have a winner on their hand.

Why should we care whether the OLED layer is pure blue or has a green phosphorescent layer quietly snuck in?

QNED will be true blue, and Samsung has already invested heavily in the blue-driven QD-OLED ‘story’ for several years now.

It’s a pretty simple-to-understand and compelling story, so who can blame them for wanting to fudgify a bit and allow their marketing materials as well as what’s getting reported to stick to the ‘pure blue’ story even if they had to compromise and sneak another source if green photons into the stack?

Sony’s QD-OLED pricing is coming in a lot lower than I expected, and my fear is that this means it will be limited to very low volumes as a marketing investment this first year while yields ramp.

Samsung Display is not crazy enough to sell at a price below intrinsic cost (assuming high yields) but the risk is that they have priced at a level they can only support with WOLED-like yield levels and the have optimistically assumed they can achieve in their first year what took LGD over 5 years to achieve.

So the risk I’m most concerned about is that QD-OLED TV remains a low-volume niche product for a much longer period that Samsung Display has hoped (and likely planned for).


----------



## Wizziwig

Jin-X said:


> Great find. So roughly from the Google translation, they did a quick 2pt calibration to D65 and got 900 nits for 10% window, 500 nits for 25% and 200 for full field.
> 
> They also have spectral charts for red, green and blue where they overlay WOLED spd into the QD-OLED one to compare them.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Interesting that their 65" sub-pixel photo looks a lot closer to the Dell monitor than to the previously leaked 65" QD-OLED photo. See my recent post for reference.
The pixel aperture seems much improved.


----------



## fafrd

This is a bit old now, but it shows the ‘replace an OLED polarizer wig color filters’ technology was already being widely-adopted in 2021: UBI: OLED makers are developing color filters as replacement for polarizers in foldable OLEDs | OLED-Info










~23% brightness gain compared to a polarizer-based design (at least on flexible OLEDs).

Note the inter-subpixel distances are larger at the color filter level than they are at the OLED emitter level (so the actual subpixel sizes in QD-OLED may be significantly larger than the RGB color filter areas we see (which translates to higher output levels relative to WOLED as well as increased lifetime).

I think it’s pretty much a done deal that this is what Samsung has done with QD-OLED and what are are looking at is likely to be masking much larger subpixels below the masking layer…


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

JasonHa said:


> It's not a conspiracy theory. The only person I've seen directly ask a Samsung representative is Bob O'Brien at Display Supply Chain Consultants (in an article he wrote). The rep said they didn't know and would get back to him. Bob hasn't publicly stated if he got an answer.
> 
> Also, we've discussed some of the documents from Nanosys in this thread. Based on their documents, see if you can get the required output from the QDCC layer.


You are describing classic conspiracy theory thinking. What does Samsung have to gain by lying? If they had both a green and a blue OLED layer, what would be the downside of showing that in their marketing collateral? Are the QD Display products not going to sell because there is a green OLED? Do you think that Samsung believes that folks, including competitors, are not going to take apart the QD Display product and find green OLED if it exists in the product?

Really?


----------



## ImperatorBellus

MicroLED tv's will be released this year but the smallest will be 89 inches and they will be way too much money.

TV Lineup: What's New in 2022

QD-OLED and more MiniLED tv's to be released this year, I don't expect a big jump in any display technology for a long time after this. In 2023 I think the only new thing will be possibly smaller 55-75 inch MicroLED tv's.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> Great find. So roughly from the Google translation, they did a quick 2pt calibration to D65 and got 900 nits for 10% window, 500 nits for 25% and 200 for full field.
> 
> They also have spectral charts for red, green and blue where they overlay WOLED spd into the QD-OLED one to compare them.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk












Blue an almost perfect match.

Red the most different - QD-OLED clearly ‘sharper/narrower’ than WOLED.

Green somewhere in between - less similar than blue but less different than red.

This is exactly what I’d expect from a mixture of pure/narrow green photons emitted by green QDCF and more variable green photons emitted by a green phosphorescent OLED layer.

Certainly not proof, but certainly also not a contrary indication of any kind…


----------



## 8mile13

Actually expectation is that in 2025 Samsung QNED will be seen at consumer electronics shows. It looks like Samsung drops QD OLED at that point unless it sells well.*

*This comment is moved from a different thread and is totaly out of context now. Wish they did not do that. Hope mods delete it..


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

Good thing we can all read what the article actually says.

_The difference in the green component is the most representative one: the green emission spectrum of the QD-OLED is decidedly narrower than that of the traditional OLED but is still centered in the same portion of frequencies, at the turn of 535 nanometers: the green of the QD-OLED is strikingly close to the REC BT.2020 space reference.

Equally striking is the difference in the emission spectrum of the red component which is not only narrower (although not by much) than that of the traditional OLED but is also decidedly shifted towards the infrared limit, with the peak centered at a little more. 640 nanometers, again much closer to the apex of the REC BT.2020 space.

The result is gamut coverage that even goes up to 90% of the REC BT.2020._


----------



## fafrd

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> You are describing classic conspiracy theory thinking. What does Samsung have to gain by lying? If they had both a green and a blue OLED layer, what would be the downside of showing that in their marketing collateral? Are the QD Display products not going to sell because there is a green OLED? Do you think that Samsung believes that folks, including competitors, are not going to take apart the QD Display product and find green OLED if it exists in the product?
> 
> Really?


Every photon being generated by a quantum dot is being excited by blue light.

Samsung is not ‘lying’ - they are merely refusing to clearly answer the question about wether green photons are exclusively emitted y quantum dots or whether the structure contains any other type of emitter also emitting green photons.

And as far as Samsung’s motivation, KISS comes to mind. If you have a simple, compelling story that has started to be understood by the world at large, what do you possibly have to gain by trying to explain what engineering trade-offs from the ‘pure’ / simple theoretical concept which was so easy to explain were needed to actually deliver a product in the real world?


----------



## JasonHa

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> You are describing classic conspiracy theory thinking. What does Samsung have to gain by lying? If they had both a green and a blue OLED layer, what would be the downside of showing that in their marketing collateral?


I have no idea if green OLEDs are involved. What I'm puzzled about is the physics question, which you haven't even attempted to address. Please explain how the TV performs given the sub-pixel pattern we see and a source of only blue photons. 

Do you think DSCC is a conspiracy organization?


----------



## chris7191

Uh, by lowering the efficiency / depth of the red QDCC deposited thereby matching the perceived power spectral density of the green and blue elements. Just a guess. 

I could easily posit the same question to you and ask for evidence there is a green source given the measured spectrum. I would expect there to be some contamination if there is.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> Actually expectation is that in 2025 Samsung QNED will be seen at consumer electronics shows. It looks like Samsung drops QD OLED at that point unless it sells well.


If there is any chance that QNED is far enough along to be demonstrated to consumers at CES 2025, that would almost certainly mean working prototypes by at least a year before that and I’d be very surprised to see Samsung invest in any additional fab conversions to QD-OLED beforehand.

From all the pre-release reports, it sounds as though QD-OLED represents a true step forward on display state-of-the art, but the real question is how quickly it can be produced at costs approaching no more than a modest premium over WOLED (meaning no more than 50%, preferably closer to 20%).

If it’s going to take Samsung Display more than three yard to sell millions of QD-OLED panels at 120% to 150% the price of correspondingly-sized WOLED TV panels, QD-OLED TV may be stuck in a MicroLED-like niche production limbo until QNED is ready for prime-time…

The one QD-OLED fab Samsung has converted can no doubt be kept full selling gaming monitors and whatever volume of aspirational niche TVs Sony, eventually Panasonic and possibly even Bang & Olsen may be interested in selling…

The timing of Samsung Electronic’s decision to launch QD-OLED TVs will the most telling indicator of where this QD-OLED initiative is headed over the next few years…


----------



## fafrd

chris7191 said:


> Uh, by lowering the efficiency / depth of the red QDCC deposited thereby matching the perceived power spectral density of the green and blue elements. Just a guess.
> 
> I could easily posit the same question to you and ask for evidence there is a green source given the measured spectrum. [b{I would expect there to be some contamination if there is.[/b]


I’m not sure what you are talking about.

there are blue photons being emitted by a blue OLED layer (several blue OLED layers in fact).

Many/most of those blue photons are converted to red photons by red QDCC and green photons by green QDCC.

Since not all blue photons are converted by QDCC, conventional color filters are required to block residual blue photons from both red and green subpixels.

That same green color filter over a green subpixel will also pass any green photons emitted by any green OLED layer, so no ‘contamination’ there.

The conventional red color filter used to block remaining blue photons from the red subpixel can also block any green photons at no added cost.

So I suppose the ‘contamination’ you may be concerned about is that the blue diffuser needed for a true-blue-only QD-BOlLED eould need to be swapped out for a blue-passing (red-and-geeen-blocking) conventional color filter) in the case of a QD-COLED, right?


----------



## Wizziwig

Much better version of the sub-pixel structure from the Italian review (thanks @59LIHP):



















Source Link.


----------



## JasonHa

Based on that picture, I estimate the green sub-pixel is about 85% larger than the blue one. (100% would mean twice as large).


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

JasonHa said:


> I have no idea if green OLEDs are involved. What I'm puzzled about is the physics question, which you haven't even attempted to address. Please explain how the TV performs given the sub-pixel pattern we see and a source of only blue photons.
> 
> Do you think DSCC is a conspiracy organization?


There is no physics question, it is perhaps an engineering question?

You are puzzled about how Samsung engineered their QD Display technology and won't accept or perhaps understand Samsung's explanation. You are creating a theory that there must be green OLED that Samsung is not telling consumers about.

I don't have to address or explain anything, I accept Samsung's marketing collateral!


----------



## JasonHa

Here we don't blindly accept marketing over science. For now, I consider it an interesting mystery. You clearly aren't interested, which is fine. It is not a conspiracy. Just a legitimate question.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

BTW, perhaps all you folks already know this, but I did not. The (initial) inkjet QD supplier is JSR out of Japan. I did a quick search for some spectra data and came up empty. Maybe someone else could take a look if it would be helpful for the discussion. 59LIHP posted this last year:








삼성디스플레이, QD 양산 임박…핵심소재, 日 JSR 공급


- JSR, 레드·그린 QD 잉크 납품…삼성SDI·솔루스첨단소재도 준비[디지털데일리 김도현 기자] 삼성디스플레이의 퀀텀닷(QD)디스플레이 양산 시점이 다가오고 있다. 향후 삼성그룹 TV 및 중대형 패널 사업 성패를 가를 제품으로 꼽힌다. 가장 큰 특징은 ‘잉크젯’ 공정을 도입하는 부분이다. 해당 단계 필수 소재는 일본 ..



www.ddaily.co.kr


----------



## OLED_Overrated

ImperatorBellus said:


> MicroLED tv's will be released this year but the smallest will be 89 inches and they will be way too much money.
> 
> TV Lineup: What's New in 2022
> 
> QD-OLED and more MiniLED tv's to be released this year, I don't expect a big jump in any display technology for a long time after this. In 2023 I think the only new thing will be possibly smaller 55-75 inch MicroLED tv's.


 Very unlikely that we will see 55-75 microled next year. Microled tvs get even more expensive to manufacture as you shrink the pixels. It's why samsung decided not to sell 77 inch microled tv at the last moment. As much as people hype microled tv, I don't think we will see affordable microled tvs in small sizes any time soon- maybe in 10 years as stated by Nanosys ceo. On the other hand, we can possibly see QNED around 2025. The latest report from elec, indicates that qned development is wrapping up. Samsung display has already figured out the quantum dot color conversion layer for qd oled which would theoretically work the same way for qned. We could possibly see a prototype within a year or two. QNED has a lot of potential. It will not be exorbitantly expensive like microled when it first sells in the market, and it shares the same self emissive properties of oled while being inorganic. QNED's brightness and color purity could get very close to microled that there may be no point of trying to bring the cost of microled down soon.


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

Scrapper102dAA said:


> BTW, perhaps all you folks already know this, but I did not. The (initial) inkjet QD supplier is JSR out of Japan. I did a quick search for some spectra data and came up empty. Maybe someone else could take a look if it would be helpful for the discussion. 59LIHP posted this last year:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 삼성디스플레이, QD 양산 임박…핵심소재, 日 JSR 공급
> 
> 
> - JSR, 레드·그린 QD 잉크 납품…삼성SDI·솔루스첨단소재도 준비[디지털데일리 김도현 기자] 삼성디스플레이의 퀀텀닷(QD)디스플레이 양산 시점이 다가오고 있다. 향후 삼성그룹 TV 및 중대형 패널 사업 성패를 가를 제품으로 꼽힌다. 가장 큰 특징은 ‘잉크젯’ 공정을 도입하는 부분이다. 해당 단계 필수 소재는 일본 ..
> 
> 
> 
> www.ddaily.co.kr


Looks consistent. Blue emissive layer with Red and Green QDCC printed on top.


----------



## fafrd

“JasonHa” said:


> *Based on that picture, I estimate the green sub-pixel is about 85% larger than the blue one. *(100% would mean twice as large).





Wizziwig said:


> Much better version of the *sub-pixel structure *from the Italian review (thanks @59LIHP):
> 
> View attachment 3251829


I think we need to start being careful with terminology.

What we are looking at is the openings in the black masking layer - the actual OLED subpixel aspect ratio of green can easily be much larger than the opening we see (and blue and red can be a bit bigger).

Comparing WOLEDs subpixel PAR against these openings on the masking layer is highly likely to not be an apples-to-apples comparison.

View attachment 3251830


Source Link.
[/QUOTE]

Red having a different peak is a clear indication that the red photons emitted by QD-OLED are emitted by a fundamentally different emitter than the red phosphorescent OLED emitter used by WOLED.

The fact the the green peak is pretty much identical suggests that either the green phosphorescent emitter used by WOLED and the green QDCC used by QD-OLED happen to have identical peak wavelengths (certainly not impossible since both technologies are aiming for BT.2020) or that a significant percentage of the green photons emitted by QD-OLED are from a similar green phosphorescent emitter as that used by 3S4C/WBE/Evo-capable WOLED.

Since Samsung is already using QD to generate the red and green photons in their QLED/LCD TVs, a similar comparison of the SPDs of QD-OLED to QLED/LCD would be very enlightening.

I’d guess the red SPDs would match very closely in both peak wavelength and FWHM width, and if the green SPDs also match just as closely, that would be compelling evidence that all emitted green photons in QD-OLED are being generated by green QDs, as is the case for QLED/LCD.

But if the green SPD of QD-OLED has a noticeably wider FWHM than that of the green SPD of QLED/LCD, that would be compelling evidence that a large number of the green photons emitted by QD-OLED are not being emitted by green QDCC/QDs but are instead being emitted by a non-QD-source (such as a green PHOLED layer in the stack, as depicted by UBI).

Does anyone have a similar SPD from QLED/LCD they can share?


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Much better version of the sub-pixel structure from the Italian review (thanks @59LIHP):
> 
> View attachment 3251829





> View attachment 3251830
> 
> 
> Source Link.


That picture would be great except they screwed up and sized it to perfectly compare 4 rows of QD-OLED pixels against 5 rows of WOLED pixels (so the PAR of the WOLED subpixels appear to be only 64% of what a true 4-row-to-4-row apples-to-apples comparison would show…


----------



## fafrd

Also this: ‘*900 NIT fino al 10% dell'area del quadro*, 500 NIT per il 25% e addirittura oltre *200 NIT per l'intera superficie*.’

which means 900 Nits @ 10%, 500 Nits @ 50%, and 200 Nits full-field.

Sounds as though peak white levels are going to be perceptually indistinguishable from WOLED (at least from the G2 WOLEDs).

So whatever premium the QD-OLED commends over a 65G2, it’s going to be to get what the article claims is perceptually noticable fully-saturated colors such as this example:










To my eyes, they focused on the wrong example and the yellow umbrella just to the left which appears greenish in the WOLED is a better representation of what the increased color volume of QD-OLED can translate to on specific brightly-colored material.

Although, looking even further to the left, the blue umbrella near the left edge looks clearly more saturated on the WOLED than it does on the QD-OLED…

We’ll just need to await comparisons against a reference monitor from real-world content to understand how much additional bang for the buck QD-OLED delivers…


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> Also this: ‘*900 NIT fino al 10% dell'area del quadro*, 500 NIT per il 25% e addirittura oltre *200 NIT per l'intera superficie*.’
> 
> which means 900 Nits @ 10%, 500 Nits @ 50%, and 200 Nits full-field.
> 
> Sounds as though peak white levels are going to be perceptually indistinguishable from WOLED (at least from the G2 WOLEDs).
> 
> So whatever premium the QD-OLED commends over a 65G2, it’s going to be to get what the article claims is perceptually noticable fully-saturated colors such as this example:
> 
> View attachment 3251980
> 
> 
> To my eyes, they focused on the wrong example and the yellow umbrella just to the left which appears greenish in the WOLED is a better representation of what the increased color volume of QD-OLED can translate to on specific brightly-colored material.
> 
> Although, looking even further to the left, the blue umbrella near the left edge looks clearly more saturated on the WOLED than it does on the QD-OLED…
> 
> We’ll just need to await comparisons against a reference monitor from real-world content to understand how much additional bang for the buck QD-OLED delivers…


It just has the same problem most side by side camera shots have, not being representative of what your eyes see. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wizziwig

Not sure if this was ever posted but LG's 'Pro' division sells 65" OLED broadcast monitors. The 65EP5G specs are rather interesting when compared to their consumer OLEDs.

Brightness(Typ.) : 1,000 / 950 / 450 / 200 nit @D65 (APL 3% / 10% / 25% / 100%)

CalMAN S/W Exclusively Developed for LG UltraFine OLED Pro
Controls color temperature, gamma, gamut, and *uniformity of chromaticity
and brightness*.

Precise Calibration of Display Area
While other tools can only control 1~2 points for chromaticity and brightness uniformity, CalMAN and SuperSign WB offer 9/13/*25 point options for more detailed calibration of the entire monitor area*

Lowest price I could find was $11.6K

It was announced on September 7, 2021.

Being able to calibrate at 25 points on the screen would go a long way to reduce the color tinting issues that many complain about on consumer models.


----------



## Jin-X

Wizziwig said:


> Not sure if this was ever posted but LG's 'Pro' division sells 65" OLED broadcast monitors. The 65EP5G specs are rather interesting when compared to their consumer OLEDs.
> 
> Brightness(Typ.) : 1,000 / 950 / 450 / 200 nit @D65 (APL 3% / 10% / 25% / 100%)
> 
> CalMAN S/W Exclusively Developed for LG UltraFine OLED Pro
> Controls color temperature, gamma, gamut, and *uniformity of chromaticity
> and brightness*.
> 
> Precise Calibration of Display Area
> While other tools can only control 1~2 points for chromaticity and brightness uniformity, CalMAN and SuperSign WB offer 9/13/*25 point options for more detailed calibration of the entire monitor area*
> 
> Lowest price I could find was $11.6K
> 
> It was announced on September 7, 2021.
> 
> Being able to calibrate at 25 points on the screen would go a long way to reduce the color tinting issues that many complain about on consumer models.
> 
> View attachment 3252008


Current LGs are 22pt right? Guessing the extra 3 options are 0.3, 0.7 and 1.3 to really nail down that out of black transition?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wizziwig

Jin-X said:


> Current LGs are 22pt right? Guessing the extra 3 options are 0.3, 0.7 and 1.3 to really nail down that out of black transition?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Look at the photo I attached. The 25 points is referring to different parts of the screen. So if your screen has a pink tint on the left side for example, you could probably calibrate that out without affecting the rest of the screen. No way to do that on a consumer model where you only have a single point you can measure and calibrate (typically center of screen only). Remember that HDTV Shootout G1 with tint along the left edge?

The panel also seems brighter than other 2021 LG OLEDs at D65.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> Current LGs are 22pt right? Guessing the extra 3 options are 0.3, 0.7 and 1.3 to really nail down that out of black transition?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think he’s referring to 25 distinct x,y locations spread over the entire surface of the screen, not 25-pt greyscale calibrations.

We generally calibrate from one location in the center of the screen and use that calibration for the entire screen surface.

Calibrating a 5x5 grid in terms of x,y locations could go a long way towards addressing tinting at the edge of the screen.


----------



## Jin-X

Wizziwig said:


> Look at the photo I attached. The 25 points is referring to different parts of the screen. So if your screen has a pink tint on the left side for example, you could probably calibrate that out without affecting the rest of the screen. No way to do that on a consumer model where you only have a single point you can measure and calibrate (typically center of screen only). Remember that HDTV Shootout G1 with tint along the left edge?
> 
> The panel also seems brighter than other 2021 LG OLEDs at D65.


Ah I see it now, didn’t pick that up on the phone. That is pretty nifty, though that has to be very time consuming depending on how accurate one wants to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> Red having a different peak is a clear indication that the red photons emitted by QD-OLED are emitted by a fundamentally different emitter than the red phosphorescent OLED emitter used by WOLED.
> 
> The fact the the green peak is pretty much identical suggests that either the green phosphorescent emitter used by WOLED and the green QDCC used by QD-OLED happen to have identical peak wavelengths (certainly not impossible since both technologies are aiming for BT.2020) or that a significant percentage of the green photons emitted by QD-OLED are from a similar green phosphorescent emitter as that used by 3S4C/WBE/Evo-capable WOLED.
> 
> Since Samsung is already using QD to generate the red and green photons in their QLED/LCD TVs, a similar comparison of the SPDs of QD-OLED to QLED/LCD would be very enlightening.
> 
> I’d guess the red SPDs would match very closely in both peak wavelength and FWHM width, and if the green SPDs also match just as closely, that would be compelling evidence that all emitted green photons in QD-OLED are being generated by green QDs, as is the case for QLED/LCD.
> 
> But if the green SPD of QD-OLED has a noticeably wider FWHM than that of the green SPD of QLED/LCD, that would be compelling evidence that a large number of the green photons emitted by QD-OLED are not being emitted by green QDCC/QDs but are instead being emitted by a non-QD-source (such as a green PHOLED layer in the stack, as depicted by UBI).
> 
> Does anyone have a similar SPD from QLED/LCD they can share?


This is a reasonable take, I think. If there are two sources, unless very well matched or the skirt of one hides the other, I'd expect to see a bimodal distribution.


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

OLED_Overrated said:


> Very unlikely that we will see 55-75 microled next year. Microled tvs get even more expensive to manufacture as you shrink the pixels. It's why samsung decided not to sell 77 inch microled tv at the last moment. As much as people hype microled tv, I don't think we will see affordable microled tvs in small sizes any time soon- maybe in 10 years as stated by Nanosys ceo. On the other hand, we can possibly see QNED around 2025. The latest report from elec, indicates that qned development is wrapping up. Samsung display has already figured out the quantum dot color conversion layer for qd oled which would theoretically work the same way for qned. We could possibly see a prototype within a year or two. QNED has a lot of potential. It will not be exorbitantly expensive like microled when it first sells in the market, and it shares the same self emissive properties of oled while being inorganic. QNED's brightness and color purity could get very close to microled that there may be no point of trying to bring the cost of microled down soon.


Canon showed a SED TV at CES 2006. Everyone said that it was the ultimate image and the future of TV. SED never made it to the marketplace.

Sony showed the first uLED TV, a 55" FHD at CES 2012. Still not a consumer product although YOLE is saying 2025 for premium high end consumer TV now that mass transfer is no longer considered a show stopper. The 89" this year at the rumored $60K to $80K would be a good start.









QNED I would start counting after we see a prototype at CES!


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> Also this: ‘*900 NIT fino al 10% dell'area del quadro*, 500 NIT per il 25% e addirittura oltre *200 NIT per l'intera superficie*.’
> 
> which means 900 Nits @ 10%, 500 Nits @ 50%, and 200 Nits full-field.
> 
> Sounds as though peak white levels are going to be perceptually indistinguishable from WOLED (at least from the G2 WOLEDs).
> 
> So whatever premium the QD-OLED commends over a 65G2, it’s going to be to get what the article claims is perceptually noticable fully-saturated colors such as this example:
> 
> View attachment 3251980
> 
> 
> To my eyes, they focused on the wrong example and the yellow umbrella just to the left which appears greenish in the WOLED is a better representation of what the increased color volume of QD-OLED can translate to on specific brightly-colored material.
> 
> Although, looking even further to the left, the blue umbrella near the left edge looks clearly more saturated on the WOLED than it does on the QD-OLED…
> 
> We’ll just need to await comparisons against a reference monitor from real-world content to understand how much additional bang for the buck QD-OLED delivers…





> _Considerando che si trattava di apparecchi pre-serie e che siamo al debutto di questa tecnologia, le premesse sono davvero interessanti._


All Sony's demonstrations have been done with pre-series devices. We can expect an improvement once the models are released.


----------



## chris7191

Jin-X said:


> It just has the same problem most side by side camera shots have, not being representative of what your eyes see.


I agree. These pics all show the typical WOLED issue of having extreme blue tint on camera.


----------



## Donny84

So what exactly is the G2 doing differently vs last years C1? I've gathered the following below....

Heatsink for Higher brightness
Evo-panel for higher brightness
Gen 9 Processor which i'm assuming means better upscaling and a crisper image?
Gallery Stand

No word on it's MotionPro High's motion persistence, or if they've finally managed to make flicker unnoticeable. The Heatsink should give you more BFI brightness at least and higher brightness without it for game mode. Game mode on the C1 is dimmer than the ISF Bright setting so the Heatsink should probably solve that.


----------



## CA22EF

It is also going to be released by Panasonic.


https://www.amd.com/en/products/freesync-tvs




> TH-42LZ1000 FreeSync Premium Panasonic 42.0" OLED


----------



## fafrd

chris7191 said:


> This is a reasonable take, I think. If there are two sources, unless very well matched or the skirt of one hides the other, *I'd expect to see a bimodal distribution.*


Doesn’t really work that way. Since everyone is aiming for the same color coordinates, it’s differences in spread / FWHM that are more characteristic of multiple single-color emitters versus a single emitter and a combination of a narrower FWHM green emitter and a wider FWHM green emitter is likely to just exhibit a unipolar distribution with a width which is somewhere in between those two extremes.

Remember that the SPD you see arises from a combination of both the SPD of the raw emitter stack modified by the transmissive SPD of the individual color filters.

If Samsung is truly only using a ‘dispersion’ layer rather than a blue color filter (blocking green), that would pretty much be proof that there is no green OLED layer in the stack.

But if they have used a blue conventional color filter (which blocks green), that would be a pretty strong indicator that there are green photons being emitted by the OLED stack itself…


----------



## aron7awol

One minor concern I have that I haven't seen mentioned, although perhaps I missed it, is that at least based on what they've told us, I think we can expect the red and green subpixels to have significantly wider viewing angles than blue, which makes it seem like tint issues may not be going away completely.


----------



## chris7191

aron7awol said:


> One minor concern I have that I haven't seen mentioned, although perhaps I missed it, is that at least based on what they've told us, I think we can expect the red and green subpixels to have significantly wider viewing angles than blue, which makes it seem like tint issues may not be going away completely.


What makes you think that? The blue subpixel is said to have a diffuser to match the characteristics of the QDs.


----------



## aron7awol

chris7191 said:


> What makes you think that? The blue subpixel is said to have a diffuser to match the characteristics of the QDs.


I never saw it mentioned anywhere that the diffuser was able to match the dispersion of the QDs. Do you have a source? Obviously if that's the case, then there's no issue, but I guessed it would likely fall short to some extent.

The only actual data I ever saw related to it was in the Nanosys video from 2020, but the viewing angle for "Scattering Blue" shown there looked really poor, so I was thinking/hoping they'd at least likely be able to achieve a viewing angle for blue close to the current WOLED viewing angles, but wouldn't quite match the red and green, which are incredibly wide.


----------



## chris7191

aron7awol said:


> I never saw it mentioned anywhere that the diffuser was able to match the dispersion of the QDs. Do you have a source? Obviously if that's the case, then there's no issue, but I guessed it would likely fall short to some extent.
> 
> The only actual data I ever saw related to it was in the Nanosys video from 2020, but the viewing angle for "Scattering Blue" shown there looked really poor, so I was thinking/hoping they'd at least likely be able to achieve a viewing angle for blue close to the current WOLED viewing angles, but wouldn't quite match the red and green, which is incredibly wide.
> 
> View attachment 3252273


It's mentioned in this video somewhere I believe.









#15 Chirag Shah of Samsung Display Company — Nanosys


Today, we’re going to be talking about Samsung’s new QD-Display, which was introduced at CES in January in new products from Dell, Samsung and Sony. Sometimes called "QD-OLED," Samsung's new QD-Display technology combines the Quantum Dots with OLED technology to create a new category of di




nanosys.com


----------



## chris7191

aron7awol said:


> I never saw it mentioned anywhere that the diffuser was able to match the dispersion of the QDs. Do you have a source? Obviously if that's the case, then there's no issue, but I guessed it would likely fall short to some extent.
> 
> The only actual data I ever saw related to it was in the Nanosys video from 2020, but the viewing angle for "Scattering Blue" shown there looked really poor, so I was thinking/hoping they'd at least likely be able to achieve a viewing angle for blue close to the current WOLED viewing angles, but wouldn't quite match the red and green, which are incredibly wide.


Interesting, I would think you can do better than that at the cost of some efficiency. Light pipes for LEDs and diffusers for lasers can achieve whatever you desire basically.


----------



## aron7awol

chris7191 said:


> It's mentioned in this video somewhere I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #15 Chirag Shah of Samsung Display Company — Nanosys
> 
> 
> Today, we’re going to be talking about Samsung’s new QD-Display, which was introduced at CES in January in new products from Dell, Samsung and Sony. Sometimes called "QD-OLED," Samsung's new QD-Display technology combines the Quantum Dots with OLED technology to create a new category of di
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nanosys.com


Thanks, found it about 6 mins in: "...and the blue pixel itself is a clear pixel with some scattering material to kind of match the scattering performance of quantum dots..."


chris7191 said:


> Interesting, I would think you can do better than that at the cost of some efficiency. Light pipes for LEDs and diffusers for lasers can achieve whatever you desire basically.


I agree, I can't imagine they would deem that combination of viewing angles shown in that graph I posted even close to acceptable. Here's hoping "kind of match" means they at least got it close enough to avoid any significant off-angle tinting.


----------



## fafrd

Samsung 2022 Flagship 65" & 55" 4K S95B QD OLED TV - Value Electronics


QN55S95B $2,199 $1,699 - QN65S95B $2,999 $1,999 All prices include Nationwide delivery to your home. Bundle Deal! Purchase any QN95B w/any soundbar listed below • Save $200: HW-Q990B 11.1.4 $1,499, now $1,299 • Save $300: HW-Q910B 9.1.2 $1,299, now $999 email us with questions or comments...




valueelectronics.com





QN65QS95B and QN55QS9B

Seems as though Samsung Electronics might be at least motivated enough over QD-OLED to introduce an entry into this cycles VE-shootout…


----------



## fafrd

Deleted (accidental) post


----------



## artur9

fafrd said:


> But if they have used a blue conventional color filter (which blocks green), that would be a pretty strong indicator that there are green photons being emitted by the OLED stack itself…


I may have missed it so please forgive me if so....

What effect does this green vs blue emitter have on the performance of the TV?


----------



## MisterXDTV

fafrd said:


> Samsung 2022 Flagship 65" & 55" 4K S95B QD OLED TV - Value Electronics
> 
> 
> QN55S95B $2,199 $1,699 - QN65S95B $2,999 $1,999 All prices include Nationwide delivery to your home. Bundle Deal! Purchase any QN95B w/any soundbar listed below • Save $200: HW-Q990B 11.1.4 $1,499, now $1,299 • Save $300: HW-Q910B 9.1.2 $1,299, now $999 email us with questions or comments...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> valueelectronics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QN65QS95B and QN55QS9B
> 
> Seems as though Samsung Electronics might be at least motivated enough over QD-OLED to introduce an entry into this cycles VE-shootout…


That page from a Value Electronics is just a place-holder: Samsung Electronics hasn't announced any QD-OLED TV yet..

Only a 34" ultrawide monitor (like the Dell one) leaked at CES 2022
"
_The ultra-slim Samsung Odyssey G8QNB 34” Gaming Monitor will be the world’s first Quantum Dot OLED (QD-OLED) gaming monitor, offering the best of both QLED and OLED screen technology. With high-performance features like a 175Hz refresh rate and 0.1ms response time, Odyssey G8QNB will give gamers a competitive edge. The 1800R curvature offers an immersive experience of this ultra-wide quad high definition (UWQHD) resolution display with vivid colours. It’s also the world’s slimmest gaming monitor, being as thin as 5.9mm, allowing it to fit in with any gaming setup, while also offering smart features around gaming, entertainment and productivity.”_


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

chris7191 said:


> It's mentioned in this video somewhere I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #15 Chirag Shah of Samsung Display Company — Nanosys
> 
> 
> Today, we’re going to be talking about Samsung’s new QD-Display, which was introduced at CES in January in new products from Dell, Samsung and Sony. Sometimes called "QD-OLED," Samsung's new QD-Display technology combines the Quantum Dots with OLED technology to create a new category of di
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nanosys.com


Starting at 13:00 of that video there is an overview breakdown of the challenges of Samsung's previous RGB OLED product and how QD-Display is different from that technology.

There is no ambiguity in that presentation, there is no green OLED in QD-Display, in fact trying to introduce a green OLED sub pixel puts them back into the VTE registration challenges. 

Samsung in that detailed overview, is clearly and definitively presenting QD-Display as a blue multi (4) stack OLED emitter layer with red and green QDCC subpixels inkjet printed on top of the blue emitter layer!


----------



## JasonHa

Yes, we've seen the video already. He wasn't asked.


----------



## fafrd

artur9 said:


> I may have missed it so please forgive me if so....
> 
> What effect does this green vs blue emitter have on the performance of the TV?


Replacing one of the blue OLED emitter layers with a green emitter layer (in addition to green QDCC on the green subpixel) will greatly strengthen the green brightness of the display, allowing the green subpixel to be closer in size to the blue subpixel rather than 5-10 times larger.

The only downside is a modest degree of added cost and the need for a conventional color filter on the blue subpixel as well (to filter out the green photons).


----------



## aron7awol

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Starting at 13:00 of that video there is an overview breakdown of the challenges of Samsung's previous RGB OLED product and how QD-Display is different from that technology.
> 
> There is no ambiguity in that presentation, there is no green OLED in QD-Display, in fact trying to introduce a green OLED sub pixel puts them back into the VTE registration challenges.
> 
> Samsung in that detailed overview, is clearly and definitively presenting QD-Display as a blue multi (4) stack OLED emitter layer with red and green QDCC subpixels inkjet printed on top of the blue emitter layer!


If green OLED is part of the uniform "blue self-emitting layer", there are no VTE registration challenges, as an open mask can still be used.

I agree, they are certainly calling it blue. But perhaps they are calling it "blue" despite it including a fraction of green light (not enough to even push it closer to cyan than blue if it's 3/4 blue and 1/4 green), just as we all call a mixture of blue and yellow OLED material "white OLED" regularly. Calling it "azure OLED" or "azure self-emitting layer" would perhaps be more accurate but would also just confuse people, so calling it blue probably makes more sense anyway. Almost everyone who looks at that particular color would call it blue, anyway.










For what it's worth (very little), they used azure for the blue emitting layer in this graphic as well as the light traveling to the QDs/diffuser and then used true blue for the final light coming out of the diffuser as well as the blue color filter for the WOLED on the left.


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

aron7awol said:


> If green OLED is part of the uniform "blue self-emitting layer", there are no VTE registration challenges, as an open mask can still be used.
> 
> I agree, they are certainly calling it blue. But perhaps they are calling it "blue" despite it including a fraction of green light (not enough to even push it closer to cyan than blue if it's 3/4 blue and 1/4 green), just as we all call a mixture of blue and yellow OLED material "white OLED" regularly. Calling it "azure OLED" or "azure self-emitting layer" would perhaps be more accurate but would also just confuse people, so calling it blue probably makes more sense anyway. Almost everyone who looks at that particular color would call it blue, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth (very little), they used azure for the blue emitting layer in this graphic as well as the light traveling to the QDs/diffuser and then used true blue for the final light coming out of the diffuser as well as the blue color filter for the WOLED on the left.
> 
> View attachment 3252617


Is the discussion really about what is the actual wavelength of the "blue" emitting layer"? That would be a silly discussion IMO. In any case the fact that Samsung is implying that that they are letting blue almost as is (with scattering similar to the QDCC output) says it has to be pretty close to a 450 nm peak. Cyan would be 500 nm, right.


----------



## aron7awol

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Is the discussion really about what is the actual wavelength of the "blue" emitting layer"? That would be a silly discussion IMO. In any case the fact that Samsung is implying that that they are letting blue almost as is (with scattering similar to the QDCC output) says it has to be pretty close to a 450 nm peak. Cyan would be 500 nm, right.


The discussion is and has been about what OLED material makes up the blue emitting layer, which is certainly significant and not silly. The design differences between all blue OLED material and a mix of blue and green OLED material are significant. It's not a problem if there is in fact green OLED material involved from a performance perspective, but it's certainly an important part of the technology behind these panels and how they are achieving this level of performance.

Yes, in any case, they are simply scattering the blue light. The emitted light may just pass through a color filter to become blue before/as that happens. The graph you posted is of the final light coming from the display, so it's already been filtered and thus will be blue.


----------



## OLED_Overrated




----------



## fafrd

aron7awol said:


> If green OLED is part of the uniform "blue self-emitting layer", there are no VTE registration challenges, as an open mask can still be used.





> I agree, they are certainly calling it blue. But perhaps they are calling it "blue" despite it including a fraction of green light (not enough to even push it closer to cyan than blue if it's *3/4 blue and 1/4 green*), just as we all call a mixture of blue and yellow OLED material "white OLED" regularly.


Green PHOLED has ~10 times the electro-optical efficiency of Blue FOLED, so a 4S stack composed of 3 blue FOLED layers and a single green PHOLED layer will put out ~10 green photons for every ~3 blue photons (closer to 3/4 green photons and 1/4 blue photons).



> Calling it "azure OLED" or "azure self-emitting layer" would perhaps be more accurate but would also just confuse people, so calling it blue probably makes more sense anyway. *Almost everyone who looks at that particular color would call it blue, anyway.*


If an OLED light was made with a 4S2C stack of 3 blue FOLED layers and a single green PHOLED layer, it would almost certainly not look blue or azure, but cyan.

That is the reason I started calling the UBI structure QD-COLED rather than QD-BOLED…


View attachment 3252617




> For what it's worth (very little), they used azure for the blue emitting layer in this graphic as well as the light traveling to the QDs/diffuser and then used true blue for the final light coming out of the diffuser as well as the blue color filter for the WOLED on the left.


Thee are a few very misleading details in that graphic, chief among them the implication that the blue photons are coming from QD layer similar to the red and green photons.

The graphic also suggest that photons are being emitted from the top-most layer while on reality, there are conventional color filters located on top of the QD-layer.

For a Blue-only QD-BOLED, the representation that all of the red and green photons are being emitted close to the surface layers from QDs is accurate (though indicating the same for blue is a misrepresentation) but if the ‘Blue Emitting Layer’ is actually a blue+green Cyan OLED emitting layer, over half the green photons are being emitted from the deeper OLED layer and not from a green QDCC layer near the surface as depicted.

Debating the accuracy or ethics of Samsung Display’s marketing is rather pointless at this stage.

What will be much more relevant is the color uniformity of these QD-OLED displays when viewed from off-axis, and especially what level of blue and green color shift they suffer from as compared to WOLED…


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

aron7awol said:


> The discussion is and has been about what OLED material makes up the blue emitting layer, which is certainly significant and not silly. The design differences between all blue OLED material and a mix of blue and green OLED material are significant. It's not a problem if there is in fact green OLED material involved from a performance perspective, but it's certainly an important part of the technology behind these panels and how they are achieving this level of performance.
> 
> Yes, in any case, they are simply scattering the blue light. The emitted light may just pass through a color filter to become blue before/as that happens. The graph you posted is of the final light coming from the display, so it's already been filtered and thus will be blue.


First some were insisting that there were green OLED sub pixels, well there clearly are no green OLED sub pixels I think we all agree?

Now the speculation is that the emitter layer that Samsung describes as blue and have explained in detail why they chose blue (highest energy for conversion) is not really blue but may instead be "blue" and "green" layers?

I don't understand the point? If the emitter produces light around 450nm we say it is blue, around 500 nm cyan, 550 nm green ,...650 nm red, right. Lets say we ask Samsung what wavelength does your emitter layer produce and they say 480 nm, is that still not blue/ How about 430 nm is that not still blue?

Lets be clear when you say that "The emitted light may just pass through a color filter to become blue before/as that happens" is not what Samsung has described in detail. The design shows a blue emitting layer with green and red sub pixels quantum dot *color converted* not filtered. The blue sub pixel is also *not *shown color filtered.


----------



## JasonHa

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> First some were insisting that there were green OLED sub pixels...


I'm not aware of anyone claiming there were OLED sub pixels of any color.


----------



## fafrd

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> First some were insisting that there were green OLED sub pixels, well there clearly are no green OLED sub pixels I think we all agree?
> 
> Now the speculation is that the emitter layer that Samsung describes as blue and have explained in detail why they chose blue (highest energy for conversion) is not really blue but may instead be "blue" and "green" layers?
> 
> I don't understand the point? If the emitter produces light around 450nm we say it is blue, around 500 nm cyan, 550 nm green ,...650 nm red, right. Lets say we ask Samsung what wavelength does your emitter layer produce and they say 480 nm, is that still not blue/ How about 430 nm is that not still blue?
> 
> Lets be clear when you say that "The emitted light may just pass through a color filter to become blue before/as that happens" is not what Samsung has described in detail. The design shows a blue emitting layer with green and red sub pixels quantum dot *color converted* not filtered. The blue sub pixel is also *not *shown color filtered.


Again, arguing about this is pretty pointless.

The OLED emitting layer either puts out a unipolar distribution centered at blue or it puts out a bipolar distribution with distinct peaks at blue and green.

For comparison, QLED/LCDs emit white light with a triplane distribution with three peaks centered at blue, green, and red.

What matters is how many photons of each color are being generated near the surface by the QDCC versus deeper down in the OLED layers and how well Sansung’s ‘diffuser’ technology succeeds in matching the color-shift advantages of the photons emitted by the QDCC near the surface for the photons emitted deeper down in the OLED layers (whether blue-only BOLED or blue+green COLED).


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> I'm not aware of anyone claiming there were OLED sub pixels of any color.


Yes, it seems that some recent contributors have not been following this subject since the start 9 months ago and are confused about the details…


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

fafrd said:


> The OLED emitting layer either puts out a unipolar distribution centered at blue or it puts out a bipolar distribution with distinct peaks at blue and green.


Lets be clear; Samsung's collateral to date states the former, right and you are suggesting that in fact it is the latter?


----------



## aron7awol

fafrd said:


> Green PHOLED has ~10 times the electro-optical efficiency of Blue FOLED, so a 4S stack composed of 3 blue FOLED layers and a single green PHOLED layer will put out ~10 green photons for every ~3 blue photons (closer to 3/4 green photons and 1/4 blue photons).
> 
> If an OLED light was made with a 4S2C stack of 3 blue FOLED layers and a single green PHOLED layer, it would almost certainly not look blue or azure, but cyan.
> 
> That is the reason I started calling the UBI structure QD-COLED rather than QD-BOLED…


Thanks for this info. My uncertainty on this relationship is exactly why I made sure to say "if" and "perhaps" when I typed my message.

So perhaps it would technically be more like spring green than cyan, but I can certainly see why you would choose to call it QD-COLED rather than QD-SGOLED 



fafrd said:


> Thee are a few very misleading details in that graphic, chief among them the implication that the blue photons are coming from QD layer similar to the red and green photons.


It was cut off in my snip, but the asterisk next to "QD Layer" means "blue subpixel contains scattering material only, no QD".



fafrd said:


> What will be much more relevant is the color uniformity of these QD-OLED displays when viewed from off-axis, and especially what level of blue and green color shift they suffer from as compared to WOLED…


I agree, and that's why I brought up the topic of different viewing angles of the different subpixels yesterday.

You bring up a good additional wrinkle that green OLED material being mixed in would have further impact on the viewing angle of the green subpixel.

It would make each of the 3 subpixels have its own unique "stack" of emission characteristics:
Red: Bottom emission cyan > QD > red color filter. Top emission only
Green: Bottom emission cyan > QD > green color filter (& diffuser?). Bottom and top emission
Blue: Bottom emission cyan > blue color filter & diffuser. Bottom emission only

Interesting...


----------



## fafrd

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Lets be clear; Samsung's collateral to date states the former, right and you are suggesting that in fact it is the latter?


Samsung collateral has been promoting QD-BOLED for over 3 years now. That’s the length of time and $$$s they have invested in the ‘simple’ blue-only structure that they were originally planning based on the use of blue PHOLED and which also is the precise same blue-only BQNED structure the are working on as the successor to this FOLED-based compromise they have been forced to industrialize once blue PHOLED proved out of reach and they had to throw in the towel to make something based on lousy inefficient blue FOLED.

The 2020 CES prototypes based on 3 blue layers of blue FOLED we’re way too dim, so they added a 4th layer. The CES 2021 samples were also too dim, so they had to do something more.

They could Ave added yet another blue FOLED layer or 2 to catch up to WOLED peak brightness levels (which would have added significant manufacturing cost) but from all reports, they have managed to stick to a 4-layer OLED stack.

UBI had repeatedly shown a 4-blue layer stack in their ‘reports’ on QD-OLED and then mysteriously replaced that structure with a 3 blue + 1 green OLED stack without any explanation for the change mid last year.

Around the same time, QD-OLED mysteriously solved its dimness issue and is now reported to be at least as bright as WOLED and likely brighter.

The greatest challenge QD-BOLED had based on Blue FOLED was to generate enough green - there just isn’t enough blue power to generate needed green levels with 4 blue FOLED layers with efficiency of ~8%.

Replace on if those blue FOLED layers with a green PHOLED layer with efficiency of over 70% and the green problem is solved. There will be green photons to spare and red becomes the limiting subpixel color on QD-OLED brightness.

So we do not have any proof that Samsung made that change of replacing one of the 4 blue OLED layers with a green PHOLED layer last year.

What we have is repeated analysis showing that a 4-layer QD-BOLED cannot deliver anywhere close to the brightness of a 2-layer QD-BOLED based on blue PHOLED (which was Samsung’s original concept for QD-OLED) nor could it compete with the peak white levels of 3S4C WOLED.

And then we have the mysterious change in the structure UBI depicts in their latest report from mid last year without any explanation at the same time reports suggest that QD-OLED was finally ‘bright enough’ to meet Samsung Electronic’s and Sony’s requirements.

It’s a elegant enough solution to Blue-FOLED-based QD-OLED and there is enough smoke that I personally am on the side of believing Samsung Display quietly made this change and will continue to believe so until I see irrefutable proof to the contrary.

And as far as what Samsung presents in their collateral, that carries 0% weight with me.

First, I am sympathetic and may well have chosen the same slightly in accurate path if I was in their shoes.

They had a simple story the market had finally succeeded to digest and diffuse after a major multi-year investment in presenting that ‘simple story’ for why QD-OLED is different from and superior to WOLED.

Second, if/when QNED finally materializes, it will accurately be an embodiment of exactly that same simple story (with the simple twist of switching the lousy ‘organic’ blue emitting layer to a much better, longer-lifetime inorganic blue emitting layer based on quantum nanorods)

And 3rd, it is only the blue photons emitted by the OLED layer which stimulate the red and green QDCC and all of the advantages of those photons being emitted closer to the surface remain unchanged and accurate, so it’s not a total falsehood, merely a half-truth that actually explains only half of what is gong on.

Lastly, in terms of ethics, I lived through the whole ‘LED display’ saga with Samsung. The whole ‘LED TV is not LCD’ marketing campaign that ultimately killed off FALD for almost a decade until the improved black levels of WOLED forced its resurgence under the new name ‘MiniLED/LCD’.

So whatever Samsung puts in their marketing collateral Carrie’s absolutely no weight with me at all. As long as Samsung can safely avoid losing a lawsuit for outright fraud and clear misrepresentation with criminal intent, they are perfectly comfortable fudgifying and allowing the market to keep repeating the ‘simple story’ which is highly likely to no longer be the entire story.

And again, it really doesn’t matter. What matters is how these QD-OLEDs perform compared to WOLED, especially in off-axis uniformity and color shift, and at what premium to WOLED….


----------



## aron7awol

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> First some were insisting that there were green OLED sub pixels


Who and when?



HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Now the speculation is that the emitter layer that Samsung describes as blue and have explained in detail why they chose blue (highest energy for conversion) is not really blue but may instead be "blue" and "green" layers?


Yes, but even if the emitter does mix in a green layer, it doesn't change anything about what they are describing as far as the higher energy blue light being converted by QDs into red and green. That's how the QD tech works, it's just not necessarily the only source of green.



HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Lets be clear when you say that "The emitted light may just pass through a color filter to become blue before/as that happens" is not what Samsung has described in detail. The design shows a blue emitting layer with green and red sub pixels quantum dot *color converted* not filtered. The blue sub pixel is also *not *shown color filtered.


Right, they don't show *any *color filters for the QD-OLED in that graphic, even though the red and green subpixels would almost certainly have color filters even if the emitter was pure blue. They could even be yellow filters in that case, but if there is green in the emitter layer, then I think we can expect them to be red and green, *and *for the blue subpixel to have a blue color filter.


----------



## fafrd

aron7awol said:


> Thanks for this info. My uncertainty on this relationship is exactly why I made sure to say "if" and "perhaps" when I typed my message.
> 
> So perhaps it would technically be more like spring green than cyan, but I can certainly see why you would choose to call it QD-COLED rather than QD-SGOLED
> 
> 
> It was cut off in my snip, but the asterisk next to "QD Layer" means "blue subpixel contains scattering material only, no QD".
> 
> 
> I agree, and that's why I brought up the topic of different viewing angles of the different subpixels yesterday.
> 
> You bring up a good additional wrinkle that green OLED material being mixed in would have further impact on the viewing angle of the green subpixel.
> 
> It would make each of the 3 subpixels have its own unique "stack" of emission characteristics:
> Red: Bottom emission cyan > QD > red color filter. Top emission only
> Green: Bottom emission cyan > QD > green color filter (& diffuser?). Bottom and top emission
> Blue: Bottom emission cyan > blue color filter & diffuser. Bottom emission only
> 
> Interesting...


Yes, this is it exactly.

And sorry I missed the meaning of the ‘*’ but that has actually been there since the beginning and is part of the ‘simple story’ that Samsung has educated the market on over the past 3 years (and what they will be moving back to with QNED).

So if they have in fact switch from QD-BOLED to QD-COLED, the changes that means and the question those changes trigger are:

Blue diffuser switched to a blue conventional color filter
-is the ‘diffuser’ integrated into the blue CCF and how closely does it match the properties of the QD-only emitter photons?

Green CCF should not have needed a diffuser like blue, but with green OLED, there will be some impact on green off-axis performance without any changes to the composition of the green CCF layer
-is the green CCF integrated with a diffuser like the blue CCF layer and how closely does it maintain the off-axis performance of a blue-only QD-BOLED?

Off axis performance is one of the most important areas WOLED has struggled with and should be one if the primary advantages of QD-OLED over WOLED, so the bottom line is how much of that theoretical improvement is being delivered by this first-generation AD-OLED (whether BOLED or COLED) and at what cost?


----------



## aron7awol

fafrd said:


> Yes, it seems that some recent contributors have not been following this subject since the start 9 months ago and are confused about the details…


I'm not sure if you're lumping me in here, but I don't think I am confused at all and am very comfortable with my understanding of the underlying tech.


fafrd said:


> So if they have in fact switch from QD-BOLED to QD-COLED, the changes that means and the question those changes trigger are:
> 
> Blue diffuser switched to a blue conventional color filter
> -is the ‘diffuser’ integrated into the blue CCF and how closely does it match the properties of the QD-only emitter photons?
> 
> Green CCF should not have needed a diffuser like blue, but with green OLED, there will be some impact on green off-axis performance without any changes to the composition of the green CCF layer
> -is the green CCF integrated with a diffuser like the blue CCF layer and how closely does it maintain the off-axis performance of a blue-only QD-BOLED?


The same two thoughts and questions popped into my head these last few days thinking about this. We are on the same page 

For the record, I may not have been here for the whole discussion, but I did read through this thread and thoroughly enjoyed (and fully understood) the discussion, with your posts being a big part of that and very informative. So thank you for your contributions here in this thread, and thanks to the others who have contributed as well.

My analyzing of the marketing images was actually intended to be in large part tongue-in-cheek; after all, who puts any stock in marketing materials anyway  Half the time, marketing doesn't even seem to talk to engineering! It was more that I just found some of the color choices interesting in the context of COLED. Even though it really means nothing, it's potentially just a tiny bit more smoke, and with nothing exciting happening lately, I'm just dying for these things to come out!

I do agree with you on there likely being green OLED material. Like you said, there's enough smoke. I find the solution of adding green material to be quite elegant as well.


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

fafrd said:


> Samsung collateral has been promoting QD-BOLED for over 3 years now. That’s the length of time and $$$s they have invested in the ‘simple’ blue-only structure that they were originally planning based on the use of blue PHOLED and which also is the precise same blue-only BQNED structure the are working on as the successor to this FOLED-based compromise they have been forced to industrialize once blue PHOLED proved out of reach and they had to throw in the towel to make something based on lousy inefficient blue FOLED.
> 
> The 2020 CES prototypes based on 3 blue layers of blue FOLED we’re way too dim, so they added a 4th layer. The CES 2021 samples were also too dim, so they had to do something more.
> 
> They could Ave added yet another blue FOLED layer or 2 to catch up to WOLED peak brightness levels (which would have added significant manufacturing cost) but from all reports, they have managed to stick to a 4-layer OLED stack.
> 
> UBI had repeatedly shown a 4-blue layer stack in their ‘reports’ on QD-OLED and then mysteriously replaced that structure with a 3 blue + 1 green OLED stack without any explanation for the change mid last year.
> 
> Around the same time, QD-OLED mysteriously solved its dimness issue and is now reported to be at least as bright as WOLED and likely brighter.
> 
> The greatest challenge QD-BOLED had based on Blue FOLED was to generate enough green - there just isn’t enough blue power to generate needed green levels with 4 blue FOLED layers with efficiency of ~8%.
> 
> Replace on if those blue FOLED layers with a green PHOLED layer with efficiency of over 70% and the green problem is solved. There will be green photons to spare and red becomes the limiting subpixel color on QD-OLED brightness.
> 
> So we do not have any proof that Samsung made that change of replacing one of the 4 blue OLED layers with a green PHOLED layer last year.
> 
> What we have is repeated analysis showing that a 4-layer QD-BOLED cannot deliver anywhere close to the brightness of a 2-layer QD-BOLED based on blue PHOLED (which was Samsung’s original concept for QD-OLED) nor could it compete with the peak white levels of 3S4C WOLED.
> 
> And then we have the mysterious change in the structure UBI depicts in their latest report from mid last year without any explanation at the same time reports suggest that QD-OLED was finally ‘bright enough’ to meet Samsung Electronic’s and Sony’s requirements.
> 
> It’s a elegant enough solution to Blue-FOLED-based QD-OLED and there is enough smoke that I personally am on the side of believing Samsung Display quietly made this change and will continue to believe so until I see irrefutable proof to the contrary.
> 
> And as far as what Samsung presents in their collateral, that carries 0% weight with me.
> 
> First, I am sympathetic and may well have chosen the same slightly in accurate path if I was in their shoes.
> 
> They had a simple story the market had finally succeeded to digest and diffuse after a major multi-year investment in presenting that ‘simple story’ for why QD-OLED is different from and superior to WOLED.
> 
> Second, if/when QNED finally materializes, it will accurately be an embodiment of exactly that same simple story (with the simple twist of switching the lousy ‘organic’ blue emitting layer to a much better, longer-lifetime inorganic blue emitting layer based on quantum nanorods)
> 
> And 3rd, it is only the blue photons emitted by the OLED layer which stimulate the red and green QDCC and all of the advantages of those photons being emitted closer to the surface remain unchanged and accurate, so it’s not a total falsehood, merely a half-truth that actually explains only half of what is gong on.
> 
> Lastly, in terms of ethics, I lived through the whole ‘LED display’ saga with Samsung. The whole ‘LED TV is not LCD’ marketing campaign that ultimately killed off FALD for almost a decade until the improved black levels of WOLED forced its resurgence under the new name ‘MiniLED/LCD’.
> 
> So whatever Samsung puts in their marketing collateral Carrie’s absolutely no weight with me at all. As long as Samsung can safely avoid losing a lawsuit for outright fraud and clear misrepresentation with criminal intent, they are perfectly comfortable fudgifying and allowing the market to keep repeating the ‘simple story’ which is highly likely to no longer be the entire story.
> 
> And again, it really doesn’t matter. What matters is how these QD-OLEDs perform compared to WOLED, especially in off-axis uniformity and color shift, and at what premium to WOLED….


Wow! You made a simple and succinct statement which sums up the discussion; "_The OLED emitting layer either puts out a unipolar distribution centered at blue or it puts out a bipolar distribution with distinct peaks at blue and green_.". I wanted to make sure that there was no misunderstanding and that you are in fact stating the latter of your 2 choices. Not sure it required a 19 sentence post to just affirm that you believe that that Samsung has in fact delivered your latter option.

If you are correct and green light (~550 nm) is emitted from the emitter layer then Samsung has created a nonsensical Frankenstein's monster. Color filters for red and blue subpixels and no way they could get the narrow wavelength spectrums (R, G, B)required to get close BT2020 with any light output.

Does not make any sense but we shall see.


----------



## OLED_Overrated




----------



## fafrd

aron7awol said:


> I'm not sure if you're lumping me in here, but I don't think I am confused at all and am very comfortable with my understanding of the underlying tech.


Some of the posts seemed to be discussing a green subpixel similar to the green subpixel in an RGB OKED like that used in OLED phone screens (and I don’t believe you were the source of any of those posts).

The discussion has never been about that - merely whether this first-generation QD-OLED is actually a QD-BOLED (as Samsung was clearly aiming for early-on based on the use of Blue-PHOLED and has been widely depicted including in the initial research reports by UBI):










or it is actually a QD-COLED based on the use of multiple Blue FOLED layers (likely 3) stacked with a single green PHOLED emission layer as depicted by UBI in their research report from 2021:












> The same two thoughts and questions popped into my head these last few days thinking about this. We are on the same page
> 
> For the record, I may not have been here for the whole discussion, but I did read through this thread and thoroughly enjoyed (and fully understood) the discussion, with your posts being a big part of that and very informative. So thank you for your contributions here in this thread, and thanks to the others who have contributed as well.
> 
> My analyzing of the marketing images was actually intended to be in large part tongue-in-cheek; after all, who puts any stock in marketing materials anyway  Half the time, marketing doesn't even seem to talk to engineering!
> 
> I do agree with you on there likely being green OLED material. Like you said, there's enough smoke. I find the solution of adding green material to be quite elegant as well.


The interesting area to start noodling on is what this first generation of QD-OLED could mean for the future of WOLED assuming performs as suggested without adding too much cost (especially if it is based on a 4S2C COLED emission stack rather than a 3S1C or 3S2C BOLED emission stack).

If Samsung Display is boosting green PHOLED emission with Blue-driven green QDCC, so can LG Display.

And that would also mean that LG Display could boost Red PHOLED output by adding red QDCC to their red subpixels.

So assuming the cost is not prohibitive either in terms of additional material cost or lost yield, the success of a first-generation QD-COLED means free money/increased-brightness and-color-volume on the table for LGD WOLED in 2023 or 2024.

The whole issue about WOLED versus WRGB is really a separate question. QD-COLED can only make an RGB display (WRGB would be nearly impossible due to the need to precisely balance red QDCC and green QDCC to a white subpixel in order to generate white)

WOLED has the freedom to make either a WRGB display or an RGB display (at reduced peak white output levels).

So when you start adding the ability to boost blue output levels without adding cost through the availability of Blue PHOLED (now claimed by UDC to be industrialized by 2024) plus the ability to boost red and green output levels through the use of red and green QDCC, it seems exceedingly likely that WOLED has some major performance improvements on the horizon of the next 2-3 years without adding much in the way of added cost (and possibly at reduced cost if they can drop from 3S4C to 2S4C based on the use of blue PHOLED).


----------



## fafrd

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Wow! You made a simple and succinct statement which sums up the discussion; "_The OLED emitting layer either puts out a unipolar distribution centered at blue or it puts out a bipolar distribution with distinct peaks at blue and green_.". I wanted to make sure that there was no misunderstanding and that you are in fact stating the latter of your 2 choices. Not sure it required a 19 sentence post to just affirm that you believe that that Samsung has in fact delivered your latter option.





> If you are correct and green light (~550 nm) is emitted from the emitter layer then Samsung has created a nonsensical Frankenstein's monster. Color filters for red and blue subpixels and *no way they could get the narrow wavelength spectrums (R, G, B)required to get close BT2020 with any light output.*
> 
> Does not make any sense but we shall see.


You seem to be confused about the impact of color filters. The filters themselves have a wide ‘bandpass’ and cannot create distinct peaks with narrator FWHM when fed light with a wide FWHM distribution near the peak wavelength of the filter.

But feed that same color filter a tripolar white light composed or three narrow FWHM peaks at Red and Green and Blue, and the color filter will pass through whichever color it is tuned for without degrading the narrow FWHM distribution it was fed with.

This is exactly how QDEF-based QLED/LCDs are able to deliver impressive color volume in terms of % of BT.2020…


----------



## Jin-X

The discussion on whether it’s only blue emitters or it has a green one is a bit over my head, but this post by @CTM Audi ; about how it looked by targeting D65 in calibration might be relevant to the discussion…

Dell Alienware AW3423DW Curved QD-OLED Monitor








Dell Alienware AW3423DW Curved QD-OLED Monitor


Just got two of these dudes in, loving it so far - I decided to use HDR 400 instead of Peak 1000 setting, brightness seemed more consistent. Any tips on how to color calibrate using DisplayCAL and a i1Display? I've read and watched a few videos, but I'm just not sure what "Correction" setting...




r.tapatalk.com






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> The discussion on whether it’s only blue emitters or it has a green one is a bit over my head, but this post by @CTM Audi ; about how it looked by targeting D65 in calibration might be relevant to the discussion…
> 
> Dell Alienware AW3423DW Curved QD-OLED Monitor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dell Alienware AW3423DW Curved QD-OLED Monitor
> 
> 
> Just got two of these dudes in, loving it so far - I decided to use HDR 400 instead of Peak 1000 setting, brightness seemed more consistent. Any tips on how to color calibrate using DisplayCAL and a i1Display? I've read and watched a few videos, but I'm just not sure what "Correction" setting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> r.tapatalk.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


‘D65 doesn't look like D65 as expected. *It's too cyan* instead of too pink like WRGB OLED at D65.’

Assuming this ‘D65’ is skewed towards the native whitepoint of the OLED stack, s seek towards Cyan suggests bothgreen and blue photons to spare and certainly does not contradict the theory of a Cyan OLED stack.

If QD-OLED is red-limited (as would be the case with a blue+green OLED stack) it will be able to deliver highest peak brightness levels when allowed to skew a bit towards Cyan (more blue, more green, no more red).


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> You seem to be confused about the impact of color filters. The filters themselves have a wide ‘bandpass’ and cannot create distinct peaks with narrator FWHM when fed light with a wide FWHM distribution near the peak wavelength of the filter.
> 
> But feed that same color filter a tripolar white light composed or three narrow FWHM peaks at Red and Green and Blue, and the color filter will pass through whichever color it is tuned for without degrading the narrow FWHM distribution it was fed with.
> 
> This is exactly how QDEF-based QLED/LCDs are able to deliver impressive color volume in terms of % of BT.2020…


Just a nit to pick, no pun intended, but FWHM, full width at half max, is merely a measurement. It is not a distribution. There is no such thing as a "FWHM distribution" or "FWHM peaks". The distributions you are talking about appear roughly Gaussian or semi-Gaussian. Yes, c in the equation is related to the FWHM, but it just feels weird and wrong to refer to it like this since it goes counter to the meaning and all the scientific literature I have ever read that uses this term. I know what you mean, though.


----------



## fafrd

chris7191 said:


> Just a nit to pick, no pun intended, but FWHM, full width at half max, is merely a measurement. It is not a distribution. There is no such thing as a "FWHM distribution" or "FWHM peaks". The distributions you are talking about appear roughly Gaussian or semi-Gaussian. Yes, c in the equation is related to the FWHM, but it just feels weird and wrong to refer to it like this since it goes counter to the meaning and all the scientific literature I have ever read that uses this term. I know what you mean, though.


Yeah, I was probably a bit loose witty my use of words. Pretty much everywhere I referred to ‘FWHM’ what I meant was a (Gaussian or Bell-curve-like) distribution with a narrow FWHM centered at whatever peak frequency.

The main point is that the CCF only ‘shapes’ the distribution when the input distribution is wider / less narrow than the bandpass curve of the CCF - a sharp /narrow distribution will continue to pass through as a sharp / narrow distribution.


----------



## Donny84

If the LG G2 can deliver Flicker-free looking BFI(MotionPro High) and at least <4ms motion persistence with 900p(hoping for 1080p) motion resolution, with brightness hitting over 150 nits i'd make the upgrade. I think it's safe to say due to having both a heat sink & evo panel that the G2 will be able to produce a brighter SDR Game mode than last years C1 that will match the 250 nits of the C1's SDR ISF Bright room picture. Curious about input lag numbers. Can't be anymore than 13ms @60hz & 5ms @120fps. If they managed to get it even lower this year i'll be pretty impressed.

I want that Gallery stand too man.  It's probably gonna cost around $5000 CAD though for 65". That's a pretty penny.

So lemme get this straight. So far these are the known upgrades vs last years C1?

Evo Panel
Heatsink - (Brighter SDR Game Mode & Brighter BFI settings)
Gen 9 Processor - (Does this mean better upscaling and clarity?)
More Color Gamut/Space Options like RGB
Gallery Stand


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

fafrd said:


> You seem to be confused about the impact of color filters. The filters themselves have a wide ‘bandpass’ and cannot create distinct peaks with narrator FWHM when fed light with a wide FWHM distribution near the peak wavelength of the filter.
> 
> But feed that same color filter a tripolar white light composed or three narrow FWHM peaks at Red and Green and Blue, and the color filter will pass through whichever color it is tuned for without degrading the narrow FWHM distribution it was fed with.
> 
> This is exactly how QDEF-based QLED/LCDs are able to deliver impressive color volume in terms of % of BT.2020…


No, I understand clearly how color filters work, reread my entire post, not just the part you bolded. You don't get how color conversion works and are trying to fit QD Display into your WOLED color filter-based architecture!

It is clear that you don't understand Samsung's QD-Display architecture which is a very straightforward blue-light driven QDCC architecture. Simply put; a blue light (~450nm) is used to excite QDCC materials which then *converts *the blue light into red or green depending on the specific QD materials used. The beauty of QDCC output is it has high light efficiency, produces *narrower *bandwidth of full width at half maximum, and most important, you can tune/adjust the peak central wavelength. In lay terms, QDCC can *create the 3 narrow, precise peaks *like you see produced by RGB lasers, which then gets you to full BT2020! From the early tests Samsung seems to have achieved >90% of BT2020 which is unheard of in a non RGB laser.









What does Samsung get by screwing up the QDCC architecture by adding green light (~550 nm) to the blue light as you naively are suggesting? If they require more output just add another lay of blue OLED emitter. Lets break down the nonsense that ensues if they replace a blue layer with green as you suggest they did:

1) The red subpixel just lost light output from the subtracted blue that it would have color converted. The red sub pixel now needs to have color filter to block the useless green light.
2) The blue sub pixel also loses light from the replaced blue layer and also has to have added a color filter to block the useless green light.
3) The green sub pixel must have huge benefits right? Well not quite. There is more green light from a green layer but the QDCC green can't convert it to that nice narrow bandwidth distribution so will likely not be as helpful in getting to BT2020.

Net, replacing a blue emitter layer with a green emitter layer ends up down red, down blue, and perhaps slightly up green but a wider bandwidth green that is less helpful in achieving BT2020.

It does not make sense that Samsung would do that.

FYI QLED/LCDs *don't *achieve impressive levels of BT2020.


----------



## JasonHa

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> It is clear that you don't understand Samsung's QD-Display architecture which is a very straightforward blue-light driven QDCC architecture. Simply put; a blue light (~450nm) is used to excite QDCC materials which then *converts *the blue light into red or green depending on the specific QD materials used.


I think everyone in this thread understands this claim from Samsung.


----------



## chris7191

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> 1) The red subpixel just lost light output from the subtracted blue that it would have color converted. The red sub pixel now needs to have color filter to block the useless green light.
> 2) The blue sub pixel also loses light from the replaced blue layer and also has to have added a color filter to block the useless green light.
> 3) The green sub pixel must have huge benefits right? Well not quite. There is more green light from a green layer but the QDCC green can't convert it to that nice narrow bandwidth distribution so will likely not be as helpful in getting to BT2020.


While I still tend to guess there is not a green layer, fafrd does know what he is talking about. 

It isn't in many documents, but after I did more digging I found there are most likely already conventional color filters on the red and green to block unconverted blue photons, as he had suggested. It would be very possible to add additional filters for green/cyan, but it obviously isn't desirable.


----------



## aron7awol

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> 1) The red subpixel just lost light output from the subtracted blue that it would have color converted. The red sub pixel now needs to have color filter to block the useless green light.
> 2) The blue sub pixel also loses light from the replaced blue layer and also has to have added a color filter to block the useless green light.


Both of the subpixels with QDs already realize benefits from having color filters. Eliminating the fraction of unconverted blue light aka blue leakage (which would seriously harm gamut coverage) *and* preventing ambient light from exciting the QDs.


----------



## 59LIHP

Lordin files patent for high-efficiency blue OLED tech 








Lordin files patent for high-efficiency blue OLED tech


OLED material startup Lordin said on Tuesday that it has filed a patent related to blue OLED technology with high light emission efficiency.Company CEO Oh Hyoung-yun said the technology offers high-efficiency and a longer life span for the blue OLED materials used in OLED panels.Lordin was aiming to




thelec.net


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

chris7191 said:


> While I still tend to guess there is not a green layer, fafrd does know what he is talking about.
> 
> It isn't in many documents, but after I did more digging I found there are most likely already conventional color filters on the red and green to block unconverted blue photons, as he had suggested. It would be very possible to add additional filters for green/cyan, but it obviously isn't desirable.


It is well understood that depending on the QD load some filtering of blue may be required on the green and red subpixels to eliminate non-converted blue light. That is part and parcel of the blue light driven QDCC architecture; Tradeoffs between QD load, costs, central wavelengths, gamut coverage, light output, ... will all have to be considered by Samsung. The marketplace will decide if they made the right design choices.






Adding a green layer to an architecture that is driven by by QDCC of blue light is just stupid to use a technical term. It creates a host of problems and solves exactly what?


----------



## aron7awol

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> The beauty of QDCC output is it has high light efficiency, produces *narrower *bandwidth of full width at half maximum, and most important, you can tune/adjust the peak central wavelength. In lay terms, QDCC can *create the 3 narrow, precise peaks *like you see produced by RGB lasers, which then gets you to full BT2020! From the early tests Samsung seems to have achieved >90% of BT2020 which is unheard of in a non RGB laser.
> View attachment 3253075


QDCC isn't the only way to get a narrow peak. After all, that blue peak isn't created by QDCC, and it's actually the narrowest of the three.



HoustonHoyaFan said:


> What does Samsung get by screwing up the QDCC architecture by adding green light (~550 nm) to the blue light as you naively are suggesting?





HoustonHoyaFan said:


> The green sub pixel must have huge benefits right? Well not quite. There is more green light from a green layer but the QDCC green can't convert it to that nice narrow bandwidth distribution so will likely not be as helpful in getting to BT2020.


Is there a reason you assume the green phosphorescent OLED would be adding ~550 nm light and significantly broadening the peak, and not something closer to ~530-540 nm? In other words, do you actually know that it wouldn't be contributing a narrow peak of green light which would work well along with the QDCC green light to still achieve great BT2020 coverage?



HoustonHoyaFan said:


> If they require more output just add another lay of blue OLED emitter.


Sure, that's certainly the simplest solution, but is one more layer actually enough? @fafrd has done a great job in previous posts outlining the efficiency differences and why a single layer of green PHOLED makes an enormous difference vs simply adding more blue. It is quite the elegant solution of achieving the desired ratio of light without adding too much complexity/cost or any other major downside. 



HoustonHoyaFan said:


> It is well understood that depending on the QD load some filtering of blue may be required on the green and red subpixels to eliminate non-converted blue light. That is part and parcel of the blue light driven QDCC architecture


Okay, so you are acknowledging that the red subpixel almost certainly has/needs filtering even in the case of a blue-only emitter. This means that the red subpixel stack is already equipped with the necessary components to deal with some additional green light without much fanfare. The blue subpixel perhaps does not need a color filter in the blue-only scenario, but it does need a diffuser to try to match dispersion characteristics of the other subpixels, and if the only major change is a need to add a color filter to the blue subpixel, that's hardly a deal-breaker.



HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Adding a green layer to an architecture that is driven by by QDCC of blue light is just stupid to use a technical term. It creates a host of problems and solves exactly what?


I'm personally failing to see the "host of problems" you are referring to. As I said, I actually find it to be a quite elegant solution with no major downside at all.


----------



## fafrd

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> It is well understood that depending on the QD load some filtering of blue may be required on the green and red subpixels to eliminate non-converted blue light. That is part and parcel of the blue light driven QDCC architecture; Tradeoffs between QD load, costs, central wavelengths, gamut coverage, light output, ... will all have to be considered by Samsung. The marketplace will decide if they made the right design choices.





> Adding a green layer to an architecture that is driven by by QDCC of blue light is just stupid to use a technical term. It creates a host of problems and *solves exactly what?*


It makes QD-Display 1.0 semi-affordable.

The original QD-BOLED concept was based on the use of two layers of high-efficiency blue emitters with an expected efficiency of ~20 cd/A per layer or ~40 cd/A for the full stack.

Blue PHOLED didn’t materialize in time (and neither did blue TADF or Hyperflorescent Blue) so Samsung Display decided they needed to give the concept a go with plain ol’ blue FOLED with a blue emission efficiency of 35-40% of what that were hoping for.

Even if we assume that Samsung is using a similar Deuterium-based blue FOLED as what LGD has adopted for their 3S4C/WBE/Evo-capable panels, we’re taking about efficiency of ~8.4 cd/A, meaning Samsung Display would need to use 5 layers of blue to achieve equivalent output and lifetime.

Of course it would work, and of course it is elegant (and ‘simple’), but it would have cost a fortune.

First Samsung tried 3 blue FOLED layers which would have approached WOLED in cost but was noticeably dimmer than WOLED and was rejected by both Samsung Electronics and Sony.

Then they tried 4 blue layers (133% the OLED stack cost of WOLED) but that was also deemed too dim (CES ‘21).

So they were forced to go back to the drawing board a year ago and make a decision:

A/ add a 5th blue layer bringing further increasing manufacturing cost (5S OLED stack costing ~167% of WOLED) and swap out one of the blue FOLED layers with electro-optical efficiency of 7-8.4 cd/A for a green PHOLED layer with an electo-optical efficiency of over 70 cd/A.

Even 5 blue FOLED layers would likely not have allowed QD-Display 1.0 to match up against WOLEDs new Evo stack, while switching one blue layer for a high-efficiency green layer increases overall electro optical efficiency of a 4-layer stack from 28-30 cd/A based on 4S1C B-FOLED to 90-97 cd/A based on 4S2C B-B-B-G using a single layer of green PHOLED.

None of ‘problems’ you’ve listed is really much of a problem (other than it being far more complex to explain).

The biggest ‘problem’ with this modified QD-Display 1.0 solution is that it now puts QD-Display 1.0 out of alignment with QD-Display 2.0 (QNED), which was one of the major selling points of the entire 2-stage plan.

With a blue-only QD-BOLED, every manufacturing step outside of the OLED emission stack including the blue and green QDCC, blue ‘scattering’ material, and blue ‘absorption’ filters would be 100% aligned with the eventual transition to a QNED emission layer.

All the lessons learned, new technologies developed, and yield improvements achieved over the initial 2-3 years of QD-Display 1.0 would have greatly accelerated the transition to QNED.

With the change to a 2-color stack, much of the development and industrialization Samsung Display is now engaged in will be totally wasted when they move to QNED.


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

aron7awol said:


> QDCC isn't the only way to get a narrow peak. After all, that blue peak isn't created by QDCC, and it's actually the narrowest of the three.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a reason you assume the green phosphorescent OLED would be adding ~550 nm light and significantly broadening the peak, and not something closer to ~530-540 nm? In other words, do you actually know that it wouldn't be contributing a narrow peak of green light which would work well along with the QDCC green light to still achieve great BT2020 coverage?
> 
> 
> Sure, that's certainly the simplest solution, but is one more layer actually enough? @fafrd has done a great job in previous posts outlining the efficiency differences and why a single layer of green PHOLED makes an enormous difference vs simply adding more blue. It is quite the elegant solution of achieving the desired ratio of light without adding too much complexity/cost or any other major downside.
> 
> 
> Okay, so you are acknowledging that the red subpixel almost certainly has/needs filtering even in the case of a blue-only emitter. This means that the red subpixel stack is already equipped with the necessary components to deal with some additional green light without much fanfare. The blue subpixel perhaps does not need a color filter in the blue-only scenario, but it does need a diffuser to try to match dispersion characteristics of the other subpixels, and if the only major change is a need to add a color filter to the blue subpixel, that's hardly a deal-breaker.
> 
> 
> I'm personally failing to see the "host of problems" you are referring to. As I said, I actually find it to be a quite elegant solution with no major downside at all.


That seems to be some kind of mental masturbation exercise where you pretend that QD Display has a green emitter layer which replaced one of its blue emitter layer in a blue light driven QDCC architecture? Some guy on the internet has done a great job in explaining that adding a green layer is an elegant solution to achieving the desired ratio of light?

The product you are describing is *not *what the QD vendors have been promoting for the last 5+ years *nor *is it the blue light driven product that Samsung Display clearly said they built. 

One would imagine that with such a breakthrough hybrid architecture a company would attempt patent protection and be touted by the company that delivered it, especially if it is more capable and cost effective than the pure blue light driven QDCC!


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

fafrd said:


> It makes QD-Display 1.0 semi-affordable.
> 
> The original QD-BOLED concept was based on the use of two layers of high-efficiency blue emitters with an expected efficiency of ~20 cd/A per layer or ~40 cd/A for the full stack.
> 
> Blue PHOLED didn’t materialize in time (and neither did blue TADF or Hyperflorescent Blue) so Samsung Display decided they needed to give the concept a go with plain ol’ blue FOLED with a blue emission efficiency of 35-40% of what that were hoping for.
> 
> Even if we assume that Samsung is using a similar Deuterium-based blue FOLED as what LGD has adopted for their 3S4C/WBE/Evo-capable panels, we’re taking about efficiency of ~8.4 cd/A, meaning Samsung Display would need to use 5 layers of blue to achieve equivalent output and lifetime.
> 
> Of course it would work, and of course it is elegant (and ‘simple’), but it would have cost a fortune.
> 
> First Samsung tried 3 blue FOLED layers which would have approached WOLED in cost but was noticeably dimmer than WOLED and was rejected by both Samsung Electronics and Sony.
> 
> Then they tried 4 blue layers (133% the OLED stack cost of WOLED) but that was also deemed too dim (CES ‘21).
> 
> So they were forced to go back to the drawing board a year ago and make a decision:
> 
> A/ add a 5th blue layer bringing further increasing manufacturing cost (5S OLED stack costing ~167% of WOLED) and swap out one of the blue FOLED layers with electro-optical efficiency of 7-8.4 cd/A for a green PHOLED layer with an electo-optical efficiency of over 70 cd/A.
> 
> Even 5 blue FOLED layers would likely not have allowed QD-Display 1.0 to match up against WOLEDs new Evo stack, while switching one blue layer for a high-efficiency green layer increases overall electro optical efficiency of a 4-layer stack from 28-30 cd/A based on 4S1C B-FOLED to 90-97 cd/A based on 4S2C B-B-B-G using a single layer of green PHOLED.
> 
> None of ‘problems’ you’ve listed is really much of a problem (other than it being far more complex to explain).
> 
> The biggest ‘problem’ with this modified QD-Display 1.0 solution is that it now puts QD-Display 1.0 out of alignment with QD-Display 2.0 (QNED), which was one of the major selling points of the entire 2-stage plan.
> 
> With a blue-only QD-BOLED, every manufacturing step outside of the OLED emission stack including the blue and green QDCC, blue ‘scattering’ material, and blue ‘absorption’ filters would be 100% aligned with the eventual transition to a QNED emission layer.
> 
> All the lessons learned, new technologies developed, and yield improvements achieved over the initial 2-3 years of QD-Display 1.0 would have greatly accelerated the transition to QNED.
> 
> With the change to a 2-color stack, much of the development and industrialization Samsung Display is now engaged in will be totally wasted when they move to QNED.


To summarize what you posted:

Samsung Display realized that they *could not* meet their product goals as far as light output and brightness with a 4 layer blue OLED stack in their blue light driven QDCC architecture.

Samsung Display then realized that they could meet product goals if they replaced a blue emitter layer with a green emitter layer. They then delivered QD Display 1.0 with blue and green emitters. Got it!

Well looking at the first set of measurements; QD Display seems to be delivering 1,000 nits on a 10% window and 90% BT2020. If they got that by replacing a blue layer with a green layer then who is going to argue with their design.


----------



## fafrd

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> To summarize what you posted:
> 
> Samsung Display realized that they *could not* meet their product goals as far as light output and brightness with a 4 layer blue OLED stack in their blue light driven QDCC architecture.


Correct, with a few minor corrections/nuances.

First, Samsung Display seems to have believed they had met acceptable product goals by CES ‘21 but it was the product requirements of their customers (Samsung Electronics & Sony) that were apparently not met (insufficient peak brightness).

And second, I was not at CES ‘21 and did not see the prototype Samsung Display showed (and nor do I have any direct information of what OLED emission stack those prototypes were composed of). I am merely reflecting what has been reported from various sources and trying to connect dots.



> Samsung Display then realized that they could meet product goals if they replaced a blue emitter layer with a green emitter layer. They then delivered QD Display 1.0 with blue and green emitters. Got it!


Assuming ‘product goals’ encompassed both a performance target and a cost target, then yes, I suspect they determined that the only way to improve performance closer to customer expectation adding the least amount of additional production cost was to reinforce green emission by adding a highly-efficient green PHOLED layer.

And to be clear, this was not my epiphany. Around this time last year I was posting about how there was no way a FOLED-based QD-BOLED could be anywhere near cost-competitive with WOLED. I was doubting Samsung would bring this elegant new display technology into production and was concerned they might pull the plug on the entire initiative.

Then that modified structure diagram including a green PHOLED layer materialized in the newest UBI report and that was when I realized that would be a much better approach to improving blue FOLED-based performance without blowing the manufacturing cost budget. My suspicion is that Samsung Display either knowingly or unknowing leaked some details to UBI that tipped them off to this change (though I suppose it is possible that they just came to the same conclusion I did and realized on their own that this was the only way to salvage the program). It’s very odd that there was absolutely no mention / explanation of that change in structure they slipped into that 2021 report…



> Well looking at the first set of measurements; QD Display seems to be delivering 1,000 nits on a 10% window and 90% BT2020. If they got that by replacing a blue layer with a green layer then who is going to argue with their design.


Exactly. 

QD-Display 1.0 will live or die based on manufacturing cost. I’m still concerned that the manufacturing cost premium of 4S2C QD-COLED will prove to be too high versus WOLED to limit it’s success but with 4 OLED layers instead of 5 or even 6 blue FOLED layers, at least it has a fighting chance…

And I absolutely agree with Samsung Electronics and Sony’s insistence that QD-Display 1.0 needed to at least match if not exceed WOLED in peak brightness levels (in addition to matching it in black levels and surpassing it in color volume).

Enthusiasts will be prepared to pay a premium for QD-OLED, but far fewer of them if it means trading off an improvement in color for a step backwards in peak white levels.


----------



## aron7awol

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> That seems to be some kind of mental masturbation exercise where you pretend that QD Display has a green emitter layer which replaced one of its blue emitter layer in a blue light driven QDCC architecture? Some guy on the internet has done a great job in explaining that adding a green layer is an elegant solution to achieving the desired ratio of light?
> 
> The product you are describing is *not *what the QD vendors have been promoting for the last 5+ years *nor *is it the blue light driven product that Samsung Display clearly said they built.


We're not pretending anything. We've seen the specs of the panels. We're looking at the tech in detail (what this thread is actually about), theorizing as far as how the level of performance is achieved given what we know about the underlying tech, the differences in cost between different approaches and their impact on performance. It's not just a random guy's theory on the internet, but even if it was, who cares, if the math/science/physics dictate that the story we're being told might not be the full story, then IMO it's worth digging deeper. But in reality, the UBI report showed green added to the mix, and again, it's a very compelling and elegant way to achieve the level of performance they seem to have achieved, given the limitations that we are aware of in the underlying tech.

If you want to ignore it and not entertain the possibility that there is green in the emitter, that's certainly your prerogative. But repeatedly bringing up "issues" and coming up with a new one each time it is pointed out that the previous one you brought up is invalid, that's just moving the goalposts. First you said there were VTE registration challenges, then you said some imaginary person claimed there were separate green OLED subpixels, then you claimed there were no color filters at all, then you claimed it was ~550 nm green light and thus "no way they could get the narrow wavelength spectrums necessary", all while telling @fafrd that he doesn't understand how QD color conversion works.  I'm sorry to point this out, but each of those "issues" you brought up only showed that you didn't fully understand how a QD-COLED display would actually work. If you do fully understand it at this point, do you actually see any major issues with it?

Is QD-COLED the actual production design? We don't know, of course. But it's certainly within the realm of possibilities, and arguably the most likely possibility.


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

fafrd said:


> Correct, with a few minor corrections/nuances.
> 
> First, Samsung Display seems to have believed they had met acceptable product goals by CES ‘21 but it was the product requirements of their customers (Samsung Electronics & Sony) that were apparently not met (insufficient peak brightness).
> 
> And second, I was not at CES ‘21 and did not see the prototype Samsung Display showed (and nor do I have any direct information of what OLED emission stack those prototypes were composed of). I am merely reflecting what has been reported from various sources and trying to connect dots.
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming ‘product goals’ encompassed both a performance target and a cost target, then yes, I suspect they determined that the only way to improve performance closer to customer expectation adding the least amount of additional production cost was to reinforce green emission by adding a highly-efficient green PHOLED layer.
> 
> And to be clear, this was not my epiphany. Around this time last year I was posting about how there was no way a FOLED-based QD-BOLED could be anywhere near cost-competitive with WOLED. I was doubting Samsung would bring this elegant new display technology into production and was concerned they might pull the plug on the entire initiative.
> 
> Then that modified structure diagram including a green PHOLED layer materialized in the newest UBI report and that was when I realized that would be a much better approach to improving blue FOLED-based performance without blowing the manufacturing cost budget. My suspicion is that Samsung Display either knowingly or unknowing leaked some details to UBI that tipped them off to this change (though I suppose it is possible that they just came to the same conclusion I did and realized on their own that this was the only way to salvage the program). It’s very odd that there was absolutely no mention / explanation of that change in structure they slipped into that 2021 report…
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> QD-Display 1.0 will live or die based on manufacturing cost. I’m still concerned that the manufacturing cost premium of 4S2C QD-COLED will prove to be too high versus WOLED to limit it’s success but with 4 OLED layers instead of 5 or even 6 blue FOLED layers, at least it has a fighting chance…
> 
> And I absolutely agree with Samsung Electronics and Sony’s insistence that QD-Display 1.0 needed to at least match if not exceed WOLED in peak brightness levels (in addition to matching it in black levels and surpassing it in color volume).
> 
> Enthusiasts will be prepared to pay a premium for QD-OLED, but far fewer of them if it means trading off an improvement in color for a step backwards in peak white levels.


I appreciate the fact that you are clear on what you know for a fact vs what you suspect and/or are connecting the dots. Thanks for your honest reply. 

I am curious if you would be shocked if in fact the QD Display product is a blue emitter only product?


----------



## aron7awol

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> I am curious if you would be shocked if in fact the QD Display product is a blue emitter only product?


I won't be shocked, but I'll certainly be curious to know the full details of the panel


----------



## fafrd

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> I appreciate the fact that you are clear on what you know for a fact vs what you suspect and/or are connecting the dots. Thanks for your honest reply.
> 
> I am curious if you would be shocked if in fact the QD Display product is a blue emitter only product?


Shocked only in one of 3 alternative ways:

-it would mean Samsung has some secret blue sauce up their sleeves that they have managed to keep completely stealth (such as a Blue PHOLED emitter or other high-efficiency Blue emitter in production at least 2 years before anyone believes the first offereing (likely from UDC) will be industrialized).

-or it would mean LGD had really been dragging their heels and should have delivered significantly brighter WOLED panels years ago (doubtful in the context of the Brightness Wars Samsung Electronics started more than 5 years ago),

-or it would I don’t have nearly the grasp of how OLED technology works that I think I do .

To be fully transparent on my knowledge and my analysis, it is all from what I have read and various published results.

One of my fundamental assumptions is that Samsung Display has a blue-power per FOLED layer which is no stronger than what LGD is getting from each blue FOLED layer they use for 3S4C B-R/Y/G-B WOLED (meaning no more than ~8.4 cd/A per layer using the new Deuterium Blue, possibly as low ~7cd/A if Deuterium merely translates to being able to be driven harder without aging faster, rather than any true increase in underlying blue FOLED electro-optical efficiency.

This means 4-blue FOLED layer QD-BOLED should have ~double the blue power per um^2 of 3S4C/WBE/Evo-capable WOLED (with 2 layers of Blue FOLED).

Thanks the inputs from Wizziwig, I’m also now assuming that QD Display 1.0 has incorporated Samsung Display’s polorizer-free technology which delivers close to a 100% increase in brightness versus what QD-Display 1.0 would get using a polarizer like WOLED.

That polorizerless technology is based on the use of conventional color filters over all subpixels (including blue) which is another argument you overlooked when detailing all of the drawbacks of adding a green OLED layer necessitating the addition of red and blue CCF over the red and blue subpixels:









Once they were opting to add CCF anyway to allow use of a green PHOLED layer, designing the subpixels to capitalize on their CCF-based technology to eliminate the polorizer would allow Samsung to Display to ~double brightness levels while also reducing cost (at least enough to fully or partially offset the added cost of the CCFs).

[P.S. and just to avoid any possible confusion, the above structure depicts BOE’s clone of Samsung Display’s CCF-based technology to eliminate the polarizer of an RGB OLED (ie: for phones).

For a polorizer-less QD-Display 1.0, the anode, cathode, and red, green and blue OLED emitters between them should be replaced with red and green CCF and whatever pass-through scattering material Samsung Display is using to diffuse the directionality of the blue photons coming from the Blue OLED emitting layers below.]


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> Shocked only in one of 3 alternative ways:...


So, what do you think the implications are for aging if there is indeed green in the stack?


----------



## fafrd

chris7191 said:


> So, what do you think the implications are for aging if there is indeed green in the stack?


You can only talk about aging in the context of brightness.

The swap of one blue FOLED layer for a green PHOLED layer will either deliver increased lifetime at equivalent brightness or increased brightness for equivalent lifetime or a little more lifetime at a little higher brightness.

You just need to look at how small the green subpixel is on LG WOLED to get a sense of how slowly green PHOLED ages (even when driven hard).


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> You can only talk about aging in the context of brightness.
> 
> The swap of one blue FOLED layer for a green PHOLED layer will either deliver increased lifetime at equivalent brightness or increased brightness for equivalent lifetime or a little more lifetime at a little higher brightness.
> 
> You just need to look at how small the green subpixel is on LG WOLED to get a sense of how slowly green PHOLED ages (even when driven hard).


I see. Is it correct to think it’s not possible to get a perfect match between the curves even controlling the size and drive of the green? I assume there would be some firmware functionality then to ensure there isn’t a green shift over time.


----------



## fafrd

chris7191 said:


> I see. Is it correct to think it’s not possible to get a perfect match between the curves even controlling the size and drive of the green? I assume there would be some firmware functionality then to ensure there isn’t a green shift over time.


I assume Samsung has the same technology as LG allowing each subpixel color aging rate to be monitored and compensated for independently.

So there is really no need for ‘matching’.

What’s important is what lifetime is being aimed for and how much ‘headroom’ is reserved by each subpixel color to get there through compensation (consuming that headroom).

The fastest-aging color will limit the overall lifetime at full brightness and beyond that point, the manufacturer has the choice of either reducing peak brightness without introducing any color shift (taper all subpixel output down at the rate of the first color to exhaust it’s headroom) or maximizing peak brightness regardless of what amount of color shift may result.


----------



## Wizziwig

I think Chris is talking about color shift within the WOLED stack, not of individual sub-pixels. With a blue-only stack, there is no color shift to deal with because all stack layers of the sub-pixel age at the same rate whenever the sub-pixel is active. Compensating for just luminance loss is simpler than having to also compensate for color temperature drift of the entire panel as it ages. In the rtings long-term WOLED burn in test, you can clearly see the gray slides are turning from cyan and not just fading in luminance.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I think Chris is talking about color shift within the WOLED stack, not of individual sub-pixels. With a blue-only stack, there is no color shift to deal with because all stack layers of the sub-pixel age at the same rate whenever the sub-pixel is active. Compensating for just luminance loss is simpler than having to also compensate for color temperature drift of the entire panel as it ages. In the rtings long-term WOLED burn in test, you can clearly see the gray slides are turning from cyan and not just fading in luminance.


For sure, there are further improvements LG could introduce in their burn-in/aging compensation technology.

There is nothing inherently more challenging about compensating for aging of a multi-layer stack versus a single-color stack - it all comes down to how accurate your model is.

When I see grey fields shift Cyan on WOLED, I’ve always assumed that that is the result of the red reservoir/headroom being exhausted (meaning that red can no longer deliver full peak brightness).

With the right model and prioritizing color accuracy over brightness, LG should be able to reduce green and blue output to match reduced red output but burin-in would still be visible unless they limited the full-field brightness to whatever degraded level the most burned-in pixels are capable of delivering.

LG seems to just drive the subpixels at the maximum value as the ‘reservoir’ reaches empty and the peak output starts to degrade.

It won’t surprise me at all to see Samsung Display one-up LGD in burn-in compensation / prevention technology/algorithms.

Not that extending the lifetime of OLED TVs once they begin to burn-in / degrade is the highest priority, but ideally you’d like to see a user setting to prioritize brightness over color accuracy or prioritizing color accuracy over brightness…


----------



## OLED_Overrated

55inch samsung qd oled tv launching for $2200. There were news article a while ago predicting that the initial launch price of qdoled would be around $8000 and how samsung display is having low yield rates for their qdoled. It doesn't seem true given the price of these tvs. Even their flagship neo qleds are priced higher.


----------



## wco81

So the Sonys would be what $300-$500 more?


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

fafrd said:


> Shocked only in one of 3 alternative ways:
> 
> -it would mean Samsung has some secret blue sauce up their sleeves that they have managed to keep completely stealth (such as a Blue PHOLED emitter or other high-efficiency Blue emitter in production at least 2 years before anyone believes the first offereing (likely from UDC) will be industrialized).
> 
> -or it would mean LGD had really been dragging their heels and should have delivered significantly brighter WOLED panels years ago (doubtful in the context of the Brightness Wars Samsung Electronics started more than 5 years ago),
> 
> -or it would I don’t have nearly the grasp of how OLED technology works that I think I do .
> 
> To be fully transparent on my knowledge and my analysis, it is all from what I have read and various published results.
> 
> One of my fundamental assumptions is that Samsung Display has a blue-power per FOLED layer which is no stronger than what LGD is getting from each blue FOLED layer they use for 3S4C B-R/Y/G-B WOLED (meaning no more than ~8.4 cd/A per layer using the new Deuterium Blue, possibly as low ~7cd/A if Deuterium merely translates to being able to be driven harder without aging faster, rather than any true increase in underlying blue FOLED electro-optical efficiency.
> 
> This means 4-blue FOLED layer QD-BOLED should have ~double the blue power per um^2 of 3S4C/WBE/Evo-capable WOLED (with 2 layers of Blue FOLED).
> 
> Thanks the inputs from Wizziwig, I’m also now assuming that QD Display 1.0 has incorporated Samsung Display’s polorizer-free technology which delivers close to a 100% increase in brightness versus what QD-Display 1.0 would get using a polarizer like WOLED.
> 
> That polorizerless technology is based on the use of conventional color filters over all subpixels (including blue) which is another argument you overlooked when detailing all of the drawbacks of adding a green OLED layer necessitating the addition of red and blue CCF over the red and blue subpixels:
> 
> View attachment 3253379
> 
> Once they were opting to add CCF anyway to allow use of a green PHOLED layer, designing the subpixels to capitalize on their CCF-based technology to eliminate the polorizer would allow Samsung to Display to ~double brightness levels while also reducing cost (at least enough to fully or partially offset the added cost of the CCFs).
> 
> [P.S. and just to avoid any possible confusion, the above structure depicts BOE’s clone of Samsung Display’s CCF-based technology to eliminate the polarizer of an RGB OLED (ie: for phones).
> 
> For a polorizer-less QD-Display 1.0, the anode, cathode, and red, green and blue OLED emitters between them should be replaced with red and green CCF and whatever pass-through scattering material Samsung Display is using to diffuse the directionality of the blue photons coming from the Blue OLED emitting layers below.]


I again have to commend you on clearly stating what are assumptions, inferences from WOLED architectures, and "connect the dots" from publicly available sources. I know that you are aware that if some of those assumptions are off then the conclusions of even the best analysis become quite fragile.

The driving assumption seems to be that the initial QD Display engineering samples did not meet the target customers' expectations around brightness performance and so needed to be changed by adding a green layer. That does not appear to be the case, in fact I was told that the current certified performance of 1000 nits peak and 90% BT2020 are on the low side of what the theoretical models predict from a 3 stack blue OLED-driven QDCC architecture. Sony, Dell, and Samsung Electronics seems to have signed off on that performance. Yields, well that continues to be a challenge but process maturity over the next 18 months should fix those issues.

You have already pointed out why Samsung Display would be incompetent if they changed their blue light driven architecture; It would be strategic suicide of their $8B investment in QD Display. Certainly not something an organization would risk to sell a mere 30,000 panels per month!

I would be 100% shocked if there is a green emitter layer in QD Display.


----------



## djsimmz

wco81 said:


> So the Sonys would be what $300-$500 more?


Sony was expected at $3000 for the 55" and $4000 for the 65" of the A95K.


----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


> 55inch samsung qd oled tv launching for $2200. There were news article a while ago predicting that the initial launch price of qdoled would be around $8000 and how samsung display is having low yield rates for their qdoled. It doesn't seem true given the price of these tvs. Even their flagship neo qleds are priced higher.


It’s interesting that virtually everyone is calling the S85B a QD-OLED TV: Samsung announces its QD-OLED TV, called Samsung OLED (S95B) | Digital Trends

But Samsung: Samsung Begins Pre-Orders for 2022 TVs, Including Flagship Neo QLED 8K Models - Samsung US Newsroom

‘The new Samsung OLED goes beyond just panel technology for a screen experience well beyond what has been available from OLED TVs to date and is yet another option for consumers to customize their experiences.’


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

OLED_Overrated said:


> 55inch samsung qd oled tv launching for $2200. There were news article a while ago predicting that the initial launch price of qdoled would be around $8000 and how samsung display is having low yield rates for their qdoled. It doesn't seem true given the price of these tvs. Even their flagship neo qleds are priced higher.


Does not seem to say QD OLED anywhere? Could that be a LG WOLED panel?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Does not seem to say QD OLED anywhere? Could that be a LG WOLED panel?











Samsung officially unveils S95B QD-OLED TVs


55 and 65 inches with 4K resolution




www.flatpanelshd.com




_"For now, Samsung is referring to the S95B as OLED TVs with no references to QD-OLED – FlatpanelsHD saw them at *CES 2022*. We are chasing more details. *Update:* Samsung refers to its as "Quantum Dot" so it is QD-OLED_."


----------



## CliffordinWales

Judging by the press release Samsung aren't pushing that S95B very strongly. It doesn't feature in the headline of their press release and is only mentioned fourth in the running order after the 8k and 4k Neo QLEDs and even after The Frame. All seems a bit half-hearted.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

CliffordinWales said:


> Judging by the press release Samsung aren't pushing that S95B very strongly. It doesn't feature in the headline of their press release and is only mentioned fourth in the running order after the 8k and 4k Neo QLEDs and even after The Frame. All seems a bit half-hearted.


Samsung Electronics made it clear that their neo qleds are the best tvs and all oled tvs are inferior which is why the info for this tv was discreetly released and why this tv is priced below their neo qleds.


----------



## fafrd

CliffordinWales said:


> Judging by the press release Samsung aren't pushing that S95B very strongly. It doesn't feature in the headline of their press release and is only mentioned fourth in the running order after the 8k and 4k Neo QLEDs and even after The Frame. All seems a bit half-hearted.


Alot of aspects to cause head-scratching at this stage, for sure.

The far-more-competitive pricing than expected is a big head scratcher (parity versus the G2) along with the switch in marketing plan from QD-OLED = QD-Display 1.0 and WOLED = OLED to QD-OLED = OLED.

I hope it proves misplaced, but my deep-seated fear is that Samsung may be trying to keep all options open and planning for the possibility of introducing the worst panel lottery of all time (selling the S95B with a mixture of QD-OLED or WOLED panels).

I’m disturbed by the fact that I can’t find any reference in the specs to Quantum Dot other than the sole reference in the full specs to:

‘Color: 100% Colour Volume with Quantum Dot’

That’s well below half-hearted and once coupled with the oft-repeated rumors of Samsung Electronics sourcing WOLED panels from LGD, starts to smell a bit like Samsung may be attempting to position themselves to pull a fast one (if it proves necessary to get out of a jam).


----------



## wco81

Will the Samsung QD OLEDs have the large heat sinks?

Also Vincent Teoh speculated that the Sony will only have two 48 Gbps HDMI ports vs 4 for the C2 and G2 because of commodity Mediatek SOC vs a more powerful proprietary LG SOC.


----------



## 8mile13

OLED_Overrated said:


> Samsung Electronics made it clear that their neo qleds are the best tvs and all oled tvs are inferior which is why the info for this tv was discreetly released and why this tv is priced below their neo qleds.


They will call it a QD Display don't they? 
Samsung Display | Products/Technology – QD Display


----------



## Michellstar

Samsung display and samsung electronics are different companies with different goals.

It's the same with Lg, one company makes the panels and the other the Tvs

For instance the Ex panel it's a trademark of Lg display, and Evo panel from Lg electronics.

Enviado desde mi Mi MIX 2S mediante Tapatalk


----------



## 59LIHP

LG Display evaluating Gen 8.5 OLED deposition 








LG Display evaluating Gen 8.5 OLED deposition


LG Display has been evaluating the deposition process for Gen 8.5 (2200x2500mm) OLED panels since December last year, TheElec has learned.The evaluation is being done at its supplier Sunic System’s facility at Paju, sources said. The facility houses Sunic System’s Gen 8.5 half-cut and vertical depos




thelec.net


----------



## 8mile13

Michellstar said:


> Samsung display and samsung electronics are different companies with different goals.
> 
> It's the same with Lg, one company makes the panels and the other the Tvs
> 
> For instance the Ex panel it's a trademark of Lg display, and Evo panel from Lg electronics.
> 
> Enviado desde mi Mi MIX 2S mediante Tapatalk


Right. Samsung Electronics calls it ''Samsung OLED technology'' and ''OLED''. I was under the impression that they both did not want it to be called OLED.


----------



## stl8k

Robert of Value Electronics offers some technical insights into the 2022 LGE/LGD innovations in the intro to this video.






While his language can be a bit imprecise, some of the improvement themes he mentions are themes I saw in recent/important patents from LGD over the past 6 months.


----------



## crbdrb

Is it a known fact that the Samsung S95B is even a BOLED?

Either way, we can rest comfortably knowing that…

*“This stylish TV has a profile so thin it was inspired by a laser beam.”*


----------



## 59LIHP

*Alienware 34 QD-OLED Monitor | 7 Myths Busted*


> _With new technology comes many questions, and since the Alienware 34 QD-OLED monitor was announced, many myths, assumptions, and misinformation has been generated. Does QD-OLED have a pentile pixel arrangement? How bright does this QD-OLED monitor get? What about QD-OLED burn-in? We take a look at 7 QD-OLED concerns and address each one with test measurements, data, and personal observations. See for yourself! _


0:00 - Intro
1:23 - Check Out Our Full Review
1:52 - Is This A PenTile Display?
4:04 - Are QD-OLEDs The Most Color Accurate?
5:22 - Does This Monitor Max Out At 600 Nits?
6:57 - Does This Display Hit True Black?
8:23 - Is ABL An Issue?
8:56 - What About Burn-In?
9:37 - Is This A Substitute For A TV?
10:35 - Final Thoughts


----------



## fafrd

crbdrb said:


> Is it a known fact that the Samsung S95B is even a BOLED?
> 
> Either way, we can rest comfortably knowing that…
> 
> *“This stylish TV has a profile so thin it was inspired by a laser beam.”*


At this point, I’d be pretty surprised if no S95Bs ship with Quantum Dots, but whether that means BOLED or COLED, or even shipping some WOLED TVs without any Quantum Dots layer this year, it’s really inclear.

With Samsung Electronics focus on Quantum Dots, it’s exceedingly strange that there is no mention of them in the S95B portion of their press release (nor the marketing materials on their website).

Especially given all of the on-again, off-again reports of a supply agreement with LGD for WOLED panels, I just don’t trust Samsung to not be teeing-up a fallback plan in case QD-OLED panel deliveries by Samsung Display fail to materialize as committed…

Until we see a clear specification for the S95B that cannot be delivered by a WOLED panel or a clear statement that at least some of the photons emitted have been generated by Quantum Dots, I just can’t get over the queasy feeling that Samsung Electronics has given themselves the wiggle-room to ship the S95B with either a QD-OLED panel or a WOLED panel (which would be the worst Panel Lottery ever!)…


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> At this point, I’d be pretty surprised if no S95Bs ship with Quantum Dots, but whether that means BOLED or COLED, or even shipping some WOLED TVs without any Quantum Dots layer this year, it’s really inclear.
> 
> With Samsung Electronics focus on Quantum Dots, it’s exceedingly strange that there is no mention of them in the S95B portion of their press release (nor the marketing materials on their website).
> 
> Especially given all of the on-again, off-again reports of a supply agreement with LGD for WOLED panels, I just don’t trust Samsung to not be teeing-up a fallback plan in case QD-OLED panel deliveries by Samsung Display fail to materialize as committed…
> 
> Until we see a clear specification for the S95B that cannot be delivered by a WOLED panel or a clear statement that at least some of the photons emitted have been generated by Quantum Dots, I just can’t get over the queasy feeling that Samsung Electronics has given themselves the wiggle-room to ship the S95B with either a QD-OLED panel or a WOLED panel (which would be the worst Panel Lottery ever!)…


Please stop repeating the same thing on all the threads of this forum. This is getting tiresome.
You may be right, time will tell. 
However for the moment, Samsung Electronic will launch the S95B which is a QD-OLED. 
Nothing prevents that when Samsung Electronic will have concluded an agreement with LG Display, there will also be Oled WRVB. But this is not the case for the moment. Don't worry, you'll be the first to know if it happens.


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> At this point, I’d be pretty surprised if no S95Bs ship with Quantum Dots, but whether that means BOLED or COLED, or even shipping some WOLED TVs without any Quantum Dots layer this year, it’s really inclear.
> 
> With Samsung Electronics focus on Quantum Dots, it’s exceedingly strange that there is no mention of them in the S95B portion of their press release (nor the marketing materials on their website).
> 
> Especially given all of the on-again, off-again reports of a supply agreement with LGD for WOLED panels, I just don’t trust Samsung to not be teeing-up a fallback plan in case QD-OLED panel deliveries by Samsung Display fail to materialize as committed…
> 
> Until we see a clear specification for the S95B that cannot be delivered by a WOLED panel or a clear statement that at least some of the photons emitted have been generated by Quantum Dots, I just can’t get over the queasy feeling that Samsung Electronics has given themselves the wiggle-room to ship the S95B with either a QD-OLED panel or a WOLED panel (which would be the worst Panel Lottery ever!)…


It's a QD-OLED, we don't need more conspiracy theories.


----------



## stl8k

chris7191 said:


> It's a QD-OLED, we don't need more conspiracy theories.


Yeah, QD maker Nanosys who promoted a press article about the new Samsung OLED is in on the conspiracy too, promoting a TV that doesn't contain its materials.


----------



## jl4069

This Fomo fellow just dropped a potentially interesting oled video. Whoever he is, i get the impression he is rather close with the owner of Value electronics, Zohn, and as such he may be getting his info from him. 

Fomo is claiming in this video that Samsungs qd-oled will not get a heat sink like the Sony variant has; which seems like a statement he would not make unless he knew for certain. And he also drops another potentially interesting bit of info, saying that Samsung's qd-oled is using 4 blue layers in its stack. (at around the 6:30 mark)


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

aron7awol said:


> I won't be shocked, but I'll certainly be curious to know the full details of the panel


Nanosys has been detailing the QD OLED architecture for almost 5 years. Samsung Display, Sony, and many 3rd party entities have done detailed breakdowns. What other details are you waiting for?


----------



## JasonHa

Nanosys does not make the televisions. They do not describe the specific engineering choices made by specific display manufacturers. At most, they give ranges of specifications, describing the positive and negative effects over those ranges. And they only manufacture a small part of the overall set of components in a television.

Samsung Display has given us marketing materials.

We're interested in the actual measured performance by independent third-party professional calibrators, and what clues we might gain from such measurements. We're interested in the actual technical details of how the televisions are engineered.


----------



## aron7awol

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Nanosys has been detailing the QD OLED architecture for almost 5 years. Samsung Display, Sony, and many 3rd party entities have done detailed breakdowns. What other details are you waiting for?


A few just off the top of my head...
How many layers of blue?
Which type of blue OLED?
How well did they do matching dispersion between the 3 subpixels?

I have genuine interest in the technology and engineering behind the panels. Everything...to the finest detail. That's why I'm here. Are you here for something else?

If every single detail of the production design is known/obvious to you at this point, then put it all down in a post now and we can revisit it as the full details are revealed. Do you still think there are no color filters in the production design?


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> This paper published by LGD in 2018 does a good job explaining what went into developing the 3S3C (WBC) WOLED stack LGD developed in 2015 and introduced into 2016-generation WOLED TVs (and beyond through this year’s C1): (PDF) Advanced Technologies for Large-Sized OLED Display
> 
> Sometime in ~2023 I imagine we’ll see a similar paper materialize detailing all of the work and analysis LGD put into the newly-released 3S4C (WBE) ‘Evo’ WOLED stack…


What are the 4 colors in 3S4C? What are the wavelengths on the peaks?


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> What are the 4 colors in 3S4C? What are the wavelengths on the peaks?


The first WOLED was 2S2C with a single blue FOLED layer and a single yellow PHOLED layer.

Blue wasn’t strong-enough or (would age too rapidly at target brightness), and the red peak they got from filtering yellow through a red conventional color filter was not sufficient to cover 90-95% of DCI-P3 and compete in the age of HDR, so they went to a 3S3C color stack composed of Blue-Yellow/Red-Blue where the middle layer was a mixture of yellow PHOLED and red PHOLED. This is the panel they labeled WBC that existed from 2015 to 2021.

The 3S4C / WBE stack that materialized last year switched the standard blue FOLED emitters for deuterium-based blue FOLED emitters which can be driven up to ~20% harder while not aging any faster than the standard emitters and also improved the strength and narrowness of the green peak by addMing a green PHOLED emitter to the middle stack.

So the 3S4C/WBE/Evo-capable stack is blue-red/yellow/green-blue.

I’ve been assuming that ‘EX’ is no more than the same 3S4C stack with optimized subpuxel layouts (supposedly also including removal of a sensing trace for increased PAR), but we won’t know for sure until we see measurements of SPD (Spectral Power Distribution) of the WX panels to see whether they match the SPD of the WBE/Evo-based G1…


----------



## CliffordinWales

fafrd said:


> The 3S4C / WBE stack that materialized last year switched the standard blue FOLED emitters for deuterium-based blue PHOLED emitters which can be driven up to ~20% harder while not aging any faster than the standard emitters and also improved the strength and narrowness of the green peak by addMing a green PHOLED emitter to the middle stack.


I didn't think there were any deep blue phosphorescent OLED materials in widespread use yet - I thought UDC's recent claim that it will be commercialising a phosphorescent blue in 2024 was supposed to represent a big breakthrough?

UDC blue phosphorescent OLED material to be commercialized in 2024-Industry News-新闻中心 

A company called Lordin has also announced a high-efficiency blue OLED but I believe this is still a fluorescent material?






LORDIN hopes to launch a commercial blue OLED emitter by 2024, plans to go public later in 2022 | OLED Info
 

The Elec reports that Korea-based LORDIN is progressing with its blue OLED emitter technology. The company recently filed for a high-efficiency blue OLED emission patent, and according to the company's plans it aims to have a commercial blue OLED emitter out in 2024.Not much is known about...




www.oled-info.com


----------



## fafrd

CliffordinWales said:


> I didn't think there were any deep blue phosphorescent OLED materials in widespread use yet


A rare typo that slipped through on my part - I meant Deuterium-based FOLED emitter (typo fixed).



> - I thought UDC's recent claim that it will be commercialising a phosphorescent blue in 2024 was supposed to represent a big breakthrough?
> 
> UDC blue phosphorescent OLED material to be commercialized in 2024-Industry News-新闻中心


Yes, the industrialization of a high-efficiency blue emitter will drive a sea-change in the OLED display industry (and especially for large-screen OLEDs like WOLED & QD-BOLED).

And you are correct - a blue PHOLED from UDC finally arriving into production lines by 2024 looks like the best-case and safest bet from where things stand today (UDC is a public company and so must be very conservative with what they announce).



> A company called Lordin has also announced a high-efficiency blue OLED but I believe this is still a fluorescent material?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LORDIN hopes to launch a commercial blue OLED emitter by 2024, plans to go public later in 2022 | OLED Info
> 
> 
> The Elec reports that Korea-based LORDIN is progressing with its blue OLED emitter technology. The company recently filed for a high-efficiency blue OLED emission patent, and according to the company's plans it aims to have a commercial blue OLED emitter out in 2024.Not much is known about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-info.com


From the article you referenced:

‘The company has also developed a blue OLED phosphorescence emitter.’

Private companies raising money from venture capitalists don’t need to be nearly as cautious about what they announce / promise.

From the efficiency, it could be a PHOLED or TADF or a Hyperflorescent Blue emitter or even something ‘new’.

UDC has had a Light Blue PHOLED for years and I don’t see the words ‘deep blue’ anywhere in the article. Until we see specs and data, I’d be skeptical that Lordin solves in a few years a problem UDC and a host of research labs have been working on for decades…

Also , company background says this:

‘LORDIN has raised just over $6 million in funds, and is looking to IPO in the future. The company hopes to develop a commercial OLED emitter by 2024.’

So add Lordin to Cynora and Kyulux as alternates that may materialize if UDC stumbles.

But with UDC’s recent announcement, a deep blue PHOLED emitter in production for OLED TVs by 2024 or 2025 looks more likely that it ever has and will lead to a step-change in OLED performance.

Samsung Display can use blue PHOLED to drop from a 4S OLED stack to a 2S OLED stack (as they were originally aiming for). This will dramatically lower panel cost.

LG can also use Blue PHOLED to reduce manufacturing cost by dropping from a 3S stack with 2 blue FOLED layers to a 2S stack with a single blue PHOLED layer (likely picking up some brightness in addition) or they can maintain the cost of a 3-layer OLED stack but gain significant peak brightness (possibly as much as 50%) and color volume. Or for the first time, they could offer a lower-cost WOLED panel matching today’s WOLED performance and a higher-performing premium WOLED panel matching today’s WOLED cost.

It’ll be a tough call deciding whether to jump on a QD-OLED or wait to see what 2024 or 2025 brings..,


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> A rare typo that slipped through on my part - I meant Deuterium-based FOLED emitter (typo fixed).
> 
> 
> Yes, the industrialization of a high-efficiency blue emitter will drive a sea-change in the OLED display industry (and especially for large-screen OLEDs like WOLED & QD-BOLED).
> 
> And you are correct - a blue PHOLED from UDC finally arriving into production lines by 2024 looks like the best-case and safest bet from where things stand today (UDC is a public company and so must be very conservative with what they announce).
> 
> 
> 
> From the article you referenced:
> 
> ‘The company has also developed a blue OLED phosphorescence emitter.’
> 
> Private companies raising money from venture capitalists don’t need to be nearly as cautious about what they announce / promise.
> 
> From the efficiency, it could be a PHOLED or TADF or a Hyperflorescent Blue emitter or even something ‘new’.
> 
> UDC has had a Light Blue PHOLED for years and I don’t see the words ‘deep blue’ anywhere in the article. Until we see specs and data, I’d be skeptical that Lordin solves in a few years a problem UDC and a host of research labs have been working on for decades…
> 
> Also , company background says this:
> 
> ‘LORDIN has raised just over $6 million in funds, and is looking to IPO in the future. The company hopes to develop a commercial OLED emitter by 2024.’
> 
> So add Lordin to Cynora and Kyulux as alternates that may materialize if UDC stumbles.
> 
> But with UDC’s recent announcement, a deep blue PHOLED emitter in production for OLED TVs by 2024 or 2025 looks more likely that it ever has and will lead to a step-change in OLED performance.
> 
> Samsung Display can use blue PHOLED to drop from a 4S OLED stack to a 2S OLED stack (as they were originally aiming for). This will dramatically lower panel cost.
> 
> LG can also use Blue PHOLED to reduce manufacturing cost by dropping from a 3S stack with 2 blue FOLED layers to a 2S stack with a single blue PHOLED layer (likely picking up some brightness in addition) or they can maintain the cost of a 3-layer OLED stack but gain significant peak brightness (possibly as much as 50%) and color volume. Or for the first time, they could offer a lower-cost WOLED panel matching today’s WOLED performance and a higher-performing premium WOLED panel matching today’s WOLED cost.
> 
> It’ll be a tough call deciding whether to jump on a QD-OLED or wait to see what 2024 or 2025 brings..,


Right on cue:


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

aron7awol said:


> A few just off the top of my head...
> How many layers of blue?
> Which type of blue OLED?
> How well did they do matching dispersion between the 3 subpixels?
> 
> I have genuine interest in the technology and engineering behind the panels. Everything...to the finest detail. That's why I'm here. Are you here for something else?
> 
> If every single detail of the production design is known/obvious to you at this point, then put it all down in a post now and we can revisit it as the full details are revealed. Do you still think there are no color filters in the production design?


Why do you believe I think there is no color filter in the production design? The following is what I posted:



HoustonHoyaFan said:


> It is well understood that *depending on the QD load some filtering of blue may be required on the green and red subpixels to eliminate non-converted blue light*. That is part and parcel of the blue light driven QDCC architecture; Tradeoffs between QD load, costs, central wavelengths, gamut coverage, light output, ... will all have to be considered by Samsung. The marketplace will decide if they made the right design choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adding a green layer to an architecture that is driven by by QDCC of blue light is just stupid to use a technical term. It creates a host of problems and solves exactly what?


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> The first WOLED was 2S2C with a single blue FOLED layer and a single yellow PHOLED layer.
> 
> Blue wasn’t strong-enough or (would age too rapidly at target brightness), and the red peak they got from filtering yellow through a red conventional color filter was not sufficient to cover 90-95% of DCI-P3 and compete in the age of HDR, so they went to a 3S3C color stack composed of Blue-Yellow/Red-Blue where the middle layer was a mixture of yellow PHOLED and red PHOLED. This is the panel they labeled WBC that existed from 2015 to 2021.
> 
> The 3S4C / WBE stack that materialized last year switched the standard blue FOLED emitters for deuterium-based blue FOLED emitters which can be driven up to ~20% harder while not aging any faster than the standard emitters and also improved the strength and narrowness of the green peak by addMing a green PHOLED emitter to the middle stack.
> 
> So the 3S4C/WBE/Evo-capable stack is blue-red/yellow/green-blue.
> 
> I’ve been assuming that ‘EX’ is no more than the same 3S4C stack with optimized subpuxel layouts (supposedly also including removal of a sensing trace for increased PAR), but we won’t know for sure until we see measurements of SPD (Spectral Power Distribution) of the WX panels to see whether they match the SPD of the WBE/Evo-based G1…


Awesome explanation, as always.

Is the new red/yellow/green layer the same thickness as the past yellow/red layer it substituted, meaning that now the yellow and red sublayers are thinner?

Edit: Also, why have a red/yellow/green layer instead of a red/green layer?


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> Awesome explanation, as always.
> 
> Is the new red/yellow/green layer the same thickness as the past yellow/red layer it substituted, meaning that now the yellow and red sublayers are thinner?
> 
> I don’t think we know, but I’ve always just assumed the same drive current being shared by two or three PHOLED emitters.
> 
> So again, without any specific information from LGD, I’ve just assumed the original yellow PHOLED layer was 100%yellow, the red/yellow layer was 50% yellow and 50% red, and the latest red/yellow/green layer was 33% red, 33% yellow and 33% green…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Also, why have a red/yellow/green layer instead of a red/green layer?
> 
> 
> 
> Red PHOLED has less than 1/3rd the electro-optical efficiency of yellow and green, so the more red that is used, the lower the overall peak brightness at any specific maximum current.
> 
> Yellow has about the same efficiency as green and puts out about half red and half green photons.
> 
> So yellow + blue gives the highest efficiency white output, especially through the unfiltered White subpixel.
> 
> The disadvantage is that yellow + blue provides the weakest red and green peak output levels, so by adopting red / yellow / green, LGD has elected to sacrifice a bit of peak white output to gain higher-levels and narrower peak of fully-saturated red and green output levels.
> 
> A blue / red-green / blue WOLED stack would gain color volume at the fully-saturated red and green fringes but would give up too much peak white output to meet today’s target of ~1000 cd/m2.
> 
> It is completely unclear whether whatever high-efficiency blue emitter first materialized can be mixed with a colored PHOLED, but if we assume UDC’s blue PHOLED can be mixed with any of their other PHOLED emitters, a:
> 
> 2S4C Blue-Yellow / Red Green 2-layer stack can almost certainly match todays 3S4C blue-FOLED based output levels while reducing WOLED emitter cost by close to 33%, or a:
> 
> 3S4C Yellow - Blue - Red / Green 3-layer stack can almost certainly cost no more than todays blue-FOLED-based 3S4C stack while increasing overall peak output levels and color volume by as much as 50%.
> 
> (Or alternatively a Blue-Green / Yellow / Blue Red stack could allow even more finely-tuned control of blue, red, and green output levels and trade offs, though I have no idea of the cost premium involved in manufacturing a shared 2- color PHOLED emitter compared to a simple single-color emitter…).
Click to expand...


----------



## aron7awol

HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Why do you believe I think there is no color filter in the production design? The following is what I posted:


Because you were not only insisting that there were no color filters, but you were calling the need for color filters part of the "nonsense" associated with adding green to the emitter stack:


HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Lets be clear when you say that "The emitted light may just pass through a color filter to become blue before/as that happens" is not what Samsung has described in detail. *The design shows a blue emitting layer with green and red sub pixels quantum dot color converted not filtered. The blue sub pixel is also not shown color filtered.*





HoustonHoyaFan said:


> Lets break down the nonsense that ensues if they replace a blue layer with green as you suggest they did:
> 
> 1) The red subpixel just lost light output from the subtracted blue that it would have color converted. *The red sub pixel now needs to have color filter* to block the useless green light.
> 2) *The blue sub pixel *also loses light from the replaced blue layer and *also has to have added a color filter* to block the useless green light.


----------



## 59LIHP

OLED materials makers set to shine as Samsung, Sony unveil new TVs
With tech giants set to roll out OLED TVs one after another, materials makers are becoming market darlings








OLED materials makers set to shine as Samsung, Sony unveil new TVs - KED Global


Samsung is taking preorders for its first QD-OLED TVs South Korea’s major OLED materials makers are becoming the market darlings with decent gains in the



www.kedglobal.com


----------



## 59LIHP

Analysis: Why Samsung's QD OLED displays show colorful edges
PC monitors and smart TVs with Samsung's QD-OLED panels have an atypical sub-pixel arrangement, the peculiarities of which software can hardly conceal.








Analyse: Warum Samsungs QD-OLED-Displays bunte Kanten zeigen


PC-Monitore und Smart-TVs mit Samsungs QD-OLED-Panels haben eine untypische Subpixelanordnung, deren Eigenheiten Software nur schwer kaschieren kann.




www.heise.de


----------



## mrtickleuk

59LIHP said:


> Analysis: Why Samsung's QD OLED displays show colorful edges
> PC monitors and smart TVs with Samsung's QD-OLED panels have an atypical sub-pixel arrangement, the peculiarities of which software can hardly conceal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Analyse: Warum Samsungs QD-OLED-Displays bunte Kanten zeigen
> 
> 
> PC-Monitore und Smart-TVs mit Samsungs QD-OLED-Panels haben eine untypische Subpixelanordnung, deren Eigenheiten Software nur schwer kaschieren kann.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.heise.de


Wow, that's pretty damning. 
At least someone's finally taken a proper focussed pixel-structure picture, instead of the blurry messes!


----------



## chris7191

mrtickleuk said:


> Wow, that's pretty damning.
> At least someone's finally taken a proper focussed pixel-structure picture, instead of the blurry messes!


Not surprised at all for monitor use. Still hopeful that it won't be an issue for TVs.


----------



## 59LIHP

[Video] What kind of two-stack OLED will be installed in Apple's iPad?








[영상] 애플 아이패드에 탑재된다는 투스택 OLED는 어떤 제품?


진행: 한주엽 디일렉 대표출연: 이기종 디일렉 기자-이기종 기자님 모셨습니다. 이기종 기자님 안녕하십니까. 지금 애플 아이패드 보도를 그게 우리 쪽에서 먼저 보도한 거예요?“다른 쪽에서도 하고 있습니다. 다른 해외 매체에서도 보도를 했고.”-유기발광다이오드(OLED)를 애플이 아이패드에 탑재를 하겠다는 내용인데. 저희가 구체적으로 얘기를 드리려고 하는데. 지금 애플이 내놓는 디지털 기기 중에 OLED 탑재한 제품이.“아이폰하고 애플워치 두 제품에 쓰고 있습니다.”-이미 OLED 쪽에서는 큰손이 됐는데 지금 OLED를 탑재




www.thelec.kr































LG Display developing two OLED panels for Apple’s future iPads








LG Display developing two OLED panels for Apple’s future iPads


LG Display was currently developing two models of OLED panels that it aiming to supply to Apple’s iPads launching in the future, TheElec has learned.LG Display was developing 12.9-inch and 11-inch models, sources said. The company was the exclusive developer of the 12.9-inch model, they said.Samsung




www.thelec.net





Samsung Display begins two-stack tandem OLED development to win iPad order 








Samsung Display begins two-stack tandem OLED development to win iPad order


Samsung Display has begun the development of OLED panels with a two-stack tandem structure where the panel has two emission layers (EML), TheElec has learned.The South Korean display maker is developing the panels to win the orders from Apple for its OLED iPads that are expected to launch in 2024, s




www.thelec.net


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung responds to concerns over QD-OLED pixel structure








Samsung responds to concerns over QD-OLED pixel structure


Samsung does not see it as an issue in the




www.flatpanelshd.com







> Why has Samsung Display, the manufacturer of the QD-OLED panels, chosen to position the three red, green and blue subpixels that together form each pixel in a triangle rather than using the more conventional RGB stripe layout?
> 
> 
> - _"It is not a typical RGB stripe pixel – but our proprietary structure optimized to enhance the core user experience of color and HDR. We selected this new pixel structure in order to optimize optical characteristics of QD-Display like brightness, color gamut and durability. Each pixel of QD-Display has an individual Red, Green and Blue – 3 primary sub pixels,"_ Samsung Display said in a statement to FlatpanelsHD.
> 
> - _"Unlike Pentile sub-pixel structure that share the adjacent sub-pixel and compromise on detail and accuracy, QD-Display has 3 (R,G,B) x (3440*1440) sub-pixels. So, QD display does not compromise on the detail and accuracy."_





> *Samsung: Can also happen with RGB stripe*
> Samsung Display further argued that similar color fringe artifacts can be seen on conventional RGB stripe-based displays but that displays with high contrast modulation and a wider color gamut, such as QD-OLED, can accentuate the effect.
> 
> - _"The artifact pointed out also can be seen on conventional LCD and OLED displays using RGB stripe. Similar phenomenon is observed on the sides (Left and Right) side when displaying bright high contrast edge on conventional display products,"_ Samsung Display told FlatpanelsHD. _"Displays with better contrast modulation performance and wider color gamut and greater contrast ratio will accentuate this artifact. Because QD-Display has the widest color gamut, superior contrast ratio and new sub pixel structure, this artifact could be visible."_
> 
> Although the color fringe effect can reportedly be seen on QD-OLED displays when sitting close to the screen, Samsung Display believes that it will not be an issue in the majority of use cases. The company has positioned its first QD-OLED monitor panel as a gaming solution while the first QD-OLED TV panels are intended for both video and gaming.
> 
> - _"Having said that we believe that for the vast majority of use cases this is not an issue. For life-like color and HDR performance (Cinema and gaming) this display will provide the most elevated experience,"_ Samsung Display told FlatpanelsHD.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

some pics from the video:


----------



## Archaea

42" C2 OLED Unboxing and preliminary review from HDTV Test


----------



## stl8k

Archaea said:


> 42" C2 OLED Unboxing and preliminary review from HDTV Test


Not a strong early showing. They may need to adjust expectations for demand for this product.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

The samsung oled tv drama ensues...


----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


> The samsung oled tv drama ensues...


It’s really hard to believe that Samsung Electronics was ‘forced’ to introduce QD-OLED TV 6-9 month earlier than planned, but FOMOs analysis of the marketing materials is spot-on and an abrupt and unplanned use of materials that were being teed-up for mid-tier WOLED TVs being quickly used to promote QD-OLED TV certainly fits the fact patten we’re seeing…


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> It’s really hard to believe that Samsung Electronics was ‘forced’ to introduce QD-OLED TV 6-9 month earlier than planned, but FOMOs analysis of the marketing materials is spot-on and an abrupt and unplanned use of materials that were being teed-up for mid-tier WOLED TVs being quickly used to promote QD-OLED TV certainly fits the fact patten we’re seeing…


Bob O'Brien of DSCC is usually pretty spot on... Maybe not this time, but I'd give the benefit of the doubt until I had better info saying otherwise.


----------



## JasonHa

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Bob O'Brien of DSCC is usually pretty spot on... Maybe not this time, but I'd give the benefit of the doubt until I had better info saying otherwise.


I agree. Do we have any other example of a television not being officially announced at CES and then being put on sale in April of that year?


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Bob O'Brien of DSCC is usually pretty spot on... Maybe not this time, but I'd give the benefit of the doubt until I had better info saying otherwise.


I agree - he sees it exactly right: Which of the New TV Technologies Will Prevail?

‘I agree that the Samsung announcement was weird; it suggests that the conflict between the two divisions was not resolved amicably.’

‘Judging from the press release, the TV division may have been “forced” by Samsung’s executive officers to bring the QD-OLED to market.’

‘*The main problem with QD-OLED is going to be cost.* This is an exceptionally challenging product to make. Samsung Display is introducing several world’s first technologies in these displays. *Even when the yields improve, it will still be a very expensive technology to produce* — not MicroLED expensive, but *more expensive than WOLED.*’

‘*QD-OLED is still early in the mass production phase and yields are low*, making it even more expensive. On top of that, Samsung has limited capacity to make QD-OLED displays. Running at full current capacity with [an unrealistic] 100% yield, Samsung could make about 1.8 million TVs so they will probably produce *fewer than 1 million QD panels in 2022*. And *new capacity will not arrive before 2025.* That means *the product line will probably be limited to 55- and 65-inch 4K TVs — and the price is likely to remain high.*’

He’s much more optimistic than I on this years volume - I see Samsung Display delivering closer to 500,000 QD-OLED TV panels in 2022 than 1,000,000, but he is more pessimistic on timeframe to increased volume (through additional of another 8.5G fab).

If Samsung kicks-off another 8.5G fab conversion to QD-OLED by mid-2022, I would have thought they could begin ramp-up by early 2024 in time to impact 2024 production volume.

If Bob is correct and even with that early of an investment decision within the next 3 months, production volumes will be capped at 1.8 million panels unyielded or 1.7 million panels at LGD’s WOLED yield of ~95%, QD-OLED will remain en expensive niche product for longer than I had hoped.

And then there is this:

‘According to Samsung Display, which supplies panels to Samsung Electronics, QD-OLED panels have advantages in *peak brightness, color volume, and viewing angle*, among other benefits.

While I could see these benefits in the demo, *only one of them was substantial* and clearly apparent in a side-by-side demo. *QD-OLED’s ability to deliver greatly enhanced color performance and peak brightness on individual colors far outperforms WOLED TV panels.*’

So assuming it’s converging towards a ~20% premium versus mainstream WOLED (C-Series) prices, sounds as though QD-OLEDs success is really going to boil down to how much better color saturation it delivers across the full range of HDR content that materializes over the coming few years.

If videophiles have the choice to bring home either a 65” QD-OLED of a 77” (or 75”) C-Series WOLED, that will probably be the most important ‘battle’ to monitor…

LGD has been dragging their heels on completing their 10.5G WOLED manufacturing line, but it will be able to produce 75” WOLED panels for ~2/3rds the price of today’s 77” WOLED panels manufactured at 8.5G.

So if we see an announcement from LGD this year about restarting investment in P10 (10.5G) it would signal a size-versus-color-volume battle looming on the horizon…


----------



## CliffordinWales

fafrd said:


> It’s really hard to believe that Samsung Electronics was ‘forced’ to introduce QD-OLED TV 6-9 month earlier than planned, but FOMOs analysis of the marketing materials is spot-on and an abrupt and unplanned use of materials that were being teed-up for mid-tier WOLED TVs being quickly used to promote QD-OLED TV certainly fits the fact patten we’re seeing…


Why didn't they simply use Samsung Display's "QD Display" branding? That seemed purposely written to spare Samsung Electronics ' blushes by omitting the dreaded acronym OLED. 

Whatever QD-OLED is called, Samsung Electronics seem absurdly overinvested in LCD. After QDEF, miniLED backlighting and 8k there seems nowhere else for LCD to go but there's plenty of development potential in OLED (new blue emitter, inkjet printing etc). OK Samsung Electronics have micro LED as their super premium next gen display tech but that's still at least a decade away from being a true consumer level technology and it may never get down to <65in screens anyway.


----------



## fafrd

CliffordinWales said:


> Why didn't they simply use Samsung Display's "QD Display" branding? That seemed purposely written to spare Samsung Electronics ' blushes by omitting the dreaded acronym OLED.
> 
> Whatever QD-OLED is called, Samsung Electronics seem absurdly overinvested in LCD. After QDEF, miniLED backlighting and 8k there seems nowhere else for LCD to go but there's plenty of development potential in OLED (new blue emitter, inkjet printing etc). OK Samsung Electronics have micro LED as their super premium next gen display tech but that's still at least a decade away from being a true consumer level technology and it may never get down to <65in screens anyway.


I think post #18,715 shows where Samsung Electronics head is at: OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


----------



## pakotlar

fafrd said:


> I think post #18,715 shows where Samsung Electronics head is at: OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


They seem a mess this year. Who knew it would be so difficult for samsung electronics to drop a dying technology


----------



## fafrd

pakotlar said:


> They seem a mess this year. Who knew it would be so difficult for samsung electronics to drop a dying technology


Samsung Electronics wants to drop QLED/LCD for QNED. They view QD-OLED as a short-lived band-aid whose investments they believe would be better spent accelerating QNED…

The only reason they are a ‘mess’ is that a reasonably well-thought-through product marketing strategy was upended when corporate decided to force them to introduce QD-OLED a ~year earlier than they were planning to…


----------



## bargugl

Old news by now, but wanted to post that I confirmed a 77" A1, no surprise, also has a WBE/MMG/GZ panel via service menu. Manufacture date July 2021. Of note the 55" and 65" A1s in the local Sam's club, by using the model code on box method indicated seemed to be all Paju panels. Pics of the WBE A1 are the best I could get with my phone so perhaps not clear enough to tell anything.


----------



## fafrd

We’ve heard this so many times now, I’d suggest to take it with a grain of salt until we see official confirmation from Samsung Electronics or LGD: https://techunwrapped.com/historic-...ply-2-million-oled-panels-to-samsung-in-2022/

(source article for those that want to translate:“어제의 적은 오늘의 동지” 삼성·LG, 드디어 손 잡는다…2분기 OLED 공급 전망)


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> Samsung Electronics wants to drop QLED/LCD for QNED. They view QD-OLED as a short-lived band-aid whose investments they believe would be better spent accelerating QNED…
> 
> The only reason they are a ‘mess’ is that a reasonably well-thought-through product marketing strategy was upended when corporate decided to force them to introduce QD-OLED a ~year earlier than they were planning to…


As a total outsider at least, I fully agree with corporate’s decision if it went down like that. The revenues of SDI are similar to Samsung Electronics - so no reason to give in to some TV assemblers. Since Samsung no longer makes LCD panels, I can’t see why pushing LCD products at the expense of everything else is a good strategy. SDI has proven to be the top display technology company in the world IMO. Samsung Electronics builds TVs with questionable software. SDI makes all of the best mobile displays, QD-OLED, and were probably the top VA/PLS panel LCD manufacturer when they still made them in volume. I’d trust SDI’s judgement and engineering track record before I’d let some TV guys dictate strategy. QD-OLED is clearly a step forward for TVs, especially if LCDs are going to be the domain of low-cost suppliers going forward.

The yields must be at least as good as expected, if not better. If they were disastrous, I doubt you’d see this Samsung version launch. Also considering that I’ve not seen a single user report any uniformity or dead pixel issues with their Alienware monitors. When yields are low one would think there would be a higher acceptable defect rate even for panels that weren’t rejected.


----------



## mrtickleuk

bargugl said:


> Pics of the WBE A1 are the best I could get with my phone so perhaps not clear enough to tell anything.


Your pictures clearly show the shape of the sub-pixels, and put many so-called professional journalists' pictures to shame


----------



## brogero

When is it realistic to expect QNED to be available to consumers?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

brogero said:


> When is it realistic to expect QNED to be available to consumers?


The latest tech articles show that QNED development is close to or almost complete based on the patents created by samsung display. If a prototype is released like qd-oled, we can expect qned to be available for the mass market within a year after the prototype is released. Unfortunately there's been no prototype announced for qned but we could very likely see one soon. Simply speaking, the underlying technology for qned and qdoled is more or less the same except that the backlight uses inorganic nanoleds instead of organic leds so it should not be difficult converting the manufacturing from qd-oled or qned. I strongly predict qned to hit the mass market in 2024-2026. If QNED actually becomes available for the mass market, it could be a truly disruptive display technology. Samsung Display mentions that the picture quality rivals microled, but most importantly, it will not cost thousands of dollars and should be relatively affordable for most consumers. Part of the reason why Samsung Electronics is not reluctant towards having flagship oled tvs and all the drama surrounding it is because they believe there are better technologies down the road and qdoled is like a gimped version of qned.


----------



## CliffordinWales

There are still technical challenges with QNED and I think we have to remember that plenty of technologies which have reached prototype stage, including displays, have never made it to the consumer market. Anyone remember SED tv around about 2005?


----------



## 59LIHP

Construction begins for next-generation OLED research hub 'Display Innovation Process Center' 








Construction begins for next-generation OLED research hub 'Display Innovation Process Center'


Construction has begun for the 'Display Innovation Process Center', which will serve as a hub for developing advanced display technologies, such as organic light emitting diodes (OLED), and su




english.etnews.com


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> We’ve heard this so many times now, I’d suggest to take it with a grain of salt until we see official confirmation from Samsung Electronics or LGD: https://techunwrapped.com/historic-...ply-2-million-oled-panels-to-samsung-in-2022/
> 
> (source article for those that want to translate:“어제의 적은 오늘의 동지” 삼성·LG, 드디어 손 잡는다…2분기 OLED 공급 전망)






You were right, they changed the subpixels!


----------



## CA22EF

Samsung’s OLED panels for laptops receive Eye Care, Flicker Free certifications


Samsung Display had released new OLED panels for laptops last year. Several laptop makers, including ASUS, Dell, Lenovo, and Samsung ...




www.sammobile.com




Note that this is only for laptops.
I look forward to the future.

source


https://www.certipedia.com/quality_marks/1111248158




> OLEDI33, OLEDI35





https://www.certipedia.com/quality_marks/1111248169




> OLEDI40, OLEDI45





https://www.certipedia.com/quality_marks/1111248170




> OLEDI56





https://www.certipedia.com/quality_marks/1111248241




> OLEDI60


----------



## Wizziwig

Jin-X said:


> I do hope someone can get to the bottom of what happened with BFI this year.


Moving my response from the news thread since it make more sense here.

You have to look at the history of WOLED backplane changes over the years. Every time they've made a change thus far to improve PAR, it has come at the cost of something else. In 2018 they made the near-black luminance flicker much worse. Now in 2022 they likely removed 120Hz BFI support. Without seeing what they changed in the black portion of the sub-pixel photos, we can only speculate. Maybe they just removed some sense lines as HDTVtest stated in his videos. If they reduced the size of the transistors, this would reduce their current carrying ability unless there was some other improvement in electron mobility. Maybe the backplane is now too slow to support 120Hz BFI. We need to wait for more data such as response time graphs from rtings and near-black overshoot tests.


----------



## bargugl

Adonisds said:


> You were right, they changed the subpixels!


Interesting, the G2 design seems a closer match to my 77" A1 than the G1 design. I wonder if all 77" already had this design in 2021. I know my pic is blurry but the shape of the green pixel is obvious.


----------



## Austinli

i studied OLED and used it for a time,while i prefer TFT for industry


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Moving my response from the news thread since it make more sense here.
> 
> You have to look at the history of WOLED backplane changes over the years. Every time they've made a change thus far to improve PAR, it has come at the cost of something else. In 2018 they made the near-black luminance flicker much worse. Now in 2022 they likely removed 120Hz BFI support. Without seeing what they changed in the black portion of the sub-pixel photos, we can only speculate. Maybe they just removed some sense lines as HDTVtest stated in his videos. If they reduced the size of the transistors, this would reduce their current carrying ability unless there was some other improvement in electron mobility. Maybe the backplane is now too slow to support 120Hz BFI. We need to wait for more data such as response time graphs from rtings and near-black overshoot tests.


I thought it was only the C2 that had dropped 120Hz BFI support and the G2 still had it???


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> I thought it was only the C2 that had dropped 120Hz BFI support and the G2 still had it???


I don’t think anyone with a G2 has confirmed it yet but I don’t see why one would have it and not the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> I don’t think anyone with a G2 has confirmed it yet but I don’t see why one would have it and not the other.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


We’ll have to wait for Vincent’s full G2 review.

His G1 review stated 1080 lines of motion resolution with OLED Motion Pro ON to engage 120Hz BFI, so we’ll see how the G2 compares.


----------



## Wizziwig

Interesting QD-OLED monitor response time graphs in this twitter post. Hopefully this won't manifest in as much near-black flashing as we see in WOLEDs.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504419263855173634


----------



## Wizziwig

Seems like the Achilles' heel of qd-oled in monitor applications will definitely be the sub-pixel structure and lack of polarizer. The latter could be a big issue for TVs when people view them in typically bright stores. This must be obvious to both Sony and Samsung so maybe the TVs will perform better.
From the recently published HDTVtest video:


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Seems like the Achilles' heel of qd-oled in monitor applications will definitely be the sub-pixel structure and lack of polarizer.


That was the price Samsung Display had to pay to continue QD-OLED with blue FOLED without being to dim or adding a rediculous number of layers (and cost)…

I don’t recall whether elimination if the polarizer was party of the QD-OLED concept since the beginning (when is was conceived to start with 2 layers of blue PHOLED) or it was part of the final changes they made to further increase brightness after CES ‘21.



> The latter could be a big issue for TVs when people view them in typically bright stores. From the recently published HDTVtest video:
> 
> View attachment 3260444
> 
> 
> View attachment 3260445


That’s what I’m concerned about as well.

Staring at OFF TVs and making buying decisions about which one appears blacker is probably nothing to worry about, but if high-contrast content in the presence of showroom lighting makes the black levels and contrast of QD-OLED TV appear inferior to that of WOLED, that is likely to impact sales… (especially when priced at a premium of 20-30%).


----------



## Wizziwig

I edited my post above to note that it's hard to believe Sony (or Samsung Electronics) would have jumped on this technology for their flagship OLED if it has the same level of bright room performance. They are not stupid and must realize that the vast majority on regular consumers don't watch TVs in the dark. Either the larger panels are much less impacted or the TV manufacturers are adding some additional screen treatment to deal with the issue. The brightness measurement for Sony's A95K we've seen so far have been around 1000 nits. Short of what was expected based on the CES demos of the panel by Samsung Display. Maybe this is due to some additional filtering? Will be interesting to see if the Samsung TVs are also unable to hit 1500 nits in any picture mode or APL level.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I edited my post above to note that* it's hard to believe Sony (or Samsung Electronics) would have jumped on this technology for their flagship OLED if it has the same level of bright room performance. *


For Sony, no argument. Samsung Electronics has been dragged kicking and screaming by Samsung Corporate to introduce QD-OLED TV, so I don’t think you can conclude anything about what their introduction means at this stage…



> They are not stupid and must realize that the *vast majority on regular consumers don't watch TVs in the dark.*


Right, but there is a niche of premium-TV customers that do (largely being served by WOLED at the moment).

Samsung has little interest in going after a low-volume niche of deep-pocketed videophiles, but Sony is different. Sony has far more of an interest in wining annual shootouts and a important component of those shootouts is dark-room performance.

QD-OLED production volumes are so limited this first year that Sony is highly likely to sell every QD-OLED they manufacture and make profit on the initiative even if these QD-OLED TVs don’t sell as well as they could under the bright lights of the showroom floorcan easily believe Sony committed to the A85K primarily to assure they win this year’s shootout and eliminate the risk of losing to LGE’s now-heatsink-enabled brighter G2…

Samsung Electronics lack of excitement about QD-OLED TVs is harder to understand than Sony’s jumping on board and worse-than-WOLED black levels (and even possibly worse-than-NeoQLED/LCD black levels) would go a long way towards explaining that lukewarm attitude…



> Either the larger panels are much less impacted or the TV manufacturers are adding some additional screen treatment to deal with the issue. The brightness measurement for Sony's A95K we've seen so far have been around 1000 nits. Short of what was expected based on the CES demos of the panel by Samsung Display. Maybe this is due to some additional filtering? Will be interesting to see if the Samsung TVs are also unable to hit 1500 nits in any picture mode or APL level.


Yeah, we should know soon. There is also the mystery regarding the differing specs between the QD-OLED monitor panels and the QD-OLED TV panels represented by Samsung Display and supposedly caused by differing ‘composition’, so improved black levels in the presence of ambient light could be a major factor driving whatever difference that is…


----------



## fafrd

Yet again (though I’d have say the credibility index seems to be going up ever so slightly): http://m.koreaherald.com/amp/view.php?ud=20220331000914

‘Samsung has recently started receiving preorders for its brand-new QD-OLED TVs in the US, but *full-scale marketing activities are not being carried out largely due to panel shortages.*’

‘But the comeback plans have hit a snag, with its display-making unit *Samsung Display still struggling to improve the yield rate.*’

‘Because the yield rate is usually low in its initial stage, the actual *TV production is estimated to remain at some 500,000 to 600,000 units per year.*’

‘Given that *OLED models make up 15 to 20 percent of total TV sales of its rivals like LG and Sony*, *Samsung needs to elevate its TV sales to some 3 million units* in order to reach economies of scale.’

‘With the talks with LG gaining fresh momentum, sources said *Samsung has also raised its sales target for OLED TVs *to some *1.5 million to 2 million units this year.*.’

‘ “Other than the supply volume and pricing, *adjusting different interests among affiliates must have been a tricky issue*,” he said, referring to the fierce rivalry between the two tech giants in almost all sectors from home appliances to displays. 

*“Their possible tie-up will be an outcome of compromises made by all affiliates of both Samsung and LG.” *’

‘ “Until early this year, the outlook for their partnership was dimming at least for this year. But the *talks have recently been speeding up,*” said an industry source on condition of anonymity.

The source predicted the *first panel shipments could start as early as September*, considering preparation work on production lines, which would lead to *new TV launches later this year*.’

So it’s still all talk and hypotheticals and nothing has been finalized yet, but if Samsung Electronics wants any WOLED TV offerings in the channels in time for the Black Friday Shopping Season, they’ve got to finalize an agreement with LGD soon..


----------



## 59LIHP

[China Trend Report] TCL CSOT’s T8 Project to Invest in Generation 8.5 Inkjet Printing Technology 








[China Trend Report] TCL CSOT's T8 Project to Invest in Generation 8.5 Inkjet Printing Technology | OLEDNET


According to the ‘China Trend Report’ published by UBI Research, TCL CSOT plans to apply the generation 8.5 inkjet printing OLED technology to the T8 line. It is expected that some layers will be formed by vapor deposition in the inkjet printing method rather than the complete inkjet printing...




en.olednet.com


----------



## Wizziwig

I loaded up the sub-pixel photos of the 65" C2 posted in this review into an image editor to get a rough estimate of aperture ratio improvement vs their 65" G1 photo. The edges of the pixels were blurry so there is a large margin of error. For the higher quality G1 photo, I averaged two pixels to reduce error.

G1
blue: 8.81%
red: 12.57%
green: 5.93%
white: 15.37%
================
42.68% total aperture ratio.

C2
blue: 10.61 %
red: 13.95%
green: 7.69%
white: 14.94%
=================
47.34% total aperture ratio.

Attached are the cropped and color-reduced versions of the photos I used for calculation.

G1









C2


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I loaded up the sub-pixel photos of the 65" C2 posted in this review into an image editor to get a rough estimate of aperture ratio improvement vs their 65" G1 photo. The edges of the pixels were blurry so there is a large margin of error. For the higher quality G1 photo, I averaged two pixels to reduce error.
> 
> G1
> blue: 8.81%
> red: 12.57%
> green: 5.93%
> white: 15.37%
> ================
> 42.68% total aperture ratio.
> 
> C2
> blue: 10.61 %
> red: 13.95%
> green: 7.69%
> white: 14.94%
> =================
> 47.34% total aperture ratio.
> 
> Attached are the cropped and color-reduced versions of the photos I used for calculation.
> 
> G1
> View attachment 3261609
> 
> 
> C2
> View attachment 3261611


Thanks for the effort.

And for those wanting to know what this translates to in terms of color-by-color change on subpixel strength between G1 and G2, here it is:

Blue: 120.4% (+20.4%)
Red: 110.0% (+10.0%)
Green: 130% (+30.0%)
White: 97.2% (-2.8%)

So it looks as though LGD aimed at increasing color volume instead of just pushing peak whites (and in fact peak whites only increased because peak color output increased).

WBE/ 3S4C increased green power of the WOLED stack at the expense of red output power, so the other interesting metric to track is the ratio of red subpixel size to green subpixel size.

2021 65” red:green subpixel size = 212%

2022 65” red/green subpixel size = 181.4%

So using green power as a baseline, the red subpixel on the 2022 65” panel has been decreased to be ~15.5% weaker (the opposite of what I would have expected),


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> Thanks for the effort.
> 
> And for those wanting to know what this translates to in terms of color-by-color change on subpixel strength between G1 and G2, here it is:
> 
> Blue: 120.4% (+20.4%)
> Red: 110.0% (+10.0%)
> Green: 130% (+30.0%)
> White: 97.2% (-2.8%)
> 
> So it looks as though LGD aimed at increasing color volume instead of just pushing peak whites (and in fact peak whites only increased because peak color output increased).
> 
> WBE/ 3S4C increased green power of the WOLED stack at the expense of red output power, so the other interesting metric to track is the ratio of red subpixel size to green subpixel size.
> 
> 2021 65” red:green subpixel size = 212%
> 
> 2022 65” red/green subpixel size = 181.4%
> 
> So using green power as a baseline, the red subpixel on the 2022 65” panel has been decreased to be ~15.5% weaker (the opposite of what I would have expected),


What are the possible explanations for the reduction in the red/green ratio?

What's the color temperature of the white subpixel?


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> What are the possible explanations for the reduction in the red/green ratio?
> 
> What's the color temperature of the white subpixel?


Let’s wait to get data on multiple panel sizes.

I’m pretty certain the WBE-only 83C1 had a larger red:green subpixel ration than the 2021 65” panels, so if LGD has modified the 2022 65” pixels to go the other way, that’s a head-scratcher..,


----------



## Avs2022

Would Samsungs qd-oled outperform Samsungs rgb-oled in smartphones?


----------



## chris7191

Avs2022 said:


> Would Samsungs qd-oled outperform Samsungs rgb-oled in smartphones?


Probably not overall. It does have some improved viewing angles and off-axis tint behavior due to being non-polarized and top emission, though. The pixel structure is better than Pentile on the phones since it doesn't share sub-pixels, but the pixel density of top phones more than makes up for this.


----------



## Avs2022

chris7191 said:


> Probably not overall. It does have some improved viewing angles and off-axis tint behavior due to being non-polarized and top emission, though. The pixel structure is better than Pentile on the phones since it doesn't share sub-pixels, but the pixel density of top phones more than makes up for this.


So rgb-oleds with quantum dots would be a better choice for smartphones? Has anybody heard if Samsung has any plans on implementing quantum dots on their rgb-oled displays?


----------



## chris7191

Avs2022 said:


> So rgb-oleds with quantum dots would be a better choice for smartphones? Has anybody heard if Samsung has any plans on implementing quantum dots on their rgb-oled displays?


No, I don't think they would be better for phones, but they do have some differences/advantages. I would guess they are still less efficient overall. 

Edit: misread your question, you can't really make use of quantum dots with RGB OLEDs. They are used in QD-OLED as color converters from blue. In RGB OLED you already have R and G emitters, so there is no need.


----------



## Avs2022

chris7191 said:


> No, I don't think they would be better for phones, but they do have some differences/advantages. I would guess they are still less efficient overall.
> 
> Edit: misread your question, you can't really make use of quantum dots with RGB OLEDs. They are used in QD-OLED as color converters from blue. In RGB OLED you already have R and G emitters, so there is no need.


Thanks for the reply. Could they not use quantum dots on an rgb-oled to improve colors, viewing angles and off-axis tint? Qd-oled has cleaner white as well, compared to woled, so maybe that will be the case as well for qd-rgb oled?


----------



## fafrd

Avs2022 said:


> Thanks for the reply. Could they not use quantum dots on an rgb-oled to improve colors, viewing angles and off-axis tint? Qd-oled has *cleaner white* as well, compared to woled, so maybe that will be the case as well for qd-rgb oled?


What is ‘cleaner white’???


----------



## Avs2022

fafrd said:


> What is ‘cleaner white’???


Oh, I saw a video from Digital Trends where he said that the qd-oleds white was white and not greenish white, like on the woled.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Avs2022 said:


> Oh, I saw a video from Digital Trends where he said that the qd-oleds white was white and not greenish white, like on the woled.


You can have whatever shade of white that you choose to calibrate it to, or (in an effort to mitigate against metamerism) perceptually match it to, on both WOLED and QD-OLED. It's not as if one shade is fixed in hardware or anything like that! If Caleb ever suggested otherwise, he should know better than to say that.

The factory "white point" calibration is merely a choice made by that particular manufacturer in every case, and indicates nothing about the underlying technology at all. It even changes during model-years, if the some Sony AJ90 owners are correct (see that TV's owner's thread for details).


----------



## fafrd

Avs2022 said:


> Oh, I saw a video from Digital Trends where he said that the qd-oleds white was white and not greenish white, like on the woled.


I would have thought that Caleb Dennison and Digital Trends would have understood a thing or two about whitepoint calibration…


----------



## chris7191

No, it is calibrated. The problem is that WOLED white looks blue on camera because of the ugly SPD. It won't look nearly as blue to you in person, but it does to a typical sensor. It's not really a great white. You can actually see this effect in virtually every video on Youtube that puts an LG or Sony WOLED side by side with an LCD. Look for ice/snow scenes and you'll notice even a calibrated A90J is very blue where it should be whiter. I think I've seen it even when the TVs are filmed separately and exposed correctly. Fixing it in post is the only way around it.


----------



## fafrd

chris7191 said:


> No, it is calibrated. The problem is that WOLED white looks blue on camera because of the ugly SPD. It won't look nearly as blue to you in person, but it does to a typical sensor. It's not really a great white. You can actually see this effect in virtually every video on Youtube that puts an LG or Sony WOLED side by side with an LCD. Look for ice/snow scenes and you'll notice even a calibrated A90J is very blue where it should be whiter. I think I've seen it even when the TVs are filmed separately and exposed correctly. Fixing it in post is the only way around it.


I’m not understanding the point you’re trying to make - so cameras / sensors capture WOLED D65 white as containing a blue push versus what our eyes perceive?

So what?

When we’re looking at white surface in broad daylight, do you think the sunshine reflecting off of it is composed of a perfect trichromatic RGB ‘SPD’?

If anything, it was my understanding that more perfect trichromatic SPD (clearly separated and narrow peaks of R,G, and B) result in a higher probability of metameric failure, not less…


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> I’m not understanding the point you’re trying to make - so cameras / sensors capture WOLED D65 white as containing a blue push versus what our eyes perceive?
> 
> So what?
> 
> When we’re looking at white surface in broad daylight, do you think the sunshine reflecting off of it is composed of a perfect trichromatic RGB ‘SPD’?
> 
> If anything, it was my understanding that more perfect trichromatic SPD (clearly separated and narrow peaks of R,G, and B) result in a higher probability of metameric failure, not less…


Yes, my point is that sensors seem to portray WOLED having a stronger green/blue tint vs what we perceive in reality. I didn't say it was a problem, or I didn't mean to imply it was a big problem anyway. I wouldn't call it metameric failure, I would call it metameric success in this case lol, because if OLEDs looked as blue as they do in comparisons, they would be poorly received. You can clearly see this in Keep it Classy's videos of X95J vs A80J at the time I linked. A80J is on the left, and both are calibrated.






Even a "perfect trichromatic" white is not really white light. White light, like white noise, should ideally contain a flat power distribution over the entire spectrum. This is exactly the problem with cheap light bulbs and why reference light sources are often still incandescent or some very broadband mix.

I have to take back where I said the displays were calibrated, though. I thought it was a different video linked by Caleb. The one he did of the A95K in a private room was calibrated.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> What is ‘cleaner white’???


Maybe Digital Trends really means without the "pee stains" and other tinting issues we've seen on WOLEDs over the years. You really can't produce a perfectly uniform white on any WOLED because the borders of the panel will always be off-axis relative to the center and exhibit color shift. QD-OLED seems to be immune to this issue or at least closer to plasmas or LCDs. That just leaves us with near-black uniformity to worry about.


----------



## chris7191

Wizziwig said:


> Maybe Digital Trends really means without the "pee stains" and other tinting issues we've seen on WOLEDs over the years. You really can't produce a perfectly uniform white on any WOLED because the borders of the panel will always be off-axis relative to the center and exhibit color shift. QD-OLED seems to be immune to this issue or at least closer to plasmas or LCDs. That just leaves us with near-black uniformity to worry about.


So, when you look at full field white on WOLED, are you seeing all subpixels on or just white subpixels? I'm curious as to how the white spectrum is influenced by the B+Y OLED supplying the white directly versus any white components that are trichromatically produced from the filtered RGB subpixels.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Maybe Digital Trends really means without the "pee stains" and other tinting issues we've seen on WOLEDs over the years. You really can't produce a perfectly uniform white on any WOLED because the borders of the panel will always be off-axis relative to the center and exhibit color shift. QD-OLED seems to be immune to this issue or at least closer to plasmas or LCDs. That just leaves us with near-black uniformity to worry about.


If that’s what he was referring to, that’s another matter entirely.

And I agree, if QD-OLED delivers noticeably improved uniformity (both near-white and near-black) than WOLED, that will be it’s ace up it’s sleeve…


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> If that’s what he was referring to, that’s another matter entirely.
> 
> And I agree, if QD-OLED delivers noticeably improved uniformity (both near-white and near-black) than WOLED, that will be it’s ace up it’s sleeve…


The pink tint risk is almost enough to drive me to 65" QD vs a 77" G2. I really don't want to spend $4k on a TV and have to live with any amount of pink tint. I returned my Pixel 2 XL because of the horrible amount of cyan tint on the OLED panel. I find it to be as annoying as DSE or worse.


----------



## fafrd

chris7191 said:


> So, when you look at full field white on WOLED, are you seeing all subpixels on or just white subpixels? I'm curious as to how the white spectrum is influenced by the B+Y OLED supplying the white directly versus any white components that are trichromatically produced from the filtered RGB subpixels.


In addition to the white subpixel which dominates (because it is the most efficient), white generally requires at least two colored subpixels to contribute photons if not all 3 colored subpixels.

The WOLED stack does not have a native D65 whitepoint, so it needs to be skewed away from whichever primary color (slightly) dominates…


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> In addition to the white subpixel which dominates (because it is the most efficient), white generally requires at least two colored subpixels to contribute photons if not all 3 colored subpixels.
> 
> The WOLED stack does not have a native D65 whitepoint, so it needs to be skewed away from whichever primary color (slightly) dominates…


I see, this makes sense. 

I don't own a WOLED TV, but a few of my friends have them. I haven't seen one that has been professionally calibrated and maybe that invalidates everything, but when I've seen them with hockey, the white just looks off.


----------



## mrtickleuk

fafrd said:


> In addition to the white subpixel which dominates (because it is the most efficient), white generally requires at least two colored subpixels to contribute photons if not all 3 colored subpixels.
> 
> The WOLED stack does not have a native D65 whitepoint, so it needs to be skewed away from whichever primary color (slightly) dominates…


Yep. On my calibrated C8 looking through a loupe [at a pure White slide], the white, red and blue sub-pixels are lit. The white subpixel is dominant. IIRC, that white sub-pixel on its own is a very cold white, like the "Cool 50" white temperature setting, which is why Vivid mode is brighter.

LG's _normal _T-Con algorithm results in only 3 of the 4 sub-pixels being lit at any one time, with White doing the heavy lifting, and never all 4 at once. (The T-Con converts the required R,G,B triplet for each pixel to the physical R,G,B,W subpixels to decide which of them to light up). Sometimes on Sony and Panasonic OLEDs using the same panel, all 4 light up.


----------



## stl8k

mrtickleuk said:


> Yep. On my calibrated C8 looking through a loupe [at a pure White slide], the white, red and blue sub-pixels are lit. The white subpixel is dominant. IIRC, that white sub-pixel on its own is a very cold white, like the "Cool 50" white temperature setting, which is why Vivid mode is brighter.
> 
> LG's _normal _T-Con algorithm results in only 3 of the 4 sub-pixels being lit at any one time, with White doing the heavy lifting, and never all 4 at once. (The T-Con converts the required R,G,B triplet for each pixel to the physical R,G,B,W subpixels to decide which of them to light up). Sometimes on Sony and Panasonic OLEDs using the same panel, all 4 light up.


Really interesting then to see this from rtings (via a post in another thread by @Wizziwig) that doesn't include the red subpixel.



> Only the blue and white pixels are turned on with a white background, as seen here,


That was from its LG 48 CX OLED review.

Also, were the Sony and Panasonic possibly showing HDR content? LGD published research (which I referenced in a post here in the past 18 months) that showed all 4 pixels being used to get higher brightness /in HDR/.


----------



## stl8k

While we're on the subject of displaying white, showing this from LGD research may be informative...



> It is important to note that the white subpixel color coordinates are not identical to the panel white point. The former is directly affected by OLED process variations, while the latter is finely adjusted by optimizing the peak data voltages of the red, green, blue, and white subpixels for each panel and therefore robust in mass production as in Fig. 5 [below]. The percentages show the two-dimensional normal distribution of panel white points, which has a very small deviation.


Also from that same research...



> Figure 4 [below] explains subpixel usages according to color coordinates to be displayed.


----------



## 59LIHP

QD display 'light leak' resolved... cost reduction expected








QD display 'light leak' resolved... cost reduction expected


A Korean research team has developed a new technology to solve the 'blue light leakage' problem, a chronic problem in quantum dot (QD) displays. At the same time, it is expected to reduce cost




english.etnews.com


----------



## 59LIHP

[Interview] OLED.EX takes display technology to the next level








[Interview] OLED.EX takes display technology to the next level | LG Display Newsroom


LG Display unveiled OLED.EX, the next-generation TV display, at CES 2022. When introduced, it caught the eye of people all over the world. Jin Min-kyu, Head of Life Display Promotion Division at LG Display, who is behind the popularity of the OLED.EX, briefs us A to Z about OLED.EX, from its...




news.lgdisplay.com






LG Display Demonstrates OLED.EX’s Evolutionary Experience at 2022 OLED Korea Conference








LG Display Demonstrates OLED.EX's Evolutionary Experience at 2022 OLED Korea Conference | LG Display Newsroom


LG Display, the world's leading innovator of display technologies, announced today that Lee Hyeon-woo, Senior Vice President and Head of Life Display Business Group at LG Display, gave a keynote speech under the theme of 'OLED, The Evolutionary Experience' at the 2022 OLED KOREA Conference held...




news.lgdisplay.com







[Learn OLED.EX] #1. What is Deuterium?








[Learn OLED.EX] #1. What is Deuterium? | LG Display Newsroom







news.lgdisplay.com






[Learn OLED.EX] #2. What are Personalized Algorithms?








[Learn OLED.EX] #2. What are Personalized Algorithms? | LG Display Newsroom


LG Display's newly-unveiled EX Technology is the core feature of the OLED.EX display. There are two key elements to keep in mind – Deuterium and Personalized Algorithms. Today is about the latter. So, what makes it so significant?




news.lgdisplay.com


----------



## stl8k

Over in TV OS land, there's a cool service coming where the video app vendors will be able to remotely test video playback. Analogous to BrowserStack for general web pages and apps.









Dan Rayburn on LinkedIn: #nabshow #streamingmedia | 17 comments


This is cool: Bitmovin has announced what they are calling Stream Lab [https://lnkd.in/dzQfh5v3], a way for development teams to easily test their streams in… | 17 comments on LinkedIn




www.linkedin.com





Will likely result in better stream compatibility and quicker uptake (by app devs) of innovations.


----------



## Wizziwig

59LIHP said:


> QD display 'light leak' resolved... cost reduction expected
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QD display 'light leak' resolved... cost reduction expected
> 
> 
> A Korean research team has developed a new technology to solve the 'blue light leakage' problem, a chronic problem in quantum dot (QD) displays. At the same time, it is expected to reduce cost
> 
> 
> 
> 
> english.etnews.com


This sounds good in theory but Samsung would need to switch from inkjet printing of the QD material to this vapor deposition approach which brings its own pros/cons. Unfortunately, not all ideas that work at small scale in the lab are actually practical to implement in the field. Guess we'll see if this ever reaches commercialization.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> This sounds good in theory but Samsung would need to switch from inkjet printing of the QD material to this vapor deposition approach which brings its own pros/cons. Unfortunately, not all ideas that work at small scale in the lab are actually practical to implement in the field. Guess we'll see if this ever reaches commercialization.


Yes, and in addition, I noted this tidbit: 

‘As a result of *the simulation*, the light conversion efficiency was improved by 37.4% for red and 42.4% for green.’

So at a minimum, it seems as they they have likely not manufactured any kind of RGB display yet and it’s not even clear what materials they have actually manufactured (if any).

I’m guessing we’re likely to see PHOLED-based QD-OLED before we see any with QD’s applied by vapor deposition…


----------



## Classy Tech

Avs2022 said:


> Oh, I saw a video from Digital Trends where he said that the qd-oleds white was white and not greenish white, like on the woled.





mrtickleuk said:


> You can have whatever shade of white that you choose to calibrate it to, or (in an effort to mitigate against metamerism) perceptually match it to, on both WOLED and QD-OLED. It's not as if one shade is fixed in hardware or anything like that! If Caleb ever suggested otherwise, he should know better than to say that.
> 
> The factory "white point" calibration is merely a choice made by that particular manufacturer in every case, and indicates nothing about the underlying technology at all. It even changes during model-years, if the some Sony AJ90 owners are correct (see that TV's owner's thread for details).





fafrd said:


> I would have thought that Caleb Dennison and Digital Trends would have understood a thing or two about whitepoint calibration…


Until recently he was not using a spectro for calibration just a C6. When doing that and targeting D65 on a WRGB OLED, the meter will falsely detect too much red and compensate. That's why he thought they looked green.

What I really don't get is how he could look at a QD OLED supposedly calibrated with a spectro to D65 and not think that was blue/green, as the metamerism that I saw on the Alienware at D65 was very blue/green.


----------



## stl8k

Interesting with all of the talk about font display issues in QD OLED (monitor size) that LGD is tackling the issue...



> Recently, a four-color type display device has been developed, wherein an image is expressed in high quality by using colors including red, green, blue, and white. Since such ClearType is based on a three-color display device expressing red, green, and blue, when ClearType is realized in the four-color display device, the readability may be reduced rather than enhanced.
> 
> US20220084462A1 - Display device - Google Patents


----------



## Micker99

Nm


----------



## Adonisds

The new EU energy label for televisions – Everything you need to know – Homecinema Magazine



"A current 55 inch OLED like the LG OLED55CX consumes 106W according to the new label. By 2023, a new 55-inch OLED model must consume a maximum of 84 watts (a decrease of 21%) to be allowed to appear on the market (still with a G label),

An 8K TV such as the QE65Q900T currently consumes 341 Watts. An equivalent 8K model that will be on the market after March 1, 2023 may use a maximum of 113 Watt. A decrease of 67%! And even then, the device still only has a G-label."


I just read the article above and it made me really dismayed. Will EU energy regulations make the next few years continue the stagnation of emissive displays peak brightness that we have seen in the last 6 years?


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> The new EU energy label for televisions – Everything you need to know – Homecinema Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> "A current 55 inch OLED like the LG OLED55CX consumes 106W according to the new label. By 2023, a new 55-inch OLED model must consume a maximum of 84 watts (a decrease of 21%) to be allowed to appear on the market (still with a G label),
> 
> An 8K TV such as the QE65Q900T currently consumes 341 Watts. An equivalent 8K model that will be on the market after March 1, 2023 may use a maximum of 113 Watt. A decrease of 67%! And even then, the device still only has a G-label."





> I just read the article above and it made me really dismayed. *Will EU energy regulations make the next few years continue the stagnation of emissive displays peak brightness that we have seen in the last 6 years?*


How are you going to ‘stagnate’ with an impending 21% decrease in allowed power consumption???

I don’t know how they perform these tests, but the only way to reduce power consumption of an OLED TV by 20% it to reduce brightness by ~20%.

Blue PHOLED should allow that to be achieved by easily but we’re highly unlikely to see any blue PHOLED-based TVs in the market before 2025 (best case).

So either there s wiggle-room in these rules or the EU is likely looking at WOLED TVs capped to plasma-like brightness levels for a few years…


----------



## chris7191

Adonisds said:


> The new EU energy label for televisions – Everything you need to know – Homecinema Magazine
> 
> 
> I just read the article above and it made me really dismayed. Will EU energy regulations make the next few years continue the stagnation of emissive displays peak brightness that we have seen in the last 6 years?


It will in the EU. I am very much for reducing emissions, but this legislation seems misguided. Mainstream TVs are probably as low power as they have ever been per-inch. Erasing high end TVs isn't environmentally significant and will only annoy a small subset of Europeans.


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> How are you going to ‘stagnate’ with an impending 21% decrease in allowed power consumption???
> 
> I don’t know how they perform these tests, but the only way to reduce power consumption of an OLED TV by 20% it to reduce brightness by ~20%.
> 
> Blue PHOLED should allow that to be achieved by easily but we’re highly unlikely to see any blue PHOLED-based TVs in the market before 2025 (best case).
> 
> So either there s wiggle-room in these rules or the EU is likely looking at WOLED TVs capped to plasma-like brightness levels for a few years…


Would they make a lower brightness version only for the EU or would the entire world receive lower brightness TVs because it's cheaper and it results and less damage to the brand (due to perceived "fairness") to produce the same panels and TVs for everybody?

Aren't energy regulations already greatly reducing the brightness of current TVs?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Adonisds said:


> The new EU energy label for televisions – Everything you need to know – Homecinema Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> "A current 55 inch OLED like the LG OLED55CX consumes 106W according to the new label. By 2023, a new 55-inch OLED model must consume a maximum of 84 watts (a decrease of 21%) to be allowed to appear on the market (still with a G label),
> 
> An 8K TV such as the QE65Q900T currently consumes 341 Watts. An equivalent 8K model that will be on the market after March 1, 2023 may use a maximum of 113 Watt. A decrease of 67%! And even then, the device still only has a G-label."
> 
> 
> I just read the article above and it made me really dismayed. Will EU energy regulations make the next few years continue the stagnation of emissive displays peak brightness that we have seen in the last 6 years?


4000+ nits for miniled or microled tv may not be possible in the future anymore, even if leds are much more power efficient than oleds. May have to smuggle in a tv from another country, or hope that microled vr has better picture quality than tvs.


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> Would they make a lower brightness version only for the EU or would the entire world receive lower brightness TVs because it's cheaper and it results and less *damage to the brand* (due to perceived "fairness") to produce the same panels and TVs for everybody?


You think LG would damage their brand less by gimping all of their TVs sold worldwide to EU standards than if they only limited the EU models with EU-specific Firmware???



> Aren't energy regulations already greatly reducing the brightness of current TVs?


It’s a valid question as to whether full-screen ABL limits on WOLED are being driven purely by lifetime / aging concerns or whether power consumption limits being imposed by regulations is also playing a role…


----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


> 4000+ nits for miniled or microled tv may not be possible in the future anymore, even if leds are much more power efficient than oleds. May have to smuggle in a tv from another country, or hope that microled vr has better picture quality than tvs.


Does anyone know what content or test patterns are used to determine these power consumption measures?

EV chargers are evolving to allow direct solar-to-EV charging, so maybe we need something similar for HDR TVs…


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> It’s a valid question as to whether full-screen ABL limits on WOLED are being driven purely by lifetime / aging concerns or whether power consumption limits being imposed by regulations is also playing a role…


I don't think it's playing a role at the moment given the thirst of things like the Z9J. It might be power supply related in terms of dissipation limits in the enclosure, though.


----------



## chris7191

OLED_Overrated said:


> 4000+ nits for miniled or microled tv may not be possible in the future anymore, even if leds are much more power efficient than oleds. May have to smuggle in a tv from another country, or hope that microled vr has better picture quality than tvs.








New Energy Efficiency Standards for Television Sets Formulated







www.meti.go.jp





Looks like Japan will follow with something similar also.


----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


> 4000+ nits for miniled or microled tv may not be possible in the future anymore, even if leds are much more power efficient than oleds. May have to smuggle in a tv from another country, or hope that microled vr has better picture quality than tvs.


I assume these measurements are based on average picture level and peak levels used for highlights.

The lowering power consumption levels may well have more of an impact on SDR average brightness (and gaming average brightness) than HDR peak brightness…


----------



## Adonisds

fafrd said:


> You think LG would damage their brand less by gimping all of their TVs sold worldwide to EU standards than if they only limited the EU models with EU-specific Firmware???


Yes, I do think it's possible because people react very negatively if they think they are being treated unfairly. Maybe LG could have made the TVs significantly brighter already, but they didn't because they knew they would have to dramatically reduce power consumption in 2023. So they limited the current models to not be brighter than what they can make a future EU compliant model be with the tech they plan to have at the time. Protecting their brand against very rare burn-in cases could also have motivated not going as bright as they could have.

Rtings measure the peak brightness of the B7 at 820 nits and reviewers are measuring the peak brightness of the G2 at 920 nits. I know there's some panel lottery involved, but are the increases we are seeing really all they could have reached even after introducing a better OLED stack, changing the subpixel layout multiple times and adding a heatsink? Another possible evidence that supports this hypothesis is the fact that power consumption decreased from GX to G1 and then decreased again with from G1 to G2, suggesting brightness is being left on the table.

I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about WOLEDs as you, so some things I said could be wrong. If you could be so kind, please correct me and tell me why you don’t think the hypothesis is plausible.


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> Yes, I do think it's possible because people react very negatively if they *think they are being treated unfairly*.


Meaning that first, you think Europeans will blame LG for regulation placed on them by the EU???

And meaning second, you think customers in the US and elsewhere outside the EU will not feel unfairly treated by LG’s arbitrary and unforced decision to impose brain-dead regulations from the EU onto parts of the world where they don’t apply???

Very funny logic.



> *Maybe LG could have made the TVs significantly brighter already, but they didn't *because they knew they would have to dramatically reduce power consumption in 2023. So they limited the current models to not be brighter than what they can make a future EU compliant model be with the tech they plan to have at the time.


I believe you’ve set a new high-water mark for wishful thinkers I’ve encountered in my lifetime…

LG could have outright won the Brightness Wars against Samsung’s QLED/LCD but they elected not too because they were worried about EU customers who would be offended when LG later lowered output levels to meet future EU regulations?



> Protecting their brand against very rare burn-in cases could also have motivated not going as bright as they could have.


Without a doubt. LGD pushed themselves a bit over the edge in terms of chasing Samsung QLED/LCD further than they should have out of fear HDR could mean for WOLED what 4K meant for plasma (meaning the end of the line).

Since the Burn In Scare of 2016/2017 which they survived (but just barely), LGD has become much more conservative (also because it became clear that the Samsung-driven Brightness War would not be successful and WOLED was sufficiently bright for the minimum requirements for effective HDR).

But stepping back from the bleeding-edge by being more conservative about releasing all of your increased brightness for higher display brightness instead of reserving some portion of it for increased lifetime / burn-in immunity is not the same thing as worried about the impact of future regulation in one region of the world and preparing in advance to deliver TVs meeting those future more stringent requirements worldwide.



> Rtings measure the peak brightness of the B7 at 820 nits and reviewers are measuring the peak brightness of the G2 at 920 nits. I know there's some panel lottery involved, *but are the increases we are seeing really all they could have reached* even after introducing a better OLED stack, changing the subpixel layout multiple times and adding a heatsink?


If LGD had elected to take as much risk with the C2 as they did with the B/C7, it’s a near-certainty the C2 would deliver higher peak output levels.

They took too much risk with the B7’s peak brightness levels and since then they have learned that they need to reserve more of a headroom of potential peak brightness for burn-in compensation…

There have really only been 2-1/2 panels to talk about:

WBC (2016 to mid-2022). ABL limits changed, PAR was optimized / increased, and tradeoffs between various subpixel colors were made, but the WOLED stack itself as a specially it’s power consumption, did not fundamentally change.

WBE (2021 forward). The switch from hydrogen to deuterium improved Blue lifetime and allowed Blue to be driven harder, but did not change efficiency or power consumption. The addition of a deep green emissive element (meaning a deep green PHOLED emitter added to the stack) both increased the purity of green as well as it’s efficiency. A more efficient green WOLED translates to a more white subpixel as well as a more efficient green subpixel. So any reduction we see in WOLED power consumption at equal output levels (or increased output levels at equal power consumptuon levels) is largely due to the addition of the geeen OHOLED emitter to the WBE / 3S4C WOLED stack currently in production.

WBE w/ heatsink. The heat does not do much to increase full-screen brightness levels (possibly some increased cooling effficiebcy to ambient air) but it does allow the localized temperature of small bright HDR highlights to be spread out over a larger portion of the panel rather than focused on the bright portion of the panel. That means those highlights can be driven harder for brighter output levels before reaching the same temperature they would reach without a heatsink (they can’t actually reach that same full temperature since aging / burn-in is a function of both temperature and current density, but you get the idea). Early indications are that the addition of a heat sink will allow the G2 to deliver HDR highlight about ~10% brighter than the C2 with no heatsink (with equivalent efficiency, meaning the G2 will consume additional power over the C2 when delivering brighter highlights).

You think LG would go to the trouble and expense of adding a heatsink only to not use it because future EU regulations don’t afford them the power budget to do so???



> Another possible evidence that supports this hypothesis is the fact that power consumption decreased from GX to G1 and then decreased again with from G1 to G2, suggesting brightness is being left on the table.


GX to G1 power consumption was almost certainly driven by the addition of the green PHOLED emitter to the WBE WOLED stack.

If G2 actually proves to deliver lower power consumption than the G1, it’s probably because the 55G1 and 65G1 were using a subpixel design that supported both WBC / 3S3C WOLED stack as well as WBE / 3S4C WOLED stack. By definition, those subpixels were suboptimal for the WBE stack. Now that we have confirmed that the 65” WBE panel has modified subpixel designs this year, it has almost certainly been optimized for WBE. The more photons a WOLED panel drives out of the white and green subpixel (and the fewer it drives out of the blue subpixel), the better the efficiency will be, so any G2 over G1 improvements in power consumption likely are driven from modified / optimized subpixel designs…



> I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about WOLEDs as you, so some things I said could be wrong. If you could be so kind, please correct me and tell me why you don’t think the hypothesis is plausible.


I have a reputation for longer posts than most members will bother to read, but hopefully all of the above provides the added detail you were seeking.

And to be clear, the only part of your ‘hypothesis’ I find to be the least bit implausible is the idea that LG would impose EU TV power consumption on their worldwide TV sales when they are not forced to (especially out of fear that this would damage their reputation with US / non-EU customers less than if they just deliver the best WOLED TVs they are allowed to to each part of the world).


----------



## bargugl

fafrd said:


> How are you going to ‘stagnate’ with an impending 21% decrease in allowed power consumption???
> 
> I don’t know how they perform these tests, but the only way to reduce power consumption of an OLED TV by 20% it to reduce brightness by ~20%.
> 
> Blue PHOLED should allow that to be achieved by easily but we’re highly unlikely to see any blue PHOLED-based TVs in the market before 2025 (best case).
> 
> So either there s wiggle-room in these rules or the EU is likely looking at WOLED TVs capped to plasma-like brightness levels for a few years…


EX panels go a long way in reducing power consumption. It looks like the 2022 LG models are mostly already designed to meet the new 2023 standard. The C2 and G2 have lower power consumption then C1 and G1 in both US and EU models. The power consumption difference is greater with the EU models, but the US test method is a lot different than the EU so who knows how much is a result of test methodology or LG just using an algorithm that can produce a better result on the EU test without losing peak brightness.

I've attached the EU label for a 55" C1. It lists the aforementioned 106 kwh rating mentioned for the CX. I've also attached the labels for the 55" G2 and C2. Both are now rated at 81kwh. So we already see a 24% reduction in power usage on these labels in 2022 so they should meet the 2023 EU standard


----------



## JasonHa

I vaguely remember discussion of the EU TV regulations mostly affecting 8K televisions in the future.


----------



## fafrd

bargugl said:


> EX panels go a long way in reducing power consumption. It looks like the 2022 LG models are mostly already designed to meet the new 2023 standard. The C2 and G2 have lower power consumption then C1 and G1 in both US and EU models. The power consumption difference is greater with the EU models, but the US test method is a lot different than the EU so who knows how much is a result of test methodology or LG just using an algorithm that can produce a better result on the EU test without losing peak brightness.
> 
> I've attached the EU label for a 55" C1. It lists the aforementioned 106 kwh rating mentioned for the CX. I've also attached the labels for the 55" G2 and C2. Both are now rated at 81kwh. So we already see a 24% reduction in power usage on these labels in 2022 so they should meet the 2023 EU standard


Head-to-head power measurements when displaying identical content (and under identical settings) is the only meaningful way to get a read on how efficiency and power consumption may have changed from model year to model year.

There are just too many ways to ‘game’ the system to take these power labels at face value.

WOLEDs ship with Eco mode ‘ON’ by default, correct? And turning off Eco mode is generally recommended to be the first setting you change to improve image quality.

So what prevents LGE and other manufacturers to just ramp down Eco-mode brightness levels to meet whatever power consumption requirements the EU (and other regions) imposes?


----------



## bargugl

fafrd said:


> Head-to-head power measurements when displaying identical content (and under identical settings) is the only meaningful way to get a read on how efficiency and power consumption may have changed from model year to model year.
> 
> There are just too many ways to ‘game’ the system to take these power labels at face value.
> 
> WOLEDs ship with Eco mode ‘ON’ by default, correct? And turning off Eco mode is generally recommended to be the first setting you change to improve image quality.
> 
> So what prevents LGE and other manufacturers to just ramp down Eco-mode brightness levels to meet whatever power consumption requirements the EU (and other regions) imposes?


Very true. While I haven't read any of the EU test spec guides, I have read a few US ones for various appliances. There's a ton of methodology and rules behind them, but they are often still listed in a way that manufacturers can beat them through various default settings that a consumer can choose easily to change (take dishwashers - stick it in the 1 hour fast wash mode if it has one and much of the purported power savings go out the window).

It's also important to remember that while the panels are the largest consumer of power, there are also a whole lot of other electronic components that consume power in a TV (processor, speakers, etc). You can also save power by reworking those other components. Plus as we see with computers and phones, different OS's and the optimization of the OS to work with the chosen components can make huge differences in power consumption.


----------



## fafrd

UBI forecasting OLED TV demand growth from 11.7M units this year to 26.3M in 2026: [2022 OLED KOREA CONFERENCE] 삼성전자 OLED TV시장 합류, 2025년 TV 패널 시장 2,000만대 시장 규모 돌파할 것 ⋆ OLED










+125% growth over 4 years corresponds to a CAGR of 22-23% and UBI is urging LGD and Samsung to kick off capacity expansion plans this year to avoid a shortage that will otherwise be severe by 2024…

[P.S. if this demand forecast were to materialize, it would mean that the Premium TV Segment would pretty much be exclusively OLED TVs by 2025/2026…]


----------



## Moravid

But 0% growth in supply...


----------



## fafrd

Moravid said:


> But 0% growth in supply...


That was the whole point of their slide/presentation - if LGD and Samsung don’t announce new OLED TV panel fab expansions soon, the world will be continuously sold out of OLED TVs by 2024…

The ‘supply’ is based on what is already in production or announced. By this time next year, it’s highly likely that a similar slide will incorporate announced fab expansion plans by both LGD and Samsung Display and the ‘gap’ will be closed…


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung and LG Display’s OLED negotiations focused on 150nit panels








Samsung and LG Display’s OLED negotiations focused on 150nit panels


Samsung Electronics and LG Display’s ongoing negotiation over the supply of TV OLED panels was focused on budge OLED panels, TheElec has learned.Samsung, the world’s largest TV manufacturer by revenue, is launching OLED TVs this year after a 9-year hiatus and is procuring OLED panels from Samsung Di




www.thelec.net






Samsung expected to launch OLED TV with panel from LG Display








Samsung expected to launch OLED TV with panel from LG Display


Samsung is expected to begin selling OLED TVs with panels provided by LG Display in September, analyst UBI Research said in its forecast on Thursday.UBI Research CEO Choong Hoon Yi said during a conference hosted by the analyst firm in Busan, South Korea that LG Display is expected to manufacture up




thelec.net


----------



## stl8k

// Color Accuracy vs Gamut/Volume //

Hey y'all. I've been excited about multiple classes of displays (consumer RGB laser projectors and QD-OLED displays) promising a step change in Rec 2020/P3 gamut/volume coverage. That said, I've been dismayed to see that these devices haven't been very accurate for Rec 2020/P3.

Is it often the case that improved _early_ support for a larger gamut/volume is often inaccurate (even after post-delivery calibration)? What are some reasonable accuracy/error levels above which the increased coverage is illusory/not real? What's a native gamut mean and do many native gamuts exhibit larger inaccuracies (than the common gamuts) like the QD-OLED monitor below?

Thanks in advance.









Source: CNET Alienware 34-inch QD-OLED Monitor Review


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> Samsung and LG Display’s OLED negotiations focused on 150nit panels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung and LG Display’s OLED negotiations focused on 150nit panels
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics and LG Display’s ongoing negotiation over the supply of TV OLED panels was focused on budge OLED panels, TheElec has learned.Samsung, the world’s largest TV manufacturer by revenue, is launching OLED TVs this year after a 9-year hiatus and is procuring OLED panels from Samsung Di
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung expected to launch OLED TV with panel from LG Display
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung expected to launch OLED TV with panel from LG Display
> 
> 
> Samsung is expected to begin selling OLED TVs with panels provided by LG Display in September, analyst UBI Research said in its forecast on Thursday.UBI Research CEO Choong Hoon Yi said during a conference hosted by the analyst firm in Busan, South Korea that LG Display is expected to manufacture up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelec.net


Seems to be just more UBI ‘forecast’ and analysis at this point.

The 150 Nit, 180 Nit and 200 Nit panel offering seems credible and brings up some interesting questions, though:

The switch from hydrogen to deuterium as well as the addition of a 4th OKED emitter (deep green) added cost to the new WBE / 3S4C WOLED panel but we’ve never gotten much clarity on how much.

Could the WBC / 3S/3C be lower-enough in cost that LGD continues to offer it?

WBE / 3S4C could certainly deliver 180 cd/m2 full-field.

Whether it is through some screening or for highest-performing panels or the addition of an integrated heatsink (as LGD was rumored to be working on), WBE-based panels capable of delivering 200 cd/m2 full-field seems within the realm of the possible (without requiring new materials such as blue PHOLED, for example).

But the only sensible way I can imagine LGD offering a lower-cost WOLED panel delivering a maximum of only 150cd/m2 full-field is if WBC / 3S3C was cheaper to manufacture and LGD elected to offer WBC at lower cost to customers such as Samsung looking for the least-expensive WOLED panels possible, even at more limited performance.

The SPD of Samsung WOLEDs once they are in the wild will be interesting to see…


----------



## Glayde

fafrd said:


> That was the whole point of their slide/presentation - if LGD and Samsung don’t announce new OLED TV panel fab expansions soon, the world will be continuously sold out of OLED TVs by 2024…
> 
> The ‘supply’ is based on what is already in production or announced. By this time next year, it’s highly likely that a similar slide will incorporate announced fab expansion plans by both LGD and Samsung Display and the ‘gap’ will be closed…


At least there isn't a crypto currency that uses oled panels to mine yet....


----------



## bargugl

The three levels of price/brightness seems to support the notion of OLED panel binning. It was interesting to note that it also says LGE is already using all three levels. I would say the cheapest 150 nit panels are what has been going to the A series and Skyworth. Where the break is between those with mid level vs those with premiums is a little harder, but its safe to assume that the A90j would definitely be the premium panel. As with most binning processes, prices would not necessarily be a matter of production cost, but a matter of how much money they can get for the product produced. The low end model would be sold with little margin and would be made up by premium pricing of the premium product, which has a high margin. The cost to the company could have little difference, though the simultaneous production of the WBE and WBC panels makes this difficult to figure out (take my A1 which has a WBE panel). If these Samsung models ever materialize that could shed some light.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> But the only sensible way I can imagine LGD offering a lower-cost WOLED panel delivering a maximum of only 150cd/m2 full-field is if WBC / 3S3C was cheaper to manufacture and LGD elected to offer WBC at lower cost to customers such as Samsung looking for the least-expensive WOLED panels possible, even at more limited performance.


Considering the scarcity of deuterium, I don't see how WBE could be cheaper to produce than WBC.

Then there was this previous DSCC report from December claiming Evo panels would only make up 10% of LGs output by 2025.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Considering the scarcity of deuterium, I don't see how WBE could be cheaper to produce than WBC.
> 
> Then there was this previous DSCC report from December claiming Evo panels would only make up 10% of LGs output by 2025.


There is a quote from LGD (or maybe it was LG Chem where they claim to have developed a new process to dramatically bring down the cost of deuterium. But in any case, yes, it can’t be cheaper than hydrogen…

But DSCC seems to be focusing more on the added cost of the deep green PHOLED emitter rather than any added cost for deuterium-based blue FOLED: 

‘The following chart here shows our outlook for the material cost for LGD’s White OLED panels. We expect that steady, incremental improvements in material utilization and price will help LGD drive the unyielded stack cost of its standard WOLED panels from *$76.32 per square meter in 2020 to $47.19 per square meter in 2025*, an average decrease of 10% per year. For LG Display, with increased volume and experience we expect that yields will also improve over time, so that the cost declines of yielded OLED stack materials will be even greater.

With* the additional emitting layer*, we estimate that the unyielded stack cost of the OLED Evo panel *adds about $13 per square meter in cost*. Although this figure also declines over time, *we estimate the cost adder in 2025 remains more than $10 per square meter. *With this continuing cost adder, we expect that OLED Evo will continue to be positioned as a premium product, and that the [/b]additional green layer will not be used on LGD’s mainstream products.[/b]’

So first, $76.32 on 2020 down to $47.19 in 2025 represents a 62% decrease over 5 years or an average decrease of over 10% per year (not bad).

Second, a cost adder of $13 on top of a baseline of $76.32 represents a +17% cost adder for deep green PHOLED increasing to a cost adder of 21.2% in 2025 ($10 on top of $47.19).

If there is any thruth at all to this estimate of the WBE stack having a material cost that is ~20% more than WBC stack, that would certainly make the idea of LGD continuing to offer lower-cost / lower performing WBC panels likely (whether due to added cost for deuterium blue, or deep green PHOLED emitter, or both…).

And since those 2 changes to the WOLED stack for WBE are not related, it also offers a possible explanation for the 3 panels LGD is apparently offering to Samsung:

WBE - 200 cd/m2 (highest cost)

WBC - 150 cd/m2 (lowest-cost)

Mid-tier - 180cd/m2 - this could either be a 3S3C panel like WBC but using deuterium-based blue FOLED like WBE or it could be a 3S4C panel like WBE but using lower-cost hydrogen-based blue FOLED like WBC.

Whether LGD is getting to 3 panel classes by manufacturing 3 distinct stacks or is getting there by combining 2 distinct stacks with an integrated heatsink (as we were talking about last year) doesn’t really matter as much as the fact that LGD appears to already be diversifying into a lower-cost entry-level offering and one or two levels of premium WOLED panel offering.


----------



## Fabio Zanellato

Una nuova tecnica di produzione potrebbe abbassare sensibilmente il costo dei display QD-OLED


Ricercatori del Kyung Hee University Display Research Center hanno sviluppato un nuovo metodo di deposizione dei Quantum Dots per la realizzazione di schermi che sfruttano la conversione del colore, in grado di abbattere sensibilmente i costi di produzione.




www.dday.it


----------



## 59LIHP

Fabio Zanellato said:


> Una nuova tecnica di produzione potrebbe abbassare sensibilmente il costo dei display QD-OLED
> 
> 
> Ricercatori del Kyung Hee University Display Research Center hanno sviluppato un nuovo metodo di deposizione dei Quantum Dots per la realizzazione di schermi che sfruttano la conversione del colore, in grado di abbattere sensibilmente i costi di produzione.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dday.it


It's better in English









OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


Oh, I saw a video from Digital Trends where he said that the qd-oleds white was white and not greenish white, like on the woled. You can have whatever shade of white that you choose to calibrate it to, or (in an effort to mitigate against metamerism) perceptually match it to, on both WOLED and...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Fabio Zanellato

59LIHP said:


> It's better in English
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread
> 
> 
> Oh, I saw a video from Digital Trends where he said that the qd-oleds white was white and not greenish white, like on the woled. You can have whatever shade of white that you choose to calibrate it to, or (in an effort to mitigate against metamerism) perceptually match it to, on both WOLED and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


You're absolutely right, I missed it! I now live with Google Translate, but I understand that it is different for you. 😊


----------



## 8mile13

Samsung Display started developing thinner QD-OLED panels


----------



## fafrd

Samsung Display has apparently announced to employees that they have succeeded to increase QD-OLED yields to 75%: https://techunwrapped.com/samsung-is-reducing-the-cost-of-manufacturing-its-qd-oled-tvs/

‘The Korean manufacturer has announced in a statement to its workers that it has reached 75% performance in the manufacture of QD-OLED panels. The company praised the hard work of the employees who achieved a return of 75% and emphasized that *they will soon achieve a return of more than 90%*.’

This is great news and probably means they achieved the yield level they were aiming for at CES after only a ~3 month delay.

That yield figure of 75% is most likely for 55” panel production and translates to an average defectivity of ~1.5 defects per 8.5G sheet.

That’s significant progress from the yield level of ~30% corresponding to an average defectivity about ~3 times higher than that that they were apparently suffering from around the time of CES.

Success in addressing that excess defectivity around the time of CES was no doubt the backdrop underlying Samsung Electronics recent decision to move forward it’s the launch of the 55” and 65” QD-OLED TVs (pressured from above or not).

If we assume Samsung is going to be using 10,000 8.5G sheets a month for 55” QD-OLED panel production, that will translate to 45,000 55” panels per month or 0.4 million through the remainder of this year (assuming no further improvements) 

And if we assume the remaining 20,000 8.5G sheets per month are going to be used to produce 3 65” and 6 34” QD-OLED panels using MMG, that same 1.5 average defectivity rate would translate to 40,000 65” panels and 110,000 34” panels per month.

So Samsung Display should now be on track to handily surpass stated TV panel production target of 0.6M for this first year.

Getting to 55” panel yield of 90% will require further reduction in average defectivitu levels from the ~1.5 defects per 8.5G sheet where they are currently to an average of 0.6 defects per sheet (60% reduction in average defectivity).

If they can get there before year end that would be very impressive, but I’m any case it appears QD-OLED is over the initial yield-ramp hump.


----------



## fafrd

If Samsung Display can actually get 55” QD-OLED yields up to ~90% by year end, first that’s a truly impressive ramp for a first line with a new technology (much faster than LGD ramped WOLED).

But second, that would be very good news for the possibility of larger QD-OLED panels by next year.

55” yielding ~90% would translate to 75/77” panels yielding ~78%.

Manufacturing 2 75/77” QD-OLED panels alongside 2 48/49” QD-OLED panels using MMG would allow Samsung Display to yield an average of ~1.5 75/77” (75%) and ~1.85 48/49” (92.5%) QD-OLED panels per 8.5G sheet.

That is so much better than the yield of ~44% @ 75/77” and ~81% yield @ 48/49” that Samsung Display would get if they tried to manufacture 75/77” QD-OLED panels with todays 55” yield of 75%…


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung Display begins development of thinner QD-OLED panel 








Samsung Display begins development of thinner QD-OLED panel


Samsung Display has begun the development of a thinner version of its quantum dot (QD)-OLED panel, TheElec has learned.The aim is to reduce the use of glass substrates from the current two to one, sources said.If the South Korean display panel succeeds, the new version of QD-OLED will also be rollab




thelec.net


----------



## Jin-X

We really need a pro to get their hands on a QD-OLED because so far it’s basically regular users and they put the hype through the roof, into orbit, and it’s now nearing Pluto. It’s just a taaaaad out of control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tonydeluce

Jin-X said:


> We really need a pro to get their hands on a QD-OLED because so far it’s basically regular users and they put the hype through the roof, into orbit, and it’s now nearing Pluto. It’s just a taaaaad out of control.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah, it is exactly like FOMO said... FOMO said he is in not even interested in reviewing anything else this year but the Sony QD-OLED after seeing the S95B - but it was FOMO that thought a Samsung QLED should have won the VE shootout last year - LMAO... I hope it pans out to be half as good as the hype ;-)


----------



## Jin-X

tonydeluce said:


> Yeah, it is exactly like FOMO said... FOMO said he is in not even interested in reviewing anything else this year but the Sony QD-OLED after seeing the S95B - but it was FOMO that thought a Samsung QLED should have won the VE shootout last year - LMAO... I hope it pans out to be half as good as the hype ;-)


Unfortunately it looks like Clowntum tv got one first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

tonydeluce said:


> Yeah, it is exactly like FOMO said... FOMO said he is in not even interested in reviewing anything else this year but the Sony QD-OLED after seeing the S95B - but it was FOMO that thought a Samsung QLED should have won the VE shootout last year - LMAO... I hope it pans out to be half as good as the hype ;-)


If uniformity is a good as early member comments indicate, that would be a major advance for OLED-TV…


----------



## Wizziwig

I would call it the biggest advance since OLED TVs launched. Incremental improvements like a few hundred nits here and there will hardly be noticed in most content. When crappy uniformity rears its head, it will pull you out of any content you're watching.

While I'm also awaiting some professional reviews, we have to keep in mind that 99.99999% of the TV buying public does not calibrate or care about ultimate accuracy. It's why Samsung has stayed on top of the TV business for so many years despite their less-than-reference results.

I'm glad to see so many satisfied early adopters in the owner thread. Happy owners will lead to more happy owners as word gets around. The more Samsung can sell, the better for the future of their QD-OLED initiative. This also puts pressure on LG to up their game if they don't want to lose the high standing they've enjoyed the past few years among reviewers and shootouts.


----------



## Jin-X

Wizziwig said:


> I would call it the biggest advance since OLED TVs launched. Incremental improvements like a few hundred nits here and there will hardly be noticed in most content. When crappy uniformity rears its head, it will pull you out of any content you're watching.
> 
> While I'm also awaiting some professional reviews, we have to keep in mind that 99.99999% of the TV buying public does not calibrate or care about ultimate accuracy. It's why Samsung has stayed on top of the TV business for so many years despite their less-than-reference results.
> 
> I'm glad to see so many satisfied early adopters in the owner thread. Happy owners will lead to more happy owners as word gets around. The more Samsung can sell, the better for the future of their QD-OLED initiative. This also puts pressure on LG to up their game if they don't want to lose the high standing they've enjoyed the past few years among reviewers and shootouts.


Yes but if, as expected, Samsung is up to their old tricks; then it's setting wildly misleading expectations that will get dashed as soon as a pro puts one through it's paces.


----------



## Adonisds

Jin-X said:


> Unfortunately it looks like Clowntum tv got one first.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Why does that guy have such a bad reputation? I never watched it


----------



## CliffordinWales

The Tech Trip YouTube channel has published a couple more interesting videos on QD-OLED.


----------



## Jin-X

Adonisds said:


> Why does that guy have such a bad reputation? I never watched it


He’s a fraud, a charlatan who makes stuff up and attacks actual pros.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Adonisds

CliffordinWales said:


> The Tech Trip YouTube channel has published a couple more interesting videos on QD-OLED.


So in QD-OLED there's a polarizer but it's not in the most superficial layer?


----------



## Wizziwig

It's all guesswork since Samsung has not been forthcoming about the details. For a polarizer to work to its full potential it needs to be on the outer most surface. Otherwise it won't prevent internal reflections from layers above it. If they placed it under the qd layer, you would still have light reflecting off the qd layer and you can't place it above the qd-layer due to loss of polarization during color conversion. Seems like a trade-off one has to accept with this technology.

Edit: We had a related discussion over in the QD-OLED monitor thread a while ago.


----------



## CliffordinWales

Jin-X said:


> Yes but if, as expected, Samsung is up to their old tricks; then it's setting wildly misleading expectations that will get dashed as soon as a pro puts one through it's paces.


This is the first review I've seen from a credible YouTuber - who's also I believe active on this forum. He suggests QD-OLED is indeed a significant step forward from WOLED and a generational leap for display technology as a whole.


----------



## Jin-X

CliffordinWales said:


> This is the first review I've seen from a credible YouTuber - who's also I believe active on this forum. He suggests QD-OLED is indeed a significant step forward from WOLED and a generational leap for display technology as a whole.


I watched most of the 8 hour stream live . I just want the Sony to match that performance, Sony’s own people have been downplaying the brightness the whole time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

DSCC has a new Advanced TV Cost Report out (which I don't have) and they note the first installment of of QD-OLED cost breakdown going forward. From the 'free' side of the announcement:

_For the first time, we include QD-OLED panel cost in this report. We expect that in its year of introduction QD-OLED panel costs are dramatically higher than any other flat panels of the same screen size due to low yields. Our yield estimates for 2022 are under 60% for 55” and 65” TV panels. We have recently seen reports (see separate story in this issue) that some QD-OLED production (screen size undetermined) had reached 75% yield, so SDC may be improving QD-OLED panel yield faster than expected. If these reports are confirmed and attributable to TV size panels then our yield estimate will be revised in the next update.
The costs for QD-OLED panels will come down sharply as yield improves. We estimate that QD-OLED panel costs will decrease by ~30% Y/Y in 2023, primarily based on the impact of higher yields. Higher yields allow for fixed costs, which include depreciation and most personnel and indirect costs to be amortized over higher volumes.
Subscribers to the report can see the detailed cost models for 55” and 65” QD-OLED panels, including quarterly cost estimates from 2022 through 2026 with breakdown by cost components and the corresponding estimates of yield and fab utilization._


----------



## 59LIHP

2022 OLED KOREA Conference Day1 (Session highlights)





2022 OLED KOREA Conference Day2 (Session highlights)


----------



## 59LIHP

To Maintain Korea's Lead in 4 Types of Technologies
Korean Display Industry Seeking Government Support for Leading-edge Display Technologies








Korean Display Industry Seeking Government Support for Leading-edge Display Technologies


The Korea display industry has recommended that the Korean government designate next-generation display technologies such as organic light emitting diode (OLED) and quantum dot (QD)-OLED technologies as national strategic technologies. The display industry wants to make leading-edge display technolo




www.businesskorea.co.kr


----------



## Jin-X

59LIHP said:


> To Maintain Korea's Lead in 4 Types of Technologies
> Korean Display Industry Seeking Government Support for Leading-edge Display Technologies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Korean Display Industry Seeking Government Support for Leading-edge Display Technologies
> 
> 
> The Korea display industry has recommended that the Korean government designate next-generation display technologies such as organic light emitting diode (OLED) and quantum dot (QD)-OLED technologies as national strategic technologies. The display industry wants to make leading-edge display technolo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businesskorea.co.kr


They should make them collaborate as a condition of that government designation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hamad138

China has made a breakthrough with Ink Jet Oled with true RGB which are cheaper to produce then QD and WOLED.

China already pushed LCD makers out , seems like they want to do that on OLED too

Gesendet von meinem GM1913 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Jason Smith

Do you think if QD-OLED is popular that will cause further delay of Samsung QNED commercialization?


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Jason Smith said:


> Do you think if QD-OLED is popular that will cause further delay of Samsung QNED commercialization?


Seeing the aforementioned DSCC cost report on QD-OLED would help with an answer to that. In short, my current opinion is that it would not slow QNED down if it is truly getting close to mass production ready. A greenfield (or brownfield) site could be built from scratch, and let the current fab continue as is for now in parallel. Someone, maybe fafrd, noted that investment announcements later this year (or lack of same) could be very telling on both QD-OLED yield improvements (costs) and maybe even QNED maturity. Finally, while Samsung Visual is becoming more open to the dirty word "OLED" this year, it seems likely that they'd LOVE to move on to an inorganic source and publicize that. Of course, if what we have read over the years is true, that's always been the path anyway. 
I'd love to hear new info on QNED but it has gone quiet. That's probably either really good or really bad....


----------



## CliffordinWales

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Seeing the aforementioned DSCC cost report on QD-OLED would help with an answer to that. In short, my current opinion is that it would not slow QNED down if it is truly getting close to mass production ready. A greenfield (or brownfield) site could be built from scratch, and let the current fab continue as is for now in parallel. Someone, maybe fafrd, noted that investment announcements later this year (or lack of same) could be very telling on both QD-OLED yield improvements (costs) and maybe even QNED maturity. Finally, while Samsung Visual is becoming more open to the dirty word "OLED" this year, it seems likely that they'd LOVE to move on to an inorganic source and publicize that. Of course, if what we have read over the years is true, that's always been the path anyway.
> I'd love to hear new info on QNED but it has gone quiet. That's probably either really good or really bad....


If a new, more efficient blue OLED emitter becomes available in 2024-5 is there really much point in Samsung Display pursuing QNED? We'll then have brighter, more efficient, longer-lasting OLEC displays (in all flavours, WOLED, QD-OLED and RGB OLED) which can be produced using existing plants and production processes. I can't really see how QNED would offer anything but marginal performance gains over that next-gen OLED, while presumably creating a requirement for major investment in new manufacturing. But I could be very wrong!


----------



## 8mile13

I am pretty sure Samsung looking into the future picks Samsung QNED over QD OLED/OLED. Samsung QNED being inorganic has a lot to do with that. Also according UBI Research Samsung QNED 'tech has best characteristics for display'.


----------



## ALMA

Still this nonsense about inorganic vs organic... The issue is blue as rare most energetic color in nature and not that OLED is organic (= carbonized). A long lasting blue OLED will change everything. No need for QNED. Even inorganic LED struggled with efficient blue in history.









Blaue Leuchtdioden


Die Erfindung effizienter blauer LEDs ebnete den Weg zu energiesparenden weißen Lichtquellen – und brachte 2014 den Physiknobelpreis ein.




www.weltderphysik.de





Lifetime of current green and red organic materials are so high, that a blue emitter with similiar efficiency resulting in no burn-in issues anymore, even if it´s organic. It will also be more power efficient than MicroLED.

We are still only at the beginning of OLED developments. It´s a much newer and more ecologically and more flexible technology than inorganic crystalline LED.


----------



## shawman123

if the new Blue OLED will be commercialized in 2024, will it hit LG OLEDs in 2025? Would be really awesome if they can also move to RGB OLED at that time. Is that part of their 10.5 gen stuff we have been hearing for past few years.


----------



## lsorensen

shawman123 said:


> if the new Blue OLED will be commercialized in 2024, will it hit LG OLEDs in 2025? Would be really awesome if they can also move to RGB OLED at that time. Is that part of their 10.5 gen stuff we have been hearing for past few years.


10.5G is just a larger sheet of glass to cut panels from. What they put on those panels is not really directly related at all.


----------



## Jin-X

shawman123 said:


> if the new Blue OLED will be commercialized in 2024, will it hit LG OLEDs in 2025? Would be really awesome if they can also move to RGB OLED at that time. Is that part of their 10.5 gen stuff we have been hearing for past few years.


10.5g is just about the mother glass/substrate size. At 10.5g they can make 8 65in panels or 6 75in panels per mother glass. Right now they only use 8.5g with MMG which lets them do 3 65in and 2 55in per mother glass or 2 77in and 2 48in, for example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 8mile13

ALMA said:


> No need for QNED.


Samsung will put lots of energy into making Samsung QNED a success. They care less about OLED. How you feel about that does not matter much to them...


----------



## CliffordinWales

8mile13 said:


> Samsung will put lots of energy into making Samsung QNED a success. They care less about OLED. How you feel about that does not matter much to them...


It will be a commercial decision ultimately. 

Like I've said before on this forum, it's great to see R&D in display technologies but we shouldn't get overexcited about things which are, for the moment, purely vapourware. I've mentioned SED previously, Canon and Toshiba's doomed prototype TV from the early 2000s, and Sony had a similar technology called FED. Neither of these technologies materialised because it took too long to iron out the various technical challenges they presented, meanwhile good-old plasma and LCD kept improving and eventually WOLED emerged as a viable alternative solution for large panels.

If QD-OLED keeps improving in terms of cost and performance, or there's some breakthrough in conventional MicroLED which makes that technology much more affordable at smaller sizes, then Samsung Display may decide there's no point in proceeding with QNED. Without some insider info from Samsung it's impossible to know if we'll be able to buy an actual QNED tv in, say, 2025.


----------



## ALMA

> Samsung will put lots of energy into making Samsung QNED a success.


No, they don´t. Only R&D. Manufacturing challenges are very high und unsolved and even if they solved it, it didn´t guaranteed it will be better and cheaper than upcomming next generation OLED or ELQD and also, will it be flexible like OLED?
Next step are rollable and transparent high resolution consumer displays. Rumors are out, that LGE could announce a transparent consumer OLED next year. Its not all about colour volume and brightness, especially with stricter energy laws. Style and flexibility will be a much stronger buying decision for consumers in this and next decade. AV enthusiasts here at AVS are only a small bubble - a tiny niche, of a much bigger mass market of TVs and displays. Transparency and 3D could be a nice combination. You can easily transport a 100" panel which is rolled and than unroll it at home at your wall. That also saves the manufacture shipping space and costs. Your window could be a TV. The classical TV concept will be completely rethinked. A display company and technology which can´t do that, will be out of business. That´s why Samsung Display ever cared about OLED and not about QLED-LCD, MiniLED and MicroLED. Samsung Display is producing displays and not diodes like the Taiwanese and Chinese.


----------



## fafrd

lsorensen said:


> 10.5G is just a larger sheet of glass to cut panels from. What they put on those panels is not really directly related at all.


In general, I agree, but the only caveat I’ll add is that making equipment changes after 10.5G equipment has been purchased would be very costly, so to the extent LGD has any roadmap in the works towards future WOLED manufacturing process changes that could impact equipment selection, it’s very possible that they will hold off on 10.5G until after those process changes have matured and 10.5G equipment selection can be finalized.

For example, if LGD was planning to add printed QDCC to WOLED, they might industrialize that process at 8.5G first before purchasing (custom) 10.5G QDCC printing equipment.

Blue PHOLED alone should not impact 10.5G equipment choice, but we don’t know what other developments LGD may have in the pipeline that might…

Or taken to the extreme, if LGD comes to the conclusion that printed RGB OLED will be less costly than WOLED while delivering WOLED-level performance, they may elect to hold off on establishing a 10.5G WOLED line to go directly to a 10.5G printed RGB OLED line.


----------



## fafrd

shawman123 said:


> if the new Blue OLED will be commercialized in 2024, b]will it hit LG OLEDs in 2025?[/b]


If UDC begins sampling blue PHOLED by Kate next year and it is fully-industrialized and ready for masss-priduction i to consumer products ts by 2025, as they claim, available in WOLED and QD-OLED TVs by this time in 2025 does not seem impossible (best-case scenario).

That being said, many prior promises about progress and schedule for high-efficiency blue in the past (from various companies) have been missed, so I’d suggest not to count your chickens…



> Would be really awesome if they can also move to RGB OLED at that time. Is that part of their 10.5 gen stuff we have been hearing for past few years.


What blue PHOLED will offer to QD-OLED is clear: cost reduction. Samsung Display could also elect to keep costs the same but increase peak output levels by +150% to +200% for a premium panel but energy consumption standards will probably dictate whether that holds any attraction as a second higher-end offering.

What blue PHOLED will mean for the future of WOLED is less clear. If LGD believes WOLED can remain cost-competitive with printed RGB OLED, it will probably mean a return to a 2-later WOLED like they initially started with (but likely 2S4C rather than 2S2C). That won’t represent a full 33% reduction in WOLED panel cost but it should represent close to a 33% cost reduction in the most expensive portion of WOLED cost, so 10-20% overall cost reduction seems realistic.

That means equivalent performance at lower cost but LGD may also elect to offer a premium WOLED panel that narrows the gap with QD-OLED without adding cost from today’s baseline.

Staying with 3 OLED layers but switching from blue FOLED to blue PHOLED would provide a brightness boost of anywhere between +35% to as much as +90%.

A WOLED panel with that much increased brightness would allow LGD to significantly increase color volume by greatly reducing the size of the white subpixel in favor of increased R G B subpixels (or even removing the white subpixel entirely).

I believe the only way that LGD ditched WOLED for a true RGB OLED is if they come to the conclusion that printed RGB OLED will significantly undercut WOLED on cost while matching it on performance. If LGD determines that printed RGB OLED is a WOLED-killing inevitability, they may try to be a leader of that evolution rather than sitting back a riding out the dwindling tail of WOLED’s market share.

And the other technology in the mix is printed Quantum Dots. A QD-WOLED is another way for WOLED to boost output levels and color volume without adding too much cost.


----------



## ALMA

fafrd said:


> And the other technology in the mix is printed Quantum Dots. A QD-WOLED is another way for WOLED to boost output levels and color volume without adding too much cost.


The emitter stack in WOLED generate white light. The QD converter needing blue light to generate red and green light. With QDCC it will not be WOLED anymore.


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> The emitter stack in WOLED generate white light. The QD converter needing blue light to generate red and green light. *With QDCC it will not be WOLED anymore.*


We still don’t know whether QD-Display 1.0 is QD-BOLED or QD-COLED (Cyan) but WOLED would have no problem driving red and green QDCC.

The blue subpixel would pass blue photons from the blue OLED layer(s) only.

The red subpixel would pass both red photons from the red OLED layer only (as well as red photons emitted by the yellow OLED layer) and red photons generated by the red QDCC excited by blue photons from the blue OLED layer(s).

The green subpixel would pass both green photons from the deep/green OLED layer ( as well as green photons emitted by the yellow OLED layer) and green photons generated by the green QDCC excited by blue photons from the blue OLED layer(s).

And the white subpixel (assuming LGD elects to maintain a white subpixel on a QD-WOLED would pass through all RGB photons generated by the WOLED stack or could alternatively boost red and or green photon output by including red or green or yellow (red + green) QDCC at some engineered density / efficiency to tune native whitepoint if desired.

WOLED is a reference to the native light composition generated by the unpatterned OLED stack.

BOLED is an unpatterned OLED stack that only emits blue photons.

COLED is an unpatterned OLED stack that only emits green and blue photons (cyan).

WOLED is an unpatterned OLED stack that emits red and green and blue photons (white).

The addition of red and / or green QDCC on specific subpixels above a WOLED stack does not change the fact that the stack is a WOLED stack.

If/when WOLED gains sufficient efficiency and brightness, LGD would have the freedom to consider introducing an RGB WOLED rather than today’s WRGB WOLED.


----------



## 8mile13

ALMA said:


> No, they don´t. Only R&D. Manufacturing challenges are very high und unsolved and even if they solved it, it didn´t guaranteed it will be better and cheaper than upcomming next generation OLED or ELQD and also, will it be flexible like OLED?
> Next step are rollable and transparent high resolution consumer displays. Rumors are out, that LGE could announce a transparent consumer OLED next year. Its not all about colour volume and brightness, especially with stricter energy laws. Style and flexibility will be a much stronger buying decision for consumers in this and next decade. AV enthusiasts here at AVS are only a small bubble - a tiny niche, of a much bigger mass market of TVs and displays. Transparency and 3D could be a nice combination. You can easily transport a 100" panel which is rolled and than unroll it at home at your wall. That also saves the manufacture shipping space and costs. Your window could be a TV. The classical TV concept will be completely rethinked. A display company and technology which can´t do that, will be out of business. That´s why Samsung Display ever cared about OLED and not about QLED-LCD, MiniLED and MicroLED. Samsung Display is producing displays and not diodes like the Taiwanese and Chinese.


So you are a non believer in Samsung QNED which is considered to be natural progression for Samsung after QD OLED which is expected by 2025 to be for sale, and we are still talking about TVs here, yet you believe that futuristic rollable.. stuff will be a success. Just look at these projector folks and how few of those there are..People are just not into that sort of stuff... Also transparent stuff does not look like that is something the masses are interested in...looks like a sort of aquarium to me. On the one hand there are developments which go from CRT to flat to thin to rollable and on the other hand there are the masses that say no at some point.


----------



## JasonHa

IMHO, "real" rollable (where it rolls up like a poster) has plenty of advantages, not least of which is shipping costs with much smaller packaging for TVs of all sizes.


----------



## Panson

QD-OLED TV: everything you need to know about the game-changing new TV tech


Samsung's latest flat-panel TV will be a hybrid between its own Quantum Dot displays and the OLED tech used by its rivals




www.whathifi.com







https://www.techradar.com/news/dont-rush-to-buy-a-qd-oled-tv-a-price-drop-could-be-on-the-cards


----------



## OLED_Overrated

8mile13 said:


> So you are a non believer in Samsung QNED which is considered to be natural progression for Samsung after QD OLED which is expected by 2025 to be for sale, and we are still talking about TVs here, yet you believe that futuristic rollable.. stuff will be a success. Just look at these projector folks and how few of those there are..People are just not into that sort of stuff... Also transparent stuff does not look like that is something the masses are interested in...looks like a sort of aquarium to me. On the one hand there are developments which go from CRT to flat to thin to rollable and on the other hand there are the masses that say no at some point.


Dolby Digital did a study on what the average consumers consider a good tv, and one of the most important factors was brightness. Brightness is seemingly important for most consumers because it makes the tv visually stand out compared to the other tvs in the store. So I think there will actually be a greater desire for tv manufacturers to sell brighter tvs if they want to sell more tvs. Also, QNED is more or less the same as QDOLED except that the backlight is inorganic and made up of nano leds. So if samsung can figure out how to make rollable displays for qdoled, it may not be that much different for QNED.


----------



## ALMA

> We still don’t know whether QD-Display 1.0 is QD-BOLED or QD-COLED (Cyan) but WOLED would have no problem driving red and green QDCC.
> 
> The blue subpixel would pass blue photons from the blue OLED layer(s) only.


QD-OLED and WOLED has the same emitter stack for all the subpixels. If it would be so easy to differ the subpixel emitter-stack in color, why not unfiltered RGB-OLED (FMM is the reason)? You don´t think Samsung has now a patent on QDCC printing? The size of the nano crystals converting the color from blue light. I´m not sure if you can use different colored light outside of blue to tune white light with QDCC and make it really brighter or converting white light with QDCC to green and red. The color filters still needed if the blue light is not genereated by the emitter stack. Big QD - blue to red, medium QD - blue to green.
LG has to change two supbixels to an blue emitter stack (same like Samsung did -> patent issues?), than as a trick to not have the same like Samsung, LGD still has to filtering blue from white light and then also still the unfiltered white? It complicates the manufacturing process. Of course they can ditch the white subpixel and only using 1 or better 2 filtered blue white subpixels for more brightness, but you still have 2 different emitter stacks, but really for what? Unfiltered blue ist the better and most cost effective solution and I´m sure this manufacturing process is patented by Samsung Display.



> Also transparent stuff does not look like that is something the masses are interested in...looks like a sort of aquarium to me.


First Flatpanels mostly sold because of design, not of picture quality. Samsung ist the most selling TV maker because of the most sold TVs under $ 1000. In Germany the biggest EU market the average price for a TV is under 600€. That are all not the brightest TVs you can get... You can create real black with a transparent OLED with a second layer. Panasonic showed it at the CES and IFA. Rollable is a must, to sell much bigger screens than now. I don´t talking about the motorized stuff. Only to save shipping costs and making the transport for consumers much easier will be an huge upgrade, also for sellers saving space in their warehouses.


----------



## mrtickleuk

OLED_Overrated said:


> Dolby Digital did a study on what the average consumers consider a good tv, and one of the most important factors was brightness. Brightness is seemingly important for most consumers because it makes the tv visually stand out compared to the other tvs in the store.


Yes, that's why we let them have their Vivid modes with extremely-blue whitepoints for that store and showroom BS, and never take it seriously because the rest of us know that image quality after calibration is what we care about.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

I was away for a bit...Glad to see Jason Smith's question on QNED prospects generate some discussion here! As we continue to be in an info vacuum for the most part, and are just opining here, based on several years of disappointment I will second the thought that I'll wait to celebrate when PHOLED blue really arrives on scene at MP volumes and is designed in at LGD & SDC. And for now at least, I'll stick with Samsung desiring to keep OLED as a 2nd tier technology via their marketing (whether they should or not is a different Q) and keep focus on QNED if a) it is progressing as far as UBI says it has and b) PHOLED blue remains elusive or at least costly. They are a for-profit entity of course, and in the end you'd have to assume they go with lower cost solution that provides the high end attributes required for the premium segment. 
On TV size, rollable (with equivalent specs to flat panel requirement) is the only obvious way I'd see worldwide avg diagonal moving above about 75" as the user can minimize impact to limited wall space most of the time. Now, I'm starting the muddy the waters between mainstream buyers (low cost) and our crowd here, but since we're discussing some future state, cheap rollable might open up that worldwide mainstream market to consider >75" or so. That would be cool and would be well into my twilight years I think....and a good question was raised: does nanorod tech via IJP allow rolling? An old 2020 OLED-A Musings article indicates a Korean professor says they might work for stretchable, which is harder to do than rollable, sooooo - maybe. 
Stretchable Displays A Dream with Challenging Conditions_02/14/20 - OLED Association (oled-a.org)


----------



## lsorensen

ALMA said:


> No, they don´t. Only R&D. Manufacturing challenges are very high und unsolved and even if they solved it, it didn´t guaranteed it will be better and cheaper than upcomming next generation OLED or ELQD and also, will it be flexible like OLED?
> Next step are rollable and transparent high resolution consumer displays. Rumors are out, that LGE could announce a transparent consumer OLED next year. Its not all about colour volume and brightness, especially with stricter energy laws. Style and flexibility will be a much stronger buying decision for consumers in this and next decade. AV enthusiasts here at AVS are only a small bubble - a tiny niche, of a much bigger mass market of TVs and displays. Transparency and 3D could be a nice combination. You can easily transport a 100" panel which is rolled and than unroll it at home at your wall. That also saves the manufacture shipping space and costs. Your window could be a TV. The classical TV concept will be completely rethinked. A display company and technology which can´t do that, will be out of business. That´s why Samsung Display ever cared about OLED and not about QLED-LCD, MiniLED and MicroLED. Samsung Display is producing displays and not diodes like the Taiwanese and Chinese.


What is the point of a transparent OLED? For commercial use to place a near sign on a store window sure, but if you want blacks it doesn't work at all, so for a television it is complete garbage. Just because you can make something transparent doesn't mean you want to. I just don't see where it would ever fit in as a consumer product at all. Now a rollable one would certainly allow simpler delivery of large screens, assuming you can design a good way to mount it so it stays flat when installed.


----------



## mrtickleuk

lsorensen said:


> What is the point of a transparent OLED? For commercial use to place a near sign on a store window sure, but if you want blacks it doesn't work at all, so for a television it is complete garbage. Just because you can make something transparent doesn't mean you want to. I just don't see where it would ever fit in as a consumer product at all. Now a rollable one would certainly allow simpler delivery of large screens, assuming you can design a good way to mount it so it stays flat when installed.


Yes. A transparent OLED means you get an OLED, but it worse the *worst possible *blacks. I don't know anyone who'd want one.

I think the demo ones they had at tradeshows were showing very, very carefully chosen footage. 

Come back when you can show me the Spears & Munsil "HDR starfield" demo on a transparent OLED looking equally as good as it does on my current OLED, and then we'll continue the conversation


----------



## ALMA

> but if you want blacks it doesn't work at all, so for a television it is complete garbage


It works with a second layer:









Panasonic Commercializes Transparent OLED Display Module with Superb Image Visibility | Devices | Products & Solutions | Press Release


Panasonic Corporation today announced the commercialization of a 55-inch transparent OLED display module that boasts high image visibility, with plans to release it globally, starting from the Japanese and Asia-Oceania markets in the beginning of December 2020.




news.panasonic.com


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> QD-OLED and WOLED has the same emitter stack for all the subpixels. If it would be so easy to differ the subpixel emitter-stack in color, why not unfiltered RGB-OLED (FMM is the reason)?


The OLED emission stack is the same - it is primarily the Conventional Color Filters (CCF) that differentiate subpixel color, potentially ‘boosted’ by QDCC (which represents a second subpixel-specific emitter).




> You don´t think Samsung has now a patent on QDCC printing?


Not any that matter.



> The size of the nano crystals converting the color from blue light.
> *I´m not sure if you can use different colored light outside of blue to tune white light with QDCC *and make it really brighter


You are only converting some % of blue photons to red or green photons with red or green QDCC. The result will be less blue light lost in the CCF and a higher output level and efficiency from the red and green subpixel.



> or *converting white light with QDCC to green and red. *


There is no such thing as ‘white light’ - it is composed by a range of photon frequencies / colors and specifically by peaks of blue, green, and red photons. Only a % of the blue photons within the narrow band needed to energize QDCC gets converted to red or green. All of the other photons composing the ‘white’ light either get blocked by the CCF or pass through. (White subpixel is a corner case explained in more detail below).



> The color filters still needed if the blue light is not genereated by the emitter stack.


As I explained above, yes, the CCF is still needed. And since all blue photons are generated by the blue OLED layers within the 3S4C / B-R/Y/G-B WOLED stack, I’m not sure what you are referring to regarding ‘blue light not being generated by the emitter stack.’



> Big QD - blue to red, medium QD - blue to green.


Yes, the key point is that this conversion only applies to some % of the blue photons.

So if a typical WOLED spectra of R, F, B is passed through red QDCC, blue intensity will be reduced and red intensity will be increased, meaning ~D65 white will be shifted away from blue and towards red, meaning reddish-yellow.

When that reddish-yellow modified spectrum is filtered through the same red CCF, the result will be increased red output and less efficiency loss from blue photons blocked by the CCF.

And exactly the same with the greenish-yellow light from green QDCC filtered through green CCF.

The blue subpixel does not change at all but white is a corner case where LGD would have several options:

D65 Native Whitepoint - if the WOLED stack already has a native whitepoint close to the desired whitepoint of the panel, it could be left as is, so no QDCC and no CCF.

If LGD wants to shift the native whitepoint of the panel, for example because it has been designed to be too strong in blue and so needs to be boosted a bit in red and/or green, then even the white subpixel could be boosted with some yellow QDCC (red QDCC mixed with green QDCC). There will still be no CCF but the result will be to slightly shift output away from blue and towards yellow.


LG has to change two supbixels to an blue emitter stack (same like Samsung did -> patent issues?), [/quote]
I don’t understand what you are referring to here - LGD has to change absolutely nothing within the WOLED emitter stack. They just needed to add a second patterned (printed) opto-excited emitter layer (QDCC) between the WOLED and the CCF.



> than as a trick to not have the same like Samsung, LGD still has to filtering blue from white light and then also still the unfiltered white?


The primary difference between Samsung’s QD-OLED and LGD adding QDCC to WO is that Samsung has no red OLED emitter layer and LGD WOLED does.

We don’t know whether QD-OLED has a green OLED layer or not. Samsung has CCF just like LGD WOLED because it is needed for their polarizer-elimination technology.

A white non-patterned OLED stack is well protected by patents (the original Kodak WOLED patents), so Samsung probably has no freedom to include red and green with a blue unpatterned OLED stack.

Samsung was feee to make an unpatterned blue-only OLED stack and it was likely they would also have been free to make an unpatterned cyan G-B-B-B OLED stack (as UBI has claimed).

QD-BOLED only needs yellow (blue-blocking) CCF over the red and green subpixels if it includes a polarizer but needs R, G, B CCF (just like WOLED) if the polarizer has been removed (as it has in the case of QD-Display 1.0).

QD-COLED needs R, G, B CCF to filter out unwanted red and green photons from all subpixels (and so the polarizer can also be removed without any added cost.

QD-WOLED with only RGB subpixels is identical to QD-COLED but can have a smaller red subpixel because of the red photon output from the WOLED emission stack.

QD-WOLED with WRGB subpixels is identical to RGB-QD-WOLED but with no CCF over the white subpixel and optionally can include some red and/or green QDCC to tune native white output from the white subpixel.



> It complicates the manufacturing process.


Absolutely. And also probably impacts yield. LGD would only do this if the market dictates higher output levels and color volume than cold be achieved through other, less-costly alternatives.

Adding an optional heatsink, for example, was probably a lower-cost and less complicated manner to boost output levels, for example.



> Of course they can ditch the white subpixel and only using 1 or better 2 filtered blue white subpixels for more brightness, but *you still have 2 different emitter stacks*, but really for what?


You seem to be off in the weeds about something I don’t understand. There is no ‘2 different emitter stacks’. There is only a single unpatterned Whilte OLED emitter stack identical to what LGD WOLED has today. The secondary patterned emission stack is an opto-excited layer of color-specific Quantum Dots (QDCC).



> Unfiltered blue is the better and most cost effective solution and I´m sure this manufacturing process is patented by Samsung Display.


An unpatterned blue-only OLED emission stack might be patented by Samsung Display, as might an unpatterned blue+green Cyan-only OLED emission stack, but an unpatterned blue+red+green OLED emission stack is patented not by Samsung Display but by Kodak (now owned by LGD).

Blue FOLED is the least efficient of all of the OLED emitters and a FOLED-based BOLED emitter stack is far less efficient than a blue-FOLED-based WOLED stack (meaning red and green PHOLED),

QD-Display 1.0 was only able to compete with WOLED because it used 4 OLED layers rather than 3 (more costly) and it ~doubled output levels by removing the polarizer (at the expense of adding CCF to all subpixels).

LGD would have more peak output and efficiency to gain by removing their polarizer as well (compared to printing QDCC), but I am unclear as to whether that is possible for bottom-emission WOLED or not (possibly for RGB-WOLED but not WRGB-WOLED).

But overall, as I’ve stated repeatedly now, LGD is likely to focus on lowering cost while increasing manufacturing volumes as their top priority for WOLED, with any effort to improve efficiency and output levels likely to only be considered if added cost and complexity is minor.

This is the reason Blue PHOLED is so important to LGD WOLED - it will allow WOLED output levels to increase by 25-50% without adding cost and hopefully even reducing cost…[/quote][/quote][/quote]


----------



## hotskins

I found really good video explaining the benefits of Quntam dot oleds. QD-Display with Chirag Shah of Samsung Display – The Display Show, Episode 15 - YouTube


----------



## 59LIHP

hotskins said:


> I found really good video explaining the benefits of Quntam dot oleds. QD-Display with Chirag Shah of Samsung Display – The Display Show, Episode 15 - YouTube











OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


So you didn’t learn how to treat your tv from the first panel. I suggest you get a Samsung lcd. yeah ok...cause the "ad" logo from hulu commercials is supposed to burn in




www.avsforum.com


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Samsung Display repurposes old LCD plant to manufacture OLED panels


Now that Samsung has finally ended its decade-long grouse with OLED smart TVs, demand for OLED panels has shot through ...




www.sammobile.com


----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


> Samsung Display repurposes old LCD plant to manufacture OLED panels
> 
> 
> Now that Samsung has finally ended its decade-long grouse with OLED smart TVs, demand for OLED panels has shot through ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sammobile.com


Not clear to me if this is an investment in increased QD-OLED panels or just OLED for phone and IT. The source article makes no mention of TV: Samsung D, bringing equipment into Asan 6th Gen OLED factory


----------



## Jin-X

If it is for QD OLED then it could just be for monitor displays as a 6th gen plant can make 8 32in panels and 6 37in panels, but only 2 65in panels. So the 34 Ultra Wide is exclusively made there, freeing the 8.5g one to focus on tvs, maybe using the freed ultra wide capacity to make 77/48in panels with MMG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> If it is for QD OLED then it could just be for monitor displays as a 6th gen plant can make 8 32in panels and 6 37in panels, but only 2 65in panels. So the 34 Ultra Wide is exclusively made there, freeing the 8.5g one to focus on tvs, maybe using the freed ultra wide capacity to make 77/48in panels with MMG.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


After the 3-phase plan Samsung announced to convert all 3 discontinued 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED TV panel production, it would be very strange if they elected to drop back to 6.5G for QD-OLED production before completing the other two identical 8.5G QD-OLED manufacturing lines.

The QDCC printing equipment was a major source of delay and initial yield loss and that equipment was all custom developed for 8.5G.

So now that I think about it, especially since that article from the Elec never mentioned QD or QD-OLED once, I’m pretty sure it’s nor for QD-OLED and SamMobile is just confused.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> After the 3-phase plan Samsung announced to convert all 3 discontinued 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED TV panel production, it would be very strange if they elected to drop back to 6.5G for QD-OLED production before completing the other two identical 8.5G QD-OLED manufacturing lines.
> 
> The QDCC printing equipment was a major source of delay and initial yield loss and that equipment was all custom developed for 8.5G.
> 
> So now that I think about it, especially since that article from the Elec never mentioned QD or QD-OLED once, I’m pretty sure it’s nor for QD-OLED and SamMobile is just confused.


Pretty sure it is mobile when i looked at it last week.


----------



## 59LIHP

> *Samsung Display will start mass production of 77-inch large quantum dot (QD)-organic light-emitting diode (OLED) panels next year.*
> 
> The strategy is to diversify the QD-OLED lineup by using the multi-model glass (MMG) method, which produces displays of various sizes on an original plate.
> 
> According to the electronics industry on the 26th, Samsung Display plans to produce QD-OLED panels for 49-inch and 77-inch TVs from early next year. Samsung Display produced 55-inch and 65-inch QD-OLED panels for TVs this year, and it is said that they will supply new sizes to customers.
> 
> In a recent report, market research firm DSCC said, “Samsung Display plans to add 49-inch and 77-inch products next year to strengthen its QD-OLED portfolio. Even if the product size is increased as much as possible, the total QD-OLED shipments are expected to maintain the current level.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The QD-OLED display exhibition that Samsung Display unveiled at CES 2022 in January. / Provided by Samsung Display
> Currently, Samsung Display's QD-OLED production capacity is 30,000 sheets per month. Assuming 100% yield, 1.8 million QD-OLED units for 55-inch and 65-inch TVs can be produced annually. Samsung Display announced earlier this month that the QD-OLED yield exceeded 75%. This means that it can ship 1.35 million QD-OLED panels for TV annually. As Samsung Display also produces QD-OLED for 34-inch monitors, the industry predicts that QD-OLED production for TVs this year will reach 1 million units.
> 
> Samsung Display has set the goal of increasing the QD-OLED yield to 80% by the second quarter of this year and improving the yield to 90% in the second half of this year. If this happens, Samsung Display's maximum production of QD-OLED for TV next year can increase to 1.6 million units. Excluding QD-OLED for monitor, the production of QD-OLED for TV will be 1.3 to 1.4 million units.
> 
> 
> Samsung Display has decided to maintain the total QD-OLED production by adding 49-inch and 77-inch sizes to its QD-OLED lineup. This is because they are using the multi-model glass method, which pushes two large panels to one side and creates a new product with the rest of the substrate. The multi-model glass method is to simultaneously produce several panels of different sizes from one display plate. Although there is a disadvantage that the process is complicated, Samsung Display is known to apply the multi-model glass method without lowering the yield based on its panel production experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QD display structure. / Provided by Samsung Display
> There is also an evaluation that Samsung Electronics' breath played a role in Samsung Display's decision to set the large size of QD-OLED to be 77 inches. Samsung Electronics plans to supply LG Display's OLED with the QD-OLED made by Samsung Display at the same time and sell it under the name of 'Samsung OLED'. However, the size of Samsung Electronics' large TVs ends in 5-inch units. 65 inches, 75 inches, 85 inches, etc.
> 
> On the other hand, OLED panels made by LG Display are 65 inches in the 60-inch range, the same as Samsung Display, but 77 inches in the 70-inch range, and 83 inches and 88 inches in the 80-inch range. In the end, it is interpreted that Samsung Electronics, which should make Samsung Display's QD-OLED and LG Display's OLED into one TV, requested Samsung Display, its affiliate, to produce a 77-inch QD-OLED panel like LG Display.
> 
> Samsung Display is not expected to make additional investments in QD-OLED production lines until this year. This is because it is necessary to increase the QD-OLED yield right now. The internal judgment is that if the company's profit deteriorates after rushing to additional investment, the long-term QD-OLED expansion strategy may be unreasonable.











QD-OLED 키우는 삼성디스플레이, 내년 77인치 만든다


QD-OLED 키우는 삼성디스플레이, 내년 77인치 만든다 멀티모델글라스 공법 적용 49·77인치 추가 라인업 다양화 수율 개선, 전체 출하량 현재 수준 유지




biz.chosun.com


----------



## Micolash

I wonder if Sony will eventually switch their entire OLED lineup to QD OLED at this point. I would love to buy the QD OLED equivalent of their 77" A80 instead of paying the current premium for the 65 A95K.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Micolash said:


> I wonder if Sony will eventually switch their entire OLED lineup to QD OLED at this point. I would love to buy the QD OLED equivalent of their 77" A80 instead of paying the current premium for the 65 A95K.


They'll probably keep woled for a mid/low range tier unless QDOLED gets cheaper than WOLED.


----------



## lsorensen

Micolash said:


> I wonder if Sony will eventually switch their entire OLED lineup to QD OLED at this point. I would love to buy the QD OLED equivalent of their 77" A80 instead of paying the current premium for the 65 A95K.


First Samsung would need to add more sizes, and increase production quantities. But I agree, if the LG panels are cheaper, there will be a market for lower end models still using LG panels.


----------



## Me Boosta

What path do you guys forsee for WOLEDs for the future? What improvements can we expect from LG Display in 2023, 2024. With QD-OLED now in the market, surely they need to step up their game?

So far, the only major advancement we've seen since 2016-2017 are the EVO panels and the addition of heatsink. Do you think we'll start seeing the heatsink being integrated into even the C series next year?


----------



## Wizziwig

Me Boosta said:


> What path do you guys forsee for WOLEDs for the future? What improvements can we expect from LG Display in 2023, 2024. With QD-OLED now in the market, *surely they need to step up their game?*


Not necessarily. During the plasma days, they simply kept lowering prices instead of trying to compete on performance with Pioneer, Panasonic, and Samsung. I hope history does not repeat itself because we need competition that advances performance, not just price.


----------



## Me Boosta

Wizziwig said:


> Not necessarily. During the plasma days, they simply kept lowering prices instead of trying to compete on performance with Pioneer, Panasonic, and Samsung. I hope history does not repeat itself because we need competition that advances performance, not just price.


You're right. That is another route that they can take.

I'm in this weird place where I would love to upgrade my C7. The G2 looks really appealing, but the wall-mounting option and cost is a detriment. The lack of 120 Hz BFI is also a major downside for me, and on some days I just get the urge to go for a C1. 

The logical choice would be to wait next year for LG to step up its game (if not performance, at least in price). I doubt QD-OLED will be affordable for me even next year. I won't buy a Samsung because of the shenanigans they always pull off with their processing. And Sony is too expensive.

But then again, we folks on this forum aren't exactly the most patient bunch.


----------



## shawman123

Wizziwig said:


> Not necessarily. During the plasma days, they simply kept lowering prices instead of trying to compete on performance with Pioneer, Panasonic, and Samsung. I hope history does not repeat itself because we need competition that advances performance, not just price.


LG are among the market leaders in premium television segment with their OLED tvs. Were they ever in top 2 back in Plasma days? So there is a greater incentive in holding their market share.


----------



## Wizziwig

shawman123 said:


> LG are among the market leaders in premium television segment with their OLED tvs. Were they ever in top 2 back in Plasma days? So there is a greater incentive in holding their market share.


Lower prices will do far more to hold and increase market share than anything they can do with the performance of the panels. Any features that improve performance but cause an increase in cost will likely be low priority. It's like the whole WBE/WBC panel lottery that's still dragging on because the WBC panels are cheaper to produce. Maybe they will follow the pattern established by their LCD competitors like Sony and Samsung and restrict their best performing panels to 8K where they can charge a large premium to recoup added costs.

We're definitely in uncharted waters here compared to the past 8 years of OLED TV monopoly. They could just continue with minor incremental updates like they did in the past and ignore Samsung until they start losing significant market share.


----------



## 8mile13

There was news of a Samsung QD OLED test production line in june 2018 so LG knew it was coming like four years ago and even longer than that... LG likely had a intern talk about how QD OLED would improve over LG OLED and what to do about it long time ago.


----------



## wco81

Big gap in prices though. It will be interesting to see what the lowest prices QD-OLED reaches this year, by around Black Friday.

Otherwise, we're talking a pretty hefty premium for something without Dolby Vision.


----------



## OLED_Overrated




----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Lower prices will do far more to hold and increase market share than anything they can do with the performance of the panels. Any features that improve performance but cause an increase in cost will likely be low priority. It's like the whole WBE/WBC panel lottery that's still dragging on because the WBC panels are cheaper to produce. Maybe they will follow the pattern established by their LCD competitors like Sony and Samsung and restrict their best performing panels to 8K where they can charge a large premium to recoup added costs.
> 
> We're definitely in uncharted waters here compared to the past 8 years of OLED TV monopoly. They could just continue with minor incremental updates like they did in the past and ignore Samsung until they start losing significant market share.


If there is any reality to UDC’s claims about the industrialization of Blue PHOLED by 2023/2024, that is going to so utterly change the landscape for WOLED and QD-OLED that I doubt we’ll see much of anything significant as far as developments in either before then.

LGD will be able to exceed current WBE performance by 10-15% while also reducing panel costa by ~10% or they will be able to deliver fully-saturated color volume up to 1000 nits with peak white levels pushing to 1500 nits without adding cost versus today’s WBE panels.

While Blue PHOLED will allow QD-OLED, to lower cost by as much as 20% with some modest loss of performance or to increase performance by as much as 150% across the board without lower cost.

So I’m guessing Blue PHOLED is going to open up an era of ‘good, better, best’ OLED TV panels which we may already be seeing the first indications of if LGD has in fact elected to start to offer 150 nit WBC panels, 180 nit WBE panels, and 200 nit mystery panels (which may integrate heatsinks or involve other new advances LGD has not yet disclosed), as rumored.

But I completely agree that LGD is unlikely to invest in any new WOLED panel advances that add significant cost.

If QDCC is cheap to add and delivers increased performance per added cost close to what LGD is achieving with an integrated heatsink, I can believe that is the sort of development they might be considering since that is an incremental investment that would still add value by boosting Blue-PHOLED-based WOLED performance in the future…


----------



## brettrnz

59LIHP said:


> QD-OLED 키우는 삼성디스플레이, 내년 77인치 만든다
> 
> 
> QD-OLED 키우는 삼성디스플레이, 내년 77인치 만든다 멀티모델글라스 공법 적용 49·77인치 추가 라인업 다양화 수율 개선, 전체 출하량 현재 수준 유지
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biz.chosun.com


The article says production of 49" and 77" panels will begin next year. Anybody know if this means they will be available in time for Sony/Samsung's 2023 lineups ?, Not sure of the process but given that Samsung Display started production of panels for this years lineups Q3/Q4 last year plus the fact new models usually hit market April/May won't this be too late?.

Trying to make myself feel better here , kept on holding out for the PQ upgrade before moving on from my 55" C7. Was going to go 77 G1 last year but then heard the whispers of QDOELD on it's way. Seeing the QDOLED in action it looks great and the step up I was looking for, but was told recently we were still years away from anything bigger than a 65" panel. Based off that made the call and finally upgraded my 55 C7 to a 77 G2 two weeks ago. Now feel like an idiot.


----------



## JasonHa

@brettrnz I would say it is too early to really know. At this point, there are probably too many variables that could affect their decision. We'll all be watching the news here, though.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> If there is any reality to UDC’s claims about the industrialization of Blue PHOLED by 2023/2024, that is going to so utterly change the landscape for WOLED and QD-OLED that I doubt we’ll see much of anything significant as far as developments in either before then.
> 
> LGD will be able to exceed current WBE performance by 10-15% while also reducing panel costa by ~10% or they will be able to deliver fully-saturated color volume up to 1000 nits with peak white levels pushing to 1500 nits without adding cost versus today’s WBE panels.
> 
> While Blue PHOLED will allow QD-OLED, to lower cost by as much as 20% with some modest loss of performance or to increase performance by as much as 150% across the board without lower cost.
> 
> So I’m guessing Blue PHOLED is going to open up an era of ‘good, better, best’ OLED TV panels which we may already be seeing the first indications of if LGD has in fact elected to start to offer 150 nit WBC panels, 180 nit WBE panels, and 200 nit mystery panels (which may integrate heatsinks or involve other new advances LGD has not yet disclosed), as rumored.
> 
> But I completely agree that LGD is unlikely to invest in any new WOLED panel advances that add significant cost.
> 
> If QDCC is cheap to add and delivers increased performance per added cost close to what LGD is achieving with an integrated heatsink, I can believe that is the sort of development they might be considering since that is an incremental investment that would still add value by boosting Blue-PHOLED-based WOLED performance in the future…


Where are you getting your prices for these new blue PHOLED materials considering they are not even available for sale?


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Where are you getting your prices for these new blue PHOLED materials considering they are not even available for sale?


Oh, there may be an early adopter’s premium, but I’m just assuming that blue PHOLED will eventually cost about the same as green or red PHOLED.

The entire cost-competitiveness of QD-OLED versus WOLED is predicated on blue PHOLED not being significantly more expensive than red or green PHOLED or blue FOLED…

Also, total number of OLED emitter layers including all supporting layers is the most significant driver of cost.

WOLED currently uses 3 OLED layers and can drop to 2 with Blue PHOLED to reduce material cost or can stay at 3 to improve performance.

QD-OLED currently uses 4 OLED layers and can drop to 2 with blue PHOLED for a significant reduction in material cost and either performance parity with today’s QD-OLED or a modest drop in performance (depending on whether QD-Display 1.0 is a true QD-BOLED or a QD-COLED with one green layer, as reported by UBI), or it can drop to 3 layers with blue PHOLED for a more modest reduction in material cost (though roughly reaching parity with today’s Blue-FOLED-based WOLED) and an increase in performance.


----------



## Wizziwig

We shall see. There were many in this thread predicting LG would switch to TADF emitters by 2018. We all know how that worked out. Of lot of OLED innovation these days ends up in flagship phone displays long before (if ever) it reaches TVs.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> We shall see. There were many in this thread predicting LG would switch to TADF emitters by 2018. We all know how that worked out. Of lot of OLED innovation these days ends up in flagship phone displays long before (if ever) it reaches TVs.


I don’t see the relevance - there are no TADF emitters. Yes, in 2018 LGD expected to have a commercial blue TADF emitter by 2020 which never materialized (and so switched the deuterium-based blue PHOLED instead), but so what?




















Blue PHOLED may not materialize on the schedule UDC has communicated, but that will impact everyone equally and doesn’t really have any bearing on whether TVs will start using it as quickly/early as phone screens…


----------



## CliffordinWales

Speaking of where WOLED and QD-OLED will be in five years' time, some interesting thoughts on the Tech Trip 

I wish the content creator behind this would upload an English-language version. (He often does, this one has debuted in Korean but there's occasional use of English especially in the summary table he shows late in the video).


----------



## OLED_Overrated

CliffordinWales said:


> Speaking of where WOLED and QD-OLED will be in five years' time, some interesting thoughts on the Tech Trip
> 
> I wish the content creator behind this would upload an English-language version. (He often does, this one has debuted in Korean but there's occasional use of English especially in the summary table he shows late in the video).


He uploads the english versions in a few days. Could've waited. On a side note, this is the only reliable youtuber I know who discusses future display tech at a technical level especially since he has experience working on lcd tvs as an engineer/researcher.


----------



## samuel1983

fafrd said:


> Oh, there may be an early adopter’s premium, but *I’m just assuming* that blue PHOLED will eventually cost about the same as green or red PHOLED.
> 
> The entire cost-competitiveness of QD-OLED versus WOLED is predicated on blue PHOLED not being significantly more expensive than red or green PHOLED or blue FOLED…
> 
> Also, total number of OLED emitter layers including all supporting layers is the most significant driver of cost.
> 
> WOLED currently uses 3 OLED layers and can drop to 2 with Blue PHOLED to reduce material cost or can stay at 3 to improve performance.
> 
> QD-OLED currently uses 4 OLED layers and can drop to 2 with blue PHOLED for a significant reduction in material cost and either performance parity with today’s QD-OLED or a modest drop in performance (depending on whether QD-Display 1.0 is a true QD-BOLED or a QD-COLED with one green layer, as reported by UBI), or it can drop to 3 layers with blue PHOLED for a more modest reduction in material cost (though roughly reaching parity with today’s Blue-FOLED-based WOLED) and an increase in performance.


You just summed up 98% of your posts on avsforum.com using those three words


----------



## CliffordinWales

I'm not sure if this post got any traction on this forum when it was published on Display Daily a few weeks ago, but it's interesting not just on the specific work of the company concerned (Noctiluca) but also in setting out the four generations of OLED emitters and progress ongoing in developing emitters within each generation. 

We've talked extensively about a blue PHOLED recently and the advantages that will bring to both WOLED and QD-OLED, but this is a useful reminder that there's still research ongoing into a TADF blue and beyond that hyperfluorescent emitters in red, green and blue. So there's still plenty of 'room to grow' for OLED displays over the next few years, assuming research in the field will eventually bear fruit.









Noctiluca Sets Out Its Stall for Advanced OLED Materials


The Pacific Northwest Chapter of SID held a webinar last month that featured a talk by Noctiluca, a company that is developing OLED emitter materials and one that I have been intending to write about for a while. That was handy!




www.displaydaily.com


----------



## dylanreich

240hz OLED! I'm not sure who is making the display, I've checked a couple articles and none have said.


https://www.tomsguide.com/news/new-razer-blade-15-rocks-worlds-first-240hz-oled-display


----------



## chris7191

dylanreich said:


> 240hz OLED! I'm not sure who is making the display, I've checked a couple articles and none have said.
> 
> 
> https://www.tomsguide.com/news/new-razer-blade-15-rocks-worlds-first-240hz-oled-display


I'm going to guess it's JDI, but not sure.


----------



## dkfan9

dylanreich said:


> 240hz OLED! I'm not sure who is making the display, I've checked a couple articles and none have said.
> 
> 
> https://www.tomsguide.com/news/new-razer-blade-15-rocks-worlds-first-240hz-oled-display


I bet @Mark Rejhon is excited


----------



## StreaMRolleR

samuel1983 said:


> You just summed up 98% of your posts on avsforum.com using those three words


Yes he is. He kinda speaks he have insider info all the time but when he asked its just assumptions. Tho i enjoy reading Wizziwig and fafrd


----------



## Wizziwig

CliffordinWales said:


> Speaking of where WOLED and QD-OLED will be in five years' time, some interesting thoughts on the Tech Trip
> 
> I wish the content creator behind this would upload an English-language version. (He often does, this one has debuted in Korean but there's occasional use of English especially in the summary table he shows late in the video).


Here is the English version.


----------



## 8mile13

QD OLED being top and LG OLED being budget right now with QD OLED yield going up fast. This QD OLED launch in 2022 is the beginning of the end for high end LG OLED for sure.


----------



## Jin-X

Wizziwig said:


> Here is the English version.


Not sure why there was so much time spent on 8k. We just got a new sales report on them and once again, the news just get worse and worse for 8k. Talking about how this one special event that only happens every several years will have one broadcast in 8k on some part of the world on some niche channel that almost no one can get, cool. Meanwhile cable/sat almost everywhere is highly compressed 720p/1080i or some low bitrate stream for sports. Relying on broadcast for any jumps in quality is foolish. Discs aren’t going to 8k either and streamers care a lot about saving file size and bandwidth costs. And in gaming it’s a huge waste of resources that are better used elsewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 59LIHP

> *LG Display Considers Micro Lens Application to Large OLED*
> 
> Expected to improve luminance and power consumption
> Possibility of application within this year at the earliest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG Display's large organic light emitting diode (OLED) panel brand 'OLED.EX'.
> 
> 
> LG Display is reviewing ways to apply micro lenses to large OLEDs. When micro lenses are applied to OLED, luminance (brightness) and power consumption can be expected to improve.
> 
> According to the industry on the 4th, it was understood that LG Display is planning to consider applying a micro lens to a large organic light emitting diode (OLED). The micro lens can adjust the light path so that the light reflected from the inside of the panel goes out toward the screen that the user sees. Turning the light path in the desired direction increases the light extraction efficiency.
> 
> LG Display is known to expect a 20% improvement in OLED luminance by applying a micro lens. Under the premise that the product lifespan is the same, if the OLED luminance increases, power consumption can be saved at the same luminance.
> 
> From the second quarter of this year, LG Display plans to apply the 'OLED.EX' technology, which increases the luminance by 30% compared to the previous one, to all large OLED models. If a micro lens is added to the panel to which OLED.EX technology is applied, the luminance can be increased by 50% or more. Micro lenses are likely to be applied as early as this year.
> 
> The maximum luminance of LG Display's existing large OLED was 800 nits. The maximum luminance of OLED.EX is estimated to be 1000 nits, which is 30% higher than this. By adding a micro lens, the maximum luminance can be raised to 1200 nits.
> 
> If micro-lens application is confirmed, it is expected that one of two factories in Paju, Gyeonggi-do or Guangzhou, China will adopt micro-lenses first for some OLED.EX panels. OLED.EX, which uses 'deuterium blue', was first applied to some OLEDs mass-produced at the Guangzhou factory last year. Deuterium blue is a technology in which normal hydrogen is substituted with deuterium to increase the lifespan of the short-lived blue (B) device. The device using deuterium is stable and strong, so even if the screen is brightened, it operates stably for a long time while maintaining high efficiency.
> 
> Some in the industry suggest that LG Display's micro-lens application review is intended to check Samsung Display's mass-produced quantum dot (QD)-OLED. Samsung Display is emphasizing the excellent QD-OLED color reproduction using the QD color conversion layer.
> 
> Micro lenses are not new in the panel industry. Micro lenses were applied not only to the optical sheet of LCD panels that use light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources, but also to the OLED panels of Samsung Electronics’ Galaxy S21 Ultra, a smartphone released last year.
> 
> Even with the same OLED, it is expected that the micro-lens application method of smartphones and TVs will be different. The OLED of Samsung Electronics' Galaxy S21 Ultra has a front light-emitting structure in which light exits in the opposite direction to the substrate, so the micro lens process is performed after the encapsulation process. It is likely that some processes will be added to the process.











LG디스플레이, 대형 OLED에 마이크로 렌즈 적용 검토


LG디스플레이가 대형 OLED에 마이크로 렌즈를 적용하는 방안을 검토한다. OLED에 마이크로 렌즈를 적용하면 휘도(밝기)와 소비전력 개선을 기대할 수 있다.4일 업계에 따르면 LG디스플레이는 대형 유기발광다이오드(OLED)에 마이크로 렌즈를 적용하는 방안을 검토할 계획인 것으로 파악됐다. 마이크로 렌즈는 패널 내부에서 반사되는 빛을 사용자가 바라보는 화면 쪽으로 나가도록 빛의 경로를 조절할 수 있다. 원하는 방향으로 빛의 경로를 틀어주면 광추출 효율이 높아진다.LG디스플레이는 마이크로 렌즈 적용으로 20% 내외 OLED 휘도 향상




www.thelec.kr


----------



## CliffordinWales

59LIHP said:


> LG디스플레이, 대형 OLED에 마이크로 렌즈 적용 검토
> 
> 
> LG디스플레이가 대형 OLED에 마이크로 렌즈를 적용하는 방안을 검토한다. OLED에 마이크로 렌즈를 적용하면 휘도(밝기)와 소비전력 개선을 기대할 수 있다.4일 업계에 따르면 LG디스플레이는 대형 유기발광다이오드(OLED)에 마이크로 렌즈를 적용하는 방안을 검토할 계획인 것으로 파악됐다. 마이크로 렌즈는 패널 내부에서 반사되는 빛을 사용자가 바라보는 화면 쪽으로 나가도록 빛의 경로를 조절할 수 있다. 원하는 방향으로 빛의 경로를 틀어주면 광추출 효율이 높아진다.LG디스플레이는 마이크로 렌즈 적용으로 20% 내외 OLED 휘도 향상
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.kr


Proof positive that the advent of QD-OLED is helping to spur innovation and improvement in WOLED!


----------



## 59LIHP

Cheap and wavelength-independent OLED light extraction








Cheap and wavelength-independent OLED light extraction eeNews Europe


Looking at optimizing the light extraction of OLEDs and their overall external quantum efficiency, researchers from the University of Michigan have demonstrated that a microlens array embedded between the OLED's bottom transparent ITO electrode and the glass substrate was cheap to implement, yet...




www.eenewseurope.com


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

QD-OLED (and future QNED) appear to currently have the strongest roadmap in high(er) end premium TV. Whether they can follow that map remains to be seen, but let’s say they do. If I’m LG and I look at middle/high(er) LCD as my competition instead, perhaps I’m feeling pretty good about my roadmap. Outstanding contrast along with brightness-increase paths that keep popping up (heatsinks, PHOLED blue someday, microlenses someday,..) and maybe color volume too (QDCC??…) coupled with acceptable cost & pricing (especially if the Paju G10.5 fab ever gets the green light) and therefore margin, point to high volumes and a great business vs LCD. I can easily see LGD (and their OEM customers) dominating the mid-range market in years to come. Maybe <$700 remains LCD and still by far the most volume but poor margin, $700-$2000ish WOLED dominates with good volume and margin (better than today!), and QD-OLED plus other emerging tech (if any) dominates above that price with performance bragging rights (same basic tools to improvement as WOLED) and great margin, eventually. Maybe Samsung sees this too and might want to get onto this mid-tier WOLED bandwagon to get summa that. Oh, maybe they are…. 

It sure makes sense to me. LG doesn't have to fight to be top dog. What am I missing?


----------



## CliffordinWales

Scrapper102dAA said:


> QD-OLED (and future QNED) appear to currently have the strongest roadmap in high(er) end premium TV. Whether they can follow that map remains to be seen, but let’s say they do. If I’m LG and I look at middle/high(er) LCD as my competition instead, perhaps I’m feeling pretty good about my roadmap. Outstanding contrast along with brightness-increase paths that keep popping up (heatsinks, PHOLED blue someday, microlenses someday,..) and maybe color volume too (QDCC??…) coupled with acceptable cost & pricing (especially if the Paju G10.5 fab ever gets the green light) and therefore margin, point to high volumes and a great business vs LCD. I can easily see LGD (and their OEM customers) dominating the mid-range market in years to come. Maybe <$700 remains LCD and still by far the most volume but poor margin, $700-$2000ish WOLED dominates with good volume and margin (better than today!), and QD-OLED plus other emerging tech (if any) dominates above that price with performance bragging rights (same basic tools to improvement as WOLED) and great margin, eventually. Maybe Samsung sees this too and might want to get onto this mid-tier WOLED bandwagon to get summa that. Oh, maybe they are….
> 
> It sure makes sense to me. LG doesn't have to fight to be top dog. What am I missing?


I've always thought - as a layman - that once better OLED emitters become available, RGB OLED seems to be the most logical development unless there is some difficulty in the manufacturing _process _that makes laying out separate subpixels using different R, G and B OLED emitters challenging in large panel sizes.

After all, WOLED - while a great stop-gap - is ultimately a bit of a bodge; the white subpixel reduces colour volume and the use of colour filters reduces brightness. Once the blue problem is'solved' why bother with it - unless it simply remains cheaper to make.

QD-OLED seems to be a step in the right direction in terms of giving us a brighter, true RGB display; my question is whether it would be cheaper to manufacture RGB OLED using new-generation emitters or stick with a single blue OLED and the quantum dots... are quantum dot materials cheaper than separate R, G and B OLEDs?


----------



## Wizziwig

RGB isn't coming to TV sized OLED panels any time soon. It would require patterning the OLED material into sub-pixels. The masking approach currently used on phones doesn't scale up which is the main reason Samsung gave up on it back in 2013. Maybe inkjet printing if that ever becomes viable for anything larger than monitors.


----------



## JasonHa

Scrapper102dAA said:


> LG doesn't have to fight to be top dog.


That's correct. The purpose of the company is to make money, not give us the best new tech gadgets every year. If they can make money going down market (using the huge investments they've already made), they should.

Of course eventually they'd have to invent new tech again if they want to repeat this process, but that could be a long time from now.


----------



## hamad138

Wizziwig said:


> RGB isn't coming to TV sized OLED panels any time soon. It would require patterning the OLED material into sub-pixels. The masking approach currently used on phones doesn't scale up which is the main reason Samsung gave up on it back in 2013. Maybe inkjet printing if that ever becomes viable for anything larger than monitors.


It's coming next year through China.

Gesendet von meinem GM1913 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

CliffordinWales said:


> I've always thought - as a layman - that once better OLED emitters become available, RGB OLED seems to be the most logical development unless there is some difficulty in the manufacturing _process _that makes laying out separate subpixels using different R, G and B OLED emitters challenging in large panel sizes.
> 
> After all, WOLED - while a great stop-gap - is ultimately a bit of a bodge; the white subpixel reduces colour volume and the use of colour filters reduces brightness. Once the blue problem is'solved' why bother with it - unless it simply remains cheaper to make.
> 
> QD-OLED seems to be a step in the right direction in terms of giving us a brighter, true RGB display; my question is whether it would be cheaper to manufacture RGB OLED using new-generation emitters or stick with a single blue OLED and the quantum dots... are quantum dot materials cheaper than separate R, G and B OLEDs?


If WOLED follows most (all?!) high volume mfg processes, after big initial cost reductions (done by now) it will cost reduce at roughly 10% per year by hard work for many years, eventually getting to some pretty tough years where it is hard to find 10%. I'm sure they still have many areas of opportunity. Exceptional contrast will continue to be the #1 value prop which equivalently priced LCD can't compete with as far as I can tell. At a some given price point in this mid tier in some year 202X, I guess as a consumer I'd say "For $1500 do I want the best performer at 55 or 65" or do I want a big 77"/83" LCD with poorer (or even crap!) performance". There's no wrong answer (I'd love a 77/83 crap LCD for my garage workspace to keep an eye on sports while wrenching), but I can see WOLED winning that question on a worldwide basis more times than not.


----------



## dkfan9

Jin-X said:


> Not sure why there was so much time spent on 8k. We just got a new sales report on them and once again, the news just get worse and worse for 8k. Talking about how this one special event that only happens every several years will have one broadcast in 8k on some part of the world on some niche channel that almost no one can get, cool. Meanwhile cable/sat almost everywhere is highly compressed 720p/1080i or some low bitrate stream for sports. Relying on broadcast for any jumps in quality is foolish. Discs aren’t going to 8k either and streamers care a lot about saving file size and bandwidth costs. And in gaming it’s a huge waste of resources that are better used elsewhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The key takeaways for me were that QD OLED's future path depends primarily on how it deals with glare and blue materials development. As far as 8K, it seems to have too many challenges (cuts CR in half for IPS and VA LCDs without helping viewing angles, undefeatable dithering in VA panels, mentioned challenges for OLED) with too few benefits across all display technologies to be worth it. 4K was a much easier jump for LCD and OLED (in the case of OLED, it fixed some issues as well, though it seemed to be a bridge too far for IPS panels).


----------



## Metalane

Hello! So, I’ve never owned an OLED, as I currently have a 55” X850D, and I was wondering about 4K quality. I’m a big pixel and sharpness fanatic, so resolution and pixel quality plays a big role for me. So, is it true that OLED’s, due to the contrast enhancements, naturally produce a clearer and more true-to-life 4K image, especially on the high end OLED’s? 

4K already looks so crisp and stunning on my LED, so I’ll be ecstatic if OLED improves the pixel quality as well as contrast and colors.


----------



## yogi6807

Metalane said:


> Hello! So, I’ve never owned an OLED, as I currently have a 55” X850D, and I was wondering about 4K quality. I’m a big pixel and sharpness fanatic, so resolution and pixel quality plays a big role for me. So, is it true that OLED’s, due to the contrast enhancements, naturally produce a clearer and more true-to-life 4K image, especially on the high end OLED’s?
> 
> 4K already looks so crisp and stunning on my LED, so I’ll be ecstatic if OLED improves the pixel quality as well as contrast and colors.


Of course it will. Just don’t buy a Samsung if you want true to life colors. It is a very inaccurate tv. A lot of people love them though.


----------



## Metalane

yogi6807 said:


> Of course it will. Just don’t buy a Samsung if you want true to life colors. It is a very inaccurate tv. A lot of people love them though.


Oh yeah, I’ll definitely be sticking with Sony from now on. While they do tend me the priciest TV company, it makes sense when you look at the numbers and calibration accuracy.


----------



## dkfan9

Metalane said:


> Hello! So, I’ve never owned an OLED, as I currently have a 55” X850D, and I was wondering about 4K quality. I’m a big pixel and sharpness fanatic, so resolution and pixel quality plays a big role for me. So, is it true that OLED’s, due to the contrast enhancements, naturally produce a clearer and more true-to-life 4K image, especially on the high end OLED’s?
> 
> 4K already looks so crisp and stunning on my LED, so I’ll be ecstatic if OLED improves the pixel quality as well as contrast and colors.


Nice TV, I've got the same in my bedroom. I don't know on sharpness in all contexts but the contrast difference will certainly make everything else look better. Sharpness in dark scenes or scenes with bright and dark elements will be improved.


----------



## Metalane

dkfan9 said:


> Nice TV, I've got the same in my bedroom. I don't know on sharpness in all contexts but the contrast difference will certainly make everything else look better. Sharpness in dark scenes or scenes with bright and dark elements will be improved.


Yeah, now that I’m learning more about the tech, I can point out the differences and flaws a lot more. For example “black-crush”, which has always bothered me on the X850D, but I never knew what it was called before. It’s pretty severe on this model, so an OLED should blow it out of water in that department, especially the A80J, which I hear handles near-black transitions really well. Lighting over-exposure is another flaw I can point out now, which hopefully the OLED’s contrast can clear up. Overall PQ wise the X850D is still stunning, but it’s about time I move up to the high-end OLED crowd.


----------



## Wizziwig

Advancements of QD-OLED monitor (and others) vs. 20 year old CRT.


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> Advancements of QD-OLED monitor (and others) vs. 20 year old CRT.


Brought me back to a time where I spent way too many hours every week building a startup in front of one. Really interesting to see how 3D textures made for/with CRT tech look worse on LCD tech.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> QD-OLED (and future QNED) appear to currently have the strongest roadmap in high(er) end premium TV. Whether they can follow that map remains to be seen, but let’s say they do. If I’m LG and I look at middle/high(er) LCD as my competition instead, perhaps I’m feeling pretty good about my roadmap. Outstanding contrast along with brightness-increase paths that keep popping up (heatsinks, PHOLED blue someday, microlenses someday,..) and maybe color volume too (QDCC??…) coupled with acceptable cost & pricing (especially if the Paju G10.5 fab ever gets the green light) and therefore margin, point to high volumes and a great business vs LCD. I can easily see LGD (and their OEM customers) dominating the mid-range market in years to come. Maybe <$700 remains LCD and still by far the most volume but poor margin, $700-$2000ish WOLED dominates with good volume and margin (better than today!), and QD-OLED plus other emerging tech (if any) dominates above that price with performance bragging rights (same basic tools to improvement as WOLED) and great margin, eventually. Maybe Samsung sees this too and might want to get onto this mid-tier WOLED bandwagon to get summa that. Oh, maybe they are….
> 
> It sure makes sense to me. LG doesn't have to fight to be top dog. What am I missing?


I don’t think your misssing a thing. LGD is extremely well-positioned to be the low-cost volume leader of the Premium TV Market.

The only possible cloud I see on their horizon is if printed RGB OLED TV ever succeeds to deliver on the promise of WOLED-like performance at a lower-than-LCD manufacturing cost…


----------



## wco81

LG andSony aren’t working on next gen display techs?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

wco81 said:


> LG andSony aren’t working on next gen display techs?


All the major tv manufacturers are working on Microled, but for the near future, there does not seem to be any news of LG Display and Sony working on next gen display tech as much as Samsung Display. In fact, I would say LG display is stagnating- woled wasn't even originally patented by LG display and it seems like LG display's plan is to continue making incremental improvements to woled.


----------



## Captain.Ivan

-deleted-


----------



## chris7191

OLED_Overrated said:


> ...there does not seem to be any news of LG Display and Sony working on next gen display tech as much as Samsung Display.


Yeah. Sony doesn't even have the capability any longer. They are an integrator only at this point.


----------



## dkfan9

Captain.Ivan said:


> In the 80+ inch size under 10k$ What TV does the Community recommend for mainly Apple TV and Streaming content in a Dim but not pitch black living room? ( zero cable viewing and very little but some gaming )
> please.
> G2 reviews seem to be lacking comparing against the A90j why is that?
> FOMO! We need you to make that video!
> Upgrading from a C7!


I'd recommend opening a new thread looking for advice, this is mainly a thread for updates on the technology itself.


----------



## Captain.Ivan

dkfan9 said:


> I'd recommend opening a new thread looking for advice, this is mainly a thread for updates on the technology itself.


Thank you! Will do!


----------



## CliffordinWales

chris7191 said:


> Yeah. Sony doesn't even have the capability any longer. They are an integrator only at this point.


This is symbolic of Japan's replacement by Korea as the world leader in the display industry. Japanese firms seemed to give up not just on volume TV manufacturing but also on display innovation (perhaps with the odd exception like JOLED). The Koreans are now fearful that China will do to them what they did to Japan - in the OLED market as well as LCD.

"This looks like Japan"... Korean Display Overtaken by China - News Directory 3


----------



## Wizziwig

chris7191 said:


> Yeah. Sony doesn't even have the capability any longer. They are an integrator only at this point.


They do still develop micro-displays for various low-volume applications and large venue displays like Crystal LED walls. But nothing for monitors or TVs. Barrier to entry for these high volume panels is just too high for anyone but a handful of companies in China, Korea, and Taiwan.


----------



## 8mile13

The last innovative thing Sony did was the ZD9 LCD (2016) where each LED is a zone. Once a while they come up with something like that. They made their own dual layer monitor but that is likely based upon the Panasonic tech...still the best monitor for sale...They had the best TV last year. This year the Sony QD OLED will likely be the number one TV.


----------



## stl8k

> what did yoda say when he saw himself in high resolution?
> HDMI




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1522695751490576386


----------



## Me Boosta

Regarding the new story about the use of Micro Lenses, linked below:
LG Display is exploring a way to further boost OLED TV brightness by 20%

My concern is, would this push in brightness further degrade the color volume due to white pixel dilution? I'm not knowledgeable enough to figure this out. 

On a similar note, is the color volume of the G2 also reduced compared to the C2/C1/G1?


----------



## mrtickleuk

stl8k said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1522695751490576386


That works a *lot *better!


----------



## Metalane

Alright, so it seems this Black Friday is gonna be a dilemma for me. Most I talk to agree that the 77” A80J will be OOS by this BF, as I was waiting for a deal until then, and the 2022 will replace them. Now, even though we don’t have comparisons yet because the 2022 has yet to be released, is it still safe to say that the A80J and A80K are both the best OLED’s on the market for that size and price range? The 77” A80K will be about $3,800, and the improvements over the A80J seem way too small to be worth that price jump. So hypothetically if the 77” A80J will be in stock, and cheaper, I’ll struggle to make a decision because I’m so anal with the technicalities 😆. Either way though, I think it’s safe to say that since all the premium ones are QD-OLED’s, that the 77” A80J/A80K’s are the best on the market for OLED’s in that size.

The current QD-OLED’s are just too small and pricey for me now, but I still want the most advanced for 77”.


----------



## Me Boosta

Metalane said:


> Alright, so it seems this Black Friday is gonna be a dilemma for me. Most I talk to agree that the 77” A80J will be OOS by this BF, as I was waiting for a deal until then, and the 2022 will replace them. Now, even though we don’t have comparisons yet because the 2022 has yet to be released, is it still safe to say that the A80J and A80K are both the best OLED’s on the market for that size and price range? The 77” A80K will be about $3,800, and the improvements over the A80J seem way too small to be worth that price jump. So hypothetically if the 77” A80J will be in stock, and cheaper, I’ll struggle to make a decision because I’m so anal with the technicalities 😆. Either way though, I think it’s safe to say that since all the premium ones are QD-OLED’s, that the 77” A80J/A80K’s are the best on the market for OLED’s in that size.
> 
> The current QD-OLED’s are just too small and pricey for me now, but I still want the most advanced for 77”.


You're overthinking this way too much. The replacements for last year's products will be at the same price or a cheaper price during BF, than what the original prices are currently selling for.

And that the A80J is not a significant improvement over LG's models. They are not worth paying the Sony tax. The A90J was the undisputed best TV for movies last year, and that was worth the price. For Sony, you either go for their best (the A90J and their replacement), and go for an LG option instead of the A80J.

And right now, reviews say the LG G2 is better than the Sony A90J.

Like I said, you're overthinking this way too much. This should be your decision making













Don't overthink it. If you're coming from a old LCD/LED, the difference is already so huge, and you won't be able to tell the models apart.


----------



## Metalane

Me Boosta said:


> You're overthinking this way too much. The replacements for last year's products will be at the same price or a cheaper price during BF, than what the original prices are currently selling for.
> 
> And that the A80J is not a significant improvement over LG's models. They are not worth paying the Sony tax. The A90J was the undisputed best TV for movies last year, and that was worth the price. For Sony, you either go for their best (the A90J and their replacement), and go for an LG option instead of the A80J.
> 
> And right now, reviews say the LG G2 is better than the Sony A90J.
> 
> Like I said, you're overthinking this way too much. This should be your decision making
> 
> View attachment 3277389
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't overthink it. If you're coming from a old LCD/LED, the difference is already so huge, and you won't be able to tell the models apart.


Thanks for that graph. I won’t buy the 2022 QD-OLED’s because none come in 77”, and I don’t wanna wait until next year, so I can scratch those off. I forgot about the G2… but I’ll wait until the A80K officially drops to see the comparisons. And most say the A90J was definitely not worth the price, as it was on incrementally better than the A80J. So, hmm. You’re right that I overthink this.

Ok, this BF I’ll make my final decision my comparing the A80K to the G2. The A90J doesn’t come in 77” and the 83” size is too pricey.

Edit: Most agreed that the A80J beat out both the C1 and G1 last year in PQ, so hopefully the A80K can be a strong competitor vs the G2 and A90J.


----------



## Me Boosta

Metalane said:


> Thanks for that graph. I won’t buy the 2022 QD-OLED’s because none come in 77”, and I don’t wanna wait until next year, so I can scratch those off. I forgot about the G2… but I’ll wait until the A80K officially drops to see the comparisons. And most say the A90J was definitely not worth the price, as it was on incrementally better than the A80J. So, hmm. You’re right that I overthink this.
> 
> Ok, this BF I’ll make my final decision my comparing the A80K to the G2. The A90J doesn’t come in 77” and the 83” size is too pricey.


The A90J is absolutely a step up from the A80J. The A80J doesn't include a heatsink or a EVO panel, which is what makes the A90J so great. Watch this video:





But the real point is, you shouldn't be comparing value for money. If you're looking for value, nothing beats the C1 currently, and it isn't even close. The only thing the A80J has over C1 is that it has Sony's processing going for it (whose effect is only really noticeable in upscaling of lower resolution content and motion smoothening). For the untrained eye, all these TVs will look nearly identical. For enthusiasts like us, it won't make a difference for 95% of the content. All these WOLED panels are made by LG Display, even the ones in Sony.

The only differences between them are:
1) Their custom processing (LG vs Sony, Sony is considered to be superior for everything except gaming, but in most cases, you won't notice)
2) Presence of Evo Panel or not (C1 and A80J don't have it. A90J, C2 and G2 have it).
3) Presence of Heatsink (Only the A90K and G2 have it)

So what I'm saying is: if you want the best quality: go for the absolute high end (G2 (my recommendation) and A90K). If you want value: go for the C1. *Don't try to find a middle ground*. Because like I mentioned, diminishing returns kicks in really hard after C1.

And as for the A80K, we all know what to expect. It will be very similar to the A80J. The only TV that the community is really looking forward to is the A95K.


----------



## Metalane

Metalane said:


> Thanks for that graph. I won’t buy the 2022 QD-OLED’s because none come in 77”, and I don’t wanna wait until next year, so I can scratch those off. I forgot about the G2… but I’ll wait until the A80K officially drops to see the comparisons. And most say the A90J was definitely not worth the price, as it was on incrementally better than the A80J. So, hmm. You’re right that I overthink this.
> 
> Ok, this BF I’ll make my final decision my comparing the A80K to the G2. The A90J doesn’t come in 77” and the 83” size is too pricey.





Me Boosta said:


> The A90J is absolutely a step up from the A80J. The A80J doesn't include a heatsink or a EVO panel, which is what makes the A90J so great. Watch this video:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the real point is, you shouldn't be comparing value for money. If you're looking for value, nothing beats the C1 currently, and it isn't even close. The only thing the A80J has over C1 is that it has Sony's processing going for it (whose effect is only really noticeable in upscaling of lower resolution content and motion smoothening). For the untrained eye, all these TVs will look nearly identical. For enthusiasts like us, it won't make a difference for 95% of the content. All these WOLED panels are made by LG Display, even the ones in Sony.
> 
> The only differences between them are:
> 1) Their custom processing (LG vs Sony, Sony is considered to be superior for everything except gaming, but in most cases, you won't notice)
> 2) Presence of Evo Panel or not (C1 and A80J don't have it. A90J, C2 and G2 have it).
> 3) Presence of Heatsink (Only the A90K and G2 have it)
> 
> So what I'm saying is: if you want the best quality: go for the absolute high end (G2 (my recommendation) and A90K). If you want value: go for the C1. *Don't try to find a middle ground*. Because like I mentioned, diminishing returns kicks in really hard after C1.
> 
> And as for the A80K, we all know what to expect. It will be very similar to the A80J. The only TV that the community is really looking forward to is the A95K.


Once October/November comes I’ll have one last evaluation of all these models, but still, I appreciate your advice. And the 77” A80J actually does have an Evo panel, but not as strong as the A90J’s.


----------



## Me Boosta

Metalane said:


> Once October/November comes I’ll have one last evaluation of all these models, but still, I appreciate your advice. And the 77” A80J actually does have an Evo panel, but not as strong as the A90J’s.


My bad. I was mistaken. But yeah, the EVO panel really can't be driven that hard without a heatsink, which is why G2 and A90J perform so well.

Yeah, definitely evaluate all your options when you are ready to purchase. But general advice is: Either go for C series, or the best of the bunch, don't try to settle somewhere in the middle because you'll regret it later.


----------



## Metalane

Me Boosta said:


> My bad. I was mistaken. But yeah, the EVO panel really can't be driven that hard without a heatsink, which is why G2 and A90J perform so well.
> 
> Yeah, definitely evaluate all your options when you are ready to purchase. But general advice is: Either go for C series, or the best of the bunch, don't try to settle somewhere in the middle because you'll regret it later.


That’s interesting, you’re the first person to give me advice like that. But like I said, the best of the best, which is the QD-OLED’s, doesn’t go bigger than 65” this year, and next year a 77” version will definitely be more than $3,000. So in my size bracket this year the G2 and A80J/A80K are my only options for best OLED.

And Samsung is out of the question too as they’ve always had noticably worse color accuracy and contrast than it’s competitors.


----------



## Me Boosta

Metalane said:


> That’s interesting, you’re the first person to give me advice like that. But like I said, the best of the best, which is the QD-OLED’s, doesn’t go bigger than 65” this year, and next year a 77” version will definitely be more than $3,000. So in my size bracket this year the G2 and A80J/A80K are my only options for best OLED.
> 
> And Samsung is out of the question too as they’ve always had noticably worse color accuracy and contrast than it’s competitors.


When I meant the best, I meant to say G2 and A90J/K (the best among the options that you can do). Do not go for the A80J/K imo, because paying several hundred dollars more than the C1/2, just to get Sony's processing, is not worth it. That's the only difference between them. For the content that truly matters, i.e high bit-rate 4K content, there is little work that the processing can do and having a calibrated C2 and A80J/K will look identical. 

Oh, and if you game on PC or on the next gen consoles, then LG is the only choice. Sony shouldn't be an option in that case.


----------



## fafrd

Me Boosta said:


> Regarding the new story about the use of Micro Lenses, linked below:
> LG Display is exploring a way to further boost OLED TV brightness by 20%
> 
> My concern is, would this push in brightness further degrade the color volume due to white pixel dilution? I'm not knowledgeable enough to figure this out.


Everything would scale linearly, so in terms of a fixed brightness level like HDR1000, a 20% boost in peak brightness levels of all 4 subpixels will increase the overall fill % of a 1000 nit Rec.2020 colorspace (while the full % to whatever peak brightness level is achievable will be roughly the same).


Once LGD increases brightness to safely surpass 1000 nits, they have the option to start increasing fully-saturated color volume by decreasing size of the white subpixel to increase the size of the 3 colored subpixels.

For example, if LGD were to decrease white subpixel size by 50%, my estimates are that the red, green and blue subpixels could all increase in size by ~26% and fully-saturated output as a % of peak white output would increase from ~46% (where it is today) to ~68%.


----------



## th1nk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524455327256629248


----------



## OLED_Overrated

th1nk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524455327256629248


Sounds too good to be true. Any other specs about lifespan? Color Volume?


----------



## Metalane

th1nk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524455327256629248


The tweet won’t load for me, what model is that?


----------



## th1nk

Metalane said:


> The tweet won’t load for me, what model is that?


Prototype of a 2000 nit WOLED 8k panel, most likely by LG Display.


----------



## Metalane

th1nk said:


> Prototype of a 2000 nit WOLED 8k panel, most likely by LG Display.


Ah, so it’ll be practical in like 10 years haha. I don’t think 8K will ever take off as many say they can’t imagine the screen looking any clearer than it does now on the premium 4K OLED’s.


----------



## 59LIHP

th1nk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524455327256629248












LG Display Oled EX = 800 nits + 30%

Oled EX + Meta-lit Lens Array (MLA) = additional 20%









LG Display considering applying micro lens to TV OLED panel


LG Display was considering applying microlens on its OLED panels aimed at TVs, TheElec has learned.Microlenses can be used to control the direction of the light reflected from the panel to the direction of the viewer.This improves the efficiency of light extraction, increasing the brightness of the




www.thelec.net


----------



## Wizziwig

Metalane said:


> Ah, so it’ll be practical in like 10 years haha. I don’t think 8K will ever take off as many say they can’t imagine the screen looking any clearer than it does now on the premium 4K OLED’s.


I'm still waiting for the 1400 nit WOLED they demoed in 2016.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> View attachment 3279303
> 
> 
> LG Display Oled EX = 800 nits + 30%
> 
> Oled EX + Meta-lit Lens Array (MLA) = additional 20%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG Display considering applying micro lens to TV OLED panel
> 
> 
> LG Display was considering applying microlens on its OLED panels aimed at TVs, TheElec has learned.Microlenses can be used to control the direction of the light reflected from the panel to the direction of the viewer.This improves the efficiency of light extraction, increasing the brightness of the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net











LGD develops large OLED that is twice as bright as before


LG Display developed the world’s first large organic light emitting diode (OLED) with convex lens technology that is twice as bright as conventional TVs. The OLED.EX panel, which applied heavy…



www.kurdo.org


----------



## dkfan9

fafrd said:


> LGD develops large OLED that is twice as bright as before
> 
> 
> LG Display developed the world’s first large organic light emitting diode (OLED) with convex lens technology that is twice as bright as conventional TVs. The OLED.EX panel, which applied heavy…
> 
> 
> 
> www.kurdo.org


I just don't understand though. In the same paragraph, the lens array increases brightness by 20% and by 100%


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> LGD develops large OLED that is twice as bright as before
> 
> 
> LG Display developed the world’s first large organic light emitting diode (OLED) with convex lens technology that is twice as bright as conventional TVs. The OLED.EX panel, which applied heavy…
> 
> 
> 
> www.kurdo.org


I have read this article. I didn't post it because it represents inconsistencies.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

dkfan9 said:


> I just don't understand though. In the same paragraph, the lens array increases brightness by 20% and by 100%


 I am assuming they meant 200% of the original brightness and left out a zero. but if it is true that brightness could realistically hit 2000 nits without lifetime issues, I don't think it's a coincidence that LG display is announcing this right now after samsung's qdoled panels could hit 1600 nits peak brightness. LG display was probably planning to slowly milk the technology if there were no competitors


----------



## ALMA

dkfan9 said:


> I just don't understand though. In the same paragraph, the lens array increases brightness by 20% and by 100%


Not brightness, but "OLED luminous efficiency ". The MLA structure (firstly announced in 2018) seems to be the answer to QDCC and top-emission from Samsung. For me because of the not only blue emitting layer of WOLED, QDCC makes no sense and seems a very ineffective and high cost layout for WOLED.
Remains to be seen whether MLA will affected viewing angle.

2000nit prototype is also an 8K panel with a different RBWG subpixel arrangement with higher aperture ratio to 4K panels:









OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


Hi. I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right place, but if anyone would take pity on a newbie AVS neophyte, I'm on here because I bought this crazy w8 Wallpaper TV hoping to have the closest experience to being in a theater and so far, I'm really less than pleased. The issue is motion...




www.avsforum.com







> Testing on green and white PHOLEDs, the researchers say the SEMLA *enhanced light output by a factor of 2.8 (green) and 3.1 (white)* compared to a similar device without the lens array.








Researchers develop a sub-electrode micro-lens array that can increase the light output in OLEDs by a factor of 3 | OLED-Info







www.oled-info.com







> I'm still waiting for the 1400 nit WOLED they demoed in 2016.


It was doable (vivid, 10% APL, stronger power supply), also clearly not a TV from LGE with 40% headroom against burn-in. Lifetime would be much shorter if you push the panel so hard. 7 Series almost reaching 900nit peak brightness in burn-in test from Rtings (isf Dark Room picture mode).


----------



## 59LIHP

Meta-lit Lens Array Enhances Luminous Efficiency by over 20%
LG Display Develops Large OLED Panel Twice as Bright as Current Ones








LG Display Develops Large OLED Panel Twice as Bright as Current Ones


LG Display has developed the world’s first large organic light emitting diode (OLED) TV display featuring convex lens technology. The new display is twice as bright as conventional TV displays.The new display is characterized by a fine convex lens array layer inside an OLED panel. The layer is not c




www.businesskorea.co.kr


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung Display delays installment of pilot line for QNED 








Samsung Display delays installment of pilot line for QNED


Samsung Display has postponed the installation of a pilot line for its next-generation quantum dot nanorod LED (QNED) display panel, TheElec has learned.The technology uses tick-shaped nanorod LEDs as the light source, with multiple units of them representing one pixel on a screen, and if commercial




thelec.net


----------



## Adonisds

59LIHP said:


> View attachment 3279303
> 
> 
> LG Display Oled EX = 800 nits + 30%
> 
> Oled EX + Meta-lit Lens Array (MLA) = additional 20%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG Display considering applying micro lens to TV OLED panel
> 
> 
> LG Display was considering applying microlens on its OLED panels aimed at TVs, TheElec has learned.Microlenses can be used to control the direction of the light reflected from the panel to the direction of the viewer.This improves the efficiency of light extraction, increasing the brightness of the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net


800 * 1.3 * 1.2 = 1250

Why is this 2000?


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> I have read this article. I didn't post it because it represents inconsistencies.


There is certainly the massive inconsistency between +20% beyond EX and 2000 nits (which is more than +100% beyond 2022 EX WOLED), but if you are referring to anything else it would be interesting to understand.

This is another article referring to the same demo:LG Display develops large OLED with double the brightness compared to before

‘LG calls this technology 'Meta-lit Lens Array (MLA)’. OLED peak *brightness increases by more than 20% *compared to the previous OLEDs when applying MLA technology.’

‘LG Display first unveiled a *77-inch 8K OLED TV panel with MLA technology* at the Society for Information Display’s (SID) Display Week 2022 held in San Jose, California on the 10th (local time) for three days.’

‘*The screen brightness reaches up to 2000 nits. *This technology makes the OLED screens much brighter when considering that the *maximum brightness of the current 1000 nits LG OLEDs*.’

The fact that LGD appears to have developed the MLA technology on their smallest pixels (77” 8K) is promising and suggests the technology should seamlessly port to all 4K WOLEDs.

2000 nits over a small specular highlight is merely a matter of ABL and so really means nothing other than that the power distribution and subpixel sizes can handle the necessary current to deliver that level of brightness.

Since there is no indication of window size, duration of highlight, nor lifetime, it’s pretty much meaningless other than to signal that LGDs WOLED backplane is designed to handle up to 2000 cd/m2 over a small highlight without frying.

So my guess is that +20% from MLA technology is probably the realistic brightness boost / efficiency boost to expect and since we have no idea what cost is involved, the only real question to me is whether it s a technology LGD will introduce for 2023 mainstream WOLED production.

We have heard that LGD offered 3 tiers of WOLED technology to Samsung Electronics, so the announcement of MLA at least provides a way to guess the WOLED panel lineup LFD may be teeing up for 2023:

WBC: 150cd/m2 entry-level, lowest cost
WBE: 180cd/m2 mid-level, middle cost
WBE+MLA: 200cd/m2 premium, highest cost

The above numbers of 150, 180, 200 cd/m2 are from my memory of the article summarizing Samsung Electronics / LGD negotiations and presumably refer to sustained full-screen brightness levels.

Rtings reports 180cd/m2 sustained full-screen SDR peak brightness for the C2 which is a WBE/EX panel, so that ties reasonably-well to the mid-tier panel offering LGD is rumored to have offered Samsung.

Rtings reports 133cd/m2 sustained full-screen SDR peak brightness for the BX which is presumably a WBC panel, and while that does represent about the claimed +30% increase between WBC and EX that has been claimed, it is far short of the 150cd/m2 LGD’s entry-level WOLED offering is supposedly offering.

It’s a +13% increase from 133cd/m2 to 150cd/m2 and between PAR increases associated with removing sensing lines and/or only switching from hydrogen-based Blue FOLED to deuterium-based Blue FOLED (without also adding the deep-green PHOLED emitter), there are several ways to imagine LGD has closed that ~13% gap on their lowest-cost entry-level WOLED offering without adding cost.

And 200cd/m2 is only +11% above 180cd/m2, so safely under the +20% LGD is claiming they get from the addition of MLA (200cd/m2 = 120% of 167cd/m2), so it seems like a very conservative way for LGD to achieve the good, better, best WOLED portfolio they are rumored to have offered to Samsung for introduction late this year.

So my pure-speculation as to LG’s product roadmap is that we are likely to see both C-Series and G-Series WOLED TVs deliver a 13-20% brightness increase from the adoption of MLA across the board in 2023… (meaning that MLA is likely far more industrialized by LGD WOLED already than several of these articles are suggesting).


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> 800 * 1.3 * 1.2 = 1250
> 
> Why is this 2000?


Read the next post after yours .

Fleshing out my speculation a bit more, I expect Rtings to measure the C3 to deliver 200 to 215 cd/m2 for SDR full-field and 490 to 530 cd/m2 for SDR @ 10%.

And as far as HDR peak highlight levels, I expect Rtings to report real scene highlights of 950 to 1000 cd/m2 and 970 to 1030 cd/m2 @ 2% (burst, not sustained).


----------



## dkfan9

Adonisds said:


> 800 * 1.3 * 1.2 = 1250
> 
> Why is this 2000?


My understanding, based on @ALMA post above, is that the 2000 is a result of the 1250 or so plus a different panel/ pixel structure and then likely more "careless" operation (e.g. fewer limits designed to improve set lifetime and reduce BI potential).


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> My understanding, based on @ALMA post above, is that the 2000 is a result of the 1250 or so plus a different panel/ pixel structure and then likely more "careless" operation (e.g. fewer limits designed to improve set lifetime and reduce BI potential).


You can get easily drive WOLED to deliver higher peak output levels if you don’t care about lifetime/burn-in as well as whitepoint accuracy, so it’s really meaningless until you get a 3rd party with calibration equipment reporting on what they’ve measured…

It’s an announcement of technological advancement only and little to do with what can eventually be expected on actual products in the real-world.


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> Not brightness, but "OLED luminous efficiency ". The MLA structure (firstly announced in 2018) *seems to be the answer to QDCC and top-emission from Samsung*.


Thank god you’re still active in the tread!

I’d forgotten about that earlier OLED Microlens (SEMLA) research report from the University of Michigan in 2018…

The article from OLED Info states that:

‘the researchers used a Sub-Electrode Micro-Lens Array (SEMLA) placed between the bottom transparent ITO electrode and the glass substrate.’ and

‘The hexagonal array of 10 μm lenses can be *fabricated using conventional photolithography methods which are quite cost effective*. Such a micro-lens array *does not change the actual OLED production process.*’

So it appears to be a technology compatible with a bottom-emission backplane and it is not clear whether there is any corresponding cost-effective way to improve top-emission OLED using a similar microlens concept.

From what I understand, the microlenses are formed on the flat glass substate before the ITO/backplane layers are formed, so the microlenses can be formed to be optically ‘perfect’ in a bottom-emission backplane versus how they would come out if formed on the top of the non-flat surface of a top-emission stack…

LGD’s claim of +20% from MLA is certainly enough to largely close the PAR gap between bottom-emission and top-emission OLED and if U’ if Michigan’s claims of +180% for green and +210% for white have any real-world truth to them, I agree with you that LGD may have latched onto a multi-generation technology roadmap that allows them to cut into Samsung’s +100% brightness increase from eliminating the polarizer with a more cost-effective alternative than switching to top-emission, adding QDCC and eliminating the polarizer themselves…



> For me because of the not only blue emitting layer of WOLED, QDCC makes no sense and seems a very ineffective and high cost layout for WOLED.


I see QDCC as an option for WOLED, though it may only be compatible with a top-emission backplane, meaning it will add significant cost, in addition to the added cost of the QDCC itself.

So I certainly agree that LGD is going to pursue technologies that are the lowest cost and most compatible with their current bottom-emission WOLED before contemplating more complicated/costly/exotic improvements such as those offered by QDCC.



> Remains to be seen whether MLA will affected viewing angle.


I agree that ‘talk is cheap’ and that we need to wait to see what 3rd parties report in the wild, but one of the articles on LGD’s MLA technology stated that:

‘*The viewing angle will expand by the light scattering effect.*’



> 2000nit prototype is also an 8K panel with a different RBWG subpixel arrangement with higher aperture ratio to 4K panels:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread
> 
> 
> Hi. I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right place, but if anyone would take pity on a newbie AVS neophyte, I'm on here because I bought this crazy w8 Wallpaper TV hoping to have the closest experience to being in a theater and so far, I'm really less than pleased. The issue is motion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers develop a sub-electrode micro-lens array that can increase the light output in OLEDs by a factor of 3 | OLED-Info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-info.com


Fear of market transition to 8K has certainly promoted LGD to develop improvements to WOLED to ‘be ready’ so they won’t be left behind.

If the RBWG subpixel arrangement has proven superior to the RBGW subpixel structure LGD first introduced, do you see any reason they would not eventually adopt RBWG for 4K panels as well?



> It was doable (vivid, 10% APL, stronger power supply), also clearly not a TV from LGE with 40% headroom against burn-in. Lifetime would be much shorter if you push the panel so hard. 7 Series almost reaching 900nit peak brightness in burn-in test from Rtings (isf Dark Room picture mode).


Yes, I think the 2000cd/m2 claim is just a ‘for bragging rights’ only announcement and speaks more to the capability of LGD’s WOLED backplane than anything else.

+20% increase in brightness and efficiency from MLA across-the-board is the much more substantive claim from my perspective and if there is any real-world truth to the U. of Michigan’s claims as far as green and white, +20% could be the first relatively conservative step in a multi-year roadmap…

So I agree with you, it looks like adoption of MLA is likely to be LGD’s primary technological response to the arrival of QD-OLED.[/b]


----------



## fafrd

ALMA said:


> Not brightness, but "OLED luminous efficiency ". The MLA structure (firstly announced in 2018) seems to be the answer to QDCC and top-emission from Samsung. For me because of the not only blue emitting layer of WOLED, QDCC makes no sense and seems a very ineffective and high cost layout for WOLED.
> Remains to be seen whether MLA will affected viewing angle.
> 
> 2000nit prototype is also an 8K panel with a different RBWG subpixel arrangement with higher aperture ratio to 4K panels:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread
> 
> 
> Hi. I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right place, but if anyone would take pity on a newbie AVS neophyte, I'm on here because I bought this crazy w8 Wallpaper TV hoping to have the closest experience to being in a theater and so far, I'm really less than pleased. The issue is motion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers develop a sub-electrode micro-lens array that can increase the light output in OLEDs by a factor of 3 | OLED-Info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.oled-info.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was doable (vivid, 10% APL, stronger power supply), also clearly not a TV from LGE with 40% headroom against burn-in. Lifetime would be much shorter if you push the panel so hard. 7 Series almost reaching 900nit peak brightness in burn-in test from Rtings (isf Dark Room picture mode).


Here is the underlying article on U. of Michigan’s research on microlense array for OLED: Cheap and wavelength-independent OLED light extraction eeNews Europe

‘the authors reported that for such a high refractive index, the *waveguide modes were reduced to almost zero* for an electron transport layer less than 70nm thick, with the *SEMLA structure extracting all radiated optical power except for the surface plasmon modes* (along the metal−organic interface).’

So the increased efficiency seems to be primarily due to greatly reduced loss of optical power due to waveguide modes.

‘The researchers then *implemented the SEMLA* with a number of phosphorescent OLEDs, *attaching an external microlens array to the SEMLA substrates to further enhance outcoupling.*’

So the actual research results were based on a fabricated device that contained both fabricated array of microlenses as well as external array of microlenses and the +180% for green and +210% for white results presented go beyond what would have been achieved with the integrated SEMLA/MLA array of microlenses alone…


----------



## Wizziwig

ALMA said:


> Remains to be seen whether MLA will affected viewing angle.
> 
> 2000nit prototype is also an 8K panel with a different RBWG subpixel arrangement with higher aperture ratio to 4K panels:


Looks to me like LG could bundle the increased cost of MLA into their 8K lineup just as LCD TV manufacturers bundle their best backlight technology only with their 8K TVs.

The viewing angle concern could be valid. I have not seen any of the mobile OLED phones that use MLA but have seen similar ideas implemented on front projection screens. On projection screens they use small glass beads that refract incoming light so that light that used to emit in all directions is redirected directly back in the direction of the light source. Since these optical devices are passive, they can't "create" additional light, only redirect light that used to emit in other directions - thus lowering luminance for those viewing from those other directions. Directly in front, you would see some hot-spotting where the center of the screen was brighter than the borders.

Applied to an emissive display, things may perform much better since there isn't a single point light source as with projection. Hopefully luminance uniformity and color shift will not be affected.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Looks to me like LG could bundle the increased cost of MLA into their 8K lineup just as LCD TV manufacturers bundle their best backlight technology only with their 8K TVs.


My read is that they developed MLA on their 77” 8K panel primarily because that is their most aggressive pixel pitch with worst-case manufacturing yields (per m^2) and that he MLA technology will be coming to their 4K WOLED panels soon (2023?), but time will tell…



> The viewing angle concern could be valid. I have not seen any of the mobile OLED phones that use MLA but have seen similar ideas implemented on front projection screens. On projection screens they use small glass beads that refract incoming light so that light that used to emit in all directions is redirected directly back in the direction of the light source. Since these optical devices are passive, they can't "create" additional light, only redirect light that used to emit in other directions - thus lowering luminance from those viewing from those other directions.


I don’t understand much about OLED waveguides but found this: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abg0355

From what I’ve gathered, the improved efficiency associated with LGD’s MLA technology has less to do with focusing more light towards the viewer (like your projection screen) and more to do with reducing internal optical energy losses associated with internal waveguides.

If the MLA increases scattering in addition (as LGD is apparently claiming), it could actually increasing viewing angle performance (including color shift).

And the cost adder is hopefully going to be small (hopefully lower than the WBC to WBE cost adder…).


----------



## fafrd

A bit more: LG Display Develops Large OLED Panel Twice as Bright as Current Ones

‘The lens array layer *adjusts the angle of light lost inside the OLED panel* and amplifies it to increase light efficiency. It is a method of *adjusting a light path so that light reflected from the inside of the panel advances toward the screen.*’

‘*A viewing angle is also widened by a light scattering effect.*’

It’s comforting to see that LGD has not been caught completely flat-footed by QD-OLED and has been working to have an ace or two up their sleeves to be extend WOLED’s future…


----------



## fafrd

And in other news: Samsung Display delays installment of pilot line for QNED

‘Samsung Display has postponed the installation of a pilot line for its next-generation quantum dot nanorod LED (QNED) display panel, TheElec has learned.’

‘Samsung Display originally planned to install the pilot line for QNED at its plant in Asan, South Korea by the first quarter of the year.

*The company recently disbanded the team formed to install the pilot line with all the staff returning to their original posts*, sources said.

Samsung Display is expected to redevelop core technologies related to QNED in its research lab.’

The postponement means the display maker is expected to commercialize QNED displays at least a year later than it originally planned.’

It’s hard not to interpret this news in any way other than that between the early success of the QD-OLED TV launch and whatever hairballs were run into attempting to industrialize the QNED technology Samsung patented, the Group has made the decision to put QNED on the back-burner (the R&D lab) and QD-OLED is likely now here to stay for the medium-long term.

Announcements of conversion of a second 8.5G LCD fab to QD-OLED production would be the final confirmation that the Samsung Group is committing to QD-OLED as it’s primary flat-panel technology for the future premium TV market…


----------



## winterbegins

Man today has hit hard with delays. QNED not being in the pipeline is a huge bummer. QD-OLED has fixed some issues i had with OLED before, but the elephant in the room is still burn in which i doubt will get a soft-fix via a warranty or something similar. I always saw QD-OLED as a stopgap just because of QNED.


----------



## Jin-X

What improvements would QNED purportedly bring over QD-OLED? If it wasn’t that much better from performance/cost perspective I can see why they would mothball it for now. Also possible they saw enough from UDC to believe their blue PHOLED timeline is legit, and seeing as that can possibly give them some decent cost reduction or a big performance jump if they keep the same 3 stack (they could have a 2 tiered QD-OLED panel production), then QNED would make even less sense. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

winterbegins said:


> Man today has hit hard with delays. QNED not being in the pipeline is a huge bummer. QD-OLED has fixed some issues i had with OLED before, but the elephant in the room is still burn in which i doubt will get a soft-fix via a warranty or something similar. I always saw QD-OLED as a stopgap just because of QNED.


Burn-in is a non-issue for modern OLED TV for all but the most fanatical / fringe of users). Of course, I state that mainly for WOLED as we won’t really understand QD-OLED’s burn-in performance for several years…

But it’s hard to imagine that Samsung Electronics would have introduced an OLED TV that was not at least as immune to burn-in as 2021 WOLED TV, especially after attacking WOLED TV as being susceptible to burn-in for over 5 years now…


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> What improvements would QNED purportedly bring over QD-OLED? If it wasn’t that much better from performance/cost perspective I can see why they would mothball it for now. Also possible they saw enough from UDC to believe their blue PHOLED timeline is legit, and seeing as that can possibly give them some decent cost reduction or a big performance jump if they keep the same 3 stack (they could have a 2 tiered QD-OLED panel production), then QNED would make even less sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Supposedly, the ‘inorganic’ molecules of QNED would allow it to deliver far longer lifetime and better immunity from burn-in than QD-OLED.

Assuming Samsung was able to industrialize a fluidic self-organizing manufacturing process, QNED also offered the promise of delivering increased brightness while also being less costly than even 2-layer-based QD-OLED.

But I suspect that Samsung came to their senses and realized that ‘perfection is the enemy of good.’ 

(And by the way, current Blue-FOLED-based QD-OLED is based on a 4S1C or 4S2C OLED stack, not 3S…)


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> Burn-in is a non-issue for modern OLED TV for all but the most fanatical / fringe of users). Of course, I state that mainly for WOLED as we won’t really understand QD-OLED’s burn-in performance for several years…
> 
> But it’s hard to imagine that Samsung Electronics would have introduced an OLED TV that was not at least as immune to burn-in as 2021 WOLED TV, especially after attacking WOLED TV as being susceptible to burn-in for over 5 years now…


I don't see how you can say it's a non-issue. It's probably still an issue. Pretty much every heavily used C7 will end up with a green blob / shift in the center of the screen, and this is a TV from 2017. Yes, they have improved, but how much? In a couple years we'll see how those C9s and CX hold up...

My parents had a Panasonic 50" plasma for 11 years, and it showed none of these things you see on the C6/C7 owners' threads. Perhaps it lost brightness, but it was free from burn-in. Now, 10 years is a long time, but we should be able to get 5 flawless years out of a TV. If not, there is a problem. I have LCDs in devices at work that are almost as old as some of my interns and they look brand new.

People who have used C9/CX as a primary PC monitor generally show minor burn-in after a couple years. Might be acceptable to some, but to say the technology doesn't need improvement here is questionable.


----------



## dwaleke

fafrd said:


> Burn-in is a non-issue for modern OLED TV for all but the most fanatical / fringe of users). Of course, I state that mainly for WOLED as we won’t really understand QD-OLED’s burn-in performance for several years…


This is not true what-so-ever.

I think you grossly underestimate the size of the population that leaves their TV running for hours and hours a day with a news channel (or any content with static elements) on it.

They are not a fanatical or fringe group of people (well when it comes to their TV usage anyway).


----------



## winterbegins

Jin-X said:


> What improvements would QNED purportedly bring over QD-OLED? If it wasn’t that much better from performance/cost perspective I can see why they would mothball it for now. Also possible they saw enough from UDC to believe their blue PHOLED timeline is legit, and seeing as that can possibly give them some decent cost reduction or a big performance jump if they keep the same 3 stack (they could have a 2 tiered QD-OLED panel production), then QNED would make even less sense.


There were rumors that QD-OLED only got accepted from Samsungs Electronics / Visual Display branch because Samsung Display could show them QD-OLED and QNED at the same time. With the promise that QD-OLED lines can be converted into QNED in the future.
As far as we know QNED only has advantages = it doesnt need to be produced under vacuum like regular OLED which is a big cost factor and needs expensive tools. Printing the (only blue because they were developed to be only blue according to some patents) Nanorods and align them via electricity is massively cheaper. 
Since they are small cylindrical LEDs they are basically inorganic and can be driven harder / brighter and will live way longer than any organic based emitter. 

Of course some things which are already problematic with QD-OLED will be inherited - like the suboptimal pixel structure because its heavily based on it. (Unless Samsung can fix that soon enough).
QNED is the closest thing to MicroLED we currently know.


----------



## fafrd

winterbegins said:


> There were rumors that QD-OLED only got accepted from Samsungs Electronics / Visual Display branch because Samsung Display could show them QD-OLED and QNED at the same time. *With the promise that QD-OLED lines can be converted into QNED in the future.*


The VTE equipment needed for OLED deposition is enormously expensive and unneeded for QNED, so it is highly unlikely Samsung is going to invest in additional 8.5G LCD fab conversions to QD-OLED if there is much of any chance of QNED being ready for production anytime in the next 2-3 years with high confidence…



> As far as we know QNED only has advantages = it doesnt need to be produced under *vacuum like regular OLED which is a big cost factor and needs expensive tools.* Printing the (only blue because they were developed to be only blue according to some patents) Nanorods and align them via electricity is massively cheaper.
> Since they are small cylindrical LEDs they are basically inorganic and can be driven harder / brighter and will live way longer than any organic based emitter.
> 
> Of course some things which are already problematic with QD-OLED will be inherited - like the suboptimal pixel structure because its heavily based on it. (Unless Samsung can fix that soon enough).
> QNED is the closest thing to MicroLED we currently know.


Precisely.

And as far as timing for QNED, it is a novel and unproven manufacturing technology, so the schedule / time needed for industrialization is a huge unknown / risk-factor…


----------



## winterbegins

fafrd said:


> The VTE equipment needed for OLED deposition is enormously expensive and unneeded for QNED, so it is highly unlikely Samsung is going to invest in additional 8.5G LCD fab conversions to QD-OLED if there is much of any chance of QNED being ready for production anytime in the next 2-3 years with high confidence…
> 
> And as far as timing for QNED, it is a novel and unproven manufacturing technology, so the schedule / time needed for industrialization is a huge unknown / risk-factor…


I think no one expects QNED to immediately phase out QD-OLED when it releases. They will coexist for a while.
Also they will sell enough QD-OLEDs to cover the expenses of the tools. But a huge part of this is the fact that they can reuse equipment later on. Thats why they introduced it as "QD-Display" in the beginning and on Samsung Displays website. There were also reports from Elec were it was suggested that Samsung will use this name for marketing to not draw the line to OLED. (Which they did not its plain and simple called OLED)


----------



## lsorensen

Adonisds said:


> 800 * 1.3 * 1.2 = 1250
> 
> Why is this 2000?


Well given I have seen it claimed that 1000 nits is twice as bright as 100 nits, then the question is: is a claim of 20% brighter meaning 20% more nits or 20% more perceived brightness? After all if it takes 900 more nits (so 900% more nits than 100 nits) to double brightness but it is only 100% perceived brightness, then what does such a claim actually mean?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

The only main issue I can think of with QNED is making sure every panel has good uniformity. Each subpixel is made up of over a dozen nano sized leds. The nano leds are dropped onto the substrate and if a nanoled doesn't align perfectly when it is dropped, that nanoled won't work. Some subpixels may have like 13 working nanoleds compared to 9 working nanoleds in another subpixel which will result in different pixels having different peak brightness. Thus if the correct voltage is not applied to each subpixel, you will get uniformity issues.


----------



## 8mile13

chris7191 said:


> I don't see how you can say it's a non-issue. It's probably still an issue. Pretty much every heavily used C7 will end up with a green blob / shift in the center of the screen, and this is a TV from 2017. Yes, they have improved, but how much? In a couple years we'll see how those C9s and CX hold up...
> 
> My parents had a Panasonic 50" plasma for 11 years, and it showed none of these things you see on the C6/C7 owners' threads. Perhaps it lost brightness, but it was free from burn-in. Now, 10 years is a long time, but we should be able to get 5 flawless years out of a TV. If not, there is a problem. I have LCDs in devices at work that are almost as old as some of my interns and they look brand new.
> 
> People who have used C9/CX as a primary PC monitor generally show minor burn-in after a couple years. Might be acceptable to some, but to say the technology doesn't need improvement here is questionable.


I can tell you i bought two like 5 year old plasmas with low hours and both had logo and black bar burn-in issues that could be seen on a full black screen, such static parts where darker partly . This will be less of a problem with OLED after 5 years unless there is extreme static use and lots of hours also. Stuff like QNED will not have such issues. I do feel that a TV should at max 5 hours a day be 10 year issue free..even with lots of static stuff.


----------



## artur9

A question about WOLED and black & white movies, like from the 1930s.
With infinite black and a dedicated white pixel, WOLED is phenomenal for that type of content?

In this one, very specific case, the RGB OLEDs would be at a disadvantage?


----------



## fafrd

artur9 said:


> A question about WOLED and black & white movies, like from the 1930s.
> With infinite black and a dedicated white pixel, WOLED is phenomenal for that type of content?
> 
> In this one, very specific case, the RGB OLEDs would be at a disadvantage?


No disadvantage, just less of an advantage.

W=R+G+B so for black & white content, peak brightness is the only measure that matters (and peak white brightness levels of QD-OLED are not much higher than modern WOLEDs…).


----------



## JasonHa

With Samsung's particular pixel pattern in their QD OLEDs, there might be some fringing issues with sharp lines in black and white movies. Didn't some owners perceive those issues with the older DLP TVs and black and white movies?


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> With Samsung's particular pixel pattern in their QD OLEDs, there might be some fringing issues with sharp lines in black and white movies. Didn't some owners perceive those issues with the older DLP TVs and black and white movies?


For 4K B&W movies viewed from up close, perhaps, but to my knowledge, there are no 4K B&W movies (or have we started getting B&W films getting digitized at 4K or higher resolutions?).


----------



## 59LIHP

China advances large OLED… “It’s only a matter of time before they catch up with South Korea” 








China advances large OLED… “It’s only a matter of time before they catch up with South Korea”


China's BOE introduced the world's largest 8K organic light emitting diode (OLED) panel for the first time. China Star Optoelectronics Technology (CSOT), a subsidiary of TCL, also developed a 60-inch




english.etnews.com


----------



## mrtickleuk

artur9 said:


> A question about WOLED and black & white movies, like from the 1930s.
> With infinite black and a *dedicated white* pixel, WOLED is phenomenal for that type of content?
> 
> In this one, very specific case, the RGB OLEDs would be at a disadvantage?


No for the very simple reason that the white sub-pixel is nowhere near D65 white. It's very very blue. When you're in a decent accurate mode (eg Warm2) and/or you've calibrated, "white" and all your greys is made up of combinations of the white sub-pixel and the red and green too. Even in vivid mode, there's no way that the colour being requested by the TV would land 100% on the panel's native white (such that only the white sub-pixel lit up) if you think about it.



fafrd said:


> For 4K B&W movies viewed from up close, perhaps, but to my knowledge, there are no 4K B&W movies (or have we started getting B&W films getting digitized at 4K or higher resolutions?).


There are some! Check out the Alfonso Cuarón movie *Roma*, on Netflix. It's a 2018 HDR B&W 4K movie, with Atmos sound. Looks and sounds stunning. Don't assume that B&W has to mean old Laurel and Hardy movies . It really showcases what HDR can do, when you're not distracted by colour. Warning: the storyline will not appeal to the Michael "lamp post" Bay demo crowd - it's _not _for them


----------



## Jin-X

mrtickleuk said:


> No for the very simple reason that the white sub-pixel is nowhere near D65 white. It's very very blue. When you're in a decent accurate mode (eg Warm2) and/or you've calibrated, "white" and all your greys is made up of combinations of the white sub-pixel and the red and green too. Even in vivid mode, there's no way that the colour being requested by the TV would land 100% on the panel's native white (such that only the white sub-pixel lit up) if you think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> There are some! Check out the Alfonso Cuarón movie *Roma*, on Netflix. It's a 2018 HDR B&W 4K movie, with Atmos sound. Looks and sounds stunning. Don't assume that B&W has to mean old Laurel and Hardy movies . It really showcases what HDR can do, when you're not distracted by colour. Warning: the storyline will not appeal to the Michael "lamp post" Bay demo crowd - it's _not _for them


Double Indemnity 4K from Criterion also comes out on the 31st.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Jin-X said:


> Double Indemnity 4K from Criterion also comes out on the 31st.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Search Movies (blu-ray.com)
this is the only database I've found so far that let's you search by original movie production year.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Samsung Display needs to commercialize QNED soon before China catches up with producing competitive OLED products.


----------



## Metalane

Did anyone else catch Stop The Fomo's calibration stream last night? Anybody here got any thoughts?


----------



## OLED_Overrated




----------



## Wizziwig

We finally have some power consumption and efficiency figures for the 65" Samsung S95B QD-OLED. Source.
Vertical axis is luminance (red) or watts (blue). Horizontal axis is percent of screen illuminated.
We can probably subtract about 40W of non-panel-related consumption when displaying black screen. ABL kicks in around 300W.
As is typical, power supply efficiency increases up to a certain optimal load before it starts declining. This probably explains why the graph is not perfectly linear with number of lit pixels.










They also have some measurements showing better viewing angles and lower reflectivity (1/3 of WOLED).


----------



## dkfan9

Wizziwig said:


> They also have some measurements showing better viewing angles and lower reflectivity (1/3 of WOLED).


Seems like it shares a cause with the raised blacks under lighting.


----------



## Wizziwig

As another efficiency data point, the rtings.com review has these figures when displaying an ANSI checkerboard in SDR and HDR:

65" S95B: 
113 W calibrated SDR
242 W maximum brightness in HDR

65" LG G2
84 W calibrated SDR
189 W maximum brightness in HDR

WOLED appears more efficient when displaying white - no surprise there. Wonder how they compare with typical colored content as many owners are reporting the QD-OLEDs run cooler than their WOLEDs.


----------



## dkfan9

fafrd said:


> I don’t understand much about OLED waveguides but found this: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abg0355
> 
> From what I’ve gathered, the improved efficiency associated with LGD’s MLA technology has less to do with focusing more light towards the viewer (like your projection screen) and more to do with reducing internal optical energy losses associated with internal waveguides.
> 
> If the MLA increases scattering in addition (as LGD is apparently claiming), it could actually increasing viewing angle performance (including color shift).


I don't think the increased scattering is in addition to the mode reduction, but a byproduct of it. Wave cancelation would seem like a good explanation for color shift off axis.


----------



## Wizziwig

Anyone have that Samsung phone (Galaxy Note 20 Ultra) with the micro lens array panel? Does it have less color shift? Seems like the lenses would only affect luminance shift.


----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


>


I like his animations to explain technology but believe he, along with many others may not be correctly understanding the MLA structure LGD is using.

Many images including the one from the video as well as this image from the article from EENews Europe depict a flat planar OLED emission layer entering into a convex lens (embedded into a glass substrate in the case of the EE News Europe image): Cheap and wavelength-independent OLED light extraction eeNews Europe

The text from the EE News Europe article, on the other hand, states: 

‘Fully transparent and with no apparent impact on the image sharpness when implemented in an OLED display, the sub-electrode microlens array (SEMLA) was fabricated using conventional photolithography *prior to the OLED array deposition*. It consists of a flat spacer layer on top of a hexagonal closed-packed array of 10μm diameter hemispherical lenses.’

My guess is that the LGD MLA microlenses may not be formed embedded within the glass and presenting a flat planar surface for ITO and OLED emission layers as depicted in these images but rather form an array of small of ‘bump’ microlenses formed on the flat glass surface and presenting a non-planar surface for ITO and OLED emission layers as depicted in this patent: https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/7a36bf21-e5a3-438d-b17c-5a13633d18ba/content

The end effect is likely to be similar (possibly explaining the gap between LGD’s claimed +20% and the much larger efficiency increase achieved by the U. of Michigan research) and patterning microlenses on a flat glass surface using simple photolithography is almost certainly far, far less costly that attempting to embed them down into the glass material and then to planarize the surface prior to deposition of ITO and OLED emission layers.

An 8K 77” pixel is 222um x 222um and even the smallest-width blue and green subpixels will have a width of at least 30um (3 lenses wide).

Assuming ~50um lost to deadspace associated well the horizontal transistors, the resulting 30um x 170um subpixel would be able to hold a 3 x 17 array of 10um microlenses.

Here is another presentation I found on the research at U. of Michigan: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/06/f52/33111k_Forrest_050218-1000.pdf

U. of Michigan research seem to have been focused on actually embedding micro lenses within glass but I’m suspecting that LGD may have found a simpler related solution which is not as effective but much cheaper to implement within their existing manufacturing processes…


----------



## Jin-X

So far the only thing I keep hearing that QNED does better than QD-OLED is a supposed increased resistance to burn in because it’s inorganic? But OLED is already pretty resistant (we’ll see long term with the QD version) and some people still worry about it. No matter how resistant it is some will always worry and you will always be able to create burn in if you put it under some crazy scenario like playing the same cable news channel all day. 

I’m not seeing why they should move to that when they got this working pretty well already and would have to spend a ton on the deposition machines to expand, then quickly move to QNED and get little out of them? And QD OLED already has a path to big performance jump with blue PHOLED which would come in at about the same time as QNED. So right now it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> So far the only thing I keep hearing that QNED does better than QD-OLED is a supposed increased resistance to burn in because it’s inorganic? But OLED is already pretty resistant (we’ll see long term with the QD version) and some people still worry about it. No matter how resistant it is some will always worry and you will always be able to create burn in if you put it under some crazy scenario like playing the same cable news channel all day.
> 
> I’m not seeing why they should move to that when they got this working pretty well already and would have to spend a ton on the deposition machines to expand, then quickly move to QNED and get little out of them? And QD OLED already has a path to big performance jump with blue PHOLED which would come in at about the same time as QNED. So right now it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


QNED promises much higher brightness (‘MicroLED-like’) at WOLED-like cost…


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> QNED promises much higher brightness (‘MicroLED-like’) at WOLED-like cost…


Do we have an idea of how much higher that would be?


----------



## wco81

fafrd said:


> QNED promises much higher brightness (‘MicroLED-like’) at WOLED-like cost…


It's Samsung. Don't they price their LCDs at over $4000?

Even if they achieved low cost, pricing seems unlikely to be low.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> Do we have an idea of how much higher that would be?


I don’t, but Samsung Visual Display’s primary complaint about QD-OLED has been that it is ‘not bright enough’ and ‘cannot compete with MicroLED’ (as well as being too costly).

And we know that the Holy Grail is to deliver brightness levels approaching BT.2020s 10,000 cd/m2.

So my guess would have been at least somewhere close to 4000 cd/m2 to be worthwhile.

But I would think checking the specs of Samsung’s MicroLED TV offerings is probably a better guide - how bright do those get?

I’d guess QNED is aiming to deliver a brightness of at least the midpoint between the peak brightness of current QD-OLED / WOLED (1000 - 1500 Nits) and the peak brightness of current Samsung MicroLEDs…

My read is that, especially with LGD’s recent demo of a 2000 cd/m2 77” 8K WOLED, OLED TV (both WOLED and QD-OLED) has achieved 1000 Nits and is on a roadmap to get to 2000 Nits.

To be worth the effort, by the time OLED TV can deliver 2000 Nits, QNED needs to be able to deliver at least double that level or it was hardly worth the effort…

So yeah, my read is that (affordable) Premium TVs delivering ~2000 Nits by ~2025 and ~4000 Nits by ~2030 seems like a conceivably achievable roadmap…


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> It's Samsung. Don't they price their LCDs at over $4000?
> 
> Even if they achieved low cost, pricing seems unlikely to be low.


I’m referring to Samsung Display’s pricing of the QNED panels, not Samsung Electronic’s pricing of any finished TVs.

If QNED TV panels fundamentally cost more than OLED TV panels (WOLED and QD-OLED), they will enjoy a much more limited market and may never materialize…


----------



## Ted99

OLED_Overrated said:


> Samsung Display needs to commercialize QNED soon before China catches up with producing competitive OLED products.


I would pay a small premium, all other things being equal, to purchase a TV made somewhere else than China. Happy to have them providing competition in price but I really want to see the supply chain not held hostage to China.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> Do we have an idea of how much higher that would be?


I found the specs on Samsung’s The Wall: https://www.samsung.com/us/business...iw-series/the-wall-p1-2-lh012iwamws-xu/#specs

Peak brightness of 1600 nits and ‘Max’ brightness (presumably full-field) of 800 nits.

So contrary to what I expected, next-Gen OLED TV is likely to match and possibly even slightly surpass MicroLED in the area of peak brightness and it is primarily in the area of full-field brightness and especially (lack of) ABL limitations that MicroLED has a ~4x advantage over 2022 OLED TV (800 nits versus 200 nits).

So it’s likely that QNED needs to deliver a full-field brightness level of 800 nits or at least 400 nits to offer any noticeable upgrade over ~2025 OLED TV and I’m not sure that alone would be enough to make it worth the effort.

Unless QNED can also deliver a 2-3x improvement in peak brightness levels as well (to 3000 to 5000 nits), it hard to see enough ‘there there.’

We don’t yet understand enough about the AD-OLED stack to nail down a roadmap, but for WOLED it’s pretty clear now:

Ignoring improvements to color volume for now and just sticking with the ~46% fully-saturated color volume versus peak-whites’ that WOLED delivers today, addition of MLA (Microlenses) will get peak white levels up to ~1200 nits (and full-field brightness up to 220 nits) and then replacement of blue FOLED with blue PHOLED should deliver an additional ~70% increase to over 2000 nits (and full-field brightness up to 370 nits).

In my view, QNED is going to either have to match these levels at lower cost or deliver at least a +50% increase (to 3000 nits peak and 500 nits full-field) at equal cost to have much of any chance…


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Anyone have that Samsung phone (Galaxy Note 20 Ultra) with the micro lens array panel? Does it have less color shift? Seems like the lenses would only affect luminance shift.


That is a top-emission RGB OLED, correct? Are there any write-ups or articles on the microlens structure Samsung used?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

wco81 said:


> It's Samsung. Don't they price their LCDs at over $4000?
> 
> Even if they achieved low cost, pricing seems unlikely to be low.


$4000 is for their top end qled models which are expensive because of 8k and high number of dimming zones. Also, we don't really know if most of the lcd panels Samsung Electronics received for 2022 qleds still come from Samsung Display which is supposedly stopping lcd production.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

fafrd said:


> I found the specs on Samsung’s The Wall: LH012IWAMWS/XU | The Wall (P1.2) | Samsung Business
> 
> Peak brightness of 1600 nits and ‘Max’ brightness (presumably full-field) of 800 nits.
> 
> So contrary to what I expected, next-Gen OLED TV is likely to match and possibly even slightly surpass MicroLED in the area of peak brightness and it is primarily in the area of full-field brightness and especially (lack of) ABL limitations that MicroLED has a ~4x advantage over 2022 OLED TV (800 nits versus 200 nits).
> 
> So it’s likely that QNED needs to deliver a full-field brightness level of 800 nits or at least 400 nits to offer any noticeable upgrade over ~2025 OLED TV and I’m not sure that alone would be enough to make it worth the effort.
> 
> Unless QNED can also deliver a 2-3x improvement in peak brightness levels as well (to 3000 to 5000 nits), it hard to see enough ‘there there.’
> 
> We don’t yet understand enough about the AD-OLED stack to nail down a roadmap, but for WOLED it’s pretty clear now:
> 
> Ignoring improvements to color volume for now and just sticking with the ~46% fully-saturated color volume versus peak-whites’ that WOLED delivers today, addition of MLA (Microlenses) will get peak white levels up to ~1200 nits (and full-field brightness up to 220 nits) and then replacement of blue FOLED with blue PHOLED should deliver an additional ~70% increase to over 2000 nits (and full-field brightness up to 370 nits).
> 
> In my view, QNED is going to either have to match these levels at lower cost or deliver at least a +50% increase (to 3000 nits peak and 500 nits full-field) at equal cost to have much of any chance…


The Samsung micro led tvs at CES 2022 had 2000 nits peak brightness.

edit:



A video from HDTVTEST also showed that the microled was way brighter than samsung's flagship qled, which is one of the brightest tvs already, that he had to reduce the shutter until you could barely see him in front of the microled tv. Both microled and qled tvs have the same 2000 nits peak brightness, but the microled was perceivably brighter which means its full screen brightness was way higher and there was less ABL.


----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


> The Samsung micro led tvs at CES 2022 had 2000 nits peak brightness.


That’s more in line with what I would have expected.

Was their any special on ‘Max’ or Full-field brightness (800 nits on The Wall)?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

fafrd said:


> That’s more in line with what I would have expected.
> 
> Was their any special on ‘Max’ or Full-field brightness (800 nits on The Wall)?


I edited the comment before with the video from HDTVTEST and he mentioned that the flagship miniled tv seemed "dim and dull beyond belief" compared to the microled side by side which means the microled tv's full screen brightness was way higher despite having similar peak brightness of the qled.


----------



## winterbegins

Samsung is almost out of the LCD buisness. The panels used in the Neo QLEDs are from mostly from China suppliers like TCL CSOT (id say easily over 40%), BOE AUO and Innolux for some models.



OLED_Overrated said:


> I edited the comment before with the video from HDTVTEST and he mentioned that the flagship miniled tv seemed "dim and dull beyond belief" compared to the microled side by side which means the microled tv's full screen brightness was way higher despite having similar peak brightness of the qled.


Im pretty sure there is some sort of ABL in place, otherwise there is no reason why they wouldnt be able to hit 2000 nits full field easily. We are basically looking straight at LEDs after all.


----------



## fafrd

winterbegins said:


> *Samsung is almost out of the LCD buisness.* The panels used in the Neo QLEDs are from mostly from China suppliers like TCL CSOT (id say easily over 40%), BOE AUO and Innolux for some models.


Are you talking about Samsung Electronics (and the LCD TV business) or Samsung Display (and the LCD TV panel business)???

Samsung Display is now out of the LCD TV panel business, but the vast, vast majority of Samsung Electronics TV revenues and volume are from the LCD TV business (QLED/LCD, NeoQLED/LCD and vanilla LED/LCD) so Samsung Electronics will continue to be firmly in the LCD TV business for as far out as the eye can see…




> Im pretty sure there is *some sort of ABL in place*, otherwise *there is no reason why they wouldnt be able to hit 2000 nits full field easily*. We are basically looking straight at LEDs after all.


If your electro-optical efficiency is poor, delivering 2000 nits full-field requires more power than can be delivered.

This is exactly why ABL exists in the first place (to avoid burning out a TV).

You consider that ‘no reason’???


----------



## winterbegins

fafrd said:


> 1. Are you talking about Samsung Electronics (and the LCD TV business) or Samsung Display (and the LCD TV panel business)???
> 
> Samsung Display is now out of the LCD TV panel business, but the vast, vast majority of Samsung Electronics TV revenues and volume are from the LCD TV business (QLED/LCD, NeoQLED/LCD and vanilla LED/LCD) so Samsung Electronics will continue to be firmly in the LCD TV business for as far out as the eye can see…
> 
> 2. If your electro-optical efficiency is poor, delivering 2000 nits full-field requires more power than can be delivered.
> 
> This is exactly why ABL exists in the first place (to avoid burning out a TV).
> 
> You consider that ‘no reason’???


1. I should have been more specific, yes they still sell LCD (and will in the future) but the Display branch stopped procuding them and they buy everything from China. So other than slapping their SoCs and Os on those panels they are not involved with manufacturing.

2. 110" Micro LED (2021) MNA110MS1ACXXE | Samsung Deutschland

Even the consumer models (link above) consist of individual modules, and every module can deliver the same "goal" brightness (1600nits The Wall and 2000nits on the consumer models). It has to because a 10% window on the 110 inch model for example spans over a full module or more. That said i never heard of a TV with the same full field brightness as peak brightness. This would be completely useless for HDR. So they tune it to have lower full screen brightness and maybe add ABL to level the brightness of each module and to hold back power draw.

And as i said we are looking straight at small RGB LEDs. The only thing between is maybe a glass or film layer, efficieny compared to current tech like LCD and OLED is through the roof. Even with the bigger LEDs Samsung uses currently 2000 nits is literally nothing (some prototypes reached 4000nits +), they could do way more if actual power draw (electricity costs) wasnt a limiting factor.
Just think about how hard a MiniLED backlight is driven to penetrate through the LCD layer (Big problem on 8K TVs)

This is also a nice bridge to the other post from you where you showed / predicted some numbers regarding upcoming OLED / PHOLED, and QNED. 
It remains to be seen how good they are, but expecting 2000nit OLEDs by 2025 is wishful thinking if you ask me. And even QNED wont come out with such numbers.
Energy laws and how they will (and should) limit the power consumption of TVs will play a big role the next few years.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> That is a top-emission RGB OLED, correct? Are there any write-ups or articles on the microlens structure Samsung used?


Yes, all of Samsung's OLEDs are top emission for many years now. Here is the structure of the phone display according to UBI:










Displaymate performed a full evaluation for the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra display when it was released in 2020. 1037 nits full field. 1609 nits peak.


----------



## fafrd

winterbegins said:


> 1. I should have been more specific, yes they still sell LCD (and will in the future) but the Display branch stopped procuding them and they buy everything from China. *So other than slapping their SoCs and Os on those panels they are not involved with manufacturing.*


Ummm, that is not correct. 

Samsung is purchasing the LCD panels from 3rd-party manufacturers, but they are manufacturing the BLUs (including QDEF for QLED BLUs) and manufacturing the LCD modules from those LCD panels…



> 2. 110" Micro LED (2021) MNA110MS1ACXXE | Samsung Deutschland
> 
> Even the consumer models (link above) consist of individual modules, and every module can deliver the same "goal" brightness (1600nits The Wall and 2000nits on the consumer models). It has to because a 10% window on the 110 inch model for example spans over a full module or more. That said i never heard of a TV with the same full field brightness as peak brightness. This would be completely useless for HDR. So they tune it to have lower full screen brightness and maybe add ABL to level the brightness of each module and to hold back power draw.
> 
> And as i said we are looking straight at small RGB LEDs. The only thing between is maybe a glass or film layer, efficieny compared to current tech like LCD and OLED is through the roof. Even with the bigger LEDs Samsung uses currently 2000 nits is literally nothing (some prototypes reached 4000nits +), they could do way more if actual power draw (electricity costs) wasnt a limiting factor.
> Just think about how hard a MiniLED backlight is driven to penetrate through the LCD layer (Big problem on 8K TVs)
> 
> This is also a nice bridge to the other post from you where you showed / predicted some numbers regarding upcoming OLED / PHOLED, and QNED.
> It remains to be seen how good they are, but expecting 2000nit OLEDs by 2025 is wishful thinking if you ask me. And even QNED wont come out with such numbers.


I assume you’ve seen this recent news: LG Display demonstrates a prototype WOLED display with a microlens MLA array | OLED-Info

‘LGD is showing a 77" 8K panel that features what the company refers to as Meta-lit Lens Array, or MLA technology. The MLA layer increases light output by more than 20%, and *the panel achieves a brightness of 2,000 nits*. LGD says that the viewing angles is also increased using the MLA technology.



> Energy laws and how they will (and should) limit the power consumption of TVs will play a big role the next few years.


Yes, the energy is fixed (or even decreasing), so it is all about electro-optical efficiency. Current 2022 WOLEDs only emit ~17% of the photons they generate at a p*ss-poor efficiency of around 20% (so less than 4% of the energy consumed results in hiring that you see).

Research at University of Chicago has demonstrated an increase of efficiency of ~+200% not to mention the emergence of Blue PHOLED which offers an increase in efficiency of Blue in the range of +150% and an increase in the efficiency of White in the range of +70%.

So a roadmap towards a doubling of OLED TV electro-optical efficiency output is close at hand (by ~2025 or whenever Blue PHOLED is finally in production) and increases beyond that level towards a quadrupling of current electro-optical efficiency and output levels is not a mere pipe dream.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Yes, all of Samsung's OLEDs are top emission for many years now. Here is the structure of the phone display according to UBI:
> 
> View attachment 3280536
> 
> 
> Displaymate performed a full evaluation for the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra display when it was released in 2020. 1037 nits full field. 1609 nits peak.


Thanks, but ‘Micro lens applied on the top of the touch electrode’ doesn’t really say much of anything about the Microlens structure or how it was manufactured…

But in any case, the fact that Samsung Display has successfully increased external optical efficiency of a top-emission OLED through use of microlenses makes it seem likely the same technology could be applied to QD-OLED for a similar improvement to what LGD is touting for WOLED…


----------



## 59LIHP

JDI Develops eLEAP, World’s First Maskless Deposition + Lithographic OLED Historic Breakthrough in Display Performance
Improves Emission Efficiency 2X, Peak Brightness 2X, and Lifetime 3X



https://www.j-display.com/english/news/2022/pdf/20220513.pdf













Emission Efficiency (Aperture Ratio) Comparison










eLEAP Panel Size and Resolution


----------



## JasonHa

I hope JDI can eventually make something out of that tech, but I don't see how they can claim it is burn-in free.


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> I hope JDI can eventually make something out of that tech, but I don't see how they can claim it is burn-in free.


Yeah, as the saying goes, ‘talk is cheap’…


----------



## wco81

Do OLED displays degrade in brightness in 5 years as those pictures suggest?

Hell even in 3 years it's a noticeable decline.


----------



## yogi6807

wco81 said:


> Do OLED displays degrade in brightness in 5 years as those pictures suggest?
> 
> Hell even in 3 years it's a noticeable decline.


No not that bad.


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Do OLED displays degrade in brightness in 5 years as those pictures suggest?
> 
> Hell even in 3 years it's a noticeable decline.


Who knows what ‘conventional OLED’ they are using as a reference, but visibly noticeably brightness loss after only 3000 hours is wbehind what WOLED TVs deliver today.

LGD claims a lifetime of ‘>10,000 hours’ and I’ve seen no evidence to contradict that.

Lifetime measurements are absolutely meaningless without also specifying output levels.

If JDI is claiming they can deliver 600 nits full-field with no visible brightness loss for 3000 hours, that would probably exceed what modern WOLED TV can deliver (>10,000 hours, but limited to ~200 nits full-field).

But I’d be highly skeptical until they present lifetime data in the conventional manner rather than these marketing-driven pictographs with footnotes…


----------



## bargugl

wco81 said:


> Do OLED displays degrade in brightness in 5 years as those pictures suggest?
> 
> Hell even in 3 years it's a noticeable decline.


They are looking specifically at RGB OLED as used for devices like cell phones typically. They are not comparing to WOLED and QD-OLED panels used for TVs (which handle the emissive layer in a substantially different way). Also, its promotional material so their simulated image is going to exaggerate the loss. It seems to me that most of their stated advantages have more to do with just increased PAR than anything else so what this is just a deposition tech to allow substantially better PAR with RGB OLED. By essentially more than doubling PAR vs their comparison model, they can of course have twice the peak brightness and if they regulate brightness to the same as the comparison model, it will of course have much higher lifespan because it won't be driven as hard.


----------



## fafrd

*Roadmap to OLED TV delivering ~2000 Nits @ 10% / >300 Nits Full-field by 2025*

With LGD’s announcement of +20% efficiency increase from Microlens (MLA) and UDC’s announcement of Blue PHOLED sampling by the end of this year and being ready for volume commercial delivery before the end of 2024, we now have a clear roadmap towards OLED TV delivering 2000 Nit peak brightness levels for highlights of 10% or less and full-field brightness levels exceeding 300 Nits.

Taking Rtings measurements of the C2 and G2 as a starting point (understand others such as HDTVEST may be more accurate, but Rtings is good enough as a reference), we have:LG G2 OLED vs LG C2 OLED Side-by-Side TV Comparison

10%: 933 Nits G2; 785 Nits C2
100%: 171 Nits G2; 160 Nits C2
Real-scene: 1165 Nits G2; 842 Nits C2

By next year (hopefully), we could see both C3 and G3 with MLA, where a +20% increase in external optical efficiency across the board should result in brightness levels of:

10%: 1120 Nits G3; 942 Nits C3
100%: 205 Nits G3; 192 Nits C3
Real-scene: 1400 Nits G3; 1010 Nits C3

Blue PHOLED should deliver an efficiency of ~22% versus today’s deuterium-based Blue FOLED emitter delivering efficiency of 7.0% to 8.4% efficiency (depending on whether the Blue PHOLED can be driven as hard as slower-aging deuterium-based blue FOLED or only as hard as faster-aging hydrogen-based blue FOLED).

So let’s assume that the arrival of Blue PHOLED means LGD will only need to use a maximum of 0.76 of one full PHOLED emitter layer to deliver the same output they currently get from 2 full blue FOLED layers (or a minimum of at least 0.64 of one full PHOLED layer).

That means matching today’s overall 3S4C (WBE) output levels will consume only 1.76 or 59% of the available 3S stack, leaving an additional 1.24 layers that can be used to increase total brightness by +70% without adding manufacturing steps or significant cost (and in the case only 1.64 layers are consumed to match current output levels, increased brightness could be as much as +83%).

Taking the more conservative +70% would give:

10%1900 Nits G5; 1600 Nits C5
100% 350 Nits G5; 325 Nits C5
Real-scene: 2380 Nits G5; 1700 Nits C5

While the best-case +83% would deliver:

10%: 2040 Nits G5; 1725 Nits C5
100%: 375 Nits G5; 350 Nits C5
Real-scene: 2500 Nits G5; 1850 Nits C5

I don’t yet understand enough about the OLED stack structure being used by QD-OLED to perform similar estimates, but it is likely to be at least as great and will probably further allow for a reduction from 4 OLED emission layers to 3 (so closer to cost parity versus WOLED).

Between LGD’s adoption of Microlens technology next year and UDC’s claim that Blue PHOLED will be in production before the end of 2024, the only way I see this not happening is if UDC fails to deliver as promised (and I can’t help but wonder whether LGD’s recent demo of a 77” 8K WOLED panel with MLA which they claim delivers 2000 Nits might possibly have been based on early sampling of UDC’s Blue PHOLED).


----------



## 59LIHP




----------



## Wizziwig

Doesn't say how long it can hold that 2000 nits at 3% APL. Could be like the QD-OLED 1500 nit at 3% claims where you'll miss it if you blink. 
Hopefully this adds some actually noticeable performance improvement (vs 4K models) to their massively overpriced 8K models.


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Who knows what ‘conventional OLED’ they are using as a reference, but visibly noticeably brightness loss after only 3000 hours is wbehind what WOLED TVs deliver today.
> 
> LGD claims a lifetime of ‘>10,000 hours’ and I’ve seen no evidence to contradict that.
> 
> Lifetime measurements are absolutely meaningless without also specifying output levels.
> 
> If JDI is claiming they can deliver 600 nits full-field with no visible brightness loss for 3000 hours, that would probably exceed what modern WOLED TV can deliver (>10,000 hours, but limited to ~200 nits full-field).
> 
> But I’d be highly skeptical until they present lifetime data in the conventional manner rather than these marketing-driven pictographs with footnotes…


A lot of talk in those JDI slides with zero actual substance of what they are doing. Makes it difficult to say if this is just marketing hyperbole or an actual breakthrough.

They are comparing to outdated 600 nit models instead of Samsung's current sate-of-the-art 1000 nit full-field models with 35% PAR. They are chasing a moving target so by the time it's commercialized, Samsung could already have surpassed these claims.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> A lot of talk in those JDI slides with zero actual substance of what they are doing. Makes it difficult to say if this is just marketing hyperbole or an actual breakthrough.
> 
> They are comparing to outdated 600 nit models instead of Samsung's current sate-of-the-art 1000 nit full-field models with 35% PAR. They are chasing a moving target so by the time it's commercialized, Samsung could already have surpassed these claims.


Precisely.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Doesn't say how long it can hold that 2000 nits at 3% APL. Could be like the QD-OLED 1500 nit at 3% claims where you'll miss it if you blink.
> Hopefully this adds some actually noticeable performance improvement (vs 4K models) to their massively overpriced 8K models.


If it’s fake news, the easy thing to do is just crank brightness for the demo and not worry about the reduced lifetime (certain yo last trough the show in any case).

if it’s not fake news, I don’t see any way LGD can actually achieve this without a high-efficiency blue emitter.

UDC has claimed ‘customer sampling’ of blue PHOLED by year end, but apparently said the following in a recent Q&A:

“There is additional levels of enhanced interest in blue PHOLED... *We have R&D programs with multiple customers*.”

Samsung Display and LGD are no doubt among those ‘multiple customers’ so it makes me wonder whether that 2000 Nit 8K panel may not be the result of one of those ‘customer R&D programs’…


----------



## Wizziwig

I would have liked to see someone list the full-field brightness of the 2000 nit prototype. It's the only number that really shows what efficiency improvements have been made vs prior models.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I would have liked to see someone list the full-field brightness of the 2000 nit prototype. It's the only number that really shows what efficiency improvements have been made vs prior models.


True.


----------



## JJ1156

fafrd said:


> If it’s fake news, the easy thing to do is just crank brightness for the demo and not worry about the reduced lifetime (certain yo last trough the show in any case).
> 
> if it’s not fake news, I don’t see any way LGD can actually achieve this without a high-efficiency blue emitter.
> 
> UDC has claimed ‘customer sampling’ of blue PHOLED by year end, but apparently said the following in a recent Q&A:
> 
> “There is additional levels of enhanced interest in blue PHOLED... *We have R&D programs with multiple customers*.”
> 
> Samsung Display and LGD are no doubt among those ‘multiple customers’ so it makes me wonder whether that 2000 Nit 8K panel may not be the result of one of those ‘customer R&D programs’…


----------



## JJ1156

Not sure where you got that quote from UDC but the May 5th conference call earnings release, UDC reaffirmed that the specs for a new blue would be met, at the end of this year.

“As we look out, we believe that consumer electronic OEMs, panel makers and the ecosystem are setting the stage for a significant new wave of OLED capital investments and OLED market proliferation. Amid this growing OLED market momentum, we continue to make excellent progress in our ongoing development work for a commercial phosphorescent blue emissive system. We reaffirm our belief that we are on track to meet preliminary target specs with our phosphorescent blue by year-end, which should enable the introduction of our all-phosphorescent RGB stack into the commercial market in 2024.” 









Universal Display Corporation Announces First Quarter 2022 | OLED Stock News


Universal Display Corporation, enabling energy-efficient displays and lighting with its UniversalPHOLED ® technology and




www.stocktitan.net






During their scripted remarks, they again mentioned Samsung's QD/OLED TVS. 

This during the Q/A conference call on the 5th:

*Christopher Muse*

Okay. Very good. I guess a longer-term question, as you prepare for the launch of blue and commercialization in 2024, how should we think about the implications to your financial model in '23 perhaps or into '24. What should we be thinking about whether it's from an investment perspective or an OpEx perspective?

*Steven Abramson*

Well, right now, C.J., we're really focusing on the technical progress to get to the commercial -- hit the targets at the end of this year and get the commercial blue in 2024. The -- we believe it's going to be a significant new revenue opportunity. You may see some stuff in 2023, but we think it's really going to be a 2024 event, and we think it's going to be significant.

*Sidney Ho*

I want to follow up on the blue emitter side. Now that you announced the timing of blue, for the last few months, do you have any additional color that you can provide in terms of customer development, timing of ramp? Do you get a sense from customers how they plan to adopt blue in the product lineup? And do they tend to ramp up all the SKUs at the same time or just pacing it out or any kind of comparisons with the red and green emitters in the past would be helpful.

*Steven Abramson*

Sidney, those are all really good questions, and there is very strong interest in the industry for our blue phosphorescence. The questions you asked, unfortunately, are really questions for our customers and our conversations with them are confidential. So we really can't answer those questions specifically. The -- we believe that the significant value of all-phosphorescent stock is going to unlock a vast array of opportunities across a broad range of OLED applications from small to medium to large consumer products.


----------



## Dropin

JJ1156 said:


> Not sure where you got that quote from UDC but the May 5th conference call earnings release, UDC reaffirmed that the specs for a new blue would be met, at the end of this year.
> 
> “As we look out, we believe that consumer electronic OEMs, panel makers and the ecosystem are setting the stage for a significant new wave of OLED capital investments and OLED market proliferation. Amid this growing OLED market momentum, we continue to make excellent progress in our ongoing development work for a commercial phosphorescent blue emissive system. We reaffirm our belief that we are on track to meet preliminary target specs with our phosphorescent blue by year-end, which should enable the introduction of our all-phosphorescent RGB stack into the commercial market in 2024.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Universal Display Corporation Announces First Quarter 2022 | OLED Stock News
> 
> 
> Universal Display Corporation, enabling energy-efficient displays and lighting with its UniversalPHOLED ® technology and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.stocktitan.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During their scripted remarks, they again mentioned Samsung's QD/OLED TVS.
> 
> This during the Q/A conference call on the 5th:
> 
> *Christopher Muse*
> 
> Okay. Very good. I guess a longer-term question, as you prepare for the launch of blue and commercialization in 2024, how should we think about the implications to your financial model in '23 perhaps or into '24. What should we be thinking about whether it's from an investment perspective or an OpEx perspective?
> 
> *Steven Abramson*
> 
> Well, right now, C.J., we're really focusing on the technical progress to get to the commercial -- hit the targets at the end of this year and get the commercial blue in 2024. The -- we believe it's going to be a significant new revenue opportunity. You may see some stuff in 2023, but we think it's really going to be a 2024 event, and we think it's going to be significant.
> 
> *Sidney Ho*
> 
> I want to follow up on the blue emitter side. Now that you announced the timing of blue, for the last few months, do you have any additional color that you can provide in terms of customer development, timing of ramp? Do you get a sense from customers how they plan to adopt blue in the product lineup? And do they tend to ramp up all the SKUs at the same time or just pacing it out or any kind of comparisons with the red and green emitters in the past would be helpful.
> 
> *Steven Abramson*
> 
> Sidney, those are all really good questions, and there is very strong interest in the industry for our blue phosphorescence. The questions you asked, unfortunately, are really questions for our customers and our conversations with them are confidential. So we really can't answer those questions specifically. The -- we believe that the significant value of all-phosphorescent stock is going to unlock a vast array of opportunities across a broad range of OLED applications from small to medium to large consumer products.











Lordin files patent for high-efficiency blue OLED tech


OLED material startup Lordin said on Tuesday that it has filed a patent related to blue OLED technology with high light emission efficiency.Company CEO Oh Hyoung-yun said the technology offers high-efficiency and a longer life span for the blue OLED materials used in OLED panels.Lordin was aiming to




www.thelec.net





In addition to udc, LG has also developed other blue devices and achieved 1200 nits with only microlenses without a heat sink. If you add a heatsink, I'd expect it to get close to 1500 nits. There's a good chance you can achieve 2000 nits without udc.


----------



## fafrd

JJ1156 said:


> *Not sure where you got that quote from UDC* but the May 5th conference call earnings release, UDC reaffirmed that the specs for a new blue would be met, at the end of this year.


No link was given to the source, but I believe they were discussing UDC’s participation at SID last week: OLED Universal Display Corp Message Board - Msg: 33832361

The existence of blue PHOLED is not in question and neither is it’s ability to replace blue FOLED as far as wavelength / blue specs.

It all boils down to lifetime and while data from material characterization is great, it’s less meaningful than actually stressing the blue (and also white in the case of WOLED) subpixels if an actual display on actual content.

And if you were confident enough in the eventual arrival of Blue PHOLED to invest in an advanced TV design for the purposes of stress test and characterization, what better platform for such a test than the OLED TV you produce with the absolute smallest pixel size.

So I’m guessing that the 77” 8K WOLED TV LGD demonstrated last week was using early blue PHOLED emitter materials supplied by UDC…

Even if UDC’s current Blue PHOLED emitter comes up short versus LGD’s (and the market’s) expectations, as new improvements materialize, the existence of that 77” 8K TV provides LGD with a platform allowing very fast testing and characterization of UDCs new emitters on actual content being displayed by an actual product.

It’s likely/possible that we won’t see any actual product based on this design / demo before 2025 but if I’m correct, it’s a smart investment by LGD which should put them on the absolute leading edge of blue PHOLED industrialization…


----------



## fafrd

Dropin said:


> Lordin files patent for high-efficiency blue OLED tech
> 
> 
> OLED material startup Lordin said on Tuesday that it has filed a patent related to blue OLED technology with high light emission efficiency.Company CEO Oh Hyoung-yun said the technology offers high-efficiency and a longer life span for the blue OLED materials used in OLED panels.Lordin was aiming to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to udc, LG has also developed other blue devices and achieved 1200 nits with only microlenses without a heat sink. If you add a heatsink, I'd expect it to get close to 1500 nits. *There's a good chance you can achieve 2000 nits without udc.*


You must not have read my detailed post on the subject: OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread

No was to get close to 2000 Nits without a high-efficiency blue emitter (blue-FOLED-based 65G3 with MLA & hearsink unlikely to deliver much over 1400 nuts).

Of course, if your point is that UDC is not the only high-efficiency Blue OLED emitter horse in the race and that even if UDC fails to deliver blue PHOLED as promised, LGD has alternative paths ti delivering 2000 nits, that’s another story.

But Cynora and Kyulux have gone very quiet and it seems exceedingly unlikely that there may be any other suppliers of high-efficiency blue OLED emitters close to delivering preproduction materials of high-efficiency blue OLED emitters before the end of this year on a path to being commercialized and ramped into production before the end of 2024…

Also, as Wizziwig pointed out, peak brightness specs/measurements are a far less useful indication of technology advancements than full-field measurements (where hearsink add next to nothing).

LGD is at 160-170 Nits full-fuels this year and the addition of MLA in 2023 should get the G3 and C3 up to 190-200 Nits full-field next year.

But the only way LGD WOLED is going to be able to effectively do away with APL by being able to deliver over 300 Nits of full-field brightness is through adoption if a high-efficiency blue OLED emitter…


----------



## 59LIHP

59LIHP said:


>





> _LGD raised the bar on OLED TV brightness by showcasing a 77” 8K 120Hz 99% DCI-P3 OLED TV panel with 2000 nits of brightness at a 3% average picture level, 650 nits at a 25% APL and 250 nits at a 100% APL. LGD did indicate that this panel used a convex lens array layer which boosts brightness around 20% which LGD calls Meta-lit Lens Array (MLA) technology. SDC pioneered Micro Light Control Pattern (MLP) technology on the S21 Ultra and repeated it on the S22 Ultra and LGD’s solution may be similar. The SDC MLP process involves an additional mask for low temperature low refractive materials followed by an IJP deposition of low temperature highly refractive materials which collects light like a convex lens. We are not sure about the remainder of the performance improvement, but perhaps this panel included phosphorescent blue? We will try to find out. It was also rumored that we may see commercial MLA panels from LGD in 2023 as they look to maintain an edge against Samsung’s QD OLED technology._








SID Exhibit Highlights - LGD, SDC, BOE and China Star - Display Supply Chain Consultants







www.displaysupplychain.com


----------



## JasonHa

> _perhaps this panel included phosphorescent blue?_ _We will try to find out._


@fafrd wondered the same thing


----------



## 59LIHP

JasonHa said:


> @fafrd wondered the same thing


Do not tell him, otherwise he'll get a big head.


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> @fafrd wondered the same thing


Great minds think alike .

There were some other important specs shared:

_2000 nits of brightness @ 3% APL
650 nits of brightness @ 25% APL
250 nits of brightness @ 100% APL (full-field)_

In terms of what Rtings has measured from the C2, that corresponds to increases of:

+155% @ 3% APL (vs 785 nits @ 10% for C2)
+62% @ 25% APL (vs 402 nits @ 25% for C2)
+56% @ 100% (vs 160 nits @ 100% for C2)

The MLA microlens may provide a +20% bump to ~190 nits @ 100% but the +30% increase in full-field brightness level beyond that is hard to explain without a significant increase in WOLED emitter efficiency (the most likely of which would be adoption of Blue PHOLED).

The fact that the brightness increase @ 25% APL and @ 100% APL are so similar and far smaller than the brightness increase @ 3% APL where LGE’s brightness limiter clips @ 10% level suggests that the limits of the brightness limiter were probably relaxed for this demo (for bragging rights and marketing purposes).

But the +50% increase in brightness ans efficiency seems real (and since only +20% of that increase can be explained by the adoption of MLA, there is almost certainly some other technology advance involved, use of a blue PHOLED emitter being the most likely).


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> Do not tell him, otherwise he'll get a big head.


I don’t know if my head is getting any bigger, but this sure is making me think about delaying my TV upgrade for (yet) another year to see what 2023 will bring…

Whether Samsung deserves all the credit for accelerating LGD’s pace of innovation or not, the next couple years sure look like thry are shaping up to be a very exciting time for improvements in TV technology…

However it is you manage to get access to what DSCC publishes behind their paywall, please keep us updated with any news on this front .


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Great minds think alike .
> 
> There were some other important specs shared:
> 
> _2000 nits of brightness @ 3% APL
> 650 nits of brightness @ 25% APL
> 250 nits of brightness @ 100% APL (full-field)_
> 
> In terms of what Rtings has measured from the C2, that corresponds to increases of:
> 
> +155% @ 3% APL (vs 785 nits @ 10% for C2)
> +62% @ 25% APL (vs 402 nits @ 25% for C2)
> +56% @ 100% (vs 160 nits @ 100% for C2)
> 
> The MLA microlens may provide a +20% bump to ~190 nits @ 100% but the +30% increase in full-field brightness level beyond that is hard to explain without a significant increase in WOLED emitter efficiency (the most likely of which would be adoption of Blue PHOLED).
> 
> The fact that the brightness increase @ 25% APL and @ 100% APL are so similar and far smaller than the brightness increase @ 3% APL where LGE’s brightness limiter clips @ 10% level suggests that the limits of the brightness limiter were probably relaxed for this demo (for bragging rights and marketing purposes).
> 
> But the +50% increase in brightness ans efficiency seems real (and since only +20% of that increase can be explained by the adoption of MLA, there is almost certainly some other technology advance involved, use of a blue PHOLED emitter being the most likely).


I doubt LG Display cares what rtings measures. LG's figures and percentage improvement claims are likely based on their own internal measurements of the raw panels before they reach TV manufacturers.

The most recent panel specs I've seen LG publish for their current panels were from their broadcast monitor.

Brightness(Typ.) : 1,000 / 950 / 450 / 200 nit @D65 (APL 3% / 10% / 25% / 100%).

Prior to that, at last 2021 CES and 2021 SID Display Week, they also posted specs for their 77" panels as:
185 nits full field and 550 at 25%.

As you can see, much closer to the 20-35% expected improvement from MLA. If they were using anything else, they would be crowing about it like they were for the addition of deuterium.

The higher figures at lower APL could just the usual ABL algorithm manipulation in response to QD-OLED. Their peak marketing figures may not be sustainable for more than a few seconds just like the 1500 nits on the S95B. Notice how they didn't include the more common 10% APL figure used by the industry for sustained HDR performance benchmarks.


----------



## Wizziwig

59LIHP said:


> SID Exhibit Highlights - LGD, SDC, BOE and China Star - Display Supply Chain Consultants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaysupplychain.com


From the same article. Guess BOE is getting ready for the impending WRGB OLED patent expiration.


----------



## 59LIHP

Idemitsu Kosan developed the world's most efficient fluorescent blue OLED emitter system





Idemitsu Kosan developed the world's most efficient fluorescent blue OLED emitter system | OLED Info


Idemitsu Kosan announced that it has developed the world's most efficient blue fluorescence OLED emitter system. Idemitsu's new system achieves an EQE of 14% (at current density of 10 mA/cm2), a lifetime of over 400 hours (LT95 @ 50 mA/cm2) and a color point of (0.14,0.08).The new material...




www.oled-info.com






Idemitsu achieves world’s highest performance in blue organic light emitting diode with new light emission system -Research receives “Distinguished Paper Award” at Display Week 2022








Idemitsu achieves world’s highest performance in blue organic light emitting diode with new light emission system -Research receives “Distinguished Paper Award” at Display Week 2022- | News releases | Idemitsu Kosan Global


Idemitsu Group is a Japan originated energy company that enriches your life.




www.idemitsu.com


----------



## dkfan9

Wizziwig said:


> I doubt LG Display cares what rtings measures. LG's figures and percentage improvement claims are likely based on their own internal measurements of the raw panels before they reach TV manufacturers.
> 
> The most recent panel specs I've seen LG publish for their current panels were from their broadcast monitor.
> 
> Brightness(Typ.) : 1,000 / 950 / 450 / 200 nit @D65 (APL 3% / 10% / 25% / 100%).
> 
> Prior to that, at last 2021 CES and 2021 SID Display Week, they also posted specs for their 77" panels as:
> 185 nits full field and 550 at 25%.
> 
> As you can see, much closer to the 20-35% expected improvement from MLA. If they were using anything else, they would be crowing about it like they were for the addition of deuterium.
> 
> The higher figures at lower APL could just the usual ABL algorithm manipulation in response to QD-OLED. Their peak marketing figures may not be sustainable for more than a few seconds just like the 1500 nits on the S95B. Notice how they didn't include the more common 10% APL figure used by the industry for sustained HDR performance benchmarks.


G2 review on rtings matches those broadcast monitor numbers fairly well, exceeding in some places. G2 is better baseline than C2 for speculative guesstimates.


----------



## demiller66

This looks promising - Japan Display announces a breakthrough lithographic-based OLED production method | OLED-Info


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> I doubt LG Display cares what rtings measures. LG's figures and percentage improvement claims are likely based on their own internal measurements of the raw panels before they reach TV manufacturers.


For sure.



> The most recent panel specs I've seen LG publish for their current panels were from their broadcast monitor.
> 
> Brightness(Typ.) : 1,000 / 950 / 450 / 200 nit @D65 (APL 3% / 10% / 25% / 100%).


Interesting, but without a lifetime spec as well, not that useful for an apples-to-apples comparison. You can always get higher brightness out of an OLED if you are willing to sacrifice some lifetime and I doubt their broadcast monitor is designed to deliver the same lifetime as their consumer panels…



> Prior to that, at last 2021 CES and 2021 SID Display Week, they also posted specs for their 77" panels as:
> 185 nits full field and 550 at 25%.


That is a more relevant reference - sounds as though that reference was probably for the new WBE/3S4C/Deuterium-based ‘Evo/EX’ panel but do we know whether it also had an integrated hea or not?



> As you can see, much closer to the *20-35% expected improvement from MLA*.


Where have you seen anything about LGD’s MLA delivering an improvement of as much as 35%???

Everythng I have seen has consistently referred to a 20% improvement



> If they were using anything else, *they would be crowing about it like they were for the addition of deuterium.*


A couple reasons why they may not:

1/ If it is preproduction material from UDC, they may be under NDA.

2/ Even for MLA, everything is very tentative (‘LG Display *was considering applying* microlens on its OLED panels aimed at TVs, TheElec has learned.’ LG Display considering applying micro lens to TV OLED panel) and my read is that with all the recent noise about QD-OLED, LGD felt extra pressure to let the world know they have some great new capability in the pipeline without yet having decided exactly what panels they will be offering next year.

3/ Even according to UDC, Blue PHOLED is still a work on progress with a target to have final commercial samples available by year end. So any advance R&D LGD may be doing with UDC now is likely based on materials whose specifications may change before they are released to production. With so many moving parts and unknowns, you can hardly blame LGD for not planting a flag in the ground as to what WOLED panel specs they will be delivering for 2023…



> The higher figures at lower APL could just the usual ABL algorithm manipulation in response to QD-OLED.


Absolutely agree. The 100% figures are the most meaningful, followed by the 25% figures.



> Their peak marketing figures may not be sustainable for more than a few seconds just like the 1500 nits on the S95B.


Yes, I also agree that we don’t know whether the figures being quoted are burst or sustained (though presumably they are based on the same approach used to announce the LGD 77” specs you’ve referred to above.



> Notice how they didn't include the more common 10% APL figure used by the industry for sustained HDR performance benchmarks.


Yes, I noticed that as well - there is clearly some ‘bending’ of LGD’s usual test methodology done so they could announce 2000 Nits. I think that’s the much less important number to focus on that the full-field number (as you pointed out a few posts ago).

So if we take the 77” panel delivering 185 nits @ 100% as the reference point, 250 nits represents an increase of 35%.

If you’ve got any references to MLA alone being able to deliver an increase in efficiency of that magnitude, please share, but based on what I’ve seen where LGD is only claiming a +20% increase inefficiency from MLA, delivering 250 nits @ 100% requires a further increase of 12.5%.

And if we look at the 25% measurements, increasing from 550 nits to 650 nits is an increase of less than 20%, so within the range of what LGD has claimed the can achieve with MLA alone.

So assuming we’re now using the correct LGD-based apples-to-apples 77” 100% and 25% measurements, I’m starting to come around to your way of thinking.

The 2000 Nit demo LGD showed last week may well have been based on a panel with WBC + MLA alone.

This would mean that LGD had to push things a bit at 100% to deliver 250 nits, but between how conservative they have become since the Burn-in Scare and the fact that Samsung Display’s QD-OLED has raised the bar, they probably had little choice…


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> G2 review on rtings matches those broadcast monitor numbers fairly well, exceeding in some places. G2 is better baseline than C2 for speculative guesstimates.


I agree with Wizziwig that if we have access to LGD’s actual panel specs, those are the best baseline specs to use (I didn’t know we had those specs when resorting to Rtings measurements just to have some ballpark numbers to analyze).


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> For sure.
> 
> 
> Interesting, but without a lifetime spec as well, not that useful for an apples-to-apples comparison. You can always get higher brightness out of an OLED if you are willing to sacrifice some lifetime and I doubt their broadcast monitor is designed to deliver the same lifetime as their consumer panels…
> 
> 
> That is a more relevant reference - sounds as though that reference was probably for the new WBE/3S4C/Deuterium-based ‘Evo/EX’ panel but do we know whether it also had an integrated hea or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you seen anything about LGD’s MLA delivering an improvement of as much as 35%???
> 
> Everythng I have seen has consistently referred to a 20% improvement
> 
> 
> 
> A couple reasons why they may not:
> 
> 1/ If it is preproduction material from UDC, they may be under NDA.
> 
> 2/ Even for MLA, everything is very tentative (‘LG Display *was considering applying* microlens on its OLED panels aimed at TVs, TheElec has learned.’ LG Display considering applying micro lens to TV OLED panel) and my read is that with all the recent noise about QD-OLED, LGD felt extra pressure to let the world know they have some great new capability in the pipeline without yet having decided exactly what panels they will be offering next year.
> 
> 3/ Even according to UDC, Blue PHOLED is still a work on progress with a target to have final commercial samples available by year end. So any advance R&D LGD may be doing with UDC now is likely based on materials whose specifications may change before they are released to production. With so many moving parts and unknowns, you can hardly blame LGD for not planting a flag in the ground as to what WOLED panel specs they will be delivering for 2023…
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely agree. The 100% figures are the most meaningful, followed by the 25% figures.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I also agree that we don’t know whether the figures being quoted are burst or sustained (though presumably they are based on the same approach used to announce the LGD 77” specs you’ve referred to above.
> 
> 
> Yes, I noticed that as well - there is clearly some ‘bending’ of LGD’s usual test methodology done so they could announce 2000 Nits. I think that’s the much less important number to focus on that the full-field number (as you pointed out a few posts ago).
> 
> So if we take the 77” panel delivering 185 nits @ 100% as the reference point, 250 nits represents an increase of 35%.
> 
> If you’ve got any references to MLA alone being able to deliver an increase in efficiency of that magnitude, please share, but based on what I’ve seen where LGD is only claiming a +20% increase inefficiency from MLA, delivering 250 nits @ 100% requires a further increase of 12.5%.
> 
> And if we look at the 25% measurements, increasing from 550 nits to 650 nits is an increase of less than 20%, so within the range of what LGD has claimed the can achieve with MLA alone.
> 
> So assuming we’re now using the correct LGD-based apples-to-apples 77” 100% and 25% measurements, I’m starting to come around to your way of thinking.
> 
> The 2000 Nit demo LGD showed last week may well have been based on a panel with WBC + MLA alone.
> 
> This would mean that LGD had to push things a bit at 100% to deliver 250 nits, but between how conservative they have become since the Burn-in Scare and the fact that Samsung Display’s QD-OLED has raised the bar, they probably had little choice…


The 185 nit panel specs from last year were almost certainly from the regular "evo" panel introduced in 2021. If we had access to their specs for the equivalent "Ex" panel with improved PAR, it would likely be at least 200 nits. A 200->250 nits improvement from MLA doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility. No PHOLED is necessary.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> The 185 nit panel specs from last year were almost certainly from the regular "evo" panel introduced in 2021.





> *If we had access to their specs for the equivalent "Ex" panel with improved PAR*, it would likely be at least 200 nits.


Do we know for a fact that the subpixels of the 77” panel were redesigned for this year and have higher PAR?

55” and 65” subpuxel designs supported both WBC and WBE panels last year and we’ve seen confirmation that they have been redesigned for 2022 (and presumably optimized for WBE-only performance).

77” panels (as well as 83” panels) were exclusively manufactured with WBE stack last year, so 2021 subpixels may already have been optimized for WBE (especially the 83” panel, which was never produced with WBC stack).

If you’ve got exudence of increased PAR on 2022 77” panels versus 77” 2021 panels, I’m all ears/eyes, but without definitive proof, my operating assumption is that 77” and 88” panels and PAR have not changed since last year…



> A 200->250 nits improvement from MLA doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility. No PHOLED is necessary.


As I stated earlier, you’ve convince me that blue PHOLED may not have been needed for this demo / announcement.

The counterargument, of course, is that comparing an 8K 77” panel to a 4K 77” panel is far from Apples-to-Apples.

An 8K 77” pixel will have far lower PAR than a 4K 77” pixel.

Using 75% vertical and a total of 80% horizontal for the 77” 4K pixel translates to a PAR of 60%.

Using similar inter-subpixel spacing for 77” 8K subpixels (or 33.5” 4K subpixels) translates to 50% vertical and a total of 60% horizontal for a PAR of 30%.

These numbers were rough estimates for the purpose of an example only, but the fact is that the PAR of an 8K 77” pixel will be far less than the PAR of a 4K 77” pixel (and easily as little as half).

So once that get’s properly factored in, I’m back to thinking LGD could not have delivered an 8K 77” panel delivering stated specs without something such as blue PHOLED in addition to MLA…


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Do we know for a fact that the subpixels of the 77” panel were redesigned for this year and have higher PAR?
> 
> 55” and 65” subpuxel designs supported both WBC and WBE panels last year and we’ve seen confirmation that they have been redesigned for 2022 (and presumably optimized for WBE-only performance).
> 
> 77” panels (as well as 83” panels) were exclusively manufactured with WBE stack last year, so 2021 subpixels may already have been optimized for WBE (especially the 83” panel, which was never produced with WBC stack).
> 
> If you’ve got exudence of increased PAR on 2022 77” panels versus 77” 2021 panels, I’m all ears/eyes, but without definitive proof, my operating assumption is that 77” and 88” panels and PAR have not changed since last year…
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated earlier, you’ve convince me that blue PHOLED may not have been needed for this demo / announcement.
> 
> The counterargument, of course, is that comparing an 8K 77” panel to a 4K 77” panel is far from Apples-to-Apples.
> 
> An 8K 77” pixel will have far lower PAR than a 4K 77” pixel.
> 
> Using 75% vertical and a total of 80% horizontal for the 77” 4K pixel translates to a PAR of 60%.
> 
> Using similar inter-subpixel spacing for 77” 8K subpixels (or 33.5” 4K subpixels) translates to 50% vertical and a total of 60% horizontal for a PAR of 30%.
> 
> These numbers were rough estimates for the purpose of an example only, but the fact is that the PAR of an 8K 77” pixel will be far less than the PAR of a 4K 77” pixel (and easily as little as half).
> 
> So once that get’s properly factored in, I’m back to thinking LGD could not have delivered an 8K 77” panel delivering stated specs without something such as blue PHOLED in addition to MLA…


They were already matching the 4K panel brightness on their 8K panels due to various earlier optimizations that were covered a long time ago in this thread (see here and here).

Adding the "evo" optimizations (deuterium, etc.) and the "ex" optimizations (more PAR due to supposed sense line changes) would have gotten them to ~200 nits as a starting point before MLA.

The only 77" G2 numbers I recall were pretty disappointing. Photo posted in another thread. Maybe still using the non-ex panels? I don't really follow the LG owner threads so someone else would need to confirm what generation panels are used on which models.


----------



## wco81

So is this just a tech demo or has LG shown prototypes which are close to being manufactured for next year?


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> They were already matching the 4K panel brightness on their 8K panels due to various earlier optimizations that were covered a long time ago in this thread (see here and here).


I’m not questioning that LGD developed technology advancements to achieve their goal of delivering a 77” 8K WOLED panels delivering brightness levels close to what they deliver with their 4K WOLED panels, but it is inescapable that that means once they have te time needed to turn around and integrate those same advancements into a new generation of 4K panels, the result will be increased brightness (meaning 4K WOLED panels achieving greater brightness than 8K WOLED panels).



> Adding the "evo" optimizations (deuterium, etc.) and the "ex" optimizations (more PAR due to supposed sense line changes) would have gotten them to ~200 nits as a starting point before MLA.


I’m still not convinced that the 2021 77” 4K specs of 185/550 Nits (@100%/25%) were not with all 3S4C / WBE stack changes as well as any changes to sense lines already incorporated. I’m open to any concrete evidence to the contrary, but lacking that, my operating assumption is that LGD made all of these changes on the 77” and 83” panels in 2021 and then mopped up by optimizing the 55” and 65” panels for this year’s production cycle.




> The only 77" G2 numbers I recall were pretty disappointing. Photo posted in another thread. Maybe still using the non-ex panels? I don't really follow the LG owner threads so someone else would need to confirm what generation panels are used on which models.


It’s a huge mess because LGD has rolled it advancements at different times on different panel sizes.

From what I recall, we’ve now seen confirmation of subpixel design changes / optimization for WBE-only on 55” and 65” panels this year.

77” and 83” panels were likely already optimized to be WBE-only last year and I’ve nit (yet) seen any evidence of subpixel design changes at those two panel sizes this year.

There is one other important change that has happened thus year.

Historically, LGD has specified their panels to deliver equal brightness across the entire family of panel sizes.

By definition, this means a 77” or 83” panel is being gimped to match the peak brightness limits of a 55” or 48” panel with lower PAR.

A 42” 4K panel has PAR which is only ~26% that of an 83” 4K panel (and roughly equal to that an 88” 8K panel), and so it can’t support the peak brightness of the 55” and larger panel sizes without gimping them below market expectations.

So for the first time LG launched a 42C2 delivering less peak brightness than the 55 and higher C2 in the same family.

Having all TVs in a family deliver equal brightness levels simplifies FW/engineering but in the context of Round 2 of the Brightness Wars, it means LGD is going into battle with one leg tied behind their back (especially for the 77”, 83”, and now 97” panels).

It‘a starting to look like the 83G2 may not integrate the same metal heat-sink as the 55G2 and 65G2 and this may be because LG realized the higher PAR of the 83” panel allows it to match the peak brightness levels of the 55G2 without needing a metal heatsink (ie: equivalent performance for lower cost).

The point I am trying to make is that it appears that LGD may finally be realizing that they will be better-served by allowing each panel size to support a size-specific ABL based on that sizes specific PAR rather than gimping the larger panels down to the ABL limits needed for the smaller panels in order to represent all members of the lineup as having ‘equal’ PQ or to streamline engineering efforts.

Of course, LGD may just be sacrificing lifetime in order to crank brightness so they can generate buzz, but my guess remains that there is more ‘secret sauce’ in that 2000/250 Nit 77” 8K panel they demoed than just MLA…


----------



## Wizziwig

I think people are identifying the "ex" panels via compensation interval values. 2000 on the older "evo" panels and 500 on the newer "ex" panels. At least some 77" G2 appear to have the newest panels based on this post I found via google. Classy posted his 83" G2 was still on the older 2000 hour interval so apparently from the older generation.


----------



## 59LIHP

*Barrage of technological improvements for the OLEDs of the future: brighter, cheaper and more efficient*








Barrage of technological improvements for the OLEDs of the future: brighter, cheaper and more efficient - Crast.net


OLED technology is in fashion. not just every time more manufacturers bet on itif not that their sales numbers are impressive and do not stop growing year




crast.net


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> So is this just a tech demo or has LG shown prototypes which are close to being manufactured for next year?


Tech demo only and was not included in their press release, so unclear whether we’ll see this in 4K WOLEDs next year (but my guess would be high likelihood we’ll at least see MLA with +20% brightness increase across the board in 2023…).


----------



## Wizziwig

Supposedly ready for release end of the year - at least in the 8K model they demoed. No way PHOLED will be ready for release that soon.

Also some LG specs for the 97" 4K "Evo Ex" model:

500 nits at 25%
200 nits at 100%.









News: Displays and Their Technologies


AVS Forum Tech Talk with Scott Wilkinson Display Week 2022 We traveled to display week out in San Jose California to check out the latest Tech coming out in the display Sector for 2022. LG, Samsung, Nanosys, Hisense and others were all on display showing out the coolest new innovations for 2022.




www.avsforum.com


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Supposedly ready for release end of the year - at least in the 8K model they demoed. No way PHOLED will be ready for release that soon.
> 
> Also some LG specs for the 97" 4K "Evo Ex" model:
> 
> 500 nits at 25%
> 200 nits at 100%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News: Displays and Their Technologies
> 
> 
> AVS Forum Tech Talk with Scott Wilkinson Display Week 2022 We traveled to display week out in San Jose California to check out the latest Tech coming out in the display Sector for 2022. LG, Samsung, Nanosys, Hisense and others were all on display showing out the coolest new innovations for 2022.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Yeah, it’s unlikely any Blue-PHOLED-based product could launch into production by next Spring (though just look at the 97” - LG is famous for announcing products at CES that don’t launch until late in the year.

I’d put the likelihood of seeing any Blue-PHOLED-based 8K WOLED before the end of next year at ~10%.

Here is the direct link:




It’s not exactly Apples-to-Apples because it is 97” 4K non-MLA Evo vs. 77” 8k ‘MLA’ but 500 nits @ 25% to 650 nits with ‘MLA’ is +30% and once the much larger PAR of the 97” 4K pixel is factored in (634% the PAR of an 8K 77” pixel), the increased output level of the ‘Next Generation OLED’ still seems to go beyond what MLA alone can deliver (based on LGD’s statements of their MLA technology improving efficiency by 20%).

At any rate, we should know more 9 months from now…


----------



## Jin-X

Wizziwig said:


> They were already matching the 4K panel brightness on their 8K panels due to various earlier optimizations that were covered a long time ago in this thread (see here and here).
> 
> Adding the "evo" optimizations (deuterium, etc.) and the "ex" optimizations (more PAR due to supposed sense line changes) would have gotten them to ~200 nits as a starting point before MLA.
> 
> The only 77" G2 numbers I recall were pretty disappointing. Photo posted in another thread. Maybe still using the non-ex panels? I don't really follow the LG owner threads so someone else would need to confirm what generation panels are used on which models.


It’s using the EX panel, been confirmed a few times with interval and the subpixel structure. It’s the 83 G2 that isn’t using the latest module.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> *I think people are identifying the "ex" panels via compensation interval values. 2000 on the older "evo" panels and 500 on the newer "ex" panels. *


I’m pretty much ignoring the Evo and EX marketing names, since they depend on both hardware / panel stack as well as FW / algorithms and can mean pretty much whatever LGD / LGE want them to (including a definition that changes / strays over time).

The two things I am most focused on are:

-panel stack WBC / 3S3C; WBE / 3S4C; eventually WBF (or whatever) 3S4C w/ MLA

Panel stack is best characterized by SPD measurement (though MLA will need output / power efficiency measurements to confirm).

-subpixel design - this is the aspect of panel hardware that changes most frequently and LGD seems to be changing the subpixel designs of only several panel sizes at a time, rather than updating the entire lineup together…



> At least some 77" G2 appear to have the newest panels based on this post I found via google. Classy posted his 83" G2 was still on the older 2000 hour interval so apparently from the older generation.


The FW codes are another aspect that LGE can change whenever they want, so I trust subpixel zooms and SPD measurements as much more definitive to determine what changed when and what panels are going where…


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> It’s using the EX panel, been confirmed a few times with interval and the subpixel structure. It’s the 83 G2 that isn’t using the latest module.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Meaning your 83G2 has the same subpixel layout and bezel dimension as last year’s 83C1?


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> Meaning your 83G2 has the same subpixel layout and bezel dimension as last year’s 83C1?


I don’t have a G2. I’m going off D-Nice, he’s already confirmed it’s the 83in with an older module, while the other G2s have the newest one.

This part is just my speculation but the next one to watch is the 97in one as that is coming later at about the same time the 83in launched last year, so maybe it’s a half step forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> I don’t have a G2. I’m going off D-Nice, he’s already confirmed it’s the 83in with an older module, while the other G2s have the newest one.
> 
> This part is just my speculation but the next one to watch is the 97in one as that is coming later at about the same time the 83in launched last year, so maybe it’s a half step forward.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I’ll have to read what D-Nice wrote, but I’ve always believed the 83” panel released last year was an early and the first release of a panel optimized for the WBE / 3S4C / Evo / EX stack (since no 83” WBC panels were ever produced).

Compared to the 55”, 65” and 77” panels which supported both WBC and WBE stacks with the same subpixel design across 2020 and through 2021.

So calling the 83” panel ‘old’ may not be the best term - it may have been the first of the new generation of panels to which 55”, 65” and 77” have now caught up.

I agree, the release of the 97” panel will be telling - if it proves more similar to the 55”/65”/77” panel design than the 83” panel design, there may be further changes to the 83” panel coming in 2023…


----------



## 59LIHP

*



"Samsung Display, study on application of blue phosphorescent OLED material to TV panel"

Click to expand...

*


> Professor Kwon Kwon Hyuk of Kyunghee University is giving a presentation at the 'SID 2022 Review Symposium' held at Samjeong Hotel in Yeoksam, Seoul on the 18th.
> It has been claimed that Samsung Display is researching to apply blue phosphorescent material to QD-OLED. If the blue light emitting layer of QD-OLED, a TV panel that Samsung Display is mass-producing, is replaced with a phosphorescent material, lifespan extension and efficiency improvement can be expected. Blue phosphorescent material is an unexplored field even in OLED. UDC of the United States has announced that it will commercialize blue phosphorescent OLED materials in 2024.
> 
> Professor Kwon Kwon of Kyunghee University conducted research to apply blue phosphorescent material to Quantum Dot (QD)-Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) at Samsung Display during the 'SID 2022 Review Symposium' theme presentation and Q&A held at Samjeong Hotel in Yeoksam, Seoul on the 18th. said to be in progress. SID 2022 is the annual event of the world's largest display society held last week in the United States.
> 
> During this SID period, Professor Kwon Kwon said, "I was impressed with the technology field when Samsung (display) announced that the commercialization of phosphorescent blue is near." "Samsung (display) internally applied (phosphorescent OLED material) to TV It seems to be a top priority.”
> 
> Both large OLEDs for TVs and small and medium-sized OLEDs for smartphones use phosphorescent materials with 100% internal luminous efficiency for red and green, but fluorescent materials with only 25% internal luminous efficiency for blue. If technology is developed to replace blue fluorescent material with phosphorescent material, OLED lifespan extension and efficiency improvement can be expected.
> 
> QD-OLED, which is being mass-produced by Samsung Display, uses a light emitting layer composed of a blue fluorescent material and a green phosphorescent material. The QD-OLED light emitting layer consists of 4 layers (Four Tandem), including 3 layers of blue fluorescent material and 1 layer of green phosphorescent material. 55-inch and 65-inch TV panels and 34-inch monitor panels are all the same.
> 
> Blue fluorescent material is stacked in three layers for product lifespan, and green phosphorescent material is applied to improve brightness (brightness). If a blue fluorescent material is replaced with a phosphorescent material, one blue or green light emitting layer can be reduced. It is known that Samsung Display is also conducting research to reduce the emission layer of QD-OLED from 4 to 3 layers.
> 
> Professor Kwon said, "There is no significant difference from the thesis that Samsung (Display) published in Nature Photonics 3-4 months ago (this SID's presentation)," said Professor Kwon. announced,” he explained. Since the content published in the paper is past research data, it means that the current level of research is more advanced than the published content. Researchers affiliated with Samsung Display published a paper on 'Exceptionally stable blue phosphorescent organic light-emitting diode (OLED)' in Nature Photonics in February.
> 
> Professor Kwon said, "I know that Samsung Display is planning to make visible results (in blue phosphorescent materials) within this year. At the same time, he predicted that "Samsung Display's commercialization of blue phosphorescent material is likely to be faster than UDC."
> 
> U.S. OLED material company UDC announced in February that it will be possible to commercialize blue phosphorescent material in 2024. At the time, UDC predicted, "It will be possible to achieve the initial target specifications for blue phosphorescent materials at the end of this year."
> 
> The OLED light emission method is largely divided into a phosphorescence method and a fluorescence method. The phosphorescence method utilizes both 'singlet exciton', which is 25% of the light emission (excited state → ground state) energy, and 'triplet exciton', which is the remaining 75%, so that the internal luminous efficiency is maximized. reaches 100%. In contrast, the fluorescence method uses only singlet excitons, and the internal luminous efficiency is only 25%.
> 
> The SID 2022 review held on the 18th was held by the Korea Display Industry Association (KDIA). In the SID 2022 review, the main display technologies exhibited at SID 2022 last week were introduced. About 100 people attended the event, including Lee Dong-wook, full-time vice president of KDIA.











"삼성디스플레이, TV 패널에 청색 인광 OLED 소재 적용 연구"


삼성디스플레이가 QD-OLED에 청색 인광소재를 적용하기 위해 연구 중이라는 주장이 나왔다. 삼성디스플레이가 양산 중인 TV용 패널인 QD-OLED의 청색 발광층을 기존 형광소재에서 인광소재로 바꾸면 수명 연장과 효율 향상을 기대할 수 있다. 청색 인광소재는 OLED에서도 미개척 분야다. 미국 UDC는 2024년에 청색 인광 OLED 소재를 상용화하겠다고 밝힌 상태다.권장혁 경희대 교수는 18일 서울 역삼 삼정호텔에서 열린 'SID 2022 리뷰 심포지엄' 주제발표·질의응답에서 삼성디스플레이가 퀀텀닷(QD)-유기발광다




www.thelec.kr


----------



## 59LIHP

> Samsung Display delayed QNED prototype line schedule in 1Q, mass production expected after 2026
> 
> Samsung Electronics' next-generation TV strategy faces difficulties. The large display development and investment plans of its subsidiary Samsung Display are confusing. Samsung Electronics' scenario of making the most of time with 'Neo QLED', which uses mini-LED as a light source, and commercializing a TV with 'Quantum Dot Nano Road Light Emitting Diode (QNED)', a next-generation technology, is twisted.
> 
> According to the electronics and display industry on the 17th, Samsung Display was scheduled to build a QNED prototype production line in the first quarter, but it is known that the schedule has been delayed. The plan to mass-produce QNED panels by 2025 at the latest is expected to be possible only after 2026.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Han Jong-hee (Director of DX Division) gives an opening speech at the 'Unbox and Discover' event held online on March 30th. / Samsung
> 
> QNED technology uses long stick-shaped blue LEDs called nanorods as light emitting devices. It is a structure in which an inorganic element emits light, and in theory, it is the opposite of OLED using organic compounds. Long lifespan, low burn-in, and low power consumption are the advantages. It is also known that the production cost is cheaper than QD display (QD-OLED).
> 
> An official familiar with Samsung Electronics' internal information said, "The speed of technological advancement of QNED, the next-generation display, is so slow that it is impossible to specify the timing of commercialization." I heard that it is considered difficult enough to even talk about,” he said.
> 
> Samsung Electronics launched a QD-OLED TV equipped with a Samsung Display panel in the North American and European markets in March. However, QD-OLED is evaluated to be difficult to use as a stepping stone for Samsung Electronics to switch to QNED. This is due to the limited production capacity.
> 
> Samsung Display's QD-OLED production capacity is 30,000 sheets per month based on the 8.5th generation (2200x2500mm) ledger. One 8.5-generation ledger can print three 65-inch panels and two 55-inch panels. A simple calculation can make 1.8 million panels per year. The number of QD-OLED TVs that Samsung Electronics can ship every year is at most 1 million units, which is only 2% of Samsung Electronics' annual TV sales of 50 million units.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 65-inch QD Display / Samsung Display
> 
> Samsung Display announced on its internal bulletin board in April that the QD-OLED panel yield had reached 75%. This is a remarkable achievement considering that the yield at the time of mass production in November 2021 was less than 50%.
> 
> Although the yield improved recently, it is difficult to use it as a 'turning point' to expand the QD-OLED panel line. For Samsung Display to actively engage in QD-OLED investment, which can adversely affect the company's profits in the short term, the burden on management, including CEO Choi Joo-sun, is high.
> 
> A display industry official said, "Since the large OLED market price is low, even for QD-OLED, which has dramatically improved yield, it is difficult to guarantee profitability." We expect to go all-in on the QNED transition,” he explained.
> 
> The electronics industry is paying attention to the decision of Samsung Electronics, which is going through a transition period in the TV market. Samsung Electronics' video display (VD) division is emphasizing its superiority over OLED, saying that Neo QLED is optimal for large-scale and 8K picture quality. However, this strategy has a weakness that it is difficult to respond to in competition with Chinese manufacturers who offer TVs at low prices by applying the same LCD panel.
> 
> An electronics industry official said, "Samsung Electronics
> 
> The reason why LG Display is considering diversifying its TV lineup through OLED panel deals is that it can maintain its leading position in the premium market until commercialization of QNED panel-equipped TVs. It is necessary to pay attention to whether or not to go forward in the OLED negotiations.”











1Q QNED 시제품 라인 일정 늦춘 삼성D, 2026년 이후 양산 전망


삼성전자의 차세대 TV 전략이 난항을 겪는다. 자회사인 삼성디스플레이의 대형 디스플레이 개발과 투자 계획이 혼선을 빚고 있어서다. 미니LED를 ..



it.chosun.com


----------



## 59LIHP

Video] SDC postponed QNED pilot line installation








> - We've hired reporters of this type. Hello Lee Ki-ja, how are you?
> 
> "hello."
> 
> -Samsung Display QNED pilot line installation postponement You are talking about the topic. What is the abbreviation of QNED?
> 
> “Quantum doT Nanorod Light Emitting Diode, QNED was created by taking the first letter.”
> 
> - What kind of technology?
> 
> “QNED is a display technology that uses a smaller chip than the micro LED TV, which is the top premium TV mass-produced by Samsung Electronics.”
> 
> -Micro LED is micro (meter, 10−6 m) size. Is this (nano rod LED) nano (meter, 10−9 m) size?
> 
> “The chip width of micro LED is several tens of micrometers (μm), but nanorod LED is 2 μm when viewed in the long direction, and a few zeros (0.xx) μm (on the short side). So that (nano-rod LED) can be viewed at the nanometer level.”
> 
> -Samsung Display doesn't use the term OLED in large format. They just call it QD display, but the industry calls it QD-OLED because it comes out in a large format, but Samsung Display is asking us to call it QD display. But QNED also falls under the QD display category. Are you in the category Samsung is talking about?
> 
> "Yeah. In 2019, Samsung Display announced that it would invest 13.1 trillion won in QD displays, including QD-OLED and QNED. What the technology has in common is that it uses a QD color conversion layer. We have that in common.”
> 
> -You could just do QD-OLED, QNED, but to talk about QD display, Samsung kept saying that large-sized OLEDs do not come out.
> 
> “There may be two reasons, but since Samsung Electronics has said that it will not do OLED, when we use the term QD-OLED, we keep saying, ‘Is it OLED?’ This question may arise, and another is that there are many observations that the industry can move from QD-OLED to QNED without additional investment in QD-OLED depending on the degree of QNED technology development.”
> 
> -When that happens, QD-OLED itself does not seem to be able to establish itself as a very high-level lineup, so we are just talking about QD displays collectively.
> 
> "Yeah. In case of such a possibility, it seems to be collectively called a QD display.”
> 
> -QNED has a video in which we dealt in detail once in the past about what kind of technology, how it is, and what utility it is by analyzing the patents issued by Samsung with Choong-Hoon Lee, CEO of UBI Research in the past. Please refer to it further. When were you going to install this QNED pilot line?
> 
> “I was going to install a pilot line in the fourth quarter of last year or the first quarter of this year, but it was postponed.”
> 
> - Do you have circumstantial evidence?
> 
> “It is now in the second quarter and the pilot line has not yet been installed as the most conclusive circumstantial evidence. Samsung Display created an organization to install the QNED pilot line, but it was disbanded and the manpower returned to the original division. lost.”
> 
> - Why was it delayed?
> 
> “The cause is not clear, but the industry is speculating that it may be due to technological perfection.”
> 
> - It's difficult. the process itself.
> 
> “It’s a new process, micro LED, and what’s coming out (mass production) right now is a technology that transfers (chip), but this (QNED) requires nanorod LEDs to be sprayed with inkjet process and then arranged. And it is not an easy technology because it is known that there are dozens of nanorod LEDs per pixel.”
> 
> -If the QNED pilot line installation is delayed, I think that various steps may be twisted.
> 
> “Since Samsung QD display is related to Samsung Electronics’ premium TV strategy, there have been observations that QNED will be able to mass-produce around 2024 and 2025. When I entered QD display investment in the old days. Of course, it will be difficult for QNED to mass-produce in 2024 even at that time. Although there were objections like this, anyway, if the expectation that QNED can be mass-produced around 2024 is realized, QNED will be able to enter Samsung Electronics' premium TV lineup. But if this plan is postponed, we are in a situation where we have to re-establish the schedule as a whole.”
> 
> - So when does the industry see a pilot line coming in?
> 
> “Because we think that it will be difficult to enter within this year, it may be delayed by about a year or more than the expectation that it will be opened in the fourth quarter of last year.”
> 
> -I mentioned it briefly before, especially in the Samsung Electronics video display on the set side. It's changed a bit now. Are you still in the video display business? In the division that makes TVs, there are rumors that the heads of organizations, whether within the division, have not given such favorable evaluations or such on OLED, that in fact, they are stopping now. So, in this industry, there have been rumors that the pilot line will be fast, and if done properly, it will be converted to QNED faster than QD-OLED. But if this is delayed, does additional investment in QD-OLED need to increase? How should I look?
> 
> “If the QNED mass production schedule is delayed, isn’t it a reasonable prospect to invest in additional QD-OLED? There are people who say this, but that part seems to be still uncertain, and they seem to be discussing additional investment in QD-OLED in the second half of the year.
> 
> -Anyway, this is a QD LCD with a QD sheet in the middle in the video display division of Samsung Electronics before that, because it is not really easy to reverse this about what we actually spit out once, right?
> 
> "Yeah. It’s called QLED.”
> 
> -While marketing QLED very strongly, there was something about that (LG Electronics) that said it was better than OLED, so I think there are several steps involved right now. QD-OLED is currently being pre-ordered overseas, isn't it? The response is quite good, and even among the distributors, they are talking about asking for a lot, but we understand that they do not release TVs very aggressively. )-We will receive a large OLED panel and produce a TV. I will say There was a report that they had decided to do it, but the head spoke directly on the phone, so it's not true and it's false. In fact, isn't the negotiation itself going on underneath the water?
> 
> “It started last year, and it is understood that they are still doing it.”
> 
> -But now, QNED also thinks that if the staff gets involved, there will be some changes in the supply procurement with LG.
> 
> “Rather, if the mass production schedule of QNED is delayed, the possibility of bringing white (W)-OLED can be said to be higher. However, the prospects are mixed as to when the white (W)-OLED will be applied and released (to TV). But the chances of getting it are high. This observation prevails.”
> 
> - Do you think the current Samsung Electronics TV lineup needs a change?
> 
> “In the case of Samsung Electronics TVs, there are micro LEDs at the top, but only hundreds of units are sold annually, so we have to leave it out for now. Then there is the Neo QLED (mini LED) product, and below that there is the QLED you mentioned earlier. These products are Chinese TVs. It is not easy to compete and differentiate with other companies. So, we need a premium TV lineup, and since OLED is what we can do right now in this premium lineup, it seems that specific considerations about the strategy will follow.”
> 
> - Whether LG Display's white (W)-OLED panel is 55-inch or 65-inch. Then 77 inches? If you get a 77-inch one, put it on the market, and Samsung starts selling it, I think it might come out very negative from LG Electronics. Look at something on a baseball billboard. OLED TV Samsung, which we started first, is following along. I think things like this will come out. Looking at the marketing cases of the other side of the TV mass-produced until now, maybe it's because I don't want to hear such a story, so I'm still worrying about it? In the end, Samsung Display QD-OLED or QNED, the lines that mass-produce something new, whether pilot or mass-production line, if the investment is delayed, I think that the companies in the industry behind the display may feel a bit cramped. .
> 
> “Because there were many things that were not clear to the partners involved in preparing the micro LED chip. Of course, due to the corona situation last year, the equipment was delayed and there were things like that, but there are also things that make it frustrating.”
> 
> -Micro LED seems to be a very difficult product. It won't be easy to transcribe them one by one to fit the pixels, but anyway, please give me some good information next week.
> 
> "all right."











[영상] QNED 파일럿 라인 설치 연기한 SDC


인터뷰 진행: 한주엽출연: 디일렉 이기종 기자 -이기종 기자 모셨습니다. 이기자님 안녕하십니까?“안녕하세요.”-삼성디스플레이 QNED 파일럿 라인 설치 연기라는 주제로 말씀해주실 텐데 QNED가 뭐의 약자입니까? “퀀텀닷 나노로드 발광다이오드(Quantum doT Nanorod Light Emitting Diode), 앞의 글자 가져와서 만든 게 QNED입니다.” -어떤 기술이죠?“QNED는 삼성전자가 양산하고 있는 최상위 프리미엄 TV가 마이크로 LED TV인데 그것보다 더 작은 칩을 사용해서 만드는 디스플레이 기술이




www.thelec.kr


----------



## Tocinillo2

59LIHP said:


> *Barrage of technological improvements for the OLEDs of the future: brighter, cheaper and more efficient*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barrage of technological improvements for the OLEDs of the future: brighter, cheaper and more efficient - Crast.net
> 
> 
> OLED technology is in fashion. not just every time more manufacturers bet on itif not that their sales numbers are impressive and do not stop growing year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crast.net


100% copied from us.

Original source: Aluvión de mejoras tecnológicas para las OLED del futuro: más brillo, más baratas y más eficientes


----------



## mrtickleuk

fafrd said:


> The FW codes are another aspect that LGE can change whenever they want, so I *trust subpixel zooms and SPD measurements* as much more definitive to determine what changed when and what panels are going where…


Agreed. And _proper _pictures, not the embarrassing blurry messes that some people post.


----------



## JasonHa

59LIHP said:


> "삼성디스플레이, TV 패널에 청색 인광 OLED 소재 적용 연구"
> 
> 
> 삼성디스플레이가 QD-OLED에 청색 인광소재를 적용하기 위해 연구 중이라는 주장이 나왔다. 삼성디스플레이가 양산 중인 TV용 패널인 QD-OLED의 청색 발광층을 기존 형광소재에서 인광소재로 바꾸면 수명 연장과 효율 향상을 기대할 수 있다. 청색 인광소재는 OLED에서도 미개척 분야다. 미국 UDC는 2024년에 청색 인광 OLED 소재를 상용화하겠다고 밝힌 상태다.권장혁 경희대 교수는 18일 서울 역삼 삼정호텔에서 열린 'SID 2022 리뷰 심포지엄' 주제발표·질의응답에서 삼성디스플레이가 퀀텀닷(QD)-유기발광다
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.kr


I also quoted this in the News thread. Paging @fafrd 


> "QD-OLED, which is being mass-produced by Samsung Display, uses a light emitting layer composed of a blue fluorescent material and a green phosphorescent material. The QD-OLED light emitting layer consists of 4 layers (Four Tandem), including 3 layers of blue fluorescent material and 1 layer of green phosphorescent material. 55-inch and 65-inch TV panels and 34-inch monitor panels are all the same.
> 
> Blue fluorescent material is stacked in three layers for product lifespan, and green phosphorescent material is applied to improve brightness (brightness)."


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung Display researching phosphorescent blue OLED material








Samsung Display researching phosphorescent blue OLED material


Samsung Display was researching phosphorescent blue OLED material to apply on quantum dot (QD)-OLED panels, according to a South Korean professor.Kyung Hee University professor Kwon Jang-hyuk told audiences at SID 2022 Review Symposium held in Seoul on Wednesday said it seemed the South Korean displ




www.thelec.net


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

JasonHa said:


> I also quoted this in the News thread. Paging @fafrd


I just caught up too. Very interesting. The professor believes 3B1G is a fact. Fafrd must be busy somewhere to not have commented  Also, phosphor blue development by Samsung itself is big news. I read that correctly didn't I??
Quite the article if both are true.


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> I also quoted this in the News thread. Paging @fafrd


Yeah, here is the link to the source article: Samsung Display researching phosphorescent blue OLED material

‘Samsung Display’s current QD-OLED panel uses fluorescent blue OLED material and green phosphorescent OLED material as the emission layer.

The layers are in what the company calls a four tandem structure, where there are *three blue layers and one green layer*. This is the same for its 34, 55 and 65-inch panels that are used for monitors and TVs.’

As far as I am concerned, this isconfirmation that UBI was correct and QD-Display 1.0 is actually a 4S2C QD-COLED (Cyan) rather than the 4S1C QD-BOLED (Blue) that most everyone believes (because Samsung has not corrected them).

The primary impact of this is that the arrival of blue PHOLED will not help Samsung Display as much as they had hoped.

Th expectation was that QD-OLED could be less costly to manufacture than WOLED because it could use just a 2-layer all-blue stack based on Blue PHOLED (versus WOLED’s 3-layer stack).

For sure the arrival of Blue PHOLED will allow Samsung Display to cost-reduce their QD-OLED stack, but not down to 2 layers (1 blue + 1 green).

A Blue-PHOLED-based QD-OLED will need at least 3 layers (2 blue + 1 green) to deliver current brightness levels, so closer to cost parity with 3S4C WOLED but not cheaper.

I think QD-OLED is a great advance and hope we see Samsung announce production expansion plans soon, but I don’t see is threatening WOLED’s market share domination of the Premium TV Market (40% last year, likely close to 50% this year).

If I was LGD, I’d be much more concerned about the emergence of Chinese WOLED panels from BOE.

I don’t have access behind the paywall, but quoting this post from 59LIHP, I think BOE’s WOLED demo was one of the most significant developments from SID: News: Displays and Their Technologies

‘*BOE 95” 8K WOLED*

The WOLED they showed was 95”, 120Hz, 8K resolution, with 800 cd/m2 peak brightness and 150 cd/m2 full screen brightness. It had 99% DCI-P3 color gamut and 100K:1 contrast ratio.’

Who knows what lifetime they will deliver and when they will actually reach the market, but these specs match up pretty well against LGD’s older WBC WOLEDs there is little doubt about that BOE intends to introduce WOLED panels that compete against LGD’s WOLED panels for the lower tiers of the Premium TV market over the next few years…


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I just caught up too. Very interesting. The professor believes 3B1G is a fact. Fafrd must be busy somewhere to not have commented  Also, phosphor blue development by Samsung itself is big news. I read the correctly didn't i??
> Quite the article if both are true.


Busy typing my long response as you posted .

Increasing signs we will be seeing Blue-PHOLED-based displays emerging to the market by 2025, if not 2024…


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> As far as I am concerned, this is confirmation that UBI was correct and QD-Display 1.0 is actually a 4S2C QD-COLED (Cyan) rather than the 4S1C QD-BOLED (Blue) that most everyone believes (because Samsung has not corrected them).


I assume this must mean Samsung is using a color filter for the blue subpixel, because otherwise it would have some green in it.


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> I assume this must mean Samsung is using a color filter for the blue subpixel, because otherwise it would have some green in it.


We already knew that Samsung was using full RGB color filters because those are central to their technology for eliminating the polarizer.

The ‘simple’ story of blue light being converted to red and green using patterned QDCC and elimination of color filters is a fairy-tale that was easy for the market to understand and repeat, but it has little to do with the QD-Display 1.0 that Samsung Display has ended up producing.

Aside from the fact that WOLED has the option of using a 4th white subpixel while QD-COLED is pretty much limited to RGB subpixels, the primary difference between these two technologies is that all red photons emitted by QD-COLED are produced from QDCC (opto-luminescence) while the red photons emitted by WOLED are generated by red and yellow PHOLED emitters within the WOLED stack.

The blue strength of 4S2C QD-COLED is 150% the strength of 3S4C WOLED and the green strength of 4S2C QD-COLED is more than 200% the green strength of 3S4C WOLED (roughly 200% from the COLED stack itself plus the boost delivered by green QDCC converting some blue photons to more green photons).

QD-COLED has eliminated the polarizer which cuts almost 50% of output, but WOLED pretty much doubles output through the unfiltered white subpixel, so that is close to a wash (at the expense of color saturation for WOLED).

With the adoption of MLA which LGD has recently announced, WOLED will be able to largely catch up with QD-COLED in brightness (at unknown but presumably modest incremental cost), so we’ll be looking at QD-COLED delivering more of the full BT.2020 color gamut and higher output levels of fully-saturated colors (higher color volume) for a cost premium in the range of 10-20%.

The emergence of Blue PHOLED would have represented a major breakthrough for QD-BOLED, reducing cost below that of WOLED, but now that it is confirmed that Samsung Display had to adopt a green PHOLED layer in order to deliver required brightness levels, Blue PHOLED will impact both QD-COLED and WOLED similarly and at best, will result in QD-COLED approaching cost parity with WOLED (OLED stack may cost the same, but QD-Display still has a more expensive backplane as well as the cost adder for the QDCC…).

I believe both technologies are attractive and sincerely hope we see Samsung announce investments to expanded QD-OLED manufacturing soon, but the longer we see those announcements delayed, the more it means Samsung is concerned about the cost-competitiveness of their existing QD-COLED over the long-term…


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> As far as I am concerned, this isconfirmation that UBI was correct and QD-Display 1.0 is actually a 4S2C QD-COLED (Cyan) rather than the 4S1C QD-BOLED (Blue) that most everyone believes (because Samsung has not corrected them).


This story confirms nothing if that professor's source is the exact same UBI report or he wrote that UBI report. Article doesn't say how/why he reached that conclusion. Hopefully someone will eventually come forward that has taken the panel apart and isn't just speculating on the design.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> This story confirms nothing if that professor's source is the exact same UBI report or he wrote that UBI report. Article doesn't say how/why he reached that conclusion. Hopefully someone will eventually come forward that has taken the panel apart and isn't just speculating on the design.


With the lousy translation, it is hard to understand clearly whether this professor/researcher was actually working with Samsung Display or not, but it sure sounds like it.

And perhaps the professor is lying, but this quote seemed pretty clearly to indicate that he is ‘in the know’:

‘Professor Kwon said, "*I know that Samsung Display is planning to make visible results (in blue phosphorescent materials) within this year. *At the same time, he predicted that "Samsung Display's commercialization of blue phosphorescent material is likely to be faster than UDC."

The likelihood that this professor and this article are merely parroting (mis-)information they gleaned from UBI is next to zero.

Coupled with the fact that an all-blue 4S1C BOLED stack cannot deliver the green intensity reported without using a much larger green subpixel, and the fact that QD-Display 1.0 is actually 4S2C QD-COLED rather than 4S1C QD-BOLED is about as close to certainty as can be (without a materials analysis of a QD-OLED panel).

The question is also largely irrelevant except for what it will mean as far as the impact of Blue PHOLED.

Samsung Display’s original concept (based on the use of Blue PHOLED) was a 2S1C QD-BOLED.

But that same article also clearly states:

‘Blue fluorescent material is stacked in three layers for product lifespan, and green phosphorescent material is applied to improve brightness (brightness). If a blue fluorescent material is replaced with a phosphorescent material, one blue or green light emitting layer can be reduced. It is known that *Samsung Display is also conducting research to reduce the emission layer of QD-OLED from 4 to 3 layers.*’

If Blue PHOLED will only result in a QD-Display 1.1 requiring a stack of 3 OLED emission layers rather than 2, that’s the only fact that really matters… (since it means QD-OLED can never be less costly to produce than WOLED when delivering at least equal brightness levels).


----------



## Wizziwig

Another wall of text saying nothing new. All I'm saying is that there's no proof that this is an *INDEPENDENT* source from the original UBI report stating the same thing. That's the problem with internet news - you often have multiple articles repeating some original source being counted as independent sources.  I'm not saying I disagree with the conclusion but if this information is not coming directly from Samsung or a panel teardown, then it's just more speculation.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Another wall of text saying nothing new. All I'm saying is that there's no proof that this is an *INDEPENDENT* source from the original UBI report stating the same thing. That's the problem with internet news - you often have multiple articles repeating some original source being counted as independent sources.  I'm not saying I disagree with the conclusion but if this information is not coming directly from Samsung or a panel teardown, then it's just more speculation.


I hear you, and I agree if there was the slightest indication that this professor / researcher has any affiliation with UBI and/or had read their report, that would give me pause as well.

Every single indication is that this professor / researcher has an affiliation with Samsung Display, so that’s enough independence as far as I am concerned…


----------



## JasonHa

It's a professor of Information Display speaking this week at the SID 2022 Review Symposium. The UBI document was published last August. Surely this guy has seen the *numerous *marketing materials from Samsung that imply blue-only OLED elements. And he just ignores all that and refers back to a ten-month-old document?


----------



## mrtickleuk

JasonHa said:


> It's a professor of Information Display speaking this week at the SID 2022 Review Symposium. The UBI document was published last August. Surely this guy has seen the numerous *marketing *materials from Samsung that *imply *blue-only OLED elements. And he just ignores all that and refers back to a ten-month-old document?


Of course, and he's right to. Marketing materials tend to be, well, _marketing_, and tend to be economical with the actualité.


----------



## 8mile13

Looks like within the article ELEC sums up what according to them the QD OLED layers are* which is clearly based upon UBI since only they came to that specific conclusion. The professor researched blue phosphorescent and is not quoted beyond that topic. The only info which seems to be confirmed by Samsung is the two blue layer beyond that there is the OLED Association four blue layer guess (which seems to be the consensus among experts also..still a guess though). Since OLED Association guesses, they speak to Samsung directly about these matters, everybody else also is guessing including UBI. In case it is not four blue layers Samsung needs to confirm that for it to be a fact of sorts.

*QD-OLED, which is being mass-produced by Samsung Display, uses a light emitting layer composed of a blue fluorescent material and a green phosphorescent material. The QD-OLED light emitting layer consists of 4 layers (Four Tandem), including 3 layers of blue fluorescent material and 1 layer of green phosphorescent material. 55-inch and 65-inch TV panels and 34-inch monitor panels are all the same.

Blue fluorescent material is stacked in three layers for product lifespan, and green phosphorescent material is applied to improve brightness (brightness). If a blue fluorescent material is replaced with a phosphorescent material, one blue or green light emitting layer can be reduced. It is known that Samsung Display is also conducting research to reduce the emission layer of QD-OLED from 4 to 3 layers.


----------



## bobbino421

e leap?


https://www.techradar.com/news/oled-tv-breakthrough-fixes-all-the-techs-problems-and-its-coming-soon


----------



## fafrd

bobbino421 said:


> e leap?
> 
> 
> https://www.techradar.com/news/oled-tv-breakthrough-fixes-all-the-techs-problems-and-its-coming-soon


Already pretty much old news and in any case, unlikely to have much of any significance for TV-sized panels (primarily for phone screens, possibly also tables and laptop-sized screens).


----------



## OLED_Overrated

I have the rest of the article. PM if you don't have institutional access to the article and would like to read it.


----------



## Wizziwig

Here is a perfect case in point. Given the less than 24-hour timing directly following the recent news article, are we going to call this a *third confirmation* of QD-OLED structure? 






Repeating the same information from same source over and over doesn't make it any truer than the first time it was presented. This is why reliable scientific papers always include citations linking the original source. Otherwise we're just going in circles. Maybe we can find that professor's PHOLED research paper to see where his QD-OLED information actually comes from?

Edit: English version posted.


----------



## 8mile13

Burn-in effects LG OLED vs. Samsung QD OLED
Burn-in effects on Samsung QD-OLEDs | hot online - Workout World (workout-world.com)


----------



## ynotgoal

Wizziwig said:


> Maybe we can find that professor's PHOLED research paper to see where his QD-OLED information actually comes from?


Professor Jang Hyuk Kwon.





Organic Optoelectronic Device Laboratory







oodl.khu.ac.kr





This is someone very much involved in Korean OLED development as opposed to a blogger repeating something they saw online.


----------



## dkfan9

8mile13 said:


> Burn-in effects LG OLED vs. Samsung QD OLED
> Burn-in effects on Samsung QD-OLEDs | hot online - Workout World (workout-world.com)


So this is interesting in the context of the other discussion happening here (does QD OLED use a layer of green?). Because the main difference in the two burn ins given in the article relates to subpixel tinting with wear. WOLED's subpixels take on tint with wear as the organic layers decay at different rates, leading to a different color temperature between differently decayed subpixels (prior to color filter). On the other hand, QD OLED only has blue so there is no color temperature shift. But if QD OLED has green in its stack as well, then its subpixels will also exhibit color shift with wear.


----------



## JasonHa

ynotgoal said:


> Professor Jang Hyuk Kwon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organic Optoelectronic Device Laboratory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oodl.khu.ac.kr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is someone very much involved in Korean OLED development as opposed to a blogger repeating something they saw online.


This seems true, but unfortunately it's not clear from the Elec article what info is coming from him.

We know Bob O'Brien from DSCC directly asked a Samsung rep about this question, but if he ever got an answer, they haven't published it.


----------



## Davenlr




----------



## 8mile13

Davenlr said:


>


My guess is that they also will include QD OLED. In fact i think introduction QD OLED was plenty motivation to do a new OLED burn-in test.


----------



## Wizziwig

English version of video I linked earlier.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> My guess is that they also will include QD OLED. In fact i think introduction QD OLED was plenty motivation to do a new OLED burn-in test.


Finally!

Should be interesting and I just hope they manage to squeeze in a printed RGB monitor is well (even if it has to be donated by LG).


----------



## 59LIHP

Ross Young of DSCC at SID Display Week 2022


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> English version of video I linked earlier.


Dark shadows indeed 

The relative size of the QD-OLED green to red subpixel sizes provide all the evidence needed.

Whitepoint for DCI P3 contains 2.16 times as many green photons as red photons. Red QDCC would need to be more than twice as efficient as green QDCC to result in the equal-sized subpixels we see (if all green subpixels were generated by green QDCC stimulated by a blue-only OLED stack).

A single green PHOLED layer puts out over 10 times as many green photons as a single blue FOLED layer (and 3.4 times as many green photons as 3 blue FOLED layers), so one green PHOLED layer will deliver 3.4 times as many red photons as 3 blue FOLED layers stimulating red QDCC, even if we assume 100% conversion efficiency (meaning problem solved).

DCI-P3 whitepoint requires less than 20% as many blue photons as red photons, so even if we assume 100% red QDCC efficiency, the blue subpixel could be as small as 20% the size of the blue subpixel.

There would likely have been nothing to gain by making QD-OLED’s blue subpixel even smaller than it is (since the red subpixel could not have increased in size in Samsung Display’s polarizer-less square-subpixel RGB ‘pyramid’ layout (might have been different with a classical ‘stripe’ subpixel layout such as that used by WOLED and most LCDs…).

If Samsung’s decision to expand QD-OLED production will be predicated on certainty they can undercut WOLED on material cost (as was originally promised with 2-layer Blue PHOLED-based QD-BOLED), the concern expressed may be warranted.


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> Ross Young of DSCC at SID Display Week 2022
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3282752


Blue PHOLED by 2024 (UDC’s roadmap).

No BOE WOLED or any printed RGB OLED TV before ~2025.

No further 8.5G fab conversions by Samsung before Blue PHOLED materializes and they get production costs down.

Ross is assuming Blue PHOLED will allow Samsung Display from 4 emitter layers to 2 and that they will thus be able to ~double output from the existing 8.5G QD-OLED line to ~60,000 8.5G substrates per month without investing in a new 8.5G line (modest backend investments only).

My view is that that is overly optimistic and to maintain competitiveness with WOLED, Blue PHOLED will at most allow Samsung Display to reduce QD-Display 1.0 from 4 OLED emitter layers to 3 (meaning a ~50% capacity increase to ~45,000 8.5G sheets per month).

In any case, it adds up to a forecast of essentially static capacity for OLED TV through 2024…


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> So this is interesting in the context of the other discussion happening here (does QD OLED use a layer of green?). Because the main difference in the two burn ins given in the article relates to subpixel tinting with wear. WOLED's subpixels take on tint with wear as the organic layers decay at different rates, leading to a different color temperature between differently decayed subpixels (prior to color filter). On the other hand, QD OLED only has blue so there is no color temperature shift. But if QD OLED has green in its stack as well, then its subpixels will also exhibit color shift with wear.


It’s an incredibly stupid article.

WOLEDs colored subpixels do not suffer from any ‘tint’ shift with age. At most, the native whitepoint of the unfiltered white subpixel may shift with age.

With all the wear monitoring and compensation LGD is now doing, modeling any shift in native whitepoint of individual white subpixels and compensating with an appropriate offset of R and/or B and/or G subpixels is well within their capability.

I’d have more respect for that article if it presented any actual data but it is a pure ‘talk-out-of-your-*ss-to-generate-clicks’ piece of pseudo-scientific clickbait.


----------



## 59LIHP

> *LG Display’s Magic Ingredient: Deuterium - and an Announcement*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is no secret at all that at CES this past January Samsung Display Company (SDC) introduced its Quantum Dot OLED (QD-OLED) display to a limited audience and presented side-by-side comparisons with LG Display’s (LGD) well-known white OLED (WOLED) display. Among the characteristics commented on by technical journalists and analysts was the significantly greater luminance of the QD-OLED.
> 
> Last week at the 60th SID Display Week, the QD-OLED was on display to a general display audience. It would have been corporate bad manners for SDC to do a side-by-side comparison at SID, but in the adjacent booth Samsung partner and quantum-dot supplier Nanosys did provide the side-by-side, although even Nanosys did not identify the comparison set as the latest-generation LGD WOLED. As at CES, the QD-OLED was noticeably brighter.
> 
> 
> This graphic in LG Display's SID 2022 booth conveyed the company's message without communicating much understanding. In the accompanying article, Display Daily comes to the rescue. (Photo: Ken Werner) Click for higher resolution
> 
> But nearby, LGD showed its new OLED.EX panel with 20 to 30 percent greater luminance, and stated the panel’s secret sauce was deuterium. To remind those readers who are years away from freshman chemistry, deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen that has a proton and a neutron in its nucleus instead of just a proton. Deuterium is fairly rare. In a bucket of water, less that 0.02 percent of the water molecules will be built around a deuterium atom instead of a hydrogen atom.
> 
> My colleague Peter Palomaki recently reviewed the “isotope effect” in Display Daily. A heavier isotope of an element (deuterium vs hydrogen, for instance) will act chemically like its lighter cousin, but will enter into interactions more slowly.
> 
> At Display Week I was able to get a more detailed answer from Dr. Don Gyou Lee, Head of LGD’s Image Quality Development Department, and Jean Lee, Team Leader for LGD’s Global PR Team.
> 
> The hydrogen in question is part of the molecular structure of the OLED emitting layers (EMLs) in the display. By replacing some of the hydrogen atoms with deuterium, the loss of luminance over time is significantly reduced, which allows the the EMLs to be driven at a 20 to 30 percent greater current density (producing 20 to 30 percent more luminance) while maintaining the same lifetime as the pre-deuterium version of the display.
> 
> Jean Lee added that LGD already has more than ten customers for the new panel, including many major TV manufacturers. Although deuterium is more expensive than hydrogen, system savings produce a panel cost that is the same or less than a conventional panel.
> 
> There was some speculation among the technical chattering class that the new panel does not require pixel compensation, but in Paper 52.1, "Technical Progress of OLED Displays for Premium TVs," LGD's Hong-Jae Shin suggested this isn't true. Shin said a more efficient pixel compensation scheme based on cumulative image history rather than pixel emission measurements may produce savings on the next WOLED generation, if not on this one.
> 
> 
> LG Display's new 97-inch OLED.EX panel with 3840 x 2160 pixels has a peak white luminance of 500 nits in a 25% window, a 120Hz refresh rate, and a 99% DCI color gamut. Replacing some of the hydrogen atoms in the OLED emitting layers with deuterium increases stability and allows luminance to be increased by 20 to 30 percent without reducing lifetime. (Photo: Ken Werner) Click for higher resolution


----------



## fafrd

Can’t blame LGD for continuing to make noise about Deuterium, but it is last-year’s news.

When talking with LGDs CTO, it’s a pity he didn’t discuss the 77” 8K WOLED with MLA…


----------



## dkfan9

fafrd said:


> It’s an incredibly stupid article.
> 
> WOLEDs colored subpixels do not suffer from any ‘tint’ shift with age. At most, the native whitepoint of the unfiltered white subpixel may shift with age.
> 
> With all the wear monitoring and compensation LGD is now doing, modeling any shift in native whitepoint of individual white subpixels and compensating with an appropriate offset of R and/or B and/or G subpixels is well within their capability.
> 
> I’d have more respect for that article if it presented any actual data but it is a pure ‘talk-out-of-your-*ss-to-generate-clicks’ piece of pseudo-scientific clickbait.


Yeah, the shift in native (pre-filter) white point is what they're referring to with tint. As for compensation, is it so straightforward? Sure, measurement and determination of native whitepoint shift seems straightforward, just an extension of what's done for luminance. But isn't the method of compensation still based on adjusting subpixel light output (adjusting current through subpixel)? Adjusting the color temperature of individual subpixels would require a different mechanism.


----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


> View attachment 3282482
> 
> View attachment 3282483
> 
> I have the rest of the article. PM if you don't have institutional access to the article and would like to read it.


Read through the full March 2020 article (thanks OLED-overrated  and here are the most important numbers:

@ 100cd/m2 output level:
30.4 cd/A
24.6% EQE

@ 1000 cd/m2
28.2 cd/A
23.4% EQE
150 hours LT95
1113 hours LT70

These lifetime numbers are apparently more than 10x better than previous Deep Blue PHOLED lifetime results and the efficiency numbers are even higher than I had expected (better than UDC’s Deep Red PHOLED).

The fact that Samsung published these results 2 months ago greatly increases the likelihood they will be adopting Blue PHOLED for their 2023 QD-OLEDs (QD-Display 1.5).

Assuming lifetime is sufficient when driven at required levels, the efficiency of his Blue PHOLED would allow Samsung Display to match and even exceed existing QD-OLED output levels when replacing 3 blue PHOLED layers with a single blue PHOLED layer (so down to 2 OLED emission layers as Ross Young had presumed).

It’ll take me some time to assess how these lifetime results measure up against what LGD and Samsung Display are currently getting from Blue PHOLED (in case anyone else already knows)…


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> Yeah, the shift in native (pre-filter) white point is what they're referring to with tint. As for compensation, is it so straightforward? Sure, measurement and determination of native whitepoint shift seems straightforward, just an extension of what's done for luminance. But isn't the method of compensation still based on adjusting subpixel light output (adjusting current through subpixel)? Adjusting the color temperature of individual subpixels would require a different mechanism.


LG already claims they are monitoring wear on an individual subpuxel by subpixel basis. The translation of white subpixel age to the necessary ‘bump’ in R and/or G and/or B subpuxel output level seems like a modest and manageable extension of that compensation (which of course depends on an accurate whitepoint aging / shift model).

Infinite compute resources go a long way towards compensating for pretty much any aging / wear that can be accurately mueller and monitored…


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> ...so down to 2 OLED emission layers as Bob O’Brian had presumed...


Do you mean Ross Young?


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> Do you mean Ross Young?


Sorry, yes (fixed - thanks).


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Read through the full March 2020 article (thanks OLED-overrated  and here are the most important numbers:
> 
> @ 100cd/m2 output level:
> 30.4 cd/A
> 24.6% EQE
> 
> @ 1000 cd/m2
> 28.2 cd/A
> 23.4% EQE
> 150 hours LT95
> 1113 hours LT70
> 
> These lifetime numbers are apparently more than 10x better than previous Deep Blue PHOLED lifetime results and the efficiency numbers are even higher than I had expected (better than UDC’s Deep Red PHOLED).
> 
> The fact that Samsung published these results 2 months ago greatly increases the likelihood they will be adopting Blue PHOLED for their 2023 QD-OLEDs (QD-Display 1.5).
> 
> Assuming lifetime is sufficient when driven at required levels, the efficiency of his Blue PHOLED would allow Samsung Display to match and even exceed existing QD-OLED output levels when replacing 3 blue PHOLED layers with a single blue PHOLED layer (so down to 2 OLED emission layers as Ross Young had presumed).
> 
> It’ll take me some time to assess how these lifetime results measure up against what LGD and Samsung Display are currently getting from Blue PHOLED (in case anyone else already knows)…


Turns out these Blue PHOLED results published in March are behind where I’d been estimating Samsung was with Blue PHOLED last June (which was insufficient for Blue-PHOLED-based QD-OLED).

So either Samsung’s got a further improvement by 2-3X in lifetime that they’ve kept close to their chest or we may not be seeing a Blue-PHOLED-based QD-OLED in 2023 after all…


----------



## fafrd

fafrd said:


> Tech demo only and was not included in their press release, so unclear whether we’ll see this in 4K WOLEDs next year (but my guess would be high likelihood we’ll at least see MLA with +20% brightness increase across the board in 2023…).


Found this article from 2014 on a low-cost ‘simple’ photoresist-based microlens appeoaxh that results in a 30% increase in optical outcoupling / efficiency: Improving Light Outcoupling Efficiency for OLEDs with Microlens Array Fabricated on Transparent Substrate

This was tested on a bottom-emission OLED and involves patterning the microlens array on the output side (exposed side) of the glass substrate.

So it’s possible LGD’s MLA technology is based on a similar approach…


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> When talking with LGDs CTO, it’s a pity he didn’t discuss the 77” 8K WOLED with MLA…


Who knows, maybe the subject of another article...


----------



## dkfan9

fafrd said:


> LG already claims they are monitoring wear on an individual subpuxel by subpixel basis. The translation of white subpixel age to the necessary ‘bump’ in R and/or G and/or B subpuxel output level seems like a modest and manageable extension of that compensation (which of course depends on an accurate whitepoint aging / shift model).
> 
> Infinite compute resources go a long way towards compensating for pretty much any aging / wear that can be accurately mueller and monitored…


Won't the colored subpixels themselves see some color shift? The color filter works in tandem with the emitted light to determine the final output color, so a change in the emitted light spectrum, by way of differential layer aging, should alter the final output color. Now, maybe they've found clever ways to adjust for this, but it does seem like a different challenge than the aging compensation we typically discuss.


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> Won't the colored subpixels themselves see some color shift? The color filter works in tandem with the emitted light to determine the final output color, so a change in the emitted light spectrum, by way of differential layer aging, should alter the final output color. Now, maybe they've found clever ways to adjust for this, but it does seem like a different challenge than the aging compensation we typically discuss.


First of all, degradation / shift of an OLED subpixel filtered through CCF can be completely modeled and compensated for (whether there is actually any spectrum shift of not).

Secondly, the blue FOLED layers output only pass through the blue CCF (as well as the unfiltered white subpixel while the deep green and red PHOLED emitter output only pass through the green and red CCF.

So if there is any actual aging-related ‘spectrum-shift’ to deal with, it’s likely limited to the yellow PHOLED layer (which passes through both red and green CCF.

But my suspicion is that OLED aging is not generally characterized by spectrum shift and is rather just reduced output levels of the same spectrum. If there was any spectrum shift involved, it should mean that that the SPD of the display changes with age, and I have never heard of that.

So in summary:

-there is probably no spectrum shift of individual OLED emitter layers as they age.

-if there is, it is probably only impacting the yellow PHOLED emitter contribution to the red and green subpixels

-there is no reason any aging-related spectrum shift cannot be characterized and compensated for along with all of the other wear characterization / compensation LGD already performs…


----------



## bobfimmer2

is there any information on whether Samsung Display is developing their Blue PHOLED alone or is it a given that it is tied with UDC and the 2024 timeline they have outlined? UDC sure acts like they are supplying it to SD.


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> First of all, degradation / shift of an OLED subpixel filtered through CCF can be completely modeled and compensated for (whether there is actually any spectrum shift of not).
> 
> Secondly, the blue FOLED layers output only pass through the blue CCF (as well as the unfiltered white subpixel while the deep green and red PHOLED emitter output only pass through the green and red CCF.
> 
> So if there is any actual aging-related ‘spectrum-shift’ to deal with, it’s likely limited to the yellow PHOLED layer (which passes through both red and green CCF.
> 
> But my suspicion is that OLED aging is not generally characterized by spectrum shift and is rather just reduced output levels of the same spectrum. If there was any spectrum shift involved, it should mean that that the SPD of the display changes with age, and I have never heard of that.
> 
> So in summary:
> 
> -there is probably no spectrum shift of individual OLED emitter layers as they age.
> 
> -if there is, it is probably only impacting the yellow PHOLED emitter contribution to the red and green subpixels
> 
> -there is no reason any aging-related spectrum shift cannot be characterized and compensated for along with all of the other wear characterization / compensation LGD already performs…


I assume you mean spectrum shift from even wear? It’s pretty clear there is shift from uneven wear. See, the green tinted center of older heavily used C6 or C7.


----------



## Adonisds

Wizziwig said:


> English version of video I linked earlier.


When was the use of a green layer confirmed?
Could someone please link?


----------



## Wizziwig

Adonisds said:


> When was the use of a green layer confirmed?
> Could someone please link?


Everyone is jumping on the article posted a few days ago. See this post for links. You decide if this is "confirmation" or just reposting of the original UBI speculation.


----------



## fafrd

chris7191 said:


> I assume you mean spectrum shift from even wear? It’s pretty clear there is shift from uneven wear. See, the green tinted center of older heavily used C6 or C7.


There is little point in talking about 2016 or 2017 WOLEDs since LGS has only introduced wear compensation technology since then and it evolved significantly since the first crude implementation in 2017.

‘Spectrum shift’ (burn-in) on a 100% white field will only appear once the compensation technology has used up all of the reserve headroom which was set aside for the purposes of compensating modeled wear / burn-in.

With the news from Rtings that they (finally!) plan to perform another burn-in test, we’re going to know a great deal more on this subject 6-9 months from now (and I’m guessing the results will shock us).


----------



## 8mile13

Adonisds said:


> When was the use of a green layer confirmed?
> Could someone please link?


''the display related industry _must have_ disassembled the Alienware QD OLED monitor''. The problem with that is that the UBI article, only article that mentioned a green layer, was written way before the Alienware QD OLED monitor was for sale..also UBI talks about _*Expected structure* _of QD-OLED.  _must have__._


----------



## OLED_Overrated

I don't know Korean, and most of the auto-translation is intelligible, but a snippet of the auto-translation I understood mentions that Samsung Display employees are working on LEDs smaller than 30x30 micrometer.


----------



## Wizziwig

Finally saw a Samsung S95B in the wild and posted some comments in the potential owner's thread. Linking here since I know we had a lot of lengthy discussions on whether QD-OLEDs bright room black-level would hurt their sales.


----------



## Davenlr

The one at my Best Buy was so dim it was a joke. The 55 was bright as all get out. Not sure why they had the 65" set so dim, but anyone looking at the two (they were facing each other) would pick the 55 easily. No remote. No way to control it, so couldnt even reset the default settings to see what it actually looked like. If it looked as good as the 55", I would be interested once the price comes down.


----------



## Wizziwig

Same setup at my store with the two sizes facing each other. That's the 55" you can see reflecting in the 65" screen in the overhead light reflection photo. Considering their proximity, it did a good job suppressing the bright reflection. The LG WOLEDs are basically mirrors on that sort of thing as you can see at the top of the C1 screen. Weird that the A1 uses a completely different semi-gloss screen as you can see in the diffused reflections.

Got to love the signage. "Samsung OLED TV". Surprised they they didn't call it "Samsung AMOLED TV" to align with their phone marketing. Not really playing up the quantum dot aspect very much. "Colors so real. it's surreal" . No wonder calibrators are complaining. 

Forgot to mention in the other post, I also looked for the color fringing issue. When I was within arms length of the TV, I could see it at the top and bottom of white letters on dark background. Looks exactly like a misconverged projector. I would definitely NOT recommend these large panels for computer monitors. Issue should be less visible on the smaller monitors - I'll be able to confirm soon since Micro Center stores started selling them and I have one nearby.


----------



## 59LIHP

> *Samsung Electronics' TVs using LG Display's W-OLED are expected to be hard to see this year. *
> 
> With the worsening TV market conditions and falling LCD panel prices, there is no reason for Samsung Electronics to rush to launch W-OLED TVs. Samsung Electronics and LG Display are expected to continue negotiations on W-OLED supply with the goal of releasing finished products next year.
> 
> According to the industry on the 23rd, it is understood that the possibility of Samsung Electronics to launch a TV using LG Display's white (W)-organic light-emitting diode (OLED) within this year has become slim. There were also expectations that the launch of the new government this month and the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, which will start in November, will become a catalyst for W-OLED supply negotiations between the two companies.
> 
> Above all, from the standpoint of Samsung Electronics, there is no reason to rush to negotiate a W-OLED supply with LG Display. The TV market is deteriorating, and liquid crystal display (LCD) panel prices are on a downward trend.
> 
> The global TV market this year is expected to grow negatively compared to last year. The global economic uncertainty is growing due to the prolonged Russian invasion of Ukraine and the lockdown in China due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Inflationary pressure is also a negative factor for consumer sentiment.
> 
> Large LCD panel prices have fallen to pre-COVID-19 levels. Large LCD panel prices, which have risen for about a year since June 2020, when Corona 19 was spreading, have been on a downward trend since the second half of last year. The environment is different from when Samsung Electronics started W-OLED supply negotiations with LG Display last year.
> 
> At the same time, it is estimated that Samsung Electronics requested LG Display to jointly develop W-OLED technology in the process of negotiations between the two sides as an obstacle to the progress of the negotiations. If Samsung Electronics participates in LG Display's next-generation W-OLED technology development, there will be restrictions on the use of some technologies from the standpoint of LG Display. This is because Samsung Electronics may demand an exclusive contract for a specific technology on the grounds of joint development.
> 
> There is a possibility that LG Display may have a setback in achieving its W-OLED shipment target this year. LG Display's W-OLED shipment target of 10 million units this year reflects the expectation that it will supply 2 million W-OLED units to Samsung Electronics. It is known that LG Display's W-OLED inventory was not small in the first quarter of last year.
> 
> However, there is still a possibility that the two sides will continue negotiations with the goal of next year. It is difficult for Samsung Electronics to differentiate itself from other Chinese TV companies with only LCD products such as 'Neo QLED', a mini light emitting diode (LED) TV, and it is difficult to form an OLED TV lineup with only quantum dot (QD)-OLED, which is being mass-produced by Samsung Display.
> 
> Moreover, the time for mass production of quantum dot nanorod light emitting diode (QNED) technology, which was expected to become a major axis of Samsung Electronics' next-generation premium TV lineup, is unclear. As Samsung Display's QNED pilot line installation, which was originally expected in the fourth quarter of last year or the first quarter of this year, was delayed, it became difficult to predict the timing of QNED mass production. Since it is difficult to expect QNED mass production for at least several years, the prevailing view is that Samsung Electronics will include OLED TVs in its premium product lineup.
> 
> Meanwhile, in the industry recently, there has been a forecast that this month will be a watershed in the W-OLED supply negotiations between Samsung Electronics and LG Display. Considering finished product production, logistics, and marketing, it is possible to launch a finished product within this year only if negotiations are completed within this month. However, with the exception of the launch of the new government and the Qatar World Cup, other factors, such as weakening consumer sentiment, have been evaluated as obstacles to progress in negotiations.
> 
> TrendForce, a market research firm, lowered its OLED TV shipment forecast for this year to 7.79 million units last month from 8.46 million units in January. We reflected the delay in W-OLED negotiations between Samsung Electronics and LG Display. The global TV shipment forecast for this year has also decreased from 217 million units to 212 million units. Due to inflationary pressures, the TV market this year is highly likely to grow negatively compared to last year (210 million units).











삼성전자의 W-OLED TV 출시, 해 넘긴다


LG디스플레이의 W-OLED를 채용한 삼성전자 TV는 올해 보기 힘들 것으로 예상된다. TV 시장 업황 악화와 LCD 패널 가격 하락으로 삼성전자가 W-OLED TV를 서둘러 출시해야 할 이유가 없어졌다. 삼성전자와 LG디스플레이는 내년 완제품 출시를 목표로 W-OLED 공급협상을 지속할 것으로 전망된다.23일 업계에 따르면 삼성전자가 연내에 LG디스플레이의 화이트(W)-유기발광다이오드(OLED)를 적용한 TV를 출시할 가능성은 희박해진 것으로 파악됐다. 이달 새 정부 출범과 11월 개막하는 2022 카타르 월드컵 등이 양사 W-O




www.thelec.kr


----------



## ynotgoal

JasonHa said:


> This seems true, but unfortunately it's not clear from the Elec article what info is coming from him.
> 
> We know Bob O'Brien from DSCC directly asked a Samsung rep about this question, but if he ever got an answer, they haven't published it.


It's clear the quotes about QD-OLED adopting blue phosphorescent is coming from the Professor. So in 2024-ish it will either be all blue phosphorescent or blue + green phosphorescent. I'm not that concerned about the few 2023 models they will sell.

I agree the Elec article is unclear about the source of the green layer. OLED-A has also put out a piece which does clearly state:
"Samsung Display’s current QD-OLED panel uses fluorescent blue OLED material and green phosphorescent OLED material as the emission layer. The layers are in a four-tandem structure, where there are three blue layers and one green layer. "

Note, yes OLED-A and DSCC are not exactly the same but will just say Ross Young is the CEO of DSCC and Barry Young is the CEO of OLED-A.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

59LIHP said:


> 삼성전자의 W-OLED TV 출시, 해 넘긴다
> 
> 
> LG디스플레이의 W-OLED를 채용한 삼성전자 TV는 올해 보기 힘들 것으로 예상된다. TV 시장 업황 악화와 LCD 패널 가격 하락으로 삼성전자가 W-OLED TV를 서둘러 출시해야 할 이유가 없어졌다. 삼성전자와 LG디스플레이는 내년 완제품 출시를 목표로 W-OLED 공급협상을 지속할 것으로 전망된다.23일 업계에 따르면 삼성전자가 연내에 LG디스플레이의 화이트(W)-유기발광다이오드(OLED)를 적용한 TV를 출시할 가능성은 희박해진 것으로 파악됐다. 이달 새 정부 출범과 11월 개막하는 2022 카타르 월드컵 등이 양사 W-O
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.kr


_At the same time, it is estimated that Samsung Electronics requested LG Display to jointly develop W-OLED technology in the process of negotiations between the two sides as an obstacle to the progress of the negotiations. If Samsung Electronics participates in LG Display's next-generation W-OLED technology development, there will be restrictions on the use of some technologies from the standpoint of LG Display. This is because Samsung Electronics may demand an exclusive contract for a specific technology on the grounds of joint development. _

Is this a translation artifact or have SEC and LGD really been discussing jointly developing next gen WOLED tech? If so, what tech in particular? MLA? blue PHOLED? ...


----------



## ynotgoal

BOE to Commercialize 95” WOLED Panel Shown at Display Week 2022 (limited volume for now)

DSCC sources in China have learned that BOE plans to commercialize the 95” 8K White OLED TV panel shown at Display Week. I must admit, I heard this at the exhibit during Display Week but did not believe it, but our sources in China confirm BOE’s intent. The product shown at Display Week claimed brightness of 800 nits peak and 150 nits typical and a color gamut of 99% of DCI-P3, with a contrast ratio of 100,000:1 and a 120Hz refresh rate.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> _At the same time, it is estimated that Samsung Electronics requested LG Display to jointly develop W-OLED technology in the process of negotiations between the two sides as an obstacle to the progress of the negotiations. If Samsung Electronics participates in LG Display's next-generation W-OLED technology development, there will be restrictions on the use of some technologies from the standpoint of LG Display. This is because Samsung Electronics may demand an exclusive contract for a specific technology on the grounds of joint development. _
> 
> Is this a translation artifact or have SEC and LGD really been discussing jointly developing next gen WOLED tech? If so, what tech in particular? MLA? blue PHOLED? ...


The rumor is that Samsung may invest with LGD to complete the 10.5G WOLED Fab (which it appears LGD is struggling to fund on their own, especially with the current contraction of the TV market…).

If, for example, Samsung Display and LG Display agree to cooperate on the manufacture of 10.5G QD-WOLED and Samsung is bringing the QDCC technology, Samsung Display may require exclusivity or otherwise constrain where LGD can sell those QD-WOLED panels…


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> BOE to Commercialize 95” WOLED Panel Shown at Display Week 2022 (limited volume for now)
> 
> DSCC sources in China have learned that BOE plans to commercialize the 95” 8K White OLED TV panel shown at Display Week. I must admit, I heard this at the exhibit during Display Week but did not believe it, but our sources in China confirm BOE’s intent. The product shown at Display Week claimed brightness of 800 nits peak and 150 nits typical and a color gamut of 99% of DCI-P3, with a contrast ratio of 100,000:1 and a 120Hz refresh rate.


If it is just a development project to get some real-world reliability data, perhaps. But there is no way BOE can bring up a WOLED manufacturing line manufacturing exclusively 95” 8K panels.

Improving yields requires a continuous manufacturing flow at high volume (meaning at least 10,000 substrates per month).

Who wants to guess what the worldwide demand of 95” 8K TVs will be next year?

‘Plans’ and talk are cheap (meaning I’ll believe it when I see it.).


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> If, for example, Samsung Display and LG Display agree to cooperate…


It might be a garbled translation but the quote in the article reads as if the "joint development" discussions are between Samsung Electronics and LG Display. So Samsung Electronics might help fund it? Or Samsung Electronics is asking Samsung Display to help with development? Or maybe just a mis-translation.


----------



## Jin-X

Just to cool down the jets on BOE making large OLED tvs… Apple caught them cheating on the mobile panels for their iPhones by trying to change the specs agreed upon without Apple knowing.









BOE yet to receive approval from Apple to manufacture iPhone 14 OLED panels


BOE is yet to receive approval from Apple to manufacture OLED panels for the upcoming iPhone 14 smartphones series, TheElec has learned.The company was caught having changed the circuit width of the thin film transistors on the OLED panels it made for iPhone 13 earlier this year, people familiar wit




www.thelec.net






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jin-X said:


> Just to cool down the jets on BOE making large OLED tvs… Apple caught them cheating on the mobile panels for their iPhones by trying to change the specs agreed upon without Apple knowing.


Blimey. Did they solve the problem of a "bite" being taken out of one end of the screen?


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> It might be a garbled translation but the quote in the article reads as if the "joint development" discussions are between Samsung Electronics and LG Display. So Samsung Electronics might help fund it? Or Samsung Electronics is asking Samsung Display to help with development? Or maybe just a mis-translation.


Assuming these talks are for real, they are complicated and essentially involve direct agreement between the two Chaebols (whether Samsung Electronics and LGD are taking the lead roles or not).

An actual agreement to invest in completing the 10.5G fab jointly would mean the Samsung Group funding Samsung Display for a major investment (mirrored by the LG group mirroring that investment in kind, including 20.5G investments already completed).

Capacity would now be jointly owned by both Samsung Display and LGD.

Samsung Electronics would be the primary ‘customer’ for Samsung Display’s share of that capacity, so their buy-in to the whole plan is critical.

That kind of joint-investment - capacity sharing agreement is common in the display case industry and straightforward enough.

The hairball comes into it because Samsung Electronics is probably not interested in QD-OLED or WOLED but wants something ‘better’ - certainly cheaper than either and possibly also higher-performance.

Samsung Display no doubt has plans for some better next-generation of QD-OLED and LGD no doubt has similar plans.

The fact that ‘co-development’ is getting referenced suggests some improvement to WOLED that Samsung Display can help accelerate due to their experience with QD-OLED.

QD-WOLED would be one natural concept. Samsung Display has at least a two-year headstart in industrializing printed QDCCC, so they could help get a 10.5G QD-WOLED fab ramped at least one year faster if not two versus what LGD could achieve without them.

Or it could be too-emission WOLED.

Or it could be polarizer-less WOLED.

Or it could be blue PHOLED.

Or it could be any combination of those 4.

Samsung Electronics is in a unique position because they probably have a unique perspective on the development roadmaps of both Samsung Display and LGD.

It sounds as though what they may want is something best achieved by combining the know-how and development plans of both groups.

The concept is much easier than nailing down an actual co-development agreement that both Samsung Display ad LGD can commit to, but it’s possible the Korean Government has a seat at the table and will offer both companies incentives to make it happen.

These are likely discussions that go way, way above our pay grades (meaning ability to understand or predict).


----------



## mrtickleuk

fafrd said:


> Or it could be too-emission WOLED.
> 
> Or it could be polarizer-less WOLED.
> 
> Or it could be blue PHOLED.
> 
> Or it could be any combination of those 4.


One thing's for sure, it'll keep you busy with your postings for years!


----------



## 59LIHP

*



Samsung Reports Breakthrough on Blue Phosphorescent OLED Lifetime

Click to expand...

*


> The development of phosphorescent blue OLED emitters (PhOLED) promises to greatly enhance the prospects for OLED displays by allowing for improved brightness efficiency and/or lower cost. Early this year, Universal Display Corporation (UDC) announced that they expect to achieve target performance for commercialization of blue PhOLED by the end of the year and expect commercial sales of the material by 2024.
> 
> A Display Week 2022 symposium paper presented by Samsung Display researchers describes a key breakthrough that may underlie UDC’s confidence in blue PhOLED. The symposium paper 40.2, entitled “Exceptionally Stable Blue Phosphorescent OLEDs”, was presented by Sunghan Kim, PhD of Samsung Display. The Display Week 2022 presentation follows an article in the journal Nature Photonics entitled “Exceptionally Stable Blue Phosphorescent OLEDs” authored by the same researchers.
> 
> Dr. Kim started by pointing out the importance of a more efficient blue emitter, a concept that DSCC Weekly Review readers should be very familiar with. Then Kim provided a history of Samsung research on the subject, including published articles in top scientific journals including Advanced Science (2x), Nature Communications, Advanced Optical Materials and Nature Photonics from 2017 through 2021.
> 
> In improving efficiency and reducing power consumption, a control of out-coupling has been the greatest contributor to efficiency improvement. Samsung has developed platinum complexes to improve decay rate. A fast radiative decay rate leads to higher efficiency and longer lifetime. The platinum complex has also shown to produce a narrower emission spectrum
> 
> With efficiency and color addressed, Samsung has worked to improve the lifetime of phosphorescent blue emitters. Stability in blue is hindered by the high energy state of blue light and the long decay time of phosphorescent emitters. The reported lifetime of deep blue PhOLED (CIEy<0.2) is <100 hours at LT70, this is the biggest barrier to commercialization.
> 
> The approach involved improvements in both dopant and host materials, as shown in the slide here. For the dopant, the emphasis was improving stability and color purity. For the host, the research targeted reducing degradation in the emissive layer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Source: Samsung Display, SID Display Week Symposium Paper 40.2_
> 
> The Samsung research introduced a novel dopant material with some complex chemistry which allowed for increased photoluminescence quantum yield (PQLY) and reduced decay lifetime. PQLY was improved from 83% to 93% and the decay lifetime in solution was reduced from 6.60μs to 1.98μs. The new dopant achieves better performance through increased intrinsic stability and increased color purity by preventing exciplex formation between the host-guest molecule.
> 
> For the host material, with some more complex chemistry Samsung developed a novel material providing increased intrinsic stability and improve triplet confinement. The triplet energy of the exciplex is lower than single hosts, which could prevent host degradation.
> 
> After more optimization trials, Samsung was able to achieve a device performance with an External Quantum Efficiency (EQE) of 23.4% and a LT70 lifetime of more than 1000 hours, an improvement of more than 10x compared to prior materials, while maintaining a color point with CIEy < 0.2 as shown in the slide here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Source: Samsung Display, SID Display Week Symposium Paper 40.2_
> 
> In addition to this work with blue PhOLED, Dr. Kim noted that Samsung is also working on Thermally Activated Delayer Fluorescence (TADF) systems.
> 
> In a Q&A session after the presentation, Dr. Kim was asked about the color target of CIEy<0.2. The existing PhOLED blue emitters have CIEy < 0.15, and the BT2020 blue color point is CIEy=0.046, so it is not clear that Samsung’s material is a deep enough blue for display applications. Kim responded that CIEy<0.2 was Samsung’s initial target with bottom emission. Top emission devices will have better color purity, and Samsung will continue to work on getting an even deeper blue.
> 
> The Samsung paper does not make any reference or credit to UDC, but it seems likely that this research involves the material supplier. As pointed out above, Samsung has published extensive results of research on blue PhOLED in various scientific journals. This leads to a question: what is the implication of Samsung's research on UDC's future commercialization of blue PhOLED?
> 
> It is possible that UDC's blue PhOLED will be based solely on UDC intellectual property, but also possible that it will incorporate IP from Samsung as well. If the latter, another question arises: will UDC sell blue PhOLED to clients other than Samsung Display? If blue PhOLED will be exclusive to Samsung, even for a limited period of time, it would reinforce SDC’s already dominant position in OLED displays.








- Display Supply Chain Consultants







www.displaysupplychain.com


----------



## 59LIHP

> ■ Possibility of commercialization of phosphorescent blue
> 
> -Samsung has developed Exciplex Host with long-life Pt dopant and excellent characteristics. Phosphorescent blue LT70 has achieved a lifespan of 1000 hours, and high color purity and long lifespan using TADF final dopant is being promoted.
> 
> Idemitsu Kosan won the Best Paper Award for a thesis that improves fluorescence blue efficiency, and achieved 12% EQE based on bottom emission. It achieved 259BI efficiency based on Top Emission standards, and announced a lifespan of 195h at 50mA/cm2 based on LT95. The goal is to achieve 350BI, 17% EQE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <Development of usable phosphorescent blue by Samsung>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <Best Paper Award for Idemitsu Kosan's Fluorescence Blue Efficiency Improvement>
> 
> ■ Change of phosphorescent material to Pt material
> The trend is moving from the phosphorescent dopant Ir to Pt, and the Pt material has higher efficiency, narrower FWHM, and excellent spectral properties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <Comparison of phosphorescent dopant Ir and Pt efficiency>
> 
> In conclusion, Professor Kwon Kwon said that, due to China's rapid technological pursuit, technological competitiveness is almost at the same level on the surface. He emphasized the need to focus on human progress.











[SID2022리뷰심포지엄] SID에서 본 OLED 디스플레이 활성화 방향 | OLEDNET


한국디스플레이산업협회에서는 올해 60주년을 맞은 “SID Display Week 2022(5.8-13)”의 주요 내용을 공유하고, 향후 디스플레이분야 국가 R&D 추진 방향을 모색하하고자 “SID 2022 리뷰 심포지엄”을 5월 18일 삼정호텔 제라늄홀에서 진행되었다. 경희대학교 권장혁 교수는 SID2022 OLED 핵심제품 Trend와 OLED 핵심 기술에 대해서 발표했다.




olednet.com


----------



## 59LIHP

59LIHP said:


> 삼성전자의 W-OLED TV 출시, 해 넘긴다
> 
> 
> LG디스플레이의 W-OLED를 채용한 삼성전자 TV는 올해 보기 힘들 것으로 예상된다. TV 시장 업황 악화와 LCD 패널 가격 하락으로 삼성전자가 W-OLED TV를 서둘러 출시해야 할 이유가 없어졌다. 삼성전자와 LG디스플레이는 내년 완제품 출시를 목표로 W-OLED 공급협상을 지속할 것으로 전망된다.23일 업계에 따르면 삼성전자가 연내에 LG디스플레이의 화이트(W)-유기발광다이오드(OLED)를 적용한 TV를 출시할 가능성은 희박해진 것으로 파악됐다. 이달 새 정부 출범과 11월 개막하는 2022 카타르 월드컵 등이 양사 W-O
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.kr


Samsung unlikely to launch W-OLED TV this year








Samsung unlikely to launch W-OLED TV this year


Samsung is unlikely to launch TVs that use LG Display’s white(W)-OLED panels this year, TheElec has learned.Demand for TVs has dipped compared to the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic while liquid crystal display (LCD) panels that spiked before are dropping again, which means Samsung is in no hurry to l




www.thelec.net


----------



## CA22EF

I found a patent on the thermal design of OLED.
I believe this applies to A90J.





WO2021020157A1 - Display device - Google Patents


The present technology relates to a display device that makes it possible to certainly suppress the influence of heat generation. Provided is a display device equipped with: a signal processing unit that processes a video signal and an audio signal; a plate-shaped panel unit that displays video...



patents.google.com









WO2021020158A1 - Display device - Google Patents


The present technology relates to a display device that can more reliably suppress the influence of heat generation. Provided is a display device comprising: a signal processing unit that processes an image signal and an audio signal; a plate-shaped panel part that displays an image according to...



patents.google.com









WO2021220852A1 - Signal processing device, signal processing method, and display device - Google Patents


The present technology relates to a signal processing device, a signal processing method, and a display device that make it possible to provide functions suitable for uses. Provided is a signal processing device equipped with a signal processing unit that acquires at least one information among...



patents.google.com







https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/39/45/6a/2ebb4cde577cfd/JPOXMLDOC01-appb-D000012.png




> In FIG. 12, for the sub-pixels R, G, and B, the control of the peak luminance according to the average pixel level (APL) is shown by the thick line L51.
> In FIG. 12, as shown by the thick line L51 represented by the curve, the emission luminance of the sub-pixels R, G, and B gradually decreases as the value of the average pixel level (APL) increases.





https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e8/90/83/28b23e5c4c4637/JPOXMLDOC01-appb-D000013.png




> In FIG. 13, for the sub-pixel W, the control of the peak luminance according to the average pixel level (APL) is shown by a thick line L61 represented by a curve.
> As shown by the thick line L61 in FIG. 13, the emission brightness of the sub-pixel W gradually decreases as the average pixel level (APL) value increases.





https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c8/09/e5/c3372e61e122cd/JPOXMLDOC01-appb-D000015.png




> FIG. 15 shows a configuration example of a plurality of temperature sensors provided for the panel unit 114.
> In FIG. 15, an example in which the entire screen area of the panel unit 114 is divided into 4 × 9 areas having the same size in the vertical direction and the horizontal direction, and the temperature sensor 171 is attached to each divided area. Shown.
> For convenience of explanation, a broken line indicating the boundary of the divided region is described on the screen of the panel unit 114.


----------



## Ted99

fafrd said:


> If it is just a development project to get some real-world reliability data, perhaps. But there is no way BOE can bring up a WOLED manufacturing line manufacturing exclusively 95” 8K panels.
> 
> Improving yields requires a continuous manufacturing flow at high volume (meaning at least 10,000 substrates per month).
> 
> Who wants to guess what the worldwide demand of 95” 8K TVs will be next year?
> 
> ‘Plans’ and talk are cheap (meaning I’ll believe it when I see it.).


Bring it on, BOE. The more competition the better. My next TV in 2025-6 is going to be an 88"+ emissive tech with 8K, at least 1000 nits and will cost less than $10K in 2025 dollars. I fully accept your expectations for the near-future of OLED in general, so this will be a WOLED with the improved efficiency blue. Who will make it remains to be determined.


----------



## fafrd

I’ve been looking over Kyulux’s recently-announced TADF emitter results: Kyulux says it is on track to commercialize green Hyperfluorescence materials in 2023, red and blue in 2024










First, I believe I understood what the strange column labeled ‘cd/A/CiEy’ is supposed to mean.

The CiEy of the Blue TADF emitter is 0.09, so a cd/A/CiEy of 225 corresponds to a cd/A of 20.25 divided by a CiEy of 0.09 = 225.

So I’m just going to assume cd/A of 20.25 for the blue emitter.

The Blue FOLED emitter LGD is currently using has an efficiency of ~7cd/A, so a single layer of Kyulux’s TADF blue emitter will put out 289% as many candelas of blue as a single Blue FOLED layer, or 145% as many candelas as the two Blue FOLED layers WOLED currently uses.

But LT95 of 450 hours @ 1000 cd/m2 is only 4.5% the 10,000 hour lifetime Blue FOLED delivers, so it seems like it’s still a long way from what is needed to make a Blue-TADF-based WOLED TV.

Let’s assume we are just talking about a WOLED TV delivering an APL of 100 cd/m2 in SDR or HDR and take a full-field white screen at 100 cd/m2 as the average output level for the purposes of analyzing aging rate and lifetime.

For DCI-P3, 100 cd/m2 of white requires only 6.0 cd/m2 of blue. If we assume an unfiltered ‘white’ subpixel filling 67% of pixel height and 27.5% of pixel width, that is a white subpixel PAR of 18.3%, meaning 6.0cd/m2 will require 32.7 blue candelas being emitted by that subpixel (32.7cd/m2 within the white subpixel).

There is no color filter but there is a polarizer cutting ~50% of output, so 32.7cd/m2 out of the polarizer will require ~65cd/m2 of blue out of the white subpixel.

65cd/m2 is only 6.5% of 1000cd/m2, so the LT95 of the blue layer within the white subpixel will be much longer than 450 hours. Aging rate decreases superlinearly with decreasing current / output levels (running an OLED half as hard more than doubles lifetime) so we can use a linear extrapolation as a worst-course estimate of lifetime.

450 / 6.5% = 6925, so blue TADF layer should deliver at least 7000 hours at that output level before losing 5% of initial intensity.

Whether you want to bother with a more accurate model to see whether LT95 is actually closer to 10,000 hours or just focus on LT90 which will likely be over 15,000 hours under these conditions, the point is that an LT95 of 450 hours @ 1000 cd/m2 looks viable for a WOLED TV.

Since the amount by which the ‘white’ subpixel can be driven will always be limited by blue output (the white subpixel cannot be used at all for fully-saturated yellow output), it would likely be used less frequently/hard than in the case of today’s WBE WOLEDs and so the red and green subpixels will likely need to be driven harder.

Red has historically been the weakest color of WOLED and so it’s worth looking at Kyulux’s red TADF emitter as well and comparing against UDC’s red PHOLED emitter:










Kyulux’s Red TADF emitter is slightly deeper red than UDC’s red PHOLED emitter and has an efficiency that is 3 times better (50 cd/A vs 17 cd/A) so using it instead of the UDC red PHOLED emitter should translate to ~3 times as many red photons for the same drive current.

And with an LT95 of 20,000 hours versus the 14,000 hours delivered by UDC’s red PHOLED, it’s hard to find a reason LGD would not be far better off switching to Kyulux’s red TADF emitter for their WOLED TV.

With blue ~45% stronger by switching two blue FOLED layers to a single blue TADF layer, and red much stronger by switching from red PHOLED to red TADF, we just need to check green (WOLED’s strongest color).

Kyulux’s green TADF has an efficiency of 224 cd/A, 264% the 85 cd/A efficiency of UDC’s green PHOLED.

And with an LT95 of 59,000 hours, it also ages less than a third the rate of UDC’s green PHOLED with LT95 of 18,000 hours.

So unless I’m missing something. I believe Kyulux’s claimed specifications will represent a major increase in the efficiency and specifications of WOLED TV.

A 3S3C WOLED using a single layer each of Kyulux’s R, G and B TADF emitters should be able to deliver at least a 50% increase in output levels for similar lifetime across the board, if not a 100% increase (meaning twice the brightness).

And if Kyulux’s TADF emitters can be mixed/combined on a single OLED emitter layer the way UDC’s PHOLED emitters can, a 2S3C B-R/G WOLED based on Kyulux’s TADF emitters should be able to at least match current WBE/3S4C WOLED performance at significantly lower cost (only 2 OLED emission layers in the stack rather than 3, potentially increasing fab capacity by 50% at little/no capital cost).

Of course, Kyulux may be blowing smoke and may never actually deliver TADF emitters achieving these specs. Or perhaps I’m missing something. But short of that, looks like we may be entering a new era for OLED TV by ~2025/26…


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> First, I believe I understood what the strange column labeled ‘cd/A/CiEy’ is supposed to mean.
> 
> The CiEy of the Blue TADF emitter is 0.09, so a cd/A/CiEy of 225 corresponds to a cd/A of 20.25 divided by a CiEy of 0.09 = 225.


That's the general idea of that unusual metric.



fafrd said:


> it’s worth looking at Kyulux’s red TADF emitter as well and comparing against UDC’s red PHOLED emitter:
> 
> Of course, Kyulux may be blowing smoke and may never actually deliver TADF emitters achieving these specs.


The UDC specs are from 2012. They tailor materials to each customers specific requirements so haven't published an off the shelf spec since then. It's safe to say they are better than they were 10 years ago.

The Kyulux specs for red and green are top emission which will be more efficient than the bottom emission in their own blue and the UDC specs. There are other things that seem questionable in their table but I'll leave it at that.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> That's the general idea of that unusual metric.
> 
> 
> 
> The UDC specs are from 2012. They tailor materials to each customers specific requirements so haven't published an off the shelf spec since then. It's safe to say they are better than they were 10 years ago.
> 
> The Kyulux specs for red and green are top emission which will be more efficient than the bottom emission in their own blue and the UDC specs. There are other things that seem questionable in their table but I'll leave it at that.


Thanks for all the insight.

Do you know of any way to get a realistic estimate of the OLED emitter specifications that WOLED is using now? (red, green & yellow PHOLED, blue FOLED).

And as far as lifetime specs for high-efficiency blue emitters, do you have an understanding of the minimum LT95 lifetime needed for a viable product (PHOLED orcTADF)?


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> Do you know of any way to get a realistic estimate of the OLED emitter specifications that WOLED is using now? (red, green & yellow PHOLED, blue FOLED).
> 
> And as far as lifetime specs for high-efficiency blue emitters, do you have an understanding of the minimum LT95 lifetime needed for a viable product (PHOLED orcTADF)?


No. You really need to know the entire set of specs.. color point, efficiency, initial luminance, current, lifetime %, lifetime hours, etc to make any comparisons. Meeting some requirements without others won't make it into production. 

I think a minimum for a new blue lifetime is to be pretty close to the current blue lifetime. There are some specs floating around with different luminance and LTxx parameters. I don't know but suspect the initial PHOLED blue will come in pretty close to the FL blue in lifetime with maybe a 50% or so increase in efficiency. It might miss the desired color point a bit but would need to be close. Expect improvements over time. Also, using all phosphorescent simplifies the OLED stack by eliminating some extra layers due to the power differences between phosphorescent and fluorescent. 

The Kyulux specs are interesting but it's hard to make any judgements from what they've published. It seems like there is general interest in the TADF materials but I haven't heard any talk about them being adopted in a major way yet. That could change, of course.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> No. You really need to know the entire set of specs.. color point, efficiency, initial luminance, current, lifetime %, lifetime hours, etc to make any comparisons. Meeting some requirements without others won't make it into production.
> 
> I think a minimum for a new blue lifetime is to be pretty close to the current blue lifetime. There are some specs floating around with different luminance and LTxx parameters. I don't know but suspect the initial PHOLED blue will come in pretty close to the FL blue in lifetime with maybe a 50% or so increase in efficiency. It might miss the desired color point a bit but would need to be close. Expect improvements over time. Also, using all phosphorescent simplifies the OLED stack by eliminating some extra layers due to the power differences between phosphorescent and fluorescent.
> 
> The Kyulux specs are interesting but it's hard to make any judgements from what they've published. It seems like there is general interest in the TADF materials but I haven't heard any talk about them being adopted in a major way yet. That could change, of course.


I believe I’ve read from several sources that the lifetime of the Blue FOLED emitter LGD WOLED is using is in the range of 10,000 hours (LT95 @ 1000 cd/m2).

LGD ended up doubling blue output strength by using 2 layers, meaning the existing tandem-layer solution should deliver ~20,000 hours LT95 @ 1000 cd/m2 (500 cd/m2 per layer).

A high-efficiency blue emitter should have output efficiency that is 3-4 times the ~7% of blue FOLED, but even if we assume a single high-efficiency blue layer only being driven for output levels similar to what LGD gets from the current tandem blue FOLED stack, seems like little chance we’re going to see a high-efficiency blue emitter lifetime of even 10% of that level anytime soon.

On the other hand, despite all the fears of blue being WOLEDs weakest color, it has not proven the weakest color in practice (real-world usage).

Red has proven to be the color WOLED has had the greatest challenge with.

Since the number of blue photons is typically less than 20% the number of red photons needed to generate white (and for DCI-P3-mastered SDR in general), that should mean a blue lifetime which is as little as 20% of red lifetime should suffice (meaning both at equivalent output levels such as 1000 cd/m2).

Using UDC’s (old and apparently outdated) deep red PHOLED lifetime of 14,000 hours, that could translate to a high-efficiency blue lifetime of 2500-3000 hours being enough to suffice for WOLED TV application.

That still seems to be 5-6 times beyond where things are this year but the other possibility is that more and more sophisticated burn-in / wear compensation algorithms / technologies could allow a WOLED TV being designed to target LT70 rather than LT95…

Even once it has degraded to 70% of it’s initial efficiency, a degraded high-efficiency blue emitter is likely to put out more blue photons than a pair of blue FOLED emitters (and consuming less than half the power to boot).

My gut feel is that however the remaining gaps are being bridged, we are likely so see a convergence of capability as far as a high-efficiency blue emitter in the next 2-3 years…


----------



## Nopa

fafrd said:


> I believe I’ve read from several sources that the lifetime of the Blue FOLED emitter LGD WOLED is using is in the range of 10,000 hours (LT95 @ 1000 cd/m2).
> 
> LGD ended up doubling blue output strength by using 2 layers, meaning the existing tandem-layer solution should deliver ~20,000 hours LT95 @ 1000 cd/m2 (500 cd/m2 per layer).
> 
> A high-efficiency blue emitter should have output efficiency that is 3-4 times the ~7% of blue FOLED, but even if we assume a single high-efficiency blue layer only being driven for output levels similar to what LGD gets from the current tandem blue FOLED stack, seems like little chance we’re going to see a high-efficiency blue emitter lifetime of even 10% of that level anytime soon.
> 
> On the other hand, despite all the fears of blue being WOLEDs weakest color, it has not proven the weakest color in practice (real-world usage).
> 
> Red has proven to be the color WOLED has had the greatest challenge with.
> 
> Since the number of blue photons is typically less than 20% the number of red photons needed to generate white (and for DCI-P3-mastered SDR in general), that should mean a blue lifetime which is as little as 20% of red lifetime should suffice (both at equivalent output levels such as 1000 cd/m2).
> 
> Using UDC’s (old and apparently outdated) deep red PHOLED lifetime of 14,000 hours, that could translate to a high-efficiency blue lifetime of 2500-3000 hours might suffice for WOLED TV application.
> 
> That still seems to be 5-6 times beyond where things are this year but the other possibility is that more and more sophisticated burn-in / wear compensation algorithms / technologies could allow an WOLED TV to target LT70 rather than LT95…
> 
> Even once it has degraded to 70% of it’s initial efficiency, a degraded high-efficiency blue emitter is likely to put out more blue photons than a pair of blue FOLED emitters (and video aiming less power to boot).
> 
> My gut feel is that however the remaining gaps are being bridged, we are likely so see a convergence of capability as far as a high-efficiency blue emitter in the next 2-3 years…


What are your thoughts on the upcoming BOE 55" 8K AMQLED and TCL CSOT 65" 8K Inkjet-Printed RGB-OLED?
Will they be as good as A95K and S95B in PQ?


----------



## fafrd

Nopa said:


> What are your thoughts on the upcoming BOE 55" 8K AMQLED and TCL CSOT 65" 8K Inkjet-Printed RGB-OLED?
> Will they be as good as A95K and S95B in PQ?


When either of those products actually materialize, I think they will be fantastic (at least as far as lowering the cost for entry-level OLED TV and cutting further into high-end LCD sales…).

The key question for both will be first, what lifetime they can deliver and second, how quickly they can be ramped-up and industrialized to WOLED-like yield levels of ~95%…

I’d given even odds we see high-efficiency-blue-emitter-based WOLED and QD-OLED on the market before we see either of those emerging technologies on the shelves here in the US…

And no, I don’t expect either of those technologies to threaten QD-OLED (or even WOLED) on performance - it’s primarily undercutting either of those established technologies on cost that is likely to be their primary claim to fame.


----------



## 59LIHP

Kyulux explains how narrow-spectrum Hyperfluorescence emission is more efficient than PHOLED emission





Kyulux explains how narrow-spectrum Hyperfluorescence emission is more efficient than PHOLED emission | OLED Info


Second-generation OLED phosphorescence emission features an internal quantum efficiency of almost 100% - which would normally mean you cannot get more efficient than that.As Kyulux explains in a recent post, though, phosphorescent suffers from a wide emission spectrum. In order to achieve a good...




www.oled-info.com


















Hyperfluorescence: the most efficient OLED emission technology - Kyulux


Kyulux launched a newly designed website, to better reflect the company’s expansion and the imminent commercialization of its Hyperfluorescene™ OLED materials.




www.kyulux.com


----------



## ynotgoal

fafrd said:


> I believe I’ve read from several sources that the lifetime of the Blue FOLED emitter LGD WOLED is using is in the range of 10,000 hours (LT95 @ 1000 cd/m2).
> 
> On the other hand, despite all the fears of blue being WOLEDs weakest color, it has not proven the weakest color in practice (real-world usage).
> 
> A high-efficiency blue emitter should have output efficiency that is 3-4 times the ~7% of blue FOLED


I think they get to 10,000 hours because they run the blue at less than 1000 cd/m2. If the blue lifetime wasn't a gating factor they wouldn't use 2-3 layers of it to increase lifetime. Samsung reported a phosphorescent blue that had half the LT97 of fluorescent blue nearly a year ago and that didn't make it into any products. 

A phosphorescent blue at theoretical maximum efficiency would be 3x more efficient than a fluorescent blue running at theoretical maximum efficiency. Neither of the materials in a real world application are there. A first shot at phosphorescent certainly won't be. There will be engineering trade-offs made between the parameters to get a material that meets requirements. In this case they can sacrifice some efficiency to get more lifetime in the initial version. If you use the extra efficiency of blue phosphorescent to eliminate an extra layer then you can't also give up that same efficiency to make up for lower lifetime. There will be other considerations like what effect will increasing light output using MLA have on the design? We'll just have to wait to see what they are able to make next year.

Good luck with your calculations.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> *I think they get to 10,000 hours because they run the blue at less than 1000 cd/m2. *


I’s not noticed that before but suspect you are correct. Here’s an article where they are quoting a blue FOLD lifetime of 10,000 hours, but only at an output of 100cd/m2: New structures for highly-efficient and robust blue organic light-emitting devices

‘…achieved an EL efficiency of 2.2cd/A with a saturated blue of CIEx,y [0.15, 0.11] and a long lifetime of *10,000h at initial brightness 100cd/m2.*’



> If the blue lifetime wasn't a gating factor they wouldn't use 2-3 layers of it to increase lifetime.


Well first, we are discussing WOLED, not QD-OLED, so it is 2 blue FOLED layers, not 3.

And I don’t believe extending blue lifetime is the only explanation for why LGD went to the trouble and cost of adding a 2nd blue layer.

The initial 2S2C Y - B stack had a yellow (red and green) PHOLED emitter whose efficiency was likely ~12 times that of the single blue FOLED layer, and that translates to a white that may not have been cool enough. If LGD wanted a cooler native white output layer, the only way to get it would be to add an additional blue FOLED layer.

The 2016 Rtings burn-in test is the closest we have to a fundamental emitter lifetime characterization and it certainly shows that blue is the strongest color of the 3S3C / WBC B-Y/R-B stack: 20/7 Burn-In Test: OLED vs LCD VA vs LCD IPS

Red showed first signs of burn-in first after only 560 hours (4 weeks).

Then green showed first signs of burn in after only another 140 hours (700 hours / 5 weeks cumulative).

Blue, on the other hand, did not show first signs of burn-in until twice this long - 1260 hours or 9 weeks, so the tandom layers of blue FOLED appear to have delivered ~twice the lifetime of the yellow / red PHOLED layer.

The 2017 Rtings burn-in test includes new burn-in mitigation / compensation technologies, so it is not an apples-to-apples comparison, but the conclusion is the same: Real Life OLED Burn-In Test on 6 TVs

Taking burn-in of the ‘ghost’ in the center of the screen of the ‘CNN Max’ test as the toughest but least correlated test pattern, the ghost has started to bun in to red after only 42000 hours (30 weeks) followed by green which begins showing the ghost after 5400 hours (36 weeks).

Blue, on the other hand, shows no signs of the ‘ghost’ burning in even when the test has concluded after 14280 hours (102 weeks).

The ghost very likely/possibly represents a newscaster who s likely to have been ‘warm’ rarely displaying much blue, so that may be a major factor in this result, but other test patterns support the conclusion that blue is the longest-lasting emitter.

None of the 6 test patterns show any burn-in of blue after 14280 hours with the exception of the FIFA 18 test and red has clearly suffered more severe burn-in after that period.



> Samsung reported a phosphorescent blue that had half the LT97 of fluorescent blue nearly a year ago and that didn't make it into any products.


If that is just a statement as opposed to a table with data for Florescent blue, it’s not worth the trouble, but if that report included any data for the blue FOLED and you have a link, please share…

LT95 @ 1000 cd/m2 should be less than 10% of LT95 @ 100 cd/m2, so 1000 hours LT95 @ 1000 cd/m2 is probably an upper bound on what a 10,000 hour LT95 @ 100 cd/m2 blue FOLED could deliver.

This would translate to Samsung’s claim of ‘half the LT97 of phosphorescent blue’ equaling under 500 hours LT95 @ 1000 cd/n2, in the ballpark of the 450 hours Kyulux is claiming.

So if last year’s ‘half the lifetime of blue FOLED’ were insufficient for adoption, sounds like we’re within a factor of two, and whether lifetime needs to double before high-efficiency blue is ready for adoption of just closing that remaining gap by half is ‘close enough’, sounds as though the finish line should be reached within the next year or two…



> A phosphorescent blue at theoretical maximum efficiency would be *3x more efficient than a fluorescent blue running at theoretical maximum efficiency. * Neither of the materials in a real world application are there.


I think what you mean is that the IQE of phosphorescent blue is 100%, compared to the 25% IQE of blue PHOLED, so +300% efficiency or 4-times more efficient.

From what I’ve understood, the issue has primarily been lifetime followed by EQE, rather than any fundamental issue with IQE.

Once a high-efficiency blue OLED emitter delivers FOLED-level lifetime, any level of increased (EQE) efficiency is a pure win (assuming equivalent cost).

Limitations on power consumption are perhaps the greatest challenge facing the future of OLED TV and delivering blue photons at higher efficiency may be the only way out of that power squeeze…



> A first shot at phosphorescent certainly won't be. There will be engineering trade-offs made between the parameters to get a material that meets requirements. In this case they can sacrifice some efficiency to get more lifetime in the initial version. If you use the extra efficiency of blue phosphorescent to eliminate an extra layer then you can't also give up that same efficiency to make up for lower lifetime.


Correct. High-efficiency blue will either allow LGD/WOLED (as well as Samsung / QD-OLED) to reduce cost or to improve performance, but probably not both.



> There will be other considerations like what effect will increasing light output using MLA have on the design? We'll just have to wait to see what they are able to make next year.


I’ve just assumed that LGD’s recently-announced MLA technology will deliver a+20% increase in output level across the board.

Whether is can also deliver a similar improvement with a to-emission OLED or whether the +20% is not uniform across the full color spectrum and/or has any dependency on the depth of emission below the lenses, only time will tell.

But I don’t see any reason that blue photons emitted at similar depths from MLA should behave any differently when emitted from a high-efficiency blue OLED emitter or a blue FOLED…



> Good luck with your calculations.


Exciting times for TV tech for sure! My sense is that we’ve crossed the boundary between ‘if’ and ‘when’ as far as higher-efficiency blue OLED emitters. Only time will tell, of course, but UDC’s announcing a rough schedule for commercialization of blue PHOLED certainly changes the landscape / future outlook…[/quote][/quote]


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> None of the 6 test patterns show any burn-in of blue after 14280 hours with the exception of the FIFA 18 test and red has clearly suffered more severe burn-in after that period.


As myself and others already tried to explain to you multiple times, you need to look at color shift, not just localized "burn-in". The grayscale shifts towards red if you look at the gray slide from week 0 to week 102.

From rtings own description:
"Week 30 (08/23/2018): Photos updated. The color temperature of the 50% gray slide of the TVs is shifting (most notably the 'Live CNN (Max)' and 'Live NBC' TVs are warmer), however, this isn't really noticeable in normal content. The burn-in on the two CNN TVs continues to darken. "


----------



## 59LIHP

*What is the future change of WRGB OLED to respond to QD-OLED? *

As Samsung Display's QD-OLED begins to be applied to TVs and monitors in earnest in 2022, technological changes are being detected for LG Display's WRGB OLED, which has been leading the large OLED market.

LG Display's WRGB OLED has produced a WBC structure consisting of two blue layers and one red+yellow green layer in Paju by the end of 2021, and a WBE structure consisting of two blue layers and one red+green+yellow green layer in Guangzhou. Deuterium substitution technology was applied to the blue of the WBE structure.

From 2022, LG Display will stop producing WBC-structured panels at its Paju line and produce 'OLED.EX' panels with deuterium substitution technology applied to green WBE-structured greens produced in Guangzhou.









<Photo of OLED.EX presented by LG Display at the 2022 OLED Korea Conference>

At SID 2022, LG Display also exhibited a large OLED panel with micro lens array technology. Micro lens array technology was applied to Samsung Electronics' 'Galaxy S Ultra' series and drew attention, and it is the first technology applied to large OLEDs. LG Display is known to expect a 20% improvement in luminance compared to the previous one by applying micro lens array technology. Panels to which micro lens array technology is applied are expected to be produced in Paju from the second half of this year.

Lastly, it is known that LG Display is developing a structure in which yellow green is removed from WRGB OLED. By eliminating yellow green, material and processing costs can be saved, and some color reproducibility is expected to be improved.

Attention is paid to how LG Display's WRGB OLED will evolve to compete against QD-OLED.









<OLED panel with micro lens array technology exhibited by LG Display at SID 2022>









QD-OLED에 대응하기 위한 향후 WRGB OLED의 변화는? | OLEDNET


2022년 삼성 디스플레이의 QD-OLED가 본격적으로 TV와 모니터에 적용되기 시작하면서, 그 동안 대형 OLED 시장을 주도하고 있던 LG 디스플레이의 WRGB OLED에 대한 기술적 변화가 감지되고 있다.




olednet.com


----------



## Wizziwig

No source cited as usual. Assuming any of this turns out to be true, how many permutations of panels will LG end up shipping for 2022? I thought the panel lotteries were bad already with WBC, WBE, Evo, Ex, etc. Evo Ex² in 2023?


----------



## Wizziwig




----------



## Wizziwig

This is the patent he is referring to (filed : 09/28/2021) :



https://data.epo.org/publication-server/pdf-document/EP21199384NWA1.pdf?PN=EP3982416%20EP%203982416&iDocId=6797334&iepatch=.pdf



Unless I missed something, it doesn't really confirm any of the 4-stack speculation.


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> This is the patent he is referring to (filed : 09/28/2021) :
> 
> 
> 
> https://data.epo.org/publication-server/pdf-document/EP21199384NWA1.pdf?PN=EP3982416%20EP%203982416&iDocId=6797334&iepatch=.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Unless I missed something, it doesn't really confirm any of the 4-stack speculation.


I saw a Samsung Display patent a couple months back about a 4 layer design (incl a dedicated green layer). I recall the patent suggesting the design was for outdoor use. I didn't think it was worth posting about at the time and since, I'm not following the patent scene closely as I had previously.


----------



## Metalane

Hey again, so I have a question about motion processing that I likely shouldn’t even be worrying about.

So, when I visit threads with Plasma and CRT owners, they seem to like to bash OLED’s for having only similar PQ and worse motion. With some going even as far to say that the A90J doesn’t look that much better a 15 year old Plasma PQ wise (color, depth, etc), which I find very hard to believe. But is the A90J and other premium OLED’s motion really that bad or much worse than Plasma’s? I know all the other advantages OLED provides, but I would assume a premium OLED should still beat an old Plasma by a large margin.


----------



## 8mile13

There was a Plasma OLED Shootout few years back where public felt Plasma could do 90% of OLED performance. The only ''wide margin'' thing going on is with UHD HDR content. Sample & Hold motion is a problem when you are motion sensitive.


----------



## Moravid

Vincent Teoh did a comparison video between the ZT60 and the HZ2000, and he believed the Plasma was only superior in near black performance, 24p motion smoothness and up-scaling of SD content


----------



## Ted99

Interesting how posts on these "technology" threads fall off on weekends and Holidays (as contrasted to "owner's threads"). Suggests that many of the posters are doing so on "company time" (lol).


----------



## fafrd

Ted99 said:


> Interesting how posts on these "technology" threads fall off on weekends and Holidays (as contrasted to "owner's threads"). Suggests that many of the posters are doing so on "company time" (lol).


Or because there is little/no news on weekends…


----------



## OLED_Overrated

BOE is reportedly planning to commercialize a 95" 8K OLED TV panel


BOE as the third OLED TV panel maker?




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## locomo

" only superior in near black performance, 24p motion smoothness and up-scaling of SD content "

That's al lot of "only".


----------



## stl8k

Over in cinema capture land, there was a big milestone release from ARRI. This will have implications for displays over the next few years and the ARRI folks mention just that here:






Also, in that same time frame, expect to hear/see display reviewers begin to talk about displays being able to reproduce specific (digital) film grains/textures.

I rarely see camera makers talk about color gamut, but ARRI discusses their color innovations for this milestone extensively here:






Finally, it's interesting to hear about how managing stray light (in video immediately above) is a challenge in both capture and display.


----------



## Wizziwig

Or just skip the camera and generate everything with CGI. No physical limits at all. That's why video games will always be ahead of the movie industry. Even older HDR game titles can in theory adapt to some future 10,000 nit displays while movies are forever stuck with whatever was filmed or graded when they were released. I'm sure Hollywood will be thrilled to sell you another HDR remaster in a few years to replace their early faux HDR releases.


----------



## stl8k

Wizziwig said:


> Or just skip the camera and generate everything with CGI. No physical limits at all. That's why video games will always be ahead of the movie industry. Even older HDR game titles can in theory adapt to some future 10,000 nit displays while movies are forever stuck with whatever was filmed or graded when they were released. I'm sure Hollywood will be thrilled to sell you another HDR remaster in a few years to replace their early faux HDR releases.


The physicality of capturing video, especially the tactile feedback of zooming/focusing, and playing with real-world light appeals to me in ways digital creation/CG just hasn't. Though, I do get my interest piqued around this time of year as SIGGRAPH paper/demo acceptances hit my various professional timelines.


----------



## Wizziwig

It will be interesting to see how far they've come with non-animation CGI when Avatar 2 comes out at the end of this year. Wonder if they will still release a 3D home version or if that format is officially dead. 4K and HDR should be a given.


----------



## CliffordinWales

Another great video from Tech Trip, this time on LG's deuterium-based blue OLED material. I was surprised to hear patents were filed on this over a decade ago!


----------



## fafrd

CliffordinWales said:


> Another great video from Tech Trip, this time on LG's deuterium-based blue OLED material. I was surprised to hear patents were filed on this over a decade ago!


I’ve always assumed QD-OLED would be based on the same class of Blue FOLED emitters as those used by WOLED.

If patent issues truly prevent Samsung Display from using Deuterium-based blue FOLED emitters, that would be an added factor motivating them to move QD-OLED to a blue PHOLED (or other high-efficiency blue OLED emitter) as quickly as they can…


----------



## CliffordinWales

FOMO has put out a video summarising the main OLED improvements he expects to see over the next couple of years. It's a nice summary but I think FOMO can get a little excitable sometimes; personally I wouldn't want to put hard-and-fast dates on the commercialisation of some of these innovations.


----------



## mrtickleuk

CliffordinWales said:


> FOMO has put out a video summarising the main OLED improvements he expects to see over the next couple of years. It's a nice summary but I think FOMO can get a little excitable sometimes; personally I wouldn't want to put hard-and-fast dates on the commercialisation of some of these innovations.


Agreed. He can be entertaining sometimes, but he's never been one for technical details or expertise. Take with a bucket of salt.


----------



## chris7191

mrtickleuk said:


> Agreed. He can be entertaining sometimes, but he's never been one for technical details or expertise. Take with a bucket of salt.


Very true, it is possible though that he is now receiving some info from insiders given his channel’s growing reach.


----------



## CliffordinWales

chris7191 said:


> Very true, it is possible though that he is now receiving some info from insiders given his channel’s growing reach.


I get the impression he subscribes to Display Daily and other public domain industry news sources. He probably reads this forum too!


----------



## Molon_Labe

Moravid said:


> Vincent Teoh did a comparison video between the ZT60 and the HZ2000, and he believed the Plasma was only superior in near black performance, 24p motion smoothness and up-scaling of SD content


Dont forget the plasma's ability to heat small rooms in the winter time. OLED owners might get a bit chilly on cold, winter nights


----------



## fafrd

CliffordinWales said:


> FOMO has put out a video summarising the main OLED improvements he expects to see over the next couple of years. It's a nice summary but I think FOMO can get a little excitable sometimes; personally I wouldn't want to put hard-and-fast dates on the commercialisation of some of these innovations.


FOMO offers a good representation of what someone who reads all the headlines but has little/no understanding of the underlying technologies might believe is arriving over the next 1-2 years.

There is so much wrong in what he has presented here it is pointless to try to correct him.

From what I’ve understood, the introduction of MLA by LGD in 2023 seems like the most likely of all of these developments. We have no idea whether the manufacturing challenges to scale MLA or the cost adder it involves means we’re likely to see 4K WOLED TVs with MLA next year or not, but I’m guessing there is a good chance we will.

After that, it seems more likely than it ever has that a high-efficiency blue OLED emitter will be in production for TVs by 2024 or 2025 product cycle.

For Samsung Display’s QD-OLED, a high-efficiency blue OLED emitter is more about reducing manufacturing cost (and increasing production capacity) than it is about pushing performance (though we should see relaxed ABL in any case).

For LGD WOLED, a high-efficiency blue OLED emitter opens the door to both a lower-cost WOLED panel matching today’s performance as well as a higher-performing WOLED panel with roughly today’s manufacturing cost (so further widening the product lineup as they have already started to do this year and last).

I’ll be surprised if we see either mature, competitive WOLED TVs based on panels from BOE or printed RGB TVs based on panels from JOLED in any meaningful volume before both Samsung Display and LGD have moved their WOLED TV panels to a high-efficiency blue OLED emitter…

And the flag LGD has planted at SID last month should not be dismissed lightly.

Emissive displays delivering 2000 nits of peak brightness, 650 nits @ 25% and 250 nits full-field are on the horizon (likely by 2024, possibly by 2023).

If I’m correct about LGD broadening yo a 2-class if not 3-class WOLED panel offering ver the next couple years, it’ll be interesting to see how quickly Samsung Display elects to follow suit with QD-OLED (unlikely before manufacturing capacity has increased significantly, in my view).

But the one thing FOMO did get right is that 2023-2024 is shaping up to be an especially interesting period in the evolution of OLED TV…


----------



## chozofication

Have we been given a reason why 120hz black frame insertion has been dropped by all OLED brands in 2022?


----------



## Metalane

.


----------



## dwaleke

.


----------



## Metalane

dwaleke said:


> No need to cross-post.


Sorry, will delete.


----------



## Micker

fafrd said:


> FOMO offers a good representation of what someone who reads all the headlines but has little/no understanding of the underlying technologies might believe is arriving over the next 1-2 years.
> 
> There is so much wrong in what he has presented here it is pointless to try to correct him.
> 
> From what I’ve understood, the introduction of MLA by LGD in 2023 seems like the most likely of all of these developments. We have no idea whether the manufacturing challenges to scale MLA or the cost adder it involves means we’re likely to see 4K WOLED TVs with MLA next year or not, but I’m guessing there is a good chance we will.
> 
> After that, it seems more likely than it ever has that a high-efficiency blue OLED emitter will be in production for TVs by 2024 or 2025 product cycle.
> 
> For Samsung Display’s QD-OLED, a high-efficiency blue OLED emitter is more about reducing manufacturing cost (and increasing production capacity) than it is about pushing performance (though we should see relaxed ABL in any case).
> 
> For LGD WOLED, a high-efficiency blue OLED emitter opens the door to both a lower-cost WOLED panel matching today’s performance as well as a higher-performing WOLED panel with roughly today’s manufacturing cost (so further widening the product lineup as they have already started to do this year and last).
> 
> I’ll be surprised if we see either mature, competitive WOLED TVs based on panels from BOE or printed RGB TVs based on panels from JOLED in any meaningful volume before both Samsung Display and LGD have moved their WOLED TV panels to a high-efficiency blue OLED emitter…
> 
> And the flag LGD has planted at SID last month should not be dismissed lightly.
> 
> Emissive displays delivering 2000 nits of peak brightness, 650 nits @ 25% and 250 nits full-field are on the horizon (likely by 2024, possibly by 2023).
> 
> If I’m correct about LGD broadening yo a 2-class if not 3-class WOLED panel offering ver the next couple years, it’ll be interesting to see how quickly Samsung Display elects to follow suit with QD-OLED (unlikely before manufacturing capacity has increased significantly, in my view).
> 
> But the one thing FOMO did get right is that 2023-2024 is shaping up to be an especially interesting period in the evolution of OLED TV…


I think Fomo knows a lot, and is guessing, just like you are guessing at timelines. No one knows for sure, just educated guesses. Everyone was wrong, not too long ago, saying QD Oled wouldn't be out until late 2022, maybe 2023 and we got the S95B as one of the earliest TV releases this year. 

The things you list, are the reasons people should wait to buy, if they don't NEED a TV this year. The next 1-3 yrs are going to see a big jump in TV technology, probably bigger than the last 5+ yrs have been(which isn't saying much). If you need a TV this year, but a cheap A80J or C1 etc.. and save the money to upgrade in a year or two. Fomo will be massive in the next few years.


----------



## fafrd

Micker said:


> *I think Fomo knows a lot, *and is guessing, just like you are guessing at timelines. No one knows for sure, just educated guesses. Everyone was wrong, not too long ago, saying QD Oled wouldn't be out until late 2022, maybe 2023 and we got the S95B as one of the earliest TV releases this year.


FOMO is a marketer, not an engineer or technologist. He knows a lot about marketing and how to get people excited, not about technology, manufacturing, or product development.

His predictions in terms of timeframes are uninformed and have little/no basis in reality.



> The things you list, are the reasons people should wait to buy, if they don't NEED a TV this year. *The next 1-3 yrs are going to see a big jump in TV technology, probably bigger than the last 5+ yrs have been*(which isn't saying much). If you need a TV this year, but a cheap A80J or C1 etc.. and save the money to upgrade in a year or two. Fomo will be massive in the next few years.


We’re absolutely on the same page as far as that statement (and even FOMO understands enough to have figured that out correctly ).


----------



## Ted99

^^^My strategy exactly. I Needed a TV because my 82Q90N was damaged in a move. I wanted the 83 G2. I bought a $3500 closeout 85Q800A because I believe what @fafrd has been discussing and in 3 years I think I'll be able to purchase a 98" direct emission 1000nit (minimum) TV for less than $10K in 2025 dollars


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Rollable inkjet printed RBB OLED tv coming in 2024 from TCL.


----------



## dkfan9

Vaporware until proven innocent... I do look forward to the eventual mainstreaming of rollable TVs, whether it's 2 years from now or 100...


----------



## Bigdaddy619

I cant bring myself to show any interest in current offerings of any kind. It just feels like 2023-24 will be the year to buy.


----------



## hotskins

Samsung Display reportedly hikes yield rates for large-size QD-OLED panels to 80%.... 75% in April-May 2022 








Samsung Display reportedly hikes yield rates for large-size QD-OLED panels to 80%


Samsung Display (SDC) has hiked yield rates for large-size QD-OLED panels from 30% initially, 50% in 2021, 75% in April-May 2022 to 80% currently, according to South Korea-based .



www.digitimes.com


----------



## Micker

Bigdaddy619 said:


> I cant bring myself to show any interest in current offerings of any kind. It just feels like 2023-24 will be the year to buy.


Yeah, looked like a big year with QD Oled, but the next couple years will see much better improvements and polishing of the QD Oleds sets.


----------



## fafrd

hotskins said:


> Samsung Display reportedly hikes yield rates for large-size QD-OLED panels to 80%.... 75% in April-May 2022
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Display reportedly hikes yield rates for large-size QD-OLED panels to 80%
> 
> 
> Samsung Display (SDC) has hiked yield rates for large-size QD-OLED panels from 30% initially, 50% in 2021, 75% in April-May 2022 to 80% currently, according to South Korea-based .
> 
> 
> 
> www.digitimes.com



Impressive if true.

Manufacturing exclusively 55”’QD-OLEDs at 80% yield would translate to a production rate of 144K/month or 864K in H2’22.

80% on 55” panels still represents defectivity of over one defect per 8.5G panel on average, but that’s impressive progress from the 3-4 defects they were apparently averaging per panel 6 months ago.

Yield on 65” panels at the same average defectivity rate will be somewhat lower (~73%) because of the smaller number of panels per substrate, but even if Samsung Display was to exclusively manufacture 3 65” panels and 2 55” panels per 8.5G sheet using MMG, that would amount to 66K 65” and 48K 55” QD-OLED TV panels per month or 0.4M + 0.3M in H2’22 at these yield levels.

Hopefully the future of QD-OLED TV and the future of this one 8.5G QD-OLED manufacturing line is secured by the point, but the big question mark is when will Samsung move forward with additional 8.5G fab conversions?

Production of 1.5 - 1.7 million QD-OLED TV panels per year only represents ~5% of the Premium TV market which is a fantastic achievement for the first 12-18 months after launch, but being stuck at that level for the subsequent 3-4 years is not exactly going to take over the (Premium TV) world by storm…


----------



## Micker

fafrd said:


> Impressive if true.
> 
> Manufacturing exclusively 55”’QD-OLEDs at 80% yield would translate to a production rate of 144K/month or 864K in H2’22.
> 
> 80% on 55” panels still represents defectivity of over one defect per 8.5G panel on average, but that’s impressive progress from the 3-4 defects they were apparently averaging per panel 6 months ago.
> 
> Yield on 65” panels at the same average defectivity rate will be somewhat lower (~73%) because of the smaller number of panels per substrate, but even if Samsung Display was to exclusively manufacture 3 65” panels and 2 55” panels per 8.5G sheet using MMG, that would amount to 66K 65” and 48K 55” QD-OLED TV panels per month or 0.4M + 0.3M in H2’22 at these yield levels.
> 
> Hopefully the future of QD-OLED TV and the future of this one 8.5G QD-OLED manufacturing line is secured by the point, but the big question mark is when will Samsung move forward with additional 8.5G fab conversions?
> 
> Production of 1.5 - 1.7 million QD-OLED TV panels per year only represents ~5% of the Premium TV market which is a fantastic achievement for the first 12-18 months after launch, but being stuck at that level for the subsequent 3-4 years is not exactly going to take over the (Premium TV) world by storm…


Well Samsung display announced that they are stopping all LCD production this month and will be converting to all QD Oled. Between that and probably a 90%+ yield by next year, should be able to pump out a lot more, at a lower cost. But looks like they are slightly hesitant to transform the L8-2 Line into a QD-OLED panel production facility, because of Samusung Electrionics dislike for oled, but probably will.


----------



## fafrd

Micker said:


> Well Samsung display announced that they are stopping all LCD production this month


yes, this is correct.



> and will be converting to all QD Oled.


This is not (read more carefully).

‘Plans to’, perhaps.

‘Eventually, perhaps.

But there is not yet any indication of when Samsung will invest in a second 8.5G fab conversion: Samsung Display Hesitant to Invest in OLED Panels

‘However, Samsung Display has not been able to finalize its investment decision to transform L8-2 Line into a QD-OLED panel production facility. This is because Samsung Electronics has a somewhat negative stance on a shift to OLED TVs.’

Since investment decisions made by mid-2022 won’t result in additional QD-OLED manufacturing capacity ramped to production before 2025, if we don’t hear Sansung announce investment decisions by their Q3 earnings call in ~October, it’ll mean no new fabs likely to be producing QD-OLED panels before 2026…



> Between that and probably a 90%+ yield by next year, should be able to pump out a lot more, at a lower cost.


I’ve already outlined the maximum quantity of ~1.6 million panels Samsung Display can manufacture annually based on LGD WOLED-level yields of 95%.

That’ll be the cap until they get a new fab converted for production in 2025 or later.

If they move to Blue PHOLED that should allow them to receive from 4 OLED layers to 2 which would increase maximum production capacity on the existing 8.5G line from 30,000 substrates per month to ~60,000.

So that would allow an increase from 1.6M panels to ~3 million panels before 2025 and at much lower capital investment level.

So that, along with the current climate of economic uncertainty are likely playing into Samsung’s apparent decision to move cautiously on making additional vestment decisions…


----------



## Davenlr

I dont keep up with this stuff daily, but wasnt Samsung Display heavy planning into microLED and only doing QDOLED to keep Samsung Electronics happy as a stop gap?


----------



## fafrd

Davenlr said:


> I dont keep up with this stuff daily, but wasnt Samsung Display heavy planning into microLED and only doing QDOLED to keep Samsung Electronics happy as a stop gap?


Theories abound, but it certainly seems to be the case that Samsung Electronics wants to position ‘OLED TV’ (both QD-OLED and WOLED) as being inferior to and hence less costly than their NeoQLED QD-MiniLED/LCDs… (if not also their higher-end QLEDs in general).

The disconnect is that ‘lower-end’ / less expensive TVs generally sell in higher volumes, and Samsung currently only had the limited volume of QD-OLED panels appropriate for a higher-end Premium TV…


----------



## Micker

I just don't see LED TVs getting much better now. Not sure what Samsung display would do, other than QD Oled. I don't see MicroLED being a thing for a LONG time. Too expensive and I've heard larger bright fields, cause it to get VERY hot and asbl kick in hard. I think they will have better and cheaper options when/if MicroLED ever comes to consumer level sets.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Bigdaddy619 said:


> I cant bring myself to show any interest in current offerings of any kind. It just feels like 2023-24 will be the year to buy.


It will never be the perfect year. When 2024 comes, you will probably hear about QNED coming in 2025-2026. When it's 2026, you will probably hear about microled approaching the mass market by 2028-2030...


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Micker said:


> I just don't see LED TVs getting much better now. Not sure what Samsung display would do, other than QD Oled. I don't see MicroLED being a thing for a LONG time. Too expensive and I've heard larger bright fields, cause it to get VERY hot and asbl kick in hard. I think they will have better and cheaper options when/if MicroLED ever comes to consumer level sets.


I don't think the high ABL limiter is particularly true. In Vincent Teoh's video comparing the 2022 microleds to the company's flagship 4k miniled qn90a tv, he said the miniled looked "dim and dull beyond belief" next to the microled. According to rtings, the brightness of the qn90a in HDR on a 100% window is around 750 nits. If this brightness level looked "dim and dull beyond belief" next to microled, it's safe to assume that the microled was pushing around 1000 nits or even more on a 100% window.

I think the ABL concern for microled was only referring to the much the larger screen sizes in the previous CES shows that were 200+ inches which would obviously generate a lot more heat than a 55 or 65 inch tv. It doesn't make sense for microled to have higher ABL than OLED or LCD as it's generally the most efficient since it has the least optical layers that block out light and it's not using organic leds.

QNED is a technology that can rival microled at an affordable price, but it's not a proven tech yet.


----------



## Micker

OLED_Overrated said:


> I don't think the high ABL limiter is particularly true. In Vincent Teoh's video comparing the 2022 microleds to the company's flagship 4k miniled qn90a tv, he said the miniled looked "dim and dull beyond belief" next to the microled. According to rtings, the brightness of the qn90a in HDR on a 100% window is around 750 nits. If this brightness level looked "dim and dull beyond belief" next to microled, it's safe to assume that the microled was pushing around 1000 nits or even more on a 100% window.
> 
> I think the ABL concern for microled was only referring to the much the larger screen sizes in the previous CES shows that were 200+ inches which would obviously generate a lot more heat than a 55 or 65 inch tv. It doesn't make sense for microled to have higher ABL than OLED or LCD as it's generally the most efficient since it has the least optical layers that block out light and it's not using organic leds.
> 
> QNED is a technology that can rival microled at an affordable price, but it's not a proven tech yet.


I don't think they can make Microleds small enough for anything under 85". They would need to shrink the LEDs VERY small, as each pixel is an led light and the PPI on a smaller set, would be very challenging. That's with 4k, 8K would be insane lol. I'm sure someday, but might be technology that is just never feasable for consumers, with cheaper and equally good alternatives possible in the future.


----------



## chris7191

Micker said:


> I just don't see LED TVs getting much better now. Not sure what Samsung display would do, other than QD Oled. I don't see MicroLED being a thing for a LONG time. Too expensive and I've heard larger bright fields, cause it to get VERY hot and asbl kick in hard. I think they will have better and cheaper options when/if MicroLED ever comes to consumer level sets.


I don’t know, I actually think MiniLED LCDs have a way to go still. Apple has shown great performance is possible.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Micker said:


> I don't think they can make Microleds small enough for anything under 85". They would need to shrink the LEDs VERY small, as each pixel is an led light and the PPI on a smaller set, would be very challenging. That's with 4k, 8K would be insane lol. I'm sure someday, but might be technology that is just never feasable for consumers, with cheaper and equally good alternatives possible in the future.


Agreed. I'm not seeing anything out there to say a diagonal <85" makes any type of sense at all for a very long time. I'm watching blue microLED with G and R QD's with interest as a possible path to a consumer-viable TV. Anything at a consumer level price (equiv+ to today's 83" to 98" OLED and LCD offerings) seems over the knowable horizon. I'd love to find out differently of course, as we all would.


----------



## winterbegins

Scrapper102dAA said:


> *I'm watching blue microLED with G and R QD's with interest as a possible path to a consumer-viable TV*.


I dont see why this would come to market if im being honest. MicroLED per definition uses 3 LED (red, green and blue) subpixels to make 1 whole pixel. 
If you would apply the QD-Display principle to MicroLED you would also need at least 3 blue subpixel LEDs to later convert them via the red and green conversion layers. This makes not much sense since these LEDs could be made into red or green ones in the first place. The general problem of LEDs being to big for use in smaller MicroLED displays still holds. Unless you are refering to a process which uses different blue emissive LEDs. 

The only thing similar i can think of is QNED, where the physical limitations from the LEDs itself and the difficult placement process is already removed. Due to the size of the Nanorods they can be printed and later aligned with electricity. This technique obviously only works with Quantum Dot Layers because all of the Nanorods are basically (what i like to call) placed blind and therefore need to be one color, which is blue.


----------



## chris7191

winterbegins said:


> I dont see why this would come to market if im being honest. MicroLED per definition uses 3 LED (red, green and blue) subpixels to make 1 whole pixel.
> If you would apply the QD-Display principle to MicroLED you would also need at least 3 blue subpixel LEDs to later convert them via the red and green conversion layers. This makes not much sense since these LEDs could be made into red or green ones in the first place. The general problem of LEDs being to big for use in smaller MicroLED displays still holds. Unless you are refering to a process which uses different blue emissive LEDs.
> 
> The only thing similar i can think of is QNED, where the physical limitations from the LEDs itself and the difficult placement process is already removed. Due to the size of the Nanorods they can be printed and later aligned with electricity. This technique obviously only works with Quantum Dot Layers because all of the Nanorods are basically (what i like to call) placed blind and therefore need to be one color, which is blue.


Easier to assemble with one color LED, blue uLED may be more efficient, etc. there are a number of potentially valid reasons depending on how things shake out for any specific manufacturer.


----------



## 59LIHP

LG Display to order MicroOLED equipment to win Apple’s MR device order 








LG Display to order MicroOLED equipment to win Apple’s MR device order


LG Display is expected to order a deposition equipment to make MicroOLED from Sunic System, TheElec has learned.The move is aimed at developing and manufacturing a MicroOLED panel to supply to Apple for their mixed reality (MR) device, sources said.Cupertino is expected to use Sony’s MicroOLED panel




thelec.net


----------



## 59LIHP

hotskins said:


> Samsung Display reportedly hikes yield rates for large-size QD-OLED panels to 80%.... 75% in April-May 2022
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Display reportedly hikes yield rates for large-size QD-OLED panels to 80%
> 
> 
> Samsung Display (SDC) has hiked yield rates for large-size QD-OLED panels from 30% initially, 50% in 2021, 75% in April-May 2022 to 80% currently, according to South Korea-based .
> 
> 
> 
> www.digitimes.com


Samsung Display reportedly increases yield rates for larger size QD-OLED panels by 80%








Samsung Display reportedly increases yield rates for larger size QD-OLED panels by 80% - RPRNA


According to the latest report, Samsung Display, which originally planned to withdraw from the LCD panel business…




www.rprna.com


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> Samsung Display reportedly increases yield rates for larger size QD-OLED panels by 80%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Display reportedly increases yield rates for larger size QD-OLED panels by 80% - RPRNA
> 
> 
> According to the latest report, Samsung Display, which originally planned to withdraw from the LCD panel business…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rprna.com


‘Of course, sources also mentioned in the report that although Samsung Display’s current output of QD-OLED panels is not high, *they have already made more investments*, and they have decided to accelerate the transformation of LCD panel production lines into QD-OLED panels.’

That’s the first I’ve heard about additional investments having been made in increased QD-OLED production capacity and with this report being a report of another report, I’m going to take that statement with a grain of salt until we see direct confirmation by Samsung (likely in their Q2 earnings report ~2 months from now if the report of additional investments already having been made proves correct).


----------



## fafrd

Hopefully this puts to bed any reemining doubt as to whether Samsung Display’ QD-OLED 1.0 contains a green PHOLED layer or not: 삼성SDI, 1분기 OLED 소재 매출 52% 급증

‘Samsung SDI’s OLED material sales surged 52% in the first quarter

*Samsung SDI supplies key materials for the light emitting layer such as green host to Samsung Display. *After being supplied to Samsung Display, green host is applied to OLED panels and is mainly used for Apple iPhone 12 and 13. *This product was also newly supplied to QD display*.’

So iQD-Display 1.0 is a QD-COLED (Cyan), not a QD-BOLED (Blue) OLED emission stack and UBI likely caught wind of that fact before anyone else…


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

chris7191 said:


> Easier to assemble with one color LED, blue uLED may be more efficient, etc. there are a number of potentially valid reasons depending on how things shake out for any specific manufacturer.


Yes to both as I understand it.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> Hopefully this puts to bed any reemining doubt as to whether Samsung Display’ QD-OLED 1.0 contains a green PHOLED layer or not: 삼성SDI, 1분기 OLED 소재 매출 52% 급증
> 
> ‘Samsung SDI’s OLED material sales surged 52% in the first quarter
> 
> *Samsung SDI supplies key materials for the light emitting layer such as green host to Samsung Display. *After being supplied to Samsung Display, green host is applied to OLED panels and is mainly used for Apple iPhone 12 and 13. *This product was also newly supplied to QD display*.’
> 
> So iQD-Display 1.0 is a QD-COLED (Cyan), not a QD-BOLED (Blue) OLED emission stack and UBI likely caught wind of that fact before anyone else…


Cool - I just wish it wasn't UBI Research confirming UBI Research. Of course in this case it is actual contextual text, vs a diagram without comment.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Cool - I just wish it wasn't UBI Research confirming UBI Research. Of course in this case it is actual contextual text, vs a diagram without comment.


Agreed.


----------



## FernandoValdirNayron

OLED_Overrated said:


> It will never be the perfect year. When 2024 comes, you will probably hear about QNED coming in 2025-2026. When it's 2026, you will probably hear about microled approaching the mass market by 2028-2030...


At least, we are now in a very good period. The improvements in near future, in my opinion, would not be relevant to picture quality. 

We are not at the age when plasma died, and we have only poor quality, low contrast LCD displays available. We now have OLED, and even wih futuristic and hypotetical techs like micro LED, the overall picture look would be very similar.


----------



## Micker

FernandoValdirNayron said:


> At least, we are now in a very good period. The improvements in near future, in my opinion, would not be relevant to picture quality.
> 
> We are not at the age when plasma died, and we have only poor quality, low contrast LCD displays available. We now have OLED, and even wih futuristic and hypotetical techs like micro LED, the overall picture look would be very similar.


I agree, we are at the point of diminishing returns.. One problem is that the vast majority of movies/shows available, doesn't really push color gamut or brightness very high. A reference image would look pretty similar for most movies, even on a 100% BT 2020 and 10K nit display. We are getting close to the point in color, with QD Oled now, that covers most of what we would see or notice. 90% BT 2020 to 100% coverage, would probably only be noticeable side by side, if there is any content that could even show that.

I don't see anything changing , anytime soon. I doubt we are going to get 8K, 12bit media ever. Streaming services are not going to care about sending massive bit rate content, for the small minority of people who care. I think we will see higher nit, self emissive displays, but unless the content keeps moving forward, we won't see much difference with future sets. I'm not shelling out 5 figures for a micro led, to have it calibrated to 150nit SDR and 1K nit HDR content and maybe push it a bit with the handful of movies at best, that can show anywhere near what it can do. Maybe as compression gets better and companies push the studios to improve quality, so they can sell their sets, we will see improvements.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Micker said:


> I agree, we are at the point of diminishing returns.. One problem is that the vast majority of movies/shows available, doesn't really push color gamut or brightness very high. A reference image would look pretty similar for most movies, even on a 100% BT 2020 and 10K nit display. We are getting close to the point in color, with QD Oled now, that covers most of what we would see or notice. 90% BT 2020 to 100% coverage, would probably only be noticeable side by side, if there is any content that could even show that.
> 
> I don't see anything changing , anytime soon. I doubt we are going to get 8K, 12bit media ever. Streaming services are not going to care about sending massive bit rate content, for the small minority of people who care. I think we will see higher nit, self emissive displays, but unless the content keeps moving forward, we won't see much difference with future sets. I'm not shelling out 5 figures for a micro led, to have it calibrated to 150nit SDR and 1K nit HDR content and maybe push it a bit with the handful of movies at best, that can show anywhere near what it can do. Maybe as compression gets better and companies push the studios to improve quality, so they can sell their sets, we will see improvements.


I've been around long enough to never say never, but I'd posit that for 90% of the world we are already there for this paradigm. "LCD PQ is just fine, thank you, and cheap, thank you. If OLED becomes as cheap someday, sure, thank you." For those that follow this forum and buy that top 10% of tech display, better is always being searched for. As long as we'll pay for it, some OEM will work on improvements in hopes of profit and bragging rights, building brand equity. But the point of diminishing returns even for us is out there somewhere, I agree. Until the next major S-curve hits and disrupts the display paradigm, that is. That may be after I'm in the ground, but things are moving faster than ever. I'll jump to some new made up S-curve and say: network connected contact lens display with equiv PQ. Or ****, go right for the neural connection. Yes, I spent 10 seconds coming up with those. Don't hold me to them.


----------



## Micker

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I've been around long enough to never say never, but I'd posit that for 90% of the world we are already there for this paradigm. "LCD PQ is just fine, thank you, and cheap, thank you. If OLED becomes as cheap someday, sure, thank you." For those that follow this forum and buy that top 10% of tech display, better is always being searched for. As long as we'll pay for it, some OEM will work on improvements in hopes of profit and bragging rights, building brand equity. But the point of diminishing returns even for us is out there somewhere, I agree. Until the next major S-curve hits and disrupts the display paradigm, that is. That may be after I'm in the ground, but things are moving faster than ever. I'll jump to some new made up S-curve and say: network connected contact lens display with equiv PQ. Or ****, go right for the neural connection. Yes, I spent 10 seconds coming up with those. Don't hold me to them.


What about 3D!! Oh wait... Once they hit the real diminishing returns(either PQ or price for improvements), we will start to see things like see thru TVs, Roll-able TVs, things like that, being selling points. Maybe hologram TV someday??! Things do make jumps suddenly and I think we are going to see another jump in technology, but not sure how much we can improve displaying the content we have now.


----------



## fafrd

Micker said:


> What about 3D!! Oh wait... Once they hit the real diminishing returns(either PQ or price for improvements), we will start to see things like see thru TVs, Roll-able TVs, things like that, being selling points. Maybe hologram TV someday??! Things do make jumps suddenly and I think we are going to see another jump in technology, but not sure how much we can improve displaying the content we have now.


Perhaps QD-OLED has cracked the nut of delivering plasma-like near-black uniformity, but until that has been proven/confirmed, that is the biggest PQ defect of OLED TV.

ABL visibly kicking-in when viewing HDR content would probably be second on that list.

Of course extending beyond DCI-P3 to deliver a higher and higher % of BT.2020 would be a nice way to future-proof against more saturated HDR content of the future, but not at the expense of suffering from either of the above issues.

Especially after the 2000 Nit 8K WOLED LGD recently demonstrated, I feel like we’re in the ‘mopping up’ stage.

99% of DCI-P3 at ~1000 nits of fully-saturated colorand up to ~2000 Nits of peak white should be close enough to ‘perfect’ for 99% of videophiles (assuming no visible ABL nor near-black DSE).

After that, it’ll really all be about which technology can deliver that level of performance for the lowest cost and emissive display technology starting to work it’s way deeper and deeper into the higher-end of the mainstream TV market.

Printed RGB OLED TV, when it finally materializes, will accelerate that trend…

LCD may never get displaced from the low-end of the TV market, but I’m not sure how much that matters (as long as emissive is cost-effective enough to capture the Lion’s Share of the Premium TV market).


----------



## CliffordinWales

Display Daily has a nice summary on new developments in blue OLED materials presented at Display Week. 









OLED Emitter Materials at Display Week - a Round-up


I make no apology for returning to a 20 year topic in the display industry, blue for OLEDs. Blue has often been a challenge for displays and optical devices because of the high energy needed to create blue light. Famously, it took many decades to create and commercialise blue LEDs and efficient...




www.displaydaily.com


----------



## artur9

fafrd said:


> the nut of delivering plasma-like near-black uniformity
> ABL visibly kicking-in when viewing HDR content


Motion? Is it @Mark Rejhon that says we need hundreds of frames/second before motion is acceptable?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

artur9 said:


> Motion? Is it @Mark Rejhon that says we need hundreds of frames/second before motion is acceptable?


QNED, MICROLED will all have stuttering issues like OLED because of fast response times.


----------



## FernandoValdirNayron

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I've been around long enough to never say never, but I'd posit that for 90% of the world we are already there for this paradigm. "LCD PQ is just fine, thank you, and cheap, thank you. If OLED becomes as cheap someday, sure, thank you." For those that follow this forum and buy that top 10% of tech display, better is always being searched for. As long as we'll pay for it, some OEM will work on improvements in hopes of profit and bragging rights, building brand equity. But the point of diminishing returns even for us is out there somewhere, I agree. Until the next major S-curve hits and disrupts the display paradigm, that is. That may be after I'm in the ground, but things are moving faster than ever. I'll jump to some new made up S-curve and say: network connected contact lens display with equiv PQ. Or ****, go right for the neural connection. Yes, I spent 10 seconds coming up with those. Don't hold me to them.


I understant that in the future what we consider good may be not consider good anymore. But in LCD area, going from CRT to LCD, we lost a lot of the picture quality aspects. Colors, contrast, image consistency (viewing angles) were worse on LCD. LCD most advantages weren't related to picture quality. But for most of the costumers, it worthed the change. 

The picture quality advantages I see in LCD was the fixed and higher resolutions, higher brightness and no distortion. Any more?

But we left with clear aspects to be improved, that wasnt a concern in top CRT displays.

- Contrast, viewing angles, responsive times.

Plasma had better contrast and perfect viewing angles. But its contrast was far from been perfect, less color gradations were possible and we had difficulty to achieve 120 nits in brightness.

In OLED, otherwise, this flaws are not present.

So the clear things I see that OLED needs to improve, are not so significant in my opinion.


----------



## FernandoValdirNayron

OLED_Overrated said:


> QNED, MICROLED will all have stuttering issues like OLED because of fast response times.


I think stutering is more a problem from source than from display. We don't see stutering in LCD because of limitations. In Plasma, the screen blinked.


----------



## fafrd

artur9 said:


> Motion? Is it @Mark Rejhon that says we need hundreds of frames/second before motion is acceptable?


Perhaps I’ve just gotten accustomed to the motion on my 65C6, but I almost never notice motion stuttering anymore.

A great deal of the cringe-worthy motion I experienced early on turned out to be caused by poor internet. When I upgraded from 20Mbps to 1Gbps, those horrendous stutters when streaming pretty much dissipated.

On Blue-rays, I’ve always been pretty satisfied with motion performance (and it was comparing motion performance on a blue ray of Downtown Abbey to a streamed episode I remember had been especially bad as far as motion performance in certain scenes when streaming that tipped me off to the bandwidth factor).

So maybe I’m now forgiving than I should be but I consider near-black DSE and visible ABL artifacts as much more significant areas for improvement on OLED TV than reduced MPRT / improved motion performance.

Plus, as OLED-Overrated just mentioned, any flat panel technology including LCD as well as MicroLED will suffer from the exact same motion limitations as OLED (persistence).

The only way we’re going to get closer to analog CRT-like motion performance is to simulate CET like peak brightness levels and phosphor decay.

I’m a big Mark Rejhorn fan and once OLED panels can put out instantaneous brightness levels of ~4000 Nits or more, improved backplane technology might allow OLED TV to get closer to CRT’s sun-1ms MPRT.

But that’s a lot of heavy lifting for an improvement that only benefits a fraction of content and I think there are more important PQ fundamentals to nail down first… (meaning near-black uniformity and peak brightness levels to support ‘invisible’ ABL).


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Plus, as OLED-Overrated just mentioned, any flat panel technology including LCD as well as MicroLED will suffer from the exact same motion limitations as OLED (persistence).
> 
> The only way we’re going to get closer to analog CRT-like motion performance is to simulate CET like peak brightness levels and phosphor decay.
> 
> I’m a big Mark Rejhorn fan and once OLED panels can put out instantaneous brightness levels of ~4000 Nits or more, improved backplane technology might allow OLED TV to get closer to CRT’s sun-1ms MPRT.
> 
> But that’s a lot of heavy lifting for an improvement that only benefits a fraction of content and I think there are more important PQ fundamentals to nail down first… (meaning near-black uniformity and peak brightness levels to support ‘invisible’ ABL).


LCDs are already at CRT level of motion resolution. Maybe even better if you account for the lack of CRT phosphor decay trails visible in some cases.

Problem is that nobody is pushing this on LCD televisions. All the LCD motion resolution advancement is happening in VR applications. Mark Rejhorn posted a good summary on another forum.


----------



## mrtickleuk

FernandoValdirNayron said:


> The picture quality advantages I see in LCD was the fixed and higher resolutions, higher brightness and no distortion. Any more?


Yes, under "no distortion" we have a bit more detail:
Perfectly flat screen
Perfect geometry
Perfect convergence, linearity, deflection, pincushion, parallelograms, etc.

Things that took hours and hours of adjusting on a CRT in the service menu, if you were lucky and brave. I never owned a CRT with decent geometry that I was satisfied with - and it meant the end credits of programmes would always "wobble" up the screen. It was very, very annoying!

These days we take perfect screen geometry for granted - but it's a wonderful thing and we haven't really had it for that long in the life of television as a whole.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

mrtickleuk said:


> Yes, under "no distortion" we have a bit more detail:
> Perfectly flat screen
> Perfect geometry
> Perfect convergence, linearity, deflection, pincushion, parallelograms, etc.
> 
> Things that took hours and hours of adjusting on a CRT in the service menu, if you were lucky and brave. I never owned a CRT with decent geometry that I was satisfied with - and it meant the end credits of programmes would always "wobble" up the screen. It was very, very annoying!
> 
> These days we take perfect screen geometry for granted - but it's a wonderful thing and we haven't really had it for that long in the life of television as a whole.


I'll add probably(?) the biggest one for the masses: screen size. Plus, weight and size go hand in hand. CRT's were in the teens for diagonal for decades, then twenties for another decade or two, then finally inched into the thirties. Weight per inch was always significant. My last CRT was a 35" elephant that you placed once and tried never to move again. While LCD prices were relatively high in the beginning, almost immediately having a 42" screen that you could move anytime and anywhere was a big deal I think (whether you really did it or not). Soon having the ability to purchase much larger diagonals was something CRT was never going to be able to match.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> LCDs are already at CRT level of motion resolution. Maybe even better if you account for the lack of CRT phosphor decay trails visible in some cases.
> 
> Problem is that nobody is pushing this on LCD televisions. All the LCD motion resolution advancement is happening in VR applications. Mark Rejhorn posted a good summary on another forum.


Every time I do any kind of deep dive into Mark’s world, I come out wanting an OLED with 1000fps backplane speed .


----------



## FernandoValdirNayron

mrtickleuk said:


> Yes, under "no distortion" we have a bit more detail:
> Perfectly flat screen
> Perfect geometry
> Perfect convergence, linearity, deflection, pincushion, parallelograms, etc.
> 
> Things that took hours and hours of adjusting on a CRT in the service menu, if you were lucky and brave. I never owned a CRT with decent geometry that I was satisfied with - and it meant the end credits of programmes would always "wobble" up the screen. It was very, very annoying!
> 
> These days we take perfect screen geometry for granted - but it's a wonderful thing and we haven't really had it for that long in the life of television as a whole.


In your opinion, does all the distortions and geometry problems present in the CRT tv affect the image quality more than the loss of contrast present in LCD?

I hadn't had much experience with crt, I tested a crt monitor for a little period. I had fun testing the crt monitor and it's variable resolution.

Unfortunately, I didn't had my OLED TV back then to compare.


----------



## mrtickleuk

FernandoValdirNayron said:


> In your opinion, does all the distortions and geometry problems present in the CRT tv affect the image quality more than the loss of contrast present in LCD?


It's too difficult to answer that really, since they are both bad in different ways, and I haven't seen either for years. I agree with @Scrapper102dAA about the weight and size also! My last CRT was 28".


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

mrtickleuk said:


> It's too difficult to answer that really, since they are both bad in different ways, and I haven't seen either for years. I agree with @Scrapper102dAA about the weight and size also! My last CRT was 28".


As an aside, I went from my 35" CRT to a 3LCD 720p Sony projector, 82" Stewart GrayHawk screen, my first surround sound audio system and early (almost)HD content. Talk about a big change


----------



## Micker

CRTs and plasma had their advantages, but overall I don't think anyone here would ever go back to CRT or plasma. Even the first LCD tvs were way better for watching movies and shows. You can only get so immersed watching a 26", pan and scan, 480p(at best) resolution movie. Plasma was ok, but no 4k or HDR, very dim for anything but the darkest room, heat I could feel 8' away, buzzing etc.. We are in a very good place right now and it's funny what we complain about with TVs. Any decent oled or led from today, would have blown my mind 10 or so yrs ago.


----------



## D-Nice

Micker said:


> CRTs and plasma had their advantages, but overall I don't think anyone here would ever go back to CRT or plasma. Even the first LCD tvs were way better for watching movies and shows. You can only get so immersed watching a 26", pan and scan, 480p(at best) resolution movie. Plasma was ok, but no 4k or HDR, very dim for anything but the darkest room, heat I could feel 8' away, buzzing etc.. We are in a very good place right now and it's funny what we complain about with TVs. Any decent oled or led from today, would have blown my mind 10 or so yrs ago.


I would take a large CRT or PDP for SDR any day of the week compared to any OLED or LED based LCD. I am not impressed with brightness as I'm totally immune to crow mentality. Resolution.... I'll leave that fascination to those who know no better.


----------



## fafrd

D-Nice said:


> I would take a large CRT or PDP for SDR any day of the week compared to any OLED or LED based LCD. I am not impressed with brightness as I'm totally immune to *crow mentality*. Resolution.... I'll leave that fascination to those who know no better.


‘Crow mentality’ as in ‘crowing about how bright your TV can get’ ???


----------



## artur9

Micker said:


> CRTs and plasma had their advantages, but overall I don't think anyone here would ever go back to CRT or plasma.


I have two Panasonic plasmas, one that I watch every day and a Sony A8F.
Only thing I'd choose to improve on the plasmas would be contrast. All those other advantages of more modern TVs are not readily apparent.

I think, in another year or three, HDR/HDR+/DV will be so expected that I'd start to miss that as well.


----------



## FernandoValdirNayron

At least for the best plasmas, last gen panasonic or 2012 models, I don't think the lack of brightness are as relevant as LCDs most flaws, viewing angle (color consistency, black glows) and one unpopular opinion from me: the fake look local dimming cause to image.

Of course, depends more than the use case than anything. I put picture quality in front of all, and think towards my use scenario (dark room environment)

That been said, plasma still has relevant flaws as LCDs and CRTs. I think their most relevant flaw are more related to brightness than anything else.

Resolution is important, but resolution is more from the source than from the TV. Original 4k content is very, very rare. Let alone uncompressed 4k content. Most 4k movies aren't edited in 4k, most are edited in 1440p and then upscaled, which in my opinion, is a way to fake things out. 

Hdr is pretty good, but good content is yet to take its fully potential. And in my opinion and from what I researched, HDR depends more of contrast than brightness. That's why VA panels are better than IPS for HDR, and OLED panels would beat by a margin brighter LCDs, if they improve its near dark performance. Today HDR are more exaggerated than used it to its fully potential.


----------



## D-Nice

fafrd said:


> ‘Crow mentality’ as in ‘crowing about how bright your TV can get’ ???


Crows are attracted to bright shinny objects. They are easily fooled into thinking glass is a diamond.


----------



## Puffyy

I'm still holding onto my Panny VT60.


----------



## ynotgoal

On the 6th, market research firm DSCC announced in a recent report that China's BOE is preparing to commercialize large OLED panels for TVs. It is known that there are a total of five types of TV OLED sizes that BOE is preparing for commercialization, ranging from 55 inches to 95 inches. In fact, they plan to make OLED panels of all sizes sold for TVs.

This product was manufactured in the same way as LG Display's W (white)-OLED, which uses a device that emits white light as a light source. It has a maximum brightness of 800 nits (knit and 1 nit is the brightness of one candle) and a high refresh rate of 120 Hz (the number of frames that appear on the display per second). It is similar to the premium OLED panel that LG Display is making.

BOE decided to test-produce OLED panels for TVs on the 8th generation (2200mm × 2500mm) B5 R&D production line in Hefei, China. The industry expects annual shipments to be around 300,000 units this year.

Samsung Display also entered the OLED market for TVs with large quantum dot (QD)-OLED panels from the beginning of this year. Samsung Display's QD-OLED shipments for TVs this year are expected to reach 600,000 units.









LCD 삼키고 TV용 OLED로 눈 돌리는 中… 점유율 99% 韓 디스플레이 흔들린다


LCD 삼키고 TV용 OLED로 눈 돌리는 中 점유율 99% 韓 디스플레이 흔들린다 中 BOE, 대형 OLED 상용화 준비 55인치부터 95인치까지 라인업 다양 R&D용 생산라인에서 시험 생산 계획 올해 30만대 출하, 전체 TV 0.1% 수준 출하량 확대할 경우 국내 점유율 10%P↓




biz.chosun.com


----------



## Micker

D-Nice said:


> I would take a large CRT or PDP for SDR any day of the week compared to any OLED or LED based LCD. I am not impressed with brightness as I'm totally immune to crow mentality. Resolution.... I'll leave that fascination to those who know no better.


Well the thing I enjoy the most, is the bright highlights and much more realistic, vivid colors, that's what makes me smile. Those are things that are eye candy, some people don't like candy lol. You don't think HDR color is much better than SDR? Resolution isn't a huge deal after 1080, but it certainly is above 480. What's the point of buying a newer TV if not for the brightness, color and resolution upgrade? It's all about what makes you say wow and smile when watching a show or movie.


----------



## algee

Micker said:


> Well the thing I enjoy the most, is the bright highlights and much more realistic, vivid colors, that's what makes me smile. Those are things that are eye candy, some people don't like candy lol. You don't think HDR color is much better than SDR? Resolution isn't a huge deal after 1080, but it certainly is above 480. What's the point of buying a newer TV if not for the brightness, color and resolution upgrade?


I kinda agree with D Nice... OLED and LCD have all of these technical "enhancements" that go well beyond PDP, but there's still something about the PDP image that is crisper and more realistic. Difficult to explain, may be due to how the image itself is constructed, but I still prefer it compared to even the best OLEDs.

Also I swear many of the smaller PDPs had extremely high levels of brightness when juiced up.


----------



## Micker

algee said:


> I kinda agree with D Nice... OLED and LCD have all of these technical "enhancements" that go well beyond PDP, but there's still something about the PDP image that is crisper and more realistic. Difficult to explain, may be due to how the image itself is constructed, but I still prefer it compared to even the best OLEDs.
> 
> Also I swear many of the smaller PDPs had extremely high levels of brightness when juiced up.


I had a few plasmas(VT60 my last). They were good, but I would take a good 4K HDR image over that any day and most would, that's why there are no more plasmas. People's taste is different. I see calibrators seem to like dim, more reference looking material mostly and aren't people who watch TV for POP and WOW. I'm the kind of person that used to buy a video game for the graphics and hope the game was good lol. I want to see bight lasers and neon lights and wider color gamut and fine detail. To me anything but that is crazy and to someone else that is crazy. Just depends on what you look for in a picture. As far as directors intent, well they are just humans and make mistakes too lol. I can be my own director with my TV and make things look like I would have wanted them to, if I was in charge.


----------



## RWetmore

algee said:


> I kinda agree with D Nice... OLED and LCD have all of these technical "enhancements" that go well beyond PDP, but there's still something about the PDP image that is crisper and more realistic. Difficult to explain, may be due to how the image itself is constructed, but I still prefer it compared to even the best OLEDs.


It's due to the native RGB pixel structure in plasma. Native RGB OLED, according to owners who have had them, i.e. the Samsung 2013 model, had that same plasma-like quality to the image, in particular the color. To me, these WRGB OLEDs still have the 'look' of LCDs, because basically what they are is an LCD with perfect blacks (and where the back light is controlled at the individual pixel level and can completely turn off). They use color filters like LCDs use, and which I've found have a slight artificiality to the look of the color that cannot be completely calibrated out. Quantum dot OLED would likely improve on this and may even solve it essentially. I'll be interested to see more owners reports, especially when the Sony comes out.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> On the 6th, market research firm DSCC announced in a recent report that China's BOE is preparing to commercialize large OLED panels for TVs. It is known that there are a total of five types of TV OLED sizes that BOE is preparing for commercialization, ranging from 55 inches to 95 inches. In fact, they plan to make OLED panels of all sizes sold for TVs.
> 
> This product was manufactured in the same way as LG Display's W (white)-OLED, which uses a device that emits white light as a light source. It has a maximum brightness of 800 nits (knit and 1 nit is the brightness of one candle) and a high refresh rate of 120 Hz (the number of frames that appear on the display per second). It is similar to the premium OLED panel that LG Display is making.





> BOE decided to test-produce OLED panels for TVs on the 8th generation (2200mm × 2500mm) B5 R&D production line in Hefei, China. [*The industry expects annual shipments to be around 300,000 units this year.*


‘The Industry’ has been wrong often enough in the past, but if BOE actually ships any WOLED panels that make it into commercial TV products before yearend, that would very big news.

Between Samsung launching QD-OLED, BOE supposedly launching their own WOLED soon, and printed RGB OLED from TCL/JOLED, it seems like OLED TV has ‘crossed the chasm’ and is now at the beginning stages of a new phase…



> Samsung Display also entered the OLED market for TVs with large quantum dot (QD)-OLED panels from the beginning of this year. Samsung Display's QD-OLED shipments for TVs this year are expected to reach 600,000 units.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LCD 삼키고 TV용 OLED로 눈 돌리는 中… 점유율 99% 韓 디스플레이 흔들린다
> 
> 
> LCD 삼키고 TV용 OLED로 눈 돌리는 中 점유율 99% 韓 디스플레이 흔들린다 中 BOE, 대형 OLED 상용화 준비 55인치부터 95인치까지 라인업 다양 R&D용 생산라인에서 시험 생산 계획 올해 30만대 출하, 전체 TV 0.1% 수준 출하량 확대할 경우 국내 점유율 10%P↓
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biz.chosun.com


New entrants will increase competition and should accelerate the trend towards lower-cost OLED TV, but should also spur differentiation through innovation.

High-efficiency blue is the Elephant in the room, but if there is any real likelihood of BOE selling WOLED panels next year, I would guess that this increases the likelihood of LGD accelerating the adoption of MLA so that we’re more likely to see 4K WOLEDs from LG with MLA next year - at least on the G3 and possibly also for the C3.

And how the availability of new lower-cost WOLED panels from BOE could play into Samsung Electronics’ strategy of positioning lower-cost OLED TV below QD-LED/LCD is a big wildcard.

The biggest loser in this season of ‘let 1000 OLED-TV wildflowers bloom’ may actually be Samsung Display and QD-OLED.

LGD has fully-committed the future of the company to WOLED and has no choice but to invest in an attempt to stay ahead of the emerging competition (they are the pig).

But Samsung has only committed to a single 8.5G ‘pilot line’ for QD-OLED and may elect to see another card or two from BOE and TCL/JOLED before betting more chips on QD-OLED (so they are the chicken).

CES 2023 is shaping up to be especially interesting…


----------



## fafrd

RWetmore said:


> It's due to the native RGB pixel structure in plasma. Native RGB OLED, according to owners who have had them, i.e. the Samsung 2013 model, had that same plasma-like quality to the image, in particular the color.





> To me, these WRGB OLEDs still have the 'look' of LCDs, because basically what they are is an LCD with perfect blacks (and where the back light is controlled at the individual pixel level and can completely turn off). *They use color filters like LCDs use, *and which I've found have a slight artificiality to the look of the color that cannot be completely calibrated out.





> *Quantum dot OLED would likely improve on this *and may even solve it essentially. I'll be interested to see more owners reports, especially when the Sony comes out.


You do understand that QD-OLED 1.0 subpixels also ‘see color filters’ and are no different than WOLED in that regard, right?

The only difference between QD-OLED and WOLED as far as filtering is:

RED: no difference (both filter out blue)

GREEN: WOLED filters out red and blue; QD-OLED 1.0 only filters out blue

BLUE: WOLED filters out red and green; QD-OLED 1.0 only filters out green

WHITE: no filter on WOLED; N/A on QD-OLED 1.0


----------



## D-Nice

Micker said:


> You don't think HDR color is much better than SDR?


No it isn't. To be quite honest, neither do you. There isn't a consumer TV out there where the HDR presentation is more color accurate than SDR.... easily backed up with measurements. There is a reason why CalMAN only measures 16 colors in HDR.



> Resolution isn't a huge deal after 1080, but it certainly is above 480.


Very few people watch 480. Very few channels still exist broadcasting 480i.... I am of course referring to their primary broadcast channel, not a sub channel or "backend".


----------



## algee

RWetmore said:


> It's due to the native RGB pixel structure in plasma. Native RGB OLED, according to owners who have had them, i.e. the Samsung 2013 model, had that same plasma-like quality to the image, in particular the color. To me, these WRGB OLEDs still have the 'look' of LCDs, because basically what they are is an LCD with perfect blacks (and where the back light is controlled at the individual pixel level and can completely turn off). They use color filters like LCDs use, and which I've found have a slight artificiality to the look of the color that cannot be completely calibrated out. Quantum dot OLED would likely improve on this and may even solve it essentially. I'll be interested to see more owners reports, especially when the Sony comes out.


That may be a part of it, but could also be the shape of the pixels themselves?. Also could be the way the image itself is generated on the plasma, such as the ~1000 hz sub field drive? May it's simply the lack of sample and hold that gives the image much more realism, I don't know... Even static images have a certain look of life so it's not just down to motion resolution. There's a certain indistinguishable clear and crispness of the plasma screen that I have not seen replicated on any other screen, even phone RGB oleds. Perhaps the samsung qd oled may be different, haven't seen one.


----------



## dkfan9

D-Nice said:


> No it isn't. To be quite honest, neither do you. There isn't a consumer TV out there where the HDR presentation is more color accurate than SDR.... easily backed up with measurements. There is a reason why CalMAN only measures 16 colors in HDR.


EDIT: figured it out, nevermind


----------



## mrtickleuk

dkfan9 said:


> The quote was missing on this part, what was it in response to?


That happens whenever the user is on your "Ignore" list. If you re-load that post in Incognito mode, it will reveal who it was. Realising it's happened is the tricky part 
HTH


----------



## dkfan9

mrtickleuk said:


> That happens whenever the user is on your "Ignore" list. If you re-load that post in Incognito mode, it will reveal who it was. Realising it's happened is the tricky part
> HTH


Whoops...

_backs away slowly_


----------



## MaKaVeLiKdOcToR

algee said:


> I kinda agree with D Nice... OLED and LCD have all of these technical "enhancements" that go well beyond PDP, but there's still something about the PDP image that is crisper and more realistic. Difficult to explain, may be due to how the image itself is constructed, but I still prefer it compared to even the best OLEDs.
> 
> Also I swear many of the smaller PDPs had extremely high levels of brightness when juiced up.


I still use a 2012 Panasonic Plasma 50 inch (tc-p50u50) and yes its get bright enough. Contrast is at 85 (100 nits). The colors look real life I still love it. I have a cx as my main tv.


----------



## RWetmore

algee said:


> That may be a part of it, but could also be the shape of the pixels themselves?. Also could be the way the image itself is generated on the plasma, such as the ~1000 hz sub field drive? May it's simply the lack of sample and hold that gives the image much more realism, I don't know... Even static images have a certain look of life so it's not just down to motion resolution. There's a certain indistinguishable clear and crispness of the plasma screen that I have not seen replicated on any other screen, even phone RGB oleds. Perhaps the samsung qd oled may be different, haven't seen one.


It could just be the 'look' of glowing phosphors. But I will interested to see these new Quantum Dot OLEDs, as I do expect they will be better looking.


----------



## filmoreXXX

I just scored a 2nd back up KRP 500m

what the point of 4000 x 2000 pixels on a 4k movie when as soon as people start moving it goes down to 300 lines of motion resolution


----------



## Micker

D-Nice said:


> No it isn't. To be quite honest, neither do you. There isn't a consumer TV out there where the HDR presentation is more color accurate than SDR.... easily backed up with measurements. There is a reason why CalMAN only measures 16 colors in HDR.
> 
> Very few people watch 480. Very few channels still exist broadcasting 480i.... I am of course referring to their primary broadcast channel, not a sub channel or "backend".


You can't see better colors and brightness in a good HDR presentation? HDR is certainly closer to the color of the real life object being displayed. How can something with a lower color gamut and volume, produce a more accurate image to the real scene? Nothing we see is accurate. Nothing is capturing what the real scene looked like, it's just the best whatever the technology can capture. Your definition of accurate is the accuracy of the film, which is nothing like it should look or did look in real life, if compression and tech limits weren't involved. I just don't understand your angle on that comment, you can't say that you can get a more lifelike image with SDR than HDR. Maybe you can calibrate it more accurately, but you can't show a scene more accurately to real life, with SDR over HDR, it's impossible. Of course you can get SDR more accurate, because it has less colors and brightness from the source and easier to calibrate. You could get a 16 color image much more acurate to the source too, doesn't mean it looks good or better. Being more accurate to a lower standard is better? Doesn't meant SDR can produce better color or brightness, just means we don't have the ability to calibrate HDR properly, because it's more complex, but also better, if done right


----------



## VA_DaveB

MaKaVeLiKdOcToR said:


> I still use a 2012 Panasonic Plasma 50 inch (tc-p50u50) and yes its get bright enough. Contrast is at 85 (100 nits). The colors look real life I still love it. I have a cx as my main tv.


I just came back from my beach house where my 2008 Panny plasma lives in semi-retirement. After 30,000+ hours it still looks great with those incredible viewing angles that come in real handy in the Family/Dining/Kitchen/Morning room. Sure an 83" OLED or QD-OLED would be better in that large space but I can't spend that much for something used on alternate weeks in the summer only.


----------



## VA_DaveB

Micker said:


> You can't see better colors and brightness in a good HDR presentation? HDR is certainly closer to the color of the real life object being displayed. How can something with a lower color gamut and volume, produce a more accurate image to the real scene? Nothing we see is accurate. Nothing is capturing what the real scene looked like, it's just the best whatever the technology can capture. Your definition of accurate is the accuracy of the film, which is nothing like it should look or did look in real life, if compression and tech limits weren't involved. I just don't understand your angle on that comment, you can't say that you can get a more lifelike image with SDR than HDR. Maybe you can calibrate it more accurately, but you can't show a scene more accurately to real life, with SDR over HDR, it's impossible. Of course you can get SDR more accurate, because it has less colors and brightness from the source and easier to calibrate. You could get a 16 color image much more acurate to the source too, doesn't mean it looks good or better. Being more accurate to a lower standard is better? Doesn't meant SDR can produce better color or brightness, just means we don't have the ability to calibrate HDR properly, because it's more complex, but also better, if done right


Not a calibrator, but from what I've read, HDR calibration of TVs just isn't possible. Here's a quote from an online source explaining why. Hopefully D-Nice will stop by and correct anything here that isn't accurate.

*"With SDR TVs, external LUT boxes, such as the Lumagen Radiance, as well as the software based madVR playback system, can be used to very accurately calibrate connected displays, using ColourSpace to generate the 3D calibration LUT.*

*Direct internal 3D LUT based calibration of home TVs is a limited option as few TV manufacturers offer in-built 3D LUT capability... This lack of in-built 3D LUT capability also extends to new HDR TVs, as not one has in-built 3D LUT capability for HDR use.

The issue with HDR TVs is there are few viable ways to calibrate them with 3D LUTs, as even though LUT boxes, such as the Lumagen Radiance Pro and MadVR/Envy, can work with HDR images, most HDR TVs have their factory EOTF presets fixed, and cannot have them disabled, while still maintaining HDR compatibility. This makes secondary, external LUT Box calibration impossible.*

*Consequently, HDR TV calibration is, in the main, nothing more than limited manual adjustments."*


----------



## dkfan9

It depends what you consider calibrated I guess.


----------



## D-Nice

Micker said:


> You can't see better colors and brightness in a good HDR presentation? HDR is certainly closer to the color of the real life object being displayed. How can something with a lower color gamut and volume, produce a more accurate image to the real scene? Nothing we see is accurate. Nothing is capturing what the real scene looked like, it's just the best whatever the technology can capture. Your definition of accurate is the accuracy of the film, which is nothing like it should look or did look in real life, if compression and tech limits weren't involved. I just don't understand your angle on that comment, you can't say that you can get a more lifelike image with SDR than HDR. Maybe you can calibrate it more accurately, but you can't show a scene more accurately to real life, with SDR over HDR, it's impossible. Of course you can get SDR more accurate, because it has less colors and brightness from the source and easier to calibrate. You could get a 16 color image much more acurate to the source too, doesn't mean it looks good or better. Being more accurate to a lower standard is better? Doesn't meant SDR can produce better color or brightness, just means we don't have the ability to calibrate HDR properly, because it's more complex, but also better, if done right


Your argument revolves around your subjective opinion of what you like. You have zero apparent knowledge of objective topics like video standards, components of video, colorspace, nor what HDR actually is. Please take the time to learn these topics before having discussions relating to objective topics.


----------



## MaKaVeLiKdOcToR

VA_DaveB said:


> I just came back from my beach house where my 2008 Panny plasma lives in semi-retirement. After 30,000+ hours it still looks great with those incredible viewing angles that come in real handy in the Family/Dining/Kitchen/Morning room. Sure an 83" OLED or QD-OLED would be better in that large space but I can't spend that much for something used on alternate weeks in the summer only.


Agree on the perfect viewing angle 😎


----------



## Micker

D-Nice said:


> Your argument revolves around your subjective opinion of what you like. You have zero apparent knowledge of objective topics like video standards, components of video, colorspace, nor what HDR actually is. Please take the time to learn these topics before having discussions relating to objective topics.


All viewing is subjective. What you like isn't what everyone likes or should like. I know what looks good and what doesn't. You don't need a meter to now what you like or looks good to you.. I'm simply saying that HDR technically offers better picture quality than SDR. You disagree? Instead of having a discussion or explaining your point of view, you just put the other persons knowledge down and accept that as a win. I get it you calibrate TVs, wow, does that give you the right to act so pompous? I'm an IT security engineer, for power plants all over the United States, been doing it for 25 yrs.. I would never talk down to people discussing IT, who were not at my same level or act like you do. Get over yourself, you aren't that important. Try acting humbly and nice for a change.


----------



## brogero

D-Nice said:


> Your argument revolves around your subjective opinion of what you like. You have zero apparent knowledge of objective topics like video standards, components of video, colorspace, nor what HDR actually is. Please take the time to learn these topics before having discussions relating to objective topics.


Then say what is wrong with his statement.


----------



## mrtickleuk

brogero said:


> Then say what is wrong with his statement.


Er, there's too much wrong to even know where to start, unfortunately. Hence the advice to go off and do basic learning first was, actually, the most helpful and kind answer.


----------



## 8mile13

Among plenty of TV fans and most TV experts a trustworthy representation of the source is a top priority. When you do not care about that and treats those that do like ''get a life'' this place and this hobby is not for you.


----------



## Jin-X

Lol it’s the same old story of “poster X completely misunderstands what D-Nice is saying and said poster ends up arguing about a completely different thing than what D-Nice is talking about”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## D-Nice

mrtickleuk said:


> Er, there's too much wrong to even know where to start, unfortunately. Hence the advice to go off and do basic learning first was, actually, the most helpful and kind answer.


Exactly.


----------



## D-Nice

Micker said:


> I'm an IT security engineer, for power plants all over the United States, been doing it for 25 yrs.. I would never talk down to people discussing IT, who were not at my same level or act like you do.


LOL, funny as you are actually talking down to another IT guy. But since the discussion isn't about cyber security......


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jin-X said:


> Lol it’s the same old story of “poster X completely misunderstands what D-Nice is saying and said poster ends up arguing about a completely different thing than what D-Nice is talking about”.


Indeed. As a clue if they are sincere in wanting to learn:
The phrase "more colour accurate" in post #19,228 is an objective thing that can be measured.
The word "better" in post #19,228 is a subjective thing that can not be measured.
Conflating those two things and assuming that person X said one of the above, and then starting - let alone continuing - such a strawman argument when he actually said the other thing, means the post hasn't been understood.


----------



## artur9

Just to make it crystal to me, as I'm surprised, HDR TVs cannot be calibrated for accuracy?

All the DolbyVision/HDR/HDR+ stuff ends up being someone's subjective opinion of how things should appear on the screen?

Geez. Although, I think in Dredd, the scenes with slo-mo can be made into amazing eye candy with DV et al...


----------



## chris7191

D-Nice said:


> I would take a large CRT or PDP for SDR any day of the week compared to any OLED or LED based LCD. I am not impressed with brightness as I'm totally immune to crow mentality. Resolution.... I'll leave that fascination to those who know no better.


PDP maybe, but not CRT for me. I had a Sony F520 21” Trinitron and Mitsubishi Diamondtron 2040u which were two of the best Trinitron CRTs ever made, but I just find them a little soft and won’t ever go back to tweaking convergence, geometry, etc. I realize those are monitors, but still. Really great motion, but I prefer the look of fixed-pixel displays at higher resolutions. I’m a bit of a crow too, during the day anyway.


----------



## RobertR1

I think of SDR as a canvas that's equal for everyone drawing on it.

HDR will all it's additional variables are subject to interpretation thus you get a different canvas depending on the shop you use: DV, HDR, HDR10+, HGIG, HLG, and I'm sure I've missed a few!

You can't look at 1 vs many and try to compare them as equals. I don't really understand what the end game will be for HDR. Maybe one day at 10,000nits filling the entire bt.2020 range will evaporate all the above and we'll back to a single canvas for everyone. Until then it'll be a wild ride.

Having said that, I'm quite happy and enjoy the various implementations of HDR. I can enjoy the current iterations with an eye on the future when there's a single version of truth. I don't need to force myself into SDR until then.


----------



## FernandoValdirNayron

About SDR vs HDR, I think both were talking about little different things. 

First. Hdr is more information, more range of light displayed at the same time. And one thing, HDR are NOT high nits. HDR is more contrast than anything. Mean more f stops of light displayed.

Let's say for example a IPS panel with 1000:1 contrast ratio, it have the ability to display almost 10 f-stops of light, and you will get that even if the panel achieve 10000 nits. A VA panel with 2k:1, 11 f-stops. A VA with 8k: 13 f-stops. A ordinary camera sensor captures 13 stops of light. A hdr camera, 16 stops or more. It maybe a little difference, but it's a exponential increase. Fot 16 stops of light displayed, the television must achieve, at least, 64k:1 contrast ratio. 

That's why LCD TVs must have local dimming to compensate for the lack of contrast. Oled otherwise, has a infinite contrast ratio, what keeps them away to achieve a really good hdr experience is their bad near black performance.

About which is better than the other. Of course HDR is better than SDR (in theory). But in practice, and with the content we have today, the advantages of the hdr are not fully used. Not all cameras sensors can capture a good dynamic range, most movies are in SDR and there is a lot of forced and bad utilized HDR content nowadays.


----------



## Jin-X

artur9 said:


> Just to make it crystal to me, as I'm surprised, HDR TVs cannot be calibrated for accuracy?
> 
> All the DolbyVision/HDR/HDR+ stuff ends up being someone's subjective opinion of how things should appear on the screen?
> 
> Geez. Although, I think in Dredd, the scenes with slo-mo can be made into amazing eye candy with DV et al...


It can be, just nowhere near as much as SDR, particularly with colors. You can still calibrate the white point, EOTF tracking, black level/shadow detail. But color accuracy in SDR can be made reference level on LGs by uploading a 3D LUT or in other tvs, like Sony, by using an external LUT box. In HDR you can’t get anywhere remotely close to that for the colors. And there is the matter of tone mapping to add to that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> It can be, just nowhere near as much as SDR, particularly with colors. You can still calibrate the white point, EOTF tracking, black level/shadow detail. But *color accuracy in SDR can be made reference level *on LGs by uploading a 3D LUT or in other tvs, like Sony, *by using an external LUT box. *In HDR you can’t get anywhere remotely close to that for the colors. And there is the matter of tone mapping to add to that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Is there any fundamental reason HDR accuracy could not be brought to ‘reference level’ through use of an external LUT box?

I understand the point that there is no ‘reference’ for HDR and the standard(s) is(are) all over the map.

But assuming you had a standard to which you wanted to calibrate the full available color volume of your HDR TV, would an external 3D LUT box allow that to be achieved?


----------



## dwaleke

fafrd said:


> Is there any fundamental reason HDR accuracy could not be brought to ‘reference level’ through use of an external LUT box?
> 
> I understand the point that there is no ‘reference’ for HDR and the standard(s) is(are) all over the map.
> 
> But assuming you had a standard to which you wanted to calibrate the full available color volume of your HDR TV, would an external 3D LUT box allow that to be achieved?


Consumer OLED TVs are not stable enough at high luminance output to be calibrated with 3D LUTs.


----------



## FernandoValdirNayron

dwaleke said:


> Consumer OLED TVs are not stable enough at high luminance output to be calibrated with 3D LUTs.


I would like to know where did you take that information, they are not stable in which way?


----------



## dwaleke

FernandoValdirNayron said:


> I would like to know where did you take that information, they are not stable in which way?


Spend some time reading the calibration sub forum here.


----------



## lsorensen

FernandoValdirNayron said:


> I would like to know where did you take that information, they are not stable in which way?


The 3D lut would have to know how the max brightness of the TV changes depending on the average brightness of the image. That's messy. After all if you wants to map something with green at 500 nits, that may work fine if the average brightness of the overall image is 100 nits, but if the average changes to 400 nits, the TV now has to dim because it can't do full screen at 400 nits, so now what was accurately mapping to 500 nits is dimmed by the display. So as long as OLED needs ABL getting an accurate mapping just doesn't seem feasible. SDR is fine, since the max brightness is under the max full screen brightness of OLED so you don't hit ABL at all and hence can get consistent accurate mapping. So ABL by design makes HDR unstable on OLED. Local dimming on LCDs causes its own issues with it too. 

The pro displays like the Sony 310 that uses dual LCD panels to improve contrast and as far as I understand it doesn't do local dimming should have completely consistent behaviour up to 1000 nits (at which point it just clips anything higher if I understood things right). That you can do consistently with a 3D LUT since the behaviour is always the same for any given input value. We don't have any consumer displays that behave like that for HDR yet as far as I know.


----------



## artur9

lsorensen said:


> The pro displays like the Sony 310 that uses dual LCD panels to improve contrast and as far as I understand it doesn't do local dimming .... We don't have any consumer displays that behave like that for HDR yet as far as I know.


Hisense U9DG has dual LCD panels. Would it work for this?


----------



## dkfan9

artur9 said:


> Hisense U9DG has dual LCD panels. Would it work for this?


That set also dims full screen vs 25% and less, and has local dimming (in the case of these consumer sets, it's necessary to limit power draw)


----------



## lsorensen

artur9 said:


> Hisense U9DG has dual LCD panels. Would it work for this?


Probably not. The pro screens also have noisy fans and use a lot of power to pull of their brightness.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

I was doing some research on older qned news. Turns out there was a prototype.
















[영상] [이충훈의 OLED] TV 시장을 뿌리째 뒤흔들 신기술 삼성 ‘QNED’


한: 사실 이제 제가 제일 궁금한 것은 그다음 버전의 기술인데. ‘QNED’라는 게 요즘 굉장히 핫하게 사람들 사이에서 얘기가 많이 되는데. 제가 그냥 거두절미하고 이 기술이 제대로 양산이 돼서 워킹이 된다고 그러면 텔레비전 디스플레이업계는 어떻게 되는 겁니까?이: 한마디로 “뒤집어지죠”한: 정말요?이: 그렇죠. 근데 조금더 부연설명을 하면 이제는 2013년도에 삼성전자에서 OLED TV를 팔았죠.한: 잠깐 했었죠.이: 잠깐했죠. 근데 이 부분이 원활하게 사업이 안되면서 삼성전자는 마이크로 LED로 갔죠. 근데 삼성디스플




www.thelec.kr





If I'm understanding the wonky translation right, brightness of qned is not that better than qdoled in larger screen windows and mainly better only in smaller windows.
















[영상] 삼성 QNED 특허 94건 살펴봤더니


한: 또 한 가지 저희가 화두로 예전에도 영상으로 다뤘었는데. ‘QNED(퀀텀닷나노발광다이오드)’ 굉장히 많은 분들이 보셨는데. QNED에 대해서도 그건 내년에 당장 나올 제품은 아니지만 지금 내후년 정도로 보고 있습니까?이: 저희는 그렇게 보고 있어요. 지금은 기술개발 단계를 봤을 때는 내년에 양산 투자를 해도 나쁠 건 없다고 보고 있어요.한: 그러면 저희가 그때 말씀하실 때만 하더라도 특허를 몇 건을 갖고 얘기하신 거죠?이: 그때는 상반기 때 41건으로 제가 봤죠.한: 지금 더 찾으셨다면서요?이: 이번에 94건.한:




www.thelec.kr




edit: He does not mention 3% window brightness which I'm guessing can reach 2000 nits, but full screen brightness looks underwhelming. I suppose that the higher number of leds results in strong ABL for larger screens because of power consumption issues with increasing LED count. So 50% and 75% window may be significantly dimmer. But then again, this was only a prototype and qdoled prototype was far dimmer than launch. However with new blue oled emitter coming around 2024, qdoled will also get brighter.
















[영상] 삼성 QNED는 대형 디스플레이 판도를 바꿀 수 있을까?


차세대 디스플레이 최신기술 및 개발 이슈 세미나한: 오늘은 삼성디스플레이가 개발하고 있는 삼성디스플레이의 QNED. LG전자가 말하는 그 'LG QNED' 말고. 삼성이 애초에 먼저 얘기했던 QNED에 대해서 유비리서치 이충훈 대표님 모시고 얘기를 한번 해보도록 하겠습니다. 대표님 안녕하세요.이: 반갑습니다. 이충훈입니다.한: 작년부터 해서 저희가 삼성디스플레이의 QNED. 중간에 갑자기 LG전자가 미니LED TV의 'LG QNED'라고 브랜딩을 해버려서.이: 그러니까 말이에요.한: 혼란스러운




www.thelec.kr





Even if QNED and QDOLED have the same performance I think it would still be advantageous for them to switch to QNED. For one, we know there won't be burn in issues. Additionally, it was stated that QNED will be cheaper than QDOLED launch and I think Lee made this statement before they used the 3 stack blue oled structure which is even more expensive.









Lee also states that it wouldn't be difficult to setup a QNED line.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

QNED(what I think the brightness levels will be):
100% window 300 nits give or take (mentioned in the article)
10% window 1500 nits give or take(mentioned in the article)
3% window 2000 nits give or take. (I am estimating 2000 nits which I think is a reasonable estimate since it seems smaller windows can get far brighter)

With new more efficient blue oled emmiters I wonder how QNED may be able to still compete with QDOLED in terms of brightness and price. We currently know that encapsulation and deposition for qdoled is more expensive plus a 3 stack blue oled layer also makes it more expensive than QNED. If they keep the 3 stack layer with new blue oled emitter, QDOLED will still be more expensive but brightness probably the same as qned or better. With 2 stack blue oled structure QDOLED brightness will still be worse, but costs is cut. Given that the encapsulation and deposition process is expensive, will QNED still be much cheaper even if QDOLED uses 2 stack blue oled structure?

This is also prototype brightness levels for QNED, so it remains to be seem if QNED when launched will be dimmer or brighter.


----------



## dkfan9

300 nits is a big jump for full field. Is it just the inorganic nature that makes it less prone to burn in? It will still see uneven wear based on content, no?


----------



## fafrd

dkfan9 said:


> 300 nits is a big jump for full field. Is it just the inorganic nature that makes it less prone to burn in? It will still see uneven wear based on content, no?


Full-field brightness is limited by power consumption standards, meaning full-field brightness will be determined by electro-optical efficiency.

LGD demonstrated a 77” 8K WOLED with MLA that delivered 250 nits full-field and it appears likely it was based on inefficient blue FOLED emitters.

When blue PHOLED (or any high-efficiency blue emitter) finally materializes, it will make ABL and and all these issues regarding peak brightness largely a thing of of the past.

Blue PHOLED will emit ~4 times as many blue photons for the same power consumption as blue FOLED.

If LGD used blue PHOLED in a 3S4C or 3S3C structure that does not reduce cost, they will be able to increase efficiency by ~70% and peak brightness across the board will increase by the same amount (I subject to any more stringent power consumption limits).

The 170-180 Nits of full field brightness WOLED can deliver today will increase to 290-306 nits. Gain another ~+20% from the use of MLA and WOLED will be able to deliver 350 - 370 nits without breaking a sweat…

It’s unlikely there will be a market requirement for that level of brightness so I expect to lower cost by dropping from 3 OLED layers to 2, but they could easily offer a cost-reduced WOLED matching today’s performance level as well as a premium WOLED delivering 350-370 nits at today’s cost…

High-efficiency blue will offer a similar sea-change for QD-OLED.

Samung will almost certainly cost-reduce because they are currently more expensive than WOLED, but a 3S2C B-B-B-G would increase efficiency by 68%, similar to WOLED.

If Samsung decides they need to better-compete against WOLED by dropping from 4 layers to 3, they will still gain +38% in efficiency, and if they try to get down to 2 layers to undercut today’s 3S4C WOLED on cost, they’ll still get a +7.5% boost in efficiency and peak brightness levels.

QNED only has any meaningful role to play in this future if it can deliver WOLED/QD-OLED-level performance levels at a substantively lower cost or if it can significantly exceed WOLED/QD-OLED lifetime at equivalent cost.


----------



## mrtickleuk

fafrd said:


> *It’s unlikely there will be a market requirement for that level of brightness* so I expect to lower cost by dropping from 3 OLED layers to 2, but they could easily offer a cost-reduced WOLED matching today’s performance level as well as a premium WOLED delivering 350-370 nits at today’s cost…


I agree, there is not, but try telling that to the people who want to watch their SDR at 600 nits and the "brighter=better" crows.


----------



## fafrd

mrtickleuk said:


> I agree, there is not, but try telling that to the people who want to watch their SDR at 600 nits and the "brighter=better" crows.


As long as there are millions of them and they have deep enough pockets, they can constitute a market…


----------



## brogero

mrtickleuk said:


> I agree, there is not, but try telling that to the people who want to watch their SDR at 600 nits and the "brighter=better" crows.


Eh some people, including me, have direct sunlight on their living room tv so more brightness for daytime is ideal. It isn’t that it’s wrong especially for sports.


----------



## mrtickleuk

brogero said:


> Eh some people, including me, have direct sunlight on their living room tv so more brightness for daytime is ideal. It isn’t that it’s wrong especially for sports.


I said* 600 nits* for fullscreen (hypothetical future OLEDs which _do not yet exist_ for consumers), and not 300 nits (what can be done currently, and as you rightly say, do have some practical uses).

(I don't understand why sport gets to be a special case though, against any other type of daytime programming, but possibly off topic here  )


----------



## OLED_Overrated

brogero said:


> Eh some people, including me, have direct sunlight on their living room tv so more brightness for daytime is ideal. It isn’t that it’s wrong especially for sports.


At least 400 nits full screen isn't even a lot to ask given that I think 99% or a majority of MINILED tvs have at least 400 nits full screen. If QNED can somehow do 1500 on a 10% window, but 300 on a 100% window, that's concerning because it suggest an extremely high ABL like OLED, but it shouldn't even suffer from burn-in that a high ABL is necessary. High ABL also means large hdr highlights like skies will also be significantly dimmed compared to small highlights so it's not just about full screen brightness. In the patents, they mentioned the con of having more leds per subpixel, that you will increase power consumption and I guess this can explain why it's the case; but then again, that was only a prototype and you can't conclude too much from it.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

mrtickleuk said:


> I said* 600 nits* for fullscreen (hypothetical future displays which _do not yet exist_ for consumers), and not 300 nits (what can be done currently, and as you rightly say, do have some practical uses).
> 
> (I don't understand why sport gets to be a special case though, against any other type of daytime programming, but possibly off topic here  )


I'm confused by your comment. Recent Samsung TVS can push 600 nits SDR on a 100% window.


----------



## mrtickleuk

OLED_Overrated said:


> I'm confused by your comment. Recent Samsung TVS can push 600 nits SDR on a 100% window.


Are they OLED Technology, like those discussed in post 19,266 that I was specifically replying to, and the topic being discussed on thread? No they are not.

But, in case anyone else manages to misinterpret it, I shall edit my post above. I thought the "for consumers" would stop the wisecracks from misreading and then replying about the professional mastering displays, clearly my wording wasn't tight enough.


----------



## dkfan9

OLED_Overrated said:


> At least 400 nits full screen isn't even a lot to ask given that I think 99% or a majority of MINILED tvs have at least 400 nits full screen. If QNED can somehow do 1500 on a 10% window, but 300 on a 100% window, that's concerning because it suggest an extremely high ABL like OLED, but it shouldn't even suffer from burn-in that a high ABL is necessary. High ABL also means large hdr highlights like skies will also be significantly dimmed compared to small highlights so it's not just about full screen brightness. In the patents, they mentioned the con of having more leds per subpixel, that you will increase power consumption and I guess this can explain why it's the case; but then again, that was only a prototype and you can't conclude too much from it.


Full screen ABL is primarily due to power consumption. That's why even LED sets have some.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

mrtickleuk said:


> Are they OLED Technology, like those discussed in post 19,266 that I was specifically replying to, and the topic being discussed on thread? No they are not.
> 
> But, in case anyone else manages to misinterpret it, I shall edit my post above. I thought the "for consumers" would stop the wisecracks from misreading and then replying about the professional mastering displays, clearly my wording wasn't tight enough.


From Fafrd's original comment, I do not even know if "market requirement" is referring to OLED market only or all tvs. Dolby Digital did a study which showed that a majority of consumers tend to prefer the brightest tv on display. If anything, it's ideal to create the brighter display if you want to have more sales.


----------



## 8mile13

dkfan9 said:


> 300 nits is a big jump for full field. Is it just the inorganic nature that makes it less prone to burn in? It will still see uneven wear based on content, no?


I think it should be looked at the way we look at LED LCDs which hardly has any burn-in problems. So that has something to do with Blue GaN Nanorod LEDs being inorganic.


----------



## Wizziwig

Every display will eventually show signs of uneven wear. Call it burn-in if you want.

Even on a FALD LCD if you constantly play content that illuminates the zones in the center of the screen while keeping the rest dimmed, you will eventually see loss of brightness in the center of the screen.

Then there's the actual circuits of the sub-pixels. On an LCD, the capacitors can degrade from heat and eventually develop a DC bias which creates stubborn image retention. On an OLED the driving circuits degrade which is why we have the 4-hour interval compensation cycles. Moving to QNED or uLED only reduces one source of uneven wear and you will still need wear compensation to deal with the rest.


----------



## FernandoValdirNayron

OLED_Overrated said:


> From Fafrd's original comment, I do not even know if "market requirement" is referring to OLED market only or all tvs. Dolby Digital did a study which showed that a majority of consumers tend to prefer the brightest tv on display. If anything, it's ideal to create the brighter display if you want to have more sales.


I think the brightness myth comes from the way our eyes are atracted to things. If we compare side by side a two TVs, our eyes most of the times will look at the brighter image, not because its more beautiful, but because its shines more. The same ways goes with a louder sound.

Lets not underestimate our pupils, they can adapt to a dimmer environment, and once we have a ambient with good condition, we will notice the difference. Our eyes wont adapt when there is something brighter together. The brighter one will get more of our attention, but that doesnt mean it will be our favorite If we give a time to test both separately.

That been said, that is a use scenario. A controled environment is where we can take the most of the television. For a really bright room scenario, you may have to sacrifice image quality for brighter image. That sacrifice wont be noticed a lot because of the all the noise light on the environment, taking out our contrast perception and introduciting reflection, losing the contrast on the television.


----------



## 8mile13

Wizziwig said:


> Every display will eventually show signs of uneven wear. Call it burn-in if you want.
> 
> Even on a FALD LCD if you constantly play content that illuminates the zones in the center of the screen while keeping the rest dimmed, you will eventually see loss of brightness in the center of the screen.
> 
> Then there's the actual circuits of the sub-pixels. On an LCD, the capacitors can degrade from heat and eventually develop a DC bias which creates stubborn image retention. On an OLED the driving circuits degrade which is why we have the 4-hour interval compensation cycles. Moving to QNED or uLED only reduces one source of uneven wear and you will still need wear compensation to deal with the rest.


''eventually'' is rather vague. How does it compare to OLED burn-in? After how many hours is that? Where are all these LED LCD FALD threads with burn-in complaints?

Rtings burn-in test summary:
''There are no signs of burn-in on the two LCD TVs (IPS and VA type panels)''


----------



## Davenlr

8mile13 said:


> ''eventually'' is rather vague. How does it compare to OLED burn-in? After how many hours is that? Where are all these LED LCD FALD threads with burn-in complaints?
> 
> Rtings burn-in test summary:
> ''There are no signs of burn-in on the two LCD TVs (IPS and VA type panels)''


Well, its not burn in, but the IPS panels in the test looked like dog doo doo after 122 weeks:








20/7 Burn-In Test: OLED vs LCD VA vs LCD IPS


This was a long-term 24/7 burn-in test on 3 TVs (OLED vs VA vs IPS). We aimed to see how their performance changed over time, especially with some static images like network logos, black bars in movies, or video games with a fixed interface.




www.rtings.com


----------



## asc671

When do you think these will be rolled out? Next year, 2024, or beyond? 


fafrd said:


> Full-field brightness is limited by power consumption standards, meaning full-field brightness will be determined by electro-optical efficiency.
> 
> LGD demonstrated a 77” 8K WOLED with MLA that delivered 250 nits full-field and it appears likely it was based on inefficient blue FOLED emitters.
> 
> When blue PHOLED (or any high-efficiency blue emitter) finally materializes, it will make ABL and and all these issues regarding peak brightness largely a thing of of the past.
> 
> Blue PHOLED will emit ~4 times as many blue photons for the same power consumption as blue FOLED.
> 
> If LGD used blue PHOLED in a 3S4C or 3S3C structure that does not reduce cost, they will be able to increase efficiency by ~70% and peak brightness across the board will increase by the same amount (I subject to any more stringent power consumption limits).
> 
> The 170-180 Nits of full field brightness WOLED can deliver today will increase to 290-306 nits. Gain another ~+20% from the use of MLA and WOLED will be able to deliver 350 - 370 nits without breaking a sweat…
> 
> It’s unlikely there will be a market requirement for that level of brightness so I expect to lower cost by dropping from 3 OLED layers to 2, but they could easily offer a cost-reduced WOLED matching today’s performance level as well as a premium WOLED delivering 350-370 nits at today’s cost…
> 
> High-efficiency blue will offer a similar sea-change for QD-OLED.
> 
> Samung will almost certainly cost-reduce because they are currently more expensive than WOLED, but a 3S2C B-B-B-G would increase efficiency by 68%, similar to WOLED.
> 
> If Samsung decides they need to better-compete against WOLED by dropping from 4 layers to 3, they will still gain +38% in efficiency, and if they try to get down to 2 layers to undercut today’s 3S4C WOLED on cost, they’ll still get a +7.5% boost in efficiency and peak brightness levels.
> 
> QNED only has any meaningful role to play in this future if it can deliver WOLED/QD-OLED-level performance levels at a substantively lower cost or if it can significantly exceed WOLED/QD-OLED lifetime at equivalent cost.


----------



## VA_DaveB

Davenlr said:


> Well, its not burn in, but the IPS panels in the test looked like dog doo doo after 122 weeks:


Looks like that was due to the failure of over-driven LEDs on that dim IPS panel.


_*Some of the LED backlights of the UJ6300 died, so the image is unwatchable. To keep a constant brightness of 175 nits across these TVs, the UJ6300's backlight was turned up to maximum, while the other TVs achieved this brightness at a lower backlight/OLED Light setting. It may mean that it has been operating at a higher temperature, contributing to the failure.*_


----------



## fafrd

asc671 said:


> When do you think these will be rolled out? Next year, 2024, or beyond?


We’ll hopefully see LGD roll out MLA next year, but blue PHOLED is scheduled to be commercialized ‘within 2024’ which makes me suspect we won’t see first products until 2025 at the earliest and very possibly not before 2026.


----------



## dkfan9

VA_DaveB said:


> Looks like that was due to the failure of over-driven LEDs on that dim IPS panel.
> 
> 
> _*Some of the LED backlights of the UJ6300 died, so the image is unwatchable. To keep a constant brightness of 175 nits across these TVs, the UJ6300's backlight was turned up to maximum, while the other TVs achieved this brightness at a lower backlight/OLED Light setting. It may mean that it has been operating at a higher temperature, contributing to the failure.*_


It was a problem with quite a few cheap 43" TVs across vendors in that time period. The backlights would die like that on a lot of display models. Also saw it in 60" size, don't remember seeing it much on other sizes. Not only did they dim, but their color shifted very blue.


----------



## dkfan9

And LCD pixel burn in (permanent stuck state) is pretty common on displays used for years with the same content (I've seen it frequently enough in hospitals and airports)


----------



## fafrd

240Hz backplane and 27” 1440p WOLEDs apparently in the works: LG.Display Latest Panel Development Plans – June 2022 - TFTCentral

‘We understand that LG.Display are planning a 27″ sized OLED panel for monitor use which would offer a 2560 x 1440 resolution combined with a 240Hz refresh rate! It would be flat format and support HDR400 True Black certification too thanks to its OLED technology.’

A 27” 1440p pixel is the same size as a 41” 2160p pixel, or an 81” 4320p (8K) pixel, so LGD has already got the WOLED subpixel design and this development is mainly about pushing their backplane technology to the next level.

Refreshing 1440 lines 240 times a second is a line refresh time of 2.9us, corresponding to a 4K refresh rate of 6.25ms or 160Hz.

Assuming they manufacture these monitor panels alongside larger WOLED TV panels using MMG, a 27” WOLED panel offering will bring with it the benefit of significantly reducing 77” WOLED panel manufacturing cost…


----------



## 8mile13

dkfan9 said:


> And LCD pixel burn in (permanent stuck state) is pretty common on displays used for years with the same content (I've seen it frequently enough in hospitals and airports)


That maybe the case with 24 hours a day TVs with mostly static stuff but that is way beyond what a consumer would do with his TV. That is very extreme TV usage stuff.


----------



## FernandoValdirNayron

fafrd said:


> 240Hz backplane and 27” 1440p WOLEDs apparently in the works: LG.Display Latest Panel Development Plans – June 2022 - TFTCentral
> 
> ‘We understand that LG.Display are planning a 27″ sized OLED panel for monitor use which would offer a 2560 x 1440 resolution combined with a 240Hz refresh rate! It would be flat format and support HDR400 True Black certification too thanks to its OLED technology.’
> 
> A 27” 1440p pixel is the same size as a 41” 2160p pixel, or an 81” 4320p (8K) pixel, so LGD has already got the WOLED subpixel design and this development is mainly about pushing their backplane technology to the next level.
> 
> Refreshing 1440 lines 240 times a second is a line refresh time of 2.9us, corresponding to a 4K refresh rate of 6.25ms or 160Hz.
> 
> Assuming they manufacture these monitor panels alongside larger WOLED TV panels using MMG, a 27” WOLED panel offering will bring with it the benefit of significantly reducing 77” WOLED panel manufacturing cost…


I don't think 240hz will materialize, but even a 1440p 144hz would be very good thinking in gamers.

Playing in 4k gives less fps, and most players prefer fps over resolution. Qhd is the sweet spot. 

For gaming monitors, talking about image quality and gamming experience (not pure performance), there isn't anything interesting going on right now besides the curved qd oled, LG has the tech to bring it, the gaming market is huge.


----------



## FernandoValdirNayron

One more thing, I think 42 inches is too small for a television and too big for a monitor. 

But if they manage to build a 27 or 32 inches qHD, that size could be more useful for a lot of cases, gamers and professionals.


----------



## LoungeLizard93

Ok so

Where are we at with ABL (Automatic Brightness Limiter)? My LG 2017 C7P drives me nuts with its ABL. It's a glorious image- seriously it's like the pure signal is being beamed, unhampered, into my eyes - except when the ABL kicks in. I'm in the market for a larger panel- I wanna move up the next bracket from 55", but I don't want to take the plunge until ABL is a non-issue (or if it takes A LOT of white for it to kick in).


----------



## Wizziwig

8mile13 said:


> ''eventually'' is rather vague. How does it compare to OLED burn-in? After how many hours is that? Where are all these LED LCD FALD threads with burn-in complaints?
> 
> Rtings burn-in test summary:
> ''There are no signs of burn-in on the two LCD TVs (IPS and VA type panels)''





8mile13 said:


> That maybe the case with 24 hours a day TVs with mostly static stuff but that is way beyond what a consumer would do with his TV. That is very extreme TV usage stuff.


I own several IPS LCD monitors from 2008-2013 era that were used for work (minimum 8 hours per day) that now have Windows taskbar retention, among many other age-related issues (delamination along the edges, onset of horizontal DSE bands, etc.). Pretty typical if you look at the fate of the IPS LCD TV in rtings.com study. As noted earlier by another poster, one can also easily find LCDs used in public places that show signs of uneven wear.

Most FALD LCD TV owners won't even recognize uneven backlight degradation or other uneven wear issues because they will just think it's a uniformity or DSE problem. If you had documented and tracked those displays when they were first unboxed and compared them years later, you would easily see where the uniformity has gotten much worse.

The point of my original post was just to dispel the fantasy that some future display technology will be "100% burn-in-proof". Especially true for any self-emissive tech that exacerbates uneven wear down to the pixel level. Best you can hope for is that the issues won't become noticeable before the display reaches the end of its useful life. For many serial upgraders on this forum, that's less than a year so nothing to worry about as almost any display will survive that long.


----------



## Me Boosta

I know that there is no way anybody outside of LG would know, but do you guys expect 120 Hz BFI to return in 2023 or 2024 TVs? It's a feature that would really benefit me. Was it removed to improve the performance of the panel, was it simply not ready for the new subpixel layout found in 2022 OLEDs, or was it just a cost-cutting measure?

I currently have a C7 that I was planning on holding on to till 2023 or 2024, but if 120 Hz BFI is gone for good from all future models (just like 3D was removed from 2017 models onwards)? If it's the latter I might just cave and get a C1.


----------



## 8mile13

Wizziwig said:


> I own several IPS LCD monitors from 2008-2013 era that were used for work (minimum 8 hours per day) that now have Windows taskbar retention, among many other age-related issues (delamination along the edges, onset of horizontal DSE bands, etc.). Pretty typical if you look at the fate of the IPS LCD TV in rtings.com study. As noted earlier by another poster, one can also easily find LCDs used in public places that show signs of uneven wear.
> 
> Most FALD LCD TV owners won't even recognize uneven backlight degradation or other uneven wear issues because they will just think it's a uniformity or DSE problem. If you had documented and tracked those displays when they were first unboxed and compared them years later, you would easily see where the uniformity has gotten much worse.
> 
> The point of my original post was just to dispel the fantasy that some future display technology will be "100% burn-in-proof". Especially true for any self-emissive tech that exacerbates uneven wear down to the pixel level. Best you can hope for is that the issues won't become noticeable before the display reaches the end of its useful life. For many serial upgraders on this forum, that's less than a year so nothing to worry about as almost any display will survive that long.


It should be considered a AVS faliure with total absence of FALD static stuff related issues threads. In all these year i only saw D-Nice mentioning that FALD can have static stuff issues...still the question remains after how many hours this happens..a TVs image should be able to survive 20.000 hours at the house beyond that is not really relevant. There has been a few LCD static stuff related threads but there where no problems mentioned that where normal TV use with a relative decent LCD related.


----------



## fafrd

Some challenges ahead for OLED TV: Panel expert downbeat on Korean investments in premium TV displays

‘For *Samsung, a 13 trillion-won ($10 billion) spending pledge* to advance and commercialize its next-generation quantum dot organic light-emitting diode displays in 2019 by Samsung de facto leader Lee Jae-yong is also *shrouded in uncertainties, unless Samsung is willing to bear costs incurred by long-term losses.*

“Under Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong’s leadership, unlike his predecessor Lee Kun-hee, *Samsung will refrain from investing in new business if it takes more than three years to turn a profit,”* Yi said. “Recently, Samsung’s QLED panels grew profitable five years after the commencement.”

While at LGD:

‘In the meantime, Yi projected LG Display to turn into the red this year in a turnaround from 2021’s profit, amid *slowing shipments of OLED panels for LG Display since the second quarter of 2022*. Moreover, LG will be largely cash-strapped due to its decision to transform its liquid crystal display line in Paju, Gyeonggi Province, into an OLED panel line.’

So at least to UBI’s Yi, it’s looking like 2023/2024 may be a ‘hunker-down’ period…


----------



## 8mile13

The TV to beat in 2022...according Vincent Teoh.
Sony A95K QD-OLED Review - The TV to Beat in 2022! - YouTube


----------



## VA_DaveB

They did the leaning back screen again. Wasn't that unpopular when they did it with the A1E?


----------



## Davenlr

VA_DaveB said:


> They did the leaning back screen again. Wasn't that unpopular when they did it with the A1E?


Put the stand in front and it wont lean back, from the looks of the video. If you want it out from the wall, you could use a wall mount, or VESA stand mount. I am guessing it is to keep the TV from falling forward. I suppose you could shim the back stand to make it even, and then weigh down the stand behind the tv with bricks.


----------



## VA_DaveB

Davenlr said:


> Put the stand in front and it wont lean back, from the looks of the video. If you want it out from the wall, you could use a wall mount, or VESA stand mount. I am guessing it is to keep the TV from falling forward. I suppose you could shim the back stand to make it even, and then weigh down the stand behind the tv with bricks.


I remember that the leaning A1E got a lot of flak over the fact that it leaned backwards, which is why it surprises me that they would do that again.


----------



## Me Boosta

fafrd said:


> Some challenges ahead for OLED TV: Panel expert downbeat on Korean investments in premium TV displays
> 
> ‘For *Samsung, a 13 trillion-won ($10 billion) spending pledge* to advance and commercialize its next-generation quantum dot organic light-emitting diode displays in 2019 by Samsung de facto leader Lee Jae-yong is also *shrouded in uncertainties, unless Samsung is willing to bear costs incurred by long-term losses.*
> 
> “Under Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong’s leadership, unlike his predecessor Lee Kun-hee, *Samsung will refrain from investing in new business if it takes more than three years to turn a profit,”* Yi said. “Recently, Samsung’s QLED panels grew profitable five years after the commencement.”
> 
> While at LGD:
> 
> ‘In the meantime, Yi projected LG Display to turn into the red this year in a turnaround from 2021’s profit, amid *slowing shipments of OLED panels for LG Display since the second quarter of 2022*. Moreover, LG will be largely cash-strapped due to its decision to transform its liquid crystal display line in Paju, Gyeonggi Province, into an OLED panel line.’
> 
> So at least to UBI’s Yi, it’s looking like 2023/2024 may be a ‘hunker-down’ period…


So does this mean research and development will slow down? Or production? Or both?


----------



## fafrd

Green is a different story, but whether you want to focus on blue or red, UDCs roadmap to develop plasmonic phosphorescent oledemitters suggests OLED in general and OLED TV in particular has a further ~50% increase in efficiency in its future (2035-2040):










Blue FOLED has an efficiency of ~7% and is expected to deliver efficacy of ~4 times that level (~28%) with the arrival of Blue PHOLED.

This graph suggests a Blue Plasmonic PHOLED emitter delivering an efficiency of ~42% before 2040.

Red PHOLED is already delivering efficiency of 24-28% and this suggests Plasmonic Red PHOLED also has a +50% boost in its future to an efficiency of 36-42%.


----------



## chris7191

Davenlr said:


> Well, its not burn in, but the IPS panels in the test looked like dog doo doo after 122 weeks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20/7 Burn-In Test: OLED vs LCD VA vs LCD IPS
> 
> 
> This was a long-term 24/7 burn-in test on 3 TVs (OLED vs VA vs IPS). We aimed to see how their performance changed over time, especially with some static images like network logos, black bars in movies, or video games with a fixed interface.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rtings.com


What you see here is the quantum dot diffusers falling off the LEDs actually. You can see the LED blue light in the pattern of the grid. The glue probably doesn’t hold up well to the heat.


----------



## chris7191

8mile13 said:


> ''eventually'' is rather vague. How does it compare to OLED burn-in? After how many hours is that? Where are all these LED LCD FALD threads with burn-in complaints?
> 
> Rtings burn-in test summary:
> ''There are no signs of burn-in on the two LCD TVs (IPS and VA type panels)''


I’ve seen a bunch of members claim that LCDs burn in, but almost never explain their reasoning.

Wizziwig is right for a FALD set you could, in theory, see this aging of the backlight. I don’t think it’s easily accomplished, though and will never be as noticeable as an OLED since the number of zones is small and will diffuse the effect.

LCDs in general are immune to burn-in. I have personally seen hundreds of edge lit IPS panels that have been used in medical devices displaying the same one or two screens for almost 15 years 24/7/365. No signs of burn-in. Some units had patchiness but unrelated to the content.

Image retention is quite noticeable on more recent LG IPS backplanes, though, but this isn't permanent. I am sure there are some panels somewhere that have issues, but it's extremely rare and hard to produce. People sticking up for OLED saying that LCDs can burn in too is a bit disingenuous, because most LCDs really won't, even if abused, within the lifetime of a dog.


----------



## fafrd

chris7191 said:


> I’ve seen a bunch of members claim that LCDs burn in, but almost never explain their reasoning.
> 
> Wizziwig is right for a FALD set you could, in theory, see this aging of the backlight. I don’t think it’s easily accomplished, though and will never be as noticeable as an OLED since the number of zones is small and will diffuse the effect.





> *LCDs in general are immune to burn-in.* I have personally seen hundreds of edge lit IPS panels that have been used in medical devices displaying the same one or two screens for almost 15 years 24/7/365. No signs of burn-in. Some units had patchiness but unrelated to the content.





> Image retention is quite noticeable on more recent LG IPS backplanes, though, but this isn't permanent. I am sure there are some panels somewhere that have issues, but it's extremely rare and hard to produce. *People sticking up for OLED saying that LCDs can burn in too is a bit disingenuous*, because most LCDs really won't, even if abused, within the lifetime of a dog.


I agree, anyone claiming OLEDs are more immune to burn-in that LCD (including IPS) is wasting the Forum’s time.

LCD does not suffer from burn-in (in terms of market success of LCD TV being the least bit impacted by concerns of burn-in or lifetime). If OLED can ever come close to LCD in terms of burn-in immunity / mitigation, we can consider the problem solved.

As of 2022, burn-in performance of WOLED TV is largely sufficient for all but the smallest niche of Premium TV consumers (who will generally upgrade to a new TV long before they develop any signs of burn-in).


----------



## Wizziwig

In my experience with two very old IPS LCD monitors that I mentioned earlier, the issue is that the image retention became much more stubborn. When new, there basically was none. It would fade within seconds. Now it's there basically all day until I turn them off and back on the next day. We had one at the office that appeared to have permanent retention because I could still see it next day but I can't dismiss the possibility that it would eventually fade if left unused. So I guess you can say it isn't technically "burn-in" but where do you draw the line if the retained image remains on the screen for most of the time you're using it?

I have not seen the retention issue on newer LCD models yet. Maybe the cooler running LED backlights help. I wish I could find the photo that someone took of a FALD LCD where the LEDs along the bottom had all dimmed due to a bright ticker banner being displayed in that area for most of its life. Unfortunately google is failing me. 

I don't think anyone disagrees that past and present self-emissive panels have far, far, shorter lifespans assuming nothing else fails on the TV.


----------



## 8mile13

Not sure if folks should waste their energy on LCD here. We know it is pretty resiliant. That and price is why folks buy em.


----------



## lsorensen

VA_DaveB said:


> I remember that the leaning A1E got a lot of flak over the fact that it leaned backwards, which is why it surprises me that they would do that again.


The A1E was 5 degres and you don't notice it. The A95K is about 3 degrees. And many LG and Samsung displays are 1 or 2 degree off vertical when placed on the stand, sometimes just due to tolerances (or lack thereof) in the stand design. The complaints about the angle was just a few noisy whiners who never tried using it. Of course many will at the same time wall mount a TV up high and lean it downwards by 5 or 10 degrees and claim that's a good thing. It's not like they are leaning 20 or 45 degrees. That would be noticeable. It's entirely a non issue. At least the A95K stand doesn't take up as much room behind the TV as the A1E kickstand does.


----------



## Jin-X

Samsung bought Cynora it looks like:









Samsung Acquires German OLED Display Startup Cynora


Samsung Display Co. has purchased display company Cynora GmbH for about $300 million, according to people with knowledge of the matter, gaining technology for so-called OLED screens.




www.bloomberg.com






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> Samsung bought Cynora it looks like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung Acquires German OLED Display Startup Cynora
> 
> 
> Samsung Display Co. has purchased display company Cynora GmbH for about $300 million, according to people with knowledge of the matter, gaining technology for so-called OLED screens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It suggested Cynora was out of money and needed additional funding, but if the price was $300M as rumored, that’s far from a desperation sale.

Will be interesting to see what happens with UDC stock tomorrow…


----------



## 59LIHP

Merck completes OLED facility expansion in Korea





Merck completes OLED facility expansion in Korea | OLED Info


Merck announced that it has completed its OLED manufacturing capacity expansion project at its Poseung site in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, South Korea. Merck invested around 20 million Euros to install sublimation equipment and an OLED vacuum deposition unit.From the left, Jung Do Young...




www.oled-info.com


----------



## fafrd

These forecasts always need to be taken with a grain of salt: DSCC sees 2.4 million OLED monitor panels shipping in 2026, up from 600,000 in 2022 | OLED-Info

600,000 OLED monitors in 2022 out of which QD-OLED is expected to capture 27% or 162,000 units.

Samsung’s mist recent statements are that they have achieved 80% QD-OLED panel yield (meaning on 55”).

80% yield on 55” panels translates to an average of 1.2 defects per 8.5G sheet and that same average defectivity translates to 34”QD-OLED panel yield of over 93%, or an average of 16.8 good 34” QD-OLED panel per 8.5G sheet.

163,000 34” QD-OLED monitor panels will require 9700 8.6G sheets or less that 1/3 of one months production.

So in 2022, QD-OLED monitor demand will absorb less than 3% of the total annual QD-OLED production Samsung Display has established based on this forecast.

By 2026, it’s safe to assume that Samsung will have achieved LGD 55” WOLED panel yield of ~95%, meaning an average of 0.3 defects per 8.5G sheet and an average of over 98%.

Even if we assume that market share of QD-OLED monitors has grown to 50% of all OLED monitors by then, the 1.2 million QD-OLED monitor demand (based on this forecast of 2.4 million OLED monitors in 2026) would consume less than 68,000 8.5G substrates or less than 20% of Samsung Display’s current installed capacity…

Samsung Display is only going to need additional QD-OLED manufacturing lines if demand for their QD-OLED TV panels quickly approaches WOLED-like levels of millions of QD-OLED TVs per year…


----------



## stama

fafrd said:


> While at LGD:
> 
> ‘In the meantime, Yi projected LG Display to turn into the red this year in a turnaround from 2021’s profit, amid *slowing shipments of OLED panels for LG Display since the second quarter of 2022*. Moreover, LG will be largely cash-strapped due to its decision to transform its liquid crystal display line in Paju, Gyeonggi Province, into an OLED panel line.’


Samsung closed negotiations with LG earlier regarding using LG WRGB OLED panels in their TVs. LG Display was having their OLED panel display fabs at full tilt since last year as they were expecting this deal to close so this caught them off guard and with a supply excess. But this does not seem to be the reason why LG is going to go in red this year. From what I read, this is going to happen because of their LCD panel manufacturing of which they still have to much fab capacity. LCD prices plummeted to an absolute low, even the Chinese manufacturers are selling them barely at cost. The Koreans can't afford to sell at those prices at all, if they do they incur a loss on each panel sold.

In addition to that, the largest TV manufacturer using LCD panels, Samsung, recently confirmed a stop to LCD panel acquisitions as their inventories have bulged to untenable levels (it's worse than it was a couple of weeks ago when we were saying that they're having issues moving S95Bs). So it's no surprise Samsung closed negotiations with LG earlier regarding using LG WRGB OLED panels in their TVs.


----------



## Mark Rejhon

fafrd said:


> Every time I do any kind of deep dive into Mark’s world, I come out wanting an OLED with 1000fps backplane speed


One great bonus of 1000fps 1000Hz on 0ms-GtG displays is the ability to software-emulate a CRT electron beam or software-emulate plasma subfields.

So you can use brute Hz and framerate, on a retina-refresh-rate display, to temporally emulate (phosphor, zero blur, decay) any retro display more accurately.

You can use ~16+ digital refresh cycle to emulate one CRT refresh cycle. Even HDR becomes useful to simulate the brightness of the electron beam dot (temporally emulated over a short time period, spread over a very short retina-fineness refresh cycle). One frame of an emulated CRT refresh cycle looks like a frame from a 1000fps high speed video of a CRT (rolling scan with a fadebehind effect).

Incidentally, playing back a 1000fps high speed video of a CRT, in real-time to a 1000fps 1000Hz display, temporally looks like the original CRT -- including the soft rolling flickerfeel. Give it enough brute retina refresh rate. Even DLP temporal dithering is software-emulatable (in GPU shader) on an ultrahigh-Hz sample and hold display (The new 500 Hz LCDs are fast enough to simulate a very old DLP chip from a couple decades ago). Throw enough Hz at the problem, any retro temporals can be moved into software.

Blur Busters is currently working on refresh-rate combining multiple projectors in parallel too (e.g. 16 different 60Hz strobed projectors pointing at the same projector screen to produce a 960fps 960Hz image), and using custom projection mapping software to auto-align 16 projector images onto each other and avoiding the manual alignment work. We also figured out the genlock algorithms to deal with the precision-slightly-off-phase VBI's. We developed some algorithms and software to pull refresh-rate-combining off successfully.

We are now working on a white paper (ETA 2023) on this refresh rate combining technique will come out at some point, as it unlocks access to ultrahigh refresh rate experiments much more cheaply using today's technology. In creating a public white paper and putting together a consortium for a demonstration rig, we want easier access to near-retina refresh rates sooner in humankind, so demonstration displays need to happen sooner than later in order to focus the industry to properly develop videophile-quality ultra-Hz displays outside of the gaming monitor market. The next step after 120Hz needs to be 1000Hz, because 60Hz-vs-120Hz is a 8.3ms blur difference, and 120Hz-vs-1000Hz is a 7.3ms blur difference (time difference of 1/1000sec vs 1/120sec) -- the sharp jump up the diminishing curve of returns is mandatory for a sufficient "wow!" effect.

8K 1000fps 1000Hz is now currently possible with today's technology via our new refresh rate combining algorithms, they need to be zero-temporals projectors though (i.e. LCD or LCoS), since temporal dithering of DLP makes refresh rate combining much harder to do at high quality (unless you use about ~24-36 separate DLP projectors doing 1-bit 1440-2880Hz apiece, to do a zero-subrefresh-temporals DLP, but that requires custom projectors like separating dozens of Viewpixx to do 24-36bit color 1440Hz -- e.g. 36 bit color requires 12 DLP's doing red, 12 DLP's doing green, and 12 DLP's doing blue -- or custom built DLP projectors -- far more expensive than refresh-rate-combining cheaper LCD/LCoS. Stacking misalignments and digital GPU-based shader convergence algorithms (CRT style convergence in software even accounting for lens manufacturing imperfections) does soften image somewhat, but the brute 8K oversample factor still produces images sharper than 4K.

The goal is simultaneously combining near-retina-resolution and near-retina-refresh simultaneously -- both for UltraHFR content _and_ for retro display emulators (like software-based simulation of a CRT electron gun).

Retina refresh rate is tons of fun in the laboratory currently! We can finally test tomorrow's algorithms in the lab on today's displays as Blur Busters has found ways to unlock essentially infinite scaling of refresh rate via refresh rate parallelism techniques (stacked projectors strobing round-robin). We found ways to strobe non-strobed LCD projectors, so that we can use more projector candidates off-the-shelf -- even chinese generics which you can purchase dozens for cheap.

Though the first applications are probably high-cost apps like enterprise and simulators (e.g. ride simulators), but the desire is to show off 1000fps 1000Hz to as many eyes as possible (e.g. NAB, CEDIA or DisplayWeek of some future year this decade).

Longer-term, we will need direct view OLED / MicroLED with 1000Hz backplanes, and future projector technologies that are refresh-rate-combining friendly will probably be developed by multiple parties.

However, first things first, is to at least /demonstrate/ the benefits of 1000fps 1000Hz in actual convention-usable rigs -- and our algorithmic breakthrough is refresh rate combining projectors, with multiple concurrent algorithmic breakthroughs involving genlock/synchronization, strobing, overdrive, convergence (stacking), processing parallelism, all achievable off-the-shelf. We've even found a software-based genlock algorithm too (precision-out-of-phased VBI's), achievable on commodity GPUs, and we've got source-side algorithmic breakthroughs too. All will be comprehensively covered in our white paper.

Nontheless, lots of things will be quiet for now -- but exciting things are happening in the lab already. The intent is to fast-forward 8K 1000fps 1000Hz demos to the early half of this decade -- pulling 2030s/2040s technology to "by end of 2024" -- at least via a projector venue. Avoiding spilling too many beans, we've solved every single piece of the infinite-Hz chain as cheaply as possible with Blur Busters brilliance -- possibly the most important Blur Busters innovation to be released as a free white paper.

While OLED/MicroLED is more videophile, refresh rate combining is far easier with LCD and LCoS because of (A) achievable temporal instaneous completeness (timeslicing a refresh cycle doesn't show temporal color dithering artifacts); and (B) consumer projectors are easily modified to be strobeable, far more easily than modifying DLP projectors. Zero cross-talk LCDs are now available (e.g. Quest 2 or a ViewSonic XG2431 with custom large-VBI QFT modes), which means temporally-perfect ultrabrief refresh cycles for infinite-scaling of refresh rates.

Each projector can strobe 1ms round-robin in a sequence, for 1000 different perfect zero-crosstalk 1ms frames for a sample-and-hold 1000fps 1000hz blurless flickerless strobeless stroboscopicless display for UltraHFR content. A sample and hold display created by multiple strobed LCD's shooting photons seamlessly, taking turns. The fact that it's low-Hz LCD and slower than 1ms GtG is irrelevant, because LCD GtG is completing unseen in the projectors not yet taking their turns (e.g. 1ms strobe, 15.7ms unseen GtG settlement in dark). 

So as long as GtG100% can fit inside a refresh cycle, even if GtG is slower than a combined refresh cycle, it is not seen by eyes, since we're temporally splitting the projector workloads (unstrobed projectors' responsibilities in totaldarkness is finishing GtG as fast as possible before pixel response becomes seen by humans -- before it is the projector's turn again to strobe again), not too dissimilar from the old LightBoost video at www.blurbusters.com/lightboost/video and revealed as the Oculus (Meta) Quest 2 algorithm for VR (the Quest 2 LCD is clearer than a CRT!) in this DisplayWeek slide, Meta Revealed The Detailed Specs Of Quest 2's Display. The Blur Busters Approved 2.0 program independently came up with similar algorithms for zero-crosstalk strobed LCDs. Regardless, zero-crosstalk LCDs can eventually enable infinite refresh rate scaling via refresh rate combining algorithms -- you just need to spread refreshing responsibilities over multiple LCDs to overcome GtG barrier (allowing crosstalk-free Hz far briefer than LCD GtG, and unbounded Hz scaling for sample-and-hold).

By demoing 1000fps 1000Hz full color depth refresh (or even more, 2000-4000Hz), hopefully OLED / MicroLED manufacturers will accelerate ultrahigh-Hz backplanes for a faster race up the diminishing curve of returns, since humankind visibility benefits requires 3x-4x increases in Hz (e.g. 60Hz -> 240Hz -> 1000Hz -> 4000Hz) to really be visible to Average Joe User, to avoid the "grandma can't tell VHS-vs-DVD" or the "can't tell 1080p-vs-4K" effect.

Mandatory sharp geometrics up the diminishing curve convinced us we need to light a fire under the refresh rate race. In order to be visible to most of population.

Refresh rate incrementalism on slow-GtG displays sabotages the refresh rate race because average users typically don’t see small Hz differences (in persistence motion blur and stroboscopic behaviours). In addition, software and framepacing imperfections such as high-frequency stutter adding extra blur -- akin to a faster-vibrating music instrument string that blurs.

The vanishing point of the diminishing curve is not till the quintuple digits, but progressively larger Hz differences are needed for blurless sample-and-hold display science & physics.

_Note -- We're now highly well regarded Hz researchers now! I (or my business Blur Busters / TestUFO) is now already cited in over 25 peer reviewed research papers (__Google Scholar__) involving displays, including papers by parties like Samsung, NVIDIA (two papers!), NIST.gov, and others. If the research papers are too complex, read the Cole Notes at __blurbusters.com/area51__ (explainer articles that have become Hz textbook reading). If you're an accredited researcher in specific key areas, collaboration is welcome and co-authors in my research white paper are currently being recruited -- the working theme is "*Unlocking Access To Unlimited Display Refresh Rates Via Refresh Rate Combining Multiple Consumer Projectors*". (Not necessarily the final title). _


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Samsung Display's QD-OLED Display Production Yield Reaches 85%


Samsung Display has raised its production yield of quantum dot (QD)-based organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays to 85 percent.Samsung Display president Choi Joo-sun had a meeting with executives and employees at Giheung Campus in Yongin of Gyeonggi Province on July 1. After announcing the com




www.businesskorea.co.kr


----------



## Me Boosta

This might sound like a very silly question, but is there a chance that LG Electronics would buy QD-OLED panels from Samsung Display? 

QD-OLED is looking very enticing, but both Sony and Samsung really cripple their game modes with terrible decisions each (no HGiG on Sony, no Dolby vision, and awful EOTF tracking on Samsung). Considering that it's been this way for years, I doubt they'll suddenly change. Hence, I'm still always gonna lean toward LG TVs.

I know there's nothing stopping LGE from buying panels from Samsung Display, but is the likelihood near zero?


----------



## Mark Rejhon

chris7191 said:


> LCDs in *general* are immune to burn-in. I have personally seen hundreds of edge lit IPS panels that have been used in medical devices displaying the same one or two screens for almost 15 years 24/7/365. No signs of burn-in. Some units had patchiness but unrelated to the content.


“Generally” is key.

This is because static images is not usually the method of burning in an LCD, thanks to a protective algorithm called voltage inversion algorithms built into all LCDs.

Asmall number of LCDs can permanently burn in if their voltage polarity inversion algorithm is buggy or defective (overdrive bug or a test pattern that accidentally defeats it), or undocumented settings (overclocking).

Remember that on some LCDs (especially older TN strobed LCDs), you see chessboard patterning:










This is the clue. But you can't burn in a display without knowing this.

Now, emulator software BFI was discovered to sometimes produce image retention in certain LCDs (because one refresh cycle had an image, and next refresh cycle had no image). Running this for months can occasionally produce permanent effects. So based on this discovery, we now recommend people run software BFI at odd refresh cadence (e.g. RetroArch 60Hz BFI at 180 Hz refresh) to make it immune to accidentally defeating the purpose of certain monitors' voltage inversion algorithms.

All modern LCDs need voltage polarity inversion algorithms to prevent buildup of static electricity in pixels that creates image retention. Even my 1989 TFT Active Matrix 3” pocket TV uses voltage inversion algorithms too.

But I’ve seen airport LCDs with nasty plasma-style permanent burn in because they ran for years with defective voltage inversion. Firmware bug probably, but it meant the image retention stayed even after switching to playing video for days/weeks —

Sometimes it’s precision flicker patterns that creates the worst burn in (static patterns are usually immune to burnin), like white for positive voltage phase and black for negative voltage phase (or vice versa) so yu need to create a custom display-specific annoying flicker pattern for months to permanently burn most normal non-buggy inversion. Since no sane person will let their display go epileptic for months, you’re safe, but I can sometimes permanently burn in your LCD if you loan it to me for 6 months for a precision inversion-matched test pattern, that’s why it’s so hard to reproduce.

Running it for an hour or less is usually harmless, but running specific precision Hz-synchronized flicker patterns nonstop with zero stutter (no framedrop) for months, I can permanently damage your LCD with a custom-shaped flickering test pattern if you let the test pattern run for months on end.

Inversion voltages are run both spatially and temporally:









(Credit: www.techmind.org/lcd/ ...)

Next refresh cycle, the + subpixels become -, and the - subpixels become +.

So flicker patterns (e.g. black frame cycle, white frame, black frame, white frames), can cause static electricity buildup that causes the LCD crystals to spend more time stuck to one of the glass surfaces of the LCD rather than perpetually balanced in the glass sandwich. The end result is more time for either mechanical or chemical bonding of the crystals to the glass substrate (depending on the chemical formulation used in the LCD). Spending months statically stuck to glass will give it time = permanent burn in. The voltage inversion is supposed to protect against this, but if you have a test pattern that is synchronized -- ooops.

Now I can speed up the permanent burn in if I intentionally do a test pattern that display white pixels in + and black pixels in -, and then swap colors with the next refresh cycle, and I verify zero framedrops for months (a challenge!), and I do this test pattern over the left half of the screen. Then months later, half of your LCD will look permanently differently (slightly dimmer or brighter).

Now, you know to know the inversion pattern of your LCD (examples www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/inversion.php ), and sometimes the display switches inversion patterns when it detects voltage balances. So I would have to combine multiple inversion patterns to the same test pattern to increase likelihood of burning in an LCD. Easier if I do multiple odd inversion patterns covering multiple common patterns, and a mix of temporal patterns -- then the test pattern is more likely to damage one corner of your LCD because you're synchronizing pixel colors to the inversion patterns, a test pattern that attempts to permanently assign white pixels to + and permanently assigning black pixels to -, and flicker back and fourth between very fine-grained two test pattern PNGs (like one of the lagom inversion tests and a negative version of the lagom inversion tests), I can defeat the inversion algorithm in most LCDs. But it's hard work to the point that probably only a nation-state would attempt to try to do it, probably... and to very little benefit.

You can induce temporary image retention pretty quickly with custom panel-specific flicker test patterns -- but it takes months of running these patterns to give enough time for the chemical/mechanical bondings to take place to permanently-stuck a few LCD molecules (even just 0.5% of the molecules will produce noticeable permanent burn-in) -- and that requires weeks or months or years of defeated voltage inversion. Also, the burn-in is sometimes to the GtG, not to luma, so you see weird amplified ghosting in the weakened portion of the panel.

And if someone saw epileptic flickering patterns on their screen, they'd turn it off or try to unplug the source, so it'd be hard to damage the LCD screen with permanent burn in. But I can damage almost any LCD by firmware-modifying it to disable inversion algorithm, then it will finally burn in with static images displayed for months. (Like those airport LCDs with buggy inversion algorithm, probably a firmware bug)

TL;DR: it's almost impossible to burn in any modern LCD as long as its firmware is not buggy, and as long as you're not displaying precision flicker test patterns for months.


----------



## Wizziwig

@Mark Rejhon

Thanks for that explanation. Now I understand what happened to one of our LCD monitors (old 60 Hz IPS) at work. It has developed very stubborn image retention that persists even after power cycling. It was used in exactly the manner that you described. Some pixels were toggled between white and black on every refresh as part of a project I was working on. Sometimes I forgot to turn it off when going home for the day so it spent many hours doing this software strobe effect.

Do we know if toggling an OLED pixel between black/white on each refresh (as in BFI) will also eventually cause some problems?


----------



## MaKaVeLiKdOcToR

Mark Rejhon said:


> “Generally” is key.
> 
> This is because static images is not usually the method of burning in an LCD, thanks to a protective algorithm called voltage inversion algorithms built into all LCDs.
> 
> Asmall number of LCDs can permanently burn in if their voltage polarity inversion algorithm is buggy or defective (overdrive bug or a test pattern that accidentally defeats it), or undocumented settings (overclocking).
> 
> Remember that on some LCDs (especially older TN strobed LCDs), you see chessboard patterning:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the clue. But you can't burn in a display without knowing this.
> 
> Now, emulator software BFI was discovered to sometimes produce image retention in certain LCDs (because one refresh cycle had an image, and next refresh cycle had no image). Running this for months can occasionally produce permanent effects. So based on this discovery, we now recommend people run software BFI at odd refresh cadence (e.g. RetroArch 60Hz BFI at 180 Hz refresh) to make it immune to accidentally defeating the purpose of certain monitors' voltage inversion algorithms.
> 
> All modern LCDs need voltage polarity inversion algorithms to prevent buildup of static electricity in pixels that creates image retention. Even my 1989 TFT Active Matrix 3” pocket TV uses voltage inversion algorithms too.
> 
> But I’ve seen airport LCDs with nasty plasma-style permanent burn in because they ran for years with defective voltage inversion. Firmware bug probably, but it meant the image retention stayed even after switching to playing video for days/weeks —
> 
> Sometimes it’s precision flicker patterns that creates the worst burn in (static patterns are usually immune to burnin), like white for positive voltage phase and black for negative voltage phase (or vice versa) so yu need to create a custom display-specific annoying flicker pattern for months to permanently burn most normal non-buggy inversion. Since no sane person will let their display go epileptic for months, you’re safe, but I can sometimes permanently burn in your LCD if you loan it to me for 6 months for a precision inversion-matched test pattern, that’s why it’s so hard to reproduce.
> 
> Running it for an hour or less is usually harmless, but running specific precision Hz-synchronized flicker patterns nonstop with zero stutter (no framedrop) for months, I can permanently damage your LCD with a custom-shaped flickering test pattern if you let the test pattern run for months on end.
> 
> Inversion voltages are run both spatially and temporally:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Credit: www.techmind.org/lcd/ ...)
> 
> Next refresh cycle, the + subpixels become -, and the - subpixels become +.
> 
> So flicker patterns (e.g. black frame cycle, white frame, black frame, white frames), can cause static electricity buildup that causes the LCD crystals to spend more time stuck to one of the glass surfaces of the LCD rather than perpetually balanced in the glass sandwich. The end result is more time for either mechanical or chemical bonding of the crystals to the glass substrate (depending on the chemical formulation used in the LCD). Spending months statically stuck to glass will give it time = permanent burn in. The voltage inversion is supposed to protect against this, but if you have a test pattern that is synchronized -- ooops.
> 
> Now I can speed up the permanent burn in if I intentionally do a test pattern that display white pixels in + and black pixels in -, and then swap colors with the next refresh cycle, and I verify zero framedrops for months (a challenge!), and I do this test pattern over the left half of the screen. Then months later, half of your LCD will look permanently differently (slightly dimmer or brighter).
> 
> Now, you know to know the inversion pattern of your LCD (examples www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/inversion.php ), and sometimes the display switches inversion patterns when it detects voltage balances. So I would have to combine multiple inversion patterns to the same test pattern to increase likelihood of burning in an LCD. Easier if I do multiple odd inversion patterns covering multiple common patterns, and a mix of temporal patterns -- then the test pattern is more likely to damage one corner of your LCD because you're synchronizing pixel colors to the inversion patterns, a test pattern that attempts to permanently assign white pixels to + and permanently assigning black pixels to -, and flicker back and fourth between very fine-grained two test pattern PNGs (like one of the lagom inversion tests and a negative version of the lagom inversion tests), I can defeat the inversion algorithm in most LCDs. But it's hard work to the point that probably only a nation-state would attempt to try to do it, probably... and to very little benefit.
> 
> You can induce temporary image retention pretty quickly with custom test patterns, but it takes months of running these patterns to give enough time for the chemical/mechanical bondings to take place to permanently-stuck a few LCD molecules (even just 0.5% of the molecules will produce noticeable permanent burn-in) -- and that requires weeks or months or years of defeated voltage inversion. Also, the burn-in is sometimes to the GtG, not to luma, so you see weird amplified ghosting in the weakened portion of the panel.
> 
> And if someone saw epileptic flickering patterns on their screen, they'd turn it off or try to unplug the source, so it'd be hard to damage the LCD screen with permanent burn in. But I can damage almost any LCD by firmware-modifying it to disable inversion algorithm, then it will finally burn in with static images displayed for months. (Like those airport LCDs with buggy inversion algorithm, probably a firmware bug)
> 
> TL;DR: it's almost impossible to burn in any modern LCD as long as its firmware is not buggy, and as long as you're not displaying precision flicker test patterns for months.


You sir have incredible knowledge. So Blur Buster that's you? Im following you know. Im also from Canada born in Montreal.


----------



## chris7191

Mark Rejhon said:


> TL;DR: it's almost impossible to burn in any modern LCD as long as its firmware is not buggy, and as long as you're not displaying precision flicker test patterns for months.


Really appreciate this information. It seems like this feature is always implemented just not documented in many of the LCD controller datasheets I've used. 

Is differential aging of the TFTs a concern? I was curious if increased leakage current over time was typical.


----------



## chris7191

Wizziwig said:


> Do we know if toggling an OLED pixel between black/white on each refresh (as in BFI) will also eventually cause some problems?


Obviously Mark will know more, but I would guess it's unlikely unless there is a stress related mechanism on the backplane. Most types of diodes have no problems being turned on and off very rapidly and repeatedly as long as device limits aren't being pushed.


----------



## fafrd

OLED Association for OLED Lighting and Displays


OLED production, technology, OLED market trends, OLED lightings, OLED displays



www.oled-a.org





‘SDC acquired Cynora’s intellectual property but not its workforce. Cynora’s workforce had been cut to the bare minimum and then totally released in recent weeks. Bloomberg put the acquisition price at $300 million, but that apparently was Cynora’s asking price. _TheElec_ had a more reasonable estimate of $100 million. DSCC suggested a lower price ranging in the tens of millions of dollars.

Cynora used Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence (TADF) and a form of Hyperfluorescence to create green and blue emitters, which theoretically could compete with UDC’s phosphorescent material. But Cynora’s emitter performance never reached commercial viability. Both LGD and SDC were early investors in Cynora, with ~12% and ~8%, share respectively. 

With the investment, SDC signed a joint development agreement (JDA) with Cynora that has since expired. The JDA allowed SDC to develop OLED emitter stacks using Cynora’s IP, but they were not permitted to claim the material in any patent application after the JDA was executed. Since the investment, *Samsung developed a hybrid blue that uses both phosphorescent and Cynora’s TADF material*. The hybrid blue was described in technical papers at display events including DisplayWeek. Recently, the material has been undergoing qualification by SDC and *has sufficient efficiency, but not the lifetime for commercial use*. UDC also announced the development of a pure phosphorescent blue that is expected to be ready for commercialization by 2024.* Insiders claim the performance of the UDC and SDC blues are comparable in color point, efficacy and lifetime*. The competition to produce a high efficiency blue, apparently led SDC to protect itself by buying Cynora’s only asset, its IP.’


----------



## OLED_Overrated

HB Solution secures Kateeva’s QD-OLED inkjet patents as collateral


HB Solution had secured patents owned by US inkjet equipment firm Kateeva as collateral in case it doesn’t get repaid its investment, TheElec has learned.HB Solution, which had invested around 16 billion won in Kateeva that is giving it technological support, had said back in March that it will buy




www.thelec.net


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Mark Rejhon said:


> Thanks for that explanation. Now I understand what happened to one of our LCD monitors (old 60 Hz IPS) at work. It has developed very stubborn image retention that persists even after power cycling. It was used in exactly the manner that you described.


Exactly. Long-term exposure to precision flicker patterns will eventually permanently burn in an LCD using off-the-shelf voltage inversion algorithms. Short-term exposure will not be a problem.

If you want to fix potential long-term image retention ("burn in") issues, run a solid black screen for several days, followed by a solid white screen for several more days. That will loosen a few of the LCD molecules.

Or just play a fullscreen video loop 24/7 for several days, 100% brightness, maximum heat.

Or just “use” as normal, screensaver turned off temporarily. Calibrate after this break in period.

This is also the same recommendation for breaking in a new LCD since blacks become more uniform (sometimes what looks like edgelight bleed are simply pressure spots from tight packaging and bezel warping during shipping). Those pressure spots (finger pressing on steroids) sometimes takes 100 hours to fade. Then you only have uniform IPS glow, without anymore "edgelight-bleed-like" artifacts (for panels that have no real mechanical edgelight bleed) -- always burn in your LCD 24/7 100% brightness for for 100 hours before doing reviewer testing. LCD GtG also speeds up, as freshly made panels will have marginally slower GtG until all the LCD (liquid crystal fluid) are exercised/loosened up and unstuck from the glass layers / higher temps of a warmed-up panel has faster GtG too.



Wizziwig said:


> Do we know if toggling an OLED pixel between black/white on each refresh (as in BFI) will also eventually cause some problems?


No, the OLED does not have a flicker-derived image retention / burnin mechanism.
You're safe.

Software BFI is completely safe* on OLEDs at any cadence (2x, 3x, 4x, 5x Hz)
Software BFI can be made safe on LCDs with mitigations (e.g. odd-refresh-cadence on LCD, 3x, 5x, 7x Hz, e.g. 180Hz software-based BFI).

Also for LCD, adding an occasional dropped/added refresh cycle to offset an even-cadence (2x, 4x, 6x, ...) but that can add flicker during the transition refresh cycle unless using gamma-corrected alpha-blended fade BFI mitigation algorithm. Since year 2015, TestUFO Flicker at www.testufo.com/flicker intentionally adds 1 repeat frame every few seconds to prevent that specific TestUFO from accidentally burning in an LCD.

_*You still need moving images on OLED, even if you're doing BFI. Long exposure to static images will still potentially burn-in an OLED even with BFI enabled._

I wish there was more software-BFI-safe inversion algorithms in the LCD scaler/TCON/firmware, but they don't test or design LCDs that way.



chris7191 said:


> Really appreciate this information. It seems like this feature is always implemented just not documented in many of the LCD controller datasheets I've used.


Inversion algorithms are extremely low-level stuff that is often embedded into the scaler/TCON, far beyond most display processing.



Wizziwig said:


> Is differential aging of the TFTs a concern? I was curious if increased leakage current over time was typical.


This isn't a common enough failure mode of LCDs for me to provide any useful data one way or another.

Theoretically, it's possible given sufficiently long periods because TFT pixel gate voltages is the spectrum of GtG. High gate voltages can wear a transistor more, but I haven't seen this happen in the timeline of an average "good" modern LCD. There were reports of a specific LCD that attempted to use excessively high voltages and created some problems, but it hasn't been on my radar in the last decade.

Inversion logic/bug issues are far more common, even if obscure to the mainstream.



MaKaVeLiKdOcToR said:


> You sir have incredible knowledge. So Blur Buster that's you? Im following you know. Im also from Canada born in Montreal.


Yes, I am the founder of Blur Busters, and I'm the inventor of TestUFO tests.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

OLED_Overrated said:


> HB Solution secures Kateeva’s QD-OLED inkjet patents as collateral
> 
> 
> HB Solution had secured patents owned by US inkjet equipment firm Kateeva as collateral in case it doesn’t get repaid its investment, TheElec has learned.HB Solution, which had invested around 16 billion won in Kateeva that is giving it technological support, had said back in March that it will buy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net


Here's the older article








Samsung Display to use inkjet kit from Kateeva for QD-OLED production


Samsung Display is planning to use inkjet equipment from US firm Kateeva for use in its Q1 production line, which manufactures Gen 8.5 (2200x2500mm) quantum dot (QD)-OLED panels, TheElec has learned.Samsung Display will place the order to HB Solution, which adds software to Kateeva’s inkjet equipmen




www.thelec.net


----------



## Me Boosta

Mark Rejhon said:


> No, the OLED does not have a flicker-derived image retention / burnin mechanism.
> You're safe.
> 
> Software BFI is completely safe on OLEDs at any cadence (2x, 3x, 4x, 5x Hz)
> Software BFI can be made safe on LCDs with mitigations (e.g. odd-refresh-cadence on LCD, 3x, 5x, 7x Hz, e.g. 180Hz software-based BFI).
> 
> I wish there was more software-BFI-safe inversion algorithms in the LCD scaler/TCON/firmware, but they don't test or design LCDs that way.
> 
> 
> Inversion algorithms are extremely low-level stuff that is often embedded into the scaler/TCON, far beyond most display processing.
> 
> 
> This isn't a common enough failure mode of LCDs for me to provide any useful data one way or another.
> 
> Theoretically, it's possible given sufficiently long periods because TFT pixel gate voltages is the spectrum of GtG. High gate voltages can wear a transistor more, but I haven't seen this happen in the timeline of an average "good" modern LCD. There were reports of a specific LCD that attempted to use excessively high voltages and created some problems, but it hasn't been on my radar in the last decade.
> 
> Inversion logic/bug issues are far more common, even if obscure to the mainstream.
> 
> 
> Yes, I am the founder of Blur Busters, and I'm the inventor of TestUFO tests.


It's an honor to have you here among us. I want to take this opportunity for all your work and contributions. Motion performance on panels would not have been the same if not for the attention that you brought to it. 

So many people and manufacturers are focused on picture quality in space, but completely ignore temporal resolution and clarity.


----------



## Me Boosta

Mark Rejhon said:


> Yes, I am the founder of Blur Busters, and I'm the inventor of TestUFO tests.


I did have a question to which you might know the answer. Do you happen to know the likely reason to why 120 Hz BFI was removed from this year's panels? Is it a panel limitation arising from the new sub-pixel layout? Or did LGD just decide that the development costs were not worth it?


----------



## Mark Rejhon

Me Boosta said:


> I did have a question to which you might know the answer. Do you happen to know the likely reason to why 120 Hz BFI was removed from this year's panels? Is it a panel limitation arising from the new sub-pixel layout? Or did LGD just decide that the development costs were not worth it?


No idea as I have absolutely no info on this.

Generically for any manufacturer (LG or otherwise), a latching-TFT sample-and-hold panel needs capability of 240 pixel refreshes per second in the panel backplane to do 120Hz BFI. Perhaps it's because the backplane design only allows pixel refresh 120 times a second. (8.3ms persistence during 60Hz BFI). As a result, that means there's no panel capability to insert black pixels between 120Hz refresh cycles.

There are some versions of OLED technologies that are pulsed technologies (so needs PWM to become brighter/dimmer, imperfectly), and that produces some very interesting opportunities to piggyback on this for motion blur reduction simply by configuring PWM frequency to match refresh rate. But multiple-flash-per-Hz PWM dimming (sample and hold operation mode) is often worse on eyes than pure single-PWM-strobe framerate=Hz strobing at 120Hz. This is because the duplicate image effects of multistrobing a frame are a source of eyestrain/nausea that is different from discomfort from direct flicker effect.

Reducing OLED pixel refresh frequency -- could theoretically be an economic optimization that maximum pixel refreshable frequency was halved. Hopefully the next panel backplane will find ways to increase pixel refresh frequency. Be warned, 100% speculation.


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> No idea as I have absolutely no info on this.
> 
> Generically for any manufacturer (LG or otherwise), a latching-TFT sample-and-hold panel needs capability of 240 pixel refreshes per second in the panel backplane to do 120Hz BFI. Perhaps it's because the backplane design only allows pixel refresh 120 times a second. (8.3ms persistence during 60Hz BFI). As a result, that means there's no panel capability to insert black pixels between 120Hz refresh cycles.
> 
> There are some versions of OLED technologies that are pulsed technologies (so needs PWM to become brighter/dimmer, imperfectly), and that produces some very interesting opportunities to piggyback on this for motion blur reduction simply by configuring PWM frequency to match refresh rate. But PWM dimming (sample and hold operation mode) is often worse on eyes than pure framerate=Hz strobing at 120Hz. This is because the duplicate image effects of multistrobing a frame are a source of eyestrain/nausea that is different from discomfort from direct flicker effect.
> 
> Reducing OLED pixel refresh frequency -- could theoretically be an economic optimization that maximum pixel refreshable frequency was halved. Hopefully the next panel backplane will find ways to increase pixel refresh frequency. Be warned, 100% speculation.


LGD’s WOLEDs are fast enough to refresh at 240Hz internally. That is the reason they were able to support 120Hz BFI for several years.

The 2022s have disabled the capability but it is still there (and someone on the owner’s thread discovered a hack to enable it on 2022 models).

Why did LG disable the feature this cycle? Theories abound. My leading theory is that improved near-black performance was more important than rarely-used 120Hz BFI. LGD has started spatial/temporal dithering to improve near-black performance and both temporal dithering and 120Hz BFI exploit the same maximum refresh rate capability.

Maybe LGD will eventually figure out how to support both but it was probably too much, too quickly for them to qualify in time for this cycle.

And at a minimum, I hope they eventually support both modes - best near-black performance without 120Hz BFI or 120Hz BFI with degraded near-black linearity due to lack of dithering (which would be fine for fast-action OTA sports, for example).


----------



## Mark Rejhon

fafrd said:


> LGD’s WOLEDs are fast enough to refresh at 240Hz internally. That is the reason they were able to support 120Hz BFI for several years.
> 
> The 2022s have disabled the capability but it is still there (and someone on the owner’s thread discovered a hack to enable it on 2022 models).
> 
> Why did LG disable the feature this cycle? Theories abound. My leading theory is that improved near-black performance was more important than rarely-used 120Hz BFI. LGD has started spatial/temporal dithering to improve near-black performance and both temporal dithering and 120Hz BFI exploit the same maximum refresh rate capability.
> 
> Maybe LGD will eventually figure out how to support both but it was probably too much, too quickly for them to qualify in time for this cycle.
> 
> And at a minimum, I hope they eventually support both modes - best near-black performance without 120Hz BFI or 120Hz BFI with degraded near-black linearity due to lack of dithering (which would be fine for fast-action OTA sports, for example).


Thanks for the info about temporal dithering, very interesting!

Temporal dithering doesn't have to be limited to its own refresh cycle (though that's the most ideal situation). You could spread temporal dithering over multiple refresh cycles (though that generates some artifacts during fast motion, if it's not motion compensated temporal dithering). Much like how 240Hz consumer DLP's have to do it, since DLP chips are not fast enough to generate 24-bit color per 1/240sec refresh cycle (that would require a 5760 Hz DLP chip for a single chip).

That's very useful for extending color depth for OLED darks. It's only minor temporals (e.g. soft flickering between two adjacent color values roughly akin to RGB(0,0,0) and RGB(1,1,1) ...but in whatever colorspace the particular panel is using) unlike the binary 1-bitness of DLP. OLED often have issues with banding in ultra-dim scenes -- much more pronounced in VR headsets such as the original Oculus Rift. Some early Rift VR software experimented with software-based temporal dithering!


----------



## fafrd

Mark Rejhon said:


> Thanks for the info about temporal dithering, very interesting!
> 
> Temporal dithering doesn't have to be limited to its own refresh cycle (though that's the most ideal situation). You could spread temporal dithering over multiple refresh cycles (though that generates some artifacts during fast motion, if it's not motion compensated temporal dithering). Much like how 240Hz consumer DLP's have to do it, since DLP chips are not fast enough to generate 24-bit color per 1/240sec refresh cycle (that would require a 5760 Hz DLP chip for a single chip).
> 
> That's very useful for extending color depth for OLED darks. It's only minor temporals (e.g. soft flickering between two adjacent color values roughly akin to RGB(0,0,0) and RGB(1,1,1) ...but in whatever colorspace the particular panel is using) unlike the binary 1-bitness of DLP. OLED often have issues with banding in ultra-dim scenes -- much more pronounced in VR headsets such as the original Oculus Rift. Some early Rift VR software experimented with software-based temporal dithering!


As far as I understand, the WOLED panels themselves support writing a full line of data every 3.85us ([email protected]).

The limited bit-depth near black and especially the overshoot induced when turning a subpixel from full OFF (black) to barely-on / just above black have motivated Panasonic and now LG to improve near-black linearity and quality (reduced flashing artifacts) by modulating near-black luminance through dithering just-above black regions.

Since Panasonic and LGE (and maybe also
Sony) implement near-black dithering differently, I believe it’s being controlled externally through the line data being written at the 120Hz native refresh rate rather than being hard-wired into the panels control electronics…


----------



## ukie99

Puffyy said:


> I'm still holding onto my Panny VT60.


+1


----------



## OLED_Overrated




----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


>


Possibly relevant to RGB phone screens but irrelevant to maskless WOLED and QD-OLED as well as IJP RGB OLED…


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> Since Panasonic and LGE (and maybe also
> Sony) implement near-black dithering differently, I believe it’s being controlled externally through the line data being written at the 120Hz native refresh rate rather than being hard-wired into the panels control electronics…


Also quite possible that LGD provides various registers to tweak, including the dithering.


----------



## Ngerstman1

Mark Rejhon said:


> Thanks for the info about temporal dithering, very interesting!
> 
> Temporal dithering doesn't have to be limited to its own refresh cycle (though that's the most ideal situation). You could spread temporal dithering over multiple refresh cycles (though that generates some artifacts during fast motion, if it's not motion compensated temporal dithering). Much like how 240Hz consumer DLP's have to do it, since DLP chips are not fast enough to generate 24-bit color per 1/240sec refresh cycle (that would require a 5760 Hz DLP chip for a single chip).
> 
> That's very useful for extending color depth for OLED darks. It's only minor temporals (e.g. soft flickering between two adjacent color values roughly akin to RGB(0,0,0) and RGB(1,1,1) ...but in whatever colorspace the particular panel is using) unlike the binary 1-bitness of DLP. OLED often have issues with banding in ultra-dim scenes -- much more pronounced in VR headsets such as the original Oculus Rift. Some early Rift VR software experimented with software-based temporal dithering!


----------



## Ngerstman1

Hi. Haven’t been here for a while. Hopefully someone can offer up some opinions. I have a Pioneer Kuro plasma circa 2007 that still works, perhaps has lost a touch of brightness but otherwise is great. Thinking about changing panels to move from the 60 inch to a 77 inch. I know that there are advantages/disadvantages to OLED versus plasma, especially motion handling. The Kuros were especially great at processing even when compared to other plasma panels. It would be great to hear some thoughts here on anyones experience in changing from the best plasma to an OLED panel like the new Sony a80k. Can one use the various processing to minimize motion issues without degrading the picture to the point that it is close to plasma? Is the trade to OLED just mostly a layup in improvement at this point, generally speaking? I have no doubt that there are still many out there that still swear by plasma, but is that just clinging to the past, can’t let go? Thanks. Regards. Ned.


----------



## fafrd

Ngerstman1 said:


> Hi. Haven’t been here for a while. Hopefully someone can offer up some opinions. I have a Pioneer Kuro plasma circa 2007 that still works, perhaps has lost a touch of brightness but otherwise is great. Thinking about changing panels to move from the 60 inch to a 77 inch. I know that there are advantages/disadvantages to OLED versus plasma, especially motion handling. The Kuros were especially great at processing even when compared to other plasma panels. It would be great to hear some thoughts here on anyones experience in changing from the best plasma to an OLED panel like the new Sony a80k. Can one use the various processing to minimize motion issues without degrading the picture to the point that it is close to plasma? Is the trade to OLED just mostly a layup in improvement at this point, generally speaking? I have no doubt that there are still many out there that still swear by plasma, but is that just clinging to the past, can’t let go? Thanks. Regards. Ned.


Ned,

this sticky thread is intended for discussion of longer-term technology developments and trends. It would be more appropriate to ask your question in one of the many (old) OLED vs. plasma threads or to start a new thread for that purpose.

Also, when I first started posting on the Forum, I would sign off as you do, but I was gently nudged by other members to save on the character space / post length.

Welcome to the Forum


----------



## Ngerstman1

fafrd said:


> Ned,
> 
> this sticky thread is intended for discussion of longer-term technology developments and trends. It would be more appropriate to ask your question in one of the many (old) OLED vs. plasma threads or to start a new thread for that purpose.
> 
> Also, when I first started posting on the Forum, I would sign off as you do, but I was gently nudged by other members to save on the character space / post length.
> 
> Welcome to the Forum


Wasn’t sure where to post this question, many people on the forum weren’t born yet when plasma was king, kind of like 78 rpm records! I’m sure this was a hot topic a while back by now. I did post it as a general question, I’m waiting to be mocked by many. T. R. N.


----------



## Me Boosta

Btw, we know that Samsung Display is working on a 49" QD-OLED panel. Does anybody happen to know if this is a super ultrawide panel like the Samsung Neo G9, or a standard 16:9 panel?


----------



## cdheer

Me Boosta said:


> Btw, we know that Samsung Display is working on a 49" QD-OLED panel. Does anybody happen to know if this is a super ultrawide panel like the Samsung Neo G9, or a standard 16:9 panel?


I would assume they're shooting for an ultrawide (the Neo Neo G9? ).


----------



## Kamronh

Should I get a 65 inch C1 or a 55 inch S95B?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Samsung selling QD-OLED TV at lower price than LG’s W-OLED TV


Samsung Electronics was selling its key QD (quantum dot)-OLED TV model at a price point US$200 lower than its main competition W (white)-OLED TV made by rival LG Elecronics, analyst firm UBI Research says.Samsung’s 65-inch QD-OLED TV model, S95B, was being sold for US$2,800 on BestBuy, compared to L




www.thelec.net


----------



## Jin-X

OLED_Overrated said:


> Samsung selling QD-OLED TV at lower price than LG’s W-OLED TV
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics was selling its key QD (quantum dot)-OLED TV model at a price point US$200 lower than its main competition W (white)-OLED TV made by rival LG Elecronics, analyst firm UBI Research says.Samsung’s 65-inch QD-OLED TV model, S95B, was being sold for US$2,800 on BestBuy, compared to L
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net


They made an article out of an analyst firm writing down the prices of each set on Best Buy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> They made an article out of an analyst firm writing down the prices of each set on Best Buy?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Desperate times call for desperate measures…


----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


> Samsung selling QD-OLED TV at lower price than LG’s W-OLED TV
> 
> 
> Samsung Electronics was selling its key QD (quantum dot)-OLED TV model at a price point US$200 lower than its main competition W (white)-OLED TV made by rival LG Elecronics, analyst firm UBI Research says.Samsung’s 65-inch QD-OLED TV model, S95B, was being sold for US$2,800 on BestBuy, compared to L
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.net


We really don’t need TheElec to be telling us what Best Buy is selling TVs for, but still, this is a pretty clear indication that the Premium TV Market does not consider the 65S95B to be worth any more than an 11% premium over the 65C2.

Since Samsung is likely planning to sell more 65S95Bs than LGE is planning to sell 65G2s, it’s not possible to reach the same conclusion that the market considers the 65S95B to only be worth 93% the value of the 65G2, but since 65C2 sales volume is much, much higher than 65S95B sales volume, that comparison is pretty definitive.

We’ll need to see where the S95B-over-C2 sales gap gets to by Black Friday, but this ma be a clear indication to Samsung that their QD-OLED panel technology is not worth more than a 10% premium over WOLED (which is probably less than current intrinsic cost delta).

This might indicate to Samsung that there is not a huge pot of gold at the end of the QD-OLED Rainbow and a cautious approach to increasing capacity might make more sense than converting the remaining decommissioned 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED as fast as possible.

We should learn more about Samsung Display’s plan to increase QD-OLED manufacturing capacity in Samsung’s Q3 earnings call as we approach Black Friday…


----------



## chris7191

fafrd said:


> We really don’t need TheElec to be telling us what Best Buy is selling TVs for, but still, this is a pretty clear indication that the Premium TV Market does not consider the 65S95B to be worth any more than an 11% premium over the 65C2.
> 
> Since Samsung is likely planning to sell more 65S95Bs than LGE is planning to sell 65G2s, it’s not possible to reach the same conclusion that the market considers the 65S95B to only be worth 93% the value of the 65G2, but since 65C2 sales volume is much, much higher than 65S95B sales volume, that comparison is pretty definitive.
> 
> We’ll need to see where the S95B-over-C2 sales gap gets to by Black Friday, but this ma be a clear indication to Samsung that their QD-OLED panel technology is not worth more than a 10% premium over WOLED (which is probably less than current intrinsic cost delta).
> 
> This might indicate to Samsung that there is not a huge pot of gold at the end of the QD-OLED Rainbow and a cautious approach to increasing capacity might make more sense than converting the remaining decommissioned 8.5G LCD fabs to QD-OLED as fast as possible.
> 
> We should learn more about Samsung Display’s plan to increase QD-OLED manufacturing capacity in Samsung’s Q3 earnings call as we approach Black Friday…


Yes, I agree that article is not very useful given the the BB price tells us nothing. 

I will push back a little on your thought here though. How would sales on a model that's been out for a few months only, is limited to 65" max, not even even marketed and stuck in a corner in the stores, and plagued with terrible bugs be a good indicator for the future of QD-OLED? It's not and I'm sure Samsung has already made their medium term plans. Surely, it has been set up to fail if nothing else.


----------



## fafrd

chris7191 said:


> Yes, I agree that article is not very useful given the the BB price tells us nothing.
> 
> I will push back a little on your thought here though. How would sales on a model that's been out for a few months only, is limited to 65" max, not even even marketed and stuck in a corner in the stores, and plagued with terrible bugs be *a good indicator for the future of QD-OLED?* It's not and I'm sure Samsung has already made their medium term plans. Surely, it has been set up to fail if nothing else.


It’s fairly certain that Samsung will be judging market reception of QD-OLED in the current market environment before committing billions and billions more dollars to further QD-OLED fab conversions.

They’ve apparently indicated as much:Samsung Display to decide whether it will spend more in QD-OLED in 2nd half

‘Samsung Display is unlikely to decide within the first half of this year on whether it will spend more to expand its production capacity of quantum dot (QD)-OLED panels this year, TheElec has learned.

It is unlikely that the company will hold an investment review on QD-OLED during the first half of 2022, sources said.’

‘Samsung Display believes it has *insufficient data such as customer reaction and market demand* to make an investment review for QD-OLED, sources said.’

When market demand outpaces supply, that generally means prices go up (or at least they do not go down).

Of couse, pricing needs to be judged in the context of overall market pricing trends, and all new-model-year TVs generally start discounting as we get further from day of first introduction and closer to Black Friday.

But it’s almost impossible to believe that Samsung is not looking at the premium their S95B can command over LGE’s C2 in order to determine what ‘demand’ they can expect at the pricing Samsung Display can extend to them.

I mean, they already know what pricing LGD can offer on millions of WOLED panels and it’s a near-certainty that Samsung Display’s pricing on QD-OLED panels is higher by at least 10% if not 20%.

So yes, Samsung Electronics assessment of how many QD-OLED panels they can move at the pricing Samsung Display will commit to is absolutely be an important indicator for the future capacity expansion plan for QD-OLED.

It’s not just the S95B - there is also Sony’s feedback on market demand for the A95K. But that is launching so late that is suggests Samsung Group may not be in a position to make decisions about QD-OLED capacity expansion until early next year…

(The price gap between the A95K and the A80K will be the relevant metric to track in Sony’s case…).


----------



## 59LIHP

*



Give me back my gamut, QD-OLED!

Click to expand...

*


> Yes, I recently got a QD-OLED. Yes, I will ruin a perfectly amazing looking $2000 TV. But not today.
> 
> I have been dying to get my hands on a Samsung S95B ever since seeing it at SID Display Week in May. Nearly everyone agrees it’s the best-looking display they have ever laid eyes on. When I do take it apart, I will of course take a video and share the results, but for now, I want to discuss an interesting finding relating to the front of screen color.
> 
> As you likely already know, QD-OLED panels create their red and green colors by converting a blue OLED into red and green via quantum dots (QDs). A basic marketing diagram provided by Samsung looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Using my trusty Avantes spectrometer, I measured the white spectrum at the front of screen which contains the blue OLED emission along with red/green QD color converted light.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing too surprising here, the blue OLED has a main peak just north of 450 nm with a bit of a shoulder peak. The green peak is centered at 531 nm (31 nm FWHM) and red at 641 nm (35 nm FWHM). Interestingly the green peak width (FWHM) is a little narrower than I would have expected, coming in at 31 nm, although it is a bit asymmetric. There could be a lot of things contributing to this within the green sub-pixel including contribution from a green emitter in the OLED stack (I’m still working on confirming this empirically), strong QD re-absorption, and the presence of optical filters in the stack before light reaches the front of the screen.
> 
> When I started measuring single colors things began to get interesting. What I generally do when measuring color is either download or create a test pattern graphic that contains pure red, green, and blue. I typically feed this through and HDMI cable from my laptop. When I measured pure green something stuck out. Can you see it?
> 
> 
> Left: Measuring green from a test pattern. Notice the optical signature displayed on the laptop. Right: Close up of compressed “green” showing that the red pixels are in fact contributing to the green color.
> 
> When measuring the “green” swatch I noticed the expected strong green peak, but also significant contribution from red, and even a little bit from blue. This even shows up in the close up of the pixels.
> 
> So what is happening here? Color gamut mapping (or compression).
> 
> Essentially, if the display were to show a pure green (no contribution from blue and red) then the green color point would fall outside of DCI-P3. Content creators are not regularly making content in Rec2020 at the moment, so the largest usable gamut is actually P3. To shift the green color point some red and green is added which brings it to within the P3 color space. I know, seems a little silly when we tout how amazing the peak width is for QDs then we artificially degrade the color purity. But for now, this is necessary until we have more content in Rec2020. It’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem.
> 
> This still left me wanting more. I really wanted to see what true green (and red and blue) the display could perform. But in order to do that I would have to get around the color gamut mapping algorithm. I tried the various display settings but to no avail. Upon recommendation from a friend, I decided to use a USB drive loaded with the test patterns and pure R/G/B colors. Then I measured both the thumbnail graphic (see below) and the fully opened image (as in graphic above where I’m measuring green).
> 
> 
> Measuring green from a test pattern in the thumbnail graphic (not fully opened)
> 
> What do you know, it worked! For some reason the software in the display does not apply the color mapping algorithm to thumbnails from USB drives, so now I am able to measure a pure color spectrum!
> 
> I did this with all three colors, and the resulting optical spectra are summarized below. You can clearly see that in each case the “native” spectrum is purer than the “compressed” spectrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Optical spectra of all three colors in their compressed form and native form. Green is clearly the most impacted by this effect.
> 
> From a 2D color gamut perspective, it’s clear how the spectral changes contribute to the green color point.
> 
> 
> Change in green color point of QD-OLED display with and without gamut compression.
> 
> Even though the display is shrinking the potential gamut, rest assured this TV still looks incredible. What strikes me is the excellent viewing angle and brightness, even in my brightly lit office. No camera can do it justice, so I recommend going to see one for yourself. I eagerly await the days when Rec2020 content is more widely available, and TVs no longer need to steal my gamut!


----------



## MaKaVeLiKdOcToR

59LIHP said:


> *Give me back my gamut, QD-OLED!*


Very nice read!


----------



## mrtickleuk

MaKaVeLiKdOcToR said:


> Very nice read!


Agreed - excellent article. I wonder if Sony will do the same thing with the QD-OLED, soon to be available in larger numbers.


----------



## fafrd

mrtickleuk said:


> Agreed - excellent article.* I wonder if Sony will do the same thing with the QD-OLED, *soon to be available in larger numbers.


What are you referring to, exactly? Using some output from the other 2 colors to align outside-of-DCI-P3 primaries onto the DCI-P3 (or Rec.709) primaries???


----------



## mrtickleuk

fafrd said:


> What are you referring to, exactly? Using some output from the other 2 colors to align outside-of-DCI-P3 primaries onto the DCI-P3 (or Rec.709) primaries???


Yes - well, sortof. As we know, Samsung's gamut mapping is a bit broken at the moment in the sense that there's a menu item for a "P3" mode, even though no content in rec.2020 *ever *has P3 primaries, it's always sent to the TV as rec.2020 (with, sometimes, only the P3 subset being used). But some users are finding that the P3 mode looks better due to other knock-on problems on that set. (Two wrongs don't make a right!)

Anyway - assuming that Sony does it properly and doesn't confuse people with a "P3" entry which quite simply shouldn't be there, I wondered whether they too will "compress the gamut" when set to rec.2020, and whether there are colours which the Sony TV* can only display as a thumbnail*, and not a full screen. That is a very bizarre state of affairs.


----------



## fafrd

mrtickleuk said:


> Yes - well, sortof. As we know, Samsung's gamut mapping is a bit broken at the moment in the sense that there's a menu item for a "P3" mode, even though no content in rec.2020 *ever *has P3 primaries, it's always sent to the TV as rec.2020 (with, sometimes, only the P3 subset being used). But some users are finding that the P3 mode looks better due to other knock-on problems on that set. (Two wrongs don't make a right!)
> 
> Anyway - assuming that Sony does it properly and doesn't confuse people with a "P3" entry which quite simply shouldn't be there, I wondered whether they too will "compress the gamut" when set to rec.2020, and whether there are colours which the Sony TV* can only display as a thumbnail*, and not a full screen. That is a very bizarre state of affairs.


I haven’t owned a Sony TV since the days of CRT, but I certainly believe we can count on them to do a better job with the color science / color implementation of QD-OLED TV than Samsung…

How do Sony WOLED’s handle this issue? I mean, several of the WOLED primaries also extend beyond DCI-P3, right? Rec.2020 content is a whole ‘mother ball-o-wax, but how does Sony handle content mastered in Rec.709 vs DCI-P3? As well as how does it handle HDR content wrapped in Rec.2020 that was mastered in DCI-P3?

Seems like this should just boil down to basic engineering (and attention to detail).


----------



## mrtickleuk

fafrd said:


> I haven’t owned a Sony TV since the days of CRT, but I certainly believe we can count on them to do a better job with the color science / color implementation of QD-OLED TV than Samsung…


I agree. I'm very interested if that reporter, or anyone else now that it's been highlighted, can repeat the exact same tests and give us the equivalent spectro results on the new Sony.



> How do Sony WOLED’s handle this issue? I mean, several of the WOLED primaries also extend beyond DCI-P3, right? Rec.2020 content is a whole ‘mother ball-o-wax, but how does Sony handle content mastered in Rec.709 vs DCI-P3? As well as how does it handle HDR content wrapped in Rec.2020 that was mastered in DCI-P3?


Dunno. 



> Seems like this should just boil down to basic engineering (and attention to detail).


You would have thought so!


----------



## fafrd

mrtickleuk said:


> I agree. I'm very interested if that reporter, or anyone else now that it's been highlighted, can repeat the exact same tests and give us the equivalent spectro results on the new Sony.
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno.
> 
> 
> 
> You would have thought so!


From what a few others have posted, sounds like that reporter has a thing or two to learn about how to use his S95B and present test patterns.

At a minimum, if you want to get primary display outside of DCI-P3 primaries, you need to have Rec.2020 primary test patterns and you need to configure your TV to accept Rec.2020 content.

Whether there is a separate calibration needed for DCI-P3 and Rec.709 content or DCI-P3 and Rec.709 content just gets wrapped in Rec.2020, test patterns at the DCI-P3 or Rec,
.709 primaries should show exactly the same R+g*b, r+G+b, and r+g+B ‘rolling hills’ as he m admired (assuming the TV has been properly calibrated).


----------



## Wizziwig

mrtickleuk said:


> Agreed - excellent article. I wonder if Sony will do the same thing with the QD-OLED, soon to be available in larger numbers.


Considering they have been doing this for years on their LCDs that don't even use QD material, I don't see why they would stop with the A95K. Seems to be standard practice. I remember this was driving some OCD types crazy when they tried to create spectrometer profiles for these LCDs since it was impossible to create pure single-color output from the TV. Some picture modes (Graphics?) were able to defeat the dilution on some colors. I don't remember which of the 3 colors was getting diluted so maybe someone else can find and link the thread.


----------



## chris7191

Wizziwig said:


> Considering they have been doing this for years on their LCDs that don't even use QD material, I don't see why they would stop with the A95K. Seems to be standard practice. I remember this was driving some OCD types crazy when they tried to create spectrometer profiles for these LCDs since it was impossible to create pure single-color output from the TV. Some picture modes (Graphics?) were able to defeat the dilution on some colors. I don't remember which of the 3 colors was getting diluted so maybe someone else can find and link the thread.


I'm guessing how the A95K does this probably depends on where it's implemented. If it's something that SDI gives control of, or if it's done at a higher level either by MTK or XR.


----------



## 59LIHP

FYI,* Peter Palomaki* is not a simple journalist.








Home - Palomaki Consulting


Quantum Dots and Nanomaterials for Optical Applications I’m Peter Palomaki Technical quantum dot expert with excellent communication skills, delivering high value to clients by leveraging my knowledge of materials, processes, market, and deep industry network. Twitter Linkedin-in Technical...



palomakiconsulting.com


----------



## mrtickleuk

Wizziwig said:


> Considering they have been doing this for years on their LCDs that don't even use QD material, I don't see why they would stop with the A95K. Seems to be standard practice. I remember this was driving some *OCD types* crazy when they tried to create spectrometer profiles for these LCDs since it was impossible to create pure single-color output from the TV. Some picture modes (Graphics?) were able to defeat the dilution on some colors. I don't remember which of the 3 colors was getting diluted so maybe someone else can find and link the thread.


I think if you've got all the kit and a spectro and are making a profile, you've earned the right not be called an "OCD type" just because you want to calibrate following the normal best practice. And quite right they were upset.

On the LGs once you reset things as part of a 3DLUT profiling session you definitely get the full native gamut of the panel with no tricks, I know that at least.


----------



## OLED_Overrated




----------



## stama

Setting the display color space as Native and displaying (255,0,0), (0,255,0), (0,0, 255) and (255,255,255) patches is all you need to measure the spectrum power distribution for primaries and white. There are no special patterns needed.

Having other primary colors emitting besides the one you want to measure is the standard way to change the x,y color coordinates of the perceived primary color. That's how you limit the observable gamut of a display to Rec 709 when the primaries of your display are different than Rec 709 gamut primaries, for instance. The same is done to achieve any other standard gamut when your display primaries have different color coordinates than the standard gamut primary coordinates.

Just so you don't think this is unusual, the original experiments which gave us the functions that we use to predict what color we see for a given spectrum also stumbled upon the need to do something similar. Subjects were presented with two halfs of a screen. On one half a test color was displayed, and on the other half there were three light sources: one red, one blue, one green, and the experiment subjects were asked to rotate some knobs that were modifying the intensity of the blue, red and green lights, until they managed to match the color of the test color. They soon discovered that it was impossible to make this match for some test colors. The solution was to add an additional red light source on the test color side, and let the users modify the intensity of that red light source as well - that's why the resulting red color match function has an area of negative values.

In case of the Samsung S95B, there is a chance that sometimes the TV uses a different color space than the one selected in its settings, according to the posts in the owners thread. That can mess things up too.

Later edit: I notice I gave an explanation, but I forgot to make the point I was trying to make. So here goes: what we see there, having red also emitted when he tries to display a pure green patch, is the display performing gamut limiting in action. The display is clearly not in Native color space mode, and it tries to display the green color of a more limited color space, which looks different than the display native green (that you get by using only the green emitters of the display). And it achieves that by outputting a bit of red too, just like in the original CMF experiments. The article title "Give me back my gamut!" is quite correct, that's exactly what was going on, gamut limiting in action.


----------



## dkfan9

stama said:


> Setting the display color space as Native and displaying (255,0,0), (0,255,0), (0,0, 255) and (255,255,255) patches is all you need to measure the spectrum power distribution for primaries and white. There are no special patterns needed.
> 
> Having other primary colors emitting besides the one you want to measure is the standard way to change the x,y color coordinates of the perceived primary color. That's how you limit the observable gamut of a display to Rec 709 when the primaries of your display are different than Rec 709 gamut primaries, for instance. The same is done to achieve any other standard gamut when your display primaries have different color coordinates than the standard gamut primary coordinates.
> 
> Just so you don't think this is unusual, the original experiments which gave us the functions that we use to predict what color we see for a given spectrum also stumbled upon the need to do something similar. Subjects were presented with two halfs of a screen. On one half a test color was displayed, and on the other half there were three light sources: one red, one blue, one green, and the experiment subjects were asked to rotate some knobs that were modifying the intensity of the blue, red and green lights, until they managed to match the color of the test color. They soon discovered that it was impossible to make this match for some test colors. The solution was to add an additional red light source on the test color side, and let the users modify the intensity of that red light source as well - that's why the resulting red color match function has an area of negative values.
> 
> In case of the Samsung S95B, there is a chance that sometimes the TV uses a different color space than the one selected in its settings, according to the posts in the owners thread. That can mess things up too.
> 
> Later edit: I notice I gave an explanation, but I forgot to make the point I was trying to make. So here goes: what we see there, having red also emitted when he tries to display a pure green patch, is the display performing gamut limiting in action. The display is clearly not in Native color space mode, and it tries to display the green color of a more limited color space, which looks different than the display native green (that you get by using only the green emitters of the display). And it achieves that by outputting a bit of red too, just like in the original CMF experiments. The article title "Give me back my gamut!" is quite correct, that's exactly what was going on, gamut limiting in action.


I had a post drafted to say something like your second paragraph, but you said it better and with more interesting context. Nice post 😀


----------



## stama

dkfan9 said:


> I had a post drafted to say something like your second paragraph, but you said it better and with more interesting context. Nice post 😀


Thanks!

I know a couple of such interesting history tidbits, I couldn't miss the chance to tell this one.


----------



## mrtickleuk

stama said:


> I know a couple of such interesting history tidbits, I couldn't miss the chance to tell this one.


I enjoyed it, especially the part about negative values in red. Anything like that, please don't hold back


----------



## OLED_Overrated




----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


>


I’d love to know how much work he puts into making those videos. The analysis itself it always worthwhile and pretty spot-on, but the animation is hilarious!

On this particular subject, important for small-screen OLED panels (tablets, laptops) but not really for TVs (unless Samsung Display wants to have another go at RGB-OLED TV ).


----------



## Me Boosta

Realistically, is it possible for LG Display to combine the two advancements made in the EVO panel (deuterium and heatsink), with Micro Lenses that is currently being developed? Or are they mutually exclusive technologies?


----------



## fafrd

Me Boosta said:


> Realistically, *is it possible for LG Display to combine the two advancements made in the EVO panel (deuterium and heatsink), with Micro Lenses that is currently being developed? *Or are they mutually exclusive technologies?


Absolutely.

Beyond that, the +20% increased peak brightness and efficiency of MLA will also be compatible with the increased efficiency and peak brightness of blue PHOLED…


----------



## RobertR1

When LGD was the only game in town, we got comfortable with just measuring the different implementations of the same panel and our core comparison was mainly peak brightness. That's no longer the case with a QDO in the picture.

The three areas where LGD needs to step up:

APL across the range
High color volume
Consistency in brightness across scenarios

HDTVPolska, I believe most here will find Vincent levels of credible so I'll use their data points:

First the color volume delta, which some can reasonably argue is limited to certain titles. However that content is going to grow as UHD HDR continues to mature.











That's a real difference and well beyond the 'numbers.' I don't think I need to label which one is on WOLED and which one is QD OLED!

Now lets look at the brightness and importantly, the consistency of the brightness across the image. We know how world class the Pana JZ2000 series is so lets use that as a reference (2022 flagships haven't been tested by HDTVPolska yet).

Panasonic JZ2000:









Samsung S95B:









There's a major difference in the consistency of the HDR experience in actual content, well beyond just looking at some brightness figures in the traditional windowed measurement. The quality of the experience is less content dependent as the QDO panel will deliver to across the board.

My point is we're well beyond just seeing who can win the 10% window tests going forward. There's other factors as play here where LGD and it's customers need to step up across the board. This is on top of the superior uniformity, no tint, no dse etc.


----------



## 59LIHP

TCL shows a 17" foldable inkjet-printed IGZO AMOLED prototype





TCL shows a 17" foldable inkjet-printed IGZO AMOLED prototype | OLED-Info







www.oled-info.com


----------



## Me Boosta

fafrd said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Beyond that, the +20% increased peak brightness and efficiency of MLA will also be compatible with the increased efficiency and peak brightness of blue PHOLED…


And is there any chance that blue PHOLED might make its way into the 2023 range of TV's. Or is that 2024 and beyond?


----------



## fafrd

Me Boosta said:


> And is there any chance that blue PHOLED might make its way into the 2023 range of TV's. Or is that 2024 and beyond?


Pretty much zero chance of blue PHOLED on 2023 OLED TVs.

UDC is saying completion of development on Blue PHOLED by the end of this year (meaning final customer evaluation samples) and commercialization ‘in 2024’ so the earliest you can expect any products with their Blue PHOLED materials would be 2024 (and 2025 sounds more likely).

If Samsung has a stealth internal development program, there is a chance they could have products out with Hugh-efficiency blue emitters a year earlier, but shifting QD-OLED to a high efficiency blue OLED emitter by next year, while not completely outside the realm of the possible, seems exceedingly unlikely…


----------



## Wizziwig

RobertR1 said:


> HDTVPolska, I believe most here will find Vincent levels of credible so I'll use their data points:


Vincent isn't much better than other clueless reviewers when it comes to measuring HDR. I've called him out on several videos where he claimed 10% white window WOLED measurements were somehow representative of actual content performance. I asked for proof. Crickets. Some people only care what their calibration reports tell them. 

I wonder what firmware HDTVPolska was testing with. Before the 1211 firmware nerfing of filmmaker and 1302 firmware nerfing of everything else, the S95B was actually capable of measuring up to 1370+ nits on some lower APL scenes similar to those in that review. Current firmware limits everything to ~1000-1100 nits for some reason which is still much better than any WOLED in actual content. Also keep in mind that HDTVPolska uses a white test patch on those real scenes. Difference would be even larger if those test patches were colored.

Reviews show the Sony A95K has a more aggressive ABL curve on test patterns than Samsung so I'm really curious how it will compare with these real world tests.


----------



## Me Boosta

I always wondered this. Is it possible for any future WOLED and QD-OLED panels to be capable of 240 Hz? Granted, HDMI bandwidth would need to double that of 2.1 to support 4K 240 Hz. But is it even possible for those panels to support 240 Hz refreshes? Or is that years away?


----------



## circumstances

What does successful blue PHOLED mean for the current style of OLED going forward?


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> What does successful blue PHOLED mean for the current *style* of OLED going forward?


I’m not sure what sort of ‘style’ you’re asking about.

Blue PHOLED will allow LG to match current WOLED performance at lower cost ((by dropping from a 3S OLED to a 2S OLSD stack;

or Blue PHOLED will allow LG to significantly increase WOLED brightness levels across the board without increasing cost;

or Blue PHOLED will allow peak output levels to be maintained or even increased while greatly increasing color volume without adding cost (by greatly decreasing the size of the white subpixel in favor of increasing R, G, B subpixel sizes (in the extreme, eliminating the white subpixel to deliver an RGB WOLED);

or Blue PHOLED can allow LGD to do 2 or all 3 of these things (as diffferent WOLED panel offerings).

Blue PHOLED pretty much represents nothing but a cost-reduction for QD-OLED while for WOLED it represents an opportunity for significant broadening of the product offering…


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> Blue PHOLED pretty much represents nothing but a cost-reduction for QD-OLED while for WOLED it represents an opportunity for significant broadening of the product offering…


What does it mean for Sony OLED TVs?


----------



## Wizziwig

Me Boosta said:


> I always wondered this. Is it possible for any future WOLED and QD-OLED panels to be capable of 240 Hz? Granted, *HDMI bandwidth would need to double that of 2.1 to support 4K 240 Hz*. But is it even possible for those panels to support 240 Hz refreshes? Or is that years away?


HDMI 2.1 already supports 4K @ 240Hz via DSC. Samsung released an LCD gaming monitor recently that supports it.

As for OLEDs, the best we have at 4K is 144 Hz on the Samsung S95B and 175 Hz on their smaller 1440p QD-OLED monitor. LG has regressed on motion this year but hopefully Samsung keeps advancing in this area to catch up with the best LCD monitors that are now at 480 Hz.


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> What does it mean for Sony OLED TVs?


Sony sells both WOLEDs and QD-OLEDs, so all of the above…


----------



## OLED_Overrated

_All inkjet-printed 6.95″ 217 ppi active matrix QD-LED display with RGB Cd-free QDs in the top-emission device structure_

























In a recent paper co-authored by Samsung Display, they managed to develop an inkjet printed, true qd-led/qled display. However, despite advancements in qd-led/qled display technology, it still seems far from commercialization given that the lifetime and brightness is still not good as oled, especially blue qd-led which is has a T50 lifetime of 15000 hr at 100 nit.


----------



## 59LIHP

*All inkjet-printed 6.95″ 217 ppi active matrix QD-LED display with RGB Cd-free QDs in the top-emission device structure*


https://sid.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jsid.1126


----------



## 59LIHP

*Destroying a QD-OLED (Samsung S95B) - Part 1*
Teardown of a Samsung S95B QD-OLED TV with spectral analysis of color and piece-by-piece disassembly. Part 1 of 2.
















*AVS Forum Tech Talk with Scott Wilkinson Volume 7: Peter Palomaki (NanoPalomaki)*
Follow along with Scott Wilkinson (Home Theater Geek) with the Nano Particle Doctor, Peter Palomaki (NanoPalomaki). We jump off the deep end of quantum dot tech and nano particles in TVs and displays. QD-OLED will be a topic of discussion too. Join the discussion on AVS Forum with this tech talk here AVSForum Tech Talk with Scott Wilkinson Episode 7...


----------



## Jin-X

59LIHP said:


> *Destroying a QD-OLED (Samsung S95B) - Part 1*
> Teardown of a Samsung S95B QD-OLED TV with spectral analysis of color and piece-by-piece disassembly. Part 1 of 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3312116
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AVS Forum Tech Talk with Scott Wilkinson Volume 7: Peter Palomaki (NanoPalomaki)*


That’s neat, hope he does the same with an A95K and a G2. What he’s calling a heat sink seems more like a thermal pad, while G2 and A95K would have some sort of metallic sheet with better thermal transfer. But only one way to find out for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 59LIHP




----------



## 8mile13

Pete Palomaki states that there are three blue layers in volume 7 interview (post #19,382 - second video - starts at 37:00).


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> Pete Palomaki states that there are three blue layers in volume 7 interview (post #19,382 - second video - starts at 37:00).


The rumor has been 3 blue FOLED layers + 1 green PHOLED layer, so does his statement suggest there are only 3 layers or is it worded in away that the presence of a 4th non-blue layer would, strictly speaking, not be an untruth?


----------



## JasonHa

Both the Wilkinson video and his YouTube comment are on the same day. I don't think he discovered the answer after his comment (meaning Wilkinson video came after comment) and I don't think he would reveal the answer in the Wilkinson video if he intended to reveal it on his own channel (meaning the comment came after Wilkinson video).


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> The rumor has been 3 blue FOLED layers + 1 green PHOLED layer, so does his statement suggest there are only 3 layers or is it worded in away that the presence of a 4th non-blue layer would, strictly speaking, not be an untruth?


He claims there are three blue layers for sure (not four) in the interview but looking at Twitter there is a S95B teardown part 1/2 in which he is involved stating that he hopes to answer in part 2 if there is a green layer also but that looks like clickbait to me... it does not look to me he is going against his own words on the matter.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> He claims there are three blue layers for sure (not four) in the interview but looking at Twitter there is a S95B teardown part 1/2 in which he is involved stating that he hopes to answer in part 2 if there is a green layer also but that looks like clickbait to me... it does not look to me he is going against his own words on the matter.


‘Only 3 blue layers’ is far less definitive / clear than ‘only 3 OLED layers, all of which are blue’…

There are only three blue OLED layers. The question is whether there are any additional layers of another color.


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> ‘Only 3 blue layers’ is far less definitive / clear than ‘only 3 OLED layers, all of which are blue’…
> 
> There are only three blue OLED layers. The question is whether there are any additional layers of another color.


This was in the background at that point.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> This was in the background at that point.
> 
> View attachment 3312928


Looks like just recycling of the ‘simple story’ that Samsung established several years ago and allowed to be echoed without correction (or confirmation) since then.

Among other things, that graphic does not show a color filter layer, and we now know for a fact that that is not accurate.

Until we see anyone stating that they heard directly from Samsung that QD-Display 1.0 is based on blue OLED emitters and contains no green OLED emission layer in the stack, we’re just wasting our time.

From another perspective, however, it does not really matter given Samsung’s decision to remove the polarizer.

The only real impact of including a green OLED layer in the stack is that would have required the addition of conventional color filters on all subpixels, and especially blue.

The blue subpixel does not require a conventional color filter if the OLED stack emits only blue photons - just a ‘dispersion’ layer. And that is the ‘simple story’ that Samsung has established (no conventional color filters needed, only a dispersion layer over the blue subpixel).

And yet, Samsung’s polarizer-free technology is based on the use of conventional color filters over all subpixels.

So since they eliminated the polarizer, they have added conventional color filters over all three subpixels and hence, the impact of including a green OLED layer in the stack is minor - greatly increased green output levels with no other changes to structure or cost impact required.

The only impact clarity on whether QD-Display 1.0 has at this stage boils down to forecasting the implications of a high-efficiency blue OLED emitter on QD-Display 1.1.

If the QD-Display 1.0 is truly based on 3 blue FOLED layers only, and no green PHOLED emitter, QD-Display 1.1 will be able to deliver ~+33% increased output levels while reducing from 3 Blue FOLED layers to just a single Blue PHOLED layer (which probably translates to at least a 50% cost reduction).

Output levels 33% brighter than what the S95B and A95K deliver at lower prices approaching half of where those Gen1 products are priced today? The world would be Samsung Display’s oyster.

Plus, reducing from 3 OLED layers to just one would reduce cycle time and increase fan capacity by at least 100% if not 200%.

If Samsung Display truly has a high-efficiency blue emitter ready to bring into production next year (as they have suggested) and current QD-OLED panels are based on only 3 blue FOLED layers and no 4th green PHOLED layer, the war will be won any they will take over the Premium Display World.

LGD WOLED will be faced with a competing technology that is much lower cost and better-performing, so the end of WOLED would be nigh.

But we’re seeing no signs of panic from LGD and we’re also seeing no signs of further investment by Samsung, so let’s recognize that world domination does not seem to be at hand and take off the rise-colored glasses.

If QD-Display 1.0 does include a 4th emission layer which is green PHOLED, that will mean the arrival of blue PHOLED will have much less of a positive impact on QD-Display 1.0 and in fact, it will help WOLED more than it will help QD-OLED.

Samsung will be able to reduce the cost of their OLED stack, but only from B-B-B-G to B-G (2 layers).

They will also get a modest boost in output levels but only +33% for blue and red, while green (which emits most of the photons in Rec.2020, DCI-P3, or Rec.709) will increase by less than 5%.

So QD-Display 1.1 would be likely to deliver an overall performance increase of 15-20% wile reducing cost down to a 2-layer OLED stack.

WOLED will also be able to use Blue PHOLED to reduce the current 3S4C WOLED stack to a 2S4C stack. And it will also be able to deliver increased brightness levels of at least +25% and possibly as much as +33% (or less if it decides to reduce white subpixel size in order to increase color volume).

So Blue PHOLED will mean that WOLED can narrow the gap with Blue+Green QD-OLED with an OLED stack of similar cost.

While the OLED stack is the most important factor in cost (as well as fab throughput), QD-OLED has a more expensive frontplane (QDCC + CCF versus CCF) as well as a more expensive backplane (front-emission versus back-emission).

The elimination of the polarizer is the only area where QD-OLED will have a manufacturing cost advantage over WOLED and that is almost certainly not enough to compensate for the areas where it is more expensive.

The net-net of all of this is that with a green PHOLED layer, QD-Dispkay 1.1 will narrow the cost gap versus WOLED while WOLED will narrow the performance gap with QD-Display. The High-Efficiency Blue future is going to look like a repeat of what we’ve got today with even less differentiation.

WOLED will have a significant cost advantage in terms of it much higher manufacturing scale and while Samsung can make massive investments in an attempt to catch up, they have no way to deliver a killing blow.

That rosy-glasses-off analysis sure feels like a much better fit for the current posture we’re seeing from both Samsung and LGD…


----------



## 8mile13

The point is there is no green emitter in the background. Palomaki disassembled the S95B put it in a video and will tell us what the layers are in part 2, likely confirming what he said to Scott Wilkinson. Even if it is 3 blue layers at this point maybe next year or few years from now that will be different. So if it turns out to be 3 blue layers at this point...is there a need to change that?


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> The point is there is no green emitter in the background.


To the extent the ‘background’ is what Samsung Display prepared several years ago when the QD-OLED concept was first conceived/introduced and has allowed to circulate without correction since then as the complexity of the real world versus that simple initial concept became more and more as they worked to introduce an actual product, of course not.



> Palomaki disassembled the S95B put it in a video and *will tell us what the layers are in part 2, likely confirming what he said to Scott Wilkinson. *


The ‘part I’ tear down separated the separately-manufactured layers including compliant heatsink, backplane w/ OLED stack, and front plane w/ QDCC & CCF (similar to the tear-downs we’ve seen for WOLED panels).

Have you ever seen a tear-down of individual individual layers within an OLED stack? I’m not even sure how you could approach that level of year-down without some sort of controllable etching equipment.

At best, I’d guess he might b able to put a cleanly-cut edge under a microscope that might be able to distinguish enough structure to determine whether it is a 3-layer OLED emitter stack or a 4-layer OLED emitter stack.

But being able to determine whether each of those OLED emission layers are blue or green? I’ll believe it when I see it (without the use of exceedingly expensive and specialized equipment that I doubt Polamaki has access to or is planning to use).



> Even if it is 3 blue layers at this point maybe next year or few years from now that will be different. So if it turns out to be 3 blue layers at this point...*is there a need to change that?*


I’m not understanding your question.

There is no need to change anything (nor any capability to do so, at least by us).

As I stated in my earlier response, the underlying reality of whether QD-OLED 1.0 has a 4th Green PHOLED layer only matters in terms of guessing/analyzing the impact blue PHOLED will have once it is commercially available.

That impact should translate to lower cost and some increased performance but if the QD-Display 1.0 we have now includes a 4th green PHOLED layer, that impact from Blue PHOLED on QD-Display 1.1 will be greatly reduced (and WOLED will actually have more to gain from Blue PHOLED than QD-Display 1.0).

There is little question that once they have a commercialized high/m-efficiency blue OLED emitter, Samsung Display will e changing from 3 blue FOLED layers to a single high-efficiency blue emitter layer (as will LGD WOLED, from 2 full blue FOLED layers to a single high-efficiency blue emitter layer, or possibly to a partial blue PHOLED layer, if compatible with their other PHOLED emitter colors).

The point is that if QD-Display 1.0 is using a 4th green PHOLED layer now, there is likely little chance that Samsung Display can eliminate a second green PHOLED layer when they are moving to a single high-efficiency blue emitter layer in QD-Display 1.1 (meaning more modest cost reduction and also more modest performance improvement).

I doubt we’re going to see any changes at all in the structure of QD-Display 1.0 until Samsung has a commercialized high-efficiency blue emitter to switch to for QD-Display 1.1 (which might be as early as next year).


----------



## 8mile13

In the video comments someone states ''there are theories that the backlight containes phosphorescent green to boost efficiency, which would require the blue subpixel to contain a colour filter.'' Palomaki ''This is also a question I wanted to answer during this teardown.''


----------



## doguTV

fafrd said:


> Have you ever seen a tear-down of individual individual layers within an OLED stack? I’m not even sure how you could approach that level of year-down without some sort of controllable etching equipment.
> 
> At best, I’d guess he might b able to put a cleanly-cut edge under a microscope that might be able to distinguish enough structure to determine whether it is a 3-layer OLED emitter stack or a 4-layer OLED emitter stack.
> 
> But being able to determine whether each of those OLED emission layers are blue or green? I’ll believe it when I see it (without the use of exceedingly expensive and specialized equipment that I doubt Polamaki has access to or is planning to use).


I'm hoping he can find a way to apply some current across the oled layer and get it to emit some light to analyze. No need to be too gentle. Lifetime of the oled layer is not a concern.


----------



## fafrd

doguTV said:


> I'm hoping he can find a way to apply some current across the oled layer and get it to emit some light to analyze. No need to be too gentle. Lifetime of the oled layer is not a concern.


Well that’s an interesting idea - if he can find any way to drive some current through the OLED stack with the front-plane including quantum dots removed, that would allow the native emission of the stack to be characterized.

The problem, though, is that there are TFT transistors driving that current, so I don’t any way to drive current without non-destructively
removing the front plane from a functional QD-OLED and the powering it up to do it’s thing…

The part-I teardown clearly destroyed the panel, so he’d have to have learned enough to repeat the process on a second working QD-OLED TV, at least to strip off the front-pane without damaging the back-pane.

Here’s hoping


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> In the video comments someone states ''there are theories that the backlight containes phosphorescent green to boost efficiency, which would require the blue subpixel to contain a colour filter.'' *Palomaki ''This is also a question I wanted to answer during this teardown.''*


Unfortunately, there are two ways to interpret his response.

He may just mean he wants to answer the question as to whether the blue subpixel contains a conventional color filter. This would be straightforward to to: take a small piece of front-plane such as he already has, shine white light through it, and use a magnifying glass to see whether the blue subpixel is allowing through white light or only blue light.

The problem is we already know the blue subpixel has a conventional color filter - it is needed for Samsung’s polarizer-eliminating technology.

So unfortunately, confirming that there is a blue conventional color filter present does not confirm the presence of a green emitter layer.

The other interpretation of his response is that he intends to answer the question of whether there is a green emission layer in the OLED stack during his second year-down.

That would be fantastic, but as I just responded to DoguTV, it’s much more complicated and either requires non-destructive removal of the front plane so that the TV can still be fired up and characterized, or in requires the use of exceedingly expensive reverse-engineering tools…

We’ll see.


----------



## 8mile13

fafrd said:


> The part-I teardown clearly destroyed the panel, so he’d have to have learned enough to repeat the process on a second working QD-OLED TV, at least to strip off the front-pane without damaging the back-pane.
> 
> Here’s hoping


He stated that he bought the TV for a few bucks and that it was broken. So he does not need to be careful. It looks like he got only one of them.


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> He stated that he bought the TV for a few bucks and that it was broken. So he does not need to be careful. It looks like he got only one of them.


If that’s the case he should be able to confirm the presence of conventional color filters but I doubt he will be able to confirm or deny the presence of a green emitter layer…


----------



## fafrd

This is the OLED Technology Advancements Thread, but the arrival of the BOE/Skyworth Q72 (pointed out by OLED-Overrated) is important enough to the future of OLED TV, I thought it was worth repeating here:



OLED_Overrated said:


> I am probably going a bit off topic from this thread but since we were discussing about BOE's active matrix displays, I looked up the Skyworth TV that BOE supplied their chip on glass displays tv.
> I was able to find the specs and the price point and it is seemingly a very high end miniled tv with certain specs that no other miniled tvs have and I really wonder why no other user has caught wind of this.
> 
> First, the fact that it's using an active matrix on glass backplane and has over 2000 zones on a 75 and 86 inch display. But the thing I'm most amazed about is that it using Nanolumi's chameleon G film- a perovskite quantum dot film. Nanolumi claims that their qd enhancement film can enable 90% bt 2020, 100% adobe rgb and dci p3. In previous posts, I have mentioned how qd films that enable high rec2020 coverage should be coming to the mass market within a year or two given the advancements in stability and performance of perovskite quanutm dots and it really seems like it's happening. I could not find any retail stores to buy this tv in the U.S, but it seems like it's purchasable in other countries given that someone has already made a basic review. The price for a 75 inch is supposedly around $4400- while not cheap it should be within reach for the videophiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SKYWORTH Q72 - SKYWORTH SmartMiniLED TV
> 
> 
> Q72 is SKYWORTH SmartMiniLED TV which display is covered by 20736 MiniLED backlights. Q72 adopts the new SKYWORTH Super Original Color Tech to enhance the backlight of the MiniLED display.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.skyworth.net


Thanks for finding this - yes, it is the first clear proof that SuperMiniLED/LCDs (or MicroLED/LCDs, if you prefer) are coming.

From my perspective, this is not Iff Topic for this thread - MicoLED and ‘transmissive-like’ MicroLED/LCDs with Active Matrix Backlights will both be driven by the same technology trends.

The 75Q72 for $4400 throws down a gauntlet for where MicroLED/LCD is headed.

The BOE LTPS backplane is using 20,736 LEDs, likely manufactured with the pick-and-place machine they have developed with Rohinni. In fact, I did not know that BOE and Rohinni formed a joint-venture in 2020: Startup Launches Joint Venture With BOE - EE Times Asia

We unfortunately don’t know the size of these LEDs but since the peak brightness spec is almost identical to that of the iPad Pro, it’s pretty likely that they are no bigger than the 200um x 200um LEDs Apple is using.

2304 dimming zones for a 4K display translates to 3600 4K pixels per zone, or 60-pixel x 60-pixel zones (~4 times larger than the iPads zones). So with an IPS LCD, blooming should be even worse than it was on the iPad.

It’ll be interesting to see reviews of the 75Q72 to understand whether it has a VA panel or IPS and how it performs as far as blooming.

20,736 LEDs translates to 400 pixels per LED, or 20-pixels x 20-pixels per LED. So once effective processing power to manage 21k dimming zones becomes affordable, Skyworth will be able to reduce blooming to better-than-iPad levels without increasing cost.

Between the perovskite Quantum Dots and the LTPS Micro/MiniLED backlight, it looks to me like BOE is in stealth mode and carefully planning and executing a campaign to take over the Premium TV Market by storm.

There are a few fundamental questions about the performance of this new breed of Display as well as some major opportunities / advantages it offers:

Questions / challenges:

-blooming - how many zones are needed to achieve truly ‘near-emissive’ performance?

-uniformity - LCD has generally suffered in the uniformity department - do BOE’s QD-LCDs represent a step forward, a step backward, or Business As Usual in that department?

-off-angle performance - if the Q72 is based on QDEF and VA LCD, it should perform similar to NeoQLED/LCDs in this department. If based on QDEF and IPS LCD, it should perform better (but blooming will be worse), and if it is based on QDCC, it could deliver the same off-angle performance as QD-OLED.

Opportunities / advantages: 

-QDCC - even if BOE has implemented the Perovskite Quantum Dots in film for the Q72 (QDEF), the advantages of going to QDCC, likely printed in the same manner Samsung manufactures QD-OLED, will eventually be the preferred structure. Peak brightness levels will increase by ~+200% without increasing power consumption. Optto-emissive QDCC at the outermost layer of the display will deliver QD-OLED off-angle performance. If BOE/Skyworth is nit already doing this, they are certain to live in that direction over the next several years.

-peak brightness: I’ve already explained how moving fro QDEF to QDCC could offer BIE/Skyworth a pathway to >4000 Nit peak levels without increasing power consumption, but moving to a higher-density of smaller-sized LEDs is another pathway to getting there as well. The higher-density the dimming zone count, the closer to ‘transmissive-like’ power consumption levels a MicroLED/LCD can achieve (you only consume power where I is needed for high brightness level, rather that wasting 90% of the power in large dimming zones than only required a few bright pixels…). I believe there is a good chance that MicroLED/LCD could prove to be the first display architecture to deliver 4000+ Nit peak brightness levels at Premium Consumer pricepoints.

-Cost Reduction: the Q72 s based on pick-and-place technology to manufacture the LTPS MiniLED backplane. That is serial manufacturing which is the worst-case for cost (pay more for each and every LED assembled onto the backplane). Once Laser-based mass-transfer is fully-industrialized for MicroLED manufacturing, it’s going to offer a no-added-cost way to assemble many more LEDs onto the backplane (example below).

I’ve been thinking about this vision anyway, but your pointing out the 75Q72 just makes it that much more concrete.

Let’s assume the 75Q72 delivers 1500 Nits peak based on QDCF and 200x200um LEDs.

Let’s also assume that Coherent’s optical mass-transfer machine can be scaled up from a maximum substrate size of 470mm x 370mm to the same maximum substrate size being managed by Rohini (or at least 830mm x 467mm, the size needed for a quarter 75” backplane).

The EQE of 60um blue LEDs is pretty much the same as the EQE of 200um blue LEDs, so 10 60um x 60um LEDs cost about the same as 1 200um LED today (and will cost significantly less as MicroLED manufacturing takes off).

So an LTPS backlight with 230,400 60um x 60um LEDs will have material cost that is ~110% to what BOE/Skyworth’s Q72 has today and will almost certainly have lower material cost by tomorrow.

With pick-and-place, the assembly cost of such a backlight would be ~11 times that of the Q72, but the Coherent solution is able to assemble an 8mm x 16mm in parallel.

While there are only 2 LEDs within every 8mm x 16mm zone of the 74Q72’s backlight (and so the parallelism of the Coherent Optical Transfer machine does not offer much), with 230,400 smaller LEDs, there are 28 LEDs within each 8mm x 16mm zone, meaning assembly cost will be roughly equivalent using optical transfer to what pick-and-place delivers today (at least assuming the cost of Coherent’s machine in not much more than double that of Rohini’s pick and place machine).

So in the next few years, it’s likely BOE/Skyworth will be able to manufacture a MictoLED BLU with 230,400 LEDs for no more cost than the 20,736-LED of the Q72 costs then today.

Once the processing to manage 230,400 dimming zones becomes affordable, than means 6-pixel x 6-pixel dimming zones which starts approaching Dual-LCD territory.

Oh, and because of the use of QDCC, peak brightness will be at least 4500 Nits and likely significantly higher than that due to the finer-granularity backlight (putting available power only where it is needed most).

That establishes a sort of base-offering in my estimation, but the pathway towards true ‘transmissive-like’ performance and peak brightness levels approaching 10,000 Nits is straightforward:

Moving from 230,400 LEDs to 921,600 60um x 60um LEDs will get peak brightness up to 18,000 Nits at an LED cost which is 4-times higher (but no increased manufacturing cost). That BLU will support 3-pixel x 3-pixel dimming zones, which will deliver Dual-LCD-like reference-monitor-like performance (meaning no noticeable blooming).

Because of the use of local dimming and the transmissive-like granularity, power consumption will be a small fraction of what Dual-LCD reference monitors consume today.

The processing to manage ~1million dimming zones (720p) will likely be similar to what Dual-LCDs require to manage ~2million dimming zones (1080p) so we’re likely to see reference monitor offerings if this architecture first then push into the Premium TV market once processing power catches up.

That is all predicated on 60um x 60um LEDs being the minimum that can effectively be repaired by pick-and-place. If MicroLED manufacturing develops a technology that can effectively 30um x 30um LEDs there will be no added cost for LEDs (and if repair stalls out at 45um x 45um, LED cost increase will be only +125%).

Alternatively, if yields from optical transfer are high-enough, repair may not be required and minimum LED size will be determined solely by what is required to achieve target peak brightness levels. MicroLED manufacturing is aiming for a minimum of 6-zeroes transfer yield (1 defect per 1 million LEDs) and is hoping to achieve 7-zeroes transfer yield (1 defect per 10 million transfers).

At 6-zeroes yield, there would be an average of one defect one one quarter-panel out of every 4 quarter panels manufactured (75% yield of quarter panels). That’s low enough that repair capability would be necessary.

But as 7-zeroes yield, there would only be one defective quarter panel out every 40 quarter panels manufactured (97.5% quarter-panel yield), and at that point, repair is not worth it (especially if that allows even smaller LEDs to be used).

So one way or the other, I believe it’s highly likely that the development of MicroLED and mass-transfer technology such as optical transfer are going to result in MicroLED/QD-LCD offerings priced even lower than where BOE/Skyworth’s Q72 is our Ed today and delivering specs of:



> 90% BT.2020
> 9000 Nits peak brightness


‘Transmisive-like’ performance (no blooming)
QD-OLED-like off-axis performance

I was one of the loudest voices hoping that the emergence of WOLED would eventually lead to the demise of LCD but I no longer believe that is going to happen (and don’t particularly care).

The evolution of MicroLED manufacturing technology will usher in a ‘second-wave’ of ‘Transmissive-like’ LCD performance where the LCD is limited to the role of pixel color determination:

-small dimming zones of 3x3 pixels or 2x2 pixels deliver only the blue-light intensity needed to create the highest peak brightness on any of the 27 or 12 subpixels within their local dimming zone

-the transmissive LCD subpixels will be controlled to modulate what % of available blue light within the local dimming zone is passed to each of the 27 or 12 subpixels within that dimming zone

-Perovskite-based QDCC will convert each subpixrls blue light input to requisite subpixel color (and if 100% of incoming blue light cannot be converted to red and green photons by the red and green QDCC, blue-blocking conventional color filters will be used to strip out the remaining blue photons to deliver >90% Rec.2020)

This is very similar to the display architecture Samsung is aiming at with NamoLED / QD-Display 2.0 with the difference that they are planning to have single-pixel dimming zones based on nanoLEDs.

But assembly of NanoLEDs remains a big unknown, while assembly of 720p or 1080p MicroLED backlights based on conventional epitaxial LEDs where blue light is throttled back to 27 or 12 subpixels within a small dimming zone of through LCD lightvalves seems like a much more conservative and near-at-hand architecture to deliver close to the same level of QDCC-based color performance with much less risk…


----------



## OLED_Overrated

fafrd said:


> This is the OLED Technology Advancements Thread, but the arrival of the BOE/Skyworth Q72 (pointed out by OLED-Overrated) is important enough to the future of OLED TV, I thought it was worth repeating here:
> 
> 
> Thanks for finding this - yes, it is the first clear proof that SuperMiniLED/LCDs (or MicroLED/LCDs, if you prefer) are coming.
> 
> From my perspective, this is not Iff Topic for this thread - MicoLED and ‘transmissive-like’ MicroLED/LCDs with Active Matrix Backlights will both be driven by the same technology trends.
> 
> The 75Q72 for $4400 throws down a gauntlet for where MicroLED/LCD is headed.
> 
> The BOE LTPS backplane is using 20,736 LEDs, likely manufactured with the pick-and-place machine they have developed with Rohinni. In fact, I did not know that BOE and Rohinni formed a joint-venture in 2020: Startup Launches Joint Venture With BOE - EE Times Asia
> 
> We unfortunately don’t know the size of these LEDs but since the peak brightness spec is almost identical to that of the iPad Pro, it’s pretty likely that they are no bigger than the 200um x 200um LEDs Apple is using.
> 
> 2304 dimming zones for a 4K display translates to 3600 4K pixels per zone, or 60-pixel x 60-pixel zones (~4 times larger than the iPads zones). So with an IPS LCD, blooming should be even worse than it was on the iPad.
> 
> It’ll be interesting to see reviews of the 75Q72 to understand whether it has a VA panel or IPS and how it performs as far as blooming.
> 
> 20,736 LEDs translates to 400 pixels per LED, or 20-pixels x 20-pixels per LED. So once effective processing power to manage 21k dimming zones becomes affordable, Skyworth will be able to reduce blooming to better-than-iPad levels without increasing cost.
> 
> Between the perovskite Quantum Dots and the LTPS Micro/MiniLED backlight, it looks to me like BOE is in stealth mode and carefully planning and executing a campaign to take over the Premium TV Market by storm.
> 
> There are a few fundamental questions about the performance of this new breed of Display as well as some major opportunities / advantages it offers:
> 
> Questions / challenges:
> 
> -blooming - how many zones are needed to achieve truly ‘near-emissive’ performance?
> 
> -uniformity - LCD has generally suffered in the uniformity department - do BOE’s QD-LCDs represent a step forward, a step backward, or Business As Usual in that department?
> 
> -off-angle performance - if the Q72 is based on QDEF and VA LCD, it should perform similar to NeoQLED/LCDs in this department. If based on QDEF and IPS LCD, it should perform better (but blooming will be worse), and if it is based on QDCC, it could deliver the same off-angle performance as QD-OLED.
> 
> Opportunities / advantages:
> 
> -QDCC - even if BOE has implemented the Perovskite Quantum Dots in film for the Q72 (QDEF), the advantages of going to QDCC, likely printed in the same manner Samsung manufactures QD-OLED, will eventually be the preferred structure. Peak brightness levels will increase by ~+200% without increasing power consumption. Optto-emissive QDCC at the outermost layer of the display will deliver QD-OLED off-angle performance. If BOE/Skyworth is nit already doing this, they are certain to live in that direction over the next several years.
> 
> -peak brightness: I’ve already explained how moving fro QDEF to QDCC could offer BIE/Skyworth a pathway to >4000 Nit peak levels without increasing power consumption, but moving to a higher-density of smaller-sized LEDs is another pathway to getting there as well. The higher-density the dimming zone count, the closer to ‘transmissive-like’ power consumption levels a MicroLED/LCD can achieve (you only consume power where I is needed for high brightness level, rather that wasting 90% of the power in large dimming zones than only required a few bright pixels…). I believe there is a good chance that MicroLED/LCD could prove to be the first display architecture to deliver 4000+ Nit peak brightness levels at Premium Consumer pricepoints.
> 
> -Cost Reduction: the Q72 s based on pick-and-place technology to manufacture the LTPS MiniLED backplane. That is serial manufacturing which is the worst-case for cost (pay more for each and every LED assembled onto the backplane). Once Laser-based mass-transfer is fully-industrialized for MicroLED manufacturing, it’s going to offer a no-added-cost way to assemble many more LEDs onto the backplane (example below).
> 
> I’ve been thinking about this vision anyway, but your pointing out the 75Q72 just makes it that much more concrete.
> 
> Let’s assume the 75Q72 delivers 1500 Nits peak based on QDCF and 200x200um LEDs.
> 
> Let’s also assume that Coherent’s optical mass-transfer machine can be scaled up from a maximum substrate size of 470mm x 370mm to the same maximum substrate size being managed by Rohini (or at least 830mm x 467mm, the size needed for a quarter 75” backplane).
> 
> The EQE of 60um blue LEDs is pretty much the same as the EQE of 200um blue LEDs, so 10 60um x 60um LEDs cost about the same as 1 200um LED today (and will cost significantly less as MicroLED manufacturing takes off).
> 
> So an LTPS backlight with 230,400 60um x 60um LEDs will have material cost that is ~110% to what BOE/Skyworth’s Q72 has today and will almost certainly have lower material cost by tomorrow.
> 
> With pick-and-place, the assembly cost of such a backlight would be ~11 times that of the Q72, but the Coherent solution is able to assemble an 8mm x 16mm in parallel.
> 
> While there are only 2 LEDs within every 8mm x 16mm zone of the 74Q72’s backlight (and so the parallelism of the Coherent Optical Transfer machine does not offer much), with 230,400 smaller LEDs, there are 28 LEDs within each 8mm x 16mm zone, meaning assembly cost will be roughly equivalent using optical transfer to what pick-and-place delivers today (at least assuming the cost of Coherent’s machine in not much more than double that of Rohini’s pick and place machine).
> 
> So in the next few years, it’s likely BOE/Skyworth will be able to manufacture a MictoLED BLU with 230,400 LEDs for no more cost than the 20,736-LED of the Q72 costs then today.
> 
> Once the processing to manage 230,400 dimming zones becomes affordable, than means 6-pixel x 6-pixel dimming zones which starts approaching Dual-LCD territory.
> 
> Oh, and because of the use of QDCC, peak brightness will be at least 4500 Nits and likely significantly higher than that due to the finer-granularity backlight (putting available power only where it is needed most).
> 
> That establishes a sort of base-offering in my estimation, but the pathway towards true ‘transmissive-like’ performance and peak brightness levels approaching 10,000 Nits is straightforward:
> 
> Moving from 230,400 LEDs to 921,600 60um x 60um LEDs will get peak brightness up to 18,000 Nits at an LED cost which is 4-times higher (but no increased manufacturing cost). That BLU will support 3-pixel x 3-pixel dimming zones, which will deliver Dual-LCD-like reference-monitor-like performance (meaning no noticeable blooming).
> 
> Because of the use of local dimming and the transmissive-like granularity, power consumption will be a small fraction of what Dual-LCD reference monitors consume today.
> 
> The processing to manage ~1million dimming zones (720p) will likely be similar to what Dual-LCDs require to manage ~2million dimming zones (1080p) so we’re likely to see reference monitor offerings if this architecture first then push into the Premium TV market once processing power catches up.
> 
> That is all predicated on 60um x 60um LEDs being the minimum that can effectively be repaired by pick-and-place. If MicroLED manufacturing develops a technology that can effectively 30um x 30um LEDs there will be no added cost for LEDs (and if repair stalls out at 45um x 45um, LED cost increase will be only +125%).
> 
> Alternatively, if yields from optical transfer are high-enough, repair may not be required and minimum LED size will be determined solely by what is required to achieve target peak brightness levels. MicroLED manufacturing is aiming for a minimum of 6-zeroes transfer yield (1 defect per 1 million LEDs) and is hoping to achieve 7-zeroes transfer yield (1 defect per 10 million transfers).
> 
> At 6-zeroes yield, there would be an average of one defect one one quarter-panel out of every 4 quarter panels manufactured (75% yield of quarter panels). That’s low enough that repair capability would be necessary.
> 
> But as 7-zeroes yield, there would only be one defective quarter panel out every 40 quarter panels manufactured (97.5% quarter-panel yield), and at that point, repair is not worth it (especially if that allows even smaller LEDs to be used).
> 
> So one way or the other, I believe it’s highly likely that the development of MicroLED and mass-transfer technology such as optical transfer are going to result in MicroLED/QD-LCD offerings priced even lower than where BOE/Skyworth’s Q72 is our Ed today and delivering specs of:
> 
> 
> ‘Transmisive-like’ performance (no blooming)
> QD-OLED-like off-axis performance
> 
> I was one of the loudest voices hoping that the emergence of WOLED would eventually lead to the demise of LCD but I no longer believe that is going to happen (and don’t particularly care).
> 
> The evolution of MicroLED manufacturing technology will usher in a ‘second-wave’ of ‘Transmissive-like’ LCD performance where the LCD is limited to the role of pixel color determination:
> 
> -small dimming zones of 3x3 pixels or 2x2 pixels deliver only the blue-light intensity needed to create the highest peak brightness on any of the 27 or 12 subpixels within their local dimming zone
> 
> -the transmissive LCD subpixels will be controlled to modulate what % of available blue light within the local dimming zone is passed to each of the 27 or 12 subpixels within that dimming zone
> 
> -Perovskite-based QDCC will convert each subpixrls blue light input to requisite subpixel color (and if 100% of incoming blue light cannot be converted to red and green photons by the red and green QDCC, blue-blocking conventional color filters will be used to strip out the remaining blue photons to deliver >90% Rec.2020)
> 
> This is very similar to the display architecture Samsung is aiming at with NamoLED / QD-Display 2.0 with the difference that they are planning to have single-pixel dimming zones based on nanoLEDs.
> 
> But assembly of NanoLEDs remains a big unknown, while assembly of 720p or 1080p MicroLED backlights based on conventional epitaxial LEDs where blue light is throttled back to 27 or 12 subpixels within a small dimming zone of through LCD lightvalves seems like a much more conservative and near-at-hand architecture to deliver close to the same level of QDCC-based color performance with much less risk…



_Questions / challenges:

-blooming - how many zones are needed to achieve truly ‘near-emissive’ performance?

-uniformity - LCD has generally suffered in the uniformity department - do BOE’s QD-LCDs represent a step forward, a step backward, or Business As Usual in that department?

-off-angle performance - if the Q72 is based on QDEF and VA LCD, it should perform similar to NeoQLED/LCDs in this department. If based on QDEF and IPS LCD, it should perform better (but blooming will be worse), and if it is based on QDCC, it could deliver the same off-angle performance as QD-OLED._










There is a video of Skyworth announcing their tvs and the BOE spokesperson claims of an "ultrawide viewing angle of 178 degrees." From the video, it also looks like full screen brightness is 600 nits, and peak brightness is 1500 nits. The peak brightness number is the same number that BOE mentioned for their chip on glass panels which is not surprising is the same.










He also claims that their chip on glass tvs should have "enhanced uniformity" as evident by the picture above. I can't read mandarin so I'm not exactly sure what the diagram on the right specifies, but the spec of "<0.5mm" is probably referring to thinness of the glass given that we know PCBs cannot get as thin as glass otherwise they start warping.










By using an active matrix, the tv should also be flicker free. This articles goes a bit more in detail about the advantages of using an active matrix or passive matrix if you're interesting about learning the main advantages of an active matrix or passive matrix.





Regarding QDEF/QDCC, we can get some more insight from Nanolumi who supplies the QDEF to Skyworth.





The Chameleon G Film used in the Skyworth tv looks to be a green perovskite/red ksf phosphor hybrid color filter. Nanolumi also claims that they're working on color converters for red and green perovskite with optical density (OD)>2 and 99% blue light absorption. by using it, they manage to achieve near 100% rec 2020 coverage.

_I was one of the loudest voices hoping that the emergence of WOLED would eventually lead to the demise of LCD but I no longer believe that is going to happen (and don’t particularly care)._
WOLED tvs arrived from LG around the early 2010s and the first miniled tvs arrived in late 2010 so WOLED is a relatively mature technology compared to miniled which can still see a lot of improvement. I personally think it is better to compare the backlight on an lcd because we know how LCDs first used CCFl and then moved to direct lit, edge lit, fald and then miniled. There's also such a thing as an lcd with an oled backlight.


----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


> _Questions / challenges:
> 
> -blooming - how many zones are needed to achieve truly ‘near-emissive’ performance?
> 
> -uniformity - LCD has generally suffered in the uniformity department - do BOE’s QD-LCDs represent a step forward, a step backward, or Business As Usual in that department?
> 
> -off-angle performance - if the Q72 is based on QDEF and VA LCD, it should perform similar to NeoQLED/LCDs in this department. If based on QDEF and IPS LCD, it should perform better (but blooming will be worse), and if it is based on QDCC, it could deliver the same off-angle performance as QD-OLED._
> 
> View attachment 3315554
> 
> 
> There is a video of Skyworth announcing their tvs and the BOE spokesperson claims of an "ultrawide viewing angle of 178 degrees." From the video, it also looks like full screen brightness is 600 nits, and peak brightness is 1500 nits. The peak brightness number is the same number that BOE mentioned for their chip on glass panels which is not surprising is the same.
> 
> 
> View attachment 3315553
> 
> He also claims that their chip on glass tvs should have "enhanced uniformity" as evident by the picture above. I can't read mandarin so I'm not exactly sure what the diagram on the right specifies, but the spec of "<0.5mm" is probably referring to thinness of the glass given that we know PCBs cannot get as thin as glass otherwise they start warping.
> 
> View attachment 3315555
> 
> 
> By using an active matrix, the tv should also be flicker free. This articles goes a bit more in detail about the advantages of using an active matrix or passive matrix if you're interesting about learning the main advantages of an active matrix or passive matrix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding QDEF/QDCC, we can get some more insight from Nanolumi who supplies the QDEF to Skyworth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chameleon G Film used in the Skyworth tv looks to be a green perovskite/red ksf phosphor hybrid color filter. Nanolumi also claims that they're working on color converters for red and green perovskite with optical density (OD)>2 and 99% blue light absorption. by using it, they manage to achieve near 100% rec 2020 coverage.
> 
> _I was one of the loudest voices hoping that the emergence of WOLED would eventually lead to the demise of LCD but I no longer believe that is going to happen (and don’t particularly care)._
> WOLED tvs arrived from LG around the early 2010s and the first miniled tvs arrived in late 2010 so WOLED is a relatively mature technology compared to miniled which can still see a lot of improvement. I personally think it is better to compare the backlight on an lcd because we know how LCDs first used CCFl and then moved to direct lit, edge lit, fald and then miniled. There's also such a thing as an lcd with an oled backlight.


That’s a lot of great additional detail but I’m thinking we’ll be better-served to unpack this and comment over in the MicroLED Technology Advancements Thread rather than here in the OLED Technology Advancements Thread.

I only reposted my earlier post here because I believe the emergence of these MicroLED/QD-LCDs are going to threaten OLED TVs future if they can’t maintain parity with both performance and cost.

The race towards a higher and higher % of BT.2020 going forward seems clear now, as does the race towards higher and higher peak brightness (currently passing 1000 Nits and setting sights on 4000 Nits, but it’s likely to blow past that and start heading towards a full 10,000 Nits of peak brightness for small HDR highlights before the end of the decade).

OLED TV will almost certainly be able to hold it’s own up to 4000 Nits (assuming High Efficiency Blue OLED emitters materialize within he next 2-3 years, as expected), but past that, it’s hard to see a clear pathway to higher peak brightness levels (or 600 Nits full-field, but I’m not sure this is a relevant).

On color gamut and getting closer to Rec.2020, use of quantum dots for sure offer an advantage over pure OLED emitters as WOLED is using, so QD-OLED should be able to keep up but it looks to be more of a challenge for WOLED.

WOLED strongest ace-up-it’s sleeve may be it’s low cost. As long as a WOLED panel costs less than the cost of a BLU delivering ‘near-transmissive’ black levels and pseudo-local
contrast, LGD should continue to find a market for the ~10 million WOLED panels it can produce annually.

But yes, winds of change have definitely started to blow in the world of Premium Display…


----------



## Wizziwig

Some interesting data on the efficiency of QD-OLED vs WOLED. I added some English labels for those who don't speak German. The 2 panels were brightness matched before the data was collected. Both are 65" panels.










Lots of example scenes and consumption data in the source video. In some cases the QD-OLED is almost 3x as efficient. WOLED wins by a small margin in cases that are predominantly grayscale with few saturated colors since it can lean more on the unfiltered white sub-pixel.


----------



## Jin-X

Wizziwig said:


> Some interesting data on the efficiency of QD-OLED vs WOLED. I added some English labels for those who don't speak German. The 2 panels were brightness matched before the data was collected.
> 
> View attachment 3316402
> 
> 
> Lots of example scenes and consumption data in the source video. In some cases the QD-OLED is almost 3x as efficient. WOLED wins by a small margin in cases that are predominantly grayscale with few saturated colors since it can lean more on the unfiltered white sub-pixel.


Wish he had done the test with a G2 to get the latest module. The 9 series is less efficient being a much older WBC panel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wizziwig

It's interesting that despite the large efficiency improvement on individual colors, the average over 35 minutes of mixed material was only 0.054 vs 0.062 kWh in favor of the QD-OLED. That's likely because the majority of his content was lower APL where the baseline system consumption of 44-49 watts contributed much more than the actual panel.

I agree a G2 probably would have closed the gap or beaten the QD-OLED slightly on the mixed usage test. QD-OLED would likely still win with animation and games which tend to be higher APL with lots of saturated colors.

After the shootout, I'm starting to see why LG will launch MLA on their 8K models first. They need it just to keep up with their own 4K models. The 88" Z2 peak luminance output in HDR was only 669 nits on 10% window compared to 882 on the 65" G2. Seems hard to believe MLA alone could elevate these results to the claimed 2000 nits at 3% APL - especially on the even tighter pixel pitch 77" prototype they demoed.


----------



## Metalane

Wizziwig said:


> It's interesting that despite the large efficiency improvement on individual colors, the average over 35 minutes of mixed material was only 0.054 vs 0.062 kWh in favor of the QD-OLED. That's likely because the majority of his content was lower APL where the baseline system consumption of 44-49 watts contributed much more than the actual panel.
> 
> I agree a G2 probably would have closed the gap or beaten the QD-OLED slightly on the mixed usage test. QD-OLED would likely still win with animation and games which tend to be higher APL with lots of saturated colors.
> 
> After the shootout, I'm starting to see why LG will launch MLA on their 8K models first. They need it just to keep up with their own 4K models. The 88" Z2 peak luminance output in HDR was only 669 nits on 10% window compared to 882 on the 65" G2. Seems hard to believe MLA alone could elevate these results to the claimed 2000 nits at 3% APL - especially on the even tighter pixel pitch 77" prototype they demoed.


I'm surprised how the close the G2 scored relative to the A95K at the shootout. But still, Sony's processing is unmatched, which js harder to objectively measure. Hopefully they keep their streak going.


----------



## MSchu18

stop nit picking... BOTH are outstanding.


----------



## Metalane

MSchu18 said:


> stop nit picking... BOTH are outstanding.


Correct. I almost wish I wasn’t so obsessed with always chasing the best lol. Which results in me (and many others obviously) being super nit-picky about all the specs and details.


----------



## fafrd

As discovered/reported by 5PLIHP, looks like JOLED and printed RGB OLED TV may be gong the way of the Dodo-bird (without ever really taking flight): News: Displays and Their Technologies


----------



## chris7191

Wizziwig said:


> It's interesting that despite the large efficiency improvement on individual colors, the average over 35 minutes of mixed material was only 0.054 vs 0.062 kWh in favor of the QD-OLED. That's likely because the majority of his content was lower APL where the baseline system consumption of 44-49 watts contributed much more than the actual panel.
> 
> I agree a G2 probably would have closed the gap or beaten the QD-OLED slightly on the mixed usage test. QD-OLED would likely still win with animation and games which tend to be higher APL with lots of saturated colors.
> 
> After the shootout, I'm starting to see why LG will launch MLA on their 8K models first. They need it just to keep up with their own 4K models. The 88" Z2 peak luminance output in HDR was only 669 nits on 10% window compared to 882 on the 65" G2. Seems hard to believe MLA alone could elevate these results to the claimed 2000 nits at 3% APL - especially on the even tighter pixel pitch 77" prototype they demoed.


As you mentioned, it has to be looked at broadly because different power supply designs and the quality of switch devices can heavily influence that measurement. I would assume that similarly sized and priced sets are broadly similar but there could always be someone going cheap or another vendor using GaN switching and fancier control.


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung Display and LG Display developing OLEDoS and LEDoS techs 








Samsung Display and LG Display developing OLEDoS and LEDoS techs


Samsung Display and LG Display were both developing OLED on silicon (OLEDoS) and LED on silicon (LEDoS) technologies, TheElec has learned.These microdisplay technologies are aimed to be applied to virtual and augmented reality devices.A similar technology to these is liquid crystal on silicon, and t




thelec.net


----------



## Metalane

What do we think of this recent self-emmisive display type unveiled last year, coined as NanoLED? It seems very similar to QDEL. Could it be the holy-grail, beyond MicroLED?









What is NanoLED and why should you care?


Another display tech on the horizon, this one promising big things for a wide range of devices




www.entechtainment.today


----------



## fafrd

Metalane said:


> What do we think of this recent self-emmisive display type unveiled last year, coined as NanoLED? It seems very similar to QDEL. Could it be the holy-grail, beyond MicroLED?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is NanoLED and why should you care?
> 
> 
> Another display tech on the horizon, this one promising big things for a wide range of devices
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.entechtainment.today


this is just a creative rebranding of QDEL. If an electrically excited quantum dot is a namoled (with no diode really involved), then why isn’t an OLED also a ‘NanoLED?’

MicroLED got a lot of good press/visibility, as did Quantum NanoLED behind it (the QNED originally thought up by Samsung (for their array of true nanowire-based NanoLEDs assembled onto each pixel that got stolen by LGD for their (pedestrian) MiniLED/QD-LCDs).

QDEL just wasn’t getting much buzz (along with the fact that it is now old news), so Nanosys had to come up with a more exciting moniker.

NanoLED is nothing new and more importantly, neither is this:

‘While the elements of the quantum dots responsible for the green and red percentages of displayed colors are working as intended, *the blue element is not*, so enough progress has to be made during the next two years before the first fully operational NanoLED panels are manufactured. That is why *Nanosys is not expecting commercially available NanoLED televisions before 2025.*
When they do appear, NanoLED TVs will not be exorbitantly priced - but they will have to be able to offer what they promise first.’

You can search for QDEL in this thread and I believe you will see posts stating ‘in two to three years’ because more progress is needed with blue QDEL going back at least 2 years if not 3…

IJP RGB OLED was another promising contender help up by blue lifetime and poor yield, and we just learned recently that JOLED is closing it down after selling 32” IJP monitors for over a year.

So QDEL / NanoLED will be great once it has actually materialized, but that remains far from certain,.. (cost-effective MicroLED TVs before the end of this decade seem far more certain).


----------



## Metalane

fafrd said:


> this is just a creative rebranding of QDEL. If an electrically excited quantum dot is a namoled (with no diode really involved), then why isn’t an OLED also a ‘NanoLED?’
> 
> MicroLED got a lot of good press/visibility, as did Quantum NanoLED behind it (the QNED originally thought up by Samsung (for their array of true nanowire-based NanoLEDs assembled onto each pixel that got stolen by LGD for their (pedestrian) MiniLED/QD-LCDs).
> 
> QDEL just wasn’t getting much buzz (along with the fact that it is now old news), so Nanosys had to come up with a more exciting moniker.


I see, yeah, that's what it felt like honeslty. 


fafrd said:


> NanoLED is nothing new and more importantly, neither is this:
> 
> ‘While the elements of the quantum dots responsible for the green and red percentages of displayed colors are working as intended, *the blue element is not*, so enough progress has to be made during the next two years before the first fully operational NanoLED panels are manufactured. That is why *Nanosys is not expecting commercially available NanoLED televisions before 2025.*
> When they do appear, NanoLED TVs will not be exorbitantly priced - but they will have to be able to offer what they promise first.’
> 
> You can search for QDEL in this thread and I believe you will see posts stating ‘in two to three years’ because more progress is needed with blue QDEL going back at least 2 years if not 3…


Hmm, so perhaps QDEL will arrive in tandem with MicroLED on the market in the middle-late this decade, and those will be the two competing premium tech, while QDOLED will be resorted to sub-premium, with WOLED and conventional LED for the ultra-low end. Am I too optimistic? That mean we would transition between like 4 different panels types (WOLED, QDOLED, MicroLED, QDEL) in one decade. 



fafrd said:


> cost-effective MicroLED TVs before the end of this decade seem far more certain).


----------



## OLED_Overrated

영우디에스피, 삼성디스플레이와 검사장비 공급계약


디스플레이 검사장비가 주력인 영우디에스피가 삼성디스플레이와 유기발광다이오드(OLED) 검사장비 공급계약을 체결했다고 2일 밝혔다.영우디에스피가 이번에 공급하는 장비는 삼성디스플레이 국내 생산라인에 반입될 예정이다. 계약 종료일은 11월 17일이다. 계약금액은 공개되지 않았다.영우디에스피는 "삼성디스플레이에 OLED 셀과 모듈, 패널 불량 여부를 판별하는 검사장비를 공급한다"고 설명했다. 이어 "비전 알고리즘과 인공지능(AI) 검사기술이 적용돼 검사공정 자동화와 불량품 검출 품질 향상을 기대할 수 있다"고 덧붙였다.영우디에스피는 "O




www.thelec.kr




_Youngwoo DSP said, "The demand for display inspection equipment will also increase according to the OLED transition. We will expand the scope of inspection equipment to QNED),” he said._


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> IJP RGB OLED was another promising contender help up by blue lifetime and poor yield, and we just learned recently that JOLED is closing it down after selling 32” IJP monitors for over a year.


Just a note- CSOT (TCL) has access to the JOLED IP I think, per the recent article, and much deeper pockets. I'm not saying they will be successful, but they may continue to give it a try even if JOLED is belly up.


----------



## 59LIHP

Youngwoo DSP to supply Samsung Display with OLED inspection equipment 








Youngwoo DSP to supply Samsung Display with OLED inspection equipment


Youngwoo DSP said on Tuesday that it has signed a contract with Samsung Display for inspection equipment used in OLED panel production.The company didn’t reveal the size of the deal but said the kits will be used to check for defects in OLED cells, modules and panels in a production line located in




thelec.net


----------



## JJ1156

UDC will be opening the new plant in Shannon Ireland, in June. Good sign a new blue is still on track for commercialization in late 2023/2024.

From last week's UDC CC:

Chris Green

Sure. And just with the Shannon facility coming online, in June, do you expect any impact on gross margin in the near term, whether it's a drag as it ramps up? How are you thinking about that?

Sid Rosenblatt

Well, I, we believe that the standard facility is really going to help us as expand our capacity by doubling our capacity. And we think it's going to be a very cost-effective facility when it's up and running. There's obviously startup costs that you have to deal with, but I don't expect this to have any impact that would be noticeable.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> Just a note- CSOT (TCL) has access to the JOLED IP I think, per the recent article, and much deeper pockets. I'm not saying they will be successful, but they may continue to give it a try even if JOLED is belly up.


You can find a couple interesting tidbits from the recent report from DSCC in this post: News: Displays and Their Technologies

Unfortunately I’m unable to copy and paste the 3rd chart here, but is estimated cost of IJP RGB OLED in China (presumably meaning CSOT) and shows that declining amortization costs for WOLED mean cost will reach parity by 2025 and WOLED will be cheaper by 2026.

Since this forecast is assuming no yield issues such as those that killed JOLED after years of efforts, it has to be considered a best-case scenario.

50/50 odds of succeeding to introduce a new panel technology that is no cheaper than the competition and entails significant risk?

Perhaps, but just introducing your own WOLED as BIE chose to do seems more prudent…

And the other interesting thing in that chart and DSCC’s analysis in general is their conclusion that WOLED will be enjoying cost reductions of ~9% over the coming 3-4 years due to declining amortization and reaching a fully-amortized basis.

By having had the confidence to invest in capacity ramp first, LGD / WOLED will now be in a position of relative strength.

New entrants are likely to unseat WOLED from its perch atop the Premium Display pyramid, but it’s going to dominate the lower tiers and be with us for many years to come…

This is a DSCC chart on Advanced TV market in the US and in 2021 broken down by price:










The interesting thing to note is that there is very little volume at $3000 and above where LG has no share.

LG dominates the still-relatively-low-volume &2000-3000 band and it the clear volume leader in the $1500-2000 band where volumes first approach 1 million units.

LG has their highest volume of shipments in the $1000-1500 band where total volumes are highest and they slip into second place behind Samsung.

And then LG has no share at all in the second-highest $500-1000 band, where Samsung has the highest volume of shipments ;likely from entry-level QLED/LCDs).

Between the 9% cost reductions DSCC is forecasting amplified by introduction of the new 42” WOLED panel size, I think we’re going to see orange bleeding into that $500-1000 band and growing over the next few years, even if LG/WOLED’s dominance in the $2000-3000 band slips away…


----------



## Arese

Hey everyone, posting here because my question pertains to QD-OLED technology and not to a specific TV but with the release of the 2 first QD-OLED TVs this year I've been reading reports of increased black levels in bright rooms. Also, I read that QD-OLED screens are grey when turned off, unlike WOLED TVs which are completely black.

I was just curious if there were any photos circulating on the forum that illustrates these 2 points. The reviews I have watched didn't "show" how these 2 above points looked like in real life so I was just curious if I could see it by myself?

Not criticizing the technology, I think it's a great evolution but was just curious about the above points. If anyone had a relevant picture to share it would be appreciated


----------



## hotskins

The Samsung S95B handles direct reflections incredibly well, but there are some flaws. Due to the lack of a polarizer, if you're in a room with any ambient lighting, the TV has a pink tint to it even when it's off. Bright lights are still distracting in a bright room, but it cuts the mirror effect slightly better than the LG G2 OLED. On the other hand, blacks look much better on the G2 when you're in a room with any ambient light.


----------



## JasonHa

@Arese you might want to check out the two owner's threads. One for the Samsung QD OLED and the other for the Sony. The forum allows you to search within one thread for keywords, so there is probably plenty of discussion in those threads.









Samsung 4K S95B QD OLED Owner's Thread (No Price Talk)


Welcome to the official 2022 Samsung S95B QD OLED Owners Thread! See second post for extra info from S95B owners that may be helpful. My order is in! My first OLED TV! Details & Specifications: Neural Quantum Processor with 4K Upscaling 100% Colour Volume with Quantum Dot Corning’s Astra...




www.avsforum.com













2022 Sony Bravia XR Master Series A95K QD-OLED...


Surprise!!!! Settings and evaluation notes are coming soon.




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Arese

Ok I'll try there, thanks guys


----------



## 59LIHP

Samsung Display, 'QD-OLED will become a new standard in the display industry' 








News: Displays and Their Technologies


LG Display President Ho-Young Jung “The third quarter is also difficult”… Expect a reversal in the fourth quarter https://biz.chosun.com/it-science/ict/2022/08/10/AOC3QZ7IQNALJKU5MQGP4G5HVM/




www.avsforum.com


----------



## 59LIHP

“Samsung Electronics is likely to purchase large OLEDs from LG Display at the end of the year”








News: Displays and Their Technologies


LG Display President Ho-Young Jung “The third quarter is also difficult”… Expect a reversal in the fourth quarter https://biz.chosun.com/it-science/ict/2022/08/10/AOC3QZ7IQNALJKU5MQGP4G5HVM/




www.avsforum.com


----------



## wco81

Big sale on the Samsung QD-OLED, almost 25% off.

Not a penny off the Sony QD-OLED though.

Bad reviews and word of mouth on the Samsung?


----------



## fafrd

wco81 said:


> Big sale on the Samsung QD-OLED, almost 25% off.
> 
> Not a penny off the Sony QD-OLED though.
> 
> Bad reviews and word of mouth on the Samsung?


It’s all about volume.

Sony purchased a small amount of QD-OLED panels from Samsung Display and has a target sales plan. As long as their A95K sales are achieving plan. they have no incentive to lower price.

All the remaining QD-OLRD panels Samsung Display is producing are going to Samsung Electronics. Especially if production volumes are increasing due to improving yields, Samsung Display is probably not selling as many QD-OLED TVs as it needs to keep up with supply.

When supply outpaces demand, pricing discounts are the usual resilt…


----------



## Metalane

What applications could this new potential discovery have for color accuracy? The article doesn't go in depth, but I wonder if anyone else here has any input.



https://discover.lanl.gov/news/0810-color-perception


----------



## VA_DaveB

fafrd said:


> It’s all about volume.


Plus the usual "Sony Tax".


----------



## circumstances

So what are we calling the "good" QNED now? (The type Samsung was working on, not the LG nonsense).


----------



## Moravid

Two-stack Tandem OLED device


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Highly efficient blue InGaN nanoscale light-emitting diodes - Nature


Using a solâ€“gel passivation method, the fabrication of blue InGaN nanorod-LEDs with the highest external quantum efficiency value ever reported for LEDs in the nanoscale is demonstrated.




www.nature.com




Recent paper co authored by Samsung on developing highly efficient nanorod leds with 20% eqe.


----------



## johnsutter71

I have an 8K 65" Samsung QN800A, 8K 75" Samsung QN800B, and a 65" Samsung S95B OLED. All 3 are calibrated and although the Samsung OLED does have a noticeable difference in blackness all 3 TV's show amazing results. Even though my 8K TVs are QD-LED they don't look any less amazing then the 4K QD-OLED. Over the years I have owned Sony 1080p tube & LCD, Toshiba DLP, Panasonic and Samsung plasma, LG and Samsung 4K LED, and now Samsung 8K QD-LED and 4K QD-OLED. the Samsung 8K and OLED TV's have the best picture I have ever seen.

First high deff TV bought from Circuit City in 2001. Sony 53" for $5000


----------



## mrtickleuk

Moravid said:


> Two-stack Tandem OLED device


I can answer the question in the thumbnail - will it be mass produced? "No"!


----------



## Moravid

You don't believe Apple will source it for their iPads? rumours have been circulating for months now about this


----------



## fafrd

Moravid said:


> You don't believe Apple will source it for their iPads? rumours have been circulating for months now about this


I think he assumed the question was regarding TVs…


----------



## Wizziwig

Wizziwig said:


> Some interesting data on the efficiency of QD-OLED vs WOLED. I added some English labels for those who don't speak German. The 2 panels were brightness matched before the data was collected. Both are 65" panels.
> 
> View attachment 3316402
> 
> 
> Lots of example scenes and consumption data in the source video. In some cases the QD-OLED is almost 3x as efficient. WOLED wins by a small margin in cases that are predominantly grayscale with few saturated colors since it can lean more on the unfiltered white sub-pixel.


Part 2 of the power consumption comparison I quoted above. This time comparing smaller 55" Sony A80J WOLED against 55" Samsung QN95B QLED mini-led LCD. The 65" panels in previous comparison had 40% more screen area. Both panels calibrated to 100 nits. Looks like baseline system power consumption when not emitting any light is exactly the same as the 65" OLEDs (Samsung S95B and LG E9) in last comparison. As expected, consumption is similar with darker content. With brightness maxed out, displaying full-screen white, QLED reached 650 nits/169 watts vs 160 nits/158 watts for the WOLED.


----------



## 8mile13

Lee Jae-Yong, vice chairman of Samsung Electronics who oversees the whole business, has been granted a special pardon allowing him greater freedom to run Samsung. As a key proponent of Samsung’s U-turn on OLED technology, Lee is said to be heavily vested in the venture’s success and has visited Samsung Display’s QD-OLED plant on multiple occasions.


----------



## fafrd

This is from January, so it’s already been posted, my apologies.

But I had not seen this before: TCL CSoT is deploying new OLED technologies at its production lines, including LTPO, micro lens and polarizer-free OLEDs | OLED-Info

‘The second technology is MPL, or *Micro-Lens Panel*. Using photolithography , TCL adds a micro lens array on top of the OLED panel, to increase light output. TCL says that its MPL panels offer an increase in power consumption (by increasing brightness) by 10-15%. Combined with LTPO, the technology can achieve power consumption improvement of about 30%.

The third technology is *polarizer-free OLED *(or PLP, Polarizer-Less Panel). TCL syas that its PLP panels reduce the thickness of the OLED panel by 20%, and improve light output by around 30%.’


----------



## 59LIHP

fafrd said:


> This is from January, so it’s already been posted, my apologies.


Published in June and not in January...








News: Displays and Their Technologies


Samsung starts selling its 110-inch microLED TV in China, and already sold out the first batch https://www.microled-info.com/samsung-starts-selling-its-110-inch-microled-tv-china-and-already-sold-out-first




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Wizziwig

Another power consumption test was linked from another thread a few days ago. 65" A90J WOLED vs 65" A95K QD-OLED. I assume most of the non-panel components are exactly the same. Not sure if he calibrated or brightness matched them for this comparison. Skip to time offset 2:50 for the measurements. I had no idea a 65" WOLED could hit 470 Watts! That's plasma territory (but WOLED being much brighter). No wonder Sony stuck a heat sink to it.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Wizziwig said:


> Another power consumption test was linked from another thread a few days ago. 65" A90J WOLED vs 65" A95K QD-OLED. I assume most of the non-panel components are exactly the same. Not sure if he calibrated or brightness matched them for this comparison. Skip to time offset 2:50 for the measurements. I had no idea a 65" WOLED could hit 470 Watts! That's plasma territory (but WOLED being much brighter). No wonder Sony stuck a heat sink to it.


Results don't seem surprising to me. WOLED will do worse than QDOLED because it uses conventional color filter which should filter a lot more light. WOLED/QDOLED generally drains a lot more power than miniled-lcd because the leds used in miniled-lcd have a much higher EQE >75% compared to 20% for the oleds used in tvs.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Bright blue nanoscale LEDs for next-generation displays


Solving a long-standing brightness problem with microscopic LEDs.




www.nature.com





This is a summarized version of the article I posted before, and the issues highlighted in this article about making a qned display is what I predicted as a problem for qned in a comment I made a month or two ago. According to people who had seen qned in person, its peak brightness for small specular highlights was brighter than qdoled but its full screen brightness was only marginally better than oled, around 300 nits full screen which is worse than miniled-lcds that can do 600-700 nits full screen. Why is full screen brightness for qned much worse than miniled-lcd? As alluded to in the article, the eqe of leds around 1 to 2 microns in length/diameter that are used in qned would be around 2-3% which is way worse than current oled tvs and it very likely would have worse power consumption than qdoled and possibly even worse than a plasma tv. At least 20% eqe is the industry standard to achieve a display with okay energy efficiency which qned apparently failed to reached and it's the most likely reason why the qned pilot production line was postponed. In fact, the author explicitly states they struggled to make a viable qned display because of energy efficiency issues: _"We were developing a cost-effective method of fabricating displays using the electric-field-assisted alignment of inkjet-printed, rod-shaped, nanoscale LEDs. However, we faced a problem regarding the size-dependent external quantum efficiency of these LEDs..." _The energy efficiency issue of nanoleds would have also limited the amount of leds that can be inkjet printed into each subpixel which would have made it hard to optimize the yield rates.


----------



## Ted99

Once one reaches 300 nits full-field brightness, is it "enough"? I read many comments from QLED owners that they have reduced the display brightness because "it's too bright". Of course, brighter is better, but if there are other advantages; how bright is "bright enough" in the full-field?


----------



## jl4069

Ted99 said:


> Once one reaches 300 nits full-field brightness, is it "enough"? I read many comments from QLED owners that they have reduced the display brightness because "it's too bright". Of course, brighter is better, but if there are other advantages; how bright is "bright enough" in the full-field?


I think your question is good. In the recent shootout thread I brought up a question around just what should be a reference for full field brightness in a dark room, and I was summarily told that it must be 100 nits. I pushed back a little on that, and I was told something about how the human eye needs to readjust, and that even a little extra brightness can diminish the eyes abilty to perceive elements of the picture. I'm thinking that it is likely that many owners of many types of screens likely watch them at rather higher full frame nit values than 100. And it almost goes without saying that many feel that 400 and 500 full field nit numbers in a dimly lit room are much appreciated. Perhaps there needs to be a rewriting of what various references numbers should be in regard to full field brightness in x lighting conditions. j


----------



## mrtickleuk

jl4069 said:


> I think your question is good. In the recent shootout thread I brought up a question around just what should be a reference for full field brightness in a dark room, and I was summarily told that it must be 100 nits.


That's because the reference for SDR *is *100 nits.



> I pushed back a little on that, and I was told something about how the human eye needs to readjust, and that even a little extra brightness can diminish the eyes abilty to perceive elements of the picture.


That's correct.



> Perhaps there needs to be a rewriting of what various references numbers should be in regard to full field brightness in x lighting conditions. j


I don't agree, since the human eye isn't going to re-write how it behaves. 

Of course, people are free to ignore this and crank up their brightness in some "nit-wars" thing, and you will lose detail. That's not any reason to change the standards.


----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


> Bright blue nanoscale LEDs for next-generation displays
> 
> 
> Solving a long-standing brightness problem with microscopic LEDs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nature.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a summarized version of the article I posted before, and the issues highlighted in this article about making a qned display is what I predicted as a problem for qned in a comment I made a month or two ago. According to people who had seen qned in person, its peak brightness for small specular highlights was brighter than qdoled but its full screen brightness was only marginally better than oled, around 300 nits full screen which is worse than miniled-lcds that can do 600-700 nits full screen. Why is full screen brightness for qned much worse than miniled-lcd? As alluded to in the article, the eqe of leds around 1 to 2 microns in length/diameter that are used in qned would be around 2-3% which is way worse than current oled tvs and it very likely would have worse power consumption than qdoled and possibly even worse than a plasma tv. At least 20% eqe is the industry standard to achieve a display with okay energy efficiency which qned apparently failed to reached and it's the most likely reason why the qned pilot production line was postponed. In fact, the author explicitly states they struggled to make a viable qned display because of energy efficiency issues: _"We were developing a cost-effective method of fabricating displays using the electric-field-assisted alignment of inkjet-printed, rod-shaped, nanoscale LEDs. However, we faced a problem regarding the size-dependent external quantum efficiency of these LEDs..." _The energy efficiency issue of nanoleds would have also limited the amount of leds that can be inkjet printed into each subpixel which would have made it hard to optimize the yield rates.


The graph you included in the earlier post indicated 0.5um LEDs with EQE of ~20%, so I’m not understanding - is this article indicating that insufficient EQE of nanoLEDs was what killed/delayed Samsung’s QNED initiative while the earlier paper indicates that Samsung has found a way to manufacture improved NanoLEDs that overcomes this limitation?


----------



## jl4069

mrtickleuk said:


> That's because the reference for SDR *is *100 nits.


I understand that the reference SDR is 100 nits, I was implying (forgive me that i did not more explicitly say this) as to whether there has been definitive or very conclusive studies about this. I was also asking if in daily use anyone is actually finding visual issues with say 150 or 200 nit full field viewing, or if the majority of viewers are very comfortable with 150 or 200 nit brightness. As well I was also pointing out that maybe someone needs to do tests for merely dimmly lit rooms, as such environments may need more light than current reference standards state, indeed is there a reference standard for a dimly lit room? Indeed if anyone has links to papers on this topic I would appreciate the links. J


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> The graph you included in the earlier post indicated 0.5um LEDs with EQE of ~20%, so I’m not understanding - is this article indicating that insufficient EQE of nanoLEDs was what killed/delayed Samsung’s QNED initiative while the earlier paper indicates that Samsung has found a way to manufacture improved NanoLEDs that overcomes this limitation?


I interpreted the author's comment in the summary paper to indicate that in addition to the electric field assisted alignment issues they also had the EQE problem. So, I also wonder if both contributed to the delay, or one issue dominated. If they were showing EQE of 20% likely around the 2021 new year (paper was submitted Sept 2021), it might suggest that the alignment issue dominated the decision. The _Nature _editor indicated the the solgel passivation process is a 'simple process' but I have no experience on that, so is it easy to add to a mfg process? In any case, the work and the paper were completed some time ago.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

jl4069 said:


> I understand that the reference SDR is 100 nits, I was implying (forgive me that i did not more explicitly say this) as to whether there has been definitive or very conclusive studies about this. I was also asking if in daily use anyone is actually finding visual issues with say 150 or 200 nit full field viewing, or if the majority of viewers are very comfortable with 150 or 200 nit brightness. As well I was also pointing out that maybe someone needs to do tests for merely dimmly lit rooms, as such environments may need more light than current reference standards state, indeed is there a reference standard for a dimly lit room? Indeed if anyone has links to papers on this topic I would appreciate the links. J


Some people say it hurts their eyes or damages their eyes at a certain nit. According to this article on eye color, "_Scientifically, yes lighter colored eyes are more sensitive to bright lights and the sun because a lighter color iris allows more light to pass into the retina of the eye. Lighter color eyes such as blue or light green are intact missing a pigment called melanin or have much less of it than a darker brown or hazel eye._" Perhaps most people complaining about tvs being too bright or painful have light colored eyes. My eye color is black and I personally have no discomfort viewing a 650 nits full screen image in the dark. 

The claims that displays with 4000+ nits are too bright also don't really make sense. The sun can shine at over 1 billion nits and when you go outside on a sunny day, the grey concrete can reflect back at your eyes at 10k nits. Car dashboards can shine at 2000 nits to make it legible when there's a lot of sunlight. So I guess it's also dependent on your viewing conditions and if you watch in a pitch black room; some people will have a harder time to adjust to the high contrast between the low ambient light of the surroundings and the brighter display.

I'm also pretty sure 100 nits is the standard for sdr only because most displays in the past were not capable of >100 nits full screen brightness.


----------



## JasonHa

Part 2


----------



## jl4069

OLED_Overrated said:


> Some people say it hurts their eyes or damages their eyes at a certain nit. According to this article on eye color, "_Scientifically, yes lighter colored eyes are more sensitive to bright lights and the sun because a lighter color iris allows more light to pass into the retina of the eye. Lighter color eyes such as blue or light green are intact missing a pigment called melanin or have much less of it than a darker brown or hazel eye._" Perhaps most people complaining about tvs being too bright or painful have light colored eyes. My eye color is black and I personally have no discomfort viewing a 650 nits full screen image in the dark.
> 
> The claims that displays with 4000+ nits are too bright also don't really make sense. The sun can shine at over 1 billion nits and when you go outside on a sunny day, the grey concrete can reflect back at your eyes at 10k nits. Car dashboards can shine at 2000 nits to make it legible when there's a lot of sunlight. So I guess it's also dependent on your viewing conditions and if you watch in a pitch black room; some people will have a harder time to adjust to the high contrast between the low ambient light of the surroundings and the brighter display.
> 
> I'm also pretty sure 100 nits is the standard for sdr only because most displays in the past were not capable of >100 nits full screen brightness.


Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. I had a feeling there was more to this. I kind of figured there was really no there...there, when it comes to scientifically or empirically testing/ creating these brightness "references". Maybe there are papers and studies I have yet to see on these topics, but I tend to agree with you; that many videophiles seem far from convinced that we have all the answers as yet when it comes to brightness for one. As well I can understand that eyes will react rather differently to small portions or points of brightness in a given scene, and as well will react differently to shorter bouts of light compared to constant full field light levels. j


----------



## 8mile13

QD OLED what Palomaki ''believes''.


----------



## Jin-X

jl4069 said:


> Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. I had a feeling there was more to this. I kind of figured there was really no there...there, when it comes to scientifically or empirically testing/ creating these brightness "references". Maybe there are papers and studies I have yet to see on these topics, but I tend to agree with you; that many videophiles seem far from convinced that we have all the answers as yet when it comes to brightness for one. As well I can understand that eyes will react rather differently to small portions or points of brightness in a given scene, and as well will react differently to shorter bouts of light compared to constant full field light levels. j


I think you keep confusing SDR with HDR. SDR reference is 100 nits whether the standard was created for technical limitations or not, that is what it was created at, graded at, mastered at and it’s what’s in the content. Part of the reason HDR was made is that some displays had more capability than this that could be used, and for HDR the reference level is whatever the content says it is and the way it communicates that to the display is through the EOTF/PQ curve which is an absolute curve (you are either following it and thus being accurate or the tv is simply being inaccurate) where as SDR gamma was more relative to the light in the room (this is why you may have heard to use SDR for bright room viewing, as HDR makes no concessions for lit environments and is meant for dark room only).

So if you want a literal version of what a fully reference display would be in HDR it would be a display that can do 0 black, 10k nits full field with 100% Rec 2020 at 100% color volume and with very low errors in greyscale and full color range (de under 1) with proper 10 bit gradation and no out of black issues. 

In practical terms though no such display exists, and most movies mostly operate in SDR range for brightness save for those select moments for HDR specular highlights or high APL scenes, which some movies don’t even have at all. This is why a lot of ppl struggle with viewing HDR and say it looks dim, because it’s operating in that SDR brightness range but you can’t just switch to a brighter gamma or up the “OLED light” to compensate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

8mile13 said:


> QD OLED what Palomaki ''believes''.
> 
> View attachment 3321608


It’s pretty much confirmation that there is a green OLED emission layer in the stack (confirming different SPDs for green when the QDCC is excited by a separate blue light source versus from the QD-OLED TV itself.

In case anyone has a way to get a message to him for part 3, here is another test he ought to be able to perform: Compare red versus green output intensity when excited by the same blue light intensity versus the same comparison when emitting peak red versus peak green from the TV itself.

I’d there is a green OLED emitter in the stack, it’s presence is driven by the fact that green QDCC output driven by blue OLED was insufficient to reach required output levels.

If he discovers he needs to excite with much higher blue light intensity to achieve peak QD-OLED green output levels compared to the blue light intensity needed to achieve peak QD-OLED red output levels, that would pretty much be definitive proof that there is another source of green photons in the QD-OLED TV other than just the green QDCC…


----------



## JasonHa

@fafrd He has this contact information on his website  






Contact - Palomaki Consulting


Contact Please feel free to contact me about all things quantum dot related. I would love to hear about your technology or ideas and see how I can help. Or simply nerd-out on QD technology. Social Media @nanopalomaki Peter Palomaki – LinkedIn Email [email protected] Address Billerica...



palomakiconsulting.com


----------



## Wizziwig

OLED_Overrated said:


> Results don't seem surprising to me. *WOLED will do worse than QDOLED because it uses conventional color filter *which should filter a lot more light. WOLED/QDOLED generally drains a lot more power than miniled-lcd because the leds used in miniled-lcd have a much higher EQE >75% compared to 20% for the oleds used in tvs.


Some people claim QD-OLEDs also use conventional R,G,B color filters as in the linked S95B teardown a few posts back. Yet it's 3x more efficient in R/G, and 2x more efficient in blue than WOLED. Seems like the supposed "green" emitter would waste energy generating green light that is thrown away on the filtered red/blue sub-pixels.


----------



## Wizziwig

mrtickleuk said:


> That's because the reference for SDR *is *100 nits.
> 
> Of course, people are free to ignore this and crank up their brightness in some "nit-wars" thing, and you will lose detail. That's not any reason to change the standards.


Define "reference". 100 nits is only a suggestion for dark room viewing of SDR.

With ambient light present, you adjust to taste because it's a relative standard that still works perfectly fine at any other peak luminance value. Your eye compensates for ambient conditions and it all ends up looking the same.

HDR is kind of an ill-conceived standard for home use. 99% of people do not watch TV in the dark so having an absolute luminance forced on them is never going to produce as satisfying an image as properly adjusted SDR. From the get-go, the standard should have included some description on how to convert this signal for watching with ambient lighting. It could have even been automated since most TVs have light sensors. Since they didn't bother, every manufacturer came up with their own tone mapping and light sensor implementations.

As for full-screen luminance. The Matrix movies all had scenes in the "white room" that pushed 800+ nits over everything but the letterbox bars (source). Nobody went blind because our eyes easily cope with much higher values every time we walk outside during the day or look out the window. If TVs are ever going to reproduce the "looking through a window" effect, they need to get much, much, brighter than even 10,000 nits but they had to pick some smaller number that they thought could be achievable, just as with the 2020 gamut.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Wizziwig said:


> Define "reference".


The standards at which the content is mastered.



Wizziwig said:


> 100 nits is only a suggestion for dark room viewing of SDR.


Yes, for people who want to view content at home as intended, it makes sense (and is their goal) that they will match their environment to the mastering environment as closely as possible.

Of course, people are free to ignore this and crank up their brightness if their wish to.


----------



## Jin-X

Wizziwig said:


> Define "reference". 100 nits is only a suggestion for dark room viewing of SDR.
> 
> With ambient light present, you adjust to taste because it's a relative standard that still works perfectly fine at any other peak luminance value. Your eye compensates for ambient conditions and it all ends up looking the same.
> 
> HDR is kind of an ill-conceived standard for home use. 99% of people do not watch TV in the dark so having an absolute luminance forced on them is never going to produce as satisfying an image as properly adjusted SDR. From the get-go, the standard should have included some description on how to convert this signal for watching with ambient lighting. It could have even been automated since most TVs have light sensors. Since they didn't bother, every manufacturer came up with their own tone mapping and light sensor implementations.
> 
> As for full-screen luminance. The Matrix movies all had scenes in the "white room" that pushed 800+ nits over everything but the letterbox bars (source). Nobody went blind because our eyes easily cope with much higher values every time we walk outside during the day or look out the window. If TVs are ever going to reproduce the "looking through a window" effect, they need to get much, much, brighter than even 10,000 nits but they had to pick some smaller number that they thought could be achievable, just as with the 2020 gamut.


The Matrix white room is a terrible example because that thing was blinding even on an OLED where it’s being ABLed down to 200 nits or lower. Your eyes aren’t ready for it because everything preceding it has been dark scenes for a while, so that sudden shift is painful and makes me have to cover my eyes when it happens, and that’s been the case with others I’ve seen the scene with. I can’t imagine how much worse it is on a high end LCD if you are watching it in a dark room and you get blasted with 800nit white out of nowhere. It’s literally my go to example for how a much lower luminance over a much larger window size is much more bothersome to the eyes than a high luminance specular highlight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JasonHa

fafrd said:


> In case anyone has a way to get a message to him for part 3…


YouTube user adonisds posted your question in the YouTube comments for the video.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Wizziwig said:


> Define "reference". 100 nits is only a suggestion for dark room viewing of SDR.
> 
> With ambient light present, you adjust to taste because it's a relative standard that still works perfectly fine at any other peak luminance value. Your eye compensates for ambient conditions and it all ends up looking the same.
> 
> HDR is kind of an ill-conceived standard for home use. 99% of people do not watch TV in the dark so having an absolute luminance forced on them is never going to produce as satisfying an image as properly adjusted SDR. From the get-go, the standard should have included some description on how to convert this signal for watching with ambient lighting. It could have even been automated since most TVs have light sensors. Since they didn't bother, every manufacturer came up with their own tone mapping and light sensor implementations.
> 
> As for full-screen luminance. The Matrix movies all had scenes in the "white room" that pushed 800+ nits over everything but the letterbox bars (source). Nobody went blind because our eyes easily cope with much higher values every time we walk outside during the day or look out the window. If TVs are ever going to reproduce the "looking through a window" effect, they need to get much, much, brighter than even 10,000 nits but they had to pick some smaller number that they thought could be achievable, just as with the 2020 gamut.


For maximum full screen luminance, to some extent I think we are all analogously arguing about the best brand of motor oil for our car while not indicating whether we live in Antarctica, race on the track every weekend, or sit in traffic for hours every day.

Maximum full screen luminance should indeed be 10K nits (or higher!) someday per the seminal Dolby paper from 2013, _Preference limits of the visual dynamic range for ultra-high quality and aesthetic conveyance. _ They set up perhaps almost the perfect experiment (to my limited intelligence) and answered perhaps all my “yeah, but what about….” questions (golf clap). I was concerned about use of static images instead of video, but they simulated video eye adjustments to changing scenes (J. H. Van Hateren, 2005) with inter-stimulus and inter-trial adapting image fields between test images (I’d like to understand more – was that not really representative?). Their image equipment design was way cool to go from 0.001 nits to 20K nits back in 2013. I downloaded the paper from SPIE with my membership but won’t post the PDF here because of that. Look it up if you haven’t already, it’s a great read.

The most obvious limitation that I saw was the size of the imaging screen, 42” (dual-cell LCD), and how that would NOT throw as much light out to up the ambient light level and therefore raise the ACR, vs a big TV or new digital cinema screen (see Display Daily article on the topic – conclusion: ~200 nits is a good APL).Can a Display Be Too Bright? (displaydaily.com) 

The Dolby paper indicates that viewers prefer diffuse white levels between 3-4K nits for high whiteness scenes (glacier image), EVEN WITH the eye adaptation factored in via appropriate inter-field images. That’s the part I have a hard time with, honestly. If a movie goes from showing someone in a dark cave next to a glacier for a 1 minute scene at an effective APL of say 50-100 nits, then walking out onto that glacier for another 1 minute scene at an effective APL of say 4K nits, the eye adaptation will be painful, yes? Artistically, perhaps that is exactly what the director wants the audience to feel since the person would be really feeling that as they walked out of the cave? Per Wizziwig and others, once your eyes are adjusted, high APL’s are fine, it’s like watching the outdoors through your window (room vs home theater ambient lighting arguments can be made). The transitions from dark to light and visa versa are where artistic intent (as implemented through choice of mastering) comes in I think and where poor choices (too many high delta scenes??) might make for an uncomfortable watching experience. 

Since the paper has been around so long it must have been debated over and over out here in the interwebs, so perhaps there are some good counter arguments out there.


----------



## aron7awol

Wizziwig said:


> Some people claim QD-OLEDs also use conventional R,G,B color filters as in the linked S95B teardown a few posts back. Yet it's 3x more efficient in R/G, and 2x more efficient in blue than WOLED. Seems like the supposed "green" emitter would waste energy generating green light that is thrown away on the filtered red/blue sub-pixels.


Sure, but throwing away only (more efficiently produced) green light when producing red and blue and throwing away no light when producing green is far more efficient overall than throwing away green and (less efficiently produced) blue light when producing red, throwing away red and (less efficiently produced) blue light when producing green, and throwing away red and green light when producing blue, and then having a polarizer on top of that. This is why as soon as I read about the possibility of QD-OLED containing phosphorescent green OLED, it just made way too much sense to me and seemed like it would be a mistake not to do it. Really, the only downside is long-term differential aging between the emitter layers, but that's something that's trivial enough to deal with, and the upside is huge.


----------



## Jin-X

Scrapper102dAA said:


> For maximum full screen luminance, to some extent I think we are all analogously arguing about the best brand of motor oil for our car while not indicating whether we live in Antarctica, race on the track every weekend, or sit in traffic for hours every day.
> 
> Maximum full screen luminance should indeed be 10K nits (or higher!) someday per the seminal Dolby paper from 2013, _Preference limits of the visual dynamic range for ultra-high quality and aesthetic conveyance. _ They set up perhaps almost the perfect experiment (to my limited intelligence) and answered perhaps all my “yeah, but what about….” questions (golf clap). I was concerned about use of static images instead of video, but they simulated video eye adjustments to changing scenes (J. H. Van Hateren, 2005) with inter-stimulus and inter-trial adapting image fields between test images (I’d like to understand more – was that not really representative?). Their image equipment design was way cool to go from 0.001 nits to 20K nits back in 2013. I downloaded the paper from SPIE with my membership but won’t post the PDF here because of that. Look it up if you haven’t already, it’s a great read.
> 
> The most obvious limitation that I saw was the size of the imaging screen, 42” (dual-cell LCD), and how that would NOT throw as much light out to up the ambient light level and therefore raise the ACR, vs a big TV or new digital cinema screen (see Display Daily article on the topic – conclusion: ~200 nits is a good APL).Can a Display Be Too Bright? (displaydaily.com)
> 
> The Dolby paper indicates that viewers prefer diffuse white levels between 3-4K nits for high whiteness scenes (glacier image), EVEN WITH the eye adaptation factored in via appropriate inter-field images. That’s the part I have a hard time with, honestly. If a movie goes from showing someone in a dark cave next to a glacier for a 1 minute scene at an effective APL of say 50-100 nits, then walking out onto that glacier for another 1 minute scene at an effective APL of say 4K nits, the eye adaptation will be painful, yes? Artistically, perhaps that is exactly what the director wants the audience to feel since the person would be really feeling that as they walked out of the cave? Per Wizziwig and others, once your eyes are adjusted, high APL’s are fine, it’s like watching the outdoors through your window (room vs home theater ambient lighting arguments can be made). The transitions from dark to light and visa versa are where artistic intent (as implemented through choice of mastering) comes in I think and where poor choices (too many high delta scenes??) might make for an uncomfortable watching experience.
> 
> Since the paper has been around so long it must have been debated over and over out here in the interwebs, so perhaps there are some good counter arguments out there.
> 
> View attachment 3321728


Going from a lot of dark scenes to a super high APL scene is precisely the problem, it’s what The Matrix does. If the movie is like the one Vincent uses for high APL test scenes, where it’s in a beach and a brightly lit store, then it’s fine because your eyes are adjusted to this content being bright. But if you are coming from a lot of dark scenes, the person grading the content should take that into consideration if the next scene is meant to be bright and not make it as ludicrous as in The Matrix. One could argue that the intent is to make you feel as disoriented as Neo is at that moment (which one already feels anyway the first time watching it), but distracting you from Morpheus delivering the key exposition in the movie is probably not a good idea. Plus I don’t think anyone’s idea of enjoyment is to be made to squint and cover their eyes because it’s bothersome to look at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

Jin-X said:


> Going from a lot of dark scenes to a super high APL scene is precisely the problem, it’s what The Matrix does. If the movie is like the one Vincent uses for high APL test scenes, where it’s in a beach and a brightly lit store, then it’s fine because your eyes are adjusted to this content being bright. But if you are coming from a lot of dark scenes, the person grading the content should take that into consideration if the next scene is meant to be bright and not make it as ludicrous as in The Matrix. One could argue that the intent is to make you feel as disoriented as Neo is at that moment (which one already feels anyway the first time watching it), but distracting you from Morpheus delivering the key exposition in the movie is probably not a good idea. Plus I don’t think anyone’s idea of enjoyment is to be made to squint and cover their eyes because it’s bothersome to look at.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I hear you. I think we are getting into artistic intent. Everything you say above points to that. Maybe the director wants you to squint for 20 sec into the scene. Maybe they screwed up and started a key exposition too soon while the viewer is distracted. Things like that. I can imagine light level being used artistically to hit our other senses for certain reactions (discomfort and disorientation). Doesn't mean it is everyone's cup of tea. I like RedLine oil.....


----------



## aron7awol

JasonHa said:


> YouTube user adonisds posted your question in the YouTube comments for the video.


What I'd personally love to see in a future part (although it would almost certainly require him to get another panel) would be to run a sustained 100% luminance test pattern in a 10% or smaller window size and really cook the panel until it shows some permanent effects. There is some uncertainty about whether the cases of "burn-in" we've seen so far in the wild are a result of an actual change in the panel itself, some separation between the panel and the heat dissipation layer, or both.


----------



## aron7awol

Jin-X said:


> Going from a lot of dark scenes to a super high APL scene is precisely the problem, it’s what The Matrix does. If the movie is like the one Vincent uses for high APL test scenes, where it’s in a beach and a brightly lit store, then it’s fine because your eyes are adjusted to this content being bright. But if you are coming from a lot of dark scenes, the person grading the content should take that into consideration if the next scene is meant to be bright and not make it as ludicrous as in The Matrix. One could argue that the intent is to make you feel as disoriented as Neo is at that moment (which one already feels anyway the first time watching it), but distracting you from Morpheus delivering the key exposition in the movie is probably not a good idea. Plus I don’t think anyone’s idea of enjoyment is to be made to squint and cover their eyes because it’s bothersome to look at.


When we discussed this topic previously in the madVR tone-mapping thread, I brought up the possibility of a smoothing algo to make these sort of transitions less abrupt and tailored to a user's personal preference.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

I own the qn90a which can go to 750 nits full screen brightness and +1000 nits on a 50% window. I've played many hdr games graded at 10,000 nits that can reach these brightness levels on these large windows. I have no eye discomfort whatsoever when viewing in the dark, in any condition or when the brightness levels transition quickly so it's definitely not true that this brightness level with be too uncomfortable for everyone. In my previous comment, I mention how your eye color affects your sensitivity to bright light and sunlight. People with less melanin in their eyes will have lighter eye colors and be more sensitive to light. Similarly people with less melanin in their skin will be lighter skinned and get sunburnt more easily. Melanin helps to protect against UV and blue light. My eye color is black and I don't think it's a coincidence that I don't feel eye discomfort when viewing this tv in the dark.


----------



## jl4069

Scrapper102dAA said:


> For maximum full screen luminance, to some extent I think we are all analogously arguing about the best brand of motor oil for our car while not indicating whether we live in Antarctica, race on the track every weekend, or sit in traffic for hours every day.
> 
> Maximum full screen luminance should indeed be 10K nits (or higher!) someday per the seminal Dolby paper from 2013, _Preference limits of the visual dynamic range for ultra-high quality and aesthetic conveyance. _ They set up perhaps almost the perfect experiment (to my limited intelligence) and answered perhaps all my “yeah, but what about….” questions (golf clap). I was concerned about use of static images instead of video, but they simulated video eye adjustments to changing scenes (J. H. Van Hateren, 2005) with inter-stimulus and inter-trial adapting image fields between test images (I’d like to understand more – was that not really representative?). Their image equipment design was way cool to go from 0.001 nits to 20K nits back in 2013. I downloaded the paper from SPIE with my membership but won’t post the PDF here because of that. Look it up if you haven’t already, it’s a great read.
> 
> The most obvious limitation that I saw was the size of the imaging screen, 42” (dual-cell LCD), and how that would NOT throw as much light out to up the ambient light level and therefore raise the ACR, vs a big TV or new digital cinema screen (see Display Daily article on the topic – conclusion: ~200 nits is a good APL).Can a Display Be Too Bright? (displaydaily.com)
> 
> The Dolby paper indicates that viewers prefer diffuse white levels between 3-4K nits for high whiteness scenes (glacier image), EVEN WITH the eye adaptation factored in via appropriate inter-field images. That’s the part I have a hard time with, honestly. If a movie goes from showing someone in a dark cave next to a glacier for a 1 minute scene at an effective APL of say 50-100 nits, then walking out onto that glacier for another 1 minute scene at an effective APL of say 4K nits, the eye adaptation will be painful, yes? Artistically, perhaps that is exactly what the director wants the audience to feel since the person would be really feeling that as they walked out of the cave? Per Wizziwig and others, once your eyes are adjusted, high APL’s are fine, it’s like watching the outdoors through your window (room vs home theater ambient lighting arguments can be made). The transitions from dark to light and visa versa are where artistic intent (as implemented through choice of mastering) comes in I think and where poor choices (too many high delta scenes??) might make for an uncomfortable watching experience.
> 
> Since the paper has been around so long it must have been debated over and over out here in the interwebs, so perhaps there are some good counter arguments out there.
> 
> View attachment 3321728


Thanks for posting these studies. Not sure if there were biases among the participants or not, but it is interesting to see just how sensitive they were to brightness. If these findings turn out to be correct, then this may indicate that in order for many viewers of many types of slight to very bright content to comfortably view such content, they may need to have some x amount of backround light in the room. J


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

jl4069 said:


> Thanks for posting these studies. Not sure if there were biases among the participants or not, but it is interesting to see just how sensitive they were to brightness. If these findings turn out to be correct, then this may indicate that in order for many viewers of many types of slight to very bright content to comfortably view such content, they may need to have some x amount of backround light in the room. J


participant parsing and investigating results based on that was one of many "yeah, but what about..." variables that they tried to account for, resulting in my golf clap. No eye color noted, however. 

_3.7 Trials 
Before starting the actual experiment, each participant received a written introductory sheet explaining their task in the experiment. This was followed by recording each participant’s visual acuity, using a basic Snellen chart visual test, including information about seeing aids used during the experiment (solely for classification); gender and age, the latter grouped into three categories: <18 (HVS not fully developed), 18-40 (fully developed HVS), and >40 (corneal yellowing and other aging phenomena); and expertise in or understanding of imaging (i.e. technical, artistic or naïve)._

and a couple sections earlier:

_3.5 Adapting Background and Ambient Conditions 
The visual system has an approximate range of 3.8 OoM for spatial signals at a steady state of light adaptation [11]. With long term adaptation the eye can see extremely low light levels in pure rod vision, as well as very high light levels that are uncomfortable in photopic vision. We aim to test preferences of viewers whose adaptation states are capable of tracking the content with shorter term adaptation [25], but are dampened to prevent long term adaptation. This is more representative of the conditions for media viewing. We dampen the light adaptation tracking by the use of inter-stimulus and inter-trial adapting image fields of a specific duration and mean level. The background consists of achromatic spatial 1/f noise with a mean representing the adapting luminance and amplitude ±0.3 log cd/m2 . 
Ambient conditions for the experiment also tried to replicate those found in typical cinemas and home theater setups. These include: • Performing the experiment in a room with matte black walls. • Hiding the projection system behind a black velvet curtain to avoid light leakage. • Simulating exit signs in the periphery using an RGB LED light source calibrated to emit green light similar to the real cinema sign. • Complying with the cinema recommendations [26-28] of below 3.4 cd/m2 for the simulated exit sign. • Complying with both recommendations3 for room ambient illumination of below 0.0001 cd/m2 . • Complying with recommendations for off screen luminance of below 0.0001 cd/m2 ._


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> Some people claim QD-OLEDs also use conventional R,G,B color filters as in the linked S95B teardown a few posts back. Yet it's 3x more efficient in R/G, and 2x more efficient in blue than WOLED. Seems like the supposed "green" emitter would waste energy generating green light that is thrown away on the filtered red/blue sub-pixels.


Green is the most important color (~60% of white) and green PHOLED is a much more efficient emitter than blue FOLED (as in blue FOLED has ~10% the efficiency of green PHOLED).

Since green needs to be about twice as strong as red and green QDCC is closer to the efficiency or red QSCC than double it’s efficiency, you will need roughly twice as much blue excitation to get the required green output from equal sized Ref and green QDCC pixels.

So assuming there are 3 blue FOLED layers in the current QD-OLED stack, Samsung had 2 choices:

-go to 5 or 6 blue layers to generate sufficient blue excitation of the green QDCC.

-add a single green PHOLED layer.

Going to 5 or 6 blue PHOLED layers would have +25% to +50% the power consumption of going to 3-Blue FOLED + 1 Green PHOLED layer.

Yes, the green photons generated by the green PHOLED layer are wasted in the red and blue subpixels, but because they cost only 33% to 50%!of the power needed to generate additional blue photons through another 2 or 3 Blue FOLED layers, the result is significantly lower power consumption despite the fact that only ~1/3 of PHOLED-generated green photons are utilized.

The other choice was to make the green subpixel ~twice as large, but combined with the decision to eliminate the polarizer, the result would have been a smaller red subouxel and lower peak brightness.

[qupte] Yet it's 3x more efficient in R/G, and 2x more efficient in blue than WOLED. Seems like the supposed "green" emitter would waste energy generating green light that is thrown away on the filtered red/blue sub-pixels. .[/quote]

WOLED uses only a portion of 1 out of three OLED layers to generate red photons and then cuts the output in half using a polarizer. Red PHOLED has ~3 times the efficiency of blue FOLED and yellow PHOLED has ~10 times the efficiency of blue FOLED. So the red photons are likely being generated from that single layer at the equivalent of 150% to 450% the efficiency of a single blue FOLED layer.

But there are 2 blue FOLED emitters also being powered and completely wasted, so we end up with 150% out of 300% = 50% to 450% out of 300% = 150% of the energy needed to power a single blue FOLED layer resulting in red photons from 3S4C WOLED.

But once the polarizer is thrown into the mix, that get’s halved to 25% to 75% of power consumed by a single blue FOLED layer resulting in red photons being emitted (I’m ignoring the ~15% loss from color filters because they are common to both WOLED and QD-OLED).

So WOLED powers 3 emitter layers and gets 25% to 75% red output equivalent to a single blue FOLED layer - 8% to 25% of energy being consumed by the red subpixel results in emitted red photons (again, ignoring CXF).

QD-OLED has three blue layers exciting red QDCC. I’m still not sure exactly what efficiency to use for red QDCC, but 40-90% seems like a realistic bracket. There were 4 emitter layers total being powered, so overall efficiency is 3/4 of 40% to 90% or 30% to 67%.

So yes, QD-OLED should be at least 20% more efficient emitting red photons than WOLED (30% versus 25%) and conceivably could’ve as much as 737% more efficient (67% versus 8%).

If measured results indicate >+300% more efficiency, it’s snack in the middle of the range I’ve sketched…

For WOLED, the efficiency of green photons from that single layer is higher than it is for generating red photons. Green PHILED has 300% the efficiency of red PHOLED but since we’re talking about a shard emitter layer, 2x to 3x the efficiency of red is probably a realistic bracket.

So after accounting for the polarizer, we end up with emitted green photons being generated at an efficiency of 25% to 75% of the power consumed by 3 blue FOLED layers.

There is no doubt so d difference in efficiency between green QDCC and red QDCC, but out 40% to 90% bracket probably covers both, meaning a 3-blue-layer-onlly QD-OLED will also generate emitter green photons with an efficiency of 30% to 67%.

In the best-case, the efficiency of QD-OLED could only be +170% versus WOLED (67% versus 25%) and in the worst case, it could be much lower (30% versus 75% for WOLED).

The reality is likely somewhere near the middle of all these brackets but the main point is that there is no way blue-only QD-OLED can be >+300% the efficiency of WOLED in generating green photons.

The~1000% efficiency green PHOLED has over blue FOLED makes that impossible.

I’ve been jumping up and down about this for close to 2 years now, but hopefully the new evidence being provided by Palomaku puts this debate to rest.

[p.s. as far as blue efficiency, both WOLED and QD-OLED generate blue photons with presumably similar blue FOLED emitters.

But WOLED wastes ~50% of it’s blue photons in a polarizer that QD-OLED does not have so QD-OLED should have ~double the efficiency emitting blue photons that WOLED has…]


----------



## Wizziwig

You really didn't need to go into all that detail. My message was mostly aimed at the poster I was responding to who attributed the QD-OLED efficiency gains to lack of color filters vs. WOLED while in reality both use color filters. That part of the design was never under any dispute since the filters are required to remove unconverted light regardless of emitter type plus help with reflections. Filtering out hypothetical green just increases the amount of photons that need to be filtered out. Almost every single QD-OLED reviewer and article I've seen online make the same mistake regarding the filters because Samsung never includes them in their marketing materials. Guess it would confuse the message when comparing to WOLED.



Scrapper102dAA said:


> If a movie goes from showing someone in a dark cave next to a glacier for a 1 minute scene at an effective APL of say 50-100 nits, then walking out onto that glacier for another 1 minute scene at an effective APL of say 4K nits, the eye adaptation will be painful, yes? Artistically, perhaps that is exactly what the director wants the audience to feel since the person would be really feeling that as they walked out of the cave? Per Wizziwig and others, once your eyes are adjusted, high APL’s are fine, it’s like watching the outdoors through your window (room vs home theater ambient lighting arguments can be made). The transitions from dark to light and visa versa are where artistic intent (as implemented through choice of mastering) comes in I think and where poor choices (too many high delta scenes??) might make for an uncomfortable watching experience.


If the goal is realism, then you need to be able to represent the luminance differences that one would experience when viewing these scenarios in the real world. In the real world, your eyes need time to adapt regardless whether you move from bright to dark or dark to bright. Both can be painful and disorienting. So I see no problem with a filmmaker taking advantage of the display's full range when depicting these same situations in their content. If you start to arbitrary dim scenes to help "viewer comfort", you then end up with ridiculous looking scenes where you see the sun directly overhead yet everything looks overcast/cloudy. Your brain knows something is not correct and it breaks the whole illusion of being there. This is why we need displays that can do high brightness regardless of APL and not just for tiny highlights. Those who don't like it can wear sunglasses or keep buying the dim displays we have today.


----------



## Jin-X

OLED_Overrated said:


> I own the qn90a which can go to 750 nits full screen brightness and +1000 nits on a 50% window. I've played many hdr games graded at 10,000 nits that can reach these brightness levels on these large windows. I have no eye discomfort whatsoever when viewing in the dark, in any condition or when the brightness levels transition quickly so it's definitely not true that this brightness level with be too uncomfortable for everyone. In my previous comment, I mention how your eye color affects your sensitivity to bright light and sunlight. People with less melanin in their eyes will have lighter eye colors and be more sensitive to light. Similarly people with less melanin in their skin will be lighter skinned and get sunburnt more easily. Melanin helps to protect against UV and blue light. My eye color is black and I don't think it's a coincidence that I don't feel eye discomfort when viewing this tv in the dark.


I have black/dark brown eyes, that scene in the Matrix is always annoying. The other thing that needs to be factored in here is tv size vs viewing distance.



Wizziwig said:


> You really didn't need to go into all that detail. My message was mostly aimed at the poster I was responding to who attributed the QD-OLED efficiency gains to lack of color filters vs. WOLED while in reality both use color filters. That part of the design was never under any dispute since the filters are required to remove unconverted light regardless of emitter type plus help with reflections. Filtering out hypothetical green just increases the amount of photons that need to be filtered out. Almost every single QD-OLED reviewer and article I've seen online make the same mistake regarding the filters because Samsung never includes them in their marketing materials. Guess it would confuse the message when comparing to WOLED.
> 
> 
> 
> If the goal is realism, then you need to be able to represent the luminance differences that one would experience when viewing these scenarios in the real world. In the real world, your eyes need time to adapt regardless whether you move from bright to dark or dark to bright. Both can be painful and disorienting. So I see no problem with a filmmaker taking advantage of the display's full range when depicting these same situations in their content. If you start to arbitrary dim scenes to help "viewer comfort", you then end up with ridiculous looking scenes where you see the sun directly overhead yet everything looks overcast/cloudy. Your brain knows something is not correct and it breaks the whole illusion of being there. This is why we need displays that can do high brightness regardless of APL and not just for tiny highlights. Those who don't like it can wear sunglasses or keep buying the dim displays we have today.


In a hypothetical future with super bright emissive displays, all they need to do is add an option where you can limit full screen brightness in HDR and have it tone map to that. Also I'll add that the scenes that have caused me discomfort are in no way realistic/realism based: The Matrix loading room, Gandalf The White's first appearance and later in Two Towers where there is this insanely bright spotlight acting as moon light beaming down the doors into the throne room. Can't really think off the top of my head of a scene depicting something real where that happened, either I haven't encountered such content or perhaps the artificial nature of the content I mentioned makes it stick out more for our brains.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Jin-X said:


> I have black/dark brown eyes, that scene in the Matrix is always annoying. The other thing that needs to be factored in here is tv size vs viewing distance.
> 
> 
> 
> In a hypothetical future with super bright emissive displays, all they need to do is add an option where you can limit full screen brightness in HDR and have it tone map to that. Also I'll add that the scenes that have caused me discomfort are in no way realistic/realism based: The Matrix loading room, Gandalf The White's first appearance and later in Two Towers where there is this insanely bright spotlight acting as moon light beaming down the doors into the throne room. Can't really think off the top of my head of a scene depicting something real where that happened, either I haven't encountered such content or perhaps the artificial nature of the content I mentioned makes it stick out more for our brains.


Perhaps then, the main problem is having the optimal viewing distance vs size of tv. I sit 7-8 feet away from a 4k 55 inch tv which is Rtings recommended viewing distance for mixed usage.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> You really didn't need to go into all that detail. My message was mostly aimed at the poster I was responding to who attributed the QD-OLED efficiency gains to lack of color filters vs. WOLED while in reality both use color filters. That part of the design was never under any dispute since the filters are required to remove unconverted light regardless of emitter type plus help with reflections. Filtering out hypothetical green just increases the amount of photons that need to be filtered out. Almost every single QD-OLED reviewer and article I've seen online make the same mistake regarding the filters because Samsung never includes them in their marketing materials.





> *Guess it would confuse the message when comparing to WOLED.*


Yes, Samsung has elected to allow the ‘simple story’ to take in a life of its own despite the fact that the reality of how QD-Display 1.0 ended up being embodied is significantly more complex and nuanced.


----------



## jl4069

Wizziwig said:


> You really didn't need to go into all that detail. My message was mostly aimed at the poster I was responding to who attributed the QD-OLED efficiency gains to lack of color filters vs. WOLED while in reality both use color filters. That part of the design was never under any dispute since the filters are required to remove unconverted light regardless of emitter type plus help with reflections. Filtering out hypothetical green just increases the amount of photons that need to be filtered out. Almost every single QD-OLED reviewer and article I've seen online make the same mistake regarding the filters because Samsung never includes them in their marketing materials. Guess it would confuse the message when comparing to WOLED.
> 
> 
> 
> If the goal is realism, then you need to be able to represent the luminance differences that one would experience when viewing these scenarios in the real world. In the real world, your eyes need time to adapt regardless whether you move from bright to dark or dark to bright. Both can be painful and disorienting. So I see no problem with a filmmaker taking advantage of the display's full range when depicting these same situations in their content. If you start to arbitrary dim scenes to help "viewer comfort", you then end up with ridiculous looking scenes where you see the sun directly overhead yet everything looks overcast/cloudy. Your brain knows something is not correct and it breaks the whole illusion of being there. This is why we need displays that can do high brightness regardless of APL and not just for tiny highlights. Those who don't like it can wear sunglasses or keep buying the dim displays we have today.


There seem to be a few camps here regarding what to do in order to be able to achieve the best realistic real life brightness levels, while having the least impediments to the human perceptual system. Some say let us keep the nit levels low and we can still get all the brightness we need (all the details are visible) in SDR in a dark room, some say let us use tone mapping, let us temporarily darken to screen to allow eyes to acclimate, look away from the screen, because we will lose the abilty to make out brighter details etc..but one question that keeps coming up for me, is from a visual science perspective, and not even bringing in the issue of personal eye discomfort/sensitivity. Indeed let us take the eye sensitivity or discomfort issue off the table, and lets just ask if we can create an experiemnt to see if viewers/eyes can see all manner of details better, if their eyes do not have to adjust to light changes by using x amount of in room light as opposed to keeping the room dark as possible, Obviously I ask this in context to higher nit scenes, and obviously I know there are those who feel it is heresy to view serious content with any extra light in a room whatsoever. Again my main question is whether, light sensitive or not, can we test to see if some significant % of people/eyes, lose the abilty to see detail because of the need to go from complete black to high brightness levels repeatedly? And if we find this to be true, what is the best imperfect solution to our inherent perceptual issues around adjusting to light. To me adding a little room light might be preferable, if I knew I was actually losing details because my eyes kept needing to readjust. Thanks


----------



## stl8k

jl4069 said:


> There seem to be a few camps here regarding what to do in order to be able to achieve the best realistic real life brightness levels, while having the least impediments to the human perceptual system. Some say let us keep the nit levels low and we can still get all the brightness we need (all the details are visible) in SDR in a dark room, some say let us use tone mapping, let us temporarily darken to screen to allow eyes to acclimate, look away from the screen, because we will lose the abilty to make out brighter details etc..but one question that keeps coming up for me, is from a visual science perspective, and not even bringing in the issue of personal eye discomfort/sensitivity. Indeed let us take the eye sensitivity or discomfort issue off the table, and lets just ask if we can create an experiemnt to see if viewers/eyes can see all manner of details better, if their eyes do not have to adjust to light changes by using x amount of in room light as opposed to keeping the room dark as possible, Obviously I ask this in context to higher nit scenes, and obviously I know there are those who feel it is heresy to view serious content with any extra light in a room whatsoever. Again my main question is whether, light sensitive or not, can we test to see if some significant % of people/eyes, lose the abilty to see detail because of the need to go from complete black to high brightness levels repeatedly? And if we find this to be true, what is the best imperfect solution to our inherent perceptual issues around adjusting to light. To me adding a little room light might be preferable, if I knew I was actually losing details because my eyes kept needing to readjust. Thanks





Wizziwig said:


> You really didn't need to go into all that detail. My message was mostly aimed at the poster I was responding to who attributed the QD-OLED efficiency gains to lack of color filters vs. WOLED while in reality both use color filters. That part of the design was never under any dispute since the filters are required to remove unconverted light regardless of emitter type plus help with reflections. Filtering out hypothetical green just increases the amount of photons that need to be filtered out. Almost every single QD-OLED reviewer and article I've seen online make the same mistake regarding the filters because Samsung never includes them in their marketing materials. Guess it would confuse the message when comparing to WOLED.
> 
> 
> 
> If the goal is realism, then you need to be able to represent the luminance differences that one would experience when viewing these scenarios in the real world. In the real world, your eyes need time to adapt regardless whether you move from bright to dark or dark to bright. Both can be painful and disorienting. So I see no problem with a filmmaker taking advantage of the display's full range when depicting these same situations in their content. If you start to arbitrary dim scenes to help "viewer comfort", you then end up with ridiculous looking scenes where you see the sun directly overhead yet everything looks overcast/cloudy. Your brain knows something is not correct and it breaks the whole illusion of being there. This is why we need displays that can do high brightness regardless of APL and not just for tiny highlights. Those who don't like it can wear sunglasses or keep buying the dim displays we have today.


This section from ITU-R BT.2390-10 seems relevant:



> There is another way to utilize the new range capabilities than to utilize it solely for highlights. This is to allow for more realistic scene-to-scene luminance variations. In current SDR, with a range of less than three log10 luminance, it was always difficult to render evening scenes, and nearly impossible to render the luminance differences of indoor and outdoor scenes. Acknowledging this limitation with SDR, some creatives like to use the increased dynamic range of HDR to have larger scene-to-scene variations in mean luminance. So for this particular approach, HDR may result in brighter images for some scenes.


That same BT.2390 doc also has the diagram below ostensibly from _Preference limits of the visual dynamic range for ultra-high quality and aesthetic conveyance _that @Scrapper102dAA mentioned_._


----------



## Mark Rejhon

aron7awol said:


> When we discussed this topic previously in the madVR tone-mapping thread, I brought up the possibility of a smoothing algo to make these sort of transitions less abrupt and tailored to a user's personal preference.


It's an excellent idea. This is also being discussed for the upcoming HDR-capable virtual reality headsets, where this is a potential bigger issue.

Retinaing-out HDR concurrently with retinaing-out resolution, concurrently with retinaing-out the Hz, creates the same eye-ouchie effects as real life.

Much bigger problem than for a 2D planar TV.

As VR is intended to duplicate real life. Some people want that, but not what every single individual wants -- or it can be time-of-day customizable -- sometimes you just want to enjoy relaxing VR at night that doesn't disrupt your circadian rhythm with excess peak light. The Night Mode profile might include a HDR temporal smoothing algorithm enabled, to eliminate the eye-owie effect of going from VR indoors to VR outdoors, etc.

We can keep a faithful default in the HOLLYWOOD FILMMAKER MODE, but these can be additional override adjustment not too dissimilar from other common adjustments (e.g. general screen brightness).

HDR is a Pandora Box in ways!


----------



## jl4069

Mark Rejhon said:


> It's an excellent idea. This is also being discussed for the upcoming HDR-capable virtual reality headsets, where this is a potential bigger issue.
> 
> Retinaing-out HDR concurrently with retinaing-out resolution, concurrently with retinaing-out the Hz, creates the same eye-ouchie effects as real life.
> 
> Much bigger problem than for a 2D planar TV.
> 
> As VR is intended to duplicate real life. Some people want that, but not what every single individual wants -- or it can be time-of-day customizable -- sometimes you just want to enjoy relaxing VR at night that doesn't disrupt your circadian rhythm with excess peak light. The Night Mode profile might include a HDR temporal smoothing algorithm enabled, to eliminate the eye-owie effect of going from VR indoors to VR outdoors, etc.
> 
> We can keep a faithful default in the HOLLYWOOD FILMMAKER MODE, but these can be additional override adjustment not too dissimilar from other common adjustments (e.g. general screen brightness).
> 
> HDR is a Pandora Box in ways!


Mark, I also had a idea I wanted to ask you about, if I may. Would it be possible to use a very fast monitor, say 900Hz (when one exists) and literally run x shows/x content through such a monitor and copy the motion output of this to create a master of sorts, and use it on a regular 120Hz screen with suitable processing abilty, or use machine learning techniques to learn many aspects of motion from a 900Hz reference, and apply them to a slower rate screen? thanks, j


----------



## fafrd

OLED TV market share surpasses 50% in European premium TV market


Europe is the world's largest TV market and the largest OLED TV market




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> OLED TV market share surpasses 50% in European premium TV market
> 
> 
> Europe is the world's largest TV market and the largest OLED TV market
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flatpanelshd.com


Do we have a similar breakdown for the US?

Reading it, they were making sense as to why Panasonic is there but not here… Until they revealed the market share numbers where they didn’t even mention them, and if you add up the LG, Sony and Phillips marketshare then at best Panasonic is at 6.2% of the OLED market, not looking good for them.


----------



## 59LIHP

*Palomaki Lights Up (in Blue, White and UV) the QD-OLED Structure*








News: Displays and Their Technologies


Spin Digital and Fraunhofer IIS Ready to Support Next-generation Broadcast with VVC and MPEG-H Audio https://spin-digital.com/announcements/spin-digital_fraunhofer-iis_mpegh_audio/




www.avsforum.com


----------



## stama

59LIHP said:


> *Palomaki Lights Up (in Blue, White and UV) the QD-OLED Structure*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News: Displays and Their Technologies
> 
> 
> Spin Digital and Fraunhofer IIS Ready to Support Next-generation Broadcast with VVC and MPEG-H Audio https://spin-digital.com/announcements/spin-digital_fraunhofer-iis_mpegh_audio/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


So, the QDs are indeed sensitive to UV light and are emitting visible light when exposed to it. That glow is visible when illuminating the QDs without anything between them and the UV light source. However, the UV-domain attenuation of the glass in front of the TV barely causes any glowing when the artificial UV light is in front of the screen. That does not rule out QDs glowing in presence of natural light without attenuated UV domain range, or stronger artificial light with rich emissions across the entire visible and non-visible spectrum.

Second, the entire screen is covered with a blue color filter (except in the areas where red and green color filters are located) which is diffusing light. That means ambient light in the blue-violet-UV domain can enter the TV panel from the front of the panel, goes through the holes in the QD layer meant to let the OLED blue light get out of the panel, and is scattered uniformly across the entire OLED layer and then reflected back to the QD layer.

This answers the "elevated black" in presence of ambient light phenomenon. It's just back layer reflection and excitation of QDs when the ambient light is rich in the blue-violet-ultraviolet domain. The reflected light component is definitely stronger than the QD excitation component, which is why the "raised black" characteristic of the panel is in fact violet instead of greenish or reddish. This violet tint might be also due to the fact that in order to help with the lower intensity of emitted blue, the panel front glass might be tuned to have lower attenuation in the blue-violet and above domain, than in the blue-green and below domain. You won't get this blue-violet light reflection and emission with usual home light bulbs (and most of us use "warm" lights anyway which have greater intensity in the red-yellow domain than blue - that's why they're "warm"), as they don't have enough power in that region. Glass windows will have attenuation effect on the UV domain range too, so that's a way to mitigate whatever influence the UV component in sun-light can bring. And if your room is sunny, your eyes will adapt to the increased dynamic range and you won't perceive the elevated black (well, it's no longer black but low intensity violet) as being "that" bad either, but it's there.

That also makes the QD-OLED panels not color accurate when this phenomenon is present, as the ambient light reflected back or the light emitted by the QDs due to incident ambient light is adding to the spectrum of the light that is emitted by the panel, and results in a different spectrum which makes us see different colors than we would see only due to the spectrum of the light emitted by the panel itself. This is not as bad as it sounds though, since any display we currently have reflects part of the ambient light back towards us, so there is always this "corruption" of the spectrum emitted by a display in the presence of ambient light with any display technology.


----------



## fafrd

stama said:


> So, the QDs are indeed sensitive to UV light and are emitting visible light when exposed to it. That glow is visible when illuminating the QDs without anything between them and the UV light source. However, the UV-domain attenuation of the glass in front of the TV barely causes any glowing when the artificial UV light is in front of the screen. That does not rule out QDs glowing in presence of natural light without attenuated UV domain range, or stronger artificial light with rich emissions across the entire visible and non-visible spectrum.
> 
> Second, the entire screen is covered with a blue color filter (except in the areas where red and green color filters are located) which is diffusing light.





> ]That means ambient light in the blue-violet-UV domain can enter the TV panel from the front of the panel, goes through the holes in the QD layer meant to let the OLED blue light get out of the panel, *and is scattered uniformly across the entire OLED layer *and then reflected back to the QD layer.


I don’t believe the incoming blue light gets scattered across the entire blue OLED layer.

The point of Samsung’s polarizer-eliminating technology is to use large inter-subpixel spacing and color filters so that pretty much only a small amount of ambient light makes it into the OLED layer and back out. This is from BOE RGB OLES but the concept is similar (replace the RGB OLED with G and R QDCC and B scattered): [CONTINUED BELOW ATTACHED IMAGE]




> This answers the "elevated black" in presence of ambient light phenomenon. It's just [b2back layer reflection and excitation of QDs when the ambient light is rich in the blue-violet-ultraviolet domain.[/b] The reflected light component is definitely stronger than the QD excitation component, which is why the "raised black" characteristic of the panel is in fact violet instead of greenish or reddish. This violet tint might be also due to the fact that in order to help with the lower intensity of emitted blue, the panel front glass might be tuned to have lower attenuation in the blue-violet and above domain, than in the blue-green and below domain. You won't get this blue-violet light reflection and emission with usual home light bulbs (and most of us use "warm" lights anyway which have greater intensity in the red-yellow domain than blue - that's why they're "warm"), as they don't have enough power in that region. Glass windows will have attenuation effect on the UV domain range too, so that's a way to mitigate whatever influence the UV component in sun-light can bring. And if your room is sunny, your eyes will adapt to the increased dynamic range and you won't perceive the elevated black (well, it's no longer black but low intensity violet) as being "that" bad either, but it's there.
> 
> That also makes the QD-OLED panels not color accurate when this phenomenon is present, as the ambient light reflected back or the light emitted by the QDs due to incident ambient light is adding to the spectrum of the light that is emitted by the panel, and results in a different spectrum which makes us see different colors than we would see only due to the spectrum of the light emitted by the panel itself. This is not as bad as it sounds though, since any display we currently have reflects part of the ambient light back towards us, so there is always this "corruption" of the spectrum emitted by a display in the presence of ambient light with any display technology.












Only relatively direct incoming photons of the correct color make it through their respective color filters (those coming in at an angle get snuffed out by the black masking).

So the R and G photons that make it through are coming pretty much straight in where they pass through the OLED stack, get reflected off of the backplane, and head straight back out.

Either on the way in or on the way back out, R & G photons with much of any angle of incidence are blocked by the inter-subouxel masking layer so very few R of G photons get reflected (and there is no UV or blue making it into the R & G subpixels so the R and G QDCC are not contributing any off-black photons when excited by ambient lighting).

Blue/UV is slightly more complex due to the scattering agent over the blue subpixel (in the same position as the QDCC). Incoming blue & UV photons with much if any angle of incidence get snuffed out by the inter-subpixel masking, so no difference there.

But incoming blue and UV photons coming straight through will enter the blue scattered where they will be scattered.

Some of those scattered blue and UV photons will hit the intersubpixel masking and get snuffed.

Some will be reflected directly back by the scatterer and make it out similar to reflected red and green photons of the red and green subpixels.

Some will continue straight through to the backplane where they will be reflected back and get scattered again to the same outcomes.

But a small number of those blue and UV photons will get scattered at an angle allowing them to avoid hitting the inter subpixel masking so they will enter the OLED stack at an angle allowing them to be reflected off if the backplane at a sufficient angle to reach a neighboring R or G subpixel.

Many/most of those stray blue & UV photons have a significant-enough angle that they will be snuffed out by the inter-subouxel masking before they hit the QDCC (and in fact, that was likely a major determinant of the required inter-subpixel spacing to allow elimination of the polarizer).

But it is possible that some stray blue and UV photons might make it to blue or red QDCC where they would excite red and green photon generation, much of which could escape the saw-colored subpixels.

My guess is that this component is negligible, however. The test would be to shine blue and UV light at an off QD-OLED at various angles and measure the spectrum of emitter light.

My suspicion is that we’ll see primarily blue light being reflected when blue light is shined into the QD-OLED from on-angle and primarily UV light being reflected when UV light is shined into the QD-OLED from on-angle.


----------



## stama

fafrd said:


> My guess is that this component is negligible, however. The test would be to shine blue and UV light at an off QD-OLED at various angles and measure the spectrum of emitter light.
> 
> My suspicion is that we’ll see primarily blue light being reflected when blue light is shined into the QD-OLED from on-angle and primarily UV light being reflected when UV light is shined into the QD-OLED from on-angle.


I agree with this, if there was any significant photo luminescence of red or green quantum dots due to ambient light, the panel glow in such conditions would not look as violet as it does now. There is likely some photo luminescence, but it must be very low compared to reflected light.

I am not sure however the OLED layer in Samsung's panel has that kind of opaque masking at its level to prevent light being diffused across it. It seems like a costly thing to do when you have just one type of OLED emitter material instead of three like in that example from BOE. You don't need to raise barriers between red, green and blue emitters to prevent having light from red being scattered and exiting through the area reserved for blue, or exciting in any way the blue or green emitters in case of this panel from Samsung.

The color of the OLED layer in Palomaki's videos is very much resembling the color of the glow of the TV display under ambient light. I believe what we see really is a combination of light scattered inside it and reflected off it in strong ambient light conditions.

Later edit: I think this phenomenon might be more easy to notice in a room with not that strong lighting, while sun light is hitting the panel; this way the eye is not adapted to high dynamic range and the glow will stand out much more than in a room with lots of light.


----------



## RobertR1

VESA announces ClearMR - motion blur clarity certification for displays - VideoCardz.com


VESA Brings Clarity to Motion Blur in Digital Displays with New Compliance Test Specification and Logo Program ClearMR specification and logo program provide consumers with a true quality metric for grading motion blur performance for LCD and OLED panels, TVs, desktop monitors and embedded...




videocardz.com





Not sure how I feel about Samsung leading the charge here given their reputation. 

Any thoughts on this @Mark Rejhon were you guys involved/consulted on this?


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

RobertR1 said:


> VESA announces ClearMR - motion blur clarity certification for displays - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> VESA Brings Clarity to Motion Blur in Digital Displays with New Compliance Test Specification and Logo Program ClearMR specification and logo program provide consumers with a true quality metric for grading motion blur performance for LCD and OLED panels, TVs, desktop monitors and embedded...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how I feel about Samsung leading the charge here given their reputation.
> 
> Any thoughts on this @Mark Rejhon were you guys involved/consulted on this?


LG also made a statement in support. Was there something else that pointed to Samsung driving things?
Cheers


----------



## mrtickleuk

RobertR1 said:


> VESA announces ClearMR - motion blur clarity certification for displays - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> VESA Brings Clarity to Motion Blur in Digital Displays with New Compliance Test Specification and Logo Program ClearMR specification and logo program provide consumers with a true quality metric for grading motion blur performance for LCD and OLED panels, TVs, desktop monitors and embedded...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com


----------



## 59LIHP

Is green emitting material a key material in the high refresh rate trend? 








News: Displays and Their Technologies


Climbing the Ultra HD OTT Ladder https://ultrahdforum.org/climbing-the-ultra-hd-ott-ladder/




www.avsforum.com


----------



## 59LIHP

*Participated in Samsung Display's 'IMID 2022'... 77-inch QD-OLED unveiled*








News: Displays and Their Technologies


Climbing the Ultra HD OTT Ladder https://ultrahdforum.org/climbing-the-ultra-hd-ott-ladder/




www.avsforum.com


----------



## CliffordinWales

New video from Vincent on LG Display's latest OLED technologies, including an interview on OLED EX panels.


----------



## 59LIHP

*Nanosys is Making Progress on Inkjet Printing QD Displays*
QD leader has moved beyond early lab prototypes and is starting to see some interesting work that looks more like a real product.








News: Displays and Their Technologies


Samsung Display to expand IT OLED panel biz: CEO https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20220824008300320?section=business/industry




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Me Boosta

LG unveils its first 240Hz OLED gaming monitor

Looks like Curved 45" panels are now in production. This is the perfect gaming monitor had it not been for one thing, that PPI is just awful. It's the same PPI as a 27" 1080p monitor. But man, what I would give for a higher resolution version of this. Or a smaller size version.


----------



## fafrd

Me Boosta said:


> LG unveils its first 240Hz OLED gaming monitor
> 
> Looks like Curved 45" panels are now in production. This is the perfect gaming monitor had it not been for one thing, that PPI is just awful. It's the same PPI as a 27" 1080p monitor. But man, what I would give for a higher resolution version of this. Or a smaller size version.


A 45” 21:9 panel is an interesting size.

It’s 1050.5mm x 450.23mm, meaning it can fit 10-up on an 8.5G substrate without requiring MMG (2 x 5).

The 42” 16:9 monitor can also fit 10-up but only by using MMG to produce 8x2 in one orientation and 2x1 in the other orientation in the leftover ‘strip’.

So this means a 45” 21:9 WOLED panel will cost LGD less to produce than a 42” 16:9 WOLED panel despite the fact that it has roughly the same surface area.

The other interesting aspect about a 45” 21:9 panel Is that is offers the possibility of reducing 77” WOLED panel cost by as much as 20%.

LGD uses MMG to manufacture 2 48” panels alongside 2 77” panels, this requires the full 2500mm height of an 8.5G substrate but leaves a 2500xx x 495mm ‘strip’ wasted out of the full 2200mm 8.5G sheet width.

485mm is too small to manufacture 42” 16:9 panels (which need at least 523mm) but are sufficient to manufacture a 45” 21:9 panel (which only needs 450mm across the short dimension.

So if LGD is able to make two cuts per 8.5G sheets using MMG, they could first slice off the currently-wasted 495mm x 2500mm strip than could now contain 2 45” 21:9 panels before slicing off the 1705mm x 523mm strip containing 2 16:9 48” panels.

If we take the current single-MMG manufacturing of 2 77” + 2 48” panels as 100% 77” WOLED panel cost, snipping off another 2 45” 21:9 panels in addition translates to lowering 77” WOLED panel cost to 80% (20% cost reduction).

And if we consider the pre-MMG 77” WOLED cost of 133% (relative to today’s cost), the total reduction in 77” WOLED panel cost is 60% (40% cost reduction from that old reference).

Double-MMG production of 2 48” and 2 45” panels alongside 2 77” panels would mean that 77” WOLED panels have a cost approaching 135% the cost of 65” WOLED panels…


----------



## Me Boosta

fafrd said:


> A 45” 21:9 panel is an interesting size.
> 
> It’s 1050.5mm x 450.23mm, meaning it can fit 10-up on an 8.5G substrate without requiring MMG (2 x 5).
> 
> The 42” 16:9 monitor can also fit 10-up but only by using MMG to produce 8x2 in one orientation and 2x1 in the other orientation in the leftover ‘strip’.
> 
> So this means a 45” 21:9 WOLED panel will cost LGD less to produce than a 42” 16:9 WOLED panel despite the fact that it has roughly the same surface area.
> 
> The other interesting aspect about a 45” 21:9 panel Is that is offers the possibility of reducing 77” WOLED panel cost by as much as 20%.
> 
> LGD uses MMG to manufacture 2 48” panels alongside 2 77” panels, this requires the full 2500mm height of an 8.5G substrate but leaves a 2500xx x 495mm ‘strip’ wasted out of the full 2200mm 8.5G sheet width.
> 
> 485mm is too small to manufacture 42” 16:9 panels (which need at least 523mm) but are sufficient to manufacture a 45” 21:9 panel (which only needs 450mm across the short dimension.
> 
> So if LGD is able to make two cuts per 8.5G sheets using MMG, they could first slice off the currently-wasted 495mm x 2500mm strip than could now contain 2 45” 21:9 panels before slicing off the 1705mm x 523mm strip containing 2 16:9 48” panels.
> 
> If we take the current single-MMG manufacturing of 2 77” + 2 48” panels as 100% 77” WOLED panel cost, snipping off another 2 45” 21:9 panels in addition translates to lowering 77” WOLED panel cost to 80% (20% cost reduction).
> 
> And if we consider the pre-MMG 77” WOLED cost of 133% (relative to today’s cost), the total reduction in 77” WOLED panel cost is 60% (40% cost reduction from that old reference).
> 
> Double-MMG production of 2 48” and 2 45” panels alongside 2 77” panels would mean that 77” WOLED panels have a cost approaching 135% the cost of 65” WOLED panels…


Is there anything preventing LGD from upping the resolution at 45" I know 4k 240 Hz will be a very difficult ask, but surely, they can do better than 3440 X 1440p, right?


----------



## fafrd

Me Boosta said:


> Is there anything preventing LGD from upping the resolution at 45" I know 4k 240 Hz will be a very difficult ask, but surely, they can do better than 3440 X 1440p, right?


As I stated in an earlier post in one thread or another, a backplane that can refresh 1440 lines in 1/240th of a second should able to refresh 2160 lines in 1.5 seconds, m among 2160p @ 160Hz.

So whether it’s a 2160 x 3840 9:16 display or a 2160 x 5040 9:21 display, LGD ought to be able to deliver 2160p WOLED with refresh rates of up to 160fos.

But 2160p @ 240Hz is out of reach ;at least for now).


----------



## 59LIHP

*Samsung Display developing thinner QD-OLED panels* 








News: Displays and Their Technologies


LG UltraGear Debuts 240Hz Curved OLED Gaming Monitor at IFA 2022 In addition to being LG’s first 45-inch curved OLED gaming monitor with a 21:9 aspect ratio and WQHD (3440 x 1440) resolution, the 45GR95QE is also the company’s first-ever display to combine a 45-inch screen-size with an 800R...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Me Boosta

Prelude to IFA 2022: LG 97" OLED, B&O and Sennheiser soundbars, more

They say that LG will be unveiling another OLED product which might be a "surprise". Any guesses? Fingers crossed it isn't just transparent OLED, or the OLED bicycle.


----------



## Wizziwig

Effective contrast performance (y-axis) of various monitor technologies in the presence of varying amounts of ambient light (lux on x-axis). Source.


----------



## 59LIHP

*UDC "Blue phosphorescent OLED, our patent will be unavoidable"*








News: Displays and Their Technologies


VLOG Salon IFA 2022 : PHILIPS, TOUTES Les Nouveautés TV / Audio




www.avsforum.com


----------



## 8mile13

Samsung QD OLED demo at IFA..


----------



## chozofication

59LIHP said:


> *Samsung Display developing thinner QD-OLED panels*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News: Displays and Their Technologies
> 
> 
> LG UltraGear Debuts 240Hz Curved OLED Gaming Monitor at IFA 2022 In addition to being LG’s first 45-inch curved OLED gaming monitor with a 21:9 aspect ratio and WQHD (3440 x 1440) resolution, the 45GR95QE is also the company’s first-ever display to combine a 45-inch screen-size with an 800R...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Thinner.

Thinner?

They are already bending as soon as they're put in the damn boxes. If they get any thinner they will be invisible from the side lol


----------



## JasonHa

It's not a good headline for that article, which is really about Samsung reducing costs (and possibly making the panels rollable) by eliminating one of the glass substrates.


----------



## 59LIHP

.


----------



## bootymonger

JasonHa said:


> It's not a good headline for that article, which is really about Samsung reducing costs (and possibly making the panels rollable) by eliminating one of the glass substrates.


Hopefully the cost cutting doesn't harm uniformity. The article also says it's something for beyond 2024.


----------



## Adonisds

Apple iPhone 14 Pro - Full phone specifications







www.gsmarena.com





The new iPhone has an OLED display with 2000 nits under sunlight and 1600 nits when playing HDR video, so I assume it reaches 1600 nits in accurate mode.

Why are these mobile displays so much brighter than the OLED TVs?

Could this tech ever be used in a TV?


----------



## CliffordinWales

Adonisds said:


> Apple iPhone 14 Pro - Full phone specifications
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gsmarena.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new iPhone has an OLED display with 2000 nits under sunlight and 1600 nits when playing HDR video, so I assume it reaches 1600 nits in accurate mode.
> 
> Why are these mobile displays so much brighter than the OLED TVs?
> 
> Could this tech ever be used in a TV?


It's going to be an RGB OLED, so no. 

Samsung tried to produce an RGB OLED TV back in 2013 but they couldn't make it work commercially - I believe yields were too low at that size. 

In terms of brightness, there's a trade off with panel longevity given the only blue OLED emitter currently available is the inefficient, first generation fluorescent type. You can drive phone OLED displays harder because people tend to replace their phones after a couple of years but expect TVs to last five years or longer.

The good news is that a second generation, phosphorescent blue is expected to become commercially available in 2024.


----------



## 59LIHP

*The Best Quality TVs at a Great Price - Surely They Should Sell Well?*
_Samsung's TV currently has access to what I (and pretty well everyone I know in TV!) consider to be the best quality TV panel technology in the world (as long as you are not in very bright ambient light). But sales levels are a problem. How did that happen?_








News: Displays and Their Technologies


You don't always have to be right thats okay , but it's fun to guess what's going to happen. For example, there are currently a lot of Forum Threads arround the World about the new Nvidia RTX 4000 Graphics Cards that are coming up soon, and various "leaks" and "rumors" come out since months...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## winterbegins

Well they showed them at IFA and separated them from the LCDs - that was marketing enough if you ask me. I see no point putting 10x S95B's side by side, because in the end the LCD lineup would still be way bigger, with way more models up to 98 inches. 

I highly doubt that the problem is the marketing, its the flock they got earlier this year for build quality, OS and and various other things. Besides that, QD-OLED real world advantages are not so huge that everyone would rush out to get one instantly. Value and selection matters way more to consumers.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

59LIHP said:


> *The Best Quality TVs at a Great Price - Surely They Should Sell Well?*
> _Samsung's TV currently has access to what I (and pretty well everyone I know in TV!) consider to be the best quality TV panel technology in the world (as long as you are not in very bright ambient light). But sales levels are a problem. How did that happen?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News: Displays and Their Technologies
> 
> 
> You don't always have to be right thats okay , but it's fun to guess what's going to happen. For example, there are currently a lot of Forum Threads arround the World about the new Nvidia RTX 4000 Graphics Cards that are coming up soon, and various "leaks" and "rumors" come out since months...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Just wow:
_Finally, my sources in the supply chain say that because VD is not really pushing QD-OLED sets, demand is weak and SDC has had to actually pause even its limited production for a while to avoid excessive inventory._


----------



## Mark Rejhon

jl4069 said:


> Mark, I also had a idea I wanted to ask you about, if I may. Would it be possible to use a very fast monitor, say 900Hz (when one exists) and literally run x shows/x content through such a monitor and copy the motion output of this to create a master of sorts, and use it on a regular 120Hz screen with suitable processing abilty, or use machine learning techniques to learn many aspects of motion from a 900Hz reference, and apply them to a slower rate screen? thanks, j


Since OLED is going to unavoidably hurtle upwards in refresh rates throughout this decade (pressure from multiple vendors)...It's a good question.

First, your question opens a Pandora Box that needs a little disambiguation.

You're discussing a temporal (Hz) equivalent of the well known spatial science:
Just like 4K cameras downconverted to 1080p usually looks better than 1080p-native cameras, it is possible that future UltraHFR masters can produce superior lower-framerate material.

First, there's the caveat that Ultra HFR is lower quality (see Ultra HFR FAQ) because traditionally higher frame rates requires faster shutter speeds, more light per frame, and lower resolution per frame due to limited processing speed. But that is metaphorically classic newtonian style thinking. The weak links of Ultra HFR described in the Ultra HFR FAQ needs to be concurrently solved. 

However, these are actually solvable problems:

1. *Processing speed is solvable* by various kinds of parallelisms (e.g. 8 video processing chip processing every 8th frames. Separate chips, or in 2030s as "multicore compression processors" or as concurrent shaders on a powerful GPU, etc).

2. *Faster shutter speed is solvable* by various kinds of tips (AI-based motion compensated noise filtering, and/or digitally stacking adjacent frames to lengthen exposure times longer than frametimes for dark sequences). And you can stack them to create native lower frame rates at native longer lower-noise exposure. Astronomy already stacks frames. Video will do that (with AI-based motion compensation) to create noise-free video frames by using adjacent frames as context (even near scene-change splices).

3. *Lower resolutions are slowly becoming solved*. We're finally getting 8K video in smartphones, and as processing improves, can be redirected to extra frames. Expansions in processing power will flow to better temporals once we've milked spatials to maximum humankind benefit;

We can envision a world where 1000fps masters can output flawless motion-blurry 23.975fps, 24fps, 50fps, 59.94fps, and 60fps from the very exact same UltraHFR master. Any framerate resembling analog framerateless, is a perfect framerate-independent master. *One master, any framerate print, even non-integer divisible!*

When frametimes are extremely final granularity (under 1ms), it is possible to forgo exact multiples when judder is below human detectable thresholds, and you have many ultrabrief samples before/after (massive context for ultra-accurate AI). Then you can simply use modern AI to produce a compensated "cut" between two adjacent 1/1000sec frame, by guessing what frame was captured about 0.4321ms after previous frame but 0.5789ms before next frame.

Imagine then, that, cinematographer-optimized versions of future realtime AI art engines like DALL-E 5 or whatever can use many previous frames and many subsequent frames to almost perfectly create intermediate frames at the non-divisible point, if necessary. AI-based partial-splce engines simply uses the whole video file as its own "training material" and creates near-perfect guesses of frames in between frames, including perfect parallax compensation (e.g. panning past picket fences and whatever won't have those infamous Motionflow style artifacts). And because this is only blended-visible as less than 5% of the stacked 23.976fps output. So we can eliminate the need for integer divisibility, creating perfect 23.976fps prints from 1000fps masters or framerateless masters. One simplified crude way for a human brain to imagine this, is basically 23.976 would essentially internally convert 1000fps into, say, 23976fps (with the help of AI), and then stack 1000 frames per 23.976fps output frame of that, to generate perfect 23.976fps output just like a native 23.976p camera.

The native Ultra HFR (1000fps+) must be a permanent 360 degree shutter -- unadjustable shutter -- *with shutter speed and frame rate adjusted in post*
Then the same 1000fps+ grainy noisy RAW master can output::
*- Noisefree (Any fps) at (Any shutter speed) from the same UltraHFR master!*

Noisefree 60fps television material at 1/60sec (360-degree shutter emulation)
Noisefree 60fps television material at 1/1000sec (low blur sports)
Noisefree 50fps PAL television material at 1/1000sec (low blur sports)
Noisefree 23.976fps 1/100sec-exposure-per-frame
Noisy 60fps at 1/60sec
Your favourite Hollywood Filmmaker setting
Your favourite UltraHFR setting
Or any dream framerate at any dream exposure, whatever you want
No interpolation garbage, because 1000fps is native, 23.976fps is native, 50fps is native, 100fps is native, 120fps is native, if you define "native" as an ultralow SNR threshold between original-vs-output (or in this case, native workflow-vs-framerateless workflow) like for a compression format such as a H.264 video file (so "native" doesn't have to be scared of AI being used surgically in a Right Tool for Right Job manner). 

So the "native" purists are thinking Newtonian instead of Einsteinian, when all you really want is a file format that outputs as perfectly as a native-framerate native-shutter native-ISO workflow. And the allure of a framerateless video file has humongous advantages for tomorrow's multi-Hz consumption. 

You can have your HOLLYWOOD FILMMAKER MODE cake and eat the ULTRAHFR cake too. Both output from the same framerateless master.

A single UltraHFR master can now produce all the above, without needing integer-divisible frame rates. You could even adjust ISO in post, shutter in post, framerate in post, etc, from an essentially framerateless RAW master! (without needing a timecoded photon camera). Eventually we will need a framerateless compression algorithm, for future framerateless masters, but for now, 1000fps+ 1000hz+ will be a defacto workaround for a framerateless video format.

(Creating accurate framerateless masters will mandatorily require 360-degree shutters, so you need to brute-force the frame rate to allow fast shutter speeds from a 360-degree master -- so there is a need to record continuously for maximum spatial and temporal video quality. 1000fps at 360degree is still a sports-fast 1/1000sec, after all! So you use that as a master for all motion-blurrier shutter speeds)

Achieved by a simultaneous combination of: AI-based stacking frames + AI-based infill painting algorithms + AI-based flawlessly motion compensated noise correction (using adjacent frames as context) + AI for the non-integer-divisible overlapping frames. It's amazing what AI can do, and just needs to be combined in Ultra HFR technologies to make a defacto framerateless master video that doesn't require a framerateless video file format yet (as such file formats have not yet been invented except for game engines like UE5).

How To Say Goodbye to Integer-Divisibility Requirement (Hello human-vision-perfect 23.976fps from 1000fps masters):

Early work is on things like AI-based interpolators, but instead you're doing things in a very different workflow -- e.g. recording at an ultra high sample rate to a framerateless video file -- and bumping the processing to post. You'd have the standard filters but other filters would be available. And you've seen some of the AI-based slow motion generators -- except it's that improved 100x better and put into a realtime workflow (at least in early simulations of framerateless masters, or only used at the non-integer subframe splices -- e.g. properly splitting an adjacent-frame pairs at the non-integer-divisible locations, which means for 1000fps, the AI-predict error margin would create <0.1% SNR (deviation from native camera), which is below 1/1000 color shade difference.

Today, AI is very flawed on some things, but look at the leap recently on some line items -- few perfectly parallax-compensated interpolates with SNR below human visible noisefloor. At 1000fps, you got a lot of temporal samples. Besides, 23.976fps on a 1000fps master just requires 23 non-AI-touched frames and 0.976 AI-touched frames in terms of temporal interpolation. So good AI based splicing at non-integer intervals (even if creating 1% error), it is stacked with non-AI-temporally-touched frames, pushing error margin to below 0.1%. Basically only 0.976/23.976ths of whatever AI error margin becomes put through to the final frame.

So now you can human-perception flawlessly output exactly 23.976fps from an exactly 1000fps Ultra HFR master! Goodbye integer divisibility requirement! Hello "Any framerate from the same master"!

It won't be native frame rate, but it is fundamentally the temporal equivalent of the world's best AI-based scaling algorithms. Except the science is applied towards the temporal dimension, instead of the spatial dimension to achieve the universal framerateless "master" (or "main" if preferred) file.

In fact, it is possible to train AI based algorithms to be also trained to recognize the camera's noise characteristics, and automatically compensate for them (e.g. pixels that have worse S/N margins, pixels that have hotter/colder floors aka hot pixels, how the noise "flows", etc). Optionally (at the video editor level) preserving camera noise or reducing it as much as you want (down to the camera's native noisefloor for long exposures)

In simple terms, the magic sauce allows 1/1000sec shutter to be as low-noise as 1/24sec shutter.

(This is thanks to AI-based noise correction from temporary frame-stacking -- with AI-based correction for motion), so even fast-motion 1000fps is correctly noise-filtered to create bright-image low-blur 24fps 1/1000sec motion. The science is imperfect today but context from thousands of adjacent frames. Properly applied, 1 second at 1000fps is a lot of training for an AI neural network, to the point where it contains enough information for the best skunkworks AI-based motion-compensated frame-stacking algorithm to successfully create 1/1000sec exposure frames as bright as 1/24sec exposure frames -- including excellent parallax behavior (e.g. things revealed behind objects). The brute sample rate solves a lot of problems with AI artifacts, when the science is applied properly. They already can create 3D worlds (AI-assisted photogrammetry) from a few photographs, more and more realistically in a shocking geometric improvement, and this science improves a lot when you've got 1000 photographs of the same scene over one second (1000fps = literally 1000 photographs per second), and you are using all 1000 photographs to estimate something that only happens for 0.5 milliseconds. AI error margin goes WAY down. Boom, problem solved (but not for commercially available AI engines -- this is next generation [bleep] in laboratories).

You see, AI working on processing a firehose of 1000 photographs per second would concurrently analyze multiple in-memory intermediate workflows (stacked for lumen resolution, unstacked for motion resolution) and combine the two for concurrent bright images at excellent fast-shutter motion resolution. This may not be quite realtime yet, but you can still do it in post production (at any time interval you want), if you only had a framerateless video file format that can be recorded in real time -- the AI magic sauce happens in post production, and does not have to be fully realtime. AI will also intentionally raytrace a few rays into the sceneary to "double check" its own AI work, and make adjustments as necessary, until the output framerate is "human perfect" (e.g. <0.1% SNR to theoretical original native workflow), in a loopback fashion, with AI smart enough to self-recognize "ugh, it doesn't look correct". Newer AI self-refactor the imagery until it's human pefect without parallax artifacts, like a perfect Photoshopper... (DALL-E and MidJourney doesn't even do this yet -- but when you combine with some temporal AIs -- amazing magic happens). This isn't AI creating frames from scratch. This is AI simply fixing things like a noise filter or scaler, except just the bare minimum AI necessary to make a framerateless master video file format to output any framerate while keeping that output framerate native.

This is "2030s Cinematography" talk mind you... But aspiring Ultra HFR enthusiasts need to be reminded we *need dramatic geometric jumps in refresh rates for bigger-population majorly human-visible benefits* (60 -> 240 -> 1000 -> 4000 fps=Hz), because some can't tell 60 vs 120 like Grandmas can't tell VHS vs DVD. But even my grandma can tell 120Hz vs 1000Hz in forced-motion-resolution-readability tests like www.testufo.com/map (or other tests that force identification of things inside motion blurs), it's a much more dramatic difference up the diminishing curve of returns, like VHS-vs-8K.

Creating a framerateless master will become more important in the next 10-20 years when vendors are able to successfully glue together all the necessary technologies to create a proper workflow that produces output (e.g. 24fps) that is not worse than today's workflows. It's now already possible, but the AI skills haven't reached the camera makers, the video codec engineers, and all. The individual components are now already available, but few people in those specific circles yet knows how to temporally glue all of this together to create the framerateless master video file. However, Blur Busters textbook reading such as blurbusters.com/area51 is training many of tomorrow's video researchers -- e.g. the kids of the people who work at orgs like Motion Picture Experts Group or VESA, etc. By the time 2030s roll around, combining AI skills and video standards skills and camera-manufacture skills, and then watch out.

Very few (<1%) is talking about the concept of framerateless masters, but it's like the 1980s Japan MUSE HD researchers talking about future digital 4K. We're roughtly at that stage when it comes to the science of framerateless master video files -- *aka a video file that uses analog-coded motion (no discrete frame rate)*

HDR masters can still output SDR prints
8K masters can still output 1080p prints
1000fps+ (or framerateless) masters can still output properly *HOLLYWOOD FILMMAKER MODE* motion-blurry 24p prints
Etc.

But mark my words, by the decade of 2030-2039, probably H.268 or H.269 might consider going framerateless once the technologies, researchers, and skills finally make the (defacto) "*framerateless master video file*" possible to flawlessly output all framerates of all ISOs of all shutter speeds you want in post-production.

In other words, you can output:

*Any ISO *in post production (matching quality of the ISO-native workflow)
*Any framerate *in post production (matching quality of the framerate-native workflow)
*Any shutter speed *in post production (matching quality of the shutter-speed-native worlflow)
*Any amount of motion blur *you want (or lack thereof) in post production (matching quality of native workflow)
*Any amount of "original" camera noise *(up to camera's best) you want in post production (matching quality of native workflow)
No longer need integer divisibility needed between original and output frame rate
*From ONE video file.* The same single framerateless master video recording file.

Yep. It's possible!

Video production can artist all the camera settings in post-production instead, since the file has sufficient information necessary.

Understandably, temporal science is harder for people to understand than spatial science, given the number of researchers still going "huh?" at 240fps vs 1000fps (despite being human-visible to >90% of population at GtG=0ms). So there's some assumption/bias inertia that prevents some researchers from properly inventing a framerateless master video file, even though a few Einsteins have found out it's now technologically possible, to the point where enough subsections of workflow has been tested to confirm the theoretical framerateless video workflow;

Fractions of workflow was already demonstrated by various AI and neural-network researchers. Might be almost a human generation before the video guys "get" it and weave together an industry standard for such a universal master temporal format. Hopefully sooner, who knows?

This is all future stuff undergoing line-item research of the various tiny subsets of this workflow -- fascinating for researchers involved in the temporal domain.


----------



## jl4069

Mark Rejhon said:


> Since OLED is going to unavoidably hurtle upwards in refresh rates throughout this decade (pressure from multiple vendors)...It's a good question.
> 
> First, your question opens a Pandora Box that needs a little disambiguation.
> 
> You're discussing a temporal (Hz) equivalent of the well known spatial science:
> Just like 4K cameras downconverted to 1080p usually looks better than 1080p-native cameras, it is possible that future UltraHFR masters can produce superior lower-framerate material.
> 
> First, there's the caveat that Ultra HFR is lower quality (see Ultra HFR FAQ) because traditionally higher frame rates requires faster shutter speeds, more light per frame, and lower resolution per frame due to limited processing speed. But that is metaphorically classic newtonian style thinking. The weak links of Ultra HFR described in the Ultra HFR FAQ needs to be concurrently solved.
> 
> However, these are actually solvable problems:
> 
> 1. *Processing speed is solvable* by various kinds of parallelisms (e.g. 8 video processing chip processing every 8th frames. Separate chips, or in 2030s as "multicore compression processors" or as concurrent shaders on a powerful GPU, etc).
> 
> 2. *Faster shutter speed is solvable* by various kinds of tips (AI-based motion compensated noise filtering, and/or digitally stacking adjacent frames to lengthen exposure times longer than frametimes for dark sequences). And you can stack them to create native lower frame rates at native longer lower-noise exposure. Astronomy already stacks frames. Video will do that (with AI-based motion compensation) to create noise-free video frames by using adjacent frames as context (even near scene-change splices).
> 
> 3. *Lower resolutions are slowly becoming solved*. We're finally getting 8K video in smartphones, and as processing improves, can be redrected to extra frames. Expansions in processing power will flow to better temporals once we've milked spatials to maximum humankind benefit;
> 
> J


Mark, While few on here will admit it, that was a master class on the future of video, photography, motion, film-making and videography. Your variables are very well identified and reasoned. I wasn't sure you would reply, as I was thinking some of this would be too senstive to bring up in an online forum. However it appears that at this point that those who can imagine this, must indeed continue to use their imaginations before much of this is made into science. The analog world is the best source for so much of Ai, even Tesla is figuring this out by now; truly aware and smart Ai is much harder to capture and achieve than the first gen Ai scientists thought. thanks Mark, jeremy


----------



## 59LIHP

*The identity of "OLED.EX" that has undergone revolutionary evolution *








News: Displays and Their Technologies


https://www.thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=17997 Backtracking to this article, I assumed the 65" $620/panel was targeted estimate by Omdia for end of first half of 2023, and that my translation to English altered some things to erroneously show 2022. Does everyone else interpret this...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## FernandoValdirNayron

59LIHP said:


> *The Best Quality TVs at a Great Price - Surely They Should Sell Well?*
> _Samsung's TV currently has access to what I (and pretty well everyone I know in TV!) consider to be the best quality TV panel technology in the world (as long as you are not in very bright ambient light). But sales levels are a problem. How did that happen?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News: Displays and Their Technologies
> 
> 
> You don't always have to be right thats okay , but it's fun to guess what's going to happen. For example, there are currently a lot of Forum Threads arround the World about the new Nvidia RTX 4000 Graphics Cards that are coming up soon, and various "leaks" and "rumors" come out since months...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


I think Samsung is tasting their own medicine. Back then when WOLED was the best panel tech, samsung came with all the marketing bs, giving a lot of emphasis on useless features and calling their LCD TV whatever names to give the impression of been on pair with OLED. That worked and they have selled a lot, but confused the public too.

Now they have a really meaningfull tech, but how can they prove to the general public that QD-OLED is different? And all their past televisions were LCDs with dishonest names, and most of their selling features had little to no impact in picture quality or performance. They cannot say much without disagreeing with a lot of things they've said in the past. How are they going to handle the fear of the burn in they have, by themselves, caused to the general public? With all the confusion they have made, QD-OLED gives the impression of been just another QLED. 

That is my opinion and there should be more contributing factors to it, like end of pandemics.

And I have no intentions to bash LCD tech, in some cases its a good option, like you said very bright rooms. But there is a lot of people who looks for a TV for viewing experience and would apreciate a good picture quality. But the relevant information doesnt reach that kind of costumers.


----------



## Stevejfishon

FernandoValdirNayron said:


> I think Samsung is tasting their own medicine. Back then when WOLED was the best panel tech, samsung came with all the marketing bs, giving a lot of emphasis on useless features and calling their LCD TV whatever names to give the impression of been on pair with OLED. That worked and they have selled a lot, but confused the public too.
> 
> Now they have a really meaningfull tech, but how can they prove to the general public that QD-OLED is different? And all their past televisions were LCDs with dishonest names, and most of their selling features had little to no impact in picture quality or performance. They cannot say much without disagreeing with a lot of things they've said in the past. How are they going to handle the fear of the burn in they have, by themselves, caused to the general public? With all the confusion they have made, QD-OLED gives the impression of been just another QLED.
> 
> That is my opinion and there should be more contributing factors to it, like end of pandemics.
> 
> And I have no intentions to bash LCD tech, in some cases its a good option, like you said very bright rooms. But there is a lot of people who looks for a TV for viewing experience and would apreciate a good picture quality. But the relevant information doesnt reach that kind of costumers.


And the fact of no Dolby vision, it’s a deal breaker for me, they just refuse to pay Dolby, a dollar a set to use it, and continue with 10pluss


----------



## 8mile13

Just noticed a QD OLED name change...again. Samsung now calls it ..''OLED QD S95B''.


----------



## Ted99

Did nothing happen on this topic at CEDIA? It has come and gone already?


----------



## Donny84

What are the chances of Samsung or Sony actually reducing OLED film judder without having to force SOE/de-judder, with their 2023 QD-OLED’s?

My LG C1 has some of the worst film judder ever. Nowhere near as smooth as my plasma after doing some comparisons. To get The judder in the same ball park or slightly even better I had to raise de-judder to 4, but then I have to deal with SOE, including artifacts and weird motion jankyness.

Samsung should also include a 120hz BFI setting for game mode, and update the S95B with it already


----------



## cdheer

Donny84 said:


> What are the chances of Samsung or Sony actually reducing OLED film judder without having to force SOE/de-judder, with their 2023 QD-OLED’s?
> 
> My LG C1 has some of the worst film judder ever. Nowhere near as smooth as my plasma after doing some comparisons. To get The judder in the same ball park or slightly even better I had to raise de-judder to 4, but then I have to deal with SOE, including artifacts and weird motion jankyness.
> 
> Samsung should also include a 120hz BFI setting for game mode, and update the S95B with it already


I'm no expert, but my understanding is that it's a result of the nature of sample-and-hold displays. Having said that, Sony's motion handling on my A80J has been excellent to my eyes.


----------



## Donny84

cdheer said:


> I'm no expert, but my understanding is that it's a result of the nature of sample-and-hold displays. Having said that, Sony's motion handling on my A80J has been excellent to my eyes.


it’s too bad, because these TVs are really expensive, yet Plasma still has the big upper hand in terms of film Judder. Much smoother compared to my choppy C1.

I also turned cinema screen Off. Leaving it on magnified the judder even more. Yikes.

it’s either, deal with excess film judder or force a higher frame rate with de-judder to reduce it or eliminate it completely while destroying that cinematic 24fps. I think higher frame rates have their place depending on the movie, but eh. I always fall back to my S60 plasma solely for streaming movies /TV Shows and use the C1 for switch & PS5

For movies/TV series…based on what’s currently available I’d go with a QD-OLED, like Samsungs S95B, while using its black frame insertion motion setting to hit near 720p HD motion resolution(it’s actually 650p, but still over double than the base 300p) and the big reduction in motion blur gives you plasma-like motion.

its a winning combination for anybody that’s grown accustomed to plasma over the years. You’re still getting horrendous judder though, but at least you’ll get true blacks and a brighter picture, even with BFI enabled, and 4K

getting a pro calibration to nuke the default out of box black crush and BFI shadow detail crushing is a must, aside from getting correct color white balance settings. BFI completely goes out the window obviously for HDR though.

I guess movies being presented at 60fps is the only way to eliminate all film judder. 48fps for the upcoming Avatar 2 should do a good job at reducing it by half, if that even measures up correctly


----------



## mrtickleuk

Donny84 said:


> I guess movies being presented at 60fps is the only way to eliminate all film judder. 48fps for the upcoming Avatar 2 should do a good job at reducing it by half, if that even measures up correctly


It reduces judder, but in its place, introduces a new, worse, problem (makes it all look like behind-the-scenes on-set _rehearsal footage_ that you'd get in the Extras section of the disc). High Frame Rate has _not_ taken off widely in the cinema, and I for one hope that it never does, and remains confined to a handful of experimental titles only.

I far prefer the judder every time.


----------



## Donny84

mrtickleuk said:


> It reduces judder, but in its place, introduces a new, worse, problem (makes it all look like behind-the-scenes on-set _rehearsal footage_ that you'd get in the Extras section of the disc). High Frame Rate has _not_ taken off widely in the cinema, and I for one hope that it never does, and remains confined to a handful of experimental titles only.
> 
> I far prefer the judder every time.


48-60fps might work very well for something like Avatar 2. Anything with CG characters imo can look fantastic at a higher frame rate but in most cases, like you pointed out, it destroys that surreal cinematic quality and makes it feel like you’re looking through a window and getting a glimpse of being on a movie set.

If sammy or Sony could get film judder as low as plasma I’d be content. It’s jarrring just how choppy and less natural the motion can look on OLED by comparison. I don’t watch as many movies as I used to, so it’s not a deal breaker or anything. 60fps-120fps video games have zero judder, so problemo’ solved. But movies/TV shows still suffer the wrath of that pesky judder


----------



## microledfan

mrtickleuk said:


> It reduces judder, but in its place, introduces a new, worse, problem (makes it all look like behind-the-scenes on-set _rehearsal footage_ that you'd get in the Extras section of the disc). High Frame Rate has _not_ taken off widely in the cinema, and I for one hope that it never does, and remains confined to a handful of experimental titles only.
> 
> I far prefer the judder every time.


Well, fun fact:
[email protected] on a CRT looks just like HFR or Interpolation.
What you equate with "cinematic experience" is simply the judder you get from running 24fps at higher refresh rates with or without impulsing(CRT)/BFI.
So if you interpolate a 24fps image to 1000fps without any errors you would get the same image as [email protected] CRT but without the flicker.
People have been fooled for a long time into thinking judder is the cinematic experience but in reality the earliest 24fps Films didn't use shutters and instead ran at an equivalent of 24hz resulting in no judder. They did however hold the frame for as long as possible to minimize light waste so the motion clarity was likely not top-tier.

HFR will be a thing in cinemas but not for a long time. The reason is chiefly because it's too expensive to shoot at higher framerates.


----------



## Donny84

microledfan said:


> Well, fun fact:
> [email protected] on a CRT looks just like HFR or Interpolation.
> What you equate with "cinematic experience" is simply the judder you get from running 24fps at higher refresh rates with or without impulsing(CRT)/BFI.
> So if you interpolate a 24fps image to 1000fps without any errors you would get the same image as [email protected] CRT but without the flicker.
> People have been fooled for a long time into thinking judder is the cinematic experience but in reality the earliest 24fps Films didn't use shutters and instead ran at an equivalent of 24hz resulting in no judder. They did however hold the frame for as long as possible to minimize light waste so the motion clarity was likely not top-tier.
> 
> HFR will be a thing in cinemas but not for a long time. The reason is chiefly because it's too expensive to shoot at higher framerates.


give me plasma tier judder at worst or eliminate it completely, and allow BFI that can hit 1080p motion resolution with zero motion blur like a CRT while giving us at least 150-200 nits SDR

we’ve gone backwards when it comes to motion. I can’t stand watching movies on OLED without BFI. Without it, once things start moving everything turns to mush. But I feel like the C1’s motion pro high setting, at times, causes noticeable flicks here and there along with shadow detail crushing. The latter can be corrected with a proper calibration at least, and it’s worth doing considering just how much better the motion winds up being.


----------



## 8mile13

Plasma's have a special 24fps blu-ray etc.. movie mode where it can be run a 72Hz, 96Hz etc..where there is way less judder.. Oddly only Pioneer, Samsung and Panasonic Plasma's have such modes. And that is on top of excellent Plasma motion. So Plasma movie motion is superior compared to Sample&Hold TV movie motion that is why i stick with (9G Pioneer) Plasma for the time being (which i use for blu-ray movies only).

CNET wrote a article about 1080p24 where this special Plasma mode is mentioned.
What is 1080p24? - CNET


----------



## mrtickleuk

8mile13 said:


> Plasma's have a special 24fps blu-ray etc.. movie mode where it can be run a 72Hz, 96Hz etc..where there is way less judder.. Oddly only Pioneer, Samsung and Panasonic Plasma's have such modes. And that is on top of excellent Plasma motion. So Plasma movie motion is superior compared to Sample&Hold TV movie motion that is why i stick with (9G Pioneer) Plasma for the time being (which i use for blu-ray movies only).
> 
> CNET wrote a article about 1080p24 where this special Plasma mode is mentioned.
> What is 1080p24? - CNET


All recent OLEDs run 24p content using 4:4 pulldown (96Hz) or 5:5 pulldown (120Hz) and do exactly the same thing as in that 2013 article. The reason it looks different is the _instant response time_ of the pixels.


----------



## 8mile13

mrtickleuk said:


> All recent OLEDs run 24p content using 4:4 pulldown (96Hz) or 5:5 pulldown (120Hz) and do exactly the same thing as in that 2013 article. The reason it looks different is the _instant response time_ of the pixels.


 In case of for instance Sony it uses Black Frame Insertion to achieve that which darkens..dimmer picture.. ''dirty up'' the image a bit, at 96Hz and 48Hz those's Sony's flicker in 24p content, also it is a emulation..which is not the same as the real thing. And there is the negative impact superfast response time has on lower frame rate content.


----------



## lsorensen

microledfan said:


> Well, fun fact:
> [email protected] on a CRT looks just like HFR or Interpolation.
> What you equate with "cinematic experience" is simply the judder you get from running 24fps at higher refresh rates with or without impulsing(CRT)/BFI.
> So if you interpolate a 24fps image to 1000fps without any errors you would get the same image as [email protected] CRT but without the flicker.
> People have been fooled for a long time into thinking judder is the cinematic experience but in reality the earliest 24fps Films didn't use shutters and instead ran at an equivalent of 24hz resulting in no judder. They did however hold the frame for as long as possible to minimize light waste so the motion clarity was likely not top-tier.
> 
> HFR will be a thing in cinemas but not for a long time. The reason is chiefly because it's too expensive to shoot at higher framerates.


Well they did use a shutter while moving the frame. I think you mean they didn't use a shutter to open and close multiple times per frame unlike what they did later.


----------



## mrtickleuk

8mile13 said:


> And there is the negative impact superfast response time has on lower frame rate content.


That's why I wrote "The reason it looks different [to plasma] is the _instant response time_ of the pixels."


----------



## 8mile13

mrtickleuk said:


> That's why I wrote "The reason it looks different [to plasma] is the _instant response time_ of the pixels."


 I am pretty sure that it looks way better on a Plasma even when response time would not be a problem.


----------



## Donny84

My LG C1’s BFI motion Pro high setting in ISF Bright or Dark mode for SDR movies/TV shows still provides a brighter picture than my Panny S60 plasma, and the whites look whiter too. It’s not just subtle, it’s very noticeable. BFI shadow detail crushing is what makes the picture look darker, but a calibration can fix that. It also provides just a little less motion blur too Vs my plasma after doing several tests with a 4K HDMI splitter for games running at 60fps. The tried and true ‘eye balling’ in-game camera 360 degree turning method revealed to my eyes that the C1’s max BFI produces just a little less blur, similar motion resolution and didn’t have artifacts or green phosphor issues. Overall it was cleaner and just a little more impressive.

flicker seems almost on par with the plasma, although it’s slightly more noticeable at times depending on the scene, as long as you’re not using BFI max for internal apps like YouTube…for some bizarre reason the flicker magnifies BIG time and it’s unFrikkinbarable…but, if you’re watching YouTube using an external device like a Roku stick or PS5 than the BFI flicks look normal.Plus movies and TV shows for internal apps don’t have any crazy BFI flickering issues fortunately, it’s just YouTube for whatever weird reason.

BFI also turns gimps up for some strange reason when navigating the streaming User interfaces.

I keep hearing people say that BFI doesn’t work for internal apps on the C1. The truth is, it just doesn’t work with streaming ‘UI’s’ and is a broken strobey’ flicker fest with YouTube 

movies/shows on Netflix, Prime, Disney+ etc all work perfectly with the C1’s BFI MotionPro high setting. Don’t use Low, Auto or medium since they’ll produce motion doubling. Those settings are designed for 120fps content like 120fps video games.

Ultimately, if someone were to get a pro calibration for the C1, and get the out of box black crush/gamma issue corrected, the Color white balance settings dialed in properly and eliminate the BFI Max shadow detail crushing, it would almost feel like you’re watching movies on a brighter plasma with true blacks, but with excess judder. 

the C1 doesn’t have the strongest color volume for brighter Color’s or the best gradient, but this is where QD-OLED comes in


----------



## 8mile13

Donny84 said:


> My LG C1’s BFI motion Pro high setting in ISF Bright or Dark mode for SDR movies/TV shows still provides a brighter picture than my Panny S60 plasma, and the whites look whiter too. It’s not just subtle, it’s very noticeable. BFI shadow detail crushing is what makes the picture look darker, but a calibration can fix that. It also provides just a little less motion blur too Vs my plasma after doing several tests with a 4K HDMI splitter for games running at 60fps. The tried and true ‘eye balling’ in-game camera 360 degree turning method revealed to my eyes that the C1’s max BFI produces just a little less blur, similar motion resolution and didn’t have artifacts or green phosphor issues. Overall it was cleaner and just a little more impressive.
> 
> flicker seems almost on par with the plasma, although it’s slightly more noticeable at times depending on the scene, as long as you’re not using BFI max for internal apps like YouTube…for some bizarre reason the flicker magnifies BIG time and it’s unFrikkinbarable…but, if you’re watching YouTube using an external device like a Roku stick or PS5 than the BFI flicks look normal.Plus movies and TV shows for internal apps don’t have any crazy BFI flickering issues fortunately, it’s just YouTube for whatever weird reason.
> 
> BFI also turns gimps up for some strange reason when navigating the streaming User interfaces.
> 
> I keep hearing people say that BFI doesn’t work for internal apps on the C1. The truth is, it just doesn’t work with streaming ‘UI’s’ and is a broken strobey’ flicker fest with YouTube
> 
> movies/shows on Netflix, Prime, Disney+ etc all work perfectly with the C1’s BFI MotionPro high setting. Don’t use Low, Auto or medium since they’ll produce motion doubling. Those settings are designed for 120fps content like 120fps video games.
> 
> Ultimately, if someone were to get a pro calibration for the C1, and get the out of box black crush/gamma issue corrected, the Color white balance settings dialed in properly and eliminate the BFI Max shadow detail crushing, it would almost feel like you’re watching movies on a brighter plasma with true blacks, but with excess judder.
> 
> the C1 doesn’t have the strongest color volume for brighter Color’s or the best gradient, but this is where QD-OLED comes in


According hdtvtest C1 BFI high is only worthwile for gamers because of motion clarity it brings, it is unusable for anything else.

The S60 is a really cheap Plasma. According Rtings it has avarage motion handling for a Plasma more importantly it does not do 96Hz only 48Hz but that is unwatchable so that is not a Plasma you can use for Panasonic Plasma 96Hz comparison with stuff like LCD/OLED BFI at all. With stuff like BFI Blackframe Darkframe Insertion you only can _sort of_ compensate for those dark frames..especially with more agressive settings..it surely has a negative impact on the image.


----------



## Donny84

8mile13 said:


> According hdtvtest C1 BFI high is only worthwile for gamers because of motion clarity it brings, it is unusable for anything else.
> 
> The S60 is a really cheap Plasma. According Rtings it has avarage motion handling for a Plasma more importantly it does not do 96Hz only 48Hz but that is unwatchable so that is not a Plasma you can use for Panasonic Plasma 96Hz comparison with stuff like LCD/OLED BFI at all. With stuff like BFI Blackframe Darkframe Insertion you only can _sort of_ compensate for those dark frames..especially with more agressive settings..it surely has a negative impact on the image.


according to RTNGS?
Have you tried out the C1 first hand? I’ve had it for over a year
Now and I’d say Motion Pro High/BFI is not worth using for gaming, at all. Reason being is because game mode is already dimmer than ISF bright/dark room picture settings. LG had to gimp sharpness/clarity and brightness to get latency down for game mode. So using max BFI just makes the picture look lifeless, very dim and dark. It looks awful. Plus latency doubles….the motion however winds up looking really good though.

gaming at 120fps however is fantastic and has zero compromises.

And BFI does make all the difference for movies. With around 650p motion resolution and a big reduction in blur gets it closer to feeling like a CRT. Obviously it’s not in the same ball park, but it looks similar to that of the S60s which does have average motion for a plasma…but that average plasma tier motion still spanks the base motion of a C1 or any current OLED.

without BFI high, the motion just isn’t good. Unless 300p motion resolution drenched in a fog of mush appeals to you. To me it just looks like drunkOvision


----------



## 8mile13

Donny84 said:


> according to RTNGS?
> Have you tried out the C1 first hand? I’ve had it for over a year
> Now and I’d say Motion Pro High/BFI is not worth using for gaming, at all.
> Reason being is because game mode is already dimmer than ISF bright/dark room picture settings. LG had to gimp sharpness/clarity and brightness to get latency down for game mode. So using max BFI just makes the picture look lifeless, very dim and dark. It looks awful. Plus latency doubles….the motion however winds up looking really good though.
> 
> gaming at 120fps however is fantastic and has zero compromises.
> 
> And BFI does make all the difference for movies. With around 650p motion resolution and a big reduction in blur gets it closer to feeling like a CRT. Obviously it’s not in the same ball park, but it looks similar to that of the S60s which does have average motion for a plasma…but that average plasma tier motion still spanks the base motion of a C1 or any current OLED.
> 
> without BFI high, the motion just isn’t good. Unless 300p motion resolution drenched in a fog of mush appeals to you. To me it just looks like drunkOvision


72Hz movie option on a Pioneer Plasma 24p film will look different than Off, _motion will be relative smooth,_ _picture will have more depht _and_ there is a live feel _also. There is no blur anyway so that problem does not exists. Similar will be the case with a Panasonic Plasma that does 96Hz. A S60 only can do 60Hz 24p .. 24p movies will look jerky no matter what settings you use...you need a 96Hz option if you want to get rid of jerky motion.


----------



## Donny84

8mile13 said:


> 72Hz movie option on a Pioneer Plasma 24p film will look different than Off, _motion will be relative smooth,_ _picture will have more depht _and_ there is a live feel _also. There is no blur anyway so that problem does not exists. Similar will be the case with a Panasonic Plasma that does 96Hz. A S60 only can do 60Hz 24p .. 24p movies will look jerky no matter what settings you use...you need a 96Hz option if you want to get rid of jerky motion.


but wouldn’t the 72-96hz cause an SOE like effect?

either way it’s irrelevant. I need a TV that’s both good for streaming and gaming and plasma doesn’t do a good job with the latter.

a S95B QD-OLED will give you as low as 5ms of latency and 10 at most. 120fps, HDR support, 4K, true blacks, a far brighter picture and an even brighter picture with its BFI than any plasma.

it’s BFI in game mode shoots latency up to 28ms which isn’t ideal at all, yet that is still lower than 99% of plasmas including my S60 which has about 35ms.

the only reason to get a plasma is for streaming & Blu-rays. Guess I’ll have to make due with that wicked qd OLED judder until something better comes along. I mean, I don’t watch a lot of movies or TV anymore so I can live with it.

somebody on here said that micro LED doesn’t even have motion blur. Sounds like a dream 😚


----------



## Jin-X

Donny84 said:


> but wouldn’t the 72-96hz cause an SOE like effect?
> 
> either way it’s irrelevant. I need a TV that’s both good for streaming and gaming and plasma doesn’t do a good job with the latter.
> 
> a S95B QD-OLED will give you as low as 5ms of latency and 10 at most. 120fps, HDR support, 4K, true blacks, a far brighter picture and an even brighter picture with its BFI than any plasma.
> 
> it’s BFI in game mode shoots latency up to 28ms which isn’t ideal at all, yet that is still lower than 99% of plasmas including my S60 which has about 35ms.
> 
> the only reason to get a plasma is for streaming & Blu-rays. Guess I’ll have to make due with that wicked qd OLED judder until something better comes along. I mean, I don’t watch a lot of movies or TV anymore so I can live with it.
> 
> somebody on here said that micro LED doesn’t even have motion blur. Sounds like a dream


MicroLED is sample and hold just like LCD and OLED.

Why would 72/96Hz cause SoE? They aren’t converting it to that fps, it’s to keep the proper 24fps cadence and with plasma being an impulse display the repeat steps would be simulating a projector’s shutter. That’s what Sony did when they had 120hz available on WRGB OLED. If you used the first BFI steps with 24p content it would run the BFI at 96hz to simulate that projector shutter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 8mile13

Donny84 said:


> but wouldn’t the 72-96hz cause an SOE like effect?


I think it is only for 24p sources. It is the motion without jerkyness and added depth that will give the impression of a live feel in certain scenes. My TVs have depth in some scenes anyway it is just a tiny bit more when using 72Hz with the improved motion making it more noticeable also. But is does not look cheap or weird and there are no fake frames, what you will see when you use for instance VT60 motion interpolation.


----------



## juandhi

Can we get a CES countdown timer at the top of this site ... patiently waiting on the 77" QD Oleds but damn does it feel like its taking forever


----------



## Donny84

juandhi said:


> Can we get a CES countdown timer at the top of this site ... patiently waiting on the 77" QD Oleds but damn does it feel like its taking forever


I doubt Sony will be able to match Samsung's Game modes latency even in 2023, so they're out for me! Samsung it is. Question is, what NEW will they bring to the table with QD-OLED aside from a potential 77" model? A Stronger Black frame insertion setting that has higher motion resolution(Than the S95B's 650p) and even less motion blur? 120hz BFI with Low & Medium settings? Maybe ABL will be less agressive too.

I don't know, i might pull the trigger on the 65" S95B in December or Jan, but i figure why even bother if samsung's new QD-OLED's winds up launching in march, if that's even the case.


----------



## sgbroimp

I hope I am in the right place with this question. Is an owner of a Sony A9G 55" set (3 years old I guess) really going to see much of a difference with the current range of Sony and other sets. I am excluding the sets of over $3K from this question. It seems to me on live TV Commiecast is not even at 4K yet and the compression in my area is just overwhelming. On the internal apps, Netflix is not even what it was years ago in terms of resolution. Condensed milk sold as whole milk in my book.


----------



## Ted99

This is OT, but there does not seem to be an exact fit for this topic and this forum has some very competent posters. Saw an opinion piece about USB-C in the NYT today that inferred that it "could" replace the HDMI connector. I've been hoping that the HT universe would migrate to the Display Port connector because of it's higher data rate than HDMI and "latching" feature. But, USB-C certainly would solve the real estate problem and cable diameter and stiffness problem that multiple HDMI ports now pose on our devices (particularly Receivers). The small size would also more easily allow a period when HDMI + another port type could be accommodated--a big problem for Display Port. Anyone on this forum with insight into the future for "ports"?


----------



## beerhunt

Recent Consumer reports take on the latest TVs whether LEDs or OLED:









Best TVs of 2022 - Consumer Reports


Check out Consumer Reports' list of the best TVs of the year for performance and price. Selections are based on tests of hundreds of TVs that we conduct each year.




www.consumerreports.org


----------



## wco81

CR is paywalled.

Not terribly useful link for most people unless they have a CR subscription.


----------



## mr-bcm

Ted99 said:


> This is OT, but there does not seem to be an exact fit for this topic and this forum has some very competent posters. Saw an opinion piece about USB-C in the NYT today that inferred that it "could" replace the HDMI connector. I've been hoping that the HT universe would migrate to the Display Port connector because of it's higher data rate than HDMI and "latching" feature. But, USB-C certainly would solve the real estate problem and cable diameter and stiffness problem that multiple HDMI ports now pose on our devices (particularly Receivers). The small size would also more easily allow a period when HDMI + another port type could be accommodated--a big problem for Display Port. Anyone on this forum with insight into the future for "ports"?


Right now HDMI 2.1 is better than Displayport 1.4 (2.0 soon?). Another issue is, if I'm remembering correctly, HDMI supports much longer cables. I don't mind using whatever is best, but it seems to vary a lot.

As for USB-C, that is the slowest cable of the three. Granted all of this changes each time a new version comes out. I'd be happy with USB-C for the size and it being reversible.

I haven't read rumors about OLED or LED ports changing, but I'm fine just using whatever is fast enough for all tv features. Right now HDMI 2.1 does a great job. I don't personally care for the DP latching feature, I like how USB-C is reversible more.


----------



## cdheer

wco81 said:


> CR is paywalled.
> 
> Not terribly useful link for most people unless they have a CR subscription.


I can sum it up. They don't explain what or how they test, for whatever that's worth. Basically, they absolutely prefer OLED to LCD, and they love the QD-OLEDs. In the 65" size, they pick the Samsung; #2 is the A90J. Bunched up in the top ten (all within a couple of CR's points away from each other, which is probably within the margin of error) are 9 OLEDs and the Samsung QN90B. For OLEDs, it's all the familiar players: the S95B, the A90J, the G2, the C2, the A80J, and so on. Peak brightness is definitely one of their main criteria.


----------



## wco81

cdheer said:


> I can sum it up. They don't explain what or how they test, for whatever that's worth. Basically, they absolutely prefer OLED to LCD, and they love the QD-OLEDs. In the 65" size, they pick the Samsung; #2 is the A90J. Bunched up in the top ten (all within a couple of CR's points away from each other, which is probably within the margin of error) are 9 OLEDs and the Samsung QN90B. For OLEDs, it's all the familiar players: the S95B, the A90J, the G2, the C2, the A80J, and so on. Peak brightness is definitely one of their main criteria.



Thanks.

Do they review the A95K?


----------



## cdheer

wco81 said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Do they review the A95K?


They said they hadn't yet reviewed the 65" model, but they did include a link to their view of the 55" (they like it a lot).


----------



## juandhi

cdheer said:


> They said they hadn't yet reviewed the 65" model, but they did include a link to their view of the 55" (they like it a lot).


more than the 55 s95b?


----------



## cdheer

juandhi said:


> more than the 55 s95b?


They don't explicitly say.


----------



## @Get_Inside_Tech

CliffordinWales said:


> I'm not sure if this post got any traction on this forum when it was published on Display Daily a few weeks ago, but it's interesting not just on the specific work of the company concerned (Noctiluca) but also in setting out the four generations of OLED emitters and progress ongoing in developing emitters within each generation.
> 
> We've talked extensively about a blue PHOLED recently and the advantages that will bring to both WOLED and QD-OLED, but this is a useful reminder that there's still research ongoing into a TADF blue and beyond that hyperfluorescent emitters in red, green and blue. So there's still plenty of 'room to grow' for OLED displays over the next few years, assuming research in the field will eventually bear fruit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noctiluca Sets Out Its Stall for Advanced OLED Materials
> 
> 
> The Pacific Northwest Chapter of SID held a webinar last month that featured a talk by Noctiluca, a company that is developing OLED emitter materials and one that I have been intending to write about for a while. That was handy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaydaily.com


Quoting above from May this year by @*CliffordinWales*

That's even more interesting with the latest Cynora (another 3rd and 4th gen emitter RnD Team) taken over by Samsung. So in the area of new-gen advanced material for OLED only Kyulux and Noctiluca are left? 
Kyulux has raised another round in 2021 with LGD, Samsung, Joled but reports "rapid progress" on TADF since 2018... While the 2nd, Noctiluca is working already with LGD via MTA, Filgen as a distributor, and a few other giants via NDA agreements.

Any guess who can be first in the race - Kyulux, Noctiluca or some house-built RnD like Samsung or UDC? That battle is interesting to watch and track, also from UDC perspective - will they maintain their hegemon position?


----------



## Ted99

The TCL OD Zero thread has an interesting discussion on how the new EU TV energy requirements may cut off all sales of large TV's with HDR, including the G2


----------



## mr-bcm

Ted99 said:


> The TCL OD Zero thread has an interesting discussion on how the new EU TV energy requirements may cut off all sales of large TV's with HDR, including the G2


My understanding is the legislation regulates the default picture mode. So you could release an hdr 8k tv but have the default picture mode handicap it. I don't think it actually stops the selling of these TV's. Marketing might get harder.


----------



## 8mile13

Maybe you understand that wrong. It is no longer just default picture mode related so expectation is no 8K TVs in Europe in 2023 (new energy label 1 march 2023). One has to wait a few more months before is becomes official though.

_"Unless something changes, March 2023 will spell trouble for the emerging 8K industry with the 8K EU Regulatory Ruling. That’s when new EU power consumption regulations are set to go into effect. The power consumption limits on 8K TVs (and microLED-based displays) are set so low that essentially none of these devices will pass,"_ the 8K Association wrote in a post.


----------



## hamad138

When will the 2023 TVs will be announced ?

Gesendet von meinem GM1913 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Moravid

CES?


----------



## juandhi

CES most of the time is my understanding


----------



## VA_DaveB

Moravid said:


> CES?


CES= Consumer Electronics Show

CES 2023


----------



## Me Boosta

Realistically, what can we expect from 2023 WOLED and QD-OLED Panels over this year? I know WOLED might come out with panels equipped with microlenses. Anything else we should be on the lookout for?


----------



## bort69

Me Boosta said:


> Realistically, what can we expect from 2023 WOLED and QD-OLED Panels over this year? I know WOLED might come out with panels equipped with microlenses. Anything else we should be on the lookout for?


QD-OLED sizes beyond 55 and 65. OLED might have micro lenses but investment has likely stopped due to the recession.


----------



## ChicagoChris

How's the anti-burn in on OLED's newer than 2017? My 2017 LG has slight burn in from the YoutubeTV logo (red). I babied the TV for the last 5 years with calibration, screensavers etc but still got a faint burn in.

I am a bit surprised as I really thought that I did everything I could to avoid it. The TV is 5 years old and has about 7000 hours on it. I am not that mad about it as I love the set but a bit surprised that I got some BI.


----------



## RichB

VA_DaveB said:


> CES= Consumer Electronics Show
> 
> CES 2023


Will they be showing Display technology at the *C*onformant *E*nvironmental *S*ustainability show? 
I mean 8K is getting outlawed...

- Rich


----------



## soloist3

Kind of a non-sequitur, but the only thing I'm interested in with OLED tech is eLEAP. I love the current QD-OLED's and other than eLEAP tech, and maybe adding a polarizer filter to the front of the S95B, I can't imagine TV getting any better, especially with the current power consumption regs coming out of the EU


----------



## razor488

I am wanting to buy an ~85 inch TV and I understand the LG 83 inch OLED is one of the best out there. My question is, is now a good time to buy this TV or is there tech I should be waiting on before buying? I don't need the TV now, so I don't mind waiting if there are certain features that I should be waiting on. 

Thanks


----------



## yogi6807

razor488 said:


> I am wanting to buy an ~85 inch TV and I understand the LG 83 inch OLED is one of the best out there. My question is, is now a good time to buy this TV or is there tech I should be waiting on before buying? I don't need the TV now, so I don't mind waiting if there are certain features that I should be waiting on.
> 
> Thanks


You will always be waiting on new tech. Because there is something new every year. I would wait a year if you don’t need one now. It will be interesting to see how they react to qd oled.


----------



## shawman123

razor488 said:


> I am wanting to buy an ~85 inch TV and I understand the LG 83 inch OLED is one of the best out there. My question is, is now a good time to buy this TV or is there tech I should be waiting on before buying? I don't need the TV now, so I don't mind waiting if there are certain features that I should be waiting on.
> 
> Thanks


Even if they launch a cool tech for 2023, you wont be able to buy that until say May/June and deals will be about couple of months after that. So if you can wait that long definitely look for CES for details and then decide.


----------



## LSKBlue2

I am trying to figure out what process my OLED, specifaclly LG CX, uses to deinterlace. I have my PS2 hooked up via a Component to HDMI adapter that simply passes thru the 480i signal, no upscale or deinterlacing is done on the adapter. The picture looks fine but I do see a few combing artifacts in certain scenes with fast motion or in game menus. I'm a bit confused in the difference between Field combination deinterlacing, Field extension deinterlacing, Motion compensation deinterlacing and was curious what process a TV would use. If my understanding is correct, Field combination deinterlacing may look good but playing a 60fps game like Metal Gear Solid 2 would halve the perceived FPS to 30fps? I suspect this is what the tv is using and I'd be better served buying a Retrotink 5X with it's motion compensation deinterlacing to avoid perceived loss of fps? Field extension deinterlacing does not seem desirable for image quality.


----------



## Me Boosta

It turns out that the 49" QD-OLED panel Samsung Display planned for 2023 is a super ultrawide panel. Any guesses on what the resolution of this is going to be?









MSI Teases 49-inch Super Ultra-Wide QD-OLED Monitor


If LG's 45-inch OLED monitor isn't quite big enough for you, MSI might have what you've been waiting for, as the company has teased its upcoming Project 491C 49-inch QD-OLED monitor on Twitter. This is yet another massive OLED display that supports 240 Hz refresh rate, but beyond that, the...




www.techpowerup.com


----------



## lsorensen

Me Boosta said:


> It turns out that the 49" QD-OLED panel Samsung Display planned for 2023 is a super ultrawide panel. Any guesses on what the resolution of this is going to be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI Teases 49-inch Super Ultra-Wide QD-OLED Monitor
> 
> 
> If LG's 45-inch OLED monitor isn't quite big enough for you, MSI might have what you've been waiting for, as the company has teased its upcoming Project 491C 49-inch QD-OLED monitor on Twitter. This is yet another massive OLED display that supports 240 Hz refresh rate, but beyond that, the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com


5120 x 1440 according to the articles I have seen. So like two 2560x1440 16:9 displays side by side without a border in the middle. So a 32:9 display.


----------



## Ted99

This is OT, but I used a super wide monitor for a flight sim up until I went to a set of VR goggles. The former is like looking at a big window. The latter is like being there.


----------



## on3moresoul

I have a large picture window in my living room that gets quite bright from ~9 am - 1 pm on most days. Wondering if the superior OLED relative contrast (thanks to the very deep black levels) would be viewable in a well-lit room during those times or if I'd have to get an QDLED display with greater brightness to combat it. I read earlier in the thread about QD-OLED may have issues with direct sunlight, which is the case in my situation.

Currently I have a Samsung LN46B750U1FXZA, but I can't find how many nits that display was to know if OLED would be an improvement or regression from 12 years ago. Any recommendations?


----------



## orangey

ChicagoChris said:


> How's the anti-burn in on OLED's newer than 2017? My 2017 LG has slight burn in from the YoutubeTV logo (red). I babied the TV for the last 5 years with calibration, screensavers etc but still got a faint burn in.
> 
> I am a bit surprised as I really thought that I did everything I could to avoid it. The TV is 5 years old and has about 7000 hours on it. I am not that mad about it as I love the set but a bit surprised that I got some BI.


Supposed to be much more durable now.


----------



## Riptide_NVN

Is that a C7 from 2017?

I'm most interested in how LG is going to fix the uniformity and banding issues moving forward. Does QD resolve that?


----------



## Ted99

on3moresoul said:


> I have a large picture window in my living room that gets quite bright from ~9 am - 1 pm on most days. Wondering if the superior OLED relative contrast (thanks to the very deep black levels) would be viewable in a well-lit room during those times or if I'd have to get an QDLED display with greater brightness to combat it. I read earlier in the thread about QD-OLED may have issues with direct sunlight, which is the case in my situation.
> 
> Currently I have a Samsung LN46B750U1FXZA, but I can't find how many nits that display was to know if OLED would be an improvement or regression from 12 years ago. Any recommendations?


Pretty sure you will not see the benefits of the OLED in a bright room. I had to go to a QLED in a similarly bright room.


----------



## cdheer

lsorensen said:


> 5120 x 1440 according to the articles I have seen. So like two 2560x1440 16:9 displays side by side without a border in the middle. So a 32:9 display.


I have a Samsung Galaxy G9, which is one of their 32:9 ultrawide LCDs. Same resolution (5120x1440). I adore it, but would replace it in a heartbeat with an OLED version.


----------



## joe domingos

https://www.techradar.com/news/lgs-better-oled-display-tech-will-be-in-every-new-tv


----------



## YOU are the one

Any news or possible information about 2023 OLED TVs? I would really love to see them use micro lenses in 2023 but that's too much to ask for, especially with the power consumption changes in Europe that will likely affect the whole world.


----------



## Moravid

Wait for CES next January


----------



## Rod#S

I don't suppose any rumors of LG or Samsung making the jump to 12bit panels?


----------



## shyguy3763

Riptide_NVN said:


> Is that a C7 from 2017?
> 
> I'm most interested in how LG is going to fix the uniformity and banding issues moving forward. Does QD resolve that?


I don't own a QD-OLED but according to comments from owners and reviews the answer is 90% yes, no banding or tinting. Screen uniformity has never looked so good!


----------



## wco81

shyguy3763 said:


> I don't own a QD-OLED but according to comments from owners and reviews the answer is 90% yes, no banding or tinting. Screen uniformity has never looked so good!


But will that continue to be the case with second and later generation QD-OLED?

Does the technology inherently have some advantages in these areas or did Samsung use a sound manufacturing process for relatively low volumes and if they scale up volumes, these panel attributes won't continue?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

8K QD-OLED TVs and high-res QD-OLED monitors are getting closer


"Known as 'Jarvis', the tool will be used to print displays for 8K TVs and high-resolution monitors"




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## mrtickleuk

Rod#S said:


> I don't suppose any rumors of LG or Samsung making the jump to 12bit panels?


I really do wish there was, but no. 

I want fully 12 bit panels, full rec2020 coverage, improved near-black rendering, perfect mura uniformity, better anti-reflective coatings, longer lifespans, zero tinting and vignetting, etc.A higher resolution (8K) is at the absolute BOTTOM of my wish-list of things I want next, but it's the thing the manufacturers are hell-bent on pushing.


----------



## artur9

mrtickleuk said:


> I really do wish there was, but no.
> 
> I want fully 12 bit panels, full rec2020 coverage, improved near-black rendering, perfect mura uniformity, better anti-reflective coatings, longer lifespans, zero tinting and vignetting, etc.A higher resolution (8K) is at the absolute BOTTOM of my wish-list of things I want next, but it's the thing the manufacturers are hell-bent on pushing.


Higher framerate, like 240 or 480 Hz! 

And, yeah, who needs/wants 8K? Everyone is watching streaming services now and the last thing the services want is to have to send more bits.


----------



## Wizziwig

Rod#S said:


> I don't suppose any rumors of LG or Samsung making the jump to 12bit panels?


12-bit !? I'd be thrilled if they could achieve true native 8-bit without resorting to dithering.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Wizziwig said:


> 12-bit !? I'd be thrilled if they could achieve true native 8-bit without resorting to dithering.


Ban FRC!


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Microled tvs have 24 bit color depth.


----------



## cdheer

mrtickleuk said:


> A higher resolution (8K) is at the absolute BOTTOM of my wish-list of things I want next, but it's the thing the manufacturers are hell-bent on pushing.


I wouldn't blame the manufacturers. Buyers chase numbers and think bigger is better. But yeah, it's at the bottom of my list as well.


----------



## ttnuagmada

OLED_Overrated said:


> Microled tvs have 24 bit color depth.


That's computer speak for 8 bits per channel.


----------



## Wizziwig

mrtickleuk said:


> Ban FRC!


FRC is fine when the artifacts are below the human vision threshold. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case for OLEDs. It was even worse on Plasmas. Luckily it's usually only noticeable on darker colors when up close to the panel. One can usually also spot temporal dithering failure on panning smooth color gradients.

Most of the QD-OLED monitor owners run their panels at 8-bit (to save bandwidth for 175Hz refresh) and don't notice any difference to 10-bit @ 144 Hz. Either the panels are effectively 8-bit in both modes or the dithering is invisible - in that case why do we need native 12-bit?

I know people around here hate 8K but it's actually useful for hiding dithering artifacts. The pixels are so small, you don't notice the added noise as much.


----------



## Wizziwig

On a somewhat related note... just watched the recent HDTVtest Philips OLED review. That near-black handling was horrific. Surprised they can actually sell a TV in that condition to the public.

Wonder why LG Display doesn't integrate a mitigation solution to this issue at the panel level so each TV manufacturer doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. Maybe something to add to the 2023 WOLED panel wish list?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Samsung Display Will Highlight QD-OLED Improvements at CES 2023 - Insight Media


We met with Samsung Display a the SMPTE conference in Hollywood where they were showcasing their current QD-OLED TV vs. a white OLED TV. The QD-OLED TV was the Sony A95K model while the white OLED TV was the G2 from LGE. While specifics of QD-OLED performance improvements will have to wait...



www.insightmedia.info






> While specifics of QD-OLED performance improvements will have to wait until the CES time frame, representatives did reveal that there will be a new and improved OLED stack that will increase brightness and contrast even higher.


How are they improving the brightness? Additional oled layer? Phosphorescent oled?


----------



## stama

It might be just the rumored removal of one of the two glass layers in their panels: the glass layer between the quantum dots layer and the top oled layer. But I wouldn't think there's much brightness gained by doing that. This change is mostly driven by their desire to reduce production costs. It will improve internal panel reflections (and perceived contrast therefore) for sure though (and make the panel even more bendable).

Must have been humbling to Samsung Display officials to use a Sony TV for their showcase, instead of the Samsung Electronics product - shows how much they trust their sister division.


----------



## lsorensen

stama said:


> Must have been humbling to Samsung Display officials to use a Sony TV for their showcase, instead of the Samsung Electronics product - shows how much they trust their sister division.


Well I guess they wanted to show that their panel could make a great looking TV.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

https://sid.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/msid.1358










Lifetime and Peak brightness of IJP RGB OLED is inferior to QDOLED and WOLED. I do not really see an advantage of IJB RGB OLED in the tv range.


----------



## YOU are the one

mrtickleuk said:


> I really do wish there was, but no.
> 
> I want fully 12 bit panels, full rec2020 coverage, improved near-black rendering, perfect mura uniformity, better anti-reflective coatings, longer lifespans, zero tinting and vignetting, etc.A higher resolution (8K) is at the absolute BOTTOM of my wish-list of things I want next, but it's the thing the manufacturers are hell-bent on pushing.


Anything else? Priced like as seen on TV junk too? 😹


----------



## samuel1983

Rod#S said:


> I don't suppose any rumors of LG or Samsung making the jump to 12bit panels?


This question gets asked virtually every year just before ces. Manufacturers aren't even thinking in this direction right now, i think 10bit with dithering is what we'll be stuck with for years.


----------



## cdheer

samuel1983 said:


> This question gets asked virtually every year just before ces. Manufacturers aren't even thinking in this direction right now, i think 10bit with dithering is what we'll be stuck with for years.


It'll happen as soon as they can't keep pushing resolution numbers (or nits) because marketing loves it when you have bigger vs smaller numbers, even if consumers don't really understand them. And when they market panel bit depth, they'll be misleading about dithering, too.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

You'll need 10k nits to truly take advantage of the benefits of 12 bit which qdoled peak brightness is not anywhere near.


----------



## mrtickleuk

OLED_Overrated said:


> You'll need 10k nits to truly take advantage of the benefits of 12 bit


Actually you don't really.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/samsung-display-universal-display-corporation-123000441.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMEUPaFm3ejCj1IB_wQ2CDnrq86OD97e7xQumLA6U0lOQBvE1dCHL8HMhobWHQxDBD2yIYq_j7dforIJTX3PiqmJFNPpEkxBU1JhBVnDBYKGwWLP5W7YMYxUk6KPenXd9JsoAeOEzQPS1ktQj7uQ-Sofg9by3rcL3dPhk0FAwUHM


Samsung buying blue phosphorescent oled from UDC?


----------



## cdheer

The article doesn't mention blue; it just talks about them _continuing_ to supply Samsung Display.


----------



## 59LIHP

cdheer said:


> The article doesn't mention blue; it just talks about them _continuing_ to supply Samsung Display.


That may be the case?








News: Displays and Their Technologies


Mini-LED backlight unit in Odyssey Neo G9 49’’ Samsung Monitor IN DEPTH TECHNICAL AND COST ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST MONITOR MINI-LED BACKLIGHT UNIT AND ITS ASSEMBLY DESCRIPTION After more than three years of hype, excitement, and unfulfilled promises, mini-Light Emitting Diode (LED) backlights...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Me Boosta

This article claims that MLA won't be arriving in commercial TV's till 2024. What are your thoughts on the matter?









LGD의 '마이크로 렌즈 적용' 대형 OLED 2024년 나온다


마이크로 렌즈를 적용한 LG디스플레이의 대형 OLED가 2024년 출시될 전망이다. 마이크로 렌즈를 사용하면 휘도(밝기)와 소비전력 개선을 기대할 수 있다. 6일 업계에 따르면 LG디스플레이가 휘도와 소비전력을 개선하기 위해 개발 중인 마이크로 렌즈 어레이(MLA:Micro Lens Array)를 적용한 대형 유기발광다이오드(OLED)는 2024년 상용화가 가능할 것으로 기대된다. LG디스플레이는 지난 5월 미국에서 열린 국제정보디스플레이학회(SID) 전시회에서 중수소 기술과 마이크로 렌즈를 함께 적용한 8K 77인치 OLED를 처




www.thelec.kr


----------



## chozofication

Do we know if Samsung qd OLED will get a polarizer next year?


----------



## lsorensen

I doubt it, given my understanding is that it was left out to give a big improvement to brightness and that Samsung didn't think they needed it due to having quantom dots.


----------



## bort69

Me Boosta said:


> This article claims that MLA won't be arriving in commercial TV's till 2024. What are your thoughts on the matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LGD의 '마이크로 렌즈 적용' 대형 OLED 2024년 나온다
> 
> 
> 마이크로 렌즈를 적용한 LG디스플레이의 대형 OLED가 2024년 출시될 전망이다. 마이크로 렌즈를 사용하면 휘도(밝기)와 소비전력 개선을 기대할 수 있다. 6일 업계에 따르면 LG디스플레이가 휘도와 소비전력을 개선하기 위해 개발 중인 마이크로 렌즈 어레이(MLA:Micro Lens Array)를 적용한 대형 유기발광다이오드(OLED)는 2024년 상용화가 가능할 것으로 기대된다. LG디스플레이는 지난 5월 미국에서 열린 국제정보디스플레이학회(SID) 전시회에서 중수소 기술과 마이크로 렌즈를 함께 적용한 8K 77인치 OLED를 처
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thelec.kr


2023 is going to be pretty mediocre since everyone stopped investing.


----------



## hristoslav2

CES 23 > TV Oled LG G3, technologie MLA pour un pic lumineux à +70% sur les dalles 55''/65'' et 77''


> *CES 23 > Oled LG G3 TV, MLA technology for a +70% light peak on 55''/65'' and 77'' panels*
> 
> *The result of exchanges, once again, with our Korean colleagues, one of the big novelties of the Oled LG 2023 TV range concerns the LG G3 series which will inaugurate MLA (Micro Lenses Array) technology, resulting in a bright peak in increase of +70%. No doubt this will be one of the highlights of the LG stand at the CES show in Las Vegas 2023 which will open its doors on January 5th.*
> 
> Please note, this figure of +70% for the peak light of a TV equipped with the MLA process is understood to be compared to the Oled LG A3 or LG B3 TV series, more or less identical to the Oled LA A2 and LG B2 TV series. This means about a gain of +20% compared to an LG G2 equipped with an EX panel, a value far from low.
> 
> *LG G3 MLA Oled TV, microlens technology*
> As a reminder, the MLA process (initially called Metal Illuminated Lens Array, _see our LG Display news reacts to QD Oled Samsung Display technology with an Oled Smart TV offering 2,000 nits_ ) lies in the addition on the Oled TV panel of a micro ‑lenses whose purpose is to optimize the path of the light generated by the diodes, to direct it entirely outwards, ie on the slab side. Thus, if when leaving the factory, a classic OLED panel displays a luminous peak of approximately 800 nits and an OLED EX approximately 1,000 nits, a panel equipped with micro‑lenses should reach a peak of 1,100/1,200 nits. Another positive point, this better luminous efficiency would also have repercussions on energy efficiency, again improving,_see our news published last May, already: LG Display is experimenting with a process to increase Oled brightness by 20%_ . Slightly negative point, these micro‑lenses, directives, imply a lesser angle of vision. But nothing too bad according to our information.
> 
> 
> *LG G3 MLA Oled TV, only on the 55''/65'' and 77'' diagonals*
> Namely, according to our sources again, the MLA process will not concern all the diagonals of the LG G3 Oled TV series. If the 55'' (140 cm), 65'' (165 cm) and 77'' (196 cm) models will benefit from it, the 83'' (211 cm) and 97'' (246 cm) models will not. In any case, as we anticipated through a previous news published on the occasion of the IFA Berlin 2022 show last September ( _see our IFA 22 news > Oled TV panel, LG Display announces a new 2023 generation_ ), the teaser orchestrated by LG on its stand announcing a new generation of Oled panels for 2023 ( _see photo above_ ) therefore concerns the integration of MLA technology.


*LG TV 2023*
List of 2023 LG TV models currently available as samples/tested and certified in Korea:

50UR9000PUA webOS 23 M 1.0
50UR9000PUB webOS 23 M 1.0
65UR9000PUA webOS 23 M 1.0

OLED42C3AUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
OLED42C3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
OLED48C3AUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
OLED48C3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
OLED55C3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
OLED65C3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
OLED77C3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
OLED83C3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0

OLED55G3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
OLED65G3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
OLED77G3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
OLED97G3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0

OLED77Z3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0


----------



## juandhi

hristoslav2 said:


> CES 23 > TV Oled LG G3, technologie MLA pour un pic lumineux à +70% sur les dalles 55''/65'' et 77''
> 
> 
> *LG TV 2023*
> List of 2023 LG TV models currently available as samples/tested and certified in Korea:
> 
> 50UR9000PUA webOS 23 M 1.0
> 50UR9000PUB webOS 23 M 1.0
> 65UR9000PUA webOS 23 M 1.0
> 
> OLED42C3AUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
> OLED42C3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
> OLED48C3AUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
> OLED48C3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
> OLED55C3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
> OLED65C3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
> OLED77C3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
> OLED83C3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
> 
> OLED55G3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
> OLED65G3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
> OLED77G3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
> OLED97G3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0
> 
> OLED77Z3PUA webOS 23 O (F) 1.0


This is certainly going to be an exciting CES for those of us looking to buy in 2023!


----------



## wco81

So 70% more peak brightness in one year?

Seems like a pretty significant improvement.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

wco81 said:


> So 70% more peak brightness in one year?
> 
> Seems like a pretty significant improvement.


That was compared to A3 or B3. Compared to last year's G2, only a +20% increase. In my opinion, only improving the peak brightness of specular highlights by 100-200 nits is not that impressive. What would be more impactful is if it could increase full screen brightness by 100 nits which would be a more significant difference and close the gap between miniled and oled.


----------



## wco81

OK, so they were using funny benchmarks then.


----------



## bort69

OLED_Overrated said:


> That was compared to A3 or B3. Compared to last year's G2, only a +20% increase. In my opinion, only improving the peak brightness of specular highlights by 100-200 nits is not that impressive. What would be more impactful is if it could increase full screen brightness by 100 nits which would be a more significant difference and close the gap between miniled and oled.


I doubt anyone normal can tell the difference between 1000 and 1100 nits. Thank you Weber's law! 

Pushing brightness has exponentially diminishing returns.


----------



## juandhi

OLED_Overrated said:


> That was compared to A3 or B3. Compared to last year's G2, only a +20% increase. In my opinion, only improving the peak brightness of specular highlights by 100-200 nits is not that impressive. What would be more impactful is if it could increase full screen brightness by 100 nits which would be a more significant difference and close the gap between miniled and oled.


One would think the physical presence of Microlenses would improve all screen brightness not just solely push specular gains


----------



## OLED_Overrated

juandhi said:


> One would think the physical presence of Microlenses would improve all screen brightness not just solely push specular gains


Yes, but by how much compared to peak specular highlights?


----------



## ALMA

> That was compared to A3 or B3.


Pure speculation. Official specification (native whitepoint, not calibrated) for the 8K prototype was 2000nit APL 3%, 650nit APL 25% and 250nit APL 100%.
Official specification for an 4K EX.Panel is 500-550nit APL 25% and 200nit APL 100%. MLA will boost overall brightness.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

ALMA said:


> Pure speculation. Official specification (native whitepoint, not calibrated) for the 8K prototype was 2000nit APL 3%, 650nit APL 25% and 250nit APL 100%.
> Official specification for an 4K EX.Panel is 500-550nit APL 25% and 200nit APL 100%. MLA will boost overall brightness.


So compared to G2, G3 should have 150 nit increase in brightness for 25% window, and 30nit increase in brightness for 100% window. Less gain in nits as you increase the window size. Not sure how impressive this is given that the S95b already reaches 200 nit on a full screen window without all this extra EX and metalens technology. Presumably, S95b will also be brighter next year so LG may still be behind in the brightness.

edit:


> The luminance is up to 1500 nits, and 77 inches are also available."


출처 : 전자부품 전문 미디어 디일렉(전자부품 전문 미디어 디일렉) 
Not sure if I'm understanding this poor translation, but apparently, peak brightness of qdoled for 2023 will reach 1500 nits compared to 1200 nits this year which is more impressive than what LG is quoting.


----------



## dkfan9

OLED_Overrated said:


> So compared to G2, G3 should have 150 nit increase in brightness for 25% window, and 30nit increase in brightness for 100% window. Less gain in nits as you increase the window size. Not sure how impressive this is given that the S95b already reaches 200 nit on a full screen window without all this extra EX and metalens technology. Presumably, S95b will also be brighter next year so LG may still be behind in the brightness.
> 
> edit:
> 
> 
> 출처 : 전자부품 전문 미디어 디일렉(전자부품 전문 미디어 디일렉)
> Not sure if I'm understanding this poor translation, but apparently, peak brightness of qdoled for 2023 will reach 1500 nits compared to 1200 nits this year which is more impressive than what LG is quoting.


Weren't the 22 QD OLEDs released at 1500 nits then software limited to 1200? Who's to say that doesn't happen again?


----------



## ALMA

OLED_Overrated said:


> 2023 will reach 1500 nits compared to 1200 nits this year which is more impressive than what LG is quoting.


Same specs like this year... Samsung reduced the max. brightness of the S95B with an firmware update.



OLED_Overrated said:


> So compared to G2, G3 should have 150 nit increase in brightness for 25% window, and 30nit increase in brightness for 100% window. Less gain in nits as you increase the window size. Not sure how impressive this is given that the S95b already reaches 200 nit on a full screen window without all this extra EX and metalens technology. Presumably, S95b will also be brighter next year so LG may still be behind in the brightness.


Official factory specification for G2 panel is 200nits for APL 100% ... You can´t compare it 1:1 with measurements from an individual retail unit. Rtings measured only 190nit APL 100% in SDR and around 170nit in HDR for the G2 (55").
The MLA prototype was also an 8K panel. Its more difficult to reaching the same brightness like an 4K panel.
Screen size is also a factor where max. luminance goes up or down.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

dkfan9 said:


> Weren't the 22 QD OLEDs released at 1500 nits then software limited to 1200? Who's to say that doesn't happen again?


The S95b had brightness nerfed after Vincent Teoh called out samsung for making the s95b have overbrightened pqeotf tracking. If they were to do it again and get called out again, that would be pretty stupid.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

ALMA said:


> Same specs like this year... Samsung reduced the max. brightness of the S95B with an firmware update.
> 
> 
> 
> Official factory specification for G2 panel is 200nits for APL 100% ... You can´t compare it 1:1 with measurements from an individual retail unit. Rtings measured only 190nit APL 100% in SDR and around 170nit in HDR for the G2 (55").
> The MLA prototype was also an 8K panel. Its more difficult to reaching the same brightness like an 4K panel.
> Screen size is also a factor where max. luminance goes up or down.


I would not trust the specs on the 8k prototype and then use that to extrapolate how bright G3 can get. Reaching 250 nits full screen and 2000 nits peak brightness is way more than a 20% increase compared to lg Z2. According to Rtings, the G2 is only brighter than the G1 by 30 nits on a fullscreen window. If a 30% increase in brightness from EX can, in practice, only increase 30 nits, then a 20% increase in brightness shouldn't be that much more than 30 nits. There's just no way that MLA is going to increase full screen brightness by over 100 or 200 nits.


----------



## mrtickleuk

dkfan9 said:


> Weren't the 22 QD OLEDs released at 1500 nits then software limited to 1200? Who's to say that doesn't happen again?


Indeed. Release the TV, get glowing reviews, the masses only care about peak brightness (which is highly ignorant) and focus on that one number, then Samsung reduces the peak attainable luminance later in the year with a firmware update.



OLED_Overrated said:


> The S95b had brightness nerfed after Vincent Teoh called out samsung for making the s95b have overbrightened pqeotf tracking. If they were to do it again and get called out again, that would be pretty stupid.


I'm going to disagree with the word: "nerfed" certainly isn't the right word in that particular context, "_corrected the PQ tracking_" was what happened. Nerfed means _breaking something which was not broken_, and it definitely was broken (on purpose). and made movies look nothing like what they were supposed to look like. What Samsung's firmware fix for the PQ tracking did was the opposite, it corrected it.

That correction was a *separate issue entirely* to the issue of overall peak brightness, which was a much more recent change. Samsung later _reduced the peak brightness _(eg in specular highlights and 1% windows, which makes accurate HDR sparkle)_ that the panel is capable of, overall_.

It's important to distinguish between those two changes they made. The first one was as fundamentally wrong and stupid as not following "gamma" properly in SDR, and just inventing your own EOTF.



OLED_Overrated said:


> I would not trust the specs on the 8k prototype and then use that to extrapolate how bright G3 can get. Reaching 250 nits full screen and 2000 nits peak brightness is way more than a 20% increase compared to lg Z2. According to Rtings, the G2 is only brighter than the G1 by 30 nits on a fullscreen window. If a 30% increase in brightness from EX can, in practice, only increase 30 nits, then a 20% increase in brightness shouldn't be that much more than 30 nits. There's just no way that MLA is going to increase full screen brightness by over 100 or 200 nits.


I definitely agree we need to wait. 8k panels are not very representative of what a 4k panel will do at all. And I'd love to know the power consumption figures - I bet they are show-demo-prototypes that won't be sold anywhere: see earlier discussions on the old 2019 EU power regulations now (quite rightly IMHO) being fully implemented, and so now forcing manufacturers to create more efficient panels. Also, extreme caution ever using R-Tings as any kind of source, need to triple-check everything coming from those guys against a more reliable source.


----------



## CliffordinWales

I can't see how QD-OLED brightness will improve until new OLED chemistry is available - the infamous phosphorescent blue we're expecting to be commercialised in 2024 or thereafter - unless Samsung Display applies its own MLA technology?


----------



## ALMA

> There's just no way that MLA is going to increase full screen brightness by over 100 or 200 nits.


Microlenses can increase brightness up to factor 3! These results are still very low compared to what is possible in R&D.



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328194401_Luminescence_enhancement_of_OLED_lighting_panels_using_a_microlens_array_film











Performance evaluation of micro lens arrays: Improvement of light intensity and efficiency of white organic light emitting diodes


This paper proposes a unique method to improve light intensity and efficiency of white organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) by engraving micro lens arrays (MLAs) on the outer face of the substrate layer. The addition of MLAs on the substrate layer improves ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





And please, don´t compare numbers from Rtings with numbers from manufactures. Factory specs are measured with the native whitepoint of the panel and not D65.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

ALMA said:


> Microlenses can increase brightness up to factor 3! These results are still very low compared to what is possible in R&D.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328194401_Luminescence_enhancement_of_OLED_lighting_panels_using_a_microlens_array_film
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Performance evaluation of micro lens arrays: Improvement of light intensity and efficiency of white organic light emitting diodes
> 
> 
> This paper proposes a unique method to improve light intensity and efficiency of white organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) by engraving micro lens arrays (MLAs) on the outer face of the substrate layer. The addition of MLAs on the substrate layer improves ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And please, don´t compare numbers from Rtings with numbers from manufactures. Factory specs are measured with the native whitepoint of the panel and not D65.


Increasing brightness be a factor of 3 is the best case scenario, but as we know, with mura issues and actual mass production, it likely wouldn't be close to that. If the brightness can be increased by a factor 3, surely LG display would quote a 200-300% increase, but they only quoted a 20% increase. To increase fullscreen brightness by 100-200 nits by increasing 20%, the math simply doesn't check out. 1.2*200=220. Ex technology brightness boost is claimed to be 30% which is more than MLA, but are the EX panels much brighter? So what makes you think that next year's MLA oled tvs which are 20% brighter are going to be a revolutionary jump in brightness? It just seems overly optimistic. What I think is that the peak specular highlights will increase by 20%, but the larger windows are barely going to change much.


----------



## jl4069

Seems that getting to 500/600 nits full field is going to be the hardest obstacle oled - or any sub type, will have to surmount. Likely many years out. j


----------



## yogi6807

jl4069 said:


> Seems that getting to 500/600 nits full field is going to be the hardest obstacle oled - or any sub type, will have to surmount. Likely many years out. j


Why do they need that? Nothing I know of is mastered that way.


----------



## bort69

yogi6807 said:


> Why do they need that? Nothing I know of is mastered that way.


Look I want to sear my retinas off staring into a full-field HDR sun with my fancy TV and no one is going to stand in my way!


----------



## mrtickleuk

yogi6807 said:


> Why do they need that? Nothing I know of is mastered that way.


I think there's about 1 second in "Lord of the Rings" that needs some of it. If that. I agree with you, it's *very *rare in real TV and movie content.


----------



## Ted99

LG seems to be tracking the path postulated by @fafrd some time ago.


----------



## stama

I don't understand what OLED_Overrated is on about. Did he read somewhere that LG promised their 2023 TVs are going to improve the 100% full field brightness by 100-200 nits and he's complaining they can't reach that from ~180 nits they have now with just a 20% improvement in brightness? I would like a link to where they promised that 100-200 nits full field brightness improvement, I don't remember having seen that anywhere.

Or maybe he expects QD-OLED 100% full field brightness to be 100-200 nits higher in 2023, and LG has to match that and they can't with 20% improvement over what they have now? I have not seen anything in what Samsung planned to do for the panel for 2023 that could bring this 100-200 nits increase in full field brightness, either.

QD-OLED 100% full field brightness is at 200 nits right now. WRGB OLED is at 180 nits. That's pretty much the same. You're going to see a big jump in brightness from 80 nits to 100 nits, but not from 180 nits to 200 nits. Neither manufacturers can increase by 100-200 nits their full field brightness for 2023, let's be real.

In fact, MLA seems to be a no-show for LG in 2023, despite all the news outlets claiming MLA for 2023. They didn't read the "we're in trouble with uniformity, we have to delay it" memo from LG yet.

Samsung, if I were to guess, will have learned from all the data they got this year, and will introduce the successor to the S95B with the same characteristics they introduced the S95B this year, but after addressing a few issues that will no longer require them to repeatedly decrease the panel brightness in future firmware updates next year:

they will finally use a more massive heatsink and a TIM with lower thermal resistance, able to soak and disperse sudden localized heat production better than they did this year where it seems that such local heat production peaks are not dispersed fast enough and are damaging the OLED layers;
a reformulation of either the OLED and/or of the QD materials, that makes it possible to sustain more than 1000 nits without the bad side-effects experienced on the 2022 panel, which was either a remnant increase in the luminescence of the OLED layer, or a temporary degradation of the QD materials (heat related, maybe), that could be seen as color temperature veering into the "cold" range for a long time even after the panel luminescence dropped below 1000 nits
maybe a reformulation of these materials so that there is a better linearity in the panel response to be able to cover the BT2020 gamut in a controlled manner, without veering into wild colors in one part of the gamut while the response is at it should be in another part of the gamut
the removal of the glass layer between the QD and the OLED layers will change the panel's pink-instead-of-black characteristic that it had this year in the presence of ambient light; can't say yet if it will change it for the better or worse, we'll see

This will address a couple of issues they had this year:

burn-in on static elements that occurs on the 2022 panel even at 100 nits (as cases were reported by PC users in the S95B owners forum); burn-in at 100 nits is not something that occurs on the WRGB OLED panels!
the ability to actually sustain more than 1000 nits, without color temperature variations
better color tracking of the color spaces out of the gate
perhaps higher luminosity at various intermediary APL (at least for some time, until too much heat is stored in the heatsink)

In no way I expect panel brightness above 1500 nits, which is the figure they advertised the TV as being able to reach in small windows for 2022. They will finally be able to let this happen for short amounts of time in 2023, if the OLED and QD materials are reformulated. The other requirement for this, the larger heatsink, is already known to have been introduced for the 2023 model.

In the second half of next year they'll also launch a 77" 8K QD-OLED for the US market. They got a new inkjet deposition printer from Kateeva which is explicitly designed to print the small droplets required for an 8K panel. EU is a no go, the electricity consumption will run afoul the new energy consumption regulation that will be enforced starting with March 2023. The 77" 4K QD-OLED might not make it to the EU market either, but the 77" size was planned for the US market from the get-go anyway, so whatever.

Edit: forgot to mention, one more thing that Samsung has plans for is to take advantage of the various effects that make the perceived brightness to be higher than the actual brightness of the panel, or perceive colors outside what the panel is able to normally reproduce. This was announced in one of their introduction of the new "Quantum Blue" moniker for the QD-OLED tech. I did not archive a link to that, I'm afraid, so can't share it. So, what is it about? Remember Sony's use of the "Helmholtz-Kohlrausch" effect on the A90J that Vincent Teoh thought of being revolutionary? The use of the H-K effect was already announced this year, don't know if they already use it on the S95B but will certainly be on the successor. And there a more ways to trick the mind in the color science toolbox: increasing the brightness or saturation of an object that a human being knows is reflective can make it appear fluorescent (so the human mind perceives a different color than what a calibration software which integrates the spectrum read by a spectro using the CIE 1931 color matching functions will tell you the color to be), and so on. We'll see if all these tricks that will be advertised as improving brightness through "AI" (as they require object recognition, in some cases) will also be something one can disable for calibration, or they'll always be on and make calibration impossible with the calibration software solutions currently on the market.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

> I don't understand what OLED_Overrated is on about. Did he read somewhere that LG promised their 2023 TVs are going to improve the 100% full field brightness by 100-200 nits and he's complaining they can't reach that from


Other way around. I was making the claim that LG's metalen's technology is barely an improvement and that it's overly optimistic to think MLA will somehow increase fullscreen brightness by 100-200 nits.

I am also confident that 2023 qdoled tvs are still going to be brighter than woled with MLA.


----------



## bort69

stama said:


> Sony's use of the "Helmholtz-Kohlrausch" effect


Lol they can't _not_ use it, it's a human psychovisual effect about colors. Samsung uses it too!


----------



## stama

If you say it like that, you can say that any TV ever made uses it. But does it use it intentionally to reproduce an intended color, or it "uses" it just because the human mind always gets tricked by it?


----------



## bort69

stama said:


> If you say it like that, you can say that any TV ever made uses it. But does it use it intentionally to reproduce an intended color, or it "uses" it just because the human mind always gets tricked by it?


It's a perceptual effect. The human eye perceives colored light as brighter than white light. Whether they actively use it or not is irrelevant, but maybe they do exploit it to reduce power consumption or degradation though I doubt it.

His point is that, say, red on qd oled vs woled will be perceived brighter via the HK effect since qd oled chromatically increases luminance of red but WOLED has to use achromatic white light.


----------



## YOU are the one

bort69 said:


> Look I want to sear my retinas off staring into a full-field HDR sun with my fancy TV and no one is going to stand in my way!


I heard this was an eye problem. Usually the person who has this issue has light colored eyes, whereas dark eyes are designed for strong light. I can watch high brightness content in the dark and seem fine.

Real life and outdoor lighting has objects that are easily over 1,000 nits for example too. I don't want to be stuck in some makeshift home theater environment! That's not progress!


----------



## Mark Rejhon

For computer/interactive/VR context:

One important thing is that now that I have a 240 Hz OLED on my computer desk due to my line of work... They are clearer motion than 360 Hz LCDs in sample-and-hold operation!

(I have a 360 Hz LCD sitting next to it, an ASUS PG259QN)

If you like brute framerate-based motion blur reduction, OLED is extremely blur-efficient.

During GtG=0 and framerate=Hz, display-added motion blur becomes exactly:

Motion blur is pulsetime on strobed/BFI.
Motion blur is frametime on sample-and-hold.

When GtG=0, then 100% of motion blur is always pixel visibility time for a frame.

With OLED GtG more than an order of magnitude below human visibility threshold, OLED virtually perfectly follows Blur Busters Law:





Display persistence equals frametime on OLED (pixel visibility time). So 240fps 240Hz is same motion blur as 1/240sec camera shutter, for the same perceived angular panning velocity. Whether that's 1 pixel of motion blur per 240 pixels/sec -- or 10 pixels of motion blur per 2400 pixels/sec -- or 1 inch of motion blur per 240 inches per second -- or 1 arcsecond of motion blur per 240 arcsecond motion per second -- that's still equivalent motion blur in both contexts;

So the fact that 120-vs-240fps 240Hz OLED perfectly doubles motion resolution and more visibly than LCD 120-vs-240 on LCD, the refresh rate race is easier to see with OLED in the geometric curve of diminishing returns towards the vanishing point of visible humankind benefits.

Due to LCD GtG, 360fps 360Hz IPS LCD has more motion blur than 240fps 240Hz OLED. There are two pixel response blurs that occurs simultaneously on LCD, see Pixel Response FAQ: GtG and MPRT. But on OLED, there's no GtG blur, only MPRT blur that is now exactly following Blur Busters Law (1ms of pixel visibility time translates to 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec).

This is relevant to people using computers (panning/scrolling) or playing games, and it's much easier to tell apart refresh rate differences on OLED than LCD, since MPRT motion blur scales virtually perfectly linearly when GtG=0.

Also, even the GPU is a solvable problem. Reprojection technology can bring 10:1 framerate increases, allowing UE5 detail at 240fps 240Hz OLED today when software developers add reprojection to non-VR contexts.






For now, re-playing older games like Half Life 2 and Bioshock Infinite to get the 240fps 240Hz operation, with the best flickerfree PWM-free pulsefree strobeless motion resolution I've seen.

I love LCD and FALD too, but we can't neglect the fact that if you love brute framerate-based motion blur reduction, OLED 240Hz is quite something when you can get better than plasma motion clarity in an ergonomically perfectly flicker-free manner, zero BFI and zero flickers. Real life does not flicker.

While we need CRT-like BFI and impulsing to reduce the display motion blur of 60 years of retro 60fps 60Hz material, we even more rarely need that for 240fps-1000fps material if GtG=0.

You can still get less motion blur with a strobed LCD, and that's fantastic, and still necessary since retina refresh rate is not still far beyond 1000fps 1000Hz for 30-degree-FOV situation (can exceed 10,000fps 10,000Hz for a 180-degre FOV 8K situation, and double that again for 16K situation), since a 16,000 pixels/sec of head turn in VR can still generate 16 pixels of motion blur if using only 1000fps 1000Hz non-strobed for a theoretical 16K 0ms-GtG sample-and-hold VR display. (Low-persistence via sample and hold requires brute framerate since framerate is THE persistence, when it comes to sample-and-hold)

Now give me my 1000fps 1000Hz OLED already, yesterday so I can enjoy blur busting without eye-searing flicker, for supported interactive content (games, VR, scrolling, panning, etc). And even that is coming too (ETA ~2030).

And DLSS 4.0 to add reprojection technology so I can get 1000fps out of my 100fps games. The RTX 4090 can do 4K 1000fps if assisted by reprojection.

(Yes, there's genuine humankind benefit. myself / Blur Busters / TestUFO is cited in 25+ peer reviewed papers, and an authoritative source in respect to high performance displays)


----------



## stama

bort69 said:


> It's a perceptual effect. The human eye perceives colored light as brighter than white light. Whether they actively use it or not is irrelevant, but maybe they do exploit it to reduce power consumption or degradation though I doubt it.
> 
> His point is that, say, red on qd oled vs woled will be perceived brighter via the HK effect since qd oled chromatically increases luminance of red but WOLED has to use achromatic white light.


You lost me...

First of all, the big reveal regarding A90J was that it was using this effect on purpose. It was not displaying the colors in the video material, it was replacing colors in some areas and displaying more saturated colors instead in order to give the perception of higher content brightness in that area.

So exactly the opposite of your remark here "whether they actively use it [H-K effect] or not is irrelevant". Samsung also explicitly mentioned the intentional use of the H-K effect on their QD-OLED TVs as well when they were speaking about their intentions to achieve top brightness and color volume. Whether they already do it ("intentionally") on the S95B or not, I don't know.

Second of all, when you say "His point is that, say, red on qd oled vs woled will be perceived brighter via the HK effect since qd oled chromatically increases luminance of red but WOLED has to use achromatic white light" - whose point is this, I don't see who you are making a reference to. I agree with the statement you make here, I just don't understand who is this "his" whose point you are supporting here.

To me it seems like you made the statement "the H-K effect is a psychovisual effect that always occurs, be it on a TV, on a piece of colored paper, or anything else" so yeah, Samsung and everybody else in the world "uses" it. That's not what I was referring to, what I said was that Samsung said they will use this effect on purpose, by altering the displayed colors vs the colors in the video content to achieve the perception of brighter colors due to the H-K effect.


----------



## stama

I'll make one more statement on this topic, because I have not seen it raised anywhere else.

Samsung, LG, and Sony, they might have all been taking advantage intentionally of such various visual perception tricks for a while now. This is what I imagine when I hear LG or Samsung claiming their panel is brighter thanks to AI and such at CES events. Just look at LG and the CES 2022 event - how did they claim to improve brightness this year? By employing the OLED.EX tech, which was, in their own words, a stand-in for the use of deuterium and for AI processing to increase image brightness....

The dimming of the OLED panel when it displays dark content that people mistake for too aggressive ASBL (not to mention applied on a dark content where it doesn't make sense to be applied if the intent is panel protection) is certainly the intentional application of a psychovisual effect, as it takes advantage of the fact that our minds don't notice this dimming when it takes place very slowly. Unfortunately they don't really manage to succeed, the OLED TVs push the dimming too far, especially the S95B, and at some point we realize that the image is too dark.

Whenever I saw the troubles people had in calibrating the S95B, I always wondered how much was due to non-linearity of the TV CMS, and how much was a side-effect of an "always on" image processing system that tries to employ such psychovisual tricks. Those that attempted calibration of the S95B and were sharing their findings were sometimes receiving feedback that on such and such video content (as opposed to calibration patches), the reds were too purple, or the green fluorescent, or something else. Maybe these were side effects of the TV image processing trying to employ such tricks but misfiring - maybe object recognition gone bad, or maybe the CMS changes were such that whatever effect the TV was trying to apply is not working anymore with non-default CMS values? Who knows... as long as there will not be a setting to completely disable such processing at will, we'll never know.


----------



## bort69

stama said:


> You lost me...
> 
> First of all, the big reveal regarding A90J was that it was using this effect on purpose. It was not displaying the colors in the video material, it was replacing colors in some areas and displaying more saturated colors instead in order to give the perception of higher content brightness in that area.
> 
> So exactly the opposite of your remark here "whether they actively use it [H-K effect] or not is irrelevant". Samsung also explicitly mentioned the intentional use of the H-K effect on their QD-OLED TVs as well when they were speaking about their intentions to achieve top brightness and color volume. Whether they already do it ("intentionally") on the S95B or not, I don't know.
> 
> Second of all, when you say "His point is that, say, red on qd oled vs woled will be perceived brighter via the HK effect since qd oled chromatically increases luminance of red but WOLED has to use achromatic white light" - whose point is this, I don't see who you are making a reference to. I agree with the statement you make here, I just don't understand who is this "his" whose point you are supporting here.
> 
> To me it seems like you made the statement "the H-K effect is a psychovisual effect that always occurs, be it on a TV, on a piece of colored paper, or anything else" so yeah, Samsung and everybody else in the world "uses" it. That's not what I was referring to, what I said was that Samsung said they will use this effect on purpose, by altering the displayed colors vs the colors in the video content to achieve the perception of brighter colors due to the H-K effect.


Ah yes, you're right. My b.


----------



## stama

I don't like that I left some statements in my previous posts without bringing any evidence, so I looked for them this Saturday (hello, free time!).

LG explains what OLED.EX (EX from EXperience...) is in this article translated by 59LIHP where some of their top technical people speak. They explain the AI in EX as being the technology they use to control panel protection features, even suggesting they no longer have sensors built-in the panel itself for feedback. They are now dimming the panel based on analysis of the content displayed on it, according to the usage time/viewed programs/brightness distribution. They say that statistical analysis of viewing patterns is enough to let them pick an apropiate algorithm. That explains why I always felt that after using the C8 as a PC display for a while, the TV was starting to dim very quickly even right after being turned on, but if I let the TV turned on a TV channel for a while after I was done with PC work instead of turning the TV off, the TV would later change its behavior and stop dimming quickly when used again as a PC display.

I also said that Samsung explicitly mentioned the use of the "Helmholtz-Kohlrausch" effect together with their QD-OLED tech, but didn't bring any proof. It was hard to track where I heard that, but finally did so: it was in a slide of a presentation of the Samsung Visual Display CEO at the iMID2022 conference. Here's the link to a recording of his presentation on Youtube that is right before the moment he introduces that slide: "When you look at the Quantum Dot OLED, you would feel that it is much brighter than the other displays with the same luminance level" he says. And "Same luminance, but different (perceptual) brightness" and "Helmholtz-Kohlrausch" is on the slide. They're calling the use of this perceptual effect as XCR (eXperienced Color Range). The link is again from one of 59LIHP's posts in the "News: Displays and their technologies" thread.


----------



## wco81

Do we really believe that these TVs have processors which can run AI code that effectively?

Smart phones with way more powerful processors and even coprocessors optimized for AI, ML software still send tasks to the cloud for AI processing.

TV processors can't even support enough HDMI 2.1 ports so now they're analyzing video content in real time?


----------



## bort69

wco81 said:


> Do we really believe that these TVs have processors which can run AI code that effectively?
> 
> Smart phones with way more powerful processors and even coprocessors optimized for AI, ML software still send tasks to the cloud for AI processing.
> 
> TV processors can't even support enough HDMI 2.1 ports so now they're analyzing video content in real time?


They have dedicated hardware video accelerator/decode engines, including DSP (i.e. ML/AI). It's why you can even get something approaching real-time video processing on an otherwise as-cheap-as-possible SoC. MediaTek didn't add more than 1-2 HDMI 2.1 ports to the old SoC. Samsung and LG fab their own SoC's so they added whatever they wanted. Sony has to use MediaTek as an OEM, so they have to do that double chip makeshift solution to get processing to work.





stama said:


> I don't like that I left some statements in my previous posts without bringing any evidence, so I looked for them this Saturday (hello, free time!).
> 
> LG explains what OLED.EX (EX from EXperience...) is in this article translated by 59LIHP where some of their top technical people speak. They explain the AI in EX as being the technology they use to control panel protection features, even suggesting they no longer have sensors built-in the panel itself for feedback. They are now dimming the panel based on analysis of the content displayed on it, according to the usage time/viewed programs/brightness distribution. They say that statistical analysis of viewing patterns is enough to let them pick an apropiate algorithm. That explains why I always felt that after using the C8 as a PC display for a while, the TV was starting to dim very quickly even right after being turned on, but if I let the TV turned on a TV channel for a while after I was done with PC work instead of turning the TV off, the TV would later change its behavior and stop dimming quickly when used again as a PC display.
> 
> I also said that Samsung explicitly mentioned the use of the "Helmholtz-Kohlrausch" effect together with their QD-OLED tech, but didn't bring any proof. It was hard to track where I heard that, but finally did so: it was in a slide of a presentation of the Samsung Visual Display CEO at the iMID2022 conference. Here's the link to a recording of his presentation on Youtube that is right before the moment he introduces that slide: "When you look at the Quantum Dot OLED, you would feel that it is much brighter than the other displays with the same luminance level" he says. And "Same luminance, but different (perceptual) brightness" and "Helmholtz-Kohlrausch" is on the slide. They're calling the use of this perceptual effect as XCR (eXperienced Color Range). The link is again from one of 59LIHP's posts in the "News: Displays and their technologies" thread.


https://www.mikewoodconsulting.com/articles/Protocol Summer 2012 - HK Effect.pdf is a neat explanation of the effect


----------



## stama

More on the H-K use by Samsung.

There was never any color adaptation model that managed to predict colors due to the H-K effect. The latest version of these color adaptation models, CIECAM16, also fails to do so.

A research paper was published this year in February, describing experiments that tested the ability of the CIECAM16 (and of a modified CIECAM16 model) to predict the color perception on QD-OLED (!) and WRGB OLED displays: Determining the color appearance of Helmholtz-Kohlrausch effect for self-emissive displays (it's free open access, have a look!). The research was funded by Samsung, according to the disclosure note. Considering the published date, the experiment must have took place last year.

And that's not all. Samsung is funding more efforts to find a CAM that can accurately predict colors on self emissive displays, like this one Extending CIECAM02 and CAM16 for the Helmholtz–Kohlrausch effect.

And I did not notice before, but Samsung Display published an article on their website regarding XCR "What is XCR?" which seems to say that XCR is a new metric, Vividness "Perceptual Contrast Length", used to quantify the ratio between perceived brightness and black (aka. contrast) that takes into account colorfulness too. And the reason for finding a new metric for measuring perceived brightness is the presence of the H-K effect which makes a colorful stimulus with the same luminosity of a gray one to appear brighter to us. The article on the web page is nicely advertising/marketing bs-free, although it's not detailed but has a high-level view on the topic, and quotes several articles and mentions a new presentation that is supposed to introduce a new CAM 75-1: Student Paper: Brightness and Vividness of High Dynamic Range Displayed Imagery. Did not pay to see what is about, just to find that it is likely yet another imperfect model... 

Later edit: Samsung has an older whitepaper that proposes a model which accounts for the Helmholtz-Kohlrausch (H-K) effect. The "whitepaper" is an internal report, still labelled "Samsung Display Secret"  about work started in 2020 and intended to be finalized before the end of 2021, to coincide with the QD OLED Display market entry. The PCL measurements they define in it seem to be exactly the XCD metric. According to the timetable in the whitepaper, the CAM model introduced by the "Brightness and Vividness of High Dynamic Range Displayed Imagery" SID2022 presentation is exactly this model. Here's where you can download it: A model for very wide gamut HDR Displays. Bonus: now we know they had QD-OLED engineering samples since at least 2020 (with 1000 nits of brightness on a 10% window), the work on QD-OLED was not all done in one year (2021). And a funny moment: when I read "Similar to testing at SDC, a red foreground object stands out well, catches viewers’ attention and should be rated as a highlighted region‐of‐interest object for computational purposes." in it, I immediately remembered Vincent Teoh's video review of the S95B where he complained about the red car in a movie scene which was so "in your face" it was stealing all your attention and ruining the scene.


----------



## helvetica bold

What are the odds Samsung or Sony will give us a proper HGiG mode without additional tone mapping similar to LG? It’s more of a Samsung issue since Sonys DTM is at least best in class.


----------



## Jin-X

helvetica bold said:


> What are the odds Samsung or Sony will give up a proper HGiG mode without additional tone mapping similar to LG? It’s more of a Samsung issue since Sonys DTM is at least best in class.


I find it very unlikely with Sony based on being here for a long time and reading the people in the know. Would require a philosophical change with them away from their "we know best" approach, it's always been like pulling teeth to get them to allow people to disable certain things or include certain pro options. It took a while for them to even put in a CMS into their tvs. Hopefully I'm wrong and they do start changing a bit and allowing a hard clip HDR option, would also be good for those with MadVR who want to use their own tone mapping. They just need to make "Off" be that option.


----------



## RaptorFX

How likely is the PH OLED in 2023 by Samsung? 

I mean they teased their 77" qith Quantum Blue aka PH OLED 


Do you think the subpixelstructure can be changed?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

RaptorFX said:


> How likely is the PH OLED in 2023 by Samsung?
> 
> I mean they teased their 77" qith Quantum Blue aka PH OLED
> 
> 
> Do you think the subpixelstructure can be changed?


"quantum blue" is just marketing for qdoled which uses quantum dots and blue oled backlight. If there was blue oled with improved efficiency, they would explicitly mention it.


----------



## fafrd

RaptorFX said:


> How likely is the PH OLED in 2023 by Samsung?
> 
> I mean they teased their 77" qith Quantum Blue aka PH OLED


0%



> Do you think the subpixelstructure can be changed?


‘Can be’ is strange wording - of course subpicxel structure can be changed.

Whether QD-OLED subpixel structure is likely to change for 2023 is probably what you meant to ask.

And the answer to that question is ‘more likely than the introduction of Blue PHOLED in 2023, but still exceedingly unlikely’…


----------



## wco81

So all the TV announcements should come soon right, before CES even officially opens?


----------



## yogi6807

I just read somewhere Samsung got lg’s patent pulled in Korea for their new blue that is in their evo panels. I don’t know how to spell it off the top of my head it starts with a d.


----------



## stama

Regarding the pixel structure on the 2022 QD-OLED panel. If you look at Samsung Visual Display CEO's presentation at iMiD2022, you'll notice the pixel structure is called "Diamond Pixel" and it's patented (!!), and he says they need such silly patented made-up features for their premium TVs for some reason. So, the terrible pixel structure might be here to stay for TVs. Maybe the IT panels which will be made on a different production line (yet to be built) will have a different pixel structure, as they expect Apple to fund it and I don't think Apple is going to accept panels with color fringing due to the pixel alignment choice.

HDMI 2.1a is the new HDMI 2.1 standard revision which adds a new feature called Source-Based Tone Mapping (SBTM). It's basically HGIG support as a feature added to the HDMI standard. So, if Sony wants to say they support HDMI 2.1a on their TVs, they will have to support SBTM.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

NVIDIA just started supporting HDR10+ on their GPUs.
Now, LG has always been the number one for gaming TVs. However, they might get a disadvantage should they still refuse to support HDR10+ on their TVs while having G-SYNC.
It's weird that Samsung would have HDR10+ Gaming but not G-SYNC.
LG is the only TV manufacturer with G-SYNC.

I think LG would want to be the best TV partner for NVIDIA GPUs. So I hope they would finally let go of their petty grudge against Samsung's HDR10+ and finally support HDR10+, if it would allow them to make the ideal TV for NVIDIA PCs. HDR10+ Gaming and G-SYNC on one package.
Also, LG's OLEDs are some of the few with 48 Gbps HDMI ports, perfect for uncompressed RGB/YCbCr 4:4:4 12-bit 4K 120Hz signals, which only NVIDIA's GPUs support.

I really hope LG would finally support HDR10+, with HDR10+ Gaming and HDR10+ Adaptive. And NVIDIA is the perfect excuse to finally support HDR10+.
LG also needs to bring back DTS support on their TVs, since they had it back then, and they still support DTS (and also IMAX Enhanced) on their soundbars. So I do hope they also bring IMAX Enhanced on their TVs alongside the return of DTS.


----------



## Moravid

Hydra Spectre said:


> Also, LG's OLEDs are some of the few with 48 Gbps HDMI ports, perfect for uncompressed RGB/YCbCr 4:4:4 12-bit 4K 120Hz signals, which only NVIDIA's GPUs support


Are you sure RDNA3 does not support that? They even have DP 2.1 which NVIDIA lacks.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Moravid said:


> Are you sure RDNA3 does not support that? They even have DP 2.1 which NVIDIA lacks.


According to Reddit, even RDNA3 is just 40 Gbps.


----------



## mrtickleuk

stama said:


> HDMI 2.1a is the new HDMI 2.1 standard revision which adds a new feature called Source-Based Tone Mapping (SBTM). It's basically HGIG support as a feature added to the HDMI standard. So, if Sony wants to say they support HDMI 2.1a on their TVs, they will have to support SBTM.


Sadly not if it's an optional feature like the rest of the mess that's HDMI 2.1a. They can say "HDMI 2.1a support" without saying which features they support  . All thanks to the clowns at hdmi.org deliberately obfuscating things for consumers.



Hydra Spectre said:


> I really hope LG would finally support HDR10+, with HDR10+ Gaming and HDR10+ Adaptive. And NVIDIA is the perfect excuse to finally support HDR10+.


With HGIG, there's no need for the TV to be doing any tone-mapping at all, it's far far better for the source (game) to do it. HDR10+ for gaming isn't needed on any TV/game that supports HGIG, and *that *should be the direction everyone goes in IMHO.



> LG also needs to bring back DTS support on their TVs, since they had it back then, and they still support DTS (and also IMAX Enhanced) on their soundbars. So I do hope they also bring IMAX Enhanced on their TVs alongside the return of DTS.


Won't ever happen on the TVs now since no streaming services use DTS. The most you'll ever get is passthrough support for soundbars, and proper AVRs.


----------



## Moravid

Samsung unveils the new 49 inch QD-OLED panel inside the G9 OLED gaming monitor








Samsung Electronics Unveils Its New Odyssey, ViewFinity and Smart Monitor Lineups at CES, Igniting the Next Generation of Display Technology


The Odyssey Neo G9’s groundbreaking dual UHD 57” curved display paves the way for monitors in 2023 and beyond




news.samsung.com


----------



## ynotgoal

LG Unveils 2023 OLED TV Range - Complete With Ultra-Bright Micro Lens Array Technology









LG Unveils 2023 OLED TV Range - Complete With Ultra-Bright Micro Lens Array Technology


Consider the OLED rulebook rewritten




www.forbes.com





The key lies in LG’s claims of a brightness increase on the 55, 65 and 77-inch G3 models of 70% over ‘traditional’ WOLED TVs (such as the new B3 series, which will don’t benefit from LG’s advanced ‘Evo’ panels and Alpha 9 processing combination). This raises the possibility of the G3s hitting in excess of 1500 nits on a 10% white HDR window, and more than 2000 nits on a 2% window. That would be a huge leap for a single generation of OLED to make, dwarfing the 30% increase achieved in the transition from LG’s 2021 to 2022 OLED ranges.


----------



## stama

FlatpanelsHD says this:


> An LG spokesperson said that peak brightness for G3 will be somewhere in the range of 1800 nits and "maybe slightly brighter on Vivid setting".
> 
> FlatpanelsHD has seen a document that specified up to 2100 nits which could refer to Vivid mode. The same document specified 235 nits for fullscreen brightness. This would represent a significant upgrade over last year's G2 that we measured to 930 nits peak brightness and 166 nits fullscreen brightness, but until we get a review sample we remain skeptical.


I thought the G2 reached ~185 nits full screen? 185 to 235 is a 27% increase and seems as expected.
166 to 235 nits is a 41.5% increase and does not sound real.


----------



## wco81

So wait for 2024 for MLA on all the lines?


----------



## tonydeluce

wco81 said:


> So wait for 2024 for MLA on all the lines?


When watching content in accurate modes, how often do you expect to see the difference between 1350 NITs and 1800 NITs.


----------



## LeRoyK

It will be interesting to see if MLA enhances picture quality or detracts from it. Brightness is not everything.


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> LG Unveils 2023 OLED TV Range - Complete With Ultra-Bright Micro Lens Array Technology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG Unveils 2023 OLED TV Range - Complete With Ultra-Bright Micro Lens Array Technology
> 
> 
> Consider the OLED rulebook rewritten
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The key lies in LG’s claims of a brightness increase on the 55, 65 and 77-inch G3 models of 70% over ‘traditional’ WOLED TVs (such as the new B3 series, which will don’t benefit from LG’s advanced ‘Evo’ panels and Alpha 9 processing combination). This raises the possibility of the G3s hitting in excess of 1500 nits on a 10% white HDR window, and more than 2000 nits on a 2% window. That would be a huge leap for a single generation of OLED to make, dwarfing the 30% increase achieved in the transition from LG’s 2021 to 2022 OLED ranges.


Cool. This is precisely the roadmap I’d been hoping LGD would pull off.

Not a coincidence that the only G-Series TVs getting MLA this cycle are the sizes competing head-to-head against the 2023 QD-OLED TVs…

Will be interesting so see what Sony elects to do.

The 2000Nit peak level was something LGD already demonstrated on their 8K MLA prototype from last May: LG Display demonstrates a prototype WOLED display with a microlens MLA array | OLED Info

That same demo also indicated a brightness of 650Nits for a larger window size but I can’t recall whether that was for 25% or not.

in any case, it looks as though LGD is taking the challenge represented by QD-OLED seriously and is doing their best to step up to the plate.

[P.S. also, remember that another benefit of MLA is expected to be a ‘scattering effect’ that improves off-angle viewing performance…]


----------



## helvetica bold

Wait WHAT, are we really going to get a 1800 nit G3 at D65?


----------



## artur9

Random, slightly related, question.

Is there a forum like this one that's about any/all display technology? Something that covers the latest/greatest techniques/advances in display technology regardless of it being LCD, OLED, Plasma, CRT?


----------



## pakotlar

According to


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328194401_Luminescence_enhancement_of_OLED_lighting_panels_using_a_microlens_array_film/fulltext/5bbdf1e0a6fdccf2978f1149/Luminescence-enhancement-of-OLED-lighting-panels-using-a-microlens-array-film.pdf?origin=publication_detail



MLA improves color angle dependence (pink tint) but adds luminance angle dependemce. 70% gain in luminence at 90 degrees (straight on) but only 20% at 30 degrees. May be annoying.


----------



## stama

The 8K OLED prototype shown in May was quoted as having 2000 nits on a 3% window, 650 nits on a 25 % window, and 250 nits full field. Here's a video of it.

Was that 8K OLED prototype using bottom emission like the 4K OLEDs, or was it using top emission though. Because that would have an impact on the luminosity.


----------



## BriscoCountyJr




----------



## wco81

Ooh I know that place. Off the beaten path for them to shoot that footage for a demo.


----------



## stama

artur9 said:


> Random, slightly related, question.
> 
> Is there a forum like this one that's about any/all display technology? Something that covers the latest/greatest techniques/advances in display technology regardless of it being LCD, OLED, Plasma, CRT?


There are a couple of topics in this forum that cover display technologies, where people like us discuss about them. We're not employed at any of the companies that develop them, and you're not going to find people involved in the development of these technologies speaking on "forums" or anywhere public for that matter. Not about display tech, not about any other kind of tech.

The reason is very simple, such information is classified internally by a company as secret/confidential or similar, which means revealing it may have serious consequences for the business. No employee is going to publish information classified like that on a public forum, it's not just that they become unemployable by anyone in the sector, they're also going to get sued for any damage the company claims was incurred to it by such disclosure.

The only other source you're going to find about technological developments are going to be patent applications, published academic research (sometimes with funds from companies), investor meetings with company executives, or market research companies which collect and sell this kind of info (and sometimes publish it for free for a while too, to market themselves and gather customers). And once in a while, some publication "gets" an interview with company execs which go into technical details too, but they're usually at the request of the companies themselves, they have some motives for releasing such info in a publication.


----------



## Wizziwig

pakotlar said:


> According to
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328194401_Luminescence_enhancement_of_OLED_lighting_panels_using_a_microlens_array_film/fulltext/5bbdf1e0a6fdccf2978f1149/Luminescence-enhancement-of-OLED-lighting-panels-using-a-microlens-array-film.pdf?origin=publication_detail
> 
> 
> 
> MLA improves color angle dependence (pink tint) but adds luminance angle dependemce. 70% gain in luminence at 90 degrees (straight on) but only 20% at 30 degrees. May be annoying.


If they have any demo units on the main show floor, I will definitely be checking for those issues. Also curious if the rumors are true that uniformity is even worse than their non-MLA panels.

In demos of similar technology I've seen in the past, the hot-spotting was definitely noticeable as you changed viewer position. Especially bad on larger screens or closer viewing distances. Unless they fixed those issues, the claimed brightness gains will only be seen by luminance meters stuck to the screen or in the small spot directly perpendicular to the line of sight to the viewer.

No matter how it turns out, at least the years of stagnation are finally over and LG has been forced to innovate more aggressively to keep up with competition.


----------



## pakotlar

Wizziwig said:


> No matter how it turns out, at least the years of stagnation are finally over and LG has been forced to innovate more aggressively to keep up with competition.


that is certainly exciting


----------



## fafrd

ynotgoal said:


> LG Unveils 2023 OLED TV Range - Complete With Ultra-Bright Micro Lens Array Technology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG Unveils 2023 OLED TV Range - Complete With Ultra-Bright Micro Lens Array Technology
> 
> 
> Consider the OLED rulebook rewritten
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The key lies in LG’s claims of a brightness increase on the 55, 65 and 77-inch G3 models of 70% over ‘traditional’ WOLED TVs (such as the new B3 series, which will don’t benefit from LG’s advanced ‘Evo’ panels and Alpha 9 processing combination). This raises the possibility of the G3s hitting in excess of 1500 nits on a 10% white HDR window, and more than 2000 nits on a 2% window. That would be a huge leap for a single generation of OLED to make, dwarfing the 30% increase achieved in the transition from LG’s 2021 to 2022 OLED ranges.


Cool. This is precisely the roadmap I’d been hoping LGD would pull off.

Not a coincidence that the only G-Series TVs getting MLA this cycle are the sizes competing head-to-head against the 2023 QD-OLED TVs…

Will be interesting so see what Sony elects to do.


stama said:


> The 8K OLED prototype shown in May was quoted as having 2000 nits on a 3% window, *650 nits on a 25 % window*, and 250 nits full field. Here's a video of it.


Thanks for finding that (I stacked but came up empty).

So that’s the reference we should be comparing against (especially 250 Nits Full-field and 650 Nits @ 25%).



> Was that 8K OLED prototype using bottom emission like the 4K OLEDs, or was it using top emission though. Because that would have an impact on the luminosity.


Especially since we now see LGE’s 77G3 supposedly delivering specs within 90-95% of what LGD’s IFA 77” 8K demonstration claimed in May, I believe the safe assumption is that both the 77G3 and the 77” 8K IFA den were based on currently-in-manufacturing bottom-emission technology.

We also don’t know whether the 8K IFA demo included a heatsink like the G2 and likely G3 or not.

Finally, since the IFA demo was made by LGD and not LGE, it’s pretty much assured to be less conservative and likely presented specs based on vivid mode rather than D65, for example.

Do if the 77G3 ultimately proves to deliver calibrated brightness levels within 90% of LGD’s 77” 8K IFA demo, I’d consider that exceptionally fast industrialization of the new MLA technology:

225 cd/m2 full-field @ D65
585 cd/m2 25% window @ D65
1800 cd/m2 3% window @ D65

would represent a significant increase in brightness levels over the G2 across the board and should position LGD/LGE to be very competitive against the 2023 Samsung QD-OLEDs with the 55/65/77G3…


----------



## circumstances

If Blue Phosphor is right around the corner (2024, 2025), what benefits are we expecting it to provide, and if they are significant, why would anyone purchase one now (that doesn't buy a new TV every couple of years)?


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> If they have any demo units on the main show floor, I will definitely be checking for those issues. Also curious if the rumors are true that uniformity is even worse than their non-MLA panels.
> 
> In demos of similar technology I've seen in the past, the hot-spotting was definitely noticeable as you changed viewer position. Especially bad on larger screens or closer viewing distances. Unless they fixed those issues, the claimed brightness gains will only be seen by luminance meters stuck to the screen or in the small spot directly perpendicular to the line of sight to the viewer.





> No matter how it turns out, at least the years of stagnation are finally over and *LG has been forced to innovate more aggressively to keep up with competition.*


Yes, Samsung’s investment in QD-OLED is translating into a win/win/win for display technology.

Snd 2023 is shaping up to be a very promising year for those who have been waiting for years to upgrade their WOLEDs now like me.

The big question will be, how many years will 2023 WOLED w/ MLA and 2023 QD-OLED represent the pinnacle of (affordable) emissive display technology before they both get supplanted by a High Efficiency Blue Emitter (Blue PHOLED)?

I always hold out until Spring Closeout Season to buy new TVs, so I’ll be watching developments with Blue PHOLED closely this year in an attempt to triangulate whether they are likely be used in the 2025 product cycle as forecasted or are more likely to be impacted by yet another in and endless series of delays…


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> If Blue Phosphor is right around the corner (2024, 2025), what benefits are we expecting it to provide, and if they are significant, why would anyone purchase one now (that doesn't buy a new TV every couple of years)?


Precisely. An argument can be made that LGD’s/LGE’s decision to bring MLA into production this year is a contraindicator to the he likelihood that that blue PHOLED schedule will materialize without delay.

On the other hand, the benefits of MLA and the benefits of Blue PHOLED are complimentary and do not interfere with each other.

So when LGD finally introduced WOLED panels based on the use of blue PHOLED, there is no reason they couldn’t continue to offer Premium WOLED panel variants based on the use of MLA as well as Mainstream WOLED panel variants without using MLA…

Increased optical efficiency of display technology is a universal upgrade…


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> Precisely. An argument can be made that LGD’s/LGE’s decision to bring MLA into production this year is a contraindicator to the he likelihood that that blue PHOLED schedule will materialize without delay.
> 
> On the other hand, the benefits of MLA and the benefits of Blue PHOLED are complimentary and do not interfere with each other.
> 
> So when LGD finally introduced WOLED panels based on the use of blue PHOLED, there is no reason they couldn’t continue to offer Premium WOLED panel variants based on the use of MLA as well as Mainstream WOLED panel variants without using MLA…
> 
> Increased optical efficiency of display technology is a universal upgrade…


what is the argument for buying QD-OLED or an MLA set now (or in 2023), besides "i have to have it now," and "we aren't sure exactly when Blue PHOLED will be available"?

won't it be a game changer for this tech?


----------



## juandhi

I’m curious as to what “Alpha Reality” upscaling is from LG ( as mentioned in the Forbes article )- could this be a direct competition to reality creation from Sony ? As much as it may upset some purists it’s one of my main sticking points for considering Sony over others .


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> what is the argument for buying QD-OLED or an MLA set now (or in 2023), besides "i have to have it now," and "we aren't sure exactly when Blue PHOLED will be available"?
> 
> won't it be a game changer for this tech?


There is a point beyond which Blue PHOSPHOR only translated to lower power consumption and lower panel cost…

When will QD-OLED and WOLED deliver all the brightness that the market is ready to pay for?

That won’t be a certainty until we’re discussing it in hindsight.

But once we cross that line, the only reason to wait longer for Blue PHOLED will be to get a TV that is cheaper (or a larger screen for the same budget) and possibly also a TV that costs you less to operate (including passing ever-more-stringent power consumption requirements, especially in the EU)…

Remember the old saying: ‘Perfection is the enemy of Good,’


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> There is a point beyond which Blue PHOSPHOR only translated to lower power consumption and lower panel cost…
> 
> When will QD-OLED and WOLED deliver all the brightness that the market is ready to pay for?
> 
> That won’t be a certainty until we’re discussing it in hindsight.
> 
> But once we cross that line, the only reason to wait longer for Blue PHOLED will be to get a TV that is cheaper (or a larger screen for the same budget) and possibly also a TV that costs you less to operate (including passing ever-more-stringent power consumption requirements, especially in the EU)…
> 
> Remember the old saying: ‘Perfection is the enemy of Good,’


i thought that blue would have greater advantages relating to lifespan, burn-in, etc.


----------



## tonydeluce

fafrd said:


> Cool. This is precisely the roadmap I’d been hoping LGD would pull off.
> 
> Not a coincidence that the only G-Series TVs getting MLA this cycle are the sizes competing head-to-head against the 2023 QD-OLED TVs…
> 
> Will be interesting so see what Sony elects to do.
> 
> The 2000Nit peak level was something LGD already demonstrated on their 8K MLA prototype from last May: LG Display demonstrates a prototype WOLED display with a microlens MLA array | OLED Info
> 
> That same demo also indicated a brightness of 650Nits for a larger window size but I can’t recall whether that was for 25% or not.
> 
> in any case, it looks as though LGD is taking the challenge represented by QD-OLED seriously and is doing their best to step up to the plate.
> 
> [P.S. also, remember that another benefit of MLA is expected to be a ‘scattering effect’ that improves off-angle viewing performance…]


I thought the same with regards to LG directly targeting 55/65/77 inch screen sizes of QD OLED with the G3; the other possible consideration is that MLA adds significant cost to the displays and it is obvious that the 83/97 screen sizes are not cost optimized as much as the 55/65/77 inch sizes.

We have Samsung to thank for LG bringing QD OLED to market but I suspect Samsung will take some time ( measured in year/s) to catch up...


----------



## circumstances

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I interpreted the author's comment in the summary paper to indicate that in addition to the electric field assisted alignment issues they also had the EQE problem. So, I also wonder if both contributed to the delay, or one issue dominated. If they were showing EQE of 20% likely around the 2021 new year (paper was submitted Sept 2021), it might suggest that the alignment issue dominated the decision. The _Nature _editor indicated the the solgel passivation process is a 'simple process' but I have no experience on that, so is it easy to add to a mfg process? In any case, the work and the paper were completed some time ago.


Are we expecting any QNED (or any other worthwhile technology) news at CES?


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> i thought that blue would have greater advantages relating to lifespan, burn-in, etc.


Lifespan/burn-in and brightness are two sides of the exact same coin…


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> Lifespan/burn-in and brightness are two sides of the exact same coin…


my thinking was they can keep increasing brightness (without blue), but once they have blue the decay will be more uniform (and ideally all last longer)?


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> Are we expecting any QNED (or any other worthwhile technology) news at CES?


No.


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> No.


so nothing on the microled front for 2023 either?


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> my thinking was they can keep increasing brightness (without blue), but once they have blue the decay will be more uniform (and ideally all last longer)?


Blue PHOLED will allow them to further increase brightness for the same lifetime or to further increase lifetime for the same brightness (or a bit of both).

But the greatest likelihood of what we’ll see from Blue PHOLED at this point is likely to be a significant cost reduction in both QD-OLED and WOLED (allowing OLED TV technology to penetrate deeper into the the mainstream TV market).


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> Blue PHOLED will allow them to further increase brightness for the same lifetime or to further increase lifetime for the same brightness (or a bit of both).
> 
> But the greatest likelihood of what we’ll see from Blue PHOLED at this point is likely to be a significant cost reduction in both QD-OLED and WOLED (allowing OLED TV technology to penetrate deeper into the the mainstream TV market).


works for me, who needs to replace a 70 inch tv with larger and a 110 inch projector screen with not-too-much-smaller in one fell swoop.


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> so nothing on the microled front for 2023 either?


Oh, MicroLED is fully industrialized and I’m sure there will be a great deal of news (and noise) at CES about MicroLED…

QNED is still a Science Experiment on the Edge Of The Possible while MicroLED is an industrialized technology in production whose only question marks surround how quickly it will actually succeed to deliver price points needed to penetrate the Premium TV Market (as opposed to the Corporate and Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous TV markets…).


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> Oh, MicroLED is fully industrialized and I’m sure there will be a great deal of news (and noise) at CES about MicroLED…
> 
> QNED is still a Science Experiment on the Edge Of The Possible while MicroLED is an industrialized technology in production whose only question marks surround how quickly it will actually succeed to deliver price points needed to penetrate the Premium TV Market (as opposed to the Corporate and Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous TV markets…).


that's what i was looking for. microled moving towards the realm of price possibility 

i wonder if there are any new science experiments (a la QNED) that we may see in the near future.


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> that's what i was looking for. microled moving towards the realm of price possibility


I predict we’re going to be hearing news at CES about MicroLED ‘moving towards’ affordability through the end of this decade…



> i wonder if there are any new science experiments (a la QNED) that we may see in the near future.


Your original post was inquiring specifically about CES. There is a good chance the year will bring more news and rumors about QNED, but unlikely at CES (at least by Samsung).


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> I predict we’re going to be hearing news at CES about MicroLED ‘moving towards’ affordability through the end of this decade…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your original post was inquiring specifically about CES. There is a good chance the year will bring more news and rumors about QNED, but unlikely at CES (at least by Samsung).


Is there anything else new on the horizon?


----------



## JamesMYeo

LeRoyK said:


> It will be interesting to see if MLA enhances picture quality or detracts from it. Brightness is not everything.


According to Classy Tech's latest video it is supposed to enhance colour as well.


----------



## fafrd

circumstances said:


> Is there anything else new on the horizon?


No doubt, but your question is too broad to be meaningful.

Assuming you are talking about products for 2023 or at least appearing credible by 2024, I suspect we’ll hear something from BOE at CES regarding their WOLED panels:Report: BOE planning to commercialize OLED TV panels from 55" and up

as well as possibly something from TCL regarding their IJP RGB-OLED TVs: TCL Expects IJP OLED TV Panels by 2023_05/01/21


----------



## OLED_Overrated

We should also see ELQD prototypes again. TCL, Nanosys and other companies involved said commercialization may be ready by 2025, but I personally do not find ELQD promising. Like OLED, it has lifetime issues as well and won't get very bright. The only advantages that I know of is that it has faster response times (nanoseconds) than oled, and it's much cheaper to manufacturer and can therefore sell for <$1k.


----------



## ScottSFA

So is the speculation now that with MLA technology that the G3 would be brighter than say the A95L?


----------



## fafrd

ScottSFA said:


> So is the speculation now that with MLA technology that the G3 would be brighter than say the A95L?


Assuming the claimed peak brightness of 2000 Nits @ 3% (or even 1900 Nits in Vivid) is confirmed by 3rd-party testing, that would seem to be a certainty..,

(at least in terms of peak calibrated white levels - peak fully-saturated color levels are likely to remain an area where QD-OLED continued to wear the crown…).


----------



## bort69

OLED_Overrated said:


> We should also see ELQD prototypes again. TCL, Nanosys and other companies involved said commercialization may be ready by 2025, but I personally do not find ELQD promising. Like OLED, it has lifetime issues as well and won't get very bright. The only advantages that I know of is that it has faster response times (nanoseconds) than oled, and it's much cheaper to manufacturer and can therefore sell for <$1k.


ELQD eliminates an entire layer of compounds. I suspect we will see it sooner rather than later. Same issues as with OLED, lifetime/brightness. But the patents for OLED materials and ELQD materials are held by different groups, so that'll likely be a motivating factor for development.

We're also likely to see some kind of synthesis of the two with perovskite inorganic-organic quantum dots.


----------



## JasonHa

JamesMYeo said:


> According to Classy Tech's latest video it is supposed to enhance colour as well.


I've wondered about this. With additional headroom, could LG (or calibrators?) sacrifice some of the brightness for color volume (by getting more brightness with less help from the white sub-pixel)?


----------



## circumstances

fafrd said:


> No doubt, but your question is too broad to be meaningful.
> 
> Assuming you are talking about products for 2023 or at least appearing credible by 2024, I suspect we’ll hear something from BOE at CES regarding their WOLED panels:Report: BOE planning to commercialize OLED TV panels from 55" and up
> 
> as well as possibly something from TCL regarding their IJP RGB-OLED TVs: TCL Expects IJP OLED TV Panels by 2023_05/01/21


Sorry.

I meant new potential non-oled alternatives.


----------



## fafrd

JasonHa said:


> I've wondered about this. With additional headroom, could LG (or calibrators?) sacrifice some of the brightness for color volume (by getting more brightness with less help from the white sub-pixel)?


As I’ve stated in numerous posts over the years, the way to achieve that would be to reduce the size of the White Subpixel in favor of increased R & G & B subpixels (eliminating the white subpixel entirely in the extreme case).

I’m guessing it’s unlikely we’ll see that on these G3s. Until LGD knows his much peak white is ‘too much’, it’s safer to maintain the balance where they have it and to only consider reducing peak white levels for improved fully saturated color levels once market requirements are clear (meaning they are clearly losing share to QD-OLED over this issue).

This optimization is much more likely to occur around the time Blue PHOLED arrives…


----------



## OLED_Overrated

circumstances said:


> Sorry.
> 
> I meant new potential non-oled alternatives.


Aside from QNED, UBI research also mentioned that Samsung Electronics is working on something similar to QNED that's not microled.


----------



## circumstances

OLED_Overrated said:


> Aside from QNED, UBI research also mentioned that Samsungectronics is working on something similar to


Samsung trying all sorts of things!


----------



## samuel1983

fafrd said:


> As I’ve stated in numerous posts over the years, the way to achieve that would be to reduce the size of the White Subpixel in favor of increased R & G & B subpixels (eliminating the white subpixel entirely in the extreme case).
> 
> I’m guessing it’s unlikely we’ll see that on these G3s. Until LGD knows his much peak white is ‘too much’, it’s safer to maintain the balance where they have it and to only consider reducing peak white levels for improved fully saturated color levels once market requirements are clear (meaning they are clearly losing share to QD-OLED over this issue).
> 
> This optimization is much more likely to occur around the time Blue PHOLED arrives…


Apart from reducing the size or eliminating the fourth white subpixel, how about doing away with rgb color filters, filtered rgb output does lead to a color volume loss does it not.
And Blue PHOLED/using phosphorescent for blue emitter by itself should lead to some gains on color volume?


----------



## fafrd

samuel1983 said:


> Apart from reducing the size or eliminating the fourth white subpixel, how about doing away with rgb color filters, filtered rgb output does lead to a color volume loss does it not.


You do understand that Blue-FOLED-based QD-OLED is also using conventional color filters, correct?



> And Blue PHOLED/using phosphorescent for blue emitter by itself should lead to some gains on color volume?


Anything that increases peak brightness increases color volume.

A 4th white subpixel allows WOLED to deliver increased peak white levels at the expense of peak fully-saturated color levels.

As long as the market requires / values those higher peak white levels, LGD is likely to keep making that trade-off with WOLED.

QD-OLED has no flexibility to trade off peak fully-saturated color levels for higher peak white levels, so LGD has the flexibility to shadow QD-OLED whenever they think it is in their best interest to do so while QD-OLED pretty much has no option to shadow WOLED even if they ever decided they wanted to (which I doubt they’d ever be interested in anyway).


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> Assuming the claimed peak brightness of 2000 Nits @ 3% (or even 1900 Nits in Vivid) is confirmed by 3rd-party testing, that would seem to be a certainty..,
> 
> (at least in terms of peak calibrated white levels - peak fully-saturated color levels are likely to remain an area where QD-OLED continued to wear the crown…).


QD-OLED may have other advantages beyond just saturated colors.

Using the commonly recommended 40 degree FOV, the borders of the screen are at 20 degrees. Using rtings lightness measurements, the G2 drops by ~8%. The S95B drops by ~4%. If MLA increases this angular attenuation even more, then the perceived improvement over the entire screen may be a lot smaller than what you measure on a light meter. I suspect LG picked a relatively modest gain for their MLA design in order to minimize off-axis side-effects.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> QD-OLED may have other advantages beyond just saturated colors.
> 
> Using the commonly recommended 40 degree FOV, the borders of the screen are at 20 degrees. Using rtings lightness measurements, the G2 drops by ~8%. The S95B drops by ~4%. If MLA increases this angular attenuation even more, then the perceived improvement over the entire screen may be a lot smaller than what you measure on a light meter. I suspect LG picked a relatively modest gain for their MLA design in order to minimize off-axis side-effects.


For sure - any new technology is an unknown entailing unknown trade-offs until it has been delivered and characterized in the Wild.

Still impressed that it appears that LGD will successfully get this new MLA technology into production a mere 12 months following first public demonstration…


----------



## OLED_Overrated

Samsung Display confirms 2023 QD-OLED with 77", 2000+ nits peak brightness


And up to 25% reduced power consumption




www.flatpanelshd.com






> It has applied a "new OLED HyperEfficient EL material" to improve color brightness of each RGB pixel. It relates to "the blue emitting layer of QD-OLED. As a result, RGB light that passes through the QD color conversion layer is much brighter and the colors much clearer", the company explained.


'


> _"The company announced that QD-OLED 2023 has reduced power consumption of 2022 model up to 25 percent by applying high-efficiency organic materials and more advanced AI technology. The consumers will be able to enjoy accurate colors and richer picture quality on bright screens as well as dark screens while reducing power consumption."_




phosphorescent blue oled?


----------



## stama

Don't think so. The 2022 emitter material is also a "OLED HyperEfficient EL material". They likely changed the formulation of the blue emitter to overcome the issues they had in 2022 panels though. Samsung's CES presentation is tomorrow, so we'll find more then.

As much as I like everything else about LG's OLED TVs compared to Samsung and even Sony's, the panel falls short.

This is the panel luminosity comparison Samsung showed last year when they introduced their QD-OLED panel:


















Despite our excitement, MLA does not allow LG to reach parity with the first gen QD-OLED panel when it comes to color volume to the sides of the gray axis.

fafrd is right when saying that LG's objective is right now to increase peak white luminance instead of increased color gamut. This is what LG's tech execs said themselves in this article:


> I asked CTO Yoon about his daily doubts about organic EL technology. It's about color reproduction. LG's organic EL gets color with white organic EL + color filter. There is a question that this method is inferior in color reproduction to RGB emission in the inkjet printing method or the “blue organic EL + quantum dot filter method”. How did CTO Yoon respond? [...]
> 
> “In real video, there are very few pictures that require a wide color gamut like the BT.2020 color gamut. According to our research, 70% of broadcast video images are distributed around the white point and achromatic color. In that sense, I don't think it's significantly inferior even now.The first thing we should work on is improving brightness, and widening the color gamut is the next step.I think the priority is brightness."


(Images from here and here)

Btw, it seems that gamut rings has become the standard adopted by IEC, ICDM and CIE for color gamut comparisons.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

stama said:


> Don't think so.


Maybe?


> In February, Samsung Display published a paper on Nature Photonics called: Exceptionally stable blue phosphorescent organic light-emitting diode.
> 
> Professor Kwon noted that the research was done over a year ago and Samsung Display likely had made a process on developing phosphorescent blue OLED material.
> 
> Samsung Display was aiming to make visible results of the research within the year, Kwon claimed.
> 
> US OLED firm UDC had said back in February that it was aiming to commercialize phosphorescent blue OLED material in 2024.
> 
> 출처 : THE ELEC, Korea Electronics Industry Media(THE ELEC, Korea Electronics Industry Media)





> 출처 : THE ELEC, Korea Electronics Industry Media(THE ELEC, Korea Electronics Industry Media)
> ‘Professor Kwon said, "*I know that Samsung Display is planning to make visible results (in blue phosphorescent materials) within this year. *At the same time, he predicted that "Samsung Display's commercialization of blue phosphorescent material is likely to be faster than UDC."


----------



## stama

Maybe.  We'll see tomorrow.

Or they'll give us only these made-up advertising terms, and let us wonder till April when the reviews show up what did they mean, like it happens every year after CES.


----------



## aron7awol

It's also possible they simply added an additional fluorescent blue layer. Honestly, either one would make me pretty excited about this year's panels.


----------



## JamesMYeo

So is the new Samsung QD OLED going to hit 2000 nits without a heatsink? That doesn't seem wise.


----------



## helvetica bold

Im excited to see what Sony will do with the revised QD OLED panel. Will we see a 77" Master Series? Surely Sony will take a conservative approach driving the panel and focus on accuracy. I just hope better gaming performance if Sony uses the Pentonic chip.


----------



## tonydeluce

helvetica bold said:


> Im excited to see what Sony will do with the revised QD OLED panel. Will we see a 77" Master Series? Surely Sony will take a conservative approach driving the panel and focus on accuracy. I just hope better gaming performance if Sony uses the Pentonic chip.


Yes, the 77A95L

Sent from my SM-F926U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## fafrd

aron7awol said:


> *It's also possible they simply added an additional fluorescent blue layer. *
> Honestly, either one would make me pretty excited about this year's panels.


That would result in higher power consumption, not lower as claimed.


----------



## winterbegins

The new forbes article claims the new models can go up to 1300 nits in 10% windows. That would be a substantial upgrade over last year but could be limited to the 77 inch model for all we know.


----------



## juandhi

Same article also says they won't be doing anything to address black levels in ambient lighting this year. Womp womp


----------



## stama

> Samsung Display also revealed in its pre-CES announcement today performance enhancing improvements to its QD OLED technology for 2023. Particularly promising is the way a new and improved optimization algorithm called IntelliSense AI combines with a new OLED HyperEfficient EL material to improve the colour brightness of each RGB pixel (remember that QD OLED does away with the white sub-pixel used in regular WOLED panels).
> 
> The AI technology collects information on each pixel in real time and uses AI’s Neural network ‘brain’ to more precisely control that pixel’s light while also delivering real time optimised power management, while the new OLED material is applied to QD OLED’s blue emitting layer to ensure that the RGB light that passes through the QD colour conversion layer is brighter and delivers cleaner colour results.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I’ve been able to confirm that the 2000 nits figure was generated on a 3% HDR window, while the new screens are managing around 1500 nits on a 10% window. [...] - though it seems that when the new QD OLED panels are set up to deliver a reference black level of 0.0005 nits, the 10% window measurement may reduce to around 1300 nits.
> 
> [...]
> 
> the new EL material means that it’s simultaneously managed to reduce power consumption versus the 2022 screens by almost 25 percent (down to 79W from 99W)


So, the image processing (IntelliSense AI) is likely implementing the new CAM which takes into account the H-K effect. Unless this can be disabled, it's going to be impossible to calibrate these panels.

It also says one thing that was already known, they simplified the TFT backplane matrix (cost reduction), and they're using an oxide TFT tech instead of LTPO or LTPS (this was hinted during the year when they purchased oxide TFT patents from Fuji).

2000 nits on a 3% window
1500 nits on a 10% window, if you are ok with a higher black level (no value on what this is)
1300 nits on a 10% window, if you want a reduced black level of 0.0005 nits (the black level announced last year)

No mention about the removal of the glass layer and inkjet printing of the QD right on top of the OLED layer, though this might have been done. The "elevated blacks" in the presence of ambient light was not addressed, so maybe this didn't happen though.

90% coverage of the BT2020 colour space (same as announced last year) vs 75.5% for WRGB OLED.

Samsung still reaps the benefits of top emission which allowed them to remove the polarizer layer, and have double the panel luminosity they would otherwise had. Had LG pursued top emission following the prototypes they built a couple of years ago, they would have been in a better place to respond right now.

Bottom emission: light is emitted through a transparent bottom and has the TFT metallic backplane near the top surface; the backplane reflects some of the light back, and reflects outside light back towards the sender too (that's why it needs a polarizer layer).

Top emission: light is emitted from above the TFT metallic backplane and glass substrate towards the viewer, doesn't have to go through the backplane and the substrate. That being said, when there are several OLED layers one on top of another, the light from the ones below still has to go through the layers above (but there is no glass layer between these OLED layers).


----------



## OLED_Overrated

aron7awol said:


> It's also possible they simply added an additional fluorescent blue layer. Honestly, either one would make me pretty excited about this year's panels.


Pretty sure I read somewhere that it's not possible to keep adding multiple layers or you will get too much absorption by metal particles in the interconnecting layer between stacks. 
Regardless, the main samsung website explicitly says that a more efficient oled material is being used.


----------



## fafrd

stama said:


> So, the image processing (IntelliSense AI) is likely implementing the new CAM which takes into account the H-K effect. Unless this can be disabled, it's going to be impossible to calibrate these panels.
> 
> It also says one thing that was already known, they simplified the TFT backplane matrix (cost reduction), and they're using an oxide TFT tech instead of LTPO or LTPS (this was hinted during the year when they purchased oxide TFT patents from Fuji).
> 
> 2000 nits on a 3% window
> 1500 nits on a 10% window, if you are ok with a higher black level (no value on what this is)
> 1300 nits on a 10% window, if you want a reduced black level of 0.0005 nits
> 
> No mention about the removal of the glass layer and inkjet printing of the QD right on top of the OLED layer, though this might have been done. The "elevated blacks" in the presence of ambient light was not addressed, so maybe this didn't happen though.
> 
> 90% coverage of the BT2020 colour space vs 75.5% for WRGB OLED.





> Samsung still reaps the benefits of top emission which allowed them to remove the polarizer layer, and have double the panel luminosity they would otherwise had. *Had LG pursued top emission following the prototypes they built a couple of years ago, they would have been in a better place to respond right now.*


Except that LGD’s bottom-emission backplane involves fewer manufacturing steps than Samsung’s top emission backplane and is less costly to produce.

I think LGD has responded just fine and until we see what price points the 77G3 and 77” QD-OLEDs achieve and what PQ performance the 2023 TVs deliver at those price points, it’s impossible to come to a conclusion as to which technology is improving most effectively.

If 2023 proves to be the year of the best OLED TV technologies solidly surpassing the 1500 cd/m2 level for bright white highlights and full-screen D65 brightness levels reaching i225-250 cd/m2, I’ll call that a win.


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> I predict we’re going to be hearing news at CES about MicroLED ‘moving towards’ affordability through the end of this decade…
> 
> 
> 
> Your original post was inquiring specifically about CES. There is a good chance the year will bring more news and rumors about QNED, but unlikely at CES (at least by Samsung).


I'm not sure how firmly your tongue was planted in your cheek with respect to the microLED prediction. No doubt there will be lots of marketing bs-speak. I'd like to see something announced that truly shows a path to consumer affordability (at least the well-heeled on this forum as an example) by end of decade. No announcements truly moved the needle from the supply chain as far as I remember in Q4.
And I hope QNED tech doesn't go quiet all year, but I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## mrtickleuk

fafrd said:


> I think LGD has responded just fine and until we see what price points the 77G3 and 77” QD-OLEDs achieve and what PQ performance the 2023 TVs deliver at those price points, it’s impossible to come to a conclusion as to which technology is improving most effectively.


Not just that. Until we see the prices, until we see the TVs, until the TVs have been thoroughly examined, reviewed and measured by the people with the proper equipment.

This will not happen in the first week of January!


----------



## winterbegins

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I'm not sure how firmly your tongue was planted in your cheek with respect to the microLED prediction. No doubt there will be lots of marketing bs-speak. I'd like to see something announced that truly shows a path to consumer affordability (at least the well-heeled on this forum as an example) by end of decade. No announcements truly moved the needle from the supply chain as far as I remember in Q4.
> And I hope QNED tech doesn't go quiet all year, but I wouldn't be surprised.


It actually would be better if they dont talk about MicroLED at all. They re-announced these models for a few times already, its a running gag by now. 

I have hopes for a Samsung Display QNED / whatever Samsung Electronics is working on prototype behind the scenes - that would be the biggest news for me.


----------



## fafrd

Scrapper102dAA said:


> I'm not sure how firmly your tongue was planted in your cheek with respect to the microLED prediction. No doubt there will be lots of marketing bs-speak. I'd like to see something announced that truly shows a path to consumer affordability (at least the well-heeled on this forum as an example) by end of decade. No announcements truly moved the needle from the supply chain as far as I remember in Q4.
> And I hope QNED tech doesn't go quiet all year, but I wouldn't be surprised.


MicrLED makes for impressive demos and boldface headlines. The demonstration everyone is wowing over and taking pictures of may have essentially been a one-off (custom built prototype) but it’s just too easy of a way to generate buzz…


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

fafrd said:


> MicrLED makes for impressive demos and boldface headlines. The demonstration everyone is wowing over and taking pictures of may have essentially been a one-off (custom built prototype) but it’s just too easy of a way to generate buzz…


The total supply chain investment to date without yet being close to consumer level product (and therefore volume, volume, volume) seems insane to me. Perhaps inflation adjusted investment in the 1990's towards LCD flat panel was equivalent?? And that Q implies that microLED starts spitting out 75" in volume someday. Even at 75" the pull is relatively low worldwide even with the good CAGR underway. I guess I'd feel better about the whole microLED TV space not going 'pop' in a few years if someone here knows that investment rates and adjusted absolutes are at least kinda close. Anyway, to your point, at the very least because of what I just said, there MUST be glitz and glamor to cover up the pig until there's a breakthrough. (It's a new year; I should be in a better mood, shouldn't I??!!  )


----------



## winterbegins

You have to see it from the bright side, because we have actual working models (for rich people at least) and not only prototypes. MicroLED is just very difficult to produce and has to overcome physical barriers for smaller LEDs.


----------



## aron7awol

fafrd said:


> That would result in higher power consumption, not lower as claimed.


I think we learned last year it's always difficult to draw hard conclusions from Samsung's marketing-speak. 

At the time I posted this, I had read an article which said:
"The company is also using AI and Big Data to collect picture information of each pixel in real time. That data is used to precisely control light, resulting in improved image quality and energy efficiency. "
So then being the Samsung-marketing-skeptic I am, I was thinking, for all we know, they could be cherry picking some specific case to claim the energy efficiency gain using AI, and maybe it has nothing to do with the panel itself.

Also:
"The company announced that QD-OLED 2023 has reduced power consumption of 2022 model up to 25 percent by applying high-efficiency organic materials and more advanced AI technology. The consumers will be able to enjoy accurate colors and richer picture quality on bright screens as well as dark screens while reducing power consumption."
Skeptical me: They said high-efficiency, not higher efficiency. 

Of course, I really, really hope we are getting phosphorescent blue.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

We know that Samsung is working with multiple companies on developing more efficient oled. If not phosphorescent, there's also TADF and Hyperflourescent. It's also possible it's still flourescent blue oled but just a slightly improved version. If you want to dig for the info, you can find that other companies like Cynora announced several years earlier than UDC, on being close to commercializing more efficient blue oled emitters. So it's also possible that Samsung is using improved blue oled from other vendors.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

the beans have been spilled...


----------



## mrtickleuk

OLED_Overrated said:


> the beans have been spilled...


Some of them yep! Pre-production sample: Native white point, 9558K (3%? window - I'm sure he says 3%) was 2,092 nits.
After calibrating to D65, a 10% window was just 1,313 nits.

I'm amazed it is such a drop, and it goes to show how important it is now to be swayed by those pre-calibration numbers!


----------



## winterbegins

Almost 25% increase in full field and 30% in 10% window is actually quite impressive. You can really see in the video what kind of difference this brings.


----------



## pakotlar

OLED_Overrated said:


> the beans have been spilled...


ABL doesn't seem qualitatively different. Still a very large drop from small window sizes.


----------



## pakotlar

winterbegins said:


> Almost 25% increase in full field and 30% in 10% window is actually quite impressive. You can really see in the video what kind of difference this brings.


As mentioned in the video the large difference was largely due to a pre production SOC that didnt respect pq eotf


----------



## mrtickleuk

pakotlar said:


> As mentioned in the video the large difference was largely due to a pre production SOC that didnt respect pq eotf


That's not what the video said at all, it was mentioned but not "largely due" (if you mean difference in peak luminance?).

You can also see clearly from the graphs of lumiance/window size posted, that the measurements are taken of 100% luminance only,* and no other values on the PQ EOTF*, at the various different window sizes. The failure to correctly track the PQ EOTF, which I don't doubt as they have form on this, can't affect that and cannot be responsible for an increase in the luminance of a 100% stimulus input signal compared with last year's panels.


----------



## fafrd

OLED_Overrated said:


> We know that Samsung is working with multiple companies on developing more efficient oled. If not phosphorescent, there's also TADF and Hyperflourescent. It's also possible it's still flourescent blue oled but just a slightly improved version.





> If you want to dig for the info, you can find that other companies like Cynora announced several years earlier than UDC, on being close to commercializing more efficient blue oled emitters. So *it's also possible that Samsung is using improved blue oled from other vendors.*


Except it’s not.

The ‘Fog of War’ during CES Season is always a problem - please don’t make it worse…


----------



## 59LIHP

News: Displays and Their Technologies


VLOG Salon IFA 2022 : PHILIPS, TOUTES Les Nouveautés TV / Audio




www.avsforum.com













News: Displays and Their Technologies


ISE 2022: Seoul Viosys Details Its Micro Clean Display microLED Product




www.avsforum.com













OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread


For sure. Interesting, but without a lifetime spec as well, not that useful for an apples-to-apples comparison. You can always get higher brightness out of an OLED if you are willing to sacrifice some lifetime and I doubt their broadcast monitor is designed to deliver the same lifetime as...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## artur9

stama said:


> ...


I think you misunderstood. I'm not looking for proprietary information. Just kind of a one-stop for all display technologies with the depth of understanding that this particular forum has.

I imagine, perhaps, that partisans for particular tech might make such a forum's SNR very low.


----------



## JRNO

Seems like a fair upgrade over the first generation. Very much looking forward to Sony's offering this year.


----------



## fafrd

JRNO said:


> Seems like a fair upgrade over the first generation. Very much looking forward to Sony's offering this year.


Talk is cheap (as are Press Releases).

We’ll need to wait until ~May to learn what all this hype/marketing-speak translates to (in the real world), as usual)…


----------



## fafrd

<double post dreleted>


----------



## pakotlar

mrtickleuk said:


> That's not what the video said at all, it was mentioned but not "largely due" (if you mean difference in peak luminance?).
> 
> You can also see clearly from the graphs of lumiance/window size posted, that the measurements are taken of 100% luminance only,* and no other values on the PQ EOTF*, at the various different window sizes. The failure to correctly track the PQ EOTF, which I don't doubt as they have form on this, can't affect that and cannot be responsible for an increase in the luminance of a 100% stimulus input signal compared with last year's panels.


I am talking about the comparison to the X300. That comparison had the 2023 model look vastly brighter than reference. Check: 




When a person writes "You can really see in the video what kind of difference this brings" I assume they mean on actual video content, in which case no difference can be observed because the comparison is with a pre-production 2023 model that does not follow PQ EOTF. That is what I was responding to.


----------



## YOU are the one

I'm not holding my breath on anything Samsung claims this year due to the fact that they had that huge brightness nerf. Brightness went from 1,500 to 1,000 on the S95b in an device update. Some people said that it was necessary because the TVs were going to burn in sooner than expected so it was a safety feature, other said it was a conspiracy to make your electronics worse, incentivizing you to buy something new faster (planned obsolescence). Regardless of the reason why, it still took place. Then they were caught cheating eotf curves, showing a perfect result when they knew they were being measured and then the QN90B appears brighter due to a huge eotf curve deviation.

Everybody is so eager to eat up all of these new claims from them. Before drooling over what Samsung is going to claim is the next best thing, bring it back to reality and remember that their goal is to make you buy their products first and foremost. They want you to think their technology is the most cutting edge and the best, like not even question it, just accept it at the fact that it's different makes it better.

You should be skeptical as a consumer unless you don't care about being swindled.


----------



## kokishin

However, in Sony's capable hands, I expect the 2023 QD-OLED 77" panel is gonna kick some major butt (albeit at a painful butt kicking price).


----------



## OLED_Overrated

We are probably more likely to see the first consumer microled products for microdisplays made on silicon wafers before seeing a microled tv.















Apple to release a microLED display powered Watch in 2024, according to rumors | MicroLED-Info


There are some new rumors (or analyst estimates, really) that Apple is working to adopt a microLED display in its next Watch Ultra smartwatch, to replace the currently-used OLED display. The new display, according to what we hear, will have a 2.1" display. Apple aims, it seems to release its...




www.microled-info.com










3D-Micromac explains its laser-based process technologies for microLED display production | MicroLED-Info


Germany-based 3D-Micromac is the industry leader in laser micromachining and roll-to-roll laser systems. The company develops and manufactures processes and laser systems delivering powerful, user-friendly and leading-edge processes with superior production efficiency. 3D-Micromac offers...




www.microled-info.com




*



Q: Do you believe the MicroLED industry will change the way the display industry operates, or will the large display makers retain their dominance in the future as well?

Click to expand...

*


> There will be changes for sure especially for wearables and small displays however the manufacturing of large and comparable cheap displays is a different story.


----------



## OLED_Overrated




----------



## samuel1983

There are two features being advertised for the G3 - MLA and Brightness Booster Max. What's the difference, MLA is a h/w panel level change, brightness booster max is just a software algorithm to boost brightness?


----------



## mrtickleuk

samuel1983 said:


> There are two features being advertised for the G3 - MLA and Brightness Booster Max. What's the difference, MLA is a h/w panel level change, brightness booster max is just a software algorithm to boost brightness?


Either

Brightness Booster Max is LG Electronics' marketing term for MLA (in the same way that "Evo" was LGE's marketing term for the new panels from LGD in 2021 for some restricted screen sizes)
Brightness Booster Max is LG Electronics' marketing term for a software-only change, for hopefully something that can be turned on/off
Brightness Booster Max is LG Electronics' marketing term for the combination of the above two things (I think this has happened before as well, when they claimed "Evo" meant both software and hardware changes IIRC).

We won't know the true answer for some time.


----------



## Wizziwig

pakotlar said:


> I am talking about the comparison to the X300. That comparison had the 2023 model look vastly brighter than reference. Check:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a person writes "You can really see in the video what kind of difference this brings" I assume they mean on actual video content, in which case no difference can be observed because the comparison is with a pre-production 2023 model that does not follow PQ EOTF. That is what I was responding to.


I always find it amusing when TV manufacturers dig up the long discontinued X300 for their demos instead of using the current HX310. They did the same thing last year. I guess it would be kind of awkward explaining to the press why their new 2000 nit TV looks dimmer than a 1000 nit LCD monitor in actual video content. 

Near black uniformity looked poor in that 77" QD-OLED sample. Worse than the 55" and 65" models they released last year. Guess that was to be expected from a larger panel, all else being equal.


----------



## OLED_Overrated

CES 2023: Samsung shrinks its microLED TV down to 76 inches | Digital Trends


Samsung has debuted the world's smallest and most affordable microLED TV at CES 2023, with a screen size of 76 inches.




www.digitaltrends.com




Samsung launching smaller 50 inch, 63 inch, and 76 inch microled. Will be the cheapest yet compared to previously announced 89 inch for $80k but obviously still relatively expensive.

Also the specs are 240 hz , 2 nanosecond response(about 5000 times faster than oled), 20 bit black level depth.


----------



## helvetica bold

LG’s conference starts today at 9am. Do we expect any further info on displays of its just general info on all their products e.g. refrigerators, washing machines etc…


----------



## Scrapper102dAA

OLED_Overrated said:


> We are probably more likely to see the first consumer microled products for microdisplays made on silicon wafers before seeing a microled tv.
> View attachment 3382431
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apple to release a microLED display powered Watch in 2024, according to rumors | MicroLED-Info
> 
> 
> There are some new rumors (or analyst estimates, really) that Apple is working to adopt a microLED display in its next Watch Ultra smartwatch, to replace the currently-used OLED display. The new display, according to what we hear, will have a 2.1" display. Apple aims, it seems to release its...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.microled-info.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3D-Micromac explains its laser-based process technologies for microLED display production | MicroLED-Info
> 
> 
> Germany-based 3D-Micromac is the industry leader in laser micromachining and roll-to-roll laser systems. The company develops and manufactures processes and laser systems delivering powerful, user-friendly and leading-edge processes with superior production efficiency. 3D-Micromac offers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.microled-info.com


Absolutely. That's why I made sure my post said 'microLED TV'. There's lots of potential with some of the markets; TV is a big wait and see...


----------



## circumstances

Nothing from Sony in TVs at CES. Spring.


----------



## helvetica bold

circumstances said:


> Nothing from Sony in TVs at CES. Spring.


Dang! It appears Sony’s star of the show will be PS VR2 and possibly a new revision of the PS5.


----------



## circumstances

helvetica bold said:


> Dang! It appears Sony’s star of the show will be PS VR2 and possibly a new revision of the PS5.


it's disappointing. i've had a sony tv and projector for many years and would prefer not to switch to LG or Samsung, but on the bright side it might mean they are very close to some decent announcements.


----------



## MisterXDTV

helvetica bold said:


> Dang! It appears Sony’s star of the show will be PS VR2 and possibly a new revision of the PS5.


Sony's TV come out months after LGs and Samsung anyway....

What's the point of announcing it in January and then ship nothing until July?


----------



## Moravid

Panasonic MZ2000...1500 nits 10% window, 210 nits full field. Both at D65


----------



## stama

What surprised me was:

great white uniformity, and no more pink cast when viewed from an angle; Vincent even remarked the viewing angles are greater (which is the opposite we were expecting from MLA)
QD-OLED like raised black in the presence of ambient light (has LG also removed the polarizer filter on these MLA panels; or is it a strange side effect of the MLA lenses ?)

Otherwise, this is what I got from the video:

99.18% DCI-P3, 75.48% BT.2020 (just like any WRGB OLED panel until now)
1515 nits, 1 - 10% window, D65 calibrated, and follows PQ EOTF till 900 nits after which it tone maps
~800 nits, 25% window, D65
~485 nits, 50% window, D65
~300 nits, 75% window, D65
210 nits, full window, D65

Despite using the same Mediatek SoC as until now (the new SoC was not ready in time during the development of the MZ2000), there's new gaming features:

HDR tone map which can be disabled in 4K 120Hz VRR bypass mode
and even newer HDR tone map setting to automatically enforce clipping, basically it's HGIG or SBTM but without calling it like that
G-SYNC certification
Dolby Vision Game profile, besides DV Cinema, with reduced latency, although at max 60Hz (because of Mediatek)

The TV really looked brighter than the LZ2000 in side by side. It had reduced image retention than the LZ2000 despite higher luminance, too. And 1500 nits at 10% window is pretty much what we were expecting after the G3 leaked luminance figures, which were:

2100 nits, 3% window, vivid mode
1800 nits, 3% window
235 nits, 100% window
For comparison, these were the measurement guestimates of the 77S95C in his other video:

2092 nits, 3% window, 9558K (Lv 2092, x 0.2841, y 0.2895)
1500 nits, 10% window, high black level (Forbes quote)
1313 nits, 1 - 10% window, D65 calibrated, for a normal black level of 0.0005 nits
~600 nits, 25% window, D65, same as S95B
~270 nits, 50% window, D65, lower than S95B
~255 nits, 75% window, D65, same as S95B
250 nits, full window, D65, almost same as S95B

The QD-OLED still trumps the WRGB panel when it comes to primaries luminance. That and its narrowband primaries give it a much wider gamut: 99.82% DCI-P3, 91.14% BT.2020 (same as last year's).

Here's a table which summarizes the white and primaries luminosity for the 2022 and 2023 WRGB and QD-OLED panels, using this as sources:

Samsung Display's published numbers for the 2022 & 2023 QD-OLED panel luminosity (the latter thanks to the article just posted by @59LIHP in the "News: Displays and Their Technologies" thread), and the 2022 WRGB panel luminosity, likely at native panel temperature and on a 3% window since they would then match Vincent's own readings of the 2023 QD-OLED in those same conditions;
Vincent Teoh's 77S95C video with measurements of the 2022 WRGB and 2023 QD-OLED for panels calibrated at D65, on a 10% window.











Samsung VD measurements of 2022 WRGB vs 2022 QD-OLED at native color temperature, on a 3% window:









Samsung VD measurements of 2022 WRGB vs 2023 QD-OLED at native color temperature, on a 3% window:









Vincent Teoh's measurements of a 2022 WRGB vs 2023 QD-OLED at D65, on a 10% window:


















I assumed Samsung's measurements are at the panel native color temperature for both WRGB and QD-OLED, otherwise it's hard to explain the high blue readings for either panel tech compared to Vincent's D65 measurements.


----------



## pakotlar

This is making me seriously consider returning the G2. up close the pink tint is an issue.


----------



## ushotmygoat

Sony have dropped out but I wonder if they're waiting to announce with the new chipset with four 2.1 ports? It probably won't be ready.


----------



## QNED KING

deleted


----------



## stama

In absolute area that emits light, yes. We don't know the luminance of the 65" 2023 QD-OLED, as nobody measured it yet. It could have the same luminosity values as the 77" 2023 QD-OLED or different, who knows.


----------



## pakotlar

If you look carefully, we actually do see much worse brightness uniformity as a result of MLA. Color tinting improvement is the tradeoff (expected, see the MLA paper I cited recently).









the brightness improvements however are awesome. I wonder how good this tech is for monitor use, since if you're sitting close to the display, the angle from eye to corners is exaggerates.


----------



## stama

You're right, head on it does seem somewhat brighter in the middle. And maybe even the white has some cast too? What stood out to me was the dramatic reduction in color tinting of the white screen when viewed from the sides, that's where the "better white uniformity" remark came from.


----------



## cdheer

ushotmygoat said:


> Sony have dropped out but I wonder if they're waiting to announce with the new chipset with four 2.1 ports? It probably won't be ready.


As I've said elsewhere, there are a number of possible reasons why Sony isn't making a TV announcement at CES; I see no reason to assume it's related to the SOC.

Having said that, I will be very disappointed if they trot out new TVs with only 2 48gbps HDMI ports.


----------



## helvetica bold

Since MediaTek is being used in PS VR2 I’m hoping Sony’s close relationship is pushing for the Pentonic chip at least in the Master Series this year.


----------



## 59LIHP

There is a strong probability that this year Sony will finally satisfy its customers on the Soc side.








News: Displays and Their Technologies


Your next 4K 120Hz gaming TV will get an AI boost from MediaTek The MediaTek Pentonic 1000 SoC will quietly power next-gen televisions for PS5 and Xbox Series X owners. https://www.androidcentral.com/streaming-tv/mediatek-pentonic-1000-announcement




www.avsforum.com


----------



## fafrd

Moravid said:


> Panasonic MZ2000...1500 nits 10% window, 210 nits full field. Both at D65


The fact that Panasonic choose an MLA-enhanced WOLED over a 2023 QD-OLED panel for the MZ2000 is pretty huge.

To the extent that LGD may truly have been on the fence about introducing 4K WOLED panels with MLA this year, Panasonic alone may have been enough to force their hand…

200 cd/m2 full field and 1000 cd/m2 @ 10% both calibrated to D65 seem pretty certain for MLA-enabled WOLEDs with heatsink now.

LGE is always more aggressive than Panasonic so expect them to push things closer to the specs LGD has been claiming, but 200/1000 has always been my target spec snd it looks like we are there.


----------



## stama

This is just a note to say that I revised my previous post with comparisons between the 2022 and 2023 WRGB and QD-OLED panels. Made a table in Excel and attached it, and added links and screenshots from all the sources I used. If you're interested, please have a look again. 

While TV and movie watchers will have a difficult time choosing between the 2023 revisions of the two panel techs, gamers have no choice but to prefer the QD-OLED panel. 3D games these days use physical based rendering and will make use of all that wide gamut the QD-OLED panel offers. Games will look more colorful not only because the panel is bright, but because their rendered image does use that wide gamut.

Broadcast TV and movies are mostly centered around the gray axis, just like LG tech execs mentioned.


> According to our research, 70% of broadcast video images are distributed around the white point and achromatic color.


 From that point of view, their focus on brightness and not on colorfulness makes sense, the broadcast and movie content is currently not taking advantage of that wide gamut. But it's a pity, since LG TVs excel at color accuracy.

Even Samsung is aware of this, and has plans to push for a wider use of color gamut in the TV and movie industry:


> We call for an industry dialogue to consider how to implement a production flow
> that makes use of greater and brighter color. SMPTE published SMPTE 428‐117 and SMPTE 431‐1 in 2006; it is natural to expect that state‐of‐the‐art displays today can produce more colors that consumers will find desirable.


Those two SMPTE standards regarding Cinema Distribution Master and Screen Luminance Level, Chromaticity and Uniformity were up for renewal in 2022. Don't know if Samsung managed to do something, but their intent was laid out in the 2020 Model for very wide gamut HDR Displays internal report.



fafrd said:


> LGE is always more aggressive than Panasonic so expect them to push things closer to the specs LGD has been claiming, but 200/1000 has always been my target spec snd it looks like we are there.


Umm... it's the opposite, the Panasonic WRGB OLEDs were much brighter every year than the ones coming from LGE.

If Panasonic has a problem, is that they always start selling their TVs very late during the year, when LG's own models are already discounted.


----------



## juandhi

I'm curious about TCL's proposed QD Oled. A google tv based TCL QD Oled would be an attractive proposition to alot of consumers at the right price point.


----------



## wco81

helvetica bold said:


> Dang! It appears Sony’s star of the show will be PS VR2 and possibly a new revision of the PS5.


Isn't the Playstation division separate from the TV unit?

Can't Sony chew gum and walk at the same time?


PS5 sells itself, they can't keep it on the shelves, after over 2 years since launch. The PSVR2 is a niche product, be surprised if even 20% of the installed base of PS5 buy it.

High end Bravias OTOH are a hard-sell because of the 33% or more price premium over LG and Samsung.

Maybe Sony is going to let LG and Samsung show their cards and they will line up their pricing and availability afterwards. As well as to make sure it outperforms competing OLED sets.


----------



## ttnuagmada

pakotlar said:


> If you look carefully, we actually do see much worse brightness uniformity as a result of MLA. Color tinting improvement is the tradeoff (expected, see the MLA paper I cited recently).
> 
> View attachment 3382682
> 
> the brightness improvements however are awesome. I wonder how good this tech is for monitor use, since if you're sitting close to the display, the angle from eye to corners is exaggerates.


To be fair, the panel on the left is one of the most pristine WOLED samples I can recall seeing.


----------



## pakotlar

ttnuagmada said:


> To be fair, the panel on the left is one of the most pristine WOLED samples I can recall seeing.


Yeah, but that central bright oval is the first I’ve seen on an oled. I wonder if it’s noticeable in regular content, and especially how it fares in use as a monitor.


----------



## valin

pakotlar said:


> Yeah, but that central bright oval is the first I’ve seen on an oled. I wonder if it’s noticeable in regular content, and especially how it fares in use as a monitor.


Uhm, I am not sure I see it this way. This looks to me like a vignetting effect which was/is a thing on OLED since the very beginning, it's just that it's manifested mostly in near black levels, though admittedly kind of improved some in the most recent models, but not really disappeared. What is concerning from his material is that now it looks that it's visible in higher amplitude grey levels (too?). Under these assumptions I wonder how a 2-3% full screen grey amplitude looks like with the new MLA panels, but probably we shouldn't jump to conclusions that's gonna be worse than current EX panels. All in all MLA seems to be positioned as a great step ahead for WRGB OLED.


----------



## QNED KING

juandhi said:


> I'm curious about TCL's proposed QD Oled. A google tv based TCL QD Oled would be an attractive proposition to a lot of consumers at the right price point.


They would almost certainly be buying the same panels as Samsung and Sony from SD. Is the improvement to the OS and lower price worth the hit on processing and built quality? Also there is a chance they only get the S90C panels with the thermal pad instead of the heatsink of the S95C. So nits maybe dailed back from the 2100 nits measured,


----------



## OLED_Overrated

TCL's first QD-OLED TV will launch in the second half of 2023


As an alternative to its high-end miniLED LCD TVs




www.flatpanelshd.com


----------



## juandhi

QNED KING said:


> They would almost certainly be buying the same panels as Samsung and Sony from SD. Is the improvement to the OS and lower price worth the hit on processing and built quality? Also there is a chance they only get the S90C panels with the thermal pad instead of the heatsink of the S95C. So nits maybe dailed back from the 2100 nits measured,


S95c heatsink has been confirmed?


----------



## maxl

OLED_Overrated said:


> CES 2023: Samsung shrinks its microLED TV down to 76 inches | Digital Trends
> 
> 
> Samsung has debuted the world's smallest and most affordable microLED TV at CES 2023, with a screen size of 76 inches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.digitaltrends.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung launching smaller 50 inch, 63 inch, and 76 inch microled. Will be the cheapest yet compared to previously announced 89 inch for $80k but obviously still relatively expensive.
> 
> Also the specs are 240 hz , 2 nanosecond response(about 5000 times faster than oled), 20 bit black level depth.


Wow, if there is 76" 4K display then there should be 152" 8K display - that would be the ultimate screen to replace projection. Exciting...


----------



## fafrd

stama said:


> .
> 
> Umm... it's the opposite, the Panasonic WRGB OLEDs were much brighter every year than the ones coming from LGE.


My comment would only apply to the years before Panasonic WOLEDs included heatsinks or to comparing the G2 to Panasonic’s 2022 Flagship (though I am not sure Panasonic moved to LGD ‘Evo’ / Deuterium-based panel last year).

How did Panasonic’s 2022 WOLED Flagship compare to the G2?


----------



## mrtickleuk

fafrd said:


> The fact that Panasonic choose an MLA-enhanced WOLED over a 2023 QD-OLED panel for the MZ2000 is pretty huge.
> 
> To the extent that LGD may truly have been on the fence about introducing 4K WOLED panels with MLA this year, Panasonic alone may have been enough to force their hand…
> 
> 200 cd/m2 full field and 1000 cd/m2 @ 10% both calibrated to D65 seem pretty certain for MLA-enabled WOLEDs with heatsink now.
> 
> LGE is always more aggressive than Panasonic so expect them to push things closer to the specs LGD has been claiming, but 200/1000 has always been my target spec snd it looks like we are there.


We're more than there I think! The new Panasonic is 1500 nits at 10% window calibrated to D65, not just 1000 nits!



stama said:


> This is just a note to say that I revised my previous post with comparisons between the 2022 and 2023 WRGB and QD-OLED panels. Made a table in Excel and attached it, and added links and screenshots from all the sources I used. If you're interested, please have a look again.


It's an excellent post, many many thanks for doing that!


----------



## stama

fafrd said:


> How did Panasonic’s 2022 WOLED Flagship compare to the G2?


According to Vincent, it was the best among the WRGB OLEDs:











mrtickleuk said:


> It's an excellent post, many many thanks for doing that!


You're welcome! I kind of did it for myself too, wanted to have everything at the same location.

In the meantime, here are a few more details, gathered from the various articles that 59LIHP somehow manages to find 

those Samsung Display measurements of the WRGB OLEDs were done with the TVs in Dynamic Mode, on a 3% window indeed
Samsung says they did not implement new thermal management tech for the S95C or S90C at all; so I was wrong when I thought the S95C's 0.8 cm thickness is due to the presence of a heatsink underneath
Samsung's gain in luminosity do come from a change in the OLED material, but it's not the use of phosphorescence; the Hyper Efficient EL mentioned in the pre-CES press release was is in fact Hyper Efficient ETL (electron transport layer) which increased the resonance of light within the ETL and minimized light absorption
and the other reason for the gain in brightness luminosity is Intellisense AI v2.0 which does what I feared it will do: changing displayed content to manipulate color perception according to training; the neural network used got an upgrade from 20 to 64 nodes;
it's probably also responsible for the feature called “Real Depth Enhancer”, designed to "detect the area of focus of any scene and then enhance the contrast and colors to add more dimensionality to that element" (Vincent's red car in the S95B review)
all panel sizes should have the same luminosity characteristic, according to Samsung
the 77" and 49" size panels were indeed not launched in production last year; they will be launched in production at the start of this year
one thing that nobody mentioned until now, is that in side by side comparison to S95B, the black crush is less present on the new panel than on the S95B
Samsung claims that the 2023 QD-OLED provides visual parity with a Sony OBM-X310 Reference Master 4K HDR Grading Monitor !!!

The tech data is from the articles written by those invited to the Samsung Visual Display fab where they make the QD-OLED panels in November last year, but were under embargo to publish anything till CES2023: here, here, and here.

And something that might be worrying regarding the G3: Panasonic claims that the heat thermal solution on the MZ2000 is developed by them, it's not the one LG will use. So, the numbers we got from the MZ2000 might not be what we will see from the G3.

Another thing that was not mentioned anywhere is that only the 55" and 65" MZ2000 will have the MLA panel, the 77" will not have a MLA panel. This info comes from John Archer's Forbes article. Of course, I found out about it from the news blurb posted by 59LIHP in his forum thread.


----------



## 1HTPCGuy

pakotlar said:


> This is making me seriously consider returning the G2. up close the pink tint is an issue.


I also have a new G2.. I am definitely keeping it as the new G3 will be full retail at launch.. I was out the door under 3 for mine.. It would be a while before the G3 can beat that.. Just enjoy one of the best displays from this year..


----------



## fafrd

stama said:


> * Samsung claims that the 2023 QD-OLED provides visual parity with a Sony OBM-X310 Reference Master 4K HDR Grading Monitor !!!


Depending on which part of the image you are looking at .


----------



## fafrd

stama said:


> According to Vincent, it was the best among the WRGB OLEDs:
> View attachment 3382869


It’s true that Panasonic may have a better / more-effective heatsink (and in any case, they have a great deal more experience with the performance of a heatsink on actual content viewed in the field than LG with their first attempt)…


----------



## wco81

Well even if 2023 OLEDs are better than 2022, there are still going to be things they will have to wait until 2024 to address or later.

LG will have to prove MLA is as good as QD-OLED and then offer it on their C series.

Samsung will have to do something with he black levels.

Then a year from now, we will find out 2024 TV won't address the issues which were discovered in 2023 TVs or even older models.

Can't get off the hamster wheel.

Might as well jump in now and wait 3-4 more years before upgrading again.


----------



## mrtickleuk

fafrd said:


> Depending on which part of the image you are looking at .


The bezel .
It's a silly claim to make, even by a marketeer. They'll be a laughing stock.


----------



## stama

Well, if 2024 will see the introduction of the fabled phosphorescent blue emitter materials, then all the achievements from this year will be trumped again in a big way. Whatever you do, you can't win, the industry seems to be at an inflexion point where big changes are occurring.


----------



## fafrd

mrtickleuk said:


> The bezel .
> It's a silly claim to make, even by a marketeer. They'll be a laughing stock.


Of all the Vendors who might dare to make that absurd claim. Samsung would certainly be at the top of my list!


----------



## pakotlar

1HTPCGuy said:


> I also have a new G2.. I am definitely keeping it as the new G3 will be full retail at launch.. I was out the door under 3 for mine.. It would be a while before the G3 can beat that.. Just enjoy one of the best displays from this year..


Yeah really struggling with this. Got my 55 G2 for $1300 before tax, so would need to wait at least 9 months. It is an amazing display, with the exception of 1 movie, Lion King 2019.


----------



## fafrd

stama said:


> Well, if 2024 will see the introduction of the fabled phosphorescent blue emitter materials, then all the achievements from this year will be trumped again in a big way. Whatever you do, you can't win, the industry seems to be at an inflexion point where big changes are occurring.


Seems like we’re finally reaching the point where OLED TV will render HDR1000 DCI-P3 content about as accurately as 2016 OLED TVs render Rec.709 HD content.

Next up would be HDR4000 Rec.2020 content but that is almost certainly going to require a high-efficiency blue emitter as well as another ~4-5 years.

So for me and my 2016-vintage 65C6, 2023 or 2024 model year is looking like a good time for an upgrade…

Near-black artifacts / performance (both near-black flashing / overshoot as well as near-black nonuniformity / DSE) are the two areas I want to first be certain I won’t be taking a step backwards versus my near-perfect C6 Unicorn.


----------



## stama

Indeed, I totally agree.


----------



## QNED KING

I am waiting for 2024. It seems like the point where you could buy again and be good for another 8-10 years. Plus more competition with TCL selling them and reduced cost. Plus looking for these improvements:

1. New Blue emitter for brighter picture and reduced energy consumption
2. Change of the pixel structure to eliminate contamination and better text
3. Add 240hz option for gaming and add heatsink
4. Bigger sizes like 83" and 97" or better yet 75/85/95/105 etc.
5. Use GoogleOS instead of Tizen
6. Add Dolby Vision (it only $5 and if they sort it out would be great)
7. Have them design a new case instead of reusing QLED one
8. Wireless connections for inputs
9. Improve build quality. Make thicker. No bends
10. Improve anti-glare to eliminate ambient light glow and reddish tint


----------



## juandhi

QNED KING said:


> I am waiting for 2024. It seems like the point where you could buy again and be good for another 8-10 years. Plus more competition with TCL selling them and reduced cost. Plus looking for these improvements:
> 
> 1. New Blue emitter for brighter picture and reduced energy consumption
> 2. Change of the pixel structure to eliminate contamination and better text
> 3. Add 240hz option for gaming and add heatsink
> 4. Bigger sizes like 83" and 97" or better yet 75/85/95/105 etc.
> 5. Use GoogleOS instead of Tizen
> 6. Add Dolby Vision (it only $5 and if they sort it out would be great)
> 7. Have them design a new case instead of reusing QLED one
> 8. Wireless connections for inputs
> 9. Improve build quality. Make thicker. No bends
> 10. Improve anti-glare to eliminate ambient light glow and reddish tint


Would agree but have seen nothing to indicate that they are transition from Tizen no? or are ready to give into to DV.


----------



## helvetica bold

stama said:


> This is just a note to say that I revised my previous post with comparisons between the 2022 and 2023 WRGB and QD-OLED panels. Made a table in Excel and attached it, and added links and screenshots from all the sources I used. If you're interested, please have a look again.
> 
> While TV and movie watchers will have a difficult time choosing between the 2023 revisions of the two panel techs, gamers have no choice but to prefer the QD-OLED panel. 3D games these days use physical based rendering and will make use of all that wide gamut the QD-OLED panel offers. Games will look more colorful not only because the panel is bright, but because their rendered image does use that wide gamut.
> 
> Broadcast TV and movies are mostly centered around the gray axis, just like LG tech execs mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> According to our research, 70% of broadcast video images are distributed around the white point and achromatic color.
> 
> 
> 
> From that point of view, their focus on brightness and not on colorfulness makes sense, the broadcast and movie content is currently not taking advantage of that wide gamut. But it's a pity, since LG TVs excel at color accuracy.
> 
> Even Samsung is aware of this, and has plans to push for a wider use of color gamut in the TV and movie industry:
> 
> 
> 
> We call for an industry dialogue to consider how to implement a production flow
> that makes use of greater and brighter color. SMPTE published SMPTE 428‐117 and SMPTE 431‐1 in 2006; it is natural to expect that state‐of‐the‐art displays today can produce more colors that consumers will find desirable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those two SMPTE standards regarding Cinema Distribution Master and Screen Luminance Level, Chromaticity and Uniformity were up for renewal in 2022. Don't know if Samsung managed to do something, but their intent was laid out in the 2020 Model for very wide gamut HDR Displays internal report.
> 
> 
> 
> fafrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> LGE is always more aggressive than Panasonic so expect them to push things closer to the specs LGD has been claiming, but 200/1000 has always been my target spec snd it looks like we are there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm... it's the opposite, the Panasonic WRGB OLEDs were much brighter every year than the ones coming from LGE.
> 
> If Panasonic has a problem, is that they always start selling their TVs very late during the year, when LG's own models are already discounted.
Click to expand...

Regarding color used in games, most if not all games don’t go beyond P3. Hell, some still stay within Rec 709. The only game that I’m aware that might go beyond P3 is GT7 if I’m not mistaken. Yes, you can oversaturate and ignore creators intent but isn’t accuracy within reason is the goal (at lest for me). 
Vincent analysis of Miles Morales I believe illustrates my point. There are elements that remain within 709 if I’m not mistaken.


----------



## wco81

Well I'm not getting younger and for the foreseeable future, the main content I will be watching is streaming and maybe cable TV unless I switch to fiber and Youtube TV.

I don't anticipate getting a UHD Blue Ray any time soon. My guess now is that they are releasing on UHD BD only a fraction of the content available via streaming.

So I am starting to question whether having an OLED with the unicorn blue emitter and other enhancements talked about here will matter that much with streamed content.

Bought an LG CX in 2021 for the bedroom so I can wait but if I wait a couple more years, are the streamed content from Apple TV + or Amazon Prime or YouTube TV going to be that much better?


I do tend to pause and rewind some scenes, usually of night skylines, to see how sharp and clean they are. They're really not though, when freeze-framed, though the masters are probably gorgeous.

Recently, it's Emily in Paris when I freeze frame and examen more closely but it's exteriors and usually time lapses, done really well of these landmark buildings going from sunset to dark and lighting up, a couple seconds here or there. So they hired a good photo production company to come up with these interstitials, making Paris as glamorous as you expect it to be.

But these interstitials have little to do with the enjoyment of the content. It's the same with with series on Showtime which are UHD DV. Some gorgeous aerial shots of the Manhattan skyline in the dark but they're only a couple of seconds at a time and don't really have anything to do with the storytelling that draws you in.

I don't know if any show or movie has yet made great use of UHD and HDR yet, other than generally doing beautiful cinematography. Only time cinematography is noticed is when shows like GoT or HotD draw many complaints about dark scenes where people can't see what's going on. Perfect chance for them to use HDR to use dark settings but they haven't pulled it off yet.


----------



## wr3zzz

Does better power efficiency that come with MLA/blue emitter mean even less chance of burn-in?


----------



## Arese

wco81 said:


> Samsung will have to do something with he black levels.


Hi, sorry still catching up on 2022's new QD OLED TVs, what is the black level issue you are referring to?
Aren't QD-OLED TVs still using a self-emissive technology with perfect blacks?


----------



## OLED_Overrated

The newer 2023 qdoleds supposedly have a better ambient light rejecting film and won't reflect reddish/pinkish tint anymore.


----------



## Arese

I came across this video recently uploaded by Vincent, testing for the first time an MLA panel at Panasonic HQ.

While I had heard about MLA technology throughout 2022, I hadn't realised that it was LG's "answer" to Samsung's QD OLED. I first thought that it was just a gimmick but watching at the first tests of MLA panels, it looks incredibly promising!

I was really impressed by the increased brightness exhibited by the MLA panel VS NON MLA. Especially in the Matrix scene with an almost all-white background. The difference was huge.
Also, he measured 1,5000 nits peak brightness which is more than what the S95B and A95K could do.
The icing on the cake was the fact that he noticed that the MLA panel did a better job with image washing away image retention faster than the non-MLA panel.

Granted these tests were conducted at Panasonic HQ on non-commercial sets and there's a chance that Panasonic tweaked the MLA panel but overall I was quite excited about those findings.

Looking forward to an LG G3 vs Samsung S95C showdown. Samsung mostly focused its marketing on the ability of its QD OLED panels to go brighter than conventional OLED panels. If LG managed to overcome them in the brightness territory 1 year later, it will be pretty infuriating to Samsung I bet.


----------



## Arese

OLED_Overrated said:


> The newer 2023 qdoleds supposedly have a better ambient light rejecting film and won't reflect reddish/pinkish tint anymore.


Oh I see, was it to do with the fact that the screen looked grey when the TV is off?


----------



## chozofication

so does samsung display have 48" panels this year or no? Besides the goofy ultrawide monitor.


----------



## helvetica bold

It’s going to be a very interesting year.


----------



## Arese

helvetica bold said:


> It’s going to be a very interesting year.


Just watched the video (yes super exciting year).
In the video, he used a new term I haven't seen used anywhere yet.

He referred to MLA technology as Meta technology compared to last's years EX panels.

So which one is it, which term is the official term for 2023 panels, META or MLA panels?


----------



## helvetica bold

Arese said:


> helvetica bold said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s going to be a very interesting year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just watched the video (yes super exciting year).
> In the video, he used a new term I haven't seen used anywhere yet.
> 
> He referred to MLA technology as Meta technology compared to last's years EX panels.
> 
> So which one is it, which term is the official term for 2023 panels, META or MLA panels?
Click to expand...

META is part of the new Ai processor (software) to direct where light should be directed on screen. MLA is the new lens layer that directs the light to the viewer. MLA is used to make sure no light internally is being waisted but focused outward for maximum luminescence.


----------



## Arese

helvetica bold said:


> META is part of the new Ai processor (software) to direct where light should be directed on screen. MLA is the new lens layer that directs the light to the viewer. MLA is used to make sure no light internally is being waisted but focused outward for maximum luminescence.


Got it, thanks for the clarification, appreciate it


----------



## pakotlar

helvetica bold said:


> It’s going to be a very interesting year.


Well, he came out and said off axis brightness drop is smaller with MLA than without (maybe it’s the density of lenses?). If thats true, and given that it’s Vincent that is the likely, there is not disadvantage from MLA, which is both surprising and great to hear, and makes me want a 2023 G3 model.


----------



## mrtickleuk

fafrd said:


> Near-black artifacts / performance (both near-black flashing / overshoot as well as near-black nonuniformity / DSE) are the two areas I want to first be certain I won’t be taking a step backwards versus my near-perfect C6 Unicorn.


Sadly, the indications so far are that you definitely will be taking a step backwards with near-black flashing / overshoot. Your 2016 panel is perfect for this, since it doesn't have the problem. This problem was introduced with the 2018 panels and has still not been addressed in the hardware - and there is silence on that problem this year. All the workarounds since 2018 have been to avoid using the white pixel at all near black, and to dither RGB instead to make the dark colours, and your dark pure greys are also a dithered mess instead of nice clean pure greys. This then introduces a different visible "hairline" problem at the "boundary" point (the darkest level where the white pixel _is_ used).

The reason that I say this is the silence from LG. If they had solved the problem in hardware, surely they would have mentioned it alongside the MLA announcements. Therefore I'm waiting to see detailed testing done by the reviewers, which of course can't be done for a few months.


----------



## Wizziwig

pakotlar said:


> Well, he came out and said off axis brightness drop is smaller with MLA than without (maybe it’s the density of lenses?). If thats true, and given that it’s Vincent that is the likely, there is not disadvantage from MLA, which is both surprising and great to hear, and makes me want a 2023 G3 model.


All that was demonstrated is that the 2023 Panasonic is brighter than the 2022 version regardless of viewing angle. That doesn't mean the 2023 model doesn't dim off axis as you noticed in the photo displaying a brighter center on-axis. We'll know how it really compares when rtings does their angular attenuation measurements.

The 210 nit full field brightness is rather disappointing compared to what we've seen from the best 2022 panels. Improving ABL response would have had a much larger impact on existing HDR content than bumping up the peak. That peak will only be achievable on a few titles that actually contain such luminance levels and are dim enough not to trigger ABL. Real content ABL response will be worse than you see in those comparison graphs because real content isn't pure white. ABL isn't limiting brightness, it's limiting power consumption which will be worse once the much less efficient colored subpixels are enabled.

Regarding the raised black levels caused by MLA. A large percent of emitted light would be reflected back from the MLA layer into the circular polarizer where it would be absorbed and wasted. I'm guessing they removed the polarizer to deal with this issue. There may be more negative side effect of using MLA that we're going to hear about once the panels are released.


----------



## stama

LG's own press release and official MLA satirical video mention that viewing angles have improved by 30% (more precisely, the angle from which there is a drop of the on-axis luminance by half has increased by 30%). later edit: viewing angles are now 160° vs 120° previously, according to this LG video.

"LG Display Unveils Third-Generation OLED TV Panel at CES 2023" press release:


> OLED displays achieve 60 percent brighter images and 30 percent wider viewing angles than conventional OLED displays, on top of improved energy efficiency.


They even made Vincent publish a video where he reapeats this too, while explaining the reason why: because more light manages to be pushed out of the panel. It doesn't say this in the video but that light is lost due to reflections on the TFT backplane (the WRGB OLED uses bottom emission, with the TFT backplane sitting in the way of the emitted light), and due to crossing from a material with one refraction index to another with a different refraction index - when the incidence angle is too steep, the light doesn't get out of the second medium it entered.

Related to this, the video also explains that one of the reasons why the 2022 panels were brighter is because they removed from the TFT backplane all the wiring for the sensors used for panel protection, and that allowed a higher pixel aperture ratio. That confirms what the LG CTO alluded at in the interview on the OLED.EX tech, when he said that now panel dimming is entirely controlled by algorithms that take into account the content itself, the usage patterns, and the type of content someone watches, and not panel built-in sensors. This is what is behind the bullet point called "Personalized Algorithm" in the OLED.EX description slide.

Side note: a piece of info in the LG Display official video linked above also suggests that the luminosity improvement due to MLA is going to be greater on the larger sized panels than on the smaller panels, because the larger panels have a greater pixel aperture ratio and an increased number of MLA lenses per pixel.


Regarding your other concern, the ABL response. If you look at LG's presentation and a couple of other online reviews, you get what their strategy behind the META Booster algorithm is:

they were already addressing the ABL in 2022 by splitting the display area in 5000 zones, where they analyzed content and were changing the level of dimming used area by area; they increased the number of zones they are doing this at 20 000 for 2023
the algorithm does not only change the luminance of the content shown in each area differently (it modifies the colors it displays with darker tones than it should be in one area, while it's closer to intended tonality in another area), but also allows to manage the energy budget across the entire panel, basically requiring less energy in the areas that are going to be displayed dimmer and allowing more current in the areas that will need it to pump the right amount of luminance

So, it's an ABL implementation that dims each of the 20000 zones differently instead of an ABL implementation that dims the entire panel.

This is a smarter way to address the level of dimming for a given APL, which should allow the panel to keep some of the areas brighter for a given APL when displaying content than it did in the past at the same APL.

The other news, that the panel efficiency is improved by 20%, should account for an increased ABL range. After all, the MLA lenses are boosting the luminance of not just the white subpixels, it's boosting it for all subpixels. We do need a primaries measurement for a WRGB MLA OLED panel to see just how much luminance has increased for each primary vs a 2022 panel, the kind that Vincent published in the 77S95C video for the 2022 WRGB OLED panel.


I share your concern regarding the polarizer. I fear LG may have learned from the success of QD-OLED despite its behavior in ambient light that people don't care about true blacks. Customer feedback driven deterioration of some panel characteristics to allow an improvement of some other characteristic.


----------



## ttnuagmada

stama said:


> LG's own press release and official MLA satirical video mention that viewing angles have improved by 30% (more precisely, the angle from which there is a drop of the on-axis luminance by half has increased by 30%).
> 
> "LG Display Unveils Third-Generation OLED TV Panel at CES 2023" press release:
> 
> 
> They even made Vincent publish a video where he reapeats this too, while explaining the reason why: because more light manages to be pushed out of the panel. It doesn't say this in the video but that light is lost due to reflections on the TFT backplane (the WRGB OLED uses bottom emission, with the TFT backplane sitting in the way of the emitted light), and due to crossing from a material with one refraction index to another with a different refraction index - when the incidence angle is too steep, the light doesn't get out of the second medium it entered.
> 
> Related to this, the video also explains that one of the reasons why the 2022 panels were brighter is because they removed from the TFT backplane all the wiring for the sensors used for panel protection, and that allowed a higher pixel aperture ratio. That confirms what the LG CTO alluded at in the interview on the OLED.EX tech, when he said that now panel dimming is entirely controlled by algorithms that take into account the content itself, the usage patterns, and the type of content someone watches, and not panel built-in sensors. This is what is behind the bullet point called "Personalized Algorithm" in the OLED.EX description slide.
> 
> Regarding your other concern, the ABL response. If you look at LG's presentation and a couple of other online reviews, you get what their strategy behind the META Booster algorithm is:
> 
> they were already addressing the ABL in 2022 by splitting the display area in 5000 zones, where they analyzed content and changing the level of dimming used area by area; in 2023 they increased the number of zones they are doing this at 20 000
> the algorithm does not only change the luminance of the content shown in each area differently (it modifies the colors it displays with darker tones than it should be in one area, while it's closer to intended tonality in another area), but also allows to manage the energy budget across the entire panel, basically requiring less energy in the areas that are going to be displayed dimmer and allowing more current in the areas that will need it to pump the right amount of luminance
> 
> So, it's an ABL implementation that dims by zone rather than an ABL implementation that dims the entire panel.



All I can think of when I read this is that the panel is going to do its own thing and it will be impossible to make it truly accurate.


----------



## stama

I don't think we had control over the ABL behavior even until now. The panel always dimmed when it wanted, even disabling those two things in the service menu was not enough to completely turn off this behavior.

There's an "AI Picture Pro" toggle to enable or disable the dimming-by-zone which is actually called "tone mapping" by zone, together with some other image manipulations of the video content, like the one triggered by face recognition, or the "AI upscaling", according to Vincent.


----------



## 59LIHP

*QD-OLED TVs Will Be Even Brighter Now. This Is Why*
Samsung Display has already evolved its QD-OLED panels to be even brighter, more efficient, and more accurate. We explain the simple yet effective way this was achieved and how it may effect 2023 QD-OLED TVs from Samsung, Sony and TCL.


----------



## stama

Would have liked an explanation on video of the ETL/HTL demo. 

I see two things in this video that I've seen before in recent Samsung "Visual Display" videos:

they are pushing those they invite to spread the "primaries luminance" talking points from their PR materials, that were ignored by said ungrateful basterds until now 
they are taking shots at Samsung "Consumer Electronics" every time they can; I'm quite sure all that badmouthing of a certain QD-OLED panel implementation would have not been on video unless the peeps from Samsung Display wanted it there


----------



## OLED_Overrated

The endgame


----------



## circumstances

OLED_Overrated said:


> The endgame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ￼


Need that 114 inch on my wall.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> All that was demonstrated is that the 2023 Panasonic is brighter than the 2022 version regardless of viewing angle. That doesn't mean the 2023 model doesn't dim off axis as you noticed in the photo displaying a brighter center on-axis. We'll know how it really compares when rtings does their angular attenuation measurements.
> 
> The 210 nit full field brightness is rather disappointing compared to what we've seen from the best 2022 panels. Improving ABL response would have had a much larger impact on existing HDR content than bumping up the peak. That peak will only be achievable on a few titles that actually contain such luminance levels and are dim enough not to trigger ABL. Real content ABL response will be worse than you see in those comparison graphs because real content isn't pure white. ABL isn't limiting brightness, it's limiting power consumption which will be worse once the much less efficient colored subpixels are enabled.





> Regarding the raised black levels caused by MLA. A large percent of emitted light would be reflected back from the MLA layer into the circular polarizer where it would be absorbed and wasted. *I'm guessing they removed the polarizer to deal with this issue.* There may be more negative side effect of using MLA that we're going to hear about once the panels are released.


That’s not a good guess…


----------



## mrtickleuk

stama said:


> I don't think we had control over the ABL behavior even until now. The panel always dimmed when it wanted, even disabling those two things in the service menu was not enough to completely turn off this behavior.


In the case of A*S*BL, then turning off the two service menu items and turning off logo luminance adjustment in the user menus definitely disables it completely.

Separately, ABL, related to power consumption, can't be disabled, and there are no options anywhere to control it either way.



stama said:


> I see two things in this video that I've seen before in recent Samsung "Visual Display" videos:
> 
> they are pushing those they invite to spread the "primaries luminance" talking points from their PR materials, that were ignored by said ungrateful basterds until now
> they are taking shots at Samsung "Consumer Electronics" every time they can; I'm quite sure all that badmouthing of a certain QD-OLED panel implementation would have not been on video unless the peeps from Samsung Display wanted it there


We won't be bamboozled by the first of those.
The second is pretty hilarious


----------



## fafrd

stama said:


> LG's own press release and official MLA satirical video mention that viewing angles have improved by 30% (more precisely, the angle from which there is a drop of the on-axis luminance by half has increased by 30%).
> 
> "LG Display Unveils Third-Generation OLED TV Panel at CES 2023" press release:
> 
> 
> They even made Vincent publish a video where he reapeats this too, while explaining the reason why: because more light manages to be pushed out of the panel. It doesn't say this in the video but that light is lost due to reflections on the TFT backplane (the WRGB OLED uses bottom emission, with the TFT backplane sitting in the way of the emitted light), and due to crossing from a material with one refraction index to another with a different refraction index - when the incidence angle is too steep, the light doesn't get out of the second medium it entered.
> 
> Related to this, the video also explains that one of the reasons why the 2022 panels were brighter is because they removed from the TFT backplane all the wiring for the sensors used for panel protection, and that allowed a higher pixel aperture ratio. That confirms what the LG CTO alluded at in the interview on the OLED.EX tech, when he said that now panel dimming is entirely controlled by algorithms that take into account the content itself, the usage patterns, and the type of content someone watches, and not panel built-in sensors. This is what is behind the bullet point called "Personalized Algorithm" in the OLED.EX description slide.
> 
> Side note: a piece of info in the LG Display official video linked above also suggests that the luminosity improvement due to MLA is going to be greater on the larger sized panels than on the smaller panels, because the larger panels have a greater pixel aperture ratio and an increased number of MLA lenses per pixel.
> 
> 
> Regarding your other concern, the ABL response. If you look at LG's presentation and a couple of other online reviews, you get what their strategy behind the META Booster algorithm is:
> 
> they were already addressing the ABL in 2022 by splitting the display area in 5000 zones, where they analyzed content and were changing the level of dimming used area by area; they increased the number of zones they are doing this at 20 000 for 2023
> the algorithm does not only change the luminance of the content shown in each area differently (it modifies the colors it displays with darker tones than it should be in one area, while it's closer to intended tonality in another area), but also allows to manage the energy budget across the entire panel, basically requiring less energy in the areas that are going to be displayed dimmer and allowing more current in the areas that will need it to pump the right amount of luminance
> 
> So, it's an ABL implementation that dims each of the 20000 zones differently instead of an ABL implementation that dims the entire panel.
> 
> This is a smarter way to address the level of dimming for a given APL, which should allow the panel to keep some of the areas brighter for a given APL when displaying content than it did in the past at the same APL.
> 
> The other news, that the panel efficiency is improved by 20%, should account for an increased ABL range. After all, the MLA lenses are boosting the luminance of not just the white subpixels, it's boosting it for all subpixels. We do need a primaries measurement for a WRGB MLA OLED panel to see just how much luminance has increased for each primary vs a 2022 panel, the kind that Vincent published in the 77S95C video for the 2022 WRGB OLED panel.





> I share your concern regarding the polarizer. I fear LG may have learned from the success of QD-OLED despite its behavior in ambient light that people don't care about true blacks. Customer feedback driven deterioration of some panel characteristics to allow an improvement of some other characteristic.


I appreciate this thoughtful post, but I don’t think you and Wizziwig understand what is needed to remove a polarizer from an OLED. Inter-suboixel spacing needs to increase dramatically.

When LGDhas changed their vertically-striped subpixel design to a design that delivers the inter-subpixel spacing of Samsung’s QD-OLED, we can introduce that speculation. As long as LGD is sticking to their 4-stripe design with minimum inter-subpixel spacing, it’s a waste of time (and a distraction from focusing on more productive areas).


----------



## fafrd

stama said:


> Would have liked an explanation on video of the ETL/HTL demo.
> 
> I see two things in this video that I've seen before in recent Samsung "Visual Display" videos:
> 
> they are pushing those they invite to spread the "primaries luminance" talking points from their PR materials, that were ignored by said ungrateful basterds until now
> they are taking shots at Samsung "Consumer Electronics" every time they can; I'm quite sure all that badmouthing of a certain QD-OLED panel implementation would have not been on video unless the peeps from Samsung Display wanted it there


Achieving accuracy becomes a whole different ball of wax, but trading off saturation for brightness and do so differently in different parts of an image is an interesting idea.

If you have the choice of rendering the guitar flames in the famous Mad Max Fury Road scene in their full orange/red glory but to do that some of the background on the edges of the screen might have to be less saturated than they could have been, how is that third option versus the uniformly-dimmed screen or a uniformly-less-saturated screen options we have now not a positive development?

It seems as though both Samsung and LGD are putting efforts into delivering the most power to the photons that matter most in an image, and while every photon the Director wanted would be better, minimizing any gaps to the ones a viewer is least likely to notice is a positive development (on the meantime).


----------



## pakotlar

fafrd said:


> I appreciate this thoughtful post, but I don’t think you and Wizziwig understand what is needed to remove a polarizer from an OLED. Inter-suboixel spacing needs to increase dramatically.
> 
> When LGDhas changed their vertically-striped subpixel design to a design that delivers the inter-subpixel spacing of Samsung’s QD-OLED, we can introduce that speculation. As long as LGD is sticking to their 4-stripe design with minimum inter-subpixel spacing, it’s a waste of time (and a distraction from focusing on more productive areas).


I think most of the speculation is really driven by vincent’s video of the 2023 panasonic under overhead light, which had an appearance similar to QD OLED panels, combined with the fact that brightness boost appears far larger than expected.


----------



## valin

ttnuagmada said:


> All I can think of when I read this is that the panel is going to do its own thing and it will be impossible to make it truly accurate.


It remains to be seen if the new MLA panels will actually become more stable in HDR which is the Achilles heel for the current WRGB oleds when it comes to calibration accuracy. I don't think SDR calibration accuracy will change in any way vs the current models, in fact it may allow to make it accurate up to 204 nits day mode without triggering ABL.


----------



## mkozlows

fafrd said:


> It seems as though both Samsung and LGD are putting efforts into delivering the most power to the photons that matter most in an image, and while every photon the Director wanted would be better, minimizing any gaps to the ones a viewer is least likely to notice is a positive development (on the meantime).


That's true if it's done well and works unobtrusively. Yes, your general point is true that either way the set can't do what it's supposed to do, and it needs to fail in one way or another. But it's also true that attempts to get clever and AI-ify it could result in weird artifacting, like part of a scene flickering or changing randomly in brightness in response to what's going on elsewhere in the screen. Won't know until people watch it.


----------



## fafrd

pakotlar said:


> I think most of the speculation is really driven by vincent’s video of the 2023 panasonic under overhead light, which had an appearance similar to QD OLED panels, combined with the fact that brightness boost appears far larger than expected.


I though Vincent showed a macrozoom showing LGD’s classic 4-vertical stripes WOLED subpixel. If that is the case, the polarizer is still there.

If the subpixel design has changed, subpixels are now smaller with greatly-increased inter-subpixel spacing, we can begin to speculate…


----------



## fafrd

mkozlows said:


> That's true if it's done well and works unobtrusively. Yes, your general point is true that either way the set can't do what it's supposed to do, and it needs to fail in one way or another. But it's also true that attempts to get clever and AI-ify it could result in weird artifacting, like part of a scene flickering or changing randomly in brightness in response to what's going on elsewhere in the screen. Won't know until people watch it.


Absolutely. Talk (and marketing) is cheap.

But as long as whatever it is can be disabled and you can fall-back to the ‘dumb’ ABL we know and love, as see this new approach as nothing but upside…


----------



## helvetica bold

From what we know now, if you can purchase one OLED this year would you buy a S95C, G3 or roll the dice on an A95L? Choose or suffer burn-in!  Curious what everyone is thinking.


----------



## juandhi

helvetica bold said:


> From what we know now, if you can purchase one OLED this year would you buy a S95C, G3 or roll the dice on an A95L? Choose or suffer burn-in!  Curious what everyone is thinking.


A95L IMO. Don't think the MLA brightness increases make up for color volume deficiencies vs QDOLED, even with some software trickery. Will have to wait and see


----------



## cdheer

helvetica bold said:


> From what we know now, if you can purchase one OLED this year would you buy a S95C, G3 or roll the dice on an A95L? Choose or suffer burn-in!  Curious what everyone is thinking.


We basically know _nothing _at this point. I'm thinking I want hard information before making a choice.


----------



## fafrd

cdheer said:


> We basically know _nothing _at this point. I'm thinking I want hard information before making a choice.


Precisely.

The OP should ask again in May…


----------



## mkozlows

I mean, obviously we don't know enough to put actual dollars down. But at the same time, what we do know right now is that a) both LG's OLEDs and QD-OLED are going to be significantly brighter in at least some way, and b) this is the main improvement that both Samsung and LG are pushing. 

There are lots of details that come out, and we'll all have fun dissecting fine shades of whatever, but big picture end of the day, I strongly suspect it shakes out such that if you would buy a G2 right now, probably you'll still want to buy a G3; if you'd buy an A95K right now, you'll probably want to buy an A95L; if you'd buy an A90K, you'll want to be an A90L; etc. Maybe there'll be some detail that changes that, but tbh it seems unlikely. 

(With the obvious exception being that if you're a person looking at a 77" who'd have preferred one of the QD-OLED models, now that'll be an option for you in a way it wasn't before.)


----------



## Wizziwig

fafrd said:


> That’s not a good guess…


So you have a better explanation on what happened here?:










Last year's model matches the black curtain behind them while the MLA version clearly doesn't. Too bad Panasonic didn't place a QD-OLED in the middle so we could see how those elevated blacks compare under same lighting conditions.


----------



## ALMA

Different AR-Coating. LGE seems to doing the same. They talked the G3 has the same coating like the 42" LG Flex gaming monitor. They called it SAR technology with 25% less reflections.



> Super Anti Reflection
> 
> *Don't let reflections
> disrupt your game*
> 
> With SAR technology, LG OLED Flex reduces reflections from surrounding light, objects, and people for 25% less reflections compared to other OLED EVO models*. So even when you're in a bright space, you can game with less distracting shadows on the screen.











LG OLED Flex Bendable Gaming TV (42LX3QPUA) | LG USA


Go From a Flat Display to Total Immersion with the LG OLED Flex (42LX3QPUA). This Flex TV is Bendable and Adjustable for Gaming, Streaming and More.




www.lg.com


----------



## valin

Wizziwig said:


> Last year's model matches the black curtain behind them while the MLA version clearly doesn't.


What is concerning is that it _appears_ that there is not much lightning in that environment and we can still make out the grayer look of the new MLA panels.


----------



## 59LIHP

*A new era of ultra premium OLED, Meta Technology*


----------



## KenobiFX

I saw a video of the 2nd Gen QDOLED and that coating seems to be much improved. At least the pink tint is no more visible.

any idea if this new Panel comes to the 34 inch monitor too?


----------



## 59LIHP

LG G3 OLED TV First Look: Tales Of The Unexpected








LG G3 OLED TV First Look: Tales Of The Unexpected


WOLED isn’t supposed to be like this




www.forbes.com


----------



## 59LIHP

*TCL CSOT Showcases Latest Display Technologies at CES 2023







*









TCL CSOT Showcases Latest Display Technologies at CES 2023


/PRNewswire/ -- TCL CSOT, a company committed to innovation in display technology, showcased its flagship products, including next-generation display...




www.prnewswire.com


----------



## helvetica bold

Is “META booster” a form of DTM or too early to say? Also would that work with HGiG enabled, again perhaps too soon to say. 
Granted my question to you all is a little premature but was just done in jest. This is a serious group of display enthusiasts!
If the G3 can hit 2000 nits on a 2% window while gaming @D65 that would be incredible. John Archer impressions in the Forbes article surprised me when he stated color volume appears equal QD OLED.


----------



## pakotlar

59LIHP said:


> LG G3 OLED TV First Look: Tales Of The Unexpected
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG G3 OLED TV First Look: Tales Of The Unexpected
> 
> 
> WOLED isn’t supposed to be like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


I wonder why they (and vincent) didn't test 25, 50, 75 windows? ~900-1000 on LG G2 and other EX panels at 0-10% is enough to get close to creative intent, whereas 400 nits at 25% and 300 at 50% may not be.


----------



## Moravid

Vincent did test with the MZ2000 from Panasonic


----------



## cdheer

mkozlows said:


> I mean, obviously we don't know enough to put actual dollars down. But at the same time, what we do know right now is that a) both LG's OLEDs and QD-OLED are going to be significantly brighter in at least some way, and b) this is the main improvement that both Samsung and LG are pushing.


Well, we know the second point, but the first point ("significantly") remains to be seen. I want to see calibrated results on retail units first.


> There are lots of details that come out, and we'll all have fun dissecting fine shades of whatever, but big picture end of the day, I strongly suspect it shakes out such that if you would buy a G2 right now, probably you'll still want to buy a G3; if you'd buy an A95K right now, you'll probably want to buy an A95L; if you'd buy an A90K, you'll want to be an A90L; etc. Maybe there'll be some detail that changes that, but tbh it seems unlikely.


I mean...yeah. Unless some significant change comes around (like QD-OLED last year), that stands to reason.


----------



## 59LIHP

*New 2023 QD OLED TV strategy from Samsung to raise industry expectations








New 2023 QD OLED TV strategy from Samsung to raise industry expectations


Learning from its OLED TV debut in 2022, Samsung is looking to use a completely different OLED TV strategy for 2023 to raise industry expectations. Omdia's Ken Park shares his expert analysis in our latest blog post here.




omdia.tech.informa.com




*


----------



## pakotlar

Moravid said:


> Vincent did test with the MZ2000 from Panasonic
> View attachment 3383646


Right but LG G2 has 400 nits at 25% vs 600 with LZ2000 using the same panel (maybe diff heat dissipation layer), raising the question, will LG significantly decrease ABL in high APL scenes? 

I suspect yes because they're aiming for 235 nits full field, so smaller window sizes should also get a bump, but that wasnt the case with 2022 models (G2 25% is worse than C9!), so confirmation would be nice. 

The other thing I want to know is whether text clarity will be reduced due to MLA, which uses a polymer layer with high refractive index bubbles that have spacing between (with different refraction). I would be using this as a monitor from 2 feet away.


----------



## mrtickleuk

pakotlar said:


> The other thing I want to know is whether text clarity will be reduced due to MLA, which uses a polymer layer with high refractive index bubbles that have spacing between (with different refraction). I would be using this as a monitor from 2 feet away.


It will be several months before we have proper answers to all this. However, my instinct is that if you want a monitor you should buy a monitor.


----------



## pakotlar

mrtickleuk said:


> It will be several months before we have proper answers to all this. However, my instinct is that if you want a monitor you should buy a monitor.


Unfortunately no 48-55” monitors exist.


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> So you have a better explanation on what happened here?:
> 
> View attachment 3383513
> 
> 
> Last year's model matches the black curtain behind them while the MLA version clearly doesn't. Too bad Panasonic didn't place a QD-OLED in the middle so we could see how those elevated blacks compare under same lighting conditions.


I don’t have any particular knowledge regarding what might make Panasonic’ 2023 blacks in the presence of ambient lighting appear elevated compared to 2022 levels, but I can come up with several guesses that are more likely than removal of the polarizer, including:

1/ MLA redirecting ambient light such that off-angle ambient photons tgat used to be reflected off-angle are now redirected on-angle.

2/ some change in AR filter to reduce luminance reduction but at a cost of increased reflected light.

3/ Some change in how pixel ‘OFF’ state is managed such that near-black flashing is eliminated but at the cost of increased black levels (‘plasma-like blacks’).

The thing I can state with absolute certainty is that removal of the polarizer would require a massive redesign in subpixel layout to increase inter-subpixel spacing.


----------



## stama

helvetica bold said:


> Is “META booster” a form of DTM or too early to say? Also would that work with HGiG enabled, again perhaps too soon to say.
> Granted my question to you all is a little premature but was just done in jest. This is a serious group of display enthusiasts!
> If the G3 can hit 2000 nits on a 2% window while gaming @D65 that would be incredible. John Archer impressions in the Forbes article surprised me when he stated color volume appears equal QD OLED.


I made a couple of posts on these topics. The first important one is this one as it has a comparison between the 2022 and 2023 sets, and then I followed with several others as additional details were revealed. This one has what I think the META Boost algorithm is about.

In the meantime I found out that this same algorithm which picks areas on the screen for higher luminance than they would have without it for the same screen APL is also used on the C3. The peak luminance is the same as on the C2, it's just this algo which allows to have brighter elements by boosting some zones and dimming others in exchange. It's in the DigitalTrends video on the LG sets.


----------



## stama

Oh yes, I saw a mention that there is indeed a change in the AR coating on the new LG sets. The marketing name is "Vanta Black", it's supposed to reduce by 30% the light reflected.










I don't know how that fits with the raised black look. The Digital Trends guy also mentioned the black looks raised on the G3, in that same video.

And this is another video, where a LG spokesperson says the set applies different "tone mapping" for each zone. Just wanted to post the evidence behind what I claimed about the Meta Boost algo.


----------



## WilliamR

Thought I would post this here instead:

So this is the year I am getting a new TV (I was going to last year but decided to skip a year). I saw a video that says the LG G3 83" is only 30% brighter because no one makes the panel tech needed to reach the brightness increase reported in their smaller sizes (65" and 77") in the 83" size. So if i go with the 83" looks like you don't get as good of a panel as the 77". That sucks. I know it is only 6 inches but that really sucks that they are just not all equal.


----------



## BriscoCountyJr

WilliamR said:


> Thought I would post this here instead:
> 
> So this is the year I am getting a new TV (I was going to last year but decided to skip a year). I saw a video that says the LG G3 83" is only 30% brighter because no one makes the panel tech needed to reach the brightness increase reported in their smaller sizes (65" and 77") in the 83" size. So if i go with the 83" looks like you don't get as good of a panel as the 77". That sucks. I know it is only 6 inches but that really sucks that they are just not all equal.


Also the 30% brighter and 70% (for 55-77" G3) brighter is in comparison to low end B2/B3 models. I suspect the C2/C3 were already that 30% brighter than the B2/B3, so that would indicate the G3 83" panels would be similar to the G2 83" panels. So for an 83" size you may be better getting a lower price deal on a 83" G2.


----------



## WilliamR

BriscoCountyJr said:


> Also the 30% brighter and 70% (for 55-77" G3) brighter is in comparison to low end B2/B3 models. I suspect the C2/C3 were already that 30% brighter than the B2/B3, so that would indicate the G3 83" panels would be similar to the G2 83" panels. So for an 83" size you may be better getting a lower price deal on a 83" G2.


Thanks.

I heard in the video that no one is manufacturing the MLA layer that the smaller sizes are getting to achieve that level of brightness increase.

It is in this video at around 1:30


----------



## ChromeJob

Correct, the brightness is in comparison with "conventional WOLED panels."








LG Unveils 2023 OLED TV Range - Complete With Ultra-Bright Micro Lens Array Technology


Consider the OLED rulebook rewritten




www.forbes.com






Forbes said:


> Note that the 83 and 97-inch G3s being introduced for 2023 will not get the MLA technology, and so are only claimed to be 30% brighter than ‘regular’ WOLED screens.


I often say, "buy with your heart" and "spend what you won't later be sorry that you spent." If your heart wants an 83" (as mine did), the decision shouldn't be too complicated. 💁


----------



## fafrd

stama said:


> I made a couple of posts on these topics. The first important one is this one as it has a comparison between the 2022 and 2023 sets, and then I followed with several others as additional details were revealed. This one has what I think the META Boost algorithm is about.
> 
> In the meantime I found out that this same algorithm which picks areas on the screen for higher luminance than they would have without it for the same screen APL is also used on the C3. The peak luminance is the same as on the C2, it's just this algo which allows to have brighter elements by boosting some zones and dimming others in exchange. It's in the DigitalTrends video on the LG sets.


It’ll be interesting to see how the C3 compares to the C2… (as well as to the G3).


----------



## fafrd

stama said:


> Oh yes, I saw a mention that there is indeed a change in the AR coating on the new LG sets. The marketing name is "Vanta Black", it's supposed to reduce by 30% the light reflected.
> View attachment 3383781
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how that fits with the raised black look. The Digital Trends guy also mentioned the black looks raised on the G3, in that same video.


Reflected light is on axis, while ‘raised blacks’ refers to reflected off-axis / diffused / ambient light (think glossy versus matte).

So it sounds as though LGD might have decided to reduce hard/sharp-reflections from on-axis (think of a lamp or a window behind the on-axis viewer) for slightly more diffused - ambient reflections.

Given the ‘Achilles Heel’ QD-OLED has exposed with raised blacks, I’m not sure that was a wise decision…


----------



## fafrd

WilliamR said:


> Thought I would post this here instead:
> 
> So this is the year I am getting a new TV (I was going to last year but decided to skip a year). I saw a video that says the LG G3 83" is only 30% brighter because no one makes the panel tech needed to reach the brightness increase reported in their smaller sizes (65" and 77") in the 83" size. So if i go with the 83" looks like you don't get as good of a panel as the 77". That sucks. I know it is only 6 inches but that really sucks that they are just not all equal.


PAR of an 83” subpixel is 16.2% greater than PAR of a 77” subpixel and 163% greater than PAR of a 65” subpixel, so an 83” WOLED without MLA is likely capable of delivering over half the increased brightness MLA delivers to a 77” WOLED and over twice the increased brightness MKA delivers to a 65” WOLED.

LGE has historically ‘dumbed-down’ - fueled-back the potential increased brightness higher PAR on larger WOLED panels could deliver.

2022 was the first year when they ‘unlocked’ the higher brightness potential of larger panels by delivering a 42” WOLED TV that could not match the brightness levels of it’s larger brethren.

So it’s unclear whether LGE is going to the extreme of allowing each panel size to deliver the full brightness potential it is capable of or whether the two ‘bands’ they started with last year will be maintained or possibly expanded to 3 bands this year.

83” and 92” seem likely to be in a new band while 77” and 65” with MLA may very possibly be throttled-back to match 55” with MLA brightness levels.

If 83” is in a third band and 77” w/ MJA is being dialed-back to 55” w/ MLA brightness, you’ll get a brighter image from 83” w/o MLA than you will from 77” w/ MLA.

But if LGE elects to allow each panel size of the G3 to represent it’s own unique as-bright-as-possible band, it’s likely that the 77G4 will be king of the hill (not including a G92 w/o MLA which could be even brighter).


----------



## fafrd

BriscoCountyJr said:


> Also the 30% brighter and 70% (for 55-77" G3) brighter is in comparison to low end B2/B3 models. I suspect the C2/C3 were already that 30% brighter than the B2/B3, so that would indicate the G3 83" panels would be similar to the G2 83" panels. So for an 83" size you may be better getting a lower price deal on a 83" G2.


Is there any confirmation that the 83G2 delivered higher peak brightness levels than the 77G2???


----------



## fafrd

WilliamR said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I heard in the video that no one is manufacturing the MLA layer that the smaller sizes are getting to achieve that level of brightness increase.
> 
> It is in this video at around 1:30


Yes, so for the C-series, 42” and 48” are clearly being put in a separate band from 55”, 65”, 77”, and 83”.

The G3 only has that entire band plus 83” and until we have measurements to prove otherwise, the default assumption is that the larger-sized G3s will be throttled-back to match the smallest-size 55G3 in terms of peak brightness.

The one reason to hope that LGE may allow the 77” to establish it’s own band (or even fit each G-Series WOLED to deliver brightness to it’s full potential, meaning 4 single-screensize bands, is the head-to-head matchup between Samsung’s 2023 QD-OLED lineup and the G3-Series (and especially the 77G3 versus the new-for-2023 77” QD-OLED).

So we’ll just need to wait and see but it looks like 2023 may be the year that ‘larger also means brighter’.


----------



## pakotlar

fafrd said:


> the default assumption is that the larger-sized G3s will be throttled-back to match the smallest-size 55G3 in terms of peak brightness.


What? The 83 inch isn't getting MLA, 55” is. There is nothing suggesting the 55” will have brightness significantly lower than 65” or 77”.


----------



## YOU are the one

All this talk about raised blacks is really a mixed bag.

It makes sense why they would "allow" this to happen. QD-OLED ate their lunch last year and regular consumers weren't talking about the raised black issue. In fact, if you came from IPS or some ****ty old TV, even those raised blacks are likely much better then what they knew. Second of all, the impact of these raised blacks in actual content and use might not be as dramatic. So LG likely thought it was a reasonable trade-off as rival brands essentially already tested it on the public.

I thought LG was better than this, but at the same time, aren't they known for black crush? I would like to run my G2 at BT.1886 as it is the standard gamma for hd and greater content, but it seems a little too dark and gives me a cinema like experience, which I'm not looking for.

Yes, I can use 2.2 gamma and bump those shadows up but I really don't want to have to. 2.2 is not a TV standard, it's more like a makeshift monitor spec that became ubiquitous which is why it's included at all. BT.1886 should be good enough if we don't have black crush. So could these possible raised blacks maybe offset this flaw? I'd like to think so even if it's not really a good thing to happen lol


----------



## fafrd

pakotlar said:


> What? The 83 inch isn't getting MLA, 55” is. There is nothing suggesting the 55” will have brightness significantly lower than 65” or 77”.


Which is my point exactly.

Either 65G3, 77G3 and MLA-less 83G3 will be throttled-back to match 55G3 with MLA peak brightness (which has been LGE’s historical Modus Operandi) or, LGE will decide for the first time to let larger panel sizes with larger PAR deliver the higher peak brightness levels that larger PAR would allow (possibly because of the increased peak brightness competition against QD-OLED and especially because of the soon-to-be-released 77” QD-OLED).

The 83” is not getting MLA because it doesn’t need it.

Even if MLA delivers the full +20% or even +30% brightness over Evo / Deiteriiim panels without MLA, the 83” panel has 228% the PAR of the 55” panel.

An 83” panel without MLA should be able to deliver 175% the brightness of a 55” panel with MLA if it is allowed to ‘run free’ and deliver to it’s maximum capability.

There are other considerations to take into account including power consumption, whether the 83” panel has been designed with wider power traces or not, etc…

But the point is that it would be relatively easy for LGE to deliver an MLA-free 83G3 WOLED TV with peak brightness levels at least matching what a 55G3 with MLA can deliver…


----------



## KOF

Any chance we will be seeing a 83 inches QD OLED from Samsung Display?


----------



## fafrd

KOF said:


> Any chance we will be seeing a 83 inches QD OLED from Samsung Display?


This year, no.

Ever? Sure (meaning some chance ).


----------



## pakotlar

fafrd said:


> Either 65G3, 77G3 and MLA-less 83G3 will be throttled-back to match 55G3 with MLA peak brightness (which has been LGE’s historical Modus Operandi) or, LGE will decide for the first time to let larger panel sizes with larger PAR deliver the higher peak brightness levels that larger PAR would allow (possibly because of the increased peak brightness competition against QD-OLED and especially because of the soon-to-be-released 77” QD-OLED)


Why do you think that this year will be any different than past years? OLED pixel size has never driven large brightness differences between models, and if LG advertises 55”-77” as “MLA” with no further mentions of class differences, which is the case, it would be a bit funny to pin your hopes on 77” being brighter than 55”.


----------



## pakotlar

fafrd said:


> An 83” panel without MLA should be able to deliver 175% the brightness of a 55” panel with MLA if it is allowed to ‘run free’ and deliver to it’s maximum capability.


How are you calculating these numbers? A TV doesnt have an infinite power supply and driving pixels harder will lead to exponentially shorter lifetimes (power (and heat) proportional to around v^2.5). 

If LG could have made the 83” perform as well as the 77”, or 55” as you’re focused on, why wouldn’t they. They run the risk of confusing consumers and spending inordinate sums on MLA in the smaller sizes for ???


----------



## fafrd

pakotlar said:


> Why do you think that this year will be any different than past years? OLED pixel size has never driven large brightness differences between models, and if LG advertises 55”-77” as “MLA” with no further mentions of class differences, which is the case, it would be a bit funny to pin your hopes on 77” being brighter than 55”.


I didn’t say I think they would, merely they it would mug surprise me if they did. And I’d already stated the reasons:

1/ They already broke the ‘all sizes have equal brightness specs’ model last year with introduction of the ‘not as bright as the others’ 42C3.

2/ We don’t know whether Samsung will be throttling-back peak brightness of their new 77” QD-OLED yo match the peak brightness of the 65” 2023 model, and I think there is a good chance they will not.

3/ Round 1 of the Brightness Wars between Samsung QLED and LG WOLED is now a thing of the past (which LG WOLED survived because Perfect Blacks matter) but this second round between QD-OLED and MLA-enhanced WOLED may be a bigger threat to LGD since QD-OLED brings their own Perfect Blacks to the party.

So I’m just pointing out there are enough reasons to not automatically assume that LGE’s 2023 product strategy will mirror that of past years, at least for the G3 and especially for the 77G3…


----------



## fafrd

pakotlar said:


> How are you calculating these numbers? A TV doesnt have an infinite power supply and driving pixels harder will lead to exponentially shorter lifetimes (power (and heat) proportional to around v^2.5).


On power supply requirements, and especially power distribution trace width, you are correct (as I’ve already pointed out).

On shorter lifetime, you are not.

A pixel with double the PAR driven to match peak brightness will have lifetime that is over twice as long.

A pixel with double the PAR driven to deliver twice the peak brightness will have equivalent lifetime.

Lifetime is a function of current density (mA/cm^2).



> If LG could have made the 83” perform as well as the 77”, or 55” as you’re focused on, why wouldn’t they. They run the risk of confusing consumers and spending inordinate sums on MLA in the smaller sizes for ???


This has been the logic used to justify throttling-back peak brightness performance of larger WOLED screen sizes (with larger PAR) in the past.

We don’t yet know whether Samsung will feel constrained by the same fears and the gloves may be off for this Battle of the 77” OLED TV titans.

In any case, we should know soon enough (May/June).


----------



## hi.mom

Anyone else tired of the incessant talk about increasing peak brightness? Here's an idea: let's focus on improving motion-handling and stutter on OLED.

Then again, that would require R&D. Let's keep picking the low-hanging fruit and continue to drip-feed the market.


----------



## Jin-X

fafrd said:


> Is there any confirmation that the 83G2 delivered higher peak brightness levels than the 77G2???


The 83G2 generally had a lower brightness than the 55-77G2s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cdheer

hi.mom said:


> Anyone else tired of the incessant talk about increasing peak brightness? Here's an idea: let's focus on improving motion-handling and stutter on OLED.


It's possible to do more than one thing at a time. Also, I'd argue it _has_ improved.


----------



## fafrd

Jin-X said:


> The 83G2 generally had a lower brightness than the 55-77G2s.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Is there any indication as to why?

Did the 83G2 reuse the 2021 83” panel (year of introduction of 83” WOLED panel by LGD)?

Did the 83G3 have a similar heatsink to the 77G2 and 65G2?

In any case, LG has no competition at 83” (at least this year), so if they decide to push to the limit on any G3 size, the 77G3 would be the obvious choice (clash of the 77” OLED TV Titans!).


----------



## hi.mom

cdheer said:


> It's possible to do more than one thing at a time. Also, I'd argue it _has_ improved.


If there were any meaningful improvements, that would be the topic of conversation.

First, we played the resolution game, and now we're playing the brightness game. Again, it's all about the low-hanging fruit.


----------



## cdheer

Again, it's possible to do more than one thing at once. And it's less about low-hanging fruit and more what consumers care about. Any evidence that consumers as a group are clamoring for better motion?


----------



## hi.mom

cdheer said:


> Again, it's possible to do more than one thing at once.


If there were significant improvements w/ re: motion-handling, don't you think we'd be hearing all about it? 


> And it's less about low-hanging fruit and more what consumers care about. Any evidence that consumers as a group are clamoring for better motion?


What? It's *all about* picking the low-hanging fruit and increasing profit margins. There are plenty of complaints regarding poor motion-handling on OLED. Run a Google search for "OLED stutter." Just because Joe sixpack fails to see the issue doesn't mean it's not a valid complaint.


----------



## pakotlar

fafrd said:


> Is there any indication as to why?
> 
> Did the 83G2 reuse the 2021 83” panel (year of introduction of 83” WOLED panel by LGD)?
> 
> Did the 83G3 have a similar heatsink to the 77G2 and 65G2?
> 
> In any case, LG has no competition at 83” (at least this year), so if they decide to push to the limit on any G3 size, the 77G3 would be the obvious choice (clash of the 77” OLED TV Titans!).


None of this will happen, and your reasons make
little sense, to me. If LG felt the need to invest in MLA to make their 65” (one of the most popular sizes) and 77” bright enough to compete with Samsung, why do you think that larger pixels in those 65 and 77 models make a large difference to luminence? How much brighter do you think they would get before running into energy and heat dissipation issues?


----------



## cdheer

hi.mom said:


> If there were significant improvements w/ re: motion-handling, don't you think we'd be hearing all about it?


I didn't say there were significant improvements. All I said was they can work on both; working on one doesn't stop work on the other.


> What? It's *all about* picking the low-hanging fruit and increasing profit margins.


Are margins increasing on televisions? By how much?


> There are plenty of complaints regarding poor motion-handling on OLED. Run a Google search for "OLED stutter." Just because Joe sixpack fails to see the issue doesn't mean it's not a valid complaint.


I did not say it's not a valid complaint. (Though "run a Google search for X" is a pretty terrible way to find out any useful statistical issue.) I simply wondered how many consumers have an issue, and you can sneeringly call them Joe Sixpack or whatever, but guess what? Their cash looks good to the TV manufacturers. Why are their desires less important than yours?


----------



## Z906

WilliamR said:


> Thought I would post this here instead:
> 
> So this is the year I am getting a new TV (I was going to last year but decided to skip a year). I saw a video that says the LG G3 83" is only 30% brighter because no one makes the panel tech needed to reach the brightness increase reported in their smaller sizes (65" and 77") in the 83" size. So if i go with the 83" looks like you don't get as good of a panel as the 77". That sucks. I know it is only 6 inches but that really sucks that they are just not all equal.


I'll reply here too with my thoughts

Get the 83, I'm most cases unless side by side, you won't notice the brightness differences but you will notice the size differences


----------



## 59LIHP

*Samsung Display launch the 2nd Generation of QD OLED at CES 2023*
Samsung display launched the 2nd generation of QD-OLED at CES and we spoke at length with Chirag C Shah about what is new for 2023 and the performance improvements introduced.


----------



## Donny84

I wonder if Sammy is going to offer 120hz Black frame insertion(Low & Medium) for 120fps gaming this year since it was omitted from the S95B.

That, and if they've improved 60hz black frame insertion? I've read that the S95's BFI is brighter and has less flicker than the C1's, which is great, but it has higher input lag at around 28ms, Vs the C1's 21ms. Neither are ideal for gaming because of that, plus with the C1 the pictures winds up looking too dim. I just wish they could upgrade BFI somehow that doesn't increase latency, has 1080p motion resolution, with a faster motion persistence.
OR if you could force/fake 120fps into ANY game without any lag increase.

The S95B using BFI whips out 650p motion resolution with a <5ms motion persistence. This is nearly identical to 'average' plasma motion, but with excess judder. But also no green phosphor or motion artifacts, so there's that. You're also left with BFI shadow detail crushing and probably more noticeable flicker than a plasma too. It's definitely the case with the C1. The strobey' flicks can be a bit too much at times, on whites.

I plan on scoring a 65" QD-OLED this year, and a 49" But I'd like to know if they've made any advancements with motion. All people talk about is brightness, brightness, brightness and HDR. It's like everybody wants their eye balls to singe. I just want less film judder, 1080p motion resolution with faster MP, and some sort of 120fps gaming feature that forces every 60fps game into 120 without any extra added lag.


----------



## KOF

Waiting for consoles to add something akin to DLSS 3.0 to reproject 60 FPS into 120 FPS will be faster than waiting for any major breakthroughs in rolling scan. Sharp has shown me hope when my Sharp Zero 2 IGZO OLED phone can output 240Hz VRR through rolling scan without any discerning luminance drop, but the source will have to have 120Hz otherwise it does not play nicely with judders.

Nowadays, I am just content with 120 FPS. Sure, its 600 lines of resolution and 8.3ms MSRT will not be match for my room plasma, (Pioneer 101FD) but there are too many cons with TVs nowdays. My Panasonic GZ2000 also adds 8ms latency for BFI, so added latency and luminance drop alone will not be ideal for many gamers. For now, Im going to patiently wait for 120Hz reconstruction tech to hit consoles and enjoy 4K 120Hz full luminance HDR and minimum latency. Then when rolling scan on TVs improve enough to match the Sharp phones, (meaning minimum luminance drop, VRR and HDR compatible, minimum added latency) I will jump in for 4K 240Hz rolling scan as my motion performance endgame. Too bad the Switch2 will be using Ampere instead of Ada though, it will definitely lower the chance of anything close to DLSS 3.0.


----------



## stama

Here's another view on this talk about whether the 77" with MLA is going to be brighter than the 65" or 55" with MLA.

According to the official LG videos on MLA and Vincent Teoh's video (where he is obviously repeating the lines LG gave him), the bigger panel sizes will have a bigger increase in brightness due to MLA, because the pixel aperture ratio is larger, and that allows to have more lenses per pixel on the larger size panels so more emitted light can be directed out of the panel on the larger panels. The number of lenses per pixel they quote in those videos is for a 77" panel, it's explicitly mentioned in the fine print on the video, the smaller panels have a lower number because the pixels are smaller, while lenses are of the same size.

My guess, because everybody is guessing, is that LG is going to allow each TV size to get as luminous as they can afford, given the energy consumption regulations. (surprise !)

If we look at the EU energy rules... you will shockingly discover that panels sized larger than 65" have more relaxed power consumption requirements than 65" and smaller sized panels do. The smaller the panel size, the more restrictive those requirements are. In fact, the 8K bruhaha before the end of the year, when manufacturers and various lobbying groups known as display associations were trying to water down the legislation they knew about for years (these things are announced years in advance), was that only large sized 8K panels would be making the cut in 2023!  The power consumption of a panel might also not be linear to its size, so a 77" might requires less power to be driven than 77/55 x "the power required by a 55" panel".

So, when you see lower luminance on smaller sized panels, it might not be due to some evil intent, but because energy consumption regulations are stricter for smaller TVs in EU and other places.

Even later edits: had to do something else, and did not manage to write everything

Another thing that needs to be considered is that the panel is not the only thing that draws power in a TV set. If your other electronics (the SoC and the rest) need 30W for themselves, they are going to need that much on a 77" as on a 49". It's one thing when a large sized TV is required to use no more than 150W by regulation and its SoC draws 30 W, and it's another thing when your small sized TV is required to draw no more than 70W but your SoC still needs those 30W! (30W is how much my Android powered A90J takes from the wall when it wakes up every 30 minutes while the TV is supposedly turned off to do whatever Android does)

I think the role of regulations as a driver of innovation is seriously underestimated. It happened with car engines, it's doing the same with display technology.

Whoever thinks that a company like LG which made a major capital investment to bring OLED tech to the market in TVs, and which still hasn't recovered the costs, in fact it only had a few quarters where it made profits at all, is going to look of "how can we spend more money and increase the brightness or whatever else the buyers say they want" instead of reducing production costs as fast as they can and nothing else, is kind of naïve.  Companies, when left by themselves, are not kind hearted entities there to make our lives better just so that they can go into ruin.

MLA was certainly meant to be used on purpose for passing the EU 2023 regulations (for those wondering why does EU regulations matter... it's because over 45% of the worldwide OLED TV sales happen in the EU - in 2021, before the war; that's why you have Panasonic, Philips, Loewe, Toshiba, Hisense and others which only sell OLED TVs in the EU besides their local markets). When LG Display showed that demo in May, it's because they worked on the tech for at least one year before. In August they were saying in interviews that the tech is already ready for 2023. LG's regular sized OLED TVs (the 55, 65 inches) were not passing the new regulations, btw. They really needed something.

I'd venture to say that 83" and larger (+ the new ABL algorithm) might already pass the new EU energy requirements, there was no need to do anything for them (such sizes are not really selling in large numbers in the EU anyway, we got smaller dwellings and fewer people with very high salaries in Europe than you guys in NA). Smaller sizes were not, so they got MLA. LG may have delayed the entrance to market of MLA, and the cost associated to implementing it on the production lines, on purpose till it was really needed for the business to pass a hurdle like this one.

Serendipity made it so that the MLA is also what gives them breathing space from the QD-OLED dark swan that likely took them by surprise. And as things have it, the 65" S95B is said to be able to pass the 2023 EU regulations, while still above LG's 2022 offerings in terms of luminosity.


----------



## CliffordinWales

This isn't just about the preferences of Joe Six-pack or even those of more discerning consumers- it's also about the OEMs.

If you recall, part of Samsung VD's reluctance to adopt Samsung Display's QD-OLED last year was allegedly their concerns about relative lack of brightness compared to their "Neo QLED".

With HDR content usually mastered to 1,000 nits, having a ceiling of around 700 (until recently) has always been one of the main obvious shortcomings of OLED technology and the area demanding most urgent improvement.


----------



## fornier

CliffordinWales said:


> This isn't just about the preferences of Joe Six-pack or even those of more discerning consumers- it's also about the OEMs.
> 
> If you recall, part of Samsung VD's reluctance to adopt Samsung Display's QD-OLED last year was allegedly their concerns about relative lack of brightness compared to their "Neo QLED".
> 
> With HDR content usually mastered to 1,000 nits, having a ceiling of around 700 (until recently) has always been one of the main obvious shortcomings of OLED technology and the area demanding most urgent improvement.


It's kind of you to try and steer him back to civility, but...
Please don't feed the troll


----------



## Wizziwig

ALMA said:


> Different AR-Coating. LGE seems to doing the same. They talked the G3 has the same coating like the 42" LG Flex gaming monitor. They called it SAR technology with 25% less reflections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LG OLED Flex Bendable Gaming TV (42LX3QPUA) | LG USA
> 
> 
> Go From a Flat Display to Total Immersion with the LG OLED Flex (42LX3QPUA). This Flex TV is Bendable and Adjustable for Gaming, Streaming and More.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lg.com


The panel used on the Flex does not have the raised blacks issue.



fafrd said:


> I don’t have any particular knowledge regarding what might make Panasonic’ 2023 blacks in the presence of ambient lighting appear elevated compared to 2022 levels, but I can come up with several guesses that are more likely than removal of the polarizer, including:
> 
> 1/ MLA redirecting ambient light such that off-angle ambient photons tgat used to be reflected off-angle are now redirected on-angle.
> 
> 2/ some change in AR filter to reduce luminance reduction but at a cost of increased reflected light.
> 
> 3/ Some change in how pixel ‘OFF’ state is managed such that near-black flashing is eliminated but at the cost of increased black levels (‘plasma-like blacks’).


1) I'm confused. So now you agree there is no polarizer present to deal with reflected light?

2) Have you considered that making changes to the AR coating which has remained unchanged for many years was necessitated by the removed of the polarizer? If they shipped the panel without polarizer and not replaced it with something else, the panel would have turned into a mirror.

3) That doesn't make any sense. Issue is only visible with ambient light hitting the screen. Not in the dark according to the HDTVtest video.



fafrd said:


> The thing I can state with absolute certainty is that removal of the polarizer would require a massive redesign in subpixel layout to increase inter-subpixel spacing.


You seem fixated on the idea that removing the polarizer somehow requires LG to adopt Samsung's top emission polarizer-free backplane tech. Displays have been shipped for decades without that tech or circular polarizers present in their AR solutions. Heck, unless I missed something, we don't even know 100% that Samsung's use of that mobile polarizer-free tech is responsible for the low PAR on the QD-OLEDs. Lots of other reasons could explain it which we already covered here months ago.


----------



## Wizziwig

I guess this explains how Samsung was able to achieve the 30% luminance boost and increased lifetime for 2023. "Heavy H+ OLED" = also know as Deuterium.  
This slide also suggests some notion of a heat sink although it's unclear if this refers to something new or the thermal pad they used last year. Source Video.


----------



## pakotlar

stama said:


> According to the official LG videos on MLA and Vincent Teoh's video (where he is obviously repeating the lines LG gave him), the bigger panel sizes will have a bigger increase in brightness due to MLA, because the pixel aperture ratio is larger, and that allows to have more lenses per pixel on the larger size panels so more emitted light can be directed out of the panel on the larger panels. The number of lenses per pixel they quote in those videos is for a 77" panel, it's explicitly mentioned in the fine print on the video, the smaller panels have a lower number because the pixels are smaller, while lenses are of the same size.


In Vincents video, around 3 minute mark, he does mention fewer microlenses per pixel, but does not say anything about brightness. When I had seen that video a few days ago, I wondered if there was a brightness effect from the smaller number, but wasnt sure how much of an effect microlens density actually has. In fact from reading about the tech, I’m not sure that the best situation wouldn’t be 1 microlens per pixel, since that would remove any gaps between lenses; those gaps (flat pieces of plastic on the MLA layer where no lens exists) drop performance. My guess is that the difference is very small in either direction, and that the 55 may have somewhat worse viewing angles instead. 






In any case thanks for bringing that up, lower MLA efficiency across the line could be a cause of lower brightness, and we may be seeing that on thr 8K model, although there pixels are far smaller than on the 55” (or even 43”) given that pixel count increases by 4x but screen surface area by something like 30% (88 vs 77, http://www.displaywars.com/88-inch-16x9-vs-77-inch-16x9). The absolute effect is small, around 25% (1500 peak vs 2000), suggesting the total efficiency drop from 77 to 55 would be probably unnoticeable.


----------



## Moravid

Teardown of S95B did show a graphite heatsink


----------



## Dropin

pakotlar said:


> In Vincents video, around 3 minute mark, he does mention fewer microlenses per pixel, but does not say anything about brightness. When I had seen that video a few days ago, I wondered if there was a brightness effect from the smaller number, but wasnt sure how much of an effect microlens density actually has. In fact from reading about the tech, I’m not sure that the best situation wouldn’t be 1 microlens per pixel, since that would remove any gaps between lenses; those gaps (flat pieces of plastic on the MLA layer where no lens exists) drop performance. My guess is that the difference is very small in either direction, and that the 55 may have somewhat worse viewing angles instead.


Number ot mla infomation open


----------



## Dropin

Dropin said:


> Number ot mla infomation open


LG Display has filed a patent to get rid of MLA's disadvantage mura, and an article has already come out that it has come to a level without problems.


----------



## stama

@Wizziwig I think fafrd's latest guess, that the AR coating was optimized to reduce reflectiveness of objects or light sources placed straight in front of the panel, while at the same time losing the ability to avoid ambient light being reflected off it, is the likely explanation. Ironically, this is what QD-OLED reviewers appreciated last year as being better than on LG panels, quietly dismissing the overall raised black due to ambient light - now we got precisely the same on the LG OLED panels.

When you think that the use of duterium by LG came from a completely unexpected direction (it was not the OLED emitter materials R&D division that stumbled upon it, it was from another department that were looking to increase durability in polymer-type printing), it's impressive how much luck matters in new tech development.  Now Samsung copied it too.



pakotlar said:


> In Vincents video, around 3 minute mark, he does mention fewer microlenses per pixel, but does not say anything about brightness. When I had seen that video a few days ago, I wondered if there was a brightness effect from the smaller number, but wasn't sure how much of an effect microlens density actually has. In fact from reading about the tech, I’m not sure that the best situation wouldn’t be 1 microlens per pixel, since that would remove any gaps between lenses; those gaps (flat pieces of plastic on the MLA layer where no lens exists) drop performance. My guess is that the difference is


The CG graphics seem to suggest that the OLED emitter is no longer deposited as a flat surface, but is deposited on the inside of the lenses. If each lens is like in a small cup, the OLED material looks like it fills that cup.


















The more lenses you have, the more emitting material you have for a pixel. The lenses seem to be of the same size and spaced apart the same way for all panel sizes, but in case of a smaller panel you have fewer, and I imagine you still have reflections and absorption over the TFT backplane which presents a larger area filled with metal traces to light emitted on a small panel than on a larger panel. Though I don't see how the TFT backplane can be in between the lenses and the OLED layer anymore (can they deposit it accurately, wrt traces length, on the inside of the lenses before depositing the OLED material ?)... it's as if LG also switched from bottom emission to top emission at the same time.


----------



## 59LIHP

*Panasonic MZ2000 OLED TV with Micro Lens Array Technology and Advanced Gaming Features at CES 2023*
We visit the private Panasonic booth at CES 2023 to get hands-on with the MZ2000 OLED TV and find out more about the updated panel with Micro Lens Array (MLA), updated heat sink and new gaming features.
*



*


----------



## 59LIHP

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611744617740861442


----------



## pakotlar

stama said:


> @Wizziwig I think fafrd's latest guess, that the AR coating was optimized to reduce reflectiveness of objects or light sources placed straight in front of the panel, while at the same time losing the ability to avoid ambient light being reflected off it, is the likely explanation. Ironically, this is what QD-OLED reviewers appreciated last year as being better than on LG panels, quietly dismissing the overall raised black due to ambient light - now we got precisely the same on the LG OLED panels.
> 
> When you think that the use of duterium by LG came from a completely unexpected direction (it was not the OLED emitter materials R&D division that stumbled upon it, it was from another department that were looking to increase durability in polymer-type printing), it's impressive how much luck matters in new tech development.  Now Samsung copied it too.
> 
> 
> The CG graphics seem to suggest that the OLED emitter is no longer deposited as a flat surface, but is deposited on the inside of the lenses. If each lens is like in a small cup, the OLED material looks like it fills that cup.
> View attachment 3384103
> 
> 
> View attachment 3384101
> 
> 
> The more lenses you have, the more emitting material you have for a pixel. The lenses seem to be of the same size and spaced apart the same way for all panel sizes, but in case of a smaller panel you have fewer, and I imagine you still have reflections and absorption over the TFT backplane which presents a larger area filled with metal traces to light emitted on a small panel than on a larger panel. Though I don't see how the TFT backplane can be in between the lenses and the OLED layer anymore (can they deposit it accurately, wrt traces length, on the inside of the lenses before depositing the OLED material ?)... it's as if LG also switched from bottom emission to top emission at the same time.


Edit: could be, but I wouldn’t trust marketing material aimed at the consumer. Papers I read previously had MLA as a separate polymer layer. Time to do more digging, thanks for bringing this up. 

Regarding top emission vs bottom, that would certainly be something.


----------



## pakotlar

Dropin said:


> Number ot mla infomation open


Neat thanks. I was already aware that there would be fewer lenses per pixel, the question is what effect this has. From this it does look like there are fewer micro-lenses in the 55” than would be expected by straight scaling by surface area, which is interesting.


----------



## chozofication

Any word on if 2023 oleds, either Samsung or lg woled have 120hz black frame insertion capabilities? That felt like a feature they got rid of last year just to make this year seem better (if it returns) rather than a physical limitation


----------



## fafrd

stama said:


> Here's another view on this talk about whether the 77" with MLA is going to be brighter than the 65" or 55" with MLA.





> *According to the official LG videos on MLA and Vincent Teoh's video (where he is obviously repeating the lines LG gave him), the bigger panel sizes will have a bigger increase in brightness due to MLA, because the pixel aperture ratio is larger, and that allows to have more lenses per pixel on the larger size panels so more emitted light can be directed out of the panel on the larger panels. The number of lenses per pixel they quote in those videos is for a 77" panel, it's explicitly mentioned in the fine print on the video, the smaller panels have a lower number because the pixels are smaller, while lenses are of the same size.*





> My guess, because everybody is guessing, is that LG is going to allow each TV size to get as luminous as they can afford, given the energy consumption regulations. (surprise !)
> 
> If we look at the EU energy rules... you will shockingly discover that panels sized larger than 65" have more relaxed power consumption requirements than 65" and smaller sized panels do. The smaller the panel size, the more restrictive those requirements are. In fact, the 8K bruhaha before the end of the year, when manufacturers and various lobbying groups known as display associations were trying to water down the legislation they knew about for years (these things are announced years in advance), was that only large sized 8K panels would be making the cut in 2023!  The power consumption of a panel might also not be linear to its size, so a 77" might requires less power to be driven than 77/55 x "the power required by a 55" panel".
> 
> So, when you see lower luminance on smaller sized panels, it might not be due to some evil intent, but because energy consumption regulations are stricter for smaller TVs in EU and other places.
> 
> Even later edits: had to do something else, and did not manage to write everything
> 
> Another thing that needs to be considered is that the panel is not the only thing that draws power in a TV set. If your other electronics (the SoC and the rest) need 30W for themselves, they are going to need that much on a 77" as on a 49". It's one thing when a large sized TV is required to use no more than 150W by regulation and its SoC draws 30 W, and it's another thing when your small sized TV is required to draw no more than 70W but your SoC still needs those 30W! (30W is how much my Android powered A90J takes from the wall when it wakes up every 30 minutes while the TV is supposedly turned off to do whatever Android does)
> 
> I think the role of regulations as a driver of innovation is seriously underestimated. It happened with car engines, it's doing the same with display technology.
> 
> Whoever thinks that a company like LG which made a major capital investment to bring OLED tech to the market in TVs, and which still hasn't recovered the costs, in fact it only had a few quarters where it made profits at all, is going to look of "how can we spend more money and increase the brightness or whatever else the buyers say they want" instead of reducing production costs as fast as they can and nothing else, is kind of naïve.  Companies, when left by themselves, are not kind hearted entities there to make our lives better just so that they can go into ruin.
> 
> MLA was certainly meant to be used on purpose for passing the EU 2023 regulations (for those wondering why does EU regulations matter... it's because over 45% of the worldwide OLED TV sales happen in the EU - in 2021, before the war; that's why you have Panasonic, Philips, Loewe, Toshiba, Hisense and others which only sell OLED TVs in the EU besides their local markets). When LG Display showed that demo in May, it's because they worked on the tech for at least one year before. In August they were saying in interviews that the tech is already ready for 2023. LG's regular sized OLED TVs (the 55, 65 inches) were not passing the new regulations, btw. They really needed something.
> 
> I'd venture to say that 83" and larger (+ the new ABL algorithm) might already pass the new EU energy requirements, there was no need to do anything for them (such sizes are not really selling in large numbers in the EU anyway, we got smaller dwellings and fewer people with very high salaries in Europe than you guys in NA). Smaller sizes were not, so they got MLA. LG may have delayed the entrance to market of MLA, and the cost associated to implementing it on the production lines, on purpose till it was really needed for the business to pass a hurdle like this one.
> 
> Serendipity made it so that the MLA is also what gives them breathing space from the QD-OLED dark swan that likely took them by surprise. And as things have it, the 65" S95B is said to be able to pass the 2023 EU regulations, while still above LG's 2022 offerings in terms of luminosity.


Thanks for this excellent post. I knew there was somewhere I had heard or read something leading me to suspect that LGD may allow each panel size to achieve it’s native maximum peak brightness but could not recall where.

Vincent’s video was it.

At least on panels with MLA, LG seems to already be laying the groundwork to establish a framework where ‘Bigger is Brighter’ (at least once MLA is used).

So it is likely the 77G3 will deliver the highest peak brightness levels of any 2023 LGE WOLED TV this year.

The 83G3 without MLA will likely be a step backwards in peak brightness versus the 77G3 and LGE has already laid the groundwork to explain why to the market (no MLA).

If/when Samsung elects to introduce an 83” QD-OLED, only then might we see LGD decide to add the cost and complexity of MLA to their 83” WOLED panel.

Until then, the 77G3 looks to be the King of the Peak Brightness Hill for WOLED.


----------



## fafrd

chozofication said:


> Any word on if 2023 oleds, either Samsung or lg woled have 120hz black frame insertion capabilities? That felt like a feature they got rid of last year just to make this year seem better (if it returns) rather than a physical limitation


That’s a very good question - especially whether LG finally got their MPRT act together enough to reintroduce 120Hz BFI…


----------



## fafrd

Wizziwig said:


> The panel used on the Flex does not have the raised blacks issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I'm confused. So now you agree there is no polarizer present to deal with reflected light?
> 
> 2) Have you considered that making changes to the AR coating which has remained unchanged for many years was necessitated by the removed of the polarizer? If they shipped the panel without polarizer and not replaced it with something else, the panel would have turned into a mirror.
> 
> 3) That doesn't make any sense. Issue is only visible with ambient light hitting the screen. Not in the dark according to the HDTVtest video.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated on the idea that removing the polarizer somehow requires LG to adopt Samsung's top emission polarizer-free backplane tech. Displays have been shipped for decades without that tech or circular polarizers present in their AR solutions. Heck, unless I missed something, we don't even know 100% that Samsung's use of that mobile polarizer-free tech is responsible for the low PAR on the QD-OLEDs. Lots of other reasons could explain it which we already covered here months ago.


On 3/, if the 2023 WOLEDs continue to deliver perfect blacks in a darkroom viewing environment (better than plasma), I agree we can forget about the possibility of LGD monkeying around with pixel OFF state.

On removal of the polarizer, we’ve probably reached the end of what can be discussed constructively.

Hopefully we both agree that eliminating the polarizer alone (all else being equal) equates with doubling output levels without increasing power consumption.

It’s pointless to speculate whether LGD might have discovered alternatives to reduce reflections through new AR coatings that might reduce that brightness increase by 2/3rds since we ought to know soon enough.

I stand by my prediction that no significant change in LGD WOLED’s ‘4-stripes’ sub-pixel design will end up equating to no removal of the polarizer.

Just pulling off addition of MLA in less than one year was enough new panel technology for this cycle…


----------



## chozofication

fafrd said:


> That’s a very good question - especially whether LG finally got their MPRT act together enough to reintroduce 120Hz BFI…


The 120hz bfi on the c1 I used was the best i've ever seen on oled, are the panels used now for c2 etc. worse in pixel response or something? 

In Samsung's case I think they didn't have it on s95b because they never offered 120hz bfi on qled either, so it's probably not any sort of limitation, it's just they have not bothered. And they certainly will continue not to bother if LG doesn't offer it either.


----------



## fafrd

chozofication said:


> The 120hz bfi on the c1 I used was the best i've ever seen on oled, are the panels used now for c2 etc. worse in pixel response or something?


The speculation has been that whatever changes LGD introduced to mitigate the near-black flashing / luminance overshoot problem caused when they added dithering to improve near-black linearity and reduce black crush was incompatible with 120Hz BFI…



> In Samsung's case I think they didn't have it on s95b because they never offered 120hz bfi on qled either, so it's probably not any sort of limitation, it's just they have not bothered. And *they certainly will continue not to bother if LG doesn't offer it either.*


 I wouldn’t be so sure of that.

The arrival of 240Hz gaming monitors means higher refresh rate is now recognized as a premium feature for gaming monitors and TVs.

If Samsung’s QD-OLED backplane allows them to deliver QD-OLED with 4K @ 240Hz, I’d be surprised if they didn’t want to leapfrog LGD WOLED in that important area for LGE’s supposed stronghold on gaming TVs…

Looks unlikely for this cycle, but it’s more a question of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’…


----------



## chozofication

fafrd said:


> The speculation has been that whatever changes LGD introduced to mitigate the near-black flashing / luminance overshoot problem caused when they added dithering to improve near-black linearity and reduce black crush was incompatible with 120Hz BFI…
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t be so sure of that.
> 
> The arrival of 240Hz gaming monitors means higher refresh rate is now recognized as a premium feature for gaming monitors and TVs.
> 
> If Samsung’s QD-OLED backplane allows them to deliver QD-OLED with 4K @ 240Hz, I’d be surprised if they didn’t want to leapfrog LGD WOLED in that important area for LGE’s supposed stronghold on gaming TVs…
> 
> Looks unlikely for this cycle, but it’s more a question of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’…


Interesting, hadn't heard that about the near black flashing mitigation, I guess that could be. 

Well yeah the trend is higher and higher refresh rate, but all the buzz surrounding features is directed towards VRR, not bfi unfortunately. And of course you know both are not able to be used at the same time


----------



## fafrd

chozofication said:


> Interesting, hadn't heard that about the near black flashing mitigation, I guess that could be.


120Hz BFI requires a 240Hz effective refresh rate, as does temporal dithering to improve near-black linearity.

Whether the combination suffers from an irreparable incompatibility or LGD could support the option to use one or the other, I can’t say (better motion performance with some black crush or better shadow detail with no less than 8.3ms MPRT), but ot seems pretty clear that LGD decided improved near-black linearity was a higher priority than improved motion performance…


----------



## Adonisds

@fafrd Do you think MLA panels are significantly more expensive to manufacture? I was impressed to hear it has more microlenses than there are transistors in a cutting edge CPU


----------



## fafrd

Adonisds said:


> @fafrd Do you think MLA panels are significantly more expensive to manufacture? I was impressed to hear it has more microlenses than there are transistors in a cutting edge CPU


From what I’ve understood (which isn’t much), MLA is not intrinsically expensive to manufacture (depending on precisely what material was used to form the microlenses, but most efforts have focused on using low-cost material.

So added cost should be dominated by any increased yield loss associated with adding manufacturing steps for MLA (which should reduce as manufacturing experience grows).

With time (2-3 years), I would not be surprised to see all WOLED panels but bare-bones entry-level models include MLA.


----------



## pakotlar

fafrd said:


> Thanks for this excellent post. I knew there was somewhere I had heard or read something leading me to suspect that LGD may allow each panel size to achieve it’s native maximum peak brightness but could not recall where.
> 
> Vincent’s video was it.
> 
> At least on panels with MLA, LG seems to already be laying the groundwork to establish a framework where ‘Bigger is Brighter’ (at least once MLA is used).
> 
> So it is likely the 77G3 will deliver the highest peak brightness levels of any 2023 LGE WOLED TV this year.
> 
> The 83G3 without MLA will likely be a step backwards in peak brightness versus the 77G3 and LGE has already laid the groundwork to explain why to the market (no MLA).
> 
> If/when Samsung elects to introduce an 83” QD-OLED, only then might we see LGD decide to add the cost and complexity of MLA to their 83” WOLED panel.
> 
> Until then, the 77G3 looks to be the King of the Peak Brightness Hill for WOLED.


Your ability to draw firm conclusions from speculative marketing videos is remarkable. You’re very enthusiastic, it’s kind of endearing. Anyway, I hope you get what you want, and remain excited.


----------



## fafrd

pakotlar said:


> Your ability to draw firm conclusions from speculative marketing videos is remarkable. You’re very enthusiastic, it’s kind of endearing. Anyway, I hope you get what you want, and remain excited.


 Had to read your post to my family. They all laughed and said ‘he’s got you nailed’ .


----------



## Donny84

KOF said:


> Waiting for consoles to add something akin to DLSS 3.0 to reproject 60 FPS into 120 FPS will be faster than waiting for any major breakthroughs in rolling scan. Sharp has shown me hope when my Sharp Zero 2 IGZO OLED phone can output 240Hz VRR through rolling scan without any discerning luminance drop, but the source will have to have 120Hz otherwise it does not play nicely with judders.
> 
> Nowadays, I am just content with 120 FPS. Sure, its 600 lines of resolution and 8.3ms MSRT will not be match for my room plasma, (Pioneer 101FD) but there are too many cons with TVs nowdays. My Panasonic GZ2000 also adds 8ms latency for BFI, so added latency and luminance drop alone will not be ideal for many gamers. For now, Im going to patiently wait for 120Hz reconstruction tech to hit consoles and enjoy 4K 120Hz full luminance HDR and minimum latency. Then when rolling scan on TVs improve enough to match the Sharp phones, (meaning minimum luminance drop, VRR and HDR compatible, minimum added latency) I will jump in for 4K 240Hz rolling scan as my motion performance endgame. Too bad the Switch2 will be using Ampere instead of Ada though, it will definitely lower the chance of anything close to DLSS 3.0.


PS5 Pro can’t come soon enough. It should be able to run every game you throw at it, at 120fps if developers decide to include the option.

I like the idea of reprojecting 60 into 120fps but with all the benefits of true 120, including 5ms of latency that you’d get with a S95B. Or back to 10ms with low 120hz rolling scan.

I’m getting the 65” S95C this year. I love how Sammy got rid of that excess bulk off the back of the TV where all of the ports are and plunked it all in a small thin black box that you can stick in your TV stand that’s connected to a single wire. Smart move, and probably makes the TV itself less than an inch thick which makes it extremely appealing for those that want to flush mount their displays.

also, just for fun, I’ve fake/forced so many Nintendo Switch games into 120fps on my LG C1(by using deblur '10' outside of game mode in ISF Bright room mode for any game running at 60fps) and it makes going back to 60fps, even with MotionPro HIgh 60hz BFI look so unnatural and artificial. I can't go back, i need everything at 120. lol motion looks so smooth and realistic, as if you're looking through a window. Smash Bros Ultimate, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Every first & 3rd person title imaginable like Resident Evil 8, 2, 3, DOOM Eternal, etc look Next gen using it. 60fps is a stale hat. I've been so accustomed to 60 ever since the late 80s.

120fps is an absolute must. It’s FAR more beneficial than higher resolutions and HDR. 240fps won’t be viable on consoles probably for another 5 years with PS6. But when it happens, combined with rolling scan, I’ll be happy. Base 240fps without RS should give us 1200p motion resolution and a much faster motion persistence, but combined with rolling scan low or medium should yield CRT-like results. For for film, with Rolling scan? I can't imagine these TV manufactures delivering the goods beyond what's currently available, because most buyers don't seem to care.

Brightness, Brightness, Brightness and more uneccessary eye blinding brightness. I don't care about Movies in HDR, because that means i can't use BFI, which translates to ****ty motion. BUT, if a TV is equipped with gobs of brightness to spare, that means better BFI, so there's that.

Another reason why i wont go 77" just yet is because 120fps Console gaming isn't the normy' yet, and current OLED BFI for streaming just isn't good enough. We're talking 650p MR with a <5ms MP. Again, motion blur and low motion resolution will just be magnified at 77. Probably gonna stick with 65" until the PS5 Pro eventually comes out. Hopefully Switch 2 will support 90-120fps too.


----------



## stama

Dropin said:


> Number ot mla infomation open


Sadly, it looks like reality doesn't match the paper for sizes smalller than 77".
While both this paper and the LG communications mention 42.4 billion lenses on the 77" 4K panel, the paper's claim of 38.1 billion lenses on the 65" 4K panel is in contradiction with the figure revealed by Panasonic (in the video above) of 27 billion lenses.


----------



## Moravid

It's also interesting that he MZ2000 77 inch will not get the MLA treatment


----------



## pakotlar

Dropin said:


> Number ot mla infomation open


Some mystery resolving, these numbers are outdated. The 65” has 27 billion lenses, not 38.













edit: beaten
edit2: also interesting to note that the Panasonic rep does not claim any brightness stepdown in the 55” model. Last year’s LZ2000 55” and 65“ had similar brightness and the lack of caveat for MZ2000 suggests the differences are small this year as well.


----------



## stama

Wizziwig said:


> I guess this explains how Samsung was able to achieve the 30% luminance boost and increased lifetime for 2023. "Heavy H+ OLED" = also know as Deuterium.
> This slide also suggests some notion of a heat sink although it's unclear if this refers to something new or the thermal pad they used last year. Source Video.


You hear that Korea is basically in the pockets of the Samsung dynasty, but you don't believe it until you see it. 

Here's a story (well, only parts of it):

Samsung become the colossus that is today under the rule (the word is used on purpose, he was more of a medieval King that ruled than a businessman that managed) of Kun-hee Lee, the chairman of the Samsung Group from 1987 till his death in 2020. Like in all good stories, feeling his time is near, after a heart attack in 2014, he decided to informally appoint his son (hereditary lineage, just like in medieval times), Jae-Yong Lee, as the next leader of the group. Jay Lee, while just the Vice President of the Samsung Electronics division, became the de-facto leader.

But the story is not as simple as that. The family that runs the Samsung group businesses, has many rival factions that vie for power. Just like how the death of a king in medieval Europe was followed by a period of crisis where various groups were swearing alliance to different heirs, and they were waging civil war hoping to be the ones that name the next king and control the kingdom, so did some branches of the "royal" family that runs Samsung see an opportunity to stage a coup and take the reigns of power for themselves.

So, how does such a family feud look like, when the family has an "oversized influence" let's say, over the politicians, the justice system and the media in Korea? It looks like a big ruckus that cannot be ignored and will have consequences for the targeted individuals.

Prosecutors at the top of the hierarchy have a lot of power in Korea, and those who end up there are those who are aware of it and use it for their own benefit. An investigation in the practices of a business can be the kiss of death for that business. Evidence is left to pile up, police is kept on the leash, but at some point a call is made and a meeting to discuss the issue is arranged. These are gentlemen you see, and after careful consideration everything can be avoided. The family might want a holiday on the French Riviera, the son in law might have a promising business that just needs the right kind of investments to flourish, a new house with an ocean view would really suit that new pretty starlet on K1TV, a pot of gold may be found at the end of a rainbow... eh, wrong story. Anyway, the idea is that there's always a way for everybody to keep doing what they were doing and things to flourish.

"Somehow", at the end of 2016, prosecutors summoned the President of Korea, Park Geun-hye, and demanded her arrest. The charges brought up against her were of various bribes that she received during her time in the office, for various political favors. As the investigations carried on, at some point it was revealed that Jae-Yong Lee (surprise!) was also one of those who offered the President consistent bribes for favors.

Then parts of the media were left to know that it's safe to unleash the dogs (the news people) on the story of the Samsung Electronics VP. You don't get to attack the members of a chaebol unless you are allowed to, or it's a death sentence for your career at least. In Korea (like in some other Asian countries), being shamed in public this way is a terrible blow to one's image and career.

So, how did that end? The President of Korea was impeached. Jae-Yong Lee, the disgraced prince, was sentenced to prison, and was really sent to jail. Civil war like in the good old times, with heads rolling although not literally in this modern times. The coup was a success.

Or was it? Did it really end? If this were a movie where the rebels raise arms against the evil Empire, by the end of the movie the victorious rebels blow up the Death Star and the movie ends. Or at the worst, there's a sequel where the remnants of the Empire are scattered on backwater planets and try to keep a low profile while they stage their revenge.

But this is not a movie, and the world doesn't suddenly change in the blink of an eye in the real world like in children's stories.

This is where I'm going to go a bit fast forward. The Lees and their allies didn't have to hide or anything, but they learned their lesson and turned the vise stronger on everyone else: the politicians, the justices, the media, their competitors. For the good of Korea, of course.

The state officials suddenly realized that Korea needs the two competitors on OLED tech to join hands and work together, in front of the rising Chinese competition. Samsung and LG, new partnership, Samsung will use LGs panels in their own TVs and they will develop the tech together. There's just this little thing about sharing some of that IP LG owns on OLED tech. LG thought about it and said.. no? So what is the "state" going to do for the good of the country? They're going to invalidate whatever IP LG owns that Samsung needs to make Korea great again. So the LG patent on the use of deuterium in OLED registered in 2020 gets invalidated this year. So that Samsung can use it in their revised QD-OLED material, but without publicizing this too much, please? And what else is the "state" going to do to help Korea's economy get over the terrible pandemic times (when Samsung made all-time record profits)? The new President of Korea is going to sign a presidential pardon for Jae-Yong Lee, absolving him of all bribery charges.



> Lee’s return is regarded as a stabilizing force for a Korean economy buffeted by inflation, market disruption from the war in Ukraine and logistics snarls triggered by China’s Covid lockdowns. [...] Lee apologized to the Korean public on Friday and promised to “start anew.” “I will try harder to give back to society and grow together,” Lee said in a statement.


Disclaimer: _This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental._


----------



## mrtickleuk

stama said:


> Disclaimer: _This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental._


Very entertaining post! I had hought that only @fafrd was allowed to do longs posts on this thread, glad I was wrong LOL


----------



## QNED KING

Moravid said:


> It's also interesting that he MZ2000 77 inch will not get the MLA treatment


Wait. So if the Panasonic was not a 77" that Vincent tested, doesn't that mean the 3% window on the Samsung was larger than the one on the Panasonic. Thus a similar size window on the Samsung would be even brighter than 2100 nits tested?


----------



## valin

stama said:


> Disclaimer: _This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental._


Uhm, K-drama worthy material! Was properly "sucked in" in the narrative.  Great stuff, thanks for the post!


----------



## stama

I confess I took inspiration from the movie Deoking. Don't think I should start my career as a screenwriter yet though, the script seems to lack any guys you can root for and spans "A New Hope", "The Mandalorian" and "The Empire Strikes Back" all at once. George Lucas would not be impressed.


----------



## helvetica bold

If Sony launches the new A95 in late Summer similar to last year just in time for the VE shoot out, what are the odds Sony uses the Pentonic 1000 in the A95L? Any rumors floating around someone must know something! 😆


----------



## cdheer

stama said:


> Disclaimer: _This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental._


Oh this is _brilliant. _BRAVO!


----------



## Dropin

stama said:


> Sadly, it looks like reality doesn't match the paper for sizes smalller than 77".
> While both this paper and the LG communications mention 42.4 billion lenses on the 77" 4K panel, the paper's claim of 38.1 billion lenses on the 65" 4K panel is in contradiction with the figure revealed by Panasonic (in the video above) of 27 billion lenses.
> View attachment 3384478


This information is provided by LG Display, and is information provided in a video uploaded 3 days ago even though the YouTuber was sponsored by LG Display. The number of mla may be wrong because Panasonic and other musk are used.


----------



## 59LIHP

*CES 2023 LG Display Describes OLED Innovations for 2023*
In a special briefing in LG Display's private suite, we learned more about the innovations is is bringing to OLED displays for TVs. The tour started with picture quality comparisons between miniLED panels, QD-OLED panels and LGD's WOLED panels. miniLEDs so blooming and lack of color accuracy. In dark lumiance scenes, red patches show correctly with WOLED but look greenish with QD-OLED, due to dithering. They also showed that with a light illuminating the QD-OLED at a sharp off angle, the black levels rise due to quantum dot activation due to a lack of a polarizer on these panels, but it is unclear if more normal room illumination will have a similar effect. 

The next demo highlighted the G2 (2022) panel, the G3 (2023) panel and a future G4 (2024) panel. The G3 adds a microlens array (MLA) while the G4 will add META Boost technology. The META boost technology is an algortithm that is currently limited to boosting brightness for average picture level (APL) of 25% or higher. The G4 version will boost all APL levels. 

LGD says there are 42.5 billion microlens in a display or 5000 per pixel with the diameter of each lens on the order of 10 microns. An image of a sub-pixels suggested more like 100 lens per sub-pixel not thousands, so maybe that was not a real image. The advantage of the MLA architecture is a 60% boost in brightness and a 30% increase in viewing angle. 

G3 peak luminance will be around 2100 nits with the MLA technology (probably in a very samll window in vivid mode). Adding the META boost technology for 2024 will drive that same luminance level to 3000 nits, claims LGD. 

A separate demo of a 98" minLED TV vs. their 97" OLED TV was used to illustrate the much faster response time of an OLED - no surprise there.


----------



## pakotlar

Some of those numbers are confusing. Are they saying that APL below 25% isn’t boosted? In that case why are small window sizes so elevated? Or did they mean the opposite and we expect 25% and above windows to be identical to G2? If the latter super disappointing.


----------



## pakotlar

Double checked the video. He said they are limiting Meta Boost this year to 25% windows. Im assuming thats 0-25%. 

Other:

G4 will have peak white of 3000 nits on small windows, and will increase G3’s 700 nits on an undisclosed window size to 1500 nits on the G4.
He is a bit confused

Given the silence on larger window sizes from LG and this video, I’m worried the main benefit of G3 will be viewing angles. I don’t care about small window sizes, below 25%. Those are already around 1000 nits on G2.


----------



## Me Boosta

Donny84 said:


> PS5 Pro can’t come soon enough. It should be able to run every game you throw at it, at 120fps if developers decide to include the option.
> 
> I like the idea of reprojecting 60 into 120fps but with all the benefits of true 120, including 5ms of latency that you’d get with a S95B. Or back to 10ms with low 120hz rolling scan.
> 
> I’m getting the 65” S95C this year. I love how Sammy got rid of that excess bulk off the back of the TV where all of the ports are and plunked it all in a small thin black box that you can stick in your TV stand that’s connected to a single wire. Smart move, and probably makes the TV itself less than an inch thick which makes it extremely appealing for those that want to flush mount their displays.
> 
> also, just for fun, I’ve fake/forced so many Nintendo Switch games into 120fps on my LG C1(by using deblur '10' outside of game mode in ISF Bright room mode for any game running at 60fps) and it makes going back to 60fps, even with MotionPro HIgh 60hz BFI look so unnatural and artificial. I can't go back, i need everything at 120. lol motion looks so smooth and realistic, as if you're looking through a window. Smash Bros Ultimate, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Every first & 3rd person title imaginable like Resident Evil 8, 2, 3, DOOM Eternal, etc look Next gen using it. 60fps is a stale hat. I've been so accustomed to 60 ever since the late 80s.
> 
> 120fps is an absolute must. It’s FAR more beneficial than higher resolutions and HDR. 240fps won’t be viable on consoles probably for another 5 years with PS6. But when it happens, combined with rolling scan, I’ll be happy. Base 240fps without RS should give us 1200p motion resolution and a much faster motion persistence, but combined with rolling scan low or medium should yield CRT-like results. For for film, with Rolling scan? I can't imagine these TV manufactures delivering the goods beyond what's currently available, because most buyers don't seem to care.
> 
> Brightness, Brightness, Brightness and more uneccessary eye blinding brightness. I don't care about Movies in HDR, because that means i can't use BFI, which translates to ****ty motion. BUT, if a TV is equipped with gobs of brightness to spare, that means better BFI, so there's that.
> 
> Another reason why i wont go 77" just yet is because 120fps Console gaming isn't the normy' yet, and current OLED BFI for streaming just isn't good enough. We're talking 650p MR with a <5ms MP. Again, motion blur and low motion resolution will just be magnified at 77. Probably gonna stick with 65" until the PS5 Pro eventually comes out. Hopefully Switch 2 will support 90-120fps too.


As much as we would like them to exist, there is almost 0 chance that we will get mid-gen refreshes of consoles this gen.


There is no marketing push they can use (PS4 Pro and Xbox One X had "4K gaming"). 8K is still years away (and imho, we don't need it. We need to focus on pushing more advanced graphics techniques than resolution).
Most important of all, manufacturing costs are not going down. PS5 actually increased in price. If there was gonna be a PS5 Pro, it would cost $700-$800. Although enthusiasts on forums such as us would still buy that. There simply is not a large enough market for it.
We are only getting out of the cross-gen period this year. Games barely use current gen consoles to their potential.
Troubled economic times ahead means neither Sony or MS will be willing to take the risk.
If there is a mid-gen console refresh, I will eat a dozen overripe bananas in one sitting. And trust me, I hope just as much as you that I'm wrong.


----------



## Wizziwig

pakotlar said:


> Given the silence on larger window sizes from LG and this video, I’m worried the main benefit of G3 *will be viewing angles*. I don’t care about small window sizes, below 25%. Those are already around 1000 nits on G2.


Just remember that display manufacturers are famous for inflating viewing angle specs. Just look at any VA LCD panels with their 178 degree viewing angle claims. They always twist the measurement method to suit their message. In the case of LCD, they use the angle at which the panel drops to 1:10 contrast. Since OLEDs don't lose contrast off-angle, the more common method is to list the angle at which maximum on-axis luminance drops to 50%. While that's a more useful metric, it doesn't tell you much about color shift or the luminance attenuation curve which is often non-linear. Hopefully LG's claims are legit in this case without any negative side-effects. Too bad HDTVtest didn't include lower luminance gray slides in their evaluation. Luminance variations are much more evident at lower brightness which is why the hotspot in the center became more visible as ABL dimmed the screen.

One thing that does seem like a safe bet is that the microcavity induced color tinting will be greatly reduced or eliminated. That is a huge win as it will remove one element of the panel lottery, leaving mostly near-black issues to worry about, just like with QD-OLEDs.

From that video, it sounds like LG Display was emphasizing QD-OLEDs lack of polarizer as a huge handicap to the press. Unless they are being very hypocritical, it does suggest their own panels still employ a polarizer. Too bad he didn't call them out on the elevated blacks observed in that Panasonic demo to see if they offered an explanation. Unfortunately, they didn't have any MLA panels on the CES show floor so I wasn't able to observe this issue myself. The G3s were only shown in a private/invite-only hotel suite for the press.



pakotlar said:


> Regarding top emission vs bottom, that would certainly be something.


You can pretty much eliminate that as a possibility by comparing the MLA macro sub-pixel photos that HDTVtest included. No significant changes to backplane are visible compared to prior EX panels.


----------



## samuel1983

So the polarizer hasn't gone anywhere on woled, fafrd's guess was right.


----------



## stama

pakotlar said:


> Double checked the video. He said they are limiting Meta Boost this year to 25% windows. Im assuming thats 0-25%.
> 
> Other:
> 
> G4 will have peak white of 3000 nits on small windows, and will increase G3’s 700 nits on an undisclosed window size to 1500 nits on the G4.
> He is a bit confused
> 
> Given the silence on larger window sizes from LG and this video, I’m worried the main benefit of G3 will be viewing angles. I don’t care about small window sizes, below 25%. Those are already around 1000 nits on G2.


He says that "maybe" Meta v2 algo on G4 boosts light output by itself from 700 nits to 1500 nits, but the notes he took are unclear.

I see two other interpretations possible:
1. this year the 25-100% APL range is boosted by the Meta v1 algo; next year the Meta v2 algo will also boost 0 - 25% APL, raising the native 3% window luminance from 2100 to almost 3000 nits;
2. this year the 0-25% APL range is boosted by Meta v1 algo; next year Meta v2 algo will boost 25-100% APL, this algo being "maybe" responsible for raising some 25% or larger APL measurement of 700 nits on the G3 to 1500 nits on the G4; the use of the Meta v2 would not explain then the raise to ~ 3000 nits on a 3% window, so this is perhaps a sign they already have engineering/qualification samples from UDC of the phosphorescent blue emitter and that's what they used on the G4 preview panel

I like that they gave measurements to reproduce the raised black effect of the ambient light on the 2022 QD-OLED panels. LG said:

in a 500 lux environment, black is raised to 0.5 nits
in a 1000 lux environment, black is raised to 1.5 nits

What does this mean?

If you have a 100W equivalent LED, with 1571lm rating on it, which would output all its light in a 120 degrees cone (this is not what happens usually), and sits at 1m on the sides or above the screen, then you'll get those 500 lux on the screen.

If you have a 200W equivalent LED, with >3150lm rating on it which would output all its light in a 120 degrees cone, and sits at 1m on the sides or above the screen, then you'll get those 1000 lux on the screen.

Lumen ratings requirements increase dramatically at higher cone angles or distance to screen. For an increase from the 120 to 180 degrees cone of light, you need the 200W LED to get those 500 lux at 1m instead of the 100W one. And you need 14137lm for a 120 degrees cone of light to get that same 500 lux but at 3m.

My experience is that most homes don't have such high levels of lighting during night time. Small rooms with strong lights right above the screen are going to be the most common scenario where the effect will be noticed. Or ambient light due to top-to-bottom glass room windows, but not on cloudy days.


----------



## stama

Wizziwig said:


> Since OLEDs don't lose contrast off-angle, the more common method is to list the angle at which maximum on-axis luminance drops to 50%.


I saw repeated mentions of the 30% increase in viewing angles on the new panel, but not many mentions of how wide that angle is. I looked for this info and the claim is that viewing angles have increased from 120 degrees to 160 degrees.


----------



## stama

Dropin said:


> This information is provided by LG Display, and is information provided in a video uploaded 3 days ago even though the YouTuber was sponsored by LG Display. The number of mla may be wrong because Panasonic and other musk are used.


The video was published with those numbers, no doubt about that. There's a discrepancy between the numbers in the video and what Panasonic claims about the 65" panel though. At this point we don't know which one is correct.

Maybe Panasonic got some preliminary pre-production numbers from LG a while ago? Or maybe the numbers in the video are just not valid for this year, maybe LG is leaving themselves some room to claim improvements next year. We don't know at this point.


----------



## helvetica bold

I really hope the new MediaTek makes it into the new Sonys. Otherwise we don’t know who will use it. Interesting video.


----------



## pakotlar

stama said:


> He says that "maybe" Meta v2 algo on G4 boosts light output by itself from 700 nits to 1500 nits, but the notes he took are unclear.
> 
> I see two other interpretations possible:
> 1. this year the 25-100% APL range is boosted by the Meta v1 algo; next year the Meta v2 algo will also boost 0 - 25% APL, raising the native 3% window luminance from 2100 to almost 3000 nits;
> 2. this year the 0-25% APL range is boosted by Meta v1 algo; next year Meta v2 algo will boost 25-100% APL, this algo being "maybe" responsible for raising some 25% or larger APL measurement of 700 nits on the G3 to 1500 nits on the G4; the use of the Meta v2 would not explain then the raise to ~ 3000 nits on a 3% window, so this is perhaps a sign they already have engineering/qualification samples from UDC of the phosphorescent blue emitter and that's what they used on the G4 preview panel
> 
> I like that they gave measurements to reproduce the raised black effect of the ambient light on the 2022 QD-OLED panels. LG said:
> 
> in a 500 lux environment, black is raised to 0.5 nits
> in a 1000 lux environment, black is raised to 1.5 nits
> 
> What does this mean?
> 
> If you have a 100W equivalent LED, with 1571lm rating on it, which would output all its light in a 120 degrees cone (this is not what happens usually), and sits at 1m on the sides or above the screen, then you'll get those 500 lux on the screen.
> 
> If you have a 200W equivalent LED, with >3150lm rating on it which would output all its light in a 120 degrees cone, and sits at 1m on the sides or above the screen, then you'll get those 1000 lux on the screen.
> 
> Lumen ratings requirements increase dramatically at higher cone angles or distance to screen. For an increase from the 120 to 180 degrees cone of light, you need the 200W LED to get those 500 lux at 1m instead of the 100W one. And you need 14137lm for a 120 degrees cone of light to get that same 500 lux but at 3m.
> 
> My experience is that most homes don't have such high levels of lighting during night time. Small rooms with strong lights right above the screen are going to be the most common scenario where the effect will be noticed. Or ambient light due to top-to-bottom glass room windows, but not on cloudy days.


I’m fairly confident this guy was confused and they meant windows from 0-25%. We already know the focus was on 3% window sizes, LG told us, and Vincent confirmed.

If you compare LG G2 to S95B at rtings: LG G2 underperformed at <=25% windows vs S95B significantly. At 50% and above it was much closer (same at 50%, a bit lower at 100%). LG is almost certainly giving us A95K/S95B (and S95C since it didn’t change above 10%) numbers this year at D65. ~300 nits at 50% and ~200 at 100%. Maybe a bit higher at 50%.


----------



## 59LIHP

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1612823476783423490
*Asus 27-inch 240Hz OLED Gaming Monitor Gets Brighter MLA Panel + Heatsink!*
We visited Asus's booth at CES 2023, & took a first look at the ROG Swift PG27AQDM OLED monitor with MLA (Micro Lens Array) technology & 240Hz refresh rate. We also covered the Asus ProArt PA32DCM which features a brighter JOLED panel, the Asus Swift Pro PG248QP which is the world's first 540Hz gaming monitor, as well as the ProArt PA279CRV.


----------



## destroyer2usa

helvetica bold said:


> I really hope the new MediaTek makes it into the new Sonys. Otherwise we don’t know who will use it.


Ofcourse it will be fitted in a new sony tv. I expect it in fall release Master series oled.

Let's hope sony implements the build in pattern generator as well. I do not expect enabled 1D Lut or 3d Lut on Sony tvs..


----------



## cdheer

59LIHP said:


> the Asus Swift Pro PG248QP which is the world's first 540Hz gaming monitor


😲😲😲😲


----------



## 59LIHP

*Samsung S95C Quantum Dot OLED TV First Look*








Samsung S95C Quantum Dot OLED TV First Look


Will QD OLED be the only OLED game that matters in 2023?




www.forbes.com


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> *Samsung S95C Quantum Dot OLED TV First Look*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung S95C Quantum Dot OLED TV First Look
> 
> 
> Will QD OLED be the only OLED game that matters in 2023?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


‘Had it not been for the addition of Micro Lens Array technology to some regular WOLED OLED TVs in 2023 (such as LG’s G3s, which I preview here), from what I’ve seen so far the second generation of QD OLED TVs might well have really dominated 2023’s high-end TV scene. With its competition answering QD OLED’s challenge so much more strongly than expected with their MLA development, though, I’ll need much more time with a finished S95C and the new MLA WOLED TVs before I might be able to say if/how one technology may be definitively better than the other.’


----------



## jl4069

All this "meta" talk from LG, really seems inordinately vague. 

What is a Micro Lens Array, and how does it make OLED TVs brighter? | Digital Trends 
"From LG Display’s description, it sounds like the billions of tiny lenses are doing most of the heavy lifting when it comes to improving brightness, but the company says that its META Booster algorithm plays a role here too, especially as it relates to HDR. “It improves both screen brightness and color expression by analyzing and adjusting the brightness of each scene in real time. This innovative algorithm enhances HDR (High Dynamic Range), which represents brighter lights and deeper darks, to express more detailed and vivid images with the most accurate color expression to date.”

"by analyzing and adjusting brightness of each scene in real time." as well as "color expression".
This sounds to me to be machine learning, which seeks to take averages of what each discrete aspect of a scene "should" of could possibly or likely look like. Indeed this is far from settled science, i mean sure they can have the director of a film go in and set the parameters for his/her film individually, but done across the spectrum of all material, obviously we will be getting a great many "scenes" that do not look like the directors intent and may look rather boosted and manipulated. Unless of course LG will be directly seeking to mimic every single aspect of every master, which does not seem to be the case. Meta seems like it could be the start of something like a new tech for making a new class of "scene" science, that looks like what the TV maker or the machine learning algo comes up with. j


----------



## fafrd

59LIHP said:


> *CES 2023 LG Display Describes OLED Innovations for 2023*
> In a special briefing in LG Display's private suite, we learned more about the innovations is is bringing to OLED displays for TVs. The tour started with picture quality comparisons between miniLED panels, QD-OLED panels and LGD's WOLED panels. miniLEDs so blooming and lack of color accuracy. In dark lumiance scenes, red patches show correctly with WOLED but look greenish with QD-OLED, due to dithering. They also showed that with a light illuminating the QD-OLED at a sharp off angle, the black levels rise due to quantum dot activation due to a lack of a polarizer on these panels, but it is unclear if more normal room illumination will have a similar effect.





> The next demo highlighted the G2 (2022) panel, the G3 (2023) panel and a future G4 (2024) panel. The G3 adds a microlens array (MLA) while the G4 will add META Boost technology. *The META boost technology is an algortithm that is currently limited to boosting brightness for average picture level (APL) of 25% or higher. The G4 version will boost all APL levels. *


We are in Fog of War and my only takeaway from this confused report is that we have entered the Era of Brightness Wars Bis with No Holds Barred.

MLA is hardware. It’s adoption will translate to higher output levels at all input current levels (almost certainly by a % which increases with increasing pixel size / number of microlenses per pixel).

META Boost is not hardware and it is almost certainly LGD’s moniker for it’s new, more aggressive APL limits / algorithm.

We all remember the disaster that nearly killed WOLED when LGD got too aggressive with their ABL limits in 2017 during the Original Brightness Wats and nearly killed their baby with Burn-In.

Since then, LGD has (rightly) gotten more conservative on ABL limits, especially ABL limits on small window sizes for bright HDR highlights.

LGD has made improvements in PAR and modified the WOLED stack with improved emitters such as Deuterium Blue and Deep Green PHOLED since then but I’ve been saying for years now that the peak brightness improvements that have resulted have been less than 100% of what they could have been (meaning LGD has been keeping some brightness performance up their sleeves).

So my reading of all this G3 vs G4 Metaboost V1 (2023 / G3) vs Metaboost V2 (2024 / G4) is that LGD is finally prepared to use some of the reserves they have saved up to get more aggressive on peak brightness for HDR highlights again (after a 5-year hiatus).

It sounds as though the G3 will release with pretty much the same power-consumption-driven ABL limits as the G2 (meaning Metaboost V1 will be little more than just MLA-boosted Brightness across the full ABL curve).

While they are busy working on Metaboost V2 which pushes APL limits for small highlights under 25% APL closer to 2017-level limits (meaning more aggressive at small window sizes).

It’s interesting that the G3 was not shown on the showroom floor. It’s also interesting that if I am correct and Metaboost V1 vs Metaboost V2 is merely a change in FW, LG may still be debating how conservative or aggressive to go with ABL on the G3 and may decide to finalize that decision only right before release (or even after in the form of a FW update).

So looks as though it’s going to be a very confusing and exciting year this cycle.

And in the mix of this same discussion is the technology hinted at by both Samsung and LG to apply differing tone-mopping limits to different parts of an image based on AI.

In the case of LGD WOLED, this AI-directed tone mapping can include boosting brightness at the expense of color saturation in small areas of an image where the AI believes some loss of color saturation will be less noticeable than some loss of brightness. So higher color volume but only in those small portions of an image where the AI thinks the viewer will notice / appreciate it.

Buckle-up, Dorothy, looks like it’s going to be a bumpy year! .



> LGD says there are 42.5 billion microlens in a display or 5000 per pixel with the diameter of each lens on the order of 10 microns. An image of a sub-pixels suggested more like 100 lens per sub-pixel not thousands, so maybe that was not a real image. The advantage of the MLA architecture is a 60% boost in brightness and a 30% increase in viewing angle.
> 
> G3 peak luminance will be around 2100 nits with the MLA technology (probably in a very samll window in vivid mode). Adding the META boost technology for 2024 will drive that same luminance level to 3000 nits, claims LGD.
> 
> A separate demo of a 98" minLED TV vs. their 97" OLED TV was used to illustrate the much faster response time of an OLED - no surprise there.


----------



## 59LIHP

*Samsung Display and Universal Display Corporation Enter into Long-Term OLED Agreements*
Dec 5, 2022





Samsung Display and Universal Display Corporation Enter into Long-Term OLED Agreements


Universal Display Corporation (Nasdaq: OLED), enabling energy-efficient displays and lighting with its UniversalPHOLED® technology and materials, today announced the signing of long-term OLED material supply and license agreements with Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (SDC), a global display...




ir.oled.com


----------



## fafrd

jl4069 said:


> All this "meta" talk from LG, really seems inordinately vague.
> 
> What is a Micro Lens Array, and how does it make OLED TVs brighter? | Digital Trends
> "From LG Display’s description, it sounds like the billions of tiny lenses are doing most of the heavy lifting when it comes to improving brightness, but the company says that its META Booster algorithm plays a role here too, especially as it relates to HDR. “It improves both screen brightness and color expression by analyzing and adjusting the brightness of each scene in real time. This innovative algorithm enhances HDR (High Dynamic Range), which represents brighter lights and deeper darks, to express more detailed and vivid images with the most accurate color expression to date.”
> 
> "by analyzing and adjusting brightness of each scene in real time." as well as "color expression".
> This sounds to me to be machine learning, which seeks to take averages of what each discrete aspect of a scene "should" of could possibly or likely look like. Indeed this is far from settled science, i mean sure they can have the director of a film go in and set the parameters for his/her film individually, but done across the spectrum of all material, obviously we will be getting a great many "scenes" that do not look like the directors intent and may look rather boosted and manipulated. Unless of course LG will be directly seeking to mimic every single aspect of every master, which does not seem to be the case. Meta seems like it could be the start of something like a new tech for making a new class of "scene" science, that looks like what the TV maker or the machine learning algo comes up with. j


I think this is largely correct but believe Metaboost also incorporates the relaxed ABL limits LG intends to release.

When ABL limits are reached, brightness is reduced across the entire scene.

If you have some additional ‘boost’ brightness to offer to improve the scene closer to director’s intent, there’s alot you can do to try to be smarter about which pixels to boost rather boosting all pixels a little bit across the entire screen:

-color consumes a great deal more power on WOLED than white, so if a pixel or group of pixels is visually indistinguishable from white anyway, cutting back on any colored output on that area frees up power to boost color output elsewhere (or higher peak white output in this or another area).

-red is the least-efficient color on WOLED and delivering fully-saturated red consumes a great deal of power. Desaturating deep red slightly when it is far away from the center of attention could free up power to deliver brighter more fully-saturated reds in the center of the scene where it will be more noticeable.

No question this is monkeying with director’s intent, but so is ABL. No director ever intended a bright scene to get dimmer because it continues too long.

So I see this approach as trying to get smarter about ABL / power reduction by looking for ways to minimize it’s overall effect on perception of the scene. If you can only notice that a distant out-of-focus background region of the scene is slightly less bright or slightly less saturated than a reference monitor by closely focusing on that area when the director wanted your attention focused elsewhere, I see that as a net positive.

Hopefully they put Metaboost under user control so each customer and/or calibrator can decide how much ‘boost’ they feel is appropriate.

But again, I suspect more aggressive ABL limits for small areas of bright highlights (>25%) is the Lion’s Share of what Metaboost is about…


----------



## JJ1156

Universal Display Press Release from today: 

"we met preliminary phosphorescent blue target specifications in 2022."

“With respect to blue, our development of a commercial phosphorescent blue emissive system remains on schedule and we met preliminary phosphorescent blue target specifications in 2022. We continue to believe that this excellent progress should enable the introduction of our all-phosphorescent RGB stack into the commercial market in 2024.”









Universal Display Corporation to Present at Needham Growth | OLED Stock News


Universal Display Corporation, enabling energy-efficient displays and lighting with its UniversalPHOLED ® technology and




www.stocktitan.net


----------



## stama

Reviewing what was said at the OLEDs World Summit 2022, I realized I missed one important thing from LG for 2023, which must be a part of their Meta Boost algorithm: real-time panel compensation.



> nextgen OLED will have microlens arrays, high mobility oxide backplanes, high efficiency OLED materials, real-time compensation and will be bezel-less


LG OLED TVs, until now, were doing a panel refresh when they're turned off, after a cumulated 8 hours of content viewing. It looks like LG has now managed to perform this "panel refresh" while you are watching content. The "tone-mapping" per zones algorithm is essential to keep the energy use over the entire panel under control while allowing some parts of the image to emit more light than would be normal for the scene APL, but it's the real-time compensation which ensures these areas that are pushed hard one moment will be able to recover as soon as they're showing lower luminance content again.

It's also nice to see that UDC's promises regarding the phosphorescent blue devlopment have materialized.


> UDC has announced that they expect to meet preliminary target specs with their phosphorescent blue by year-end, enabling the introduction of all-phosphorescent RGB stacks into the commercial market in 2024.


----------

